Chapter 1

Erosion behavior of hydro-turbine steel

plants. In Indian context the problem is much serious and grave in the perennial

Himalayan rivers which have a very high quartz rich silt content (fairly ranging between

5000 ppm to as high as 20000 ppm in monsoon). In India, 80% of available hydro power

resources are from Himalayan region and Himalayan silt contains nearly 90% of quartz

which is 7 on Moh’s scale compared with 10 for diamonds and any particle having Moh’s

hardness of more than 5 is extremely harmful [1, 2].

Continuous demand of electrical energy in India has necessitated a smooth work

of various power plants mainly in the Himalayan region. Various techniques have been

reported to reduce the loss of material due to erosion [3-6]. Cavitation erosion and solid

particle erosion often co-exist causing severe damage. According to ASTM G76-02 [7],

erosion is the progressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to mechanical

interaction between that surface and a fluid, a multi-component fluid, or impinging liquid

or solid particles. The cavitation is the formation and subsequent collapse, within a liquid,

of cavities or bubbles that contain vapor or gas or both. Cavitation erosion is the

progressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continued exposure to

cavitation (ASTM G40) [8]. Cavitation erosion is a type of wear in systems in which a

material comes into contact with a flowing liquid, e.g. hydro turbines, ship propellers etc

[9-19]. The bubble explode during cavitation generates very high and transient stresses,

which strains the materials in a particular way [9]. Cavitation originates from a local
1
Literature review Chapter 1

decrease in hydrostatic pressure in the liquid; it is also produced by motion of the liquid

i.e. decrease in static pressure induced by changes in velocity of a flowing liquid or

cavitation caused by the pressure fluctuations within a liquid, induced by the vibration of

a solid surface immersed in the liquid (ASTM G32-06) [20].

Initially the cavitation erosion is not too much dangerous for the hydro turbine

under water parts, but in the presence of silt erosion damage, cavitation enhances the

erosion damages. This is called synergetic erosion i.e. erosion due to silt as well as

cavitation [5-6]. For efficient operation of a hydro turbine, it must have specific shape

and contour. Cavitation erosion leaves behind cavities or pits which affect these

important contours, creating obstacles to smooth flow of water through the turbine. This

leads to a loss of operating efficiency of the turbine. Considering the cost of electrical

energy, even a relatively small change in the operating efficiency can be very expensive.

Cavitation causes surface penetration damage of up to 10 mm per year to critical

components such as impellors, turbine blades, and casings [21].

The cast martensitic stainless steel containing 13%Cr and 4%Ni currently finds

wide applications in many hydro turbine and other industrial applications facing damages

due to erosion [22]. At present attempts are concentrated on techniques to reduce the

erosion damages namely, reduce the silt content by sedimentation, providing hard surface

coatings and development of erosion resistant materials. Sedimentation techniques suffer

from the limitation that concentration of particles below 300 ppm cannot be eliminated

[23]. Improving the erosion resistance of engineering materials requires an understanding

of the mechanism by which the material is removed. In case of ductile materials, the

material removal is through cutting and ploughing while in case of brittle materials it is
2
Literature review Chapter 1

through flake fragmentation and removal of flakes [24-50]. The work hardening

characteristic of the material also plays an important role in reducing the erosion.

Goretta et al [51] have investigated the erosion of copper, nickel and 304 stainless steel

with sharp alumina particles. They concluded that work hardening improves the erosion

resistance of the copper, which has high ductility. Higher hardness also improves the

erosion resistance of the material if it retains sufficient ductility. The role of ductility,

which facilitates plastic flow of the target material by the impingement of abrasive

particles, becomes very important. Poor ductility leads to tendency for localization of

strains and development of cracks. As far as cavitation erosion is concerned, the

characteristic of a ductile material exposed to cavitation is to be progressively hardened

by the successive collapses. So any measure to allow some plastic deformation in the

target material is expected to improve its erosion resistance. The erosion resistance can be

increased by any treatment which improves the ductility. This has been theoretically

predicted by Hutchings [52]. Naim and Bahadur [53] found in maraging steel that

erosion increases with the increasing hardness at constant ductility, which is in conflict

with the results of Finnie et al [54], who showed that erosion decreases with increasing

hardness. Naim and Bahadur [53] also noted an increase in erosion rate as the ductility

was reduced by cold working essentially at high strength.

Ductile failure mechanism is observed for most engineering metallic materials

which are not very sensitive to strain rate. Metals with an fcc structure are generally not

sensitive to strain rate. Chen and Mongis [55] reported that the response of fcc materials

to cavitation is often similar to their static mechanical behaviour. For metals with bcc

structure, the deformation is generally strain rate sensitive. So their reaction to cavitation
3
Literature review Chapter 1

is always a competition between flow and fracture. Brittle materials exhibit often brittle

failure behaviour because of weak capability of energy absorption during deformation by

impact. In this case most impact energy is dissipated by crack formation, which leads to

more frequent material removal. The absorbed energy to remove a given volume of

material by cracking is much less than that necessary to remove the same volume of

material by plastic deformation. Tensile toughness is indicative of the ability of a material

to absorb the energy of the abrasive particles impacted. Levin et al [56] have shown that

a material having higher tensile toughness possesses higher erosion resistance.

Coatings provide a way of extending the limits of use of materials at the upper

end of their performance capabilities, by allowing the mechanical properties of the

substrate materials to be maintained while protecting them against wear [57]. Coating

technology is one of the more rapidly growing technologies in the field of materials. A

combination of the development of materials specifically erosion resistance and the

appropriate technique for the application of these materials, as a coating would be the

optimum solution. Suitable coating technique also allow for regeneration of parts that

have been rendered unusable by erosion. Coatings are primarily used to restrict surface

damage of components in practice [58]. It has been reported that thermal spray is a

technique that produces a wide range of coatings for diverse applications. Thermal spray

coating represents an important and cost effective technique for tailoring the surface

properties of engineering components with a view to enhancing their durability and

performance under a variety of operating conditions. Among the commercially available

thermal spray coating techniques, detonation spray and high velocity oxy fuel spray are

the best choices to get hard, dense and consequently wear resistant coatings [59-61].

4
Literature review Chapter 1

1.2 Hydro turbine steels

The stainless revolution began when it was observed that addition of 12% Cr

imparts good corrosion resistance and avoids the rust formation over steels. As we all

know today stainless steels are classified into different types and classes based on the

phases present and the microstructure obtained.

There are over 150 grades of stainless steel, of which fifteen are most common.

The AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute) defines the following grades among others:

 200 Series—austenitic iron-chromium-nickel-manganese alloys

 300 Series—austenitic iron-chromium-nickel alloys

o Type 301—highly ductile, for formed products. Also hardens rapidly

during mechanical working.

o Type 303—free machining version of 304 via addition of sulfur

o Type 304—the most common; the classic 18/8 stainless steel

o Type 316—Alloy addition of molybdenum to prevent specific forms of

corrosion

 400 Series—ferritic and martensitic alloys

Selection of proper stainless steel for hydro turbine underwater parts operating in

silty water is important for ensuring their longer life. The material should be erosion

resistant and should be weldable quality to enable repair at site. The most commonly used

13/4 Martensitic stainless steels for critical hydro turbine components is a better

comprise against cavitation erosion as well as erosion due to silt laden water [22, 62-65].
5
Literature review Chapter 1

Based on Indian experience, following materials are recommended for critical turbine

components;

Table 1.1. Selection of material for the critical turbine components [63]

Si. No. Component Material

1 Runner 13%Cr, 4% Ni stainless steel

2 Labyrinth seals 13%Cr, 4%Ni or 18%Cr, 10%Ni stainless steel

3 Guide vane 13%Cr, 4% Ni stainless steel

4 Guide vane bush housing Cast steel

5 Liners for top cover and 18%Cr, 10%Ni stainless steel

6 Fasteners in water path Stainless steel

7 Tubes for bearing coolers Cupro-Nickel (80% Cu-20%Ni)

8 Rubber seals Neoprene synthetic rubber

1.2.1 13/4 martensitic stainless steel

CA6NM is a 13Cr-4Ni cast grade of martensitic stainless steel that is widely used

throughout the hydro turbine and pump industry [22, 62-65]. CA6NM is the result of

material development efforts conducted at a Swiss foundry in the early 1960’s, with the

following aims:

• Increase impact strength and improve weldability by lowering carbon content

• Attain a microstructure free of delta ferrite by increasing the nickel content

6
Literature review Chapter 1

• Suppress temper embrittlement and improve corrosion resistance by suitable

molybdenum content

Conventionally produced CA6NM has a carbon content of 0.06% maximum. In

fact, foundries employing argon-oxygen-decarburization (AOD) refining routinely

produce CA6NM castings with even lower carbon content in the vicinity of 0.03% or

less. The relatively low level of carbon in CA6NM facilitates welding in several ways.

Low carbon retards the formation of a brittle heat affected zone consisting of untempered

martensite. Preheat is usually only 200°F, compared with 400°F minimum for CA-15.

Postweld heat treat temperature is also some 250°F lower. And, minor repairs can be

made without postweld heat treatment, a distinct advantage for finish machined castings.

Despite its weldability, CA6NM repair welds made with matching filler metal

have been consistently harder than the base metal. The higher hardness can cause

machining difficulties. In addition, many CA6NM pump castings are used in oil industry

applications where exposure to hydrogen sulfide and the potential for sulfide stress

corrosion cracking dictate that the weld and heat affected zone not exceed 255 BHN in

hardness [65]. In practice, it has proven difficult to consistently meet this 255 BHN

hardness requirement in welds. In fact, the lowest attainable hardness of repair welds is

near this 255 BHN limit.

1.2.2 Nitronic steels

Nitronic steels are the austenitic stainless steel containing nitrogen as alloying

element. This is also known as high nitrogen austenitic stainless steels. Steels and

stainless steels are considered high nitrogen varieties if they contain N content well above

7
Literature review Chapter 1

that present in conventional steels and stainless steels. For example, steels contain 0.1

mass% of N in creep resistance varieties [67, 68], 0.9 mass% in the normal grades or 2

mass% in tool steels are considered high nitrogen (HNS) steels. According to Speidel

[68], if the steels contain more than 0.08 wt% N in a martensitic matrix or more than 0.4

wt% N in austenitic matrix are termed as high nitrogen stainless steels. According to

Mudali [69], the word high can be used to refer a concentration where N added to steels

or stainless steels achieves properties glaringly different as compared to the alloy without

N. The main driving force in the development of HNS alloys is the improvement in the

mechanical properties as well as in the corrosion resistance. The YS and UTS of HNS

alloys can exceed than those of conventional AISI 200 and 300 series by 200% to 350%

in the annealed condition without sacrificing toughness. Due to a high strain hardening

potential, cold deformation could further enhance YS above 2 GPa. The combination of

YS and fracture toughness which can be achieved at room temperature with HNS is better

than any other steel can provide [69].

According to Mudali [69], N alloying in steel was never popular due to

skepticism associated with N causing brittleness in ferritic steels and the problems

involved in introducing N into steel melt. The beneficial effect of N was recognized only

in the beginning of twentieth century. In late 1930s and 1940, the shortage of Ni during

world war inspired research on the possible replacement of Ni with N to stabilize

austenite. The renewed interest in these alloys arises from two facts: concern over

diminishing supplies of alloying elements such as Ni and the unfulfilled dream of a high

strength face centered cubic steels [70].

8
Literature review Chapter 1

Alloying stainless steels with N become common in the United States when the

argon oxygen decarburization (AOD) process made it possible for the first time to

introduce N as a gas instead of different alloy systems. Replacing Ni with a combination

of N and Mn had lead to the additional advantage of increasing solubility of N and this

research resulted in standardized new alloy of AISI 200 series. In the late 1960s, the first

commercial introduction of N-bearing stainless steels “Nitronic” with 0.18N and German

grade 1.4439 (AISI 317LMN stainless steel) were introduced in steel market [71]. The

nitronic steels contained high Mn and N (21Cr-9Mn-7Ni-0.32N) and exhibit high

strength and toughness at low temperatures and good corrosion resistance.

The scientific community of HNS alloys evolved series of International

conferences on the topic since the first conference at Lillie, France in 1988 (HNS 88),

followed by HNS 90 in Germany, HNS 93 in Ukrain, HNS 95 in Japan, HNS 98 in

Finland and Sweden, HNS 2001 in India and HNS 2003 in Switzerland. Mudali [69] has

reported that high nitrogen steels are being transformed into “high interstitial alloys” with

addition of C to HNS alloys. Addition of C probably would avoid steel making HNS with

very high N contents (about 0.9 wt %) and the possibility of having new class of alloys

with C (0.4 wt %) and N (0.4 wt %) together. The high nitrogen contents in the austenitic

stainless steels decreases the stacking fault energy and stabilize austenitic structure so

that no strain induced transformation to α-martensite and ε-martensite occurs [71-74].

The best known application of HNS alloys is retaining rings for power generating sector,

but many other application exist (bolts, spring, turbine blades, washing troughs,

protective liners etc). The largest use for N-alloyed stainless steels is for replacement of

Ni and this area will probably grow with time, because Ni is a potential allergic and
9
Literature review Chapter 1

carcinogenic element that is restricted for biomedical applications, and the developments

and applications of HNS alloys in this area will be more attractive too [71, 75].

Solubility of nitrogen in austenitic stainless steels

Pure iron has low solubility (0.044% N) in the molten as well as in the solid state.

Increasing the Cr content increases the nitrogen solubility as shown in Fig. 1.1 [76].

When there is δ-ferrite formation during transformation from molten to solid state, the

solubility of nitrogen decreases to a value far below the equilibrium solubility in the

molten state. However, in the solid state, further lowering of temperatures results in the

formation of austenite phase, in which nitrogen solubility increases remarkably to values

well above that in the liquid state. Like Cr, the presence of Mn has also been reported to

enhance the solubility of nitrogen. Nitrogen solubility in the presence of both Cr and Mn

in steel shows deviation from Sievert’s law [76]. Thus, it is understood that to achieve

high nitrogen content in steels, the presence of large amounts of Cr and Mn is required.

Steels are generally reported to acquire corrosion resistance, when Cr content is

greater than 12%. Conventional austenitic stainless steels have metastable austenite phase

[77]. Nickel in these steels expands the austenite phase field and promote sluggishness of

phase transformation. Other economically viable austenite stabilizers are carbon, copper,

manganese and nitrogen. Among these, carbon has a tendency to sensitize the steel,

copper leads to hot shortness and manganese alone cannot totally replace Ni to form

austenite phase. This leads to nitrogen as the best alloying additive.

10
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.1. Nitrogen solubility in steel as a function of temperature and Cr content [76]

11
Literature review Chapter 1

Thermodynamics of Fe–Cr–N system [78] show that for 12% Cr content, the

austenite phase exists in a narrow range of nitrogen composition, which increases with

increasing Cr content. Beyond the range, Cr2N and CrN phases are formed. At high Cr

levels, there is the formation of ferrite, austenite and Cr2N type nitrides. The problem

with this system is that the nitride can precipitate out readily at lower temperature aging

[79] and they are not stable against martensitic transformation [80]. Hence, one of the

alternatives was to have Mn in the Fe–Cr–N system. Then, it is necessary to know the

minimum limits of N and Mn contents required to make stable austenitic stainless steel.

Analysis of the Fe–Cr–Mn phase diagram at temperatures of 800 to 1200°C

shows that, when Cr is greater than 13%, Mn alone cannot produce a fully austenitic

structure. At Cr contents greater than 15 %, there is the formation of sigma phase. This

necessitates addition of other austenite stabilizers such as Ni or N or both. Thus, an 18%

Cr steel with 0.1% C and 8% Mn requires 4 to 5% Ni and 0.15% N for getting stable

austenitic microstructure at room temperature. Each 0.05% N is found to be equivalent to

1% Ni in its austenite stabilizing effect. In steels with 10 to 35% Cr and 2 to 23% Mn,

increasing nitrogen content expanded the austenite field and shifted the sigma phase to

higher Cr contents.

Alloying with nitrogen has several advantages over alloying with carbon:

(1) Nitrogen is a more effective solid-solution strengthener than carbon and also

enhances grain size (Hall-Petch) strengthening.

(2) Nitrogen is a strong austenite stabilizer thereby reducing the amount of nickel

required for stabilization.

12
Literature review Chapter 1

(3) Nitrogen reduces the tendency to form ferrite and deformation-induced and ε

martensites.

(4) Nitrogen has greater solid-solubility than carbon, thus decreasing the tendency for

precipitation at a given level of strengthening.

1.3 Erosion
Erosive wear is caused by the impact of particles against a solid surface. Erosion

is rapid and severe forms of wear and can results in significant costs if not adequately

controlled. Erosive wear occurs in a wide variety of machineries and typical examples are

the damage to gas turbine blades when an aircraft flies through dust clouds, hydro turbine

under water parts when silt laden water flows through it and the wear of pump impellers

in mineral slurry processing systems. In common with other forms of wear, mechanical

strength does not guarantee wear resistance and a detailed study of material

characteristics is required for wear minimization. The properties of the eroding particle

are also significant and are increasingly being recognized as a relevant parameter in the

control of this type of wear.

Erosion of metallic components occurs by many different mechanisms depending

upon material, environment, operating conditions and geometry of the wearing bodies.

These mechanisms can be classified into two broad groups: first those dominated

primarily by the mechanical and physical behaviour of solids and second, those

dominated primarily by chemical behaviour of materials.

13
Literature review Chapter 1

1.3.1 Mechanisms of erosion

In erosion, the detailed process that cause material removal is still poorly

understood [40]. Finnie’s [81] analysis of the cutting action of a single particle launched

against a ductile target was the first model of the solid particle erosion capable of

predicting erosion rate. Ruff and Wiederhorn [82] developed two models for erosion of

brittle materials: one is the based on assumption that erosion occurs entirely by crack

propagation and chipping and the other is based on the assumption that plastic

deformation contributes to the process of crack formation and surface chipping.

Material removal is mainly the result of particle impacts as the jet delivers

abrasive particles at high velocities to the target surface. Fig. 1.2 shows the hierarchy of

this process.

These mechanisms are cutting, fatigue, brittle fracture, and melting. Clearly, these

mechanisms generally do not act separately, but in combination. Their importance for the

particular erosion process depends on several factors, such as the impact angle, the

particle kinetic energy, the particle shape, target-material properties, and environmental

conditions [83].

In order to compare solid particle erosion, a non-dimensional erosion number, EN,

is defined by Equation (1.1).

..(1.1)

14
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.2. Mechanisms of material-removal by solid-particle erosion [83]

15
Literature review Chapter 1

Here mM is the mass of the material removed and mP is the mass of the abrasive particle.

Thus, the removed volume of the material is

..(1.2)

The term 'erosive wear' refers to an unspecified number of wear mechanisms

which occur when relatively small particles impact against mechanical components. This

definition is empirical by nature and relates more to practical considerations than to any

fundamental understanding of wear. The known mechanisms of erosive wear are

illustrated in Fig. 1.3 [84]. The angle of impingement is the angle between the eroded

surface and the trajectory of the particle immediately before impact. A low angle of

impingement favours wear processes similar to abrasion because the particles tend to

track across the worn surface after impact. A high angle of impingement causes wear

mechanisms which are typical of erosion.

Erosive wear involves several wear mechanisms which are largely controlled by

the particle material, the angle of impingement, the impact velocity and the particle size.

Two different modes of erosion response of a material are defined: ductile and brittle.

The main difference between these two modes is the manner in which the erosion rate

varies with the angle of impact. For brittle layers maximum erosion occurs at normal

impact but for ductile materials maximum erosion occurs at glancing angles. The failure

is mainly due to extensive plastic deformation of surface material. The erosion rate vs

angle of impingement for ductile and brittle materials is shown in Fig. 1.4 [50].

16
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.3. Possible mechanisms of erosion; (a) abrasion at low impact angles, (b)
surface fatigue during low speed, high impingement angle impact, (c) brittle
fracture or multiple plastic deformation during medium speed, large impingement
angle impact, (d) surface melting at high impact speeds, (e) macroscopic erosion
with secondary effects and (f) crystal lattice degradation from impact by atoms [84]

17
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.4. Erosion Behavior of Brittle and Ductile Materials [50]

18
Literature review Chapter 1

Erosion mechanisms of ductile materials

A model for the erosion of ductile material was first developed by Finnie [81]. He

treated the problem by assigning a plastic response character to the material through a

flow stress σf. He calculated the trajectory of a particle cutting and removing material,

and determined the eroded volume (V) given by the expression:

V = (mVo2/σfKd) g(α) (1.3)

Where m is the particle mass,

Vo is the impact velocity,

K is the ratio of vertical force to horizontal force on the particle,

d the depth of cut, and

g(α) is a function describing the effect of attack angle α.

But this model could not be used for attack angle α = 900 and also quantitative

discrepancies arise concerning the effect of flow stress and the velocity exponent. Bitter

[85 86] developed a model to account for erosion at all attack angles. He considered

erosion to consist of two simultaneous processes, indentation deformation wear for high

angle of attack and cutting wear for low angles of attack. This theory requires

experimentally determined parameters for complete applications. Tilly [87] proposed a

two-stage mechanism of erosion recognizing explicitly that particles impacting at near-

normal incidence may fragment and the fragments may subsequently erode exposed

surface features.

19
Literature review Chapter 1

Levy [88] has reported that how specific steel microstructures affect the erosion;

he used an erosion weight loss curve that resulted in basic doubt concerning the validity

of micro cutting mechanism. In order to learn more about the initiation of erosion that

occurred, the erosion was conducted on steel; incrementally 60 g of particles at a time,

and weight loss caused by each 60 g increment was measured and plotted as shown in

Fig. 1.5.

The initial erosion rate caused by the first 60 g of SiC particles was much lower

than that of subsequent 60 g batches of erodent. Also, extrapolating the curves down to

zero erosion shows that a number of grams of SiC particles have impacted the surface

before erosion losses began. With subsequent increments of impacting particles, the

metal loss rate increased until it reached steady state conditions. Levy [88] further

reported that if micro cutting was the primary mechanism of erosion, the erosion rate of

initial, uneroded surface should be higher than subsequent incremental rates because

work hardening of the surface due to machining action would have reduced the

machinability of the surface and the resulting amount of material loss.

Some researchers [89-93] have used the large single particle, millimeter in

diameter, and impacted them individually at the target surface to study the mechanism of

erosion from a physical standpoint. Winter and Hutchings [91] have identified the two

different regimes of deformation ploughing and cutting (Fig.1.6). According to them at

rake angles more positive than a critical angle, cutting occurs; material flows up the rake

face of the tool and the flow of metal bifurcates at the cutting edge of the tool producing a

cutting plane. On the other hand, at rake angles more negative than this critical angle,

20
Literature review Chapter 1

ploughing dominates; in this case material probably flows down the tool face and the

flow of metal is continuous over the cutting edge. Fig. 1.7 shows the rake angles for a

typical sand grain striking a surface at different orientations. If other impact conditions

are kept constant, material is removed by ploughing when a critical impact velocity is

exceeded. They further added that ploughing deformation is, however, discouraged if the

particle executes a rolling type rotation during its time of contact with the surface rather

than sliding along it.

Hutchings [94] developed a model for volume removal due to the action of the

abrasive water jet which is based on observations obtained by high-speed photography and

SEM. He also defined two modes of cutting. One is cutting deformation and the other is

ploughing deformation as shown in Fig. 1.8. As can be seen the ploughing deformation

mode works best with blunt shaped abrasive particles. It is noticed that as the abrasive

particle interacts with the target material, a lip of material is formed. However, not every

abrasive particle will "plough" into the material. Some may rotate in the opposite direction

in which case the Type II cutting profile is valid.

A theoretical model which predicts the extent of lip formation as well as the weight

loss using the single impact experiments is presented by Sundararajan [95]. The model

postulates that the lip formation is the result of localization of deformation in the near-

surface regions of the target and the lip is removed either by inertial-stress-induced tensile

fracture or by separation across adiabatic shear bands formed at the base of the lip. He used

the single impact data’s for copper, brass, thoria dispersed nickel and nickel targets.

Sundararajan and Shewmon [96] had proposed the new theoretical model for the erosion

21
Literature review Chapter 1

Fine Pearlite

Coarse Pearlite

Spheroidized

Fig. 1.5. Plot of erosion rate verses mass of impacting particles for 1075 steel (Sic
particles 240 µm in diameter; VP = 30.5 m s-l; θ = 30o) [88]

22
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.6. The two modes of surface deformation considered: (a) cutting, in which the
metal flow bifurcates at the cutting edge, (b) ploughing, in which the metal flows
continuously past the cutting edge [91]

Fig. 1.7. A typical sand grain striking a surface at different orientations. The rake
angle as defined here varies with particle orientation [91]

23
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.8. Cutting and ploughing by solid particles at oblique impact angles [94]

24
Literature review Chapter 1

of metals by particles at normal incidence which employs a criterion for critical plastic

strain to determine when the material will be removed. This critical plastic strain is

defined as the strain at which the deformation in the target localizes and hence results in

the lip formation. Brach [97] has developed an analytical model for the energy loss

suffered by an arbitrarily shaped, rigid particle impacting the surface of a massive target

material at any impact angle. He further assumed that the erosion rate is proportional to

the energy loss suffered by the particle during impact, he had demonstrated that the

erosion response will be ductile (i.e. a maximum erosion rate at glancing impact angles)

or brittle (maximum erosion rate at normal impact angle), depending on the relative

magnitudes of the energy absorbed due to tangential (i.e. frictional) and normal

inelasticity effects.

Hutchings and Levy [98] had discussed the mechanisms of erosion in ductile

metals subjected to the impact of solid particles and reported the possible effects

associated with the local temperature rise caused by particle impact. They found that heat

conduction play an important role in reducing the maximum temperature rise in all

practical cases of erosion and had reported the negligible cumulative effect on the

temperature rise of successive impacts. They described the observed erosion mechanisms

in three distinct phases, which occurred sequentially at any one location. According to

them in the steady state condition all the three phases occur simultaneously at different

locations over the surface. In the initial phase an impacting particle forms a crater and

material is extruded or displaced from the crater to form a raised lip. In the second phase

the displaced metal is deformed by subsequent impacts; this may lead to lateral

25
Literature review Chapter 1

displacement of the material and can be accompanied by some ductile fracture in heavily

strained regions. Finally after a few impacts, the displaced material becomes so severely

strained that it is detached from the surface. They reported this mechanism of erosion as

the platelet mechanism defined by Levy [88] and differs from the micro cutting model

proposed by Finnie [81] in that it is postulated that in most cases the impact of several

particles is necessary in order to remove a fragment of metal from the surface [97].

Sundararajan [99] developed a model valid for all impacts angles as an

extension of the earlier model [96] proposed specifically for normal impact erosion. This

model [99] is based on the assumption that the localization of plastic flow underneath the

particle impact is responsible for lip formation and hence erosion. He reported that it is

capable of rationalizing the important experimental observations related to erosion,

namely the effects of material properties, impact velocity, impact angle and particle

shape. Sundararajan and Shewmon [100] developed a simplified model for the oblique

impact of a hard ball against a ductile material. The model correctly predicts the

magnitude of crater dimension and volume, and also their variation with impact angle and

velocity, but it cannot predict correctly the energy absorbed per impact.

Erosion mechanisms of brittle materials

When the impact of an erodent particle causes brittle fracture, material is removed

by the formation and intersection of cracks. If the mechanism responsible for material

removal by brittle fracture, there is often also be some plastic flow in the material around

the point of contact of the erodent particle. The extent of cracking due to particle impact

is most severe when the impact direction is normal to the surface, and erosion under these
26
Literature review Chapter 1

conditions is then most rapid (curve for brittle materials in Fig. 1.4). Erosion falls

monotonically with angle away from 90o, in contrast to the behaviour when erosion

occurs by cutting and ploughing mechanisms (curve for ductile material in Fig. 1.4).

The model proposed by Sheldon and Finnie [101] assumes that erosion occurs as

the result of Hertzian contact stresses during impact. In their analysis they considered

dynamic forces between the surface and particle and this resulted in a prediction in the

volume removed for a material with specific properties. They also concluded that the

fracture at the surface is function of the volume of material constrained in the primary

erosion zone in relation to the surface and volume flows. The theory by Evans and

Wilshaw [102] explains erosion in terms of experimental crack behavior during single

particle impact events, and thus takes into account lateral crack formation during erosion.

The erosion model assumes that the erosion rate is proportional to the amount of material

removed by each impact event. Ruff and Wiederhorn [82] developed two models for

erosion of brittle materials: one is based on the assumption that erosion occurs entirely by

crack propagation and chipping and the other is based on the assumption that plastic

deformation contributes to the process of crack formation and surface chipping.

Zambelli and Levy [103] investigated the erosion behaviour of brittle oxide

scales on ductile alloy substrates. They interpreted the erosion damage of the NiO scales

using simplified postulates based on the fracture propagation concepts. They reported the

removal of NiO duplex scale in a two step mechanism. Plastic flow indentation and

lateral crack growth in the columnar outer layer is the first step in the erosion mechanism.

In the second step, pits are produced from Hertzian cone fractures formed in the inner

layers, which enlarges the pits. At greater velocities, particle sizes and impingement

27
Literature review Chapter 1

angles, the erosion of the thinner oxide scales to the bare Ni occurred in times of the

order of seconds. It is suggested that the strengths of the bonds between the two scale

layers and between the scale and metal substrate are directly related to the erosion

behaviour.

Hutchings [104] has pointed out that the angular dependence of erosion is not a

characteristic of the material alone, but depends also on the conditions of erosion. For

example, although most metals eroded by angular particles do show typical ductile

behaviour of erosion (Fig.1.4), erosion by spherical particles, even of a ductile metal such

as mild steel, can lead to apparently brittle angular dependence, although wear still occurs

by purely plastic processes. Alloys of high hardness and low ductility may also show

their maximum erosion rate at normal incidence; an example, for a low alloy bearing

steel after different heat treatments, is shown in Fig.1.9. At comparatively low hardness

and high ductility, the steel shows characteristic ductile behaviour, while with high

hardness it shows apparently brittle behaviour, although microscopic observation shows

no sign of brittle fracture.

1.3.2 Erosive wear resistance of materials

Material characteristics exert a strong effect on erosive wear and have been

extensively studied [105]. In a similar manner to abrasive wear, it is found that

improvements in mechanical properties do not always coincide with superior erosive

wear resistance. For example, erosive wear rates may increase when a material is

deliberately hardened. An illustration of this rule is provided by the comparison of the

relative erosion resistance of metals as a function of impingement angle. When the

28
Literature review Chapter 1

impingement angle is shallow, hardened steel shows lower erosion than a soft steel; the

converse is true at high impingement angles. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.10, where the er-

70

60 Untempered
martensite

50
Tempered to
maximum
40
hardness

30
Mass loss (mg)

Hardness
20 50 HRC

Hardness
10
30 HRC

0
0 30 60 90 120

Impact angle (degrees)

Fig. 1.9. Erosion rate of AISI 52100 steel samples (1%C, 1.5%Cr) with different
microstructures as a function of impact angle. Silica particles were used at 153 ms-1
[104]

29
Literature review Chapter 1

osive wear rate, at two different impingement angles of 15o and 90o, is shown as a

function of material hardness for various metals and grades of steel hardness. The

abrasive used was silicon carbide of diameter about 1 mm impinging at a velocity of 30

(m/s).

Heat treatment of steel to increase hardness improves erosive wear resistance at

low impact angles but lessens the erosive wear resistance at high impact angles. There is

no general recipe for a high level of erosive wear resistance. Because of the two different

erosive wear protection mechanisms that can take place, high wear resistance can be

achieved by more than one type of material. In some cases the material can be extremely

hard and tough so that the impacting particle is unable to make any impression on the

surface. Alternatively, the material can be tough but with an extremely low elastic

modulus so that the kinetic energy of the particles is harmlessly dissipated. These

contrasting wear protection mechanisms are illustrated in Fig. 1.11 [84]. Rubber is

generally believed to provide good erosion resistance by elastic absorption of particle

energy although this has not been demonstrated experimentally. It has been shown that

the first particle impact causes no visible damage to a rubber surface and that wear

depends on slow fatigue processes [106].

The choice of erosion resistant material may also be compromised by other

considerations such as operating temperature or material transparency. Clearly,

temperatures in excess of 200 oC preclude polymers from service, but if a transparent

material is required for a specific application then metals are not particularly useful. For

example, materials for aircraft windscreens, apart from being transparent, are required to

30
Literature review Chapter 1

be resistant to high speed erosion by sand, dust and rain [107]. Rao and Buckley [107]

found that polymethylmethacrylate is the best candidate for this application since it is

both tough and shows a minimum of transparency loss by erosion damage.

1.3.3 Erosive wear resistance of steels

The literature available on the effect of steel microstructure on erosive wear rates

suggests that ductile steel is the most wear resistant. Hardening of steel to form

martensite offers little improvement except at very low impingement angles, and the

formation of massive or lamellar carbides reduces erosive wear resistance. The selection

of steel for erosive wear minimization is therefore different from the case of abrasive

wear. For low alloy carbon steels, the ferritic phase with sufficient spheroidal carbide

inclusions to induce strengthening is very effective against erosive wear [88]. Pearlitic

steels show inferior wear resistance to spheroidized steels. That the erosive wear of steels

shows the classical ductile erosion characteristic, i.e., a maximum wear rate at low

impingement angles with subsurface and surface cracking [88]. This suggests that the

erosive wear resistance of steels is limited by a lack of ductility.

For very soft erosive particles such as coal, the inclusion of carbides promotes

wear resistance slightly [108]. Alloying of steel or cast iron to obtain a microstructure

containing a significant amount of retained austenite is an effective means of reducing

erosive wear. Adding about 2.5 wt% of silicon to 0.7 wt% carbon steel or about 0.45 wt%

of silicon to 2.54 wt% cast iron results in good erosive wear resistance [109, 110]. The

optimum heat treatment of this steel or cast iron includes a relatively long austempering

time where all the martensite is removed and only retained austenite and bainitic ferrite

31
Literature review Chapter 1

are present. As a general rule, however, ductility rather than hardness should be enhanced

in steels for improved erosive wear resistance.

Fig. 1.10. Effect of primary material characteristics and erosion parameters on

32
Literature review Chapter 1

Fig. 1.11. Comparison of the high and low elastic modulus modes of erosive wear
protection [84]

33
Literature review Chapter 1

1.4 Cavitation erosion

Cavitation is defined by Dular et al [111] as the condition when a liquid reaches

a state at which vapour cavities are formed and grow due to dynamic-pressure reductions

to the vapour pressure of the liquid at constant temperature. In a flowing liquid, these

cavities are subjected to a pressure increase that stops and reverses their growth,

collapsing implosively and disappearing. The violent process of cavity collapse takes

place in a very short time of about several nanoseconds and results in the emission of

large amplitude shock-waves, as demonstrated by Avellan and Farhat [112]. A high-

speed reentrant liquid micro-jet directed towards the boundary can also occur for cavities

collapsing close to a solid surface [113]. If the amplitude of the resulting pressure pulse is

larger than the limit of the material mechanical strength, a hollow or indentation of

several micrometers called ‘‘pit’’ will be formed on the surface. If an accumulation of

pits takes place in a narrow area, the material is finally eroded and mass loss occurs due

to the repetitive action of the cavity collapses. In a flowing liquid, these cavities can take

different forms that can be described as travelling bubbles, attached cavities or cavitating

vortices. Cavitation erosion is usual damage phenomenon in flow handling parts of

hydraulic turbines, and service life and capability of such parts are reduced by the

damage [9].

1.4.1 Mechanism of cavitation erosion

The characteristic feature of cavitation is the cyclic formation and collapse of

bubbles on a solid surface in contact with a fluid. Bubble formation is caused by the
34
Literature review Chapter 1

release of dissolved gas from the liquid where it sustains a near-zero or negative pressure.

Negative pressures are likely to occur when flow of liquid enters a diverging geometry,

i.e., emerging from a small diameter pipe to a large diameter pipe. The down-stream face

of a sharp sided object moving in liquids, e.g., ship propeller, is particularly prone to

cavitation. The ideal method of preventing cavitation is to avoid negative pressures close

to surfaces, but in practice this is usually impossible.

When a bubble collapses on a surface, the liquid adjacent to the bubble is at first

accelerated and then suddenly decelerated as it collides with the surface. The collision

between liquid and solid generates large stresses which can damage the solid. Transient

pressures as high as 1.5 GPa are possible. The process of bubble collapse together with

experimental evidence of a hole formed in a metal surface by bubble collapse are shown

in Fig. 1.12 [114]. The cavitation crater, shown in Fig. 1.12, was produced on the surface

of indium which is soft. Harder materials such as ceramics are unlikely to form a deep

hole under the same conditions. Cracking and spallation are the predominant modes of

wear for hard brittle materials. Almost all materials suffer some kind of subsurface

damage by cavitation erosion; and accumulated work-hardening and crack formation are

commonly observed [115]. In some cases when the cavitation is intense, the density of

holes may be sufficient to reduce the worn material to a porous matrix or 'sponge'.

Although cavitation involves a similar process of collision between a liquid and a solid as

occurs in erosion by liquids, however, there are some significant differences. Cavitation

erosion is a much milder process than erosive wear. In cavitation wear particles are

detached per millions of cavitations whereas only a few thousand impacts by droplets are

enough to cause erosive wear [116]. Cavitation wear has an 'incubation period' like

35
Literature review Chapter 1

erosive wear but the weight gain found in erosive wear is not possible unless the

cavitated material absorbs liquid.

Cavitation wear can be accelerated by the simultaneous occurrence of erosive

wear, in other words synergetic interaction between these two wear mechanisms is

possible. If the cavitating fluid contains erosive particles, then the collapsing bubbles

cause the particles to hit the worn surface at high velocity. The rate of wear in synergetic

erosion is higher than either cavitation or erosion alone. For example, this phenomenon

takes place in hydraulic turbines operating in sandy water [117]. The turbine, operating at

a head of 900 m and utilizing water containing mainly fine particles (<0.060 mm), was

suffering minor silt erosion at the needle tip after 300 h of operation, as shown by Fig.

1.13(a). This was caused by the strong turbulence in the boundary layer at the tip.

However, owing to the initial damage to the very streamlined and smooth surface,

subsequent cavitation set in, which acted in concert with the silt erosion process,

significantly enhancing the damage rate. Only after a similar time interval of operation,

did the resultant damage to the tip become very severe such that the needle had to be

replaced, as shown by Fig. 1.13(b) [5].

Taking the components of a turbine working in silt-laden water as an example, in

most cases there are stagnation points (lines) on the bodies immersed in the flow. These

stagnation points will be severely eroded owing to the impingement of particles at large

angles (≈90◦). This might be the initial cause of erosion, following which cavitation

usually sets in owing to the deterioration of the streamlined profile. Then the synergetic

erosion starts, such as in the example shown above, referring to Fig.1.13. Alternatively,

when cavitation already exists, the synergetic erosion starts from the very beginning.

36
Literature review Chapter 1

However, no matter whether it is a subsequent phenomenon or not, the synergism

mechanism is virtually the same [5].

Fig. 1.12. Mechanism of cavitation wear: (a) mechanism of bubble collapse and (b)
experimental evidence of damage by cavitation to a metallic (indium) surface [114]

Fig. 1.13. Synergetic erosion in a Pelton turbine. (a) (left) Initial stage: silt erosion on
needle tip (300 h); (b) (middle) subsequent synergetic erosion (600 h) on needle tip;
(c) (right) no noticeable erosion on buckets. Material: stainless steel (13Cr 4Ni) [5]

37
Literature review Chapter 1

1.4.2 Cavitation erosion resistant materials

A basic determinant in the choice of material for protection against cavitation

erosion is the physical scale of the device where the cavitation takes place. Cavitation can

occur in components ranging from propellers to dam spillways. For large-scale structures,

concrete based materials are often used, e.g., concrete reinforced with chopped steel

fibres, polymer impregnated concrete or concrete coated with epoxy resin. More

information on these materials can be found elsewhere [118, 119]. A material with good

cavitation wear resistance is rubber since its low modulus of elasticity allows the bubble

collapse energy to be dissipated harmlessly.

A basic feature of cavitation is its preferential attack on the weakest phase of a

material. An example of this is found in the significance of graphite inclusions on the

cavitation wear of cast iron. The graphite inclusions provide the required crack initiation

centres for rapid wear by brittle fracture [120]. A similar process affects cermets which

often contain a hard material such as tungsten carbide particles surrounded by a softer

metallic matrix. Cavitation can dislodge the tungsten carbide by gradual removal of the

surrounding matrix. Heathcock et al [121] have observed the improvement in cavitation

erosion resistance, which is dependent on the properties of the binder rather than the

tungsten carbide. Materials which protect against cavitation usually have a uniform

microstructure with absence of large mechanical differences between phases. The

mechanism of cavitation wear in multi-phase materials is schematically illustrated in Fig.

1.14.
38
Literature review Chapter 1

Of the ferrous metals, stainless steels are more resistant to cavitation than cast

iron. Plain carbon steels are not often considered as materials providing protection

against cavitation erosion. With stainless steels, the ferrite phase is inferior to the

austenite phase and the martensitic phase has the best resistance. Austenitic chromium-

manganese-nitrogen (Cr-Mn-N) stainless steels have been found to offer better resistance

to cavitation than conventional chromium-nickel-molybdenum stainless steels. The

additional benefit of Cr-Mn-N stainless steel is that the substitution of manganese and

nitrogen as alloying elements reduces the cost of the stainless steel. It is believed that the

pronounced work hardening characteristics of the austenitic (but not ferritic) Cr-Mn-N

stainless steels promotes the resistance to cavitation wear [122]. Hadfield steel or the

manganese steels provide the best cavitation erosion resistance of the austenitic steels. Of

the more recently developed materials, high-nitrogen austenitic steels (HNAS) offer

attractively high levels of resistance to cavitation erosion. HNAS are characterized by

low carbon contents and nitrogen content exceeding 0.4%, while mechanical properties

combine high yield strength with good ductility and toughness. Vigorous strain hardening

of these steels under bubble impact is attributed as the cause for the high resistance to

cavitation erosion by HNAS [123].

For severe cavitation problems, cobalt alloys such as 'stellite' are particularly

useful. Karimi and Martin [9] have mentioned that cobalt is more wear resistant to

cavitation erosion than to solid particle erosion. In ductile materials plastic deformation

occurs under cavitation and key characteristics of plastic deformation are dynamic

recovery and work-hardening. Materials with high stacking fault energy (SFE) display

rapid dynamic recovery and poor work-hardening characteristics. For alpha aluminum

39
Literature review Chapter 1

bronzes, SFE is inversely related to cavitation wear resistance [124]. This indicates that

for alpha aluminum bronzes, plastic deformation under bubble collapse is significant and

Fig. 1.14. Preferential attack by cavitation of the weaker phase in a microstructure

40
Literature review Chapter 1

that the energy of bubble collapse is not entirely absorbed by plastic deformation.

One of the fundamental characteristics of cavitation erosion is a fatigue-type

damage process which allows some useful comparisons of the relative wear resistances of

metals based on metal fatigue theory [125]. It is found that the cavitation erosion rates of

a range of pure metals correlate well with a fatigue strength parameter which is the

product of the nominal fatigue failure stress at zero cycles and the exponent of stress

increase during cyclic plastic strain. The relationship, obtained from experimental data,

between the cavitation erosion resistances expressed in terms of maximum thickness loss

and modified fatigue failure stress is shown in Fig. 1.15.

1.5 Factors affecting erosion

The material removal during erosion is dependent on many interrelated factors

that include metallurgical as well as operating parameters [34, 50, 51, 56, 84, 88, 126-

144]. The main metallurgical factors affecting erosion are mechanical properties and

microstructure of target material.

1.5.1 Mechanical properties

Metal hardness and impact strength are among the most important characteristic

to consider when selecting the metals for minimum erosion. Hardness appears to be a

dominant factor governing the erosion resistance of various materials in specific

41
Literature review Chapter 1

applications [50, 51, 56, 126-130]. In general wear resistance tends to increase with

hardness and it decreases as impact strength increases. But in case of erosion, high hardn-

Fig. 1.15. Relationship between the cavitation wear resistances expressed in terms of
maximum thickness loss and modified fatigue failure stress [125]

42
Literature review Chapter 1

ess increases the erosion rate and it decreases as impact strength increases. This is an

important relationship in application that requires both wear resistance and impact

resistance. If the material is sufficiently hard, it will have more resistance to erosion and

also resistance to crack propagation. The material having higher impact strength poses

more resistance to erosion. The impact strength of metals is closely related to the crack

propagation rate, which also affects the rate of erosion.

Goretta et al [127] studied the solid particle erosion behaviour of AISI 4140 steel

heat treated to have Vickers hardness of 288-650 HV. They concluded that erosion rate

was nearly independent of hardness for HV ≤ 365, but increased with HV ≥ 365.

Divakar et al [50] have studied the effect of surface hardness on the erosion behaviour of

AIAI 316 steel. They reported that increase in the hardness shows higher erosion

resistance of AIAI 316 steel as a result of compressive stresses, which is induced in to the

target surface by the cold rolling.

The work hardening behaviour of the target material during solid particle impact

also appears to be of critical importance. The austenitic grades of steels usually owe their

wear resistance to their work hardening characteristics [51]. Development of wear

resistant Hadfield steel, for example, is primarily based on its self work hardening

characteristics. Richmann et al [128] have reported the correlation of cavitation erosion

behavior with mechanical properties of metals. They observed that the predominant

property in cavitation erosion resistance is the fatigue strength coefficient (σf) which
43
Literature review Chapter 1

accounts for most of the differences among materials. Correlations are further improved

by incorporating the strain-hardening exponent n’ in a combined parameter “σf n”.

Levin et al [56] have reported that tensile toughness is indicative of the ability of

a material to absorb energy of the abrasive particles impacted and have shown that a

material having higher tensile toughness possesses higher erosion resistance. O’Flynn et

al [130] have reported that the erosion rate increases as 1/UTεu increases; where UT is

tensile toughness and εu is uniform strain. This is to say that erosion resistance increases

as the product of tensile toughness and uniform strain (strain up to UTS) increases.

1.5.2 Microstructures

Metallurgically hardness and microstructures are commonly interrelated and both

have importance as factors in resistance to erosion. Increasing the carbon content of steel

results in microstructural alteration that increases hardness and decreases ductility,

impact strength and tensile toughness. The maximum hardness depends on the carbon

content of the steel and the amount of martensite. Carbon content also affects erosion

resistance through formation of various carbides [64].

Effect of microstructure on erosion has been studied by various authors [34, 88,

131-140]. Pugsley et al [132] have studied the cavitation erosion performance of a range

of tungsten carbide–cobalt (WC–Co) composites of varying grain sizes and cobalt

contents has been evaluated using a stationary-specimen vibratory cavitation erosion rig.

They observed that the erosion resistance increases with increasing cobalt content and is

not dependent on either the bulk material deformation parameters or the fracture

44
Literature review Chapter 1

toughness. The effects of the microstructure of two ductile steels on their behavior under

solid particle erosion were determined by Levy [88]. Levy [88] presented that the erosion

rate is directly related to the distribution of hard, brittle and soft, ductile phases in the

alloy. He further emphasized that within limits, the more continuous the ductile matrix,

the lower the erosion rate is. However, when the ductile matrix becomes the predominant

phase and the resulting strength of the steel is markedly reduced, strength and not

ductility becomes the dominant factor in erosion. Wang et al [133] have investigated the

erosion-corrosion resistance of 1018 plain carbon steel and 2.25Cr lMo steel, two

commonly used boiler tubing steels in five different conditions, i.e. annealed, hot rolled,

normalized, quenched-tempered and cold rolled at room and elevated temperatures using

SiO, particles at V= 20 ms-l and a = 30o. They presented the similar observations reported

by Levy [88] that the influence of microstructure on the room temperature erosion

depends on the distribution of hard, brittle and soft, ductile phases in the steel, which

determined their combination of ductility and strength.

The microstructure of target material plays an important role in solid particle

erosion. In solid particle erosion austenite is considered to be beneficial constituent

because (i) austenite is plastic and tough; (ii) the strength at the interface between carbide

and austenite is high [134] and (iii) localized strength of austenite increases with strain

hardening [135]. In hot rolled 21-4-N steel the austenitic matrix is continuous and the

strength is high too, which are beneficial parameters for erosion resistance [87].

Kwok et al [136] have studied the cavitation erosion characteristics of alloys with

duplex structures such as super duplex stainless steel (UNS S32760) and α + β brass (Cu–

40%Zn) in 3.5% NaCl solution at 23°C by means of a 20 kHz ultrasonic vibrator at peak-
45
Literature review Chapter 1

to-peak amplitude of 50 µm and compared with that of austenitic stainless steel (UNS

S30400). They concluded that cavitation erosion behaviour of α + β brass, S30400 and

S32760 is significantly influenced by the deformation mechanism and the microstructure

of the alloys. They explained that for alloys with duplex structure like α + β brass and

super duplex stainless steel S32760, the weaker phase is attacked selectively. For α + β

brass, the α phase, which is lower in hardness than the β phase, is attacked selectively,

whereas for S32760, the strain rate sensitive ferritic (α) phase is attacked selectively by

brittle fracture mechanism. The initiation sites for cavitation erosion are at the inter phase

boundaries and the damage spreads through the weaker phase. For austenitic stainless

steel S30400, the initiation of cavitation attack is at the twin boundaries by ductile

fracture mechanism.

Bregliozzia et al [137] have studied the cavitation erosion behaviour of two

different austenitic stainless steels (AISI 304 and high nitrogen steel) in water with

different pH values at room temperature by means of a 20-kHz ultrasonic vibrator

operating at peak-to-peak amplitude of 40 µm. They reported that for both steels, the

initiation of cavitation attack is at the grain boundaries and slip bands and results in the

formation of surface undulations. Cavitation cracks start generally from these defects,

which represent origins of stress concentration. They explained that the material removal

is by ductile fracture. The high nitrogen steel, due to enhanced mechanical properties,

exhibits higher cavitation erosion resistance than AISI 304 steel.

1.5.3 Operating variables

Effect of erodent velocity

46
Literature review Chapter 1

The velocity of the erosive particle has a very strong effect on the wear process. If

the velocity is very low then stresses at impact are insufficient for plastic deformation to

occur and wear proceeds by surface fatigue [84]. When the velocity increases, the eroded

material may deform plastically upon particle impact. In this regime, wear is caused by

repetitive plastic deformation. At brittle wear response, wear proceeds by subsurface

cracking. At very high particle velocities melting of the impacted surface may even occur

(Fig. 1.3).

From medium to high velocities, a power law [84], can describe the relationship between

wear rate and impact velocity:

…..(1.4)
dm/dt = kvn’

where m is the mass of the worn specimen, t is the duration of the process, k is an

empirical constant, n’ is a velocity exponent. The characteristics of the erodent and target

material determine the value of the exponent n’. It has been stated that n’ varies in the

range of 2–3 for polymeric materials behaving in a ductile manner, while for polymer

composites behaving in brittle fashion the value of n’ is in the range of 3–5 [141].

Effect of impact angle

In respect to the impact angle (θ), solid particle erosion is divided in [50]:

 erosion at normal impact angles (a ≈90o)

 erosion at oblique impact angles (0o <a <90o)

A low impact angle favours wear processes similar to abrasion because the

particles tend to track across the worn surface after impact. A high impact angle causes

47
Literature review Chapter 1

wear mechanisms which are typical of solid particle erosion (Fig. 1.4) [50]. It can be seen

in Fig. 1.4 that in ductile mode of erosion the maximum material removal occurs at low

impingement angles whereas maximum erosion is found at high impingement angles

causing brittle mode of erosion.

Effect of erodent characteristics

A key aspect of the erosion problem is related to the erodent characteristics.

Variations in particle size and shape can cause fundamental changes in the erosion

response [84]. If the eroding particles are blunt or spherical then plastic deformation is

favoured, if the particles are sharp then cutting and brittle fragmentation are more likely.

A blunt particle has a mostly curved surface approximating to a spherical shape while a

sharp particle consists of flat areas joined by corners with small radii which are critical to

the process of wear [84].

It is assumed that the erosion rate is independent of particle size above a critical

value [142, 143]. This critical value is observed between 100–200 µm, however, it is

dependent on the exposure conditions and the particle target interaction [143]. Up to this

critical value, experimental results showed that with increasing size of the erodent also

the erosion rate increases. The existence of this critical value has been attributed to a

range of factors [143]. These factors are:

(i) Strain rate effects, due to small particles: it has been shown that strain rates are higher

for smaller than for larger particles. This results in increased stresses of the target

material when bombard with smaller particles.

48
Literature review Chapter 1

(ii) Differential work hardening due to erodents of various particle sizes: It has been

suggested that a surface layer of 50–100 µm “hardens” more than the bulk material.

Hence, small particles will encounter a layer with a significantly higher flow stress than

the bulk material, whereas large particles should penetrate in this layer. Above the critical

size, the influence of this layer should be negligible.

The effect of erodent hardness depends mainly on the particular mode of erosive

wear taking place, e.g., ductile or brittle. In the brittle mode the effect of particle hardness

is much more pronounced than in the ductile mode. It is usually believed that hard

particles cause higher wear rates than soft ones, but it is impossible to isolate hardness

completely from other features of the particle (e.g., shape). Even if the particle is hard,

but relatively blunt, then it is unlikely to cause severe erosive wear [84].

With respect to the size and type of the erodent material, two trends may hold for

harder and/or more brittle material. The erosive wear increases the higher the hardness of

the erodent and the larger the erosive particle size are (until a level of saturation is

reached in both cases) [144]. In ductile polymers, however, the situation may be quite

different. Due to the relatively low hardness no pronounced effects of changes in the

hardness of the usually much harder erodent materials should be expected [144].

1.6 Surface coatings

Solid particles transported in gas or liquid flows cause severe damage on

industrial components and lead to expensive repair and part replacement [145]. Wastage

associated with erosion has caused an increase in power plant down time due to increased

maintenance, therefore reducing plant efficiency. This problem has led to various

methods to combat solid particle erosion. One method to combat solid particle erosion is
49
Literature review Chapter 1

to select erosion resistant materials for use in components that are subject to an erosive

environment and another is to apply coatings to the components subjected to erosive

environments.

Coatings of a wide variety of materials are commonly applied to substrates for

many purposes. These may include the enhancement of mechanical properties, visual

appearance or corrosion resistance or may provide special magnetic and optical

properties. Often, coatings are applied to improve tribological performance [146]. The

plasma spray coatings are generally used for protection against wear and corrosion, to

prevent erosion or cavitations, and to provide electrical insulation or conductivity. Plasma

spraying is the most flexible and versatile thermal spray process with respect to the

sprayed materials. Almost any material can be used for plasma spraying on almost any

type of substrate [147].

Extensive research has been conducted to understand the mechanism of erosion of

underwater parts, such as turbine blades, guide vanes and lyberinths [148]. It has been

established that the intrinsic characteristics like microstructure and mechanical properties

of the component material play an important role in the erosion behaviour. The effect of

surface coatings on the erosion damages has not yet been systematically studied. Thermal

spray coatings are being used on structural steels in energy conversion and utilization

systems to prevent surface degradation by corrosion, erosion or combination of these

phenomenons. The ability of the coatings to protect base material against erosion is

related to their composition and processing; and especially to the structure of the

coatings. Generally, the hardness of the coatings does not directly relate to their erosion

resistance [149-151]. However, some data in the literature [152] suggests that the relative

50
Literature review Chapter 1

hardness values of the erodent particles and the target material might play a role in the

erosion behaviour of brittle materials. It is reported that decreasing the ratio of the target

material hardness to the hardness of the impacting particles resulted in an increase in the

erosion rates, mainly when the ratio is in the range of unity.

Thermally sprayed coatings have emerged as a viable solution for a wide range of

wear resistance applications to improve the service life of machine components. Tungsten

carbide and chromium carbide-based coatings are frequently used for many of the

applications in gas turbine, steam turbine, aero engine as well as hydro turbines to

improve the resistance to sliding, abrasive and erosive wear [153-155]. For sliding wear

and abrasive wear resistance, the carbide coatings are considered to be a viable

alternative to hard chrome plating due to the strict environmental regulations and cost

concerns with regard to the electroplating process. These cermet coatings are deposited

by plasma spray and high velocity processes namely high velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF) and

detonation gun spray processes [59, 156, 157]. WC and Cr3C2 with different metallic

binders like Co, Ni and Fe have been studied using different amounts of binder contents

with Co and Ni most commonly used. Addition of Cr to the matrix has been found to

improve the wear and oxidation resistance of these cermets [157]. The wear behavior of

WC based coatings with varying amounts of Co content deposited by different thermal

spray processes has been studied by a number of researchers [158-163].

It has been reported that the abrasive wear rate for the cermet coatings is

controlled by several factors like the morphology of the starting powder, the size and

distribution of the carbide particles, hardness of the carbide particles relative to the

abrasive, properties of the matrix and its volume fraction and the coating process, which

51
Literature review Chapter 1

determines the coating characteristics like the phases, density, microhardness and the

residual stresses. Even though tungsten carbide has a very high hardness of 2200 HV, the

hardness of HVOF coating of WC–Co based powder is very low with 866 to 1226 HV

[157, 160]. This hardness difference is due to the presence of metallic binder (Co, Ni, and

Cr) and little amount of porosity in the coating. Various attempts have been made to

improve the abrasion resistance like adding vanadium carbide powder (VC), chromium

carbide (Cr3C2), etc. [164].

52