4.7 Article

Acoustic modes of self-excited cavitating waterjets on rock erosion

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0153548

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimentally investigates the impact of passive acoustic excitation modes from self-excited cavitating waterjet clouds on erosive patterns using high-speed imaging, scanning electron microscopy, and macroscopic three-dimensional scanning. The findings reveal that the fundamental excitation mode promotes the development of the primary cavitation cloud, while energy transfers from secondary to primary modes result in the maximum cavitation cloud volume inducing the best rock-breaking ability. The breaking mechanism involves a continuous peeling off of mineral grains under the cavitation cloud's impact, as observed through macroscopic and microscopic inspection of the rock coupons' topographies.
This study experimentally investigates the impact of passive acoustic excitation modes from self-excited cavitating waterjet clouds on erosive patterns using high-speed imaging, scanning electron microscopy, and macroscopic three-dimensional scanning. Basalt, granite, and sandstone were used to study erosion and breaking mechanisms under various excitation modes, including sub-harmonic, fundamental, double-harmonic, and a case without feedback based on the primary cavitation cloud shedding frequency. Proper orthogonal decomposition of high-speed snapshots revealed that the cavitation cloud shed primary and secondary modes with passive acoustic excitation. The fundamental excitation mode promoted the primary cavitation cloud's volume and development, and energy transfers from secondary to primary modes resulted in the maximum cavitation cloud volume inducing the best rock-breaking ability. Macroscopic and microscopic inspection of the rock coupons' topographies revealed that the breaking mechanism involves a continuous peeling off of mineral grains under the cavitation cloud's impact.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据