Surface Texturing-Plasma Nitriding Duplex Treatment for Improving Tribological Performance of AISI 316 Stainless Steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface texturing-plasma nitriding duplex treatment was conducted on AISI 316 stainless steel to improve its tribological performance. Tribological behaviors of ground 316 substrates, plasma-nitrided 316 (PN-316), surface-textured 316 (ST-316), and duplex-treated 316 (DT-316) in air and under grease lubrication were investigated using a pin-on-disc rotary tribometer against counterparts of high carbon chromium bearing steel GCr15 and silicon nitride Si₃N₄ balls. The variations in friction coefficient, mass loss, and worn trace morphology of the tested samples were systemically investigated and analyzed. The results showed that a textured surface was formed on 316 after electrochemical processing in a 15 wt % NaCl solution. Grooves and dimples were found on the textured surface. As plasma nitriding was conducted on a 316 substrate and ST-316, continuous and uniform nitriding layers were successfully fabricated on the surfaces of the 316 substrate and ST-316. Both of the obtained nitriding layers presented thickness values of more than 30 μm. The nitriding layers were composed of iron nitrides and chromium nitride. The 316 substrate and ST-316 received improved surface hardness after plasma nitriding. When the tribological tests were carried out under dry sliding and grease lubrication conditions, the tested samples showed different tribological behaviors. As expected, the DT-316 samples revealed the most promising tribological properties, reflected by the lowest mass loss and worn morphologies. The DT-316 received the slightest damage, and its excellent tribological performance was attributed to the following aspects: firstly, the nitriding layer had high surface hardness; secondly, the surface texture was able to capture wear debris, store up grease, and then provide continuous lubrication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".