WEAR

ELSEVIER Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457

Wear models and predictive equations: their form and content

H.C. Meng ‘, K.C. Ludema”
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Am Arbor, MI 48109-2125, USA

Received 7 October 1994; accepted 3 November 1994

Abstract

Most wear models and equations in the literature were analyzed as to origin, content and applicability. No single predictive
equation or group of limited equations could be found for general and practical use. The reasons include the perpetuation
of erroneous and subjective expressions for the mechanisms of wear, the slow pace of translation of microscopic observations
into macroscopic models of the wearing processes and the paucity of good experiments to verify proposed models.

Keywords: Wear models; Predictive equations

1. Introduction modeling [2] and a chapter on models in the recent

One vital and persistent goal in engineering is to
develop performance relationships between all the vari-
ables and parameters in a system, in mathematical form.
So too in tribology, engineers and designers should
have equations to predict wear rates. Unfortunately
the available equations are so confusing that few de-
signers can use any of them to predict product life
with confidence. The desire for equations is particularly
urgent in “automated” design where most every other
topic is much more quantified than is the topic of wear.
Examples of more mature topics are stress analysis,
vibration analysis and failure mechanics. Given the
increasing reliance upon computer-based design meth-
ods, a topic that is deficient in useful algorithms is
minimized, if not ignored.
The issue of wear equations and modeling is discussed
on a regular but infrequent basis. Many papers have
been written before on this topic but little concrete
direction has arisen for developing good wear models.
The most relevant paper is due to Bahadur [l], who
summarized a workshop in the 1977 Wear of Materials
(WOM) conference. There are also several relevant
papers in the proceedings of a symposium on wear
* Corresponding author.
I Present address: China Motor Corporation, Yang-Mei Taoyuan,
Taiwan.
book by Bayer [3].
In the following paragraphs the terms “model” and
“equation” will be used frequently and should be de-
fined. A wear model is a listing, description or discussion
of the variables that influence wear. In some instances
the model is left in word form, which will be referred
to as a word model. When the variables are assembled
into mathematical form, they are referred to as wear
equations.
Barber [4] stated well the general philosophy of
modeling: “Engineering modeling rests on the premise
that even the most complex engineering system can be
conceived as consisting of an assembly of relatively
simple components (often infinitesimal particles) whose
instantaneous state is describable in terms of a finite
number of parameters (or ‘state variables’) and whose
subsequent behavior depends upon interaction with its
neighbors through mathematically quantifiable physical
laws“.
Barber’s description of modeling is clearly based on
systems that can be modeled as a set of discrete
mechanical units.Wear, by contrast, involves chemical
and physical interactions with the mechanical com-
ponents, requiring new methods of modeling. This paper
focuses on the need for new methods and offers rec-
ommendations on how to model the wearing process.
Before the significance of the broader needs can be
convincing, it is instructive to gain a perspective on
the history of writing equations for wear.

0043-1648/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSDI 0043-1648(94)07102-O
444 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457

2. What is available authors have remained in the field for more than 5
years and with six publications, less than 5% of the
2.1. The literaturesearch total.

In searching the literature for models and equations,

2.2. The general form and evolution of wear equations
over 300 equations were found for friction and wear
[5]. Two publications were surveyed: the journal Wear
Wear equations have changed character or emphasis
between 1957 and 1992 and the Wear of Materials
since 1957, undoubtedly following the trend in all other
(WOM) conferences from 1977 to 1991. The total
fields of technology. No equation was found to have
number of papers surveyed was 5466 (4726 in Wear,
been developed strictly from the fundamental and in-
740 in WOM) and the total number of individual authors
trinsic quantities of science, although a few approached
was 5325. Where there was a reference in the searched
this goal. The truly fundamental equations carry the
papers to equations in other publications, those too
hope that if they are complete enough they will “predict”
were studied. Many of the 300+ equations describe
wear rate or wear amount with useful numerical ac-
frictional phenomena, which will not be discussed fur-
curacy.
ther. A significant number of equations relate to wear
Many equations were derived using the methods of
but were not particularly amenable to analysis, so were
solid mechanics. Most include material properties, ther-
left out of later consideration. There remained 182
modynamic quantities or other “engineering” variables
wear equations for the many types of wear.
(some of which may be fundamental). Between 1947
The great majority of the 5466 papers are descriptive
and 1992 three general but overlapping stages of mod-
in nature, many of which contain word models. Perhaps
eling may be perceived.
half present results of studies using microscopes and
(1) Empirical equations were common in the era up
various analytical instruments, providing very valuable
to 1970. They are directly constructed with data taken
information that must eventually become the basis for
from tests in which a few testing conditions were varied.
wear models and equations. About 20% describe a
Four typical models are cited.
particular test, present results from that test and discuss
Barwell [6] suggested that wear rates may be typified
the results, while another 10% present the solution to
by one of three curves of the type
a practical problem. Authors of the latter type of papers
usually make no pretense of developing fundamental
V= %{l-exp(-&)} (I)
concepts but often present some of the best data for
future use.
As an interesting side issue from the study, it was v=cut (2)
found that 3432 of the 5325 authors (about 60%) v=P exp@) (3)
appeared only once in print. Most of these were coau-
thors with a more mature author, however. The dis- where V is the volume loss, cx is a constant and t is
time.
tribution of the number of authors and their number
The parameter p is one of the mysterious terms,
of publications is shown in Fig. 1. Only 12% of the
identified as “some characteristic of the initial surfaces”,
authors published more than three papers and only
probably not describing a predicted effect but rather
15% persisted for more than 5 years. The distribution
reflecting an effect noticed by an alert observer. These
of the period of active publishing by authors corresponds
equations simply describe the shape of a curve for V
with the number of papers published per author, some
vs. t or V vs. p, the latter quantified in some way.
having published for 35 years. Altogether only 289
Rhee [7] found that the total wear of a friction
material (polymer-matrix) is a function of the applied
load F, speed V and time t according to
total number of authors: 5325
AW=KF”Vbtc (4)
where AW is the weight loss of the friction material
and K, a, b and c are empirical constants.
Equations of this type i.e. where the chosen variables
are multiplied together, are common. Three sets of
tests are done where the variation in wear volume is
1 2 3 ; G 0’: : “! N ‘? P v! T measured when one of either V, F or t is varied in
,” “N”,” s: z &:
number of published papers per author turn and two of the variables are fixed. Frequently the
Fig. 1. The number of authors and the number of papers they relationship is approximately logarithmic so that a value
published in Wear and WOM. is assigned to each exponent in turn. It is assumed,
 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema
but rarely proven, that each exponent is independent
of variations in the “other” variables.
Typically empirical equations are valid only within
the range of the test but are far more accurate in that
range than are theoretical equations. The great majority
describe wearing under tixed sliding conditions, usually
with no control or measurement of temperature, surface
roughness, etc.
(2) Contact-mechanics-based equations were common
in the years 1970-1980. They usually begin as models
of a system, assuming simple relationships among work-
ing conditions. Some account is often taken of the
topography of the contacting surfaces as well in order
to calculate the local region of contact. Many of these
equations are based on the assumption that a con-
ventional material property (of the author’s choice),
usually Young modulus E or hardness H, will be im-
portant in the wear process. An example of this type
is due to Archard [8], who published well in advance
of the later contact mechanics era:
*=fiP (5)
Pm
where W is the worn volume, s is the sliding distance,
P is the applied load, pm is the flow pressure (ap-
proximately equivalent to hardness) of the softer ma-
terial and the ratio of the last two is often taken as
the real contact area. K is stated to be a constant related
to the probability that an encounter of two asperities
will produce a wear particle. There are many discussions
in the literature on the true meaning of K, but in reality
it must also express the likely distribution of loosened
particle size and the probability that a loosened particle
will leave the system rather than become reattached.
However K is rationalized, its value is obtained from
experiment and has become known as a the “wear
coefficient”.
Archard’s equation is of a type that evolved from
discussions on ways to express the severity of sliding
of gear teeth. In the German literature of 100 years
ago the term “spezifische Gleitung” (specific sliding)
was used to express some combination of contact pres-
sure and sliding speed [9]. In the 1930s the term
“adhesion” arose as a cause of friction and in the late
1940s the concept of “real area of contact” of plastically
deforming bodies was discussed. Archard put all these
ideas into one equation, which was a significant con-
tribution.
The PVcriterion is ultimately a variant of “spezifische
Gleitung” and not the product of any particular era.
Some equations were built on the PV concept but are
rarely useful for predicting product life. Some authors
appear to connect wear rate with the product PV. Rhee
apparently found the wear rate to be proportional to
P and V separately, thus the separate exponents on
his variables [7]. Still others appear to believe that
t Wear 18I-183 (1995) 443-457 445
negligible wear occurs below some characteristic value
of PV (or POT or Pp5) for each material and that
severe wear occurs above this value. The PVformulations
were not studied in detail (see Ref. [lo] for details).
(3) Equations based on material failure mechanisms
have evolved in the greatest number over the last 15
years. Authors now appear to recognize that wear
resistance is not an intrinsic property of materials and
that mechanical properties chosen for mechanics pur-
poses (e.g. for calculation of real contact area) may
not apply directly. The emphasis turned to incorporating
more quantities relating to material flow, fracture tough-
ness K,, fracture strain er, etc. No equations will be
reproduced because of the length of their derivations.
The earliest material phenomena studied include dis-
location mechanics [ll], fatigue properties [12], shear
failure defined by slip line analysis [13] and brittle
fracture properties 1141; there have been many more
since. Peculiarly, though wear is thought by many
investigators to be due to loss of oxide, no models
covering this mechanism, other than that of Quinn [15],
have appeared of late.
2.3. Assessment of applicability of equations
The most striking aspect of the 182 equations in the
literature is the great number of variables cited. Each
author incorporates a different array of variables, often
for the same mechanical system. The most significant
inference that can be drawn from the number of vari-
ables, which number has continued to increase with
time, is that there appears to be little convergence of
thought on modeling. Secondly, of practical consequence
is that a designer has great difficulty in locating the
applicable equation for a particular application: very
likely none exists with the same array of variables
identified in the designer’s present problem.
The terms, variables and parameters used in all the
wear equations were tabulated. As discussed in the
next section, 28 of the 182 equations were separated
out for special study. These are for erosion by solid
particle impingement, leaving 154 which encompass all
other forms of wear, here referred to as “general wear”;
the variables in these 154 are listed in Appendix A.
2.3.1. Parameters in the equations for general wear
First, as a matter of statistics, there are more than
100 different variables and constants (parameters) in
the equations for general sliding wear. Actually there
are over 625 variables as named by the authors, but
many appeared to be good approximations of others
and were somewhat arbitrarily combined into a con-
densed list. The average number of variables is 4.8 in
the empirical equations, 5.8 in the simpler mechanics-
based models and 8.9 in the equations built from the
material point of view. Some equations contain up to
446 H.C. Meng, KC. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457

Table 1
Parameters selected in erosion wear models

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Density X
Hardness X X X
Moment of inertia X

Roundness X X X

Single mass X

Size X X X X X X

Velocity X X X x x X X X X X X X X
Rebound velocity X
Kinetic energy (KE) of particle

Density X X X X X X X X X

Hardness X X X X

Flow stress X X

Young modulus
Fracture toughness
Critical strain
Depth of deformation
Incremental strain per impact
Thermal conductivity
Melting temperature
Enthalpy of melting
Cutting energy X X
Deformation energy X X
Erosion resistance X X
Heat capacity
Grain molecular weight
Weibull flaw parameter X X
Lame constant
Grain diameter

Impact angle X X 90 x X X 90 x X X X
Impact angle max. wear X
KE transfer from particle to target
Temperature
Constant 2 3 3 1 2 10 1 3 2 1 6 1 4 4

nine material properties. The largest number of variables
in a single equation is 26, the smallest two.
Most equations contain constants which require spe-
cial mention. The average number of constants is 1.5
and they are the most ambiguous among the parameters.
The simplest and most useful constants constitute the
“numerical bridge” between values calculated from the
selected variables in derived equations and values mea-
sured in experiments.
Unfortunately, some constants are assigned to rep-
resent specific quantitative phenomena which are not
readily measurable: examples are “fatigue life of an
asperity”, “surface strength” and “area of molecular
contact”. Some constants express an average property
of non-homogeneous materials and others are referred
to as a “characteristic length” or a “shape factor”. The
mere existence of unmeasurable constants does not
consign a model to oblivion. Models containing such
constants, many of them, have been under development
for many years in several other fields, with great success
in some instances. As will be discussed further, the
problem with unmeasurable constants in wear modeling
is that very few of them are replaced or further explained
in later papers. This is particularly troubling, because
progress is slow in wear modeling and papers older
than 15 years are seldom referenced in “modern” papers.
2.3.2. Variable selection in erosion
After studying all the equations and mechanisms
(modes, etc.) of wear, the equations for erosion were
found to contain some specific points on which to base
recommendations for future modeling. However, to
strengthen the conclusions reached, the equations used
in this analysis were carefully selected. The following
criteria were used in selecting erosion equations for
study.
(a) The maturity of the author, which is measured
by the length of time the author(s) has been publishing
papers in erosion, the number of papers the author
published and the frequency of citing of an author by
others.
(b) Logical consistency, which was assured
(i) where there was a reasonable and detailed ex-
planation of the derivation of wear equations
 H.C. Meng, KC. Ludema I Wear MI-183 (1995) 443-457 447

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X
X

X X

X X
X

X 90 90 X

X X

X
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

from the initial assumptions to the final expres-
sions,
(ii) when the equations did not conflict with the laws
of nature,
(iii) when the theories agreed with accompanying ex-
perimental results and those of previous studies,
or a logical explanation for differences is provided.
(c) Historical significance (continuity), which is con-
firmed where the model is quoted in a positive light
in later credible papers.
Twenty-eight erosion models were found to meet the
above criteria and these are listed in numbered sequence
in Appendix B. All equations were recast into compatible
forms and symbols. They contained 33 parameters as
shown in Table 1. The average number of parameters
per equation is five and no single equation contains
all variables. Evidently each equation is the result of
a very specific and individual approach. However, given
the diligence and dedication of the authors of the
selected equations for erosion, their approaches are
reasoned and rational.
2.3.3. Harmonizing existing equations
It might be supposed that each published equation
contains some truth concerning the wearing process,
and if so, some methods might be found to harmonize
some equations or to point the way in future modeling.
Several methods were explored for doing so, focusing
on the equations for erosion. Unfortunately, there
appears to be no way to harmonize them as equations
without beginning the modeling process in some new
way. It might have been helpful if more authors of
papers on erosion had published all their data (provided
that editors allow them!). The following methods were
evaluated and found to offer no insight on variable
choices.
(a) Tabulation of the incidence of use of the variables
in order to determine which is the more prominent.
Hardness is clearly the most widely used but is as
clearly inapplicable for most types of wear and surely
inadequate as the only material property.
(b) Dimensional analysis. The expectation in assuring
dimensional compatibility in equations is that some
448 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema
forgotten variable may be identified or some candidate
variable may be seen to be appropriate for consideration
on the basis of the units brought into the equation. It
may be this principle more than any other that inhibits
the broadening of the Archard equation form to include
new and relevant variables.
There is of course no proof that dimensional analysis
is inapplicable in forming wear equations, because we
do not yet have a closed list of terms to use. However,
all attempts to add new variables to old equations
readily demonstrate the present problem.
(c) Superposition; that is, having worked out the
influence of one variable on wear rate, one cannot
simply add or multiply a new variable to the existing
variables already studied. This practice may work for
a few variables, but there is no way to determine the
limits of this practice. Given that most wearing events
involve multiple mechanisms, an arbitrary choice of
variables will not produce very useful models: there is
too much interdependence between some variables.
(d) The methods of waveform analysis or system
identification are of little value in developing wear
equations, because there is nothing in these techniques
that identifies basic mechanisms, even if the ideal
experiment had been done to support the equation.
(e) Expert system methods cannot impose order into
a system, because these methods depend on an orderly
construct of information, though not necessarily com-
plete.
3. General critique of modeling (necessarily broadly
and generally stated)
There are several reasons for the current incomplete
state of modeling and equation writing. It is clearly a
difficult field in which many serious and highly qualified
authors are working. However, the methods used could
be improved. The common approach to modeling which
has succeeded in the past in other fields follows the
following approximate sequence.
(9 Seieraipeople work-on nearly the same topic at
a good pace, with good interaction.
(ii) Models emerge, accompanied by complete doc-
umentation of assumptions, methods and limi-
tations of the approach.
(iii) Several mature researchers participate directly in
experimental programs to verify the latest models.
(iv) Critiques of models are published and models are
revised, defining new and more relevant materials
constants, fundamental events, etc.
(v) New experimental observations are developed and
results published.
(vi) Etc.
I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457
By contrast, in wear modeling we find the following.
(a) Too few authors work in most of the subtopics
of wear to constitute a “critical mass” in the topic.
Most authors work in isolation from others as judged
from the reference lists in the papers. By contrast, the
papers on fluid film lubrication of the last 50 years
indicate the existence of a spirited critical mass of
authors. This critical mass most obviously reflects a
high commercial interest in developing lubricated ma-
chinery which, if successful, results in little wear. How-
ever, since most practical machinery wears in some
manner, there should also be some interest in this
topic. The great complexity of practical wear problems
has prevented broad and easy discourse.
(b) Most authors appear to select material property
variables in an arbitrary manner or without apparent
connection to real modes of material loss. This is seen
particularly in the widely varying material properties
for seemingly identical wearing events in different pa-
pers Three points will be made on this issue. _
In the equations for erosion, exponents on V
(i)
cover a wide range from 2 to 5 (average about
3) as given in Table 1. In principle it would seem
that erosion damage should be related to the
momentum of the impinging particles, i.e. pro-
portional to v2. An exponent other than 2 (or
other appropriate number) may reflect that a
variable related to V is missing or present in
another form, but it is more likely that the cited
mechanical properties are inappropriate. For ex-
ample, it may be necessary to use dynamic hard-
ness or dynamic K, values rather than quasi-static
values and the effect may be as large as a factor
of 10. No papers discussed this possibility.
(ii) The chosen mechanical properties frequently do
not reflect a repeat stress event or a fracture
event, though cyclic contact stress is stated to
exist by many authors.
(iii) The chosen mechanical properties are often not
intrinsic material properties (e.g. E, H and K,),
nor are they independent of each other (e.g. E,
H, melting point (MP), atomic bond strength and
several other properties, when plotted against
each other, show very similar trends or are pro-
portional to each other (with some scatter)).
(c) Experiments to verify models seldom prove their
point very clearly. All experiments involve several in-
advertent complications that mislead the observer. It
should not escape our attention that the 60% of authors
who appear in print only once have probably also done
the great majority of the experiments reported in the
literature and probably had little prior experience in
their chosen topic.
It is mysterious how truth can be extracted from
some experiments in which so many confusing factors
H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema 1 Wear 181-183 (1995) 443457 449

are present. Some confusion is brought about by unwise

selection of test variables, which is a lengthy subject
in itself. Most authors appear to believe that each
variable can be properly studied separately while “hold-
ing other variables constant” at any value whatsoever,
even at some unrealistic value. This practice probably
belies an assumption that the principle of superposition
is valid in wear, even through the several transitions
in modes of material loss over time.
(d) Most authors cite one or more mechanisms, modes
or processes of wear, either as the basis for their model
or in the general discussion in their paper. It is clear
that there is little agreement on the meaning of the
terms. This is probably the major reason for the lack
of visible progress toward useful wear equations (and
friction equations as well).
Lists of wear mechanisms may be found in many
books and such lists are long. A brief compiled list
taken from the papers of prominent researchers is given
in Table 2. Few of the terms are of the same “level”,
few are mutually exclusive and few are present in
isolation from others in practice. They can therefore
not be cited as equal alternatives or additive effects.
Furthermore, they are not separated as to direct or
proximate causes of loss of material. Some examples
will be given.
(i) “Levels” of wear terms. An example illustrating
the concept of levels is “erosion” by solid particle
impingement. It is said to occur by some varying
combination of cutting, fatigue, brittle fracture
and melting as shown in Fig. 2. However, three
of the four submechanism terms are also listed
as primary mechanisms. Cutting can be further
divided into two since it involves penetration of
a “cutter” (resisted by hardness) and (plastic)
strain to failure. The latter is yet another mech-
anism in Table 2. Eventually one is led to a “level”
of action that cannot be readily reduced and we
may refer to this level as fundamental. It is not
intended here to define the most fundamental
level, which will likely be different for each dis-
cipline. All the terms in Table 2 may be seen to
reduce to only a few material “separation” modes

a “mechanism” sub-mechanisms
of wear
- ,cuttintCpenetration of cutting edge

plastic deformation to failur% \

erosion by
solid particle fatigueX-cyclic failure material
impingement separation
brittle fracture-non-cyclic failure actions

t melting’- loss of fluid state i

It also listed as primary mechanism in Table 2

Fig. 2. The four submechanisms by which erosion separates materials

from a target and the four separate modes of material behavior in
the loss process.
450 H.C. Meng, ICC. Ludema
as shown to the right in the table. This list is too
simplistic as well.
The point is that the term “erosion” is not a
fundamental term in any sense, surely not as a
descriptor of a phenomenon to be modeled. Few
others in Table 2 are either.
Part of the ambiguity in the meaning of some
terms in Table 2 is that in some instances they
refer to a material loss mechanism and at other
times they refer to the mechanical aspects of
contact. The clearest example is the term “fret-
ting”: sometimes this term is invoked when a
particular type of debris is seen on a surface and
sometimes it refers to small amplitude oscillatory
sliding.
(ii) Direct vs. proximatecmses. An example illustrating
the frequent failure to separate direct from prox-
imate causes is the term “adhesion”. It is perhaps
the most frequently cited type, mechanism or cause
of wear. The full meaning of the term is difficult
to capture from the literature. Although there are
some definitions as promulgated by various com-
mittees within professional societies, authors who
use the term appear to have their own definition.
Sometimes it means “welding” or “bonding” in
the sense of primary atomic bonds, metallic, ionic
or covalent. However, this definition can hardly
be satisfying, because if primary bonding were
operative alone in the contact region, then wear
debris would not escape from the system. A useful
adhesion theory should state how adhesion causes
the formation of loose particles and later allows
the loose particles to escape. Indeed, adhesion is
often invoked to account for friction, either local
or global friction, but this too is unsatisfactory:
a single representation of adhesion should suffice
for both sliding resistance and wear rate. At
present, adhesion should be regarded as a prox-
imate cause and cannot reasonably be cited as a
direct or complete cause of wear.
Table 3
Steps in developing wear models for metals in a practical unlubricated environment
1 2
Develop a statement Develop a
of the sequence of picture of
material turbulence at planes and
the sliding interface, zones of
involving base -9 weakness
material, products of that develop
chemical conversion in the mixed
and adsorbed interface
substances material
(include a theoretical estimate of the resistance to sliding (friction))
I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457
A common impression in the literature is that if a
mechanism of wear can be identified in a particular
(sliding) system, then a material can be selected to
resist that particular mechanism. This is erroneous
reasoning. A good example is a system which may be
made of either plain carbon steel or stainless steel.
Each material will wear by a different combination of
mechanisms because of theirproperties. In other words,
the material “brings” the wear mechanism into the
system. Possible exceptions are where a particular wear
mechanism will be imposed whatever resistance is of-
fered, as in some cases of erosion and abrasion.
4. Recommendations (necessarily broadly stated)
It is clear that future wear equations cannot be
synthesized from many existing equations and it is
equally unlikely that many applicable equations will
emerge using the approach of the past. Equations will
continue to appear, however, and doubtless some that
seem to be totally impractical at this time may eventually
be the basis for future useful equations.
Wear modeling and equation writing will benefit from
a new approach and the following suggestions are
offered.
(a) Abandon efforts to model wear in terms of the
current list of wear mechanisms. These terms only serve
to diverge thinking on real wear processes. It is not
surprising that the long-standing wear mechanisms are
still in use; however, there are few alternatives.
(b) Develop full descriptions of the evolution of
macroscopic events on sliding surfaces. This must in-
clude a description of the formation and movement of
fragmented particles in the interface region. Collab-
oration with researchers in material studies is vital in
this effort.
An example is given in Table 3 for sliding of metal.
Most definitely, when a body of material A slides on
a body of material B, the two original materials do
3 4
Develop a Develop an
picture of the estimate of the
distribution of fraction of
the size and particles that
+ shapes of recirculates in
loosened the contact
particles that region and the
form from the fraction that
mixed interface departs as
material wear debris
 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (I 995) 443-457 451

not slide against each other even at the start of sliding. Applied nominal tensile stress
A slightly different list is required for lubricated sliding, Applied plastic deformation
for ceramic materials, for polymers, for composite ma- Area of contact of a plastic junction
terials, etc. Area of film of transformed structures
(c) Since friction forces add to the stresses and Arrhenius constant for parabolic oxidation
temperatures imposed upon all substances in the in- Asperity strength
terface, friction should be represented in some more Atomic diameter of major constituent
fundamental and locally distributed manner than the Atomic weight
coefficient of friction. The latter is a useful term for Average temperature of chip
mechanical design purposes, not for research in wear. Boltzmann’s constant
(d) Adjust editorial policies of journals to encourage Bulk hardness
substantive discourse on the above topics. Published Burgers vector
work, especially experimental work, should be so com- Coefficient of friction
pletely described that a reader at some location other Composite surface roughness
than that of the author can duplicate the experiment Constant defining initial surface roughness
and obtain the same results. Constant defining load-area relation
Constant defining particle size
Constant defining size of a single contact
References Constant defining stress
Contact pressure
111 S. Bahadur, Wear research and development, ASME 1 Lubr. Crack propagation velocity
Technol., 100 (1978) 449-454. Cross-sectional area of worn volume
121 KC. Ludema and R.G. Bayer (eds.), ASTM STP, 1105 (1991). Density of oxide
[31 R.G. Bayer, Mechanical Wear Prediction and Prevention, Marcel Density of wear debris
Dekker, New York, 1994, Part 2, pp. 321402.
Depth of wear grooves
[41 J.R. Barber, Is modeling in tribology a useful activity? ASTM
STP, 1105 (1991) 165-172. Dynamic hardness
[51 H.C. Meng, Wear modehng: evaluation and categorization of Effective hardness of a composite layer
wear models, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Effective Young’s modulus
MI, 1994. Elastic modulus
WI F.T. Barwell, Wear of metals, Wear, 1 (1957-1958) 317-332.
Empirical constant
[71 S.K. Rhee, Wear equation for potymers sliding against metal
surfaces, Wear, 16 (1970) 431-445.
Fatigue life of an asperity
PI J.F. Archard, Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces, J. Appl. Flow pressure
Phys., 24 (1953) 981-988. Fracture toughness
191 H. Blok, personal communication, 1994. Friction force
WI A.W. Glaeser, Design of plain bearings for heavy machinery, Gas constant
ASTM STP, 1105 (1991) 12-29.
Hardness of an asperity under oxide film
IllI N.P. Suh, The delamination theory of wear, Wear, 25 (1973)
111-124. Hertzian contact area
1121 E. Hombogen, The role of fracture toughness in the wear of Initial oxygen concentration
metals, Wear, 33 (1975) 251-259. Load supported by contacting asperities
1131 J.M. Challen and P.L.B. Oxley, An explanation of the different Low cycle fatigue constant
regimes of friction and wear using asperity deformation models,
Mean asperity interaction length
Wear, 53 (1979) 229-243.
A.G. Evans and D.B. Marshall, in DA. Rigney (ed.), Fun-
Mean volume of a individual wear particle
P41
damentals of Friction and Wear of Materials, American Society Melting point of lubricant
for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1981, p. 439. Melting temperature
P51 T.F.J. Quinn, Oxidational wear, Wear, 18 (1971) 413-419. Molecular weight of lubricant
Nominal contact area
Number of asperities per millimeter
Appendix A: 100 different variables and constants in Number of nucleation sites
the equations for general sliding wear Oil density
Partial pressure of oxygen
Absolute humidity Planck’s constant
Absolute temperature of contact spot Poisson’s ratio
Activation energy for parabolic oxidation Probability of asperity encounter
AE (acoustic emission) rate Probability of forming a wear particle
Ambient temperature of surfaces Radius of asperity
Angle of asperity geometry Radius of junction area
Applied load Real area of contact
452 H.C. Meng, KC. Ludema / Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457

Rotational velocity of layer elements Time

Separation distance Total apparent area of disc and pin
Shape factor of indenter Total strain
Shear modulus Ultimate failure stress
Shear strength of metal van der Waal’s constant
Sliding distance Viscosity of lubricating oil
Sliding velocity Volume fraction of each component
Specific heat Volume loss by abrasion
Standard deviation of surface roughness Volume loss by adhesion
Standard wear resistance Volume loss by corrosion
Strain to failure in one loading cycle Volume loss by fatigue
Surface energy Wear coefficient for non-welded junctions
Surface hardness Wear coefficient for welded junctions
Temperature at which oxide film forms Width of groove
Temperature rise due to frictional heating Work-hardening exponent
Thermal conductivity Worn area
Thermal diffusivity Yield strain
Thickness of a wear particle Yield strength

Appendix B: Erosion wear equations for Table 1

1 I. Finnie, Erosion of surfaces by solid particles, Wear, 3 (1960) 87-103

mVZ 6
sin(2a) - - sin20 fortancw< i
+r= PJ/K K

mV K cos2cY
---
E fortanaa X
vp- Pt,h 6

2 J.G.A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomena, Parts I and II, Wear, 6 (1963) 5, 169

EVT = %D + %‘C

1 M(Vsin a-IQ2
‘&D= -
2 6
2MI/(V sin a-Q2 v cos (y_ C(V sin (u-Q2
$x1= X for cr>cy@
(V sin CY)~‘~ ( (V sin ,)1’2 1
wp cos2a-K,(Ysin a-K)3R] for (y<(y
evc2 = ‘PO
X

3 G.L. Sheldon and I. Finnie, The mechanism of material removal in the erosive cutting of brittle materials, J.
Eng. I&., 88 (1966) 393

a= - 3n
2.411
evp = K/Vb, b= -
n-2’ n-2
2.4n
cvp= K/V, a’= 3.6n b= -
n-2’ n-2

K4
K5= ro.6m/(n - 2)
 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema / Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457 453

KI constant

4 J.H. Neilson and A. Gilchrist, Erosion by a stream of solid particles, (1968) 111
@f(v’ cos?~- v) + &M(V sin (Y-K)’
E”= for (Y< cyp0
X 6

&MP cos2a + $M(Vsin CX-K)~ for a,a

+v= PQ
X 6

5 J.E. Goodwin, W. Sage and G.P. Tilly, Study of erosion by solid particles, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 184 (15),
Part 1 (1969-1970) 279
??
,,,=KIVa

a=2 for 25 pm
a = 2.3 for 125 pm

6 W.J. Head and M.E. Harr, The development of a model to predict the erosion of material by natural contaminants,
Wear, 15 (1970) 1

%‘(DW) = 0.000233 - 0.000160R - 0.000238 In

+ 0.00829 sin (Y+ 0.000034 [ In (2)1’-0.000967( g)R

)ICQS
T.2a
H 2
cos cw+O.O001456 In $

E,(,~)
=
[(

0.005345 + 0.000006 5 + 0.003507R + 0.009335 sin (Y

l-e

- 0.004706 cos (Y- 0.003114 sin2a - 0.010888 sin (Y

- 0.00381OR cos CX+0.000495 In cos (Y

1/3.06a2.69g.08~;i03

%(BS) =
Hf.64
~4.34~0.46HO.lOE0.21
P re
EV(DS) = R 2.84~2.48
t

7 G.L. Sheldon, Similarities and differences in the erosion behavior of materials, .I Basic Eng., 89 (1970) 619
W=K,r”Vb
E0.8(n+ l)/(n- 2)
K, = m l.Z(n -0.67)&a - 2)
&an - 2)

3(n - 0.67
II=
n-2

b=2 4 n-0.67
n-2
454 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-#57

8 I. Finnie, Some observations on the erosion of ductile metals, Wear, 19 (1972)

cMV2 ( cos2a- 5)
%= 4P(l +mr%)
2v
i;=V cos a- - sin (Y
P

cw cos2a for $= 0
e”= 4P(l +mr2/I)
CMVZ
sin(2cY)- 2 y fory,=O
‘“= 4P(l +mr2/l) ( 1

9 G.L. Sheldon and A. Kanhere, An investigation of impingement using single particles, Wear, 21 (1972) 195

D 3pp,,3’2
wzq3=
3R
Hv

10 G.P. Tilly, A two stage mechanism of ductile erosion, Wear, 23 (1973) 87

e=i.(EY[ l-($$!]+;2($rFd,”

F = we-w
d.v
wo

11 W.J. Head, L.D. Lineback and C.R. Manning, Modification and extension of a model for predicting the
erosion of ductile materials, Wear, 23 (1973) 291

eV(tw)(oo) - %qwf,(o)
%‘(DMW) ( a )=I F

12 G. Grant and W. Tabakoff, An experimental investigation of the erosion characteristics of 2024 aluminum
alloy, Department of Aerospace Engineering Tech. Rep. 73-37, 1973 (University of Cincinnati)

?? =K,[ l+C[K, sin(E o)]]p cos2a(l-R+)+K,(Vsin a)*

C=l for ag3a0

C=O for cu>3a,

13 J.H. Williams Jr. and E.K. Lau, Solid particle erosion of graphite-epoxy composites, Wear, 29 (1974) 219

??
=K,d”[V sin(,+K,)]’

14 W.H. Jennings, W.J. Head and CR. Manning Jr., A mechanistic model for the prediction of ductile erosion,
Wear, 40 (1976) 93

KS/2 G l/3
‘= % ptnkT,,, AH,

15 I.M. Hutchings, R.E. Winter and J.E. Field, Solid particle erosion of metals: the removal of surface material
by spherical projectiles, Proc. R Sot. Lo&. A, 348 (1976) 379-392
W= 5.82 x 10-'°F9

16 A.G. Evans, M.E. Gulden and M. Rosenblatt, Impact damage in brittle materials in the elastic-plastic response
regime, Proc. R Sot. Lord. A, 361 (1978) 343-365
 H.C. Meng, KC. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457 455

E a ~1916,. W3,,1/4
P
VP
K;“H:‘4

17 A.G. Evans, Impact damage mechanics: solid projectiles, in C.M. Preece (ed.), Treatise on MuteriaI Science
and Technology, Vol. 16, Erosion, Academic, New York, 1979, p. 1

l/4

18 A.W. Ruff and S.M. Wieherhorn, Erosion by solid particle impact in C.M. Preece (ed.), Treatise on Material
Science and Technology, Vol. 16, Erosion, Academic, New York, 1979, p. 69

19 J.L. Routbort, R.O. Scattergood and A.P.L. Turner, The erosion of reaction-bonded Sic, Wear, 59 (1980)
363-375
E = r0.7-o.951/2.0-2.5
m

20 J.L. Routbort, R.O. Scattergood and E.W. Kay, Erosion of silicon single crystals, J. Am. Cerum. Sot., 63 (11)
(1980) 635
em=(V sin ~~-V~)n(d-d~)~

21 I.M. Hutchings, A model for the erosion of metals by spherical particles at normal incidence, Wear, 70 (1981)
269-28 1

=
?? o.o33 @H:”

22 G. Sundararajan and P.G. Shewmon, A new model for the erosion of metals at normal incidence, Wear, 84
(1983) 237-258 ,

0.085v25p;‘4p: -“a(~ + l)“[ 1 - (z + l)/(z + 2)F(z)

=
?? 6.06’(1- CT,_)‘.25[n,CpT&“(l- 436/T,J”.“]6(Kl HJ1.z-b

0.25nE-P’(z + l)“(K, H,)p”

a = [6.06p, C, TF5(1 - 436/T,,,)‘-“$
2+6a
&g=-
P
b=(l+Sa)P
6.5 x 10-3F5py
E= C TO.‘sHo.= (simple form)
Pm *

23 G. Beckmann and J. Gotzmann, Analytical model of the blast wear intensity of metals based on a general
arrangement for abrasive wear, Wear, 73 (1981) 325-353
456 H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema I Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457

24 S.M. Wiederhorn and B.J. Hockey, Effect of material parameters on the erosion resistance of brittle materials,
J. Mater. Sci., 18 (1983) 766-780
Eo[ 1/2.8r3.9p;14K, 1.9Hp.48

25 J.E. Ritter, Erosion damage in structural ceramics, Muter. Sci. Eng., 71 (1985) 195-207

d,EK
+a
K:

26 A.V. Reddy and G. Sundararajan, Erosion behavior of ductile materials with a spherical non-friable erodent,
Wear, 111 (1986) 313-323

Ea L3 A%
fi,

27 S. Johansson, F. Ericson and J. Schweitz, Solid particle erosion - a statistical method for evaluation of
strength properties of semiconducting materials, Wear, 115 (1987) 107-120
p,pyEu3pmd” p,p;BEV8’3d
E= (1 -f,)KI H5/9K4/3 +fK,
t c H1”K2
t c

28 C. Lhymn and P. Wapner, Slurry erosion of polyphenylene sulfide-glass fiber composites, Wear, 119 (1987)
1-12
E= KIK:-2~--Zbd6K2pfpp (unit: Dm/(eroding area x time))
Appendix C: Nomenclature mass of single particle
1 total mass of impinging particle
n flaw parameter, Weibull
a, b exponent constants
n, instantaneous strain-hardening coefficient at
CP heat capacity of target
strain W,
c 1.2, constants
d particle diameter P constant plastic flow stress
d, grain diameter 9 maximum penetration depth of particle
do threshold particle diameter below which no radius of particle
erosion occurs ; roundness of particle
erosion resistance per unit volume of target & tangential restitution ratio
fraction of volume loss caused by median t erosion time
spalling mechanism T working temperature
F experimentally determined factor which is a T, melting temperature
function of geometry of acceleration tube & kinetic energy of particle
employed in erosion test facility V velocity of particle
F(z) function varying with z Vtl stressed volume in bending
F d,v fragmentation for test condition V, residual parallel component of particle velocity
G gram molecular weight of target at small angles of attack
H, hardness of particle Vref standard test velocity of particle
H, hardness of target
VO threshold velocity below which distortion is
H, Meyer’s hardness of target entirely elastic and no damage occurs
I moment of inertia of single particle
W proportion of sample (by weight) within spec-
k thermal conductivity of target
ified size range after testing
K velocity component normal to surface below
which no erosion takes place in certain hard WO proportion of sample (by weight) within spec-
materials ified size range before testing
.f: horizontal velocity of tip of particle when
K, fracture toughness
KT kinetic energy transferred from impacting par- cutting cases
ticle to target per unit mass of particles Y elastic load limit
K 1.2, proportionality constants z exponent determining steepness of strain gra-
L depth of deformation dient associated with each impact
 H.C. Meng, KC. Ludema / Wear 181-183 (1995) 443-457 457

Greek letters %(DS) erosion rate for ductile materials, stepwise

model
‘V(Dw)
erosion rate for ductile materials, WARP
a impact angle
model
ffpo impact angle at which horizontal veiocity com-
EVP volume of material removed by single abrasive
ponent has just become zero when particle
gain of mass
leaves body total volume erosion rate
impact angle equal to zero maximum erosion rates for velocity Vref (ref-
deformation wear factor, the amount of energy erence erosion rate)
needed to remove unit volume of material K ratio of vertical to horizontal force component
enthalpy of melting of target on particle (k= 2)
mean strain increment induced by each impact CLP
Lame constant of particle
erosion rate (mass loss/impact mass) l-4 Lame constant of target
erosion rate (volume loss/impact mass) PP
density of particle
erosion rate for brittle materials, stepwise Pt density of target
model Ob average strength of material in pure bending
a0 scaling stress, a measure of strength of material
%(BW) erosion rate for brittle materials, WARP
cp
load index
model cutting wear factor, the quantity of energy
X
??
VCI, 2 volumes of material removed by cutting mech- needed to scratch out unit volume from a
anisms 1 and 2 surface
‘%D volume of material removed by deformation ratio of depth of contact to depth of cut 0, = 2)
mechanism critical strain for onset of lip formation