Mech5825 Professional Project

Tribology in a Low Carbon Future

Jos Antonio Hernndez Castillo
Professor Martin Priest
Date: 26th of September 2013

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING

Mech5825
PROFESSIONAL PROJECT
MECH5840

TITLE OF PROJECT

Real effectiveness of PEG-POSS as friction modifier on a

metal/plastic interface
PRESENTED BY

Jose Antonio Hernandez Castillo

IF THE PROJECT IS INDUSTRIALLY LINKED TICK THIS BOX

AND PROVIDE DETAILS BELOW

COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS:

ROCOL
ROCOL HOUSE
Swillington
Leeds
LS26 8BS
United Kingdom

THIS PROJECT REPORT PRESENTS OUR OWN WORK AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY
UNACKNOWLEDGED WORK FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES.
SIGNED
Jose Antonio Hernandez Castillo

DATE
Sep/26/2013

CONTENTS

CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................3
Table of symbols....................................................................................................................................5
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................8
1.1 - Introduction...................................................................................................................................8
1.2 Aim..................................................................................................................................................9
1.3 Objectives......................................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................11
2.1 Literature Review..........................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................21
3.1 - Selection of Equipment and Parameters......................................................................................21
3.2 Pin on disc Machine of Dowson Laboratory..................................................................................22
3.3 Sensor calibration and derivation of Coefficient of friction equation............................................27
3.4 Samples and Initial Conditions......................................................................................................31
3.5 Arrangement of the Equipment......................................................................................................32
3.6 - Data Post Processing...................................................................................................................35
CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS............................................................................................................36
5.1 PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results..............................................................................36
5.2 PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel Results..............................................................................37
5.3 PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/PEK Results...............................................................................38
5.4 IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results......................................................................39
5.5 IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with Steel/Steel Results.....................................................................40
5.6 IRGALUBE TPPT Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results...................................................................41
CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION........................................................................................................43
6.1 Influence of PEG POSS on the PEK/Steel, Steel/Steel, and PEK/PEK Interfaces.........................43
6.2 Influence of IRGALUBE 349 on the PEK/Steel and Steel/Steel...................................................43
6.3 Influence of IRGALUBE TPPT on the PEK/Steel and..................................................................43
6.4 Comparison with Previous Work...................................................................................................43
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................45
7.1 Conclusions for this experiment....................................................................................................45
7.2 Further Work..................................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER EIGHT- REFERENCES...................................................................................................47
CHAPTER NINE- APPENDIXES......................................................................................................49
3

APPENDIX ONE - RISK ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................49

NEW RISK.........................................................................................................................................52
APPENDIX TWO - ETHICAL ASSESMENT....................................................................................56
APPENDIX THREE - EVALUATION OF FRICTION AND TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES OF
POSS AND MOLY FRICTION MODIFIERS ON STEEL AND BRONCE INTERFACES...............57
APPENDIX FOUR - ROUGHNESS ANALISYS OF THE SAMPLES.............................................58

Table of symbols

Ra - Surface Roughness

F- Force

- Coefficient of friction

P Pressure

A- Area

W- Load

RPM Revolutions per minute

m Slope / ConstantAcknowledgment

I would like to take this opportunity to thank with great regards the support to my
supervisors; Martin Priest, Malcolm Fox and Chris Dyson and ROCOL for the guidance,
help and advice on the development of this project. This experience will be very valuable on
my further life as professional and upcoming challenges.
I also need to dedicate special thanks to personnel from the School of Mechanical
Engineering, Richard Chittenden, Ron Cellier, and Hongyuan Zhao, for the training and the
quantity of problems that they helped me to solve on the shutdown of the main tribology
laboratory.
To my family for the constant support during the entire course and to my friends for the care
and advices during the year.

Abstract
Tests of lubricants and friction modifiers were performed to find coefficient of friction values
on polymer and steel interfaces simulating a real working condition of a stretching machine
with defined parameters. The results were compared with previous tests and with new food
grade additives under the non-food compounds registration program by the NSF
international. The main lubricant, PEG-POSS (Polyethylene glycol, polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxanes)

show

better

performance

on

some

interfaces

such

as

PEK

(Polyetherketone)/Steel, but failed or had strange behaviour on other tests. The reference
lubricant (no friction modifier added) and the additional food grade additives showed a lower
performance with PEK/Steel, but good one on Steel/Steel interfaces. A further application
with the PEG POSS can be developed in the case to be approved by NSF.

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Introduction
Friction is a key factor in extending the life of machines; this research focuses on a film
stretching machine made by Bruckner Maschinebau; a biaxial orientated film stretching
machine shown on Figure 1 that is able to produce 30,000 m/hr. of thin stretched polymer
film for wrapping and packaging proposes. It uses around 10 to 15 litres of lubricant per day
on its 2 x 500 meters of PEK/steel chains sliding together with a work temperature of 160 to
180 Celsius degrees in the oven section, see Figure 2. Reducing friction on the current
machine interfaces will give a longer lifespan for the machine and will be more economically
productive.
Raw material

Transverse Direction
Orienteer with oven

500 metres
of sliding

1 km

chain per
side
Finished product

Figure 1.- General View of a Bruckner Maschinebau Film Stretching Machine [1]

Steel
PEK

Components

component
s

Figure 2.- Side view of the Chain/Channel Assembly[]

ROCOL is a British company supplying specialised lubricants and has developed
the current lubricant for the film stretching machine by considering all the tribological
conditions such as materials, temperatures, loads, etc. ROCOL has developed FLO-LINE
700 as the main lubricant with a friction modifier additive. It is assessing the effectiveness
of PEG-POSS as a new additive which can further reduce friction in the current contact area
between PEK and Steel (AISI 52100)
This report assesses the laboratory work activities to investigate if PEG-POSS will
perform better than other friction modifiers on the market. With friction, wear and lubrication
as basic definitions of tribology, this project work will test these applications with different
interfaces and measure the coefficient of friction. The results and conclusions will be
delivered on an academic report on September 26 2013.

1.2 Aim
To assess if the PEG-POSS friction modifier reduces the coefficient of friction at a
Steel/PEK interface compared to current additives on the market

1.3 Objectives
1. Measure the current coefficient of friction between PEK/steel in laboratory test with
the FLOLINE 700 + lubricant
2. Measure the coefficient of friction when adding PEG-POSS as a friction modifier to
FLOLINE 700 lubricant on PEK/steel interfaces.
3. Measure the coefficient of friction of food grade friction modifiers already available
on the market and compere with the results of PEG-POSS
4. Compare results and analyse with previous test and the different additives evaluated.
5. Try with new formulation of PEG-POSS
6. Deliver a complete project report, including results and conclusion to the University
of Leeds by September 26th 2013

10

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review
To undertake a successful project, it is important to obtain relevant information about the
topics involved. Care must be taken with the quality of the resources and, at the same time,
focus on the relevant information. It is important to begin with the basic definitions and
progress to the specific topics of the research.
Friction, wear and lubrication are common tribological terms. Friction is defined as
the force or resistance existing on one surface moving over another. Wear is the damage that
will occur because of the movement of these surfaces and bodies; this will produce loss of
material and with big amounts, failure on machines or systems. Lubrication, on the other
hand, is the use of a specific layer material applied between surfaces in order to reduce
frictions and wear on bodies; this layer can be gas, liquid or solid material and will be called
lubricants. Tribology is the science bringing together these three definitions in a single
subject in order to study these phenomena [3] [8].
2.1.1 Tribology. Tribology is the science that studies surfaces in relative motion and the
results of these movements such as friction, wear and lubrication. Tribology brings together
other sciences such as mechanical design, chemistry, materials engineering, and physics. It is
a key subject for the durability of mechanisms, power management, and environmental
effects as heat, noise, etc. [2]
2.1.2 Friction definition and types. Friction is an opposite force or resistance between the
contact surfaces of one body against the tangential movement of another. The friction
coefficient, , is defined as the ratio of the friction force, F, and the normal load ,W,
expressed as:

= F/W
Equation 1.- Coefficient of friction () [3]
The laws of friction for dry contact that discovered by Leonardo Da Vinci around the XVth
century describe that:

11

1. Friction force, F, is proportional to the normal load, W.

2. Friction force, F, is independent of the apparent contact area , A
3. Friction force, F, is independent of the sliding velocity.
These laws are often related to the French engineer Guillaume Amontons who described
them on a quantitative manner in 1699; these laws can be described on the Figure 3.

Figure 3. - Laws of friction by Amontons: a) Friction Force, F, is Proportional to the

Normal Load, W. b) Friction Force, F, is Independent of the Apparent Contact Area,
A. c) Friction Force, F, is Independent of the Sliding Velocity [2]
In general, friction coefficients are taken from many laboratory tests [3]. There are 2 kinds of
friction:
-

Static Friction: the force required at the beginning of movement between bodies and
is known as s

Kinetic friction: the force required once that the movement as begun. This force is
known as k .

2.1.3 Wear Definition and Types. Wear is defined as the damage on a body that will result
as a loss of material and volume. The main mechanism of wear is the sliding process between
surfaces moving across another [5]. Rabinowicz defined four kinds of wear:
-

Adhesive wear: When a first surface moves on a second surface, remaining material
on one surface is separated from their original body and welded to the second body or
12

surface. This process can be reciprocated, this means the particle can return to the
original body,
-

Abrasive wear: The damage to a surface because of the sliding movement of a harder
material or particles on a soft surface. This is like scratching a plastic piece with a
metallic component,

Fatigue wear: where a load is applied and removed from a body producing surface
cracks and material damage after many cycles,

Corrosive Wear: a type of wear seen in corrosive environments which will wear

surfaces even without load or movements on it. A corrosive film is formed on the surfaces
and if a sliding movement removes this film, it will reform when the movement stops.
2.1.4 Lubrication. It is defined as the action of separating two surfaces in contact by a fluid
or solid lubricant, in order to reduce friction and wear. [10]
2.1.5 Lubricants. A lubricant is the material used to separate two surfaces and reduce friction
and wear as the main goal. The lubricants are often made of mineral oils, natural fluids as
water and air, organic lubricants such as castor oil and greases. [10]
2.1.6 Additives: Defined as any chemical compound added to a lubricant base to give better
performance in a specific field. For example it is possible to find antioxidants, acid
neutraliser, dispersants, tackiness, and frictions modifiers etc., each one with a specific
function. It is important to select only the additive that is needed, in order to avoid any cost
increment with no useful additives. [10]
2.1.7 Friction modifier: This main function of this additive is the reduction of friction
between surfaces. Once that is added to the main lubricant and applied to the interface, the
friction modifier will be attracted by adsorption forces to a metal surface. This will create a
tail of hydrocarbon in a perpendicular position against the surface and, because of Van der
Waals forces; molecules will align themselves forming molecular walls in parallel positions,
as seen on Figure 4 [4] [10]

13

Figure 4. - Chemisorption of Stearic Acid on IronIron Oxide Substrate [4]

One new friction modifier is PEG-POSS ( Polyethylene glycol, polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxanes) and its chemical compound is shown in Figure 5. [6] [7]

14

PEG-POSS, developed by Hybrid Plastics Technology , has shown good results on previous
research done by the Centre for Rotating Machinery at the University of Louisiana (See Appendix
3). On this Experiment done by Khonsari (2010), the friction and wear properties were measured
and compared with MOLY, a lubricant not usable on food industry. The test showed low friction
values and temperatures with small loads but an increasing behaviour against time. The test was
done on an eccentric journal bearing, and this test can let to make this research and make
conclusions for the materials used on the stretching machine. [11]

Figure 5. - Chemical Structure of PEG-POSS [6]

2.1.8 Lubrication Regimes: 4 different lubrication regimes have been identified.
- Hydrodynamic Lubrication: This lubrication regime occurs when the sliding
surfaces are completely separated by a layer of a fluid lubricant, while the existing pressure
on the film will support the normal load (W). This pressure is the result of the viscous forces
that is available on lubricants. [3]
- Boundary Lubrication: This regime uses boundary lubricants, compounds
absorbed by physical or chemical forces the surfaces of a body. This regime occurs when the
hydrodynamic regime forces, explained above, are insufficient to separate the surfaces of the
bodies and contact between surfaces occurs, making the hydrodynamic lubrication inefficient.
According to Hutchings, boundary lubricants work when a film of lubricant reacts with the
surface and this film is adsorbed. At the same time some repulsive forces on the film will take
more and limiting adhesion and junction growth, as shown on Figure 6. [3]

15

Figure 6.- Operation of Boundary Lubrication [3]

- Mixed Lubrication: Occurs as the combination of hydrodynamic lubrication and
boundary lubrication, where a section of a surface is fully separated but other sections have
some contact [10].
- Elastohydodynamic Lubrication: Occurs as a form of lubrication where high loads are
applied, for example, gears and levers. It can be explained by small areas of contact with a
very high load, so high that hydrodynamic lubrication would not support the loads and a
contact deformation occurs between surfaces, this requires special lubricants. [5]
2.1.9 Tribometer. One of the test methods for finding coefficient of friction is the tribometer.
There are 2 basic tribometer, symmetrical and asymmetrical. [9]
2.1.9.1 Symmetrical Tribometer. This arrangement has 2 cylindrical samples in contact
with the same dimensions as shown on Figure 7. In this configuration there are another 2
sub-arrangements: parallel axes and concentric loading, but the wear on the samples on these
arrangements is the same. [9]

a)

b)

Figure 7.- a) Parallel Axes Arrangement, b) Concentric Axes Arrangement [9]

2.1.9.2 The Asymmetrical Tribometer. This arrangement is designed to produce bigger rates
of wear on the specimen which is generally the smaller component, while the counter face
rotates with a specific speed. There are 4 arrangements shown on Figure 8; the pin on disc,
16

pin on disc circumference tribometer, block on disc, and pin on reciprocating plate
tribometer. [9]

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 8.- Asymmetrical Tribometers; a)Pin on Disc, b) Pin on Disc Circumference

Tribometer, c) Block on Disc, d) Pin on Reciprocating Plate Tribometer. [9]
2.1.10 Specimen Shapes. Figure 9. Shows the 3 kinds of cylindrical specimens [9], each one
with advantages and disadvantages and they are:
a) Flat End Pin: The simplest shape with no extra features make it the easiest for
manufacturing process. One advantage is the contact area remains the same after wear
process but one issue is a potential misalignment due to a not complete 90 contact with the
counter face. Wear by volume is another difficult task due to no reference surface to find
geometrical differences. [9]

17

b) Chamfer End: This pin is designed to let the wear by volume measurements. The
disadvantages are the reduction on the contact pressure; when the area of contact increases,
the pressure decreases. Misalignments problems can still persist with this shape. [9]
c) Dome End: The most complex shape has the main advantage of solve the misalignment
problems, but on the other hand, the disadvantages are still the reduction of the contact
pressure and a relative low conformity. [9]

Figure 9. - Specimen Shapes; a) Flat Shape End, b) Chamfer End, c) Dome End) [9]

2.1.11 PEK. Polyetherketone or PEK; is a high performance polymer that belongs to Poly Aryl
Ether Ketone family (PAEK). Its structure is mainly semi-crystalline and the main features that
makes it a high performance material are the temperature of use (above 250 o Celsius), high
stiffness, resistance to organic/non organic Chemicals. Other outstanding specifications are its
tensile module and tensile strength. Due to this performance; it is not common to find it on day to
day machines. The PEK used on the Bruckner machine has been reinforced with 30 % of carbon
fibre in order to improve even more the thermal conductivity (from0.29 to 0.95 Wm -1K-1 @23C)
and the strength and tensile modulus (from 3.9 to . 25 GPa and 110 to 25 MPa respectively). [13]

2.1.12 IRGALUBE 349. Food grade additive developed by Ciba which is made of a
mixture of amine phosphates. It is focused for environment with extreme pressure and a good
option for reducing wear and rust. The main characteristics are shown on the Figure 10 [14]

18

Figure 10.- IRGALUBE 349 main features [15]

2.1.113 IRGALUBE TPPT. Food grade additive for lubricants developed by Ciba made
from triphenyl phosphorothionate. Works fine on extreme pressures environments and helps
to reduce friction and wear keeping a good thermal stability. [15]

Figure 11.- IRGALUBE 349 main features [15]

2.1.1 Conclusions. From the literature review it is possible to define the tribological factors
that are involved on the development of this project. For example, it can be deduced one
important fact, the lubricant regime. On this experiment will be boundary lubrication
because, the lubricant will not separate completely the surfaces in contact, and a protective
film will be created at the steel surface due to the adsorption forces of the steel.
The additives to use on this experiment were chosen from the friction modifiers available on
the market for food grade application, trying to keep their parameters as near as possible, but
19

due to the differences on the structure and compounds is expected to find different results on
the experiments
The absorption this additives on the surfaces will not be the same, hence, this experiment will
help to identify which one has the best properties to attach to the PEK and steel surface.
There is also a lack of information about PEG-POSS, it is possible to find information about
the properties of POSS alone, but as PEG-POSS is a very new product, it is not possible to
find specific properties for this additive and compare with the currents products on the
market.
Finally, the wear mechanism has been identified for the stretching machine, and the
dominant wear will be abrasive, because, even when the corrosive wear could be present, this
will be removed when the machine starts to slide, and the adhesive wear, could be present on
small quantities, the PEK material removed from the steel can be removed with the sliding
movement, and it will not have enough time to be welded on the steel.

20

CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGY

3.1 - Selection of Equipment and Parameters
The different Tribometers types have been discussed previously and their advantages and
disadvantages assessed. The asymmetric pin on disc machine was selected because it better
fits the goal of this project; this arrangement will allow to measure with a better accuracy the
wear on the specimen, while the rotational movement is closer to the sliding chains on the
stretching machine. The contact area of the disc and specimen is the biggest available (high
conformity) when compare with the convex contact of the pin on disc circumference
tribometer and the block on disc. The shape of the specimen will enable the measurement of
friction and wear on the components, so, in order to avoid misalignment problems, the
chamfer end was selected. Some misalignments problems can still occur, but they can be
reduced and when is compared with the dome end specimen, the chamfer end will keep a
relative higher conformity and better contact area with the disc.
The selection of parameters was taken in order to match as possible with the parameters of
the original machine. Table 1 shows the values for the stretching machine and the achievable
values on the laboratory.
Parameter

Machine Value

Laboratory Value

Interface
Pressure
Temperature
Speed
Flow Rate

Steel / PEK
0.25 -0.5 MPa
160 180oC
7.5 to 8 ms-1
8 x 10-4 ml/mm2/day

Steel / PEK
1 0.74 MPa (decreasing)
100oC (on heater, plus friction heat)
4000 RPMs / 8.3 ms-1
18.4 ml/mm2/day

Table 1.- Comparison of Factory and Laboratory Machine Parameters

21

The machine temperature is limited by the design and materials of the machine, so a
maximum of 100oC is selected with the built-in heater of the pin on disc machine. The speed
of the electric motor is selected at around 4000 rpm that is converted to linear speed with the
Equation 2.

Linear speed = (RPM) ( * diameter)

Equation 2.- Rotational speed to linear speed [16]
Where the diameter is the one of the disc.
Linear speed = 4000 Rpm ( * 0.04 metres) = 502 metres / minute or 8.3 metres / second
The flow rate was chosen taking as a reference from previous research. According to Chong
(2012) [12], a low flow rate such as 0.002 ml/min can cause starvation problems and create
non-useful data. The next value in his work is 0.08 ml/minute, and with this value is possible
to make a comparison of these results with previous works. All of these parameters will allow
a real life simulation of the stretching machine and its tribological studies and allow a better
lubricant selection for further developments.

3.2 Pin on disc Machine of Dowson Laboratory

Figure 12 shows an exploded view of with the main components of the pin on disc Machine.
On this picture is possible to find the main components while Figure 13 shows the pin holder
assembly. Finally, Figure 14 shows the components on the feeding system and the possible
working position of the components. When the setup of the machine is done, it is possible to
find that the load is located on a distance away from the pin. This condition is known as a
third class lever, where the load is located on one side of the arm and the pin approximately at
the middle following the Figure 15, The pin will increase the load with a magnitude that is
found when the Equation 3 is derived. [17]

22

Arm
holder

Exhaust
System

Syringe
pump

Rotating
disc
holder

Arm

Voltage
sensor
Cap
tribomet
er

Counterweig
ht
Figure 12.- Exploded view of pin on disc machine

23

Fitter
3

Pin

Arm

Fitter
2

Holde
r Body

Fitter
1 Pin holder assembly.
Figure 13.-

Needl
e

Arm with
pin

Figure 14.- Working position of the feeding system

24

Figure 15.- Third grade lever sketch [17]

Fe = Fl dl / de
Equation 3.- Force on pin due to lever [17]
Where:
Total distance dl = 0.304 metres
Distance of the pin to the pivot point de = 0.140 metres
Load = 1 Kg. or 9.81 N
This give as a result a Fe = 21 N
The pressure value for the laboratory conditions depends of load applied and the wear on the
pin, because the chamfer on the pin is giving a smaller contact area (5mm diameter) which
means a high initial pressure. When the wear increases to a maximum 6 mm diameter the
pressure will decrease from a maximum of 0.5 MPa to 0.35 MPa, Following the Equation 3:

P=F/A
Equation 3. Pressure equation [19 ]
Where F is the force applied and A, the theoretical area of contact.
25

As seen previously, and due the lever on the arm, the force on the pin will be 21 Newton and
the original area of the pin is 19.63 mm2
Hence:
P = 21 N / 1.963 X 10 -5 m2 = 1.0 6 MPa
For the biggest area of the pin
P = 21 / 2.827 X 10 -5 m2 = 0.74 MPa
Another important topic is the weight of the arm; this weight is cleared due to the counter
weight applied on the opposite side of the main load. This will let to consider only the load
that the user is applying and its corresponding reaction on the pin.

26

3.3 Sensor calibration and derivation of Coefficient of friction equation

The coefficient of friction equation has been derived by the calibration of the machine prior
to test, where the constant value 1.17 is found through a single measurement of 0.1 Kg and
the value of friction voltage measured by the sensor (1.15). Following the Equation 4, m is
the constant for all the experiments.

m=( yb)/ x
Equation 4.- Straight line equation [18]
Where X and Y on a Cartesian plane are the mass and friction voltage respectively, and b is
the intersection on the line with the Y axis, for this case is Zero, as shown on the Figure 16.
Hence:
m = (1.15) / (0.1* 9.81) = 1.17

2.5
2
1.5
Friction voltage

1
0.5
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Mass in kilograms

Figure 16. - Straight line for sensor calibration

27

0.2

0.25

Now with the data about real loads and constant for the sensor it is possible to derive the
equation for the coefficient of friction. As shown previously, the coefficient of friction is
found trough the equation 1:

= F/W
Equation 1.- Coefficient of friction () [3]
The pin on disc machine gives a voltage friction that multiplied by the constant 1.17 becomes
the force required to keep the components rotating. W is the load at the pin, and as seen
previously, 1kg becomes 21 Newton.
Hence:

= Friction voltage * (-1.17) / 21 N

Simplifying:

= Friction voltage * -0.05 N-1

Equation 5.- Coefficient of friction form for this specific calibration and load
This final equation will allow converting all the readings with a constant value of -0.05 N -1. It
becomes negative because the reading of the sensor is negative also, and the coefficient of
friction is always positive.

3.2 - Test Lubricants

10 different blends were supplied by ROCOL. The reference lubricant is the base for the
remaining blends but does not contain any friction modifiers. This lubricant will be used to
compare the performance of the lubricant containing the friction modifiers. There are 3
different friction modifiers on the bend, PEG-POSS, IRGALUBE 349 and Irgalube TPPT,
these bends are also divided into 3 different concentrations, starting with a low value of 0.2%
wt, 0.35% wt and the highest of 0.5% wt, the maximum value permissible by NSF (See
attachments number 1 and 2 on the CD). Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show the original
project matrix plan for each interface and lubricant.
28

Lubricant Code

Additive

A1
A2
A3

Base lubricant 0.20

+ PEG POSS as 0.35
0.5
F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
+ Irgalube 349 0.35
0.5
as F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
+
Irgalube 0.35
0.5
TPPT as F/M

B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

% wt

Medium

Flow

Rate
0.08 ml/min

0.08 ml/min

0.08 ml/min

Table 2. - PEK on Steel Interface

Lubricant Code

Additive

A1
A2
A3

Base lubricant 0.20

+ PEG POSS as 0.35
0.5
F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
+ Irgalube 349 0.35
0.5
as F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
+
Irgalube 0.35
0.5
TPPT as F/M

B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

% wt

Medium

Flow

Rate
0.08 ml/min

0.08 ml/min

0.08 ml/min

Table 3. - Steel On Steel Interface

Lubricant Code
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2

Additive

% wt

Base lubricant 0.20

+ PEG POSS as 0.35
0.5
F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
0.35
29

Medium
Rate
0.08 ml/min

0.08 ml/min

Flow

B3

+ Irgalube 349 0.5

C1
C2
C3

as F/M
Base lubricant 0.20
+
Irgalube 0.35
0.5
TPPT as F/M

Table 4. - PEK on PEK Interface

30

0.08 ml/min

3.4 Samples and Initial Conditions

In order to evaluate the performance of the lubricants, it is necessary to measure some
conditions such as sample initial roughness and mass. These parameters will allow
measurement of the wear of materials and identify potential discrepancies for the coefficient
of friction values. Figure 17 and Figure 18 shows the initial Ra value, 0.4397 micrometres,
for pin number 6. The surface roughness analysis was measured using a contact profilometer,
a Taylor Hobson model available on the metrology laboratory, this machine was selected due
the colour of the PEK pins. Optical profilometers do not work with non-reflective black
colours.. The mass of all the components were measured on a high precision Mettler Toledo
balance in the same laboratory. All the roughness analyses and masses are included on the CD
attached with a file for the dedicated software on the profilometer.

Figure 17.- Ra for the Top Face of Pin Number 6 (PEK) on Position One

31

Figure 18. - Ra for the Top Face of Pin Number 6 (PEK) on Position Two

3.5 Arrangement of the Equipment

After the measurement of mass and roughness of the samples, the testing equipment is set up
carefully with all the security equipment for the laboratory, such as coat, goggle and gloves
then the following the next shown on Table 5
Step
1

Task
First the samples and small components of the machine are cleaned inside of the oil

bath with acetone.

The steel disc is fixed on the shaft of the electric motor with the cupper brace on top

3
4
5

and the built in heater tuned on until 100 Celsius

The pin is fixed with the specific pin holder
The end cap is placed on the base of the electric motor
The motor is turned on and the RPMs are measure with a tachometer until 4000

Rpms
The pin holder is installed on the arm and carefully balanced above the end cap with

7
8
9
10

level instruments
The load of 1 kg is put at the end of the arm
One side of the pipe is connected to the syringe.
The pipe is fixed with a holding arm and placed on position
The syringe is fixed on the syringe pump and a program is loaded, on this position,

11
12

the syringe is also connected to the tube

Exhaust system is placed on the top of the machine
The computer is loaded with Lab view and a specific file with the parameters for this

13

test.
Start of the testing
32

14
15

45 minutes of running in are measured with the reference lubricant

Additional 45 minutes for the reference lubricant is tested, this will be show as result

16
17
18
19

on the graphics
Change of lubricant and start the second phase (60 minutes)
Change of lubricant and start the third phase (60 minutes)
Change of lubricant and start the fourth phase (60 minutes)
Change of lubricant and start the fifth phase with the reference lubricant (60

20

minutes)
End of test and save of files.

Table 5. - Steps required for the setup of the pin on disc tribometer
It is important to recall that the previous research done by Chong (2012) [12] had an oil bath
heater prior to the feeding of the oil onto the interface. This project had the goal to keep as
most as possible the same conditions but it was found that even with a thermal isolator on the
system, the final temperature of the oil was never 100 Celsius, so in order to get the
temperature as high as possible, the built in heater was used and the experiment done. Figure
19 and Figure 20 show the final set up of the machine.

Figure 19.- Final set up of the pin on disc machine

33

Syring
e with
oil

Load

Cooper
pipe
connecte
d to the
syringe

Needl
e

Disc
Holde
r

Steel
disc
Figure 20.- Final set up of the pin on disc machine

3.6 - Data Post Processing

The pin-on-disc machine sensors deliver values and data to the computer which is loaded
with LabView software. This measures the coefficient of friction every second and real time
graphics give feedback of what is happening at that moment. When the test finishes, the
software is stopped and the main file is saved to be used on Microsoft Excel. As shown on
section 3.3, the Equation 4 will become Equation 6 the sensor reading data to coefficient of
friction.

= Friction voltage * -0.05 N-1

Equation 6.- Coefficient of friction for this specific calibration

34

CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS

With the methodology defined and the results on an Excel file, is possible to make graphics
and compare the performance of the lubricants with the different interfaces and previous
works.

5.1 PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results

Figure 21 shows the result of the first test, the PEG-POSS friction modifier with the
PEK/Steel interface. It shows the values of the coefficient of friction of the last 10 minutes of
every series, (around one hour, including 45 minutes of running in and transitions). For this
and the remaining Figures, the Series 1 and 5 are always the reference lubricant (no friction
modifier) and the series 2, 3 and 4 are always the friction modifiers concentration on the base
lubricant, always increasing from 0.20, 0.35 and 0.5% wt.

Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/Steel

0.30
0.25
0.20
Coeficient of friction

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
-0.05

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Seconds

Figure 21.- Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results

Table 6 shows the average values for the series are 0.11, 0.08, 0.07, 0.07 and 0.077
respectively. There was a coefficient of friction reduction of 0.04 compared with the base
lubricant at the beginning, but the last series, again the reference lubricant, had a small
increment when comparing with the friction modifiers blend. This can be explained due the
35

small time taken by the transition between the previous series 4 and the final series 5. This
means that some remaining lubricant with friction modifiers was still at the interface and
there was not enough time to remove it. The time problem was a constant on all the
experiments due to the availability of the laboratory.
Series 1
0.11
Series 2
0.08
Series 3
0.07
Series 4
0.07
Series 5
0.77
Table 6.- Average Coefficient of Friction for PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel Interface

5.2 PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel Results

Figure 22 shows the values of the PEG POSS with a totally new interface, Steel/Steel. It was
found that the coefficient of friction values were lower than the previous interface holding for
the series 1. The average values can be found on the Table 7.- where is possible to identify
that the coefficient of frictions values increased for the low friction modifier concentration,
when this is compared with the reference lubricant, while the highest concentration keep the
same values as the reference.. On this case, it can be deduced that the friction modifier does
not have a higher impact on this interface, even when it could be expected to have a better
performance than previous interface, remembering that the friction modifiers are better
attracted by metals, on this case both faces.

Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel

0.3
0.25
0.2
Coefficient of friction

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
-0.05

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Seconds

Figure 22.- Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel Results

36

Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5

0.05
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.06

Table 7.- Average Coefficient of Friction for PEG-POSS Lubricant with Steel/Steel Interface

5.3 PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/PEK Results

For the new interface, PEK/PEK, the test had many problems. First of all, the PEK disc was
very difficult to manufacture, the raw material did not allow the disc without deformation
which caused the test system to vibrate and give erratic data. It was possible to use an
annealing process for disc which after machining made it flatter, see Figure 23. Even then the
disc was fitted suitably to the machine, vibration and associated noise was always present
(please refer to the video Noise and vibration of PEK/PEK test attached on the CD).
Figure 24 shows the behaviour of this interface and the sudden change after the base
lubricant on Series One and Table 8 shows the average values for each series.

Figure 23.- Imperfection on the top/bottom faces after annealing process on discs

37

Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/PEK

0.3
0.2
Coefficient of friction

0.1
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

-0.1
Seconds

Figure 24.- Graphic of PEG-POSS Lubricant with PEK/PEK Results

Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5

0.11
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.20

Table 8.- Average Coefficient of Friction for IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant, PEK/Steel Interface
It is difficult to make a conclusion from this graph and data. One possible answer is that the
friction modifier is not working with polymers, which for some point is feasible, there is not
enough attraction of the additive on the polymers, and the other reason could be the shapes
and irregularities of the materials used, which did not let to make a good test.

5.4 IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results

Another strange behaviour was found on the PEK/Steel interface when the IRGALUBE 349
was supplied, Figure 235 shows the high amplitude on the values of coefficient of friction of
this test and the average values are displayed in Table 9.

38

Graphic of IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with PEK/Steel

0.3
0.25
0.2
Coeficient of friction

0.15
0.1
series 5

0.05
0
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
-0.05
Seconds

Figure 25.- Graphic of IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results

Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5

0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.08

Table 9.- Average Coefficients of Friction for IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant, PEK/Steel
Interface
This issue is even more difficult to explain because the amplitude was on
approximately constant for the entire test with all the lubricants used. But from the average
values it is possible to state that generally the reference lubricant has a better performance
than the IRGALUBE 349 and from this it is deduced that this friction modifier does not work
properly on this interface.

5.5 IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant with Steel/Steel Results

The performance of IRGALUBE 349 shown in Figure 26 on the steel/steel interface was
much better than the PEK/Steel interface using the same blend. Nevertheless, the values on
the last four series were constant and did not decrease further. The average values are shown
in Table 10.
39

Graphic of IRGALUBE 349 Lubricants with PEK/Steel

0.3
0.25
0.2
Coefficient of friction

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
-0.05

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Seconds

Figure 26. - Graphic of IRGALUBE 349 Lubricants with PEK/Steel Results

Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5

0.11
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08

Table 10. - Average Coefficient of Friction for IRGALUBE 349 Lubricant, PEK/Steel
Interfaces
For the series 2 to 4, the increment on the wt % value did not improve the coefficient of
friction and, as seen previously, the final series with the reference lubricant still has the
problem with the transition of the previous test, keeping the same coefficient of friction of the
friction modifier bends. Due to the poor performance and problems of the PEK/PEK interface
with PEG-POSS friction modifier, this interface was not used anymore.

5.6 IRGALUBE TPPT Lubricant with PEK/Steel Results

The last experiment with the last friction modifier blend, shown in Figure 27, showed that
this could be a good option for this interface. The coefficient of friction is increasing against
time, but on the other hand, these values are still low when compared with the previous
experiments at the same interface, even lower than PEG POSS, but the increasing behaviour
could make difficult to create a final conclusion and to apply this additive in real life. Table
11 shows the average of the coefficient of friction for each series.
40

Graphic of IRGALUBE TPPT Lubricant with PEK/Steel Interface

0.3
0.25
0.2
Coefficient of friction

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
-0.05

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Seconds

Figure 27.- Graphic of IRGALUBE TPPT Lubricant with PEK/Steel Interface results
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5

0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07

Table 11.- Average Coefficients of Friction for IRGALUBE TPPT Lubricant with PEK/Steel
Results
The value for the reference lubricant on series 1 is the lowest of the entire lubricants test. This
can be explained due to the lowest Ra on the component used for this specific test. The
roughness analysis shows Ra values of 0.5 m for the specimen, and 0.07 m for the steel
disc, while the first test for example has a much higher Ra on the steel disc, 0.2562 m.

41

CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION

6.1 Influence of PEG POSS on the PEK/Steel, Steel/Steel, and PEK/PEK
Interfaces
There were three different interfaces for the lubricant containing PEG-POSS friction
modifier. The interface of the stretching machine was simulated and the overall performance
of PEG-POSS was acceptable, the attraction of the friction modifier by the steel disc was
strong enough to create a layer that reduced friction. This additive did not improve the
coefficient of friction on the second interface, the steel/steel contact should have had
attraction on both face but due to similar hardness on both sides, the layer created could be
removed very fast, keeping similar values as the reference lubricant. The last interface,
PEK/PEK, had the worst performance, mainly because of manufacturing problems and not
attraction of the additive on surface in contact.

6.2 Influence of IRGALUBE 349 on the PEK/Steel and Steel/Steel.

The behaviour of the test using PEK/steel and IRGALUBE 349 does not lead to a clear
conclusion. The values of the coefficient of friction were increasing with this lubricant and it
is not possible to make a comparison. It can be deduced that the values were one of the
highest found on this report and that the lubricant has a bad performance on this specific
interface. Contrasting with the previous interface, the steel/steel showed a good reduction of
friction and if is compared with PEG-POSS, the lubricant really did the job to improve the
values, being higher, but reducing friction.

6.3 Influence of IRGALUBE TPPT on the PEK/Steel and

The Irgalube TPPT has the poorest performance of the 3 different additives. When it was
applied to the interface, the friction started to rise continuously. The values were relative low,
but the graphics showed an increasing tendency that make very hard to choose this additive
for this interface.

6.4 Comparison with Previous Work

When the averages values of the coefficient of friction are compared with previous research
made at the University of Leeds, it is possible to find some differences. For example the
values for PEG-POSS on the PEK/Steel interfaces show a better performance with a
coefficient of friction around 0.07, much lower than 0.15 that Chong (2012) found with the
42

same flow rate. [12] Here different factors should be taken, such as the difference on the
methodology, this report assumes that the heating procedure of the previous job did not work
accordingly and the temperature was much lower as predicted. Another factor that could
influence was the status of the laboratory during this project. The humidity and temperature
control for the room was not available and there could be some differences on the lectures of
the sensor.

43

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Conclusions for this experiment

* The good performance of PEG-POSS as an additive has been checked under the
tribological conditions for a real life stretching machine. It showed a good reduction of
friction and in case to be approved by the NSF; it could be used on this machine. Differences
on the averages coefficient of friction from Chong (2012). work and this research were found,
being always lower the values of this job. The conditions on the test such as a higher
temperature and no humidity control on the room, could affect the lecture of this experiment.
Nevertheless, on both cases the PEG-POSS has a positive impact reducing the friction on the
interface.
* There was not enough improvement on a steel/steel interface using PEG-POSS additive.
Equal hardness could affect the attraction of the lubricant at the surfaces.
* PEK/PEK manufacturability issues and poor attraction gave as result incoherent data with
PEG-POSS additive.
* IRGALUBE 349 had a good performance on steel/steel interface but a strange behaviour on
PEK/steel.
* IRGALUBE TPPT did not improve the coefficient of friction on PEG/Steel interface.
*Finally, and according to these results, the recommendation about what friction modifier is
useful will depend of the interface combination. As shown previously, the interface of the
stretching machine, PEK/Steel has a better performance with PEG-POSS, but it did not work
on PEK/PEK and Steel/Steel. On the other hand, IRGALUBE 349 had the best performance
on Steel/Steel, but failed on PEK/Steel. And the worst performance was for IRGALUBE
TPPT, where the friction was increasing with time.

44

7.2 Further Work

Due to the conditions of the laboratory and the manufacturability issues, it is recommended
that the PEK/PEK interface experiment is repeated. The raw material was deformed on the
manufacturing process and it should be improved to have a better experiment.
The oils bath could work if better thermal isolators are used, but due to relative low flow
rates, it might not be useful. It is better to get the high temperature into the interface, because
it would let to know that this will not decrease, in fact, due to the friction on interface, the
temperature will increase.
Another idea could be the use of different friction modifiers on a single lubricant and find it
is possible to reduce even more the coefficient of friction.
Finally it could be useful to run long periods of test with a relative high flow rate of lubricant
and reduce it in order to find how good is the attraction of the PEG-POSS on the steel, and
with this data, to then reduce the flow rate on the machine.

45

CHAPTER EIGHT- REFERENCES

[1] Bruckner Group, Packing Solutions for BOPP film types. [online resource] 2012.
[Accessed on 17th Dec 2012] Available from: http://www.brueckner.com/index.php?
eID=download&file=BOPP.pdf
[2] William, J.A. Engineering Tribology. Oxford: University Press, 2005.
[3] Hutchings, I. M. Tribology: friction and wear of engineering materials. London: Edward
Arnold, 1992.
[4] Mortier, R. M. Orszulik. S. T. and Fox M. Chemistry and technology of lubricant. 3rd ed.
London: Blackie Academic & Professional, 2010.
[5] Rabinowicz, E. Friction and wear of materials, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1995.
[6] PEG-POSS Cage Mixture [online resource] [Accessed on 17th Dec 2012] Available from:
http://www.hybridplastics.com/products/pg1190.htm
[7] What is POSS Technology? [Online resource] [Accessed on 17th Dec 2012] available
from: http://www.hybridplastics.com/about/tech.htm
[8] Priest M. Introduction to tribology work unit 1, Introduction to tribology and real
surfaces, Leeds 2012
[9] Priest M. Introduction to tribology work unit 2, Friction and wear of surfaces, Leeds:
2012.
[10] Priest M. Introduction to tribology work unit 3, Lubricants and Lubrication, Leeds: 2012.
[11] Khonsari M. Evaluation of Friction and Wear Properties of POSS, CeRoM at Louisiana
State University, United States: 2010
[12] Chong, K.L., 2012. Sustainability through Tribology Effective High Temperature
Lubrication of Plastic/Steel Interfaces. MSc. University of Leeds. Leeds : 2012
[13] Dyson C. ROCOL Research project introduction. University of Leeds. Leeds: 2012

46

[14] Irgalube 349 Technical Sheet [online Resource] [Accessed on 24th May 2013] Available
from: http://www.resikem.com.ar/admin/archivos/tecnica/219/TDS_Irgalube_349.pdf
[15] Irgalube TPPT Technical Sheet [online resource] [Accessed on 25th May 2013] Available
from: http://www.resikem.com.ar/admin/archivos/tecnica/217/IRGALUBE_TPPT.pdf
[16] Converting rotational velocity to linear velocity. [Online Resource] [Accessed on 28th Jul
2013] Available from: http://www.wisc-online.com/Objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ENG17704
[17] Third Class Lever [Online Resource] [Accessed on 7th Aug 2013] Available from:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/levers-d_1304.html
[18] Straight line Equation. [Online Resource] [Accessed on 17th Aug 2013] Available from:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equation_of_line.html
[19]

Pressure.

[Online

Resource]

[Accessed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

47

on

17th

Aug

2013]

CHAPTER NINE- APPENDIXES

APPENDIX ONE - RISK ASSESSMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING RISK ASSESSMENT
Assessment No
Pin on disc tribometer testing
11/06/2013

[Dowson Tribology Lab]

Preliminary notes
Risk assessment must be conducted by Academic supervisor/Principal Investigator/Manager.
Other team members and/or people involved or affected by the activities must be consulted in the construction of the risk assessment.
Academic supervisor/PIs/Managers and other team members must ensure that the control arrangements and safe systems of work are followed.
Academic supervisor/PIs/Managers must review this risk assessment at least annually, or in the event of incident, accident or changes to operating/maintenance
procedures/personnel.
Review of risk assessment must be conducted by the Academic supervisor/PI/Manager and initialled and dated in the space provided.

Reference information

48

 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Copies
Original signed risk assessment must be retained by the Academic supervisor/PI/Manager in their office.
A copy (and any appendices or cross-referenced documents) must be retained in the health and safety file in the workplace.
The Academic Supervisor/PI/Manager must send a copy by email to the Faculty Safety Team before work begins.

Academic supervisor/PI/Managers approval

ACADEMIC SUP/PI/MANAGER

PRINT NAME

Professor Martin Priest

Martin Priest

SIGNATURE

EMAIL/TELEPHONE
m.priest@leeds.ac.uk

RA review [to be dated initialled by Academic supervisor/PI/MANAGER]

Date of next review due:
Date review completed:
Initials:

49

DATE

HAZARD TYPE

WHO
MAY BE
HARMED
?

RISK
RATING
WIITHOUT
CONTROLS

CURRENT CONTROL MEASURES

(IF ANY)

CxL=
E,H,M,L,T

NEW
RISK
RATIN
G

ADDITIONAL CONTROL
MEASURES IDENTIFIED

CxL

=
Countersignatures (other members of risk assessment team) [Only if applicable see Faculty RA Procedures]

ROLE

Operator

IDENTIFICATION OF
RISKS,CONTROLS &
ACTIONS

Consequence/Severity of

PRINT NAME

SIGNATURE

Lubricant Jose Hernandez

Operat
M
Handling
or

Storage available on lab for

these materials, Correct use
of safety equipment as coat
an gloves when required

Electric
Shocks with
tribometer
equipment

Operat
or

Avoid any kind of change

when electric motor is turned
on, it is necessary to
unplugged first

Burns by
contact with
hot lubricants
and surfaces

Operat
or

Wait for heat dissipation

when is required and use
gloves for handling materials

Irritation on
skin due to
Harm
(C) x
lubricant
contact

E,H,M,
L,T

FINAL
RISK
RATIN
G

ACTIO
N BY
(&
DEAD
LINE)

CxL
=
E,H,M,
L,T

EMAIL/TELEPHONE

DATE

Store only the amount

Mn12j4h@leeds.ac.uk
of lubricant required
on
L
the lab and on cool and
ventilated area

12/06/2013

Detect hot points and

surface prior to any
change

Use gloves and if is needed

Operat
Wash contact area with
for avoiding(L)
any =
kind
L
Likelihood
ofMharm goggles
being realised
Risk LRating
[see
table following]
or
water profusely
of contact

COMMUNICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO THOSE INVOLVED

Irritation on
eyes due to
lubricant
contact

Operat
or

METHODS OF COMMUNICATION USED

Use glass as protection for

METHOD
eyes

Wash eyes area with

water profusely

YES

Local induction

Extra hours
lab work

Operat
or

Review the feasible work

Details hours
of riskpermitted
assessment
and askdiscussed
a
M
L
human resource to stay at
Copy ofthe
risk
assessment
available
final
hours of the test.

Fall due to
lubricant
Spillages

Operat
or and
lab
users

Fire Events

Operat
or and
lab
users

MTeam

Monitor the working area,

meeting

Coat and user

trapped with
Rotating
machinery

Operat
or

Turn off the machine prior to

50
any change

Ingestion of
lubricant

Operat
or

Use mouth mask to avoid

any ingestion type

and agreed

Controls covered by local protocols & procedures

Absorb with sand and
Review the floor condition

often
Safety Handbook
location notified

transfer to dedicated
container

Toolbox talk
focus on hot points

Use dry chemical

powder as fire
extinguisher

DATE

COMMENTS

Email circulation
Other -

Likelihood of harm being realised (L)

Consequence/Severity
of Harm (C)

Remote
Possibility

Possibl
e

Likely

Highly
probable

Virtual
Certainty

Minor injury or illness

Trivial

Trivial

Low

Low

Low

Injury/illness requiring
medical attention

Trivial

Low

Mediu
m

Medium

High

Injury/illness involving more

than 3 days off work

Low

Medium

Mediu
m

High

High

51

Major injury or long term

illness

Low

Medium

High

Extreme

Extreme

Fatal injury/illness

Low

High

High

Extreme

Extreme

RISK RATING = (C x L/S)

Extreme

High

ACTION & TIMESCALES

Work must not be started or continued until the risk level has been reduced. While the
control measures should be cost-effective, the legal duty to reduce the risk is absolute.
This means that if it is not possible to reduce the risk, even with unlimited resources,
then the work must not be started or must remain prohibited.

Work must not be started until the risk has been reduced. Considerable resources may
have to be allocated to reduce the risk. Where the risk involves work in progress, the
problem should be remedied as quickly as possible. (Action within 1 Week)

52

Efforts should be made to reduce the risk, but the costs of prevention should be carefully
measured and limited. Depending on the number of people exposed to the hazard risk
reduction measures should normally be implemented (Action within 1 Month)

Low

Consideration should be given to cost-effective solutions, or improvements that impose

minimal operating standards which will maintain Low level of risk. Monitoring is required
to ensure that the controls are maintained. (Review Assessment Annually)

Trivial

No action is required to deal with trivial risks, and no documentary records need be kept
(insignificant risk)(Review Assessment Annually)

Medium

53

APPENDIX TWO - ETHICAL ASSESMENT

54

55

APPENDIX THREE - EVALUATION OF FRICTION AND TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES OF POSS AND

MOLY FRICTION MODIFIERS ON STEEL AND BRONCE INTERFACES.

Results of Tribometer Tests by Centre of Rotating Machinery and Hybrid Plastics Company [11]

56

APPENDIX FOUR - ROUGHNESS ANALISYS OF THE SAMPLES

Please find the attached files on the CD for the Taylor Hobson profilometer

57