Dry Sliding Wear Behavior of a Selected Titanium Alloy Against Counterface Steel of Different Hardness Levels
- PDF / 10,995,547 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 593.972 x 792 pts Page_size
- 34 Downloads / 226 Views
INTRODUCTION
DRY sliding wear of titanium alloys has recently drawn the attention of many researchers.[1–6] The experimental parameters in their studies, such as sliding distance, sliding velocity, applied load, environmental element, and material microstructure, are normally considered the governing factors of wear behavior. However, to date, the influence of counterfaces on the wear of titanium alloys has rarely been addressed in the literature.[7–10] Straffelini and Molinari[7] studied the dry sliding wear behavior and mechanism of Ti-6Al-4V alloy sliding against itself (350 HV 10) and AISI M2 steel (65 HRC) under different sliding conditions. The wear behavior of Ti-6Al-4V alloy followed two distinct trends against dissimilar counterfaces. In the case of AISI M2 steel, the
QIUYANG ZHANG, HONGYAN DING, GUANGHONG ZHOU, XIAODONG GUO, MAN ZHANG, NIANLIAN LI, HAIBING WU, and MUJIAN XIA are with the Faculty of Mechanical and Material Engineering, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian 223003, China. Contact e-mail: [email protected] Manuscript submitted June 10, 2018. Article published online October 25, 2018 220—VOLUME 50A, JANUARY 2019
wear rate was higher and continuously decreased with increasing sliding velocity. As Ti-6Al-4V alloy slid against itself, the wear rate first decreased, experienced a minimum, and then became particularly severe. The oxidative mechanism and metallic delamination were identified at the lowest and highest velocities, respectively. Qu et al.[8] investigated the friction and wear of Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo alloys sliding against 440C stainless steel (12.6 GPa), silicon nitride (19.37 GPa), and alumina (24.75 GPa) at 0.3 and 1.0 m/ s. Sliding over an identical counterpart, the two different titanium alloys demonstrated similar friction and wear performance regardless of their grain structures and compositions. As the counterfaces were changed in the order of alumina, silicon nitride, and steel, the wear rates of the sliders progressively decreased. Guo[9] studied the wear properties of TC4 alloy using GCr15 steel and SiC as counterparts. The friction coefficient of TC4 alloy wearing against GCr15 steel was higher, but the mass loss was lower, than that of SiC. The wear mechanisms of TC4 alloy were mainly defined as adhesion and oxidation wear sliding against GCr15 steel, while grinding wear prevailed in the case of SiC. In the work of Wang et al.,[10] dry sliding wear tests of Ti-6.5Al-3.5Mo-1.5Zr-0.3Si alloy against AISI 52100
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
steel (51 HRC) and AISI M2 steel (63 HRC) were also performed. The wear rate of the titanium alloy against M2 steel was higher than that against 52100 steel in most cases, which was attributed to the micro-cutting action of the harder M2 steel. According to the various studies mentioned above, titanium alloys present completely different wear behaviors and wear mechanisms because of changing counterfaces.[7–10] An analysis of the findings yields two main results: (1) the wear behavior and mechanism of titanium alloys
Data Loading...
