Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

ROHSTOFFE UND ANWENDUNGEN

RAW MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS

Friction Rubber Sliding Oil Water


Ceramics
The static friction coefcient caused
from sliding of rubber specimens
against ceramic surfaces lubricated by
oil and oil diluted by water was investigated on test specimens with V-grooves
at 50, 100 and 150 N normal load.
For oil lubricated ceramic, the friction
coefcient decreased with increasing
height of the grooves. The decrease
may be from the well adherence of oil
on the rubber surface and a lm formation. A mixture of oil and water displayed values of friction much lower
than that observed for oil lubricated
condition. Friction coefcient decreased as the height of the grooves
increased and consequently the capacity of the groove increased to restore
lubricant uid and feed once again into
the contact area as load decreases.

Reibung von Gummi beim Rutschen auf Keramikoberchen,


Einuss von l und l-Wasser
Gemische
Reibung Gummi Rutschen l
Wasser Keramik
Der Einuss von l und l-Wasser
Gemischen auf den statischen Reibungskoefzienten beim Rutschen von
gekerbten Gummiproben auf keramischen Oberchen wurde bei Normallasten von 50 bis 150 N ermittelt.
Auf den mit l belegten Keramikoberchen nimmt der Reibungskoefzient
mit der Hhe der Kerben ab. Dieser
Effekt kann durch die Bildung eines
llms auf der Gummioberche
verursacht sein. Wird jedoch ein lWasser Gemisch eingesetzt, so nimmt
dieser Effekt deutlich zu. Der Reibungskoefzient nimmt ab wenn die Hhe
der Kerben ansteigt und die Mglichkeit erhht wird das Schmiermittel
erneut auf die Kontaktche aufzubringen, wenn die Normallast abnimmt.

Friction of Rubber Sliding


Against Ceramics Part II1
Inuence of Oil and Oil-Water Lubrication

The friction coefcient between footwear


and oor surface has been used to assess
oor slipperiness [1-3]. The friction coefcient between the footwear pad and the
oor is affected by the footwear material,
oor, and contamination condition, [4-7].
For all the oor and footwear material conditions, the friction coefcient values under
the oily conditions were in the range of 0 to
0.02 regardless of the groove width and
groove orientation used in the study. The oil
seemed to provide a signicant lubricating
effect on the oors for the oily conditions.
This was consistent with the ndings in the
previous study, [8]. For the groove orientation, the 0 and 45 groove conditions had
signicantly higher friction coefcient values than that of the 90 condition. This implies that shoe soles with tread grooves
parallel to the walking direction are undesirable as compared to the other two tread
groove orientation designs because they
resulted in lower friction coefcient when
stepping on wet, water-detergent, and
some oily contaminated oors.
Tread groove designs are helpful in liquid
drainage between the shoe sole and the
oor, thus facilitating contact between the
two surfaces, [9]. Both tread groove width
and groove orientation signicantly affected the friction coefcient. The footwear
pads with 0.9 cm wide grooves resulted in
higher friction coefcient than the 0.3 cm
grooved footwear pads. The 0 and 45
groove oriented footwear pads provided
higher friction coefcient values than the
90 pads in most of the footwear material/oor/contamination conditions. Tread
grooves with the two widths tested in this
study were ineffective in increasing friction
on a oor contaminated by soybean oil.
Tread grooves designed perpendicular and/or
oblique to the walking direction should be
open and wide enough to achieve better
drainage capability on wet and water-detergent contaminated oors.
1

Part I is published in KGK 6, 2007, page: 322

Very little attention has been directed toward the effect of the surface roughness of
the shoe soling, [10]. For example, measurement of the friction coefcient of soles is
usually undertaken on newly moulded or
only lightly abraded samples. It was mentioned that the microscopic roughness of
the soling surface is a major determinant of
slip-resistance on lubricated surfaces, [11].
Research revealed signicant correlations
between surface roughness of shoes and
friction coefcient for a given oor surface.
It was found that, [12, 13], abrasion of rubber soles in steps with increasingly coarse
grit gradually raised the roughness in parallel with a rise in the friction coefcient on
water wet surfaces and that both roughness and friction coefcient fell during subsequent polishing. Besides, a signicant
correlation between the rank order of friction coefcient of footwear on water-wet,
oily, and icy surfaces was shown.
Any specication of ooring by measuring
friction coefcient based on dry surfaces
could lead to an increase in the number of
injuries caused by slipping on the wet surfaces. An experiment in which ve pairs of
shoes were soled with the same rubber
compound was described, [14]. Four of the
pairs were abraded by different grades of
grit to produce a range of roughness values.
The friction coefcient of the ve soles was
then measured repeatedly by the walking
traction method on wet surfaces including
glazed wall tiles, vinyl asbestos coated with
the wax oor polish, and both sides of

Authors
A. M. Samy, M. M. Mahmoud,
M. I. Khashaba, W. Y. Ali,
El-Minia (Egypt)
Corresponding author:
Prof. Dr. Waheed Yosry Ali
El-Minia University
Faculty of Engineering
P.N. 61111, El-Minia, Egypt
E-mail: wahyos@hotmail.com

KGK Dezember 2007

693

ROHSTOFFE UND ANWENDUNGEN


RAW MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS

a sheet of oat glass. It was found that soling roughness is a major factor in determining the Friction coefcient of this rubber
soling material.
It was observed that, dry sliding of the rubber test specimens containing saw teeth
grooves displayed the highest value of friction coefcient (1.5) due to increased adhesion and deformation. As the height of the
V-grooves increased friction increased. For
water lubricated ceramics, the value of the
friction coefcient dropped to 0.65 due to
the easy leakage of the uid away from the
contact area to the grooves. Further decrease in friction coefcient was observed
when water was detergent by soap. For ceramic lubricated by water and soap and contaminated by sand, the friction coefcient
increased signicantly compared to the sliding conditions of water and soap only. This
behavior may be attributed to the increased
contact between ceramic surface and sand
particles. In the presence of oil and sand on
the sliding surface, the friction slightly increased. The friction coefcient reached to
0.35. This behavior may be caused by sand
embedment in rubber surface and consequently the contact became between ceramic and sand. At lubricated sliding surface
by oil and water contaminated by sand, the
friction presented higher value than that of
oil and sand sliding conditions.
In the present work, the effect of the height
of the vee grooves, introduced in the rubber
specimens, on the static friction coefcient
when sliding against ceramics lubricated by
oil and oil diluted by water is investigated.

1 Arrangement of the test rig

2 Test specimen used in the experiments

3 The sliding condition of the test specimens

4 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil lubricated ceramic, (T = 3 mm)

5 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil lubricated ceramic, (T = 4 mm)

6 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil lubricated ceramic, (T = 5 mm)

7 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil lubricated ceramic, (T = 6 mm)

Experimental
The test rig used in the present work was
designed and manufactured to measure
the friction coefcient between the rubber
specimens and the ceramics through measuring the friction force and applied normal
force.The ceramic surface is placed in a base
supported by two sets of thin spring steel
sheets, where strain gauges were adhered,
the rst can measure the horizontal force
(friction force) and the second can measure
the vertical force (applied load). Friction coefcient is determined through the measurement of the friction force by strain gauges. The load is applied on the specimens by
dead weights. The arrangement of test rig
used in friction force measurement is
shown in Figure 1.
Friction test were carried out at 50, 100 and
150 N normal load, at oil (Paraffin oil,
SAE 30) and oil diluted by water, (95 wt.
% H2O), lubricated sliding conditions. The
measurement of friction force was carried

694

KGK Dezember 2007

10

8 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil lubricated ceramic,
(T = 7 mm)

9 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil and water lubricated
ceramic, (T = 3 mm)

10 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil and water lubricated ceramic, (T = 4 mm)

11

12

13

11 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil and water lubricated
ceramic, (T = 5 mm)

12 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil and water lubricated
ceramic, (T = 6 mm)

13 Friction coefcient of rubber sliding


against oil and water lubricated
ceramic, (T = 7 mm )

out by means of the deection of the strain


gauges. The strain gauges were mounted
and connected to each other so that they
are sensitive to measure the variation in the
frictional force generated between the rubbing surfaces. The test specimens were
pulled manually by a horizontal force and
the maximum value of the force was recorded when the test specimen began to
move. Friction coefcient was determined
by the ratio of the horizontal force to the
normal force applied.
Rubber test specimens were prepared in the
form of square cross section of 50 r 50 mm
and 1.5 mm thickness. Test specimens were
loaded against counterface of dry and water lubricated ceramic surfaces. The sliding
surfaces were lubricated by, water as well
as water and soap. V-grooves of different
height (T) and constant width (t) of 2.0 mm
were introduced in rubber test specimens,
Figure 2. Then the rubber specimens were
adhered on wood blocks.

Results and discussion


The sliding condition of the test specimen is
shown in Figure 3, where the contact between the rubber and ceramics is partially
separated by the oil lm. The results of the

experiments of rubber test specimens sliding against oil lubricated ceramics are
shown in Figures 4-8. Figure 4 shows the
friction coefcient for rubber specimen of
T = 3 mm. In the presence of oil as lubricant,
the smooth rubber specimens displayed the
lowest friction values which were ranging
from 0.12 and 0.18. Friction coefcient increased as the number of grooves increased.
At 50 N applied load the increase in friction
coefcient was more signicant. As the
load increased the friction coefcient decreased due to the relatively strong adhesion of oil in the rubber surface where the
removal of oil from surface was much difcult because the oil was trapped in the
contact area. The maximum value of friction coefcient (0.58) was observed at 50 N
normal load and number of grooves 8,
where the minimum value of friction coefcient (0.11) was observed at smooth rubber specimens and 150 N normal load.
For rubber specimen of T = 4 mm, Figure 5,
the increasing height of grooves showed
signicant reduction in friction coefcient.
The maximum value of friction coefcient
(0.48) was observed at 50 N normal load
and number of grooves of 8, while the minimum value of friction coefcient was ob-

served at smooth rubber specimen and


150 N normal load. Figure 6 shows the friction coefcient for rubber specimen of
T = 5 mm. Increasing the height of the
grooves showed insignificant decrease
where the friction coefcient increased
with increasing number of grooves. The
maximum value of friction coefcient (0.46)
was observed at 50 N normal load and
number of grooves 8. For rubber specimen
of T = 6 mm, Figure 7, as the dimension of
grooves increased friction coefcient decreased due to the increased capacity of the
groove to restore oil and feed it back to the
contact area.
For rubber specimen of T = 7 mm, Figure 8, it
is observed that, friction coefcient decreased to a value of 0.4 at 50 N normal load
and number of grooves 5.
The followings are the results of experiments of the sliding of rubber test specimens against ceramics lubricated by oil diluted by water. Figure 9 shows the friction
coefcient for rubber specimen of T = 3 mm.
It can be noticed that the emulsion of oil in
water showed signicant friction decrease
due to the relatively lower viscosity of the
emulsion, which was able to lubricate the
contact area. As the number of grooves in-

KGK Dezember 2007

695

ROHSTOFFE UND ANWENDUNGEN


RAW MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS

creased friction coefcient increased due to


leakage of the emulsion to the groove. The
highest load displayed the highest friction.
The maximum value of friction coefcient
(0.26) was observed at 150 N normal load
and number of grooves of 8, while the minimum value of friction coefcient (0.11)
was observed at smooth rubber specimen
and 100, 150 N normal load.
For rubber specimen of T = 4 mm, Figure 10,
the increased dimension of the grooves
caused signicant friction reduction due to
the decreased in contact area. Friction coefcient increased with increasing number of
V-grooves. The highest load displayed high
friction value. At number of grooves 6, 7
and 8 the lower load displayed high friction
coefcient. The maximum value of friction
coefcient (0.25) was observed at 50 N normal load and number of grooves 8.
Friction coefcient for rubber specimen of
T = 5 mm is shown in Figure 11. Friction coefcient increased with increasing number
of grooves. The maximum value of friction
coefcient (0.27) was observed at 50 N normal load and number of grooves 8.
Figure 12 shows the friction coefcient for
rubber specimen of T = 6 mm. Increasing the
height of the grooves caused signicant reduction in friction coefficient. As the

696

KGK Dezember 2007

number of grooves increased friction coefcient increased and the highest load displayed the highest friction value. The maximum value of friction coefcient (0.23) was
observed at 150 N normal load and number
of grooves 6.
Further friction decrease was observed as
the height of the grooves increased to
T = 7 mm, Figure 13, where the maximum
value of friction coefcient (0.21) was observed at 150 N normal load and number of
grooves 5. The minimum value of friction
coefcient was observed at smooth rubber
specimen and 100, 150 N normal load.

Conclusions
For oil lubricated ceramic, friction coefcient decreased with increasing height of
the grooves. It seems that height increase
enables the oil to be well distributed on the
contact surface and form a lm which is responsible for the friction decrease.
Friction coefcient decreased as the height
of the grooves increased and consequently
the capacity of the groove increased to restore lubricant uid and feed once again
into the contact area as load decreases.
Diluting oil by water displayed values of
friction much lower than that observed for
oil lubricated condition.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

L. Strandberg, Ergonomics 28 (1985) 131.


M. Tisserand, Ergonomics 28 (1985) 1027.
W. R. Chang, Safety Sci. 40 (2002) 593.
R. Grnqvist, J. Roine, E. Korhonen,
A. J. Rahikainen, Occup. Accid. 13 (1990) 291.
[5] R. Grnqvist, Ergonomics 38 (1995) 224.
[6] C. M. Powers, K. Kulig, J. Flynn, J. R. Brault, J. Test.
Eval. 27 (1999) 368.
[7] K. W. Li, W.-R. Chang, T. B. Leamon, Chen, C. J.,
Safety Sci. 42 (2004) 547.
[8] K. W. Li, C. J. Chen, Appl. Ergon. 35 (2004) 499.
[9] K. W. Li, C. J. Chen, Safety Sci. 43 (2005) 391.
[10] F. J. Rowland, C. Jones, D. P. Manning, J. Test. Eval.
24 (1995) 368.
[11] D. P. Manning, C. Jones, M. Bruce, Rubber Chem.
Technol. 56 (1983) 703.
[12] D. P. Manning, et al. J. Royal Soc. Med. 83 (1990)
686.
[13] D. P. Manning, C. Jones, M. Bruce, Safety Sci. 14
(1991) 1.
[14] P. Derek, et al. J. Safety Res. 29 (1998) 275.