4.4 Article

Empirical Stress Intensity Factors for Surface Cracks under Rolling Contact Fatigue

Journal

TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 621-629

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10402001003642759

Keywords

Ball Bearings; Ceramics; Semi-Elliptical Crack; Contact Mechanics; Fatigue Crack Propagation; Rolling Contact Fatigue; Stress Analysis; Finite Element Analysis; Stress Intensity Factor; Silicon Nitride Balls

Funding

  1. Timken Company, Canton, Ohio

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article contains empirical equations for the K(I), K(II), and K(III) stress intensity factors (SIFs) for semi-elliptical surface cracks for brittle materials subjected to rolling contact fatigue (RCF) as a function of the contact patch diameter, angle of crack to the surface, max pressure, position along the crack front, and aspect ratio of the crack. The equations were developed from SIFs calculated by parametric three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) for a range of contact patch radii (1b, 2b, and 3b) and angles of the crack to the surface (0 degrees., 45 degrees, and 60 degrees). Calculating mixed-mode SIFs for surface cracks subject to RCF using 3D FEA is computationally complex because of extreme mesh refinement required at multiple levels to capture steep stress gradients. The comprehensive empirical curve fits presented are accurate to within 0.5% of FE simulations and are useful for component design where contact-initiated surface fatigue damage is important such as in gears, roller bearings, and railway wheels. The results are of particular relevance to hybrid silicon nitride ball bearings, which are susceptible to failure from fatigue spalls emanating from preexisting surface cracks, due to crack growth driven by RCF (G. Levesque and N. K. Arakere, An investigation of partial cone cracks in silicon nitride balls. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2008, 45:6301-6315).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available