See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298418583

On the Laws and Theories of Sliding Friction

Conference Paper · November 2015

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2015-51470

CITATIONS READS
0 817

1 author:

Nannaji Saka
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
113 PUBLICATIONS   1,973 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tribology: Friction, wear,and lubrication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nannaji Saka on 11 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Mechanical Engineering Conference & Exposition
IMECE 2015
November 13-19, Houston, Texas, USA

51470
On the Laws and Theories of Sliding Friction
Nannaji Saka
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Email: nsaka@mit.edu

ABSTRACT
The many seminal contributions made by Professor Nam P.
Suh to the theories of wear, such as the delamination wear and
the solution wear, are well known. The contributions made by
him and his associates to the theories of friction, however, are
less known; but they are equally significant. In this article, I
first briefly survey, to provide an historical context, the laws
and theories of sliding friction as proposed over the past
centuries and decades. Then the contributions of Prof. Suh and
his associates in recent decades are reviewed. Specifically, the
role of wear particles in the frictional phenomena of dry and
boundary-lubricated sliding is examined. A novel concept of
undulating, or patterned, surfaces has been advanced to
minimize friction in both dry and boundary-lubricated sliding. Fig. 1 Types of friction. Friction of dry and boundary-
The undulating surfaces trap wear debris and thus minimize lubricated surfaces may be classified as Coulomb
plowing friction in dry sliding, above the transition temperature friction.
in boundary-lubricated sliding, and even in hydrodynamic
bearings during start/stop operations. The concept is especially there is no viscous medium between the sliding surfaces or the
appropriate for heavily loaded tribological systems with tighter sliding surfaces themselves do not deform viscously. Because
clearances in which the likelihood of seizure is imminent. boundary-lubricant films behave more or less as elastic-plastic
Keywords: adhesion, plowing, seizure, undulating surfaces. solids, however, friction phenomenon in these systems is akin
to that in dry sliding and hence it will also be included.
1 INTRODUCTION The primary object in reviewing the friction theories is to
examine the essential characteristics, similarities, and
In this presentation, first the laws of friction proposed
differences among the various friction mechanisms or models,
several centuries ago are introduced and then the theories of dry
and to examine to what extent a mechanism follows the laws of
sliding friction of the past several decades are discussed. The
friction. The theories of friction considered address only the
friction laws are idealized generalizations of empirical
micro-scale phenomena. The nano-scale aspects of friction and
observations by engineers; friction theories are in-depth
related tribological phenomena are addressed in other
analyses of physical phenomena by scientists. The demarcation
contributions in the conference. Furthermore, it is not the object
between engineers and scientists, however, is less sharp. As
of this presentation to conduct critical literature review. Rather,
shown in Fig. 1, there are basically two types of friction: dry
the intent is to review mostly the work of Suh and his co-
and viscous. In both cases friction depends on whether the
workers at MIT and elsewhere. Works by several other authors
mating bodies slide past or roll over each other. Friction in
are cited to provide the necessary contextual background. No
hydrodynamic and elasto-hydrodynamic systems is due to
effort will be made to critique or evaluate their work. The
viscous shear of the lubricant at the interface of the mating pair.
historical and general aspects are from the first five references
These systems violate almost all the laws of friction. Even in
listed [1-5] and the experimental data are from the various
dry rolling, if the bodies in contact deform by viscous flow, or
sources cited after.
internal friction, at least the third law is violated. Therefore we
are concerned here only with dry sliding friction, that is when

1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

2 THE LAWS OF FRICTION
The first two laws of friction were enunciated by Leonardo
da Vinci in the middle of the 15th century [1,2], two hundred
years before Sir Isaac Newton laid down the laws of motion
and provided a clear concept of force. The first law of friction
states that the frictional force is proportional to the applied
normal load. Based on Leonardo’s observations the second law
can be stated as: The friction force is independent of the
nominal contact area. It may be noted, however, that Leonardo
himself did not investigate the causes of friction.
Two centuries later, Guillaume Amontons rediscovered the
laws of friction, now called Amontons’ laws. As we shall see
later, these laws are good approximations, but there are serious
exceptions, too. He, however, took a giant step forward, for in
addition to the laws of friction he also proposed several
mechanisms of friction. He postulated that friction arises
because of surface roughness, thus the “roughness theory” of
friction was born. Moreover, he further speculated that friction
arises not only because of the need to raise one rough surface
over another but also by the bending of roughnesses (which are
now called asperities), or their breaking. Thus in effect he
proposed several mechanisms at once and hence several
theories, if qualitatively, of friction: roughness, deformation,
and fracture. Like Leonardo he did not model these
mechanisms.
Thirty years after Amontons’ contribution, John Theophilus
Desaguliers proposed a very different view of the mechanism
of friction. He attributed the observed high friction of smooth
surfaces to adhesion. Thus was born the “adhesion theory” of
friction, but he could not explain Amontons’ laws by the
adhesion mechanism.
Perhaps the first quantitative theory of friction was that due
to Charles Augustin Coulomb. His theory addresses the friction
of rough surfaces by the mechanics of rigid bodies to derive a
simple equation for the friction coefficient, µ, in terms of the
asperity slope as: µ = tan θ . Unfortunately, the mechanics of
rigid bodies is alone is not of much help in calculating friction
force, for rigid body contact and motion are not dissipative. He
could not have analyzed the problem, however, because at his
time the mechanics of deformable (plastic) bodies was not
sufficiently developed. Today, of course, this deficiency is
easily corrected by allowing the asperities to deform plastically.
He is, however, credited with the third law of friction: The
friction force is independent of the relative velocity of the
contacting bodies.
Before the theories of friction are presented, perhaps it is
well to recapitulate the laws of friction and examine their
validity. The Amontons-Coulomb laws of friction may be
summarized as:
Law 1: Friction force is proportional to the applied normal
load.
Law 2: Friction force is independent of the nominal contact
area.
Law 3: Friction force is independent of the relative sliding
velocity.
2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
2.1 On the Validity of the Laws of Friction. It may be
noted immediately, however, that the laws of friction are not as
fundamental and universal as the laws of motion, the law of
gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and so
on. Of course, even the laws of physics have been amended in
the past century as new phenomena of nature came to light. The
laws of friction are primarily based on the experimental
findings of practical engineers centuries ago. Naturally, they
are expected to be valid only in a small range of experimental
or service conditions.
That the friction force is proportional to the normal force is
almost a necessity. Otherwise it would not be possible to define
a friction coefficient. If the two forces were not proportional,
their ratio would be different for different normal forces and
hence would be just a parameter. In such a case it would be
better to call the ratio traction coefficient, as is done in
hydrodynamic lubrication. Nevertheless, it has been observed
for a fairly large range of loads that the frictional force is
indeed proportional to the normal force. As will be seen
shortly, it is in fact a consequence of the second law.
According to the second law, friction force is independent
of the nominal contact area. We now know that the real contact
area depends on and is proportional to the applied normal load,
and that the tangential force is proportional to the real contact
area. Consequently the friction force is expected to be
proportional to the normal force, which is the first law. It may
be noted that the nominal area does not appear in these
considerations, hence the second law. However, if the real area
of contact approaches the nominal area, the law is expected to
be invalid. In such an event, junction growth, seizure, etc. are
expected to make the second law invalid.
The third law of friction essentially defines dry sliding
conditions and friction. If the friction force is a strong function
of the relative velocity, then viscous deformation would be
responsible for friction. The deformation behavior of most
materials, especially metals, at moderate temperatures,
however, is strain-rate insensitive and hence the third law will
be valid. Such friction is aptly named Coulomb friction.
The validity of the laws can be qualitatively explained by
the asperity-contact schematics shown in Fig. 2. The general
requirements for the validity of the first two laws of friction are
that the real area of contact should be much smaller than the
nominal contact area, and randomly distributed, which
generally is the case. For example, if the ratio of the real to
nominal contact areas, Ar/An, is 0.01, the ratio of the asperity
size and the asperity spacing, a/λ, is about 0.1. Then the
asperity contacts are sparsely distributed and thus they behave
as independently deforming regions. As a result, both the first
and second laws are valid. So these laws are not quite
independent, because one law is related to the other.
As the normal load is increased, the real area approaches
the nominal area and the asperity contacts coalesce, as shown in
the schematics, into larger areas and thus the asperity
deformation may not be quite independent. Then both the first
and second laws of friction may be violated. Moreover, at high
loads and high velocities of sliding, the interface temperatures
will be high and new mechanisms of friction may come into
play. For example, at high temperatures the surfaces may soften
and flow viscously, oxidize, or even melt. When a liquid layer
is present, the laws of dry friction are no longer valid. In nano-
scale systems where the size of such systems is the size of the
asperity, the real area and apparent areas of contacts are about
the same. In such systems, accordingly, the laws of sliding
friction may not be valid at all.
0.01 0.02
0.05 0.1
0.2 0.5
0.8 1.0
Fig. 2 Schematics of asperity contacts of random
rough surfaces. Each schematic comprises 50x50
pixels and each black pixel represents an asperity-
asperity contact. The numbers represent the ratio of
real-to-nominal contact areas, Ar/An.
3 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
3 THE THEORIES OF FRICTION
As has been noted earlier, the first quantitate theory of
friction was due to Coulomb. It will be shown shortly, however,
that it is not a theory of friction at all. Realistic theories of
friction have been advanced only in the 20th century, starting
with the pioneering work of Tomlinson [3,6] and marching
toward the present-day theories of nano-scale friction. It must
be emphasized, however, although the classical theories are
based on different physical aspects, the problem is basically
one: that of plastic deformation (or fracture) of contacting
asperities during sliding. It is a boundary value problem in
continuum mechanics of solids with a multitude of attributes:
geometry (asperity height and slope), interface boundary
conditions (strength of adhesion), surface traction/displacement
boundary conditions, “constitutive” equations (yield strength,
hardness, fracture energy, etc.) and so on. The task then is to
solve the field equations and determine the friction force and
the friction coefficient for a given normal force (or
displacements). Because several variables enter the analysis, it
is perhaps better to designate the friction coefficient as a system
property than as surface or material property. This viewpoint
emerges as the various theories are examined in detail later.
Moreover, the calculated friction coefficients are generally
for the onset of motion, and are usually small compared with
experimental observations. In continued sliding, however, wear
particles are copiously generated and they increase friction
greatly. Long plowing grooves are formed on the sliding
surfaces both in dry and boundary lubricated surfaces. This
mechanism of friction, dubbed plowing, is the most dominant,
at least in ductile materials. Surprisingly, this mechanism is
quite prevalent even in boundary lubricated sliding. Suh and his
associates have studied the plowing phenomenon extensively
and have presented innovative solutions for minimizing sliding
friction. Specifically, undulating surfaces have been developed
to trap the wear debris and thus minimize friction and wear.
Their investigations are chronicled later.
3.1 Roughness Theory. It has been long known that rough
surfaces generally give high friction, though there are serious
exceptions. Thus, Coulomb had examined the friction of rough
surfaces by the mechanics of rigid bodies, of which he was an
expert, to derive a simple equation for the friction coefficient,
µ, as shown in Fig. 3. As the top body is loaded against the
bottom body with a force N, to initiate and sustain motion of
the top body a horizontal force F is required. By resolving the
forces appropriately, the friction coefficient µ can be expressed
in terms of the asperity slope, θ, as: µ = tan θ. It is surprising,
and exhilarating, to note that the friction coefficient could be
expressed by a simple trigonometric function. Upon closer
examination, however, the assumptions hidden will be
apparent. Generally, two criticisms are leveled against the
theory. First, because the average slope of the asperities is zero,
the friction coefficient should be zero, or at least extremely
small. Second, because the asperity slopes are about 10-20
degrees, the friction should be between 0.18 and 0.36, whereas
 3.2 Adhesion Theory. This theory was proposed in the
middle of the 20th century by Ernest and Merchant [7] and by
Bowden, Moore and Tabor [8]. The original concept of
adhesion contributing to friction was due to Desaguliers, as
noted earlier. According to this theory, when asperities come
together they form strong adhesive junctions, Fig. 4. The
normal load is supported by the weaker asperity by plastic flow.
When one asperity is translated relative to the other, the weaker
asperity is sheared.
(a) The normal load is the product of the asperity contact area
and the hardness of the material, and the tangential force is the
product of the same asperity area and the shear strength. The
ratio of the tangential and normal forces then is the friction
coefficient. Because the shear strength is a sixth of the
hardness, the friction coefficient should be about 1/6 or 0.16.
Much has been written on the pros and cons of the theory [2,3]
and so we need not repeat the arguments here. The strong point
of this theory is that both normal loading and tangential motion
result in plastic deformation and hence dissipation, certainly an

(b)

Fig. 3 (a) Coulomb’s sketches of multiple asperities

in contact [1,2] and (b) resolution of the forces acting
at the interface of a two-asperity contact.

the experimental values are much higher. To these two, a third

may be added: the asperity height does not appear but the slope
does in the friction equation. Thus both rough and smooth
surfaces with the same asperity slope should have the same (a)
friction coefficient, contrary to the spirit of the theory.
A fundamental objection to this theory, however, should be
that the two bodies are implicitly assumed to be rigid and hence
there is no dissipation (i.e., conversion of mechanical energy to
thermal energy). Thus the mechanics of rigid bodies will not
be of much help in calculating friction because rigid bodies do
not dissipate. In fact, the theory is all about the resolution of
forces acting at a point or on a surface, rather than an analysis
of friction processes –– such as plastic flow and fracture. To be
fair, however, Coulomb could not have analyzed the problem
because at his time the mechanics of plastically deformable
bodies was not sufficiently developed. Today, this deficiency
can easily be overcome by analyzing plastically deforming
asperities. It will be seen later how this is done by the slip-line
field analysis. (b)
Fig. 4 Friction due to adhesion of mating asperities:
(a) single adhesive junction and (b) multiple adhesive
junctions.

4 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

improvement beyond Coulomb’s theory. The weakest point,
however, is that even with the strongest adhesion at the
interface the friction coefficient is as low as 0.16. It has been
observed that under vacuum conditions the friction coefficients
of metals is two orders magnitude greater. Apart from this
discrepancy, the weak point of the analysis is that plastic
deformation due to the normal load and that due to shearing are
made additive. While in elasticity problems superposition is
valid for linear elastic solids, in plasticity problems, however,
the deformation fields, stresses, etc. cannot be superposed. Put
it alternatively, the shear force is calculated by a lower-bound
(a)
analysis and the normal force by an upper-bound analysis. The
plasticity analysis of the problem cannot be decomposed into
two problems, as can be done in elastic analysis. This seems to
be the primary reason why the calculated friction coefficient is
so low even with perfect adhesion.

3.3 Deformation Theory. By deformation theory we

mean plastic deformation theory. As has been noted earlier,
plastic or viscous deformation in at least one of the mating
asperities is a basic requirement for a viable theory of friction.
Elastic deformation alone will not be sufficient.
After the adhesion theory of friction was proposed, it was
immediately recognized that the analysis was flawed because
the stresses due to normal loading and tangential displacement
are calculated independently. In the deformation theory of
friction the asperity deformation is treated as a unified problem (b)
by Green [9,10], Challen and Oxley [11], and Suh and Sin [12].
In fact, the problem is properly posed for the first time with
well defined geometry, field equations for stresses, boundary
conditions, constitutive equations for material behavior, and so
on. Unfortunately, however, because the algebraic expressions
are so lengthy that it is easy to miss the central point.
In Fig. 5 are shown two slip-line fields [11,12]. The slip
lines are planes, or their traces, on which the shear deformation
takes place. The blocks themselves are rigid, though their
boundaries are deformable. Motion of the rigid blocks is
possible by shear along the boundaries, but the slip-lines should
be so drawn that deformation is compatible. Otherwise wedge-
shaped openings may develop and material continuity is lost.
Additionally, the problem is two-dimensional. To solve the
slip-line field problems, first a kinematically admissible slip-
line field is constructed. Then the stresses in the deforming
region are calculated, followed by the forces at the interface in
the normal and tangential directions. The ratio of tangential
force to normal force is the friction coefficient. It may be
noted, however, that the displacements of the blocks are
virtually zero but the relative velocities are not.
While the slip-line field analysis is rigorous, the solution is (c)
not unique. A number of slip-line fields, all satisfying the basic
requirements, can be drawn and the friction coefficients Fig. 5 Slip-line field analysis of friction: (a) adhesive
calculated. Different fields give different coefficients. In a junction, (b) non-adhesive junction and (c) calculated
sense friction coefficient is a property of the filed because the friction coefficients based on the slip-line field shown
material properties such as the hardness and shear strength in (b) [11,12].
cancel out. Since the asperity slopes are about 10-20 degrees,
the calculated friction coefficients are 0.5-1.0, Fig. 5(c).

5 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 3.4 Plowing Theory. Plowing is negative rake angle
cutting, as in grinding, abrasion, and polishing. As a material
removal process plowing is inefficient, but in frictional
phenomena it is very significant. The friction coefficient can
be extremely large, depending on the shape and size of the
particles as demonstrated by Sin, Saka and Suh [13], Suh,
Tohkai and Saka [14], and Suh, Sin and Saka [15].
Fig. 6 shows three differently shaped hard particles
plowing a softer surface. As the particle plows, the plowed
medium gets permanently displaced and thus plowing is a
dissipative process. The particle advances leaving a groove on
its wake. Thus the presence of long plowing grooves on a
sliding surface is an indication that plowing is taking place, and
that it is even the dominant mechanism of friction.
(a)
For simplicity, the normal load and frictional forces are
estimated here as in the adhesion theory of friction. The normal
load is the product of the projected contact are in the horizontal
plane and the hardness of the material being plowed. Similarly,
the frictional force is the product of the projected contact area
in the plane normal to the sliding direction and the hardness.
The friction coefficient is the ratio of the frictional force and
the normal load. Additionally, if the “interfacial friction” is
strong it too should be included in the calculation of the normal
and tangential forces. It may be noted that the problem of
calculating the normal and tangential forces is divided up into
two upper-bound problems.
Plowing by a wedge is a 2D problem, but plowing by cone
and sphere are 3D problems. Thus the wedge problem can be
solved more rigorously by the slip-line fields, but the cone and
sphere problems cannot be, and hence the simplifications. The (b)
wedge and cone give similar expressions for the friction
coefficients. The friction coefficient µ = tan θ, where θ is the
angle made by the interface with the horizontal. Surprisingly,
perhaps not, the expression is the same as that of Coulomb’s
theory. As θ increases, the friction coefficient increases rapidly.
The spherical particle, on the other hand, gives a small
coefficient for small depths of penetration, but it greatly
increases as the indentation depth is increased. Thus the
frictional force and the normal load are not proportional to each
other. For the simpler analysis the expression for the friction
coefficients of wedge, cone, and sphere are shown in Fig.6. For
a more accurate estimate of the friction coefficient, the finite
element analysis should be used.

3.5 Friction Space Diagram. Now we are in a position to

collect all the concepts together to construct what is called the
friction space diagram [12]. The diagram represents the
coefficient of friction as a function of adhesion, plowing, and
roughness parameters, as shown in Fig. 7.
The adhesion component is expressed in terms of the
dimensionless shear strength, f, the ratio of the shear strength of
the interface and the shear strength of the bulk asperity
material. The plowing intensity is represented by the
dimensionless variable, w/2r, where w is the width of the
plowing groove and r is the radius of a spherical wear particle.
Roughness is represented by the slope of the asperity, θ.
(c)
Fig. 6 Plowing by hard particles: (a) wedge-shaped
hard particle, (b) conical particle, and (c) spherical
particle. The wedge-shaped and conical particles give
friction force proportional to the normal load. The
relationship is non-linear in the case of spherical
particles.

6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME


Fig. 7 Friction space diagram for dry sliding showing
the relative contributions of adhesion, deformation
and plowing components of friction [4,12].
In the diagram, the x-axis represents f, the y-axis w/2r, the
z-axis the friction coefficient, µ; the slope of the asperities, θ, is
a parameter. The interfacial conditions in a sliding contact are
ever changing and so the friction coefficient too will be
changing. Unless the values of f, w/2r, and θ are precisely
known, it would be difficult to know what the friction
coefficient, µ, is. Nevertheless, the trends can be easily
established. For example, even if adhesion is very good, i.e., f
= 1, the friction coefficient is small, about 0.2. Similarly, the
effect of asperity slope θ is also small, especially because the
range is only 10 to 20 degrees. By contrast, the effect of w/2r
is substantial, and thus the plowing coefficient of friction is the
most dominant, and its value can exceed 2.0.
It may be noted, however, that the friction coefficients
calculated using the above models, except the plowing models,
are for the onset of motion, and are usually small because the
surfaces are fairly smooth and there are no wear particles. In
continuous sliding, however, wear particles are copiously
generated, the topography is vastly different from the initial
topography, and the friction force is much higher. It has been
observed that long grooves are invariably formed on the sliding
surface, a telltale sign of plowing. Thus plowing mechanism of
friction is the most dominant, at least in ductile materials.
Surprisingly, plowing grooves have been observed even in
boundary-lubricated sliding. In fact, plowing adequately
accounts for both friction and wear in boundary-lubricated
sliding. These phenomena have been extensively investigated at
MIT under the guidance of Prof. Suh, and innovative surface
topologies have been proposed to minimize friction.
7 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
3.6 Friction in Boundary-Lubricated Sliding. A friction
space diagram may also be constructed for boundary-lubricated
sliding because friction coefficients are essentially independent
of the sliding speed. The mechanisms and intensity of friction,
however, are somewhat different. It was proposed by Hardy in
the early part of the past century that lubricant molecules
adsorb on solid surfaces and form thin tenacious films, Hardy
and Hardy [16] and Hardy and Doubleday [17]. The
deformation behavior of the films is solid-like. Friction
coefficient then is the ratio of the shear strength the film and
the hardness of the substrate on which the film has formed.
Because the film shear strength is extremely small compared
with the hardness of the substrate, the friction coefficients can
be extremely small.
The above model assumes, however, that the coverage of
the sliding surfaces by the lubricant is complete. It has been
recognized later that the lubricant coverage on the surface may
not be complete and that there are regions or patches on the
surface in which the lubricant is not present. In that case
friction force will be large, partly due to lubricant shear and
partly due to adhesion of the asperity junctions, Jahanmir and
Beltzer [18,19].
Recent experimental and theoretical investigations by
Komvopoulos, Saka and Suh [20-23] have shown, however,
that plowing is also present, or even prevalent, in boundary-
lubricated sliding. The dimensions of the plowing grooves,
depth and width, however are much smaller than in the case of
dry sliding. This is so for two reasons. Fist, because of the
adsorption of lubricant molecules adhesion is expected to be
low and hence the size of the particles will be small. Second,
and more importantly, because of the presence of the lubricant
agglomeration of wear particles is mitigated and hence the
depth and width of plowing grooves will be small.
Consequently the friction coefficient will be low, but the
primary mechanism of friction is still plowing. Indeed, it has
been shown that the wear of boundary-lubricated surfaces is
primarily due to the plowing mechanism. An important issue in
boundary lubrication is desorption of lubricants at elevated
temperatures. Above a certain temperature, the so-called
transition temperature, lubricants desorb from the surface and
friction is very high; hence plowing could be the dominant
mechanism of friction at elevated temperatures.
4 UNDULATING SURFACES
A characteristic feature of dry sliding friction is that at the
onset of sliding motion the friction coefficient is low, about 0.2,
but as sliding continues, the friction coefficient gradually
reaches a steady-state value, as high as 1.0 or even higher. The
steady-state value depends on the material pair, load, speed,
environment, and so on. It has been hypothesized by the MIT
group that the increase in friction is primarily due to the
generation and agglomeration of wear particles, the so-called
third bodies. It is possible that the surfaces get cleaned and
adhesion increases, but it is an indirect effect in that increased
adhesion leads to more wear, wear particle agglomeration, and
thus higher friction. Therefore, friction can be minimized if
agglomeration and entrapment of wear particles at the interface
could be mitigated.
One way of removing the generated wear particles is by
continuously cleaning the interface with a jet of air or inert gas
(such as argon). Unfortunately, such a cleaning procedure is
impractical because the cleaning system would be cumbersome
and the sliding surfaces may not even be accessible. A far more
efficient and elegant means of removing the particles is by
trapping them, immediately after they are created, in pockets on
the surfaces as shown in Fig. 8. Such surfaces are termed
undulating (structured, textured, patterned, etc.) surfaces. A
variation the concept is to provide load-bearing area as blocks
or pads as shown in Fig. 9 with enough space around them to
trap the wear debris. The topology of the surface structure Fig. 9 Micro-patterned surfaces of silicon. The line-
could be widely different, but the critical functionality is width of (a) and (b) is 5 µm, and of (c) and (d) 50 µm
entrapment of wear debris. Fig. 10 schematically illustrates the [33].
mechanism of particle entrapment in the pockets.
Extensive experimental and theoretical investigations at
MIT under a wide variety of experimental conditions––
materials, dry and lubricated sliding, loads, speeds, and so on––
show that the undulating surfaces indeed exhibit low friction
for a long time. Studies on dry surfaces for electrical contacts
by Saka, Liu and Suh [24], and on the role of metallurgical
compatibility by Suh and Saka [25] have shown that friction
can be maintained at a low value. Experiments were also
conducted on boundary-lubricated surfaces at room temperature
by Tian, Saka and Suh [26], and at elevated temperatures by
Saka, Tian and Suh [27]. In situ observations by Oktay and
Suh [28] reveal that the wear debris is swept away and is
trapped in the pockets. Additional work by Mosleh and Suh
[29] on high-vacuum undulated sliding bearings, by Mosleh,
Laube and Suh on coated surfaces [30] indeed support the
hypothesis. The work by Mosleh, Saka and Suh [31] on sliding Fig. 10 Schematic of wear particle generation and
bearings with tight clearances is especially noteworthy. Further agglomeration on the tip of a pin (a,b,c) and the
investigations by Hwang, Kim and Lee [32] and Kim, Cha and prevention of agglomeration by undulating surfaces
Sung [33] at Yonsei University, Korea, corroborate the MIT (d,e,f) [28].
findings. Figs.11 through 17 summarize the results.

Fig. 8 Scanning electron micrograph of an Fig. 11 Friction Coefficient of Cu-on-Cu: (a) without
undulating, or patterned, Cu surface. The Cu surface and (b) with undulations [25].
was coated with 3.5 µm Ni and 1 µm Sn-34 Pb over Ni
for electric contact applications [24].

8 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Fig. 12 Friction Coefficient of Ti surface, with and Fig. 15 Pin-on-disk experiments with uncoated
without undulations, sliding on AISI 52100 steel stainless steel 304 sliding against M50 steel ball
lubricated with oleic acid [26]. It may be noted that under a normal load of 200 g [29-31].
oleic acid is not a good lubricant for Ti.

Fig. 16 Si N coated flat surface and the undulated

3 4
surface. The undulated surface did not wear much
and the wear particles were trapped in the pockets
Fig. 13 Effectiveness of mineral oil as a lubricant for [33].
AISI steel slid against OFHC Cu, with and without
undulations. Friction coefficient is low even above
the transition temperature with undulated surface
[27].

Fig. 17 Friction coefficients of aluminum coated flat

Fig.14 Pin-on-disk experiments with uncoated surface and micro-scale patterned undulated
stainless steel 304 sliding against M50 steel ball surfaces at two different loads [33].
under a normal load of 50 g [29-31].

9 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 It is amply apparent that the above results conclusively
confirm the hypothesis that agglomerated wear particles are
primarily responsible for high friction in dry sliding.
Consequently, by trapping the wear debris in pockets, friction
can be minimized. The coefficient of friction of undulated
surfaces even in dry sliding can be as low as those of boundary-
lubricated surfaces. The role of boundary lubrication is to
prevent the wear particle agglomeration at the sliding interface.
The effectiveness of boundary lubricants ceases above a critical
temperature (about 100 to 250 oC, depending on the lubricant).
Above the transition temperature a lubricant cannot prevent
agglomeration of the wear particles because it does not wet the
surface. In such instances the undulating surfaces are optimal.
In geometrically confined spaces (e.g., a steel shat in a bushing)
with tight clearances, especially, undulating surfaces with
grooves is an effective way of lowering friction and preventing
seizure. As of now, though, the geometry of the surface features
is not optimized. The scale of undulations is of the order of 100
µm. By optimizing the geometry, materials, etc. it should be
possible to lower both friction and wear.
5 SUMMARY
In this article, the laws and theories of friction are
reviewed and Prof. Nam P. Suh’s contributions to the theories
of friction are highlighted. The classical laws of friction are
valid only in a small range of the experimental or service
conditions. As the real area of contact approaches the nominal
contact area, the laws are likely to breakdown, especially if the
sliding speeds are high. In extreme cases, such as in high
vacuum, the surfaces are likely to seize, and the friction
coefficient would be extremely large. For the laws of friction
to be valid, the asperity contacts should be sparsely distributed
and the relative velocity should be small.
As to the theories of friction, several seemingly different
theories have been proposed over the decades. They include:
roughness, adhesion, deformation, and plowing. Among them,
plowing is the most severe. In any viable theory of friction on
micro-scale, permanent deformation of the surface is a
necessary requirement. While it may seem that there are several
theories of friction, they all can be unified into a single grand
problem: the problem of plastic deformation of asperity (or
asperity/surface) contacts under specified force and
displacement boundary conditions, interface conditions, and
“constitutive “ equations. It is a boundary value problem in the
mechanics of deformable bodies. Depending on the values of
the various parameters different mechanisms may prevail.
In continuous sliding, however, wear particles are largely
responsible for the high friction. The wear particles
agglomerate and plow the surface. The long plowing grooves
invariably present on the sliding surfaces are the telltale signs
of the plowing phenomenon. In such systems both friction and
wear can be minimized by patterning the surface of the softer
body to trap the wear debris. It is also possible to reduce
friction by boundary lubrication, wherein adsorbed lubricant
molecules on sliding surfaces prevent wear particle
agglomeration. Furthermore, it appears that the classical
10
microscopic theories of friction can be extended well into the
sub-micrometer or nano-scale. But if the asperity-contact size is
only a few nanometers or so, the classical continuum-scale
theories should be abandoned in favor of the modern
molecular-scale models.
In closing, it is perhaps humbling to note that while the
definition and measurement of friction coefficient are quite
elementary, construction of the theories of friction requires, by
contrast, the the entire repertoire of mechanics and mechanical
behavior of materials. Since Leonardo’s time many eminent
researchers have determined friction coefficients using such
simple devices as the inclined plane, belt-over-pulley, pin-on-
disk, and so on. But the theory and calculations, however, have
been another matter. There are no closed form solutions and the
computer calculations are only approximate. Many inputs,
such as the interfacial boundary conditions, are not even known
with certainty. Accordingly, the friction theories and
calculations will remain challenging for sometime to come. In
the meantime, however, several practical solutions, such as the
patterned surfaces, thin soft and hard films, boundary
lubrication, and their combinations, can be used to minimize
friction and wear. These, however, are suboptimal solutions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The many helpful suggestions on the manuscript by
Drs. Said Jahanmir, Kyriakos Komvopoulos, and Dae-Eun Kim
are acknowledged with pleasure. I am deeply indebted to Prof.
Suh for introducing me to the field of Tribology and for
according the opportunity to collaborate with him and his
students over the decades.
REFERENCES
[1] Dowson, D., 1979, History of Tribology, Longman Group
Limited, London.
[2] Bowden, F.P., and Tabor, D.,1973, Friction: An
Introduction to Tribology, Anchor Press/Doubleday,
Garden City, NY.
[3] Rabinowicz, E., 1965, Friction and Wear of Materials,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[4] Suh, N.P., 1986, Tribophysics, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
[5] Suh, N.P., and Saka, N., 1980, Fundamentals of
Tribology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[6] Tomlinson, G.A., 1929, “Molecular Theory of Friction,”
Phil. Mag., 7th Series, 7, pp. 905-939.
[7] Ernest, H., and Merchant, M.E., 1940, “Surface Friction
Between Metals––a Basic Factor in Metal Cutting
Processes,” Proc. Special Summer Conf. Friction and
Surface Finish, pp. 76-101, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
[8] Bowden, F.P., Moore, A.J.W., and Tabor, D., 1943, “The
Ploughing and Adhesion of Sliding Metals,” J. Appl.
Phys., 14, pp. 80-91.
[9] Green, A.P., 1954, “The Plastic Yielding of Metal
Junctions Due to Combined Shear and Pressure,” J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 2, pp. 197-211.
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
[10] Green, A.P., 1955, “Friction Between Unlubricated
Metals: A Theoretical Analysis of the Junction Model,”
Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 228, pp. 181-204.
[11] Challen, J.M., and Oxley, P.L.B., “An Explanation of the
Different Regimes of Friction and Wear Using Asperity
Deformation Models,” 1979, Wear, 53, pp. 229-243.
[12] Suh, N.P., and Sin, H.-C., 1981, “The Genesis of
Friction,” Wear, 69, pp. 91-114.
[13] Sin, H.-C., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1979, “Abrasive
Wear Mechanisms and the Grit Size Effect," Wear, 55,
pp. 163-190.
[14] Suh, N.P., Sin, H.-C., Tohkai, M., and Saka, N., 1980,
"Surface Topography and Functional Requirements for
Dry Sliding Surfaces," Annals of the CIRP, 29, pp. 413-
418.
[15] Suh, N.P., Sin, H.-C., and Saka, N., 1980, “Fundamental
Aspects of Abrasive Wear," Fundamentals of Tribology,
Edited by Suh, N.P., and Saka, N., The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 493-518.
[16] Hardy, W.B., and Hardy, J.K., 1919, “Note on Static
Friction and on the Lubricating Properties of Certain
Chemical Substances,” Phil. Mag, 6th Series, 38, pp. 32-
48.
[17] Hardy, W., and Doubleday, I., 1922, “Boundary
Lubrication –– The Paraffin Series,” Proc. Roy. Soc. A,
102, pp. 550-574.
[18] Jahanmir, S., and Beltzer, M., 1985,“An Adsorption
Model of Friction in Boundary Lubrication,” ASLE
Transactions, 29 (3), pp. 423-430.
[19] Jahanmir, S., and Beltzer, M., 1985, “Effect of Additive
Molecular Structure on Friction Coefficient and
Adsorption,” Journal of Tribology, Transactions of the
ASME, pp. 1-8.
[20] Komvopoulos, K., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1985, "The
Mechanism of Friction in Boundary Lubrication," Journal
of Tribology, Trans. ASME, 107, pp. 452-462.
[21] Komvopoulos, K., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1986,
"Plowing Friction in Dry and Lubricated Sliding of
Metals," Journal of Tribology, Trans. ASME, 108, pp.
301-313.
11
View publication stats
[22] Komvopoulos, K., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1986, "The
Significance of Oxide Layers in Boundary Lubrication,"
Journal of Tribology, Trans. ASME, 108, pp. 502-513.
[23] Komvopoulos, K., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1987, “The
Role of Hard Layers in Lubricated and Dry Sliding,"
Journal of Tribology, Trans. ASME, 109, pp. 223-231.
[24] Saka, N., Liou, M.-J., and Suh, N.P., 1984, “The Role of
Tribology in Electrical Contact Phenomena," Wear, 100,
pp. 77-109.
[25] Suh, N.P., and Saka, N., 1987, “Surface Engineering,"
Annals of CIRP, 36, pp. 403-408.
[26] Tian, H., Saka, N., and Suh, N.P., 1989, "Boundary
Lubrication Studies on Undulated Titanium Surfaces,"
STLE Tribology Transactions, 32 (2), pp. 289-296.
[27] Saka, N., Tian, H., and Suh, N.P., 1989, "Boundary
Lubrication of Undulated Metal Surfaces at Elevated
Temperatures," Tribology Transactions, 32(3), pp. 389-
395.
[28] Oktay, S.T., and Suh, N.P., 1992, “Wear Debris
Formation and Agglomeration,” ASME Journal of
Tribology, 114, pp. 379-393.
[29] Mosleh, M. and Suh, N.P., 1995, “High Vacuum
Undulated Sliding Bearings,“ STLE Tribology
Transactions, 38, pp. 277-284.
[30] Mosleh, M., Laube, S.J.P., and Suh, N.P., 1999, ”Friction
of Undulated Surfaces Coated with MoS2 by Pulsed Laser
Deposition,” STLE Tribology Transactions, 43(2), pp.
495-502.
[31] Mosleh, M., Saka, N. and Suh, N.P., 2002, "The
Mechanism of High Friction in Dry Sliding Bearings,"
Wear, 252, pp. 1-8.
[32] Hwang, D.H., Kim, D.E., and Lee, S.J., 1999, “Influence
of Wear Particle Interaction in the Sliding Interface on
Friction of Metals,” Wear, 225-229, pp. 427-439.
[33] Kim, D.E., Cha, K.H., and Sung, I.H., 2002, “Design of
Surface Micro-structures for Friction Control in Micro-
systems Applications,” Annals of CIRP, 51/1, pp. 495-
498.
Copyright © 2015 by ASME