Wear 250 (2001) 1118

Materials selection to excavator teeth in mining industry

J.E. Fernndez a, , R. Vijande a , R. Tucho a , J. Rodrguez b , A. Martn b
a

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).

relatively good toughness and enough hardness to withstand

abrasive factors. Weldability is an additional property to be
considered in the selection of the base material in order to
allow for easy coating application in those zones exposed to
abrasion [8,9].
Regarding the coating materials, two types are basically
employed for these applications: steel alloys of chromium,
vanadium, niobium and materials formed from a weldable
ferrite matrix containing tungsten carbide of varying shapes
and sizes.
Nowadays, an excavator tooth has to be replaced after
approximately a working week, causing an elevated cost
which represents an important economic factor in the mining
industry.
Unfortunately, the only method that ensures a right evaluation of the component performance is to carry out real field
test, which is a very tedious and expensive procedure.
This work is a result of a research project of the University of Oviedo and the Spanish company ENDESA, with
the main objective of comparing laboratory tests of abrasive
resistance and real field tests to select the most appropriate
materials for using as protective coatings in the excavator
teeth. If the result is positive, the laboratory tests could be
used as a less expensive method to determine the wear performance of the coating under real working conditions.
With this in mind, a two stage research plan was carried
out. Firstly, to carry out an abrasion test program in the
laboratory by using a standard testing machine. The standard
testing method for abrasion ASTM G105-89 (standard test
method for conducting wet sand/rubber wheel abrasion tests)

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

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

Table 1
Abrasive used

Table 3
Macro hardness (HRC)a

Grains size (mm)

Percentage

>0.7
0.70.3
0.30.18
<0.18

2.5
77.5
15.0
5.0

was selected, using as main elements wet sand (Table 1)

and a rubber wheel. Secondly, when the laboratory tests had
been finished, a further test program was carried out in an
opencast mine. The materials were tested in real working
conditions and the results of both experimental programs
were compared.

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

High abrasion resistance

Good performance at high temperatures due to the vanadium presence
Differentiated borides are not present although this element provides a
significant increase in hardness
It should be pointed out that the increase in hardness that is produced
by the presence of dispersed carbides of niobium in front of that of the
chromium carbides which are present in practically all these alloys

MR8
MR9

5.6C20.5Cr6.5Nb <1Si <1Mn

5.7C20.2Cr6.1Nb6.8Mo1.8W

MR14

2.2C7.5Cr1Mo0.9B0.9VMnSi

Manufacturer dates.

The presence of molybdenum and tungsten carbides does not seem to

contribute to a significant increment of hardness, at least at room
temperature, in front of the type of MR5 alloys
Small content in carbon, alloyed with Cr and addition of small
percentages of Mo, B and V

62.1

62.7
62.7

61.5

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

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

Pine-tree crystal hypereutectics

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

Results in wt.% (measurements in laboratory).

The Schimzek abrasiveness coefficient varies from 0.001

to 0.023 which corresponds to low-middle abrasiveness.
However, from time to time, highly abrasive areas exist, especially due to the high content of quartz.

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.

The test time is fixed (4 min 5 s, equivalent to 1000 cycles

at 245 rpm) and it is always the same for the different wheels.
At the end of every period, (3000 cycles, 1000 with each of
the three rubber wheels) loss of weight is measured.
The test samples were prismatic blocks 54 mm long,
20 mm wide and 2024 mm thick. They were cut from steel
plates 120 mm 100 mm 15 mm which were previously
coated according to the process described previously (Section 2). The specimens were cut with a metal cutting saw and
planed to make the coated surface flat and smooth (Fig. 5).
3.2. Laboratory results
In Fig. 6, average weight lost for each material is shown.
The analysis of the experimental results lead to the following comments:

14

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

Fig. 1. Cross-sections showing thickness of the surface layers.

Effect of surface state: Some of the specimens can have

defects due to an inadecuated welding process, having
cavities or other defects, which modify much the performance in the wear tests (see Fig. 5). That is why, at the
beginning, the external part of the surface is grinded to
avoid some of these problems. However, it is possible that
the defect is not discovered till the end of the test.
Effects of adding boron: The addition of boron improves
the hardness of the coating compared with the cast irons
formed exclusively by carbides. The wear resistance is
also enhanced. This is probably due to the higher hardness
of the borides in comparison to the chromium and niobium
carbides.
Effects of adding different components to the CrNb alloys: The addition of other elements does not seem to
increase the hardness, although the presence of tungsten
carbides should have a positive effect in the microhardness of both the eutectic phase and the carbides [9].

Fig. 2. MR3: martensite transformation in main component (SEM 5000).

Fig. 3. MR14: martensite transformation in hypereutectic dendrites (SEM 2000).

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

15

Fig. 4. MR9: hypereutectic carbides (SEM 1000).

Mechanism of wear: The characteristic wear mechanism

of this kind of tests is not clear because the worn surfaces
are very similar in all cases. This is possibly due to the
presence of abrasive particles with varying sizes (from
0 to 0.7 mm). This size distribution causes the smallest
abrasive particles to roll over the test surface, polishing
and smoothing off the edges and marks that had been
produced by the previous wear process stages.
Nevertheless, in Figs. 7 and 8, some indications of this can
be seen, around the defects on the surface. In Fig. 7, there
are marks which correspond to a ploughing and/or cutting
mechanism. In areas where the matrix was weaker or over
subsuperficial discontinuity, cavities are observed. These last
ones are only found in localized areas of wearing, probably
due to the pressure of the biggest abrasive particles, exposing
them to the abrasive attack and consequently, increasing the
material loss.
In the lower part of Fig. 8, a large hole left by a loosened
carbide particle can be seen. This suggests that the softer
material around the tungsten carbide was worn first, the carbide lost its support and was ripped away in agreement with
several authors [10,11].

Fig. 5. Specimen surface planed (specimen 1: before test, without defects;

specimen 2: before test, with defects; specimen 3: the same specimen 1,
after test, some defects during test).

Fig. 6. Average weight lost for each material.

16

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

Fig. 7. Small surface defects which can lead to the formation of holes.

Fig. 8. Removed carbides: hole left by a horizontal carbide when coming

off.

Fig. 9. Bucket wheel of excavator.

each test, with the purpose of distributing the cutting efforts

in the whole bun. All the teeth were coded appropriately in
connection with their position for their later study.
The coating of the teeth was always carried out by the
same operator to minimize as much as possible the imperfections during the coating application. The intensity, fumes,
sparks and other parameters of the welding process were
completely controlled.
The positioning of the teeth in the digger is carried out
based on the simulation software that the company has and
in its experience to optimize the duration of the teeth. Due
to their amount, some of the variables taken into account are
mentioned.
Inputs: Height of support of the arm of the bun; displacement of the support of the arm of the bun regarding the
turning axis of the digger; longitude of the arm of the bun
as far as the turning axis of the bun; displacement of the
center of the bun regarding the axis of the arm of the bun;
angle of deviation of the bun regarding the axis of the arm
of the bun; number of buckets of the bun; average height of
the excavation; average height of the terrace.
Outputs: A graph showing the turning speed from different plans, for each part of the bucket where cutting areas of
the teeth are positioned.

4. Field tests in open cast mine

Initially, the analysis was carried out on 126 teeth (18 of
each material) that were mounted onto the first seven buckets
of a bucket wheel (see Fig. 9) with 20 units. The teeth are
mounted on the bun, with 11.7 m cutting diameter, which
rotates to 4.3 rpm. In Fig. 10, the excavator tooth scheme is
shown.
Three tests were carried out (P1: 75 h 14 min; P2: 96 h
43 min; P3: 146 h 58 min). In each test, six teeth of each
material were mounted consecutively in different buckets
(see Fig. 11), with the purpose of minimizing the position
and deformation effects of the buckets. In the remaining 13
ladles, of the 20 of on wheel, new teeth were mounted, in

Fig. 10. Scheme of one tooth of excavator.

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

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.

Efficiency: deposited/used material ratio (80%).

Projections during the coating (7%).

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

The laboratoryfield duration correlation: 0.85.

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

J.E. Fernandez et al. / Wear 250 (2001) 1118

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

Reference value: MR5.

Produced slags (7%).

Given off gases (1%).
Came off heating (2%).
Welding easiness (3%).

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] D. Dowson, History of Tribology, 2nd Edition, 1998.

[2] J. Neale, Component Failures, Maintenance and Repair: A Tribology
Handbook, 1995.
[3] W. Scotts, Proceedings of the International Conference on Tribology
in Mineral Extraction, Nottingham, 1984.
[4] J. Tylczak, Abrasive Wear, ASM Handbook, Vol. 18, Materials Park,
OH, USA, 1992, pp. 184190.
[5] R.C.D. Richardson, Wear of metals by hard abrasives, Wear 10
(1967) 291309.
[6] R.C.D. Richardson, Wear of metals by relatively soft abrasives, Wear
11 245275.
[7] D.L. Olson, C.E. Cross, Friction and Wear in the Mining and Mineral
Industries, ASTM Handbook, Vol. 18, Center for Welding and Joining
Research, Colorado School of Mines, USA, pp. 649655.
[8] J.A. Williams, Eng. Tribol. 1994.
[9] M. Sholl, R. Devanathan, P. Clayton, Abrasive and dry sliding wear
resistance of FeMoNiSi and FeMoNiSiC weld hardfacing
alloys, Wear 135 (1990) 355368.
[10] J.H. Tylczak, ASM Handbook, Vol. 18, 1995, pp. 184190.
[11] K.H. Zum Gahr, Microstructure and Wear of Materials, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1987.

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.