wear3 | Erosion | Wear


Surface and Coatings Technology 71 ( 1995 ) 1-8

Measurement of coating durability by solid particle erosion
P.H. Shipway, I.M. Hutchings
University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ UK Received 21 January 1994


A comprehensive review of the use of solid particle erosion in evaluating the durability of coatings is presented. Various measures of coating performance have been proposed in the past. A new and simple method of performing and analysing erosion tests is described, which leads to the description of coating durability in terms of the dose of erodent particles of a particular type and velocity needed to remove the coating. The method has been demonstrated for paint coatings on steel, anodized films on aluminium, physically vapour-deposited titanium nitride coatings on steel and diamond-like carbon films on both steel and a titanium alloy and can provide good discrimination between generically similar coatings of different durability. The method may offer some advantages over the scratch test for evaluating coating durability.

Keywords: Coatings; Thin films; Erosion; Test; Mechanical properties

1. Introduction

Coatings of a wide variety of materials are commonly applied to substrates for many purposes. These may include the enhancement of mechanical properties, visual appearance or corrosion resistance or may provide special magnetic or optical properties. Often, coatings are applied to improve tribological performance. Numerous mechanical methods have been used to assess the durability of coatings, including scratch, abrasion and erosion tests, all of which involve the controlled deformation of the coating. This paper examines the ways in which the erosion of coatings by solid particle impact has been described and analysed by previous investigators. A new method for evaluating the response of coatings to solid particle erosion is then presented, and its applicability to a wide range of coatings is demonstrated.

2. Literature survey

Erosion tests on coatings have been widely reported. However, the mechanisms of coating damage in this type of test depend on the coating material and its thickness, the properties of the interface, the substrate material and the test conditions. Many investigators have used erosion tests, but these have varied in their
0257-8972/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved SSDI 0257-8972( 94)02314-G

specific methodology, and also in the measure of coating performance derived from the results of these tests. Some workers [ 1 - 9 ] have attempted to measure the erosion rate of a coating in much the same way as for a bulk material. The references cited span examination of the erosion behaviour of ceramic, metal-matrix composite, metallic and polymeric coatings applied by the methods of plasma spraying, detonation gun coating, sputtering, electroless plating, electric spark deposition, conformal cladding, diffusion and laser cladding. In all cases the coatings were relatively thick, ranging from 30 pm to more than 1 mm thick. Tests were conducted so that the coating was eroded but not completely removed from the substrate at any point either by penetration or by disruption of the interface. For meaningful results in this type of test, the total depth of disruption of the coating by particle impact must be only a small proportion of the coating thickness; the depth of disruption will depend amongst other factors on the angularity, size, angle and velocity of impact of the impacting particles. Other workers have encountered difficulties in attempting to use conventional erosion rate measurements on coatings. Maasberg et al. [10], for example, investigated the erosion of oxidized coatings 2-14 ~tm thick obtained by physical vapour deposition (PVD). In order to measure conventional erosion rates, only very small masses of erodent could be used in the tests

however. however. surprisingly. Shipway.%V substrates). They successfully determined the conventional erosion rate by measuring the maximum depth of penetration per unit mass of erodent but noted that. It was difficult to establish a conventional erosion rate for the coatings because of the many damage processes occurring. He therefore also chose to take the mass of particles for which the coating was initially penetrated as a measure of coating life. The mass of particles required to cause complete coating loss over the exposed area was used as a measure of coating durability.5 g total mass).2 P.1-0. Tabakoff [21] performed erosion experiments on aluminized and chromized superalloys. since more than one mechanism of removal may occur at once. Sue and Troue [ 13.14] investigated the erosion behaviour of PVD titanium nitride coatings about 25 ~tm thick. depend on the flux of erodent particles at the point of first penetration. the thinner coatings were more durable (by a factor of up to 20) when impacted with glass beads.%Al 4wt. but rapid changes in this parameter were observed as the tests proceeded. Hutchings / Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1-8 (0. Weft and coworkers [16-18] performed gas-blast erosion tests on sputter-coated films 25-30 ~tm thick. they too chose to use a mask and so to expose only a fixed area of surface to the erosive stream. [ 11 ] performed slurry erosion tests on plasma-sprayed boride coatings. In cases where rapid delamination of the film occurred (e. then spalling of the coating was the main mechanism of material removal. It may. They determined erosion rates from sequential mass loss measurements and assumed that all material was lost from the DLC film rather than from the substrate. They anticipated a gaussian radial concentration distribution of the abrasive in the stream and so placed a rubber shield over the surface to be eroded to ensure that a constant area of coating was eroded whatever the angle of particle impingement. The erosion rates tended to increase rapidly after a short time. This type of test measures a number of parameters concurrently and so does not yield fundamental characteristics such as the interface bond strength or erosion rate. Some films were not removed in an attritive manner but spalled owing to interfacial weakness. for films on Ti-6wt.23] performed erosion experiments on CVD tungsten carbide coatings between 12 and 25 p. [15] attempted to measure the conventional erosion rate of coatings between 2 and 9 ~tm thick obtained by chemical vapour deposition (CVD). It was concluded that blunt particles increase the . by Kral et al. the impact velocity was reduced until a point was reached where coating delamination did not occur. with coating thicknesses between 70 and 130~tm. They measured the exposure time required to penetrate each coating and then converted this to a mean erosion rate expressed in terms of thickness removed per unit time. the erosion rate could not be determined. [20] examined the erosion behaviour of plasma-sprayed tungsten coatings 450~tm thick. Both glass beads (153 ~tm diameter) and angular alumina grit (215 lam diameter) were used as erodent materials. Shanov et al. lead to erroneous conclusions. from 20 to 250 ~m thick. This mass would. The mass of particles required to penetrate the coating was taken to be a measure of its erosion resistance. since the result will include the influence of interfacial properties. which is relevant to its lifetime under erosive service conditions. deriving an effective mean erosion rate in this way may. including erosion of a masked area.m thick. Thicker coatings were more durable when eroded with the angular alumina but. in order that the coating-substrate interface was not disturbed. measurements of erosion rate may be misleading. Wert and Oppliger [ 18] used the extent of coating removal from the eroded area as a measure of durability. which they attributed to the enhancement of erosion rate at defects in the coating. including coating spallation and substrate erosion. but the results could not be compared directly with those from other studies. Formanek et al.g.M. however. A further problem was that this measure of coating durability is affected not only by the coating erosion rate but also by the properties of the interface. but the range of conditions to which the data applied was restricted by the mechanism of coating loss. Erosion rates were therefore determined. if the residual stresses in the coating were too high. since in some cases coating penetration occurred. Rickerby and Burnett [24] and Burnett and Rickerby [25] performed erosion tests on hard PVD coatings 1 15 ~tm thick. In such cases. Levy and Wang [ 12] exposed various hard coatings. Conventional erosion rates were thus obtained for the coatings. [19] who investigated the erosion resistance of thin (about 3 ~tm) diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings on a variety of substrates. to which all these properties contribute. In order to achieve a measure of erosion rate for that substrate-coating system. Garg and coworkers [22. 1. as the coatings were penetrated. Kingswell et al. Although they could readily have measured the mass loss per unit mass of erodent for this type of coating. masking the specimens so that only the central portion of the erodent stream would strike the target. which was unknown. They also used mass loss measurements to identify the point of initial coating penetration. provide a measure of coating durability. Similar methods were used. to an erosive stream and attempted to measure their conventional erosion rates but found that this was possible only in cases where the coating was not penetrated.H. making interpretation of the mass loss data difficult. in that case both the mass loss and the worn surface area were monitored. they calculated the mean flux of particles impinging on the exposed area in each case. This method could thus provide a comparative measure of coating durability in a particular apparatus.

on hard CVD and sputtered coatings respectively. [27] and Hedenqvist and Olsson [-28] used the dose of particles required to remove the coating under certain well-defined conditions as a measure of durability. quantitative evaluation of coating adhesion from these tests is very difficult. deduced the dose of particles required to remove the coatings. However. however. it can be argued that the test does assess the durability of the coating under the conditions to which it is exposed. JOnsson et al. They recognized that the particle flux was not constant across the specimen and therefore analysed the central area of the specimen where the flux was most uniform. Shipway. They also showed how the extent of coating removal could be related to the particle dose. E26]. However. and gave only a rough estimate of the flux. The flux in this area was determined experimentally by the erosion of glass plates. The extent to which the data depart from the linear dependence of r on Inm predicted . The value of fl depends on the geometry of the nozzle. J6nsson et al. Hutchings / SutJdce and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1 8 3 tendency of the coating to spall under erosive conditions.fl tan ~b) {11 where [4 is an experimentally determined dimensionless quantity. No correlation could be found between the results of these tests and those of scratch testing. then p(~b) is given by sin ~b p(@) = [J2 COS3~ exp( . termed the focus coefficient. the area affected by each impact and the total number of impacts. They also noted that the tendency for a coating to spall depended on the particle properties and the experimental conditions. rather than by the more common gas-blast test method. nor does it directly measure the adhesion between the coating and the substrate. In this way they deduced the dose of particles required to remove the coating.4-11 I~m. coupled with that of the flux variation across the specimen.e. a method which in principle describes durability in terms that are independent of the specific test method used. for coatings where the interface is disrupted during the test.H. For coatings where the interface is not disrupted during the test either by delamination or by progressive wear of the coating. From these data. J6nsson et al. However. The erosion test does not measure coating erosion rate in the conventional sense. If the proportion of particles travelling in the plume at angles between ~b and ~b+ d~b to the nozzle axis. the area over which the film was removed was roughly circular. [27] and Hedenqvist and Olsson [-28] also performed erosion experiments with a centrifugal accelerator. The method used by these investigators to measure the distribution of particle flux over the target was time consuming. they noted that additional problems arise if the particle dose varies over the eroded area and estimated the variation of flux across the target by the same method as J6nsson et al. the divergence of the erodent plume in some types of gas-blast erosion rig can be precisely described. especially in comparison with the more commonly used scratch test. [26] performed erosion experiments on sputtered TiN coatings 1 ~tm thick with a centrifugal particle accelerator. Olsson et al. Qc is the critical dose (mass of particles per unit area) required to remove the coating and m is the total mass of erodent particles which have struck the target. They demonstrated that the erosion test is extremely sensitive to small variations in the adhesion of thin coatings. Again. its results are likely to be more reproducible than the scratch test. at large values of r. Erosion rates could not be determined by weighing owing to the variation in flux over the sample. They concluded that. since erosion involves many individual impact events.P. from the assumption that the depth of the erosion scar at any point was proportional to the local particle flux integrated over the exposure time. Many methods of measuring coating durability in this way are comparative and depend upon the specific design of the apparatus in which the tests were carried out. The only assumption made in the derivation of (2) is that the value of Qc is the same over the whole area from which the coating is removed. For thin films of dye on plane specimens held perpendicular to the nozzle axis. and the radius of this scar increased with increasing total mass of erodent used. For an erosion scar on a plane target normal to the nozzle axis. the angle of particle impact may be significantly different from 90 c. Olsson et al. conventional erosion rates can be quoted. is defined as p(~) d~b. Mass loss measurements could not be used to determine erosion rates for such thin coatings since the mass loss corresponding to complete coating removal was too small to be measured accurately. L M. the radius r of the scar (i. As Shipway and Hutchings [29] have demonstrated. even though it is recognized that. with thicknesses in the range 0. the particle characteristics and the experimental conditions. The relative importance of the different damage processes depends on the test condi- tions. since the flux of particles can be shown to vary in a mathematically simple way with angle to the nozzle axis. [26]. Previous studies of the erosion of coatings have thus fallen into two separate categories. exhibiting a linear dependence of scar radius on the logarithm of the erodent mass. the situation is less clear. the radius to which the coating has been removed l is given by r=~ln m-~ln \Is ) (2) where h is the nozzle-to-target stand-off distance. since the erosion of coatings involves interacting wear mechanisms. and also argued that. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in the scanning electron microscope was used to quantify the removal of the coating.

o9 0 1 10 100 Mass of erodent / g 1000 Fig. the applicability of the method is tested for a wide range of other coating systems. Shipway and Hutchings [29] used an optical image analyser to measure the area of the region from which a blue dye film had been removed from an aluminium substrate. under the conditions indicated in the figures. Influence of fl on the rate of increase in scar radius with total mass of erodent under the conditions indicated in the figure. resulting in a distribution of particle flux as defined by Eq. by taking advantage of the wide difference between the reflectivities of the coating and the substrate. The particle stream diverges as it leaves the nozzle.M. "0 . 1 and 2 show the influence of fl and Q~ on the observed scar radius for the erosion of coatings. 1. the boundary between the area where the coating had been removed and the area where it remained was clearly visible to the eye. . I. The scar radius can be measured in several ways. The particles leave the nozzle and strike the surface of the testpiece. air ejector I • A particle feed 3. 15 [ -20 | | | ==1111 i i = i ~ - 20 mm E E O) 10 5 0 ~ I I I I Ill] I I a a||aal I I I I ill 1 10 1 O0 Mass of erodent / g 1000 Fig. Hutchings/Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1-8 by (2) provides a measure of the validity of this assumption. Shipway. (2). Shipway and Hutchings [29] showed this method of analysis to be successful for thin dye films. Schematic diagram of the erosion rig. Although the edge of the scar was slightly irregular.H. in which abrasive particles (typically 100-800 ~tm nominal diameter) are fed at a constant rate into a stream of air passing down a cylindrical nozzle. The coatings tested in the present work included proprietary paint films (about 28 ~tm thick) on mild steel. In most cases. (2) allows the critical mass Qc of particles per unit area which is just sufficient to cause removal of the coating from the substrate to be determined from measurements of the radius r of the area over which the coating is removed. (1). Eq. P V D titanium nitride coatings (2-3 ~tm thick) on high .- . it has been found to be sufficient to measure the diameter of the erosion scar with a finely divided graticule.20 mm 10 J / .4 P. measurement of its total area allowed the radius of the equivalent circle to be calculated. larly to the nozzle axis at a fixed stand-off distance from the nozzle end. In the present paper. Influence of Qc on the rate of increase in scar radius with total mass of erodent for the conditions indicated in the figure._. as predicted by Eq. 3. In the present work. 3. 2. Experimental method The method of analysis described above has been investigated with the gas-blast erosion apparatus shown in Fig.m Fig. Figs. which is mounted perpendicu15 nozzle exhaust E E "-I .

and angular silicon carbide and spherical soda-lime glass beads both of nominal size 125-150 gm. (2) over a wide range of erodent particle sizes is also demonstrated. 4. The validity of Eq. even though the smaller particles have an impact velocity about 1. .H. 1 I I I I I I i E I I 1 I I I I I 4. the measured scar radius was found to be proportional to the logarithm of the mass of erodent used. The nozzle in the erosion apparatus was a stainless steel tube 308 mm long... 5. The particle velocity was controlled by maintaining a constant gauge pressure at the top of the nozzle and was measured with an optoelectronic timer as described in [29]. Results and discussion Figs.'. Derived values of/~ and Qc are shown. Fig.2 4 / 1 10 1O0 1000 M a s s of e r o d e n t / g Fig.. I. Tests were performed at various impact velocities above 30 m s . indicating the validity of Eq.72 mm and an internal wall roughness Ra of 0. A nozzleto-target stand-off distance h of 20 mm was used in all tests.P. The particle flux was low in all experiments to minimize the effects of interparticle interactions [30]. The silica and s o d ~ lime glass particles had densities of about 2600 kg m-3 while that of the silicon carbide particles was 3200 kg m -3.I i | | i i i ill 1 10 M a s s of e r o d e n t / g 100 Fig. E u~ "~ 5 A f Qc = 128.. Hutchings ./Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1 --8 5 I i i i | i i l l I speed steel substrates.. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of the anodized coating on aluminium with 400 625 ~m silica particles at 47 m s 1. It is clear that the choice of particle size is critical to achieve maximum discrimination between the durability of different films. with a total mass of less than . The value of/3 is different in the two cases. Three types of erodent particle were used: angular silica sand with nominal particle sizes of 106-125 gm and 400-625 lam. 4-10 show the rate of increase in erosion scar radius with mass of erodent for the various coatings tested.. 5 and 6 show the results from tests on black anodized aluminium specimens when eroded with 106-125 gm and 400-625 pm silica particles respectively. (2) for the systems tested. 7 ' ' ''".0 kgrn " 2 3 .. Derived values of fl and Qc are shown..M. The critical dose Q~ of particles for removal of the anodized film for the larger particles is only one sixth of that for the smaller particles. the larger particles remove the film with a greater efficiency than do the smaller particles. 7 i i | i i i i i E E 6 "o 4 ¢.e. l . Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of paint with 106-125/am silica particles at 72 m s -1. In all cases.. In this case. the values of Qc and/3 derived from the data are shown in each case. indicated that the value of/3 is specific to a particular set of erosion conditions. anodized coatings (about 13 gm thick) on aluminium and DLC coatings (about 3 jam thick) on stainless steel and a titanium alloy.25 gm.i ' ' . but 77 m s i was the lowest velocity at which a scar became visible within a reasonable test time (i. this observation is in agreement with previous work [29] which E E (/) :5 p=38.l . with an internal diameter of 4. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of the anodized coating on aluminium with 106-125 pm silica particles at 72 m s -1. Figs..0 kgm "2 to 09 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 10 M a s s of e r o d e n t / g 100 Fig.) %=6. 7 shows results from experiments with the PVD titanium nitride film with 106-125 lam silica particles at two different velocities. Derived values of fl and Qc are shown... .3 Qc = 1. k g m . Shipway. The size fractions were classified by sieving. 6. .5 times greater than the larger particles. .l .

Derived values of fl and Qc are shown. at velocities of 34m s -1 and 30m s -1 respectively. which are appreciably less hard than the TiN coating. l . .0 J ~TiN © (preo×idizad rn.M. . but also the dose required to remove the coating. 9. 9 do not lie on significantly different lines. . . Hutchings/Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1 8 ! ! i i ! | i i | 7 . . . and any full study of coating durability should be conducted over a range of velocity. . With silicon carbide erodent particles (Fig. Fig. Fig. .6 5 ' I P. Derived values o f / / a n d Q¢ are shown. Shipway.1 Qc = 122 kg r n ' ~ ~ J J E E ~ "'24"3 QC=116 kg / 13= 19. . Derived values of fl and Qo are shown. In all cases the data obeyed Eq. 10 shows results for DLC coatings on stainless steel and titanium alloy substrates. the data points in Fig. . with both angular silica and spherical soda-lime glass particles 106-125 ~tm in size. . The particle properties thus affect the method of coating removal. 10 Mass of erodant / g 100 Fig. .H.I 10 . Q¢ for the coating on the titanium substrate was about 1. . . but a marked difference is seen between the two sets of results. I . however. which are significantly harder than the TiN coating. 7. Similar differences in the level of discrimination in the test were seen in the testing of two DLC coatings with angular and rounded erodent particles. E E "~= :~ 4 ~=19. and the particle type must be chosen so that the erosion conditions are not so severe that the coating is removed rapidly irrespective of its durability. Fig. . 8). in which adhesion of the coating to the substrate was weaker. The erodent shape affects the value of #. The values of Qc for both coatings were much greater with spherical than with angular particles. I. while Fig. (2). The values of Q~ are similar for the two velocities.7 times that for the coating on the stainless steel . The data in Fig. 8. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of titanium nitride coatings on substrates with different preparations with 125-150 Ixm silicon carbide particles at 66 m s-1. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of titanium nitride coatings on substrates with different preparations with 106 125 ~tm silica particles at 87 m s 1. 7 shows that fl depends on the particle velocity. TiN coatings deposited under standard commercial conditions were evaluated. 9). 2 "o 5 4 o CO =1 2 " (standar d lN 86 m s ~ S 3 2 . The properties of the films were better discriminated with the spherical particles.1 (standard coating) ~ 3 ~ = 122 k g m ' 2 2 I i .. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of titanium nitride coatings with 106-125 ~tm silica particles at two different velocities. The method is therefore capable of discriminating sensitively between these two. Other results of tests on PVD titanium nitride coatings are shown in Figs. . 100 g of erodent). i i . the method did not discriminate between the two coatings. . . 8 and 9. 9 shows results with 125-150 ktm silicon carbide particles at 66 m s 1. l. Examination of the variation in Q¢ with velocity may give an indication of the mechanism of coating removal for any particular system. The existence of a threshold impact velocity below which coating removal occurs much less readily is of great significance in describing coating durability. Mass of erodent / g I 2 1 = | i .I i i i i i i 100 10 Mass of erodent / g 100 Fig. . The values of Qc were 122 kg m -2 for the standard coating and 31 kg m -2 for the pre-oxidized steel substrate. the method discriminated very clearly between the standard coating and that on the preoxidized specimen. 8 were obtained with 106-125 gm angular silica particles at a velocity of 6 i TiN (preoxidized) 5 13=22. For erosion by angular silica. as well as samples in which the high speed steel substrates had been pre-oxidized by heating in air at 400 °C for 30 min before coating. i . Under the less severe conditions of erosion by silica particles (Fig. 87m s -1.

Oregui.. Schmitt. The sensitivity of the method in discriminating between different levels of coating adhesion clearly depends upon selection of the type (material. The effect of processing parameters on the microstructure and erosion resistance of NiCr3C2 coatings. Technol. Levy. 36 (1988) 433 -444. Jacobson. [3] Z.A. 1 10 Mass of erodent / g 100 Fig. Sue and R.0 for Ballotini.. Sur[~ Coat. angularity and size) and velocity of the erodent particles. L. i-18] J. [4] J. Levy.. by selection of the impact conditions.H. Wear. . 49 (1991) 482 488.I. 43 44 (1990) 875 887. It is probable that further optimization of the test method.-/ii 34 m/s . Microstructure. its own resistance to wear by solid particle erosion). Erosive wear of CVD ceramic coatings exposed to particulate flow. Tucker.T. Maciejny.V. 162. Zahavi and G. Sur/i Coat. 71 (1981) 191 210.R.. 10. Maasberg. [2] B. Nicoll and A.H.. 49 (1991) 31-39. ~~ (1992) ' 825 835. Technol. Derived values of /~ are 27. The shape of the erodent particles affects the erosion conditions and thus the relative durability of the films. Coat. [16] J. Technol. 5. Sud~ Coat. Mater. Wert.. McKechnie. Troue. By appropriate selection. Berglin. Coat.H.. The method may offer some advantages over the commonly used scratch test for routine evaluation of coating performance. Technol.E. Troue. Wert and T. Sue and H. Barbezat. Data are shown for erosion with 125 150 gm spherical soda lime glass particles (Ballotini) at 30 m s ~ and for erosion with 106 125 p.1. Shanov. Scar radius as a function of total erodent mass for the erosion of DLC coatings on stainless steel (SS) and titanium alloy (Ti) substrates..~ z" / " / ' ~ / / " D "o = ~ O ~ f .N. ~ ~ / '. AI08 (1989) 87 95.0 _+ 1. Erosion of protective coatings. Sue and H. Influence of composition and processing parameters on mechanical properties and erosion response of N i T i B 2 coatings.and chromium-carbide based coatings. 36 (1988) 695-705. Oppliger. 116 (1987} 181 200. erosion and scuffing resistance of carbide and oxide ceramic thermal sprayed coatings for different applications. the ratio between the values of Q¢ increased to 4. B. or the level of adhesion at the coatin~substrate interface. Tabakoff. Eng..A. Fagoaga and P. 121 (1988) 325. may improve its discrimination between different levels of coating adhesion. Boone. Coat.R. . Sickinger.. Technol. Alonso. Technol.. Microstructure and erosion resistance of vacuumplasma-sprayed Co-Ni-Cr AI Y/AI203 composite coatings. Sci. Davis. LM.G.. Baker and T.. 32 (1987) 237 248. 54 55 (1992) 25 31. The effect of composition and process parameters on the erosion resistance of sputtered Ni TiBz coatings. Erosion of hard material coating systems. and DLC carbon films on steel and titanium alloy substrates. [14] J. Stropki. the method can provide good discrimination between coatings of different durability. [6] J. Thin Solid Films. Levy. PVD titanium nitride on steel. [13] J. L.G. Tabakoff and M. By appropriate selection of the size. 118 (1984) 73-84. Gudmundsson. I. Clauer. D..Q.J. [12] A... Wear. High temperature erosion behaviour of titanium nitride and zirconium nitride coatings. Boone and A.J. Solid particle erosion of polymeric coatings. Abrasion. Technol. Technol. [5] A. Erosion of ceramic thermal barrier coatings. The behaviour of the coating can be described in terms of a single quantity: the dose (mass per unit area) of erodent particles of a particular type and velocity needed to remove the coating. McKechnie. Wear. Whittle and A... Conclusions The distribution of particle trajectories in the erodent plume of a gas-blast erosion apparatus can be described by a simple mathematical function. Qureshi and W. Wert and S. Shui. Formanek. Surf.F. L.. This method of analysis has been shown to be applicable to a diverse range of coatings: paint coatings. Surf.V. Wear. .J. [17] J. substrate. Sudi Coat.V.J. Wang. Mater. I.M. 33 (1987} 245 265. Surf. .C. wear resistance and erosion resistance of plasma-sprayed boride coatings. B. A. [10] J.. Laserprocessed composite metal cladding for slurry erosion resistance. Erosion resistance of Co-Cr AI coatings containing active element additions. The influence of coating processes and processing parameters on surface erosion resistance and substrate fatigue strength. [15] V. [8] T. 56 11993) 225 231. Gruner. and 21.H. Shipway.164 (1993) 529 537. Ballotini 30 m/s of the erodent particles.P. Wear.. D. SurL Coat.H. Sci. anodized films on aluminium. Levy and B.m silica at 34m s x.. .P. with the glass beads. 4 ¢o References [1] F. High temperature erosion behaviour of tungsten.e. Tucker. [11] B. 3 2 " .2 for silica erodent. W.. Swad'zba and A. Further work in this area is planned. Metwally. D. Wright and J.5 _+0. . [9] G. nature and welocity . Wang and A.. SuH~ Coat. Influence of residual compressive stress on erosion behaviour of arc evaporation titanium nitride coating. A. 110 11986) 101 116. Hutchings / Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1 8 7 ''''1 ' ' ' ' ''''1 ' ' ' ' ''''1 Silica E E 6 5 " 16 . which leads to a particularly simple method of analysing the results of erosion tests on coatings. Thin Solid Films. .R. Erosion protection of carbon-epoxy composites by plasma-sprayed coatings.346. it is likely to be possible to explore either the intrinsic properties of the coating itself (i. [7] J. D.A.H. Technol. Derived values of Q~ (kgm 2) are shown in the figure. 84 ( 19811 315 322. Technol. L'Estrade and H.M.

. Wear. S.. Dyer. Surf Coat.S.H.N. Hutchings / Surface and Coatings Technology 71 (1995) 1-8 [25] P. The erosion behaviour of TiN coatings on steels. [21] W.M.. J. Technol.H. Hedenqvist. Tribol. Hogmark. Wear. 166 (1993) 7-16. Kingswell. Shipway and I. Stridh and S. Mater. Burnett and D.S. Erosive wear behaviour of chemical vapor deposited multilayer tungsten carbide coating. Hintermann and M. 23 (1988) 2429-2443. Davidson and J. Tabakoff. High Temperature erosion resistance of coatings for use in gas turbine engines. Technol. P. Thin Solid Films.M. Burnett. 1. Solid particle erosion of hard chemically vapour-deposited coatings.S. A method for optimizing the particle flux in erosion testing with a gas-blast apparatus. [26] B. Thin Solid Films. Bull and K. J. J6nsson.J. S6derberg.. S. [22] D. Evaluation of hard coatings on steel by solid particle erosion. Maillat. Garg and P. Coat. Soc. D. [19] M. Coat.B.J. Low-temperature chemical vapour deposition tungsten carbide coatings for wear/erosion resistance. 137 (1986) 65 77. Am. Wert. Dimos. Hutchings. Erosion resistance of diamond coatings. 1-23] D. Shipway. Surf. Olsson.M. B. Garg. D.. The wear and erosion resistance of hard PVD coatings. Scott. Hedenqvist and M. Ceram. [24] D. [28] P. Johansson and S. Kral.E.8 P. [30] P. Erosive wear of thermally sprayed tungsten coatings. [27] M. [20] R. 162-164 (1993) 148 158.J. Influence of nozzle roughness on conditions in a gas-blast erosion rig. Sci.N. L.. Rickerby. 174 (1994) 169-175. 198 (1991) 139-148. 75 (1992) 1008-1011. H. Sunder. [29] P. Solid particle erosion of titanium nitride coated high speed steel. Wear. 37 (1989) 321 337. Dyer. P.T. Int. Surf. Akre. S.L. Rickerby. Rickerby and P.H. . 23 (1990) 173 181. J. 33 (1987) 191-211. 162-164 (1993) 552-557.V. Olsson. Wear. Hutchings.J. Shipway and I. Technol. 52 (1992) 65-79.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful