Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear
Comparison of some laboratory wear tests and eld wear in slurry pumps
C.I. Walker n, P. Robbie
Weir Minerals Australia Ltd., 1 Marden Street, Artarmon, NSW, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 23 August 2012
Received in revised form
19 November 2012
Accepted 22 November 2012
Available online 7 December 2012
A number of different laboratory wear tests have been undertaken to measure the wear resistance of a
natural rubber and a eutectic and hypereutectic white iron under abrasion and erosion conditions. Laboratory
work included two different slurry jet erosion tests, a Coriolis test and an ASTM dry sand rubber wheel test.
The laboratory results were compared with wear of the same materials in a centrifugal slurry pump
application in a mineral processing plant. The pump application has been monitored for over 2 years and over
40 parts run to destruction. Analysis of the wear data shows a factor of almost 3 difference in wear rate
between the rubber and the best white iron. Coefcient of variance of the data was in line with typical wear
results from the eld.
The laboratory wear tests were conducted with a silica sand slurry and average particle size range of 300
500 mm to match the eld conditions. The Coriolis and one of the jet erosion tests showed order of magnitude
similarity with the eld test results for the metals, but the other tests gave very different trends. The jet and
Coriolis erosion tests on the rubber showed a much lower wear rate than seen in the eld, while the DSRW
test found that the eutectic white iron wear rate was lower than that of the hypereutectic iron (all opposite of
the eld test).
Explanation for the different wear rates between the laboratory and eld tests was postulated to be nonrepresentative wear mechanisms. This is compounded by the lack of understanding of specic wear
conditions in the pump (local velocity, concentration, particle size, size distribution and particle shape) as
well as microstructure of the samples.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Wear
Slurry
Erosion
Pump
1. Introduction
The wear of centrifugal slurry pumps in mill circuit applications in mineral processing plant is generally quite severe. Typical
life of pumps is in the range 15004000 h and material wear
rates can be over 2 mm/day. Part section thickness in large pumps
of over 100 mm is not uncommon. A typical Warmans MC mill
circuit slurry pump application is shown in Fig. 1.
The mill circuit pump shown above has a number of key
internal parts subject to wear. These include the rotating impeller
that imparts energy to the uid, the casing liner, the frame liner
(or back liner) and the throatbush or inlet side-liner. The impeller
and throatbush orientation is shown in Fig. 2.
Walker [1] shows that the throatbush in a mill circuit slurry
pump often wears faster than the other components due to a
combination of the sharp particle shape, the coarse particle size
distribution and the high velocity recirculating ow. Given both
the aggressive nature of the mill circuit duty and the preferential
wear of the throatbush, it is this part that is used to compare the
3 different materials in the current study.
0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.11.053
1027
Gouge
Baseline
18
frequency of failure
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fig. 1. Warmans MC mill circuit (cyclone feed) slurry pump.
96
336
576
816
1056
age at failure (hrs)
1296
1536
Impeller
Throatbush
(or inlet side-liner)
mass ow rate through the pump for all data points. Wear depth
on the throatbush was measured using a simple template as
shown in Fig. 3.
A point to note in Fig. 3 is that the wear is not uniform, but
rather there is a baseline wear which is the overall surface wear
and a gouging wear that occurs locally and is generally much
deeper. The gouging wear is used in the current work as in most
mill circuit pump applications it is this wear that is life limiting
for the part.
In examining data from different pump applications (including
some mill circuit), Walker [2] found signicant variability in
measured wear life, with the coefcient of varianceCOV (standard deviation/mean) on the order of 0.20.3. A typical wear life
distribution curve is shown in Fig. 4.
Given this sort of variability, it is essential that there is
sufcient data to be able to statistically determine a wear rate,
1028
120
Cum. % Passing
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
1000
100
Size (microns)
100000
10000
template
metal
worn
material
rubber
Table 2
Jet test (eductor) test conditions.
Impingement angle (deg.)
Jet velocity (m/s)
Duration (min)
Sand ow (g/min)
Nozzle dia. (mm)
Stand-off distance (mm)
Sharp particle (mm)
Round particle (mm)
30
20
10
1400
4.5
20
Alumina 300600
Silica sand 250500
Table 1
Comparative wear rates of different throatbush materials in mill circuit application.
Material description
Coefcient of
variance
2.26
1.56
0.888
0.660
0.306
0.347
25
9
10
1.45
1.00
0.57
Table 3
Comparative wear rates of different materials [6].
Wear rate
Material
Sharp particle Round particle Wear rate
wear rate
relative to 27% relative to
description wear rate
27% Cr
(mm3/min)
Cr (sharp)
(mm3/min)
(round)
3.53
40 Duro
natural
rubber
6.05
27% Cr
white
iron
7.44
35% Cr
white
iron, heat
treated
0.605
0.58
0.31
1.95
1.0
1.0
1029
1.49
1.2
0.76
Table 4
DSRW test conditions.
Test load (N)
Wheel speed (r/min)
Surface speed (m/s)
Duration (min)
Sand ow (g/min)
Particle (mm)
Rubber wheel
130
200
2.3
30
465
Silica sand 150300
223 mm, 60 Shore A
Test material
27%
35%
35%
35%
0.94
0.89
1.61
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.71
0.97
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
(heat treated)
(heat treated)
coarse carbide (no H/T)
ne carbide (no H/T)
Table 6
SJE test conditions.
Impingement angle (deg.)
Jet velocity (m/s)
Duration (min)
Sand concentration (w/w %)
Particle detail (mm)
Nozzle dia. (mm)
Stand-off distance (mm)
20
16
120
10
Silica sand 212300
5
100
1030
resolution is 26 mm for all acquired maps. A countor representation of a wear scar with X and Y line proles is illustrated in
Fig. 11.
The wear test results are shown in Table 9. In all cases the
wear rates of the Hyperchromes materials were less than that of
the 27% Cr iron, wear rate decreasing with increasing carbide
volume. The impact of carbide size was very apparent, with very
ne carbide structure giving wear rates some 3 times lower than
those of similar composition materials with coarser structure,
regardless of heat treatment. The sharper SiC particles had less
relative effect on 35% Cr, showing some 20% lower wear rate than
that of the 27% Cr iron.
For the rubber tests, the wear with the rounded sand particles
was negligible. For the sharper particles the wear of the rubber
was less than that of 27% Cr, with the softer 40 Duro material
performing better than the 60 Duro material.
Table 7
SJE laboratory wear test results on white irons.
Test material
Wear rate
(mm3/min)
0.0017
0.00275
0.0561
0.0813
0.105
0.03
0.05
1.00
1.86
1.45
4. Discussion of results
The relative wear rates for all the materials on different testers
are shown in Table 10. In general the DSRW and the SJE test have
Table 8
Coriolis test conditions [7,8].
Impingement angle (deg.)
Slurry velocityapprox. (m/s)
Duration (min)
Solidsconcentration (w/w %)
Round particle detail (mm)
Sharp particle detail (mm)
Wear scar width (mm)
Stand-off distance (mm)
08
1424
6
10
Silica sand 212300
Silicon carbide 205365
1
40
1031
the 35% Cr iron with a higher wear rate than the 27% Cr iron
which is the opposite of what was seen in the eld test. The SJE,
jet eductor and Coriolis test have the rubber performing better
than the 27% Cr iron which again is the opposite of what was seen
in the eld test. The Coriolis test and the jet test have the 35% Cr
iron with a similar lower wear rate compared to the eld test;
however predictive accuracy was relatively poor.
4.1. Comparison of test conditions
Mean particle sizes are similar for all laboratory tests
(150500 mm) and also similar to the mean particle size of the eld
test (300 m). The major difference is with particle size distribution,
where the eld slurry had a much broader particle distribution (and
much larger d85 particle size) than the laboratory tests.
Whilst particle shape was not measured, it is obviously a
major factor in the different results seen both between the
laboratory tests and the laboratary and eld tests. In the eld
test, the particles are angular, freshly crushed from the grinding
and milling process. In the laboratory tests the SiC and Al2O3 sand
particles were also relatively sharp while for the silica sand the
particles are considerably more rounded. In the SJE test the
particles would have been most rounded due to attrition as the
slurry is recirculated over 120 min test period.
The effect of particle shape and size has a marked impact on the
relative rubber wear as seen with the jet and Coriolis laboratory
tests. The rounded particles exhibited negligible wear, while the
sharp particles of similar size had a much greater wear rate.
Extrapolating this effect might go some way to explain the much
lower rubber wear rates seen in the laboratory wear tests relative to
the eld test. The quantity of larger particles seen in the eld test
would certainly contribute to a higher relative wear rates for the
rubber also.
Particle hardness would have been similar for the siliceous ore
of the eld test and the sand laboratory tests, but the sharp SiC
Table 9
Coriolis laboratory wear test results on white irons.
Test material
0.22
0.86
1.00
0.54
1.00
0.3
0.64
0.43
0.11
1032
Table 10
Relative wear rates of different materialscompared to 27% Cr white iron for both silica sand (round) and SiC (sharp) 150500 mm particles.
Material description
40 Duro natural rubber
50 Duro natural rubber
60 Duro natural rubber
35% Cr coarse carbide (heat treated)
35% Cr coarse carbide (no H/T)
35% Cr ne carbide (no H/T)
Field test
DSRW test
0.03
0.05
1.45
0.57
SJE test
0.95
1.71
0.97
1.86
1.45
0.64
0.43
0.11
0.22
0.31
0.58
0.86
0.54
0.76
1.2
and Al2O3 particles are obviously much harder (42000 HV) and
should have worn the white iron carbides (14001900 HV)
relatively more than that of the silica sand (1000 HV).
Relative slurry velocities in the laboratory erosion tests (1020
m/s) were similar to those of the eld test (16 m/s estimated) while
the DSRW test rubbing speed was considerably lower at 2.3 m/s.
While the slurry concentrations of the laboratory tests (10 wt%)
were lower than the eld condition (55 wt%) it is thought not to be a
signicant inuence on the relative performance of various materials.
4.2. Effect of microstructure on white iron results
It is well known that the ner the microstructure, the smaller
the inter-carbide distance, and the more effective the carbide
volume can be in preventing wear [7]. In all of the tests undertaken and reviewed here (Coriolis, jet, SJE and DSRW) the ner
carbide material performed better.
As mentioned previously, Llewellyn et al. [7] found that the
chill cast surface wear in the Coriolis test had mean wear rate
values some 34 greater than those for coarser structures of the
same casting composition (see Fig. 12).
4.3. Wear mechanisms
The worn 35% Cr iron throatbush surface from the eld trial is
shown magnied in Fig. 13. The wear mechanisms seem to be a
combination of ploughing and fracturing/spalling of the carbides.
In some areas it looks like the carbides have been plucked from
the matrix. The plough marks in the surface of the carbides are
mostly in the same direction and could potentially be a result of
the 3 body abrasion (particles jammed between rotating impeller
and throatbush) or directional erosion due to some of the larger
particles. The matrix has been worn at a large rate, leaving the
carbides standing proud of the surface.
The worn surface morphology of the DSRW and jet eductor
test samples are quite different from the eld test surface as can
Fig. 13. Photo of worn surface of 35% Cr iron following eld test.
be seen in Fig. 14. In both laboratory test cases the carbides and
matrix of the material seem to be worn at the same rate,
indicating greater particle impact forces (i.e. higher hardness of
the carbides has not helped). A further indicator of the high
stresses seen in the laboratory test wear is that the carbide
trailing edges are cracked at right angles to the wear direction.
Wear direction is that of the rubber wheel rotation in the DSRW
and the particle direction in the jet eductor test.
In the jet eductor test (Fig. 14b) signicant ploughing is evident
along with carbide spalling and breakout from the matrix surface.
Fig. 15 shows the worn 35% Cr white iron sample from the
Coriolis test work of Jones [8]. As can be seen in Fig. 15(a) for the
rounded particle wear, the bulk of the material removal occurs in
the matrix due to micro-ploughing while the carbides have edge
rounding and stand out from the matrix. In Fig. 15(b) with the
hard and sharp SiC particles, the wear is considerably different,
with ploughing and micro-machining occurring uniformly across
the surface, regardless of the carbide structure.
There is no carbide fracturing evident with the Coriolis test
like that seen from the eld sample (viz. Fig. 13) and this may be
due to the much smaller top size of the particles in the laboratory
test (300 mm) compared to the eld test (10,000 mm).
1033
Fig. 14. Photo of worn surface of 35% Cr iron heat treated. (a) DSRW test and (b) Jet eductor test.
Fig. 15. Photo of worn surface of 35% Cr white iron following Coriolis test [8]. (a) Rounded sand particles and (b) Sharp SiC particles.
tests, the normal impacts are low; therefore, elasticity and other
material properties also play major roles in the extent of damage.
The challenge in using the jet test and the Coriolis test is to
ensure that the particle size, shape and velocity are representative, so that ensuring the wear mechanisms with both white iron
and rubber is similar to what is happening in the eld. This seems
to be particularly the case with rubber, where exceeding a
threshold particle shape and size can radically alter the wear rate
as contact conditions change from purely elastic collisions to
cutting or tearing.
The DSRW abrasion test does not appear to be that helpful in
predicting predominantly erosion wear in a throatbush.
The SJE recirculating slurry jet test is problematic due to the
attrition of the particles over the test period. This results in much
lower wear rates than would be seen in a eld situation,
particularly with rubber materials that have extremely low wear
with rounded particles. The larger stand-off distance of the
sample (100 mm) in the SJE test also allows more diffusion of
the slurry stream than in the jet eductor tester (20 mm stand-off).
This will further reduce the wear rate in the SJE test relative to the
jet test.
A couple of nal comments:
5. Conclusions
1 The eld test of a slurry pump throatbush found that the wear
rate on natural rubber was 45% greater and the wear rate of a
hypereutectic white iron was 43% less than that for a standard
high chrome eutectic white iron (ISO21988/JN/HBW555XCr);
2 coriolis and jet eductor lab wear tests gave same order of
magnitude relative results as did the eld test for the hypereutectic white irons; however accuracy was poor;
3 the DSRW and SJE lab test found that 35% Cr hypereutectic
white iron wear rate was higher than that of the standard 27%
Cr eutectic white iron (i.e. opposite of the eld trial);
4 the SJE, Coriolis and jet eductor lab test found that the natural
rubber wear rates were much lower than that of the standard
27% Cr eutectic white iron (i.e. opposite of the eld trial);
1034
5 the differences in the laboratory wear test are largely attributed to the wear mechanisms not being representative of
those seen in the eld situation (due to particle impact energy
and/or impingement angle and particle shape and/or size).
Acknowledgements
The permission of The Weir Group PLC to publish this paper
is gratefully acknowledged. Warmans and Hyperchromes are
registered trademarks of Weir Minerals Australia Ltd.
References
[1] C.I. Walker, Slurry pump side-liner wear: comparison of some laboratory and
eld results, Wear 250 (2001) 8187.
[2] C.I. Walker, Slurry pump wear life uncertainty analysis, in: Proceedings of
Hydrotransport 14, BHR Fluid Engineering, Maastricht, Holland, 1999,
pp. 663679.
[3] C.I. Walker, Aspect of wear in mill circuit pumps, in: Proceedings of SAG 2011,
Vancouver, Canada, 2012.
[4] International Standard ISO21988: 2006 (E), Abrasion resistant cast irons
classication.
[5] K.F. Dolman, C.I. Walker, C.P. Harris, A.W. Thomson, Microstructurally rened
multi-phase castings, US Patent 5,803,152, 1998.
[6] C.I. Walker, G.C. Bodkin, Erosive wear characteristics of various materials, in:
Proceeding of Hydrotransport 12, BHR Fluid Engineering, Brugge, Belgium,
1993, pp. 191210.
[7] R.J. Llewellyn, S.K. Yick, K.F. Dolman, Scouring erosion resistance of metallic
materials used in slurry pump service, Wear 256 (2004) 592599.
[8] L.C. Jones, Low angle scouring erosion behaviour of elastomeric materials,
Wear 271 (2011) 14111417.