Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145 154 www.elsevier.

com/locate/msea

Synergistic effect of cavitation erosion and corrosion of various engineering alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution
C.T. Kwok a, F.T. Cheng a, H.C. Man b,*
b a Department of Applied Physics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni6ersity, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China Department of Manufacturing Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni6ersity, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Received 4 February 2000; received in revised form 22 March 2000

Abstract The cavitation erosion and corrosion characteristics of various engineering alloys including grey cast iron, steels, copper-based alloys and stainless steels were studied by means of a 20 kHz ultrasonic vibrator at a peak-to-peak amplitude of 30 mm in distilled water and in 3.5% NaCl solution at 23C. The contributions of pure mechanical erosion, electrochemical corrosion, and the synergism between erosion and corrosion to the overall cavitation erosion corrosion in 3.5% NaCl solution were determined. It was found that in 3.5% NaCl solution, the effect of corrosion on the overall cavitation erosion corrosion was most pronounced in mild steel and grey cast iron, and negligible in stainless steels. The stainless steels only suffered pure mechanical erosion in 3.5% NaCl solution in the presence of cavitation owing to the unfavourable local environment for pit growth. 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cavitation erosion and corrosion; Synergism; Mechanical properties; Steels; Grey cast iron; Copper-based alloys

1. Introduction Cavitation is the growth and collapse of cavities or bubbles inside a liquid caused by the sudden changes of internal pressure in the liquid. During the collapse of bubbles, a large pulse of stress is generated and this is often accompanied by a high velocity jet of liquid that impinges the solid surface in contact with the liquid. The rapid repetition of the stress pulses would induce localised fatigue failure and subsequent material removal. Cavitation erosion refers to damage due to fatigue processes occurring in the surface of the material itself. If cavitation attack causes accelerated removal of an existing passive lm or corrosion product layer, and if the overall rate determining mechanism is the rate of replacement growth of the lm or layer, then the resulting type of loss of material is referred to cavitation erosion corrosion. There have been many attempts to correlate cavitation erosion resistance to a single or a combination of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-27666629; fax: 23625267. E-mail address: mfhcman@polyu.edu.hk (H.C. Man). + 852-

mechanical properties of a metal. These mechanical properties include ductility, hardness, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, ultimate resilience, engineering strain energy, percentage of elongation [1] and product of fatigue strength coefcient and cyclic strain-hardening exponent [2]. Hammit [1] has found the following empirical relations for a wide range of materials: (MDPR) 1 = k(UR) (MDPR) 1 = k(HB)1.8 (MDPR) 1 = k(SE)0.738 (MDPR) 1 = k(UR HB)0.72 (MDPR) 1 = k(UR Y)0.659 where MDPR is the mean depth of penetration rate, an inverse measure of the cavitation erosion resistance; UR is the ultimate resilience; HB is the hardness; SE is the strain energy; Y is the Young modulus and k is a constant which takes different values for the relations above. In addition, Tichler et al. [3] found that the relation between MDPR and the true ultimate tensile strength for various kinds of coppernickel alloys and steels was as below:

0921-5093/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 5 0 9 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 8 9 9 - 6

146

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

(MDPR) 1 =k(TS*)2.3 where TS* is the true ultimate tensile strength and k is a constant. These relations are empirical in nature and only provide prediction to a certain degree for a narrow group of materials. Owing to the repetitive, dynamic, stochastic and localised nature of the stress pulses produced by cavitation, the cavitation erosion resistance of a material should be regarded as an independent material property on its own and not derivable from others [4]. Moreover, when the cavitating liquid is also corrosive, such as one containing chloride ions or sulphide ions, the material loss is not purely mechanical in nature because corrosion also comes into play. The simultaneous existence of mechanical erosion and electrochemical corrosion is a common scenario for engineering alloys used in marine environments, such as pump impellers and valves. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the effects of erosion and corrosion are in general not additive owing to the interaction between them. The overall damage arising from erosion and corrosion including the interaction between them is termed cavitation erosion corrosion. The relative signicance of corrosion, erosion, and the interaction between them depend on the material/environment system. In fact, the interaction in the case of metallic materials can be synergistic or inhibitive [5]. The nature of the interaction is determined by a number of factors, the more important ones being the passivity of the metal surface, the adherence of the corrosion product, the metallurgical state of the metal, the signicance of the diffusion of dissolved oxygen, the presence of aggressive ions and the intensity of cavitation. These factors would determine the mode of corrosion and the rate of erosion corrosion loss [68]. Tomlinson and Talks [7] studied the cavitation erosioncorrosion of various types of cast iron in 3% NaCl solution, and found that the fractional weight loss due to pure corrosion ranged from 1 to 10% while that due to corrosion-induced erosion ranged from 16 to 90%. In the study of the synergistic effect of cavitaTable 1 Nominal chemical compositions of various alloys (wt.%) Alloys Copper Brass Bronze Mild steel 1050 Tool steelW1 Cast iron SS 316L SS 304 SS Zeron 100
a

tion erosion and corrosion for copper and cupro-nickel in seawater, Wood and Fry [8] concluded that synergism was most marked when cavitation erosion occurred in the presence of mild corrosion, and was responsible for 50% of the overall penetration depth. However, studies on the relative importance of erosion/ corrosion synergism in stainless steels, an important class of engineering alloys, have not been reported. It was pointed by Vyas and Hannson [5] that for stainless steels, because of the existence of the passive lm, cavitation might accelerate or decelerate corrosion, depending on the intensity of cavitation and the metallurgical state of the stainless steel specimens. Fractional contributions of corrosion and synergism to overall mass loss were not given. Moreover studies on the synergism between erosion and corrosion were usually carried out under different conditions by different authors, making results difcult to compare. In view of the reasons pointed out in the brief review above, the present study aims at assessing the relative importance of erosion, corrosion and the synergism between them in the overall cavitation erosioncorrosion damage of various engineering alloys, including stainless steels, in 3.5% NaCl solution at 23C.

2. Experimental details

2.1. Materials and specimen preparation

The alloys studied include super duplex stainless steel Zeron 100, austenitic stainless steels AISI 304 and 316L, copper, brass (Cu40%Zn), bronze (Cu10%Sn), mild steel 1050, tool steel W1 and grey cast iron. The nominal chemical compositions for these alloys are shown in Table 1. The raw materials were in the form of round bar and machined to at-end studs of diameter 12.7 mm and thickness 3.4 mm for cavitation test and threaded for attachment to the tip of the transducer horn of the cavitation facility. The specimens for electrochemical corrosion test were in the form of discs

Fe bal. bal. bal. bal. bal. bal.

Cr 0.2 0.15 0.2 17.6 18.4 25.6

Ni 0.2 11.2 8.7 7.2

Mo 0.1 2.5 4.0

Mn 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.6 0.6

Cu bal. bal. bal. 0.8 0.4 1.4 2.1 0.7

Zn 40.1 0.4 1.7 0.5

Sn 0.1 0.1 9.7

Ca 0.5 0.7 3.6 0.03 0.08 0.03

Na 0.2

P 0.04 0.6 0.1

S 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.1

Si 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3

W 0.15 0.8

Maximum values.

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

Table 2 Mechanical properties and stacking fault energy of various alloys Alloys Microstructure Hardness (HRB) Tensile strength (N mm2) 110 881 0.2% Yield strength (N mm2) 621 Engineering strain energya Ultimate resilienceb (N mm2) 24 Youngs modulus (N mm2) 8815 Elongation (%) SFEc (mJ m2)

Grey cast iron Mild steel 1050 Tool steel W1

Copper Brass Bronze 316L 304 Zeron 100

Graphite in pearlite Ferrite and pearlite Martensite with very ne carbide distribution a a+b a+b Austenite Austenite Austenitic island in ferritic matrix

79 96 81

151

6 25

39 74 73 84 94 103

285 452 539 619 619 768

275 340 510 550 587 645

66 92 145 239 258 255

7 7 14 12 17 14

4431 8510 7304 9094 9820 14 190

28 24 32 45 46 39

55 5 25 15

Total area under stressstrain curve. Area under elastic portion of stressstrain curve. c Stacking fault energy.
b

147

148

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

Table 3 Rate of corrosion, cavitation erosion resistance and cavitation erosioncorrosion resistance Alloys 3.5% NaCl solution Density (g cm3) Grey cast iron Mild steel 1050 Tool steel W1 Copper Brass Bronze SS 316L SS 304 SS Zeron 100 7.15 7.85 7.84 8.94 8.53 8.80 8.00 7.90 7.84 ic (mA cm2) 3.27 12.00 6.50 2.00 1.20 1.00 0.38 0.38 0.21 C (103 mm h1) 4.95 15.90 8.60 2.65 1.68 1.31 0.43 0.45 0.24 Rc (h mm1) 202 649 116 377 595 763 2326 2222 4167 T= MDPR (mm h1) 0.38 0.13 0.15 0.64 0.29 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.01 Rec (h mm1) 2.63 8.33 6.67 1.56 3.45 5.00 14.29 16.67 100.00 Distilled water E= MDPR (mm h1) 0.28 0.03 0.11 0.62 0.26 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.01 Re (h mm1) 3.57 33.33 9.09 1.61 3.85 5.00 14.29 16.67 100.00

of diameter 12.7 mm and thickness 3.4 mm. The surface of the specimens were all polished by 600 grit silicon carbide paper. The mechanical properties of the alloys obtained from the stress strain curves are shown in Table 2.

2.3. Electrochemical measurements

Polarisation studies were carried out to investigate the electrochemical corrosion behaviour of various alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution. Potentiodynamic polarisation scans were carried out using an EG&G PARC 273 corrosion system according to the ASTM Standard G5-94 [10]. The solution was maintained at 2391C open to air. A constant potential scan rate of 5 mV s 1 was used in all experiments. All potentials were measured with respect to a saturated calomel electrode (SCE, 0.244 V versus SHE at 25C) as the reference electrode. Two parallel graphite rods served as the counter electrode for current measurement. All data were recorded after an initial delay time of 30 min for the specimen to reach a steady state. The corrosion current densities were determined from the polarisation curves using the Tafel extrapolation method. The corrosion or penetration rates (C, as shown in Table 3) of various alloys were calculated by the following equation according to the ASTM Standard G102-89 [11]: corrosion rate=C =K(ic/z)EW (in mm h 1) where K is a constant= 3.73 10 4 mm g mA 1 cm 1 h 1; ic is the corrosion current density in mA cm 2; z is the density of the alloys in g cm 3 and EW is the alloys equivalent weight which is dened as follows: EW= %

2.2. Ca6itation testing

Cavitation erosion experiments were carried out using an ultrasonic cavitation facility with a 550 W ultrasonic probe conforming to ASTM Standard G3292 [9]. Cavitation tests were carried out in distilled water and 3.5% NaCl solution at a constant temperature of 239 1C and a vibratory frequency of 20 kHz and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 30 mm. Each test was completed in 4 h, which included eight intermittent periods every 30 min. After each test period, the weight loss of the specimens was measured. The mean depth of penetration (MDP) and mean depth of penetration rate (MDPR) were used to express the cavitation erosion loss and the loss rate of materials and they are calculated as below: MDP (mm) = DW/(10zA) MDPR (mm h
1

and

) =DW/(10zADt)

where DW is the weight loss at each time interval in mg, Dt is the time interval in hours, A is the surface area of specimen in cm2 and z is the density of specimen in g cm 3. In addition, the cavitation erosion resistance in distilled water (Re) or the cavitation erosion corrosion resistance in 3.5% NaCl solution (Rec) is dened as the reciprocal of the mean depth of penetration rate over a period of 4 h i.e.: Re (h mm 1)=(MDPR) 1 Rec (h mm 1)= (MDPR) 1 or

 
ni fi Wi

where fi is the mass fraction; ni is the valence and Wi is the atomic weight of the ith element in the alloys. EW is thus dimensionless. The mass fractions of various alloys are obtained from their typical compositions in Table 1. In addition, the corrosion resistance Rc is dened as the reciprocal of the corrosion rate, i.e.:

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

149

Rc (h mm 1)=(C) 1 In addition, free corrosion potential of specimens in 3.5% NaCl solution was measured under quiescent and cavitation conditions.

sioncorrosion resistance (Rec) in 3.5% NaCl solution are shown in Table 3. The following ranking of alloys in distilled water can be established: Zeron 100\ 1050\304\ 316L\ W1\ bronze \ brass\ grey cast iron\ Cu. This ranking in pure mechanical erosion (i.e. in distilled water) can be explained by the microstructure and mechanical properties of the alloys. The microstructure of grey cast iron consists of graphite akes in a matrix of lamellar pearlite as shown in Fig. 2(a). Grey cast iron is poorly resistant to cavitation erosion because of its brittle graphite ake which acts as stress concentrators and of its poor work hardening capacity [7]. Also, the presence of porosity is detrimental to the resistance to cavitation erosion. Ferrite is present in a higher proportion than pearlite in mild steel 1050 as shown in Fig. 2(b). Its cavitation erosion resistance is even higher than austenitic stainless steels 304 and 316L due to its high mechanical strength as shown in Table 2. The microstructures of copper and brass are shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d). Copper has the worst cavitation erosion resistance because of its inferior mechanical strength and high stacking fault energy (55 mJ m 2 [2]). For brass, the planar slip mode as a result of low stacking fault energy (5 mJ m 2 [12]) enhances its cavitation erosion resistance. Bronze has higher tensile strength properties and as a result, higher cavitation erosion resistance than brass. The response of the austenitic stainless steels to cavitation erosion is similar to their quasi-static mechanical behaviour. Austenite fails by ductile fracture mechanism. Their low stacking fault energy (25 mJ m 2 [2]) prevents recombination of partial dislocations necessary for cross-slip and thus planar slip is the predominant mode of deformation [13]. Austenitic stainless steel 304 has higher cavitation erosion resistance than austenitic stainless steel 316L owing to its higher martensitic transformability and work hardenability, and lower stacking fault energy, although both steels have similar mechanical strength [13]. The super duplex stainless steel Zeron 100 has the highest cavitation erosion resistance because of its superior mechanical properties and high work hardening rate [14].

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Ranking of Re of 6arious alloys in distilled water

The graphs of cumulative mean depth of penetration as a function of time for various alloys eroded in distilled water and 3.5% NaCl solution are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b) respectively. Within 4 h of exposure, the incubation, acceleration and attenuation periods were observed for cast iron, mild steel, tool steel, copper-based alloys whereas only the incubation and acceleration periods were observed for stainless steels. This clearly shows that the former group of alloys are less resistant to cavitation erosion than that of the latter one. The corresponding values of cavitation erosion resistance in distilled water (Re) and cavitation ero-

3.2. Ranking of Rec of 6arious alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution

The ranking of the alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution is as follows (Fig. 3): Zeron 100\ 304\ 316L\ 1050\W1\ bronze \ brass\ grey cast iron\ Cu.
Fig. 1. Cumulative MDP as a function of time for various alloys eroded in (a) distilled water and (b) 3.5% NaCl solution at 23C.

The ranking is similar to the previous one for Re except that the position of 1050 is changed. In a

150

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

Fig. 2. Microstructure of (a) grey cast iron;, graphite ake (A) in a matrix of lamellar pearlite (B); (b) mild steel, ferrite and pearlite (B); (c) copper; (d) brass (Cu 40%Zn), a and b phases; (e) austenitic stainless steel 316L and (f) super duplex stainless steel Zeron 100.

chloride environment, the cavitation erosion corrosion resistance of 1050 is much reduced because of its poor corrosion resistance. Thus, corrosion and synergistic effect become dominant and this will be discussed in the next part.

T= E+ C+ S where E is the erosion rate; C is the corrosion rate and S is the contribution arising from the synergistic effect of erosion and corrosion. T and E in the present study are given by values of MDPR obtained from cavitation tests in 3.5% NaCl solution and in distilled water respectively, since distilled water is non-corrosive and cavitation loss is entirely of mechanical origin. The corrosion rate C is obtained from the potentiodynamic polarisation curves (Fig. 4). Values of T, E and C for various alloys, expressed as mm h 1, are listed in Table 3 together values of the corresponding resistances Rec, Re and Rc.

3.3. Contribution of erosion, corrosion and their interaction to ca6itation erosion corrosion
When an alloy is exposed to a cavitating liquid which is corrosive, both mechanical erosion and electrochemical corrosion will contribute to the removal of material from the surface. The overall cavitation erosioncorrosion rate T may be expressed as:

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

151

The relative contributions of erosion, corrosion and synergism to the overall cavitation erosion corrosion are given in Table 4. It can be observed that the contribution of corrosion varies widely for different alloys. In this respect the alloys studied may be divided into three groups: (I) grey cast iron, mild steel and tool steel; (II) copper, brass and bronze; and (III) stainless steels. Among these three groups, the presence of chloride ions has the greatest effect on the cavitation damage in group (I) alloys, while group (III) alloys are least affected. In fact the contribution of corrosion and corrosionerosion synergism amounts to 28.5% for cast iron and 88.1% for mild steel, comparable with the results of Tomlinson and Talks [5], whereas for stainless steels, corrosion does not play a noticeable role. The difference in behaviours of these groups of alloy in NaCl solution is closely related to the nature and properties of the corrosion (or reaction) products formed, and the effects of cavitation. For steels and cast iron, the surfaces which had undergone cavitation attack in 3.5% NaCl solution became tarnished. The test solution became brown rapidly and contained black deposits. In distilled water, the surfaces of the specimens were not tarnished and remained clean and the solution was relatively clear. This observation showed the difference in corrosivity of distilled water and 3.5% NaC1 solution with respect to steels and cast iron, and that the corrosion product was non-adherent in a cavitating environment and hence unprotective. For copper and copper alloys, owing to the good corrosion resistance as indicated by the low corrosion current densities in 3.5% NaCl solution (Fig. 4(b)), the effect of corrosion and synergism was much lower than for group (I) alloys. The effect of cavitation on the free corrosion potential of brass is shown in Fig. 5(b). Cavitation shifted the free corrosion potential of brass in 3.5% NaCl solution in the active direction for about 60 mV. The effect of cavitation on the corrosion be-

Fig. 4. Potentiodynamic polarisation curves of (a) cast iron and steels; (b) copper, brass and bronze; (c) various stainless steels, in 3.5% NaCl solution (open to air) at 23C.

Fig. 3. Cavitation erosion resistance (Re) and cavitation erosion corrosion resistance (Rec) for various alloys.

haviour in general and on the corrosion potential in particular depends on the two competing effects of cavitation, namely, corrosion lm or product detachment and increase of mass transport [5]. Even for similar alloys the overall effect depends on experimental conditions. In fact, similar to the present study, Tretheway et al. [15] observed a noble shift in corrosion potential for a copper manganesealuminium bronze in seawater, while Al-Hashem et al. [16] noted an active shift for a cast nickelaluminium bronze in seawater. As pointed out in the introduction above, the relative importance of corrosion and corrosion erosion synergism in the cavitation erosioncorrosion of stainless

152

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

Table 4 Contribution of erosion (E), corrosion (C), interaction between corrosion and erosion (S) of various alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution Alloys Rate of damagea E Grey cast iron Mild steel 1050 Tool steel W1 Copper Brass Bronze SS 316L SS 304 SS Zeron 100
a b

% of damage C 0.005 0.016 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 0 Sb 0.095 0.086 0.021 0.017 0.028 0.009 0 0 0 T 0.38 0.13 0.15 0.64 0.29 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.01 E/T 73.7 21.5 78.6 96.8 98.7 95.0 100 100 100 C/T 1.3 12.3 6.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0 0 0 S/T 25.0 66.0 15.1 2.7 9.6 4.5 0 0 0

0.28 0.03 0.11 0.62 0.26 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.01

Note that damage rates less than 103 mm h1 are neglected in this Table. S= T(E+C).

Fig. 5. Free corrosion potential against time for various alloys in 3.5% NaCl solution at 23C under quiescent and cavitating conditions.

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154

153

Fig. 6. Electrochemical test for stainless steel 316L (a) free corrosion potential in 0.1 M KNO3 and (b) potentiodynarnic polarisation curves in 0.1 M KNO3 and 3.5% NaCl solution (open to air) at 23C.

steels has not been reported in the literature. On the other hand, the contribution of corrosion and synergism in liquidsolid impingement erosion in 3.5% NaCl solution have been reported [17]. Unlike the results in the present study, these authors reported a very substantial contribution of corrosion erosion synergism (17.8%) for stainless steel 316L. Thus it seems that erosioncorrosion induced by liquid solid impingement is different from cavitation erosion corrosion. Another reason for the high fraction of contribution from synergism might originate from the way of measuring pure erosion in these works. Instead of using distilled water to eliminate corrosivity, cathodic protection was employed. It is difcult to suppress corrosion and hydrogen evolution simultaneously. As the latter may exert a cushioning effect and hence reduce mechanical erosion, the relative contribution of synergism may be increased.

The effect of cavitation on the free corrosion potential for Zeron 100, 316L and 304 in 3.5% NaCl solution is shown in Fig. 5(ce). In all cases the free corrosion potential was shifted in the active direction when cavitation was present, similar to the results of Al-Hashem et al. [16]. However, the active shift under cavitation does not mean that the alloy was actively corroding. In fact, there was no difference between the rate of mass loss for stainless steels in the cavitation tests in distilled water and in 3.5% NaCl solution. When cavitation was on, the passive lm was destroyed together with erosion. However, the metal surface repassivated rapidly. Thus at steady state, the metal surface was covered by a passive lm which was thinner than that under quiescent condition. This was further supported by the fact that the values of the free corrosion potentials of the stainless steels under cavitation were still in the passive range. It is well known that chloride ions will induce pitting corrosion in stainless steels in quiescent conditions. Under cavitation, stirring of the electrolyte and lm destruction occur simultaneously [5], both upsetting the local environment for pit growth. Thus the effect of cavitation remains mechanical even in the presence of chloride ions. As a further support of this point the free corrosion potential of 316L in 0.1M KNO3 solution was monitored under quiescent and cavitating conditions, with the result shown in Fig. 6(a). The polarisation curves of stainless steel 316L in both NaCl and KNO3 solutions are shown in Fig. 6(b). The effect of chloride ions in inducing pitting under quiescent condition is obvious in contrast the nitrate ions. The 0.1 M KNO3 solution functioned as a supporting electrolyte, meaning that it was conducting but not corrosive. The free corrosion potential dropped under cavitation, similar to the case of NaCl solution. Thus in a cavitating liquid chloride ions do not play an active role in the erosion or corrosion process in the case of stainless steels. 4. Conclusions The alloys studied in 3.5% NaCl solution at 23C are ranked in terms of Rec as follows: Zeron 100\ 304\ 316L\ 1050\ W1\ bronze \ brass\ grey cast iron\ Cu The ranking of resistance of the alloys to cavitation erosioncorrosion may be explained in terms of the microstructure, mechanical strength, work hardenability, martensitic transformability, stacking fault energy and also corrosion resistance. Corrosion only plays a minor role in the overall cavitation erosioncorrosion (0.11.8%) for copper-based alloys. For the steels and cast iron, corrosion/erosion synergism is very signicant, amounting to 78% of the overall cavitation ero-

154

C.T. Kwok et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A290 (2000) 145154 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] A. Karimi, J.L. Martin, Int. Metal. Rev. 31 (1986) 1. B. Vyas, I.L.H. Hannson, Corros. Sci. 30 (1990) 761. G. Engelberg, J. Yahalom, E. Kalir, Corros. Sci. 25 (1985) 871. W.J. Tomlinson, M.G. Talks, Tribol. Int. 24 (1991) 67. R.J.K. Wood, S.A. Fry, J. Fluids Eng. 111 (1989) 271. Standard Test Method of Vibratory Cavitation Erosion Test, G32-92, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1995). Standard Test Method of Potentiodynamic Test, G5-94, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1995). Standard Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from Electrochemical Measurement, G102-89, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1995). W.F. Smith, Structure and Properties of Engineering Alloys, second ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993, p. 250. C.J. Heathcock, B.E. Protheroe, A. Ball, Wear 81 (1982) 311. C.T. Kwok, H.C. Man, L.K. Leung, Corrosion/96, NACE, Colorado, USA, 1996, Paper no. 514. K.R. Trethewey, T.J. Haley, C.C. Clark, Br. Corros. J. 23 (1988) 55. A. Al-Hashem, P.G. Caceres, H.M. Shalaby, Corrosion 51 (1995) 311. A. Neville, T. Hodgkiess, J.T. Dallas, Wear 186 187 (1995) 497.

sioncorrosion loss in mild steel. Corrosion and corrosion/erosion synergism plays a negligible role for stainless steels.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Research Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the provision of a research grant (No. 340/737) and Weir Metals (UK) for the supply of Zeron 100.
[10] [11]

[12]

References
[1] F.G. Hammitt, Cavitation and Multiphase Flow Phenomena, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980, p. 222. [2] R.H. Richman, W.P. McNaughton, Wear 140 (1990) 63. [3] J.W. Tichler, A.W.J. de Gee, H.C. van Elst, Erosion, Wear, and Interfaces with Corrosion, STP 567, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1974, pp. 56.

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]