4.7 Article

Experimental study on wear of TBM disc cutter rings with different kinds of hardness

期刊

TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 346-357

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.08.050

关键词

Disc cutter ring; Hardness; Wear mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51475478, 51274252]
  2. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (the 973 program) [2013CB035401]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2016zzts043]
  4. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate [CX2017B048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study the wear characteristics of disc cutter rings, cutter-rock wear tests between cutter rings with six types of hardness and three typical types of rock are carried out based on the liner cutting machine (LCM). The wear mechanism and wear depth are also studied with a laser microscope. The research results show that the wear mechanism of cutter rings is micro cutting when the disc cutter rings wear against sandstone. The wear loss, wear depth and morphology of wear debris change insignificantly with the increase of the hardness. When the cutter rings wear against rust stone, the wear mechanism of cutter rings presents furrow deformation, followed by micro cutting with the increase of the hardness. When the hardness is increased to 57.5 HRC, the cutter wear mechanism begins to show brittle fractures. With the increase of the hardness, the wear loss and wear depth are decreased, but the decrease speed slows when the hardness is increased to 57.0 HRC. When disc cutter rings with different types of hardness wear against gneiss, the wear law is, on the whole, consistent with that in the case of rust stone. Finally, the rule for selecting the appropriate blade shape for cutter rings with different types of hardness when wearing against three typical rock formations is obtained based on the shape changes of the cutter blades.

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