55

Wear, 56 (1979) 55 - 67
0 Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne

MATERIALS
R. F. SMART

SELECTION

in the Netherlands

FOR WEAR RESISTANCE*

and J. C. MOORE

Materials Engineering
Rugby, Warwickshire
(Received

-Printed

March

Department,
(Ct. Britain)

Associated

Engineering

Developments

Ltd., Ca&ton,

9, 1979)

Summary
The selection of materials for components exposed to wear situations
involves a diversity of factors; a systematic approach to selection is outlined to ensure that no significant factors are overlooked. The relation
between materials properties and wear is examined and materials to avoid
wear are considered; ancillary factors that influence selection are reviewed.

1. Introduction
An engineering component can only be expected to give satisfactory
performance if the material of its construction and its design are correctly
chosen in relation to the expected operating conditions.
In selecting materials for wear-resistant parts the first requirement will
normally be to identify the type of wear to be expected and to prescribe
against it. However, since industrial wear situations are usually complex
the choice of materials is not easy; selection is further compromised by the
need to take into account a number of ancillary factors that affect (or more
generally limit) the freedom of choice [l].
Materials selection in this area has traditionally been and will continue
to be largely empirical. It should not, however, be haphazard; a systematic
approach that takes account of the known information and does not overlook any obvious factors can greatly improve the quality of the selection and
the subsequent performance of the component. This paper outlines such an
approach to materials selection and includes consideration of the problems
of wear monitoring.
This conference has as its theme the relation between tribology and
energy. The choice of materials for wear situations is related to energy in
two distinct ways. Firstly it is only by efficient selection that the most

*Paper
15,1979.

presented

at the 4th International

Tribology

Conference,

Paisley,

Sept.

10

56

effective use can be made of materials and the cost and energy expended in
their production.
Secondly badly worn parts tend to be associated with
inefficient running and the wasteful use of the energy input; where the
materials choice has been optimized the degree of wear will be reduced and
more efficient energy conversion may be expected.

2. Bulk materials

versus surface treatment

Wear resistance can be obtained by the use of appropriate bulk materials but product performance
and/or economics can often be improved by
the application of a suitable surface coating or treatment to the wear faces;
the substrate can then be chosen for its structural properties, ease of manufacture and cost.
Surfacing offers great versatility. Depending on the technique surface
coatings may range in thickness from a few microns to tens of millimetres
and may be dense or porous, adherent or easily removed. Deposition rates
may vary from a few hundred angstroms to thousands of microns per minute.
By suitable choice of technique almost any substrate can be coated with
almost any deposit (metallic, plastic or ceramic). Surface treatments involve
microstructural
changes to the surface and are more limited in variety but
equally important in practice.
There is a great variety of surfacing processes available and these can
be classed in various groups; Table 1 shows one classification.
Table 2
TABLE 1
Classification of surface treatments
Surface treatments

Surface coatings

Microstructural
Mechanical
Thermal
Chemical
Surface reaction
Diffusion
Implantation

Hot dipping
Electrodeposition
Plating
Anodizing
Electrophoresis
Chemical coating
Electroless plating
Phosphating
Chromating
Spraying
Paint/slurry spraying
Thermal spraying
Welding
Gas
Al-C

Cladding
Vapour deposition
Physical (PVD)
Chemical (CVD)

TABLE 2

Small

Porosity (%)
l-15

None

Fairly good

Good

Stress relieve

Post-treatment

Grit blasting

Tolerances

Chemical cleaning
and etching

Pretreatment

100

20 - 140

4 50

Substrate temperature
(C)

Moderate

Metallurgical bond

Nil
-

None

Grit blasting

1050

Ability to withstand
heat

Almost limitless

Mechanical bond; susceptible to

edge chipping

Electrical conductors

Substrate

No limit by hand

Versatile

up to 10

0.5 - 1.5

Spray fusing

Limited by handling equipment;

no limit for hand spraying

100

Limited by plating
bath

Component size

Versatile (except detonation

spraying)

up to 10

Care with edges

Versatile

Component geometry

Integrity

Q 0.5

Deposition rate (kg h-l)

0.1 - 1.0

Thermal spraying

Bond strength (MPa)

0.02 - 0.5

Thickness (mm)

Electrodeposition

Comparison of surfacing processes and deposits

Poor

High deposit integrity

Nil
-

Stress relieve

Mechanical cleaning

1400

Usually Cu, Fe superalloys

No limit

Simple shapes

up to 350

2 - 20

Welding

58

summarizes the characteristics

of four of the most commonly used processes
in engineering practice [ 21. More detailed information on the processes and
the properties they produce in the surfaced layers is available elsewhere
(e.g. refs. 3, 4 and 5). A thorough appreciation of these competing processes
is a prerequisite
for the specification
of a surfacing treatment for an engineering part.

3. Materials resistance for wear resistance

The many different types of wear observed in practice can be related to
three fundamental wear mechanisms that result in the removal of material
from the surface of a component: these are abrasion, adhesion and contact
fatigue [ 31. The materials requirement for each of the three can be defined
in terms of current views on the relation between wear and materials properties.
3.1. Abrasive wear
Studies have indicated that over half of all industrial wear situations are
predominantly
abrasive in nature [6]. To withstand such conditions there
will be a general need for strength in the surface layers to resist the imposed
loads but with enough toughness to prevent fracture due to surface imperfections or incipient fatigue cracks. The need for strength coupled with
toughness usually involves some degree of compromise; if there is any doubt
the balance should be tilted in favour of extra toughness since a wear rate
which is higher than desired is preferable to fracture of a component.
It has often been considered that strength and hardness can be equated
and that the principal property needed to resist abrasive wear is high hardness. However, recent experimental
work has confirmed that a simple relation
between wear resistance and material hardness only exists in special cases.
Figure 1 shows [7] that the hardness and relative wear resistance (i.e.
the ratio of the linear wear of a standard to that of a test material) are
linearly related for commercially
pure metals (i.e. materials of simple structure) but the same simple relation does not hold for a range of steels (Fig. 2)
where it becomes necessary to consider carbon content as well as hardness
[ 81. It has also been shown [ 91 that the ability to resist wear in a steel is
increased as the structure becomes more refined. The presence of hard
phases (particularly carbides) also has a beneficial effect on wear resistance.
Composition,
amount and morphology
all affect the precise degree of
improvement;
thus vanadium and chromium carbides have been claimed to
be superior to those of molybdenum
and tungsten and to give optimum
resistance when the addition is about 30% [lo]. Under conditions of pure
abrasion a coarse carbide distribution is judged best, but where there is some
degree of impact a finer well-distributed
carbide is preferred.
Finkin [7] has studied the effects on abrasive wear resistance of
different methods of hardening a steel. His results are shown schematically

59

HARDNESS

Hv

Fig. 1. Relative abrasive wear resistance us. hardness of commercially

on ref. 7).

200

600

LOO
HARONESS,

pure metals (based

600

Hv

Fig. 2. Relative abrasive wear resistance us. hardness for steels (after ref. 8).

in Fig. 3. The improvement

in resistance due to alloy hardening is much
greater than that obtained by quenching and tempering, while strain (or
precipitation)
hardening has little effect on wear performance.
These results emphasize the view that structure and chemical composition, as well as hardness, affect wear resistance; hardness is rarely the

60

t
8

nw
%

$
g

STRAIN

HARDENING

2
Q

J
SURFACE

HARDNESS

Fig. 3. Wear resistance for various methods of increasing hardness (after ref. 7).

sole criterion (except in materials of simple structure) and any successful

material must be able to undergo a significant amount of work hardening.
Differences in manufacturing
conditions, especially if this causes structural
differences, can radically affect wear resistance as can the characteristics
of
the counterface
material and the abrasive particles. It is indeed generally
desirable for the wear surface to be at least half as hard as the abrasive particles and the resistance continues to improve up to a ratio of about 1.3
[ 111; it is common to aim at a hardness in excess of 800 HV, i.e. the hardness of the common abrasive silica sand.
When considering specific materials for abrasion resistance the precise
type of wear should be identified wherever possible. In the absence of
impact high stress grinding abrasion can be countered by tungsten carbide
and low stress abrasion economically
by chromium carbide. Thermal and
thermochemical
treatments also find use here. Martensitic irons are widely
used for both types of abrasion and these can contain carbides to enhance
resistance; these materials give a smooth surface and resist metal-to-metal
wear (and light impact) well [ 11.
For heavy impact abrasive loading austensitic manganese steel (or
austensitic cast iron) may be necessary. The former will develop an
extremely resistant surface if the stress is high enough to work harden the
surface; however, under low stress conditions considerable wear may occur.
However, austenitic manganese steel does not have very good corrosion
resistance and is not suitable for use above about 300 C; in these conditions
austenitic stainless steel, although more expensive, may be required [ 121.
The hardfacing processes are widely used to provide resistance to
abrasive wear. The materials used in weld surfacing have been developed to
give a series with systematically
varying properties and this facilitates

61
LOW -

ABRASION

RESISTANCE

-HIGH
LOW

Mortcnnitc

C&&-and

HIGH-IMPACT

Stiinhs

nickal.

bum

RESISTANCE

deeIS

allo.,r

(I)

(3)

I
HEAT AND
CORROSON
RESISTANCE

I
HIGH

-LOW

Fig. 4. Comparison of properties of weld surfacing alloys (after ref. 13). The numbers
in parentheses indicate the alloy group.

selection [ 131. There are four groups of materials arranged so that abrasion
and impact resistance vary horizontally
while heat and corrosion resistance
vary vertically (Fig. 4). The price tends to increase with increasing group
number. While such a chart is not exact it does give useful general guidance
in selection.
Abrasion may also involve erosion. With low particle impact hard and
brittle materials are suitable and hard coatings are widely used. However,
with high angle impact tougher and more ductile materials are required to
absorb substantial amounts of energy before fracture; weld deposits and
plasma-sprayed
metals or carbides are often favoured. To withstand cavitation erosion materials tend to be selected from those with a high value of
ultimate resilience (i (UTS)2/elastic modulus where UTS is the ultimate
tensile strength) [lo] if the corrosion can be contained; cast alloys of the
stellite type, bronze, nickel and titanium alloys, and hard chromium
plating are all used in this case.
Where operation is to be at elevated temperatures
or under corrosive
conditions the freedom of choice is much restricted. Some of the steels may
be limited to quite restricted temperatures
while thermal and thermochemical treatments soften above about 200 C; above 500 C the choice
is virtually restricted to materials with substantial amounts of chromium or
cobalt. The mechanical action of wear tends to remove naturally occurring
protective films on metals and thus corrosion often seems unusually agressive; the aim must be to inhibit this effect.
3.2. Adhesive wear
Adhesion is classically regarded as initially involving a few asperities
which join up and whose areas increase in size as motion continues; the
rupture of these junctions causes metal transfer. The area of contact is
inversely proportional
to hardness and wear tends to decrease with increasing
asperity hardness; it is also reduced with smooth surfaces. Adhesion tends to
be favoured by the presence of clean surfaces, non-oxidizing conditions and
chemical and structural similarities between the sliding couples [lo].
Adhesive wear can be avoided by using an oil film to prevent metal-to-metal

62

contact but it is not possible to maintain full hydrodynamic

lubrication at all
times. Metal-to-metal
contact will then occur and the propensities of different metals to react should be considered. Rabinowicz
[ 141 has done this
on the basis of the ability to form solid solutions between metals; pairs
of metals that have low mutual solubility would then be chosen for the
wearing component and the counterface.
Lead, for example, has a very low
solubility for a number of commonly used elements, e.g. iron, nickel, chromium and cobalt, but can only be used as an alloy (e.g. nickel bronze) or
an overlay. Polymers or ceramics have virtues in this respect because of their
tendency not to react with metals.
Where there is lubrication,
adhesive wear is usually preventable by the
interposition
of dissimilar metal coatings. These may be soft deposits (e.g.
of lead) or hard-plated or sprayed coatings of chromium or molybdenum;
the porosity of many surface coatings provides the ability to retain oil and
this is a useful insurance against temporary lubrication
breakdown. Many
of the chemical conversion surface treatments
that are successful against
adhesive wear operate by producing a non-adhesive contamination
layer.
When there is no lubrication harder surfaces are required, the precise
hardness being dictated by the contact pressure and the hardness of the
contacting
surface. Plasma-sprayed
ceramics or carbides (with metallic
binder) are well established in this case; electroless nickel has also proved
useful as has, more recently, vapourdeposited
Tic.
The situation is complicated
by the fact that adhesive wear, unlike
abrasion, is characterized
by sharp transitions in behaviour [lo] ; slight variations in load and speed may cause marked thermal changes which precede
and cause wear changes, e.g. from mild (oxidative) to severe (metallic) wear.
Scuffing is a particular form of the latter which is observed during runningin when surfaces are relatively clean and requires transient protection.
Short
life treatments
such as phosphating or nitrocarburizing
are useful. Under
conditions
of fretting, sprayed copper alloys, anodized aluminium (or
possibly titanium), plasma-sprayed
oxides or carbide cermets, or nitrocarburizing may be used.
3.3. Contact fatigue
Where wear involves contact fatigue the component surface is subjected
to repeated cyclic stresses owing to impact or rolling motion and these can
cause surface cracking. The need is for a material with high fatigue strength
(broadly equivalent to high yield strength) but with adequate toughness.
Care must be taken that subsurface cracking (or cracking at the interface
between any treated layer and the core) is avoided [ 31.
For low stress situations nitrocarburizing
can be an economic solution
to this problem with nitrided or carburized cores being selected for higher
applied stresses. Where there is percussive wear, thermal or thermochemical
treatments may be used, or weld deposits, sprayed carbide/cobalt
alloys
or composite
electrodeposits
(e.g. cobalt/chromium
carbide) may be
preferred.

63

4. Ancillary factors in selection

It has been mentioned that factors in addition to the ability to withstand wear play a part in the selection procedure; the weight to be given
to these varies with application but in some cases they can assume a dominant role. Table 3 lists the more important of these factors.
TABLE 3
Ancillary factors in selection
Availability

Consumables
Equipment
Expertise

Counterface

mutual solubility with wear surface material

Substrate

Chemical compatibility with surface layer

Abihty to withstand heat/mechanical stress
Geometry
Physical properties

Finishing

Economies of finishing

Environmental factors

Depends on application

Design

Design to reduce wear

Design of wear resisting parts

Wear monitoring

Via effects of wear

Via wear product analysis

4.1. AvailabiEity
The material selected on grounds of wear resistance must be available
at reasonable cost and preferably be unaffected by strategic considerations.
It must also be available in the correct form and this is particularly relevant
where surface coatings are concerned, e.g. weld deposition and arc spraying
require the consumable to be present as wire while other processes may
require powder with particular size and/or shape characteristics.
Again, particularly
with surfacing, the selection must be compatible
with the equipment and with the skills necessary to perform it reliably and
reproducibly;
should the selection involve reclamation of worn parts it may
be necessary to take the equipment to the part and this implies a degree of
mobility.
4.2. Mating surface
The counterface
against which the part will run is of particular importance since this forms the other part of the wear couple. As already stated
attempts should be made to choose materials with little inherent material
solubility in each other; even where the system will normally run lubricated this is a wise precaution against temporary lubrication breakdown or
failure. However, it may be difficult to follow this advice. As mentioned

64

earlier lead has a low solubility in iron, nickel, cobalt and chromium but
its use is restricted by low strength, which generally means that it must be
used as an alloy or as an overlay.
4.3. Substrate characteristics
A factor of relevance in surfacing is the substrate. Reasonable chemical
compatibility
between the substrate and the surfacing material is necessary
so that there is not an excessive degree of chemical reaction due to interdiffusion across the interface either during processing or in service.
The ability of the substrate to withstand mechanical stress may be
important in processes (e.g. spraying) that require grit-blasting preparation
before coating but this would rarely be a limiting factor with substrates of
wear-resistant components.
The ability to resist heat can be essential if
hot deposition processes, such as welding or spray fusing, are contemplated;
in any case since the adhesion of most deposits can be improved by heating
the substrate heat resistance is generally desirable. Again large differences in
thermal expansion coefficient between component and proposed surfacing
material can lead to significant contractional
stresses on cooling and this
can limit choice. Finally, the geometry of the component should be considered against the throwing power of the chosen surfacing process.
4.4. Finishing
This aspect is often omitted from consideration,
but if it is required to
finish machine or dress before use it is relevant to consider that many wearresistant materials are, by their nature, difficult to finish and may for
example require diamond grinding. While this rarely limits choice in a
technical sense it can prove troublesome
to the economics of the part.
4.5. Environmental factors
Operating conditions of elevated temperature
or corrosive media are
generally considered in the selection of wear-resistant materials and, as indicated earlier, these can markedly affect the freedom of choice. However,
apart from these obvious restraints there can be others arising from general
environmental
considerations
which may exclude otherwise acceptable
materials.
Thus components for use in nuclear reactors cannot usually be made of
cobalt-containing
materials since a long-lived radioactive isotope may result
from exposure of the cobalt to radiation; the use of copper alloys may be
unacceptable for parts for aircraft fuel systems since their presence may lead
to cracking of the fuel and the liberation of free sulphur; again possible
toxic hazards must be borne in mind for wear-resistant equipment to be
used in food processing [ 11.
4.6. Design
Design can be at least as important as materials selection and if a part
is expected to wear the possibility of reducing this by improved design

65

should be considered; it is poor practice merely to seek a more resistant

bulk material or surface coating. This philosophy is clearly easier when
dealing with original equipment than with reclamation of worn parts but
it should always at least be considered,
When a wear-resistant surface has been selected, it is still important,
especially when surfacing is contemplated, to design the part so that it
can be produced economically; the appropriate design guide should be
followed [X5].

Where the cost of a breakdown of equipment is high and prediction is

uncertain, it may be desirable to monitor wear in selected areas. Since this
can affect materials selection it is relevant to consider this under ancillary
factors.
A wide range of monito~ng techniques is now available fl6 - IiS] and
these may be grouped into those concerned with the effects of wear and
those which depend upon evaluation of the wear product; the more important of the available techniques are listed in Table 4.
If wear monitoring is considered desirable the location of the
machinery becomes si~ifi~~t. Techniques such as kurtosis, spe~~o~~phi~
oil analysis, activation analysis etc. require specialized equipment and trained
staff, neither of which may be available on location; this can be overcome if
the equipment moves to and from a central depot. However, the restriction
on the choice of methods will in turn affect the choice of component
materials which may be further restricted by the ~o~ibil~ty of interference
by extraneous debris from areas other than the critical one. In contrast,
easily applied techniques such as temperature and vibration measurement
and performance measurement are much less likely to have any significant
effect on the freedom of materials choice.
5. Conclusions

This paper has been intended to illustrate that the selection of materials
for components exposed to wear (or indeed any other engineering eomponent) should be carried out in a systematic manner; only by this approach is
the component likely to make efficient use of the materials, be economical
to produce and be satisfactory in technical performance.
The traditional approach has been to take some specification that
worked well in one application and specify it for another, probably slightly
different, one. In this way the area of knowledge is slowly extended but at
the expense of many poor selections, the full cost of which may not readily
be perceived. Present knowledge on the relation between basic materials
properties and wear resistance is still too rudimentary to allow a wholly
theoretical approach which may in any case be frustrated by the intrusion of
so-called ancillary factors; therefore the surest way to approach an optimum
selection is by a full and critical review of all the factors involved.

66

TABLE

Typical wear monitoring techniques

Method
Techniques

Remarks
dependent on effects of wear

Temperature

changes

Measurement of temperature differences between a

moving surface and its surroundings; a rise may
indicate increased wear.

Vibration

Increase in vibration follows increased clearances due

to wear; e.g. the use of accelerometers or vibration
analysis with numerical readout; can automate
techniques

Optical

Spatial measurement (often incorporating holography)

can be applied in some cases using special parts built
into machinery

Kurtosis

Advanced form of noise and vibrational analysis

where the output over a range of frequencies is compared with recordings from the prior history of the
equipment; significant changes occur as wear
proceeds

Operation analysis

Changes in torque, blowby, fuel consumption or

exhaust gas analysis may be symptomatic of wear
(but can also have other causes)

Techniques dependent on wear products

Spectro~aphic
particles

oil analysis of

Magnetic chip detection

Can incorporate activation analysis, atomic absorption

etc. as analysis method; regular samplings and
analyses are made and increases in metal build-up
in oil can be related to wear
Small magnets collect ferrous metal chips from the
oil pipeline and are periodically removed and
inspected; can be automated

Ferrography

A sample of oil from the sump is diluted and

magnetically separated over an inclined plane;
metallographic examination of debris can reveal the
amount and type of wear

Thin-layer activation analysis

Part of the wearing surface is exposed to beams

from a linear accelerator; induced radioactivity
(which is kept to small levels) can be used to
measure wear

Since the wear characteristics of a part are largely determined by the

properties of the surface layers, the possibility of utilizing a surfacing treatment on a cheaper substrate is very often the most economic solution to the
materials selection problem. However, it is important to appreciate fully
the range of surfacing processes and materials available if the best treatment
is to be selected for any particular application. It should perhaps be men-

67

tioned that the properties in the form of surfaced layers may differ significantly from the vaiues for nominally similar materials in bulk form; this
must be borne in mind where the published properties are used as an aid to
selection.
It cannot be overstressed that materials selection and design both contribute to a successful component.
The avoidance or reduction of wear can
often be more effectively and economically
achieved by an improvement
in design than by the specification of a more wear-resistant material and this
avenue should always be considered as a way round the wear problem (or
potential wear problem). It may be desirable to specify rather costly wear
materials only for selected areas where their use is truly essential.

References
1 R. F. Smart, Tribol. Int., 11 (1978) 97 - 104.
2 R. F. Smart,Surf. J., 10 (2) (1979) 7 - 12.
3 G. Arthur, D. Birch, G. M. Michie, P. Moorhouse and T. C. Wells, Wear Resistant
Surfaces, International Research and Development Co. Ltd., Newcastle, 1977.
4 D. H. James, Surf. J., 9 (2) (1978) 3 - 8.
5 I. C. Wells, Surf. J., 9 (4) (1978) 2 - 8.
6 P. R. Williams, presented at Welding Institute Seminar on Weld Surfacing for
Production, Repair and Reclamation in Heavy Engineering, 1977.
7 E. F. Finkin, Mach. Des., 42 (7) (1970) 148 - 154.
8 M. N. Kruschov, Proe. Conf. on ~ubricution and Wear, Inst. Mech. Eng., London,
1957, pp. 655 - 659.
9 N. M. Serpik and M. M. Kantor, Friction Wear Mach. (USSR), 19 (1965) 28.
10 T. S. Eyre, Tribal. Int., 11 (1978) 91 - 104.
11 R. C. Richardson, Wear, 11 (1968) 245 - 275.
12 H. S. Avery, Surface Protection Against Wear and Corrosion, Am. Sot. Metals,
Metals Park, Ohio, 1954, pp. 10 - 40.
13 E. N. Gregory,Surf. J., 7 (2) (1976) 5 - 10.
14 E. Rabinowicz, Friction and Wear of Materials, Wiley, New York, 1965.
15 British Standard 4479,4495
and 4761; Code of Practice CP3012.
16 D. Scott and V. C. Westcott, Wear, 44 (1977) 173 - 182.
17 R. A. Collacott, Chart. Mech. Eng., 23 (7) (1976) 63 - 69.
18 Rep. on Conf. on Condition Monitoring, Tribal. Int., 10 (1977) 189 - 190.