Abstract

A rolling contact fatigue (RCF) differs from the classic fatigue in a stress-state. Nowadays, a prediction of the RCF is still not on the sufficient level. A lot of researchers tried to apply different multiaxial fatigue criteria (MFC) to the RCF, respectively they modified some or even proposed new one. Our paper focuses on assessment of bearing life estimation based on mentioned methods with experimental validation in laboratory. Comparison and summarization of different methods used in MFC life estimation is presented, with inclusion of fatigue material properties, hardness and probability. Mainly bearing steels are used for evaluation and region of high-cycle and giga-cycle fatigue.

Highlights

  • The rolling bearing is exposed to many types of failure during operation

  • It is caused by cyclic contact loading which leads to a specific distribution of stress state and maximal shear stress beneath the surface (Fig. 2)

  • Publications [2,3,4,5] describe an analogy between the classic and the rolling contact fatigue, on the basis of which Multiaxial Fatigue Criteria (MFC) can be used for the Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF), even though they were originally derived for the classic fatigue

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The rolling bearing is exposed to many types of failure during operation. These types are well described in the publication of Harris [1] who presents analytic methods for predict these failures. This study exclusively deals with the failure named Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) which leads to pitting (Fig. 1). The difference is that the crack initiates on the surface of part within classic fatigue, whereas the crack initiates in subsurface layer in the RCF (macropitting) (Fig. 3). It is caused by cyclic contact loading which leads to a specific distribution of stress state and maximal shear stress beneath the surface (Fig. 2). Publications [2,3,4,5] describe an analogy between the classic and the rolling contact fatigue, on the basis of which Multiaxial Fatigue Criteria (MFC) can be used for the RCF, even though they were originally derived for the classic fatigue

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call