13th International Conference on Fracture June 16–21, 2013, Beijing, China -7- reported range [13-16]. However, the simulated exponent for irregular particles is higher than that for spherical particles. It can be explained from energy conversion. It is known that the kinetic energy is transformed into strain energy during impact. In this irregular non-spherical impact case, more kinetic energy is transformed into strain energy, resulting in more wear damage. Hence, at the same velocity, the erosion rate of the substrate material under irregular particle impacting is higher than that under spherical particle impacting. It will be interesting to investigate material removal with different particle geometries (cubic, tetrahedron, pentahedron, etc) in the future work, and study the relationship between erosion rate and geometry. 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Original data point Linear fitting curve Log (Erosion rate) Log (Velocity) y=2.40*x-4.74 Figure 6. Erosion rate vs. velocity in Log-Log scale 3.2. Effect of impact Angle on erosion rate Impact angle is also an important parameter influencing solid particle erosion. It was reported that the maximum erosion rate angle is a function of substrate material and is independent of erodent material properties [17]. Figures 7 and 8 show the relation between erosion rate and impact angle at velocities of 100m/s and 80m/s, respectively. Clearly, at the two different impact velocities, the two patterns are very similar, with the maximum erosion rate for both cases occurring at angle of 40-45°. ElTobgy et al. [6] obtained peak erosion rate at a 40° angle for Ti-6Al-4V, Wang et al. [7] reported maximum erosion rate at about 30° for the same substrate material, while Yerramareddy et al. [16] experimentally determined the maximum erosion rate occurs at an angle of 35-40°. Hence, the ranges of maximum erosion rate predicted from our finite element model are close to that from these literature data. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Erosion rate (%) Impact angle (0) 100m/s 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Erosion rate (%) Impact angle (0) 80m/s Figure 7. Erosion rate vs. velocity (v=100m/s) Figure 8. Erosion rate vs. velocity (v=80m/s)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjM0NDE=