Comparison of four-ball and five-ball rolling contact fatigue tests on lubricated Si<inf>3</inf>N<inf>4</inf>/steel contact

Authors: Kang, J. and Hadfield, M.

Journal: Materials and Design

Volume: 24

Issue: 8

Pages: 595-604

ISSN: 0264-1275

DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00147-X

Abstract:

Accelerated four-ball and five-ball rolling tests were performed on HIPed Si3N4 ball samples (rough lapped with surface roughness value R a 0.08 μm and R q 0.118 μm) in fully lubricated condition. The contact load and the stress cycles per minute for four-ball rolling and five-ball rolling tests were maintained the same. The rolling track appearances of five-ball tests reveal severe sliding occurred. In one case, the opposite arc cracks were generated all over the two sides of the rolling track, and this could not be explained by simplified kinematics model. The failure mechanisms were discussed, which suggest the sliding on the two sides of the track was in the opposite direction. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. all rights reserved.

Source: Scopus

Comparison of four-ball and five-ball rolling contact fatigue tests on lubricated Si3N4/steel contact

Authors: Kang, J. and Hadfield, M.

Journal: MATERIALS & DESIGN

Volume: 24

Issue: 8

Pages: 595-604

ISSN: 0261-3069

DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00147-X

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

Comparison of Four-Ball and Five-Ball Rolling Contact Fatigue Tests on Lubricated Si3N4/Steel Contact

Authors: Kang, J. and Hadfield, M.

Journal: Materials & Design

Volume: 24

Pages: 595-604

ISSN: 0261-3069

DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00147-X

Abstract:

Accelerated four-ball and five-ball rolling tests were performed on HIPed Si3N4 ball samples (rough lapped with surface roughness value Ra 0.08 μm and Rq 0.118 μm) in fully lubricated condition. The contact load and the stress cycles per minute for four-ball rolling and five-ball rolling tests were maintained the same. The rolling track appearances of five-ball tests reveal severe sliding occurred. In one case, the opposite arc cracks were generated all over the two sides of the rolling track, and this could not be explained by simplified kinematics model. The failure mechanisms were discussed, which suggest the sliding on the two sides of the track was in the opposite direction.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TX5-49S76D4-4&_user=1682380&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000011378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1682380&md5=e8128ed91b66c51431b715b9f988aeb1

Source: Manual

Preferred by: Mark Hadfield