@ Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne - Printed in The Netherlands
1 TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES OBSERVED IN A SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY STUDY OF ALUMINIUM ALLOY SURFACES IN SLIDING WEAR J. CLARKE and A. D. SARKAR J ohn Dalton Faculty of Technology, Manchester Polytechnic, Chester Street, Manchester Ml 5GD (Gt. Britain) (Received March 28,198O) Summary Extensive examination of sliding wear surfaces was undertaken on various Al-Si alloys using the scanning electron microscope in an attempt to elucidate the prevailing mechanism or mechanisms of wear. Recurring surface features were noted which gave a positive indication of diverse mechanisms operating across the range of material composition and contact stresses involved. It is postulated that mutual transfer across the wear interface is an extremely significant feature of all regimes of sliding wear, becoming more prevalent in materials whose yield stresses are low or where normal contact stresses are high. Asperity interaction, gross layering and ductile fracture constitute the predominant mode for conditions bordering on seizure, whereas a shear transfer mechanism operates in regimes between those of mild and severe wear. Delamination producing wear craters is a predominant feature of mild wear regimes in eutectic and hypereutectic alloys, but primary and secondary modes dependent on subsurface and surface failure respectively can be recognized. The concept of mutual transfer suggests that pin surface topography is a function of material back transfer such that a new delamination mode can be recognized where failure results from surface-initiated cracks extending down to interlayer zones. Work on asperity macromodels using wax as the simulative medium provides strong evidence for an almost universal transfer mechanism. 1. Introduction Interest in observing worn surfaces has increased, and the scanning electron microscope has made an invaluable contribution towards a basic understanding of wear processes in materials. The concept that components wear by a fatigue mode or by simple abrasion is giving way to statements 2 that, in industrial machinery or laboratory test rigs, wear debris are generated by a number of apparently independent mechanisms although variables such as speed, load and cleanliness of the interface are constant. Thus a component may wear partially as a result of delamination [l] which starts with the postulate that the subsurface is plastically deformed repeatedly during slid- ing. This results in the formation of subcutaneous voids which elongate in the direction of shear deformation, leading to the formation of a crack which eventually extends to the surface. A wear sheet is then lifted from the matrix and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) reveals that the sliding face of the debris is smooth but the underside shows shear dimples, indicating a ductile fracture. Rather than the original matrix material undergoing wear in a direct involvement, evidence seems to be gathering that the bulk of the wear product is generated from material transferred onto opposing surfaces. X-ray microprobe analysis has revealed [2] that couples such as Cu-Fe, Cu-Zn and Fe-Ni show mutual transfer of metals, i.e. copper on iron and vice versa for a Cu-Fe couple. Material is transferred by adhesive forces [ 31 and the events take place on an asperity scale [4]. Transferred material is built up in stages and some detaches as a wear particle by a fatigue mode [ 51 or by delamination as proposed by the delamination theory. SEM studies of debris confirm a fatigue type of failure [4] or ductile fracture. It is unlikely [6] that wear debris will necessarily be generated as one asperity adheres to another occupying a position on the counterface, and it now seems certain that the predominant event in sliding is mutual transfer and build-up of layers of asperities. This can be designated as back transfer but the problem of obtaining positive proof remains. In the following, selected results from SEM studies of a few hundred wear scars, mainly of binary Al-Si alloys sliding on hard steel, are discussed. An attempt was made to show that mutual back transfer across the interface takes place and the bulk of the wear debris results from these deposits. Although still speculative, some indirect evidence is provided on the origins of cracks. This is important because some theories argue forcefully that cracks originate below the surface. However, the suggestion of surface cracks propagating towards the matrix cannot be dismissed. An argument [ 71 is developed that the effect of sliding under load is to form a thin white layer of plastically strained metal. Cracks form in this layer originating at the surface where the tensile stress is greatest. When two such cracks intersect below the surface, a wear particle forms by shear in the region of maximum hertzian shear stress. 2. Results The results that we report are mainly from SEM studies of aluminium alloy pin surfaces but observations on the counterface are also summarized. The counterface in all cases was a hard steel bush which provided a surface speed of 1.96 m s-l. All sliding wear experiments were carried out in room atmosphere. 3 2.1, Pin surface 2.1.1. Roof tile laminates Roof tile laminates are so named because of the stepped appearance observed when the pin surface is viewed at relatively low magnifications (Fig. l(a)). Examination of the edges of the steps reveals that these are made up of a distinct series of layers (Fig. l(b)). The feature is associated with high interfacial stresses and in its extreme form covers the whole surface (Fig. l(c)), indicating that seizure is imminent. A milder form of the same feature is seen in Fig. l(d) where the roof tiles are seen to be in local areas only. Corresponding features on the counterface are shown in Figs. l(e) and l(f)* Explanations pertaining to the mechanism of formation of these lami- nates might be as follows. (a) Extreme surface conditions created by high interfacial stresses and temperatures cause bulk welding of the opposing surfaces, thus necessitating ductile fracture for sliding to be continuous. (b) A metal-cutting action may be at work, since Fig. l(c) is reminiscent of certain magnified machined surfaces involving a built-up edge and shear front layers. (c) Asperity interaction concurrent with mutual transfer is responsible for the directionality and layering observed. I n the first case, although it must be admitted that adhesion and subse- quent fracture play a part in the mechanism of formation, it is difficult to concede that some fracture mode is solely responsible for its occurrence. A series of cleavage steps might be envisaged, but these would normally be associated with a brittle material, which this is not, and comparison with fracture surfaces of this mode does not give the impression that the roof tiles possess an orientation relationship between the opposing surfaces and the crystal structure. Ductile fracture modes showing typical shear dimples also offer similarities of topography but these are usually observed at much higher magnifications than those for the roof tiles. I n addition, the laminated structure of the roof tiles defies explanation along these lines. I n the second case the concept of a metal cutting action is probably more acceptable since surface features are really on a macroscopic level as will be the roof tile laminates in their extreme form. Two difficulties arise with this. One problem is that, if this were taking place on a large scale sufficient to account for the feature, the wear debris would inevitably consist of many chips, as formed in a cutting process. Admittedly there were occasional tiny particles of debris exhibiting the classic shear front formation, but the prevailing debris form was the typical mixed lumpy and flat sheet confiirations commensurate with the magnitude of interfacial stress involved. The second difficulty is ascertaining what precisely acts as the cutting tool. On a macroscale, if the pin is strain hardened it is possible that it may remove the deposited metal by cutting the transferred layer of pin material. On a microscale it might be considered that hard asperities favourably (a) Fii. 1. (a) A&-6.2%& pin surface; load, 2.5 kgf (magn~cation, 140X). (b) Al-6.2%Si pin surface;load, 2.5 kgf; the direction of counterface motion is into the paper (magnification, 700x). (c) Al-6.2ZSi pin surface; load, 2.6 kgf (magnification, 28x). (d) Al-6,2%Si pin surface; load, 1.5 kgf (msgnification, 270X ). (e) Counterface surface; Al-6.2%Si pin; load, 2.6 kgf (magnification, 2700x ).(f) Counterface surface; Al-6.2%Si pin; load, 2.5 kgf (magnification, 360x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. 5 oriented and of a suitable shape might act in this manner. A further difficulty again arises in attempting to explain the laminated structure since the layers (Fig. l(b)) do not have the appearance of the deformation boundaries some- times observed in metal cutting. In the third case an explanation might be found in terms of asperity interaction. It could be argued that the asperities on both surfaces flow plastically owing to the severe surface stress. If the asperities idealized as conical in shape were flattened and smeared in the direction of sliding on their parent surfaces, they would have the direction and form shown in Fig. 2(a). Comparing this with the observed direction for the pin and counterface represented in Fig. 2(b), it is seen that this explanation will not suffice since the direction of the roof tiles is the wrong way round. Where this feature appeared, both the pin and the counter-face showed a relatively uniform distribution of what may be termed hyperbolic profiles of apparently flattened asperities, as shown schematically in Fig. 2(b). In the majority of cases the observed shape of the roof tile laminates was actually hyperbolic. Thus, comparing Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) it is apparent that the idea of asperity smearing from parent surfaces does not fit the case, unless for some reason rotation takes place through 180 after initial formation. This is very unlikely and therefore it is suggested that a mutual transfer mechanism is operating. Thus, initially, severe plastic flow deposits the aluminium alloy onto the steel counter-face by means of asperity flattening and transfer. Some of the deposit transfers back onto the pin surface by the same mechanism. This results in the directionality of the profiles in reverse order, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Evidence for back transfer seems conclusive when Fig. 3 is considered. Figure 3(a) shows an aluminium pin surface after sliding on a steel counter- x x Y Y View A WI View B on munterfnce Dill surface (a) (b) Fig. 2. (a) Schematic representation of asperity interaction;(b) orientation and directional- ity of roof tile laminates at the wear interface. Fig. 3. (a) Pure aluminium pin on a clean steel track; load, 8 kgf (magnification, 336x). (b) Pure aluminium pin on its own deposit; load, 8 kgf (magnification, 840x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. face and Fig. 3(b) illustrates a pin surface after sliding on a steel counterface possessing a track of deposited pin material. Since it is clear that material has been transferred from pin to counterface, the existence of identical topog- raphies on pin and counterface suggests that the same mechanism has produced both. Thus it is a valid assumption that, if the counterface topography is a result of some transfer mechanism, then that of the pin surface is equally a function of the same mechanism. From Figs. l(b), l(e) and l(f) the laminations appear to be very system- atic. There are about six to ten layers making up the composite roof tiles. This range was fairly consistent and suggests that transfer as a single event is followed by successive deposits until the layers are removed as a wear product. It is possible that some critical number of layers needs to be deposited before a wear product is produced. A peculiarity is that the laminates are bent back as they are removed as a result of sliding (Fig. 4). The removal process can Fig. 4. AL6.2%Si pin surface; load, 2.5 kgf. The arrow indicates the direction of counter- face motion. (Magnification, 1200x.) 7 evidently be explained by an adhesive shear process as noted in the ductile shear fracture dimpling on both surfaces of the friction system. Figure l(b) shows positive divisions between the layers. This would be so, because the interlayer cold welds will only form a fraction of the apparent area. The true area of contact may also be diluted because of oxidation or the presence of non-metallic constituents such as silicon. A study of surfaces near to seizure is considered to be justified on the assumption that prevailing wear mechanisms may well be accentuated in these extreme cases, throwing light on those operating in milder regimes, the most probable situation in properly operated machinery. 2.1.2. I nclined shear plates A feature best described as inclined shear plates was only observed in the combinations of load and composition where plastic flow was evident. It appeared across the whole composition range but was only rarely seen on the eutectic or near-eutectic alloy surfaces. It is perhaps significant that the feature was not normally observed on surfaces showing the roof tile lami- nates, i.e. where gross plastic flow was evident. It appears to be a kind of transition feature between the relatively wear-resistant eutectic or near- eutectic alloys and those which show severe surface flow such as pure aluminium or alloys with a low silicon content. Figure 5(a) is an example of its occurrence on the counterface and shows clearly the nature of the individual plates which incline to the direc- tion of the tangential force. Identical forms of this feature were observed on the corresponding pin surfaces. One peculiarity seen in Fig. 5(a) is that the inclined plates are sited below two smooth deposits on each side of them. In most cases the feature appeared as shown in Fig. 5(b) and magnified in Fig. 5(c). Studies using a conical macroscopic model of wax to observe pin- counterface deposition modes showed a topography almost identical with that observed on the real surfaces. Figure. 6 shows wax plates deposited at a fairly consistent angle and plate distance. Part of the effect is muted by the fact that wax begins to soften under the photographic light but close observa- tion during actual sliding showed that the plates were sheared off the wax pin at the trailing edge with simultaneous deposition onto the counterface. This evidence and also that its occurrence on the counterface axiomatically implies a transfer mechanism lead again to the suggestion of back transfer where the feature is observed on the pin surface. Further visual evidence exists to support this view. A joint study of Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) showing pm and counterface surfaces respectively suggests that in both cases a shear transfer mechanism has been responsible for their formation. It is possible that favourably shaped and oriented asperities on the respective surfaces have experienced simultaneous shear and deposition as noted in the macroscopic models. Figure 7(c) is a higher magnification view of Fig. 7(a) and shows clearly the nature of the deposited plates. 8 Fig. 6. (a) Counterface surface; pure alumin- / ium pin; load, 0.75 kgf (magnification, 609x). (b) Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf (m~nifieation, 234x). (c) Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf (magnification, 650x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion, Fig. 6. Wax deposit on steel; load, 1.0 kgf. The arrow indicates the direction of counter- face motion. (Magnification, 27x.) (4 (cl (b) Fig. 7. (a) Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.76 kgf (magnification, 700x). (b) Counter- face surface; Al-6.2%Si pin; load, 1.5 kgf (magnification, 1000x). (c) Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf (magnification, 2800x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. Since real asperities probably vary in shape and orientation, this fact may explain the peculiarity noted earlier (Fig. 5(a)) where the inclined shear plates have material built up on either side of them. The suggestion is that adjacent asperities or asperity groups will yield different deposits since these will be a function of asperity shape. A similar effect is noticed in Fig. 8(a). 2.1.3. Adhesive delamination At low loads on a pure aluminium pin or at high loads on certain hyper- eutectic alloys, shallow surface craters were apparent, giving the appearance that material had been delaminated from them. Thus the feature was associ- ated with plastic flow and adhesion effects. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) are examples (cl - (d) - Fig. 8. Pure alumiuium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf. The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. (Magnifications: (a) 275~; (b) 700x;(c) 65X;(d) 250X.) of the cratering effect, showing diverse topographies for the actual crater bases. The laminated nature of the crater sides is noted in Fig, 8(b). In view of the earlier comments on material transfer a mechanism of formation might be as follows. Progressive deposition of material onto the pm surface is taking place simultaneously with material loss, as either loose wear debris or redeposition onto the counterface. Because of the different shape-orientation features of the counterface asperities, the pm surface at any instant will consist of inclined shear plates and smooth deposits. Subsequent deposition may then layer material over the initial surface either completely or partiaily. The fact that inclined shear plates did exist at different levels on the surface seems to support this view. 11 The existence of multilayering is also observed in Fig. 8(b) and it is probable that the layers are held at isolated points through adhesion, but the interlayer zones can mainly be regarded as subsurface cracks. It is not unreasonable to speculate that at some critical stress level the surface fails at a particular point, resulting in a transverse crack (Figs. 8(c) and 8(d)); then subsequent cycling may cause material to become progressively delami- nated by adhesive forces peeling the surface off in thin layers. Figure 8(a) shows a thin peninsula of material, presumably ready for detachment. The topography of the crater bases would then be simply a function of asperity shape and orientation which would determine the deposition pattern on the penultimate or even earlier layers. Figure 9 is a schematic representation of surface layer removal once transverse crack initiation has taken place. The depth of the crack may be through one or more layers. Since debris examina- tion for these cases did reveal very thin sheets, it is probable that two types of delamination mechanism are at work, one dependent on subsurface cracks and one where a surface-initiated crack meets with the interlayer zones between deposited layers. 2.1.4. Granular delamination Granular delamination occurred exclusively in eutectic and hyper- ,eutectic alloys and, since the incidence of cratering tended to diminish with increasing load, the feature can be associated with mild wear regimes. Figure 10(a) illustrates the granular nature of the delaminated areas which appeared in random form across the whole wear surface. A single crater does not Potential crack (b) Layer peeled off surface by adheswe forces Fig. 9. Schematic representation of surface layer removal by adhesive delamination: (a) stage 1; (b) stage 2. Fig. 10. AI-Pl%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf. The arrows indicate the direction of counter- face motion. (Magnj~catio~: (a) 368x;(b) 920x.) indicate the size of a single detached wear plate or sheet since it is obvious that craze cracking (Fig. 10(b)) occurs around the perimeter, resulting in a progressive or secondary type of delamination. This secondary delamination may be a function of surface forces only and may have nothing to do with the probable subsurface cracking responsible for primary delamination. A number of observations were made of subsurface cracking, which may be called primary delamination, typical examples being shown in Fig. 11. In both cases, but more so in Fig. 11(b), it is interesting to note how the incipient delamination appears to have been initiated at a transverse crack which according to Suh [8] would have been of subsurface origin, Instances of what might be termed secondary delamination were numerous, examples being seen in Fig. 12. On a purely visual basis it appears that, once the initial fracture has taken place, subsequent surface deterioration occurs in a series of delaminations which may well be a result of the action of surface forces only on the already weakened areas. Fig. 11. (a) Al-lG%Si pin surface; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 240x). (b) Al-2l%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf (magnification, 200x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. (4 Fig. 12. (a) Al-15.5%Si pin surface; load, (b) - 1.5 kgf (magnification, 130x). (b) Al-13%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf (magnification, 700x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. Subsurface studies did reveal cracks parallel to the wear surface in some of the alloys and it may well be that these are responsible for the initial delamination. According to the delamination theory the crack terminates at the surface and presumably defines the crater perimeter; hence secondary types of delamination would not normally result as a feature of the initial subsurface crack. A study of the granular craters does not provide any classic evidence of fracture as noted by Jahanmir et al. [l] . The granules appear to be heavily compounded eutectic material and indeed Fig. 13 tends to confirm this where the eutectic is seen to be compounded and strung out in the direc- tion of sliding. The laminated effect is of interest, suggesting a subsurface crack effect. Parallel studies on pure copper showed a granular crater effect but the granules were not as prevalent as those for the Al-Si samples. Fig. 13. Al-ll%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf. (Magnification, 1000x.) 14 A preliminary summary of this feature based on the foregoing comments suggests that two delamination modes may well have to be recognized. Primary del~ination occurs where initial surface rupture takes place by the initiation of a subsurface crack, and secondary delamination is experienced where progressive surface rupture takes place probably as a result of surface forces only. The surfaces exhibiting this feature appeared to be oxidized and the abundance of craze cracking (Fig. 14) indicates that a fatigue mode is probably also operational. - Fig. 14. Al-Sl%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf. The arrow indicates the direction of counter- face motion. (Magnification, 2000x.) 2.1.5. Cracking A form of failure to be described simply as plough cracking (Fig. 15(a)) was observed mainly with hypereutectic alloys at low contact stresses. The (a) (b) Fig. 15. (a) Al-15.5%Si pin surface; load, 1.5 kgf (magnification, 2208x). (b) Al-lG%Si pin surface; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 2400x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. 15 surfaces show parallel furrows, creating the impression of a ploughed field; the cracks are associated with the raised portion of the furrow. Figure 15(b) shows a typically cracked region but inclined shear plates are also noted which suggests back transfer from the counterface. The feature gives the appearance of a brittle shell of material on an unsupported underside which has cracked and is starting to disintegrate under the repetitive stresses involved in sliding. The cracks are actually very small and only appear at mag$fica- tions in excess of 1000X. A more appropriate title might therefore be hairline plough cracking. The second type of cracks observed were those appearing transverse to the sliding direction. They differed from the previous type in that these were mainly longitudinal to the sliding direction and of a much finer nature. Figure 16(a) is a typical example of transverse cracking and it is interesting to note (b) Fig. 16. (a) Al-lB%Si pin surface; load, 0.5 kgf (magnification, 280x). (b) Al-6.2%Si pin surface; load, 0.5 kgf (magnification, 600x). (c) Al-6.2ZSi pin surface; load, 0.5 kgf (magnification 2400x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. 16 how the cracks appear in a kind of series. A similar effect is noted in Fig. 16(b) where the series finally results in loose debris (Fig. 16(c)). A study of Fig. 16(b) strongly suggests that the cracks have formed in a deposited layer where surface-initiated cracks terminate at the underlying layer. A number of examples support this view and the thought is analogous to that of adhe- sive delamination where loss of material from the surface is a function of surface cracking in back-transferred layers. Figure 17(a) shows a transverse crack on a surface associated with granular delamination. At the top right-hand side of the field, magnified in Fig. 17(b), is an apparent series of transverse cracks. Closer examination shows that these closely resemble the inclined shear plate feature. This, together with the obvious layering noted at the top of the field, confirms the theme that a thin back-transferred layer is present. In addition, the large transverse crack may well be the incipient stage of formation for a granular wear crater which supports the contention already made when we considered this feature. It is also worthy of note that transverse cracking appeared across the whole range of alloy composition used in these sliding wear tests. A related feature under this heading is that of craze cracking particularly prevalent in the hypereutectic alloys. Figure 14 illustrates typical surface d~inte~ation by this mode. Figure 18 is of interest since craze cracking has taken place in a back-transferred layer. Figure 10(b) shows the cracking to be prevalent in the material around crater perimeters and it appears to have been initiated at the surface. It is significant that the ll%Na-modified alloy, which had the lowest wear rate of the alloy series, showed hardly any craze cracking compared with say the 21%Si alloy with its inferior wear properties. It may be that the structured substrate (Fig. 13) for the eutectic alloy gave better surface support than the crushed random composite of primary silicon and eutectic material in the 21%Si alloy. The feature was observed across the full range of composition but tended to be restricted to lower contact stresses. Fig. 17. Al-13%Si pin surface; load, 1.0 kgf. The arrows indicate the direction of counter- face motion. (Magnifications: (a) 860X;(b) 4650X.) 17 - Fig. 18. Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf. The arrow indicates the direction of counterface motion. (Magnification, 270X.) 2.1.6. Subsurface caverns Subsurface caverns are worth noting because typically they appear as cavities (Fig. 19(a)) which seem to arise because a layer covering them has been removed by some mechanism. The suggestion that these may be due to porosity left in the cast pins was discarded because the foundry technique was specially arranged to avoid porosity due to gas or shrinkage, and samples scanned under the optical microscope even at a magnification of 500X showed no porosity. Considering Figs. 19(a) and 19(b) and bearing in mind the magnifications involved, it is a reasonable suggestion that the cavities appear as a result of back transfer. Thus, because the contact stresses are low the layers do not adhere effectively to the substrate. When tangential or other (4 - Fig. 19. (a) Al-13%Si pin surface; load, 2.5 kgf (magnification, 1200x). (b) Al-15.5ISi pin surface; load, 1.5 kgf (magnification, 4680x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. 18 (b) I (d) Fig. 20. (a) Al-21%Si pin surface; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 5950x). (b) The counter- face corresponding to (a) (magnification, 696~). (c) Counterface surface; Al-&2%Si pin; load, 2.6 kgf (rn~i~~tjon, 100X). (d) The pin surface corresponding to (c) (magnifica- tion, 3000x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. 19 forces lift part of the layer, the exposed surface disintegrates locally and reveals a cavity resembling a subterranean cavern. 2.1.7. Shear dimpling Figure 20(a) shows that the worn surfaces possess small volcanic-type craters which resemble dimples. They are characteristic of ductile fracture and in this case are elongated in the direction of sliding. This can happen in any composition range but is characteristic of heavy loads bordering on seizure conditions. A surface such as this gives clear evidence that adhesion and cold welding of junctions have taken place between the pin and counter- face such that the only way to separate them is by fracture of the junctions. Because of the dynamic situation existing during the sliding process, it is axiomatic that such welding and fracture would take place throughout the operational life of a friction couple, giving rise to stick-slip phenomena and vibration of the machine. These shear dimples are associated with the roof tile features and Fig. 20(a) is a view taken directly on top of one of the steps. The arrow in Fig. 20(b) shows the approximate position of the dimpled area. It is seen that the dimples are elongated in a direction away from the step edges, i.e. in the direction of rotation of the counter-face. Although the roof tile profiles are opposite on the counterface (Fig. 20(c)), the same elongation relationship exists, as shown in Fig. 20(d). The arrow in Fig. 20(c) shows that in this case the dimpling is located at the side of the roof tile deposit. Figure 21 is a schematic representation showing the relative profile- elongation relationship. Again, identical relationships on pin and counterface suggest that mutual transfer has taken place which in view of the evidence seems to be a more reasonable explanation than that of unidirectional transfer combined with bulk welding and fracture. It should be noted that the opposite roof tile profiles are not considered as superimposed during sliding. These Pin roof tile Direction of Dwction of Counterface roof tile Fig. 21. Relationship between roof tile directionality and the elongated fractured dimples. 20 will have formed independently and represent separate transfer events. This fact tends to reinforce the mutual transfer postulate in that some kind of bulk cleavage fracture mode would have the same profile directionality even though the matching surface levels would be different. It is also of interest to note that void coalescence prior to fracture must be extremely rapid in view of the surface speeds involved during sliding. 2.2. Counterface observations Previously published work [9] has shown that the counterface gains in weight as a result of transfer. This is lost in stages and the counterface itself wears in certain cases. A thorough examination of the counterface was there- fore undertaken. Certain features have already been noted; these are the existence of inclined shear plates and roof tile laminates in a form identical with those on the pin surface. Figure 5(a) shows the inclined shear plates with their counter- parts on the pin surface in Fig. 22(a). The roof tile laminates can be seen in Fig. 22(b) with their counterparts on the pin surface in Fig. l(c). Some other features were craze cracking, transverse cracking and, in odd cases where both silicon contents and contact stresses were high, granular wear craters. None of these three, however, was prevalent to the same degree as those observed on the pin surface. The steel substrate itself wears, as seen previously by weight loss mea- surements. Microprobe analysis of wear debris showed iron as a definite constituent well in excess of the original analysis levels. Iron was also noted in the pin surface. The possibility is that the aluminium wears the steel surface, which is probable in view of the abrasiveness of the silicon particles and is confirmed because the hypereutectic alloys gave the highest counter- face wear rate. Part of the worn steel appears as wear debris and the remainder becomes embedded in the aluminium pin surface. Iron could also diffuse into the body of the Al-Si alloy, the process being facilitated by the high interfacial temperatures of the friction couples. The steel surface itself shows (a) (b) Fig. 22. (a)Pure aluminium pin surface; load, 0.75 kgf (magnification, 596x). (b) Counter- face surface; Al-2l%Si pin; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 170x). The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. Fig. 23. Counterface surface; pure aluminium pin; load, 2.0 kgf. The arrows indicate the direction of counterface motion. (Magnifications: (a), (b) 1700x; (c) 550x.) a kind of craze cracking and cratering (Figs. 23(a) and 23(b)) which probably occurred in the early stages of sliding. In both these cases the aluminium deposit was removed by dissolving with NaOH. It is probably fair to say that the counterface wears by some direct effect due to sliding against the Al-Si alloy pin until a deposit of the Al-Si alloy builds up. Patches of the deposit may be removed during sliding and the steel surface is then expected to wear by a direct effect (Fig. 23(c)). Delamination is illustrated in Fig. 24; Fig. 24(b) almost certainly illus- trates that delamination has taken place by the action of surface-initiated forces on the transferred layer. 3. Discussion It is clear that throughout the foregoing observations one theme has been dominant, i .e. the idea of mutual transfer where material is transferred across the interface with some of this deposit transferring back again to the parent surface. It is thought that some equilibrium transfer rate is established 22 Fig. 24. (a) Counterface surface; Al-13%Si pin; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 2670x). (b) Counterface surface; Al-3%Si pin; load, 3.0 kgf (magnification, 2670x). The arrow indicates the direction of counterface motion. with the balance of transferred material being in the pin-counterface direc- tion. Figure 25 shows two curves obtained from wax pins sliding in the first case on a clean steel counterface and in the second case on a track of deposited wax. It is seen that both attain an equilibrium rate of weight loss, but in the second case the pin shows a distinctly lower rate of wear. It is postulated that this lower rate of wear is a function of back transfer where the real rate of wear is masked by the back transferral of material from the deposit. Measurements showed that the coefficient of friction was higher for the wax pin sliding on its own deposit. Therefore the difference cannot be attributed to an increased lubrication effect. Previous work has shown that weight changes on the counterface are cyclic in nature in that a regular loss-increase-loss pattern develops. Since 200 180 : P 160 120 I 0 loo ; F 60 60 I 15 30 L5 60 75 90 Shding distance lcml Fig. 25. Weight loss us. sliding distance for wax pins sliding on a steel counterface : o, single-track sliding; +, multitrack sliding. 23 the curve of pin weight loss against sliding distance is linear once an equilib- rium wear rate is attained, this suggests that the bulk of debris generated is from the counterface itself, but further work is required in this area, I n viewing the complete range of alloys studied with the various contact stresses involved it is clear that no single wear mechanism is responsible for the production of material loss from sliding surfaces. There can in some cases be a direct effect where material is detached by what has now been accepted as delegation. However, where material yield stresses are low or contact stresses are high for a given sliding speed, mutual transfer phenomena suggest that much of the wear debris accumulated in a wear run is generated from the action of surface forces on the transferred layers where surface-initiated cracking reacts with interlayer zones prior to material detachment. 4. Conclusions (1) I t is postulated that mutual transfer is a significant feature of all regimes of sliding wear and that it becomes more prevalent in materials whose yield stresses are low or where normal contact stresses are high. (2) Asperity interaction, gross layering and ductile fracture constitute the mode of transfer for conditions bordering on seizure, whereas a shear transfer mechanism operates in regimes between those of mild and severe wear. (3) Delamination producing wear craters is a predominant feature of mild wear regimes in eutectic and hypereutectic alloys, but primary and secondary modes, dependent on subsurface and surface failure respectively, can be recognized. (4) Delamination of an adhesive variety exists in low yield stress mat- erials or in materials where high contact stresses exist; this is a function of surface cracking down to interlayer zones. References 1 S. Jeharunir, N. P. Suh and E. P. Abrahamson, Weur, 28 (1974) 235. 2 T. Sasada and S. Norose, Froc. Jpn. Sot. Lubr. Eng., (1976) 32. 3 T. Kayaba and K. Kato, Pmt. Int. Co& on the Wear ~~~ateria~, Dearborn, MI , April 16 - 18, 1979, American Societyof Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1979, p. 45. 4 0. Vingsbo, Froc. ht. Conf. on the Wear of Materials, Dearborn, MI , April 16 - 18, 1979, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1979, p. 620. 5 E. M. Moore, P. F. Packman and J. J. Wert, I ribol. I nt., 7 (1974) 242. 6 D. A. Rigney and W. A. GIaeser, Proc. I nt. Conf. on the Wear of Materiak. St. Louis, MO, April 25 - 28.1977, American Society of Mechanicel Engineers, New York, 1977, p. 41. 7 A. A. Torrance, Wear, 50 (1978) 169. 8 N. P. Suh, Wear, 25 (1973) 111. 9 J. Clarke and A. D. Sarkar, Wear, 54 (1979) 7.