Wear behavior of austenite containing plate steels

Abstract

As a follow up to Wolfram’s Master of Science thesis, samples from the prior work were further investigated. Samples from four steel alloys were selected for investigation, namely AR400F, 9260, Hadfield, and 301 Stainless steels. AR400F is martensitic while the Hadfield and 301 stainless steels are austenitic. The 9260 exhibited a variety of hardness levels and retained austenite contents, achieved by heat treatments, including quench and tempering (Q&T) and quench and partitioning (Q&P). Samples worn by three wear tests, namely Dry Sand/Rubber Wheel (DSRW), impeller tumbler impact abrasion, and Bond abrasion, were examined by optical profilometry. The wear behaviors observed in topography maps were compared to the same in scanning electron microscopy micrographs and both were used to characterize the wear surfaces. Optical profilometry showed that the scratching abrasion present on the wear surface transitioned to gouging abrasion as impact conditions increased (i.e. from DSRW to impeller to Bond abrasion). Optical profilometry roughness measurements were also compared to sample hardness as well as normalized volume loss (NVL) results for each of the three wear tests. The steels displayed a relationship between roughness measurements and observed wear rates for all three categories of wear testing. Nanoindentation was used to investigate local hardness changes adjacent to the wear surface. DSRW samples generally did not exhibit significant work hardening. The austenitic materials exhibited significant hardening under the high impact conditions of the Bond abrasion wear test. Hardening in the Q&P materials was less pronounced. The Q&T microstructures also demonstrated some hardening. Scratch testing was performed on samples at three different loads, as a more systematic approach to determining the scratching abrasion behavior. Wear rates and scratch hardness were calculated from scratch testing results. Certain similarities between wear behavior in scratch testing and DSRW samples were observed. Different microstructures exhibited different scratching behaviors. Martensitic microstructures exhibited chipping and cracking, whereas Q&P microstructures exhibited limited or no chipping. The Q&P samples exhibited more deformation at greater loads and hardness levels than the martensitic microstructures. Austenitic microstructures exhibited significant deformation adjacent to the scratches.