Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Pages 6
Received 14 March 2006; received in revised form 4 August 2006; accepted 31 August 2006
Abstract
Finding a wear law that is valid over a wide range of conditions and materials would have enormous practical value. The authors have previously
discovered a simple relationship describing the evolution of the abrasive wear rate of steel sliding against boron carbide-coated coupons, and have
developed a model accounting for its kinetics. The authors show here that this wear equation accurately describes the evolution of abrasive wear
rates for several additional material pairs and contact conditions that were tested, as well as for all of the material pairs for which literature data
could be found. The only material parameters are the initial abrasiveness and the initial rate at which the abrasiveness changes with number of
cycles. No other wear law so simple, accurate and widely applicable is known.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
0043-1648/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
WEA-98109; No. of Pages 6
Fig. 1. SEM images of: (a) unworn and (b) worn B4 C coatings after sliding against 52100 steel for 500 cycles [8]. Evidence indicates that the steel chemically
polishes the boron carbide even as the steel is mechanically polished by the much harder boron carbide [9].
has run against AISI 52100 steel [8]. The changes are profound, ical data illustrating this relationship. By differentiating Eq. (1),
and the steel counter-surface shows equally dramatic changes. It the abrasion rate on any given cycle i is found as
is unlikely that simple analytical models can capture the details
of such processes, while finite element models of the contact Ai ∼
= (1 + β)A1 iβ . (2)
mechanics cannot handle the complexity and three-dimensional Thus, measurements of the abrasion rate during the first few
nature of the surfaces and the details of the evolution process. cycles, which determine A1 and β, allow prediction of the abra-
Furthermore, a fundamental understanding of the abrasion pro- sion rate on any subsequent cycle (up to at least n = 20,000 cycles
cess at the micrometer and nanometer scale is lacking. Therefore, in Fig. 2). β is a truly remarkable parameter. Experiments with
a completely different approach is required. sputtered B4 C and DLC have shown that it does not change
over at least tens of thousands of cycles, even with the dramatic
2. Model development changes in surface morphology seen in Fig. 1. It is independent
of the friction coefficient, the surface finish and sliding speeds
Recently, the authors discovered a simple relationship that between 1 and 20 cm/s, when the frictional heating is small. It
describes the kinetics for the abrasion of 52100 steel ball bear- takes the same value for 52100 and SAE 1010 steel ball bearings.
ings sliding against coupons coated with sputtered B4 C and β is even independent of the load, while A1 scales as (load)2/3
diamond-like carbon (DLC) in pin-on-disk (unidirectional dry [16].
sliding) experiments [7–17]. The relationship is Borodich, Harris and Keer [18] proposed a mathematical
framework with which to treat the evolution of abrasive wear. It
V (n)
A(n) ≡ = A1 nβ , (1) was suggested that the key to understanding the origin of Eq. (1)
d lies in treating the surface statistically rather than mechanically.
where A(n) is the abrasion rate averaged over the first n cycles,
V(n) the volume of steel removed from the ball during the first
n cycles by the abrasion process, d = 2πrn the distance traveled
by the steel ball over the coated disk at a wear track radius r
and A1 is the abrasion rate (volume of steel removed/meters
traveled) on the first cycle. The value of β controls the cycle-
dependence (or time-dependence) of the abrasion rate. It is
an empirical constant that satisfies −1 ≤ β < 0 for the com-
monly encountered case where the abrasion rate falls with time.
(Since the abrasion rate cannot fall below zero, the average
abrasion rate A(n) cannot fall faster than inversely with n.)
β = −1 corresponds to the case where all of the abrasiveness
is lost after a single cycle, while β = 0 corresponds to the case
where the abrasion rate is constant. β > 0 would apply to systems
where the abrasion rate increases with time. Experiments have
shown that β is approximately −0.8 for the sputtered B4 C–steel
system. Fig. 2. Average abrasion rate A(n) as a function of cycles for 52100 steel
sliding against B4 C coatings (black squares, dry sliding with a B4 C surface
The simple relationship given by Eq. (1) holds in this system roughness Ra = 300 nm; white diamonds, dry sliding with a B4 C surface rough-
for n ranging from 1 to at least 104 or 105 cycles and for A(n) ness Ra = 10 nm; white squares, lubricated sliding with B4 C surface roughness
varying over more than 3 orders of magnitude. Fig. 2 gives typ- Ra = 300 nm).
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
WEA-98109; No. of Pages 6
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
WEA-98109; No. of Pages 6
Table 1
Summary of the complete model input data and error results
General material Worn Counterpart Contact A1 (mm3 /m) β RMS Model Reference
category material material conditions deviation error (%)
(%)
Metal–coating 52100 steel B4 C coating 1 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 2.24E−03 −0.7586 7.0 25 [11]
52100 steel B4 C coating 2 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 2.83E−03 −0.8501 5.9 22 [13]
52100 steel B4 C coating 2 Ball-on-disc, lubricated 7.81E−04 −0.7678 11.3 29 [15]
52100 steel B4 C coating 3 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 3.79E−05 −0.5696 5.0 27 [13]
52100 steel DLC coating Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 2.03E−03 −0.7712 4.0 27 [17]
Bronze B4 C coating 1 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 1.14E−02 −0.6922 8.4 28 –
1100 aluminum B4 C coating 1 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 1.22E−02 −0.5002 10.0 32 –
Coating–metal DLC coating Tungsten carbide Ball-on-disc, dry sliding, 1.27E−04 −0.4179 0.7 11 [20]
3.1%RH
MoS2 coating Steel ball bearing Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 1.33E−06 0.0071 2.1 3 [21]
(WTi)C–Ni coating Tool steel Block-on-ring, lubricated 9.54E−06 −0.0275 2.0 7 [36]
Metal–metal CoCrMo CoCrMo Reciprocating, lubricated 2.97E−03 −0.1667 2.4 15 [24]
CoCrMo CoCrMo Hip wear simulator, 1.14E−03 −0.3503 0.5 2 [25]
lubricated
ZnAlCuSi St 37 steel Rolling, lubricated 1.32E−01 −0.7339 2.7 10 [28]
7075-T6 aluminum Al2 O3 Ball-on-disc, dry sliding 4.94E−04 0.043 6.3 24 [29]
7075-T6 aluminum Al2 O3 Ball-on-disc, corrosive 4.01E−05 0.4122 6.3 22 [29]
Al–8Fe–4Ce 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 4.65E−03 −0.2491 3.4 13 [30]
Al–13Si 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 6.51E−03 −0.2156 3.3 17 [30]
Zn–35A1 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 1.40E−03 −0.0601 0.9 3 [30]
Zn–35Al–Si 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 2.02E−03 −0.1105 1.6 8 [30]
Zn–35Al–3.75Si 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 3.47E−03 −0.1777 8.8 3 [30]
Zn–35Al–5.8Si 440C stainless steel Crossed-cylinder rolling, dry 2.03E−03 −0.1248 1.1 6 [30]
A6061 MMC AISI 01 tool steel Pin-on-disc, dry sliding 1.90E−01 −0.4177 3.6 24 [31]
Zn–40Al 4140 steel Block-on-ring, dry sliding 8.80E−07 0.0782 3.3 14 [32]
Mg–9Al–0.9Zn (AZ91) 52100 steel Block-on-ring, dry sliding 3.68E−02 −0.0116 1.0 5 [33]
Fe–25%TiC Steel Block-on-ring, dry sliding 1.87E−03 0.0739 0.9 3 [34]
Ti–50.3 at%Ni Cr-steel Block-on-ring, dry sliding 2.11E−04 0.0361 2.9 9 [35]
2Crl3 Cr-steel Block-on-ring, dry sliding 2.72E−05 0.0174 2.6 11 [35]
Copper Carbon steel Reciprocating, dry sliding 5.51E−02 −0.1629 4.2 16 [26]
AISI1045 steel 52100 steel Pin-on-ring, dry sliding 6.73E−05 0.1495 0.8 4 [27]
Ceramic–metal Si3 N4 Steel ball bearing Dry rolling 1.24E−04 −0.2156 8.2 7 [22]
Ceramic–ceramic Si3 N4 (20 wt%HBN) Si3 N4 (20 wt%HBN) Pin-on-disc, sliding 7.64E−02 −0.7311 4.5 27 [23]
somewhat surprisingly, that the rate of loss of relative abrasive- explain why diamond wears quickly when run against steel. The
ness depends only slightly on the presence of a lubricant, at least smaller value of β for B4 C run against bronze and aluminum
under these boundary lubrication conditions. (compared to steel) may then be due to the fact that there are
Fig. 3 shows results for bronze and 1100 series aluminum no analogous chemical reactions between carbon and bronze
sliding against B4 C, together with sample data for 52100 steel or aluminum which can cause the coating asperities to wear
sliding against DLC. Comparing Figs. 2 and 3, it can be seen down.
that the initial abrasion rate A1 of the softer materials is roughly The published literature is next used to explore the range
one order of magnitude higher than that of steel, as might be of validity of Eq. (1). A total of 17 publications [20–36] were
expected. There is also an effect on β, which is in the range −0.5 found in which experiments were described in sufficient detail
to −0.7 for bronze and aluminum compared to −0.8 for B4 C. to be analyzed for this study. This literature data is largely,
That is, the abrasiveness of the coating drops more slowly when but not exclusively from pin-on-disk, unidirectional systems.
run against the softer materials. It seems intuitively reasonable Table 1 briefly describes the contact conditions of each exper-
that softer materials should have a smaller impact on a hard iment. Additional details about the specific experimental setup
abrasive coating, but the situation is actually more complex. For for each material pair are in the appropriate reference. After
example, β takes the same value when B4 C is run against 52100 converting to the format presented in Fig. 2, a linear fit was cal-
steel as when it is run against the much softer 1010 steel. It culated for each set of published data, with its quality evaluated
would appear that the observed morphological changes (Fig. 1) by determining the root-mean-square (RMS) deviation between
that lead to the loss of abrasiveness for B4 C and DLC are not the fit and the experimental data. The power-law relationship
caused simply by mechanical processes. Instead, it is likely that accurately represents all of the experimental data, as the maxi-
they are due to stress-induced chemical reactions between the mum RMS percent deviation in Table 1 is only about 10%, and
carbon in these coatings and steel. Analogous reactions may in most cases the deviation is less than half that. Fig. 4 shows
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
WEA-98109; No. of Pages 6
4. Conclusions
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017
WEA-98109; No. of Pages 6
[8] M.T. Siniawski, S.J. Harris, Q. Wang, Effects of contact on the abrasiveness [23] A. Skopp, M. Woydt, Ceramic and ceramic composite materials with
of a thin boron carbide coating, Tribol. Lett. 20 (1) (2005) 21–30. improved friction and wear properties, Tribol. Trans. 38 (2) (1995)
[9] S.J. Harris, G.G. Krauss, S.J. Simko, R.J. Baird, S.A. Gebremariam, G. 233–242.
Doll, Abrasion and chemical-mechanical polishing between steel and a [24] S.C. Scholes, A. Unsworth, Pin-on-plate studies on the effect of rotation on
sputtered boron carbide coating, Wear 252 (2002) 161–169. the wear of metal-on-metal samples, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 12 (2001)
[10] S.J. Harris, A.M. Weiner, Scaling relationships for the abrasion of steel by 299–303.
DLC coatings, Wear 223 (1998) 31–36. [25] K.R. John St., L.D. Zardiackas, R.A. Poggie, Wear evaluation of cobalt-
[11] S.J. Harris, G. Krauss, M. Siniawski, Q. Wang, S. Liu, Y. Ao, Surface chromium alloy for use in a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis, J. Biomed.
feature variations of 52100 steel sliding against a boron carbide coating, Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 68B (1) (2004) 1–14.
Wear 249 (2002) 1004–1013. [26] E. Marui, H. Endo, Effect of reciprocating and unidirectional sliding
[12] M.T. Siniawski, S.J. Harris, Q. Wang, S. Liu, Wear initiation of 52100 steel motion on the friction and wear of copper on steel, Wear 249 (2001) 582–
sliding against a thin boron carbide coating, Tribol. Lett. 15 (1) (2003) 591.
29–41. [27] Q. Li, G.M. Song, Y.Z. Zhang, T.C. Lei, W.Z. Chen, Microstructure and dry
[13] M.T. Siniawski, S.J. Harris, Q. Wang, Y.W. Chung, C. Freyman, Effects sliding wear behavior of laser clad Ni-based alloy coating with the addition
of thickness and roughness variations on the abrasiveness of a thin boron of SiC, Wear 254 (2003) 222–229.
carbide coating, Tribol. Lett. 17 (4) (2004) 931–937. [28] T. Savaskan, G. Purcek, S. Murphy, Sliding wear of cast zinc-based alloy
[14] M.T. Siniawski, S.J. Harris, Q. Wang, Abrasiveness control of a thin boron bearings under static and dynamic loading conditions, Wear 252 (2002)
carbide coating through counterpart tempering, Tribol. Lett. 17 (4) (2004) 693–703.
939–946. [29] M. Baydogan, H. Cimenoglu, E.S. Kayali, A study on sliding wear of a
[15] M.T. Siniawski, A. Martini, S.J. Harris, Q. Wang, Effects of lubrication 7075 aluminum alloy, Wear 257 (2004) 852–861.
and humidity on the abrasiveness of a thin boron carbide coating, Tribol. [30] Y.A. Mashal, M.H. El-Axir, M.A. Kassem, The machinability and tribolog-
Lett. 18 (2) (2005) 185–195. ical characteristics of aluminum alloys with improved elevated temperature
[16] S.J. Harris, G.G. Krauss, S.J. Simko, T.J. Potter, R.W. Carpick, R. Welbes, properties using rapidly solidified powder, Wear 250–251 (2001) 518–528.
M. Grischke, Abrasion of steel by ceramic coatings: comparison of RF- [31] L.J. Yang, The transient and steady wear coefficients of A6061 aluminium
DLC to sputtered B4 C, Tribol. Lett. 12 (1) (2002) 43–50. alloy reinforced with alumina particles, Compos. Sci. Technol. 63 (3–4)
[17] S.J. Harris, A.M. Weiner, W.J. Meng, Tribology of metal-containing (2003) 575–583.
diamond-like carbon coatings, Wear 211 (1997) 208–217. [32] T. Savaskan, A.P. Hekimoglu, G. Purcek, Effect of copper content
[18] F.M. Borodich, S.J. Harris, L.M. Keer, Self-similarity in abrasion of metals on the mechanical and sliding wear properties of monotectoid-based
by nanosharp asperities of hard carbon containing films, Appl. Phys. Lett. zinc–aluminium–copper alloys, Tribol. Int. 37 (1) (2004) 45–50.
81 (18) (2002) 3476–3478. [33] H. Chen, A.T. Alpas, Sliding wear map for the magnesium alloy
[19] J.A. Greenwood, J.P. Williamson, Contact of nominally flat surfaces, in: Mg–9Al–0.9Zn (AZ91), Wear 246 (1–2) (2000) 106–116.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 295, 1966, pp. [34] V.K. Rai, R. Srivastava, S.K. Nath, S. Ray, Wear in cast titanium car-
300–319. bide reinforced ferrous composites under dry sliding, Wear 231 (2) (1999)
[20] J.R. Jiang, S. Zhang, R.D. Arnell, The effect of relative humidity on wear 265–271.
of a diamond-like carbon coating, Surf. Coat. Technol. 167 (2–3) (2003) [35] D.Y. Li, R. Liu, The mechanism responsible for high wear resistance
221–225. of pseudo-elastic TiNi alloy—A novel tribo-material, Wear 225–229 (2)
[21] J.R. Jiang, R.D. Arnell, G. Dixit, The influence of ball size on tribological (1999) 777–783.
behavior of MoS2 coating tested on a ball-on-disk wear rig, Wear 243 [36] S. Bahadur, C.N. Yang, Friction and wear behavior of tungsten and titanium
(2000) 1–5. carbide coatings, Wear 196 (1–2) (1996) 156–163.
[22] M. Kalin, J. Vizintin, Advantages of using the ball-on-flat device in rolling- [37] S.J. Harris, A.M. Weiner, A simple method for monitoring the hardness of
contact testing of ceramics, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 24 (2004) 11–15. thin amorphous carbon-containing coatings, Wear 213 (1997) 200–203.
Please cite this article as: Matthew T. Siniawski et al., A universal wear law for abrasion, Wear (2006), doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.017