Materials and Design 20 1999.

179 191

The sand erosion performance of coatings

R.J.K. WoodU
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Uni ersity of Southampton, Higheld, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK Received 6 October 1998; accepted 30 November 1998

Abstract This paper reviews studies of the performance of polymeric, metallic and ceramic including diamond coatings on steel and ceramic substrates when subjected to water sand jet impingement erosion conditions. The coatings tested have been deposited by the thermal spray, electroless plating, PVD and CVD routes. The erosion conditions covered include sand impact velocities between 10 and 30 mrs with sand sizes 60 235 m and at jet impingement angles of 30 and 90. Tests compared the performance of the substrate material carbon steel AISI 1020 with the various polymeric, metallic and ceramic coatings. Coating and substrate erosion rates are plotted against mean particle impact energy, Ek or EkVp0.5 allowing easy surface selection once the erosion conditions of an application are known. The effect of jet impingement on the erosion resistance of selected coatings is presented. As with bulk materials, the slurry jet impingement angle and mean Ek must be considered in coating selection. Of the softer coatings tested the exible polyurethane coatings seem to have promise for future use in uid-borne sand particle erosion environments. Pure epoxy coatings show typical brittle erosion behaviour, with fusion-bonded epoxy having mixed ductile and brittle behaviour and glass bre reinforced epoxy showing strong ductile behaviour. CVD deposited coatings of either boron carbide or diamond are the most resistant surfaces tested and outperform bulk ceramics such as silicon carbide by orders of magnitude for Ek - 8 J and 90 jet impingement angle. Areas requiring further research to allow accurate prediction of coating life are highlighted. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coatings; Sand; Slurry; Impact energy; Erosion resistance

1. Introduction In many industries, such as marine, offshore, process, aeronautical and mining, there is a regular requirement for components such as valves, pumps, pipework, extrusion dyes, powder mixers, turbine and helicopter blades to perform in aggressive environments which are erosive. Sand particles suspended in the water or entrained into an airow can impact on the internal or external surfaces of these components resulting in expensive erosion damage. There are many factors that inuence the rate of erosive wear, for example the ow regime and the properties of the solid and liquid phases of the slurry. Meng w1x quotes 33 independent parameters in a recent
U

review of 22 erosion models and predictive equations found in the literature. The ow conditions along with the properties of the target material or the corrosion layer covering the target material as well as the uid and particle properties inuence the impact dynamics of the sand particle-to-component surface interactions and thus the erosion rate. Such material properties are hardness, fracture toughness, coefcient of restitution and elasticity or the degree of surface roughness. The general expression for erosion rate, W , has been established empirically and can take the form: W s M p Kf . Vpn 1.

Tel.: q44-1703-767640; fax: q44-1703-760093; e-mail: rjw3@soton.ac.uk

Where M p is the mass of sand impacting the surface, Vp is the particle velocity on impact, is the particle impact angle, K and n typically between 2 and 3 w2x. are constants assumed to be dependent on characteris-

0261-3069r99r$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 3 0 6 9 9 9 . 0 0 0 2 4 - 2

180

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

tics of the erodentrtarget materials involved. f . is a functional relationship for the dependence of the erosion rate on the impact angle w3x. This can be rewritten:
m . W s Ek f C

2.

where W is the erosion rate also denoted by Vu when expressed in volume loss per impact terms, Ek is the particle kinetic energy, m is the energy exponent with m s 0.5 n assuming W A d 3 where d is the particle diameter, C is a constant and f . is as before.
2 2 3 2 Ek s 1 2 M p Vp s 3 R Vp

3.

where R is the solid particle radius and the density of the solid particle. As discussed earlier, the constants K and C in Eqs. 1. and 2. are dependent on the mechanical properties of the surface. Work reported in the current literature, reviewed in w4x, is aimed at developing models to predict C and K values using various bulk properties such as fracture toughness, hardness, tensile strength, coefcient of restitution and critical plastic strain. However, these models can only be used to predict erosion under very specic erosion conditions as they are empirically adjusted and, therefore, cannot be used as general models. The possibility that the eroded surface properties differ from the bulk properties also complicates the issue. These factors lead to difculties in selecting erosion resistant surfaces, as there is little guidance on which property or properties to optimise with the result that experimental screening of materials is required. From Eq. 2. it can be seen that the erosion rate will be strongly dependent on the kinetic energy of the impacting sand particles, the number of impacting particles and the impact angle. All three of these factors vary for most industrial components exposed to sand laden ows and therefore, to sustain long service life, the internal surfaces must perform over a wide range of solid impact conditions. The sand-to-wall impact conditions are likely to depend on the ow regime present, the orientationrgeometry of the component and the ability of the ow to keep the particles in suspension w5x. For suspended solids travelling in a horizontal liquid ow, both the solid particle impact velocities - 30 mrs. and angles are relatively low for most practical purposes w6x. Coatings that act as barriers between the erosive sand and the component surface can protect the surfaces subjected to such aggressive environments, but the selection of a suitable coating has so far been difcult. The difculties in predicting erosion performance for coatings are more complex than for bulk materials, which in itself is not fully understood, as

properties such as thermal expansion, bond strength, residual stresses and thickness also need to be considered. The reaction of engineers to many erosion problems is to replace the eroded surface with a harder one. This tendency is also followed in the coatings arena. The advancement of CVD techniques allows the relatively thick up to 200 m. deposition of ultra-hard coatings, which at rst are very appealing due to their high hardness 5000 8000 kgrmm2 ., but the stress elds induced by solid particle impacts must be understood to prevent coating penetration or catastrophic failure of the coating. Residual stresses within thick coatings have also to be considered. For example, the depth and magnitude of maximum shear stress under an impact site should be considered such that large stresses are not applied at the coatingrsubstrate interface inducing premature coating disbondment or that additional stresses to the residual stresses do not sum to fail the coating. Good coating adhesion to the substrate is also required to resist high energy impacts. Also, although the erosion tests of coatings show the erosion rate to be steady state by, for example, microchipping mechanisms, more signicant damage mechanisms associated with coating spallation, such as Hertzian ringrcone cracks, stress wave reinforcement cracks and lateral crack development, can occur depending on the impacting particle shape w7,8x. This presents a problem for the interpretation of tribological performance testing for coatings which have been designed and used for bulk materials. For instance, the time to coating penetration should be recorded allowing the number of impacts to be evaluated. However, until new test procedures are developed, coating selection for erosion resistance can only be based on ranking steady state erosion rates. Softer materials can also provide high erosion resistance such as polyurethane linings which have been recognized as promising new wear-resistant materials since the 1970s w9x. This has led to interest in applying polyurethane coatings 1 2 mm thick. to surfaces to provide. However, although polyurethane coatings offer the metallic substrates good corrosion protection in atmospheric conditions, they seem less appropriate for immersed conditions since possible electrolyte diffusion through the coating can cause corrosion of the substrate leading to rapid debonding. Further details of the erosion performance of these coatings can be found in Wood et al. w10x and Puget et al. w11x. This paper reviews several programmes of work undertaken on the same jet erosion rig at the University of Southampton. This allows comparison of pure erosion slurry tests performed on 25 coatings with carbon steel or sintered tungsten carbide substrates and the reference material carbon steel AISI 1020. The coatings tested cover the options available to surface engineers, hard on hard, hard on soft, soft on hard and soft

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

181

on soft. The coating systems investigated include polymeric, metallic and ceramic coatings. The aim was to compare the performance of these coatings relative to carbon steel over a range of sand water slurry impingement conditions and identify the best candidate coating systems.

2. Experimental The jet velocity was varied between 2 and 32 mrs, covering the likely range of velocities encountered in most engineering situations, using 6 mm and 10 mm diameter nozzles at 90 to the target coupon. Redhill HH, 110, 65 and 50 angular to sub-angular quartz sand was used from Hepworth Minerals, Redhill Quarry, Surrey, UK, see Table 1 for particle size ranges. Various combinations of velocity and particle size allowed Ek to be varied between 0.0015 and 8 J. The test duration was 300 min except for 28.5 mrs tests which had test durations of 10 20 min. All tests were continuous. Samples were lapped using 14 m diamond paste to approximately R a s 0.1 m except the thin coatings or bowed samples which were tested in the as-received state. 2.1. Procedure The bulk materials and the coatings tested are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The bulk material test coupons were 40 = 75 = 6 mm while the coatings were applied to 40 = 40 = 6 mm samples of carbon steel previously grit-blasted and degreased. or to 50 = 50 = 6 mm tungsten carbide. The pure erosion slurry apparatus, Fig. 1a, consisted of a 10-l reservoir in a loop of 19 mm diameter pipework around which slurry was circulated. Fig. 1b schematically details inside the jet impingement chamber showing a sample held at 30 to the jet. Full details of the rig are given in Wheeler and Wood w12x. The slurry was freshly made for each test and consisted of 9 l of tap water with 2.1 wt.% of sand. The sand concentration was chosen to be below the levels where particle particle interactions signicantly affect the erosion rate. It is assumed that all sand particles impinge onto the target surface. On entering the reserTable 1 Correlation of sand grade with mean particle size and size range sieved results to BS410. Redhill sand grade HH 110 65 50 Mean particle size m. 61.6 135 216.4 235.2 Size range m. 20 355 63 710 63 710 63 710

voir, the slurry was accelerated through a steel nozzle to generate a jet. The sample was held in front of the jet at a distance of between 32 and 37 mm and at an appropriate angle. The velocity of the slurry was varied by altering the rotation speed of the pump and by varying the nozzle diameter. The temperature of the slurry was not controlled but was monitored and found to be between 20 and 30C. Before and after each test, specimens were rinsed in tap water, degreased with acetone, dried in a jet of cold air and weighed with a precision balance with a range of 200 g and an accuracy of "0.02 mg. Due to the propensity of some of the polymeric coatings to take up water, the process of drying the sample in a cold air jet and weighing was repeated until a stable weight was obtained. Pre-test surface roughness measurements using a Talysurf 120 L prolometer were made on all coupons. The particle velocity is assumed to be that of the jet velocity calculated using Eq. 4.: Vjet s Vp s 4 Q , 2 4.

where Q is the volumetric ow rate of slurry 0.3 1 kgrs. and is the jet nozzle diameter. 2.2. Coating test The erosion rate in the present work is dened by the unit volume loss per impact, W. As described in w13x this denition has the advantage over the commonly used ratios of target material loss to unit mass of erodent or target volume loss to unit mass of erodent, because the number of individual particle impacts are considered which for experiments with xed solids volume fraction varies with changes in particle diameter. W is dened as: Ws Vl d 3 , 6 Q tC

5.

where Vl is the target volume loss mass lossrdensity., d is the mean particle diameter, t is the test duration and C is the particle volume fraction. The use of a volume loss term also allows the erosion rates from a wide range of coatings with varying densitiesrporosities to be compared.

3. Results and discussion The results are presented in Tables 4 and 5 for the tests completed. The coatings have been ranked using

182

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

Table 2 Properties for materials tested where known. Materialrcoating Erodent Sand Reference material Carbon steel AISI 1020 Coatings Al2 O3 TiO2 Chrome oxide CrNrTiN multilayer Polyurethane exible Polyurethane hard Epoxy Epoxy q SiC Fusion bonded epoxy Glass reinforced epoxy Stellite 20 WCrCorCr WCrCorCr Co superalloy Co CrrWrNi Ni WCrCo Ni CrrWC Inconel 625 NirP alloy q SiC NirP alloy q SiC Heat-treated Cr plate pulsed. B13 C2rB50 C2 on WC Diamond on WC Diamond-like carbon DLC. on WC Polycrystalline diamond PCD. on WC Cr3 C2 Ni Cr Fe alloy Deposition technique Plasma-sprayed Plasma-sprayed PVD Centrifugal spray Centrifugal spray Centrifugal spray Brushed Fusion-bonded Sprayed and fused D-Gun HVOF HVOF Sprayed and fused HVOF HVOF Sprayed and fused HVOF Sprayed and fused HVOF ENP ENP Electroplated CVD CVD PVD Sintered Plasma-sprayed Plasma-sprayed Thickness m. 8000 1060 150 8 1090 1550 1300 500 725 254 508 1000 200 100 170 380 1000 510 1000 1000 70 75 70 75 50 350 15 20 30 3 1000 175 175 Hardness Density kgrm3 . 2860 7850 6220 5100 1190 1140 1800 2400 1640 1802 8360 12 000 12 000 8000 8390 8400 8250 8440 7500 7500 7200 2510 3520 3520 4120 8000 7900 0.10 lapped. 4.88 3.32 0.33 0.32 0.22 1.78 0.41 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.66 Surface roughness, Ra m.

1000 kgrmm2 220 Hv

1150 83 Shore A 75 Shore D 80 Barcol @ 25C 85 Shore D

670 Hv 1300 Hv 940 Hv 550 Hv0.5 58 62 HRC 560 Hv0.5 50 54 HRC 275 Hv 400 500 Hv 900 1000 Hv 1000 1200 Hv 6250 Hv 83 GPa ; 50 GPa 50 GPa 520 Hv ; 200 Hv

3.29

6.87 7.01 2.20 2.26 2.47 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.05 5.58 7.95

Abbre iations. CVD, chemical vapour deposited; ENP, electroless nickel plating; HVOF, high velocity oxy-fuel; PVD, physical vapour deposition.

the factor F dened as: Fs or Fs y

W1020 Wcoating

for
Ek

Wcoating - W1020

6.

Wcoating W1020

for Wcoating ) W1020 ,

Ek

7.

where Wcoating and W1020 are the steady state erosion rates of the target coating and carbon steel 1020, respectively. The values of F are arranged in columns of increasing impact energy, Ek . The values of W1020 for 30 and 90 jet impingements have been taken from

best-t power law trends of numerous experimental points of Ek between 0.005 and 10 J at both 30 and 90 jet impingement angles Fig. 2.. It is interesting to note the unexpected intersection of the W1020 line at 30 with that at 90 at Ek s 0.2 J. Classic erosion theory predicts that ductile targets, such as AISI 1020, suffer maximum erosion from 20 to 30 impacts and minimum at 90. This trend is only seen for Ek ) 0.2 J. The fact that for Ek - 0.2 J W1020 at 30 falls below W1020 at 90 is possibly due to a fall in particle impact efciency with some particles missing the target surface due to the ow eld established as the jet spreads on impingement with the surface. Further work is required to verify this. This serves as a warning against hasty interpretation of simple laboratory test results for complex eld applications. However, labora-

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191 Table 3 Pipe material and coating composition for commercial reasons some details have been withheld. Materialrcoating Carbon steel AISI 1020 Al2 O3 2TiO2 CrNrTiN multilayer Cr3 C2 Ni Cr q sealer B13 C2rB50 C2 Diamond DLC PCD Polyurethane exible Polyurethane hard Epoxy Epoxy q SiC Fusion-bonded epoxy Glass-reinforced epoxy Stellite 20 Co-CrrWrNi Co superalloy WCrCorCr Ni-CrrWC Inconel 625 NirP alloy q SiC NirP alloy q SiC heat-treated Ni-WCrCo Cr plate pulsed. Chrome Oxide Fe alloy Composition wt.% unless otherwise stated. C, 0.2; Mn, 0.2; Si, 0.06; S, 0.0015; P, 0.005; Fe, balance Al2 O3 2TiO2 , SiO2 M, 3.0; FeOM, 2.0; TiO2 , 2 3.25; Al2 O3 , 9.0 CrNrTiN multilayer Cr3 C2 Ni Cr q sealer Majority B13 C2 with some B50 C2 and WcoB Crystalline diamond Diamond with graphite Polycrystalline diamond in metal binder Polyurethane Polyurethane Epoxy Epoxy, amines, SiC, metallic oxidesrsilicates, ferrosilicon Epoxy Epoxy reinforced with glass akes Cobalt based Cr, 32; W, 17; Ni, 2.5; Si, 1; Fe, 2.5; Mn, 0.5 C, Cr, W, Ni, Si, B, Co balance Co superalloy WC, 86; Co, 10; Cr, 4 C, Cr, B, Si, Fe, WC, Ni balance Ni, 63; Cr, 21.5; Mo, 9; Fe, 2.5; Nb q Ta, 3.65; Ti, 0.2; Al, 0.2; Cma x , 0.1 NirP alloy, 10 14 wt.%; NirP alloy q 20 25 vol.% SiC NirP alloy, 10 14 wt.%; NirP alloy q 20 25 vol.% SiC Nickel-based fusible alloy WCrCo Pulse-plated Cr Chrome oxide Fe-based alloy Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Polymeric Polymeric Polymeric Polymeric Polymeric Polymeric Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Metallic Type

183

tory scale tests are useful in ranking coating performance. The diamond and boron carbide coatings have not been tested at 30 as mass loss is likely to be below detection levels. 3.1. Thirty-degree jet impingement tests Table 4 lists the results for a 30 slurry jet impingement angle with the F values given in brackets. Not all coatings have been tested at the ve erosion conditions hence the table is incomplete but useful conclusions can still be drawn from the work presented here and the format of the table is a suggestion for how such work could be presented. At the 10 mrs with 62 m sand and 30 jet impingement conditions of the coatings tested, only two outperformed carbon steel, the heat treated ENP q SiC 110. and the pulsed chromium coating 1.5., probably due to their high hardness. Of the other non-polymeric coatings, the most resistant are the plasma-sprayed ceramic coating Al 2 O 3 2TiO 2 y2.7. and the sprayed and fused HVOF applied cobalt-based coating Co CrrWrNi y2.. However, the ranking of coatings changes with erosion conditions as illustrated by the rankings at the 20 mrs with 62 m sand and 30 jet impingement conditions. Under these conditions the

range of carbide-based coatings deposited by plasmaor HVOF-sprayed outperform steel with F factors between 1.3 and 3.9. Also in this group is the plasmasprayed ceramic coating Al 2 O 3 2TiO 2 2.6.. At the higher energy conditions 0.69 J. six coatings outperform carbon steel at the higher energy condition, the three HVOF sprayed and fused coatings, two of the plasma sprayed coatings and the pulsed hard chromium coating. The relative performance of the polymeric coatings decreases compared to the ceramic and metallic coatings. The polymeric coatings are approximately 10 times less resistant than carbon steel. The most resistant polymeric coatings were the exible polyurethane and epoxy plus silicon carbide composite. The thermally sprayed 86WC 10Co 4Cr coatings offer highest resistance with an F factor of 300 at 0.69 J, although at 8 J the F factor reduces to between 12 and 29. The ENP q SiC coating, by contrast, improves relative to carbon steel with increasing energy see Table 6.. Polymeric coatings, in general, exhibited greater erosion rates than ceramic and metallic coatings. This difference in behaviour was probably accentuated by the jet angle selected 30., since, for ductile materials w14x, a maximum erosion rate occurs at oblique impact angles, whereas it is closer to 90 for brittle materials.

184

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

addition of proprietary mixtures of silicon carbide particles and other llers. Epoxy is 45 times worse than steel at very low energies around 0.017 J, but the difference in performance reduces with increasing impact energy see Fig. 3. with near comparable performance to that of steel at 0.7 J. The most resistant polymeric coating was exible polyurethane but with an erosion rate eightfold that of uncoated carbon steel. 3.2. Ninety-degree jet impingement tests From Table 5 it can be seen that a range of modern coating systems offer erosion resistance to 90 slurry jet erosion from 1.4 to over a 1000-fold better than steel over the energy range Ek s 0.5 to 8 J. Diamond coating technology, in particular, offers most benets. Diamond-like carbon DLC. lms offer a 15-fold improvement, polycrystalline diamond PCD. offers a 200-fold improvement and CVD diamond over a 10 000-fold improvement at both 0.5 to 8 J energies. CVD boron carbide, already used on ball valves for the nuclear industry, gives 200- and 30-fold improvement at 0.5 and 8 J, respectively. More conventional coating systems such as sprayed and fused Stellite 20 offer 10-fold better resistance again at both energies. HVOF thermally sprayed 86WC 10Co 4Cr coatings show superior resistance compared to detonation gun-sprayed 86WC 10Co 4Cr LW-45. which has been shown to be due to superior microstructure with reduced defect

Fig. 1. a. Schematic of the slurry jet erosion chamber. b. Detailed schematic of the slurry jet with the sample held at 30 to the jet.

The least resistant polymeric coating was the epoxy resin but the performance of epoxy improves with the

Table 4 Results for a 30 slurry jet impingement angle, actual F values in brackets Ek J. Vp mrs. R m. F y100 y10 0.017 10 31 Fe alloy y51. Epoxy y45. ENP q SiC y8.6. Flex PU y8. Cr3 C2 rNi Cr y7. Ni CrrWC y4.6. Inconel 625 y3.6. Al2 O3 TiO2 y2.7. Co CrrWrNi y2. Hard chromium 1.5. 0.071 20 31 Epoxy y20. Flex PU y8. ENP q SiC y5. Inconel 625 y2.6. Fe Alloy y2. ENP q SiC heat-treated y1.5. 0.17 10 67.5 Glass-reinforced epoxy y10.4. Fusion-bonded epoxy y9.6. Epoxy y6. Fusion-bonded epoxy y3.8. Epoxy y1.9. Glass-reinforced epoxy y1.4. 0.69 20 67.5 8.0 28.5 117.5

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

Ni-CrrWC 1.3. Cr3 C2 rNi Cr 1.5. Co CrrWrNi 2.3. Al2 O3 TiO2 2.6. Hard chromium 3.9.

ENP q SiC 4.6. Hard chromium 6.4.

10 100 ENP q SiC heat-treated 110.

D-Gun WC Co Cr 11.6. HVOF WC Co Cr 29.1. D-Gun WC Co Cr 300.

185

186

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

Table 5 Results for a 90 slurry jet impingement angle, actual F values in brackets Ek J. Vp mrs. R m. F y100 y10 0.17 10 67.5 Epoxy y50. Fusion bonded epoxy y40. Glass reinforced epoxy y8. Cobalt superalloy y1.4. ENP q SiC y1.1. Cr3 C2 rNi Cr y4. Cobalt superalloy y3.7. Ni WCrCo y2.4. ENP q SiC y1.04. Hard chromium 1.1. D-Gun WC Co Cr 2.5. HVOF WC Co Cr 5.6. S& F Stellite 20 9.4. PVD multilayer 14.4. DLC 15.3. CVD B13 C2 32.7. PCD 240. 0.48 16.5 67.5 8.0 28.5 117.5

Ni WCrCo 1.7. Cr3 C2rNi Cr 2.3. Hard chromium 4.6. Chrome oxide 6.5. S& F Stellite 20 9.2. DLC 15.7. D-Gun WC Co Cr 17.2. HVOF WC Co Cr 20.9. CVD B13 C2 204.

10

100 1000 10 000

CVD Diamond 48 000.

CVD Diamond 11 000.

densities and better carbide distributions w15x. HVOF 86WC 10Co 4Cr coatings show a 21- and 5.6-fold advantage over steel at 0.5 and 8 J, respectively.

Although PVD multilayers show relatively high erosion resistance at 14.5 times steel at 8 J because they are only 3 m thick the life of these coatings was esti-

Fig. 2. Best t power law trends of experimental points for erosion rates of carbon steel 1020 at various values of Ek and at 30 and 90 jet impingement angles. Solid line at 90, dashed at 30.

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191 Table 6 F factors and Vu values for electroless nickel coatings with SiC reinforcement at 30 jet angles and different energies Ek J. 0.017 0.071 8.0 F factor y8.6 y5 4.6 Vu m3rimpact. 0.0094 0.14 5.0

187

mated to be just over the test duration of 10 min, thus these coatings are unlikely to be suitable unless thicker deposits are used. It is interesting to compare these values with bulk metals and ceramics. Fig. 4 shows, in bar chart format, the erosion resistance of the tested coatings along with bulk materials under 16.5 mrs jet impingement using 135 m sand as erodent. The coatings presented in Fig. 4 are: cobalt superalloy; ENP q SiC; Cr3 C 2rNi Cr; pulsed Cr; S q F Stellite 20; Chrome Oxide; boronised S q F Stellite 6; DLC; HVOF 86WC 10Co 4Cr; CVD boron carbide; and CVD diamond. The bulk materials being: glass-reinforced plastic GRP pipe grade.; basalt; cupro-nickel 90r10; carbon steel 1020; Inconel 625; super duplex Ferralium 255; silicon wafer; super duplex Zeron 100; alumina pipe grade.; medium density polyethylene MDPE.; sintered silicon nitride; reaction-bonded silicon nitride; sintered tungsten carbide 6%Co.; hot pressed boron carbide; zirconia; and sintered silicon carbide. For many hard facings the damage mechanisms for steady state erosion are not necessarily the most important. For example, CVD boron carbide erodes by a small-scale brittle chipping mechanism w8x with no signs of micro-pitting or ploughing associated with ductile erosion mechanisms. However, at a certain stage, after the initial rough as-grown surface has been removed

generating a polished surface, evidence of Hertzian ring cracks appear suggesting an elastic response to the impact. Further erosion results in the number of ring cracks increasing and evidence of cone cracks are seen. Material loss occurs at points of intersection between ring and cone cracks. Further testing shows coating penetration and spalling concentric to the initial ring cracks. The mechanism for this could be related to coating disbondment under the Hertzian type impact sites. Further work is required to model such failures and to relate the time to coating penetration to the erosion parameters. These include the number of impacts, energy of impact, shape of impacting particle current experiments show relatively angular sand particles producing ringrcone cracks which are normally associated with spherical particle impacts., angle of impact and Hertzian parameters such as maximum radial tensile stress at the surface, depth and magnitude of shear stresses, etc. Similar failure occurs on CVD diamond with cylindrical pin-holes developing during erosion tests which grow with increased erodent mass before causing catastrophic coating disbondment. These features are greater in scale than the individual grains and, by contrast to those on CVD boron carbide coatings, are greater in scale than Hertzian impact theory predicts. Ultrasonic scanning shows gross disbondment around these sites affecting an area far greater than the area of the pin-hole w7x. Thus, examining surface features during erosion tests can be misleading as damage can occur at the subsurface, on the rear surface of the coating and at the coatingrsubstrate interface. Any of these mechanisms could well dictate coating life. These mechanisms need to be better understood before thick CVD coatings realize their full potential as ultra-erosion resistant coatings.

Fig. 3. Erosion rate vs. particle energy of uncoated and epoxy coated carbon steel AISI 1020 at 30 jet impingement angle. Epoxy coated carbon steel 1020, B; uncoated carbon steel 1020, I.

188

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

Fig. 4. Low energy Ek s 0.48 J. sand slurry jet impingement results using 135 m sand at 2.25 wt.% concentration in water at 16.5 mrs and 90 impingement angle of coated carbon steel or tungsten carbide compared with bulk erosion resistant materials.

Fig. 5. Effect of slurry jet angle on the erosion rate of uncoated and four different coatings on carbon steel 1020 at Ek s 8.0 J. Electroless nickel plate plus silicon carbide, ; pulsed hard chromium, B; D-Gun 86WC 10Co 4Cr, I; HVOF 86WC 10Co 4Cr, '; and uncoated carbon steel 1020, .

3.3. The effect on erosion rate of jet impingement angle The erosion rates vs. jet impingement angle of four of the coatings and uncoated carbon steel are presented in Fig. 5 for the jet velocity of 28.5 mrs with 235 m sand. Further work on the effect on erosion rate of jet impingement angle for carbon steel under various slurry conditions can be found elsewhere w16x. The erosion mechanisms of these coatings are detailed by Wheeler et al. w17,18x. The behaviour of carbon steel is typical of the ductile type of erosion with a maximum erosion rate at lower impingement angles and a minimum at 90. The electroless nickel coating on the other hand has a behaviour typical of brittle type of erosion with a maximum erosion rate at 90 and minimum at 30. The hard chromium coating has a mixed ductilerbrittle response while the thermally sprayed 86WC 10Co 4Cr coatings shows erosion rate to be independent of angle. The complex relationship

between erosion rate and sand impingement angle complicates surface selection, particularly when the impingement angles are unknown. For example, at an energy of 0.69 J and 30 the D-gun deposited 86WC 10Co 4Cr coating is 300-fold more resistant than carbon steel but at 90 this factor is reduced to 17-fold. Complex relationships can also be seen for epoxy-based coatings, as shown in Table 7, with the relative performance of pure epoxy coatings showing extreme sensitivity in a brittle type response to angle. Glass-reinforced epoxy coatings show the F factor to be relatively independent of angle and is the better coating to resist 90 jet attack. The ratio of erosion rates at 30 and 90, Vu 30 to Vu 90 , is useful to determine the erosion behaviour or ductility factor. Values of Vu 30 rVu 90 - 1 are brittle in nature while values ) 1 are ductile, values ; 1 show mixed brittlerductile behaviour. 3.4. The effect of Ek on erosion rate From previous work w13x it has been established that

Table 7 F factors for epoxy-based coatings at different jet angles and Ek s 0.17 J erosion rate Vu values are in brackets expressed in m3rimpact. Coating type Uncoated AISI 1020 steel Epoxy Fusion-bonded epoxy Glass-reinforced epoxy 30 Jet impingement 1 0.12. y6.0 0.76. y9.6 1.15. y10.4 1.25. 90 Jet impingement 1 0.03. y50 1.5. y40 1.21. y8.0 0.25. Vu30 rVu90 4.0 0.5 1.0 5.0

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

189

for ductile materials the erosion volume loss per impact, Vu , expressed in units of m3rimpact, has a strong dependence on the particle energy term corrected with a Vp0.5 term, e.g. Ek Vp0.5. The relationship being for ductile erosion behaving surfaces: Vu s Bf . Ek Vp0.5 . ,

8.

where is the ductile energy exponent and B is a constant. For brittle materials Eq. 2. can be used where the energy exponent m is thought to be a function of either the Weibull aw parameter w19x, a coating disbondment parameter or a Hertzian impact parameter. Both m and will also be inuenced by the erosion efciency which increases as impact energy increases i.e. volume removed per Joule increase .. Fig. 6 shows an example of the erosion rate Vu for 90 jet angle vs. Ek V 0.5 for D-Gun deposited 86WC 10Co 4Cr coating and four other erosion resistant bulk materials namely sintered tungsten carbide 7%Ni binder., zirconia, silicon carbide and cast Stellite 6. The values of the exponent from this graph give s 1 for carbon steel and cast Stellite 6, s 1.19 for silicon carbide Hexoloy SA and Zirconia, s 1.37 for tungsten carbide V7 7%Ni. and s 1.44 for the D-gun deposited 86WC 10Co 4Cr coating. The graph also shows the potential of silicon carbide based or zirconia based coating systems which if they match the bulk performance shown in the gure would be of interest. These coatings would have to be 50 80 m thick w19x. It was interesting to note that the bulksintered carbide showed unexpected signs of ductile erosion behaviour with W-shaped erosion scars at 90

Fig. 6. Ductile erosion behaviour plot of erosion rate vs. Ek Vp0.5 at 90 jet angle for D-Gun deposited 86WC 10Co 4Cr coating on carbon steel and other engineering bulk materials. Uncoated carbon steel 1020, `; D-Gun deposited 86WC 10Co 4Cr coating on carbon steel, ; Silicon carbide Hexoloy SA, B; Sintered tungsten carbide 7%Ni binder., '; Cast Stellite 6, ^; Zirconia Technox Z1000, .

jet impingement rather than the U-shaped scar expected of brittle materials. These graphs are useful in

Fig. 7. Brittle erosion behaviour plot of erosion rate vs. Ek at 90 jet angle for CVD coatings and pulsed hard chromium for water sand jet and air sand jet impingement erosion tests. Uncoated carbon steel 1020, ; CVD diamond 20 m thick. on WC-Ni, ; CVD boron carbide 15 m thick. on WC-Co, `; pulsed hard chromium 350 m thick. on carbon steel 1020, I.

190

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191

coating selection. Further such plots for ductile and brittle materials are detailed in w20x. An example of the erosion rate Vu for 90 jet angle vs. Ek for pulsed hard chromium and the CVD coatings is shown in Fig. 7. This graph includes erosion tests conducted at high energies of 100 J and 360 J for 148 and 268 mrs jets, respectively, in an air sand jet impingement rig w21x. The steel results exhibit scatter typical for jet erosion testing. As can be seen the advantage of hard chromium coatings over carbon steel is lost for Ek ) 20 J. The 20 m thick CVD diamond coatings offer signicant improvements in resistance at low energies, with erosion rates at or below detectable levels, but for Ek ) 20 J the performance matches that of the 15- m-thick CVD boron carbide. However, improved erosion resistance of thicker CVD diamond coatings have been reported elsewhere w7,22,23x.

4. Conclusions The erosion resistances of a range of polymeric, ceramic and metallic coatings on carbon steel substrates have been evaluated by sandrwater slurry jets impinging at 30 and 90 and at velocities between 10 and 28.5 mrs. The erosion performances of these coatings relative to uncoated carbon steel AISI 1020 have been determined. At both 30 and 90 jet impingement the performance of a coating relative to carbon steel is dependent on impact energy, Ek . The range of coatings tested, which have been deposited by the thermal spray, electroless plating, PVD and CVD routes, have a wide performance window with F factors ranging from y50 to 48 000. Plots of erosion rate at 90 jet angles vs. either Ek brittle erosion behaviour. or Ek Vp0.5 ductile erosion behaviour. are presented which help surface selection for a wide range of impact conditions. The most resistant coating tested under 30 jet impingement at low energies is the heat treated electroless nickel with SiC reinforcement while at higher velocities the thermally-sprayed WC Co Cr coating out-performs the others. The CVD coatings potentially offer further enhanced erosion protection but have yet to be tested under these conditions. For modest improvement in erosion resistance over carbon steel the pulsed hard chromium coating offers F factors between 1.6 and 6.4 over the whole energy range tested. Polymeric coatings, in general, exhibited greater erosion rates than ceramic and metallic coatings. At higher energy conditions and 30 the relative performance of the polymeric coatings decreases compared to the ceramic and metallic coatings. The most resistant polymeric coatings were the exible polyurethane and epoxy plus silicon carbide composite with exible polyurethane having the better erosion resistance.

Pure epoxy coatings on carbon steel show typical brittle erosion behaviour, with fusion-bonded epoxy having mixed ductile and brittle behaviour and glass bre-reinforced epoxy showing strong ductile behaviour. Under 90 jet impingement conditions the diamond coating technologies offer signicant improvements in erosion resistance for Ek - 20 J with the CVD deposited diamond being the better and DLC the worst of these technologies. CVD boron carbide coatings also show very high erosion resistance with comparable performance to currently used erosion-resistant sintered ceramics. CVD deposited coatings have been shown to have low steady state erosion rates, but in parallel with the steady state erosion mechanisms on the coating surface, there are subsurface and interface crack mechanisms present which dominate coating adhesion and holiday formation and hence the coating life. Complex relationships have been identied between coating erosion rates and jet impingement angle which coating selection schemes must include if correct surfaces are to be chosen. The coatings tested show a range of erosion behaviour from purely ductile to purely brittle with some with mixed behaviour.

Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Mr D. Wheeler, Miss Yannick Puget and Mr D. Finchette of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Southampton, for their hard work during the slurry testing and to the coating companies who kindly supplied samples to this project. References
w1x Meng HC, Ludema KC. Wear models and predictive equations: their form and content. Wear 1995;181r183:443 457. w2x Faddick RR. Wear in pipes Short course on slurry pipelining technology. Camborne School of Mines, 1982:1 15. w3x Haugen K, Kvernvold O, Ronald A, Sandberg R. Sand erosion of wear-resistant materials: Erosion in choke valves. Wear 1995;186r187:179 188. w4x Hutchings IM. Tribology Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials, Arnold, 1992, Chapter 6. w5x Turchaninov SP. The Life of Hydrotransport Pipelines. Moscow: Nedra Press, 1973. w6x Shimoda K, Yukawa T. Erosion of pipe bend in pneumatic conveyer. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. On Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, University of Cambridge, paper 59, 1983. w7x Wheeler DW, Wood RJK. Solid particle erosion of CVD diamond coatings, International Conference of Erosive and Abrasive Wear, 13 17th September 1998, Cambridge followed by publication in Wear. w8x Wood RJK, Wheeler DW, Lejeau DC, Mellor BG. Sand erosion performance of CVD boron carbide coated tungsten carbide, International Conference of Erosive and Abrasive Wear,

R.J.K. Wood r Materials and Design 20 (1999) 179 191 13 17th September 1998, Cambridge followed by publication in Wear. Truscott GF. Literature survey on wear in pipelines wear in slurry pipelines. In: Gittins L, editor. BHRA Information Series Number 1, 1980:23 49. Wood RJK, Puget Y, Trethewey KR, Stokes K. The performance of marine coatings and pipe materials under uid-borne sand erosion. Wear 1998;219:46 59. Puget Y, Wood RJK, Trethewey KR. Electrochemical noise analysis of polyurethane coated steel subjected to erosion-corrosion. International Conference of Erosive and Abrasive Wear, 13 17th September 1998, Cambridge followed by publication in Wear.. Wheeler DW, Wood RJK. Erosion of candidate hard surface coatings for gate valve applications. ASME Energy Week 97, Houston, book V, Energy Engineering II, 1997:33 40. Moore AJ, Wood RJK. Erosive wear mapping of pipeline materials. Plastics Pipes VIII, The Plastic and Rubber Institute, Koningshof, The Netherlands, 21 24 September 1992., paper E1r4, pp. 1 10. Wentzel EJ, Allen C. Erosion corrosion resistance of tungsten carbide hard metals with different binder compositions. Wear 1995;181r183:63 69. Wood RJK, Mellor BG, Bineld ML. Sand erosion performance of detonation gun applied tungsten carbidercobaltchromium coatings. Wear 1997;211:70 83. Lin F, Shao H. The effect of impingement angle on slurry erosion. Wear 1991;141:279 289.

191

w9x w10x w11x

w12x w13x

w14x w15x w16x

w17x Wheeler DW, Wood RJK, Harrison D. Evaluation of erosionresistant hard facings for use in offshore gate valves, to be published. w18x Wood RJK, Wheeler DW. Erosion of candidate hard surface coatings for valve applications, Proc. of the International Conference on Valves, Actuators and Systems, 14 15th April 1997, Cambridge UK, 217 224. w19x Hansen JS. Relative erosion resistance of several materials. In: Adler WF, editor. Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1979:148 162. w20x Wood RJK. Material selection for reducing erosive damage to valves. International Conference on Valves and Actuators Applications and developments, University of Manchester, UK, 19 21 September, 1994. w21x Wood RJK, Wheeler DW. Design and performance of a high velocity air sand jet impingement erosion facility. Wear 1998;220:95 112. w22x Wheeler DW, Wood RJK. Erosive wear behaviour of thick CVD diamond coatings, to be presented at 12th International Wear of Materials conference, Atlanta, 25 29th April 1999 followed by publication in Wear. w23x Amirhaghi S, Plappert E, Bajic Z, Reehal HS, Wood RJK, Wheeler DW. Growth and wear properties of diamond coatings on W and WC substrates. Diamond 98 conference and accepted for publication in Diamond and Related Materials.