Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Slurry erosion behavior of high entropy alloys

R.B. Nair a, Karthikeyan Selvam a, H.S. Arora a, Sundeep Mukherjee b, H. Singh c, H.S. Grewal a,n
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shiv Nadar University, Gautam Budh Nagar, India
b
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203,USA
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Rupnagar, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High entropy alloys (HEAs) represent a new paradigm of structural alloys comprising of multiple prin-
Received 8 September 2016 cipal elements in equimolar or near-equimolar concentration. The superior corrosion and oxidation re-
Received in revised form sistance of HEAs at high temperature make them attractive for several structural applications. In this
30 December 2016
context, erosion behavior of HEAs has been largely unexplored. In this study, the slurry erosion perfor-
Accepted 5 January 2017
mance of single phase Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy was investigated. For comparison, mild steel and
stainless steel (SS316L) were also investigated under similar conditions. The slurry erosion was con-
Keywords: ducted at different impingement angles and at a constant velocity of 20 m/s. The microstructural and
High entropy alloy mechanical characterization were conducted using scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy dis-
Slurry erosion
persive spectroscopy (EDS), x-ray diffraction (XRD), nanoindentation and micro-hardness testing. Similar
Work hardening
to the mild steel and stainless steel, HEA also showed ductile mode of erosion. The erosion rate for HEA
Structural-property correlation
was found to be higher compared to stainless steel, however in spite of lower tensile strength and
hardness, HEA exhibited higher erosion resistance compared to mild steel. The high erosion resistance of
HEA compared to mild steel is explained on the basis of its work hardening behavior, low stacking fault
energy, and superior corrosion resistance. Erosion response of the investigated materials showed sig-
nificant correlation with ultimate strength and ultimate resilience. In depth analysis of the eroded HEA
samples showed ploughing as the prominent material removal mechanism at oblique angles compared
to micro-cutting for SS316L and mild steel. In contrast, highly deformed and work-hardened platelets
were observed at normal impingement angle for all materials.
& 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction entropy is a dominant factor which influences the mechanical and

Materials used in fluid machineries such as pumps, turbines,
propellers and valves typically show surface degradation in the
form of erosion and result in significant economic impact [1].
State-of-the-art materials used in these applications show limited
resistance against wear, erosion, and corrosion. Therefore, ad-
vanced materials with superior surface properties are needed to
counter these forms of degradation. Recently developed high en-
tropy alloys (HEAs) with exceptional properties have shown pro-
mising results [2,3]. HEAs contain at least four to five principal
elements mixed in equi-molar or nearly equi-molar fraction. The
exceptional properties of HEAs are mainly attributed to four core
effects: high configurational entropy, sluggish diffusion, lattice
distortion and cock tail effect [2–4]. HEAs may also contain minor
elements with atomic fraction less than 5 at%. The high mixing
n HEA being related with the strong binding energy and large atomic
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: harpreetsg@iitrpr.ac.in,
harpreet.grewal@snu.edu.in (H.S. Grewal).
tribological properties of HEAs [3]. The high mixing entropy in a
multi-principal element system promotes the thermodynamically
stable solid solution, which otherwise results in a brittle inter-
metallic phase [4–6]. The high mixing entropy is also responsible
for exceptional high temperature properties of HEAs [6]. The
structure of HEAs is mainly composed of simple face centred cubic
(FCC), body centred cubic (BCC) and/or their combination, despite
being accompanied by elements with different structures. The
properties of HEAs are influenced and regulated by interactions
among the constituent elements. Tung et al. [7] observed that
increasing Al and Cr contents in AlCoCrCuFeNi, results in trans-
formation from FCC to BCC phase, whereas, Co, Fe and Ni favours
FCC. On the other hand, an increase in Cu content leads to the
formation of Cu rich inter-dendrite structure due to the low mix-
ing enthalpy with other constituent elements. Tong et al. [8] re-
ported increased hardness and elastic modulus of AlxCoCrCuFeNi
size of Al. Wang et al. [9] reported an increase in hardness of
AlxCrCoFeNi with the addition of Al due to transformation of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2017.01.020
0043-1648/& 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238
structure from FCC to BCC. The valence electron concentration
(VEC) has also been observed to influence transition in the lattice
structure [6].
Although limited, there are studies that have explored the wear
and corrosion behavior of HEAs. Wu et al. [10] reported increase in
wear resistance of AlxCoCrCuFeNi HEA with the addition of Al
(x ¼3.0) mainly due to increased hardness. In addition, the wear
mechanism changes from oxidation controlled to predominantly
delamination wear. Chuang et al. [11] observed that
Co1.5CrFeNi1.5Ti and Al0.2Co1.5CrFeNi1.5Ti exhibited excellent wear
resistance compared to conventional alloys due to higher re-
sistance to oxidation and lower high temperature softening. For
AlCoCrFexMo0.5Ni and AlCoCrCuFeNi, the wear resistance was re-
markably higher due to the formation of harder sigma (s) phase as
a result of replacing Cu with Mo [10,12]. With further increase in
Fe (x 41.0), the hardness and wear resistance decreases mainly
due to decrease in s phase and higher oxidation rate [12]. Hsu
et al. [13] reported an increase in wear resistance and high tem-
perature compressive strength of Al0.5CoCrCuFeNiBx with the ad-
dition of boron content mainly due to the formation of borides.
HEAs also showed high corrosion and pitting resistance com-
pared to 304 stainless steel [14,15]. Zhao et al. [16] reported im-
proved tribo-corrosion behaviour for annealed AlCoCrCuFeNi at
high temperature compared to 304L stainless steel. Low mixing
enthalpy of Cu with constituent elements in AlxCoCrCuFeNi lead-
ing to formation of Cu-rich interdendritic region resulted in in-
creased wear rates and high corrosion rates due to galvanic action
[8,10]. Replacing Cu with Mn in AlxCrFe1.5MnNi0.5, Lee et al. [17]
reported an increase in corrosion and pitting resistance. Further
the corrosion and pitting resistance also increased with a decrease
in Al content. Lin et al. [18] showed that segregation of Al-Ni rich
phase leads to high hardness with nominal corrosion resistance of
as-cast and aged Al0.5CoCrFeNi HEA compared to conventional
steel. Ji et al. [19] showed Al3CoCrFeNi coating lowers the erosion
rates of 17-7 stainless steel. Although there are limited number of
studies on wear and corrosion behaviour of HEAs, their erosion
behavior has been largely unexplored.
In the current work, slurry erosion behavior of Al0.1CrCoFeNi
high entropy alloy was investigated. For comparison, two con-
ventionally used structural materials, mild steel and SS316L
stainless steel were tested under identical conditions. Despite
lower hardness, the HEA exhibited higher erosion resistance
compared to mild steel, which is primarily attributed to higher
ductility and superior corrosion resistance.
2. Experimental details
2.1. Materials
The nominal composition of Al0.1CrCoFeNi high entropy alloy
used in present work is shown in Table 1. The composition of mild
steel (MS) and SS316L (SS) stainless steel used for comparison, is
also shown. HEA alloy was prepared using induction melting fol-
lowed by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) for densification. HIP was
performed at 1473 K for 4 h at a pressure of 100 MPa, followed by
cooling.
Table 1
Nominal composition at wt% of Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA, SS 316L stainless steel and mild steel used in experimentation.
Composition (wt%) Al Fe Cr C Mn
Al0.1CrCoFeNi 1.2 24.5 22.8 – 25.7
SS 316L – bal. 18 0.035 2 14
Mild steel – bal. – 0.26 1.03
231
Samples of HEA, MS and SS of size 10  10  5 mm3 were pre-
pared from ingots using conventional machining processes fol-
lowed by cutting on wire electric discharge machining (wire EDM).
All samples were polished and grounded using abrasive papers
down to 2000 grit size. Microstructural characterization of the
samples was performed using electron backscatter diffraction
(EBSD) and x-ray diffraction (XRD). Mechanical properties of the
samples were measured using micro and nanoindentation. Elastic
modulus of the test samples was calculated from the slope of
unloading curve using Oliver-Pharr method. To avoid hardness and
elastic modulus measurement from the single grain (especially for
HEA), micro and nano indentations were performed on two dif-
ferent samples for each material, with at least 10 indentation
performed on each sample with 1 mm spacing. Sand particles in
the size range of 75–150 mm were used for the slurry erosion
studies (Fig. 1).
2.2. Slurry erosion test rig
Slurry erosion testing was performed using re-circulation type
test rig shown in Fig. 2. The test rig comprised of a diaphragm
pump driven by compressed air. The premixed slurry in a con-
tainer is pumped using this diaphragm pump and made to im-
pinge on a sample through 2 mm diameter tungsten carbide
nozzle. The velocity of slurry jet is controlled by changing the
pressure of the compressed air used for driving the pump. The test
rig provides the flexibility to perform experiments at a range of
different parameters such as impingement angle, particle size,
stand-off distance, working media and impact velocity. The sedi-
mentation of sand particles was prevented by continuous stirring.
2.3. Slurry erosion testing
Slurry erosion testing was conducted according to ASTM G-73
standard procedure. The test parameters used for slurry erosion
experiments are shown in Table 2. Slurry with concentration of
5 kg/m3 (5000 ppm) was prepared using sand (75–150 mm), mixed
with tap water (pH 7.72). For each test sample, fresh slurry was
used. Each sample was tested for four hours with a cycle time of
one hour. Gravimetric analysis was performed using high precision
weighing balance of 0.01 mg resolution. Prior to weight mea-
surement, samples were cleaned with acetone and dried using air
stream. Slurry erosion experiments were performed at a constant
velocity of 20 m/s with samples positioned at different impinge-
ment angles i.e. 30°, 60° and 90°. The eroded surfaces were ana-
lyzed using scanning electron microscope (SEM) to investigate the
erosion mechanism.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Microstructural and mechanical characterization
The microstructure of the Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA, SS316L stainless
steel and mild steel is shown in Fig. 3. The optical micrograph of
mild steel (Fig. 3a) indicates average grain size of around 30 μm.
The electron back scatter diffraction (EBSD) map of the
Ni Mo Co S Si P Cu
– 25.8 – – – – –
3 – 0.03 1 0.045 –
– – – 0.05 0.28 – 0.20
232 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238

hand, microstructure of SS316L steel was comprised of large

number of twins. The large grain size for HEA is mainly due to hot
isostatic processing at high temperature causing a significant grain
growth. The abnormal grain growth is primarily responsible for
lower yield strength and hardness (Table 3). The x-ray diffraction
(XRD) results for all the samples is shown in Fig. 4. XRD results for
HEA indicate a single phase solid solution with face centre cubic
(FCC) structure. It is interesting to observe that despite of large
number of constituent elements, no intermetallic phases were
observed for HEA. As expected, mild steel and SS316L steels
showed BCC and FCC structures respectively. In addition to aus-
tenite FCC structure, microstructure of SS316L was also composed
of brittle martensitic phase along with Cr23C7 precipitates. How-
ever, microstructure of HEA showed no indication of such sec-
ondary phases, which is attributed to high configurational entropy,
Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy image of the sand used for slurry erosion
testing.
sluggish diffusion and cocktail effect [3]. The thermodynamic
stability of solid solution phase is ensured through use of equi-
molar concentration of constituent elements. The thermodynamic
stability of the system is measured using Gibbs free energy given
as
G = H − ∆TS

where G is Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy, ΔT is change in

temperature and S is entropy [3–6]. Therefore, by increasing the
entropy, the free energy of the system can be lowered leading to a
stabilized system. The configurational entropy of the system can
be modulated by controlling the number of constituent elements
as
n
∆SConf = − R ∑ xi ln xi = R ln n
Fig. 2. Schematic illustrating the slurry erosion test rig used for experimentation.
I=1

Table 2 where n is the number of elements with xi mole fraction and R is

Value of test parameters used for slurry erosion testing. universal gas constant. For given number of elements, the con-
figurational entropy ( ∆SConf ) is highest when elements are mixed
Parameter Value
in equi-atomic proportion. However, the configurational entropy
Temperature (°C) 25 of the alloy system used in present study (1.47R) is lower than that
Impact velocity (m/s) 20 of five element system mixed in equi-molar fraction (1.61R). Even
Nozzle diameter (mm) 2.0 though the configurational entropy is lower, HEA forms a solid
Angle of impingement (deg.) 30, 60, 90 solution with FCC structure. This highlights the role of other core
Particle size (mm) 75–150
Stand-off distance (mm) 20
factors such as lattice distortion, sluggish diffusion and cock tail
effect.
The load-displacement plots obtained using nanoindentation
for the HEA and SS316L steel are shown in Fig. 5. The elastic
Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA (Fig. 3b) shows significantly large sized grains modulus values are shown in Table 3. Hardness for all the samples
[20]. The average grain size calculated for HEA was around measured using microhardness testing are also shown in Table 3.
2000 mm. The average grain size for SS316L stainless steel was Amongst all, SS316L steel showed highest hardness and elastic
found to be around 22 μm (Fig. 3c). Compared to the micro- modulus, followed by mild steel and HEA. Accordingly, the yield
structure of SS316L, HEA showed no twinned regions. On the other and ultimate tensile strengths were also lowest for the

Fig. 3. (a) Optical micrograph showing microstructure of mild steel. Electron backscatter diffraction maps for (b) Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy [20] (c) SS316L stainless
steel.
 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238 233

Table 3
Mechanical properties of mild steel (MS), SS316L stainless steel (SS) and Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy.

Material Density, ρ (kg/m3) Hardness H (Hv) Elastic modulus E (GPa) Yield strength ry (MPa) Ultimate Strength ru (MPa) True failure strain εf

HEA 7450 150 186 160 389 0.58

SS316L 8000 226 210 290 580 0.35
Mild steel 7800 205 200 250 410 0.25

Fig. 4. X ray diffraction (XRD) plots of Al0.1CrCoFeNi high entropy alloy, mild steel
and SS316L stainless steel. Fig. 6. The cumulative volume loss/hour as the function of impact angle.

erosion mode [22,23]. It is interesting to observe that at oblique

Fig. 5. Load displacement plots for Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy and SS316L
stainless steel.
Al0.1CrCoFeNi HEA which can be attributed to its large grain size
[20,21]. In contrast, failure strain required for fracture is highest
for HEA. The ratio of hardness to elastic modulus, related to
plasticity index is lowest for HEA. This indicates early onset of
plastic deformation for HEA compared to steels. However, con-
siderable increase in hardness following plastic deformation is
expected considering exceptionally high work hardening rate of
Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA [20].
3.2. Slurry erosion studies
The results of slurry erosion tests are shown in Fig. 6 as a
function of impingement angle. The measured mass loss rates
were converted to corresponding volume loss (erosion rate) using
the density values given in Table 3. The reported values are aver-
age steady state erosion rates. All the materials showed higher
erosion rates at oblique angle. The erosion rates decreased with an
increase in impingement angle which indicates ductile mode of
erosion for Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA, as well as for the other two con-
ventional materials. Compared to ductile erosion mode of single
phase HEA, single phase amorphous metallic glass showed brittle
angles, despite of lowest hardness amongst all the tested materi-
als, the erosion rate for Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA were similar to mild
steel. At normal impingement, the HEA performed better than
mild steel, with 20% lower erosion rate. The lowest erosion rates
were observed for SS316L stainless steel which is attributed to its
high hardness and tensile strength. For oblique impacts, hardness
is a dominant mechanical property that modulates the erosion
rates for a given class of materials [24]. Therefore, lowest erosion
rates for SS316L steel is highly likely. However, the similar argu-
ment is implausible in case of HEA compared with mild steel. Even
though, the HEA had around two-third the hardness of mild steel,
the erosion rates were remarkably similar at oblique impingement
angle.
For normal impingement, HEA showed significantly lower
erosion rates compared to mild steel sample. The reduced erosion
rates for HEA can be attributed to its high ductility and work
hardening capability compared with mild steel. Contribution of
ductility towards increased erosion resistance has been reported
previously [25,26]. High ductility increases the critical strain for
failure, εf as a result of which, number of impacts required for
removal of the material would also increases, contributing towards
an increase in erosion resistance [27,28]. Further, at normal im-
pingement, plastic deformation is primarily the governing phe-
nomenon operational for ductile materials [29]. The work hard-
ening is related with the stacking fault energy (SFE) of the material
[30]. A decrease in SFE results in increase in work hardening
capability of the material, thereby lowering the material removal
rate. Zhang and Fang [31] reported a direct correlation between
cavitation erosion resistance and SFE. Using DFT calculation and
XRD analysis, Zaddach et al. [32] reported SFE for CoCrFeNi alloy to
be as low as 17 mJ/m2. Whereas, for mild steel and SS316L stainless
steel, SFE is of the order of 70–80 mJ/m2 [33]. Further, discussion
on the correlation with different parameters is given in the sub-
sequent section (Section 3.4).
3.3. Erosion mechanism
The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images illustrating
234 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238

Fig. 7. The low magnification scanning electron microscopy images showing surface morphology of (a), (c), and (e) stainless steel SS316L and (b), (d), and (f) Al0.1CoCrFeNi
high entropy alloy after slurry erosion testing at (a) and (b) 30°, (c) and (d) 60°, and (e) and (f) 90° impingement angles. For convenience impingement angles are marked on
the images.

surface morphology of the eroded samples is shown in Fig. 7.
Detailed examination of these images indicates that micro-cutting
and ploughing are the two primary erosion mechanisms re-
sponsible for the loss of the materials at oblique angle. Severe
micro-cutting and ploughing marks were observed for the SS316L
and HEA samples, respectively. Micro-cutting was the dominant
mechanism contributing to the removal of the material for the
SS316L steel (Fig. 7a). However, for HEA, ploughing was observed
to be the prevalent material removal mechanism (Fig. 7b). Nu-
merous raised lips and distressed platelets were observed for HEA
compared to SS316L steel. Few micro-cutting and micro indenta-
tion marks were also observed for HEA. The difference in primary
mechanism at 30° for HEA and SS may be related to their differ-
ence in ductility. Although, the hardness of HEA (150 HV) was
moderately lower that of SS316L (226 HV), the ductility of the
former ( εf = 0.58) was more than thrice to that of the latter
( εf = 0.16) (Table 3). For highly ductile materials, the primary
mode of material disintegration is platelet mechanism,
irrespective of the impingement angle [34]. The high ductility
assists the stressed platelets to undergo larger degree of elonga-
tion, compared to material with low ductility. As a result large
number of stressed and elongated platelets can be observed cov-
ering the surface of HEA eroded at 30° (Fig. 7b). Contrarily, the
eroded surface of SS316L steel was primarily obscured with micro-
cutting marks.
With the further increase in impingement angle to 60°, both
micro-cutting and ploughing mechanisms were observed to be
operational for SS316L steel (Fig. 7c). However, for HEA, the for-
mation and removal of platelets was the most preferential mode of
material removal (Fig. 7d). Some micro-cutting marks were also
observed however, ductility controlled platelet mode of material
removal was still observed to be the primary material removal
mechanism for HEA. Material removed through micro-cutting can
be observed to attach with the surface in form of a platelet
(Fig. 8a). Further, straining of this deformed platelet can also be
observed. The formation of platelet was mainly through ploughing
 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238
Fig. 8. The high magnification scanning electron microscopy image showing surface morphology of Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy after slurry erosion testing at (a) and
(b) 90°, (c) 60° impingement angle (d) work hardening rate for different materials.
and indentation mechanism. The extruded lips formed around the
ploughing craters and indents would undergo further straining
until they are finally fractured.
For samples tested at normal impingement angle the erosion
mechanism was almost identical both for HEA and SS316L steel
(Fig. 7e and f). Due to normal impact of sand particles the material
extruded from the craters accumulated around the periphery in
form of platelets. With subsequent impacts of the sand particles,
the accumulated materials was further extruded and strained.
Magnified view in Fig. 8b and c shows highly deformed layer
formed with extruded and superimposed platelets. Highly de-
formed surface of HEA and SS316L steel at 90° impingement angle
indicates significant work hardening. Due to lower SFE, HEA has
comparatively higher work-hardenability than SS316L steel.
However, the low ultimate strength of the HEA (389 MPa) com-
pared with SS316L steel (580 MPa) limits the erosion resistance of
the former. It is to be noted that HEA has significantly large grain
size of around 2000 μm compared with 22 μm for SS316L steel.
The large grain size of HEA was responsible for its low strength.
Besides ploughing and platelet mechanisms playing a domi-
nant role in erosion of HEA, micro indentation was also observed
to contribute significantly at all impingement angles. Compared to
SS316L, micro-indentation was highly profound for HEA which
may be due to its lower hardness and yield strength. Fig. 8c shows
magnified view of one such micro indent with highly distressed
and raised platelets around its periphery. These platelets would
essentially be disintegrated from the surface with subsequent
impacts of the abrasive particles.
3.4. Correlation parameters
To understand the structure-property correlation of Al0.1CrCoFeNi
HEA, relationship between erosion resistance with different
235
mechanical properties was investigated. This will help in determin-
ing critical properties controlling the erosion behavior of all, parti-
cularly high entropy alloys. Fig. 9(a)–(e) illustrate erosion rate as a
function of different mechanical properties. The correlation para-
meter, adj. R2 shown in Fig. 9 are for the least square fitted lines
relating the erosion rates at 30°. For 90° impingement angle, neither
of the explored parameter showed good correlation with erosion
rate. In contradiction to the literature [35,36], the erosion rates for
oblique angle (30°) showed no correlation with hardness. In general,
for a same class of materials, erosion rates is expected to show direct
correlation with ratio of particulate to target hardness (hp/ht) [36].
However, it is to be noted that all three investigated materials re-
presents different class of materials with unique characteristics.
Stainless steel SS316L is a high alloy steel with high corrosion re-
sistance, and significantly different microstructure compared with
mild steel. Further, high entropy alloys also possesses unique prop-
erties such as high temperature strength, and high corrosion re-
sistance with constituent elements in solid solution state. Hence, a
direct correlation of erosion rate with hardness was likely
unexpected.
For erosion at oblique angle (30°), three parameters, ultimate
strength, ultimate resilience, UR and modified ultimate resilience,
MUR showed good correlation with erosion rate (adj. R2 490%).
Ultimate resilience showed highest correlation followed by ulti-
mate strength and MUR. It is to be noted that both UR and MUR,
are basically a function of ultimate strength. The ultimate resi-
lience, given as
2
σut
UR =
2E
where σut is ultimate strength of the material and E is elastic
modulus [37]. During discontinuous plastic deformation accom-
panied by considerable work-hardening, the maximum yield
236 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238

Fig. 9. The correlation of erosion rate of Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy (HEA), mild steel (MS), and SS316L stainless steel (SS) representing different class of materials with
(a) hardness, (b) ratio of hardness to elastic modulus (H/E) (c) ultimate resilience (UR) (d) modified ultimate resilience (e) ultimate strength.

strength expected for the deformed material would be equivalent σut H

to ultimate strength [37]. Therefore, ultimate resilience (maximum
impact energy) can predict the energy required to detach the de-
formed material from surface. Previous studies [38,39] showed
strong correlation of ultimate resilience with erosion resistance in
case of cavitation and liquid impingement erosion studies. Further,
Rao et al. [40] proposed a modified form of ultimate resilience
given as
MUR =
2E
Significant correlation of erosion rate with ultimate strength or
related parameters for different class of materials at oblique angle,
is related with prevalent erosion mechanisms. For both micro-
cutting and ploughing phenomena, removal of material takes
place through shearing process. Thus, ultimate shear strength
which essentially is related to ultimate tensile strength is likely to
 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238
Fig. 10. The electrochemical potential test on Al0.1CoCrFeNi high entropy alloy
(HEA), mild steel (MS), and stainless steel SS316L (SS).
play a dominant role, especially, when comparing different class of
materials. Further, a good correlation with UR and MUR indicate
erosion behavior of a material related with the maximum energy a
material can absorb before fracture and/or work-hardening rate. At
normal impingement angle, the erosion behavior showed lack of
correlation with any of the explored parameter. Although, UR and
MUR showed nominal correlation with erosion rate, the tolerance
range for both parameters is considerably higher. The lower ero-
sion rate for HEA compared to mild steel at normal impingement
angle is related with the high work-hardening rate of the former
(Fig. 8d). The dominant material removal mechanism at normal
impingement angle was observed to be platelet phenomenon,
wherein material is deformed plastically until fractured. The high
work hardening rate enhances its energy absorption capacity
(toughness/resilience), and hence provides better resistance to
degradation through erosion. However, it is interesting to observe
that even though, both UR and MUR, showed reasonable correla-
tion with erosion rates, the tolerance range were unexpectedly
higher. The high material removal rates for mild steel, might be
related with its corrosion resistance. Poor corrosion resistance for
mild steel in tap water has been reported in literature previously
[41–43]. Flow corrosion (tap water without sand particles) and
electrochemical experiments were performed to investigate the
contribution to the degradation due to corrosion. In flow corrosion
experiments, mild steel (1.4 mg) showed significant mass loss
compared to unappreciable mass loss of stainless steel and HEA.
Further, the electrochemical experiments with tap water also
showed poor corrosion resistance of mild steel compared with
HEA and SS. HEA showed highest resistance against corrosion with
Icorr and Ecorr values considerably lower than mild steel (Fig. 10).
Therefore, the lack of correlation of erosion rate with UR and MUR
at normal impingement angle can be attributed to the difference
in corrosion resistance of tested materials. However, the corrosion
showed negligible influence at oblique angle primarily due to high
dominance of erosion [41]. However, for mild steel tested at nor-
mal impingement angle, the contribution from corrosion en-
hanced because of presence of platelet mechanism as the material
removal mode, which relatively is a slower process. Jana and Stack
[41] also showed that for iron at a given impact velocity, con-
tribution of corrosion is lower at oblique angles compared to
normal impingement angle. Compared to erosion dominated re-
gime prevalent at oblique angle, the material removal at normal
impingement angle for mild steel is comparatively, erosion-dis-
solution dominated regime. This explains the higher material re-
moval rates for mild steel at normal impingement angle which
further influenced the correlation with UR and MUR.
237
4. Conclusion
In the present work, the slurry erosion behaviour of
Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA was investigated and compared with conven-
tional structural materials, mild steel and SS316L stainless steel.
The results showed that despite of lowest hardness (two-third of
that of mild steel) due to macroscale grain size (  2 mm), HEA
showed similar erosion rate at oblique angles. At normal im-
pingement angle, HEA showed higher erosion resistance compared
to mild steel. Although SS316L stainless steel showed remarkably
lower erosion rates, however, with refined microstructure, erosion
resistance of Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA is expected to improve. At oblique
impingement angles, ploughing was observed to be the dominant
erosion mechanism for HEA compared to micro-cutting being
primary material removal phenomenon for mild steel and SS316L
stainless steel. At normal impingement angle, the dominant ero-
sion mechanism for all materials was formation and removal of
platelets followed by severe plastic deformation. Ultimate resi-
lience showed significantly high correlation with the erosion re-
sistance of the investigated materials. Correlation with different
parameter was satisfactorily high at oblique angle with less than
5% tolerance range, whereas, tolerance range increased to 20% at
normal impingement angle. The deviation from expected trend
was attributed to high work hardenability of Al0.1CoCrFeNi HEA
and low corrosion resistance of mild steel.
References
[1] S. Lathabai, D.C. Pender, Microstructural influence in slurry erosion of cera-
mics, Wear 189 (1995) 122–135.
[2] J.-W. Yeh, Recent progress in high-entropy alloys, Ann. Chim. Sci. Matér. 31
(2006) 633–648.
[3] M.-H. Tsai, J.-W. Yeh, High-entropy alloys: a critical review, Mater. Res. Lett. 2
(2014) 107–123.
[4] F. Otto, Y. Yang, H. Bei, E.P. George, Relative effects of enthalpy and entropy on
the phase stability of equiatomic high-entropy alloys, Acta Mater. 61 (2013)
2628–2638.
[5] J.-W. Yeh, Alloy design strategies and future trends in high-entropy alloys, JOM
65 (2013) 1759–1771.
[6] M.-H. Tsai, Physical properties of high entropy alloys, Entropy 15 (2013)
5338–5345.
[7] C.-C. Tung, J.-W. Yeh, T.-t Shun, S.-K. Chen, Y.-S. Huang, H.-C. Chen, On the
elemental effect of AlCoCrCuFeNi high-entropy alloy system, Mater. Lett. 61
(2007) 1–5.
[8] C.-J. Tong, Y.-L. Chen, J.-W. Yeh, S.-J. Lin, S.-K. Chen, T.-T. Shun, C.-H. Tsau, S.-
Y. Chang, Microstructure characterization of AlxCoCrCuFeNi high-entropy alloy
system with multiprincipal elements, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 36 (2005) 881–893.
[9] W.-R. Wang, W.-L. Wang, S.-C. Wang, Y.-C. Tsai, C.-H. Lai, J.-W. Yeh, Effects of Al
addition on the microstructure and mechanical property of AlxCoCrFeNi high-
entropy alloys, Intermetallics 26 (2012) 44–51.
[10] J.-M. Wu, S.-J. Lin, J.-W. Yeh, S.-K. Chen, Y.-S. Huang, H.-C. Chen, Adhesive wear
behavior of AlxCoCrCuFeNi high-entropy alloys as a function of aluminum
content, Wear 261 (2006) 513–519.
[11] M.-H. Chuang, M.-H. Tsai, W.-R. Wang, S.-J. Lin, J.-W. Yeh, Microstructure and
wear behavior of AlxCo1.5CrFeNi1.5Tiy high-entropy alloys, Acta Mater. 59
(2011) 6308–6317.
[12] C.-Y. Hsu, T.-S. Sheu, J.-W. Yeh, S.-K. Chen, Effect of iron content on wear be-
havior of AlCoCrFexMo0.5Ni high-entropy alloys, Wear 268 (2010) 653–659.
[13] C.-Y. Hsu, J.-W. Yeh, S.-K. Chen, T.-T. Shun, Wear resistance and high-tem-
perature compression strength of Fcc CuCoNiCrAl0.5Fe alloy with boron ad-
dition, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 35 (2004) 1465–1469.
[14] Y.Y. Chen, T. Duval, U.D. Hung, J.W. Yeh, H.C. Shih, Microstructure and elec-
trochemical properties of high entropy alloys—a comparison with type-304
stainless steel, Corros. Sci. 47 (2005) 2257–2279.
[15] Y.L. Chou, Y.C. Wang, J.W. Yeh, H.C. Shih, Pitting corrosion of the high-entropy
alloy Co1.5CrFeNi1.5Ti0.5Mo0.1 in chloride-containing sulphate solutions, Corros.
Sci. 52 (2010) 3481–3491.
[16] J.H. Zhao, X.L. Ji, Y.P. Shan, Y. Fu, Z. Yao, On the microstructure and erosion–
corrosion resistance of AlCrFeCoNiCu high-entropy alloy via annealing treat-
ment, Mater. Sci. Technol. (2016) 1–5.
[17] C. Lee, C. Chang, Y. Chen, J. Yeh, H. Shih, Effect of the aluminium content of
AlxCrFe1.5MnNi0.5 high-entropy alloys on the corrosion behaviour in aqueous
environments, Corros. Sci. 50 (2008) 2053–2060.
[18] C.-M. Lin, H.-L. Tsai, Evolution of microstructure, hardness, and corrosion
properties of high-entropy Al0.5CoCrFeNi alloy, Intermetallics 19 (2011)
288–294.
238 R.B. Nair et al. / Wear 386-387 (2017) 230–238
[19] X. Ji, H. Duan, H. Zhang, J. Ma, Slurry erosion resistance of laser clad
NiCoCrFeAl3 high-entropy alloy coatings, Tribol. Trans. 58 (2015) 1119–1123.
[20] N. Kumar, M. Komarasamy, P. Nelaturu, Z. Tang, P.K. Liaw, R.S. Mishra, Friction
stir processing of a high entropy alloy Al0.1CoCrFeNi, JOM 67 (2015)
1007–1013.
[21] ASM International, Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves, ASM International, 2002.
[22] H.S. Arora, H.S. Grewal, H. Singh, S. Mukherjee, Zirconium based bulk metallic
glass—better resistance to slurry erosion compared to hydroturbine steel,
Wear 307 (2013) 28–34.
[23] H.S. Arora, H.S. Grewal, H. Singh, B.K. Dhindaw, S. Mukherjee, Unusually high
erosion resistance of zirconium-based bulk metallic glass, J. Mater. Res. 28
(2013) 3185–3189.
[24] A.V. Levy, G. Hickey, Liquid-solid particle slurry erosion of steels, Wear 117
(1987) 129–146.
[25] I.M. Hutchings, R.E. Winter, Particle erosion of ductile metals: a mechanism of
material removal, Wear 27 (1974) 121–128.
[26] T. Foley, A. Levy, The erosion of heat-treated steels, Wear 91 (1983) 45–64.
[27] I.M. Hutchings, A model for the erosion of metals by spherical particles at
normal incidence, Wear 70 (1981) 269–281.
[28] G. Sundararajan, P.G. Shewmon, A new model for the erosion of metals at
normal incidence, Wear 84 (1983) 237–258.
[29] I.Finnie, Erosion of surface by solid particles, Wear.
[30] G.E. Dieter, D.J. Bacon, Mechanical Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill, London; New
York, 1988.
[31] X.-F. Zhang, L. Fang, The effect of stacking fault energy on the cavitation ero-
sion resistance of α-phase aluminum bronzes, Wear 253 (2002) 1105–1110.
[32] A.J. Zaddach, C. Niu, C.C. Koch, D.L. Irving, Mechanical properties and stacking
fault energies of NiFeCrCoMn high-entropy alloy, JOM 65 (2013) 1780–1789.
[33] A. Das, Revisiting stacking fault energy of steels, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 47
(2016) 748–768.
[34] R. Bellman, A. Levy, Erosion mechanism in ductile metals, Wear 70 (1981)
1–27.
[35] I. Finnie, J. Wolak, Y. Kabil, Erosion of metals by solid particles, J. Mater. 2
(1967) 682.
[36] P.H. Shipway, I.M. Hutchings, The rôle of particle properties in the erosion of
brittle materials, Wear 193 (1996) 105–113.
[37] J. Hobbs, Experience with a 20-kc cavitation erosion test, in: Erosion by Ca-
vitation or Impingement, ASTM International, 1967.
[38] F.G.H.R. Garcia, Cavitation damage and correlation with material and fluid
properties, 5031-II-I, 1966.
[39] B.S. Mann, V. Arya, An experimental study to corelate water jet impingement
erosion resistance and properties of metallic materials and coatings, Wear 253
(2002) 650–661.
[40] B.C. Syamala Rao, N.S. Lakshmana Rao, K. Seetharamiah, Cavitation erosion
studies with venturi and rotating disk in water, J. Basic Eng. 92 (1970)
563–573.
[41] B. Jana, M. Stack, Modelling impact angle effects on erosion–corrosion of pure
metals: construction of materials performance maps, Wear (2005) 243–255.
[42] Y.-S. Choi, J.-J. Shim, J.-G. Kim, Effects of Cr, Cu, Ni and Ca on the corrosion
behavior of low carbon steel in synthetic tap water, J. Alloy. Compd. 391
(2005) 162–169.
[43] M.A. Moore, Laboratory simulation testing for service abrasive wear en-
vironments, in: K.C. Ludema (Ed.), Wear of Materials, ASME, New York, 1987,
pp. 673–687.