Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Pin-on-disc is widely used to evaluate tribological properties of thin lms. However, the results are often
Received 9 August 2013 present without standard uncertainties; moreover, in many cases the standard uncertainty is replaced by
Received in revised form standard deviation, which is a strong underestimation of real uncertainty. In this study we have followed
3 February 2014
ISO and NIST guidelines to investigate the possible sources of uncertainties related to friction and wear
Accepted 13 February 2014
rate measurement and to apply them on two selected coating systems TiN and DLC. We show that
Available online 12 March 2014
inuence of operator is a signicant contribution to the uncertainty of the wear rate, particularly in the
Keywords: case of very low wear of DLC coatings. We discuss why variance should be used instead statistic
Pin-on-disc deviation and suggest a method to calculate uncertainties in case of small number of measurements. The
Coatings
paper could be used as a guide to evaluate friction and wear data of thin lms and coatings using the
Uncertainty
pin-on-disc technique.
Friction and wear
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2014.02.011
0301-679X & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Novak, T. Polcar / Tribology International 74 (2014) 154163 155
2. Measurement uncertainties
1 F 2f
u2 i u2F u2F n : 5
F 2n f F 4n
where
u i uF f uF n
ui;r ; uF f ;r ; uF n ;r : 7
Ff Fn
The Eq. (8) may be then written as is time dependent with the period T 2r/v. If the sampling
2 2 !2 frequency of friction data is high compared to frequency of
0 a2 2
rotation /2 and the measurement duration long enough, the
u2Ff ;r p 2 : 18
100 3 2R2 2 mean value of the coefcient Fn/ could be considered as zero.
Nevertheless, this coefcient could be still responsible for the
The force Fn in Eqs. (3) and (5) is the normal component of force
periodical uctuation of the measured instantaneous value of
acting on the pin and the uncertainty of this value is calculated
friction coefcient, particularly for higher deviation angle .
using Eq. (19)
If the sensitivity coefcient of Fn is negligible, the relative instru-
F n 2 2 F n 2 2 ment uncertainty of the friction coefcient is
u2Fn um u ; 19
m 2 2 !2
0 2 a 2 2 m 2
where um is the uncertainty of the dead weight and u is the
2
ui;r p p : 26
100 3 2R2 2 m 3
uncertainty caused by deviation of the normal of sample surface
plain from the sample axis of rotation. The uncertainty umi is, however, only a part of umB; its remaining
If (m) denotes the error of scales used for dead weight scaling component umv is often predominant. To obtain umv it is necessary
and g for the gravity acceleration, the rst term in Eq. (19) is to repeat the measurements with the same type of samples under
identical conditions. The best estimation of the friction coefcient
F n 2 2 m 2
um g 2 p : 20 is the arithmetic mean of the registered values m1, m2,, mN. The
m 3
difference m between highest and lowest values of mi should be
The relative uncertainty of gravity acceleration, given by latitude used as a base for estimation of umv. Supposing the rectangular
and altitude of the measurement place, is of the order 10 4 and distribution of the probability of values mi in the interval between
could be neglected. The coefcient 1/3 in Eq. (20) has been the highest and the lowest values, in agreement with [1,2]
applied according to Refs. [1,2]. we obtain
The effect of deviation of the normal of sample surface plain
from the sample axis of rotation is illustrated in Fig. 3, where uv p: 27
denotes the angle of deviation, r the radius of wear track, R the 2 3
distance of the pin holder axis from the level axis of rotation, J the Then we combine Eqs. (2), (26) and (27) giving
moment of inertia of the pin holder lever and z the instantaneous
2
height of the pin over horizontal plane. The time dependence of z u2B ui;r 2 : 28
12
is described as
The value of uncertainty of friction coefcient u is then given as
z r sin cos t; 21
s
where denotes the angular velocity of the sample. Due to the 2
uu u2uA ui;r 2 : 29
contribution of inertial forces to the weight G, the instantaneous 12
force on the pin is
We should point out here that we do not consider any inertial
2
J d z J effects caused by dead load. When the coating and/or ball surfaces
F n gm 2 m gm m 2 r sin cos t: 22
R dt 2 R2 are rough or have topographical defects, the load would vary
during one rotation and thus calculated friction. However, these
Considering low deviation we can simplify
effects are negligible in the case of hard protective coatings. The
u sin 23 surface roughness of the coatings is typically very low (substrates
to obtain are polished) and counterparts are very smooth (bearing balls).
Topographic features in the wear track could be produced
J
F n gm 2
m 2 r cos t: 24 by severe plastic deformation of the substrate or by localized
R accumulation of adhered wear debris. For hard coatings the plastic
In tribological tests linear speed v is traditionally used, v r. deformation is negligible and worn volume minimal; moreover,
The sensitivity coefcient of Fn with respect to written as the wear debris is typically removed from the contact area to the
2 wear track borders. In fact, the surface roughness measured in the
F n J v
m cos t 25 wear track in direction parallel to sliding distance is often lower
R2 r
than that of as-deposited coating surface.
true value was in the condential interval was about 80% for 10
scans and nearly 100% for 50 scans [14]. Nevertheless, these
400
quantitative conclusions should be assessed critically, since the
authors applied the statistical methods considering individually
scanned cross-sectional areas as identical, i.e. repeated measure- 200
ment. However, they used the values obtained from different
places of the wear track. 0
We will investigate here the uncertainty of the wear rate. The
wear rate w is dened as -200
3. Experimental details
A uA 8:9 10 3 43
uAv p: 38
2 3 Type B uncertainty of friction coefcient was calculated from
Eq. (26) and (29). According to the inductive displacement
And then
transducer specication, the sensitivity tolerance is 1% and the
2 2 2 2
z 2x uAo 1 A linear deviation is 0.2%. The highest measured friction force Ff0 is
u2A;r u2Ai;r u2Ao;r u2Av;r :
h b A 12 A limited by software to 10 N; thus, 0 from Eq. (9) is calculated from
39 equal to Ff0 0Fn. Estimation of uncertainty components ud,r and
uh,r is based on the presumption that the effect of manufacturing
If the time dependent component in Eq. (25) is maximal (i.e. cos tolerances is negligible compared to the effect of the elastic
t1), and the Eq. (20) is used, the uncertainty uFn,r is given by deformations and clearances. Analyzing stiff lever positions in
Eq. (40) the unloaded and loaded state, the highest measured value ,
0.006 rad, was obtained for a 50 mm and R90 mm (see Fig. 2
m (a)). The horizontal deviation of the stiff lever, , which is adjusted
uFn;r um;r p: 40
m 3 by an operator, did not exceed 0.012 rad. The mass of dead weight
160 R. Novak, T. Polcar / Tribology International 74 (2014) 154163
Table 3
The effect of radius on friction and wear rate of TiN coatings.
r (mm) 3 6 9 12 15 18
0.917 0.13 0.93 7 0.08 0.917 0.04 0.977 0.04 0.99 7 0.04 1.067 0.02
w (10 6 mm3 N 1 m 1) 5.6 7 1.6 6.5 7 2.1 6.9 7 1.4 9.6 7 0.4 11.3 7 0.7 9.7 7 0.9
1.1 Table 4
14 Cross-section area measured by 5 different operators, DLC coating.
1.0
-1
A (mm2) 1.90 1.85 2.08 1.38 2.04
3
0.9
A (mm2) 0.41 0.4 0.29 0.31 0.78
10
Ao,r 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.11
-6
0.8
8
4.2. Friction and wear of DLC coatings Although the measurement of friction and wear by pin-on-disc
apparatus is relatively easy and straightforward, an estimation of
The experiments carried out with 10 samples consisted in uncertainties is a difcult task. We show that the misalignment
repeated measurements focused on the following parameters between the normal of the sample surface and the pin holder axis
and their effect on friction and wear rate: (i) operator induced in the tangential plane (see Fig. 2(a)) is negligible compared to
uncertainties of w values and further on determination of test other sources of instrument uncertainty (Eq. 26). In case of the
parameters impact on values of m, w and their uncertainties; wear rate, we have found that the major contribution to the
(ii) relative humidity RH; (iii) normal force Fn; (iv) pin velocity v. uncertainty is the evaluation of the cross-section area of the wear
(i) This experiment was arranged in the same way as for TiN track. If the wear track borders are not well dened and the wear
coatings referred to above. The pin-on-disc test with parameters track is shallow, the uncertainty of the cross-section area is
Fn 5 N, v 10 cm/s and N 3000 was carried out and ve opera- dominated by operator. We compared 8 measurements of 5 experi-
tors measured the wear track cross section area in eight positions enced operators; although repeatability of each operator was
evenly distributed along the wear track. The comparison of their reasonable, the difference between two operators could be as high
results, i.e. the arithmetic mean A and the difference A of these as could be as high as 50% (Table 4). However, for deeper wear
eight values of cross section area, is shown in Table 4. tracks, such as those of TiN coating in this study, the maximum
While the uncertainties achieved by particular operators are difference between two operators dropped to an acceptable 6%
relatively low, the substantial difference in values A obtained by (Table 1).
different operators originated from the different altitudes to Correct evaluation of measurement uncertainties is essential to
estimate the wear track boundaries and this wear track width interpret tribological results correctly. It helps as well to establish
(see Fig. 4). If all A values measured by these ve operators are minimum number of measurements. Fig. 6 clearly illustrates the
taken as one set and the mean value and its uncertainty was issue showing a mean of ve values obtained for friction and wear
evaluated, the result is rate. It is evident that the friction and, particularly, the wear rate
increase with radius. However, if we measure each point just once
A 1:85 7 0:30 m2 and uAo;r 0:16: 53
or even twice, we would obtain almost random results due to high
Eq. (52) could be then modied to uncertainties of measured parameters. For DLC coatings, we
s concluded that humidity, pin velocity and load in selected ranges
2
1 A did not inuence the values of the friction and the wear rate. Such
uw w 14:4 10 3 54 assessment would not be possible without precise estimation of
12 A
measurement uncertainty.
(ii) The effect of air relative humidity in the laboratory environ- It is evident that the uncertainty of the result of one-time
ment was evaluated by means of measurements at seven different measurement, given by umA and umi only, cannot characterize the
values RH whereas the tests conditions were held xed. The true standard uncertainty. The measurement has to be repeated;
results are presented in Table 5. however, how many measurements are required to estimate
162 R. Novak, T. Polcar / Tribology International 74 (2014) 154163
Table 5
Friction and wear rate of DLC coatings vs. relative air humidity.
DLC coating: Fn 5 N, v 10 cm s 1, r 7 mm
RH 29 30 35 36 39 42 47 Average
Table 6
The friction and wear rate for two loads, DLC coating. friction values (here the mean means average from actual friction
coefcient measured during one sliding test). However, sliding is a
DLC coating: v 10 cm s 1, r 8 mm, t 237 1 1C, N 3000 very complex process and sometimes the steady state wear with
stabilized friction is not obtained. In such case the uncertainty of
Fn (N) w (10 7 mm3 N 1 m 1) A/A
friction will be higher and must be further analyzed. Another
5 0.087 7 0.015 0.020 1.19 70.20 0.40 possibility is regular oscillation of the friction value during one
10 0.0917 0.016 0.028 1.13 70.19 0.41 revolution of the disc. Local imperfection, such as pores, micro-
cracks, or sudden wear debris release, could lead to local changes
in the wear track and consequently local change in friction. The
Table 7 average value of friction could be still treated in the same way as
The friction and wear rate for two sliding speeds, DLC coating. above, but the uncertainty will again increase. We will deal with
DLC coating: Fn 5 N, r 7 mm, t 237 1 1C, N 3000
these phenomena in our future study.
Our analysis helps to calculate uncertainty of the most used
v (cm s 1) w (10 7 mm3 N 1 m 1) tribological parameters, friction and wear rate. Although demon-
strated on pin-on-disc system, the method could be easily adopted
5 0.0737 0.015 0.041 1.137 0.17
for similar techniques. The tribological analysis of thin lm is
10 0.0787 0.019 0.046 1.117 0.16
typically comparative different coatings tested at identical
conditions are compared, or the effect of test conditions on one
uncertainty? If the test duration and economy is not taken into coating is studied. The knowledge of uncertainty helps to distin-
consideration, the following procedure should be carried out: guish real difference (e.g. increase in friction) from random
After every test the value of m is evaluated. This value is uctuations and thus improve reliability of tribological measure-
increasing sharply during rst tests but after certain number ments. We should stress here that uncertainty evaluation is a part
of the tests the increase will be negligible and m could be of tribological measurement; therefore, brief description of uncer-
considered as mmax. Then mmax denes the full variance and tainty evaluation should be always.
Based on our analysis of the equipment, measurement practice
max
u v p : 55 and friction and wear results obtained for two fundamentally
2 3
different coatings, we can suggest following simplication to the
Using Eq. (58) in Eqs. (28)(30) the standard uncertainty um could process of friction and wear rate uncertainty evaluation described
be determined. The same procedure can be applied to the standard above:
uncertainty uw of the wear rate.
However, this lengthy procedure is rarely applicable in practice Sample and pin misalignment could be neglected and the
and the number of measurements typically does not exceed ve. instrument uncertainty of friction coefcient then depends on
Following the recommendation in [1,2], the expanded standard the tribometer range and sensitivity (Eq. (9)).
uncertainties Umv or UAw given in Eq. (56) should be used instead of Data difference, i.e. difference between the highest and the
the standard combined uncertainties umv and uAw lowest value in the set of data measured at identical conditions,
should be used to calculate variance. In general, the uncertainty
U i kui ; U Aw kuAw 56
of friction due to variance is signicantly higher than the
The coverage factor k is in the range 2 to 3 [1,2] and the selection instrument uncertainty.
of the k value from this interval depends on the particular case and To evaluate uncertainty of the wear rate, the most important
on the experimenter choice. Eq. (29) will be then modied and the are uncertainty of the wear track cross-section area (operator
value of expanded uncertainty Um will be given as inuence) and the difference between the highest and the
q lowest measured cross-section area. Other components in
U u2A k ui;r 2 :
2
57 Eq. (42) could be neglected.
Single tribological measurement should not be used; the
Consequently, Eq. (42) will be transformed and the value Uw will
minimum of three identical measurement is required and
be
coverage factor should be used to increase uncertainties esti-
s
2 2 2 mates (see Eqs. (57) and (58)).
z 2 x uAo 1 m 2
U w kw : 58
h b A 3 m
pin holder misalignment or the role of operator in estimation of [3] Sehgal R, Gandhi OP, Angra S. Wear evaluation and ranking of tribomaterials
the wear track cross-section area. Due to nature of sliding process using a Haasse diagram approach. J Tribol 2001;123:48693.
[4] Ransom D, Li JL, Andres LS, Vance J. Experimental force coefcients of a two-
we suggest variance computed from the difference between bladed labyrinth seal and a four-pocket damper seal. J Tribol 1999;121:3706.
maximum and minimum measured value instead of standard [5] Tieu AK, Qiu ZL. Experimental study of freely alignable journal bearings. 1.
deviation. We applied standard uncertainty to a set of measure- Static characteristics. J Tribol 1996;118:498502.
ments on two different coatings, TiN and DLC, and showed values [6] Schmitz TL, Action JE, Ziegert JC, Sawyer WG. The difculty of measuring low
friction uncertainty analysis for friction coefcient measurements. J. Tribol.
of friction and the wear rate with corresponding uncertainties. Trans. ASME, 127; 2005; 6736.
We showed that many uncertainties could be neglected and [7] Burris DL, Sawyer WG. Addressing practical challenges of low friction
the procedure to estimate the uncertainties for low number of coefcient measurements. Tribol Lett 2009;35:1723.
[8] Krick BA, Sawyer WG. A little analysis of errors in friction for small wear
measurement.
tracks. Tribol Lett 2010;39:2212.
[9] Burris DL, Sawyer WG. Measurement uncertainties in wear rates. Tribol Lett
2009;36:817.
Acknowledgments [10] Schmitz TL, Action JE, Burris DL, Ziegert JC, Sawyer WG. Wear-rate uncertainty
analysis. J Tribol Trans ASME, 126; 2004; 8028.
[11] Dorsch RG, Husler G, Herrmann JM. Laser triangulation: fundamental
This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation
uncertainty in distance measurement. Appl Opt 1994;33:130614.
through the project 108/10/0218. [12] Fleischer M, Windecker R, Tiziani HJ. Theoretical limits of scanning white-light
interferometry signal evaluation algorithms. Appl Opt 2001;40:281520.
[13] Pavlicek P, Soubusta J. Theoretical measurement uncertainty of white-light
References
interferometry on rough surfaces. Appl Opt 2003;42:180913.
[14] Colbert RS, Krick BA, Dunn AC, Vail JR, Argibaz N, Sawyer WG. Uncertainty in
[1] ISO: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, Corrected and pin-on-disk wear volume measurements using surface scanning techniques.
Reprinted 1995. Tribol Lett 2011;42:12931.
[2] NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994 Edition.