Erosive Wear of Cermets

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Kristjan Juhani	+ 5953 word(s)	5953	2021-12-28 03:57:08	\|
2	Done	Jason Zhu	Meta information modification	5953	2022-01-10 04:26:31	\|

Solid-particle erosion occurs when discrete solid particles strike a surface. It differs from three-body abrasion primarily in the origin of forces between the particles and the wearing surface. In erosion, the extent of wear depends on the number and mass of individual particles striking the surface and on their impact velocity [8]. The difference of erosion from the abrasive wear lies in its fluid contribution to the mechanical action producing material removal. Solid-particle erosion is common in any system in which a gas stream carries abrasive particles. If loose abrasive particles are carried by a liquid, the wear is termed as slurry erosion.

WC-based hardmetals (cemented carbides) are employed widely as wear-resistant ceramic-metal composites for tools and wear parts. Raw materials supply, environmental concerns and some limitations of hardmetals have directed efforts toward development of alternative wear-resistant composites-cermets. Cermets consist primarily of ceramic particles such as titanium carbonitride (Ti(C,N)), titanium carbide (TiC), and chromium carbide (Cr3C2) bonded with alloys of Ni, Co or Fe. Cermets as resistant to solid particle erosion materials demonstrate their potential primarily in environmentally severe wear conditions – at elevated temperatures and corrosive environments.

Erosion Solid-Particle Slurry

1. Introduction

Hardmetals and other ceramic–metal composites (cermets) do not always behave in a classical brittle manner as engineering ceramics when subjected to an erosive fluid jet. At a microscopic scale, they can show some attributes of both ductile and brittle behavior ^[1]^[2]. Factors determining the severity of erosion are jet velocity, impingement angle and the nature of the erodent (particle size, hardness and angularity). Similar to abrasive wear, erosion mechanism can involve prevalently plastic deformation (ductile behavior) or brittle fracture (brittle behavior). The domination of these behaviors depends on the scale of the abrasive particle impact zone relative to the microstructure (grain size) of a ceramic–metal composite. In the ductile mode, erosion of the material removal occurs by the plastic flow and fracture of the binder. It is a dominant erosion mechanism when the number of WC grains encompassed in the impact zone exceeds ~100 (i.e., homogeneous response). The effects of microstructure of the composite on the erosion in the ductile mode are mainly through the hardness. In the brittle mode, the material removal occurred mainly by cracking and crushing of WC grains. It is a dominant erosion mechanism when the number of carbide grains encompassed in impact is small, ~10 (heterogeneous response) ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. The effects of the microstructure of the ceramic–metal composite on the erosion in the brittle mode are more complex; in addition to hardness, fracture toughness and particle size of erodents are involved. However, if the abrasive particles are very small, with their size comparable to the structural constituents (grains), wear can occur by preferential erosion of the metallic binder phase, leading to undercutting and removal of intact ceramic grains. Severity of erosion of WC-Co hardmetals is low and ductile mechanism prevails ^[2].

2. Solid-Particle Erosion

Solid-particle erosion of cermets has been considered in ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]. Composition, hot consolidation conditions, structure (grain size of ceramic phase), mechanical properties and testing conditions of solid-particle erosion are summarized in Table 1. Commonly used methods for erosion testing can be divided into two: those in which abrasive particles are accelerated in gas (or liquid stream) and those with circular motion used to achieve the impact velocity. The standard methods employ a gas-blast scheme. The common laboratory test is ASTM G76 (test method for conducting erosion by solid-particle impingement), which uses a stream of high pressure gas to accelerate a stream of abrasive (Al₂O₃) particles through a nozzle toward a test sample. Gas-blast procedure for testing at elevated temperatures (600 °C) is ASTM G211 ^[36]. Modifications of these testing procedures (e.g., using silicon carbide (SiC) or silica (SiO₂) as an abrasive) are used. Centrifugal accelerator of abrasive particles for erosion testing at room and elevated temperatures is widely employed ^[2]^[37]^[38].

Table 1. Summary of composition, processing, structural and mechanical characteristics and solid-particle erosive wear testing conditions of cermets.

Composition *	Processing **	Structure ***	Mechanical Characteristics		Wear Testing Conditions ******	Key Observations	Ref.
Composition *	Processing **	Structure ***	Hardness ****	Toughness *****	Wear Testing Conditions ******	Key Observations	Ref.
TiC/WC/NbC/18 NiMo TiC/NbC/WC/32 NiMo WC/10–25 Co WC/6 NiCo	LPS	d_Carbide = 1–10	-	-	ASTM G76, abrasive: SiO₂ (75–200 µm), V = 60 m/s, α = 30, 60, 90°	TiC-NiMo cermets are at a disadvantage in relation to WC-based hardmetals	^[6]
TiC/50 vol% Fe	SHS/pseudoHIP	d_TiC = 2–5	670	-	Modified ASTM G76, abrasives: SiO₂ and Al₂O₃, V = 60 m/s, α = 30 and 90°, T = 20 and 350 °C	Brittle erosion mechanism both at room and elevated temperatures	^[14]
TiC_0.7N_0.3/10 WC/NbC/TaC/20 Ni	LPS (1510 °C)	-	990–1250	13.4–18.3	Modified ASTM G76, abrasive: SiC (66 µm), abrasive flow: 2.33 g/s, α = 30, 60, 90°	Similar erosion behavior of ceramics and cermets WC addition favor wear resistance	^[15]
Commercial cutting materials TiCN/WC/TaC/NbC/Mo₂C/15 CoNi Al₂O₃, Si₃N₄-based ceramics	LPS (cermets)	-	Cermets 1470–1620 Ceramics 1370–1800	-	ASTM G76, abrasive: Al₂O₃ (70 µm), abrasive flow 2.0 g/min, α = 20 and 90°	Ceramics outperform cermets No positive effect of TaC/NbC/Mo₂C additions	^[16]^[17]
TiC/20 vol% Fe40Al TiB₂/60 vol% Fe40Al WC/20 vol% Fe40Al WC/6 Co (different grain size)	MI (1450 °C) (cermets)	d_WC = 0.55–1.51	TiC/FeAl 1028 TiB₂/FeAl 496 WC/FeAl 942 WC/Co 1525–1753	-	Modified ASTM G76/ASTM G211, abrasive: Al₂O₃ (50 µm), V = 40 m/s, α = 75°, T = 25, 180, 500, 700 °C	TiC- and TiB₂-based cermets outperform WC-Co at > 500 °C	^[35]
TiC/20–60 FeSi, FeCrSi, FeNi and FeCrNi TiC/20–30 NiMo WC-9–20 Co (different d_WC)	LPS	TiC/Fe alloy TiC/NiMo d_TiC = 2–2.7 WC/Co fine, medium, coarse	TiC/Fe alloy 1050–1470 TiC/NiMo 1360–1520 WC/Co 1030–1380	TRS: TiC/Fe alloy 700–2280 TiC/NiMo 900–1300 WC/Co 1850–2950	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.2–0.3 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	Wear resistance depends on combined effect of resistance to penetration and cutting	^[7]
TiC/20–40 FeNi TiC/20–50 NiMo (Ni:Mo 2:1, 4:1) WC/10–20 Co	LPS	d_TiC = 2–2.3	TiC/FeNi 1100–1440 TiC/NiMo 1000–1400 WC/Co 980–1350	TRS: TiC/FeNi 1400–2400 TiC/NiMo 1700–2200 WC/Co 2400–3000	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.2 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	WC/Co outperforms TiC-based cermets; TiC/FeNi outperforms TiC/NiMo (room temperature)	^[8]
Cr₃C₂/10–20 Ni	LPS RS	d_Cr3C2 = 4–6	LPS 920–1420 RS 990–1450	LPS 9.5–18.0 RS 9.8–18.5	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 60 and 80 m/s, α = 30, 45, 60, 75 90°	RS grades outperform LPS grades	^[9]
TiC/20–60 NiMo (Ni:Mo 4:1, 2:1, 1:1) TiC/20–40 FeNi Cr₃C₂/10–30 Ni	LPS One-cycle Sinter/HIP Two-cycle sinter + HIP	d_TiC~2 d_Cr3C2~4–6	TiC-based 750–1650 Cr₃C₂-based 700–1400	TRS: 700–2600	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	Two-cycle sinter + HIP is at disadvantage over one-cycle sinter/HIP	^[10]
TiC12 vol% NiMo Cr₃C₂/12 or 30 vol% Ni WC/12 vol% Co	LPS	d = 2 … 4 (depending on composition)	-	-	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.2–0.3 mm), V = 20 and 80 m/s, α = 30 and 90°, T = 23 and 600 °C	Mechanically mixed layer formation is an essential feature of material wear response	^[11]
TiC/20–50 NiMo (Ni:Mo 4:1, 2:1) TiC/20–40 FeNi (5, 8, 14, 17 wt% Ni in binder) WC/10–20 Co	LPS	d_TiC = 1.9–2.2 d_WC = 1.0–2.2	TiC/NiMo 890–1430 TiC/FeNi 1000–1520 WC/Co 1030–1500	TRS: TiC/NiMo 1090–1680 TiC/FeNi 1380–2450 WC/Co 1900–3000	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	WC/Co outperforms cermets (at equal HV) The different wear response of WC- and TiC-based composites	^[12]
TiC/40 NiMo (Ni:Mo 1:1, 2:1, 4:1)	LPS (1480 °C)	-	1068–1330	17.5–18.2	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 60 m/s, α = 75°	The erosion rate is influenced by the stress state of the, rate is lower for cermets with lower residual stresses	^[18]
TiC/20–60 NiMo (Ni:Mo 1:1, 2:1, 4:1)	LPS (1400–1480 °C)	d_TiC = 1–5	810–1650	TRS: 730–2450	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 50 m/s, α = 30 and 90°, T = 20, 350 and 650 °C	Erosion resistance is the highest with Ni:Mo = 1:1 No significant erosion rate increase at 650 °C	^[19]
TiC/20–40 NiMo TiC/20–40 FeNi Cr₃C₂/10–30 Ni WC/8–20 Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 2–6	TiC/NiMo 990–1378 TiC/FeNi 1060–1440 Cr₃C₂/Ni 980–1460 WC/Co 1030–1350	TiC/NiMo 11.5–18.5 TiC/FeNi 14.0–15.5 Cr₃C₂/Ni 9.5–18.3 WC/Co 13.0–19.0	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasives: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), SiC (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 60 m/s, α = 75°	Modulus of elasticity may be used for evaluation of mild erosion	^[20]^[24]
TiC/12 vol% NiMo Cr₃C₂/12 vol% Ni WC/12 vol% Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 2–4	-	-	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 20 and 80 m/s, α = 30 and 90°, T = 23 and 600 °C	Erosion depends on thickness and hardness of mechanically mixed layer The highest wear performance of TiC/NiMo at 600 °C	^[21]
TiC/12 vol% NiMo Cr₃C₂/12 vol% Ni WC/12 vol% Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 1–4	~1380	TiC/NiMo 11.5 Cr₃C₂/Ni 9.8 WC/Co 13.0	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiC (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 60 m/s, α = 60°	Materials with high thermal conductivity possess higher erosion resistance	^[22]
TiC/20 NiMo TiC/20 FeNi Cr₃C₂/20 Ni WC/20 Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 1–4	1030–1410	9.8–19.0	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasives: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), SiC (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 20, 30, 45, 60, 80 m/s, α = 30, 45, 60, 75, 90°	Maximal erosion rate at α = 60–90°, depending on composition	^[23]
TiC/20, 40 NiMo TiC/25, 40 FeNi Cr₃C₂/15, 30 Ni WC/8, 20 Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 2–6	TiC/NiMo 990, 1378 TiC/FeNi 1000, 1320 Cr₃C₂/Ni 980, 1410 WC/Co 1030, 1350	TiC/NiMo 11.5, 18.5 TiC/FeNi 15.0, 15.5 Cr₃C₂/Ni 9.8, 18.3 WC/Co 13.0, 19.0	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasives: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), SiC (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 45 m/s, α = 60°	Materials with high thermal conductivity possess higher erosion resistance Relative ranking of composites depends on microstructure rather than on mechanical properties	^[25]^[29]
TiC/30–50 NiMo (Ni:Mo = 2:1) TiC/30–40 FeNi Cr₃C₂/10–30 NiMo (Ni:Mo = 2:1) WC/8–15 Co Tool steels	LPS	-	TiC/NiMo 1000–1420 TiC/FeNi 1100–1360 Cr₃C₂/NiMo 1110–1420 WC/Co 960–1430	-	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	WC/Co outperforms cermets Erosion performance depends on composite stiffness	^[26]
TiC/FeNi WC/10–15 Co	LPS	d_WC ≤ 1.0–2.2 d_TiC ~ 2.0	87.3–91.3 HRA	12.5–18.0	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.2 mm), V = 80 m/s, α = 30°	Erosion resistance depends on elastic modulus and proof stress	^[27]
TiC/20–50 NiMo (Ni:Mo 4:1, 2:1) TiC/20–40 FeNi	LPS	d_TiC ~ 3	TiC/NiMo 890–1430 TiC/FeNi 1060–1445	TiC/NiMo 12.1–22.9 TiC/FeNi 13.2–15.5	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 46 and 80 m/s, α = 30, 45, 60, 75, 90°	Mechanical properties do not enable prognosis of erosion resistance	^[28]
TiC/20, 40 NiMo (Ni:Mo = 2:1) TiC/40, 60 FeCrSi Cr₃C₂/15, 30 Ni WC/8, 15 Co	LPS	d_Carbide = 2–2.7	TiC/NiMo 1190–1378 TiC/FeCrSi 1150, 1360 Cr₃C₂/Ni 980, 1410 WC/Co 1200, 1350	-	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasives: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm) and/or SiC (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 31, 46, 61, 80 m/s, α = 30, 45, 60, 75, 90°	Maximal erosion rate at α = 60–90° depending on composition. The main wear mechanism: low-cycle fatigue Erosion resistance depends on modulus of elasticity WC/Co outperforms cermets.	^[30]^[31]^[32]
TiC/40–60 FeSi WC/15 Co	LPS	-	TiC/FeSi 1020–1360 WC/Co 1200	-	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasives: Al₂O₃ (90 µm), glass spheres (650 µm), V = 30 and 80 m/s, α = 67°	Erosion mechanism depends on H_a/H_m Ductile response of TiC/FeSi and WC/Co	^[33]
Cr₃C₂/20 Ni + Mo/Cu additions	LPS (1250–1300 °C)	d_Cr3C2 = 3–15 (depending on composition)	1010–1220	10.1–10.4	Centrifugal accelerator, abrasive: SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm), V = 31 and 80 m/s, α = 30 and 75°	Mo addition and low residual stresses enhance wear resistance.

Solid-particle erosion tests of cermets have been prevalently performed using four-channel centrifugal accelerator where up to 15 specimens can be eroded under identical conditions ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]. Gas-blast testing procedures (ASTM G76, ASTM G211) have not been so widely used ^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[35]. High-temperature erosion of cermets and also hardmetals has been studied in ^[11]^[14]^[19]^[21]^[35]. Research results in present paper are presented starting from “hard” erosion followed by “soft” erosion.

Severity of erosion, similar to abrasion, depends on the hardness of abrasive H_a and wearing material H_m. Depending on the H_a/H_m ratio, distinction should be made between “hard” and “soft” erosion. Erosion rate of hardmetals and cermets with SiC particles exceeds, as expected, by a factor of about 10 erosion rate with silica (SiO₂) abrasive ^[20]^[23]^[24]^[29]^[31]^[32].

As abrasive particles are significantly harder than the surface (“hard” erosion), the erosion (similar to abrasion) generally demonstrates relatively low variation. The wear is highly sensitive to the structure and mechanical characteristics (in particular hardness) of a material surface when H_a/H_m is about 1 (“soft” erosion) ^[2]. This expectation was clearly confirmed in the study of solid-particle erosion of ceramic–metal composites (hardmetals and TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets), using both silicon carbide and silica as abrasives.

Figure 1. Steady state erosion rates of ceramic–metal composites: abrasives (a) SiC (0.1–0.3 mm) and (b) SiO₂ (0.1–0.3 mm). Erosion conditions: jet velocity 61 m/s, impact angle α = 75°. Materials: TZC40, TZC60 (TiC-40 and 60 wt% FeCrSi, respectively); TH20A, TH40A (TiC-20 and 40 NiMo (Ni:Mo ratio 2:1), respectively); K31, KE3 (Cr₃C₂-15 and 30 wt% Ni, respectively); BK8, BK15 (WC-8 and 15 wt% Co, respectively) ^[31].

Erosion wear behavior using SiC as an abrasive has been reported in ^[15]^[20]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[29]^[31]^[32]. Erosion of Ti(C,N)-20 wt% Ni cermets containing 10 wt% secondary carbides WC/NbC/TaC was studied in ^[15]. The Ti(C_0.7N_0.3)-based cermets were vacuum-sintered. The erosion rate was observed to increase with an increase in the impingement angle (30°→90°). This relationship between the erosion rate and the impact angle follows a trend similar to brittle ceramic materials (see Figure 2). WC additives, unlike NbC, TaC, Mo₂C, resulted in an increase in the erosion resistance of Ti(C,N)-20Ni cermet under all investigated angles of impingement.

Figure 2. Erosion rate vs. impact angle for Ti(C_0.7N_0.3)-based cermets (erodent SiC with particle size ~66 µm, mass flow rate 2.33 g/s) ^[15].

Erosion rate of brittle materials depends on hardness and fracture toughness ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] and can be generally expressed as

where C is a constant depending on the wear conditions and K_IC is material fracture toughness and H_m is a wearing material hardness. Different exponents m and n are proposed in ^[2]^[39]^[40], but in all models, the role of fracture toughness of brittle materials is dominant, i.e., |m| > |n|. In ^[15], the model with m = −1.3 and n = −0.25 is applied. It is concluded that no relationship exists between the erosion rate (at normal impact) and the parameter

K_{I C}^{- 1.3} H_{m}^{- 0.25}

for the investigated Ti(C_0.7N_0.3)-20Ni cermets. This implies that unlike ceramics, the brittle lateral fracture may not be a dominant mechanism of material removal in the erosion of ceramic–metal composites.

Erosion of ceramic–metal composites of different compositions (WC-Co, TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets) was studied by the research group of Hussainova ^[20]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]. Similar to the work in ^[15], it was also shown that there is no consistent correlation between the erosion rate and

K_{I C}^{- 1.3} H_{m}^{- 0.25}

(see Figure 3b) ^[20]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[29]. In addition, hardness seems not to enable erosion resistance prediction if composites of different generic families (WC-, TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based) are compared (see Figure 3a).

Figure 3. Erosion rate vs. hardness ratio H_m/H_a (a) and K_IC^−1.3H_m^−0.25 (b) for the WC-, TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based composites (erodent SiC 0.1–0.3 mm, particles velocity 60 m/s, attack angle α = 75°) ^[24].

It was suggested that the behavior of non-homogeneous composites (cermets and hardmetals) cannot be evaluated by looking at one mechanical characteristic only or by looking at a blend of the bulk properties. The microstructure (grain size and the strength of interphase bond) and the physical properties of a composite (in particular, thermal conductivity) and phases of a composite (coefficient of thermal expansion) determine the behavior under erosion conditions ^[20]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[29]. It was concluded that the materials with low difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion of phases and high thermal conductivity are preferable ^[20]^[22]^[24]^[25].

Ceramic–metal composites (hardmetals, cermets) consist of a high volume fraction of hard ceramic phase and a more ductile metallic binder. Such composites are not necessarily brittle but may be characterized by substantial fracture toughness (in general, 10–25 MPa mm^1/2), in contrast to most ceramic materials. Their response to erosion is more complex. It is known that brittle and ductile materials respond differently to the angle of impact—ductile materials show commonly peak erosion at a shallow impact angle while brittle materials often show maximum wear for normal incidence ^[2]. The maximum position depends on material response to impact ^[23]^[30]^[31]^[32]. While the maximum wear rate occurred for WC-Co hardmetals at an impact angle around 60°, for TiC-based cermets, the maximum is at the impact angle around 75° and for Cr₃C₂-Ni cermets, at an angle of 90° (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Comparative evaluation of the erosion rate of ceramic–metal composites at different impact angles and velocities: (a) 31 m/s; (b) 80 m/s. Erodent SiC (0.1–0.3 mm). Materials: TZC60 (TiC-40 wt% FeCrSi); TH20A (TiC-20 wt% NiMo (Ni:Mo = 2)); K31 (Cr₃C₂-15 wt%Ni); and BK8 (WC-8 wt%Co) ^[32].

Erosive wear behavior of Ti(C,N)-CoNi (~15 vol%) cermets with additions of TaC, NbC, WC and Mo₂C for cutting tools with different Ti(C,N) fraction (25.8–58.8 vol%) was studied by D’Errico et al. ^[16]^[17]. Tests were performed in the conditions comparable to ASTM G76 standard using Al₂O₃ (mean particle size of ~70 µm) as abrasive and impact angles of 20° and 90°. It was concluded that the most important controlling factor of cermets is Ti(C,N) content. Antiwear properties of cermets eroded by solid-particle impingement are mainly driven by mechanical properties of composites. Hardness is the most important controlling factor both under oblique (20°) and orthogonal (90°) impacts. Hardness in combination with toughness plays an important role under orthogonal impact ^[16]^[17].

The resistance of TiC-20 vol% FeAl, TiB₂-60 vol% FeAl and WC-20 vol% FeAl composites to solid-particle erosion with Al₂O₃ (particle size of 50 µm) was evaluated in a wide range of temperatures (25, 180, 500 and 700 °C) and compared to the erosion behavior of WC-6 wt% Co hardmetals. The impingement angle was 75°, and the duration of each test was 20 min in the nitrogen atmosphere of commercial purity. While at low temperatures (<500 °C), TiC-FeAl cermets compare unfavorably with WC-based hardmetals, this material might be a promising candidate for elevated temperature (>500 °C) applications once the microstructure of cermets is optimized for erosion resistance ^[35].

Erosion resistance of TiC-Fe cermets (670 HV) produced by combustion synthesis (SHS technology) in conditions similar to ASTM G76 (using Al₂O₃ as abrasive, impact angles of 90° and 30°) was assessed at room (20 °C) and elevated (350 °C) temperatures (conditions encountered for combustion boilers). Studies showed that cermets present prevalently brittle erosion mechanism at both temperatures ^[14]. A detailed study of surface damage during particle-wall collision by the solid Al₂O₃ particles (with average particle size of 90 µm) of WC-15 wt% Co hardmetal and TiC-FeSi cermets (40–60 wt% binder) was performed ^[33]. Ceramic–metal composite targets were impacted with abrasive particles over the range of impact velocities 7–50 m/s at the impact angle 67°. Laser doppler anemometer (LDA) measuring technique was employed for measuring the ratio of the normal component of particle velocity after and before impact with the target—the restitution coefficient (characterizing loss of kinetic energy of particles). Values of restitution coefficients have a good fit with the experimental data of the erosion rate of ceramic–metal composites—the highest restitution coefficient was demonstrated by the WC-Co hardmetal ^[33]. Level of energy consumption during application seems to be an appropriate guide for material selection in the conditions of erosive wear ^[20].

Erosion of cermets and hardmetals by “soft” silica (SiO₂) sand has been addressed in several works ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[23]^[24]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[34]. Researchers of University of California ^[6] studied the erosion of WC-Co and WC-Ni hardmetals and TiC-NiMo cermets at room temperature. All specimens were eroded by quarts abrasive (75–200 µm) at a range of impact angles (30°, 60°, 90°) at 60 m/s in a gas-blast-type rig. It was shown that control of the erosion behavior is transferred from the binder to the carbide skeleton at around 80 vol% carbide. At high binder levels (<80 vol% TiC), the binder controls the erosion but is severely constrained by the carbides and therefore behaves in a brittle manner—maximum erosion occurs at the impact angle of 90°. At lower binder levels (>80 vol% TiC), carbide dominates the eroded surface and the erosion vs. the impact angle plot reflects grain-by-grain removal mechanism, i.e., maximum erosion occurs at intermediate impact angles (~60°). The authors also show that the contiguity of the carbide skeleton is of greater importance than the mechanical properties of particular carbides. Fine carbide grain size and a hard binder should be combined to achieve outstanding erosion resistance. However, results demonstrate clearly that TiC-NiMo cermets are at a disadvantage in relation to WC-based hardmetals at a similar vol% of carbides ^[6].

Erosion of TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets and WC-Co hardmetals with different fractions of carbides and binder compositions has been studied by research groups of Tallinn University of Technology ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]. A four-channel centrifugal accelerator allowing the testing of 15 specimens simultaneously (materials examined at the identical erosion conditions) was employed. Tests were carried out at room and also at elevated temperatures (up to 650 °C) using silica (SiO₂) with the particle size of 0.1–0.3 mm as an abrasive. It is known that in terms of material response to erosion and mechanical properties, ceramic–metal composites are macroscopically brittle but at microscopic level they have mixed ductile-brittle response ^[2]. Structural parameters (binder vol% and carbide grain size) are decisive effect on mechanical properties (in particular, hardness and toughness) and wear resistance. It is also known that ceramic–metal composites, in particular, WC-Co hardmetals with fine and submicron structure show better solid-particle erosion resistance than medium- and coarse-grained ones ^[41]^[42]^[43]^[4]^[5]. In the studies of TiC-based cermets and WC-Co hardmetals (used as reference materials) ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34], commonly medium-grained composites (average grain size 2–2.7 µm) were used, while Cr₃C₂-based cermets were mainly coarse-grained (average grain size > 3 µm).

The mechanically mixed layer (MML) is developed in the cermets subjected to erosive and abrasive wear (see Figure 5). The comparison of tribolayer formation during abrasive and erosive wear showed that intergranular cracks were formed at the depth up to 30 µm. Intergranular and transgranular cracks are more easily formed in ceramic–metal composites with high carbide content. The stiff response of the surface enhances the crushing of the abrasive particles as well. Deeper cracks are formed at a concentrated impact and higher energy–erosion under normal angle of impact and high velocity of 80 m/s. Transgranular cracks found under conditions of three-body abrasive wear were rear ^[11].

Figure 5. Features of cermet surface transformation under abrasive, sliding and erosive wear.

The erosive wear resistance of TiC- and WC-based composites with a wide range of carbide content (80–90 wt% WC in WC-Co hardmetals and 40–80 wt% TiC in TiC-FeSi, TiC-FeCrSi, TiC-FeNi, TiC-FeCrNi and TiC-NiMo cermets) was studied in ^[7]. It was shown that prognosis of erosive (and abrasive) wear resistance on the basis of single mechanical properties, in particular hardness, results in mistakes when carbide composites of different families (chemical composition and structure) are considered. However, considerable differences in the structure and hardness of the metallic binder cause differences in the gradients of the relative wear resistance functions X = f(HV).

Hardness can be used as the first approximation for the assessment of erosion resistance also within each group of ceramic–metal composites based on different carbides characterized by different physical and mechanical properties. All carbide composites show clearly decreasing erosion rate with increasing hardness. At equal hardness (and also carbide vol%), WC-Co hardmetals are at an advantage over TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets (at room temperatures) ^[8].

The performance of carbide composites in erosive (and abrasive) wear is controlled by the stiffness of the material—its resistance to the elastic (evaluated by the modulus of elasticity E) and plastic (evaluated by the proof stress in compression R_C0.1) strains and depends primarily on the carbide phase (its fraction and grain size) and secondly on the composition, structure and properties of the binder. The modulus of elasticity as a measure of material stiffness may be used as the first approximation for the evaluation of the “soft” erosion resistance of ceramic–metal composites independent of the ceramic phase used ^[7]^[8]^[20]^[24]^[26]^[31]^[32] .

In the study of the effect of microstructure on the erosive wear of cermets, Hussainova and Antonov ^[20]^[24]^[28] concluded that the relative ranking of different cermets with respect to the erosion rate could be explained first of all by the microstructures and thermomechanical properties of composites whereas hardness or fracture toughness seems to be of minor importance. However, modulus of elasticity may be used for the evaluation of erosion resistance in the conditions of mild wear. Analysis of the cermet grain size and the erosion rate showed relationships similar to those for WC-Co hardmetals. It seems that there is a threshold carbide size. Exceeding the threshold results in changing the wear (fracture) mechanism from intercarbide of intracarbide failure ^[20]. A similar approach has been proposed for WC-Co hardmetals—between 1.6 and 2.2 µm, there must be a critical grain size above which WC grains deform (fracture) at relatively low stress ^[43].

High-temperature erosion of carbide composites was studied in ^[11]^[19]^[21]. At room temperature, WC-Co hardmetals outperform TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets (at the same vol% of binder and/or hardness). Testing of WC-Co hardmetals, Cr₃C₂-Ni and TiC-NiMo cermets (all with 12 vol% binder) showed that at 600 °C, TiC-NiMo cermet outperforms WC-Co hardmetal and Cr₃C₂-Ni cermet at both impact angles (30°, 90°) and abrasive jet velocities. It was shown that erosive behavior of composites possessing similar binder contents (12 vol%), grain sizes and mechanical properties can be explained on the basis of formation and fracture of a mechanically mixed layer (MML). WC-12 vol% Co has the lowest erosion resistance and the thickest MML, consisting of oxides and a damaged layer of bulk material. TiC-12 vol% NiMo material showed the highest erosion resistance and MML formed at its surface is less pronounced ^[21]. Thickness, structure and properties of tribolayer (MML) influence erosive wear behavior also at room temperature ^[11].

Further research was focused on the high-temperature erosion of TiC-NiMo cermets of different binder fractions (20–60 wt%) and Ni:Mo ratios (4:1, 2:1, 1:1) of the binder ^[19]. It was shown that high-temperature erosion resistance of cermets increases with a decrease in the binder content (increase in TiC fraction) and increase in the Mo content of the binder.

3. Slurry Erosion

Slurry erosion of cermets has been addressed in ^[44]^[45]^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53]^[54]^[55]^[56]^[57]^[58]^[59]. Composition, sintering conditions, structure (ceramic phase grain size), mechanical properties and testing conditions of slurry erosion are summarized in Table 2. A laboratory test commonly recommended is ASTM G75 (determination of slurry abrasivity (Miller number) and slurry abrasion response of materials). ASTM G119 (determining synergism between wear and corrosion) enables one to identify the abrasion and corrosion components by potentiodynamic polarization techniques. In addition, nonstandardized erosion testing techniques, such as the slurry-jet impingement test and the slurry-pot test (propeller test), are used. In the slurry-pot tests, a rotor carrying specimens is immersed in a tank containing slurry of a liquid and abrasive particles ^[2]^[38]. In the slurry-jet impingement test, an ejector nozzle is employed to entrain sand particles from a sand bed into a stream of water to form a slurry ^[58]^[59]^[60]. Testing conditions applied for the study of cermet behavior in the slurry erosion (see Table 2) show that slurry-pot tests were most widely used.

Table 2. Summary of composition, processing, structural and mechanical characteristics and slurry erosion testing conditions of cermets.

Composition *	Processing **	Structure ***	Mechanical Characteristics		Wear Testing Conditions ******	Key Observations	Ref.
Composition *	Processing **	Structure ***	Hardness ****	Toughness *****	Wear Testing Conditions ******	Key Observations	Ref.
TiC_0.7N_0.3/15 Ni + Mo₂C/WC/TaC/NbC additions	Sinter/HIP (1450 °C, p = 5 MPa) or LPS (1440 °C)	- ^[44] d_TiCN = 1.16–1.43 ^[49] d_TiCN = 0.66–1.68 ^[56]	1116–1796 ^[44] 1274–1530 ^[49] 91.2–94.0 HRA ^[56]	5.3–10.1 ^[44] TRS: 1663–1716 ^[49] TRS: 928–1351 ^[56]	Slurry-pot test, Al₂O₃ (5 wt%, 150–250 µm) slurry: neutral (distilled water) saline (NaCl solution) acidic (H₂SO₄ solution)	Mo₂C additions dramatically increase erosion resistance	^[44]^[49]^[56]
TiC_0.7N_0.3/10Mo₂C 15Ni	LPS (1440 °C) or Sinter/HIP (1450 °C, p = 5 MPa)	- ^[45] d_TiCN = 1.16 ^[46] - ^[55]	92.6 HRA ^[45] 1530 ^[46] 92.6 HRA ^[55]	11.5 ^[45] TRS: 1716 ^[46] TRS 1650 ^[55]	Slurry-pot test, Al₂O₃ (1 or 5 wt%, 150–250 µm) slurry: - neutral (distilled water) - saline (NaCl solution) - acidic (H₂SO₄ solution) Slurry of SiO₂ (5%, 0.1–0.3 mm) - saline (seawater)	Binder loss is the primary degradation mode	^[45]^[46]^[55]
TiC_0.7N_0.3/10Mo₂C Cr₃C₂ 15Ni (1, 3, 5, 7 Cr₃C₂)	LPS (1440 °C) and/or Sinter/HIP (1450 °C, p = 5 MPa)	- ^[47] d_TiCN = 0.72–1.58 d_TiCN = 0.81–1.58 ^[52] - ^[54]	93.5 HRA ^[47] 1574–1817 ^[51] 92.6–93.2 HRA ^[52] 92.6–93.5 HRA ^[54]	10.8 ^[47] 9.5–12.9 ^[51] TRS: 1300–1380 ^[52] TRS: 1300–1490 ^[54]	Slurry-pot test, Al₂O₃ (5 wt%, 150–250 µm) slurry: neutral (distilled water) acidic (H₂SO₄ solution) alkaline (NaOH solution)	Erosion performance is improved by Cr₃C₂ additions in all environments	^[47]^[51]^[52]^[54]
TiC_0.7N_0.3/10Mo₂C 15Ni/Co (different Ni/Co ratios)	Sinter/HIP (1450 °C, p = 5 MPa)	-	92.0–92.5 HRA	TRS: 1510–1650	Slurry pot test, SiO₂ (5 wt%, 0.1–0.3 mm) slurry: - neutral (distilled water) - saline (seawater)	Erosion resistance improvement with the addition of Co	^[48]
Ti(C, N)/10Mo₂C 15Ni (different TiC/TiN ratios)	LPS (1440 °C)	d_TiCN = 0.78–1.44	92.2–92.5 HRA	-	Slurry pot test, Al₂O₃ (5 wt% 150–250 µm) slurry: - alkaline (NaOH solution) - acidic (H₂SO₄ solution)	The best performance of TiC_0.9N_0.1-based cermets in alkaline and acidic conditions	^[50]^[53]
TiC_0.96/33–60 FeCr (0–25 Cr in binder) WC/15 Co	LPS	-	TiC-FeCr 1030–1430 WC-Co 1200	-	Slurry pot test, SiO₂ (5 wt%, 0.3–0.4 mm) slurry: - neutral (water) - alkaline (NaOH)	Corrosion proof cermets outperform WC/Co in neutral environment	^[57]
Cr₃C₂/10–40 Ni	LPS	d_Cr3C2 = 2–5	900–1490	9.5–19.0	Slurry-jet impingement test, SiO₂ (6, 8, 10 wt%, ~0.1 mm) slurry: V = 4 m/s, α = 90°: - saline (seawater) T = 20–40 °C	Erosion performance depends on the interplay of binder fraction and the abrasive concentration	^[58]^[59]

Cermets on the base of chromium carbide (Cr₃C₂) have some unique properties that make them useful in special applications, such as high-temperature and corrosive environments, and in situations that require high corrosion-abrasion resistance ^[10]. M. Antonov et al. ^[58]^[59] studied erosion-corrosion of Cr₃C₂-Ni cermets in the slurry of artificial seawater and SiO₂ (particle size ~0.1 mm, concentration 6, 8, 10 wt%). The slurry-jet impingement test rig was used, based on the design by Zu et al. ^[60]. The study focused on the effect of the cermet binder content (10, 20 and 40 wt% Ni), surface roughness (R_a = 300–3250 A) together with test conditions, such as abrasive particles concentration, applied potential (−600 mV for cathodic protection, 0, +250 and +500 mV), temperature (20 and 42 °C), and time of experiments (6–120 min) on the performance of cermets. Material wastage, synergy and regime maps were developed, and it was demonstrated that material loss during simultaneous effect of corrosion and erosion is complicated and cannot be evaluated as a simple summation of these processes ^[58]^[59].

Slurry erosion of TiC-FeCr cermets (TiC fraction 33, 40, 50 and 60 wt% at different Cr contents in binder) was studied in ^[57]. WC-Co hardmetal (15% Co), structural carbon steel (0.45% C) and stainless martensitic and austenitic steels were used as reference materials. Erosion tests in that study were performed employing slurry-pot test equipment. The erosion-corrosion environment was tap water—abrasive (SiO₂, particles 0.3–0.4 mm) slurry with abrasive concentration of 5 wt%. Rotor with specimens peripheral speed was 5.5 m/s, testing time 24 h. Additionally, slurry erosion tests in alkaline conditions (using 0.5% NaNO₂ as inhibitor) were performed. It was shown that corrosion resistance exerts a dominant effect on the slurry erosion resistance of ceramic–metal composites, in particular, TiC-FeCr cermets and WC-Co hardmetal. As a result of selectivity of corrosion and erosion of these structurally heterogeneous composites, erosion resistance in the water-SiO₂ slurry may be even to a great extent disadvantageous in relation to non-corrosion-resistant carbon structural steels. In such conditions, corrosion-resistant straight chromium TiC-FeCr cermets outperformed substantially WC-Co hardmetals. Erosion resistance depends on hardness only in the conditions of sufficient corrosion resistance of the composite or provided that corrosion inhibition is used ^[57].

A series of slurry erosion tests of Ti(C,N)-based cermets were recently performed by the research group of Sichuan University ^[44]^[45]^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53]^[54]^[55]^[56]. Slurry-pot test apparatus employed was similar to that used in ^[57]—samples were fixed on the impellers to rotate in a tank of slurry of a liquid and abrasive particles. Erosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets was assessed, and the effect of the composition (C/N ratio in a carbonitride, Ni/Co ratio in a binder), addition of carbides (Mo₂C, Cr₃C₂, WC, TaC, and NbC) and test parameters (characteristics of erodents (Al₂O₃, SiO₂), impingement velocity, fluid composition and viscosity) on the degradation resistance of cermets was studied. Neutral ^[44]^[45]^[47]^[48]^[50]^[51], saline (artificial seawater or NaCl solution) ^[46]^[48]^[49]^[55], alkaline ^[50]^[54] and acid ^[45]^[52]^[53]^[56] slurries of Al₂O₃ (particle size 100–250 µm) ^[44]^[45]^[46]^[47]^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53]^[54]^[56] or SiO₂ (particle size of 100–300 µm) ^[48]^[55] were employed. Common abrasive concentration was 5 wt% with an exception of work ^[45].

An increase in the TiN fraction in carbonitride favors grain size reduction of Ti(C,N)-based cermets ^[50]^[53]. In distilled water-Al₂O₃ slurry, erosion resistance improved substantially with TiN addition. In alkaline and acid slurries, the weight loss was produced by the synergistic effect of erosion and corrosion.

TiC_0.7N_0.3-based cermets behavior in saline slurries based on NaCl solution or seawater was studied in ^[46]^[48]^[49]^[55]. A study of the effect of Mo₂C/WC ratio in Ti(C,N)-10 wt% Mo₂C/WC-15 wt% Ni cermets showed that the cermets with the Mo₂C/WC ratio of 1 demonstrate the best resistance to erosion ^[49]. Substantial improvement of erosion resistance is possible with the addition of Co to Ni binder, which can be attributed to the decrease in porosity and better solid solution strengthening effect ^[48].

Research on TiC_0.7N_0.3-based cermets behavior in acid slurries (small H₂SO₄ additions (0.1 mol/L or 0.5 mol/L) used) was conducted in ^[45]^[52]^[53]^[56]. It was shown that Mo₂C additions reduce the Ti(C,N) grain size and can dramatically improve the erosion-corrosion resistance^[56]. Erosion resistance of TiC_0.7N_0.3-10 wt% Mo₂C-15 wt% Ni cermets was additionally improved by Cr₃C₂ additions, increasing the corrosion resistance of the Ni binder ^[52]. Additions of Cr₃C₂ enhanced slurry erosion resistance also in alkaline slurry circumstances ^[54].

The erosion corrosion degradation of cermets may be classified to the corrosion regime, erosion-affected corrosion regime, corrosion-affected erosion regime and erosion regime. The contributions of corrosion, erosion and synergy to the erosion-corrosion degradation are strongly environment dependent. With an increase in the environmental corrosivity, the contributions of corrosion and synergy are enhanced considerably ^[45]^[52]^[54].

4. Summary

4.1. Solid-Particle Erosion

In the solid-particle erosion studies of TiC-, Ti(C,N)- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets with Ni- and Fe alloy binders, predominantly centrifugal acceleration of abrasive particles has been employed. Gas-blast testing schemes (ASTM G76, ASTM G211) have not been so widely used.

It has been shown that the severity of erosion, similar to abrasion, depends on the ratio H_a/H_m. The wear is highly sensitive to the structure and hardness of composites when H_a/H_m is about 1 (“soft” erosion), while in “hard” erosion conditions (H_a/H_m > 1.2), erosion wear demonstrates relatively low variation.

“Hard” erosion rate increases with an increase in the impingement angle: 30°→90° similar to brittle ceramic materials. However, the equations describing correlation between erosion and values of hardness (HV) and fracture toughness (K_IC) developed for the assessment of the brittle materials erosion rate are not relevant for cermets and hardmetals. These ceramic–metal composites demonstrating substantial fracture toughness may be brittle at a macroscopic level, but at microscopic level, they demonstrate mixed ductile-brittle response.

The response of ceramic–metals composites to the impact by abrasive particles depends on the family (generic group) of composites. While the maximum wear rate for WC-Co hardmetals occurred at impact angles around 60°, for TiC- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets, the maximum is at impact angles 75° and 90°, respectively. At room and elevated temperatures (<500 °C), WC-based hardmetals outperform cermets while at high temperatures, cermets, in particular TiC-based composites, are promising erosion-resistant material candidates.

In “soft” erosion conditions, relative ranking of different ceramic–metal composites with respect to erosion rate could be explained first of all by the microstructure (fraction and grain size of carbide), whereas hardness (HV) or fracture toughness (K_IC) seemed to be of minor importance. However, hardness can be used as the first approximation for the assessment of erosion resistance within each group of ceramic–metal composites (WC-, TiC- or Cr₃C₂-based), and modulus of elasticity if ceramic–metal composites of different groups (families) are considered.

The erosion performance of ceramic–metal composites with prevalent fraction of ceramic phase is controlled to a significant extent by the stiffness of the material—its resistance to the elastic and plastic strains depending primarily on the nature of the ceramic constituent and, secondly, on the composition, structure and properties of the metallic binder.

Exceeding the threshold carbide size (around 2 µm) in ceramic–metal composites—cermets and hardmetals—may result in changing the erosion mechanism, resulting in a substantial increase in the erosion rate.

At room and moderately elevated temperatures, cermets are at a disadvantage in relation to WC-based hardmetals at a similar hardness or vol% of carbides. However, at high temperatures (>600 °C), TiC-NiMo cermets outperform both WC-Co hardmetals and Cr₃C₂-Ni cermets.

4.2. Slurry Erosion

In the slurry erosion studies of TiC-, Ti(C,N)- and Cr₃C₂-based cermets, a nonstandard slurry-pot testing scheme has been most widely used. Neutral (tap or distilled water), saline (seawater or NaCl solution), alkaline and acid slurries of Al₂O₃ or SiO₂ were employed.

The material loss during simultaneous effect of corrosion and erosion is complicated and cannot be evaluated as a simple summation of processes. The degradation of ceramic–metal composites is strongly environment dependent and may be classified to the corrosion regime, erosion-affected corrosion or corrosion-affected erosion regime and erosion regime. With the help of the alloying of the ceramic phase (e.g., C/N ratio of Ti(C,N), additions of Cr₃C₂, Mo₂C, WC) and metallic constituent (e.g., addition of Co to Ni or Cr to Fe binder) may enable substantial improvement of slurry erosion resistance of cermets. Corrosion-resistant cermets may substantially outperform straight WC-Co hardmetals even in water-abrasive slurries.

References

Comprehensive Hard Materials, 1st ed.; Vinod, K.S. (Ed.) Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 1.
Hutchings, I.; Shipway, P. Tribology. In Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017.
Anand, K.; Conrad, H. Microstructure and scaling effects in the damage of WC-Co alloys by single impacts of hard particles. J. Mater. Sci. 1988, 23, 2931–2942.
Anand, K.; Conrad, H. Local impact and erosion mechanism in WC-6wt.% Co alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1988, 105/106, 411–421.
Beste, U.; Hammerström, L.; Engqvist, H.; Rimlinger, S.; Jakobson, S. Particle erosion of cemented carbides with low Co content. Wear 2001, 250, 809–817.
Ninham, A.J.; Levy, A.V. The erosion of carbide-metal composites. Wear 1988, 121, 347–361.
Reshetnyak, H.; Kübarsepp, J. Mechanical properties of hard metals and their erosive wear resistance. Wear 1994, 177, 185–193.
Klaasen, H.; Kübarsepp, J. Abrasive wear performance of carbide composites. Wear 2006, 261, 520–526.
Hussainova, I.; Pirso, J.; Antonov, M.; Juhani, K.; Letunovitš, S. Erosion and abrasion of chromium carbide based cermets produced by different methods. Wear 2007, 263, 905–911.
Kübarsepp, J.; Pirso, J.; Juhani, K. Developments in cermet design, technology and performance. Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol. 2014, 49, 160–179.
Antonov, M.; Hussainova, I. Cermets surface transformation under erosive and abrasive wear. Tribol. Int. 2010, 43, 1566–1575.
Kübarsepp, J.; Klaasen, H.; Pirso, J. Behaviour of TiC-base cermets in different wear conditions. Wear 2001, 249, 229–234.
Peng, Y.; Miao, H.; Peng, Z. Development of TiCN-based cermets: Mechanical properties and wear mechanism. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2013, 39, 78–89.
Bin, L.; Zong-de, L.; Yong, C.; Li-ping, Z. Erosion resistance of TiC/Fe composite at high temperatures. Adv. Mater. Res. 2009, 79–82, 1087–1090.
Manoj Kumar, B.V.; Basu, B. Erosion wear behavior of TiCN–Ni cermets containing secondary carbides (WC/NbC/TaC). J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2006, 89, 3827–3831.
D’Errico, G.E.; Bugliosi, S.; Cuppini, D. Erosion of ceramics and cermets. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2001, 118, 448–453.
D’Errico, G.E.; Bugliosi, S.; Cuppini, D.; Guglielmi, E. A study of cermets’ wear behaviour. Wear 1997, 203–204, 242–246.
Hussainova, I.; Kolesnikova, A.; Hussainov, M.; Romanov, A. Effect of thermo-elastic residual stresses on erosive performance of cermets with core–rim structured ceramic grains. Wear 2009, 267, 177–185.
Hussainova, I.; Pirso, J.; Antonov, M.; Juhani, K. High temperature erosion of Ti(Mo)C–Ni cermets. Wear 2009, 267, 1894–1899.
Hussainova, I.; Antonov, M. Assessment of cermets performance in erosive media. Int. J. Mater. Product Technol. 2007, 28, 361–376.
Antonov, M.; Hussainova, I.; Pirso, J.; Volobueva, O. Assessment of mechanically mixed layer developed during high temperature erosion of cermets. Wear 2007, 263, 878–886.
Hussainova, I. Microstructural design of ceramic–metal composites for tribological applications. Key Eng. Mater. 2007, 334–335, 125–128.
Hussainova, I.; Antonov, M.; Volobueva, O. Microstructural aspects of ceramic-metal composites performance in erosive media. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2006, 45, 132–141.
Hussainova, I. Microstructure and erosive wear in ceramic-based composites. Wear 2005, 258, 357–365.
Hussainova, I. On micromechanical problems of erosive wear of particle reinforced composites. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. 2005, 11, 46–58.
Kübarsepp, J.; Klaasen, H.; Vainola, V. Performance of hard alloys in abrasive-erosive and sliding wear conditions. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. 2004, 10, 308–314.
Klaasen, H.; Kübarsepp, J. Wear behaviour and mechanical properties of sinterhipped hardmetals. Powder Metall. 2004, 47, 161–167.
Hussainova, I. Effect of microstructure on the erosive wear of titanium carbide-based cermets. Wear 2003, 255, 121–128.
Hussainova, I.; Viljus, M. Microstructural effects on wear of nonhomogeneous hardmetal materials. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. 2003, 9, 126–136.
Hussainova, I.; Kübarsepp, J. The Effect of impact angle on the erosion of cermets. In Fundamentals of Tribology and Bridging Cap between the Macro- and Micro/Nanoscales; NATO Science Series; Springer: Dordrecht, Netherland, 2001; Volume 10, pp. 537–542.
Hussainova, I.; Kübarsepp, J.; Pirso, J. Mechanical properties and features of erosion of cermets. Wear 2001, 250, 818–825.
Hussainova, I. Some aspects of solid particle erosion of cermets. Tribol. Int. 2001, 34, 89–93.
Hussainova, I.; Kübarsepp, J.; Shcheglov, L. Investigation of impact of solid particles against hardmetal and cermet targets. Tribol. Int. 1999, 32, 337–344.
Hussainova, I.; Jasiuk, I.; Sardela, M.; Antonov, M. Micromechanical properties and erosive wear performance of chromium carbide based cermets. Wear 2009, 267, 152–159.
Alman, D.E.; Tylczak, J.H.; Hawk, J.A.; Schneibel, J.H. An assessment of the erosion of iron-aluminide cermets at room and elevated temperatures. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2002, 329–331, 602–609.
Corrosion of Metals; Wear and Erosion. In ASTM Book of Standards; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018; Volume 03.02.
Franek, F.; Badisch, E.; Kirchgaßner, M. Advanced methods for characterization of abrasion/erosion resistance of wear protection materials. FME Trans. 2009, 37, 61–70.
Budinski, K.G. Guide to Friction, Wear and Erosion Testing; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
Evans, A.G.; Gulden, M.E.; Rosenblatt, M. Impact damage in brittle materials in elastic-plastic restonse regime. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1978, 361, 343–365.
Ruff, A.W.; Wiederhorn, S.M. Erosion by solid particle impact. In Treatise on Materials Science and Technology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979; Volume 16, pp. 1–67.
Gee, M.G.; Phatak, C.; Darling, R. Determination of wear mechanisms by stepwise erosion and stereological analysis. Wear 2005, 258, 412–425.
Gee, M.G.; Gant, A.; Roebuck, B. Wear mechanisms in abrasion and erosion of WC/Co and related materials. Wear 2007, 263, 137–148.
Freinkel, D.M.; Luyckx, S.B. Energy loss mechanisms in the erosion of cemented tungsten carbide. Scr. Met. 1989, 23, 659–664.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Liang, M. Effects of secondary carbides on the microstructure, mechanical properties and erosive wear of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 944–952.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Tang, L.; Du, H. Research on the contributions of corrosion, erosion and synergy to the erosion–corrosion degradation of Ti(C,N)–based cermets. Wear 2015, 326–327, 36–43.
Tang, L.; Xiong, J.; Wan, W.; Guo, Z.; Zhou, W.; Huang, S.; Zhong, H. The effect of fluid viscosity on the erosion wear behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 3420–3426.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Tang, L.; Du, H. Degradation process of typical Ti(C,N)-Mo2C-Ni cermet in slurry erosion conditions. Tribol. Int. 2014, 74, 138–144.
Guo, Z.; Xiong, J.; Wan, W.; Dong, G.; Yang, M. Effect of binder content on the erosive wear of Ti(C,N)-based cermet in SiO2 particle-containing simulated seawater. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Tech. 2014, 11, 1045–1053.
Tang, L.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Wan, W.; Huang, S.; Zhong, H.; Zhou, W. Effect of WC/Mo2C ratio on the erosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2014, 45, 102–108.
Liang, M.; Wan, W.; Guo, Z.; Xiong, J.; Dong, G.; Zheng, X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, P. Erosion–corrosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets with different TiN contents. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2014, 43, 322–328.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Du, H.; Tang, L. Erosive wear behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets containing different Cr3C2 addition in slurry conditions. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2014, 45, 86–94.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Dong, G.; Yi, C. Effects of Cr3C2 addition on the erosion–corrosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Ceram. Int. 2013, 39, 6019–6028.
Liang, M.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Wan, W.; Dong, G. The influence of TiN content on erosion–corrosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2013, 41, 210–215.
Wan, W.; Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Dong, G.; Yi, C. Effects of Cr3C2 addition on the erosion–corrosion resistance of Ti(C,N)-based cermets in alkaline conditions. Tribol. Int. 2013, 64, 178–186.
Xiong, J.; Guo, Z.; Yang, M.; Dong, G.; Wan, W. Erosion behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermet in solid–liquid two phase flow. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2013, 41, 224–228.
Dong, G.; Yang, M.; Guo, Z.; Wan, W. Effect of Mo2C on erosion-corrosion resistance behavior of Ti(C,N)-based cermets. Wear 2012, 294–295, 364–369.
Kübarsepp, J.; Kallast, V. Stainless hardmetals and their electrochemical corrosion resistance. Werkst. Korros. 1994, 45, 452–458.
Antonov, M.; Stack, M.; Hussainova, I. Erosion-corrosion of Cr3C2-Ni cermets in salt water. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. 2006, 12, 176–187.
Stack, M.M.; Antonov, M.; Hussainova, I. Some views on the erosion–corrosion response of bulk chromium carbide based cermets. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2006, 39, 3165–3174.
Zu, J.B.; Hutchings, I.M.; Burstein, G.T. Design of a slurry erosion test rig. Wear 1990, 140, 331–344.

©Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Kristjan Juhani

View Times: 495

Update Date: 10 Jan 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm