4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of carbide fraction and matrix microstructure on the wear of cast iron balls tested in a laboratory ball mill

期刊

WEAR
卷 250, 期 -, 页码 492-501

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(01)00664-0

关键词

white cast iron; ball mill test; wear mechanisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of carbide volume fraction from 13 to 41 % on the wear resistance of high chromium cast irons was evaluated by means of ball mill testing. Martensitic, pearlitic and austenitic matrices were evaluated. The 50-mm diameter balls were tested simultaneously in a 40 cm diameter ball mill. Hematite, phosphate rock and quartz sand were wet ground. The tests were conducted for 200 h. Quartz sand caused the highest wear rates, ranging from 6.5 to 8.6 mum/h for the martensitic balls, while the wear rates observed for the phosphate rock ranged from 1.4 to 2.9 mum/h. Increasing the carbide volume fraction resulted in decreased wear rates for the softer abrasives. The almost complete protection of the matrix by carbides in eutectic microstructures caused the eutectic alloy to present the best performance against hematite or phosphate rock. The opposite effect was observed for the quartz sand. The quartz abrasive rapidly wears out the matrix, continuously exposing and breaking carbide branches. A martensitic steel presented the best performance against the quartz abrasive. With phosphate rock, the wear rate of 30% carbide cast irons increased from 1.46 to 2.84 and to 6.39 mum/h as the matrix changed, respectively. from martensitic to austenitic and to pearlitic. Wear profiles of worn balls showed that non-martensitic balls presented deep subsurface carbide cracking, due to matrix deformation. Similar behavior was observed in the tests with the other abrasives. In pin-on-disc tests, austenitic samples performed better than the martensitic ones. This result shows that pin tests in the presence of retained austenite can be misleading. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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