Wear, 64 (1980) 175 - 194 175

0 Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne - Printed in the Netherlands

ABRASIVE WEAR OF WHITE CAST IRONS

KARL-HEINZ ZUM GAHR

Ruhr-University of Bochum (F.R.G.)
GEORGE T. ELDIS
Climax Molybdenum Company of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (U.S.A.)
(Received November 26, 1979)

Summary

Abrasive wear tests on white cast irons were carried out using the wet
rubber wheel test and the pin test on garnet and Sic commercial abrasive
cloths. The microstructures of the irons were changed by varying the alloy
content to obtain a range of 7 - 45 vol.% primary and/or eutectic carbides
(massive carbides). To a good approximation the matrix composition of all
the irons used was about the same. The influence of the matrix structure on
abrasive wear was studied on one iron containing 28% massive carbides. The
structure of the matrix was changed by heat treatment but the volume of
massive carbides was kept constant.
The optimum massive carbide content was governed by the occurrence
of spalling of these carbides in a given abrasion test. The wear loss of the
structures depended on the structure of the matrix, the volume of massive
carbides and the wear system used.

1. Introduction

High Cr-MO white cast irons are well known for high abrasive wear
resistance [ 1 - 63 . They are widely used as highly wear-resistant materials
for slurry pumps, mill liners, liner plates for crushers and other parts for
mining and earth-moving equipment. The high wear resistance is primarily
due to a high content of large primary and/or eutectic carbides (massive car-
bides) of the type M&s. The hardness of these carbides, about 1500 - 1800
HVzs, is. substantially greater than that of the austenitic or martensitic
matrix and is also greater than the hardness of quartz. Quartz is one of the
most prevalent abrasives in mining and earth-moving operations. Increasing
the massive carbide content results in an increasing hardness of white cast
irons.
176

The hardness of a microstructure is one of the most important factors

which influence abrasive wear resistance. However, hardness alone cannot
describe wear resistance satisfactorily. Microstructural parameters such as
inclusions, carbides, retained austenite, internal notches, anisotropy and the
matrix structure have to be considered [ 7, 81, It is also well known that
abrasive wear resistance is not an intrinsic property of a material as it depends
on the wear system used [ 91. The type of abrasive can strongly influence
wear resistance [lo, 111 .
The scope of the present study is shown in Fig. 1. The abrasive wear
loss of white cast irons was determined under various test conditions: a wet
rubber wheel abrasion test and a dry pin abrasion test using different abra-
sives. The microstructures of the irons were varied by changing the chromium
and carbon contents. This resulted in structures with a range of about 7 -
45% massive carbides. The alloying was chosen in such a way that the matrix
composition of all the irons was approximately the same, as verified by
microprobe analysis of the matrices. For each different carbide volume two
matrix structures were studied, one predominantly austenitic and one pre-
dominantly martensitic. The influence of matrix structure was further
studied by selecting one iron and varying the matrix structure by means of
heat treatments.

MATRIX STRUCTURE
_----

TEST CONDlTlON MICROSTRUCTUREOF

RUBBER WHEEL TEST
WHITE CAST IRONS
PIN TEST

CARBIDE VOLUME

ABRASIVE WEAR LOSS OF

WHITE CAST IRONS

Fig. 1.Scope of the investigation.

2. Experimental procedures

Thirteen high Cr-MO white cast irons with varying carbon and chromium
contents were cast from induction-melted heats. All heats were cast into 50
mm thick Y-blocks in baked sand molds. The chemical compositions of the
irons are shown in Table 1. Samples were cut from the Y-blocks by sawing
with a tungsten-carbide-tipped bandsaw and were heat treated in an electric
furnace with no protective atmosphere.

2.1. Heat treatment

Heat 63 (see Table 1) was selected for studying the effect of the struc-
ture of the matrix of white cast irons on abrasive wear. Thirty different
matrix structures were produced by the heat treatments listed in Table 2.
 177

TABLE 1
Chemical comp#ition of the high Cr-MO irons

Heat Element (vol.%) Carbide

no. C Si Mn Cr MO Cu Ni P S (vol.%)

17A 1.41 0.68 1.56 11.6 2.39 1.24 0.020 0.018 0.030 7.1
17B 1.38 (0.68)’ (1.56) 12.8 (2.39) (1.24) (0.020) (0.018) (0.030) 9.8
18A 2.00 0.59 1.54 15.8 2.35 1.14 0.020 NAb NA 14.4
18B 1.89 (0.59) (1.54) 17.8 (2.35) (1.14) (0.020) NA NA 17.4
16A 2.58 0.66 1.50 17.6 2.39 1.03 0.023 0.020 0.030 24.3
16B 2.48 (0.66) (1.50) 18.7 (2.39) (1.03) (0.023) (0,020) (0.030) 22.7
19A 2.87 0.58 1.52 20.0 2.36 0.94 0.020 NA NA 29.1
19B 2.79 (0.58) (1.52) 21.0 (2.36) (0.94) (0.020) NA NA 30.4
63 2.92 0.57 1.55 19.0 2.35 0.94 0.04 0.032 0.025 28.0
20A 3.50 0.61 1.59 23.4 2.47 0.87 0.022 0.020 0.030 37.6
20B 3.41 (0.61) (1.59) 24.1 (2.47) (0.87) (0.022) (0.020) (0.030) 41.1
21A 3.93 0.63 1.57 24.6 2.45 0.76 0.022 NA NA 45.4
21B 3.81 (0.63) (1.57) 25.7 (2.45) (0.76) (0.022) NA NA 38.8

‘Values in parentheses were not analyzed but are assumed to be the same as those
obtained on analysis of the A ingot of the same heat.
bNot analyzed.

The influence of varying the massive carbide volume (obtained by vary-

ing the carbon and chromium contents) on abrasive wear was investigated
with the iron in one predominantly austenitic condition and one predomi-
nantly martensitic condition. The m-cast structures stress relieved at 200 “C
for 2 h were chosen for the austenitic condition. The predominantly marten-
sitic condition was obtained by heat treating the as-cast irons at 900 “C!for
5 h, followed by cooling to room temperature with forced air. After refriger-
ating twice to -78 “C in dry ice and methanol, a stress-relieving heat treat-
ment was carried out to 200 “C for 2 h.

2.2. Microstructure
The massive carbides of all 13 heats were characterized by computerized
image analysis using an Imanco Qu~t~et 720. Fifty different fields were
examined on specimens with an area of 10 mm X 10 mm which had been
heat treated to the predominantly martensitic condition. A microscope
magnification of 250X was used. The volume of massive carbides was estab-
lished by averaging the values of the 50 fields counted for each heat.
The retained austenite content of the matrix of several of the irons was
determined by X-ray d~~action using a technique developed in this Iabora-
tory [ 121 with equipment described elsewhere [ 131. In this technique the
sample is simultaneously rotated and tilted while being exposed to the inci-
dent X-ray beam. In th& way the influence of preferred orientation of the
austenite dendrites is substantially reduced.
178

TABLE 2

Heat treatment procedures: forced-air quenched from austenitizing temperatures; air

cooled from subcritical temperatures

2.3. A bradon testing

The volume loss A V by abrasive wear was investigated using the rubber
wheel test and the pin test. The wear resistance AV-’ is taken as the recipro-
cal of the volume loss in this paper. All tests were carried out in normal
laboratory air. After abrasion testing the wear surfaces were examined by
scanning electron microscopy.

2.3.1. Rubber wheel abrasion test

In the rubber wheel abrasion test [ 141 a specimen of known weight was
pressed with a force of 222 N against a rubber-rimmed steel wheel 178 mm
in diameter rotating in a silica sand slurry at a speed of 240 rev min- ‘. The
slurry consisted of 940 ml of distilled water and 1500 g of AFS 50 - 70 mesh
silica test sand. The used slurry was discarded after each test, which ran for
5000 rev, and was replaced with fresh slurry. After one run-in period three
tests were performed on each specimen with wheels of increasing rubber
hardness, nominally 45,55 and 65 Shore Durometer. The logarithm of the
weight loss was plotted against the hardness of the rubber wheels and a least
squares line was fitted to the data points. The weight loss at a rubber wheel
 179

hardness of 60 Shore Durometer was determined from this line and converted
to volume loss by dividing by the density of the material.

2.3.2. Pin abrasion test

Resistance to two-body abrasion was determined by a pin abrasion test
apparatus constructed in this laboratory and described elsewhere [ 151. The
specimen, which was 6.35 mm in diameter, was simultaneously rotated about
its axis at 20 rev min- l under an axial load of 67 N and moved back and
forth in a non-overlapping pattern across fresh abrasive cloth of either 100
pm (150 mesh) garnet or 80 pm (180 mesh) Sic. Each specimen traveled a
total distance of 12.80 m in about 7 min. The test was repeated twice on
fresh abrasive cloth and the results were averaged. Before testing on a differ-
ent type or size of abrasive the specimens were run-in to equilibrate the sur-
face characteristics of the specimens to the new abrasive. The volume loss was
calculated by dividing the average weight loss by the density of the structure.

3. Experimental results

3.1. Microstructures
Figure 2 shows examples of the structures of the white cast irons used
in this investigation. The as-cast irons were predominantly austenitic (Figs.
2(a) - 2(c)) with a volume of massive carbides ranging from 7% to 45%. The
carbides were of the type (Cr*Fes)Cs. Their shape changed from relatively
fine eutectic carbide networks between the austenite dendrites (Fig. 2(a),
heats 17,18 and 16 (see Table 1)) to more massive eutectic carbides distrib-
uted uniformly in the au&mite (Fig. 2(b), heats 19 and 63). The change
from one carbide form to the other did not occur in one drastic step, but
rather as a slow transition in carbide shape as the carbon plus chromium
content, i.e. the carbide volume, was increased. In heats 20 and 21, which
had the highest carbon plus chromium contents, primary carbides of rather
equiaxed hexagonal cross section were found in addition to massive eutectic
carbides (Fig. 2(c)).
Heat treatment of the as-cast irons between 900 and 1035 “C resulted in
the austenite being depleted of carbon owing to the precipitation of second-
ary carbides (about 0.5 - 1 pm, Fig. 2(d)). As a consequence large amounts
of austenite were able to transform to martensite during cooling to room
temperature. The amount of retained austenite in the structures at room
temperature was further reduced by refrigerating twice to -78 “C.

3.2. Influence of carbide volume

3.2.1. Microstructure
The influence of the massive carbide content on abrasive wear loss was
studied using all the irons listed in Table 1, each with two different matrix
structures produced as .described earlier. Microprobe analysis of the matrices
showed the matrix composition to be the same to a first approximation in all
 (b)

(d)
Fig. 2. Austenitic and martensitic structures of four different white cast irons: (a) as-cast
iron, heat 17B, 9.8 vol.% massive carbides; (b) as-cast iron, heat 63, 28.0 vol.% massive
carbides; (c) as-cast iron, heat 20B, 41.1 vol.% massive carbides; (d) heat-treated iron (5 h
at 700 “C), heat l.7A, 7.1 vol.% massive carbides.

the irons, with manganese content ranging from 1.4 to 1.6 vol.%, silicon from
0.9 to 1.4 vol.%, chromium from 10.0 to 14.1 vol.% and molybdenum from
0.9 to 1.5 vol.%. In the predominantly austenitic (as-cast plus stress-relieved)
condition the matrix contained typically 75 vol.% austenite. In the predomi-
 181

nantly martensitic (heat-treated) condition the retained austenite content of

the matrix ranged from 5 to 18 vol.%.

3.2.2. A brasion reds tance

The volume loss due to abrasive wear measured in the rubber wheel test
and the hardness of the structures are shown as a function of the volume of
massive carbides in Fig. 3. The hardness of the materials increased with in-
creasing carbide volume for the austenitic (Fig. 3(a)) and the martensitic
(Fig. 3(b)) structures. The abrasive wear loss decreased to a minimum with
increasing carbide volume up to about 30%. Beyond 30 vol.% carbide the
abrasive wear loss increased. The minimum in abrasive wear loss occurred at
about the same carbide volume in both the austenitic and martensitic struc-
tures. The abrasive wear loss was found to be greater in structures with an
austenitic matrix than in those with a martensitic matrix at the same carbide
volume. The microhardness HV2s of the matrix of the austenitic structures is
also shown in Fig. 3(a). To a good approximation the matrix hardness was
independent of the carbide volume.
The abrasive wear loss measured in the pin test using garnet and Sic
abrasive particles is shown in Fig. 4 for the austenitic (Fig. 4(a)) and marten-
sitic (Fig. 4(b)) structures. The abrasive wear loss decreased with increasing
carbide volume in both the austenitic and the martensitic materials if 150
mesh garnet was used. A minimum in wear loss seemed to occur on structures
with more than 45 vol.% carbide. In contrast, abrasive wear loss in the pin
test using 180 mesh Sic increased with increasing carbide volume. At the
same carbide volume the abrasive wear loss was substantially greater with
silicon carbide than with garnet abrasive particles.

3.3. Influence of the structure of the matrix

3.3.1. Microstructure
The structure of the matrix of heat 63 (Table 1) with 28 vol.% massive
carbides was changed by different heat treatments (Table 2). The resulting
structures are classified here according to whether they had a predominantly
austenitic or a predominantly martensitic matrix. Heat treating the austenitic
as-cast structure in the range up to about 400 “C for 2 h resulted mainly in
stress relief and in tempering of the small amounts of martensite in the struc-
ture. The amount of austenite in the matrix decreased slightly after heating
between 400 and 550 “C owing to transformation of austenite to martensite
on cooling. From 550 up to 700 “C the austenite decomposed partially to
ferrite and secondary carbides.
.Re-austenitizing the as-cast structure at 1120 “C for 4 h and quenching
with forced air resulted in an increase of the austenite content of the matrix
from about 76 to 86 vol.%. Secondary carbides were precipitated from the
au&mite during re-austenitizing between 900 and 1035 “C. .The austenite
was depleted of carbon owing to carbide precipitation and a large amount of
austenite was thus able to transform to martensite during quenching to room
temperature. After austenitizing at 1000 “C for 4 h and quenchingto room
182

___
17A
4' ' ' '

-600

-550

-500

z
%
a
-450 g
::
%

-400 4

::
z

-350

I I I I t
10 20 30 40 50
CARBIDE YOLUME, %

-1000

I I 1 I
10 20 30 40 50
CARBINE VOLUME, x,

Fig. 3. Abrasive wear volume loes (rubber wheel abrasion test) and hardness of the irons
as a function of the volume of mea&e carbides: (a) predominantly auetenitic matrix; (b)
predominantly martensitic matrix. The numbers adjacent to the data points are the heat
numbers given in Table 1.
Fig. 4. Abrasive wear volume loss (pin abrasion test on 160 mesh garnet and 180 mesh
Sic) of the irons as a function of the volume of massive carbides: (a) predominantly
austenitic matrix; (b) predominantly martensitic matrix. The numbers adjacent to the
data points are the heat numbers given in Table 1.

temperature the predominantly martensitic matrix contained about 36 vol.%

austenite. This was reduced to less than 5 vol.% by a double refrigeration
treatment at -78 “C. Heat treating the martensitic structure which resulted
from austenitizing at 1000 “C for 4 h beyond about 330 “C also decreased
the retained austenite content of the matrix. For example the retained
austenite content was reduced by heating for 2 h at 550 “C!from about 35 to
25 vol.%.

3.3.2. A bradon resistance

Figure 5 shows the volume loss due to abrasive wear in the rubber
wheel test (Fig. 5(a)) and the pin test using 150 mesh garnet (Fig. 6(b))
uersus the bulk hardness of both the predominantly austenitic and the pre-
dominantly martensitic microstructures (see Table 2). All structures con-
tained 28 vol.% large massive carbides. In general the wear loss decreased
with increasing bulk hardness. At the same hardness, however, wear loss
values could differ by more than 60%.
Figure 6 shows the influence of heat treatment of the as-cast austenitic
structure and the as-quenched martensitic structure on wear loss measured in
the rubber wheel test. Heat treating the austenitic as-cast iron for 2 h at tem-
Fig. 5. Relation between the abrasive wear loss and the bulk hardness of heat 63 with 28
vol.% massive carbides and different matrix structures produced by heat treatment: (a)
wet rubber wheel abrasion test; (b) pin abrasion test on 150 mesh garnet. The numbers
adjacent to the data points idenfity the heat treatments given in Table 2.
14

17 - AS-CAST + 4 HOURS AT 1000 C-FORCED AIR

AS-CAST + HEAT TREATED FOR 2 HOURS

I 1 I 1 I I L 500
0 100 200 300 400 500 500 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
HEAT TREATING TEMPEMTURE, C HEAT TREATING TEMPERATURE, C

(4 (b)
Fig. 6. Abrasive wear volume lose (rubber wheel abrasion teat) and hardneee of heat 63
with 28 vol.% massive carbides us. the subcritical heat treatment temperature: (a) pre-
dominantly auetenitic matrix; (b) predominantly martensitic matrix.

peratures up to 250 “C kfluenced the abrasive wear loss only slightly. Wear
loss was increased substantially by a heat treatment of the as-cast iron at
330 “C for 2 h. A minimum in wear loss occurred for as-cast structures heated
for 2 h at 550 “C. Heat treatment at temperatures beyond 550 “C increased
wear loss strongly.
 186

The martensitic matrix resulting from austenitizing at 1000 “C for 4 h

was heat treated at temperatures up to 550 “C for 2 h (Fig. 6(b)). Martensitic
structures heat treated at 330 “C showed the largest wear loss. The wear loss
measured in the rubber wheel test was lower after heat treating at tempera-
tures between 400 and 550 “C than with the as-quenched martensitic struc-
ture.
The abrasive wear loss measured in the p1k-1 test using 150 mesh garnet
was also a function of the temperature of the heat treatment (Fig. 7). Simi-
larly to the results of the rubber wheel test, the wear loss in the pin test
showed a relative maximum for both austenitic and martensitic structures
heat treated at 330 “C for 2 h. Heat treatment of the as-cast iron at 550 “C
resulted in a lower abrasive wear loss than that of the untreated as-cast struc-
ture, and heat treating temperatures beyond 550 “C were found to increase
the wear loss drastically as shown in Fig, 7(a). The abrasive wear loss of the
martensitic structure in the pin test was higher after all heat treatments up to
550 “C compared with the as-quenched martensitic structure, as shown in
Fig. 7(b).
The as-cast iron was re-austenitized at temperatures between 900 and
1120 “C for 4 h. The wear loss of the resulting structures tested in the rubber
wheel test and in the pin test on 150 mesh garnet is shown in Fig. 8. Austeni-
tizing at 1120 “C followed by quenching with forced air resulted in a,pre-

AS-CAST + 4 HOURS AT 1000 C-FORCED AIR

+ HEAT TREATED FOR
1.2 - 2 HOURS

0.7' ' I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 ma 600
HEAT TREATING TEMPERATURE, C HEAT TREATING TEMPERATURE, C

(a) lb)
Fig. 7. Abrasive wear volume loss (p’m abrasion test) and hardness of heat 63 with 28
vol.% massive carbides us. the subcritical heat treatment temperature: (a) predominantly
auatenitic matrix; (b) predominantly martensitic matrix.
186

14 -

AS-CAST + AUSTENITIZED FOR 4 HOURS

YYf AS-CAST + AUSTENITIZED FOR 4 HOURS

13 -

12 -

b"

11 -

10 -
.

9-

8-

7- I
950 I
1 J - 0.61 1 1 I I
' 1400
1090 1120 900 950 1000 1035 1120
AUSTENITIZING TEMPERATURE, C AUSTENITIZING TEMPERATURE. C
(4 (b)

Fig. 8. Effect of 4 h austenitizing temperature on the abrasive wear volume loss, hardness
and matrix au&mite content of heat 63 with 28 vol.% massive carbides: (a) rubber wheel
test; (b) pin test on 150 mesh garnet; 0, predominantly austenitic matrix; l, predominant-
ly martensitic matrix.

dominantly austenitic structure. Figure 8(a) exhibits increasing wear loss in

the rubber wheel test and increasing retained austenite with increasing
austenitizing temperature. The hardness changed slightly at austenitizing
temperatures between 950 and 1000 “C, but was substantially lower in the
structures resulting from austenitizing at 11.20 “C.
The wear loss measured in the pin test on 150 mesh garnet (Fig. 8(b))
was relatively low for the as-quenched and also for the as-quenched and
stress-relieved structures austenitized at 950 and 1000 “C. A large wear loss
was measured on the structure austenitized at 900 “C!and quenched with
forced air. The wear loss of this structure was drastically reduced by stress
relieving at 200 “C for 2 h. In contrast, stress relieving the structures resulting
from higher austenitizing temperatures increased wear loss.

3.4. Examination of worn surfaces

Figure 9 shows examples of worn rubber wheel test specimens. Groov-
ing was found to be deeper in the austenitic structures than in the martensitic
structures at the same carbide volume. Increasing the carbide volume of the
martensitic structures from 10 to 30 to 41 vol.% resulted in a visible change
of the wear surfaces. At 10 vol.% carbide relatively deep grooving occurred.
At 30 vol.% carbide the grooving was more shallow. In addition to the
shallow grooving, pits were observed on structures with 41 vol.76 carbide.
These pits were also found on structures with a predominantly austenitic
(4 (b)

(4 (e)

Fig. 9. Surfaces of austenitic (lower row) and martensiti!: (upper row) white test irons
with different volumes of massive carbides after testing in the rubber wheel abrasion test:
(a) 10 vol.%; (b) 30 vol.%;(c) 41 vol.%;(d) 7 vol.%; (e) 30 vol.%; (f) 45 vol.%.
188

matrix. The degree of pitting seemed to be larger in the case of the martensi-
tic matrix, however.
Figure 10 shows details on worn rubber wheel specimens having differ-
ent massive carbide contents and morphologies. The carbide networks in the
interdendritic regions are protruding from the more substantially worn
austenitic matrix in the sample containing 7 vol.% massive carbides (Fig.
10(a)). Pits were formed on the austenitic structure with 39 vol.% massive
carbides owing to spalling of these carbides (Fig. 10(b)).

(4

(b)
Fig. 10. Surfaces of white cast irons with different massive carbide contents worn in the
rubber wheel abrasion test condition (as-cast + 2 h at 200 T): (a) heat 17A, 7 vol.%
carbide; (b) heat 21B, 39 vol.% carbide.
 189

Figure 11 shows surfaces of martensitic specimens with 28 vol.% car-

bides worn in the pin test using garnet and Sic. Relatively shallow grooving
occurred if garnet was used. Sic abrasive particles produced deep grooving as
well as cracking and spalling of some of the massive carbides,

Fig. 11. Surfaces of worn pin abrasion test specimens of heat 63 in the predominantly
martensitic condition with 28 vol.% massive carbides: (a) 150 mesh garnet; (b) 180 mesh
Sic.
190

4. Discussion

4.1. Influence of the wear system

The experimental results have shown a distinct influence of the wear
system used on the abrasive wear loss of white cast irons. Comparing the
wear loss in the rubber wheel test and in the pin test using 150 mesh garnet,
it is apparent that not only the amount of wear but also the mechanism of
abrasive wear changed.
Structures with a carbide volume of 30 - 45% exhibited the lowest wear
loss in the pin test using 150 mesh garnet (Fig. 4) but an increasing wear loss
with increasing carbide volume in the rubber wheel test (Fig. 3). The larger
wear loss in the rubber wheel test of structures with 40 - 45 vol.% carbide
compared with structures with about 30 vol.% carbide resulted from spalling
of massive carbides (Fig. 12). On identical structures with more than 30 vol.%
carbides grooving occurred in the pin test using 150 mesh garnet, but both
grooving and spalling occurred in the rubber wheel test.
Figure 13 compares the abrasive wear loss measured in the pin test using
150 mesh garnet with wear loss in the rubber wheel test for both martensitic
and austenitic structures. For a given wear loss in the pin test, structures with
a predominantly austenitic matrix showed substantially larger wear loss in
the rubber wheel test than structures with a martensitic matrix. Conversely,
at a given wear loss in the rubber wheel test, martensitic structures exhibited
a larger wear loss in the pin test than austenitic structures. The broken line in
Fig. 13 represents the linear regression of all 26 data points.
The influence of the type of abrasive used in the pin test is very distinct
in Fig. 4. While increasing carbide volume reduced wear loss in the pin test

Fig. 12. Spalled massive carbide on the slightly etched surface of heat 21B in the pre-
dominantly martensitic condition with 39 vol.% massive carbides after testing in the
rubber wheel abrasion test.
 191

5.0-
t

2
z
d 4.0-
B
s
2 3.0_
I-

z
E

i 2.0-

3
I l.O-

OR' ' I I I I _
0 10 20 30 40
--WEAR Loss (RUBBERWHEEL TEST, SILICA SAND)+

Fig. 13. Relation between the abrasive wear loss of austenitic and martensitic white cast
irons in the pin test on 150 mesh garnet and in the rubber wheel test.

using 150 mesh garnet, the reverse became true in the same test using 180
mesh Sic. Abrasive particles of garnet are softer than the M&a massive car-
bides in white cast irons. However, Sic particles are substantially harder than
the massive carbides and are able to penetrate and crack then. Therefore
spalling of massive carbides occurred with the harder abrasive particles.
The relation between abrasive wear loss and austenite content of the
matrix of heat 63 with 28 vol.% carbide is presented in Fig. 14. Wear loss in

0.6
. 1
-’ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ’ 7.61 I I I I 1 I I 1-l I
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 h0 60 80 100
AUSTiNlTE CONTENT OF THE MTRIX. X AUSTENITE CONTENT OF THE W\TRIX, t:

(4 (b)

Fig. 14. Abrasive wear volume 10s~ in the pin abrasion test on (a) 160 mesh garnet and (b)
180 mesh Sic as a function of the matrix auetenite of heat 63 with 28 vol.% massive
carbide.
192

the pin test on 150 mesh garnet increased to a first approximation with the
amount of austenite of the matrix, but exactly the reverse was true with 180
mesh SiC.

4.2. Influence of carbide volume

Quartz represents one of the most prevalent abrasives in many applica-
tions of white cast irons. The hardness of quartzite minerals encountered in
mining and e~h-moving operations is comparable, to a good approximation,
with that of garnet in the pin test and silica sand in the rubber wheel test.
Increasing the carbide volume up to 30% was found to be favorable in reduc-
ing abrasive wear loss, independent of the type of wear test using a soft abra-
sive. Under the sliding action of abrasives softer than the M&a massive
carbides in white cast irons an increasing amount of carbide resulted in
increasing pro~ction of the matrix against the attack of abrasive particles.
The onset of spalling of the massive carbides signifies the upper limit of the
amount of carbide favorable for a given wear application. This optimum
carbide content was found to be about 30 vol.% using the rubber wheel test
but more than 45 vol.% using the pin test with 150 mesh garnet. At the same
carbide volume the wear loss in the rubber wheel test was determined to be
larger for the austenitic matrix than for the martensitic matrix tested.
Apparently the non-work-hardened matrix microstructure is more important
to wear loss in the rubber wheel test than in the pin test. In the pin test using
150 mesh garnet the predominantly austenitic matrix with low to medium
carbide volume (less than about 20%) showed lower wear loss than the
m~ensitic matrix studied. The reverse became true at high carbide volumes.
The favorable behavior of an austenitic matrix with low carbide volume
seemed to be due to the work-hardening capacity of austenite during testing
in the pin test.

4.3. Influence of the structure of the matrix

The bulk hardness and microhardness of the matrix prior to wear testing
were found to be only poor indicators of the abrasive wear resistance of
white cast irons. Microstructural parameters such as the amount of massive
or secondary carbides, tempered or untempered martensite, retained
austenite, internal notches and internal stresses are important factors that
have to be considered in the prediction of the abrasive wear behavior of these
irons. Some qu~titative models which explain the influence of a few of
these parameters exist [ 7,8] but most of these factors are more or less only
qualitatively understood.
Under two testing conditions (two-body .abrasion in the pin test using
150 mesh garnet and three-body abrasion in the rubber wheel test) the lowest
wear losses were obtained in structures with a martensitic matrix. Subcritical
heat treatment of the austenitic as-cast iron at 550 “C reduced the austenite
content and also the wear loss. Refrigerating below room temperature de-
creased the wear loss in both tests used. Reducing the amount of retained
austenite of the matrix generally resulted in a lower wear loss in the rubber
 193

wheel test and in the pm test using 150 mesh garnet. Tempering at tempera-
tures up to 330 “C increased the wear loss on structures with a predominant-
ly austenitic matrix as well as on structures with a p~domin~tly martensitic
matrix. During this tempering no measurable change of the amount of austen-
ite of the matrix occurred, but tempering of the martensite reduced the
hardness of the structure and therefore increased the wear loss. Decomposi-
tion of austenite to ferrite/carbide aggregates resulting from heat treatment
of the as-cast iron at temperatures beyond 550 “C increased the wear loss
substantially in both tests.

5. Conclusions

Varying the chemical composition of white cast irons, resulting in a

change of the volume of massive carbides from 7% to 4596, and changing the
structure of the matrix by heat treatment both influenced abrasive wear loss.
The amount of wear and the ranking order of structures depended on the
wear system used.
Abrasives such as garnet and silica sand with hardness comparable with
that of quartz produced grooving of the matrix of the irons in the pin test
and, in addition, spalling of carbides in the rubber wheel test for some struc-
tures. A structure resulting in low abrasive wear loss under these conditions
was found to consist of about 30 vol.% large massive carbides of the type
M,Cs in a martensitic matrix. Wear loss of the martensitic matrix was de-
creased by reducing the mount of retained austenite.
A structure with a predominantly austenitic matrix showed a lower
abrasive wear loss than a structure with a martensitic matrix if Sic abrasive
particles, which were harder than the massive carbides, were used, The high
work-hardening capacity and higher ductility of the austenite compared with
martensite were capable of reducing the wear loss in the pm test using SiC
abrasive particles.

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to S. L. Parks for designing the composition

grid and preparing the castings for the series varying in carbide volume, They
also acknowledge with thanks the financial support during this work of one
of them (K.-H. Z. G.) by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (D.F.G.).

References

1 H. S. Avery, The measurement of wear resistance, Wear, 4 (1961) 427 - 449.

2 T. E. Norman and E. R. Hail, Abrasive wear of ferrous materials in climax operations.
In Evaluation of WearsTesting, Am. Sot. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Puhl. 446, 1968.
194

3 K. Rohrig, Geftige und Bestandigkeit gegen Mineralverschleiss von Carbidischem Guss-

e&en, Gieeeerei, 58 (1971) 697 - 705.
4 W. Fairhurst and K. Rijhrig, Abrasion resistant high-ch~mium white cast irons,
Foundry Trade J., 136 (1974) 685 - 698.
5 R. B. Gundlach, Microstructure, hardness and abrasion resistance of as-cast 17.5% Cr
white irons, Trans. Am. Foundrymen’s Sot., 82 (1974) 309 - 316.
6 I. R. Sare, Abrasion testing and fracture toughness of white cast irons, CSIRO Tribo-
physics Tech. Rep. 77/M& Sept. 1977.
7 K. H. Zum Gahr, The influence of thermal. treatments on abrasive wear resistance of
tool steels, 2. ~etailkd., 68 (1977) 783 - 792.
8 K. H. Zum Gahr, Relation between abrasive wear rate and the microstructure of
metals. In K. C. Ludema, W. A. Glaeser and S. K. Rhee (eds.), Wear ofMaterials 1979,
ASME, New York, 1979.
9 H. Czichos, A system analysis data sheet for friction and wear tests and an outline for
simulative testing, Wear, 41 (1977) 45 - 56.
10 I. Katavic, Unter~chungen iiber die Beeinfiussung des Gefiiges karbidischer Gusseisen
bei Abrasiver Ve~hle~sbeansp~&hung, Weur, 48 f1978) 35 - 53.
11 R. B. Gundlach and J. L. Parks, Influence of abrasive hardness on wear resistance of
high-chromium irons, Wear, 46 (1978) 97 - 108.
12 C. Kim, X-ray method of measuring retained austenite in white cast iron, Unpublished
research, Climax Molybdenum Company of Michigan, 1977.
13 R. L. Miller, Volume fraction analysis of phase in textured alloys, Trans. Am. Sot.
Met., 61 (1968) 592 - 597.
14 F. Borik, Rubber wheel abrasion test, SAE (Sot. Automot. Eng.) Pap. 700687,
Sept. 1970.
15 J. Muscara and M. J, Sinnott, Construction and evaluation of a versatile abrasive wear
testing apparatus, Met. Eng. CJ., 12 (2) (May 1972) 21 - 32.