Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Friction behaviors of elastic materials sliding on textured glass surfaces

Naoki Fujita a, b, *, Hajime Yamaguchi b, Takumi Kinoshita a, Masaru Iwao a,
Yoshitaka Nakanishi c
a
Research and Development Group., Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd., 2–7-1 Seiran, Otsu, Shiga 520–8639, Japan
b
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, 2–39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto 860–8555, Japan
c
Faculty of Advanced Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, 2–39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto 860–8555, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The friction behaviors of elastomer, polyacetal, and hard-felt writing tips sliding on various textured glass sur­
Texture faces prepared via micro-slurry-jet technology were investigated via reciprocating friction tests. The friction
Adhesive coefficients of each writing tip could be varied using textured glass surfaces. Adhesive, abrasive, and deformation
Abrasive
frictions were observed owing to two types of surface roughness (sub-millimeter-millimeter sized texture and
Ploughing
nanometer sized fine roughness). By inducing a surface texture with a smaller pitch (sub-millimeter-millimeter
sized texture) than the contact area of the writing tip, the largest changes of friction coefficients were observed
for the elastomer. These reductions occurred due to reduced adhesive friction by decreasing real contact areas.

1. Introduction
Adhesive and abrasive frictions are the representative frictional
mechanisms considered to underlie frictional contact at the asperity
level of surface roughness [1–3]. The friction behavior of an elastic
material depends on its material properties, which are derived from the
structures of its main and sub-molecular chains, molecular weight, and
crystal structure [4–6]. Furthermore, the effects of chemical and phys­
ical interactions on the elastic material influence the real contact area of
the material sliding on a hard surface.
In this context, several studies have reported on the influence of
textured surfaces on the tribological characteristics under both lubri­
cated and unlubricated conditions [7]. Under the lubricated condition,
the textured surface is generally expected to afford enhanced hydrody­
namic lubrication [8,9]. Under the unlubricated condition, the textured
surface “adjusts” to the apparent contact areas, which also influences the
adhesive friction and abrasive friction against a counterface [10–12].
Furthermore, in the sliding pair comprising an elastic material surface
and a textured hard surface, deformation friction cannot be neglected
[13–17]. Moreover, the elastic deformation and migration of the elastic
material into the concave structure in the textured hard counterface may
increase the friction and induce fatigue wear of the elastic material.
Recently, the frictional behaviors of pen tips on the glass surfaces of
tablet computers have attracted considerable attention because the
friction behavior influences the “writing feeling” of the pen [18,19].
Generally, a pen tip on a glass surface is slippery due to which, the user
experiences a “poor” writing feeling. This can be improved by adjusting
the elastic modulus or changing the material of the pen tip. However, it
is difficult to achieve “good” writing feeling by improving only the pen
tip. In this study, we measured the friction behaviors of three types of
commercially available pen tips on textured glass that represents the
surface of tablet computers. This was realized to achieve better friction
control to provide an improved writing feeling. We observed the
changes in the friction behaviors via reciprocating friction tests in
relation to the textured glass surfaces having two types of roughness.
One is the fine roughness in nanometer sized asperities, which can in­
fluence adhesive and abrasive frictions. The other is due to the surface
texture of sub-millimeter-millimeter sized pitches, which can influence
deformation friction generated by the pen tip entering concave parts
with elastic deformation. Thus, the frictional mechanisms based on
adhesive, abrasive, and deformation frictions were analyzed by
considering these two types of surface roughness.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Writing tip
In this study, the writing-tip specimens included an elastomer tip
(ACK-20004, Pen Nibs, Wacom Co., Ltd.), a polyacetal tip (ACK-20001,
Pen Nibs, Wacom Co., Ltd.), and a hard-felt tip (ACK-20003, Pen Nibs,

* Corresponding author at: Research and Development Group., Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd., 2–7-1 Seiran, Otsu, Shiga 520–8639, Japan.
E-mail address: nfujita@neg.co.jp (N. Fujita).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2022.107539
Received 28 February 2022; Received in revised form 16 March 2022; Accepted 18 March 2022
Available online 23 March 2022
0301-679X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 1. Appearance of the writing-tip specimens.
Fig. 2. Schematic showing the preparation/processing of textured glass
writing surfaces.
Wacom Co., Ltd.) (Fig. 1). The surface profiles (surface roughness and
radius of curvature at the tip) of each writing-tip specimen were
measured using a laser microscope (LEXT OLS5000-SAT, Olympus
Corporation, Japan).
2.2. Textured glass surface for writing
Fig. 2 shows a schematic of the preparation and processing of the
2
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
Fig. 3. Geometrical parameters of the textured glass surface.
Fig. 4. Illustration of the boundary area between the two surfaces.
Fig. 5. Schematic of compression test process.
textured glass surface, realized via micro-slurry-jet processing [20–22].
First, flat glass plates with dimensions of 70 mm (length) × 70 mm
(breadth) × 0.4 mm (thickness) were prepared. Next, a slurry consisting
of pure water with 3 wt% alumina particles (WA # 8000, average
diameter = 1.2 µm) was sprayed vertically on the glass surfaces through
a 1 mm-wide square-shaped injection nozzle using compressed air at
0.3 MPa. The injection nozzle could be moved parallel to the processed
surface with the use of a numerical control system. By adjusting the
speed and pitch of the nozzle, we processed textured surfaces. A
non-processed glass plate (flat glass plate) was also used for frictional
testing.
The glass surfaces were visualized using a three-dimensional optical
surface profiler (NewView 7300, Zygo Co., USA). Fig. 3 shows the
geometrical parameters of the textured glass surface, which exhibits
both convex and concave sections. The figure also shows the pitch be­
tween the concave sections and the height between the convex and
concave sections. We measured the surface roughness (Sa) across a
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 6. Schematic of contact area observation between the writing tips and the glass surfaces.
75 µm × 55 µm area of the convex section that contained a section of the
apparent contact area between the elastic material and the glass surface.
Since the measured values of Sa in the micro region have variations
depending on measurement points, the average of measurement results
at any 10 points was calculated.
Fig. 4 shows an illustration of the boundary between the writing tip
and textured glass surface. To change the contact conditions of the real
contact and apparent contact areas and amount of the elastic deforma­
tion, we prepared nine types of textured surfaces (three heights and
three pitches).
2.3. Compression test
Fig. 5 is a schematic of the compression test process (EZ-LX, Shi­
madzu Corporation, Japan). A compression test was performed to
investigate the difference in the amount of elastic deformation of each
pen tip and effect of bending of the writing tip. During the test, the
writing tip was fixed at orientation angles of 90◦ and 45◦ and pressed
onto the writing surface (flat glass plate; OA-10 G, Nippon Electric Glass
Co. Ltd., Japan) at a speed of 0.05 mm/s. The compression in the writing
tips was measured thrice (in each writing tip) by gradually increasing
the pushing load up to 5 N. The writing tip was replaced with a new
3
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
writing tip after each test.
2.4. Contact area observations between glass surface and writing tip
Fig. 6 shows the procedure employed to observe the contact area
between the writing tips and a glass surface. During the observations,
the writing tips were fixed at an orientation angle of 45◦ and pressed
onto the glass plate under a load of 1.96 N. The contact area between the
writing tips and the glass surface was observed from the back side of the
glass with a laser microscope (LEXT OLS5000-SAT, Olympus Corpora­
tion, Japan). First, the contact areas between the three types of writing
tips and the flat glass were observed. Then, the contact areas between
these writing tips and glass specimens with and without a texture near
the stroke-end part in the reciprocating motion were observed. The
reciprocating motion in the right and left direction was performed by
operating an x-stage micrometer; the glass specimens on the x-stage
were moved against fixed writing tips. The movement interval in the
right and left directions was approximately 250 µm.
2.5. Reciprocating friction tests
Fig. 7 shows a schematic of the reciprocating friction test. During the
N. Fujita et al. Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Fig. 7. Schematic of the reciprocating friction tests.

Table 1
Surface profile observations of the writing-tip specimens.
Height image and Sa[mm] Radius of curvature of the tip [mm]

Elastomer tip

10.54 687

Polyacetal tip

0.71 665

Hard-felt tip

689
4.49

test, the writing tip was fixed at an orientation angle of 45◦ and pressed calculated from the frictional force measured by a load cell. The writing
onto the glass plate under a load of 1.96 N. Reciprocating motions with a tip was replaced after each test, and the glass writing specimen was
stroke of 40 mm and a period of 14 s were applied for 100 cycles at room cleaned with ethyl alcohol before testing with the next tip.
temperature (approximately 23 ◦ C). The coefficient of friction was

4
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 8. Glass surfaces considered as writing-surface specimens in the study. SD is the standard deviation of surface roughness (Sa).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Writing-tips observations
Table 1 shows enlarged views and the surface profiles of the writing
tips (elastomer tip, polyacetal tip, and hard-felt tip). The elastomer tip
consists of thermoplastic polyester elastomer, which has a structure with
slits. The surface roughness (Sa) and radius of curvature of the tip were
approximately 10.5 µm and 687 µm, respectively, and those of the pol­
yacetal tip were approximately 0.7 µm and 665 µm, respectively. The
hard-felt tip has a hardened filamentous structure. The Sa and radius of
curvature of the tip were approximately 4.5 µm and 689 µm,
respectively.
3.2. Surface properties of textured glass
Fig. 8 shows the glass surfaces used as the writing-surface specimens,
wherein we can clearly observe the formation of continuous and smooth
concave–convex sections on the textured glass surface. Although the Sa
5
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
of the textured surface was higher than that of the non-processed glass
plate (flat glass plate), the transparency of the processed glass was
maintained [23]. Based on these observations, we estimated that Sa
increases with height between the convex and concave sections (Fig. 8),
possibly resulting from the increased collision rate of the alumina par­
ticles at these points. We also determined that in the micro-slurry-jet
processing, a lower feeding speed of the injection nozzle yields a
greater height (Fig. 2).
3.3. Compression differences among the three types of writing tips
Fig. 9 shows the experimental results of the compression tests for
each writing tip at angles of 90◦ and 45◦ . At 90◦ , large changes in
compression in each writing tip were observed in low-load regions from
the contact point. These changes were primarily attributed to the elastic
deformation in the curved part of each writing tip. After the bending
point for low loads, the compression changed linearly with elastic
deformation. The elastic deformations increased in the following order:
elastomer > hard felt > polyacetal. The changes in the compression for
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 9. Experimental results of compression tests for each writing tip on flat glass at angles of 90◦ and 45◦ .
Fig. 10. Contact area observations between the writing tips and glass surface.
low loads were greater at 45◦ than at 90◦ , indicating that these changes
involved the bending of writing tips in addition to dents. As the test load
of “1.96 N” for the reciprocating friction test is larger than the folding
points in the compression changes, the effect of bending of the writing
tips is considered to be small.
3.4. Comparison of contact area between the writing tips and glass surface
Fig. 10 shows views of the contact area between the writing tip and
the flat glass surface for the three writing tips. The diameters of the
contact area of the elastomer tip, polyacetal tip, and hard-felt tip were
approximately 850 µm, 180 µm, and 480 µm, respectively. The diameter
of the elastomer tip contact area was the largest because of its low elastic
modulus and deformable slits structure. Conversely, that for the poly­
acetal tip was the smallest because deforming the polyacetal tip is
difficult. The order of the contact area diameter was the same as that in
the compression test results (Fig. 9).
Fig. 11 (a)-(c) show enlarged views of the contact areas between the
writing tips and glass surfaces (flat glass and textured glass of Type 5)
near the stroke-end part during reciprocating motion. The upper left
views (A) in each specimen are the observations before a load is applied.
The second set of views (B) are observations after applying 1.96 N of the
load. After applying the load, the writing tips were moved to the right.
6
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
The upper right views (E) are the observations of the contact areas in the
stroke-end part. The lower views (F–J) are the observations when the
writing tips were moved to the left from the stroke-end part.
From the sliding pair of the elastomer and the flat glass plate (Fig. 11
(a): (a-1)), a transferred elastomer onto the glass surface during sliding
motion and considerable change in the shape of the contact part near the
stroke-end part were observed, which is due to high adhesion of the
elastomer. On the contrary, for the sliding pair of the elastomer and the
textured glass (Fig. 11 (a): (a-2)), no transferred material was observed,
and the change in the shape of the contact part on the textured glass
surface was reduced. There was no change in the contact part for the
polyacetal with and without the texture on the glass surfaces (Fig. 11 (b):
(b-1) and (b-2)). For the hard felt (Fig. 11 (c): (c-1) and (c-2)), although
there was almost no change in the shape of the contact part with and
without the texture on the glass surfaces, the contact area on the
textured glass surface was observed to have slightly decreased. In the
future, for further detailed analysis of the contact part, methods such as
SEM and RAMAN spectroscopy will be used [24].
3.5. Friction behaviors of three types of writing tips against textured glass
surfaces
In this study, the following three friction components were defined to
N. Fujita et al. Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Fig. 11. (a). Contact area between the elastomer tip and glass surfaces near the stroke-end parts (where the directions of relative motions of writing tips changed) in
reciprocating motion. (b). Contact area between the polyacetal tip and glass surfaces near the stroke-end parts (where the directions of relative motions of writing
tips changed) in reciprocating motion. (c). Contact area between the hard-felt tip and glass surfaces near the stroke-end parts (where the directions of relative
motions of writing tips changed) in reciprocating motion.

into the concave parts of sub-millimeter-millimeter sized pitches

texture. It consists of ploughing and hysteresis components; however,
since it is difficult to separate these components precisely, the friction
caused by elastic deformation is defined as deformation friction
[30–32]. Fig. 13 shows illustrates the writing tip entering the concave
part with elastic deformation. From the convex part (Fig. 13 (a)), the
writing tip goes in the concave part with elastic deformation (Fig. 13
(b)). A compression stress is generated near the slope of
Fig. 12. Illustrations of the contact parts of asperity level between the writing
sub-millimeter-millimeter sized pitches’ texture of the writing tip
tip and glass surface with nanometer-sized asperities.
(Fig. 13 (b)). When the writing tip moves to convex part, the compres­
sion stress is relaxed, and the writing tip remains on the surface in the
discuss the friction behaviors in the condition of contact between elastic
damaged state, but it returns to its original shape (Fig. 13 (c)). Here, the
materials and the textured glass surfaces of sub-millimeter-millimeter
friction behavior due to energy loss of the elastic deformation is defined
sized pitches with the fine roughness in nanometer sized asperities.
in terms of deformation friction.
Adhesive friction is derived from the force required to overcome the
Figs. 14 to 16 show examples of the experimental results in the form
adhesion between elastic materials and glass surfaces in the real contact
of the friction-coefficient waveforms after 15 and 80 cycles, extracted
[25,26]. Abrasive friction is caused by being caught on nanometer sized
and displayed for estimating the mean friction coefficient. From Fig. 14
asperities, assumed as general wear (Fig. 12) [27–29]. Deformation
(a), we note that the highest friction coefficient corresponds to the
friction is caused by energy loss with elastic deformation owing to entry

7
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 13. Illustrations of the writing tip entering concave part with elastic
deformation.
sliding pair of the elastomer and the flat glass plate. On the contrary, the
lowest friction coefficient corresponds to the sliding pair of the poly­
acetal tip and the flat glass plate (Fig. 15 (a)). The textured glass surface
reduces the friction of the elastomer (Fig. 14 (a) and (b)); however, its
use leads to an increase in friction when polyacetal and hard felt are used
as the writing tips (Figs. 15 and 16). It is obvious that these frictional
behaviors are due to the contact and sliding conditions between the
elastic material and glass surfaces (Fig. 4). Although a possibility of
piezo sensor drift was observed in Fig. 15 (b), the form of the friction-
coefficient waveforms could be confirmed. Moreover, since the mean
Fig. 14. Experimental results for the case of elastomer tip sliding on glass surfaces.
8
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
friction coefficient was calculated from the difference between the
maximum and minimum value, it is considered that the drift had almost
no effect on the friction coefficient.
Figs. 17 to 19 summarize the experimental results. In the experi­
ments, the friction measurements for the various tips and surfaces under
a given condition were conducted three times (1st, 2nd, and 3rd trials),
and the mean friction coefficient after 15 and 80 cycles was recorded.
The mean friction coefficient was calculated from the average of three
readings of the extracted friction-coefficient waveforms after each cycle.
We observed the highest friction coefficient for the elastomer sliding on
the flat glass surface (Fig. 17, flat glass surface) and, furthermore, the
friction increased with the number of reciprocation cycles. The friction
coefficient estimated for each trial exhibits considerable variation. In
general, elastomers generate high adhesion against the counterface
material even when the applied load is extremely low. This result in­
dicates that a slight change in the real contact area at the asperity level
during each trial influences the frictional force (Fig. 4). The high
adhesion between the two surfaces can damage the elastomer during the
reciprocating motions. In general, the damaged area was believed to be
chemically active and, thus, we speculate that a subsequent high
adhesion between the two surfaces may have occurred. In addition, the
transferred elastomer on the glass surface can affect the frictional vari­
ation because the writing tip slid on the generated and transferred
elastomer during the reciprocating motions (Fig. 11 (a): (a-1)). These
phenomena can lead to an increase in friction with the increasing
number of reciprocation cycles [33–35].
From Fig. 17, we can confirm that the textured glass surfaces (Types
1–9) afford reduced friction coefficients of the elastomer in comparison
with those of the flat glass surface. The textured glass surfaces afford a
reduced apparent contact area (Fig. 4), and the adhesion over the real
contact area at the asperity level is also decreased. In addition, the
amount of the transferred material on the textured glass surface was less
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 15. Experimental results for the case of polyacetal tip sliding on glass surfaces.
than that on the flat glass surface; moreover, the change in the shape of
the contact part on the textured glass became smaller (Fig. 11 (a): (a-1)
and (a-2)). This suggests that the textured glass surface can reduce the
damage of the elastomer tip.
For the textured glass surface with small and medium pitches
(Fig. 17, Types 1–6), both pitch sizes are smaller than the diameter of the
contact area between the elastomer tip and the glass surface (Fig. 10).
Therefore, the adhesive friction was reduced because of the apparent-
contact-area and the real-contact-area reduction. In Type 5 (after 80
cycles), the coefficient of friction was reduced by up to 27% compared to
that for flat glass surface. The effect of differences in height on these
pitch sizes is not considered to be large. In contrast, for the case of the
textured glass surface with large pitches (Fig. 16, Types 7–9), a pitch size
of 1 mm is larger than the diameter of the contact area between the
elastomer tip and the glass surface (Fig. 10). That is, the apparent-
contact-area reduction is small and, therefore, the reduction in friction
is not effectively large because the elastomer contacts the concave sec­
tion because of elastic deformation. Since no difference was observed in
the amount of transferred materials among the textured surfaces and the
increasing tendency of coefficient of friction for the textured glass sur­
face with large pitches, it is suggested that it could be due to deformation
friction causing by the writing tip entering the concave sections
(Fig. 13).
Fig. 20 shows an enlarged view of the friction-coefficient waveforms
after 80 cycles in Type 7 of Fig. 17. Obviously, there are increases in
friction when the writing tip moves to the convex sections and decreases
in friction when the writing tip moves to the concave sections. Thus,
large pitches (Fig. 17, Types 7–9) can induce the elastic deformation of
the elastomer across the concave section, which can lead to enhanced
deformation friction. The contribution of the height difference for the
textured glass surface with large pitches to friction appears to be small.
Regarding the polyacetal tip sliding on the flat glass surface (Fig. 18,
9
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
Flat glass surface), we observed a slight increase in the friction coeffi­
cient with the number of reciprocation cycles. However, the maximum
friction coefficient was still lower than that obtained with the elastomer
(Fig. 17, flat glass surface). Although some damage of the polyacetal
may have occurred at the real contact area during the reciprocating
motions, we speculate that an increase in the adhesion between the two
surfaces due to the exposure of the chemically active parts is not pre­
dominant. The amount of polyacetal transferred was small (Fig. 11 (b):
(b-1)). A slightly increased friction coefficient is observed when using a
textured surface (Fig. 18, Types 1–9) than when using a flat glass sur­
face; further, no significant increase is observed in the friction with the
increasing number of reciprocating motions. Even with the texture of the
glass surface, the damage of the polyacetal tip did not increase (Fig. 11
(b): (b-2)). In this case, we confirmed that the elastic deformation and
migration of the polyacetal on the textured glass surface were smaller
than those for the elastomer (Fig. 9, 11 (a): (a-2) and 11 (b): (b-2)); thus,
deformation friction is not considered a predominant factor here. The
increase in the friction coefficient with the textured glass surface may
thus be due to abrasive friction (Fig. 12). In the textured surfaces, the
diameter of the contact area between the polyacetal tip and the glass
surface was smaller than the three types of pitch sizes. Therefore, the
difference in the apparent contact areas is not significant, and the
change in friction depends on the contact frequency with asperity level.
Because the contact area between the polyacetal tip and the glass surface
is not much smaller than the pitch sizes, a larger pitch size corresponds
to easier contact along the concave parts. Thus, larger pitch sizes tended
to increase the friction coefficient.
For the hard-felt tip sliding on glass surfaces (Fig. 19), we observed
an increase in friction with the number of reciprocation cycles. In this
case, the damaged and chemically active real contact area can afford
increased friction. We noted that the textured surfaces (Fig. 19, Types
1–9) afford increased friction possibly because the filamentous structure
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 16. Experimental results for the case of hard-felt tip sliding on glass surfaces.
of the hard felt promotes abrasive friction at the asperity level (Fig. 12).
This can be supported by changes in the contact condition between the
hard felt and the textured glass surface (Fig. 11 (c): (c-1) and (c-2)); that
is, we can confirm that the amount of contact area on the textured glass
surface was reduced owing to the existence of the asperity compared
with the flat glass surface (the size of the non-contact part in the contact
area was increased). For the textured surface, frictions of types 1–3 were
smaller than those of types 4–9 owing to relation between the diameter
of the contact area and the pitch size (Figs. 8 and 10). Each friction
coefficient for the medium and large pitches (Fig. 19, Types 4–9) is
higher than those of the small pitches owing to an increase in the
apparent contact area (the diameter of contact area < the pitch sizes
(750 µm and 1000 µm)). For these pitches, we speculate that the effect
of the “height difference” is not significant because the hard felt may
undergo deformation with a small force corresponding to the textured
surfaces with the medium and large pitches [36].
Last of all, the influence of the size for nanometer sized asperity on
the friction coefficient was investigated. The results of the elastomer,
which has largest changes, and those of the polyacetal, which has
smallest changes for the friction coefficient, are shown in Fig. 21. These
samples were prepared via micro-slurry-jet processing to eliminate
millimeter sized textures. Thus, these samples have only nanometer
sized asperities (approximately 2–4 nm). For the elastomer, by intro­
ducing these asperities for the flat glass surface, the friction coefficient
decreased. This is because of reduction of real contact area due to
nanometer sized asperities (reduction of adhesion between the elas­
tomer and glass surfaces). For the polyacetal, in contrast, the friction
coefficient increased due to the abrasive friction at asperity level
(Fig. 12). However, for both writing tips, there was no difference in the
friction coefficient against asperity size in the range of Ra of approxi­
mately 2–4 nm. Therefore, the effect of differences in size of nanometer
asperities on the results of the friction behaviors for submillimeter-
10
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
millimeter sized texture difference is considered small (Figs. 17–19).
Meanwhile, studies on textured surfaces based on bio-inspired
structures have reported that the surface hydro­
philicity–hydrophobicity can be suitably modified by structural changes
[37–39]. Such a change can influence the adhesion force between two
surfaces and thereby influence the friction characteristics. Texture
changes on the glass surface can influence the adhesion force resulting
from contact between two surfaces and, thus, such changes can be
applied to control the frictional characteristics. These topics will form
the crux of our future investigations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Naoki Fujita: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Validation;
Roles/Writing – original draft, Hajime Yamaguchi: Investigation;
Software, Takumi Kinoshita: Data curation; Visualization, Masaru
Iwao: Resources; Project administration, Yoshitaka Nakanishi: Fund­
ing acquisition; Methodology; Supervision; Writing – review & editing,
Statement of originality, This manuscript has not been published or
presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration
by another journal. We have read and understood your journal’s pol­
icies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates
any of these.
4. Conclusions
In this study, we conducted reciprocating friction tests with elastic
materials sliding on textured glass surfaces. We found that the friction
coefficients of three types of writing tips (elastomer, polyacetal, and
hard felt) could be varied with the use of textured glass surfaces pre­
pared via micro-slurry-jet technology. The textured glass surfaces of sub-
millimeter-millimeter sized pitches with fine roughness in nanometer
N. Fujita et al. Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Fig. 17. Summary of experimental results (writing tip: elastomer). Each value is the average of three trials.

11
N. Fujita et al. Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Fig. 18. Summary of experimental results (writing tip: polyacetal). Each value is the average of three trials.

12
N. Fujita et al. Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539

Fig. 19. Summary of experimental results (writing tip: hard felt). Each value is the average of three trials.

Fig. 20. Enlarged view of the friction-coefficient waveforms after 80 cycles in Type 7 of Fig. 17.
13
N. Fujita et al.
Fig. 21. Changes in the friction coefficient for fine roughness (Ra) for the
elastomer and the polyacetal.
sized asperities caused the frictional behavior differences arising from
adhesive, abrasive, and deformation frictions. We could observe the
influence of these contributions to the friction behaviors concerning
nanometer sized asperities and the sub-millimeter-millimeter sized
concave-convex surfaces. The important conclusions are:
• For the elastomer, the friction coefficient decreased by up to 27%
compared to that of flat glass due to decreased contact area (adhesive
friction) by nanometer sized asperities and convex-convex pitch sizes
smaller than the diameter of contact part between the elastomer and
glass surfaces. In the case of larger pitch sizes, the contribution of
deformation friction becomes larger, and the friction coefficient
tends to increase.
• For the polyacetal, the nanometer sized asperities affect abrasive
friction by being caught on asperity level. The sub-millimeter-
millimeter sized concave-convex surfaces, in spite of each pitch
size, contribute to abrasive friction, and friction coefficient depends
on the real-contact-area.
• For the hard felt, the friction coefficient increased with the nano­
meter sized asperities because of abrasive friction at the asperity
level. In the case of pitch sizes larger than the diameter of contact
between the hard felt and glass surfaces, the friction coefficient
increased slightly due to more contribution of deformation friction
than for smaller pitch sizes.
• The nanometer sized asperities influence the friction coefficient;
however, the effect of differences in size of nanometer asperities on
the friction behaviors in the range of Ra of approximately 2–4 nm is
small.
We believe that our findings can facilitate the development of
writing tips and surfaces for use with tablet-type devices.
Funding
This work was supported by the Adaptable and Seamless Technology
14
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
Transfer Program through Target-driven R&D (A-STEP) from Japan
Science and Technology Agency (JST) [grant number JPMJTM20SK].
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Bowden FP. Friction. Nature 1950;166:330–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/166330a0.
[2] Burwell JT. Survey of possible wear mechanisms. Wear 1957;1:119–41. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(57)90005-4.
[3] Gao J, Luedtke WD, Gourdon D, Ruths M, Israelachvili JN, Landman U. Frictional
forces and Amontons’ law: from the molecular to the macroscopic scale. J Phys
Chem B 2004;108:3410–25. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp036362l.
[4] Tiwari A, Tolpenkina T, Benthem H, Gunnewiek MK, Persson BNJ. Rubber
adhesion and friction: role of surface energy and contamination films. Front Mech
Eng 2021;6:620233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2020.620233.
[5] Myshkin NK, Kovalev AV. Adhesion and surface forces in polymer tribology—A
review. Friction 2018;6:143–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-018-0203-0.
[6] Myshkin NK, Petrokovets MI, Kovalev AV. Tribology of polymers: adhesion,
friction, wear, and mass-transfer. Tribol Int 2005;38:910–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.triboint.2005.07.016.
[7] Xu X, Li Y, Wu QMJ. A completed local shrinkage pattern for texture classification.
Appl Soft Comput 2020;97:106830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106830.
[8] Boidi G, Grützmacher PG, Kadiric A, Profito FJ, Machado IF, Gachot C, Dini D. Fast
laser surface texturing of spherical samples to improve the frictional performance
of elasto-hydrodynamic lubricated contacts. Friction 2021;9:1227–41. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40544-020-0462-4.
[9] Etsion I. Modeling of surface texturing in hydrodynamic lubrication. Friction 2013;
1:195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-013-0018-y.
[10] Rosenkranz A, Costa HL, Baykara MZ, Martini A. Synergetic effects of surface
texturing and solid lubricants to tailor friction and wear—A review. Tribol Int
2021;155:106792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106792.
[11] Li J, Zeng S, Liu S, Zhou N, Qing T. Tribological properties of textured stator and
PTFE-based material in travelling wave ultrasonic motors. Friction 2020;8:301–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-018-0253-3.
[12] Shibata K, Nakashima Y, Nakanishi Y. Anti-fingerprint glass surface created by
mechanical removal process. J Biomech Sci Eng 2019;14:19–00388. https://doi.
org/10.1299/jbse.19-00388.
[13] Hu J, Song H, Sandfeld S, Liu X, Wei Y. Multiscale study of the dynamic friction
coefficient due to asperity plowing. Friction 2021;9:822–39. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40544-020-0438-4.
[14] Mishra T, Rooij M, Shisode M, Hazrati J, Schipper DJ. A material point method
based ploughing model to study the effect of asperity geometry on the ploughing
behaviour of an elliptical asperity. Tribol Int 2020;142:106017. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.triboint.2019.106017.
[15] Bhushan B, Nosonovsky M. Comprehensive model for scale effects in friction due to
adhesion and two- and three-body deformation (plowing). Acta Mater 2004;52:
2461–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2004.01.038.
[16] Nakano K, Kono M. Transient and steady sliding friction of elastomers: Impact of
vertical lift. Front Mech Eng 2020;6:38. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmech.2020.00038.
[17] Liu Z, Sun J, Shen W. Study of plowing and friction at the surfaces of plastic
deformed metals. Tribol Int 2002;35:511–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-
679X(02)00046-4.
[18] Zhang S, Zeng X, Matthews DTA, Igartua A, Rodiguez-Vidal E, Conteras Fortes J,
Van der Heide E. Finger pad friction and tactile perception of laser treated,
stamped and cold rolled micro-structured stainless steel sheet surfaces. Friction
2017;5:207–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-017-0147-9.
[19] Gerth S, Dolk T, Klassert A, Fliesser M, Fischer MH, Nottbusch G, et al. Adapting to
the surface: a comparison of handwriting measures when writing on a tablet
computer and on paper. Hum Mov Sci 2016;48:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
humov.2016.04.006.
[20] Nakanishi Y, Nakashima Y, van der Heide E. Microstructuring glass surfaces using a
combined masking and microslurry-jet machining process. Precis Eng 2021;67:
172–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2020.09.018.
[21] Baba T, Nakashima Y, Takahashi S, Matsubara T, Yin L, Nakanishi Y. Micro slurry-
jet for surface processing of dental ceramics. Biosurf Biotribol 2019;5:8–12.
https://doi.org/10.1049/bsbt.2018.0028.
[22] Ling Y, Baba T, Nakanishi Y. Fracture-free surfaces of CAD/CAM lithium
metasilicate glass-ceramic using micro-slurry jet erosion. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater 2018;80:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.01.022.
[23] Roumili F, Benbahouche S, Sangleboeuf J-C. Mechanical strength of soda-lime
glass sandblasted by gravitation. Friction 2015;3:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40544-015-0075-5.
[24] Simon B, Carsten G, Andreas R. How to measure the real contact area? A simple
marker and relocation foot-printing approach. Tribol Int 2016;103:167–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2016.06.034.
[25] Chernyak YB, Leonov AI. On the theory of the adhesive friction of elastomers. Wear
1986;108(2):105–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(86)90092-X.
N. Fujita et al.
[26] Kendall K. Rolling friction and adhesion between smooth solids. Wear 1975;33(2):
351–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(75)90288-4.
[27] Stupkiewicz S, Mróz Z. A model of third body abrasive friction and wear in hot
metal forming. Wear 1999;231:124–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(99)
00124-6.
[28] Goddard J, Wilman H. A theory of friction and wear during the abrasion of metals.
Wear 1962;5(2):114–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(62)90235-1.
[29] Kato K. Abrasive wear of metals. Tribol Int 1997;30(5):333–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0301-679X(96)00063-1.
[30] Sato S, Yamaguchi T, Shibata K, Nishi T, Moriyasu K, Harano K, Hokkirigawa K.
Dry sliding friction and Wear behavior of thermoplastic polyurethane against
abrasive paper. Biotribol 2020;23:100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biotri.2020.100130.
[31] Mahadi D, Riches A, Gester M, Yeomans J, Smith P. Rolling and sliding: separation
of adhesion and deformation friction and their relative contribution to total
friction. Tribol Int 2015;89:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
triboint.2014.12.021.
[32] Moore DF, Geyer W. A review of hysteresis theories for elastomers. Wear 1974;30
(1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(74)90055-6.
15
Tribology International 171 (2022) 107539
[33] Kasem H, Shriki H, Ganon L, Mizrahi M, Abd-Rbo K, Domb AJ. Rubber plunger
surface texturing for friction reduction in medical syringes. Friction 2019;7:351–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-018-0227-5.
[34] Carsten G, Andreas R, Roman B, Nicolas S, Frank M. Tailored frictional properties
by Penrose inspired surfaces produced by direct laser interference patterning. Appl
Surf Sci 2016;367:174–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.01.169.
[35] Muhr AH, Roberts AD. Rubber abrasion and wear. Wear 1992;158:213–28. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(92)90040-F.
[36] Chen R, Ye J, Zhang W, Wei J, Zhang Y, Liu K. Relationship between the real
contact behavior and tribological characteristics of cotton fabric. Friction 2021;9:
1050–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-020-0398-8.
[37] Edachery V, Shashank, Kailas SV. Influence of surface texture directionality and
roughness on wettability, sliding angle, contact angle hysteresis, and lubricant
entrapment capability. Tribol Int 2021;158:106932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
triboint.2021.106932.
[38] Dongre G, Rajurkar A, Raut R, Jangam S. Preparation of super-hydrophobic
textures by using nanosecond pulsed laser. Mater Today-Proc 2021;42:1145–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.497.
[39] Kumar V, Verma R, Kango S, Sharma VS. Recent progresses and applications in
laser-based surface texturing systems. Mater Today Commun 2021;26:101736.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101736.