Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Concept and assessment of the novel design of tribological tester

W. Żurowski a, J. Zepchło b, D. Kanaška c, M. Rucki a, *
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kazimierz Pulaski University of Technology and Humanities in Radom, ul. Malczewskiego 29, 26-600 Radom, Poland
b
RADWAG, ul. Toruńska 5, 26-600 Radom, Poland
c
Faculty of Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, 5 J.Cakstes avenue, Jelgava LV-3001, Latvia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the paper, the novel design of tribological tester was proposed making possible to avoid undesirable impact of
Measurement the used friction surface on the measurement results. Its important merit is the continuous removal of worn
Uncertainty material of tested sample, which contributes also to the thermal stability of sliding surfaces. Special design of the
Repeatability
measuring head compensates the dimensional changes of the worn sample during the test. In order to assess the
Friction
Wear
capability of proposed measurement system, the sample pins were made out of aluminum, copper and iron. Since
Tribology the output signal revealed distribution close to normal, Gaussian statistics was applied to uncertainty estimation
and repeatability test. It was demonstrated that the uncertainty of friction force measurement was highly
dependent on the tested material, but the proposed design provided 60% and even 80% smaller respective
standard uncertainty ranges than the conventional pin-to-disc tribometer. Repeatability percentage calculated as
%EV = 13.4% was found satisfactory, because it covered all irregularities of the sliding parts, including changes
of worn material properties during the test. Variation %EV obtained for typical tribometer T-01M was 2.5 times
larger.

1. Introduction dispersion of results, the same sample produced expanded uncertainty of

Measurement system analysis (MSA) is a useful quality tool used for
assessing the adequacy of gauge variation in order to ensure the quality
of the measurement system and good quality products [1]. Repeatability
and reproducibility are the main metrological characteristics of any
measurement system [2], though in some cases it is necessary to intro­
duce new indicators for measurement error detection due to both
repeatability and reproducibility variation [3]. Methods based on
repeatability or reproductibility and trueness approaches are recom­
mended when a measurement model is not available either due to
technical difficulties or cost constraints [4]. ASTM regulations require
precision statements in all test methods in terms of repeatability and
reproducibility [5].
During the tribological test, the tested material is worn out, so that it
is impossible to perform measurement of exactly the same sample with
other, more accurate device, as it is done with roundness assessment [6]
or surface extraction of multi-material components [7]. Further, statis­
tical analysis requires repeatability conditions [8], which in case of
tribotesters like a pin-on-disk slider is complicated due to unavoidable
friction-induced oscillations [9]. It was calculated that due to the
obtained friction coefficient U0.95 = 0.11 after 10 s of tests, but it
decreased down to 0.03 after 40 s, and rose up again to 0.98 after 80 s
[10]. In some materials, e.g. in aluminum composites, coefficient of
friction and wear rate are influenced by the applied load [11]. Influence
of operator was reported to be a significant contribution to the uncer­
tainty of the wear rate [12]. It is also important to take contact tem­
peratures into account during friction and wear tests for and when
analyzing the results of those tests [13] because the wear rate coefficient
is dependent on temperature [14]. Moreover, mechanical properties of
pin material may change with increased temperature, as well as its rate
of oxidation, and phase transformation may occur, all of which will
influence the friction behavior [15].
These issues indicate the impact of the tribometer construction and
test parameters on the measurement results. Thus, test method stan­
dards propose a specific set of unified test parameters, such as load,
sliding speed, materials, etc., that can be used even in an interlaboratory
study [16]. However, the standard emphasizing the need to use estab­
lished statistical practices, and to introduce more uniformity in report­
ing interlaboratory test results was withdrawn without replacement due
to its limited use by industry [17]. In practice, additional dispersion of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.rucki@uthrad.pl (M. Rucki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108724
Received 6 May 2020; Received in revised form 11 September 2020; Accepted 9 November 2020
Available online 18 November 2020
0263-2241/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: W. Żurowski, Measurement, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108724

W. Żurowski et al.
the results is generated also by the cyclic usage of the same wear path.
For instance, analysis of pin-on-plate reciprocating tribometer demon­
strated that the results showed nonlinear upward trend for wear loss
with increase of strokelength [18].
Proposed novel design of tribometer was to minimize the demerits of
conventional devices, such as sliding couple temperature effect, pres­
ence of the worn debris on the sliding surface, and operator’s influence
on the final results. The effectiveness of the introduced solution was
assessed with statistical methods in terms of repeatability and repro­
ducibility. First, we present below the concept and description of the
device prototype, paying attention to the differences, compared to pin-
on-disc testers. Next, we describe the friction coefficient measure­
ments of several materials, and compare results to the respective ones
obtained from pin-on-disc tester. We focus especially on the dispersion
of the results, and provide estimation of the uncertainty and equipment
variation for the proposed device.
2. Description of the novel measurement system
Proposed measurement system consists of two novel designs, first,
the mechanism providing friction contact between sample pin’s and
friction belt’s materials, and second, the head that performs measure­
ment of friction force. In pin-on-plate and pin-on-disc tribometers, either
circular or linear reciprocating movement involves returning of the
sliding pin to the same path. Presence of debris resultant from the wear
and fretting, affects the process between sliding surfaces, so that the
measured wear rate can be increased or decreased [19]. In any case, the
effects of debris particles in fretting contacts are substantial and require
additional analysis, apart from typical friction test [20]. Moreover, the
specific wear rate for all materials tend to decrease with roughness Ra of
the counterpart material [21]. Thus, the question arises, what result
could be obtained when the sliding area remained unaffected by debris,
and the contact characteristics would not change? This question is
especially important for the wear conditions of constructions like a
hovercraft skirt. Some measurement devices, like Schopper-Schlobach
apparatus described in standard PN-ISO 4649:2007, provide the wear
path of 40 m [22]. In this methodology, the sandpaper is wound around
a cylinder, and the tested sample can turn around its axis (method B) or
not (method A). However, the Schopper-Schlobach apparatus is unable
to provide continuous measurement because of unavoidable seam in the
sandpaper. As a result, a series of short measurement instead of one
uninterrupted test are obtained.
To avoid undesirable impact of the used friction surface and wear
debris on the measurement results, the novel design of tribological tester
was proposed and patented. The main advantage of the proposed device
denoted TT-4 is the ability to keep stable, repeatable conditions during
the entire measurement procedure. That was achieved applying the
friction belt instead of the disc, so that new unused surface is in contact
with the pin during the entire test. This way, the pin is made out of tested
material, and its friction against the known material of belt is measured.
Additional merit is the continuous removal of the wear particles from
Fig. 1. Operating principles of pin-on-disc tribometer (left) and TT-4 tester (right).
2
Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx
the contact area. Fig. 1 presents principal difference between the typical
pin-on-disc tribometer test and the novel solution TT-4.
Tribotester TT-4 consists of three main units, each of them was
designed and patented for this dedicated device. These units are as
follows:
– drive system [23],
– measurement unit [24],
– and measurement head as a separate unit [25]
In the drive system, the main issue was to keep constant feeding
velocity v. If the rotational speed of take-up spool remained constant, its
increasing diameter would effect with differentiation of the feeding
velocity v. So the encoder was applied to control the velocity v in the set
acceptable boundaries. When the difference Δv reach critical value,
encoder sends the signal to PLC, so that the rotational speed of step
motor is corrected. Maximal linear velocity of friction belt under the pin
was 0.5 m/s, and velocity variations were limited to 5% of the set value.
Normally, the measurements were conducted at the velocity of 0.4 m/s
with maximal deviation of 0.02 m/s.
The overall view of TT-4 device is presented in Fig. 2, where details
of the measurement unit are shown schematically.
The tested material sample in form of pin (1) is fixed in the holder
(2). The load F against the table (8) is generated using the weight (4) and
arm (3). The friction belt (5) moves between the pin and the table, rolled
from the supply spool (6) to the take-up spool (7). The friction belt may
be covered with various materials, dependent on the test purpose and
examined sliding couple. As a result, friction force between the pin and
the belt is generated and passed through the holder (2) to the buffer (9)
and further to the extensometer (10). The latter is connected to the
weight meter (11), which displays the measured values in real time and
simultaneously transfers data to the PC through RS port.
The dedicated software was worked out to analyze and store mea­
surement data. It enables simultaneous supervision of up to three weight
meters, each of them can measure forces up to 65 N with resolution of
0.001 N. Thus, the device TT-4 can test up to 3 sample pins at the same
time, each under individual load, provided maximal pin diameter is
dmax = 15 mm.
Additional attention should be paid to the patented measuring head
[25], presented in Fig. 3. Its important element is the swing arm bushing
(1) fixed with pins (2) in the buckle (3). Due to such a fixation, the
bushing can move in the direction A determined by the pin’s axis (2).
During the tribological test, the sample pin (6) is worn out and its length
is reduced. Appropriate sliding tolerances of the swing arm bushing (1)
with no distinguishable gap allows the movement of the arm (4) up and
down, denoted as direction B. This solution compensates the dimen­
sional changes during the test, so that the arm length remains constant.
Due to the friction, belt movement performs the work, so that the sample
pin (6) in the holder (5) exerts pressure on the extensometer (9) through
the buffer (8).
Since the arm (4) moves freely in direction A, the extensometer (9)
W. Żurowski et al.
Fig. 2. View (left) and details (right) of TT-4 device (description in text).
Fig. 3. Isometric drawing (left) and constructional details (right) of the measuring head of TT-4 device (description in text).
measures the force exerted by the sample pin on the buffer (8). The
higher is measured friction, the larger is declination in direction A and
respective force on the buffer. According to the product specification,
the maximal displacement of the applied extensometer under presumed
maximal force is 0.4 mm. In that case, having the lever length 160 mm,
the maximal declination of the arm is below 0.14◦ . Errors generated by
this are negligibly small.
Extensometer specification provided maximal force which posed
natural limitation on the load values. The maximal momentum of the
motor was calculated, so that the belt will stop in the case of overload,
protecting the extensometer. In calculations, it was assumed that three
pin samples could be tested simultaneously, under the maximal safe
load.
Exceptional tests were higher loads are required, can be performed as
well. Since the wear is dependent on both load and sliding contact
surface, smaller surface allow application of larger load. Thus, it was
unnecessary to overestimate the device components.
3. Experimental
In order to assess the capability of proposed measurement system,
the series of tests were performed. Sample pins were made out of
different materials, their dimensions were 2 × 15 × 30 mm.
The tests were performed for aluminum, iron and copper sample
pins. The iron samples were made out of vacuum-treated Armco, and
3
Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx
underwent normalizing annealing at temperature 950 ◦ C during 30 min.
The friction belt type PS19F was covered with silicon carbide of gran­
ulation 80 (212–180 μm), weight 270 g/m2. In Fig. 4, the examples of
the friction belt surface (left), and the sample pin after test (right) are
shown.
Some reports suggest that for the certain materials, the friction may
decrease with increased contact pressure and sliding speed [26]. Thus,
rather small sliding speed was assumed v = 0.40 ± 0.01 m/s, as well as
rather small weights in the range from 0.154 kg up to 0.780 kg
(1.51–7.65 N, respectively). The friction distance of 22.5 m was assumed
as sufficient for economical reasons, so that the test can last for ca. 60 s.
Additional reason was that for the system assessment, repeatability
conditions require short time between tests, but in the wear tests, longer
distances should be applied, too. Moreover, it is important to keep in
mind that the initial hardness of the material may vary as the sliding
distance increases, mainly because of temperature increase in the con­
tact area and its subsequent softening effect on the material [27].
It was found sufficient to register the friction force with sampling
frequency 2 Hz. Before and after each test, the mass of each sample pin
was measured with resolution 0.00001 g. The applied extensometer VPG
1042 had resolution 0.1 g, so it registered friction force with resolution
0.00098 N.
For each test procedure, average friction force Ffsr was calculated
excluding the two first and the two last measurement results to avoid
respective gross errors in the initial and final stages. This value enabled
W. Żurowski et al.
Fig. 4. Photographs of the friction belt surface (left) and worn out pin sample (right).
calculation of the friction work Af as follows:
Af = Ffsr ∙sd (1)
and subsequently specific wear work [28]:
exR =
Af
(2)
Δm
where sd is a sliding distance [m], and Δm is the mass lost during the test
[g].
Air temperature and humidity in the laboratory was controlled and
registered, too. During the tests, humidity remained between 40 and
50%, and temperature was kept 23 ± 1 ◦ C. Thermal effect between
sliding surfaces was assessed using infrared real-time thermography,
Thermo Tracer NEC H2640 camera with resolution 0.03 ◦ C or better (at
∑
30 ◦ C, 64). Its accuracy was ±2% of reading or ±2 ◦ C.
With the equipment described above, it was obvious that the varia­
tion of the measurement results will be mostly due to the stochastic
distribution of the material properties in the samples and inhomogeneity
of the friction belt surface. Thus, the assessment of measurement capa­
bility of test equipment can be performed with statistical methods using
Type A uncertainty and repeatability parameters.
4. Results and discussion
It is noteworthy that the initial comparison of the results obtained
from TT-4 device with those of typical tribometer T-01M revealed much
smaller amplitude of the dispersion [29]. This proved higher stability of
the contact area during the test and reduction of the vibrations.
Fig. 5. Temperature measurement for the copper sample.
4
Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx
4.1. Thermal effect
Working temperature appeared to be another merit of the proposed
TT-4 device. It is important, that the average temperature at the contact
plateaus should not be much higher than the average bulk temperature,
and should be proportional to it [30]. The heat generated by the pin-belt
sliding contact can be calculated as follows:
Ts − T0 Ts − T0
q = μFv = qpin + qb = k1 + k2 (3)
l1 l12
where q is the frictional heat per unit area generated in the sliding
contact, qpin and qb are the portions of heat entering the pin and the belt,
respectively, μ is the friction coefficient, F is the applied normal load, v is
the sliding velocity, T0 is the ambient temperature; k1 and k2 are the
thermal conductivities of the pin and the disc materials, respectively; l1
and l2 are the lengths of the heat paths in the pin and in the disc. In the
TT-4 tester, unlike pin-on-disc system, the heat is removed constantly
with the belt feeding, ensuring heat transfer from the pin. Fig. 5 presents
thermography measurement results for the copper sample with emis­
sivity 0.7 during the test under higher than usual load F = 9.81 N. The
temperature in the point A was 32.9 ◦ C, while before the movement
started, it was 18.8 ◦ C in ambient temperature 22.4 ◦ C. The rest of the
sample heated up to 27.9 ◦ C (point C), and silicon carbide grains did not
heat much, showing 24.9 ◦ C in point B immediately after the contact.
The path on the friction belt cooled down very quickly, in point D having
temperature 20.0 ◦ C below the ambient temperature 22.4 ◦ C.
The registered heating in the contact area was no more than 15 ◦ C for
each tested material, which indicated important advantage of the pro­
posed system, considering thermal effects of the tested materials, as
W. Żurowski et al. Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx

shown in Table 1. It was much lower than that of reported increase over
40 ◦ C [27], or even over 100 ◦ C [31] in room temperature tests. Some
researchers applied additional devices continuously feeding the filtered
ambient temperature lubricant to eliminate temperature effect in pin-
on-disc tribometer [15]. In case of the proposed device, the problem
of temperature impact on the tribological measurement results is sub­
stantially reduced.

4.2. Dispersion of the results

In the each measurement cycle, after cutting off initial and final
samplings, 106 results of friction force were obtained and statistically
analyzed. The measuring head construction belongs to the second class
lever, where the resistance is located between the applied effort and the
fulcurum. As a result, the force registered by extensometer is larger than Fig. 6. Histograms of the results obtained for aluminum sample at load F =
1.54 N.
the actual friction force. Thus, correction was made according to the law
of the lever.
Fig. 6 presents an example of histograms obtained for aluminum Table 2
sample at load F = 1.54 N, since aluminum has the largest linear coef­ Comparison of results dispersion in TT-4 and T-01M testers.
ficient of thermal expansion (see Table 1). As it can be seen in Fig. 6,
Device TT-4 T-01M [35]
corrected results not only provide smaller average, but also tend to
perform more asymmetrical distribution than the raw ones. Neverthe­ F [N] 2.84 N 2.78 N 2.79 N 2.45 N 2.45 N 2.45 N
Sample Al Cu Fe Al Cu Fe
less, in both cases, Gaussian statistics can be applied, based on Shapiro-
material
Wilk test [34]. Despite the long right tale, P-value was 0.07 larger than α Average 3.572 2.889 2.302 1.919 1.564 1.011
= 0.05, hence, hypothesis H0 that the population is normally distributed friction force
can be accepted. [N]
The most important observation about the proposed measurement Min 2.934 2.517 2.018 0 0 0.470
Max 4.393 3.338 2.502 4.305 4.864 2.383
system TT-4 is that it provides less dispersed and hence, more reliable Range R = Max- 1.458 0.820 0.484 4.305 4.864 1.913
results than in case of typical pin-on-disc tribometer T-01M. Table 2 Min
presents example of the statistical parameters obtained from similar Standard 0.276 0.161 0.100 0.852 1.564 0.470
tribological measurements of the aluminum, copper and iron samples. deviation s
Results for T-01M tribometer were taken from literature [35]. ±3s ±0.829 ±0.483 ±0.299 ±2.556 ±3.463 ±1.410

Differences between averages for each material can be attributed

primarily to the differences in chemical composition and structure 4.3. Type A measurement uncertainty
compared to those used in the referred work [35]. The striking differ­
ence is, however, presence of zero value as a minimal result obtained in Because of too many uncontrolled input quantities of unpredictable
all T-01M measurements, which is not the case for TT-4. From that, large nature, Type B uncertainty estimation is very difficult. On the other
range of the results is derived, which is ca. twice wider than that of TT-4. hand, there is no standard of friction value to be referred to or to be used
Standard deviations in T-01M measurements were almost five times for calibration. Thus, it was assumed reasonably to perform n = 6 rep­
larger for iron, compared to the respective result in TT-4, and more than etitions of the measurement cycle, and to calculate the Type A uncer­
10 times larger for copper. As a consequence, ±3s values in T-01M tainty based on variance of the arithmetic mean of a series of n
measurements were substantially larger than the average result itself, independent observations and the experimental variance of the mean
while in TT-4 measurements they are substantially smaller. The Table 2 [36]:
demonstrates an example of the single measurement cycle, but it is
noteworthy that among 18 measured cycles for each tested material, i.e. s2 (x) =
s2 (xi )
(4)
overall 54 cycles, T-01M device provided only 11 sets where 0 was not a n
minimal value [35]. Obtained minimal values of friction force affect also
where xi is the average obtained from the subsequent cycles from i = 1 to
the average, which is too low. Physically, it is impossible friction force to
n.
drop down to zero value during the test, and such a result should be
The respective results after correction are shown in Table 3. For
considered an error generated by the test rig. In the similar number of
comparison, respective results obtained from T-01M tribotester [35] are
repetitions, TT-4 dispersion was much more realistic, it provided 0 fric­
tion force only a few times in the beginning or in the end of measure­
ment cycle, and the results had substantially narrower statistical range. Table 3
Corrected results for 6 repetitions.
Device TT-4 T-01M [35]
Table 1 F [N] 2.84 N 2.78 N 2.79 N 2.45 N 2.45 N 2.45 N
Thermal effects of the tested materials. Sample material Al Cu Fe Al Cu Fe
Average x1 [N] 3.720 2.840 2.215 2.245 1.335 1.266
Sample Specific Linear coefficient of Thermal conductivity k
Average x2 [N] 3.591 2.902 2.232 2.383 1.403 1.021
material heat cp [J/ thermal expansion α [mm/ [J/(s∙m∙K)] at
Average x3 [N] 3.478 2.889 2.381 2.304 1.608 1.119
kg∙K] (mm∙◦ C) × 106] at temperature 27 ◦ C (300
Average x4 [N] 3.615 2.850 2.296 2.187 1.627 1.041
temperature 27 ◦ C (300 K) K)
Average x5 [N] 3.574 2.781 2.394 1.922 1.491 0.992
Al [32] 900 23.2 237 Average x6 [N] 3.802 3.046 2.322 2.010 1.421 0.894
Cu [32] 385 16.8 398 Mean x [N] 3.630 2.885 2.307 2.175 1.481 1.055
Armco 450 13.7 73.2 Standard deviation s 0.276 0.161 0.100 0.852 1.191 0.470
iron s(xi ) 0.113 0.066 0.041 0.348 0.486 0.192
[33] s(x) = √̅̅̅
n

5
W. Żurowski et al.
added.
Assuming a normal distribution and confidence level p = 99%, and
thus coverage factor k = 2.576 [36], it can be written for the above­
mentioned conditions that the friction force Ff of respective materials
were as follows:
Ff (Al) = 3.630 ± 0.113 [N],
Ff (Cu) = 2.885 ± 0.066 [N],
Ff (Fe) = 2.307 ± 0.041 [N].
From this it can be noted, that the uncertainty of friction force
measurement is highly dependent on the tested material. Thus, to assess
the overall capability of the proposed equipment, repeatability tests
were performed.
4.4. Repeatability test
Usually, the new measurement equipment is assessed in terms of
repeatability and reproducibility [37]. Since the measurement is per­
formed automatically, its dependence on the operator expressed by
reproducibility is reduced to minimum. Repeatability is defined as the
equipment variation (EV), i.e. the variation produced by the gauge in the
process of repeated measurement of the same product in the same lab­
oratory [38]. Detailed description of the EV procedure can be found in
standards and literature [39]. The Procedure 3 was chosen, since it did
not involve the operator’s impact.
In TT-4 repeatability assessment, the measurement was repeated 6
times for 3 different materials. Next, the equipment variation was
calculated as following [39]:
∑ ∑
n ∑
(5)
k
E= j=1
(Xij − Xi∙ )2
i=1
where:
Xi• - mean value for the particular tested material,
i – number of tested materials, from 1 to n; here n = 3;
j – number of repetitions, from 1 to k; here k = 6.
From that, equipment variation for the confidence level 99% was
calculated from the following formulas [39]:
1 ∑
s2E = E (6)
n(k − 1)
and, finally,
EV = 5.15sE (7)
Using the data from Table 3, the repeatability EV was calculated as
EV = 0.486 [N]. If the reference value RF was assumed the measured
friction force Ff = 3.630 [N], then repeatability percentage can be
calculated as %EV = 13.4%.
Even though for new measurement systems %EV < 10% is recom­
mended, the value 13.4% can be considered satisfactory for two reasons.
Firstly, because it covers all irregularities of the sliding parts, including
changes of material properties after it was used up. In other words, the
process variation is included into equipment variation increasing its
value. And secondly, because neither calibration standard nor reference
measurement with higher accuracy is available. However, when the
repeatability of the novel device TT-4 was compared to that of the
typical T-01M tribotester, the former demonstrated better results. From
the data presented in Table 3, EV (T-01M) = 0.734, almost twice larger,
and with reference value RF = 2.175 [N] its percentage %EV (T-01M) =
33.7%. From that perspective, new design TT-4 demonstrated much
better repeatability than typical tribometer T-01M.
Obtained repeatability proved that the novel construction is feasible
for friction and wear tests and advantageous compared to pin-on-disc
6
Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx
testers. In future researches, filtering algorithms will be tested in order
to reduce dispersion of the results and to improve repeatability below
the recommended threshold %EV < 10%.
5. Conclusions
The novel concept of the device for tribological tests assumed
removal of the worn material of sliding elements and avoidance of the
used up surfaces participation in the test. Moreover, mechanical and
electronic solutions were applied to eliminate possible sources of errors.
It was demonstrated experimentally that the proposed design
contributed also to the thermal stabilization and decreased vibrations,
and hence, results dispersion. Registered increase of temperature in the
contact area did not exceed 2 ◦ C in all tests, and the ranges and standard
deviations in each measurement cycle decreased substantially compared
to that of typical pin-on-disc tribometer.
From repeated tests for aluminum, copper and iron it was found that
standard deviations were different for each material. Assuming a normal
distribution and confidence level p = 99%, the friction force Ff of
respective materials were calculated with individual expanded un­
certainties Ff (Al) = 3.630 ± 0.113 [N], Ff (Cu) = 2.885 ± 0.066 [N], Ff
(Fe) = 2.307 ± 0.041 [N]. In order to assess repeatability of the mea­
surement, equipment variation was calculated as EV = 0.486 [N], or in
percentage as %EV = 13.4%.
In comparison with the similar results obtained from pin-on-disc
tribometer T-01M, repeatability of the proposed device was much bet­
ter. In addition, %EV = 13.4% can be considered satisfactory because
the process variation was included into equipment variation increasing
its value.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
W. Żurowski: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation. J. Zep­
chło: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. D. Kanaška:
Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis. M. Rucki: Conceptuali­
zation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The researches were financially supported by Polish Ministry of
Science and Higher Education for UTH Radom Statutory Funds, projects
Researches on wear resistance of tribological systems No. 3183/22/M, and
Physical conditions of the wear resistance increase of the sliding couples No.
2949/22/P. International cooperation was supported by the European
Social Fund project Improvement of LLU Academic Staff No. 8.2.2.0/18/
A/014.
References
[1] C. Saikaew, An implementation of measurement system analysis for assessment of
machine and part variations in turning operation, Measurement 118 (2018)
246–252.
[2] A. Zanobini, B. Sereni, M. Catelani, L. Ciani, Repeatability and Reproducibility
techniques for the analysis of measurement systems, Measurement 86 (2016)
125–132.
[3] L.M.M. Araújo, R.G.N. Paiva, R.S. Peruchi, P. Rotela Junior, J.H. de Freitas Gomes,
New indicators for measurement error detection in GR&R studies, Measurement
140 (2019) 557–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.03.059.
[4] M. Désenfant, M. Priel, Reference and additional methods for measurement
uncertainty evaluation, Measurement 95 (2017) 339–344.
[5] ASTM E691-19e1, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to
Determine the Precision of a Test Method, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1520/E0691-19E01.
W. Żurowski et al.
[6] M. Jakubowicz, Accuracy of roundness assessment using air gauge with the slot-
shaped measuring nozzle, Measurement 155 (2020) 107558, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107558.
[7] M. Sokac, I. Budak, M. Katic, Z. Jakovljevic, Z. Santosi, D. Vukelic, Improved
surface extraction of multi-material components for single-source industrial X-ray
computed tomography, Measurement 153 (2020) 107438, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107438.
[8] R.N. Kacker, Probability distributions and coverage probability in GUM, JCGM
documents, and statistical inference, Measurement 65 (2015) 61–70.
[9] W.W. Tworzydlo, O.N. Hamzeh, W. Zaton, T.J. Judek, Friction-induced oscillations
of a pin-on-disk slider: analytical and experimental studies, Wear 236 (1-2) (1999)
9–23.
[10] J. Narojczyk, D. Morozow, J.W. Narojczyk, M. Rucki, Ion implantation of the tool’s
rake face for machining of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy, J. Manuf. Processes 34 (2018)
274–280.
[11] M. Sivanesh Prabhu, A. Elaya Perumal, S. Arulvel, R. Franklin Issac, Friction and
wear measurements of friction stir processed aluminium alloy 6082/CaCO3
composite, Measurement 142 (2019) 10–20.
[12] R. Novak, T. Polcar, Tribological analysis of thin films by pin-on-disc: evaluation of
friction and wear measurement uncertainty, Tribol. Int. 74 (2014) 154–163.
[13] F.E. Kennedy, Y. Lu, I. Baker, Contact temperatures and their influence on wear
during pin-on-disk tribotesting, Tribol. Int. 82 (2015) 534–542.
[14] Y. Waddad, V. Magnier, P. Dufrénoy, G. De Saxcé, Multiscale thermomechanical
modeling of frictional contact problems considering wear – application to a pin-on-
disc system, Wear 426-427 (2019) 1399–1409.
[15] X. Li, M. Sosa, U. Olofsson, A pin-on-disc study of the tribology characteristics of
sintered versus standard steel gear materials, Wear 340-341 (2015) 31–40.
[16] ASTM G99-05(2010), Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a Pin-on-Disk
Apparatus, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, https://doi.org/10
.1520/G0099-05R10.
[17] ASTM G117-13, Standard Guide for Calculating and Reporting Measures of
Precision Using Data from Interlaboratory Wear or Erosion Tests (Withdrawn
2016), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, https://doi.org/10
.1520/G0117-13.
[18] TV. Harish, VR. Rajeev, Effect of variation in stroke length on dry reciprocating
wear of aluminium alloys, Mater. Today:. Proc. 5 (1) (2018) 1341–1347.
[19] Wojciech Żurowski, Katarzyna Brzózka, Bogumił Górka, Analysis of surface layers
and wear products by Mössbauer spectral analysis, Wear 297 (1-2) (2013)
958–965.
[20] Luke Blades, David Hills, David Nowell, Ken E. Evans, Chris Smith, An exploration
of debris types and their influence on wear rates in fretting, Wear 450-451 (2020)
203252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203252.
[21] Sho Sato, Takeshi Yamaguchi, Kei Shibata, Toshiaki Nishi, Kenta Moriyasu,
Kenichi Harano, Kazuo Hokkirigawa, Dry sliding friction and Wear behavior of
thermoplastic polyurethane against abrasive paper, Biotribology 23 (2020)
100130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotri.2020.100130.
[22] P. Koziński, M. Włoch, A. Kozłowska, P. Parcheta, A. Olszewski, F. Bagiński,
J. Datta, Preparation and selected properties of rubber compositions with
regenerated cellulose, Elastomery 4 (2019) 241–251.
Measurement xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] W. Żurowski, J. Zepchło, Drive unit for the tribological tests. Polish Patent No.
227619 B1, G01N 19/02.
[24] W. Żurowski, J. Zepchło, Measurement unit for the tribological tests. Polish Patent
No. 227618 B1, G01N 19/02.
[25] W. Żurowski, J. Zepchło, Measurement head for the tribological tests. Polish Patent
No. 225566 B1, G01N 19/02.
[26] Jens Wahlström, A pin-on-disc tribometer study of friction at low contact pressures
and sliding speeds for a disc brake material combination, Results Eng. 4 (2019)
100051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2019.100051.
[27] J. Salguero, J.M. Vazquez-Martinez, I. Del Sol, M. Batista, Application of Pin-On-
Disc Techniques for the Study of Tribological Interferences in the Dry Machining of
A92024-T3 (Al–Cu) Alloys, Materials 11 (2018) 1236, https://doi.org/10.3390/m
a11071236.
[28] J. Sadowski, Specific wear work: Issues of Machines Maintenance, WSI Publishing
House, Radom, 1987 (in Polish).
[29] W. Kucharczyk, W. Żurowski, J.Zepchło, Evaluation of research opportunities of
prototype tribological testing machine TT-4, in: Proceedings of 7th International
Conference on Mechanics and Materials in Design M2D2017, Albufeira, Portugal,
11-15 June 2017.
[30] Matteo Federici, Giovanni Straffelini, Stefano Gialanella, Pin-on-disc testing of low-
metallic friction material sliding against HVOF coated cast iron: modelling of the
contact temperature evolution, Tribol. Lett. 65 (4) (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11249-017-0904-y.
[31] Oday I. Abdullah, Josef Schlattmann, Temperature analysis of a pin-on-disc
tribology test using experimental and numerical approaches, Friction 4 (2) (2016)
135–143.
[32] J.F. Shackelford, Introduction to materials science for engineers, sixth ed., Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005.
[33] AK Steel International, Armco Pure Iron, https://www.aksteel.nl/files/downl
oads/172888_armco_pure_iron_pdb_euro_final_secured_92.pdf (accessed 30 July
2020).
[34] João Luiz do Vale, Carlos Henrique da Silva, Kinetic friction coefficient modeling
and uncertainty measurement evaluation for a journal bearing test apparatus,
Measurement 154 (2020) 107470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2020.107470.
[35] P. Sadowski, Energy analysis of the wear particles formation, PhD Theses, Radom
University of Technology, Radom, 2007 (in Polish).
[36] JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement.
[37] ISO 21748:2017. Guidance for the use of repeatability, reproducibility and
trueness estimates in measurement uncertainty evaluation.
[38] Tsu-Ming Yeh, Jia-Jeng Sun, Using the Monte Carlo simulation methods in gauge
repeatability and reproducibility of measurement system analysis, J. Appl. Res.
Technol. 11 (5) (2013) 780–796.
[39] E. Dietrich, A. Schultze, Measurement Process Qualification: Gauge acceptance and
measurement uncertainty according to current standards, Hanser, München, 2011.