As you said abrasive erosion is said to occur when particles impinge at very low angle on the target surface. The dominating material removal process is abrasion. However, one might get easily confused with this terminology. The main differentiation between the abrasive wear and abrasive erosion is the impact of the particles. In former no impact takes place, whereas, in the latter, material is removed by impact.

I think that the term 'erosion' was associated only to impact action, in this case. For example, erosion-cavitation could be understand in this sense. Anyway, erosion due to particles always requires an abrasive action, such as micro-cutting ( low angle) or multiple indentations ( high angle). So, in my opinion, "abrasive erosion" is not a suitable expression. With regards.

Thanks for your views.

Harpreet, I also brought up an alternative explanation.

In my own studies of high speed slurry-erosion I have seen that the wear surface shows mainly, or even only, work of abrasion. And this is of course the reasoning behind the other alternative. Essentially the both explanation are the same: abrasive wear is dominating.

Giuseppe, erosion can be classified by two main wear mechanism, namely abrasion and surface fatigue (based on the four main mechanisms, DIN 50320 standard). Of course this again depend how you define 'abrasive action', but I would say that erosion doesn't require micro-cutting or indentations. For example for brittle materials it can be completely surface fatigue.

Hello Niko, I like very much DIN50320 and this is an interesting point of view, i.e., to classify erosion as surface fatigue. It is a pity that this standard did not receive updates, thanks for our debate! Regards.

Giuseppe, it indeed is interesting. :)

Wear in total is basically just a matter of point of view and how to classificate it. Or that is how I see it.

And because of that, I wondered about the terms and their usage, like abrasive erosion in this case.

So far I am convinced that abrasive erosion is suitable name for erosion caused by highly abrasive conditions (particles, speed, energy, type of target material). Like in this publication: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223295704_Abrasive_erosive_wear_of_powder_steels_and_cermets?ev=prf_pub

Article Abrasive erosive wear of powder steels and cermets

@ Niko

Yes you are right, but i think we cannot ignore other parameters such as particle size and shape. As a result of which, we possibly see the platelet and ploughing mechanisms in erosion. However, ploughing can also be observed in case of abrasive wear also. Other than this, the velocity of impact and concentration have there own role to play. We must also take into account the fluid dynamics, which otherwise is of less importance in abrasive wear.

Thus, what i understands is that, in first place both abrasive and erosive wear could appear to be alike, however, taken into consideration the influential parameters, both are different.

We must not confuse ourselfs with the type of wear and wear mechanisms. The wear mechanisms that are observed in different wear processes can be similar, however, the processes which caused them might be different.

Harpreet, yes, for that I totally agree.

As you mentioned "However, ploughing can also be observed in case of abrasive wear also", in my opinion, that is correct as ploughning is part of mechanism of abrasion. And as erosion type wear 'uses' abrasion as mechanism it has the similar features.

This leads back to the definition of abrasive erosion... ;)

Hi Niko, I understand that "abrasive erosion" is only applied in case of erosion in presence of particles, right? We can use some worries pointed out by Harpreet to propose classes of erosion!

@Niko

As Dr. Giuseppe said there are several catergoroes of erosion such as cavitation, Liquid impingement and so-on. So this crude discrimination cannot be applied to the erosion process.

Moreover, i doubt that impact takes place in pure abrasion process as it takes place in erosion. So, the rotation of particles is also to be taken into account in erosion process.

Giuseppe, yes abrasive particles are needed.

Worries? Sorry, I didn't understand what you wanted to say.

Harpreet, yes I know other erosion subcategories as well.

Of course impacts is something that is unique to erosion. As well as, at least normally, short sliding distances and time intervals, if we compare it 'directly' to abrasion.

In my own studies the wear surfaces shows abrasive mechanisms, but of course it is different due to constant impacts. You can check some out from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237086499_The_effect_of_test_parameters_on_large_particle_slurry_erosion_testing?ev=prf_pub

But the wear surfaces in 'abrasive erosion' are not smooth or so in any way. And this is because of the highly abrasive conditions (size/shape of particles, speed etc.), I think this would be a valid point for separation between different erosion types. And this type of 'abrasive erosion' only strengthen when impact angle increases!

Conference Paper The effect of test parameters on large particle slurry erosion testing

Hi Niko, I would like to say "considerations" on several categories of erosion.

Anyway, all will be welcome to 2nd Brazilian Conf. On Tribology:

http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/seminarios/tribologia/2014/call-for-papers.asp

All the best!