Tool Steel Abrasive Wear Test Data
Wear resistance is quoted as a ranking rather than a single number. This page collects the measured abrasive wear data that four standard wear tests produced for D2 tool steel and the reference ferrous alloys they are run against, together with the test conditions behind every value.
How the four tests differ
The pin on drum test (ASTM G 132) drags a pin across abrasive cloth under a fixed load and reports a relative wear factor against a reference pin. A lower factor means less material lost, and the load, the sliding distance and the abrasive all have to be stated with the result.
The dry sand rubber wheel test (ASTM G 65) presses a flat specimen against a rubber wheel while sand flows between them. It reproduces low stress three body wear, the mode behind wear on tillage tools, pivot pins and wire ropes.
The jaw crusher test (ASTM G 81) crushes ore between two plates and reports the volume of material lost for every kilogram of ore crushed. It is a high stress gouging test, and the abrasive can be matched to the ore the tool actually meets.
The impeller in drum test throws abrasive against paddle specimens and combines abrasion with impact. Of the four it sits closest to crusher hammer, blow bar and mill liner service.
Hardness dominates the low stress tests, so a harder alloy usually loses less volume. On hard alloys the ranking can change with the abrasive itself, because the abrasive and the carbides in the steel are then of comparable hardness. That is why a tool steel is judged on more than one of these tests.
Pin on drum abrasive wear data
Load 66.7 N (15 lbf), pin diameter 6.35 mm (0.25 in.). The relative wear factor is normalised against a reference pin run under the same conditions.
| Alloy | Hardness, HB | Relative wear factor WF | Volume wear, mm3/m |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stainless steel, type 304 | 207 | 0.73 | 0.86 |
| Low alloy steel, ASTM A 514 | 256 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| Low alloy steel, AISI 4340 | 540 | 0.73 | 0.95 |
| Tool steel, type D2 | 698 | 0.42 | 0.49 |
| High chromium white cast iron | 661 | 0.27 | 0.31 |
| Carbon steel, AISI 1060 | 785 | 0.50 | 0.56 |
Source: ASM Handbook, Vol. 8, typical pin on drum wear data for ferrous alloys.
Dry sand rubber wheel abrasive wear data
Volume loss in cubic millimetres after testing under procedure A or procedure B. Procedure B is the condition used for most ferrous materials.
| Alloy | Hardness, HV | Volume loss, mm3 procedure A | Volume loss, mm3 procedure B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stainless steel, type 304 | 207 | 408.0 | 170.8 |
| Low alloy steel, ASTM A 514 | 256 | … | 134.1 |
| Low alloy steel, AISI 4340 | 540 | … | 74.0 |
| Tool steel, type D2 | 689 | 45.3 | 14.6 |
| High chromium white cast iron | 661 | 31.5 | 12.7 |
| Carbon steel, AISI 1060 | 785 | … | 32.1 |
Source: ASM Handbook, Vol. 8, typical dry sand rubber wheel abrasive wear data. A test is valid when the coefficient of variation between runs stays under 7 percent.
Standard conditions for the dry sand rubber wheel test
| ASTM procedure | Force N | Force lbf | Wheel revolutions | Distance abraded m |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 130 | 29 | 6,000 | 4,309 |
| B | 130 | 29 | 2,000 | 1,436 |
| C | 130 | 29 | 100 | 71.8 |
| D | 45 | 10 | 6,000 | 4,309 |
| E | 130 | 29 | 1,000 | 718 |
Source: ASM Handbook, Vol. 8. Results from different procedures are not directly comparable, so the procedure letter belongs with the number.
Jaw crusher abrasive wear data
Volume loss in cubic millimetres for every kilogram of high silica quartzite crushed. The spread follows each value and comes from twenty hardness readings across the two wear faces of a specimen pair.
| Alloy | Hardness, HV | Volume loss, mm3 per kg of quartzite |
|---|---|---|
| Stainless steel, type 304 | 207 | 27.7 ± 4.9 |
| Austenitic steel, 13% Mn | 230 | 13.2 ± 2.1 |
| Low alloy steel, ASTM A 514 | 256 | 23.9 ± 3.3 |
| Low alloy steel, AISI 4340 | 540 | 13.8 ± 1.4 |
| Tool steel, type D2 | 698 | 15.9 ± 2.5 |
| High chromium white cast iron | 661 | 15.6 ± 2.2 |
Source: ASM Handbook, Vol. 8, typical jaw crusher wear data for ferrous alloys.
Impact abrasion wear data, impeller in drum
Wear rate in cubic millimetres per hour for a one hour test and for the steady state reached after five hours, against high silica quartzite.
| Alloy | Hardness, HV | 1 h test mm3/h | 5 h test mm3/h | Difference vs 1 h rate % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 304 stainless steel | 207 | 112.2 | 102.3 | -8.8 |
| 12% Mn steel | 230 | 84.2 | 69.7 | -17.2 |
| Low alloy steel, ASTM A 514 | 256 | 101.3 | 96.7 | -4.5 |
| Low alloy steel, AISI 4340 | 540 | 96.2 | 76.6 | -20.4 |
| Low alloy steel, REM 500 | 505 | 93.7 | 81.0 | -13.6 |
| D2 tool steel | 698 | 70.2 | 57.0 | -18.8 |
| High chromium white cast iron | 661 | 69.1 | 58.0 | -16.1 |
Source: ASM Handbook, Vol. 8, typical impeller tumbler wear data for ferrous alloys. The first hour is a break in period, so every alloy in the set wears faster in the one hour test than it does at steady state.
What the D2 values show in each test
D2 tool steel appears in all four data sets, which makes it the common reference across the wear modes. In the pin on drum test it returns a relative wear factor of 0.42 against 0.98 for ASTM A 514 and 0.73 for AISI 4340. In the dry sand rubber wheel test the same alloy loses 14.6 mm3 under procedure B against 74.0 mm3 for AISI 4340 and 32.1 mm3 for AISI 1060.
The jaw crusher result does not follow the low stress ranking. D2 loses 15.9 mm3 per kilogram of quartzite against 13.8 mm3 for the softer AISI 4340, which shows that a gouging contact at high stress is a different selection problem from sliding abrasion, and a grade chosen on the dry sand ranking alone can come up short in a crusher.
In the impeller in drum test D2 returns 70.2 mm3/h in the first hour and 57.0 mm3/h at steady state, close to the high chromium white cast iron at 69.1 and 58.0. Here the carbides that carry wear resistance are doing the same work in both materials.
The high chromium white cast iron is the best performer in three of the four sets, and it is not a wrought tool steel. It is included because it is the material wear studies measure against, and it defines the lower bound of the scale.
Before quoting these numbers
The values come from laboratory tests on specific alloys in a specific heat treated condition. Abrasive type, abrasive size, load and sliding distance decide the ranking, and a change of abrasive can reorder two hard alloys. Where a wear rate decides a grade for a customer, run the test with the abrasive that matches the application.
A wear test ranks materials. A grade that loses half the volume of another in the dry sand rubber wheel test does not last twice as long in service, because that test exaggerates the difference between grades. Field hardness and particle size of the abrasive affect the absolute values far more than they affect the ranking.
Related reference pages on this site: Abrasive wear resistant tool steels, Tool steel carbide types and hardness, D2 tool steel, Impact wear and spalling of tooling, Tool steel properties chart, Tool steel supply.
Source: ASM Handbook, Volume 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation (ASM International), article Abrasive Wear Testing by Jeffrey A. Hawk, U.S. Department of Energy, Albany Research Center. Values are reproduced for comparison and reference only. Aobo Steel supplies tool steel in the annealed condition.