3D Finite Element Simulation Experimental Validation Sliding Wear

Journal Pre-proof
Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental validation

of sliding wear
Ajit Bastola, David Stewart, Daniele Dini
PII: S0043-1648(22)00161-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2022.204402
Reference: WEA 204402
To appear in: Wear
Received date : 10 February 2022

Revised date : 14 May 2022
Accepted date : 30 May 2022
Please cite this article as: A. Bastola, D. Stewart and D. Dini, Three-dimensional finite element
simulation and experimental validation of sliding wear, Wear (2022), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2022.204402.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Journal Pre-proof
REVISED Manuscript (text UNmarked) Click here to view linked References
1
Graphical Abstract
2
3
of
4
5 Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental validation of sliding wear
6 Ajit Bastola,David Stewart,Daniele Dini
7
8
3D finite element simulations and experimental validation of fretting and sliding wear
9
Worn ball Fn
10 Worn surface: 2nd order polynomial fitting
pro
profile Ball
Sliding wear track Wear model: Archard's wear law
11 Ball
12
13
Disc
14
15 Disc wear Rotation
16 track Disc
Worn test samples after slidng test Schematic of sliding test FEA model of a section
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
Worn surface profiles of disc and ball. 'U3' corresponds to wear depth in Z-direction
In this paper, wear profiles of the ball and disc from fretting and sliding tests were quantified and wear coefficients determined.
The wear coefficients were then used in the 3D FEA models to determine the wear profiles of the ball and disc using Archard's
28 wear law. Illustrations here show a set of worn samples from the test (upper left), pin-on-disc schematic sketch (upper-centre),
29 FEA assembly (upper-right) and FEA predicted wear profiles of the disc and ball (lower left and right).
30
31
lP
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
rna
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Jou
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
1
Highlights
2
3
of
4
5 Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental validation of sliding wear
6 Ajit Bastola,David Stewart,Daniele Dini
7
8
9 • A validated method for modelling reciprocating and continuous sliding wear using three-dimensional finite element
10 simulations
pro
11
12 • Application of wear simultaneously on two surfaces of different materials
13
14 • A method to remove artificial roughening of the worn surfaces due to numerical restrictions of element sizes
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
28
29
30
31
lP
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
rna
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Jou
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental

2
3
validation of sliding wear⋆
of
4
5
6
7 Ajit Bastolaa,∗ , David Stewartb and Daniele Dinia,∗∗
8
a Tribology Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK
9
b Rolls-Royce plc., Derby, UK
10
pro
11
12 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
13
14 Keywords: Wear tests involving thousands of operating cycles can be impractical and costly. Therefore, the use of
15 Sliding wear numerical methods to predict surface evolution due to wear can be a good alternative. A generalised
Steel and Non-ferrous metals three-dimensional finite element (FE) method is presented here to determine the wear of mechanical
Hardfacing components. The method is tested and validated against the results obtained from the ball on disc
16
17 Contact mechanics sliding tests performed on different materials and in different conditions, with the aim to predict the
18 Bearings wear profiles of the ball and disc. The wear simulation procedure is, for simplicity, based on Archard’s
19 Finite element modelling wear law and is implemented in a commercial FE package, ABAQUS. The developed methods are
20 appropriate for 3D surfaces and the wear profiles are based on the contact pressures calculated on
both surfaces. The surface evolutions of both contacting bodies are calculated simultaneously. The
21
generation of artificial roughening of the worn surfaces due to numerical restrictions of element sizes
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
is minimised using a local smoothening procedure. The developed methods are compared with the
results obtained for reciprocating sliding tests, which result in wear of few microns wear depths, and
continuous sliding tests, which result in tens of microns wear depths. The results were generally
in good agreement with the test, with the maximum discrepancy of ∼ 10% in all indicators used
considering the statistical error margin of the tests. The developed method is versatile and applicable
to a wide range of sliding wear tests. The model can be updated to consider both more complex
material descriptions and to incorporate tribofilm or oxide layer growth or removal.
28
29
30 1. Introduction theory of wear [4] and its modified versions for a body
sliding against another body. The wear volume is linked
Wear occurs when two solid surfaces slide over each other.
31
lP
32 to the normal force through the sliding distance and
33 ASM Handbook Vol. 18 [1] summarises that the materi- the friction coefficient is assumed to be constant. Fou-
als wear differently in different wear situations, and different
34 vry et al. [5] introduced wear energy coefficient that is
materials wear differently in the same situation. ASTM G40
35 based on the dissipated friction energy for hard surface
36 [2] defines wear as "alteration of a solid surface by progres- coatings thus variation of friction coefficient is consid-
37 sive loss or progressive displacement of material due to rela- ered. Generally, implementation of the phenomeno-
38 tive motion between that surface and a contacting substance logical wear models is easier but unlikely to capture
39 or substances". It is one of the main causes of damage and complex physical and chemical mechanisms explic-
failure of components. Yet it is one of the most complex and
itly.
40
rna
41 difficult problems to determine wear. The interplay between

42 the surrounding factors, such as load, speed and temperature; • mechanistic: Mechanistic models are developed to cap-
43 and internal factors, such as surface roughness, mechani- ture underlying mechanisms such as plasticity [6], third
44 cal properties and microscopic flaws create complex chal- body interactions [7], dislocation formations [8], prop-
45 lenges. Meng and Ludema [3] in 1995 showed around 300 agation of cracks [9], adhesion [10] and chemistry [11].
wear models exist encompassing a wide range of materials Although a mechanistic model can capture one of the
46
and operating conditions. The list of wear models is steadily underlying mechanisms, the real engineering surfaces
47
increasing over the years. Broadly, these wear models are are undergoing multiple mechanisms thus these mech-
48
derived from or based on these two types of primary wear
49
anistic models come with limitations. Additionally,
theories:
50
51 the models can be limited to certain length scales whereas,
the real engineering surfaces span multiple length scales.
Jou
• phenomenological: The most famous one is Archard’s

52
53 For instance, the adhesive wear model proposed by
54 ⋆
This document is the results of the research project funded by Rolls- Pham-Ba et al. [12] predicts the formation of wear
55 Royce plc. and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council particles in microns and its validity diminishes below
56 (EPSRC) through the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Nuclear a critical micro-contact. Likewise, the adhesive wear
57 Energy (EP/L015900/1) and Prof. Dini’s Established Career Fellowship model proposed by Brink and Molinari [13] is in nanoscales.
58 (EP/N025954/1).
∗ Corresponding author
59 ∗∗ Principal corresponding author Both types of models require calibration with experi-
60 a.bastola17@imperial.ac.uk (A. Bastola); d.dini@imperial.ac.uk mental data. Application of models beyond the test condi-
61 (D. Dini) tions will very likely result in erroneous results. So, it is very
62 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/d.dini (D. Dini) unlikely there will be a single theory that applies to every
63
Page 1 of 27
64
A Bastola et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier
65
Journal Pre-proof
1 FEA of sliding wear
situation of wear [14]. Thus, wear experiments are still the Hegadekatte et al. [27] used two 3D models to simulate
2
3
most reliable method to understand tribological behaviours. wear on two bodies. The first model moved the nodes based
of
4
5 ASTM G190-15 [15] gives guidance information for the on the amount of wear at the surface nodes. Once the wear
6 development and selection of various wear tests. Fretting depth reaches a certain predefined height the wear proces-
7 wear tests and pin-on-disc type slide wear are well estab- sor is stopped and the model is re-meshed. The wear depth
8 lished and used to determine sliding wear rate and friction from the first model is then applied to a second model as a
9 coefficients. Fretting wear is a type of wear that occurs when displacement boundary condition. The second model is then
10 two tightly fitting surfaces are subjected to an oscillatory mo- used to determine wear depth and wear profiles at the end of
pro
11 tion of small amplitude [16]. ASTM wear test methods are the desired number of cycles. Studies by Stalin-Muller and
12 detailed in D4170 [17] for fretting wear and G99 [18] for Van Dang [28], Yan et al. [29] focused on wear due to plastic
13 pin-on-disc wear. The objectives of these test methods are ratcheting theory developed by Kapoor and Johnson [30] for
14 to maintain good repeatability and minimise the scattering 2D models. Plastic ratcheting theory states there is an accu-
15 of results. mulation of plastic cyclic strain on the sliding surface. Once
16 Tribological experiments are inherently time-consuming the strain exceeds a critical value, the material has failed.
and costly as these tests have to mimic operating conditions. Yan et al. [29] used the concept of unit cell method and pe-
17
Also, the different parameters involved during the sliding riodic boundary conditions to further reduce the simulation
18
test require a high number of tests to capture the results within time for 2D models. Recently, Cross et al. [31] implemented
19
the operating conditions. Alternatives to the tests are ad- the theory by Kapoor and Johnson [30] to model ratchet-
20
vanced numerical methods, such as the Finite Element Method ing wear of Cobalt-Chromium alloys. Experimentally de-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
plified semi-analytical methods. re-
(FEM) and the Boundary Element Method (BEM), or sim-
The study of wear by solving non-linear contact prob-

lems using FEM has been in development since the mid-
1990s. Johansson [19] presented an algorithm for applying
rived plastic shear strain per cycle was used in the 2D fi-
nite element model to capture the ratcheting wear process.
Although this modelling approach is capable to account for
changes in material properties and surface roughness, its va-
lidity is limited to higher loading scenarios where mean con-
28 Archard’s wear law locally to evaluate the contact pressure tact pressures are large and generally greater than 1-1.5 GPa.
29 and the resultant change in geometry. A wear model is ap- Another approach is to post-process the FE results with
30 plied at an elemental level. Archard’s wear law [4] or a mod- an appropriate wear model to compute the progress of wear.
31 ified version of this law [20] are applied at the interacting Once the plastic strain on the sliding surfaces exceeds a de-
lP
32 surfaces when one body is sliding against another body. fined value, a layer of material is removed and re-analysis of
33 Johansson’s algorithm was modified by McColl et al. [21], new geometries is performed. The second method will be
34 Põdra and Andersson [22] and Öqvist [23] for the simulation faster and require significantly less computational resources
35 of fretting wear using an incremental wear approach. These as fewer non-linear contact problems are required to be solved.
modified versions are faster and useful to predict a high num- Hegadekatte et al. [27] details further in this method.
36
ber of cycles ranging from tens of thousands to millions for The FEM developed for wear rate calculations are ef-
37
2D models. However, these assume wear rates are constant ficient to study very simple contact geometry [22, 32, 33]
38
or vary at a predefined rate for a given number of cycles. It for e.g. rigid cylinder on a flat surface or a rigid pin on a
39
was noted by the authors the effect of incremental number of disc. Although these methods are adapted to solve engineer-
40
rna
41
42 fretting cycles per solution step, 𝛿N, is dependent on element ing problems and use the real geometry of the system, there
43 height and wear rate. are practical limitations. The analyses are slow, there are
44 Co-workers of McColl [24, 25] further developed the limitations on the number of degrees of freedom (number of
45 method by McColl et al. [21] for simulating fretting wear nodes) to study the effect of local geometry with appropriate
46 on 3D models. Ding et al. [24] calculated wear on helical fine grid sizes.
47 spline coupling teeth of aero-engines. Nodal displacements An alternative to FEM is Boundary Element Method,
48 representing wear in the internal spline are applied on the which is often more efficient than FEM. Only the surfaces
49 unloaded spline model. The internal spline is rotated about are discretised in the BEM method instead of the whole vol-
50 its axis until the closest pair of potential contact nodes on ume. This reduces the dimension of the problem by one thus
51 the worn surfaces are in contact. Ding et al. [25] further de- reducing computational time. However, for nonlinear con-
veloped this model considering the interaction of wear with tact problems, the volume integrals present in the bound-
Jou
52
53 fretting fatigue on spline couplings. Critical plane Smith ary integral formulation need to be evaluated first. Various
54 Watson Topper parameters were determined for major and methods are developed over the years to evaluate the volume
minor load cycles. The total number of cycles to failure integrals without volume discretisation for different contact
55
was then determined using linear damage accumulation law, problems. These methods generally involve approximating
56
i.e. Miner’s rule. 3D fretting wear models were also devel- volume integrals with linear equations [34, 35, 36, 37]; how-
57
oped by Cruzado et al. [26] to capture wear on both contact- ever, they often require simplifying assumptions in terms of
58
ing bodies. The contact pressures and slip distribution from boundary conditions and are not efficient when dealing with
59
60
61 the slave nodes were interpolated and applied to the master finite geometries, especially in 3D. Ghanbarzadeh et al. [37]
62 nodes. reported an interesting example of the application of BEM
63
64
A Bastola et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 2 of 27
65
Journal Pre-proof
to capture surface evolution. The BEM is used to model tact surface. The contact pressures are then extrapolated to
2
3
boundary lubrication to study the effect of tribofilms in re- its 3D counterface. The wear simulation presented here is
of
4
5 ducing friction and wear. BEM can be a powerful alternative based on Archard’s wear law using UMESHMOTION sub-
6 to FEM where only surface field outputs are required. routine available in the commercial FE package, ABAQUS
7 The semi-analytical method proposed by Johansson [38], [52] for solving, for the first time, general 3D deformable-
8 Gallego et al. [39] and Hegadekatte et al. [40] are alterna- deformable contact problems. Archard’s wear law is applied
9 tive methods of computationally expensive FEM wear depth at an elemental level to simulate the change in geometry as
10 models. FEM computes wear at a nodal level while the semi- a function of contact pressure. Guidance is given on the in-
pro
11 analytical methods calculate global wear depth for each slid- corporation of surface oxide growth using the UMESHMO-
12 ing increment. So the semi-analytical methods are better TION subroutine and Arrhenius oxidation equation. This
13 suited to relatively simpler geometry. enables to capture the synergies between material removal
14 Unlike FEM where contact pressures and slips are calcu- and the formation of oxide layers explicitly and will be ex-
15 lated, semi-analytical methods cannot predict both as these tremely useful for the inclusion of tribochemistry in standard
16 depend on the system’s stiffness. These data are taken as in- wear models at macroscales.
put and are constant along the cyclic wear process. However, The paper is divided into 6 sections. Section 1 focused
17
semi-analytical codes have been developed using misalign- on the compilation of literature review on FEM of sliding
18
ment of surfaces to apply contact pressures [39]. The semi- and fretting wear, and the alternatives. The tests method are
19
analytical wear prediction models reported in the surveyed detailed in Section 2. The FEM developed for the wear pro-
20
literature were in good agreement with FEM results for the cessor is detailed in Section 3. The test results are detailed
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
sliding and rolling wears considered.
re-
This study is a part of broader research looking at hard
facing alloys in nuclear reactor conditions. Excellent wear
and corrosion resistance of Co-based alloys make them de-
sirable for tribological applications in the nuclear industry.
in Section 4. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results using
FEM are also compared in this section. The associated ex-
perimental uncertainty, model assumptions, model versatil-
ity and limitations are discussed in Section 5. Finally, the
paper is concluded in Section 6.
28 However, Co-based alloys also produce radioactive isotopes
29 that are the primary source for occupational radiation expo-
30 sure. The search for suitable replacements is ongoing re- 2. Experimental details
31 search since the early 1960s. Fe-based and Ni-based alloys Reciprocating and continuous sliding type tribological
lP
32 are the primary focused alternatives [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, experimental results were used to test the suitability of the
33 47, 48]. The alternatives have shown variable degrees of proposed method to accurately capture the evolution of worn
34 success. However, as Bowden et al. [48] pointed out, the surfaces. Reciprocating sliding tests were performed by Ven-
35 alternatives have not matched the elevated temperature wear gudusamy et al. [53] and the continuous sliding tests were
36
resistance of commonly used Co-based alloys such as Stellite performed by McCarron et al. [54]. These studies were cho-
37
6 and Haynes 25. Stellite alloys, such as Stellite 6 and 20, sen because full wear track data and worn samples were avail-
are common hard facing alloys used in the primary circuit able to authors for further study. Vengudusamy [55] pro-
38
and Haynes 25 is used for rolling and raceway components vided an extended description of the wear response of dif-
39
of rolling element bearings [49, 50]. ferent Diamond-like-carbon (DLC) coatings. Likewise, Mc-
40
rna
Carron et al. [54] reported on the high-temperature sliding

41
In this paper, a methodology is developed to simulate re-
wear of hard-facing alloys. The test set-ups and parame-
42
43 ciprocating and continuous sliding wear on these hard facing
44 alloys using FEM and is validated with test results. Fretting ters are briefly outlined here for completeness. It should
45 wear is a particular type of reciprocating wear where two be noted here that the wear measurements were re-evaluated
46 contacting surfaces have oscillatory relative motion of small here from the original data (made available by the authors
47 amplitude. A fraction of the contact remains covered (unex- of the cited papers) to provide a consistent evaluation of the
48 posed) during the displacement cycle [51]. This methodol- result in our attempt to perform a thorough comparison with
49 ogy is presented as a tool to predict wear on both the contact the modelling results.
50 surfaces during sliding. Table 1 summarises the reciprocating and continuous slid-
51 To the best of our knowledge at this time, there is not any ing test details that are relevant to the wear simulation. Two
FE methods describing the wear of two 3D bodies simulta- reciprocating tests are denoted as R1 and R2. Likewise, two
Jou
52
53 neously using adaptive mesh. The comparable methods are sliding tests are denoted as S1 and S2. R1 and R2 tests se-
54 like those described by Ding et al. [24, 25] and Cruzado et al. lected for this validation study shows wear on both ball and
55
[26]. Ding et al. [24, 25] used FORTRAN routine to calcu- disc specimens. The wear is mild and distinct wear scars are
56
late nodal wear depth on slave surface outside of ABAQUS observed on the ball and disc. The two DLC coatings have
[52] solver. A method to specify wear on both contacting slight different hardness. The hardness of R1 test coating is
57
surfaces is also detailed by Ding et al. [24] but outside of 2365 ± 87 𝐻𝑉 and the hardness of R2 test coating is 2500
58
ABAQUS solver and without using adaptive mesh. Mean- ± 76 𝐻𝑉 . The DLC coatings are applied on the AISI 52100
59
steel balls and discs. Pictures of the DLC coated ball and
60
while, Cruzado et al. [26] used the adaptive meshing tech-
disc are shown in Figure 1a. A rolling-sliding Mini-Traction
61
62 nique to determine contact pressure on a deformable 3D con-
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 Table 1
of
4 Sliding test details
5
Test type Reciprocating Continuous
6
7 Test number R1 R2 S1 S2
8 Normal Load [N] 31 31 10 35
9 Test temperature [◦ C] 100 100 200 100
10 Stroke length [mm] 4 3 - -
pro
(a) DLC coated ball and disc
11 Frequency [Hz] 10 10 - -
12 Speed [rpm] - - 200 200
13 Time [hrs] 4 4 3 3
14 Total cycles [103 ] 144 144 36 36
15 Total distance [m] 1152 864 2296 2296
16 Avg. contact pressure [GPa] 0.61 0.62 1.12 0.74
17 Max. contact pressure [GPa] 0.92 0.93 1.69 1.11
18 0◦ 180◦
19
20 Machine (MTM) from PCS Instruments, London, was used
21 to perform ball-on-disc type tests in which the DLC-coated
ball is loaded against the DLC-coated disc. The disc is held
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
in a bath containing a test lubricant so that the contact be-
tween the ball and disc is fully immersed at a controlled tem-
perature. The ball is allowed to move in the vertical direction
only and the disc is reciprocating about the horizontal direc-
tion with a stroke length of 4 𝑚𝑚 for R1 and 3 𝑚𝑚 for R2
Load
Wear track
(b) Schematic of 4 mm wear track from reciprocating sliding test
tests. Reciprocating frequency is 10 𝐻𝑧. Figure 1b shows

28
a schematic of the wear track on the disc and a schematic of
29 Force
the MTM rig used for the reciprocating sliding tests is shown
30 Transducer
31
in Figure 1c. This schematic does not show enclosing auto-
lP
Ball
32
33 clave that is used to maintain high test temperatures. These
tests duration were 4 hours at 100 ◦ C. The material details
Disc
34
for both reciprocating test cases are summarised in Table 2.
Lubricant film
35 Lubricant
36 The sliding tests, S1 and S2 were carried out in a tri-
37 bometer inside an autoclave at the University of Nottingham (c) Schematic of MTM reciprocating sliding rig without its enclos-
38 [54, 56]. Figure 2a shows wear scars on Stellite 20 ball and ing autoclave
39 Haynes 25 disc from the tests. The wear scars for these tests
are significantly bigger than the reciprocating sliding tests.
40 Figure 1: Reciprocating sliding wear experimental setup
rna
41 The wear depths for S1 and S2 tests are in the order of a

42 few microns while the wear depths for R1 and R2 tests are
43 in a few hundreds of nanometres. Stellite 20 ball has higher The local contact pressure along with two tribological quan-
44 hardness than Haynes 25 disc. The hardness of Stellite 20 tities, the coefficient friction and wear coefficient, are used
45
ball is 685 ± 16 𝐻𝑉 and the heat-treated Haynes 25 disc’s in the FEA wear simulations for R1 and R2 cases. The aver-
46
hardness is 615 ± 6 𝐻𝑉 . The disc is clamped onto a holder aged friction coefficient (𝑓𝑎𝑣 ), which is the ratio of the aver-
47
that rotates and the ball is held in place by an off-centre ball aged friction force and the applied normal force, ranged from
48
holder. A schematic of the sliding wear set-up is shown in 0.07 to 0.06 for the R1 test for the initial 2 hours of friction
49
Figure 2b. The test rig as shown in Figure 2c is fully en- test. 𝑓𝑎𝑣 dropped from 0.07 after 15 minutes to 0.06 after 2
50
closed in an autoclave. Wear tests are then performed at ele- hours. Similarly, 𝑓𝑎𝑣 for the R2 test also dropped from 0.08
51
vated pressure and temperature in an aqueous environment. after 15 minutes to 0.075 after 2 hours. Meanwhile, 𝑓𝑎𝑣 for
Jou
S1 and S2 was estimated to be 0.35 based on the first 30 𝑚

52
The test samples are immersed in de-oxygenated deionised
sliding. Full friction data for 2.3 𝑘𝑚 sliding distance was not
53
water with the addition of 8.5 𝑚𝑔 LiOH per litre to mimic
available for S1 and S2 tests so friction was not used in the
54
nuclear reactor conditions in the autoclave. The temperature
FEA of S1 and S2 cases.
55
of the autoclave is increased steadily to the desired tempera-
The ball and disc wear coefficients for the reciprocating
56
57 ture of either 100 ◦ C or 200 ◦ C. The sliding tests are then run
58 for 3 hours at a constant speed of 200 𝑟𝑝𝑚. Further material and continuous sliding tests are determined by the following
59 and initial surface details of the sliding samples are given in
60 Table 2.
61 Mechanical quantities such as elastic properties and ge-
62 ometries are required to determine the local contact pressure.
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 Table 2
of
4 Material details for reciprocating and continuous sliding test
5
Test number R1 and R2 S1 and S2
6 Ball Disc Ball Disc
7
8 Material DLC coated AISI 52100 Steel Stellite 20 Haynes 25
9 Hardness [GPa] R1: 23.19, R2: 24.51 R1: 23.19, R2: 24.51 6.72 6.03
10 Elastic modulus [GPa] R1: 197, R2: 200 R1: 197, R2: 200 240 222
pro
11 Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
12 Diameter [mm] 19 40 9.54 30
13 Disc thickness [mm] - 5 - 10
14 Ra surface roughness [um] 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.07
Coating thickness [um] 3-4 3-4 - -
15
16
17
18 equations: Figures 4a and 4b show wear contours on the disc sur-
19 face. The first images of the figures are at the 12 o’clock
20 𝑉𝑏 𝐻𝑏 position and the second images are at the 6 o’clock position.
21 𝑘𝑏 = Figures 4 c and d show the wear contours on the ball sur-
𝑆𝐹𝑁
(1) faces.
22
23
24
25
26
27
𝑘𝑑 =
where,
𝑉𝑑 𝐻𝑑
𝑆𝐹𝑁 re-
𝑉𝑏 and 𝑉𝑑 are the total wear volumes of the ball and disc
respectively, 𝑘𝑏 and 𝑘𝑑 are the ball, disc coefficients of wear
A good estimation of the ball wear volume is desirable to
calculate the wear coefficients required for the FEA simula-
tions. Three methods were considered for ball wear volume
measurements:
1. Optical microscopy - The profile measurement instru-
respectively. 𝐻𝑏 and 𝐻𝑑 are the hardness of the ball and
28
ments such as confocal or white light interferometer
discs respectively. 𝐹𝑁 is a normal load.
29
are equipped with software to determine the worn vol-
For reciprocating sliding tests, total sliding distance, 𝑆
30
ume of the curved surfaces. Generally, this involves
given by:
31
lP
32 specifying the natural curvature radius of the ball and
33 removing any tilt. By subtracting the ball geometry
34 𝑆 = 2Δ𝑥𝑛 (2) from the measured profile, the software calculates the
35 volume of the missing material due to wear. Errors on
36 where, the measurements can be from: (a) very rough wear
37 Δ𝑥 is stroke length and 𝑛 number of cycles. surfaces that deflect light beam away from the receiver
38 The wear volumes were measured using white light in- (b) if the boundary between the wear track and the area
39 terferometer by Veeco Instruments for the reciprocating tests immediately outside the wear track is not distinguish-
40 samples and a laser confocal microscope by Olympus was able.
rna
41 used for the sliding tests samples. Wear volumes of the re- 2. Wear volume calculation using the method proposed
42 ciprocating sliding tracks on the disc were measured by stitch- in the ASTM G133 [57] standard - The wear volume,
43 ing multiple profiles as the wear track was only 4 𝑚𝑚. This 𝑉𝑏 is determined for a flat ball scar of effective diam-
could not be done for the wear tracks from the sliding tests, eter 𝐷:
44
which were significantly larger. The mean sliding radius of
45
S1 and S2 tests were 10.15 𝑚𝑚 giving a total sliding distance
46
( )
/ cycle of 63.77 𝑚𝑚. Thus eight profilometric measurements 3𝐷2
47 𝜋ℎ
𝑉𝑏 = + ℎ2
were made at 12 o’clock, 3 o’clock, 6 o’clock and 9 o’clock
48
6 4
49 √ (3)
positions. Each profilometric measurement was used to de-
50 𝐷2
termine the cross-sectional area using Simpson’s rule to in- ℎ = 𝑅 − 𝑅2 −
51 4
tegrate. The averaged cross-sectional area was multiplied by
Jou
52
53 the mean circular path of the wear track to obtain the wear where, 𝑅 is the radius of the ball and ℎ is the height
54 volume loss. Typical measured 3D contour plots of the wear of the material removed. If there is an elliptical wear
55 tracks are shown in Figure 3 for the reciprocating tests and scar, which is the case when both the ball and disc
56 Figure 4 for the continuous sliding tests. The curvature of are worn, the 𝐷 is the average between the major and
57 the ball is removed on these contour plots and the direction minor axes of the wear scar.
58 of the sliding is as depicted in the figures. Figures 3a and 3b 3. Ball wear volume considering disc wear scar - The
59 show the wear height distribution on the disc surface. Ar- ASTM G133 method is an approximation when wear
60 eas near the edges of the stroke in the reciprocating sliding occurs on both the ball and disc. It is only accurate
61 tests show higher wear depths than areas around the central when the wear on the ball is significant and negligi-
62 region. ble wear occurs on the disc. In general, wear scars on
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3
Sliding Direction
of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pro
11 (a) Worn ball and disc from sliding wear test
12 Load
13 Ball (c) F1 Ball

14 Wear track
15 (a) F1 Disc
16
17
18 Sliding Direction
Disc
19
20 Rotation
21
(b) Schematic of sliding wear test
22
23
24
25
26
27
Load in
dead weight
re- (d) F2 Ball
28
29 Vertically free-moving (b) F2 Disc
mechanism (part of
30 dead weight load) Figure 3: White light interferometer images of wear scars of
31 the disc and ball surfaces from reciprocating sliding tests
lP
32 Off centre ball holder
33 Rotating disc
gral method calculated 13.4% more wear for the S1 case and
34
18.1% more for the S2 case. The worn volumes based on the
35
integral method were used for calculating wear coefficients.
36
37
38 Comparable volume measurements were obtained using the
39 (c) Schematic of sliding wear test rig without its enclosing au- optical microscopy technique, which were within ± 10% of
40 toclave the integral method.
rna
41 Figure 2: Continuous sliding wear test setup

42
43
the ball are not flat but have different curvatures in the
44
sliding and transverse directions. Kucharski and Mroz
45
[58] details a method for ball wear scar volume in an
46
integral form. The formulas are here revised to cap-
47
ture the elliptical wear scar on the ball. The detailed
48
49
50 derivation is given in the supplementary file, section
51 A. The volume of ball wear is given as:
Jou
52
53
𝑏[ ]
1 1
∫𝑜
54
𝑉𝑏 = 2 (𝑅2 − 𝑧2 )(𝜃 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃) − 𝑟2𝑥 (𝛼 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝛼) 𝑑𝑧
55 2 2
56 (4)
57
58 The integral can be solved numerically. The ASTM method
59 under-predicts the wear volume for all the four test cases con-
60 sidered. For instance, the wear volumes for the test cases S1
61 and S2 predicted using the ASTM method were 0.29 𝑚𝑚3
62 and 2.49 𝑚𝑚3 respectively. The wear volume from the inte-
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
number of elements.
2 12 o’clock 6 o’clock
3 Sliding Direction
The bottom of the disc in the X-Y plane is fully fixed -
of
4 Sliding
5 see Figure 5. The normal load along Z-direction is applied
6 at a reference point, RP-1. RP-1 is kinematically-coupled to
7 the top surface of the ball. Thus, the load is distributed on
8 the top flat surface of the ball in the X-Y plane. The ball is
9 reciprocating in X-direction by Δ𝑥 = 0.25 𝑚𝑚. Since the
10 objective here is to calculate representative contact pressure
pro
(c) S1 Ball
11 (a) S1 Disc over an element length, the sliding distance of 0.25 𝑚𝑚 is
12 12 o’clock 6 o’clock Sliding Direction sufficient. The geometries and mesh details are also given in
13
Sliding Figure 5.
14 The normal loads as stated in Table 1 are applied on the
15 horizontal flat surface of the disc during the first step. The
16 first slide of the ball over the disc is initiated at step number
2. The nodal contact pressures and displacement coordinates
17
are stored for the wear processor. The next 15 sliding cycles
18
over the disc involve reciprocation of the ball over the disc
19
surface. The load is then removed at the penultimate step.
20 (d) S2 Ball
The ball and disc surfaces that can interact with each
21 (b) S2 Disc
22
23
24
25
26
27 3. Numerical Methodology for sliding wear
re-
Figure 4: White light interferometer images of wear scars of
the disc and ball surfaces from sliding tests
other as a contact pair are selected to define the formula-
tion to be used to handle contact. The contact pair is formed
by the top flat surface of the ALE adaptive mesh region of
the disc and the bottom curved surface of the ALE adaptive
mesh region of the ball. The combined surface is then as-
28 signed as both master and slave surfaces. The master-slave
3.1. FE Model
algorithm has no restrictions on the master surface, which
Two similar FEA models are used to study reciprocat-
29
can penetrate the slave surface between slave nodes. Switch-
ing and continuous sliding tests. A segment of wear track
30
ing between master and slave surfaces for the ball and disc
is only modelled for both the sliding wear tests as shown in
31
lP
32 surfaces allows each surface to be both master and slave;
Figure 5. The red-bordered region of Section A-A denotes
33 thus, resultant stresses and pressures can be calculated on
Arbitrary
34 both surfaces.
Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) adaptive mesh regions. The adap-
35 The surface-to-surface contact discretization is selected
tive meshing technique in ABAQUS combines the features
instead of node-to-surface contact discretization. The surface-
36
of pure Lagrangian analysis and pure Eulerian analysis. Dur-
to-surface discretization results in more realistic stress and
37
ing the Lagrangian phase, the material moves with the mesh
pressure results than node-to-surface discretization when the
38
and during the Eulerian phase, the mesh nodes are fixed in
surface geometry is reasonably well represented by the con-
39
space and the material flows through the mesh elements.
tact surfaces. The finite-sliding contact tracking approach
40
rna
41 The mesh is expected to be distorted during wear and the

is implemented as it allows for arbitrary separation, slid-
42 mesh smoothing framework implemented by ALE adaptive
ing and rotation of the surfaces [52]. Tangential and nor-
43 remeshing is required to smoothen the mesh. Section 3.2
mal contact properties are defined for all the cases. Con-
44 provides further details about the use of the ALE adaptive
stant penalty friction formulation was used for the tangen-
45 meshing techniques. 3 × 1.25 × 0.25 𝑚𝑚 is the dimension
tial contact definition using 𝑓𝑎𝑣 from the tests for R1 and R2
of the disc portion modelled for both continuous sliding and
46
cases. "Hard" contact pressure over-closure was selected for
reciprocating wear cases. The ball’s horizontal length is 2.8
47
the normal contact properties. Penalty and augmented La-
𝑚𝑚 and the vertical length is 0.3 𝑚𝑚 at the contact point for
48
grangian methods for contact constraint enforcement were
the ball. The diameters of the balls are 9.5 𝑚𝑚 and 19 𝑚𝑚
49
selected. The penalty method approximates hard pressure-
for sliding and fretting cases respectively.
50
51 over closure behaviour. Some degree of penetration will oc-
8-noded linear brick (C3D8) elements are used in the
cur with this method as the contact force is proportional to
Jou
52
contact regions for both ball and disc. Quadratic elements
53 the penetration distance. The advantages of this method are
are not supported by ALE adaptive meshing and reduced in-
54 improved solver efficiency and mitigation of overconstrained
tegration elements such as C3D8R tend to have lower stiff-
issues. The penetration distance is reduced by an augmenta-
55
ness during bending. Also, reduced integration elements
tion iteration within the penalty method in the augmented
56
give the most accurate stresses and strains at the integration
Lagrangian method. Additional iterations are required to
57
point; however, the integration point is located at the cen-
keep the penetrations small and avoid overconstrained prob-
58
tre of the element. Thus, C3D8R elements are not ideal for
lems. [52, 59] Contact pressure profiles and contact areas
59
60 surface contact problems. C3D8R elements and six-noded
are compared between penalty and augmented Lagrangian
61 wedge elements (C3D6) are used outside of the ALE adap-
methods in the last paragraph of this section.
62 tive mesh region to reduce computation time and the total
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
Fn
3
Ball
of
4 Sliding wear track
5
0◦ 180◦
6
7
8 Disc
9
10
pro
11 Rotation Fretting wear track Detail B
12
Sliding: Fretting:
13
No. of elements: 21680 No. of elements: 29600
14 No. of nodes: 24353 No. of nodes: 33472
15 Ball Θ: 9.5 mm Ball Θ: 19 mm
16
17 A
18
19
20
21
A
22
23
24
25
26
27
re- 2.8 mm
1.25 mm
28
29
30 0.3 mm
B
31
lP
32
33 0.25 mm
34
35
3 mm
36
37 Section A-A
38
39 Figure 5: FEA assembly of ball and disc for reciprocating and continuous sliding wear
40
rna
41
42 Mesh sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine For the 𝑎 = 𝑏 case, 𝑎 and 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 are given by:
43 the optimum element sizes and numbers. The contact stresses
44 and displacements were compared with analytical Hertzian ( )1∕3
3 𝐹𝑁 𝑅
models to validate the unworn model. The necessary equa- (6)
45
𝑎=
46
tions to determine the 3D pressure profile are described briefly 4 𝐸∗
first and the outcome of the mesh sensitivity studies are de- where,
47
tailed. The 3D contact pressure profile for a point contact is 𝐸 ∗ is the composite modulus of the two contacting bodies.
48
given by: 𝑅 is the relative curvature of the for the radii for the spherical
49
50
51 ball (𝑅𝑠 ) and flat disc (𝑅𝑓 ). 𝐸 ∗ and 𝑅 are given as:
( ( )2 ( 𝑦 )2 )1∕2
Jou
52
(5)
𝑥 ( )−1
𝑝(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 − −
53
𝑎 𝑏 1 − 𝜈𝑠2 1 − 𝜈𝑓2
54 𝐸∗ = + (7)
55 where, 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑓
56 𝑎 is half contact width in x-direction, 𝑏 is half contact width
57 in y-direction and 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum contact pressure. ( )−1
1 1
𝑎 = 𝑏 when point load from the ball is applied onto a flat 𝑅= + (8)
disc. 𝑎 ≠ 𝑏 as the wear progresses on both surfaces. 𝑎 and
58
59 𝑅𝑠 𝑅𝑓
60 𝑏 then become semi-axes of elliptical contact. A method for where,
61 calculating the semi-axes is given in Equations 5 and 6 of 𝐸𝑠 , 𝐸𝑓 are the elastic moduli and 𝜈𝑠 , 𝜈𝑓 are the Poisson’s
62 Cruzado et al. [26] paper. ratios for the sphere and flat disc respectively.
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3
of
4 1685.19
1688.26
Contact Pressure [MPa]

5 1717.85
1600 1600
6 1600
1200 1200
7 1200
8 800 800
800
9 400 400
400
10 0 0
pro
0
11 0.10 0.10 0.10
12 0.05 0.05 0.05
]
]
]
m
m
0.00 0.00
m
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12
[m
0.00
[m
[m
13 -0.06 -0.05
-0.06 -0.05 -0.06
is
is
X ax 0.00 0.06
is
X ax 0.00 0.06
ax
ax
-0.05
ax
14 is [m -0.10 is [m -0.10 X ax0.00
Y
Y
Y
m] 0.12 m] 0.12 is [m 0.06
15 m] 0.12 -0.10
a. Hertzian Analytical b. FEA - Penalty Method c. FEA - Augmented Lagrange Method
16
17 Figure 6: Comparison of initial FEA contact stresses with the Hertzian model
18
19
𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 is then calculated using Equations 7 and 8: simplicity, wear depth along the vertical direction (z-axis in
20
Figure 5) is only considered.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
( ) ( 6𝐹 𝐸 ∗2 )1∕3
1
𝜋
𝑁
𝑅2
The contact pressure profiles and the contact width ob-
tained from Equations 5, 6 and 9 are used to plot 3D contour
of pressure distribution. Figure 6a shows the pressure distri-
re- (9)
where,
𝑉 =𝑘
𝐹𝑁 𝑆
𝐻
(10)
28 𝑉 is the volume in 𝑚𝑚3 , 𝑘 is dimensionless wear coefficient,

29 bution as a function contact width for Case S2. Figures 6b 𝐹𝑁 is a normal force applied on the disc surface, 𝐻 is the
30 and 6c show the pressure contours for two contact constraint hardness of the material in MPa and 𝑆 is the sliding distance
31 enforcement methods: penalty method and augmented La- in 𝑚𝑚.
lP
32 grange method, for the same test case. Although the 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 Equation 10 is then divided by a contact area, 𝑑𝐴:
33 difference between the penalty method and the analytical re-
34 sults is negligible, the augmented Lagrange method gives
35 the comparable pressure distribution across the contact area. 𝑑𝑉
=𝑘
𝑑𝐹𝑁
(11)
36 The mesh sensitivity study showed contact area spread over 𝑑𝐴 𝑑𝑆 𝐻 𝑑𝐴
37 64 elements (8 × 8) was optimum. Increasing element num- 𝑑𝐹𝑁 ∕𝑑𝐴 is the local contact pressure, 𝑝(𝑥), at distance
38 bers in 3D space significantly increases the computational 𝑥 away from the contact point. 𝑑𝑉 ∕𝑑𝐴 is the local wear
time and do not necessarily increase the accuracy of the re-
39
depth, 𝑑ℎ.
sults. The singularity issue at very small element lengths can
40
rna
Equation 11 can be re-written as Equation 12 to imple-

give very high and unrealistic elemental contact pressures.
41
ment in 3D FEA models.
Based on the optimum number of elements for the con-
42
tact region, the element size at the central region where the
43
44
45 initial contact occurs is determined as 15 𝜇𝑚 × 15 𝜇𝑚 with 𝑑ℎ
= 𝑘𝐷 𝑝(𝑥) (12)
46 the depth of 40 𝜇𝑚 for the ball. Similarly, the element size of 𝑑𝑠
47 15 𝜇𝑚 × 20 𝜇𝑚 with the depth of 40 𝜇𝑚 is specified for the where, 𝑘𝐷 is dimensional local wear coefficient
48 disc. Bias meshing is used to reduce the element numbers in Equation 12 can then be used to determine the wear rate
49 the ALE adaptive mesh region away from the initial contact per unit sliding distance. 𝑝(𝑥) can be determined by FEA
50 region so that the largest element size is 15 𝜇𝑚 × 40 𝜇𝑚 at packages like ABAQUS. Equation 12 can also be modified to
51 the boundaries of ALE adaptive mesh regions. calculate the wear rate per unit time if required. However, for
The difference between the analytical 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 and the FEA
Jou
the purpose of this study, wear rate per unit sliding distance
52
53 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 is less than 2% for Case S2. Likewise, the difference is considered. Two main assumptions made in this model
54 in 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 is less than 0.25%. The difference between 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 of are:
55 analytical and FEA was the highest at 3% for Case R1. Like-
56 wise, the difference between 𝑎 of analytical and FEA was the • the authors are not aware of any explicit methods to
57 highest at 5% for Case S1. determine 𝑘𝐷 based on local contact pressures and
slips that can be measured from in-situ instruments.
58
59 3.2. Wear Processor Instead, 𝑘𝐷 used here is averaged across the contact
60 Archard’s wear law (Equation 10) can be modified to cal- pressures and the sliding distances. Hence, the 𝑘𝐷
61 culate the wear rate using the method initially reported by Jo- used are averaged dimensional wear coefficients.
62 hansson [19] and further detailed by McColl et al.[21]. For
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 Start
of
4
5
6 Initial 3D ball and disc geometry,
7 material model, contact definition
and boundary condition
8
9
10
pro
Generate FE Model
11
12
13
Resume full load Smoothening by
14 UMESHMOTION Abaqus FEA solver
15
16
17 3rd increment
18
19 Sliding step:
20 Remeshing: 1st increment 1st-3rd Last increment Remeshing:
21 or last or
Update nodal coordinates Update nodal coordinates
any other step
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
a. Reduce load to ≃ 0 N
b. Extract X, Y, Z
increment?
Other increments
Store in file:
Node number and nodal
a. Calculate averaged
pressures for ball & disc:
28 nodal coordinates pressures for ball and disc: 𝑝̄𝑏 & 𝑝̄𝑑
29 c. Calculate smoothen- 𝑝𝑏 & 𝑝𝑑 b. Apply local wear
ing coefficients model for ball & disc
30 Δℎ𝑤 = Δℎ𝑤 + 𝑘′ 𝐷 𝑝̄
31 2nd increment
lP
Optional step: apply
32 Apply worn surface oxide growth on nodes
33 smoothening on ball and disc where: 𝑝𝑏 = 𝑝𝑑 = 0
34 Yes No
Post-process with Python
35 Is Δ𝑁 < 𝑁?
in ABAQUS ODB Viewer
36 Wear processor using
UMESHMOTION
37
38 End
39
40
rna
41
42 Figure 7: Flowchart showing the use of UMESHMOTION to calculate wear and
43 smoothening of the worn surfaces
44
45
46
• 𝑑𝑉 ∕𝑑𝐴 = 𝑑ℎ is only true for cuboidal elements. How- framework that can be enhanced by modifying the descrip-
47
48
49 ever, the nodal contact pressures are averaged for two tion used to describe the evolution of wear. The test details,
50 adjacent nodes. Thus the calculated 𝑑ℎ is an approxi- material properties and geometries give in Tables 1 and 2 are
51 mated wear depth of the surface elements. used in the FEA.
The nodal displacements applied using UMESHMOTION
Jou
Wear profiles on the contacting surfaces are simulated by

52
are in the element’s local coordinate system. X-direction is
displacement of ALE surface elements using a user-defined
53
along an edge or in the plane of the flat surface. Y-direction
subroutine called UMESHMOTION available in ABAQUS.
54
55 is also along an edge or in the plane of the flat surface orthog-
56 The subroutine UMESHMOTION is used to update the sur- onal to the X-direction. Z-direction is normal to the surface.
57 face nodal positions within adaptive mesh constraint nodes. The FEA models considered in this study are relatively sim-
58 Wear coefficient is only considered in this study and mi- ple, so the FEA assemblies are rotated and translated such
59 crostructural changes such as those described by Suh’s de- that wear is applied on Z-direction. The normal load is also
60 lamination theory of wear [8] are not implemented at this applied along Z-direction. The subroutine must be modified
61 stage as their consideration requires further developments to convert isoparametric coordinates (local coordinates) to
62 to deal with the added complexity and this study presents a
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
global coordinates before applying the wear when a com- each node at the last increment of each reciprocating sliding
2
3
plex geometry is considered or when the model consists of cycle. The averaged contact pressures of ball (𝑝̄𝑏 ) and disc
of
4
5 symmetric boundary conditions. Once the wear is applied in (𝑝̄𝑑 ) are then used in Equation 12 to calculate the wear depth
6 the global coordinate system, the resultant displacement in for that cycle. The process is continued until the total num-
7 the global coordinate system is converted back to the local ber of cycles (𝑁) is reached. The 𝑘𝐷 for ball and disc are
8 coordinate system. Hogg [60] details the conversion method adjusted per reciprocating cycle, 𝑘′𝐷 . Each material point on
9 using element shape function for C3D8 type elements. The the disc wear track comes in contact with the ball only once
10 local Z-direction is assigned arbitrarily by the subroutine to per stroke length so, 𝑘′𝐷 = 𝑘𝐷 for the disc. However, the
pro
11 the nodes on the edges. If the wear is applied on these nodes material point on the ball wear scar is in continuous contact
12 along the edges, the resultant nodal displacements will be with the disc throughout the stroke length, so 𝑘′𝐷 = 𝑘𝐷 2Δ𝑥
13 incorrect. Thus the models presented here do not use sym- for one cycle. Likewise, the equivalent 𝑘′𝐷 for the ball wear
14 metric boundary conditions. scar on a sliding cycle is 𝑘′𝐷 = 𝑘𝐷 2𝜋𝑟𝑤 , where 𝑟𝑤 is the
15 The flowchart describing the implemented FEA wear mod- nominal radius of the wear track.
16 elling is summarised in Figure 7. The automated, incremen- The primary advantage of this method is that contact re-
tal wear simulation tool is written in FORTRAN 90 and it sults are calculated for both the contacting surfaces of the
17
is based on the wear prediction equation, Equation 12. It is ball and disc. Therefore, there is no requirement to inter-
18
implemented using ABAQUS (version 2019) and the user- polate the results from one contacting surface to the other
19
defined subroutine UMESHMOTION. as implemented by Cruzado et al. [26]. The presented wear
20
Each analysis increment consists of a Lagrangian phase simulation method can also be modified to consider oxide
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
followed by an Eulerian phase. The contact and equilibrium
equations are solved iteratively during the Lagrangian phase.
Once the Lagrangian phase is converged the Eulerian phase
is started and it consists of two steps:
• Mesh motion and sweeping: Mesh motion as defined
layer formation between sliding cycles or combined oxido-
abrasive wear behaviour. This additional step is denoted as
"Optional step" in Figure 7. Guidance for applying the oxide
layer growth is given in Section 5.
Simulation of the entire sliding distance of each cycle of
10.05 𝑚𝑚 is unrealistic and unnecessary if the objective of
by the UMESHMOTION is calculated and applied.
28
the simulation is to get the results corresponding to a rep-
UMESHMOTION is called at least once for each node
29
resentative portion of the sample. So the total sliding dis-
to apply adaptive mesh constraints. The first call is
30
31 tance of 0.25 mm was only used to produce a representa-
to apply the local wear and the following calls are to
lP
32 tive wear profile on the disc. The profile obtained in the
smooth the mesh via iterative sweeps to prevent mesh
33 Y-Z plane, which is assumed to capture the wear scar in
distortion. The displacements applied during the mesh
34 an average sense, was applied along the entire length of the
sweeps are not associated with the mechanical behaviour.
35 disc along the X-direction at the last increment of each slid-
The frequency of remeshing was set to 1 and remesh-
ing step. Likewise, the worn profile of the ball is also ad-
36
ing sweep per increment was set to 3 based on the sen-
justed. The nodes are grouped based on their Z coordinates.
37
sitivity studies performed in this work.
Once the averaged nodal displacements are calculated; the
38
• Mesh advection: The material quantities from the old UMESHMOTION subroutine is used to apply the required
39
displacement for each group of nodes. This results in a uni-
40
mesh (the mesh at the end of the Lagrangian phase)
rna
41
42 is remapped to the new ’swept’ mesh through a pro- form displacement on the nodes, thus significantly reducing
43 cess called advection. This explicit method is based mesh distortion.
44 on Lax-Wendroff method, a second-order method, to Further steps need to be added for the simulation of the
45 integrate the advection equation. The mesh advec- sliding wear tests. The sliding wear tests considered are in a
46 tion is performed by ABAQUS and no user input is water-based solution, which results in a higher wear rate on
47 required. [52] both the ball and disc surfaces. The sliding tests considered
showed a significantly higher wear rate on both contacting
The flowchart in Figure 7 has two groups of procedures.
48
49 bodies when compared with reciprocating sliding tests. The
50 The reciprocating sliding tests considered in this study had wear depths were in excess of 150 𝜇𝑚 deep and wear vol-
51 a lower wear rate than the sliding tests. The ’Wear proces- umes were more than 0.33 𝑚𝑚3 . Thus, these sliding tests
sor using UMESHMOTION’ was only used when the wear were selected for the validation study. The procedures under
Jou
52
53 depths of only a few microns are obtained. Firstly, the un- ’Wear processor using UMESHMOTION’ result in artificial
54 worn geometry is generated by the ABAQUS preprocessor. roughening of surfaces on the contact regions. Severe arti-
55 The desired load is applied to the ball during the loading ficial roughening leads to convergence failure equilibrium
56 step. Once the equilibrium equations of the loading step are equations. The rough surfaces are a result of mesh distor-
57 converged, the reciprocating sliding steps start. The max- tion when the large wear steps are used. The size of wear
58 imum sliding distance per increment is limited to 10% of steps is the amount of the sliding performed in each slid-
59 the sliding distance per cycle. The nodal contact pressures ing step of the FEA. The mesh distortion can be reduced by
60 during each increment are stored in text files for all the in- using smaller element sizes or by using smaller wear steps.
61 crements during the sliding cycles except for the last incre- However, both of these methods result in a greater number
62 ment. The stored nodal contact pressures are averaged for
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
of contact simulations per cycle and a significant increase in

2
×10−3
3
computation time. Therefore, to avoid this bottleneck, the 0
of
4
5 UMESHMOTION subroutine is modified to smoothen the
contact surfaces after the nodal displacement due to wear is
−2
Wear depth [mm]

6
7 applied. The relevant group of procedures to smoothen the −4
8 worn surfaces are highlighted under the ’Smoothening by
UMESHMOTION’ section in Figure 7.
−6
9
10 The first three increments are discarded to calculate the
pro
−8
averaged contact pressures on the ball and disc surfaces. Dur-
Before
11
ing the first increment, 𝐹𝑁 is reduced to ∼ 0 N, so that the
After
12 −10
13 global coordinates of extracted nodes are only due to wear −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
and without any influences from the elastic displacements.

14 Wear width [mm]
15 Second-order polynomial fit is applied on the contacting sur- (a) Ball

16 faces so that the worn surfaces are parabolic. A parabolic fit ×10−3
is a good approximation of the worn surfaces when both the
17
0.0
ball and discs are undergoing wear. A least-squares curve fit-
18
ting method is used to calculate the coefficients of the parabolic
19
fit: 𝑧 = 𝑎𝑦2 + 𝑏𝑦 + 𝑐, with a standard second-order least-
20 Wear depth [mm] −0.5
square curve fitting method, see e.g., [61], used here. The
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
coefficients of the quadratic equation, 𝑎, 𝑏 and 𝑐, are then
used to determine the profile of the smooth wear groove.
Then, in the second increment, the UMESHMOTION sub-
routine is used to displace the nodes such that these nodes
lie on the smooth wear groove. The wear profile of the disc
−1.0
−1.5
Before
After
−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

28 is fitted to a parabola and the wear profile of the ball is fit- Wear width [mm]
29 ted to a paraboloid as given in Equation 13. Here, a, b and c
30 are constants. For simplicity, a circular paraboloid is consid- (b) Disc
31 ered, where, 𝑎 = 𝑏. 2D profiles illustrating the effect of the
lP
Figure 8: Case S2 - Smoothing wear profile of ball and disc
32 surface smoothening are reported in Figures 8a and 8b. 3D
33 views of the smoothened wear contours are compared with-
34 out the smoothening algorithm in Figure 9. The contours
35 show severe distortion on the wear track of the disc and the
ball in Figures 9a and 9b. Once the surface smoothing is
36
complete, the full load is resumed and the subsequent incre-
37
ment continues. The application of wear and smoothening
38
in two stages results in significantly smooth wear profiles for
39
both the surfaces as shown in Figures 9c and 9d. However,
40
rna
41
42 the smoothening algorithm is not ideal if the size of wear
43 steps are small as the curve fitting method described may re-
44 sult in significant errors. A similar strategy on the selection
45 of suitable step sizes as described by McColl et al. [21] is
46 used. This is further detailed in Section 5.
47
48
𝑥2 𝑦2
(13)
𝑧
49 + =
50 𝑎 2 𝑏2 𝑐
51
The simulation wall times for R1 and R2 cases were ap-
Jou
52
53 proximately 14 hours and the wall time for S1 and S2 cases
54 were 12 hours. There are more elements in reciprocating
sliding models than the sliding models but there are addi-
55
tional steps in the continuous sliding models so the wall times
56
are comparable.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3
of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pro
11
12
13
14
15
16 (a) S2 Disc - without smoothing (b) S2 Ball - without smoothing
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
28
29
30
31
lP
32 (c) S2 Disc - with smoothing (d) S2 Ball - with smoothing
33
34 Figure 9: Comparison of Case S2 displacements with and without smoothing algorithm
35
36
37
38 4. Reciprocating Sliding and Continuous Table 3
39 Sliding Wear Results Wear volumes and corresponding 𝑘𝐷 for balls and discs
40 A summary of the wear volumes and corresponding wear Test number Volume [𝑚𝑚3 ] 𝑘𝐷 [𝑚𝑚3 ∕𝑁𝑚𝑚]
rna
41 coefficients (𝑘𝐷 ) are given in Table 3. The adjusted dimen- Ball Disc Ball Disc
42 sional wear coefficient, 𝑘′𝐷 , is multiplied by the wear step R1* 1.72E-05 2.36E-05 4.82E-13 6.61E-13
size of 9600 for FEA cases of R1 and R2. Then each of
43 R2* 4.24E-05 2.40E-05 1.58E-12 8.98E-13
the 15 sliding steps corresponds to 9600 cycles. So the total
44 S1 0.33 ± 0.002 0.573 ± 0.16 1.45E-08 2.49E-08
2.94 ± 0.004 2.44 ± 0.22
number of cycles in the simulation equates to 144,000 cycles
45 S2 3.66E-08 3.04E-08
as of the tests.
46 * Volume calculated from white light interferometer software
Selecting suitable wear step sizes for S1 and S2 tests is

47
48
49 iterative. Wear step sizes of 5 and 2 were determined for also significant for the sliding test. Figures 4a and 4b com-
50 S1 and S2 FEA cases respectively following the method by pare the wear profiles at 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions.
51 McColl et al. [21]. S1 sliding test showed a shallower but symmetric wear pro-
The wear scars from the reciprocating sliding tests, R1 file at 12 o’clock position with the maximum wear depth
Jou
52
53 and R2, show significant differences in the wear profile along of 6.50 𝜇𝑚. Meanwhile, an asymmetric wear profile with
54 the stroke length direction. Figures 3a and 3b show deeper a maximum wear depth of 7.40 𝜇𝑚 was observed at the 6
55 worn profile at the edges of the stroke length and shallower o’clock position.
56 worn profile in the mid-region section of the stroke length. The results from the test and FEA are also compared with
57 For instance, the R2 test case shows the maximum wear depth the results from semi-analytical (SA) methods. The method
58 at the edges is 0.17 𝜇𝑚 while the maximum wear depth in proposed by Hegadekatte et al. [40] is used for the compari-
59 the mid-region is only 0.6 𝜇𝑚. Meanwhile, wear scars on son. The calculated ball wear height is based on Equation 3
60 the ball surfaces were more consistent. for simplicity, instead of the method proposed by Kucharski
61 Differences in the wear profiles on the disc surfaces were and Mroz [58].
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
to Case R2.
2
3 Table 4
of
4 Comparison of the reciprocating sliding wear tests
5 Test number R1 R2
6 Test FEA SA Test FEA SA 100%Δ𝑥
100%Δ𝑥
7
Disc: h [um] 0.09 ± 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.08 ± 0.03 0.05 0.02
8 Disc: 2a [um] 361 ± 91.0 274 151 276 ± 14.4 291 165
9 Ball: h [um] 0.33 ± 0.04 0.25 0.26 0.77 ± 0.02 0.81 0.58
10 Ball: 2a [um] 311 ± 16.4 292 151 367 ± 35.5 328 165
pro
11
12 50%Δ𝑥
13 4.1. Reciprocating Sliding Wear Results 50%Δ𝑥
14 The calculated 𝑘𝐷 s for the ball and disc given in 3 are

15 used in the FEA and SA models. The wear depths are then 25%Δ𝑥
calculated using Equation 12 after solving contact equations.
25%Δ𝑥
16
17 The corresponding 2𝑎 are measured from the deformed sur-
18 faces of FEA models. 0%Δ𝑥
The measured wear track widths and wear depths of the
0%Δ𝑥
19
20 ball and disc surfaces are summarised in the ’Test’ columns
21 of Table 4. The calculated widths and depths are averaged
22
23
24
25
26
27
from the distribution of wear widths and heights along the
entire stroke length. For example, the variation on the wear
track widths of the R1 case is around ± 25%, compared to
the variation on the wear depths, which is around ± 50%.
This is due to very mild wear on the disc surface. Likewise,
the wear height is 0.11 𝜇𝑚 at 0% stroke length, 0.06 𝜇𝑚 at
re- FEA results
(a) F1 Disc (b) F2 Disc
Figure 10: Location of 2D profiles used for comparison with
28 With reference to Figure 10b, the equivalent 0% of the

50% and 0.13 𝜇𝑚 at 100% for R2 case. Accumulation of
29 stroke length is at y = 0.5 𝑚𝑚, 50% stroke length is at y =
the wear debris and effects due to variation of speed around
30 1.9 𝑚𝑚 and 100% of the stroke length is at y = 3.3 𝑚𝑚. Sim-
the ends of the stroke length lead to significant wear at the
ilar to R1 cases, the wear profiles of R2 cases are compared
31
lP
ends and milder wear away from the ends. In order to quan-
with FEA results in Figures 13a, 13b and 13c. Wear depth
32
titatively compare the wear profiles of the test results with
from test results at 25% of Δ𝑥 and 50% of Δ𝑥 are comparable
33
FEA results, the test wear track and FEA wear track are la-
with the FEA results. Meanwhile, the FEA under-predicts
34
belled at various locations along the stroke length. Figure
the wear at either end of the stroke length. All three com-
35
36 10a shows the locations of the 0%, 50% and 100% of stroke
parisons of the wear profiles with the corresponding FEA
37 length of R1 case used for comparison with the FEA result
results show the FEA predicted track width is smaller than
38 in Figure 11. Figure 11a compares between the wear profile
from the test. However, the averaged track width from the
39 of Test and FEA at 25% of Δ𝑥. Likewise, Figure 11b com-
test with the positive error margin (276 + 14.4 𝜇𝑚) is com-
40 pares the wear profiles at 50% of Δ𝑥. Noticeable differences
rna
parable with the FEA track width (291 𝜇𝑚).

in the profiles are observed since the FEA predicts the high-
41
Similar to R1, the ball wear profiles are compared in Fig-
est wear depth at 50% of Δ𝑥, while, R1 test shows the least
42
ure 14. Results show FEA predicted wear profile is conform-
wear at 50% of Δ𝑥. Nonetheless, the wear track width is
43
ing with the test worn profile. As in the case of R1, there
comparable. Comparing the maximum wear depth of FEA
44
is significantly less uncertainly on ℎ and 2𝑎 measurements.
at 50% of Δ𝑥 with the maximum wear depth of Test at 100%
45
46 The error margin of ± 35.5 𝜇𝑚 in 2𝑎 measurement is due
of Δ𝑥 shows that the FEA under predicts the wear by about
47 to slightly different track width along and across the sliding
50%. However, comparing the averaged wear depth with the
48 direction.
associated negative error margin, the wear depths are within
49 The test results and FEA results are then compared with
2% of each other.
the SA results. The summary of the comparison is given in
50
The worn profile of the ball is compared with the un-
Table 4. In general, the averaged ℎ and 2𝑎 of R1 and R2 test
51
worn initial surface and with the FEA calculated surface in
Jou
cases are comparable with the FEA results. Meanwhile, the

52
Figure 12. Results show a good match between the test worn
SA results consistently underpredict ℎ and 2𝑎 expect for the
53
profile and the FEA predicted worn profile. There is signifi-
ball’s ℎ for the R1 test case.
54
55 cantly less uncertainly on ℎ and 2𝑎 measurements. The error
56 margin of ± 16.4 𝜇𝑚 in 2𝑎 measurement is due to slightly
57 different track width along and across the sliding direction
58 for the R1 test case.
59 The worn contours of the ball and the disc surfaces from
the FEA are shown in Figure 15. The mesh distortion due to
60
applied wear increased with the increased 𝑘𝐷 from Case R1
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 ×10−5 ×10−5
of
4 1 FEA 25%Δx
5 Test 25%Δx 0
0
Wear depth [mm]

6
Wear depth [mm]
7 −1
−2
8 −2
9
−3 −4
10
pro
FEA 25%Δx
11 −4 Test 25%Δx
12 −6
13 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
14 Horizontal Position [mm] Horizontal Position [mm]
15
16 (a) Disc wear profile at 25%Δ𝑥 (a) Disc wear profile at 25%Δ𝑥
17 ×10−5 ×10−5
18 1 0
19
20 0 Wear depth [mm]
Wear depth [mm]
21 −2
−1
22
23
24
25
26
27
−2
−3
−4
−0.3
FEA 50%Δx
Test 50%Δx
−0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1

re-
0.2 0.3
−4
−6
−0.3
FEA 50%Δx
Test 50%Δx
−0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

29
30 (b) Disc wear profile at 50%Δ𝑥 (b) Disc wear profile at 50%Δ𝑥
31 ×10−4 ×10−4
lP
32
0.0 0.0
33
34
Wear depth [mm]
−0.2
Wear depth [mm]
35 −0.5
36 −0.4
37 −1.0
−0.6
38
39 −0.8 FEA 50%Δx FEA 50%Δx
−1.5
40 Test 100%Δx Test 100%Δx
rna
−1.0
41 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
43
44 (c) Disc wear profile at 100%Δ𝑥 (c) Disc wear profile at 100%Δ𝑥
45
Figure 11: Wear depth - Disc FEA results Case R1 Figure 13: Wear depth - Disc FEA results Case R2
46
47
48 ×10−3 ×10−3
2.0 2.5
49
50
1.5 2.0
51
Z axis position [mm]

Jou
52
1.5
53 1.0
54 1.0
55 Initial Initial
0.5
56 FEA 0.5 FEA
57 Test Test
58 0.0 0.0
−0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
59 Horizontal position [mm] Horizontal position [mm]
60
61
Figure 12: Wear profile of the ball Case R1 Figure 14: Wear profile of the ball Case R2
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3
of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pro
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
28
29
30
31 (a) Case 1 - Ball (b) Case 2 - Ball
lP
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
rna
41
42
43
44
45
46 (c) Case 1 - Disc (d) Case 2 - Disc
47
Figure 15: FEA Ball and Disc wear profiles of Case R1 and Case R2
48
49
50
51
Jou
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 4.2. Sliding Wear Results Table 5
Unlike the reciprocating sliding tests, R1 and R2, the
of
4 Comparison of the Sliding wear tests
5 sliding tests were conducted for a longer sliding distance in
an aqueous environment. The reported wear volumes of the
Test number S1 S2
6
sliding surfaces are around 5 orders of magnitudes higher
Test FEA SA Test FEA SA
7
than that of R1 and R2 tests. A summary of the maximum
Disc: h [um] 7.59 ± 0.85 6.11 6.41 18.26 ± 1.29 19.68 15.98
8 Disc: 2a [mm] 2.07 ± 0.25 2.31 2.37 3.84 ± 0.20 3.22 4.04
9 wear heights and the widths are given in ’Test’ columns of Ball: h [um] 148 ± 2.98 161 149 417 ± 7.63 454 450
Table 5. ALE domain required to capture h ∼ 0.4𝑚𝑚 and 2a
Ball: 2a [mm] 2.32 ± 0.02 2.31 2.37 3.89 ± 0.05 3.22 4.04
10
pro
11 ∼ 3.25𝑚𝑚 would be significantly bigger than the present do-
12 mains. The present simulation time of around 12 hours will ×10−3
13 increase enormously. So, only a limited number of wear cy- 0.30 powerfit
14 cles are considered to get the trend of wear profile changes. FEA
15 A limited number of h and 2a parameters determined from 0.25
the FEA are then extrapolated to the required number of slid-
depth [mm]
16
0.20
ing cycles.
17
Wear steps size of 5 was used for the S1 test case. So
18 ℎ = 3.8710𝐸 − 05 × 𝑛0.482
0.15
the FEA predicted wear profiles for the first 75 sliding cy-
19
𝑅2 = 0.97
cles. The predicted wear depths of disc and ball are given
20 0.10
in Figure 16a and Figure 17a. The least-square curve-fitting

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
is used to fit the FEA results to a power curve in the form
of ℎ = 𝐴𝑛𝐵 . ℎ is the wear height. 𝐴 and 𝐵 are constants
and n is the cycle number. ℎ as a function of 𝑛 satisfies a
power curve when the wear rate is linear and mild. Due to
wear progression, the contact area increases as the material 6
×10−3
10 20 30 40
cycles
(a) Disc wear depth curve fitting

50 60 70
28 loss is taking place except in non-conforming contacts. This

leads to a decrease in the bearing pressure. Since wear depth
5
29
30 is directly proportional to the bearing pressure, the change 4
depth [mm]
31 in wear depth is also decreasing. It can be seen from Figure

lP
3
32 16a the slope of the wear depth curve is steadily decreas-
ing with the increased number of cycles, showing a sublin-
2
33
34 ear variation. This "running-in" behaviour along with the 1
linear wear in the steady-state can be captured by a power-

max h = 6.11E-03 mm
35
0
law curve. Power-law curves were fitted with the published
36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
data [62, 63, 36] on the wear depth and width against sliding
37 cycles ×103
distance and it showed a good match with R-squared (𝑅2 )

38
(b) Disc wear curve extrapolated to total number of cycles
> 0.98. The predicted ℎ = 𝐴𝑛𝐵 equations along with R-
39
squared value are given in Figure 16a and Figure 17a. Here
40
rna
Figure 16: Case S1 - Prediction of disc wear depth

41
42 𝑅2 is > 0.94. The extrapolated results to 36000 cycles are
43 then given in Figure 16b and Figure 17b.
44 test results in Figure 19a for the ball and Figure 19b for the
45 Wear widths were also calculated using the same method disc.
46 of curve fitting and extrapolation. Figure 18a shows the cal- The ball worn profile is across the contact width and it
47 culated width for the first 75 cycles. Unlike the gradual in- shows asymmetric wear on the ball surface. The ’test’ pro-
48 crement in the wear depth of the ball, the wear width in this file in Figure 19a shows asymmetric wear on the ball. The
49 case is increasing in steps. This is because of the limited wear is the highest at the frontal region of the ball when the
50 number of elements used across the sliding direction to re- horizontal position is 1.1 mm and the wear is the lowest at
51 duce simulation time within a day. The calculated width is the rear region of the ball when the horizontal position is -
based on the displacement of the nodes on the ball across 1.1 mm. The highest wear height is 155 𝜇𝑚 and the aver-
Jou
52
53 the sliding direction. Every FEA wear step does not lead to aged wear height between -1.1 mm and 1.1 mm horizontal
54 a change in the wear width. Wear width is the total length of position is 148 𝜇𝑚. This asymmetric behaviour is not cap-
55
the elements whose vertical displacement is not equal to 0. tured by the FEA due to the smoothening function applied
Once the edges of the wear width fall beyond the elements at every first increment of the sliding steps.
56
that were in contact, the contact width is increased by the Two profiles at 12’clock and 6 o’clock positions are com-
57
length of the elements. The equation derived from the power pared with the FEA result in Figure 19b. The other two pro-
58
curve fitting is then extrapolated for the 36000 cycles. The files, at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions also compared in
59
the supplementary figures with the FEA for completeness
60
61 extrapolated plot as shown in Figure 17b predicted 2a = 2.31
62 mm. The FEA predicted results are then compared with the in Figure B.4. The worn profile varies at various locations.
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
Symmetric wear profiles are observed at 12 o’clock position.

2
3
Whereas, at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock locations, the profiles are 0.65 powerfit
of
4
slightly skewed to resemble symmetric wear profiles. Mean-
FEA
5 0.60
6 while, the 6 o’clock position profile was completely asym-
metric. Comparison with the FEA profile shows the wear
0.55
width [mm]
7
8 width and wear depth are predicted well for the 12 o’clock 0.50
9 position profile. The averaged wear depth from 8 measure- 0.45 2𝑎 = 2.5486𝐸 − 01 × 𝑛0.210
10 ments of disc wear depth give 7.59 ± 0.85 𝜇𝑚, while FEA
pro
𝑅2 = 0.89
predicted wear depth is 6.11 𝑚𝑚. The averaged track width
0.40
11
12 was better predicted by FEA and it is within the test error 0.35
13 margins. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
14 cycles
(a) Ball wear width curve fitting

15 ×10−3
16
powerfit
17 10
FEA
18
2.0
19 8
depth [mm]
20 width [mm]
21 1.5
6
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
10 20
ℎ = 1.3177𝐸 − 03 × 𝑛0.459
𝑅2 = 0.94
30 40
cycles
50 60
re- 70
1.0
0.5
0 5 10 15
2a = 2.31 mm
20 25 30 35
28 (a) Ball wear depth curve fitting cycles ×103
29
30
×10−3 (b) Ball wear width curve extrapolated to total number of cycles
31 150 Figure 18: Case S1 - Prediction of ball wear width
lP
32
33
depth [mm]
100
The disc worn profiles also varied at various locations,
34
however, they maintain parabolic profile better than the S1
35
case. The averaged wear depth from 8 measurements of disc
36 50
wear depth give 18.26 ± 1.29 𝜇𝑚, while FEA predicted wear
37
depth is 19.68 mm. Meanwhile, the FEA under predicted
38
0 max h = 1.63E-01 mm
39
40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 wear track width by around 10%. The detailed comparisons
rna
41 cycles ×103 of the test results with the FEA and SA results are given in
Table 5.
(b) Ball wear curve extrapolated to total number of cycles
42
43 Comparison of test results with semi-analytical results
44 Figure 17: Case S1 - Prediction of ball wear depth shows the SA method predicted very similar wear depths
45 and widths as those of FEA for the S1 case. Meanwhile,
46
Similar to the S1 test case, the FEA wear profiles of the for the S2 case, the biggest discrepancy was seen in the wear
47
S2 case are compared with the test results in Figures 20a for height of the disc predicted by the SA and the test. There is
48
the ball and 19b for the disc. The wear track width and the a difference of 12.5% from the averaged ℎ of the test. This
49
depth were derived from the same method that was used for difference is reduced to 6% if the lower error margin of ℎ
50
the S1 case. The plots for the extrapolation are detailed in is considered. The wear track width predicted by the SA
51
the supplementary file. Figure B.1a and Figure B.1b are for method was a better match with the test results.
Jou
52
53 the disc wear depth. Figure B.2a and Figure B.2b are for the
54 ball wear depth and Figure B.3a and Figure B.3b are for wear
55 track width prediction.
56 The ball worn profile is across the contact width and it
57 shows asymmetric wear on the ball surface. The ’test’ profile
58 in Figure 20a also shows asymmetric wear on the ball. The
59 wear is the highest at the frontal region of the ball the wear
60 is the lowest at the rear region of the ball similar to case
61 S1. The highest wear height is 442 𝜇𝑚 and the average wear
62 height is 417 𝜇𝑚.
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3
of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pro
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.7 0.7
18
19 0.6 0.6
20
0.5 Z axis position [mm] 0.5

21
0.4 0.4
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
−3
Initial
FEA
Test
−2 −1 0 1
re-
2 3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
−3
Initial
FEA
Test
−2 −1 0 1 2 3
28
Horizontal position [mm] Horizontal position [mm]
29
(a) Wear profile of ball in comparison with the test (a) Wear profile of ball in comparison with the test
30
31
lP
32 2
0 FEA
33 Test 12 o’clock
0
34 Test 6 o’clock
Z axis position [𝜇m]
Z axis position [𝜇m]
−5
35 −2
36
37 −4 −10
38
39 −6 FEA −15
Test 12 o’clock
40
rna
−8 Test 6 o’clock
41 −20
42 −1500 −1000 −500 0 500 1000 1500 −2000 −1000 0 1000 2000
43 Horizontal position [𝜇m] Horizontal position [𝜇m]
(b) Wear profile of disc in comparison with the test (b) Wear profile of disc in comparison with the test
44
45
46 Figure 19: Case S1 - FEA results comparison with the test Figure 20: Case S2 - FEA results comparison with the test
47 results results
48
49
50
51
Jou
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 5. Discussions 0.10
1000
of
4 The presented wear modelling framework is applicable 800
5 when there is an appreciable mass loss on both the sliding 0.08
Contact area [mm2 ]

bodies. Since Archard’s wear equation is not derived from
6 600
0.06
mechanistic considerations, although it can provide a good
𝑝 [MPa]
7
first-order approximation to describe material loss (due to
8 Area
0.04 400
𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥
e.g. adhesive and abrasive effects) as a function of key ma-
9
terial parameters, it is not capable of incorporating the subtle
10 200
pro
0.02
11
12 features of the specific wear mechanisms responsible for the 0.00 0
13 material degradation. Therefore, while some aspects of ad- 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
14 hesive, abrasive and ratcheting wear theory may be captured cycles ×103
15 by the Archard wear model, these are not explicitly modelled
16 in this paper. The presented framework (7) can be adapted to (a) Case R1 - Contact areas and peak pressures predicted by FEA
17 model all forms of wear in 3D by modifying the method used 0.150
18 to describe the material loss. Also, the presented method 1000
19 does not consider secondary wear due to abrasive wear de- 0.125
bris. It is assumed once the wear particle is created, it is Contact area [mm2 ]
20 800
0.100
removed from the contact region immediately.
𝑝 [MPa]
21 600
The advantages of the presented approach for the recip-
0.075
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
rocating and continuous sliding wear simulation are (a) a full
3D wear simulation can be performed in a reasonable time
without sacrificing accuracy. (b) the wear depths are calcu-
lated on both surfaces simultaneously, thus there is no need
for any extrapolations of contact pressure and area from one
0.050
0.025
0.000
0 20
Area
𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥
40 60 80
400
200
surface to the other. (c) The instability arising from higher

28 cycles
wear step sizes are greatly minimised using the smoothening

29
30 (b) Case S1 - Contact areas and peak pressures predicted by FEA
31 algorithm. The stability problems as reported by Hegadekatte
et al. [27] need to be reduced significantly to perform a re-
lP
Figure 21: Comparison of the contact area between two types
32
alistic simulation. There are two logical ways to minimise
of wear processors
33
34 these stability problems: (a) reduce the wear step sizes (b)
reduce the mesh distortion which gives low contact area and
not conforming. The second-order polynomial fit then cre-
35
very high contact pressure. Method (a) is implemented to
ates conforming contact surfaces thus increasing the con-
36
37 show how it could benefit scenarios similar to the recipro-
38 cating sliding wear simulations, R1 and R2. Method (b) is tact area. The implemented smoothening algorithm applied
39 implemented to tackle problems that correspond to scenar- via UMESHMOTION subroutine for the ball and disc are
40 ios similar to those in the sliding wear simulations, S1 and based on the quadratic surfaces, 𝑧 = 𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑦), namely, cir-
rna
41 S2. cular paraboloid for the ball and parabolic cylinder for the
42 The method described by McColl et al. [21] is used to disc. Here, 𝑥 & 𝑦 are independent variables and 𝑧 is the
43 determine a stable step size. When the step sizes are above a dependent variable. The implemented algorithm can move
44
certain threshold step size, instability occurs and contact for- nodal positions to match the quadratic surfaces, even for a
45
mulations do not converge. Once the critical threshold step severely distorted mesh. Smoothening of severely distorted
46
size is determined, the corresponding critical wear depth per mesh will result in a significant number of non-conforming
47
sliding step, Δℎ𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is derived. While the critical threshold wear grooves during the sliding cycles. Thus, it is recom-
48
step size is dependent on the contact load, stroke length/sliding mended to calculate the standard deviation for each appli-
49
distance and wear coefficients, Δℎ𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is independent of these cation of the smoothening algorithm. Results indicate lim-
50
parameters. So, at first Δℎ𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is determined for a load case. iting standard deviation to 10% of the element height is ac-
ceptable. If the worn surfaces of the ball and the disc are
51
Then the corresponding wear step size is calculated so that
Jou
non-conforming, the contact area is likely to reduce signifi-

52
the wear depth per sliding step, Δℎ, is less than Δℎ𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 . The
cantly. The results show the contact area can decrease with
53
wear step size of 9600 cycles was selected using this method
an increasing number of cycles at certain wear cycles, but
54
for R1 and R2 cases.
the overall contact area is generally increasing and the over-
55
56 The contact area and pressure calculated by ABAQUS
57 are given in Figure 21a for the reciprocating sliding case R1 all 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 is decreasing. The wear step sizes need to be reduced
58 and Figure 21b for sliding case S1. As expected, the con- if the contact area is consistently decreasing, as this is an in-
59 tact area is increasing and the contact pressure is decreas- dication of excessive numerical noise in updating the worn
60 ing steadily with the increased number of wear cycles for geometry. This does mean more simulation cycles and thus
61 R1. However, case S1 shows that the contact area can re- more computational time. The proposed smoothening algo-
62 duce when the worn grooves on the ball and the disc are rithm can also be based on higher-order polynomials than
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
the quadratic surfaces used here if required for more com- Archard’s wear law using the UMESHMOTION subroutine
2
3
plex wear profiles. available in a commercial FE package, ABAQUS. The de-
of
4
5 Selecting a greater wear step size is beneficial but within veloped methods are appropriate for general 3D deformable-
6 the corresponding Δℎ𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 . The implemented smoothening deformable solid elements. Archard’s wear law is applied at
7 algorithm can lead to over-prediction of wear depth and width. an elemental level to simulate the change in geometry as a
8 For instance, FEA predicted wear depth of the S2 case ball function of contact conditions. The wear profiles are based
9 was 454 𝜇𝑚. Halving the step sizes increased the wear depth on the contact pressures calculated on both surfaces so that
10 to 600 𝜇𝑚. the surface evolution of both contacting bodies are calcu-
pro
11 The presented wear simulation method can be used ei- lated simultaneously. The developed methods are compared
12 ther with the average wear rate or instantaneous wear rate. with the results obtained from reciprocating sliding tests,
13 Often the averaged wear rate is reported for the sliding test. which result in wear of few microns wear depths, and sliding
14 This averaged wear rate method assumes that wear rates are tests, which result in tens of microns wear depths.
15 constant, any changes in the wear mechanisms are insignifi- Wear calculations from the FEA are computationally ex-
16 cant and the averaged wear rate is characteristics of the entire pensive and can be sensitive to the size of wear steps and
test. Only averaged wear rates were determined for the tests mesh sizes on the contact region. Decreasing the size of
17
considered in this paper. Reciprocating and continuous slid- wear steps or decreasing the element sizes results in signif-
18
ing tests were carried out in an enclosed high temperature icant computational cost and time. Sensitivity studies on
19
and pressurised environment so it was not practically feasi- mesh sizes on wear step sizes are important to minimise
20
ble to measure volume loss as a function of sliding cycles. computational time while obtaining sufficiently accurate re-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re-
Instantaneous wear rates are generally determined with in-
terrupted measurements between uniform intervals of slid-
ing distances. It is a matter of assigning various 𝑘𝐷 s in the
wear model for various cycle numbers in the FEA simula-
tion. So this model can easily accommodate instantaneous
sults. Comparison of the FEA results with test results show
wear profiles can be predicted well for both reciprocating and
continuous sliding tests. The maximum discrepancy was ∼
10% considering the statistical error margin of the tests.
Using the ball-on-disc contact configuration as a refer-
28 wear measurements. Likewise, any wear rates from theory, ence case, the 3D contact results are calculated for both the
29 wear maps [64] or small scale simulations [65, 66] to de- contacting surfaces of the ball and disc. The limitation of
30 scribe key deformation mechanisms and wear processes can this method is a generation of artificial roughening of the
31 be introduced in the model through different 𝑘𝐷 s. worn surfaces due to numerical restrictions of element sizes.
lP
32 The presented wear simulation method can also be modi- A smoothening method is proposed to reduce the artificial
33 fied to consider oxide layer formation between sliding cycles roughening of the worn surfaces for sliding cases. Smoothen-
34 or combined oxido-abrasive wear behaviour. For example, a ing is based on refining the evolved surfaces using the second-
35 protective oxide layer of thickness, 𝜁 , of Cr or Co is formed order curve fitting method so that the evolved surfaces main-
on the worn scar on the disc between each sliding pass. The tain the parabolic cylinders for the disc and circular paraboloid
36
created protective oxide layer thickness is a parabolic func- for the ball. Simulation of the entire sliding test where wear
37
tion of time for Cr or Co oxides [67] and it can be expressed depths are in tens of micron deep is computationally exorbi-
38
as 𝜁 2 = 𝑘𝑝 𝑡. 𝑘𝑝 is parabolic rate constant (𝑚𝑚2 ∕𝑠) and 𝑡 is tant. Thus an extrapolation method based on the best curve
39
time (𝑠). 𝑘𝑝 can be derived from the Arrhenius equation for fitting approach is used.
40
rna
41
different types of oxide layer as given in Richardson et al. The proposed smoothening method can also be based on
[67]. The nodes on the surfaces where 𝑝 ≠ 0, wear from Ar-
42
43 higher-order polynomials than the quadratic surfaces used
44 chard’s law is applied and the surface nodes where 𝑝 = 0, here if required for more complex wear profiles. Since FEA
45 𝜁 (𝑡) can be applied. is a versatile tool, the developed method is applicable to a
46 The size of wear steps and the discretization of the con- wide range of sliding wear tests. The model can be updated
47 tact regions play a significant role in the wear studies using to consider tribofilm or oxide layer growth or removal.
48 FEA. This is the bottleneck of the FEA method. 3D sim-
49 ulation of entire sliding cycles is unrealistic using FEA be-
50 cause of the exorbitant computational time required. So ex- Credit authorship contribution statement
51 trapolation of the results is required from the sliding simula- Ajit Bastola: Finite element studies, Wear characterisa-
tions within the computational wall time. Sensitivity studies tion and measurements, Writeup. David Stewart: Review
Jou
52
53 on mesh sizes on wear step sizes are important to minimise and approval. Daniele Dini: Verification and approval.
54 computational time while obtaining sufficiently accurate re- The authors thank Dr Balasubramaniam Vengudusamy for
55
sults. carrying out reciprocating sliding tests. The authors also
56 thank Dr Ruby McCarron and Professor Philip Shipway’s
team for performing continuous sliding tests.
57
58 6. Concluding Remarks
59 A method for the prediction of wear profiles of both con-
60 tacting bodies using the finite element framework is pre- References
61 sented in this paper for both reciprocating and continuous [1] H. Czichos, M. Woydt, Introduction to Tribology and Tribo-
62 sliding wear. The wear simulation procedure is based on logical Parameters, in: Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Tech-
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 nology, ASM International, 2017, p. 1. URL: https://doi.org/ [19] L. Johansson, Numerical Simulation of Contact Pressure
10.31399/asm.hb.v18.a0006403. doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v18.a0006403. Evolution in Fretting, Journal of Tribology 116 (1994)
of
arXiv:https://dl.asminternational.org/book/chapter-pdf/553879/a0006403.pdf. 247–254. URL:
4 http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
5 [2] W. Conshohocken, ASTM G40-17 Standard Terminology Relating tribology/article-pdf/116/2/247/5725867/247_1.pdfhttps:
6 to Wear and Erosion, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1520/G0040-17. //asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/tribology/article/116/2/247/
7 doi:10.1520/G0040-17. 419426/Numerical-Simulation-of-Contact-Pressure-Evolution.
8 [3] H. C. Meng, K. C. Ludema, Wear models and predictive equations: doi:10.1115/1.2927205.
9 their form and content, Wear 181-183 (1995) 443–457. doi:10.1016/ [20] J. F. Molinari, M. Ortiz, R. Radovitzky, E. A. Repetto, Finite-
10 0043-1648(95)90158-2. element modeling of dry sliding wear in metals, Engineering
pro
[4] J. F. Archard, W. Hirst, The Wear of Metals under Unlubricated Computations (Swansea, Wales) 18 (2001) 592–609. doi:10.1108/
11
Conditions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, 00368790110407257.
Physical and Engineering Sciences 236 (1956) 397–410. URL: http: [21] I. McColl, J. Ding, S. Leen, Finite element simulation and
12
13 //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010938X66800392http: experimental validation of fretting wear, Wear 256 (2004)
14 //rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspa.1956.0144. 1114–1127. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
15 doi:10.1098/rspa.1956.0144. pii/S0043164803005763. doi:10.1016/J.WEAR.2003.07.001.
16 [5] S. Fouvry, T. Liskiewicz, P. Kapsa, S. Hannel, E. Sauger, An en- [22] P. Põdra, S. Andersson, Simulating sliding wear with finite ele-
17 ergy description of wear mechanisms and its applications to oscil- ment method, Tribology International 32 (1999) 71–81. URL: http:
lating sliding contacts, Wear 255 (2003) 287–298. doi:10.1016/ //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301679X99000122. doi:10.
18
S0043-1648(03)00117-0. 1016/S0301-679X(99)00012-2.
[6] C. Jacq, D. Nélias, G. Lormand, D. Girodin, Development [23] M. Öqvist, Numerical simulations of mild wear using updated ge-
19
20 of a Three-Dimensional Semi-Analytical Elastic-Plastic Con- ometry with different step size approaches, Wear 249 (2001) 6–11.
21 tact Code, Journal of Tribology 124 (2002) 653–667. URL: doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(00)00548-2.
[24] J. Ding, I. R. McColl, S. B. Leen, The application of fretting wear
22
23
24
25
26
27
[7] re-
http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/tribology/article-pdf/124/
4/653/5662122/653_1.pdf. doi:10.1115/1.1467920.
I. Iordanoff, Y. Berthier, S. Descartes, H. Heshmat, A Review of
Recent Approaches for Modeling Solid Third Bodies, Journal of Tri-
bology 124 (2002) 725–735. URL: http://asmedigitalcollection.
asme.org/tribology/article-pdf/124/4/725/5662694/725_1.pdf.
doi:10.1115/1.1467632.
modelling to a spline coupling, Wear 262 (2007) 1205–1216. doi:10.
1016/J.WEAR.2006.11.017.
[25] J. Ding, S. B. Leen, E. J. Williams, P. H. Shipway, Finite el-
ement simulation of fretting wear-fatigue interaction in spline
couplings, Tribology - Materials, Surfaces ’I&’ Interfaces (2008).
URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?
28 [8] P. N. Suh, The delamination theory of wear, Wear 25 journalCode=ytrb20. doi:10.1179/175158308X320791.
29 (1973) 111–124. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ [26] A. Cruzado, M. A. Urchegui, X. Gómez, Finite element modeling
30 article/B6V5B-47YYJX5-3JD/2/552898ecf0dc580fb169055ecf90abcc. and experimental validation of fretting wear scars in thin steel wires,
31 doi:Doi:10.1016/0043-1648(73)90125-7. Wear 289 (2012) 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2012.04.018.
lP
32 [9] S. Maegawa, A. Suzuki, K. Nakano, Precursors of global slip in a [27] V. Hegadekatte, N. Huber, O. Kraft, Finite element based sim-
longitudinal line contact under non-uniform normal loading, Tri- ulation of dry sliding wear, Modelling and Simulation in
bology Letters 38 (2010) 313–323. URL: https://link.springer.com/ Materials Science and Engineering 13 (2005) 58–59. URL:
33
article/10.1007/s11249-010-9611-7. doi:10.1007/S11249-010-9611-7/
34 http://stacks.iop.org/0965-0393/13/i=1/a=005?key=crossref.
35 FIGURES/1. de31ad4aa2d2eb7dda27396f29ce814e. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/13/1/005.
36 [10] K. L. Johnson, K. Kendall, a. Roberts, Surface energy and the con- [28] N. Stalin-Muller, K. Van Dang, Numerical simulation of the sliding
37 tact of elastic solids, Proceedings of the royal society of London. A. wear test in relation to material properties, Wear 203-204 (1997) 180–
38 mathematical and physical sciences 324 (1971) 301–313. 186. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(96)07417-0.
39 [11] T. F. Quinn, Oxidational wear, Wear 18 (1971) 413–419. doi:10. [29] W. Yan, E. P. Busso, N. P. O’Dowo, A micromechanics investi-
1016/0043-1648(71)90005-6. gation of sliding wear in coated components, Proceedings of the
40
[12] S. Pham-Ba, T. Brink, J. F. Molinari, Adhesive wear and inter- Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
rna
action of tangentially loaded micro-contacts, International Journal 456 (2000) 2387–2407. URL: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/.
41
42 of Solids and Structures 188-189 (2020) 261–268. doi:10.1016/J. doi:10.1098/rspa.2000.0617.
43 IJSOLSTR.2019.10.023. arXiv:1907.08183. [30] A. Kapoor, K. L. Johnson, Plastic ratchetting as a mechanism of
44 [13] T. Brink, J.-F. Molinari, Adhesive wear mechanisms in the presence metallic wear, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathemati-
45 of weak interfaces: Insights from an amorphous model system (2019). cal, Physical and Engineering Sciences 445 (1994) 367–381. URL:
46 doi:10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.053604. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/. doi:10.1098/rspa.1994.0066.
47 [14] S. Lim, A. W. Batchelor, C. Lim, Introduction and Basic The- [31] P. S. Cross, G. Limbert, D. Stewart, R. J. Wood, A multiscale finite
ory of Wear, in: Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, element model of sliding wear for cobalt-chromium undergoing ratch-
ASM International, 2017, pp. 1–2. URL: https://doi.org/10. eting wear, Wear 462-463 (2020) 203482. doi:10.1016/J.WEAR.2020.
48
49 31399/asm.hb.v18.a0006357. doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v18.a0006357. 203482.
50 [32] . A. Söderberg, S. Andersson, Simulation of wear and contact pressure
arXiv:https://dl.asminternational.org/book/chapter-pdf/554223/a0006357.pdf
51 [15] A. International, G190-15 Standard Guide for Developing and Se- distribution at the pad-to-rotor interface in a disc brake using general
lecting Wear Tests, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 05 (2015) 1–5. purpose finite element analysis software, Wear 267 (2009) 2243–
Jou
52
53 doi:10.1520/G0190-15. 2251. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.09.004.
54 [16] S. Fouvry, ASM Handbook Failure Analysis and Prevention, in: Fail- [33] E. M. Bortoleto, A. C. Rovani, V. Seriacopi, F. J. Profito, D. C.
ure Analysis and Prevention, ASM International, 2021, pp. 685–715. Zachariadis, I. F. Machado, A. Sinatora, R. M. Souza, Experimental
URL: http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/book/139/chapter/ and numerical analysis of dry contact in the pin on disc test, Wear 301
55
2491531/Fretting-Wear-Failures. doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v11.a0006829. (2013) 19–26. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.12.005.
56
57 [17] A. International, Standard Test Method for Fretting Wear Protection doi:10.1016/j.wear.2012.12.005.
58 by Lubricating Greases, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 05 (2016) [34] J. T. Katsikadelis, Boundary Elements: Theory and Applications:
59 1–6. doi:10.1520/D4170-16. Theory and Applications, June, 2002. URL: https://books.google.
60 [18] A. International, G99 – 17: Standard Test Method for Wear Test- com/books?id=H64suob0Yp4C&pgis=1.
61 ing with a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus G99-17, Annual Book of ASTM [35] C. J. Coleman, D. L. Tullock, N. Phan-Thien, An effective bound-
Standards 05 (2017) 1–6. doi:10.1520/G0099-17. ary element method for inhomogeneous partial differential equa-
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof

2
3 tions, Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik ZAMP 1991 H. A. Spikes, Friction properties of DLC/DLC contacts in base
42:5 42 (1991) 730–745. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/ oil, Tribology International 44 (2011) 922–932. URL: https:
of
10.1007/BF00944769. doi:10.1007/BF00944769. //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301679X11000600. doi:10.
4
5 [36] G. K. Sfantos, M. H. Aliabadi, A boundary element formulation for 1016/j.triboint.2011.03.006.
6 three-dimensional sliding wear simulation, Wear 262 (2007) 672– [54] R. McCarron, D. Stewart, P. Shipway, D. Dini, Sliding wear analysis
7 683. doi:10.1016/J.WEAR.2006.08.008. of cobalt based alloys in nuclear reactor conditions, Wear 376-377
8 [37] A. Ghanbarzadeh, M. Wilson, A. Morina, D. Dowson, A. Neville, (2017) 1489–1501. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2016.
9 Development of a new mechano-chemical model in boundary lubri- 12.018. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2016.12.018.
10 cation, Tribology International 93 (2016) 573–582. doi:10.1016/J. [55] B. Vengudusamy, Behaviour of lubricant additives on DLC
pro
TRIBOINT.2014.12.018. coatings, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London, 2011. URL:
11
[38] L. Johansson, Model and numerical algorithm for sliding contact be- http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/11734/1/
tween two elastic half-planes with frictional heat generation and wear, Vengudusamy-B-2011-PhD-Thesis.pdf.
12
13 Wear 160 (1993) 77–93. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(93)90408-E. [56] V. L. Ratia, D. Zhang, M. J. Carrington, J. L. Daure, D. G. McCart-
14 [39] L. Gallego, D. Nélias, C. Jacq, A Comprehensive Method to Predict ney, P. H. Shipway, D. A. Stewart, Comparison of the sliding wear
15 Wear and to Define the Optimum Geometry of Fretting Surfaces, behaviour of self-mated HIPed Stellite 3 and Stellite 6 in a simulated
16 Journal of Tribology 128 (2006) 476. URL: http://tribology. PWR water environment, Wear (2019). doi:10.1016/j.wear.2019.01.
17 asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1467552. 116.
doi:10.1115/1.2194917. [57] ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Linearly Reciprocat-
18
[40] V. Hegadekatte, S. Kurzenhäuser, N. Huber, O. Kraft, A predictive ing Ball-on-Flat Sliding Wear, 2016, 2016 ed., ASTM, West Con-
modeling scheme for wear in tribometers, Tribology International 41 shohocken, PA, 2016. doi:10.1520/G0133-05R16.2.
19
20 (2008) 1020–1031. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2008.02.020. [58] S. Kucharski, Z. Mroz, Identification of wear process parameters in
21 [41] H. Ocken, Reducing the Cobalt Inventory in Light Wa- reciprocating ball-on-disc tests, Tribology International 44 (2011)
ter Reactors, Nuclear Technology 68 (1985) 18–28. URL: 154–164. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2010.10.010.
22
23
24
25
26
27
[42]
[43]
doi:10.13182/NT85-A33563. re-
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT85-A33563.
W. B. Burdett, Development of cobalt free wear resistant alloys for

nuclear applications, Surface Engineering 8 (1992) 131–135. doi:10.
1179/sur.1992.8.2.131.
L. Cachon, J. Denape, F. Sudreau, L. Lelait, Tribological qualifi-
[59] D. G. Luenberger, Y. Ye, Linear and Nonlinear Programming, 3 ed.,
Springer Science Business Media, New York, 2008.
[60] M. C. Hogg, Fretting wear and fatigue in taper junctions of modular
orthopaedic implants, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Sydney, 2016.
[61] G. Engeln-Müllges, F. Uhlig, Linear and Nonlinear Approximation,
in: Numerical Algorithms with C, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
28 cation of cobalt-free coatings for pressurized water reactor primary- Heidelberg, 1996, pp. 179–218. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.
29 circuit gate valve applications, Surface and Coatings Technology 85 1007/978-3-642-61074-5_8. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61074-5_8.
30 (1996) 163–169. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ [62] V. Hegadekatte, N. Huber, O. Kraft, Modeling and simulation of wear
31 pii/025789729502672X. doi:10.1016/0257-8972(95)02672-X. in a pin on disc tribometer, Tribology Letters 24 (2006) 51–60. doi:10.
lP
32 [44] B. Cockeram, Development of wear-resistant coatings for 1007/s11249-006-9144-2.
cobalt–base alloys, Surface and Coatings Technology 120-121 [63] J. J. Kauzlarich, J. A. Williams, Archard wear and component ge-
(1999) 509–518. URL: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ ometry, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
33
pii/S0257897299004922. doi:10.1016/S0257-8972(99)00492-2. Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology 215 (2001) 387–403. URL:
34
35 [45] C. B. Bahn, B. C. Han, J. S. Bum, I. S. Hwang, C. B. Lee, Wear http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1243/1350650011543628. doi:10.
36 performance and activity reduction effect of Co-free valves in PWR 1243/1350650011543628.
37 environment, Nuclear Engineering and Design 231 (2004) 51–65. [64] S. J. Eder, M. Rodríguez Ripoll, U. Cihak-Bayr, D. Dini, C. Ga-
38 doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2004.02.001. chot, Unraveling and Mapping the Mechanisms for Near-Surface
39 [46] K. Y. Lee, G. G. Kim, J. H. Kim, S. H. Lee, S. J. Kim, Sliding wear be- Microstructure Evolution in CuNi Alloys under Sliding, ACS Ap-
havior of hardfacing alloys in a pressurized water environment, Wear plied Materials and Interfaces 12 (2020) 32197–32208. URL: https:
40
262 (2007) 845–849. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.08.015. //pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsami.0c09302. doi:10.1021/ACSAMI.
rna
[47] A. Pauschitz, M. Roy, F. Franek, Mechanisms of sliding wear of 0C09302/SUPPL_FILE/AM0C09302_SI_003.MP4.

41
42 metals and alloys at elevated temperatures, Tribology International [65] Y. Xu, F. Ruebeling, D. Balint, C. Greiner, D. Dini, On the origin of
43 41 (2008) 584–602. URL: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ microstructural discontinuities in sliding contacts: A discrete disloca-
44 pii/S0301679X07001715. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2007.10.003. tion plasticity analysis, International Journal of Plasticity 138 (2021)
45 [48] D. Bowden, D. Stewart, M. Preuss, The identification of a silicide 102942. doi:10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2021.102942.
46 phase and its crystallographic orientation to ferrite within a complex [66] S. Pham-Ba, J. F. Molinari, Creation and evolution of roughness on
47 stainless steel, Journal of Nuclear Materials 517 (2019) 356–361. silica under unlubricated wear, Wear 472-473 (2021) 203648. doi:10.
doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.02.028. 1016/J.WEAR.2021.203648. arXiv:2011.10774.
[49] G. Karimi, M. Carrington, J. Thomas, P. Shipway, D. Stewart, T. Hus- [67] T. Richardson, B. Cottis, R. Lindsay, D. Scantlebury, H. Stott, M. Gra-
48
49 sain, The role of microstructural development in the hydrothermal ham (Eds.), Shreir’s Corrosion vol. I, 4th ed., Elsevier BV, Nether-
50 corrosion of cast and HIPed Stellite 6 analogues in simulated PWR lands, 2010.
51 conditions, Corrosion Science (2019). doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.
108141.
Jou
52
53 [50] C. Zhao, D. Stewart, J. Jiang, F. P. Dunne, A comparative as-
54 sessment of iron and cobalt-based hard-facing alloy deformation us-
ing HR-EBSD and HR-DIC, Acta Materialia 159 (2018) 173–186.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.021.
55
56 [51] S. Fouvry, P. Kapsa, L. Vincent, Quantification of fretting damage,
57 Wear 200 (1996) 186–205. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
58 retrieve/pii/S0043164896073061. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(96)07306-1.
59 [52] Dassault Systèmes Simulia, ABAQUS / Standard 2019 User’s Manual
60 Volumes I, II, III, Technical Report, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp,
61 Providence, RI, 2019.
[53] B. Vengudusamy, R. A. Mufti, G. D. Lamb, J. H. Green,
62
63
64
65
Journal Pre-proof
Credit authorship contributon statement
Ajit Bastola: Finite element studies, Wear characterisatin and measurements, Writeup. David Stewart:
Review and apprival. Daniele Dini: Verifcatin and apprival.
of
The authors thank Dr Balasubramaniam Vengudusamy for carrying out reciprocating
sliding tests. The authors also thank Dr Ruby McCarron and Professor Philip Shipway’s
team for performing continuous sliding tests.
pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
Declaratio if ioterettt
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competng fnancial interests or personal relatonships
that could have appeared to infuence the work reported in this paper.
pro
☐ The authors declare the following fnancial interests/personal relatonships which may be considered
as potental competng interests:
re-
lP
rna
Jou

3D Finite Element Simulation Experimental Validation Sliding Wear

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3D Finite Element Simulation Experimental Validation Sliding Wear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental validation

Ajit Bastola, David Stewart, Daniele Dini

To appear in: Wear

Received date : 10 February 2022

© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

REVISED Manuscript (text UNmarked) Click here to view linked References

Three-dimensional finite element simulation and experimental

41 difficult problems to determine wear. The interplay between

• phenomenological: The most famous one is Archard’s

1 FEA of sliding wear

The study of wear by solving non-linear contact prob-

1 FEA of sliding wear

Carron et al. [54] reported on the high-temperature sliding

1 FEA of sliding wear

(b) Schematic of 4 mm wear track from reciprocating sliding test

tests. Reciprocating frequency is 10 𝐻𝑧. Figure 1b shows

41 The wear depths for S1 and S2 tests are in the order of a

S1 and S2 was estimated to be 0.35 based on the first 30 𝑚

1 FEA of sliding wear

1 FEA of sliding wear

13 Ball (c) F1 Ball

41 Figure 2: Continuous sliding wear test setup

1 FEA of sliding wear

41 The mesh is expected to be distorted during wear and the

1 FEA of sliding wear

1 FEA of sliding wear

Contact Pressure [MPa]

Contact Pressure [MPa]

28 𝑉 is the volume in 𝑚𝑚3 , 𝑘 is dimensionless wear coefficient,

Equation 11 can be re-written as Equation 12 to imple-

1 FEA of sliding wear

Wear profiles on the contacting surfaces are simulated by

1 FEA of sliding wear

1 FEA of sliding wear

of contact simulations per cycle and a significant increase in

Wear depth [mm]

and without any influences from the elastic displacements.

15 Second-order polynomial fit is applied on the contacting sur- (a) Ball

−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

1 FEA of sliding wear

Selecting suitable wear step sizes for S1 and S2 tests is

1 FEA of sliding wear

14 The calculated 𝑘𝐷 s for the ball and disc given in 3 are

Figure 10: Location of 2D profiles used for comparison with

28 With reference to Figure 10b, the equivalent 0% of the

parable with the FEA track width (291 𝜇𝑚).

cases are comparable with the FEA results. Meanwhile, the

1 FEA of sliding wear

Wear depth [mm]

−0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1

−0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Z axis position [mm]

1 FEA of sliding wear

1 FEA of sliding wear

the FEA are then extrapolated to the required number of slid-

in Figure 16a and Figure 17a. The least-square curve-fitting

(a) Disc wear depth curve fitting

28 loss is taking place except in non-conforming contacts. This

31 in wear depth is also decreasing. It can be seen from Figure

linear wear in the steady-state can be captured by a power-

distance and it showed a good match with R-squared (𝑅2 )

Figure 16: Case S1 - Prediction of disc wear depth