ELSEVIER

Wear 181-183 (1995) 810-820

Short Communication
Weld overlay coatings for erosion control
B.F. Levin, J.N. DuPont, A.R. Marder
Lehigh University Energy Research Center, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
Received 18 May 1994; accepted 1 November 1994
Abstract
Research was conducted to develop a criterion for selecting weld overlay coatings for erosion mitigation in circulated
fluidized beds (CFBs). Initially, 11 weld overlay alloys were deposited on 1018 steel substrates using the plasma arc welding
process and erosion tested at 400 C. Erosion resistance was evaluated by determining the steady state erosion rate, and the
microstructure of each coating was characterized before erosion testing. The steady state erosion rates for several weld overlay
coatings (Ultimet, Inconel-625 and 316L SS) were considerably lower than the other coatings evaluated (Armacor-M, B-60,
TS-2, Stellite-6, Hastelloy-22, high Cr iron and 420 SS). No correlations were found between the room temperature hardness
of the weld overlay coatings and their erosion resistance at elevated temperature. Microhardness tests were performed on
the eroded samples below the erosion surface in order to determine the size of the plastically deformed zone, and it was
found that some coatings deformed plastically as a result of erosion while others did not. Possible erosion mechanisms for
these groups of coatings were analyzed.
Keywords: Solid particle erosion; Weld overlay coating; Plastic deformation; Work hardening; Hardness; Toughness
1. Introduction
The erosion of materials by the impact of solid
particles has received increasing attention during the
past 20 years. Today, solid particle erosion (SPE)
damage remains one of the most significant performance
problems among US utilities, affecting roughly 80% of
fossil fuel systems [l]. Wastage associated with erosion
has caused an increase in power plant down time due
to increased maintenance, therefore reducing plant
efficiency. This problem has led to various methods to
combat SPE. One method is to apply coatings to the
components subjected to erosive environments. Pro-
tective weld overlay coatings are particularly advan-
tageous in terms of coating quality. The weld overlay
coatings are essentially immune to spallation due to a
strong metallurgical bond with the substrate material,
and using powder mixtures a wide range of alloys can
be applied in order to achieve the best performance
in an erosive environment. Although there has been
a large amount of research conducted to understand
abrasive wear resistance of weld overlay coatings [2],
few investigations have dealt with the erosion aspect
of wear, making the selection of welding alloys for
erosion resistance a difficult task. Therefore research
was initiated in order to determine the effects of weld
overlay coating composition, microstructure and me-
chanical properties on erosion resistance. The results
of this research will be useful for developing material
selection criteria for erosion-resistant weld overlay coat-
ings in circulated fluidized beds (CFBs).
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Coating selection
Eleven weld overlay coatings were selected for erosion
testing. The nominal chemical composition of the se-
lected coatings is shown in Table 1. All coatings were
separated into three major groups: (1) cobalt-base (or
cobalt-containing) alloys; (2) nickel-base alloys; (3) iron-
base alloys.
C!O43-1648/95/$09.50 8 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved
SSDI 0043-1648(94)07088-l
B.F. Levin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) 810420 811
Table 1
NominaI chemical composition (wt.%) of the selected weld overlay coatings
Cobalt base alloys
(1) Steilited (62%Ck+28%Cr-4.5%W-l.l%C-l.O%Si-2.3%Fe)
(2) Tristelle-TS2 (37%Fe-35%Cr-ll%Co-9%Ni-4.5%Si-2%C)
(3) Uhimet (57%&-24%Cr-1.8%M+8.8%Ni-2.9%Fe-2%W-O.O58%C)
Nickel-base alloys
(1) Hastelloy-22 (57.1%Ni-21%Cr-23%Mo-2.95%W-O.OO6%C-5.15%Fe)
(2) Inconel-625 (61.7%Ni-21.7%Cr-G3.5%Mo-3.49%(Nb+Ta)-O.O23%C)
(3) B-60 (73.8%Ni-13.4%Cr-4.2%Si-4.3%Fe-2.8%B-0.67%C)
I ron-base alloys
(1) Armacor-M (59%Cr-39%-Fe-S%B-3%Si)
(2) Iron aiuminide (14.3%AI-2%Cr-84.7%Fe)
(3) High chromium white iron (68.7%Fe-27%Cr-0.44%Mn-0.6%Si~.27%Ni-0..ll%N-2.74%C)
(4) 316L SS (69%Fe-16.5%Cr-2.1%Mo-l0.2%Ni-l.45%Mn-O.027%C)
(5) 420 SS (85.73%Fe-13.07%Cr-O.425%Si-0.35%Mn-O.4%C)
2.2. Coating deposition
A fully automatic welding laboratory was used to
apply the weld alloys and the plasma transferred arc
welding (PTAW) process was employed for coating
deposition. This process was selected on the basis of
its ability to apply a wide range of overlay alloys in
powder form and obtain a high degree of control over
coating dilution from the substrate. All coatings were
deposited on 1018 carbon steel substrate (12 in X 12
in x 0.25 in thick). This substrate material was chosen
because it is widely used for boiler tube applications
in CFBs. After deposition, coatings were sectioned into
0.5 in x0.5 in coupons for erosion tests. The welding
parameters, such as voltage, travel speed, current and
filler metal feed rate, were optimized in order to provide
similar heat inputs and coating thicknesses for each
alloy. Coating thicknesses, heat inputs, powder feed
rates and interpass temperatures are shown in Table
2.
2.3. Erosion tests
2.3.1. Erosion tester
A schematic diagram of the erosion tester used in
this study is shown in Fig. 1. The system is driven by
an air compressor which can deliver up to 35 standard
cubic feet per minute (s&n) of air. The air is cleaned
through a series of filters to remove any entrained
water. The flow meter and pressure regulator control
the amount of air that flows through the system and
the air is heated by two inline fluid heaters. The erodent
is fed into the air stream with a screw feeder to ensure
constant feed rates. The particles and hot air are
accelerated and impinge on the sample at any angle
between 0 and 90. The particle velocity distribution
prior to impact is directly measured with a laser Doppler
velocometer (LDV).
2.3.2. Erosion test conditions
The standard test conditions chosen for this study
were as follows: eroded sample planar dimensions, 0.5
in X 0.5 in; sample temperature, 400 C; erodent particle
Table 2
Process parameters for deposition of hardfacing weld overlays alloys (plasma transferred arc process)
Hardfacing
weld overlay
coating
Coating
thickness
(mm)
Heat input
(J mm-)
Powder feed
rate
(cm s-)
Interpass
temperature
(C)
Stellited 3.3 1727 3.0
Tristelle TS-2 4.2 1272 3.0
Ultimet 3.4 1296 3.0
Hastelloy 22 1.8 694.98 3.5
B-60 4.0 786.85 3.5
Inconel 625 3.5 1056 3.5
Armacor 2.4 776.47 4.0
Iron aluminide 3.3 1272 3.0
High chromium iron 3.5 912 4.0
316L SS stainless steel 4.3 1131.42 3.5
420 SS stainless steel 4.6 1131.42 3.5
<60
~60
~60
<60
<60
~60
<60
160
~60
160
<60
812 B.F. L&n et al. I Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820
Particle
Feeder
Acceleration Tube
II
Specimen
Chamber
Exhaust
Particle Collectio
-Fl ow Meter
Pressure
D
/ Regulator
Filters
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the erosion tester.
Time
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the erosion kinetics.
velocity, 40 m s- ( f 5%); erodent particle flux, 8.56
mg mm-2s-1; impingement angle, 90 and 30; erodent,
angular alumina (Al,O,); erodent size, 300 pm; exposure
time, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 min.
The sample temperature was chosen to be 400 C,
similar to the temperature of the fireside boiler tube
surface. The erodent particle velocity is reported as
an average velocity and the standard deviation was
found to be approximately 5%. The alumina erodent
was reused for erosion testing and was sieved using a
300 pm mesh to remove any smaller particles. The
erodent shape was found not to change between the
new and used alumina.
2.3.3. Steady state erosion rate determination
The erosion kinetics typical of most materials are
shown schematically in Fig. 2. The weight loss of a
given material as a function of time during erosion
often follows a pattern consisting of a relatively small
incubation period with little or no material removal.
Apparently, the incubation period is indicative of the
time required for sufficient work hardening to occur
prior to localized fracture [3]. The material eventually
experiences surface weight loss and surface hardening
at the same rate, and attains a steady state erosion
rate. Steady state erosion is defined by the linear portion
of the weight loss vs. erosion time plot [4]. Determination
of the steady state erosion rate is very important from
a practical point of view, since most of the material
removal occurs during this period. Five different erosion
exposure times (5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 min) were used
in this study in order to obtain a satisfactory weight
loss vs. erosion time plot for each weld overlay coating.
For some coatings, an additional 80 min test was
conducted. One sample was used per erosion time.
Therefore five or six samples from each coating were
used to obtain the relationship between weight loss
and erosion time for each impingement angle.
To quantify the weight loss during the erosion ex-
periments, the erosion coupons were ultrasonically
cleaned in acetone and weighed before the erosion
tests to the nearest 0.1 mg. After erosion testing, the
samples were again ultrasonically cleaned in acetone
and weighed to determine the weight change due to
erosion. Graphs of weight loss vs. time of exposure
were obtained for each weld overlay coating for each
impingement angle. A linear regression analysis was
performed on the data in the steady state erosion
regime of the weight loss vs. erosion time plots, the
slopes of which yield the steady state erosion rate. The
volume erosion rates for each coating were obtained
by dividing the weight loss rate by the density of the
coating. It is essential to determine the volume erosion
rate in order to make a comparison between materials
with different densities. For example, two materials
with different densities may exhibit equal weight loss
due to erosion; however, high density material will have
a lower volume loss than a material with low density.
2.4. Microscopy
The microstructures of all the coatings in the as-
weld condition were characterized using light optical
microscopy (LOM). In addition, the eroded surfaces
of each coating after 100 min of exposure (longest
time) were observed by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM).
2.5. Hardness measurements
Hardness measurements were performed using a
Vickers indenter with a test load of 30 kgf. The in-
dentations were made on the top surface of the coatings.
Three to five indentations were made per sample and
the average was calculated. The standard deviation was
found to be no more than 5% for each coating. The
test procedure, specimen size and finish requirements
satisfied the ASTM E 92 standard [5].
2.5.1. Estimation of the plastic zone size
In order to determine the size of the deformed region
beneath the eroded surface, microhardness tests were
performed on a transverse section of each weld overlay
B.F. Levin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820
813
DISTANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE (MICRONS)
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the microhardness technique used to
determine the size of the plastic zone due to particle impact.
coating after 100 min of exposure in the erosion tester
at a particle impact angle of 90. As a result of erosion,
the material beneath the eroded surface may experience
plastic deformation and the coating hardness may in-
crease directly below the surface. The plastic zone size
can be estimated by obtaining a microhardness profile
from the eroded surface into the base material. A
schematic diagram of this profile is shown in Fig. 3.
The depth at which the hardness value becomes constant
is defined as the plastic zone size. Microhardness mea-
surements were performed using a Vickers indenter
with test loads of 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 gf. The
microhardness tests were conducted according to the
ASTM E 384 standard [6]. Three to five microhardness
profiles were obtained in different locations of each
coating in order to improve the statistical significance
of the data. From these profiles, the size of the plastic
zone for each coating was estimated.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Microstructural characterization
The microstructure of each weld overlay coating was
characterized using LOM. Inspection of the micro-
structures showed that most of the coatings (Stellite-
6, Ultimet, Inconel-625, Hastelloy-22, B-60, high chro-
mium iron, 316L SS and 420 SS) exhibited dendritic
microstructures typical of weld materials. As an example
of the dendritic microstructure, the Stellite-6 weld
overlay coating is shown in Fig. 4(a). The microstructure
consists of primary dendrites (white phase) and inter-
dendritic eutectic regions. The iron aluminide coating
microstructure is significantly different from all the
other coatings studied and the equiaxed grain mor-
phology with fine precipitates is shown in Fig. 4(b).
The microstructure of the Armacor-M coating is also
different from the rest of the coatings investigated and
is shown in Fig. 4(c). The coating microstructure pos-
sesses a primary needle-like phase of various sizes
(white phase) that appears to be borides in a metal
(Cr-Fe) matrix.
It should be noted that the microstructures of all
the coatings are very inhomogeneous due to non-equi-
librium solidification during welding. In addition, most
of the coatings consist of a large volume fraction of
hard second-phase particles such as carbides and/or
intermetallics. It has been indicated that these second-
phase particles may contribute significantly to the abra-
sion resistance of weld overlay coatings [7,8]. However,
their role in erosion resistance needs to be determined.
3.2. Erosion tests
As an example, typical weight loss vs. time plots for
Armacor-M, 316L SS and iron aluminide coatings are
shown in Fig. 5. All three coatings exhibited incubation
periods of approximately 20 min before steady state
was reached. It can be seen that the Armacor-M coating
showed the highest steady state erosion rate (0.162 mg
min-I) at 90 impact. The 316L SS and iron aluminide
weld alloys showed significantly lower erosion rates
(0.078 mg min- and 0.073 mg mine1 respectively).
The volumetric steady state erosion rates for all the
coatings at 400 C for 90 and 30 impact angles are
shown in Table 3. It can be seen that, at both impact
angles, some weld overlays, such as Ultimet, Inconel-
625 and 316L SS, exhibited steady state erosion rates
which were significantly lower than the erosion rates
for the remaining coatings. These results are surprising
since the coatings have different chemical compositions
and microstructures. Moreover, alloys that are com-
mercially used for abrasion protection, such as Stellite-
6, B-60 and Armacor-M, showed relatively poor erosion
resistance compared with Inconel-625 and 316L SS
coatings that are used mostly for corrosion protection.
These results indicate that factors which contribute to
the abrasion and erosion behavior may be different.
It was also found that the steady state erosion rates
did not vary significantly with particle impact angle for
Stellited, Ultimet, Inconel-625, iron aluminide, Ar-
macor-M, high Cr iron and 316L SS coatings. It is
generally accepted that the erosion of ductile materials
is greatest when the angle of impact is in the 20-30
range, whereas the erosion of brittle materials is greatest
at 90 [4]. However, the present results suggest that
814 B.F. Levin et al. I Wear 181-183 (1995) 810-820
Fig. 4. As-welded microstructure of the weld overlay coatings: (a) Stellite-6 (etchant, Murakamis reagent); (b) iron aluminide (etchant,
Marshalls reagent); (c) Armacor-M (etchant, Glyceregia).
these observations may not be valid for weld overlay
coatings. It was also reported [9,10] that the impact
angle had no significant effect on the erosion rate of
various wrought alloys containing a large volume fraction
of second phase. Apparently, the erosion mechanism
of alloys with a large volume fraction of second phase
may be intermediate between brittle and ductile [lo].
More work is needed to determine the effect of second-
phase particles on the erosion mechanism of weld
overlays. The present results indicate that, in spite of
the differences in microstructure and composition, coat-
ings that show similar erosion rates at elevated tem-
perature may have similar mechanical properties that
control their erosion behavior. The critical mechanical
properties that are thought to control erosion resistance
include the hardness [II], toughness [12], ductility [lo]
and strain hardening coefficient [13]. Measurements of
the weld overlay mechanical properties are essential
in order to determine their effect on the erosion re-
sistance at elevated temperature.
3.3. Effect of hardness on erosion resistance
The volumetric erosion rate of each coating at 30
and 90 impact angles is plotted against the room
temperature hardness in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6(a) (30
impact angle), it can be seen that there is a trend
showing an increase in erosion rate with increasing
hardness, although two coatings (B-60 and high Cr
iron) do not follow this trend. There is no correlation
between the room temperature hardness and steady
state erosion rate at 400 C and an impact angle of
90 (Fig. 6(b)). However, it is interesting to note that
Armacor-M and B-60 alloys have the highest hardness
B.F. Levin et al. I Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820 815
Table 3
Volume steady state erosion rates for tested coatings
Coating Erosion rate (mm min-) X 1000
90 impact angle 30 impact angle
Weld overlay coatings
Cobalt base
Stellite-6
Ultimet
TS-2
Nickel state
Inconel 625
Hastelloy-22
B-60
Iron base
Iron aluminide
Armacor-M
High chromium iron
316L SS
420 SS
11.9
8.5
10.4
9.4
11.4
13.5
10.3 9.3
22.2 20.3
11.1 11.3
10.0 9.2
9.4 14.2
12.2
9.7
12.5
9.5
9.4
9.9
cl ARMACOR-M
0 316L SS
A lRON ALUMR IIDE
ALUMINA ERODENT
90 DEGREES IMPACT ANGLE
TEMPERATURE-400 C
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TIME f mi nl
Fig. 5. Weight loss as a function of time for Armacor-M, 316L SS
and iron aluminide weld overlay coatings.
and exhibit the highest erosion rates at a 90 erodent
impact angle. It should be noted that the erosion rates
were measured at 400 C, whereas the hardness tests
were conducted at room temperature. This correlation
has practical utility since room temperature hardness
tests are easy to perform and are often used by vendors
and users to characterize coatings.
Previous work on weld overlay coatings has shown
that an increase in coating hardness may lead to an
increase in abrasion resistance 1141. However, other
workers have shown that hardness does not affect the
erosion resistance [15]. Some researchers [ll] have
found that an increase in hardness for different types
of materials may lead to an increase in the erosion
resistance. The results obtained in the present inves-
tigation suggest that an increase in room temperature
hardness does not necessarily represent an increase in
erosion resistance of the weld overlay coatings. More-
Q 19-
x
2 18-
._
E
2 17-
E
F 16-
2 IS-
z
= g 14-
2 13-
g 3 IZ-
e II-
IO-
0-r
a
no ss
??
8.60
316L ss IR)NAlumIoE
a,, I , , , , , , , , , I, I
loo I50 200 250 MO 350 400 450 5al 550 600 650 700 750 8@J I
HARDNESS WI CKERS)
8
I M) I 50 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 !
HARDNESS (VI CKERSI
Fig. 6. Volume steady state erosion rates of weld overlay coatings
as a function of room temperature hardness: (a) 30 impact angle;
(b) 90 impact angle.
over, it was found that coatings having a relatively low
hardness level (below 350 I-IV), such as Inconel-625,
iron aluminide and 316L SS, consistently showed a
higher erosion resistance, whereas some of the coatings
with a higher hardness showed lower erosion resistance
(Armacor-M and B-60). Therefore room temperature
hardness measurements may not be a valid criterion
for the selection of erosion-resistant weld overlay coat-
ings at elevated temperature.
816 B.F. Levin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) HO-820
3.3.1. Plastic zone measurements and SEA4 observations
The results of the cross-section microhardness tests
are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that, for some
coatings (Ultimet, iron aluminide, 316L SS, Hastelloy-
22, Inconel-625 and Stellite-6), the hardness significantly
increases in the vicinity of the eroded surface (Figs.
7(a)-7(f)). These results indicate the formation of a
plastically deformed zone due to particle impact. As
a result of the particle impact, the coating is plastically
316L SS WELD OVERLAY COATING
IRON ALUMINIDE WELD OVERLAY COATING
deformed, and the dislocation density increases in the
vicinity of the impact, producing an increase in hardness
at the coating surface. The extent of plastic deformation,
and the corresponding extent of impact energy dissipated
through deformation, may be determined by measuring
the size of the plastically deformed zone. From Figs.
7(a)-7(f), the plastic zone size for Ultimet, iron alu-
minide, 316L SS, Hastelloy-22, Inconel-625 and Stellite-
6 weld overlays can be estimated at approximately 70,
750- b
- 7On-
5
= 650 -
2 m_
g - so-
2:
200
0 20 11 60 80 loo 110 14) 160 180 200 220
DISTASCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE IMICRONSI
HASTELLOY-22 WELD OVERLAY COATING
3nO-
250 -
200, I , , , , , , I I I I
0 20 40 Ml a0 Ial I20 140 160 InIl 200 220
DISTASCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE I>IICRONSI
INCONEL-62; WELD OVERLAY COATING
u_-
750- *
-
2
7nn-
250 -
200 , , I , , I I I , , I b
0 10 0 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 loo 110 I20 130
DISTANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE IMICROS!
I
m , , , , , I,, , , ,
0 zn 4) 64 80 1001201401601110200220~~D2~~~03003203~13
DISTASCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE IMICRONSI
ULTIMET WELD OVERLAY COATIXG
aw,
iil,;,;t ,,,, II,
0 20 40 60 X0 1M)1201~01601802002202J02~?S03~3
DISTANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE (MICROSSl
STELLITE-6 WELD OVERLAY COATING
I200
IISO f
I loo
09
0
0
0
0
000
DISTANCE FROM TllE ERODED SURFACE (MICRONS)
Fig. 7. (continued)
B.F. Lmin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820 817
420 SS WELD OVERLAY COATING
TS-2 WELD OVERLAY COATING
DI STANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE (MI CRONS) DI STANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE I >I I CROSSI
ARMACOR-M WELD OVERLAY COATI SG
I ZDJ
I I 50
I l oo i
HIGH CHROMIUM CAST IROS WELD OVERLAY COATISG
lxxl-.
1150-
1100- i
1050 -
f
=
IO(x)-
5
YSO-
Y
Xnx , -
-- RW-
t z 6X)-
$
MN,-
5SO-
I
=
SI X) -
z
450 -
MO-
350 -
3007
0
zl
0 20 Jo * 0 100 12 ,.$I, I 64 I SO xl 220 XI ?M) xi 0 : I,
DI STANCE FROM T~I E ERODED SURFACE I XI I CROWI
DI STANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE I ~c Ro~S~
B-60 WELD OVERLAY COATI SG
DI STANCE FROM THE ERODED SURFACE I WCROSSI
Fig. 7. Variation of hardness as a function of distance from the eroded surface for weld overlay coatings.
70, 55, 35, 40 and 20 pm respectively. However, for
Armacor-M, B-60, 420 SS, IS-2 and high chromium
iron coatings (Figs. 7(g)-7(k)), no work hardening zone
could be detected. These results indicate that this group
of materials does not appreciably deform plastically
during particle impact.
On the basis of plastic zone measurements, it can
be seen that one group of coatings experienced sig-
nificant deformation, while the other group did not
deform plastically. However, there are coatings in each
class which exhibit similar erosion rates (Inconel-625
and 420 SS at a 90 impact angle). This result suggests
that the erosion mechanism of each group is appreciably
different and therefore the mechanical properties which
govern the erosion resistance of each group may not
be the same. The SEM examinations of the erosion
818 B.F. Loin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820
scars after 100 min of exposure in the erosion tester
at a 90 impact angle confirmed the plastic zone mea-
surement data. The erosion scars of the coatings that
possessed a plastic zone showed evidence of gouging
and impact craters. Gouging for the Stellite-6 coating
and impact craters for the Ultimet coating are shown
in Figs. g(a) and 8(b) respectively (see arrows).
It is generally accepted that erosion mechanisms that
involve plastic deformation cause gouging and crater
formation [16]. Evidence of plastic deformation due to
erosion has been observed by many researchers [17,18].
Usually, the erosion of ductile materials is accompanied
by plastic deformation and, when a critical strain is
exceeded in the deformation volume underneath the
eroded surface, the material is detached from the surface
by ductile fracture [17]. On the other hand, the erosion
of brittle materials that do not deform plastically involves
brittle fracture (i.e. chipping, cracking) after particle
impact [12]. Scanning electron micrographs of the ero-
sion scars for Armacor-M and 420 SS coatings, in which
no plastic zone could be detected, are shown in Figs.
Fig. 8. Scanning electron micrographs of the eroded surface after
100 min exposure in the erosion tester at a 90 impact angle: (a)
Stellite-6; (b) Ultimet.
Fig. 9. Scanning electron micrographs of the eroded surface after
100 min exposure in the erosion tester at a 90 impact angle: (a)
Armacor-M; (b) 420 SS.
B.F. L,evin et al. I Wear 181-183 (1995) 810-820 819
a
ARMACOR-M
90 DEGREES IMPACT ANGLE
TEMPERATURE-400 C
ALUMINA EFIOOENT
0 PLASTiCALLY DEFORMED
a NO PLASTlC DEFORMATION
0 B-60
STELLITE-6
HIGH Cr IRON
0
0
TS-2 0
IO
HASTELLOY-22
la
lROKAlUMlNlDE
316L SS
0
II
9 IN-625
P
ULTIMET ??
s
1 I , I
0 15 30 45 60 75
PLASTIC ZONE SIZE (MICRONS)
Fig. 10. Volume steady state erosion rate of weld overlay coatings as a function of plastic zone size.
9(a) and 9(b). A large amount of surface relief is
apparent from these micrographs. Also, no evidence
of impact craters or gouging was observed for these
coatings. Similar erosion scars were observed for all
coatings that did not deform plastically due to particle
impact.
The relationship between the plastic zone size and
volume erosion rate for all the coatings is shown in
Fig. 10. It can be seen that materials that dissipate
particle impact energy through plastic deformation
(plastic zone) exhibit low erosion rates. These results
are in agreement with those reported by Ball [13].
However, those materials that did not deform plastically
(no plastic zone) showed both low (420 SS) and high
(Armacor-M) erosion rates at 90. These results indicate
that the erosion behavior of these coatings cannot be
explained by plastic deformation only. Thus mechanical
properties that control erosion behavior are different
for ductile and brittle materials. For ductile weld ov-
erlays, the ability to deform plastically and therefore
dissipate impact energy plays a major role in erosion
resistance. It was shown [13] that materials with a
higher strain hardening coefficient exhibited a higher
erosion resistance compared with materials with a low
strain hardening coefficient. However, for brittle weld
overlays, the ability to resist brittle fracture (i.e.
cracking) is a major factor that may control the erosion
resistance. Therefore materials that exhibit both high
toughness and hardness may have good erosion resis-
tance. It is clear that measurements of coating me-
chanical properties, such as strain hardening and tough-
ness, at elevated temperature (400 C) are necessary
to determine their effect on the erosion resistance.
4. Conclusions
On the basis of the results of this investigation the
following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The steady state erosion at elevated temperature
(400 C) at 30 and 90 impact angles for the
Ultimet, Inconel-625 and 316L SS coatings was
found to be considerably lower than for the weld
B.F. Levin et al. / Wear 181483 (1995) 810-820 820
(2)
(3)
(4)
overlay coatings that exhibit good abrasion resis-
tance (Stellite-6, Armacor-M and B-60).
The Stellite-6, Ultimet, Inconel-625, iron aluminide,
Armacor-M, high chromium iron and 316L SS weld
overlay coatings did not show significant differences
in their steady state erosion rates between 90 and
30 particle impact angles at elevated temperature
(400 C). Thus the generally accepted angular re-
lationship between the erosion of ductile and brittle
materials may not be valid for these materials.
No correlation was found between the room tem-
perature hardness of the weld overlay coatings and
their erosion resistance at elevated temperature
(400 C). Therefore the selection of erosion-resistant
weld overlay coatings for boiler tubes in CFBs
should not be based on their room temperature
hardness values.
316L SS, Inconel-625, iron aluminide, Stellited,
Hastelloy-22 and Ultimet weld overlays plastically
deformed due to erosion, whereas high chromium
iron, 420 SS, TS-2, B-60 and Armacor-M did not.
Therefore the mechanisms that control erosion
behavior are different for these two groups of
coatings.
Acknowledgments
This work was made possible by financial support
from the US Department of Energy under Grant No.
DE-FG22-92PS92542 and Air Products and Chemicals
Inc. The authors wish to thank A. Benscoter, B. Lindsley,
K. Stein and B. Smith for technical support and helpful
discussions.
References
VI
PI
[31
[41
[51
WI
[71
PI
[91
WI
PI
WI
1131
P41
PI
Ml
I171
1181
L. Iammarre, EPBI J ., 15 (7) (1990) 31.
H. Bems, A. Fisher and W. Theisen, Wear Mater., 2 (1989)
601.
M. Tennichi and T. Nakagava, J. J SLE Znt. Ed., 10 (1989) 39.
I.M. Hutchings, Monograph on the Erosion of Materials by Solid
Particle I mpact, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge,
1983.
ASTM E 92 Standard, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
03.01, Metals Tests Methods and Analytical fiocedures, ASTM,
1988.
ASTM E 384 Standard, Annual Book of ASTM Stamdards, Vol.
03.01, Metals Tests Methods and Analytical Procea&s, ASTM,
1988.
D. Ellis and R. Squires, Metal Construction, 15 (7) (1983) 388.
M. Smll, R. Devanathan and P. Clayton, Wear, 135 (2) (1990)
355.
S.S. Aptecar and T.H. Kosel, Wear Mater., 2 (1985) 671.
A. Ninham, Wear Mater., 2 (1987) 813.
1. Finnie, Wear, 6 (1963) 5.
I.M. Hutchings, J. Phys. D: Appt. Phys., 25 (1992) A212.
A. Ball, Wear, 91 (1983) 201.
H. Bems, A. Fisher and W. Theisen, Wear Mater., 2 (1987)
535.
A.V. Levy and Hickey, Wear Mater., 2 (1985) 535.
I.M. Hutchings, in W.F. Adler (ed.), Erosion: Prevention and
Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664, ASTM, 1979, p. 59.
I.M. Hutchings and A.V. Levy, Wear, 131 (1989) 105.
R. Veerabhadra, S.G. Young and D.H. Bucley, Wear, 85 (1983)
223.