2011
DOI: 10.1016/s1005-0302(11)60163-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Ringer's Solution on Wear and Friction of Stainless Steel 316L after Plasma Electrolytic Nitrocarburising at Low Voltages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
8
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This Vloss trend, dependent upon the type of alloys used, corresponds with the results obtained in air. In addition, although Vloss sometimes decreases in Ringer's solution compared to air because Ringer's solution can act as a liquid lubricant during sliding [9,10], Vloss in Ringer's solution increases for some components in combinations compared to that in air. The frictional coefficient variations of each alloy combination of discs and balls with sliding distance in Ringer's solution and air was also obtained in this study [7,8].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This Vloss trend, dependent upon the type of alloys used, corresponds with the results obtained in air. In addition, although Vloss sometimes decreases in Ringer's solution compared to air because Ringer's solution can act as a liquid lubricant during sliding [9,10], Vloss in Ringer's solution increases for some components in combinations compared to that in air. The frictional coefficient variations of each alloy combination of discs and balls with sliding distance in Ringer's solution and air was also obtained in this study [7,8].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Which are clearly lower than that of the stainless-steel surface (0.332) under the same tribological conditions. Meanwhile, the wear rate of the untreated stainless steel is around 363.9×10 -8 mm 3 /Nm, which is higher compared to that of the composite surfaces (74.7×10 -8 mm 3 /Nm (S1), 34.8×10 -8 mm 3 /Nm (S2), 48.1×10 -8 mm 3 /Nm (S3)), due the adhesive wear mode [43]. Wear tracks of the untreated surface (S0) and the composite surface (S1) are shown in Figure 9, and the EDS results of the selected positions are shown in Table 2.…”
Section: Scratch Resistancementioning
confidence: 92%
“…under wet conditions since the water lubricant film reduces metal-to-metal contacts, leading to decrease in adhesion. The frictional coefficient also increase when the wear test is conducted under dry conditions, as compared to under wet conditions [17][18][19]. In a fluid-lubricated system, the ratio between the thickness of the lubricant film and the asperity height of the surfaces (λ) determines the lubricant effects [20,21].…”
Section: Microstructures and Wear Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%