materials

Article
Forecasting the Wear of Operating Parts in an
Abrasive Soil Mass Using the Holm-Archard Model
Jerzy Napiórkowski 1 , Magdalena Lemecha 1, * and Łukasz Konat 2
1 Chair of Vehicles and Machinery Exploitation, The Faculty of Technical Sciences,
The University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, M. Oczapowskiego 11, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials Science, Strength and Welding,
Wroclaw University of Technology, Smoluchowskiego 25, 50-371 Wrocław, Poland
* Correspondence: magdalena.lemecha@uwm.edu.pl




Received: 23 May 2019; Accepted: 3 July 2019; Published: 7 July 2019


Abstract: This paper presents the forecasting of the wear of working elements in an abrasive soil
mass using the theoretical wear model. One of the widely used models providing a basis for the
relationships describing wear is the Holm-Archard model. This relationship describes abrasive wear
because of the contact between two bodies. The model assumes that the wear of an operating part is
directly proportional to the sliding force and distance and inversely proportional to the hardness
of the material of the part. To date, the model has not been verified in the wear of a soil mass,
which is a discrete friction surface. Four grades of steel resistant to abrasive wear, intended for the
manufacturing of operating parts exposed to wear within a soil mass, Hardox 500, XAR 600, TBL Plus
and B27, were subjected to testing. TBL Plus steel was characterised by the smallest wear irrespective
of the soil type. In turn, the highest values of the wear were noted in the light soil for Hardox 500,
in the medium soil for XAR 600, while in the heavy soil for B27. Based on the obtained results, a high
correlation coefficient was noted, with the highest values obtained for light and heavy soils.

Keywords: wear steel; Holm-Archard model; soil mass; forecasting the wear

1. Introduction
Forecasting and mathematical description of the wear of operating parts is a complex issue due to
the presence of many variables of high randomness that affect the range and intensity of its course.
The interpretation of forcing on an operating part should enable the identification and selection of
stable and sensitive relationships and those providing information. The variety of factors affecting
the course of the wear of an operating part prevents all of them from being included in one model.
There is a possibility for introducing assumptions in the research to identify significant forcings and
characterise their effects on the wear process by taking into account the other effects at a constant
level [1–3]. The basic forms of the wear include micro-cracking, micro-ploughing, and micro-fatigue.
These processes are associated with the mechanical impact of abrasive material on the surface layer of
the material. Depending on the type of an operating part, including the impact of the pressure exerted
by the abrasive material, chemical processes associated with the impact of soil environment can occur
as well [4,5]. In order to define and describe the wear phenomenon in addition to experimental testing,
many mathematical models enabling the forecasting of the service life of parts were generated [1,6].
The operating parts of the tools processing an abrasive soil mass is characterised by high resistance to
both wear and impact strength. This is due to the conditions of their use under which they are subjected
to both the wear impact of the soil and to overloads caused by the impact on stones fixed in the soil [3].
The current state of knowledge on the wear impact of a soil mass on operating parts is insufficient to
develop the principles of selecting the design and technological solutions for operating parts used for

Materials 2019, 12, 2180; doi:10.3390/ma12132180 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2180 2 of 15

the processing of variable soil types. Understanding and describing the wear within a soil mass consists
in a comprehensive description of the friction process involving the soil—an operating part—working
process parameters. Particular importance is attributed to the impact of a soil mass, since soil factors
mainly affect the nature of wear while material factors affect the rate of wear. The process of an
operating part’s wear in a soil mass is classified as a natural process. Another disregarded factor is the
specificity of abrasion in the soil, which includes:

- The impact on the material of not only mineral grains but also of the organic mass whose properties
define the soil as the wear-causing mass;
- Disordered distribution of a very large number of abrasive grains on the active surface of the soil:
- Brittleness of abrasion surfaces;
- Varying shapes of abrasive grains;
- Various heights of sharp edges of abrasive grains on the active surface of the soil;
- The possibility of free movement of abrasive grains depending on the soil condition;
- Specific chemical properties of an abrasive mass.

The literature shows that sandy soils, although composed mostly of SiO2 , may prove to be a soft
soil, since these grains are not bonded together, which increases the rate of wear compared to loamy
soils [7]. Known models that describe the wear process do not explain it comprehensively and define
the process partially without taking into account all parameters occurring in a tribological pair [8].
In the case of abrasive wear in two bodies to predict the wear of wear forecasting, many models have
been developed, the use of which is possible in the case of simple wear by means of micro-scratching
and furrowing. Among them, one of the most frequently used is the model proposed at work [9].
In this model, the loss of the element’s volume because of wear depends on the friction path,
the normal load acting on the element, the hardness of the material surface and the angle of attack
consuming the particles.
Studies have shown [10] that the wear rate of an operating part within the soil is affected by
the same parameters that affect the development of friction force between the operating part and the
soil, i.e., the type of material, processing rate, grain-size distribution and moisture content. The lack
of a quantitative relationship between the friction force values and the rate of wear results from
the specificity of soil impact. An increase in friction force is caused by the action of both mineral
and organic compounds. However, in the case of wear, its rate is primarily determined by mineral
compounds, and only after a longer period of time by organic compounds [11].
A significant number of characteristics describing the properties of an abrasive soil mass in the
context of wear impact shows, on the one hand, the complexity of the phenomena under consideration
and, on the other hand, causes many difficulties in the wear process analysis. In order to solve
the problem of forecasting the wear in a soil mass, mathematical models are sought that would
combine the intensity of wear with the soil properties, cutting parameters and properties of the
material, and explain the relationships occurring between these parameters. The literature includes
attempts to develop such models, but they have so far been characterised by unsatisfactory explanatory
functions and practicability. The issue of modelling is a reflection of knowledge of the phenomena
under study. Two groups of models can be distinguished. The first group includes intuitive models,
an understanding of which enables the selection of significant parameters of the wear process in
qualitative terms. The second group includes quantitative models, i.e., models obtained based on
partial research problems and, in principle, they refer to specific soil conditions.
It is necessary to develop a predictive model of the wear of tools operated in the soil environment
in which the replacement of various machinery components affects the costs and work schedule. Such
a model can be applied during the planning and operation phases to ensure a realistic estimation of
the equipment wear [12].
A commonly known model describing the wear of operating parts in the soil is the model proposed
by Tenenbaum [13]. This model takes into account, inter alia, a component of axial forces, friction
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 3 of 15

force and rubbing speed, with all of them exerting their effects simultaneously. On the other hand,
the relationships occurring between each other are the processes of micro-cutting, multi-deformation,
wear-induced disturbance of the material structure, heating, oxidation and hydrating. A different
approach was proposed by Napiórkowski [2] and Owsiak [14]. In order to determine the contribution
of the abrasive soil mass to the wear in their relationships, they took into account not only the
parameters describing the tested material but also the soil characteristics. Another model describing
the relationships between soil particles was developed by Krieg [15]. This relationship combines the
finite element methods with hydrodynamic impact of particles. On its basis, local surfaces in the
locations where the direction of the abrasive mass flow changes are defined. A model describing the
wear of operating parts processing an abrasive soil mass during field tests was also presented in a
study by Kostencki [7]. It describes the linear wear intensity defined as an absolute quotient of the loss
of a material’s thickness and its friction distance.
A common model providing a basis for the relationships describing wear is the Holm-Archard
model [16]. This relationship describes abrasive wear due to the contact between two bodies. The model
assumes that the wear of an operating part is directly proportional to the sliding force and distance
and inversely proportional to the hardness of the material of the part. Its correctness was verified
during the wear with fixed abrasive grains, in which micro-cutting processes are dominant [7]. To date,
the model has not been verified during the wear in a soil mass, which is a discrete friction surface.
The soil is a complex object of nature characterised by specific morphological, physical, chemical and
biological features. In addition to the impact of mineral grains, the friction process is also affected by
the organic mass whose properties are determined by the natural environment.
The analysis of literature data shows that the existing models of wear of working elements in
real soil conditions have focused on partial research problems of the wear process, most often on
determining the average durability of the working element under given extortions [17,18].
The aim of the study is to assess the suitability of the Holm-Archard model for the forecasting of
the wear of operating parts processing an abrasive soil mass.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Test Material

Micro-alloyed steels with boron are of great significance in the practical use for parts processing
a soil mass. The currently produced steels of this type are characterised by the addition of boron
in an amount of 0.002–0.005% w/w. In this range of concentrations, boron dissolves in austenite;
consequently, even with ordinary volume hardening, a homogeneous structure of fine-grained perlite
or martensite with highly fragmented grains over the entire section of the part can be obtained [18].
The currently obtained martensitic structures in low- and medium-carbon steels require no tempering
treatment after hardening and at the same time, very high rates of static strength and yield point and a
high capacity to absorb dynamic loads can be obtained. These steels are supplied in various states of
heat treatment and are characterised by very diverse morphology of the microstructure.
Due to high utility, steel is still the basic construction material used to produce operating parts of
tools and selected parts of machinery. These results, on the one hand, from the advantageous ratio of
manufacturing costs and, on the other, from their versatility, susceptibility to machining, weldability
as well as enhanced mechanical properties. Therefore, micro-alloyed steels with boron take on great
significance, particularly in areas of intensive abrasive wear.
Four grades of steel resistant to abrasive wear, intended for the manufacturing of operating parts
exposed to wear within a soil mass, i.e., B27, Hardox 500, XAR 600 and TBL Plus, were subjected to
testing. These steels are referred to as fine-grained constructional steels resistant to abrasive wear, in
which nitrogen is bound in the form of nitrides through the addition of aluminium, and they contain
an additional niobium or titanium.
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 4 of 15

B27 steel samples were collected from 10-mm-thick sheets in hardened conditions. B27 steel is
available in a wide range of semi-finished products, and most frequently used in the form of both thin
and thick sheets,
Materials inxaFOR
2019, 12, series
PEERwith a thickness ranging from 2.5 to 13 mm and from 5 to 80 mm.4 of
REVIEW B2715 steel
is characterised by a fine dispersive structure of temper sorbite (high-temperature tempered martensite)
27 1a).
(Figure steelAs is characterised by a fine dispersive
a result of low-temperature structure εofcarbides
tempering, temper sorbite (high-temperature
(Fe2 , 4C) are cohesive with tempered
the matrix.
martensite) (Figure 1a). As a result of low-temperature tempering, ε carbides (Fe
Their release reduces the carbon concentration in martensite. Tempering in the second stage, which2, 4C) are cohesive

with the matrix. Their release reduces the carbon concentration in martensite. Tempering in the
proceeds at a temperature of 200–300 ◦ C, transforms residual austenite into tempered martensite in a
second stage, which proceeds at a temperature of 200–300 °C, transforms residual austenite into
process similar to the bainitic transformation. In the next stage of tempering, the particles of this phase
tempered martensite in a process similar to the bainitic transformation. In the next stage of tempering,
becomethe coagulated,
particles of this which
phase isbecome
due to coagulated,
both an increase
which in cementite
is due to both particle sizeinand
an increase the dissolution
cementite particle of
smallsize
particles.
and the dissolution of small particles.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 1. Microstructures
1. Microstructures of of
thethe testedmaterials.
tested materials. (a) B27,
B27,(b)
(b)Hardox
Hardox500, (c)(c)
500, XAR 600,600,
XAR (d) TBL Plus.Plus.
(d) TBL

HardoxHardox
500 500 (Figure
(Figure 1b)1b) steel
steel is issupplied
suppliedby by the
the manufacturer
manufacturerinin a heat-treated
a heat-treated condition (water
condition (water
hardening
hardening and and tempering
tempering at at a temperatureof
a temperature of200–700
200–700 °C).◦ C).Available
Available semi-finished
semi-finished products of this
products of this
material include thin sheets with a thickness of 2.0–6.5 mm, and thick sheets
material include thin sheets with a thickness of 2.0–6.5 mm, and thick sheets in a series with a thickness in a series with a
thickness ranging from 4 to 32 mm and from 32 to 103 mm. For the purposes of testing reported in
ranging from 4 to 32 mm and from 32 to 103 mm. For the purposes of testing reported in this paper,
this paper, Hardox 500 steel samples were collected from 12-mm-thick sheets.
Hardox 500 steel samples were collected from 12-mm-thick sheets.
XAR 600 (Figure 1c) steel is supplied in the form of sheets with a thickness of 4–50 mm, in many
XAR 600 (Figure
heat treatment 1c) steel
variants, is supplied
including in the
inter alia form of(hardness
annealing sheets with
of ≤ a300
thickness
HB) andof 4–50hardening
water mm, in many
heat treatment variants, including inter alia annealing (hardness of ≤
(hardness of > 550 HB). The heat treatment method is determined by the manufacturer of thishardening
300 HB) and water steel
(hardness of > 550
depending HB).
on the The heat
chemical treatment
composition andmethod is determined
sheet thickness. For the by the manufacturer
testing, of this steel
XAR 600 steel samples
depending on the chemical
were collected composition
from 10-mm-thick sheetsand sheetby
supplied thickness. For thein
the manufacturer testing, XARcondition.
a hardened 600 steel samples
TBL PLUS
were collected (Figure 1d) steel
from 10-mm-thick sheetsis available
suppliedasbyfine-grained constructional
the manufacturer steel. Similar
in a hardened to the
condition.
previously mentioned steels, nitrogen is bound in it the form of
TBL PLUS (Figure 1d) steel is available as fine-grained constructional steel. Similar nitrides. It is supplied in theto the
normalising state, or after normalising rolling. Steels of the B27 grade
previously mentioned steels, nitrogen is bound in it the form of nitrides. It is supplied are supplied as hot rolledin the
(hardness of 170 HB), and then hardened in water.
normalising state, or after normalising rolling. Steels of the B27 grade are supplied as hot rolled
Measurements of the hardness of the tested materials were carried out following the Vickers
(hardness of 170 HB), and then hardened in water.
method in accordance with standard PN-EN ISO 6507-1; 1999, using a semi-automatic Vickers
Measurements
HV10D Sinowonof the hardness
hardness tester. The of the tested
average materials
value were carried
of the hardness of theout following
tested materialstheareVickers
as
method in accordance with standard PN-EN ISO 6507-1; 1999, using a
follows: B27 steel—549 HV10, TBL Plus steel—578 HV10, Hardox 500 steel—562 HV10, XAR 600 semi-automatic Vickers HV10D
Sinowon hardness
steel—637 HV10. tester.
AnalysesTheofaverage
the chemicalvalue of the hardness
composition of theintested
were carried materials
accordance with thearespectral
as follows:
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

method using a GDS500A Glow Discharge Atomic Emission Spectrometer manufactured by Leco (St.
Joseph, MI, USA) with the following parameters applied: U = 1250 V, I = 45 mA, argon. The obtained
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 5 of 15
results were the arithmetic mean from five measurements (Table 1). For the observations of the
microstructure, a Nikon Eclipse MA200 and Epiphot 200 optical microscopes were used. Images of
B27 steel—549 HV10,
the microstructure TBL
were Plus steel—578
recorded HV10,DS-Fi2
using a Nikon Hardox 500 steel—562
digital camera with HV10,
NISXAR 600 steel—637
Elements software.
HV10. Analyses
Observations of of
thethe chemical composition
microstructure at higherwere carried in accordance
magnifications with the spectral
and microanalyses method
of the chemical
using a GDS500A
composition, Glow Discharge
morphology Atomic
and phase typesEmission Spectrometer
were carried manufactured
out using by Leco (St.scanning
a JEOL JSM-5800LV Joseph,
MI, USA)microscope
electron with the following
coupled parameters
with an Oxfordapplied:
LINK = 1250 V,energy-dispersive
UISIS-300 I = 45 mA, argon.X-rayThe obtained results
spectrometer.
were the arithmetic mean from five measurements (Table 1). For the observations of the microstructure,
a Nikon Eclipse MA200 and Table 1. Chemical
Epiphot composition
200 optical of the tested
microscopes were materials.
used. Images of the microstructure
were recorded using a Nikon DS-Fi2 digital camera with NIS Elements software. Observations of the
B27 Hardox 500XAR 600TBL Plus
Elements and microanalyses of the chemical composition, morphology
microstructure at higher magnifications
Content of Elements (% Weight)
and phase types were carried out using a JEOL JSM-5800LV scanning electron microscope coupled
C 0.28 0.29 0.37 0.34
with an Oxford LINK ISIS-300 energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer.
Mn 1.26 1.05 0.85 1.25
Table Si
1. Chemical0.23
composition0.23of the tested
0.19 materials.
0.21
P 0.009 0.006 0.014 0.012
B27 Hardox 500 XAR 600
ElementsS 0.006 - 0.001 TBL Plus
0.010
Cr Content
0.32 of Elements
0.96 (% Weight)
0.83 0.25
C Ni 0.28 0.05 0.290.05 0.37
1.21 0.34
0.08
Mn 1.26 1.05 0.85 1.25
Si Mo 0.23 0.001 0.230.017 0.15
0.19 0.03
0.21
P V 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.014 0.002 -
0.012
S 0.006 - 0.001 0.010
Cu 0.04 0.006 0.03 0.08
Cr 0.32 0.96 0.83 0.25
Ni Al 0.05 0.03 0.050.055 0.10
1.21 0.04
0.08
Mo Ti 0.001 0.03 0.017 0.003 0.15
0.003 0.03
0.04
V 0.004 0.008 0.002 -
Cu Nb 0.04 - 0.006 - 0.009
0.03 -
0.08
Al Co 0.03 0.01 0.055 0.014 0.005
0.10 0.001
0.04
Ti 0.03
B 0.0015 0.0030.0009 0.0030.0021 0.00250.04
Nb - - 0.009 -
Co 0.01 0.014 0.005 0.001
2.2. Description of Tests B 0.0015 0.0009 0.0021 0.0025

Samples of the analysed steels were taken in the form of rectangles with dimensions of 38 mm ×
2.2. Description of Tests
35 mm × 10 mm using methods ensuring the stability of their structure. The samples were cut out
usingSamples
the high-energy abrasivesteels
of the analysed waterwerejet. The
takenfinishing of theofsamples
in the form to the
rectangles withrequired surface
dimensions of
roughness
38 mm × 35wasmmcarried
× 10 mmoutusing
on a flat-surface grinder inthe
methods ensuring order to obtain
stability roughness
of their withinThe
structure. the samples
range of
Ra 0.30–0.46
were μm. The
cut out using the samples wereabrasive
high-energy placed in specially
water prepared
jet. The holders
finishing of the which
sampleswere fixed
to the in the
required
cultivator
surface teeth (Figure
roughness 2). The tests
was carried out onwere carried outgrinder
a flat-surface in six replications.
in order to obtain roughness within the
rangeFor each
of Ra material,
0.30–0.46 theThe
µm. average value
samples wereof the results
placed obtained prepared
in specially was determined,
holders whereas
which werethe fixed
samplein
spread
the was determined
cultivator by 2).
teeth (Figure means
The of standard
tests deviation.
were carried out in six replications.

Figure 2. A view of test sample before field testing.

For each material, the average value of the results obtained was determined, whereas the sample
spread was determined by means of standard deviation.
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 6 of 15

3. Theory

3.1. Assumptions for the Model

Data for the model were collected during the processing of a soil mass using an agricultural tractor
with a cultivator with a depth of cut of 0.1 m. The average speed of the unit was approximately 1.9 m/s.
The total friction distance was 10,000 m. The samples were weighed every 2000 m.
The tests were carried out under natural operating conditions, on a stubble field, in three types of
soils: loamy sand (light soil), light loam (medium soil) and common loam (heavy soil). The grain-size
distribution testing was carried out using the laser diffraction method using a Mastersizer 2000 laser
particle-size analyser (Malvern Panalytical Support and Services, United Kingdom) in accordance with
the standard ISO 13320 (Table 2).

Table 2. Grain-size distribution of soil.

Content of Fractions [%]

Soil
Silt Dust Sand
<0.002 (mm) 0.050–0.002 (mm) 2.0–0.05 (mm)
Loamy sand 1.69 20.83 77.48
Light loam 7.02 40.32 52.66
Common loam 16.56 49.92 33.62

The soils were in a moist condition with a water content of 11–12% for the light soil, and 14–16%
for the medium and heavy soils, respectively.
Given the similar physical properties (similar specific gravity values) of the tested materials
in order to determine the loss, the focus was set on the mass wear which was determined using
Equation (1).
The testing was conducted in August and September in a field with moisture content of 11–16%.
Mass wear was determined based on the following formula:

Zm = mp − mk (g) (1)

where Zm is the mass wear (g), mp is the sample weight before testing (g), mk is the sample weight after
testing (g).

3.2. Assumptions for the Model

In order to describe the rate of wear, the Holm–Archard model with the following mathematical
form was applied:
k×P×L
Iz = (2)
3H
where Iz is the rate of wear, k is the coefficient of soil abrasive properties, P is the normal load, H is the
material hardness, L is the friction distance.
The k coefficient was determined based on the mathematical form of the Holm–Archard model.
The data on the pressure force were derived from the tests carried out by the authors under
the same abrasive conditions in which the tests presented in the study were performed [2] and from
literature data as cited in studies by Owsiak et al. and Bernacki [19,20].
The value of the coefficient characterising abrasive properties of the soil was determined from the
previously characterised empirical studies, from the following relationship:

3H × Iz
k= (3)
P×L
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 7 of 15

The pressure force (P) was adopted as cited in the studies by Owsiak et al. [14] and
Bernacki et al. [20] who, based on empirical studies, concluded that the pressure force of a working tool
tines Materials
on the 2019,
soil,12,
depending
x FOR PEER on its type, ranged from 390 to 820 N (Table 3). The acquired data
REVIEW 7 ofconcern
15
tests were carried out for the same soil types, physical and chemical characteristics, and working
were
process carried in
forcings outwhich
for thethe
same soiltesting
wear types, physical and chemical
and analysis characteristics,
were carried out. and working process
forcings in which the wear testing and analysis were carried out.
Table 3. Data adopted for the model.
Table 3. Data adopted for the model.
Tested
Soil
Soil Type
Type Tested Material kkCoefficient
Coefficient Value P P
Value (N)
(N) L (m)
L (m) (N/mm22))
HH(N/mm
Material
B27 1870
B27 1870
Hardox 500
Hardox 500
1856
1856
Light soil
Light soil 0.0000028
0.0000028 390
390 0–10,000
0–10,000
XAR 600
XAR 600 1870
1870
TBL Plus
TBL Plus 2380
2380
B27
B27 1870
1870
Hardox 500
Hardox 500 1856
1856
Medium soil
Medium soil 0.0000056
0.0000056 550
550 0–10,000
0–10,000
XAR 600
XAR 600 1870
1870
TBL Plus 2380
TBL Plus 2380
B27 1870
B27 1870
Hardox 500 1856
Heavy soil Hardox 500 0.0000088 770 0–10,000 1856
Heavy soil XAR 600 0.0000088 770 0–10,000 1870
XAR 600
TBL Plus 1870
2380
TBL Plus 2380
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
Based on the obtained images of surfaces subjected to wear (Figures 3–5), it can be concluded that
Based on the obtained images of surfaces subjected to wear (Figures 3–5), it can be concluded
the wear processes, depending on the method, differed very slightly from each other irrespective of
that the wear processes, depending on the method, differed very slightly from each other irrespective
the type oftype
of the steelofor theorgrain-size
steel distribution
the grain-size distributionofofsoil.
soil. According
According totothe
the description
description provided
provided below,
below,
the wear pattern changed with the content of both dust and silt fractions.
the wear pattern changed with the content of both dust and silt fractions.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 3. SEM
3. SEM micrographs
micrographs of the
of the surfaces
surfaces of of tested
tested steelssubjected
steels subjectedtotowear
wear in
in aa light
light soil
soil (a) B 27 steel,
B27
steel, magnification
magnification 50×; (b) 50×; (b) Hardox
Hardox 500 steel,
500 steel, magnification
magnification 50×;(c)
50×; (c) XAR
XAR 600
600steel, magnification
steel, magnification500×;500×;
(d) Plus
(d) TBL TBL Plus steel,
steel, magnification
magnification 500×.
500×.
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 8 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure 4.4. SEM
SEM micrographs
SEM micrographs of
micrographs of the
the surfaces
surfaces of
of tested
tested steels
steels subjected
subjected to
to wear
wear in
in aa medium
medium soil
soil (a)
(a) B27
B27
steel, magnification 1500×; (b) Hardox
steel, magnification 1500×; (b) Hardox 500 steel, magnification 1500×;
Hardox 500 steel, magnification 1500×; (c) XAR
(c) XAR
1500×; (c) 600
XAR 600 steel,
600 steel, magnification
steel, magnification
magnification
1500×;
1500×; (d)
1500×; (d) TBL
(d) TBL Plus
TBL Plus steel,
Plus steel, magnification
steel, magnification 1500×.
magnification 1500×.
1500×.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure 5.5. SEM
SEM micrographs
SEM micrographs of
micrographs of the
of the surfaces
the surfaces of
surfaces of tested
of testedsteels
tested steelssubjected
steels subjectedto
subjected towear
to wearin
wear ina
in aaheavy
heavysoil
heavy soil(a)
soil (a)B
(a) 27
BB27
27
steel, magnification 1500×; (b) Hardox
Hardox 500 steel, magnification 1500×;
1500×; (c)
(c) XAR
XAR 600
600 steel,
steel, magnification
magnification
steel, magnification 1500×; (b) Hardox 500 steel, magnification 1500×; (c) XAR 600 steel, magnification
1500×;
1500×; (d)
1500×; (d) TBL
(d) TBL Plus
TBL Plus steel,
Plus steel, magnification
steel, magnification 1500×.
magnification 1500×.
1500×.
Materials 2019, 12, 2180
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 15

The content of individual fractions and the interrelations between them, as a result of cohesion
The content
and adhesion of individual
forces fractions and
were of fundamental the interrelations
importance. The surface betweendamage them, as a result of
descriptions cohesion
depicted in
and adhesion forces were of fundamental importance. The surface
the SEM micrographs show the complex nature of the soil’s wear effect. However, it should damage descriptions depicted in the
be
SEM micrographs
emphasized that evenshowinthe thecomplex
case of nature
homogeneousof the soil’s wear effect.
fractions, only oneHowever,
dominant it should
wearbe emphasized
mechanism is
that even in the case of homogeneous fractions, only one dominant wear
indicated. This is conditioned by the random arrangement of soil grains in relation to the processing mechanism is indicated. This is
conditioned by the random
tool. On the surfaces arrangement
of the tools workingofon soil
thegrains in relation
light soil, fatiguetowearthe processing
processes tool. On the
dominate assurfaces
a result
of the tools working on the light soil, fatigue wear processes dominate
of loosely bound soil grains [20]. In the subsurface layer of the material, as a result of repeated as a result of loosely bound soil
grains [20]. In the subsurface layer of the material, as a result
pressures, temporary and shallow changes occur, mainly consisting of the crushing of the micro-of repeated pressures, temporary and
shallow
volume changes occur, mainly
of the material. In the consisting
vicinity ofofthe theseparated
crushing of andthepermanent
micro-volume of the material.
deformed material, In the
stress
vicinity of the separated and permanent deformed material, stress
concentrations occur leading to the formation of dislocations centres weakly associated with the concentrations occur leading to the
formation of dislocations centres weakly associated with the substrate
substrate material. Local surface wrenches are the result of fatigue wear, which successively consist material. Local surface wrenches
are the result
of elastic of fatigue wear,
deformations, plasticwhich successively
deformations, consistof
formation ofmicro-volume
elastic deformations, plastic deformations,
deformations, characterized
formation
by defective structure and shearing of these micro-volumes. (Figure 3c,d). When shearing
of micro-volume deformations, characterized by defective structure and processing of these
these
micro-volumes. (Figure 3c,d). When processing these soils, wear mechanism,
soils, wear mechanism, defined in the literature as “three body abrasion,” occurs [3,4]. In these soils, defined in the literature
as “three
other body abrasion,”
methods characteristic occursof [3,4].
abrasive In these
wearsoils,
wereotheralsomethods
found, i.e.,characteristic
micro-cutting of abrasive
and micro-wear
were also found, i.e., micro-cutting and micro-ploughing. These
ploughing. These forms of wear rely on pressing soil particles and destroying the one-cycle surfaceforms of wear rely on pressing soil
particles and destroying
of the material. When drawing,the one-cycle surface of
the material the material.
is not When drawing,
only separated, the material
but also partially is nottoonly
moved the
separated, but also partially moved to the sides of the wear groove
sides of the wear groove (Figure 4d). Micro-ploughing involves recessing of the abrasive particles (Figure 4d). Micro-ploughing
involves recessingand
into the abrasive of the abrasive
plastic particles
squeezing into thein
the furrow abrasive
it, without and causing
plastic squeezing
separationthe furrow
of the in it,
material
without
(Figure 5c) causing
[2]. separation of the material (Figure 5c) [2].
As the
As the soil’ssoil’sheaviness
heaviness increased
increased (increased
(increased clayclay content),
content), ad hoc adwear
hoc processes
wear processesthrough through
micro-
micro-cutting
cutting began to began to dominate
dominate (Figure (Figure 4a). Micro-cutting
4a). Micro-cutting dominates dominates
in soils with in soils with a significant
a significant content of
content
skeletal of skeletal
parts (e.g.,parts
sand(e.g.,
withsand with a hardness
a hardness of approximately
of approximately 1200 HV), 1200 HV), especially
especially in soils in insoils
which in
which various forms of silicon compounds do not have the ability
various forms of silicon compounds do not have the ability to change position due to force action. to change position due to force
action. This process
This process is favouredis favoured
by claybyand claydustandfractions,
dust fractions,
whichwhichin bothin both
dry anddry moist
and moistsoil soil conditions
conditions are
are a specific adhesive for the hard soil particles. Apart from micro-cutting,
a specific adhesive for the hard soil particles. Apart from micro-cutting, micro-ploughing has a large micro-ploughing has
a largeinshare
share the wear in the in wear
concise in soils,
concise whichsoils,occurs
whichwith occurs
much with much
higher higher than
intensity intensity
in lightthan in light
soils. The
soils. The phenomena of wear of the surface layer in concise soils quite
phenomena of wear of the surface layer in concise soils quite well describes the “two-body abrasion” well describes the “two-body
abrasion”
model [6,8,11].model [6,8,11]. Therefore,
Therefore, in all soil in all soil
masses themasses the mechanical
mechanical wear patterns wear characteristic
patterns characteristic
of abrasive of
abrasive
wear were wear were dominant.
dominant.
The identified
The identified images images of of the
the friction surface are
friction surface are reflective
reflective of of the
the course
course of of mass
mass wearwear in in the
the
experiment (Figures 6–8). The highest values of the wear were noted
experiment (Figures 6–8). The highest values of the wear were noted in the heavy soil and they were in the heavy soil and they were
three times greater
three times greaterthan thanthe thewear
wearininthe the light
light soil,
soil, andand1.51.5
timestimes greater
greater in thein the
mediummedium soil.soil. TBL
TBL Plus
Plus
steel was characterised by the smallest wear irrespective of the soil type. This relationship is
steel was characterised by the smallest wear irrespective of the soil type. This relationship is
particularly
particularly noticeable
noticeable for for heavy
heavy soils, where in
soils, where in relation
relation to to B27
B27 steel,
steel, the
the wear
wear waswas almost
almost two two times
times
smaller,
smaller, and and forfor the
the remaining
remaining ones, ones, by by approximately
approximately 30%. 30%. In In turn,
turn, thethe highest
highest wear
wear values
values werewere
noted
noted in the light soil for Hardox 500 steel, in the medium soil for XAR 600 steel and B27 steel
in the light soil for Hardox 500 steel, in the medium soil for XAR 600 steel and B27 steel inin the
the
heavy
heavy soil.
soil.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The course
course of
of the
the wear
wear in
in the
the light soil.
light soil.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 10 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The course
course of
of the
the wear
wear in
in the
the medium
medium soil.
soil.
Figure 7. The course of the wear in the medium soil.
Figure 7. The course of the wear in the medium soil.

Figure
Figure
Figure
8.8.The
8. The course
Thecourse
of
course of
the wear
wearinin
of the wear
inthe
theheavy
the heavy
heavy soil.
soil.
soil.
Figure
Figure Thecourse
8.8.The courseof
of the
the wear
wearin inthe
theheavy
heavy soil.
soil.
5. Forecasting the
5. Forecasting
5. Forecasting thetheWear
WearWearRate
Rate
Rate Using the Holm–Archard
Using theHolm–Archard
Using Holm–Archard Model Model
5. Forecasting the Wear Rate Usingthethe Holm–Archard Model Model
5. Forecasting the Wear Rate Using the Holm–Archard Model
A comparison
A comparison
A comparison of of
empirical values
empiricalvalues with
values with the
with the theoreticalvalues
the theoretical valuesdetermined
determined using
using the
the the
Holm-Holm-
A comparisonofofempirical
empirical values theoretical
with the theoretical values values
determined determined using
using the Holm-Archard Holm-
Archard
Archard
A model model
comparison is isof
presented
presented in
empiricalin Figures
Figures
values 9–14.
9–14.
with To
Tothebetter
better illustrate
illustrate
theoretical the
the
valuesobtained
obtainedrelationships, data
relationships,
determined using the for
data for
Holm-
Archard
modelmodel is presented
is presented in Figures
in Figures 9–14. To9–14.
betterTo better the
illustrate illustrate
obtained therelationships,
obtained relationships, data for
data for only two
only
onlysteelstwo
two model
Archard steels
steels are are provided
provided
is presented in each figure.
each figure.
figure.
only two are provided
steels are in each in
provided in Figures
figure.
each 9–14. To better illustrate the obtained relationships, data for
only two steels are provided in each figure.

Figure 9. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in light soil.
Figure 9. The
Figure
Figure 9. The course
9. The of theoretical
course
course of theoretical and
of theoreticaland empirical
andempirical wearof
empirical wear
wear ofB27
of B27and
B27 andHardox
and Hardox
Hardox 500
500500 steels
steels in light
in light
steels in light soil.
soil. soil.
Figure 9. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in light soil.

Figure 10. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in light soil.

Figure
Figure 10. The
10. The
The course
course of of theoreticaland
theoretical andempirical
empirical wear
wearofof
ofXAR
XAR600
600and TBL
and steels
TBL in light
steels soil. soil.
in light
light
Figure 10. course of theoretical and empirical wear XAR 600 and TBL steels in soil.
Figure 10. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in light soil.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Materials 2019,2019,
Materials 12, x12,
FOR PEER REVIEW
2180 11 of11
15 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 11. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in medium soil.
Figure 11. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in medium soil.
Figure 11.11.
The course
The courseof theoretical
theoreticaland
andempirical
empirical wear of B27
B27 andHardox
Hardox 500steels
steels inmedium
medium soil.
Figure
Figure 11. The course ofoftheoretical and empirical wear of
wear of B27and
and Hardox500
500 steelsinin soil.
medium soil.

Figure 12. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in the medium soil.
Figure 12. The course of theoretical
The course and empirical
of theoretical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in the
the mediumsoil.
soil.
Figure
Figure 12. course
12. The of theoretical andand empirical
empirical wear
wear ofofXAR
XAR600
600and
andTBL
TBL steels
steels in the medium
medium soil.
Figure 12. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in the medium soil.

Figure 13. The course

13. The of theoretical
course of theoreticaland
andempirical wearof
empirical wear of B27and
and Hardox500500 steels in heavy
soil. soil.
Figure
Figure 13. The course of theoretical and empirical wear ofB27
B27 andHardox
Hardox steels
500 in heavy
steels in heavy soil.
Figure 13. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in heavy soil.
Figure 13. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of B27 and Hardox 500 steels in heavy soil.

Figure
Figure 14. The
14. The course
course of of theoreticaland
theoretical andempirical
empirical wear
wearof ofXAR
XAR600600and TBL
and TBLsteels in heavy
steels soil. soil.
in heavy
Figure 14. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in heavy soil.
Figure 14. The course of theoretical and empirical wear of XAR 600 and TBL steels in heavy soil.
Figure
Based14.onThe
thecourse
obtainedof theoretical and correlation
results, a high empirical wear of XARwas
coefficient 600noted
and TBL
for steels in heavy
all materials soil.
between
Based
Based on
on the obtained
the obtained results,
results, a high
a high correlation
correlation coefficient
coefficient was
was noted for all materials between
noted for all materials between
the dataon
Based originating
the from results,
obtained the model a and from
high experimental
correlation test results.
coefficient was noted for all materials between
the data
Basedoriginating
on the
the data originating from
obtained the model
results,
from the model a and
high from experimental
correlation test
coefficient results.
was noted for all materials between
The highest correlation values and
werefrom experimental
obtained for the lighttest
andresults.
heavy soil, which is confirmed by
the data
The originating from thevaluesmodelwereand from experimental test results.
The highest correlation values were obtained for the light and heavy soil, which is confirmed by
the data
the highest
results correlation
originating from
presented in the model
diagrams and
(Figuresobtained
from for the
experimental
9–14). These light
figures and
test heavy
results.
indicate that soil,
for which
B27, is
Hardox confirmed
500 and by
the The highest correlation values(Figures
were obtained for the light and heavy soil, which is confirmed by
the results
TBL
results presented
The steels,
highest
presented datain diagrams
thecorrelation
infrom values
the
diagrams model were 9–14).
coincide
(Figures withThese
obtained
9–14). the
These figures
for experimental
thefigures indicate
light and heavy
testing
indicate that for
soil, B27,
B27, Hardox
forwhich
results.
that 500
500 and
is confirmed
Hardox by
and
the
TBL results
steels, presented
the in diagrams (Figures 9–14). These figures indicate thatresults.
for B27, Hardox 500 and
the results
TBL the data
data from
steels, presented from the
the model
in diagrams
model coincide
(Figures with
9–14).
coincide the
the experimental
withThese testing
figures indicate
experimental thatresults.
testing for B27, Hardox 500 and
TBL steels,
In the data from the model coincide with the experimental testing results.
In the
TBL steels,
the thelight soil,
data
light the
from
soil, model
thethe model
model describing
coincide the
describing withwear
the for
for TBL
TBL steel,
the experimental
wear where
steel,testing the
the difference
whereresults. difference between
between
In did
values the notlight soil, the
exceed modelwas
0.000085, describing the wear
characterised by for best
the TBLfitting.
steel, where
On thethe difference
other hand, between
the model
In the light soil, the model describing the wear for TBL steel, where the
values did not exceed 0.000085, was characterised by the best fitting. On the other hand, the difference between
model
values
was did
worst not exceed 0.000085, was characterised by the best fitting. On the other hand, the model
values
was did fitted
worst for
for XAR
not exceed
fitted XAR 600
600 steel,
0.000085, waswith
steel, differences
differencesbyof
characterised
with 0.00036
ofthe being
being noted.
best fitting.
0.00036 On theIn
noted. the
the medium
Inother hand, thesoil,
medium the
model
soil, the
was worst fitted for XAR 600 steel, with differences of 0.00036 being noted. In the medium
highest and lowest coefficients of model fitting were also noted for TBL steel (0.00011) and XAR 600 soil, the
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 12 of 15

steel (0.0019), respectively. For the heavy soil, the model was best fitted for Hardox 500 steel (0.0004),
while it wasInthe theworst fitted
light soil, for B27
the model steel (0.0027).
describing the wear for TBL steel, where the difference between values
did not exceed 0.000085, was characterised
The consistency of the obtained results by the best fitting. the
presenting On the other hand,
overall theof
fitting model
thewas worstmaterials
tested
model in fitted for XAR 600
particular soilssteel,
waswith differences
verified by ofapplying
0.00036 being
the noted. In the medium
coefficient soil, the highest
of determination and
r2 (Tables 4–6,
lowest coefficients of model fitting were also noted for TBL steel (0.00011) and XAR 600 steel (0.0019),
Figures 15–17).
respectively. For the heavy soil, the model was best fitted for Hardox 500 steel (0.0004), while it was
the worst fitted for B27 steel (0.0027).
Table
The 4. Results
consistency of correlation
of the analysis
obtained results for the group
presenting of tested
the overall steels
fitting in light
of the testedsoil.
materials
model in particular soils was verified by applying the coefficient of determination r2 (Tables 4–6,
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p < 0.09000
Figures 15–17).
Variable X and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
Standard
Variable Y Table Mean Coefficient
4. Results of correlation analysis for the group of tested steels in light soil. Determination
deviation
r (X,Y) r2
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p < 0.09000
Operational
Variable X and
0.00135 0.00096
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
ModelVariable Y 0.00136 0.00096
Standard 0.9866 0.9734
Mean Coefficient Determination
Deviation
r (X,Y) r2
Table 5. Results of0.00135
Operational correlation analysis
0.00096 for the group of tested steels in medium soil.
Model 0.00136 0.00096 0.9866 0.9734
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p <
Table 5. Results of correlation analysis for the group of0.09000
tested steels in medium soil.
Variable X and Variable
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
Y Standard
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p < 0.09000
Mean Coefficient Determination
Variable X and deviation Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
Variable Y Standard r (X,Y) r2
Mean Coefficient Determination
Operational 0.0025 Deviation
0.00197 r (X,Y) r2
Model
Operational 0.0025
0.0025 0.00177
0.00197 0.9331 0.8706
Model 0.0025 0.00177 0.9331 0.8706
Table 6. Results of correlation analysis for the group of tested steels in heavy soil.
Table 6. Results of correlation analysis for the group of tested steels in heavy soil.
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p < 0.09000
Correlations Marked with Correlation Coefficients Are Significant at p < 0.09000
Variable X and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
Variable X and Standard Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of
VariableVariable
Y Y Mean Standard Coefficient Determination
Mean deviation
Deviation
Coefficient Determination
rr (X,Y)
(X,Y) r2 r2
Operational
Operational 0.004118
0.004118 0.003132
0.003132
Model Model 0.004203
0.004203 0.002979
0.002979 0.952985
0.952985 0.9081800.908180

Figure 15. The course of the correlation of empirical data with theoretical data for steel in light soil.
Figure 15. The course of the correlation of empirical data with theoretical data for steel in light soil.
 Materials 2019, 12, 2180 13 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

Figure 16. The course

Figure 16. Theof the of
course correlation of of
the correlation theoretical data
theoretical data with
with empirical
empirical data fordata
steel for steel
in light in light soil.
soil.

Figure 17. The course of the correlation of theoretical data with empirical data for steel in heavy soil.
Figure 17. The course of the correlation of theoretical data with empirical data for steel in heavy soil.
Based on the results obtained from the theoretical Holm-Archard model and from the experiment,
strong on
Based correlations between
the results the obtained
obtained wearthe
from values were proven.
theoretical The coefficient of
Holm-Archard determination
model and fromr2 the
value obtained using the regression method was 0.97 for the light soil, 0.87 for the medium soil and
experiment, strong correlations between the obtained wear values were proven. The coefficient of
0.90 for the heavy soil, which confirms the correctness of the proposed probabilistic model of the wear
determination r2 value obtained using the regression method was 0.97 for the light soil, 0.87 for the
of wear-resistant steels.
medium soil and 0.90infor
In addition, the to
order heavy
fit thesoil,
modelwhich
to theconfirms
data obtained the from
correctness of the proposed
the experiment, probabilistic
Nash–Sutcliff (NS)
model coefficient
of the wear of wear-resistant
was applied [21]: steels.
2
In addition, in order to fit the model to the Ttdata (Qtmobtained
− Qto ) from the experiment, Nash–Sutcliff
P
NSE = 1 − P =1
(NS) coefficient was applied [21]: T t 2
t = 1 ( Qo − Qo )

where Qto is the observed value, Qo is𝑁𝑆𝐸 the mean

∑ (𝑄 value
of observed − 𝑄 )and Qt is the modeled value.
=1− m
The coefficient is used to assess the fitting of a∑
model(𝑄to −the𝑄experimental
) data. The NS coefficient
can take values ranging from −∞ to 1. Value 1 corresponds to the perfect fitting of measurements with
where 𝑄 is the observed value, 𝑄 is the mean of observed value and 𝑄 is the modeled value.
the results obtained from the model. The authors assumed that a satisfactory NS coefficient value
The coefficient
should is used
fall within to assess
the range the fitting
from 0.80 to 1. of a model to the experimental data. The NS coefficient
can take values ranging coefficient
Nash–Sutcliffe from - ∞ to 1. Value
values 1 corresponds
for particular materialsto the perfect
depending fitting
on the of measurements
soil type are presented with
the results obtained
in Table 7. from the model. The authors assumed that a satisfactory NS coefficient value
should fallThe highest
within theNS coefficient
range valueto
from 0.80 in1.
the light soil was noted for B27 (0.997) and TBL steel (0.995),
Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient values for other
for which the differences are minor. On the hand, the
particular lowest coefficient
materials value of
depending on0.964
thewas noted
soil type are
for Hardox 500 steel. In the medium soil, TBL steel was characterised by the highest value of 0.995,
presented in Table 7.
while XAR 600 steel had the lowest value of 0.766. For Hardox 500 steel, the highest NS coefficient
value was noted in the heavy soil, while B27 steel was characterised by the lowest value of fitting in
Table 7. Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient results for the tested steels in particular soils.
this soil.
Soil
Materials
Light Soil Medium Soil Heavy Soil
B 27 0.997 0.939 0.813
XAR 600 0.935 0.766 0.953
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 14 of 15

Table 7. Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient results for the tested steels in particular soils.

Soil
Materials
Light Soil Medium Soil Heavy Soil
B27 0.997 0.939 0.813
XAR 600 0.935 0.766 0.953
Hardox 500 0.964 0.880 0.988
TBL 0.995 0.995 0.932

In accordance with the assumptions adopted by the authors and concerning the fitting of the
model values with experimental data except for XAR 600 steel in the medium soil, the NS coefficient
had values over 0.80.
Based on the analyses presented above, it can be concluded that the proposed model can be a
tool for determining the rate of wear of operating parts made from wear-resistant steels. However,
the common use of this model requires further testing on a broader group of materials considering
different soil types and operating conditions.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

The results obtained from the experimental testing confirmed the possibility for forecasting the
mass wear of simple operating parts processing a soil mass using the Holm-Archard model. Mean
fitting error for theoretical data ranged from 6.9% in the light soil, through 16.3% in medium soils,
to 16.9% in heavy soils. Such a degree of fitting should be regarded as highly satisfactory. The obtained
relationships extend the scope of application of the Holm-Archard model during abrasive wear in
particular types of abrasive masses.
The authors of this study pointed out that it is impossible to estimate the value of consumption
based on derived patterns, because they do not have a numerical solution to the presented equations
and a sufficient bank of empirical data. Results of the conducted studies with regard to the wear of
operational parts in a soil mass indicate the need for verification of the Holm-Archard model in relation
to other measures of wear, construction materials and more complex operational parts. It has been
shown in the literature that the usability of these models has been demonstrated inter alia in conditions
of micro-crowning, wear with constant abrasive, corrosive and mechanical wear.
Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that steel for operating parts should be selected
in the context of properties of the soil mass subjected to processing. TBL PLUS steel proved to be the
least susceptible to a change in the grain-size distribution within the soil mass and, thus, in a way
it wears. It is characterised by a structure with post-martensitic orientation with a very few carbide
phase precipitates inside the martensite strips. On the other hand, B27 steel, which is also characterised
by a structure with post-martensitic orientation with small carbide precipitates inside martensite,
is susceptible to their chipping in soils with an intensive effect of fixed sand grains.
The main aim of the study was to verify if the Holm-Archard model, commonly applied under
abrasive wear conditions, can also be used for the rather specific tribological pair of steel-soil mass.
The obtained results confirmed the possibility of using the Holm-Archard model to forecast the wear
of steel in an abrasive soil mass. It should be stressed, however, that in this study, the testing was
limited to special steels used to manufacture soil-processing operating parts. They are characterised by
a similar chemical composition and a diversified microstructure. The k coefficient value reflects the
abrasive properties of the soil for a particular type of steel. Complete knowledge of the Holm–Archard
model’s suitability for the forecasting of wear in a soil mass can be estimated by performing tests on
other materials used to manufacture operating parts, e.g., padding welds.

Author Contributions: Onceptualization, J.N. and M.L.; Methodology, J.N. and M.L.; Software, M.L.; Validation,
J.N., and M.L.; Formal Analysis, J.N. and M.L.; Investigation, J.N.; Resources, J.N.; Data Curation, J.N.;
Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.N and M.L. and Ł.K.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.N. and M.L.;
Visualization, Ł.K.; Supervision, J.N.; Project Administration, J.N.; Funding Acquisition, J.N.
Materials 2019, 12, 2180 15 of 15

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Goel, G.; Cherukuri, H.P.; Toro, A. A numerical Study of Abrasive Wear in Tillage Tools due to Soil-Tool
Interaction. In Simulia, Rhode Island Convention; Available online: http://imechanica.org/files/Goel_UNC_
final_3252012.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2019).
2. Napiórkowski, J. Zużyciowe oddziaływanie gleby na elementy robocze narz˛edzi rolniczych; Polskie Towarzystwo
Inżynierii Rolniczej: Kraków, Poland, 2005.
3. Stachowiak, G.W.; Batchelor, A.W. Engineering Tribology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2005.
4. Kovaříková, I.; Szewczyková, B.; Blaškoviš, P.; Hodúlová, E.; Lechovič, E. Study and characteristic of abrasive
wear mechanisms. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2009, 1, 1–8.
5. Nalbant, M.; Palali, A.T. Effects of different material coatings on the wearing of plowshares in soil tillage.
Turk. J. Agric. For. 2011, 35, 215–223.
6. González, H.; Cappelli, N.L.; Toro, A. Wear of rotary plows operating in a tropical clay loam soil. Eng. Agrícola
2013, 33, 772–781. [CrossRef]
7. Kostencki, P.; Stawicki, T.; Białobrzeska, B. Durability and wear geometry of subsoiler shanks provided with
sintered carbide plates. Tribol. Int. 2016, 104, 19–35. [CrossRef]
8. Bhakat, A.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Mishra, N.S. Characterization of wear and metallurgical properties for development
of agricultural grade steel suitable in specific soil conditions. Wear 2007, 263, 228–233. [CrossRef]
9. Rabinowicz, E.; Dunn, L.A.; Russel, P.G. A study ofabrasive wear underthree-body conditions. Wear 1961, 4,
345–355. [CrossRef]
10. Duncan, D. History of Tribology; Addison-Wesley Longman Limited: Boston, MA, USA, 1979.
11. Bhakat, A.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Mishra, N.S.; Jha, S. Metallurgical life cycle assessment through prediction of
wear for agricultural grade steel. Wear 2004, 257, 338–346. [CrossRef]
12. Kufel, K.; Wierzcholski, K.; Kostencki, P.; Miszczak, A. Wagowe zużycie lemieszy korpusów płużnych
zamocowanych spr˛eżynowo. Tribologia 1994, 1, 43–53.
13. Tenenbaum, M.M. O widach, processah i mehanizmah abraziwnowo iznasziwanija. Dolgowiecznosc Truszichsia
Detalej Maszin 1990, 5, 202–215.
14. Owsiak, Z.; Lejman, K.; Wołoszyn, M. Wpływ zmienności gł˛ebokości pracy narz˛edzia na opory skrawania
gleby. Inżynieria Rolnicza 2006, 10, 45–53.
15. Jonsen, P.; Palsson, B.I.; Haggblad, H. A novel method for full-body modelling of grinding charges in
tumbling mills. Miner. Eng. 2012, 33, 2–12. [CrossRef]
16. Da Silva, C.R.A., Jr.; Pintaude, G. Uncertainty analysis on the wear coefficient of Archard model. Tribol. Int.
2008, 41, 473–481. [CrossRef]
17. Kufel, K.; Wierzcholski, K. The wear of the shares of plough bodies with rigid and elastic connections to the
frame. Wear 1993, 162, 1002–1003. [CrossRef]
18. Natsis, A.; Petropoulos, G.I.; Pandazaras, C. Wpływ lokalnych warunków glebowych na zużycie ścierne
lemieszy odkładnicowych. Tribol. Int. 2008, 41, 151–157. [CrossRef]
19. Mikołajczak, P.; Napiórkowski, J. Analysing the reliability of working parts operating in abrasive soil pulp
taking into consideration confouding factors. Maitenance Reliab. 2016, 18, 539–543.
20. Bernacki, H.; Haman, J.; Kanafojski, C. Teoria i konstrukcja maszyn rolniczych; Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Rolnicze i Leśne: Warszawa, Poland, 1967.
21. Meyers, M.A.; Benavides, H.A.C.; Brühl, S.P.; Colorado, H.A.; Dalgaard, E.; Elias, C.N.; Mangalaraja, R.V.
(Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Pan American Materials Congress; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017;
pp. 750–758.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).