0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Validation of the Stress Predictions in Rolling EHL Contacts Having In-Line Roughness Using the Inverse Method

[+] Author and Article Information
C. J. Hooke

School of Engineering,  University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

K. Y. Li

Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management,  City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

J. Tribol 128(4), 745-752 (May 22, 2006) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2345396 History: Received May 16, 2005; Revised May 22, 2006

Using modern EHL programs it is relatively simple to determine the pressures and clearances in rough EHL contacts. The pressures may then be used to calculate the subsurface stresses in the two contacting components. However, the results depend on the assumptions made about the fluid’s rheology. While it is possible to measure the clearances using interferometric techniques, measurement of either the pressures or stresses is extremely difficult. However it is these, rather than the clearances, that determine the life of the contact. In previous papers the authors have described how the inverse method may be used to validate the stress predictions for contacts with transverse roughness. This type of contact has fluid flow in only one plane and it remained necessary to check the results for more general rough surfaces where the flow is three-dimensional. Accordingly, the inverse method is extended, in this paper, to a situation where out-of-plane flow is significant. The paper describes the approach and presents some preliminary results for rolling contacts.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic view of the test disks

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Profiles of circumferential scratches after manufacture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Profiles of the 30N scratch after manufacture and after running for 2000 revolutions at each load

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Calculated pressures and clearances for the 30N scratch at a load of 42N. (A) Pressures, (B) clearances, (C) maximum pressures and minimum clearances at any x location. (b) Calculated pressures and clearances for the 30N scratch at a load of 336N. (A) Pressures, (B) clearances, (C) maximum pressures and minimum clearances at any x location.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Maximum elastic, residual and total von Mises stress for any x location for the 30N scratch at a loads of (a) 42N and (b) 336 N. The horizontal axis gives the position across the contact; the vertical axis the position into the material. (A) Elastic stresses, (B) residual stresses, (C) combined stresses.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Variation of maximum elastic, residual, and total von Mises stress with load for the 30N scratch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Variation of maximum combined von Mises stress with load. (b) Variation of maximum residual von Mises stress with load.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Maximum pressures for the 30N scratch at a load of 336N under lubricated (full line) and dry (feint line) conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Maximum elastic stresses under dry (closed symbols) and lubricated (open symbols) conditions. The + symbols are for smooth, lubricated contacts. ∇20N, Δ30N, ◻40N, ◇50N scratch load.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In