ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180

www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Development of a galling resistance test method

with a uniform stress distribution
Scott R. Hummel
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042, USA
Received 29 November 2006; received in revised form 31 May 2007; accepted 22 July 2007

Abstract

In this study, a new galling test method is presented along with results from a pilot testing program. The pilot program was performed
on type 303 stainless steel. The new testing conguration consists of two concentrically aligned hollow cylindrical specimens loaded along
their longitudinal axes. The specimens are held in alignment using a custom made alignment pin. The pin maintains concentricity
between the mated surfaces while enabling the contact interface to self-align. The resulting contact surface is in the shape of an annulus
and has a uniform stress distribution. The new testing conguration eliminates the stress concentration that exists in the ASTM G98
Standard Test Method for Galling Resistance of Materials. The results of this study show that the galling wear phenomena do not
transition from non-galled to galled at a single value. Galling is shown to be stochastic in nature.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Galling; Adhesive wear; Stress concentration

1. Introduction
The wear phenomena of galling is a severe case of
adhesive wear characterized by raised protrusions of
material above the original surface. Galling is dened by
the ASTM committee G02 on wear and erosion in
Standard G40 as a form of surface damage arising
between sliding solids, distinguished by macroscopic,
usually localized, roughening and creation of protrusions
above the original surface [1]. Upon visual inspection of a
galled contact surfaces, macroscopic tearing is always
present on one or both of the mated faces.
The presence of galling can quickly render a mechanism
inoperable and is highly undesirable. In extreme cases,
galling can be accompanied by cold welding of the mated
components leading to seizure. The largest contributing
factor in leading to galling is inadequate lubrication. Cases
documenting galling include a diverse pool of applications.
For example, galling has been a problem in oil exploration
where stainless steel drill collars are coupled using threaded
Tel.: +1 610 330 5587; fax: +1 610 330 5059.
E-mail address: hummels@lafayette.edu
connections [2]. Galling has also been seen in the sheet
metal forming process when metal sheets slide over the
forming dies [3]. Another application where galling is a
problem is medical instruments [4]. In this application,
lubrication is often inadequate or non-existent due to
sterilization issues. Stainless steel is the material of choice
for its relative ease of manufacture, high strength and
stiffness, and excellent corrosion resistance, however, it has
been found to be quite susceptible to galling [5].
In an effort to reduce the probability of a galling,
manufacturing companies have developed various coatings
and stainless steel alloys specically formulated to reduce
galling. For example, Carpenter Technology Corporation
developed Gall-Tough and Gall-Tough Plus [6], High
Performance Alloys, Inc. [7] developed Nitronic 60, and
Waukesha Foundry has an alloy called Waukesha 88 [8].
These alloys have a higher galling resistance than most
commercially available stainless steels [5].
Several test methods have been developed to measure
galling resistance. A strip-draw test method was developed
by Hirasaka and Nishimura [3]. This test was used to
simulate sheet metal forming processes. A line contact
testing method was developed by Hummel [9] where the

0301-679X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2007.07.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 S.R. Hummel / Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180
end of a cylindrical button was placed in contact with the
side of a rotating cylinder. A novel approach to galling
testing was developed by Hogmark et al. [10,11] utilizing
two crossed cylinders. The crossed cylinders are forced to
slide reciprocally against each other under a constant
speed, with the normal force gradually increasing during
forward strokes, while decreasing during backward strokes.
The most widely used galling test is the ASTM G98
Standard Test Method for Galling Resistance of Materials
[12]. Unlike all of the galling test methods presented above,
this method does not require dedicated wear test equip-
ment to run a test. The only equipment required is a
relatively common universal testing machine capable of
exerting a constant force. The ASTM G98 test method was
presented by Schumacher of the Armco Steel Corporation
[13] in the early 1970s and has been used since that time as
a way to determine the relative galling resistance of one
material pair versus another. The results of the test do not
yield quantitative data that can be used for design
purposes; however, the results can be used to rank the
material pairs in terms of their galling resistance. The
design engineer can then choose the material couple with
the least likelihood of galling.
The ASTM G98 Standard Test Method for Galling
Resistance of Materials, often referred to as the button-on-
block test, calls for a cylindrical button specimen to be
mated to a block specimen as shown in Fig. 1. A constant
load is placed on the button with a universal testing
machine and it is then rotated one revolution relative to the
block. Upon completion of the test, the specimens are
examined visually without magnication for the presence
of galling. If galling has not occurred, then new specimens
are loaded at a higher level and tested. This is continued
until galling occurs, at which point the load of the highest
non-galled test is averaged with the load of the galled test.
This load is divided by the cross-sectional area of the
button specimen and is deemed the threshold galling stress.
A major drawback of the ASTM button-on-block test is
its lack of precision. As pointed out by Hummel and
Fig. 1. ASTM G98 button-on-block test conguration.
Partlow [14], the threshold galling stress measured by inter-
laboratory testing can vary by a factor of 4 or more. They
reasoned that one of the contributing factors to the low
precision is the subjective determination of the presence of
galling. Specically, the ASTM test procedure requires the
user to visually inspect the specimens for galling upon
completion of a test. Since there is no quantitative measure
used to determine the presence of galling, the variability
from what one researcher calls galling can dramatically
vary from what another calls galling.
Research has been conducted in an effort to remove the
subjectivity from the determination of the presence of
galling. One such study was conducted by Ives et al. using a
pin-on-plate testing conguration [15]. The pin was loaded
against the plate and moved across the plate until galling
was evident. A prolometer was used to measure the
surface nish before and after testing. In another study,
Hummel used a friction-based criteria as a necessary but
not sufcient condition in determining the presence of
galling [16].
Another factor that has been found to affect the
precision of the G98 test is the way that data are collected
and subsequently analyzed. An implicit assumption of the
standardized button-on-block test is that galling does not
occur until the contact stress exceeds the galling thresh-
old. Hummel and Partlow found that a single value
galling threshold does not exist [14]. They found that
galling is a stochastic phenomena. In other words, galling is
characterized by probability. As the contact stress in-
creases, the probability that galling will occur increases,
however, the probability exists that galling can occur at low
stress levels. Conversely, the probability also exists that at a
relatively high load, a material pair that has low galling
resistance may not experience galling. The stochastic
nature of galling is likely to be one of the sources of the
low precision in the G98 test because no statistical analysis
of the data is performed and no minimum number a
replicates is dictated by the standard.
In a recent study by Waite et al. [17], the contact stress
distribution between the two specimens in a button-on-
block conguration was examined. Their study stemmed
from the observation that galling virtually always begins
along the outer edge of the button specimen. The galling
then migrates towards the center of the button as the test
proceeds. The authors deduced that the singularity at the
edge of the button caused a stress concentration to exist.
The results of the study can be seen in Fig. 2. In this gure,
the radial position along the contact interface is shown on
the horizontal axis. The radial position has been normal-
ized so that the position of zero represents the center of the
button specimen and a radial position of unity is the outer
edge. A signicant stress concentration is evident near the
edge of the button and has a magnitude close to 3. The
graph shown in Fig. 2 is for a button specimen with a
0.3 mm corner radius. Waite et al. found that the stress
concentration increased with the decreasing of the corner
radius, as one would expect.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Hummel / Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180 177

Stress Concentration along Diameter of Button

(0.3 mm Corner Radius)
3.0

2.5
Stress Concentration

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Radial Position (Normalized)

Fig. 2. Stress concentration factor along diameter of button specimen.

The recognition of the stress concentration goes a long

way in understanding the nature of galling in a button- Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of new test conguration.
on-block test. For one, it helps explain why galling
typically begins near the edge of the button. Once galling
begins, the local stress concentrations increase dramatically Load Platen
and galling rapidly migrates inward. The stress concentra-
tion also helps explain the lack of precision in test results.
Specically, the ASTM test does not specify the size of the
corner radius of the button specimen. It is quite con-
ceivable that some researchers remove the small burr on
the corner while others leave the edge sharp. The small Alignment Pin
radius affects the stress concentration thereby affecting the Ball Bearing
galling of the specimens.
In the current study, a new test geometry is presented Contact Region Upper
that eliminates the stress concentration that presently
exists in the G98 test standard. A pilot testing program
has been completed and the results are presented in Lower
subsequent sections.

2. Experimental arrangement and procedure

In an effort to minimize the stress concentration in a

galling test, a new experimental arrangement was employed
in this study. The testing conguration, shown schemati-
cally in Fig. 3, uses two concentric hollow cylinders. The
ends of the cylinders are mated resulting in area contact in
the shape of an annulus. To conduct a test, the bottom
specimen is xed while a load, F, is applied to the upper
specimen. The upper specimen is then rotated via an
applied torque, T. Upon completion of the test, the
specimens are examined for the presence of galling.
One of the critical aspects of this new arrangement is the
alignment of the specimens. The annular surfaces on the
ends of the specimens must be in area contact. If one
specimen were to become misaligned relative to the other, a
stress concentration would most certainly arise. At rst
glance, it would seem obvious to constrain the specimens in
such a way as to maintain concentricity between the upper
and lower specimens. This could possibly be accomplished
Load Platen
Fig. 4. Section view of new test conguration.
by inserting a guide pin through the inside diameters of the
specimens or by placing a guild sleeve around the outside
of the specimens. However, this type of constraint will not
necessarily satisfy the goal of maintaining area contact
because the ends of the specimens may not be precisely
perpendicular to the diameters due to manufacturing
tolerances. The annular contact surfaces must be held
concentric, but the specimens must also be allowed to self-
align relative to the contact surfaces. To accomplish this,
an alignment pin was used that consisted of a cylindrical
lower region with a spherical upper region. A section view
of the test conguration with the alignment pin is shown in
Fig. 4. It is important to note that the cylindrical region of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
178 S.R. Hummel / Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180
the alignment pin is completely contained within the lower
specimen. The center of the spherical region on the other
hand is contained within the upper specimen. The spherical
shape of the pin forces the annular contact areas to remain
concentric, yet allows for angular alignment of the long-
itudinal axes. The center of the sphere used in the current
study was contained within the upper specimen by roughly
1 mm. This dimension is not critical as long as the
contact surface on each specimen is perpendicular to its
centerline within reasonable manufacturing limits of
approximately 0.11. The clearance between the alignment
pin and the specimens was approximately 0.03 mm. The
spherical portion of the alignment pin is commercially
available from industrial supply companies and is called a
tooling ball.
A drawing depicting the critical and major features of
the specimens is shown in Fig. 5. There are several features
of the specimens that are worth noting at this time. The
specimens were produced using 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) hex stock.
The hex provided a convenient means of gripping the
specimens during manufacturing and testing. The cylind-
rical section and the contact face were machined using a
CNC lathe. The toolpath of the lathe was programmed
such that the 12.70 mm (1/2 in.) diameter and the contact
face were cut with the tool in continuous contact with the
specimen. This eliminated any burrs on the corner of the
12.70 mm diameter of the specimen while leaving a sharp
edge. The 6.35 mm through hole was nished prior to the
nal machining operation of the outside diameter and the
contact face. A key feature of the specimens used in this
research is that they are reusable. Specically, the contact
face can be machined in a lathe to recondition the
specimen. Approximately 1.3 mm (0.05 in.) of material
should be removed from the specimen for reconditioning.
If a burr should form at the 6.35 mm hole, this hole can be
reamed with a 6.35 mm reamer to remove the burr, without
effecting the wear surface or hole size.
6.35
12.70 12.7
15.88 25.4
Fig. 5. Detail drawing of new test specimen (dimensions in mm).
An important aspect of any galling test is specimen
cleaning. If the specimens have oil or debris on them from
the manufacturing process, the results of a galling test can
be severely altered. With this in mind, a careful cleaning
process was used in the current study. To begin the
cleaning process, parts were placed in an ultrasonic cleaner
with a mild general purpose ultrasonic detergent in warm
water. Parts were washed two times for 3 min in the
ultrasonic cleaner. Fresh solution was used for each
cleaning cycle. After the parts dried, they were rinsed with
acetone. As a nal cleaning, the contact surface was
swabbed with acetone using a lint free wipe. The contact
surface was free of oil, debris and spotting before testing.
The specimens were loaded into a universal testing
machine capable of exerting a constant force. The lower
specimen rested on a steel plate and the upper specimen
was loaded via a hardened steel ball as shown in Fig. 4. The
ball was used to allow for any angular misalignment in the
system. This loading conguration is similar to that used in
the ASTM G98 test. Once the specimens were loaded into
the testing machine, a load of 90 N (20 lb) was applied. The
upper specimen was then rotated approximately 451 by
hand to ensure proper seating of the contacting surfaces.
The specimens were then loaded to the desired test load.
The lower specimen was held xed while the upper
specimen was rotated using an open-end wrench. The
upper specimen was turned at a rate of approximately 6
revolutions per minute for one complete revolution. This
was accomplished using one continuous rotation of the
wrench. In other words, the rotation of the upper specimen
was not stopped for re-gripping of the wrench, although
this is allowed in the ASTM test.
Upon completion of the test, the specimens were
removed from the universal testing machine and were
visually inspected without magnication for the presence of
galling. It is important to note that in this study any
amount of galling was considered to be a galled specimen.
No degrees of galling severity were made. This is similar to
the ASTM standard where galling is considered to be a
binary phenomena in that galling is either present or is not.
3. Results and discussion
A pilot study of the new galling test procedure was
conducted on 72 pairs of type 303 stainless steel. The
specimens had a surface roughness of 0.80 mm and a
hardness of 98 Rockwell B. Specimens were tested at six
loads from 220 N (50 lb) to 1100 N (250 lb) with 12 tests at
each loading. Tests were conducted at 220, 330, 440, 670,
890, and 1100 N (50, 75, 100, 150, 200, and 250 lb). The
results of the pilot study are shown in the graph of the
galling frequency in Fig. 6. The graph depicts the galling
frequency on the y-axis and the applied stress on the x-axis.
The applied stress was calculated by dividing the applied
force by the apparent area of contact. The galling
frequency quanties the percentage of specimens that
galled at a given load. For example at 4.7 MPa, the galling
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Hummel / Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180
frequency was found to be 0.42. This means that galling
occurred in 5 of the 12 tests conducted at 4.7 MPa.
The most important feature to recognize on the graph is
that there is no single stress level at which the wear
behavior denitively changes from non-galled to galled.
The galling frequency of the material increased as the load
increased. The results presented in the gure clarify the
stochastic nature of the wear phenomena of galling. The
general shape of this curve is in agreement with results
found by Hummel and Partlow [14] in a galling study using
the ASTM button-on-block testing arrangement. The
results presented in Fig. 6 imply that the concept of a
threshold galling stress [12] is a misnomer. In other
words, one cannot calculate a single stress value where
the wear behavior transitions from non-galled to galled.
Moreover, in order to report the data described by Fig. 6,
statistical analysis will need to be employed. This will be
Fig. 6. Galling frequency results of type 303 stainless steel.
Fig. 7. Photograph of typical wear scar.
179
the topic of a future study in this area using a larger
population of specimens.
One of the factors that contribute to galling between two
mated components is sliding distance. As the sliding
distance increases, the propensity for galling increases.
This has been noted by several researchers including
Hummel and Partlow [14], Magee [5], and Jarrell and
Bejbl [4]. One of the problems with the ASTM button-on-
block test is that the sliding distance varies with radial
position along the button. At the center of the button, the
tangential velocity approaches zero, therefore the sliding
distance at the center also approaches zero. Along the
perimeter of the button, the sliding distance is at a
maximum and reaches the circumferential length of the
button. The peak in the sliding distance coincides with
the location of the stress concentration at the edge of the
button. The combination of the maximum sliding distance
and the high stress concentration leads to the initialization
of galling to typically occur along the perimeter of the
button. In the current study, a through hole was present in
both upper and lower specimens. This hole eliminated the
zero sliding distance at the center of the specimens. In
addition, the stress concentration seen in the ASTM test is
eliminated because the stress is uniformly distributed along
the contact area in the new test conguration.
Shown in Fig. 7 is a typical galled specimen pair. In all of
the specimen pairs that experienced galling, the adhesive
wear was located between the middle of the annulus to
roughly 1.0 mm from the outer edge. These results were
expected because galling is a function of sliding distance.
The outer region of the contact annulus has a higher sliding
distance than the inner region, so one can expect galling to
be more prevalent in this region.
As discussed previously in this paper, low precision is a
major problem with the ASTM G98 test standard. As an
example of this, consider the galling test results reported in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
180 S.R. Hummel / Tribology International 41 (2008) 175180
a product data bulletin by High Performance Alloys [7]. It
is reported that type 303 stainless steel has a threshold
galling strength of 14 MPa. This result for type 303 was
given along with galling results for several other materials.
The results of all of the data in the table were reported to
have a repeatability of 718 MPa. This implies that galling
occurred from essentially zero load to a load of 32 MPa.
These results certainly speak to the lack of precision in the
current galling test and may suggest that the authors
experienced the stochastic nature of galling. From these
results, one can assume that galling occurred over a fairly
wide range of stress values. Apparently, the galling
frequency neared 100% at 32 MPa. Unfortunately, the
data are only reported as a single threshold galling stress
magnitude along with the reproducibility value so one can
only speculate as to the details of the results. This example
demonstrates the need for a more robust method of
analyzing data and reporting results from a galling
resistance testing procedure.
4. Conclusions
A new galling resistance test has been presented that
overcomes several of the problems that are prevalent with the
current ASTM standard test method. Specically, the new
test arrangement addresses problems with the stress distribu-
tion and zero sliding distance. In addition to the new testing
arrangement, the pilot study presented demonstrates that the
sampling size, analysis methods, and reporting requirements
used in the ASTM test are inadequate. The galling results
presented show that the propensity for galling increases with
load but does not go through a step transition from non-
galled to galled. The notion of a threshold galling stress
appears to be a misnomer.
References
[1] Standard terminology relating to wear and erosion, G40, Annual
book of ASTM standards, vol. 03.02. ASTM.
[2] Frick DG. Drill collar connection trial. Report DGF2-85. Carpenter
Technology Corporation, July 1985.
[3] Hisashi M. N J Mater Process Technol 1994;47:15366.
[4] Jarrell JD, Bejbl F. Med Device Diagn Ind 1999;21:50.
[5] Magee JH. ASM handbook, friction, lubrication, and wear technol-
ogy, vol. 18. ASM International; 1992.
[6] Carpenter Stainless Steels, Carpenter Technology Corporation,
Reading, PA, 1999.
[7] Nitronic 60, High Performance Alloys Inc., Windfall, IN. /www.
hpalloy.comS.
[8] /www.waukeshafoundry.comS.
[9] Hummel SR. New test method and apparatus for measuring galling
resistance. Tribol Int 2001;34:5937.
[10] Hogmark S, Jacobson S, Wanstrand O. A new universal test for
tribological evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd meeting of the
International Research Group on Wear of Engineering Materials
IRG-OECD, September 21 and 22, 2000. UK: University of
Cambridge. ISBN: 9789036515511.
[11] Podgornik B, Hogmark S, Pezdirnik J. Comparison between different
test methods for evaluation of galling properties of surface engineered
tool surfaces. Wear 2004;257:84351.
[12] Standard Test Method for Galling Resistance of Materials, G98,
Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 03.02. ASTM.
[13] Schumacher W. New galling data aid in selecting stainless steel.
Mater Eng 1973:601.
[14] Hummel SR, Partlow B. Comparison of threshold galling results
from two testing methods. Tribol Int 2004;37:2915.
[15] Ives LK, Peterson MB, Whitenton EP. The mechanism, measure-
ment, and inuence of properties on the galling of metals. US
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory,
Ceramics Division, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NISTIR 89-4064,
December, 1989.
[16] Hummel SR. An application of frictional criteria for determining
galling thresholds is line contact tests. Tribol Int 2002;35:8017.
[17] Waite RA, Hummel SR, Herr A, Dalton G. Analysis of the stress
eld in a threshold-galling test. Tribol Int 2006;39:14217.