Ref 17

Materials
& Design
Materials and Design 27 (2006) 173–181
www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes
Effect of abrasive particle size on wear resistance in steels

a,* b
Ibrahim Sevim , I. Barlas Eryurek
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mersin University, Ciftlikkoy, 33343 Mersin, Turkey
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Beyoglu, Istanbul 34439, Turkey
Received 14 June 2004; accepted 22 October 2004
Abstract
The effects of abrasive particle size on wear resistance have been studied extensively. But, none of these studies is completely sat-
isfactory for finding the relation between the abrasive particle size and wear rate. The abrasive wear resistance of non-heat-treated
and heat-treated steels produced at broad range of different temperatures, have been determined by using a pin-abrasion machine
having five abrasive papers ground on a small pin of the test materials. The mass loss of test material during abrasive wear was
determined gravimetrically. The results for the non-heat-treated steels show that there is a parabolic relation between wear coeffi-
cient and abrasive particle size. This agrees with similar findings in the literature. There is a linear relationship between the abrasive
wear resistance and hardness, depending on abrasive particle size. However, the relationships for the heat-treated steels show posi-
tive intercepts on the ordinate, depending on abrasive particle size. The relative wear resistance and hardness are related linearly for
non-heat-treated steels, and this relationship does not depend on abrasive particle size. But, relative wear resistance for the heat-
treated steels is dependent on abrasive particle size and the relationships for the heat-treated steels show positive intercepts on
the ordinate.
From the findings, the empirical mathematical wear resistance model as a function of abrasive particle size is derived. Addition-
ally, the empirical equations of the relative wear resistance of these steels as a function of abrasive particle diameter are formulated.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Abrasive wear resistance; Wear coefficient; Abrasive particle size; Relative wear resistance

1. Introduction V 2 tan a F N
¼ ; ð1Þ
L p H
Abrasive wear experiments have been made with sub-
where V is the volume loss due to wear, L the sliding dis-
stances containing one or more abrasive. Abrasive state-
tance, FN the normal load on the conical particle and H
ments, which are obtained through single abrasive end
hardness of wearing surface and a the attack angle of the
patterns (i.e. sphere, pyramid, cone), are adapted to
abrasive particle. For linear wear density, (1) can be
abrasive wear cases with abrasive particle more than
written as follows [1,3]:
one based on some assumptions. The abrasive particle
P
is generally modeled as a cone [1]. Rabinowicz [2] de- W ¼k ; ð2Þ
rived a simple expression for the volume of material re- H
moved during two-body abrasion by a conical abrasive where W is linear wear density, k wear coefficient, P
particle pressure applied on surface and H hardness of abraded
material.
For pure metals and annealed steels, the wear resis-
*
tance versus hardness is a line passing through the ori-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 324 361 0001; fax: +90 324
3610032.
gin. The linear zone is called zone I throughout the
E-mail address: isevim@mersin.edu.tr (I. Sevim). paper. The abrasive wear resistance versus hardness
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2004.10.010
174 I. Sevim, I.B. Eryurek / Materials and Design 27 (2006) 173–181
Nomenclature
V
W ¼ LA G
¼ qLA wear rate (linear wear intensity) W 1
P ¼ P qLA
G pressure wear resistance (MPa)
W 1
G mass loss due to wear (g) e ¼ W 1 relative wear resistance
n
density (g mm3)
r
q W 1
n wear resistance of sample
1 qLA 1
W ¼ G wear resistance Wr wear resistance of reference material
Zone I
found that there was not a critical abrasive particle size
Pure Metals and for a specific material. They also showed that the con-
Annealed Steels
stant wear rate starts at 80 lm abrasive particle size
−1 1H Zone II
W = for all metals used in the experiments. The elastic con-
-1
k P
Wear Resistance, W
tact hypothesis was first suggested by Larsen-Badse

Heat Treated [10] who measured the size and number of grooves
Steels
formed on polished copper specimens abraded by SiC
abrasive papers and estimated the real contact area.
He postulated that many fine grit have elastic interac-
tion with the surface. It was also suggested that the frac-
tion of the load carried by particle in elastic contact
increased with decreasing grit size since it is unlikely that
the abrasive grits gradually become more angular with
Hardness, H increased size. Moore and Douthwaite [11], have tried
to explain the size effect by plastic deformation concept
Fig. 1. Relationships between wear resistance and hardness [4].
below worn surfaces. They estimated the equivalent
plastic strain and the flow stress as a function of depth
graph of the heat-treated steels is a line not passing below worn surface and calculated the work done in
through the origin [3]. This behavior cannot be derived deforming the material below the groove and energy ab-
from (2). The zone corresponding to this is called zone sorbed in plowing the surface. They concluded that the
II . The zones II and I are shown in Fig. 1 [1,4]. (2) is energy expended in plastic deformation of material to
similar to the ArchardÕs adhesive wear expression. Gen- form the grooves and deform the surface account for al-
erally, (2) does not agree with the experimental results. most all the external work done for all grit sizes in abra-
The main reason for this incompatibility is the change sion and that wear volume is dependent on the grit size
of wear coefficient k depending on abrasive grit size probably because the deterioration and pick up of abra-
[5,6]. In literature, there are many investigations about sive particles become more intense at small grit sizes.
the effect of the abrasive grit size on abrasive wear rate Hutchings [12], has stated that the size effect is due to
in zone I. Avient et al. [7] have examined the abrasive the variation of shape changing rate dependent on abra-
behavior of many materials and realized that the clog- sive particle size. However, Misra and Finnie [13], have
ging of the interstices between the finer abrasive grains found that the shape-changing rate has only changed the
by wear debris is responsible for the grit size effect. This wear resistance, and has no effect on the dependency of
decreases the number of abrasive grains, which contact abrasive particle size.
the surface and remove material, thus decreasing the Many researchers have examined the abrasive parti-
abrasive wear rate. Mulhearn and Samuel [8] studied cle size effect in the zone II [14,15]. Rabinowich [14]
samples of silicon carbide (SiC) abrasive papers. They determined empirically the following abrasive wear rate
believe that the mechanical properties of coarse and of expression for the zone II using only one type of abra-
fine abrasive grains are different, and that the fine grains sive particle size
have a needle-like shape and contain many cracks, thus P
breaking up more readily. In this way, abrasive wear W ¼k1 ; ð3Þ
3
H þ 23 H 0
rate becomes zero, because small grains are flattened.
Rabinowich and Mutis [9], have aimed an account of where H is the hardness of alloy, H0 is the hardness of
the size effect using adhesive wear particles. Using a sur- the alloy in the fully soft condition and P is the pressure
face energy criterion, they theoretically show that the applied to the surface.
critical abrasive particle size is a function of the adhesive Khruschov [15] has studied experimentally zone I in a
particle size of the material being worn away. Sin et al. stationary abrasive particle size using the non-heat-trea-
[5] have used the critical depth of penetration to explain ted steels and he found the relative wear resistance–
the effect of grit size on abrasive wear loss and have hardness relationship for metals as follows:
I. Sevim, I.B. Eryurek / Materials and Design 27 (2006) 173–181 175
e ¼ bH ; ð4Þ used. For wear experiments, the apparatus in Fig. 3

where e is the relative wear resistance, b is a constant was mounted on the pin-abrasion testing machine. In
coefficient and H is the initial hardness. order to fix the samples within apparatus in Fig. 3, the
Furthermore, the following relationship has been cylindrical copper bars of 50 mm in length and 20 mm
determined to be in zone II, between the relative wear in diameter have been used. In order to prepare the spec-
resistances of heat-treated steels and hardness: imens for abrasive wear test, holes of 9 mm in diameter
and 1.5 mm in depth were milled on one end of the cop-
e ¼ ðe0 C 0 H 0 Þ þ C 1 H ; ð5Þ per bars through which the specimen were replaced. On
where e0 and H0 are the relative wear resistance and the other end, a hole of 14 mm in diameter and 25 mm in
hardness of annealed steel, and C0 and C1 are constants. depth was drilled in order to balance the sample. An
There are numerous explanations in the literature to adhesive was applied to the samples and then the sam-
explain the abrasive grit size effect. However, most of ples were attached into the holes milled on copper bars.
them have been insufficient since they have not been able Prior to the experiment, the samples were cleaned with
to explain the grit size effect encountered in all abrasive alcohol and the mass of the samples were measured
wear mechanisms (for example erosive wear) [16]. gravimetrically with 104 mg sensitivity. Then, they
The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of were assembled into the apparatus (Fig. 3) mounted
abrasive particle size on abrasive wear resistance in zone on the pin-abrasion testing machine. Hard rubber
II and I and to develop the equations of empirical abra- dampers of 20 mm diameter and 10 mm thickness were
sive wear resistance connected to abrasive particle size. put on the experiment sample to dampen out the vibra-
Moreover, to search for the effects of relative wear resis- tions. Additional masses were fixed on the copper bars
tance in zones II and I and to develop equations of that were on top of the rubber dampers. Abrasive wear
empirical relative wear resistance connected to abrasive experiments have been performed on each sample for 10
particle size. s under 0.13 MPa pressure and the experiments were re-
peated 5 times under the same conditions on each sam-
ple. At each repetition, the mass of the samples were
2. Experimental procedure determined gravimetrically and recorded. The wear vol-
umes, V, were determined from the measured mass
The steels AISI 1010, 1030, 1040, 1050 and 50CrV4 losses using the specific mass of the samples. The linear
were used in the study. The chemical compositions of wear rates, W, were computed using the following
these samples are given in Table 1. The specimens were equation:
in the form of cylinders of 9 mm diameter and 3 mm V
W ¼ ; ð6Þ
height. The samples were prepared from non-heat-trea- LA
ted and heat-treated steels. The heat treatment condi- where L is the sliding distance of the experiment sample
tions are given in Table 2. The samples were ground and A is the wear surface area of the sample.
with abrasive papers grading from 80 to 800 meshes
and then polished with 0.3 lm diamonds. The hardness
were measured by the Vickers hardness method in load 3. Results and discussion
of 98.0865 N (HV10). The average of measurements and
the standard deviations were calculated. The average In this section, we use the abrasive wear expressions
hardness values and standard derivations are given in and definitions given in nomenclature section. In partic-
Table 2. Wear experiment was carried out on the pin- ular, we define the specific wear resistance, W 1
P as
abrasion testing machine shown in Fig. 2; tambour
P
diameter D = 118 mm, tambour rotation n = 1000 rpm W 1
P ¼ ; ð7Þ
and abrasive wear set-up rate V = 6.18 ms1. In wear W
experiments, the 180, 125, 85, 70 and 50 lm alumina where P is the applied pressure to the experiment sam-
(Al2O3) abrasive paper in sizes 100 · 1150 mm were ple, and W is the linear wear rate defined in (6).
Table 1
The chemical compositions of experiment sample (wt%)
Alloys C (%) Si (%) Mn (%) P (%) S (%) Cr (%) Mo (%) Ni (%) Al (%) Cu (%) Ti (%) V (%)
1010 0.107 0.11 0.413 0.019 0.025 – 0.003 – 0.032 0.031 0.002 –
1030 0.328 0.069 0.673 0.015 0.019 – 0.001 – – 0.037 0.002 0.005
1040 0.402 0.247 0.82 0.012 0.028 0.025 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.032 0.001 0.003
1050 0.506 0.252 0.654 0.014 0.006 0.251 0.002 – 0.006 0.017 0.002 0.006
50CrV4 0.523 0.394 0.915 0.021 0.027 0.917 0.025 0.034 – 0.183 – 0.095
Table 2
Heat treatment and hardness values
Materials Heat treatment Vickers hardness HV10 (MPa)
AISI1010 – 1648 ± 10
AISI1030 – 1716 ± 20
AISI1040 – 1961 ± 29
AISI1050 – 2175 ± 34
50CrV4 – 2549 ± 49
AISI1010 Water quenched from 900 to 925 C 2255 ± 54
50CrV4 Water quenched from 830 to 850 C 8895 ± 0
AISI1010 Water quenched from 900 to 925 C + 2 h refrigerated at 25 C 2256 ± 10
50CrV4 Water quenched from 830 to 850 C + 2 h refrigerated at 25 C 8895 ± 0
AISI1010 Water quenched from 900 to 925 C + tempered at 250 C 1873 ± 25
50CrV4 Water quenched from 830 to 850 C + tempered at 250 C 6845 ± 25
3.1. For non-heat-treated steels The variation of wear coefficients k (Table 3) with
abrasive particle size d for non-heat-treated steels is seen
The relationship between the specific wear resistance, in Fig. 5. As seen in Fig. 5, the dependence of wear coef-
W 1
P , and hardness, H, of non-heat-treated steels is illus- ficient k on the abrasive particle size d is consistent with
trated in Fig. 4. The following relationship can be de- previous works [5,6,10,15]. However, the results in Fig. 5
ducted via curve fitting using the least square method shows that although wear coefficient k increases initially
in Fig. 4; fast with increasing abrasive particle size d, the wear
coefficient does not reach a steady state value in terms
W 1
P ¼ C2H ; ð8Þ of a critical particle size. Besides, as long as the abrasive
where C2 = k1, and k is the wear coefficient. Rewriting particle size increases, the slope of the curve decreases as
(8) in terms of wear coefficient, the following expression seen Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, the relation between wear coef-
for specific wear resistance is obtained: ficient k and particle size d for zone I is given by
pffiffiffi
H k ¼ 9:2 d ; ð10Þ
W 1
P ¼ : ð9Þ
k where d is abrasive particle size (m). If (10) is substituted
In Table 3, the coefficients C2, k and R are given for in (9), the specific wear resistance expression for zone I
non-heat-treated steels. becomes
80
Abrasive particlediameter d, Applied pressure
180 mm
Specific wear resistanceWP-1, (GPa)

70 P= 0.13 MPa
125 mm
60 85 mm
70 mm
50 50 mm
1010 1030 1040 1050 50Cr V4

40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Vickers hardness HV10, (GPa)
Fig. 4. Non-heat-treated steels specific wear resistance versus Vickers

hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size).
but they did not give the mathematical expressions for

this. In this study situation, the Eq. (12) was derived
for the relation between the wear coefficient k and the
particle size d using a curve fitting technique based on
Fig. 2. The pin-abrasion testing machine. least square approximation for non-heat-treated steels.
(12) is valid for ideal microcutting, according to Zum
H
W 1
P Zone I
¼ pffiffiffi ð11Þ Garh [3].
9:2 d
and the wear resistance is 3.2. For heat-treated steels
1 H
ðW 1 ÞZone I ¼ pffiffiffi : ð12Þ The variation of specific wear resistance of the heat-
9:2 d P treated steels (water quenched, water quenched + refrig-
The previous works [3,5,6] states that the wear coeffi- erated at 25 C, water quenched + tempered) with
cient k and/or the wear rate W are dependent on the par- hardness is given in Fig. 6. According to Fig. 6, the gen-
ticle size d for pure metals and non-heat-treated steels, eral expression of specific wear resistance in terms of
Fig. 3. Apparatus for abrasive wear experiments.

Table 3 Table 4
Coefficient C2 and wear coefficient k Coefficients C3 and C4
Materials Abrasive C2 Wear Coefficient Materials Abrasive C3 C4 Coefficient of
particle size coefficient of correlation R particle correlation R
d, (lm) k = 1/C2 size d (lm)
Non-heat-treated 180 8 0.125 0.99 Heat-treated steels 180 7750 2.6 0.98
steels 125 9.8 0.111 0.99 125 11,700 2.6 0.98
85 12 0.083 0.99 85 16,600 2.6 0.97
70 13 0.077 0.99 70 18,200 2.6 0.96
50 15.5 0.065 1 50 28,800 2.6 0.99
0.20
Coefficient of correlation
treated steels. (3) shows how the specific wear resistance
R= 0.99 in zone II changes with the hardness. Let us define C3
0.16
and C4 as follows:
2
Wear coefficient k
C3 ¼ H 0; ð14Þ
3k
0.12
k= 9.2x10-3d1/2 1
C4 ¼ ; ð15Þ
0.08
3k
where H0 is defined in (3) as the hardness of annealed al-
loyed steel.
0.04
If we substitute for C3 and C4 in (13), we obtain (3).
According to (3), since the values of H and H0 are
0.00 dependent on abrasive particle size d, both coefficients
0 40 80 120 160 200 in (13) are dependent on abrasive particle size d. But
Abrasive particle size d, (mm) our results (Table 4) show that C4 coefficient is not
Fig. 5. Variations of wear coefficient k of non-heat-treated steels dependent on abrasive particle size d. The variation of
versus abrasive particle size d. C3 coefficient is plotted versus abrasive particle size d
(Fig. 7). Since C4 coefficient is not dependent on abra-
sive particle size it is understood that the abrasive parti-
100
Abrasive Particle Diameters d, Coefficients of correlation cle size for heat-treated steels does not change the slope
180 mm R= 0.98 in zone II (Fig. 6). The abrasive particle size affects the
125 mm R= 0.98 slopes in zones I and II (Fig. 8). If C3 coefficient in
Specific wear resistanceWP , (GPa)
80 Applied pressure
85 mm R= 0.98
70 mm R= 0.99
P= 0.13 MPa (13) replaced with the value from Fig. 7 and C4 coeffi-
-1
50 mm R= 0.99 cient from Table 4, the specific wear resistance expres-

60
sion in zone II for the heat-treated steels becomes
40
30
Coefficient of correlation
20 R= 0.98
25
3
Costant of C3x10
0
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vickers Hardnes HV10, (GPa) 15 -1
C3=1400 d
Fig. 6. Heat-treated steels specific wear resistance versus Vickers
hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size). 10
5
hardness for heat-treated steels can be written as
follows: 0
1 0 40 80 120 160 200
W P Zone II ¼ C 3 þ C 4 ; ð13Þ Abrasive Particle Size d, (mm)
where C3 and C4 are constants. C3 and C4 constants and Fig. 7. Constant C3 of heat-treated steels versus abrasive particle size
coefficient of correlation R are given in Table 4 for heat- d.
100 3.0
Abrasive particle diameter d, Correlation Coefficent Applied presure Abrasive particle diameters d,Coefficient of correlation
180 mm R= 0.99 P= 0.13 MPa R= 0.99
Specific wear resistance WP , (GPa)
125 mm R= 0.99 2.5 Aplied pressure

80 P= 0.13 MPa
85 mm R= 0.99
-1
Relativewearresistance
70 mm R= 0.99
2.0 -1
= 6x10 H
50 mm R=1
60
Zone I Zone II 1.5
40
1.0
20 0.5
0.0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vickers Hardnes HV10, (GPa) Vickers hardness HV10, (GPa)
Fig. 8. Non-heat-treated and heat-treated steels specific wear resis- Fig. 9. Non-heat-treated steels relative wear resistance versus Vickers
tance versus Vickers hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size). hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size).
5
1
1:4 Abrasive Particle Diameters d, Coefficients of correlation
W P Zone II
¼ þ 2:6H ð16Þ R= 0.97 Applied pressure
d
R= 0.99 P= 0.13 MPa
4
R= 0.99
and the wear resistance becomes
Relativewearresistance
R= 0.99
3
R= 0.98
1 1:4
ðW 1 ÞZone II ¼ þ 2:6H : ð17Þ
P d
2
In previous works, the abrasive wear resistances of
heat-treated steels were found to be different than
those of non-heat-treated steels. Researchers con- 1
cluded that this difference was due to the heat-treat-

ment of the material [14,15]. After heat-treatment 0
the hardness of the material changes. According to 0 2 4 6 8 10
the abrasive wear mechanism of heat-treated steels, Vickers Hardness HV10, (GPa)
abrasive particles cut more chips than wear groove
Fig. 10. Heat-treated steels relative wear resistance versus Vickers
volume [3]. Abrasive particles produce chip via micro- hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size).
cutting and microcracking mechanisms. It was con-
cluded that the difference in the wear resistance of
heat-treated and non-heat-treated steels arises from a The relative wear resistance of non-heat-treated steels
microcracking mechanism in heat-treated steels during does not depend on abrasive particle size. This result is
abrasive wear. supported with the results calculated by Eq. (4) which
The variations of the specific wear resistances of non- was proposed by Khruschov [15].
heat-treated and heat-treated steels with the hardness The variation of specific wear resistance of the heat-
are shown in Fig. 8. As seen in Fig. 8, the specific wear treated steels (water quenched, water quenched + refrig-
resistances of non-heat-treated and heat-treated steels erated at 25 C, water quenched + tempered) with
are dependent upon abrasive particle size. hardness has been shown in Fig. 10. As seen in Fig.
10, the relative wear resistance in steel shows different
slopes depending on abrasive particle size. The relative
3.3. Relative wear resistance for non-heat-treated and wear resistance equations in zone II for the heat-treated
heat-treated steels steels can be written in general as follows:
From Fig. 9, the dependence of the relative wear e ¼ A 0 þ B0 H ; ð19Þ
resistance on hardness for non-heat-treated steels can where A0 and B0 are constant coefficients.
be expressed as The experimental results for A0 and B0 constants, and
coefficient of correlation R are given in Table 5 for heat-
e ¼ 6 104 H : ð18Þ treated steels. (5) shows how the relative wear resistance
Table 5 3.0
Abrasive Particle Diameters, d Applied Pressure
Coefficients A0 and B0
180 mm P= 0.13 MPa
Materials Abrasive particle size d (lm) A0 B0 (105) 2.5 125 mm
Heat-treated steels 180 0.62 19.2 85 mm
Relative wear resistance e

125 0.76 16 70 mm
2.0 50 mm
85 0.87 13
Zone I ZoneII
70 0.9 11.5
50 1.158 10.1 1.5
1.0
1.5 40
Coefficients of correlation
R= 0.97 R= 0.99 0.5
1.2 32
Coefficient of A0
0.0
5
Coefficient of B0x10
0.9 A 0=8 d
-1/2
24
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vickers Hardness HV10, (GPa)
0.6 16 Fig. 12. Non-heat-treated and heat-treated steels relative wear resis-
tance versus Vickers hardness (parameter: abrasive particle size).
1/2
B 0=1.42 d
0.3 8
0.0 0
4. Conclusion
0 40 80 120 160 200
Abrasive Particle Size d, (mm) The results showed that the wear resistance of
Fig. 11. Constants A0 and B0 of heat-treated steels versus abrasive non-heat-treated and heat-treated steels are functions
particle size d. of the abrasive particle size. From the results, an
empirical mathematical wear resistance model and
an empirical mathematical relative wear resistance
e, as a function of abrasive particle size d were
in zone II changes with the hardness. Let us define A0 derived.
and B0 as follows:
There is a linear relationship between the abrasive
A0 ¼ ðe0 C 0 H 0 Þ; ð20Þ
wear resistance W1 and hardness H, depending
B0 ¼ C 1 : ð21Þ on abrasive particle size d, for non-heat-treated
steels. The relationship between wear coefficient k
The variation of A0 and B0 constants are plotted ver- and abrasive particle size d is a parabolic as seen
sus abrasive particle size d (Fig. 11). The following equa- in equation (10). The wear resistance W1 is inver-
tion are obtained using the least square approximation sely proportional with the square root of particle
method: size d, for non-heat-treated steels as seen in Eq.
8 103 (12).
A0 ¼ pffiffiffi ; ð22Þ The relationships for the heat-treated steels between
d
the abrasive wear resistance and hardness H, show
pffiffiffi positive intercepts on the ordinate, depending on
B0 ¼ 1:42 103 d : ð23Þ
abrasive particle size d (Eq. (17)).
If A0 and B0 constants in (19) replaced with the The relative wear resistance e and hardness H related
expressions given in (22) and (23), the relative wear resis- linearly for non-heat-treated steels as it can be seen in
tance expression in zone II for the heat-treated steels Eq. (18), abrasive particle size does not effect the
becomes relationship between hardness H and relative wear
8 103 pffiffiffi resistance e. But, relative wear resistance e, for the
e¼ pffiffiffi þ 1:42 103 d H : ð24Þ heat-treated steels is dependent on abrasive particle
d
size d, and the relationships for the heat-treated steels
The hardness H, of abraded material versus the rela- show positive intercepts on the ordinate. The propor-
tive wear resistances e, of the non-heat-treated and heat- tionality behavior of hardness H and relative pffiffiffiwear
treated steels are shown graphically in Fig. 12. As seen resistance
pffiffiffi e, is dependent on the terms of 1= d and
in Fig. 12 and (18), the relative wear resistance e, is inde- d as given in Eq. (24).
pendent on abrasive particle size d in zone I while it is Heat-treated steels have lower resistance to wear than
dependent on d in zone II (see (24)). non heat-treated steels of the same hardness.
Acknowledgement [6] Misra M, Finnie I. Some observations on two-body abrasive

wear. Wear 1981;68:41–56.
[7] Avient WE, Goddard J, Wilman H. An experimental study of
The authors thank the Faculty of Mechanical Engin- friction and wear during abrasion of metals. Proc R Soc (London)
eering, Istanbul Technical University for allowing them Ser A 1960;256:159–79.
to use the Tool and Die Laboratory, the Engineering [8] Mulhearn TO, Samuels LE. The abrasion of metals: a model of
Workshop and Materials Testing Laboratory. the process. Wear 1962;5:478–98.
[9] Rabinowicz E, Mutis A. Effect of abrasive particle size on wear.
Wear 1965;8:381–90.
[10] Larsen-Badse J. Influence of grit size and specimen size on wear
References during sliding abrasion. Wear 1968;12:35–53.
[11] Moore MA, Douthwaite RM. Plastic deformation below worn
[1] Sevim I. Effect of abrasive particle size on wear resistance for surface. Metall Trans 1976;7A:1833–9.
_
abrasive wear of steels. Ph.D. Thesis, I.T.Ü. Graduate Institute of [12] Hutchings IM. Tribology: friction and wear of engineering
_
Science ISTANBUL; 1998. materials. London: Edward Arnold; 1992.
[2] Rabinowicz EA. Friction and wear of materials. New York: Wi- [13] Misra M, Finnie I. On the size effect in abrasive and erosive wear.
ley; 1965. Wear 1981;65:359–73.
[3] Zum Gahr KH. Microstructure and wear of materials. Amster- [14] Rabinowicz E. Penetration hardness and toughness indicators of
dam: Elsevier; 1987. wear resistance. In: International conference on tribology-friction,
[4] Hakkirigawa K, Li ZZ. The effect of hardness on the transition of lubrication and wear, vol. 1: 1987. p. 197–204.
abrasive wear mechanism steels. Wear Mater 1987:585–93. [15] Khruschov MM. Principles of abrasive wear. Wear 1974;28:69–88.
[5] Sin H, Saka N, Suh P. Abrasive wear mechanisms and the grit size [16] Misra A, Finnie I. A review of the abrasive wear of metals. Trans
effect of metals. Wear 1979;55:163–90. ASME 1982;104:91–101.

Ref 17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref 17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials

Eﬀect of abrasive particle size on wear resistance in steels

Received 14 June 2004; accepted 22 October 2004

tact hypothesis was ﬁrst suggested by Larsen-Badse

e ¼ bH ; ð4Þ used. For wear experiments, the apparatus in Fig. 3

Specific wear resistanceWP-1, (GPa)

1010 1030 1040 1050 50Cr V4

Fig. 4. Non-heat-treated steels speciﬁc wear resistance versus Vickers

but they did not give the mathematical expressions for

Fig. 3. Apparatus for abrasive wear experiments.

50 mm R= 0.99 cient from Table 4, the speciﬁc wear resistance expres-

125 mm R= 0.99 2.5 Aplied pressure

cluded that this diﬀerence was due to the heat-treat-

Relative wear resistance e

Acknowledgement [6] Misra M, Finnie I. Some observations on two-body abrasive

You might also like