Wear 311 (2014) 31–39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Calculation of gear tooth flank surface wear during an FZG

micropitting test
José A. Brandão a,n, Ramiro Martins a, Jorge H.O. Seabra b, Manuel J.D. Castro c
a
INEGI—Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica e Gestão Industrial, Universidade do Porto, rua Dr. Roberto Frias 400, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
b
FEUP—Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
c
ISEP—Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 431, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A numerical simulation of the wear sustained by the surface of an FZG pinion during a gear micropitting
Received 31 July 2013 test was performed. Underlying the simulation is a mixed lubrication model that takes into account both
Received in revised form surface roughness and lubricant properties, as well as a wear model based on Archard0 s wear equation.
18 December 2013
The adequacy of the models was ascertained by comparing simulated and measured roughness profiles
Accepted 31 December 2013
at the end of each stage.
Available online 9 January 2014
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Gear
Wear
Micropitting

1. Introduction and wear on spur gear dynamics. They developed an elastic,

While the study of wear has been usually focused on the
contact between dry surfaces, there has been since the mid 1990s
a flowering of interest on the wear of lubricated gear tooth flanks.
Flodin and Andersson [1] developed a model for wear predic-
tion of spur gears based on a generalized Archard0 s wear equation
[2] and modeling the contact by Winkler0 s elastic foundation
model. They later developed a computer model for the simulation
of the wear behaviour in helical gears [3], dealing with tooth
modifications and different profiles.
Kuang and Lin [4] studied the effect of tooth wear on the
vibration spectrum variation of a rotating spur gear pair by
applying a mathematical model approximating the dynamic char-
acteristics of an engaging spur gear pair, the load sharing alterna-
tion, position dependent mesh stiffness, damping factor and
friction coefficient. Their numerical results indicated that the
dynamic load histogram of an engaging spur gear pair may change
greatly with tooth wear.
Brauer and Andersson [5] conducted a theoretical study of wear
in spur gears with interference, using a mixed finite element (FE)
and analytical approach. Their results showed that wear of gear
tooth flanks may eliminate interference.
Wojnarowski and Onishchenko [6] carried out analytical and
experimental investigations of the influence of the deformation
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jbrandao@inegi.up.pt (J.A. Brandão).
dynamic model with worn teeth having two degrees of freedom.
Bajpai et al. [7] proposed a surface wear prediction methodol-
ogy for spur and helical gears, employing a finite elements-based
gear contact mechanics model to predict wear of contacting tooth
surfaces. Interestingly, they used direct gear measurements as
input to the model in order to analyze gears with actual manu-
factured surfaces with profile and lead modifications.
Kahraman et al. [8] employed a surface wear prediction model
for helical gears pairs to investigate the influence of tooth profile
deviations in the form of intentional tooth profile modifications or
manufacturing errors on gear tooth surface wear.
Ding and Kahraman [9] combined a finite elements-based
deformable-body model and a simplified discrete model to study
the interaction between gear surface wear and gear dynamic
response. The influence of worn surface profiles on dynamic tooth
forces and transmission error as well as the influence of dynamic
tooth forces on wear profiles were included.
Onishchenko [10] developed a wear model of tooth flank
surface, including an elastic dynamic model with four degrees of
freedom and a tooth wear model for boundary lubrication.
Osman and Velex [11] set up a model which incorporates the
contribution of tooth wear in quasi-static and dynamic simula-
tions of wide-faced solid spur and helical gears. This model
includes the influence of the lubrication regime on the wear
coefficient, the flank profile deviations with respect to its ideal
geometry and lead modifications.
Park et al. [12] proposed a method for the computation of the
surface wear of hypoid gear pairs, combining Archard0 s wear
model with a semi-analytical hypoid gear contact model.

0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2013.12.025
32 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39
From the brief enumeration above, it can be seen that works
dealing with the simulation of wear on lubricated gears have fallen
into one or both of these main groups: one containing works that
study the interaction between wear and tooth flank shape, some-
times including the effect of imperfection and misalignments; and
another containing works that study the interaction between wear
and dynamic load. None took any account of surface roughness
and all used “dry” contact pressure distributions, thus essentially
disregarding the influence of overpressures caused by the rough-
ness of the tooth flank surfaces.
The present work has a different focus, since it is a continuation
of a previous publication that dealt with the simulation of
micropitting on the flanks of gear teeth [13]. It was there
hypothesized that it is likely that wear plays an important part
in the evolution of the roughness profile even during FZG tests
designed specifically to ensure the development of micropitting.
Hence, a wear model is applied to simulate the same micropitting
test to try to ascertain the validity of the hypothesis.
Morales-Espejel and Brizmer have presented a numerical model
which includes both the effect of surface contact fatigue and wear
[14], so as to account correctly for the competition between these
two phenomena. However, the authors were mostly interested in the
application of this model to rolling element bearings, and selected
their operating conditions accordingly: low roughness and low
sliding, at least when compared to typical gear operating conditions.
In the present case, the focus is on the meshing of real gears, which
may behave differently from rolling element bearings.
2. Model for wear on spur gear teeth
Archard [2] published in 1953 his famous wear law, which
describes the wear volume loss due to the sliding contact between
flat surfaces:
ΔV K
¼ FN
S H
where ΔV is the volume loss, S the sliding distance, K the
dimensionless wear coefficient, H the softer surface0 s hardness
and FN the normal contact load.
To use Archard0 s wear law in the more complex case of contact
between gear teeth, it must be written in a differential form:
dhðx; tÞ
study (instant tE), the wear depth distribution on one pinion tooth
¼ κ pðx; tÞ
U 2 ðtÞ  U 1 ðtÞj
dt
where h is the wear depth, p the contact pressure and κ the wear
coefficient (with units of Pa  1), which is presumed to be constant
in time and position. The coordinate x is the position on the
surface of the tooth as shown in Fig. 1 and t is the time coordinate.
U2 and U1 retain the meaning of tangential velocity respectively of
pinion and wheel tooth.
x
0
z
pitch cylinder
Fig. 1. Coordinates on the surface of the pinion tooth flank.
During one full revolution of the pinion, a point situated at
coordinate x on its tooth will then have its height diminished by
Z tE
ΔhðxÞ ¼ κ pðx; tÞjU 2 ðtÞ  U 1 ðtÞj dt ð3Þ
tA
where tA is the instant when the tooth first comes in contact with
its counterpart on the wheel and tE is the instant when the tooth
ceases contact. Consequently, the depth worn during N turns turns
of the pinion will be
hðxÞ ¼ Nturns ΔhðxÞ ð4Þ
Hence, the volume lost by wear ΔV on all pinion teeth during
Nturns turns of the pinion is
Z xA
ΔV ¼ Z 1 b hðxÞ dx ð5Þ
xE
where b is the tooth width and Z1 the number of pinion teeth. This
can be simplified, yielding the following expression:
Z tE
ΔV ¼ Nturns bZ 1 κ F N ðtÞjU 2 ðtÞ  U 1 ðtÞj t ð6Þ
tA
It can be deduced from the previous equation that the precise
distribution of pressure in the contact between a pair of teeth has
no influence on overall wear mass loss. On the other hand, the
distribution of load between simultaneously contacting pairs of
teeth is important.
The numerical model illustrated by Fig. 2 is suggested naturally
by Eqs. (2)–(6), provided that the following assumptions hold:
 The problem is two-dimensional and the teeth are in plane
strain.
 One tooth is representative of all other teeth on the same gear.
 The pressure distribution history of one meshing can be used
for all subsequent meshings.
ð1Þ The simulation of one meshing between a pair of teeth is
performed as follows:
At discrete time intervals, the surface pressure distribution
pðx; tÞ is computed by making use of the mixed lubrication model
described in Section 3. Using a discretized version of Eq. (2), the
increment in wear depth δh is then computed and added to a
running total. After the disengagement of the pinion tooth under
ð2Þ after one full turn of the pinion ΔhðxÞ has been obtained. Eq. (4) is
then used to compute the total wear depth distribution h(x).
The wear volume ΔV can be obtained by two methods: by
applying Eq. (6), in which case there is no need to perform the
discrete computations described in the previous paragraph, since
Fig. 2. Diagram of the numerical wear model.
 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39
the wear volume can be computed analytically, or by quadrature of
the wear depth distribution, as in Eq. (5).
3. Mixed lubrication model
The mixed lubrication model was used by Brandão et al. in their
simulation of micropitting on the flanks of gear teeth [13]. It is
described here briefly for the sake of completeness.
Authors often classify the lubrication regime according to the
specific film thickness [15,16], a well known Λ parameter devel-
oped by Tallian [17]:
h0
Λ¼
Rq
where h0 is the central film thickness and Rq the combined RMS
roughness of the contacting surfaces. Hence, it appears reasonable
to introduce the simplifying assumption that the fraction of the
normal contact load borne by a lubricant film depends mostly on Λ.
In the present case, Rq would be the combined RMS roughness
of the pinion and wheel tooth flank profiles. However, some
difficulties present themselves when trying to apply this defini-
tion. The relative positions of the profiles are constantly changing,
so that it is difficult to accept a static value for Rq. Also, in
computing the RMS roughness of each profile, it is difficult to
justify using the usual definition which calls for a sampling length
of 4.8 mm: this is an order of magnitude wider than typical
contact widths. Why should the roughness conditions far away
from the contact have any bearing on load sharing?
For these reasons was an alternative definition of the combined
roughness developed, to be used only for load sharing computa-
tions: a “local composite roughness”. At each moment, the limits
xa and xb of the active contact zone, which must encompass the
Hertzian area as well as any point where pressures are nonnull, are
determined. A pseudo-RMS roughness Rq1 of the undeformed
pinion tooth profile is defined:
Z xb
1
R2q1 ¼ ðy  yÞ2 dx ð8Þ
xb  xa xa
The pseudo-RMS roughness Rq2 of the wheel tooth is similarly
defined. The “local composite roughness” Rq is then computed in
the usual way:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rq ¼ R2q1 þ R2q2 ð9Þ
The function of Λ that represents the fraction of the normal
contact load borne by the lubricant film receives the designation of
load sharing function f ðΛÞ. The relations between full film EHL,
boundary lubrication and overall normal contact load can then be
expressed as follows:
F N ðtÞ ¼ F EHD ðtÞ þ F BDR ðtÞ
F EHD ðtÞ ¼ f ðΛÞ  F N ðtÞ
F BDR ðtÞ ¼ ð1  f ðΛÞÞ  F N ðtÞ
where FN is the normal contact load expressed as a force per unit
length, FEHD is the portion of FN borne by the lubricating film and
FBDR is the portion borne by direct contact between the surfaces.
From this stems the main idea of the model: that the contact
pressure distribution may be conceived to be an interpolation
between the individual solutions of the perfectly smooth EHL
problem and the rough boundary lubrication one (BDR) and that
each separate problem should contribute a fraction of the total
normal pressure distribution:
pMIX ðx; tÞ ¼ f ðΛÞ  pEHD ðx; tÞ þ ð1  f ðΛÞÞ  pBDR ðx; tÞ
33
Fig. 3. Mixed film lubrication model: normal pressure.
ð7Þ
where pMIX is the normal contact pressure in mixed film lubrica-
tion, pEHD the normal contact pressure of an ideally smooth EHL
contact with the same parameters and pBDR the normal contact
pressure of the rough boundary lubrication problem.
This procedure, illustrated in Fig. 3, and repeated at each time
step can be outlined as follows:
1. The local composite roughness, the central film thickness
(using Dowson and Higginson0 s formula [18], corrected for
inlet shear heating as advised by Gohar [19]), the specific film
thickness (Eq. (7)) and the value of the load sharing function
f ðΛÞ are computed.
2. Use the Hertzian pressure distribution as an approximation to
the normal contact pressure of an ideally smooth EHL contact
pEHD.
3. Compute the pressure distribution of the rough boundary
lubrication problem pBDR as if there were dry contact by using
an algorithm devised by Polonsky and Keer [20].
4. Combine these pressure distributions into the mixed lubrica-
tion pressure distribution by applying Eq. (13).
5. Determine the EHL part of the contact shear stress distribution
τEHD by applying the simplified thermo-viscoplastic model of
full film lubrication described by Brandão et al. [21] assuming
the reduced pressure distribution f ðΛÞ  pEHD .
6. Determine the boundary part of the contact shear stress τBDR by
applying
τBDR ¼ μBDR  ½1  f ðΛÞ  pBDR ð14Þ
where μ BDR
is the coefficient of the lubricant under boundary
lubrication, assumed to be independent of operating conditions
and constant in time.
7. Compute the mixed lubrication contact shear stress τMIX by
applying
ð10Þ
τMIX ¼ τEHD þ τBDR ð15Þ
ð11Þ
ð12Þ This procedure gives both the contact shear stress and pressure
distribution at a given times step, and hence the full history of
contact stresses can be obtained by repeating these calculations
over each time steps.
4. Experimental procedure
Martins et al. have already given a full account of the tests
simulated here [22]. For this reason, the micropitting test will only
be briefly summarized, retaining only the aspects relevant to the
ð13Þ present work.
34 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39

The tests were conducted on a back-to-back spur gear test rig An oil sample was collected and subsequently analyzed by
with power recirculation: the well known FZG gear test rig [23]. Direct Reading (DR III) and Analytical (FM III) Ferrography.
The tested gears were FZG type C14 spur gears, from DIN 20  The gears were dismounted from the rig, and cleaned by
MnCr5 carburized steel, lubricated with a highly saturated ester ultrasonic bath.
oil. That oil was studied by Brandão et al. as reference E2 with  The pinion was weighed (weighing precision 71 mg).
regard to full film EHL [21] and with regard to mixed and  The flank surfaces of the gears were visually inspected and
boundary lubrication [24]. photographed.
The fully formulated oil E2, some of whose properties are listed in  The gear tooth flank surface roughness and topography were
Table 1, was based on a biodegradable, highly saturated ester base oil. measured.
The additives used were selected for low toxicity and environmental  The gear were remounted into the testing rig.
compatibility without, however, sacrificing gear performance. A
further characteristic of oil E2 is that a very high viscosity ester oil Additionally, the lubricating oil was replaced with unused oil
(1000 cSt at 40 1C) was mixed into the base ester: the base ester oil at load stage transitions (when transitioning from K3 to K6,
totals 90% of the oil volume and the high viscosity ester, 5%. This is for example). When the interruptions occurred within a load
similar to the use of bright stock in mineral oils. stage, the test proceeded with the same used oil.
The operating conditions and testing programme are summar- Because the number of interruptions of each load stage was
ized in Table 2: the gears were submitted to four load stages: fairly modest, their influence was deemed negligible and no
running-in stage K3 and load stages K6, K8 and K9 of increasing comparative testing without intermediate interruptions was
severity. These were further subdivided into load sub-stages by performed.
additional interruptions that allowed the monitoring of gear
evolution during a load stage. As an example, load stage K3 was
divided into 3 unequal load sub-stages that lasted, respectively, 10, 5. Numerical simulation
30 and 50 thousands of revolutions of the driven gear. Load stage
K9, however, was not subdivided. The numerical simulation proceeded from the application of
At the end of each load sub-stage, the following operations the model of Section 2.
were performed: The properties of the oil used in the test were obtained from
previous measurements, already published by Brandão et al.
 [21,24], where the oil is marked as “E2”. Since the calculations
rely on the elastic half-plane simplification, the only mechanical
properties of the gear material relevant to these calculations are its
Table 1
Oil properties. Young Modulus (210 GPa) and its Poisson Ratio (0.3).
At each interruption of the test, a 6 mm long roughness profile
Chemical content (ppm) was taken from the roughness measurement of the pinion tooth
Zn 0 surface; since the tooth surface is approximately 8.5 mm long,
Ca 0
P 300
each roughness profile was extended to the whole tooth length by
S 5500 the simple expedient of performing a “mirror” operation at each
extremity of the profile, taking care that no spurious discontinu-
Biodegradability and toxicity (standards OECD 101, 202, 301 F)
Ready biodegradability (%) Z 60 ities were introduced. Care was taken to ensure that roughness
Aquatic toxicity with profiles in succeeding measurements were aligned with each
Daphnia EL50 (mg/l) 4 100 other. This was also performed for wheel gear tooth surfaces.
Algae EL50 (mg/l) 4 100 One full meshing cycle could in this way be calculated from first
Density at 15 1C ρ15 (kg/m3) 955 contact to disengagement of the pair of teeth.
Kinematic viscosity at 40 1C ν40 (cSt) 114.5 The active zone of the pinion tooth surface was discretized at
Kinematic viscosity at 100 1C ν100 (cSt)
intervals of 1 μm.
17.0
Viscosity index VI 162
A difficulty in applying Archard0 s wear law is in the definition
of the value of the wear coefficient κ. There is little agreement in
the literature about the value to be used in cases of lubricated
Table 2 contact, with authors using wear coefficients ranging from 10  18
Micropitting testing programme (rotational speeds are constant across load stages:
[5] to 10  12 [9].
2250 RPM for the pinion and 1500 RPM for the wheel).
The issue was sidestepped in the present case because we are
Load Oil Contact Hertzian Load kcycles mainly interested in the distribution of volume loss along the
stage temperature load (N) in driven profile more than in the rigorous prediction of the volume loss.
(1C) gear
Since the mass of the pinion was measured after each interruption
Pressure at Half-width at sub-
pitch point pitch point stage of the test, the loss of mass Ml during each sub-stage is also
(MPa) (μm) known. If it is accepted that the density ρ ¼ 7850 kg=m3 of the
gear steel remains constant during the tests, the volume loss ΔV is
K3 80 851 514 75.0 K3-1 10 easily computed:
K3-2 30
K3-3 50 ΔV ¼ Ml =ρ ð16Þ
K6 90 2924 953 139.0 K6-1 100 On the other hand, Eq. (6) gives us a relation between κ and
K6-2 400
K6-3 940
ΔV which can be written, after appropriate manipulation of the
expressions:
K8 90 5073 1256 183.1 K8-1 100
K8-2 400 Ml
κ¼ R tE ð17Þ
K8-3 940 ρN turns bZ 1 tA F N ðtÞjU 2 ðtÞ  U 1 ðtÞj dt:
K9 90 6373 1408 205.2 K9-1 1440
The right-hand side of the expression can be computed
 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39
analytically before any simulation has taken place, which means
that an estimate of κ becomes available at the beginning of the
simulation.
The method is used for the simulation of load stage K9 as an
example of the method and to render the explanation clearer.
By weighing of the pinion, it was determined that it had lost
between 19 and 21 mg in the course of load stage K9. Assuming
that all of the mass loss can be attributed to wear, the wear coefficient
is obtained from Eq. (17), so that 4:36  10  18 o κ o4:82
10  18 m2 =N.
Two wear simulations are then performed: one for the lower
bound of κ and another for the upper bound. At the close of the
simulation, the wear depth along the tooth flank surface has been
determined, as shown in Fig. 4.
Notice how a basic wear depth curve serves as baseline for
peaks of wear. The base curve corresponds to the EHL (smooth)
portion of the contact pressure and the wear peaks to the pressure
spikes of the boundary lubrication part, coinciding with strong
interactions between roughness features on the surface of the
pinion and wheel tooth. Interestingly, Osman and Velex [11], who
performed similar simulations, except for omitting altogether the
influence of roughness and adding the influence of dynamic loads,
obtained wear depth curves whose shape corresponds to that of
the baseline curve in Fig. 4.
The roughness profile of the pinion tooth was measured
immediately before load stage K9. It is hence possible to predict
the final profile by subtracting the wear depth distribution from
the initial roughness profile. Since the roughness profile was also
measured at the end of load stage K9, it is possible to compare the
prediction to the actual measurement. This is illustrated in Fig. 5,
where three roughness profiles are plotted against the coordinate
x on the surface of the pinion tooth: the black profile is the
roughness profile at the beginning of load stage K9; the blue
profile is the roughness profile at the end of load stage K9; and the
red profile is the prediction of final roughness profile.
6. Simulation results
The process explained in the previous section for load stage K9
was applied to each load stage. Only a subset of the simulation
results is presented here, but the remaining simulations showed
similar results that support the arguments presented here.
Fig. 6 contains four sub-figures, each corresponding to a
different simulation:
Fig. 4. Depth of wear along a pinion tooth flank during load stage K9.
Fig. 5. Roughness profiles of load stage K9: measured initial roughness profile (black), measured final roughness profile (blue) and predicted final roughness profile (red).
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
35
 Fig. 6(a) shows the prediction of wear depth at the end of load
sub-stage K3-3 using as a departure point the roughness at the
beginning of load sub-stage K3-1 and the corresponding
pressure distribution history.
 Fig. 6(b) shows the prediction of wear depth at the end of load
sub-stage K6-3 using as a departure point the roughness at the
beginning of load sub-stage K6-1.
 Fig. 6(c) shows the prediction of wear depth at the end of load
sub-stage K8-3 using as a departure point the roughness at the
beginning of load sub-stage K8-1.
 Fig. 6(d) shows the prediction of wear depth at the end of load
stage K9 using as a departure point the roughness at the end of
load stage K9.
Similarly, Fig. 7 contains four sub-figures:
 Fig. 7(a) shows in red the prediction of the roughness profile at
the end of load sub-stage K3-3 from the measured roughness
profile at the beginning of load sub-stage K3-1, shown in black,
and compares it to the measured roughness profile at the end
of load sub-stage K3-3, shown in blue.
 Fig. 7(b) shows in red the prediction of the roughness profile at
the end of load sub-stage K6-3 from the measured roughness
profile at the beginning of load sub-stage K6-1, shown in black,
and compares it to the measured roughness profile at the end
of load sub-stage K6-3, shown in blue.
 Fig. 7(c) shows in red the prediction of the roughness profile at
the end of load sub-stage K8-3 from the measured roughness
profile at the beginning of load sub-stage K8-1, shown in black,
and compares it to the measured roughness profile at the end
of load sub-stage K8-3, shown in blue.
 Fig. 7(d) shows in red the prediction of the roughness profile at
the end of load stage K9 from the measured roughness profile
at the end of load stage K9, shown in black, and compares it to
the measured roughness profile at the end of load stage K9,
shown in blue.
Table 3 compiles mass loss and wear coefficient data for the
simulation cases corresponding to Figs. 6 and 7. As an example, the
first line corresponds to the simulation of the case pictured in
Fig. 7(a), running-in load stage K3 in its entirety, using a mass loss
corresponding to the lowest boundary to the weighing precision.
The second column gives the mass loss for the whole tooth flank
surface in mg. The third column gives the mass loss per unit of
tooth surface in 10  3 mg=mm2 averaged over the whole tooth
36 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39

Fig. 6. Depth of wear along a pinion tooth flank: (a) from beginning of K3-1 to end of K3-3; (b) from beginning of K6-1 to end of K6-3; (c) from beginning of K8-1 to end of
K8-3; and (d) from beginning of K9 to end of K9.

Fig. 7. Variation of roughness profile of a pinion tooth flank: (a) from beginning of K3-1 to end of K3-3; (b) from beginning of K6-1 to end of K6-3; (c) from beginning of K8-1
to end of K8-3; and (d) from beginning of K9 to end of K9. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39 37

surface. The fourth column gives the mass loss per unit of tooth
surface in 10  3 mg=mm2 averaged over the portion of the tooth
surface situated between the dedendum and the pitch line. The
fifth column gives the mass loss per unit of tooth surface in
10  3 mg=mm2 averaged over the portion of the tooth surface
situated between the addendum and the pitch line. The sixth
column gives the wear coefficient κ computed from Eq. (17).
The second line of the table gives the same information for load
stage K3 but using the upper boundary to the weighing precision.
Subsequent lines repeat this pattern for load stages K6, K8 and K9.
Table 3
Mass loss and wear coefficient.
In a similar way, Table 4 gives information on the evolution of
the roughness of a pinion tooth profile for simulations of complete
load stages by listing the roughness parameters RZdin, Ra and Rq.
The first line gives roughness parameters of the roughness profile
measured at the beginning of load stage K3, which corresponds to
the beginning of load sub-stage K3-1. The second line corresponds
to the roughness profile measured at the end of load stage K3,
which is also the end of load sub-stage K3-3. The third line
corresponds to the prediction of the roughness profile at the end
of K3 using the lower bound of the mass loss range. The fourth line
corresponds to the prediction of the roughness profile at the end
of K3 using the upper bound of the mass loss range. Subsequent
lines follow the same pattern, but applied to load stages K6, K8
and K9.

Load sub-stage Mass loss (mg) Mass loss rate κ

10  3 mg=mm2 10  18 m2 =N
7. Discussion of the wear simulation results
tot bpp app
Throughout this work, the part that plastic deformation has
K3 predicted-low 3 1.66 2.53 1.24 82.5 taken in shaping the gear tooth surface profiles has been dis-
K3 predicted-high 5 2.77 4.21 2.07 137 regarded. This may seem untenable since the elastic calculations
K6 predicted-low 13 7.18 10.9 5.38 6.50 performed here give contact pressures that sometimes reach
K6 predicted-high 15 8.28 12.6 6.21 7.50 values so high as 7 GPa. However, there are reasons to believe
K8 predicted-low 10 5.50 8.33 4.14 2.88 that little of the profile changes result from plastic deformation in
K8 predicted-high 12 6.60 10.0 4.96 3.46 the present case.
K9 predicted-low 19 10.4 15.8 7.85 4.36 The surface hardness of the case hardened gears is approxi-
K9 predicted-high 21 11.5 17.5 8.68 4.82 mately 700 HV. According to Pavlina and Van Tyne [25], yield
strength can be evaluated from hardness using the formula:
sY ðMPaÞ ¼  90:7 þ 2:876 HV ¼ 1920 MPa ð18Þ
Table 4
The Von Mises yield stress can then be estimated as k ¼
Roughness.
0.577  1920 ¼1100 MPa.
Load sub-stage RZdin (μm) Ra (μm) Rq (μm) Johnson [26] studied surfaces submitted to a moving Hertzian
stress distribution in linear contact. He found that the surface
K3 initial 7.65 1.60 1.98
remained elastic for maximum Hertzian pressures p0 o 3k; and
K3 final 6.57 1.38 1.73
K3 predicted-low 7.40 1.55 1.90
that the surface would shakedown elastically for 3k o p0 o 4k. For
K3 predicted-high 7.49 1.51 1.87 the current case, the range of elastic shakedown is estimated as
3:3 GPa o p0 o 4:4 GPa.
K6 initial 6.57 1.38 1.73
K6 final 7.03 1.79 2.24 If we accept that a pressure spike acts more or less like a very
K6 predicted-low 6.47 1.44 1.87 narrow, linear Hertzian pressure distribution over a very small part
K6 predicted-high 6.67 1.48 1.92 of the surface, it is seen that only pressure spikes above 3.3 GPa
K8 initial 7.03 1.79 2.24 should cause any plastic deformation. Moreover, the influence of
K8 final 6.06 2.93 3.24 the pressure spike should only extend to a depth approximately
K8 predicted-low 6.69 2.15 2.56 equal to its width.
K8 predicted-high 6.66 2.23 2.63
Pressure spikes above the 3.3 GPa limit are indeed calculated
K9 initial 6.06 2.93 3.24 in some instances, although they are not very widespread. An
K9 final 4.56 4.06 4.20
example of an instantaneous contact pressure distribution calcu-
K9 predicted-low 5.65 3.79 4.02
K9 predicted-high 5.64 3.89 4.11 lated for load stage K9 in a particularly battered area of the surface
is shown in Fig. 8. The whole contact pressure distribution is

Fig. 8. (a) Snapshot of the contact pressure distribution; and (b) detail of the preceding pressure distribution around its highest pressure peak.
38 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39
shown in Fig. 8(a) and a portion of the pressure distribution
around the highest peak is shown in Fig. 8(b) with a different
horizontal scale. The pressure peaks appear jagged because their
width is only a few micrometers and the distance between two
discretization grid nodes is 1 μm. In particular, the highest
pressure peak, which reaches 7 GPa, only has a width of approxi-
mately 5 μm. Its influence on the stress fields therefore only
extends to a depth of 5 μm. Remember that this particular
pressure spike occurs only on this particular spot and for a limited
time: an instant after the time at which this “snapshot” is taken,
the pressure distribution will have changed because the opposing
roughness features that came together to create the pressure spike
will have separated again.
Fig. 7 shows that the variation in tooth profile is in many cases
greater than 1 μm in depth. It is difficult to believe that the
occasional pressure peaks above 3.3 GPa could account exclusively
for this change. Taking the example of Fig. 8(b), this would mean
that accumulated residual elastic deformation and plastic defor-
mation causing 1 μm of surface displacement would have to
develop over 5 μm of depth.
Popescu et al. [27] measured the residual indentation left by a
6.35 mm ceramic ball pressed repeatedly against a hardened SAE
52100 plate. The circular Hertzian pressure distribution that
resulted reached a maximum of 5.1 GPa. Under these conditions,
the residual indentation left was 0:7 μm. This loading is more
severe than the 7 GPa of Fig. 8(b) pressure spike with regard to
plasticity: the pressure above the elastic limit is applied on a much
larger area, which results in a more widespread and deeper
volume affected by plastic deformation. However, less than 1 μm
of residual indentation is left after unloading.
Notice that plastic deformation is acting concurrently to wear
damage in the experiment studied here: the same material which
could deform plastically is being removed by wear. All of this gives
some assurance that, while there must certainly have been some
plastic deformation caused by high contact pressures, its influence
on the evolution of the profiles in the present test must be small
when compared to that of wear. However, this points to an
interesting subject for future research.
It could also be argued that the high pressure spikes might in
some instances also lead to roughness cavitation. The present
mixed lubrication model is quite incapable of reproducing this
phenomenon. However, this is not seen as a serious problem
because the wear model employed here is a phenomenological
model which accommodates many basic types of wear mechan-
ism, including erosion by cavitation.
It is useful at this point to discuss briefly the measured rough-
ness profiles. The profiles were measured with a stylus profil-
ometer and it must be understood that the pinion and wheel were
positioned manually with regard to the measurement device, and
that they were measured at the end of each load sub-stage.
Consequently, the orientation and position of the measured device
with regard to the profilometer changed from measurement to
measurement. This is significant because a gear tooth surface has a
large curvature that must be filtered out by means of a Gaussian
filter: if the tooth is not measured in rigorously the same way,
profiles taken from successive measurements will appear slightly
deformed versions of the previous one. Additionally, the axial
position of the profile cannot be guaranteed, so that some slight
variation of the roughness must be expected.
Another aspect that accrues from the uncertainty in the
positioning of the roughness profiles is that it is nearly impossible
to know with certainty the relative position of the roughness
profiles on a pair of tooth which will mesh during the test. A
relative translation of 50 μm may cause the pressure history to be
significantly different, since some roughness features will appear
to collide when they did not, while others that did collide may
have appeared to be safely separated in the simulation. This means
that it would be excessively optimistic to expect the predicted
roughness profiles to coincide precisely with measurements.
However, one would expect the overall shape of the predicted
roughness profile to be similar to that of the measured one.
With that in mind, there seems to be remarkable agreement
between the predicted and the measured profiles of Fig. 7. How-
ever, it should also be pointed out that the wear model fails to
predict micropitting, which can be observed in the profiles. As an
example, Fig. 7(b) shows that a micropit appeared near position
x¼ 0.5 mm and another at x ¼  0.5 mm, micropits that the wear
simulation failed to predict.
Fig. 6 show that wear is significantly more severe in the portion
of the tooth surface below the pitch line of the pinion tooth, which
correspond to positive values of the x coordinate, than above it.
This is in agreement with observed facts.
In Table 3, it can be observed that the values of the wear
coefficient κ must vary significantly if the predicted mass loss is to
fit the measured mass loss. It is not certain that κ must remain
constant under varying operating conditions; indeed, considering
the range of values reported in the literature, this seems unlikely.
In addition, normal wear must not account for the totality of mass
loss: there must be a balance between the predictions of the wear
model and those of the micropitting model. In any case, it is
obvious that similar wear coefficients are computed for load stages
K6, K8 and K9; while the wear coefficient computed for the
running-in load stage K3 is much bigger. This shows the need
for a running-in stage.
Another interesting aspect is that the roughness parameters of
Table 4 seem to fail to capture similarities that become evident
when observing graphical representation of the profiles. A case in
point is that of Fig. 7(d), where there is remarkable similarity
between prediction and measurement of the roughness profile, a
similarity that is not reflected in the roughness parameters of the
corresponding four last lines of Table 4.
At this point, it is possible to return to the issue mentioned in
the introduction to the present work. Brandão et al. presented a
simulation of surface rolling contact fatigue (RCF) of this same
micropitting test [13], assuming that the mass lost by the pinion
would correspond to the removal of the gear material affected by
surface RCF. The evolution of the pinion tooth flank surface profile
could then be estimated by removing the affected areas. Fig. 9
shows partially the results of this approach: the roughness profile
evolution of a small portion of the pinion tooth profile near the
root of the tooth. It was commented [13] that the roughness
evolution predicted by RCF simulation alone is unlike the one
Fig. 9. Roughness profile evolution predicted by a surface rolling contact fatigue
simulation.
 J.A. Brandão et al. / Wear 311 (2014) 31–39
observed experimentally, it was then hypothesized that wear
might explain the discrepancy.
Contrasting Fig. 9 with Fig. 7(b), both dealing with the simula-
tion of the same load stage K6, it is obvious that the RCF
simulation seems to predict too many micropits, giving rise to an
unrealistic evolution of the surface profile; while, on the other
hand, the wear simulation produces a mostly correct overall
evolution of the roughness profile without, however, being cap-
able of predicting micropits.
This seems to support the hypothesis that most mass loss (and
roughness alteration) is caused by mild wear, but a wear model
alone is not capable of accounting for the appearance of micropits:
an integration of RCF simulation and wear simulation must be the
way to correctly predict surface evolution.
8. Conclusion
A simulation of wear in a real micropitting test was performed.
The test was composed of four load stages of increasing load, the
first three of which were also periodically interrupted to monitor
the gear tooth flank surfaces and lubricating oil alterations during
load stages, thus dividing each load stage into sub-stages.
The meshing of one pinion tooth flank with one wheel tooth
flank was simulated for each load sub-stage. The simulation
consisted in applying a model that includes a mixed film lubrica-
tion model and in using a differential form of Archard0 s wear law.
The analysis of the load sub-stages has shown that much of the
mass loss in the test could be attributed to wear, but that a fatigue
model is still needed to account for the micropits, which did not
appear in the simulation. Hence, it is necessary to use both a wear
and a fatigue model to account fully for the alterations of a pinion
tooth profile during a micropitting test.
While the simulation of a micropitting test has given valuable
insights into the influence of wear on tooth profile alterations,
more tests would be needed to ascertain the validity of the present
wear model, tests with better measurement precision, particularly
in weighing the lost mass.
Acknowledgments
The present work is funded by the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund (ERDF) through the ‘COMPETE – Competitive Factors
Operational Program’ and by Portuguese Government Funds
through ‘FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia’ as part of
 project ‘High efficiency gears and lubricants for wind mill
planetary gearboxes’, reference number ‘PTDC/EME-PME/
100808/2008’, for the experimental work;
 project ‘Projecto Estratégico – LA 22 – 2011–2012’, reference
number ‘Pest-OE/EME/LA0022/2011’, for the rolling contact
fatigue simulation;
 project ‘Gear transmissions of high tribological efficiency and
reliability’, reference number ‘EXCL/EMS-PRO/0103/2012’, for
the wear simulation.
References
[1] A. Flodin, S. Andersson, Simulation of mild wear in spur gears, Wear 207 (1)
(1997) 16–23.
39
[2] J. Archard, Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces, J. Appl. Phys. 24 (8) (1953)
981–988.
[3] A. Flodin, S. Andersson, Simulation of mild wear in helical gears, Wear 241 (2)
(2000) 123–128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(00)00384-7.
[4] J.H. Kuang, A.D. Lin, The effect of tooth wear on the vibration spectrum of a
spur gear pair, J. Vib. Acoust. 123 (3) (2001) 311–317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.1379371.
[5] J. Brauer, S. Andersson, Simulation of wear in gears with flank interference a
mixed fe and analytical approach, Wear 254 (11) (2003) 1216–1232.
[6] J. Wojnarowski, V. Onishchenko, Tooth wear effects on spur gear dynamics,
Mech. Mach. Theory 38 (2) (2003) 161–178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0094-114X(02)00091-5.
[7] P. Bajpai, A. Kahraman, N.E. Anderson, A surface wear prediction methodology
for parallel-axis gear pairs, J. Tribol. 126 (3) (2004) 597–605 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1115/1.1691433.
[8] A. Kahraman, P. Bajpai, N.E. Anderson, Influence of tooth profile deviations on
helical gear wear, J. Mech. Des. 127 (4) (2005) 656–663 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1115/1.1899688.
[9] H. Ding, A. Kahraman, Interactions between nonlinear spur gear dynamics and
surface wear, J. Sound Vib. 307 (3–5) (2007) 662–679 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jsv.2007.06.030.
[10] V. Onishchenko, Tooth wear modeling and prognostication parameters of
engagement of spur gear power transmissions, Mech. Mach. Theory 43 (12)
(2008) 1639–1664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.12.005.
[11] T. Osman, P. Velex, Static and dynamic simulations of mild abrasive wear in
wide-faced solid spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 45 (6) (2010)
911–924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2010.01.003.
[12] D. Park, M. Kolivand, A. Kahraman, Prediction of surface wear of hypoid gears
using a semi-analytical contact model, Mech. Mach. Theory 52 (0) (2012)
180–194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.01.019.
[13] J. Brandão, R. Martins, J. Seabra, M. Castro, Surface damage prediction during
an FZG gear micropitting test, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., vol. 226 (12) (2012) 1051–1073. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1350650112461879.
[14] G.E. Morales-Espejel, V. Brizmer, Micropitting modelling in rolling sliding
contacts: application to rolling bearings, Tribol. Trans. 54 (4) (2011) 625–643
arxiv:www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10402004.2011.587633, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402004.2011.587633.
[15] H.A. Spikes, Mixed lubrication an overview, Lubr. Sci. 9 (3) (1997) 221–253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ls.3010090302.
[16] P. Vergne, Super low traction under EHD and mixed lubrication regimes, in:
A. Erdemir, J.-M. Martin (Eds.), Superlubricity, Elsevier BV, 2007, pp. 429–445.
[17] T.E. Tallian, On competing failure modes in rolling contact, ASLE Trans. 10 (4)
(1967) 418–439.
[18] D. Dowson, G.R. Higginson, A numerical solution to the elastohydrodynamic
problem, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 1 (1959) 6–15.
[19] R. Gohar, Elastohydrodynamics, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1988.
[20] I.A. Polonsky, L.M. Keer, A numerical method for solving rough contact
problems based on the multi-level multi-summation and conjugate gradient
techniques, Wear 231 (2) (1999) 206–219.
[21] J.A. Brandão, M. Meheux, J.H.O. Seabra, F. Ville, M.J.D. Castro, Traction curves
and rheological parameters of fully formulated gear oils, in: Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., vol. 225 (7) (2011)
577–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350650111405111.
[22] R. Martins, C. Locatelli, J. Seabra, Evolution of tooth flank roughness during
gear micropitting tests, Ind. Lubr. Tribol. 63 (1) (2011) 34–45 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/00368791111101821.
[23] H. Winter, K. Michaelis, FZG gear test rig—description and possibilities, in:
Coordinate European Council Second International Symposium on the Perfor-
mance Evaluation of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants, 1985.
[24] J.A. Brandão, M. Meheux, F. Ville, J.H. Seabra, J. Castro, Comparative overview
of five gear oils in mixed and boundary film lubrication, Tribol. Int. 47 (0)
(2012) 50–61 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2011.10.007.
[25] E. Pavlina, C. Van Tyne, Correlation of yield strength and tensile strength with
hardness for steels, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 17 (6) (2008) 888–893.
[26] K. Johnson, A shakedown limit in rolling contact, in: Proceedings of the Fourth
National Congress of Applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Berkeley, California, 1962, pp. 971–975.
[27] G. Popescu, G.E. Morales-Espejel, B. Wemekamp, A. Gabelli, An engineering
model for three-dimensional elastic-plastic rolling contact analyses, Tribol.
Trans. 49 (3) (2006) 387–399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05698190600678739.