Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
H. Allan Kidd
Director, Emerging Technologies and Worldwide Engineering Services
Dresser-Rand
Olean, New York
EROSION MODEL The mechanism of erosion from liquid droplet impact comprises
two forces. First, the initial impact pressure, and second, pressure
An extensive literature search was performed for liquid droplet
created by the deformation or lateral movement of the droplet.
erosion models. Three models were studied and analyzed based on
These two pressure levels are modeled as a waterhammer
applicability and suitability for centrifugal compressor use:
pressure, which is a function of the shock wave velocity of the
Krzyzanowski (1974, 1988), Krzyzanowski and Weigle (1976),
liquid. These forces cause plastic deformation on the material that
Krzyzanowski and Szprengiel (1978), and Krzyzanowski, et al.
builds up over time until stress concentration exceeds the tensile
(1971), Shubenko and Kovalsky (1987), Pouchot (1970), and
strength and cracks form. The result is material breakdown as the
Pouchot, et al. (1971). The erosion model developed by Pouchot
cracks spread and interconnect.
(1970), and Pouchot, et al. (1971), was selected because it was
Most of the literature on liquid impact erosion agrees that there
calibrated based on experimental results from Pearson (1964a and
seems to be a threshold value for the impact velocity under which
1964b) at the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) of
no erosion occurs. The value of the threshold velocity is a function
Great Britain, one of the largest studies of droplet erosion in
of the particular material, liquid, and droplet size. The difficulty in
steam turbines.
determining an impact threshold velocity is the fact that erosion is
Erosion caused by droplet impingement does not develop
a prolonged process. Therefore, most experiments are accelerated
uniformly over time. Different phases characterize the loss of
tests where impact conditions are increased to measure erosion in
material. An initial stage where no material is removed is
a shorter period of time or the impact conditions are such that
commonly called the incubation stage. This is followed by a sharp
erosion is measurable in a reasonable amount of time. As the
increase in material removal referred to as the accumulation stage
conditions are lessened to approximate the threshold limit, the time
or acceleration period. There is debate about the specification of
restriction becomes prohibitive. Hence, an impact velocity under
the next stage(s). Some believe there is an attenuation zone
the threshold value does not mean that damage or material loss
followed by a steady-state zone, while others assume there is a
would not occur, but rather that damage or material loss does not
steady-state period first followed by a deceleration stage (Figure
occur during any practical exposure time. The proposed erosion
1). The variation over time obstructs the comparison of reported
potential method includes elements in its derivation that reduce the
results because it is not always clear from which stage of the
uncertainties in the model.
erosion process the data were obtained. The analysis and results of
The erosion model selected is developed based on the assumption
this study are for the maximum rate of erosion unless otherwise
of a liquid layer retained on the surface of the impacted material.
indicated. The maximum rate of erosion is obtained at the end of
The existence of a liquid film explains the droplet diameter effect
the accumulation or acceleration stage, which is taken as a worst
observed in the experimental results and why smaller droplets
case scenario.
cause less damage than large droplets on an energy per volume
basis. This liquid film attenuates the blow from smaller droplets
more than larger droplets. The liquid layer thickness would change
as the surface is eroded and becomes roughened.
The following model equations are valid for impingement
conditions that are more severe than what is expected to occur in a
centrifugal compressor (i.e., droplet size and impact velocities).
Therefore, a confidence margin or safety factor is built into the
model. This safety factor reduces the effect of the uncertainties
developed by the assumptions made in the model.
The liquid layer thickness () calculation shown in Equation (1)
was developed for samples tested in a rotating arm erosion test
setup. This equation is a force balance between viscosity forces and
centrifugal forces. The parameters are: liquid viscosity (), liquid
density (l), specimen diameter (Ds) and specimen velocity (Us).
The specimen diameter includes the length of the rotating arm.
NOMENCLATURE Krzyzanowski, J., Weigle, B., and Severin, H., 1971, Semiempirical
Criterion of Erosion Threat in Modern Steam Turbines, ASME
Ucd = Threshold condition velocity (ft/s)
Transactions Journal of Engineering for Power, pp. 1-5.
K = Empirical proportionality constant (dimensionless)
S = Average stress capability of the material for droplet Luo, S. M. and Svendsen, H., 1996, Theoretical Model for Drop
impact (lb/ft2) and Bubble Breakup in Turbulent Dispersions, AIChE
l = Liquid density (slugs/ft3) Journal, 42, (5), pp. 1225-1233.
C0 = Sonic velocity in the uncompressed liquid (ft/s) Moore, M. and Sieverding, C., 1976, Two-Phase Steam Flow in
= Liquid film thickness over specimen (ft) Turbines and Separators, McGraw-Hill, pp. 291-316.
D = Droplet diameter (ft)
n = Empirical exponent (dimensionless) NORSOK, 2001, Process Systems Standard P-100, Revision 2.
= Liquid viscosity (lb.s/ft2) Pearson, D., 1964a, Some Factors Influencing the Erosion of a
Ds = Specimen diameter (ft) Stainless Steel, Central Electricity Generating Board (of
Us = Specimen velocity (ft/s) Great Britain), Report RD/M/N 100.
EI = Erosion index (m4/kg.s)
Q = Moisture content (percent) Pearson, D., 1964b, The Effect of Drop Size on the Erosion of a
U = Blade tip velocity (m/s) Stainless Steel, Central Electricity Generating Board (of
P = Pressure ahead of the stage (Paa) Great Britain), Report RD/M/N 128.
EPF = Erosion potential factor (dimensionless) Pouchot, W. D., 1970, Hydrodynamic Model of Correlation of
Vmax = Maximum leading edge impact velocity (ft/s) Metal Removal Rates from Repetitive Drop Impact,
Characterization and Determination of Erosion Resistance,
REFERENCES ASTM Publication 474, pp. 383-408.
Beattie, J. A. and Bridgeman, O. C., 1928, A New Equation of Pouchot, W. D., Kotchmann, R. E., Fentress, W. K., Heymann, F. J.,
State for Fluids, Proceedings of the American Academy of Varljen, T. C., Chi, J. W., Milton, J. D., Glassmire, C. M.,
Arts and Sciences, 63, (5), pp. 229-308. Kyslinger, J. A., and Desai, K. A., 1971, Basic Investigation of
Brigadeau, A. H., 2007, Modeling and Numerical Investigation Turbine Erosion Phenomena, NASA Report CR-1830.
of High Pressure Gas-Liquid Separation, Ph.D. Thesis, Shubenko, A. L. and Kovalsky, A. E., 1987, On Prediction of
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Erosion Wear of Details on the Basis of its Kinetic Model by
Ely, J. F. and Hanley, J. M., 1981, Prediction of Transport Impact of Liquid Drop of Polydisperse Flows of Moisture,
Properties. 1. Viscosity of Fluids and Mixtures, Industrial and Seventh International Conference on Erosion by Liquid and
Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 20, (4), pp. 323-332. Solid Impact, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Hoffmann, A. C. and Stein, L. E., 2002, Gas Cyclones and
Swirl Tubes: Principles, Design and Operation, Germany: Starling, K. E., Mannan, M., Savidge, J. L., Sadasivan, S., and
Springer-Verlag. Reid, T. B., 1987, Development of an Equation of State for
Computation of Supercompressibility Factors, Critical Flow
Krzyzanowski, J. A., 1974, The Correlation Between Droplet Factors and Other Properties for Wet, Sour Natural Gases,
Steam Structure and Steam Turbine Blading Erosion, ASME Synthetic Gases and Admixtures, Final Report, Oct 1984
Transactions Journal of Engineering Power, pp. 256-264. Sep 1987, Oklahoma University, Norman School of Chemical
Krzyzanowski, J. A., 1988, On Predicting Steam Turbine Blading Engineering and Material Science, Norman, Oklahoma.
Erosion and Turbine Efficiency Deterioration, ASME Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Krzyzanowski, J. and Szprengiel, Z., 1978, Influence of Droplet Size The authors would like to thank Randy Moll, Manager, Steam
on the Turbine Blading Erosion Hazard, ASME Transactions Turbine Design, for his help in obtaining information for blade
Journal of Engineering for Power, 100, (4), pp. 561-565. protection experience. Also, thanks to Joseph Tecza, Principal
Development Engineer, for his assistance with the selection of
Krzyzanowski, J. and Weigle, B., 1976, Toward the Criterion of the erosion models. Finally, the authors would like to thank
Erosion Threat of Steam Turbines Blading Through the Dresser-Rand for the funding of this work and permission to
Structure of the Droplet Stream, Proceedings from Third publish the results.
Scientific Conference on Steam Turbines Great Output.