Comments on “Dry and wet abrasive resistance of Inconel 600 and stellite” by M. Vite et al. [Wear 258 (2005) 70–76]

The problem with the Vite et al. [M. Vite, M. Castillo, L.H. Hernández, G. Villa, I.H. Cruz, D. Stéphane, Dry and wet abrasive resistance of Inconel 600 and stellite, Wear 258 (2005) 70–76] is with the main concept, which is the intention to use Inconel alloy to replace Stellite alloy as hardfacing material for severe abrasive applications. The cost of hardfacing material is only a small part of a hardfacing project. The cost advantage of Inconel alloys over cobalt alloys is not significant when considering the overall costs of welding, machining, service life and maintenance. It appears that Vite et al. [M. Vite, M. Castillo, L.H. Hernández, G. Villa, I.H. Cruz, D. Stéphane, Dry and wet abrasive resistance of Inconel 600 and stellite, Wear 258 (2005) 70–76] need to understand more about cobalt and nickel hardfacing materials. Nevertheless, Vite et al. [M. Vite, M. Castillo, L.H. Hernández, G. Villa, I.H. Cruz, D. Stéphane, Dry and wet abrasive resistance of Inconel 600 and stellite, Wear 258 (2005) 70–76] admit that Stellite alloy coating exhibits better wear resistance than Inconel 600. It is thus clear that Inconel 600 would not be suitable as a substitute for Stellite alloy under severe abrasive conditions.