THE WEAR OF MATERIALS IN HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT

PIPELINES

by

n
w
N.R. Steward

To
e
ap
C

A
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering,,
of

University of Cape Town, in fulfilment of the

ity

degree of Master of Science in Applied Science.

rs
ve
ni
U

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Cape Town
1988

The University of Ca
' _, ·~~~Mn-1\~--
T .,..,,,=:w..,,.,.,,.,
the rioht • re 0111m hns been given I
.. ;n ~<'Ii'/ to Jt?pr~duce
. this tlles:s
tl.iesis io
in whole ,.
, . . C<JI'yngitr heH uy the author.
.0rynghr is Mel-!
--,~·""""n-Yt'J"¥~~--

[f
 n
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No

w
quotation from it or information derived from it is to be

To
published without full acknowledgement of the source.
e
The thesis is to be used for private study or non-
ap
commercial research purposes only.
C
of

Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms

of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 (i)

ABSTRACT

The hydraulic transportation of particulate solids through

pipelines results in wear of the pipeline walls. The
lifetime of the pipeline is determined by this rate of
r material loss and is therefore critical to the designer. Due
to the small amounts of material lost in in-situ tests,
requiring in many cases in excess of 1000 hours testing, an
accelerated test procedure is necessary.

This work introduces an accelerated method of evaluating

materials under simulated pipeline wear conditions. The

n
w
solids in the slurry and the materials were closely

To
monitored to attain an understanding of their interaction.
The wear rate of the materials tested was found to decrease
e
with a decrease in the average particle size and with a
ap
rounding of the particles. These changes in particle
characteristics occur with time due to comminution within
C

the pump and pipeline. The mechanical properties and wear

of

rates of the materials evaluated were examined to determine

ty

whether any relationships existed.

r si
ve
ni
U
 (ii)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would 1like to thank the following people who have

supported me throughout the writing of this thesis.

Associate Professor R.O.Heckroodt, my supervisor, for his

time and experience.

J.
Professor J.Lazarus, of the Hydraulic Transport Research
Unit, for the loan of the equipment used in this research.

n
w
The maintenance staff in the Civil Engineering Department,

To
and my colleagues for their assistance and advice.
e
B. G.Brown, R.Roodt and the staff of National
B.Becker,, G.
ap

Urethane Industries for their moral support.

C

al support:
The following companies for their financial
of

National Urethane Industries.

Industries .
ity

Muir,....
Multotec .... "".,... Cyclones
Karbochem and
s
er

Mega pipe.
v
ni

Finally to my Family, for their patience and understanding-

U

it is finished at last.
 (iii)

CONTENTS
PAGE

ABSTRACT (i)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (ii)
CONTENTS (iii)
LIST OF FIGURES (vi)
LIST OF TABLES (viii)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

n
w
1.1: History and Background 1

To
1.2: Aims and Objectives 4
e
CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF WEAR IN PIPELINES 5
ap

2.1: Mechanism of Material Loss 5

2.2: Factors Affecting The Rate of Material Loss 8
C

2.2.1: Slurry solid Phase Parameters 9

of

2.2.1.1: Hardness 9
ity

2.2.1.2: Shape and Size 9

2.2.1.3: Density 10
rs

2.2.1.4: Concentration 10
ve

2.2.2: Liquid Parameters 11

ni

2.2.2.1: Density and Viscosity 11

U

2.2.2.2: Temprature 11
2.2.2.3: Corrosivity 12
2.2.3: Material Considerations 13
2.2.3.1: Metals 13
2.2.3.2: Elastomers and Plastics
plastics 14 ·
2.2.3.3: Ceramics 14
2.2.4: Flow Parameters 15
2.2.4.1: Flow Regime 15
2.2.4.2: Slurry Velocity 16
 (iv)
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS 17
3.1: Metals 17
3.2: Polymeric materials 17
3.2.1: Thermoplastics 17
3.2.2: Elastomers 18
3.3: Ceramics 19

CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 23

4.1: Introduction 23
4.2: Apparatus 24
4.2.1: Slurry Reservoir 24

n
4.2.2: Centrifugal Slurry Pump 26

w
4.2.3: Instrumentation

To
26
4.2.4: The Pipeline 27
e
4.2.5: Heat Exchanges 27
ap

4.2.6: Jet Nozzle, Bypass System and 29

Weigh Tank
C

4.2.7: The Specimen Holder 29

of

4.3: Experimental Work 30

ity

4.3.1: Reproducibility of Results 30

4.3.2: Slurry Solid Phase Analysis 33
rs

4.3.2.1: Change in Particle Size 34

ve

Distribution
ni

4.3.2.2: Particle Shape 36

U

4.3.3: Jet Impact Testing 38

.38
4.3.4: Pipeline Testing 39

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS 40
5.1: Introduction 40
5.2: Abrasion Resistance of Materials 40
 (v)
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 44
6.1: Particle Degradation 44
6.2: Materials 45
6.2.1: Metals 46
6.2.2: Polymeric Materials 49
6.2.2.1: Rubbers 49
6.2.2.2: Polyurethanes 53
polyethylenes
6.2.2.3: Polyethylenes 55
6.2.3: Ceramics 57

CHAPT~R 7: CONCLUSIONS 58

n
w
To
REFERENCES 60
e
APPENDIX 1: INSTRUMENTATION 69
ap

APPENDIX 2: RIG RUNNING OPERATIONS 72

C
of

APPENDIX 3: MINERALOGICAL ANALYSIS 75

ity

APPENDIX 4: GRAPHS 76
rs
ve
ni
U
 ((vi))

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

1 Schematic representation of deformation

and cutting wear. 7
2 The correspondence between relative wear
resistance in abrasive wear and the
hardness of a material. 13
3 Closed loop pipeline rig. 25

n
4 Tests bend configuration. 28
"

w
Test pipe configuration. 28

To
5
6 Cumulative volume losses for Ultra high
e
Molecular Weight Polyethylene, High Density
ap
Polyethylene and Mild.Steel.
Mild Steel. ·31
7 Incremental volume loss of Mild Steel. 32
C

8)
8
1
Incremental volume loss for Ultra High
of

Molecular Weight Polyethylene. 32

9 Particle size distributions during slurry
ty

lifetime.
1 34
i
rs

lOa Particle break-down at an impact angle of·20

of 20
ve

degrees. 35
ni

lOb Particle break-down at an impact angle of 30

degrees. 35
U

lOc
10c Particle break-down at an impact apgle of 40
degrees. 35
10d
lOd Particle break-down with no nozzle or specimen
present. 35
11 e size
Photomicrographs of the 500f particle
degradation. 37
12 The slopes of the particles break-down graphs
les size.
vs the respective particles 45
 (vii)

Table of figures continued •.•.••.•..

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

13 Sequence of events leading to platelet

formation .• 47
14 Photomicrographic evidence of platelet
formation. 47
15 Hardness of metals tested vs relative
abrasion resistance (R.A.R.). 49

n
16 Sequence of events leading to roll formation. 52

w
17 Hardness of rubber vs rel
relative abrasion

To
resistance at an impact angle of 20 degrees. 52
e
18 Mechanism of material removal in
ap
polyurethanes. 54
19 Molecular weight vs relative abrasion
C

resistance (R.A.R.). 56
of

20 Vertical counter-flow meter. 70

Schematic layout of the test rigs control 72
ity

21
valves.
rs
ve
ni
U
 (viii)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

3.1 Metals Tested, Their Properties and

Characteristics 20
3.2 Plastics Tested, Their Properties and
Characteristics 21
3.3 Elastomers Tested,, Their Properties and
Characteristics 22

n
4.1 Experimental Parameters 30

w
4.2 Jet Impact Test Parameters 38

To
5.1 Volume Loss Results For The Materials
Tested at Three Angles of Impact 41
e
ap
5.2 R.A.R. Results For The Materials Tested
at Three Angles of Impact 43
C

6.1 Properties Associated with Polyester

of

and Polyether Polyurethanes 54

ity
rs
ve
ni
U

)
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

There is a large body of literature on the subject of Slurry

S
Transportation and some of the more helpful references are
given (8,10,35,42, ,60,61,64, ,71).
(8,10,35,42,56,60,61,64,65,71).
The process by which rivers cut into mountain slopes and
form river deltas is nature's own slurry transportation
al removal, transportation
system. This process of material
and deposition works on the principle that a fast moving

n
turbulent fluid can carry sol
solids in suspension over an

w
indefinite distance.• The more turbulent the flow is, the

To
larger the transportable load and the 1larger the average
particle size that the fluid can carry. This is essentially
al
e
the same principle that governs slurry transportation
ap

through pipelines.
C
of

Slurry pipeline transportation is the transport of

S
ity

particulate solids in a moving fluid through a pipel

pipeline
under pressure.• The fluid is usually water; however various
rs

different properties can be used: oil,

other fluids with di
ve

methanol, etc. A 1large range of solids can be considered for

ni

transportation, for instance:: minerals, mineral wastes and

U

agricultural or food products.

The basis for the understanding of slurry transportation are

the principles of fluid dynamics and hydrostatics,, the study
of which goes back as far as Archimedes.
 2

Early examples of slurry transportation were in California

during the 1850's where it was used to move gold bearing
gravels. The first experimental work on slurry pipelines was
carried out by W.C.Andrews of the New York Steam Company.
His aim was to transport coal effectively from the mines to
his boilers. With this in mind he built a model coal slurry
pipeline and received 3 patents for his work in this field.

The year 1914 saw the first industrial slurry pipeline

1 go
into operation. It was designed by G.G.Bell and transported
50 tons of coal per hour 600 metres from barges on the
Thames river, London, to a nearby power station. In 1951
E.
E.J.Wasp
J. headed the first modern research into sslurry
pipelines for the Consolidation Coal Company of Ohio,

n
U.S.A..
U.S.A .. Closed loop pipelines were constructed to examine

w
the distribution and behaviour of solids carried by a fluid

To
within a pipe and to determine the optimum slurry velocities
and the optimum particle size distribution, as well as
e
ap
the rates of corrosion and erosion in the pipeline, brought
about by the aqueous environment and the scouring action of
C

the solids fraction of the slurry on the pipe walls. This

of

technology was then used to build the first major slurry

pipeline in the U.S.A. - The Eastlake Coal Slurry Pipel
Pipeline.
ity

It transported coal 174 kilometers and operated between the

s

years 1957
19 to 1963. The pipeline was built in competition to
er

1, it became
increasing rail costs, but when rail costs fell,
I
v

19
uneconomical to continue its operation. Since 1957 many
ni

slurry pipelines have been built and the literature

U

describes many of them.

 3

Seven basic components of a slurry pipeline system can be

.
identified:
1. the solids to be transported,
2. the pipeline,
3. the hydraulic fluid in which the solids are carried,
4. the pump,
5. the solids preparation plant at the start of the
pipeline,
6. the sOlids
solids separation plant at the end of the pipeline,
and
7. the control facility.
facility_

The research reported here concerned only the pipeline, in

s used for constructing
particular the wear of the materials

n
slurry pipelines. Many different kinds of materials have

w
fol
been used to manufacture pipelines, and the following are

To
the groups from which the materials are drawn:
e
Metals
ap
81
Elastomers (as linings)
Plastics (as linings and piping)
C

Ceramics (as linings and piping, ie. concrete))

of

Others; ie. wood staves.

ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 4

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In the design and construction of a slurry pipeline

provision must also be made for the effects of both
mechanical and chemical wear and this is the area that this
work addresses.

The cause of material failure in pipelines transporting

slurries is attributed mainly to abrasion, with corrosion
and cavitation as secondary causes. The primary reasons for
failure are abusive service conditions and incorrect
materials selection. In order to select the correct material
for a specific application, it is necessary to evaluate the
resi
wear resistance of those materials available, taking into

n
account the specific environment in which they will be used.

w
To
A
A program to evaluate materials for use in slurry transport
e
systems is thus required. This evaluation program must use a
ap
test method that simulates the wear conditions that exist
exist
within slurry pipelines,, ie. abrasive wear, corrosion and
C

cavitation. In general the effect of cavitation in a slurry

of

pipeline is small when compared to abrasion,, while the

contribution of corrosion to the wear of pipelines is not
ity

considered in this study.

rs
ve

The specific
speci aims and obj
objectives of this work were thus:
ni

1. to construct a laboratory test for the accelerated

U

evaluation of materials under slurry abrasion conditions

in pipelines, and
2. to evaluate and compare a selection of commercial
commercially
available pipeline materials.

0
 5

CHAPTER 2

A REVIEW OF WEAR IN PIPELINES

2.1 MECHANISM OF MATERIAL LOSS

The wear of slurry pipelines is of importance to both the

designer and the operator, as it affects the initial cost
and the 1life of the 'pipeline. The failure of most slurry
handling systems is due mainly to abrasion and corrosion,
acting individually or together (9).

When transporting solids suspended in liquids, the first

consideration is the selection of a velocity which will1 keep

n
the solids entrained and moving, known as the critical

w
(3).• This velocity is dependent on the particle
velocity (3)

To
ze range, specific gravity, shape and concentration of the
size e
sol
solids and the pipe diameter (3, ,50,). It is also the
(3,43,50,62).
ap
parameter that determines the_r~te
~he.rate of material removal.
Turbulence which is responsible for particle motion is a
C

product of the slurry velocity. The degree of turbulence is

of

determined by the Reynolds Number (62,68):

(62,):
ity

RE ::::= p.V.D/ u
rs

Where
ve

p =
:::: the density of the slurry.
v ::::= the velocity of the slurry.
ni

V
U

D ::::= the diameter of' the pipe.

u =
:::: the viscosity of the slurry.
 6

The turbulence
turbulence is responsible for the formation of eddies.
These eddy currents are short lived,, but due to their high
velocity any particle trapped in them will1 hit the pipe wall
with a far higher than average velocity and thus be capable
of transferring more energy to the pipe wall on impact,
resulting in greater damage.. Particles in the slurry
reinforce this eddy current formation (14).
( ). As a large
particle nears the floor of the pipe, the velocity of the
s
slurry trapped between the particle and the pipe wall will
increase rapidly; this increases the velocity of the slurry
in this localised eddy. The particles carried by such eddy
currents,, due to their chaotic motion, imp~ct both the pipe
wall and each other as the fluid carries them along.
Particle motion is thus determined by eddies,, turbulent

n
mixing and collisions.
col The force of impact and the contact

w
time with the pipe wall are determined by the particle

To
velocity in the slurry and the nature of the particle
e
motion. Particles entrained in eddies can impact the pipe
ap

wall at any angle up to 90°; however for particles

les in the
liquid stream alone, without the effect of eddies, the angle
C

of impact is usual
usually very small.
of
ty

Essentially
ly two types of mechanical wear are described for
i

pipelines: deformation and cutting wear (50).

( ). Deformation
rs

wear is the removal of material that occurs when the pipe

ve

wall is subjected
ected to repeated particle impacts, resulting
I
ni

eventually in the breaking loose of material from the pipe

U

wall. Cutting wear is the removal of material by a particle

tangentially along the material surface and is
moving nearly tangential
essentially a gouging process.• These two types of wear are
represented diagrammatically in Figure 1. Cutting and
deformation wear are often described as sl
sliding and impact
wear respectively by other authors (62).
 7

The actual wear mechanism that predominates is determined by

the type of particle motion, which is primarily determined
by the slurry velocity (2)
(2).• It is generally accepted that
cutting wear predominates in straight piping; however,
wherever an irregularity within the pipeline exists or where
there is a bend or component that increases the turbulence
within the pipeline, deformation wear predominates.

n
w
IMPINGEMENT
ANGLE

To
e
ap

ERODED PARTICLE
WEARING MATERIAL WEARING MATERIAl---,_ _.,.J
C

WEARING MATERIAL__,--~•
of

DEFORMATION
DE FORMATION WEAR CUTTING WEAR
ty

FIGURE 1: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DEFORMATION

i

AND CUTTING WEAR.

rs

After H.B.Sauermann; HYDROTRANSPORT 8

ve
ni
U
 8

2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING THE RATE OF MATERIAL LOSS

The wear rate of materials under the action of slurry

abrasion is dependent upon many factors (15,36,50):

SLURRY SOLID PHASE PARAMETERS

particle hardness
particle size and shape
particle density
particle concentration

SLURRY LIQUID PHASE PARAMETERS

n
corrosivity

w
density and viscosity
lubricity
To
e
ap
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
C

composition
of

hardness
elasticity
ty

orientation
i
rs

density or molecular weight

ve

resilience
ni
U

FLOW PARAMETERS

velocity
flow regime
pressure
 9

2.2.1 SLURRY SOLID PHASE PARAMETERS

2.2.1.1 HARDNESS

It is generally reported that the harder the solids in the

slurry the greater the wear rate of the material used in the
pipeline, and that when the hardness of the sol
solids exceeds
that of the material, the wear rate will increase rapidlt
rapidly
(1,14,15, ,59, ,62). There is, however,, very little
(1,14,15,36,59,51,62).
quantitative information available on the effect of particle
hardness on material loss.

The Miller Number is an abrasivity index which attempts to

rank sol
solids according to their abrasivity. This test,,

n
however, was developed to investigate the wear in

w
reciprocating pumps, and the results from this test are very

To
vague, with large ranges of values for µnspecified
unspecified
materials, e.g. mine tailings,, with Miller
ler Nos. ranging from
e
ap
70 to 650 (3,
(3,50).
).
C

2.2.1.2 SHAPE AND SIZE

of

The wear rate increases with increasing particle size and

ity

this effect is well documented (2,3,15,32,33,36,

(2,3,15, "
rs

,50,51,62). The effect of shape upon the wear rate is not

39,50,51,62).
ve

as well documented and no quantitative information is

1 ; however, it is a well known phenomenon that sharp
ni

available;
particles become worn and loose their angularity in slurry
U

transport systems and that the wear rate decreases with this
decrease in the particle angularity (I, ,15,18,36,45,50,58,
(1,14,15,18,36,45,50,58,
62) .
62).
 10

2.2.1.3 DENSITY

More dense particles are less likely to be entrained in

localised high velocity turbulences within the pipeline and
are therefore not likely to achieve the higher velocities
which would result in high rates of material removal
(14,15,36,50, 62). Less dense particles are, however, fully
entrained in these turbulences and achieve high velocities
resulting in high rates of wear (41,14).

2.2.1.4 CONCENTRATION

Increasing the concentration of solids in the slurry

increases the wear rate, due to more particles impacting the

n
pipe walls per unit time (14,15,36,50,62). The rate at which

w
To
the material loss increases tends to level off after a
certain concentration has been reached. This is attributed
e
to the solids impacting with each other due, to the decreased
ap

mean free path, thus reducing the frequency of effective

effective··
impacts with the wall (43).
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 11

2.2.2 LIQUID PARAMETERS

2.2 2 1 DENSITY AND VISCOSITY

2.2.2.1

(
Turcaninov (in 62)) states that the relationship
reI between
slurry density and wear is parabolic, with wear being
proportional to the square of the slurry density. However,
he was·
was . considering the density of the slurry as that of
liquid and solids combined. Considering the 1liquid phase
alone,, an increase in the viscosity decreases the rate of
wear (36,50). This is probably due to a boundary 1
layer
effect,, changing the angle of particle impact upon the pipe
wall (28).

n
Material loss is also considered to be proportional to the

w
difference between the sol
solid and 1liquid densities (50).
( ). This

To
parameter determines the settling velocity of the solids and
ing velocity of a particular type of
the greater the settling
e
ap
slurry against another type of slurry,, the greater will be
the wear generated by it.
C
of

2.2.2.2 TEMPERATURE
ity

Temperature is important under corrosive conditions. The

rs

corrosion rate generally

general increases with increasing
ve

temperature and thus the wear rate is also 1likely to

increase (19,34,50,62). Under certain conditions an increase
ni

in the temperature of some materials is associated with

wi th a
U

decrease in their mechanical properties (5,16), especially

polymeriC materials and this can also
in polymeric a,lso result in increased
wear rates.
 12

2.2.2.3 CORROSIVITY

Corrosion in pipelines and thus ul

ultimately material loss,
lOSS, is
very dependent on the pH of the slurry and on the amount of
dissolved oxygen present ((34,44,50,54,62).
,62). An increase in
the pH results in a decrease in the we~r rate,, similarly an
increase in the amount of dissolved oxygen in the slurry
results in an increase in the amount of corrosion and thus
an increase in the wear rate.• These two factors combine to
determine the degree of corrosion.

\
There may be synergism between corrosion and abrasion,, which
would enhance the rate of wear. Corrosion is not considered
in this study as the majority of materials tested are non-

n
corrosive and the period of testing is too short for

w
corrosion to have any effect on the wear rate.

To
e
ap
C
of
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
 13

2.2.3 MATERIAL PARAMETERS

2.2.
2.2.3.11 METALS

It is a well established fact that, as different types of

metals of increasing hardness are used, their wear rate
(6,12,15, ). Yet increasing the
decreases (6,12,15,25,36,50,53,62).
hardness of a specific metal by means of work hardening or
heat treatment does not necessarily result in a decrease in
the wear rate to the same extent that changing the type of
metal would. This can be seen from Figure 2. For metals with
lity, it has been found that the wear rate
increasing ductility,
decreases,, this has some relationship with the increase in
material loss due to work hardening, as work hardening a

n
metal decreases the ductility of that metal (39,
(39,32).
) .

w
Increasing the carbon content in both annealed and hardened
carbon steels results in a decrease of the wear rate, the
opposite appears to be the case when adding Manganese to To
e
ap

,45}. When Chromium is added to steel in excess of

steel ((39,45).
ly ((39,45).
13% the wear resistance increases dramatically ,45) .
C
of
ty
r si
ve
ni
U

0 100 2f1) .1lXJ 400 lilXJ {/(}{} 0 2f1)

Hardness, HV.
Hard_. HV, "0'1".,,2
kgt/nwn2
Cal . (bl . (el
Cc>

FIGURE
fiGURE 2: THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RELATIVE WEAR
RESISTANCE IN ABRASIVE WEAR AND THE HARDNESS
OF A MATERIAL.
Of \I
a. Technically pure metals and annealed steela,
steels,
b. Heat treated steels,
ateela,
c. Technically pure melals,
metals, alloya,
alloys, and work
hardened ateela.
 14

2.2.3.2 ELASTOMER$ AND PLASTICS

There is a wealth of quantitative data on how long these

materials last under specific conditions,
~.~ ... ~, but very 1
little
information is available as to why they behave that way
( 4, ,15,17,19,20, 21,34,37,40,41,50,54,58,59,62,69).
(4,13,15,17,19,20, 21, ,37,40,41,50, ,59,62,69). For
e1
elastomers it is considered to be the rebound resilience of
the material that determines its wear resistance (14,16,75).
The greater the rebound resi1
resilience, the faster the material
returns to its original shape and the greater the wear
e1
resistance. The rebound resilience of elastomers is reI
related
to their hardness; for rubbers and polyurethane the
relationship is an inverse one (16). The relationships
reI
between other mechanical properties and the wear rate have

n
not been established to a satisfactory degree yet, although

w
work has been done in this area (20).

2.2.3.3 CERAMICS To
e
ap

Although much work has been done on materials such as

C

concrete,, basalt and various other ceramics (12,15,19, ,

(12,15,19,21,24,
of

.52,62,69), it has again been of a qualitative

34,36,50.52,62,69),
nature and general
generally standardised to cast iron or mi
mild
ity

.
steel. For advanced ceramics such as sintered alumina or
rs

nitride bonded silicon carbide, there does appear to be an

ve

inverse correlation between the wear rate and the material

ni

(52) • Research has also shown fracture toughness

hardness (52).
U

and the amount of binder to be important parameters in the

( 52) .
wear resistance of these materials (52).
 15

2.2.4 FLOW PARAMETERS

2.2.4.1 FLOW REGIME

The rate of wear is influenced by the characteristics o~ the

flow regime. The flow regime is determined by the slurry
velocity, solids concentration, particle size
ze di
distribution,
solids density and pipe di
diameter. There are 6 distinct flow
regimes (15,23,27, ,50, ,62).
(15,23,27,43,50,51,62).

!.Homogeneous
1.nv'mv'yeueuu.~ suspension

All the particles are carried in suspension. The particles

are generally smaller than 50µm
50~m in diameter.
I

n
2.
2.Heterogeneous suspension

w
Larger particles are present in this slurry than in the

To
homogeneous slurry, with the result that·higher velocities
are necessary to suspend the load. These large particles
e
ap
tend to move along the lower half of the pipe.
C

3.
3.Part stationary bed
of

The heavier material rolls and saltates along the bottom of

the pipe with the 1lighter material in suspension.
ity
rs

4.Moving bed
ve

The heavier material,, while still1 moving,, stays in contact

with the pipe bottom, while some of the lighter material
ni

remains in suspension.
U

5.Stationary bed 1
The heavy material in contact with the pipe floor does not
,move,
move, only the surface layers of the solids in the pipeline
are transported.

6.Stationary bed 2
There is no movement of the solids in the pipeline
1 at all.
 16

2.2.4.2 SLURRY VELOCITY

Many authors have reported on the eeffect of velocity on the

rate of wear of materials (2,3,15,36,41,43,
(2,3,15,36,41,43,50,51,62).
,51,62).
Essentially they revolve around a re1
relationship with the
general form:

n
Wear = k.V
== n
where
k ::::= a constant.
V ::::= the slurry velocity.
n ::::= velocity exponent.

There is little agreement on what the value of of the

n
exponent n should be, and the reported values range from

w
6.· Marcus (36) quotes a value of n ::= 2 for ductile
0.85 to 6.

To
materials, and n ::::= 6 for brittle materials.
e
ap

Pokrovskaya (43)) re1

relates the value of the exponent n to the
flow regime present in the pipeline
ine and gives the following
fol
C

values and descriptions for n:-

of

n ::::= 1
ity

When solid particles move mainly along the bottom

of the pipeline.
rs

n = 2 When a small fraction of the large particles and

ve

the finely dispersed material is carried in

ni

suspension.
U

n === 3 When the slurry tends to homogeneous

transportation or when all the sol
solids are
· suspended in the 1liquid.
 17

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS TESTED

The materials chosen for this research were taken from the
fami
three main families of materials
s available: polymers, metals
and ceramics.

3.1 METALS

ly of materials of which only two groups

This is a large family
were studied, namely medium carbon steels and cast irons.
s tested, their properties and
Table 3.1 lists the metals

n
w
characteristics. The data is as supplied by the

To
s is reported as
· manufacturers. The hardness of the metals
Vickers hardness. e
ap

3.2 POLYMERIC MATERIALS

C
of

fami
This is a very large and diverse family of materials,, which
for the sake of this work will be divided into two main
ity

groups: thermoplastics, which are materials that are

s

relatively inflexible and can be melted and reshaped

er

: ,
.
indefinitely;, and elastomers, which are highly flexible
v
ni

materials and decompose on melting.

U

3.2.1 THERMOPLASTICS

als come from

The materials tested. from this family of materials
the polyolefin group, namely the polyethylenes. These
materials, although manufactured via many different.routes,
di .routes,
are made from the same monomer, ethylene.
 18

Table 3.2 lists the polyethylenes tested, their properties

and characteristics. The data is as suppl
supplied by
PS and P6 are High Density
the manufacturers. Materials P5
Polyethylenes (H.D.P.E.), and materialss Pl to P4 are Ultra
High Molecular Weight Polyethylenes (U.H.M.W.P.E.). The
distinction between these materials is made on their
molecular weights.

3.2.2 ELASTOMERS

The elastomers tested came from two groups of elastomeric

materials, rubbers and polyurethanes. The rubbers tested
included natural rubber and synthetic rubber, polyisoprene,,
made by polymerising the monomer isoprene.

n
w
Polyurethane is formed from a polyurethane prepolymer and a

To
hydrogen bearing curative. The prepolymer iss derived from
the reaction between a hydrogen donating compound and an
e
ap
excess of diisocyanate. The resultant product is a liquid
containing 1linear urethane linkages.• The addition of a
C

hydrogen bearing curative combines with residual NCO groups

of

and the urethane solidifies. Two kinds of diisocyanate are

used: Toluene Diisocyanate (T.D.I.) and Diphenylmethane 4.4
ty

Diisocyanate (M.D.I.
(M.D.I.).
).
i
rs

There are three favoured hydrogen donating compounds:

ve

polyesters,, polyethers and polycapralactones. This results

ni

in three further divisions of the two subgroups, thus there

U

are six polyurethane types,, of which four were tested in

this research. Table 3.3 1lists the elastomers tested, their
properties and·
and. characteristics.The data is as supplied by
the manufacturers. Natural rubber is denoted by NR and
polyisoprene by IR.
 19

3.3 CERAMICS

The only ceramic tested was Sintered Alumina. The Al o

2 3
3
content is given as 90% and the density as 3.
3.97g/cm • The
data is as supplied by the manufacturer.

n
w
To
e
ap
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 20

TABI.~ . ~.!.J. .;. Metals tested, their

ir properties and
characteristics.

METAL DENSITY HARDNS TENSILE ELONG COMPOSITION

STRENGTH c Cr Ni Mo
C Ho

g/cml3
g/cm HV HP a
MPa

STEELS
" "
Bright mild
steel 7.83 227 - .16 - - -
ld
Black mild
steel 7.83 144 430 21 .2 - - -
En244
E 7.85 302 900 13 .4 1. 5 1.5
1.5 1. 5 .25

n
w
:
'
CAST IRONS

To
High chromium e
white
wJ ite cast
- -
ap
iron 7.69 687 - 0 2.6 27
C

A.D.I.1
A.D.l.1 7.2 229 618 4.2 >1.5
>1. 5 - - -
of

- - -
ty

A.D.I.2
A.D.l.2 7.2 525 1318 6.3 >1. 5
si

-
r

A.D.I.3 7.2 350 1236 8.0 >1. 5 - -

ve
ni

A.D.I. Austempered Ductile Iron

Aus
U
 21

TA.~!'.l.t.~~?..: Plastics tested, their

ir properties and
teristics.
characteristics.

POLYMER DENSITY TENSILE HARDNESS ELONGATION MOLECULAR

STRENGTH WEIGHT

g/cm3 MPa
MP a Shore D % ( xlO&6 ))
(xl0

Pl
P1 0.935 40 65 >350 4

P2 0.93 40 65 >350 6

P3 0.93 40 65 >350 6

n
w
P4 1.14 25 74 >250 6

To
P5 0.958 35 e 64 >600 O.
0. 5
ap
P6 0.953 35 64 >600 >0.5
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 22

TABLE 3.3: Elastomers tested, their properties and

characteristics.
rist s.

ELASTOMER DENSITY TENSILE HARD NS

HARDNS ELONG REBOUND MODULUS
STRENGTH 100% 300"
10o" 300%

g/cm3 MP a
MPa Shore A % % MP a
MPa MP a
MPa
.
" "
RUBBERS

Linatex(NR) 0.90 17.6 40 484 88.2 - 2.5

IR 0.92 21.9 38 648 89.0 - 0.4

Rl(NR)
R1(NR)
1. 00 15.0 35 800 73.0 - -

n
w
R2

To
00
1.00
1. 20.0 45 600 - - -
e
ap
POLYURETHANES
C

Vulkollan 1. 25 32.5 80 750 52.5 4.7 9.7

of

Polyesterl
Polyester1 1. 22 45 80 565 39.5 4.1 8.0

Polyetherl
Polye rl 1. 05 38 83 565 63.5 6.7 12.0
ity

Polyester2 1.22
1. 46 80 500 40 4.5 9.0
rs
ve

Polyether2
Polye 1.1 33 80 470 67 3.5 8.0
ni

NR Natural rubber
U

/
 23

CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Many accelerated tests have been documented and many

different results have been reported for these accelerated
procedures (3,7,62). As methods for ,ranking
_ranking materials they
are generally adequate.. However, even these rankings may
vary from researcher to researcher and until some
standardisation of the various test methods is achieved, all
results must be treated with circumspection. Examples of the

n
more important accelerated procedures used are listed

w
below:-

To
e
1. Jet impact tests,, where the erodent suspended in air or
ap
1liquid travelling at re
relatively high velocity, bl
is blasted
onto flat test pieces, with varying angles of impact
C
of

2. Specimens in the shape of a pipe are fil

filled wi th slurry.
with
and rotated around either the vertical or horizontal
ity

axis.
rs
ve

3. Specimens are rotated through an actual slurry or in a

ni

simulated slurry.
U

e a slurry is made to flow

4. Specimens are held static while
over them.

5. Abrasivity tests where the specimens can be either

rotated or reciprocated on the abrasive medium.

The main advantages of these tests is their relatively cheap

ly simple and small, ~nd
cost, since the apparatus is generally
the·methods of measurement straightforward.
the
 24

ability of a well established hydraulic

Because of the availability
transport testing facility at the University of Cape Town,
it was possible to develop a method of testing for the
evaluation of wear in pipelines that combined both a closed
loop rig and a jet nozzle facility. The jet nozzle is
attached to the end of the return line of the closed loop
rig. The advantage of this method is that the conditions
existing in the pipeline and the jjet impact test are
constant with the exception of the velocity,, which is
greater in the jet impact test, making it possible to relate
the results of the two conditions.

4.2 THE APPARATUS

n
w
To
The test rig consists of seven major components as shown in
Figure 3:-
e
ap

1. slurry reservoir
2. centrifugal slurry pump
C

3. instrumentation
of

4. pipeline
ity

5. heat- exchange system

6. jet nozzle, bypass system and weigh tank, and
s
er

7. specimen holder
v
ni

4.2.1 SLURRY RESERVOIR

U

3
1.8m capacity. The
This is a galvanised iron tank with a 1.
bl
slurry in the tank is kept suspended by two mixer blades
that rotate at approximately 30 revolutions per minute for
the duration of the test. The entire tank is kept covered by
a rubber canopy; this prevents splashing and spray ~rom the
blades and the jjet impact facility
mixer bl escapin~ from
ity from escaping
the tank.
 -
/

ND
LEGEND
1 •. SLUR
SLURRY RESERVOIR
2 . CENTRIFU
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
3 . MAGNETIC
MAGN FLOWMETER
C FLOWME R
4 • T
TEST PIPELINE n
6 • HEAT E ANG
EXCHANGES w
6a. BALL VALVE SWI R
SWITCH-OVER
6b. PIPELINE
BYPASS PIPELI E To
6c. WEIGH
WEI TANK
6d. JET IMPACT NOZZLE e
a p
f C
o
~
0ity
e rs
iv
n
U ®
FIGURE
U 3: CLOSED
D LOOP PIPE
PIPELINE RIG

N,.
U1
 26

4.2.2 CENTRIFUGAL SLURRY PUMP

The pump is a Warman 4/3D solids handling centrifugal pump,

which consists of a rubber lined cast iron casing and a 5-
vaned rubber impeller. The pump is driven at a constant
speed by a 3 phase 1.7kW
l.7kW induction motor.

4.2.3 INSTRUMENTATION

This section is divided into two parts: solids concentration

measurement and slurry velocity measurement.. (For a full
description of how the concentration and velocity of the
slurry is calculated,, see Appendix 1.)

n
Concentration measurement

w
A counter flow meter is used to measure the delivered

To
volumetric concentration. This is achieved simply by
"weighing".. the slurry in the up and down pipe sections of
e
ap
the meter by means of pressure tappings. These tappings are
two metres apart and each one is connected to a sediment
sediment··
C

trap, to prevent solids

sol in the pipel
pipeline from entering the
of

pressure lines. The pressure . difference between the two

tappings in either the upwardly flowing slurry pipel
pipeline, or
ty

the downwardly flowing slurry pipel

pipeline, is measured by water
i
rs

manometers.. These manometers are attached to the tappings by

ve

means of pressure 1lines that contain water to transfer the

ni

pressure pulses. Water for flushing this system is provided

U

by the water mains, and the air necessary in the manometers

to attain the differential
di reading between the two tappings,
is supplied
ied by a compressor.

Velocity measurement
The velocity of the slurry in the pipeline is monitored by a
Kent Veriflux magnetic flowmeter.. This instrument is
positioned in a vertical section of pipeline where the
solids
sol are uniformly distributed across the pipe section.
 27

4.2.4 THE PIPELINE

The pipeline consists of a 57rnm inner diameter polyvinyl

chloride (P.V.C.) pipeline, with a 900kPa pressure rating.
On the return section of pipeline there is a 2 metre section
of clear PVC piping, which allows the flow regime present in
the pipeline to be observed. The test section of piping
consists of bends and straight sections of the materials
under test. The bends have a configuration as shown in
Figure 4. This configuration prevents premature failure of
the bend resulting from the interaction between slurry
turbulence due to the bend and that due to a flange directly
before or after the curvature of the bend (37). This
interaction would result in greater wear in the region

n
directly after the flange. The lead-in and lead-out sections

w
of pipe allow for the normalisation of turbulence due to the

To
bend prior to a flange being reached.
e
ap

The straight sections of pipe are jjoined as shown in Figure

5. All three sections are of the same material. This method
C

allows for the centralI section of pipe to be accurately

of

aligned with the lead-in and lead-out sections of pipe,

resulting in a smooth flow of slurry through the central
ty

section, which is then used for measuring the wear rate,,

si

calculated from the mass loss.

r
ve
ni

4.2.5 HEAT EXCHANGERS

U

Much of the energy generated by the pump and friction is

transferred to the slurry as heat. This heat is removed from
the slurry by passing it through annular-type mild steel
heat exchangers. A 4kW Techniheat refrigeration unit
uni t
circulates glycol through the heat exchangers, remov.ing
circul remov_ing the
heat generated,, and cool
cooling the slurry.
 28

r-
j.--37.8 mm-----+l~--......-J;;~om
37.8 m m-----++----""'oorn m m---.....i
1 ----i

n
E

w
E
8
0

To
0
tn
LD

CLASS 9 PIPE
e
6d long radiua bend
ap

outaide diameter: 63mm

inaide diameter : 57mm
Slmm
C
of
i ty
rs
ve

FIGURE 4: TEST BEND CONFIGURATION

ni

Connecti"9 Lead·in
Lead-in (definitiv1J
Centre ,definitiYc) L•ld·OUI Connection
U

flango specimen specimen spocunon fl•ngo

.•..
Rubbor
Aubbo'
""'
QISklt
Rubber

'"*"

FIGURE 5: TEST PIPE CONFIGURATION

After Baker and Jacobs (4)
 29

4.2.6 JET NOZZLE, BYPASS SYSTEM AND WEIGH TANK

The bypass system consists of two ball valves, both with a

50mm bore. The valves are operated by an air pressure rotary
actuator and linked in such a way as to result in the
simultaneous opening of one valve and closing of the other.
This bypass system ((Figure 1:6a) is used to divert the
slurry from the jet nozzle (6d) to a bypass line (6b) which
returns the slurry to the slurry reservoir,, facilitating
litating the
change-over of specimens which are situated under the jjet
nozzle. The nozz
nozzle itselff is a replacable galvanised iron
reducer, reducing the pipeline inner diameter from 57mm to
27mm.
It is also possible for the bypass line to divert the slurry

n
to a weigh tank (6c) through additional gate valves. The use

w
of the weigh tank is described in Appendix 1.

4.2.7 THE SPECIMEN HOLDER To

e
ap

This is a steel plate on which the specimen to be tested is

C

bolted beneath the jjet nozzle. The plate can be vertically

ly
of

rotated through 90 degrees,, allowing for different angles of

impact. The nominal dimensions of the specimens are 1
150mm x
ity

75mm x 10mm.
lOmm.
rs
ve
ni
U
 30

4.3 EXPERIMENTAL WORK

................................................................................... '

ix 2 conta
Appendix contains a sc
schematic
ic layout of the rig valves and
a description
descr ion of the operation of the rig du
during a test.
The experimental work is subdivided into three sections:

1. Reproducibility
Reproducibili of the test proceedure,
re,
2. Jet impactt testing, and
3. P
Pipeline
1 testing.

The conditions of testing are summarized in Table 4.1

n
TABLE 4.1: EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS

w
Solids size mm <6

To
Solids density
densi g/cm3
g 2.66
Hydraulic fluid tap water
Volume concentration of sol
solids % 12
e
pH of slurry 7
ap

velocity of slurry
Pipeline veloci ms- 1 3.6
Temperature
rature of slurry oc
°c 25 - 32
C

Pipeline pressure kPa 250

Head loss m/m 0.35
of
i ty
rs

4. 3 .1. REPRO]){JCI:BII.:l.'.I.'X..Q.F RESULTS

ve
ni

To assess the reproducibility of measuring the wear rate,

U

three test runs with different target materials were carried

out. In the first test three specimens
imens of .High
igh Density
Densi
Polyethylene (H.D.P.E.) were exposed sequentially
sequent ly to the jet
of slurry for ssix cycles, with each specimen being impacted
ted
for twenty minutes per cycle, ie.. a total time of exposure
to the jet of 120 minutes each.
Five specimens of bright mild steel were used
u as the tar~et
et
material in the second test under the same conditions of
materi
slurry velocity and concentration as for the H.D.P.E. but
using a fresh slurry, ie. a slurry made up with unused
solids.
 31

These specimens were also exposed to the jjet of slurry for

20 minutes each cycle.
In the third test Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene
(U.H.M.W.P.E.) was tested. The conditions were the same as
for the previous two tests, also using a fresh slurry, but
I

the five specimens were impacted sequentially for 12 minutes

per cycle,, thus the total impact time for each specimen was
72 minutes.
The sequential accumulated mass loss (normalised to cm3 per
hour) of these three sets of samples is given in Figure 6
il
which illustrates:

1. the high degree of reproducibility between individual

measurements,

n
2. that the rate of material loss decreases with slurry

w
lifetime,
li
3. that a number of specimens could be tested sequentially
during the same test run, and To
e
ap

4. that there is apparently no incubation period, with the

result that the material loss of each specimen is
C

independant of when in the sequence it was exposed to the

of

jet of slurry.
ity

WEAR RATE (cm'hr)

80~--------------------------------~
rs

++
ve

+++
ni

80
60>-- +
U

+
+
+
+
+
40
40-- +
+

20
+
+
++/ .. ..······
+
••
•
+
20 +
..
+
0-
D•
#.·.
#w.
(] a
OCB~
fl __
L-__~____- L____L -_ _~_ _ _ _~_ _~
ol-~---'-'~~~·~~-...._'~---'-'~~-'-~--''--~~

o
0 100 200 300
300. 400 600
500 800
600 700
SLURRY LIFETIME (minutes'
(minutes)
• MILD STEEL + H.O.P£.
H.O.P.E. 0
D U.H.M.W.P.E.

FIGURE 8: CUMULATIVE VOLUME LOSSES FOR

ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE,
HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE AND MILD STEEL
 32

The slurry lifetime is defined as the time in minutes that a

fresh slurry has been circulating in the system. Figures 7
and 8 are the volume loss graphs for mild steel and
U.H.M.W.P.E. respectivly. The graph pf mild steel vs slurry
lifetime incorporates not only the results from the initial
test run but also those results from subsequent tests where
mild steel was run as the standard. Again it can be seen
that there is a high degree of reproducibility
lity between wear
rate measurements at a specific slurry lifetime,
fetime, even when
new specimens are used. The same was found to be true for
U.H.M.W.P.E ••
•. The decrease in the wear rate of the test
materials with slurry lifetime as shown by Figures '?,,and
7", and 8,
hold true for all the materials tested.--This
tested." This decrease in the
wear rate is attributed to the degradation of the slurry

n
over the test period, in particular
ar changes in the particle

w
size distribution and the particle shape of the sol
solids.

To
e
ap
C
of
ty

WEAR RATE (cm 3thr) WEAR RATE (cm 3/hr)

si

thr)
3,---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3.-------------------------------,
3r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r
ve

b
D
2.5 2.5
ni

Doo
U

o
D
o0
2 2
o
D o
D
o0
D oD
o0
1.6
1.I:i
Boo0 0 D 1.6 o
D
o~ 0o DD
DO
Do
oD
oD 00
o0 0
D
oD 0D o
D DOD
oD D
oD oD
o0
0.5 0.5

O'--~-'-~----'-~--''--~-'-~----'-~--'~--'
O~--~---L--~~--~--~--~~--J Ob---~---L--~~--~ _ L_ _~L_~
O'--~-'--~----'-~--''--~-'-~----'-~---''--__J __
o0 100 200 300 400 600
500 600 700
100 o0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
10.0
SLURRY LIFETIME (minutes) SLURRY LIFETIME (minutes)
7: INCREMENTAL VOLUME LOSS OF
FIGURE 1: FIGURE 8: INCREMENTAL VOLUME LOSS FOR
MILD STEEL ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE,
POLYETHYLENE"
 33

4.3.2 SLURRY SOLID PHASE ANALYSIS

It was found during this work that the solid phase of the
slurry undergoes degradation with slurry lifetime.
Ii This
degradation is defined as the progressive breakdown in
e size and the rounding off of angular
particle ar particles,
les,
caused by the pump and pipeline. Both these changes render
the solids less agressive and thus less capable of removing
material on impact, both in the pipel
pipeline and by the slurry
jjet. The degradation of the solids
sol was monitored by taking
aliquots of the slurry from the return line every hour
al
following the initiation of the test. The sample was al
allowed
e and the water decanted off. After drying, it was
to settle
:-
sieved into the following particle size ranges:-

n
w
To
>5.6mm
4.0 mm -- 5.6mm
2.0 mm -- 4.
e
4.0mm
ap

1.0 mm -- 2.0mm
0.5 mm - 1.0mm
C

0.25mm -- O.
0.5mm
of

The change in shape,, not being easily quantifiable,, was

ity

evaluated optically under a stereo-optical microscope. The

rs

ings. A
solids used in this research were mine tailings.
sol
ve

al is given in Appendix
mineralogical analysis of this material
ni

3.
U
 34

4.3.2.1 CHANGE IN PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Figure 9 gives the particle size distribution of the slurry

solids for the test run· on mild steel; this graph remained
run.on
the same for all three angles of impact regardless of the
type of specimens being tested. This can be better
illustrated by figures lOa, lOb and lOc.
lOco These are the
graphs showing the change in four particle size ranges with
slurry lifetime taken from the particle size distribution
data for the three angles of impact. To test whether the
nozzle or any specimen had an effect on the particle
degradation these were removed and a fresh slurry was
circulated. Figure 10d
lOd is the relevant graph.

n
w
To
e
ap

PARTICLE SIZE (microns)

C

o0
~
t;(. ~
t:f. ra"
~~
of

1000 A--
......,...,.
ity

2000 --
A "
-- -
rs
ve

·,"

3000
ni
U

4000 v

5000
6000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
cw, BIGGER THAN SIZE SHOWN
Il(,
SAMPLING TIMES
o0 hours 'V
\l 1 hour o 2 hours

o 4 hours O
<> 5 hours t::..
.6. 6 hours

FIGURE 9: PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

DURING SLURRY LIFETIME
 35 i.
!

SLURRY LIFETIME (hound

(houra) SLURRY LIFETIME (hours'
(houra)

4 0

o0 15
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 150 65 60 65
50 55 o0 10 20 30 40 60
50
BIGGER THAN SIZE SHOWN

n
'r.
" BlGGEn 'r. SHOWN
" BIGGER THAN SIZE IHOWN

w
2mm particle
par Ucle size -+- lmm particle
1mm parliCle Size
s'ze particle size
2mm parlicle -+- lmm particle size
1mm
--*- O.6mm
-II<- 0.5mm particle size --e-
-e- O.2omm
0.25mm perticle
particle size -*- O.5mm
........ 0.5mm par Ilcle size
particle --e- O.26mm
....g... 0.25mm perlicle Size
particle size

FIGURE 10&:
10a: PARTICLE BREAK-DOWN AT AN
IMPACT ANGLE OF 20 DEGREES. To
FIGURE 10b: PARTICLE BREAK-DOWN AT AN
IMPACT ANGLE OF 30 DEGREES.
e
ap
C

SLURRY LIFETIME (houre)

{houri'
SLURRY LIFETIME (houri'
(houre)
of
ty

6
si

o
r
ve

3
ni
U

o0 10 20 30 40 60
50 60 o0 65 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 60 65 80
10 16 60 85
65
81ZE eHOWN
"'r. BIGGER THAN &tIE SHOWN
"'r. BIGGER THAN SIZE SHOWN
2mm particle size -+- 1mm particle size
lmm panicle
2mm particle size
2mlT. -+- lmm particle size
1mm

·. --*-
-II<- O.6mm
0.5mm particle size --e-
....g... 0.25mm particle
O.2omm per ticle size
-*-- O.5mm
........ 0.5mm particle size --e- O.2omm
....g... 0.25mm particle size

FIGURE 10($;
10d: PARTICLE BREAK-DOWN WITH NO
FIGURE 10c: PARTICLE BREAK-DOWN AT
NOZZLE OR SPECIMEN PLATE PRESENT.
IMPACT ANGLE OF 40 DEGREES.
 36

4.3.2.2 PARTICLE SHAPE

Changes in the particle shape are difficult to quantify, and

only a qualitative discussion of this effect is possible at
the present. When samples of the particles axe
are viewed under
lOX magnification
fication it can be seen that the particles
initially have very bright, shiny, sharp, angular shapes.
With increasing slurry Ii
lifetime the shape changes and tends
towards a more rounded shape. Figure 11 is photomicrographs
,of the particles of the 500 micron size range for samples
taken hourly from initiation of the test, for six hours.
What can be clearly seen in the first couple of hours is the
loss of the sharp sides and the scuffing of the facets with
.,slurry
slurry ling of the surfaces.
lifetime, resulting in a dulling

n
w
To
e
ap
C
of
ty
i
rs
ve
ni
U
 37

o0 hours 1 hour

n
w
2 hours To 3 hours
e
ap
C
of
ty
si
r
ve
ni
U

4 hours 5 hours

6 hours
FIGURE 11: PHOTOMICROGRAPHS OF THE SOOp
500µ PARTICLE SIZE
DEGRADATION
 38

Based on the experiance gained during the reproducibility

riance ga ibili
study,
study~ as described
sc by Steward and Heckroodt (58), the
procedure described below
re desc ow was evolved.
Table 4.2 gives the various parameters under whi
which the
subsequent evaluations were carried out.

TABLE 4.2: JET IMPACT TEST PARAMETERS

Nozzle velocity of slurry ms-11

ms- 16
Specimen
imen impact angle
Ie o0 20/30/40

n
Specimen exposure duration min 144

w
Total test duration
To min 720

To
It was decided to test five specimens sequentially
ially in a
e
ap
single
s Ie test run due to the long test times required. The
initial exposure time to the slurry was 5 minutes per
C

specimen. This resulted

resul in a 20 m
minute breack
k while the
of

otherr 4 specimens were exposed, before the first spec

ot specimen
ty

was exposed to the slurry jet again. After

ter approximatly 3
si

increased to 20 minutes per

hours the impact exposures were increas
r

specimen until the wear rate levelled off for each of the 5
ve

specimens, when the test is terminated. The tot

total test ttime
ni

was usually between ten to fifteen hours. After each test

U

run was completed, tthe slurry was disposed of and a new

slurry mixed in the slurry reservoir.
 39

The wear rate in grams per hour was calculated by weighing

each specimen before the test to an accuracy of lOmg using
an electronic balance.• After each subsequent exposure to the
slurry jet, the specimen was dried and reweighed. Drying
involved removing any excess water with a paper towel and
then removing the residual dampness with a hair dryer. The
specimen was then al
allowed to stand until1 it was required for
testing,, at which stage it was weighed and the mass noted.
The resultant mass loss was converted to a volume loss per
hour.

At the end of the test run the specimens were studied under
a stereo-optical microscope to determine bulk material
materi
removal mechanisms and to establ
establish if the different

n
w
materials
als have similar
lar wear characteristics.

To
e
44.3.4 PIPELINE TESTING
ap

This
s section of testing,, due to the long test periods
C

required,, has not produced enough results at this stage to

of

make any comparisons with the accelerated tests. This

ty

research is continuing.
i
rs
ve
ni
U
 40

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The wear rate, given as volume loss per hour, for the
materials were plotted against slurry lifetime. All the
graphs are given in Appendix 4. The slurry lifetime is
defined as the time in minutes that a fresh slurry has been
circulating in the system. Every volume loss value was
plotted at the midpoint of the exposure time, ie. the value
for the first exposure (total time 5 minutes) was plotted at

n
2.5 minutes, the second at 7.5 minutes, etc. From these

w
graphs the wear rate at zero time and at 600 minutes for

To
each material and for eve~y condition could be established
by interpolation.
e
ap
C

5.2 ABRASION RESISTANCE OF MATERIALS

of

For the first material tested, ultra high molecular weight

ty

polyethylene, the displacement of the volume loss vs

si

lifetime curve against that for mild steel was constant

er

not.true
throughout the slurry lifetime; however this was not 'true
v

for other families of materials. It thus became necessary to

ni

consider the wear rate of the materials under impact from

U

sharp particles (at slurry lifetime of 0 minutes) and from

worn, or blunt particles (at slurry lifetime of 600
minutes). Table 5.1 gives the volume loss resu1ts for the
materiaLs tested at slurry lifetimes of·O and 600 minutes,
materials
for the three angles of impact.
 4411

TABLE 5.1: VOLUME LOSS RESULTS FOR THE MATERIALS TESTED AT

THREE ANGLES OF IMPACT.

MATERIAL VOLUME LOSS(cml/hr)

LOSS(cm3 /hr)

0 MINUTES 600 MINUTES

20°0
20 30°0
30 40 0
40° 20
20°0 30°0
30 40°0
40

STEELS

Bright mild 2.48 3.32 2.28 1. 25 1. 47 1.02

steel

Black mild 2.59 2.80 2.45 1. 06 0.92 1. 02

steel

En24 17
1. 17 1. 60 1. 35 0.62 0.75 0.72

CAST IRONS

n
w
High chromium 0.20 0.63 0.40 0.09 0.17 0.15
white cast iron

A.D.I.1
A.D.l.1 - --
To
1. 9
1.9 - - 0.85
e
A.D.I.2
A.D.l.2 1. 17
17 2.40 0.86 0.28 0.30 0.38
ap

A.D.I.3
A.D.l.3 - - 1. 14
1.14 - - 0.51
C

RUBBERS
of

Linate x
Linatex 0.35 - - 0.06 - -
ity

IR 0.25 - - 0.04 - -
rs

Rl
R1 0.95 0.60 2.20 0.03 0.07 0.29
ve

R2 2.25 2.50 2.75 0.03 0. 16

0.16 0.06
ni
U
 42
42

TABLE 5.1
5 .1
. . .. ................ ....._, .r..... .
CONTINUED ... / , .....

MATERIAL LOSS(cm3 /hr)

VOLUME LOSS(cml/hr)

0 MINUTES 600 MINUTES

20°0
20 30°0
30 40°0
40 2000
20 30°0
30 40°0
40

POLYURETHANES

Vulkollan 0.60 0.75 0.72 0.24 0.14 0.27

Polyester!
Polyester1 0.25 0.62 <0.01 0.25 0.05 <0.01

Polyester2 0.75 2.65 1. 55 0.25 - <0.01

Polyether!
Polyether1 1. 44 1. 85 1. 95 0.26 0.25 <0 .01
<0.01

Polyether2 2.05 2.80 1. 47 0.25 0.28 0.25

n
PLASTICS

w
Pl
P1 - - 2.85 - - 1. 27

P2 4.00 4.00
To
4.45 0.95 1. 29 0.95
e
P3 - - 3.25 - - 1. 27
ap

P4 3.55 3.55 3.40 1. 00 1. 26 0.79

C

P5 - 10.37 - - ' 4.74

4. 74 -
of

P6 - 9.76 - - 3.86 -
ity

CERAMIC
rs

Sintered 1. 40 0.70 0.45 0.07 0.11 0.2 3

0.23
ve

alumina
ni
U

The relative abrasion resistance (R.A.R~) for the various

va rious
slurr y
materials tested was then calculated for these two slurry
lifetimes and given in Table 5.2. In this study the R.A.R.
d e fined as the volume of material lost
of a test material is defined los t
b y a standard specimen
by spe ci men divided by
b y the volume of material
lost from a specimen of the test material under identical
w~r resistant a material,
conditions. Thus the more w~ar material , the
val ue. The standard used in this study
greater its R.A.R. value.
was a work hardened mild steel, called Bright Mild Steel.
 -l3
43

TABLE 5.2: R.A.R. RESULTS FOR THE MATERIALS TESTED AT

THREE ANGLES OF IMPACT.

MATERIAL R.A.R.sharp R.A.R.blunt

20°0
20 30°0
30 40 0
40° 20°0
20 30 0
30° 400
40 0

STEELS

Bright mild steel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Black mild steel 0.9 1.22
1. 0.9 1.22
1. 1.6
1. 6 1.00
1.
En 24 2.1 2.1 1.7
1. 7 2.0 2.0 1.4
1. 4

CAST IRONS

High chromium white

cast iron 12.4 5.3 5.7
5.7 13.9 8.6 6.8
A.D.l.1
A.D.I.1 -- - 1.2
1. 2 - - 1. 2
1.2
A.D.l.2
A.D.I.2 22.. 1 1.44
1. 2.6 4.5 4.9 2.7

n
A.D.l.3
A.D.I.3 - - 2.0 - - 2.0

w
To
POLYURETHANES

Vulkollan 4.1
4. 1. 4.4 3.22
3. 5.2 10.5 3.8
e
Polyester1
Polyesterl 9.9 5.3 large 5.0 29.4 large
ap
Polyester2 3.3 1.22
1. 1.5 5.0 - large
Polyether1
Polyetherl 1.7
1. 7 1.8
1. 8 1.2 4.8 5.9 large
C

Polyether2 1.22
1. 1.2
1. 2 1.6
1. 6 5.0 5.2 4. 1
4.1
of

RUBBERS

Linatex 7. 1 - - 20.8 - -
ty

IR 9.9 - - 31.33
31. - --
si

R1
Rl 2.6 5.5 1.00
1. 41. 7 21.0
21. 0 3.5
R2 1.1
1. 1 1.33
1. 0.8 41.7
4 1. 7 9.2 17.0
v er

POLYETHYLENE
ni

P1
Pl -- - 0.8 - -- 0.8
U

P2 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.3

1. 3 1.1
1. 1 1.1
1. 1
P3 - - 0.77
0. - - 0.8
P4
P4 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.22
1. 1. 2
1.2 1.3
P5 -- 0.32 - - 0.31 -
P6 - 0.34 - - 0.38 -
CERAMIC

Sintered 1.8
1. 8 4.7
4. 7 5.1 17.8 13.4 4.4
alumina
 44

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION

6.1 PARTICLE DEGRADATION

From the observations made in section 4.3.2, it can be

conluded that:
1. The angle at which the slurry impacts the specimen
surface
surf ace has no effect on the rate of the particle size
degradation.
2. The type of specimen surface impacted also has no effect
on the rate of the particle size degradation, as many

n
w
different specimen types were tested and the particle

To
degradation curves remained the same.
3. Neither
Ne i ther the actual presence of a specimen in the slurry
e
jet, or the jet nozzle, has any effect upon the rate of
ap

the particle size degradation.

4. ThE~ size of the particles in the slurry practically
C

decreased linearly in size with slurry lifetime over the

of

period that the slurry was used.

ity

From these observations it can only be concluded that it is

s
er

the pump and pipeline that are reponsible for the particle
v

degradation. Similar conclusions were arrived at by Baker

ni

and Jacobs (4), Truscott (62), and others (2,3,15,50). In

U

Figure 12 the rate at which the size ranges in figures 10

break down is plotted as a function of particle size, and a
relationship that is apparently linear is observed. It is
thus possible to predict the rate at which other particle
sizes break down.
 45

(microna)
PARTICLE SIZE (microns'
2500~-----------------------------'
2500.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----.

2000

1500

1000 oD

n
w
500
To
e
ap
D
C

O~------~------~------~----~
0'--~~~-'--~~~_.__~~~-L-~~~--'

-2 -1.5
-1.6 -1 -0.5
-0.6 0
of

SLOPE (slurry lifetime/particle size)

ty

FIGURE 12: THE SLOPES OF THE PARTICLE

BREAK-DOWN GRAPHS va vs THE RESPECTIVE
i
rs

PARTICLES SIZE.
ve
ni
U
 46

6.2 MATERIALS

The necessity for two R.A.R. values for the materials tested
is due to each family of materials losing material by a
different mechanism and at a different rate, under impact
from a changing particle size distribution and changing
particle shape. This, however, does not mean that the wear
mechanism for a specific family of materials changes with
slurry lifetime, only that the resistance of the material to
the changing particle characteristics changes.

6.2.1 METALS

The mechanism of material removal in all the metals tested

n
was described by A.V.Levy et al (6,22,29,30,31,32), as that

w
To
of Ductile Platelet Formation. This wear mechanism involves
particles impacting the surface
surf ace of the specimen, producing
e
forged/extruded platelets of metal, that extend over the
ap

impacted surface, until a single impact knocks a platelet

off. A diagramatic sequence of events leading to material
C

removal by this mechanism is given in Figure 13, while

of

photomicrographic evidence supporting this mechanism is

ity

given in Figure 14. A variation to the characteristic

"rippled" surfaces of the metals caused by this mechanism
rs

was those surfaces of the austempered ductile irons, which

ve

had very pitted surfaces due to the preferential loss of /

ni

their spheroidal carbon content, resulting in small cavities

U

(53). The dutile platelet mechanism of material removal seen

on the surface of the steels tested can be considered the
same as deformation wear in pipelines described in section
2.1 of Chapter 2 and discussed by Sauerman (50).
 47
FRESH SURFACE

AFTER:
FIRST IMPACT

SECOND IM",",CT
IMPACT

THIRD IMPACT

FOURTH IMPACT AND

MATERIAL REMOVAL
---.-----
FIGURE 13: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING TO
I'IGURE

n
PLATELET FORMATION IN DUCTILE METALS.

w
To
e
ap
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U

Extruded
E~trudedplatelets visible Extruded platelet lifted away
on the metal surface. from the metal surface to
(indicated with arrows) facilitate observation and
show the method of material
removal.
(indicated with arrows)
FIGURE 14: PHOTOMICROGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF PLATELET FORMATION.
 48

From the volume loss results (see Table 5.1), the metals
lost maximum material under impact from sharp particles at
an impact angle of 30°, while under impact from blunt
particles there is less of a difference in the material lost
for the three angles of impact for the individual metals.
However, when the R.A.R. values are calculated, the results
appear very different. There is little difference between
bright mild and black mild steel, while En24 has an R.A.R.
value of approximately twice that of mild steel at any of
the three angles of impact for both blunt and sharp
particles. The cast irons appear to behave differently. High
Chromium White Cast Iron has large R.A.R. values for both
sharp and blunt particles at an impact angle of 20°; this is
contrary to how other metals wear (39). This brittle

n
w
behavior is due to the extreme hardness of the metal. In

To
general the cast irons show a large resistance to impact by
blunt particles when compared to sharp particle impact. This
e
resistance to blunt particles is due to the high hardness of
ap

cast irons.
C

The observations that can be made about the metals tested

of

are as follows:
ity

l.As the different types of metals were tested it was noted

1.As
that those with greater hardness had greater wear
rs

resistance. This is corroborated by Kruschov (25), Levy

ve

and Yau (33) and other researchers. This relationship is

ni

shown by Figure 15.

U

2.Because there is a relationship between hardness and

carbon content, increasing the carbon content increases
the wear resistance (42). This can be seen in the metals
tested here, those with the higher carbon contents have
the greater wear resistance.
 RELATIVE ABRASION RESISTANCE (R.A.R.)
5.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6r-------------------------------------~ 49

55-

4 >-

3 -

o0 o0
2 -
.
~
6.

1 >- II

0'--~~~·~~----''~~~~·~~--..J'~~~~·~~--1'~~__J
O~----~----~I----i-----~i---- __L __ _ _ _L_I____J

n
o0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

w
HARDNESS (Vlckera)
(Vickers)
D
o 20 degree Impact
40 degree impact
l:::,.

To
30 degree Impact
e
ap

FIGURE 15: HARDNESS OF METALS TESTED vavs

C

RELATIVE ABRASION RESISTANCE (R.A.R.).

of

6.2.2 POLYMERIC MATERIALS

ity

6.2.2.1 RUBBERS
rs
ve

The mechanism of material removal in the case of rubber is

mainly by roll formation (14). In this mechanism,
ni

graphically explained in Figure 16, an impacting particle

U

comes into contact with the rubber surface, and drags the
surface of the elastomer along with it, until the rubber
either snaps back or tears, or the particle leaves the
surface. A tear begins at the original point of impact,
where the rubber surface is experiencing critical
elongation, and at right angles to the direction of particle
motion. As the rubber surface distorts further, the tear
advances, allowing a "roll" or scollop
scallop shaped piece of
rubber to be removed.
 50

Microscopic investigation of the surface

surf ace of the rubber
specimen at the end of a test revealed that the surface is
covered by parallel lines of these rubber "rolls" lying at
right angles to the direction of slurry flow. The R.A.R. for
impact with blunt particles is greater than that for impact
with sharp particles. The sharp particles are able to
penetrate the material surface
surf ace thus removing more material
than a rounded particle that can not readily penetrate the
material surface. Of interest is the performance of
polyisoprene. It has been predicted by the manufacturer to
have twice the abrasion resistance of natural rubber, and
the results given in Table 5.2 seem to confirm that
prediction. From Figure 17 it can be seen that increasing
the hardness of the rubber results in a corresponding

n
w
decrease in the wear resistance of the material.

To
The hardness of rubbers are determined by the amount of
crosslinking of the molecular chains (46,49,74). The greater
e
the amount of crosslinking, the more the movement of the
ap

chains over each other are restricted, thus the greater the
resistance of the rubber to indentation or the greater the
C

hardness. The resilience of the rubber, on the other hand is

of

a measure of the ability of the rubber to return to its

ty

original shape after deformation. With a highly crosslinked

i

rubber this recovery is difficult as the chains entangle

rs

making recovery difficult, thus increased crosslinking

ve

results in decreased resilience. This inverse relationship

ni

existing between hardness and rebound resilience explains

U

why increasing the rebound resilience of a material will

increase the R.A.R. of that material.
 51

There is a hierarchy of R.A.R. for these materials that

remains unchanged, regardless of the angle of impact or the
characteristics of the impacting particles ((shape/size)) this
being (see Table 5.2): (from the most to least wear
resistant)

Polyisoprene
Linatex
Rl
R2

n
w
To
e
ap
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 52

2~'
2 ~»JI
~
I

3~

4~

6~

n
w
To
FIGURE 16: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING
TO ROLL FORMATION.
e
ap

RELATIVE ABRASION RESISTANCE (R.A.R)

C

10~--------------------------------~
10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o0
of
ity

8 -
s
er

o0
v
ni

6-
U

4 -

o0
0~~1--~--~--~~--~--~--J---~1~
o~~ l ~-~l__._l~~l~-1~__._l~~l~~l~~I~~

30 32 3436 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
HARDNESS (Shore A)
FIGURE 17: HARDNESS OF RUBBER vs
RELATIVE ABRASION RESISTANCE AT AN
IMPACT ANGLE OF 20 DEGREES
 53

6.2.2.2 POLYURETHANES

Very little is known about the performance of polyurethanes

under conditions of wet impact abrasion, and this research
did not include enough specimens of this type to determine
conclusively any trends, other than that the materials have
a higher wear resistance to impact by blunt particles than
by sharp particles, as shown in Table 5.2. Microscopic study
revealed the mechanism of material removal to be that of
cutting and gouging, as can be seen from Figure 18. Roll
formation, as seen on the surface of rubber, does not occur
in polyurethanes. These materials, however, like rubber,
maintain a R.A.R. hierarchy that remains unchanged when the
angle of impact is changed, or when the characteristics of

n
the impacting particles change, ego
eg. shape and size, (from

w
most to least wear resistant):

Polyester 1 To
e
ap
Vulkollan
Polyester 2
C

Polyether 1
of

Polyether 2
ity

The reasons for the high performance of the polyesters could

rs

not be investigated due to the small range of materials

ve

tested and only general trends could be ascertained. The

following table gives the properties associated with the
ni

polyester and polyether-types of polyurethanes (5,16).

U
 54

TABLE
T~~~, ~ 6.1
6. 1:: PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED W ITH POLYESTER AND
WITH
POLYETHER POLYURETHANES

PROPERTY pOLYESTER
POLYESTER pOLYETH ER
POLYETHER

REBOUND RESILIENCE LOW

LO' HIGH

TEAR RESISTANCE HIGH HIGH

HYDROLYSIS LARGE SMALL

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES HIGH LOW

LO'

The mechanical properties include: elongation, tensile

tensi l e
strength, hardness and modulus. It can be concluded from
this table that the performance of a polyurethane is based

n
on its ttear
e ar resistance
reaistance and other mechanical properties. This

w
would, however, need further testing, using polyurethanes
polyurethane s
wi
To
th properties extending over a wider range of values.
with
e
ap
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U

FIGURE 18: MECHANISM OF MATERIAL REMOVAL IN POLYURETHANES.

Examples of cutting and gouging.
 55

6.2.2.3 POLYETHYLENES

Due to the poor performance of the Ultra High Molecular

Weight Polyethylenes as regards their resistance to material
loss, only two materials, P2 and P4, were tested at the
three angles of impact. These two materials display a
similar difference between the R.A.R. results for impact
with blunt and sharp particles. The same is true of the High
PS and P6. However the U.H.M.W.P.E.
Density Polyethylenes, P5
(PI-P4) loose approximately four times the volume
materials (Pl-P4)
of material under impact from sharp particles than under
impact from blunt particles, whereas the H.D.P.E. materials
(PS and P6) loose approximately twice the volume of material
(P5
to sharp particles than to blunt particles.

n
w
To
Material removal is initiated by an incoming particle that
damages the surface, but does not remove any material. The
e
material is lifted away from the impact area but remains
ap
attatched to the surface by thin tendrils of the plastic,
plastic;
until a single particle impact destoys these "tendrils" of
C

plastic and removes the entire deformed piece of material.

of

Thus material loss is dependent on the number of particle

ity

impacts, in respect of the number of impacts necessary to

create a situation where only one particle is required to
rs

remove the deformed material. The polyethylenes tested all

ve

had very similar properties of hardness, tensile strength,

ni

elongation and resilience. The only property that changed

U

over a wide enough range to study was the molecular weight.

Figure 19 shows that a linear relationship exists between
the R.A.R. and the molecular weight of polyethylenes. The
molecular weight is determined by the length of the
molecular chain and it can be concluded that the longer the
molecular chain the greater will be the wear resistance of
that material.
 56

The nature of this test, however, was far too aggressive for
these materials in terms of the large size of the impacting
particles. According to local industrial users, H.D.P.E.
piping has proved very successful (37,59) in transporting
very fine slurries such as gold tailings. However, under
conditions of impact, such as bends and at junctions,
failures occur frequently.

RELATIVE ABRASION RESISTANCE (R.A.R.)

1.2 .------------------------....
1.2r-------------------------------------~

n
w
To
1 e
ap

0.8 o
0
C
of

0.6
ity
rs
ve

0.4
ni
U

0.2

o~--~-__. ____._____._____.______..____.
O~----~--~----~-----L-----L-----L--~

o0 1 2
2 3 3 4 4 5
5 6 7
6 7
MOLECULAR WEIGHT (x 1000)
FIGURE 19 : MOLECULAR WEIGHT va
vs RELATIVE
ABRASION RESISTANCE (R.A.R)
 57

6.2.3 CERAMIC

The ceramic material tested was a 90% sintered Alumina. This

material, even with its exceptional hardness, is susceptible
to the effects of changes in particle shape and size of the
slurry solids
solids.. ._This can be seen from the larger R.A.R.
values at a slurry lifetime of 600 minutes, when the
impacting particles are more rounded and smaller (see Table
5.2.).

The impact surface

surf ace characteristics were too fine to be seen
under the optical microscope and the specimen too large to
fit into the S.E.M .•
•• However there is essentially one wear
mechanism for sintered Alumina, and that is cracking, either

n
intergranular or transgranular (52).

w
To
e
ap
C
of
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
 58

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

The following observations on the wear resistance of the

materials tested are made:

1. No two families of materials have the same wear

mechanism. This is due to the different structures of the
materials, resulting in them reacting to impacting
particles in different ways: ductile platelet formation
in steels, roll formation in rubbers and cutting and
gouging in polyurethanes. In this respect, if mild steel
is to be used as a standard, R.A.R. values should be

n
given for every change in the environment (changes in

w
particle shape and size), as each material type is going

To
to perform differently under different circumstances, and
e
its wear resistance is going to change accordingly.
ap

2. Particle degradation is a function of the pump and

C

pipeline. Particle size in particular has a linear

of

relationship with respect to time for this test

~hape
procedure. However, due to the change in particle shape
ity

which is not possible to quantify, the results cannot be

s

normalised to a fresh slurry condition at any particular

er

slurry lifetime. Thus, it is necessary to give R.A.R.

v
ni

values for the different particle shapes relating to the

U

particular slurry lifetime.

 59

3. Metals with increasing hardness display increasing

wear resistance, or alternatively, increasing the carbon
content of metals increases their wear resistance.

4. Rubbers of increasing hardness display decreasing wear

resistance. The resistance to wear is inversely related
to the resilience of the material.

5. Polyester type polyurethanes have a greater wear

resistance than polyether type polyurethanes, and their
wear resistance seems to depend largely on tear strength
and their mechanical properties.

6. Increasing the molecular weight of polyethylene increases

n
its wear resistance.

w
To
7. A hierarchy, based on their wear resistance, exists in
each group of materials and this remains unchanged,
e
ap
regardless of the angle of impact or the changing nature
of the impacting particles.
C
of

8. This design of test rig has proven successful, in terms

of reproducing results, speed of testing, and the ranking
ty

of materials under conditions of wet impact abrasion.

i
rs
ve
ni
U
 60

REFERENCES

l.ABU-ISA I.A. and JAYNES C.B. (1986): "Mechanism of

abrasion of elastomers by small particle impacts",
International Rubber Conference, IRC 86, Guteborg, Sweden,
June 2-6, 1986.

2.BAIN A.G. and BONNINGTON S.T. (1970): "The hydraulic

transport of solids by pipeline", Pergamon Press.

3.BAKER P.J., JACOBS B.E.A. and BONNINGTON S.T. (1979): "A

guide to slurry pipeline systems", B.H.R.A. Fluid
Engineering.

n
4.BAKER P.J. and JACOBS B.E.A. (1976): "The measurement of

w
wear in pumps and pipelines", 4th International Conference

To
on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
e
HYDROTRANSPORT 4, Alberta, Canada, 18-21 May, paper Jl.
ap

5.BECKER B.E. (1987): "A comparison of Diphenyl Methane

C

Diisocyanate (M.D.I.) and Toluidine Diisocyanate (T.D.I.)

of

urethane prepolymers", National Urethane Industries,

ity

technical paper.
rs

6.BELLMAN,JR.
6. BELLMAN, JR. R. and LEVY A.V. (1981): "Erosion mechanism in
ve

ductile metals", Wear, vol 70, pp. 1-27.

ni
U

7.BLICKENSDERFER R., TYLCZAK J.H. and MADSEN B.W. (1985):

"Laboratory wear testing capabilities of the bureau of
mines", United States Department of the Interior,Information
Dec . .
Circular 9001, Dec.

v. (1981): "Slurry pipelines of the pipelines",

8.CABRERA V. pipelines'',
Mechanical Engineering, April, pp. 30-34.
 61

9.CARTER A.M.F. (1985): "A survey of the erosion, corrosion

and abrasion of material-handling systems in the mining and
mineral-processing industry", Mintek, report No.M186,
No.Ml86, 7th
January.

10.CHAMBERS J. Dr. and MARCUS R.D. Prof. (1986): "Freight

pipelines - a special reference to coal", The South African
Mechanical Engineer, vol 36, July, pp. 235-245.

11.DAVIS
l1.DAVIS P.K. and SHRIVASTAVA P. (1982): "Rheological and
pumping characteristics of coal-water suspensions", Journal
of Pipelines, vol.3,
vOl.3, pp.97-l07.
pp.97-107.

12.DURMAN
l2.DURMAN R. (1987): "Materials for comminution", Mining

n
p.p.144-149.
Magazine, Feb, p.p.144-l49.

w
13.DUVALL
To
l3.DUVALL J. (1982): "Dynamic properties of polyurethanes in
e
the ore processing industry", The Polyurethane Manufactures
ap

Association, October 1982, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

C

14.EPHITHITE
l4.EPHITHITE H.J. (1985): "Rubber lining - The soft option
of

against abrasion", Bulk Solids Handling,

Handling , vol 5, No.5, Oct,
ity

pp. 1041-1047.
rs

15.FADDIK
l5.FADDIK R. (1974): "Pipeline wear and particle attrition",
ve

Lecture F, Slurry pipelining course notes, BHRA, Fluid

ni

Engineering, Cranfield, U.K ..

U

l6.GALLAGHER CORPORATION: "The engineering .properties of

16.GALLAGHER
elastomers"; Technical phamphlet, Gallagher
urethane elastomers"~
Corporation, Illinois, U.S.A ..

17.GARRETT
l7.GARRETT C., BURKES D. and BARACH J. (1986): "PUs in the
pipeline - increasing resistance to slurry", Urethanes
Technology, June 1986, pp. 23-27.
 62

18.GOODWIN P.J. and RAMOS C.M. (1987): "Degradation of sized

Solids Handling, vol.7,
coal at transfer points", Bulk SOlids vo1.7, No.4,
Aug, p.p.517-534.

19.HOCKE H. and WILKINSON H.N. (1978): "Testing abrasion

resistance of slurry pipeline materials", Tribology
Tribo1ogy
International, October, pp. 289-294.

20.IKEDA V., MISAWA A., MINAMIYA S., OWADA S. and KONDO I.

polyurethane-
(1986): "Development and wear test of new po1yurethane-
linepipe for slurry transportation", 10 International
lined 1inepipe
Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of solids in Pipes,
HYDROTRANSPORT 10, Innesbruck, Austria, 29-31 October, 1986,
Paper G4.

n
w
21.JACOBS B.E.A. and JAMES J.G. (1984): "The wear rates of

To
some abrasion resistant materials", 9th International
e
Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
ap

HYDROTRANSPORT 9, Rome, Italy: 17-19 Oct 1984, Paper G3.

C

22.KA-KEUNG LI S., HUMPHREY J.A.C. and LEVY A.V. (1981):

of

"Erosive wear of ductile metals by a particle-laden high

ity

velocity liquid jet", Wear, vol 73, pp. 295-309.

rs

23.KO P.L., (1987): "Metallic Wear - a review with special

ve

references to vibration induced wear in power plant

ni

componants", Tribology
Tribo1ogy International, vol 20, No.2, April,
U

pp. 66-78.

24.KOVAGO J. (1982): "Pipe behaviour in bottom ash slurry

systems", Bulk Solids Handling, vol 2, No.3, Sept, pp. 525-
530.

25.KRUSCHOV M.M. (1957): "Resistance of metals to wear by

abrasion as related to hardness:, Proceedings of Conference
on Lubrication and Wear, Institute of Mechanical Engineers,
London, pp. 655-659.
 63

26.LAZARUS J. (1982): " Pump and pipeline instrumentation",

instrumentation'',
th
8th
8 International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of
Solids in Pipes, HYDROTRANSPORT 8, Johannesburg, South
Africa, 23-24 Aug, chap14.

27.LAZARUS J. (1982): " Classification of flow regimes",

International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of
Solids in Pipes, HYDROTRANSPORT 8, Johannesburg, South
Africa, 23-24 Aug, chap3.

28.LEVY A.V. (1979): "Corrosion/erosion of materials in coal

liquifaction enviroments", C.E.C.C.S.M., pp.174-217.

29.LEVY A.V. (1981): "The solid particle erosion behaviour

n
of steel as a function of microstructure", Wear, vol 68, pp.

w
269-287.

To
e
30.LEVY A.V. (1983): "Erosion mechanisms in ductile and
3D.LEVY
ap

brittle materials", 6th International Conference on Erosion

by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, England, Sept, paper
C

39.
of
ty

31.LEVY A.V. (1986): "The platelet mechanism of erosion of

ductile metals", Wear, vol.,
i

vOl., pp.2-21.
rs
ve
ni

32.LEVY A.V., AGHAZADEH M. and HICKEY G. (1986): "The effect

U

of test variables on the platelet mechanism of erosion",

Wear, vol 108, pp. 23-41.

33.LEVY A.V. and YAU P. (1984): "Erosion of steels · in liquid

slurries", Wear, vol 98, pp. 163-182.

34.MADSEN B.W. (1986): "Measurement of wear and corrosion

rates using a novel slurry wear test", Corrosion 86, paper
No.235, N.A.C.E., Houston, TX, U.S.A ..
 64

35.MARCUS R.D. (1983): "The three phases of freight pipeline

development", Bulk Solids Handling, vol 3, No.4, Nov, pp.
809-815.

36.MARCUS R.D. (1984): "Wear on freight pipelines - a

limiting factor?", The South African Mechanical Engineer,
vol 34, March, pp. 80-86.

37.MELDT R. (1981): "Plastic pipes for the hydraulic

transportation of solids", Bulk Solids Handling, vol 1,
No.2, May, pp. 307-312.

38.MILLER J.E. (1987): "Abrasive wear in slurry pumping,

part 1",
l", A.S.T.M. Standardization News, May.

n
w
To
39.MISRA A., and FINNIE I. (1981): "Correlations between
two-body and three body abrasion and erosion of metals",
e
Wear, vol 68, pp. 33-39.
ap

40.MURAKAMI S., . KAWASHIMA T., TSUKAHARA S. and OKADA T.

C

(1980): "Wear test of pipe linings for hydraulic transport

of

of dam deposits", 7th International Conference on the

ty

Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, HYDROTRANSPORT 7,

i

Sendai, Japan, 4-6 Nov, paper H2.

rs
ve

41.NUTTAL R.J. (1985): "The selection of abrasion

abr~sion resistant
ni

lining materials", Bulk Solids Handling, vol 5, No.5,

U

October, pp. 1053-1055.

42.PIKE D. (1983): "Transportation of coal by pipeline",

S.A. Mining and Engineering Journal, April, pp.12-22.

43.POKROVSKAYA V.N., (1972): "Means for increasing the

effectiveness of hydrotransport", translated from Russian by
w.c. Cooley and R.R. Faddik, Terraspace, Inc.
W.C.
 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
111111111111111
65

44.POSTLETHWAITE J. ET AL (1972): "Corrosion studies in

2 nd International
slurry pipelines", Proceedings of the 2nd
Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
HYDROTRANSPORT 2, Warwick, U.K., paper 2.

45.QIONG-LI WANG (1986): "Wear resistance of steels under

conditions'', Wear, vol 112, pp. 207-
wet-abrasive erosion conditions",
216.

46.RANSOM D.W.: "Designing rubber compounds for wear

resistance", Colloquium of The South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy.

47.REUTHER H.W. (1987): "New concepts for rubber lining in

n
corrosion protection", The 9th National Conference of the

w
Plastics and Rubber Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa,
2.2-23 Oct.
22-23
To
e
ap

48.ROLLASON E.C. (1973): "Metallurgy for engineers", 4th

edition, Edward Arnold Ltd.
C
of

49."RUBBER - a survey of its properties, manufacture and use

ty

in the mining and mineral processing industries", Mining

Magazine Report, February 1976.
i
rs
ve

50.SAUERMANN H.B. (1982): "Pump and pipe wear", 8th

ni

International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of

U

Solids in Pipes, HYDROTRANSPORT 9, Johannesburg, South

Africa, August 23-24, 1982, Chapter 12.

51.SCHEURELL-Dr.-Ing. H.G. (1985): "Estimation of wear in

the hydraulic transport of solids through pipelines",
Aufbereitungs Technik, Nr.9, pp. 505-512.

52.SHETTY D.K., WRIGHT I.G., et al (1982): "Erosive wear of

advanced ceramics in coal-slurry streams", National
vol.38, No.9, Sept,
Association of Corrosion Engineers, vOl.38,
p.p.500-509.
 66

53.SHEPPERSON
53. (19B7): "The abrasive wear resistance of
SHEPPERSON S.V. (1987):
austempered speroidal graphite irons", M.Sc
H.Se thesis,
University of Cape Town.

54.SHOOK C.A., HAAS D.B., HUSBAND W.H.W. and SMALL M.

(1981): "Relative wear rate determinations for slurry
pipelines", Journal of Pipelines, No.4, pp. 273-280.
pipelines·,

55.SODERBURG S., HOGMARK S., ENGMAN U. and SWARN

55.S0DERBURG SWAHN H. (1981):
CI9Sl):
"Erosion classification of materials using a centrifugal
erosion tester", Tribology International, Dec, pp.333-343.

56.STEINDORFF G.N. (1980): "Adequate slurry pipe design

n
exists", Oil and Gas Journal
technology exists·, Journal,, Dec 22, pp.76-80.

w
57.STEWARD
57.
To
STEWARD N.R. and HECKROODT R.O. (1986): "Assessment of
e
the slurry abrasion of polymers", Tribology 86,
ap

Johannesburg, 19 Nov.
C

58.STEWARD N.R. and HECKROODT R.O. (1987): "Resistance of

of

polymeric materials to slurry abrasion", 7th International

ty

Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid impact, Cambridge.

i
rs

59.THOMAS
59. THOMAS R.(1985): "Sliding and wear characteristics of
ve

plastics in the mineral processing industry", Co11oqium

Colloqium of
ni

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

U

60.THOMPSON T.L. and AUDE T.C. (1981): "Slurry pipelines:

pipeline s:
design, research and experiance", Journal of Pipelines,
No.l, pp. 25-44.
NO.1,

6l.THOMPSON
61.THOMPSON T.L. and HALE W.H. (1979): "Slurry pipelines -
what, where, when ?", Coal Technology 79, International Coal
when?",
Utilization Conference and Exibition, Houston, U.S.A ..
••

62.TRUSCOTT G.F. (1975): "A literature survey on wear in

pipelines", B.H.R.A. publn, TN 1295, May.
 67

63.TSAI W., HUMPHREY J.A.C., CORNET I. and LEVY A.V. (1981):

"Experimental measurement of accelerated erosion in a slurry
pot tester", Wear, vol 68, pp. 289-303.

64.VENTON P.B. and COWPER N.T. (1986): "The New Zealand

Steel ironsand slurry pipeline", 10th International
Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
HYDROTRANSPORT 10, Innsbruck, Austria: 29-31 October,
p.p.237-242.

65.VINCENT D. and BADER C.G. (1985): "Long distance

transport of Commodities in the Northwest", Bulk Solids
Handling, vol 5, No.1, Feb.

n
w
66.VERKERK C.G.(1985): "Some practical aspects of

To
correlating empirical equations to experimental data in
e
slurry pipeline transport", Bulk Solids Handling, vol.5,
vOl.5,
ap
No.4, Aug, p.p.801-805.
C

67.WALKER C.I. (1983):

(1983)~ "High pressure centrifugal slurry
of

pumps and their pipeline applications", Bulk Solids

Handling, vOl.3,No.4,
vol.3,No.4, Nov, p.p.825-829.
ity
rs

68.WEBER M. (1981): "Principles of hydraulic and pneumatic

ve

conveying in pipes", Bulk Solids Handling, vol.l,

vOl.1, No.1, Feb.
ni
U

69.WRIGHT G.J. and GARRETT G.G. (1986): "Wear and

tne hydraulic
performance of materials in pipelines for the
conveyance of fused ash", Mintek report, No.M242, 3rd Feb.

70.WOOD P.A. (1986): "Hydraulic handling in the coal

industry", 10th International Conference on the Hydraulic
Transport of Solids in Pipes, HYDROTRANSPORT 10, Innsbruck,
Austria, 29-31 Oct, pp.1-7.

71.ZANDI I. (1982): "Freight pipelines", Journal of

Pipelines, vol 2, pp. 77-93.
 68

72.Proceedings of the 6th Internatinal Conference on the

Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, England,
Sept, 1982.

73.Proceedings of the 7th Internatinal Conference on the

Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, England,
Sept, 1987.

74.Proccedings of the 8th International Conference on the

Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipelines, HYDROTRANSPORT
8, Johannesburg, South Africa, 23-24 Aug, 1982.

75.Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the

n
w
Plastics and Rubber Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa,

To
22-23 Oct, 1987.
e
vol.59,
76.Materials Reference Issue, Machine Design, vol. 59, No.8,
ap

16 April, 1987.
C
of
tyi
rs
ve
ni
U
 69

APPENDIX 1

INSTRUMENTATION

VERTICAL COUNTER-FLOW METER

The vertical counter-flow meter can be considered as an

inverted U tube. There are pressure tappings on the upward
and downward sections at points 1,2,3 and 4, see figure 20,
that measure the pressure difference between the two
sections. By means of these pressure difference measurements
in the upward and downward flowing sections, the slurry is
weighed in these two sections and compared against each

n
w
other. The pressure difference is measured using manometers

To
attached to the pressure tappings by means of pressure
hosing. The manometers, initially filled with water, are
e
injected with a small quantity of air, under pressure, to
ap

balance the pressure emanating from the tapping. The two

manometers relating to either the upward or downward
C

tappings are joined in such a way that the air trapped in

of

one manometer is allowed to expand into the adjoining

ty

manometer. The pressure of the air pushes the water in the

manometers into an equilibrium relating to the pressures
r si

between the two tappings in either the upward or downward

ve

sections. The difference between the heights of the water,

ni

in equilibrium, in the two manometers relating to each

U

section (either upward or downward) is the pressure

difference between either points 1 and 2 or points 3 and 4,
.6H
6HUP Or .6H
up or 6HDOWN respectively.
nOWN

I _
:t JJ ::
., '•

1
----- ' . . ..' ·
... . . ..·' ...:· '.·. '.' .'

FIGURE 20: VERTICAL COUNTER-FLOW METER

 70

The analysis used in calculating the concentration of solids

in the slurry is complicated (27), but can be simplified to:

Smd = (~HUp
(Al\Jp ~HDOWN / 2L + 1) Swm
- AHDOWN
where:-
Smd = relative density of the slurry delivered
AHup
~Hup = difference in pressure readings at 1land
= and 2
~Hdown
AH down = difference in pressure readings at 3 and 4
L
L =
= the distance between the pressure tappings
Swm = the density of the water in the monometers
and
Cvd =
= (Smd - Swt I/ Ss - Swt)
where
Cvd = the volumetric concentration delivered

n
= density of the water within the tank

w
Swt

To
Ss = density of the solids in the slurry
e
ap
C
of
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
 71

MAGNETIC FLOWMETER

The magnetic flowmeter is situated in the vertically

downward section of the counter flow meter (Figure 1,[3]).
It functions on the principle that the voltage induced
across a conductor (the slurry), as it moves at right angles
through a magnetic field, is proportional to the velocity of
the conductor.
The result is given as a voltage signal in milli-amps.

E =
= K.D.B.Vm and E a Vm
where
E = the voltage signal
K = constant

n
= magnetic flux density

w
B

= length of the conductor

To
D
Vm = flow velocity
e
ap

The flowmeter is calibrated by taking weight measurements of

the slurry transported over a period of time. To achieve
C

this the weigh tank is used (see figure 1,[6c]).

1, [6c] ) .
of

With the weight of the slurry transported over a timed

ity

period and the area of the delivery pipe, a velocity for the
slurry can be calculated. This velocity reading is related
rs

to the milli-amp reading achieved, and since a linear

ve

relationship exists between these two variables, a formula

ni

formu l a for this work is

can be developed. The specific formula
U

given below

vV =
= 0.387.A
O.387.A
where
vV = the velocity
A
A = the amp reading
 72

APPENDIX 2

RIG RUNNING OPERATIONS

These operating procedures must be read in conjunction with

the schematic diagram of the rig given in figure 21.

4 NOZZLE
LE

RESERVOIR

n
w
To
e
WEIGH TANK
ap
C

FIGURE
fiGURE 21: SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF
Of THE I1
TEST RIGS CONTROL VALVES
of
ty

START UP
r si

water/taili n gs
1. The slurry reservoir is filled with a water/tailings
ve

mixture to give a 12% by volume concentration of solids.

ni

2. The agitators are started to keep the solids in

U

suspension.
3. Drop valve 2 is opened.
4. Ball valve 5 is opened, this simultaneously closes ball
valve 6.
5. Gate valve 7 is opened.
6. Ball valves 3 and 9 are closed.
7. Drop valve 4 is closed.
8. Gate valve 8 is closed.
9. Sluice valve 1 is opened, opening the slurry reservoir to
the centrifugal pump.
 73
_.,;/

10.The pump is started. The slurry is now circulating

through a return line operated by drop valve 2.
11.Ball
11.Ba11 valve 3 is opened, opening the actual pipeline to
the pump, however flow through the loop can not occur
because the return pipe is closed by drop valve 4.
12.Drop valve 4 is opened. This allows the slurry to flow
though the loop, through ball valve 5, and to be jetted
onto the specimen in the slurry reservoir.
i$ closed. This allows the slurry to
13.Drop valve 2 is
circulate only in the closed loop pipeline, thus
resulting in maximum pressure, velocity and solids
throughput.
14.The cooling system and the air pressure supply is now
switched on.

n
15.The ball valve bypass system is operated, using the air

w
operated rotary actuator. This closes ball valve 5,

To
simultaneously opening ball valve 6, returning the slurry
to the slurry reservoir via a bypass line opened by gate
e
ap
valve 7, thus shutting the nozzle off while the specimen
beneath it is changed.
C

16.The bypass system is operated in reverse returning the

of

flow of slurry to the nozzle line.

ty

USING THE WEIGH TANK (see Appendix 1)

i
rs
ve

17.Gate valve 7 is closed.

ni

18.Gate valve 8a is opened.

1a.Gate
U

19.When the ball valve bypass system is now operated, the

slurry is diverted to the weigh tank.
20.To return the slurry diverted to the weigh tank, ball
valve 9 is opened and the suction from the pump draws the
slurry back into the closed loop pipeline.
 74

SAMPLING THE SLURRY

21.The return line operated by drop valve 2 is unclamped

from the slurry reservoir.
22.Drop valve 2 is opened an an aliquot of slurry diverted
into a bucket.
23.Drop valve 2 is closed and the return line reclamped onto
the slurry reservoir.

SHUTTING DOWN

24.The pump is switched off.

25.Ball
2S.Ball valve 3 is closed as the flow of slurry slows, and
the solids in the upward section of the counterflow meter

n
start to settle. This is observed through a clear section

w
of pipe connected directly after ball valve 3 to the
counter flow meter.
To
26.Sluice valve 1I in the slurry reservoir is closed.
e
ap
27.The Agitators, air supply and refrigeration unit are
switched off.
C

28.0perations 3 to 8 are carried out.

of
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
 75

APPENDIX 3

MINERALOGICAL ANALYSIS

The tailings used as the solid component in this research

was supplied by Rossing Mines of South west
West Africa, Namibia.

MINERAL DESCRIPTION HARDNESS FRACTION

Moh %
QUARTZ TRANSLUCENT 7 35

FELDSPARS:

n
w
PLAGIOCLASE

To
ALKALI MILKY WHITE 6-6.5 55
e
MICAS:
ap

BIOTITE BLACK/RED 2.5-3

CHLO RITE
CHLORITE GREEN 2-3 7
C
of

ACCESSORY PHASES:
ity

APATITE LIME GREEN 5

PYRITE GOLD 6-6.5
s
er

ZIRCON BROWN 7.5 3

SPHENE 5
v
ni

RUT ILE
RUTILE BLACK/BROWN 6-6.5
U

ANALYST: Mr.C.Hamilton, University of Cape Town

 76

APPENDIX 4

Graphs of slurry lifetime (minutes) against wear rate

3
(cm /hour), for the materials tested at the three angles of
300 and 40°.
impact, 20°, 30°

WEAR RATE (cm~hr) WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

3 3

n
w
To
2 2
e
ap
C
of

o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
Q'--~..__~_._~__.._~__._~_,_~~~~
O~--~--~--~--~---L--~--~
o~~..__~_._~__.._~__._~_,_~~~~
ity

o 100 200 300 400 600

500 eoo
1500 700
100 o 100 200 300 400 500
600 eoo
1500 100
700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) . SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
s

BRIGHT MILD
MILO STEEL (standard) BRIGHT MILD
MILO STEEL (standard)
er

20 degree impact 30 degree impact

v

WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

ni
U

I
3[
3

. 1

O~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o'--~-'--~....._~_._~__._~_,_~~~~

o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700

100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
BRIGHT MILD
MILO STEEL (standard)
40 degree impact
 77

WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

(crn:thr) (cm~hr)
WEAR RATE (cm:thr)

3 3

2 2

n
w
To
oL---~--~--~--~--~~~~
o'--~-'--~....._~_._~....._~_._~~~~
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o'--~-'--~-'-~_._~_._~~~_.._~__,

o0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo

800 700 o0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo
800 700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
BLACK MILD STEEL BLACK MILD STEEL
ap
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
C
of

WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

(cm:thr)
i ty

3
rs
ve
ni

2
U

o~--~--~~~~~~~~~~
o'--~"'--~-'-~....._~_._~---~~~~

o0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo

800 700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
BLACK MILD STEEL
40 degree impact
 78

(cm~hr)
WEAR RATE (cm ~hr) WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

3 3

2 2

n
w
O~--~--J---~--~--~--~--~

To
o'--~~~_._~~~-'-~~~---'~___J
o~--~--J---~--~--~--~--~
oL--~-1-~_._~_.._~_._~__._~__.~___.

0o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo

100 700
100 o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo
100 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
En24
e
En24
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
ap
C
of

WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

ty
r si

3
ve
ni
U

O~--~--J---~--~--~--~--~
0'--~....__~~~_,_~-'-~--'-~---'"~---'

o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo

100 700
100
SLURRY UFETIME
LIFETIME (min)
En24
40 degree impact
 79

WEAR RATE (cm~hr) WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

(cm ~hr)

3 3

2 2

n
w
To
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~~
O'--~..__~_._~....._~_._~....._~_.__~~
O~--~----~----~----~--~
0'--~--'~~--'-~~-'-~~--'-~~~

o 100 200 aoo

300 400 600 eoo 100 o0 100 200 300 400 500
600
SLURRY UFETIME
LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
AUSTEMPERED DUCTILE IRON 1 AUSTEMPERED DUCTILE IRON 1
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
ap
C
of

WEAR RATE (cm~hr)

i ty
rs

3
ve
ni
U

O~--J---~----~--~--~--~
o~~~~__..~~_._~__._~~'---~~

o 100 200 300 400 600

500 eoo
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
AUSTEMPERED DUCTILE IRON 1
40 degree impact
 80

WEAR RATE (em~hr) WEAR RATE (em ~hr)

o~,-------------~----------~ O~._---------------------~

0.4
0 .4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
D

0.1 0.1
0 .1

n
w
o.___ _.__.....__ _.__ _.__ _.__---1._ __, o.___ _.__ _..___ _.__ _..___

To
_.__~

o~--~--~--~--~~~~~~ o~--~--~---~-------~--~
o 100 200 SOD
300 400 GOO
600 eoo
100 100 o 100 aoo
300
200 4400
00 &oo
500 eoo
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
HIGH CHROMIUM WHITE CAST IRON HIGH CHROMIUM WHITE CAST IRON
20 degree impact 40 degree impact
ap
C
of

WEAR RATE (em~hr)

(cm ~hr)
ty

0 .7,--------------------,
0 .7r---------------~
si

D
Cl
o.e
0.8
r
ve

O.li
ni
U

0.4

0.3 D
Cl
D

0.2

0 .1
0.1

O~--~--~--~~-~---L-~
O'----'---'------'--~'------'--__;
o 100
200 aoo
300 400 600
500 eoo
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
HIGH CHROMIUM WHITE CAST IRON
30 degree impact
 81

WEAR RATE (em~hr) WEAR RATE (em~hr)

2.---------------------------~ 2.----------------------------.

1.6 1.6

0.6 0.6

n
w
a0

To
O~---L--~~--~--~----~--~
0'--~-'-~~'--~-'-~~'--~-'-~--' o~--~--~--~---L--~--~--~
0'--~-'--~...._~~~~~~~~~~

o 100 200 soo

300 400 aoo
500 eoo
800 o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
SINTERED ALUMINA SINTERED ALUMINA
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
ap
C
of

WEAR RATE (em ~hr)

ty

2~---------------------------,
r si
ve

1.6
ni
U

0.6

. o~--~--~--~---L--~--~--~
o'--~-'--~---~-'-~-'-~~~~~~

o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 100

700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
SINTERED ALUMINA
40 degree impact
 82

WEAR RATE (em 'hr) WEAR

lr---------------------------~ lr---------------------------~

0.8 0.8

o.e o.e

0.4 0.4
0Cl

0.2 0.2

n
w
To
o~--~--~----~--~----~--~
o~~~~__.~~-'-~~~~.__~~
o~--~--~----~--~----~--~
0'--~-'-~---J.~~-'-~-'-~~......_~__,

o 100 200 300

SOO 400 500
1500 eoo
800 o 100 200 300 400 1500
500 eoo
SLURRY UFETIME
LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
VULKOlLAN
VULKOLLAN VULKOlLAN
VULKOLLAN
ap
20 degree Impact
impact degr~e impact
30 degree
C
of

~hr)
WEAR RATE (cm 'hr)
ty

2r---------------------------~
2.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r si
ve
ni
U

O~--~--~--~---L--~--~--~
0'--~..__~_._~-'-~-'-~--'-~---1.~---'

o 100 200 SOO

300 400 1500
500 eoo 100
SLURRY UFETIME
LIFETIME (min)
VULKOlLAN
VULKOLLAN
40 degree impact
 83

WEAR RATE (cm ~hr) WEAR RATE (cm ~hr)

3r---------------------------~ 3r---------------------------~

2 2

n
w
To
O~--~--~--~--~---L--~--~
o~~~~~~~~~~~..__~_._~_, O~--~--~--~---L--~---J--~
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o
0 100 200 300 400 1500 eoo
800 100 o0 100 200 300 400 1500 eoo
800 100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
POLYETHER 1 POLYETHER 1
ap
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
C
of

WEAR RATE (cm ~hr)

ty

3.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/
3r---------------------------~
i
rs
ve
ni

2
U

oL-~-'-~-'-~-'-:::a:=--..._~~-g..-a-~~
O~--~--~--~D=~~_Q~~~~

o 100 200 300 400 1500 eoo

800 100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
POLYETHER 1
40 degree impact
 84

...........
WEAR - RATE (em ~hr)
(cm 'hr) WEAR RATE (cm~hr)
(om 'tlr)
3,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.
sr---------------------------~
3,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.

22 2

n
w
To
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
O'--~~~_._~~~__._~_._~___.~___.
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
O'--~~~_._~~~__._~_._~__..~__,

oo 100
100 200 300 400 500
600 eoo
800 100
700 0o 100 200 300 400
400 600
600 eoo
800 700
700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
POL.YETHER
POLYETHER 2 POL.YETHER 2
POLYETHER
ap
20 degree imfl~t
impact 30 degree impact
C
of

WEAR RATE (em'tlr)

ity

3r---------------------------~
rs
ve
ni

22
U

O'--~..__~_._~__.__~_._~_._~_...~___,
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo
800 100
700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
POLYETHER 2
40 degree impact
 85

1WEAR RATE (cd

Ced Ihr)
/hr)
1r--~~~~~~~~~~~~--..., 1 .
(cd
WEAR RATE Ced /hr)
Ihr)
1~--------~'----------------~

Oli
O.li Oli
O.li

- -- --

n
w
To
O~~~~~~--~--~--~--~
o~~~~~---~---~__.__,__.__,__.
O~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o~__,~__,~__,~__,~__,_..___,......___,~

o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700

100 o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
POLYESTER 1 POLYESTER 1
ap
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
C
of

(c~ /hr)
ity

WEAR RATE Ihr)

1~--------------------------~
1r----...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,--...,~
s
v er
ni
U

O.li
Oli

ol-.__,.L..-__,..1.....----i;;a::::::==1~~B=~0-__,~
OL---~--~~~==~~B===O---~
o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
POLYESTER 1
40 degree impact
 86

WEAR RATE (cm~hr) ~hr)

(cm~hr)
WEAR RATE (cm
2r----------------------------,
2.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,
2r----------------------------,
2.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,

n
w
To
OL---~--~--~--~--~--~--~
O'--~..__~_.._~_._~__.._~___._~___.~___. oL-~~~-'-~--L...::::B::~s--e,__e---i-e-___J
oL---~--~--~~~&_~~~~~

o0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo

800 700 o
0 100 200 300 400 1500
600 eoo
800 700

SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)

e
POLYESTER 2 POLYESTER 2
ap
20 degree impact 40 degree impact
C
of
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
 87

WEAR RATE (cm 'hr) WEAR RATE (cd 11w)

2r---------------------------~
2.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.
O~r-------------~----------~

0.1
0 .1

n
w
To
o~~..._~.._~..._~_.._~_._~_._~~
o~--~--~--~~~~--~~~
O'--~..._~_._~__.._~__._~_._~__.~___.
o~--~--~--~--~~~~~~
o0 100 200 300 400 100
1500 100 700 o 100 200 300 400 600
100 eoo
100 100
700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
LlNATEX
LINATEX IR
ap

20 degree impact 20 degree impact

C
of
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
 88

WEAR RATE (cm ~hr)

WEAR WEAR RATE (cm ~hr)
2r---------------------------~
2.----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2r-----------------------------~

11 1

o0

n
w
To
o~--~--~--~--~--~~--~~
O'--~-'-~-'-~--'-~----'~~...__~_._~~ O'--~-'-~-'-~--'-~----'~~....__~_._~-J

o0 100
100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100 0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100

SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)

e
R1
R1 R1
ap
20
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
C
of

WEAR RATE (c~ Ihr)

/hr)
ity
rs
ve

22
ni
U

o~~~~_._~~~__._~_..~__.~__,
O~--~--~--~---L--~--~--~

o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 100

700
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
R1
R1
degree impact
40 degree
 89

WEAR RATE (cm 'hr) WEAR RATE (~ /hr)

Ihr)
2r-----------------------------,

o0

n
w
oCJ

To
O'--~~~....._~_._~_._~-'-~--'~--'
o~--~--~--~--~----~--~--~
oL-~~~-'-~-'-~---'~~..__~....._~~
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o0 100 200 300 400 600 eoo
800 700
100 0o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
e
R2 R2
ap

20 degree impact 30 degree impact

C
of

(~ /hr)
ty

WEAR RATE Ihr)

i
rs

3
ve
ni
U

o0
oL-~--~--~~~=c~~~
ol__~.i..._~..1..-~.J._-=:J;;r==::r::::::§::=~~~
o 100 200 300 400 600 eoo 700
100
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
R2
40 degree impact
 90

WEAR RATE (cm 3/hr) WEAR RATE (crn~hr)

(cm~hr)
4~----------------------------~
4,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,

2
2 o0

oD
o0

n
w
To
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
O'--~-'-~-'-~-'-~_.__~_._~__.,~__,
O~--~--~--~--~----~--~--~
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0o 100 200 300 400 600 800

lOG 700 o0 100 200 300 400 aoo eoo 100
700

SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFETIME (min)

e
P2 P2
ap
20 degree impact 30 degree impact
C
of

WEAR RATE (cm 3/hr)

i ty
rs
ve

2
ni
U

o
0

·1
1
o
D

o~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~
0'----'~-'-~-'-~-'-~-'--~_.__~..._____,

o0 100 200 300 400 600 800 700 800

SLURRY LIFETIME (min)
P2
40 degree impact
 91

,
2 2

, ,

n
w
,L~ __"-~ ______ "-~~
o0 -=--:::--:=---::::-::::-::::c-:"
To
,L.
oL-~..__~_._~--'-~--'-~--'-~--'-~---'

100 200 _300 400 isoo aoo

'"'" eoo 100
TOO
O'--~-'--~-'-~_._~_._~__,_~___.~___J

0o 100
100 200
200 *<)0
300 400
400 _
1500 _eoo TOO
100

SLURRY LIFETIME (min) SLURRY LIFEnME

LIFETIME (min)
(m-u
e
P4
"
P4
ap
degree impact
20 delIA" iIIIpaot 30 degree impact
C
of

'rW"EAROO"RA""TE'"("ec~"h")L__________-,
i ty

,•
rs
ve

\
,
ni

2
U

0
,
1

.I~~-
0'--~-'--~-'-~--'-~--'-~-'-~---1.~----l
.· 0o 100 ~
200 _300 400 IM)O
1500 eoo
!IOO 700
100
SlURRY lFETIME
SLURRY LIFETIME (min)

"
P4
40 degrH
degree impact

z2 7 JUN 1988