yes, the results seem to be quite extreme with regards to the erosion rate on the pipe wall.
I,ve plotted on an X,Y graph the most severe erosion areas on 5 separate designs and placed them into a comparison graph.
I then used the data from the erosion study to estimate the operational life of each piece.
analysis of the results show severe erosion on all but 1 design and I am wondering if the results are accurate or not.
attached is the data from the studies, graphs and all 5 designs
the parameters are as follows
Materials: Surface material: stainless steel 304, Flow volume: air
Boundary conditions: Velocity 20 m/s (inlet), Pressure 0 bar (outlet)
Particle Tracing was applied and the following properties were applied to the mass
density 13000kg/m3
particle size 0.05mm
coefficient of restitution 0.5
time step size: 4.98828e-05
initial path
magnitude: 20m/s
vector: 0,0,-1
Gravity:
enabled gravity for mass particles
earth unit vector: 0,0,1
erosion updated
the material properties are that of a tungsten carbide cobalt powder that is pneumatically conveyed through a 50mm round pipe (current state).
designs to the pipe must be altered to allow optical sensors to be housed on the side of the pipe to monitor the materials. the side walls of the new design must be flat to reduced the distance between the optical light source and analyser and allow easy mounting of sensors to external pipe wall.
due to the abrasive nature of the material I was hoping to perform an accurate erosion study of the pipe wall to estimate its life expectancy.
I have acquired data from the erosion study which is attached along with the necessary files, drawings and graphs.
any assistance would be appreciated.
thx jon