A Comparative Study of Cavitation Erosive Behaviour of 23/8N Nitronic Steel and 13/4 Martensitic Stainless Steel

Abstract:

Article Preview

Abstract: Hydroturbine blades in hydroelectric power plants are subjected to erosion. Currently these blades are made of 13/4 martensitic stainless steel (ASTM grade A743). This steel suffers from several maintenance and welding related problems. Nitronic steels are being considered as an alternative to martensitic stainless steels since they have good weldability. In present work, erosive behaviour of 13/4 Martensitic and Nitrogen alloyed austenitic stainless steel (23/8N steel) has been studied. Cavitation erosion tests were carried out in distilled water at 20 KHz frequency at constant amplitude. Microstructure of eroded surface, mechanical properties and erosion rate were characterized. It was observed that 23/8N steel possesses excellent resistance to erosion in comparison to 13/4 martensitic steels. 23/8N steel showed good hardness coupled with high tensile toughness and work hardening ability, leading to improved erosion resistance.

Info:

Periodical:

Edited by:

B.S.S. Daniel and G.P. Chaudhari

Pages:

554-558

Citation:

A. Selokar et al., "A Comparative Study of Cavitation Erosive Behaviour of 23/8N Nitronic Steel and 13/4 Martensitic Stainless Steel", Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 585, pp. 554-558, 2012

Online since:

November 2012

Export:

Price:

$38.00

[1] D. B. Goel, Metallurgy of erosion of underwater parts in hydro electric projects, Proc. Of 3rd Inter. conference on silting problems in hydro power projects, Feb 2008, New Delhi 27-28.

[2] J.F. Santa, J.A. Blanco, J.E. Giraldo, A. Toro, Cavitation erosion of martensitic and austenitic stainless steel welded coatings, Wear 271 (2011) 1445– 1453.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2010.12.081

[3] A. Kirami, Ripple formation in solid-liquid erosion, Wear 156 (1992) 33-47.

[4] A. D. Schino, J.M. Kenny, M.G. Mecozzi, M. Barteri, Development of high nitrogen, low nickel, 18%Cr austenitic stainless steels, J. Mater. Sci. 35(2000) 4803-4808.

[5] ASTM E8M-09, Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, West Conshohocken, PA (2011).

[6] ASTM E 23-07, Standard test methods for notch bar impact testing of metallic materials, West Conshohocken, PA (2011).

[7] ASTM G 32-10, Standard test methods for cavitation erosion using vibratory apparatus, West Conshohocken, PA (2011).

[8] J.D.E. Atehortua , Cavitation erosion of welded martensitic stainless steel coatings, first int. Brazilian conf. on tribology-10, Capacabana, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brazil, 229-309.

[9] G.W. Stachowiak, A.W. Batchelor, Abrasive, erosive and cavitation wear, Eng. Tribology (3rd edi. ), (2006) 501-551.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-075067836-0/50012-2

[10] Z.T. Xi, Q.D. Zhou, Influence of retained austenite on the wear resistance of high chromium cast iron under various impact loads, Wear 162–164 (1993) 83–88.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(93)90487-7

[11] A. Soussan, S. Degallaix, Work-hardening behaviour of nitrogen-alloyed austenitic stainless steels, Mat. Sci. Eng. A142 (1991) 169–176.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-5093(91)90655-7

[12] A.K. Chauhan, D.B. Goel, S. Prakash, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 467 (2009) 459–464.

[13] R.E. Schramm, R.P. Reed, Stacking fault energies of seven commercial austenitic stainless steels, Metall. Mat. Trans. A 6A (1975) 1345-1351.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02641927