Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Abrasive wear characteristics of selected low-alloy boron steels

as measured in both field experiments and laboratory tests
Beata Bialobrzeska a,n, Piotr Kostencki b
a
Wroclaw University of Technology, Department of Materials Science, Welding and Strength of Materials, Smoluchowskiego Street 25, 50-370 Wrocław,
Poland
b
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Department of Agrotechnical Systems Engineering, Papieza Pawla VI Street 1, 71-459 Szczecin, Poland

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This investigation compares the results of field tests of plowshares with results from a dry sand-rubber
Received 17 October 2014 wheel laboratory abrasion test of selected low-alloy boron steels. After field test of plowshares made of
Received in revised form selected low alloy boron steels the wear behavior of these steels has been investigated using a GOST
2 February 2015
(Russian) standard T-07 wear test equipment in which the steel samples were worn by coarse alumina
Accepted 3 February 2015
particles (grit size 90). The wear of the steels was evaluated by weight loss and their wear mechanisms
Available online 12 February 2015
were investigated using scanning electron microscopy. The two predominant abrasive wear mechanisms
Keywords: for the low-alloy steels with boron additions were micro-cutting and micro-plowing. Worn surfaces
Low alloy boron steels showed traces of pitting originating from the removal of larger particles. Considering both field tests and
Resistance to abrasion wear
dry sand-rubber wheel tests, the highest and lowest resistance to abrasive wear occurred within the
Plowshares
same material grades. The results obtained during the wheel-rubber wear laboratory test may be used
Dry sand-rubber wheel test
Field test on the basis of a comparison of abrasive wear resistance of materials with similar structure. In this case
such tests can replace expensive and time consuming field tests.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tempering at low temperatures (e.g. Hardox, Raex). Some grades of

The users of agricultural machinery expect high durability and low
price. Working conditions of field components like plowshares require
the use of materials with a combination of high strength and high
resistance to abrasive wear. Plowshares are traditionally made from
unalloyed steels that contain from 0.40% to 0.65% (by weight) of
carbon. Quenching and tempering provide sufficient strength and
toughness, but not abrasion resistance. Low-temperature tempering
after quenching imparts resistance to abrasion but makes the tools
prone to fracture when they encounter hard objects in the soil. One
solution to the abrasion problem is to use modern, low-alloy boron
containing steels [1].
Boron steels include, for example: Hardox (produced by Swedish
company SSAB-Oxelösund), B13S, B24, B27 and Raex (produced by
the Finnish Rautaruukki Corporation), TBL (ThyssenKrupp Steel
Europe AG), Durostat and Brinar (Grobblech GmbH), Fora (Industeel),
Quard (NLMK Clabecq), JFE-EH (JFE EVERHARD Corporation). To
achieve high resistance to abrasive wear and resistance to dynamic
loads, steel manufacturers produce low-alloy boron steels that have
undergone heat treatment, including quenching or quenching and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: beata.letkowska@pwr.edu.pl (B. Bialobrzeska),
Piotr.Kostencki@zut.edu.pl (P. Kostencki).
these steels can only be delivered after hot or cold rolling (e.g. B24,
B27) and their heat treatment has to be performed by the purchasers.
The fine grain of the martensitic structure of these steels creates
their characteristic features of high strength, toughness, and resistance
to abrasive wear. These properties are obtained through a strictly-
selected chemical composition that includes low quantities of phos-
phorus and sulfur. The chemical composition is varied depending on
the thickness of the steel sheet, which guarantees the homogeneity of
the structure throughout the whole cross-section. These materials are
already used by some manufacturers of agricultural equipment as a
base material for producing working components, in particular plow-
shares and chisels. However, the properties of these materials with
regard to their specific uses have not been fully investigated.
Although some research has been conducted and various test
methods and equipment have been used to evaluate the resistance
to abrasive wear of these steels [1–14], unequivocal assessment of
their abrasive wear resistance and demonstration of their super-
iority over traditionally-used materials are difficult. For example,
Konat [11] performed laboratory tests on selected low-alloy boron
steels (at different states of heat treatment), conventional steels
18G2A and 35SG, and hardfaced steel 18G2A using T-07 equip-
ment. Low-alloy boron steels after normalization show better
resistance to abrasion wear than after quenching and tempering.
Even conventional steels 18G2A and 35SG, and hardfaced steel
18G2A present much better resistance than low-alloy boron steels.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.02.003
0043-1648/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
150 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159

Konat obtains opposing results after experimentation [15]. Lining Table 1

plates of Hardox 400 and Hardox 500 in their delivery state and Chemical composition of the investigated steels.
hardfaced steel 18G2A were assembled to a fixed chute fragment
Element B27 Hardox 500 Lemken
of the scoop wheel of a brown coal excavator. The results of the
experiment showed that Hardox 400 and Hardox 500 steels were Spectral Manufacturer's Spectral Manufacturer's Spectral
more suitable for lining plates than hardfaced steel 18G2A. method data [21] method data [22] method
Comparing only Hardox 400 and Hardox 500, it was shown that
C wt 0.294 0.250–0.300 0.278 0.270 0.369
Hardox 500 has a higher durability, which in this case confirms the %
results of the laboratory tests. Mn wt 1.270 1.100–1.300 0.701 1.600 1.220
Therefore, assessment of the durability and wear resistance of the %
low-alloy boron steels is best determined during operating conditions. Si wt 0.274 0.150–0.350 0.301 0.700 0.224
%
Unfortunately, field tests are expensive and it is not always possible to
P wt 0.011 0.030 0.006 0.025 0.013
conduct them, especially when there is more diversity in the range of %
new material grades. For this reason, laboratory wear tests are still S wt 0.009 0.030 0.001 0.010 0.006
being developed that reduce testing costs and speed up alloy %
development [16,17]. An additional potential disadvantage of field Ni wt 0.059 No data 0.038 0.25 0.066
%
tests is the large variation in conditions, which makes it difficult to Cr wt 0.305 0.200–0.500 0.567 0.25 0.231
interpret the results; however, this is not the case for laboratory tests. %
The selection of abrasive wear measurement techniques for labora- V wt 0.011 No data 0.008 No data 0.000
tory tests must be dictated by the best reflection of the real wear %
Cu wt 0.042 No data 0.005 No data 0.155
processes. This will provide a rational way of selecting the laboratory
%
wear test methods. In most cases, the laboratory test results are Al wt 0.026 0.020–0.050 0.060 No data 0.031
compared with the results of tests performed previously in the same %
conditions, or to the behavior of the reference material with well- Ti wt 0.031 0.030–0.050 0.002 No data 0.037
known properties. In this case, laboratory tests do not relate to the %
Co wt 0.014 No data 0.014 No data 0.007
working conditions of the examined materials, but to a specific, %
simple mechanism of wear to which a comparison is made. Therefore, Nb wt 0.000 No data 0.000 No data 0.000
the results of laboratory tests often do not have a direct impact on %
operational tests [18] and the results of laboratory wear tests are B wt 0.0013 0.0015–0.004 0.001 0.004 0.002
%
strongly dependent on the test methods and equipment [17].
Mo wt 0.007 No data 0.012 0.25 0.012
Significantly less work has to be done to compare the dry sand- %
rubber wheel test and field test results [19]. Some studies have
shown correlations between the common rubber wheel test and
field tests, and it is quick to perform [10,17]. This paper presents an Table 2
investigation of whether the dry sand-rubber wheel test can be Results of the Rockwell hardness measurements of the investigated steels.
used to evaluate the resistance to abrasive wear of modern low-
alloy boron steels instead of expensive and time-consuming field Steel “A” Steel “B” quenched Steel “B” quenched Steel “C”
and tempered
tests. This research presents comparisons between the results of
field tests and the results of the dry sand-rubber wheel test to 47.17 0.4 45.7 7 0.5 44.2 7 0.6 49.97 0.4
determine the wear resistance of selected low-alloy boron steel
grades with high resistance to abrasive wear. In addition, the wear
mechanisms of tested steels are investigated using scanning
electron microscopy and measurements of roughness. Lemken does not provide detailed information about the materials
used in any of its products. The Rockwell hardness measurement
results from the investigated steels are presented in Table 2.
2. Materials and methods Microstructures are presented Fig. 1.
All tested materials showed a martensitic structure (sometimes
This study used the results of the field experiment included in with bainitic areas). Laths of martensite in both steels “A” and “C”
[20]. Plowshares and chisels made of steels Hardox 500 (marked as were finer than in steel “B.” In the case of material “A,” its
“A”), B27 (marked as “B”), and steel used by the company Lemken martensitic microstructure in its delivery condition showed high
(marked as “C”) were used in the research. Lemken does not homogeneity (Fig. 1a). The structure exhibited some features that
release any information about the steel grade they use. All these can be described as similar to high-tempered martensite. In
steel grades qualify as low-alloy boron steels with high resistance addition, the areas in which the former austenite grain boundaries
to abrasive wear. The chemical composition of the investigated are reflected can be distinguished. In the case of steel “B,” after
steels is summarized in Table 1. This composition is selected not quenching laths of martensite were formed, which is typical for
only because of the need to obtain relatively high mechanical low-carbon steel (Fig. 1b). Moreover, some areas with a bainitic
properties, but also to ensure its weldability and reduce price. A structure were found. After tempering at 200 1C, the structure of
chemical composition analysis of the investigated steels was tempered martensite with bainitic areas was created (Fig. 1c). The
performed with the spectral method. Aluminum and titanium former austenite grain boundaries are clearly marked. The micro-
were used as micro-alloying elements for the binding of nitrogen. structure of steel “C” is composed of martensite laths or even
Hardox 500 is manufactured by Swedish steel company SAAB needles (more carbon content).
and delivered after quenching and tempering. Steel B27 is pro- Field tests to determinate the durability and resistance to abrasive
duced by Finnish company RautaRuukki and delivered after hot wear of plowshares were carried out in the fields of the Agrofirma
rolling. Due to this, the plowshares made of steel B27 were heat- Witkowo Cooperative, where plowing was performed for sowing
treated by the authors. Heat treatment consisted of quenching rapeseed. A EuroDiamant seven-furrow and semi-mounted plow was
after austenitization at 930 1C and as well tempering at 200 1C. used with full frames manufactured by Lemken. The plowshares have
 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159 151

Fig. 1. Microstructures of the investigated low-alloy boron steels with high resistance to abrasive wear: (a) steel “A” – martensite; (b) steel “B” after quenching – martensite;
(c) steel “B” after quenching and tempering – martensite; (d) steel “C”– martensite; light microscopy, etched with 5% HNO3.

automatic protection against overload. The tested elements were

mounted on the right frames.
Cultivated soil can currently be classified as fine sandy loam or
fine sandy clay. The gravel content at cultivated soil was small—the
topsoil contained from 5 to 20 t of stones per 1 ha. The bulk
density, compactness, and shear stresses were typical for the state
of the soil after the cultivation of cereals, with reduced humidity in
the summer (the humidity of the working layer of plowshares was
13.5%). Plowing was performed at a depth of 23.4 cm and the
working width of the individual frames was 46.9 cm [20].
The tested components are shown in Fig. 2. Their weight and
basic dimensions are presented in Table 3.
The study included determination of the tested plowshares'
durability using the gravimetric method. After the field tests, the
selected parameters of roughness were measured on the working
surfaces.
The dry sand-rubber wheel test of resistance to abrasive wear
was performed using a type T-07 test equipment in accordance
with standard GOST 23.208-79 [23] under a constant load of
F¼44 N (ΔF ¼0.25 N). The T-07 test equipment was made by the
Fig. 2. Plowshares and chisels used in the field tests: (a) plowshare and chisel
Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute made of steel “A”; (b) plowshare and chisel made of steel “B”; (c) plowshare and
located in Poland. Difference between the T-07 machine and the chisel made of steel “C”.
machine described in ASTM Standard G65 for dry sand abrasion
testing is that the test specimen in the T-07 machine is oriented specimen and produces a vertical force against the wheel where
horizontally and the ASTM G65 type of specimen is oriented the abrader is flowing. The hardness of the rubber on the wheel
vertically. The basic T-07 test machine consisted of a rubber- had to be 78–851 ShA. The abrader used alumina particles (grit
rimmed steel wheel ؼ 50 ( þ0.2) mm and width ¼15 (  0.1) size 90) according to Polish standard PN-M-59115-1976. The
mm, a hopper connected by a tube to a nozzle that allows abrader duration of the test depended on the hardness of the tested
flow, a revolution counter that stops the drive motor after a set materials and required 30 min (1800 cycles). For the laboratory
number of revolutions, and a weighted lever arm that holds the tests, materials collected from the plowshares after the field tests
152 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159

Table 3
Dimensions and mass of the plowshares and chisels used in the field tests.

Dimensions [mm]
Material Chisels Plowshares W10
W1 W2 W3 W4/a W5/a W6 W7 W8 W9/a
Steel “A” 100 350 12 29/3 28/3 515 155 10 28/3 663
Steel “B” 103 324 12 22/5.5 27/5.5 500 150 10 33/4 657
Steel “C” 99 345 –a 29/3 29/3 493 145 10 75/3 647
Mass [g]
Material Chisels Plowshares
Steel “A” 2039 4522
Steel “B” 2105 4366
Steel “C” 1804 3587

a
Forged component with variable thickness (from 9 to 15 mm—the maximum thickness occurs at the working edge).

were used. The dimensions of the prepared specimens were

30  30  3 mm3. The specimen was held against the rotating
wheel by a mounting screw. The scheme of the test method is
shown in Fig. 3.
The wear on the specimens was determined using the gravi-
metric method. Observation of the worn surface after the labora-
tory T-07 test was done using a Hitachi TM 3000 scanning electron
microscope (SEM). The accelerating voltage was 15 kV. Character-
ization of the worn surfaces and roughness measurements was
performed using 3D surface profilometry illuminates.
Aside from the absolute mass consumption, the rate of wear
resistance, Kb, was determined and compared with the standard
sample. In accordance with standard GOST 23.208-79 [23], steel
grade C45 in a normalized state was used as a reference sample.
The rate, Kb, was calculated as
Z ww ρb Nb
Kb ¼ ð1Þ
Z wb ρw N w
Fig. 3. Scheme of the test method: l – specimen; 2 – rubber-rimmed steel wheel;
where Kb – rate of wear resistance, Zww – mass consumption of
3 –abrader.
standard sample [g], Zwb – mass consumption of the tested sample
[g], Nw – the number of rotations of the rubber-rimmed steel consideration. Detailed discussion about the results after the field tests
wheel during the test of the standard sample, Nb – the number of is included in [20]. This research is focused on comparison of the
rotations of the rubber-rimmed steel wheel during the test of the results after the field tests to the dry sand-rubber wheel test. Fig. 4
tested sample, and ρw, ρb – material density of the standard shows an example state of the plowshares after the field tests. In
sample and tested sample [g/cm3]. Table 4 the area of the field cultivated by the tested components and
the reasons for their dismantling are shown. The individual treatment
of components was not applied at the farm where the field tests were
3. Results carried out. Even when only some components reached a state of
wear, all the components were disassembled from the plow. After this,
3.1. Field experiment new plowshares and chisels are mounted on the plow body. Thus, in
the case of the dismantled components, a few had even a slight
Specimens for the laboratory test were only collected from the reserve of working area contained in the range of 0.8–1.0 cm which
plowshares, so only wear of these parts will be taken into further enabled their further use.
 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159
The absolute and relative values of the mass consumption of
the tested components are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.
Comparison of the resistance to abrasion of the components on
the basis of the absolute mass wear is not appropriate when there
are differences between the components in terms of the initial
contour, the thickness, the geometry of chamfering (grinding), etc.
In contrast, the relative value of mass consumption, i.e., the
absolute mass wear of the reference to the initial mass of the
element, is an indicator of loss of material from all working edges.
Under the test conditions, all components reached a high value of
relative mass consumption, which was caused by a significant loss
of component thickness. The highest mass consumption was noted
for components made of steel “A,” followed by quenched steel “B.”
Components made of steel “C” and quenched and tempered steel
“B” in contrast to elements made of other materials were char-
acterized by a slightly lower value of relative mass consumption.
This was caused by a slightly lower loss of the thickness and
change of the contour.
3.2. Dry sand-rubber wheel test
In case of dry sand-rubber wheel test relative mass consump-
tion as indicator of the wear is not relevant because rubber-
rimmed steel wheel abrades only small area of the specimen. The
number of rotation of the rubber-rimmed steel wheel during the
test of the all specimens was the same so absolute mass con-
sumption is proper indicator to compare the materials. Absolute
mass consumption and values of Kb,av of tested materials are
presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The greatest resistance
to abrasion exhibits steel “C.” Steel “B” after quenching and after
quenching and tempering shows a similar resistance Kb,av  1.08
Fig. 4. Condition of the plowshares after the field tests: (a) plowshare made of steel
“A”; (b) plowshare made of steel “B,” quenched; (c) plowshare made of steel “C”.
Table 4
The area cultivated by the tested items and the reasons for their dismantling.
Material of the plowshare The area cultivated by the tested items (ha/ Reason for dismantling of the plowshare from Approximate reserve of the width of working
plowshare) the plow
Steel “A” 24.00 Abrasion of nuts of the fixing screws
Steel “B”, quenched
Steel “B”, quenched and
tempered
Steel “C”
153
(absolute mass consumption 0.226 g). The lowest value of the
wear resistance is presented by steel “A” Kb,av  1.04 (absolute
mass consumption 0.234 g). The best resistance to abrasive wear
of steel “C” can be due to higher carbon content (Table 1).
3.3. Characteristic of wear surface
In Fig. 9, the surface conditions of the analyzed materials after
the laboratory T-07 test are shown. In addition, in Fig. 10 the
results of the roughness measurements performed after the field
and laboratory tests are presented. Examination of the worn
surfaces using SEM made it possible to identify the occurrence of
wear mechanisms.
All tested steels show a relatively rough surface topography due
to micro-cutting and micro-plowing caused by the abrasive
particles. The grooves are far from each other and their density
per unit area is very low. The main mechanism for material
removal is the micro-cutting, which, when compared with
micro-plowing, causes greater material loss. In the case of all
tested steels, some traces of spalling and pitting are observed at
the surfaces, which originate from the removal of larger areas of
material. A comparison of the worn surfaces shows that the
amount and size of the pit holes are bigger in the case of quenched
steel “B” relative to the rest of the tested materials. The examina-
tion of some pit holes shows plastic deformation and displacement
of material from the impacts sites to the crater rims. This caused
the formation of grooves with pronounced lips at the rear end of
the grooves. Particles can also cause surface fatigue. Detachment
can occur in these lips due to abrasive particles. Most of the debris
originates from pit holes and lips. The wear mechanism described
above took place simultaneously for all tested materials. The
mechanism is additionally shown in Fig. 11a and b for the example
of the worn surface of steel “A,” which shows a distinct groove in
the surface in the direction of the particle movement and
transported plastic deformed material toward the end of the pit
hole. Particles can also promote surface cracks which as well
ultimately lead to debris-like surface fatigue. Adhesion of abrasive
particles to the worn surface was not noticed. The grooves are free
from embedded abrasive particle fragments.
The worn surface belonging to quenched specimen “B” (Fig. 9b)
compared with specimens “A” and “C” shows that in this specimen
the grooves were deeper, wider, and closer together. Therefore,
micro-plowing has more influence on material removal in the
quenched specimen “B” compared with the other specimens.
A relatively smoother worn surface was observed in case of
steel “C”. The topography of the worn surface of steel “C” was only
slightly developed (Fig. 9d), which was also confirmed by the
results of the roughness measurements. Roughness parameters
(Fig. 10), especially Rt, were the lowest in comparison with the rest
of the tested materials after the laboratory test and the field tests.
This was caused by an evenly progressive wear mechanism whose
results gave the lowest mass consumption (Fig. 6) and conse-
quently best resistance to abrasive wear (Fig. 8).
The values of the roughness parameter Ra of the working
surface of the analyzed elements after the field tests were similar.
edge (cm)
0.8 and 1.0
No reserve
No reserve
1.0 and no reserve
154 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159

Fig. 5. Absolute mass consumption of the tested plowshares.

Fig. 6. Relative mass consumption of the tested plowshares.

The values of this parameter were within the range of 1.67–
2.18 μm. The surface profile of the elements working in the soil
was characterized by relatively small peaks in relation to the
valleys. With respect to the abrasive process, the most interesting
in proportion occurred between the values of the Rv and Rp
parameters. The maximum peak height Rp was in the range from
approximately 3.80 to 6.18 μm. The maximum valley depth Rv was
from 13.03 to 18.18 μm, and approximately three times higher
than the maximum peak height Rp. It can be assumed that these
relatively deep scratches were caused by the impact of particles of
gravel or stones strongly restrained in the soil and moving with a
strong impact on the element's surface.
Roughness parameters measured after the laboratory test have
values more than two times lower than relevant parameters measured
 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159 155

Fig. 7. Absolute mass consumption of tested materials.

Fig. 8. Rate of relative wear resistance to abrasion of tested materials.

after the field tests. High roughness parameters after the field tests,
especially the value of maximum valley depths, were probably formed
as a result of cutting by the impact gravel or stones firmly restrained in
the soil. After the T-07 test, the values of the Ra parameter were within
the range of 0.81–1.46 μm. The greatest difference between specimens
was in case of the Rv parameter. The maximum valley depth Rv was
from 4.43 to 8.62 μm and was two times higher (except steel “A” –
2.87 times) than maximum peak height Rp. It is worth noting that the
proportions between the values of the parameters that occurred in
each group (Ra, Rt, Rp, and Rv) were similar. However, there is no
correlation between the mass loss of the tested specimens and the
values of the parameters Ra, Rt, Rv, and Rp. It is also worth noting the
fact that steel “C”, which was characterized by the highest resistance
to abrasion, indicates the lowest values of all the roughness para-
meters measured after the field and laboratory tests.
4. Discussion
In the study, three different commercial low-alloy boron steels
with high resistance to abrasion wear were investigated using two
different types of wear test, namely the dry sand-rubber wheel
156 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159
Fig. 9. Worn surfaces of the investigated steel grades after exposure to the T-07 test: (a) worn surface of steel “A”; (b) worn surface of quenched steel “B”; (c) worn surface of
quenched and tempered steel “B”; (d) worn surface of steel “C”, SEM.
test and field test. In both the field and dry sand-rubber wheel
tests, the highest and lowest resistances to abrasive wear were
evident within the same material grades (Fig. 12).
However, examined steels with a martensitic structure showed
only a few percent advantage over C45 steel after normalization
(hardness 200 HV10). This phenomenon requires explanation. The
dry sand-rubber wheel tests do not fully simulate field conditions,
which include varying impact loads in addition to abrasion. During
field testing, there are very strong and uncontrollable dynamic
effects from, for example, large, hard stones beating the working
areas. A second explanation is related to the fact that the abrasive
wear rate depends strongly on the predominant mechanism of
wear. In addition, research [10] clearly showed that the motion of
abrader particles depends on material types. Particle rolling is
favored in samples with low hardness, whereas particle grooving
is favored in samples with high hardness.
The hardness is often used to predict the wear resistance of
materials exposed to abrasion. According to the research [24],
abrasive wear occurs only below a certain constant value of
hardness, defined as the ratio of the abraded material hardness
to the hardness of abrasive material (according to Khrushchev [25]
and Rabinovich [26], this is 0.5–0.8). When the ratio increases
above a certain value (from 1 to 1.4 according to Rabinovich [26]),
the material exhibits resistance to abrasive wear. However, the
view of many authors is that the hardness value must be used with
caution when it comes to predicting the wear resistance of
materials exposed to abrasion [5,27,28]. In his work, Moore [6]
also noted that during laboratory tests, martensitic steels show
less wear resistance than steels with a pearlite or bainite structure.
In another investigation [5], it was found that the relationship
between abrasive wear and hardness of steels with different
structures is not linear. According to the authors, abrasive wear
versus hardness can be separated into two lines, one for non-
martensitic steels and the other for martensitic steels. This may be
because different wear mechanisms are dependent on the micro-
structure of the tested material. The criterion of hardness was
used, for example, by Khrushchev and Babichev [29]; however, in
their later work, Khrushchev and Babichev [30] associated abra-
sive wear resistance with the carbon content and state of heat
treatment of steel. Research [31] has shown that only within the
same martensitic structure is there a relationship between carbon
content (hardness) and wear resistance. After quenching, the
resistance to abrasive wear of the steel increases, but only up to
a carbon content of 0.8%. Further enhancing of the carbon content
does not result in significant changes in resistance to abrasive
wear. This is due to the fact that the wear resistance of a material
in a given tribosystem is also strongly influenced by the system
parameters, as well as other material parameters (not only hard-
ness) [5,27].
Hawk et al. [17] showed that the dry sand-rubber wheel test
can be used to rank materials or determine the wear response–
hardness curve for microstructurally similar alloys. Following this,
it will be possible to measure hardness as an indication of that
material's wear response. However, various experimental observa-
tions have suggested that the high hardness of martensite does not
guarantee a high abrasion resistance because the brittle nature of
 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159 157

Fig. 10. Parameters of roughness: (a) measured after the field tests; (b) measured after the laboratory test.

martensite can lead to a decrease in its abrasive wear [14,32]. To
summarize, hardness value must only be used with caution to
predict the wear resistance of materials exposed to abrasion
because the relationship between hardness and wear resistance
is evident only within the same type of microstructure.
The obtained results of laboratory and field tests show that
hardness seems to have also a secondary role in controlling the
wear rate in the case of tested low-alloy boron steel. The abrasive
wear rate depends strongly on the predominant mechanism of
wear, which in turn is strongly dependent on the microstructure.
In the case of testing boron steels with a martensitic matrix,
micro-cutting was the predominant micro-mechanism in material
removal; micro-plowing was less significant. This corresponds
with the research of the authors in [33–36], who showed that
the proportion of micro-plowing increases with increasing matrix
toughness. Soft, ductile microstructures are mainly abraded due to
micro-plowing, which, in the case of less hard materials, causes
plastic deformation rather than material loss. In addition, Rendón
and Olsson [9] observed that only micro-cutting leads to material
removal, while plowing and wedge formation mainly lead to
plastic deformation on the surface. This can also explain the
phenomenon where normalized C45 steel achieved high resis-
tance to abrasion wear in laboratory testing compared to marten-
sitic steel. The microstructure of C45 steel is composed with about
50% of soft ferrite, which is subject to the plastic deformation
during the test.
158 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159

Fig. 11. Worn surface of steel “A” observed in the SEM: (a) visible pit holes; (b) groove formed during a low-angle particle impact and plastic deformed material on the
crater rims.

Fig. 12. Comparison the results of field tests with the results from a dry sand-rubber wheel laboratory test.

The authors of [33] indicated three micro-mechanisms of wear
in the case of martensitic steel. Besides micro-cutting and micro-
plowing, they also indicate micro-cracking (tracking locally). Based
on previous research [24], micro-cracking takes place in very hard
materials. An interesting situation was also encountered in
research [24] in the case of tempered martensite. The grooves
were deeper and wider in tempered specimens compared with
quenched martensitic matrix specimens. The opposite situation
was evident from the dry sand-rubber wheel test using T-07
equipment (Fig. 9b and c); here, the grooves were deeper and
wider in for quenched martensitic matrix specimens. Visible traces
of spalling, especially in case of material “A” (Fig. 10a and b), may
have resulted from multi-cyclic wear occurring in a sequence of
elastic deformation, plastic deformation, micro-deformation char-
acterized by a deformed microstructure, and finally the shear of
these deformations [37]. It is noteworthy that the steel, that was
characterized by the highest resistance to abrasion, indicated the
lowest values of all roughness parameters measured after field and
laboratory tests.
Despite many uncertainties in the assessment of wear resis-
tance, it can be considered that the most important finding of this
investigation was that in case of low-alloy boron steels the results
obtained after the dry sand-rubber wheel test using T-07 test
equipment mostly corresponded to results obtained after field
testing. In the case of low-alloy boron steels with high resistance
to abrasion, the dry sand-rubber wheel test can be used for their
ranking and initial selection before application. This results corre-
spond with previous research [19,38], where a good correlation
was found between the test results and field experience.
5. Conclusion
1. The dry sand-rubber wheel test may replace the expensive and
time-consuming field test to compare the resistance to abrasive
wear of the low-alloy boron steel, and to indicate the material
with the highest or lowest resistance. Considering both the
field and dry sand-rubber wheel tests, the highest resistance to
 B. Bialobrzeska, P. Kostencki / Wear 328-329 (2015) 149–159
abrasive wear was identified within the same material grade
(steel “C”). The lowest resistance to abrasive wear was also
evident within the same steel grade (steel “A”).
2. The examined steels with a martensitic structure showed only
a few percent advantage over the steel after normalization,
because the dry sand-rubber wheel test method is related to a
simple mechanism of wear, and does not fully simulate field
conditions, that include varying impact loads in addition to
abrasion. Thus, the dry sand-rubber wheel test method must be
used with caution. It should be emphasized that, this method
can be used to evaluate three-body abrasive wear rate of only
microstructurally similar materials.
3. In the case of tested low-alloy steels with boron addition,
micro-cutting and then micro-plowing were the predominant
micro-mechanisms in material removal. The observed worn
surfaces showed traces of spalling and pitting, originating from
the removal of larger areas of material. The examination of
some pit holes showed plastic deformation and the displace-
ment of material from the impact sites to the crater rims.
4. Roughness parameters measured after laboratory testing had
values more than two times lower than relevant parameters
measured after the field test. In addition, there was no
correlation between the mass loss of tested specimens and
the values of the parameters Ra, Rt, Rv, and Rp. However, the
steel with the highest carbon content indicated the lowest
values of all roughness parameters measured after field and
laboratory tests.
References
[1] A.K. Bhakat, A.K. Mishra, N.S. Mishra, Characterization of wear and metallur-
gical properties for development of agricultural grade steel suitable in specific
soil conditions, Wear 263 (2007) 228–233.
[2] D. Goiljandin, P. Kulu, Helmo Käerdi, A. Bruwier, Disintegrator as device for
milling of mineral ores, Mater. Sci. 11 (2005) 398–402.
[3] M. Adamiak, J. Górka, T. Kik, Comparison of abrasion resistance of selected
constructional materials, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 37 (2009) 375–380.
[4] A.K. Bhakat, A.K. Mishra, N.S. Mishra, S. Jha, Metallurgical life cycle assessment
through prediction of wear for agricultural grade steel, Wear 257 (2004)
338–346.
[5] A. Sundström, J. Rendón, M. Olsson, Wear behaviour of some low alloyed steel
under combined impast/abrasion contact conditions, Wear 250 (2001)
744–754.
[6] M.A. Moore, Abrasive wear, in: D.A. Rigney (Ed.), Fundamentals of Friction and
Wear of Materials, ASM, Pittsburgh, 1981, pp. 73–118.
[7] J. Napiórkowski, K. Kołakowski, A. Pergoł, Ocena zużycia nowoczesnych
materiałów konstrukcyjnych stosowanych na narzędzia obrabiające glebę,
Inż. Rol. 130 (2011) 191–197.
[8] H. Mel Clarc, R.J. Liewellyn, Assessment of the erosion resistance of steel used
for slurry handling and transport in mineral processing applications, Wear 250
(2001) 32–44.
[9] J. Rendón, M. Olsson, Abrasive wear resistance of some commercial abrasion
resistance steels evaluated by laboratory test methods, Wear 267 (2009)
2055–2061.
[10] S.M. Nahvi, P.H. Shipway, D.G. McCartney, Particles motion and modes of wear
in the dry sand-rubber wheel abrasion test, Wear 267 (2009) 2083–2091.
[11] Ł. Konat, Struktury i właściwości stali Hardox a ich możliwości aplikacyjne w
warunkach zużywania ściernego i obciążeń dynamicznych, Ph.D Thesis, Wroc-
law, 2007.
159
[12] N. Axén, S. Hogmark, S. Jacobson, Friction and wear measurement techniques,
in: B. Bhushan (Ed.), Modern Tribology Handbook: Materials, Coatings and
Industrial Applications, 2, CRC Press LCC, Boca Raton, 2001, pp. 493–510.
[13] T. Teeri, V.T. Kuokkala, P. Siitonen, P. Kivikytö-Reponen, J. Liimatainen, Impact
wear in mineral crushing, in: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of
Sciences, 12, 2006, pp. 408–418.
[14] E. Zdravecká, J. Tkáčová, M. Ondáč, Effect of microstructure factors on abrasion
resistance of high-strength steel, Res. Agric. Eng. 60 (2004) 115–120.
[15] W. Dudziński, Ł. Konat, G. Pękalski, Structural and strength characteristics of
wear-resistant martensitic steels, Arch. Foundry Eng. 8 (2008) 21–26.
[16] M.A. Moore, Laboratory simulation testing for service abrasive wear environ-
ments, in: K.C. Ludena (Ed.), Wear of Materials, ASME, New York, 1987,
pp. 673–684.
[17] J.A. Hawk, R.D. Wilson, J.H. Tylczak, O.N. Dogan, Laboratory abrasive
wear test: investigation of test methods and alloy correlation, Wear 225
(1999) 1031–1042.
[18] P. Solski, Zużycie Cierne Metali, Warsaw, WNT, 1968.
[19] P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory abrasion tests and field tests of
materials used in tillage equipment, in: A.W. Ruff, R.G. Bayer (Eds.), Tribology:
Wear Test Selection for Design and Application, ASTM STP 1199, ASTM
International, W. Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1993, pp. 80–99.
[20] P. Kostencki, B. Łętkowska, R. Nowowiejski, Polowe badania odporności na
zużycie ścierne lemieszy płużnych wykonanych ze stali z dodatkiem boru,
Tribologia 44 (2013) 49–79.
[21] Hardenable boron steel, Commercial brochures of ironworks Rautaruukki
Corporation, 2011.
[22] Hardox – Das Verschleiβblech der vielen Möglichkeiten, Commercial bro-
chures of ironworks SSAB-Oxelösund, 2002.
[23] GOST 23.208-79, Russian technical standard maintained by the Euro-Asian
Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification (EASC).
[24] K. Kato, K. Adachi, Wear mechanisms, in: B. Bhushan (Ed.), Modern Tribology
Handbook: Principles of Tribology, 1, CRC Press LCC, Boca Raton, 2001,
pp. 273–300.
[25] M.M. Khrushchev, Principles of abrasive wear, Wear 28 (1974) 69–88.
[26] E. Rabinowicz, The wear of hard surfaces by soft abrasives, in: K.C. Ludema,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Wear of Materials, ASME, New
York, 1983, pp. 12–18.
[27] O.P. Modi, P. Pandit, D.P. Mondal, B.K. Prasad, A.H. Yegneswaran,
A. Chrysanthou, High-stress abrasive wear response of 0.2% carbon dual phase
steel: effects of microstructural features and experimental conditions, Mater.
Sci. Eng. 458 (2007) 303–311.
[28] J.J. Moore, R. Perez, A. Gangopadhyay, J.F. Eggert, Factors affecting wear in
tumbling mills: influence of composition and microstructure, Int. J. Miner.
Process. 22 (1988) 313–343.
[29] M.M. Khrushchev, M.A. Babichev, Abrazivnoe iznosivanie, Izd. Nauka,
Moskwa, 1970.
[30] M.M. Khrushchev, M.A. Babichev, Isledovanie iznosivania, Izd. Nauka,
Moskwa, 1980.
[31] M. Hebda, M. Wachal, Trybologia, WNT, Warsaw, 1999.
[32] P. Kulu, R. Veinthal, M. Saarna, R. Tarbe, Surface fatigue processes at impact
wear of powder material, Wear 263 (2007) 463–471.
[33] M. Kazemipour, H. Shokrollahi, S.h. Sharafi, The influence of the matrix
microstructure on abrasive wear resistance of heat-treated Fe–32Cr–4.5C
wt% hardfacing alloy, Tribol. Lett. 39 (2010) 181–192.
[34] K. Hokkirigawa, K. Kato, An experimental and theoretical investigation of
ploughing, cutting and wedge formation during abrasive wear, Tribol. Int. 21
(1988) 51–57.
[35] S.G. Sapate, A. Selokar, N. Garg, Experimental investigation of hardfaced martensitic
steel under slurry abrasion conditions, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 4001–4006.
[36] S. Turenne, F. Lavallee, J. Masounave, Matrix microstructure effect on the
abrasion wear resistance of high-chromium white cast iron, J. Mater. Sci. 24
(1989) 3021–3028.
[37] J. Napiórkowski, Zużyciowe oddziaływanie gleby na elementy robocze nar-
zędzi rolniczych. Inż. Rol. vol. 12, 2005.
[38] P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory and field abrasion tests, in:
K.C. Ludema, Proceedings of the International Conference on Wear of
Materials, ASME, New York, 1985, pp. 519–525.