improved methodology to evaluate abrasion resistant coatings · improved methodology to evaluate...
TRANSCRIPT
• • • • •
• • •
a:� � 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCE & E�PO
- --� ...
·-\�{:
. ... ... -:....... - . -- . :·····
• . .
' ' '' ........ ... ... .... '
' ... .... ... ... '... ... ....... ' ""' �"" '"" ... ' ' "" ... . ... ... ... . ... ... ...
... . . : . : . . . . � ... : . : ......... . . . . ·. : : ........ .. . . : .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • ••
. ' . . ••••• • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • . .
I: • • • • • • . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . � . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
•
1
Improved Methodology to Evaluate Abrasion Resistant Coatings
ByMuni Ramakrishnan PhD
Stephen BowditchA.W. Chesterton Company
2
Highlights
• We carried out a study to characterize andclassify our portfolio of wear resistant coatingsmeant for aggressive wear conditions.
• We utilized two test methods. We optimizedthe parameters to reduce the data scatter andimprove reliability.
3
Abrasive Wear in Industry
• Pumps
• Mixer Agitator Blades
• Pipelines
• Valves
• Chutes
• Wear Plates
4
Types of Abrasive Wear
• Two body - sliding
• Three body wear - grinding or crushingapplications
• Dry and Wet
5
Factors to Consider When Specifying a Coating
Moderate, severe and extreme abrasion• Key parameters:
– Particle size / shape
– Particle hardness / density
– % solids suspended in media
– Media type (fluid / gas & make up)
– Temperature of exposure
– Velocity of flow
– Angle of impingement
6
Goal
• Goal of this study is come up with a viable ranking method forrelative wear characterization of coatings.
• Current portfolio of products have broad classification – good,better, best – need for tighter ranking and classification.
• Utilize tests / develop test methods that are relevant tocoatings used in very aggressive environments.
7
Test Methods for Evaluation
• ASTM G 75
– Slurry abrasion
• Jet Abrader
– Dry abrasion
8
Slurry Abrasion Test Video
9
Typical Wet Slurry Study Plots
Departure -10%
Correlation 82%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cu
mm
ula
tive
Mas
s Lo
ss (
mg)
Time (hrs)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cu
mm
ula
tive
Mas
s Lo
ss (
mg)
Time (hrs)
Departure -33%
Correlation 89%
10
Variables Noted in ASTM G75
• Sample preparation
• Frequency of sand changes
• Cam lifter block in equipment design
11
Old Sample Prep Method -Sample Coated on Metal
Post Sample Run
12
New Method - Molded Sample
Post Sample Run
13
Run Without Changing Sand for 6 Hours
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cu
mu
lati
ve M
ass
Loss
(m
g)
Time (hrs)
Departure -17%
Correlation 100%
14
Frequency of Sand Changes
Picture of fresh sand Picture of sand after 2 hour run
15
Runs Changing Sand Every Two Hours
• Example 1
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cu
mu
lati
ve M
ass
Loss
(m
g)
Time (hrs)
Departure -3%Correlation 100%
16
Runs Changing Sand Every Two Hours
• Example 2
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cu
mu
lati
ve M
ass
Loss
(m
g)
Time (hrs)
Departure -3%Correlation 100%
17
Test Chamber
Jet Abrader Test
Sample Set Up
80 Grit Brown Aluminum Oxide
18
Jet Abrader Test
19
Jet Pressure vs Volume Loss
@ 90° Angle
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vo
lum
e L
oss
, mL
Pressure, PSI
Estimated Velocity, ft/sec185179172166160145126
20
Volume Loss vs Time
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Vo
lum
e L
oss
, cc
Test Duration, min
50 PSI
60 PSI
70 PSI
80 PSI
90 PSI
21
Angle of Impingement
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vo
lum
e L
oss
Angle of Impingement
Angle of Impingement vs Volume Loss - 50 psi - 1 min
22
90° 75° 60° 45° 30°
23
Test Data
1 2 3 4 5 6
Initial
Weight (g)40.5189 41.9094 40.6969 50.632 42.954 45.498
Final
Weight (g)39.6773 41.0759 40.0268 49.815 41.887 44.604
Weight
Change (g)0.8416 0.8335 0.6701 0.817 1.067 0.894
Volume
Change (cc)0.3117 0.3087 0.2482 0.3026 0.3952 0.3311
Result
Average
Volume
Loss (cc)
0.32 Standard Deviation 0.0476 COV (%) 15.06%
Typical Past Jet Abrader Results
Product A
24
Optimized Jet Abrader Results
Product A
Test Data
1 2 3 4 5 6
Initial
Weight (g)41.3080 39.7565 37.3077 38.9990 41.0665 39.1144
Final
Weight (g)40.5878 39.0280 36.5946 38.2808 40.3332 38.3587
Weight
Change (g)0.7202 0.7285 0.7131 0.7182 0.7333 0.7557
Volume
Change (cc)0.3386 0.3425 0.3353 0.3377 0.3448 0.3553
Result
Average
Volume
Loss (cc)
0.34Standard
Deviation0.0072 COV (%) 2.10%
Product B
Test Data
1 2 3 4 5 6
Initial
Weight (g)40.2796 41.7135 39.9311 42.2325 39.9514 42.3563
Final
Weight (g)39.0726 40.5229 38.6969 40.9724 38.7080 41.1233
Weight
Change (g)1.2070 1.1906 1.2342 1.2601 1.2434 1.2330
Volume
Change (cc)0.5029 0.4961 0.5143 0.5250 0.5181 0.5137
Result
Average
Volume
Loss (cc)
0.52Standard
Deviation0.015 COV (%) 2.05%
25
Conclusions of Study
• Optimization is possible
• Reliability and Consistency of Data
• Additional variations to G 75 test
– Change abrasive media and concentration
– Vary fluid type
– Test different materials used in abrasion protection
26