2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2016.01.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of the two-body abrasive wear behaviour of four different ferrous microstructures with similar hardness levels

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Increasing the surface hardness leads to improved wear resistance within the same microstructure, but different microstructures might show very different wear behavior for a given hardness level [1]. A comparison of bainite, pearlite martensite and tempered martensite with similar hardness level (350HV) revealed that multiphase microstructures might show better wear resistance [2]. Commercial 400 HB wear resistant steels also showed different wear behavior in high-stress abrasive testing despite the same hardness grade [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasing the surface hardness leads to improved wear resistance within the same microstructure, but different microstructures might show very different wear behavior for a given hardness level [1]. A comparison of bainite, pearlite martensite and tempered martensite with similar hardness level (350HV) revealed that multiphase microstructures might show better wear resistance [2]. Commercial 400 HB wear resistant steels also showed different wear behavior in high-stress abrasive testing despite the same hardness grade [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical wear may be divided into five categories as: abrasive, erosive, adhesive, chemical and fretting wear [5]. Abrasive wear mainly exists in the transportation, mining and mineral processing industries [5][6][7][8]. The surfaces of components are damaged by heavy impacts and scratching of hard abrasives trapped between the contacting surfaces during the wear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Niobium carbides had not affected on wear resistance because their size was much smaller than the silicon carbide and they were torn off together with the matrix as shown in figures 8 a and c. In Figure 8d it can be seen how the damage on the surface had increased, the SiC penetrated being embedded in the welded material. This would be related to the higher presence of α−Fe as inter-network phase 30 indicated in figure 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The samples with low heat input (L7) formed by eutectic structure with dendrites inter-network of α−Fe phased didn't shown scratch resistance producing an excessive plastic deformation and weight loss. However, when matrix consisted on eutectic carboborides with cluster of α-Fe or needles of M 7 BC 3 (L3) there was observed resistance to cutting and lower ductility at the matrix-carboboride interface which produced the beginning of failure 30 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%