Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MAE 493N/593T
Dr. Konstantinos A. Sierros
West Virginia University
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
ESB Annex 263
kostas.sierros@mail.wvu.edu
Wear
• Introduction
‐Definition and measurement of wear
‐Classification of wear
• Mechanisms of wear
‐Seizure
‐ Melt wear
‐ Oxidation‐dominated wear
‐ Mechanical wear processes
‐ Fatigue wear in rolling contacts
‐ Fretting and corrosion wear
‐ Erosive wear
• Third bodies and wear DLC coating wear track in oil lubricated conditions
http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/ietsi/Research_Projects/Lubricant‐surface.shtml
‐Wear by abrasive contaminants
‐ Interfacial ‘third’ bodies
‐ Debris analysis
• Further reading
Wear mechanisms
Abrasive wear
• During abrasive wear harder asperities/harder particles trapped at the interface
damage the other surface
• If both surfaces are soft, the hard particles can be contaminants from the outside
environment
• The hard particles can be formed in‐situ by oxidation
• Chemical or mechanical processes can produce hard particles
• Abrasion takes place because the counterface is both rough and intrinsically
harder than the wearing component
• If particles are entrapped within the contact boundaries the situation is known as
three‐body abrasion
Two‐body abrasion Three‐body abrasion
Wear mechanisms
Abrasive wear
• The surface topography during abrasive wear consists of long parallel grooves
running in the sliding direction
http://maxxtorque.com/dieselcommunity/winter‐2009/oil‐bypass‐filtration‐system‐for‐lmm‐dmax
• Volume and size of grooves varies from light scratching up to severe scratching
• Abrasive wear accounts for up to 50% of wear problems
• The rate of damage to a surface in three‐body abrasion is relatively insensitive to
the hardness of the particles if they are at least 20% harder than the surface itself
Wear mechanisms
Abrasive wear
• The most common contamination in industry comes from quartz or silica
minerals (60% of Earth’s crust)
• These particles have hardness around 8 GPa and they can damage hardened
steel components (7‐8 GPa hardness)
Wear mechanisms
Abrasive wear
• During abrasive wear (using an equation of the same form as Archard’s) the
volumetric loss of a material is proportional to the distance slid and the intensity
of loading
If: Abrasive wear resistance = (wear volume)‐1
Then, Abrasive wear resistance is proportional to Hardness
This has been confirmed experimentally in the early 1950s
(Kruschov 1957)
Wear mechanisms
Kruschov 1957
Abrasive wear resistance is proportional to Hardness
Two‐body abrasion
(a)Pure metals
(b)Steels with varying
compositions and heat
treatments
Wear mechanisms
Kruschov 1957
Abrasive wear resistance is proportional to Hardness
• In such experiments specimens of each material in the form of cylindrical pins
are rubbed against abrasive paper/cloth carrying SiC or quartz particles
• Relative wear resistance is equal to wear volume of
the sample divided by that of some standard material
tested under the same conditions
• Relative wear resistance of a range of pure metals is
proportional to hardness
Wear mechanisms
• For alloys the situation is more complicated
• Steels of different compositions and heat treatments (i.e. different hardnesses)
exhibit linear relationships but of different slopes from that of pure metals
• This is attributed to details in the microstructures of such alloys
Wear mechanisms
• Models of abrasive wear always assume that the deformations of the harder
surface are negligible compared to those of the softer surface
• They are also based on a single hard asperity moving across a softer previously
unreformed surface
Wear mechanisms
• A conical asperity of semi‐angle 90o – θ
carrying a normal load W indents a soft
surface to depth h
• θ represents the ‘average’ roughness of
the abrading surface
• If the asperity starts sliding, the wear rate
will be given by;
w = h 2 × cot ϑ
The depth h can be related to hardness H and the normal load W can be expressed in
terms of h and H as follows;
π
W = × (h cot ϑ ) 2 × H
2
And finally;
2 tan ϑ W
w= ×
π H
Wear mechanisms
This is like Archard’s equation
2 tan ϑ W
w= ×
π H
K (Wear coefficient)
The above suggests that rougher surfaces (larger θ) will exhibit larger K and thus
more wear damage
• However, the simple equation overestimates the wear observed in reality
• If we set θ=1o , the predicted value of K is around 0.01
In reality, measured values of K in two‐body abrasion of metals are observed to lie
in the range of 5x10‐3 – 50x10‐3
Wear mechanisms
• The discrepancy between predicted and measured values of K is due to our
assumption that all material from the groove is lost from the surface
• In an actual fact, experimental observation showed that some material is
actually detached (due to microcutting) while the remainder is piled up at the
wear track edges (due to ploughing)
Wear mechanisms
•If we attempt to model the asperity as a symmetrical pyramid then we can have
only some material lost from the surface
• The extent of subsurface deformation can be judged form the extent of the
wedge/prow of material in front of the leading edge
Wear mechanisms
•The material in the ridges does not contribute greatly to wear because it is not
detached from the surface
• The relative volumes appearing in the ridges and the produced chips depend
on the geometry of the hard asperity
• In the symmetrical pyramid case the geometry is described by angles ψ and φ
as shown in figure 5.8b
Angle between leading edge and direction of
motion is called attack angle ψ
Angle at the base of pyramidal asperity (2φ) is
called dihedral angle
If the attack angle exceeds some critical value
ψc , there is a significant contribution to wear
by micromachining
If the angle is less than the critical value, the
process is dominated by ploughing or rubbing
Wear mechanisms
Transition from ploughing to micromachining
•The transition is evident in the wear map above, since the mean slope θ (as well
as the attack angle ψ) is a measure of abrasive aggressiveness (roughness)of the
hard surface
Wear mechanisms
Ploughing: The surface topography is much modified but a small proportion
of the displaced material is actually detached from the surface
Micromachining: A much higher proportion of the plastically deforming
material is lost as wear debris
Wear mechanisms
Transition from ploughing to micromachining
•The dihedral angle can also influence the wear mode
• If 2φ is small, the asperity is like a knife cutting through the surface
• As φ increases the asperity gets ‘bluffer’
• When 2φ=180o the asperity will be moving with one of its flat faces forward
rather than with one of its edges
‐ The effect of both angles is illustrated on the wear‐mode diagram above
Wear mechanisms
• It is quite challenging to include a plastic component of deformation into the
model even for the simple geometrical case of conical or pyramidal hard asperity
• Usually there is one of two simplifications that must be made
•Consider the analogous 2D case which can be analyzed by either the upper bound
or the slip‐line field technique
‐In a 2D case (plain strain) the asperity becomes an infinitely wide wedge
‐ Therefore, there is no way for the material, into which the asperity is advancing,
to flow around the sides of the indenter
‐ For steady state conditions, some material must be removed as a chip.
Or else, the indenter will ride up vertically during the initial stage of deformation
until its apex is at the same level as the unreformed surface
‐ Deformation is associated with a plastic wave that is pushed ahead of the
indenter
‐This is like a ruck in a carpet
Slip‐line field
Wear mechanisms
• Fig 5.10a shows a slip‐line field for this deformation mode
• If friction between the hard asperity and the deforming surface is high, the
plastic wave may shear off from the surface along the path AB (Fig 5.10b)
• When one prow has been removed as a wear fragment the indenter digs once
more and the process restarts
• Larger values of attack angle ψ favour cutting. h is depth of presentation of the
asperity into the softer surface (Fig 5.10c)
Upper bound approach
Wear mechanisms
• The 3D aspect of the problem is maintained in this case
• Forces and geometry are related
• Indenter is assumed to be rigid and the abraded material to be perfectly plastic
• The material flows at a constant shear stress h
• This approach is also challenging but it has been shown that reasonable
agreement between theory and experiment can be achieved
‐Mainly for the transition from ploughing to micromachining
‐ And the magnitude of the tangential force
Wear mechanisms
In reality…
• A wear surface is formed as a result of many wear events
• These wear events follow one another during the lifetime of the component
• The interaction of individual wear events is not well understood to date
• There is no fully satisfactory way of predicting abrasive wear rates (component
lives) in terms of their initial surface geometry/topography and material properties
Summary
• Wear mechanisms
‐ Abrasive wear