0
Research Papers: Contact Mechanics

Assessment of Topography Parameters During Running-In and Subsequent Rolling Contact Fatigue Tests

[+] Author and Article Information
Deepak K. Prajapati

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Patna 801103, India
e-mail: deepak.pme14@iitp.ac.in

Mayank Tiwari

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Patna 801103, India
e-mail: mayankt@iitp.ac.in

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Tribology. Manuscript received September 6, 2018; final manuscript received January 25, 2019; published online March 4, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Sinan Muftu.

J. Tribol 141(5), 051401 (Mar 04, 2019) (13 pages) Paper No: TRIB-18-1366; doi: 10.1115/1.4042676 History: Received September 06, 2018; Accepted January 25, 2019

Rolling contact fatigue (RCF) is one of the major problems observed in gear mechanisms, which leads to high friction, ultimately resulting in high energy consumption. This paper demonstrates the evolution of surface topography during running-in and subsequent RCF tests under boundary or mixed-elastohydrodynamic lubrication regimes. The case-hardened disks of equal surface finish and hardness are used in the experiments, and the evolution of surface topography is investigated using a white light interferometer. Surface topography at different load stages is measured at three distinct points, on the disks and average roughness and topography parameters are reported. Semi-quantitative techniques are used to determine the asperity-level parameters at different load stages. From the running-in experiment, it is found that running-in is a fast process where substantial change in surface topography occurs due to plastic deformation of most prominent asperity. From the RCF test, it is concluded that within range of the fatigue cycles, the root-mean-square (RMS) roughness (Sq) is negatively correlated with the summit radius (R) and the autocorrelation length (Sal) and positively correlated with the summit density (Sds) and the RMS slope (Sdq). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis reveals the disappearance of grinding ridges, the formation of micropits at a very small scale, and pit growth in the sliding direction.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Holmberg, K., Kivikyto-Reponen, P., Harkisaari, P., Valtonen, K., and Erdemir, A., 2017, “Global Energy Consumption Due to Friction and Wear in the Mining Industry,” Tribol. Int., 115, pp. 116–139. [CrossRef]
Mallipeddi, D., Norell, M., Sosa, M., and Nyborg, L., 2017, “Influence of Running-In on Surface Characteristics of Efficiency Tested Ground Gears,” Tribol. Int., 115, pp. 45–58. [CrossRef]
Britton, R. D., Elcoate, C. D., Alanou, M. P., Evans, H. P., and Snidle, R. W., 2000, “Effect of Surface Finish on Gear Tooth Friction,” ASME J. Tribol., 122, pp. 354–360. [CrossRef]
Hutt, S., Clarke, A., and Evans, H. P., 2018, “Generation of Acoustic Emission From Running-In and Subsequent Micropitting of Mixed-Elastohydrodynamic Contacts,” Tribol. Int., 119, pp. 270–280. [CrossRef]
Blau, P. J., 2005, “On the Nature of Running-In,” Tribol. Int., 38, pp. 1007–1012. [CrossRef]
Menezes, P. L., Ingole, S. P., Nosonovsky, M., Kailas, S. V., and Lovell, M. R., 2013, Tribology for Scientists and Engineers, 1st ed., Springer, New York, ISBN: 978-1-4614-1945-7.
Bhushan, B., 2013, Introduction to Tribology, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, UK. ISBN: 978-1-119-94453-9.
Akbarzadeh, S., and Khonsari, M. M., “On the Prediction of Running-In Behavior in Mixed-Lubrication Line Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 132, 0321021.
Whitehouse, D. J., and Archard, J. F., 1970, “The Properties of Random Surfaces of Significance in Their Contact,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci., 316, pp. 97–121. [CrossRef]
Leighton, L., Morris, N., Gore, M., Rahmani, R., Rahnejat, H., and King, P. D., 2016, “Boundary Interactions of Rough Non-Gaussian Surfaces,” Proc IMechE Part J J. Engg. Tribol., 230(1), pp. 1359–1370. [CrossRef]
Clarke, A., Weeks, I. J. J., Snidle, R. W., and Evans, H. P., 2016, “Running-In and Micropitting Behavior of Steel Surfaces Under Mixed Lubrication Conditions,” Tribol. Int., 101, pp. 59–68. [CrossRef]
Akbarzadeh, S., and Khonsari, M. M., 2013, “On the Optimization of Running-In Operating Conditions in Applications Involving EHL Line Contact,” Wear, 303, pp. 130–137. [CrossRef]
Andersson, M., Sosa, M., and Olofsson, U., 2016, “The Effect of Running-In on Efficiency of Superfinished Gears,” Tribol. Int., 93, pp. 71–77. [CrossRef]
Lord, J., and Larsson, R., 2008, “Film-Forming Capability in Rough Surface EHL Investigated Using Contact Resistance,” Tribol. Int., 41, pp. 831–839. [CrossRef]
Ostvik, R., and Christensen, H., 1968, “Change in Surface Topography With Running-In,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 183, pp. 57–65
Akbarzadeh, S., and Khonsari, M. M., 2011, “Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Running-In,” Tribol. Int., 44, pp. 92–100. [CrossRef]
Wagner, J. J., Jenson, A. D., and Sundararajan, S., 2017, “The Effect of Contact Pressure and Surface Texture on Running-In Behavior of Case Carburized Steel Under Boundary Lubrication,” Wear, 376–377, pp. 851–857. [CrossRef]
Xiao, L., Rosen, B. G., Amini, N., and Nilsson, P. H., 2003, “A Study on the Effect of Surface Topography on Rough Friction in Roller Contact,” Wear, 254, pp. 1162–1169. [CrossRef]
Oila, A., and Bull, S. J., 2005, “Assessment of Factors Influencing Micropitting in Rolling/Sliding Contacts,” Wear, 258, pp. 1510–1524. [CrossRef]
Nelias, D., Dumont, M. L., Champiot, F., Vincent, A., Girodin, D., Fougeres, R., and Flamand, L., 1999, “Role of Inclusions, Surface Roughness and Operating Conditions on Rolling Contact Fatigue,” ASME J. Tribol., 121, pp. 240–251. [CrossRef]
Morales-Espejel, G. E., Rycerz, P., and Kadiric, A., 2018, “Prediction of Micropitting Damage in Gear Teeth Contacts Considering the Concurrent Effects of Surface Fatigue and Mild Wear,” Wear, 398–399, pp. 99–115. [CrossRef]
Rabaso, P., Gauthier, T., Diaby, M., and Ville, F., 2013, “Rolling Contact Fatigue: Experimental Study of the Influence of Sliding, Load, and Material Properties on the Resistance to Micropitting of Steel Disks,” Tribol. Trans., 56(2), pp. 203–214. [CrossRef]
Evans, M. H., Wang, L., and Wood, R. J. K., 2014, “Formation Mechanism of White Etching Cracks and White Etching Area Under Rolling Contact Fatigue,” Proc. IMechE Part J J. Engg. Tribol., 228(10), pp. 1047–1062. [CrossRef]
“Gwyddion – Free SPM (AFM, SEM, STM…) Data Analysis Software,” www.gwyddion.net.
“MountainsMap® 7–Surface Imaging and Analysis Software,” www.digitulsurf.com.
Masjedi, M., and Khonsari, M. M., 2012, “Film Thickness and Asperity Load Formulas for Line-Contact Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication With Provision for Surface Roughness,” ASME J. Tribol., 134, 0115031. [CrossRef]
Akbarzadeh, S., and Khonsari, M. M., 2010, “Effect of Surface Pattern on Stribeck Curves,” Tribol. Lett., 37, pp. 477–486. [CrossRef]
Pan, P., and Hamrock, B. J., 1989, “Simple Formulas for Performance Parameters Used in Elastohydrodynamically Lubricated Line Contacts,” ASME J. Tribol., 111(2), pp. 246–251. [CrossRef]
Olver, A. V., 1984, “Micropitting and Asperity Deformation,” Development in Numerical and Experimental Methods Applied to Tribology, Tenth Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology, London, Butterworth, pp. 151–174.
Spikes, H. A., and Olver, A. V., 1986, “Wear in Rolling Contacts,” Wear, 112(2), pp. 121–144. [CrossRef]
Clarke, A., Evans, H. P., and Snidle, R. W., “Understanding Micropitting in Gears,” Proc IMechE Part J J. Engg. Tribol., 230(7–8), pp. 1276–1289.
AL-Tubi, I. S., Long, H., Zhang, J., and Shaw, B., 2015, “Experimental and Analytical Study of Gear Micropitting Initiation and Propagation Under Varying Loading Conditions,” Wear, 328–329, pp. 8–16. [CrossRef]
Kalin, M., Pogacnik, A., Etsion, I., and Raeymaekers, B., 2016, “Comparing Surface Topography Parameters of Rough Surfaces Obtained With Spectral Moments and Deterministic Methods,” Tribol. Int., 93, pp. 137–141. [CrossRef]
Pawar, G., Pawel, P., Etsion, I., and Raeymaekers, B., 2013, “The Effect of Determining Topography Parameters on Analyzing Elastic Contact Between Isotropic Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 135(1), 011401.
Oila, A., 2013, “Micropitting and Related Phenomenon in Case Carburized Gears,” Ph.D. thesis, University of New Castle, UK.
Tomanik, E., 2005, “Modeling of Asperity Contact Area on Actual 3D Surfaces,” SAE 2005 World Congress & Exhibition. 4271/2005-01-1864
Thomas, T. R., 1999, Rough Surface, Imperial College Press, London.
Dong, W. P., and Stout, K. J., 1995, “An Integrated Approach to the Characterization of Surface Wear I: Qualitative Characterization,” Wear, 181–183, pp. 700–716. [CrossRef]
Dong, W. P., Sullivan, P. J., and Stout, K. J., 1994, “Comparative Study of Parameters for Characterizing Three Dimensional Surface Topography IV: Parameters for Characterizing Spatial and Hybrid Properties,” Wear, 178, pp. 45–60. [CrossRef]
Prajapati, D. K., and Tiwari, M., 2017, “Topography Analysis of Random Anisotropic Gaussian Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 139, 041402. [CrossRef]
Roy, S., White, D., and Sundararajan, S., 2018, “Correlation Between Evolution of Surface Roughness Parameters and Micropitting of Carburized Steel Under Boundary Lubrication Condition,” Surface Coating Technol., 350, pp. 445–452. [CrossRef]
Roy, S., Ooi, G. T. C., and Sundararajan, S., 2018, “Effect of Retained Austenite on Micropitting Behaviour of Carburized AISI 8620 Steel Under Boundary Lubrication,” Materialia, pp. 1–10.
Beek, A. V., 2015, Advanced Engineering Design Life-Time Performance and Reliability, 6th ed., Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, Chapter 6, p. 186.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the Plint 74S two-roller machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic for the measurement of surface roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Surface map of the lower disk (a) at location 1 and (b) at location 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Surface maps of the upper disk (a) at location 1 and (b) at location 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Variation of the friction coefficient with the number of cycles during the running-in test (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 30%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 0.75 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Surface maps of the lower disk (a) before running-in and (b) after running-in

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Surface maps of the upper disk (a) before running-in and (b) after running-in

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variation of the average friction coefficient with the number of cycles during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Surface maps of the lower disk (a) after 0.25 M cycles, (b) after 0.5 M cycles, (c) after 0.75 M cycles, (d) after 1.25 M cycles, and (e) after 1.5 M cycles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Surface maps of (a) the upper disk after 1.5 M cycles and (b) the lower disk after 1.5 M cycles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Evolution of specific film thickness (λ) and modified film thickness (λmod) during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Evolution of summit density and mean summit curvature during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Evolution of the real contact area during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Evolution of RMS roughness and RMS slope during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Evolution of autocorrelation length and texture aspect ratio during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Evolution of skewness and kurtosis during RCF tests (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, and ur = 3 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

SEM micrograph of lower disk (a) before the test, at 277× magnification and (b) before the test, at 1000× magnification (ox represents the sliding direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

SEM micrograph of (a) the lower disk after 1.5 million cycles, at 277× magnification; (b) the lower disk after 1.5 million cycles, at 1000× magnification; (c) the upper disk after 1.5 million cycles, at 277× magnification; and (d) the upper disk after 1.5 million cycles, at 1000× magnification (ox represents the sliding direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Micropits depth and area histogram after 1.5 million cycles of the slower disk (pmax = 1.5 GPa, SRR = 6%, Tin = 60 °C, rolling speed, ur = 3 m/s)

Tables

Errata

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