Wear 225–229 Ž1999.

1059–1069

A comparison of laboratory abrasion and field wear results

Joe H. Tylczak ) , Jeffery A. Hawk, Rick D. Wilson
US Department of Energy, Albany Research Center, 1450 Queen AÕenue SW, Albany, OR 97321, USA

Abstract

In the ongoing battle on wear, laboratory tests have been one tool used to evaluate and model the process of wear. A second, less
commonly used tool is field wear testing. Field wear testing, while being more time-consuming, has the advantage that the materials are
exposed to the actual environmental conditions and abrasives responsible for the wear loss. This paper examines four different abrasive
wear tests Žpin-on-drum, dry-sand rubber-wheel, jaw crusher, and impeller-in-drum., and compares the results obtained from these tests
with field wear tests using the Albany Research Center’s Planar Array Field wear test. A variety of ferrous-based alloys commonly used
to resist abrasion in the mineral processing industry were tested, including carbon steels, low alloy steels, austenitic steels, and white cast
iron. q 1999 Published by Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Abrasion; Field wear testing; Laboratory wear testing; Steel

1. Introduction specific sitertest conditions. Temperature, humidity, ve-

Wear, and abrasive wear in particular, is an ongoing
expense in many industries. Dozens of laboratory wear
tests have been developed to model specific wear prob-
lems, or conditions, with varying degrees of success. The
problem with using laboratory wear tests tends to be the
inability of these tests to accurately and completely model
the conditions found in the field, or the fear that the
laboratory test does not adequately model the conditions
found in the field. The lack of faith in laboratory wear tests
can lead to the field wear testing of materials, which are
used to predict the component’s lifetime. A poorly de-
signed field wear test is fraught with the hazards of
spending considerable time and expense in testing a mate-
rial, only to find out that it is unsuitable for the task at
hand. However, a well-designed field wear test can be a
valuable source of data and insight. The Albany Research
Center ŽARC. has conducted numerous field and labora-
tory wear tests w1–3x.
Field wear tests are notoriously expensive, time-con-
suming, invasive, and difficult to control andror quantify.
In addition, before generalizations can be made as to the
wear rate and mechanisms, multiple tests need to be
conducted at numerous sites to mitigate the impact of
)
C orresponding author. Fax: q 1-5419675845;
tylczak@alrc.doe.gov
locity, abrasive particle size and type, ore characteristics,
etc., can influence abrasive wear and limit the analytical
value of a specific field test. Despite these disadvantages,
however, field wear tests have played a critical role in
wear research w4x.
Because the goal of wear research is to understand and
reduce field wear, all test datarconclusions must reflect
real world conditions. Considerable effort has been put
into the design of laboratory wear tests, trying to make
them simulate some ‘real’ condition, such as the impact-
abrasion of ore impact hammers, the abrasion of wire
ropes used in draglines and the wear associated with
scraper and bulldozer blades. Classifications such as two-
body and three-body, high- and low-stress conditions have
been developed over the years to describe abrasion pro-
cesses in order facilitate meaningful discussion w5x. Conse-
quently, laboratory wear tests have an advantage over field
wear tests relative to time and cost issues, but there is
always the risk that they and their resulting data will not
correlate sufficiently well with the performance of a mate-
rial in real world conditions. If the wear mechanisms
documented in a laboratory wear test do not replicate those
found under field wear conditions, the test would be
useless in predicting the wear behavior.
Finding statistical correlations between field and labora-
tory test data would have a significant impact on the
e-m ail: design of future research programs. Therefore, the Albany
Research Center has conducted two field tests and four

0043-1648r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Published by Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 Ž 9 9 . 0 0 0 4 3 - 5
1060 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069

laboratory wear tests to determine if such corollary rela- 2. Experimental procedures

tionships exist. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to
compare the wear in field conditions for a suite of ferrous-
based alloys to the wear of the same alloys tested in the
laboratory. For the purposes of this paper, the planar array
field wear test ŽPAFWT., shown in Fig. 1, was used. The
PAFWT w1x has been successfully used in the past to
screen and rank a standard suite of wear resistant alloys.
The laboratory wear tests used in this study include ASTM
G 65, dry-sand rubber-wheel abrasion test ŽDSRW. w6x;
ARC developed pin-on-drum abrasive wear test ŽPOD. w7x;
ARC’s variation of the jaw crusher gouging wear test ŽJC.
w8x; and ARC version of the impeller-in-drum impact
abrasive wear test ŽIW. w9x.
2.1. Planar array field wear test
The specimen wear test plate used in PAFWT is shown
in schematic form in Fig. 1. The PAFWT steel plate,
typically 280 = 330 = 20 mm, with two dovetail grooves
for the individual wear test specimens to reside is inserted
into an ore stream in a crushing–grinding facility. The
PAFWT plate replaces a solid metal wear plate somewhere
in the ore conveyance system and allows rock and mineral
of different sizes to either pass directly over the plate, slide
against it, or impact it at different velocities, angles, and
stress levels.

Fig. 1. Specimen configuration used in the PAFWT.

 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069 1061

Test specimens of the wear resistant ferrous-based al-
loys Ži.e., commercially available wear resistant steels. and
standard reference specimens Ži.e., generic irons and steels
like AISI 4340. are inserted into the grooves in an alternat-
ing fashion prior to installation of the plate in the
crushing-grinding facility ŽTable 1 contains a summary of
the alloys with chemistries, densities and hardnesses.. This
arrangement of test and standard specimens allows the
simultaneous testing of a large number of test specimens.
The specimen configuration also allows for the correction
of any local gradients in wear intensity across the face of
the plate as a result of the flow of mineral and rock against
the plate. For example, if all of the standard reference
specimens Ži.e., hardened AISI 4340. exhibit identical
wear, the wear of the plate would be uniform and no
corrections would need be made. However, in most cases,
given the orientation of the plate in the facility Že.g., as a
sidewall., wear is non-uniform from top to bottom, and
some correction will have to be made at a local level.
A previously developed equation w10x was used to cor-
rect for these local wear gradients. The wear on the
standard reference specimens adjacent to each test speci-
men indicates the intensity of the wear gradient on that
section of the plate. The ratio of the mean wear of all
standard reference specimens to the observed mean wear
of the adjacent standard reference specimens is taken as
the correction factor. The corrected wear depth d c is
calculated for each test specimen according to the follow-
ing equation
dR
dc s d
d RA
where d is the wear depth of the test specimen calculated
from mass change measurements, d R is the mean wear
depth of all standard reference specimens, and d RA is the
mean wear depth of the two standard reference specimens
adjacent to the test specimen.
The wear depth d of each specimen was determined
from the mass loss Žmeasured to "0.01 g., density Žmea-
sured to three significant figures., and mean wear surface
area Ždimensions measured before and after the test in
several places and averaged to "0.01 mm.. Prior to any
measurements, the specimens were degreased, scrubbed
with a bristle brush, ultrasonically cleaned in soapy water,
rinsed with water, rinsed with alcohol, and blown dry with
a warm air stream.
For the PAFWT experiments, specimens were nomi-
nally 25 = 75 = 12 mm, with the 25 = 75 mm surface of

Table 1
Test materials composition and hardness
Specimen number Common designation Composition Density Hardness
C Cr Mn Mo Ni Žgrcm3 . ŽHB.

Carbon steels
W93 AISI 1060 0.50 – 0.53 – 0.13 7.76 673
W375 Commercial steel a 0.15 0.02 1.50 0.05 0.10 7.85 368
W376 Commercial steel 0.25 0.02 1.50 0.05 0.10 7.84 409
W377 Commercial steel 0.31 0.02 1.50 0.05 0.10 7.82 509
W378 Commercial steel 0.26 0.02 1.50 0.05 0.10 7.78 392
W379 Commercial steel 0.14 0.02 1.50 0.05 0.10 7.81 469

Low alloy steels

W184 A514 type B steel 0.14 0.50 1.33 0.23 0.20 7.83 264
W198 REM 500 0.33 0.98 0.61 0.20 0.14 7.81 473
W311 AISI 4340 steel 0.40 0.76 0.73 0.30 1.80 7.81 515
W314 AISI 52100 steel 1.04 1.47 0.36 0.04 0.13 7.81 635
W367 Commercial steel 0.32 1.40 0.26 0.35 3.42 7.85 415
W368 Commercial steel 0.34 1.40 0.26 0.35 3.42 7.83 514
W369 Commercial steel 0.26 1.48 0.90 0.30 3.44 7.84 461
W370 Commercial steel 0.22 1.48 0.90 0.30 3.44 7.85 425
W371 Commercial steel 0.20 1.24 1.11 0.49 1.43 7.84 444
W372 Commercial steel 0.25 1.24 1.11 0.49 1.43 7.84 448
W373 Commercial steel 0.33 0.29 2.47 0.16 0.80 7.84 437
W374 Commercial steel 0.19 0.53 0.97 0.20 0.10 7.85 387

High alloy steels and cast irons

W313 D2 tool steel 1.60 13.70 0.45 0.83 0.19 7.67 597
W299F 17% Cr white iron 3.19 15.30 0.76 1.02 0.50 7.64 709

Austenitic steels and stainless steels

W316 304 SS – 18.90 2.38 0.30 8.00 7.90 156
W315 13% Mn steel 1.12 0.44 12.80 0.10 0.20 7.86 224
a
Commercially available wear resistant alloy steels.
1062 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069
the wear specimen exposed to the sliding and scratching of
the moving ore and rock Žsee Section 2.2 for further
details.. Test specimens were selected at random to fill
each dovetailed groove in the PAFWT plate.
2.2. Field wear test sites
The PAFWT plate was run at the Asarco Troy mine in
Troy, Montana. This is a goldrsilver mine with the ore
consisting of chert. The test plate was installed for a period
of 52 days, during which time a total of 225,000 tons of
ore passed over its surface at a velocity of ; 0.1 mrs. The
ore from this mine was moist with a neutral pH. The ore
ranged in size from 50 to 1000 mm and was angular in
geometry.
The second PAFWT plate was run at Vulcan Materials
in Helena, AL. In this particular case, a limestone quarry
was selected because its mildly abrasive environment would
give different wear rates compared to those of the Asarco
Troy mine. This test plate was installed for a period of 274
days, during which time a total of 200,000 tons of ore
passed over the specimens. The velocity of the ore passing
over the samples was ; 3 mrs. The crushed limestone
was dry Žalthough the relative humidity was high., ranged
in size from 20 to 30 mm, and was angular in shape.
2.3. Laboratory wear tests
Four laboratory wear tests were used to generate data
on the abrasive wear rates of the tests specimens. This
information was gathered to see if any of the field wear
test data followed trends which could be described by the
laboratory wear tests.
The first laboratory wear test was conducted using the
pin-on-drum w7x, which was specifically designed by Blick-
ensderfer et al. to simulate two-body abrasive wear w8x.
The pin-on-drum abrasive wear test involves high-stress,
two-body abrasive wear. One end of a cylindrical pin
specimen is moved over an abrasive paper, abrading mate-
rial from the specimen and crushing the fixed abrasive
grains of the abrasive paper in the process. The wear is
believed to simulate grinding abrasion that occurs during
the crushing and grinding of ore in ball mills.
In this test, a rotating 6.35 mm test pin is pressed
against f 500 mm drum with a load of 66.7 N. The drum
is covered with an abrasive cloth, in this case a 150 mesh
garnet Žnominal particle size of 100 mm.. The drum is then
rotated and the pin translated down the axis of the drum
Žin a helical fashion. so fresh abrasive is constantly en-
countered. The test duration is selected to achieve at least
40 mg of specimen mass loss. The mass loss is then
converted into a volume loss per unit distance traversed on
the abrasive, i.e., mm3rm. A more detailed description of
the test apparatus is contained in Laboratory Wear Testing
Capabilities of the Bureau of Mines w8x.
The second laboratory wear test was conducted using
the dry-sand rubber-wheel abrasion test. This test simulates
low-stress, three-body abrasive wear. This type of wear
occurs in the mining industry in linkages, pivot pins, and
wire ropes, which suffer slow wear from the sliding and
rolling action of abrasive fragments of rock and ore trapped
between metal surfaces. This test became an ASTM stan-
dard in 1980 and has become the most popular abrasive
wear test in the United States.
This test consists of a rubber wheel f 228 mm = 12.7
mm thick, that turns at 200 rpm. A curtain of 50r70 mesh
Ž300r200 mm nominal particle size. rounded silica sand
flows between the rubber wheel and the rectangular test
specimen, 25 = 75 = 12 mm. The specimen is held against
the rubber wheel using a lever arm with a force of 130 N.
The duration of the test is equal to a distance of 1436 m
ŽProcedure B.. A more detailed description of the test
apparatus is contained in ASTM G65-95 w6x and Labora-
tory Wear Testing Capabilities of the Bureau of Mines w8x.
The wear rate is given as a volume loss per unit distance
Žmm3rm., where the abrasion distance is equal to the
lineal distance traversed by the rubber wheel during the
test.
The third laboratory wear test was the jaw crusher
gouging-abrasion test w11x. This test simulates a type of
high-stress wear that may be produced by either two-body
or three-body conditions, where the mineral is pressed into
the surface of the metal with stresses high enough to
remove large chunks of material. The jaws used to crush
the rock are taken as the test specimen. Several investiga-
tors believe that the jaw crusher test gives the best correla-
tion to wear that occurs on earth-penetrating equipment,
such as excavator teeth, power shovel buckets, scoops, and
grader blades, as well as real jaw crusher wear.
The jaw crusher used in these tests is smaller than the
one described in Ref. w9x, and consists of 50 mm wide jaws
that has been stiffened and rebuilt to provide precision
wear results. This apparatus uses specimen similar in size
and shape to the DSRW test, with the addition of tapered
ends to hold them in place during the test. A more detailed
description of the test apparatus is contained in Laboratory
Wear Testing Capabilities of the Bureau of Mines w8x.
Subsequently, the test has been modified to use rock of
different types, varying in quantity, and to report wear as
the actual volume loss per unit mass of rock crushed
instead of as a ratio Ži.e., in mm3rkg.. The test now uses a
coarse, angular, high-silica quartzite rock with a diameter
of f 25.4 mm as the standard Žalthough other ores can and
have been used—e.g., limestone, granite, river rock, etc..
For each jaw crusher run, two test materials, for a total of
four wear plates-two of each specimen, are run. The test is
set up so one specimen of each test material is positioned
in the movable jaw and one is positioned in the stationary
jaw, with test material ‘A’ facing test material ‘B’. Speci-
mens A and B are selected so they are approximately of
the same hardness. After running 11.4 kg of high-silica
 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069
quartzite through the jaws, the A and B specimens are
weighed to determine the mass loss, then the positions of
the specimens are reversed Ži.e., the ones in the movable
jaw are placed in the stationary jaw and vice versa. for a
second test. An additional 11.4 kg of high-silica quartzite
is crushed and the specimens are once again weighed. The
wear rate is thus the average mass loss from the two tests.
The fourth laboratory test used was the ARC developed
impeller-in-drum wear test w9x. This test develops high-
stresses from high velocity impacts against the surface of
the specimen, and is considered an open two-body test.
This test simulates the movement and handling of loose
ores and rock that are common during manipulation and
transport. This laboratory test also has a great advantage in
that a variety of ores can be used in it.
The general test procedure for the impeller-tumbler
starts with sizing the ore in the range of y25 mm to q19
mm. After this step, 600 g of ore is measured and the
number of particles that make up the charge is counted.
Typically, for 600 g of high silica quartzite, the number of
particles range from 38 to 44. The 600 g charge is then
loaded into the impeller and the cover is closed. The drum
and impeller are then set into motion. This marks the
beginning of the first of two 1-h tests. The speed of the
impeller is adjusted to 620 " 5 rpm for the first 15-min
interval. After the first 15-min test interval has elapsed, the
test is stopped, the cover is removed and the ore is
collected. A fresh 600 g charge of ore is then placed in the
drum and the procedure is repeated for a second 15-min
interval. This is done twice more, for a total running time
of 1 h. The amount of ore passed through the system is 2.4
kg. After the four 15-min tests, the samples are removed,
thoroughly cleaned and then warm-air-dried. They are
weighed to the nearest tenth of a milligram to determine
the mass loss. The specimen is then reversed and a dupli-
cate series of four 15-min tests is run. The results of the
two series of tests are averaged and the standard deviation
is calculated. The wear rate is given in terms of the volume
of material removed in 1 h and for comminuting 2.4 kg of
rock Žmm3rkg h..
3. Materials
The materials used in this investigation are shown in
Table 1. A total of 22 alloys were used is this study, but
not all the materials were used in every test. The materials
belong to four general classes of iron-based alloys. The
first class consisted of hardened, low to medium, carbon
steels. These alloys ranged in hardness from HB 368 to
673. The second class of alloys consisted of low alloy
steels. These ranged in hardness from HB 425 to 635. A
third class of alloys were austenitic steels, consisting of a
13% Mn steel and 304 stainless steel. These two steels had
initial pre-test hardnesses of HB 224 and 156, respectively.
1063
The last class of alloys were high-chromium high-carbon
alloys, consisting of large chromium carbides in a marten-
sitic matrix. These alloys included a 17% Cr white iron
and a D2 tool steel with hardnesses of HB 709 and 597,
respectively.
Several of the tests depend on reference specimens to
correct for otherwise uncontrollable changes in abrasive
conditions, such as changes in wear intensity in the PAFWT
as a result of position in the plate with respect to the
abrasive and differences in the abrasive type, and for
changes in the abrasiveness of the garnet paper used in the
POD that result from using different lots. The reference
specimens for the PAFWT were made of AISI 4340 steel,
hardened to 515 " 6 HB. The reference specimens for the
POD test were made of ASTM A514 type B steel with a
hardness of 269 HB.
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 2 shows the results of POD wear testing with the
wear rate plotted as a function of material hardness ŽHard-
ness in this case is the pre-test hardness of the alloys.. This
figure generally shows the classic correlation of decreasing
wear rate with increasing alloy hardness, with the general
exceptions being the austenitic 13% Mn steel and the 304
SS, which showed lower wear rates than their hardnesses
would seem to indicate ŽPrevious studies have shown that
work-hardening during wear testing increases the hardness
of the wear surface w9x.. A line of best fit was constructed
for the alloys used in the POD test minus the two austenitic
alloys. The equation for this line was: wear rate POD s
1.667 y 0.0018ŽHB.. The correlation Ž r 2 . between wear
rate and Brinell hardness was 0.82. For the POD wear test
the highest wear rate was exhibited by the softest of the
low alloy steels, i.e., the A514 type B steel ŽW184.. The
alloy with the lowest wear rate was also the hardest
material, the 17% Cr white cast iron ŽW299F..
Fig. 3 shows the results for the DSRW test, where the
wear rate is plotted as a function of Brinell hardness. A
general trend of decreasing wear rate with increasing
hardness is observed. A line of best fit was also con-
structed for this data set minus the data point for the 13%
Mn steel ŽW315.. The equation for the line in this case
was: wear rate DSRW s 0.148 y 0.0002ŽHB.. Correlation
between the wear rate and Brinell hardness was 0.92. The
13% Mn steel ŽW315. again had a much lower wear rate
than its hardness would indicate. For the case of the
DSRW wear test, the lower stress was not enough to
workharden the 304SS ŽW316. which had a wear rate that
coincided well with the other data. The two alloys with the
large volume fractions of chromium-based carbides had
the lowest wear rates, i.e., the 17% Cr white cast iron
ŽW299F. —lowest and the D2 tool steel ŽW313. —next
lowest.
1064 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069

Fig. 2. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for the POD laboratory wear test. 100 mm garnet particles were used as the abrasive. Normal
load was 66.7 N.

Fig. 4 shows the results for the JC gouging–abrasion
wear test where the wear rate is plotted vs. alloy hardness.
The JC wear data are not as well behaved as either the
POD and DSRW, and the trend of decreasing wear rate
with increasing hardness is not clearly defined, especially
for the alloys with carbide phases ŽW299F and W313..
Microscopic observations of the alloys with carbide phases
show that these phases are fractured during JC testing, and
as a result, are more prone to removal during the abrasion
part of the process. This leads to higher wear rates for
these materials than for cases of pure abrasion described in
Figs. 2 and 3. For the alloys tested in this study, there was
no linear relationship between wear rate and Brinell hard-
ness. However, in fitting various equations to the data set,
an exponential equation of the general form: y s a q b
expŽyxrc ., described the general trend of the data, al-
though correlation between wear rate and hardness was not
very good Ž0.64.. This may not be a statistically appropri-
ate approach since only three data points are available at
the lower hardness values. More data points are needed to

Fig. 3. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for the DSRW laboratory wear test. 200–300 mm rounded silica particles were used as the
abrasive. Normal load was 130 N.
 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069 1065

Fig. 4. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for the JC laboratory wear test. 25–35 mm high silica quartzite were used as the abrasive.

verify the validity of the trend described by the exponen-
tial equation, or to dismiss it as an artifact of the materials
tested in this study.
In general, the low alloy steels Žsee Table 1. performed
well relative to the austenitic steels and carbide reinforced
alloys. Also, the 13% Mn steel ŽW315. performed well
given its relatively low hardness Žas it did in the other
wear tests., but not significantly better than the low alloy
steels. It is suspected that the nature of the JC test, i.e.,
high-stress, gouging–abrasion, does not allow the 13% Mn
steel’s surface to significantly workharden before material
is worn away Žfor high silica quartzite only w9x.. In addi-
tion, the stresses appear to be too high for the chromium
carbide phases to remain intact as a result of the gouging-
abrasion. As a result of the test conditions, they fracture
during the high-stress gouging phase of the wear process
and are easily removed from the surrounding matrix during
the abrasion phase, leading to a higher wear rate than
would be expected given their hardness. These carbide
reinforced materials do not provide any real advantage in

Fig. 5. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for the Impeller-in-drum laboratory wear test. 19–25 mm high silica quartzite particles were
used as the abrasive.
1066 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069

Fig. 6. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for Plate 22 used in the PAFWT at the Asarco Troy Mine in Troy, MT. A chert ore served as
the abrasive.

gouging–abrasion environments. For this test and this suite
of materials, the best wear rate was exhibited by alloys
W367 and W368 with 0.3% C and 1.4% Cr.
Fig. 5 shows the results for the impeller-in-drum wear.
For the materials tested in this study, there is no correla-
tion between wear rate and Brinell hardness ŽOther data
indicate that wear rate decreases with increasing material
hardness w9x.. With the exception of the two austenitic
alloys ŽW315 and W316. which significantly work-harden
during impact-abrasion testing w9x, and have lower than
expected wear rates, a trend of decreasing wear, albeit a
very minor trend because of the scatter in the data, with
increasing hardness is seen. In general, the carbide rein-
forced materials perform well as do the 13% austenitic Mn
steel ŽW315. and the ASTM A514 low alloy steel ŽW184..
One way in which impeller-in-drum data can be used is in
conjunction with test data from the other laboratory tests.
In this way, if a material performs well in another setting
Žscratching or grinding abrasion., but does not perform
well Žrelative to other alloys. in the impeller-in-drum test,
this would be known and substitute materials could be
selected that do perform well in all environments. So this

Fig. 7. Graph of wear rate as a function of Brinell hardness for Plate 20 used in the PAFWT at Vulcan Materials in Helena, AL. A limestone ore served as
the abrasive.
 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069 1067

Fig. 8. Correlation between the normalized wear rate using the DSRW vs. the normalized wear rate for the PAFWT Plate 20.

particular test may not work well as a predictive instru-
ment, but may provide insight into how a specific material
will do under the combined action of impact and abrasion.
Fig. 6 shows results for the first field test Žplate 22.,
conducted with the hard chert ore. The chert was generally
non-rotating as it passed over the surface of the test plate,
thereby providing a scratching action against the samples
in the PAFWT plate. This figure possesses the general
appearance of both Figs. 2 and 3, i.e., the laboratory tests
corresponding to pure abrasion. Fig. 6 shows that for the
nine alloys exposed to this environment, the wear rate
decreased in a linear fashion with increasing alloy hard-
ness. The equation of the line that fit the data was: wear
rate plate 22 s 7.167 y 0.0063 ŽHB.. Correlation Ž r 2 . be-
tween wear rate and hardness was equal to 0.76. Like the
DSRW wear test results, the austenitic 304 SS ŽW316. had
the highest wear rate while the 17% Cr white iron had the
lowest one ŽW299F.. This feature suggests that any differ-
ence in the field wear test conditions, such as the ore
moisture, ore velocity Ži.e., the ore traveled at a much
slower speed y0.1 msy1 . and ore size Ži.e., relatively
large chunks between 50 and 1000 mm., was not as
significant a factor as test similarities, such as a non-rotat-
ing abrasive and a unidirectional sliding motion.

Fig. 9. Correlation between the normalized wear rate using the POD vs. the normalized wear rate for the PAFWT Plate 20.
1068 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069
Fig. 7 shows the result for the second field test Žplate
20., conducted with a much softer mineral Žlimestone.
sliding and tumbling over the surface of the test plate. The
wear rate is plotted as a function of alloy hardness and a
curve fit to the data is shown in Fig. 7 Žminus the values
for the austenitic steels.. The best correlation was obtained
for a power law equation of the general form y s ax b.
Correlation between wear rate and hardness was quite
good at 0.91. The two austenitic steels ŽW315 and W316.
once again exhibited wear rates lower than expected given
their hardness, with the 13% Mn steel ŽW315. having a
wear rate equivalent to alloys 250 HB higher. The carbide
containing alloys ŽW299F and W313. had the lowest wear
rates of the materials tested Žwith the D2 tool steel ŽW313.
having the lowest.. Aside from the behavior of the
austenitic steels in sliding abrasion, it is apparent that
hardness played a critical factor in the alloys resisting the
wear of the limestone, with the harder alloys performing
very well. In a general sense, this is what both the POD
and DSRW laboratory wear tests showed.
In order to see if a reasonable correlation exists between
the POD and DSRW laboratory abrasion wear tests and the
results from the PAFWT for Plate 20, the measured wear
rates were normalized to the hardened AISI 4340 steel
ŽW311., i.e., the measured wear rate of the test specimen
was divided by the measured wear rate of the AISI 4340
steel, and the results plotted against each other in Figs. 8
and 9. For each set of data points, i.e., laboratory wear test
corresponding to the y-variable vs. PAFWT corresponding
to the x-variable, a curve of the following form fit the data
well: y s a q be y x . Fig. 8 shows the relationship between
the normalized wear rate for the DSRW and the normal-
ized wear rate for Plate 20 Žlimestone ore in unidirectional
sliding abrasion.. The 304 SS ŽW316. data point was
omitted when determining the curve of best fit for this data
set. This curve describes the relationship between the two
tests quite well Ž r 2 s 0.82.. Fig. 9 shows the relationship
between the normalized wear rate for the POD and the
normalized wear rate for Plate 20. The same equation also
fits the data well Ž r 2 s 0.75.. However, from examination
of the data in these figures, for materials of roughly the
same relative hardness, field wear tests will be needed in
order to discriminate differences in wear behavior.
5. Summary and conclusions
The results of these tests show several things about
laboratory tests and how they compare with field wear
tests. The first feature is the general relationship of the
abrasive wear rate decreasing with hardness in the labora-
tory for both the POD and the DSRW. The same sort of
behavior was observed from the PAFWT. As with most
generalities there are exceptions, both for materials and for
tests. One of the material exceptions was the performance
of the austenitic steels—304 SS ŽW316. and 13% Mn steel
ŽW315.. For example, whenever material removal was due
to the sliding action of abrasive particles, the 13% Mn
steel performed better than expected Žwith respect to its
pre-test hardness.. In the case of JC gouging–abrasion
wear test, the gouging action of the abrasive removed
material so aggressively that the alloy’s ability to
workharden did not help much in reducing the wear rate.
Second, testing showed that for laboratory tests with
similar material removal mechanisms, e.g., sliding abrasive
wear, the DSRW and POD tests showed similar behavior
in wear rate as a function of hardness for the materials
tested in this study. Increased hardness of the alloy kept
the abrasive particles from penetrating too deeply in to the
surface of the material and slowed the rate of material loss.
The alloys with the refractory metal carbides were very
good at protecting the matrix from abrasive particle pene-
tration.
The field wear tests, while in different environments as
far as size and hardness of the abrasive ore is concerned,
showed results similar to that of the POD and DSRW. The
JC gouging–abrasion wear test gave much different re-
sults, primarily because this test produced a different
mechanism of material removal–gouging–abrasion. Much
the same can be said about the results from the impeller-
in-drum wear test. This means that laboratory tests can
provide a good measure of the relative wear behavior of a
material, if the laboratory and field wear tests exhibit
similar wear mechanisms. For other environments, if you
want to predict wear behavior, a laboratory test that simu-
lates the environment must be used, e.g., in applications
where gouging–abrasion is a significant material removal
mechanism, a jaw crusher-type laboratory test should be
used instead of a POD or DSRW test. The same rational
hold for impact–abrasion environments.
The use of hardness as a method of predicting the wear
behavior of materials must be used with caution. Nor-
mally, hardness is a good first indication of a material’s
resistance to abrasion. However, a cautionary note is in
order, because some materials perform exceptionally well
in pure abrasion, but not so well when the wear mode
changes to impact or gouging. For these wear modes, some
other property Že.g., toughness or the work-hardening abil-
ity of the material. controls the wear rate. For example,
many high-Cr white cast irons Žwhere W299F is an exam-
ple. suffer damage to the carbide phase as a result of
fracture of the carbide through impact or high-stress point
loads Žgouging.. The fractured carbides are then more
susceptible to removal by subsequent abrasion. Another
example is the 13% Mn steel ŽW315. which readily
workhardens from its interaction with the wear environ-
ment and so increases its near surface hardness and wear
resistance as the extent of plastic deformation increases.
So, while the laboratory wear tests can help eliminate
poorly performing materials, they will rarely be able to
unambiguously identify the optimum material to use for a
particular wear application.
 J.H. Tylczak et al.r Wear 225–229 (1999) 1059–1069
References
w1x R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, Evaluation of the planar array field
wear test, in: K.C. Ludema, R.G. Bayer ŽEds.., Wear of Materials
1991, ASME, New York, NY, 1991, pp. 339–344.
w2x R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, B.W. Madsen, J.H. Hansen, Evalu-
ating and improving materials for mineral processing, Tribology in
Mineral Extraction: War on Wear, IMechE, London, UK, 1984, pp.
15–21.
w3x R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, Evaluation of commercial US
grinding balls by laboratory impact and abrasion tests, Minerals and
Metallurgical Processing, May 1989, pp. 60–66.
w4x I.R. Sare, A.G. Constantine, Development of methodologies for the
evaluation of wear-resistant materials for the mineral industry, Wear
203–204 Ž1997. 671–678.
w5x J.D. Gates, Two-body and three-body abrasion: a critical discussion,
Wear 214 Ž1998. 139–146.
1069
w6x ASTM G65-94, Standard test method for measuring abrasion using
the dry sandrrubber wheel apparatus, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 03.02, Amer. Soc. Testing Mater., Philadelphia, PA,
1996, pp. 232–243.
w7x R. Blickensderfer, G. Laird II, A pin-on-drum abrasive wear test and
comparison with other pin tests, J. Test. Eval. 16 Ž1988. 56–526.
w8x R. Blickensderfer, J.H. Tylczak, B.W. Madsen, Laboratory wear
testing capabilities of the Bureau of Mines, IC 9001, 1985, 36 pp.
w9x R.D. Wilson, J.A. Hawk, Impeller wear impact-abrasive wear test,
this conference.
w10x R. Blickensderfer, Design criteria and correction factors for field
wear testing, in: K.C. Ludema ŽEd.., Wear of Materials 1987, Vol 2,
ASME, New York, NY, 1987, pp. 877–884.
w11x ASTM G81-83 Žreapproved 1989., Standard practice for jaw crusher
gouging abrasion test, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
03.02, Amer. Soc. Testing Mater., Philadelphia, PA, 1996, pp.
325–330.