4.7 Article

Two-body abrasion resistance of high-carbon high-silicon steel: Metastable austenite vs nanostructured bainite

期刊

WEAR
卷 418, 期 -, 页码 24-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2018.11.003

关键词

Two-body abrasion; Metastable austenite; Nanobainite; Mechanically-induced martensite transformation; Work-hardening; Wear rate

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine [0117U002270]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current study, a high-carbon, high-silicon steel (1.21 wt% C, 2.56 wt% Mn, 1.59 wt% Si) was subjected to different heat treatments ((a) quenching from 800-1000 degrees C; (b) quenching from 800-1000 degrees C with further bainitizing at 250 degrees C for 8 days), resulting in microstructures consisting (a) of austenite and martensite (up to 94 vol % austenite) or (b) of austenite, nanobainite, and tempered martensite (up to 39 vol% nanobainite). The work is carried out using SEM, XRD, microhardness measurement, surface profile characterization, and two-body abrasion testing. It was found that steel wear behaviour is strongly dependent on austenite volume fraction and its metastability to mechanically-induced martensite transformation under wear. Austenite enrichment with carbon (upon carbides dissolution or bainite transformation) inhibits mechanically-induced transformation leading to decrease in microhardness increment after wear test and to an increase in wear rate. Specimens asquenched from 900-1000 degrees C are found to have the highest wear resistance. This is attributed to the higher metastability of the retained austenite of these specimens. Nanobainite-containing specimens exhibit suppressed TRIP-effect under abrasion. The specimens containing 60-94 vol% of metastable austenite are by 1.5-1.8 times more wear resistant compared with the specimens consisting of 10-39 vol% nanobainite and 49-55 vol% of more stable austenite. Also, the relationship between wear behaviour and surface profile of the worn specimens is discussed.

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