Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Effect of normal load on abrasive wear resistance and wear

micromechanisms in FeMnAlC alloy and other austenitic steels
O.A. Zambrano a,b,n, Yesid Aguilar b, Jairo Valds a, S.A. Rodrguez a, J.J. Coronado a
a
Research Group of Fatigue and Surfaces (GIFS), Mechanical Engineering School, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
b
Research Group of Tribology, Polymers, Powder Metallurgy and Processing of Solid Waste (TPMR), Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Little attention has been paid to the role of stacking fault energy (SFE) in the two-body abrasive wear of
Received 18 April 2015 austenitic steels. Using a pin-abrasion test with 220 grit garnet paper as the counterbody, three austenitic
Received in revised form steels of different SFEs were compared. The steels were: (i) FeMnAlC, (ii) Hadeld steel, and (iii) AISI
18 November 2015
316 L steel. Following a pre-conditioning procedure, the normal loads on the 3 mm diameter test pins
Accepted 22 November 2015
were 5 N, 10 N and 15 N, and the sliding speed along a spiral track of total length 430 m was 0.158 m/s.
Available online 12 December 2015
Data showed that the FeMnAlC steel had a higher wear resistance than AISI 316 L steel but lower wear
Keywords: resistance than the Hadeld steel. However, at the highest test load, all three steels had similar wear
FeMnAlC steel resistance. The steel with the lowest SFE had the highest abrasive wear resistance and the steel with the
Abrasive wear
highest SFE had the lowest abrasive wear resistance. The main wear mechanisms were microcutting and
Hadeld steel
microploughing. There was a transition from microploughing to microcutting as the normal load was
AISI 316 L steel
Stacking Fault Energy increased.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and temperature [810]. The afore said deformation mechanisms

The High-manganese steels with aluminium additions are
derived from Robert Hadeld's investigations of Fe13Mn1.2C in
1882 [1]. However, in the past two decades, these steels have
shown a renewed interest because of their exceptional features as:
low density [2], corrosion resistance [3], high strength, high strain
hardening and good elongation in comparison with almost any
steel [4]. This exceptional mechanical behaviour rest in two the-
ories that are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the rst, relate
the dipole interaction CMn with dislocations, where the Mn
subtitutional atoms in the crystal structure produce an attraction
eld with the interstitial carbon, which produce the subsequent
difculty in the movement of dislocations (dynamic strain aging,
DSA) [5]. The second theory explains that the high strain hard-
ening is due to the creation of deformation twins or strain induced
martensite (- or `), that leads to enhancing the strain hard-
enability through the effect of transformation induced plasticity
(TRIP), twinning induced plasticity (TWIP) and micro-band
induced plasticity (MBIP).
The existence and extend of these deformation mechanisms are
related to the Stacking Fault Energy (SFE) of the austenite [6,7],
which in turn depends on the chemical composition, grain size
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 57 4849665 3212133.
E-mail address: oscar.zambrano@correounivalle.edu.co (O.A. Zambrano).
produce effective obstacles inside the grain for the dislocations
movement, producing a similar Hall Petch effect, but in this par-
ticular case, the grain renement is produced during deformation
and hence, is named Dynamic Hall Petch effect [11]. According to
this, the deformation mechanisms are expected to have important
implications in the wear process where the plastic deformation
behaviour (i.e. microcutting, plugging etc) controls the wear
resistance of the alloy. In this sense, little information is available
in the literature concerning the wear behaviour of FeMnAlC steels
and its relation with deformation mechanism.
One of the few investigations on the abrasive wear behaviour of
FeMnAlC steels was performed by Acselrad et al (2004) [12],
where they determined in a micro-abrasion ball cratering test, that
the FeMnAlC steel with the best heat treatment could have a
similar wear behaviour than AISI 304 steel. Moreover, in the few
literature concerning with the three body abrasive wear (ASTM
G65) of FeMnAlC steels, there is an agreement with the effect of
aluminium, i.e. the wear resistance increases as the aluminium
content decrease [13,14]. Contrarily, in two body abrasive wear
(pin against abrasive paper), the addition of aluminium have been
suggested to improve the wear resistance due to DSA [13]. In this
sense, the purpose of this paper is to study the abrasive wear
behaviour of a FeMnAlC steel and compare the results with other
austenitic steels and try to elucidate the role of the SFE in the
abrasive wear behaviour of austenitic steels.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.11.019
0043-1648/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
62 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials
The chemical composition and the estimated values of the SFE
(reported or calculated from in the literature) for the steels used in
this research are shown in Table 1 (the effect of the grain size on
the SFE [10] was not considered in the SFEs values of the steels).
The chemical composition was determined with an optical emis-
sion spectrometer with inductively coupled plasma (ICP) VARIAN
model MPX.
The high manganese austenitic steel (FeMnAlC) was melted in
an open induction furnace and cast to an ingot. Then, submitted to
solution treatment for 6 h at 1200 C in a furnace with argon
atmosphere to remove the as cast microstructure. The AISI 316L
steel and Hadeld steel (with low carbon content) were com-
mercial steels. The FeMnAlC steel, the Hadeld steel and AISI 316L
steel were cut using electro-discharge machining to obtain
3 mm  40 mm pins. Finally, the pins were submitted to a solu-
tion treatment for 2 h at 1200 C in the same furnace with argon
atmosphere, and were quenched in water.
2.2. Tribological test
Wear tests were performed on a pin-abrasion tribometer PLINT
TE79 of type pin (3 mm of diameter with a at-ended) against
abrasive paper. The abrasive wear tests were carried out using
FeMnAlC steel, Hadeld steel and AISI 316L steel pins against
garnet paper of 220 grit, the garnet abrasive has a HV0.98N of
1453 785 [17]. The applied parameters were spiral motion from
40 mm to 5 mm of radius with constant tangential speed of
0.158 m/s (guarantying that the specimen passes over fresh abra-
sive along a spiral track), normal loads of 5 N, 10 N and 15 N and a
total slide distance of 430 m.
Before the wear test, an initial stage of supercial homo-
genisation was produced, using abrasive paper of alumina 600 grit
with 5 N for a distance of 84.7 m to guarantee the same surface
roughness for all samples. This procedure was repeated before
each wear test. Additionally, each 86 m of sliding distance, the pin
was dismounted from the tribometer and was cleaned in ultra-
sound equipment for 10 min, then the mass loss was measured
and the pin was mounted back in the tribometer. The weight loss
was measured using an analytical balance with 0.01-mg resolu-
tion. The wear resistance (K) was calculated using the following
equation [18]:
 
Nm LF N
K 1
mm 3 m
where, m represents the weight loss value of each steel, is the
corresponding density of each steel (FeMnAlC steel, Hadeld steel
and AISI 316L steel with 7.48 [19], 7.8 and 7.9 g/cm3, respectively),
F N is the normal load of each test and L is the sliding distance.
Three repetitions were performed for each condition, and the
test errors were determined with 95% condence. Finally, for the
wear debris analysis (length and thickness of microchips) 15
microchips for each condition were measured.
Table 1
SFE and chemical composition of the steels used in this research.
C Mn Al Cr Ni Si Mo
FeMnAlC 1.07 19.80 3.49 1.28 0.12 0.53 0.01
AISI 316L 0.03 2.00 18.03 10.10 1.01 2.01 64 [15,16]
Hadeld 0.61 13.88 0.04 2.61 0.59 0.82 15-22 [10,15]
2.3. Hardness test
Micro-hardness testing was performed on all samples using a
Vickers indenter at 0.5 N for 10 s and fteen measurements of
hardness were realized in each condition and the test errors were
determined with 95% of condence. To obtain the micro-hardness
after wear testing, each pin was cold-mounted in resin and
transversely (to the wear surface) ground to grit 1500 and
mechanically polished using 1 mm, 0.3 mm, and 0.05 mm alumina
for 60 s to obtain a at surface without removing the deformed
layer. The depth used to measure the hardness after the wear was
20 mm.
2.4. Microstructure
Microstructures were optically examined by etching the
mechanically polished samples of FeMnAlC steel and Hadeld
steel with 5% Nital for 90 s. The AISI 316L was etched with Villella's
for 30 s.
3. Results
3.1. Microstructural analysis
The Fig. 1 shows that the three steels present a similar micro-
structure consisting in austenitic grains with some oxide
inclusions.
For the FeMnAlC steel, the microstructure shows a equiaxed
austenitic grains with mean grain size of 280.3 760.1 mm, and the
Hadeld steel with mean grain size of 360.8 770.7 mm. The AISI
316L present a mean grain size with annealing twins as
140.2 730.9 mm.
3.2. Tribological test
The variations of wear resistance for the Hadeld, AISI 316L and
FeMnAlC steels as a function of the sliding distance under different
normal loads are shown in Fig. 2 (the interval bars of condence in
the graphic could not be appreciated due to their low values). In
general, the wear rate was constant during all the sliding distance,
even since the rst stop (86 m). It is important to point out that
the three steels; Hadeld (lowest SFE), FeMnAlC (medium SFE)
and AISI 316L (highest SFE) achieve the highest wear resistance
during the rst 86 m (except the AISI 316L at 15 N), but their wear
resistance values are different. The Hadeld steel showed the
highest value followed by the FeMnAlC steel and nally by the AISI
316L steel.
The wear resistance values for the Hadeld, AISI 316L and
FeMnAlC steels are shown in Fig. 3. According to this graphic, it is
evident that the wear resistance depends on the load applied and
that it increases with the increase of the load. This behaviour has
been reported recently by Nafar Dehsorkhi et al (2014) [20] in
stainless steels, and also in Hadeld steels with aluminium addi-
tions by Abbasi et al (2010) [21]. They found that higher loads
produce an increase on the wear resistance due to an increment of
the transformed martensite content and due to greater extend of
work-hardening. Although this may be difcult to corroborate by
hardness measures if the hardened surface is removed by
microcutting.
SFE (mJ m-2) On the other hand, the FeMnAlC steel shows higher wear
resistance than the AISI 316L steel. These results are consistent
55 [10] with the ones reported by Acselrad et al (2004) [12]. However, in
this study here presented, not ageing or special cooling treatment
for FeMnAlC steel were used, and the current steel contains less
 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168 63

Fig. 1. Microstructures of (a) FeMnAlC steel, (b) Hadeld steel and (c) AISI 316L steel.

Fig. 2. Wear resistance for various loads as a function of sliding distance for (a) Hadeld, (b) AISI 316L and (c) FeMnAlC steel.

amount of manganese and aluminium, which could be regarded as
an improvement.
It is important to stand out, that according to the stacking fault
energy (SFE) of the steels (Table 1), a general behaviour could be
observed; high SFE of the austenitic steel leads to lower the wear
resistance. This relation between the SFE and wear abrasion
resistance has not been reported for FeMnAlC steels, and even
fewer reports in steels tested in abrasion conditions are available.
The results here presented seem to obey the relation proposed by
Blau (1979) [22] and Feller et al (1989) [23] in CuAl alloys in
sliding conditions and are also consistent with the role of the SFE
in other systems like: CoNi [24] and NiCo [25]. Although other
authors have found that the wear rate increase with decreasing
the SFE in CuAl alloys [26], they explain that other factors like
compressive residual stress are involved. The results present here,
show that the SFE is an important metallurgical parameter that
has a direct incidence in the abrasive wear resistance of austenitic
steels. However, the validity of this hypothesis requires further
investigations.
3.3. Wear mechanisms
The main wear mechanisms observed for all steels in all con-
ditions tested were microcutting and wedge formation due to
microploughing. In Fig. 4(a), Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 6(a), the wear sur-
faces showed more proportion of scratches with plastic deforma-
tion at the edges (microploughing mechanism) than scratches
without plastic deformation (microcutting mechanism) [27], in
Fig. 4(c), Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 6(c) the opposite happens and in
Fig. 4(b), Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 6(b) no predominant wear mechanism
was found. In general, it can be observed that with the increase of
normal load (mean contact pressure) higher proportion of
64 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168
microcutting mechanism in all steels occurs and lower normal
loads produces lower proportion of the microcutting mechanism
and higher proportion of microploughing mechanism. This is
because of lower loads favoured a low degree of abrasive pene-
tration on the surface and higher loads favoured a high degree of
penetration.
The transition of the wear mechanism presented in this study is
consistent with the results of Kitsunai et al (1990) [28], who found
a wear mechanism transition from ploughing to wedge-formation
and to cutting with the increase in the normal load in a pin-on-
disk test for a AISI 304 steel.
According to the work of Childs (1988) [29], as harder the steel,
lower is the critical angle required for cutting. However, the same
author also remarks the importance of the work hardening in this
phenomenon as follows; increase the strain hardening rate
increase the threshold for cutting and reduced the fraction of the
material removed in the cutting regime. This means that a higher
work hardening of the steel (low SFE) more difcult will be to
remove material by microcutting in comparison with a lower
strain hardening steel (high SFE). This fact helps to clarify the role
of the SFE in the wear micromechanism and the wear resistance of
the current steels.
3.4. Wear debris
The abrasive papers were examined by SEM in order to identify
the types of wear debris (microchips) generated and to correlate
Fig. 3. The effect of the normal load on the wear resistance for the FeMnAlC steel,
Hadeld steel and AISI 316L steel (the bars correspond to the interval of condence
at 95%).
Fig. 4. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear debris of FeMnAlC steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.
them with the wear mechanisms. The qualitative results are show
in the Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 and quantitative results are presented
in the Fig. 10.
These results (the length deviations vary from 75 to 780, but
were not put in the graphic for the easy reading) shows a clear
tendency of the dependence between the load applied and the
length of the microchips (wear debris) for all steels. In this sense,
with the increase of load there is an increase in the length of the
microchips, which it is attributed to the transition from micro-
ploughing to microcutting mechanism (see Section 3.3). In addi-
tion, it can be observed for example, that a lower volume is
removed (inferred indirectly for the length and thickness of the
microchips) from the Hadeld steel than the AISI 316L steel. This is
due to the work hardening, which makes more difcult the chip
cutting/formation (difculty to obtain large microchips) [29], and
this phenomena is intimately related to the SFE of the steel; higher
work hardening for the Hadeld steel (low SFE) produced shorter
values for the length of the microchips when compared with the
ones of the AISI 316L steel (high SFE).
On the other hand, it is concluded that there is no clear rela-
tionship between load tested and the thickness of the microchips
for all steels. Despite the relationship between the abrasive sizes,
the microchips morphology and the groove width have been stu-
died [27,30,31], the correlation between load tested and the length
and thickness of the microchips have not been reported in the
literature.
3.5. Hardness test
The Vickers hardness values (in kg/mm2) of the steels before
and after the wear process are show in Fig. 10. It is clear the large
difference with respect to the initial hardness for the three steels.
Also, it is evident that the FeMnAlC steel, which presented the
highest initial hardness, did not show the highest wear resistance,
and the Hadeld steel, which presented the lowest initial hard-
ness, showed the highest wear resistance. This means that the
original hardness in austenitic steels per se cannot be used to
predict the abrasion wear resistance as reported by Zum Gahr
(1987) [32]. Besides, it was expected that the steel with the lowest
SFE should have hardened much more than a high SFE steel, in the
present study this phenomenon was not observed, probably due to
the hardened surface is removed by cutting. However, some stu-
dies have reported that the steel with higher SFE (Hadeld steel
with aluminium additions) shows higher nal hardness than the
steel with lower SFE (Hadeld steel without aluminium), before a
critical mean contact pressure of 0.64 N/mm2 (in this investigation
the mean contact pressures is lower than this value) but no
metallurgical explanation have been reported about this phe-
nomenon [21].
 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168
Fig. 5. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear surfaces of Hadeld steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.
Fig. 6. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear debris of AISI 316L steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.
Additionally, from Fig. 11 and Table 2, it is clear that; i) the
Hadeld steel presented the lowest initial and nal hardness, as
well as the lowest strain hardening of the matrix and ii) the AISI
316L steel presented the highest nal hardness, as well as the
highest strain hardening of the matrix. However, these hardness
evolution results do not explain satisfactorily the better wear
resistance of the Hadeld steel.
All samples tested presented a matrix hardening after the wear
process in all normal loads, the amount of strain hardening mea-
sured decreased with the increase in the normal load (mean
contact pressure). This behaviour is related to predominant
microploughing mechanism at lower loads (see Section 3.3), which
is responsible for the increment in strain hardening of the matrix
due to ample plastic deformation eld.
The models proposed by Lim et al (1987) [33], Ashby et al
(1991) [34] and KuhlmannWilsdorf (1985) [35] have been
developed to study the frictional heating in sliding contact and,
the authors are in agreement that the heat generated increase
directly with the normal load, the friction coefcient and the
sliding velocity and inversely with the nominal contact area.
In this case, with the increases of the normal load there is also
an increase of the temperature in the interface which produce
high temperature gradients which in turn produce softening and
shear failure of the near-surface layer [36]. According to the
aforementioned facts, two possible explanations arise to explain
the hardness results; (i) as the normal load increases (mean con-
tact pressure), frictional heat generated at the contact surface also
increases, and these conditions produce a dynamic equilibrium
between the dislocations generated and the dynamic recovery
(decreasing the dislocations density) which in turn decreases the
strain hardening, as compared with the matrices tested at lower
loads and/or (ii) at lower loads, the strain hardened layer remains
adherent to the surface (microploughing) and the presence of
strain hardened layers are responsible for the high values of nal
65
hardness registered, while at higher loads, the hardened layers are
removed by the microcutting mechanism therefore the nal
hardness is obtained mainly over the fresh surface without the
hardened layer.
These hypotheses need further investigations, and it is
recommended to control carefully the hardness measurement
during the test and particularly during the running-in period in
future works.
4. Disussion
The superior abrasive wear resistance was obtained for the
Hadeld steel, followed by the FeMnAlC steel and AISI 316L
stainless steel (see Section 3.2). In this sense, neither the initial
hardness (Fig. 11) nor the total strain hardening of the matrix
(Table 2) of the austenitic steels seems to play per se a decisive role
on the abrasion wear resistance under the studied conditions.
Rather, it was found that the stacking fault energy could be
directly related to the abrasion wear. This fact is due to the strain
hardening rate rather than the total strain hardening of the matrix
i.e. how quick the surface creates twins, or 0 -martensite laths
due to the plastic deformation of the surface and retard the plastic
deformation by the accumulation of dislocations in these obstacles
[7]. In this sense, it is suggested that the strain hardening rate
could be a determinant factor on the abrasive wear behaviour of
austenitic steels. However, this hypothesis requires further inves-
tigations and it is recommended the use of abrasives of lower
hardness than the ones used in this investigation. This is recom-
mended, to induce a severe to mild wear transition and be able to
study the running-in period of wear, which could clarify the role of
the SFE and hardness evolution on the worn surface during the
running-in.
66 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168

Fig. 7. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear debris of FeMnAlC steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.

Fig. 8. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear debris of Hadeld steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.

Fig. 9. Scanning electron microscopy images of the wear debris of AISI 316L steel tested at: (a) 5 N, (b) 10 N and (c) 15 N.

Fig. 10. Length (L) and thickness (T) of the microchips for Hadeld, FeMnAlC and
AISI 316L steels as a function of each load tested.
The wear debris (Fig. 10) could help to elucidate the role of the
SFE on the wear behaviour; the thickness and length of debris
microchips for the AISI 316L steel were thicker and longer than the
Fig. 11. Relationship micro-hardness before and after the wear test for each load
condition of the Hadeld steel, FeMnAlC steel and AISI 316L steel.
wear debris of the Hadeld steel. That is, the wear groves in the AISI
316L steel were deeper than the groves of the Hadeld steel. It is
know that the work hardening inuences the width of the wear
groove i.e. the groove width decrease with increasing work
 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168
Table 2
Strain hardening of the matrix for each steel and normal load.
Normal load Strain hardening of the matrix (%)
Hadeld FeMnAlC AISI 316L
5N 18.9 24.7 33.9
10 N 6.4 11.6 10.4
15 N 2.2 4.7 1.9
hardening during abrasive wear [32, 37]. In this sense, it can be
suggested that the low SFE of the Hadeld steel is responsible for the
higher wear resistance in comparison with the AISI 316L steel
(high SFE).
It was found that with increasing normal load there is an
increase in the length of the microchips (Fig. 10) and negligible
relation was found between the normal load and the thickness
of the microchips. This fact has not been previous reported.
Besides, a transition of micro-ploughing to micro-cutting mec-
hanism (see Section 3.3) was found with the increment of the
normal load for all steels. These results also support the difference
between the strain hardening of the matrices (Fig. 11).
5. Conclusions
This research analysed the tribological behaviour of a FeMnAlC
steel compared with a Hadeld steel and AISI 316L steel. The
results support the following conclusions:
(1) The FeMnAlC steel presents higher wear resistance than the
AISI 316L steel and lower wear resistance than Hadeld steel.
(2) The steel with the lower stacking fault energy (high stacking
fault densities) tend to strain harden rapidly and to show the
highest resistance to abrasive wear. Conversely, the steel with
the higher stacking fault energy tend to a slow strain hard-
ening, which produces the lowest resistance to the
abrasive wear.
(3) The Hadeld steel showed both the lowest initial and nal
hardness, as well as the lowest apparent strain hardening of
the matrix in comparison with the other steels, this steel
presented the highest wear resistance of the steels tested. In
this sense, there are not additional evidences which explain
the better wear resistance of this Hadeld steel, and this
investigation suggests that the SFE of the metal, which affect
directly the strain hardening rate, will affect directly the
abrasion wear resistance of the austenitic steels.
(4) A transition from micro-ploughing to micro-cutting was
observed with the increase of the normal load for all the
steels.
(5) It was found that the length of the microchips (wear debris)
for all steels depends of the normal load and no correlation
was found between the normal load and the thickness of the
microchip (wear debris).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Uni-
versidad del Valle, Colombia for the project No. CI 2762, Labor-
atrio de Fenmenos de Superfcie (LFS) at the Universidad de Sao
Paulo (Brazil), Santander Bank (Spain) and COLCIENCIAS (Colom-
bia) for the funds required in pursue of the doctorate degree.
67
References
[1] C.H. Desch, Robert Abbott Hadeld. 18581940, Obit. Not. Fellows R. Soc. 3 (10)
(1941) 647664.
[2] K. Hansoo, S. Dong-Woo, J.K. Nack, FeAlMnC lightweight structural alloys:
a review on the microstructures and mechanical properties, Sci. Technol. Adv.
Mater. 14 (1) (2013) 014205.
[3] J.C. Benz, H.W. Leavenworth Jr., An assessment of FeMnAl alloys as sub-
stitutes for stainless steels, JOM 37 (3) (1985) 3639.
[4] G. Frommeyer, U. x Br, uuml, P. Neumann, Supra-ductile and high-strength
manganese-TRIP/TWIP steels for high energy absorption purposes, ISIJ Int. 43
(3) (2003) 438446.
[5] E. Bayraktar, F.A. Khalid, C. Levaillant, Deformation and fracture behaviour of
high manganese austenitic steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 147 (2) (2004)
145154.
[6] W. Song, T. Ingendahl, W. Bleck, Control of strain hardening behavior in high-
Mn austenitic steels, Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters) 27 (3) (2014)
546556.
[7] D.T. Pierce, J.A. Jimnez, J. Bentley, D. Raabe, J.E. Wittig, The inuence of
stacking fault energy on the microstructural and strain-hardening evolution of
FeMnAlSi steels during tensile deformation, Acta Materialia 100 (2015)
178190.
[8] A. Dumay, J.P. Chateau, S. Allain, S. Migot, O. Bouaziz, Inuence of addition
elements on the stacking-fault energy and mechanical properties of an aus-
tenitic FeMnC steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 483484 (0) (2008) 184187.
[9] G. Dini, A. Najazadeh, S.M. Monir-Vaghe, R. Ueji, Grain size effect on the
martensite formation in a high-manganese TWIP steel by the rietveld method,
J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 26 (2) (2010) 181186.
[10] A. Saeed-Akbari, J. Imlau, U. Prahl, W. Bleck, Derivation and variation in
composition-dependent stacking fault energy maps based on subregular
solution model in high-manganese steels, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 40 (13)
(2009) 30763090.
[11] I. Gutierrez-Urrutia, D. Raabe, Grain size effect on strain hardening in
twinning-induced plasticity steels, Scr. Mater. 66 (12) (2012) 992996.
[12] O. Acselrad, A.R. de Souza, I.S. Kalashnikov, S.S. Camargo Jr, A rst evaluation
of the abrasive wear of an austenitic FeMnAlC steel, Wear 257 (910) (2004)
9991005.
[13] B.K. Zuidema, D.K. Subramanyam, W.C. Leslie, The effect of aluminum on the
work hardening and wear resistance of hadeld manganese steel, Metall.
Trans. A 18 (9) (1987) 16291639.
[14] Van Aken, D., L.N. Bartlett, and S.A. Buckholz. On the Inuence of Aluminum
and Carbon on Abrasion Resistance of High Manganese Steels. in 117th
Metalcasting Congress. 2013. Afsinc.
[15] R.E. Schramm, R.P. Reed, Stacking fault energies of seven commercial auste-
nitic stainless steels, Metall. Trans. A 6 (7) (1975) 13451351.
[16] S.G. Chowdhury, P. Sahu, B. Mahato, P.K. De, Evolution of recrystallization
texture in AISI300 series austenitic stainless steels after cold rolling to large
strain, in: A. Haldar, S. Suwas, D. Bhattacharjee (Eds.), Microstructure and
Texture in Steels, Springer, London, 2009, pp. 361378.
[17] J.J. Coronado, S.A. Rodrguez, A. Sinatora, Effect of particle hardness on mild
severe wear transition of hard second phase materials, Wear 301 (12) (2013)
8288.
[18] G.W. Stachowiak, Chapter 11-abrasive, erosive and cavitation wear, in engi-
neering tribology, in: G.W. Stachowiak, A.W. Batchelor (Eds.), Fourth Edition,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2014, pp. 525576.
[19] Y. Sutou, N. Kamiya, R. Umino, L. Ohnuma, K. Ishida, High-strength Fe2OMn
AlC-based alloys with low density, ISIJ Int. 50 (6) (2010) 893899.
[20] R. Nafar Dehsorkhi, S. Sabooni, F. Karimzadeh, A. Rezaeian, M.H. Enayati, The
effect of grain size and martensitic transformation on the wear behavior of
AISI 304L stainless steel, Mater. Des. 64 (2014) 5662.
[21] M. Abbasi, S. Kheirandish, Y. Kharrazi, J. Hejazi, On the comparison of the
abrasive wear behavior of aluminum alloyed and standard Hadeld steels,
Wear 268 (12) (2010) 202207.
[22] P. Blau, A study of the interrelationships among wear, friction and micro-
structure in the unlubricated sliding of copper and single phase binary alloys
(PhD Dissertation), The Ohio State University, 1979.
[23] H.G. Feller, B. Gao, Correlation of tribological and metal physics data: the role
of stacking fault energy, Wear 132 (1) (1989) 17.
[24] K.J. Bhansali, A.E. Miller, The role of stacking fault energy on galling and wear
behavior, Wear 75 (2) (1982) 241252.
[25] D.K. Chaudhuri, D. Xie, A.N. Lakshmanan, The inuence of stacking fault
energy on the wear resistance of nickel base alloys, Wear 209 (12) (1997)
140152.
[26] J.J. Wert, S.A. Singerman, S.G. Caldwell, R.A. Quarles, The role of stacking fault
energy and induced residual stresses on the sliding wear of aluminum bronze,
Wear 91 (3) (1983) 253267.
[27] J.J. Coronado, A. Sinatora, Effect of abrasive size on wear of metallic materials
and its relationship with microchips morphology and wear micromechan-
isms: Part 1, Wear 271 (910) (2011) 17941803.
[28] H. Kitsunai, K. Kato, K. Hokkirigawa, H. Inoue, The transitions between
microscopic wear modes during repeated sliding friction observed by a
scanning electron microscope tribosystem, Wear 135 (2) (1990) 237249.
[29] T. Childs, The mapping of metallic sliding wear. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 202 (6) (1988) 379395.
68 O.A. Zambrano et al. / Wear 348-349 (2016) 6168
[30] H. Sin, N. Saka, N.P. Suh, Abrasive wear mechanisms and the grit size effect,
Wear 55 (1) (1979) 163190.
[31] J.J. Coronado, A. Sinatora, Effect of abrasive size on wear of metallic materials
and its relationship with microchips morphology and wear micromechan-
isms: Part 2, Wear 271 (910) (2011) 18041812.
[32] K.-H. Zum Gahr, Chapter 5 grooving wear, in tribology series, in: G. Karl-Heinz
(Ed.), Zum, Elsevier, 1987, pp. 132350.
[33] S.C. Lim, M.F. Ashby, Overview no. 55 wear-mechanism maps, Acta Metall. 35
(1) (1987) 124.
[34] M.F. Ashby, J. Abulawi, H.S. Kong, Temperature Maps for Frictional Heating in
Dry Sliding, Tribol. Trans. 34 (4) (1991) 577587.
[35] D. Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf, Flash temperatures due to friction and Joule heat at
asperity contacts, Wear 105 (3) (1985) 187198.
[36] L. Rozeanu, D. Pnueli, Two temperature gradients model for friction failure, J.
Lubr. Technol. 100 (4) (1978) 479484.
[37] W.M. Garrison, Abrasive wear resistance: the effects of ploughing and the
removal of ploughed material, Wear 114 (2) (1987) 239247.