How should true brinelling and false brinelling be distinguished in an investigation?

LILY Bearing | 2026-10-28

Best answer

Similar spacing does not establish the same damage mechanism

Excessive contact loading can produce permanent deformation, while NSK describes false brinelling as wear associated with small repetitive movement at rolling contacts.

Both can leave patterns related to rolling-element positions, so spacing alone is insufficient for diagnosis. Indentations can also arise from particles or handling impacts. Describe the shape, surface condition and location of the marks before assigning a name. The static-load history, transport or standby vibration, and lubrication condition help determine which explanation is plausible. This is why an identification made only from a distant photograph should remain provisional rather than becoming a proven overload or vibration diagnosis.

Compare the competing histories explicitly

Create one evidence column for major loads or impacts and another for small repetitive movement during transport, standby or oscillation.

Link photographs of each marked component to its original position and orientation. Preserve material or lubricant evidence needed for specialist examination rather than polishing away the surface features. If the machine experienced both a handling shock and a long vibration exposure, keep both in the record; the existence of one event does not prove it caused every mark. Ask the examiner to distinguish the damage mechanisms from the preserved specimen and history. The objective is a supported explanation, not a visual label chosen because the marks occur at regular intervals.