Wear 225229 1999.

510516

The effect of velocity on the solid particle erosion rate of alloys

B.A. Lindsley ) , A.R. Marder
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Lehigh Uniersity, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Abstract
Velocity is a critical test variable in erosion, and can easily overshadow changes in other variables, such as target material, impact
angle, etc. The effect of velocity on erosion rate was studied in 7030 brass cold worked and annealed. and FeC martensite
as-quenched and tempered. and it was found, as previously shown, that erosion rate is dependent on velocity by a power law, given by
ER s kV n. However, the velocity exponent n was found to be target material independent and is governed by test conditions, including
particle characteristics and the erosion test apparatus. In addition, n is not dependent on the erosion mechanism. Results from tested
as-quenched martensite and tempered martensite showed that the exponent is approximately 2.9 for both materials, even though
martensite eroded by a brittle cracking mechanism, while tempered martensite eroded by a plastic deformation mechanism. No difference
in the erosion rate relationship was found between the fully annealed and the 70% cold worked brass. The exponent n was found to
change over time with nominally the same erosion test conditions, indicating that n is very sensitive to slight changes in erodent particles
andror the test apparatus, and that it must be measured periodically if erosion results generated at different times are to be compared. 1
q 1999 Published by Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solid particle erosion; Particle velocity; Velocity exponent; Erosion test methodology

1. Introduction
The definition of erosion by the American Society for
Testing and Materials is the progressive loss of original
material from a solid surface due to the mechanical interaction between that surface and a fluid, a multi component
fluid, or impinging liquid or solid particles w1x. The
erosion rate of a material is dependent on several factors,
including target material properties and erosion test conditions of angle, velocity, temperature, particle flux, and
erodent. Erosion rate has been shown w25x to follow an
empirical power law relationship with velocity:
Erosion Rate s kV n ,
where V is velocity, k is a constant, and n has values
between 2 and 3.5 for metallic materials. Brittle materials
tend to have a larger n range, from 2 to 6.5 w2x. McCabe et
al. w4x have shown that an n value of 2 fits erosion data for
various steel morphologies, including martensite and

Corresponding author
Prime Novelty: The velocity exponent n is independent of both target
material and erosion mechanism and is highly dependent on erosion test
conditions for the materials tested.
1

spheroidite of 1078 and 10 105, at 3 different impingement

angles. Additional tests have found an n value of 2.25 for
stainless steel w5x. An n value of 2 would be expected
based on the impacting particle kinetic energy, given by
1r2 mV 2 . A satisfactory explanation for the deviation of n
from 2 has not yet been given in the literature, nor has the
cause of n varying from one test apparatus to another for
the same target material been addressed. Values of n less
than 2 have not been found to date in solid particle
erosion, although values as low as 0.8 have been found in
erosioncorrosion tests w6x. The values of n greater than 2
may be caused by target material properties that affect
rebound, such as hardness, or by particle variables, such as
size, shape or composition. For instance, different particle
shapes result in the energy of the particle to be transferred
to the target over a different volume, thereby causing
different energy densities in the target material. Erosion
rate has been found to be dependent on particle shape w7x,
however the effect of shape on n is unknown. Different
particle sizes will have similar effects. These variables
may in turn influence the velocity exponent. Another
factor, temperature, has been shown to affect the velocity
exponent. A transition in n with increasing temperatures
has been found in fluidized bed type testing w6x. The
transitions found were associated with different wastage

0043-1648r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Published by Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 9 9 . 0 0 0 8 5 - X

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

regimes, i.e., erosion dominated, erosioncorrosion dominated, and corrosion dominated, as the surface changed
from a ductile alloy to a brittle scale. However, the
effects of corrosion go beyond the scope of this paper and
will not be considered further.
The velocity exponent n is dependent on test conditions
and particle variables. Sundararajan and Shewmon w8x
tabulated results from a number of researchers and found
that, for a given researcher, the velocity exponent increased as particle size increased. As the particle size of
the glass erodent being used to erode Al alloy 6061-T6
was increased from 230 mm to 550 mm and 650 mm, the
value of n increased from 2.3 to 3.0 and 3.3, respectively.
Another researcher found that as the size of quartz erodent
being used to erode 11% Cr steel was increased from 25
mm to 60 mm and 200 mm, the n value increased from 2.0
to 2.1 and 2.3, respectively. The same researcher also
found that a titanium alloy and a nickel based superalloy
eroded with the same sized quartz erodent 150 mm. had
the same velocity exponent 2.3.. It was also found that
1095 steel with a hardness of 66 HRC, 63 HRC, and 30
HRC had an n value of 3.0, 3.0, and 2.9, respectively,
when eroded with 273 mm quartz, and that there was
minimal effect of hardness or target mechanical properties
on n. These results indicate that n is dependent on particle
variables, and not necessarily on target material variables.
However, the effect of different test apparatus on n has not
been established.
The objective of this paper is twofold: First, to develop
a test methodology that can precisely measure and control
particle velocity and minimize differences in impact conditions, and secondly to determine what factors control
andror influence n. Since erosion rate is dependent on a
power law relationship with velocity, it is critical that not
only V be measured precisely, but that n is well defined.
Once these two variables are determined for a particular
test set-up, subsequent studies can be conducted, such as
determining the effect of target material microstructure and
mechanical properties on erosion rate.

sion samples were cut and ground to 3r8Y by 3r8Y "

0.005Y . The samples were then ultrasonically cleaned in
acetone for 5 min, dried, and weighed to 0.1 mg.
A schematic of the erosion tester can be seen in Fig. 1.
A pressure regulator and a flow meter control the amount
of air flowing through the system. Erodent is fed into the
air stream with a screw feeder driven by a variable speed
motor. A storage hopper sits above the feeder and both
employ gas tight seals to ensure constant feed rates which
are independent of air flow and velocity. The screw feeder
can handle particles ranging in size from - 50 microns to
; 1.5 mm. The particles and gas are forced into the SiC
acceleration tube which measures 1.5 m in length and 15
mm in diameter. A long acceleration tube is used to ensure
that the particles have reached the velocity of the gas prior
to impact.
Particle velocity is measured with a TSI Laser Doppler
Velocimeter LDV. upon exiting the acceleration tube,
Fig. 2. This technique allows for direct measurement of the
particle velocity without disturbing the particle flow. Average particle velocity and standard deviation are measured.
Maximum measurable velocity is approximately 85 mrs
with the current system. Additional information regarding
the erosion apparatus can be found in Ref. w9x.
Alumina erodent 96% Al 2 O 3 , 3% TiO 2-46 grit., which
has a size range from approximately 300 mm to 550 mm,
was purchased from United Abrasives and was sieved to
between 355 mm and 425 mm to minimize the size distribution. This sieving was found to be critical, as with each
100 lb bag of alumina, the size distribution varied, and
therefore so did the erosion rate. The narrower range
minimized the error in erosion rate associated with the
different sized as-received material.
2.1. Erosion test procedure
Six velocities were chosen to test the spheroidized and
martensitic FeC alloy: 20, 30, 40, 48, 55, and 64 mrs.

2. Experimental procedure
An Fe0.6%C binary alloy and 7030 brass were used
to study the effect of material variables on the velocity
exponent. Samples of the ironcarbon alloy were austenitized at 8508C for 45 min and water quenched. One sample
was sectioned and metallographically prepared to ensure
martensite had formed. Some samples were tested in this
conditions, while other water quenched samples were tempered at 6908C for 6 = 10 5 s, which resulted in a
spheroidized structure with an average carbide size of 1.85
mm. The tempered samples were encapsulated to prevent
decarburization. The 7030 brass samples were used in
two conditions: annealed and 70% cold worked. The ero-

511

Fig. 1. Schematic of the test apparatus used for erosion research.

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

512

Fig. 2. Schematic of the Laser Doppler Velocimeter.

Velocity measurements were made during each erosion

test using the LDV. Both the quenched and quenched and
tempered samples were tested under the same test conditions, by alternating the samples throughout the test, for
each velocity. Four velocities were chosen to test the brass
samples: 20, 30, 40, and 50 mrs. The water quenched
sample was also run with the brass samples as a reference
material to compare tests. Erosion sample weight loss was
measured to 0.1 mg after the samples were cleaned in
acetone for 5 min using an ultrasonic cleaner. The erosion
process was repeated a minimum of five times for each
sample until a steady state erosion rate could be accurately
determined. Erosion samples were cross-sectioned after
testing, mounted in epoxy, and metallographically prepared using standard techniques. These samples were used
to analyze the erosion surface and the sub-surface damage
in the material by optical and microhardness techniques.
Carbide size was determined using the LECO 2001
quantitative image analysis system. Microhardness measurements of the change in hardness with depth from the
eroded surface were performed with a 10 g load and a
Knoop indenter oriented parallel with the eroded surface.
Indents were made every 10 mm. The brass and the water
quenched samples were hardness tested, while the tempered alloy was not, due to the large scatter in the measurements resulting from the carbide in the material. An
average of at least six microhardness profiles was taken for
each material.

impact with the sample. A bell shaped curve of velocity

versus distance normal to the particle stream can be seen.
The particle stream spreads out after exiting the acceleration tube and the particles on the outer edges lose momentum. The velocity quickly drops off outside a radius of
0.45 cm 0.175 in.. The velocimeter also measures number
of counts data rate., which can be used to measure
relative particle fluxes. It was found that relative particle
flux versus distance showed a similar trend to that of
velocity See Fig. 3.. As a result, a sample size of 0.95
cm = 0.95 cm 3r8Y = 3r8Y . was chosen so that the sample resided in the high velocity, high flux portion of the
stream.
This test points out one of the problems with using a
sample that is larger than the erosive stream size, where
the sample experiences the entire range of particle velocities and erosion rates. The different erosion rates can cause
a hole or crater to form, which then changes impingement
angle and rebound characteristics of the particles. Tests
that result in deep craters should be avoided as problems
with different velocities and impact angles are complicated
by particles trying to escape the crater, interfering or
shielding the specimen from the impacting particles. A
steady state erosion rate that is constant across the sample
surface will not be obtained in this condition. This also
leads to the question of what velocity should be reported.
If average velocity is measured, it underestimates the
erosiveness of the high velocity particles, since velocity
has a power not linear. relationship with erosion. If peak
velocity is reported, it will overestimate the erosion rate.
Therefore, one should attempt to minimize the difference
in velocity across the erosion sample.
3.2. Material effects on elocity exponent
The effect of particle velocity on erosion rate was
studied on the Fe0.6%C alloy in both the water quenched

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Velocity measurement
It was determined that great care must be taken when
measuring particle velocity. Since erosion rate is related to
V n, where n is 2 or more, any changes in erosion rate due
to material effects can easily be masked by a small change
in velocity. The velocity across the erodent stream was
measured to determine how velocity changed in the abrasive stream. The LDV system was mounted on stage
micrometers that were used to traverse the laser beam
across the erodent stream. Fig. 3 shows the velocity profile
of the particles exiting the acceleration tube just before

Fig. 3. Plot of the particle velocity and data rate across the erodent
stream. The vertical lines indicate the distance across the width and the
diagonal of the erosion sample.

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

Fig. 4. Erosion weight loss vs. time plot for the WQ Fe0.6%C alloy.
Erosion conditions: velocity: variable; impact angle: 908; temperature:
258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

513

Fig. 6. Erosion rate vs. particle velocity for the Fe0.6%C alloy in the
WQ and WQ&T conditions. Erosion conditions: impact angle: 908;
temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

WQ. and water quenched and tempered WQ & T. conditions. Fig. 4 shows the weight change versus time for the
WQ condition. An increase in slope in the weight loss vs.
time plot can be seen for increasing velocities. A similar
result can be seen in Fig. 5, which gives the weight change
results for the WQ & T material. The standard deviation in
the slope of the lines was found to be a maximum of 3%
for the 12 tests run, with most having a standard deviation
of less than 1.5%. The slopes were then plotted versus
velocity on a loglog scale to determine the effect of
velocity on the erosion rate See Fig. 6.. A power law
relationship is evident for both materials, and the exponential variable n is equal to 2.85 " 0.2 and 2.94 " 0.15 for
the WQ and WQ & T conditions, respectively. No significant difference in slope for the erosion ratervelocity equation logErosion Rate. s n logVelocity. was found between the two sample conditions. Recall from the literature
w25x that values between 2 and 3.5 are common. However, the erosion rates for the WQ & T samples were
always higher than the WQ samples, and this difference

may be due to the different erosion mechanisms between

the two, which will be discussed later.
Similar tests for the brass samples in the annealed and
the 70% CW conditions were performed. The Fe0.6%C
WQ sample was also tested with these materials as a
reference material. Fig. 7 shows the erosion rate versus
velocity for the three materials. No difference in erosion
rate was found between the two brass samples. The brass
had a much higher erosion rate than the WQ FeC alloy,
but the n values were the same. The n value for the brass
samples was 2.62 and the value for the WQ sample was
2.64.
It was noted that the n values for the WQ samples
changed from 2.85 to 2.64 between the two sets of tests.
These tests were run several months apart, so there were
slight differences in the erosion test that affected the n
value. First, the acceleration tube wears away with use and
may change the particle flux impacting the specimen.
Secondly, and more importantly, the particles used for the

Fig. 5. Erosion weight loss vs. time plot for the WQ&T Fe0.6%C alloy
with an average carbide size of 1.85 mm. Erosion conditions: velocity:
variable; impact angle: 908; temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ;
feed rate: 90 grmin.

Fig. 7. Erosion rate vs. particle velocity for WQ Fe0.6%C and brass
with 0% and 70% cold work. Erosion conditions: impact angle: 908;
temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

514

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

is hard and brittle in FeC alloys. Cracking at the surface

along packet boundaries and prior austenite grain boundaries is apparent on both samples. No plastic deformation
is visible, and the erosion surfaces are free of embedded
debris. Fig. 8b shows a fragment A. that has cracked off
of the surface and would soon be removed by subsequent
particles had the test not been stopped. The erosion mechanism appears to be controlled by cracking at high angle
boundaries in the material. No significant differences were
observed between the two velocity conditions. Fig. 9 shows
the cross-sections of the WQ & T samples at 30 and 64
mrs. This microstructure is characterized by a ductile
ferrite matrix with carbides at grain boundaries. Significant
plastic deformation is evident at the surface for both
conditions, with flow lines and folding present about the
impact craters. Embedded particles were visible See Fig.
9a. and no cracking was observed. Again, no significant
differences were observed between the two velocity conditions. The surface deformation appears to be an important
aspect of the erosion mechanism for the tempered materials.

Fig. 8. SEM micrographs of cross-sectioned WQ Fe0.6%C alloy eroded

at a. 30 mrs and b. 64 mrs. Erosion conditions: impact angle: 908;
temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

brass sample testing had been used previously for a different erosion test. While the particles are re-sieved after use
to account for particle fragmentation and change in size, it
does not address changes in particle shape. While this flaw
in experimental procedure was discovered after testing
erodent is no longer reused for erosion testing., it pointed
out that the n value is very much dependent on test
conditions. It has been shown that particle shape affects
erosion rate w6x, but its effect on n is unknown. If slight
changes in one test rig can produce changes in n of 0.2, it
is not hard to imagine what the effect of a completely
different test apparatus would be utilizing different erodents. This may begin to explain why a whole range of ns
have been found for similar materials w25,7x.
3.3. Erosion mechanism
The FeC samples were cross-sectioned and prepared
to reveal the erosion surface. Fig. 8 shows the surface
appearance for the WQ sample at 30 and 64 mrs. The WQ
samples are characterized by a martensitic structure, which

Fig. 9. SEM micrographs of cross-sectioned WQ&T Fe0.6%C alloy

eroded at a. 30 mrs and b. 64 mrs. Erosion conditions: impact angle:
908; temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

Clearly, the erosion mechanism is different for the two

FeC morphologies. The tempered material had a higher
erosion rate at all velocities tested. However, the slope of
the erosion rate vs. velocity plot is the same for both
materials, thus the effect of velocity on erosion is insensitive to the different structures. McCabe et al. w4x also found
similar values for n for both martensite and tempered
martensite in 0.8% and 1.05%C alloys.
The erosion mechanism of the brass samples was similar to the WQ & T samples. Plastic flow was evident on the
surface, with material being folded over and particles
embedded in the surface. No difference in the eroded
surface or erosion mechanism was found for the two brass
conditions, even though the samples had different grain
structures highly strained, elongated grains from cold
working vs. equiaxed grains after annealing..
3.4. Microhardness
Microhardness measurements were made on the brass
and the WQ FeC samples. The WQ sample showed no
change in hardness at the eroded surface and the bulk
material. The average hardness of this material was 1260
Khn 10 g load.. The brass sample had an average surface
hardness of 225 Khn, Fig. 10. This difference in hardness
between the brass and the FeC alloy, along with other
mechanical properties, is probably the reason that the brass
samples had higher erosion rates. Even so, the velocity
exponent did not change between the two materials. It was
interesting to note that the 0% CW annealed. brass samples worked hardened at the surface to 225 Khn, as its base
hardness was only 170 Khn, and the 70% CW sample
appeared to soften at the surface, as its base hardness was
approximately 245 Khn. Surface hardness appears to be
critical in the steady state erosion rate of a material. This
has also been found by other researchers w10,11x.

Fig. 10. Knoop microhardness profiles for the 0% and 70% cold worked
brass samples, tested at 20 and 50 mrs. Erosion conditions: impact angle:
908; temperature: 258C; erodent: 355 mm Al 2 O 3 ; feed rate: 90 grmin.

515

4. Discussion
Given the power law relationship of velocity on erosion
rate, velocity measurement must be precise and the test
apparatus must be capable of reproducing a test velocity
with little error. Ideally, velocity would be measured during each test, which an LDV system allows the operator to
do. Also, the system should be designed so the particles all
reach the intended velocity, regardless of size. This will
narrow the velocity distribution and make measurement
and testing more accurate. Finally, the erosion sample
should be located within the particle stream and confined
to the part of the stream with a nearly constant velocity.
This should eliminate errors from different particle velocities and those from different impact angles if a crater is
formed. Once these conditions are met, it is critical that the
erosion rate measurement be properly made by avoiding
the effects of incubation time. Several tests at different
times should be run to determine the end of incubation and
to measure the steady state erosion rate. This is especially
important when evaluating the effects of velocity, since
incubation time is related to particle velocity. It can be
seen from Fig. 5 that at a velocity of 20 mrs, incubation
time is approximately 30 min, whereas at 64 mrs, the
incubation time is nearly zero, so an erosion rate measurement that does not account for incubation will lead to
lower erosion rates at the lower velocities and an n value
that is incorrect.
As stated earlier, erosion rate is given by kV n , where n
can vary from 2 to 6.5. This is expected, since the particle
kinetic energy is 1r2 mV 2 . If the kinetic energy term is
separated out, the resulting equation is:
ER s kV 2qm. ,
where k is a variable that contains a target material
dependent term, V is the particle velocity, and m s n y 2.
is test conditionsrtest apparatus dependent. It has been
shown that m is dependent on the test conditionsrtest
apparatus in the comparison of the two WQ samples run at
different times, and by others w7x investigating the effect of
particle size. Since m is determined by the erosion test
apparatus and the erodent particle, m should be checked
periodically to ensure the test conditions have not changed,
especially if the erosion results tested at different times are
to be compared.
Once m or n. has been well defined, material comparisons can be made. This is a time consuming process, and
can be avoided if a well conceived test matrix is used in
which all samples are tested together. By testing every
sample in the test matrix for a given time interval, and
repeating this process until enough data points are gathered
to establish the erosion rate, it is known that all of the
samples are tested under the same erosion conditions. This
type of matrix was used for each set of experiments in this
study. While this is useful for single sets of experiments

516

B.A. Lindsley, A.R. Marderr Wear 225229 (1999) 510516

and groups of experiments run sequentially, it is often the

case that comparisons between different sets of data tested
at different times will be made to avoid rerunning of tests.
In this case, m must be determined for each set of data to
avoid erroneous conclusions, such as those that could have
been made between the two sets of data used in this study.
When the WQ and WQ & T samples were compared, the
coefficient m was the same and the WQ sample was more
erosion resistant than the WQ & T sample at all velocities.
However, had the WQ data from the brass data set been
used to compare with the WQ & T data, one would have
erroneously concluded that the WQ & T sample was more
erosion resistant at the velocities tested. Clearly, slight
changes in the coefficient m can easily overshadow the
effects of target material and microstructure, and must be
determined for comparisons to be made.

5. Conclusions
Velocity is a critical test variable in erosion, as the
effects of different velocities easily overshadow changes in
the target material. A change in erosion rate of one and a
half orders of magnitude was achieved by changing the
velocity from 20 to 64 mrs. These tests clearly demonstrate the importance of particle velocity and the ability to
measure it during the erosion test, especially if one wishes
to study the microstructural effects of a material. The
significant findings of this work are as follows.
1. The velocity exponent n is related to test conditions,
and not target material properties, for the alloys tested.
When different materials brass vs. water quenched Fe
0.6%C alloy, WQ vs. WQ & T Fe0.6%C alloy. were
tested on the same date, the value of n was the same,
thereby being material independent. When the same material WQ Fe0.6%C alloy. was tested at different dates
under slightly different test conditions, the value of n
changed. This indicates that n is dependent on test conditions.
2. The velocity exponent n is not dependent on the
erosion mechanism for the materials tested. Results from
the testing of as-quenched martensite and quenched and
tempered martensite showed that the exponent is approximately 2.9 for both materials, even though as-quenched
martensite eroded by a brittle cracking mechanism, while
quenched and tempered martensite eroded by a plastic
deformation mechanism. However, the erosion rate is dependent on the erosion mechanism, as martensite was more
erosion resistant at each velocity as compared to the
tempered structure.

3. No difference in erosion rate was found between the

fully annealed and the 70% cold worked brass samples.
Although the base hardness between the two samples is
significantly different, the eroded surface hardness for both
samples was the same, which caused the erosion rates to
be the same.
4. Care must be taken to fully characterize the velocity
of the erodent stream and ensure the sample is tested under
a nearly constant velocity across the entire eroded surface.
The formation of a crater on the sample surface, due to the
different particle fluxes and velocity, should be avoided as
it will result in a range of impingement angles and may
increase interactions between particles impacted the sample and those escaping the crater. A steady state erosion
rate that is constant across the sample surface will not be
obtained in this condition. Therefore, to test one set of
erosion conditions, the sample should be placed within the
particle stream under nearly constant velocities and fluxes.
5. It is not sufficient to only measure velocity when an
erosion test is run. The exponent n must be determined if
data from different tests are to be compared. It cannot be
assumed that n does not change over time for a given set
of test conditions, since slight changes in n can lead to
large errors. Had the WQ sample tested with the brass
been compared to the WQ & T sample tested earlier, it
would have been incorrectly concluded that the WQ sample had a higher erosion rate. Therefore, the exponent n
should be periodically measured over time to determine if
changes in the erosion test apparatus or test conditions
have occurred.

References
w1x G40-92, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 3.02, ASTM
1992. 160.
w2x C.M. Preece, N.H. Macmillan, in: R.A. Huggins Ed.., Erosion,
Annual Review of Materials Science 7 1977. 95.
w3x T.H. Kosel, Solid Particle Erosion, ASM Handbook, Vol. 18, ASM
International, 1992.
w4x L.P. McCabe, G.A. Sargent, H. Conrad, Wear 105 1985. 257.
w5x T. Foley, A.V. Levy, Wear 91 1983. 45.
w6x M.M. Stack, F.H. Stott, G.C. Wood, Journal de Physique IV 3
1993. 687.
w7x S. Bahadur, R. Badruddin, Wear 138 1990. 189.
w8x G. Sundararajan, P.G. Shewmon, Wear 84 1983. 237.
w9x B. Lindsley, K. Stein, A.R. Marder, Measurement Science and
Technology 6 1995. 1169.
w10x B. Levin, J. DuPont, A.R. Marder, Wear 181 1995. 810.
w11x Y. Oka, I.M. Hutchings, Corrosion Engineering 39 1990. 677.