Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38830323›Full record

ArticleUltrasonics sonochemistry2024

Questioning the ASTM G32-16 (stationary specimen) standard cavitation erosion test.

Matevž Dular, Guillermo Enrique Barragan Montalvo, Marko Hočevar, Lovrenc Novak, Claus Dieter Ohl, Martin Petkovsek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matevž DularFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, SI, Slovenia; Institute for Physics, Otto von Guerricke University, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, DE, Germany. Electronic address: matevz.dular@fs.uni-lj.si.
Guillermo Enrique Barragan MontalvoEscuela Politécnica Nacional, Av. Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito 170525, Ecuador.
Marko HočevarFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, SI, Slovenia.
Lovrenc NovakFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, SI, Slovenia.
Claus Dieter OhlInstitute for Physics, Otto von Guerricke University, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, DE, Germany.
Martin PetkovsekFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, SI, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cavitation erosion is one of the most severe problems encountered in hydraulic turbomachinery. When testing the materials, the engineers usually rely on standardized procedures. The most common one being the vibratory ASTM G-32 test, which offers two possibilities of performing the test - the direct, where the specimen is attached to the ultrasonic device and the indirect, where the specimen is stationary and exposed to the ultrasonic horn, positioned just 0.5 mm from it. The erosion rates from the two are significantly different and a question may be asked if they are at all comparable and further on are they comparable to the "real-life" hydrodynamic cavitation which occurs in turbomachinery. In this study we performed erosion tests on a stationary specimen where the gap between the specimen and the horn was varied from 0.3 to 4 mm. In addition, we used high speed visualization to observe the cavitation in the gap. We observed that the cavitation erosion rate strongly depends on the gap. From visualization we see that the cavitation dynamics significantly changes in a small gap, leading to a large, but 2-dimensional cavitation bubbles which collapse very slowly, compared to the small spherical ones in a larger gap. We investigated the probability of shock wave occurrence and derived a very simple model, which gives accurate qualitative predictions of experimental data. Finally, the study puts into question the validity of ASTM G32 test - the most common approach used in engineering today.

Indexed as

BubbleCavitationErosionG32 standard

Identifiers

PMID38830323
PMCPMC11179066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.