Wear-Rate Uncertainty Analysis

Tony L. Schmitz; Jason E. Action; David L. Burris; John C. Ziegert; W. Gregory Sawyer

doi:10.1115/1.1792675

Journal of Tribology | Volume 126 | Issue 4 | RESEARCH PAPERS

< Previous Article Next Article >

RESEARCH PAPERS RESEARCH PAPERS

Wear-Rate Uncertainty Analysis

Tony L. Schmitz, Jason E. Action, David L. Burris, John C. Ziegert and W. Gregory Sawyer

[+] Author Affiliations

Tony L. Schmitz, Jason E. Action, David L. Burris, John C. Ziegert, W. Gregory Sawyer

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

J. Tribol. 126(4), 802-808 (Nov 09, 2004) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1792675 History: Received September 13, 2003; Revised March 18, 2004; Online November 09, 2004

Article

References

Figures

Tables

Purchase this Content

$25.00

Purchase

Learn about subscription and purchase options

Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Schematic of the reciprocating tribometer constructed for this study

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Normal force versus time for PTFE on steel contact; histograms of the upper and lower normal forces are shown to the right

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Schematic of the cosine error in the normal force measurements

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Results from testing used to determine the angular misalignment illustrated in Fig. 3

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Schematic of the counterface/sliding direction misalignment

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Histogram from a 10,000 point Monte Carlo simulation using values taken from Table 1; the mean value was 5.05×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 7.4×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Histogram from 21 experiments with PTFE on stainless steel; the mean value was K=5.04×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 6.0×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Interrupted wear-rate measurement results are shown; the light gray open circles and associated error bars correspond to measurements completed using the original scale and calipers; black error bars and regression line represent data gathered using the new scale and micrometer. The error bars in the vertical and horizontal directions are plotted in each case, but some cannot be observed at the plot scale. Using the new equipment, the caps on the error bars are longer than the bars themselves.

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Footnotes

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

PDF
Share
Get Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.

Wear-Rate Uncertainty Analysis

References

Figures

Schematic of the reciprocating tribometer constructed for this study

Normal force versus time for PTFE on steel contact; histograms of the upper and lower normal forces are shown to the right

Schematic of the cosine error in the normal force measurements

Results from testing used to determine the angular misalignment illustrated in Fig. 3

Schematic of the counterface/sliding direction misalignment

Histogram from a 10,000 point Monte Carlo simulation using values taken from Table 1; the mean value was 5.05×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 7.4×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm

Histogram from 21 experiments with PTFE on stainless steel; the mean value was K=5.04×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 6.0×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Footnotes

Related Content

Journals

Conference Proceedings

eBooks

Wear-Rate Uncertainty Analysis

References

Figures

Schematic of the reciprocating tribometer constructed for this study

Normal force versus time for PTFE on steel contact; histograms of the upper and lower normal forces are shown to the right

Schematic of the cosine error in the normal force measurements

Results from testing used to determine the angular misalignment illustrated in Fig. 3

Schematic of the counterface/sliding direction misalignment

Histogram from a 10,000 point Monte Carlo simulation using values taken from Table 1; the mean value was 5.05×10−4 mm3/Nm with a standard deviation of 7.4×10−5 mm3/Nm

Histogram from 21 experiments with PTFE on stainless steel; the mean value was K=5.04×10−4 mm3/Nm with a standard deviation of 6.0×10−5 mm3/Nm

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Footnotes

Related Content

Journals

Conference Proceedings

eBooks

Histogram from a 10,000 point Monte Carlo simulation using values taken from Table 1; the mean value was 5.05×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 7.4×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm

Histogram from 21 experiments with PTFE on stainless steel; the mean value was K=5.04×10⁻⁴ mm³/Nm with a standard deviation of 6.0×10⁻⁵ mm³/Nm