Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Rubber exhibits unusual sliding friction. When rubber is slid on a hard, rough substrate, the surface asperities of the substrate
exert oscillating forces on the rubber surface leading to energy dissipation via the internal friction of the rubber. I estimate this
contribution to the friction force and compare the results with the experimental data of Grosch. Because of its low elastic modulus,
the adhesion of the rubber to the substrate is very important. I show that the adhesion force will deform the rubber at the
rubbersubstrate interface, in such a manner that, at low sliding velocities, the rubber completely follows the short-wavelength
surface roughness profile. This gives an additional contribution to the friction force, which is estimated and compared with
experimental data. 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adhesion; Friction; Models of non-equilibrium phenomena
1. Introduction
The nature of the friction when rubber is slid
on a hard substrate is a topic of considerable
practical importance, e.g. for the construction of
tires and wiper blades [1]. Rubber friction differs
in many ways from the frictional properties of
most other solids. The reason for this is the very
low elastic modulus of rubber and the high internal
friction exhibited by rubber in a wide frequency
region.
The pioneer studies of Grosch [2] have shown
that rubber friction, in many cases, is directly
related to the internal friction of the rubber. Thus,
experiments with rubber surfaces sliding on silicon
carbide paper and glass surfaces give friction
coefficients with the same temperature dependence
* Corresponding author. Fax: (+49) 2461 612850;
e-mail: B.Persson@fz-juelich.de
0039-6028/98/$19.00 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0 0 39 - 6 0 28 ( 98 ) 0 00 5 1 -X
446
V
2p
dvv Im [s(v)e*(v)],
or
DE=
V
2p
dvv Im
C D
1
E(v)
|s(v)|2,
(1)
1
l3s2 v
0 0 Im
.
v
E(v )
0
Since F =l2s we get
n
0
1
F
.
(3)
m= #s Im
0
F
E(v )
n
0
We can estimate s as follows. In experiments with
0
rubber it is usually found that the friction coefficient m is nearly independent of the load L. ( This
is not true when the load L is very small or very
large. In the former case, adhesion between the
rubber and the substrate becomes important. In
the latter case, the area of real contact approaches
the apparent area of contact and the area of real
contact cannot increase linearly with the load.)
This is the case, for example, in the experiments
by Grosch [2] and by Mori et al. [7], and it is
also expected from the model calculation of
Greenwood, which shows that when two elastic
bodies (no plastic deformation) with rough surfaces are pushed together, the area of real contact
and the average pressure s in the contact areas is
0
F#
447
Im E(v )
0 .
|E(v )|
0
(4)
448
449
Fig. 4. Elastically deformed junctions during pull-off of an elastically soft solid from a hard substrate.
450
hand, the high-velocity peak in the friction coefficient for rubber sliding on the silicon carbide
surface (solid line in Fig. 3) is not reduced for the
dusted surface. This result is expected, since the
long-wavelength deformations of the rubber, from
which this peak is derived, are the same for the
dusted and clean surfaces. Similarly, if rubber is
slid on a substrate (assumed hydrophilic) covered
by water, the sliding friction is reduced [9]. The
water is trapped in the surface cavities of the
substrate, leading to reduced viscoelastic deformations of the rubber (see Fig. 5d ). Further proof
of the important role of adhesion on sliding friction
are experiments with solids with high- and lowsurface free energy. Let us illustrate this with the
following example.
Mori et al. [7] have studied the influence on
friction by the adhesional interactions between
rubber and two different substrates: Teflon with
2 and surface
the surface free energy c#1.8 meV/A
, and aluminum with
roughness h=2100 A
2 and h=2500 A
. The rubber was
c#3.8 meV/A
prepared using three molds, differing in surface
free energy, resulting in rubber surfaces with
different surface free energies, but identical bulk
properties. (Note that molds with many polar
groups give rubber surfaces with numerous nitrile
groups, resulting in high surface free energy. Molds
with low surface free energy, e.g. Teflon, result in
rubber surfaces having many butadiene groups
which are low energy surfaces.) We denote the
three rubber surfaces by 1, 2 and 3, with the
2,
surface free energies #2.6, 2.3 and 2.0 meV/A
respectively. Fig. 6 shows the relation between the
kinetic friction coefficient (sliding velocity v=
0.5 cm/s) and the normal load for the three rubber
surfaces sliding on (a) the aluminum surface and
(b) the Teflon surface. Note that, because of the
molecular adhesion, m2 as L0, and that the
friction coefficient decreases with increasing load,
becoming constant at high enough load. (It should
be noted that the constant friction coefficient at
high load implies that the area of real contact
increases proportional to the load for high load.
This is also observed in the measurements by
Grosch. It implies that the substrate and/or the
rubber surface have long-wavelength roughness.
The argument due to Greenwood then shows that
451
Fig. 6. Effect of the surface free energy of rubber on the relation between the friction coefficient and load for (a) an aluminum
substrate and (b) a Teflon substrate (from [7]).
4. Discussion
We have seen that when rubber is slid on a hard
substrate, with a surface roughness characterized
by a (single) length scale l, very high friction occurs
when t#t*, where 1/t*=v/l is the frequency of
the fluctuating forces and the substrate asperities
exert on the rubber, and 1/t is the frequency for
which the internal friction of the rubber is maximal. Most other polymers exhibit much lower
sliding friction than rubber; one extreme case being
Teflon for which the static and kinetic friction
coefficients typically are smaller than 0.1. This
implies that for most polymers the internal friction
gives a much smaller contribution to the sliding
friction than for rubber. The physical origin of
this can be understood as follows.
Note first that 1/t is the rate by which some
(specific) molecular segments in the polymer
switches between different configurations, say
between two states A and B, separated by an
energy barrier of height e. Thus, t~ exp(e/k T )
B
depends exponentially on the inverse of the temperature. Now, for most polymers the activation
energy e is so large that, at room temperature, t
is so large that for typical sliding velocities t*%t
and the internal friction can be neglected. Note,
452
453
that (at low sliding velocity) the rubber will completely follow or fill-out the short-wavelength
surface roughness profile of the substrate. This
gives an additional contribution to the friction
force which has been estimated ( Eq. (5)).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank G. Heinrich for many
useful discussions and for drawing my attention
to the fascinating field of rubber friction.
Appendix A
We assume that isotropic elastic media occupy
the half space z>0. On the surface z=0, it is
assumed that a perpendicular stress, s, acts within
a small circular region with radius R, that is centered at a material point P. This gives rise to an
elastic deformation of the solid and P will be displaced perpendicular to the surface by the amount
(see Ref. [13])
1n2
pE
d2x
1
r
r<R
where r2=x2+y2 and where n is Poissons ratio
and E Youngs modulus. The integral is trivial to
perform, giving
u=2(1n2) sR/E.
If D=2R is the diameter of the contact area and
F=pR2s the total force, we get
F=(pD/4) Eu/(1n2)=(pD/2) Gu/(1n).
(A.1)
References
[1] D.F. Moore, The Friction and Lubrication of Elastomers,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1972.
[2] K.A. Grosch, Proc. R. Soc., Lond. A 274 (1963) 21.
[3] A. Schallamach, Wear 6 (1963) 375.
[4] Y.B. Chernyak, A.I. Leonov, Wear 108 (1986) 105.
[5] G. Heinrich, Kautsch. Gummi Kunstst. 45 (1992) 173.
[6 ] G. Heinrich, Rubber Chem. Technol. 70 (1997) 1.
454