Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

lubricants

Article
Static and Dynamic Friction of Pure and
Friction-Modified PA6 Polymers in Contact with Steel
Surfaces: Influence of Surface Roughness and
Environmental Conditions
Joel Voyer * , Stefan Klien, Igor Velkavrh , Florian Ausserer and Alexander Diem
V-Research GmbH, Stadtstrasse 33, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria; stefan.klien@v-research.at (S.K.);
igor.velkavrh@v-research.at (I.V.); florian.ausserer@v-research.at (F.A.); alexander.diem@v-research.at (A.D.)
* Correspondence: joel.voyer@v-research.at; Tel.: +43-5572-394-159-36

Received: 30 November 2018; Accepted: 13 February 2019; Published: 16 February 2019 

Abstract: In the present study, PA6 polymers with and without solid lubricant inclusions were
investigated against S1100QL steel surfaces that had different surface roughness values—a very
high surface roughness (Rz ≈ 40 µm) and a low surface roughness (Rz ≈ 5 µm). Static and dynamic
friction coefficients were analysed under a series of nominal contact pressures (2.5 to 40 N/mm2 )
considering the influences of polymer water saturation, temperature, counter-body surface roughness
and lubrication. Mechanisms for the observed influences of the respective parameters are provided
and are interpreted from the view of the adhesive and deformative contributions to the friction force.

Keywords: polymer tribology; sliding contacts; surface roughness; adhesion; deformation

1. Introduction
Over the past years, polymers have gained a tremendous interest among the scientific and
industrial communities as an alternative to metals in a variety of engineering applications, mainly due
to their relatively low cost, ease of processing even complex component geometries through a variety
of production processes, chemical inertness, the ability to be used in dry friction and recyclability [1–4].
Additionally to pure polymers, developments of new polymer composites based on commercially
available conventional polymers may result in a new series of materials that have enhanced thermal,
mechanical and tribological properties [1,5–7].
The main mechanisms determining friction forces (and subsequently friction coefficients) for
polymers are adhesion and deformation, as schematically shown in Figure 1. Depending on the
polymer and on its adhesive and mechanical properties, the friction force has a strong dependency on
surface roughness and normal load. For a high number of polymers, adhesive friction is dominant at
low loads but at high loads, deformative friction becomes more important. For polymers with a high
load bearing capability like PA6, the coefficient of friction (COF) mostly decreases with increasing load
because of a change in the dominant friction mechanism.
In some applications, optimized smooth surfaces cannot be produced at economically acceptable
costs; therefore, rough surfaces are often applied. This is especially true for large mechanical structures
using polymer materials and steel counter-bodies. Generally, the formation of a polymer debris transfer
film on intermediate rough steel surfaces can reduce abrasive actions caused by the asperities of the
steel [3]. However, for very high roughness of the steel counter-body, the smoothening of asperities
may be unachievable or may require a significant amount of operating time. At the same time, polymer
wear particles cannot completely fill the valleys and the peaks of the steel surface over long periods of
operation or even during the entire lifetime. The combination of these different phenomena strongly

Lubricants 2019, 7, 17; doi:10.3390/lubricants7020017 www.mdpi.com/journal/lubricants


elasticity. As already published elsewhere [10], the friction force (FR) is a product of the shear
strength τs of the materials and the real contact area (Ar) between both surfaces:
FR ~ τs × Ar (2)
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17the
By assuming presence of a correlation between penetration depth (h of Equation (1)) 2 ofand
14
measured compressive yield stress (σdF), the coefficient of friction resulting from rough surfaces may
be described by the following equation [9]:
affects the static friction of such pairings. Furthermore, the high load-carrying polymers such as
µ = τs/σdF × 1/(F
polyamides (PA) are very sensitive to the environmental humidity
N1−n) due to their high polarity and their
(3)
consequent high intake of water [8]. Therefore, these aspects should also be considered when using
The above equation may be used in order to describe the load dependency of the coefficient of
this type of material pairings in any industrial applications.
friction for polymers on rough surfaces, wherein for polymers the exponent n < 1 [9].

Figure 1. Influence of the surface roughness on the adhesive and deformative components of the
Figure 1. Influence of the surface roughness on the adhesive and deformative components of the
coefficient of friction (COF or µ) (adapted from [9]).
coefficient of friction (COF or µ) (adapted from [9]).
For the presently investigated lubricated surfaces, adhesion effects caused by surface energy can
be2.neglected,
Experimental
because deformation dominates the friction effects. In contrast to plastic-plastic contacts
where Inthethe
surface roughness
present has adifferent
study, two minor significance
PA6 polymerson thewith
friction
andbehaviour, in plastic-metal
without solid contacts
lubricant inclusions
the surface
were roughness
tested against aisS1100QL
essentialsteel
for asurface
good functionality
having a very [9].high surface roughness (Rz ≈ 40 µm) or a
For tribological
normal contacts
roughness value (Rz ≈involving a soft
5 µm). Table polymer
1 lists compressed
some properties of against
both PA6a metallic
materialspartner, the
while Table
surface roughness
2 lists some asperities
properties ofsteel
of the the metallic counterpart
plates used penetrate
for the actual into the polymer
investigations. Values and this
listed in occurs
Table 1
without
were not any deformation
measured of thefrom
but taken surface asperities of data
manufacturer’s the metal
sheetsitself. Under be
and should a simplified assumption
seen as nominal values
of an elastic contact (neglecting any plastic deformation of the polymer), the penetration of a single
roughness peak of the metallic counterpart into a smooth polymer surface can be described by a
Hertz’s equation [9]:
h ~ FN 1/3 × (1 − ν2 )2/3 × E−2/3 (1)

where h is the penetration depth, FN the normal force, ν is the Poisson’s ratio and E is the modulus of
elasticity. As already published elsewhere [10], the friction force (FR ) is a product of the shear strength
τs of the materials and the real contact area (Ar ) between both surfaces:

FR ~ τs × Ar (2)

By assuming the presence of a correlation between penetration depth (h of Equation (1)) and measured
compressive yield stress (σdF ), the coefficient of friction resulting from rough surfaces may be described
by the following equation [9]:
µ = τs /σdF × 1/(FN 1−n ) (3)

The above equation may be used in order to describe the load dependency of the coefficient of friction
for polymers on rough surfaces, wherein for polymers the exponent n < 1 [9].

2. Experimental
In the present study, two different PA6 polymers with and without solid lubricant inclusions were
tested against a S1100QL steel surface having a very high surface roughness (Rz ≈ 40 µm) or a normal
roughness value (Rz ≈ 5 µm). Table 1 lists some properties of both PA6 materials while Table 2 lists
some properties of the steel plates used for the actual investigations. Values listed in Table 1 were
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 3 of 14

not measured but taken from manufacturer’s data sheets and should be seen as nominal values only.
Mechanical properties of the PA6-based polymers under study at 100% water content are not listed in
this table but could be roughly extrapolated from a comparison of the values under dry and normal
(50% relative humidity) conditions. Since properties at 50% humidity are deteriorated in comparison
to properties under dry conditions, it is expected that mechanical properties of PA6 polymers at 100%
water content will be more deteriorated than at 50% relative humidity.

Table 1. Selected properties of both PA6 polymers used for the tribological investigations. 1.

Value
Property Environmental Conditions
Pure PA6 Friction-Modified PA6
dry conditions 85 95
Tensile strength; N/mm2
normal conditions 2 65 70
dry conditions 50 >25
Tearing strength; %
normal conditions 2 120 no data
dry conditions 3700 3500
Modulus of elasticity; N/mm2
normal conditions 2 2800 2800
dry conditions 160 160
Ball pressure hardness; N/mm2
normal conditions 2 125 130
Moisture absorption
— 1.8 1
(23 ◦ C/50%rh); %
1 Values given are nominal values determined by the manufacturer; 2 Normal conditions: 23◦ C/50%rh.

Table 2. Selected properties of steel plates used for the tribological investigations.

Property Value
Manufacturer/Product ID S1100QL (1.8942)
Surface pre-treatment Zn-based primer 1
38 µm (roughened);
Surface roughness Rz
5 µm (grinded)
1 Two-component solvent-borne zinc ethyl silicate primer used for corrosion protection.

The pure PA6 material consisted of normal commercially available PA6. The friction-modified
PA6 consisted of the same pure PA6 to which 6 wt % of solid lubricants (PTFE particles + oil) were
added in order to enhance its frictional properties. It is worth noting again that both PA6 materials
were commercially purchased and no further treatments (besides the change of their water contents)
were performed on them by the authors, that is, the friction-modified PA6 was not developed by the
authors and the actual process used for the addition of PTFE and oil to PA6 may not be divulgated
in the present manuscript since this is proprietary to the manufacturer. Both PTFE and oil added to
the friction-modified PA6 polymer act as lubricants in order to minimize the friction coefficient: oil
addition is aimed for a fast-delivery lubricating action, while PTFE is responsible for long-duration
lubricating effects.
As mentioned previously, the steel plates consisted of S1100QL, which is also denominated as
1.8942 steel. The choice of this steel was based on the fact that the actual study is part of an industrially
financed research project, in which this steel was used as the main counter body in the tribological
application. These plates were firstly surface treated using a Zn-based primer in order to enhance their
corrosion resistance, as usually performed for the actual industrial application. Prior to this surface
treatment, the blank steel surface was either roughened or grinded in order to obtain different surface
roughness values. The roughening procedure enabled the production of very rough steel surfaces with
roughness values of Rz ≈ 40 µm, while through the grinding process, it was possible to obtain very
smooth steel surface with roughness values of Rz ≈ 5 µm. Surface roughness of investigated steel
plates were measured using a commercially available non-contact 3D optical interferometer (µSurf,
NanoFocus AG, Oberhausen, Germany). It is worth noting here that both represented topographies
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 4 of 14

Lubricants
of 2017,
the steel 5, x FOR
plate PEER REVIEW
correspond to extreme cases encountered in the actual industrial application: 4 of 13
the
roughened topography (rough steel surface) corresponds to the steel surface before its implementation
surface
in before its and
the application implementation in the application
the grinded pattern (smooth steel and the grinded
surface) patternto(smooth
corresponds the steelsteel surface)
surface after
corresponds to the steel surface after years of use. Therefore, both surface topographies
years of use. Therefore, both surface topographies were chosen in order to study any possible effect were chosen
on
in order
their to study
friction any possible effect on their friction behaviour.
behaviour.
Prior to
Prior to perform
perform the the tribological
tribological tests,
tests, PA6
PA6 samples
samples of of both
both types
types (pure
(pure and
and friction-modified)
friction-modified)
were conditioned in order to modify their water content, which actually
were conditioned in order to modify their water content, which actually also results in a changealso results in a change of
of their
their mechanical
mechanical properties,
properties, as listedasinlisted
Table in Table 1.PA6
1. Several Several PA6were
samples samples
put inwere put in
a furnace at aa temperature
furnace at a
temperature
◦ of 70°C and 0%rh for several hours until their weight was stable,
of 70 C and 0%rh for several hours until their weight was stable, that is, until no weight change that is, until no weight
due to
change due to water loss could be measured. These dried samples are thereafter
water loss could be measured. These dried samples are thereafter denominated as 0%-water saturated denominated as
0%-water
or saturated
dried samples. On or
thedried
othersamples.
hand, otherOnPA6the samples
other hand,wereother PA6 in
immersed samples were
water at immersed of
a temperature in
water
◦ at a temperature of 80°C for a total duration of approximately 120
80 C for a total duration of approximately 120 h. This previously optimized duration was determinedhours. This previously
optimized
by weighingduration
the sampleswas before
determined by weighing
the immersion the samples
process before
and at each hourthe
of immersion
wetting untilprocess
stable and
waterat
each hour was
saturation of wetting
reached.until stable water
Depending saturation
on the was reached.
PA6 material Depending
used (pure on the PA6 material
or friction-modified), used
the highest
(pure or friction-modified), the highest total water saturation was ranging
total water saturation was ranging between 5 wt % and 6.5 wt %, as shown in Figure 2. These wet between 5 wt % and 6.5
wt %, asare
samples shown in Figure
hereafter 2. These wet
denominated samples
as water are hereafter
saturated or wet denominated
samples. as water saturated or wet
samples.

Figure 2. Measured moisture content of investigated pure and friction-modified PA6 polymers in
Figure 2. Measured moisture content of investigated pure and friction-modified PA6 polymers in
function of water immersion time.
function of water immersion time.
Both static and dynamic frictional test measurements were conducted on a universal modular
Both tribometer
designed static and dynamic
(RVM1000, frictional
Wernertest measurements
Stehr Tribologie, were conductedGermany),
Horb-Ahldorf, on a universal modular
as shown in
designed tribometer (RVM1000, Werner Stehr Tribologie, Horb-Ahldorf,
Figure 3a, using contact geometry as shown in Figure 3b. Figure 3c,d show a detailed view of the Germany), as shown in
Figure 3a, using contact geometry as shown in Figure 3b. Figure 3c,d show
geometry of the PA6 samples used in these tribological tests and the actual shape of both lips in contact a detailed view of the
geometry
with of the
the steel platePA6 samples used
is rectangular andinis these tribological
schematically shown testsinand the 3d.
Figure actual
Each shape
lip hasof dimensions
both lips in
contact
of 1.5 × 7withmmthe steel plate
resulting is rectangular
in a contact and is schematically
area of approximately 10.5 mm shown in Figure
2 for each lip and3d. Eachnominal
a total lip has
dimensions of 1.5 × 7 mm resulting in a contact area of approximately
2
contact area per polymer sample (for both lips) of 21 mm . The contact track of each lip does not 10.5 mm 2 for each lip and a

total nominal
interfere with the contact
trackarea perother
of the polymer sample
lip, in other (for
words,both
thelips)
lip of 21 mm
tracks
2. The contact track of each lip
do not overlap each other. Static
does not interfere with the track of the other lip, in other
and dynamic friction was analysed under a series of nominal contact pressures (from words, the lip tracks do 40
notN/mm
overlap each
2 down

to 2.5 N/mm ), which were steadily decreased during the tests, as schematically shown in Figure40
other. Static and
2 dynamic friction was analysed under a series of nominal contact pressures (from 4.
N/mm 2 down to 2.5 N/mm2), which were steadily decreased during the tests, as schematically shown
This procedure of reducing (instead of increasing) the nominal contact pressures during tribological
in Figure
testing was4. chosen
This procedure
in order of to reducing
eliminate(instead of increasing)
any additional plasticthe nominal contact
deformation pressures
variations (which during
may
tribological testing was chosen in order to eliminate any additional
occur at high contact pressure values) during a measurement cycle. The influences of polymer water plastic deformation variations
(which maycounter-body
saturation, occur at highsurface contactroughness,
pressure values) during
lubrication andatemperature
measurement cycle.
were alsoThe influences as
investigated, of
polymer water saturation, counter-body surface roughness, lubrication and
listed in Table 3 which also lists the main testing parameters used for the tribological tests. It is worth temperature were also
investigated,
noting that theastimelisted in Table
duration of 3each
which
loadalso
steplists
wasthe mainin
chosen testing
orderparameters
to have durationused for the tribological
as long as possible
in order to obtain stable and statistically significant friction values and on the other hand duration
tests. It is worth noting that the time duration of each load step was chosen in order to have as short
as long as possible in order to obtain stable and statistically significant friction values and on the
other hand as short as possible in order to minimize or eliminate any occurrence of wear
mechanisms that could have significantly impaired or interfered with a correct friction analysis.
Furthermore, due to the soft nature of PA6 samples in comparison to the primer-coated steel used,
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 5 of 14

as possible in order to minimize or eliminate any occurrence of wear mechanisms that could have
significantly
Lubricants 2017, impaired or interfered
5, x FOR PEER REVIEW with a correct friction analysis. Furthermore, due to the soft nature
5 of 13
Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13
of PA6 samples in comparison to the primer-coated steel used, no wear or topographical changes of the
no wear
steel mayor topographical
have changes
occurred under of the steel testing
the investigated may have occurred
conditions. under the
Therefore, no investigated testing
wear investigations
no wear
conditions. or topographical
Therefore, changes of the steel may have occurred under the investigated testing
of PA6 or steel samplesno wear
were investigations
performed in thisofstudy.
PA6 or steel samples were performed in this study.
conditions. Therefore, no wear investigations of PA6 or steel samples were performed in this study.

Figure 3. Test setup used for the tribological investigations: (a) modular designed tribometer, (b)
Figure
Figure 3. Test setupused
3. Test usedfor
forthe
thetribological
tribological investigations: (a) (a) modular designed tribometer,
close-ups of thesetup
testing geometry, (c) close-up ofinvestigations:
the tested samples modular designed
geometry and (d)tribometer,
dimensions(b)
of
(b) close-ups
close-ups of of the
the testing
testing geometry,
geometry, (c)(c) close-upofofthe
close-up thetested
testedsamples
samplesgeometry
geometryand
and (d)
(d) dimensions
dimensions of
of
the upper polymer sample.
the
the upper
upper polymer
polymer sample.
sample.

Figure 4. Schematic of the load-decreasing tribological tests performed to determine the static and
Figure 4. Schematic of the load-decreasing tribological tests performed to determine the static and
dynamic
Figure 4. friction coefficients
Schematic of both PA6 polymers
of the load-decreasing against
tribological steel
tests plates (surface
performed contactthe
to determine pressure p in
static and
dynamic friction coefficients of both PA6 polymers against steel plates (surface contact pressure p in
MPa as
dynamic a function
friction of time t in
coefficients minutes).
of both PA6 polymers against steel plates (surface contact pressure p in
MPa as a function of time t in minutes).
MPa as a function of time t in minutes).
Table 3. Selected test parameters used for the tribological investigations.
Table 3. Selected test parameters used for the tribological investigations.
Property Value
NominalProperty
contact pressure 2.5 N/mm2Value
≤ x ≤ 40 N/mm2
Nominal contact pressure
Nominal contact area 2.5 N/mm 2 ≤ x ≤ 40 N/mm2
≈21 mm2
Nominal
Sliding contact
velocity area
(average) ≈0.2
21 mm
m/s
2

Sliding velocity
Stroke (average) 0.2 m/s
24 mm
Stroke
Total test duration 1524 mm
minutes
Total test duration
Temperature 15 °C;
22 minutes
80 °C
Temperature 22 calcium
grease lubricated (mineral oil, °C; 80 °Ccomplex soap, NLGI class 2);
Lubrication grease lubricated
Lubrication none(mineral oil, calcium
(unlubricated: only complex
for Rz ≈ 5soap,
µm) 1NLGI class 2);
1
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 6 of 14

Table 3. Selected test parameters used for the tribological investigations.


Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
Property Value
1 Unlubricated tribological investigations were conducted only against smooth steel plates (Rz ≈ 5
Nominal contact pressure 2.5 N/mm ≤ x ≤ 40 N/mm2
2
µm), for which wear
Nominal contact area of pure and friction-modified PA6 materials
≈21 mm in 2dry or wet conditions was
relatively small.
Sliding velocity (average) 0.2 m/s
Stroke 24 mm
TheTotal
main analysis
test durationof the obtained raw friction data consisted of the determination of static and
15 minutes
dynamic coefficients
Temperature of friction. This was performed firstly by searching
22 C; 80 ◦ C
◦ the initial peak in the
friction values at the beginning of each
Lubrication
greasecycle and at(mineral
lubricated the turning pointcomplex
oil, calcium (end ofsoap,
stroke);
NLGIboth
classpoints
2);
1
corresponding to the onset of motion of the none (unlubricated:
samples and these onlytwo z ≈ 5 µm)
for Rstatic friction values are
1 Unlubricated tribological (Rz ≈ 5 coefficients
identified by arrows in investigations
Figure 5a. were
On conducted
the otheronly againstthe
hand, smooth steel plates
dynamic friction µm), for which were
wear of pure and friction-modified PA6 materials in dry or wet conditions was relatively small.
calculated by averaging the raw sliding friction values between both turning points for each cycle. In
order to take into account only stable raw sliding friction values, a time window eliminating 10% of
The main analysis of the obtained raw friction data consisted of the determination of static and
the values at the beginning and at the end of a half-cycle was used, as shown by the green zones in
dynamic coefficients of friction. This was performed firstly by searching the initial peak in the friction
Figure 5a. That means that the sliding COF is an average value over a range of different velocities as
values at the beginning of each cycle and at the turning point (end of stroke); both points corresponding
they occur due to the sinusoidal movement. With this calculation, the influence of the sliding
to the onset of motion of the samples and these two static friction values are identified by arrows in
velocity on the COF is lost but as it can be observed in Figure 5a, there is only a minor influence of
Figure 5a. On the other hand, the dynamic friction coefficients were calculated by averaging the raw
the sliding velocity on the COF within the used velocity regime. It is important to note that the
sliding friction values between both turning points for each cycle. In order to take into account only
diagram shown in Figure 5a shows only 1 complete linear reciprocating cycle of the corresponding
stable raw sliding friction values, a time window eliminating 10% of the values at the beginning and
tests at different contact pressures. It is also worth noting that the analysis of the raw signals was
at the end of a half-cycle was used, as shown by the green zones in Figure 5a. That means that the
performed not only on 1 cycle but the COF values were averaged over all 5 strokes of each load step
sliding COF is an average value over a range of different velocities as they occur due to the sinusoidal
and within each load step, no specific trends in the measured COF values could be observed.
movement. With this calculation, the influence of the sliding velocity on the COF is lost but as it can
Figure 5b shows an example of the obtained values for the static (black) and dynamic (red)
be observed in Figure 5a, there is only a minor influence of the sliding2 velocity on the COF within
friction coefficients over the whole contact pressure range (2.5 N/mm to 40 N/mm2) under study.
the used velocity regime. It is important to note that the diagram shown in Figure 5a shows only 1
The middle solid lines represent the averages of at least two tests and the coloured regions around
complete linear reciprocating cycle of the corresponding tests at different contact pressures. It is also
the averages represent the variance of the obtained friction data. In the following sections, a certain
worth noting that the analysis of the raw signals was performed not only on 1 cycle but the COF values
number of diagrams do not show any coloured regions around the average curves: for these results,
were averaged over all 5 strokes of each load step and within each load step, no specific trends in the
only one tribological test was conducted and therefore, no statistical analysis could be performed
measured COF values could be observed.
nor presented.

(a) (b)
Figure 5.5. (a)
Figure (a) Diagram describing the
Diagram describing analysis performed
the analysis performed on on raw
raw friction
friction results
results used
used for
for the
the
determination of the static and dynamic friction coefficients (example shown:
determination of the static and dynamic friction coefficients (example shown: 1 complete linear1 complete linear
reciprocating cycle
reciprocating cycle for
for pure
pure PA6
PA6against
againstrough
roughsteel withRRz z ≈≈ 40
steelwith 40 µm
µm at at three
three different
different contact
contact
pressures: 5,5,20
pressures: 20and
and40 N/mm22) and (b) example of analysis
40N/mm analysis results
results over
over the
the whole
whole contact
contact pressure
pressure
range(example
range (exampleshown:
shown:pure
purePA6
PA6against
againstrough
roughsteel
steelwith
withRRz z≈≈ 40 µm).

Figureand
3. Results 5b shows an example of the obtained values for the static (black) and dynamic (red) friction
Discussions
coefficients over the whole contact pressure range (2.5 N/mm2 to 40 N/mm2 ) under study. The middle
The aforementioned surface pre-treatment processes performed on the steel plates have a
solid lines represent the averages of at least two tests and the coloured regions around the averages
significant influence on their obtained surface roughness values, as shown in Figure 6. As expected,
the roughening process produced the highest surface roughness values (Rz ≈ 40 µm) while the
grinding process induced the lowest surface roughness (Rz ≈ 5 µm). Furthermore, through a detailed
observation of the topographies, one may see that the surface roughness of the roughened samples
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 7 of 14

represent the variance of the obtained friction data. In the following sections, a certain number of
diagrams do not show any coloured regions around the average curves: for these results, only one
Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
tribological test was conducted and therefore, no statistical analysis could be performed nor presented.

(Figure 6a)and
3. Results possess a stochastic surface structure while samples processed through grinding (Figure
Discussions
6b) possess a strongly oriented surface structure in the form of parallel lines. Both observed surface
The aforementioned surface pre-treatment processes performed on the steel plates have a
structures are well known in the literature and are typical for the processes used.
significant
Figureinfluence on their
7 shows static obtained
friction surface roughness
coefficients and Figurevalues,
8 showsasdynamic
shown infriction
Figure coefficients
6. As expected,
for
the roughening process produced the highest surface roughness
both PA6 materials (pure and friction-modified) at both water saturation levels values (R z ≈ 40 while
µm)and
(0% the
100%)
grindinga process
against rough steelinduced
platethe
(Rlowest surface roughness (Rz ≈ 5 µm). Furthermore, through a detailed
z ≈ 40 µm) under lubricated conditions at 22°C. First of all, as shown
observation
earlier of the topographies,
by Equation (3), described elsewhereone may see [9]that
andthe surfaceinroughness
observed Figures 7 of
andthe8,roughened samples
a load dependency
Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
(Figure 6a) possess a stochastic surface structure while samples processed through grinding
of the coefficient of friction may be observed for both static and dynamic frictions. Due to a nonlinear (Figure 6b)
possess a strongly
behaviour oriented surface structure in the form ofcoefficient
parallel lines. Both observed surface
(Figure 6a)between
possess afriction force
stochastic and
surface normal
structure load,
while the
samples processed of friction
through decreases with
grinding (Figure
structures
increasing are well
normal known
load in
[11]. the literature and are typical for the processes used.
6b) possess a strongly oriented surface structure in the form of parallel lines. Both observed surface
structures are well known in the literature and are typical for the processes used.
Figure 7 shows static friction coefficients and Figure 8 shows dynamic friction coefficients for
both PA6 materials (pure and friction-modified) at both water saturation levels (0% and 100%)
against a rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm) under lubricated conditions at 22°C. First of all, as shown
earlier by Equation (3), described elsewhere [9] and observed in Figures 7 and 8, a load dependency
of the coefficient of friction may be observed for both static and dynamic frictions. Due to a nonlinear
behaviour between friction force and normal load, the coefficient of friction decreases with
increasing normal load [11].
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Typical
Figure 6. Typicaltopographies
topographies and
and measured
measured surface
surface roughness
roughness values
values of (a) roughened
of (a) roughened (rough
(rough surface:
surface:
Rz ≈ 40 R z ≈ 40
µm) andµm)
(b)and (b) grinded
grinded (smooth(smooth
surface:surface:
Rz ≈ 5 R z ≈ 5
µm) µm)plates.
steel steel plates.

Figure 7 shows static friction coefficients and Figure 8 shows dynamic friction coefficients for
both PA6 materials (pure and friction-modified) at both water saturation levels (0% and 100%) against
a rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm) under lubricated conditions at 22◦ C. First of all, as shown earlier
by Equation (3), described elsewhere [9] and observed in Figures 7 and 8, a load dependency of
the coefficient of friction may be (a)observed for both static and (b)
dynamic frictions. Due to a nonlinear
behaviour between friction force and normal load, the coefficient of friction decreases with increasing
Figure 6. Typical topographies and measured surface roughness values of (a) roughened (rough
normal load [11].
surface: Rz ≈ 40 µm) and (b) grinded (smooth surface: Rz ≈ 5 µm) steel plates.

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Static friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40
µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Static
Figure Staticfriction
friction
of of investigated
investigated PA6PA6 polymers
polymers against
against a lubricated
a lubricated roughrough steel (R
steel plate plate
z ≈ (R ≈ 40
40zµm)
µm)
for forwater
both both water saturation
saturation levels levels
(0%, 100%) at 22◦ C:
(0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a)PA6
(a) pure pureand
PA6(b)and (b) friction-modified
friction-modified PA6. PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Dynamic friction of investigated PA6 against a lubricated rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm) for
both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified PA6.
(a) (b)
Figure
Lubricants 2019,7.
7, Static
17 friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40
8 of 14
µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure8.8.Dynamic
Figure Dynamicfriction
frictionofofinvestigated
investigatedPA6PA6against
againsta alubricated
lubricatedrough
rough steel
steel plate
plate (R(R z ≈40
z ≈ 40µm)
µm)for
for
bothwater
both watersaturation
saturationlevels
levels(0%,
(0%,100%) ◦ C: (a)
100%)atat2222°C: (a)pure
purePA6PA6and
and(b)
(b)friction-modified
friction-modifiedPA6.PA6.

For both investigated polymers at low normal loads, static friction coefficients were higher for
wet (100% water saturation) than for dry (0% water saturation) samples, due to the softening of the
polymer through higher water absorption and the consequent higher induced deformative friction
(Figure 7). However, for friction-modified PA6 at high contact pressures (Figure 7b), this friction
increase due to moisture was not observed anymore, since penetration depths of the steel plates into
the highly moisturized PA6 polymer reach a saturation state and therefore the compressive yield stress
of the polymers determines mostly the friction behaviour.
Again for both investigated polymers, dynamic friction coefficients were approximately similar
for wet (100% water saturation) and for dry (0% water saturation) samples. A detailed explanation
of these behaviours resides in the fact that a low moisture content in PA6 polymers leads to a higher
E-modulus and compressive yield stress, resulting in a lower penetration depth when using the
previously presented Equations (1) and (3) and therefore at low loads, providing a lower coefficient of
friction. For PA6 polymers with higher moisture content, the contrary occurs: a lower E-modulus and
compressive yield stress results at low loads in a higher coefficient of friction. Although at high loads,
roughness asperities penetrate deeper into the polymer with the higher moisture content, the resulting
shear forces are lower. On the other hand for the material with the low moisture content, the shear
forces grow disproportionately with increasing loads, whereby the coefficient of friction for the low
moisture content material at high load is higher than with the lower moisture content.
By comparing curves shown in Figures 7 and 8 (Figs. a versus Figs. b), it may be observed that at
0% water saturation (black curves), both static and dynamic friction coefficients of both PA6 materials
(pure and friction-modified) are almost similar but for 100% water saturation, both materials possess
quite different friction behaviours. The overall behaviours of both polymers may be observed in
Figure 9, which shows the difference between both static and dynamic frictions: a higher stick-slip
tendency [12] may be observed at low normal loads for both PA6 materials at the higher water content
(100% water saturation). Overall, the experimental investigations involving both PA6 polymers against
rough surfaces (Rz ≈ 40 µm) have shown that depending on the moisture content of the PA6 polymers,
their mechanical properties are determinant for the static friction force values. It is worth noting that
the results obtained and presented in Figures 7–9 from the tribological tests performed against a rough
steel surface (Rz ≈ 40 µm) are difficult to compare with previously published results from the scientific
community because such rough surfaces are usually not the focus of tribological investigations.
higher water content (100% water saturation). Overall, the experimental investigations involving
both PA6 polymers against rough surfaces (Rz ≈ 40 µm) have shown that depending on the moisture
content of the PA6 polymers, their mechanical properties are determinant for the static friction force
values. It is worth noting that the results obtained and presented in Figures 7–9 from the tribological
tests performed against a rough steel surface (Rz ≈ 40 µm) are difficult to compare with previously
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 9 of 14
published results from the scientific community because such rough surfaces are usually not the
focus of tribological investigations.

(a) (b)
Figure9.9. Difference
Figure Difference between
between static
static and
and dynamic
dynamic frictions
frictions of
of investigated
investigated PA6
PA6 polymers
polymers against
against aa

lubricated
lubricatedrough
roughsteel
steelplate (Rz z≈
plate(R ≈ 40 µm)
µm) for both
both water
water saturations
saturations (0%,
(0%, 100%)
100%) at
at 22 C: (a)
22°C: (a) pure
pure PA6
PA6
and
and(b)
(b)friction-modified
friction-modifiedPA6.
PA6.

Results
Resultsobtained
obtainedfromfrominvestigations
investigationsof ofboth
bothPA6
PA6materials
materials(pure
(pureand
andfriction-modified)
friction-modified)at atboth
both
water saturation levels (0% and 100%) against a smooth steel plate (R ≈ 5 µm) under
water saturation levels (0% and 100%) against a smooth steel plate (Rz ≈ 5 µm) under lubricated and
z lubricated
and unlubricated conditions ◦ are shown in Figure 10 (static friction coefficients) and in
unlubricated conditions at 22 at
°C22are C
shown in Figure 10 (static friction coefficients) and in Figure 11
Figure
(dynamic 11 (dynamic friction coefficients).
friction coefficients). It is worth It is noting
worth noting hereunlubricated
here that that unlubricated tribological
tribological tests10tests
were
Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 13
were conducted only for both PA6 materials against smooth steel plates (R
conducted only for both PA6 materials against smooth steel plates (Rz ≈ 5 µm), for which z ≈ 5 µm), for which
it wasit
was observed that their wear in both dry and wet conditions was minimal and thus, any influence of
polymers, a supplementary reduction of the adhesive friction is achieved through the lubricated
occurring wear mechanism could be discarded from the analysis of the friction behaviour.
conditions, rendering a significant decrease of the overall friction coefficients.

(a) (b)
Figure10.
Figure 10.Static
Staticfriction
frictionofofinvestigated
investigatedPA6
PA6polymers
polymersagainst
againsta alubricated
lubricatedandandunlubricated
unlubricatedsmooth
smooth
steelplate
plate(R(R ◦
steel z z≈≈ 55 µm)
µm) for
for both
both water
water saturation
saturation levels
levels (0%,
(0%, 100%)
100%) at
at 22
22°C: (a) pure
C: (a) pure PA6
PA6and
and(b)
(b)
friction-modifiedPA6.
friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. Dynamic friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated and unlubricated
smooth steel plate (Rz ≈ 5 µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Static friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated and unlubricated smooth
steel
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17(Rz ≈ 5 µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b)
plate 10 of 14
friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Static friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated and unlubricated smooth
steel plate (Rz ≈ 5 µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b)
friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure11.
Figure 11.Dynamic
Dynamic friction
friction of investigated
of investigated PA6 PA6 polymers
polymers againstagainst a lubricated
a lubricated and unlubricated
and unlubricated smooth
smooth
steel steel
plate (Rzplate
≈ 5 (R z ≈ for
µm) 5 µm)bothforwater
both saturation
water saturation
levels levels (0%, 100%)
(0%, 100%) ◦
at 22 atC:22°C: (a) pure
(a) pure PA6PA6
and and
(b)
(b) friction-modified
friction-modified PA6.PA6.

A comparison of results for the lubricated conditions presented in Figures 10–12 with previous
results presented in Figures 7–9 shows that a reduction of the surface roughness (from Rz ≈ 40 µm to
(a)
Rz ≈ 5 µm) leads to a reduction of the coefficient of friction, which is mostly(b) due to a decrease of the
penetration depth of the steel surface into the polymers: the deformative
Figure 11. Dynamic friction of investigated PA6 polymers against a lubricated part of friction is drastically
and unlubricated
reduced and steel
smooth the adhesive
plate (Rz ≈ part
5 µm)offor
friction is also
both water negligible,
saturation levelsdue
(0%,to the lubricated
100%) conditions
at 22°C: (a) pure PA6 and used
during(b)the tribological tests.
friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure 12. Difference between static and dynamic frictions of investigated PA6 polymers against a
lubricated or unlubricated smooth steel plate (Rz ≈ 5 µm) for both water saturations (0%, 100%) at
22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified PA6.

(a) (b)
Figure12.
Figure 12.Difference
Differencebetween
betweenstatic
staticand
anddynamic
dynamicfrictions
frictionsofofinvestigated
investigatedPA6
PA6polymers
polymersagainst
againstaa
lubricatedororunlubricated
lubricated unlubricatedsmooth
smoothsteel
steelplate
plate(R(R
z ≈
z ≈ 5
5 µm)
µm) for
for both
both water
water saturations
saturations (0%,
(0%, 100%)atat
100%)

22°C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified
22 C: (a) pure PA6 and (b) friction-modified PA6.PA6.

On the other hand, when comparing the same results for the dry samples under unlubricated
conditions (Figures 10–12 with Figures 7–9), a reduction of the surface roughness (from Rz ≈ 40 µm
to Rz ≈ 5 µm) leads to a significant increase of the coefficient of friction, which is due to the fact that
PA6 is highly polar and under predominantly adhesive sliding conditions (smooth steel surfaces, low
contact pressure values and no lubrication), the adhesive frictional part plays a dominant role in the
overall friction, as also reported elsewhere [6,7,13].
Results obtained for both PA6-based materials investigated in the present study are quite
comparable with previously published work in which the testing parameters were different than
those of the present study. Sliding coefficients of friction of 0.3 to 0.4 were reported for PA6.6 against
100Cr6-steel with a Rz ≈ 3 µm under dry unlubricated conditions at a velocity of 0.5 mm/s and at
room temperature for contact pressures of 1 MPa and 8 MPa respectively [13]; results which are slightly
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 11 of 14

higher than the values presented in Figure 11a (blue curve for PA6, 0% humidity, unlubricated: µ ≈
0.28 at 2.5 MPa and µ ≈ 0.23 at 8 MPa). In another study [7], static coefficients of friction ranging
between 0.35 and 0.50 and sliding coefficients of friction ranging between 0.25 and 0.35 were reported
for PA6 and PA6.6 against carbon steel (S235JR) with a Rz ≈ 5 µm under dry unlubricated conditions at
a velocity of 10 mm/s and at room temperature for a contact pressure of 10 MPa. These results are quite
comparable with the values presented in Figure 10a (blue curve for PA6, 0% humidity, unlubricated:
static µ ≈ 0.30 at 10 MPa) and Figure 11a (blue curve for PA6, 0% humidity, unlubricated: sliding
µ ≈ 0.23 at 10 MPa). The small discrepancies between the results of the present study and results from
both mentioned previously published works are believed to be due to the differences in the testing
parameters used, especially the test velocity.
By comparing results from pure PA6 to results from friction-modified PA6 shown in Figures 10–12,
one may observe that for medium and high surface contact pressure values, both PA6 materials possess
similar friction coefficients (static, dynamic and difference between both of them) independently of the
other varied tests conditions (water saturation or lubrication status of the tribological contact). These
results show that, at these medium and high contact pressure values, the mechanical properties of
PA6 polymers have only a minor influence on their overall friction behaviour. On the other hand, for
low surface pressures, some differences between both PA6 materials may be easily observed. Firstly,
for unlubricated contacts at 0% water saturation, slight differences could be identified between both
PA6 materials. For unlubricated conditions at 100% water saturation, friction-modified PA6 exhibits
slightly lower stiction and dynamic friction coefficients than pure PA6, showing that the latter possess
a higher tendency for stick-slip. For lubricated contacts at 0% water saturation, static and dynamic
friction coefficients of pure PA6 are lightly higher than those of friction-modified PA6 and at 100%
water saturation, an opposite behaviour may be observed: static and dynamic friction coefficients of
pure PA6 are lightly lower than the values obtained for friction-modified PA6. A comparison of the
diagrams shown in Figure 12 (difference between static and dynamic frictions) shows clearly that for
PA6 against a smooth steel surface (Rz ≈ 5 µm) under lubricated conditions, both PA6 polymers shows
similar trends and approximately equivalent values independently of the water content and that under
unlubricated conditions, pure PA6 tends to have a higher tendency to stick-slip than friction-modified
PA6. These behaviours are due to the fact that against a smooth steel surface, the deformative part
of friction is significantly reduced through a lower indentation of the steel surface into the polymer.
Furthermore, for the friction-modified PA6, the enhanced mechanical properties contribute to a further
reduction of the deformative friction. Additionally, to these reductions of the deformative friction
for both PA6 polymers, a supplementary reduction of the adhesive friction is achieved through the
lubricated conditions, rendering a significant decrease of the overall friction coefficients.
To perform a more detailed analysis of the obtained results, the effect of the water saturation level
of both PA6 materials under study may be analysed by comparing the results shown in Figures 10–12.
For pure PA6 under lubricated conditions, static (Figure 10a), dynamic (Figure 11a) and resulting
difference between both friction coefficients (Figure 12a) are approximately similar between wet
samples (100% water saturation) and dry samples (0% water saturation), while under unlubricated
conditions, static and dynamic friction coefficients are higher for the wet samples but the difference
between both coefficients are similar. These behaviours are again mainly due to the relationship
between indentation depth of steel and softening of the pure PA6 at high water content levels. For
friction-modified PA6 under lubricated conditions, static (Figure 10b) and dynamic (Figure 11b) friction
coefficients are higher for the wet samples at low loads only but the difference between both coefficients
(Figure 12b) is similar, while under unlubricated conditions, static, dynamic and difference between
both friction coefficients are approximately similar between wet samples (100% water saturation) and
dry samples (0% water saturation). Again, these behaviours are mainly due to the relationship between
indentation depth of steel and to the enhanced mechanical properties of the friction-modified PA6.
Furthermore, results shown in Figure 12 deliver a more obvious confirmation that the water saturation
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 12 of 14

level does not have an important influence on the overall friction behaviour of both PA6 materials
under study.
To perform a more detailed analysis of the obtained results, the influence of the use of lubrication
in the tribological contact may be analysed by comparing results shown in Figures 10–12. In these
diagrams, it may be observed that tests performed under lubricated conditions at a specific water
saturation level deliver similar friction behaviours for pure PA6 but small divergences are observed for
the friction-modified PA6 at low surface contact pressure values. On the other hand, for tests performed
under unlubricated conditions, different friction behaviours are observed. For the friction-modified
PA6, both static (Figure 10b) and dynamic (Figure 11b) frictions are, independently from the water
saturation level, slightly higher for the unlubricated than for the lubricated conditions but the overall
difference between static and dynamic frictions (Figure 12b) stays approximately equivalent. For the
pure PA6, a significant increase of static (Figure 10a), dynamic (Figure 11a) as well as the difference
between both frictions coefficients (Figure 12a), independently from the water saturation level, may be
observed when performing the tests under unlubricated conditions in comparison to lubricated ones.
This behaviour is due to the well-known ability of lubricants to lower the adhesive part of friction.
Figure 13 shows the influence of the test temperature (22 ◦ C or 80 ◦ C) on both coefficients of
friction (Figure 13a: static; Figure 13b: dynamic) of both PA6 polymers in both investigated water
saturation levels (0% and 100%) against a rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm) under lubricated conditions.
It is worth noting here that the results of the influence of temperature are only presented for tests
performed against a rough steel plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm), since the major differences were observed for
this surface roughness value and also in order to keep the actual manuscript as short and concise
as possible but similar results were obtained and similar conclusions as those presented for tests
performed against a rough steel plate may be drawn for both polymers against a smooth steel plate
(R z ≈ 5 µm).
Lubricants 2017, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 13

(a) (b)
Figure13.
Figure 13. Static
Static friction
friction coefficients
coefficients of
ofinvestigated
investigated PA6
PA6polymers
polymersagainst
againstaalubricated
lubricatedrough
roughsteel
steel
plate (R ≈ 40 µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at: (a) 22°C
◦ and (b)
plate (Rz ≈ 40 µm) for both water saturation levels (0%, 100%) at: (a) 22 C and (b) 80 C.
z 80°C.

4. Conclusions
From Figure 13, it may be observed that static friction coefficients for both PA6 materials for
both water saturation levels (0% and 100%) at 80 ◦ C (Figure 13b) are slightly higher than the results
For the investigated polymer-steel tribological systems that have different surface roughness
obtained at 22 ◦ C (Figure 13a). Generally, when polymers are heated, a decrease in their mechanical
values under different environmental conditions of water saturation and temperature presented in
properties is normally induced (lower E-modulus and compressive yield stress), which results in a
the actual study, the following main conclusions may be drawn:
deeper penetration depth of the asperities of the steel counterpart; the penetration depth is even more
1. The surface
important when theroughness of the steel
surface roughness of counterpart plays
the steel plate a significant
is high role in the of
and the combination overall
these friction
effects
behaviour of the studied tribological systems:
result in a slightly higher coefficient of friction at high temperature.
(a) The the
Finally, rougher the steel surface,
experimental the more
investigations determinant
involving both the
PA6deformative component
polymers against of friction.
a rough surface
(b) The smoother the steel surface, the more determinant the adhesive component
(Rz ≈ 40 µm) under lubricated conditions have shown that depending on their moisture contents andof friction.
2. The relationship between the penetration depth of the steel surface into the polymer material,
the compressive yield stress of the polymer itself and the normal load mainly determines the
friction behaviour:
(a) For low loads, reduced mechanical properties of the PA6 polymers lead to higher
penetration depths.
(b) For high loads, penetration depths into the PA6 polymers (even with different mechanical
properties) reach a saturation state and therefore, the compressive yield stress of the PA6
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 13 of 14

on their temperatures, the mechanical properties of the polymers are actually the determining factor
which governs their static friction forces.

4. Conclusions
For the investigated polymer-steel tribological systems that have different surface roughness
values under different environmental conditions of water saturation and temperature presented in the
actual study, the following main conclusions may be drawn:

1. The surface roughness of the steel counterpart plays a significant role in the overall friction
behaviour of the studied tribological systems: (a) The rougher the steel surface, the more
determinant the deformative component of friction. (b) The smoother the steel surface, the
more determinant the adhesive component of friction.
2. The relationship between the penetration depth of the steel surface into the polymer material,
the compressive yield stress of the polymer itself and the normal load mainly determines the
friction behaviour: (a) For low loads, reduced mechanical properties of the PA6 polymers lead to
higher penetration depths. (b) For high loads, penetration depths into the PA6 polymers (even
with different mechanical properties) reach a saturation state and therefore, the compressive
yield stress of the PA6 polymers mostly determines their friction behaviours. (c) Independently
of the method used to reduce the mechanical properties of the PA6 polymers (either through
a variation of moisture content or temperature), the resulting friction behaviours are always
comparable under the actual investigated test conditions. (d) Contrary to many previously
published assumptions, mechanical properties of polymers have only a minor influence on their
friction behaviours at high loads.

It is here important to highlight that the aforementioned observations and conclusions are drawn
solely for the friction behaviour and not for the wear behaviour of the investigated tribological systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.K. and A.D.; Data curation, S.K.; Formal analysis, S.K. and
A.D.; Funding acquisition, A.D.; Investigation, J.V., S.K. and F.A.; Methodology, J.V., S.K. and A.D.; Project
administration, S.K. and A.D.; Resources, S.K. and F.A.; Supervision, A.D.; Validation, J.V., S.K. and A.D.;
Visualization, J.V., S.K., I.V., F.A. and A.D.; Writing—original draft, J.V., S.K., I.V. and F.A.; Writing—review &
editing, J.V., S.K., I.V. and A.D.
Funding: This research was partially funded by the Austrian COMET Programme (Project XTribology), grant
number 849109 and carried out at the “Excellence Centre of Tribology” (AC2 T research GmbH) in cooperation
with V-Research GmbH.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript and in the
decision to publish the results.

References
1. Sinha, S.K. Handbook of Polymer Tribology; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2018;
ISBN 978-9-81322-778-1.
2. Myshkin, N.K.; Pesetskii, S.S.; Grigoriev, A.Ya. Polymer Tribology—Current State and Applications. Tribo.
Ind. 2015, 37, 284–290.
3. Myshkin, N.K.; Petrokovets, M.I.; Kovalev, A.V. Tribology of polymers: Adhesion, friction, wear and
mass-transfer. Tribol. Int. 2005, 38, 910–921. [CrossRef]
4. Pesetskii, S.S.; Bogdanovich, S.P. Polymer composites and nanocomposites. In Encyclopedia of Tribology;
Wang, Q., Chung, Y.-W., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 2563–2570.
5. Li, D.; Xie, Y.; Li, W.; You, Y.; Deng, X. Tribological and Mechanical Behaviors of Polyamide 6/Glass Fiber
Composite Filled with Various Solid Lubricants. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 320837. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Quaglini, V.; Dubini, P.; Ferroni, D.; Poggi, C. Influence of counterface roughness on friction properties of
engineering plastics for bearing applications. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 1650–1658. [CrossRef]
Lubricants 2019, 7, 17 14 of 14

7. Rodriguez, V.; Sukumaran, J.; De Baets, P.; Ost, W.; Perez Delgado, Y.; Ando, M. Friction and wear properties
of polyamides filled with molybdenum disulphide. Mech. Eng. Lett. Res. Dev. 2011, 5, 68–80.
8. Lancaster, J.K. A review of the influence of environmental humidity and water on friction, lubrication and
wear. Tribol. Int. 1990, 23, 371–389. [CrossRef]
9. Erhart, G. Friction and wear behaviour of polymer materials (in German: Zum Reibungs- und
Verschleißverhalten von Polymerwerkstoffen). Ph.D. Thesis, TH Karlsruhe University, Karlsruhe, Germany,
1980.
10. Bowden, F.P.; Tabor, D. The Friction and Lubrication of Solids, 2nd ed.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1954;
ISBN 0-19851-238-4.
11. Sinha, S.K.; Briscoe, B.J. Polymer Tribology; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 1-84816-202-2.
12. Popov, V.L. Contact Mechanics and Friction (in German: Kontaktmechanik und Reibung); Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 2009; ISBN 978-3-540-88836-9.
13. Erhard, G. Designing with Plastics; Carl Hanser Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2006; ISBN 978-3-540-88836-9.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

S-ar putea să vă placă și