This article was downloaded by: [Riadh AUTAY]On: 20 June 2012, At: 16:25Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tribology TransactionsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrb20

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels under Different

Reciprocating Sliding ConditionsRiadh Autay

a , Mounir Kchaou

a & Fakhreddine Dammak

a

a Unit of Mechanics, Modeling and Production (U2MP), National Engineering School,

University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

Available online: 25 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Riadh Autay, Mounir Kchaou & Fakhreddine Dammak (2012): Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels under

Different Reciprocating Sliding Conditions, Tribology Transactions, 55:5, 590-598

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402004.2012.684427

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Tribology Transactions, 55: 590-598, 2012

Copyright C© Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers

ISSN: 1040-2004 print / 1547-397X online

DOI: 10.1080/10402004.2012.684427

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels under Different

Reciprocating Sliding Conditions

RIADH AUTAY, MOUNIR KCHAOU, and FAKHREDDINE DAMMAK

Unit of Mechanics, Modeling and Production (U2MP)

National Engineering School

University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

The friction and wear behavior of ISO 100Cr6 steel ball

sliding against conventionally hardened carbon and low-alloy

steels was studied. The effect of hardness, hardening capac-

ity, normal load, and sliding speed on the coefficient of fric-

tion and friction energy was investigated. Friction tests were

carried out, without lubrication and under ambient conditions,

on a reciprocating friction tester in which a ball-on-flat con-

tact configuration was adopted. The results showed that there

is a relative tendency for the friction properties to decrease with

increased hardening capacity and decreased hardness. The re-

sults showed that increasing normal load decreases the coeffi-

cient of friction for the two steel nuances. However, increasing

sliding speed increases the coefficient of friction of low-alloy

steel and decreases the coefficient of friction of carbon steel.

The oxidation of wear debris influences the wear mechanisms

and friction behavior.

KEY WORDS

Steel; Hardness; Hardening; Unlubricated Friction; Wear

Mechanisms

INTRODUCTION

Varying test parameters such as normal load or sliding speed

influences the friction and wear behavior of steels. Some studies

(Kumar, et al. (1); Podgornik, et al. (2)) showed that increasing

normal load increases the coefficient of friction. Other studies

(Pantazopoulos, et al. (3); Abouei, et al. (4); Viafara, et al. (5);

Bahrami, et al. (6); Hardell, et al. (7)) showed that increasing

this test parameter decreases this friction characteristic. The

majority of authors (Kumar, et al. (1); Podgornik, et al. (2);

Pantazopoulos, et al. (3); Abouei, et al. (4); Viafara, et al. (5);

Bahrami, et al. (6); Zandrahimi, et al. (8); Das, et al. (9); Shaeri,

et al. (10)) found that increasing normal load increases the wear

rate. In contrast, Hardell, et al. (7) found that increasing this test

parameter decreases wear rate. Raı, et al. (11) and Kanchanomai,

et al. (12) results relate the variation in wear rate to a critical

value of load or velocity. In addition, some authors (Podgornik,

Manuscript received July 13, 2011

Manuscript accepted April 8, 2012

Review led by Benjamin DeKoven

et al. (2); Hardell, et al. (7)) studied the effect of sliding speed on

the tribological behavior of a number of steels; they found that

increasing sliding speed decreases the coefficient of friction but

that the opposite results for the wear rate. Wei, et al. (13) studied

the wear of medium carbon steel with different microstructures

and found that oxidative wear was prevalent under low normal

loads. Once the normal load reached a critical value, a mild-to-

severe wear transition occurred, and subsequently an extrusive

wear prevailed and abruptly increased the wear rate but reduced

the coefficient of friction. Other researchers investigated the

relationship between mechanical and tribological properties.

Kim, et al. (14) and Totik, et al. (15) found that the coefficient of

friction and wear rate decreased with increasing surface hardness.

Moreover, Mokhtar (16) reported that lower friction is usually

associated with harder surfaces. Kameyama and Komotori (17)

did not find a definitive relationship between substrate hardness

and the coefficient of friction of AISI 4140 steel. Tyfour, et al.

(18) studied the effect of strain hardening and the accumulation

of unidirectional plastic strain on the wear behavior of a pearlitic

rail steel and found that the start of the steady-state wear rate

coincided with the cessation of the accumulation of plastic

strain and additional strain hardening. Garcia, et al. (19) found

that there was an increase in hardness of austenitic steel after

wear tests for untreated and quenched in air and oil samples,

which is not appreciated for tempered specimens or specimens

quenched in water. The authors explained this increase by an

austenitic transformation into martensite caused by the friction

forces applied during the test. Wei, et al. (20) reported that

for elevated-temperature wear, better wear resistance required

thermal stability and an appropriate combination of hardness and

toughness. This work aims to investigate the effect of hardness,

hardening capacity, normal load, sliding speed, and wear debris

on the tribological behavior of carbon and low-alloy steels and

to confirm or contradict previous studies.

EXPERIMENTAL

Two steel nuances were employed in this study, an ISO

42CrMo4 low-alloy steel and an ISO C45 carbon steel. A semi-

automatic Vickers durometer was used for the hardness mea-

surements, which were carried out under a load of 10 N and a

dwell time of 5 s. The treatment process conditions and hard-

ness of the specimens are provided in Table 1. The specimens

590

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels 591

TABLE 1—PROCESS CONDITIONS AND HARDNESS OF SPECIMENS

Hardness/HV

Methods Code Conditions C45 42CrMo4

Untreated NT — 208 373

Normalizing N 870◦C, 30 min quenched in air 210 328

Quenching TE 850◦C, 30 min quenched in water 608 664

Quenching TH 850◦C, 30 min quenched in oil 275 588

Tempering TER TE + 200◦C, 120 min quenched in air 538 545

Tempering THR TH + 200◦C, 120 min quenched in air 265 496

were ground and polished after treatment and their surfaces

were etched with Nital 5%in order to obtain a suitable sur-

face for their microscopic examination. The microstructure of

the steel was examined using an optical microscope. The var-

ious microstructures of the steels are shown in Fig. 1. Micro-

graphic analysis of C45 steel showed that the microstructure

of untreated samples (NT) was ferrito-pearlitic. The applica-

tion of normalisation treatment (N) reduced the size of the

pearlite grains. The quenched in oil (TH) and the quenched

in oil and tempered samples (THR) microstructures were also

pearlitic, and the quenched in water (TE) and the quenched

in water and tempered samples (TER) microstructures were

martensitic with retained austenite. Micrographic analysis of

42CrMo4 steel showed that NT and N microstructures were

bainitic with finely divided carbide phases. The remaining mi-

crostructures were martensitic with retained austenite. Ten-

sile tests were carried out at 5 mm.min−1 elongation speed

without an extensometer. The C45 and 42CrMo4 engineer-

ing stress–strain diagrams (Fig. 2) show that the various mi-

crostructures obtained showed various mechanical behaviors.

Indeed, in the case of C45 steel, N and NT microstructures

presented a ductile behavior, whereas TE steel was fragile.

In addition, TH and TER microstructures presented a quasi-

fragile behavior, whereas the THR microstructure was slightly

ductile. In the case of 42CrMo4 steel, N, NT, and THR mi-

crostructures presented a ductile behavior, whereas TE, TER,

and TH microstructures were fragile. Strength and ductility

properties are summarized in Table 2. Rm, Rp0.2, A%, Z%, and

Zu% respectively represent the ultimate strength, offset yield

strength (proof stress), elongation at break, reduction in cross-

sectional area, and elongation due to necking. Tribological tests

were carried out at ambient temperature on a reciprocating fric-

tion tester (Fig. 3) designed and built in the research unit of

the Unit of Mechanics, Modeling and Production (U2MP) at the

University of Sfax. This test method utilizes a flat lower spec-

imen (20 × 20 × 15) and a 100Cr6 stationary ball (ø 16) up-

per specimen moving relative to one another in a linear, back-

and-forth sliding motion under a prescribed set of conditions.

The load was applied vertically downward through the upper

specimen against the horizontally mounted flat specimen. The

oscillating motion of the flat lower specimen was ensured due

to a crank-connecting rod system permitting an eccentric trans-

mission and converting the continuous rotation of a DC elec-

tromotor into a linear motion with an adjustable stroke. A

NT N NT N

TE TER TE TER

TH THR TH THR

C45

42CrMo4

Fig. 1—Optical micrographs of the various microstructures. (color figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

592 R. AUTAY ET AL.

Fig. 2—Stress–strain diagrams of tensile test. (color figure available online.)

piezo-electrical force sensor (universal load cell (UU–K50, Da-

cell, Korea), range ± 500 N, resolution 0.001 N) measured the

friction force that the specimen exerted on the counterface. The

sample surfaces were ground and then mechanically polished

to produce the necessary flatness and average roughness. The

arithmetic average roughness value (Ra) of the surfaces was eval-

uated using a surface roughness tester (TIME TR 100, Digiwork

Instruments, Canada). The conditions of the friction test are sum-

marized in Table 3.

The coefficient of friction, µ, was calculated by Eq. [1]:

µ = Ft/f n [1]

where Ft is the friction force (N) and Fn is the normal force (N).

Fig. 3—Architecture of the reciprocating friction tester and test configuration. (color figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels 593

TABLE 2—STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY PROPERTIES OF SPECIMENS

C45 42CrMo4

Rp0,2 Rm A% Zu% Z% Rp0,2 Rm A% Zu% Z%

NT 425 789 26 8.5 29 1,040 1,111 9.7 6.6 31.5

N 507 774 17 4.6 27 1,040 1,259 4.8 1.6 14.6

TE 1,626 1,626 0 0 0 719 719 0 0 0

TH 1,080 1,492 2.5 0.2 4.5 1,000 2,146 2,2 0 0

TER 1,800 2,070 2.4 0.3 3.4 1,406 1,406 0 0 0

THR 850 1,487 4.8 2 11 1,600 2,013 5.7 3.3 19.7

The dissipated friction energy, 1E, in the contact is calculated

as the work of the friction force (Ramalho and Miranda (21))

using Eq. [2]:

1E = f tV1t [2]

Where V is the average sliding speed and 1t is the time in-

terval corresponding to the dissipated energy 1E. The total

energy dissipated, E, throughout the test can be calculated by

adding all of the 1E values calculated during the course of the

test using the method of trapezoids (Eq. [3]):

E =1

2Fn V

∑(µi + µi+1) (ti+1 − ti) [3]

where µi and µi+1 represent the coefficients of friction

corresponding to test durations ti and ti+1. These time

Fig. 4—Effect of normal load and sliding speed on the coefficient of friction for (a) NT, (b) N, (c) TE, (d) TER, (e) TH, and (f) THR microstructures. (color

figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

594 R. AUTAY ET AL.

TABLE 3—CONDITIONS OF THE FRICTION TEST

Normal loads F1 (N) 22

F2 (N) 42

Frequencies of oscillation f 1 (Hz) 1

f 2 (Hz) 2

Oscillating stroke 10 mm

Sliding duration ≥120 min

Acquisition 32 s−1

Roughness (Ra) 0.3 ± 0.05 µm

Relative humidity ≈40%

intervals were taken each 10 s for the first 100 s of the

test. Then the time interval was taken every 100 s until

the end of the test. This choice was based on the fact that

there was great variation in the coefficient of friction dur-

ing the first sliding cycles (period of accommodation) af-

ter which the friction characteristic became relatively sta-

ble.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The variation in the coefficient of friction, µ, as a function of

sliding time and for the diverse microstructures presented two

periods: an accommodation period and a stabilization period

(Fig. 4). The low values of the coefficient of friction obtained

during the first sliding cycles of the accommodation period can be

explained by the absence of wear. This initial period was mainly

dominated by adhesion and Hertzian contact. The coefficient of

friction increased with sliding time due to progressive degrada-

tion at the contact surfaces and the formation of wear debris,

increasing the plowing component. After a number of sliding

cycles, the contact was no longer between antagonists but rather

between the generated layer of debris and each of the contact

surfaces. The relative stability of the tribological behavior in the

second period can be explained by the action of this layer formed

at the interface constituted by the contacting pair of a tribolog-

ical system. In Fig. 4, V1 and V2 represent the sliding speeds

corresponding respectively to the oscillating frequencies f 1 and

Fig. 5—Effect of (a) hardness and (b) hardening capacity on the coefficient of friction. (color figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels 595

f 2. To investigate the effect of sliding speed and test load on the

coefficient of friction, three combinations of test conditions are

sufficient. In the case of C45 steel an additional combination was

added to confirm the preceding results. Figure 4 shows that in

the case of C45 steel, the increase in sliding speed usually led

to a decrease in the coefficient of friction. It is well known that

the presence of free electrons on the surfaces of metals, in par-

ticular steels, causes the formation of cohesive junctions due to

crystalline affiliations or adhesive junctions that maintain surfaces

by electrostatic forces. In addition, adhesion is favored by the

intimate contact between steel surfaces when the asperities are

crushed plastically. With increased sliding speed, the possibility

that contact asperities interact between themas well as the resis-

tance to sliding is reduced. 42CrMo4 steel differs from C45 steel

because it contains alloying elements such as Cr, which is com-

mon in 100Cr6 steel (antagonist). Increasing sliding speed in this

case will multiply the occurrence of Cr/Cr friction between ele-

ments with a similar chemical affinity, which can lead to an impor-

tant increase in temperature at the interface. Increasing the slid-

ing speed will favor adhesive mechanisms and the main source of

friction will be the shearing of the intermediate layer (third body);

plowing and the interaction between asperities will play a smaller

role. The predominance of such mechanisms explains the oppo-

site behavior (by comparison with C45 steel) of the coefficient of

friction, which generally increases with increased sliding speed in

the case of 42CrMo4 steel. For the two steel nuances, an increase

in the normal load led to a reduction in this friction property.

This behavior was probably due to the nonlinear relationship be-

tween the normal force and the real area of contact. Chowdhury,

et al. (22) attributed this behavior to increased surface roughness

and a large quantity of wear debris, and Pantazopoulos, et al. (3)

explained it by the probable alteration of counterfaces’ contact

geometry in combination with the relative sticking friction

mechanisms that occur during testing. The variation in the value

of the coefficient of friction is usually more sensitive to normal

load than to sliding speed. This behavior can be explained

by the major contribution of normal load in the elasto-plastic

and plastic deformations occurring in superficial layers of the

sample during sliding, which are due to residual stresses caused

by friction (Yakimets, et al. (23)). Totik, et al. (15) reported

that the reduction in the friction coefficient is expected to be a

result of increasing the hardness and, in particular, compressive

Fig. 6—Effect of (a) hardness and (b) hardening capacity on the friction energy. (color figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

596 R. AUTAY ET AL.

Fig. 7—Scanning electron micrographs of the worn flat surfaces (C45 steel): (a) TE, (b) TH, (c) THR, and (d) N. (color figure available online.)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

Friction and Wear Behavior of Steels 597

residual stresses. Figures 5 and 6 respectively show the variation

in the steady coefficient of friction and the friction energy as a

function of hardness and hardening capacity (Rm − Rp0.2) under

diverse test conditions. As shown in these figures, the coefficient

of friction and friction energy tended to decrease withn increased

hardening capacity and decreased hardness. This tendency was

clearer for the friction energy than for the friction coefficient.

This behavior can be explained by the fact that the possibility

of accommodationis easier when a hard material such as 100Cr6

steel slides against another material with lower hardness and

more resistance to plastic deformation. The effect of mechanical

properties on the coefficient of friction is reduced with increased

load but is relatively preserved with increased sliding speed.

Indeed, the difference between the highest and lowest friction

coefficient values decreased when the normal load was increased.

For example, in the case of C45 steel (Fig. 5a), the difference was

respectively 0.22 and 0.23 for test conditions (F1, V1) and (F1, V2)

and was respectively 0.13 and 0.1 for test conditions (F2, V1) and

(F2, V2).

Contrary to the coefficient of friction, the effect of mechanical

properties on the friction energy increased with increased sliding

speed but was relatively preserved with increased normal load.

For example, for C45 steel (Fig. 6a), the difference between the

highest and the lowest value of friction energy was respectively

390 and 730 J for test conditions (F1, V1) and (F1, V2) and was re-

spectively 480 and 791 J for test conditions (F2, V1) and (F2, V2).

Figure 7 illustrates the worn surfaces of the flat specimens.

The presence of oxides shows the presence of an oxidative

wear mechanism for the TE microstructure. The adhesive and

abrasive wear mechanisms coexist; the first is characterized by a

material transfer between the two sliding surfaces; the second is

prevalent and is essentially characterized by grooves or scratches

of wear. Wear debris essentially has an abrasive action but its

chemical composition is responsible for the presence of oxides.

The worn surface of martensitic microstructures is characterized

by the presence of oxides in the form of rust (iron (III) oxide or

ferric oxide, Fe2O3). The experiment showed that the oxidation

of debris during friction causes a remarkable increase in the

coefficient of friction. It should be noted that this phenomenon

was also observed in pearlitic microstructures in the presence

of sufficient moisture and mainly at lower loading conditions.

Spinler (24) reported that the coefficient of friction is relatively

high when surfaces are very rough and observed that it increases

strongly when the contact surfaces corrode.

Another characteristic is the noise produced during the fric-

tion test, which is very loud for martensitic microstructures and

quiet for pearlitic microstructures (in the absence of oxidation).

Such behavior is directly related to a stick–slip phenomenon

(Symmons and McNulty (25)), which confirms the establishment

of an adhesive wear mechanism. For the two evoked microstruc-

tures, there was an absence of noise in the first test cycles, which

is explained by the absence of surface damage (wear). The inten-

sity of the noise does not depend on the degree (quantity) of wear

but rather on the nature (chemical composition) of the product

of the wear (debris). The experiment showed that the noise level

was proportional to the degree or amount of oxidation debris at

the interface as well as the applied normal load and sliding speed.

CONCLUSIONS

Test conditions such as normal load and sliding speed have

an influence on the friction behavior of steels. It was found that

increasing the normal load decreased the coefficient of friction.

In addition, increasing the sliding speed decreased the coefficient

of friction in the case of C45 steel and generally increased it

in the case of 42CrMo4 steel. Increasing test conditionsalso

increased the level of the friction noise. The variation in the co-

efficient of friction was more sensitive to the variation in normal

load than sliding speed. The effect of hardness and hardening

capacity on the coefficient of friction and friction energy was

also investigated. A relative tendency of the friction properties

to decrease with increased hardening capacity and decreased

hardness was found, but no obvious relationship between the

mechanical and friction properties was established. Abrasive,

adhesive, and oxidative wear mechanisms were obtained in this

study, but the prevalence of one over another depends primarily

on the microstructure of the steel. Oxidation of the wear debris

(in the form of rust) strongly increased the coefficient of friction.

This oxidation is instantaneous for martensitic microstructures

and is possible for pearlitic microstructures in the presence of

sufficient moisture.

REFERENCES

(1) Kumar, S., Bhattacharyya, A., Mondal, D. K., Biswas, K., and Maity, J.

(2011), “Dry Sliding Wear Behaviour of Medium Carbon Steel against an

Alumina Disk,” Wear, 270, pp 413–421.

(2) Podgornik, B., Vizintin, J., and Leskovsek, V. (1999), “Wear Properties of

Induction Hardened, Conventional Plasma Nitrided and Pulse Plasma Ni-

trided AISI 4140 Steel in Dry Sliding Conditions,” Wear, 232, pp 231–242.

(3) Pantazopoulos, G., Psyllaki, P., Kanakis, D., Antoniou, S., Papadimitriou,

K., and Sideris, J. (2006), “Tribological Properties of a Liquid Nitrocar-

burised Special Purpose Cold Work Tool Steel,” Surface & Coatings Tech-

nology, 200, pp 5889–5895.

(4) Abouei, V., Saghafian, H., and Kheirandish, S. (2007), “Effect of Mi-

crostructure on the Oxidative Wear Behavior of Plain Carbon Steel,”

Wear, 262, pp 1225–1231.

(5) Viafara, C. C., Castro, M. I., Velez, J. M., and Toro, A. (2005), “Unlubri-

cated Sliding Wear of Pearlitic and Bainitic Steels,” Wear, 259, pp 405–411.

(6) Bahrami, A., Mousavi Anijdan, S. H., Golozar, M. A., Shamanian, M., and

Varahram, N. (2005), “Effects of Conventional Heat Treatment on Wear

Resistance of AISI H13 Tool Steel,” Wear, 258, pp 846–851.

(7) Hardell, J., Kassfeldt, E., and Prakash, B. (2008), “Friction and Wear Be-

haviour of High Strength Boron Steel at Elevated Temperatures of up to

800◦C,” Wear, 264, pp 788–799.

(8) Zandrahimi, M., Reza Bateni, M., Poladi, A., and Szpunar Jerzy, A. (2007),

“The Formation of Martensite during Wear of AISI 304 Stainless Steel,”

Wear, 263, pp 674–678.

(9) Das, D., Dutta, A. K., and Ray, K. K. (2009), “Correlation of Microstruc-

ture with Wear Behaviour of Deep Cryogenically Treated AISI D2 Steel,”

Wear, 267, pp 1371–1380.

(10) Shaeri, M. H., Saghafian, H., and Shabestari, S. G. (2012), “Effect of Heat

Treatment on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Cr–Mo Steels

(FMU-226) Used in Mills Liner,” Materials and Design, 34, pp 192–200.

(11) Rai, D., Singh, B., and Singh, J. (2007), “Characterisation of Wear Be-

haviour of Different Microstructures in Ni–Cr–Mo–V Steel,” Wear, 263,

pp 821–829.

(12) Kanchanomai, C., Saengwichian, B., and Manonukul, A. (2009), “Delami-

nation Wear of Metal Injection Moulded 316L Stainless Steel,” Wear, 267,

pp 1665–1672.

(13) Wei, M. X., Wang, S. Q., Cui, X. H., and Chen, K. M. (2010), “Characteris-

tics of Extrusive Wear and Transition of Wear Mechanisms in Elevated-

Temperature Wear of a Carbon Steel,” Tribology Transactions, 53, pp

888–896.

(14) Kim, M. H., Rhee, K. Y., Paik, Y. N., Hong, J. S., and Ham, Y.

S. (2008), “Experimental Investigation on the Mechanical Behavior of

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012

598 R. AUTAY ET AL.

High-Frequency Induction-Hardened Mild Carbon, SPS5 Steel,” Materi-

als Science and Engineering A, 485, pp 31–38.

(15) Totik, Y., Sadeler, R., Altun, H., and Gavgali, M. (2003), “The Effects of

Induction Hardening on Wear Properties of AISI 4140 Steel in Dry Sliding

Conditions,” Materials and Design, 24, pp 25–30.

(16) Mokhtar, M. O. A. (1982), “The Effect of Hardness on the Frictional Be-

haviour of Metals,” Wear, 78, pp 297–304.

(17) Kameyama, Y. and Komotori, J. (2007), “Tribological Properties of

Structural Steel Modified by Fine Particle Bombardment (FPB) and

Diamond-Like Carbon Hybrid Surface Treatment,” Wear, 263, pp 1354–

1363.

(18) Tyfour, W. R., Beynon, J. H., and Kapoor, A. (1995), “The Steady State

Wear Behaviour of Pearlitic Rail Steel under Dry Rolling–Sliding Contact

Condition,” Wear, 180(1–2), pp 79–89.

(19) Garcia, A., Varela, A., Garcia, L., Rio, M. C., Naya, S., and Suarez, M.

(2005), “Comparing the Tribological Behaviour of an Austenitic Steel Sub-

jected to Diverse Thermal Treatments,” Wear, 258, pp 203–207.

(20) Wei, M. X., Wang, S. Q., Wang, L., and Cui, X. H. (2011), “Wear and Fric-

tion Characteristics of a Selected Stainless Steel,” Tribology Transactions,

54, pp 840–848.

(21) Ramalho, A. and Miranda, J. C. (2006), “The Relationship between

Wear and Dissipated Energy in Sliding Systems,” Wear, 260, pp 361–

367.

(22) Chowdhury, M. A., Khalil, M. K., Nuruzzaman, D. M., and Rahaman,

M. L. (2011), “The Effect of Sliding Speed and Normal Load on Friction

and Wear Property of Aluminum,” International Journal of Mechanical &

Mechatronics Engineering, 11, pp 53–57.

(23) Yakimets, I., Richard, C., Beranger, G., and Peyre, P. (2004), “Laser Peen-

ing Processing Effect on Mechanical and Tribological Properties of Rolling

Steel 100Cr6,” Wear, 256, pp 311–320.

(24) Spinler, G. (2002), Machine Design, Principles and Applications, 1 Static,

2nd ed. EPFL Press and Chapman & Hall: Lausanne.

(25) Symmons, G. R. and McNulty, G. J. (1986), “Acoustic Output from

Stick–Slip Friction,” Wear, 113, pp 79–82.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Ria

dh A

UT

AY

] at

16:2

5 2

0 J

une

2012