Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MARCH 1981 45
Abstract-The concept of wear-dependent contact phenomena is ality. Equation (1) applies either to static (breakaway) or
developed for sliding electrical contacts, where geometric constraints dynamic friction with only small differences in the coefficient.
on wear directly influence contact pressure distribution under the face
Similarly, the wear volume V is found to be proportional to
of a brush. In terms of general contact theory, this pressure dis-
tribution is related to the number of contacting asperities, the true the normal contact force and independent of apparent area,
area of each contact, or the frequency of asperity encounters. The and it increases linearly with the sliding distance S:
concept is proposed as a potential new tool to be used in the
formulation of a descriptive analytical model of the brush interface. V = KFS. (2)
Analytical relationships are developed for friction, wear, and
electrical contact resistance for composite and other multicomponent
brush configurations. This expression may be applied to abrasive wear as well as
adhesive wear, with appropriate values of the proportionality
INTRODUCTION constant K.
The electrical contact resistance is composed of a constric-
F OR THE SLIDING electrical contact, analytical models are
tools with which we improve our understanding of such
complex interface phenomena as friction, wear, and electrical
tion component due to the severe concentration of current as
it passesthrough some fraction of the real contact area, and in
serieswith this, a film component due to complete or extensive
resistance. Through the identification of important parameters
coverage>of the real contact area, either by a thin insulating
and their interactions, models p-oint to potential improvements layer of metallic oxide or by an adsorbed surface layer through
in materials, configuration, or operating environment. Effi-
which current may pass by means of the tunnel effect. Each
cient current transfer, high current capacity, long life, and
component of the contact resistance R may be expressed as
reduced electrical noise are the ultimate goals.
Central to interface modeling is the observation that con-
R = CF-k (3)
tact between two solid members occurs at a small number of
surface asperities which are the first to meet and are of ade-
where C and k are constants which differ for the two compo-
quate strength to support the contact force. The resulting
nents.
true load-bearing area of contact is, in general, a very small
The above relationships apply quite well for a given set of
fraction of the apparent interface, but it controls the impor-
materials and atmospheric environment as long as the operat-
tant phenonema. Analytical expressions for friction, wear, and
ing regime or descriptive mode of the sliding phenomena does
electrical resistance are developed in comprehensive texts by
not change (e.g., micro-adhesive wear versus severe abrasive
Bowden and Tabor [l] , Holm [2] , and Rabinowicz [3] . More
wear). The constants /J, K, and C (as well as the regimes) are
complex models which relate surface topography, real contact
generally temperature sensitive, but this parameter may often
area, and number of contact points to the resulting mechanical
be controlled by external cooling. The nature of asperity con-
and electrical characteristics are the subject of many technical
tact and the resulting load-bearing area are assumed to be
papers [4] -[8]. The essence of this analytical and empirical
similar in the static and sliding conditions, and this is supported
work is expressed in the most useful relationships which
to some extent by the similar values of static and dynamic
follow.
friction coefficients. Thus the static contact resistance rela-
The widely applicable Amontons-Coulomb law of friction
tionship (3) is assumed to apply on the average to sliding
shows the friction force f to be proportional to the normal
electrical contacts, and this is also supported by some experi- a
contact load F and independent of the apparent contact area:
mental investigation [9] , [lo] . Usually, in electrical machines, ’
f=P (1) a spring load is applied to the brush and, with modifications
where /J is the friction coefficient, the constant of proportion- due to holder constraint and inertial effects, this establishes
the contact force. The resulting interface characteristics are
then determined by (l)-(3). In some situations, however,
Manuscript received May 15, 1980; revised October 23, 1980. This
work was supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the geometric constraints on wear rate directly influence the
Department of Defense under Contract N-00014-79-C-01 10 and moni- contact force or more generally the contact pressure under
tored by the Office of Naval Research. This paper was presented at the the brush face or between any sliding members. This phenom-
26th Annual Holrn Conference on Electrical Contacts, Chicago, IL,
September 29-October 1, 1980. enon has been considered for a few mechanical systems, such
The author is with the Westinghouse Research and Development as clutches, as discussed by Rabinowicz [ll] , [12]. The
Center, 1310 Beulah Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15235. approach will be extended here to show the special signifi-
cance for sliding contacts where the electrical resistance will Brush
v=ro (5)
CFk
R= ~. (14)
(1 +r,/r,)-k + (1 +r2/r,)-k
R =C,Vk/21-k (15)
which is consistent with static contact theory for division into
two components which equally share the load [ 1.51.
Rotor Eccentricity
Equations (10) and (14) are based on a steady-state model
in which the force on each brush selection does not change
with time. IIowever, in practical applications’ there will be
rotor eccentricities which result in localized contact due to a
modification of the brush face contour [16] . The resulting
Fig. 4. Time variation of brush contact force.
contour will be such that, for a full revolution, the linear wear
rate will be equal for all points on the brush face, but the
contact pressure will not be constant with time at’ a given differ from that of (14). Since this assembly has a single con-
point. Fig. 3 shows the rigidly joined version of the two Fig. 1 tact at all times, and a constant force, the resistance will be
brushes, applied to the face of a disk which is not perpendicu- simply
lar to the axis of rotation. For clarity, the two brush segments R = CF-k. (17)
will be assumed to have a small and uniform contact region.
The basic difference between these two models, of uniform
If the brush assembly is adequately constrained, then dur-
contact (14) and eccentric contact shift (17), is the increased
ing each revolution, first one brush face and then the other
number of asperity contacts associated with increased con-
will contact the rotor. Only at two angular positions will
formity of the brush interface to the rotor surface. Bedding or
both brushes simultaneously contact the rotor. The brush
run-m of new brushes is the process of increasing the interface
that is in contact will carry the full value of the applied load,.
conformity through the action of wear. As a result, the number
and in order to satisfy the requirement for equal wear, the
of asperity contacts increases to a limiting uniformly distrib-
time integral of (4) for each brush must be equated. Elimina-
uted population density which is determined by the steady-
tion of common terms, and use of force in place of pressure
state surface roughness of’ the sliding members and influenced
because of equal area; yields
by surface films and debris. Rotor eccentricity, however,
inhibits this process and creates an interface surface which
rltl =r2t2 (16)
behaves more as a static contact with fewer asperity encounters.
where t is the time during each revolution that a brush is in The empirical observation of the constants C and k of (3),
contact. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, and indicates that the which depend on the number of asperity contacts, will there-
lower sliding speed at the inner brush is now compensated by fore depend upon eccentricity as well as run-in.
an increase in contact time rather than an increase in force.
Since, in general, the resistance (3) is not linearly related to Multimaterial Brushes
force, even though the time-averaged value of force is the same A similar phenomenon may be demonstrated if, instead of a
for the ideal and for the eccentric rotor conditions, the effec- varying sliding speed, we have two or more materials with
tive parallel contact resistance for the brush assembly will different wear constants, sliding at the same speed but con-
48 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACKJRING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. CHMT-4, NO. 1, MARCH 1981
strained to have the same linear wear rate. For example, Fig. 5
shows a brush that consists of two different materials which / Material 2
are bonded together and run on parallel tracks at the periphery
of a rotating disk. Equation (4) may be written for each
material component as
w, =K,p,u (1%
W, = K2p2v. (19)
Since these wear rates are equal, the pressure must be greater
for the material with the lower wear constant, and component
pressures follow the relationship.
PI = (KdKd~2. (20)
The force balance on the brush may,be written in terms of p,
the averageloading pressure
PA = PlAl + P2A2.
Fig. 5. Contact pressure variation for bonded two-material brush.
If this equation is divided by the total contact area A and Y is
defined as the area fraction, then the force balance becomes
When there are no void regions in the nominal contact area
(21) (Yr + Y2 = I), we may write (28) as
P=PlYl +pzy2.
L = L2 + Yl(Ll -L,),. (29)
Equations (20) and (2 1) may be combined to give the average
pressure under each component The friction force and the electrical contact characteristics are
also influenced by this unequal sharing of contact load. For
P
Pl = (22) example, if one material component has relatively low wear
YI + WI /K2 Y2 and a low friction coefficient, it will carry more of the load
and the overall friction coefficient will be lower than other-
P
P2 = (23) wise expected. The friction force under each component is
Y2 + (WdY,
The combined wear rate (Wl = W2) is found by substitution fl =PlPIAl
of (22) into (18), or (23) into (19): fi = ~l2~2A2.
KIPV (24) The apparent friction coefficent will be
w=
Y, + (K,/K,P’,
fi +f2
K,bv c1=
w= F
(25)
Y2 + (K,/K,P’l .
= 111plAl
The numerator in (24) or (25) is seen to be the wear rate of ~lA1 +~2A2
the individual material acting alone at the nominal pressure p.
The ratio of the wear constants may be expressed as the ratio ~12~2-42
+
of these wear rates at the nominal pressure PIA, +~2A2
R, =Clp,-kl/Al (33) R= Rl R2
+ (40)
R2 = C,p,- k2/A2. 1 + (42KllA1Kd 1 + W2/4K,)’
(34)
With substitution of (22) into (33), and (23) into (34), these If a constant voltage is supplied, and the current is measured,
component resistances become we find in a similar manner
CR,>p 1 1
R, = (35) l/E= +
Y,[Yl + WI/K,KI-~~ R,(l +A,K,/A,K,) R2U +AIK~/A,KI) *
TABLE I
CUlGRAPHlTE COMPONENTFORCESHARING