Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181

An investigation of the abrasive wear behavior of ductile cast iron

Zhen-Lin Lua,*, Yong-Xin Zhoua, Qi-Chang Raob, Zhi-Hao Jinb
a
School of Material Science and Engineering, Xi'an University of Technology, Xi'an 710048, PR China
b
School of Material Science and Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, PR China
Received 2 January 2000

Abstract

The abrasive wear behavior of ductile cast iron with four different matrix microstructures was determined by the pin-on-disc abrasion
test, the three-body abrasion test and the impact three-body abrasion test. The results indicate that the abrasive wear resistance of ductile
cast iron tested in pin-on-disc abrasion and three-body abrasion is approximately linearly proportional to its hardness, so that the abrasive
wear resistance of martensitic matrix ductile cast iron and martensitic matrix with dispersed eutectic carbide ductile cast iron is the best,
followed by the bainitic matrix, with the pearlitic matrix being the worst. However, under the conditions of the impact three-body abrasion
test, the abrasive wear resistance of ductile cast iron has a relationship to its hardness and toughness, i.e. it requires the appropriate
combination of its hardness and toughness. Therefore, the abrasive wear resistance of martensitic matrix ductile cast iron is the best, the
pearlitic and the bainitic matrix being the next best, with the martensitic matrix with eutectic carbides being the worst. # 2001 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Abrasive wear behavior; Ductile cast iron; Martensitic matrix

1. Introduction
Ductile cast iron, which has excellent mechanical proper-
ties, has been used widely in the machine industry, the
automobile industry, the mining industry, and so on as a
structural material [1±5]. However, as a wear resistant
material, its application is still limited. In the 1960s, grind-
ing balls made of ductile cast iron with medium manganese
(5±6%Mn) were developed and applied in the mining
industry [6,7], but this material has become gradually obso-
lete because of its serious fatigue spalling and breakage in
service caused by a great deal of retained austenite and
eutectic carbides in its matrix. In recent years, the use of
ductile cast irons to make grinding balls has been investi-
gated, such as martensitic ductile cast iron [7±10], bainitic
ductile cast iron [11], austempered ductile cast iron [12], and
as-cast pearlitic ductile cast iron [13]. Because ductile cast
iron has an appropriate cooperation of impact fatigue resis-
tance and abrasive wear resistance, as well as having lower
breakage, lower fatigue spalling and lower production cost,
it is used to make grinding balls that are used in the cement,
mining and power industries, and a better utilization effect
*
Corresponding author. Present address: School of Material Science and
Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, PR China.
Fax: ‡86-29-3237910.
E-mail address: luzl@263.net (Z.-L. Lu).
has been obtained [14]. In this paper, the abrasive wear
behavior of ductile cast iron is studied in order to provide the
proper matrix structures for wear resistant parts of ductile
cast iron required to be employed under different conditions.
2. Experiment procedure
2.1. Material preparation
Ductile cast iron for testing was melted in a 60 kg
induction-melting furnace. The melts were poured at a
temperature of 13508C into 50 mm thick Y-block dry sand
molds, and the castings were allowed to cool to room
temperature in the molds. Subsequently, the castings were
machined into different size samples for testing. The che-
mical compositions, heat treatments and mechanical proper-
ties of the samples are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Eutectic
carbide appears in the microstructure of ductile cast iron
with the addition of chromium, and its amount would
increase with increasing chromium.
2.2. Abrasion test
The pin-on-disc abrasion test [15] using Al2O3 abrasive
paper which size corresponded to 120 grit was carried out.
The wear pin specimen for the pin-on-disc tests was a

0924-0136/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 0 1 3 - 5
 Z.-L. Lu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181 177

Table 1
Compositions of ductile cast irons for testing

No. Chemical composition (wt.%)

C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Cu RE

A-1 3.08 2.65 1.04 0.063 0.025 0.053

A-2 3.08 2.65 1.04 0.063 0.025 0.053
B 3.32 2.52 0.38 0.060 0.020 0.29 0.35 0.43 0.067
C 3.60 1.75 0.94 0.50 0.045
D 3.66 1.88 1.02 0.061 0.61 0.049

Table 2
Heat treatments, microstructures and mechanical properties of ductile cast irons for testinga

No. Heat treatment Microstructure Hardness Impact toughness,

(HRC) ak (J/cm2)

A-1 8808C (1 h) quenching in solution ‡ 200 C tempering (2 h) M ‡ Ar ‡ G; Ar < 5% 49.0 8.4

A-2 8808C (1 h) quenching in air ‡ 200 C tempering (2 h) P ‡ G; F < 5% 32.8 19.4
B 8808C (1 h) quenching in salt bath ‡ 200 C tempering (2 h) B ‡ G ‡ Ar; Ar  13% 36.5 35.8
C 8808C (1 h) quenching in solution ‡ 200 C tempering (2 h) M ‡ G ‡ 10 15%K 52.2 9.2
D 8808C (1 h) quenching in solution ‡ 200 C tempering (2 h) M ‡ G ‡ 15 20%K 51.0 11.9
a
P: pearlite, M: martensite, B: bainite, Ar: retained austenite, G: spheroidal graphite, F: ferrite, K: eutectic carbides.

cylinder, with one end in contact with the abrasive paper on 200 min 1. The abrasive particles ¯owing through the inter-
the disc. Its size was 4 mm diameter and 30 mm length. face were 40±70 mesh silica sand. After 30 min running-in
Following a ``run-in'' period, tests were conducted at 2.5 kg test, three tests were performed on each specimen, and each
load over a wear path of about 11.22 m on a fresh sheet of test running for 30 min. The wear resistance was taken as the
abrasive paper. After one running-in test, three tests were reciprocal of the weight loss, i.e.
performed on each specimen. Three-body abrasion test was
1
also carried out by the method described by Boyes [16]. The eˆ (2)
weight loss …g†
linear velocity of specimens was about 0.55 m/s. A vertical
load of 4.83 N/cm2 was applied on the specimen. The A balance with a sensitivity of 0.0001 g was used to deter-
abrasive particles were 40±70 mesh silica sand of angular mine all of the weight losses in the tests.
shape. After 30 min for the running-in test, three tests were
performed on each specimen, each test running for 30 min.
The wear resistance tested in pin-on-disc and three-body
abrasive wear is given in terms of the weight loss of the test
materials related to the weight loss of a standard specimen of
normalized steel, of which the composition was 0.45%C,
0.23%Si, 0.46%Mn, 0.016%S, 0.020%P and the hardness
was HB210, as
weight loss of the standard specimen …g†
bˆ (1)
weight loss of the test specimen …g†
To use a standard sample simply gives a reference point
and allows the reporting of data in terms of dimensionless
numbers.
The impact three-body abrasion test was conducted in
the abrasion test apparatus, a schematic diagram of which is
shown in Fig. 1. An upper specimen 10 mm  10 mm
30 mm made of the test material was freely and repeatedly
dropped on to a lower specimen which was made of normal-
ized steel of 0.45%C and was rotating at a speed of 200 rpm.
The lower specimen was a ring of outside diameter 50 mm. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the impact abrasion tester: (1) hammer; (2)
The upper specimen holder provided an impact energy of specimen holder; (3) upper specimen; (4) lower specimen; (5) abrasive
3.0 J to the test interface. The impact frequency was particles.
178 Z.-L. Lu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181
Table 3
Abrasive wear resistances of different matrix ductile cast irons
No. Microstructure Abrasive wear resistance
Pin-disc, b
A-1 M ‡ Ar ‡ G 74.7
A-2 P‡G 23.8
B B ‡ G ‡ Ar 53.8
C M ‡ G ‡ 10 15%K 84.1
D M ‡ G ‡ 15 20%K 79.1
3. Results and discussions
The abrasion test results of different matrix structure
ductile cast iron are shown in Table 3. It is known that
the abrasive wear resistance, which differs from the strength
limit and the hardness of materials, is the synthetic expres-
sion of the physical and chemical characteristics of materials
under de®nite ®eld conditions as systematic properties, but
is not an inherent characteristic of materials. In other words,
wear is determined by the summing up of all the processing
appearing in usage, and its occurrence and development
depends upon both the properties of the materials and the
external ®eld conditions.
The laboratory abrasion test is to study mainly the rule of
wearing phenomena under the laboratory test conditions,
namely the wear process and the wear mechanism. There-
fore, the analysis and discussions of the test results must be
associated with the wear mechanism.
3.1. Pin-on-disc test
The abrasive wear resistance of ductile cast iron with
different matrix structures increased with increase in its
hardness under the pin-on-disc abrasion test conditions, as
shown in Fig. 2.
It can be seen that there are a lot of grooves in Fig. 3, and it
can be seen also that deformation had taken place at both the
edges of grooves. This is because pin-on-disc wear belongs
Fig. 2. Relation between the wear resistance and the hardness of different
matrix ductile cast irons in the pin-on-disc test.
Three-body, b Impact three-body, e
1.311 21.10
1.178 17.16
1.314 16.12
1.397 14.87
1.313 16.23
to stationary abrasive wear: the micro-cutting model is the
predominant wearing mechanism. The wear resistance of
ductile cast iron is determined by its hardness.
Khruschov [17] indicated in his early studies that the wear
resistance of simple metal increased linearly with increase in
its hardness when the hardness of the abrasive was higher
than that of simple metal tested in the pin-on-disc test.
An approximately linear relationship of the abrasion wear
resistance of ductile cast iron and its hardness in the pin-on-
disc test can be observed in Fig. 2. This result shows that
martensitic matrix ductile cast iron and martensitic matrix
with dispersed 10±20% eutectic carbide ductile cast iron has
the best abrasion wear resistance, followed by the bainitic
matrix, with the pearlitic matrix being the worse.
3.2. Three-body abrasion test
The wear resistance of ductile cast iron with different
matrices also increased with increase in their hardnesses in
the three-body abrasion test, as shown in Fig. 4.
Because three-body abrasion test belongs to bulk abrasive
wear, abrasive sliding and rolling existed at the surface of
sample when tested. The abrasive sliding creates cutting
wear; however, whether the cutting wear takes place or not is
determined by the relative hardness between the abrasive
and the tested material. Under the present test conditions,
because the hardness of silica sand is higher than that of the
material tested, numerous grooves can be observed in Fig. 5.
Fig. 3. SEM microphotograph showing the morphology of the worn
surface of specimen A-1 in the pin-on-disc test (100).
 Z.-L. Lu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181
Fig. 4. Relation between the wear resistance and the hardness of different
matrix ductile irons in the three-body abrasion test.
Abrasive rolling would create trundle pits at the surface of
the specimens and lead to repeat plastic deformation of the
material. The fatigue crack initiation and propagation
caused by the repeated plastic deformation would lead to
fatigue spalling. Numerous rolling±pressing pits can be seen
in Fig. 5. Therefore, three-body abrasion is the combination
of the micro-cutting wear mechanism and the plastic defor-
mation wear mechanism. It is required to point out that
fatigue spalling caused by repeated plastic deformation is a
slow process of crack initiation and propagation. Because of
the existence of numerous abrasive cuttings, the surface of
the sample would be cut off by abrasive before fatigue
spalling caused by repeated plastic deformation could take
place. Micro-cutting, hence, is predominant under the con-
ditions of the three-body hard abrasive wear test. The hard-
ness of ductile cast iron is still the main factor that affects the
three-body abrasion wear resistance. Therefore, the results
show that under the conditions of the three-body hard
abrasive test, the martensitic matrix ductile cast iron and
martensitic matrix with dispersed 10±20% eutectic carbide
ductile cast iron has the best abrasion wear resistance,
followed by the bainitic, with the pearlitic being the worst.
Fig. 5. SEM microphotograph showing the morphology of specimen A-1
in the three-body abrasion test (1000).
179
It needs to be pointed out that bainitic ductile cast iron has
the appropriate combination of hardness and toughness
because of the existence of ®ner lower-bainite and an
appropriate amount of retained austenite formed at lower
isothermal temperature in its matrix microstructures.
Although its hardness is lower and its cutting wear resistance
is less, it could resist the plastic deformation wear caused by
abrasive repeated rolling because of its better toughness.
Therefore, bainitic ductile cast iron could display better
wear resistance under the conditions of the three-body
abrasion test. It could not be deduced whether austenitic
transformation took place during the test as the amount of
retained austenite in the bainitic matrix specimen was not
measured after the test.
3.3. Impact three-body abrasion test
The impact abrasion test with repeated impact load also
belongs to bulk abrasive wear just as for three-body abra-
sion, therefore, both cutting wear and plastic deformation
fatigue wear existed simultaneously when testing, and the
wear model would be affected by the value of existing
impact work. With increase in the value of impact work,
the portion of cutting wear would decrease and that of
plastic deformation wear would increase. Thus, the weight
loss of specimens under the conditions of different values of
impact energy would be composed of a quantity of cutting
wear and that of fatigue spalling caused by the repeated
impact [18]. The portion of weight loss caused by both of
these two wear mechanisms was related to the mechanical
properties of the material and the value of impact energy.
Thus, it can be seen that the two main wear models, namely
cutting wear and plastic deformation wear, must be viewed
in association with the hardness and toughness of the
material [18].
The results of the abrasion wear resistance of different
matrix ductile cast irons under the condition of 3.0 J impact
energy tests are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the
martensitic ductile cast iron has the best impact abrasion
Fig. 6. Relation between the wear resistance and the hardness of different
matrix ductile cast irons in the impact three-body abrasion test.
180 Z.-L. Lu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181
Fig. 7. SEM morphology of the worn surface of martensitic matrix ductile
iron (200).
wear resistance, followed by the bainitic and the pearlitic,
with the martensitic dispersed with some eutectic carbides
being the worst. Clearly, the impact wear resistance of
ductile cast iron has a relationship neither solely with the
hardness of materials unlike the pin-on-disc and three-body
abrasion tests, nor solely with the impact toughness of
materials, but requires the appropriate combination of the
hardness and toughness of the ductile cast iron.
Although bainitic ductile cast iron has the best impact
toughness, its hardness is lower, so the morphology of long
distance micro-cutting and of abrasives embedded in
the matrix on the abraded surface can be seen in Fig. 7.
However, in spite of the greater hardness of ductile cast iron
with martensitic matrix dispersed 10±20% eutectic carbides,
its toughness is lower, thus numerous deep spalling pits
can be seen in Fig. 8 because of its serious fatigue spalling
under the conditions of the impact abrasion test. Short
distant micro-cutting and shallow spalling pits are predo-
minant in the morphology of the impact abrasion of mar-
tensitic ductile cast iron, as shown in Fig. 9. This is relative
Fig. 8. SEM morphology of the worn surface of bainitic matrix ductile
iron (200).
Fig. 9. SEM morphology of the worn surface of martensitic matrix ductile
iron with 15±20% eutectic carbides (200).
to the appropriate combination of its microstructures and
mechanical properties. As a result, martensitic ductile cast
iron has the best impact abrasion wear resistance.
The wear resistance of ductile cast iron requires the
appropriate combination of its hardness and toughness under
impact three-body abrasion test conditions, so martensitic
ductile cast iron has the best wear resistance.
4. Conclusion
1. The wear resistance of ductile cast iron under the
conditions of the pin-on-disc and three-body abrasion
test has a approximately linear relationship with its
hardness. With increase in the hardness of ductile cast
iron, its wear resistance increases. Thus, martensitic
ductile cast iron and martensitic ductile cast iron
dispersed eutectic carbide have the best abrasive wear
resistance, followed by the bainitic with the pearlitic
being the worse.
2. The impact abrasion resistance of ductile cast iron does
not have an apparently linear relationship with its
hardness and impact toughness under the condition of
the 3.0 J impact work test. Therefore, martensitic ductile
cast iron has the best wear resistance followed by the
bainitic and the pealitic with the martensitic dispersed
with some eutectic carbide being the worse.
3. The micro-cutting model is predominant under pin-on-
disc test conditions, so the greater is the hardness of
ductile cast iron, the better the abrasion wear resistance.
The three-body wear model is mainly micro-cutting
wear, associated with some plastic deformation wear,
thus the wear resistance of ductile cast iron still depends
mainly on its hardness. Since both micro-cutting wear
and plastic deformation wear exist together under
impact abrasion test conditions, the wear resistance of
ductile cast iron requires the appropriate combination of
its hardness and toughness.
 Z.-L. Lu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001) 176±181
References
[1] C. Vishnersky, J.F. Wallace, Effect of heat treatment on impact
properties of ductile cast iron, Trans. AFS 71 (1963) 290±295.
[2] S.I. Karsay, Production of thin as-cast ductile cast iron, Trans. AFS
73 (1965) 204±213.
[3] J. Akiyama, Application of ductile cast iron for civil engineering,
Trans. AFS 75 (1967) 284±291.
[4] M. Johansson, Austenitic±bainitic ductile cast iron, Trans. AFS 85
(1977) 117±122.
[5] D.Z. Gou, D.K. Shi, Study on the strength and toughness of
austenitic±bainitic ductile cast iron, J. Xi'an Jiaotong Univ., 23
(Suppl. 2) (1989) 251±260 (in Chinese).
[6] Yang Jia Zhang Zi Mining Bureau, Production technology of rare
earth magnesium treated medium manganese ductile cast iron
grinding balls, Metal Mine (4) (1973) 25±28 (in Chinese).
[7] S.L. Cheng, H.X. Wang, C.L. Sun, A review of new grinding media
studies, industry productions and applications in our country, in:
Proceedings of the First Conference on Grinding Media and Wear
Resistant Materials, Beijing, China, 1992 (in Chinese).
[8] Z.Z. Yue, Study on grinding balls of martensitic ductile cast iron,
Foundry Technol. (4) (1983) 42±46 (in Chinese).
[9] C.G. Li, Q.D. Zhou, G.S. Song, Z.S. Fang, Influence of
carbon content of martensitic matrix and retained austenite on
181
wear of martensitic ductile cast iron, Wear 162±164 (1993)
75±82.
[10] Y.Z. Gao, Z.-L. Lu, B.L. He, Q.-C. Rao, Q.D. Zhou, An investigation
on martensitic ductile cast iron grinding balls, China Building Mater.
Equipment (1) (1990) 19±22 (in Chinese).
[11] B.Q. Wei, L. Ji, Z.D. Gao, Study of new wear resistant ductile cast
iron, J. Mach. Eng. 27 (6) (1991) 51±55 (in Chinese).
[12] S. Shepperson, C. Allen, The abrasive wear behavior of austempered
spheroid cast iron, Wear 121 (1988) 271±287.
[13] S.C. Zhang, Q.-C. Rao, Y.S. Deng, Study on abrasive wear behavior
and impact fatigue resistance of as cast pearlitic ductile cast iron,
Hydraulic Electrical Mach. (6) (1991) 25±30 (in Chinese).
[14] Z.-L. Lu, Y.S. Deng, K.Z. Sang, The grinding balls of martensitic
ductile cast iron and their application, J. Xi'an Univ. Technol. 12 (2)
(1996) 112±116 (in Chinese).
[15] R.C.D. Richardson, Wear and impact resistant white cast irons, Wear
10 (1967) 291±301.
[16] J.W. Boyes, Development and use of an abrasion test for cast iron and
steels, Iron Steel (February 1969) 57±63.
[17] M.M. Khruschov, The effect of wear on the compressive stress in the
sphere on plane configuration, Wear 28 (1974) 69±78.
[18] Q.-C. Rao, Y.P. Ma, K.Z. Sang, Characteristics of martensite steel in
three-body impact abrasion, J. Iron Steel Res. 3 (1) (1991) 47±52 (in
Chinese).