Wear, 53 (1979) 229 - 243

@ Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne

229
- Printed

in the Netherlands

AN EXPIATION
OF THE DIFFERENT
REG~ES
OF FRI~~N
AND WEAR USING ASPERITY DEFORMATION
MODELS
J. M. CHALLEN

and P. L. B. OXLEY

School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of New South Wales, P.O.B.
1, Remington, New Soutfi Wales 2033 ~A~st~lia~
(Received

August

11,1978)

Summary
A slip-line field analysis is given for the deformation
of a soft asperity
by a hard one and equations are derived for the corresponding coefficients of
friction and wear rates. Three main models are proposed. For smooth surfaces the first model gives low coefficients of friction and shows how plastic
deformation
of the asperity can occur without removal of material. The second model shows how wear and high coefficients of friction can occur for
such surfaces. For rougher surfaces a cutting model applies with a chip (wear
particle) being produced. In this way an explanation is offered of why lubrication is observed to inhibit wear for smooth surfaces and to encourage
it for rougher surfaces. A possible explanation is also given of why the actual
wear for engineering surfaces under normal working conditions is many orders of magnitude less than that calculated by assuming that all of the plastically deformed material is removed.

1. Introduction
When metallic surfaces are pressed together the load is carried by the
load-bearing areas created by the plastic deformation
of the tips of contacting asperities and the sum of these areas (real area of contact) is normally
much smaller than that of the surfaces themselves (apparent area of contact).
In early attempts to explain the frictional force which opposes relative
sliding between such surfaces Bowden and Tabor [l] assumed that this resulted mainly from the forces needed to shear the welded junctions
formed by adhesion at the contact areas although for certain conditions, e.g.
when a hard surface slides over a soft one, ploughing of the hard surface
through the soft one can also contribute. With this model the junctions are
assumed to be parallel to the sliding direction and the normal and shear
stresses acting on them are taken to be independent
of each other and to be
related respectively to the indentation yield stress (hardness) and shear flow
stress of the contacting materials. It follows that the frictional force is proportional to the load normal to the surfaces and independent of their area,

230

thus satisfying the two basic laws of friction. However, the coefficients of
friction estimated in this way are, at most, of the order of 0.2 and this is
much less than the values normally obtained for unlubricated metals. Later
the theory was modified to take account of the interdependence
of the normal and shear stresses which must be related by a yield criterion [ 21 and the
concept of an interfacial film separating the surfaces in the contact regions
[3] , with the film having strengths ranging from zero (perfect lubrication) to
the shear strength of the asperities (strong adhesion), was also introduced.
With this model the resolved shear stress at the junctions resulting from an
applied tangential force (equal to the frictional force when sliding occurs)
will only cause relative sliding of the surfaces if it is equal to the shear
strength of the interfacial film. For lower values, deformation
of the asperities will occur under the combined action of the normal and shear stresses
and the real area of contact will increase (junction growth) from its initial
value (resulting from the normal load alone) with this process continuing
until the tangential force is increased sufficiently to shear the interfacial film.
The predictions made in this way of the increase in the real area of contact
have been shown to be in good agreement with experimental results and the
theory, while still satisfying the basic laws of friction, gives more realistic
values for the coefficient of friction than the earlier theory and in particular
shows that for chemically clean surfaces (strong adhesion) this can reach extremely high values in agreement with experiment. Weaknesses of the theory
appear to be that it cannot account for the influence of surface roughness
unless a separate ploughing term is introduced and also it is not easy to see
how the model could be applied to make estimates of the wear of sliding
surfaces.
In investigations of particular relevance to the present one, Green [4]
applied plasticity theory to estimate the forces involved in asperity deformation and obtained slip-line field solutions for both strong and weak junctions
and then used some of these [5] to show, for example, how the coefficient
of friction could in the case of strong junctions be extremely high. In this
work Green pointed out that, while during the initial junction growth period
the two surfaces move closer together, they must under steady state sliding
conditions (neglecting small fluctuations)
move parallel to each other and he
showed that the necessary imposition of this condition on each individual
junction determined both its manner of deformation
and the forces exerted
through it. To investigate the influence of the strength of adhesion etc. on
the value of the coefficient of friction Green argued that if there are many
junctions at different stages of development (as there normally would be)
then the coefficient of friction for the surfaces as a whole can be estimated
by taking the ratio of the average tangential and normal forces over the life
cycle of a typical junction, which he said consisted of formation, deformation and fracture. Lacking a method for predicting the change in shape of an
asperity and the corresponding
forces during a life cycle (even today this
problem appears prohibitively difficult), Green carried out experiments using
scaled-up asperities made from Plasticine to give some indication of the type

231

(4

(b)

Fig. 1. Greens experiments showing the deformation of Plasticine asperities: (a) initially,
(b) during deformation.

of deformation
that might be expected. Referring to Fig. 1 Greens results
show that the change in shape of the Plasticine asperities can be roughly characterized by an increase in the angle TJand a decrease in the angle or although
if either asperity is hard (rigid) compared with the other then (Ywill not
change. For the part of the life cycle in which rl is in the range 0 - an Green
used one of his slip-line field solutions to estimate the normal and tangential
forces but for values of t) between i7r and in, for which no theoretical solutions existed, he deduced the probable way these forces might be expected
to change by considering some solutions he had obtained for symmetrical
junctions. In this way he showed how the normal stress could become tensile
towards the end of the life cycle and hence cause fracture of the junction.
Although no accurate quantitative estimates could be made of the coefficient
of friction, because neither the forces over the life cycle nor the point of fracture were known with sufficient accuracy, Green was able to show in a general way how this might be expected to vary with such factors as the strength
of adhesion and the ductility and hardness of the contacting materials and
the resulting trends were in good agreement with experiment. Edwards and
Halling [6] followed Greens approach of estimating the coefficient of friction by considering the life cycle of a typical junction. By using an upperbound method they were able to estimate forces beyond the range covered
by Greens slip-line field solutions but it should be noted that the upperbound method is not strictly applicable to problems like the present one
where the external shape of the deforming region should be obtained as part
of the solution.
If following Green [ 51 it is assumed that the typical life cycle of a junction consists of formation, deformation
and fracture then a rough estimate
of the wear can be made by calculating the volume of junctions removed
over a given sliding distance. If this is done the resulting wear exceeds the actual wear by as much as lo* times. According to Archard [7] this means that
there is only a probability of lo-* that an asperity contact will produce a
wear particle although he offers no mechanism to explain this. Kraghelsky
[ 81, however, suggested fatigue as a possible mechanism and in these terms
the factor lo* can be interpreted as the average number of loading cycles an
asperity contact would have to make before a wear particle was produced.
Whatever the mechanism it is clear that while all asperity contacts contribute
to friction they do not always, at least immediately, give a wear particle.
In this paper plane strain slip-line field theory is applied to the problem
of asperity deformation.
The approach used differs from that of Green [ 4, 51

232

in that steady state solutions are sought which can be taken to represent in
an average way the very complex deformation
processes which occur in the
actual sliding between surfaces and can indicate how surface roughness and
interfacial film strength influence friction and wear.

2. Asperity deformation models

To make the problem more tractable attention is limited to the case of
sliding of a hard (rigid) surface over a relatively soft one and in order that
slip-line field theory can be used in analysing the deformation
it is assumed
(i) that deformation
occurs under plane strain conditions with no flow normal to planes which are parallel to the sliding direction and normal to the
sliding surfaces and (ii) that the material of the softer surface is an idealized
rigid-plastic material which deforms at constant flow stress, which does not
change its density (volume constancy assumption) and which remains isotropic at all stages of deformation.
With this method it is the slip-line field
which consists of two orthogonal families of curves representing the directions of maximum shear stress and m~imum
shear strain rate within the deforming region which is treated as the unknown to be determined. The general approach to a problem is to construct a field that satisfies the stress
boundary conditions and is internally stress consistent and then to check to
see if it satisfies the necessary velocity conditions; if not the field is adjusted
until all conditions are met. For complete acceptance, a slip-line field should
be checked to see that the rate of plastic work is always positive and that the
stresses in the assumed rigid material are below the yield point but frequently
both of these conditions are assumed without rigorous proof. In carrying out
the above procedure the stresses associated with a slip-line field are calculated
from the stress equilibrium equations referred to slip lines (Hencky equations) which can be expressed in the form
p + 212$ = constant
p -

2h$ = constant

along a I line
along a II line

(1)

where p is the mean compressive (hydros~tic)

stress which acts normal to
the slip lines, h is the shear flow stress which acts parallel to the slip lines and
$Yis the anticlockwise angular rotation of the I lines from a fixed reference
axis with the I lines taken as those on which the shear stress exerts a clockwise couple. In checking a field for velocity this can either be done numerically using equations derived from the condition that, for volume constancy,
the rate of extension along slip lines must be zero or by a graphical method
based on the same condition in which a velocity diagram ~hodograph) is constructed, and it is the latter method which is used in the present work. A detailed description of slip-line field theory and its application is given in the
books by Hill [ 93 and Johnson et al. [lo].

233

L
.

R
../_.---

soft asperity

(4

(b)
Fig. 2. The rubbing model: (a) slip-line field, (b) hodograph.

2.1. Rubbing model

Figure 2 gives a possible steady state slip-line field and the corresponding
hodograph for the plastic deformation
of a soft asperity by a hard (rigid)
asperity. It is similar to one proposed by Green [ 51 for a weak junction which
apparently he made little use of. The interface ED between the hard and soft
asperities and the stress free surface AE are both assumed to be straight with
their directions defined by the angles Q and n measured from the sliding direction which for convenience is represented by the velocity U (Fig. 2) of
the soft material, the hard asperity being assumed to be stationary. It should
be noted that the deforming region ABCDE is that existing after initial junction growth and consequently
that the angle rl will in general be far greater
than the initial slope of asperities on the surface of the soft material. The angle (Y,however, will not change and will be relatedto the initial surface roughness of the hard surface. In constructing the slip-line field the independent
variables are taken to be the angle (Yand the strength f of the interfacial film
defined in the usual way as the ratio of the strength of the film to the shear
flow stress h of the soft material with 0 < f < 1. (To determine the scale of
the field it will also be necessary to know the normal load N (Fig. 2) carried
by the asperity.) With this model the deformation
is represented as a standing wave and the straight line joining A and D must be parallel to U to satisfy
volume constancy. Also the shear force on the soft asperity at the interface
must act in the direction DE to oppose motion. These two conditions together with the further condition that the slip lines must be inclined at an angle of $n to the free surface AE define the slip-line field and it follows from
geometry that

234

rl = sin-l

sin LY
(1 -

(3)

f)12

where cf, is the angle between CD and U and is measured positive as shown in
Fig. 2. The field, which is made up of regions of straight slip lines (CDE and
ABE) and a centred fan (BCE), is clearly internally consistent for stress, i.e.
in working round any closed slip-line loop using eqns. (1) the change in p is
zero. The hodograph (Fig. 2) shows that the field is acceptable for velocity.
In this there is a discontinuity
in tangential velocity along the slip line ABCD
so that material which enters and leaves the field with a velocity U flows in
the directions AE and ED in the regions ABE and CDE respectively; a typical
stream line is given in Fig. 2. The range over which the solution can apply is
determined from the condition that Cpmust be positive, which taken in eonjunction with eqns. (2) and (3) gives 01G 77< a~. To find the direction of the
resultant force R (Fig. 2) acting between the asperities and hence the coefficient of friction the equilibrium of the triangular element CDE is considered.
The shear stress on the slip lines is k and the hydrostatic stress p in this region
is found by starting at the free surface AE where p = k and applying the relevant equation of eqn. (1) along the slip line ABCD (II line) which gives
P=k{l+2($n+(I,-_rl))
wherein
+ Q, - 77is the angle subtended at the centre of the fan BCE. By resolving forces it can now be shown that the horizontal and vertical components of R (per unit width) are given by
F=k[{l+2($n+cP--)}sinol+cos(cr+2@)]ED

(4)

N = k[ {l + 2($.7r + 9 - n)] cos 01f sin (a + 2@)] ED

(5)

and

where ED (Fig. 2) is the length of the interface. For a given normal load N,
ED can be found from eqn. (5), i.e. the scale of the slip-line field (Fig. 2) is
determined and substituted in eqn. (4) to give the corresponding
frictional
force F. From eqns. (4) and (5) and substituting for Cpand n from eqns. (2)
and (3) the coefficient of friction or = F/N can be expressed as
A sin Q + cos (COS-~ f - a)
i.r=

A cos a + sin (cos-l

(6)

f-a)

where
A=l+~n+co~~f-22cu--2sin-~

sin (Y
(1 -

f)2

which shows that 0 < ~1< 1; results showing the influence of surface
roughness CYand interfacial film strength f on P are given in Fig. 3.

235

10

20

30

40

Hard

asperity

angle

50

60

70

60

90

a/degrees

Fig. 3. Variation of p with CYand f.

In ending this section it is interesting to note that the idea of a standing

wave in metal deformation
processes is not new. In drawing it is well known
that a standing wave can occur ahead of the die and Johnson and Rowe [ll]
have given a slip-line field, part of which is similar to the present one, to explain this. Collins [ 121 also used a similar field in considering rolling contact.
Further evidence of a standing wave effect has been given by Enahoro and
Oxley [ 131 from machining experiments and by Cocks [ 141 from experiments in which a hemispherical rider and a drum were in sliding contact. An
apparent virtue of the model is that it can contribute to friction while at the
same time it does not involve removal of the deformed material and thus in
theory no wear is involved. For this reason it will be termed the rubbing
model.
2.2. Wear model
When @ < 0, q > f n, it is no longer possible to construct a steady
state slip-line field (unless (Y> +X when as will be seen later a cutting model
can apply) and the conditions are similar to those described by Green [ 51 for
a strong junction with no sliding at the interface ED (Fig. 2) and with the life
cycle of the junction consisting of formation, deformation
and fracture. That
is, in this range the deformed material is removed and a wear particle produced. Although a theoretical solution for such non-steady flow appears prohibitively difficult it is possible to make some estimates of the forces and corresponding coefficients of friction by assuming that the deformation
that occurs before fracture can be characterized
by an increasing v (V 2 $ n) as shown
experimentally
by Green. This can be achieved by using the slip-line field
given in Fig. 4 in which only stresses are considered and no attempt is made
to satisfy velocity. With this model AD is assumed to remain parallel to U
during deformation
and the only change in the external shape of the deforming region that is taken into account is that resulting from the increase
in 17with AE still assumed to be straight. The slip-line field in Fig. 4 consists

236

Fig. 4. The wear model.

of two regions of straight slip-lines which can, however, no longer be joined

by a centred fan as with the previous field (Fig. 2) but instead meet at a line of
stress discontinuity EC (Fig. 4) (see for example ref. 9) across which there is
a jump in hydrostatic stress. The free surface AE again determines the direction of the slip lines in this region but in considering the interface ED the
strength of the interfacial film is no longer the determining factor as there is
no sliding along ED. However, for convenience CY
and f will still be taken as
the independent variables with f now simply representing the ratio of the resolved shear stress at ED to the shear flow stress k*. It then follows in the
same way as for the rubbing model that
a-- # =$ cos-l f

(7?

where Q,is the angle between CD and U measured positive as shown in Fig. 4.
Also by noting that for equilibrium the stress discontinuity EC must bisect
the angle n - p (Fig. 4) it can be shown that eqn. (3) again applies. An expression for the coefficient of friction is found as before by considering the
stresses acting at the interface ED. In this case the hydrostatic stress p in the
region attached to ED is found by starting at the free surface AE and by considering the jump in stress across EC which gives
p = k(1 - 2 sin p)
where from geometry
0 =

(y

--in -

_$ cos-l

f f sin-l

II a

(1 - f)l'2

Now by resolving forces and substituting for n and cpfrom eqns. (3) and (7)
it can be shown that

*Alternatively the shortening of AD (Fig. 4) could replace f as an independent variable with Q calculated from volume constancy considerations. Then, following Green [ 61,
the life cycle of the junction could be considered but this is not done in the present paper
as it would be inconsistent with the approach used.

237

-2.o-

Hard

Fig. 5. Variation
models.

10
asperity

20
angle

of vertical

30

,
II045

c/degrees

load bearing stress with ~1and f for the rubbing

and wear

(3)

{1-2sinp+(1-f2)1/2}coso-fsincu

and values of p calculated from this equation are given in Fig. 3. In this range
the normal load N can for certain conditions go negative as shown in Fig. 5
in which values of the vertical stress found by dividing N by the horizontal
projection of ED are given for both the rubbing and wear models. This would
imply negative values of p and these have not been included in Fig. 3. Of course
when this stress is zero (Fig. 5) then P is infinite.
To calculate the wear rate associated with this model it is assumed that
the plastically deformed material defined for a given Q by the condition @I=
0, Q = in is removed which from the geometry of Fig. 4 gives
wear rate =

volume loss in a given sliding distance

normal load
1 sin2 (Y+ + sin 2~
G

1 + sin 2a

The curve representing this equation

wear rate is given in Fig. 6.

which shows the influence

of (IIon the

2.3. Cutting model

When cx> a7r the steady state slip-line field for cutting with a restricted
contact cutting tool (Fig. 7) proposed by Johnson [ 151 and Usui and Hoshi
[ 161 can be considered as a possible model. This field is clearly similar to
that for the rubbing model (Fig. 2) with AE again a stress free surface and
ABCD a line of velocity discontinuity.
However, there are marked differences in the flow as shown by the hodograph in Fig. 7. The straight line joining A and D is no longer parallel to U and the distance of D below A determines the thickness tl (Fig. 7) of the layer which is removed as a chip flowing

238
06.

cutting

model

wea

model
x

;i
5

0.1.

,'
,/'

o.

*,;'o

10

20

30
Hard

Fig. 6. Variation

(b)
Fig. 7. Restricted

LO
asperity

50
angle

60

70

60

90

a/degrees

of wear rate with LYand f.

contact

cutting

model:

(a) slip-line

field, (b) hodograph.

in the direction given by the hodograph. The shear force on the soft asperity
at the interface ED must now act in the direction ED to oppose motion, i.e.
in the opposite direction to that for the rubbing model, and the equation corresponding to eqn. (2) is
(Y-$J =+

-cos-1

f)

(10)

where # is again measured positive as shown in Fig. 7. A limitation of the restricted contact cutting model in relation to the present problem is that the
hard asperity will usually extend beyond E and the chip will be constrained
to move parallel to ED. If the interface is sufficiently long then the distance
ED over which contacts occur can be termed the natural contact length and
is determined as part of the solution. For such conditions Lee and Shaffer

239

[ 171 have proposed the slip-line field given in Fig. 8 in which the velocity
discontinuity
ABCD is straight and ED is determined by the values of 4 and
$. With this model AE is again assumed to be stress free and it follows that
along ABCD p = k and therefore that the resultant force transmitted by ED
and ABCD will be inclined at an angle of $7r to ABCD. Noting that eqn. (10)
still applies it can now be shown from geometry that the coefficient of friction associated with this model is given by
an++

/J=mn(a--

cos-l

f)

(11)

and results calculated from this equation are given in Fig. 3. In the same way
as with the rubbing model the scale of the slip-line field, represented by say
t1 (Fig. 8), is determined from the normal load and it can be shown by considering the corresponding
volume of chip removed over a given sliding distance that the wear rate for the cutting model is given by
wear rate = -

f)
+ + cos-1f)}

cos (OL+ $ cos-1

dzk cos {n + (a -+

Curves calculated from eqn. (12) showing the influence

wear rate are given in Fig. 6.

(12)
of LYand

f on the

3. Discussion
The models of asperity deformation
proposed give results which are
consistent with the two basic laws of friction with the frictional force proportional to the load normal to the contacting surfaces and independent
of
their area. Also, in agreement with the trends usually observed in experiments, it can be seen (Fig. 3) that for a given interfacial film strength f the
coefficient
of friction 12 is predicted to increase with increase in surface
roughness (Yover the entire range of conditions considered while for a given
Q a decrease in f is predicted to decrease P in the rubbing model range and to
increase P in the cutting model range. It is difficult to check the accuracy of
the actual numerical values of 1-1(Fig. 3) because of the problems in relating
the idealized models of asperity deformation
used in the analysis to the actual surface conditions in friction experiments. However, for engineering surfaces under normal working conditions OLmight be expected to have average
values in the range 0 - 10 with f < 0.8 and for such conditions the predicted
values of ~1are similar to experimental values. For chemically clean surfaces
(f + 1) the predicted values of cc become extremely high with cc + = for f +
1 when Q = 0 which is in agreement with the experimental results of Bowden
and Young [18] who found friction coefficients
of the order of 100 for
metal surfaces thoroughly outgassed in vacuum. Also in agreement with these
experiments it can be seen (Fig. 3) that even a small reduction in f can cause
P to fall rapidly from extremely high values to values of the order of 1. For
rougher surfaces the present results show that the same effects might be ex-

240

petted when the surfaces are not chemically clean and that for a given 01the
only requirement for P to increase rapidly is that f should be sufficiently large
to give a transition from the rubbing to the wear model. For example, for
(Y= 30 this would occur so long as f> 0.5. The coefficient of friction ,u can
also become extremely large in the cutting range and, for example, for f = 0
P + 00 as (11+ 90. A further observation made by Bowden and Young in
their experiments
was that for chemically clean surfaces junction growth
continued until the real and apparent areas of contact became equal and gross
seizure occurred. In contrast, for contaminated
surfaces junction growth was
soon ended. An estimate of the junction growth associated with the rubbing
and wear models for comparison with these findings can be made from the
values of vertical stress given in Fig. 5. For a given Q!the initial area when only
the normal load is applied can be assumed to be inversely proportional
to the
stress corresponding
to f = 0 (F = 0 for small 0) and the final area will be inversely proportional
to the stress corresponding
to the actual value of f.
Therefore the ratio of these two stresses can be taken as the ratio of the areas.
In this way it can be seen (Fig. 5) in agreement with Bowden and Youngs results that as f is increased for a given cr the growth in area increases and that
for sufficiently large values of f the real and apparent areas will be equal.
Two wear processes have been suggested both of which give wear rates
which are inversely proportional
to the shear flow stress (hardness) of the
softer material and thus satisfy at least one of the basic laws of wear. For
1y< in a wear particle is produced by shearing off the deformed part of the
asperity when, for a given cr, f is sufficiently large to make the wear model
applicable. In this range the wear rate results (Fig. 6) plot as a single curve?
and as can be seen the larger the value of 01the higher is the wear rate and the
smaller is the value of frequired
to give wear. The role of contaminant
films
(lubricants) in this range is therefore to reduce f so that rubbing conditions
are maintained and clearly the rougher the surface the more effective must
be the lubrication. In passing it should be noted that although with the rubbing model there is theoretically
no wear it is possible that wear could occur
on a much reduced scale at the interface ED (Fig. 2). For 1y> in wear is produced by a cutting action and in this case, as shown by the family of curves
in Fig. 6, a reduction in f for a given 01increases the wear rate which is consistent with experience - see for example the results of Mulhearn and Samuels
[ 191 for abrasive wear. Also an increase in sharpness (Yfor a given f increases the wear rate as would be expected.
From Figs. 3 and 6 it can be seen that for (II> a~ there is a region in
which for the cutting model used [ 171 there are no solutions for I_(or wear
rate. Also with this model cutting cannot occur and a chip cannot be formed
unless (Y> $n when it is well known from experiments
[20] that chips are
produced for much smaller values of (Y.Both of these limitations can be over*Note that for f = 0 the resultant force is normal to the interface between the hard
and soft asperities and /J = tan CYfor all cases.
The possibility of gross seizure occurring has not been considered.

241

Fig. 8. The natural contact cutting model: (a) slip-line field, (b) hodograph.

come in the following way. With the Lee and Shaffer model it is assumed
that a plastic state of stress exists in the region ABCDE (Fig.8). In an altemative model which has been widely used in machining research the chip is still
assumed to be formed by shearing across a single shear plane, equivalent to
ABCD (Fig. 8), but the material between this plane and the interface is taken
to be rigid. With this model the comer D becomes a stress singularity and
eqn. (10) no longer applies. Working in much the same way as with the Lee
and Shaffer model, but with the hydrostatic stress along ABCD now calculated from the free surface just ahead of A (Fig, 8), expressions for ~1and
wear rate have been obtained and results calculated in this way are given in
Figs. 9 and 10. (A full description of the method is given by Challen [21] .)
It can be seen that values of p and wear rate now exist for all considered
combinations of (Yand f and that cutting can occur for (Yvalues down to
about 20. Over a certain range (a = 20 - 45) the new results (Figs. 9 and
10) have introduced some overlapping of results and for certain values of (Y
and f in this range both the rubbing (or wear) and cutting models give possible
solutions. The values of ~1for such conditions are always less for the cutting
model than for the other two models and hence the cutting model gives a
smaller frictional force for a given normal load. It might therefore be reasoned
that in these cases the values for the cutting model will apply. This can lead
to some unexpected results and for example in this range an increase in surface roughness 01can for certain values of f cause the predicted values of cc
and wear rate suddenly to decrease. It is not known whether there are any
experimental results showing such effects.

242

10

20

30

Hard aspmty

Fig. 9. Variation

LO

50

60

70

80

90

angle a/degrees

of p with LYand f (modified

cutting

model).

06.

10

XI

30
Hard

Fig. 10. Variation

40

50

60

70

60

90

asperity angle aldcgres

of wear rate with 01and f (modified

cutting

model).

In conclusion it is of interest to consider, in the light of the present

work, the observation that the wear calculated by assuming that all of the
plastically deformed material is removed is many orders of magnitude greater
than the actual wear. Actual surfaces will have a distribution of asperities of
varying geometry, and asperity deformation
will in general be three dimensional. It might still be expected, however, that the three deformation
models
proposed, namely rubbing, wear and cutting, will have their three-dimensional counterparts
which will exhibit similar characteristics
to those described. For engineering surfaces under normal working conditions it would
seem reasonable to suppose that most asperity contacts will have conditions
appropriate to the rubbing model and that these will carry most of the normal load. Wear will then only occur for the relatively small number of asperities which are sufficiently sharp considering the local interfacial film strength
to give either a cutting or a wear mechanism. This therefore offers a possible

243

alternative explanation to that, for example, of Kraghelsky [8] of why the

actual wear is so much less than might be expected.
In the present analysis the deformation has been assumed to occur at a
constant flow stress and in future work it is hoped to consider possible variations in flow stress with strain, strain rate and temperature (as has already
been done for metal cutting [22] ) and in this way to allow for the influence
of such factors as the speed of sliding.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Professor D. Dowson for many stimulating
discussions of the problems associated with asperity deformation.

References
1 F. P. Bowden and D. Tabor, The Friction and Lubrication
of Solids, Oxford Univ.
Press: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950.
2 J. S. McFarlane and D. Tabor, Proc. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 202 (1950) 244 - 263.
3 D. Tabor, Proc. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 251(1959)
378 - 393.
4 A. P. Green, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 2 (1954) 197 - 211.
5 A. P. Green, Proc. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 228 (1955) 191 - 204.
6 C. M. Edwards and J. Hailing, J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 10 (1968) 101 - 110.
7 J. F. Archard, J. Appl. Phys., 24 (1953) 981- 988.
8 I. V. Kraghelsky,
Friction and Wear, Butterworths,
1965.
9 R. Hill, The Mathematical
Theory of Plasticity, Oxford Univ. Press: Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1950.
10 W. Johnson,
R. Sowerby and J. B. Haddow, Plane-strain
Slip-line Fields, Edward
Arnold, London, 1970.
11 R. W. Johnson and G. W. Rowe, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., London, 182 (1968) 521 529.
12 I. F. Collins, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 14 (1972) 1 - 14.
13 H. E. Enahoro and P. L. B. Oxley, J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 8 (1966) 36 - 41.
14 M. Cocks, J. Appl. Phys., 33 (1962) 2152 - 2161.
15 W. Johnson, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 4 (1962) 323 - 347.
16 E. Usui and K. Hoshi, Proc. Int. Production
Engineering
Research Conf., A.S.M.E.,
Pittsburgh,
1963, pp. 61 - 71.
17 E. H. Lee and B. W. Shaffer, J. Appl. Mech., 18 (1951) 405 - 413.
18 F. P. Bowden and J. E. Young, Proc. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 208 (1951) 311 - 325.
19 T. 0. Mulhearn and L. E. Samuels, Wear, 5 (1962) 478 - 498.
20 L. E. Samuels, Metailographicai
Polishing by Mechanical Methods, Pitman, London,
1971.
21 J. M. Challen, Ph. D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, 1978.
22 P. L. B. Oxley and W. F. Hastings, Phiios. Trans. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 282 (1976)
565 - 584.