Mine & Quarry - Rock breaker - Rock breaker foot - Mobile equipment - USA (North Carolina) - +200% lifetime

Objective

Assess the performance of Creusabro^® 8000 as an alternative to 500 HB water-quenched steel in the foot of a rock breaker, aiming to significantly extend wear life and reduce maintenance frequency under high-impact, abrasive conditions.

Test Conditions

• Location: Gold mining operation in North Carolina, USA

• Environment: Continuous heavy-duty breaking of hard rock, subjecting the breaker foot to extreme mechanical impact and abrasive wear.

• Function: The rock breaker foot, a highly stressed wear component critical to operational uptime and equipment longevity.

• Original material: 500 HB water-quenched steel

• Replacement material: Creusabro® 8000, processed by flame cutting and welding.

Results

• The Creusabro® 8000 breaker foot delivered 36 months of service life, compared to 12 months with the 500 HB steel — a 200% increase in wear life.

• Despite the extreme service conditions, Creusabro® 8000 maintained its structural integrity and wear resistance throughout the full duration of the test.

Value Delivered

• Tripled Service Life: 200% improvement significantly reduced the need for replacements and associated labor costs.

• Operational Continuity: Increased uptime and fewer interruptions enhanced productivity in a critical mining application.

• Cost Efficiency: Reduced replacement cycles minimized overall maintenance costs and spare part inventory.

• Easy Integration: Standard processing methods (flame cutting, welding) allowed for straightforward substitution.

Conclusion

By switching to Creusabro® 8000, Mount Rawdon Gold Mine and Stulz Manganal achieved a highly durable and cost-effective solution, extending the service life of the rock breaker foot from 12 to 36 months — a 200% gain under some of the most severe wear conditions in mining.

Creusabro® once again proves to be the intelligent choice for impact-heavy, abrasion-intensive applications, offering both technical superiority and long-term savings.

Comparative test