A Review on Wear Performance and Economic Evaluation of Hardfaced Ploughshare Blades

A Review on Wear Performance and Economic Evaluation of Hardfaced Ploughshare Blades

Sukhpreet Singha,*, Sukhpal Singh Chathaa, Rutash Mittalb

aYadavindra department of Engineering, Punjabi University, Guru Kashi Campus, Talwandi Sabo, Punjab, India-151302

A. bMalout Institute of Management and Information Technology, Malout, Punjab, India 152107

*Corresponding author (Email:- sukhpreetscholar@gmail.com; Tel.: (+91 84372043040)

Abstract – Wear and tear of machinery is a common challenge across all industrial sectors. Still, agricultural and earth-engaging equipment often requires more frequent replacements and increased operating costs due to significant wear. Conventionally, farmers replace worn-out cultivator blades with new ones. The worn-out blades are discarded as scrap, which recovers only limited economic value. Although various factorsincluding operational practices, soil types, and substrate materialsaffect the wear rate of these blades, the hardness of the substrate material is particularly crucial in reducing wear. It is widely reported that hardfacing is an effective surface modification method to enhance the wear resistance and service life of agricultural tools. The present paper focuses on a review of wear resistance analysis of iron-based hardfacings. In addition, an economic evaluation based on cost per functional life is discussed using the typical cost of a bare blade and the hardfaced blade. The study concluded that hardfacing is a cost-effective approach and a sustainable alternative to blade replacement for agricultural equipment.

Keywords – Hardfacing, Ploughshare blade, Abrasive wear, Economic evaluation, Iron-based hardfacing, Sustainable engineering.

INTRODUCTION

Agricultural tillage operation is an important practice to improve the soil qualities and increase crop productivity. Ploughshare blades are among the most critical components in the tillage operations. During tillage operations, the ploughshare blades are subjected to severe abrasive wear from continuous contact with hard soil particles, stones, and other hard inclusions. This leads to a significant loss of material from the surface and changes the working edge geometry of the ploughshare blades [16]. As a result, the efficiency of the ploughshare blades gets reduced and needs to be replaced frequently with new ones [79]. This increases the production cost and leads to downtime [10,11]. Generally, low or medium-alloy steel is used to manufacture tillage blades, but these grades of material do not have a sustainable life in soil conditions [12,13]. The farmers prefer to replace the worn-out ploughshare blades with new blades and sell the discarded blades as scrap, which increases the cost of tillage operations and reduces the life cycle of the blades. However, this approach results in high operating costs for low and medium- scale farmers. Moreover, the scrap blade recovers only the base metal value of the blade, while the manufacturing cost, which includes manufacturing energy, forming, casting, and heat treatment are lost. The National Agricultural Statistics Service of the USA reported that the annual replacement cost

of agricultural equipment due to wear and corrosion is approximately $15 billion per year [14]. Although various approaches are used to mitigate the ploughshare blades' wear- related issues, hardfacing is widely adopted as a surface engineering technique to improve the surface properties subjected to abrasive wear. In agricultural applications, hardfacing has shown promising results in extending the service life of the tillage blades by depositing the hard wear- resistant alloys on the critical wear parts of the blades. However, various hardfacing alloys are employed on the blade surface, but iron-based hardfacings are easily available and economical. The novelty of this review lies in combining the reported wear performance of iron-based hardfaced ploughshare blades with a practical economic comparison relevant to Indian agricultural conditions. Although many studies focus on wear behaviour, this paper highlights cost per service life (Rs/ha) as a key decision parameter for determining whether blade replacement or hardfaced blades are economically preferable. The economic comparison presented in this review is based on typical cost and service life values reported in literature and field practice [10,15,16]. Actual performance may vary depending on soil conditions, operating parameters, and hardfacing procedure. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as indicative trends rather than absolute values.

2. METHODOLOGY

Over the past two decades (approximately 20052026), relevant literature was systematically surveyed from peer- reviewed sources. Most of the published studies have primarily focused on improving wear resistance by depositing hard alloys on the substrate material to extend blade life. However, comparatively limited attention has been given to the economic feasibility of hardfacing in agricultural applications. In this context, the present study not only reviews the metallurgical and performance aspects of hardfacing but also evaluates whether the process is economically justified for tillage blades. Relevant research articles and experimental studies were critically analysed to extract data on service life improvement, alloy composition, and microstructural characteristics. For the economic analysis, data were collected from published literature and local market surveys to estimate the cost of new blades, hardfacing materials, and labour charges. These cost values were compared with the increase in service life reported in earlier studies. A simple cost per hectare service life comparison was

used to evaluate the economic benefit of hardfaced blades over conventional blades. Based on this analysis, the review examines whether hardfacing is technically useful and also cost-effective for tillage applications.

The following key aspects are covered in this review:

1. Hardfacing processes

2. Hardfacing techniques

3. Hardfacing alloys

4. Role of microstructure and carbide fraction in wear resistance

5. Performance evaluation under laboratory and field conditions

6. Economic evaluation of new and hardfaced ploughshare blades

1. Hardfacing Process

   As reported [17] hardfacing involves the deposition of a superior wear-resistant alloy layer onto the surface of the component, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The major objective of hardfacing is to reduce the replacement cost and extend the service life of the equipment [18,19]. Previous studies have reported that surface properties such as hardness, wear, and corrosion resistance can be improved by the hardfacing method [20,21]. Furthermore, the worn-out parts can be rebuilt using the hardfacing technique, extending the equipment's life by two or three times [22]. Another study reported that hardfacing is a versatile and economical method to control the wear problem [11].

2. Hardfacing Depositing Techniques

   Hardfacing can be deposited by different techniques, namely welding, spraying, and cladding [23]. Hardfacing can be overlaid on the surface by both conventional and non- conventional methods. But the researcher considered gas metal arc welding (GMAW), tungsten inert gas welding (TIG), laser beam welding (LBW), plasma transferred arc welding (PTAW), flux core arc welding (FCAW), and shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) as suitable hardfacng techniques to overlay the substrate [11,22,24]. Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) is the most commonly used process for hardfacing ploughshare blades. This process is simple, cost- effective, and suitable for both workshop and field repairs [25]

   lectrode older

   ard acing

   o er

   elding

   source

   Cables

   lectrode

   Figure 1. Schematic diagram of tillage brclade hardfacing by shielded metal arc welding.

   . Other processes, such as Flux-Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) and Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), have also been reported in literature, but their use is limited in rural agricultural settings due to higher equipment costs. The hardfacing technique is critical for increasing wear resistance. A comparative investigation of hardfacing processes using Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) and Flux-Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) reported that SMAW is a more economical and operationally reliable technique than FCAW under similar working conditions [26].

3. Iron-based hardfacing alloys and the effect of chromium content

   The wear performance of various ferrous and non-ferrous alloys was investigated by the researchers. However, due to their affordability and adaptability, ferrous alloys have received significant attention to increase wear resistance [27]. Iron-based hardfacing alloys have been extensively employed for improving the wear resistance of agricultural tillage components due to their low cost, ease of deposition, and good metallurgical compatibility with carbon steel substrates [28,29]. Among various alloying elements, chromium has been identified as the most influential element governing the abrasive wear performance of iron-based hardfacings [30].

   life of tillage tools, provided that chromium content, carbide morphology, and deposition parameters are carefully optimised. Several studies have reported that an increase in chromium content significantly enhances wear resistance through the formation of hard chromium carbides within the metal matrix [3133]. Investigations on cast iron and low- carbon steel substrates revealed that wear resistance is strongly dependent on deposition technique, electrode carbon content, and resulting microstructure rather than hardness alone [34]. In particular, the volumetric fraction and distribution of carbides were found to play a more important role in wear performance than bulk hardness values [35,36]. As presented in Table 1, comparative studies on iron-based hardfacings containing chromium contents ranging from 3 to 29% consistently showed a reduction in wear rate with increasing chromium concentration [37]. Hardfacings containing higher chromium levels (12% Cr) exhibited superior abrasive wear resistance due to the presence of complex carbides such as Cr7C3 and Cr23C6 which effectively resist micro-cutting and ploughing actions caused by soil particles [38]. A study reported that, under laboratory conditions, specimens with 20% chromium exhibited higher wear resistance than other low-chromium hardfacings, which was attributed to the presence of complex carbides in the microstructure [39]. Another study reported that the field performance validated laboratory findings, showing significantly lower weight loss for chromium-rich hardfaced tillage blades compared to untreated components [40]. However, it was also observed that laboratory wear rates do not always directly correlate with actual field wear, highlighting the influence of complex soiltool interactions [41]. Overall, iron-based chromium hardfacings represent a significant and economical solution for extending the service

   Alloy System / Compositio n	Depositi on Process	Wear Test Method	Key Findings
   FeCr (3 10% Cr)	SMAW	Pin-on-disc (ASTM G99)	Moderate wear resistance; limited carbide formation
   FeCr (12 20% Cr)	MMA W / GTAW	Taber abrasion	Significant reduction in wear due to complex carbides
   FeCr (18 29% Cr)	SMAW	Field + Lab tests	Highest wear resistance; carbide-rich martensitic matrix

   Table 1. The wear performance of chromium content in iron-based hardfacing alloys

4. Role of Microstructure and Carbide Fraction in Wear Resistance

   The abrasive wear resistance of hardfaced surfaces is predominantly influenced by their microstructural characteristics and the volume fraction of carbides present within the matrix. Microstructural features such as phase constitution, carbide morphology, size, and distribution directly influence key mechanical properties, including hardness, toughness, and load-bearing capacity. A carbide-rich and well-distributed microstructure enhances resistance against micro-cutting and ploughing mechanisms, while the surrounding matrix provides necessary toughness to prevent premature fracture or spalling during service. A literature survey revealed that wear resistance is significantly influenced by variations in the hardfacing deposition method, the electrode carbon content, and the microstructure. Further, it was revealed that hardness did not correlate directly with wear rate [42]. However, the volumetric percentage of carbides in the metal matrix improved wear resistance [43]. It has also been reported that the formation of complex carbides within the matrix significantly enhances resistance to abrasive wear [44]. In agricultural applications, studies comparing untreated and hardfaced tillage blades revealed that conventional blades experience higher material loss due to the presence of ferrite and pearlite in their microstructure, which are relatively soft compared to abrasive soil particles [31,45]. In contrast, hardfaced blades exhibit superior wear performance due to carbide reinforcement. Furthermore, an increase in chromium content in hardfacing alloys has been consistently associated with improved wear resistance, attributed to the formation of a higher volume of hard chromium-rich carbides that enhance surface hardness [46]. The addition of chromium-based alloying elements promotes the formation of lath martensite along with ferritic phases, leading to a marked increase in hardness and improved wear performance [45]. Figure 2 shows the microstructural characteristics of the iron chromium-based hardfacing deposit, highlighting the carbide morphology, distribution, and matrix structure. Overall, these findings indicate that abrasive wear behaviour is primarily controlled by a combined effect of hardness, microstructure, and chemical composition rather than any single parameter alone.

5. Wear Performance of Hardfaced Ploughshare Blades

   A literature review reported that hardfaced ploughshare blades exhibit lower wear rates than untreated blades and better retain their cutting geometry after field trials, as shown in Figure 3, [4648]. The hardfacing process improves the surface properties of the substrate by depositing a harder alloy layer on the substrate. This increases the surface hardness or improves the microstructural properties, which play a major role in improving wear resistance. In most cases, hardfaced blades show extended service life ranging from 1.5 to 4 times that of conventional blades, as shown in Table 2, depending on operating conditions and alloy composition. Wear performance improvements are influenced by factors such as

   Figure 2 Iron-chromium-based hardfacings with different microstructural

   characteristics [18]

   the number of hardfacing layers, welding parameters, and dilution with the base metal [49]. Although excessive hardness may lead tocracking, properly selected iron-based hardfacing alloys provide a good balance between wear resistance and toughness [51], [52].

   Figure 3. Comparison of (a) new blade, (b) bare blade after field trials showing severe edge loss, and (c) hardfaced blade after field trials exhibiting reduced edge wear. The hardfaced blade retains its cutting profile better than the uncoated blade [47].

   1. ECONOMIC EVALUATION

      Although previous studies have reported that hardfacing enhances the service life of tillage blades, limited attention has been given to its economic viability. In practice, many farmers prefer replacing worn blades with new ones, assuming that direct replacement is more economical than applying hardfacing. Therefore, the present review incorporates a comparative cost analysis of untreated and hardfaced blades to evaluate their relative economic performance. A market survey indicated that the combined cost of hardfacing materials and labour is approximately 1.5 times the purchase cost of a new bare blade. However, findings from the literature show that hardfacing increases service life by approximately

      1.5 to 4 times compared with untreated blades [6,8,10,38,44,5355]. To assess economic feasibility, a cost per hectare approach was adopted, in which blade cost is normalised by its e ective service li e (/ha). ard acing is considered economically advantageous when the cost per unit area tilled is lower than that of a new untreated blade. This analytical framework provides a straightforward and practical basis for decision-making under variable agricultural operating conditions. As summarised in Table 3, the cost per hectare of hardfaced blades is lower (4.1 – 6.25) than that of bare blades (7.5) due to their extended service life. These findings indicate that improving durability through hardfacing can offer a more cost-effective solution than repeated

      replacement of untreated blades. Although the initial cost of the hardfaced blade is relatively high compared to the unhardfaced blade but operational cost of the hardfaced blade is less than that of the bare blade. It should be noted that the economic outcome may vary depending on soil conditions, operating parameters, and local cost fluctuations.

      Table 2. WRI of Iron-based hardfacing materials reported in the literature.

      Bare material	Typical Hardfacing elements	WRI	Reference
      Medium carbon steel	Fe-C-Cr-Mn	1.3	[10]
      EN-14B	Fe-C-Cr	2.5	[38]
      EN-42	Fe-C-Cr	1.8	[53]
      AISI	Fe-C-Cr	2.8	[6]
      Low alloy steel	Fe-C-Cr-Nb	2.0	[8]
      EN42	Fe-C-Cr-B	1.5	[44]
      Low-carbon steel	Fe-C-Cr	4.2	[54]
      Hardox 500	Fe-C-Cr	3.0	[55]

      The results indicate that, despite a 70% increase in initial cost, the hardfaced blade reduces operational cost by approximately 1745%, depending on the achieved service life. This confirms that durability enhancement through hardfacing can provide measurable economic benefit under typical agricultural working conditions.

   2. CONCLUSIONS

• Abrasive wear is the primary cause of ploughshare blade failure due to the hard particles present in the soil

• Iron-based hardfacing significantly improves wear resistance, and it is attributed to the microstructural and mechanical properties of the surface

  Table 3. Economic comparison of new and hardfaced ploughshare blades

  Parameter	Unhardfaced blade	Hardfaced blade
  Average Cost of blade (Rs)	150	250
  Price Ratio	1	1.6
  Average Service life (ha)	20	40-60
  Average Cost per hectare (Rs/ha)	7.5	4.1-6.25

• Hardfacing provides a lower cost per functional life than replacement

• Iron-based hardfacing is a practical and sustainable solution for Indian agriculture

REFERENCES

1. Effect of coating materials on draft requirement of tractor drawn mould board plough, (n.d.). https://www.phytojournal.com/archives/view- pdf/8020/8-2-567 (accessed February 24, 2026).

2. C. Munteanu, I. Melnic, B. Istrate, M. Hardiman, L. Gaiginschi, F.C. Lupu, V.N. Arsenoaia, D.L. Chicet, C. Zirnescu, V. Badiul, A Comprehensive Review of Improving the Durability Properties of Agricultural Harrow Discs by Atmospheric Plasma Spraying (APS), Coatings 15 (2025) 632.

3. Z. Sagdoldina, D. Baizhan, N. Berdimuratov, M. Rutkowska-Gorczyca,

   M. Maulet, S. Bolatov, Increasing Wear Resistance of Ploughshare by Electrofriction Treatment, Coatings 14 (2024) 1529.

4. Y.S. Saygl, . ygün, . Urkan, B. Çakmak, Investigation o Material Hardness Values of Active Elements of Some Domestic Production Tillage Equipment and Agricultural Machinery, ÇOMÜ Zir Fak Derg (2025) 165171.

5. Z. Zou, J. Li, X. Wang, C. Tang, X. Chen, Wear Resistance Enhancement of Rotary Tillage Blades Through Structural Optimization and Surface Strengthening, Materials 18 (2025) 5006.

6. I.S. Dalmis, K. Can, SURFACE MODIFICATION OF SPRING TINE CULTIVATOR POINTS WITH DIFFERENT METAL POWDERS BY GTAW METHOD, Lat. Am. Appl. Res. – Int. J. 54 (2024) 4553.

7. Á. Kalácska, P. De Baets, D. Fauconnier, F. Schramm, L. Frerichs, J. Sukumaran, Abrasive wear behaviour of 27MnB5 steel used in agricultural tines, Wear 442443 (2020) 203107.

8. R.A.P. Lorenzi, V.V. De Castro, M. Bullmann, A.M.H. De Andrade, P. Mariot, C. De Fraga Malfatti, Increased wear resistance of cultivator coulters coated with FeCr-Nb cladding and evaluated in field conditions: sandy and compacted soil in southern Brazil, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 129 (2023) 16011612.

9. . Królicka, . Szczepaski, . Konat, T. Sta icki, . Kostencki, The Influence of Microstructure on Abrasive Wear Micro-Mechanisms of the Claddings Produced by Welding Used in Agricultural Soil, Materials 13 (2020) 1920.

10. Y. Bayhan, Reduction of wear via hardfacing of chisel ploughshare, Tribol. Int. 39 (2006) 570574.

11. N.K.B. Parvinkal Singh Mann, Tribological aspects of agricultural equipments : a revie , Int. Res. J. ng. Technol. 02 (2015) 17041708.

12. A.E. Novikov, V.A. Motorin, M.I. Lamskova, M.I. Filimonov, Composition and Tribological Properties of Hardened Cutting Blades of Tillage Machines under Abrasive Deterioration, J. Frict. Wear 39 (2018) 158163.

13. U. Er, B. Par, Wear of plowshare components in SAE 950C steel surface hardened by powder boriding, Wear 261 (2006) 251255.

14. B.P. Aramide, P. Popoola, R. Sadiku, F. Aramide, T. Jamiru, S. Pityana, Wear-Resistant Metals and Composites, in: 2020.

15. A.M. El-Sheikha, R.A. Hegazy, Chisel pough shares protection by using two different coating techniques,

16. D. Singh, Effect of Heat Treatment on Wear Rate of Different Agricultural Grade Steels and Associated Cost Economics, Econ. Aff. 63 (2018).

17. M.F. Buchely, J.C. Gutierrez, L.M. Leon, A. Toro, The effect of microstructure on abrasive wear of hardfacing alloys, Wear 259 (2005) 5261.

18. D. Tandon, H. Li, Z. Pan, D. Yu, W. Pang, A Review on Hardfacing, Process Variables, Challenges, and Future Works, Metals 13 (2023) 1512.

19. A. Gualco, H.G. Svoboda, E.S. Surian, L.A.D. Vedia, Effect of welding procedure on wear behaviour of a modified martensitic tool steel hardfacing deposit, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 41654173.

20. J. Singh, D. kumar Shukla, Hardfacing With Saw Method on Mild Steel a Critical Review, Int. J. Tech. Res. Sci. 3 (2018) 370378.

21. R.R. Garbade, N.B. Dhokey, Overview on Hardfacing Processes, Materials and Applications, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1017 (2021) 012033..

22. C. Okechukwu, O.A. Dahunsi, P.K. Oke, I.O. Oladele, M. Dauda, Review on hardfacing as method of improving the service life of critical

    components subjected to wear in service, Niger. J. Technol. 36 (2018) 1095.

23. R.R. Garbade, N.B. Dhokey, Overview on Hardfacing Processes, Materials and Applications, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1017 (2021) 012033.

24. M. Kirchgaßner, E. Badisch, F. Franek, Behaviour of iron-based hardfacing alloys under abrasion and impact, Wear 265 (2008) 772779.

25. A. Arifin, Dissimilar metal welding using Shielded metal arc welding: A Review, 62 (2020).

26. C.R. C., K.M.K. Reddy, C.T. Jayadeva, R.K. S. C., R.V.P. Kaviti, A.

    Bhowmik, C. Prakash, A Comparative Assessment of ChromiumBoron Hardfacing Using SMAW and FCAW Techniques, Sci. World J. 2024 (2024) 4943983.

27. B. Maroli, S. Dizdar, S. Bengtsson, Iron-Based Hardfacing Alloys for Abrasive and Impact Wear, in: A. Agarwal, G. Bolelli, A. Concustell, Y.-C. Lau, A. McDonald, F.-L. Toma, E. Turunen, C.A. Widener (Eds.), Düsseldorf, Germany, 2017: pp. 394399.

28. M. Morsy, E. El-Kashif, The effect of microstructure on high-stress abrasion resistance of Fe-Cr-C hardfacing deposits, Weld. World 58 (2014) 491497.

29. R. Chotborský, . rab, M. Müller, J. Savková, M. Jirka, brasive wear of high chromium Fe-Cr-C hardfacing alloys, Res. Agric. Eng. 54 (2008) 192198.

30. Y.K. Singla, M.R. Maughan, N. Arora, D.K. Dwivedi, Enhancing the wear resistance of iron-based alloys: A comprehensive review of alloying element effects, J. Manuf. Process. 120 (2024) 135160.

31. A. Singh Kang, G. Singh, G. Singh Cheema, Improving wear resistance via hardfacing of cultivator shovel, Mater. Today Proc. 4 (2017) 7991 7999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.136.

32. V. Shibe, V. Chawla, Characterization of FeCCr Based Hardfacing Alloys, Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 71 (2018) 22112220.

33. S. Selvi, S.P. Sankaran, R. Srivatsavan, Comparative study of hardfacing of valve seat ring using MMAW process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 207 (2008) 356362.

34. C.-M. Chang, Y.-C. Chen, W. Wu, Microstructural and abrasive characteristics of high carbon FeCrC hardfacing alloy, Tribol. Int. 43 (2010) 929934.

35. S.G. Sapate, A.V. Rama Rao, Effect of carbide volume fraction on erosive wear behaviour of hardfacing cast irons, Wear 256 (2004) 774 786.

36] N. Yüksel, S. ahin, ear behaviorhardnessmicrostructure relation of FeCrC and FeCrCB based hardfacing alloys, Mater. Des. 58 (2014) 491498.

1. G. Singh, Analysis of Rotavator Blades for its Enhanced Performance Against Abrasive Wear Using Hard Facing, XII (n.d.) 951958.

2. A.S. Kang, G.S. Cheema, S. Singla, Wear behavior of hardfacings on rotary tiller blades, Procedia Eng. 97 (2014) 14421451.

3. R.M. Dobra, N. Farbas, R. Pascu, Evaluation of Abrasive Wear Resistance of Fe-Cr-C Hardfacing Alloys Deposited on Active Components of the Agricultural Components, Adv. Mater. Res. 1029 (2014) 188193.

[40]B. Srikarun, P. Muangjunburee, The effect of iron-based hardfacing with chromium powder addition onto low carbon steel, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018) 92739280.

[41]S. Singh, J. Garg, P. Singh, G. Singh, K. Kumar, J. Singh, S. Kumar, J.P. Singh, Effect of hard faced Cr-alloy on abrasive wear of low carbon rotavator blades using design of experiments, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018) 33903395.

1. Abrasive wear resistance of the iron- and WC-based hardfaced coatings evaluated with scratch test method, (n.d.) (accessed February 24, 2026).

2. S. Chatterjee, T.K. Pal, Wear behaviour of hardfacing deposits on cast iron, Wear 255 (2003) 417425, 1648(03)00101-7.

3. S. Singh, S.S. Chatha, Influence of hardfacings on wear behavior of EN- 42A steel in actual field conditions, Adv. Mater. Process. Technol. 9 (2023) 15241540.

4. B. Srikarun, P. Muangjunburee, The effect of iron-based hardfacing with chromium powder addition onto low carbon steel, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018) 92729280.

5. V.E. Buchanan, D.G. McCartney, P.H. Shipway, A comparison of the abrasive wear behaviour of iron-chromium based hardfaced coatings deposited by SMAW and electric arc spraying, Wear 264 (2008) 542

6. J. Singh, S.S. Chatha, B.S. Sidhu, Performance Evaluation of Surface Overlaid EN-42 Steel for Tillage Applications, J. Tribol. 143 (2021)

7. M.Z. Tekeste, L.R. Balvanz, F. Al-Aani, A. Boesenberg, J.L. Hatfield, Hardened Edges Effects on Wear Characteristics of Cultivator Sweeps Using Circular Soil Bin Test, J. Tribol. 144 (2022) 024501.

8. P. Kostencki, T. Stawicki, A. Królicka, Wear of the working parts of agricultural tools in the context of the mass of chemical elements introduced into soil during its cultivation, Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 9 (2021) 229240.

9. B. Aramide, S. Pityana, R. Sadiku, T. Jamiru, P. Popoola, Improving the durability of tillage tools through surface modificationa review, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 116 (2021) 8398.

10. A. Yazici, Wear on steel tillage tools: A review of material, soil and dynamic conditions, Soil Tillage Res. (2024).

11. J. Jiang, S. Li, W. Yu, Y. Zhou, Microstructural characterization and abrasive wear resistance of a high chromium white iron composite reinforced with in situ formed TiCx, Mater. Chem. Phys. 224 (2019) 169174.

12. J. Singh, S.S. Chatha, B.S. Sidhu, Tribological performance of hardfaced and heat treated EN-47 steel used for tillage applications, Surf. Topogr. Metrol. Prop. 8 (2020) 045006.

13. S. Singh, J. Garg, P. Singh, G. Singh, K. Kumar, J. Singh, S. Kumar, J.P. Singh, Effect of hard faced Cr-alloy on abrasive wear of low carbon rotavator blades using design of experiments, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018) 33903395.

14. M. Lemecha, J. Napiórkowski, K. Ligier, FORECASTING THE WEARING OF PLOUGHSHARES PARTS UNDER OPERATING CONDITIONS, Tribologia 286 (2019) 3339.