Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICAAMM-2016

Improving wear resistance via hardfacing of cultivator shovel

Amardeep Singh Kanga,*, Gurjinder Singha, Gurmeet Singh Cheemaa
a
Bhai Gurdas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sangrur 148001, Punjab, India

Abstract

The complaint about the high wear rate of cultivator shovels in dry land agricultural areas often made by farmers and equipment
operators. This high wear is associated with the recurring labour, downtime and replacement costs of exchanging the worn out
shovels. The objective of this study was to improve the wear resistance of shovel by overlaying the leading edges of shovels
made of EN45A steel with four different hardfacing electrodes. Comparative wear tests in field and laboratory were conducted on
a regular shovel and four hardfaced shovels, where the effect of hardfacing alloys on the extent of wear and the wear
characteristics of shovels were examined. The wear resistance indices (WRIs) of 3Cr, 8Cr, 10Cr and 18Cr hardfacings were
found as 1.48, 1.85, 2.51 and 5.22 respectively as indicated by field test results. A substantial improvement in the wear resistance
was observed provided by hardfacings over the regular shovel.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility ofthe Committee Members of International Conference on Advancements in
Aeromechanical Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016).

Keywords:Abrasive wear; Pin-on-Disk; Shovel; Hardfacing; Tillage tools

1. Introduction

In farming sector abrasive wear is probably the most significant cause of premature mechanical failure of ground
engaging tools. Farmers always complain about the high recurring labor, downtime and replacement costs of
replacing worn out tillage tool components. These worn out tillage tools are less effective in cultivation and results
into higher incurred costs and fuel penalties [1, 2]. The quality of these tillage components depends on their surface
characteristics such as surface roughness and hardness. These agricultural implements work under high abrasive
conditions and moreover bear heavy impact loads due to stones and clods present in soil during soil bed preparations

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-946-311-8859; fax: +91-167-227-8529.

E-mail address: amardeepkang@gmail.com

2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility ofthe Committee Members of International Conference on Advancements in Aeromechanical
Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016).
7992 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999

[3]. Hence these should be made of material that may withstand high impact loads and abrasive wear [4]. Mainly low
alloy steels are the most commonly used for the production of these components, however no particular composition
has been recommended for such applications.
Several surface modification techniques [5-8] such as surface coatings and hardfacing have been developed over
the years to mitigate the problem of abrasive wear of farming implements. However particularly for ground engaging
tools many researchers stated that hardfacing proves successful when abrasive conditions become too severe or when
the equipment downtime cost requires more frequent parts replacement and evidently the technique becomes less
expensive than designing the entire component using improved materials.
In this present study manual metal arc welding (MMAW) technique was used to deposit hardfacings on cultivator
shovel leading edges. The objective of this study was to compare the wear behavior of hardfaced cultivator shovels
with the regular shovel. Four different commercial hardfacing alloys with different percentage of chromium was
selected to deposit weld overlays on the leading edges of shovels. The wear rates of laboratory (cylindrical test pins
rub against pin-on-disk apparatus) and field tests are then used to predict the service life of these shovels.

2. Experimentation

2.1. Materials

Cultivator shovel used in the study was made from spring steel (EN-45A) with a composition given in Table 1.
EN-45A holds good mechanical properties which are mainly required for high impact loads and abrasive
environment. The hardness of the shovel was 328 HV. The pertinent review of the literature has suggested that the
abrasive wear of agricultural implements starts from their leading edges [1,2,5,6] and moves towards their base.
Hence the leading edges of cultivator shovels have been overlayed with four different hardfacing alloys by using
MMAW process to improve their surface properties as shown in Figure 1 (a) before grinding (b) after grinding.
These hardfacing alloys are designated as per the chromium percentage present in the composition as 3HCr, 8HCr,
10HCr and 18HCr with 3, 8, 10 and 18 percent of Cr respectively. The main characteristics of these hardfacing
alloys are high wear resistance under shock loads, high hardness, corrosion resistance etc. which are provided by the
manufacturer and moreover these are comparatively cheaper on the market.

Table 1.Chemical composition (wt%) of medium carbon alloy steel- (EN- 45A)
Grade % ELEMENTS
C Si Mn P S
EN-45A
0.63 1.72 0.95 0.030 0.020
 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999 7993

Fig. 1. Leading edges of cultivator shovels hardfaced with 3HCr, 8HCr, 10HCr and 18HCr (a) before grinding (b) after grinding

Table 2. Welding parameters for each hardfacing alloy

Hardfacing Electrodes
Parameter
3HCr 8HCr 10HCr 18HCr
Electrode Diameter (mm) 4 4 4 4
Welding Current (Amp) 120 120 125 125
Arc voltage (V) 21 23 23 24
Welding Speed (mm/min) 100-120 100-120 100-120 100-120
Deposition Rate (Kg/h) 2.35 2.1 2.14 2.3

Table 3. Chemical composition of four hardfacing alloys by wt%

Hardfacing Chemical composition (wt%) of hardfacing alloys
electrode C Si Mn Cr Mo P Ni S Fe
3HCr 0.4 0.6 0.8 3 - - - - Balance
8HCr 0.4 0.5 0.6 8 0.5 - - - Balance
10HCr 0.08 0.01 0.48 10 - 0.021 - - Balance
18HCr 0.1 0.9 1.0 18 0.75 0.04 0.6 0.03 Balance

The size of the electrodes used was of 4 mm. The specific welding parameters used for different hardfacing
alloys are presented in Table 2. The parameters were kept well within the range specified by the supplier. Only the
leading edges of the shovels were overlayed with respective hardfacing alloys as shown in Figure 1. The required
thickness of hardfacing was achieved after 2 or 3 number of weld passes. To avoid cracks in the deposited layers a
good inter-pass temperature control was maintained. The chemical composition of four hardfacing alloys is given in
Table 3.

2.2. Test Procedures

2.2.1. Laboratory
An ASTM G99 standard has followed to test cylindrical pins 8 mm in diameter and 30 mm in length. These pins
were hardfaced at their cross-section on one side and subsequently machined to specified size. The wear test was
performed on pin-on-disk test apparatus (TR-201, Ducom, India) as shown in Figure 2 under dry sliding conditions
and at atmospheric temperature.
7994 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999

Fig 2. Pin-on-disk test apparatus (as per ASTM G99 standard)

The specimens were made to slide against the hardened disk fitted on the apparatus having hardness 62 to 65
HRC. After each test run the specimens were cleaned and weighed in an electronic balance with a least count of ±
0.0001 gm. The sliding velocity of pin against the hardened disk was maintained at 1 m/s during all wear tests at
different applied loads of 30 N, 40 N and 50 N for 90 min. cycle time.

2.2.2. Microhardness
Hardness is the ability of the metal to resist penetration, abrasion wear or the absorption energy under impact
load. Hardness measurement provides the information about the metallurgical changes caused by welding in the
various regions. The hardness tests were carried out using Vicker’s Hardness Instrument i.e. Digital Micro hardness
tester MVH-II with 1000 gm load and duel time 20 seconds in order to analyze the above-mentioned properties of
the weld overlays.

2.2.3. Field Test

2.2.3.1. Shovel Hardfacing and Configuration

The leading edge of shovels is hardfaced with four different hardfacing alloys. It was stated by Karoonboonyanan
et al. [6] that mainly the wear of agricultural implements starts from the leading edge towards the outer end. Four
hardfaced and one regular shovel was fitted on the outer planes of the cultivator as it has been examined by Salokhe
et al. [9] that the shovels which are located at the outermost planes suffered the extreme wear damage. On the other
hand minimum wear damage is observed at the innermost planes.

2.2.3.2. Field Trial and Assessment

The rice fields after combine harvesting were selected for field test of hardfaced and regular shovel on 140 acre
area in Longowal village, Sangrur district, Punjab state, India. The condition of the soil in this area was completely
dry, sandy and hard and moreover the rice stubbles were present during testing. The high impact loads and
abrasiveness of the soil were held responsible for a substantial amount of wear on shovels even after the cultivation
of very small area. The cultivator was driven by a tractor (Arjun 605 DI, powered by 3192 cc, 60 HP, 4-cylinder,
water cooled engine) at a speed of approximately 3 km/h.
To measure the wear characteristics during field testing the weight loss of each shovel was recorded before and
after each experimental area of 20 acre. The amount of weight loss after each experimental period was then used as
an indicator of wear trend. After cultivation of 140 acre, the wear rate was calculated by simply dividing the weight
loss with cultivated area, the unit is gram per acre (g/acre). Subsequently the wear resistance index (WRI) was
 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999 7995

calculated which gives an idea about the wear protection provided by the respective hardfacing in comparison to
regular shovel. The WRI was calculated as the wear rate of the regular shovel divided by that of the hardfaced one.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Laboratory

The data collected from the wear test conducted on pin-on-disk apparatus showed that as the sliding distance
increases similarly the wear loss increases as shown in Figure 3 (a-c). The wear loss against the sliding distance is
plotted at different normal loads such as 30 N, 40 N and 50 N whereas the sliding velocity remains constant at 1 m/s.
It is evident from Figure 3 (a-c) that at all normal loads the cumulative wear loss of hardfacings was lower than that
of un-hardfaced EN-45A. The hardfacing 18HCr exhibits the maximum wear resistance whereas 3HCr shows the
minimum among the four hardfacings. A little consideration showed that as the chromium percentage increases in
the hardfacing correspondingly the wear resistance improves. Similar results were also reported by Amirsadeghi and
Sohi [10] and Selvi [8]. The variation in cumulative wear loss in different hardfacing alloys and substrate is
primarily due to the variation in their metallurgical variables like toughness, hardness, chemical composition and
microstructure [11].

Fig 3.Variation of cumulative weight loss with the dry sliding wear distance at (a) 30 N; (b) 40 N; (c) 50N.
7996 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999

3.2. Microhardness

The variation of hardness along the various regions such as substrate, diffusion zone and hardfacing is shown in
Fig 4. It is evident from the results that the hardness increases from substrate towards hardfacing zone and at the
same time it was also noticed that hardfacing hardness increases as the chromium content increases. Similar results
were also reported by Selvi et al. [8] and Chang et al. [12]. The relation between hardness and wear rate is depicted
in Fig 5. It has been elucidated that hardness has a direct impact on wear rate. The wear rate decreases as the
hardness increases. The wear rate of un-hardfaced shovel is maximum corresponding to the minimum hardness
whereas 18HCr hardfacing exhibited minimum wear with having maximum hardness value. Comparable results
were reported by Bayhan [1].

Fig 4. Variation of microhardness along different regions

Fig 5Relation between wear rate and hardness of shovels in field test.
 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999 7997

3.3. Field Trial Observations

The field tests were carried out on an area of 140 acre after placing the hardfaced and un-hardfaced shovel on the
cultivator. After the test, all the shovels represented different amount of wear as shown in Fig 6. The wear damage
trend of all the shovels showed that the wear starts from outer end of the leading edge and moving inwards, towards
the base of the shovel.
The maximum wear damage in terms of weight loss was exhibited by regular shovel as shown in Fig 6. The
shape of the outer end of the leading edge changed to a complete curvature and nearly whole leading edge has worn
out. The extent of wear was severe though the test was conducted on an area of 140 acre. The high abrasiveness of
the soil led to this high wear. In contrast, the shovel hardfaced with 18HCr alloy showed considerably lower wear
damage as compared to un-hardfaced one. The leading edge is still retaining its profile and weld overlay is present
along the edge. This is owing to the high wear resistance which is provided by hard chromium carbides.
The shovels hardfaced with 8HCr and 10HCr showed moderate wear damage. The wear damage most ensued at
the leading edge which is responsible for the significant weight loss after field test. The weld overlay at the leading
edge close to the base of shovel is partially abraded. The shovel hardfaced with 3HCr underwent wear loss close to
the regular shovel. The wear appears to start from the leading edge where most wear damage occurred. This
hardfacing does not provide much abrasive wear resistance compared to others.

Fig 6.Hardfaced cultivator shovels after field test of 140 acre

3.4. Weight Loss and Wear Rate Calculation

The results of field tests were plotted between the cumulated weight loss and tilled area at various intervals as
shown in Fig 7. The weight loss of the un-hardfaced shovel for the first 20 acre of field test was 51 gm, whereas for
shovels hardfaced with 3HCr, 8HCr, 10HCr and 18HCr hardfacing alloys were 35, 28, 20 and 10 respectively.
The wear resistance index (WRI), indicating the superiority of the tested hardfaced shovel in comparison with the
un- hardfaced shovel, is defined as wear rate of the un-hardfaced shovel divided by wear rate of the hardfaced
shovel. The WRIs of the tested shovel are presented in Table 4.
7998 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999

Table 4: Wear rates and wear resistance indices (WRIs) of hardfaced cultivator shovel in field test
Hardfacing Wear rate (gm/acre) WRI
Un-hardfaced 2.35 1
3HCr 1.58 1.48
8HCr 1.27 1.85
10HCr 0.935 2.51
18HCr 0.45 5.22

Fig 7.Field test results of cultivator shovels (Cumulative weight loss Vs Tilled area)

It has been observed from the field test that the hardfacing 3HCr cannot provide additional wear resistance for the
shovel due to low fracture toughness, causing large amount of wear of hardfacing alloy on the leading edge. It gives
only 1.48 times superiority over the un- hardfaced shovel as tabulated in Table 4. The hardfacing alloys 8HCr and
10HCr shows marginal increase in the wear resistance. About 1.85 and 2.5 times superiority exhibited by 8HCr and
10HCr hardfacing alloys respectively. The shovel hardfaced with 18HCr hardfacing alloy shows maximum wear
resistance index at approximately 5.2 times. For 18HCr hardfacing, the leading edge retains its profile at outer end
of leading edge after 140 acre of field test.

4. Conclusions

The wear rate of hardfaced shovels is much lower than that of regular shovel. 18HCr hardfacing alloy shows
maximum wear resistance compared to other hardfacing alloys. The higher chromium content leads to the formation
of hard chromium carbides. The microhardness increases from substrate towards hardfaced layer. The wear rate of
hardfacings increased linearly with sliding distance in dry conditions. Further it may be concluded that hardfacing is
much attractive and economic solution to improve the surface properties of agricultural implements than to modify
the material composition and heat treatment technique.
 Amardeep Singh Kang / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7991–7999 7999

References

[1] Y.Bayhan, Reduction of wear via hardfacing of chisel ploughshare, Tribology International 39 (2006) 570–574.
[2] A. S. Kang, G. S.Cheema, S.Singla, Wear behavior of hardfacings on rotary tiller blades, Procedia Engineering 97 ( 2014 ) 1442 – 1451.
[3] S. Kumar, D.P. Mondal, H.K. Khaira, A.K. Jha, Improvement in High Stress AbrasiveWear Property of Steel by Hardfacing, Journal of
Materials Engineering and Performance, 8(6), (1999) 711-715.
[4] J.E. Hinkel, Maintenance Welding, Handbook of MaintenanceEngineering, McGraw Hill, New York, (1994), 15-1 - 15-50.
[5] A. S. Kang, J. S. Grewal, D. Jain, S. Kang, Wear Behavior of Thermal Spray Coatings on Rotavator blades, Journal of Thermal
SprayTechnology, 21(2) (2012) 355-359.
[6] S. Karoonboonyanan, V.M. Salokhe, P. Niranatlumpong, Wear Resistance of Thermally Sprayed Rotary Tiller Blades, Wear, 263(1-6),(2007)
604-608.
[7] R. Dasgupta, B. K. Prasad, A. K. Jha, O. P. Modi, S. Das, A. H. Yegneswaran, Low stress abrasive wear behavior of a hardfaced steel,Journal
of Materials Engineering and Performance, 7 (1998) 221-226.
[8] S. Selvi, S. P. Sankaran, R. Srivatsavan, Comparative study of hardfacing of valve seat ring using MMAW process, Journal of
MaterialsProcessing Technology, 207 (2008) 356-362.
[9] V.M. Salokhe, W. Chuenpakaranant, and T. Niyampa, Effect of Enamel Coating on the Performance of a Tractor Drawn Rotavator,
J.Terramech., 36(3), (1999) 127-138.
[10]A. Amirsadeghi, M. HeydarzadehSohi, “Comparison of the influence of molybdenum and chromium TIG surface alloying on
themicrostructure, hardness and wear resistance of ADI”, Journal of materials processing technology, 2 0 1, ( 2 0 0 8 ), 673–677.
[11]H. J. Yu, S. D. Bhole, Development of a prototype abrasive wear tester for tillage tool materials, Tribology International, 23 (5), (1990), 309–
16.
[12]C-M Chang, Y-C Chen, W. Wu, Microstructural and abrasive characteristics of high carbon Fe–Cr–C hardfacing alloy, Tribology
International 43 (2010) 929–934.