You are on page 1of 22

Wear - Elsevier Sequoii S.A.

, Lausanne - Printed in the Netherlands 29

A LITERATURE SURVEY ON ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC


MACHINERY*

G. F. TRUSCOTT
The Brirish Hydromechanics Research Association, Cranfield, Bedford (Gt. Britain)
(Received September 29, 1971)

SUMMARY

The survey considers the factors affecting abrasive wear-the properties of


the solid particles, the construction materials and the flow-and various types of
wear. The main sources of information are from laboratory wear tests on materials
and pumps, and from service experience on pumps and water-turbines. The effects
of wear on performance and working life are also discussed. Finally, the main points
emerging from the survey are listed.

1, INTRODUCTION

There is a growing demand for both pumps and water-turbines which have to
deal with abrasive solids in suspension. This requirement may be either by design-
as in pumps for sewage, dredging or any other solids transport application-or
default, e.g. any scheme involving river, land-drainage or glacial waters. In either
case, the resulting wear is an increasing problem, particularly with the trend to
higher running speeds.
This survey is intended to provide a better understanding of abrasive wear
phenomena, and as an aid to the selection of materials. It must be stressed, however,
that the survey has been limited to abrasive wear only; other important factors
affecting the final material choice for any given application, such as corrosion and
cavitation erosion, are not covered, except where these properties happen to be
mentioned for comparison in a particular report. Also, only those aspects of machine
design which affect wear are considered, rather than the more general solids-handling
capability, e.g. max. size of solid to be passed.
The amount of published information, covering the past 20 years or so, is not
large-there are only 38 references-and nearly all the original work is from con-
tinental sources. The data may be conveniently divided into 3 main groups, together
with the more comprehensive and useful references, as follows:
(a) Wear tests on materials-Wellinger, Stauffer
(b) Wear tests on pumps-Zarzycki3
(c) Service experience on pumps-Bergeron4 on general solids-handling,

* This paper is based on TN.1079 of the same title which is available from The British Hydromechanics
Research Association, Cranfield, Bedford, at f2.

Wear, 20 (1972)
30 G. F. TRUSCOl.7

Welte5 on dredging, Warman on sands and gravel, Bezinge on pumped-storage;


and Bovet and Kermabong on water-turbines.
Some attempts at theoretical wear analysis have also been made, notably by
Bergeroni~. Most of the service experience concerns pumps, but it seems likely
that similar wear processes occur in both types of hydraulic machinery. Quantitative
wear tests on pumps are few--only two Polish papers, and one Russian, have been
discovered.
The survey considers the factors affecting and types of wear, and then deals
with each of these in more detail. Finally, the effects of wear on performance and
working life are discussed.

2. FACTORS AFFECTING AND TYPES OF WEAR

Most of the references deal with these topics in varying detail.

2.1. Basicfizctors affecting wear


These are the various properties of:
(1) Solid particles-hardness, size, form (i.e. sharpness), relative density,
concentration,2,4~5*10- 13.
(2) Construction materials-composition. structure, hardness - 5,7- , 2- 14.
(3) Flow-speed, impact angle~2~4-6.s.10.11.13.
Only the more detailed references are listed above.
2.2. Types of wear
These are also discussed in many of the references. In the material tests,
Wellinger distinguishes between sliding, scouring and jet impact (sand-blasting)
wear. Stauffer2 suggests grazing(i.e. 0 impact angle) scouring abrasion predominates
in hydraulic machines. In papers on wear analysis (see Section 2.3), both Bergeron,l 1
and Bitter 5 also attempt to separate wear due to friction (or cutting) and impact
(or deformation) ; Bergeron suggests how this wear mechanism may account for
the typical pitting (or gouging) type of surface damage encountered in practice.
Service experience on pumps4,5 and water-turbines,, and pump wear
tests3,3,6-1g, all show typical wear patterns of impellers, runners and casings for
various running times. Warman discusses the differences in wear pattern between
his design of pump and the conventional, also mentioned by Warring and Arnstein.
2.3. Wear theory
Several authors,2,3*22-25 give simple expressions, based on wear test results,
for wear rate as a function of velocity, material hardness, grain size or solids con-
centration. The one most often quoted is:
wear u; (vel.)
where the index n may vary depending on the material and other factors involved;
the most common value appears to be 32,13,24*25.It should be noted that Wellingers
sand-blasing tests and Goodwins whirling-arm tests23 were carried out under
dry conditions; however, although absolute wear rates presumably will be higher
than in a liquid, the relative rates should be similar.

Wear, 20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 31

Some more detailed analysess~0,~15 consider wear as affected by the forces


and velocities acting on a particle in a liquid flow. Bovet states that wear CCabrasive
power, Pf, of a particle impinging on a surface, and
P = PVP,-PJC3
f
4
where p = coefficient of friction between particle and surface, I/ = volume of particle,
ps = density of particle, p 1= density of liquid, c = velocity of particle, R, = radius of
curvature of surface.
In a much more involved analysis, but starting with the same basic assumption,
Bergeron 1l develops a complicated expression based on the statement :
wear oc solid/liquid density difference x acceleration of main flow x coefficient
of friction x thickness of particle layer x flow velocity.
He thus takes account of the difference between the solid and liquid velocities.
His previous paper attempts to predict wear rates in similar pumps handling solids
with varying properties, with simplified assumptions such as pure sliding of the
particles over the surface, from the initial expression

wear cc -g (P-p)d3p K

where U = characteristic velocity of liquid,


P = density of particles,
p =density of liquid.
d = diam. of particles (assumed spherical),
D = characteristic dimension of machine,
p = no. of particles/unit surface area,
K = experimental coefficient depending on abrasive nature of particles.
Bitter, in a fundamental study of erosion phenomena-but strictly for dry con-
ditions-gives expressions for cutting and deformation wear, also based on
energy considerations and the type of material eroded, i.e. whether brittle or ductile.
A few authors4*0*13*1Qalso develop expressions for pump service life. Both
Bak13 and Bergeron4* consider this in terms of pump total head for given conditions
(see Section 6.2). Vasilievp gives a somewhat involved method, based on statistical
analysis of pump wear tests, to predict life based on a specified maximum permitted
wear.
It is perhaps debatable whether these more complex theories can be used to
predict absolute wear rates with anycertainty; most involve empirical constants and
other parameters difficult to determine for an actual machine. In fact, BergeronloT1 l
admits that some of the assumptions made may be questionable. However, such
theories are of some value in predicting likely trends in wear rates when only one or
two of the relevant factors are altered,

3. EFFECTS OF ABRASIVE PARTICLE PROPERTIES

3.1. Hardness
Both Wehingers and Stauffers laboratory tests show that, for metals in
general, wear increases rapidly once the particle hardness exceeds that of the metal

Wear, 20 (1972)
32 G. F. TRUSCOTT

1.50

1.25

1.00

9,
%
I- 0.75
L

3
0.50

Fig. 1. Effect of grain hardness of abrasive media on steels and Vulkollan from scouring-wear tests. Water;
solids mixture ratio by vol. 1:l, velocity of test specimen 6.4 m/set; the steel hardness range is shown
cross-hatched. (H,. = 110 kg/mm for St37; H,.=750 kg/mm* for C 60H). (From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Fig. 2. Effect of blasting abrasive hardness on direct impact wear from plate tests. Curves for steels, rubber
and cast basalt. The hardness ranges for St37 (& = 125 kg/mm) and C 60H (Ifr = 830 kg/mm) are shown
cross-hatched. (From WeLinger and Uetz.)

50
m&/kg
40

30
al
%
L 20
k
g 10

Vickers 0
lo 20 30 50 70 100 2CO300 5007001000 2CCO3000 hardness : 115
Vickers hardness of abrading media material: St37 C60H

Fig. 3. Effect of Vickers Hardness of abrading media on resistance factor. (From Stauffer.)

Fig. 4. Effect of grain form of abrasive on direct impact wear. Plate tests with blast pressure of 2 atmos.:
blank area for rounded shot, shaded area for angular shot with 1.6 mm grain size and Vickers Hardness
H,,z 720 kg/mm (From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Wear. 20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 33

for both scourmg and impact abrasion. Beyond this, the wear rate may become fairly
constant, or even reduce, with increasing abrasive hardness. These effects are shown
in Figs. 1, 2 and 3; note that wear rates may be expressed in a variety of ways, both
absolute and relative. Stauffer notes that the wear resistance of a 13% Cr cast steel
was only slightly better than that of the unalloyed reference steel, whereas it is
usually considerably better in practice; he suggests this might have been due to the
excessive hardness of the test abrasive.
From tests with various grades of very fine sand (< 200 pm) under dry con-
ditions, Goodwin et al.23 found that erosion varied as (hardness)23, and depended
on the amount of quartz present.
Rubber behaviour is more difficult to compare on a relative hardness basis;
both Vulkollan and Perbunan synthetic rubbers showed fairly constant scouring
wear rates (Fig. l), but Perbunan behaved like the reference steels in the sand-blasting
tests (Fig. 2). For both scouring and direct-impact wear, Vulkollan gave much
lower wear rates than the steels, except with the less hard abrasives; the other rubbers
were also better under direct (i.e. 90) impact.

3.2. Grain size and form


Many of the references2,4,5~1,13~17~18,25 state that, in general, the absolute
wear rate increases with grain size and sharpness. Other authors,24 state that wear cc
size for sliding or grazing abrasion, but is independent of size for direct impact;
Goodwins tests23 show that the erosion rate for impact abrasion becomes constant
only above a certain grain size (about 50-100 pm depending on velocity). Stauffer2
also states that the relative wear (compared to the reference steel) of metals decreases
with increasing size, but gives no results. Bergeron l1 found, from tests on Al. Br. that
wear cc (size)0.75, but states that for general application, wear cc size x function of
coefficient of friction, densities, and size/surface curvature ratio.
Wellinger shows the effects of particle shape on impact abrasion in Fig. 4 ;
angular grains cause about twice the wear due to rounded ones. Goodwin23 also
discusses erosiveness of particles, and defines a shape factor; he states that hardness
and sharpness are interrelated.
Wiedenroths wear tests17*18on a small dredge pump impeller, using a lacquer-
removal technique, show differences in the blade wear pattern depending on grain
size (i.e. sand or gravel).
For rubber linings, the size and shape effects are more critical than for metals.
Most of the service experience papers on pumps mention some limitation; actual
size limits, varying from l/16 in. (10 mesh) up to 2 in. are quoted in Refs. 6,24-27. Two
Eastern European papers on pump wear tests state limits of 5-6 mm (about $ in.)12
and 4 mm (5/32 in.)13. Other references4*5*20*28merely state that the solids should
not be large or sharp. The size limit depends largely on the types of abrasive and
rubber.

3.3 Mixture concentration and density


There is surprisingly little quantitative information on the effect of solids
concentration. It is generally accepted that wear increases with concentra-
tionl,4,11,13,19,22,24,25. Some authors3,XS consider this relationship to be direct.
Bergeron , from tests on Al. Br., suggested this applies only to small amounts of

Wear,20 (1972)
34 G. F. TRUSCOTT

solids, but for larger values wear increases more slowly; his theory states that wear
x no. of grains/unit surface area, i.e. dependent on concentration and flow pattern.
Kozirevs jet impact tests show wear x concentration, up to 10% solids, for pure
abrasion, but this no longer applies for combined cavitation/abrasion. From the
only pump test to consider this aspect, Vasiliev concludes that wear x (concn.).x2.
independent of material or flow properties, for sand/water mixtures between 3 and
150/, by vol.
Wellinger gives sliding-wear results for water/sand ratios from 0 to I; 1;
his scouring-wear tests were carried out with a constant l/l sand/water mixture
by vol., whereas Stauffe? used a 2/l mixture. For the Polish pump tests, Bak
mentions a l/3 sand/water ratio, but no figure is quoted by Zarzycki3.
Both Bovet8 and Bergeronr, give expressions (see Section 2.3) for wear
depending on the density difference between solids and liquid, either varying direct-
ly-if other factors remain constant-or as a more complicated function. .
4. EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL PROPERTIES

4.1. Type : composition, structure


4.1.1. Metals
Wellingers material tests show that a hardened steel (C60H) had the highest
resistance, followed by a hardened 13% Cr steel and an 18/8 stainless steel, to scouring
wear (see Fig. 5). Hardened steel (St. 70H) and hard C.I. were better than the un-
hardened reference steel (St. 37) for grazing abrasion, but worse for direct impact.
under sand-blasting, as shown in Fig. 8.
Stauffer tested over 300 materials, and gives 9 tables of results, a selection of
which are given in Table I, on a basis of resistance factor, R = (vol. wear of ref. steel)/
(vol. wear of test material). Of the forged steels, a 12.5% Cr oil-hardened steel was
best (R =6.0), and of the cast steels, a 14% Cr, 1.5-2% Mn nitrided steel (R=2.5).
followed by a 12% Mn hardened austenitic steel (R = 1.9) ; 18/8 austenitic steels were
not very resistant (R about 1.5). Ni-hard gave the highest resistance (R = 6.0) of
the cast irons, and the S.G. irons were better (R = 1.0-2.3) than ordinary C.I. (R =
0.5-0.8). Almost all the non-ferrous metals had a lower resistance than the reference
case-hardening steel (C15) ; only a titanium alloy equalled it. Tin bronzes generally
had the highest values (R =0.74.8) of the cast copper alloys-slightly better than the
aluminium bronzes (R=0.554.7). A 30/; Ni/2.5% Al bronze gave the best result
(R = 0.94) of the wrought alloys. The most wear-resistant materials of all were the
sintered tungsten carbides (R values up to 170), followed by hard chromium plating
(R= 11.&18.0) and the hard Co-Cr-W alloy weld materials (R=4.5-18.0).
Leith and McIlquham2 give tables of comparative cavitation and abrasive
erosion test results, referring to Stauffers work. Al. Br. has relatively poor abrasion
resistance, but is excellent against cavitation; a Mn stainless steel shows only fair
abrasion resistance, but cavitation resistance is good. Hard Cr plating gives excellent
resistance to both, provided surface preparation of the base metal is adequate.
Shchelkanovs report r4 on water-turbine steel tests states that microstructure
and work-hardening ability affect wear resistance considerably, austenitic and
martensitic steels being notably better than the ferritic. It recommends using low
and medium (3.5-10.5%) Cr alloy hardening steels, though both these and hardened
11.5% Ni alloy and tool steels gave good abrasion and cavitation resistance. Kozirevs

Wear. 20 (1972)
TABLE I 9

SELECTED RESULTS FROM SAND EROSION TESTS ON MATERIALS


- -___-._ ___- .- ~~
Material type Condition Chemical composition ( / Vickers Resistance
$
2
Hardness factor n
(kg/mm) R <
c Si Mn Ni Cr Others
___-- :
1. Rolled or forged steel
Austenitic NSP 2 quenched and 0.07 0.25 0.3 6.0 17.0 0.7 AlJ3.0 cu 3421152 0.87/1.34
annealed ;
Case-hardening C 15 normalized 0.16 0.3 0.4 - - 116 1.00
(reference for all tests) g
Mild, medium hard tempered 0.25 0.3 0.4 - 205 1.21 r
Austenitic stainless 63 quenched 0.03 0.56 0.43 10.0 17.7 0.45 Nb/Ta 189 1.43 i;j
Martensitic stainless AK5 annealed/ 0.5 0.35 0.6 - 15.5 - 191/507 1.3712.28
tempered 5
High-speed (tool) annealed/ 0.7 0.12 0.3 5.0 18.0 w, 5.0 co 319/857 1.85/4.5 g
hardened 1.0 V, 0.6 MO 2
Chrome 2002 oil-hardened 2.0 0.35 0.6 12.5 - 847 6.02 !z

2. Cast steel
Unalloyed 23/4.5 normalized 0.22 0.35 0.5 - - 142 1.01
Austenitic Cr 30 quenched 0.06 0.6 0.5 9.0 18.0 ? 1.48
Martensitic stainless tempered 0.46 0.36 0.35 1.12 12.8 464 1.76
71024
Abrasion-resistant HH quenched 1.2 0.3 12.0 - 200 1.86
Abrasion-resistant MG tempered 1.07 0.41 1.49 0.08 14.0 0.6 P, 0.038 S 625 2.52

3. Cast iron
No. 15 as cast 3.2 2.04 0.62 - 0.12 0.41 P, 0.09 s 160 0.48
Pea&tic G6/G6A as cast 3.i 1.5 0.8 - - 0.1 P, 0.12 s 230 0.84/1.14
P S-G. austenitic as cast 3.3 2.0 1.6 16.3 1.5 0.05 P, 0.006 S 175 1.24
g S-G. I as cast 3.6 2.6 0.43 0.15 0.09 0.12 P, 0.004 s 378 2.33
Y
!2 0.046 Mg
Chilled 47-283-5 as cast 3.03 1.57 0.97 - 1.3 - 522 2.81
z Special HC Sl- 143-2C hardened 2.86 0.41 1.04 0.07 26.4 787 5.43
ti - - z
$ ~ ~____
2 Condition Chemical composition ( Y/J
K
Material type Vickers Resistance
z
Hardnez fhctor.
s
z (kg/mm) R
s c Si Mn Ni Cr Others
N

Ni chilled NIB as cast Ni-hard 605 4.8416.05

4. Cast copper dlloys CU Zn Sn Fe

Special cast brass as cast 56.9 39.4 0.2 0.6 1 0.68 0.26 Pb, 0.93 Mn. 154 0.42
0.99 Ni
Special gun-metal 5 as cast 87.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 Ni 53 0.54
Ni/AI bronze G7B as cast 80.0 5.0 5.0 Ni 179 0.64
Al bronze Am22 as cast 81.0 ~ 4.5 0.5 Ni 331 0.72
Tin bronze No. 4 as cast 86.0 14.0 98 0.81

5. Other non-ferrous metals


Raffinal (pure AC.) wrought 99.99 22 0.11
Avional, forged untempered. 4.0 0.3 1.0 94.7 501105 0.26,0.5
hardened
Titanium alloy Ti 15A rolled 1.3 2.8 0.02 NZ, bal. Ti 378 1.0

6. Sinter metals and carbides


Ti carbide W212b No. 42. Titanium carbide basis 919 1.92
heat resistant
Tungsten carbides
BG 3YV/TG 100 Tungsten carbide basis 1090/ 1300 7.56 22.4
THI Tungsten carbide basis, 6.0 Co, Y4.0 W 1600 49.3
BH 31s Tungsten carbide basis 2450 169.9

7. Weld overlays Ni Cr MO Nb/Ta co Others


T

$
C
18/10/2 Nb 10.0 18.0 2.0 0.7 229 1.23
Hastelloy C 52.5 16.0 16.5 5.5 Fe, 1.0 Si. 1.0 Mn. 283 1.46 K
0.1 1 C, 4.25 W 2
Hastelloy B 61.0 1.0 28.0 - 2.5 5.5 Fe, 1.0 Si, 1.0 Mn, 274 1.53
0.08 C, 0.4 V
Hard alloy Co 6 autogenous 28.0 .- 67.0 l.OC,4.OW 6051420 4.5JI8.0
(Stellite 6)

8. Surface treatments
Metal spray, stainless I -- 8.0 18.0 - 0.05Si 221 0.78
Sultinuz on case diffusion of S and N, 219 0.98
hardening steel Cl5
Metal Spray M2, 14 % Cr steel - 14.0 - .- 319 1.23
Nitride steel I nitrided 1.2 1.5 0.25 - 955 3.53
Hard Cr plating on steel - 849f847 11.2112.4
O.Ol/O.OSmm

9. Rubbers and plastics


Hard rubber SU No. 2 0.03
Bakelite 0.044
Plexiglass (Perspex) 0.072
Soft rubber SU No. 3 0.08
Somoplas Pl (rigid PVC) 0.12
Nylon 0.28
Polyethylene 0.32
TABLE IT
P
? RESULTS OF PUMP IMPELLER EROSION TESTS
-
Chemical romposltron( ;, approxj Brine11 Wear (vol) Order
Hardness resistance of wear
ia coefficient resistance
C Si Mn Cr P S (k&m) Z,
-___
Ferrous
Grey C.I. Zl 15 3.3 2.65 0.6 0.26 0.20 167 1.15 24
Grey C.I. Zl 20 3.4 2.1 0.7 0.22 0.10 185 1.07 22
Grey C.I. Zl 25 3.3 2.0 0.5 0.23 0.20 215 1.00 21
Grey C.I. Zl 30 2.8 1.4 0.4 0.25 0.20 239 0.95 20
S.-G. C.I. ZsP-55f 3.4 3.5 0.75 0.27 0.004 332 0.49 13
S.-G. C.I. ZsP-55f (heat treated) 3.4 3.5 0.75 0.27 0.004 537 0.44 10
Grey C.I. Zl 15 3.3 2.2 0.5 0.24 0.23 168 1.14 23
Silicon C.I. 3.0 6.1 0.95 0.29 0.06 172 0.79 18
Low alloy Cr C.I. Zl Cr 4 2.5 4.5 0.6 4.35 0.13 0.045 516 0.22 3
High alloy Cr C.I. 2.1 1.6 0.7 14.3 0.07 0.07 328 0.20 2
Cast steel 45 L 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.035 0.014 205 0.81 19
Cast steel L 30 GS 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.04 0.017 222 0.59 15
Cast steel L 35 G 0.44 0.4 1.6 0.044 0.02 269 0.70 17
Mn hard steel SPU 2 1.0 0.6 12.3 0.08 0.01 192 0.35 7
Mn hard steel SPU 2 (heat treated) 1.0 0.6 12.3 0.08 0.01 208 0.30 6
High alloy Mn cast steel 1.3 0.14 8.5 0.15 0.2 0.03 231 0.39 8
High alloy Cr cast steel LH 17 0.3 1.3 0.5 18.2 0.045 0.02 261 0.29 5
High alloy Cr cast steel 1.5 2.9 0.5 22.8 0.13 0.04 340 0.24 4

Si Sn Pb Fe Al Mn Ni Cu Zn P
0
Non-ferrous
7
Bronze BlOl - 10.1 0.3 0.03 0.2 trace trace 88.4 0.08 0.8 93 0.51 14
Bronze B555 5.9 5.3 0.1 0.3 88.6 3.8 63 0.61 16 ;;1
Bronze BK331 2.4 2.0 2.55 1.1 0.2 0.46 12 C
88.8 3.0 ~ 101
Spec. Al. bronze (Bronzal) 0.2 1.3 2.25 1.6 12.3 0.05 2.0 78.8 1.4 0.09 196
0.45 II $
Silumine AK 51 4.8 ~ - 0.45 93.15 1.0 0.05 1.4 0.08 - 79
4.34 30 2
Silumine AK 51 (heat treated) 4.8 0.45 93.15 1.0 0.05 1.4 0.08 94 3.86 28
Spec. Silumine RR 53 c 4.9 (?) 1.0 0.04 1.3 0.04 ~ 82 4.14 29
Spec. Silumine RR 53~ (heat treated) 4.9 ~ (?) 1.0 0.04 1.3 0.04 ~ 96 3.48 27
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 39

Wear, 20 (1972)
40 (;. F. TRUSCOTI

jet-impact tests, under both pure abrasion and combined cavitation/abrasion,


showed an 18/S stainless steel to be more resistant than a case-hardening steel, cast
iron and brass.
Goodwins testsz3 with very tine, dry sand show that an il,c Cr steel and a
Cu-Cr---Ni alloy gave the same erosion rate-appreciably lower than for titanium
and aluminium alloys. Antunes and Youlden25 give a table of results for a limited
number of materials from mechanical grinding tests.
The two Polish pump wear reports3Ti3 give generally similar results; of the 31
materials tested by Zarzycki3 (see Table II) the 14:; and 4//, Cr cast iron impellers
had the highest wear resistance, followed by the 18-230.{ Cr and 12% Mn cast steels;
S.G. cast iron was also quite good.
Pump service experience may be loosely divided into dredging, sand and
gravel, and slurries generally. Two German authors5*28 recommend either Mn or
Ni-Cr-Mo-V cast steel for impellers and casing liners, with impeller sealing-rings
of 30% Cr steel, for dredge pumps. N&hard (Ni-Cr white C.I.) and high Cr cast
irons-for better corrosion resistance2--appear to be the most commonly used for
general solids-handling duties4.6,20,,h.?7,30~3, although Bergeron* states that,
whilst Ni-hard is very resistant to sharp abrasives, it tends to be brittle and hence
prone to shock damage, so is unsuitable for dredge pumps. He also says that the high
Mn steels, being work-hardened by impact, give good resistance against large,
rounded solids, but are not much better than unalloyed steels against sand; some of
the Ni-Cr-Mo alloy steels are very resistant to friction wear, but not to saltating
(bouncing) particles. A good stainless steel may be used for resistance to erosion and
corrosion. However, both Allis-Chalmer? and Warman pumps use Ni-hard
for impellers handling coarse abrasives (Simonacco-Warman catalogue claims up to
7.5 in. diam. for an 8 in. pump) ; both also use high Cr cast iron (27:/i Cr C.I. from
Simonacco-Warman catalogue). Ref. 26 briefly mentions the use of hard-facing Cr
or Ni alloys by welding, electrodeposition or metal spraying.
Several references 7-9, 32, 33 relate to experience with hydroelectric plant. Be-
zinge mentions improvements in storage pump wear by replacing impellers and
casings originally in 13 ::,Cr,/l y<;Ni stainless steel by 13 /cCr/4% Ni. Stauffer
states a preference for cast steel with I2- i 4 !,;Cr, up to 2.5 ?;;i,Ni, for water-turbines.
However, Bovet*, discussing abrasive wear in all types of turbines, claims that the low
alloy (1.5 0; Mn and 2 !/;NQ0.7 % Mn) steels give as good an abrasion resistance as
13 U<Cr stainless steel, which is much more expensive. Kermabon and Masse also
say that these low alloy steels are satisfactory. Both Bovet8 and Kermabon and Masse
give suitable materials for Pelton turbines-hard chrome weld overlay for needle
valves, 18 p;; CrjI.8 ;; Mn stainless steel for nozzles8, or 13 ?gCr high-carbon (1.552 I:$
forged steel for both valves and nozzles 9 ; for very abrasive duties, Cr-Ni-Mo steel
for valvess, or 12--I 8 $4 W high-speed steels for valves and nozzles. A 13 /;:Cr/l.5 :;I
Ni cast steel is recommended for all types of turbine runners, having good cavitation
resistance ; 18/8 stainless steel has rather poor abrasion, but good cavitation resistance.
Of the non-ferrous alloys, the brasses and bronzes have poor wearing properties, but
cupro-aluminium (9 Y/IAl) alloys are good,- also cavitation-resistant--and hence are
also used for runners. Regarding surface coatings and weld overlays, metal-spraying
with 1.2 /( C steel--particularly on Pelton runners-gives good abrasion resistance,
as does hard-chrome deposition on labyrinth seals.

Weur, 20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 41

4.1.2. Rubbers
There is a large variation in the wear rate depending on both type of rubber
and abrasive, as shown by Wellingers tests. The synthetic Vulkollan E (72
Shore H.) was the most resistant-better than the steels for the harder abrasives-
but Perbunan rubber (88-90 Shore) was much worse, in the scouring-wear tests.
The sand-blast tests show, in Fig. 9, how wear depends on impact angle (see Section
5.2.1.), with least relative wear occurring at 90--opposite to that for steels; Vulkol-
lan was better than the other rubbers, and all were better than the steels and C.I.s
for direct impact. Stauffers tests gave very low resistance factors for rubbers, soft
rubber (R = 0.08) being slightly better than hard (R = 0.05) ; he explains these results
with reference to Wellingers. Bitters analysis ls also helps to explain this phenomenon.
The rubber-coated impellers gave fairly good resistance-slightly inferior
to high Mn alloy steel-in the Polish pump wear tests3,13. Russian tests12 on rubber
coatings claim a much-improved resistance for natural and methylstyrene rubbers
over that for the butadiene-styrene rubber previously used; isoprene rubber was
also very promising. The report states that wear reduces with hardness for particles
< 1 mm (0.04 in.), and with increasing tensile strength and elasticity for particles
< 556 mm (about a in.) (See also Section 3.2.).
Although most of the references4-6,20,21,24,26-28*30 on pump service ex-
perience mention the greater wear resistance of rubber over metal, within the limits
of particle size and form discussed in Section 3.2-also provided that operating
temperatures are below about 130-1600F2,26, and the bonding is good4,12,26,28,30-
there is relatively little information on the types of rubber used. Welte recommends
rubber of 50-65 Shore hardness for coating both impellers and casings, and 40-60
Shore hardness for impeller and shaft seals, for dredge pumps. Again, Bergeron4
suggests that rubber is unsuitable for such pumps, owing to the danger of impact
from large solids. The article26 on slurry pumping states that natural and the softer
synthetic rubbers are more wear-resistant than the semi-hard ones, but are not so
corrosion-resistant. Eggers paper3 gives similar recommendations, soft rubber
linings being most suitable for sand, quartz, kaolin and other abrasive slurries,
whilst hard rubbers are for chemical applications ; Vulkollan impellers and sealing-
rings gave the highest abrasion resistance-about twice that of a 16% Cr hard C.I.
Kermabon and Mosseg briefly mention the satisfactory use of synthetic rubber in
some water-turbine applications.

4.1.3. Plastics
There appears to be little published information so far on the use and behaviour
of plastics. Wellingerl tested 3 plastics for scouring wear; Lupolen H (stabilized
polyethylene) was best-better than Perbunan rubber, or about the same as 18/8
stainless steel-but Vinidur (vinyl type) and Polystyrol EH (polystyrene) were
much less resistant. Stauffer2 also tested several types, but all were much worse than
steel ; polyethylene was again the best (R = 0.32), followed by Nylon and Teflon
(R =0.28). Perspex, Bakelite and other synthetic resins were poor (R = 0.04-0.07).
However, two Russian papers34v3s report encouraging results from abrasion and
cavitation tests on polyether and epoxy resins, and elastomers, but give few details,
apart from stating that specimens were undamaged after 30 h; the resin materials
included 2&40x by wt. of fillers (e.g. emery or granite powders, steel tilings) or

Wear, 20 (1972)
42 <;. F. TRUSCOTT

glass-fibre reinforcement. They claim successful application to semi-open and axial


pump impellers, and a Francis turbine runner and guide-vanes, under abrasive
conditions. Goodwins tests23 with sand dust show that polypropylene had the
highest resistance of the plastics, followed by glass-reinforced nylon-6,6, and libre-
glass as a poor third; all were inferior to the metals.
Epoxy resin impellers failed rapidly in Zarzyckis pump tests3, and Stilone
coating gave rather poor resistance. Discussion has revealed that some work has
been done on polyurethane coatings for pumps, but no reports have been published
and no commercial application in the U.K. has appeared so far.
A review article on solids-handling pumps mentions the use of polyethylene
lining for paper-pulp duty. The Dutch Begemann Co. makes chemical pumps in
reinforced epoxy resin (duties up to 300 ft head and 250F), chlorinated polyether,
PVC and polypropylene, but the abrasion resistance is not stated36. Kermabon and
Masse report that plastics linings tried in water-turbines were not very satisfactory.

4.1.4. Ceramics
Once again there is very little information, and probably only limited applica-
tion. Wellingers sand-blast and sliding wear (dry) tests showed that sintered corundum
(Al oxide) had a very high wear resistance-no scouring wear results are given.
Antunes and Youldenz5 include ceramics with rubbers in pump head and
particle size (< $ in.) limitations. Warrings review states that silicon carbide has
excellent abrasion and corrosion resistance, but is brittle, so has relatively limited
application. Some Allis-Chalmers pumps use ceramic impeller sealing rings .
Gould Pumps Inc. claim to have developed a small all-ceramic pump in a special
material (Cer-Vit) having negligible thermal expansion, hence capable of with-
standing thermal shock; operating temperature is, however, limited to 350F36.
Ceramics are, of course, also used for mechanical seal faces3 (see Section
6.2.2.).

4.2. Hardness
In very general terms, the wear resistance of ferrous metals tends to increase
with hardness,2,4*29. Antunes and Youlden state that most tests show an almost
linear variation, but Stauffer* found no straightforward relation between them ;
Bergeron4 also states that hardness is not a criterion of wear. Stauffers results show
the general trend, but there is a large scatter, with some harder materials giving much
lower resistance factors than the softer ones (see Table I). It may be noted, however,
that the more wear-resistant materials, with R from 2.4 up to 170, had hardness
values ranging from 600 to 2450 HV (Vickers Hardness). Even a trend does not appear
to exist for the copper alloys; the resistance of tin bronzes is almost constant, in-
dependent of hardness. Wellinger gives wear rates for a limited number of steels with
a hardness range from 110 to 850 HV, from both scouring- and blasting-wear tests
(see Figs. 5 and 6 respectively). The Russian paper14 on water-turbine steels re-
commends hardness values of at least 375-400 HB (Brine11 Hardness), and also
notes the increase in microhardness from 241 to 412 HB due to work-hardening of
an austenitic steel.
The hardness range of the impeller materials in Zarzyckis pump tests3 varied
from 80 to 540 HB; the most resistant (high Cr C.I.) had a hardness of 328 HB,
Wear, ZO(1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 43

80, , , I

I
%&A&/
LVickers l-wdn ess Hv

:
.
;
I
mm2

Vickers hardness Hv
Material St37 !C6ohadened I and
tempere !d k
Fig. 5. Effect of steel hardness on scouring wear with quartz sand. Water/solids mixture ratio by vol.
1 : 1; velocity of test specimen 6.4 m/set. (From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Fig. 6. Effect 01 material hardness on direct impact wear from plate tests. Blast pressure 3 atmos. (a) Curve
for blasting with quartz sand (grain size 0.2-1.5 mm Vickers Hardness, H,= 1290 kg/mm) ; (b) curve for
blasting with cast shot no. 1 (l-l.5 mm, H,= 395-550 kg/mm*); (c) curve for blasting with cast shot
no. 7 (1.6 mm H,= 69G750 kg/mm). Hardness ranges of cast shots 1 and 7 shown cross-hatched. (From
Wellinger and Uetz.)

whilst the next best (low Cr C.I.) had the much higher value of 516 HB, as shown in
Table II. Baks results3 were generally similar, though the most resistant materials
(Ni-hard and high Cr C.I.) were, in fact, the hardest-about 800 HB.
Such hardness values as are quoted for production pump materials vary from
400 to 650 HB (special alloy steels) for American dredge pump liners38, 34CL450
HB (Cr C.I.) for Allis-Chalmers pumps27, 550 HB (N&hard) for Warman pumps
(from sales literature), and 25&700 HB for various European solids-handling pumps 3.
The change in storage pump materials, which Bezinge7 mentions gave improved life,
meant an increase in hardness range from 180 to 200 HB (13% Cr/l% Ni stainless
steel) to 23&300 HB (13% Cr/4% Ni stainless steel); new labyrinth seal materials,
either specially treated steel of 50&550 HB or hard-chrome deposition of 650-700
HB are also being used.

5. EFFECTS OF FLOW PROPERTIES

5.1. Speed ; speed and head limits


The more straightforward wear theoriess9r0 suggest that wear cc (ve1.)3,or cc
(total head) 32 if all other factors are constant (see Section 2.3.) ; even Bergerons
more complex expressionl, taking account of the difference in velocity between
fluid and particle, gives a similar result, provided that the particle velocity is con-
sidered. Bitters theory, however, considers total wear as the sum of deformation
and cutting erosion, both involving the material properties as well as speed, so
that wear cannot be stated as a simple function of velocity.
Material tests show some variation in the velocity index. Wellingers sand-
blast tests, shown in Fig. 10, indicate that it depends on the material-for steel
(St. 37), the index is 1.4, and for rubber, 4.6. Stauffer found that wear approx. cc

Wear, 20 (1972)
44 G. F. TKUSCOT~I

(vel.)3, as mentioned by Worsterz4, and Bergeron suggests that the index is >i.
Kozirevs jet impact tests ** showed that, for constant mixture concentration and
without cavitation, wear =c (vel.)2,2. GoodwinZ3 found that wear T/ (vcl.). for all
materials tested (both metals and plastics) and for particle sizes > 125 /Lrn, under dry
conditions and at relatively high speed (up to 1800 ft/sec). Antunes and Youldens
conclude from wear literature that for ductile materials, wear approx. #x (vcl.) if
vel. < 100 ft/sec, or x (ve1.)2 if vel. > 100 ftisec; for brittle materials. the index may bc
higher.
Baks pump wear tests I3 also indicate that wear x (vel.)3; the other pump tests
do not investigate this aspect.
Many of the service experience references5*6.20.2.25-28.38 on pumps give
speed and/or head limitations. For dredge pumps, maximum impeller tip speeds vary
from 70 to 150 ft/sec5.28,38 and maximum heads from 80 ft to nearly 300 ft5.28; the
type of lining to which these limits apply is not stated specifically in Refs. 5 and 28
but probably the lower limits refer to rubber. For metal-lined sands and slurry pumps,
maximum heads quoted range from 160 to 200 ft/stage in genera120.2, and with
Ni-hard linings up to 260 ft for Warman Series A pumps (from selection chart)6,
or 320 ft for Allis-Chalmers pumps2. Rubber-lined pumps have much lower limits,
e.g. 70 ft/sec maximum tip speed* , and 90-I 50 ft maximum 12.13.20,21,25 head (120 ft

for Wilkinson Linatex pumps*). Ceramic linings are also said to be unsuitable

High-speeki sieei
Tooi steel &7()

Impingement angle a
01 1 I i I I I I1 1 1 6 I I I
0 30 60 900 6660 1100 900 785 583 624 y/h
Implngement angle cx Wear rate V, for St 37

Fig. 7. Blasting-wear rate for steel St37 plates. Sand-blasting tests by M. Gary. Blasting material: quartz
sand of grain size 0.2-1.5 mm. V,, measured blasting-wear rate; Vi= V,./sinx, specific blasting-wear rate.
(From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Fig. 8. Blasting-wear/jet impingement angle diagram. Wear curves using quartz sand (grain size 0.2 --I.S mm).
(From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Wrar. 20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 45

for high heads 5 ; the first of the new Gould range is designed for 60 ft head (140 ft
at shut-valve) 36. Warman also states that a lower specific speed design for a given
duty results in reduced wear, although heavier and more costly, since lower peripheral
speeds are involved compared to the higher N, alternative.

5.2. Direction (impact angle) ; hydraulic design


5.2.1. Impact angle
Bovets theory8 results in wear depending on the tangential component of
particle velocity, so that as the impact angle is increased wear is reduced. Bergerons
simpler theory lo directly applies only to pure sliding (friction) wear, but the more
complex onelr deals with the more general case of oblique impact (see Section 2.3).
Bitters expressionsr5 for cutting and deformation wear imply that total wear depends
on both normal and tangential velocity components.

103

102
1
0

z
L

3
lo

IO0

z3v m/s
Impingement angle tx Air veloctty C

Fig. 9. Blasting-wear/jet impingement angle diagram. Wear range of different material groups using
quartz sand (grain size 0.2-1.5 mm). (From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Fig. 10. Effect of air velocity on direct impact wear. Plate tests with quartz sand (grain size 0.2-1.5 mm).
m, curve slope. (From Wellinger and Uetz.)

Wear, 20 (1972)
Wellingers sand-blasting tests show, in Figs. 7, 8 and 9, how the effect of
impact angle depends on the type of material; for steels and CLs, both absolute and
relative wear rates tend to increase with angle, reaching a maximum between 60
and 90, whilst for rubbers the reverse is true (see Sections 4.1.1. and 4.1.2). Stauffer,
Wiedenroth18 and Welte all note Wellingers results; Antunes and Youlden also
mention the impact angle effect.

5.2.2. Hydraulic design


The Polish pump wear tests3*i3 investigated different types of impellers. Both
report slightly higher wear rates for a conventional bladed design than for an un-
chokable channel type; Zarzycki3 gives results for both types in all materials, as
well as for 2-bladed propeller designs-see Table II. Wiedenroths visual studies gl8
from his lacquer-wear tests showed wear only on the suction side of the impeller
blades when pumping sand, but extending to the pressure side with line gravel ;
wear at the outlet tips increased with flow. Herbichs reporti on dredge pump design
mentions that least wear occurred for a blade outlet angle of 22.5, over the range
225-35 ; the exit angle of the solid particles then corresponded closely to the blade
angle.
Several authors4.5.3.18~25,28 stress the importance of maintaining good
hydraulic design, as far as solids-handling considerations will allow, to minimize
wear, and particularly avoiding rapid changes of direction4,5.8.25. There also seems
to be a general preference for shrouded pump impellers, notably for dredging4,, 6.28
though it has been suggested* that the choice between shrouded or open type depends
on the solids being pumped. Welte , discussing wear patterns in dredge pumps,
states that wear is greatest at the impeller blade inlet and outlet edges, and on the
outer shroud walls on the suction side; casing wear is usually greatest near the cut-
water. Generally similar tendencies are noted by other authors3~4,3~7- 19. Both
German dredge pump papers 5.28 show designs having a relatively small volute side
clearance. However, Bergeron4, in discussing the effects of primary and secondary
flow patterns on pump wear, recommends a large side clearance-except where
scraper-vanes are used-as well as shrouded impellers and large radii of curvature.
Regarding the less conventional pump types, Warman compares casing wear
patterns using the conventional and his own design, and claims that wear is reduced
with the latters special impeller shape. References 20 and 21 also mention this aspect.
A few references20,30.31 discuss wear in torque-flow (or free-flow) pumps; Eggers
paper 3o also gives constructional details of TURO designs. Wear is stated to bc
less of a problem in this type than the conventional*, but the only comparison
reported31 involves a different construction material for each type.

6. EFFECTS ON HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE, WORKING LIFE AND SEALING

6.1. Performance
There is very little quantitative information available, and only on hydro-
electric plant. Bezinge shows the effect on storage pump performance of worn
labyrinth seal clearances. Ferry et al.33 discuss the reduction in efficiency due to
increased clearances in Francis turbines, and worn nozzles and runners in Pelton
machines.

Wear, 20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 47

6.2. Life
Expressions for predicting pump life are given in Refs. 4, 13 and 19. Both
Bak13 and Bergeron4 state that, for pumps,

lfe Oc (total lead)/ (ie K weaf rate)


Bak then gives a formula which includes the other factors affecting wear :

life in h., T = A
K Q"
H312 WX
s
where A = constant factor, Q = solids concentration in mixture, /& K = impeller
shape factor (1.0 for multi-bladed impellers, 1.4 for channel impellers), H = total
head/stage, m.H,O, W,=coefficient of abrasive wear for impeller material, e.g. from
vol. wear of test material
Table II = = , X = coefficient of abrasiveness of
vol. wear of ref. material (C.I.)
solids.
(Factor A is probably based on some known life figure, e.g. for coal pumps, AQ=
25,500 approx.). Bergeron4 also develops expressions for determining service lives of
geometrically similar pumps of different size, in terms of head and flow variations.
Vasiliev analyzes the statistical probability of a pump achieving a certain length
of trouble-free service, defined by a specified maximum wear, based on erosion
tests.

6.2.1. Metal vs. rubber lining ; impeller seals


Many authors mention the longer life of rubber over metal linings, within the
limitations previously discussed (see Sections 3.2. and 4.1.2.). Improvements by
factors of 610 have been reported 28 for German dredge pumps, and 2.5-5 x life
with special C.I. (or 2&30 x life with grey C.I.) for Russian solids-handling
pumps l2 ; this Russian report also notes that the newer grades of rubber were 5-10
times more resistant than the old. Welte states that the life of some dredgepump
metal parts may be only 4&60 h, but improvements by factors of 3-10 have resulted
from wear research, particularly on impeller seals-various designs are shown, all
using rubber, with a clean water supply 5,28.The economic choice of materials depends
on the ratio of (total cost)/(wear resistance). Bergeron4 also discussed possible
impeller seal designs.
A few references6*13,30,31 give life figures for specific solids-handling pump
applications. Baki3 quotes some service lives from Continental experience, varying
from 84 h for 25-30x Cr steel parts pumping sand, to 20,000 h for a similar steel with
coal slurry. Warman also gives some life figures for casings and impellers when
handling different abrasives. For torque-flow pumps, Egger3 shows the variation of
TURO-pump life with type of abrasive, for various construction materials. Rubber
lining may reduce wear down to f of that for metals; Vulkollan had the highest
resistance, and gave about twice the life for 16% Cr hard C.I. Grabow31 compares
casing and impeller wear of a conventional Cr cast steel-lined pump with that of a
torque-flow pump in Ni-hard 4, and notes about 50-80x improvement in life for
the latter.

Wear, 20 (1972)
48 c;. F. TRUSCOTI

Regarding hydroelectric machinery, Bezinge7 gives case histories of a number


of pumped-storage schemes, with improvements in repair and maintenance schedules
resulting from changes in materials and sand settling. Bovet and Kermabon and
Masse both show wear patterns for different water-turbine materials after various
running periods.

6.2.2. Shuft sealing


Many of the papers4-6~20~21~26~28on solids-handling pumps make some
reference to gland-sealing; for soft-packed glands, nearly all recommended either a
grease or clean water supply, with or without scraper-vanes on the impeller, or the
separate centrifugal seal suggested by Warman 6. The review article by Warring
gives a list of manufacturers using different seal types.
There is not much information on the use of mechanical seals. Koch37 discusses
their application for abrasive duties, investigates possible materials-including
metallic carbides and oxides-design and cooling problems, and gives typical
examples. Welte5 and Ernst* show dredge p ump designs involving lip-seals, with
clear water and/or grease supply. The slurry pump reviewz6 also mentioned the
Trist seal as suitable, without separate flushing.

7. MAIN POINTS EMERGING FROM THE SURVEY

Owing to the large number of factors affecting abrasive wear, it does not appear
possible to make just a few overall hard-and-fast rules as to the best way of reducing it ;
each case will still have to be treated on its merits, not least of which must be economic.
However, it is worth noting some general trends derived from the literature for the
designers consideration.
(1) Wear increases rapidly when the particle hardness exceeds that of the metal
surface being abraded.
(2) Wear increases generally with grain size, sharpness and solids concen-
tration. Rubber lining is particularly vulnerable to large, sharp particles.
(3) Metal hardness is not an absolute criteria of wear, although for ferrous
metals, the expected trend for wear resistance to increase with hardness applies very
generally. A reasonable resistance appears to be achieved above about 300 HB. The
very hard alloys (e.g. tungsten carbide) and surface treatments are extremely resistant.
(4) Chemical composition, microstructure and work-hardening ability all play
an important part in wear resistance of metals. Austenitic Cr-Ni (12-14% Cr) and
Mn alloy steels are good, as is Ni-hard (Ni-Cr) cast iron. 18/8 stainless steel (though
resistant to cavitation) and most non-ferrous metals, except cupro-aluminium,
have rather poor abrasion resistance.
(5) Soft rubber appears generally more resistant than hard.
(6) Plastics coatings do not appear very promising so far, except possibly in
particular applications; bonding can also be a problem. Ceramics are very wear-
resistant, but their use to date has been limited by brittleness and susceptibility to
thermal shock. New developments in small pump applications may show improve-
ments.
(7) Wear increases rapidly with flow velocity, and is often reported as being
approx. yc (velocity)3, or cc (pump head) 3/2, from both theoretical considerations and

Weur.20 (1972)
ABRASIVE WEAR IN HYDRAULIC MACHINERY 49

test results. The actual value of the index, for any given conditions, probably depends
on at least some, if not all, of the other factors involved in the overall wear process.
Head limits quoted are up to about 300 ft/stage for all-metal pumps, and
150 ft/stage for rubber-lined.
(8) Impact angle has a marked effect on wear; metals and rubbers behave in
opposite ways.
(9) Good hydraulic design, particularly by avoiding rapid changes in flow
direction, decreases wear, and should be compromised as little as possible by solids-
handling considerations. Shrouded impellers are generally favoured.
(10) Rubber lining can give a much-increased life compared to that for metal,
provided that the solids are not large or sharp, bonding is good, and heads and
temperatures relatively low.
(11) Soft-packed shaft glands require a grease or clean water supply; scraper-
vanes on the impeller, or separate centrifugal seals, are also used to protect the
glands. Mechanical seals with special materials, and usually with a flushing supply,
are sometimes fitted.
(12) No outstanding new construction materials, suitable for commercial
application to a wide range of machine sizes, have been reported to date.

REFERENCES

1 K. Wellinger and H. Uetz, Sliding scouring and blasting wear under the influence of granular solids,
VDI-Forschungsheft, 21B (1955) 449. Also shorter versions in Wear, I (1957) 3 and Schweizer Arch&
24 (1958) 1.
2 W. A. Stauffer, The abrasion of hydraulic plant by sandy water, Schweizer Archiu. Angew. Wiss. Technik.,
24 (7/8) (1958) 3-30. Translation by C.E.G.B. No. 1799, 1958. Also shorter version in Metal Pro+,
January 1956.
3 M. Zarzycki, Influence of the pump material on service life of the impellers of rotodynamic pumps in
transport of mechanically impure fluids, Proc. 3rd. Conf on Fluid Mechanics and Fhtid Machinery,
Budapest, 1969.
4 P. Bergeron and J. Dollfus, The influence of the nature of the pumped mixture and hydraulic charac-
teristics on the design and installation of liquid/solid mixture pumps, Proc. 5th Conf on Hydraulics,
Turbines et Pompes Hydrau~i~ues. 2 (1958) 597-605.
5 A. Welte, Wear phenomena in dredging pumps, VDI-Ber., 75 ~1964~ 11 I-127. Translation by Lehigh
University, Fritz Eng. Lab. Report No. 310.17, 1966.
6 C. H. Warman, The pumping of abrasive slurries, Proc. Ist Pumping Exhibition and Conf, London,
1965.
K. Solymos, Some aspects of designing and operating the up-to-date slurry pumps manufactured at the
Tatabanya Mining Corp., Proc. 3rd Conf. on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Machinery, Budapest, 1969.
7 A. Bezinge and F. Schafer, Storage pumps and glacial waters, Bull. Tech. Suisse Romande, 49 (20)
(1968) 282.-290. B.H.R.A. translation T 1019, 1969.
8 T. Bovet, Contribution to the study of the phenomenon of abrasive erosion in the realm of hydraulic
turbines, Bull. Tech. Suisse Romande, 84 (3) (1958) 37-49.
9 R. Kermabon and G. Mosse, Operational behaviour of alloys and lining materials in hydraulic turbines,
Proc. 5th Hyd. Conf Hyd. Turbines and Pumps, I (1958) 328-337.
10 P. Bergeron, Similarity conditions for erosion caused by liquids carrying solids in suspension. Applica-
tion to centrifugal pump impellers, La Ho&k B&r&e, 5 (Spec. No. 2) (1950) 716-729. B.H.R.A. transla-
tion T 408, 1950.
I 1 P. Bergeron, Consideration of the factors influencing wear due to hydraulic transport of solid materials,
Proc. 2nd. Conf Hyd. Transport and Separation of Solid Materials, 1952.
12 N. T. Tsybaev, Use of wear-resistant rubber linings in pumps carrying abrasive fluid mixtures, Tsvet.
Metally, 38 (2) (1965) 8-13. Translation in Son. J. Non-Ferrous Metals, 6 (2) (1965) 8-l 1.

Wear, 20 (1972)
50 c;. F. TRUSCOTI-

13 E. Bak, Construction materials and testing results of the wear of pumps for transporting solid media,
Biuletyn Gtownego Ins&y&u&aGornictwa, (12) (1966). B.H.R.A. translation available.
14 A. F. Shchelkanov, The influence of hardness and micro-structure on the abrasion and cavitation resis-
tance of steel, Energomashinostroenie. /I (1) (1965) 32236. C.E.G.B. translation 4100. 1966.
15 J. Cl. A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomena. Parts I and 2. Wear, 6 (1963) 5521 and 1699190.
I6 J. B. Herbich, Modifications in design improve dredge pump efficiency, Lehigh University. Fret/
Eng. Lab., Hydraulics Div. Project Report No. 36. 1962. 146 pp.
17 W. Wiedenroth, Investigations on the transport of sand--water mixtures through pipelines and ccntri-
fugal pumps, Diss., T.U. Hannover. 1967. Also in Proc. World Dredging Cont., 196X and FBI-Z., I/O
(31) (1968) 1382.
18 W. Wiedenroth, The influence of sand and gravel on the characteristics of centrifugal pumps; some
aspects of wear in hydraulic transportation installations, Proc. 1st Conj. on the Hydruulic Transport
of Solids in Pipes, El (1970) I-28.
19 V. Vasiliev. On evaluation of wear of centrifugal pump parts in hydroabrasive mixtures. Pror,. Ist
ConJ on the Hydraulic Trunsport of Solids in Pipes, (I 970).
20 R. H. Warring, Solids handling pumps, Pumps, 34 (1969) 3055314.
21 H. R. F. Arnstein, Keeping centrifugal pumps spinning ahead. Engineer, 229 (5923) (1969) 32-35.
22 S. P. Kozirev. Hydroabrasive wear of metals under cavitation, Mashirmstroenie, (1964). Translation
by University of Michigan, Report No. 01357-10-I. 1970.
23 J. E. Goodwin. W. Sage and G. P. Tilly, Study of erosion by solid particles, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs.,
184 (1) (1969970) 15.
24 R. C. Worster and D. F. Denny, Hydraulic transport of solid material in pipes, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Engrs., 169 (32) (1955) 563.
25 F. F. Antunes and N. R. Youlden, Centrifugal pump wear and wear analysis. Factory and Plant. 54 (3)
(1966).
26 Anon., Slurry pumping, Power and Works Eng., 52 (1957).
27 H. 0. Franz, Pumping abrasive slurries, Allis-Chalmers Eng. Reu., 30 (1965) 4.
28 R. Ernst, Centrifugal dredging pumps, Proc. World Dredging Conf:, (1967) 3055308.
29 W. C. Leith and W. S. McIlquham, Accelerated cavitation erosion and sand erosion, A.S.T.M. Symp.
on Erosion and Capita&ion, Spec. Tech. Publ. 307, 1961, 16 pp.
30 E. Egger, Application of TURO pumps in industry with special reference to handling strongly abrasive
slurries, Pumpen und Verdichter. Proc. Int. Symp. Pumps in Industry, Leipzig, 1967.
3 1 G. Grabow, Application of free-flow pumps for the delivery of abrasive media, Pumpen und Verdichter
Inj:, I (1970) 53-55.
32 W. A. Stauffer, Cast steel in hydraulic turbine construction, Escher Wyss. (1955). C.E.G.B. translation
1796.
33 S. Ferry, G. Willm and J. Thouvenin, The effect of wear on the efficiency of hydraulic turbines, Proc,.
5th Hydraul. Conf: Hy~draul. Turbines and Pumps, I (1958).
34 V. Karelin, V. Budanov and A. Denisov, The use of polymer materials for protection of pumps against
cavitation--abrasive damage, Proc. 6th Symp. of Citril and Hydraulic Eng. Dept., Indian Inst. of Science,
DI (1967) t-5.
35 G. I. Krivtchenko, V. Y. Karelin, A. I. Denisov and Y. I. Varskoy, Study of cavitation in hydraulic
machine elements and some methods of their protection against cavitation damage, I.A.H.R. Symp.
on Current operation-orientated research problems in hydraulic machines, Lausanne. 1968, Paper H2.
11PP.
36 Anon., Pumps of ceramic and epoxy withstand abusive fluids, Prod. Eng., 4 (1970) 4.
37 R. Koch, Mechanical seals working in abrasive media, Pumps, 38 (1969).
38 0. P. Erickson. Latest dredging practice, Proc. A.S.C.E., 87 (WWI) (1961) 15-28.

Wear, 20 (1972)