polymers

Article
Water Jet Erosion Performance of Carbon Fiber and Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymers
Jesus Cornelio Mendoza Mendoza 1 , Edgar Ernesto Vera Cardenas 1, *, Roger Lewis 2 , William Mai 2 ,
Erika Osiris Avila Davila 1 , Armando Irvin Martínez Pérez 1 , Saul Ledesma Ledesma 3 and Marisa Moreno Rios 1

1 División de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de

Pachuca, Carretera México-Pachuca Km. 87.5, Colonia Venta Prieta, Pachuca de Soto 42080, Mexico;
jesus91cmm@hotmail.com (J.C.M.M.); erika.ad@pachuca.tecnm.mx (E.O.A.D.);
armando.mp@pachuca.tecnm.mx (A.I.M. P.); marisa.mr@pachuca.tecnm.mx (M.M.R.)
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield City Centre,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK; roger.lewis@sheffield.ac.uk (R.L.); wsmai1@sheffield.ac.uk (W.M.)
3 Centro de Ingeniería y Desarrollo Industrial, Playa Pie de la Cuesta 702, Desarrollo San Pablo,
Querétaro 76270, Mexico; saul.ledesma@cidesi.edu.mx
* Correspondence: edgar.vc@pachuca.tecnm.mx; Tel.: +52-771-710-5251

Abstract: Complex engineering challenges are revealed in the wind industry; one of them is erosion
at the leading edge of wind turbine blades. Water jet erosive wear tests on carbon-fiber reinforced
polymer (CFRP) and glass-fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) were performed in order to determine
their resistance at the conditions tested. Vacuum Infusion Process (VIP) was used to obtain the



composite materials. Eight layers of bidirectional carbon fabric (0/90◦ ) and nine glass layers of


bidirectional glass cloth were used to manufacture the plates. A water injection platform was utilized.
Citation: Mendoza Mendoza, J.C.; The liquid was projected with a pressure of 150 bar on the surface of the specimens through a nozzle.
Vera Cardenas, E.E.; Lewis, R.; Mai, The samples were located at 65 mm from the nozzle at an impact angle of 75◦ , with an exposure time
W.; Avila Davila, E.O.; Martínez of 10, 20 and 30 min. SEM and optical microscopy were used to observe the damage on surfaces.
Pérez, A.I.; Ledesma Ledesma, S.;
A 3D optical profilometer helped to determine the roughness and see the scar profiles. The results
Moreno Rios, M. Water Jet Erosion
showed that the volume loss for glass fiber and carbon fiber were 10 and 19 mm3 , respectively. This
Performance of Carbon Fiber and
means that the resistance to water jet erosion in uncoated glass fiber was approximately two times
Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers.
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933. https://
lower than uncoated carbon fiber.
doi.org/10.3390/polym13172933
Keywords: water jet erosion; composite materials; vacuum infusion process; wind industry
Academic Editor: Bon-Cheol Ku

Received: 3 August 2021

Accepted: 17 August 2021 1. Introduction
Published: 31 August 2021 Water jet erosion is a wear complex phenomenon that is very difficult to simulate.
During decades, many experimental test rigs have been developed in order to study the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral erosion on different structural materials [1,2]. Currently, wind turbine blades are developed
with regard to jurisdictional claims in with an optimal strength–weight ratio; therefore, composite materials are widely used
published maps and institutional affil-
for this application [3]. In a previous work, the authors have investigated the effect of
iations.
erosion in composite materials in order to simulate this kind of wear on the leading
edge of wind turbine blades [4]. Experimental tests have led to a useful but incomplete
understanding of the phenomenon of raindrop erosion, the effect of different erosion
parameters and a general classification of materials based on their ability to resist erosion.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. However, techniques have not yet been developed to experimentally measure an objective
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. resistance to erosion of materials. Therefore, erosion tests are carried out only to obtain a
This article is an open access article qualitative assessment of the erosion resistance of materials, as well as to understand their
distributed under the terms and
erosive behavior. There are several rain erosion test platforms reported in the literature,
conditions of the Creative Commons
in particular rotating platforms, jet erosion platforms, single drop impact platforms and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
wind tunnel erosion tests [5], in this study the wear will be evaluated using water jet.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Sol-gel coatings have been applied to protect against erosion by liquid and solid impact [6].
4.0/).

Polymers 2021, 13, 2933. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172933 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 2 of 11

Contaminant agents accumulate on the blades, generating changes in the surface roughness
that alter the flow direction and reduce the efficiency of the wind turbine [7]. Leading
edge damage and, therefore, roughness is either caused by subtractive processes such as
foreign object damage (bird strikes and debris ingestion) and erosion (hail, rain droplets,
sand particles, dust, volcanic ash and cavitation) and additive processes such as filming
(from dirt, icing, fouling, insect build-up). These considered applications are focused on
wind turbines [8]. Another important aspect is the surface curvature and shape of the
water particles, which significantly influence the impact of a high-speed water drop [9].
Erosion due to rain on wind turbine blades is due to repeated impacts of high-speed liquid
droplets causing pitting or delamination, reducing the performance of the wind turbine. It
has been found that leading edge erosion by rain starts in the zone with a broader curved
profile [10]. For modern wind turbines, an increase in the rotor diameter produces high
speeds at the tip of the blade, causing rain erosion to become a critical problem [11,12].
To generate significant amounts of power, the turbine must have a large rotor diameter,
which results in the fiberglass reinforced polymer blades being up to 100 m long each.
When blades of this size are in operation, the tips can travel up to 300 mph. At these speeds,
any material is vulnerable to impact; therefore, raindrops can easily damage the blades
when they are in operation. The damage created will affect the aerodynamic properties
of the blade and, therefore, the power output of the turbine. Despite this problem, wind
energy has continued to grow, which is why finding new materials resistant to erosive wear
is of great importance to avoid losses in efficiency in the generation of electricity [13,14].
Momber et al. found that the kinetic energy of erosion flow varies due to the changes in the
erosion speed and the velocity of the mass flow of erosive liquid particles. The relationship
between the volumetric erosion rate and the kinetic energy of the erosive flow has a direct
behavior on the power generated [15]. It has been found that the use of coatings applied on
the surface of wind turbine blades reduces the maintenance cost against rain erosion [16,17].
The objective of this research work is to carry out an experimental study of water jet erosion
on coated and uncoated carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass-fiber reinforced
polymer (GFRP), in order to simulate the rain erosion caused in the leading edge of wind
turbines.

2. Experimental Methodology
2.1. Specimens
CFRP and GFRP plates were obtained from the Vacuum Infusion Process (VIP), as
shown in Figure 1 [18,19]. This process is considered as closed mold. For the manufacture
of the carbon fiber sheet, 8 layers of bidirectional carbon fabric (0/90◦ fabric) were used,
and 9 glass layers of bidirectional glass cloth were used for the glass fiber. For both cases, a
mixture was made with 304.6 g of epoxy resin Epolam 2015 and 90.9 g of hardener Epolam
2015. Bidirectional fabrics were placed on a previously polished metal plate, in order to
obtain a smooth finish. Additionally, a release fabric and an infusion mesh were placed to
help unmold the laminate, in this way the resin flows through the fibers that were sealed
inside a vacuum bag. Finally, an inlet valve for resin injection and a suction connection
for the vacuum pump were installed. At the conclusion of the RI process, 4-millimeter
flat sheets of carbon fiber and glass fiber were obtained. Figure 2a,b show the optical
microscopy of the surface of the samples of the sheets obtained from carbon fiber and glass
fiber, respectively; in both cases the bidirectional tissue is observed (0/90◦ ). In the glass
fiber image, the presence of the polymer matrix based on epoxy resin is much more visible.
Some samples of carbon fiber and glass fiber were covered with polyester resin (Gelcoat) to
determine its behavior during the liquid erosion test. The average thickness of coating was
0.56 mm (Figure 3). This coating has the function of protecting the surface of the composite
materials against UV rays. The application of the Gelcoat was carried out with a brush
cured at room temperature.
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 3 of 11
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

Figure 1. RI process for the manufacture of composite materials.

Figure1.1.RIRIprocess
Figure processfor
forthe
themanufacture
manufactureofofcomposite
compositematerials.
materials.

Figure 2. Optical microscopy of (a) carbon fiber and (b) glass fiber sheets.
Figure2.2.Optical
Figure Opticalmicroscopy
microscopyofof(a)
(a)carbon
carbonfiber
fiberand
and(b)
(b)glass
glassfiber
fibersheets.
sheets.

Figure 3. Cross section of glass fiber reinforced polymer and coating of polyester resin.
Figure 3. Cross section of glass fiber reinforced polymer and coating of polyester resin.
Figure 3. Cross section of glass fiber reinforced polymer and coating of polyester resin.
For the measurement of the roughness of the surface of the composite materials, 10
For the
random measurement
measurements of the
were roughness
made. of the roughness
The average surface of the composite
values materials,
(Ra) were 10
obtained
random measurements were made. The average roughness values (Ra) were obtained
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 4 of 11

Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

For the measurement of the roughness of the surface of the composite materials,
10 random measurements were made. The average roughness values (Ra) were obtained
froman
from anAlicona
AliconaInfinite
InfiniteFocus
Focus3D
3Doptical
opticalmeasurement
measurementsystem
system(Bruker,
(Bruker,Graz,
Graz,Austria).
Austria).
The
Thehardness
hardnessofofthe
thespecimens
specimenswaswasdetermined
determinedaccording
accordingtotoASTM
ASTM2583-95
2583-95(ASTM
(ASTMInter-
Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, USA) [20]; 5 measurements per sample were
national, West Conshohocken, USA) [20]; 5 measurements per sample were carried out carried
out using
using a Barcol
a Barcol GYZJ934-1
GYZJ934-1 durometer(Barber
durometer(Barber Colman,
Colman, Rockford,
Rockford, IL,IL, USA).
USA). ToTo observe
observe the
the surface
surface of of
thethe samples,ananAlicona
samples, AliconaInfinite
InfiniteFocus
Focus SL
SL electron microscope
microscope (Bruker,
(Bruker,Graz,
Graz,
Austria)
Austria)was
wasused.
used.

2.2.
2.2.Test
TestConditions
Conditions
The
The waterjet
water jeterosion
erosiontests
testswere
werecarried
carriedout
outaccording
accordingtotoASTM
ASTMG73-10
G73-10(ASTM
(ASTMInter-
Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, USA) [21]. The experimental platform
national, West Conshohocken, PE, USA) [21]. The experimental platform used is shown used is shown
ininFigure
Figure4.4.The
Theliquid
liquidisisprojected
projectedthe
thesurface
surfaceofofthe
theflat
flatsheets
sheetsofofcomposite
compositematerials
materials
through
through a nozzle at a pressure of 150 bar using a 25 hp industrial Hydro-pump.The
a nozzle at a pressure of 150 bar using a 25 hp industrial Hydro-pump. Thenozzle
nozzle
has a tungsten carbide flat section exit tip with a 110-millimeter long flow stabilizer. The
has a tungsten carbide flat section exit tip with a 110-millimeter long flow stabilizer. The
samples to be evaluated are located 65 mm from the end of the nozzle. To determine which
samples to be evaluated are located 65 mm from the end of the nozzle. To determine which
of the composite materials has greater resistance to erosive wear, 3 tests were performed
of the composite materials has greater resistance to erosive wear, 3 tests were performed
on each material at an angle of 75◦ , with an exposure time of 10, 20 and 30 min.
on each material at an angle of 75°, with an exposure time of 10, 20 and 30 min.

Figure 4. Water jet erosion platform.

Figure 4. Water jet erosion platform.

3.3.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion
3.1.
3.1.Roughness
Roughnessand
andHardness
Hardness
Figure
Figure5a5ashows
showsthe theacquired
acquiredvalues
valuesofofroughness
roughnessofofallallthethesamples.
samples.ItItcancanbebeseen
seen
that, due to the manufacturing of the VIP and the operating conditions
that, due to the manufacturing of the VIP and the operating conditions applied, mean applied, mean
values
valuesofofroughness,
roughness,Ra, Ra,greater
greaterthan
than1 1µm,
μm,were
wereobtained.
obtained.This
Thisindicates
indicatesthat
thatthe
thesurfaces
surfaces
ofofthe
the samples have significant irregularities, which influences the wear duringthe
samples have significant irregularities, which influences the wear during thewater
water
jet
jeterosion
erosiontests
tests[22–24].
[22–24].InInaddition,
addition,ititwas
wasobserved
observedthat thatininthethesample
sampleofofcarbon
carbonfiber
fiber
with
withGelcoat,
Gelcoat,there
therewaswasa awide
widedispersion
dispersionofofthetheroughness
roughnessresults.
results.This
Thiscould
couldbebedue
duetoto
the
themethod
methodusedusedtotoapply
apply the Gelcoat,
the Gelcoat,which,
which,as as
explained before,
explained before, was performed
was performed using a
using
brush [25]. Figure 5b shows the values obtained for the Barcol hardness. The
a brush [25]. Figure 5b shows the values obtained for the Barcol hardness. The carbon fiber carbon fiber
and
andglass
glassfiber
fiberwithout
withoutGelcoat
Gelcoatshowshowthethehighest
highestvalues.
values.This
Thisisisdue duetotothe
themechanical
mechanical
properties
properties of the Gelcoat [26], which means that the hardness is lower forsamples
of the Gelcoat [26], which means that the hardness is lower for sampleswith with
Gelcoat
Gelcoat[27].
[27].Table
Table1 1shows
showsthetheaverage
averagedata
dataofofroughness
roughnessand andhardness
hardnessfor forthe
thematerials
materials
before the water jet erosion tests.
before the water jet erosion tests.
Polymers
Polymers2021, 13,13,
2021, 2933
x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 5ofof1112

Figure5.5.Box
Figure Boxdiagram
diagramofof(a)
(a)roughness
roughnessand
and(b)
(b)hardness.
hardness.

Table1.1.Average
Table Average values
values ofof roughness
roughness and
and hardness
hardness ofof
thethe materials
materials tested.
tested.
Material
Material
Roughness Ra, μm
Roughness Ra, µm
Hardness Barcol
Hardness Barcol
Glass fiber 4.484 49
Glass fiber 4.484 49
Glass fiber with
Glass fiber with Gelcoat
Gelcoat 2.731
2.731 4444
Carbon fiber
Carbon fiber 2.074
2.074 5050
Carbon fiber
Carbon fiberwith
with Gelcoat
Gelcoat 3.610
3.610 4444

3.2.3D
3.2. 3DOptical
OpticalMicroscopy
Microscopyand
andSEM
SEM
Figure6 6shows
Figure showsthe thescars
scarsgenerated
generatedininthe thecomposite
compositematerials
materialsdue duetotothethewater
waterjetjet
erosion
erosiontests,
tests,with
withandandwithout
withoutGelcoat,
Gelcoat,atatan anangle ◦ ininperiods
angleofof7575° periodsofof10, 10,20
20and
and30 30min.
min.
These
Thesetest
test times establishedtotoexamine
times were established examine possible
possible failures
failures in the
in the Gelcoat
Gelcoat suchsuch as
as crack-
cracking, fractures,
ing, fractures, pitting
pitting andand lossloss of adhesion.
of adhesion. OnceOnce
thethetesttest started,
started, it was
it was observed
observed that
that the
the samples
samples thatthat showed
showed thethe greatest
greatest damage
damage due due
to to
thethe impact
impact of of
thethe liquid,
liquid, in in
thethe first
first in-
instance,
stance, are arethose
thosethat
thatcontain
containGelcoat
Gelcoatonon thethe surface,
surface, as as a result
a result of of their
their lowlow hardness
hardness and
and
highhigh roughness
roughness [28].[28].
DespiteDespite this, Gelcoat
this, Gelcoat can becan be considered
considered as a coating
as a coating against against
water jet
water jet erosion, even for a short period. The acquired shape of the
erosion, even for a short period. The acquired shape of the scars in the evaluated materials scars in the evaluated
materials
is due to isthe due tothat
fact the the
factnozzle
that the nozzle
has a tip has
witha atip with a rectangular
rectangular geometry.geometry.
At the same At the
con-
same conditions,
ditions, carbon fibercarbon fiber
sheet sheet
is the is the material
material that presented
that presented the leastthe least damage.
damage. This
This confirms
confirms that its performance,
that its performance, in these in these
tests, tests,toisthe
is due due to the
good good properties
properties of this composite
of this composite material
material
that were that were already
already reported reported
in otherinstudies
other studies
[29,30].[29,30]. The evaluated
The evaluated samples samples
did notdid not
present
present damage in the whole area exposed to water jet erosion, only
damage in the whole area exposed to water jet erosion, only in certain regions and later in certain regions and
later spread
spread to more
to more vulnerable
vulnerable sections
sections [31].[31].
Figure 7 shows the optical microscopy and the corresponding 3D view of the damaged
regions in the evaluated samples of carbon fiber and glass fiber at different times of
duration test. It was observed that, after 10 min, the fiberglass presented a deeper wear
scar produced by the impact of liquid on the surface. At 20 and 30 min, it was seen that
the damage on the surface gradually increased, generating a deeper scar. In comparison,
after 10 min, the carbon fiber shows less damage, because the liquid particles only slightly
erode the surface, which corresponds to the detachment of the polymer matrix leaving
the fibers exposed. After a period of 20 min, small, eroded areas can be observed, and
the surface roughness is modified. At 30 min, the repeated impacts of the liquid particles
caused the presence of cuts in the upper carbon fibers and the accumulation of removed
material around the wear trace. When making a comparison, it is very evident that carbon
fiber presented less wear than glass fiber under the conditions in which the liquid erosion
test was carried out, this is mainly due to the roughness, the hardness and the type of fabric
of each sample [32,33]. The studies carried out have found results where glass fiber has the
lowest resistance to wear [34]. Carbon fiber composites can be used in place of glass fiber
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 6 of 11

composites
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW in aerospace applications, because carbon fiber has greater resistance to6 erosive
of 12
wear [35].

Figure 6. Damage of the surface of the samples using the test of liquid erosion at an impact angle
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of of
Figure 6. Damage of the surface of the samples using the test of liquid erosion at an impact7angle 12 of
75°.
75◦ .
Figure 7 shows the optical microscopy and the corresponding 3D view of the dam-
aged regions in the evaluated samples of carbon fiber and glass fiber at different times of
duration test. It was observed that, after 10 min, the fiberglass presented a deeper wear
scar produced by the impact of liquid on the surface. At 20 and 30 min, it was seen that
the damage on the surface gradually increased, generating a deeper scar. In comparison,
after 10 min, the carbon fiber shows less damage, because the liquid particles only slightly
erode the surface, which corresponds to the detachment of the polymer matrix leaving the
fibers exposed. After a period of 20 min, small, eroded areas can be observed, and the
surface roughness is modified. At 30 min, the repeated impacts of the liquid particles
caused the presence of cuts in the upper carbon fibers and the accumulation of removed
material around the wear trace. When making a comparison, it is very evident that carbon
fiber presented less wear than glass fiber under the conditions in which the liquid erosion
test was carried out, this is mainly due to the roughness, the hardness and the type of
fabric of each sample [32,33]. The studies carried out have found results where glass fiber
has the lowest resistance to wear [34]. Carbon fiber composites can be used in place of
glass fiber composites in aerospace applications, because carbon fiber has greater re-
sistance to erosive wear [35].

Figure 7. Optical microscopy and 3D view of the wear scars of the samples evaluated using water
Figure 7. Optical microscopy and 3D view of the wear scars of the samples evaluated using water jet
jet erosion.
erosion.
Figure 8a shows the microscopy of the wear zone corresponding to carbon fiber, in
Figure
which 8a shows
a slight depth the
wasmicroscopy of the by
observed, caused wear
thezone corresponding
number to carbon
of broken fibers due tofiber,
the in
which a slight depth was observed, caused by the number of broken fibers due
repeated impacts of the liquid on the surface during the test [36]. Figure 8b shows the to the
wear zone of glass fiber where the removal of the polymer matrix and fibers cut randomly
by the impact of the liquid on the surface can be seen; in addition, there was the formation
of ridges in the direction of impact, which caused an increase in the surface roughness
[37,38]. In the sample of carbon fiber with Gelcoat, shown in Figure 8c, the damaged re-
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 7 of 11

repeated impacts of the liquid on the surface during the test [36]. Figure 8b shows the wear
zone of glass fiber where the removal of the polymer matrix and fibers cut randomly by
the impact of the liquid on the surface can be seen; in addition, there was the formation of
ridges in the direction of impact, which caused an increase in the surface roughness [37,38].
In the sample of carbon fiber with Gelcoat, shown in Figure 8c, the damaged region was
observed, where there was the presence of a small remainder of Gelcoat applied on the
surface; additionally, small pitting, formed by the continuous attack, was created, which
subsequently caused cracks. This leads to the removal of the polymer matrix and the
presence of cutting action on the fibers [39,40]. In the case of the glass fiber with Gelcoat,
corresponding to Figure 8d, it was observed that the coating was removed quickly at the
beginning of the test, leaving the exposed surface of the fiberglass, allowing the subsequent
detachment of the polymer matrix and fibers, as well as the formation of ridges, cut fibers
and pitting. Once surface damage begins, erosion accelerates due to the roughness changes
over the test region of the sample [41–44]. The impact of the liquid particles on the surface
produces gradual wear, modifying its roughness. As the test progresses, the roughness
increases, creating valleys and ridges in the impact zone. When a liquid particle collides
with this rough surface, the particle tends to lose speed while sliding on the surface, and
at the same time, due to the impact of the liquid with a valley or a ridge, the detachment
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12
occurs, causing progressive erosive wear.

Figure8.8.Wear
Figure Wearmechanisms
mechanismsbybywater
watererosion
erosioninin(a)
(a)carbon
carbonfiber,
fiber,(b)
(b)glass
glassfiber,
fiber,
(c)(c) carbonfiber
carbon fiber with
with
Gelcoat and (d) glass fiber with Gelcoat.
Gelcoat and (d) glass fiber with Gelcoat.

Figure9a9ashows,
Figure shows,iningreater
greaterdetail,
detail,the
thedamage
damageofofthethecutting
cuttingaction
actionononthe
thefibers
fibersandand
the removal of the epoxy resin due to the constant impact of the pressurized
the removal of the epoxy resin due to the constant impact of the pressurized water on the water on the
surface of the carbon fiber sample. In Figure 9b, corresponding to the glass
surface of the carbon fiber sample. In Figure 9b, corresponding to the glass fiber sample, fiber sample,
cutsininthe
cuts thefibers
fibersand
andthe
theremoval
removalofofthetheepoxy
epoxyresin
resinwere
werealso
alsoobserved,
observed,but butininthis
thiscase,
case,
thereare
there aresome
someregions
regionsthat
thatshowed
showedgreater
greaterdamage
damageand anddepth
depthdue
duetotothe
theimpact
impactofofwater.
water.
Thisconfirms
This confirms that
that thethe resistance
resistance to water
to water erosion
erosion in glass
in glass fiber fiber is lower
is lower than in than in carbon
carbon fiber.
fiber.
 Figure 9a shows, in greater detail, the damage of the cutting action on the fibers and
the removal of the epoxy resin due to the constant impact of the pressurized water on the
surface of the carbon fiber sample. In Figure 9b, corresponding to the glass fiber sample,
cuts in the fibers and the removal of the epoxy resin were also observed, but in this case,
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 there are some regions that showed greater damage and depth due to the impact of 8water.
of 11
This confirms that the resistance to water erosion in glass fiber is lower than in carbon
fiber.

Figure9.9.Cutting
Figure Cuttingand
anddetachment
detachmentaction:
action:(a)
(a)carbon
carbonfiber
fiberand
and(b)
(b)glass
glassfiber.
fiber.

3.3. Volume Loss and Profilometry

Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
The ASTM G73-10 [21] standard for water jet erosion tests determines that erosion
must be reported as volume or mass lost with respect to time. The lost volume was deter-
3.3. Volume
mined Lossthe
from and Profilometry
measurement of the wear scars of samples using a 3D optical microscope.
The ASTM
Figure 10 shows G73-10the[21]volume
standard for water
lost in jet
theerosion
coatedtestsand
determines that erosion
uncoated composites materials. It
must be reported as volume or mass lost with respect to time. The lost volume was deter-
ismined
observed that the carbon fiber presented, at the end of the
from the measurement of the wear scars of samples using a 3D optical microscope. duration test, the smallest
volume
Figure 10 loss;
showsthis is duelost
the volume to initsthegood
coatedmechanical
and uncoated properties [45,46].It On
composites materials. is the other hand, the
observed that
samples the carbonfiber
of carbon fiber presented,
and glass at the endwith
fiber of the duration
Gelcoattest,arethethe
smallest
onesvol-that lost more material
ume loss; this is due to its good mechanical properties [45,46]. On the other hand, the
during the test, confirming again its low resistance to water erosion
samples of carbon fiber and glass fiber with Gelcoat are the ones that lost more material
[47,48]. It was observed
that the behavior between the volume loss and time was linear
during the test, confirming again its low resistance to water erosion [47,48]. It was ob- (Figure 10), due to the
served that thedamage
progressive behavior between
of the the volumeand
surface loss that
and time
thewas linear (Figure
increase 10), due to is proportional to the
in roughness
the progressive damage of the surface and that the increase in roughness is proportional
increase in erosion wear.
to the increase in erosion wear.

Figure 10. Volume loss during the liquid erosion test with 75° impact angle.
Figure 10. Volume loss during the liquid erosion test with 75◦ impact angle.
Wear profiles across the scars were obtained. Figure 11a,b show the profilometry of
the samples at 10 and 20 min of duration test, respectively. In all cases, it can be observed
that at 10 min, the impacts of the liquid particles modified the surface roughness of the
materials. In both times, the sample of glass fiber with Gelcoat is the one that presented
the scar with a greater depth, while the carbon fiber presented the lowest depth. Figure
11c, corresponding to the exposure time of 30 min, shows that the profiles with high mag-
nitudes of depth were obtained in the samples with Gelcoat and again the sample of car-
 Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 9 of 11

Wear profiles across the scars were obtained. Figure 11a,b show the profilometry of
the samples at 10 and 20 min of duration test, respectively. In all cases, it can be observed
that at 10 min, the impacts of the liquid particles modified the surface roughness of the
materials. In both times, the sample of glass fiber with Gelcoat is the one that presented the
scar with a greater depth, while the carbon fiber presented the lowest depth. Figure 11c,
corresponding to the exposure time of 30 min, shows that the profiles with high magnitudes
of depth were obtained in the samples with Gelcoat and again the sample of carbon fiber
is the one that presented the lowest depth in the wear scar during the test, confirming its
resistance to water erosion at the conditions tested in this experimental study. Additionally,
in the case of coated samples, Figure 11 shows, with dotted lines, the thickness of the
21, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Gelcoat in order to observe the depth of wear produced both in the Gelcoat 10 of 12 and in the
composite material, depending on the test time.

Figure 11.Figure 11. Profilometry

Profilometry of carbon
of carbon fiber fiber
and glass and
fiber glass with
samples fiberand
samples with
without and without
Gelcoat Gelcoattest
with a duration with a 10 min,
of (a)
(b) 20 minduration test
and (c) 30 of (a) 10 min, (b) 20 min and (c) 30 min.
min.

4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions
Thiswas
This investigation investigation
carried outwas carriedtoout
in order in order
study to study the performance
the performance of coated andof coated and
uncoated carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass-fiber reinforced polymer polymer
uncoated carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass-fiber reinforced
(GFRP) under water jet erosion, concluding the following reflections.
(GFRP) under water jet erosion, concluding the following reflections.
 • According to the SEM micrographs,
According to the SEM micrographs, on the eroded onzones,
the eroded zones,
it was it wasto
possible possible
confirmto confirm the
the presence of presence of cutting action on the fibers, a detachment of the coating and the formation
cutting action on the fibers, a detachment of the coating and the for-
of ridges in the direction of impact, which caused an increase in the surface roughness.
mation of ridges in the direction of impact, which caused an increase in the surface
• From optical microscopy, it was observed that the fiberglass presented a deeper wear
roughness.
scar compared to the carbon fiber where less damage was observed, which corresponds
 From optical microscopy, it was observed
to the detachment that the
of the polymer fiberglass
matrix, presented
leaving a deeper
the fibers exposed. wear
After 30 min of
scar compared testing,
to the carbon fiber where less damage was observed, which corre-
the repeated impacts of the liquid particles caused the presence of cuts in the
sponds to the detachment
upper carbon of fibers
the polymer
and thematrix, leaving
accumulation ofthe fibers material
removed exposed.around
After 30
the wear trace.
min of testing,
• the repeated
Under impacts tested
the conditions of the in
liquid particleswork,
this research causedthethe presence
resistance to of cutsjet erosion in
water
in the upper carbon fibers
glass fiber wasand the than
lower accumulation of removed
in carbon fiber. material
This is due around
to the good the
properties of CFRP
wear trace. such as high stiffness, high tensile strength and high modulus, as well as the excellent
 interaction
Under the conditions testedbetween
in this the epoxy work,
research matrixthe
andresistance
fibers. to water jet erosion
• was
in glass fiber Based on the
lower thandata obtained,
in carbon in most
fiber. This ofis the
duetests carried
to the goodout, a linear of
properties behavior was
observed
CFRP such as high between
stiffness, high the lost strength
tensile volume and and the
hightest time, confirming
modulus, as well asthetheexistence of
progressive
excellent interaction between damage on the
the epoxy surface
matrix and
and concluding that the increase in roughness is
fibers.
 proportional to the increase in erosion wear.
Based on the data obtained, in most of the tests carried out, a linear behavior was
observed between the lost volume and the test time, confirming the existence of pro-
gressive damage on the surface and concluding that the increase in roughness is pro-
portional to the increase in erosion wear.
 The water jet erosion platform developed for this research work showed a very ac-
ceptable performance, applying a constant pressure throughout the tests and gener-
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 10 of 11

• The water jet erosion platform developed for this research work showed a very accept-
able performance, applying a constant pressure throughout the tests and generating a
uniform wear on the surface of the tested composite materials.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.L.L.; Formal analysis, A.I.M.P.; Investigation, J.C.M.M.

and W.M.; Methodology, E.O.A.D.; Project administration, E.E.V.C.; Resources, S.L.L.; Supervi-
sion, R.L.; Validation, M.M.R.; Visualization, M.M.R.; Writing–original draft preparation, J.C.M.M.;
Writing–review & editing, E.E.V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Acknowledgments: We thank The University of Sheffield for the support in the stay of the graduate
student Jesus Mendoza and the use of the water jet erosion platform and laboratory equipment to
develop this research work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest with respect to the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
1. Kirols, H.S.; Mahdipoor, M.S.; Kevorkov, D.; Uihlein, A.; Medraj, M. Energy based approach for understanding water droplet
erosion. Mater. Des. 2016, 104, 76–86. [CrossRef]
2. Abrate, S. Soft impacts on aerospace structures. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2016, 81, 1–17. [CrossRef]
3. Bartolome, L.; Julie, T. Prospective challenges in the experimentation of the rain erosion on the leading edge of wind turbine
blades. Wind Energy 2019, 22, 140–151. [CrossRef]
4. Mendoza, J.M.; Cardenas, E.V.; Perez, A.M.; Ledesma, S.L.; Torres, M.V. Experimental study of temperature erosion tests on
bidirectional coated and uncoated composites materials. Mater. Res. Express 2020, 7, 1–11. [CrossRef]
5. Mohamed, E.I.; Mamoun, M. Water Droplet Erosion of Wind Turbine Blades: Mechanics, Testing, Modeling and Future
Perspectives. Materials 2020, 13, 157. [CrossRef]
6. Grundwürmer, M.; Nuyken, O.; Meyer, M.; Wehr, J.; Schupp, N. Sol–gel derived erosion protection coatings against damage
caused by liquid impact. Wear 2007, 263, 318–329. [CrossRef]
7. Sagol, E.; Reggio, M.; Ilinca, A. Issues concerning roughness on wind turbine blades. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 514–525.
[CrossRef]
8. KWood, R.; Lu, P. Leading edge topography of blades—A critical review. Surf. Topogr. Metrol. Prop. 2021, 9, 1–30.
9. Burson-Thomas, C.B.; Wellman, R.; Harvey, T.J.; Wood, R.J. Water droplet erosion of aeroengine fan blades: The importance of
form. Wear 2019, 426, 507–517. [CrossRef]
10. Ma, D.; Harvey, T.J.; Wellman, R.G.; Wood, R.J. Characterization of rain erosion at ex-service turbofan blade leading edges. Wear
2019, 426, 539–551. [CrossRef]
11. O’Carroll, A.; Hardiman, M.; Tobin, E.F.; Young, T.M. Correlation of the rain erosion performance of polymers to mechanical and
surface properties measured using nanoindentation. Wear 2018, 412, 38–48. [CrossRef]
12. Slot, H.M.; IJzerman, R.M.; Le Feber, M.; Nord-Varhaug, K.; van der Heide, E. Rain erosion resistance of injection moulded and
compression moulded polybutylene terephthalate PBT. Wear 2018, 414, 234–242. [CrossRef]
13. Groucott, S.; Pugh, K.; Zekos, I.; M Stack, M. A Study of Raindrop Impacts on a Wind Turbine Material: Velocity and Impact
Angle Effects on Erosion MAPS at Various Exposure Times. Lubricants 2021, 9, 60. [CrossRef]
14. Herring, R.; Dyer, K.; Martin, F.; Ward, C. The increasing importance of leading edge erosion and a review of existing protection
solutions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 1–13. [CrossRef]
15. Momber, A.W. Effects of erodent flow energy and local exposure time on the erosion of cement-based composites at high-speed
hydro-abrasive flow. Wear 2017, 378, 145–154. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, S.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Nørkjær, S.; Bernad Jr, P.L.; Kiil, S. Erosion of wind turbine blade coatings—Design and analysis
objet-based laboratory equipment for performance evaluation. Prog. Org. Coat. 2015, 78, 103–115. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, S.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Bernad Jr, P.L.; Kiil, S. Rain erosion of wind turbine blade coatings using discrete water jets: Effects
of water cushioning, substrate geometry, impact distance, and coating properties. Wear 2015, 328–329, 140–148. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, J.; Trevarthen, J.A.; Deng, T.; Bradley, M.S.; Rahatekar, S.S.; Koziol, K.K. Aligned carbon nanotube reinforced high
performance polymer composites with low erosive wear. Compos. Part. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2014, 67, 86–95. [CrossRef]
19. Mohan, N.; Natarajan, S.; Kumaresh Babu, S.P.; Siddaramaiah, S.; Lee, J.H. Studies on erosive wear behavior of UHMWPE-filled
aramid-epoxy hybrid composites. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2012, 27, 430–435. [CrossRef]
20. ASTM D2583-95. Indentation Hardness of Rigid Plastics by Means of Barcol Impressor; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2001.
Polymers 2021, 13, 2933 11 of 11

21. ASTM G73-10. Standard Test Method for Liquid Impingement Erosion Using Rotating Apparatus; ASTM International: West Con-
shohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
22. Fujisawa, K.; Yamagata, T.; Fujisawa, N. Liquid droplet impingement erosion on groove roughness. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2018, 330,
368–376. [CrossRef]
23. Bargmann, H.W. The mechanics of erosion by liquid and solid impact. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1992, 29, 1685–1698. [CrossRef]
24. Fujisawa, N.; Takano, S.; Fujisawa, K.; Yamagata, T. Experiments on liquid droplet impingement erosion on a rough surface. Wear
2018, 398–399, 158–164. [CrossRef]
25. Rosato, D.V. Fabricating processes. Reinf. Plast. Handb. Elsevier Sci. 2005, 254–482. [CrossRef]
26. EL-Wazery, M.S.; EL-Elamy, M.I.; Zoalfakar, S.H. Mechanical Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composites. Int. J.
Adv. Eng. Technol. 2017, 14, 121–131. [CrossRef]
27. Sakin, R. Relationship between Barcol hardness and flexural modulus degradation of composite sheets subjected to flexural
fatigue. Steel Compos. Struct. 2015, 19, 1531–1548. [CrossRef]
28. Pihtili, H. An experimental investigation of wear of glass fibre-epoxy resin and glass fibre-polyester resin composite materials.
Eur. Polym. J. 2009, 45, 149–154. [CrossRef]
29. Cheng, D.Q.; Wang, X.T.; Zhu, J.; Qiu, D.H.; Cheng, X.W.; Guan, Q.F. Friction and wear behavior of carbon fiber reinforced brake
materials. Front. Mater. Sci. China 2009, 3, 56–60. [CrossRef]
30. Li, J.; Cai, C.L. Friction and Wear Properties of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011,
284–286, 2380–2393. [CrossRef]
31. Field, J. ELSI conference: Invited lecture. Wear 1999, 233–235, 1–12. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, R.M.; Zheng, S.R.; Zheng, Y.P. Polymer Matrix Composites and Technology, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK,
2011.
33. Sari, N.; Sinmazçelik, T. Erosive wear behaviour of carbon fibre/polyetherimide composites under low particle speed. Mater. Des.
2007, 28, 351–365. [CrossRef]
34. Tewari, U.S.; Harsha, A.P.; Häger, A.M.; Friedrich, K. Solid particle erosion of carbon fibre and glass fibre epoxy composites.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 549–557. [CrossRef]
35. Mehmet, B. Influence of fiber orientation on solid particle erosion of uni/multidirectional carbon fiber/glass fiber reinforced
epoxy composites. J. Eng. Tribol. 2016, 231, 1–10.
36. Vigneshwaran, S.; Uthayakumar, M.; Arumugaprabu, V. A review on erosion studies of fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J.
Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2017, 36, 1019–1027. [CrossRef]
37. Yahiaoui, M.; Chabert, F.; Paris, J.Y.; Nassiet, V.; Denape, J. Friction, acoustic emission, and wear mechanisms of a PEKK polymer.
Tribol. Int. 2019, 132, 154–164. [CrossRef]
38. Fouad, Y.; El-Meniawi, M.; Afifi, A. Erosion behaviour of epoxy based unidirectionl (GFRP) composite materials. Alex. Eng. J.
2011, 50, 29–34. [CrossRef]
39. Patnaik, A.; Satapathy, A.; Mahapatra, S.S. A modeling approach for prediction of erosion behavior of glass fiber-polyester
composites. J. Polym. Res. 2008, 15, 147–160. [CrossRef]
40. Patnaik, A.; Satapathy, A.; Mahapatra, S.S.; Dash, R.R. A Taguchi approach for investigation of erosion of glass fiber—Polyester
composites. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2008, 27, 871–888. [CrossRef]
41. Rout, A.; Satapathy, A.; Mantry, S.; Sahoo, A.; Mohanty, T. Erosion wear performance analysis of polyester-GF-granite hybrid
composites using the Taguchi method. Procedia Eng. 2012, 38, 1863–1882. [CrossRef]
42. Patnaik, A.; Satapathy, A.; Mahapatra, S.S.; Dash, R.R. Parametric optimization erosion wear of polyester-GF-alumina hybrid
composites using the Taguchi method. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2008, 27, 1039–1058. [CrossRef]
43. Lesser, M.B.; Field, J.E. The Impact of Compressible Liquids. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2003, 15, 97–122. [CrossRef]
44. Gohardani, O.; Williamson, D.M.; Hammond, D.W. Multiple liquid impacts on polymeric matrix composites reinforced with
carbon nanotubes. Wear 2012, 294–295, 336–346. [CrossRef]
45. Rahmani, H.; Najafi, S.H.M.; Ashori, A. Mechanical performance of epoxy/carbon fiber laminated composites. J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 2014, 33, 733–740. [CrossRef]
46. Aurrekoetxea, J.; Agirregomezkorta, A.; Aretxaga, G.; Sarrionandia, M. Impact behavior of carbon fiber/epoxy composite
manufactured by vacuum-assisted compression resin transfer molding. J. Compos. Mater. 2012, 46, 43–49. [CrossRef]
47. Barcikowski, M.; Królikowski, W. Effect of resin modification on the impact strength of glass-polyester composites. Polimery 2013,
58, 450–460. [CrossRef]
48. Valaker, E.A.; Armada, S.; Wilson, S. Droplet erosion protection coatings for offshore wind turbine blades. Energy Procedia 2015,
80, 263–275. [CrossRef]