0
Research Papers: Friction & Wear

Stepwise Erosion as a Method for Investigating the Wear Mechanisms at Different Impact Angles in Slurry Erosion

[+] Author and Article Information
Y. M. Abd-Elrhman

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut University,
Assiut 71516, Egypt
e-mail: y_mahmoud_a@hotmail.com

A. Abouel-Kasem

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering-Rabigh,
King Abdulaziz University,
P.O. Box 344,
Rabigh 21911, Saudi Arabia
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Assiut University,
Assiut 71516, Egypt
e-mail: abouelkasem@yahoo.com

S. M. Ahmed

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Majmaah University,
P.O. Box 66,
Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: shemy2007@yahoo.com

K. M. Emara

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut University,
Assiut 71516, Egypt
e-mail: k.emara45@yahoo.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received April 5, 2012; final manuscript received December 17, 2013; published online February 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Zhong Min Jin.

J. Tribol 136(2), 021608 (Feb 19, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: TRIB-12-1046; doi: 10.1115/1.4026420 History: Received April 05, 2012; Revised December 17, 2013

In the present work, stepwise erosion technique was carried out to investigate in detail the influence of impact angle on the erosion process of AISI 5117 steel. The number of impact sites and their morphologies at different impact angles were investigated using scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination and image analysis. The tests were carried out with particle concentration of 1 wt. %, and the impact velocity of slurry stream was 15 m/s. Silica sand—which has a nominal size range of 250–355 μm—was used as an erodent, using whirling-arm test rig. The results have shown that the number of craters, as expected, increases with the increase in the mass of erodent for all impact angles and this number decreases with the increase of the impact angle. In addition, the counted number of craters is larger than the calculated number of particles at any stage for all impact angles. This may be explained by the effect of the rebound effect of particles, the irregular shape for these particles, and particle fragmentation. The effect of impact angle based on the impact crater shape can be divided into two regions; the first region for θ ≤ 60 deg and the second region for θ ≥ 75 deg. The shape of the craters is related to the dominant erosion mechanisms of plowing and microcutting in the first region and indentation and lip extrusion in the second region. In the first region, the length of the tracks decreases with the increase of impact angle. The calculated size ranges are from few micrometers to 100 μm for the first region and to 50 μm in the second region. Chipping of the former impact sites by subsequent impact particles plays an important role in developing erosion.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Fang, O., Sidky, P. S., and Hocking, M. G., 1998, “Microripple Formation and Removal Mechanism of Ceramic Materials by Solid-Liquid Slurry Erosion,” Wear, 223, pp. 93–101. [CrossRef]
Lathabai, S., and Pender, D. C., 1995, “Microstructure Influence in Slurry Erosion of Ceramics,” Wear, 189, pp. 122–135. [CrossRef]
Li, Y., Burstein, G. T., and Hutchings, I. M., 1995, “The Influence of Corrosion on the Erosion of Aluminum by Aqueous Silica Slurries,” Wear, 186-187, pp. 515–522. [CrossRef]
Iwai, Y., and Nambu, K., 1997, “Slurry Wear Properties of Pump Lining Materials,” Wear, 210, pp. 211–219. [CrossRef]
Tsai, W., Humphrey, J. A. C., Cornet, I., and Levy, A. V., 1981, “Experimental Measurement of Accelerated Erosion in a Slurry Pot Tester,” Wear, 68, pp. 289–303. [CrossRef]
Stanisa, B., and Ivusic, V., 1995, “Erosion Behaviour and Mechanisms for Steam Turbine Rotor Blades,” Wear, 186-187, pp. 395–400. [CrossRef]
Burstein, G. T., and Sasaki, K., 2000, “Effect of Impact Angle on the Slurry Erosion–Corrosion of 304L Stainless Steel,” Wear, 240, pp. 80–94. [CrossRef]
Oka, Y. I., Ohnogi, H., Hosokawa, T., and Matsumura, M., 1997, “The Impact Angle Dependence of Erosion Damage Caused by Solid Particle Impact,” Wear, 203-204, pp. 573–579. [CrossRef]
Clark, H. M., and Wong, K. K., 1995, “Impact Angle, Particle Energy and Mass Loss in Erosion by Dilute Slurries,” Wear, 186-187, pp. 454–464. [CrossRef]
Fang, Q., Xu, H., Sidky, P. S., and Hocking, M. G., 1999, “Erosion of Ceramics Materials by a Sand/Water Slurry Jet,” Wear, 224, pp. 183–193. [CrossRef]
Chen, K. C., He, J. L., Huang, W. H., and Yeh, T. T., 2002, “Study on the Solid–Liquid Erosion Resistance of Ion-Nitrided Metal,” Wear, 252, pp. 580–585. [CrossRef]
Al-bukhaiti, M. A., Ahmed, S. M., Badran, F. M. F., and Emara, K. M., 2007, “Effect of Impact Angle on Slurry Erosion Behavior and Mechanisms of 1017 Steel and High-Chromium White Cast Iron,” Wear, 262, pp. 1187–1198. [CrossRef]
Finnie, I., 1958, “The Mechanism of Erosion of Ductile Metals,” Proceedings of the Third National Congress on Applied Mechanics, New York, pp. 527–532.
Finnie, I., 1960, “Erosion of Surfaces by Solid Particles,” Wear, 3, pp. 87–103. [CrossRef]
Bitter, J., 1963, “A Study of Erosion Phenomena, Part 1,” Wear, 6, pp. 5–21. [CrossRef]
Bitter, J., 1963, “A Study of Erosion Phenomena, Part 2,” Wear, 8, pp. 161–190.
Hutchings, I. M., 1981, “A Model for the Erosion of Metals by Spherical Particles at Normal Incidence,” Wear, 70, pp. 269–281. [CrossRef]
Hashish, M., 1987, “An Improved Model of Erosion by Solid Particle Impact,” 7th International Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, UK, pp. 461–480.
Gee, M. G., Gee, R. H., and McNaught, I., 2003, “Stepwise Erosion as a Method for Determining the Mechanisms of Wear in Gas Borne Particulate Erosion,” Wear, 255, pp. 44–55. [CrossRef]
Abouel-Kasem, A., Abd-Elrhman, Y. M., Ahmed, S. M., and Emara, K. M., 2010, “Design and Performance of Slurry Erosion Tester,” ASME J. Tribol., 132(2), p. 021601. [CrossRef]
Abouel-Kasem, A., Al-Bukhaiti, M. A., Ahmed, S. M., and Emara, K. M., 2009, “Fractal Characterization of Slurry Eroded Surfaces at Different Impact Angles,” ASME J. Tribol., 131(3), p. 031601. [CrossRef]
Gesellschaft, B., 2000, Special Steel Manual, A-8605 M.B.H. Co., Kapfenberg, Germany, pp. 90–98.
Abouel-Kasem, A., 2011, “Particle Size Effects on Slurry Erosion of 5117 Steels,” ASME J. Tribol., 133(1), p. 014502. [CrossRef]
Stack, M. M., Corlett, N., and Zhou, S., 1998, “Some Thoughts on Effect of Elastic Rebounds on the Boundaries of the Aqueous Erosion – Corrosion,” Wear, 214, pp. 175–185. [CrossRef]
Tilly, G. P., 1973, “A Two Stage Mechanism of Ductile Erosion,” Wear, 23, pp. 87–96. [CrossRef]
Clark, H. C., 1992, “The Influence of Flow Field in Slurry Erosion,” Wear, 152, pp. 223–240. [CrossRef]
Hassan, M. A., El-Sharief, M. A., Abouel-Kasem, A., Ramesh, S., and Purbolaksono, J., 2012, “A Fuzzy Model for Evaluation and Prediction of Slurry Erosion of 5127 Steels,” Mater. Des., 39, pp. 186–191. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the slurry erosion whirling-arm rig [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of impact velocity and impact angle [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Scanning electron microphotograph of silica sand (mean diameter = 302 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Scanning electron microphotographs of 5117 alloy steel eroded surfaces at different impact angles and mass of erodent during the four successive stages at the midway of the specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Number of accumulative impact craters versus mass of erodent for different impact angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cumulative mass loss of low alloy steel 5117 versus mass of erodent for different impact angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Damages at the midway of the specimens surfaces at mass of erodent of 2.6 g and different impact angles: (a) 15 deg, (b) 30 deg, (c) 45 deg, (d) 60 deg, (e) 75 deg, and (f) 90 deg; symbols A and B refer to the particle body impacting and more than one protrusion impacting, respectively, and the scatter arrows illustrate the divergence of the particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) Crater-size distributions with different impact angles and after exposure of (a) 1.3 g, (b) 2.6 g, (c) 3.9 g, and (d) 5.2 g. (b) Crater-size distributions with different impact angles and after exposure of (a) 1.3 g, (b) 2.6 g, (c) 3.9 g, and (d) 5.2 g.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Sequence of images at the midway of the specimens illustrating development of damage at the impact angle of 45 deg after exposure of (a) 1.3 g, (b) 2.6 g, (c) 3.9 g, and (d) 5.2 g

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Sequence of images at the midway of the specimens illustrating development of damage at the impact angle of 60 deg after exposure of (a) 1.3 g, (b) 2.6 g, (c) 3.9 g, and (d) 5.2 g

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Sequence of images at the midway of the specimens illustrating development of damage at the impact angle of 90 deg after exposure of (a) 1.3 g, (b) 2.6 g, (c) 3.9 g, and (d) 5.2 g

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In