|
| 汽车发动机曲轴弯曲疲劳试验方法研究 |
| Bending Fatigue Test Method of Automobile Engine Crankshafts |
| Received:December 18, 2018 Revised:January 10, 2019 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-6457.2019.01.019 |
| 中文关键词: 曲轴 弯曲疲劳 电液伺服加载 电磁谐振加载 |
| 英文关键词: crankshafts bending fatigue electro-hydraulic servo loading electromagnetic resonance loading |
| 基金项目: |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | LIU Jun | Southwest Technology and Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing 400039, China | | WANG Mao-chuan | Southwest Technology and Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing 400039, China | | ZHANG Shi-yan | Southwest Technology and Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing 400039, China | | HE Ming-qiang | Southwest Technology and Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing 400039, China | | WANG Hui | Southwest Technology and Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing 400039, China |
|
| Hits: 4636 |
| Download times: 3406 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 研究两种常用的疲劳试验加载原理对疲劳试验结果的影响，为曲轴选材、设计和制造的各阶段开展弯曲疲劳试验提供技术支持。方法 在两种加载方式下采用同批次曲轴进行弯曲疲劳试验，利用成组法得到疲劳试验结果，针对试验加载原理和试验数据开展分析和讨论。结果 电液伺服加载方法的试验精度更准确，而电磁谐振加载方法可以大幅度缩短试验周期。电液伺服加载和电磁谐振加载试验的疲劳极限分别为1140.4 N?m和1189.4 N?m。两种加载方法下，曲轴的失效情况均为连杆颈辊压槽处断裂。结论 两种加载方法对曲轴弯矩的加载效果相同，试验结果的相对误差为4.3%。在曲轴的仲裁试验中或有争议的情况下使用，推荐使用电液伺服加载方法。在使用电磁谐振加载方法时须严格控制标定误差。曲轴连杆颈辊压槽是曲轴的薄弱环节，应严格控制辊压槽的机加工质量。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| This paper aims to study the influence of two commonly used fatigue test loading principles on results of fatigue test, and to provide technical support for the bending fatigue test in each stage of crankshaft material selection, design and manufacture. By carrying out the bending fatigue test of the same batch crankshafts in two loading modes, the fatigue test results were obtained with the ancestor method. The loading principle and data of test were analyzed and discussed. The test results show that the accuracy of the electro-hydraulic servo loading method was more accurate; and the electromagnetic resonance loading method could shorten the test period greatly. The fatigue limit of the electro-hydraulic servo loading method test was 1140.4 N?m; and that of the electromagnetic resonance loading method test was 1189.4 N?m. Under the two loading methods, the failure of the crankshaft was fracture at the groove of the connecting rod neck roller. Therefore, the two loading methods have the same loading effect on crankshaft bending moment. The relative error of the test results is 4.3%. The electro-hydraulic servo loading method is recommended for use in the arbitration test of crankshaft or in controversial situations. The calibration error must be strictly controlled when using the electromagnetic resonance loading method. Crankshaft connecting rod groove is the weak link of crankshaft. The machining quality of the roller should be controlled strictly. |
|
View Full Text
View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
渝公网安备 50010702501719号