University of New South Wales

The School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Frictional analysis of aerospace alloys

and composite materials
By

Karthika Mohan

3232232

Bachelors of Engineering (Aerospace)

October 2011

Supervisors: Dr. Garth Pearce and A/Prof. Philip Mathew

 Abstract

Abstract i

The research conducted during the year is to investigate the frictional

interactions between composites and aerospace metals. The major amount of work

involved was experimental and used the friction rig designed in the last academic year.

The tests performed involved metals that are commonly used in aircraft like Aluminium

2024, Aluminium 7075 and Titanium alloy TiAl6V4. The composites used in these tests

are glass fibre composites and the carbon fibre composites.

The experiments include testing the variation of the friction coefficients with the

normal force and velocity for metal alloys. In the case of composite, load tests and test

of the variation in friction coefficient once wear is induced are performed.

It was observed that the variation in the friction force with normal force was

negligible however the same was not true for the velocity. This variation in the friction

force with velocity has been shown to be similar to what was observed in the other

published data. The wear induced friction test on composite showed a steady rise in the

coefficient of friction.
 Statement of Originality

Statement of Originality ii

I hereby declare this submission is my own and that, to the best of my knowledge and

belief, it contains no material previously published, written by another person, except

where due acknowledgement is made in the text.

October 2011

...................................................................

Karthika Mohan
 Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement iii

I would like to thank all the people who have made this project possible by

providing me with support and guidance throughout the duration of the project.

I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Garth Pearce and A/Prof. Philip

Mathew for their invaluable guidance without which I would have been lost at many a

stage in the project.

I would like to thank Mr Seetha Mahadevan and Mr Martyn Sheriff for their

help to order materials and manufacturing of the indenters and plates. I am further

grateful to them as they taught me how to use the friction rig, digital microscope and the

surface analyser.

I would to thank Sean Mu who rectified most of the issues with the rig which

was used in the experiments so as to ensure that the results obtained are within

acceptable errors bounds.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents for their support and ideas

on how and what to write in my thesis.

 Table of contents

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................i

Statement of Originality................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vi

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
Research plan ............................................................................................................................ 5
Materials and methods ................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8
Materials ................................................................................................................................... 8
Preparation of the composite ................................................................................................... 9
The experimental setup .......................................................................................................... 13
Results: Metals ............................................................................................................................ 17

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17
Aluminium 7075 ...................................................................................................................... 17
Load test.............................................................................................................................. 17
Velocity test ........................................................................................................................ 23
Aluminium 2024 ...................................................................................................................... 25
Load tests ............................................................................................................................ 25
Velocity test ........................................................................................................................ 26
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 28
Results: composites .................................................................................................................... 29

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 29
Carbon fibre ............................................................................................................................ 30
Load test.............................................................................................................................. 30
 Table of contents

Glass fibre composites ............................................................................................................ 32

Load test.............................................................................................................................. 32
v
Composite-composite tests .................................................................................................... 35
Composite repeat test ............................................................................................................ 38
Glass fibre............................................................................................................................ 39
Carbon fibre ............................................................................................................................ 43
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 46
Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 49

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 49
Discussion of the results ......................................................................................................... 49
Avenues of future research .................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 52
Reference .................................................................................................................................... 53

Appedix ....................................................................................................................................... 54
 Table of figures

Table of Figures vi

FIGURE 1: ADHESION THEORY .............................................................................................................................. 2

FIGURE 2: INTERLOCKING ASPERITIES ..................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 3: VARIATION IN THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH SLIDING SPEED AS SHOWN BY SAHIN FOR MMC ......................... 6
FIGURE 4: VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH VARIATION IN SLIDING VELOCITY WHEN COPPER SLIDES OVER ITSELF ..... 6
FIGURE 5: CONSOLIDATION SET UP OF THE COMPOSITE LAMINATE ............................................................................. 10
FIGURE 6: THE BAGGING SCHEMATIC ................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 7: INSERTION OF THE THERMOCOUPLE ...................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 8: THE FINAL CONSOLIDATION BEFORE CURING ........................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 9: THE CURED LAMINATE ........................................................................................................................ 12
FIGURE 10: THE FRICTION RIG ............................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 11: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (7075 ON 7075) WITH VARIATION IN THE LOAD ................................................ 18
FIGURE 12: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (2024 AGAINST 7075) VARIATION WITH NORMAL LOAD ............................... 19
FIGURE 13: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (TITANIUM GRADE 5 ON 7075) VARIATION WITH NORMAL LOAD ..................... 19
FIGURE 14: VARIATION IN THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT AT A NORMAL FORCE OF 150 N .................................................. 20
FIGURE 15: THE VARIATION IN FRICTION COEFFICIENT AT 750 N ............................................................................... 21
FIGURE 16: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION OF 7075 ON 7075 POLISHED ................................................................... 22
FIGURE 17: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION OF TITANIUM GRADE 5 ON POLISHED 7075 ................................................. 22
FIGURE 18: THE VARIATION OF THE FRICTION FORCE WITH SPEED (7075 ON 7075) ..................................................... 23
FIGURE 19: THE VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH SPEED (2024 ON 7075) ................................................... 24
FIGURE 20: THE VARIATION OF THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH SPEED (TITANIUM GRADE 5 ON 7075) ........................... 24
FIGURE 21: THE VARIATION OF THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT OF 2024 WHEN SLIDING ON 2024........................................ 26
FIGURE 22: THE VARIATION OF THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION OF TITANIUM GRADE 5 WHEN SLIDING ON 2024 ................. 26
FIGURE 23: THE VARIATION OF THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH THE SPEED ALUMINIUM 2024 ON 2024 ........................ 27
FIGURE 24: THE VARIATION OF THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH SPEED TITANIUM GRADE 5 ON ALUMINIUM 2024 ............ 27
FIGURE 25: VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH NORMAL LOAD ( CHOUDHURY ET.AL) ......................................... 28
FIGURE 26: VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH SPEED OF ROTATION OF DISC.................................................... 29
FIGURE 27:THE EFFECT OF THE VARIATION OF NORMAL FORCE ON THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN 7075 AND CARBON
FIBRE COMPOSITE ................................................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 28: THE VARIATION IN THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH CHANGE IN THE NORMAL FORCE (2024 AND CARBON FIBRE
COMPOSITE) .......................................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 29: THE VARIATION IN THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT WITH THE CHANGE IN THE NORMAL FORCE (TITANIUM GRADE 5 AND
CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE) ...................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 30: THE VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN 2024 AND GLASS FIBRE .............................................. 32
FIGURE 31: THE VARIATION OF COEFFICIENT BETWEEN 7075 AND GLASS FIBRE ........................................................... 33
FIGURE 32: THE VARIATION OF FRICTION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN TITANIUM GRADE 5 AND GLASS FIBRE ............................. 33
FIGURE 33: A. THE INDENTER BEFORE USING IN THE EXPERIMENT .............................................................................. 34
FIGURE 34: A. UNUSED AL 2024 ........................................................................................................................ 35
FIGURE 35: A. AL 2024 ON CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITES. ........................................................................................ 35
FIGURE 36: COMPOSITE TEST PLATE .................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 37: COMPOSITE INDENTERS .................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 38: FRICTION COEFFICIENT OF GLASS FIBRE COMPOSITE WHEN SLIDING ON CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE ................... 37
FIGURE 39: FRICTION COEFFICIENT OF CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE WHEN SLIDING ON A CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE ............. 37
FIGURE 40: COMPOSITE WEAR PATH ................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 41: UNTESTED COMPOSITE. .................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 42: REPEAT TEST RESULTS FOR 2024 SLIDING ON GLASS FIBRE ....................................................................... 39
 Table of figures

FIGURE 43: REPEAT TEST FOR 7075 ON GLASS FIBRE .............................................................................................. 40

FIGURE 44: REPEAT TEST RESULTS FOR TITANIUM ON GLASS FIBRE. ............................................................................ 40 vii
FIGURE 45: WORN INDENTERS AFTER 30 RUNS. (LEFT TO RIGHT ALUMINIUM 2024, ALUMINIUM 7075 AND TITANIUM GRADE
5)........................................................................................................................................................ 41
FIGURE 46: 2024 WEAR PATH ON GLASS FIBRE ..................................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 47:7075 WEAR PATH ON THE GLASS FIBRE. ............................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 48: TITANIUM GRADE 5 WEAR PATH ON THE GLASS FIBRE. ............................................................................ 42
FIGURE 49: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION BETWEEN 2024 AND CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE .......................................... 43
FIGURE 50: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION BETWEEN 7075 AND CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITES ......................................... 44
FIGURE 51: THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION BETWEEN TITANIUM GRADE 5 AND CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITES ....................... 44
FIGURE 52: WEAR PATH CREATED ON CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE BY ALUMINIUM 2024 ................................................ 45
FIGURE 53: WEAR PATH CREATED ON THE CARBON FIBRE BY AL 7075 ........................................................................ 45
FIGURE 54: WEAR PATH CREATED BY TITANIUM ALLOY ON CARBON FIBRE ................................................................... 46
FIGURE 55: THE DEBONDING MECHANISM IN COMPOSITE WEAR ............................................................................... 47
FIGURE 56:THE VARIATION IN FRICTION COEFFICIENT WHILE SLIDING WITH TIME .......................................................... 48
FIGURE 57: THE FORCES A FUNCTION OF TIME....................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 58: PIC OF THE RIG SHOWING THE OVERHANGING SIDES OF THE PLATE HOLDER OVER THE DYNAMOMETER.............. 51
FIGURE 59: WEAR PATH OF CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE AT 750 N ............................................................................. 52
FIGURE 60: BEFORE POLISHING .......................................................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 61: AFTER POLISHING ............................................................................................................................ 59
 1
Introduction

Friction is a phenomenon that every person on the planet has to thankful for as

well as dislike at the same time. On one hand it helps us to walk on the ground but on

the other hand it causes wear in moving parts. Thus, friction has been justly identified as

a “necessary evil”.

The friction is the force that opposes any relative moment between two surfaces.

The force of friction depends a lot on the surfaces that interact with each other. From an

engineering point of view friction thus becomes an important factor to consider when an

interface of two surfaces is considered. One such example of an interface are

mechanical joints. The strength of joints between two materials or surfaces depends a

lot on the frictional resistance the materials offer.

During the 15th to 18th century sliding friction was investigated in great detail

and the following empirical laws were postulated. Since these are empirical laws they

are likely to change with the advent of new data.

 Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to

the applied load.

 Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the

apparent area of contact.

 Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the

sliding velocity.

Karthika Mohan
 Though there have been laws explaining what friction is, there are a number of
2
theories that explain how this resistive force occurs. The theories that were postulated

are detailed below:

 Adhesion theory: Adhesion theory explains friction as a surface

interaction phenomenon. It states that when two clean surfaces are

pressed together it creates strong adhesive junctions. No molecular

diffusion or re-crystallisation of the metal atoms takes place at these

junctions. These junctions act like cold welds as shown in Fig. 1. When

the surfaces slide over each other these cold welds need to be broken.

The force required to overcome these cold welds is the force of friction

Cold weld junction Cold weld junction

Figure 1: adhesion theory

 Asperity interlocking theory: This theory states that friction is

caused when asperities interlock with each other. Asperities are surface

“unevenness” or “mountains and valley” on the surface of sliding

materials as can be seen in Fig. 2. When the surfaces slide over each

other, the softer asperities is plastically deformed by the application of

Karthika Mohan
 the applied force. This is what causes the frictional resistance. This
3
theory is the least accepted by scientists in explaining the cause of

friction.

Asperity

Figure 2: interlocking asperities

 Molecular attraction theory: This theory states that the friction

is caused by the molecular attraction between the molecules across the

interface. This states that the partial irreversibility of the bonds cause

frictional resistance. This theory is a modification of the adhesion theory.

 Stick-slip theory: Stick slip theory again is a modification of the

adhesion theory. This assumes like in the adhesion theory that the

surfaces sliding over each other rest on junction. When relative motion

between the two surfaces start, localised rise in temperature occurs at

these junctions which causes a local welding at the point of contact.

When sliding occurs, these welds are torn apart causing the resistive

force known as friction. The welds are now formed at newer locations

and the process of breaking and reforming the welds starts. This is known

as the “stick-slip” phenomenon of friction.

Recent research in the sphere of tribology already pose questions regarding the

validity of Amontons’ second law of friction and Coulombs law of friction. With more

sensitive equipment now at our disposal, very slight variations in the forces can be

Karthika Mohan
detected which would not have been possible when these laws were initially
4
hypothesized. Bowden and Tabor in 1954 showed that the static friction is dependent on

the real area of contact. In the 1953, Archard had resolved the controversy surrounding

the first law of friction and the Bowden and Tabors findings about singles asperities.

Bowden and tabor said that on assuming a single asperities contact between two sliding

surfaces the first law of friction is violated. However, Archard showed that the numbers

of asperities are normal loading dependent and he proved that the first law of friction is

not violated with this assumption. Now with the advent of atomic force microscopes

and friction force microscopes the single asperity theory can be experimentally verified.

The thesis has been divided into the following main parts. Each section has a

small introductory passage that will present the subject of the discussion in the chapter.

 Introduction

 Objective

 Materials and methodology

 Results

 Discussion

Karthika Mohan
 5
Objective

Introduction

This chapter contains details of the research and the experiments that have been

conducted in throughout the academic year. The hypothesis for the research is also

stated in this chapter. A brief discussion of the literature survey is also presented in this

chapter.

Research plan

The research plan was based on the literature survey and an evaluation of the

data that is present and what avenues are open for research. Tribology and friction are

topics that have been researched since before the 15th century. The research conducted

included finding coefficients of friction for the materials that are being tested, the wear

mechanisms in composites and other pertinent research.

Sahin and Murphy (1998) conducted research on metal matrix composites

(MMC) by varying the sliding speed. The results showed that the depending on the

composition of the MMC the frictional coefficient varies with the sliding speed Fig. 3.

This created an interest in the variation of frictional coefficient.

Karthika Mohan
 6

Figure 3: variation in the friction coefficient with sliding speed as shown by Sahin for MMC

On researching for comparable observation in metals, similar results

were observed for copper (Chowdhury et.al, 2010). The results of the

experiment indicate that the friction coefficient of the metal keeps decreasing

with an increase in the sliding velocity. Here, the authors have also looked at the

variation of the relative humidity and its effects on the variation in the frictional

coefficient.

Figure 4: variation of friction coefficient with variation in sliding velocity when copper slides over itself

Karthika Mohan
 The existing data showed indications that friction coefficient might vary with
7
velocity of sliding. This lead to question of how friction coefficient varies when there is

variation of the normal force on the object. Thus this was a set of experiments that was

carried out.

With composites the tests that were carried out include the effect of change in

normal force on the friction coefficient. Tests were also conducted to see how the

friction coefficient varies when wear is introduced on the surface of the composite.

Summarising the tests that were performed:

 Friction coefficient of metal alloys by varying the normal force

 Friction coefficient of metal alloys by varying the velocity

 Friction coefficient of composites-metal alloy by varying the normal

force

 Friction coefficient of composite-composite by varying he normal force

 Friction coefficient of worn composite.

Karthika Mohan
 8
Materials and methods

Introduction

This section of the report details the materials used in this study. The section

also details the methods followed in making the composites as well as the experimental

setup. With the increased usage of composites in aircraft structures, the interest in

analysis of the metal composite interaction was increased form an aerospace point of

view.

Materials

The purpose of the project is to investigate the frictional interaction between the

various aerospace alloys. The major aerospace alloys that are being tested are

aluminium 2024 T3, Aluminium 7075 T6 and the Titanium alloy TiAl6V4.

Aluminium 2024 is composed of roughly 4.3-4.5% copper, 0.5-0.6%

manganese, 1.3-1.5% magnesium and less than a half a percentage of silicon, zinc,

nickel, chromium, lead and bismuth.

The composition of the Al 7075 alloy is 5.6-6.1% zinc, 2.1-2.5% magnesium,

1.2-1.6% copper, and less than half a percentage of silicon, iron, manganese, titanium,

chromium, and other metals.

The composition of the two alloys being different might lead to a difference in

the coefficient of friction obtained from the tests.

Karthika Mohan
 The titanium alloy is known as grade 5 and is the most commonly used alloy. It
9
has a chemical composition of 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium, 0.25% (maximum) iron,

0.2% (maximum) oxygen, and the remainder titanium. Grade 5 is used in the aerospace

structure especially as a part of the combustion chambers.

The composites used in these experiments are glass fibre reinforced composites

and carbon fibre reinforced composites. Unidirectional composites were used in both

the cases. An 8 ply orthotropic layup has been used in this study. The orthotropic lay-up

used is [0,90]2s. This was then stuck on to the surface of a metal and then tested on the

friction rig.

Preparation of the composite

The process of preparing the composite can be divided into three main parts

 Kitting:

This involves cutting the composite in the desired manner for the layup.

Depending on the type of layout required the kitting might be extremely time

consuming and difficult. As the required layup for the composite was 0° and 90°

the kitting process was very simple. The plies were cut out in sizes of 400mm by

400mm. As a precautionary method against cutting oneself, Teflon gloves are

worn.

 Layup and bagging:

The ply layup as has been mentioned earlier is [0,90]2s. Once the ply layup is

complete, the bagging of the composite is done. Fig.6 shows the bagging method

and how it looks before placing it in the oven for curing. As can be seen from

Karthika Mohan
the figure the laminate layup is done on top of a release agent. In this case a
10
release film was used. The release film is also placed over the laminate so that it

does not stick to the cold plate. In between the release film and breather, a cold

plate is placed. This cold plate ensures that the top surface also has a smooth

finish like the bottom. The breather film is used that prevents bleeding of the

resin.

After four plies are laid, a consolidation of the laminate is done. This is done by

bagging the laminate and it is kept in vacuum for half an hour. During

consolidation the cold plate is not used. Consolidation (Fig.5) ensures that the

bubbles within the laminate layers are removed.

Figure 5: consolidation set up of the composite laminate

Once all the plies have been laid, the laminate is checked for leaks after vacuum

bagging. When the pressure remains constant the laminate is ready for curing.

Karthika Mohan
 11

Figure 6: the bagging schematic

 Curing:

Curing is done in the oven. Once the laminate has been consolidated one last

time and checked for leaks it is put in the oven which has been pre-heated to 120

°. A thermocouple (Fig.7) is also added to the setup shown which is in contact

with the bottom plate. This enables checking the temperature at regular intervals,

thus ensuring that the temperature is around 120°. Vacuum is also maintained

within the oven on the laminates. This is process takes approximately two to

three hours to complete.

Figure 7: insertion of the thermocouple

Karthika Mohan
 12

Figure 8: the final consolidation before curing

The final cured laminate can be seen in the figure below.

Figure 9: the cured laminate

Karthika Mohan
 13

The experimental setup

The experiment is conducted on a friction rig (Fig. 10) designed by Nick Hood

with its accompanying X-Y table designed by Michael Nguyen in 2010 as a part of their

thesis. The rig applies a vertical load by causing a deflection in a proving ring. The

proving ring has a stiffness constant of 2000 N/mm making it extremely sensitive.

Karthika Mohan
 14
Screw for lowering
indenter

Proving
ring

indenter

Plate
holder

dynamometer

X-y motion
table

Figure 10: the friction rig

Karthika Mohan
 The rig is similar to a pin on disk tribometer and provides the value of the
15
sliding coefficient of friction. Instead of a rotating disc a motion table is present which

causes the movement of the plate in a predetermined path. The pre-programmed paths

involve circular as well as linear paths. The circular paths are limited to a radius of

65mm and the speed of movement of the rig is limited to 15mm/s. Normal force is

applied on the surface of the plate by lowering the indenter with the help of the screw

on the top. When the screw is tightened after the indenter touches the surface of the

plate, the normal force is applied on the plate. This normal force is proportional to the

deflection of the proving ring. The applied normal force can be calculated using the

expression below

Where,

K is the stiffness of the proving ring.

x is the deflection caused in the proving ring.

The rig is used in conjunction with an X-Y motion table that causes the

movement of the plates. The X-Y motion table has a dynamometer that is connected to

a piezoelectric charge amplifier. This is along with the computer forms the data

acquisition system. The dynamometer measures forces in all the three axes. With the

forces in the X and Y directions known the root mean square force is calculated. This

root mean square force is equivalent to the resistive force, friction force felt on the

body. Knowing the normal force being applied and the friction force, the coefficient of

friction can be calculated using the expression below:

Karthika Mohan
 Where,
16
f is the force of friction

μ is the coefficient of friction

N is the applied Normal force.

The data acquisition system outputs the friction force and as well as the friction

force computed. The normal force is also shown in the data file to which all the data is

output.

Karthika Mohan
Results: Metals 17

Introduction

This section of the research details the results that were obtained when

experiments were conducted on the metals. These experiments were conducted to find

the coefficient of friction of the metal on metal. The experiments conducted are as

follows

 Metal on metal load test

 Metal on metal velocity test

 Metal on metal friction on a polished surface

As was mentioned in the earlier section the tests are conducted using Aluminium

2024, Aluminium 7075 and Titanium alloy. Aluminium indenters and plates were used

in the experiment. Titanium alloy indenters were used in these experiments.

Aluminium 7075

Load test
The tests conducted on 7075 include load tests and velocity tests including.

These tests were conducted on polished and unpolished surfaces. A comparison

between the polished and unpolished surfaces results were compared with the published

data.

Karthika Mohan
 The graphs in Fig. 11 to13 show the variation of the friction coefficient with the
18
applied normal load on the plate by the indenter. These tests were performed at a

constant speed of 10mm/s and the same indenter was used in the tests till there was

wear visible on the surface of the indenter. It was observed during the experiment that

with the increase in the force on the indenter the visible wear on the indenter as well as

the plate surface was increased. When titanium indenter was used on aluminium the

amount of wear on the plate was much higher than that on the indenter.

μ of 7075 against itself

0.18
0.17
Coefficient of friction

0.16
0.15
0.14 coefficient of friction
0.13 y = -5E-05x + 0.1419
0.12 Linear (coefficient of
friction)
0.11
0.1
0 100 200 300
Force

Figure 11: coefficient of friction (7075 on 7075) with variation in the load

Fig. 11 shows the initial test that was conducted. This test was only done till a

normal load of 250 N. To obtain a better idea of the variation in the coefficient with the

normal force all further tests were conducted to a normal force of 750 N.

Karthika Mohan
 μ of 2024 on 7075 19
0.117
Coeffcient of
0.116
friction
coefficient of friction 0.115
outliers
0.114
0.113
Linear
0.112 (Coeffcient of
0.111 friction)

0.11 y = -4E-06x + 0.1129

R² = 0.4884
0.109
0 200 400 600 800
force

Figure 12: the coefficient of friction (2024 against 7075) variation with Normal load

μ of Titanium grade 5 on 7075

0.17
y = -4E-05x + 0.1707
0.165 R² = 0.8025
Coefficient of friction

Coefficient
of Friction
0.16
outlier
0.155

Linear
0.15 (Coefficient
of Friction)
0.145
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Force

Figure 13: the coefficient of friction (titanium grade 5 on 7075) variation with normal load

In Fig. 12 and 13 the outliers in the data have been shown in a red colour. The

outliers may be caused due to the unnoticed wear on the indenter. It might have also

been a result of non-removal of particles of worn materials from the indenter and the

plate.

Karthika Mohan
 20
A look at the variation of the friction coefficient with time is plotted. It was

observed that the variation in the coefficient was considerably reduced with increase in

the normal force. Fig.13 and 14 show this variation in the friction forces for aluminium

2024 and on aluminium 7075 at two different normal loading. Similar results were

obtained for both aluminium alloys. This can be explained using both the asperity

theory and the adhesion theory. This is because the asperities are flattened out relatively

easily at high normal forces than it is when a lower normal force is applied. On

verifying this using adhesion theory with a greater normal force the cold junctions

formed at the point of contacts can be easily broken. Thus reducing the variation in the

resistance felt by the sliding objects and hence the reduced variation in the friction

coefficient.

variation in the friction coefficent

0.08

0.06

variation in
0.04
the friction
coefficent
0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40
-0.02

-0.04

Figure 14: Variation in the friction coefficient at a normal force of 150 N

Karthika Mohan
 variation in the friction coefficient 21
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01 variation in
0.005 the friction
coefficient
0
-0.005 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025

Figure 15: the variation in friction coefficient at 750 N

The table 1 below enlists the friction coefficient for the materials listed obtained

from the experiments conducted. The friction coefficient mentioned in the table does

not take into considerations any outliers in the data and is the arithmetic mean of the

remaining values. The plate that was used in the test was Aluminium 7075.

Table 1: The coefficient of friction between the indenter material and Al 2024

Indenter material friction coefficient Published data

Aluminium 7075 0.118 1.35
Aluminium 2024 0.1113 1.35
Grade 5 titanium 0.1567 0.38

When comparing with the published data, it can be noticed that the coefficient of

friction of the materials are considerably higher than the experimental results. These

tests are conducted on virgin material, not exposed to the atmosphere. However,

aluminium when exposed to the air gets oxidised and forms a layer of aluminium oxide

on the surface. This oxide layer acts as a lubricant which helps reduce the friction

coefficient.

Karthika Mohan
 To verify if the above assumption is true a friction test was performed using a
22
polished surface of aluminium. A surface analysis is performed before and after the

surface is polished. The surface analysis results indicate a roughness value of 0.8201μm

right after polishing and the surface roughness value of 0.5276 μm.

Coefficient of friction
0.184
y = 3E-05x + 0.1661
0.182 R² = 0.6676
Coefficient
Coefficient of friction

0.18 of friction
0.178
Linear
0.176
(Coefficient
0.174 of friction)

0.172

0.17
0 200 400 600 800
Force

Figure 16: the coefficient of friction of 7075 on 7075 polished

Coefficient of friction
0.18
0.175
Coefficient
0.17
coefficient of friction

y = 4E-05x + 0.1389 of friction

R² = 0.5339
0.165
0.16 Linear
0.155 (Coefficient
of friction)
0.15
0.145
0.14
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Force

Figure 17: the coefficient of friction of Titanium grade 5 on polished 7075

As can be seen, the coefficient of friction for both aluminium 7075 and titanium

grade 5 is greater than what was initially obtained. Though the experimental value is
Karthika Mohan
still lower than the lower than the predicted value, it could be due to the reason that both
23
the surfaces in contact were not polished. A better estimate can be found for the

coefficient of friction of all the materials by using materials that are not exposed to the

atmosphere.

Velocity test
This tests measures how the coefficient of friction changes with an increase in

the velocity of sliding. Fig. 17-19 shows the variation of friction coefficient with speed

of sliding.

Friction coefficient v/s speed

0.146

0.144 y = 0.001x + 0.1297 velocity

R² = 0.9968 variation
Coefficient of friction

0.142
outlier

0.14
Linear
0.138 (velocity
variation)
0.136

0.134
0 5 10 15
Velocity

Figure 18: The variation of the friction force with speed (7075 on 7075)

Karthika Mohan
 Friction coefficient v/s speed 24
0.28
0.26 y = 0.0102x + 0.093
0.24
Friction coefficient
R² = 0.8348
0.22 μ
0.2 Linear (μ)
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0 5 10 15 20
Velocity

Figure 19: the variation of friction coefficient with speed (2024 on 7075)

Friction coefficient v/s speed

0.185
0.18
0.175
Friction coefficient

0.17
0.165
0.16 μ
0.155
Linear (μ)
0.15 y = -0.0026x + 0.1877
0.145 R² = 0.7794
0.14
0 5 10 15 20
Velocity

Figure 20: the variation of the friction coefficient with speed (titanium grade 5 on 7075)

On looking at the data for aluminium, the friction force increases with velocity.

However in the case of titanium and aluminium the coefficient of friction decreases

with increase in velocity.

Karthika Mohan
Aluminium 2024
25

Experiments similar to the Aluminium 7075 were performed for 2024. Although

the results from 7075 polished surface test indicated an increase in the friction

coefficient of the aluminium and titanium, it also indicates that both surfaces should be

unexposed to air thus preventing any sort of contamination or oxidation.

Load tests

Two sets of data were collected in the load test. The tests conducted were

aluminium 2024 against aluminium 2024 and titanium grade 5 against aluminium 2024.

The 7075 sliding on aluminium 2024 was performed as the coefficient of friction

between a pair of materials is constant. The load test was performed at a constant speed

of 10 mm/s

The graphs below in Fig.20 and 21 indicate the variation of the coefficient of

friction with the applied normal force. The published data has been mentioned in the

earlier table. The table below enlists the coefficient of friction between the indenter

material and aluminium 2024.

Table 2: the coefficient of friction between the indenter material and aluminium 2024

Indenter materials Coefficient of friction

Aluminium 2024 0.10021
Titanium grade 5 0.14058

The difference in the composition of the two materials aluminium causes the

changes in friction coefficient. This can be seen by comparing the values in the two

tables.

Karthika Mohan
 μof 2024 against itself 26

0.12
0.115 Coefficient
Coefficient of friction
0.11 of friction
0.105
0.1 Linear
0.095 (Coefficient
y = -3E-05x + 0.1154 of friction )
0.09 R² = 0.8131
0.085
0.08
0 200 400 600 800
Force

Figure 21: the variation of the friction coefficient of 2024 when sliding on 2024

μ of titanium grade 5 on 2024

0.155

0.15 y = -3E-05x + 0.1522

Coefficient of friction

R² = 0.9239
0.145
Coefficient
0.14 of friction

0.135 outlier

0.13
Linear
0.125 (Coefficient
0 200 400 600 800 of friction )
Force

Figure 22: the variation of the coefficient of friction of titanium grade 5 when sliding on 2024

Velocity test

The velocity tests were all conducted at a normal force of a 150N. The variation

in the friction force with the speed of sliding is plotted.

Karthika Mohan
 Friction coefficient v/s speed 27
0.111
0.11

Friction coefficient
0.109
0.108 f

0.107 outlier
Linear (f)
0.106
y = -0.0003x + 0.1098
0.105 R² = 0.5667

0.104
0 5 10 15 20
Velocity (mm/s)

Figure 23: the variation of the friction coefficient with the speed aluminium 2024 on 2024

Friction coefficient v/s speed

0.168
y = 0.0011x + 0.1496
0.166
R² = 0.7185
0.164
0.162
Series1
0.16 Linear (Series1)
0.158
0.156
0.154
0.152
0 5 10 15 20

Figure 24: the variation of the friction coefficient with speed titanium grade 5 on aluminium 2024

The results show that for aluminium the friction coefficient decreases with the increase

in sliding velocity while for titanium the friction coefficient increases with the sliding velocity.

On comparing with the results obtained for aluminium 7075, one notices that the trend is just

the opposite of what was observed in 7075 for both alloys.

Karthika Mohan
Discussion
28

On looking at all the results obtained one notices that the variation of the friction

coefficient with the change in the normal load is very small almost negligible

considering the range of normal force over which this test was done. Similar results

were obtained by Choudhury et.al (2011) when a pin on disc friction test was conducted

by them using aluminium and steel (Fig.25) However the change was much larger in

their experiment which could be due to the nature of the materials that were being

tested. The experiment also shows that the surface finish as well as surface exposure to

air also contributes to the results of these tests.

Figure 25: variation of friction coefficient with normal load ( choudhury et.al)

On the other hand when looking at the variation of the friction force with the

velocity of sliding one notices that the change in velocity is considerably large. the

results obtained by Choudhury et.al for their experiments has been shown in Fig. 25.

Karthika Mohan
 In all the load tests it was noticed that with higher normal forces the variation in
29
the coefficient of friction with time was lowered. This can be explained by both the

asperity theory and the adhesion theory as has been mentioned earlier in the chapter

Figure 26: variation of friction coefficient with speed of rotation of disc

Results: composites

Introduction

This chapter deals with the how the frictional interaction of the composites are

affected by varying the normal load on them. This section also looks at what happens to

the friction coefficient when the repeated movement occurs along a fixed path.

Experiments to find the friction coefficient of the composite on composite have

also been performed.

Karthika Mohan
Carbon fibre
30

Load test

In this experiment the variations in the normal forces have been checked with a

change in the normal force being applied on the indenter. The experiments have been

performed at a constant speed of 15 mm/s. Loads as high as 700 N were applied in these

tests.

7075 variation with normal force

0.16
y = -3E-05x + 0.1612
0.155 R² = 0.557
Coefficient of friction

0.15
Coefficient of
0.145 friction

0.14
Linear
0.135 (Coefficient of
friction)
0.13
0 200 400 600 800
Force

Figure 27:the effect of the variation of normal force on the friction coefficient between 7075 and carbon fibre
composite

Karthika Mohan
 2024 variation with normal force 31
0.2
y = 7E-05x + 0.1383
0.19 R² = 0.934
Coefficient of friction

0.18
Coefficient of
0.17 friction

0.16
Linear
0.15 (Coefficient of
friction)
0.14
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Force

Figure 28: the variation in the friction coefficient with change in the normal force (2024 and carbon fibre
composite)

Titanium grade 5 with normal force

0.16
y = 5E-05x + 0.112
0.15 R² = 0.9394
Coefficient of friction

0.14
Coefficient of
0.13
friction

0.12

0.11 Linear
(Coefficient of
friction)
0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Force

Figure 29: the variation in the friction coefficient with the change in the normal force (titanium grade 5 and
carbon fibre composite)

It can be seen that the friction coefficient varies with normal force for both

aluminium 2024 and titanium grade 5. The coefficient of friction between aluminium

7075 and carbon fibre decreases with increase in normal force.

Karthika Mohan
 The table below enlists the coefficient of friction between the indenter material
32
and carbon fibre composites.

Table 3: coefficient of friction between indenter materials and carbon fibre composite

indenter Coefficient of
material friction
Aluminium 7075 0.14612
Aluminium 2024 0.17432
titanium grade 5 0.13966

Glass fibre composites

Load test

The glass fibre composite was tested with Aluminium 7075, Aluminium 2024

and Titanium grade 5. Only load tests were conducted on the glass fibre. The tests were

conducted at a constant speed of 15mm/s. The tests were conducted to a maximum

normal loading of 760 N.

2024 on glass fibre

0.25

0.23
Coefficient of friction

0.21 y = -0.0001x + 0.2675

R² = 0.9879
0.19

0.17 coefficient
0.15 of friction

0.13 outlier

0.11
0 200 400 600 800
Normal force

Figure 30: The variation of friction coefficient between 2024 and glass fibre

Karthika Mohan
 7075 on glass fibre 33
0.175
y = 5E-05x + 0.1342
0.17 R² = 0.9806
coefficient of friciton

0.165

0.16 7075 on glass

0.155 fibre

0.15
outlier
0.145

0.14
0 200 400 600 800
Normal force

Figure 31: the variation of coefficient between 7075 and glass fibre

titanium grade 5 on glass fibre

0.165
titanium
0.16 grade 5
Coefficient of friction

0.155 outlier

0.15 y = -2E-05x + 0.1616

R² = 0.2237 Linear
0.145 (titanium
grade 5 )
0.14

0.135
0 200 400 600 800
Normal force

Figure 32: the variation of friction coefficient between titanium grade 5 and glass fibre

From the above figures (Fig. 30 to Fig. 32), it can be concluded that the

coefficient of friction varies slightly with the normal force. The table below summarises

the values of the coefficients of friction between glass fibre composites and the indenter

materials.

Karthika Mohan
 Table 4: the coefficient of friction between the indenter material and glass firbre composites
34
indenter material coefficient of friction
titanium alloy 0.154294384
aluminium 2024 0.1876199
aluminium 7075 0.157441194

On inspecting of the wear on the surface of the plates one sees that the metal

indenters leave a prominent wear path. With the fibre glass composite the wear of the

indenter was greater than that of the composite indenters. This is because of the abrasive

nature of the fibres. The amount of wear on the indenter considerably reduced in carbon

fibre composites. The figure below shows the wear on the indenters in comparison with

the unused indenters. In Fig.33 slight wear has occurred near the centre of the indenter.

On comparison with the indenter used in the test of carbon fibre composites one can see

less amount of visible wear (Fig.34)

a. b.

Figure 33: a. the indenter before using in the experiment

b. the titanium indenters after application of 150 N load when sliding on glass fibre

Karthika Mohan
 b. 35
a.

Figure 34: a. unused al 2024

b. indenter with a wear mark at 150 N with glass fibre

a. b.

Figure 35: a. al 2024 on carbon fibre composites.

b. titanium grade 5 on carbon fibre composites

Composite-composite tests
Composite plies that were prepared earlier were stuck onto the metal plates

using epoxy glue (Fig. 36). The indenters were also made in the same way (Fig. 37)

Karthika Mohan
 36

Figure 36: composite test plate

Figure 37: composite indenters

The test is done at a speed of 15mm/s. The tests were conducted to a maximum

normal load of 400 N. This was done to ensure that the composites would not separate

from their underlying metal.

Karthika Mohan
 glass fibre on carbon fibre 37
0.166
0.164 y = 1E-05x + 0.1523

coefficient of friction
R² = 0.8862
0.162
0.16
Coefficient
0.158 of friction
0.156
0.154
Series2
0.152
0 100 200 300 400
force

Figure 38: friction coefficient of glass fibre composite when sliding on carbon fibre composite

carbon fibre on carbon fibre

0.16
0.155
0.15
0.145 y = 1E-04x + 0.1103
R² = 0.5024
0.14 Coefficient of friction
0.135
0.13 Linear (Coefficient of
0.125 friction)
0.12
0.115
0.11
0 100 200 300 400

Figure 39: friction coefficient of carbon fibre composite when sliding on a carbon fibre composite

It can be observed from the above, the friction coefficient shows slight increase

with the increase in the normal force. The coefficient of friction changes is about 0.025

(carbon fibre) and 0.002 (glass fibre) for a change in normal force of about 250 N. This

change is not very significant and can be considered to remain constant with the normal

force.

Karthika Mohan
 On comparing the surface of the composites plates before and after the tests it
38
can be said that the when the composite indenter slides over the composite it does not

leave a visible track or wear path as in the case of the metal indenters. On looking at the

surface under a microscope a faint wear path can be observed as shown in Fig. below.

The untested surface can be seen in Fig.41.

Figure 40: composite wear path

Figure 41: untested composite.

Composite repeat test

Karthika Mohan
 In this test the metal indenter is slid over the same path repeated and the friction
39
coefficient is noted. The test is conducted at a constant speed and a constant normal

force.

Glass fibre

The results below indicate the friction coefficient between the indenter materials

and the glass fibre composites. All the results indicate an increase in friction coefficient

with increase in number of “runs” over the same path.

2024 repeat test

0.6
y = 0.0094x + 0.197
0.5
R² = 0.7832
friction coefficient

0.4 2024 repeat

test
0.3
Linear (2024
0.2 repeat test)

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40
number of runs

Figure 42: repeat test results for 2024 sliding on glass fibre

Karthika Mohan
 7075 repeat test 40

0.5
y = 0.0097x + 0.1558
0.45
R² = 0.9657
0.4
friction coefficient

0.35
0.3
7075 repeat
0.25 test
0.2
0.15
0.1
Linear
0.05 (7075
0 repeat test)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
number of runs

Figure 43: repeat test for 7075 on glass fibre

titanium and glass fibre

y = 0.0061x + 0.12
0.4 R² = 0.8581
0.35

0.3
friction coefficient

0.25

0.2 titanium
repeat
0.15 test
0.1
outlier
0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40
number of runs

Figure 44: repeat test results for titanium on glass fibre.

Karthika Mohan
 It shows a linear increase in the friction coefficient with the amount wear. The
41
wear occurs on both the indenter and the glass fibres. The wear on the indenters would

increase the surface roughness and hence increase the friction coefficient.

The images below (Fig.45) show the wear on the three indenters after the

completion of the tests. Aluminium 7075 has the most wear amongst all the alloys that

were used. However, it must also be remembered that titanium indenter has a different

radius and hence the area contact between the titanium and the plate and the aluminium

and the plate is different.

Figure 45: worn indenters after 30 runs. (Left to right aluminium 2024, aluminium 7075 and Titanium grade 5)

The figures below (Fig. 45-47) show the wear track on the composite surface as

seen under a digital microscope using a magnification of 100X. In all the cases the resin

gets penetrated and the underlying glass fibres are exposed. Particles of the indenter

material is left on the glass fibre composite are also visible under the digital microscope.

The titanium indenter leaves more materials on the composite surface in comparison to

the other indenters. Also in the track caused by titanium the metal alloy deposition takes

place only along a small path which could be due to the smaller surface area in contact

with the composite unlike in case of aluminium.

Karthika Mohan
 42

Figure 46: 2024 wear path on glass fibre

Figure 47:7075 wear path on the glass fibre.

Figure 48: titanium grade 5 wear path on the glass fibre.

Karthika Mohan
Carbon fibre
The repeat tests were conducted in a similar way to what was done for the glass 43

fibre composites. The difference in the two tests was that the amount of wear occurring

in both the indenters and the plate was much less in comparison to the glass fibre. This

is because carbon fibre is not as abrasive as glass fibres.

The test results for carbon fibre are shown in the figure below. An increase in

the friction coefficient is witnessed as was observed in the case of glass fibre

composites. With the increase in the number of runs, the top layer of the laminate is

removed and which exposes the fibres.

2024 repeat test

0.6
y = 0.0094x + 0.197
0.5
R² = 0.7832
friction coefficient

0.4
2024
0.3 repeat test

0.2

0.1 Linear
(2024
0 repeat test)
0 10 20 30 40
number f runs

Figure 49: the coefficient of friction between 2024 and carbon fibre composite

Karthika Mohan
 7075 repeat test 44

0.5
y = 0.0097x + 0.1558
0.45 R² = 0.9657
0.4
friction coefficient

0.35
7075 repeat
0.3 test
0.25
0.2 Linear
0.15 (7075
repeat test)
0.1
0 10 20 30 40
number of run

Figure 50: the coefficient of friction between 7075 and carbon fibre composites

titanium repeat test

0.35
0.3 y = 0.0061x + 0.12
friction coefficient

0.25 R² = 0.8581

0.2 titanium
repeat test
0.15
0.1
0.05 Linear
(titanium
0 repeat
0 10 20 30 40 test)
number of runs

Figure 51: the coefficient of friction between titanium grade 5 and carbon fibre composites

The surface wear for the composites have been shown in the figure below.

Karthika Mohan
 45

Figure 52: wear path created on carbon fibre composite by aluminium 2024

Figure 53: wear path created on the carbon fibre by al 7075

Karthika Mohan
 46

Figure 54: wear path created by titanium alloy on carbon fibre

The wear paths look much smoother than the glass fibre composites. Particles

depositions are visible under the microscope for all metal alloys. The particles of

aluminium were easier to observe in this case. The wear caused by titanium is much

uniform than that of aluminium.

Discussion

Based on the load tests conducted on composite materials it can be seen that the

friction coefficient does vary slightly with the applied normal load. But, this change in

the coefficient of friction (0.02 on average) occurs when the normal force changes by

approximately 300N. This indicates that the friction coefficient is independent of the

applied normal force.

The mechanical behaviour of the composites at and near the sliding interface

causes fibre- matrix deformation and debonding which leads to the wear in the

composites (Sung and Suh, 1978). They explained how the wear occurs in the

composites by considering the different orientation of the fibres in the composites. They

explained that when the fibres are oriented parallel to the surface of sliding and normal

Karthika Mohan
or parallel to the direction of sliding, debonding starts occurring in the form of crack at
47
both sides of the fibre-resin interface a finite depth from the or at the surface (fig).

When the crack is initiated, it starts to propagate when it experiences a cyclic load. This

also causes the debonding length to increase and large scale fibre separation occurs.

Once the fibres are separated they will fracture more readily.

Figure 55: the debonding mechanism in composite wear

The composites that were tested were orthotropic and the tests were conducted

with the fibre being initially parallel to the direction of sliding. As wear is induced, the

fibres get expose which provides resistance to the movement of the indenter. The

exposed fibres caused considerable wear to the indenters due to their abrasive nature

(glass fibre) and its hardness (carbon fibre). With this wear caused by the fibre on the

indenter, the indenter surface becomes rough. This causes an increase in the friction

coefficient between the materials being tested.

Karthika Mohan
 When the composite test was performed the variation in the coefficient of
48
friction (Fig. is much lower than the metal on metal friction coefficient variation (Fig.

15 and 16). The resin forms a comparatively smoother surface than the metals. This

smoother surface causes less number of adhesion junctions to be formed. Thus reducing

the resistance caused while moving the indenter. Also, looking at it from the asperity

theory of Coulomb, a smoother surface indicates a surface with less number of

asperities and hence reduced variation in friction is reduced as the indenter surface does

not encounter new asperities.

7075 on composite
0.02

0.015
friction ccoefficient

0.01
7075 on
0.005 composite
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
time

Figure 56:the variation in friction coefficient while sliding with time

Karthika Mohan
Discussion 49

Introduction
This chapter deals with the conclusions to the whole research conducted. the

chapter also looks at the various problem that was faced. A discussion of the future

avenues of research.

Discussion of the results

The results of the experiments indicate that the coefficient of friction does vary

slightly with the normal load. But this variation is negligible and can be ignored. Thus,

coefficient of friction is independent of normal force applied.

It was observed that the when the velocity of sliding is increased the coefficient

of friction also increases. This increase is considered to be more significant than the

previous one as the increase in velocity is also small. Had the increase in the velocity

been greater, this indicates that the friction coefficient would also have increased

considerably.

The friction coefficient in the case of composite on metal also indicates that the

coefficient of friction is constant with applied force.

The interesting results were the ones obtained by conducting the repeat test. The

coefficient of friction increases as the indenter is moved over and over along the same

path. This indicates that when wear occurs on the surface of the composites it increases

the friction coefficient between the materials.

Karthika Mohan
Avenues of future research
Future research avenues include modification of rig and the different 50

experiments that can be conducted.

The rig in its present configuration is very sensitive due to its high stiffness

constant of the proving ring. However, this makes normal force to change on

encountering very small surface deformations (Fig.57). A method that is not affected by

surface irregularities would be much better to use. Also the test plate holder needs to be

changed as it has warped.

200
forces

150
normal
100 force
force

y force
50
x force

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-50
time

Figure 57: the forces a function of time

Karthika Mohan
 51

Figure 58: pic of the rig showing the overhanging sides of the plate holder over the dynamometer

The plate holder overhangs the dynamometer (Fig 58). This in turn causes

moments about the dynamometer. If the plate dimensions are reduced the tendency of

wobbling about the dynamometer would be reduced considerably.

Among experiments that could be conducted includes further research into

composite on composite friction. This also includes investigating into a suitable

composite indenter design. Further research into how the friction coefficient is affected

by the wear of the composites and also how the coefficient of friction changes with

wear of the composites, will yield interesting results. When the indenter retraced its path

once at 750 N the wear on both the indenter (titanium) and the composite was quite high

(Fig. 59). There was no visible wear initially at 750N. On comparing with the wear path

left by the titanium indenter at 150 N, The path formed at 750 N is much rougher.

Hence, a look at how the wear at different load conditions would reveal interesting

information.

A look at the variation of friction coefficient with velocity and also fibre

orientation relative to the sliding direction is another research area. The fibre directions

Karthika Mohan
when parallel to the direction of sliding might provide less resistance than when it is
52
normal to the direction of sliding.

Figure 59: wear path of carbon fibre composite at 750 N

Conclusion
In conclusion to the research, the friction coefficient does not change with

applied force but shows considerable variation with velocity. The friction coefficient in

the composites increases quite a lot when surface wear takes place.

Karthika Mohan
Reference
Beardmore, R. (2010, 10/09/2010). 53

"http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm." Friction

factor Retrieved 28/06/2011, 2011.

Bowden, F. P. and L. L (1938). "The nature of sliding and analysis of friction."

proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A 169(938): 371-391.

Bowden, F. P. and D. Tabor (1939). "The area of contact between stationary and

moving surfaces." proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A

169(938): 391-413.

Chowdhury, M. A., D. M. Nuruzzaman, et al. (2010). "Variation of Friction Coefficient

of Copper with Sliding Velocity and Relative Humidity." Journal of Advanced

Research in Mechanical Engineering 1(3): 142-146.

Hood, N. (2010). DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A COEFFICIENT OF

FRICTION TEST RIG. B.E, The University of New South Wales.

Kim, H.-J., A. Emge, et al. (2005). "Effects of tribooxidation on sliding behavior of

aluminum." Wear 259(501-505): 501.

Sahin, Y. and S. Murphy (1998). "The effect of sliding speed and microstructure ont he

dry wear properties of metal-matrix composites." wear 214: 98-106.

Sung, N. and N. P. SUh (1978). "Effect of fiber orientation on friction and wear of fibre

reinforced polymeric composites." Wear 53: 129-141.

Karthika Mohan
Appedix
54

Karthika Mohan
 55

Karthika Mohan
 56

Karthika Mohan
Surface analyser results
57

Karthika Mohan
 58

Figure 60: before polishing

Karthika Mohan
 59

Figure 61: after polishing

Karthika Mohan
 60

Karthika Mohan
 61

Karthika Mohan