67

Wear, 150 (1991) 67-77

Friction

and wear tests for elastomers

N. G. Payne and R. G. Bayer

International Business Machines Corporation, Endicott, NY (U.U.)
(Received

October

23, 1990; revised April 10, 1991; accepted

May 2, 1991)

Abstract

A common use of elastomers in business machines is as rollers, controlling the motion of

such items as checks, paper forms and printer ribbons. In these applications
both the
friction and the wear resistance characteristics
of the elastomer
are of major significance.
In this paper, two tests, developed
to perform such characterizations
against paper and
ribbon surfaces, are described. Two case histories in which these test methods were effectively
employed in resolving design problems are discussed. In addition, data for several elastomers
are presented
and compared.

1. Introduction
Elastomers
are frequently
used to drive and stop ribbons,
paper
sheets
and
documents
in business machines. Many things must be considered
when selecting
an
elastomer
for these applications.
For example,
the compatibility
with ink and the
marking
characteristics
of the elastomer
are often concerns.
However,
the friction

between the elastomer and the paper or ribbon surface, as well as the wear resistance
of the elastomer, are generally the key concerns. The latter concern results from the
slippage that frequently occurs between the two surfaces in these applications.
The genera1 wear and frictional characteristics
of paper and inked ribbon are
similar, as are the wear scars produced. To evaluate these characteristics
[l], two tests
have been developed and used to evaluate a number of materials. These test methods
are presented in this paper and case histories in which the tests were utilized are
discussed. In addition, data for several elastomers are given.

2. Apparatus

and test method

2.1. Sample preparation

The friction and wear tests utilize a common specimen design. A sample is
prepared by affixing the elastomer to an aluminum hub 2.54 mm wide by 15.8 mm
in diameter with a mounting hole in the center (Fig. 1). The method of attaching
the elastomer to the hub is optional, depending
on the application
and methods
available or feasible. They may be bonded, cast or vulcanized. Again, depending on
the application of the elastomer, the sample may be machined dr used as is, e.g. with
molded surface, to perform the tests.
A large amount of sliding is needed to produce the wear necessary for evaluation.
This is generated by using the Roshon [2] drum tester.

0043-1648/91/$3.50

0 1991 -

Elsevier Sequoia, Lausanne

(a)

@I

Cc)

Fig. 1. (a) The aluminum hub; (b) the hub with elastomer bonding; (c) typical wear scar produced
in the test. The sliding direction is perpendicular to the hub axis. H is the maximum wear depth.

VIEW
B

ELASTOMERIC
SPECIMEN
(NON-ROTATING)

Fig. 2. Drum tester A is an overview of the Roshon drum tester; B is the sliding interface.
the test the elastomeric roller is fixed so that it does not rotate.

In

This apparatus
consists of a large circular drum (Fig. 2) and is described
in ASTM
Standard
G 56-77 131. The drum is 1.2 m in diameter and 20 cm wide. Paper or inked

ribbon is mounted on the drum periphery and is held taut by the tensioning device
within the drum. The elastomer wear specimen is mounted on a cantilevered
beam
to which strain gauges are attached. The specimen is attached to the beam in a manner
to prevent rotation, and the beam is attached to a movable table beneath the drum.
The wear specimen is brought into contact with the paper or inked ribbon at a known
load, which is monitored and adjusted by the use of the strain gauge attached to the
beam. After the load has been adjusted, the drum rotation is started and the sliding
occurs. The table is also motorized and, as the drum rotates, the table moves the
wear sample across the face of the drum. The combined motions result in a helical

69

path on the surface of the drum. This continually presents a new ribbon surface to
the sample. At the completion of the test, the specimen is removed and the scar is
examined and measured. Figure 1 shows the typical wear scar geometry produced in
this test.
H, the depth of wear, is generally determined
by comparing profilometer traces
taken before and after the tests. If the wear is quite large, an optical comparator or
shadow graph may be used in a similar manner.
The wear resistance of the specific elastomer is measured in terms of a wear
coefficient K defined by the following equations [4]

where

V is the volume

of wear, P the load and S the distance

of sliding. Therefore

K= (~IQ~HW
Put
where r (cm) is the radius of the roller, W (cm) is the width of the roller, H (cm)
is the wear depth, P (g) is the load, v (cm s-) is the drum velocity and t (s) is the
test time. The higher the value of k, the poorer is the wear performance.
The following sets of test parameters were selected as standard conditions for
this test: for the inked fabric ribbon, a load of 1 N, a drum speed of 3000 mm s-l,
a specimen feed rate of 0.25 mm s-l and a test duration of 30 min; for the paper,
a load of 1 N, a drum speed of 363 mm s-, a specimen feed rate of 0.25 mm s-l
and a test duration of 45 min. For typical elastomers, these parameters produced a
wear scar that could be conveniently
and accurately measured, without showing any
evidence of thermal degradation. Since the coefficients of friction against inked ribbon
are generally much lower than against paper, the tests with ribbon could be run at
higher speeds without any adverse effects.
2.2. Friction test
To determine the frictional properties of the elastomer, a reciprocating ball-plane
tester was used (Fig. 3) [S]. The apparatus consisted of a variable-speed
reciprocating
table to which the paper or inked ribbon was fixed. The elastomeric specimen was
attached to a strain-gauged beam above the table in such a manner that it would not
STRAIN

GAGED

BEAM

ELASTOMERIC
SPECIMEN
(NON-ROTATING)

PAPER/RIBBON

TABLE
4

I
*

Fig. 3. Boden-Leben
ball-plane tester. The paper or ribbon is tied
The roller is mounted so that it does not rotate.

to the reciprocating

table.

70
rotate. The test specimen was brought into contact with the paper or ribbon and the
table was put into motion. The strain gauges allowed the monitoring and recording
of the normal and frictional forces on a strip recorder. The following were the test
parameters used to characterize the elastomer: loads of 0.5, 1 and 2 N, a stroke length
of 13 mm, an average speed (60 Hz) of 25.4 mm mini
and measurement
over 3
cycles on the same surfaces. In this case the same values are used for both ribbon
and paper. These values were selected for the following reasons.
The primary concern with friction in these applications
is associated with the
onset of slip and sliding under conditions of low relative velocity. Consequently,
it
was desirable to select test parameters that would allow the determination
of a static
coefficient of friction and a dynamic coefficient of friction for low sliding velocities.
Initially, tests were done at the motion extremes allowed by the test apparatus and
instrumentation
for accurate measurement
of the coefficient of friction. These resulted
in similar behaviors and values and it was decided to use only a single stroke length
and speed as a standard test.
Since loading conditions vary in roller applications,
it was desirable to measure
friction for several different loads. The three loads selected covered the range of
loading conditions, i.e load per unit length, typical of these applications.
The frictional behavior of the elastomer was described in terms of an average
value of the coefficient of friction, which is the ratio of the frictional force to the
normal force. The average value is determined
by averaging measurements
of the
coefficients at individual points in the three test cycles at the three different loads.
An average value established in this manner has been found to be the most useful
in engineering applications. However, the test procedure does allow for identification
of possible load dependences,
as well as the differentiation
of kinetic and static
coefficients of friction and the identification
of stick-slip behavior.
2.3. Paper and ribbon specimens
While the tests may be performed with any ribbon or paper, one specific paper
and one specific ribbon have been used as a basis to perform general comparisons
and evaluations of elastomers. The paper was a bond paper. The ribbon was a generalpurpose printer ribbon, which consisted of a nylon fabric impregnated with ink. Both
materials may be described as being moderately abrasive, e.g., an abrasivity level of
the order of 10e6 [l]. Tests with other paper and ribbon have been performed.
It has to be recognized that the values obtained with these tests are related to
the specific paper and ribbon used in the evaluation. Different values will be obtained
with different ribbons and papers. Since the abrasivity of paper and ribbon can vary
with the relative humidity, the tests were generally conducted under the following
conditions: 20-22 C and 35-45% relative humidity [l].
3. Case histories
The manner in which these two tests have been used to address engineering
problems is illustrated by two case histories. In the first, a stuffer box drive roll, the
concern is with friction and wear against a fabric printer ribbon. In the second, the
concern is friction and wear against paper in a check sorter application.
3.1. Stuffer box
One test application involved the selection of an elastomer for the drive roll of
a printer ribbon stuffer box (Fig. 4). In this application, both the friction between

71

/CRITICAL
REGION

Fig. 4. Illustration of the action of a harmonic stuffer box for ribbon. Additional
regarding the stuffer box may be obtained in ref. 6.

information

the roll and the ribbon and the wear resistance of the roll are of concern. High speed
motion picture studies of the stacking process have shown that irregular stacking occurs
when the ribbon roll cannot force the ribbon between the contact area of the roll
and the ribbon on the stack. Prior to the ribbon passing this critical point, the ribbon
profile is as illustrated in Fig. 4.
During this period the following inequality must hold if proper stacking is to be
achieved
/_ulu--pAo-M>O

(3)

where p is the coefficient of friction between the ribbon and the roller, A the area
of contact between the ribbon and the roller, u the pressure between the ribbon and
the roller, p the coefficient of friction between two pieces of ribbon, A the area of
the ribbon surfaces that must slip against one another while the new fold is being
slipped between the roller and the stack, (+ the pressure between the ribbon layer
and M a force associated with the unrestricted movement of the fold. This expression
is equivalent to the following
y>-$$+-&J
CL

(4)

As an approximation,
it is reasonable to assume that (T and d are approximately the
same, and that M is smaller in comparison with the other resistance forces involved.
Therefore,

Examination
of the high speed film indicates that a significant amount of slip occurs
in the stack, involving a total surface area of the ribbon greater than the contact area
of the roller. Based on these visual observations, A/A is estimated to be approxi-

72
mately 2. Hence, it can be seen that a requirement
on the coefficient
of friction
between
the roller and the ribbon is that it be at least twice that of the coefficient
of friction between
ribbon surfaces.
The coefficient
of friction between
ribbon surfaces was measured
using the same

apparatus as used for determining the coefficient of friction for the elastomer. However,
the slider was modified for these tests. In this case, the slider consisted of a ribbon
specimen wrapped around the elastomer specimen. Several tests were performed at
different loads, and a nominal value of 0.2 was obtained for the coefficient of friction
between ribbon surfaces. Therefore it is indicated that a minimum value of coefficient
of friction for the roller for proper stacking is 0.40.
Experimentally,
the coefficients of friction for a large number of materials were
determined
utilizing the friction test procedure described earlier. In this case, the
ribbon used in the test was that used in the application. The results for several of
the materials are listed in Table 1.
It should be noted that the tests were done at several different loads. However,
none of these indicated a significant load dependence
for these materials over the
range tested. The values shown are average values obtained for the test at different
loads.
Stuffing tests were performed on several of these materials. In these evaluations
the single-component
urethanes generally showed poor stuffing behavior, while EPT/
IIR (epichlorohydrin-butyl
blend) and urethane B showed excellent stuffing characteristics. As can be seen by examining Table 1, the data are in excellent agreement
with the theoretical estimate of a minimum value of 0.4 needed for proper stuffing.
High speed motion picture studies of the stuffing action also indicated that, while
control of the ribbon is being transferred
to and maintained
by one of the rollers,
the other roller continually slides against the ribbon stack. Because of the pressure
in the ribbon stack, this rubbing against the ribbon results in wear of the roller.
Consequently, it was essential to rank the candidate materials in terms of their resistance
to abrasive wear by the ribbon.
To determine the abrasion resistance of the rollers, the wear test procedure was
used to determine ribbon abrasiveness. Again, the actual ribbon was used in the test.
Utilizing wear data obtained in this manner and a linear wear law (eqn. (l)),
e.g. wear proportional
to the load and distance of sliding, to describe the abrasive
wear situation, estimates of the field life may be obtained [l, 41.
On the assumption that the radius of the roller is uniformly reduced by an amount
h as a result of wear, the volume of wear is
TABLE 1
Friction

of ribbon

drive roll material

Material

Coefficient

186 EPT/IIR (epichlorohydrin-butyl blend)

Single-component urethane, 50 Shore A durometer
Single-component urethane, 60 Shore A durometer
Single-component urethane, 70 Shore A durometer

0.50

Single-component
urethane, 80 Shore A durometer
Two-component
urethane, 80 Shore A durometer
Two-part cast urethane (A)
Two-part cast urethane (B)

0.36
0.33
0.37
0.38
0.32
0.40
0.45

of friction

73

V=h-trWD

(6)

where W is the width of the roller and D the nominal diameter. This assumes that
h is much less than D/2. The sliding distance S associated with that wear would be
the product of the surface speed v of the roller and the amount
slipping occurs. If T is the total amount of time that the machine
fraction of time over which slipping occurs, then
S=@T

Substituting
h=

of time for which

is on and /3 is the

(7)
these into eqn. (l), the following

PKPvT
rWD

equation

results

(8)

K, the abrasive wear coefficient

for the elastomer-ribbon

combination, was determined
from drum wear test data.
Measurements
of the force exerted by the ribbon stack have indicated it to be
in the range of 0.15 N, which would be distributed over three rolls. Therefore P was
approximately
0.05 N. High speed picture analysis indicated that approximately half
the operating time involves slipping against the stack. Hence, /3 is approximately 0.5.
Analysis of the ribbon drive mechanism showed that the maximum wear that the roller
can experience and still function was approximately half the thickness of the rubber,
i.e. 1.3 mm. Wear beyond this would result in too large a clearance between the roller,
and the traction would be lost.
The values of D and W for this application were 16.4 mm and 2.54 mm respectively.
Wear tests on EPT/IIR result in a K value of 2.8X lo- mm2 N-l. Since the ink in
the ribbon is the source of the abrasivity, K is lower for used ribbons [l]. Typically,
the effective value of K over the life of the ribbon is half the value determined
on
an unused ribbon. Since in this application the ribbon is used repeatedly, this value
was reduced to 4~ 10e5 mmm2 N-. Utilizing a normal stuffing speed of 15 cm s-l
and eqn. (8), these values resulted in theoretical life of 225 h. Actual stuffer box tests
with this ribbon indicated typical life to be in the range 100-300 h.
In addition to the concern with friction and wear, there were concerns with the
ink compatibility
and adhesion, as well as processing issues. These laboratory tests
were used effectively to screen a large variety of materials, coupled with the additional
concerns. Eventually urethane B was chosen and was estimated to have a lifetime of
lo6 h. Field data have supported this selection.
3.2. Check sorter feed roll
This situation is illustrated in Fig. 5. In this application the feed roll is used both
to stop and to start the check. High accelerations
are involved, and slip can occur if
the friction is not high enough. High speed photography indicated that the tendency
for slipping is greater during acceleration rather than deceleration.
This slip, together
with microslip that may be associated with deformation,
exposes the surface of the
roller to wear. For each application it was therefore desirable to select materials on
the basis of their coefficient of friction against paper and their resistance to abrasive
wear by paper. The two tests discussed earlier provided a convenient way of screening
materials for this application. The standard paper was used in this case.
Engineering
studies of this application indicated that the elastomer was exposed
to another mode of wear or damage, which necessitated
the development
of a third
laboratory test. Examination of used rollers showed evidence of abrasive wear but, in

Fig. 5. Illustration of the wear relation in the check

Fig. 6. Configuration used in the Boden-Leben

sorter.

tester

to compare

the fatigue

wear

properties

of the materials.

addition, they also showed evidence of tearing, with relatively large catastrophic loss
from the surface. This was diagnosed as a fatigue problem associated with the edge
of the check engaging the roller during the deceleration portion of the cycle (see Fig.
5(a)). This mode of wear or damage was not simulated by the drum test used to
determine resistance to abrasive wear.
As a way of simulating this mode, a steel platen was developed with a series of
parallel, widely spaced grooves on its surface. The platen was placed in the ball-plane
apparatus as the lower specimen and the roller pressed against it, as in the friction
test. Test parameters were 4.5 N and 3 Hz with a 0.63 cm stroke. The degree of
tearing after 10 h was used as a measure of resistance to this mode of wear. The
test configuration
is shown in Fig. 6.
In developing this test for tearing, several experiments were performed to select
the parameters
to ensure a reasonable
test time, and that damage typical of the
application was produced. Surface examination was used to verify this latter point.
These three tests were used to evaluate a variety of materials. The original material
used in this application, a 50 Shore A durometer NBR rubber, was also tested and
used as a reference. An improvement
of ten in the life was desired.

7.5

TABLE

Friction

and wear properties

of feed roll material

NBR
50 Shore A

Millable gum
urethane

Modified
NBR
60 Shore A

Hardened
EPDM
60 Shore A

0.066

0.053

0.058

0.051

(mm)
Coefficient of
friction

1.22

1.03

0.860

0.720

Tear resistance

Poor

Good

Good

Very good

Abrasive wear
(depth-wear
drum test)

The results of these tests for three candidate

materials
are presented
in
Table 2.
While not exhibiting the best values in any one category, the millable gum urethane
material has superior performance in all categories. Since all three aspects are important
in the application,
this material was selected as the best candidate to replace the
original material.
In addition to the material consideration addressed by this type of testing, influences
of other design parameters were addressed. In particular, the influence of elastomer
thickness and roller diameter on life were considered. For fatigue, wear life is typically
inversely proportional
to some power n of the contact stress. Studies have shown that
n can range from 2 to 20 [7-91. In the case of a more flexible coating mounted on
a stiffer substrate the contact stress decreases as the thickness of the coating increases
[lo, 111.
Consequently,
the contact stress in the elastomer will tend to decrease as the
thickness of the elastomer increases. In addition, the stress should also decrease as
the diameter of the roller increases. For abrasive wear the principal relationship should
be the same as those given by eqn. (8). It can be seen that increased thickness will
also increase life in terms of abrasion. A similar increase is indicated for increases
in diameter. However, since the slip velocity would tend to increase with increasing
diameter, the effects tended to offset one another. Consequently,
an increase in the
thickness of the elastomer as well as in the diameter of the roller was recommended.
Subsequent machine tests and field performance, incorporating both the recommended
material and the changes in dimension, showed significantly improved life for these
rollers.
4. Discussion
These two tests have been used not only to select an elastomer for a given
application but also to investigate the influence of various processing parameters and
compatibility with specific inks.
Process variables, such as cure time, temperature
and rate, have a direct effect
on the physical properties of the cured elastomer. The state of cure or optimum cure
must be refined for the most important properties. The best level of cure for one
property may not be best for the other properties. Consequently,
friction and wear
tests are needed to optimize processing aspects for these types of application.

76

There are other aspects

as well. The mixing or compounding
may alter aging
characteristics
and need to be evaluated
in a similar manner.
Another
concern
is
machining.
To hold close tolerances,
it is sometimes
necessary
to grind or machine
the completed
part to size. This is true with cylindrical
rollers, which must be held
to diameter
and concentricity.
This removes the skin or surface material, which may
have slightly different
characteristics
from the material
beneath
the surface.
The effect of fillers on performance
is also an element that is important.
Additives
or fillers have the ability to alter the physical properties
of elastomers.
For example,
carbon blacks have the effect of stiffening
or reinforcing.
Silicas and fine blacks give
better tear and abrasion
strength.
These types of concern,
as well as a variety of engineering
situations,
have called
for a large number
of evaluations.
In Table 3 some results of these studies, which
utilize the standard
paper and ribbon, are presented.
Some additional
data are also given for other papers and ribbons. The special
ribbons and paper indicated
in the table were unique for a specific application.
From examination
of Table 3 it can be seen that the abrasive wear coefficients
have similar ranges for ribbon and paper. Also, the wear resistance
of the elastomer
can vary over several orders of magnitude
(see samples 6 and 15, and samples 8 and
14) and can vary with the abrasive media used (see samples
7 and 12).
The examples
of the millable gum urethanes
(see samples
10 and 11) also show
the influence
of process variables.
The sensitivity
to ink on the wear of the elastomer
is illustrated
by the data for EC0 (sample 12) and the millable gum urethane
(sample
7 ). EC0 shows a variation of a factor of 28 while the millable gum urethane
2 factor
of less than 2. In general,
it has been found that the millable gum urethanes
have
superior
wear resistance.
There is considerable
difference
between
the frictional
behaviors
of ribbon and
paper. Generally
the coefficients
of friction against ribbon range between 0.2 and 0.5,
TABLE 3
Wear

Sam-

and friction coefficients

for several materials

Material

Wear

(mm3 mm-

N- )

Friction

coefficient

Standard
ribbon

paper

0.36
0.33
0.37
0.38
0.32
0.45

0.98
1.12

pie
Standard
ribbon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

One-part
cast urethane
One-part
cast urethane
One-part
cast urethane
One-part
cast urethane
Two-part
cast urethane
Millable gum urethane
Millable gum urethane
Two-part
cast urethane
Two-part
cast urethane
Millable gum urethane
Millable gum urethane
EC0 (epichlorohydrin)
EC0 (epichlorohydrin)
Neoprene
Butyl 186 EPT/IIR

50
60
70
80

Standard
paper

Special
ribbon

dur
dur
dur
dur

70 dur
50 dur
70 dur
50 dur
(process 1)
(process 2)
process A
process B

6.0~ 1O-9

3.0~ lo-
4.7x10-
1.6x10-+

2.9~
5.2~
3.6 x
6.0~
1.2x
2.7 x
4.0 x
1.7x

lo-
lo-
lO-9
lo-
10-s
lo-
10-s
10-7

2.7 x IO-

0.51
0.46
0.50
0.49

7.4 x 10-x
2.8~10-~

Standard

0.86
0.72
1.18
0.91
0.47
1.00

0.50

77

and against paper between 0.5 and greater than 1.0. Again, material variances and
process variations are seen in the data. Also, similar friction does not imply similar
wear (see samples 12 and 13), nor does similar wear imply similar friction (see samples
5 and 10).
It should be noted that the data given generally represent the average of several
tests. Standard deviations were in the range lo%-20%.

5. Conclusion

The two test methods discussed have proved useful in resolving friction and wear
problems with elastomers. They provided a means of ranking materials and investigating
the effects of various processing parameters. In addition, they have provided the data
used to predict field performance.

References
1 R. G. Bayer, Wear by paper and ribbon, Wear, 49 (1978) 147.
2 D. D. Roshon, Testing machine for evaluation of wear by paper, Weor, 30 (1974) 93-103.
3 ASTM Standard G 56-77, 1977.
4 E. Rabinowicz, Fricfion and Wear of Materials, Wiley, New York, 1965, pp. 167-180.
5 Friction and Wear Devices, American Society of Lubrication Engineers, Chicago, IL, 1976,
pp. 84-85.
6 E. F. Helinski, IBM J. Res. Dev., 23 (4) (1979) 411-415.
7 A. Schallamach, Relevant advances in knowledge of rubber, friction and tyre wear, Rubber
Chem. Technol., 41 (1968) 209.
8 I. V. Kraghelsky and E. F. Nepomnyashchi,
Fatigue wear under elastic contact conditions,
Wear, 8 (1965) 8, 303,
9 V. K. Jain and S. Bahadur, Experimental verification of fatigue wear equation. In S. K.
Rhee, A. W. Ruff and K. C. Ludema (eds.), Proc. ht. Conf: on Wear of Materials, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1981, p. 700.
10 D. Barovich, S. C. Kingsley and T. C. Ku, Stresses on a thin strip or slab with different
elastic properties from that of the substrate due to elliptically distributed load, ht. 1. Eng.
Sci., 2 (1964) 253-268.
11 T. C. Ku, S. C. Kingsley and J. H. Ramsey, Stresses in a thin slab with different elastic
properties from that of the substrate due to distributed normal and shearing forces on the
surface of the slab, ht. J. Eng. Sci., 3 (1965) 93-107.