4.7 Article

Friction and wear behaviour of rolling-sliding steel contacts

期刊

WEAR
卷 302, 期 1-2, 页码 1468-1480

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2012.12.008

关键词

Rolling-sliding; Wear; Contact-fatigue; Rail-wheel

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation to Science and Technology [PTDC/EME-PME/115491/2009]
  2. programme COMPETE from QREN
  3. European Community

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improving the total life cycle costs and safety of trains are current research topics that hold great interest for those who build, maintain and operate trains. The-maintenance interval for both wheels and rails has become a major issue in reducing costs and increasing safety and has encouraged the development of new tools for predicting the evolution of wear in order to establish a convenient maintenance schedule. These new tools require the synergy of dynamic analysis and the development of suitable wear models. Rail/wheel wear depends on the material properties resulting from a competition between contact fatigue and sliding wear. Therefore, all the contact conditions affecting the contact stress distribution will determine the wear behaviour. The current research paper investigates the effect of contact conditions on friction and wear behaviour of carbon and low alloy rail/wheel steels. Two-disc rolling-sliding tests were done to study the effect of the creep ratio, contact pressure and tangential speed on the resulting traction coefficient and amount of wear. Scanning and optical microscopy and the evolution of micro hardness were used to observe crack growth beneath the contact surface and to evaluate the strain-hardening effect, induced by contact stresses. Further rolling-sliding and unidirectional sliding tests were performed to assess the wear of the wheel rims. Results were analysed and discussed, comparing the effectiveness of a classical approach based on Archard's equation, with models involving the energy dissipated by friction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据