MAE 493N/593T
Dr. Konstantinos A. Sierros
West Virginia University
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
ESB Annex 263
kostas.sierros@mail.wvu.edu
Erosion
• Erosion by solid particle impact
• Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Erosion of engineering materials
• Testing methods for erosive wear
http://www.stle.org/images/dev/erosive.jpg
Notes from: I. M. Hutchings, Tribology, Ch. 6
Erosion by solid particle impact
• Solid particle erosion: Discrete solid particles strike
a surface of interest
• It differs from 3‐body abrasion in the origin of the
forces between particles and wearing surface
• In abrasion, particles are trapped and pressed
between two sliding surfaces
• In erosion, several forces of different origins act on
a particle in contact with a solid surface
Erosion by solid particle impact
• In erosion, several forces of different origins act on a particle in contact with a
solid surface
• Neighboring particles may exert contact forces and a flowing fluid will cause drag
• The dominant force on a particle is the contact force exerted by the surface
• The extent of wear depends on
‐Number and mass of individual particles striking the surface
‐ The impact velocity of the striking particles
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Behaviour of a single hard particle striking a softer surface at normal incidence
• Assumptions
‐Particle does not deform
‐ Problem is quasi‐static (ignore dynamic effects)
‐ Only force acting is contact force exerted by the surface
‐ Deformation of surface is perfectly plastic with constant indentation hardness H
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• At time t after initial contact particle has indented surface depth x
• Cross‐sectional area of the indentation at the surface is A(x)
• A(x) is determined by the shape of the particle
• The upward force that decelerates the particle is due to the plastic flow pressure
acting over A(x)
d 2x
m 2 = − HA( x) Equation of particle motion
dt
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• For simple particle shapes the equation of particle motion can be solved
analytically
• In this case we need to know the final volume of the indentation when the
particle rests at a depth d
mU 2
Volume of indentation V = Initial velocity of particle
2H
• The material displaced from the indentation
‐May be displaced (by elastic deformation) away from the indentation
‐May form a rim of plastically deformed material around the indentation
‐May be removed as wear debris
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Assume that some fraction K of the material is removed from the indentation as
wear debris
mU 2
mass of material removed = Kρ
2H
Dimensionless factor Density of material being eroded
• Summation of above equation suggests that total mass of material removed is
proportional to the total mass of striking particles
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Mass lost from a surface vs. total mass of striking erosive particles
• For some materials particles become embedded in the surface and cause an
initial mass gain (curve b)
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• After the initial weight gaining (incubation period) erosion proceeds linearly
• For soft target materials and high angles of incidence incubation period is
observed
• For ductile materials any incubation period is negligible and mass loss is
proportional to total mass of striking particles (line a)
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• The linear relationship observed in steady‐state erosion can lead to the following
definition of erosion E;
mU 2
mass of material removed = Kρ
2H
using E
KρU 2
E=
2H
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
KρU 2
E=
2H
• Erosive wear is inversely proportional to hardness H
• The severity of wear is determined by K (dimensionless)
• K can be thought of as a measure of the efficiency of material removal process
• K would be equal to 1 if all material removed by the action of the erosive particle
• For metals, K lies in the range 5x10‐3‐10‐1 (very similar to 2‐body abrasion)
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Geometry of deformation depends on;
‐Impact velocity
‐ Shape and orientation of particle
‐ Impact angle
• Impact angles are defined with respect to the plane of the target surface
• For normal impact: θ=90o
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• The erosion of metals (ductile) depends strongly on impact angle (curve a)
showing a maximum at 20o‐30o
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Impact of single particles on metal surfaces at 30o impact angle has 3 different
types of impact damage
‐ Ploughing
‐ Type I cutting
‐ Type II cutting
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Rounded particles deform the surface by ploughing, displacing the material to
the side and in front of the particle (a)
• Further impacts on neighboring areas lead to detachment of heavily‐strained
material from the rim of the crater or from the terminal leap
• Deformation caused by an angular particle depends on orientation of particle
and whether particle rolls forwards or backwards during contact
• Type I cutting: Particle rolls forwards and indents the surface (b)
• Type II cutting: Particle rolls backwards and a true machining action occurs
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Classification of the 3 types of abrasion
wear is not simple when;
‐Randomly oriented particles strike surface
‐ Irregular shape particles impinge on a
previously eroded surface
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Fig (a) shows steel surface eroded by SiC
particles
• Plastic rupture and detachment of metal
displaced from the impact sites into
raised crater rims and lips
• Wear debris will not be produced until
several cycles of plastic deformation
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• In the extreme case of spherical
particles at normal incidence, material is
removed only after neighboring impacts
have imposed many cycles of plastic
deformation (b)
• Surface looks very different as
compared to an eroded surface by
angular particles (a)
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Theoretical models consider impact of a single particle on a plane surface
• Idealized 2‐D model is presented below;
• Rigid particle cuts into plane surface
• Volume of material is that swept out by the motion of the particle tip (as distinct
from the total volume displaced by indentation)
• Therefore, predicted erosion is zero for normal incidence
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Model in which the forces on the particle are assumed to act at its extreme tip
KρU 2
E= f (θ )
H
• The value of K depends on particle geometry
• Depends on the fraction of particles actually cutting (in an ideal manner)
• f(θ) predicted by theory is similar to experimentally observed curve
Theory Experiment
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• A similar but more realistic model assumes that the point of action of the forces
on the particle is allowed to move during impact
K 1 ρU n 2<n<2.5
E= f1 (θ ) n is function of θ
H
• Both models assume that material is removed by cutting (similar to type II
cutting) (c)
• Both models are valid for shallow angles of incidence
• At high angles debris becomes detached after repeated deformation (models to
take this into account are more applicable)
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Extreme case of erosion at normal incidence by spherical particles where cutting
plays no role can be modeled in two ways;
‐By assuming that surface material becomes detached when accumulated plastic
strain reaches a critical value
‐ By treating the problem as one of low‐cycle fatigue caused by cyclic plastic
deformation caused by successive particle impacts
• Both models lead to similar conclusions
K 2 ρσ 1 / 2U 3
E=
ε c2 H 3 / 2
σ is density of spherical erosive particles
εc is critical strain at which detachment of wear debris occurs
Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• In practice, erosion of metals shows strong dependence on particle impact
velocity
E ∝U n
• Values of n between 2.3 and 3.0 are experimentally observed
• Velocity exponent n is always greater than 2.0 and often lies around 2.4 for
ductile metals (predicted by all models)
• All theoretical models predict that erosion rates (involving plastic deformation)
are inversely proportional to material hardness H
• Erosion also depends on ductility of material
• Erosion is proportional to material density ρ
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• When impact of erosive particle causes brittle fracture , material is removed from
surface by formation and intersection of cracks
• There is still a plastic flow component around the point of contact
• General morphology is shown below;
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Extent of cracking is more severe when impact direction is normal to surface
• Erosion is most rapid in this case
• Erosion falls monotonically with angle away from 90o (curve b)
• Models for brittle erosion have been developed for impact at normal incidence
• Most of these models assume cracking and lead to expressions as follows;
E∝r U m n r is particle radius
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
•Values of m and n are related to Weibull constants (brittle behavior‐statistical
distribution)
• m values around 1
• n values in the range from 2.6‐3.0
E∝r U m n
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• For angular shaped particles models for erosion by elastic‐plastic fracture are
more applicable
• Material is removed by the intersection of lateral cracks with each other and the
surface
• Quasi‐static model assumes that hardness H is the pressure resisting penetration
• Dynamic wave‐propagation model determines the impact pressure
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Quasi‐static model
E σ 0.2 H 0.1
∝r U
0.7 2.4
ρ K c1.3
• Dynamic‐wave propagation model
E σ 0.6
∝r U
0.7 3.2
ρ K c1.3 H 0.25
• Both models predict a weak dependence of erosion on particle density
• The most important material property for erosion resistance is fracture
toughness Kc
• Hardness H is much less significant
• Erosion depends on particle size r
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Experimental studies on erosion of brittle materials show that the mass loss
from the surface depends linearly on the total mass of erodent particles
Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Considerable variation of erosion
between different materials is
found
• Experimental results do not
conform well with theoretical
predictions
Erosion of engineering materials
• Two types of behavior:
‐ Ductile
‐ Brittle
• Angular dependence of erosion depends on material and the conditions of
erosion
• Example: Erosion of metal surface by angular particles is ductile
Erosion of metal surface by spherical particles is ‘brittle’
Erosion of engineering materials
Erosion of engineering materials
Erosion of engineering materials
Testing methods for erosive wear
• Four different tests
Testing methods for erosive wear
Summary
• Erosion by solid particle impact
• Erosive wear by plastic deformation
• Erosive wear by brittle fracture
• Erosion of engineering materials
• Testing methods for erosive wear