Wear 241 Ž2000.

79–85
www.elsevier.comrlocaterwear

Abrasive wear behavior of D2 tool steel with respect to load and sliding
speed under dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition
X. Ma) , R. Liu, D.Y. Li
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, UniÕersity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G6
Received 1 September 1999; received in revised form 29 February 2000; accepted 29 February 2000

Abstract

The dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester is widely used in industry and laboratories to evaluate wear and rank materials. For
industrial application, this apparatus is often used under a fixed load and a fixed speed to have all tested materials evaluated under the
same condition. However, whether or not such a test with fixed load and speed can provide accurate information is in question. This
paper reports our study on wear resistances of a Be–Cu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and D2 tool steel using a rubber-wheel tester. Different loads
and sliding speeds were chosen for the abrasion test and SiO 2 sand was used as the abrasive. It was shown that wear losses of the Be–Cu
alloy and 17-4 PH steel increased with an increase in the applied load but kept almost unchanged as the sliding speed was increased.
However, the wear loss of D2 tool steel decreased as either the load or the sliding speed was increased. Such behavior of D2 steel makes
the adequacy of the dry sandrrubber wheel tester for ranking materials using only one load and one sliding speed questionable. In order
to explain the unexpected performance of D2 steel, worn surface of D2 steel was analyzed using X-ray diffraction and SEM, and the
morphology of SiO 2 sand was also examined using SEM. Possible mechanism for the difference in wear behavior between these
materials is discussed. q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: D2 tool steel; Load and sliding; Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion

1. Introduction erated. The experimental parameters set for the abrasion

Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester w1x is an appara-
tus widely used in the oil, sand, mining and agricultural
machinery industries as well as in laboratories to evaluate
wear resistance and rank engineering materials for me-
chanical components that are subject to low stress abra-
sion, such as shovels, draglines, die steels w2x, agricultural
tools, components of construction equipment, and protec-
tive coatings w3x. Good correlation is found between labo-
ratory evaluation and field tests w4,5x. For many industrial
applications, the rubber-wheel test is performed often un-
der a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed to have all
tested materials evaluated under the same condition. ASTM
has specified such abrasion test with fixed loads and
speeds for ranking materials in different classes w1x. How-
ever, ranking materials using this method may not be
always accurate and misleading information might be gen-
)
Corresponding author.
test may be suitable for some materials but not for others
under the same testing condition. This could happen since
wear is a complex surface process and wear behavior of a
material varies with respect to the testing condition such as
the applied load, the sliding speed, the abrasive sand, and
the ‘‘abrasive packing fraction’’ as described by Stevenson
and Hutchings w6x. It is known that under the dry
sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition, many engineering
materials show wear losses linearly proportional to the
applied load w6,7x except under very high loads w8x. Under
high loads, the linear relationship may not exist and the
wear rate could be greater than that expected, as Haworth
observed w9x. The wear–load relation is also influenced by
other factors. For instance, Avery w10x observed that, when
a hard rubber wheel was used, the wear rate of tool steel
increased less rapidly than that obeying a linear relation-
ship as the applied load was increased. When a softer
rubber wheel was used, he observed that the wear rate of
the tool steel decreased with an increase in the load and
attributed this to an increase in contact area between the
wheel and the specimen. No matter what the mechanism

0043-1648r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 3 5 1 - 3
80 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85
is, a question is there, how can one obtain adequate
information when ranking materials using the rubber-wheel
abrasion tester? Obviously, the difference in wear resis-
tance between various materials differs under different
testing conditions.
The present authors do not attempt to answer this
question. The objective of this work, however, is to under-
stand the wear behavior of different materials under the
dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition, especially their
responses to variations in the applied load and the sliding
speed. Three engineering materials, a Be–Cu alloy, 17-4
PH stainless steel and D2 tool steel, were chosen for this
study. Among these materials, D2 steel has the highest
hardness, followed by the 17-4 PH steel and then the
Be–Cu alloy. Different loads and sliding speeds were used
to see their effects on the wear loss. It was observed that
the response of D2 steel to variation in either the applied
load or the sliding speed was unexpected and different
from those of the Be–Cu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel. In
order to explain the wear behavior of D2 steel, possible
surface structural changes in the D2 steel caused by wear
was examined using X-ray diffraction. Morphological
changes of D2 steel and the abrasive sand, SiO 2 , were
analyzed using a scanning electron microscope. Efforts
were made to explore the mechanism responsible for the
difference between the D2 steel and the Be–Cu and 17-4
PH alloys in terms of their response to variations in the
load and the sliding speed.
2. Experimental details
The dry sandrrubber wheel apparatus used for the
study is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, which was built
based on ASTM G65 standard w1x. The rubber wheel is in
contact with a specimen under an applied load. A flow of
sand particles is directed to the gap between a rotating
rubber wheel and the specimen. The sand particles scratch
the surface of the specimen under the applied load at a
sliding speed of v R, where v is the angular speed of the
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of a rubber wheel abrasion testing appara-
tus.
Fig. 2. 50r70 Ottawa abrasive sand.
rubber wheel and R is its radius. The rubber wheel was
made of chlorabutyl and its hardness was Durometer A-60.
In the study, 50r70 Ottawa standard silica sand, as recom-
mended by ASTM for the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion
test, was used as the abrasive for wear test Žsee Fig. 2..
Specimens for the wear test had a size of 70 = 20 = 7 mm.
Three kinds of materials with different hardness values, a
Be–Cu alloy ŽHRC 43.2., 17-4PH stainless steel ŽHRC
46.5. and D2 tool steel ŽHRC 54.7., were evaluated.
Compositions of these materials are given in Table 1.
Specimens for the wear test were machined from bulk
materials and the roughness of all specimens was around
Ra s 2.0 mm.
Since the sand flow rate affects the wear rate, a constant
sand flow of 270 grmin was used. Wear loss of a speci-
men was evaluated by measuring the volume loss of the
specimen after 1000 wheel revolutions Žcorresponding to
the sliding distance of 690 m.. In industry, a constant force
of 130 N is usually used for the abrasion test. Such a load
is recommended by ASTM for testing most metallic mate-
rials in a wide range of abrasion resistance w1x. In the
present study, however, different loads were used from 25
to 150 N and the sliding speed was also changed from 1 to
5 mrs. We did not exactly follow the ASTM G 65
standard and, in stead, used various loads and speeds to
investigate effects of the load and sliding speed on the
wear loss. The difference in wear between different materi-
als could vary markedly when the applied load or the
sliding speed is changed. Some materials have excellent
wear resistance under low loads Žor speeds. but may
perform poorly under higher loads Žor speeds., while some
other materials may have opposite behavior. Therefore,
using one fixed load and sliding speed to rank industrial
materials may not be sufficient to obtain accurate informa-
Table 1
Compositions of the materials under study
Material Composition
Be–Cu alloy 97.9%Cu–1.9%Be–0.2%Co
17-4PH steel 16%Cr–4.1%Ni–3.4%Cu–0.25Nb, balanced by Fe
D2 tool steel 12%Cr–1%Mo–1%V–1.5%C, balanced by Fe
 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85
tion. This was shown in the present study, which demon-
strated unexpected responses of D2 steel to changes in
load and sliding speed during dry sandrrubber wheel
abrasion tests. In order to understand the unexpected wear
behavior of D2 steel, possible surface structural changes of
D2 specimens were determined using X-ray diffraction and
their worn surfaces were analyzed using SEM. Changes in
morphology of sand particles after the wear test was also
examined using SEM.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Wear loss with respect to the applied load
Volume losses of the Be–Cu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and
D2 steel were measured with respect to the applied load
and results of the measurement are illustrated in Fig. 3.
The data was an averaged result of a few measurements
with its error range less than 5%. It was demonstrated that
under low loads, wear losses of all three materials in-
creased initially as the applied load was increased. This is
understandable, since an increase in the applied load may
increase the contact stress, thus resulting in greater surface
damage. As demonstrated, the wear losses of Be–Cu ŽCu.
alloy and 17-4 PH steel ŽSS. continuously increased with
further increase in the applied load ŽNote: the vertical axis
in Fig. 3 is logarithmically scaled.. However, D2 steel
showed a different response to the further increase in load.
As the load was continuously increased, the volume loss of
D2 steel decreased as Fig. 3 illustrates. Such behavior was
beyond initial expectation.
3.2. Wear loss with respect to the sliding speed
The sliding speed is another parameter that may influ-
ence the wear loss of a material. In order to determine
effects of the sliding speed on wear loss, five sliding
speeds were used for the abrasion test. Volume losses of
Fig. 3. Volume loss versus the load Žthe sliding speeds 4 mrs..
81
Fig. 4. Volume loss of the materials at different sliding speeds under
loads100 N.
Be–Cu, 17-4 PH and D2 steel specimens at different
sliding speeds under a load of 100 N were measured. The
result is abrasive wear behavior of illustrated in Fig. 4,
which is also an averaged data of a few measurements
with its error range within 5%. It was demonstrated that
the Be–Cu alloy and 17-4 PH steel were not sensitive to
the sliding speed and their wear losses kept almost un-
changed in the tested speed range. However, D2 tool steel
showed different response to the sliding speed. As shown
in Fig. 4, the wear loss of D2 steel decreased as the speed
was increased.
3.3. Structural examination of D2 steel using X-ray diffrac-
tion
Different from the Be–Cu alloy and 17-4 PH steel, D2
steel showed unexpected responses to the variations in
applied load and sliding speed, respectively. Such re-
sponses are beyond initial expectation, since both high
loads and high speeds can increase the contact stress or the
impact force and should thus lead to larger wear loss. The
unexpected behavior of D2 steel could be attributed to two
possible mechanisms. One possibility is that high loads or
high sliding speeds may induce structural or microstructure
changes in the surface layer, e.g., formation of new phases
that can strengthen the material. Another possible mecha-
nism could be attributable to possible changes in the
abrasive sand condition. In order to determine if structural
or microstructure changes were induced in the D2 steel by
larger applied loads or by greater impact forces due to
higher sliding speeds, worn surface of D2 steel was exam-
ined using the X-ray diffraction technique. For the X-ray
examination, Co target was used to generate the X ray with
its wavelength equal to l s 1.79 A.˚ Fig. 5 illustrates X-ray
patterns of a D2 steel specimen taken before and after
abrasion test under a high load of 150 N at a sliding speed
of 4 mrs. The X-ray patterns showed that there were no
structural or microstructural changes in the surface layer of
this specimen. Therefore, the first mechanism seems not
the case. In order to further confirm that the unexpected
82 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85

Fig. 5. X-ray diffraction patterns of a D2 steel specimen before and after wear test under L s 100 N and at V s 4 mrs.

performance of D2 steel with less wear under higher loads of 5 mrs, respectively. No significant changes in sand
or at higher sliding speeds was not mainly due to possible shape and size could be distinguished.
strengthening during abrasion, hardness of the D2 speci- In order to have a close look at the sand surface, a
men was measured before and after the abrasion test. Table higher magnification was used to examine the sand surface
1 presents the result of hardness averaged over two to condition. Fig. 7Ža. – Žc. show scanning electron micro-
three tests for each values. graphs of typical surface morphologies of original sand,
In Table 2, one may see that the strengthening during the sand exposed to a load of 25 N and that exposed to the
abrasion was minor and should not be a predominant highest load of 150 N, respectively. The original sand had
factor responsible for the decrease in wear loss with an relative smooth surface with some facets. After the wear
increase in the applied load or sliding speed during abra- test, the sand surface was damaged to some degree, de-
sion. pending on the applied load. Under the low-load condition,
no significant changes in morphology were observed on
3.4. Morphological obserÕation of the abrasiÕe SiO2 sand sand surface Žcompare Fig. 7Ža. and Žb.., meaning that the
damage to the sand by wear was minor. Under the high-load
Since the first possible mechanism responsible for the condition, however, the surface damage was severe as Fig.
unexpected behavior of D2 steel was precluded by the 7Žc. illustrates. No facets comparable to those on the
X-ray examination, possible changes in the abrasive sand
condition may give a clue to the answer. In order to
determine if this was the case, SiO 2 sand particles experi-
enced wear under different loads and sliding speeds were
examined using a scanning electron microscope. The SEM
metallographs of SiO 2 sand particles used for testing D2
steel under 25 and 150 N are presented in Fig. 6Ža. and
Žb., respectively. No significant changes in sand shape and
size were observed. The situation was similar when sand
particles experienced wear tests for D2 steel at different
sliding speeds. Fig. 6Žc. and Žd. illustrate SEM metallo-
graphs of the sand particles experienced abrasive wear
tests at the lowest speed of 1 mrs and at the highest speed

Table 2
the hardness of the D2 steel after the wear under different wear condi-
tions
D2 steel, load Ž L. HRC before HRC after
and speed Ž V . abrasion test abrasion test
Ls 25 N, V s 4 mrs 54.65 54.75
Ls150 N, V s 4 mrs 54.65 55.80 Fig. 6. Abrasive sand particles after wear test: Ža. under a low load of 25
V s1 mrs, Ls100 N 54.65 54.70 N Ž V s 4 mrs., Žb. under a high load of 150 N Ž V s 4 mrs., ŽC. at a low
V s 5 mrs, Ls100 N 54.65 55.70 sliding speed of 1 mrs Ž Ls100 N., and Žd. at a high sliding speed of 5
mrs Ž Ls100 N..
 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85 83

original sand surface were observed on the sand surface

that experienced high-load abrasion. It is clear that al-
though the SiO 2 sand did not crack during the wear test,
severe surface failure was resulted under high loads when
used for testing the D2 tool steel. Similar changes in the
sand surface condition were observed when the sand was
used at different sliding speeds. At low speeds, the sand
surface did not show detectable changes, while at high
speeds, surface damage was greater and distinct. In the
cases of Be–Cu alloy and 17-4 PH steel, the surface
damage of the abrasive sand was markedly less, no matter
the wear test was performed under which load level or at
which speed in the selected ranges of load and sliding
speed.
It is needed to mention that the damaged sand particles
were collected using a container placed below the tester.
The collected sand might be more or less mixed with some
fresh sand particles, which did not go through the gap
between the rubber wheel and the specimen. However,
since the nozzle was so close to the gap that most sand
particles could go through it. Therefore, the surface mor-
phologies of the abrasive sand illustrated in Fig. 7 are
representative.

Fig. 8. The worn surfaces of the D2 steel under low load 25 N Ža. and
high load Žb. 150 N.

3.5. The worn surface of the D2 steel

Worn surface of D2 steel under different wear condi-

tions were examined using SEM. Fig. 8Ža. and Žb. illus-
trate worn surfaces experienced abrasion under a low load
of 25 N and a higher load of 150 N, respectively. One may
see some craters on the surface of the former, while the
latter was relatively smooth and had less craters. It appears
that the damage to the D2 steel by low load was larger
than that by the higher load.
In the case of wear at different sliding speeds, similar
phenomenon was observed. At high sliding speeds, the
worn surface of D2 steel was smoother than that worn at
lower sliding speeds. The result of the worn surface analy-
sis is consistent with the wear test.

4. Discussion

Fig. 7. Ža. Original sand, Žb. used sand for wear test under the lowest load
It was demonstrated by the abrasion test that the tested
of 25 N, and Žc. used sand for wear test under the highest load of 150 N three materials showed different responses to variations in
with D2 steel. The sliding speeds 4 mrs. the applied load and the sliding speed. The volume losses
84 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85
of the Be–Cu alloy and 17-4 PH steel continuously in-
creased with an increase in load, while that of D2 steel
increased initially and then decreased as the load was
increased. As a result, under high loads the D2 steel
showed significantly superior wear resistance, compared to
the Be–Cu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel. Under low loads,
however, the superiority of D2 steel diminished as Fig. 3
illustrates. It is therefore clear that by using the dry
sandrrubber wheel abrasion apparatus, one may rank ma-
terials but the information about their difference in wear
resistance could be inaccurate or incomplete, if the evalua-
tion is made under a fixed load. The situation is similar if
wear tests are performed at a fixed speed. As Fig. 4
illustrates, wear resistances of the Be–Cu alloy and 17-4
PH steel kept almost unchanged, while that of D2 steel
increased as the sliding speed was increased. Therefore, if
materials having close mechanical properties are ranked
using only one load and one sliding speed, misleading
information could be generated.
The main task of this work is to investigate the wear
behavior of different materials under the dry sandrrubber
wheel abrasion condition, and in particular, the responses
of the materials to variations in the applied load and the
sliding speed. The Be–Cu alloy and the 17-4 PH steel
showed usual responses as expected; while that of the D2
steel was apart away from initial expectation. Since no
structural changes were observed in the surface layer of
D2 steel after wear and the change in hardness was small,
possible reason for the unexpected behavior of D2 steel
may therefore be attributed to the changes in the abrasive
sand condition. As observed, under high load the surface
of the abrasive sand was markedly damaged Žsee Fig.
7Žc... This suggests that the SiO 2 sand was not strong
enough to significantly damage the surface of D2 tool steel
under high loads. Instead, the surface of SiO 2 sand was
damaged to a considerable degree, thus diminishing its role
in abrading the tested material. The surface analysis showed
that the worn surface of D2 steel under a high load was
relatively smooth while that under a lower load was rougher
with craters Žsee Fig. 8.. The visible craters may imply that
the abrasive sand was effective to penetrate into the sur-
face layer, accompanied with larger damage. While under
the high load the abrasive sand may experience more
damage than D2 steel and its capability for penetrating and
plowing the surface was diminished. The situation was
similar when the sliding speed changed. At high speeds,
the abrasive sand would not withstand large impact and its
surface failure would lead to less damage to D2 steel. At
lower speeds, however, the hard sand could result in more
damage.
The greater damage to the abrasive SiO 2 sand could be
explained by comparing the mechanical behavior of D2
steel to that of the SiO 2 sand. It is known that hardness is
one of important parameters affecting the wear resistance
of a material w2,12x. Generally speaking, the harder the
material, the lower is its wear loss w11x. The SiO 2 sand has
its hardness about HRC s 65 w13x, while that of the D2
tool steel is HRC s 54.65. Although SiO 2 sand is rela-
tively harder, its brittleness or low toughness, however,
makes it vulnerable to high stress and high impact. As a
result, SiO 2 sand can be considerably damaged during
wear tests under high loads or at high sliding speeds, thus
resulting in the decrease in wear loss of D2 tool, as Figs. 3
and 4 illustrate.
The situation is different when the sand was pushed
against the Be–Cu alloy ŽHRC s 43.2. or the 17-4 PH
steel ŽHRC s 46.5., both of which had significantly lower
hardness than the abrasive sand. The large difference in
hardness between these two materials and the SiO 2 sand
could make the damage to the abrasive sand much smaller,
although the latter was relatively brittle. This was con-
firmed by examining the sand surface condition using
SEM. Under higher loads, more damage to the surfaces of
softer Be–Cu alloy and the PH17 steel could be made by
hard sand plowing. In the case of high sliding speeds, no
significant changes in wear loss were observed for both the
Be–Cu alloy and 17-4 PH steel. Although more wear
should be caused by larger impact force, the softer Be–Cu
alloy and 17-4 PH steel could, however, absorb impact
energy to some degrees. This may reduce the increase in
wear loss of the Be–Cu alloy and 17-4PH steel with an
increase in the sliding speed, thus resulting in approxi-
mately constant wear losses in the tested range of the
sliding speed, as Fig. 4 illustrates.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the interaction
between the abrasive sand and a specimen is complex
under the dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition.
Changes in the applied load influence the contact area
between the rubber wheel and the specimen and also affect
the force on each abrasive particle as well as the true sand
flow rate. All of these factors can influence the wear loss
of the specimen. However, the present research is a com-
parable study of wear behaviors of Be–Cu, 17-4 PH steel
and D2 tool steel, rather than investigation of the contact
situation. Since the tests were performed under the same
conditions for these materials, the above-mentioned
changes in, e.g., the sand flow rate and the contact area,
were the same for all the tested materials. Therefore, if we
consider that the behaviors of Be–Cu and 17-4 PH are
usual, then that of the D2 tool steel is unexpected. Under-
standing of this difference between the materials and its
variation with the load and sliding speed are the main tasks
of this work.
5. Summary
Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion tester is widely used
in industry to evaluate and rank wear-resistant materials.
For many industrial applications, the abrasion test is often
performed under a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed
to have all materials evaluated under the same condition.
 X. Ma et al.r Wear 241 (2000) 79–85
However, the adequacy of such a test condition with fixed
load and sliding speed is in question. In this study, wear
responses of a Be–Cu alloy, 17-4 PH steel and D2 tool
steel to variations in load and sliding speed under the dry
sandrrubber wheel abrasion condition were evaluated. It
was demonstrated that wear losses of the Be–Cu alloy and
17-4 PH steel increased as the applied load was increased
but kept approximately constant with respect to the sliding
speed. However, the wear loss of D2 tool steel initially
increased and then decreased as the load was increased in
the tested load range. When the sliding speed was in-
creased, a decrease in wear loss of D2 steel was observed.
No structural change was observed in worn surface layer
of the D2 steel and surface hardness change was small;
however, severe surface damage of the abrasive SiO 2 sand
was observed when used for wear tests under high loads or
at high sliding speeds. Based on the experimental observa-
tion, possible mechanism responsible for the unexpected
behavior of D2 tool steel is discussed. This study shows
that when using the rubber-wheel tester to evaluate wear
resistance and rank materials, inaccurate or misleading
information could be generated if the testing is performed
only under a fixed load and at a fixed sliding speed.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for financial support from
Syncrude Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Council of Canada.
85
References
w1x ASTM G65-94, Standard test method for measuring abrasion using
the dry sandrrubber wheel apparatus, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 03.02, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 245–256.
w2x H.A. Garner, Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion wear testing of the
carpenter matched tool and die steels, Lubr. Eng. 38 Ž6. Ž1982.
359–364.
w3x M. Scholl, Abrasive wear of TiN coatings,Conf. on Wear of Materi-
als, Wear 203–204 Ž1997. 57–64, Mar.
w4x P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory and field abrasion tests, in:
K.C. Ludema ŽEd.., Proc. Int. Conf. On Wear of Materials, ASME,
New York, 1977, pp. 148–157.
w5x P.A. Swanson, Comparison of laboratory and field tests, in: A.W.
Ruff, R.G. Buyer ŽEds.., Tribology: Wear Test Selection for Design
and Application, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1983, pp. 80–99.
w6x A.N.J. Stevenson, I.M. Hutchings, Development of the dry
sandrrubber wheel abrasion test, Wear 195 Ž1996. 232.
w7x K. Elalem, D.Y. Li, Dynamical simulation of an abrasive wear
process, J. Comput.-Aided Mater. Des. Ž1999. in press.
w8x J.S. Ellis, B.M. Armstrong, Evaluation of wear resistant materials
for use in minerals handling system, British Steel Rep.
SLrCSrPr13r90rO, 1990.
w9x R.D. Haworth Jr., The abrasion resistance of metals, Trans. ASM 41
Ž1949. 819–869.
w10x H.S. Avery, An analysis of the rubber wheel abrasion test, in: S.K.
Rhee, A.W. Ruff, K.C. Ludema ŽEds.., Proc. Int. Conf. On Wear of
Materials, ASME, New York, 1981, pp. 367–378.
w11x E. Rabinowicz, in: Friction and Wear of Material, Wiley, 1965, pp.
167–181.
w12x P.A. Swanson, A.F. Vetter, The measurement of abrasive particle
shape and its effect on wear, ASLE Trans. 28 Ž2. Ž1985. 225–230.
w13x W.A. Glaeser, in: Materials for Tribology, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1992, p. 133.