DOI 10.

1007/s11041-017-0146-5
Metal Science and Heat Treatment, Vol. 59, Nos. 5 – 6, September, 2017 (Russian Original Nos. 5 – 6, May – June, 2017)

UDC 669.131.2:620.178.16

EFFECT OF HEAT TREATMENT ON THE HARDNESS

AND WEAR OF GRINDING BALLS

Sahraoui Aissat,1 Abdelhamid Sadeddine,2 Mohand Amokrane Bradai,2, 5 Rassim Younes,2

Ali Bilek,3 and Abderrahim Benabbas4

Translated from Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, No. 5, pp. 34 – 38, May, 2017.

The effect quenching and tempering by different regimes on Rockwell hardness and wear processes of grind-
ing balls 50 and 70 mm in diameter made of two melts of chromium-molybdenum cast iron is studied. The
heating temperature for quenching is 850, 950, and 1050°C; the tempering temperature is 250, 400, and
600°C. Iron is analyzed in an electron microscope. Diffraction patterns are obtained. A model of cast iron wear
is suggested and compared to the Davis model and to experimental results. An optimum heat treatment regime
is proposed.

Key words: grinding balls, cast iron, heat treatment, hardness, wear, simulation.

INTRODUCTION METHODS OF STUDY

Grinding balls are used by the company Tiaret AFLET in
Algeria during cement manufacture for grinding rock in the
form of lumps. The original rock consists of various calcium
silicates, including tricalcium aluminate and calcium alu-
minoferrite. Grinding of these rocks is performed in crushers
(coarse grinding) and fine grinding mills [1, 2]. Grinding
balls are prepared from white cast iron alloyed with chro-
mium and molybdenum. After melting in a high-frequency
induction furnace and pouring into sand molds the hardness
of grinding balls 20 – 120 mm in diameter may reach 700 HB.
The aim of this work is to study the structure, hardness,
and wear resistance of cast iron grinding balls after harden-
ing and tempering by differ regimes and choice of optimum
heat treatment regime in order to improve their wear resis-
tance during rock grinding.
1 The surface of specimens was ground with abrasive
Research Laboratory of Industrial Technologies. Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences Ibn Khal-
doun University, Tiaret, Algeria (e-mail: sh aissat@yahoo.fr).
2 Phillips was used in order to study the microstructure. Dif-
Laboratory of Mechanics, Materials and Energetic (L2ME), Fa-
culty of Technology, University of Bejaia, Bejaia, Algeria.
3
Faculty of Construction Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
Department, UMMTO University of Tizi-Ouzou, Algeria.
4
Laboratory of Processes for Materials, Energy, Water and Envi-
ronment (LPM3E). Faculty of Science and Technology, Univer-
sity of Bouira, Bouira, Algeria.
5
E-mail: mokbrad@yahoo.fr.
Results of spectral chemical analysis of the cast iron
studied are shown in Table 1. Specimens were selected from
two different melts and processed with an interval in one day.
This was done in order to evaluate features of cast iron alloy-
ing with chromium and molybdenum [3, 4]. Results are given
in Table 1 for analysis of ball material of each preparation.
Heat treatment of balls 50 and 70 mm in diameter was
conducted in a muffle electric furnace with silicon carbide
rod heaters. After austenitizing specimens were cooled in a
compressed air stream and after tempering they were furnace
cooled. The austenitizing temperature was 850, 950, and
1050°C, and holding for 45 – 55 min for balls 50 and 70 mm
in diameter respectively. The tempering temperature was
250, 400, and 600°C, lasting 2 and 3 h for balls 50 and
70 mm in diameter respectively.
based on silicon carbide and polished with aluminum oxide
powder. A Quanta 200 scanning electron microscope from
fraction patterns were recorded with copper radiation using
an X’PERT PRO MRD diffractometer. In the range of angles
2q = 30 – 100° in order to improve the signal to noise ratio
the time for collection of intensity was 40 sec with an angu-
lar step of 0.04°. X’Pert High Score software with a database
of ICDD-PDF2 was used for phase identification.

297
0026-0673/17/0506-0297 © 2017 Springer Science + Business Media New York
298 Sahraoui Aissat et al.

TABLE 1. Hardness Comparison for Grinding Balls of Different Chemical Composition and Manufacturers
Element content, wt.%
Data db ,* mm HRC
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni Cu
Present work 50 2.50 – 0.27 – 0.32 – 0.056 – 0.036 – 11.5 – 0.1 – 0.11 – 0.06 – 48 - 49
2.85 0.48 0.60 0.063 0.080 13.0 1.0 0.20 0.13 62 - 64
70 2.50 – 0.46 – 0.48 – 0.060 – 0.060 – 13.0 – 0.42 – 0.29 – 0.12 – 46 - 48
2.86 0.56 0.55 0.076 0.086 14.0 0.53 0.33 0.20 62 - 65
Other ma- 50 2.5 0.4 0.65 0.05 0.05 13.0 0.3 0.3 Inc. -
nufacturer 63 - 64
70 2.3 0.35 0.65 0.05 0.06 14.0 0.55 0.2 Inc. -
62 - 63
* Grinding ball diameter.
Notes. 1. Average hardness values are provided from results of evaluating four specimens in one condition (three hardness measurements for
each specimen).
2. Values of ball hardness before heat treatment are given in the numerator, and after it in the denominator.
+(101), (110) #(151)

Cast iron Rockwell hardness was measured using and

HP250 hardness meter, and each value was averaged from
I, arb. units
results of five measurements.
2500 + Ìàrtensite
x Àustenite
Ball weight loss during wear tests was determined with
an error of 0.1 g on an electronic balance after a prescribed
# Carbide (Cr, Fe)7C3
2000 grinding time in the mill rotating at a rate of 0.5 rps. The vo-
lumetric level for filling a chamber with grinding bodies was
x(150)

1500 30%. Wear tests were performed in the AFLET enterprise

#(331)

laboratory in Tiaret (Algeria). Results of these tests were

1000
used in order to construct a wear model that was compared
x(200) #(222)

with a Davis model, and also with results of evaluating cast

+(211)

iron wear resistance [6 – 8]. The main wear mechanism in

#(112)
#(150)

+(200)

+(220)
+(112)
#(202)

500
x(311)
#(260)

x(220)
#(223)

this case was abrasive.

0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

40 50
Fig. 1. X-ray diffraction pattern for iron after quenching from
950°C in a compressed air stream and tempering at 250°C.
Carbides
Fig. 2. Iron structure after quenching from 950°C and tempering at
250°C (scanning electron microscope).
60 70 80 90 100
2q, deg
A diffraction pattern for high-chromium cast iron after
hardening and tempering is given in Fig. 1. It is seen that cast
iron has martensite (degree of tetragonality 1.027), residual
austenite, and chromium carbide type (Cr, Fe)7C3.
Three phases were also revealed within the microstruc-
ture of chromium cast iron after quenching and tempering:
martensite, austenite, and carbides (Fig. 2). Light areas were
Martensitic matrice enriched in austenite. The main phase of dark areas is
martensite. Extended carbide particles are also observed.
Hardness distribution is shown in Fig. 3 through the
cross sections of balls 50 and 70 mm in diameter respectively
after hardening and tempering by different regimes. After
quenching from 850 or 950°C and tempering at 600°C ball
hardness of both diameters decreases sharply. After temper-
ing at 250°C hardness is greater than after tempering at
400°C. At the same time after quenching from 1050°C and
100 mm tempering at 400°C the hardness of balls 50 mm in diameter
is greater than after tempering at 250 and 600°C.
The differences between microhardness of the surface
and center of balls of both diameters is more significant after
Effect of Heat Treatment on the Hardness and Wear of Grinding Balls 299

HRC HRC
72 70
à b
68 250
65
64
60 400
60 250
55
56
400 50 Cast
52
48 Cast 45
600
44 40
40
600
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
h, mm h, mm

HRC HRC
60 70
c d
65 250
60
55 400
55 400
600 50
Cast
50
45
250
40 600
Cast
45 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
h, mm h, mm

HRC HRC
70
e 70 f
65 250
65
60 60
400
55 55 250
50 600
50
Cast 400
45 45
600 Cast
40 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
h, mm h, mm

Fig. 3. Hardness distribution through grinding ball thickness 50 mm (a, c, e) and 70 mm (b, d, f ) in diameter after
quenching from 850°C (a, b ), 950°C (c, d ), and 1050°C (e, f ) and tempering at 2050, 400, and 600°C (figures on
curves): Cast) cast condition; h ) distance from surface.

quenching from 1050°C than 850 and 950°C. Quenching
from 850 and 850°C and tempering at 250 and 400°C gives
the best values of hardness and its distribution through a ball
cross section than quenching from 1050°C and tempering at
250, 400, and 600°C for balls of both diameters. This reflects
a change in carbon distribution between residual austenite
and martensite during quenching [9 – 13], and in this case
hardness may exceed 60 HRC (Fig. 3). Tempering reduces
the risk of ball cracking and leads to residual austenite de-
composition [14 – 19]. Results are given in Table 1 for com-
parative analysis of the hardness of balls from different man-
ufacturers after quenching and tempering. It may be seen that
after heat treatment the hardness of experimental balls is the
same as for balls from other producers, i.e., heat treatment
regimes were similarly correct.
Ball weight loss is given in Fig. 4 after grinding rock for
up to 135 min. It is seen that wear resistance for balls in the
cast condition is quite good and improves after heat treat-
300 Sahraoui Aissat et al.

Dm, mg G, g
2000 538
1
2 537
à 3
1600
536 1

1200 535
2
534
800
533 à
532
400 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
t, min
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 t, min G, g
518

Dm, mg 517
6
1 516 4
4000 2 b
515
5
3000 514
b
513
2000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
t, min
1000 Fig. 5. Grinding ball wear curves during powder refinement:
1, 4 ) experimental results; 2 – 6 ) calculated data; 2 ) by suggested
0
model (G = 537.88 – 0.8022ln (t ), R = 0.98); 3 ) by Davis model
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 t, min (G = 537.88exp (– 7.88e – 5t ), R = 0.93); 5 ) by suggested model
(G = 517.53 – 0.68ln (t ), R = 0.98); 6 ) by Davis model (G =
Fig. 4. Weight change (Dm ) of grinding balls 50 mm (a) and 517.53exp (– 6.88e – 5t ), R = 0.91); a) cast condition; b ) quenching
70 mm (b ) in diameter during powder grinding: 1 ) ball cast condi- from 950°C with compressed air, tempering at 250°C.
tion; 2 ) after quenching from 950°C and tempering at 250°C.

at instant of time t = 0. The correlation curve has a high value

ment. Carbides and martensitic matrix, formed within a ball
structure after quenching and tempering, provides wear resis-
tance than a cast structure. Balls 50 mm in diameter have
better wear resistance than with a diameter of 70 mm, most
probably connected with carbide component refinement in
the first case.
On the basis of experimental data it is possible to obtain
an approximation curve for the change in wear during grind-
ing rock lumps (Fig. 5). In this case the change is considered
in ball weight G in time t starting with an original weight Gm
of R = 0.98. Parameters are given in Table 2 approximating a
model G = Gm – k ln (t ) and a Davis model (G = Gm e – kt )
[5]. It is seen that the model adopted is a better description of
experimental results.
On the whole the effect of heat treatment on grinding ball
life depends on many factors, including holding time, cool-
ing rate, cast iron chemical composition [20 – 24].
CONCLUSIONS

Quenching from 950°C with compressed air cooling and

TABLE 2. Model Parameters of Grinding Ball Wear Curve
tempering at 250°C for grinding balls of chromium-nickel
Parameters Cast condition After HT white cast iron makes it possible to improve wear resistance
Initial weight Gm , g 537.88 517.53 and hardness. The main structural components governing
Davis model: wear resistance are carbide phase and a martensitic matrix.
R 0.93 0.91 The maximum hardness (65 HRC ) is achieved after quench-
k 7.88e – 5 6.8e – 5 ing from 950°C and is not reduced after tempering at 250°C.
Suggested model: An increase in heating temperature for hardening leads to a
R 0.98 0.98 reduction in cast iron hardness.
k 0.8022 0.68
The authors thank the head of the laboratory of the Alge-
Notations: R is correlation coefficient; k is a constant; HT is heat rian Foundries of Tiaret ALFET/Algeria for valuable help in
treatment. completing the work.
Effect of Heat Treatment on the Hardness and Wear of Grinding Balls
REFERENCES
1. P. Blazy, and E.-A. Jdid, “Fragmentation — Technologie,”
Techniques de l’Ingénieur, A5060-1, A5060-23 (1989).
2. F. Shi and W. Xie, “A specific energy-based size reduction
model for batch grinding ball mill,” Minerals Eng., 70,
130 – 140 (2015).
3. L. Wei, “Effect of microstructure on impact fatigue resistance
and impact wear resistance of medium Cr – Si cast iron,” J. Iron
Steel Res. Int., 14(3), 47 – 50 (2007).
4. X. Zhi, J. Liu, J. Xing, and S. Ma, “Effect of cerium modifica-
tion on microstructure and properties of hypereutectic high
chromium cast iron,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 603, 98 – 103 (2014).
5. J. R. Davis, ASM Speciality Handbook, ASM International
(1993).
6. T. Sun, R.-B. Song, X. U. Wang, et al., “Abrasive wear behavior
and mechanism of high chromium cast iron,” J. Iron Steel Res.
Int., 22, 84 – 90 (2015).
7. P. H. S. Cardoso, C. L. Israel, and T. R. Strohaecker, “Abrasive
wear in austempered ductile irons: a comparison with white cast
irons,” Wear, 313, 29 – 33 (201).
8. N. Kotake, M. Kuboki, S. Kiya, and Y. Kanda, “Influence of dry
and wet grinding conditions on fineness and shape of particle
size distribution of product in a ball mill,” Adv. Powder
Technol., 22, 86 – 92 (2011).
9. L. M. Chang, L. Liu, and J. H. Liu, “Properties of cross-rolled
low alloy white cast iron grinding ball,” J. Iron Steel Res. Int.,
14(5), 47 – 51 (2007).
10. Y. C. Peng, H. J. Jin, J. H. Liu, and G. L. Li, “Influence of cool-
ing rate on the microstructure and properties of a new wear re-
sistant carbidic austempered ductile iron,” Mater. Charact., 72,
53 – 58 (2012).
11. J. Wang, C. Li, H. Liu, et al., “The precipitation and transforma-
tion of secondary carbides in a high chromium cast iron,” Mater.
Charact., 56, 73 – 78 (2006).
12. J. Asensio, J. A. Pero-Sanz, and J. I. Verdeja, “Microstructure
selection criteria for cast irons with more than 10 wt.% chro-
mium for wear applications,” Mater. Charact. 49, 83 – 93
(2003).
13. X. Zhi, J. Xing, Y. Gao, et al. “Effect of heat treatment on
microstructure and mechanical properties of a Ti-bearing
301
hypereutectic high chromium white cast iron,” Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 487, 171 – 179 (2008).
14. A. Sadeddine, M. A. Bradai, A. Benabbas, et al., “Structural and
microstructural characterization of an as-cast chromium white
iron used for the production of grinding balls,” Annales de
Chimie et Science des Matériaux, 36(4 – 6), 259 – 266 (2011).
15. A. Sadeddine, S. Aissat, M. A. Bradai, and A. Benabbas, “Influ-
ence de la vitesse de refroidissement sur la microstructure et la
trempabilite des boules de broyage,” Metall. Res. Technol., 111,
No. 2,107–117 (2014).
16. A. M. Gerchikov, É. Ch. Gini, O. Yu. Kotsyubinskii, and
G. S. Khrupina, “Deformation-heat treatment to stabilize the di-
mensions of cast iron parts,” Metal Sci. Heat Treat., 13(4),
304 – 307 (1971).
17. M. V. Voloshchenko, V. I. Litovka, and B. G. Zelenyi, “Effect of
microalloying and heat treatment on the mechanical properties
of cast iron with spheroidal graphite,” Metal Sci. Heat Treat.,
10(5), 378 – 381 (1968).
18. V. B. Lyadskii and A. I. Fedyanin, “Heat treatment of cast iron
for bearings,” Metal Sci. Heat Treat., 19(4), 314 – 315 (1977).
19. M. N. Berkun, I. P. Volchok, I. Zhivitsa, and V. I. Topal, “Effect
of heat treatment on the properties of high-chromium cast iron,”
Metal Sci. Heat Treat., 13(1), 69 – 71 (1971).
20. T. S. Skoblo, E. N. Vishnyakova, N. M. Mozharova, et al., “In-
creasing the quality of rolling rolls of high-chromium cast iron
by high-temperature heat treatment,” Metal Sci. Heat Treat.,
32(10), 734 – 736 (1990).
21. K. Weber, D. Regener, H. Mehner, and M. Menzel, “Characte-
rization of the microstructure of high-chromium cast irons using
Mössbauer spectroscopy,” Mater. Charact., 46, 399 – 406
(1971).
22. E. Albertin, F. Beneduce, M. Matsumotob, and I. Teixeira, “Op-
timizing heat treatment and wear resistance of high chromium
cast irons using computational thermodynamics,” Wear, 271,
1813 – 1818 (2011).
23. H. Qing-Yu, H. Zhen-Yi, and W. Jing-Tao, “Application of Riet-
veld refinement to investigate the high chromium white cast
iron austempered at different temperatures,” J. Iron Steel Res.
Int., 16(4), 33 – 38 (2009).
24. J. M. Tong, Y.-Z. Zhou, T.-Y. Shen, and H-J. Deng, “The influ-
ence of retained austenite in high chromium cast iron on impact
abrasive wear,” Wear, 135, 217 – 226 (1990).