Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband NC over ...hardbandingsolutions.com/postle/uploads/e1_19994...Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor M Star

Postle Industries, Inc. Cleveland, OH

Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star

THHA E4-19994

August 1, 2014

Srinivasa R. Koneti, BSME & MSMSE Materials Engineering Manager

Disclaimer of Liability: The calculations, analyses, and conclusions in this report are based on data supplied by the customer and/or other parties. Verifying the accuracy and completeness of this data is beyond the scope of this work. The calculations, analyses, and conclusions in this report are also based on judgment which may not be correct. T H Hill Associates, Inc., its officers and directors, make no representation, guarantee, claim, or warranty of any kind as to the completeness of this report, the validity of any engineering formulas used, or the accuracy of any data, computations, or conclusions presented herein. T H Hill Associates, Inc., its officers and directors, hereby expressly disclaim any responsibility or liability for loss or damage, or for any violation of any law or infringement of any patent arising out of the use of this report.

*T H Hill Associates, Inc. is a Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-217

T H Hill Associates, Inc.

i

Table of Contents Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................1 ATTACHMENT 1 ...........................................................................................................................4

1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................5 1.2. First layer welding – Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star ...................................................6 1.3. Blacklight Inspection After First Application.................................................................13 1.4. Second layer welding – Postle Duraband® NC ...............................................................15 1.5. Blacklight Inspection After Second Application ............................................................20 1.6. Material Testing ..............................................................................................................21 1.7. Optical Metallography ....................................................................................................25

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Tool joint sketch with hard banding sections. ............................................................... 5 Figure 2 – OD condition of the tool joint before welding. ............................................................. 6 Figure 3 – Etched markings on the tool joint. ................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 – Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star wire on the spool for welding on the tool joint. ...... 7 Figure 5 – Shielding gas used for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. .......................... 7 Figure 6 – Flow rate used for the welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. ........................... 7 Figure 7 – Pre-heating of the tool joint prior to welding. ............................................................... 9 Figure 8 – Pre-heating temperature for the first section of hardbanding. ....................................... 9 Figure 9 – Interpass temperature for the first section of hardbanding. ........................................... 9 Figure 10 – Pre-heating temperature for the middle section of hardbanding. .............................. 10 Figure 11 – Interpass temperature for the middle section of hardbanding. .................................. 10 Figure 12 – Pre-heating temperature for the second section of hardbanding. .............................. 10 Figure 13 – Interpass temperature for the second section of hardbanding. .................................. 11 Figure 14 – Amperage and voltage used for welding. .................................................................. 11 Figure 15 – Thermal blanket cool down process after application of first layer. ......................... 12 Figure 16 – Overall view of the weld beads on the tool joint after welding of first layer. ........... 12 Figure 17 – Visible cracking found on Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star hardbanding. ............. 13 Figure 18 – Cracks found on Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star through blacklight inspection. .. 14 Figure 19 – OD condition of the tool joint before welding the second layer. .............................. 15 Figure 20 – Duraband® NC wire on the spool for welding on the tool joint. ............................... 16 Figure 21 – Shielding gas used for welding of Duraband® NC. ................................................... 16 Figure 22 – Flow rate used for the welding of Duraband® NC. ................................................... 16 Figure 23 – Pre-heating of the tool joint prior to welding the second layer. ................................ 18 Figure 24 – Pre-heating temperature for the first section of hardbanding. ................................... 18 Figure 25 – Interpass temperature for the first section of Duraband® NC. ................................... 19 Figure 26 – Pre-heating temperature for the second section of Duraband® NC. .......................... 19 Figure 27 – Amperage and voltage used for welding of Duraband® NC. .................................... 20 Figure 28 – Sketch showing the material testing sample locations on the tool joint. ................... 21 Figure 29 – Material testing sample locations on the tool joint. ................................................... 21 Figure 30 – Compression ring after testing................................................................................... 23 Figure 31 – Close-up view of the rupture point. ........................................................................... 23


ii

Figure 32 – Longitudinal sample taken from the tool joint for Vicker’s hardness testing. .......... 24 Figure 33 – Hardness readings locations. ..................................................................................... 24 Figure 34 – As-polished metallography sample. .......................................................................... 26 Figure 35 – Microstructure near fusion line at 100X. ................................................................... 26 Figure 36 – Microstructure near fusion line at 500X. ................................................................... 27

List of Tables Table 1 – Measured Dimensions in inches ..................................................................................... 6 Table 2 – Recommended parameters for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star ................ 8 Table 3 – Parameters used for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star ................................ 8 Table 4 – Measured Dimensions after welding first layer in inches ............................................. 13 Table 5 – Recommended parameters for welding of Duraband® NC ........................................... 17 Table 6 – Parameters used for welding of Duraband® NC ........................................................... 17 Table 7 – Measured Dimensions after welding Duraband® NC in inches .................................... 20 Table 8 – Mechanical Test Results for the Tool Joint .................................................................. 22 Table 9 – Hardness Testing Results .............................................................................................. 25


1

August 1, 2014 Mr. Bob Miller Materials Engineer Postle Industries, Inc. Cleveland, OH RE: Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star THHA Job No.: E1-19994

Dear Mr. Miller, At your request, T H Hill Associates, Inc. (THHA) witnessed compatibility testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. The purpose of this monitor was to test the compatibility of Duraband® NC overlaid onto worn, or flush Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. As part of this testing, Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star was applied on the tool joint as the first layer. A wet magnetic particle inspection was performed on the hard banding to check for secondary cracks. The two weld sections of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star near the pin neck and tube neck were machine ground to the original OD of the tool joint in order to simulate wear in the field. The middle section was left as welded to perform additional tests on the original layer of hard banding. After machine grinding, the second layer of hard banding (Duraband® NC) was applied over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. A wet magnetic particle inspection was performed on the tool joint to check for secondary cracks. Mechanical testing and optical metallography was performed on the tool joint to check the compatibility. The conclusions from this testing are summarized below, while the detailed report is included in ATTACHMENT 1.

Conclusions The observations and test results produced in association with this compatibility report suggest that the Duraband® NC is compatible with Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. The results did not reveal any reason that the Postle Duraband® NC would not be compatible when applied over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. This conclusion is supported by the following evidence:

1. Cracking was observed in the Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star visually, or under

blacklight inspection. Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star is a cracking type hardbanding. Hence, the cracking observed was not a reason for rejection.

2. No cracking was observed in the Duraband® NC visually, or under blacklight inspection after application onto Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

3. Tensile and Charpy testing results obtained on the tool joint after the application of the hard banding layers presented similar values to those listed in the MTR’s. This suggests


2

that the application of hard banding did not significantly alter the base properties of the tool joint.

4. Vicker’s hardness testing was performed on the hard banding and the base material to check the uniformity of the materials. The hardness readings obtained in the hard banding region are higher than the heat affected zone (HAZ) and base material. All readings obtained in HAZ region and base material were similar and relatively uniform. Hence, the application of hard banding did not significantly alter the base properties of the tool joint.

5. A visual examination of a tested compression ring revealed that the Duraband® NC hard banding adjacent to rupture points was still fused to the base material. This suggests that the Postle Duraband® NC is compatible over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

6. Through optical metallography, no porosity or significant material defects were observed near the fusion line. The hard band material was completely fused with the base material. This suggests that the Postle Duraband® NC is compatible over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

T H Hill Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide engineering services to Postle Industries, Inc. If you have any questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to contact me at (281) 671-5700 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Srinivasa Koneti Srinivasa Koneti, BSME & MSMSE Materials Engineering Manager NOTICE TO OUR CLIENTS: It is standard practice at T H Hill Associates, Inc., to maintain all product samples for 15 days after the report date of the analysis. Unless specifically requested otherwise in writing by the customer, all samples will be discarded after the 15-day period. There will be a nominal storage fee for samples stored beyond the 15-day period.


4

ATTACHMENT 1


5

1.1. Introduction Postle Industries, Inc. (“Postle”) requested T H Hill Associates, Inc. (THHA) to monitor and validate the compatibility testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. An approved applicator for Postle Duraband® NC and Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star performed the welding of the hard banding layers on the tool joints and THHA witnessed/monitored the welding. The length of the body of the tool joint was ~11". Three hard banding sections were applied on the body of the tool joints. Two sections had a width of 3", adjacent to the pin neck and tube neck, and the middle section had a 1" width. Figure 1 shows a sketch of the tool joint with three sections of hard banding.

Figure 1 – Tool joint sketch with hard banding sections. After application of the first layer (Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star) of the hard banding on the tool joint, the two weld sections near the pin neck and tube neck were machine ground to the original OD of the tool joint. The middle layer was left as welded to perform additional testing on the first layer of hard banding. After machine grinding, the second layer of hard banding (Postle Duraband® NC) was applied on the two ground sections. After the application of Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star, further testing was performed to check the compatibility of Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star, which is further discussed below. Note that before a re-application layer is applied to a worn layer of known or unknown hardbanding, a thorough visual inspection of the worn surface must be performed to determine the acceptability of the surface condition and whether re-application is possible without removal of the worn layer of hardbanding. The hardbanding supplier should be contacted for re-application inspection criteria and procedures before conducting re-application.

First section Middle section Second section


6

1.2. First layer welding – Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star Figure 2 shows the condition of the tool joint on which the first layer of hard banding was applied. Figure 3 shows the etched markings on the tool joint. Table 1 lists the dimensions of the tool joint.

Figure 2 – OD condition of the tool joint before welding.

Figure 3 – Etched markings on the tool joint.

Table 1 – Measured Dimensions in inches OD (in) Total length (in) Body length (in)

Sample 6.625 18.75 11


7

Figure 4 shows the Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star wire on the spool ready for welding. Figure 5 shows the shielding gas used for welding the Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. Figure 6 shows the flowrate of the shielding gas. Table 2 lists the recommended parameters for the welding of the Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star provided by Postle. Table 3 lists the parameters used for the welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

Figure 4 – Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star wire on the spool for welding on the tool joint.

Figure 5 – Shielding gas used for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

Figure 6 – Flow rate used for the welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.


8

Table 2 – Recommended parameters for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star DC Power Source Reverse (DCEP)

Amperage 240-320 Voltage 24-32

Shielding Gas Mixture 98%Ar/2%O2 Flow rate 30-45CFH

Torch Setting Angle Adjust to yield flat to slight convex bead shape Offset from TDC Adjust to yield flat to slight convex bead shape

Distance from part 5/8" Oscillation Width 5/8"-3/4" Oscillation Speed 50-60/min Oscillation Dwell Not Specified

Rotation Speed per Revolution 60 to 200 seconds Preheat Temperature Range for 6-5/8" OD TJ 450° to 500°F

Interpass Temperature (Max Allowed) 750ºF Specified cool-down process Thermal Blanket or Canisters

Table 3 – Parameters used for welding of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star

Amperage 290 Voltage 30

Shielding Gas Mixture 98%Ar/2%O2 Flow rate 38 CFH

Torch Setting Angle 17º Offset from TDC 1"

Distance from part 7/8" Oscillation Width 3/4" Oscillation Speed 50/min Oscillation Dwell 0.3 Rotation Speed 165 sec

Preheat Temperature for 1st section 497ºF Interpass Temperature for 1st section 582ºF

Preheat Temperature for middle section 477ºF Interpass Temperature for middle section 517ºF

Preheat Temperature for 2nd section 454ºF Interpass Temperature for 2nd section 567ºF

Specified cool-down process Thermal Blanket

Figure 7 shows the preheating of the tool joint prior to welding the first section of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star hardbanding. Figure 8 shows the pre-heating temperature for the first section of hardbanding. Figure 9 shows the interpass temperature for the first section of hardbanding. Figure 10 shows the pre-heating temperature for the middle section of hardbanding. Figure 11 shows the interpass temperature for the middle section of hardbanding. Figure 12 shows the pre-heating temperature for the second section of hardbanding. Figure 13 shows the interpass


9

temperature for the second section of hardbanding. Figure 14 shows the amperage and voltage used for the application of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. Figure 15 shows the cool down process after the application of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

Figure 7 – Pre-heating of the tool joint prior to welding.

Figure 8 – Pre-heating temperature for the first section of hardbanding.

Figure 9 – Interpass temperature for the first section of hardbanding.


10

Figure 10 – Pre-heating temperature for the middle section of hardbanding.

Figure 11 – Interpass temperature for the middle section of hardbanding.

Figure 12 – Pre-heating temperature for the second section of hardbanding.


11

Figure 13 – Interpass temperature for the second section of hardbanding.

Figure 14 – Amperage and voltage used for welding.


12

Figure 15 – Thermal blanket cool down process after application of first layer. Figure 16 shows the tool joint after welding of the first layer. Visual examination of the hard banding was performed. Visible cracking was observed on the weld beads of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star (see Figure 17). Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star is cracking type hardbanding. Hence, the cracking observed is not a reason for rejection. Table 4 lists the dimensions of the weld beads.

Figure 16 – Overall view of the weld beads on the tool joint after welding of first layer.


13

Figure 17 – Visible cracking found on Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star hardbanding.

Table 4 – Measured Dimensions after welding first layer in inches Width OD Thickness

1st section

Middle section

2nd section

1st

section Middle section

2nd section

1st

section Middle section

2nd section

3‐1/8 1‐1/8 3‐1/8 6‐26/32 6‐26/32 6‐26/32 3/32 3/32 3/32 1.3. Blacklight Inspection After First Application A bi-directional blacklight inspection (Wet Fluorescent Active DC-Field Magnetic Particle Inspection) was performed by Accutest labs on the weld beads of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star to check if there were any cracks present. Cracking was observed on the weld beads of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star (see Figure 18). ArmacorTM Mstar is a cracking type hardbanding. No cracking was observed at the edges of the hardbanding extending into the base material. Hence, the cracking found is not unusual and not a reason for rejection.


14

Figure 18 – Cracks found on Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star through blacklight inspection.


15

1.4. Second layer welding – Postle Duraband® NC The first and second sections (near pin and tube neck) of Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star weld beads were machine ground to the original OD of the tool joint to simulate field wear. The middle section of the weld was not ground in order to perform additional testing. Figure 19 shows the condition of the tool joint on which the second layer of hard banding was applied. The OD of the tool joint was measured to be 6.625" before welding the Duraband® NC.

Figure 19 – OD condition of the tool joint before welding the second layer. Figure 20 shows the Duraband® NC wire on the spool ready for welding. Figure 21 shows the shielding gas used for welding the Duraband® NC. Figure 22 shows the flow rate of the shielding gas. Table 5 lists the recommended parameters for the welding of the Duraband® NC. Table 6 lists the parameters used for the welding of Duraband® NC.


16

Figure 20 – Duraband® NC wire on the spool for welding on the tool joint.

Figure 21 – Shielding gas used for welding of Duraband® NC.

Figure 22 – Flow rate used for the welding of Duraband® NC.


17

Table 5 – Recommended parameters for welding of Duraband® NC DC Power Source Reverse (DCEP)

Amperage 300-365 Voltage 26 to 33

Shielding Gas Mixture 98%AR/2%O2 Flow rate 32-37 CFH

Torch Setting Angle 10 to 17º Offset from TDC 3/4" to 1-1/2"

Distance from part 3/4" to 1-1/2" Oscillation Width 3/4" to 1-1/4" Oscillation Speed 60 to 100/min Oscillation Dwell Not Specified

Rotation Speed per Revolution 4-1/8"OD to 8-3/4"OD : 150 to 180 Seconds Preheat Temperature Range for 6-5/8" OD TJ 6-3/8" to 6-7/8" OD: 450° to 550°F

Interpass Temperature (Max Allowed) 850ºF Specified cool-down process Thermal Blanket/Canister or Boxes

Table 6 – Parameters used for welding of Duraband® NC

DC Power Source Reverse (DCEP) Amperage 360 Voltage 31

Shielding Gas Mixture 98% AR, 2% O2 Flow rate 37 CFH

Torch Setting Angle 13º Offset from TDC 1"

Distance from part 1 1/8" Oscillation Width 7/8" Oscillation Speed 92/min Oscillation Dwell 0.3 Rotation Speed 165 sec

Preheat Temperature for 1st section 541ºF Interpass Temperature for 1st section 674ºF Preheat Temperature for 2nd section 521ºF Interpass Temperature for 2nd section 700ºF

Specified cool-down process Thermal Blanket

Figure 23 shows the preheating of the tool joint prior to welding the second layer. Figure 24 shows the pre-heating temperature for the first section of Duraband® NC. Figure 25 shows the interpass temperature for the first section of Duraband® NC. Figure 26 shows the pre-heating temperature for the second section of Duraband® NC. Figure 27 shows the amperage and voltage used for the application of Duraband® NC.


18

Figure 23 – Pre-heating of the tool joint prior to welding the second layer.

Figure 24 – Pre-heating temperature for the first section of hardbanding.


19

Figure 25 – Interpass temperature for the first section of Duraband® NC.

Figure 26 – Pre-heating temperature for the second section of Duraband® NC.


20

Figure 27 – Amperage and voltage used for welding of Duraband® NC. A visual examination of the Duraband® NC hard banding was performed after welding. No visible cracking was observed on the weld beads. Table 7 lists the dimensions on the weld beads of Duraband® NC.

Table 7 – Measured Dimensions after welding Duraband® NC in inches Width OD Thickness

1st

section 2nd section

1st

section 2nd section

1st

section 2nd section

3‐1/8 3 6‐26/32 6‐26/32 3/32 3/32 1.5. Blacklight Inspection After Second Application A bi-directional blacklight inspection (Wet Fluorescent Active DC-Field Magnetic Particle Inspection) was performed by Accutest labs on the weld beads of Duraband® NC to check if there were any cracks present. No cracking was observed on any of the weld beads of Duraband® NC or the base material.


21

1.6. Material Testing Figure 28 shows a sketch of the samples locations taken for material testing on the tool joint. Figure 29 shows the locations of the material testing samples taken on the welded tool joint. Tensile, Charpy V-notch Impact testing, compression ring and hardness testing were performed on the tool joint after the application of Duraband® NC.

Figure 28 – Sketch showing the material testing sample locations on the tool joint.

Figure 29 – Material testing sample locations on the tool joint. Tensile and Charpy Testing Accutest labs performed all the mechanical testing on the welded tool joint. The tensile sample was taken at the mid-wall of the tool joint with the gage length located near the three hard banding beads near the pin neck. One set of three longitudinal Charpy samples was taken at the mid-wall of the tool joint with the notch located beneath the three hard banding beads near the pin neck. Table 8 shows the tensile and Charpy V-notch impact testing results. All the properties measured except the Charpy Impact values were similar to the values listed in the MTR’s. The


22

Charpy impact values were slightly lower than the reported values in the MTR’s. However, the lower values observed were not caused by the application of the hard banding as the hardness reading (see hardness testing section) obtained on the sample were relatively uniform. Hence, the application of hard banding layers did not significantly alter the base properties of the tool joint.

Table 8 – Mechanical Test Results for the Tool Joint

Tensile Test (0.2% Offset Method)

Charpy V-Notch Test (-4°F)

Yield Strength

(ksi)

Tensile Strength

(ksi)

Percent Elongation

Single Reading (ft-lbs)

Average Value (ft-lbs)

MTR values 141.5 153.7 17.4 73, 71, 69 71

Sample 141.9 155.2 16.5 58, 61, 58 59

Compression Ring Testing The compression ring was taken from the middle bead of the three-band section near the tube neck. The saw cut faces of the 1" wide compression test ring were ground smooth and then etched with a solution of nitric acid and ethanol to reveal the weld, HAZ and base material. The compression ring was then loaded 90º to the axis of the ring. At a load of 26,190 pounds and a deflection of 0.210", the compression ring began to rupture, producing two failure points located 90º to the axis of loading. Figure 30 shows the compression ring after testing. Figure 31 shows the close-up view of the failure point. A visual examination of the compression ring revealed that the hard banding adjacent to the rupture points was still fused to the base material. This suggests that the Postle Duraband® NC is compatible over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.


23

Figure 30 – Compression ring after testing.

Figure 31 – Close-up view of the rupture point.

Rupture point


24

Hardness Testing Vicker’s hardness readings were taken on the hard banding and the base material to check the uniformity of the materials. A 10 kg load and 15 s dwell time were used to perform the hardness testing. Figure 32 shows the hardness sample. As seen in the figure, the three-bead section is the Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star and the single bead is the original Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star. Figure 33 shows the location of hardness readings taken on the sample. Table 9 presents the hardness survey data. Readings 1 through 12 are taken on the weld material. Readings 13 through 24 are taken in the HAZ region (1 mm from the fusion line). Readings 25 through 36 are taken 1 mm above the bottom of the HAZ layer. Readings 37 through 39 are taken on the base material. The hardness values obtained in the hard banding region are higher than the HAZ and base material as expected. All readings obtained in HAZ region and base material were similar and relatively uniform. Hence, the application of hard banding did not significantly alter the base properties of the tool joint. This suggests that the Postle Duraband® NC is compatible over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.

Figure 32 – Longitudinal sample taken from the tool joint for Vicker’s hardness testing.

Figure 33 – Hardness readings locations.

Re-applied Postle Duraband® NC Original Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star


25

Table 9 – Hardness Testing Results Location

Vicker’s hardness

(Hv)

HRC

Location

Vicker’s hardness

(Hv)

HRC

1 683 59* 21 424 43 2 708 60* 22 414 42 3 729 61* 23 423 43 4 718 61* 24 425 43 5 728 61* 25 340 35 6 734 61* 26 332 34 7 697 60* 27 302 30 8 706 60* 28 322 33 9 699 60* 29 328 33 10 642 57* 30 307 31 11 635 57* 31 334 33 12 629 57* 32 332 34 13 357 36 33 340 35 14 355 36 34 352 36 15 343 35 35 366 37 16 342 35 36 356 36 17 328 33 37 349 35 18 331 34 38 347 35 19 337 34 39 353 36 20 340 34

*Note – Hardbanding material does not have a hardness conversion chart. ASTM E140 hardness conversion for the steel is used for approximation of Rockwell hardness for hardbanding material. 1.7. Optical Metallography A sample for optical metallography was taken along the three beads section near the pin neck to examine the material microstructure near the fusion line and check for local defects and porosity near fusion line. Figure 34 shows the as-polished sample. Figure 35 and 36 show the microstructure near the fusion line at 100X and 500X, respectively. As shown in the figures, there is no porosity or significant material defects observed near the fusion line. The hard band material is completely fused with the base material. This suggests that the Postle Duraband® NC is compatible over Liquidmetal©-Armacor™ M Star.


26

Figure 34 – As-polished metallography sample.

Figure 35 – Microstructure near fusion line at 100X.

Figures 35 and 36

Base Material

Hard Banding


27

Figure 36 – Microstructure near fusion line at 500X.

Base Material

Hard Banding

Documents

Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband NC over ...hardbandingsolutions.com/postle/uploads/e1_19994...Compatibility Testing of Postle Duraband® NC over Liquidmetal©-Armacor M Star