The core conditions for selecting bucket teeth

1. Core Judgment Dimension 1: Operating Material Type (Determines the Nature of Wear)

Material hardness, particle size, and corrosiveness are key factors affecting bucket tooth wear and should be prioritized:

Soft materials, such as clay, sand, and humus, are free of hard impurities and primarily produce abrasive wear (slow surface wear). They require moderate tooth hardness and do not require excessive impact resistance.

Mixed materials, such as soil containing gravel (≤5cm in diameter) and weathered rock, exhibit a combination of abrasive wear and mild impact wear, requiring teeth with both basic wear resistance and toughness.

Hard materials, such as granite, limestone, ore, and frozen soil, primarily produce severe impact wear (high instantaneous forces that can easily lead to tooth tip fracture). Therefore, impact resistance and toughness must be prioritized.

Special materials, such as salt pan sludge and chemical waste, contain corrosive components and require additional corrosion protection (such as galvanized coatings or corrosion-resistant alloys) to prevent material failure.

2. Core Judgment Dimension 2: Operation Intensity (Determining Force Amount)

Operation intensity reflects the "load frequency" of the bucket teeth and is directly related to the fatigue resistance of the material:

Light operations, such as farmland reconstruction and house foundation pit excavation, involve operations ≤6 hours per day, low mechanical loads, and gentle forces on the bucket teeth, focusing on cost-effectiveness.

Medium operations, such as municipal road construction and river dredging, involve operations 8-10 hours per day, with occasional full-load operation. A balance between wear resistance and impact resistance is required.

Heavy operations, such as mining and quarry loading, involve 24-hour shifts. The bucket teeth are constantly subjected to full-load impacts, requiring high-strength and high-toughness materials (such as bimetallic composites or high-manganese steel).

3. Core Judgment Dimension 3: Equipment Model (Determining Compatibility)

Bucket teeth must precisely match the excavator/loader bucket model and arm specifications. Failure to do so will result in loosening and uneven force distribution (accelerated wear or breakage). Two key parameters must be confirmed:

Bucket capacity: For example, a 1.2m³ bucket requires a medium-sized tooth. Large buckets over 3m³ require a heavy-duty tooth with a thicker tooth body.

Connection method: Common options include "pin-and-hole" (secured by a locking pin) and "bolt-on" (bolt-on). The pinhole diameter and adapter dimensions must be carefully verified (for example, the Komatsu PC200 and Caterpillar 320 require specialized tooth models to avoid mismatches with standard models).

4. Core Judgment Dimension 4: Cost Expectations (Balancing Performance and Budget)

Once the operating conditions are clearly defined, it's important to calculate the overall cost by combining "replacement frequency and cost per tooth" to avoid blindly selecting high- or low-priced options:

For light operating conditions: Choose ordinary alloy wear-resistant steel (cost per tooth: 100-300 RMB, lifespan: 1-2 months). Avoid bimetallic composite options (cost over 50% higher, performance overkill).

For heavy operating conditions: Choose high-manganese steel or bimetallic bucket teeth (cost per tooth: 300-800 RMB, lifespan: 3-6 months). While these options are more expensive per tooth, they reduce replacement frequency (saving downtime and labor costs) and offer greater long-term value.

In short, only by clearly defining the type of material to be excavated, the size of the equipment used, and the intensity of the work to be performed can the material, structure, and model of the bucket teeth be precisely matched, avoiding the problem of "choosing too weak (which is prone to breakage) or too strong (which is wasteful)."