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 Si<sub>3</sub>N<sub>4</sub>/steel contact
Authors: Kang, J. and Hadfield, M.
Journal: MATERIALS & DESIGN
Volume: 24
Issue: 8
Pages: 595-604
eISSN: 1873-4197
ISSN: 0264-1275
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.
Source: Manual
Preferred by: Mark Hadfield