Authors Accepted Manuscript

Applications of dry film lubricants for polymer gears K.D. Dearn, T.J. Hoskins, D.G. Petrov, S.C. Reynolds, R. Banks

www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

PII: DOI: Reference:

S0043-1648(12)00341-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.11.003 WEA100358

To appear in:

Wear

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

23 April 2012 11 September 2012 1 November 2012

Cite this article as: K.D. Dearn, T.J. Hoskins, D.G. Petrov, S.C. Reynolds and R. Banks, Applications of dry film lubricants for polymer gears, Wear, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.wear.2012.11.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Applicationsofdryfilmlubricantsforpolymergears
K.D.Dearna*1,T.J.Hoskinsb,D.G.Petrovc,S.C.ReynoldsbandR.Banksd
a b c

SchoolofMechanicalEngineering,UniversityofBirmingham,Edgbaston,Birmingham,B152TT,UK

SchoolofMetallurgyandMaterialsUniversityofBirmingham,Edgbaston,Birmingham,B152TT,UK
d

DepartmentofMechanicalandInstrumentEngineeringTechnicalUniversityofSofiaPlovdivbranch,Plovdiv4000,Bulgaria IndestructiblePaintLimited1925PentosDrive,Sparkhill,BirminghamB113TA,UK

Abstract
Polymergearscanberunwithoutlubrication,howeverhighrunningtemperatures,drivenbyhighcontact friction, mean that the operating life of these gears, especially in medium to high power transmission applications,tendstobelowandlimitedbywear.Thispaperdescribesanattempttocontrolfrictionandwear by reducing the running temperatures by using a series of solid lubricant coatings deposited on flanks of the polymergearteeth.Fourpotentialcoatingswereselected,viz.molybdenumdisulphide(MoS2),graphiteflake, boron nitride (hexagonal) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Each coating was used with both reinforced andunreinforcedpolyetheretherketone(PEEK)andunreinforcedpolyamide(PA).Tests werecarriedouton coatedcoated, coatedsteel and coated gears running against uncoated gears. Wear rates (in the form of weight loss) and running temperatures were recorded. Results indicate that PTFE provided the greatest reductioninfrictionalforcesandthatfailuremechanismswerepredominatelydelaminationofthecoatingsand abrasivewear.
Keywords:Polymers;solidlubricant;gears;solidlubricantcoating;weartesting;surfaceanalysis

1.0 Introduction Developments in materials and gear technology have resulted in the increasing use of polymers in machine elements. Their low cost (when injection moulded), light weight, resilience and their ability tooperate under dry, unlubricated conditions all provide potential benefits. Polymer gears, when used in moderate power transmission applications without lubrication, are required to have potentially conflicting tribological (low friction,highresistancetowear)andmechanicalproperties(toothstiffness,flexuralstrength).Thissituationis furthercomplicatedbythecomplexloadingandcontactphenomenathatchangethroughoutthemeshingcycle. Asthetransmissiblepowerlevelsincrease,problemsofsurfacetemperaturesariseduetothefrictionallosses betweenmatinggearteeth[1,2]. Historically,thelowmodulusofpolymerswasconsideredtobedesirablesincebothnoiseandcontactforces were reduced during motion. However, recent research on polymer gear noise has shown that friction also
*Correspondingauthor.DrKDDearnTel.:+441214144190;fax:+441214143958. Emailaddress:k.d.dearn@bham.ac.uk

playsaveryimportantroleinnoisegenerationandwear[34].Inadditiontothis,themodulusofamaterial cansignificantlyalterthepathofcontactbetweengearteeth,promotingprematureandextendedcontact[5]. Inlightofthis,effortshavebeenmadetoincreasethemodulusofpolymersbyfibrereinforcement. The inclusion of reinforcing fillers can alter the wear mechanism. Typically, the exposure of a reinforcing element results in abrasive wear as the filler damages the matrix of composite counterface. Hooke et al. investigatedtheeffectofglassfibrereinforcementonthewearpropertiesofpolyamidediscs(andgears)[2].It wasfoundthatthereinforcementwasdispersedwithinthematrixandoncethematrixlayerwasremoved,they observedthatthemostdominantformofwearwasabrasion.In anattempttobalancerequiredtribological and mechanical properties, Cropper [6] moulded an unreinforced frictional layer was moulded around an undersized reinforced gear, producing a dual phase gear. Extensive testing indicated that frictional wear was stillanissueandaggressiveabrasivewearoftheoutertribologicallayermeantthatthelifeexpectancyofthese gearswaslow. Thetemperaturedependenceofpolymergearsiswelldocumented[1,78].Currently,theunderstandingand characterisation of many types of gear failure mechanisms are based on a materials response to the combination of temperature and load applied to the system. There have been many attempts to reduce temperaturesinpolymergearsbyreducingsurfacefriction,withvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Theseincludethe use of PTFE filled polymer composites to reduce temperature and wear; although the high filler content required reduced the mechanical properties of the gears [910]. Tooth geometry has also been modified to reducethespecificlineloadscarriedbyindividualteeth(increasingthecontactareabetweenteeth),andbythe introductionofcoolingholesthroughoutthegearbody[7,11].Thesemodificationsarethoughttoreducethe fatigueandwearresistanceofindividualteeth. Wearaccountsforthemajorityofpolymergearfailuresandhasbeenwidelyreported[10,1215].Raoetal. showedthatcontrollingthefrictiongeneratedatthemeshingpointhasapositiveeffectonthewearresistance of polymer gears [10]. All authors suggest that reducing flash temperatures reduces gear wear. The wear of polymersissignificantlydifferenttothatofmetals;theyhavemuchlowermodulusvalues,lowerstrengthsand melting points. In addition, a lower thermal conductivity in polymers often means that thermal effects are significantasnotedinthepreviousparagraph. The importance of friction and running temperatures for polymer gears is highlighted as well as the many techniques employed to control these parameters. However, very little research has been conducted on modifyingthetoothflankssurfaces,inparticulartheapplicationofdryfilmlubricantstoreducebyfrictionand temperature. There is currently very little literature covering solid lubricant coatings on polymer substrates. Kosydar et al. investigated the wear of boron nitride layers on a polyurethane substrate in comparison with bothanuncoatedversionandagraphiteembeddedversion[16].Pinondiscweartestsshowedthattheboron nitridecoatingseffectivelydecreasedthecoefficientoffrictionofthepolymeruptofourtimescomparedwith thatforuncoatedpolyurethane andpolyurethane coatedwithgraphite.However,therewasnodiscussionof thewearmechanismsinvolvedinthisinvestigation. Studies on hard coatings deposited onto soft substrates can provide an insight into possible material interactionswhencoatedsystemsaresubjectedtoamechanicalload.Holmbergetal.investigatedthetribology ofthincoatings[17].Holmbergetal.concludedthatahardcoating,whendepositedontoasoftersubstrate, can decrease friction and wear by preventing ploughing. However, it was also found that thin coatings are susceptible to fracture caused by substrate deformation despite typically exhibiting residual compressive

stresses. Samur et al. found that the wear resistance of ceramic coatings on a polymer substrate, when subjectedtoareciprocatingAl2O310mmdiameterball,increasedwithincreasinghardness[18]. Finally,J.Nozawaetal.lookedatthetribologicalpropertiesofpolymersheetsadheredtosteelgearteeth.They foundthatthetribologicalpropertieswereimprovedandnoisewasreduced,althoughthetestswerelimitedby theweakadhesionofthepolymersheetstothesteelgear[19].Thus,developmentofapolymergearwitha solidlubricantcoatingcouldpotentiallyreducethefrictionallosses,interfacialtemperaturesandultimatelythe wearofpolymergearteeth. Thispaperthereforedescribesanattempttocontrolthetribologicalpropertiesofdryrunningpolymergears through the application of dry film lubricants applied directly to the gear tooth flanks. The mechanical characteristics ought to be maintained by the applications of the coatings, as well as improving power transmissionlevelsincomparisonwithotherformsoffrictionalcontrolandwithuncoatedgears. 2.0 MaterialandMethods 2.1 Gearmaterialsandgeometry Testswereconductedoninjectionmoulded polymergearswith twoseparategeometries,shown in Figure 1. ThefirstgeargeometryistheBirminghamstandardemployinga20pressureangleandisdescribedmorefully in [3], whilst the second employs a 30 pressure angle [3]. The mechanical properties of the polymer gear materialsusedarelistedinTable1,thematerialswere: UnreinforcedPolyamide(PA)(gearswitha20degreepressureangle) UnreinforcedPolyetheretherketone(PEEK450G)(gearswitha30degreepressureangle) Carbon fibre reinforced PEEK 450CA30 (containing 30 wt% carbon fibre and gears with a 30 degree pressureangle) 2.2 Specificationofcoatings Four industrially available coatings were selected, molybdenum disulphide, graphite flake, boron nitride (hexagonal)andPTFEpowder.ThecompositionofeachdryfilmlubricantisshowninTable2.Notethatthe percentage of the dry film lubricant per coating is a theoretical estimate based on the densities of the raw materialsforeachcoating.

To ensure that the coatings were sufficiently adhered to the polymer, cross hatch cuts of a predetermined depthweremadeonthecoating.ISOcertifiedadhesivetapes werethenusedtotestadhesionquality.Once adhesionqualityhadbeenassessed,thetoothflankswerepreparedusingaluminiumoxidegrit.Thecoatings were then applied using a conventional airatomizing spray gun at an ambient temperature of 1618oC. The curingschedulewasasfollowsandisaccordingtoanempiricalscheduledevelopedatIndestructiblePaintLtd: 10minutesflashoffat1618oCfollowingspraying 1hourat190oCinanaircirculatingoven cooledanddemaskedpriortovisualinspectionforcontaminantsinthedryfilm Toestablishthecoatingthickness,testgearsamplesweremountedinacoldsetresinandmeasuredusinga microscope.VariationincoatingthicknesswasobservedalongtheflankofthegearteethasshowninFigure2. Table3showsthecoatingthicknessforeachmaterial.

Itcanbeseenthatthecoatingdepositionmethodresultedinavariationinthethicknessofthecoatingfrom roottotip,thecoatingsbeingthickeratthetip.Scanningelectronmicroscopywasusedtofurtherexaminethe deposited coatings (Figure 3). The topography of the various DFL coatings were visually different and surface characteristicssuchascracksandporositycanbeidentified.Finally,theaveragesurfaceroughnessofcoated geartoothflankswasmeasuredusinganopticalinterferometer[Table4]. 2.3 ExperimentalMethods Atestprocedurehasbeendevelopedtoconsidertheinfluenceofmeshingconditionsontheperformanceof coatedpolymergears.Testswereconductedat1500revmin1withanappliedloadof7Nm.Coatedtestgears ofthesamegeometrywereruninmeshagainstasimilarlycoatedgearandcomparedtobenchmarkuncoated gears. If aparticularDFLcoatingprovedsuccessfulinreducing wearandrunningtemperatures,thenfurther permutations of the successful coating combinations were conducted. These included uncoated/uncoated, uncoatedsteel,coated/uncoated,coated/steelandcoated/coatedgearmeshesandallowedtheefficacyofthe coatingtobefullyassessed. Experiments were conducted on a power recirculating, closed loop test rig developed specifically for testing polymer gears (Figure 4) and as described in Hoskins et al. [3]. Temperatures were measured using non contacting,Ktype,infraredthermocouples.Three ofthesethermocouplesareshown inFigure4adjacentto thetestgears;thecentreprobebeingusedtomeasurethetemperatureatthepitchpointofthegears. It has not been possible to measure the coefficient of friction between the meshing gears directly using the experimentalrigselectedforthisstudy.However,theeffectivenessoftheselectedDFLsinreducingfrictional lossescouldbeinferredfrommeasuredrunningtemperatures. Temperaturedominatesallaspectsofplasticgearperformanceandthuslimitstheiroperationalrange.Ithasa detrimental effect on mechanical material properties and has an influence on all of the major polymer gear failuremodes.Heatisgeneratedduringthemeshingofpolymergearteeththroughacomplexcombinationof mechanisms: Hysteresisloses,generatedasaresultofviscoelasticdeformationandmainlyconvertedintoheat. Frictionalheating,causedbythekinematicsofthemeshingcycle(i.e.thecombinedrollingandsliding). Heatconductedthroughdriveshaftsofthegears. Ambientradiation. In most applications in which polymer gears are used, ambient radiation and conduction through the drive shafts represents a negligible contribution to overall heat generation and can be all but eliminated through carefuldesignofapplication. Frictionalheatinghasbeenshowntobebyfarthemostdominantmechanismofheatgeneration.Koffietal. firstmodelledthecomponentsofheatgenerationperunitfacewidthforapolyamide6/6gear[20].Figure5 shows the results of the model for both frictional and hysteretic heating. It predicts that heat generated by hysteresiswillbemuchlowercomparedwiththatgeneratedfromfriction.Thisisshowntobethecaseexcept forpurerolling(i.e.atthepitchpointofthegears,whereslidingvelocitiesarezero)andduringtoothcontact outside the line of action where tooth deformation is increased [5]. Both Hooke et al. and Kukureka et al. confirm this for polyamide roll/slide twin disc tests [2, 15]. Thus it can be assumed for the experiments describedinthispaperthatfrictionalheatingismuchgreaterthanothermechanismsofheatgenerationinthe

test gears. With the constant load, rotational speed and laboratory conditions, differences in measured temperaturesareattributedtoachangeintheslidingfrictionbetweenthemeshingtoothflanks. Wearofthetestgearswasmeasuredbymasslossusingtwopreciseanalyticalbalances.Todothisthemeshing gearswerestoppedperiodically,(notingtheirrelativepositions),thenremovedandafterweighingtheywere replaced as closely aspossible to the originalpositions. Thiswas done to minimisethe lossof atransferfilm whilst weighing and to minimise the disruption to the meshing action of the individual teeth. To account for changesinmoisturecontentofthetestgears,themassofacontrolgear,mountedonthepivotblockassembly duringrunning,wasmeasuredatthesametimeasthetestgears.Wearrate(asapercentagemassloss,R%) wascalculatedusingequation1.

Equation1

WhereP0istheoriginalmassofthegear,Piisthecurrentgearmass,MiisthecurrentcontrolgearmassandMo is the original mass of the control gear. Alternative methods of measuring wear, such as by measuring the displacementoftheloadingarm,havebeenshowntobeinaccurate[21]. 3.0 Resultsanddiscussion Table 5 provides hardness values for the three polymeric gear materials tested. In comparison tothe Vickers HardnessvaluesshowninTable2,thepolymersusedinthisstudyareharderthanPTFEyetsofterthatthe3 otherindustriallyavailableDFLcoatings. 3.1 Polyamide Figure 6 shows both the relative weight loss and the mesh temperature against the number of cycles for meshinguncoatedandcoatedpolyamidegearsaswellastwoidentifiableregionsofwearandtemperature.The addition of DFL coatings to the polyamide gear surfaces reduces the measured temperatures by up to 30C comparedtotheuncoatedgears,reducingtherunningtemperaturetobelowtheglasstransitiontemperature ofthematerial(Tg=47C(0.15%H20))[22]. A direct correlation between surface temperature and wear is also evident; the PTFE coating reduces the temperaturebyapproximately30Ccomparedtotheuncoatedgearsduringsteadystateconditions,andalso minimisesthewearoverthesametimeperiod.Inaddition,thegraphiticcoatingprovidesasignificantreduction in surface temperature. Despite that not all coatings reduced the temperature significantly, all four of the coatingsreducedthewearrate(althoughtheimportanceofthismaybelessenedasthecoatingiscompletely removed). The boron nitride coating initially had a significant effect on the wear rate of the gear mesh. However,asseeninFigure6aandobservedonthegears,after1x106cyclesacombinationofdelaminationof the coating and abrasive wear meant that the coating was almost completely removed. This is likely to be a resultofthebrittlenatureofthecoatingincomparisonwiththecompliantsubstrate. The microstructure of the tooth flank of graphite vs. graphite polyamide contact is shown in Figure 7. Wear tracksareclearlyvisibleinthecoating;aresultofabrasionduringthemotionbetweentheslidinggearteeth. The presence of surface cracks (visible in the as processed specimen, Figure 3) is likely to increase the permeability of oxygen moisture into the coating, thereby reducing its strength, coating adhesion and associatedlubricatingperformance.Theabilityofpolyamidestomoistureabsorptioniswelldocumentedinthe

literature [222 Jia et al. showed that an increas in the mo 23]. se oisture (%H2O dramatical reduces th glass O) lly he tra ansitiontemp peraturefort thematerial. Oncethegearsarerunning,thesurfacecrackscan nbeseentoi increase insizeandfreq quencyandfa ailureofthec coatingoccurs swhendelam minationofth hetwosurfacesresultsind dynamic meshing forces andadhesio s onbetween the twocont t tacting surfac Thecom ces. mbinationof forces and adhesion e e T mean that the coatings are removed. This delamination suggests that the interfacial adhesion between the co oatingandthe esubstrateisnotsufficien ntforthedyna amicforcesin nvolved. he ture in polyamide is impe erative in the prevention of pitch line fractures [8 High e e 8]. Th reduction of temperat temperaturesw weregenerat tedbybotha asteelandpo olyamidegearcoatedinb boronnitride. .Duringthem meshing cy ycletemperat tureswelline excessoftheTgof50C(i.e e.~72Cafter r1500cycles) )weremeasu uredcausingt thegear toothtofailby ypitchlinefr racture(Figur re8).PTFEw wasshownto bethemost tsuccessfulc coating,reduc cingthe meshingtempe eraturesandwearforbothsimilaranddissimilarmaterialcontac cts.Afullsum mmaryofthe eresults forPTFEisgive eninTable6.

When mated a W against a mo rigid coun ore nterface it is usually only the polymer that exhibit deformatio For r ts on. thesematerials s,whilstthe steadystate wearrateis sreducedfortheuncoate edpolymerst teelgears,whenthe co oatedpolyamideisrunaga ainstasteelc counterfacet thecombinat tionofincrea asedmeshing gforcesandlo ocalised de eformationof fthepolymer rresultsinan nincreasedwearrate. 3.2 Pol lyetherether rketone(PEE EK) Fig gure9shows stherelative wearandte emperatureagainstthenu umberofcyclesforcoated dPEEK.Itis evident thatthePTFEc coatingreduc cesboththe temperature eandthewe earandafull summaryof theresultsf forPTFE co oatedPEEKge earsisgiven inTable7.H However,othe ercoatingsw werenotable etoinfluence ethegearspo ositively du uringtherunninginperio od,despiteth hecombinatio onoftheincreasedradiusofflankcur rvatureandr reduced co omplianceof thegearmat terialbeinge expectedtoreducetheco ontactstresse es.Neverthele ess,thestead dystate we earratesfora allofthecoat tingsexceptM 2werelo MoS owercompare edwiththose eoftheuncoa atedgears.

gure 10comparesthewe earofthecoa atedunreinfo orcedandcoa atedreinforce edPEEKmate erials.Itcan beseen Fig thatthecoatin ngsontherei inforcedPEEK Kmaterialare enotastribo ologicallyben neficialastho osedeposited donthe nreinforcedm material.Thereforenofur rthertestswe ereconducted.Thetribologicaleffects sofcarbonandglass un reinforcementhavebeenex xtensivelyres searched[2,6 6,12&13].T Therefore,the eeffectivenessofthecoat tingsfor on ependent on them preve n enting reinforcing fibres, in this case carbon fibre from es, reducing frictio will be de be ecomingexpo osedontheg geartoothfla anks.Inthe reinforcedPEEK,thehard dercoatingsw wereinitially yableto su upport the lo oad. As the coatings we broken down and the reinforcing carbonfibre became e ere e es exposed,

abrasivedamageincreased.Thisisshownbytheabrasiontracksthatarevisibleonthecoatinginfigure11.This also shows that the thickness of the coating was dramatically reduced and that delamination of the coating occurredexposingthecarbonfibresinthepolymermatrix.Delaminationwasthemostcommonformoffailure in the coatings deposited on the reinforced material. The performance of the PTFE coating decreased significantlywhenappliedtoareinforcedcompositematerial.Sincethecoatingwassofterthanthesubstrate, thecoatingwasscratchedveryeasily,transferringaproportionofthecoatingtothecounterface.However,a large majority of the coating was lost (i.e. after approximately 1 x 106 cycles, with an increased wear rate beyondthis). 3.3 Discussion Figure12consolidatestheobservedresultsandoutlineshowthecoatinghardnessaffectsthewearandfriction mechanisms.Theeffectsofloading,surfaceroughness,debrisandtheslidingspeedareallincluded. Thethicknessofthecoatingaffectedthewearandfrictionmechanismsinallofthetests.Figure3showedthe variationincoatingthicknessfromtheroottothetipofthegearandsoitisnecessarytoseparatethewearand frictionmechanismsobservedintheseareasofthegearflank. Thespecificloadingofindividualgearteethisprimarilyinfluencedbythegeometryofthegears.Anincreased pressure angle reduces deflection, increasing contact forces. It was observed that the harder coatings when depositedonthe20pressureanglePAgearstendedtofailbydelamination(Figure11).Thisoccurredwhenthe interfacial adhesion between the coating and substrate was exceeded by the stresses induced by tooth deflection.However,withsoftercoatingstheweardebriswasnotalwaysdischargedfromthesystem;instead, it was transferred to the counterface. Sliding speed changed the degree of material transfer from the PTFE coating. At the pitch point, due to the pure rolling motion, the softer coatings are not scratched away, but insteadtransferredtothecounterfaceasshowninFigure12. Oncethecoatingsubstratehadbecomeexposed,thewearofthegearsgenerallyaccelerated.Thiswasmost significantinthereinforcedmaterial.However,theasprocessedsurfaceroughnesswasnotassignificantasthe runningin period which served to remove the outer layers of the coatings. Figure 13 shows an optical interferometer image of the graphite coating on PA. The coating roughness becomes insignificant when comparedwiththedelaminatedareasofthecoating. 4.0 Conclusions Thispaperhasdescribedan attempttoimprovethecontactpropertiesbetweendryrunningmatingpolymer gear teeth using a variety of dry film lubricants. The use of graphite and PTFE coatings reduced the friction, associatedrunningtemperaturesandwearinpolymergears.Theseimprovementscouldpotentiallyleadtoan increaseinthepowertransmissionandgearlifeofthematerials. PTFE provided the most significant improvements in working life with a reduction in running temperature of 30C and a reduction in wear of over 90% during the test duration compared with the uncoated polyamide equivalents.Thereductionofhighlocaltemperaturesinthevicinityofthepitchlinecouldpotentiallyreduce thefrequencyofpitchlinefracture.InthePEEKgearstheeffectivenessofdryfilmlubricantswaslimited,with coatingsdepositedonareinforcedsubstratepredominantlyfailingduetotheabrasiveactionofthereinforcing filler.

There are limitations of using a dry film lubricant coating. Wear is an accepted factor when using polymeric gears;howeverthewearcanbecomesignificantifusedfortransmittinghighloads.Thereforeitispossiblethat thecoatinglosesitseffectivenessovertimeasthewearexceedsthecoatingthickness.However,aproportion of the coating may be transferred to the outer layer of the gear as it wears, effectively reforming the lubricatinglayer. In conclusion, the application of a dryfilm lubricant coating has been shown to significantly improve the workinglifeofbothpolyamideandPEEKgearsets.Similarpropertiescanbeachievedbytheuseofalubricating filler however this has been shown to decrease the matrix strength. The use of a low cost, highly effective, externalcoatingismuchmoredesirable.

Acknowledgements
TheauthorswishtothanktheBulgarianMinistryofEducationandScienceforsupportingthisresearchproject allowingProf.D.G.PetrovtoworkintheUKfor8months.TheyalsowishtothankIndestructiblePaintLimited forcoatingallthegearsusedinthisprogrammeofwork. The optical interferometer used in this research was obtained, through Birmingham Science City: Innovative Uses for Advanced Materials inthe Modern World (WestMidlands CentreforAdvanced Materials Project 2), withsupportfromAdvantageWestMidlands(AWM)andpartfundedbytheEuropeanRegionalDevelopment Fund(ERDF).

References
1. E.Letzelter,M.Guingand,J.deVaujany,P.Schlosser,Anewexperimentalapproachformeasuringthermal behaviourinthecaseofnylon6/6cylindricalgears,PolymerTesting29,(2010)pp.10411051 2. C.J.Hooke,S.N.Kukureka,P.Liao,M.Rao,Y.K.Chen,Thefrictionandwearofpolymersinnonconformal contacts,Wear200(1996)pp.8394 3. T.J. Hoskins, K.D. Dearn, S.N. Kukureka, D. Walton, Acoustic noise from polymer gears A tribological investigation,MaterialsandDesign,32(2011),pp.35093515 4. K.D.DearnandDWalton,AcousticEmissionsfromPolymericGears,ProceedingsoftheWorldCongress onEngineering,WCE,2(2009) 5. M.Karimpour,K.D.Dearn,D.Walton,Akinematicanalysisofmeshingpolymergearteeth,Proc.IMechE partL:J.Materials:DesignandApplications,224(2010),pp.101115 6. A.Cropper,Thefailuremodeanalysisofplasticgears,PhDThesis,UniversityofBirmingham,(2003) 7. H.Dzckolu,R.Yakut,E.Uysal,Theuseofcoolingholestodecreasetheamountofthermaldamageona plasticgeartooth,JournalofFailureAnalysisandPrevention,10No.6(2010)pp.545555 8. K. Terashima, N. Tsukamoto, N, Nishida, J. Shi, Development of Plastic gears for power transmission (Abnormal wear neartoothrootandtoothfracturenearpitchpoint),BulletinofJSME(1986)29No.251 pp.15981604 9. D.Walton,A.B.Cropper,D.J.Weale,P.K.Meuleman,Theefciencyandfrictionofplasticcylindricalgears Part1:inuenceofmaterials,ProceedingofInstitutionofMechanicalEngineersPartJ,J.Eng.Tribol.216 (2002)pp.7592 10. M.Rao,C.J.Hooke,S.N.Kukureka,P.Liao,Y.K.Chen,TheeffectofPTFEonthefrictionandwearbehaviour ofpolymersinrollingslidingcontact,PolymerEngineeringandScience38(1998),pp.19461958. 11. H.Imrek,H.Dzckolu,Relationbetweenwearandtoothwidthmodificationinspurgears,Wear,262 (2007)pp.390394

12. M.Kurokawa,Y.Uchiyama,T.Iwai,S.Nagai,Performanceofplasticgearmadeofcarbonfibrereinforced PA66,Wear,254(56)(2003),pp.468473 13. S.Senthilvelan,R.Gnanamoorthy,Effectofrotationalspeedontheperformanceofunreinforcedandglass fibrereinforcedNylon6spurgears,MaterDes,28(2007),pp.765772 14. A.R.Breeds,S.N.Kukureka,K.Mao,D.Walton,C.J.Hooke,Wearbehaviourofacetalgearpairs,Wear166 (1993)pp.8591. 15. S.N.Kukureka,Y.K.Chen,C.J.Hooke,P.Liao,Thewearmechanismsofacetalinunlubricatedrollingsliding contact,Wear,185(1995),pp.18 16. R.Kosydar,J.T.Bonarski,M.Kot,S.Zimowski,M.Ferraris,M.SalvoandB.Major,Boronnitride/titanium nitridelaminarlubricatingcoatingdepositedbypulsedlaser ablationonpolymersurface,Bulletinofthe polishacademyofsciencesTechnicalSciences,56,No.3(2008)pp.217221 17. K.Holmberg,H.Ronkainen,A.Matthews,Tribologyofthincoatings,CeramicsInternational,26(2000)pp. 787795 18. R.Samur,H.Mindivan,H.imenolu,E.S.Kayali,Tribologicalperformanceofceramiccoatingsdeposited onpolymersubstrates,KeyEngineeringMaterials,264268(2004)pp.581584 19. J. Nozawa, T. Komoto, T. Kawai, H. Kumehara, Tribological properties of polymersheetadhered metal hybridgear,Wear,266(910)(2009),pp.893897 20. D. Koffi, R. Gauvin, H. Yelle, Heat generation in thermoplastic spur gears, J. Mech. Trans. Autom Des ASME,107(1985),pp.3137 21. N.A. Wright, S.N. Kukureka, Wear testing and measurement techniques for polymer composite gears, Wear,251(2001),pp.15671578 22. N. Jia, H.A. Fraenkel, V.A. Kagan, Effects of moisture conditioning methods on mechanical properties of injectionmoldednylon6,JReinfPlastCompos,23(2004),pp.729737 23. H. K. Reimschuessel, Relationships on the effect of water on glass transition temperature and young's modulusofnylon6,J.Polym.Sci.Polym.Chem.Ed.,16,issue6(1978),pp.12291236

Captions Figures Figure1:Geargeometryshowingboth20and30pressureanglegears Figure2:Showingthevariationincoatingthicknessalongthegeartoothflank(note:coatingthicknesswas determinedaftersectioningandpolishing) Figure3:Themorphologyofasprocessedcoatingsdepositedonpolymergears.Clockwisefromtopleft:PTFE, graphite,MoS2,boronnitride Figure4:Powerrecirculating,closedlooptestrig Figure5:Acomparisonofthecalculatedenergycreatedfromfrictionandhysteresisforapairofmeshing polyamidegears[Note:Gearsmodelledwith20teeth,transmitting53Nmmwithastoragemodulusof2.07 GPa,alossmodulusof0.05andacoefficientoffrictionof0.1][after19] Figure6:(a)Wearrateand(b)Temperaturevs.numberofcyclesforcoatedpolyamidegears Figure7:SEMobservationofgraphitevs.graphitepolyamidecontacts Figure8:PitchlinefractureinaboronnitridecoatedPAgearruninmeshwithasteelgear Figure9:(a)Wearrateand(b)Temperaturevs.numberofcyclesforcoatedasprocessedPEEKgears Figure10:(a)Wearrateand(b)Temperaturevs.numberofcyclesforcoatedreinforcedPEEKgears Figure11:DelaminationandabrasivewearoftheBNcoatingfromcarbonfibrereinforcedPEEKsubstrateat increasinglevelsofmagnification Figure12:Softcoatingdepositedonthesteelgearcounterface Figure13:SurfaceroughnessofgraphiteonPA(Ra=1.30m)showingareaswherethecoatinghasbeen removedfromthesurface Tables Table1:Materialpropertiesofthegearmaterials Table2:Density,hardness,percentage(%)byweightofDFL,percentage(%)byvolumeofDFLwithinthedry filmandforthefourtestcoatings Table3:Thicknessofcoatings Table4:Averagesurfaceroughnessofdepositedcoatings Table5:Polymermaterialhardness(notethatvalueshavebeenscaledfromdurometerresultsforcomparison) Table6:TemperatureandwearratesforPTFEcoatedPolyamide Table7:TemperatureandwearratesforPTFEcoatedasprocessedPEEK

10

Figures

Figure1:Geargeometryshowingboth20and30pressureanglegears

Figure2:Showingthevariationincoatingthicknessalongthegeartoothflank(note:coatingthicknesswasdeterminedafter sectioningandpolishing)

Figure3:Themorphologyofasprocessedcoatingsdepositedonpolymergears.Clockwisefromtopleft:PTFE,graphite,MoS2,boron nitride.

11

Figure e4:Powerrecir rculating,closed dlooptestrig

Figure5:Acom mparisonofthec calculatedenerg gycreatedfrom mfrictionandhysteresisforapa airofmeshingpolyamidegears[Note: Gearsmodelledw G with20teeth,tr ransmitting53N Nmmwithasto oragemoduluso of2.07GPa,alossmodulusof0 0.05andacoeff ficientof frictiono of0.1][after19] ]

Figure6:(a)W Wearrateand(b)Temperature evs.numberofc cyclesforcoatedpolyamidegears

Figure7:SEMobs servationofgra aphitevs.graphi itepolyamideco ontacts

tchlinefractureinaboronnitri idecoatedPAge earruninmeshwithasteelgea ar Figure8:Pit

Figure9:(a)Wea F arrateand(b)T Temperaturevs.numberofcyclesforcoatedasprocessedPEE EKgears

Figure10:(a)W Wearrateand(b)Temperaturev vs.numberofcy yclesforcoatedreinforcedPEEKgears

Figure11:Dela aminationanda abrasivewearof ftheBNcoating gfromcarbonfibrereinforcedP PEEKsubstratea atincreasinglev velsof mag gnification

Figure12:Softcoatingdepositedonthesteelgearcounterface

Figure13:SurfaceroughnessofgraphiteonPA(Ra=1.30m)showingareaswherethecoatinghasbeenremovedfromthesurface

15

Tables
Table1:Materialpropertiesofthegearmaterials

Material TensileStrength, Yield23C TensileElongation (Break,23C) TensileModulus 23C FlexuralModulus 23C MeltingPoint Glasstransition temperature HeatDeflection temperature (1.8MPa) Thermal Conductivity

Polyamide(PA66) 82MPa 25% 3.0GPa 2.8GPa 263C 66C 74C 0.3W/mK

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK450G) 100MPa 45% 3.7GPa 4.1GPa 343C 143C 152C 0.29W/mK

PEEK450CA30 260MPa 1.7% 25GPa 23GPa 343C 143C 336C 0.95W/mK

(ISO527) (ISO527) (ISO527) (ISO178) (ISO3146) (ISO3146) (ISO75Af) (ISO220074)

Table2:Density,hardness,percentage(%)byweightofDFL,percentage(%)byvolumeofDFLwithinthedryfilmandforthefourtest coatings

DFLtype Molybdenumdisulphide Graphite Boronnitride PTFE

Density (g/ml) 1.56 1.39 1.38 1.39

Vickers hardness(Hv) 65 60 72 5.96.5

Percentage(wt%)DFL 47 43 43 46.9

Percentage(vol%) DFL 11.6 22 22.7 25.3

Table3:Thicknessofcoatings

Coating PTFE Boronnitride Graphiteflake MoS2

Thicknessatroot (m) 15 44 20 14

Thicknessattip (m) 34 123 72 52

Averagethickness (m) 24.5 83.5 46 33

Table4:Averagesurfaceroughnessofdepositedcoatings

Coating PTFE Boronnitride

SurfaceRoughness (m) 1.93 1.28

16

MoS2 GraphiteFlake

1.15 1.04

Table5:Polymermaterialhardness(notethatvalueshavebeenscaledfromdurometerresultsforcomparison)

Material PEEK450G PEEK450CA30 PA66

Vickers 26.128.5 49.254.7 16.624.8

Hardness Rockwell,M 95105 100110 7987

Rockwell,R 119131 121127 114126

17

Table6:TemperatureandwearratesforPTFEcoatedPolyamide

Running Temperature ( ) UCvs.UC 63 UCvs.Steel 52 PTFEvs.UC 40 PTFEvs.Steel 41 PTFEvs.PTFE 33

Gear material

Initialwearrate (%weightloss/ 1 10 cycles) 0.1622 0.0787 0.0226 0.0220 0.0089

Steadystatewearrate (%weightloss/ 1 10 cycles) 0.0080 0.0053 0.0027 0.0036 0.0009

TotalWear (%weightlossafter 2 10 cycles) 0.43 0.22 0.07 0.08 0.02

Table7:TemperatureandwearratesforPTFEcoatedasprocessedPEEK

MaterialMesh

UCvs.UC UCvs.Steel PTFEvs.UC PTFEvs.Steel PTFEvs.PTFE

Running Temperature (C) 35 36 32 37 32

Initialwearrate (%weightloss/1 x105cycles) 0.0153 0.0113 0.0062 0.0108 0.0097

Steadystatewearrate TotalWear (%weightloss/1x105 (%weightlossafter cycles) 2x106cycles) 0.0020 0.045 0.0050 0.105 0.0010 0.023 0.0025 0.060 0.0003 0.015

Research Highlights
>DFLcoatingsappliedtosurfaceofpolymergearstocontroltribologicalproperties >EffectivenessofDFLsvariedwithbasematerialandgearmeshcombination >PTFEmosteffectivecoatingforreducingtemperatureandwearinunreinforcedpolymergears >FailureoftheDFLcoatingswerepredominatelydelaminationandabrasivewear >DFLcoatingsshownnottobeeffectiveinpolymercompositegears

18