Wear 241 2000. 7985 www.elsevier.

comrlocaterwear

Abrasive wear behavior of D2 tool steel with respect to load and sliding speed under dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition
X. Ma) , R. Liu, D.Y. Li
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Uniersity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G6 Received 1 September 1999; received in revised form 29 February 2000; accepted 29 February 2000

Abstract The dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester is widely used in industry and laboratories to evaluate wear and rank materials. For industrial application, this apparatus is often used under a fixed load and a fixed speed to have all tested materials evaluated under the same condition. However, whether or not such a test with fixed load and speed can provide accurate information is in question. This paper reports our study on wear resistances of a BeCu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and D2 tool steel using a rubber-wheel tester. Different loads and sliding speeds were chosen for the abrasion test and SiO 2 sand was used as the abrasive. It was shown that wear losses of the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel increased with an increase in the applied load but kept almost unchanged as the sliding speed was increased. However, the wear loss of D2 tool steel decreased as either the load or the sliding speed was increased. Such behavior of D2 steel makes the adequacy of the dry sandrrubber wheel tester for ranking materials using only one load and one sliding speed questionable. In order to explain the unexpected performance of D2 steel, worn surface of D2 steel was analyzed using X-ray diffraction and SEM, and the morphology of SiO 2 sand was also examined using SEM. Possible mechanism for the difference in wear behavior between these materials is discussed. q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: D2 tool steel; Load and sliding; Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion

1. Introduction Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester w1x is an apparatus widely used in the oil, sand, mining and agricultural machinery industries as well as in laboratories to evaluate wear resistance and rank engineering materials for mechanical components that are subject to low stress abrasion, such as shovels, draglines, die steels w2x, agricultural tools, components of construction equipment, and protective coatings w3x. Good correlation is found between laboratory evaluation and field tests w4,5x. For many industrial applications, the rubber-wheel test is performed often under a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed to have all tested materials evaluated under the same condition. ASTM has specified such abrasion test with fixed loads and speeds for ranking materials in different classes w1x. However, ranking materials using this method may not be always accurate and misleading information might be gen-

Corresponding author.

erated. The experimental parameters set for the abrasion test may be suitable for some materials but not for others under the same testing condition. This could happen since wear is a complex surface process and wear behavior of a material varies with respect to the testing condition such as the applied load, the sliding speed, the abrasive sand, and the abrasive packing fraction as described by Stevenson and Hutchings w6x. It is known that under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition, many engineering materials show wear losses linearly proportional to the applied load w6,7x except under very high loads w8x. Under high loads, the linear relationship may not exist and the wear rate could be greater than that expected, as Haworth observed w9x. The wearload relation is also influenced by other factors. For instance, Avery w10x observed that, when a hard rubber wheel was used, the wear rate of tool steel increased less rapidly than that obeying a linear relationship as the applied load was increased. When a softer rubber wheel was used, he observed that the wear rate of the tool steel decreased with an increase in the load and attributed this to an increase in contact area between the wheel and the specimen. No matter what the mechanism

0043-1648r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 0 0 . 0 0 3 5 1 - 3

80

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

is, a question is there, how can one obtain adequate information when ranking materials using the rubber-wheel abrasion tester? Obviously, the difference in wear resistance between various materials differs under different testing conditions. The present authors do not attempt to answer this question. The objective of this work, however, is to understand the wear behavior of different materials under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition, especially their responses to variations in the applied load and the sliding speed. Three engineering materials, a BeCu alloy, 17-4 PH stainless steel and D2 tool steel, were chosen for this study. Among these materials, D2 steel has the highest hardness, followed by the 17-4 PH steel and then the BeCu alloy. Different loads and sliding speeds were used to see their effects on the wear loss. It was observed that the response of D2 steel to variation in either the applied load or the sliding speed was unexpected and different from those of the BeCu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel. In order to explain the wear behavior of D2 steel, possible surface structural changes in the D2 steel caused by wear was examined using X-ray diffraction. Morphological changes of D2 steel and the abrasive sand, SiO 2 , were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope. Efforts were made to explore the mechanism responsible for the difference between the D2 steel and the BeCu and 17-4 PH alloys in terms of their response to variations in the load and the sliding speed.

Fig. 2. 50r70 Ottawa abrasive sand.

2. Experimental details The dry sandrrubber wheel apparatus used for the study is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, which was built based on ASTM G65 standard w1x. The rubber wheel is in contact with a specimen under an applied load. A flow of sand particles is directed to the gap between a rotating rubber wheel and the specimen. The sand particles scratch the surface of the specimen under the applied load at a sliding speed of v R, where v is the angular speed of the

rubber wheel and R is its radius. The rubber wheel was made of chlorabutyl and its hardness was Durometer A-60. In the study, 50r70 Ottawa standard silica sand, as recommended by ASTM for the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion test, was used as the abrasive for wear test see Fig. 2.. Specimens for the wear test had a size of 70 = 20 = 7 mm. Three kinds of materials with different hardness values, a BeCu alloy HRC 43.2., 17-4PH stainless steel HRC 46.5. and D2 tool steel HRC 54.7., were evaluated. Compositions of these materials are given in Table 1. Specimens for the wear test were machined from bulk materials and the roughness of all specimens was around Ra s 2.0 mm. Since the sand flow rate affects the wear rate, a constant sand flow of 270 grmin was used. Wear loss of a specimen was evaluated by measuring the volume loss of the specimen after 1000 wheel revolutions corresponding to the sliding distance of 690 m.. In industry, a constant force of 130 N is usually used for the abrasion test. Such a load is recommended by ASTM for testing most metallic materials in a wide range of abrasion resistance w1x. In the present study, however, different loads were used from 25 to 150 N and the sliding speed was also changed from 1 to 5 mrs. We did not exactly follow the ASTM G 65 standard and, in stead, used various loads and speeds to investigate effects of the load and sliding speed on the wear loss. The difference in wear between different materials could vary markedly when the applied load or the sliding speed is changed. Some materials have excellent wear resistance under low loads or speeds. but may perform poorly under higher loads or speeds., while some other materials may have opposite behavior. Therefore, using one fixed load and sliding speed to rank industrial materials may not be sufficient to obtain accurate informaTable 1 Compositions of the materials under study Material BeCu alloy 17-4PH steel D2 tool steel Composition 97.9%Cu1.9%Be0.2%Co 16%Cr4.1%Ni3.4%Cu0.25Nb, balanced by Fe 12%Cr1%Mo1%V1.5%C, balanced by Fe

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of a rubber wheel abrasion testing apparatus.

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

81

tion. This was shown in the present study, which demonstrated unexpected responses of D2 steel to changes in load and sliding speed during dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tests. In order to understand the unexpected wear behavior of D2 steel, possible surface structural changes of D2 specimens were determined using X-ray diffraction and their worn surfaces were analyzed using SEM. Changes in morphology of sand particles after the wear test was also examined using SEM.

3. Experimental results 3.1. Wear loss with respect to the applied load Volume losses of the BeCu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and D2 steel were measured with respect to the applied load and results of the measurement are illustrated in Fig. 3. The data was an averaged result of a few measurements with its error range less than 5%. It was demonstrated that under low loads, wear losses of all three materials increased initially as the applied load was increased. This is understandable, since an increase in the applied load may increase the contact stress, thus resulting in greater surface damage. As demonstrated, the wear losses of BeCu Cu. alloy and 17-4 PH steel SS. continuously increased with further increase in the applied load Note: the vertical axis in Fig. 3 is logarithmically scaled.. However, D2 steel showed a different response to the further increase in load. As the load was continuously increased, the volume loss of D2 steel decreased as Fig. 3 illustrates. Such behavior was beyond initial expectation. 3.2. Wear loss with respect to the sliding speed The sliding speed is another parameter that may influence the wear loss of a material. In order to determine effects of the sliding speed on wear loss, five sliding speeds were used for the abrasion test. Volume losses of
Fig. 4. Volume loss of the materials at different sliding speeds under loads100 N.

BeCu, 17-4 PH and D2 steel specimens at different sliding speeds under a load of 100 N were measured. The result is abrasive wear behavior of illustrated in Fig. 4, which is also an averaged data of a few measurements with its error range within 5%. It was demonstrated that the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel were not sensitive to the sliding speed and their wear losses kept almost unchanged in the tested speed range. However, D2 tool steel showed different response to the sliding speed. As shown in Fig. 4, the wear loss of D2 steel decreased as the speed was increased. 3.3. Structural examination of D2 steel using X-ray diffraction Different from the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel, D2 steel showed unexpected responses to the variations in applied load and sliding speed, respectively. Such responses are beyond initial expectation, since both high loads and high speeds can increase the contact stress or the impact force and should thus lead to larger wear loss. The unexpected behavior of D2 steel could be attributed to two possible mechanisms. One possibility is that high loads or high sliding speeds may induce structural or microstructure changes in the surface layer, e.g., formation of new phases that can strengthen the material. Another possible mechanism could be attributable to possible changes in the abrasive sand condition. In order to determine if structural or microstructure changes were induced in the D2 steel by larger applied loads or by greater impact forces due to higher sliding speeds, worn surface of D2 steel was examined using the X-ray diffraction technique. For the X-ray examination, Co target was used to generate the X ray with its wavelength equal to l s 1.79 A. Fig. 5 illustrates X-ray patterns of a D2 steel specimen taken before and after abrasion test under a high load of 150 N at a sliding speed of 4 mrs. The X-ray patterns showed that there were no structural or microstructural changes in the surface layer of this specimen. Therefore, the first mechanism seems not the case. In order to further confirm that the unexpected

Fig. 3. Volume loss versus the load the sliding speeds 4 mrs..

82

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

Fig. 5. X-ray diffraction patterns of a D2 steel specimen before and after wear test under L s 100 N and at V s 4 mrs.

performance of D2 steel with less wear under higher loads or at higher sliding speeds was not mainly due to possible strengthening during abrasion, hardness of the D2 specimen was measured before and after the abrasion test. Table 1 presents the result of hardness averaged over two to three tests for each values. In Table 2, one may see that the strengthening during abrasion was minor and should not be a predominant factor responsible for the decrease in wear loss with an increase in the applied load or sliding speed during abrasion. 3.4. Morphological obseration of the abrasie SiO2 sand Since the first possible mechanism responsible for the unexpected behavior of D2 steel was precluded by the X-ray examination, possible changes in the abrasive sand condition may give a clue to the answer. In order to determine if this was the case, SiO 2 sand particles experienced wear under different loads and sliding speeds were examined using a scanning electron microscope. The SEM metallographs of SiO 2 sand particles used for testing D2 steel under 25 and 150 N are presented in Fig. 6a. and b., respectively. No significant changes in sand shape and size were observed. The situation was similar when sand particles experienced wear tests for D2 steel at different sliding speeds. Fig. 6c. and d. illustrate SEM metallographs of the sand particles experienced abrasive wear tests at the lowest speed of 1 mrs and at the highest speed

of 5 mrs, respectively. No significant changes in sand shape and size could be distinguished. In order to have a close look at the sand surface, a higher magnification was used to examine the sand surface condition. Fig. 7a. c. show scanning electron micrographs of typical surface morphologies of original sand, the sand exposed to a load of 25 N and that exposed to the highest load of 150 N, respectively. The original sand had relative smooth surface with some facets. After the wear test, the sand surface was damaged to some degree, depending on the applied load. Under the low-load condition, no significant changes in morphology were observed on sand surface compare Fig. 7a. and b.., meaning that the damage to the sand by wear was minor. Under the high-load condition, however, the surface damage was severe as Fig. 7c. illustrates. No facets comparable to those on the

Table 2 the hardness of the D2 steel after the wear under different wear conditions D2 steel, load L. and speed V . Ls 25 N, V s 4 mrs Ls150 N, V s 4 mrs V s1 mrs, Ls100 N V s 5 mrs, Ls100 N HRC before abrasion test 54.65 54.65 54.65 54.65 HRC after abrasion test 54.75 55.80 54.70 55.70 Fig. 6. Abrasive sand particles after wear test: a. under a low load of 25 N V s 4 mrs., b. under a high load of 150 N V s 4 mrs., C. at a low sliding speed of 1 mrs Ls100 N., and d. at a high sliding speed of 5 mrs Ls100 N..

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

83

original sand surface were observed on the sand surface that experienced high-load abrasion. It is clear that although the SiO 2 sand did not crack during the wear test, severe surface failure was resulted under high loads when used for testing the D2 tool steel. Similar changes in the sand surface condition were observed when the sand was used at different sliding speeds. At low speeds, the sand surface did not show detectable changes, while at high speeds, surface damage was greater and distinct. In the cases of BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel, the surface damage of the abrasive sand was markedly less, no matter the wear test was performed under which load level or at which speed in the selected ranges of load and sliding speed. It is needed to mention that the damaged sand particles were collected using a container placed below the tester. The collected sand might be more or less mixed with some fresh sand particles, which did not go through the gap between the rubber wheel and the specimen. However, since the nozzle was so close to the gap that most sand particles could go through it. Therefore, the surface morphologies of the abrasive sand illustrated in Fig. 7 are representative.

Fig. 8. The worn surfaces of the D2 steel under low load 25 N a. and high load b. 150 N.

3.5. The worn surface of the D2 steel Worn surface of D2 steel under different wear conditions were examined using SEM. Fig. 8a. and b. illustrate worn surfaces experienced abrasion under a low load of 25 N and a higher load of 150 N, respectively. One may see some craters on the surface of the former, while the latter was relatively smooth and had less craters. It appears that the damage to the D2 steel by low load was larger than that by the higher load. In the case of wear at different sliding speeds, similar phenomenon was observed. At high sliding speeds, the worn surface of D2 steel was smoother than that worn at lower sliding speeds. The result of the worn surface analysis is consistent with the wear test.

4. Discussion
Fig. 7. a. Original sand, b. used sand for wear test under the lowest load of 25 N, and c. used sand for wear test under the highest load of 150 N with D2 steel. The sliding speeds 4 mrs.

It was demonstrated by the abrasion test that the tested three materials showed different responses to variations in the applied load and the sliding speed. The volume losses

84

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

of the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel continuously increased with an increase in load, while that of D2 steel increased initially and then decreased as the load was increased. As a result, under high loads the D2 steel showed significantly superior wear resistance, compared to the BeCu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel. Under low loads, however, the superiority of D2 steel diminished as Fig. 3 illustrates. It is therefore clear that by using the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion apparatus, one may rank materials but the information about their difference in wear resistance could be inaccurate or incomplete, if the evaluation is made under a fixed load. The situation is similar if wear tests are performed at a fixed speed. As Fig. 4 illustrates, wear resistances of the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel kept almost unchanged, while that of D2 steel increased as the sliding speed was increased. Therefore, if materials having close mechanical properties are ranked using only one load and one sliding speed, misleading information could be generated. The main task of this work is to investigate the wear behavior of different materials under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition, and in particular, the responses of the materials to variations in the applied load and the sliding speed. The BeCu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel showed usual responses as expected; while that of the D2 steel was apart away from initial expectation. Since no structural changes were observed in the surface layer of D2 steel after wear and the change in hardness was small, possible reason for the unexpected behavior of D2 steel may therefore be attributed to the changes in the abrasive sand condition. As observed, under high load the surface of the abrasive sand was markedly damaged see Fig. 7c... This suggests that the SiO 2 sand was not strong enough to significantly damage the surface of D2 tool steel under high loads. Instead, the surface of SiO 2 sand was damaged to a considerable degree, thus diminishing its role in abrading the tested material. The surface analysis showed that the worn surface of D2 steel under a high load was relatively smooth while that under a lower load was rougher with craters see Fig. 8.. The visible craters may imply that the abrasive sand was effective to penetrate into the surface layer, accompanied with larger damage. While under the high load the abrasive sand may experience more damage than D2 steel and its capability for penetrating and plowing the surface was diminished. The situation was similar when the sliding speed changed. At high speeds, the abrasive sand would not withstand large impact and its surface failure would lead to less damage to D2 steel. At lower speeds, however, the hard sand could result in more damage. The greater damage to the abrasive SiO 2 sand could be explained by comparing the mechanical behavior of D2 steel to that of the SiO 2 sand. It is known that hardness is one of important parameters affecting the wear resistance of a material w2,12x. Generally speaking, the harder the material, the lower is its wear loss w11x. The SiO 2 sand has

its hardness about HRC s 65 w13x, while that of the D2 tool steel is HRC s 54.65. Although SiO 2 sand is relatively harder, its brittleness or low toughness, however, makes it vulnerable to high stress and high impact. As a result, SiO 2 sand can be considerably damaged during wear tests under high loads or at high sliding speeds, thus resulting in the decrease in wear loss of D2 tool, as Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate. The situation is different when the sand was pushed against the BeCu alloy HRC s 43.2. or the 17-4 PH steel HRC s 46.5., both of which had significantly lower hardness than the abrasive sand. The large difference in hardness between these two materials and the SiO 2 sand could make the damage to the abrasive sand much smaller, although the latter was relatively brittle. This was confirmed by examining the sand surface condition using SEM. Under higher loads, more damage to the surfaces of softer BeCu alloy and the PH17 steel could be made by hard sand plowing. In the case of high sliding speeds, no significant changes in wear loss were observed for both the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel. Although more wear should be caused by larger impact force, the softer BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel could, however, absorb impact energy to some degrees. This may reduce the increase in wear loss of the BeCu alloy and 17-4PH steel with an increase in the sliding speed, thus resulting in approximately constant wear losses in the tested range of the sliding speed, as Fig. 4 illustrates. Finally, it should be pointed out that the interaction between the abrasive sand and a specimen is complex under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition. Changes in the applied load influence the contact area between the rubber wheel and the specimen and also affect the force on each abrasive particle as well as the true sand flow rate. All of these factors can influence the wear loss of the specimen. However, the present research is a comparable study of wear behaviors of BeCu, 17-4 PH steel and D2 tool steel, rather than investigation of the contact situation. Since the tests were performed under the same conditions for these materials, the above-mentioned changes in, e.g., the sand flow rate and the contact area, were the same for all the tested materials. Therefore, if we consider that the behaviors of BeCu and 17-4 PH are usual, then that of the D2 tool steel is unexpected. Understanding of this difference between the materials and its variation with the load and sliding speed are the main tasks of this work.

5. Summary Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester is widely used in industry to evaluate and rank wear-resistant materials. For many industrial applications, the abrasion test is often performed under a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed to have all materials evaluated under the same condition.

X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 7985

85

However, the adequacy of such a test condition with fixed load and sliding speed is in question. In this study, wear responses of a BeCu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and D2 tool steel to variations in load and sliding speed under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition were evaluated. It was demonstrated that wear losses of the BeCu alloy and 17-4 PH steel increased as the applied load was increased but kept approximately constant with respect to the sliding speed. However, the wear loss of D2 tool steel initially increased and then decreased as the load was increased in the tested load range. When the sliding speed was increased, a decrease in wear loss of D2 steel was observed. No structural change was observed in worn surface layer of the D2 steel and surface hardness change was small; however, severe surface damage of the abrasive SiO 2 sand was observed when used for wear tests under high loads or at high sliding speeds. Based on the experimental observation, possible mechanism responsible for the unexpected behavior of D2 tool steel is discussed. This study shows that when using the rubber-wheel tester to evaluate wear resistance and rank materials, inaccurate or misleading information could be generated if the testing is performed only under a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed.

References
w1x ASTM G65-94, Standard test method for measuring abrasion using the dry sandrrubber wheel apparatus, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.02, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 245256. w2x H.A. Garner, Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion wear testing of the carpenter matched tool and die steels, Lubr. Eng. 38 6. 1982. 359364. w3x M. Scholl, Abrasive wear of TiN coatings,Conf. on Wear of Materials, Wear 203204 1997. 5764, Mar. w4x P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory and field abrasion tests, in: K.C. Ludema Ed.., Proc. Int. Conf. On Wear of Materials, ASME, New York, 1977, pp. 148157. w5x P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory and field tests, in: A.W. Ruff, R.G. Buyer Eds.., Tribology: Wear Test Selection for Design and Application, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1983, pp. 8099. w6x A.N.J. Stevenson, I.M. Hutchings, Development of the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion test, Wear 195 1996. 232. w7x K. Elalem, D.Y. Li, Dynamical simulation of an abrasive wear process, J. Comput.-Aided Mater. Des. 1999. in press. w8x J.S. Ellis, B.M. Armstrong, Evaluation of wear resistant materials for use in minerals handling system, British Steel Rep. SLrCSrPr13r90rO, 1990. w9x R.D. Haworth Jr., The abrasion resistance of metals, Trans. ASM 41 1949. 819869. w10x H.S. Avery, An analysis of the rubber wheel abrasion test, in: S.K. Rhee, A.W. Ruff, K.C. Ludema Eds.., Proc. Int. Conf. On Wear of Materials, ASME, New York, 1981, pp. 367378. w11x E. Rabinowicz, in: Friction and Wear of Material, Wiley, 1965, pp. 167181. w12x P.A. Swanson, A.F. Vetter, The measurement of abrasive particle shape and its effect on wear, ASLE Trans. 28 2. 1985. 225230. w13x W.A. Glaeser, in: Materials for Tribology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992, p. 133.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for financial support from Syncrude Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.