Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dry Sliding
Dry Sliding
Dry Sliding
by
Dr. Syed Ismail
Origin of Sliding Friction
Contact between Two Bodies in Relative Motion
Adhesive Wear
Abrasive Wear
In classical form, fatigue life can be predicted as a function of Hertz stress field
and disregarding traction. In order to interpret the effects of metal variables in
Although the wear and friction of non-metallic solids have some fundamental
similarities to that of metals, there are also significant differences in the wear
mechanisms involved and the level of friction or wear which occurs.
For example, PTFE is soft and has a very high wear rate so that for most
applications it must be blended carefully with other materials before a useful
bearing material is created.
A careful study of the Tribology of non-metallic materials is a pre-requisite to their
successful adaptation as bearing or wear resistant materials.
A prime example of this research trend is the adiabatic combustion engine where
ceramic materials are being developed as high temperature cylinder and piston
materials.
The adiabatic engine is potentially more efficient than a cooled engine since there
is no need for lubricant cooling systems, i.e. the radiator and water cooled
cylinder block.
The development of such engines poses new challenges; the fundamental
limitations of most ceramics as bearing materials have to be solved by a
painstaking combination of fundamental studies into the wear and friction of
ceramics and in addition new lubrication technologies have to be found.
TRIBOLOGY OF POLYMERS
The use of composites, e.g. glass reinforced PTFE, extends the range of
materials even further. The list in Table is not exhaustive and there are also other
polymers under study for bearing materials.
The physical properties of selected polymers are shown in Table 2
Sliding Wear of Polymers, Transfer Layers on a Harder Counterface
Most polymer surfaces, when used as bearing materials are worn by a harder
counterface.
The application of the hard metallic counterface rubbing against the polymer
surface is dictated by mechanical design requirements and also by the fact that
polymers are more effective against a metallic counterface than when sliding
against themselves.
A basic feature of almost all polymers is that a transfer film is formed when
sliding against a harder counterface which has a strong influence on the
tribology of polymers.
The polymer which provides a classic example of transfer film formation is
PTFE, whose molecular and crystalline structure is shown in Figure.
It has been demonstrated in experiments conducted with PTFE in vacuum that a
strong adhesion occurs between PTFE and a metallic surface. The cause of the
adhesion is believed to be an interfacial chemical reaction between the fluorine
and carbon in PTFE and the opposing metallic surface.
The lack of side groups and almost cylindrical form of the PTFE molecule
ensures relatively easy movement between molecules under applied stress. The
crystalline structure consists of layers of crystalline material between relatively
weak layers of amorphous material and this favours deformation of the PTFE in a
series of discrete laminae. A block of PTFE in contact with a harder counterface
loses material as a series of laminae resulting in low friction but a high wear rate.
A film transfer mechanism similar to that of PTFE has not been observed in any
other polymer synthesized so far. The vast majority of polymers and polymer
composites sustain a process of ‘lumpy transfer’ when sliding against a hard
counterface.
Because the contact diameter is very small compared to the planar PTFE
transfer film, their load capacity as a transfer film is also small. This form of
transfer film does not contribute to better wear and friction characteristics of the
sliding contacts and in fact most polymers which exhibit this lumpy film transfer
are not very effective as bearing materials.
A few important exceptions to this rule are High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
and Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) [4]. Their similarity
in behaviour to PTFE is believed to be caused by the common characteristic of
a ‘smooth molecular profile’ or the absence of side groups and kinks in the
polymer chain.
It is generally accepted that the counterface should be much harder than the
polymer and hardened steel is often recommended.
This common engineering practice is so well accepted that nobody has tested
the concept experimentally for many years.
The prevailing view is that the counterface should be hard enough so that
abrasion by stray contaminants, e.g. sand, will not cause it to become rough
and abrade the polymer.
While it has often been suggested that the roughness should be as low as
possible to reduce abrasion of the polymer [11], more detailed research has
demonstrated that for certain polymers an optimum roughness exists.
In practical situations wear does not proceed at the same rate with time, but
because the asperities become covered with polymer, wear rate declines after
an initial rapid period.
The model, in general, works well but with some of the polymers e.g. LDPE
(Low Density Polyethylene) and PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride), the predicted wear
rates are inaccurate for reasons not yet fully discovered.
It has been observed that the surface energy of a counterface affects the wear of
PTFE and the formation of PTFE transfer films. A surface with relatively low
energy, e.g. a noble or semi-noble metal such as copper, tends to generate thinner
transfer films compared to that of a more chemically active metal such as zinc.
With a less reactive metal, the wear debris produced also tends to be finer and
the transfer film formed does not cover the surface uniformly, leaving gaps of
exposed metal.
With the more active metal, a thick multi-lamina transfer film is formed and
PTFE is only removed as wear debris in large lumps which are physically
ploughed away by the polymer surface.
These two mechanisms of wear are illustrated schematically in Figure
Unfortunately no similar studies for other polymers were reported in the literature
but it may be assumed that the counterface surface energy does have some effect
on wear for all polymers.
Influence of Temperature on Polymer Wear and Friction
Most polymers melt at relatively low temperatures. This characteristic
combined with the low thermal conductivity of polymers ensures that frictional
contact temperatures can easily reach the melting point of a polymer and
cause its surface to melt.
When the polymer melts its friction and wear coefficients are markedly
altered. This characteristic can be illustrated by considering a pad of butter in
a heated saucepan. When the melting point of the butter is reached, the
friction dramatically declines to allow the butter to slide across the pan. The
‘wear rate’ of the butter pad, however, tends to rise with temperature,
particularly when melting of the butter occurs.
Similar trends in polymer friction and wear can be found and the prevailing
mechanism can be classified as a form of ‘melting wear’.
Fatigue Wear of Polymers and Long Term Wear Kinetics
This rise in wear rate coincided with the development of cracks and spalling on
the worn polymer surface. It was found that after long sliding distances the
fatigue wear, which is predominantly based on cracking and spalling of the
surface, is superimposed on a pre-existing transfer film/adhesive wear process.
The transition to fatigue wear is controlled by the contact stress. For example,
at low contact stresses less than 1 [MPa], a nearly infinite sliding distance is
required before fatigue wear begins. Fatigue wear is therefore more likely to
occur on heavily loaded, very smooth sliding surfaces after a long period of
sliding.
The experimental relationship between the onset of fatigue wear for UHMWPE
and apparent contact stress is shown in Figure.
Effect of Lubricant
Simple addition of water to, for example, a dry nylon/glass contact results in a
dramatic drop in the coefficient of friction to a value of about 0.12. The addition
of fatty acids, such as caproic, palmitic and stearic acids, causes an even more
dramatic decline in friction from 0.4 to 0.09.
The strong effect of lubricants on nylon is believed to be caused by the polar
nature of the polyamide which constitutes nylon. The lubrication effect of fatty
acids was also confirmed with nylon 11 and polyacetal.