Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489

www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Comparison of wear properties of tool steels AISI D2

and O1 with the same hardness
L. Bourithisa, G.D. Papadimitrioua,*, J. Siderisb
a
Laboratory of Physical Metallurgy, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechniou Street, Zographou Campus, 15780 Athens, Greece
b
Uddeholm Steel Trading Company, 20, Athinon Street, 18540 Piraeus, Greece
Received 10 June 2004; received in revised form 24 February 2005; accepted 4 March 2005
Available online 20 April 2005

Abstract
Two commercial cold work tool steels, AISI D2 and O1, were heat treated in order to obtain the same hardness 700 HV (60 HRc) and were
subsequently tested in three different modes of wear, namely in adhesion, three-body and two-body abrasion, by using pin-on-disk, dry
sand/rubber wheel apparatus and pin abrasion on SiC, respectively. Even though AISI O1 and D2 steel are heat treated to the same hardness,
they perform differently under the three modes of wear examined. The results show that the steel microstructures play the most important role
in determining the wear properties. For relatively low sliding speeds AISI O1 steel performs up to 12 times better than AISI D2 steel in
adhesive wear. For higher sliding speeds, however, this order is reversed due to oxidation taking place on the surface of the AISI D2 steel.
The wear rate of both tool steels in three-body and two-body abrasion wear is proportional to the applied load. In three-body abrasive wear,
AISI D2 exhibits a normalised wear rate about two times lower than the AISI O1 tool steel, and this is due to the presence of the plate-like
hard carbides in its microstructure. Both tool steels perform 3–8 times better in three-body abrasive wear conditions than in two-body
abrasive wear.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: AISI O1; AISI D2; Wear resistance

1. Introduction are involved in the deterioration of a tool, however, the most

Tool steels were developed to resist wear at temperatures
of forming and cutting applications. They are broadly
divided into six categories: cold work, shock resisting, hot
work, high speed, mold and special-purpose tool steels [1].
Among them, cold work tool steels are the most important
category, as they are used for many types of tools and dies
and other applications where high wear resistance and low
cost are needed [2,3]. Generally speaking, many tool steels
fulfil the requirements for a given application, so that final
selection is guided by considering the tool life as well as the
cost of material and fabrication [1,2]. It is reasonable that
the first factor affecting the tool life is wear which may be
categorised into abrasion, adhesion, erosion, fretting and
chemical wear [4]. In most cases several wear mechanisms
important ones are abrasion and adhesion [4,5]. In this
investigation, the wear resistance of two widely used cold
work tool steels, AISI O1 and D2, is experimentally
measured and assessed. AISI O1, has a low cost and
presents great machinability, while AISI D2 presents great
resistance to tempering and has better red hardness [1,2,7,8].
Both tool steels are heat treated to exactly the same
hardness, 700 HV (60 HRc), which is required for most of
the applications which they address [1–3,6–8]. The wear
resistance of the tool steels in adhesion, two-body and three-
body abrasion is examined through pin-on-disk, pin-
abrasion and dry sand/rubber wheel wear tests, respectively.
2. Procedures—experimental techniques

The investigation was done with two commercially

* Corresponding author. available tool steels, AISI O1 and AISI D2 of Uddeholm
E-mail address: gpapadimitriou@metal.ntua.gr (G.D. Papadimitriou). Company under the trade names of ‘Arne’ and ‘Sverker 21’,
0301-679X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. respectively. The nominal chemical compositions of the two
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2005.03.005 grades are presented in Table 1. Samples from both steels
480 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489

Table 1 experiment, approximately 1055 m (14,000 revolutions).

Nominal chemical composition of the tool steels in wt% For each combination of applied load and sliding speed
AISI O1 three wear tests were conducted. The specimens under
C Mn Cr W V examination were placed on the rotating disk. The stationary
0.95 1.10 0.60 0.60 0.10 body was an Al2O3 ball (Sandoz, grade A99 s) with a 6 mm
AISI D2
diameter and 1900 HV hardness. The coefficient of friction
C Mn Cr Si V Mo
1.55 0.40 11.80 0.30 0.80 0.80 was measured continuously through a load cell measuring
the tangential force. After the test, the wear scars were
examined and measured with optical microscopy and
Table 2 profilometry in order to determine the wear rate and to
Heat treatment of AISI O1 and D2 tool steels reveal the wear mechanisms.
AISI O1 AISI D2
The resistance of the heat treated tool steels to low stress
three-body abrasion wear was measured with a dry
Austenitising 820 8C, 30 min 1020 8C, 30 min
Quenching Oil (50 8C) Oil (50 8C)
sand/rubber wheel apparatus (DSRW) [9,10]. The machine
First tempering 250 8C, 2 h 500 8C, 2 h was made according to ASTM G65-94 standard. The silica
Quenching Oil (50 8C) Oil (50 8C) sand used in the tests had a mean particle size of 215 mm
Second tempering 230 8C, 2 h 480 8C, 2 h with a near-spherical shape (sphericity 0.75). The mean
Quenching Oil (50 8C) Oil (50 8C)
microhardness of the sand used is 800 HV, the bulk density
2.65 gr/cm3 and the apparent density 1.50 gr/cm3. The
were cut and heat treated in a protective atmosphere oven as sand flow was kept constant during the tests at 335 gr/min.
indicated in Table 2. The final macrohardness of both tool The wheel speed was 200 rpm (peripheral wheel speed
steels after the heat treatment was 700 HV (60 HRc) in 2.394 m/s). Each material was tested under various loads
agreement with the tempering graphs, Fig. 1. Heat treated from 9.8 to 98.0 N. The total wheel revolutions were kept
samples from both tool steels were cut, polished, etched constant for every test at 2000 (sliding distance 1436 m).
with Nital and examined with optical and scanning electron The weight of each specimen was measured before and after
microscopy (SEM) and XRD to identify microstructural the test in order to provide the amount of wear occurred. For
features and phases. Their microhardness was measured each applied load five specimens were examined. After the
using a microhardness tester under a load of 100 gr. tests the wear scars were examined with optical and
In order to investigate the resistance of the heat treated scanning electron microscopy in order to determine the
tool steels to adhesion wear the pin-on-disc test was wear mechanisms involved for the material examined.
adopted. The tests were conducted according to ASTM The resistance of the heat treated tool steels in two-body
G99-95a standards under different loads ranging from 9.8 to abrasion wear was estimated with pin abrasion test
39.2 N and sliding velocities from 0.15 to 0.75 m/s. The according to ASTM G132-96 standard. Specimens of
total sliding distance covered was constant for every 10!10 mm size were cut and polished with a SiC abrasion

Fig. 1. Tempering graphs of AISI O1 and D2 tool steels [7,8].

 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
paper up to 2000 gr. The specimens were held against 400
and 1000 gr SiC paper, under a range of applied loads from
3.0 to 16.9 N. The abrasion paper was rotated at 150 rpm
leading to a sliding velocity of 0.86 m/s. For each applied
load the test was stopped after 300 revolutions. The
specimen was cleaned with acetone and weighed in order
to estimate the wear rate. Then the abrasion paper was
changed and the same specimen was tested again with the
same conditions until a steady state wear rate was reached.
The total sliding distance covered for each specimen was
1067.5 m. After testing the specimen surfaces were
examined with an optical and electron microscope in
order to identify the wear mechanisms involved.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Microstructure
The microstructure of the heat treated AISI O1 tool steel
is presented in Fig. 2(a). It consists of tempered martensite
with small carbides, presumably Fe3C. These carbides are
formed from the martensitic matrix during tempering and
they are evenly distributed within it. The microstructure is
confirmed by X-ray analysis, Fig. 2(b).
AISI D2 tool steel presents a different microstructure
than that of AISI O1. Fig. 2(c) represents its microstructure
after the heat treatment process. Large primary carbides
with length from 5 to 20 mm are surrounded by a tempered
martensitic matrix containing small carbides. The XRD of
the extracted carbides from the heat treated steel shows
apart from the above mentioned (Fe,Cr)7C3 type carbides,
Fig. 2. (a and c) SEM micrographs of the heat treated AISI O1 and D2 tool steel, respectively. (b and d) XRD of the heat treated AISI O1 tool steel and AISI D2
extracted carbides (radiation Cu Ka).
481
a second type corresponding to Fe7C3, Fig. 2(d). The
(Fe,Cr)7C3 type carbides are the primary carbides as
confirmed by EDS microanalysis. The Fe7C3 carbides
have formed during tempering and are the small ones in
Fig. 2(c).
3.2. Pin-on-disk
The wear rates of the heat treated AISI O1 tool steel
against the Al2O3 ball are presented in Fig. 3(a). Both load
and sliding speed affect the wear rate, which attains values
between 0.5!10K11 and 5.0!10K11 m3/m. An increase in
the applied speed up to 0.55 m/s leads to higher wear rates
and after this value the wear rate remains almost constant.
The performance of heat treated AISI D2 tool steel in
adhesion wear is very different from that of AISI O1 tool
steel. The wear rates deduced from the pin-on-disk tests are
presented in Fig. 3(b) and fall between 0.5!10K11 and
6.0!10K11 m3/m. Increasing the sliding speed leads to a
pronounced decrease in the wear rate up to a minimum for
the sliding speed of 0.6 m/s and then the wear rate increases
again due to intense oxidation phenomena. The wear rate
increased with increasing applied load in the range between
9.8 and 29.4 N. For the applied load of 39.2 N, the wear rate
followed a different trend, at least in the velocity range
below 0.6 m/s.
The wear tracks of AISI O1 tool steel, for relatively low
sliding speeds, show grooves from plastic deformation,
Fig. 4(a). Large cavities are also present which have been
formed from the removal of metallic debris. The examin-
ation of the wear debris in the optical microscope reveals
mostly metallic pieces with visible grooves from
482 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489

Fig. 3. (a) Wear rates of the heat treated AISI O1 tool steel measured from the pin-on-disk test. (b) Wear rates of the heat treated AISI D2 tool steel measured
from the pin-on-disk test.

the alumina ball. For higher sliding speeds the pin on disk
tracks are partially oxidized, Fig. 4(b), but the oxide layer
seems to be very thin and semitransparent in the optical
microscope. Examination of the wear debris revealed again
large metallic flakes with grooved surfaces, Fig. 4(c).
Further analysis of the wear debris with XRD showed that
apart from tempered martensite, an oxide of the Fe2O3 type
exists, Fig. 4(d). This kind of oxide is usually the first one
formed on steels under mild wear conditions where low
temperatures are reached [11–15].
From the above discussion it may be concluded that the
dominant wear mechanism throughout the entire range of
experimental conditions applied is plastic deformation–
delamination [16–18]. An oxidation mechanism [11–15]
may also be active, mainly at the higher sliding speed range,
but it is not the dominant wear mechanism.

Fig. 4. Optical micrographs of pin-on-disk wear tracks of AISI O1 tool steel for applied load 29.4 N and sliding speed (a) 0.30 m/s, (b) 0.75 m/s. (c and d)
Optical micrograph of wear debris, and XRD of wear debris for conditions as in (b) (radiation Cu Ka).
 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489 483

Fig. 5. Optical micrographs of pin-on-disk wear tracks of AISI D2 tool steel for applied load 29.4 N and sliding speed (a) 0.15 m/s, (b) 0.30 m/s, (c) 0.55 m/s
and (d) 0.75 m/s.

The wear tracks of AISI D2 tool steel for the applied load
of 29.4 N throughout the entire sliding speed range are
presented in Fig. 5. For a sliding speed of 0.15 m/s the wear
track shows grooves of plastic deformation and some
cavities, Fig. 5(a). As the sliding speed is increased to
0.30 m/s an oxide layer starts to develop but it is very thin
and discontinuous, Fig. 5(b). Grooves from plastic defor-
mation are also present in the wear track. For an even higher
sliding speed, 0.55 m/s, the oxide layer becomes thicker
and continuous, and covers almost the entire track, Fig. 5(c).
Finally for the highest sliding speed of 0.75 m/s, the entire
wear track is covered by a thick oxide layer, Fig. 5(d).
The wear debris from the pin-on-disk experiments were
examined in the optical microscope, Fig. 6. For low applied
sliding speeds, i.e. 0.15–0.30 m/s, the wear debris consisted
of large metallic flakes and a fine dark powder, Fig. 6(a). For
higher sliding speeds the size of the metallic flakes
decreased and the wear debris consisted primarily of

Fig. 6. Optical micrographs of pin-on-disk wear debris of AISI D2 tool steel for applied load 29.4 N and sliding speed (a) 0.15 m/s and (b) 0.75 m/s.
484 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
Fig. 7. XRD of the pin-on-disk wear debris of AISI D2 tool steel for applied
load 29.4 N and sliding speed 0.75 m/s (radiation Cu Ka).
oxide powder, Fig. 6(b). The XRD analysis of the wear
debris for the applied load of 29.4 N and sliding speed of
0.75 m/s showed that it consisted mainly of oxides, Fe2O3
and (Fe0.6Cr0.4)2O3, Fig. 7. These oxides usually form when
the wear tests are run at low temperatures [11–15].
The above findings lead to the conclusion that under the
experimental conditions examined in this work there are two
wear mechanisms involved in the wear of AISI D2 tool
steel. For low sliding speeds, 0.15–0.30 m/s, the dominant
wear mechanism is delamination wear [16–18]. An
oxidation mechanism is also active but it is not the primary
wear mechanism. That is why the wear tracks exhibit deep
grooves and cavities, Fig. 5(a) and (b), and the wear debris
consist primarily of large metallic chips and flakes,
Fig. 6(a). For the sliding speed of 0.75 m/s oxidation
[11–15] becomes the primary wear mechanism, confirmed
from the continuous oxide layer that forms on the wear
tracks, Fig. 5(d), and the XRD analysis of the wear debris,
Fig. 7. Some small metallic chips present in the wear debris
at sliding speed of 0.75 m/s and applied load of 29.4 N,
Fig. 6(b), suggest that delamination wear is also active but is
not the primary wear mechanism. The above wear
mechanisms, delamination and oxidation, and the transition
between them explains the decrease of the wear rate for
higher applied sliding speeds [19,20], Fig. 3(b).
Fig. 8. Coefficients of friction against Al2O3 ball of the (a) AISI O1 tool steel and (b) AISI D2 tool steel.
The coefficient of friction for the heat treated AISI O1
steel-Al2O3 ball is almost constant at a value 0.55 for all the
applied conditions indicating that there is no change of the
primary wear mechanism. The coefficient of friction for
the conditions in this study are presented in Fig. 8(a). The
friction coefficient of the AISI D2 tool steel follows the
trends of the wear rate and reflects the wear mechanisms,
Fig. 8(b). For low sliding speeds, where delamination is the
primary wear mechanism, the friction coefficient has a value
of about 0.74. For higher sliding speeds, however, where
oxidation plays an important role in the wear of the surface,
the friction coefficient decreases reaching, finally, a value of
0.58.
Comparing the two heat treated tool steels, one may
conclude that although they have the same hardness, their
characteristics in adhesion wear are very different. For low
sliding speeds, 0.15–0.30 m/s, the AISI O1 tool steel
performs better than the AISI D2 steel, apparently due to
its homogenous microstructure. However, for higher
sliding speeds this order is reversed due to the oxidation
wear mechanism activated during the wear of AISI D2
steel, Fig. 3. The friction coefficient of the ‘alumina-
D2 steel’ tribosystem is higher than that of the ‘alumina-O1
steel’, presumably due to the highly inhomogeneous
microstructure of the D2 steel. It tends to be equal for
both systems when oxidation products cover the track.
3.3. Dry sand/rubber wheel tests
The wear rates measured from the dry sand/rubber
wheel tests are presented in Fig. 9 for both steels. The
wear rate is proportional to the applied load for both
steels as is anticipated by Archard’s linear law [21]. The
linear increase in wear rate with respect to the applied
load was not observed in the work of Ma et al. [22] for
the AISI D2 tool steel, probably because the silica sand
lost progressively its cutting ability, as higher applied
loads were used.
 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
Fig. 9. Wear rates of the heat treated AISI O1 and D2 tool steels measured
with the dry sand/rubber wheel test.
The wear tracks of the AISI O1 tool steel for applied
loads of 29.4 and 98.0 N are presented in Fig. 10(a) and (b),
respectively. For lower applied loads, i.e. 29.4 N, the wear
track presents mostly shallow grooves and extensive plastic
deformation. The dominant wear mechanism is micro-
ploughing [23]. As the applied load increases the grooves
increase in number and become progressively deeper,
Fig. 10(b). Also some craters can be seen on the surface
of the tracks caused by the cutting action of the silica sand.
Fig. 10. (a and c) SEM micrographs of the wear scars of AISI O1 and D2 specimens, respectively, after the dry sand rubber wheel test for applied load 29.4 N.
(b and d) The same for applied load 98.0 N.
485
This suggests that a microcutting wear mechanism [23]
becomes progressively active, but it does not become the
primary wear mechanism. As a matter of fact a transition in
the wear mechanism should lead to a change of the slope of
the wear rate-applied load curve, but this is not actually
observed, Fig. 9.
The wear tracks of AISI D2 tool steel have a very
different topography than that of AISI O1 tool steel.
Irrespective of the applied load, the surfaces of the wear
tracks appear relatively smooth, without deep grooves nor
extensive plastic deformation, Fig. 10(c) and (d). The
tempered martensitic matrix of the tool steel seems to be
worn out by the silica sand particles but the blocky primary
M7C3 carbides remain unaffected, slightly protruding from
the surface of the track. This seems logical, considering the
microhardness of the microstructural constituents of the
tribosystem, presented in Table 3. According to the work of
Khruschov [24] and Richardson [25,26] if the hardness ratio
between the abrasive and the abraded material is lower than
0.7–1.1 no wear takes place, while if the ratio is higher than
1.3–1.7 the maximum possible wear takes place. Since the
M7C3 carbides are not worn by the silica sand and protrude
from the matrix, they bear most of the applied load. The
latter leads to cracking of the carbides and to their removal
as fragments, leaving deep cavities on the surface of the
wear tracks, Fig. 10(d). From the above observations it
becomes clear that wear of AISI D2 steel takes place in two
stages: first the matrix is removed by the sand particles
around the primary blocky carbides, and then, under
486 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489

Table 3 expressed as m3 of material loss per m of sliding distance, k 0

Microhardness of the microstructural constituents of the D2 tool steel in is the normalised wear rate expressed as m3/Nm.
relation to the abrasive particles
Using the least square linear fit method, we found that the
Hm: Martensitic Matrix DSRW test normalised wear rate for the AISI O1 tool steel is 1.88G
630G50 HV Ha/Hm:1.3 0.08!10K13 m3/Nm (R2: 0.994) and that for the AISI D2
Hc: Carbides Ha/Hc:0.7
1300G100 HV
tool steel is 1.01G0.07!10K13 m3/Nm (R2:0.985). This
Ha: Silica Sand Pin Abrasion test means that AISI D2 tool steel performs almost two times
800G50 HV Ha/Hc:2 better than AISI O1 and this is due to the blocky carbides
Ha: SiC Ha/Hm:4 contained in its microstructure, which are harder than the
2700 HV[1,3,4] abrasive media (silica sand).

the effect of high stresses, the carbides are broken and
removed from the matrix leaving cavities. This wear
mechanism revealed here for the AISI D2 tool steel is
very similar to the wear mechanism that other investigators
observed for metal matrix composites in three-body
abrasion wear [27,28].
For comparing the performance of the tool steels
examined in low stress three-body abrasion wear, the
normalised wear rate, k 0 , was calculated. This is defined
from Archard’s linear law [21,29] according to Eq. (1)
k V
VZ FS or Z k0F
3H S loss of the steel with respect to sliding distance is reported.
where: V is the volume loss of material in m3, H is the
hardness of the material in Pa, F is the applied load in N, S is
the sliding distance covered in m and k is the abrasive
coefficient. The ratio V/S is defined as ‘wear rate’ and is
3.4. Pin abrasion tests
The volume loss of the AISI O1 versus the sliding
distance covered in the case of the two abrasive papers,
1000 and 400 gr, respectively, are presented in Fig. 11(a)
and (b). For every applied load the volume loss of material
is proportional to the sliding distance covered on the
abrasive media. This is consistent with the linear law of
Archard’s theory [21,29]. Accordingly, a constant wear rate
for every applied load may be calculated and is presented in
Fig. 12(a) and (b). Similar conclusions can be made for the
AISI D2 tool steel in Fig. 11(c) and (d), where the volume
(1)
The constant wear rates calculated are presented also in
Fig. 12(a) and (b). For both tool steels the wear rate
increases linearly with the applied load for the conditions
examined in this work. The normalised wear rates for both
tool steels calculated with the least square linear fit method

Fig. 11. Volume loss versus sliding distance of heat treated AISI O1 and D2 tool steel worn against SiC abrasion paper. (a and c) 1000 gr and (b and d) 400 gr.
 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
Fig. 12. Wear rate versus applied load graphs of the heat treated AISI O1 and D2 tool steels against SiC abrasion paper (a) 1000 gr and (b) 400 gr.
are summarised in Table 4. It is clear that the normalised
wear rate is more than two times higher for the 400 gr than
for the 1000 gr abrasion paper and this is valid for both tool
steels. This may be explained considering the true stresses
which are developed between the SiC particles of the
abrasion paper and the abraded metal. As the grit size
number becomes smaller, the abrasive particles become
larger so that the number of SiC particles per cm2 of area is
smaller and the stresses that are developed for the same
applied load are higher. Wang et al.[30] have discovered
that the number of particle contacts in two-body abrasive
wear with abrasive paper is inversely proportional to the
square of the mean size of abrasive particles. Early studies
have found that the grit size affects drastically the wear rate
when it is larger than 180 gr [31–36], as it is in our case.
Another point to mention is the severity of two-body
abrasive wear in comparison with three-body abrasive wear.
The results from this work showed that the normalised wear
rate is 3–8 times greater in the two-body than in three-body
abrasive wear. Rabinowicz et al. [29] have pointed out that
during three-body abrasive wear the particles are abrading
the surface for approximately 10% of the abrasion time and
this contributes to a lower wear rate compared with two-
body abrasive wear.
The abraded surfaces of AISI O1 tool steel for 1000 and
400 gr SiC papers are presented in Fig. 13(a) and (b),
respectively. Under the same applied load the grooves on
the surface abraded with 400 gr abrasive paper are deeper
than that abraded with 1000 gr. This is in agreement with
the statement in a previous paragraph that smaller grit size
numbers lead to higher stresses developed between abrasive
particles and abraded material. Generally speaking, only
grooves from plastic deformation are observed on the
abraded surfaces, cracks or metallic ribbons ready to detach
were not detected under these wear conditions. The wear
mechanism for all the conditions is a mixture of ploughing
and cutting [37,38]. Fig. 13(c) and (d) presents SEM
micrographs of the abraded surfaces of AISI D2 tool for the
same conditions as in the case of AISI O1 tool steel. As it is
487
clearly seen there is no crack formation or fracture of the
carbides under all the applied conditions. Cross-sections of
the abraded surfaces confirmed the absence of cracks in the
subsurface regions. The abraded surfaces show continuous
grooves, which traverse both the martensitic matrix and the
primary carbides. As in the case of three-body abrasive
wear, the relative hardness of the abrasive media, SiC, can
be compared with the material under study, Table 3. The
hardness ratios between the abrasive material and the
abraded microconstituents (matrix and carbides), are greater
than 1.7 [24–26], which means that SiC particles would find
no difficulty in cutting both the carbides and the metallic
matrix. These findings are in contrast with the work of
Cheng et al. [39] who stated that crack nucleation, carbide
fracture and exfoliation are the primary factors affecting the
wear resistance of AISI D2 tool steel in two-body abrasive
wear. This difference may be attributed to the fact that in the
present work AISI D2 tool steel was tempered in order to
develop good fracture toughness and this prevented the
nucleation of cracks. In addition, the SiC particle size was
smaller in our case leading to lower stresses, and as it has
been discussed earlier, to smaller penetration depths,
making difficult the cracking and the pullout of the carbides
[40].
Comparing the tool steels examined, Table 4, the AISI
D2 steel performs more than two times better than the AISI
O1 steel even though they are heat treated to the same
hardness. The superior performance of AISI D2 steel is due
to the blocky carbides in its microstructure, which enhance
the wear resistance.
Table 4
Normalised wear rates (m3/Nm) of AISI O1 and D2 tool steels from the pin
abrasion tests
AISI O1 AISI D2
1000 gr SiC 400 gr SiC 1000 gr SiC 400 gr SiC
5.04!10 K13
13.40!10 K13
2.95!10 K13
8.02!10K13
488 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
Fig. 13. (a and c) SEM micrographs of the worn surface of the AISI O1 and D2 tool steel specimens, respectively, after two-body abrasion wear with SiC paper
1000 gr (c and d) The same for 400 gr (applied load 11.3 N).
4. Conclusions
Even though AISI O1 and D2 steel are heat treated to the
same hardness, 700 HV 60 HRc, they perform differently
under the three modes of wear examined in this work:
adhesion, three-body and two-body abrasion.
For relatively low sliding speeds AISI O1 steel performs
up to 12 times better than AISI D2 steel in adhesive wear.
For higher sliding speeds, however, this order is reversed
due to oxidation taking place on the surface of the AISI D2
steel.
The friction coefficient of the AISI O1 tool steel against
Al2O3 is constant regardless of the conditions applied and
has a value of 0.55. The primary wear mechanism for all
wear conditions is delamination wear.
The friction coefficient of AISI D2 tool steel against
Al2O3 decreases progressively with increasing sliding
speed, due to a change in the primary wear mechanism
from delamination to oxidation wear.
The wear rate of both tool steels in three-body and two-
body abrasion wear is proportional to the applied load.
In three-body abrasive wear, AISI D2 exhibits a
normalised wear rate about two times lower than the AISI
O1 tool steel, and this is due to the plate-like hard carbides
present in its microstructure.
The primary wear mechanism in three-body abrasive
wear of AISI O1 tool steel is ploughing, while that of AISI
D2 wear tool steel is carbide fracture and exfoliation.
In two-body abrasive wear, AISI D2 has a more than two
times lower normalised wear rate than AISI O1 tool steel.
Both tool steels perform 3–8 times better in three-body
abrasive wear conditions than in two-body abrasive wear.
References
[1] Budinski KG. Engineering materials, properties and selection. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1992, p. 373–411.
[2] Roberts George A, Cary Robert A. Tool steels. Ohio: ASM; 1980, p.
493–553.
[3] Glaeser William A. Materials for tribology. Tribology series. vol. 20.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992, p. 33–7.
[4] Rabinowicz Ernest. Friction and wear of materials. New York: Wiley;
1995, p. 6–7.
[5] Eyre TS. Wear characteristics of metals. Tribol Int 1976;9(5):203–12.
[6] Lansdown AR, Price AL. Materials to resist wear, a guide to their
selection and use. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1986.
[7] Arne, cold work tool steel. Tool steel Facts, Uddeholm Company.
[8] Sverker 21, cold work tool steel. Tool steel Facts, Uddeholm
Company.
[9] Stevenson ANJ, Hutchings IM. Development of the dry sand/rubber
wheel abrasion tets. Wear 1996;195:232–40.
[10] Hawk JA, Wilson RD, Tylczak JH, Doğan ÖN. Laboratory abrasive
wear tests: investigation of test methods and alloy correlation. Wear
1999;225–229:1031–42.
[11] Quinn TFJ, Rowson DM, Sullivan JL. Application of the oxidational
theory of mild wear to the sliding wear of low alloy steel. Wear 1980;
65:1–20.
[12] Sullivan JL, Athwal SS. Mild wear of a low alloy steel at temperatures
up to 500 8C. Tribol Int 1983;16(3):123–31.
[13] Quinn TFJ. Review of oxidational wear, Part I. The origins of
oxidational wear. Tribol Int 1983;16(5):257–71.
[14] Quinn TFJ. Review of oxidational wear, Part II. Recent developments
and future trends in oxidational wear research. Tribol Int 1983;16(6):
305–15.
 L. Bourithis et al. / Tribology International 39 (2006) 479–489
[15] Quinn TFJ, Sullivan JL, Rowson DM. Origins and development of
oxidational wear at low ambient temperatures. Wear 1984;94:175–91.
[16] Suh NP. The delamination theory of wear. Wear 1973;25:111–24.
[17] Suh NP. An overview of the delamination theory of wear. Wear 1977;
44:1–16.
[18] Jahanmir S, Suh NP. Surface topography and integrity effects on
sliding wear. Wear 1977;44:87–99.
[19] Lim SC, Ashby MF. Wear-mechanism maps. Acta Metall 1987;35(1):
1–24.
[20] Lim SC, Ashby MF, Brunton JH. Wear-rate transitions and their
relationship to wear mechanisms. Acta Metall 1987;35(6):1343–8.
[21] Archard JF. Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces. J Appl Phys 1953;
24(8):981–8.
[22] Ma X, Liu R, Li DY. Abrasion wear behavior of D2 tool steel with
respect to load and sliding speed under dry sand/rubber wheel
abrasion condition. Wear 2000;241:79–85.
[23] Gore GJ, Gates JD. Effect of hardness on three very different forms of
wear. Wear 1997;203–204:544–63.
[24] Khruschov MM. Principles of abrasive wear. Wear 1974;28:69–88.
[25] Richardson RCD. The wear of metals by hard abrasives. Wear 1967;
10:291–309.
[26] Richardson RCD. The wear of metals by relatively soft abrasives.
Wear 1968;11:245–75.
[27] Deuis RL, Subramanian C, Yellup JM. Three-body abrasive wear of
composite coatings in dry and wet environments. Wear 1998;214:112–30.
[28] Pagounis E, Lindroos VK. Processing and properties of particulate
reinforced steel matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A 1998;246:
221–34.
489
[29] Rabinowicz E, Dunn LA, Russell PG. A study of abrasive wear under
three-body conditions. Wear 1961;4:345–55.
[30] Wang AG, Hutchings IM. The number of particle contacts in two-
body abrasive wear of metals by coated abrasive papers. Wear 1989;
129:23–35.
[31] Rabinowicz E, Mutis A. Effect of abrasive particle size on wear. Wear
1965;8:381–90.
[32] Nathan GK, Jones WJD. The empirical relationship between abrasive
wear and the applied conditions. Wear 1966;9:300–9.
[33] Larsen-Badse J. Influence of grit diameter and specimen size on wear
during sliding abrasion. Wear 1968;12:35–53.
[34] Larsen-Badse J. Some effects of specimen size on abrasive wear.
Wear 1972;19:27–35.
[35] Moore MA. A review to two-body abrasive wear. Wear 1974;27:
1–17.
[36] Sin H, Saka N, Suh NP. Abrasive wear mechanisms and the grit size
effect. Wear 1979;55:163–90.
[37] Kayaba T, Hokkirigawa K, Kato K. Analysis of the abrasive wear
mechanism by successive observations of wear processes in a
scanning electron microscope. Wear 1986;110:419–30.
[38] Hokkirigawa K, Kato K. An experimental and theoretical investi-
gation of ploughing, cutting and wedge formation during abrasive
wear. Tribol Int 1988;21(1):51–7.
[39] Cheng LC, Wu TB, Hu CT. The role of microstructural features in
abrasive wear of a D-2 tool steel. J Mater Sci 1988;23:1610–4.
[40] Deuis RL, Subramanina C, Yellup JM. Abrasive wear of aluminium
composites-a review. Wear 1996;201:132–44.