Brecher 2017

Chair of
Machine Tools
7th WZL Gear Conference in the USA

July 18/19, 2017
Subject: Physical and Chemical Analysis of Running-In in Gear Applications
1 Introduction and Motivation 1

2 Research Aim 4
3 Test Parts, Test Rigs and Calculation Methods 5
4 Chemical Analysis of Running-In 6
4.1 Influence of Lubricant on Friction Coefficient 7
4.2 Influence of Lubricant on Surface Properties after Running-In 8
5 Geometrical Surface Changes during Running-In 10
5.1 Research Approach 10
5.2 Experimental Results of Geometrical Running-In Tests 11
5.3 Prediction Model for Geometrical Running-In for Pure Rolling 14
5.3.1 Calculation Method 14
5.3.2 Validation of Calculation Method for Geometrical Running-In 17
5.3.3 Reflection of Calculation Method 19
6 Summary and Outlook 20
7 Bibliography 21
Author and Speaker: Dieter Mevissen M.Sc.

Co-Authors: René Greschert M.Sc.
Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Christoph Löpenhaus
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christian Brecher
15-1 Running-In in Gear Applications
Abstract
Rolling-sliding contacts are tribological systems, which change their properties during oper-
ating. In addition to the load, the material properties and the sliding kinematics, the perfor-
mance of tribological systems regarding wear, friction and contact fatigue is significantly
influenced by the properties of the lubricant as well as the surface roughness and structure.
The knowledge about the interaction between lubricant, its additives and the contacting parts
is fundamental for optimization of running behavior. In the first part of this paper, the influ-
ence of the lubricant with different amounts of additives is evaluated from the experimental
point of view.
In the second part of the paper it is focused on the changes of surface roughness during run-
ning-in. The evaluation and knowledge of surface roughness after completed running-in is
most important for an accurate design of rolling-sliding contacts. Therefore, a new method
for predicting the elastic-plastic deformation of single roughness peaks from a measured sur-
face topography is presented. The solving algorithm performs locally an iterative correction
of the geometry in order to reduce the local maximums of pressure at each roughness peak.
The vital advancement in this procedure is the output of the running-in surface topography,
which can be directly compared with testing results for the validation of the calculation ap-
proach. The calculation approach is validated for two different surface topographies result-
ing from grinding and shot peening, whereas in both cases, the method quantitatively con-
firms the deformation effects at the roughness peaks.
1 Introduction and Motivation

Highly loaded rolling-sliding contacts, e.g. the tooth flank contact, are tribological systems
whose properties are determined by the interactions between the contacting parts, the lubri-
cant and the ambient medium [CZIC10]. For the example of the tribological system of two
gear flanks, the basic and counter part can be defined as pinion and gear, the media as lubri-
cant and air. The design and characteristics of the tribological system have a decisive influ-
ence on the running behavior in terms of friction, wear and contact fatigue [LINK96,
NIEM03]. Depending on the initial properties of the parts and the operating conditions, the
tribological system continuously changes over the number of load cycles [VOLG91,
LOHN15a, LÖPE15]. The change of the tribological contact conditions is most pronounced
during the first load cycles, Figure 1 This initial change is called running-in and can be de-
fined as follows [ASMI92]:
„In tribology, an initial transition process occurring in newly established wearing contacts,
often accompanied by transients in coefficient of friction, wear rate, or both, that are un-
characteristic of the given tribological system's long-term behavior.”
The running-in of rolling-sliding contacts takes generally place in all newly manufactured
rolling contacts, whether it is intended or not. The characteristics of the running-in process
vary depending on the initial properties of the contacting parts and the operating conditions
[VOLG91, LOHN15b, LÖPE15, SCHE15]. The changes of the tribological system during
WZL Gear Conference in the USA 15-2
running-in can be divided into different categories. On the one hand there are geometrical
changes of the surfaces caused by the flattening of roughness peaks [LOHN15a, LÖPE15]
and furthermore there are changes of micro structure in the subsurface zone [GOHR82,
VOLG91]. On the other hand changes of the boundary layer can be observed in consequence
of tribo-induced chemical reactions [BREC15, LOHN15b]. In case of a shift of operating
conditions, there are usually no stationary contact conditions, which means that there is a
renewed running-in of the tribological system [MICH87, TOBI01, LÖPE15]. By definition
of the operating conditions during the running-in process, the properties of tribological sys-
tems can be optimized in terms of contact fatigue strength, friction and wear.
Manufacturing Properties Properties after Running-In
M1, n1
Continuous Running-In
Process during Loading
S
system change
P  Crucial Properties for

Tribological Systems
– Contact Strength
– Efficiency
I II III
 Influence Factors: time / load cyles  Influence Factors:
– Manufacturing process – Initial surface conditions
Running-
– Process parameters Fatigue Damage – Material properties
In
– Properties of work piece – Operating conditions
© WZL
Figure 1: Running-In of Rolling-Sliding Contacts
Figure 2 shows the main influences on the running-in process of rolling-sliding contacts. In
addition to the kinematics and the lubrication, the main influence categories on the properties
of the rolling-sliding contact after running-in are the contact geometry, load and the material
properties of the subsurface zone. The radii of curvature of the contacting parts, waviness as
well as the surface roughness and structure are assigned to the category “contact geometry”.
The material properties can be quantified by the modulus of elasticity and the yield strength
of the subsurface zone, whereby the yield strength has a large number of influence factors
(micro structure, degree of deformation etc.). For the categories “kinematics” and “load” the
surface velocities in terms of value and direction, the normal force and the contact time are
subsumed, for example. The influence factor “lubricant” contains the properties of the lubri-
cant in regard of base oil viscosity and additives.
In this report the two categories of running-in “change of geometry” and “change of the
boundary layer” are focused. For the category “change of geometry” the basic relations of the
running-in behavior under rolling-sliding conditions are known from the phenomenological
point of view. Experiments have repeatedly shown that surface roughness reduces during run-
ning-in and that the final surface structure has a decisive influence on the performance of the
rolling-sliding contact during operating conditions in regard of load capacity and efficiency
[BÖRN76, GOHR82, VOLG91, BUGI09, MAYE13, LÖPE15]. Nevertheless, the surface
roughness after the running-in is generally not known in the design phase of gears since nei-
ther empirical models nor knowledge-based calculation approaches exist to predict the geo-
metrical changes during running-in. The resultant uncertainties in the design process are com-
pensated by extensive testing as well as oversizing. For the future, a generally applicable
prediction model could close this gap by quantifying the surface geometry of the contacting
parts after completion of running-in processes as a function of any initial surface state. In this
report, an approach for a prediction model is build up considering the main influence factors
load, contact geometry and material properties, while the kinematics and the lubricant are
neglected in the first step. This approach allows a stepwise development of knowledge for the
geometrical running-in process and builds the basis for a strong validation of the model.
Manufacturing Properties Properties after Running-In
M1, n1
Continuous Running-In
Process during Loading
Contact
Lubrication
Geometry Material
Load
R1 Properties
Kinematic
F
σ
v
S
ω
ε P
© WZL
Figure 2: Influence Factors on Running-In Process of Rolling-Sliding Contacts
For the category “change of the boundary layer” this report highlights the influence of differ-
ent lubricants and additives on the formation of boundary layers. Gear transmissions are usu-
ally run under mixed friction, i.e. the tooth flanks are not completely separated by an oil film.
Boundary layers, which develop on the surfaces during manufacturing and application, can
protect tooth flanks from metal-metal contacts. Knowing the influence of the lubricant on the
characteristics of the boundary layer, it is possible to define a tribological system during the
design phase, which performs best in regard of efficiency and load capacity.
2 Research Aim
The tribological system of two gear flanks changes consistently during operating conditions.
The strongest changes can be observed during running-in process. This report examines the
subject of running-in on two different levels. On the one hand the influence of the lubricant
and its additives is investigated in the chemical point of view. The manufacturing process,
especially the grinding feed rate and the metalworking fluid, cause manufacturing induced
boundary layers and influence the running behavior of the produced parts [BREC14,
BREC15]. In the later application, the lubricant and its additives determine the running be-
havior. Therefore, the chemical interaction between the surface and the transmission oil is
analyzed in the first part of this report. The aim is to determine the effect of the lubricant
composition on the running-in in regard of friction coefficient and roughness reduction, Fig-
ure 3. Besides the usage of a common gear box oil including an well-designed additive pack-
age, the potential of white oil without any chemical additives is evaluated in detail.
Continuous Running-In Process during Loading
Change of Boundary Layer Change of Surface

by Definition of Lubricant Roughness and Structure
-50%
Ra - Value
a) S b)
P
before after
Additives
Research Aim 1 Research Aim 2
Determination of the Influence of Determination and Prediction of
different Lubricant Additives on Surface Flattening of Manufacturing-
Friction Coefficient and Roughness Induced Surface Structures within
during Running-In the Area of the Roughness Peaks
© WZL
Figure 3: Research Aims for Physical and Chemical Running-In Analysis
On the other hand physical aspects of running-in are highlighted in the second part of this
report. The focus of this section is on the descriptions and the prediction of geometrical sur-
face changes during running-in, Figure 3. By knowing the running-in state of the surfaces
instead of the initial state after manufacturing, a more precise calculation of rolling-sliding
contacts is possible during design phase. Therefore, the second research aim is the determi-
nation and prediction of surface flattening of manufactured-induced surface structures in the
area of the roughness peaks. The core of the calculation approach is the half-space theory
according to BOUSSINESQ/LOVE. The elastic-plastic material model is based on the idea of a
limiting pressure, which borders the maximum pressure inside the contact area. The main
result of the calculation is the geometrically corrected surface topography reproducing the
running-in surface of the experiment. The predicted and the real geometry can be directly
compared with each other for validation. In detail, the prediction model is validated by inves-
tigations on the disk-on-disk test rig with ground and shot peened surface structures. Finally
the development status of the prediction model is scrutinized and further improvement steps
are derived.
3 Test Parts, Test Rigs and Calculation Methods

An economic alternative to the testing of gears is the testing of disks that represent the tribo-
logic conditions at a specific point on the path of contact. Each contact point on the path of
contact can be represented by the local radius of curvature, the tangential velocities of pinion
and gear as well as the local normal force. An advantage of this testing concept compared to
the gear test is a reduction of costs because the disks are cheaper than gears and the test rigs
are smaller (factor 3 smaller than back-to-back gear test rig) [BÖRN76]. Furthermore, the
testing principle allows for the investigation of the influence of single combination of loads
on strength and efficiency as load and kinematic conditions do not vary compared to the gear
contact and, hence, the sliding, curvature, and normal force can be investigated independently
from each other. The investigation regarding the influence of lubricant and additives on the
running behavior are performed on the WZL Disk-on-Disk Friction Force Test Rig
(Figure 4). The test program for validating the prediction model for the geometrical running-
in of the surface is carried out on the WZL-Disk-on-Disk Fatigue Test Rig. Test and counter
shaft have an outer diameter da = 42.05 mm and a width of b = 14 mm. For measurement of
friction force the counter shaft is cylindrical with a central width of bcen = 4 mm. For the run-
ning-in investigations in terms of local deformation the counter shaft has a curvature with the
radius R = 166 mm in axial direction. The test shaft is always cylindrical. These types of
macro geometry of the disk-on-disk contact are successfully applied in several studies
[BUGI09, BAGH15, BREC15, LÖPE15].
The tests parts for all investigations in this paper consist of the case hardened steel 16MnCr5
(1.7131). The case hardened depth is CHD550,HV1 = 0.6 – 0.7 mm with a surface hardness of
745 HV1 and a surface retained austenite quantity RA = 23 %. The surface roughness is in
the range of Ra = 0.3-0.35 µm (Rz = 2,0 – 2,5 µm). Further details of material properties are
documented in [LÖPE15]. These are the initial conditions for the friction force measurement
and the first variant of the validation of the prediction model. The second variant for validat-
ing the geometrical surface changes during running-in was shot-peened after the grinding
process and has an undirected surface structure. Surface roughness and edge hardness are
higher with Rz = 2,9 - 3,2 μm and 835 HV0,1 ( than after the grinding process. The test part
of the second variant correspond to the test parts used in [BAGH15]. The counter shafts for
the friction force analysis have the same roughness and properties like the test shaft, while for
the running-in investigation the surface of the counter shaft was polished (Rz <0.35 μm). In
this case, the surface is as smooth as possible in order to prevent the interaction of individual
roughness peaks of the counter shaft during the running-in process.
 WZL Disk-on-Disk Test Rigs Contact Fatigue Test Rig Friction Force Test Rig
1 Test Shaft (cylindrical)
2 Counter Shaft (crowned) 5 4 1
3 Pressure Piston
4 Force Lever FN
5 Housing
6 Counter Shaft Support n1
7 Feather Springs FR
8 Friction Force Strain Gauge
 Contact Geometry
4
Test Shaft 5 n2
FDMS
Counter Shaft
8 7 6 2 3
FDMS n1
3 2 1 TOii n2
Point Contact Line Contact
Point Contact Line Contact
© WZL
Figure 4: Test Rigs
4 Chemical Analysis of Running-In

In this chapter, the focus is on the chemical influence of lubricant on the running behavior of
rolling-sliding contacts. In order to examine the effect mechanisms of gear lubrication and its
influence on the outer boundary layer, a variation of lubricant additives is performed for the
experimental tests on the disk-on-disk test rig. Figure 5 shows an overview of the lubricants
used for the tests. Since the lubricant additives are the main object of the variation, all three
experimental oils are chosen from the same viscosity class of VG 68.
The gearbox oil with additives is a commercially available product with CLP classification
and was used in several previous research activities [BREC13, BREC15]. Accordingly, this
oil is suitable for injection lubrication and contains an additive package which optimizes the
aging resistance as well as the friction and wear behavior. In contrast, the other two lubricant
variants do not include any additives by purpose. The gearbox oil without additives is the base
oil of the first lubricant variant for these tests. There are no extra additives added after refin-
ing. Nevertheless, the base oil contains a residual amount of sulfur, which is not removed by
refining as a result of the process. It is expected that the residual amount of sulfur has no
major effect on friction or wear of the rolling-sliding contact.
In order to evaluate the influence of pure viscosity of the lubricant without any chemical
additives on the rolling-sliding contact, a white oil is used as a third test oil. The white oil is
free of aromatics and sulfur residues and is usually used in medical and pharmaceutical ap-
plications. The white oil also has the viscosity class ISO VG 68 and is specified by the Ger-
man Pharmacopoeia 10 [HART91]. All used lubricants are provided by the company Fuchs
Europe Lubricants.
Gearbox Oil, with Additives Gearbox Oil, No Additives Mineral Oil (White Oil)
 Viscosity class VG 68  Viscosity class VG 68  Viscosity class VG 68
 Industrial transmission oil  Base oil of the industrial  Medical mineral oil specified
transmission oil by DAB10 standard
 DIN-Class: CLP
– Circular Lubrication (C)  Aromates 7%  High degree of refinement
– Additives against  Retained sulpur 0.4 – 0.7%  Contains no aromates or
corrosion and aging (L) sulphur
– Additives for lower
friction and wear (P)
© WZL
Figure 5: Overview of the tested lubricants
4.1 Influence of Lubricant on Friction Coefficient

For the investigation of the friction and wear behavior of the different lubricant compositions,
two tests are carried out on the WZL Disk-on-Disk Friction Force Test Rig, see chapter 3.
The testing condition are chosen in a way, that the tribological loads of the disk-on-disk con-
tact is comparable to the scuffing critical area of a loaded tooth flank. The value of slippage
is s = +60% for the whole test. In this first step, a running-in is performed with a Hertzian
contact pressure of pH = 800 MPa for N1 = 160.000 load cycles. The friction force is recorded
over the entire test time. After running-in, the contact pressure is increased to pH = 1200 MPa
and once again the friction coefficient is determined.
Figure 6 shows the averaged friction coefficients for all three lubricant compositions as a
function of the test time and Hertzian contact pressure. The friction coefficient of the three
lubricant do not only differ in terms of the height of the friction coefficient determined in the
experiment, but also in the course of the friction coefficient over time. While the friction
coefficient decreases steadily for the industrial gearbox oil with additives during the running-
in period, the values of the other two lubricants without additional additives fall abruptly to a
low level and remain in this range until the end of test period. Regarding the absolute level of
the friction coefficient, the lubricants without additives show lower values than the industrial
gearbox oil. In particular, the use of white oil leads to a friction coefficient, which is 7% lower
than the friction coefficient of the industrial gearbox oil. However, the different time profile
of the friction coefficient suggests that the surface and lubrication states of the three test var-
iants also differ from each other over the testing time.
The increase of contact pressure leads to a reduction of friction coefficient for both variants
of gearbox oil. This relationship can be explained by the pressure-viscosity behavior of the
lubricant at higher pressures, resulting in an improved surface separation and thus a lower
proportion of solid-state friction [LÖPE15]. On the other hand the lubrication by white oil
leads spontaneously to a scuffing damage. One possible explanation is that the high degree of
refining of the white oil reduces the lubrication potential despite the same viscosity class,
because neither additives nor unsaturated molecular groups, e.g. aromatics exist in the oil
[ASCH31]. This experimental results emphasize that the frictional behavior, the scuffing load
capacity and thus the surface state are to be investigated independently of each other.
 Friction Measurement Friction Coefficient during Running-In

n1 = 2445 rpm
Gearbox oil Gearbox oil w/o
Friction Coeff. µ
s1 = +60 % 0.09 +additives additives pH = 800 MPa

Toil = 60°C
Qoil = 2 l/min 0.08
Ntests = 2
Viscosity: ISO VG 68 0.07 White
Oil
 Test Parts 0.06
d = 42 mm 0 4 Runtime [·104 LC] 12 16
btrack = 3.8 mm
Ra = 0.3 µm Friction Coefficient at the End of Running-In
Friction Coeff. µ
0.08 pH = 800 MPa

pH =1200 MPa
0.07
Scuffing
0.06
0.05
Gearbox oil Gearbox oil, Mineral oil
+ additives no additives (white oil)
© WZL
Figure 6: Running Behavior (Friction Coefficient) as a Function of Lubricant Additives
4.2 Influence of Lubricant on Surface Properties after Running-In

From the test results of the friction coefficient it is clear that the comparison of the tested
lubricants is not to be carried out solely on the basis of the friction behavior, but also on the
basis of wear and specific damage pattern (e.g. scuffing). For this reason the analysis of the
tests parts are extended considering the surface roughness and characteristic after testing.
Figure 7 shows the visual appearance of the test parts after the test run. Using the gearbox oil
with additional additives the contact area shows micro pitting in the center and shiny surface
stripes at the edges due to the contact conditions. The usage of the gearbox oil without addi-
tives leads to discolorations in the center of the contact area but no micropittings. In contrast,
the discolorations caused by the mineral oil (white oil) are outside of the contact area. The
contact are is shiny without discolorations or micropittings.
The low value of friction coefficient correlates with the values of surface roughness, which
were measured after the test run in the center of the contact area. For all three variants, there
is a reduction of the arithmetical mean roughness Ra. While the reduction in the Ra value is
17% compared to the initial state of the gearbox oil with additives, roughness is reduced by
57% for the gearbox oil without additives and 67% for the mineral oil (white oil).
 Testing Conditions Appearance of Contact Area after Running-In

n1 = 3000 rpm contact area contact area contact area
s = -28 %
Toil = 90°C
Qoil = 2 l/min
Viscosity: ISO VG 68
pH = 2500 MPa
 Test Parts Micro-pitting Discolorations
d = 42 mm
Rbal1/2 = 0 / 166 mm Gearbox oil Gearbox oil, Mineral oil
Ra = 0.3 µm + additives no additives (white oil)
Ra [µm]
0.3
0.2
 Key 0.1
New condition 0
After test run Change of Roughness
© WZL
Figure 7: Change Surface Condition as a Function of Lubricant Additives
The results emphasize that the change of roughness and surface discolorations depends on the
amount of additives. Regarding the discolorations, it is likely that with increasing load and
temperature, a chemical change is associated for both lubricants with a low amount of addi-
tives (gearbox oil without additives and mineral oil – white oil), because both lubricants do
not contain additives for protection against oxidation and aging. Regarding the reduction of
surface roughness, a possible explanation is that the local thermal and chemical stresses are
higher for the lubricants without additives. In this case the smoothing of the surface roughness
is higher as the material properties of the test parts are the same at the beginning. The fact
that increased stresses in the subsurface zone during the running-in period can lead to a better
running behavior in the following operation conditions has already been shown by finite life
strength tests [BREC13] and friction force measurements [LOHN15a]. The occurrence of
scuffing for the white oil shows that the effect of friction reduction is not sufficient as a quality
criterion for a lubricant. A compromise to achieve a reduction in friction during running-in
and at the same time maintain a sufficient load capacity during operating would be a separa-
tion of the running-in oil and operating oil.
5 Geometrical Surface Changes during Running-In

The analysis of different lubricants in the previous chapter emphasized that the resulting
roughness after running-in influences the running behavior under operation conditions. De-
pending on the tribological conditions the changes of roughness caused during running-in
varies significantly. In the following chapter, the focus is on the prediction of the roughness
changes during running-in in order to enable a more precise design of rolling-sliding contacts.
Furthermore, the knowledge of the contact geometry after running-local stresses can be pro-
vided for further calculation methods for the tribological system.
5.1 Research Approach

The aim of the report is to determine and predict the geometrical changes of the surface struc-
ture in the area of the roughness peaks under pure rolling conditions. The focus is on the
development of a calculation approach for determining the smoothing of each single rough-
ness peak using an elastic-plastic material model. The calculation approach allows the pre-
diction of the roughness value Rpk. The calculation results are validated by tests on a disk-on-
disk test rig. The transferability of the method to different surface structures is checked on the
example of ground and shot-peened surfaces.
The approach to achieve the aim is described in Figure 8. The overall procedure starts with
different surface topographies in the initial state or rather just after the final manufacturing
process, Figure 8 center. On the one hand these measurement data are used as an input variable
for the elastic-plastic contact calculation. On the other hand the experimental validation is
performed with the initial surface state of the test parts. The contact calculation is based on
the elastic half-space according to BOUSSINESQ/LOVE and extended by an elastic-plastic ma-
terial model [BOUS85, LOVE29]. The predicted surface topography is then analyzed analo-
gously to the measured surface data using the evaluation method according to DIN standard
[ISO10], Figure 8 on the right.
For the examinations the WZL Disk-on-Disk Test Rig is used, Figure 8 on the left. The disk-
on-disk contact is an analogy test which transfers the stress state of the tooth flank contact to
a simplified geometry in the form of two disks. This testing concept is appropriate for the
knowledge-based analysis of rolling contacts under defined operating conditions. For a grad-
ual comprehension of the structure and for the clear separation of plastic deformation and
abrasive material removal during the running-in process, this report first considers pure roll-
ing at a constant normal load.
After the test run, the smoothed surface topography after running-in is measured in order to
perform a step by step validation with the numerical calculation results (Figure 8). The com-
parison of both surfaces is done by the direct evaluation of the primary profiles as well as on
the basis of roughness parameters (Ra, Rz, Rpk, Rk, Rvk). This validation strategy ensures the
quantitative comparability of the primary profiles by the use of roughness parameters as well
as the qualitative comparability by the direct adjustment of single roughness peaks.
Aim
Determination and Prediction of Surface Flattening from Manufacturing-Induced Surface

Structures within the Area of the Roughness Peaks during Loading
Testing Initial Status Calculation

 Disk-on-Disk Test Rig  Contact Calculation
- Operating of Running-In - micro geometric
- elastic-plastic
F
Approach
Ra, Rz, Rvk, Rk, Rpk
Comparison of Roughness
 Surface Analysis after  Virtual Evaluation of

Running-In Calculated Surface
Structures
Ra, Rz, Rvk, Rk, Rpk
© WZL
Figure 8: Research Approach
5.2 Experimental Results of Geometrical Running-In Tests

For validating the prediction of the running-in process, experimental tests were carried out on
a disk-on-disk test rig for two different surface structures. The properties of the test specimens
are specified in chapter 3. The test parameters for the running-in are a Hertzian pressure of
pH = 1100 MPa, a slippage of s = 0% and a rotational speed of n1 = 3000 rpm (one hour). The
slippage of s = 0% between test and counter part was defined so that the plastic deformation
of individual roughness peaks can be evaluated as precisely as possible by repetitive contact
conditions. With no slippage, the interaction between two roughness peaks moving one over
another plays a minor role, too. In addition, there was no lubrication during the entire test in
order to ensure complete force absorption by the roughness peaks and to eliminate the influ-
ence of the hydrodynamic lubrication film formation as a further influencing variable. The
test parameters provide the basis for a step-by-step validation of the newly developed calcu-
lation model for rough rolling-sliding contacts.
An overview of the results of the running-in is shown in Figure 9. For the ground surface
structure of the variant ARTS, the arithmetic mean roughness Ra = 0.216 is reduced by 50%
after the test run. The low Ra value compared to the evaluation according to the ISO standard
is due to the shortened evaluation length of ln = 1 mm and to the choice of a simple Gaussian
filter [ISO10]. A more detailed analysis of the surface changes is possible with the evaluation
of the characteristic roughness values Rpk, Rk and Rvk, which can be derived from the Abbott-
Firestone curve. The reduced peak height Rpk decreases the most and confirms the experience
of a smoothing of roughness peaks during running-in [LOHN15a, LÖPE15]. However, the
characteristic values of the core roughness Rk and the reduced valley depth Rvk are also re-
duced, which indicates a displacement of the material from the roughness peaks in the direc-
tion of the roughness valleys, Figure 9. The roughness valleys are practically filled up by the
material of the roughness peaks.
 Contact Geometry Ground Surface Structure

R1/2 = 21/21 mm
Roughness [µm]
Rbal 1/2 = ∞/166 mm -50% -61% -50% -40%
0,6
 Testing Conditions
0,4
pH = 1100 MPa
n1 = 3000 1/min 0,2
s1 = 0% 0
No Lubrication Ra Rpk Rk Rvk
 Variant 1: ARTS
- external plunge grinding Shot Peened Surface Structure
Roughness [µm]
-1,5% -0,5% -2,5% +9,5%
1,2
0,9
0,6
 Variant 2: KGS
0,3
- shot peened
0
Ra Rpk Rk Rvk
Initial State After Running-In (180.000 LC)

© WZL
Figure 9: Evaluation of Geometrical Running-In based on 2D-Roughness Values
For the shot peened surface structure of the variant KGS, the arithmetic mean roughness
changes by ΔRa = -1.5%, which is within the measurement accuracy for the time-discrete
comparison of surface profiles [YUSO16]. The increase of the reduced valley depth after the
running-in is not to be expected with otherwise nearly unchanged roughness values and can
relate with the higher measurement deviation for non-directional surface structures.
A possibility for a qualitative evaluation of the surface change is the direct matching of the
primary profiles before and after the run-in, Figure 10. The ground surface structure (variant
ARTS) emphasizes the reduction of the arithmetic mean roughness Ra in comparison to the
measurement before running-in. As a consequence of the normal force during testing, the
roughness peaks resulting from the grinding process develop to rounded crests, Figure 10 top.
In addition to the expected reduction of the roughness peaks (Rpk value, see Figure 9), the
reduction of the roughness values can also be recognized in the qualitative comparison. In
contrast to the amplitudes of the profile, the characteristic shape of the roughness peaks and
valleys does not change. The frequencies of the primary profile are maintained, especially
with a distinct plastic deformation, whereby only the amplitude of the oscillation decreases.
For the shot peened surface structure of the variant KGS, the qualitative change of the rough-
ness profile is less than the change of the ground surface variant ARTS. Thus, the analysis of
the roughness values in Figure 9 is qualitatively confirmed. In the region of the roughness
peaks, the change of the primary profile is more pronounced than in the area of the roughness
valleys. The highest roughness peaks being in contact during loading are deformed with an
enlarged radius of curvature, but only to a limited extent. In contrast, there is no change of
the roughness valleys.
 Contact Geometry Ground Surface Structure

R1/2 = 21/21 mm
Rbal 1/2 = ∞/166 mm Profile Height
 Testing Conditions [µm]
pH = 1100 MPa 2
n1 = 3000 1/min 1
s1 = 0% 0
No Lubrication 0 100 200 300 400 x500
[µm] 600
 Variant 1: ARTS
- external plunge grinding Shot Peened Surface Structure
Profile Height
4
[µm]
 Variant 2: KGS 2
- shot peened
0
0 200 400 600 800 x1000
[µm] 1200
Initial State After Running-In (180.000 LC)

© WZL
Figure 10: Qualitative Evaluation of Geometrical Running-In
The minor changes of the shot peened surface structure compared to the ground surface can
have different causes. On the one hand the shot peened structure has a higher amount of long-
wave profile components with an already rounded top structure from the process itself (see
Figure 10). In this case, the normal force is absorbed by the long-wave structure of less rough-
ness peaks but more evenly distributed over a the contact area of a single roughness peak. The
maximum pressure resulting from the initial geometry are therefore lower than for the ground
surface structure.
Furthermore, the material properties of the subsurface zone of both variants differ. Shot peen-
ing effects a material hardening which is accompanied by an increase of hardness, a concen-
tration of dislocations and possibly a structural transformation in the shot peened regions
[KÖCH96]. For the case-hardened disk-on-disk test specimen of 16MnCr5, an increase of
surface hardness as well as a reduction of retained austenite can be expected due to the me-
chanically applied loads by shot peening [KÖCH96, SEKI07] because the retained austenite
is a metastable structural component at room temperature. The increased hardness and the
reduced retained austenite content cause an increase of yield strength [KÖCH96], which can
be another reason for a less pronounced geometric running-in of this variant.
5.3 Prediction Model for Geometrical Running-In for Pure Rolling

The prediction model for geometrical running-in within the area of the roughness peaks in
this report is based on an innovative solving algorithm for calculating the plastic deformation
within the contact area. The basis for the calculation approach is the elastic contact calculation
by the half-space theory according to BOUSSINESQ / LOVE [BOUS85, LOVE29]. In order to
calculate the whole contact area, the calculation approach is extended by the "method of com-
bined solutions" [BREC16]. The yield criterion of the material is chosen according to BARTEL
for the elastic half-space [BART01]. In this case, the limiting pressure plim and the critical
deformation δcrit are used as yield criterion for the plastic material behavior instead of the
yield stress σF and the critical strain εcrit. The material properties are modeled as pure-elastic
and ideal-plastic. The main result of the calculation is the plastically deformed surface topog-
raphy, as it is also final result of the experiment. This surface topography builds the basis for
a direct comparison between calculation and experiment, since the validation can be extended
from simplified surface values to the comparison of local roughness peaks.
5.3.1 Calculation Method
The procedure for the elastic-plastic contact calculation is shown in Figure 11. Due to the
high non-linearity in the elastic-plastic contact calculation an iterative solving algorithm is
chosen. The starting point of the calculation is the surface topography of the contacting parts
in the initial state, e.g. after the final manufacturing step. In the first step of the iteration, the
elastic pressure distribution for the current contact geometry is calculated on the basis of the
elastic half-space according to BOUSSINESQ / LOVE [BOUS85, LOVE29]. Using the "method
of combined solutions" of BRECHER ET ALT. [BREC16], the complete primary profile of the
roughness measurement is used, so that the macro geometry and long-wave deviations are not
neglected. In particular, the transferability to any surface structures is ensured in this case for
the developed running-in prediction model.
In the second step of the iteration (Figure 11), a local correction of the surface topography
according to Eq. (5-1) is performed. At all contacting points i, where the purely elastically
calculated pressure exceeds the theoretical limiting pressure plim, material is removed from
the original surface topography over the correction value Δhcor(i), Eq. (5-2). The geometric
correction of the profile Δhcor(i) is always defined positive, because in case of a pressure over-
load only material is removed and not added. The amount of the geometric correction is de-
fined as a function of the pressure difference between the elastically calculated pressure and
the limiting pressure in order to achieve a better convergence behavior.
For a physically reasonable calculation, it has also to be checked whether all contact points
with a local geometry correction Δhcor(i) are still in contact at the end of the calculation. Due
to the high non-linearity and the corss influences of deformation, it is possible that the cor-
rection of geometry is locally too high for a previous iteration step. Thus, contact points do
not reach the required limiting pressure plim any longer. In this case, adding of material or the
reduction of Δhcor(i) is necessary, Eq. (5-3).
Initial Geometry
Elastic Contact Calculation
 Half-space theory (BOUSSINESQ/L OVE)
 „Method of Combined Solutions“
deformed F
h
Iteration:
• Plastic deformation Iterative
Initial geometry
finished? Solving
• Equilibrium of forces
fulfilled? Algorithm Correction of Contact Geometry
Pressure
𝑝 𝑖 > 𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚
Running-In
Surface x
removing of
h x material (local)
© WZL
Figure 11: Calculation Procedure for Predicting of Geometrical Running-In
After the local correction of the contact geometry, the progress of the iterative solving algo-
rithm has to be tested for different characteristic values, Figure 11. For a successful elastic-
plastic contact calculation, the external force equilibrium has to be fulfilled and furthermore
the plastic deformation in the form of the geometric correction has to be completed. The ex-
ternal force equilibrium is checked analogously to the calculation procedure according to
HARTNETt by defining a limiting error, Eq. (5-4) [HART79]. If the current error exceeds the
limiting error εFN, the global displacement of the contacting parts u0 is adjusted.
ℎ(𝑖) = ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 (𝑖) − ∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖) (5-1)

𝑝(𝑖) > 𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚⁡ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡ ⇒ ⁡ 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒⁡𝑜𝑓⁡∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖)⁡ (5-2)
𝑝(𝑖) < 𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚⁡⁡⁡⁡ ∩ ⁡⁡ ∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖) ≠ 0⁡⁡⁡ ⇒ ⁡⁡ 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛⁡𝑜𝑓⁡∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖) (5-3)
𝐹𝑁,𝑖𝑠𝑡 −𝐹𝑁,𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑙
> 𝜀𝐹𝑁, ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡ ⇒ ⁡𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡⁡𝑜𝑓⁡𝑢0 (5-4)
𝐹𝑁,𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑙
𝑝(𝑖)−𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚
(| |) > 𝜀𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚 ⁡⁡∀⁡⁡𝑖⁡⁡𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ⁡⁡∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖) ≠ 0⁡⁡⁡ (5-5)
𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑚
Calculated profile height including
h µm p MPa Elastically calculated pressure
of the plastic deformation
Δhcor µm Geometrical correction of profile plim MPa Limiting pressure
hstart µm Profile height of the initial state FN,soll N Given normal force
Global displacement of contacting
FN,ist N Calculated normal force u0 µm
parts
εFN - Tolerated error of normal force i - Contact point
Tolerated error of the average deri-
εplim -
vation of contact pressure
The completion of the plastic deformation of the roughness peaks is quantitatively examined
by the average deviation of contact pressure from the limiting pressure plim for all corrected
contact points, Eq. (5-5). If the average pressure deviation exceeds the permissible error εplim,
the contact geometry is corrected again in the next iteration step according to the criteria of
Eq. (5-2) and (5-3). According to these two termination criteria, the iterative loops are run in
parallel until the resulting surface topography does not exceed the limiting pressure at the
roughness peaks in the case of purely elastic contact calculation and until the equilibrium of
forces is fulfilled.
Compared to existing elastic-plastic contact calculations on the basis of the half-space theory,
the main advantage of the new approach is the direct calculation of the plastically deformed
surface topography, so that a local matching between experimental and calculated primary
profiles is possible. It is not obligatory to use roughness values or tribological substitute var-
iables such as, the contact ratio under load, in order to validate the calculation. In addition,
the development of the iterative solution algorithm allows the extension of the calculation by
a strengthening material behavior. Furthermore, the advantage of this knowledge-based ap-
proach is the flexible and targeted transferability to any surface structure.
Figure 12 shows the iterative solution procedure for the calculation of the plastic deformation
during the running-in with the example of a ground surface. For different iterations steps, the
corrected contact geometry and the corresponding elastically calculated pressure distribution
are compared. In the first iteration step, the initial surface geometry is used. The pressure
distribution is inhomogeneous and exceeds the theoretical limiting pressure at many contact
points by more than factor three. Depending on the local pressure, the contact geometry is
successively corrected in the subsequent iteration steps.
 Contact Geometry
Progress of Iterative Solving
R1/2 = 21/21 mm
Rbal 1/2 = ∞/166 mm 1. Iteration 10. Iteration 40. Iteration
 Calculation Parameter 1,2
[µm]
Geometry
pH = 1100 MPa
E1/2 = 210000 MPa 0,8
dx = 1 µm
0,4
plim = 3000 MPa
 Surface Structure 0 x x x
- external plunge grinding 0 0,5 [mm] 1 0 0,5 [mm] 1 0 0,5 [mm] 1
(tangential)
[GPa]
9
Pressure
6 plim
3
0 x x x
0 0,5 [mm] 1 0 0,5 [mm] 1 0 0,5 [mm] 1
© WZL
Figure 12: Exemplary Application of Iterativ Solving Algorithm

After the tenth iteration step, a smoothing of the highest roughness peaks can be already ob-
served. The maximum pressures in the elastic contact could be reduced by the adaptation of
the geometry. Nevertheless, the limiting pressure is still exceeded at the contact points. After
40 iterations, the termination criterion according Eq. (5-5) is fulfilled for the present surface
structure. The correction of the contact geometry is progressed in a way that the elastically
calculated pressure is below the limiting pressure for each contact point. Contact points which
do not reach the limit pressure at the end of the solution either do not enter the contact area
or are deformed purely elastically without geometric correction. Due to the elastic-plastic
calculation, the amount of contact points increases in comparison to the initial geometry.
5.3.2 Validation of Calculation Method for Geometrical Running-In
The starting point of the validation strategy for the developed prediction model of the geo-
metric running-in is the contact geometry after the final production step or rather before the
start of the test run. The measurement data of the surface structure are the most important
input variable for the calculation. After performing the test run, the surface structure of the
contact area is measured again and compared with the calculation result. In this report, the
calculated and experimental surface structure after running-in is compared in two different
ways. On the one hand 2D roughness values are derived from the measurement data, which
can be used to analyze the similarity of the primary profiles. The usage of roughness values
is particularly suitable for a quick and quantifiable comparison of primary profiles, whereby
the influence of the filter parameters have to be considered for the extraction of the roughness
profiles. On the other hand the measured and the calculated primary profile after the running-
in are compared by a qualitative one-to-one adjustment. Although the quality of the prediction
cannot be assessed quantitatively in this approach, a direct comparison offers the possibility
to detect local deformation effects and to optimize the material models used.
In order to validate the prediction model, test results for two different surface structures are
measured before and after the test run. Figure 13 shows a comparison of the primary profiles
for a ground surface structure in the initial state, after the running-in and for the calculation
result. The qualitative smoothing of the roughness peaks during rolling in the test rig is con-
firmed by the calculation. Depending on the peak height and the distribution of the neighbor-
ing roughness peaks, the degree of smoothing for the individual peaks varies because the
cross-influences of deformation affect decisively the load distribution and thus the exceeding
of the limiting pressure. Due to the elastic and ideal-plastic material model, the corrected
roughness peaks are formed in a crest-shape (Figure 13). This phenomenon can also be seen
when neighboring roughness peaks converge into a single peak, since the material model does
not yet take into account any hardening effects depending on the degree of deformation. In
the region of the roughness valleys, the surface structure is not changed by the calculation.
The measured profile remains completely preserved in these areas because the computational
algorithm does not yet fulfil the volume constancy by distributing the material removed from
the roughness peaks.
The quantitative evaluation by means of 2D roughness values confirms the qualitative analy-
sis of the experimental and calculated primary profiles after the running-in, . Figure 13. The
value of the reduced peak height Rpk differs by less than 6% between the calculation and the
examination, whereas the reduced valley depth Rvk are virtually unchanged after the compu-
tation compared to the initial state. The increase of the Rvk value by just under 7% despite the
identical profile is due to the interactions in the evaluation of the Abbott-Firestone curve since
the change in the roughness profile shifts the turning point of the Abbott-Firestone curve and
thus also reduces the reduced valley depth Rvk.
 Contact Geometry Comparison of Primary Profiles

R1/2 = 21/21 mm
Rbal 1/2 = ∞/166 mm Initial State Experiment Calculation
Profile Height
 Testing Conditions 1,5

[µm]
pH = 1100 MPa 1
n1 = 3000 1/min
0,5
s1 = 0%
No Lubrication 0
 Calculation Parameter 0 100 200 300 x [µm]
pH = 1100 MPa
Comparison of Roughness Values
E1/2 = 210000 MPa
dx = 1 µm
0,338
0,292
0,312
Roughness
0,216
0,187
0,6
0,220
0,175
0,679
plim = 3000 MPa 0,091
0,107
0,086
[µm]
0,560
0,4
 Surface Strutcture
- external plunge grinding 0,2
(tangential) 0
Ra Rpk
Rpk Rk
Rk Rvk
Rvk
Initial State Experiment Calculation
© WZL
Figure 13: Validation of Calculation: Ground Surface Structure
Due to the unchanged value for the reduced valley depth Rvk, the core roughness Rk and, in
particular, the arithmetic mean roughness Ra for the computed profile are calculated too high.
The extension of the calculation algorithm for the displacement of the material from the
roughness peaks to the valleys is expected to be more accurate. The use of the Ra and Rk
values for the assessment of the model quality is therefore only useful if the extension of the
model is performed by volume consistency. The boundary pressure plim for the ground surface
was quantified by the elastic contact calculation with the surface structure assumed. For elas-
tic contact, the upper ten percent of the pressures are between p max,10% = 3000 – 4000 MPa.
The choice of plim = 3000 MPa at the lower edge of the scattered band leads to the highest
agreement of the Rpk values. Contrary to the literature, the limit pressure is lower [BART01].
For the shot-peened surface structure, only small changes of the roughness could be deter-
mined after the experiment (Figure 14 and Figure 9). The smoothing of the roughness peaks
in the scale of nanometers can be seen in the region of the highest peaks for calculation result
and experiment (Figure 14). The calculation also confirms the experimental results for this
surface structure. The roughness valleys retain their original shape after manufacturing be-
cause the overall slight change in the profile peaks leads to a lower flow of material compared
to the ground surface. The roughness values remain nearly constant compared to the initial
state, but the tendencial reduction of the characteristic values are confirmed by the prediction
model. The limiting pressure for the beginning of the plastic deformation has been set higher
for the shot-peened surface structure since the production process of shot peening causes al-
ready a material strengthening by the action of mechanical energy. The order of magnitude
of the limit pressure plim = 4500 MPa is consistent with data from the literature based on hard-
ness measurements [BART01].
 Contact Geometry Comparison of Primary Profiles

R1/2 = 21/21 mm
Rbal 1/2 = ∞/166 mm
Profile Height
 Testing Conditions
4
[µm]
pH = 1100 MPa
3 Initial State
n1 = 3000 1/min
2 Experiment
s1 = 0% 1
No Lubrication Calculation
0
 Calculation Parameter 0 100 200 300 400 x500
[µm] 600
pH = 1100 MPa
Comparison of Roughness Values
E1/2 = 210000 MPa
dx = 1 µm 1,2
Roughness
0,453
0,449
0,492
0,381
0,379
0,376
0,414
0,412
0,390
1,170
plim = 4500 MPa
1,14
0,9
1,17
[µm]
 Surface Strutcture 0,6

- shot peened 0,3
0
Ra Rpk
Rpk Rk
Rk Rvk
Rvk
Initial State Experiment Calculation
© WZL
Figure 14: Validation of Calculation: Shot Peened Surface Structure
5.3.3 Reflection of Calculation Method
The prediction model presented in this report for the geometric surface changes during the
running-in is an innovative approach for the calculation of the plastic deformation of individ-
ual roughness peaks. The central output variable of the calculation is the surface topography
including the plastic deformation, which allows a direct comparison of experiment and cal-
culation and thus a targeted validation. Because of the generally applicable approach, trans-
ferability to various surface structures resulting from the manufacturing process is possible.
The current development level of the solving algorithm for calculating the geometric surface
changes involves the local material removal at the roughness points on the basis of a limiting
pressure. In the future, the model has to be extended to fulfill the volume consistency during
plastic deformation in order to achieve a higher calculation accuracy. For this purpose, the
implementation of the material spreading after material remocal is necessary. For validation,
the calculated primary profiles can be compared and analyzed in the same way with the ex-
perimental primary profiles. In particular, the quality of the reduced valley depth Rvk can be
increased by using volume constancy because the roughness valleys are successively "filled"
by the spreading of the material. In this case, the accuracy of the prediction of the arithmetic
mean roughness is also increased in comparison with current calculation results.
A further central challenge in the transferability of the method to different, process-related
surface structures is the exact knowledge of the limiting pressure plim. The example of the
ground and shot-peened surface structure shows the highest correlation between experiment
and calculation for different limiting pressures. The critical parameters for the limiting pres-
sure are the edge hardness, the degree of deformation, the micro structure (amount of retained
austenite) and the residual stress state. For future research activities, the determination of the
correlation between the material parameters and the limiting pressure is a key target.
6 Summary and Outlook

The lubricant and the surface topography of rolling-sliding contacts significantly influence
the running behavior in terms of friction, wear and contact fatigue. During running-in process
the changes of the tribological system are most pronounced. In this report the influence of the
running-in process is examined on two different levels. Firstly, the focus is on the chemical
effect of the lubricant and especially of its additives on the running-behavior. In this investi-
gations, a variation of the additives of the transmission oil is conducted. Measurements of the
friction coefficient in the disk-on-disk contact and the surface roughness after the test indicate
friction reduction and surface flattening when additive-free oils are used for lubrication. How-
ever, the test results further show that the surface is damaged despite the friction reduction.
The investigation reveals that both friction and surface changes as well as damage mecha-
nisms (e.g. scuffing) have to be considered to evaluate lubricants for transmissions. The sep-
aration of the running-in oil and the operating oil could be a way to optimize performance.
In the second part of this paper, physical changes of the contacting parts in terms of roughness
flattening are investigated by experiment as well as by calculation approaches. The structure
of both surfaces from the contacting parts continuously changes during the first load cycles.
By knowing the running-in state of the surfaces, a more precise calculation of rolling-sliding
contacts is possible during design phase. However, only the surface structure resulting from
the last manufacturing step is usually known. In this case, expensive experimental investiga-
tions are necessary, or oversizing for high reliability of the rolling-sliding contact has to be
accepted.
Therefore, a new calculation approach is presented for predicting the geometric surface
changes during the running-in process of rolling-sliding contacts. The basis of the calculation
method is the half-space theory according to BOUSSINESQ/LOVE in combination with a linear-
elastic and ideal-plastic material model. The main output of the calculation is the geometrical
corrected topography reproducing the running-in surface of the experiment. Both the pre-
dicted and the measured geometry can be directly compared with each other for validation.
The prediction model is validated by investigations on the disk-on-disk test rig with ground
and shot peened surface structures. The validation focuses on the comparison of 2D roughness
values as well as on the direct positioning of the measured primary profiled before and after
running-in. Despite the different process chains, the prediction for both surfaces structures
proved to be accurate. As expected, the running-in effects observed during the experiments
are confirmed especially for the roughness peaks (Rpk value).
To increase the quality of the prediction model, the extension of the solving algorithm regard-
ing volume constancy during the plastic deformation is aimed in future work. By distributing
the removed material of the roughness peak into the roughness valleys, a more accurate pre-
diction of the Rvk value is expected. Moreover, further roughness values such as Ra und Rz
will be predicted more accurately. In addition, the quantification of the limiting pressure as
the used yield criterion is a major challenge. For a wide transferability of the method to other
surface structures, new methods have to be developed in order to determine the local material
properties within the first micrometers of the surface. The local material data are necessary
as input parameters for an enhanced calculation.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by the German Re-
search Foundation (DFG) [BR2905/44-2] for the achievement of the project
results.
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by the WZL Gear Re-
search Circle for the achievement of the project results.
7 Bibliography
[ASCH31] Ascher, R.:
Die Schmiermittel. Art, Prüfung und Verwendung.
2. ed. Berlin: Springer, 1931
[ASMI92] ASM International Handbook Committee:

ASM Handbook. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology.
Vol. 18, Materials Park, OH: American Society for Metals, 1992
[BAGH15] Bagh, A.:

Auslegung PVD-beschichteter Stirnräder.
Diss. RWTH Aachen, 2015
[BART01] Bartel, D.:

Berechnung von Festkörper- und Mischreibung bei Metallpaarungen.
Diss. TU Magdeburg, 2001
[BÖRN76] Börnecke, K.:

Beanspruchungsgerechte Wärmebehandlung von einsatzgehärteten Zylin-
derrädern.
[BOUS85] Boussinesq, J.:

Application des potentiels à l'étude de l'équilibre et du mouvement des
solides élastiques.
Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1885
[BREC13] Brecher, C.; Brumm, M.; Greschert, R.:

Increase of Strength and Efficiency of Gears by Optimized Preconditioning
Processes.
In: Proceedings of International Conference on Gears 2013. München, Düs-
seldorf: VDI-Verl., 2013
[BREC14] Brecher, C.; Brumm, M.; Greschert, R.; Löpenhaus, C.:

Improvements in Manufacturing Related Surface Strength In-crease and
Rolling Contact Fatigue Simulation.
In: Proceedings of the 5th WZL Gear Conference in the USA. Rochester,
22./23.10.2014. Aachen: Apprimus-Verl., 2014, pp. 15-1 - 15-25
[BREC15] Brecher, C.; Löpenhaus, C.; Greschert, R.:

Influence of the metalworking fluid on the running behavior of gear anal-
ogy test parts.
In: Prod. Eng. Res. Devel., Vol. 9, 2015, No. 3, pp. 425–431
[BREC16] Brecher, C.; Renkens, D.; Löpenhaus, C.:

Method for Calculating Normal Pressure Distribution of High Resolution
and Large Contact Area.
In: J. Tribol., Vol. 138, 2016, No. 1, pp. 011402-1 - 011402-9
[BUGI09] Bugiel, C.:

Tribologisches Verhalten und Tragfähigkeit PVD-beschichteter Getriebe-
Zahnflanken.
[CZIC10] Czichos, H.; Habig, K.-H.:

Tribologie-Handbuch. Tribometrie, Tribomaterialien, Tribotechnik.
3. ed. Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner, 2010
[GOHR82] Gohritz, A.:

Ermittlung der Zahnflankentragfähigkeit mittlerer und grosser Getriebe
durch Analogieversuche.
[HART79] Hartnett, M.:

The Analysis of Contact Stresses in Rolling Element Bearings.
In: J. Lub. Tech., Vol. 101, 1979, No. 1, pp. 105
[HART91] Hartke, K.; Mutscher, E.; Rücker, G.:

Wissenschaftliche Erläuterungen zum Deutschen Arzneibuch.
Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag, 1991
[ISO10] Norm DIN EN ISO 4287 (Juli 2010)

Geometrische Produktspezifikation. Oberflächenbeschaffenheit: Tast-
schnittverfahren. Benennungen, Definitionen und Kenngrößen der Oberflä-
chenbeschaffenheit.
[KÖCH96] Köcher, J.:

Erhöhung der Zahnflankentragfähigkeit einsatzgehärtetr Zylinderräder
durch Kugelstrahlen.
[LINK96] Linke, H.; Börner, J.:

Stirnradverzahnung. Berechnung, Werkstoffe, Fertigung.
München, Wien: Hanser, 1996
[LOHN15a] Lohner, T.; Mayer, J.; Michaelis, K.; Höhn, B.-R.; Stahl, K.:
On the running-in behavior of lubricated line contacts.
In: J. Eng. Tribol., 2015, pp. 1–12
[LOHN15b] Lohner, T.; Merz, J.; Mayer, J.; Michaelis, K.; Kopnarski, M.; Stahl, K.:
On the Effect of Plastic Deformation (PD) Additives in Lubricants.
In: Tribologie + Schmierungstechnik, Vol. 62, 2015, No. 2, pp. 13–24
[LÖPE15] Löpenhaus, C.:

Untersuchung und Berechnung der Wälzfestigkeit im Scheiben- und Zahn-
flankenkontakt.
[LOVE29] Love, A. E. H.:

The Stress Produced in a Semi-Infinite Solid by Pressure on Part of the
Boundary.
In: J. Math., Phys. and Eng. Science, Vol. 228, 1929, pp. 377–420
[MAYE13] Mayer, J.:

Einfluss der Oberfläche und des Schmierstoffs auf das Reibungsverhalten
im EHD-Kontakt.
Diss. TU München, 2013
[MICH87] Michaelis, K.:

Die Integraltemperatur zur Beurteilung der Fresstragfähigkeit von Stirnrad-
getrieben.
[NIEM03] Niemann, G.; Winter, H.:

Maschinenelemente. Band 2: Getriebe allgemein, Zahnradgetriebe - Grund-
lagen, Stirnradgetriebe.
Vol. 2, 2. ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, s.l.: Springer, 2003
[SCHE15] Scherge, M.; Linsler, D.; Schlarb, T.:

The running-in corridor of lubricated metal–metal contacts.
In: Wear, Vol. 342-343, 2015, pp. 60–64
[SEKI07] Seki, M.; Yoshida, A.; Ohue, Y.; Hongo, T.; Kawamura, T.; Shimoyama, I.:
Influence of Shot Peening on Surface Durability of Case-Hardened Steel
Gears.
In: J. Ad. Mech. Design, Sys. and Manu., Vol. 1, 2007, No. 4, pp. 518–529
[TOBI01] Tobie, T.:

Zur Grübchen- und Zahnfusstragfähigkeit einsatzgehärteter Zahnräder. Ein-
flüsse aus Einsatzhärtungstiefe, Wärmebehandlung und Fertigung bei unter-
schiedlicher Baugröße.
[VOLG91] Volger, J.:

Ermüdung der oberflächennahen Bauteilschicht unter Wälzbeanspruchung.
[YUSO16] Yusof, N.; Ripin, Z.:

A technique to measure surface asperities plastic deformation and wear in
rolling contact.
In: Wear, Vol. 368-369, 2016, pp. 496–504

Brecher 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brecher 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chair of

7th WZL Gear Conference in the USA

Subject: Physical and Chemical Analysis of Running-In in Gear Applications

1 Introduction and Motivation 1

Author and Speaker: Dieter Mevissen M.Sc.

1 Introduction and Motivation

Manufacturing Properties Properties after Running-In

P  Crucial Properties for

Figure 1: Running-In of Rolling-Sliding Contacts

Manufacturing Properties Properties after Running-In

Figure 2: Influence Factors on Running-In Process of Rolling-Sliding Contacts

Continuous Running-In Process during Loading

Change of Boundary Layer Change of Surface

Figure 3: Research Aims for Physical and Chemical Running-In Analysis

3 Test Parts, Test Rigs and Calculation Methods

Figure 4: Test Rigs

4 Chemical Analysis of Running-In

 Viscosity class VG 68  Viscosity class VG 68  Viscosity class VG 68

Figure 5: Overview of the tested lubricants

4.1 Influence of Lubricant on Friction Coefficient

 Friction Measurement Friction Coefficient during Running-In

s1 = +60 % 0.09 +additives additives pH = 800 MPa

0.08 pH = 800 MPa

Figure 6: Running Behavior (Friction Coefficient) as a Function of Lubricant Additives

4.2 Influence of Lubricant on Surface Properties after Running-In

 Testing Conditions Appearance of Contact Area after Running-In

Figure 7: Change Surface Condition as a Function of Lubricant Additives

5 Geometrical Surface Changes during Running-In

5.1 Research Approach

Determination and Prediction of Surface Flattening from Manufacturing-Induced Surface

Testing Initial Status Calculation

Ra, Rz, Rvk, Rk, Rpk

 Surface Analysis after  Virtual Evaluation of

Figure 8: Research Approach

5.2 Experimental Results of Geometrical Running-In Tests

 Contact Geometry Ground Surface Structure

Initial State After Running-In (180.000 LC)

Figure 9: Evaluation of Geometrical Running-In based on 2D-Roughness Values

 Contact Geometry Ground Surface Structure

Initial State After Running-In (180.000 LC)

Figure 10: Qualitative Evaluation of Geometrical Running-In

5.3 Prediction Model for Geometrical Running-In for Pure Rolling

5.3.1 Calculation Method

Figure 11: Calculation Procedure for Predicting of Geometrical Running-In

ℎ(𝑖) = ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 (𝑖) − ∆ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑟 (𝑖) (5-1)

Figure 12: Exemplary Application of Iterativ Solving Algorithm

5.3.2 Validation of Calculation Method for Geometrical Running-In

 Contact Geometry Comparison of Primary Profiles

 Testing Conditions 1,5

Figure 13: Validation of Calculation: Ground Surface Structure

 Contact Geometry Comparison of Primary Profiles

 Surface Strutcture 0,6

Figure 14: Validation of Calculation: Shot Peened Surface Structure

5.3.3 Reflection of Calculation Method

6 Summary and Outlook

[ASMI92] ASM International Handbook Committee:

[BAGH15] Bagh, A.:

[BART01] Bartel, D.:

[BÖRN76] Börnecke, K.:

[BOUS85] Boussinesq, J.:

[BREC13] Brecher, C.; Brumm, M.; Greschert, R.:

[BREC14] Brecher, C.; Brumm, M.; Greschert, R.; Löpenhaus, C.:

[BREC15] Brecher, C.; Löpenhaus, C.; Greschert, R.: