See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267618946

On the Definition and Laws of Friction

Conference Paper · January 2005

DOI: 10.1115/WTC2005-63518

CITATIONS READS

0 4,493

1 author:

Farid Al-Bender
KU Leuven
115 PUBLICATIONS 2,552 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD research project: prognostics of machine elements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farid Al-Bender on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of WTC2005:
World Tribology Congress III
Washington Hilton, Washington D.C., USA, 12-16 Sept., 2005.

DRAFT WTC2005-63518

ON THE DEFINITION AND LAWS OF FRICTION

Farid Al-Bender Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Mechanical Engineering Dept.,
Celestijnenlaan 300B
B3001 Heverlee (Belgium)

ABSTRACT
The basic definitions, laws, notions and concepts employed
in the study of friction are reviewed. It is shown that accepted
definitions contain elements of laws, that accepted laws are
formally ill-stated, and that basic notions such as contact,
adhesion, etc. need critical revision and new syntheses. It is
suggested that an international committee should undertake this
task.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge progresses through a historic build-up of (often
incremental) contributions and insights over long periods of
time. This leads sometimes to the problem that old definitions,
concepts and theories could become a real impediment to
further progress. Friction theory has not been exempt from this
process. To see this, let us look first at the definition(s) of
friction to find out that, owing to their formulation at early
periods in the history of science, most of the nowadays-
accepted definitions contain certain aspects of postulated
“laws”, or a priori assumed manner of behavior. Such
adventitious elements in a definition as: e.g. that “friction is
‘opposed’ to the motion”, often lead to serious problems when
one attempts to formulate or test the validity of models and
observations. Thus, there is a need to formulate more generic
and basic definitions.
Second, There is a certain overlap between the definitions and
the laws of friction. The paper examines the formalism of
(commonly accepted) laws to show that they contain misleading
defects, a matter which is again often the source of
misunderstanding. Here too an alternative law formulation is
proposed and discussed.
Third, basic concepts and notions such as the ‘real’ area of
contact, or ‘static’ friction, …etc., which are ill-defined
quantities, pose important problems, which will be indicated,
but which are considered beyond the scope of this short article.
THE DEFINITION OF FRICTION
The generally accepted definition nowadays is:
“The resistance to motion which occurs when one solid body
slides over another.” (c.f. Amontons’ famous article: De la
résistance causée…[1])
Let us examine this definition closely, making sure that it, itself,
does not include a “law”. It is clear that we are dealing here
with solid bodies moving relative to each other and interacting
at their common boundaries. Although the definition does not
say anything about the “proximity” of the interacting surfaces, it
is generally taken that the surfaces are in contact, directly (=dry
friction) or through a third body (=lubricated friction). In the
general case, however, we are justified to assume that friction,
which is not itself yet defined, can take place between any two
objects that are moving relative to each other when the motion
has a sliding component (and find out afterwards the values of
proximity that make friction significant). Secondly, the
“resistance” to tangential motion leads us to understand that
friction is that part of the force, which is vectorially opposed to
the said tangential relative motion. It definitely excludes the
case in which that force would be in the same direction as
sliding. Finally, the definition says nothing about the “state” of
sliding, e.g. whether or not it has to be steady, micro-sliding or
gross sliding. (Let’s remark that the era in which notions and
definitions of friction were beginning to develop, where marked
by a general absence of dynamics, both in theory and practice,
as compared to now). One last point: most scientists agree that
friction is the collective behavior of a very large number of
contacts. However, we find some authors who try to test the
validity of Amontons’ law at the level of a ‘single asperity’
contact, as approximately obtains in an AFM test. Can we still
speak of friction that obeys the same macro laws even at this
level?

1 Copyright © #### by ASME

THE LAWS OF FRICTION
Analogous to mathematical formulation, the definition serves as
the premises. Now we look at the theorems for possible defects
and also in order to find out how better to formulate definitions.
The only solid (and most widely) accepted “law” of friction is
that now attributed to da Vinci-Amontons-Coulomb. It reads:
(1) Friction is proportional to the normal load and (2)
independent of the (apparent) surface area [2]. A third (and
fourth) law(s) came into circulation later due to Coulomb; viz.
(3) Static friction is higher that kinetic friction and (4) kinetic
friction is independent of the sliding speed. (N.B. Although
Coulomb did study this topic brilliantly, he never made the last
statement explicitly). What he did do is assert, on the basis of
clear experimental evidence, that (5) the static friction increases
with rest (or dwell) time of the contact. Much later, some
researchers regarded the part of the definition stating that the
friction vector opposes the motion vector as a law in itself and
examined its validity. Thus, Rabinowicz[3] showed that the
force developing in the (steady sliding) rubbing interface was
not quite opposed to the motion but varied by a few degrees (in
the plane of the motion) either side, (so that the net effect over
time was more or less opposite to the direction of motion). If
this is allowed, we may then ask ourselves: has the force
developed in the interface always the nature of resistance to the
motion, even in unsteady sliding? The answer to this is
negative, based on experimental evidence as well as theoretical
considerations [4,5]. That is to say, during unsteady (e.g.
periodic) motion, the “friction” force can be (instantaneously)
in the same sense as the motion.
Thus, coming back to the proper formulation of the definition of
friction, we could perhaps better state that: friction is the
tangential force developing in a sliding junction and depending
on the state of sliding, which may also be causally related to the
(apparent) surface area and the normal load; all variables being
recorded at metrologically repeatable conditions. Further, this
said causal relation, if it exists, is the friction law.
In this regard, the present author [7] has recently shown, by a
pure thought experiment, that Amontons’ law is formally ill-
stated and that a more generic law, if it exists, should read: “the
friction traction is some well-behaved function of the normal
traction”. This theory also leads to the (implicitly, commonly
accepted) “law” of friction, which reads: “the friction
coefficient is a decreasing function of the contact pressure”. An
excerpt of the reasoning employed in that analysis follows here.
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Consider the first and second laws above, we could show
mathematically that they are equivalent, i.e. that any one of the
two implies the other. We give here half of the proof: i.e.
starting from the second part, we prove that the first part
follows. Let it be that the friction force, F, is some unknown
function of the normal load, W, for any apparent surface area, A,
i.e. F = f(W), with f being the “law”. We partition this area into
View publication stats
two sub-areas, bearing normal loads W1 and W2 and
experiencing friction forces F1 and F2. Since the law is
independent of the area, then F = F1 + F2 = f(W1 ) + f(W2 ) =
f(W1 +W2 )= f(W), for any W1 and W2 . That is, the law is
additive; and since it is continuous, it follows that it is linear
[6]. Thus, we have proved that the second part of Amontons’
law implies the first [7].
APPARENT AREA, ADHESION, STATIC FRICTION,…
A critical look at other commonly accepted notions and
concepts in friction is apt to show us the need for a radical
revision of these. So, e.g. it is difficult to make a strict
distinction between the real area and the apparent area of
contact, in the absence of a ‘proximity’ measure. In particular, it
has been shown recently that the elastic contact of fractal
surfaces results in no contact spot that is of finite size[8]. At
such a limit, it would also be difficult to distinguish adhesion
from deformation.
Similarly, the notion of static friction should perhaps be
replaced by ‘maximum friction force prior to gross sliding’, or
‘the break-away force’ which depends, among other factors on
the rate of force application, or acceleration[5].
CONCLUSION
The morale of this story is: It is high time that we reconsidered
the definition of friction and ascertained more rigorously the
validity of its established laws especially from a formal point of
view. Likewise, essential notions such as the real and the
apparent areas of contact, adhesion-deformation effects, static-
dynamic friction, etc., which have a direct bearing on (and
could hamper) our understanding of the subject, have to be
critically reviewed. This cannot be the endeavor of a single
individual or even a small group, but should be carried out by a
committee who could organize a worldwide debate on these
issues and formulate appropriate conclusions.
REFERENCES
1. Amontons, G., ”De la résistance causeé dans les machines”,
Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, pp.206-227,
1699.
2. Dowson, D. History of Tribology (Longman, London and
New York, 1979).
3. E. Rabinowicz, Friction and Wear of Materials (Wiley, New
York, 1965).
4. F. Al-Bender, V. Lampaert, and J. Swevers, Tribology Letters
16, 81 (2004).
5. V. Lampaert, F. Al-Bender, and J. Swevers, Tribology Letters
16, 95 (2004).
6. Gelbaum, B.R. and Olmsted, J.M.H. Theorems and
counterexamples in Mathematics, (Springer-Verlag,1990).
7. F. Al-Bender, “Amons law revisited”, (MSS in preparation).
8. Ciavarella M.; Demelio G.; Barber J. R.; Jang Y.H. “Linear
elastic contact of the Weierstrass profile”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A
456, 387-405 (2000).
2 Copyright © #### by ASME