Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Parametric study of abrasive wear of CoCrC based ame sprayed

coatings by Response Surface Methodology
Satpal Sharma
School of Engineering, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 14 January 2014
Accepted 4 March 2014
Available online 12 March 2014

Co base powder (EWAC1006 EE) was modied with the addition of 20%WC and the same was further
modied by varying amounts of chromium carbide (0, 10 and 20 wt%) in order to develop three different
coatings. Microstructure, elemental mapping XRD, porosity and hardness analysis of the three coatings
was carried out. The effect of CrC concentration (C), load (L), abrasive size (A), sliding distance (S) and
temperature (T) on abrasive wear of these ame sprayed coatings was investigated by Response Surface
Methodology and an abrasive wear model was developed. A comparison of modeled and experimental
results showed 59% error.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Coating
Abrasive wear
Microhardness
Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

1. Introduction
The progressive deterioration of metallic surfaces due to
various types of wear (abrasive, erosive, adhesive, corrosive and
chemical wear) in various industries (coal and hydro thermal
power plants, cement, automotive, chemical and cement industry)
leads to loss of plant operating efciency and frequent breakdown
of the components which in turn results in huge nancial losses to
the industry. The recognition of this fact has been the driving force
behind the continuing development of the surface modication
and surface coating technologies known as surface engineering.
The properties of these surface layers may be different from those
of the material as dictated by service requirements.
The cobalt base alloys have found a wide variety of tribological
applications for abrasive and adhesive wear resistance in many
industries such as aerospace, automotive, hydro and gas turbines
and cement industry. Some studies [16] report the effect of
processing techniques, carbide additions and their distribution
and post spray heat treatment on the hardness and abrasive wear
resistance of Co base coatings. The abrasive wear is inuenced by a
number of different factors such as the properties of the materials
(microstructure and hardness), the service conditions (applied
load and abrasive grit size) and environment (temperature and
humidity). High hardness and good resistance to abrasion of cobalt
based coatings are generally attributed to the presence of high
volume fraction of carbides. Increase in hardness of these alloys

E-mail address: satpal78sharma@gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2014.03.004
0301-679X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

with the addition of WC and TiC has been reported [7,8]. Maiti
et al. [9] reported that with addition of WC upto 20% in WCCoCr
coatings increases the hardness and abrasive wear rsistance and
further addition of WC increases hardness marginally. In the
present study, the Co base alloy was modied with WC and
varying amount of CrC additions (0%, 10% and 20%) to increase
the hardness and abrasive wear resistance of coatings.
In cement industry, various fans are used to transport alumina
and silica particles of 550 m size along with hot gases (temperature 393423 K). These solid particles travel along the fan blade
surface at a very low angle (o101). Abrasive wear has been
reported to simulate the low angle solid particle erosion conditions
[1013]. Cement industry is trying many types of coating materials
including cobalt base alloy. Therefore, in this work a cobalt base
alloy was selected for study and further developed for improved
abrasion and erosion performance. It has also been found from the
literature that most of the research on abrasive wear behavior of Co
base alloys was carried out considering single dimensional aspect of
applied wear conditions such as abrasive grit size and load only.
Data generated using traditional method of research using single
factor effect is valuable and detailed, but fails to indicate the effect
of their interactions of various test parameters on abrasive wear.
Therefore, a number of statistical methods have recently been
implemented in wear studies. These methods share the advantage
of facilitating research into the effects of different factors and
their interactions (combined effect), by limiting the number of
tests. Hence in this study an attempt has been made to study
the independent as well as combined effect of the factors
using fractional factorial design (Response Surface Methodology).

40

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

Based on the experimental data obtained an abrasive wear model

was developed to correlate the abrasive wear of the coatings in
terms of applied factors and their interactions. The validity of the
abrasive wear model was evaluated under different abrasive wear
conditions by comparing the experimental and modeled results.

The average of 25 areas of each coating has been used for porosity
measurement. Vickers hardness of the coating was measured using a
load of 5 kg and average of six readings of the coating was used for
study purpose. Scanning electron microscopy of the worn surfaces of
coatings was also carried out to identify the material removal
mechanisms under abrasive wear conditions.

2. Experimental procedure

2.3. Factorial design of experiment

2.1. Materials and methods

The vast amounts of data have been generated by the traditional

approach of experiment design in which one factor is varied at a
time (load and abrasive grit size). In this approach it is difcult to
evaluate the combined effects of applied factors. This is the main
reason why load has always been considered rst in wear research,
whilst other factors, e.g. abrasive grain size, sliding distance and
their combined effects (load and abrasive size, load and speed,
abrasive size and sliding distance), which may also be important,
have not been given the attention they deserve. The advantage of
the statistical method is obvious [12]. Thus RSM (Response Surface
Methodology) with fractional factorial design of experiments with
three levels of each factor has been used in the present study.
According to Rabinowicz's classic theory [21] that claims applied
load and hardness (depends upon composition) of materials are the
most important factors affecting the abrasion process, therefore,
both these factors were considered along with the abrasive size and
sliding distance in this study. Temperature is also taken as fth
factor in this study. Thus ve factors composition, load, abrasive
size, sliding distance and temperature were used in the present
study. These factors were designated as C (composition-% CrC
concentration), L (load-N), A (abrasive size-mm), sliding distance
(S) and temperature (T). The coded value of upper, middle and lower
level of the three factors is designated by 1, 0 and  1 respectively.
The actual and coded values (in parentheses) of various factors used
in the present study are shown in Table 3. The experimental design
matrix for different runs is shown in Table 4. The relation between
the actual and coded value of a factor is shown below:

The carbon steel substrate was used for deposition of modied

Co base alloy coatings. The substrate was degreased and roughened
to an average surface roughness of Ra 3.15 m (Rmax 18.2 m).
Surface roughness was measured by Mahr Perthometer (M2 409).
The nominal composition of substrate and commercially available
Co base powder (EWAC 1006EE) is shown in Table 1. This powder
was modied by adding 20 wt% WC. Further addition of 0, 10 and
20 wt% CrC was carried out to develop three different compositions
((1006EE 20 wt% WC0 wt% CrC), (1006EE20 wt% WC10 wt%
CrC) and (1006EE20 wt% WC20 wt% CrC)). In following sections
these modied compositions are designated by 0, 10 and 20 wt%
CrC coatings respectively. These compositions were deposited using
ame spraying process by Super Jet spray torch (L & T India). The
ame spraying was carried out using neutral ame of oxy-acetylene
gas where the pressures of oxygen and acetylene were maintained
at 0.3 MPa (3 kg f/cm2) and 0.12 MPa (1.2 kg f/cm2) respectively. The
substrate was preheated to 200710 1C. The spraying parameters
are shown in Table 2.
2.2. Characterization of coatings
Coated samples were cut transversely for microstructural characterization (SEM, SEM-LEO-435-VP, England), porosity and hardness.
The samples were polished using standard metallographic procedure
and etched with a chemical mixture of 3 parts HCl1 part HNO3. SEM
micrographs were used to study microstructure and worn surfaces.
The porosity was measured by the point counting method [1420].
Table 1
Chemical composition (wt%) of substrate and surfacing powder.
C
Substrate
0.20.22
1006EE Powder 3.03.5

Cr

Si

Fe

_
_
0.40.6 Balance
2830 56 0.20.5 _

Co

Coded value

Actual test conditions Mean test conditions

Range of test conditions=2

2.4. Wear test

Mn

_
0.40.8
Balance 0.50.7

Table 2
Flame spray parameters.
Parameters

Value

Vertical distance of spray nozzle from substrate

Spraying speed
Interior angle of spray nozzle with the horizontal

18 mm
120 mm/min
651

Wear behavior of ame sprayed coatings (0, 10 and 20 wt% CrC)

was studied using pin on disc type wear testing unit. Coated wear
pins of size 5  5  35 mm3 were held against abrasive medium
under different runs. Water proof SiC abrasive papers were used as
abrasive medium. Abrasive paper was mounted on a steel disc
(210  20 mm2), which was rotated at 20074, 29675 and
36875 rpm (revolution per minute) corresponding to the sliding
distance of 25, 55 and 85 m. The slide carrying the wear pin was
moved radially to get the spiral motion under a constant increment
of 0.2 mm of the wear pin. The abrasive wear pin and disc carrying
the abrasive paper was enclosed in a heating chamber. Three
thermocouples were used for measuring the temperature of the
heating chamber. The test temperature was controlled with the

Table 3
Various factors and their levels.
Factor

Designation

Lower level

Middle level

Upper level

Composition, (wt%) CrC

Load (N)
Abrasive size (mm) {grit size}
Sliding distance (m)
Temperature (1C)

C
L
A
S
T

0 (  1)
5 (  1)
20 72a {500} (  1)
25 (  1)
50 (  1)

10 (0)
15 (0)
60 74a{220} (0)
55 (0)
100 (0)

20 ( 1)
25 ( 1)
1007 5a {120} ( 1)
85 ( 1)
150 ( 1)

As given by manufacturer.

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

41

Table 4
Design matrix and various factors with their actual and coded values (in parentheses).
Run no.

Composition (C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

0
20
0
10
10
0
10
10
20
10
20
10
0
20
20
0
0
0
10
0
10
20
20
20
20
10
0
10
10
10

(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)

Load (L)
25
25
15
25
15
25
15
5
25
15
15
15
5
25
5
25
5
5
15
25
15
5
25
5
5
15
5
15
15
15

( 1)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)

Abrasive size (A)

20
20
60
60
100
100
20
60
100
60
60
60
100
20
20
100
20
20
60
20
60
20
100
100
100
60
100
60
60
60

(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
( 1)
(  1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
(0)

temperature controller unit (target temperature 75 1C). The tester

was allowed to run idle for 2 min in order to attain the constant
rpm (without reciprocating motion); afterwards load was applied
and simultaneously the reciprocating unit was switched on to have
a spiral motion of the wear pin. Wear tests were conducted
randomly according to design matrix (Table 4) under different runs
and two replications under each run were taken and average value
of abrasive wear has been reported in Table 4. An electronic Mettler
micro balance (accuracy 0.0001 g) was used for weighing the
samples after washing in acetone before and after abrasive wear.
Weight loss was used as a measure of abrasive wear (g).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Microstructure
The microstructures and EDAX analysis of 0 wt% chromium
carbide, 10 wt% chromium carbide (not shown for brevity) and
20 wt% chromium carbide coatings are shown in Figs. 1 and 2(ad)
respectively. The microstructures were taken from the center
region of the coatings. All the three coatings mainly showed
eutectic (A), W dominated carbides (B) and Cr dominated
carbides (C).
The eutectic A is found to be composed of Co, Ni, Fe and Cr
with small amount of W and C. EDAX analysis of eutectic showed
30% Co, 24% Ni and 15% Fe (wt%) and other elements such as 8% Cr,
6% W, 5% C (wt%) (average of six readings in each case has been
reported) (Fig. 1b). The W dominated carbides B and Cr dominated carbides C are present in the eutectic matrix A. These W
and Cr dominated carbide particles primarily differ in terms of
relative amounts of various elements such as W, Cr and Co etc. The
EDAX analysis of W dominated carbides showed 57% W,  10% Co,
10% Cr and 10% Ni and 4% C (wt%) (Fig. 1c). The Cr dominated

Sliding distance (S)

25
85
55
55
55
85
55
55
25
55
55
55
85
25
25
25
85
25
25
85
85
85
85
85
25
55
25
55
55
55

(  1)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(  1)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)

Temperature (T)
50
50
100
100
100
50
100
100
50
150
100
100
150
150
50
150
50
150
100
150
100
150
150
50
150
50
50
100
100
100

(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(  1)
( 1)
(0)
(0)
( 1)
( 1)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
(0)
( 1)
( 1)
(  1)
( 1)
(  1)
(  1)
(0)
(0)
(0)

Av. wt. loss (g)

0.0179
0.0209
0.0146
0.0215
0.0172
0.104
0.0061
0.0066
0.0151
0.0144
0.0147
0.0161
0.0338
0.0057
0.0028
0.0205
0.012
0.0051
0.0048
0.0473
0.0356
0.0097
0.0778
0.0237
0.0039
0.0194
0.0066
0.0151
0.0188
0.0142

carbides C are rich in Cr and contain 52% Cr, 15% W, 13% Co, 7% C
besides small amounts of Ni and Fe ( o5%) (wt%) as shown by the
EDAX analysis (Fig. 1d).
The microstructures and EDAX analysis of 10 wt% chromium
carbide (not shown for brevity) and 20 wt% chromium carbide
coatings are shown in Fig. 2(ad). Both these chromium carbide
modied coatings exhibited features similar to that of 0 wt%
chromium carbide coating except that compositions of eutectic
and carbides were different. The quantitative EDAX analysis showed
that the wt% of Co (E30 wt%) is same in the eutectic matrix of all
the three coatings (0 wt% chromium carbide, 10 wt% chromium
carbide and 20 wt% chromium carbide) and it is uniformly distributed in the eutectic matrix as shown in elemental maps (Fig. 3a2, b-2 and c-2). These results are in agreement with ndings of
Shetty et al. [22] as they reported that the eutectic matrix is rich in
Co containing various types of carbides, which are uniformly
distributed in the matrix. The other elements such as Ni, Fe and
Cr are also uniformly distributed in the eutectic matrix (Fig. 3ac).
However, wt% of Cr increased from 8 to 14 wt% with the addition of
chromium carbide. Some of the carbide particles appear darker in
SEM micrographs as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2. This observation is
also in line with the ndings of Shetty et al. [22].
Image analyses of three coatings viz. 0 wt% chromium carbide,
10 wt% chromium carbide and 20 wt% chromium carbide was
carried out to determine the volume fraction of eutectic, W
dominated and Cr dominated carbides (A, B and C respectively). The volume fraction of eutectic A was found as 72.1%,
65.7% and 46.1% respectively in 0% chromium carbide, 10% chromium carbide and 20% chromium carbide coatings. The volume
fraction of W dominated carbides B was found as 13.8%, 17% and
27.5% respectively, whereas the Cr dominated carbides C was
observed as 14.1%, 18.3% and 26.4% respectively in the three
coatings (0 wt% chromium carbide, 10 wt% chromium carbide
and 20 wt% chromium carbide).

42

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

Cr dominated
Carbides C

W dominated
carbides B

Eutectic A

Eutectic
A

W dominated
carbides B

Cr dominated
Carbides C

Fig. 1. Microstructure and EDAX analysis of 0 wt% chromium carbide coating (a) microstructure of coating, (b) EDAX analysis of eutectic, (c) EDAX analysis of W dominated
carbide and (d) EDAX analysis of Cr dominated carbide.

3.2. XRD analysis

3.3. Hardness and porosity

XRD analysis of 0 wt% chromium carbide coating (Fig. 4)

mainly showed NiCrFeC, M23C6 (M Ni, Cr, Co, Fe), CoWSi,
Ni4W and Fe3C phases in the coating. Cr23C6 as main carbides was
found to be present in the 10 wt% chromium carbide coating
(Fig. 5) besides small amount of Cr7C3, FeNi3 and Ni31Si12 were
also observed in 10 wt% chromium carbide coating. Cr7C3 as the
main carbides was found in the 20 wt% chromium carbide coating besides Co3W9C4, FeNi3 and Co7W6 phases (Fig. 6). These
nding are in agreement with the published literature [2327].
With the addition 10 wt% and 20 wt% chromium carbide, the
carbides types were changed from M23C6 to Cr23C6 and Cr7C3 and
some intemetallic compounds (Co7W6 and Co3W9C4) were also
formed.
The various types of carbides (M23C6, Cr3C2 and Cr7C3) are not
pure phases but also contain Ni, Co, Cr and Fe as revealed by the
elemental mapping (Fig. 3c-1c-5) of the various coatings, where
Ni, Co, Cr and Fe are also present in these phases of coatings. As
shown by marked circle area C in Fig. 3c-1, c-3 and c-6, this
region may correspond to chromium carbide (Cr7C3 as detected by
XRD analysis (Fig. 6)). This area C also contains Co, Ni and Fe as
shown in Fig. 3c-2, c-4 and c-5 respectively. Thus, it is inferred that
these carbides are not pure phases. These results are in agreement
with the ndings of Chorcia et al. [27].

The Vickers hardness (Hv5) and porosity (%) of the three coatings
with varying wt% of chromium carbide (0 wt% chromium carbide,
10 wt% chromium carbide and 20 wt% chromium carbide) are
shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b) respectively. Vickers hardness of three
coatings was measured using a normal load of 5 kg and average
value of six readings of hardness of the coating cross-section has
been used for study. The average Vickers hardness (Hv5) of three
coatings (0 wt% chromium carbide, 10 wt% chromium carbide and
20 wt% chromium carbide) was found to be 696786 Hv5,
741795 Hv5 and 7867112 Hv5 respectively (Fig. 7a). The average
hardness of 20 wt% chromium carbide coating was found higher
(786 Hv5) as compared to 0 wt% chromium carbide (696 Hv5) and
10 wt% chromium carbide (741 Hv5) coatings, however, there was a
more scatter in hardness of 20 wt% chromium carbide coating as
compared to 0 wt% chromium carbide and 10% chromium carbide
coatings may be due to higher porosity (Fig. 7b).
The higher hardness of 10 wt% chromium carbide coating as
compared to 0 wt% chromium carbide is due to formation of
Cr23C6 carbides and intemetallic compound Co7W6 as detected
by XRD analysis (Fig. 5). The highest hardness of 20 wt% chromium
carbide coating as compared to other two (0 wt% chromium
carbide and 10 wt% chromium carbide) is mainly due to formation
of Cr7C3 carbides as detected by XRD analysis (Fig. 6). The formation

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

43

W dominated
carbides B
Eutectic A

Eutectic A

Cr dominated
Carbides C

W dominated

Cr dominated

carbides B

Carbides C

Fig. 2. Microstructure and EDAX analysis of 20 wt% chromium carbide coating (a) microstructure of coating, (b) EDAX analysis of eutectic, (c) EDAX analysis of W dominated
carbide and (d) EDAX analysis of Cr dominated carbide.

of Cr7C3 and Cr23C6 carbides increases the hardness of the coating

owing to their high hardness. The hardness of Cr7C3 and Cr23C6 is
17.7 GPa and 9.9 GPa respectively as reported by Lebaili et al. [28]. It
has also been reported [24,25] that some of the chromium may be
replaced by cobalt and/or tungsten with a matrix of eutectic
containing the other constituents of the alloy, thus forming intermetallic compounds. In this investigation also it has been observed
that Co7W6 and Co3W9C4 intermetallic compounds were formed as
found in the XRD analysis of 10 wt% chromium carbide and 20 wt%
chromium carbide coating (Figs. 5 and 6). Otterloo et al. [24,25]
reported that the intermetallic compounds (Co7W6 and Co3W9C4)
also increase the hardness of Co-base alloys. Thus, the higher
hardness of 10 wt% chromium carbide and 20 wt% chromium
carbide coatings can also be attributed to formation of these
intermetallic compounds as detected by XRD analysis (Figs. 5 and
6). The porosity of all the three coatings was found to be 7.7%, 8.6%
and 9.2% respectively (Fig. 7b).
3.4. Abrasive wear model
In the present work RSM was applied for developing the
mathematical models in the form of multiple regression equations

for the abrasive wear. In applying the RSM the dependent variable
(abrasive wear) is viewed as a surface to which the model is tted.
Evaluation of the parametric effects on the response (abrasive
wear) was done by considering a second order polynomial
response surface mathematical model given by:
k

i1

i1

k1

Wr b0 bi xi bii x2i

bij xi xj r

i 1 j i1

This equation of abrasive wear (assumed surface) Wr contains

linear, squared and cross product terms of variable xi's (C, L, A, S
and T). b0 is the mean response over all the test conditions
(intercept), bi is the slope or linear effect of the input factor xi
(the rst-order model coefcients), bii the quadratic coefcients
for the variable i (linear by linear interaction effect between the
input factor xi and xi) and bij is the linear model coefcient for the
interaction between factor i and j. The face centered composite
design was used in this experimental study. Signicance testing of
the coefcients, adequacy of the model and analysis of variance
was carried out to use Design Expert Software to nd out the
signicant factors, square terms and interactions affecting the
response (abrasive and erosive wear). R is the experimental error.

44

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

3 a-1

3 b-1

3 c-1
Area C

3 a-2

3 c-2

3 b-2
Area C

Co

3 a-3

Co

Co

3 b-3

3 c-3
Area C

Cr

3 a-4

Cr

Cr

3 b-4

3 c-4
Area C

Ni

3 a-5

Ni

Ni

3 c-5

3 b-5
Area C

Fe

3 a-6

Fe

Fe

3 b-6

3 c-6
Area C

Fig. 3. Elemental maps showing the distribution of Co, Cr, Ni, Fe, and C in (a) 0 wt% chromium carbide, (b) 10 wt% chromium carbide and (c) 20 wt% chromium carbide
coatings.

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is shown in Table 5. The

analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows the signicance of various
factors and their interactions at 95% condence interval. ANOVA
shows the Model as Signicant while the Lack of t as Not
signicant which are desirable from a model point of view. The
probability values o0.05 in the Prob.4 F column indicates the
signicant factors and interactions. The main factors and their

160

Relative Intensity

140

1- Ni-Cr-Fe-C 3- Ni W

5- Fe C

7- NiO

2- M C

6- Fe

8- Cr O

4- CoWSi

interactions are included in the nal abrasive wear model while

the insignicant interactions are excluded from the abrasive wear
model. Composition (C), load (L), abrasive size (A) and sliding
distance (S) are the signicant factors while composition-load (CL),
composition-temperature (CT), load-abrasive size (LA), loadsliding distance (LS) and abrasive size-sliding distance (AS) are
the signicant interactions. The abrasive wear model generated in
terms of coded and actual factor values (Eqs. (2) and (3) respectively) is given below:
Wr 0:0154:86  103 C 0:013L 9:73  103 A
0:016S 2:33  104 T 9:95  103 S2 3:3  103 CL
4:27  103 CT 5:45  103 LA 8:13  103 LS

1, 3,5, 6

120

1, 2, 3
8 4

100

45

5
6

8:42  103 AS 7 R

Wr 0:05380538:46  104 C7:19  104 L 3:47  104 A

80

1:52  103 S9:02  105 T 1:11  105 S2 3:3

60
40

50

60

70

80

90

105 CL 8:55106 CT 1:36  105 LA 2:71

100

105 LS 7:02  106 AS 7 R

Diffraction angle 2

Fig. 4. XRD spectrum showing various phases in 0 wt% chromium carbide coating.

3.5. Validity of the abrasive wear model

180

1- Cr C

2- Cr C

3- Co W

4- WSi

The validity of the abrasive wear model was evaluated by

conducting abrasive wear tests on coatings at different values of
the experimental factors such as applied load (L), abrasive sizes
(A), sliding distance (S) and temperature (T). The actual and coded
value of various factors for conrmation tests are shown in Table 6.
The variations between the experimental and the calculated values
are of the order of 59%.

5- FeNi

Relative Intensity

160
1

140

1, 2, 3, 4,

1
1

120
1, 2, 5

100

4
1

80
60
40
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Diffraction angle 2

Fig. 5. XRD spectrum showing various phases in 10 wt% chromium carbide coating.

220

1- Cr C

2- Co W C

3- Ni Si

4- Fe C

5- FeNi

Relative Intensity

200
180

1, 2, 3, 4

160
140
120

3, 5

100
80
60
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Diffraction angle 2

800
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640

The effect of individual factors on abrasive wear is shown in

Fig. 8(ae). The effect of composition (C), load (L), abrasive size (A),
sliding distance (S) and temperature (T) and that of their interactions on abrasive wear are given in Eq. (2) which exhibits the
abrasive wear in terms of coded value and Eq. (3) in terms of
actual values of factors and their interactions. However, the effects
of individual factors are discussed by considering Eq. (2) because
all the factors are at the same level ( 1, 0 and  1). The constant
0.015 in Eq. (2) indicates the overall mean of the abrasive wear of
coatings under all the test conditions. This equation further
indicates that the coefcient (  4.86  10  3) associated with
composition (% CrC concentration) is negative, which signies a
decrease of abrasive wear with an increase of CrC concentration
(Fig. 8a). This is attributed to the increase in hardness of the
coating with increasing CrC concentration. Increase in hardness of
material lowers the depth of penetration of abrasive particles,

786112
74195

Porosity (%)

Vickers hardness (Hv5)

Fig. 6. XRD spectrum showing various phases in 20 wt% chromium carbide coating.

3.6. Effect of individual variables on wear rate

69686

0 wt.%

10 wt.%

20 wt.%

Wt.% Chromium carbide

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

8.6

9.2

7.7

0 wt.%

10 wt.%

20 wt.%

Wt.% Chromium carbide

Fig. 7. Effect of chromium carbide addition in 100620 wt%WC powder coating on (a) hardness (Hv5) and (b) porosity (%).

46

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

Table 5
Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Source

Sum squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean square

F value

Prob.4F

Model
CompositionC
LoadL
Abrasive sizeA
Sliding distanceS
TemperatureT
Interaction CL
Interaction CT
Interaction LA
Interaction LS
Interaction AS
Residual error
Lack of t
Pure error

0.013
4.25  10  4
2.850  10  3
1.703  10  3
4.431  10  3
9.800  10  7
1.742  10  4
2.92  10  4
4.752  10  4
1.056  10  3
1.136  10  3
4.477  10  4
4.358  10  4
1.189  10  5

11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
15
3

1.21  10  3
4.25  10  4
2.850  10  3
1.703  10  3
4.431  10  3
9.800  10  7
1.742  10  4
2.92  10  4
4.752  10  4
1.056  10  3
1.136  10  3
2.487  10  5
2.906  10  5
3.963  10  6

48.45
17.10
114.58
68.48
178.12
0.039
7.00
11.76
19.11
42.46
45.66

o 0.0001
0.0006
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
0.8449
0.0164
0.0030
0.0004
o 0.0001
o 0.0001

Signicant

0.0632

Not signicant

7.33

Table 6
Conrmations test results.
Composition,
C (% CrC)

Load,
L (N)

Abrasive size, A (lm)

Sliding distance,
S (m)

Temperature,
T (1C)

Modeled abrasive
wear (g)

Experimental abrasive
wear (g)

Error
(%)

0 (  1)
10 (0)
20 ( 1)

15 (0)
15 (0)
15 (0)

42 72 {320} (  0.5)
42 72 {320} (  0.5)
42 72 {320} (  0.5)

70 ( 0.5)
70 ( 0.5)
70 ( 0.5)

100 ( 0.5)
100 ( 0.5)
100 ( 0.5)

0.0238
0.019
0.0141

0.0250
0.0173
0.0152

4.8
8.95
7.24

therefore, results in shallow and ner wear grooves and reduced

volume of material removed. The effect of load, abrasive size,
sliding distance and temperature on abrasive wear is shown in
Fig. 8(be). The coefcient associated with load, abrasive size,
sliding distance and temperature are 0.013, 9.73  10  3 0.016 and
2.33  10  4 respectively. This signies that sliding distance has a
more detrimental effect than the applied load on the abrasive
wear of the coating. This is due to the fact that the load determines
the depth of penetration of abrasive in the material whereas there
is a prolonged interaction of abrasives at higher sliding distances.
Thus, for the same load the abrasive wear increases with the
increase in sliding distance as shown in Fig. 8d. The effect of
abrasive size on the wear is less as compared to sliding distance
and load. The abrasive wear increases with the increase in abrasive
size (Fig. 8) as there is a greater tendency for large penetration of
sharp abrasives with the increase of abrasive size, attributed to
increase in actual contact area and hence the effective load [12].
This leads to deeper and wider grooves and nally causes more
severe wear of the coating. The penetration of the small size
abrasives is limited to its height of projection in the specimen
surface. Thus the depth of penetration is reduced even with the
increase in load on small abrasive sizes which results in reduced
wear of coatings. The reduction in abrasive wear at higher
temperature may be due to removal of some abrasive particles
from the abrasive paper.

3.7. Interaction effect of the different variables

The coefcients associated with the interaction terms CL
(composition-load), CT (composition-temperature), LA (load-abrasive size), LS (load-sliding distance) and AS (abrasive size-sliding
distance) in Eq. (2) are  3.3  10  3, 4.27  10  3, 5.45  10  3,
8.13  10  3 and 8.42  10  3 respectively showed the extent of
interaction (combined) effect of different factors on abrasive wear
of coatings. The effect of interactions among the different factors

on abrasive wear is almost same order as of their individual

effects. The combined effect of composition -load (CL) is the
lowest from all signicant interactions.
The combined effect of various abrasive wear test parameters
on the wear behavior of coatings has been shown in the form of
response surface plots (Fig. 9ae). The combined effect of CL
(composition-load) interaction can be explained by considering
Eq. (2) and Fig. 9(a). The  ve sign associated with the coefcient
of CL interaction shows the reduction in wear of the coating. Fig.9
(a) shows that the abrasive wear increases with the increase in
load due to more penetration effect of abrasive in the coating
while the wear reduces due to increase of CrC concentration from
0 to 20 wt%. The reduction in wear at high CrC concentration is
due to increase in hardens of coating. The overall effect of CL
interaction is to reduce the wear of the coating. The CT (composition-temperature) interaction can be explained on similar lines by
considering Eq. (2) and Fig. 9(b).
The combined effect of load and abrasive size (LA) on wear of
coatings shows that the wear of coatings increases with an
increase in both the load and abrasive size. Moreover, the effect
of increase in load at high abrasive size is more predominant than
at low abrasive size. Further, it can be observed from response
surface plot that the effect of increase in abrasive size on wear of
coatings is more at high loads than at low loads. This is attributed
to the fact that at high load and large abrasive size, the depth of
penetration of abrasive increases. This leads to more abrasive wear
at high load and high abrasive size and vice versa.
The combined effect of load-sliding distance (LS) on wear of
coatings shows that the wear of coatings increases with an increase
in both the load and sliding distance. Moreover, the effect of increase
in sliding distance is more predominant than the increase in load on
abrasive wear. However, the effect of increase in sliding distance is
more predominant in the entire range of loading on abrasive wear as
compared to increase in load. Further, it can be observed from
response surface plot that the effect of increase in sliding distance
on wear of coatings is more at high loads than at low loads.

0.104

0.0612

0.0787

0.0458

Abrasive wear, g

Abrasive wear, g

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

0.0534

0.0281

0.0028

0.0304

0.0150

-0.0005
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

5.00

20.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Load (L), N

Composition (C), wt.%CrC

0.0612

0.104

0.0459

0.0787

Abrasive wear, g

Abrasive wear, g

47

0.0306

0.0153

0.0000

0.0534

0.0281

0.0028
20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

25.00

40.00

55.00

70.00

85.00

Sliding Distance (S), m

Abrasive size (A), m

Abrasive wear, g

0.104

0.0787

0.0534

0.0281

0.0028
50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

150.00

Temperature (T),C
Fig. 8. Effects of individual factors such as (a) % CrC-concentration, (b) load, (c) abrasive size (d) sliding distance and (e) temperature on abrasive wear.

The combined effect of abrasive size and sliding distance (AS)

on wear of coatings shows that the wear of coatings increases with
an increase in both the sliding distance and abrasive size. Again

the effect of increase in sliding distance on abrasive wear is more

predominant in the entire range of abrasive size. It can be
observed from response surface plot that the effect of increase in

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

0.0612

0.0612

0.0459

0.0459

Abrasive wear, g

Abrasive wear, g

48

0.0306
0.0153
0.0000

0.0306
0.0153
0.0000

25.00

150.00
20.00

20.00

),
(L
0.0612

0.0612

0.0459

0.0459

Abrasive wear, g

Abrasive wear, g

5.00 0.00

0.0306
0.0153
0.0000

),
(C
n
tio
5.00
si CrC
o
p
m t.%
Co w
15.00

100.00

on
iti rC
5.00
s
po C
m t.%
o
w
C
10.00

10.00

re
tu
ra
pe
m ), C
Te (T

ad
Lo

15.00

20.00

125.00

),
(C

15.00

10.00

75.00
50.00 0.00

0.0306
0.0153
0.0000

85.00

100.00

ze
si
ve m
si
ra ),
Ab (A

20.00

60.00

15.00

40.00

10.00

20.00 5.00

ad
Lo

),
(L

ce
an
st
Di
g ), m
in
id (S
Sl

25.00

80.00

25.00

70.00

20.00

55.00

15.00

40.00
25.00 5.00

10.00

ad
Lo

),
(L

Abrasive wear, g

0.0612
0.0459
0.0306
0.0153
0.0000

85.00

Sl
id 70.00
in
g 55.00
(S Dis
),
40.00
m tan
ce 25.00

100.00
80.00

e
siz
e
40.00
siv m
ra ),
b
20.00
A (A
60.00

Fig. 9. Effects of interactions (a) composition-load, (b) composition-temperature, (c) load-abrasive size, (d) load-sliding distance and (e) abrasive size and sliding distance on
abrasive wear.

sliding distance on wear of coatings is more at high abrasive size

than at low abrasive size. Thus high abrasive size and high
sliding distance results in severe wear of the coatings. Same

effects of load, abrasive size and sliding distance were observed

in LS and AS interactions for abrasive wear of coatings as
discussed above.

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

49

Sliding Direction
Ploughing

Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of worn surfaces (a) 0 wt% chromium carbide, (b) 10 wt% chromium carbide and (c) 20 wt% chromium carbide.

3.8. SEM study of worn surfaces

In an attempt to identify the abrasive wear mechanism in 0%, 10%
and 20% CrC coatings; SEM images of worn surfaces were analyzed
(Fig.10ab). The worn surfaces of various coatings (0, 10 and 20 wt%
CrC) mainly showed the plowing and cutting mechanisms (Fig. 10a
b). The weight loss in each coating is determined by the extent of
these mechanisms. Plowing and cutting mechanism were observed
in the 0% CrC coating while cutting mechanisms were observed in
10% and 20% CrC coatings. The worn grooves are wider in 0% and 10%
CrC coatings as compared to 20% CrC coating. The wider grooves in
0% CrC and 10% CrC coating were due to low hardness as compared
to 20% CrC coating. Due to sharp abrasive particles the width of the
cutting/plowing grooves increases with the increase in depth of
indentation and results in increase in wear rate of the coatings.
The chromium carbide concentration increases the wear resistance of the coatings. Experimental and conrmation test results
showed that the weight loss in 20% CrC coating is lowest. The
weight loss of 20% chromium carbide coating is 1.5 times lower as
compared to 0% chromium carbide coating. This is attributed to
higher hardness of the coating.

4. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present
study:
1. The hardness increases with the increase in chromium carbide
concentration. The maximum hardness was obtained with
20 wt% chromium carbide. The increase in hardness is due to
formation of new phases and inetrmetallic compounds.
2. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with fractional factorial
design approach is an excellent tool, which can be successfully
used to develop an empirical equation for the prediction and
understanding of wear behavior of coatings in terms of individual factors (C, L, A, S and T) as well as in terms of the combined
effects (CL, CT, LA, LS and AS) of various factors.
3. The load and sliding distance have a more severe effect on
abrasive wear of the coating as compared to abrasive size.
4. Interaction effects of various factors on abrasive wear is almost
of same order less than their main factor effects. The interaction effect of abrasive size-sliding distance (AS) is considerably
higher than load-abrasive size (LA). Increasing (%) CrC concentration; reducing load, abrasive size and sliding distance minimize the abrasive wear signicantly.
5. Increase in chromium carbide concentration increases the
abrasive wear resistance of the coatings. Abrasive wear rate

of 20 wt% chromium carbide coating is lower as compared to

0 wt% chromium carbide coatings.

References
[1] Desai VM, Rao CM, Kosel TH, Fiore NF. Effect of carbide size on the abrasion of
cobalt-base powder metallurgy alloys. Wear 1984;94:89101.
[2] Shetty HR, Kosel TH, Fiore NF. A study of abrasive wear mechanisms in cobaltbase alloys. Wear 1983;84:32743.
[3] Kim HJ, Kim YJ. Wear and corrosion resistance of PTA weld surfaced Ni and CO
based alloy layers. Surf Eng 1999;15(6):495501.
[4] Atamert S, Bhadesia HKDH. Comparison of the microstructures and abrasive
wear properties of stellite hardfacing alloy deposited by arc welding and laser
cladding. Metall Trans A (Phys Metall Mater Sci) 1989;20A:103754.
[5] Yadav AK, Arora N, Dwivedi DK. On microstructure, hardness and wear
behavior of ame sprayed Co base alloy coating deposited on mild steel. Surf
Eng 2006;22:3316.
[6] Hrasha S, Dwivedi DK. Microstructure, hardness and abrasive wear behavior of
ame sprayed Co based alloy coatings. Surf Eng 2007;23(4):16.
[7] Harsha S, Dwivedi DK, Agrawal A. Inuence of WC addition in CoCrWNiC
ame sprayed coatings on microstructure, microhardness and wear behavior.
Surf Coat Technol 2007;201:576675.
[8] Nishida Minoru. Effect of TiCCr3C2 particles content on abrasive wear
resistance of Co-base overlay weld alloy. J Jpn Weld Soc 1993;11:15661.
[9] Maiti AK, Mukhopadhyay N, Raman R. Effect of adding WC powder to the
feedstock of WCCoCr based HVOF coating and its impact on erosion and
abrasion resistance. Surf Coat Technol 2007;201:77818.
[10] Esteban Fernndez J, del Rocio Fernndez Ma, Vijande Diaz R, Tucho Navarro R.
Abrasive wear analysis using factorial experiment design. Wear 2003;255:
3843.
[11] Hejwowski T, Szewczyk S, Weronaski A. An investigation of the abrasive and
erosive wear of ame-sprayed coatings. J Mater Process Technol 2000;106:
547.
[12] Venkateswarlu K, Mohapatra S, Rao RG, Ray AK, Pathak LC, Mondal DP. High
abrasive wear response of diamond reinforced composite coating: a factorial
design approach. Tribol Lett 2006;24:714.
[13] Spuzic S, Zec M, Abhary K, Ghomashchi R, Reid I. Fractional design of
experiments applied to a wear simulation. Wear 1997;212:1319.
[14] Sharma SP, Dwivedi DK, Jain PK. Effect of CeO2 addition on the microstructure,
hardness, and abrasive wear behavior of ame-sprayed Ni-based coatings.
Proc Inst Mech Eng Part JJ Eng Tribol 2008;222:92533.
[15] Sharma SP, Dwivedi DK, Jain PK. Effect of La2O3 addition on the microstructure, hardness and abrasive wear behavior of ame sprayed Ni based coatings.
Wear 2009;267:8539.
[16] Hyung-Jun Kim, Byoung-Hyun Yoon, Chang-Hee Lee. Sliding wear performance in molten ZnAl bath of cobalt-based overlays produced by plasmatransferred arc weld-surfacing 2003;254:40814Wear 2003;254:40814.
[17] ASTM standards E 210901. Standard test methods for determining area
percentage porosity in thermal sprayed coatings, [Reapproved 2007].
[18] ASTM standards E 56205e1. Standard test method for determining volume
fraction by systematic manual point count.
[19] Higuera Hidalgo V, Belzunce Varela FJ, Carriles Menendez A, Poveda Martnez
S. A comparative study of high-temperature erosion wear of plasmasprayed
NiCrBSiFe and WCNiCrBSiFe coatings under simulated coal-red boiler
conditions. Tribol Int 2001;34 (1619).
[20] Higuera Hidalgo V, Belzunce Varela J, Carriles Menndez A, Martnez SPoveda.
High temperature erosion wear of ame and plasma-sprayed nickelchromium coatings under simulated coal-red boiler atmospheres. Wear
2001;247:21422.

50

S. Sharma / Tribology International 75 (2014) 3950

[21] Rabinowicz ED. Friction and Wear of Work Hardening in the Design of Wear
Resistant Materials. New York: Wiley; 1965; 168.
[22] Shetty HR, Kosel TH, Fiore NF. A study of abrasive wear mechanisms using
diamond and alumina scratch tests. Wear 1982;80:34776.
[23] Radu Iulian Li DY, Llewellyn R. Tribological behavior of Stellite 21 modied
with yttrium. Wear 2004;257:115466.
[24] Otterloo JLDe Mol Van, Hossont JThM De. Microstructure and abrasive wear of
cobalt-based laser coatings. Scr Mater 1997;36:23945.
[25] Otterloo JLDe Mol Van, Hossont JThM De. Microstructural features and
mechanical properties of a cobalt based laser coating. Acta Mater
1997;45:122536.

[26] Jong-Choul Shin, Jung-Man Doh, Jin-Kook Yoon, Dok-Yol Lee, Jae-Soo Kim.
Effect of molybdenum on the microstructure and wear resistance of cobaltbase Stellite hardfacing alloys. Surf Coat Technol. 2003;166:11726.
[27] Corchia M, Delogu P, Nenci F. Microstructural aspects of wear- resistant stellite
and colmonoy coatings by laser processing. Wear 1987;119:13752.
[28] Lebaili S, Durand-Charee M, Hamar-Thibault S. The metallurgical structure of
as solidied NiCrBSiC hardfacing alloys. J Mater Sci 1988;23:360311.