Slurry Erosion Comparison of D-gun Sprayed Stellite-6, Cr3c2-25nicr Coatings-2

7/30/2019 Slurry Erosion Comparison of D-gun Sprayed Stellite-6, Cr3c2-25nicr Coatings-2

1/13

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976

6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March April (2013), IAEME

210

SLURRY EROSION COMPARISON OF D-GUN SPRAYED STELLITE-

6, Cr3C2-25NiCr COATINGS AND SUBSTRATE 13Cr4Ni UNDER

HYDRO ACCELERATED CONDITION

Gurpreet Singh1

and Sanjeev Bhandari2

1M.Tech, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab-140407, India2Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab-140407, India

ABSTRACT

Degradation of under water parts in hydro turbines is serious issue mainly in the

North India. So its a challenge to develop new more erosion resistant materials. In the

present study, slurry erosion performance of detonation gun (D-gun) spray ceramic coatings

(Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr) on 13Cr4Ni stainless steel has been investigated. Attempt has

been made to study the comparison between coatings and substrate steel under a particular set

of parameters (concentration, average particle size and rotational speed) in hydro accelerated

condition. Commercially available silica sand is used as an abrasive media. All

experimentation is done in High Speed Erosion Test rig. Comparison is made on two

different angles i.e. 30 and 90. At 30, Stellite-6 coating performed better in comparison

with Cr3C2-25NiCr coating and substrate steel specimen. On the other hand substrate steel

specimen performed better at 90 than the coatings.

Index Terms - Slurry erosion, High speed erosion tester, D-gun Spraying, Ceramic coatings.

1. INTRODUCTIONHydro power plants which are located on the Himalayan Rivers have had to face

high silt content in the water passing through the turbines causing the large amount of

damage to various under water components of turbines like runner, guide vanes, needles and

seats of Pelton-type turbines. Water contains Quartz, Tourmaline, Garnet, Zircon, etc of

Hardness 7 on mho scale [1]. These sediments are formed due to the fragmentation of rocks,

erosion of land and land sliding because of heavy rains during the monsoon period in the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJARET)

ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print)ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online)

Volume 4, Issue 2 March April 2013, pp. 210-222 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijaret.aspJournal Impact Factor (2013): 5.8376 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com

IJARET

I A E M E


2/13



211

Himalayan region of India [2]. Because of this kind of environment erosion of turbine

components occurs [3]. Erosion due to the impact of hard particles is common phenomenon

of underwater parts in turbines [4]. A lot of investigations have been done by the researchers

to identify the factors responsible for the slurry erosion behavior of turbine materials due to

the water containing silt. It has been shown that slurry erosion at oblique angle can generate a

rougher surface when compared with that at normal incident. Also at oblique angles it can

render a greater susceptibility to pitting during erosion than at normal incident. Thus

Individual erosion events at oblique angles are thus expected to be more destructive than

those at normal incident [5]. Ductile materials during erosion are considered to loose material

through a cutting and ploughing mechanism at a low impact angle [6]. On the other hand,

cracking, fragmentation and removal of flakes is common phenomenon of erosion in brittle

materials [7].

1.1Detonation Spray CoatingTo improve the surface performance and durability of engineering components

which expose to different forms of wear such as abrasion, erosion and corrosion ThermalSpray techniques are a versatile means of developing a large variety of coatings/protective

layers [810]. Detonation gun (D-gun) spray process is a thermal spray coating process,

which provides an extremely low porosity, good adhesive strength, coating surface with

compressive residual stresses, low oxide contents and high intersplat strength [11, 12]. The

D-gun spray process involves the impingement of powdered materials with the supersonic

speed through a water-cooled barrel on the surface of substrate. The two phase mixture of

coating are heated to plasticity and impinges against a target substrate, where the high

temperature, high velocity coating particles bond into the surface of substrate and a

mechanical interlocking and microscopic welding may take place [13]. Ceramic materials are

now commonly employed in the form of coatings to resist wear. Due to high melting point of

the ceramic powders which require a high temperature jet to get deformed during coating

formation, these coatings are usually deposited by atmospheric plasma spraying [14].However, plasma sprayed coatings are possess more porous and brittle nature than high

velocity thermal-sprayed coatings [15, 16]. On the other hand, due to close interlamellar

contacts and small porosity, the high-velocity combustion spraying techniques provides

greater hardness [17, 18]. This is why several efforts have been undertaken to use these high-

velocity spray techniques like to spray oxides D-gun spraying is mainly used [18].

2. EXPERIMENTATION

2.1 Material

CA6NM steel containing 13% Cr and 4% Ni (also known as 13/4) is being used in

fabrication of hydro turbine underwater parts. Chemical composition of 13/4 stainless steel isgiven in table 1. Rectangular specimens of 10 mm x 10 mm were prepared.

Table 1. Chemical composition of 13/4 stainless steel (wt %)

Steel C Si Mn Cr Ni N S Cu Co P Mo Fe

13/4 0.06 0.74 1.16 13.14 3.9 -- 0.014 0.088 0.035 0.015 0.61 Bal.


3/13



212

2.1 Deposition of CoatingsCommercially available powder of Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr are coated on

13Cr4Ni stainless steel using D-Gun process available with SVX Powder M Surface

Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Noida, India.

2.2 Slurry Erosion Testing

A high speed erosion tester (DUCOM TR401, Bangalore make) was used to study

the slurry erosion behavior of 13Cr4Ni stainless steel specimens. The tester shown in Figure

1 consists of various components such as slurry abrasion chamber, slurry tank, rotor, control

panel, 3 phase induction motor.

Figure 1 Experimental setup of High Speed Erosion Tester (DUCOM TR401)

In slurry abrasion chamber test specimens and slurry is enclosed and specimens are

rotated. Slurry tank is a cylindrical vessel made up of stainless steel, in which the slurry is

prepared to the required concentration. There are three inlet and three outlet pipes between

slurry abrasion chamber and slurry tank for re-circulation of slurry. Due to rotation of rotor

vacuum is created in the slurry abrasion chamber and therefore slurry from cylindrical vesselthrough inlet pipes to chamber and used slurry leaves the chamber and enters the tank from

bottom side through outlet pipes, thus ensuring continuous re-circulation of slurry. This high

speed erosion tester is capable of creating accelerated hydro conditions to simulate the

erosion of standard test specimens with water containing abrasive particles of controlled size

and composition (slurry). Main advantages of this rig is that at a time, 12 specimens may be

tested, thus ensuring zero tolerance to change of experimental conditions during comparison

of slurry erosion testing of different specimens under similar experimental conditions. Only

cylindrical samples can be tested in this tester.


4/13



213

For placing rectangular specimen in this tester we needed to design a specimen

holder in which we can accommodate rectangular specimen. After two different designs we

design the specimen holder shown in Fig 2.

Figure 2 Specimen holders for rectangular specimens

T 304 Stainless Steel Square bar was selected for the fabrication of specimen holders

as it is ideal for all applications where greater strength and superior corrosion resistance is

required. 304 Stainless Square has a durable dull, mill finish that is widely used for all types

of fabrication projects that are exposed to the elements - chemical, acidic, fresh water, and

salt water environments. Specifications, application and Mechanical Properties of T304

stainless steel are mention in table 2.

Table 2 Specifications, application and Mechanical Properties of T304 stainless steel

Specifications of T304 ASTM A276, QQS-763, T304/304L, non-polished finish.

Applications Frame work, braces, supports, shafts, axels, marine, etc.

Workability Easy to Weld, Moderate Cutting, Forming and Machining.

Mechanical Properties Brinell = 170,

Tensile Strength = 505 MPa,

Yield Strength = 215 MPa,

Nonmagnetic

Effect of average particle size, concentration (ppm) and velocity has been studied by

several researchers and showed that these are significant factors, which can affect the erosion

phenomenon. To study this, commercially used silica sand is used as slurry medium as silica

is found to be main constituent of slurry as is evident from the literature; the slurry is found to

be consisting of SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, and MgO in hydro power plant in northern India [4,19].

Slurry concentrations having average particle sizes of 300 m were prepared to

simulate the test in more accelerated conditions. Tests were carried under concentration of

10000 ppm, with erodent particle size 300 m and rotation speed of 3800 rpm to study the

slurry erosion performance of Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr coated 13Cr4Ni and 13Cr4Ni

stainless steel which were placed at 2 different angles i.e 30 and 90. These two angles were


5/13



214

select to analyze the performance of specimen when sand particles strike the surface

tangentially and normally.

The interaction of slurry particles with rectangular specimen in slurry chamber is

shown in Figure 3. A typical erosion test cycle began with mounting of specimen holder at

the proper place at correct angle. Then specimen was placed in the holders in the slurry

chamber. After fixing the specimens in holders every time chamber was made air tight by

tightening the nuts at four places so that proper vacuum can be created. The water was filled

in stainless steel water tank and silica sand of appropriate particle size was added to the water

for preparing required concentration. Then rotational speed was set and test was started. After

completing the slurry erosion testing cycle of 1 h, specimens were removed from the rotor

assembly, brushed gently and cleaned with acetone to remove attached sand particles if any.

The specimens were weighed before and after each slurry erosion cycle. The loss in mass of

each specimen was recorded with the help of precision micro weighing scale having an

accuracy of 0.1 mg. As erosion is a surface phenomenon so the peripheral surface area of

each specimen was calculated by measuring the length and width at two places, taking their

mean for getting average length and width of specimen with the help of digital vernier caliperof least count 0.01 mm.

Figure 3 Interaction of slurry particles with rectangular specimen in slurry chamber


6/13



215

Specific mass loss was calculated using

Specific mass loss = mass loss (g) X 106

/ Exposed surface area (m2)

The slurry erosion process was repeated for six cycles for each of the samples The

results have been plotted as cumulative mass loss per unit area in (g/m2) versus time of

exposure (h) to ascertain the kinetics of slurry erosion behavior of coatings and substrate.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 4 shows cumulative weight loss per unit area (g/m2) versus time (h) graph of

bared 13Cr4Ni stainless steel and Stellite-6 coated 13Cr4Ni at 30 under a set of parameters

of concentration of 10000 ppm, erodent particle size 300 and rotation speed of 3800 rpm.

From graph it can be observed that as the time increases the cumulative weight loss per unit

area increases for both materials. Also it can be seen that after a run of 6 hours overall

specific weight loss for 13Cr4Ni is 1897.43 g/m

2

and for Stellite-6 coating it is 345.31 g/m

2

.

It means specific weight loss for 13Cr4Ni is 5.5 times the specific weight loss of Stellite-6.

Figure 4 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of 13Cr4Ni and Stellite-6

at 30


bared 13Cr4Ni stainless steel and Stellite-6 coated 13Cr4Ni at 90 under same set of

parameters. It can be observed that as time progresses cumulative weight loss per unit area

also increases. After a run of 6 hours overall specific weight loss for 13Cr4Ni is 172.87 g/m2

and for Stellite-6 coating it is 420.82 g/m2. It means specific weight loss for Stellite-6 is 2.43

times the 13Cr4Ni.


7/13



216

In Figure 6 there is a comparison between 13Cr4Ni and Cr3C2-25NiCr at 30 on

cumulative mass loss per unit area versus time graph. With the increase in time weight loss

per unit area increases for both. After 6 hour run overall specific weight loss for 13Cr4Ni is

1897.43 g/m2

and for Stellite-6 coating it is 1399.19 g/m2. Specific weight loss for 13Cr4Ni is

1.35 times specific weight loss for Stellite-6.

Figure 5 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of 13Cr4Ni and Stellite-6

at 90

Figure 6 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of 13Cr4Ni and Cr3C2-

25NiCr at 30


8/13



217

The cumulative specific mass loss curves of the 13Cr4Ni and Cr3C2-25NiCr coated

13Cr4Ni steel at 90 for a total duration of 6-h slurry erosion testing are shown in Figure 7

for same set of parameters. It can be observed from the graph that the overall specific mass

losses are remarkably different. The maximum specific weight loss at the end of 6 hour of

slurry erosion testing for the bared 13Cr4Ni and Cr3C2-25NiCr coating is 968.57 and 172.87

g/m2, respectively. So it can be observed coating is eroded 5.6 times than bared steel.

Figure 7 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of 13Cr4Ni and Cr3C2-

25NiCr at 90

Figure 8 depicts the comparision chart between cumulative mass loss per unit area of

Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr at 30 and in Figure 9 Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr at 90 for a

total duration of 6-h slurry erosion testing with same set of parametes. At 30 the maximum

specific mass loss at the end of 6 hour run is 345.31 and 1399.19 g/m2

for Stellite-6 and

Cr3C2-25NiCr respectively. At 90 the maximum specific mass loss at the end of 6 hour run

is 420.82 and 968.57 g/m2

for Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-25NiCr respectively. It can be observedthat from Figure 8 and 9 that maximum specific weight loss for Stellite-6 is less than that of

Cr3C2-25NiCr. Maximum specific weight loss after 6 hour for Cr3C2-25NiCr is 4.05 times

than Stellite-6 at 30 while at 90 maximum specific weight loss for Cr3C2-25NiCr is 2.3

times than Stellite-6.


9/13



218

Figure 8 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-

25NiCr at 30

Figure 9 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of Stellite-6 and Cr3C2-

25NiCr at 90


10/13



219


bared 13Cr4Ni stainless steel 30 and 90 under same set of parameters. It can be seen from

the graph that that 13Cr4Ni get more eroded at 30 than at 90 approximately 11 times. As

the maximum weight loss for 13Cr4Ni at 30 is 1897.43 g/m2

and at 90 it is 172.87 g/m2

after 6 hour run in erosion tester.

Figure 10 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of 13Cr4Ni at 30 and

90

Cumulative mass loss per unit area of Stellite-6 at 30 and 90 is shown in Figure 11.

From the graph it can be seen that Stellite-6 performed better at 30 as the maximum weight

loss for Stellite-6 at 30 is less than the Stellite-6 at 90. The maximum weight loss for

Stellite-6 at 30 is 345.31 g/m2

and at 90 it is 420.82 g/m2.

In Figure 12 there is a comparison between cumulative mass loss per unit area of

Cr3C2-25NiCr at 30 and 90. More erosion of Cr3C2-25NiCr takes place at 30. The

maximum weight loss for Cr3C2-25NiCr is 1399.19 and 968.57 g/m2

at 30 and 90

respectively after a 6 hour run in slury erosion chamber of high speed tester. The ratio of

maximum weight loss at 30 to 90 comes out 1.44.


11/13



220

Figure 11 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of Stellite-6 at 30 and

90

Figure 12 Comparision between cumulative mass loss per unit area of Cr3C2-25NiCr at 30

and 90


12/13



221

4. CONCLUSIONS

Due to higher hardness, Stellite-6 coating performed better at 30 than uncoated13Cr4Ni while substrate13Cr4Ni steel (due to high toughness) showed better slurry

resistance than Stellite-6 coating at 90.

Cr3C2-25NiCr coating was found to be more erosion resistant at 30 than bared13Cr4Ni but not at 90. At 90 substrate 13Cr4Ni steel showed far much better

perforamnce than Cr3C2-25NiCr coating.

While comparing both coatings it was found that Stellite-6 coating ( due to highertoughness) is more resistant to slurry erosion than Cr3C2-25NiCr coating at 30 as

well as at 90.

Uncoated 13Cr4Ni steel and Cr3C2-25NiCr coating showed a better performance toslurry erosion at 90 than at 30 while Stelite-6 coating was better at 90 when

compraing their performances separately at two different angles.

5. REFERENCES

1. R.P.Singh, Silt damage control measures for underwater parts-Nathpa Jhakri HydroPower Station, Case study of a success story, Vol. 66, No. 1, January-March, 2009, p.

36-42.

2. B.S.K. Naidu, Renovation and Modernization of Silt Prone Hydropower Stations inIndia, Workshop on Silting Problems in Hydroelectric Power Stations, June 25-26,

1987 (New Delhi), p V-13-V-16.

3. B.S. Mann, High-Energy Particle Impact Wear Resistance of Hard Coatings and TheirApplication in Hydro Turbines, Wear, 2000, 237, p 140-146.

4. A. K. Chauhan, D. B. Goel and S. Prakash, Erosion behaviour of hydro turbine steels,Bull. Material Science, Vol. 31, No. 2, April 2008, pp. 115120.

5. G.T. Burstein, K. Sasaki, Effect of impact angle on the slurry erosioncorrosion of304L stainless steel, Wear, 2000, 240, p. 80-94.6. G.I. Sheldon, A. Kanhere, An investigation of impingement erosion using single

particles, Wear21, 1972, p. 195209.7. I. Finnie, Erosion of surfaces by solid particles, Wear 3, 1960, p. 87103.8. S.V. Joshi, R. Sivakumar, Protective coatings by plasma spraying, Trans. Indian

Ceram. Soc. 50, 1999, p. 5059.

9. K.G. Budinski, Surface engineering for wear resistance, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, 1988.

10. F. Rastegar, D.E. Richardson, Alternative to chrome: HVOF cermet coatings for highhorse power diesel engines, Surf. Coat. Technol. 90, 1997, p. 156193.

11. B. Rajasekaran, S.G.S. Raman, S. Joshi, G. Sundararajan, Influence of detonation gunsprayed alumina coating on AA 6063 samples under cyclic loading with and withoutfretting, Tribol. Int. 41(4), 2008, p. 315322.

12. P.M.J. Vuoristo, K. Niemi, T. Mantyala, On the properties of detonation gun sprayedand plasma sprayed ceramic coatings, Berndt, C. (ed.) Thermal Spray: International

Advances in Coatings Technology, pp. 171175. ASM International, Metals Park, OH,

1992.

13. W. Wolentarski, Material coating by the Detonation Gun process, Proceedings of theeleventh turbomachinery symposium, Newyork.


13/13



222

14. Y. Liu, T.E. Fischer, A. Dent, Comparison of HVOF and plasma-sprayed alumina/titania coatingsmicrostructure, mechanical properties and abrasion behavior, Surf.

Coat. Technol. 167, 2003, p. 6876.

15. P.P. Psyllaki, M. Jeandin, D.I. Pantelis, Microstructure and wear mechanisms ofthermal-sprayed alumina, Coat. Mater. Lett. 47, 2001, p. 7782.

16. J. Voyer, B.R. Marple, Sliding wear behavior of high velocity oxy-fuel and high powerplasma spray-processed tungsten carbide- based cermet coatings, Wear 225229,

1999, p. 135145.

17. Y. Wang, Friction and wear performances of detonation-gun and plasma-sprayedceramic and cermet hard coatings under dry friction, Wear 161, 1993, p. 6978.

18. L. Pawlowski, The Science and Engineering of Thermal Spray Coatings, Wiley, WestSusseex P109 IUD, 1995.

19. S. Bhandari, H. Singh, H. K. Kansal, V. Rastogi, Slurry Erosion Behaviour ofDetonation Gun Spray Al2O3 and Al2O313TiO2-Coated CF8M Steel Under Hydro

Accelerated Conditions, Tribol Lett 45, 2012, p. 319331.

20.

Prof. Mohammed Yunus, Dr. J. Fazlur Rahman and S.Ferozkhan, A GeneticProgramming Approach for the Prediction of Thermal Characteristics of Ceramic

Coatings, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development

(IJIERD), Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 69 - 79, ISSN Online: 0976 - 6979, ISSN Print:

0976 6987.

21. Mohammed Yunus, Dr. J. Fazlur Rahman and S.Ferozkhan, Prediction of Mechanicaland Tribological Characteristics of Industrial Ceramic Coatings using a Genetic

Programming Approach, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering &

Technology (IJMET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 77 - 89, ISSN Print: 0976 6340,

ISSN Online: 0976 6359.

22. Mohammed Yunus, Dr. J. Fazlur Rahman and S.Ferozkhan, Evaluation ofMachinability Characteristics of Industrial Ceramic Coatings using Genetic

Programming Based Approach, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering &Technology (IJMET), Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011, pp. 126 - 137, ISSN Print: 0976 6340,

ISSN Online: 0976 6359.

Documents

Slurry Erosion Comparison of D-gun Sprayed Stellite-6, Cr3c2-25nicr Coatings-2