“…Figure 12 shows relativeness of wear coefficient (k 1 ) with the ratio of H A /H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities. The conclusion drawn from the graphs clearly depicts the influence of surface hardening effect over the value of wear coefficient (k 1 ) and found to be in conformity with Bingley and Ó Flynn 14 and Harsha and Deepak Kumar. 15…”
Section: Erosion Model Correlationsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Figure 12 shows relativeness of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) with the ratio of H A / H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities. The conclusion drawn from the graphs clearly depicts the influence of surface hardening effect over the value of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) and found to be in conformity with Bingley and Ó Flynn 14 and Harsha and Deepak Kumar. 15 Figure 11.Relativeness of erosion coefficient ( k 1 ) with hardness of the eroded surface at different impact velocities (40–85 m/s) (according to Hutchings’ model).Figure 12.Relativeness of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) with the ratio of H A / H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities (40–85 m/s) (according to Hutchings’ model).…”
Section: Erosion Model Correlationsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…12,13 In recent works, emphasis has been given to comparing the erosion models with experimental results and they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental. 14,15 AISI 444 is a low-carbon, lownitrogen ferritic stainless steel with addition of molybdenum in order to improve its corrosion resistance and of stabilising elements titanium and niobium. AISI 439 is more recently developed titanium stabilised ferritic grade, which can be formed into complex shapes and is joined using most conventional joining methods, including welding.…”
Solid particle erosion behaviour of ferritic stainless steels AISI 444 and 439, austenitic stainless steel AISI 304 and low carbon steel AISI 1010 were investigated. Erosion studies of these materials were conducted at room temperature using silica sand of size 150-300 mm. The influence of erosion rates due to different velocities (40-85 m/s) and impingement angle (15-90 ) were experimentally analysed. Erosion efficiency values (0.7-3.6%) indicate that erosion occurs by lip or platelet formation in the material. The present study reveals that the peak in the erosion rate for AISI 444, AISI 439 and AISI 304 occurs at about 30 impingement angle while that for AISI 1010 at about 45 impingement angle. Hutchings' normal erosion model was also examined. Scanning electron microscope studies were conducted to analyse the surface morphology of the tested samples under erosion condition. Variations in microstructure and micro hardness of the material due to solid particle erosion on the materials were also discussed.
“…Figure 12 shows relativeness of wear coefficient (k 1 ) with the ratio of H A /H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities. The conclusion drawn from the graphs clearly depicts the influence of surface hardening effect over the value of wear coefficient (k 1 ) and found to be in conformity with Bingley and Ó Flynn 14 and Harsha and Deepak Kumar. 15…”
Section: Erosion Model Correlationsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Figure 12 shows relativeness of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) with the ratio of H A / H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities. The conclusion drawn from the graphs clearly depicts the influence of surface hardening effect over the value of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) and found to be in conformity with Bingley and Ó Flynn 14 and Harsha and Deepak Kumar. 15 Figure 11.Relativeness of erosion coefficient ( k 1 ) with hardness of the eroded surface at different impact velocities (40–85 m/s) (according to Hutchings’ model).Figure 12.Relativeness of wear coefficient ( k 1 ) with the ratio of H A / H B (hardness of material after erosion/hardness of material before erosion) at different impact velocities (40–85 m/s) (according to Hutchings’ model).…”
Section: Erosion Model Correlationsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…12,13 In recent works, emphasis has been given to comparing the erosion models with experimental results and they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental. 14,15 AISI 444 is a low-carbon, lownitrogen ferritic stainless steel with addition of molybdenum in order to improve its corrosion resistance and of stabilising elements titanium and niobium. AISI 439 is more recently developed titanium stabilised ferritic grade, which can be formed into complex shapes and is joined using most conventional joining methods, including welding.…”
Solid particle erosion behaviour of ferritic stainless steels AISI 444 and 439, austenitic stainless steel AISI 304 and low carbon steel AISI 1010 were investigated. Erosion studies of these materials were conducted at room temperature using silica sand of size 150-300 mm. The influence of erosion rates due to different velocities (40-85 m/s) and impingement angle (15-90 ) were experimentally analysed. Erosion efficiency values (0.7-3.6%) indicate that erosion occurs by lip or platelet formation in the material. The present study reveals that the peak in the erosion rate for AISI 444, AISI 439 and AISI 304 occurs at about 30 impingement angle while that for AISI 1010 at about 45 impingement angle. Hutchings' normal erosion model was also examined. Scanning electron microscope studies were conducted to analyse the surface morphology of the tested samples under erosion condition. Variations in microstructure and micro hardness of the material due to solid particle erosion on the materials were also discussed.
“…Despite the many models developed to explain wear, only little meet general agreement. The study of Bingley and O’Flynn 4 compared few of the most popular and accepted models and found only little agreement with the experimental results. Similarly, Rigney 5 carried out a review of a number of experimental controversial results and conclusions, and he raised many questions regarding these models and mechanisms.…”
As the mechanism by which material is lost from ductile surfaces during solid particle erosion is still a matter of scientific debate, the work presented in this paper is aimed at trying to shed more light on the mechanism by which material is detached from ductile surfaces during solid particle erosion. Moreover, validating some of the most widely accepted models that predict erosive wear rate will form part of the paper. A specially designed test rig was used to facilitate test condition of an extensive experimental program. Results of the test program showed that plastic strain accumulation is largely responsible for material loss from ductile surfaces, even at cute impact angles. The key to this finding is the drop of erosive wear upon impact angle reversal indicates. It has been shown that none of the most widely accepted models of erosive wear could explain the result obtained under condition of impact angle reversal.
“…The main assumptions on which erosion models were developed are as following [1][2][3]: a -the erosive wear particle occurs due to the mechanical action of abrasive particles on the surfaces that cause microcracking and microcutting of the incident material layer (the microcutting component of erosion); b -the kinetic energy of the abrasive particles is generated by their impact with the target surface causing the deformation of the material, initiation and propagation of crack and detachement of wear particle when the cracks have reached a critical length (the localized plastic deformation component associated with the mechanical fatigue process).…”
Abstract. Progressive cavitation pumps are designed to work in aggressive environments thus their wear is inevitable. The specific tribological coupling of these pumps is composed of a helical rotor with a single outward helix and a stator with a double inside helix. These elements are in relative motion and direct contact to each other and also in direct contact with the pumped oil. Therefore the main forms of wear of rotor-stator coupling elements are the abrasive wear and the erosion wear. In this paper is presented the analysis of erosion with Bitter and Hutchings models. The results are useful for estimation of progressive cavity pumps specific abrasive-erosive wear.
IntroductionThe researchers attention was focused on the study of the influence factors from the abrasive erosion models relations, to specify the share of their influence, the precision in describing the erosive processes, the generalization degree and the limits of applicability.The main assumptions on which erosion models were developed are as following [1-3]: a -the erosive wear particle occurs due to the mechanical action of abrasive particles on the surfaces that cause microcracking and microcutting of the incident material layer (the microcutting component of erosion); b -the kinetic energy of the abrasive particles is generated by their impact with the target surface causing the deformation of the material, initiation and propagation of crack and detachement of wear particle when the cracks have reached a critical length (the localized plastic deformation component associated with the mechanical fatigue process).The first case is typical to ductile material and the second one to fragile material. The assumptions made are based on Johnson, Cook and Holmquist studies [4][5] and analyzed by Wang [6].
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
