-
Volumes 96-107 (2025)
-
Volume 106
-
Volume 105
-
Volume 104
-
Volume 103
Pages 1-314 (August 2025)
-
Volume 102
Pages 1-276 (July 2025)
-
Volume 101
Pages 1-166 (June 2025)
-
Volume 100
Pages 1-256 (May 2025)
-
Volume 99
Pages 1-242 (April 2025)
-
Volume 98
Pages 1-288 (March 2025)
-
Volume 97
Pages 1-256 (February 2025)
-
Volume 96
Pages 1-340 (January 2025)
-
Volume 106
-
Volumes 84-95 (2024)
-
Volume 95
Pages 1-392 (December 2024)
-
Volume 94
Pages 1-400 (November 2024)
-
Volume 93
Pages 1-376 (October 2024)
-
Volume 92
Pages 1-316 (September 2024)
-
Volume 91
Pages 1-378 (August 2024)
-
Volume 90
Pages 1-580 (July 2024)
-
Volume 89
Pages 1-278 (June 2024)
-
Volume 88
Pages 1-350 (May 2024)
-
Volume 87
Pages 1-338 (April 2024)
-
Volume 86
Pages 1-312 (March 2024)
-
Volume 85
Pages 1-334 (February 2024)
-
Volume 84
Pages 1-308 (January 2024)
-
Volume 95
-
Volumes 72-83 (2023)
-
Volume 83
Pages 1-258 (December 2023)
-
Volume 82
Pages 1-204 (November 2023)
-
Volume 81
Pages 1-188 (October 2023)
-
Volume 80
Pages 1-202 (September 2023)
-
Volume 79
Pages 1-172 (August 2023)
-
Volume 78
Pages 1-146 (July 2023)
-
Volume 77
Pages 1-152 (June 2023)
-
Volume 76
Pages 1-176 (May 2023)
-
Volume 75
Pages 1-228 (April 2023)
-
Volume 74
Pages 1-200 (March 2023)
-
Volume 73
Pages 1-138 (February 2023)
-
Volume 72
Pages 1-144 (January 2023)
-
Volume 83
-
Volumes 60-71 (2022)
-
Volume 71
Pages 1-108 (December 2022)
-
Volume 70
Pages 1-106 (November 2022)
-
Volume 69
Pages 1-122 (October 2022)
-
Volume 68
Pages 1-124 (September 2022)
-
Volume 67
Pages 1-102 (August 2022)
-
Volume 66
Pages 1-112 (July 2022)
-
Volume 65
Pages 1-138 (June 2022)
-
Volume 64
Pages 1-186 (May 2022)
-
Volume 63
Pages 1-124 (April 2022)
-
Volume 62
Pages 1-104 (March 2022)
-
Volume 61
Pages 1-120 (February 2022)
-
Volume 60
Pages 1-124 (January 2022)
-
Volume 71
- Volumes 54-59 (2021)
- Volumes 48-53 (2020)
- Volumes 42-47 (2019)
- Volumes 36-41 (2018)
- Volumes 30-35 (2017)
- Volumes 24-29 (2016)
- Volumes 18-23 (2015)
- Volumes 12-17 (2014)
- Volume 11 (2013)
- Volume 10 (2012)
- Volume 9 (2011)
- Volume 8 (2010)
- Volume 7 (2009)
- Volume 6 (2008)
- Volume 5 (2007)
- Volume 4 (2006)
- Volume 3 (2005)
- Volume 2 (2004)
- Volume 1 (2003)
• Solid particle erosion of St37 steel was systematically studied via experiments and DEM simulations.
• Weight loss tests at 30°, 60°, 90° with 1–3 kg particles were conducted to determine erosion rates.
• DEM simulations using Hertzian spring-damper and Coulomb friction models were validated experimentally.
• ANOVA showed impact angle as the dominant erosion factor, while particle quantity had limited effect.
• Comparisons indicate DEM predicts erosion well at high angles, but drift abrasion increases deviation at low angles.
The Discrete Element Method (DEM) stands out as an effective computational tool for modeling complex mechanical wear processes such as solid particle erosion. The DEM method offers significant advantages in terms of providing realistic results, particularly when it comes to examining particle and surface interactions over time and predicting surface deformations. In this study, the effectiveness of DEM in determining the solid particle erosion wear behavior was evaluated by comparing it with experimental data. In the experimental phase, aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles were impacted onto St37 structural steel samples at different impact angles (30°, 60°, 90°) and different quantities (1, 2, 3 kg) to calculate erosion rates. DEM based simulation analyses were performed using the same parameters, and surface deformations were modelled. When compared with experimental data, the simulation results showed high convergence, particularly at high impact angles such as 60° and 90° (5–15 % deviation). However, deviations increased at low impact angles such as 30°. While DEM analyses can successfully predict surface embedment deformations, they have not been able to adequately reflect damage caused by ductile behavior such as sliding. The surface embedment effect has shown a similarity of around 5 % at high impact angles compared to experimental data. In addition, ANOVA tests were applied to the erosion rates found in experiments and simulations to statistically evaluate the results. The test results statistically revealed that the most effective variable on the erosion rate was the angle of impact (p < 0.0001). The results demonstrate that the discrete element method is a reliable approach for modeling solid particle erosion wear behavior and, when used in conjunction with experimental data, can provide effective solutions for predicting and preventing erosion-induced damage during the design phase in systems such as jet engine turbines, space applications, and dust particle interaction engineering problems.