The Influence of Heat Treatment

on the High-Stress Abrasion Resistance

and Fracture Toughness of Alloy White Cast Irons
I.R. SARE and B.K. ARNOLD

The influence of a range of austenitizing and subcritical (tempering) heat treatments on the
high-stress abrasion resistance and fracture toughness of four commercially significant grades
of alloy white cast iron was investigated. Complementing an earlier study m on the influence of
a more limited range of heat treatments on the gouging abrasion performance of the same alloys,
the results showed that the effect of austenitizing temperature on high-stress abrasion pin test
weight loss differed for each alloy. With increasing austenitizing temperature, these results ranged
from a substantial improvement in wear performance and retention of hardness through to vir-
tually no change in wear performance and substantial falls in hardness. Fracture toughness,
however, increased markedly in all alloys with increasing austenitizing temperature. Tempering
treatments in the range 400 ~ to 600 ~ following hardening at the austenitizing temperature
used commonly in industrial practice for each alloy, produced significant changes in both hard-
ness and wear performance, but negligible changes in fracture toughness. Most importantly, the
data showed that selection of the correct temperature for subcritical heat treatment to reduce
the retained austenite content for applications involving repeated impact loading is critical if
abrasion resistance is not to suffer.

I. INTRODUCTION the lowest volume loss in a CrMoCu 20.2.1 type of alloy

IN a recent article, the authors reported the results of
a study of the effect of heat treatment on the gouging
abrasion resistance of a series of alloy white cast irons. Iu
The alloy compositions selected for the study were four
of the widely used grades from the ASTM standard for
abrasion-resistant cast irons. I21 It was shown that optimal
gouging abrasion resistance was exhibited at inter-
mediate levels of retained austenite, the position of the
minimum in gouging abrasion weight loss vs retained
austenite content depending on alloy composition. Of
particular note was the observation that subcritieal heat
treatment at 500 ~ following hardening at the conven-
tionally used austenitizing temperature for each alloy,
which is commonly utilized to reduce the austenite con-
tent to very low levels in order to improve spalling re-
sistance under conditions of repetitive loading, 13 6] caused
a significant fall in both hardness and gouging abrasion
resistance. The undesirable effects of subcritical heat
treatment at 500 ~ were attributed to the loss of me-
chanical strength of the matrix, and therefore its inability
to provide adequate support to the eutectic carbides as a
result of the reduction in the carbon content of the mar-
tensite caused by secondary carbide precipitation.
There have been very few investigations that have ad-
dressed "pure" abrasion resistance (in the absence of any
repeated impact loading) following subcritical heat treat-
ment. Those that do exist have generally reported no
deleterious effect. Zum Gahr and Doane, 171using a low-
stress abrasion, wet sand rubber wheel test, found that
I.R. SARE, Assistant Chief, and B.K. ARNOLD, Experimental
Scientist, are with CSIRO Division of Manufacturing Technology,
Woodville, South Australia 5011, Australia.
Manuscript submitted November 17, 1994.
occurred in samples tempered for 3 hours at 500 ~ after
standard hardening at 1000 ~ although the retained
austenite content was, inexplicably, still 40 pct. In related
work on the same alloy, using a high-stress abrasion pin
test on garnet, Zum Gahr and Eldis t81 showed slight de-
terioration with tempering the hardened structure at
500 ~ for short times, and slight improvement when
tempering times in excess of 10 hours were employed.
In all instances, the change in hardness with tempering
at 500 ~ was minimal. The principal beneficial effect
of the subcritical heat treatment was seen as being the
reduction in the amount of retained austenite. Contrast-
ing with these published results, however, is a study by
Blickensderfer et al.,[6l which reported pin test results
after subcritical heat treatment of alloy white cast irons
at temperatures in the range 450 ~ to 540 ~ They found
the best abrasion resistance in alloys that had not been
tempered after hardening and that contained retained
austenite contents of 20 pct or more, with the amount of
wear increasing as the martensitic matrix became in-
creasingly tempered. The greatest wear occurred in alloys
containing less than 5 pct retained austenite.
Because of the industrial importance of alloy white
cast irons, and the necessity to develop optimal heat
treatments for the various applications in which they are
utilized, this further study was undertaken to clarify some
of the essential features of the response of alloy white
irons to heat treatment. The earlier work of the authors III
used a jaw crusher test to evaluate the gouging abrasion
resistance of the materials under study. These results
provided data of relevance to applications involving both
abrasion and repetitive loading. In the present work, the
more widely used high-stress abrasion pin test was em-
ployed to evaluate the influence of the same heat treat-
ments on the wear performance of the various alloys,

METALLURGICALAND MATERIALSTRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995--1785

and to assess the effect of tempering temperature. In ad-
dition, fracture toughness tests were undertaken to pro-
vide a complementary measure of the influence of
tempering treatments.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A. Test Materials
The study utilized samples taken from worn jaw plate
castings used in the previous investigation, Ill as well as
new experimental heats of the same nominal white iron
alloys induction melted and cast into CO2-sodium
silicate-bonded sand molds for the production of fracture
toughness test plates of dimensions 170 • 55 x 14 mm.
The chemical compositions of the test materials are sum-
marized in Table I.
The castings were heat-treated in an electrical muffle
furnace and then ground to remove any decarburized layer
present on the surface after heat treatment. The castings
were tested as follows: (1) in the as-cast condition;
(2) after austenitizing followed by air cooling; (3) after
austenitizing, air cooling, subcritical tempering, and air
cooling again. Details of the heat-treatment schedule are
summarized in Tables II through IV.
B. Wear Tests
Samples for high-stress abrasion testing were prepared
as 6.35-mm-diameter pins obtained by electrodischarge
machining from worn jaw plate castings from the pre-
vious work, tq and from blocks cut from jaw plate cast-
ings that were subsequently tempered. High-stress abrasion
tests were conducted using a pin-on-table apparatus based
on the method outlined by Muscara and Sinnott. t91 Each
test involved rotating a pin at 20 rpm under a dead load
of 6.8 kg and traversing it across 120-grit garnet abrasive
cloth at a speed of 2.54 m per minute over a test distance
of 12.9 m. The mean weight loss was determined from
five tests per pin. The data were normalized to the mean
weight loss of a carbon steel reference pin, which was
abraded over a distance of 2.25 m on one side of the
abrasive cloth for each test specimen.
C. Fracture Toughness Tests
Fracture toughness values were determined using the
double torsion bend test developed by Murphy et al. l~~
Table I. Chemical Compositions of Test Materials
Composition (Wt Pct)
Alloy C Mn Si Ni Cr
(a) Jaw plate castings*
Cr27 2.72 0.68 0.65 0.10 25.5
CrMo 15.3 3.32 0.93 0.88 0.15 16.5
CrMoCu 20.2.1 2.62 0.69 1.44 0.20 19.7
NiCr 4 2.96 0.56 1.64 4.96 8.62
(b) Fracture toughness test plate castings
Cr27 2.72 0.71 1.32 0.42 28.2 0.19 - -
CrMo 15.3 3.28 0.78 0.75 0.26 16.7 2.36 - -
CrMoCu 20.2.1 2.55 0.54 0.54 0.55 18.8 1.88 0.98
NiCr4 2.90 0.56 2.07 4.88 8.68
* A f t e r S a r e a n d A r n o l d J tl
1786~VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995
The test plate castings were ground to a thickness of ap-
proximately 12 mm, and the crack-initiating notch and
crack-guiding groove were prepared by electrodischarge
machining. Tests were performed on a computer-
controlled universal testing machine with the ram speed
selected to give a crack velocity of the order of 1 mm
s -~. The mean crack propagation load was determined
from the load-displacement trace in order to permit cal-
culation of Klc.
III. RESULTS
A. Hardness Data
Table V shows the mean hardness data (HV30) on the
jaw plate castings reproduced from Sare and Arnold t~
for each alloy type in the as-cast condition, after aus-
tenitizing at different temperatures, and after subcritical
heat treatment at 500 ~ following hardening at the aus-
tenitizing temperature commonly used in industrial prac-
tice. In the present work, a more detailed investigation
was made of the effect of subcritical heat-treatment tem-
perature in the range 400 ~ to 600 ~ and the tem-
pering response of each alloy was found to vary
significantly (Table VI and Figure 1). Alloy CrMo 15.3
exhibited a weak secondary hardening peak at 550 ~
while the temperature for the onset of softening ranged
from 500 ~ in alloy Cr 27, to 525 ~ in alloys NiCr 4
and CrMoCu 20.2.1, to approximately 550 ~ in alloy
CrMo 15.3. These data are somewhat at variance with
those reported in the earlier study m for the jaw crusher
plate castings subcritically heat-treated just at 500 ~
for which alloys Cr 27, CrMoCu 20.2.1, and NiCr 4 all
exhibited softening (Table V).
B. Wear Test Results
Results of the high-stress abrasion pin tests on the alloys
austenitized at different temperatures are summarized in
Table V and in Figure 2. The data show similar trends
to the earlier jaw crusher gouging abrasion test results, m
especially in respect to the strongly negative influence
of the subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ after hardening
for alloys Cr 27, CrMoCu 20.2.1, and NiCr 4. The only
significant differences in the weight-loss trends for the
pin tests compared with the jaw crusher tests were that
alloys CrMoCu 20.2.1 and NiCr 4 tended not to exhibit
a deterioration in wear performance with increasing aus-
tenitizing temperature. The overriding effect was, how-
ever, of similarity in the general trends between results
Mo Cu derived from the two tests. This is borne out by the strong
correlation coefficient of 0.93 obtained for the line of
0.16 - - best fit when the jaw crusher gouging abrasion test re-
2.47 - - sults were plotted against the high-stress pin test results
2.00 1.04 (Figure 3).
0.04 - - Figure 4 shows only a very weak linear relationship
between hardness and pin test weight loss, with a cor-
relation coefficient of - 0 . 4 2 . The poor correlation re-
flects the inconsistent trends in hardness and high-stress
abrasion pin weight loss with austenitizing temperature
in each alloy:
(1) alloy Cr 2 7 - hardening by austenitizing at 1000 ~
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 Table II. Heat-Treatment Schedule for Jaw Plate Castings*

Austenitizing/Subcritical Heat-Treatment Conditions (~

Alloy As Cast 800 1000 1075 l 150 800/500 1000/500
Cr 27 ** N.A. ** ** ** N.A. **
CrMo 15.3 ** N.A. ** ** ** N.A. **
CrMoCu 20.2. l ** N.A. ** ** ** N.A. **
NiCr 4 ** ** ** ** N.A. ** N.A.
*After Sare and Arnold. I~
**Treatment done.
N.A. = not applicable. Austenitizing times: (1) all alloys except NiCr 4 - - 1 h at 1000 ~ 1.5 h at 1075 ~ and 1150 ~ and (2) NiCr
4-5 h at 800 ~ 2.5 h at 1000 ~ 1.5 h at 1075 ~ Subcritical heat-treatment time: 5 h.

Table III. Austenitizing Schedule for Fracture Toughness Test Plate Castings

Austenitizing Temperature (~
Alloy As Cast 850 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Cr 27 * N.A. * * * * N.A. *
CrMo 15.3 * N.A. * * * * N.A. *
CrMoCu 20.2.1 * N.A. * * * * N.A. *
NiCr 4 -- * * * * N.A. * N.A.
*Treatment done.
N.A. = not applicable. Austenitizing time: 2 h.

Table IV. Tempering Schedule for Fracture Toughness Test Plate Castings

Alloy Tempering Conditions (~

Cr 27 All castings tempered for 2 h at temperatures of 400 ~ 425 ~ 450 ~ 475 ~ 500 ~ 525 ~ 550 ~
CrMo 15.3 575 ~ and 600 ~ following austenitizing treatments: (1) 1000 ~ for alloys Cr 27, CrMo 15.3,
CrMoCu 20.2.1 CrMoCu 20.2.1 and (2) 800 ~ for alloy NiCr 4
NiCr 4
*The same tempering conditions were employed on blocks cut from the jaw plate castingsI~ prior to the extraction of pins for high-stress
abrasion testing.

Table V. Test Results for Different Austenitizing Treatments*

Test Results
Austenitizing/Subcritical Heat Treatment Temperature (~

As Cast 800 1000 1075 1150 800/500 1000/500

Weight Pct Weight Pct Weight Pct Weight Pct W e i g h t Pct W e i g h t Pct W e i g h t Pct
Alloy HV30 Loss y HV30 Loss 7 HV30 Loss 3' HV30 Loss 3' HV30 Loss 3' HV30 Loss 3' H V 3 0 Loss y

Cr 27 662 45.2 44 -- -- -- 780 50.4 16 781 33.5 21 802 36.1 24 -- 660 96.6 6
C r M o 15.3 564 21.2 75 -- -- -- 908 9.7 35 805 10.4 56 732 10.8 72 -- 900 13.7 9
CrMoCu
20.2.1 574 36.5 66 -- 836 32.8 22 819 25.1 36 829 29.8 35 -- 611 77.2 4
NiCr 4 555 43.2 65 763 42.0 24 635 45.3 43 456 4t.2 72 673 96.4 6

*Hardness (HV30) and retained austenite (pct 7) data f f o m S a r e and Arnold3~]Mean high-stress abrasion pin test data ( w e i g h t l o s s ) i n milligrams.

was associated with a slight i n c r e a s e in w e i g h t loss c o m - h i g h e r a u s t e n i t i z i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s was associated with a

pared with the as-cast c o n d i t i o n , w h e r e a s a u s t e n i t i z i n g
at the h i g h e r t e m p e r a t u r e s p r o d u c e d a m a r k e d decrease
in w e i g h t loss but n e g l i g i b l e c h a n g e s in h a r d n e s s ;
(2) alloy C r M o 15.3 - - the s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d n e s s i n c r e a s e
p r o d u c e d b y a u s t e n i t i z i n g at 1000 ~ was a c c o m p a n i e d
b y a very s i g n i f i c a n t decrease in w e i g h t loss, while the
m a r k e d loss in h a r d n e s s a r i s i n g f r o m the t r e a t m e n t s at
n e g l i g i b l e c h a n g e in w e i g h t loss;
(3) alloy C r M o C u 2 0 . 2 . 1 - - a u s t e n i t i z i n g at 1000 ~ again
p r o d u c e d a s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d n e s s increase c o m p a r e d with
the as-cast state, b u t o n l y a slight decrease in w e i g h t
loss; h i g h e r a u s t e n i t i z i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s c a u s e d o n l y small
c h a n g e s in b o t h h a r d n e s s a n d w e i g h t loss; a n d
(4) alloy N i C r 4 - - t h e r e were substantial c h a n g e s in

METALLURGICAL A N D MATERIALS T R A N S A C T I O N S A VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995 1787

 Table VI. T e s t Results for D i f f e r e n t T e m p e r i n g T r e a t m e n t s *

Test Results
Tempering Temperature (~

400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600

Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight

Alloy HV30 Loss K~c HV30 Loss HV30 Loss HV30 Loss HV30 Loss Ktc HV30 Loss HV30 Loss HV30 Loss HV30 Loss Kic
Cr 27 772 71.9 28.5 729 52.8 819 52.3 742 54.7 752 37.4 27.2 722 62.6 579 97.3 532 99.3 494 107.1 27.6
CrMo 15.3 832 16.0 27.3 809 24.1 835 17.6 830 14.4 845 13.3 22.5 856 13.5 872 18.5 765 31.7 727 51.1 25.6
CrMoCu
20.2.1 821 46.0 31.4 767 39.2 849 25.3 805 25.4 812 24.6 26.4 773 34.2 798 30.9 613 68.7 568 85.7 30.7
NiCr 4 735 55.1 27.8 711 58.7 731 59.2 727 64.2 734 66.6 21.2 673 75.3 683 69.1 615 91.8 604 87.8 23.8

*Mean high-stress abrasion pin test data (weight loss) in milligrams. Fracture toughness test data (Kit) in MN rn 3/2.

16
900 A
14
A
O 12
O3
> 800 O
,--I
_ _ - 9
"l-
9g 10
700
ID
1-
9 9 IN
600
-i--
0.. 4
500 2
i i t i i i t t t
n I t I I I I I
0
400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Tempering Temperature (~
Pin Weight Loss (mg)
Fig. l--Hardness (HV30) v s tempering temperature (~ Symbols:
O, Cr 27; A, CrMo 15.3; e , CrMoCu 20.2.1; and I , NiCr 4. Fig. 3 - - M e a n gouging abrasion jaw plate weight loss (g) v s mean
high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (mg). Symbols: O, Cr 27; &,
CrMo 15.3; O, CrMoCu 20,2.1; and I , NiCr 4.

100
90 %
100
A
80 90
E A
r
70 80
r E
0 60 70
_I
50
r
60 ~ 'J
.7= O
--I
40 9 i" - 9 j . =i .7= 50
30 40
r
~ A-
30
II,,. 20 r-

10 A - - A 9 9 fl. 20
0 _ _ t _ l _ _ . t t t _ _ _ _
10
t t t t t t t t t
800 900 1000 1100 1200 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100
Austenitizing Temperature (~
Hardness (HV30)
Fig. 2 - - M e a n high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (mg) v s austen-
itizing temperature (~ Data are also shown for each alloy in the as- Fig. 4 - - M e a n high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (rag) v s hardness
cast condition and after subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ following (HV30) for alloys austenitized at different temperatures. Regions are
hardening at the lowest austenitizing temperature (termed double heat shown delineating alloys with predominantly austenitic and predom-
treatment). Symbols: O, Cr 27; &, CrMo 15.3; e , CrMoCu 20.2.1; inantly martensitic matrices. Symbols: O, Cr 27; &, CrMo 15.3; O,
and I , NiCr 4. CrMoCu 20.2.1 ; and I , NiCr 4.

1788 VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

hardness brought about by varying the austenitizing tem-
perature, but very little change in weight loss.
Regions delineating predominantly austenitic and mar-
tensitic matrices are also indicated in Figure 4. The three
data points in the predominantly martensitic region of
the figure exhibiting very high weight losses are from
alloys Cr 27, CrMoCu 20.2.1, and NiCr 4 subcritically
heat-treated at 500 ~
Utilizing retained austenite data for the matrix deter-
mined in the earlier work r~l and summarized in Table V,
Figure 5(a) shows the influence of retained austenite
content on the high-stress abrasion pin wear test results.
The mean weight-loss data were fitted by the quadratic
relationship
w = 82.08 - 2.293/+ 0.0223 ,2 (r = 0.67)
where w = weight loss (mg) and 7 = percent retained
austenite. Substantially better fits were obtained for qua-
dratic relationships fitted to the data for each alloy in-
dividually, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75
to 0.99. The fitted curves for each of these relationships
are shown in Figure 5(b). In all instances, the lowest
weight loss was exhibited at intermediate levels of retained
austenite content.
High-stress abrasion pin test results for each alloy as
a function of tempering temperature in the range 400 to
600 ~ are shown in Table VI and Figure 6. The results
show the following.
(1) Alloy Cr 27 exhibits a sharp minimum in weight loss
at 500 ~
(2) Alloy CrMo 15.3 shows a shallow minimum at
500 ~ to 525 ~ and a steadily increasing weight loss
at higher temperatures.
(3) Alloy CrMoCu 20.2.1 has a minimum in weight loss
in the temperature range 450 ~ to 500 ~ and sharply
increasing values above 550 ~
(4) Alloy NiCr 4 tends to have a monotonically increas-
ing weight loss over the entire temperature range.
The same high-stress abrasion pin test data plotted against
hardness are shown in Figure 7. Unlike the poor relation-
ship between hardness and weight loss for the alloys in
the as-cast and austenitized conditions (Figure 4), there
is a very good correlation (r -- - 0 . 9 3 ) between these

120
100
90 A 100
E 80 E
70 r
80
O
O
60 --I
..I
50
.~ 60
9 9
40
9 40
30 e-
= 20 0. 20
10
i i i I J i ~ i
0 i i i i i
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 400 450 500 550 600

Retained Austenite Content, (%) Tempering Temperature (~

(a) Fig. 6--Mean high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (mg) v s tempering
temperature (~ Symbols: O, Cr 27; A, CrMo 15.3; 0, CrMoCu
100
20.2.1; and m, NiCr 4.
90
A
80
E 120
70
A
~ 60 100
.~ 50 E
80
.-~ 40 r
O
..J
N 30 60
.E
.E
a. 20
10 40
J k t t t t t i
o t-
a-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20
~AA

0
Retained Austenite Content, (%)
400 500 600 700 800 900
(b)
Hardness (HV30)
Fig. 5--Mean high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (mg) v s retained
austenite content in the matrix (pct). (a) Quadratic relationship for Fig. 7--Mean high-stress abrasion pin weight loss (mg) v s hardness
total data set and (b) quadratic relationships for each alloy. Symbols: (HV30) for alloys tempered at different temperatures. Symbols: O,
O, Cr 27; A, CrMo 15.3; 0, CrMoCu 20.2.1; and m, NiCr 4. Cr 27; A, CrMo 15.3; 0, CrMoCu 20.2.1; and m, NiCr 4.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995--1789

two properties with tempering temperature variations in
the range 400 ~ to 600 ~
C. Fracture-Toughness Results
The fracture-toughness test data are plotted in Figure 8
as a function of austenitizing temperature. For each alloy
(except NiCr 4, for which no result was obtained be-
cause of a testing error), austenitizing at the lower tem-
peratures produced lower Klc values than those determined
for the as-cast state, but with increasing austenitizing
temperature, the Klc values increased substantially. There
was little change in fracture toughness with tempering
temperature, and the values for each alloy were similar,
as shown in Table VI.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Influence of Austenitizing Temperature
1. High-stress abrasion resistance
The changes in high-stress abrasion resistance with
austenitizing temperature exhibited similarities to the re-
sults of the gouging abrasion tests reported previously, lu
as would be expected from the strong correlation ob-
tained between the data from the two tests (Figure 3).
Alloy Cr 27 deteriorated after a standard hardening treat-
ment at 1000 ~ and then improved after heat treatment
at higher temperatures, while alloy CrMo 15.3 showed
a major improvement after standard hardening with ef-
fectively no change following higher temperature treat-
ments. Some significant differences were also evident,
however. Alloy CrMoCu 20.2.1 exhibited a very modest
improvement with standard hardening, a trend which
continued with higher temperature treatments, while alloy
NiCr 4 showed very little change in pin weight loss fol-
lowing any of the high-temperature austenitizing treat-
ments. These apparently inconsistent trends fit with
previously reported experience of results produced by the
high-stress abrasion pin test.
(1) Gundlach and Parks l~u found that white irons of
compositions similar to those used in the present work
6O
v 50
| 40 "-
e--
e--
As cast 9
&.
~ 30
0 standard hardened conditions are substantially higher than
I--
~ 20
-"1
.~ 10
U-
0
800 900 1000 1100 1200
Austenitizing Temperature (~
Fig. 8 - - F r a c t u r e toughness ( K l o MN m 3/2) vs austenitizing tem-
perature (~ Symbols: O, Cr 27; &, CrMo 15.3; 0 , CrMoCu 20.2.1;
and II, NiCr 4.
and hardened at a single austenitizing temperature all
showed better abrasion resistance against garnet than their
as-cast counterparts. The trend was reversed when an
abrasive harder than the eutectic carbides (for example,
alumina and silicon carbide) was used, a phenomenon
they attributed to the ability of higher hardness abrasives
to produce a high degree of strain hardening and/or strain-
induced transformation of predominantly austenitic ma-
trices. In the present work, the composition and stability
of the austenite in each alloy would have varied with
austenitizing temperature as a result of differing amounts
of carbon and chromium being retained in solution, tu
thereby allowing for the varying heat-treatment-
temperature response in each alloy.
(2) In similar pin tests with garnet abrasive on a series
of alloy white irons approximating the compositions of
alloys CrMo 15.3 and CrMoCu 20.2.1 used in the pres-
ent work, Zum Gahr and Eldis 18] reported instances where
the as-cast, predominantly austenitic alloy performed
slightly better than the hardened, predominantly mar-
tensitic alloy, instances where the reverse situation was
true, and instances where there was negligible change.
They also showed, for alloy CrMoCu 20.2.1, that high-
stress abrasion resistance deteriorated with increasing
austenitizing temperature, in contrast with the results of
the present study. However, in their case, the retained
austenite content increased much more substantially with
austenitizing temperature, with a concomitant very sig-
nificant fall in hardness.
(3) In a more detailed evaluation of the mechanism of
abrasion in alloy white irons similar to those used in the
present study, Watson et al. 1~21found that, when tested
against garnet abrasive, alloys Cr 27 and NiCr 4 exhib-
ited a deterioration in performance when hardened,
whereas alloy CrMo 15.3 showed a significant improve-
ment. The difference in behavior was explained on the
basis of the relative hardnesses of the eutectic carbide
and matrix phases in each alloy compared with the hard-
ness of the abrasive, garnet.
(4) In their pin tests on high-chromium white irons using
garnet abrasive, Blickensderfer et al.[6] found that for an
alloy with 17.7 pct Cr and 1.1 pct Mo, hardening at
1010 ~ gave a very slight improvement in wear resis-
tance, while hardening at 1065 ~ gave a substantial de-
terioration. In a 28 pct Cr alloy, hardening at 1010 ~
yielded a substantial improvement in abrasion resistance
over that in the as-cast condition, but austenitizing at
higher temperatures gave a gradual deterioration.
2. Fracture Toughness
The fracture toughness (Ktc) data for the as-cast and
those reported previously.l~3 ~8] This discrepancy reflects
the uncertainties that have been expressed recently about
the double torsion bend test for determining Kzc .l~9] De-
spite these uncertainties, however, the data presented in
Figure 8 do provide worthwhile information on the rel-
ative variation of toughness with heat treatment, even if
the absolute values of Ktc are questionable. The in-
creases in toughness with increasing austenitizing tem-
perature mirror the reports in some earlier work, t7'~3]
although they extend the data to even higher tempera-
tures and to a greater range of alloy white iron compo-
sitions. The improvement in toughness with increasing

1790 VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

austenitizing temperature is almost certainly a conse-
quence of the higher retained austenite contents ob-
tained, austenite having been shown previously to be of
major benefit in improving fracture toughness in these
types of materials. I7,13'141
Durman tl6J found that the beneficial influence of aus-
tenite on fracture toughness seemed only to be exerted
at low carbon contents (less than approximately 1.5 pct),
where the eutectic carbide network was discontinuous
and where the formation of strain-induced martensite was
observed to take place. In his work, the formation of
strain-induced martensite was only evident, however, in
as-cast material; in austenite retained after high-
temperature heat treatment, strain-induced martensite
formation was restricted, because of the greater stability
of the austenite as a result of its greater dissolved chro-
mium and carbon contents. At higher carbon contents,
Durman t~61found that both austenitic and martensitic ma-
trix types gave comparable fracture toughness values be-
cause of the over-riding effect of the continuity of the
carbide network in providing an easy fracture path.
Biner t171 subsequently developed a model for fracture
toughness which showed that for 15 pct Cr irons with
an austenitic matrix and levels of molybdenum varying
from 0 to 4 pct, failure was controlled by the attainment
of a critical stress state ahead of the crack tip that was
strongly influenced by cleavage fracture of the eutectic
carbides. This was despite his observation that the aus-
tenitic matrix exhibited a dimpled fracture surface
suggestive of ductile failure. However, although voids
formed around the precipitated secondary carbides within
the matrix, there was no apparent necking or extensive
void growth. In the same alloys heat-treated to give es-
sentially martensitic matrices, Biner I~81 found lower
fracture toughness values. In this case, he observed that
fracture toughness was independent of the eutectic car-
bide morphology and that it was controlled by the dis-
tribution of the secondary carbide precipitates that form
during the austenitizing treatment.
B. The Influence of Subcritical Heat Treatment
The very significant increase in high-stress abrasion
pin test weight loss for three of the four alloys following
subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ (Table V) mirrors
the results obtained in the earlier gouging abrasion test
study tq and suggests that this temperature may have been
too high for all but alloy CrMo 15.3. This latter alloy
exhibited a distinct, but relatively weak, secondary hard-
ening peak at approximately 550 ~ (Figure 1), but the
other three alloys started to show a drop in hardness be-
yond 500 ~ with no clear indication of secondary hard-
ening. (The slight apparent increases in hardness in alloys
CrMoCu 20.2.1 and NiCr 4 evident at 550 ~ are prob-
ably due to general random hardness variations more than
to any real effect, given the variations exhibited by these
alloys at lower tempering temperatures.) The poor weight-
loss performance of alloys Cr 27, CrMoCu 20.2.1, and
NiCr 4 recorded in Table V is somewhat puzzling, how-
ever, since the subsequent tempering temperature inves-
tigation, summarized in Figure 6, indicated that
temperatures higher than 500 ~ were needed to cause a
marked deterioration in wear resistance. It would seem
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
that the changes in properties after tempering at tem-
peratures in the vicinity of 500 ~ depend critically upon
the precise composition, treatment temperature and time,
and possibly section thickness.
Maratray and Poulalion t2~ have shown that the amount
of dissolved carbon in the austenite (as reflected in the
retained austenite content) before subcritical heat treat-
ment, and hence the Ms temperature of the initial struc-
ture, can be a major determinant of the tempering response
and therefore the extent to which secondary hardening
takes place. They found that the likelihood of secondary
hardening, and the temperature of its peak, was greater
at higher retained austenite contents. The same effect as-
sists in explaining the tempering response within the
present work: alloy CrMo 15.3, which exhibited pro-
nounced secondary hardening and maintained high hard-
ness after subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ was the
material with the greatest retained austenite content (and
therefore the lowest Ms temperature) after standard hard-
ening. The secondary hardening phenomenon in alloy
white cast irons is thought to be the result of two types
of microstructural change: the transformation of austen-
ite at temperature to a harder ferrite-carbide aggregate,
and the further transformation of remaining austenite to
martensite upon subsequent cooling. I2~jThe loss in hard-
ness with overtempering is due to the growth or ripening
of the precipitates in the ferrite-carbide aggregate. In alloy
CrMo 15.3, the development of secondary hardening is
also likely to be partly a consequence of Mo2C precip-
itation, as observed in molybdenum-bearing steels, t221
Certainly the presence of molybdenum has been clearly
shown to facilitate the retention of high hardness in high-
chromium white irons, t211 That a clear secondary hard-
ening peak was not seen in alloy CrMoCu 20.2.1 may
be considered a little surprising, given that it also con-
tains a significant proportion of molybdenum (Table I),
but much of the molybdenum in these alloys tends to be
tied up as a molybdenum-rich carbide that forms when
the alloy first solidifies, R31 and therefore it would not be
available to precipitate from solution during tempering
treatments. The fact that the secondary hardening peak
in alloy CrMo 15.3 was quite weak is indicative of the
relatively small quantity of molybdenum that must have
been in solution prior to tempering.
C. Relationship between Properties
The results displayed in Figure 4 show that hardness
is a very poor indicator of high-stress abrasion resistance
when the alloys have quite differing matrices, although
when the matrix structure is similar, as with the tem-
pering treatments following hardening, hardness can be
considered quite a reliable indicator of wear performance
(Figure 7). The grouping of microstructures with pri-
marily austenitic or martensitic matrices into distinct re-
gions of Figure 4 aligns with the trends reported by Zum
Gahr t241 for high-stress abrasion pin test results con-
ducted with 180-mesh SiC abrasive. He showed quite
separate fields for austenitic and martensitic matrix white
cast irons with carbide volume fractions of 0.07 to 0.45,
although in his case the austenitic matrix alloys had been
simply cast and tempered for 2 hours at 200 ~ while
the martensitic matrix materials had been austenitized at
VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995--1791
900 ~ air-cooled, refrigerated twice at - 7 8 ~ and
tempered for 2 hours at 200 ~ He accounted for the
differing fields on the basis that the austenitic matrices
could strongly work harden or be transformed to strain-
induced martensite by the wear process, while the abra-
sion resistance of the martensitic matrix irons was said
to depend on the material's fracture toughness.
In developing the concept of fracture toughness de-
pendence of abrasion resistance, Zum Gahr 124J showed
results for high-stress abrasion pin tests with both garnet
and SiC abrasives in which, for the former case, wear
resistance declined monotonically with increasing frac-
ture toughness, while, in the latter case, there was a
maximum in wear resistance with increasing fracture
toughness. This dependency was related to the micro-
cracking tendency of the primary and/or eutectic car-
bides at relatively low values of toughness, and the general
decline in abrasion resistance at high levels of fracture
toughness because of the fall in hardness of the alloys.
However, Zum Gahr also argued that microcracking was
more effectively suppressed in martensitic structures as
a result of their offering better support for the brittle car-
bides. This argument does not appear to be applicable
in accounting for the results of the present study, since
no correlation was established between weight loss in the
high-stress abrasion pin test and the fracture toughness
of the alloys. For the results derived from the effects of
austenitizing temperature variations, fracture toughness
tended to increase continuously with increasing temper-
ature (Figure 8), while the weight-loss data exhibited
differing directions in change with each alloy. On the
other hand, fracture toughness was approximately con-
stant with increasing tempering temperature, although
weight loss showed distinct variations with each alloy
(Table VI).
The overall outcome in terms of wear performance was
that the best results were given by austenitizing treat-
ments that retained greater than about 30 pct austenite
in the matrix, although the minimum in the weight-loss
v s retained austenite curves (Figure 5) fell at quite dif-
ferent positions for each alloy. These results are in
agreement with, but extend, those reported by
Blickensderfer e t al.,I6J in which best high-stress abra-
sion resistance in pin tests with garnet abrasive occurred
at retained austenite contents of 20 pct or more. In com-
mon with those earlier reported data, t61 the present study
also showed that tempering after hardening did not pro-
duce any beneficial effect on abrasion resistance, and
indeed that if tempering were considered desirable in order
to reduce the retained austenite content for repeated im-
pact resistance, the temperature would need to be chosen
very carefully if abrasion resistance were not to suffer a
major degradation.
There do not appear to be consistent trends in either
hardness or wear properties with heat treatment for the
different grades of alloy white cast iron, and attempts to
draw generic conclusions about their response to heat
treatment can be misleading. This reflects the fact that
despite their compositional and metallurgical similari-
ties, there are some distinct differences between the var-
ious alloys. In particular, the austenite dendrites in the
as-cast condition can have quite different carbon and
1792--VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995
chromium contents, [251 which in turn result in very dif-
ferent Ms temperatures in both the as-cast state and after
austenitizing treatments, t~l In addition, there are three
different types of secondary carbide precipitate that form
during heat treatment, depending upon the alloy type. ['1
It is therefore not surprising that the changes brought
about by heat treatment will be quite different in each
alloy composition. The only consistent trend that does
emerge is the improvement in fracture toughness brought
about by increasing austenitizing temperature, since, in
all alloys, the higher treatment temperatures stabilized
the austenite, which is known to promote higher fracture
toughness values. 17,13,141
The overall conclusion to be drawn from the present
investigation, and the earlier study, t~l on the effects of
heat treatment on the properties of alloy white cast irons
is that the heat treatment needs to be tailored for each
alloy type in order to give the desired combination of
properties. Best fracture toughness will be derived from
austenitizing at as high a temperature as possible which,
depending upon the particular grade of alloy white iron
chosen, may not adversely affect the material's abrasion
resistance. If abrasion resistance p e r s e is the most im-
portant property required for a given application, the
austenitizing temperature needs to be chosen carefully
for the particular alloy used. Tempering treatments after
austenitizing do not appear to serve any use in terms of
enhancing abrasion performance, and they may substan-
tially degrade it if chosen incorrectly. If subcritical heat
treatment is considered necessary in order to reduce the
retained austenite content for repetitive loading appli-
cations, the treatment temperature and time must be se-
lected very carefully in order to ensure that abrasion
resistance does not suffer unnecessarily.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Further information has been derived on the effects of
heat treatment on the properties of alloy white cast irons.
The results have shown that each of the four commercial
grades of material studied must be treated as separate
entities, and that there are no generic trends that apply
to all alloys when subjected to the same heat-treatment
conditions. The major conclusions arising from the study
are as follows.
1. The results of high-stress abrasion pin tests carried
out on four commercial grades of alloy white cast
iron exhibited similar trends to the results of earlier
gouging abrasion tests conducted on the same ma-
terials. Specifically, the following results were noted.
a. Cr 27. Austenitizing at 1000 ~ led to a slight in-
crease in weight loss compared with the as-cast
condition, austenitizing at higher temperatures
substantially improved abrasion performance, and
subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ following the
1000 ~ treatment caused a very marked deteri-
oration in wear properties.
b. CrMo 15.3. Austenitizing at 1000 ~ produced a
very marked decrease in weight loss compared with
that measured for the as-cast state, austenitizing
at higher temperatures caused a negligible change
over the 1000 ~ treatment, and subcritical heat
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 treatment at 500 ~ following the 1000 ~ hard-
ening treatment produced only a minor deterio-
ration in weight loss.
c. CrMoCu 20.2.1. Austenitizing at 1000 ~ led to
a slight decrease in weight loss compared with the
as-cast condition, austenitizing treatments at higher
temperatures caused only slight changes in weight
loss, and subcritical heat treatment at 500 ~ fol-
lowing hardening at 1000 ~ caused a highly sig-
nificant deterioration in wear properties.
d. NiCr 4. Treatment at any of the austenitizing tem-
peratures employed (800 ~ to 1075 ~ produced
virtually no change in weight loss compared with
that measured in the as-cast state, but subcritical
heat treatment at 500 ~ after hardening at 800 ~
led to a very substantial increase in weight loss.
2. The high-stress abrasion pin test results demonstrated
a clear dependence on retained austenite content, with
best wear performance occurring at retained austenite
contents in the matrix of between approximately 30
and 50 pct, depending upon the particular alloy
composition.
3. The results of an investigation of the influence of
tempering temperature after hardening showed quite
distinct differences between the various alloys. The
most clear indication of a secondary hardening peak
was in alloy CrMo 15.3; the other alloys exhibited
more of a steady decline in hardness with increasing
tempering temperature. The secondary hardening in
alloy CrMo 15.3 is likely to be a consequence of its
relatively high molybdenum content and the precip-
itation of a molybdenum-rich carbide. The three higher
chromium content alloys tended to exhibit a mini-
mum in weight loss following tempering above ap-
proximately 450 ~ while alloy NiCr 4 showed more
of a monotonic increase in weight loss with increas-
ing tempering temperature. All alloys exhibited sub-
stantial increases in weight loss at the higher tempering
temperatures coincident with the onset of substantial
softening.
4. There was a poor correlation between high-stress
abrasion pin test weight loss and material hardness
for matrix changes brought about by changes in the
austenitizing temperature. On the other hand, pin test
weight loss correlated very well with hardness in the
austenitized and tempered condition where the matrix
structures were quite similar.
5. The fracture toughness increased considerably with
austenitizing temperature, and hence retained austenite
content, in each alloy.
METALLURGICALAND MATERIALSTRANSACTIONSA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their thanks to R.E. Aspin
for his assistance in making the castings used in this study.
REFERENCES
1. I.R. Sare and B.K. Arnold: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1995,
vol. 26A, pp. 357-70.
2. ASTM A532-82, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, 1982.
3. J. Dodd and J.L. Parks: Met. Forum, 1980, vol. 3, pp. 3-27.
4. H.L. Arnson, J.L. Parks, and D.R. Larsen: in Intermountain
Minerals Symposium, R.Q. Ban-, D.V. Doane, and K.H. Miska,
eds., Climax Molybdenum, Ann Arbor, MI, 1982, pp. 25-42.
5. R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, and J. Dodd: in Wear of Materials
1983, K.C. Ludema, ed., ASME, New York, NY, 1983,
pp. 471-76.
6. R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, and G. Laird: in Wear of
Materials 1989, K.C. Ludema, ed., ASME, New York, NY, 1989,
pp. 175-82.
7. K.-H. Zum Gahr and D.V. Doane: Metall. Trans. A, 1980,
vol. 11A, pp. 613-20.
8. K.-H. Zum Gahr and G.T. Eldis: Wear, 1980, vol. 64, pp. 175-94.
9. J. Muscara and M.J. Sinnott: Met. Eng. Q., 1972, vol. 12 (2),
pp. 21-32.
10. M.C. Murphy, R.G. Kumble, J.T. Berry, and J.O. Outwater:
Trans. Am. Foundrymen's Soc., 1973, vol. 81, pp. 158-62.
11. R.B. Gundlach and J.L. Parks: Wear, 1978, vol. 46, pp. 97-108.
12. J.D. Watson, P.J. Mutton, and I.R. Sare: Met. Forum, 1980,
vol. 3, pp. 74-88.
13. D.E. Diesburg and F. Borik: in Materials for the Mining Industry,
R.Q. Barr, ed., Climax Molybdenum, Ann Arbor, MI, 1974,
pp. 15-38.
14. I.R. Sare: Met. Tech., 1979, vol. 6, pp. 412-19.
15. K.-H. Zum Gahr and W.G. Scholz: J. Met., 1980, vol. 32 (10),
pp. 38-44.
16. R.W. Durman: Br. Foundryman, 1981, vol. 74, pp. 45-55.
17. S.B. Biner: Can. Met. Q., 1985, vol. 24, pp. 155-62.
18. S.B. Biner: Can. Met. Q., 1985, vol. 24, pp. 163-67.
19. J.D. Gates, K.D. Lakeland, J.W. Dalton, E.J. Quayle,
and M. DeGlas: in Materials United in the Service of Man, R.D.
Davies and D.I. Hatcher, eds., Institute of Metals and
Materials Australasia, Perth, Western Australia, 1990, vol. 1,
pp. 5-3.1-5-3.10.
20. F. Maratray and A. Poulalion: Contribution to the Study of the
Hardness of Martensitic Structures, the Retention of Austenite,
its Control and its Transformation in High Carbon, High Chromium
Ferrous Alloys, Climax Molybdenum Publication M-339 E, 1977.
21. F. Maratray and A. Poulalion: Trans. Am. Foundrymen's Soc.,
1982, vol. 90, pp. 795-804.
22. R.W.K. Honeycombe: Steels: Microstructure and Properties,
Edward Arnold, London, 1981, pp. 152-60.
23. I.R. Sare and B.K. Arnold: Wear, 1989, vol. 131, pp. 15-38.
24. K.-H. Zum Gahr: Microstructure and Wear of Materials, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 181-87.
25. G.L.F. Powell and G. Laird: J. Mater. Sci., 1992, vol. 27,
pp. 29-35.
VOLUME 26A, JULY 1995--1793