4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Abrasive wear study of white cast iron with different solidification rates

期刊

WEAR
卷 267, 期 11, 页码 2116-2121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2009.08.010

关键词

Solidification rate; Abrasive wear; White cast iron; Austenitic matrix; Martensitic matrix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The abrasive wear resistance of white cast iron was studied. The iron was solidified using two solidification rates of 1.5 and 15 degrees C/s. Mass loss was evaluated with tests of the type pin on abrasive disc using alumina of different sizes. Two matrices were tested: one predominantly austenitic and the other predominantly martensitic, containing M3C carbides. Samples with cooling rate of 15 degrees C/s showed higher hardness and more refined microstructure compared with those solidified at 1.5 degrees C/s. During the test, the movement of successive abrasives gave rise to the strain hardening of the austenite phase, leading to the attainment of similar levels of surface hardness, which explains why the wear rate showed no difference compared to the austenite samples with different solidification rates. For the austenitic matrix the wear rate seems to depend on the hardness of the worn surface and not on the hardness of the material without deformation. The austenitic samples showed cracking and fracture of M3C carbides. For the predominantly martensitic matrix, the wear rate was higher at the solidification rate of 1.5 degrees C/s, for grain size of 66 and 93 mu m. Higher abrasive sizes were found to produce greater penetration and strain hardening of austenitic matrices. However, martensitic iron produces more microcutting, increasing the wear rate of the material. The analysis of the worn surface by scanning electron microscopy indicated abrasive wear mechanisms such as: microcutting, microfatigue and microploughing. Yet, for the iron of austenitic matrix, the microploughing mechanism was more severe. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据