Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Hammer premature wear in mineral crushing process

Mouna Kallel *, Fatma Zouch, Zied Antar, Amir Bahri, Khaled Elleuch
National Engineering School of Sfax, Department of Materials Engineering and Environnement (LGME) ENIS, B.P.W.1173, 3038, Sfax, Tunisia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the premature wear case of high chromium cast iron hammers used for barite rocks crushing.
High chromium cast iron hammer The failure investigations of worn hammer surfaces and examination of barite rocks have been conducted to
Failure mechanisms identify the failure mechanisms. Damaged surfaces were investigated through optical microscopy, scanning
Impact wear
electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and the Vickers hardness test. Barite rocks are
Abrasive wear
characterized by irregular shapes, angular edges and silicon amount. The hammer surface examination shows
several damage features as cracking, grooving, metal cutting, carbide fracture, mechanosynthesis and chromium
migration, which are responsible for a great material loss leading to short life service. The results have shown that
the failure mechanism combines both impact wear and abrasive wear, interacting together.

1. Introduction
The industrial machinery has undergone numerous wear problems in
various machine components that operate in relative sliding or rolling
motion [1–5]. Consequently, the loss of materials and energy takes place
in machine components at different levels. Therefore, economic deficit
manifests in the frequent shutdowns of production and expensive
maintenance cost generating higher price of the final product. For
example, it was reported that the abrasion wear cost is roughly between 1
and 4% of the gross national product of an industrialized country [6].
Crushing process has been highly used to reduce the size and change
the shape of rocks since antiquity. Thanks to their simplicity and effec-
tiveness, crushers are used in key sectors such as food industry [4,7–10],
cement industry [11] mining and mineral industry [12]. However, the
continuous service of crushers under severe operating conditions (ve-
locity, feeding rate, energy consumption, etc.) provokes premature wear.
Additionally, this wear failure is widely encountered in mineral process
that is considered as the main field application for grinding. Indeed,
various crusher components suffer from wear damage in hammers in the
hammer-mill type [4,9,10] or ball in the ball-mill type [13,14].
In spite of the wear severity of these components in industry, only few
research works have been devoted to discovering the wear causes of
hammers or balls. Recently, some studies have been interested in on the
wear damage of hammer crusher used in olive oil extraction process. It
was found that 304L stainless steel hammers of the crusher were char-
acterized by the presence of wear phenomenon. Ben Saada et al. [4]
suggested that the hammers wear mechanism is a mainly abrasive wear
combined with corrosive wear. However, Bahri et al. [7,8]expected that
hammers damage partially originates from abrasive wear and that the
most important damage results from erosive wear.
Moreover, it has been well clarified that the high chromium white
cast iron (HCWCI) is a suitable material for functional components in
crusher machine that is extensively used in mineral processing to
improve wear resistance and lengthen equipment lifetime with lower
production costs [15–17]. Indeed, many authors reported that chromium
cast iron is required when superior abrasive, erosive and impact wear
resistance is crucial for hard operating conditions [18–20]. This wear
performance of high chromium cast iron (C-Cr-Fe) originates from the
presence of hard eutectic carbide, type M7C3, embedded in austenite
matrix that can transform completely or partially into martensitic matrix
after heat treatment.
On the other hand, little research has been undertaken on high
chromium cast iron alloys, used in some industrial applications to war-
rant the best wear behavior. In the crushing process, Turenne et al. [21]
have focused on the influence of the matrix microstructure of high
chromium cast iron ball, used in the ball mill, on two-body abrasive wear
behavior. They have found that the austenitic matrix has the best abra-
sion resistance. Moreover, by studying the case of granite particle, Pin-
taude et al. [22] have demonstrated that the wear behavior of martensitic
high chromium cast iron ball depends strongly on the granulometry of
ground material. The finer granite particles lead to the highest wear ball,
while the coarser ones decrease the ball wear rate. Furthermore, it has
been reported [23] that high chromium cast iron is investigated in the
manufacture of pumping equipment in sugar cane industry. These

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mouna.kallel@enis.tn (M. Kallel).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2017.06.025
Received 20 April 2017; Received in revised form 10 June 2017; Accepted 16 June 2017
Available online 20 June 2017
0301-679X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Kallel et al. Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505

Fig. 1. Industrial hammer-crusher: (a) schematic representation of crushing operating (b) real view of hammer crusher and (c) view of rotor.

Table 1 The main purpose of the present study is to analyze the hammers
Chemical composition of hammer material. failure during the crushing process of barite rock in order to identify the
Elements C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo Fe wear mechanism.
Chemical composition (wt%) 3.27 0.25 0.82 0.02 0.02 25.3 0.2 0.82 Ba
2. Industrial context

authors prepared several high chromium alloys with different chromium
and nickel percentage in order to obtain the best wear resistance and
corrosion resistance. They have proven that the chemical composition of
alloys is determinant for the selection of the best alloy that has a high
chromium content offering the least wear.
In mineral industry, hammers were made from high chromium cast
iron, especially in mineral fillers production. In our case, hammers are
used in the crushing process to reduce barite rocks size that will be used
in oil drilling. Premature hammers wear leads to the interruption of the
crushing process after one week. Therefore, understanding the causes of
hammer failure will be helpful for finding out an adequate solution to
extend the hammer service life.
Hammer crusher is used to diminish particle barite size from
0100 mm down to about 0–5 mm impact, using 24 hammers, each of
which weighs about 5.300 kg. These hammers are distributed on 4 shafts,
set around a rotor, rotating at a high speed of 1400 rpm inside a crushing
chamber. The feeding rate is about18 tons/h. The radial force applied by
the barite particles on the hammer is about 138 N at maximum. At first,
barite rocks are broken by hammer shock, and then the particles, with
appropriate dimension, pass through sizing grate which is located on the
underside of the crushing chamber. The rest of particles with higher di-
mensions remain trapped between the hammers in rotation and the
sizing grate to be crushed again (Fig. 1).

Table 2
Chemical composition of barite rock.

Elements O Al Si S Ca Sr Ba Pb

Chemical composition (wt%) 7.43 1.18 0.78 4.97 1.19 1.92 41.69 40.80

Table 3
Mechanical properties of hammer material.

Bulk hardness HV30 690

Young's modulus E 172 GPa
Compressive strength σR 2460 MPa
Yield strength σY 2051 MPa
Strain hardening rate eR 8%

494
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 2. Metallographic images of hammer material: (a) secondary electron micrograph (b) backscattered micrograph with EDS analyses and (c) enlarged micrograph of (b) showing
hammer matrix.
Fig. 3. X-ray diffraction pattern of high chromium cast iron hammer.
3. Experimental details
Unworn and worn hammer and barite rocks are provided by SOFAP
Company for further tests analysis. The chemical compositions of
hammer material and barite rocks are given in Tables 1 and 2, respec-
tively. It is worthy to note that the chemical composition of hammer
material was determined using a spectroscopic metal analysis (Jobin
Yvon JY 48®). However, the chemical composition of barite rocks was
carried out using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). This
chemical composition is the average of 5 measurements that are taken in
495
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
different locations.
A worn hammer was cut using a robot-wire machine in different areas
(active and non-active areas) in order to be used in various character-
ization tests.
Optical microscopy (Leica) is used to examine hammer worn surfaces.
Hammer microstructure and wear mechanism were identified by the use
of scanning electron microscope (SEM, Jeol JSM-5410) equipped with X-
ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). In fact, worn surfaces and cross
section were both analyzed. Concerning the cross sections, they are
realized as follows: firstly, the specimen was mounted in resin, polished
with silicon carbide papers to 1200 grit and with 1 μm alumina paste to
obtain mirror-like finish surface. Then, the sample was etched by 4%
Nital solution during 3 min and covered by a thin platinum layer to
improve the conductivity of specimen to be suitable for SEM observation.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed in a SIEMENS 5000
diffractometer using Cu-K radiation in a 2θ range of 30
–80
to identify
the presence or not of residual austenite.
A compression test was conducted to investigate the mechanical
behavior of the hammer material. The compression experiments were
performed following the ASTM E9 standard, on cylindrical specimens
with a diameter of 3 mm and a length of 4.5 mm, under a strain rate of
1 mm/min. The mechanical properties are given in Table 3.
The hardness tester was employed to determine three hardness pro-
files using a load of 10 Kg and to measure the bulk hammer hardness
using a load of 30 Kg. The obtained value is the average of at least 3
measurements.
The Vickers micro-hardness and Young's modulus of both hammer
and barite rocks were obtained by using a universal indenter (Fisher
hardness tester). At least twenty individual measurements were taken
under a load of 0.5 N.
M. Kallel et al. Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505

Fig. 4. EDS analysis of hammer material: zone (1) eutectic carbide phase, zone (2) secondary carbide phase.

Fig. 5. (a) Barite rocks before crushing with particle size range of 0–100 mm and (b) crashed barite rocks with particle size range of 0–5 mm.

Table 4
Results of indentation tests.

Mechanical properties Material

High chromium white cast iron hammer Barite rock

Microhardness 0.5 N (GPa) 8.84 1.58

Young's modulus (GPa) 282 56

4. Results and discussion
4.1. Materials characterization
4.1.1. Hammer material identification
According to the chemical composition of hammer material (Table 1)
and Fe-Cr-C ternary alloy system diagram [24], this material is a hypo-
eutectic alloy that belongs to the majority of commercial high chromium
white cast iron alloys containing around 11–30% chromium and 2–3.3%
Fig. shows the microstructure of hammer material by using both sec-
ondary and backscattered electron imaging. It consists of an eutectic
network within a martensitic matrix (Fig. 2a). Furthermore, the back-
scattered micrographs (Fig. 2b and c) reveal that the hammer micro-
structure consists of secondary carbides precipitated in a martensitic
matrix with a small fraction of residual austenite (Fig. 3) [27,28] and
eutectic carbides M7C3 with 39% volume fraction. This carbide volume
fraction (CVF) was calculated by an empirical formula, proposed by
Maratray [29] using the bulk carbon and chromium fraction: %
CVF ¼ 12.33 (%C) þ 0.55 (%Cr)-15.2. A similar microstructure was

496
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 6. General view of (a) unworn hammer, (b) worn hammer and (c) comparison of dimensions and mass between unworn and worn hammer.
Fig. 7. Hammer damaged surface view: (a) upper surface, (b) active surface and (c) the corner surface.
observed by Hadji et al. [16] who have studied the microstructure of heat
treated hypoeutectic high chromium white cast iron. Therefore, accord-
ing to the microstructure described above and to several research works
found in the literature [25–27,30,31], the hammer material is found to be
thermally treated.
According to C–Cr binary equilibrium diagram [32] and the chemical
analysis data of zone 1 and zone 2 (Fig. 4), we can confirm that eutectic
carbides and secondary carbides are both of the type M7C3.
4.1.2. Barite rocks characterization
The following composition of barite mineral reveals that barite con-
tains barium sulfate (BaSO4) with some impurities such as a high per-
centage of lead (Pb) and small amounts of aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca),
strontium (Sr) and silicon (Si). The last one was considered as abra-
sive element.
Due to its particular properties, barite is used in various sectors, such
as oil-field sector (oil drilling fluids and oil and gas exploitation), as well
497
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
as in the production of chemical barium, plastics and glass [33]. Exam-
ples of these properties are higher density, chemical neutrality, low
abrasivity and inexpensiveness.
Fig. 5 shows the shape and the particle size distribution of barite rocks
before (Fig. 5a) and after crushing (Fig. 5b). It is clear that barite particles
exhibit irregular shapes with a greater particle size and a smaller one.
These particles have, in general, sharp angles and some rounded edges. It
should be taken into account that shape, size and angularity of barite
rocks are considered among the important parameters provoking wear
damage as reported in many studies [34–37].
4.1.3. Mechanical properties of hammer material and barite rocks
The mechanical properties are given in Table 3. It should be noted
that hammer material is characterized by very high compressive strength
and low strain hardening rate (little plastic deformation), which proves
the brittle behavior of hammer originating from high carbon and car-
bide contents.
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 8. Optical microscopy examination of damaged surfaces: (a) continuous and narrow grooves, (b) wider and deeper grooves, (c) small craters and (d) large craters.
Fig. 9. SEM micrographs showing the damage of hammer upper surface: (a) detached material and micro-scratched surface and (b) cracked surface.
From Table 4, it is clearly shown that barite rocks are softer and less
rigid than high chromium cast iron hammer.
4.2. Characterization of worn surfaces
4.2.1. Hammer damage view
Fig. 6 presents a comparison in dimensions and mass between an
unworn hammer and a worn hammer after about one week of service.
From the first sight, it is obvious that a serious material loss took place in
active surfaces. In fact, the mass loss is more than 1 kg, corresponding to
about 21% of the hammer bulk mass. Additionally, a great dimensional
change affects the used hammer, which consists in important reductions
in length and thickness.
Fig. 7 presents a visual observation of the different abraded surfaces.
Abrasive wear was revealed due to presence of grooves. Moreover, it
seems that impact wear occurred as the hammer surface was seriously
498
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
bombarded by barite rocks.
4.2.2. Microscopic analysis of wear damage
Abraded surfaces were characterized by optical microscopy. From a
first sight, two kinds of grooves were patent. While Fig. 8a shows
continuous and narrow grooves, Fig. 8b shows wider and deeper grooves
characterized by the presence of pits (impact sites) at their ends. Actu-
ally, such pits prevented the motion of abrasive particles, and conse-
quently caused the termination of some grooves as reported elsewhere
[38]. All grooves could be generated by the sharp edges of barite rock and
the presence of silicon.
Large and small craters (Fig. 8c and d) were observed in damaged
surfaces, which confirm the diversity of particles size and geometry.
These craters were the result of the repeated impacts of barite rocks
during crushing feeding.
Although optical observation could give some insightful data about
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs and EDS analysis of hammer upper surface: (a) displaced material forming lip, (b) backscattered image accompanied with chemical analysis data of (c) un-
damaged area (area1), (d) fragmented area (area 2) and (e) displaced material area (area 3).
damaged surfaces, it is still insufficient to determine the wear mecha-
nisms occurring in hammer. Thus, SEM micrographs were taken from the
upper surface of the hammer as presented by Fig. 9. It was found that
some irregular microscratches were randomly dispersed on the surface
(Fig. 9a). Moreover, a crack-network was revealed on the surface
(Fig. 9b). It seems that small cracks appear owing to the stress concen-
tration on the surface. Therefore, the continuous impact of barite rocks
on the hammer surface probably encouraged the propagation of cracks
until getting a connected network of cracks that could be responsible for
the material detachment as revealed by Fig. 9a.
The backscattered image (Fig. 10b), taken from the upper surface,
reveals the presence of different zones, thus realizing the chemical
analysis of three areas (undamaged area, fragmented area and displaced
material area). The chemical analysis data of the displaced material (lip)
indicate the presence of higher fraction of oxide and silicon, compared to
the other analyzed areas, as well as a small amount of barite elements (Ba
and S). The oxide formation results from the associated effect of subse-
quent contact, hammer surface–barite rock, and the environment
499
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
interaction. Moreover, it is worthwhile to note that the silicon amount
comes from barite rocks and promotes wear on the surface. Indeed, barite
rocks strike tangentially (low impact angle) the hammer surfaces, cut and
push the metal to the side of a crater to form a small lip. In this case, the
barite elements and silicon amount, contained in the formed lip, could be
the result of a combined effect of the chemical interaction and mechan-
ical energy generated by the barite-hammer impact. Hence, we can as-
sume that a mechanosynthesis phenomenon occurs between the hammer
and barite rocks. On the other hand, the chromium content of the three
analyzed areas reveals that the more severe the surface damage is, the
lower the chromium content is. It is likely that chromium migration oc-
curs from damaged to undamaged surfaces [39].It is important to note
that the temperature could locally change on the hammer surfaces, by the
successive impact and sliding of barite rocks, that could influence on both
mechanosynthesis and surface chromium migration phenomena.
The SEM examination of worn active surfaces of the hammer, given in
Fig. 11, confirms the optical microscopy observation (Fig. 8) and high-
lights further aspects. Indeed, Fig. 11a exhibits continuous, deep and
M. Kallel et al. Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505

Fig. 11. SEM micrographs of worn active surface: (a) active surface grooving, (b) micro-cracks within the grooves, (c) backscattered image showing broken carbides within the grooves
and (d) EDS analysis results of wear debris.

Fig. 12. Subsurface examination of active surface: (a) finer cracked eutectic carbide and (b) coarser cracked eutectic carbide.

wide grooves delineated by ridges with little plastic deformation. This
illustrates that the material removal is caused by microcutting, which in
turn is generated mainly by the passage of barite rocks characterized by
sharp angles and the presence of silicon. The removed material forms
wear debris (Fig. 11a,c). It is notable that wear debris contains a small
chromium amount (Fig. 11d). Furthermore, several microcracks take
place within the grooves (Fig. 11b). These microcracks are mainly
localized in martensitic matrix and in carbides (Fig. 11c). Here, these
microcracks facilitate material removal during barite rocks sliding. The
material removal can also be promoted by ridges cutting (Fig. 11a) as
they were subjected to successive impacts of the barite rocks. Craters are
shown within the grooves and in the ridges, indicating more material
removal. According to the results shown above, the prevalent wear
mechanism is grooving [40] combined with severe microcutting and
microcracking.
The subsurface examination of the active surface was carried out
using backscattered SEM images taken from a cross section (Fig. 12).
These images confirm the fracture of carbides observed in Fig. 11c.
Indeed, longitudinal microcracks are presented in both finer and coarser
structures of eutectic carbide M7C3. Moreover, radial microcracks could
appear in coarser carbides due to the several contact barite rocks-
hammer surfaces under a higher load. Thus, the intersection of radial

500
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 13. Schematic illustration of carbides detachment from the matrix.
microcrack with longitudinal microcrack leads first to the fracture of the
cracked carbide and then to its detachment from the matrix in the form of
small particles (Fig. 12b). These small particles could lead to grooving as
reported by [41]. Fig. 13 illustrates the stages of carbide detachment
from the matrix.
4.2.3. Hardness profiles
The hardness profiles were obtained on cross sections from the worn
area to unworn one in three different directions as shown in Fig. 14a. The
hardness profile curves (Fig. 14b,c,d) present a slight increase in hard-
ness close to the worn surface. This reveals that the active surface ex-
periences a slight work-hardening effect owing to the residual austenite
hardening [42], by the impact and the slide of barite rocks. This slight
work-hardening phenomenon can result in cracks appearance on the
edges of the active surface which promote hammer damage.
4.3. Wear mechanism operating in the hammer
From the previously presented results, it can be seen that the wear
mechanism occurring in the hammer, during crushing process, is a
complex phenomenon. As previously reported, several wear features are
observed on hammer worn surfaces. Consequently, the identification of
wear mechanism has become a challenging task. Nevertheless, the main
material loss is the result of both impact wear and abrasive wear asso-
ciated with the effect of chromium migration. These wear mechanisms
operate simultaneously and interact with each other. In order to figure
out the hammer failure process, the scenario of wear mechanism
responsible for material loss is represented in Fig. 15 and dis-
cussed below.
501
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
At the time of crusher feeding, barite rocks strike hammers under
higher pressure, and thus form impact site by its angular tips (Figs. 8d
and 10a), and initiate some microcracks on the surface. Multiple impacts
of incoming barite rocks increase the stress concentration and lead to the
propagation and the connection of microcracks forming then crack
network (Fig. 9b). The continuous impact on cracks network results in
extending cracks from the surface and cracking carbides, leaving a large
crater and forming wear debris (Fig. 9a). Since the barite rock abra-
siveness changes from one rock to another, the severity of this mecha-
nism depends on the characteristics of barite rock, such as its size,
angularity, shape and silicon content.
At the same time, as hammers rotate at high velocity, barite rocks can
strike the hammer active surface at a low angle and form microscratches
(Fig. 11a). Added to that, hammers slide on the barite rocks (higher
dimension) situated on the sizing grate. These rocks push the active
surface ahead and to the side, producing grooves delineated by ridges
(Fig. 11a and b). Continuous impacts by the incoming of barite rocks
improve the microcracks propagation and convergence into the grooves
(Fig. 11b and c), which leads to material cutting from the surface during
barite rock sliding. The material removal is also enhanced by ridges
fracture. In fact, the repeated barite rocks impact hardens the ridges,
resulting in brittle fracture of these ridges, which is in good agreement
with the finding reported in an earlier research study [43]. It is important
to mention that hard detached carbide particles can play the role of
abrasive particles. On the other hand, under sliding conditions, small
barite rocks particles are still embedded into the grooves. Due to the
mechanical energy transferred from barite rocks to the hammer surface
during successive impact and sliding, these fragments interact with the
hammer material and form new material composition. Since impact and
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 14. Vickers hardness profiles measurements: (a) cross sections of active surface, (b) hardness profile curve in direction 1, (c) hardness profile curve in direction 2 and (d) hardness
profile curve in direction 3.
sliding will continue, the deformed material is pushed out of the surface
to form a lip (Fig. 10). This lip is brittle and could be removed after a
number of impacts by another barite rock in the form of wear debris [43].
It seems that the material removal is related to the chromium migration
in different areas of the surface. As indicated earlier by EDS analysis,
there are chromium-overloaded areas, included in an abraded surface,
without any damaged form, and other chromium-depleted areas, pre-
senting different features of damage (fragmentation, deformed material,
wear debris). Fig. 16 describes the chromium migration and mechano-
synthesis occurring in the hammer surfaces leading to non-uniform wear.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated a failure analysis of hammer used in the
crushing of barite rocks which has undergone a premature wear. The
following conclusions are drawn from the experimental results:
- The hammer material is a high chromium cast iron characterized by a
martensitic matrix with small secondary carbides and high volume
502
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
fraction of eutectic carbides M7C3. This microstructure justifies the
brittleness of the hammer;
- Barite rocks, characterized by an irregular shape, angular tips and
silicon amount were responsible for the severity of hammer damage;
- A general view comparison between an unworn hammer and worn
hammer proves that a great material loss occurs in the hammer during
a short period of services, which changes the hammer shape, leading
to crushing process dysfunction;
- The microscopic analysis of worn surfaces shows different features of
wear causing material loss. Indeed, microcracking and microcutting
provoke the most severe damage;
- The cross section analysis exposes carbide detachment from the ma-
trix and reveals little surface work-hardening proven by hardness
profile measurements;
- Regarding the failure analysis of worn surface, it was found that the
wear mechanism combines both impact wear and abrasive wear;
- Non-uniform wear is detected in the hammer active surfaces, which
could be attributed to the surface chromium migration, leading to the
local softening material.
M. Kallel et al. Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505

Fig. 15. Schematic representation of the hammer failure mechanism.

503
M. Kallel et al.
Fig. 16. Schematic representation of the mechanosynthesis and surface chromium migration occurring in the hammer surface.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by EU-FP7 grant Oil & Sugar
(295202). The authors would like to thank Professor Mustafa Ürgen,
from Istanbul Technical University (Turkey), for his help in carrying out
SEM observation and indentation test. The authors are also thankful to
the SOFAP Company of Sfax, Tunisia, which kindly provided us with
hammers and barite rocks.
References
[1] Voevodin AA, ONeill JP, Zabinski JS. Nanocomposite tribological coatings for
aerospace applications. Surf Coat Technol 1999;116–119:36–45.
[2] Elleuch K, Mezlini S, Fouvry S, Kapsa P. Friction damage of aluminium alloys. Ind
Lub Tribol 2003;55:279–86.
[3] Liew WYH. Experimental study on the performance of coated carbide tools in the
ultra-precision machining of stainless steel. Tribol Trans 2009;52:293–302.
[4] Ben Saada F, Elleuch K. Damage of stainless steel components by olive paste. Tribol
Trans 2015;59:856–64.
[5] Yangui W, Guermazi N, Elleuch K. Failure analysis of a cold work tool material
slides against carbon steel in sheet metal forming process-A case study of hinges
production. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;88:3151–61.
[6] Bayer RG. Fundamentals of wear failures. In: Becker WT, Shipley RJ, editors. Failure
analysis and prevention (ASM Handbook volume11), New York; 2002.
p. 1986–2002.
[7] Bahri A, Guermazi N, Elleuch K, Ürgen M. Tribological performance of TiN coatings
deposited on 304L stainless steel used for olive-oil extraction. Wear 2015;342–343:
77–84.
[8] Bahri A, Guermazi N, Elleuch K, Ürgen M. On the erosive wear of 304 L stainless
steel caused by olive seed particles impact: modeling and experiments. Tribol Int
2016;102:608–19.
[9] Stachowiak GW, Batchelor AW. Engineering tribology. second ed. Boston:
Butterwoth- Heinemann; 2001.
[10] Teeri T, Kuokkala VT, Siitonen V, Kivikyt€o-Reponenb P, Liimatainen J. Impact wear
in mineral crushing. Proc Est Acad Sci Eng 2006;12:408–18.
[11] Sallam HEM, Abd El-Aziz Kh, Abd El-Raouf H, Elbanna EM. Failure analysis and
flexural behavior of high chromium white cast iron and AISI4140 steel bimetal
beams. Mater Des 2013;52:974–80.
[12] Tang XH, Li L, Hinckley B, Dolman K, Parent L, Li DY. Beneficial effects of the
core–shell structure of primary carbides in high-Cr (45 wt%) white cast irons on
their mechanical behavior and wear resistance. Tribol Lett 2015;44:1–10.
504
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
[13] Albertin E, Sinatora A. Effect of carbide fraction and matrix microstructure on the
wear of cast iron balls tested in a laboratory ball mill. Wear 2001;250:492–501.
[14] Fusheng H, Shouguo S, Dunqiong W, Xiangqing C, Xianrong L. Study on the
structure and properties of a novel mini-sized high Cr mill balls. Wear 2002;25:
640–9.
[15] Xiaowen Q, Zhining J, Qingxiang Y, Yulin Y. Effects of vanadium additive on
structure property and tribological performance of high chromium cast iron
hardfacing metal. Surf Coat Technol 2011;205:5510–4.
[16] Hadji A, Bouhamla K, Maouche H, Mechachti S. Effet du molybdene et du
manganese sur le comportement a l’usure d’une fonte au chrome traitee. J Mater
Environ Sci 2010;1(S1):329–36.
€ Hawk JA, Laird II G. Solidification structure and abrasion resistance of
[17] Dogan ON,
high chromium white irons. Metall Mater Trans A 1997;28A:1315–28.
[18] Sapate SG, Rama Rao AV. Erosive wear behaviour of weld hardfacing high
chromium cast irons: effect of erodent particles. Tribol Int 2006;39:206–12.
[19] Adler TA, Dogan ON. Erosive wear and impact damage of high-chromium white
cast irons. Wear 1999;225–229:174–80.
€ Laird II G, Hawk JA. Abrasion resistance of the columnar zone in high Cr
[20] Dogan ON,
white cast irons. Wear 1995;181–183:342–9.
[21] Turenne S, Lavallie F, Masounave J. Matrix microstructure effect on the abrasion
wear resistance of high-chromium white cast iron. J Mater Sci 1989;24:3021–8.
[22] Pintaude G, Tschiptschin AP, Tanaka DK, Sinatora A. The particle size effect on
abrasive wear of high-chromium white cast iron mill balls. Wear 2001;250:66–70.
[23] Zumelo E, Opitz O, Cabezos C, Parada A, Goyos L. High-chromium (22-34 percent)
cast iron alloys and their simulated behaviour at the sugar industry. J Sci Ind Res
2003;62:583–8.
[24] Llewellyn RJ, Yick SK, Dolman KF. Scouring erosion resistance of metallic materials
used in slurry pump service. Wear 2004;256:592–9.
[25] Tabrett CP, Sare IR, Ghomashchi MR. Microstructure-property relationships in high
chromium white iron alloys. Int Mater. Rev 1996;41:59–82.
[26] Wiengmoon A. Carbides in high chromium cast irons. Eng J 2011. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14456/nuej.2011.6.
[27] Karantzalis E, Lekatou A, Mavros H. Microstructure and properties of high
chromium cast irons: effect of heat treatments and alloying additions. Int J Cast Met
Res 2009;22:448–56.
[28] Bedolla-Jacuinde A, Arias L, Hernandez B. Kinetics of secondary carbides
precipitation in a high-chromium white iron. J Mater Eng Perform 2003;12:371–82.
[29] Maratray F. Choice of appropriate composition for Chromium-Molybden white
irons. Trans AFS 1971;79:121–4.
[30] Fernandez I, Belzunce FJ. Wear and oxidation behaviour of high-chromium white
cast irons. Mater Charact 2008;59:669–74.
[31] Agunsoye JO, Isaac TS, Abiona AA. On the comparison of microstructure
characteristics and mechanical properties of high white iron with the hadfield
austenitic manganese steel. J Min Mater Charact Eng 2013;1:24–8.
M. Kallel et al.
[32] Asensio J, Pero-Sanzb JA, Verdeja JI. Microstructure selection criteria for cast irons
with more than 10 wt.% chromium for wear applications. Mater Charact 2003;49:
83–93.
[33] Ulusoy U, Yekeler M. Floatability of barite particles with different shape and
roughness. Indian J Chem Technol 2007;14:616–25.
[34] Hamblin MG, Stachowiak GW. A multi-scale measure of particle abrasivity, and its
relation to two-body abrasive wear. Wear 1995;190:190–6.
[35] Stachowiak GB, Stachowiak GW. The effects of particle characteristics on three-
body abrasive wear. Wear 2001;249:201–7.
[36] De Pellegrin DV, Corbin ND, Baldoni G, Torrance AA. Diamond particle shape: its
measurement and influence in abrasive wear. Tribol Int 2009;42:160–8.
[37] Coronado JJ. Effect of abrasive size on wear. In: Adamiak BS, editor. Abrasion
resistance of materials; 2012. p. 167–84. ISBN: 978-953-51-0300-4, In Tech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/abrasion.
505
Tribology International 115 (2017) 493–505
[38] DasBakshi S, Shipway PH, Bhadeshia HKDH. Three-body abrasive wear of fine
pearlite, nanostructured bainite and martensite. Wear 2013;308:46–53.
[39] Adamou AS, Denape J, Paris JY, Andrieu E. Mise au point d’un tribometre
environnemental: application l’etude d’un alliage base nickel. In: Robbe-Valloire F,
Gras R, editors. Tribologie et conception mecanique, JIFT 2004, France. PPUR
presses polytechniques; 2007. p. 95–106.
[40] Yan W, Fang L, Sun K, Xu Y. Effect of surface work hardening on wear behavior of
hadfield steel. Mater Sci Eng A 2007;460–461:542–9.
[41] Bedolla-Jacuinde A, Aguilar SL, Maldonado C. Eutectic modification in a low-
chromium white cast iron by a mixture of titanium, rare Earths, and bismuth: part
II. effect on the wear behavior. J Mater Eng Perform 2005;14:301–6.
[42] Coronado JJ, Sinatora A. Abrasive wear study of white cast iron with different
solidification rates. Wear 2009;267:2116–21.
[43] Aminul IMd, Farhat ZN. Effect of impact angle and velocity on erosion of API X42
pipeline steel under high abrasive feed rate. Wear 2014;311:180–90.