See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245369380

A Dynamic Friction Model for Unlubricated

Rough Planar Surfaces

Article in Journal of Tribology October 2003

DOI: 10.1115/1.1573229

CITATIONS READS

9 60

2 authors:

Xi Shi Andreas A. Polycarpou

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Texas A&M University
19 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS 246 PUBLICATIONS 2,999 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andreas A. Polycarpou on 29 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Dynamic Friction Model for
Unlubricated Rough Planar
Surfaces
Xi Shi Modeling dynamic or kinetic friction for realistic engineering surfaces continues to be a
challenge, partly due to the coupling between system dynamics and interfacial forces. In
Andreas A. Polycarpou this paper, a dynamic friction coefficient model for realistic rough surfaces under external
normal vibrations is developed. From the system dynamic model, the instantaneous time
Department of Mechanical varying normal separation at the interface is obtained under normal harmonic excitation.
and Industrial Engineering, Subsequently, the instantaneous dynamic contact and tangential (friction) forces are cal-
University of Illinois culated as a function of the instantaneous normal separation. The dynamic friction coef-
at Urbana-Champaign, ficient defined as the ratio of the time varying friction to the interfacial normal forces that
Urbana, IL 61801 explicitly includes interfacial damping, is also calculated. The results show that a mean
increase in the instantaneous normal separation may or may not lead to a decrease of the
mean friction force and the mean friction coefficient, which is supported by published
data. For unlubricated elastic sliding contact conditions considered in this paper, the
effect of damping on the dynamic friction coefficient is found to be negligible, whereas
loss of contact causes significant apparent dynamic friction force and dynamic friction
coefficient reductions. Several different interpretations of the time varying dynamic fric-
tion coefficient are presented and the implications of using a simple constant value to
represent the time varying dynamic friction coefficient are discussed.
DOI: 10.1115/1.1573229

1 Introduction
Many important mechanical devices and machines include slid-
ing contacts or interfaces, which must operate under transient,
oscillatory or other dynamic conditions. Despite great advances in
modeling and measuring friction since Leonardo da Vinci 1,2,
Amontons 3 and Coulomb 4, the majority of the research work
that is reported is empirical in nature and specific to the conditions
studied. When it comes down to an engineer needing to know the
friction or the friction coefficient for a specific contacting inter-
face such as a control engineer in a robotics application 5, then
the usual source of information are tabulated handbook values,
e.g., 6. Blau 7,8 recently compiled various sources of friction
coefficient values and he reported that identical interfaces could
have different friction coefficient values. For example, based on 3
different references, the kinetic friction coefficient for unlubri-
cated steel-on-steel ranges from 0.120.6 8. Clearly, the design
engineer is faced with a predicament on choosing the appropri-
ate friction coefficient value for a specific application. Ap-
proaches that can account for system dynamics including damping
and the contact behavior, i.e., all time varying contributions to
normal and tangential contact loads are needed to address current
and future technological needs in terms of basic understanding
and simulation needs.
Static friction, defined as the force just sufficient to prevent
relative motion between two bodies, implies that static friction is
a constant value and can easily be divided by the external load
to give the static friction coefficient. On the other hand, kinetic
or dynamic friction force is the minimum force needed to main-
tain relative motion between two bodies. This definition implies
that the dynamic friction and dynamic friction coefficient are
time varying, even though they are typically reported as constant
values 6 8.
An illustration of the differences between static and dynamic
friction is shown schematically in Fig. 1. Figure 1a shows a
Contributed by the Tribology Division for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF
TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Tribology Division March 6, 2002 revised
manuscript received December 11, 2002. Associate Editor: M. D. Bryant.
mass block with surface roughness in contact with a rough sur-
face. F is the external force; P is the contact force due to the
asperity deformation and F s is the adhesion or intermolecular
force. Notice that the direction of P and F s are opposite as the
adhesion force is an attractive force. The mean normal separation
between the two surfaces d is equal to the static equilibrium sepa-
ration d o plus the mass displacement y measured from d o , Static
contacts, shown in Fig. 1b involve only the contacting interface
with fixed relations between the external force F o and the fric-
tion force Q o , e.g., a friction coefficient ( s Q o /F o ). In the
static case, the forces are only a function of the static normal
separation, d o , which is determined once the external force F is
known as in typical contact applications. Dynamic friction in-
volves both the interface and the dynamics of the sliding system,
as shown schematically in Fig. 1c. F(t) and Q(t) vary with time
as a function of the instantaneous absolute and relative displace-
ments, y(t), velocities, and accelerations of the sliding bodies.
Also, under dynamic conditions damping is present at the inter-
face, designated by a linear damping coefficient c. Under dynamic
loading conditions, dividing the time dependent friction force
Q(t) with a nominal constant normal load e.g., mass of the slid-
ing system to obtain the kinetic friction coefficient is not correct,
since the normal load is usually not constant unsteady under
sliding dynamic conditions.
A further complication of the interpretation of dynamic friction
arises from the uncertainty of loss of contact during sliding, which
will result in an apparent reduction in friction 9. Also, an uncer-
tainty arises when converting time varying dynamic friction quan-
tities to constant numbers that are typically reported in handbooks.
Numerous researchers have studied dynamic friction and asso-
ciated dynamic motions and forces. For unlubricated or dry con-
ditions, see Refs. 918 and for boundary/mixed lubricated con-
ditions see for example Ref. 19. The majority of these research
works are experimental in nature and propose models that are
based on specific experiments. Inherently such models, which in
some cases are complex indeed, are empirical or semi-empirical in
nature and their range of applicability limited. Tolstoi 10 and
Budanov et al. 16 measured the slider motions in the normal to

788 Vol. 125, OCTOBER 2003 Copyright 2003 by ASME Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 1 Contacting pair with friction: a mass block with roughness contacting a surface, insert shows the
Greenwood-Williamson roughness surface model; b model of a static friction pair showing interfacial forces
with adhesion; c model of dynamic friction pair for a sliding mass block with adhesion force; and d model of
dynamic friction pair showing interfacial forces without adhesion
the sliding direction, which depend on the system dynamics, and
postulated that these normal motions change the normal contact
strain and thus the magnitude of the kinetic friction force. Also,
Godfrey 9 measured friction and friction coefficient reductions
with normal vibrations that were attributed to loss of contact. To
the contrary, based on analytical considerations and using argu-
ments of nonlinear normal contact stiffness e.g., using planar
contacts and surface roughness theory 20 it was shown that
with sliding there is a mean increase in the normal separation
between the sliding surfaces compared to the static mean separa-
tion, without any significant changes in the friction coefficient
14,21. Such analyses were based on the classic adhesion
theory of friction, which assumes that the friction force is propor-
tional to the real area of contact with planar contacts the load is
proportional to the real area of contact. These findings were also
supported by the experiments of Soom and Chopra 17. On the
other hand, based on the same analysis for concentrated Hertzian
contacts, a significant reduction in dynamic friction with an in-
crease in the mean separation during sliding 13 is predicted
with Hertzian contacts the load is nonlinearly related to the real
area of contact.
Finally, in dry friction phenomena in general, the friction coef-
ficient is observed to reduce with increased speed, see for example
Ref. 22. There are several possible explanations for this phe-
nomenon: At sufficiently high sliding speeds and rougher sur-
faces, the sliding system can be considered as a base excitation
system. In such cases, with increasing speed, the excitation am-
plitude and perhaps frequency also increase causing an apparent
friction coefficient reduction. Another reason is that with increas-
ing speed interfacial temperature effects become more significant,
causing an apparent friction coefficient reduction.
In this paper, a dynamic friction coefficient model for realistic
rough planar surfaces under unlubricated sliding conditions is de-
veloped. The model is based on a static friction coefficient model
that incorporates key interfacial forces and rough surfaces and is
combined with a system dynamic model to represent the sliding
tribosystem. From the system dynamic model, the instantaneous
time varying normal separation at the interface is obtained under
normal harmonic excitation. Subsequently, the instantaneous dy-
namic contact load, interfacial damping, friction force and dy-
namic friction coefficient are calculated as a function of the in-
stantaneous time dependent normal separation.
Journal of Tribology
2 Dynamic Contact and Friction Modeling
Even though the concept of friction coefficient, defined as the
friction force divided by the normal force is dating back to daVin-
chi, there could be some slightly different definitions and interpre-
tations, especially in relation to dynamic friction. According to
Tabor 2325 there are three basic elements that are involved in
the friction of unlubricated solids, and any generalized static or
kinetic friction model should include all three elements. These
elements are: a The area of true contact between the sliding
surfaces; b The type of strength of bond that is formed in the
interface where contact occurs; and c The way in which the
material in and around the contacting regions is sheared and rup-
tured during sliding.
It is important to note that the above three elements that govern
friction behavior do not differentiate between static and dynamic
situations.
2.1 Static Friction Coefficient. In the simpler static case
shown in Fig. 1b, the friction coefficient is usually defined as the
friction force, Q o divided by the external normal load, F o . Such a
definition was adopted by Chang et al. 26 28 in developing the
CEB static friction coefficient model for unlubricated planar sur-
faces. The CEB model contains the three basic elements men-
tioned above and is given by:
Qo Qo
s (1)
F o P o F so
Under static conditions, the external normal force F o is equal to
the actual contact load in the true area of contact P o minus the
adhesion force, F so . As also shown in Figs. 1a1b the contact
asperity force is represented by a non linear stiffening spring,
whereas the adhesion force is represented by a nonlinear attrac-
tive spring acting in opposite directions. Q o is the tangential
friction force needed to shear the junctions between the contact-
ing surfaces, and is indirectly related to the contact and adhesion
forces via the normal separation d o . The contact load is related to
the true area of contact through the general problem of contacting
rough surfaces 20,26. The adhesion relates to the strength of the
bond formed at the interface 27,29, and the tangential force to
the shearing of the contacting asperities and, hence to the friction
OCTOBER 2003, Vol. 125 789
force 28,30. A key element of the CEB static friction model is
the inclusion of the surface roughness, which is modeled using the
GW statistical contact model 20.
Pollock 31 suggested a different definition for the static fric-
tion coefficient: the friction force divided by an apparent normal
force, i.e., s Q o /F app . The apparent normal force F app is the
equivalent external normal force and is different than the normal
external force due to the presence of adhesion. This definition
poses difficulties in calculating the apparent normal external force
for general rough surfaces. Note that both static friction coeffi-
cient definitions entail the coupling between friction, contact and
adhesion forces via the normal separation between the contacting
surfaces.
2.2 Dynamic Friction Coefficient. Referring to the CEB
static friction model Eq. 1, a question that arises is whether the
process of sliding kinetic friction is different than that of static
friction. As a first approximation, under low sliding velocities, the
thermal effects can be neglected. Therefore, shearing of the as-
perities to either initiate or sustain sliding as well as the adhesive
forces are the same for both static and sliding conditions. Even
though the contact force P has been developed for static contacts,
this force is also valid under sliding conditions, since typical as-
perities have very small slopes and Hertzian calculations are valid
32. Thus, the basic interface models in the CEB static friction
coefficient model are used as the basis for developing the dynamic
contact and friction model. An additional complexity of the dy-
namic friction is the time dependency of the interfacial forces
involved, in addition to their dependency on the normal separa-
tion. The time dependency will be coupled/derived from the sys-
tem dynamic model.
As with the static case, two different definitions for the dynamic
friction coefficient are discussed. The first definition is the same as
the CEB static friction coefficient case, i.e., the instantaneous time
dependent friction force divided by the instantaneous normal ex-
ternal force, i.e., k (t)Q(t)/F(t). A second definition that more
correctly captures the true interfacial friction properties of the
contacting surfaces is adopted in this paper. In this case, the dy-
namic friction coefficient is defined as the ratio of the instanta-
neous friction force to the instantaneous dynamic normal interfa-
cial force P d :
Q t Q t Q t
k t
P d t F t my t P t F s t cy t eters that give results comparable to the Gaussian distribution re-
where my is the inertia term associated with the time dependent
normal acceleration; cy is the interfacial damping; P d is the sum
of the dynamic interfacial forces, obtained from a dynamic force
balance of the forces in Fig. 1c, and is equal to the external force
F plus the inertia term, as well as to the contact force minus the
adhesion force and the damping force, i.e., P d (t)F(t)my(t)
P(t)F s (t)cy(t). Notice that the contact force is acting in
the opposite direction than the attractive adhesion force as also
shown in Fig. 1a. The advantage of this definition is that it
couples the system dynamics through the inertia and damping
terms. Note that a similar dynamic friction coefficient definition
was also adopted for planar rough contacting surfaces in Refs.
14, 17, but without damping and without adhesion forces.
2.3 Dynamic System Model. In order to calculate the dy-
namic friction and dynamic friction coefficient given by Eq. 2,
one needs to consider the dynamic system model. When consid-
ering a mass sliding on a rough surface with friction Fig. 1a,
several variations of simple 1 degree-of-freedom dof lumped
parameter models can be used to model its normal dynamics ig-
noring the additional dofs. Such a simple model is depicted in
Fig. 1d showing a mass block sliding on a rough surface with a
constant velocity under nominally unlubricated conditions. Typi-
cally, the mass block is supported by a nonlinear spring that rep-
resents the contacting asperities and the contact force is calculated
from a contact asperity model, which can be purely elastic 20, or
790 Vol. 125, OCTOBER 2003
elastic/plastic 26. In the presence of significant intermolecular/
adhesion forces, an additional non-linear attractive force is present
at the interface, as shown in Fig. 1c. Under sliding conditions
the dynamic excitation can be:
a. Internal excitation due to the surface roughness, which is
usually referred as random roughness induced vibration 11.
This will be the case when no significant external loading is
applied to the sliding mass.
b. External loading applied to the mass. This is the case when
significant external forces are exerted on the mass during
sliding, and the roughness excitation is negligible.
The latter case is considered in this paper. Furthermore, to mi-
nimize the effects of internal excitation, the simulations in
this work are restricted to relatively low sliding speeds, where
roughness induced excitations and thermal effects on friction are
negligible.
Consider the model shown in Fig. 1c with a harmonic dy-
namic load applied to the mass block in the normal direction as
FF o (1 cos t) and negligible surface roughness excitation.
The normal contact force P is modeled with a nonlinear spring
and the dynamic effect of the system is captured by a linear non-
viscous damping element. Under dry sliding conditions, the inter-
facial damping is usually very small and it increases slightly with
wear debris 17. Also, in this work the interfacial adhesion force
is neglected refer to Fig. 1d, which is justified for rougher
interfaces, as detailed in section 3.2.
The surface roughness is modeled using the GW 20 contact
model where it assumes that the asperities are modeled as spheres
with the same radius of curvature and their height from the mean
plane follows a certain probability density function. It is experi-
mentally found that many engineering surfaces follow Gaussian
normal or Gaussian type distributions 20,33, which precludes
closed form solution of the contact equations. Polycarpou and
Etsion 34 were able to obtain closed form solution of the contact
load, real contact pressure and number of contacting asperities
using an exponential fitting to the original half Gaussian distribu-
tion, i.e.,
* c 1 e d 0 y / (3)
where * is the normalized probability density function of the
asperity heights; c 1 17 and 3 are curve-fitted constant param-
(2)
sults 34; is the standard deviation of asperity heights; d o is the
static equilibrium distance between two rough surfaces in contact,
measured from the mean of the asperity heights; y is the normal
displacement measured from the static equilibrium position. Using
this distribution of asperity heights, the resulting nonlinear contact
or spring force assuming all contacts are elastic is given by 34:
P
c 1 EA n
5/2
d y /
R
e o (4)
where A n is the nominal contact area; E is the composite elastic
modulus for the two contacting surfaces; R is the radius of cur-
vature of asperity summits, and R is a roughness param-
eter. The static equilibrium position is obtain from Eq. 4 and is
given by
d 0
lnmgF o
k
, where k
c 1 EA n
5/2
R
(5)
For the sliding mass system considered in Fig. 1d, two differen-
tial equations are necessary to fully describe the system, one dur-
ing contact and one when contact is lost. For a rough surface, a
reasonable criterion for loss of contact is when the mean separa-
tion is greater than 3, a criterion that is also adopted in this
research. Therefore, contact is maintained when d o y3 , and
the equation of motion is
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Simulation parameters
E H An
nm R ( m) m2 (GPa) (GPa) (m2 ) (Kg)
100 110 0.004 0.044 110 7 1.6104
mycy PmgF o 1 cos t 0 In Contact (6a)
where P is given by Eq. 4. When d o y3 the mass block
looses contact with the flat surface and the dynamic equation be-
comes:
mymgF o 1 cos t 0 Out of Contact (6b)
Solution of the system dynamic equations gives the instantaneous
normal displacement y, velocity y and acceleration y of the mass
block, at each time step. In the absence of adhesion, the dynamic
normal interfacial force P d is obtained as the sum of the spring
restoring force given by Eq. 4, and the dynamic damping force
cy, i.e., P d Pcy. Having obtained the dynamic normal inter-
facial force, it is then used in the dynamic friction coefficient Eq.
2 to obtain the kinetic friction coefficient, k . The friction force
Q in Eq. 2 is calculated quasi-statically at each time step by:
Q d An d
d c 4
3
ER 1/2 ud 3/2 f
ud
c
, u du (7)
where the local interference is given by ud, c is the criti-
cal interference at the interception of plastic deformation, and f is
a dimensionless function, which depends on the failure inception
location 27.
3 Simulations and Discussion
3.1 Simulation Parameters. Table 1 lists the simulation pa-
rameters used in this study. The roughness and material param-
eters represent typical macro engineering applications such as a
worn compressor surface 35: The roughness and material param-
eters in Table 1 correspond to purely elastic contact conditions as
evident from the value of the plasticity index which is 0.47. Val-
ues less than 0.6 indicate purely elastic contact conditions, and
values greater than 1 indicate purely plastic contact conditions
20,26.
3.2 Static Contact. For a specific contact situation, the
static case has a constant friction coefficient value and is consid-
ered first. Referring to Fig. 1b, the contact and friction forces are
calculated from Eqs. 4 and 7, respectively using Eq. 3 for the
exponential distribution of asperity heights. Similarly the adhesion
force is calculated using Eq. 25 in Ref. 27. The procedure for
calculating the static friction coefficient is implicit: One solves the
contact equations for all relevant mean normal separations, which
determine the individual forces and thus the static friction coeffi-
cient at all relevant external loads 28. Knowledge of the external
load in a specific contact application determines the constant
value for the static friction coefficient. Figure 2 shows the contact
P o , friction Q o and adhesion F so forces versus the external force
F o for the contact conditions listed in Table 1. Clearly over the
whole range of F o , the adhesion force is about 2 orders of mag-
nitude lower than the friction and contact forces, and thus negli-
gible. The friction and normal forces for an external load of F o
50 N in addition to the mass load are Q o 47.823 N and P o
54.905 N, respectively. The corresponding static friction coeffi-
cient is constant s 0.871. Note also that for the loading condi-
tions considered, the static equilibrium separation calculated from
Eq. 5 is d o 300.5 nm.
3.3 Dynamic Sliding Contact. Simulations under different
linearized damping ratios and excitation amplitude coefficients
were run using an excitation frequency of 5.2104 rad/s,
Journal of Tribology
m
0.5
Fig. 2 Interfacial forces versus external load under static con-
ditions. Simulations parameters listed in Table 1.
which is near the linearized resonance ( o 5.74104 rad/s) of
the dynamic system model depicted in Fig. 1d. Note that the
linearized damping ratio is linearized with respect to the linear-
ized resonance, about the static equilibrium position, i.e.,
c/2m o where o is the linearized resonance. The simulation
procedure consists of first solving for the instantaneous displace-
ment of the mass, y, using the dynamic system equations, Eqs. 6.
Then at each y, the dynamic contact force P d neglecting adhe-
sion is calculated as P d (t) P(t)cy(t) and using Eq. 4 for
the contact load P. Also, the friction force is calculated using Eq.
7 and together with the dynamic contact friction force are sub-
stituted in Eq. 2 to obtain the time dependent dynamic friction
coefficient. Using this procedure, nine different dynamic simula-
tion cases were run using the same roughness, material, excitation
and external loading conditions as in the static case. Three differ-
ent values of the linearized with respect to the linearized reso-
nance damping ratio, 0, 1, and 5 percent, and three different
values of the amplitude of the external force excitation, 1, 5,
and 10 percent were considered as shown in Table 2. Also, sum-
marized in Table 2 are the mean values of the time-varying normal
separation, contact force, friction force, and dynamic friction co-
efficient. Contact of the sliding mass block with the flat surface is
maintained at all times except for case 7 0; 10 percent and
case 8 1 percent; 10 percent.
Figures 3 and 4 show the simulation results for two of the cases
listed in Table 2. Both cases have the same damping ratio of 1
percent, but different excitation amplitude: case 5 with 5 per-
cent and case 8 with 10 percent. Figures 3a and 4a show
the time varying steady-state instantaneous displacements of the
sliding mass. Also, in the cases shown in Figs. 3 and 4, as well all
the cases depicted in Table 2, the nonlinearity of the contact stiff-
ness causes a positive average deflection. With lower input exci-
tations as in case 5, the amplitude of the normal vibration is small
ranging from 14.28 nm to 16.38 nm with an increase of the
mean separation of only 0.6 nm, which corresponds to a 0.2 per-
cent increase from the static equilibrium position d o see Table 2.
Under the same conditions but higher input amplitude excitation
case 8 the normal vibration is much larger, ranging from 57.7
nm to 130.4 nm and the corresponding increase in mean value is
29.6 nm, which corresponds to a 9.85 percent increase from the
static equilibrium separation.
Figures 3be and 4be show the dynamic contact force,
instantaneous friction force and instantaneous friction coefficient,
for 5 percent and 10 percent, respectively. For the cases shown
in Figs. 3 and 4 as well as all other cases listed in Table 2, the
mean values for both the contact and friction forces are unchanged
and are about the same as the static values. This unexpected result
occurs irrespective of a the large force oscillations, especially
with 10 percent, and b the loss of contact. Even though dur-
OCTOBER 2003, Vol. 125 791
 Table 2 Dynamic simulation results

y(t) nm P d (t) N Q(t) N k (t)

Simulation Loss of
Case % % Mean mean mean mean Std Contact
1 0 1 0.042 54.91 47.82 0.871 4.7108 No
2 1 1 0.023 54.90 47.82 0.871 5.3104 No
3 5 1 0.018 54.91 47.82 0.871 0.0024 No
4 0 5 1.252 54.90 47.82 0.871 6.8108 No
5 1 5 0.594 54.90 47.82 0.871 0.0028 No
6 5 5 0.460 54.91 47.83 0.871 0.012 No
7 0 10 23.23 55.00 47.91 0.731 0.32 Yes
8 1 10 29.58 54.99 47.89 0.632 0.40 Yes
9 5 10 2.102 54.91 47.83 0.872 0.028 No
Static Values: Q47.823 N; P54.905 N; s 0.871

ing loss of contact the friction force is zero, the large oscillations 16. Soom and Chopra 17 measured this phase lag for unlu-
that occur, maintain the same mean values. Clearly a mean value bricated sliding extended contact conditions and reported that
of the time varying friction force is inadequate to explain the 0, 7, and 20 degrees for clean virgin surfaces, surfaces with
observed dynamic friction phenomena. wear debris and surfaces lubricated with graphite, respectively.
The simulation results in this paper also support these findings.
4 Interfacial Damping Effects Figure 5 shows the amplitude and phase plots between P(t) and
Q(t) for simulation cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These plots
The effect of interfacial damping on the system response is were obtained using Transfer Function Estimate TFE methods
summarized in Table 3. Increasing the damping ratio will suppress 37. For case 1 shown in Fig. 5a similarly for all cases with
nonlinear behavior and decrease the response amplitude of the 0, the amplitude of the TFE is constant over the overall fre-
system. For example, a 78 percent reduction in the peak-to-peak quency range from DC to 50 KHz, and equals the static friction
amplitude is observed when increasing from 1 percent to 5 per- coefficient value of 0.871. Also, as expected with zero damping
cent for the case of 10 percent see Table 3. This effect will the phase shift is zero. When 1 percent, depicted in Fig. 5b,
delay loss of contact, as clearly seen in case 9, which agrees with the phase shift is about 1 degree at the frequency range from 5
Soom and Chen 36. By suppressing the nonlinear oscillations,
the magnitude of the contact and friction forces also decrease, a
phenomenon that is not captured by the mean values for the time
varying forces. For example, for 10 percent, Q varies from 0 to
311 N, from 0 to 270 N, and from 25 N to 83 N for 0, 1
percent, and 5 percent, respectively, whereas the mean value re-
mains unchanged see Table 2.
An important interfacial damping effect is the phase lag be-
tween the instantaneous friction force and the instantaneous nor-
mal contact force, with the friction force lagging the contact force

Fig. 4 Dynamic contact and friction simulation for Case 8

F o 50 N, 8.3 KHz, 0.01, 0.1: a instantaneous nor-
mal displacement; b dynamic contact force; c friction force;
and d dynamic friction coefficient

Table 3 Amplitude response under different damping ratios

Maximum and peak- 0 1% 5%

to-peak amplitude
response y(t) nm max p-p max p-p max p-p
Fig. 3 Dynamic contact and friction simulation for Case 5 1%: Cases 1,2,3 3.5 6.8 3.0 5.9 1.9 3.8
F o 50 N, 8.3 KHz, 0.01, 0.05: a instantaneous nor- 5%: Cases 4,5,6 19.6 36.2 16.4 30.7 10.1 19.4
mal displacement; b dynamic contact force; c friction force; 10%: Cases 7,8,9 157.4 219.8 130.4 188.1 22.3 40.8
and d dynamic friction coefficient

792 Vol. 125, OCTOBER 2003 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 6 Dynamic contact and friction simulation for F o 5 N,
3.82 KHz, 0.1, 0.05: a normal displacement; b dy-
namic contact force; c friction force; and d dynamic friction
coefficient

tude and higher damping: F o 10 N, 5 percent, 10 percent,

3.82 KHz. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 6. The
static values are Q o 8.63 N, P o 9.90 ( s 0.871 same as be-
fore since adhesion is ignored. The mean increase of the normal
separation is y 0.13 nm, and contact is maintained at all times.
The average values for the dynamic contact and friction forces are
9.91 N, 8.63 N, respectively. Upon examination of the time-
varying dynamic forces shown in Fig. 6, one can observe the
phase lag between the friction and normal forces. Figure 7 depicts
the amplitude and phase lag of the TFE between the friction and
normal dynamic forces. The phase lag is about 11 deg in the
frequency range around the contact resonance and the associated
dynamic friction reduction is about 2 percent. Clearly such an
interpretation correctly captures dynamic friction coefficient be-
havior. Knowing the excitation frequency, one can readily obtain a
constant value for the dynamic friction coefficient from the am-

Fig. 5 Transfer function estimate between interfacial normal

and friction forces: a Case 1 F o 50 N, 8.3 KHz, 0.01,
0; b Case 2 F o 50 N, 8.3 KHz, 0.01, 0.01; and
c Case 3 F o 50 N, 8.3 KHz, 0.01, 0.05

KHz to 15 KHz, which is negligible. When the damping ratio

increases to 5 percent see Fig. 5c, the phase shift also in-
creases to 5 degrees from 5.8 KHz to 14 KHz. Also, in this fre-
quency range, the amplitude of the TFE decreases slightly by 0.2
percent.
To emphasize the effect of damping on the dynamic friction
coefficient, consider a case with the same roughness and material Fig. 7 Transfer function estimate between interfacial normal
parameters as before, but with a lower normal excitation ampli and friction forces for F o 5 N, 3.82 KHz, 0.05, 0.1

Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 2003, Vol. 125 793

plitude of the TFE. This method/interpretation of dynamic friction
coefficient is valid with continuous contacting interfaces, i.e., no
loss of contact.
5 Average Nature of Dynamic Friction Coefficient and
Interpretations
As discussed in sections 3 and 4 for a sliding block, all dynamic
interfacial forces and consequently the instantaneous dynamic
friction coefficient are varying with time. Due to this dynamic
friction nature, several different interpretations of the dynamic
friction coefficient as it relates to constant fixed or average values
that are usually reported in the literature are possible, as discussed
below.
5.1 Interpretation A. Perhaps the most obvious average in-
terpretation of dynamic friction coefficient is to take the time av-
erage of k (t), denoted by k (t) , as it is also discussed in Ref.
13. For the simulation cases considered in this paper, these av-
erage values are tabulated in Table 2, and again in Table 4. For
simulation case 5 shown in Fig. 3 lower excitation despite the
small fluctuations in the normal displacement and forces, the re-
sulting kinetic friction coefficient is relatively constant. The mean
value of the friction coefficient k (t) 0.871, exactly the same
as the static case, with an insignificant variation of one standard
deviation equal to 0.0028 see Table 2. To the contrary when the
excitation increases to 10 percent as shown in Fig. 4, the large
vibrations of the slider result in large changes in the contact and
friction forces. Furthermore, when the oscillations are large, loss
of contact occurs, with the corresponding friction force and dy-
namic friction coefficient fall to zero. In this case, the average
value of the friction coefficient is k (t) 0.632, which corre-
sponds to a 27.4 percent decrease from the static friction coeffi-
cient value. Based on such a dynamic friction coefficient interpre-
tation, it is predicted that compared to the static case, simulation 5
will not lead to a change in the kinetic friction coefficient,
whereas case 8 will lead to a significant decrease in the friction
coefficient due to loss of contact.
Based on the simulation results, there are two possible causes
for reducing k (t) . The first is due to the phase lag between the
friction force and the contact force see section 4, and the second
due to the loss of contact of the sliding mass. Assuming that under
normal excitation there is no contact loss cases 1 6, 9 then the
dynamic friction coefficient depends only on the contact damping.
However, under unlubricated sliding conditions the damping is
small and can be ignored. This is justified since for the simula-
tions in this work, the velocity of the mass block is small, typi-
cally of the order of 104 103 m/s, and thus the damping force
term cy is also very small compared with the spring force P(t)
and friction force Q(t). Under these conditions, which are typical
for unlubricated sliding under low to moderate harmonic excita-
tions, the kinetic friction coefficient in the absence of adhesion
reduces to k Q(y)/ P(y) , which is about constant, and
equal to the static friction coefficient, as shown in Table 2. Refer-
Table 4 Average nature of dynamic friction coefficient and its interpretations
Interpretation 1 2 3 4
A: k (t) 0.871 0.871 0.871
Q
B: a v 0.871 0.871 0.871
Pcy
*C: @d 0 y 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871
C: d 0 y (nm) 300.54 300.52 300.52 301.75 301.09 300.96 323.73 330.08 302.60
C: Q @d 0 y (N) 47.73 47.76 47.77 46.03 46.95 47.14 23.81 19.68 44.87
C: P @d 0 y (N) 54.77 54.80 54.81 52.82 53.87 54.09 27.32 22.58 51.49
*Ignore damping
794 Vol. 125, OCTOBER 2003
ring to k (t) and the standard deviation of the kinetic friction
coefficient, listed in Table 2, in all cases with no loss of contact
k (t) s .
Based on this interpretation of the average k (t) , the simu-
lation results in this paper agree with the work of Refs. 15, 17
that in the absence of damping there is no significant kinetic fric-
tion coefficient reduction with vibrations for unlubricated planar
surfaces, and with Ref. 9 that there is significant friction coeffi-
cient reduction associated with loss of contact.
5.2 Interpretation B. Another interpretation of the average
nature of the time varying dynamic friction coefficient is to con-
sider the ratio of the mean value of the friction force to the mean
value of the normal contact force, denoted as a v as also dis-
cussed by 13:
Q Q
av (8)
Pcy P cy
For the simulations cases considered in this paper, cy is very
small and can be ignored. Therefore, the average coefficient of
friction reduces to a v Q / P . Since the average values of the
friction and contact forces are always constant and equal to the
static cases see Table 2, under this interpretation the average
kinetic friction coefficient is always constant, irrespective of loss
of contact, and is equal to the static friction coefficient value, i.e.,
a v s . These values are also shown in Table 4, and such a
dynamic friction coefficient interpretation contradicts the experi-
mental data of Ref. 9 that there is significant friction coefficient
reduction associated with loss of contact. Therefore such an inter-
pretation is questionable.
5.3 Interpretation C. In previous research studies, e.g.,
Ref. 16, an increase in the mean normal separation was used to
explain the reduction in the dynamic friction and dynamic friction
coefficient. To the contrary, Hess and Soom 15 reported that a
positive deflection will sometimes but not always be accompanied
with a friction force reduction. Based on the first two dynamic
friction interpretations, the simulation results in this work do not
support the claim in Ref. 16. However, if one considers the
increase in the normal separation with sliding in a quasi-dynamic
sense and calculates the friction force and friction coefficient at
the static equilibrium position plus the mean separation increase,
i.e., d o y , then a decrease in the friction force, but not the
friction coefficient is predicted, as depicted in Table 4 damping is
ignored. For example, considering simulation case 8 with a mean
separation increase of 29.58 nm and statically calculating the fric-
tion force and friction coefficient at this new separation of 329.58
nm, then a lower friction force of 19.68 N 59 percent reduction
from the static friction force is predicted. Despite this friction
force reduction, which appears to be unrealistically high, the con-
tact force also decreases by the same percentage, and thus the
dynamic friction coefficient is unchanged. The authors cautioned
against such an interpretation since in a true dynamic sense, an
increase in the mean separation does not necessarily result in a
Simulation Case:
5 6 7 8 9
0.871 0.871 0.871 0.731 0.632 0.872
0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871
Transactions of the ASME
decrease of the average value of the time varying friction force
Q(t) and contact force, P(t) due to the nonlinear relation between
the forces and the separation.
6 Conclusions
A dynamic friction coefficient model for realistic unlubricated
rough planar surfaces is proposed. The dynamic friction coeffi-
cient is defined as the ratio of the time varying friction to the
interfacial normal forces that explicitly include interfacial damp-
ing. The model couples interfacial forces and damping with the
dynamic system of the sliding interface. Based on the simulation
results it is suggested that when dealing with dynamic friction
phenomena, it is preferable to consider the individual true time-
varying dynamic interfacial forces. When coupling interfacial
forces to obtain a dynamic friction coefficient, one needs to exer-
cise extra caution since it is more difficult to interpret, compared
to static friction. Furthermore, the complications of interpreting
and converting time-varying dynamic friction coefficient to con-
stant kinetic friction coefficient values are discussed. The pro-
posed dynamic friction coefficient model predicts that for unlubri-
cated rough planar contacts, the mean value of the dynamic
friction coefficient remains approximately constant when loss of
contact is avoided and interfacial damping is negligible. Also, the
proposed dynamic friction coefficient model predicts a reduction
in the average value of the dynamic coefficient with loss of con-
tact and with significant damping presence at the interface. An
accurate method to interpret dynamic friction coefficient under
continuous contact conditions is with the use of the transfer func-
tion between the true time-varying normal and friction forces.
Such a method captures the friction coefficient reduction associ-
ated with the phase lag between dynamic normal and friction
forces. When loss of contact is encountered dynamic friction in-
terpretation is more ambiguous, and average values may or may
not correctly capture the true nature of time-varying dynamic fric-
tion behavior.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering of the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.
Nomenclature
An nominal contact area
c1 constant coefficient in Eq. 3
c damping coefficient
d mean normal separation based on asperity heights
do static equilibrium normal separation, based on asper-
ity heights
E composite elastic modulus for the two contacting sur-
faces
F external normal force
Fo external normal force under static conditions
F app apparent normal force in Ref. 31
Fs adhesion force
F so adhesion force under static conditions
g acceleration due to gravity
H hardness of softer material
k constant coefficient in Eq. 5
m mass of the sliding block
P normal contact force
Po normal contact force under static conditions
Pd dynamic normal interfacial force
Q tangential friction force
Qo tangential friction force under static conditions
R average radius of curvature of asperities
t time
u height of asperity measured from the mean of asper-
ity heights
Journal of Tribology
y normal displacement of the mass block, measured
from the static equilibrium position d o
y normal velocity of the mass block
y normal acceleration of the mass block
external normal force amplitude coefficient
roughness parameter, R
linearized damping ratio
areal density of asperities
a v ratio of average friction force to the average normal
force
s static friction coefficient
k dynamic or kinetic friction coefficient
k time average of the kinetic friction coefficient
constant coefficient in Eq. 3
phase lag between the friction force and the normal
interfacial force
distribution function of asperity heights, */
standard deviation of asperity heights
interference
c critical interference at the inception of plastic defor-
mation
o linearized resonance about the static equilibrium posi-
tion
external excitation frequency
References
1 da Vinci, L., Notebooks and Manuscripts, presented in the late 1400s, as de-
scribed in 2.
2 Dowson, D., 1998, History of Tribology, 2nd ed., Professional Engineering
Publishers, London.
3 Amontons, G., 1699, On the Resistance Originating in Machines, Proceed-
ings of the French Royal Academy of Sciences, pp. 206 222.
4 Coulomb, C. A., 1785, Theorie des machines simples, en ayant egard au
frottement deleurs parties, et a la roideur dews cordages, Mem. Math Phys.,
pp. 161342.
5 Armstrong-Helouvry, B., 1991, Control of Machines with Friction, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
6 Booser, E. R., 1997, Tribology Data Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
7 Blau, P. J., 2001, The Significance and Use of the Friction Coefficient,
Tribol. Int., 34, pp. 585591.
8 Blau, P. J., 2001, Experimental Aspects of Friction Research on the Macro-
scale, in Fundamentals of and Bringing the Gap Between Macro- and Micro-/
Nanoscale Tribology, B. Bhushan, ed., Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 261278.
9 Godfrey, D., 1967, Vibration Reduces Metal to Metal Contact and Causes an
Apparent Reduction in Friction, ASLE Trans., 10, pp. 183192.
10 Tolstoi, D. M., 1967, Significance of the Normal Degree of Freedom and
Natural Normal Vibrations in Contact Friction, Wear, 103, pp. 199213.
11 Soom, A., and Kim, C., 1983, Roughness-Induced Dynamic Loading at Dry
and Boundary-Lubricated Sliding Contacts, ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 105, pp.
514 517.
12 Martins, J. A. C., Oden, J. T., and Simoes, F. M. F., 1990, A Study of Static
and Kinetic Friction, Int. J. Eng. Sci., 28, pp. 2992.
13 Hess, D. P., and Soom, A., 1991, Normal Vibrations and Friction Under
Harmonic Loads: Part I: Hertzian Contacts, ASME J. Tribol., 113, pp. 80 86.
14 Hess, D. P., and Soom, A., 1991, Normal Vibrations and Friction Under
Harmonic Loads: Part II: Rough Planar Contacts, ASME J. Tribol., 113, pp.
8792.
15 Hess, D. P., and Soom, A., 1992, Unsteady Friction in the Presence of Vibra-
tions, in Fundamentals of Friction: Microscopic and Microscopic Processes,
I. Singer, and H. Pollock, eds., Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 535552.
16 Budanov, B. V., Kudinov, V. A., and Tolstoi, D. M., 1980, Interaction of
Friction and Vibration, Trenie Iznos, 11, pp. 79 89.
17 Soom, A., and Chopra, A., 2001, In Search of Dynamic Effects in Dry Slid-
ing Friction, in Tribology Research: From Model Experiment to Industrial
Problem, G. Dalmaz, A. A. Lubrecht, D. Dowson, and M. Priest, Eds.,
Elsevier, pp. 5559.
18 Tariku, F. A., and Rogers, R. J., 2001, Improved Dynamic Friction Models
for Simulation of One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Stick-Slip Motion,
ASME J. Tribol., 123, pp. 661 669.
19 Polycarpou, A. A., and Soom, A., 1996, A Two-Component Mixed Friction
Model for a Lubricated Line Contact, ASME J. Tribol., 118, pp. 183189.
20 Greenwood, J. A., and Williamson, J. B. P., 1966, Contact of Nominally Flat
Surfaces, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, A295, pp. 300319.
21 Johnson, K. L., 2001, Dynamic Friction, in Tribology Research: From
Model Experiment to Industrial Problem, G. Dalmaz, A. A. Lubrecht, D. Dow-
son, and M. Priest, eds., Elsevier, pp. 37 45.
22 Sakamoto, T., 1987, Normal Displacement and Dynamic Friction Character-
istics in a Stick-Slip Process, Tribol. Int., 20, pp. 2531.
23 Tabor, D., 1981, FrictionThe Present State of Our Understanding, ASME
J. Lubr. Technol., 103, pp. 169179.
OCTOBER 2003, Vol. 125 795
 24 Tabor, D., 1991, Friction, Surface Science and TribologyA Personal View,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 205, pp. 365378.
25 Tabor, D., 1995, TribologyThe Last 25 Years: A Personal View, Tribol. 32
Int., 281, pp. 710.
26 Chang, W. R., Etsion, I., and Bogy, D. B., 1987, An Elastic-Plastic Model for
the Contact of Rough Surfaces, ASME J. Tribol., 109, pp. 257263.
27 Chang, W. R., Etsion, I., and Bogy, D. B., 1988, Adhesion Model for Metallic
Rough Surfaces, ASME J. Tribol., 110, pp. 5056.
28 Chang, W. R., Etsion, I., and Bogy, D. B., 1988, Static Friction Coefficient
Model for Metallic Rough Surfaces, ASME J. Tribol., 110, pp. 57 63.
29 Derjaguin, B. V., Muller, V. M., and Toporov, Y. P., 1975, Effect of Contact
Deformations on the Adhesion of Particles, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 53, pp.
314 326.
30 Hamilton, G. M., 1983, Explicit Equations for the Stresses Beneath a Sliding
Contact, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 197C, pp.
5359.
31 Pollock, H. M., 1992, Surface Forces and Adhesion, in Fundamentals of
796 Vol. 125, OCTOBER 2003
View publication stats
Friction: Microscopic and Microscopic Processes, I. Singer, and H. Pollock,
eds., Kluwer Academic press, pp. 7794.
Huang, W., Bogy, D. B., and Honchi, M., 2000, An Asperity Contact Model
for the Slider Air Bearing, ASME J. Tribol., 122, pp. 436 443.
33 Yu, N., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2002, Contact of Rough Surfaces With Asym-
metric Distribution of Asperity Heights, ASME J. Tribol., 124, pp. 367376.
34 Polycarpou, A. A., and Polycarpou, A. A., 1999, Analytical Approximations
in Modeling Contacting Rough Surfaces, ASME J. Tribol., 121, pp. 234 239.
35 Patel, J. J., 2001, Investigation of the Scuffing Mechanism Under Starved
Lubrication Conditions Using Macro, Meso, Micro and Nano Analytical Tech-
niques, M.S. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
36 Soom, A., and Chen, Jern-Wen, 1986, Simulation of Random Surface
Roughness-Induced Contact Vibrations at Hertzian Contacts During Steady
Sliding, ASME J. Tribol., 108, pp. 123127.
37 Proakis, J. G., and Manolakis, D. G., 1996, Digital Signal Processing: Prin-
ciples, Algorithms, and Applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Transactions of the ASME
 Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591
www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

The significance and use of the friction coefficient

*
Peter J. Blau
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008 Mail Stop 6063, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6063, USA

Abstract

The quantity known as the friction coefficient (or coefficient of friction) has long been used in science and engineering. It is
easy to define, but not easy to understand on a fundamental level. Conceptually defined as the ratio of two forces acting, respectively,
perpendicular and parallel to an interface between two bodies under relative motion or impending relative motion, this dimensionless
quantity turns out to be convenient for depicting the relative ease with which materials slide over one another under particular
circumstances. Despite the fact that both static and kinetic friction coefficients can be measured with little difficulty under laboratory
conditions, the time- and condition-dependent characteristics of friction coefficients associated with both clean and lubricated sur-
faces have proven exceedingly difficult to predict a priori from first principles.
The shaky nature of frictions fundamental underpinnings, has not prevented investigators from compiling lists of friction coef-
ficients and publishing them for general use. Problems often arise, however, when engineers attempt to use tabulated friction
coefficients to solve specific problems in mechanical design or failure analysis. The systems-dependence of frictional behavior is
sometimes ignored, leading to misapplication of published data. This is particularly true for applications in nano-technology and
others that differ from typical laboratory size scales. This paper will review the measurement and use of static and kinetic friction
coefficients, discuss their usefulness, and describe the sources of frictional resistances in terms of shear localization. 2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Friction; Friction coefficient; Kinetic friction; Static friction; Tribology terminology

1. Historical underpinnings and definitions of the stant over a range of conditions. Amontons, for example,
friction coefficient is remembered for his two laws of friction:

The dimensionless quantity known as the friction
coefficient, or coefficient of friction as it is sometimes
called, evolved from the work of many philosophers,
scientists and engineers; in particular, da Vinci [1],
Amontons [2], and Coulomb [3]. These thinkers
attempted to rationalize the sliding resistance between
solid bodies with a universal law that explained obser-
vations of their day. In early work with simple machines
and macro-scale tribometers, it was observed that the
proportionality of the force opposing relative motion to
the force holding the bodies together seemed to be con-
I. The force of friction is directly proportional to the
applied load
II. The force of friction is independent of the apparent
area of contact.
Dowson [4] calls our attention to Semen Kirilovich Kot-
elnikov (17231806), a former student of the famous
mathematician Euler, who is credited for the use of the
Greek mu (m) to represent the friction coefficient. Kot-
elnikov conducted some of the earliest Russian studies
of friction in the late 1700s. In his book on mechanics
[5], he wrote

If we denote the friction content F and the applied

Research sponsored by the US Department of Energy, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Transportation Technologies, as part of the High Temperature
Materials Laboratory User Program, under contract DE-AC05-
96OR22464 with Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp.
* Tel.: +1-423-574-5377; fax: +1-423-574-6918.
E-mail address: blaupj@ornl.gov (P.J. Blau).
force P as unknowns, in the ratio :1, then friction
F=P.
Thus, despite the credit given to Coulomb for defining
the friction coefficient, the Russian academician Kot-
elnikov also has a claim to that distinction.

0301-679X/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 1 - 6 7 9 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 0 - 0
586 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591

Two types of friction coefficients can be dis- Table 1

tinguished: one that represents the friction opposing the Friction coefficients for wood-on-wood presented in several compi-
lations
onset of relative motion (impending motion), and one
that represents the friction opposing the continuance of Listed material ms mk Reference
relative motion once that motion has started. The former combination
is called the static friction coefficient, and the latter, the
kinetic friction coefficient. In the case of solid-on-solid Wood on wood 0.250.5 0.19 [14]
Wood on wood 0.250.5 0.38a [15]
friction (with or without lubricants), these two types of (dry)
friction coefficients are conventionally defined as fol- Wood on wood 0.300.70 [16]
lows: Wood on wood 0.6 0.32 [17]
Wood on wood 0.6 0.5 [18]
msFs/P (1) Wood on wood 0.4 0.2 [19]
Oak on oak 0.62 [20]
mkFk/P (2) (para. to grain)
Oak on oak 0.54 0.48 [20]
where Fs is the force just sufficient to prevent the relative (perp. to grain)
motion between two bodies, Fk is the force needed to Oak on oak 0.62 0.48 [21]
maintain relative motion between two bodies, and P is (fibers parallel)
the force normal to the interface between the sliding Oak on oak 0.54 0.34 [21]
bodies. Formally-accepted definitions for the friction (fibers crossed)
Oak on oak 0.43 0.19 [21]
coefficient can be found in ASTM Standard G-40 on (fibers
Wear and Erosion Terminology [6]. Eqs. (1) and (2) perpendicular)
became widely accepted as quantitative friction-related
a
parameters because they seemed to be suitable for Authors suggest reducing ms by 25% to obtain mk.
designing machines and structures. Values for ms and mk
could be conveniently tabulated and incorporated into shows, different tabulations of friction data list different
engineering handbooks. Such tabulations have existed values even for (supposedly) the same sliding materials.
for at least 300 yr and continue to be published today. In light of the differences in friction coefficients
In the 1700s and later, disputes arose as to the correct reported in the literature, and the common lack of experi-
value of m. Some argued that it was 1/3 and others mental details accompanying most compilations, the
asserted that it was closer to 0.3. As the diversity of value of such compilations is dubious at best. Therefore,
machines grew and the range of speeds and normal additional friction testing under known conditions is
forces used in friction experiments increased, the laws often required to solve specific, applied problems. Tests
introduced by Amontons, Kotelnikov, and Coulomb can be run on the actual machinery, but commonly that
were found to break down in many instances. Further- approach is impractical, and sub-scale, or laboratory
more, ms and mk were eventually recognized to be both tests are conducted instead. In the latter case, it becomes
material- and system-dependent. The implications of important to establish a quantifiable linkage between the
those findings were sobering to those who believed that data obtained in laboratory tests and field performance.
friction was somehow an intrinsic property of the two To develop simulative tests, the factors that affect fric-
contacting materials. The systems approach has therefore tional behavior must be recognized and placed in a pro-
become a tool for the interpretation and use of friction per priority within the tribosystem.
data in modeling friction, developing friction-mitigating
materials, developing friction test methods, and design-
ing machinery. 3. Factors affecting frictional behavior

The forces that resist sliding occur in the regions near

2. Tabulations of friction coefficients
As young science students, we are given the erroneous
impression that all friction problems can be solved either
by conducting simple experiments or by looking up
values in published tables of friction coefficients [7].
Engineers and scientists confronted with real friction
problems in machinery or industrial processes often find
this simple approach insufficient to explain observations
or to enable them to select from among numerous candi-
date materials and lubricants. Furthermore, as Table 1
and between solid surfaces. The problem of establishing
exactly which attributes of the contact conditions and the
materials contribute most to the friction force is a major
one for developing friction tests and analytical friction
models. Models for friction have used geometric argu-
ments (surface roughness and asperity interlocking),
mechanical properties-based arguments (shear properties
of the solids and of the substances between the surfaces),
fluid dynamics approaches, considerations of electro-
static forces between surface atoms, and chemical com-
patibility arguments. In light of such diverse approaches,
 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591 587

the number of possible variables for use in predictive
friction models becomes quite large. (See for example,
Table 2.)
Since the number of potential friction-affecting factors
is large, it is necessary to identify the set of key variables
applicable to each particular case in order to select the
appropriate test methods or simulations.
If friction tests are intended to study fundamental
mechanisms or to evaluate materials or lubricants under
standard controlled conditions, there is more leeway in
terms of isolating the system variables. The added con-
straints of simulating a specific operating environment
are not present. On the other hand, if friction tests are
more applications-oriented, then the tribosystem of inter-
est must be analyzed and its friction-related variables
identified to effect a valid simulation. Assessing the
degree of interfacial shear localization is one approach
to identifying the sources of frictional resistance.
4. Interfacial shear localization
The non-conservative friction force, be it static or kin-
etic, arises in response to the work needed to enable rela-
tive motion between two bodies. In different tribosys-
tems, the energy associated with this work is distributed
differently. Some of the energy goes into heat, some of
it into the creation of new surfaces (wear), and some is
used in deforming the materials. In well-lubricated sys-
tems, the force of friction is largely a result of shearing
within the lubricant film or the boundary between that
film and one or both contact surfaces. In other cases,
work is done to deform the materials bordering the inter-
face. When particles are present, other factors come into
play. Understanding the manner in which various struc-
tures in and adjacent to the sliding interface contribute
to friction is as essential for designing friction test
methods as it is for the fundamental modeling of fric-
tional processes.
Fig. 1 depicts the friction stack concept in which a
number of parallel layers represent potential locations in
which frictional energy can be dissipated [7,8]. Several
Frictional Energy Dissipation Zones are identified. If
interfacial shear is localized within Zone 1, then tests
that investigate the shear response of fluids in the con-
fines of the contact are appropriate. Two examples of
Zone 1 tests include lubricated disk-on-disk tests with
partial slip, and flat-on-flat tests at contact pressures low
enough so that a full lubricating film is maintained and
no solid contact occurs. In Zone 2, some of the frictional
energy is used in deforming (shearing and/or fracturing)
the films that cover one or both bodies. Examples of
such films include films formed from friction-modifiers
in lubricants, adsorbed films on surfaces, oxides and tar-
nishes, and deposited films of solid lubricants. In Zone 3,
energy is dissipated in deforming the contacting solids,
elastically and possibly plastically, depending on the
severity of the imposed conditions. Accumulated defor-

Table 2
Factors influencing frictional behavior

Category Factor

Contact geometry Conformity of the components (macro-scale mating of shapes)

Surface roughness (microscale featuresasperity shapes, size distribution)
Surface waviness
Surface lay (directionality) with respect to relative motion
Fluid properties and flow Lubrication regime (boundary, mixed, hydrodynamic, elastohydrodynamicfilm thickness and pressure)
Viscosity characteristics of the fluid as it affects Newtonian or non-Newtonian flow
Temperature and pressure effects on viscosity
Shear thinning effects on viscosity in ultra-thin films
Lubricant chemistry Formation of friction-altering films
Stability of friction-modifiers over time
Oxidation and acidification of lubricants
Relative motion Unidirectional or reciprocating motion
Constancy of motion (accelerations, pauses, startstop)
Magnitude of relative surface velocity
Applied forces Magnitude of the normal force (contact pressure)
Constancy of applied forces
Third-bodies Characteristics of particles entrained in the lubricant
Characteristics of particle assemblages contained within the interface (e.g., wear particles, external
contaminants, lubricating powder layers)
Temperature Thermal effects on material properties (thermoelastic instabilities)
Thermal effects on lubricant properties (viscosity, flow, possibility for cavitation)
Friction induced temperature in combination with the temperature of the surroundings
Stiffness and vibrations Contact compliance (stick slip)
Damping of frictional or external vibrations
Feedback between frictional stimulus and structural response
588 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the friction stack concept showing four
frictional energy dissipation zones (a) and an electrical analog rep-
resentation of sliding resistances in parallel (b).
mation can result in fracture (wear). The presence of
highly-deformed layers in polished cross-sections of
material subjected to sliding indicates that frictional
energy is being dissipated in Zone 3. Zone 4 can extend
well beyond the immediate vicinity of the frictional
interface. It involves the response of the surrounding
structure to the frictional situation. Only rarely have fric-
tional tests attempted to vary the stiffness of the sur-
rounding structure to study its effects on friction. Fric-
tion-critical applications that must address Zone 4 issues
notably include braking systems in which
friction/vibration interactions affect functional perform-
ance and customer satisfaction with the product.
5. Selection of test methods
As described elsewhere [7], six categories can be used
to characterize friction testing devices:
1. Gravitation-based devices
2. Direct linear force measurement devices
3. Torque measurement devices
4. Tension-wrap devices
5. Oscillation-decrement devices
6. Indirect indications
Gravitation-based devices have been proposed for at
least 500 years, and some of them are shown in the note-
book sketches of da Vinci [1]. In some configurations,
like flat-on-flat testing or pin-on-disk testing, the friction
force can be measured directly with a load cell, strain
gauge, or similar force sensor mounted in line with the
contact. In other systems, like swept circular contacts
(disc brakes, drum brakes, rotating seals, etc.) friction
coefficients are obtained from torque measurements and
component dimensions. Tension-wrap devices use the
differences in tension resulting between the ends of a
sheet of material or a wire wrapped over a circular body.
Oscillation decrement devices involve measurements of
the decrease in swing amplitude of a pendulum sup-
ported by frictional surfaces. Indirect indications are sys-
tem outputs like motor current or vibrations.
A range of friction testing devices, including those
used in ASTM standard test methods, are described else-
where [711]. Each method used to measure friction has
advantages and disadvantages. These must be weighed
in light of the purpose for which friction coefficient data
are needed, and based on the nature of the surface con-
tact in the friction system. Traditionally, if the measured
friction force is F, then there can be various contri-
butions to F from a number of sources, each providing
an additional resisting force f. That is,
n
F fi (3)
i1
Examples of fi include the force required to shear the
interfacial medium, the force needed to deform asperities
that have formed adhesive junctions, the force needed to
plow hard asperities through the softer surface, the force
needed to shear agglomerated deposits of wear debris,
etc. Omitting one or more sources of frictional resistance
from a test method can significantly affect the results.
For example, if a diesel engine ring and cylinder operate
mainly in the presence of sooty oil, friction tests for ring
and liner materials should use sooty oil, not fresh oil.
Fig. 2 exemplifies frictional situations that require
somewhat different approaches to testing. Friction
involving two-body abrasion usually involves high fric-
tion coefficients because the tips of hard asperities on
one surface can dig into the surface and increase the
plowing contribution to the friction force. Friction during
smooth sliding tends to be lower unless there is a sig-
nificant amount of adhesion (as in very clean contacts
or self-mated materials) or if wear occurs so as to
roughen the surfaces. Friction in the presence of third
bodies is rather complex because there can be friction
within the particle layer itself and friction at the layer-
solid interfaces. Density gradients and pores can also
form in such layers, and the shear strength of particle
layers is related to their density in a non-linear manner
[11]. Friction during rolling contact and lubricated inter-
faces can be affected by the manner in which the fluid
is forced into the interface, the roughness of the surface
and consequently, a quantity that is known as the -
ratio. The -ratio is the ratio of the mean lubricant film
thickness to the composite surface roughness s. The lat-
ter is defined in terms of the arithmetic averages of the
surface roughness of the two mating parts as,
 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591
Fig. 2. Examples of four different interfacial conditions that com-
monly arise in frictional systems. Friction in the presence of hard
asperities (upper left), smooth sliding with or without an interfacial
liquid layer (upper right), friction controlled by a sandwiched layer of
particles (lower left), and friction under rolling with slip (lower right).
ss21+s22
(4)
The lower the -ratio, the closer the moving surfaces
are together, and the more likely that a protective lub-
ricating film will not be maintained. A value of 3 or
higher is generally favored for good lubricant perform-
ance.
Eq. (3) above suggests that frictional contributions are
additive, like electrical resistances in series, but a con-
sideration of the schematic anatomy of a frictional sys-
tem, as in Fig. 1, indicates that it is possible for frictional
resistances to occur in parallel. One need only consider
the shearing of a deck of playing cards in order to realize
that frictional interfaces can operate in parallel; parti-
cularly, when there are similar shear strengths among
the various layers in a friction stack. Therefore, to under-
stand friction in tribosystems that allow friction pro-
cesses to operate in parallel, one could represent the net
friction force F in the same manner as for electrical
resistances in parallel:
n
1 ment within the contact (s periods in the figure). When the static
F (5)
i1
fi
Note that the operation of each new process tends to
reduce the friction force because it provides additional
means to accommodate the body-to-body velocity differ-
589
ence. In a liquid or solid lubricant where simultaneous
localized shear occurs on parallel layers, the friction
coefficient is quite low. When parallel processes operate
in a frictional situation it is possible to experience
momentary siezure on one layer, at which time the shear
switches to another layer of lower shear strength. Shear
layer switching can be responsible for fluctuations in
friction force.
When conducting friction tests to simulate specific
engineering components, visual or microscopic obser-
vations of friction surfaces helps to ensure that the lab-
oratory test method faithfully replicates the shear pro-
cesses that operate in the application.
6. Ambiguity in friction testing terminology
There are cases in which a friction coefficient is
reported, yet there is some ambiguity as to whether that
term is appropriate. Two cases will illustrate this point.
One case involves the term stick-slip as applied to a
periodic instability in the relative motion between bod-
ies. Fig. 3 typifies a tangential force trace associated with
a sliding system in which there is intermittent motion.
The linear, upward sloped portions of the curve, labelled
s, indicate times when there is no relative motion
between surfaces but when the tangential force is rising.
Only during the portions between the s segments is
there relative motion. Therefore, from the beginning of
each stick segment until just before breakaway, when
the tangential force can be considered the static friction
Fig. 3. Illustration of stick-slip behavior. The tangential force rises
periodically as the system stores elastic energy with no relative move-
friction force is exceeded, the specimens slip until they come to rest
again and the process repeats. By definition, friction force only exists
under conditions of impending motion (static friction force peak just
prior to slip), and when relative motion is occurring (kinetic friction
during the slip). A plot of friction force would exclude the portions
labeled s.
590 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591
force, there is no friction force at all, but rather just
the tangential force. Likewise, the kinetic friction force
only exists during the period between s segments of
the curve. It is therefore incorrect to plot a curve such
as that shown in Fig. 3 by dividing the force record by
the normal force and plotting m as a function of time.
Secondly, and more relevant to the emerging subfields
of micro- and nano-tribology, is the issue of friction dur-
ing scratching. Friction coefficients are now being
reported in which a fine-scale stylus is drawn across a
surface. Such stylii can be in the form of diamond
indenters (as for scratch hardness or adhesion tests), or
perhaps, as narrow silicon nitride pyramids, as in the
case of atomic force microscope tips. Consider the case
in Fig. 4 in which a sharp point is progressively pushed
into a surface and drawn along it. If this happened to be
a sharp diamond stylus and the surface happens to be
copper, would the reported ratio of the tangential force
to the normal force truly be the kinetic friction coef-
ficient for diamond on copper? The sharpness of the
point affects its degree of penetration, and hence, the
magnitude of the plowing contribution to the friction
force. Therefore, the reported friction coefficient dur-
ing scratching, even though calculated by taking the ratio
of tangential to normal force, becomes a strong function
of the tip geometry and will probably not match values
for diamond sliding on copper reported elsewhere in
the literature. A fundamental question then arises: At
what degree of sharpness does the term friction coef-
ficient no longer apply to the material couple?
The matter is further complicated when considering
the material flow during the process. On a still finer-
scale, friction is created as the material displaced from
ahead of the moving stylus slides either around or under-
neath the slider itself. Perhaps it might be better to avoid
the controversy entirely by coining new terms for stylus
experiments in scratching and lateral force microscopy.
Perhaps terms like the stylus drag coefficient or the
tribomolecular force might be more appropriate alter-
natives for the friction coefficient and the friction force
in atomic-level experiments, respectively.
Fig. 4. The slider geometry can affect the magnitude of the plowing contribution to the tangential force, and hence the value of the friction
coefficient reported for a given material combination (say, diamond on a ductile metal). This raises the question as to whether the ratio of the
tangential to the normal force in scratching is truly reportable as a friction coefficient or should be redefined as a different quantity.
7. The relationship between friction and wear
The energy that is transformed as a consequence of
frictional contact can be stored in the tribosystem or dis-
sipated in a number of different ways. If Ef is the energy
resulting from sliding contact, Eout is the energy leaving
the tribosystem, and Est is the energy remaining in the
tribosystem,
EfEoutEst (6)
For example, mechanical energy from sliding can be
converted to heat, vibrations (like sound), to material
deformation, or the creation of new surfaces (by
fracture). Likewise, it can be stored in the material as
the energy associated with microstructural defects
(deformation twins, work hardening, etc.). Therefore,
two materials exhibiting the same friction coefficient can
exhibit quite different wear rates because the energy is
partitioned differently between and within the
materials [12].
The interrelationships between friction and wear can
change with time, as indicated by considering the
changes that occur during running in. Fig. 5 shows
results of a series of block on ring sliding tests using the
same sliding speed, load, and testing environment
(sliding dry in air) [13]. The time to reach a constant
wear rate was determined from monitoring the displace-
ment of the block relative to the ring. The time to reach
steady state friction coefficient was determined from rec-
ordings of the friction force versus time behavior. The
data show that the times to achieve frictional break-in
and to reach wear-in are not generally equal. Thus, there
is an interesting interplay between friction and wear as
the tribosystem ages. For example, frictional shearing
can lead to the accumulation of damage to the point of
fracture, at which time particles are released. These par-
ticles alter the frictional resistance, which in turn affects
the energy available to continue to generate and expel
particles. In the mean time, the interface may be heating
up, changing the mechanical properties and reactivity of
the surfaces.
 P.J. Blau / Tribology International 34 (2001) 585591
Fig. 5. Relationship between the friction and wear break-in periods
for various block materials sliding on 52100 steel rings without lubri-
cation [12]. The processes that are responsible for wear and friction
are not the same, and their complex interplay results in different break-
in periods.
8. Concluding remarks
The friction coefficient is an established, but some-
what misunderstood, quantity in the field of science and
engineering. It is a convenient and useful parameter for
engineering, but care should be exercised when ascribing
to it a fundamental significance. For hundreds of years,
friction coefficients have served many useful purposes,
like aiding in the design of machines and buildings,
improving devices for enhanced safety (like brakes, floor
waxes, tires, and walkways), and improving industrial
processes. While friction coefficients are relatively easy
to determine in laboratory experiments, the fundamental
origins of sliding resistance are not as clear. In fact,
some of the greatest scientists and philosophers have
contemplated friction without managing to produce a
universal, predictive theory. This striking lack of success
is due to the many potential factors that can influence
friction in a wide spectrum of physical situations.
Tables of friction coefficients can be useful as long
as the conditions used to obtain them are clearly stated
and qualified. Static and kinetic friction coefficient data
listed in tables should not be applied to situations greatly
different from those used to obtain them. The character-
istics of frictional behavior, such as break-in transients
and the stability of the friction force, can be more
important for the design and optimization of machines
than the average value of the friction coefficient alone.
For example, the kinetic friction coefficient for a disc
brake system on a certain vehicle might average 0.35
591
for a series of controlled stops. However, the safety and
comfort of the vehicles passengers will be directly
affected by the variations experienced in daily driving,
regardless of the average value obtained in a simple test.
It is therefore important, when testing for friction, to note
not only the average value of the friction force (or fric-
tion coefficient), but the time dependence and stability
of the friction force over a range of contact conditions.
References
[1] da Vinci, L. Notebooks and manuscripts, prepared in the late
1400s, as described in [4].
[2] Amontons, G. De la resistance causee dans les machines, Mem.
lAcad. Roy. A 1699;25782.
[3] Coulomb CA. Theorie des machines simples, en ayant egard au
frottement de leurs parties, et la roideur des cordages. Mem Math
Phys Paris 1785;x:161342.
[4] Dowson D. History of tribology. 2nd ed. London: Professional
Engineering Publishers, 1998.
[5] Kotelnikov SK. A book containing instruction on the equilibrium
and movement of bodies. St Petersburg; 1774.
[6] ASTM G-40-99, Standard terminology relating to wear and ero-
sion. Annual book of standards vol. 03.02, 2000;15865.
[7] Blau PJ. Experimental aspects of friction research on the macros-
cale. In: Bhushan B, editor. Fundamentals of and bridging the
gap between macro- and micro-/nanoscale tribology. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 2001.
[8] Blau PJ. Friction science and technology. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1986.
[9] Budinski KG. Laboratory testing methods for solid friction. In:
ASM handbook, vol. 18friction, lubrication, and wear tech-
nology. New York: ASM International, 1992:4558.
[10] Budinski KG, Blau PJ. Friction testing. In: ASM handbook, vol.
8mechanical testing. New York: ASM International, 2000.
[11] Brown RL, Richards JC. Principles of powder mechanics.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966.
[12] Blau PJ. Four great challenges confronting our understanding and
modeling of sliding friction. In: Dowson D, Taylor CM, Childs
THC, Dalmaz G, Berthier Y, Flamand L, Georges JM, Lubrecht
AA, editors. Tribology for energy conservation. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 1998:177228.
[13] Blau PJ. Friction science and technology. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1986:266.
[14] Beer FP, Johnston ER Jr. Vector mechanics for engineers. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1962.
[15] Anon. Handbook of chemistry and physics, 48th ed, Table F-14.
Boca Raton: CRC Press;19678.
[16] Hibbeler RC. Engineering mechanics. 3rd ed. New York: Mac-
millan, 1983.
[17] Automotive handbook. Bosch, 1993.
[18] Zafiratas CD. Physics. 2nd ed New York: J. Wiley, 1985.
[19] Giancoli D. Physics. 3rd ed Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice
Hall, 1991.
[20] Frautschi SC, Olenick RP, Apostol TM, Goodstein DL. The
mechanical universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
[21] Eschbach OW. Handbook of engineering fundamentals. 2nd ed.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1952.