4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact-angle dependence and estimation of erosion damage to ceramic materials caused by solid particle impact

期刊

WEAR
卷 267, 期 1-4, 页码 129-135

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2008.12.091

关键词

Impact-angle dependence; Erosion damage; Solid particle impact; Ceramic materials; Estimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In general, it is accepted that ceramic materials outperform metallic materials at resisting solid-particle erosion. Ceramic materials also have the commercially beneficial quality of a long life span. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the higher erosion resistance of ceramic materials as compared with industrial metallic materials. The impact-angle dependence of erosion damage typically shows ductile and brittle manners depending on the type of material. It is very important to understand the effects of impact parameters such as velocity and particle size on impact-angle dependence of erosion damage, in order to estimate the performance of ceramic materials under given impact conditions. in this paper, predictive equations for impact-angle dependence of normalized erosion, which have been applied and verified in cases of metallic materials, were used to estimate the erosion damage to ceramic materials. in addition, the effects of impact parameters on erosion damage were also investigated. Erosion tests were conducted using a sand blast type erosion test rig. As a result, the impact-angle dependence of erosion damage to ceramic materials such as alumina, magnesia and zirconia was well characterized using exponent numbers that differed from those of metallic materials in the equation. It was found that the impact-angle dependence of erosion damage to ceramic materials shifted depending on impact parameters such as the type and size of the solid particles. The mechanisms of erosion damage also varied with the removal of either primary or secondary ceramic grains. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据