Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore
Institute of High Performance Computing, 1 Fusionopolis Way, Singapore 138632, Singapore
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 5 March 2014
Received in revised form
21 April 2014
Accepted 16 May 2014
Available online 24 May 2014
In the present study, slurry erosion experiments of stainless steel SUS-304 were carried out using new
advanced erosion test rig, where the multiphase ows of alumina sand and water were utilized as the
erodents. The results show that erosion rate was initially high and gradually reduced over the testing
time. In addition, the erosion rate increased with an increase in impact velocity. The surface roughness
increased with either increasing testing time or impact velocity. Further, the surface proles of W
shape were observed for all eroded samples. Microstructural characterization reveals two different
erosion regimes: plastic deformation mechanism dominated at high impact angles, while plowing/
cutting mechanism dominated at low impact angles. A correlation between the erosion rate, erosion
prole and microstructure is also discussed.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Microstructure
Atomic force microscopy
microscopy
Fracture
Surface properties
1. Introduction
Slurry erosion study is vitally important in many engineering
applications associated with the transportations of abrasive particles, particularly in oil and gas production systems, hydraulic
machines, pumps, hydropower, mine industry, etc. [14]. Failures
due to erosion can lead to detrimental economic consequences as
well as safety concerns. The demand for longer service span, which
eventually reduces the cost of maintenance, has motivated many
research laboratories and companies to study slurry erosion for
particular cases for specic applications [46]. Several standard
laboratory tests, such as ASTM G65/75, pipe loop, jet impingement,
toroid wheel, slurry pot or coriolis, have been built to understand
the actual erosion situations of different materials under various
environmental conditions [5,710]. Each test method has its own
advantages and disadvantages. Some test rigs used centrifugal
pumps, which are cost saving. However, the pump propellers are
very prone to abrasive particles and damaged after a short time of
use. This leads to a huge variation in ow velocity as well as the
actual amount of slurry carried in a unit of time, and thus reduces
the reliability of experimental results [5,1114]. In this paper, we
design a new slurry erosion test rig using a peristaltic pump,
which eliminates the disadvantages of centrifugal pumps as
abrasive particles transported through a rubber hose. The
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Wet erosion test rig
The new advanced slurry erosion test rig using the peristaltic
pump was developed according to ASTM-G73 as shown in Fig. 1
[20,23,24]. It is a closed, circulated and automated system. Sand
particles and water are pre-mixed in the agitating tank using a
frequency controllable motor. The tank bed and stirring blade were
designed to incline 301 to the horizontal direction to achieve an
Control board
Pressure regulators
Mixer
Peristaltic pump
Nozzle
2.2. Sample preparation
Sample
holder
Time Velocity
Mixer
Mixing tank
Drainage
Fig. 1. Photograph of wet erosion test rig.
Fig. 2. AFM image showing a mirror sample surface condition prior to the test.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
70
90
110
130
Size (mesh)
Fig. 3. Morphology and distribution of sand particles.
150
170
190
dry cabinet for at least two hours before measuring its weight to
ensure that all sand particles are ultrasonically removed and there
was no effect of differential humidity. The weight loss and thickness
loss were then calculated accordingly.
The erosion rate is calculated based on the nature of inhomogeneous erosion as follows [17]:
E
Sample_weight_loss
g=g
Sand_weight_consumed
3
2
Table 1
Results of erosion rate with respect to testing time.
Testing time (min)
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
Erosion rate ( 10 6)
Roughness Ra (mm)
0.025
28.3 7 1.7
0.4050
24.4 7 1.5
0.5862
22.2 7 1.3
0.7677
20.2 7 1.2
0.9566
18.17 1.1
1.0475
15.9 7 0.9
1.2725
Table 2
Results of erosion rate with respect to testing velocity.
Testing velocity (m/s)
10
15
20
25
30
0.2 70.03
0.1358
2.17 0.1
0.2039
8.7 7 0.5
0.4184
10.17 0.6
0.6668
15.9 7 0.9
1.2725
3 4 5 6
Fig. 4. A representative eroded surface of stainless steel sample: a) front view and b) cross section view.
interesting to note that the distance from the center of wear scar
to the maximum depth was about 4.5 mm and almost independent with either testing time or impact velocity. It is believed that
the real impact velocity of sand particles reached maximum at this
3.70e+05
2.41e+05
9.28e+04
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-50
5min
-100
10min
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
15min
20min
25min
-450
30min
-500
-550
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-50
15m/s
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-100
20m/s
25m/s
30m/s
-500
-550
Fig. 5. Results of surface erosion with respect to a) different testing times and b) different owing velocities.
2.48e+01
1.32e+01
6.79e-03
50 m
Fig. 7. Representative micrographs of eroded samples of W3090-30 showing dominated fracture mechanisms changing from plastic deformation to cutting from the center
wear scar to the outer region.
Fig. 9. AFM images show a) plastic deformation mechanism of erosion at the center and b) micro-plowing/microcutting mechanism at the outer region.
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are derived from this investigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the National University
of Singapore and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research
(ASTAR) for providing facilities and nancial support under Grant
WBS no. R-265-000-412-305.
References
[1] Yu B, Li DY, Grondin A. Effects of the dissolved oxygen and slurry velocity on
erosioncorrosion of carbon steel in aqueous slurries with carbon dioxide and
silica sand. Wear 2013;302:160914.
[2] Castberg TS, Johnsen R, Berget J. Erosion of hardmetals: dependence of WC
grain size and distribution, and binder composition. Wear 2013;300:17.
[3] Zheng ZB, Zheng YG, Sun WH, Wang JQ. Erosioncorrosion of HVOF-sprayed
Fe-based amorphous metallic coating under impingement by a sandcontaining NaCl solution. Corros Sci 2013;76:33747.
[4] Arora HS, Grewal HS, Singh H, Mukherjee S. Zirconium based bulk metallic
glassbetter resistance to slurry erosion compared to hydroturbine steel.
Wear 2013;307:2834.
[5] Neville A, Wang C. Erosioncorrosion of engineering steelsCan it be managed
by use of chemicals? Wear 2009;267:201826.
[6] Llewellyn RJ, Yick SK, Dolman KF. Scouring erosion resistance of metallic
materials used in slurry pump service. Wear 2004;256:5929.
[7] Gnanavelu A, Kapur N, Neville A, Flores JF. An integrated methodology for
predicting material wear rates due to erosion. Wear 2009;267:193544.
[8] Rajahram SS, Harvey TJ, Walker JC, Wang SC, Wood RJK, Lalev G. A study on the
evolution of surface and subsurface wear of UNS S31603 during erosion
corrosion. Wear 2011;271:130213.
[9] Guanghong Z, Hongyan D, Yue Z, Nianlian L. Corrosionerosion wear behaviors
of 13Cr24Mn0.44N stainless steel in salinesand slurry. Tribol Int 2010;43:
8916.
[10] de Souza VA, Neville A. Corrosion and erosion damage mechanisms during
erosioncorrosion of WCCoCr cermet coatings. Wear 2003;255:14656.
[11] Ahmed SM, Al-Bukhaiti MA, Badran FMF, Emara KM. Effect of impingement
angle on slurry erosion behaviour and mechanisms of 1017 steel and highchromium white cast iron. Wear 2007;262:118798.
[12] Wheeler DW, Wood RJK. Erosion of hard surface coatings for use in offshore
gate valves. Wear 2005;258:52636.
[13] Shrestha S, Hodgkiess T, Neville A. Erosioncorrosion behaviour of highvelocity oxy-fuel NiCrMoSiB coatings under high-velocity seawater jet
impingement. Wear 2005;259:20818.
[14] Neville A, Reza F, Chiovelli S, Revega T. Erosioncorrosion behaviour of WCbased MMCs in liquidsolid slurries. Wear 2005;259:18195.
[15] Clark HMcI, Hartwich RB. A re-examination of the particle size effect in slurry
erosion. Wear 2001;248:14761.
[16] Speyer RJKWAJ, Stokes KR. Erosion of aluminium-based claddings on steel by
sand in water. Wear 2001;250:8028.
[17] Zhang VSL, Kent J, Dixon T, Novozhilov V. Analysis of boiler-tube erosion by
the technique of acoustic emission. Wear 2001;250:7629.
[18] Crnkovic SJ, Abbade Noelmar Pereira. Sandwater slurry erosion of API 5L X65
pipe steel as quenched from intercritical temperature. Tribol Int
2000;33:8116.
[19] Fang HXQ, Sidky PS, Hocking MG. Erosion of ceramic materials by a sandwater slurry jet. Wear 1999;224:18393.
[20] Wood YPRJK, Trethewey KR, Stokes K. The performance of marine coatings
and pipe materials under uid-borne sand erosion. Wear 1998;219:4659.
[21] Haugen KK, Ronold A, Sandberg R. Sand erosion of wear-resistant materialsErosion in choke valves. Wear 1995;186187:17988.
[22] Tan KS, Wood RJK, Stokes KR. The slurry erosion behaviour of high velocity
oxy-fuel (HVOF) sprayed aluminium bronze coatings. Wear 2003;255:
195205.
[23] Rajahram SS, Harvey TJ, Walker JC, Wang SC, Wood RJK. Investigation of
erosioncorrosion mechanisms of UNS S31603 using FIB and TEM. Tribol Int
2012;46:16173.
[24] Amarendra HJ, Chaudhari GP, Nath SK. Synergy of cavitation and slurry
erosion in the slurry pot tester. Wear 2012;290291:2531.
[25] Clark HM. A comparison of the erosion rate of casing steels by sandoil
suspensions. Wear 1991;151:21730.
[26] Hu X, Barker R, Neville A, Gnanavelu A. Case study on erosioncorrosion
degradation of pipework located on an offshore oil and gas facility. Wear
2011;271:1295301.
[27] Stachowiak GW, Batchelor AW. Engineering tribology. 3rd ed.Elsevier Inc.
Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005.