Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Oviedo, E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales, Campus Universitario s/n, Gijn 33203, Spain
b Department of Materials Science, Polytechnic University of Madrid, E.T.S.I. Caminos, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain
Abstract
Hard alloys are normally used as materials for excavators teeth in mining industry. In most cases these alloys do not have enough
anti-wear properties and coatings are employed as a good alternative. The objective of this work is to test the abrasive wear resistance of
several cast irons alloyed with different elements. Laboratory tests based on the ASTM G105-89 standard were compared to tests carried
out under real working conditions of excavator teeth in mines.
The experimental results show an acceptable correspondence between laboratory and field tests. To complete the laboratory research,
hardness and microhardness measurements and optical micrographs were performed to identify the mechanism of wear. As a result of the
experimental work, an economic evaluation of materials was also performed. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Excavator teeth; ASTM G105-89; Mines; Laboratory test; Field test; Alloys
1. Introduction
Abrasive wear produces the premature failure of many
components of the extraction machinery in the mining industry with considerable economic costs [13]. The abrasive
nature of most of the minerals produces a significant wear
in machines that transport or process the raw materials [4].
Under these situations different wear processes are involved
according to the nature of the abrasive material [5,6], the
type of loading and the condition in which the work is carried out.
The direct contact of metallic components with the soil
constituents requires the employment of alloys that have
both good toughness and abrasive resistance. High values
of hardness are also needed in those surfaces over which
the extracted materials move and even harder materials to
manufacture the mineral milling equipment. Due to these
reasons, a careful analysis should be performed to select
appropriate materials in this field [7].
One of the most exposed components to abrasive wear
are the excavator teeth. Materials usually employed to make
these elements are hard alloys that do not always have
enough anti-wear properties [7]. Toothed excavators work
under very complex process with loading and unloading periods, and consequently, the steel to make these components
should be selected applying a balanced criterion between a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-985-1820-08/+34-985-1819-16;
fax: +34-985-1021-50.
E-mail address: director@etsiig.uniovi.es (J.E. Fernandez).
0043-1648/01/$ see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 6 2 4 - X
12
Table 1
Abrasive used
Table 3
Macro hardness (HRC)a
Percentage
>0.7
0.70.3
0.30.18
<0.18
2.5
77.5
15.0
5.0
2. Materials
As it has been mentioned, several types of cast iron were
selected to study their wear properties and performance
under real field conditions. The materials tested and some
characteristics are included in Tables 25. The surface treatment was carried out with a semiautomatic electric welding
machine according to the specifications of voltage and intensity provided by the corresponding manufacturer. The
welding process was performed in two steps: a first layer
was directly applied over the metallic base, but it had a
high percentage of dilution and it was not representative of
the actual composition of the coating material. So a second
layer was applied over the first one avoiding the dilution
problems especially with carbon. It is this second layer that
is really tested (Fig. 1).
Before the abrasive tests, some checks were made to determine other properties. Hardness tests were carried out using a Macromet durometer in the Rockwell C scale (load
150 kg) and microhardness was measured by using a microdurometer Micromet in the Vickers scale (see Tables 3 and
4 as results). The average of the three measurements carried
Material
Average
layer 1
Range
(maxmin)
Average
layer 2
Range
(maxmin)
MR1
MR3
MR4
MR5
MR8
MR9
MR14
57.8
66.4
64.1
58.8
61.6
61.2
64.3
3.0
0.9
2.2
4.9
0.9
4.2
2.1
62.2
64.7
65.6
62.1
62.7
62.7
66.1
0.1
6.7
1.9
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
Measurements in laboratory.
out at the same level for each of the two layers was labeled as
the macrohardness value. To determine the microhardness,
five measurements were done in the matrix and five more in
the carbide phase. Finally, materials were studied with optical microscopy and with scanning electron microscope. For
an example of results see Table 5 and Figs. 24.
With reference to the excavated materials from the mine,
which consist mainly of clays, sands and brown lignite, and
the nonproductive borders at the location that are formed by
palaeozoic material, mainly limes and quartz rocks.
The clays give most problems to the diggers because they
form a hard or very hard floor. The variable simple compression strength goes from 0.05 to 1.8 MPa, although in
some occasions it reaches up to 3.3 MPa. The tensile strength
ranges from 0.08 to 0.35 MPa.
Table 4
Micro hardness
Material
Eutectic
(minmax)
MR1
608633
HV0.05
726878
HV0.2
695876
HV0.3
MR3
MR4
Carbides
1065
HV0.3
1002
HV0.5
Material
Eutectic
(minmax)
Carbides
MR9
537697
HV0.3
10171084
HV0.2
845.5
HV0.05
1045
HV0.2
MR14
Table 2
Selected materials for rehearsalsa
Code
Alloy (%)
Characteristics
Hardness
(HRC)
MR1
MR3
MR4
5C20Cr6Nb
5.3C11Cr6.5Nb6V
4.8C4.9B2Ni1.5Mn0.8Si0.03others
60.8
64.7
65.0
MR5
5.2C22Cr7Nb3others
MR8
MR9
MR14
2.2C7.5Cr1Mo0.9B0.9VMnSi
Manufacturer dates.
62.1
62.7
62.7
61.5
13
Table 5
Chemical composition of different phasesa
Description
Global composition
Dispersed phase
Carbides hypereutectics
Light phase
Dark phase
MR3
MR9
MR14
Element
Composition (%)
Element
Composition (%)
Nb
V
Cr
Fe
11
6
11
70
Mo
V
Cr
Fe
9
1
20
70
Nb
V
89
8
Nb
98
Fe
Cr
V
63
27
10
Fe
Cr
V
W
Mo
46
44
2
1
6
Matrix phase
Eutectic
Fe
Sr
V
Nb
Si
68
9
5
16
1
Fe
Cr
Mo
W
V
Si
71
15
10
2
<1
<1
Fe
Cr
V
Si
91
5
1.5
2.5
Fe
Cr
Mo
89
9
3
Eutectic carbides
Mo
Cr
V
W
Fe
18
25
1
2
53
Thin eutectic
Mo
Cr
Fe
W
34
9
48
9
Ferrite phase
Element
Composition (%)
Fe
V
Cr
93
1
6
Fe
Cr
Si
V
92
5
2
0.5
Cr
Fe
V
Si
8
89
2
1
3. Laboratory tests
3.1. Experimental details
As a laboratory abrasion test, the standard ASTM
G105-89, in which three steel wheels covered by vulcanized
rubber of different shore hardness (50, 60, 70) turn against
the test specimen under a constant normal load (220 N),
was used. The tribological pair is submerged in a mixture
of sand and water.
14
15
16
Fig. 7. Small surface defects which can lead to the formation of holes.
17
Starting from this information, to locate each tooth definitively, the following is kept in mind: the position of the cutting edge, the cutting speed of the tooth, the lateral component of the turning speed in each tooth, the incidence angle
wanted on the trajectory of the material, and the detachment
direction of the material chip.
5. Laboratory and field tests results
In Table 6 material duration, in field and laboratory, and
hardness are shown. The correlation coefficients between
both, duration and hardness of each material in field or laboratory, were calculated. The laboratoryfield duration correlation is quite high (0.85). However, the hardness correlations are very low.
In Fig. 12, the weight accumulated loss of the 21 teeth
(three for each material) is represented, which were used in
the respective positions. It is clear that the position in the
bucket has an influence on the wearing.
For each material, as well as the antiwear performance
(duration), wire characteristics were evaluated. These
include the behavior during the welding process and to which
values (determined by company experts) are linked:
Fig. 11. Disposition of 42 teeth in seven buckets, indicating respective
material name.
Table 6
Materials duration in comparison with MR5, in field and laboratory, and hardness (HRC) of materiala
Material
Duration (% MR5)
Average hardness
Laboratory
MR1
MR3
MR4
MR5
MR8
MR9
MR14
a
Mine
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Minimum
14866
31139
21954
10000
15830
26152
3005
19961
34129
34027
14310
30101
39817
3507
11766
22833
15882
7112
12416
18512
2724
9841
14199
12579
10000
10136
11506
9869
39257
66065
21597
20023
19870
20437
20237
5166
6159
6921
5417
4195
5427
2642
Fig. 12. Correlation between wear rate and tooth position on bucket.
62.2
64.7
65.6
62.1
62.7
62.7
66.1
18
Table 7
Value that the company will assign to each material, taking in to account
duration and wire characteristicsa
Material
Value
MR1
MR3
MR4
MR5
MR8
MR9
MR13
MR14
0.85X
4.2X
3X
X
1.09X
2.1X
3.2X
0.9X
field than in the laboratory; (c) the test time was longer
in the mine than in the laboratory.
5. The abrasive wear resistance is clearly determined by the
quality of the coating process. It was observed how the
surface state could greatly affect the tests results. When
a specimen presented some superficial defects (Fig. 5)
such as small cracks or any other type of discontinuity
(porous, holes, . . . ) the mass losses may be very high.
6. There is an acceptable relation (coefficient of correlation =
0.85) between the laboratory tests and the real life behavior. That is to say, the material that shows a good
field wear performance, also shows it in the laboratory.
This has made it possible to establish an economic valuation, comparing the materials (see Table 7), according
to duration and wire characteristics, which was
priority class objective for the company.
As a result of the previous experimental work, an economic evaluation was performed. Taking into account,
duration and wire characteristics of the reference material MR5, an estimation of the weighted cost of the other
materials has been included in Table 7.
Acknowledgements
6. Conclusions
References
From the experimental work explained above, the following conclusions have been extracted:
1. Cast irons with a low carbon content (MR14) are not the
best choice as abrasion resistance materials.
2. Coatings based on CrNb do not perform very well and
show a high dispersion.
3. As Fig. 6 shows, alloys on the basis of CrNbV (MR3)
and Boron (MR4) have low wear ratios. This fact can
be explained by the hardness increase produced in the
carbides of the alloy as a consequence of the presence of
vanadium and boron.
4. The duration differences regarding the reference material MR5 are much more pronounced in the laboratory
rehearsals than under field conditions. These differences
can be due to: (a) the welding process used in specimens,
which has a material-base volume smaller than the bucket
teeth; (b) the size of the field sample was bigger in the
This investigation was supported by Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologa, Spain, through grants
MAT98-939-C02-01 and 02.