Wear 268 (2010) 202–207

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /wear

On the comparison of the abrasive wear behavior of aluminum alloyed andstandard Hadfield steels

Majid Abbasia,b,∗, Shahram Kheirandishb, Yousef Kharrazib, Jalal Hejazib

a Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, P.O. Box: 47148-71167, Babol, Iranb School of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering , Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box: 16765-163, Narmak, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 September 2008Received in revised form 17 May 2009Accepted 24 July 2009Available online 3 August 2009

Keywords:Pin on diskAbrasive wearGrinding wheelAluminum alloyed Hadfield steel

a b s t r a c t

The abrasive wear behaviors of aluminum alloyed Hadfield steel at the high and low stress wear conditionswere studied and compared with non-Al alloyed Hadfield steel. The wear tests were done with thepin on disc method using the abrasive wheel. The main parameters such as alloy compositions, normalload, sliding speed and sliding distance were evaluated. It is shown that at the low stress condition, thealuminum alloyed Hadfield steel has higher wear resistance than the non-Al alloyed Hadfield steel. Butat the high stress wear conditions, the non-Al alloyed Hadfield steel is more resistant than the Al alloyed.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Austenitic manganese steel, called Hadfield steel, has low wearresistance at the low stress abrasive condition [1,2]. There havebeen many studies on the selection of a proper material such as highCr cast Irons or cast steels for low stress or low impact wear con-ditions [2,3]. As an example, Fucheng and Tingquan [2] introducedthe Mn6 alloy (1.06 wt.% C and 6.1 wt.% Mn) for low abrasive impactenergy. In this wear condition, they showed that the wear resis-tance of Mn6 steel is higher than that of Mn13 steel (1.1 wt.% C and12.3 wt.% Mn). However, the wear resistance of Mn6 steel decreaseswhile that of Mn13 steel increases with increasing abrasive impactenergy.

Because of economical factors such as less expensive raw mate-rials and low production cost, many studies have been performedto improve low stress wear behavior of Hadfield steel and be usedas a substitute for other wear resistance materials [2–5]. For exam-ple, Yan et al. [4] investigated the effect of surface work hardeningby shot peening on the abrasive wear behavior of Hadfield steel.They showed that this procedure produces the amorphous phasein the worn surface and can improve the low stress wear resis-tance by 72%. In addition, Zhang et al. [5] investigated the impactwear resistance of WC/Hadfield steel composite and its interfacialcharacteristics. They confirmed that at smaller impact energies, thecomposites reinforced with larger WC particles showed more wear

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 77459151; fax: +98 21 77459151.E-mail addresses: majid abbasi@iust.ac.ir, abbasim@nit.ac.ir (M. Abbasi).

resistance than that of Hadfield steel, while at large impact energies,the situation is reversed.

Precipitation hardening by Ti, V and Cr alloying elements is alsoa well-known method to improve the wear resistance of Hadfieldsteel [6]. However, this method decreases the elongation severely.In addition, its production cost is high because of additional agingheat treatment [7].

Some of researchers [8–11] studied the effect of aluminum onthe plastic deformation and work hardening rate of Hadfield steel.They showed that Al can improve the yield strength. Zuidema andSubramanyam [12] introduced the Al addition on the work harden-ing and wear resistance. Their results on the abrasive wear behaviorwere not complete. However, they explained the stacking faultenergy and dynamic strain aging roles on the tensile propertiesof Hadfield steel.

The main objective of this paper is to study the abrasive wearbehavior of Al-alloyed Hadfield steel at the low and high stress con-ditions and compare the results with that of the standard (non-Alalloyed) Hadfield steel.

2. Experiments

Chemical compositions of experimental alloys are presentedin Table 1. The selected alloys were melted in an argon controlinduction furnace (30 kg) and cast in to the ceramic mold accord-ing to ASTM A781. The qualities of samples were examined byX-ray radiography. Cast samples were solid solution treated in1065–1080 ◦C for 90 min and then quenched in water. After theheat treatment, the specimens exhibited a single austenite phase by

0043-1648/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.07.010

M. Abbasi et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 202–207 203

Table 1Chemical composition of experimental steels.

Type of Steel Code Alloying element (wt.%)

Al Mn C Si

Non-Al alloyed Hadfield steel NAHS Maximum = 0.1 12 1.2 ≥0.3Al alloyed Hadfield steel AAHS 1.5 12 1.4 ≥0.3

Fig. 1. The pin on disk wear setup using grinding wheel.

grain sizes about 150–200 �m. Tensile tests were done under strainrate control (2 × 10−3 S−1) at the room temperature. An average ofthree measurements was performed on each alloy.

The wear tests were performed using the pin on disc methodas shown in Fig. 1. The grinding (abrasive) wheel with standardcode A46QV1 was selected as abrasive member that is produced byCarborundum Company. The test machine was equipped with com-puterized recording sets for pin temperature, sliding time, slidingdistance and friction force. The friction coefficient was measuredby dividing the friction force to the normal load. Each specimenwas prepared in cylindrical form with 10 mm in diameter and50 mm in length. Prior to wear testing, the surface of each spec-imen was rubbed against a fresh abrasive paper (grit 600). Then, itwas cleaned with alcohol, dried and weighed. This procedure wasrepeated after each wear test.

In the first wear test, the wear resistance of each alloy was mea-sured under 30, 50, 70 and 90 N normal loads at 0.25 m/s slidingspeed after 1000 m sliding without stopping the test. An averageof three measurements was performed on each selected load (therelative coefficient variation was about 6%). In the second wear test,the cumulative weight loss of the alloys were evaluated as a func-tion of normal load, sliding speed and sliding distance to 1250 mthat after each 250 m the weight loss of each specimen is measuredwith ±0.1 mg accuracy.

The specific wear rate (K) was calculated using the followingequation [3,14]:

K(mm3/Nm) = �m

�LFN(1)

where, �m represents the weight loss value of each component, �is the corresponding density, FN is the applied normal load and Lis the sliding distance. In addition, the wear resistance (K−1) wascalculated from the inverse of specific wear rates [3,14].

K−1(Nm/mm3) = 1K

= �LFN

�m(2)

The structures of the alloys before and after plastic deformationwere characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) with Cu-K� radiation

1 A46QV represents that wheel has aluminum oxide as abrasive member with 46grit size, Q hardness and with a vitrified bond [13].

and a monochromator (in 40 kV and 30 mA). The microstructuresof the worn surfaces and the wear debris were studied by opticalmicroscopy (OM), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Thespecimens were cut vertically from worn surface, cold mountedand ground to 1200 grit by SiC papers. Then, they were polishedwith 1 and 1/4 �m grit alumina powders. The metallographic spec-imens were etched in a 4% nital solution and electroetched in a30% HCl solution. With electroetching, only the twinning marksand grain boundaries are visible [15]. In addition, the hardness dis-tributions from the worn surfaces were measured using a Vickersmicro-hardness tester under an applied load of 100 g for a periodof 15 s. An average of five measurements was performed for eachpoint position.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. The deformation behavior

Fig. 2 shows the rue stress–true strain and true strain-workhardening exponent (n) curves of experimental alloys. The workhardening behavior was measured according to Hollomon equation[16]:

� = �◦ + k εn (3)

n =(

d �

d ε

)(ε

�

)(4)

In addition, Table 2 represents the mechanical properties ofexperimental alloys. It can be observed that AAHS has higher yieldstrength and initial hardness but has lower tensile strength andelongation than NAHS. The serration behavior in tensile proper-ties is related two mechanisms: twinning [11,17,18] and dynamicstrain aging [9–11]. According to Fig. 2, it is observed that the work

Fig. 2. The true stress–true strain and true strain-work hardening exponent (n)curves of experimental alloys.

204 M. Abbasi et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 202–207

Table 2Microstructure, mechanical and physical properties of experimental steels at room temperature.

Type of Hadfieldsteel

Engineeringstrength (MPa)

el. (%) Hardness (HV) Charpy impactenergy (J)

n at fracture � (kg/m3) �� = 0.04 − �0.002 Microstructure

Yield UTS Initial After fracture

NAHS 391 843 45 194 470 124 0.8 7710 111 Austenitic matrix freefrom any carbides

AAHS 482 736 27.7 219 425 84 0.4 7610 131 Austenitic matrix freefrom any carbides

Fig. 3. XRD patterns of experimental alloys before and after plastic deformation.

hardening exponent of two alloys increase with increasing of thestrain that have serration behaviors. The serration in AAHS curvesis lower than NAHS. This is due to restriction effects of Al additionon the two mechanisms. In addition, near to fracture, the maximumwork hardening exponent of NAHS is 0.8 that is two times that ofAAHS. But at the low strain, AAHS has higher strength than NAHS.

Fig. 3 shows the X-ray diffraction patterns of the samples beforeand after plastic deformation. It can be observed that both samplesconsist of austenitic structure without any carbide and martensite.The X-ray diffraction patterns after deformation confirms that nodeformation induced transformations of austenite to martensiteare observed in these steels. Fig. 4 shows typical optical microscopyimages of the experimental Hadfield steel after plastic deformationand fracture in the tensile test. It can be observed that the twinninginduced deformation is the major plastic deformation mechanismin both steels, but there are less twining marks in the Al alloyedcompared to the non-Al alloyed [9–11]. For more discussion, arecently published paper of authors introduced the effects of Aladdition on the plastic deformation of Hadfield steel [11].

Fig. 5. The effect of normal load on the wear resistance of experimental alloys.

3.2. The abrasive wear behavior

Fig. 5 shows the influence of normal loads on the wear resistanceof the experimental alloys. It can be observed that with the increaseof normal load (contact pressure), the wear resistance of NAHSincreases, while that of AAHS decreases. In addition, the differencein wear resistance of alloys is negligible in about 50 N (0.64 N/mm2)while it is increased by increasing or decreasing of normal load from50 N. Therefore, it can be concluded the wear test is considered tobe high stress condition when the selected load is higher than 50 N,while for loads lower than 50 N, the test is considered to be lowstress. Therefore, at the high stress condition, NAHS has more wearresistance than AAHS, while the situation is reversed at the lowstress condition.

Fig. 4. Optical microscopy images after plastic deformation and fracture in tensile test specimens of (a) non-Al alloyed and (b) Al alloyed Hadfield steels under fracturedsurfaces.

M. Abbasi et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 202–207 205

Fig. 6. The hardness distributions from worn surfaces as a function of normal load.

Table 3The average values of the friction coefficient for various loads after 1000 m sliding.

Type of steel Average at 1000 m sliding

F = 30 N(0.38 N/mm2)

F = 50 N(0.64 N/mm2)

F = 70 N(0.89 N/mm2)

NAHS 0.41 0.39 0.36AAHS 0.29 0.41 0.45

The hardness distributions from the worn surfaces at the dif-ferent normal loads are presented in Fig. 6. It can be seen that atthe high level of normal load, 90 N, (or 1.15 N/mm2), the worn sur-face of NAHS has higher hardness than AAHS. Inversely, at the lownormal load, 30 N, (or 0.38 N/mm2), the worn surface of AAHS hashigher hardness than NAHS.

Fig. 7 shows the changes in the friction coefficient as a func-tion of normal load. In addition, Table 3 represents the averagevalue of friction coefficient after 1000 m sliding in the variousloads. The friction coefficient value is useful to determine thelow or high stress wear conditions [2]. It can be seen that withthe increase of the normal load, the friction coefficient of AAHSincreases, but the friction coefficient of NAHS decreases. This phe-nomenon is similar to the changes of the wear resistance withload and is related to the surface hardness and work hardeningbehavior. When the tests are done at the low stress condition, Al-

Fig. 7. The changes in the friction coefficient as a function of loads for a) NAHS, b)AAHS.

alloyed Hadfield steel has lower friction coefficient than non-Alalloyed.

3.2.1. The low stress wearAt the low stress condition, the work-hardening of worn sur-

faces occurs gently because the amount of plastic strain of surfaceis very low. Consequently, the initial surface hardness and theresilience modulus (or the yield strength for similar metals) of thesteel controls the wear rate [14,19]. In this wear condition, the fric-tional wear occurs more often than shearing wear [19]. Thus, NAHShas higher friction coefficient at 30 N as it can be seen in Table 3

Fig. 8. The wear pattern on the AAHS and NAHS under 50 N.

206 M. Abbasi et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 202–207

and Fig. 7, because it has lower initial hardness and yield strengththan AAHS. Therefore, the weight loss of NAHS is more than that ofAAHS.

Fig. 8 shows the wear patterns on the AAHS and NAHS at 50 N.The microscopy studies indicate that the wear pattern of AAHS isanalogous to that of the movement of a boat creating waves onthe water surface when the normal load is low. The energy dissi-pated in the process of deforming the surface is the source of themechanical frictional resistance and the surface waves generatedare the source of frictional noise [19]. This behavior can be egre-giously seen in both experimental alloys when the normal loadis 50 N (or the contact pressure is 0.64 N/mm2). This normal loadis the transition boundary between the low and high stress wearconditions.

The wear pattern at the low stress condition indicates the fric-tion wearing on the surface. In contrast, the worn surface of NAHShas scratches and pitting marks that show the shear deformationof the surface.

It is noticeable that both friction and shear represent resistanceto tangential displacements. In the first case, the traction resistanceis on the surface or “external” to the body. In the case of shear, theresistance is “internal” in the bulk material [20].

3.2.2. The high stress wearAt the high stress wear condition, the plastic deformation of the

worn surface occurs severely. The scratching of the worn surface istoo high that the wear debris is removed with high plastic defor-mations in the first stage of the wearing. After this stage, the wornsurface is work hardened and then wear debris is removed in smallsizes. The worn surface of NAHS can be hardened more than AAHSas it can be observed from Fig. 6, because it has more work harden-ing capacity than AAHS. This figure shows that at 90 N, the surfacehardness of NAHS increases to 502 HV which is more than 2 timesof initial hardness. Whereas at this normal load, the surface hard-ness of AAHS increases to 418 HV that is less than surface hardnessof NAHS at the 90 and 70 N.

According to Table 2 and Fig. 2, a comparison of the work harden-ing capacity of these two alloys shows that NAHS has more capacitythan AAHS. In addition, Hadfield steel has lower hardness and yieldstrength but has higher toughness than AAHS [2]. This propertyof NAHS is due to twinning deformation [9–11,18] and dynamicstrain aging [9–10]. Therefore, the microstructural changes duringthe wearing and work hardening behavior of the metals are impor-tant characters for controlling the wear rate [2,19,20,21] and initialhardness is not merely determine the wear rate at the high stresswear condition [20,22].

Fig. 9. The cumulative weight loss of experimental alloys for various loads andsliding velocities as a function of sliding distance.

Fig. 10. Wear resistance of experimental alloys in the various loads and slidingvelocities as a function of sliding distance.

3.3. The effects of sliding parameters

Figs. 9 and 10 show the cumulative weight loss and wear resis-tance of experimental alloys at the 30 and 50 N loads and 0.25 and

Fig. 11. (a) A SEM image from a wear debris at the initial stage of wear (consider to the deformation marks) and (b) optical microscopy image from wear debris of NAHS.

M. Abbasi et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 202–207 207

0.5 m/s sliding speeds as a function of sliding distance. These slidingfactors are in the range of low stress wear condition.

It is observed that the wear resistances of two alloys increasewith increasing of sliding distance and weigh loss. This is due tohigh work-hardening properties of the steels. At 30 N and 0.25 m/s,AAHS has higher wear resistance than other wear condition andNAHS. In the other words, the lower the wear powers the higherwear resistance of AAHS (wear power is FNVL that FN is normal loadand VL is linear disk velocity). With increasing of normal load andlinear velocity of disk (or wear power), the difference between wearresistance of two alloys are lowered.

In addition it can be seen from Fig. 9 that at 50 N and 0.5 m/s, theinitial weight losses of two alloys are very high but the wear ratedecrease significantly after this stage (after 500 m sliding). This isdue to the initial hardness and yield strength are low. Therefore,wear debris is removed with high plastic deformation at this stage.Fig. 11.a shows the wear debris at the initial stage of wear processthat the deformation marks are obvious on it. After initial stage, theworn surface is hardened and then wear debris is removed in lowersize Fig. 11.b.

4. Conclusion

The evaluation of mechanical and abrasive wear behavior of Al-alloyed Hadfield steel (AAHS) compared to non-Al alloyed Hadfieldsteel (NAHS) has demonstrated the following findings:

1. Al addition has significant effect on the tensile properties andwear behaviors of Hadfield steel. Al addition improves the yieldstrength and initial hardness but decreases the ultimate tensilestrength, elongation and work hardening capacity at the fracture.

2. In the abrasive wear studies of Hadfield steel using the grindingwheel, the boundary between the high stress and the low stressconditions is around at 0.64 N/mm2.

3. At the low stress wear condition, the Al alloyed Hadfield steelhas more resistance than non-Al alloyed Hadfield steel. However,this situation is reversed at the high stress condition.

4. The wear resistance of Hadfield steels increases with the increaseof normal load, while that of AAHS decreases.

5. The weight loss of Hadfield steel in the initial stage of wear isvery high. With increasing of sliding distance and hardening theworn surface, the wear rate decreases significantly.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of IranMinistry of Industries and Mines andthe R&D division of TabarestanSteel Foundry Company.

References

[1] Y.N. Dastur, W.C. Leslie, Mechanism of work hardening in Hadfield manganesesteel, Metallurgical Transaction A 12 (1981) 749–759.

[2] Z. Fucheng, L. Tingquan, A study of friction-induced martensitic transformationfor austenitic manganese steel, Wear 212 (1997) 195–198.

[3] A.Y. Mosbah, D. Wexler, A. Calka, Abrasive wear of WC–FeAl composites, Wear258 (2005) 1337–1341.

[4] W. Yan, L. Fang, K. Sun, Y. Xu, Effect of surface work hardening on wear behav-ior of Hadfield steel, Materials Science and Engineering A 460–461 (2007)542–549.

[5] G.S. Zhang, J.D. Xing, Y.M. Gao, Impact wear resistance of WC/Hadfield steelcomposite and its interfacial characteristics, Wear 260 (2006) 728–734.

[6] ASM Handbook, vol. 1, 10th, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels and HighPerformance Alloys, Section: Austenitic Manganese Steels, 2005.

[7] S.R. Allahkaram, Causes of catastrophic failure of high Mn steel utilized ascrusher overlaying shields, International Journal of Engineering TransactionB 21 (1) (2008) 55–64.

[8] D. Canadinc, H. Sehitoglu, H.J. Maier, The role of dense dislocation wallson the deformation response of aluminum alloyed Hadfield steel polycrys-tals, Materials Science and Engineering A 454-455 (25) (2007) 662–666,April.

[9] D. Canadinc, H. Sehitoglu, H.J. Maier, Y.I. Chumlyakov, Strain hardening behav-ior of aluminum alloyed Hadfield steel single crystals, Acta Materialia 53 (2005)1831–1842.

[10] E.G. Zakahrova, Deformation mechanisms and strain hardening of Hadfieldsteel single crystals alloyed with aluminum”, Doklady Physics 47 (7) (2002)515–517.

[11] M. Abbasi, Sh. Kheirandish, Y. Kharrazi, J. Hejazi, The fracture and plastic defor-mation of aluminum alloyed Hadfield steels, Materials Science and EngineeringA 513–514 (2009) 72–76.

[12] B.K. Zuidema, D.K. Subramanyam, W.C. Leslie, The effect of aluminum on thework hardening and wear resistance of Hadfield manganese steel, MetallurgicalTransaction A 18A (1987) 1629–1639, September.

[13] S.F. Krar, Grinding technology, Cengage Learning (1994).[14] G.W. Stachowiak, A.W. Batchelor, Engineering Tribology, 3rd ed., Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005, p. 493.[15] American Society for Metals, ASM Handbook, 10th, Metallography and

Microstructures, vol. 9, Section: Austenitic Manganese Steel Castings,2004.

[16] G.E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed., Mc Graw-Hill, 1976.[17] E. Bayraktar, F.A. Khalid, C. Levaillant, Deformation and fracture behaviour of

high manganese austenitic steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology147 (2004) 145–154.

[18] I. Karaman, H. Sehitoglu, A.J. Beaudoin, Y.I. Chumlyakov, H.J. Maier, C.N. Tome,Modeling the deformation behavior of Hadfield steel single and polycrystalsdue to twinning and slip, Acta Materialia 48 (2000) 2031–2047.

[19] A.A. Seireg, Friction and Lubrication in Mechanical Design, Marcel Dekker Inc.,USA, 1998, P. 114-115.

[20] G.B. Raymond, Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing, 2nd ed., MarcelDekker Inc., USA, 2004.

[21] D.J. Mills, R.D. Knutsen, An investigation of the Tribological behaviour ofa high-nitrogen Cr–Mn austenitic stainless steel, Wear 215 (1998) 83–90.

[22] M. Abbasi, Sh. Kheirandish, Y. Kharrazi, J. Hejazi, Tribological studies of steelsusing the abrasive wheel, in: International Conference of AMPT, Bahrain,2008.