4.7 Article

Effect of roughness, contact pressure and lubrication on the onset of galling of the 6082 aluminium alloy in cold forming, a numerical approach

期刊

WEAR
卷 536, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2023.205179

关键词

Tribology of forming process; Galling; Aluminum; Numerical prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effect of surface roughness, contact pressure, and lubrication on the onset of galling in aluminum 6082-T6 using a pin-on-plate tribometer. The experimental results show that the roughness and lubricants play a significant role in preventing galling.
The effect of surface roughness, contact pressure and lubrication on the onset of galling of aluminum 6082-T6 is studied with a pin-on-plate tribometer. The design of experiments involves pins with mean arithmetic roughness Ra equaled to 0.2, 0.35 and 0.6 mu m, normal loads ranging from 5 to 600 N, and 4 different lubrications: without lubricant, with MoS2 dry lubricant, with pure mineral oil and with a highly chlorinated paraffin oil. Tests are performed at room temperature and are repeated three times. Experimental results show the great sensitivity of the onset of galling to the roughness and the beneficial effect of dry and liquid lubricants. The occurrence of galling is study by optical micrographs, by the analyses of the coefficient of friction, and by the use of finite element simulations. It comes that the variation of the coefficient of friction is not self-sufficient to detect the onset of galling. The finite element computations involves Wilson's lubrication model and Xue's damage model. Galling is assumed when finite elements near the contact area reach the critical damage Dc. This numerical approach leads to a good prediction of the onset of galling for the tests performed under constant normal load. For tests performed with increasing normal loads and various lubricants, the numerical prediction overestimate the sliding length before galling occurs.

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