Tribology International Vol. 30, No. 12, pp.

839843, 1997
1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0301679X/97/$17.00 + 0.00

PII: S0301679X(97)000376

Energy theory of rubber abrasion

by a line contact
S. W. Zhang and Zhaochun Yang

A new energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact has

been set up through analyzing the energy distribution and
conversion during the abrasion process, corresponding theoretical
wear equation of rubber abrasion by a line contact in unsteady
state has been derived. This energy theory, which is an
improvement on the previous theory of rubber abrasion by a line
contact, can be used to clarify the phenomena and processes of
the rubber abrasion. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: energy theory, rubber abrasion, line contact

Introduction
The pioneer efforts concerning the mechanisms of rubber abrasion were made by Schallamach in his early
work with a needle to scratch the rubber surface under
controlled conditions. However, the difficulties were
that so little rubber was removed and a complex stress
of three dimensions was applied on the needle. Therefore, a line-contact test mode on rubber abrasion was
presented by Champ et al.1, in which a razor blade
instead of a needle was used. In the following years,
although the physical process of rubber abrasion by a
line contact has been extensively studied112, only a
few wear theories have been proposed1,2,1012.
Champ et al. presented a simple theory1,2 relating the
rubber abrasion to the crack-growth property of the
rubber. Gent and Pulford have argued that the rubber
abrasion does not account for solely crack-growth
properties of material, but involves other failure process
as well3. Moreover, the simple theory is only applicable
for the steady state of rubber abrasion.
Over 10 years ago, an amended theory of rubber
abrasion by a line contact was proposed by the present
author4,6, which can be applied to clarify the whole
wear process including unsteady state and steady state
of rubber abrasion. However, the mathematic description for the wear process is still a quasitheoretical
equation. Therefore, there is thus a clear need to put
forward a more perfect theory to be able to clarify the
whole wear process of rubber abrasion theoretically. In
University of Petroleum, Changping, Beijing 102200, Peoples
Republic of China
Received 29 July 1996; revised 17 May 1997; accepted 30 June 1997

this paper, based upon the experimental observations, a

new energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact
has been set up through analyzing the energy distribution and conversion during the wear process.

Theory
On the basis of the results of experimental studies46
which were carried out in a modified blade abrader
described by Gent and Pulford3, the physical process
of rubber abrasion might be considered as two alternatively proceeded processes, i.e. crack growth of surface
layer (tongue formation) and rupture of tongue tip of
ridges (tongue rupture) (Fig 1)4. Moreover, from the
previous experimental observations, it has been
deduced that the rupture of tongue tip resulted from
tensile stress is the primary cause of material losses
although the effect of crack growth via mechanical
fatigue on abrasion is taken into account4. Hence, the
physical model of rubber abrasion could be shown in
Fig 2.
From the point of view of energy, a wear process of
material is a process of energy conversion and energy
dissipation. Fleisher13 has pointed out that, although
the frictional work is dissipated mostly into heat during
the frictional process, there is still a fraction of work
deforming the material of the frictional pairs and
accumulating in the form of potential (deformation)
energy. If the potential energy accumulates to a critical
value in the material for a certain volume, the wear
debris of material will produce. This potential energy
is termed accumulated energy.
According to the physical model of rubber abrasion
(Fig 2) and based on the theory of fracture mechanics,

Tribology International Volume 30 Number 12 1997

839

Energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact: S. W. Zhang and Zhaochun Yang

P
f
L

normal load.
coefficient of friction.
length of the crack growth.

However, from the point of view of energy, the

accumulated energy U could be considered to consist
of two parts: crack-growth energy and rupture energy
of the tongue tip, i.e.
U = UA + UB

(2)

where
UA
UB

crack-growth energy.
rupture energy of the tongue tip.

The assumption that the crack angle is constant during

the wear process is implicit in the following analysis.
The crack growth per stress cycle r was given previously6:
r B(2F)

(3)

where
B
F

constant.
frictional force per width.
constant.

As seen, the crack growth per stress cycle is a constant

for the same material under identical operating conditions. In this situation, the corresponding crackgrowth energy is also kept constant.

Fig. 1 Formation of ridge from filled NBR, W =

15 kJ/m2 (100): (top) tongue formed; (bottom)
tongue ruptured

From the point of view of energy, similar to the

concept of energy density introduced by Fleisher13, a
new concept, wear energy density e*, is presented:
e * = U B /V B

(4)

where VB is the rupture volume per stress cycle, i.e.

V B = SL

tongue-tip
rupture

(5)

where

S
L

cross section of the tongue tip.

rupture length of the tongue tip per stress
cycle.

From Equations (1) and (2), we have

U A = U U B = KPfL U B

Inserting Equations (4) and (5) into the above

equation, gives

crack growth
L

U A = KPfL e * SL

Fig. 2 Physical model of rubber abrasion

the accumulated energy U could be expressed as the
work which is done by the frictional force during the
above two alternatively proceeded processes, i.e. tongue
formation and tongue rupture:
U = KPfL
where
K
840

coefficient of accumulated energy.

(6)

(1)

(7)

Since the wear rate is very low in the unsteady state,

the wear process would be considered as a continuous
process. Moreover, in light of that the crack-growth
energy is constant under the same operating conditions, then
U A = KPfL i e * SL i

(8)

= KPfL i + 1 e SL i + 1 =
*

where Li and Li + 1 are the length of crack growth at

the ith and (i + 1)th stress cycle, respectively, Li and

Tribology International Volume 30 Number 12 1997

Energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact: S. W. Zhang and Zhaochun Yang

Li + 1 are the rupture length of tongue tip at the ith

and (i + 1)th stress cycle, respectively.
Thus,
KPf(L i + 1 L i) = e S(L i + 1 Li )
*

(9)

KPf(r L i )
L i =
e * S

(11)

dL i
KPf(r L i )
= L i + 1 Li =
di
e * S

(12)

where i is the number of stress cycles.

With the conditions i = 0 and Li = 0, the rupture
length of the tongue tip per stress cycle Li is obtained
by integration:

KPfi
*
e S

(13)

The linear wear-rate in unsteady state can be given

according to its definition:
R u = SL

D 1

S Da

(14)

where
D
S
a

distance of friction per revolution.

average spacing of ridge.
contact width.
S = ta

(15)

(21)

Inserting Equation (20) into Equations (18) and (19),

respectively, the final expressions are given
R s R u = rexp
and

It can be rewritten as

L i = r r exp

and

(10)

From Equations (9) and (10), we have

L i + 1

(20)

R s = B(2F) sin

Based on the experimental observation, it has been

assumed that a rupture fragment is made for each
stress cycle as stated previously4. Then
L i + 1 L i = r L i

R s = rsin

Ru
= 1 exp
Rs

KPfi
sin
e * S

(22)

KPfi
e * S

(23)

As seen from Equation (22), the logarithms of the

difference between the wear rate in unsteady state and
that in steady state is inversely proportional to the
number of stress cycles, the normal load and the
coefficient of friction, moreover, is proportional to
the wear energy density and the cross-section of the
tongue tip.

Experimental
Rubber abrasion tests were carried out in an arrangement shown schematically in Fig 3. A steel blade
(10 mm wide) with 45 inclined angle was held at
right angles pressing on the surface of a rubber disk of
48 mm in diameter and rotated around the central axis.
The rubber disks were made of natural rubber (NR)
and nitrile rubber (NBR), respectively. All of the
experiments were carried out at room temperature, 22
3C, and mostly with the normal load P at 8 N or
10 N, and with the rotating speed of the driving shaft
at 50 rev/min, corresponding to a sliding speed v of
010 m/s at the rubbing track, under these conditions
no significant temperature rise on the material surface
was noted.
The wear rates were obtained by measuring the loss
weight of the rubber disks.

where t is the height of tongue.

t Ssin

(16)

where is the crack-growth angle.

Inserting Equations (13), (15) and (16) into Equation
(14) gives

R u = r rexp

Then
R u = rsin rexp
or

KPfi
sin
e * S

R u = rsin 1 exp

KPfi
*
sin
e S

KPfi
e * S

(17)
2

(18)

(19)

However, the term (rsin ) in the above equation is

just the theoretical linear wear rate in steady state, Rs,
as proposed by Southern and Thomas2, and the present
author6 on the assumption that crack growth plays an
important part in the abrasion process when abrasion
patterns are produced, i.e.

Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of blade abrader. 1rubber

sample (disk), 2steel blade, 3driving shaft

Tribology International Volume 30 Number 12 1997

841

Energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact: S. W. Zhang and Zhaochun Yang
80

10.00

60

Rs - Ru

Wear Rate (105 g/rev)

NR
P = 10N
v = 0.10m/s

40

1.00

20

0.10

0
0

50

1000

1500

2000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Number of Revolutions i (rev)

Number of Revolutions i (rev)

Fig. 4 Linear rates of wear of NR material plotted

against the number of revolutions in unsteady state (P
= 10 N, V = 010 m/s)

Fig. 6 The logarithm of differences (Rs Ru) of NR

material plotted against the number of revolutions in
unsteady state

Results and discussion

The experimental correlation of the wear rate of rubber
materials (NR and NBR) and the number of revolutions
(stress cycle) are shown in Figs 4 and 5, respectively.
It has been found that the wear rate of the rubber
abrasion in unsteady state is increased with the number
of revolutions, which is the same as observed previously3,4 and is accordant to the wear Equation (17).
Moreover, the wear rate is kept unchangeable if once
the number of revolutions rises to a certain value, it
means that the wear process at this time reaches the
steady state. In the steady state, the wear rate of NBR
materials is much lower than that of NR materials. It
would be ascribed that the wear energy density of
NBR materials is higher than that of NR materials. A
detailed discussion will be given in another paper.
In order to compare the experimental results with the
theoretical results as stated above, the differences

between the measured wear rates in steady state and

that in unsteady state of NR and NBR materials are
taken as a logarithm and shown in Figs 6 and 7,
respectively. As seen, the differences of experimentally
determined wear rates between the two kinds of abrasion state are inversely proportional to the number of
revolutions, which is in accord with the theoretical
result, Equation (22). Hence, the wear energy theory
can be used to clarify the phenomena and processes
of rubber abrasion. Certainly, what the further work
should do is make a critical comparison between the
measured and calculated value of wear rates in order
to prove the energy theory effective for wear-rate predication.

Conclusions
The energy theory of rubber abrasion proposed, which
is supported qualitatively by evidence from the wear

30

10.00

25

20
Rs - Ru

Wear Rate (105g/rev)

NBR

NBR
P = 8N
v = 0.10 m/s

15

1.00

10

5
0.10

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Number of Revolutions i (rev)

Fig. 5 Linear rates of wear of NBR material plotted

against the number of revolutions in unsteady state (P
= 8 N, V = 010 m/s)
842

300

600

900

1200

1500

Number of Revolutions i (rev)

Fig. 7 The logarithm of differences (Rs Ru) of NBR

material plotted against the number of revolutions in
unsteady state

Tribology International Volume 30 Number 12 1997

Energy theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact: S. W. Zhang and Zhaochun Yang

tests of NR and NBR materials, can be used to clarify

the phenomena and processes of the rubber abrasion.

References
1. Champ, D. H., Southern, E. and Thomas, A. C., Fracture mechanics applied to rubber abrasion. In Advances in Polymer Friction
and Wear, ed. L. H. Lee. Plenum Press, New York, 1974, pp.
133140.
2. Southern E. and Thomas A. G. Studies of rubber abrasion,
Rubber Chem. Technol. 1979, 52, 10081018
3. Gent A. N. and Pulford C. T. R. Mechanisms of rubber abrasion,
Appl. Polym. Sci. 1983, 28, 943960
4. Zhang S. W. Mechanisms of rubber abrasion in unsteady state,
Rubber Chem. Technol. 1984, 57, 755768
5. Zhang S. W. Investigation of abrasion of nitrile rubber, Rubber
Chem. Technol. 1984, 57, 769778

6. Zhang, S. W., Theory of rubber abrasion by a line contact. In

Polymer Wear and its Control, ed. L. H. Lee. ACS, Washington,
DC, 1985, pp. 189196.
7. Pulford C. T. R. Failure of rubber by abrasion, Rubber Chem.
Technol. 1985, 58, 653660
8. Gent A. N. A hypothetical mechanism for rubber abrasion,
Rubber Chem. Technol. 1989, 62, 750758
9. Uchiyama Y. and Ishino Y. Pattern abrasion mechanism of
rubber, Wear 1992, 158, 141155
10. Fukahori Y. and Yamazaki H. Mechanism of rubber abrasion,
Part I: Abrasion pattern formation in natural rubber vulcanizate,
Wear 1994, 171, 195202
11. Fukahori Y. and Yamazaki H. Mechanism of rubber abrasion,
Part II: General rule abrasion pattern formation in rubber-like
materials, Wear 1994, 178, 109116
12. Fukahori Y. and Yamazaki H. Mechanism of rubber abrasion,
Part III: How is friction linked to fracture in rubber abrasion?,
Wear 1995, 188, 1926
13. Fleisher G. Energetische methode der bestimmung des verschleibes, Schmierungstechnik 1973, 4, 922

Tribology International Volume 30 Number 12 1997

843