Wear 308 (2013) 86–94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Abrasive wear mechanisms and their relation to rock properties

M. Petrica a,n, E. Badisch a, T. Peinsitt b
a
AC²T research GmbH, Viktor-Kaplan-Straße 2, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
b
Sandvik Mining and Construction GmbH, Alpinestrasse 1, 8740 Zeltweg, Austria

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

Article history: Wear caused by abrasion is the predominant factor in mining industry. Abrasive wear is a rapid and
Received 5 July 2013 severe process due to the contact between abrasives and solid material surfaces. This type of wear is
Received in revised form usually classified into two categories: (i) 2-body abrasive wear and (ii) 3-body abrasive wear according to
10 October 2013
the type of contact that occurs between the abrasives and the material. The tribological system formed in
Accepted 11 October 2013
mining environment embraces both abrasive wear categories. The focus of this paper is to bring in
Available online 23 October 2013
detailed focus the 2-body and 3-body wear behaviour based on correlations which point out some
Keywords: physical and mechanical rock properties having a significant influence. The study was based on three
Rock types different rock types wearing a typical martensitic steel 42CrMo4 (DIN 1.7225) under 2-body conditions
Abrasion
using a Cycling Impact Abrasion Test (CIAT) and 3-body conditions using a Slurry Steel Wheel Abrasion
Wear
Test (SSWAT). Results showed that tested rocks perform totally different when the testing conditions are
Mining
Tribology changed. Furthermore, the specific wear energy under 3-body conditions was calculated in order to gain
understanding regarding energy needed to produce wear.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Machinery that performs in dusty environments such as
construction or mining industry is exposed to direct contact with
abrasives which enter and become entrapped between the
components, resulting in abrasive wear. Among all the wear
problems that occur in these industries, 50% are generated
by abrasive wear [1–3]. Some models have been used in the
literature to describe 2-body abrasion which arises due to the
impact of abrasives to the surface concluding in sliding/scratch-
ing or embedment of the particles on the wearing surface [4–7].
However, when abrasive wear is caused by free moveable
particles between two surfaces these models do not suffice.
2-body abrasive wear phenomena have been more extensively
studied, although 3-body abrasive wear is much more present in
many industrial applications. A range of wear rates have
been reported for the 3-body wear conditions which depend
not only on the tested material but also on the testing method
itself [8–11].
It has become clear that the manner in which particles
interact with the surface strongly influences the wear behaviour.
Particles might roll and/or slide over the surface. According to
this assumption the wear mechanisms resulted might also differ.
It is generally shown that under 3-body conditions the wear rate
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 43 2622 81600 306; fax: þ 43 2622 81600 99.
E-mail address: petrica@ac2t.at (M. Petrica).
is lower than that under 2-body conditions mainly due to this
change of interaction between the particles and the surface
[10,12]. Due to particle impact under 2-body conditions, cutting
and ploughing mechanisms are dominant. Anyhow, an important
aspect in describing abrasive wear that occurs under 2-body or
3-body conditions is the characterisation of the abrasive parti-
cles. Therefore it is of high importance to address the abrasive
characteristics of rocks. Properties such as brittleness or porosity
have definitely a huge impact on the characterisation of the wear
behaviour. In the literature 2-body and 3-body abrasive wear
contact has been studied in detail in recent years; however only a
few have concentrated their study in analysing the abrasives that
generate wear [13–15]. Woldman et al. [16] referred to the huge
importance of shape and size of the particles describing the wear
behaviour of materials. The particle size effect on abrasion was
also reported elsewhere [17–19]. However, the mineralogical
compositions of the abrasives, their origins, and how the com-
position might affect the wear behaviour were not deeply under-
stood. Few studies were carried out to find correlations that
might exist between the abrasive wear and the mineralogical
composition of the abrasives involved in the process. In a
previous study [20] it was shown in detail that under variation
of abrasives the generated wear mechanisms in 2-body contact
differ. This fact clearly points out the dependence between
abrasives properties and generated wear.
This paper focuses on establishing correlations which enable a
deeper fundamental understanding of how the wear mechanisms
are generated, considering abrasive properties. Nevertheless,

0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2013.10.005
 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94 87

finding a correlation between the 2-body and 3-body wear

conditions for selected abrasives is of major interest in this work.

2. Experimental details

2.1. Materials and rock types

Martensitic steel (DIN 1.7225) was used for wear character-

isation under 2-body and 3-body abrasive conditions. This steel
is a low alloyed type with a C-content of 0.42% and main alloying
elements 1.10% Cr, 0.22% Mo, 0.75% Mn and 0.25% Si. Within this
study, three types of rocks were used as abrasive: (i) granite, and
two different types of sandstones, namely (ii) meta-sandstone,
and (iii) sandstone. Fig. 1 shows macroscopic images of the used
abrasives. The mineralogical composition of the investigated
rocks is listed in Table 1. There quartz and feldspar can be
identified as main components. Granite exhibits a quartz content
of  30% and feldspar content of  60%, respectively. Meta-
sandstone has a quartz dominating characteristic at  65% and
low content of feldspar and some additions of muscovite. The
highest quartz content of 97% among all abrasives was detected
for sandstone.

2.2. Wear testing devices

2.2.1. Slurry Steel Wheel Abrasion Test (SSWAT) – 3-body abrasive

wear
Abrasive wear tests were performed in a slurry environment
using a continuous abrasion test method which is modified from
the dry-sand rubber-wheel test according to ASTM G65. A device
equipped with a steel wheel instead of the rubber wheel is used
for the Slurry Steel Wheel Abrasion Test (SSWAT). This tester is
equipped with a slurry feeding device which consists of a mixer
unit for keeping the particles under suspension, and a peristaltic
pump for dosing the slurry as presented in Fig. 2. The SSWAT was
run at a normal load of 216 N using a Ø232 mm steel wheel
(Hardox 400 with a hardness of 483 HV10). The sample size was
set to the dimensions of 72  25  7 mm³. Tests were done at a
wheel speed of 33 rpm, and the wear distance was set to 358 m.
Each test was repeated three times for statistical calculations.
The grain size distribution of the abrasives was laid between 0
and 800 mm (see Fig. 3). The grain size distribution was set to
o 800 mm to be best suited for simulation of real field conditions
in specific mining applications. In addition to granite and
sandstone abrasives, quartz sand at a grain size distribution
between 100 and 400 mm was used as a reference. The shape of
the used abrasives can be observed in Fig. 4. There the rounded
shape of sandstone particles is obvious (Fig. 4b and c), whereas
shape of granite particles seems to be more blocky (Fig. 4a).
Slightly smaller grains of the reference quartz can be seen in
Fig. 4d.

2.2.2. Cyclic Impact Abrasion Test (CIAT) – 2-body impact/abrasive Fig. 1. Macro-images of the used rock types: (a) granite; (b) meta-sandstone; and
wear (c) sandstone.

The wear tests were performed according to the Cyclic Impact

Abrasion Test (CIAT) which simulates a 2-body impact/abrasion
contact [21]. The equipment consists of an inner impeller which
rotates with a maximum speed of 650 rpm where the testing
specimens are mounted on an outer tumbler which slowly rotates
with a speed of 60 rpm (Fig. 5). The sample size was set to the
dimension of 72.5  25.5  7.5 mm³. The tumbler is filled with a
defined amount of abrasives and provides a controlled flow of
abrasive particles hitting the fast-moving test specimen. Due to
the kinematic situation, the particles hit the specimen's surface
with an impact velocity of  10 m/s. For the present study,
600 rpm was used for the inner impeller. The amount of abrasive
used was set to 1 kg and the grain size was chosen between 10 and
30 mm, at a total testing time of 20 min. As the goal is to simulate
the contact between the intact rock and wearing surfaces, a
smaller abrasive size is not close enough to the real situation.
Therefore, the abrasive grain size is of particular importance in this
test which gets in direct contact with the wearing surfaces at a
defined impact energy.
88 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94

Table 1
Summary of mineralogical composition of the investigated rocks.

Rock Mineralogical composition (wt%)

Quartz Feldspar Muscovite Chlorite Carbonate Leucoxene Rest

Granite 30.7 58.7 2 1.2 – – 7.9

Meta-sandstone 65.5 13.9 9 8.7 0.9 1.8 0.2
Sandstone 97.0 2.0 – – – – 1.0

Fig. 2. View of the Slurry Steel Wheel Abrasion Test (SSWAT): (a) testing device; (b) testing chamber; and (c) slurry feeding device.

to mass loss further quantitative wear characterisation was done

by 3D confocal microscopy of the whole wear track in order to gain
information on the maximum wear depth. Qualitative character-
isation of the worn surfaces was carried out by LM and scanning
electron microscopy (SEM; Philips XL 30 FEG equipped with an
energy dispersive X-ray analyser).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Microstructure of steel and rocks

Fig. 6 shows the typical fine-grained martensitic microstructure

Fig. 3. Grain size distributions of the abrasives before the tests.
2.3. Microstructure and wear characterisation
Testing specimens were cut, ground and finished by 1 mm
polish. Finally, they were chemically etched using Nital's reagent
at concentration of 1%. The microstructure characterisation of the
investigated materials was done with light microscopy (LM, MEF
4A Leica Microscope). The hardness measurements were carried
out with a standard HV1 Vickers method. Quantitative wear
characterisation was done by gravimetric mass loss of the inves-
tigated specimens after wear tests. An accuracy of 0.1 g was
obtained for the specimen mass loss measurements. For calcula-
tion of wear rates, the volume loss was calculated based on
measured mass loss and specific density values of steel. In addition
at a grain size of 15–35 mm. The typical microstructure of the
abrasives is given in Fig. 7. The granite is a white to light grey,
homogeneous and compact coarse-crystalline rock (Fig. 7a). Meta-
sandstone is a grey, fine- to medium-grained, compact and
homogeneous rock. It is slightly recrystallised and has therefore
a rather low porosity (Fig. 7b). Sandstone is a homogeneous, fine-
to medium-grained brown rock with higher porosity of  20%
(Fig. 7c). A comparison of mechanical rock properties such as
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength
(BTS), Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and equivalent quartz content
(Eq) is given in Table 2.
The UCS is one of the most basic methods to establish the
strength of a rock and is measured in accordance with the
procedures given in ASTM D2938. The tensile strength of a rock
is usually evaluated by BTS which reflects the grain bond strength
 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94
Fig. 4. Macrographs of the abrasives used in the 3-body abrasion test: (a) granite; (b) meta-sandstone; (c) sandstone; and (d) quartz.
Fig. 5. View of the Cyclic Impact Abrasion Test (CIAT) in motion.
Fig. 6. Light microscopy (LM) image with the microstructure of steel.
and follows the procedure given in ASTM D 3967. The Cerchar
Abrasivity Test was introduced in the 1970s by the Centre d'Etudes
et Recherches des Charbonages (CERCHAR) de France for abrasivity
testing in coal bearing rocks. The test is described by Cerchar [22]
89
and in the French standard NF p94-430-1 in general. The testing
principle is based on a steel pin with defined geometry and
hardness that scratches the surface of a rough rock sample over
a distance of 10 mm in 1 s under a static load of 70 N. The CAI is
then calculated from the measured diameter of the resulting wear
flat (d) on the pin using a unit correction factor c (c¼1 mm)
according to [22]
d
CAI ¼ 10 ð1Þ
c
In Table 2 the highest UCSs are listed for granite, which also
has the highest CAI value. For meta-sandstone UCS and BTS are
reduced by a factor of 3–4 compared to granite. The lowest CAI
value of 1.2 was reported for sandstone, compared to granite and
meta-sandstone with 4.7 and 3.3, respectively. The most geological
way to describe the abrasivity of a rock is to determinate the
mineralogical composition, in particular the contribution of hard
minerals such as quartz and feldspar. To include all minerals of a
rock sample, the quartz equivalent (Eq) was determined in cross-
section by model analysis, meaning the entire mineral content
referring to the abrasiveness and hardness of the quartz. There-
fore, each mineral amount is multiplied with its relative Rosiwal
abrasiveness to quartz (see Table 2), where A corresponds to the
mineral content (%) and R means Rosiwal abrasiveness (%) at a
given number of minerals (n) [23,24]:
n
Eq ¼ ∑ Ai Ri ð2Þ
i¼1
3.2. Wear behaviour under 3-body conditions
The variation of wear rate for the investigated martensite
tested under 3-body conditions using different abrasives is given
in Fig. 8. The highest wear rate of  0.23 mm³/m can be observed
in testing against reference quartz. Quartz results in a 7.5 times
higher wear rate than that of granite which leads to the lowest
wear of all tested abrasives. Comparing the wear rates on the
90 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94

Fig. 8. Wear rate under 3-body abrasion conditions.

wear track (colour scale indicates 7250 mm). The 3D illustration

of the worn surfaces confirms that highly aggressive reference
quartz and sandstone result in deepest wear tracks of 300–
350 mm (see Fig. 9c and d). In comparison, granite and meta-
sandstone result in a maximum wear depth o100 mm (see Fig. 9a
and b).
For a better understanding of the predominant wear mechan-
isms, SEM investigations of the wear tracks were done (Fig. 10).
It can be clearly observed that a heavily deformed wear surface is
formed in the 3-body abrasion contact with the different abra-
sives. In the case of granite where the lowest wear rate has been
detected, the surface topography is different from those of sand-
stone and quartz reference (see Fig. 10a–d). The wear mechanisms
can be described to be scratching and grooving combined with
multiple indentations due to rolling/sliding granite particles. The
lower wear rate is in good agreement with the lowest quartz
content of  30% within mineralogical composition of granite
(see Table 1). It can be assumed that indicated pronounced
grooving is caused by hard quartz particles based on crushed
granite. For quartz dominating abrasives such as sandstone and
quartz reference similar wear phenomena such as severe plastic
deformation and delamination overlaid with grooving are present
as in Fig. 10b–d. Quartz is well known to be the mineral with the
highest hardness of all used abrasives within this study. Therefore
an amount of 97% as in the case of sandstone or even 100% for
quartz reference will result in a significant amount of wear.

3.3. Wear behaviour under 2-body conditions

The wear behaviour under 2-body conditions using same

abrasives was explained in detail in a previous study [20]. It was
Fig. 7. LM images with the microstructure of the rocks: (a) granite; (b) sandstone shown that wear mechanisms such as ploughing and cutting
1; and (c) sandstone 2.
dominate using granite; a mix of plastic deformation and particle
embedment for meta-sandstone and abrasive embedment char-
Table 2 acterises the interaction between sandstone and the tested speci-
Summary of mechanical rock properties. mens (see Fig. 11). Also, the wear rate shows an opposite trend
Rock UCS BTS CAI Eq
compared to 3-body conditions. The highest wear rate of
(MPa) (MPa) (%) 0.0038 mm³/s was observed against granite (see Fig. 12) which is
comparable to sandstone by a factor of 2.5–3.0 increase.
Granite 160 12 4.7 49.6 An important issue in studying and predicting wear under
Meta-sandstone 146 13 3.3 70,6
2-body or 3-body conditions is to take into consideration rock
Sandstone 56 3 1.2 97.7
properties which might have an influence on the wear results.
Abrasiveness, for example, is an important property that reflects
martensite using both sandstone abrasives, sandstone exhibits the ability of a rock to produce wear on materials [25]. Chenje
a similar behaviour to that of quartz reference, whereas meta- et al. [26,27] have mentioned that rock abrasiveness is an intact
sandstone shows significantly reduced abrasivity, resulting in a rock property used as a major input parameter to describe wear.
wear rate of  0.07 mm³/m. For a better understanding of the wear Rock brittleness determines the forces on wearing surface and can
rates, the wear mechanisms that each abrasive produced on the be quantified by measuring compressive and tensile strength. In
sample's surface were determined. Fig. 9 shows a typical 3D image sedimentary rocks, the porosity is an additional parameter to be
of the wear track on the martensitic specimen after SSWAT testing. taken into account for the estimation of rock abrasivity [28]. The
The maximum wear depth can be detected at the centre of the porosity decreases with increasing degree of cementation; a high
 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94 91

Fig. 9. 3D images with the worn surface of the martensite after SSWAT with different abrasives: (a) granite; (b) meta-sandstone, (c) sandstone; and (d) quartz.

Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of the worn surfaces after SSWAT with different abrasives: (a) granite; (b) meta-sandstone; (c) sandstone; and (d) quartz.

porosity as in sandstone is therefore indicative of lower rock that describes the wear behaviour under 2-body conditions, it can
brittleness. In general it is reflected in the compressive and tensile be concluded that rocks with high UCS as in the case of granite
strength of a rock. Considering UCS as a mechanical rock property which produces mechanisms such as cutting or ploughing, an
92
Fig. 11. SEM micrographs of the worn surfaces after CIAT with different abrasives:
(a) granite; (b) meta-sandstone; and (c) sandstone.
Fig. 12. Wear rate under 2-body abrasion conditions.
intermediary UCS value as a representative for meta-sandstone
produces mechanisms such as plastic deformation and abrasion
grooves, whereas a low UCS rock results in pronounced abrasive
embedment within the metallic surface.
M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94
3.4. Correlation of 3-body abrasive wear rate with energy dissipation
Friction and wear occur when two surfaces undergo sliding or
rolling under load. Friction is a serious cause of energy dissipation,
whereas wear is the main cause of material removal [29]. As
Ramalho and Miranda [30] describe, wear involves a complex
interdependence between several processes and depends on
different physical parameters which cannot be isolated and
studied individually. Therefore a correlation between the para-
meters might be an important technique in analysing the tribo-
mechanical contact between the surfaces especially in 3-body
abrasion contact. Some classical theories describe the wear
volume WV as proportional to the normal load N, the sliding
distance S and inverse of the hardness H in Eq. (3). K indicates the
wear coefficient which establishes the proportionality and can be
used to describe the material behaviour as mentioned by Archard
[31]:
SN
WV ¼ K ð3Þ
H
K and H are parameters that can reveal the material response to
wear and thus can be grouped in a single parameter called specific
wear rate k¼ V/SN that can be used instead of the wear coefficient
as follows:
V ¼ kSN ð4Þ
In previous studies [32,33] the abrasion mechanisms that occur
under 3-body conditions were described on a fundamental level
using another parameter called specific wear energy. This para-
meter offers information about how much energy is necessary to
remove a volume of 1 mm³. The energy parameters are obtained
from the measured friction power during the abrasion tests and
calculated with Eqs. (5) and (6). The friction power PF is calculated
by subtracting the power from the effective power signal; then the
friction energy EF is calculated by PF and the testing time tt as
shown below:
EF ¼ P F t t ð5Þ
The specific wear energy Ew can be calculated by the ratio of
the friction energy to the volumetric loss VW of the worn test
specimen as shown below:
EF
Ew ¼ ð6Þ
VW
In order to describe the behaviour of the tested materials in
relation to wear, friction power and specific wear energy were
calculated using Eqs. (5) and (6) described before. Fig. 13 shows
the dependence of the friction power on the testing time.
A uniformly continuous behaviour of the friction power signal
can be seen for all four abrasives. The highest friction power is for
Fig. 13. Friction power of the investigated abrasives.
 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94
Fig. 14. Specific wear energy for each type of abrasive.
sandstone followed by quartz, whereas meta-sandstone and gran-
ite exhibit the lowest friction power during testing. This fact
indicates that measured friction power is in good correlation with
the detected wear rates, where high friction power corresponds to
increased wear rates. The calculated specific wear energy using
different abrasives is given in Fig. 14. The highest value of specific
wear energy is calculated for granite to be  2000 J/mm³ followed
by meta-sandstone at  1000 J/mm³. Sandstone and quartz refer-
ence exhibit the lowest specific wear energy values. This means
that for removing an equivalent volume of material, granite needs
6–8 times more specific wear energy compared to quartz and
sandstone, and 2 times more compared to meta-sandstone (see
Fig. 14). Furthermore, it can be concluded that the specific wear
energy calculated for each type of abrasive gives information
regarding their potential producing wear. The higher the specific
wear energy, the lower the abrasivity of that rock.
3.5. Influence of rock properties on the wear rates under 2-body and
3-body conditions
A classification of rocks regarding their abrasivity is possible
with respect to a well defined environment. Wear phenomena
occurring under 3-body conditions in real field conditions are
typical for specific mining systems. There the rocks are smashed
under high contact pressure and further the small abrasive
particles get trapped between different body parts of components.
Also 2-body impact/abrasion conditions are well known environ-
ments in mining, where components get in direct contact with the
rocks. Here the wear is mainly produced by the strong impact
between the rock and the wearing surface of the tool or compo-
nent. In order to estimate how severely these types of wear are
formed depending on the abrasive environments, selected rock
properties influencing wear under selected conditions have to be
considered. The content of hard minerals in rocks (e.g. quartz)
plays an important role in the case of 3-body conditions. As
presented in Table 1, quartz and feldspar are the main mineral
components in the used rocks. Quartz is well known to be a
mineral with high hardness of 1000–1200 HV (  7 on the Mohs
hardness scale) [34]. To consider all abrasive minerals within the
composition of the rocks, the equivalent quartz content (Eq) was
determined. Some studies were done to find dependence between
abrasive wear and the content of minerals from the abrasives
[35–37]. Plinninger et al. [38] refer to a correlation described as
low level abrasive wear when the minerals involved are softer
than the tool and as high level abrasive wear when the content of
minerals harder than the tool exceeds 20%. This theory is in good
agreement with the results presented in this paper. Fig. 15 shows
the correlation between the equivalent quartz content and the wear
rate under 3-body conditions. As can be seen granite has the lowest
quartz equivalent leading to the lowest wear rate and furthermore
the specific wear energy needed for granite to produce wear is high.
Based on this low abrasivity for granite in the case of 3-body
93
Fig. 15. Correlations among wear rate, quartz content and specific wear energy
under 3-body conditions.
conditions can be summarised. On the other hand, sandstone has
the highest quartz equivalent and produces the highest wear rate of
all abrasives tested. Having a look on the specific wear energy that
shows a low value, this makes sandstone a highly abrasive rock in
the case of 3-body conditions. Porosity is another important rock
property which influences the degree of cementation. A high
porosity indicates a low level of cementation which can express
the susceptibility of a rock to a breaking tendency or brittle
cracking. In general porosity is reflected in the UCS (see Table 2)
which is the most relevant property in the case of 2-body impact/
abrasion conditions. In a previous study [20] the relation between
wear and the UCS value was clearly shown. Furthermore, a high UCS
value (as in the case of granite) correlated with low particle
breakage index (P.B.I). This correlation explained the interdepen-
dence between the rock brittleness, porosity and the produced
wear. Therefore, a high UCS value shows that (i) the brittleness of
the rock is high, (ii) the porosity is low, (iii) the particle breakage
index is low and (iv) the generated wear by impact is high. As
shown in Fig. 12 the highest wear rate was generated by granite due
to the highest UCS value, the highest brittleness at the lowest
porosity and the lowest P.B.I. Comparing wear results obtained
under 3-body and 2-body conditions (see Figs. 8 and 12) an
opposite trend can be observed which is mainly based on the
significance of rock properties interacting with wearing surfaces.
4. Conclusions
Within this study done on the characterisation of abrasive wear
mechanisms and their influence on selected mechanical rock
properties, the following main conclusions can be drawn:
 The difference in abrasivity and wear mechanisms, associated
with the investigated rocks, between 2-body and 3-body
testing conditions has been shown and established;
 opposite wear trends have been found when 2-body and 3-
body conditions are compared which have a major influence on
different rock properties in each case;
 the content of hard minerals within rock composition is the
dominant factor in the expected abrasivity of certain rock types
in the case of 3-body wear conditions;
 the brittleness of the rock defined by the ratio of uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) to BTS is the determinant factor in
the expected abrasivity of certain rock types in the case of
2-body wear conditions;
 the calculated specific wear energy related to each type of rock
is directly correlated with the abrasive behaviour of the
investigated rocks.
94 M. Petrica et al. / Wear 308 (2013) 86–94
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the “Austrian Comet-Program”
(governmental funding program for pre-competitive research)
via the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) and has been
carried out at the “Austrian Center of Competence for Tribology”
(AC²T research GmbH). The authors are thankful to Dr. Monika
Painsi for her input on discussion of rock properties.
References
[1] K.H. Zum Gahr, Microstructure and Wear of Materials, Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1987.
[2] G.W. Stachowiak, A. Batchelor, Engineering Tribology3rd ed., Elsevier, London,
2002.
[3] T.A. Stolarski, Tribology in Machine DesignButterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
2000.
[4] M.A. Masen, M.B. Rooij, D.J. Schipper, Micro-contact based modelling of
abrasive wear, Wear 258 (2005) 339–348.
[5] K.H. Zum Gahr, Modelling of two-body abrasive wear, Wear 124 (1988) 87103.
[6] J.A. Williams, Y. Xie, The prediction of friction and wear when a soft surface
slides against a harder rough surface, Wear 196 (1996) 21–34.
[7] A.A. Torrance, Modelling abrasive wear, Wear 258 (2005) 281–293.
[8] L.V. Whittaker, A. Matthews, Comparison of a simulated “in-service” rig test
with a standardised laboratory abrasion test, Surf. Coat. Technol. 177-178
(2004) 603–610.
[9] M. Antonov, I. Hussainova, R. Veinthal, J. Pirso, Effect of temperature and load
on three-body abrasion of cements and steel, Tribol. Int. 46 (2012) 216–268.
[10] E. Badisch, C. Katsich, H. Winkelmann, F. Franek, Manish Roy, Wear behaviour
of hardfaced Fe–Cr–C alloy and austenitic steel under 2-body and 3-body
conditions at elevated temperature, Tribol. Int. 43 (2010) 1234–1244.
[11] C. Katsich, E. Badisch, Effect of carbide degradation in a NI-based hardfacing
under abrasive and combined impact/abrasive conditions, Surf. Coat. Technol.
206 (2011) 1062–1068.
[12] R.I. Trezona, D.N. Allsopp, I.M. Hutchings, Transitions between two-body and
three-body abrasive wear: influence of test conditions in the microscale
abrasive wear test, Wear 225-229 (1999) 205–214.
[13] L. Fang, W. Liu, D. Du, X. Zhang, Q. Xue, Predicting three-body abrasive wear
using Monte Carlo methods, Wear 256 (2004) 685–694.
[14] D.V. Pellegrin de, A.A. Torrance, E. Haran, Wear mechanisms and scale effect in
two body abrasion, Wear 266 (2009) 13–20.
[15] A.N.J. Stevenson, I.M. Hutchings, Development of dry sand/rubber wheel
abrasion test, Wear 195 (1996) 232–240.
[16] M. Woldman, E. van der Heide, D.J. Schipper, T. Tinga, M.A. Masen, Investigat-
ing the influence of sand particles properties on abrasive wear behaviour,
Wear 294 (2012) 419–426.
[17] Y. Xie, B. Bhushan, Effects of particle size, pad and contact pressure in free
abrasive polishing, Wear 200 (1996) 281–295.
[18] R. Gahlin, S. Jacobson, The particle size effect in abrasion studied by controlled
abrasive surfaces, Wear 258 (1999) 797–805.
[19] G.B. Stachowiak, G.W. Stachowiak, The effect of particle characteristics on
three-body abrasive wear, Wear 249 (2001) 201–207.
[20] M. Petrica, M. Painsi, E. Badisch, T. Peinsitt, Wear mechanisms on martensitic
steels generated by different rock types in 2-body conditions, Tribol. Lett.
(2013).
[21] E. Badisch, S. Ilo, R. Polak, Multivariable modelling of impact/abrasion rates in
metal matrix–carbide composite materials, Tribol. Lett. 36 (2009) 55–62.
[22] S. Verneuil, The Cerchar Abrasivity Index, Centre d’ Etudes et des Recherches
des Charbonages de France, 1986.
[23] K. Thuro, Drillability prediction – geological influences in hard rock drill and
blast tunnelling, Geol. Rundsch. 86 (1997) 426–438.
[24] R.I. Plinninger, Klassifizierung und Prognose von Werkzeugverschleiß bei
konventionellen Gebirgslösungsmethoden im Festgestein, (Ph.D. thesis),
Munich (2001), p 147.
[25] T.N. Michalakopoulos, V.G. Anagnostu, M.E. Bassanou, G.N. Panagiotou,
The influence of steel hardness on the Cerchar abrasiveness index value, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (2005) 321–327.
[26] T.W. Chenje, D.J. Simbi, E. Navara, Relationship between microstructure,
hardness, impact toughness and wear performance of selected grinding media
for mineral ore milling operations, Mater. Des. 25 (2004) 11–18.
[27] D. Golijandin, P. Kulu, H. Käerdi, A. Bruwier, Disintegrator as a device for
milling of mineral ores, Mater. Sci. 11 (2005) 304–316.
[28] I. Evans, C.D. Pomeroy, The Strength, Fracture and Workability of Coal,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
[29] J. Stokes, Theory and Application of the High Velocity Oxy-Fuel (HVOF)
Thermal Spray Process, Dublin City University, 2008, ISBN 1-87232-753-2,
ISSN 1649-8232.
[30] A. Ramalho, J.C. Miranda, The relationship between wear and dissipated
energy in sliding systems, Wear 260 (2006) 361–367.
[31] J.F. Archard, Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces, J. Appl. Phys. 24 (1953)
981–988.
[32] C. Katsich, E. Badisch, Effect of carbide degradation in a Ni-based hardfacing
under abrasive and combined impact/abrasive conditions, Surf. Coat. Technol.
206 (2011) 1062–1068.
[33] M. Petrica, C. Katsich, E. Badisch, F. Kremsner, Study of abrasive wear
phenomena in dry and slurry 3-body conditions, Tribol. Int. 64 (2013)
196–203.
[34] J.L Conica, R. Cubba, Abrasion resistance hardness of testing rock materials, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 23 (1986) 141–149.
[35] H.J.R. Deketh, Wear of Rock Cutting Tools: Laboratory Experiments on the
Abrasivity of Rock, Balkema, Rotterdam (1995) 144.
[36] P.N.W. Verhoef, Wear of Rock Cutting Tools, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997.
[37] H. Käsling, K. Thuro, Determining abrasivity of rock and soil in the laboratory,
in: A.L. Williams, et al., (Eds.), Geologically Active, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2010, pp. 1973–1980. (pp).
[38] R.J. Plinninger, G. Spaun, K. Thuro, Prediction and classification of tool wear in
drill and blast tunnelling, in: Proceedings of Engineering Geology for Devel-
oping Countries—9th Congress of International Association for Engineering
Geology and Environment, 2002.