Sliding Friction

by
Dr. Syed Ismail
Origin of Sliding Friction
Contact between Two Bodies in Relative Motion
Adhesive Wear
Abrasive Wear
In classical form, fatigue life can be predicted as a function of Hertz stress field
and disregarding traction. In order to interpret the effects of metal variables in
Although the wear and friction of non-metallic solids have some fundamental
similarities to that of metals, there are also significant differences in the wear
mechanisms involved and the level of friction or wear which occurs.

These differences can be exploited to produce valuable new bearing materials

which can change commonly accepted expectations of tribological performance.

An example of this is a common polymer called Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

which can provide a coefficient of friction as low as 0.05 in the complete absence
of any lubricant.

However, not all of the differences in tribological characteristics of metals and

non-metals are in favour of the non-metals.

For example, PTFE is soft and has a very high wear rate so that for most
applications it must be blended carefully with other materials before a useful
bearing material is created.
A careful study of the Tribology of non-metallic materials is a pre-requisite to their
successful adaptation as bearing or wear resistant materials.

The development of new technologies, often motivated by global issues such as

environmental pollution, creates new requirements for bearings and wear resistant
materials that cannot be satisfied by traditional metallic materials

A prime example of this research trend is the adiabatic combustion engine where
ceramic materials are being developed as high temperature cylinder and piston
materials.

The adiabatic engine is potentially more efficient than a cooled engine since there
is no need for lubricant cooling systems, i.e. the radiator and water cooled
cylinder block.
The development of such engines poses new challenges; the fundamental
limitations of most ceramics as bearing materials have to be solved by a
painstaking combination of fundamental studies into the wear and friction of
ceramics and in addition new lubrication technologies have to be found.

TRIBOLOGY OF POLYMERS

The term ‘polymers’, which is associated with materials formed by the

polymerization of hydrocarbons, is used to describe an enormous range of
different substances.

Most of these materials were never intended to be utilized as bearing or wear-

resistant materials and, in fact, are usually unsuitable for this purpose.

A few polymers, however, do have valuable tribological properties and most

research is directed towards this relatively limited number of polymers.
Common polymers, with actual or potential tribological function together with
their basic tribological characteristics, are
The ‘high operating temperature limit’ in polymers refers to temperatures in
excess of 150°C. Since most polymers used in engineering applications are
blends of different polymers and additives, e.g. nylon containing PTFE, there is
an enormous range of polymer materials that can be used for tribological
applications.

The use of composites, e.g. glass reinforced PTFE, extends the range of
materials even further. The list in Table is not exhaustive and there are also other
polymers under study for bearing materials.
The physical properties of selected polymers are shown in Table 2
Sliding Wear of Polymers, Transfer Layers on a Harder Counterface

Most polymer surfaces, when used as bearing materials are worn by a harder
counterface.

The application of the hard metallic counterface rubbing against the polymer
surface is dictated by mechanical design requirements and also by the fact that
polymers are more effective against a metallic counterface than when sliding
against themselves.

A basic feature of almost all polymers is that a transfer film is formed when
sliding against a harder counterface which has a strong influence on the
tribology of polymers.
The polymer which provides a classic example of transfer film formation is
PTFE, whose molecular and crystalline structure is shown in Figure.
It has been demonstrated in experiments conducted with PTFE in vacuum that a
strong adhesion occurs between PTFE and a metallic surface. The cause of the
adhesion is believed to be an interfacial chemical reaction between the fluorine
and carbon in PTFE and the opposing metallic surface.

Although there is probably a strong adhesion between a metallic surface and

any other polymer, the special molecular structure of PTFE causes a mechanism
of film transfer which is particular to PTFE.

The lack of side groups and almost cylindrical form of the PTFE molecule
ensures relatively easy movement between molecules under applied stress. The
crystalline structure consists of layers of crystalline material between relatively
weak layers of amorphous material and this favours deformation of the PTFE in a
series of discrete laminae. A block of PTFE in contact with a harder counterface
loses material as a series of laminae resulting in low friction but a high wear rate.
A film transfer mechanism similar to that of PTFE has not been observed in any
other polymer synthesized so far. The vast majority of polymers and polymer
composites sustain a process of ‘lumpy transfer’ when sliding against a hard
counterface.

The size of these lumps is about 1 [μm] in average diameter

Because the contact diameter is very small compared to the planar PTFE
transfer film, their load capacity as a transfer film is also small. This form of
transfer film does not contribute to better wear and friction characteristics of the
sliding contacts and in fact most polymers which exhibit this lumpy film transfer
are not very effective as bearing materials.
A few important exceptions to this rule are High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
and Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) [4]. Their similarity
in behaviour to PTFE is believed to be caused by the common characteristic of
a ‘smooth molecular profile’ or the absence of side groups and kinks in the
polymer chain.

When a polymer slides against another polymer, the cohesively weaker

polymer is worn preferentially to form a transfer film on the cohesively stronger
polymer. The wear mechanism operating is essentially the same as observed
in non-polymer counterfaces
Influence of Counter face Roughness, Hardness and Material Type on
Transfer Films and Associated Wear and Friction of Polymers

The counterface has considerable influence on the wear of any polymer.

A good bearing design includes careful specification of the counterface.

The counterface affects the wear of a polymer according to its hardness,

roughness and ‘surface energy’.

Surface energy is difficult to measure which is intended to define the difference

between two surfaces, e.g. the difference between a gold and a calcium surface
of equal hardness and roughness. In approximate terms, the surface energy is
equivalent to the chemical potential of the counterface material.
Counterface Hardness

It is generally accepted that the counterface should be much harder than the
polymer and hardened steel is often recommended.

This common engineering practice is so well accepted that nobody has tested
the concept experimentally for many years.

The prevailing view is that the counterface should be hard enough so that
abrasion by stray contaminants, e.g. sand, will not cause it to become rough
and abrade the polymer.

A counterface hardness of 700 Vickers has been used in some studies of

polymer wear and was recommended as sufficiently hard for most
applications.
Counterface Roughness

The counterface roughness has a rather more complex effect on polymer

wear.

While it has often been suggested that the roughness should be as low as
possible to reduce abrasion of the polymer [11], more detailed research has
demonstrated that for certain polymers an optimum roughness exists.

When the surface becomes

excessively rough wear is
accelerated.

Effect of counterface roughness on the wear of UHMWPE

The wear rate of the polymer is determined by the penetration depth of
metallic asperities, the shear angle of the polymer and the sliding distance.

In practical situations wear does not proceed at the same rate with time, but
because the asperities become covered with polymer, wear rate declines after
an initial rapid period.

The model, in general, works well but with some of the polymers e.g. LDPE
(Low Density Polyethylene) and PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride), the predicted wear
rates are inaccurate for reasons not yet fully discovered.

The magnitude of counterface surface roughness is not the only factor

affecting the wear and friction characteristics of the polymer. It was also found
that the effect of counterface asperity height distribution on wear rate is
significant.

Significant differences in wear rate between surfaces with a Gaussian

asperity height distribution and surfaces with a non-Gaussian distribution
were recorded.
Counterface Surface Energy

It has been observed that the surface energy of a counterface affects the wear of
PTFE and the formation of PTFE transfer films. A surface with relatively low
energy, e.g. a noble or semi-noble metal such as copper, tends to generate thinner
transfer films compared to that of a more chemically active metal such as zinc.

With a less reactive metal, the wear debris produced also tends to be finer and
the transfer film formed does not cover the surface uniformly, leaving gaps of
exposed metal.

With the more active metal, a thick multi-lamina transfer film is formed and
PTFE is only removed as wear debris in large lumps which are physically
ploughed away by the polymer surface.
 These two mechanisms of wear are illustrated schematically in Figure

Unfortunately no similar studies for other polymers were reported in the literature
but it may be assumed that the counterface surface energy does have some effect
on wear for all polymers.
Influence of Temperature on Polymer Wear and Friction
Most polymers melt at relatively low temperatures. This characteristic
combined with the low thermal conductivity of polymers ensures that frictional
contact temperatures can easily reach the melting point of a polymer and
cause its surface to melt.

When the polymer melts its friction and wear coefficients are markedly
altered. This characteristic can be illustrated by considering a pad of butter in
a heated saucepan. When the melting point of the butter is reached, the
friction dramatically declines to allow the butter to slide across the pan. The
‘wear rate’ of the butter pad, however, tends to rise with temperature,
particularly when melting of the butter occurs.
Similar trends in polymer friction and wear can be found and the prevailing
mechanism can be classified as a form of ‘melting wear’.
Fatigue Wear of Polymers and Long Term Wear Kinetics

In polymers subjected to a large number of stress cycles from repeated sliding

contact, a form of fatigue wear may occur. It was observed that when UHMWPE
was slid against very smooth steel surfaces, an increase in wear rate occurred
after several hundred kilometres of sliding distance.

This rise in wear rate coincided with the development of cracks and spalling on
the worn polymer surface. It was found that after long sliding distances the
fatigue wear, which is predominantly based on cracking and spalling of the
surface, is superimposed on a pre-existing transfer film/adhesive wear process.

The transition to fatigue wear is controlled by the contact stress. For example,
at low contact stresses less than 1 [MPa], a nearly infinite sliding distance is
required before fatigue wear begins. Fatigue wear is therefore more likely to
occur on heavily loaded, very smooth sliding surfaces after a long period of
sliding.
The experimental relationship between the onset of fatigue wear for UHMWPE
and apparent contact stress is shown in Figure.
Effect of Lubricant

The wear of polymers is influenced by lubricants and chemical or corrosive

agents in a manner similar to any other material. The microstructure of a
polymer is also a significant factor affecting wear and frictional characteristics of
polymers.

Lubricants, in general, reduce the friction of polymers to varying degrees. The

reduction obtained depends on the type of polymer and the lubricant used.

Simple addition of water to, for example, a dry nylon/glass contact results in a
dramatic drop in the coefficient of friction to a value of about 0.12. The addition
of fatty acids, such as caproic, palmitic and stearic acids, causes an even more
dramatic decline in friction from 0.4 to 0.09.
The strong effect of lubricants on nylon is believed to be caused by the polar
nature of the polyamide which constitutes nylon. The lubrication effect of fatty
acids was also confirmed with nylon 11 and polyacetal.

Lubrication by non-polar organic substances such as hexane and benzene

caused only a very marginal drop in friction coefficient. Polyethylene, which is
a less polar polymer than nylon, showed a slightly different trend in frictional
characteristics when lubricated with the same lubricants. Also no lubricating
effect by fatty acids was found for PEEK (polyetheretherketone).
Thank You