BLSEVIER

WEAR
Wear 203-204 ( 1997) 302-309
Resistance to particle abrasion of selected plastics
Kenaeth G. Budinski
Eastman Kodak Cornpony, 3177Latto Road, Suite 146, Rochrsrer. NY 14612-3092. USA
Ahstnwt
Accelerated abrasive wear of plastic parts in a piece of production machinery prompted a laboratory study to find a material with better
abrasion resistance. The abrasion occurred in a machine that compacted sand-like pardclesof an inorganic compound. Theabrasionresistance
of a -wide variety of plastics and different durometer polyurethanes (21 materials) was tested with a modification of the ASTM dry-sand
rubber wheel three-budy abrasion test. Only one material, a polyurethane, bad better abrasion r&stance tban tbe material tbat was currently
in use. Hardness, friction and scratch tests were conducted on the test materials to try to understand the mle of material properties in this type
of abrasion. None of these correlated with the wear data. Rcvious investigators of plastic abrasion related abrasion resistance to the fracture
energy and friction. The wear data developed in this study did not cormlate with the specific modal pmposed by Ratner. However, it was
possible to obtain a reasonable correlation with a deformation factor that included the friction of the abrasive on tbe plastic and a term that
related to the energy required to deform the material plastically. A test similar to a Brine11 hardness test was used to arrive at tbe &format&n
energy of the 21 test materials. The more easily the material deforms in contact with a particular abrasive, the better the abrasion resistance.
0 1997 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywordr: Abrasion resistaaee; Ptastia
1. IntYoduction
This study was prompted by an equipment problem that
was occurring in the production of crystnilites of an inorganic
compound used in the preparation of photographic emulsions.
The material was similar to ordinary table salt in size, appear-
ance and compressive strength. The problem to be addressed
by this study was the accelerated wear of plastic guides that
directed the powder into a briqueting press. The powder was
directed into compacting rollers with two parallel plastic
plates of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE) that were about 6 mm thick. The plates were
only lasting about two weeks before they had to be replaced
because of excessive abrasive wear from the powder rubbing
on the plate as it entered a roller nip. The plates wem not
particularly expensive, but replacing these plates was a very
expensive operation. They were buried well into the
machine and their replacement required the loss of up to two
days of production. The plates were made from plastics
because metals may introduce contamination (wear debris)
and because ceramics were too brittle to withstand the flexing
that occurs in the plates. Our assignment was to conduct
laboratory tests to determine whether another material would
provide improved service life over the UHMWFE.
OW3-1648/97/$t7SlCI 0 t997EtsevkrSeteaeeS.A.
PIlSOO43-1648(96)07346-4
All ii&Is -ed
Many studies have been conducted on the wear of plastics
mated to metals, but the studies on the abrasion resistance of
plastics are fewer and less conclusive. Most reports seem to
recommend additional studies [ l-101. There are some stan-
dard tests for the abrasion resistance of plastics; one of the
most widely used tests is the Taber Abraser test, ASTM D
4060 [ 111. This test involves abrasion of a flat sample of
plastic with rotating rubber/abrasive wheels or with sand-
paperwheels.Anothertest,ASTMD1242ProcedureA[12],
uses loose abrasive distributed on a rotating platen. lhe loose
abrasive is pressed into the rotating sample. ASTM D 1242
Procedure B [ 131 uses what is essentially a belt sander to
abrade specimens on a conveyor that cycles in and out of
contact with the sandpaper. ASTM G 56 [ 141 has been used
to measure the abrasion resistance of plastic to paper. A bail
rider is rubbed on a large paper-covered drum. ASTM G 132
[ 151 is an abrasion test in which the ends of vertical pins rub
on a large sandpaper-covered drum. Although this test was
developed for metals, the concept has been used by others to
test plastics [ 161. All of these tests were considered as cau-
didates for a laboratory test to screen materials to address the
above production problem.
The test selected to rank materials was yet another ASTM
test, ASTM G 65, the dry-sand rubber wheel abrasion test
[ 171. This test, which is illustrated in Fig. 1, was developed
K.G. Budhki/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 302-309
to rank the abrasion resistance of both hard and soft metals.
The material to be tested is line-contact loaded against a
rubber wheel and silica sand is metered into the nip. Wear is
assessed by measuring rye volume of material (by mass
change) removed from the specimen in a fixed period of
rubbing. This particular test is one of the most used abrasion
2. Prncedure
The dry-sand rubber wheel tester uses a 228 mm diameter
chlorobutyl rubber wheel (6OShore A) as an abrader. lhc
,wheel is 12.7 mm wide and runs at a single speed, 20.9
rad s- . Ibe test samples are from 4 to 12.7 mm in thickness,
25 mm wide, and 76 mm long. Tbe wear surfaces are the
25 X 76 mm* faces. The loading force of the specimen again-t
the wheel can be up to 140 N. The abrasive is 215 to 300 km
silica. All test users purchase test sand fromthe same source.
The send flow is in the range 30&4OCt g mitt-. There are
three procedures in the ASTA4 test standard that employ dif-
Tabk I
Base polymer wucr w%)/wiafollmnYit
Polyphmylene sume (PPS) 4o%cwbmtiber(cP)
PdYrtyrar m) Now
epOxy (EP) 4o%vmwa*
PolyphmylenesuRide (PPS)
PlpelcboPPcd LLU KG)
Phedk (Pm wovmmnGd6berwDM)
PolytanauomeIhylaK (Pm?)
Polyoxymhykne (PDM) Er+=(cG)
Acrylwiuikbtadiadstyme (ABS) None
EPOXY @PI wova dotb (cot)
Phenolic (PF) wovendotb (cot)
Poly&rrtherlraonc (PEEK) None
PolylarpRuom(hylcae (Prm) NODI?
Polyimide (PI) NOSE
Polyethyknc (HDPE) Nolv
Polyamtde. (PA)
Me
Polyurahane (PtJtt) 55A None
Polyamhane (PUR) 9OA NOD?
Polyumhaae (PUR) 75D NOtIC
Polo (Putt) 85D NaU
P01yethykm (UHMwpe) oil
Polycthykae wHMwm) cotltml Note
Referraametlls:AlSItype316ruinkn~zl(~92HRB).Stdlite
6B(hudnss43HRc).typeA2~l~(~6oHRc).
ferent normal forces and test durations. llte test procedure
used in this study employed a 45 N force and a test duration
of only 200 wheel revolutions (60 s). This procedure was
used successfully by the ASTM G02.3 Abrasive Wear Sub-
committee in 1990 to conduct in&l&xatq tests on poly-
meric coatings. llte test mamriais included the plastics and
elastomers listed in Table 1. These materials were selected
because of their successful performance in other plant
operations.
All test samples were made from bulk materials. The sam-
ples with woven reinforcements were tested on the& flat face.
Where possible, the abrasion tests were conducted on as-
molded surfaces. Wear volumes were calculated from mass
changes during the test.
3. T&results
The average volume losses are compared in Fig. 2. Typical
wear seers on the plastic specimens are shown in Fig. 3. Only
onematerial,a90ShonAdurometerpolyurrthaae.hadbetter
wear resistance than the UHMWPE plastic currently in use.
An oil-lubricated UHMWPE was comparable in wear msis-
tance to the control material as were several otherhardnesses
of polyurethane elastomer.
Theglassandcarbonfi~r-ninforcedplssticshadtheworst
abrasion resistance of the reinforced materials. Cotton and
linen-reinforced materials had better abrasion resistance than
the glass-reinforced materials. llte worst wear on a non-
reinforced plastic was on polystymne. lltere appeamd to be
a preferred hardness for polyurethane-the top of the Shore
KG. Budi&i/ Wear 203-204 (1997i 302409
c
:
/
I
I
i
3
0 100 200 200 400 so2 coo 700 a00
w8w - h-2)
Fig. 2. Wear voIumes for plastic caadidatles in a modified ASTM G 65
abrssioa test.
Fig. 3. Typial appmma ofwaarscmoaplnticrpedmenr.
A scale. Harder (Shore D) and softer materials did not wear
as well. All of dte plastics tested, except UHMWPE and
polyurethane, had lower abrasion resistance than the scft
stainless steel reference material. A2 tool steel at 60 HRC
was more abrasion resistant than all of the test materials, but
it was not significantly more abrasion resistant than a9OShore
A polyurethane. These. tests suggest that under certain con-
ditions, some plastics and elastomers can have particle abra-
sion resistance comparable with that of hard steels.
4. Dlscuselon
4.1. Role of hardness
What controls the abrasion resistance of plastics?Theclas-
sic relationship for abrasive wear of metals is that wear is
inversely proportional to the hardness of the metal [ 181. The
harder the metal, the lower the abrasion rate. Unfortunately
there is no single plastic hardness scale that is suitable for the
wide range of plasticsieiastomers inch&d in this study.
Nonetheless, Shore D and recoil hardness tests were con-
ducted on the test plastics to explore the plausibility of a
hardness-abrasion relationship. As shown in Fig. 4, the
hardest plastic, glass-reinforced epoxy, was harder than
U?MWFE by a factor of about 1.4. but their abrasion rates
varied by a factor of about 60.
It was thought that the resilience cf the plastics may play
some role in resisting indentation and scratching by hard
particles. There is a commercially available hardness tester
that uses the rebound velocity of a spherical-ended sabot to
measure the hardness of metals. The harder the metal, the
greater the rebound velocity. This device was used on the test
materials. As shown in Fig. 5, dtese rabound hardnesses did
not show an apparent correlation with the abrasion volume
losses.
K.G. Budin&/ War 203-204 (1997) 302-309 305
PB
PPSG
EPvlu~
PPS*PTFE
PF NDU
ABB
POM.PTFE
EP*OtitlMl
PEEK
P7FE-x
PI
HDPE
PAMCB2
P7FE
PUR-MD
0 10 20 20 40 BD BO 70 80 96 100
Hv&r~ Bbom D
Fig. 4 Shore hsrdsess of test materials
Ps
PPSGF
EP*gluS
PPti*PTFE
PF*NDM
ABB
POMrP7FE
EP co1tott
PEEK
PTFE-CO
PI
HDPE
PA YOSZ
PTFE
PUR-SSD
31B BB
PUR-76D
PUS-SSA
SIetIIU SB
UHktWPE*o
U+iMWPE
PUMOA
A2 tool ?? wl 1
0 100200220400SO0BCO700
(ubnwy unn. 1 to loo01
Fie. 5. Rebound hardness of test materials (based on the recoil velocitv of
a s&h.4 ended sabot).
4.2. The role of scratch resistance
For malAy years the Taber Abraser has been used to rank
the abrasion &stance of plastics [ I ,6.16,19]. As mentioned
previously, this device can be used for two-body or three-
body abrasion. This type of test is not unlike a scratch test
where the abrader is & gbrasive-filled rubber or a sandpaper-
covered wheel. Fixed sharp particles are imposed on the test
. .
surface. In an attempt to simulate this type of material
__
removal, scratch tests were conducted on the test plastics
using a 60 included angle diamond cone stylus with a tip
radius of 200 Frn. Yamaguchi [ 161 and Briscoe et al. [20]
suggested that scratch hardness is a factor in abrasive wear
of plastics. The scratch hardness is measured by the wid*b of
the furrow produced by the scratching stylus:
H- Plb
where His the scratch hardness, P is the stylus load, and b is
the furrow width.
The tes: o!astics were scratched for a distance of about 50
stylus. Thefo~rerjuiredtoproduccthcscratch was&~~ded
continuously and this force was converted into static and
kinetic f&ion coefficients by dividing by the normal load.
Typical scratches arc showo in Fig. 6.
-ks shown in Fig. 7, the mat&& with he highest scratch
hardness. such as the eooxies and ohenolics. had the ooorest
abrasion resistance. T&o of the eiastomers; PUR-55 A and
PUR-90 A, did not scratch at all. The various plastics
appeared ;o scratch by different mechanisms (Fig. 8). The.
reinforced plastics displayed ragged edges on the scratch
scratch furrows; some produced furrows that varied in width
suggesling what appeared to be a stick-slip type motion dur-
ing surface deformation. Four metals and a cemented carbide
were scratched with the plastics/elastomers to see whether
they responded properiy to hardness differences. The
Fig.dSentchaintcst~m~~~~S~~~
NC ma@ifiatiw: (a) mthm-&forced phmolic. (b) polyamide+
molybdenum disttlfidc.
306 KG. Eudinski/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 302-309
?Ps+eF
EPyllvr
PPS*TPE
PF-NOM
HWE
PAwoSz
PTPE
Pun-am
3mss
_._ __
PUI WW
Pun-s3A
awlI* .a
UHSSWPM
UHMWPE
Pua-wA
A2tooIti.ut ! ,
I
0 10 20 30 40
Fig. 7. Scratch haninw of test materhIs.
scratch hardnesses of all of the plastics were lower than the
hardnesses of the metals (Table 2).
Tbe metals disuiayed scratch hardnesses that geaerallycor-
related with their hardness, but the relationship was not suc-
cinct. These results suggest a friction effect. Stellite 6B did
not scratch even though it is much softer than the tool steel
and cemented carbide. Overall, the scratch tests did not lead
to a relationship that clearly related the scratch hardness to
the observed volume losses in the abrasion tests. A second
and thiid series of scratch tests were conducted with carbide
styli with larger radii (2 and IO mm diameter balls). Only a
few of the test materials scratched with the 2 nun stylus and
none scratched with the IO mm stylus. The scratch tests were
concluded and the scratch force data were evaluated for
possible correlation with abrasion rates.
4.3. Friction considerations
The force measurements obtained in the scratch tests sug-
gest that when a scratch stylus produces plastic deformation/
fracture of the surface, the force is probably a reflection of
the energy required to produce deformation and removal of
material. The friction coefficients p measured in scratch
tests on the test plastics are given in Table 3.
These results suggest that me friction coefficient depends
to a significant degree on the degree. of plastic deformation
produced in the scratching operation. The wear test resuha
did not correlate with any of these scratch test results. In the
Fig. 8. Appearance of 600 diamond scratches in various test materials.
K.G. Budieski/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 302-309 307
Table 2
Scratch he&err of four metats aed cemeeted carbide
Mat ed Scratch hardness
tkgmm-)
Vickers luh~ss
6061 -T6 aluminum
3 I6 stainless steel
Stellie 6B
A2 tool steel
Cemented carbide (C2)
25 47
loo 143
No scratch 435
400 625
10000 1854
Table 3
Ceeffic~ent of friction fi measured in scratch tests on plastics with various
scratch styli
Styluslloeding mass Avdnge p I rmge
60diameedlKJOOg
2 mm diameter carbide/ 1000 g
10 mmdiametercubidc/1OOOg
0.58 0.14 0.2-0.9
G.21 0.2 0.2-I
0.14 0.13 0.05-0.7
Standard deviatiw.
abrasion test, however, the scratching material is 50-70 mesh
silica sand. In an effort to determine whether scratching with
silica makes a difference in scratch results. a scratch stylus
with silica grams on the rubbing surface was fabricated. Fric-
tion coefficients were calculated from the force measure-
ments made with a silica sand stylus. The steal stylus was 6
mm in diameter and a monolayer of sand was adhered to the
hemispherical end of the stylus with a cellulosic lacquer. As
shown in Fig. 9, the friction coefficient of the plastic/sand
couple did not correlate with the wear test results. The average
friction coafficient for the sand/plastic couples was 0.32
(u=O.22. r=O.l to 1.1). Most test samples were perma-
nently scratched by the sand stylus with a normal force pro-
duced by a 500 g mass on the stylus. The scratches and the
friction coefficients were smaller than for the diamond stylus.
These data suggest that the friction coefficient of this tribos-
ystem includes a measure of surface deformation as proposed
many years ago by Bikennan [ 211.
Table 4
Some of the models pmposed for the abrasive WW Of plastics
Fig. 9. Fricuoe cc&icienu (kinetic) of sitice sead stidiag 011 test ms&iats.
4.4. Abrasion models
Up to this point, the traditional tribological proper& of
tiictionand hardnesshavefailedtocomlatewiththeabrasion
results. Some additional plastic abrasion models from the
litemtttre were reviewed (Table 4) for dition. One model
that seemed to be quite reasonable was that proposed by
Ranter et al. [22], where tlte rate of material removal was
said to he inversely propcmtonal to the product of stress and
strain at rupture. It was not clear how stress and strain at
rupture could he ohtaincd from the G 65 abrasion blocks that
were available as test materials. It was decided that the load/
deflection curve for plastic deformation of the surface by a
hemispherical indenter may be a predictor of at least the
ability of a material to deform plastically as in scratclSng.
With this reasoning, the abrasion test coupons were ittdcnted
to a fixed depth of I.25 mm with a 6 mm diameter htdenter
in a universal tension/compression tester. The area under the
load/deflection curve was integrated and it was considered
a, yield strength; L load; E elastic mcdulus; Kc home roughness: H hardness; W wear
w-@VPd
p ebrasive wear factor; N scmtching efficiency factor; P normal load; d sliding distance
L
w-p:;,,
p friction coefficient; L load; H hardness; me stress and strain at mpnrre
w-tans
tee 6 damping parameter obtained from dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA)
puta:
Iv--
Y
p centact force; u sliding velocity; f time; a mughes of surface; y surface energy
Yamsgacni [I61
Rmlcrctal. [U]
Blw I241
visweluJuthend Bellow [zs]
K.G. &din&i/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 302-309
0 2 4 6 e 10 i2
Raformmtion Factor(r=--aruB
wu-1u(D~v.s,
Corralatlon &CtfiClMt -0.7273
(deformation factor)
as a measure of the energy required to deform plastically the
test material.
Wear data were plotted vs. the reciprocal of this energy
term as proposed by Ratner. lbere was poor correlation. After
manipulating the energy data in a variety of ways it was
determined that the best correlation existed with a deforma-
tion factor that included the friction coefficirbii -f the sand
on the test material:
w-/&Q)
where w is the abrasion rate, /.c is the friction coefficient of
sand on the plastic surface, and Se is the area under the load/
deflection curve from tbe bag indent test.
The lower the product of friction and deformation energy,
the lower the abrasion. As shown in Fig. IO, the correlation
is much less than perfect (correlation of 0.73), but this cor-
relation is certainly better than the correlation obtained with
the hardness and scratch parameters. This relationship also
seems reasonable. The deformation factor for elastomers is
low and they have good abrasion resistance. The same can
he said about the UHMWPRs. The contribution of friction
coefficient is thought to be that low friction can reduce wear
because the abrasive (in thme-body abrasion) is less likely
to dig in and form a plow mark or scratch. However, a high-
friction material such as PUR has good abrasion resistance
because. the abrasive grains tend to roll through the wear
interface rather than hecotue fixed on one member and plow
a furrow. The correlation seemed plausible and further work
with the other models was decided against.
5. Conclusions
1. Polyurethane with a durometer of 90Shore A has more
abrasion resistance to AFS 50-70 silica in a three-body
abrasion test than WE.
2. The hard, reinforced and filled engineering plastics had
relatively poor abrasion resistance to silica sand in the
three-body test used in this study.
3. llte plastics tbat defcrm easily when acted on by loose
abrasive particles (e.g. silica) are less likely to produce
material removal by scratching/fracture.
6. Sumruury
Twenty-one plastics/elastomers were subjected to a three-
body abrasion test to find an improved material to solve a
production problem. The tests did not identify a material with
the desired IO-fold increase in abrasion life. Ihe improve-
ment was only of the order of two times, much less tban
anticipated. However, this study reconfirmed that UHMWPE
and high Shore A polyurethanes have better abrasion resis-
tance than most other plastics and elastomers.
The explanation for their excellent abrasion resistance
appears to be their ability to deform easily and their favorable
friction characteristics against most other materials. The
model suggested by this study needs more development, but
it is felt that it may have correlated better if this study did not
include such diverse plastic/elastomer systems (glass-nin-
forced composites, injection moldable commodity plastics,
carbon fiber-reinforcc.$t engineering plastics, and elrsto-
mers) . They were not from similar groups or families. Future
studies need a less diverse group of test materials. Also, it
appears that the abrasion model should include a fracture
toughness term since the more brittle materials lost material
by brittle fracture in the scratch tests. The elastomers may
need a term relating to tbeii rcsiliencc (branching) and the
neat materials may need a more well defined friction term. In
1981, Bartenev and Lavrcntcv [ 191 concluded the chapter
on abrasive wear in their book on the friction and wear of
polymers with the statement: To the present there is no
theory of abrasive wear of polymers. This situation appears
to prevail, and it may not be possible IO improve on tbe
UHhIWPEs and polyurctbanes for abrasion resistance until
a better model is deduced.
References
[ II J.M. Tborp. Abrasive wear of somecommeminl polymers. Tritd. hr..
I5 ( 1982) 59-68.
121 1. Larsen-Basx and T. Abmad. Slurry abrasion of polymers under
simuktcd submarine conditions. Wear, 122 (2) (1988) 131-149.
[31 D.H. Buckky and R.L. Johnson. Friction wear and decomposition
mechanisms for various polymer compcsites in vacuum to IO+ mm
Kg. NASA Tech. Norc D-2373, Dccmber 1963 (NASA, Washington,
DC).
f41 G.F. Cok and R. Travksco. Wear by paper on nylon matrix
composites. In L.H. Lee (cd.), Adwnces in Polymer Friction and
Wear. Vol. SB. PIcnum New York, 1974, pp. 689-702.
IS1 I.M. Hu~cbings. Trih&~.CRCPress.London. 1992. pp. 156-162.
t6108.PowerandJ.H.Dumbleton,Animprovedmethodfordemrmining
the wear of polymeric coadngs, Wear. 25 ( 1973) 373-380.
KG. &din&i/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 302-309 309
171 B.J. Briscoe and P.D. Evans. Tk influence of asperity defomwion
conditions on the abmive wear of imdii PIPE. lo K.C. Ludma
(cd.). Wear of Maferialr 1989, Vol. 2. Amclican sociay of
Mcchaniul Enghan. New York, 1989. pp. 449457.
[El R.KamkoaadE.~Microwearpoceuerofpolymcrrurf~.
wear, 162-164 ( 1993) 370-377.
I91 D.G.BellowandN.S. Virw~alll.An~ysiroflhcwearofpolymm,
Wear, 162-164 (1993) 1048-1053.
[IO] S. Bahadur md D. Don& tbmdation of the model for opumal
pmpmtiw of Clkr in polymer for weat n&tatce. In K.C. L&ma
(cd.), Wear of Mamialr 1991. Anhan Sociay of Mechanical
Engineers. New York. 1991. pp. 177-187.
[lIlASTMD4060.T~me~forabrasion~sisulneeoforganic~ngs
by Taivr Abrascr, Amacan Society for Testing and Materials. W.
Conshohocken. PA.
[ 121 ASH D 1242. Test method for resistance of plastic mawi& to
abrasion. prowdun A. American Society for Testing and Materials.
W. Conshohockcn, PA.
1131 ASTM D 1242, Test method for raistance of plastic materials to
abrasion, pucedue B. American Society for Testing and Mat&d.s.
W. Conhhocken, PA.
( 14) ASTM G 56. Test maid for the abrasiveness of ink-impregnated
fabric prinlerribbons. Amriran Sac&y forTestinS and Mauials. W.
Conshohocken. PA.
1151 AsrMGI32.Sundsrdttstmahodforp~abrasiontffting.Amrican
Saciity for Testing and Materials. W. Conshohocken, PA.
( I61 Y. Yanquchi. Tribo&y OfPJ astic MamiaJ s, E&via, hmadq
1990.9.125.
[l7lASTMG65,PmcticeforconduchSdry-smdrubbu~~
W.Is. Americ=m Soday for Testing and M*cr*lr. W. coarhohodrto.
PA.
t 181 E. Rabinwin. Friction and Wear ~Mat&7Jr. Wii. Nnv Y&
1966. p. 168.
f I91 G.M. Bartcnev and V.V. Lawewcv. in KC. Luknu sld LR. h
(edr.). Fricdun and Wearo/PoJ ymers. Ekvier. Amsmbm, 1981.
p. 239.
[ZOI B.J. Briscoe.S.K. BerinamdS.S.Paoesw.ll~scrachhudacrrlod
hictionofaMArigidm*Q*1.~~C.LUdCm;LUSdR.G.B8~(~.),
wear of MOI.zriaLv 1991. Amaiaa .9ociuy oft&&&alE,
New York. 1991.pp.451~56.
(211 J.J. Bikerman. The nahnt of polyma friction. In L.H. Lee (cd.).
Polymer Science and Techwlo8y. Vol. 5% Pkaum, New Yak. 1974.
p. 168.
t221 S.B. hmer. 1.1. Pattwmva, O.V. RaJyakaidt and E.G. Lw. Sov.
PIllsI... ( M4) 37.
(231~. Hombogen.Tltcmkoffmctuetoughcssinthe~ofnwb,
wear. 33 ( 1975) 251-259.
[Xl PJ. Blau. Friction Schce awJ Techmb~. k4me1 J kkka. Ncv
Yolk, 1996, p. 194.
WI N. Viswanath and D.G. BcUow. Development of 60 apai~~ fa the
wear of polymers. Wear. 181-183 ( 1995) 42-49.