Wear 250 (2001) 736–743

Control and evaluation of particle impact conditions

in a sand erosion test facility
Y.I. Oka∗ , M. Nishimura, K. Nagahashi, M. Matsumura
Department of Chemical Engineering, Hiroshima University,
1-4-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

Abstract
For the prediction of actual damage to plant component materials and for making the erosion mechanisms clear, it is important to control
and to evaluate the particle impact conditions in a testing facility. A sand blast type erosion test rig, which can achieve the particle impact
velocities up to 135 m s−1 and a wide range of impact angles has been constructed. The key factors in particle impact conditions of particle
flux, impact velocity and impact angle were examined. The relative distance between particles and particle size was discussed, as the particle
flux affected erosion rate of material. A new method was proposed to determine particle velocities in this facility. The theoretical velocity
of the particle calculated by the equations of particle motion was compared with the experimental results. The divergence of particles from
a geometrical angle was evaluated by measuring surface roughness of the specimens. Although some spread of the particles were observed
surrounding the central damage area of the specimen surface, the greatest amount of damage was concentrated in the center. As a result,
it was found that particle impact conditions were well controlled in this testing unit. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solid particle impact; Erosion; Impact conditions; Particle flux; Impact velocity; Impact angle

1. Introduction therefore, brought by the misestimating of impact condi-

It is said that erosion results or quantitative analyses on
erosion are not in agreement among the researches, although
many researchers have presented many data about erosion
caused by solid particle impact using their own facility. The
reason for this can be that the amount of erosion is greatly
influenced not only by the differences in impact velocity,
impact angle and other impact conditions, but also by an
inadequate grasp and control of particle impact conditions
in a participant erosion facility. Typical examples on mis-
understanding and misestimating of impact conditions were
concerned with impact angle and impact velocity. A sand
blast type or a nozzle facility has been set up as an ordinary
erosion test unit. The impact angle is regarded as the geo-
metrical angle determined between a nozzle axis and a spec-
imen surface, and the impact velocity is generally regarded
as a flow velocity irrespective of particle size in the case of
insufficient measurements of impact conditions. It is, how-
ever, well known that the viscosity of fluid or weak inertia
of a particle distorts the flow pattern and particle trajectory,
and results in a change in particle angle and a decrease in
particle velocity. Curious data on erosion behaviour were,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-824-24-7845; fax: +81-824-22-7191.
E-mail address: iyoshi@hirosima-u.ac.jp (Y.I. Oka).
tions, so that it was difficult to elucidate the results in some
cases [1,2]. As it is possible that a concentrated particle flux
decreases erosion rate because of particle interference, ero-
sion tests have been suggested to be performed under a low
particle flux [3,4].
Adequate grasps of particle impact conditions and stable
controls of observed impact conditions in the facility are es-
sential to obtain reliable erosion data. The more important
parameters of particle impact conditions to be controlled are
particle flux, impact velocity and impact angle. A few mea-
surement methods of impact velocity have been proposed
[5–7]. However, a single measurement method cannot nec-
essarily cover over a wide range of impact velocity.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate experimentally im-
pact conditions of particle flux, impact velocity and impact
angle in the sand blast type erosion test rig, which was pre-
viously constructed to achieve the particle impact velocities
around 120 m s−1 and a wide range of impact angles [8].
The relative distance between particles to particle size was
discussed on the different particle size. A new method was
proposed to determine particle velocities in this facility that
is supported by the theoretical approach of calculating with
the equations of particle motion. The divergence of parti-
cles from a geometrical angle was evaluated by measuring
surface roughness of specimens.

0043-1648/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 7 1 0 - 4
 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743 737

2. Basic equations on impact energy, indentation air density (kg m−3 ). The pressure drop is connected with
and air flow velocity the equation of Fanning [10]. The particle velocity will be
calculated by the equation of particle motion Eq. (6) and the
An impact velocity under an erosion condition in this test distribution of the air flow velocity in the tube,
facility is obtained from the verification of the depth ratio


δ/R, which should be defined as the ratio of crater depth to a dv (ρp − ρf )g 3 CR (U − v)2 ρf
= − , (6)
particle radius, based on the relationships between the depth dt ρp 8 R ρp
ratio and the preliminarily known impact velocity in a gas
where t is the time, g the acceleration of gravity, CR the drag
gun test unit.
coefficient.
The volume V of indentation formed by particle impact is
proportional to the impact energy of a particle if the mechan-
ical property of a material is nearly constant irrespective of
strain rates [9] as follows: 3. Experimental details


1 4 The single impact tests with a large particle (diameter
V ∝ v2 , (1)
2 3πρp R 3 1–3 mm) and with a small amount of small particles (diam-
eter 207–380 ␮m) in a sabot (a carrier) were performed at
where ρ p is the density of a particle (kg m−3 ), R the equiv- normal angle in a gas gun testing unit schematically showed
alent radius of an angular particle (␮m) and v is the particle in Fig. 1, in order to preliminarily obtain the relationship be-
velocity (m s−1 ). On the other hand, the volume of the in- tween the depth ratio and impact velocity. A test piece was
dentation is calculated by crater depth or the depth ratio in fixed to the specimen holder opposite the muzzle of the gas
the case of hemispherical crater volume V0 as followed by gun. Particle velocity was identified with the velocity of the
the integration formula sabot which was determined with the flying time between
 R
 two light sources placed near the muzzle of the sabot accel-
δ3
π(R − x ) dx = π Rδ −
2 2 2
eration tube [11]. The diameter of the indentations caused by
R−δ 3


3  spherical projectiles on the aluminum specimen was mea-
2
δ 1 δ sured as an average diameter of the top level of lips, using
= πR 3 − ,
R 3 R an optical microscope or a surface profilometer. The diame-


  ter was converted to the indentation depth by the calculation
V 3 δ 2 1 δ 3 with a geometric formula.
= − , (2)
V0 2 R 3 R Multiple impact tests were carried out at normal angle
under the same conditions of erosion tests in the sand blast
if the depth ratio is relatively small, the cubical term can be type erosion test rig [8]. This test rig is composed of a reser-
negligible. Eq. (3) will therefore be derived as a parabolic voir tank, a valve, a particle feeder, a mixing chamber, a
function of the depth ratio particle acceleration tube and a specimen with a specimen

2 holder. The particle acceleration tube has 4 mm in inner di-
δ
V = πRδ = πR
2 3
. (3) ameter and 1.5 m in length. The measurement details of the
R
diameter or the depth of the indentations were the same as
Eq. (4) is therefore derived from Eqs. (1) and (3) in the foregoing method. The impact velocity and impact
angle were, respectively, controlled by the tank pressure P
δ
∝ v. (4) and the angle of a specimen holder to the tube axis. The two
R types of specimen geometry were used to provide a wide
The velocities both of air flow and particles are assumed to range of impact angles from 3 to 90◦ and to keep a constant
be independent of the geometrical angle between a speci-
men and the outlet of the particle acceleration tube, and of
particle shape.
If the isothermally compressed air in the tank is adiabati-
cally expanded in the mixed chamber and the tube, air flow
velocity U at a given location in the tube is expressed as
follows:


P − P1 − P2 0.5
U =2 , (5)
ρf
where P is the tank pressure, P1 and P2 the static pressure at
the location and the integrated pressure drop (Pa) between
the inlet and the location of the tube respectively and ρ f the Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a gas gun testing unit.
738 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743

Fig. 3. Relationship between indentation depth ratio and impact velocity

for spherical particles obtained in a gas gun test rig.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of test sections.

distance of 10 mm between the tube tip and the specimen
surface, as shown in Fig. 2. Erosion tests were also carried
out to examine the effects of particle flux on erosion, and
the configuration of eroded surface was measured with the
surface profilometer in order to discuss particles scattering
and to quantify the diversion from geometrical impact an-
gles. Erosion rates (mm3 kg−1 ) were obtained from weight
decrease and density of specimens and the mass of erodent.
Static pressures were measured in four locations of pressure
tappings with 0.03, 0.47, 0.97 and 1.47 m from the inlet of
the particle acceleration tube to obtain air flow velocities.
The target materials used in this study were commercial
pure aluminum (Hv = 0.4 GPa) and iron (Hv = 1.5 GPa).
The particles used in the measurements of particle velocity
were spherical glass beads (GB, ρ p = 2600 kg m−3 ) of di-
ameter 207, 380 ␮m and spherical zirconia particles (ρ p =
3700 kg m−3 ) of 211 ␮m in diameter, which were strictly
sieved, and of spherical glass beads of 1–3 mm in diame-
ter, which were individually measured. Angular particles of
sieved SiO2 (49 and 326 ␮m) and SiC (326 ␮m in diameter)
were used in erosion tests.
larger than that in the case of the glass beads of nearly the
same size.
4.2. Multiple impact tests and pressure measurements
in the sand blast type unit
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between δ/R and a gauge
pressure in the tank for glass and zirconia particles. Scatter-
ing of the data was also seen in the case of the measurements
of the depth ratio. The value of δ/R increased with the tank
pressure in all particles and with the small size of particle
in the same tank pressure. The value of δ/R in the zirconia
particle was larger than in the glass particle with the nearly
same size.
It is necessary to know the air flow velocity in the ac-
celeration tube if we try to estimate the terminal particle
impact velocity with an arbitrary size and density of a par-
ticle by calculating with the equation of the particle mo-
tion. Fig. 5 shows the static pressure distribution curves
with the tube distance from the inlet of the acceleration tube
(the joint with the mixing chamber of particles). The static
pressures gradually decreased with the tube distance. The

4. Results

4.1. Single impact tests in the gas gun unit

Fig. 3 shows the relationship between impact velocity of

a particle and the depth ratio of the indentation formed on
the aluminum specimen. Scattering of the data was seen es-
pecially in the impact tests of small particles with the sabot.
It is considered that the scattering is caused by the different
size of even strictly sieved small particles and the wall fric-
tion effect of the sabot brought into a decrease in particle
velocity. These relationships were nearly linear irrespective
of the sort and the size of particle. The slope of the lines
slightly increased with the increase in the particle size. The Fig. 4. Relationship between indentation depth ratio and pressure in the
slope in the case of the zirconia particle was about 30% tank for zirconia (ZrO2 ) and glass particles (GB).
 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743 739

Fig. 5. Static pressure distributions in the sand blast tube.

static pressure on a point located near the mixing chamber

were below the tank pressure. The static pressures near the
outlet of the tube were released to the atmosphere.

4.3. Erosion tests and configurations of eroded surface

Fig. 6 shows the effects of particle flux on erosion rate

(mm3 kg−1 ) for iron at normal angle, at various conditions
of impact velocity and particle size. The erosion rates de-
creased with the increase in the particle flux, but were nearly
constant under a low particle flux. The erosion rate at the
low particle flux depended both upon the impact velocity
and the size of the particle. The impact velocities described
in the figure were obtained from the calculations based on
air flow velocity shown in Fig. 11 and the equation of the
particle motion Eq. (6).
Fig. 7 shows the specimen surfaces of aluminum damaged
at 30, 60, 90◦ , at an impact velocity of 104 m s−1 by the
impact of the angular particle SiO2 (326 ␮m). The central
dark region which is suggested to be well damaged can be Fig. 7. Specimen surfaces of aluminium damaged at 30, 60 and 90◦ .
observed inside of surrounding light ring. Impact craters
were also recognized in this light area.
Fig. 8 shows surface configurations on aluminum obtained
by a surface profilometer. The length in the direction of
transverse axis on a well damaged area was about 5 mm
independent of the impact angle, and the region roughly
consisted of the dark area in Fig. 7. The longitudinal length
of course increased as the impact angle decreased. Although
the depth in the damaged area depended on the impact angle
and on the mass of erodent, the rim of the damaged area did
not hardly shift.

5. Discussion

5.1. Particle and air flow velocity

The linear curves in Fig. 3 are reasonably supported by

Eq. (4) so that δ/R is found to be experimentally and the-
Fig. 6. Effects of particle flux on erosion rates. oretically proportional to the impact velocity. Fig. 9 shows
740 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743

Fig. 8. Surface configurations after erosion tests by 49 ␮m of SiO2 at an impact velocity of 110 m s−1 .

the ratio of indented volume V/V0 geometrically calculated

Fig. 9. Relationship between indentation volume ratio and δ/R under the
indentation of a spherical particle.
with the depth ratio δ/R under the surface to the volume of
a hemisphere, neglecting the behaviour of pilling-up in the
crater rim. Fig. 9 reasonably sustains Eq. (3). However, the
slope in this figure slightly decreases from 2 with the in-
crease in δ/R, and reaches 1.76 at the indentation of a hemi-
sphere. This implies that the linear relation is strictly correct
in the region of low δ/R (low particle velocity) and that the
linear curve in Fig. 3 will shift upward in higher particle
velocity. The slope in Fig. 3, i.e. the constant in Eq. (4) de-
pends on the hardness of the target surface, size and density
of the particle, and affects the accuracy of the measurement
of particle velocity.
The particle velocity versus tank pressure curves in Fig. 10
can be obtained from Figs. 3 and 4. The curves in the
figure indicate calculation results explained as below. Al-
though the particle velocity increases with the tank pres-
sure, the increment in the particle velocity is not as large as
the pressure raise. The air flow velocity is theoretically pro-
portional to the tank pressure to the half power [10]. If the
relation between particle impact velocity and the tank pres-
sure is expressed as an exponential function, the exponent in
these curves is about 0.45, which is less than the theoretical
number 0.5. It can be considered that friction drag on the
 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743 741

Fig. 10. Test and calculation results on the relation between impact
velocity and pressure in the tank.

acceleration tube wall or the distorted particle velocity from

air flow velocity makes the exponent decrease. It is clear Fig. 11. Calculated air flow and particle velocities for various tank pres-
that the density and size of particle affects resistance force sures.
to air in the equation of the particle motion, so that the im-
pact velocity of a smaller and a lower density particle is
more accelerated in the same tank pressure. The reason why
particle velocity at the outlet of the tube and coincided
the values of δ/R measured from the diameter of indentation
well with the experimental data. It is found that the valid-
were scattering somehow in Figs. 3, 4 and 10 is considered
ity of this measurement method of particle velocity is rec-
to be attributed to irregular size of even carefully sieved par-
ognized in this erosion test facility. Table 1 shows particle
ticles and interference of the particles. But real velocity dis-
velocities calculated under the various conditions of particle
tributions of the particles in the hole of the sabot and in the
type, size and tank pressure. A particle velocity at an arbi-
acceleration tube are probably essential. The nominal im-
trary particle condition can be obtained with the foregoing
pact velocity should be indicated by the average velocity as
calculation without any experiments or interpolation from
a representative.
the curves.
The air flow velocity is generally assumed from the two
static pressures at the inlet and outlet of the tube in the
case of negligible friction drag in a container. However, the 5.2. Particle flux and interference
fact that the gradual increase in particle velocity was seen
in Fig. 10 and that the pressure distribution existed in the It is well known that the amount of erosion per unit parti-
acceleration tube in Fig. 5 suggested the importance of cal- cle mass is decreased by interaction or interference between
culating the particle velocity with friction drag according to particles. Shipway and Hutchings reported an average or an
the equation of the particle motion. The average air flow ve- equivalent distance of particles to evaluate the interference
locity in Fig. 11 were calculated by Eq. (5) and the static caused by particles [12]. The equivalent distance is different
pressure curves in Fig. 5. Unexpectedly, the acceleration of
the air flow was not uniform but relatively high near the inlet
of the acceleration tube (the joint with the mixed chamber) Table 1
and toward the outlet of the tube. This seems to be caused Particle velocities (m s−1 ) in a sand blast type test rig at various tank
by the complicated physical properties of compressive air pressure
and the temperature during adiabatic expansion. It is con- Particles Size (␮m) Tank pressure (MPa)
sidered that the sharp increase in air flow velocity reflects 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
the air expansion (the decrease in air density) brought from
the pressure down. The particle velocities of a 207 ␮m glass Silica sands 207 59 81 100 113 125 133
326 53 74 91 104 114 122
bead were also calculated by the equation of particle motion 380 51 72 89 100 110 118
and air flow velocity as shown in Fig. 11. A particle veloc-
ity of 133 m s−1 was estimated at an air flow rate of about Silicon carbide 207 56 78 96 109 120 128
326 51 71 87 99 109 116
250 m s−1 when a tank pressure was 0.6 MPa. It can be found
that the particle velocity is not accelerated as adequately Zirconia 211 54 75 93 106 116 124
326 49 69 85 96 106 112
as expected. The curves in Fig. 10 indicated the terminal
742 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743
Fig. 12. Effects of relative distance between particles on relative erosion
for iron.
depending on particle size under the same particle flux be-
cause of the different particle number per unit particle flux.
Fig. 12 obtained from Fig. 6 is useful in order to evaluate
particle interference. Fig. 12 shows the relation between
the relative erosion, defined by the ratio of erosion rate at
a given particle flux to the erosion rate at the particle flux
of 0.3 g s−1 or 25 kg m−2 s−1 (regarded as the maximum
erosion rates in Fig. 6), and the relative distance between
particles, which is defined by the ratio of the equivalent
distance to particle diameter, (Uπ r2 m/Q)1/3 /D, (m: particle
mass; U: mean particle velocity; r: nozzle radius; Q: particle
flux (g s−1 ); D: particle diameter). It can be found from this
figure that the particles interaction or interference seems to
be negligible over a relative distance between particles of
ca. 17, irrespective of particle size and impact velocity. This
value corresponds to an equivalent distance of ca. 5.5 mm
for SiO2 particle of 326 ␮m. It is then considered that the
effect of the particle interference is negligible in this study
over a relative distance of 17 or under a particle flux of
25 kg m−2 s−1 (0.3 g s−1 in the particle feeder).
5.3. Particle scattering and particle impact angle
In order to discuss the control of impact angle of parti-
cles, the surface appearance and surface roughness were in-
vestigated. The change of brightness in Fig. 7 suggests the
degree of surface roughness caused by the particle impact.
Comparing the appearances in Fig. 7 with the configuration
of damaged surface as shown in Fig. 8, it can be found that
the damage was deep in the dark portion of the center of the
damage area and that the minute roughness was spread in
the periphery of the indentation as a bright area. The rim of
the indentations was clearly visible. The transverse distance
of the well damaged area to the direction of the inclination
ranged between 5 and 5.5 mm (the trace distance is 0.5 mm).
The longitudinal distance was of course different depending
on the impact angle. However, the spread angle was evenly
estimated within 5◦ . It was found that the spread angle was
Fig. 13. Surface roughness and cumulative volume ratio versus relative
radius from the center of a damaged area at an angle of 90◦ .
independent of the installation and inclination of the target.
This result also intimated the correct assumption of particle
velocity irrespective of the inclination of the target. Taking
the rough surface in the periphery of the indentation into
account, a small amount of particles divergently collides to
be regarded as a wider spread angle.
As an example, Fig. 13 shows surface roughness and the
cumulative volume ratio after the impacts of 20 g SiC parti-
cles of 326 ␮m, at an impact angle of 90◦ , at impact velocity
of 99 m s−1 . The axis of abscissa takes the relative distance
from the center of a damaged area to the tube inner radius r0 .
The spread angle was based on 0◦ at unit relative distance
(r/r0 = 1). The cumulative volume ratio  ∞was obtained by
the axially symmetrical integration of 0 f (r/r0 )2π r dr.
The surface roughness is expressed as a function of r/r0 . It
can be recognized that more than 90% of the whole damage
was concentrated just under the outlet of the nozzle (within
r/r0 = 1) despite the surface roughness of a large damage
area over r/r0 = 1.25. These results may sustain the possi-
bility of a shallow impact test of 3◦ in the previous paper [8].
Therefore, the impact angle is well controlled, even if the
small amount of particles are widely spread in the sand blast
type test rig. The larger the size and the higher the velocity
of particles, the greater the inertia decreases the possibility
of spread particles.
6. Conclusions
The key factors in particle impact conditions of impact
velocity, particle flux and impact angle, which affect the
erosion rate were discussed in a sand blast type erosion test
rig. Conclusions are as below:
1. The relationship between the depth ratio δ/R and impact
velocity was linear in the region of a low δ/R and the
method to measure particle velocity proposed in this pa-
per was theoretically and experimentally proved.
 Y.I. Oka et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 736–743
2. The experimental on particle velocity data reasonably co-
incided with the calculation results of particle velocity
obtained from air flow distributions in the acceleration
tube and the equation of the particle motion. The termi-
nal impact velocity of a particle with arbitrary size and
density can be calculated in this facility.
3. The relative distance between particles over which the
particle interference can be negligible was about 17 irre-
spective of particle size and impact velocity.
4. The spread angle was estimated within 5◦ taking into ac-
count the well-damaged area recognized from the surface
roughness. A small amount of particles divergently col-
lided on the surface. However, it can be concluded that
impact angle is well controlled from the fact that more
than 90% of the whole damage was concentrated just un-
der the outlet of the nozzle.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Mr. H.
Ohnogi, Hiroshima Gas Co. Ltd., and Mr. T. Hosokawa,
The High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan and Mr.
K. Okamura, Hiroshima University, for their assistance
with the experiments. The authors also thank Dr. M.M.
Stack, UMIST for supplying zirconia particles and giving
suggestions.
743
References
[1] M.M. Stack, N. Pungwiwat, A note on the construction of materials
performance maps for resistance to erosion in aqueous slurries, Wear
215 (1998) 67.
[2] S.K. Li, J.A.C. Humphrey, A.V. Levy, Erosive wear of ductile metals
by a particle-laden high velocity liquid jet, Wear 73 (1981) 295.
[3] K. Anand, Flux effects in solid particle erosion, Wear 118 (1987)
243.
[4] P.R. Krishnamoorthy, S. Seetharamu, P. Sampathkumaran, Influence
of the mass flux and impact angle of the abrasive on the erosion
resistance of materials used in pulverized fuel bends and other
components in thermal power stations, Wear 165 (1993) 151.
[5] A.W. Ruff, L.K. Ives, Wear 35 (1975) 195.
[6] P.H. Shipway, I.M. Hutchings, Influence of nozzle roughness on
conditions in a gas-blast erosion rig, Wear 162–164 (1993) 148.
[7] Y.I. Oka, M. Matsumura, Y. Ohsako, M. Yamawaki, Particle impact
conditions in vibratory sand-erosion facilities, Boshoku Gijytsu 33
(1984) 278.
[8] Y.I. Oka, H. Ohnogi, Y. Hosokawa, M. Matsumura, The impact angle
dependence of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact, Wear
203–204 (1997) 573.
[9] Y.I. Oka, M. Matsumura, T. Kawabata, Relationship between surface
hardness and erosion damage caused by solid particle impact, Wear
162–164 (1993) 688.
[10] R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, E.N. Lightfoot (Eds.), Transport Phenomena,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1960.
[11] Y.I. Oka, I.M. Hutchings, Dependence of material hardness on erosion
by solid particle impact, Boshoku Gijutsu 39 (1990) 610.
[12] P.H. Shipway, I.M. Hutchings, A method for optimizing the particle
flux in erosion testing with a gas-blast apparatus, Wear 174 (1994)
169.