Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

IMPACT TESTING OF MATERIALS FOR OIL SANDS PROCESSING

APPLICATIONS

Gary Fisher, David Crick, John Wolodko
Alberta Research Council Inc
Edmonton, AB
Canada T6N 1E4

Duane Kichton and Leo Parent
Suncor Energy Inc
Fort McMurray, AB
Canada T9H 3E3


ABSTRACT

One of the main wear mechanisms experienced by materials in oil sands processing applications
is material-loss due to impact. Components such as crushers, breakers and sizing screens can be subject
to impact damage due to the presence of rocks and boulders. In the winter, the degree of impact damage
can be increased, as sand and bitumen can consolidate into large agglomerates. In conjunction with
Suncor Energy, the Alberta Research Council has designed and built a test rig to allow for the evaluation
of a materials resistance to repeated impact. This paper will describe the design of the rig and the
associated test procedure. Results are presented for a range of materials, including tungsten carbide-
based overlays, chromium carbide-based overlays and non-metallic materials.

Key words: wear, impact, overlay, tungsten carbide, chromium carbide, polymer

INTRODUCTION

Material loss due to impact damage is one of the common wear mechanisms experienced by
components in oil sands mining and processing [1]. Rocks and boulders present in the deposits cause
impact-related damage to equipment. The degree of impact damage is somewhat governed by climatic
conditions. During winter months, the sand and bitumen can consolidate into larger lumps, increasing
the level of impact-related damage [2].
Weld overlays and hard facings are commonly applied to components to increase their service
life in wear environments [3]. The overlays can be broadly divided into two groups, being either
chromium carbide-based alloys or tungsten carbide metal matrix composites (WC-MMCs). Chromium
1
07682
Paper No.
Government work published by NACE International with permission of the author(s). The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are
solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in the U.S.A.
Copyright
carbide hard facing alloys are essentially high chromium cast iron alloys. The most common grades
contain between 25 to 32% chromium with several percent carbon. Their microstructures contain a high
proportion of chromium carbide (M
7
C
3
-type) in an iron-based matrix [4]. Tungsten carbide metal
matrix composites typically comprise of particles of tungsten carbide in a nickel-based metal matrix [5].
The current deposition method of choice for WC-MMCs is by plasma-transferred arc welding. In
general, the WC-MMCs will give superior wear resistance and are considered the materials of choice for
critical production applications [6].

The most common method to assess the wear resistance of weld overlays is the ASTM G65 dry
sand/rubber wheel abrasion test. This has become the industry standard to compare the abrasion
resistance of different materials. The material considerations necessary for high impact resistance are
generally different from those required for abrasion resistance. However, there is no standard test
method to assess the impact resistance of a material that is intended for use in oil sands processing
applications. Such a test would be an effective tool for both product development and material
selection.

Several tests are described in the open literature that deals with impact and abrasion. The
ASTM G81 jaw crusher test has impact and gouging abrasion conditions. Similarly, the impellor wear
test developed by the Albany Research Center produced both impact and abrasive wear [7]. The
blending of two such wear mechanisms in an unknown and immeasurable way, could obscure the
contributing factors of a materials impact and abrasion resistance. Therefore, there was an industry
requirement for a test procedure that assessed the impact resistance of a material, independent of other
wear mechanisms.

EXPERIMENTAL

A project, jointly supported by Suncor Energy Inc and the Alberta Research Council, was
initiated to design a test rig and procedure to assess the impact resistance of weld overlays [8]. The
principle of the test was for a hammer to be spun inside a drum which would impact the surface of two
test coupons mounted to the inside of the unit, perpendicular to the surface. The repeated striking of the
coupons would cause material loss. An important aspect of the test is that the hammer should only
strike the surface of the coupon and not drag across it (as the dragging action may produce a component
of abrasive/sliding wear). The measurable weight loss would be a means of determining the resistance
of the weld overlay to impact.

Test Rig Design

Due to the complexity of the interaction between the impact hammer and the test specimen, a
mechanical simulation model was created to design the proposed test rig. With the model, it was
possible to investigate how changes in parameters affected the performance of the impact tester. The
key parameters that were considered were: rotational velocity, hammer weight, number of specimens
and specimen spacing.

The simulation software used for this analysis performs simulations using a time-discretized
solution to compute the motion of the impact hammer and the resulting forces in the simulated
environment. The simulation produced a three dimensional representation of the impact tester, as shown
in Figure 1. The rotational velocity and size of the impact hammer were designed to allow for an impact
force of between 5 and 10 J. This impact force was selected as it was below the Charpy impact strength
of the test specimens but would provide sufficient energy for repeated impacts to cause damage.
2

By optimizing the constraints of the simulation, it was possible to design the configuration of the
test rig and parameters (e.g. specification of motor to produce the necessary rotational speed).The intent
was to produce a system whereby the impact hammer, after striking the first sample, would bounce clear
of the test piece (Figures 2a). The chain straightens as it continued its rotation around the drum, and the
impact hammer returns to its outside rotational path, ready to impact the second coupon (Figures 2b).

Test Procedure

A test rig was constructed, as shown in Figure 3, based on the results of the computer simulation.
The initial design of the rig assumed that the impact head would be a 1 diameter sphere, attached by a
pin to a chain. For practical considerations, the hammer was modified to a three-component design
(Figure 4). The three components comprised of the hammer body, a diameter ball bearing and a
retaining ring. The ball bearing (S2 tool steel, hardness H
RC
52 to 60) is the striking head of the
hammer, and was designed as an easily replaceable, consumable item. The hammer is attached to the
chain by means of a screw fitting.

Using the approximated test conditions determined by the simulation, numerous trials were
conducted to determine the actual test procedure. The established procedure is as follows,

1. Sample size and type. The test is designed to assess weld overlays (e.g. WC- and CrC-based
systems) or cast irons. It is preferred that overlays are in the as-welded condition (i.e. the
coupons do not need to be machined flat, as for the ASTM G65 abrasion test). Coupons can be
either cut from a component (e.g. the wall of a hydro-transport tube) or specially produced on a
metal bar. The coupon dimensions are a length of 2.75 inches and a width of 1 inch. The depth
of the coupon is somewhat dependant on the thickness of the overlay and can typically vary from
0.5 to 0.75 inches.
2. Impact hammer. Before each test, the ball bearing (the striking head) and the screw that attaches
the hammer to the chain are replaced.
3. Rotational speed: The motor is set to rotate the hammer at 150 rpm. Prior to each test the
rotational speed is checked, using a tachometer, to within +/- 5 rpm. This rotational speed has
been calculated to produce an impact of approximately 8J.
4. Sample placement. The samples are positioned in the holders by means of retaining screws.
They are set so that the hammer will strike the coupon surface 5mm from the side-edge.
5. Test duration. Samples are impacted for periods of three minutes, for a total of 24 minutes (or
until time to failure). After each three-minute period, the sample is removed from the rig and
weighed to record any mass loss. The mass loss is measured in grams, to three decimal places.
6. Results. The results of the test are reported both as a progressive and a total weight loss.
7. Analysis. After testing, samples are metallographically prepared to determine the characteristics
of the material and the failure mechanism(s).









3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tungsten Carbide-Metal Matrix Composite Overlays

WC-MMCs are generally designed to be either abrasion or impact resistant. The performance of
the material in the two wear-conditions is in-part, governed by the hardness of the metal matrix alloy.
Overlays designed for abrasion resistance tend to have a harder matrix (e.g. matrix hardness of H
RC
50)
than those intended for impact-type environments (e.g. matrix hardness of H
RC
30). To assess the ability
of the test rig to distinguish between these two types of composite, the impact resistance of an abrasion-
and an impact-resistant WC-MMC were evaluated.

The abrasion resistant WC-MMC had a composition of 65% WC in a NiCrSiBFe matrix alloy.
The matrix had a hardness of H
RC
50. The impact-resistant overlay contained 60% WC in a NiSiB metal
matrix. The matrix had a hardness of H
RC
30. Both overlays were deposited using plasma-transferred
arc welding.

Three coupons of each material were tested using the specified procedure. The weight loss data
achieved by the samples is shown in Figures 5 and 6. It can be seen that the method produced fairly
repeatable test results. A comparison of the two materials is shown in Figure 7. The WC-NiSiB (H
RC
30) overlay was shown to be more resistant to impact than the harder composite. The failure modes
exhibited by both overlays were, however, similar. During the initial portions of the test, the overlays
suffered significant spallations. Analysis of the samples determined that this was due to the formation
of a shear-type crack within the top third of the overlay, parallel with the substrate interface (Figure 8).
The shear forces, due to the deformation of the matrix from repeated impacts, lead to the crack
formation and propagation. This resulted in the fracture and material loss of the top-portion of the
overlay. After this initial loss, lower level material losses occurred progressively throughout the test.
The degradation was initiated by cracking within the WC-particles (Figure 9). It was observed that the
WC particles underwent fracturing prior to cracking progressing through the surrounding metal-matrix.
The metal matrix underwent plastic deformation from the repeated striking. This led to the growth of
cracks through the damaged ceramic particles and the inter-connecting matrix, resulting in fracturing
and material loss. When compared to the abrasion resistant overlay, the level of carbide degradation in
the WC-NiBSi composite was lower and far less cracking was observed throughout the overlay as a
whole. The comparison of the two WC-MMC overlays demonstrated the ability of the test procedure to
distinguish between different types of material. The increase in impact resistance of the WC-NiSiB
composite was most likely due to increased toughness of the matrix.

Chromium Carbide-based Overlays

The impact resistance of a wide range of chromium carbide-based overlays has been assessed using
the test rig. The overlays tend to fall into two catagories;

1. Low to moderate chromium carbide content overlays that contained a low to moderate
frequency of acicular chromium carbides (Figure 10). At the interface with the backing material,
the overlays had either a dendritic structure or a very low frequency of carbides.
2. High chromium carbide content these alloys produced overlays with a high frequency of
chromium carbides through the full thickness of the hard facing (Figure 11).

The level of carbide content in an overlay was shown to affect the materials impact resistance. A
comparison of the test results achieved by examples of the two types of overlay is shown in Figure 12.
4
The overlays that contained a low to moderate frequency of carbide achieved a higher level of impact
resistance than the carbide-rich hard facings. Metallographic evaluations determined that when the
overlays were subject to repeated impacts, the sample underwent piece-meal brittle fractures, with the
material being gradually chipped away. The overlays remained adherent to the steel and no large scale
spallation occurred. For the overlays that contained a high frequency of carbide, the level of damage
caused by the repeated striking of the surface was minimal (the carbide-rich material being very resistant
to the impacts). However, this group of overlays experienced a high degree of spallation, with large
sections of the hard facing breaking away from the steel backing. This was due to the propagation of
cracks along the interface between the two materials. The crack propagation was probably aided by the
presence of brittle, carbide phases at the interface and the presence of pre-existing cracks, formed during
the deposition of the overlay (Figure 13).

Polymeric Materials

The impact resistance of a number of polymer material systems were also assessed using the test rig.
Three polymers tested included:

- High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
- Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMW-PE)
- Ethylene Based Co-Polymer (ECP)

A comparison of the weight loss characteristics for each of these material systems is shown in Figure
14. Of the polymers tested, the UHMW-PE was seen to exhibit the lowest weight loss under impact
loading. For the HDPE system, the test had to be halted at approximately 9 minutes due to excessive
penetration through the sample. It can also be seen that the overall weight loss in the polymers was
significantly lower than in the metallic overlay samples previously discussed.

This apparent increase in performance for the polymer materials, however, may be deceptive since
the mode of failure was significantly different than that of the metallic overlay samples. For the
polymers, the failure was due to localized plastic deformation and softening of the material. In all cases,
repeated impact resulted in progressive indentation at a single impact location (see Figures 15 to 17).
Due to the high ductility of the polymers (particularly at the ambient test temperatures considered), the
material simply displaced around the hammer head forming a crater with some limited tearing but no
observed spallation. The UHMW-PE material exhibited the lowest level of plastic deformation and no
significant softening, thus resulting in the lowest apparent weight loss. While impact loading alone did
not result in significant material loss in the polymers, the resulting excessive deformations may cause
degradation issues in combined fluid erosion/impact loading situations.


CONCLUSIONS

1. A test rig was designed and constructed and a procedure devised to evaluate the resistance of a
material to repeated impacts.
2. The impact resistance of WC-MMC overlays was shown to be somewhat reliant on the
toughness of the metal matrix alloy.
3. Testing of the chromium carbide-based overlays identified the importance of carbide content and
the microstructure of the overlay adjacent to the interface.
4. Polymeric materials were subject to material displacement, with no observed spallation.

5



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the help and support of Duane Kichton and Leo Parent, of Suncor Energy, throughout
this project.


REFERENCES

1 R Llewellyn Materials for controlling wear in surface mining CIM Bulletin, v89, n 1002, 1996,
p 76 to 82.

2 R Llewellyn Resisting wear attack in oil sands mining and processing' CIM Bulletin, July 1997,
p 75 82

3 M. J. Anderson, S. Chiovelli and D. Reid Wear resistant materials for use in the oil sands
hydraulic transportation process Materials for resource recovery and transport, Ed. L. Collins, CIM,
1998, p 451 465.

4 H. S. Avery and H. J. Chapin Hard-facing alloys of the chromium carbide type The Welding
Journal, October 1952, p 917 930.

5 R. L. Deuis, J. M. Yellup and C. Subramanian Metal-matrix composite coatings by PTA
surfacing Composites Science and Technology, 58, 1998, p 299-309.

6 M. Anderson, S. Chiovelli and S. Hoskins Improving reliability and productivity at Syncrude
Canada Ltd through materials research: past, present and future CIM Bulletin, 97, (1083), October
2004, p 1 6.

7 R. D. Wilson and J. A. Hawk Impellor wear impact-abrasive wear test Wear, 225 229, 1999,
p 1248 1257.

8 G. Fisher Development of wear- and corrosion-resistant coatings in oil sands mining
LActualite Chimique Canadienne, June 2006, p 12 13.













6










Drum
Impact
hammer
Motor


Figure 1: Three dimensional simulation model of the impact tester.



















7







Sample #2
Impact
hammer
Motor
Sample #1

Figure 2a


Sample #2
Impact
hammer
Motor
Sample #1

Figure 2b

Figure 2: Simulation of the impact hammer striking the first coupon (Figure 2a), continuing its rotation
around the drum, returning to its outside rotational path (Figure 2b).






8









Figure 3: Photograph of the impact test rig.



Rotating arm
Hammer head













Figure 4: Photograph showing the assembled impact hammer.









9










0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Test duration (min)
Culmulative
weight loss (g)
Sample #1 Sample #2 Sample #3













Figure 5: Weight loss data recorded for three samples of the WC-NiCrSiBFe overlay.


















0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Test duration (min)
Culmulative
weight loss (g)
Sample #1 Sample #2 Sample #3

Figure 6: Weight loss data recorded for three samples of the WC-NiSiB overlay.





10






0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
WC-NiCrSiBFe WC-NiSiB
Overall weight
loss (g)

Figure 7: Chart comparing the weight losses achieved by the two overlays.















Figure 8: Micrograph of a sample of the WC-NiCrSiBFe overlay, showing an example of a shear-type
crack. Magnification x50.








11




















Figure 9: Micrograph of a sample of the WC-NiSiB overlay, showing cracking within the carbide
particles. Magnification x200.
















Figure 10: Micrograph of a chromium carbide-based overlay, etched using 3% nital. The overlay
contained a low to moderate frequency of carbides in an iron-based matrix. Magnification x50.









12






















Figure 11: Micrograph of a chromium carbide-based overlay, which contained a high proportion of
carbide-phases. Etched using 3% nital. Magnification x50.



Low carbide content High carbide content













0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 3 6 9 12


15 18 21 24
Test duration (min)
Culmulative
weight loss (g)

Figure 12: A comparison of the two types of Chromium carbide-based overlays, showing examples of
weight loss data for typical systems.




13






















Figure 13: Micrograph showing under-bead cracking between a chromium carbide-based overlay and
the steel backing. Etched using 3% nital. Magnification x50.




ECP















Figure 14: A comparison of the performances of the three types of polymer.





0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
est Duration (min)
Culmulative weight
loss (g)
T
HDPE UHMW-PE
14










Figure 15: Photograph of the Ethylene based Co-polymer (ECP), after impact testing.





Figure 16: Photograph of the High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) sample, after impact testing.





15









Figure 17: Photograph of the Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMW-PE) sample, after
impact testing.
16

Вам также может понравиться