Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Wear Mechanisms
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Change of Wear Volume and Wear Surface Roughness
with Sliding Distance
7.3 Ranges of Wear Rates and Varieties of Wear Surfaces
Koji Kato 7.4 Descriptive Key Terms
Tohoku University 7.5 Survey of Wear Mechanisms
Adhesive Wear Abrasive Wear Fatigue Wear Corrosive
Koshi Adachi Wear Mechanical Wear of Ceramics under Elastic Contact
Tohoku University
7.6 Concluding Remarks
7.1 Introduction
Wear has been recognized as meaning the phenomenon of material removal from a surface due to
interaction with a mating surface. Almost all machines lose their durability and reliability due to wear,
and the possibilities of new advanced machines are reduced because of wear problems. Therefore, wear
control has become a strong need for the advanced and reliable technology of the future.
Wear rate changes drastically in the range of 1015 to 101 mm3/Nm, depending on operating conditions
and material selections (Archard, 1953; Bhansali, 1980; Hirst, 1957; Hokkirigawa, 1997; Holm, 1946;
Lancaster, 1978; Rabinowicz, 1980). These results mean that design of operating conditions and selection
of materials are the keys to controlling wear. As one way to meet these requirements, wear maps have
been proposed for prediction of wear modes and wear rates (Lim and Ashby, 1987; Hokkirigawa and
Kato, 1988). A wear map is considered one of the best descriptions of tribological conditions and is useful
in selecting materials in a wide range of operating conditions.
In order to design tribosystems and select materials based on the wear map, an understanding of wear
rate, varieties of wear modes, and wear mechanisms is essential.
Wear is the result of material removal by physical separation due to microfracture, by chemical
dissolution, or by melting at the contact interface. Furthermore, there are several types of wear: adhesive,
abrasive, fatigue, and corrosive. The dominant wear mode may change from one to another for reasons
that include changes in surface material properties and dynamic surface responses caused by frictional
heating, chemical film formation, and wear.
Wear mechanisms are described by considering complex changes during friction. In general, wear does
not take place through a single wear mechanism, so understanding each wear mechanism in each mode
of wear becomes important.
Our present understanding of the mechanisms of the four representative wear types is described in
the following sections.
FIGURE 7.2 Three representative types of surface roughness changes in repeated contacts.
FIGURE 7.4 Distribution of specific wear rates and friction coefficients of ceramics in unlubricated sliding against
themselves.
volume per unit distance, which corresponds to the slope of the wear volume curve shown in Figure 7.1.
Specific wear rate is defined as wear volume per unit distance and unit load. Wear coefficient is defined
as the product of specific wear rate and the hardness of the wearing material.
The distributions of specific wear rates of metallic materials in sliding contact under different lubri-
cation conditions are summarized in Figure 7.3 (Archard, 1953; Bhansali, 1980; Hirst, 1957; Hokkirigawa,
1997; Holm, 1946; Lancaster, 1978; Rabinowicz, 1980). Observed specific wear rates show a wide distri-
bution in the range of 1015 to 101 mm3/Nm by the differences in lubrication states. Figure 7.4 shows
the distributions of specific wear rates and friction coefficients measured in unlubricated sliding of four
kinds of ceramics against themselves under different normal loads, sliding velocities, and temperatures.
The specific wear rates range from 109 to 102 mm3/Nm, depending on materials and friction conditions,
even in the case of contact between similar materials.
Figure 7.5 shows the varieties of wear surfaces of ceramics observed under different contact conditions.
Wear surfaces look quite different depending on materials and friction conditions. This means that wear
can change drastically when small changes in contact conditions are introduced into the tribosystem.
The results shown in Figures 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 clearly illustrate the following remark about wear (Bayer,
1994):
Wear is not a material property. It is a system response.
Wear changes drastically even with a relatively small change in a tribosystem, which is composed of
dynamic parameters, environmental parameters, and material parameters.
unidirectional sliding, unidirectional rolling, reciprocal sliding, reciprocal rolling, and rolling with slip
are all different contact configurations classified from the viewpoint of motion of contacting bodies.
Furthermore, free solid particles sometimes become unique substances, which attack interacting surfaces.
This is also a contact configuration.
Wear in these contact types is described as sliding wear, rolling wear, impact wear, fretting wear, or
slurry wear. These descriptions of wear are all technical and based on the appearance of the contact type.
They do not represent wear mechanisms in a scientific way.
In order to focus on the wear mechanisms from the viewpoint of contact configurations, apparent
and real contact conditions at the contact interface are introduced without particularizing about these
contact configurations. Severity of contact, such as elastic contact or plastic contact, is the simplest and
most direct way to think about wear mechanisms, and is a tribosystem response determined by dynamic
parameters, material parameters, and atmospheric parameters.
The following four wear modes are generally recognized as fundamental and major ones (Burwell,
1957/58):
1. Adhesive wear
2. Abrasive wear
3. Fatigue wear
4. Corrosive wear
Adhesive wear and abrasive wear are wear modes generated under plastic contact. In the case of plastic
contact between similar materials, the contact interface has adhesive bonding strength. When fracture is
supposed to be essentially brought about as the result of strong adhesion at the contact interface, the
resultant wear is called adhesive wear, without particularizing about the fracture mode.
In the case of plastic contact between hard and sharp material and relatively soft material, the harder
material penetrates to the softer one. When the fracture is supposed to be brought about in the manner
of micro-cutting by the indented material, the resultant wear is called abrasive wear, recognizing the
interlocking contact configuration necessary for cutting, again without particularizing about adhesive
forces and fracture mode.
2 L
V = n a 3 (7.1)
3 2a
Since the normal contact pressure with plastic deformation is almost equal to the hardness value H
of the wearing material, the total real contact area for n contact points na2 is expressed by:
W
na 2 = (7.2)
H
By substituting Equation 7.2 into Equation 7.1, possible wear volume V under normal load W after
sliding distance L is given by:
1 WL
V= (7.3)
3 H
Equation 7.3 shows that the adhesive wear volume is proportional to the normal load and the sliding
distance, and is inversely proportional to the hardness of the wearing material. Considering the relation-
ship of Equation 7.2, it is proportional to the total real contact area during sliding.
In practice, however, adhesive wear can occur through various modes, as shown in Figure 7.8 (Kayaba
and Kato, 1981), and the size of the wear particles does not simply correspond to the size of the contact.
Furthermore, a wear particle is not always generated only from the relatively soft material but can come
from both materials. The probability of wear particle generation at each contact point is also not equal.
It depends on the microscopic shape of the contact, microstructure of the material in the contact region,
microscopic surface contamination, and other disturbances in the surroundings.
In order to accommodate all these variables, a parameter Kad is introduced in Equation 7.3 as a modifier,
and the wear volume is described by:
WL
V = K ad (7.4)
H
where Kad is called the wear coefficient for adhesive wear. It is a principal value for a friction pair to
describe its wear rate. The physical meaning of Kad is the wear volume fraction at the plastic contact
zone, and it is strongly affected by the material properties and the geometry of the zone in compression
and shearing.
In the adhesive wear of metals (Archard, 1953; Hirst, 1957), wear coefficient Kad varies between 107
and 102 depending on the operating conditions and material properties. It should be recognized that a
wear coefficient Kad is not a constant value but is a possible value in the range of adhesive wear rate.
the contact interface is at first parallel to the sliding direction, the interface rotates and becomes inclined
and wavy as a result of the combined effect of normal and tangential forces in sliding (Cocks, 1962).
This is another aspect of deformation at a contact interface which explains why the adhesive wear mode
of Figure 7.8a or Figure 7.8b occurs commonly in practice.
Based on this assumption model, the possible wear volume V, which is ploughed by harder asperities
after sliding a distance of L, is given by:
V = d 2 tan L (7.5)
Since the normal contact pressure under plastic contact can be assumed to be equal to the hardness value
H of the wearing material, real contact area of (dtan)2/2 is expressed by:
1
( ) W
2
d tan = (7.6)
2 Hv
By substituting Equation 7.6 into Equation 7.5, possible wear volume V under normal load W and after
sliding distance L is given by:
2 WL
V= (7.7)
tan H v
Equation 7.7 gives the wear volume for the case of ideally plastic abrasive grooving in microcutting
shown in Figure 7.12a. There are two other modes of wedge forming and ploughing in abrasive grooving,
as shown in Figures 7.12b and c (Hokkirigawa and Kato, 1988) where the wedge does not grow from its
initial size in Figure 7.12b, and no wear particles are generated in Figure 7.12c. It means that wear volume
in abrasive grooving is not always equal to the groove volume.
In order to accommodate all these meanings, a parameter Kab is introduced in Equation 7.7 as a
modifier, and the wear volume is described by:
WL
V = K ab (7.8)
H
FIGURE 7.13 Effect of hardness on the relative wear resistance of pure metals. (From Khruschov, M.M. (1957),
Resistance of metals to wear by abrasion as related to hardness, Proc. Conf. Lubrication and Wear, Inst. Mech. Engr.,
655-659. With permission.)
Equation 7.8 shows that the abrasive wear volume is proportional to the normal load and the sliding
distance, and it is inversely proportional to the hardness of the wearing material. In fact, abrasive wear
resistance is linearly proportional to hardness of wearing metals, as shown in Figure 7.13 (Khruschov,
1957).
The proportional constant Kab is called the wear coefficient for abrasive wear. It is a principal value
for a friction pair in describing its wear rate. The physical meaning of Kab is the wear volume fraction
against the nominal groove volume zone, and it depends on the ductility of wearing material, shear
strength at the contact interface, and the shape of the abrasive asperity.
In the abrasive wear of metal (Rabinowicz, 1980), wear coefficient Kab varies between 104 and 101,
depending on the contact conditions and material parameters. It should be recognized from these data
that wear coefficient Kab is not a constant value in abrasive wear. By comparing Kab with Kad in adhesive
wear, it is clear that abrasive wear gives a relatively large wear coefficient. That is why abrasive wear is
recognized as severe wear.
Abrasive grooving by the hard and sharp asperity is possible only when the asperity is not flattened
or fractured in sliding. Therefore, the abradability of the hard, sharp asperity must be evaluated.
7.5.2.1.2 Hardness Ratio and Shape of Abrasive Asperity
The hardness of the abrasive asperity is important in abrasive wear. Generally, when the hardness ratio r
(mating material hardness/abrasive hardness) stays below a certain critical value rc1 (0.5 to 0.8; Khruschov,
1974; Rabinowicz, 1983), abrasive wear clearly takes place. However, with the increase in hardness ratio r
above the critical value rc1, wear volume of mating material decreases, and finally almost no wear is
observed when r is close to a critical value rc2 (1 to 1.4; Rabinowicz, 1983). This relation is shown
schematically in Figure 7.14.
The results in Figure 7.14 require consideration as to the yield criterion of asperity in grooving action.
Theoretical analysis was made by the slip line field theory, and the critical condition for the yield of an
asperity is given in Figure 7.15 (Kayaba et al., 1983) between the hardness ratio r and the critical asperity
tip angle c. The parameter f in Figure 7.15b is the ratio of the shear strength of the interface to the shear
strength of the softer material, and Figure 7.15a shows the relation at f = 0. Plastic grooving by the asperity
is possible when its tip angle is larger than the critical value c, and this value changes depending on
the values of hardness ratio r of two surfaces and f, as shown in Figure 7.15b.
These figures show that the asperity with large can plough the mating surface even when the hardness
ratio r is very close to unity theoretically. This is evidence of the high possibility of groove formation at
the sliding interface between similar ductile materials.
7.5.2.1.3 Abrasive Wear Mode
As mentioned above, abrasive wear takes three different modes: microcutting, wedge forming, and
ploughing, as shown in Figure 7.12. Wear particles are formed differently depending on these three modes.
In the cutting mode, long and curled ribbon-like wear particles are formed. Low friction assists in this
wear mode. In the wedge-forming mode, a wedge-like wear particle is formed at the tip of the grooving
asperity as shown in Figure 7.12b and stays there working as a kind of built-up wedge to continue
grooving. Sliding takes place at the bottom of the wedge where adhesive transfer of a thin layer from the
underlying counterface continues to grow the wedge slowly. This wear mode appears as a combined effect
of adhesion at an inclined or curved contact interface and shear fracture at the bottom of the wedge.
High friction or strong adhesion assists in this wear mode. In the ploughing mode, a wear particle is not
generated by a single pass of sliding and only a shallow groove is formed. Repeated sliding and accumu-
lation of plastic flow at the surface is necessary for the generation of wear particles.
These three abrasive wear modes are theoretically predictable with two dimensional models of the slip
line field theory (Challen and Oxley, 1979). Theoretical predictions agree well with experimental results
of spherical pin-on-disk tests, which are shown in the abrasive wear mode diagram of Figure 7.16
(Hokkirigawa and Kato, 1988) by introducing the following parameter Dp for the degree of penetration:
H H 2
Dp = R R 1 (7.9)
2W 2W
where R is the pin tip radius, H the hardness of the wearing material, and W the load. The parameter f
in Figure 7.16 has the same meaning as that in Figure 7.15. Theoretical solid lines are drawn according
to the theory (Challen and Oxley, 1979) by substituting the relationship of Dp = 0.8 (1 cos)/sin where
is the attack angle.
In all these three abrasive wear modes, grooves are formed as the result of wear particle generation
and plastic flow of material to form ridges on both sides of a groove. If we introduce the groove volume
Vg per unit sliding distance observed below the initial surface level and the ridge volume Vr per unit
sliding distance observed above the initial surface level on both sides of the groove, (Vg Vr) gives
the wear volume at one groove in one pass of sliding. With these descriptions, the concept of degree of
wear at one groove is introduced, as shown in Figure 7.17 and is given as follows:
Vg Vr
= (7.10)
Vg
where = 1 corresponds to the state of ideal material removal without forming ridges, and = 0 means
the ideal ploughing of no material removal.
FIGURE 7.17 Schematic diagram of cross-sectional profile of groove formed after scratching. Vg: groove volume
and Vr: two side ridges volume of two sides.
The degree of wear defined in this way is a function of the hardness H of the wearing material and
the degree of penetration Dp as shown in Figure 7.18 (Hokkirigawa and Kato, 1989) for heat treated
steels. This is related to the abrasive wear coefficient Kab mentioned above at one groove as follows:
Vg H
K ab = (7.11)
W
It is clear in Equation 7.11 that represents the fracture property of the wearing material and (VgH/W)
represents the deforming property of the wearing material under the effect of f and the shape of the
indentor.
The parameter and Vg are given from the result of a pyramidal scratch test as (Zum Gahr, 1987):
H 1 3
= 1 exp 2 0 ln s (7.12)
H c
where H0 is the original hardness of the wearing material, H is the hardness after deformation by grooving,
s is the strain on the groove surface, and c is the strain above which material is removed from the
groove. s in Equation 7.12 is given by:
13 23
( )
12
W E 1 + 10
2
tan
s = 2 ln 2
(7.13)
6 HR2 3
where E is the Youngs modulus of the wearing material, is the friction coefficient, is the angle of the
pyramid, and R is the tip radius of the pyramid:
W 1 tan
( ) HR 2 1
12 2
Vg = 1 + 10 2 + (7.14)
H 5 2
W tan
2
By introducing Equations 7.12, 7.13, and 7.14 into Equation 7.11, the wear coefficient Kab is expressed
theoretically in terms of material parameters, geometrical parameters, and frictional conditions of load
and friction coefficient. If the expression for volumetric is introduced by defining the inverse of wear
rate (sliding distance/wear volume), it is given by (Vg)1. The comparisons of experimental and
theoretical values of the volumetric wear resistance show good agreement, as shown in Figure 7.19 (Zum
Gahr, 1987).
The expressions of Equations 7.9 through 7.14 and Figures 7.15 through 7.19 are all for simple abrasive
scratching. But in practical abrasive contact, there are many abrasive contact points at the same time,
FIGURE 7.20 Relationship between abrasive wear resistance and hardness of worn material observed experimentally
and estimated theoretically. (From Hokkirigawa, K. and Kato, K. (1989), Theoretical estimation of abrasive wear resistance
based on microscopic wear mechanism, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Wear of Materials, ASME, pp. 1-8. With permission.)
and each of them is at a different state of deformation and wear. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
introduce a model for the distribution of contact geometry, contact load, and the resultant abrasive wear
mode.
If we know the distribution of Dp at multiple abrasive contacts of a surface, the total wear rate of the
surface can be introduced by summarizing all the values of at all contact points. Figure 7.20 (Hok-
kirigawa and Kato, 1989) shows the experimental data and theoretical solid and broken lines obtained
in this way. Good agreement of experimental data and theoretical lines is confirmed.
7.5.2.2 Abrasive Wear of Brittle Material
In the case of brittle material, which is indented and ploughed by the abrasive, a wear particle is generated
due to mainly brittle fractures caused by initiation and propagation of cracks, such as the median and
lateral cracks shown in Figure 7.10b. Therefore, wear rate of the brittle material is strongly dependent
on fracture toughness. Figure 7.21 (Fischer et al., 1989) shows the effect of fracture toughness on the
wear rate of zirconium oxide under abrasive contact. It is clear that fracture toughness is an important
parameter to determine the abrasive wear rate of the brittle material.
Wear volume in scratching the brittle material is described by the model shown in Figure 7.22 (Evans
and Marshall, 1981). It is assumed that a wear particle is generated by lateral crack propagation which
35
W5 8 E
c = 1 (7.15)
K c1 2 H 1 8 H
where 1 depends on the shape of the abrasive and is determined by calibration on a material with well-
characterized fracture properties.
The depth b of lateral fracture is estimated by the radius of plastic contact zone, and is given by:
2 5 12
E W
b = 2 (7.16)
H H
4 5
W9 8 E
V = 3 L (7.17)
K c1 2 H 5 8 H
W5 4
V = 4 L (7.18)
K c3 4 H 1 2
where 4 is a constant.
It is clear from Equations 7.17 and 7.18 that abrasive wear rate depends strongly on both hardness
and toughness. Wear rate predicted by both equations agrees well with experimental data, as shown in
Figure 7.23 (Evans and Marshall, 1981) and Figure 7.24 (Buljan and Sarin, 1985).
1
Nf (7.19)
Wn
FIGURE 7.24 Relationship between abrasive wear resistance and (toughness)3/4 (hardness)1/2. (From Buljan, S.T.
and Sarin, V.K. (1985), The future of silicon nitride cutting tools, Carbide Tool J., May/June, 4-7. With permission.)
where W is the normal load and n is a constant which depends on the shape of the rolling element. In
the case of rolling bearings, the value of n is about 3.
This empirical law has been widely accepted in the design of rolling bearings. Its basic premise is that
spalling or flaking can be treated as statistical fracture phenomena following the modified theory (Weibull,
1930).
Although the apparent practical contact pressure is not so high as to introduce yield in the contact
region, local yield is generated in the contact region because of the existence of microdefects in the
material. A single crystal has slip planes for preferential sliding under shear stress. A polycrystal has grain
boundaries, inclusions, and vacancies. Because of these inhomogeneities, the local stress in the contact
region exceeds the yield stress of the material even when the theoretical stress for the homogeneous
material does not exceed the yield stress (Dufrane and Glaeser, 1976).
There is a state where a plastically deformed region appears beneath the interface without reaching
the surface. In this case, work hardening takes place in the yield region as a result of repeated contact.
This is shown in Figure 7.25 (Kayaba and Suzuki, 1976), where the hardness peak is located about 130 m
beneath the surface, and the value of maximum hardness increases with an increase in the number of
rolling cycles. The maximum hardness value of about 400 kgf/mm2 is reached after about 2 106 cycles,
when pits start to appear on the surface.
Repeated friction under elastic or elastoplastic contact causes the accumulation of local plastic strain
around some stress concentration points, and cracks are generated after reaching a certain number of
frictional cycles. The mechanism of crack initiation and propagation in such a situation is that of fatigue
fracture, which is a kind of rate process controlled by the inhomogeneity of the microstructure of a
material.
7.5.3.2 Fatigue Wear in Sliding Contact under Plastic Contact
In the friction between metallic materials, conformity at the contact interface without catastrophic wear
is easily observed as the ploughing mode shown in Figure 7.12c (Hokkirigawa and Kato, 1988). In this
mode, a wear particle is not generated by a single pass of sliding and only a shallow, conformable groove
is formed. In the case of repeated contact of abrasive sliding at the same grooves, plastic burnishing
(ploughing mode in Figure 7.12c) becomes predominant. In this ploughing mode, fatigue fracture is
expected to take place after a critical number Nf of plastic strain cycles in the wave.
Figure 7.26 (Akagaki and Kato, 1987) shows the effect of repeated sliding on the growth of plastic flow
wear particles of steel under boundary lubrication. It is seen that a thin surface layer protrudes in the
FIGURE 7.27 Amount of flow wear of the surface layer as a function of sliding cycles under the same sliding
conditions. (From Akagaki, T. and Kato, K. (1988), Simulation of flow wear in boundary lubrication using Vickers
indentation method, STLE, Trib. Trans., 31, 3, 311-316. With permission.)
direction of sliding, and grows as the number of sliding cycles increases. Figure 7.27 shows the amount
of plastic flow of the surface layer as a function of the sliding cycles for the two different contact pressures
(Akagaki and Kato, 1988). The flow rate observed is a few micrometers per 104 cycles of sliding. Con-
forming between two sliding surfaces occurs by this gradual surface plastic flow and wear in metallic
triboelements. This phenomenon is representative of low fatigue wear under plastic contact.
D
C
Nf = s (7.20)
s
where Cs is the monotonic effective shear strain, s is the effective shear strain increment per wave pass,
and D is a constant usually taken as 2.
By considering the plastic work needed to produce unit volume of wear and introducing the relation-
ship of Equation 7.20, the specific wear rate ws defined by wear volume/load/distance is described by
Challen et al. (1986) as follows:
rp
ws = (7.21)
kC 1s D
D
s
where rp is the ratio of plastic to total work of sliding and k is the average shear flow stress of the wearing
material. By introducing the relation of k = H(Hardness)/(3 31/2) into Equation 7.21, the fatigue wear
coefficient Kf, defined in the same way as Kad and Kab mentioned above, can be expressed as:
3 31 2 rp
K f = ws H = (7.22)
C D 1s D
The three parameters of s, rp, and are functions of the attack angle (= /2 ), where is defined
in Figure 7.11, and the normalized shear strength f. The parameter f has the same meaning as in
Figures 7.15 and 7.16; it is the ratio of shear strength at the contact interface to the shear flow stress k
of the wearing material, i.e., f = /k. From Figure 7.28 (Challen et al., 1986), which shows the calculated
values of Kf by changing the values of and f, it can be seen that Kf is predicted to vary in the range
from 106 to nearly 1 for and f values ranging from 0.1 to 10 and from 0 to 0.99, respectively.
The contact between a hard asperity and a groove generally becomes milder in repeated sliding as a
result of deformation and wear in the groove surface layer. Better conformity between asperity and groove
surfaces is attained where the contact pressure is decreased and elastic strains have to be considered. If
the maximum Hertzian contact pressure is above the critical value of the elastic shakedown limit in an
elasticplastic half-space of the wearing body, repeated plastic deformation takes place in the form of
cyclic plasticity or ratcheting (Johnson, 1994). In cyclic plasticity, a cycle of axial plastic strain which
comprises a reversing (fatigue) component a acts parallel to the surface. If it were acting alone, the
number Nf of cycles to surface failure would be given by the CoffinManson relationship as follows:
2
2C
Nf = (7.23)
a
C
Nr = (7.24)
r
where r is the ratcheting shear strain per cycle. In this ratcheting region, however, it is not quite clear
whether ultimate failure would be caused by fatigue or by ductile fracture. It would be reasonable to
suppose that each fatigue wear mode described by Equation 7.20, 7.23, or 7.24 has the possibility of being
the prevailing wear mode depending upon the contact condition, and two or three of them may coexist
in some cases. Careful experimental observation (Black et al., 1996) gives the value of D = 1.67, which
suggests the possibility of a mixture of these two modes of fatigue wear.
dA Q
Kc = exp (7.25)
v
2 2
RgT
Ac Q
Kc = exp (7.26)
v RgT
where Q is the activation energy, Rg the gas constant, T the reaction temperature, the density of oxide,
and v the sliding velocity.
It is clear from both models (Quinn, 1967; Kitaoka et al., 1997), that the corrosive wear mechanism
is difficult to understand without first understanding the process of the formation of the reaction layer
from the viewpoint of the combined effect of mechanical activation and chemical reaction, namely, from
the viewpoint of tribochemistry.
B max d K c (7.27)
Hertzian Contact
(a)
Tensile stress
(b)
(c)
(d)
FIGURE 7.29 Wear model of brittle material, in which wear particles are generated by propagation of preexistent
crack under elastic sliding contact: (a) sliding contact under elastic contact; (b) application of tensile stress to crack
tip; (c) propagation of crack; and (d) generation of wear particle.
where max is the maximum tensile stress at the crack tip, d preexistent crack length, Kc fracture toughness
of the wearing material, and B constant.
Sliding generates the friction force which introduces the shear stress at the contact interface in addition
to the compressing stress. As the result, the maximum tensile stress max is induced at the trailing edge
of the contact, which is expressed by the following equation (Hamilton, 1983) in the case of the Hertzian
contact:
1 2 4 +
max = Pmax + (7.28)
3 8
where Pmax is the maximum Hertzian contact pressure, Poissons ratio, and friction coefficient.
Assuming that the Poissons ratio is 0.25, Equation 7.28 is simplified as follows:
max =
(
Pmax 1 + 10 ) (7.29)
6
Substituting Equation 7.29 into Equation 7.27, the critical condition for surface crack propagation is
given by the parameter Sc,m defined as follows:
Sc , m =
(1 + 10)P max d
Cm (7.30)
KC
E
max = T (7.31)
1
where E is Youngs modulus, the coefficient of thermal expansion, Poissons ratio, and T the
temperature difference due to the heat pulse.
If temperature difference T is assumed to be proportional to the flash temperature, the critical
condition for crack propagation is given by the parameter Sc,t defined as follows:
vWH
Sc , t = Ct (7.32)
Ts kc
where is the heat partition ratio, the friction coefficient, Ts the thermal shock resistance, v the sliding
velocity, W the normal load, H hardness, k thermal conductivity, density, c specific heat, and Ct constant.
Sc,t gives thermal severity of contact from the viewpoint of thermal stress and its concentration against
Kc. Wear particles are generated by brittle fracture induced by tensile stress under elastic contact when
Sc,t exceeds the threshold value Ct.
With these two parameters of Sc,m and Sc,t describing the severity of contact, the region for surface
crack propagation is separated from the region of no crack propagation on the wear map shown in
Figure 7.30 (Adachi et al., 1997).
The state of wear in the region of crack propagation is generally called severe wear, and that in the
region of no crack propagation is generally called mild wear. Experimental specific wear rate in the severe
wear region varies from 106 to 102 mm3/Nm, and that in mild wear region from 109 to 106 mm3/Nm.
The experimental critical values of Sc,m and Sc,t at the boundaries between the severe and mild wear
regions in Figure 7.30 are 6 and 4.0 102, respectively.
Wear mode
Material
20 Mild Severe Ceramics
against themselves
)
Al2O3
(1+10) Pmax d
15
ZrO2
KIC
0
10-3 10-2 10-1 100
vWHV
Sc,t (= )
Ts kc
FIGURE 7.30 Wear map of ceramics, which shows the possible region of brittle fracture dominated wear under
elastic contact. The regions of mild wear and severe wear are clearly shown by the critical values of Sc,m and Sc,t .
(From Adachi, K., Kato, K., and Chen, N. (1997), Wear map of ceramics, Wear, 203-204, 291-301. With permission.)
References
Adachi, K., Kato, K., and Chen, N. (1997), Wear map of ceramics, Wear, 203-204, 291-301.
Akagaki, T. and Kato, K. (1987), Plastic flow process of surface layers in flow wear under boundary
lubricated conditions, Wear, 117, 179-196.
Akagaki, T. and Kato, K. (1988), Simulation of flow wear in boundary lubrication using Vickers inden-
tation method, STLE, Trib. Trans., 31, 3, 311-316.
Archard, J.F. (1953), Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces, J. Appl. Phys., 24, 981-988.
Bayer, R.G. (1994), Mechanical Wear Prediction and Prevention, Marcel Dekker, New York, 280.
Bhansali, K.J. (1980), Wear coefficients of hard-surfacing materials, in Wear Control Handbook, Peterson,
M.B. and Winer, W.O. (Eds.), ASME, 373-383.
Black, A.J., Kopalinsky, F.M., and Oxley, P.L.B. (1996), Sliding metallic wear test with in-process wear
measurement: a new approach to collecting and applying wear data, Wear, 200, 30-37.
Buljan, S.T. and Sarin, V.K. (1985), The future of silicon nitride cutting tools, Carbide Tool J., May/June, 4-7.
Burwell, J.T. (1957/58), Survey of possible wear mechanisms, Wear, 1, 119-141.
Challen, J.M. and Oxley, P.L.B. (1979), An explanation of the different regimes of friction and wear using
asperity deformation models, Wear, 53, 229-243.
Challen, J.M., Oxley, P.L.B., and Hockenhull, B.S. (1986), Prediction of Archards wear coefficient for
metallic sliding friction assuming a low cycle fatigue wear mechanism, Wear, 111, 275-288.
Chen, L.H. and Rigney, D.A. (1985), Transfer during unlubricated sliding wear of selected metal systems,
Wear, 105, 47-61.
Chiou, Y.C., Kato, K., and Kayaba, T. (1985), Effect of normal stiffness in loading system on wear of
carbon steel part 1: severe-mild wear transition, ASME, J. Tribology, 107, 491-495.
Cho, S.J., Hockey, B.J., and Lawn, B.R. (1989), Grain-size and R-curve effects in the abrasive wear of
alumina, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 72, 7, 1949-1952.
Cocks, M. (1962), Interaction of sliding metal, J. Appl. Phys., 33, 2152.
Dufrane, K.F. and Glaeser, W.A. (1976), Rolling-contact deformation of MgO single crystals, Wear, 37,
21-32.
Evans, A.G. and Wilshaw, T.R. (1976), Quasi-static solid particle damage in brittle solids, I. Observations,
analysis and implications, Acta Metal., 24, 939-956.
Evans, A.G. and Marshall, D.B. (1981), Wear mechanism in ceramics, in Fundamentals of Friction and
Wear of Materials, Rigney, D.A. (Ed.), ASM, 439.
Fischer, T.E., Anderson, M.P., and Jahanmir, S. (1989), Influence of fracture toughness on the wear
resistance of yttria-doped zirconium oxide, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 72, 2, 252-257.
Fischer, T.E. and Tomizawa, H. (1985), Interaction of tribochemistry and microfracture in the friction
and wear of silicon nitride, Wear, 105, 29-45.
Hamilton, G.M. (1983), Explicit equations for the stresses beneath a sliding spherical contact, in Pro-
ceedings Instn. Mech. Engrs., 197C, 53-58.
Hirst, W. (1957), in Proceedings of the Conference on Lubrication and Wear, IMechE, London, 674.