Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Wear coefficient

The wear coefficient, denoted as k, is a dimensionless in that quantifies the propensity for material removal from a surface during sliding with another surface, primarily under the framework of Archard's wear law. It represents the fraction of load-bearing asperities that result in detached particles upon sliding, serving as a key metric to characterize wear severity for material pairs in tribological systems. Archard's equation, introduced in 1953, relates the wear volume V to the applied normal load F, sliding distance s, and material hardness H through the formula V = \frac{k F s}{H}, where k typically ranges from $10^{-2} for severe unlubricated to $10^{-6} or lower for mild lubricated conditions. This model assumes that wear occurs via plastic deformation at asperity junctions, with k empirically determined rather than theoretically derived, highlighting its dependence on factors like , , and environmental conditions. Closely related is the specific wear rate (often denoted k_s or W_s), a dimensional quantity defined as k_s = \frac{V}{F s} = \frac{k}{H}, with units of mm³/N·m, which directly measures volume loss per unit load and distance and is widely used to compare resistance across materials. The dimensionless k is then obtained by multiplying the specific wear rate by , providing a normalized indicator independent of material strength. In practice, the wear coefficient is measured using standardized tests such as pin-on-disk or ball-on-flat configurations, where wear volume is quantified via profilometry or mass loss, and k is calculated post-test under controlled loads and speeds. Its value varies with wear mechanisms—adhesive, abrasive, or oxidative—and operating regimes, influencing transitions between mild and severe wear; for instance, ceramics exhibit k values around $10^{-5} to $10^{-7} in dry sliding, while polymers can reach $10^{-3} under high loads. The coefficient plays a pivotal role in engineering design, enabling lifetime predictions for components like bearings, gears, and artificial joints, and guiding to minimize failure due to excessive , which accounts for significant economic losses in industries such as automotive and . Advances in coatings and lubricants aim to reduce [k](/page/K) by orders of magnitude, enhancing durability and efficiency in tribological applications.

Introduction

Definition

The wear coefficient, denoted as k, is a dimensionless in that quantifies the volume of material removed from a surface per unit of work expended during sliding . It serves as a measure of a material's resistance, capturing the intrinsic propensity for material loss under conditions where asperities on contacting surfaces adhere and off . Physically, k represents the probability that a given event results in permanent material removal, making it a key indicator of performance independent of specific test geometries or scales. In practice, the wear volume V relates to k through the applied normal load W, sliding distance L, and material hardness H, via the formula V = k \frac{W L}{H}. This relation highlights k's role in normalizing wear observations to isolate material behavior. Unlike the wear rate, which is typically expressed as volume loss per unit distance or time and thus varies with operating conditions like load and speed, k provides a normalized measure of material behavior, though it remains dependent on factors like lubrication and surface conditions. The concept of k originates in Archard's foundational model of adhesive wear. To illustrate scale, typical values of k for polymers, such as polyamides in dry sliding against metals, are on the order of $10^{-7} to $10^{-6}, reflecting their generally superior compared to metals, where values from $10^{-5} to $10^{-3} under similar conditions.

Historical Development

The concept of the wear coefficient emerged from early 20th-century research, particularly studies on electrical contacts by Ragnar Holm, who investigated material degradation through asperity interactions and transfer during sliding. Holm's foundational work in the 1920s and 1930s, culminating in publications and lectures by the , emphasized the influence of on rates in metallic contacts, providing initial empirical insights into quantifiable wear severity. The wear coefficient was formally introduced by John F. Archard in his 1953 paper "Contact and Rubbing of Flat Surfaces," where it served as a dimensionless capturing the propensity for loss under load and sliding distance in nominally flat metallic surfaces. This model marked a pivotal shift toward systematic wear prediction, building on prior observations of and mechanisms. In the decades following, refinements expanded the coefficient's applicability. During the and , it was adopted for analyzing polymers and composites, with Evans and Lancaster's review demonstrating its effectiveness in evaluating how fiber reinforcements reduce wear rates compared to unfilled polymers. By the 2000s, extensions to appeared, as reviews highlighted how inclusions in matrices could lower the coefficient by enhancing load distribution and surface integrity. Key milestones include its standardization in ASTM G99 for pin-on-disk wear testing, originally issued in 1990 to facilitate consistent measurement across materials. More recently, between 2020 and 2025, integrations with and have enabled predictive modeling, combining the with data-driven algorithms for forecasting in complex systems.

Theoretical Foundation

Archard's Wear Equation

The Archard's wear equation provides the foundational mathematical model for quantifying sliding wear volume in tribological systems. It states that the total wear volume V is given by V = k \frac{F \cdot s}{H}, where k is the dimensionless wear coefficient, F is the applied normal load, s is the total sliding distance, and H is the of the softer material in . In this equation, V represents the volume of material removed from the surface, commonly expressed in cubic millimeters (mm³) for practical engineering applications. The normal load F is measured in newtons (N), reflecting the force pressing the surfaces together; the sliding distance s is in meters (m), accounting for the extent of relative motion; and the hardness H is in pascals (Pa), typically the indentation hardness of the wearing material, which indicates its resistance to plastic deformation. The wear coefficient k is a dimensionless parameter that encapsulates the efficiency of material removal per unit of contact, often interpreted as the fraction of asperity junctions that lead to detached wear particles. The equation is most reliably applied in the steady-state regime, following an initial transient phase where surface evolves rapidly, leading to a higher initial rate. In steady-state conditions, the wear volume accumulates linearly with sliding distance, enabling straightforward predictions for long-term performance. During the transient , such as running-in, the effective k may vary as surfaces adapt, but the model can still approximate overall once steady-state is reached. As an illustrative calculation, consider mild steel with k = 7 \times 10^{-3} (typical for unlubricated conditions) and H = 1.176 \times 10^{9} Pa under a normal load F = 9.8 N over a sliding distance s = 1 m. Substituting into the equation yields V \approx 0.058 mm³, demonstrating the model's utility in estimating modest wear in low-load scenarios.

Assumptions and Limitations

The wear coefficient model, as derived from Archard's foundational work, relies on several key assumptions to simplify the complex mechanics of sliding contact. Primarily, it posits that adhesive wear dominates the material removal process, where asperity junctions form and shear, leading to particle detachment without significant plastic flow beyond the contact zone. This model further assumes constant material hardness throughout the wear process, treating it as a fixed proxy for yield strength and ignoring any evolution due to work hardening or thermal effects. Additionally, it neglects the influence of wear debris, presuming no third-body interactions that could alter contact conditions or introduce abrasive effects. The framework operates under steady-state conditions, where contact area and pressure remain uniform after an initial running-in phase, enabling a linear relationship between wear volume, load, and sliding distance. Despite its utility, the model exhibits notable limitations that constrain its predictive accuracy. It inherently ignores other wear mechanisms, such as fatigue-induced cracking or corrosive processes like oxidation, which can dominate in environments involving cyclic loading or chemical exposure. The wear coefficient itself shows high variability—often by a factor of up to 10 or more—arising from uncontrolled surface conditions like roughness, , or , which the model does not explicitly account for. Furthermore, it proves inadequate for severe wear regimes, such as high-load or extreme sliding velocities, where nonlinear behaviors and regime transitions invalidate the linear proportionality. Historical critiques of Archard's 1953 model highlight its oversight of third-body abrasion, where detached particles act as abrasives, complicating the assumed direct asperity-to-asperity . Post-2000 perspectives have advanced toward probabilistic models, treating the wear coefficient as a variable to account for uncertainties in asperity interactions and environmental factors, thereby improving robustness over deterministic assumptions.

Types of Wear Coefficients

Dimensionless Wear Coefficient

The dimensionless wear coefficient, denoted as k, appears in Archard's wear equation as a unitless parameter that quantifies the extent of material removal during sliding contact. It physically represents the probability that an asperity junction will lead to the detachment of a wear particle, approximating the fraction n of such junctions that actually . This unitless nature of k provides significant advantages, as it eliminates dependence on specific measurement units for load, distance, or hardness, thereby enabling consistent comparisons of wear behavior across diverse materials and experimental setups. Values of k typically range from $10^{-8} for hard ceramics exhibiting mild wear to $10^{-2} for soft metals under severe conditions, reflecting variations in material toughness, surface films, and contact severity. Representative typical values for selected materials are summarized below:
MaterialTypical k
Polythene$1.3 \times 10^{-7}
Mild steel$7 \times 10^{-3}
Ceramics\sim 10^{-6}
These values illustrate the superior wear resistance of ceramics and polymers relative to metals in comparable sliding scenarios.

Dimensional Wear Coefficient

The dimensional wear coefficient, often denoted as k_s and also referred to as the specific , quantifies in terms of loss per unit of applied load and sliding distance, expressed as k_s = \frac{V}{F s}, where V is the (typically in mm³), F is the normal force (in N), and s is the sliding distance (in m). This results in units of mm³/N·m, providing a practical for calculations that directly relates operational parameters to material removal without requiring additional material properties like . In design applications, the dimensional wear coefficient enables straightforward prediction of volume loss in components subjected to sliding contact, such as predicting the extent of material erosion over a specified operational solely from load and . This independence from measurement simplifies predictive modeling in scenarios where varies or is difficult to assess precisely. For instance, it relates to the dimensionless wear coefficient k through k_s = \frac{[k](/page/K)}{H}, where H is the material , allowing conversion between normalized and absolute wear metrics when needed. Typical values of k_s vary by material; for polymers like (PTFE) composites used in low-friction applications, rates around $10^{-6} mm³/N·m are common under mild wear conditions. In bearing design, this coefficient is particularly valuable for estimating journal bearing , where wear volume accumulation under constant load and velocity informs maintenance intervals and component durability.

Measurement Methods

Experimental Techniques

Experimental techniques for determining the wear coefficient primarily utilize controlled setups that replicate sliding wear conditions between pairs. These methods focus on quantifying removal under defined loads, speeds, and distances, enabling the derivation of the wear coefficient from empirical data. Standard tests include the pin-on-disk apparatus as outlined in ASTM G99, which involves a stationary pin loaded against a rotating disk to simulate unidirectional sliding. Similarly, the ball-on-flat configuration, governed by ASTM G133, employs a loaded ball sliding linearly or reciprocally over a flat specimen, while reciprocating slider tests use a pin or block oscillating against a flat surface to mimic back-and-forth motion. In these tests, the procedure entails applying a constant normal load F to the contact pair and recording the total sliding distance L traversed during the experiment. Wear volume V is measured post-test, typically through mass loss (converted via density) or optical profilometry of the worn surface. The hardness H of the softer material is determined separately using indentation methods such as Brinell or Vickers testing. The dimensionless wear coefficient K is then computed as K = \frac{V H}{F L}, a relation derived from Archard's wear law, where steady-state conditions ensure the volume loss is proportional to load and distance. Key precautions are essential to obtain reliable measurements. Tests should run sufficiently long to reach steady-state wear after an initial running-in phase, as transient wear can skew early data and lead to inaccurate coefficients. Debris generated during sliding must be managed—often by conducting tests in clean, enclosed environments or using suction to remove particles—to prevent third-body interactions that accelerate . Additionally, H must be verified for both specimens using calibrated indenters, ensuring values reflect bulk properties rather than surface variations. For metal matrix composites, standard calculations are adjusted to incorporate reinforcement effects, modifying the wear coefficient via volume fraction f_v of particles and their diameter d. A physically based model treats composite wear resistance as a weighted combination: \frac{1}{K_c} = f_m K_m^{-1} + C f_r K_r^{-1}, where K_c, K_m, K_r are coefficients for the composite, matrix, and ; f_m, f_r are their volume fractions; and C (0 to 1) accounts for particle size d through interfacial cracking or pull-out mechanisms, such as C = 1 - \frac{a}{d} with a as crack length. This approach, validated for aluminum-epoxy systems up to 40 vol.% , better predicts abrasive wear than unmodified Archard application.

Computational Approaches

Finite element analysis (FEA) serves as a primary computational method for predicting wear coefficients by modeling stress distributions and material removal in tribological contacts. In FEA simulations, the Archard wear equation is often integrated to estimate wear depth based on contact pressure, sliding distance, and material-specific wear coefficients, allowing for iterative analysis of complex geometries without physical prototypes. For instance, early work demonstrated that FEA can simulate sliding wear progression by updating mesh geometries to account for material loss, providing accurate predictions validated against experimental data. Recent applications extend this to wear scenarios, where variable coefficients are incorporated to forecast wear rates under cyclic loading. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations offer insights into wear coefficients at the nanoscale, particularly for protective coatings, by resolving atomic-scale interactions during friction. These simulations track atomic displacements and bond breaking under shear, revealing mechanisms such as adhesion wear or plowing in thin films like diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings. A seminal large-scale MD study on DLC showed that wear follows Archard's law even at the atomic level, with coefficients influenced by substrate stiffness and interface chemistry. More recent MD investigations of Fe-based amorphous coatings have quantified nanoscale wear rates, highlighting how atomic disorder reduces friction and wear compared to crystalline counterparts. These approaches are validated through comparison with experimental data, such as ball-on-disk tests. Since 2020, and (AI/ML) models have emerged as powerful tools for predicting coefficients directly from composition, leveraging large datasets of properties and tribological outcomes. Neural networks, such as and convolutional architectures, are trained on features like elemental percentages, , and microstructure to forecast rates in (HEAs) and composites, achieving prediction accuracies exceeding 90% in cross-validation. For example, and models applied to HEA s have correlated composition with formation and coefficients, enabling rapid screening of variants. A comprehensive review highlights how these ML methods outperform traditional empirical models by capturing nonlinear dependencies, with applications focused on optimizing durability. Integration of computational wear predictions with (CAD) enables virtual testing for iterative optimization, particularly in like texturing. CAD models import geometric designs into FEA or MD frameworks, simulating to evaluate wear coefficients under operational loads and predicting improvements from texture parameters such as dimple depth and density. In simulations of -textured surfaces, groove patterns have been shown to redistribute stresses, reducing predicted wear coefficients by 20-50% through enhanced retention and debris entrapment. This CAD-FEA workflow supports design refinement, with results often corroborated by targeted experimental validation.

Influencing Factors

Material Properties

The hardness of a exhibits an inverse relationship with its wear coefficient in the dimensional formulation, where increased reduces the wear coefficient by limiting deformation and removal during sliding . This relation stems from the foundational models, emphasizing as a primary intrinsic factor governing wear resistance across various alloys and coatings. Microstructural features, such as and phase composition, profoundly influence the coefficient by altering local deformation mechanisms and crack resistance. Finer s typically lower the wear coefficient, as they elevate overall and impede motion, thereby enhancing resistance to and wear; for instance, in nanocrystalline aluminum, wear rates increase linearly with the of . In like CoCrFeMnNi, fine-grained variants demonstrate superior resistance compared to coarse-grained ones due to elevated surface strength from . composition further modulates this effect, with harder phases like body-centered cubic (BCC) structures yielding lower wear coefficients than softer face-centered cubic (FCC) phases, as the former provide greater resistance to plastic flow. Ductile metals generally possess higher wear coefficients than brittle ceramics, attributable to the ceramics' superior that minimizes material removal through fracture-dominated rather than deformation-based mechanisms. In particle erosion scenarios, ductile materials exhibit significantly higher volume loss rates than brittle counterparts under angular impact conditions. In composite materials, reinforcement particles diminish the wear coefficient by distributing applied loads across the matrix and counterface, thereby reducing localized stress concentrations and matrix abrasion. For example, silicon carbide particles in aluminum matrices improve wear resistance, with coarser particles (e.g., >100 μm) outperforming finer ones by better load transfer and minimizing particle pull-out. Similarly, zirconium carbide (ZrC) reinforcements at 15 vol.% in AZ31 magnesium alloy matrices yield the lowest friction coefficients and wear rates among tested compositions, owing to enhanced hardness and interfacial stability. Post-2020 studies on have advanced wear coefficient reduction in composites, with integrations achieving dimensionless values below 10^{-8} through superior and tribofilm formation. For instance, 5 wt% in composites demonstrates a 628-fold enhancement in resistance over unreinforced , corresponding to wear rates on the order of 10^{-7} mm³/N·m and enabling superlow wear regimes. These developments highlight 's role in fostering self-lubricating interfaces that sustain ultralow friction and negligible material loss.

Environmental and Operational Conditions

The wear coefficient, as defined relative to material properties such as , is significantly influenced by operational parameters like applied load and sliding speed. Higher loads generally increase the apparent wear coefficient by promoting transitions from mild to severe wear regimes, where plastic deformation and accumulation exceed the linear predictions of basic models; for instance, in abrasive wear of aluminum alloys, wear volume exhibits a dependence on load beyond a critical , leading to an elevated effective coefficient. Sliding speed affects the coefficient through al heating, which causes thermal softening at elevated velocities, thereby accelerating material removal; studies on high-speed show the wear coefficient rising rapidly with speed due to the formation of low-shear interfacial films from softened asperities. Lubrication profoundly alters the wear coefficient by introducing a that separates contacting surfaces, typically reducing it by 10 to 100 times compared to dry conditions through minimized direct asperity interaction and . This stems from the 's ability to form protective layers, such as in lubrication regimes where additives enhance strength and prevent . Environmental factors like and further modulate the wear coefficient, often exacerbating it in harsh conditions. Elevated s soften materials by reducing strength and promoting oxidative reactions, which increase the coefficient by facilitating easier material detachment; for example, in , higher interface temperatures from sliding intensify adhesive wear through thermal degradation. In corrosive or humid environments, chemical wear synergizes with mechanical processes, adding to the effective coefficient via accelerated surface degradation, such as pitting or that weakens the . Recent advancements from 2020 to 2025 highlight surface modifications like texturing as effective for mitigating in operational conditions. -induced micro-textures create dimples or grooves that trap debris, preventing third-body abrasion and lowering the coefficient by isolating particles from the sliding interface; experimental validations on various alloys demonstrate reductions in and rates, with optimal textures achieving up to 50% improvement in sliding .

Applications

Engineering Design

In engineering design, the specific wear rate plays a pivotal role in estimating the of mechanical components, enabling engineers to predict volume loss and determine replacement intervals based on Archard's wear law, which relates wear volume to load, sliding distance, and the material-specific wear coefficient k. The dimensionless wear coefficient k is derived as k = k_s \cdot H, where k_s is the specific wear rate and H is , providing a hardness-normalized metric for comparing wear propensity independent of material strength. For instance, in gear systems, k_s values derived from standardized tests are incorporated into predictive models like those outlined in VDI 2736 to simulate tooth flank wear progression, allowing calculation of operational hours until unacceptable profile changes occur, such as in polymer-steel gear pairs where initial running-in phases are followed by stabilized wear rates informing schedules. Similarly, for and bearings, k_s is used in wear-life analyses to forecast radial clearance increases and limits, with models showing that higher rotational speeds reduce bearing life proportionally, guiding design for applications like automotive transmissions where replacement intervals are set to avoid premature failure. Material selection in high-wear environments heavily relies on comparing k_s values to prioritize low-wear alloys or composites that extend component without compromising other properties like or strength. In automotive systems, engineers select pad materials such as metal-ceramic composites with k_s values below $10^{-5} mm³/Nm to minimize disc under repeated high-load cycles, ensuring compliance with safety standards for pad life exceeding 30,000 km in typical urban driving conditions. This approach balances resistance with consistent coefficients around 0.3-0.4, reducing overall system replacement frequency and particulate emissions. Design optimization processes iteratively integrate k_s to refine geometries and pairings that minimize cumulative , often through finite simulations calibrated against experimental maps. A key example is in total hip implants, where ultra-high molecular weight (UHMWPE) acetabular liners are optimized against or metal femoral heads; typical k_s values for UHMWPE around $10^{-7} mm³/Nm enable predictions of annual rates under 50 mm³/year, informing liner thickness (e.g., 5-7 mm) to achieve 15-20 year implant lifespans while reducing osteolysis risks from debris. coefficients for such designs are typically obtained from pin-on-disk or hip simulator tests to validate optimizations. A practical illustrates the impact of processing on k_s in design: of cold work steels like AISI D2, involving cooling to -196°C followed by tempering, reduces the specific rate by approximately 30-50% compared to conventionally quenched counterparts, enhancing life in high-speed milling operations by forming finer, more uniform carbides that resist . This has been applied in die-making industries to extend replacement intervals from 100 to 150 hours of continuous use, demonstrating quantifiable reliability gains in production environments.

Tribological Research

In tribological research, the specific wear rate k_s serves as a standardized for benchmarking the performance of protective coatings, particularly in high-temperature environments. For instance, studies on (PVD) coatings such as CrAlYN solid solutions have demonstrated significant reductions in k_s through optimized doping and multilayer architectures during elevated-temperature pin-on-disk tests conducted between 2020 and 2024. These tests, often performed at temperatures up to 800°C, highlight how microstructural refinements, including enhanced and oxidation resistance, contribute to k_s decreases compared to baseline CrAlN coatings, establishing k_s as a key indicator for coating efficacy in and applications. Researchers employ k_s variations to elucidate underlying wear mechanisms, correlating higher k_s values (typically $10^{-3} to $10^{-2} mm³/Nm) with abrasive wear modes dominated by ploughing and micro-cutting, while lower k_s (around $10^{-5} to $10^{-4} mm³/Nm) aligns with adhesive wear involving material transfer and galling. This correlation is evident in systematic friction tests where transitions from adhesive to abrasive dominance, observed via scanning electron microscopy of worn surfaces, directly influence k_s by factors of 10 or more, as seen in studies on steel-on-steel contacts under varying loads and lubricants. Such analyses underscore k_s's role in distinguishing wear modes, aiding the development of predictive models for material degradation. Emerging research extends k_s applications to additive-manufactured (AM) components, where anisotropic microstructures from processes like lead to k_s values 2-5 times higher than wrought counterparts due to and layer interfaces promoting . Investigations into surface texturing, such as volcano-shaped dimples on substrates, have shown k_s reductions of up to 40% by trapping debris and enhancing retention, as quantified in reciprocating tests on textured PVD-coated samples. These findings, drawn from 2022-2024 studies, illustrate k_s's utility in optimizing AM parts for tribological reliability in automotive and biomedical fields. Interdisciplinary integration of k_s with friction coefficient \mu enables holistic modeling of tribo-systems, where combined Archard-based wear equations and Stribeck friction curves predict system evolution under dynamic loads. Recent tribo-informatics approaches, incorporating machine learning on datasets from pin-on-disk experiments, achieve prediction accuracies exceeding 90% for both k_s and \mu in nanocomposite systems, facilitating simulations of entire tribo-pairs like bushings in engines. This synergy, emphasized in unified degradation models since 2021, supports comprehensive lifecycle assessments beyond isolated wear analysis.

References

  1. [1]
    Contact and Rubbing of Flat Surfaces | Journal of Applied Physics
    Research Article| August 01 1953. Contact and Rubbing of Flat Surfaces Available. J. F. Archard. J. F. Archard. Research Laboratory, Associated Electrical ...
  2. [2]
    Wear - introduction
    Wear is the deformation and removal of material from its original position on a surface as a result of mechanical action of another surface and/or particles.<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    A mechanistic understanding of the wear coefficient: From single to ...
    This work shines new light on the understanding of wear, potentially opening a pathway for calculating the wear coefficient from first principles.
  5. [5]
    Specific Wear Rate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Specific wear rate (W s ) is defined by the volume difference of the material after wear (V), applied normal load (L), and the sliding distance (D).
  6. [6]
    Wear coefficient – Knowledge and References - Taylor & Francis
    Wear coefficient refers to a numerical value that is obtained by multiplying the specific wear rate and the hardness of the wearing material.
  7. [7]
    Wear-coefficient analyses for polymer-gear life-time predictions
    Sep 15, 2021 · This study evaluates several methods of determining the wear coefficient, ie, pin-on-disc, as well as seven methodologies based on real-scale gear tests.
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
    Tribology Wear - STLE
    Wear is the loss of materials, usually due to sliding. Typically wear is undesirable as it can lead to increased friction and ultimately to component failure.
  10. [10]
    Large scale multi-parameter analysis of wear of self-mated 100Cr6 ...
    Following Archard's law [3,17,18], the wear coefficient k is given by k = H W v s F N , where Wv is the total worn volume of both specimens, FN the normal force ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    Archard Wear Equation: Importance and Formula (2025) - Tribonet
    The Archard wear equation is a fundamental empirical model in tribology that relates wear volume to load, sliding distance, and material hardness.
  13. [13]
    Comparative Evaluation of the Tribological Properties of Polymer ...
    Jan 6, 2023 · This article presents comparative tests of contact strength and tribological wear resistance of polymer sliding materials of the polyamide group.
  14. [14]
    Sliding Wear - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    For the abrasive wear of metals, values of K are typically between 10−3 and 10−1 for two-body abrasion, and from 10−4 to 10−2 for three-body abrasion.
  15. [15]
    Theory of Hardness and Measurements Applicable to Contact ...
    2. Ragnar Holm, “Hardness and its influence on wear.” Lecture at Conference on Friction and Wear, M.I.T., June, 1948 (in press).Missing: studies | Show results with:studies<|control11|><|separator|>
  16. [16]
    The Wear of Polymers - ScienceDirect.com
    1979, Pages 85-139. Treatise on Materials Science & Technology. The Wear of Polymers. Author links open overlay panel D.C. Evans † , J.K. Lancaster. Show more.
  17. [17]
    (PDF) Abrasion Resistance of Polymer Nanocomposites - A Review
    The minimum wear rate was achieved when the nanoparticle loading was 20 wt.%. Another paper from Burris and Sawyer reports on the role of irregular shaped ...
  18. [18]
    An Adaptive Artificial Neural Network Model for Predicting Friction ...
    May 30, 2025 · This study presents a hybrid modeling approach that integrates Kragelsky's friction law and Archard's wear law with an artificial neural ...
  19. [19]
    Archard equation derivation - DoITPoMS
    The Archard equation is where Q is the total volume of wear debris produced per unit distance moved, H is the indentation hardness, W is the total normal load ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  20. [20]
    Determination of Steady-State Adhesive Wear Rate | J. Tribol.
    With the revised Archard's wear equation, a more precise net steady-state wear coefficient can be obtained, to facilitate a better comparison of the wear ...
  21. [21]
    A methodology for the prediction of standard steady-state wear ...
    A wear volume versus distance curve can be divided into at least two regimes, the transient wear regime and the steady-state wear regime. The volume (or weight) ...
  22. [22]
    Archard's wear law revisited to measure accurate wear coefficient ...
    Archard interpreted wear coefficient as a probability to form a wear ... Such as, tribopair of mild steel-mild steel without lubricant, has k = 10 - 2 ...
  23. [23]
    Archard's Law: Foundations, Extensions, and Critiques - MDPI
    Archard's model, while foundational in the sense of contact plasticity, has been widely critiqued for its reliance on a constant wear coefficient, k, which ...
  24. [24]
    Improving Archard's Wear Model: An Energy-Based Approach
    Jul 20, 2024 · Archard theorized that the wear coefficient is a measure of probability of wear particle formation and is determined empirically. This is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    A Contemporary Review and Data-Driven Evaluation of Archard ...
    Mar 20, 2025 · Archard's Wear Law and its variants have remained fundamental to wear prediction for over 70 years, despite frequent criticism regarding their simplicity.
  26. [26]
    [PDF] A further look at Archard's Equation to extract additional information ...
    Archard considered that since the wear rate is independent of the apparent area of contact, an increase in the contact load for the same contact area will ...
  27. [27]
    Wear rate equations | Friction and Wear in Engineering Class Notes
    Wear coefficient quantifies the severity of wear for a given material pair and tribological system · Understanding wear coefficients aids in material selection ...
  28. [28]
    An adhesive wear model based on variations in strength values
    ... wear coefficient values are obtained varying from 5.7 × 10−3 for clean identical metals to 4 × 10−7 for metals lubricated so as to produce a friction ...
  29. [29]
    Basics of tribology - Anton Paar Wiki
    Most commonly, but not invariably, it is defined as the total wear volume divided by the normal force and also divided by the sliding distance. Wear coefficient ...
  30. [30]
    Tribology Testing Services| Friction and Wear - MechAction
    ... wear resistance; K/H ratio is known as the dimensional wear coefficient or the specific wear rate. This is usually quoted in units of (mm3 N−1 m−1). A ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Tribological characterization of PTFE composites for ball bearing ...
    The findings indicate that C25 and PEEK15 exhibit the lowest wear rates among all the composites evaluated, with wear rates ranging from 10−6 to 10−7 mm³/Nm. In ...
  32. [32]
    Calculator - Journal bearing service life. - TRIBOLOGY-ABC
    Bearing load F · N ; Specific wear rate k, 10-15 m2/N ; Sliding velocity v, m/s ; stationary non-stationary ; Average contact pressure p=F/(LD), MPa.
  33. [33]
    Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus
    Nov 14, 2023 · 4.1 The amount of wear in any system will, in general, depend upon the number of system factors such as the applied load, machine ...
  34. [34]
    Standard Test Method for Linearly Reciprocating Ball-on-Flat Sliding ...
    Nov 23, 2022 · This test method covers laboratory procedures for determining the sliding wear of ceramics, metals, and other candidate wear-resistant materials.
  35. [35]
    Ball-on-flat linear reciprocating tests: Critical assessment of wear ...
    Apr 15, 2021 · This work presents a critical assessment of wear volume determination methods for ball-on-flat linear reciprocating sliding tribological tests.
  36. [36]
    Calculation of wear rate - TRIBOLOGY-ABC
    CALCULATION OF WEAR RATE ; A common used equation to compute the wear rate is (Archard,1953). Vi =ki F s. where F is the normal load, s the sliding distance, Vi ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] A physically-based abrasive wear model for composite materials
    Abstract. A simple physically-based model for the abrasive wear of composite materials is presented based on the mechanics and mechanisms.<|control11|><|separator|>
  38. [38]
    Simulating sliding wear with finite element method - ScienceDirect
    It was shown that the FEA wear simulation results of a given geometry and loading can be treated on the basis of wear coefficient−sliding distance change ...
  39. [39]
    Optimization and Finite Element Simulation of Wear Prediction ...
    For the study of wear coefficient, the wear finite element model adopts the Archard wear model. ... Finite element analysis on tehperature field of work ...
  40. [40]
    Computer Simulation/Prediction of Wear in Mechanical Components
    Dec 8, 2020 · Finite element analysis ... Experimental data on the wear coefficient usually have large scatter which may significantly affect the wear ...1. Introduction · 2. Simulation And Prediction... · 2.1. Wear Model
  41. [41]
    Large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of wear in diamond ...
    Aug 16, 2013 · We perform large-scale molecular dynamics simulations on diamond-like carbon to study wear mechanism and law at the nanoscale.
  42. [42]
    Study of friction and wear behaviors of Fe-based amorphous ...
    In this study, molecular dynamics simulation is adopted to investigate the friction and wear mechanism of Fe-based amorphous composited coatings.
  43. [43]
    Molecular dynamics investigation into nanoscale wear ...
    Sep 14, 2025 · In this study, molecular dynamics simulations are employed to investigate the effect of surface roughness (SR) matching on the nanoscale wear ...
  44. [44]
    Machine Learning in Wear Prediction - ASME Digital Collection
    Nov 6, 2024 · Machine learning for wear prediction shows significant potential in optimizing material selection, manufacturing processes, and equipment maintenance.
  45. [45]
    Predictive modelling of wear rates with machine learning
    Jul 2, 2024 · This study uses Machine Learning (ML) techniques to create predictive models for wear rate prediction in HEAs. Five regression models, including ...
  46. [46]
    Multiscale Wear Simulation in Textured, Lubricated Contacts - MDPI
    The results show the wear behavior of textured lubrication gaps. Based on the wear simulations, the tribological behavior of the textured surfaces compared to ...
  47. [47]
    Finite Element Simulations and Statistical Analysis for the ...
    Oct 16, 2024 · Among all the available techniques, the laser surface texturing appears to be fast, clean, and flexible, and thus a good candidate in realizing ...
  48. [48]
    Effect of Laser-Textured Groove Patterns on Friction Reduction and ...
    Additionally, finite element method (FEM) simulations were performed to analyze the resulting contact pressure distributions and stress concentrations induced ...
  49. [49]
    Effect of grain size on friction and wear of nanocrystalline aluminum
    Aug 9, 2025 · In the nanocrystalline grain range, the wear rates were found to be linearly dependent on the square root of the grain size.
  50. [50]
    Effect of Grain Size on the Tribological Behavior of CoCrFeMnNi ...
    Feb 18, 2023 · Therefore, the fine grain size HEA sample has better wear resistance than the CG sample due to its high surface strength. Keywords: high entropy ...
  51. [51]
    Effect of phase composition on microstructure and wear resistance ...
    It was found that the BCC phase had greater hardness and elastic modulus than the FCC phase, so the content of the BCC phase dominated the hardness and wear ...
  52. [52]
    A comparative study of ductile and brittle materials due to single ...
    Jun 15, 2019 · The results showed that for angular particles, the ductile material had a much higher material removal rate than that of the brittle material; ...Missing: coefficient | Show results with:coefficient
  53. [53]
    A Review of the Friction and Wear Behavior of Particle-Reinforced ...
    This review analyzes friction and wear of particle-reinforced aluminum composites, considering internal factors like microstructure and external factors like ...
  54. [54]
    Effect of particle size and weight fraction of SiC on the mechanical ...
    Sep 13, 2022 · The results demonstrated that composites supplemented with coarse SiC particles outperform tiny SiC particles in terms of wear resistance.
  55. [55]
    Microstructure, hardness and wear behavior of ZrC particle ... - Nature
    Nov 16, 2023 · It was also identified that 15 vol% ZrC-reinforced composites exhibited lowest wear rate and friction coefficient under all testing conditions.
  56. [56]
    Suppression of wear in graphene polymer composites - ScienceDirect
    In this paper, we report the ability of graphene platelets to drastically reduce wear rates in PTFE to as low as ∼10−7 mm3/N m which is four orders of ...Missing: superlow | Show results with:superlow
  57. [57]
    Effects of Load and Speed on Wear Rate of Abrasive ... - IOP Science
    Abstract: In this paper, the effects of the normal load and sliding speed on wear rate of two- body abrasive wear for 2014 Al Alloy were investigated in ...
  58. [58]
    A Study of High Speed Friction - DTIC
    This is due to thermal softening, leading to the presence of low shear films at the interface. ... The wear coefficient increases with sliding speed very rapidly.
  59. [59]
    Special Issue : Green Chemistry in Lubrication - MDPI
    Proper lubrication may reduce friction by as much as 10–100 times and wear by 10–1000 times. It has been estimated that, for industrialized countries ...
  60. [60]
    Tribology - the friction and wear of materialsrn (all content)
    The wear rate is high, with metal being removed as metallic droplets. Regime V: Low contact pressure but high sliding speed. The interface temperature is ...
  61. [61]
    Effects of Temperature and Frequency on Fretting Wear Behavior of ...
    Increasing the temperature led to a higher frictional interface temperature, which caused material softening and intensified the adhesive effect at the contact ...
  62. [62]
    A review on wear, corrosion, and wear-corrosion synergy of high ...
    Wear (erosion/abrasion) and corrosion act in synergy in several industrial installations where corrosive fluids circulate together with a solid phase causing ...
  63. [63]
    the role of laser surface texturing in dry and lubricated conditions
    Oct 17, 2024 · A thin oil covering containing h-BN nanoparticles appeared at the contact, which caused a significant decrease in the average wear coefficient.
  64. [64]
    Review of Laser Texturing Technology for Surface Protection and ...
    This review comprehensively examines the application of laser texturing technology for surface protection and functional regulation of aluminum alloys.
  65. [65]
    Achieving ultrastrong-tough CrAlN coatings with low friction ...
    Jul 1, 2024 · In this work, ultrastrong-tough and good wear resistant CrAlYN solid solution coatings were fabricated by a high-throughput cathodic arc ...
  66. [66]
    Experimental, numerical and analytical studies of abrasive wear
    Understanding the correlation between the friction coefficient, particle geometry and wear mechanisms is of primary importance for materials undergoing abrasive ...
  67. [67]
    A Review of Wear in Additive Manufacturing - MDPI
    This review categorizes and summarizes wear issues in additive manufacturing technology, providing a comprehensive overview of wear mechanisms, materials, and ...
  68. [68]
    Investigation on friction and wear performance of volcano-shaped ...
    Aug 5, 2025 · The results showed volcano-shaped texture with suitable diameters and area ratios was conducive to lowering friction coefficient and reducing ...
  69. [69]
    Tribo-informatics approach to predict wear and friction coefficient of ...
    The objective is to predict the wear rate and friction coefficient of Mg/Si 3 N 4 nanocomposites, thus optimizing material design and manufacturing for ...
  70. [70]
    A Unified Treatment of Tribo-Components Degradation Using ... - NIH
    The parameter K is called the Archard wear coefficient. It is defined as “the probability that the asperities of the tribo- pair in sliding motion will deform ...<|control11|><|separator|>