ASTM Wear Testing

7/30/2019 ASTM Wear Testing

1/12

.Wear 225229 1999 11591170

Development and use of ASTM standards for wear testing 1

Peter J. Blau a,), Kenneth G. Budinski b

aOak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6063, USA

bEastman Kodak, Rochester, NY 14652-4347 USA

Abstract

Standard wear test methods have been developed under the auspices of various ASTM technical committees. Committee G-2 on Wear

and Erosion was established in 1964 and has been a leader in developing such standards. Some ASTM wear testing standards are aimed

at specific components, like the jaws of rock crushers, but others are designed to determine a materials resistance to a specific wear type,

like solid-particle erosion or two-body abrasive wear. Having identified a need for a new wear testing standard, ASTM G-2 typicallyfollows a process of first assigning responsibility to a relevant subcommittee. The subcommittee chair may then decide to establish a task

group to develop the given method, conduct one or more inter-laboratory testing programs, write a draft standard, conduct ballots, and

revise or rewrite the draft standard to achieve consensus. Since the repeatability and reproducibility varies between test methods

understanding the role of instrumental and measurement factors of each wear testing standard is critical before it can become approved. In

addition, each standard is critically reviewed on a continuing 5-year basis, and revised or updated as needed. This paper describes the

development of standard wear testing methods and provides five examples of how ASTM G-2 wear testing standards were used to help

solve important industrial problems involving sliding wear, abrasive wear, galling, and erosive wear. q 1999 Published by Elsevier

Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wear; ASTM G-2; Erosion; Galling

1. Introduction

There are many types of wear test methods both be-

cause there are many types of wear and because there are

many different situations in which wear has become a

problem. Wear test methods fall into any of several cate-

gories. Some wear test methods are aimed at a specificw xtype of material, such as wear test methods for plastics 1 .

Some are aimed at evaluating a materials response to a

specific type of wear, such as solidparticle erosion, slid-

ing wear, or two-body abrasive wear. Other wear tests are

designed to simulate a particular field application in orderto screen materials, surface treatments, or lubricants for

)

Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-423-574-5377; fax: q1-423-574-

6918; E-mail: [email protected]

The research of the first author was sponsored in part by the U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, High

Temperature Materials Laboratory User Program, under contract DE-

AC05-96OR 22464 with Lockheed Martin Energy Research.

that type of service. Finally, some wear tests are intended

for fundamental research into the basic nature of wear.

Standard wear test methods have been used for all of these

reasons, but like any type of wear test, standard test

methods have both strengths and limitations.

The principal advantages of using ASTM standard wear .test methods are: 1 the test methods have been rigorously

.evaluated and the procedures carefully documented; 2 the

repeatability and reproducibility of results tends to be

better documented and understood than for specialized or .one-of-a-kind types of wear testing machines; 3 in many

cases, a great deal of previous data exists and it is conve-nient to compare new results with the existing data; and .4 documentation and reporting requirements have been

established so that all the major variables and results of the

work can be presented in a complete and organized man-

ner. On the other hand, there are occasions when no

ASTM test method satisfactorily meets the current need

for wear data. Perhaps it does not simulate an intended

application sufficiently well, or perhaps the specified test-

ing parameters lie outside the interests of the current

investigation.

0043-1648r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Published by Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

.P II: S 0 0 4 3 -1 6 4 8 9 9 0 0 0 4 5 -9


2/12

( )P.J. Blau, K.G. Budinski r Wear 225229 1999 115911701160

Table 1

ASTM wear tests developed by several committees

Designation Test description

D-4172 Wear preventive characteristics of lubricating fluids

D-4170 Fretting wear protection by lubricating greases

G-32 Vibratory cavitation erosion test

G-56 Abrasiveness of ink-impregnated fabric printer ribbons

G-65 Dry sandrrubber wheel abrasion test

G-73 Liquid impingement erosion test

G-75 Slurry abrasivityG-76 Erosion by solid particle impingement using gas jets

G-77 Ranking resistance of materials to wear using block-on-ring wear test

G-81 Jaw crusher gouging abrasion test

G-83 Crossed-cylinder wear test

G-98 Galling test

G-99 Pin-on-disk test

G-105 Wet sandrrubber wheel abrasion test

G-119 Synergism between wear and corrosion

G-132 Pin abrasion test methods

G-133 Reciprocating sliding wear test

G-134 Cavitating liquid jet erosion test

G-137 Ranking resistance of plastic materials for sliding wear using a block-on-

ring configuration

ASTM is an organization with about 36,000 members

and 132 standards committees. Several of these commit-

tees have produced wear testing standards. A list of the

ASTM wear testing standards is provided in Table 1. The

number of standards changes periodically since each stan-

dard must be re-balloted for approval every 5 years, and

new standards are added from time to time. The two

committees which have produced more wear tests than the

others are committee D-2 on Lubrication and Committee

G-2 on Wear and Erosion.

The current paper focuses on the Committee G-2s

work in developing new wear testing standards, and illus-

trates how specific standards can be used to solve practical

wear problems. Committee G-2 was formed in 1964, based

on a growing interest in erosive wear, particularly in utility

power plants. Since that time, the committees scope has

widened to comprise other forms of wear as well. The

breath of the committees interests is reflected in the

continuing series of technical publications. Some of the

standard wear test methods of today have resulted from

Fig. 1. Coefficient of variation within laboratories and between laboratories for five ASTM wear test methods. Data obtained from the respective standards

documents.


3/12

( )P.J. Blau, K.G. Budinski r Wear 225229 1999 11591170 1161

needs identified in technical symposia and workshops or-

ganized by G-2 members.

2. How ASTM standard wear testing methods are de-

veloped

Any new ASTM testing standard arises out of a need

for the systematic collection of materials property mea-surements in a certain area of science or engineering. In

the case of wear data, the usual process begins at the

subcommittee level. The current standards-writing sub-

committees in Committee G-2 on Wear and Erosion are

G02.091Erosion by Solids and Liquids, G02.20Com-

puterization in Wear, G02.30Abrasive Wear, G02.40

Non-Abrasive Wear, G02.50Friction, and G02.91

Terminology. Other subcommittees perform supporting

functions like editorial review and long-range planning

When a proposal for a new standard is introduced and

there is a consensus agreement within the subcommittee

that a widespread need exists, then the subcommittee

chairman may establish a task group in that area. The new

task group draws its members from experts and interestedparties, whether they are ASTM members or not. If several

task group members possess wear machines which can

provide certain agreed-upon conditions, then an interlabo-

ratory test program can be conducted. Several rounds of

interlaboratory tests may be needed to define the appropri-

Table 2 .Typical variabilities of ASTM wear test methods Data from interlaboratory studies

Standard Wear type Material Conditions Within-Lab Between-a a . .COV % Lab COV %

G-32 cavitation erosion Ni 200 20 Hz freq., 50 mm amplitude, 8.9 20distilled water at 25 " 28C, .max. loss rate in mmrh

G-65 abrasion by sand 4340 steel 130 N force, 1000 revolutions 5.9 5.23 .between a wear loss in mm

specimen and a

rubber wheel

4340 steel 130 N force, 2000 revolutions 2.4 3.53 .wear loss in mm

WC 20% 130 N force, 6000 revolutions 6.4 19.33. .Co wear loss in mm

G-76 erosion by 1020 steel 50 mm alumina particles, 30 17.1 29.3

particles in a gas mrs vel., 908 incidence,3stream 2 grmin feed wear in mm rg

.erodant

1020 steel 50 mm alumina particles, 70 3.4 17.0mrs vel., 908 incidence,32 grmin feed wear in mm rg

.erodant

304 50 mm alumina particles, 70 4.9 21.0

stainless mrs vel., 908 incidence,3steel 2 grmin feed wear in mm rg

.erodant

G-77 block sliding on a 01 tool 134 N force, 72 rpm, 5400 37.6 18.8ring steel block r revolutions, no lubricant wear

3.4620 steel of the block in mm

ring

01 tool 134 N force, 197 rpm, 5400 14.9 40.2steel blockr revolutions, no lubricant wear

3.4620 steel of the block in mm

ring01 tool 803 N force, 72 rpm, 5400 25.9 25.9

steel blockr revolutions, no lubricant wear3.4620 steel of the block in mm

ring

G-133 reciprocating self-mated 25 N force, 5.0 Hz, 10 mm 34.7 sliding Si N stroke wear of the flat3 4

3.specimen in mm

self-mated 200 N force, 10.0 Hz, 10 mm 23.7 48.6Si N stroke, mineral oil wear of the3 4

3 .flat specimen in mm

aCoefficient of variation, as defined in ASTM E-691.


4/12


Fig. 2. Gravure pattern for toller application of coatings.

ate test conditions and establish which variables must be

controlled to reduce any variability in the results.

After successful interlaboratory testing is completed, adraft standard is written and submitted for editorial review.

Then a subcommittee ballot is conducted. All negative

ballots must be resolved either by revision of the draft,

withdrawal of the negative, or being voted non-persua-

sive after discussion. Having passed subcommittee, the

main committee votes on the draft standard. All these

procedures are instituted to assure that published ASTM

wear test methods provide meaningful data for the users of

the standards. Due to the rigors of the process, the time

required to produce a new standard can range from 2 to 10

years. In addition, each standard for which a committee is

responsible must be reapproved every 5 years to assure its

Fig. 4. Wear data for the doctor blade and gravure pattern. Top-unim-

planted; bottom-implanted.

continuing validity and to incorporate new knowledge and

measurement techniques.

3. Interlaboratory testing to validate a proposed stan-

dard wear test method

The leader of the task group works to develop the set of

operating instructions for the test, obtains materials, and

assembles specimens for distribution to the participants

The procedures developed for the interlaboratory test se-

ries may eventually form the basis for the standard when

the draft version is prepared. Interlaboratory tests are

normally conducted in a manner which is prescribed by

Fig. 3. Schematic of the pin-on-disk testing machine.


5/12


w xASTM E-691 2 . This is done to ensure that the tests

produce statistically valid information for establishing the

precision of the test method. In addition, ASTM Commit-

tee G-2 has its own standard for reporting interlaboratoryw xdata specific to wear testing 3 . Two aspects of an inter-

.laboratory test are particularly important: 1 establishing

the repeatability of results within each participating labora- .tory and 2 establishing the reproducibility of the results

from one laboratory to another. These are quite differentissues. Sometimes data can be extremely consistent within

a given laboratory but vary widely from one laboratory to

another. Therefore, it is common to have to conduct

several of rounds of interlaboratory tests until the reasons

for any variabilities have been sorted out, and the group

has identified all the aspects which must be controlled to

assure consistent results. The data from interlaboratory

programs may often be summarized in an appendix to the

standard, and becomes part of the research report which is

archived at ASTM headquarters to provide backgroundinformation for each published standard.

Fig. 5. Scoring of a gear tooth.


6/12


Fig. 1 shows the variability in data for five types of

ASTM standard wear tests, as determined from interlabora-

tory studies and published in their respective standards

documents. Table 2 provides information on the conditions

and materials. Additional details, such as the numbers of

participants and interpretation of the data, may be found in

the referenced standards which appear in the ASTM An- .nual Book of Standards Volume 03.02 1996 . The

.within-laboratory coefficients of variation COVs rangefrom 2.4% to above 37% and the between laboratory

COVs range between 3.5% and up to nearly 50%. Of the

data presented here, the dry sandrubber wheel abrasive

wear test exhibited the lowest COVs and the reciprocating

wear test G-133 the highest. In majority of cases, the

within-laboratory COVs are lower than the between labo-

ratory COVs, but this is not always true. The information

contained within standards therefore provides important

information for determining whether the differences be-

tween wear values for candidate materials are truly signifi-

cant or whether they fall within expected variations for

that particular type of test. For sliding wear tests, it has

been the authors experience that variations in friction and

wear tend to be greater for unlubricated than for lubricated

testing conditions.

There are three major sources of wear data scatter: the

testing machine, the operators technique, and the materi-

als themselves. No source of error or variability can neces-

sarily be ruled out a priori. The term testing machine

includes not only the calibration and construction of the

machine, but also its proximity to sources of vibration and

environmental cross-contamination. The operators tech-

nique includes such issues as judgment when making

measurements, proper specimen handling and cleaning,

attention to procedural details, and operator fatigue. Thescatter in data can also result from microstructural hetero-

geneities or lot-to-lot variations within the materials them-

selves.

The potential for material heterogeneities contributing

to scatter raises the issue of whether it is feasible to

produce standard reference materials to calibrate wear

testing machines. Standard G-65 for dry sandrubber wheel

abrasion testing describes standard reference materials and

how they are to be prepared for each of the optional testing

procedures, and Standard Practice G-76 for liquid impinge-

ment erosion also suggests materials for use as reference.

For example, ASTM G-65 specifies for its Procedure Areference material a D-2 tool steel which has been heat

treated to a certain Rockwell C hardness and which will

produce a mass loss of 36 " 5 mm3. Despite the desirabil-

ity of having materials with which to calibrate wear ma-

chines, it is not an easy task to ensure that such materials

can be produced in a consistent manner, and to in some

manner certify that any specimen selected from within a

characterized lot of reference material will fall within a

given range in terms of wear rate or wear volume. While it

is certainly possible for a testing laboratory to purchase

and maintain a large stock of carefully characterized refer-

ence materials and lubricants for future wear use, an

alternative is to maintain and calibrate wear testing and

measuring instruments using the best practices available.

In addition, reference alloy specimens can corrode or

develop surface films if not well protected, and lubricants

can have a finite shelf life. The issue of reference material

storage practices is important, but beyond the scope of this

paper.

4. Applications of ASTM wear testing standards

The following five case studies show how ASTM stan-

dard wear tests can be used to help evaluate and select

materials for service in wear-critical applications.

4.1. Case study 1: ion implantation to increase the life of

graure cylinders

Gravure cylinders are rollers that are covered with .surface dimples called cells. These features Fig. 2 come

in different sizes and depths. They are used to apply

coatings to web surfaces. The gravure roller dips into a

tray of the material to be coated. Then a doctor blade

contacts the gravure cylinder and removes all of the mate-

rial except what is retained in the cells. The gravure

cylinder then contacts the web and deposits the coating on

the web at a consistent thickness. These cylinders are used

to apply a wide variety of coatings to flexible plastic webs. .The steel spring doctor blade 47 HRC can produce

unacceptable wear of the cells on the chromium-plated

gravure roller. Since the implantation of chromium and

Fig. 6. Schematic of the ASTM G-98 galling test arrangement.


7/12


Table 3

Threshold galling stresses of candidate materials

Upper specimen, Lower specimen, Threshold galling stress . . .Rockwell hardness Rockwell hardness ksi

U U . .Steel 2 61 HRC Steel 2 61 HRC ) 40.0U U . .Steel 2 57 HRC Steel 2 57 HRC 10.0U U . .Steel 1 59 HRC Steel 2 59 HRC ) 40.0

. .D2 60 HRC D2 60 HRC ) 40.0 . .D2 55 HRC D2 55 HRC 10.0

. .D2 50 HRC D2 55 HRC 2.5 . .D2 50 HRC D2 60 HRC 5.0

USpecimens taken from gears used in service.

other metals with various atomic species has been knownw xto significantly improve wear life 4 , a study was con-

ducted to determine if ion implantation of the would

improve roller life without causing significant reduction in

doctor blade life. The prime criterion for an acceptable .tribosystem materials pairing was increased uptime, com-

pared with the present.w x .The ASTM G-99 pin-on-disk wear test 5 , Fig. 3 was

selected to compare ion-implanted with non-implanted .chromium flat panels 3 panels containing the same

gravure cell patterns. Plasma-assisted N implantation was

used at a dosage level recommended by the supplier. A .flat-ended pin was made from Type 1080 steel 47 HRC ,

the same material as the doctor blade. Wear tests were

conducted using test parameters to simulate the production

system. Damage to the gravure cells and the pin was

measured by stylus profiling and converted to wear vol-

ume. As shown in Fig. 4, results of these tests indicated

that implantation increased the wear of the doctor blade

material. In fact, the doctor blade would have to be

replaced almost three times as often with an implantedgravure cylinder, and this would have a negative impact on

process time. Thus, a decision was made to seek an

alternative solution. Use of this relatively simple ASTM

test provided a fast answer on the feasibility of a candidate

process and it avoided costly testing on production cylin-

ders.

4.2. Case study 2: scoring of spur gears

Spur gears, 150 mm in diameter, were used in a preci-

sion timing mechanism. They were made of air-hardening,

high-carbon, high-chromium tool steel. One gear set had

been running for 10 years without problems. One set, then

another failed by pitch line scoring. Metallurgical studies

indicated that severe adhesive wear occurred on the loaded

.side of a significant number of teeth see Fig. 5 . Thisscoring caused timing errors and subsequent shutdown of a

manufacturing operation, and the gears had to be replaced

at significant cost. A study was conducted to determine thew xcause of these failures and propose a solution 6 .

The gears were failing by severe adhesive wear, and

further investigation disclosed that the gear material com-

position had been changed by the gear supplier to a grade

of high-carbon, high-chromium steel to allow the applica- .tion of high-temperature, physical-vapor-deposited PVD

coatings without loss of hardness. The hardness of the new

gear material was 56 HRC, compared to a range of 5658

HRC for the gear steels which did not fail. We wondered ifa drop in Rockwell hardness of only two points would

make the new steel more prone to galling.

Gear scoring is due to adhesion under high load com-

bined with relative motion between the mating gear teeth.

The pin-on-flat galling test provides a reasonable simula-

tion of this tribosystem. Therefore, we selected the ASTM

Fig. 7. Schematic of the reciprocating wear testing machine.


8/12


. .Fig. 8. Arbitrary scale used to rank the degree of wear debris formation on the ball specimen top and flat specimen bottom .

w xG-98 test method for use in our galling evaluation 7 . The .test involves rotation of a flat-ended pin 3608 under a

predetermined normal force on a flat counterface see Fig.

.6 . The test metric is called the threshold galling stress.Its value is determined by conducting a series of tests

with increasing the normal force until severe adhesive

wear occurs. The threshold galling stress is the apparent

contact stress at the highest load before galling starts.

Table 3 compares the threshold galling stresses of seven

material combinations. Results suggest that a minimum

hardness of HRC 59 was needed with these steels to obtain

maximum galling resistance.

In summary, the ASTM G-98 galling test was used to

uncover the reasons for an expensive gear failure. Follow-

ing the initial work, G-98 was also used to screen and

select additional steels for the improved scoring resistance

needed for their use in timing gears.

4.3. Case study 3: material couples for plastic-to-plasticsliding

A potential contamination problem occurred in the de-

velopment of an optical disk drive system. The drive

system design specified the use of injection-molded plas-

tics for a cam and follower mechanism that was used to

move an actuator. Early polystyrene prototypes proved to

be an unsuitable couple because both parts wore and

produced debris which could contaminate the disk drive.

The optical disk drive is very sensitive to particulate

contaminants; hence, none are allowed, so freedom from

w . . . .Fig. 9. Wear of candidate plastic riders reciprocating on a PTFE-filled acetal counterface. a acetal 12 N, b acetal 4, c acetalq PTFE, d Nylon . . x6r6q 10% aramidq 10% PTFE, e Nylon 6r6q 30% glass q silicone, f Nylon 6r6q silicone.


9/12


Fig. 10. Schematic of contact slitting knives.

debris generation was just as important to this application

as low wear. A study was therefore initiated to rank the

wear resistance and lack of debris formation of various

plasticplastic couples.

Both cam and follower materials were open to all

candidates. However, the requirements were that they be

comparable in cost to other engineering plastics and that

they be injection-moldable. In addition, the tribosystem

had to survive 100,000 actuations with wear less than 0.2

mm on the cam profile. Actuations were intermittent 3008

forward and reverse rotations of the cam against the

follower under a 4 N normal force.

The test method selected was a modified version of the

w x .ASTM G-132 8 pin abrasion test method. Fig. 7 Proce-dural modifications were necessary to mimic the load and

sliding distance of this particular tribosystem. It was also

necessary to develop a rating system to quantify the type

of debris produced from the wear tests. Fig. 8 shows the

rating scheme which was used to quantify debris build-up

on both the ball and flat specimens. Previous reciprocating

motion tests with a wide variety of metal counterfaces .indicated that poly-tetrafluoroethylene PTFE -filled acetal

usually exhibits very low wear. Therefore, we used this .material as the standard counterface flat specimen with a

variety of plastic sliders. The test length was 100,000

cycles and the stroke length matched that to be experi-enced in service.

Test results indicated that nylon with a proprietary

lubricant had acceptable wear, and its debris rating was 0 .see Fig. 9 . This cost-effective screening procedure re-

quired only about 4 h of technician attention time and

produced a candidate material couple for production test-

ing. The recommended couple showed no wear or debris in

prototype testing, and as a result, the component design

was changed to use this couple. The high cost and long

lead time of full-size prototype tests were prohibitive in

this case. Thus, laboratory screening tests are essential

when dealing with unusual tribosystems such as plastic-

on-plastic.

4.4. Case study 4: materials for rotary slitter knies

Plastic webs, cloth, paper, sheet metal and many related

materials are manufactured in wide roll format and then

are slit to salable width, usually by rotary slitter knives.

Some products, such as photographic film and paper

require very precise slitting with no debris generation

Many slitters use contacting knives, like those shown inw xFig. 10 9 . The knives usually have a very small area of

contact with the material being slit, and knife wear iscaused by a combination of metal-to-metal wear and abra-

Fig. 11. Schematic of the cross-cylinders test.


10/12


Fig. 12. Summary of wear data for a variety of candidate material combinations tested with the crossed cylinders apparatus.


11/12


sive wear from the paper product. Thus, a study of a

variety of candidate materials was conducted to find com-

binations with improved wear life over the present couple

in slitting paper.w xThe ASTM G-78 crossed-cylinder test 10 was selected

for this work. A rotating cylinder is rubbed against the

same size stationary cylinder, as shown in Fig. 11. Wear of

the rotating member is assessed by measuring the volume

of the groove formed on its outside diameter. Wear volumeof the wear spot or divot on the stationary cylinder is

also measured, and together, the total system wear is

determined.

Test results on wide variety of candidate couples are

shown in Fig. 12. These results clearly indicated that it is

necessary to use cemented carbide for at least one member

of the couple in order to get low system wear. This study

indicated that replacing the current steelsteel couple with

a tool steel-cemented carbide couple will produce a signifi-

cant reduction in wear.

Additional abrasion tests were conducted to rank these

couples for paper abrasion resistance. These screening tests

were essential because of the significant cost of testing

different knives in slitting product. In addition to the set-up

cost, if a knife couple worked poorly, it could produce

unsalable product. Laboratory tests are again proved more

cost-effective in this case.

4.5. Case study 5: erosiity of dicalcium phosphate

A certain manufacturing facility was trying to assess the

feasibility of replacing a containerized bulk handling sys-

tem for dry-sand-like dicalcium phosphate powder with a

fluidized pipe transfer system. The plan showed significant

savings in reduced labor and improved quality powder.cleanliness . But before making this large capital invest-

ment decision, it was necessary to know whether the

piping system would be fraught with blowouts due to

erosion at bends. If the powder material was abrasive, it

would be necessary to use much more expensive wear-re- .sistant piping e.g., hardened steel, basalt-lined pipe, etc.

and this might make the whole project uneconomical Fig..13 .

A laboratory test program was initiated to determine if

particulate dicalcium phosphate with a particle size range

Fig. 13.

Table 4

Erosion rates of two steels after impingement by 2000 grams of various

erodants

Candidate alloy Particle type Erosion ratey8 3 .=10 mm rg

316 stainless steel dicalcium phosphate 6.4

316 stainless steel silica 582.6

D2 tool steel silica 750.1

316 stainless steel aluminum oxide 968.2

D2 tool steel aluminum oxide 1018.5

of 1300 mm is abrasive to stainless steel or to hardened

steel. There are several ways of assessing the erosivity ofw xdry powers 11 , but since the proposed transport system

conveys the product in the fluidized state with flowing air,

it was decided that the system could be modeled in the

laboratory using the ASTM G-76 impingement erosion testw x12 . This test is essentially a sand-blasting nozzle aimed at

a target material of choice. The standard test uses alu-

minum oxide particles, but we substituted dicalcium phos-

phate. The erosion rates of several test materials are shown

in Table 4. Dicalcium phosphate by itself was capable of

producing scratching abrasion on 300-series stainless steel,

but used as a directed particle stream, it did not produce

erosive wear. The impinging material apparently formed a

protective coating on the target surface that in turn reduced

the erosion rate to an insignificant level. Based on these

results, it was recommended to install the pneumatic con-

veyance system with soft stainless steel piping. In service

the system, worked as predicted by the ASTM laboratory

test method, and significant savings were realized.

5. Summary

ASTM committee G-2 friction and wear test methods

address many of the most common occurrences of friction

and wear in machinery. During test development, every

effort is made to ensure that the tests are reliable and

repeatable, and more importantly, to ensure that they add

value to wear studies. The five case histories described

here illustrate how ASTM wear tests or their variants can

be used to solve design problems, production problems, or

simply screen candidate materials for general applications.

Sometimes application of these laboratory-scale tests canprevent the shutdown of a manufacturing operation that

costs thousands of dollars per hour when it is not running.

Solving existing or perceived wear problems at the design

stage results in significant cost avoidance and, more impor-

tantly, it can prevent loss of customers due to failures in

service. Service failures not only raise costs, but result in

loss of company reputation and business revenues. ASTM

wear tests do not address the needs of every tribosystem,

but where there is a match with an industrial tribosystem,

they should be considered for application because they can


12/12


provide significant savings if used and interpreted prop-

erly.

Acknowledgements

The research of the first author was sponsored in part

by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Transporta-

tion Technologies, High Temperature Materials LaboratoryUser Program, under contract DE-AC05-96OR 22464 with

Lockheed Martin Energy Research.

References

w x1 K.G. Budinski, Use of Wear Tests for Plastics, pres. Am. Chem.

Soc., Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, August 1998.w x2 ASTM Standard E 691, Practice of conducting and interlaboratory

study to determine the precision of test method, ASTM, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1994.w x3 ASTM Standard G-117, Guide for calculating and reporting mea-

sures of precision using data from interlaboratory wear or erosion

tests, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1993.w x4 K.G. Budinski, Surface Engineering for Wear Resistance, Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989, pp. 182189.w x5 ASTM Standard G-99, Test method for wear testing using a pin-on-

disk apparatus, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 03.02, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1995.w x6 K.G. Budinski, Scoring of precision spur gears, J. Testing Eval. 22

. .5 1994 485489.w x7 ASTM Standard G-98, Test method for galling resistance of materi-

als, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 03.02, West Con-shohocken, PA, 1991.

w x8 ASTM Standard G-132, Test method for pin abrasion testing, ASTM

Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 03.02, West Conshohocken, PA,

1995.w x9 K.G. Budinski, S. Ghosh, Testing solid film lubricants for rotary

. .slitter knives, Lubr. Eng. 51 6 1995 533537.w x10 ASTM Standard G-83, Test method for wear testing with a cross

cylinder apparatus, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 03.02,

West Conshohocken, PA, 1990.w x11 K.G. Budinski, Erosion of 316 stainless steel by dicalcium phos-

.phate, Wear 186187 1995 145149.w x12 ASTM Standard G-76, Test method for conducting erosion tests by

solid particle impingement using gas jets, ASTM Annual Book of

Standards, Vol. 03.02, West Conshohocken, PA, 1995.

ASTM Wear Testing

Documents

Transcript of ASTM Wear Testing