Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Numerical analysis for optimizing the determination of dynamic

friction coefcient
T. Jankowiak a, A. Rusinek b,n, G. List c, G. Sutter c, F. Abed d
a

Institute of Structural Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 5, 60-965 Poznan, Poland
National Engineering School of Metz, Laboratory of Mechanics, Biomechanics, Polymers and Structures, 1 route dArsLaquenexy, 57000 Metz, France
c
University of Lorraine,Laboratory for the Study of Microstructures and Mechanics of Materials, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 Metz, France
d
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, P. O. Box 26666, Sharjah, U.A.E
b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 28 August 2015
Received in revised form
26 October 2015
Accepted 30 October 2015
Available online 15 November 2015

A proper denition of the real dynamic contact behavior is very important in numerical simulation of
different dynamic processes such as machining, high speed cutting, impact and perforation of structures.
This paper presents an optimal analysis for accurate estimation of the dynamic friction coefcient using a
tribometer device. A three-dimensional nite element (FE) model is developed to better understand the
test set-up and its associated method to accurately dene the friction coefcient under dynamic loading.
The aspect of the experimental methodology currently used to dene the dynamic friction law and its
main drawbacks are identied and discussed. Based on the FE analysis, a new methodology is proposed
to estimate the dynamic friction by introducing the concept of a correction factor that can be used to
correct the old experimental data. This correction factor depends on the initial projectile velocity and
pressure for any friction coefcient value.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Dynamic friction coefcient
Tribometer
Impact
Finite element

1. Introduction
When the friction phenomenon has to be investigated, a large
variety of apparatus is employed. In the domain of low and
moderate sliding speeds, classical instrumentations such as the
pin-disk system are mainly used [1,2]. However, when high or
very high sliding velocity is considered, the development of specic devices is often necessary. For the tests reliability, the local
conditions of pressure and sliding speed must be achieved with a
simple set of geometrical elements and several tribosystems to
achieve a convenient access of the different measures. To attain
this goal, some techniques use, for example, a pendulum-type test
device to apply a single pass, while others utilize a modied torsional Kolsky's bar apparatus or direct impact of plates for applying high normal pressure [35]. Although friction is a basic interaction phenomenon between two bodies, the experimental results
such as the evolution of friction forces and wear mechanisms are
not only strongly dependent on the tribological conditions [69]
but also on the instrument itself. For each proposed devices, it is
then necessary to study the exact conditions in which the different
measurements are carried out.
It must be mentioned that the friction coefcient is an important
parameter that is frequently used in numerical simulations but
n

Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2015.10.039
0301-679X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

without proper justication for its value. The friction coefcient

under dynamic loading is a key point for different processes such as
high speed machining [10], brake disk system [11], perforation of
large plate thickness [12], compression test for dynamic analysis
[13,14], turbine blade contact [15,16], crash [17], friction stir welding [18], stamping [19] and others.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the dynamic friction
between two plate surfaces moving in relative to each other. The
main focus is to examine the method that uses a specic ballistic
tribometer [2022] to predict the dynamic friction factor. The
signicance of the present study is to correct the current wrong
measurement approach of estimating the dynamic friction coefcient extracted from the experimental data. The current miscalculation of the dynamic friction is attributed to the incorrect
assumption of assuming uniform distribution of the strain eld in
the force sensor. This wrong assumption is due to the fact that the
readings of only two gauges, xed symmetrically, were used to
dene the strain eld during the experiment.
The present study suggests a new methodology to improve the
analysis approach of the signal readings by allowing more measurement points to extract the accurate distribution of the strain
elds from the dynamic tests. To investigate the experimental signals which are used to determine the friction forces during the
experiments, the complete device is modeled including the specimen, the projectile and the load sensor using nite element
method. The FE analysis is utilized to investigate the effect of the

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

2. Experimental setup
In order to analyze the dynamic friction process between two
surfaces under a high sliding velocity combined with a high normal pressure, a specic setup is used [2022]. This setup (Fig. 1)
can cover a wide range of sliding speeds; up to120 m/s with a
maximum normal pressure close to 200 MPa.
In this setup, the friction is produced between specimen B and
the two plates A. The two parts (plates A) are symmetrically xed
into the dynamometer ring, see Fig. 1a. The difference between the
thicknesses of the plates and the width of the specimen B denes a
compression thickness notied as L which imposes the normal
pressure P, between dynamometer ring and specimen B, see
Fig. 1b. Different widths of the pads are chosen to vary L and thus
the normal pressure. The gas gun is used to propel the projectile in
the launch tube and impose the impact velocity. After impact
between the projectile and the specimen B, the latter slides across
the dynamometer ring. The strain waves transmitted to the load
sensor are measured using two strain gauges symmetrically glued
on two thin walls of the load sensor [2022]. This technique is
based on the well know process of the Split Hopkinson Pressure
Bar (SHPB) [35]. For each test using strain gauges under dynamic
loading as in this paper, the location of the point of measurements
are crucial and must be studied precisely using for example an
inverse method to avoid errors or disturbances [23,24].
The two most important parameters during the experimental
test are: the applied normal pressure, P and the initial impact
velocity, V 0 . The initial impact velocity is measured using laser
sensors and is dependent on the initial pressure in the gas gun.
Fig. 2 shows sample results of two signals measured during a typical
experiment with an initial velocity equal to 23 m/s and a pressure of

49 MPa [23]. The strains are measured on two opposite sides of the
load sensor on its outer surfaces. Additionally taking into account
these two parameters and the geometry of the device the dynamic
friction coefcient, t , can be calculated as follows [23]:

F T t
FN

where F T and F N are the friction and normal forces which are
dened as follows:
F T t E U AG U ~ t and F N P U AC

Here E is the Young modulus, AG is the cross section of the part with
glued gauges, P is applied normal pressure and AC is the area of
contact. Their corresponding values used in the preliminary analysis
are listed in Table 1. The strain level
t used to calculate the
friction force (Eq. (2)) is taken as the readings average of the two
strain gauges [23].
To have a better understanding of this set-up and the method
associated to dene the friction coefcient under dynamic loading,
a 3D numerical model has been built as will be explained next.

0,0010
Gauge 1
Strain signal (-)

pressure between surfaces in contact and the sliding velocity, which

are two important parameters in dynamic friction analysis. A range
of sliding velocities between 20 m/s and 83 m/s, and normal pressures between 45 MPa and160 MPa are considered for this purpose.

87

Gauge 2

0,0005
0,0000
-0,0005
-0,0010
0

0,001

0,002
Time (s)

0,003

0,004

Fig. 2. Experimental example of strain signals in two gauges for 23 m/s initial
velocity and 49 MPa pressure [23].

Fig. 1. Detailed description of the device used for dynamic friction measurements, denition of the force sensor zone.

88

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

3. Numerical analysispreliminary study

Preliminary numerical analysis was initially conducted to verify
the previous friction analysis. The main goal was to simulate the
dynamic friction process using nite element method. The preliminary analysis was divided into two steps:
1) Pretension static analysis to obtain the initial conguration for the
dynamic analysis step. The goal of this part was to nd relation
between the pad thickness and the applied normal pressure.
2) Impact dynamic analysis to predict the friction behavior
between interacted surfaces. The importance of this step is that
in numerical analysis, it is possible to assume the friction
coefcient and then check if the presented methodology can
retain the same friction value.

3.1. Pretention analysis

This initial step is necessary to determine the pad thickness that
should be used to impose the expected pressure between the specimen and dynamometer ring. This step resembles the calibration
procedure of the dynamometer ring that is usually followed during
the experiment, using a conventional tensile machine.
Table 1
Parameters used for friction coefcient calculation.

To simplify the nite element model the interference t

method in Abaqus/Standard [25] was used, see Fig. 3, to calculate
the initial state of the model before the dynamic friction analysis
starts. Mesh sensitivity analysis was conducted to select proper
mesh size that gives a better convergence in less time and also to
ensure mesh-independent analysis. Accordingly, an element size
of 1 mm was chosen for the dynamic analysis such that the specimen was discretized using 25,200 three-dimensional nite elements (C3D8R) and the dynamometer ring together with the pads
was meshed using 46,500 C3D8R elements. The C3D8R elements
are dened as 8-nodes continuum 3D hexahedral elements with
reduced integration. This element is coupled to a linear shape
function to estimate the displacement. Just one integration point is
considered to estimate all local quantities. Initial penetrations
between 0.02 and 0.4 mm were used on both sides of the model to
obtain the interested range of pressures.
A relationship between pad thickness and contact pressure was
derived based on the results predicted by the numerical simulations as shown in Fig. 4. This is crucial to dene the real contact
pressure which acts between the ring and the specimen. Taking
into account this relationship in the impact simulations, the correct normal contact pressure can be applied similar to what was
done during the experiments. Furthermore, the deformation state
connected with a specic pad thickness was also imported into the
impact analysis step.
3.2. Impact analysis

E (MPa)

AC (mm2)

AG (mm2)

210,000

120

20

The second step is dynamic and consists of the impact analysis

linked with the friction sliding process. The boundary and initial
conditions used during the second step are the initial impact

Interference fit:
0.02-0.4 mm on both sides

Fig. 3. Model geometry and mesh conguration for the pretention analysis.

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

velocity of the projectile and the normal pressure between the

specimen and the dynamometer ring (see Section 3.1). No others
conditions were used during numerical simulations of dynamic
impact to mimic experiments. The signicance of this simulation is
the simplication made by assuming the friction coefcient as not
dependent on normal pressure. Areal 3Dmodel was built as shown
in Fig. 5 to verify this simplication.

Contact pressure (MPa)

200
160
120
y = 359,3x + 30,5

80
40
0
0

0,2
0,4
Pad thickness (mm)

0,6

Fig. 4. Pressure dependence of the pad thickness based on numerical simulations.

89

The walls of the force sensors were discretized using continuum shell element to predict properly the compressive and
bending behavior of the walls. The transmitted bar head (place
close to the force sensor), see Figs. 1 and 5 were discretized using
continuum C3D8R brick element and the rest of the transmitted
bar (5 m) were discretized with shell elements to have real non
reection boundary conditions as in experiments. The projectile
has 85,004 C3D8R nite elements. The transmitted bar is composed of 91,000 C3D8R nite elements whereas the force sensor
was modeled using 1248 SC8R and 64 of SC6R type including all
the four thin walls where the strain measuring is done. The SC8R
element is 8-node hexahedron, general-purpose, nite membrane
strains continuum shell element and SC6R is 6-node triangular inplane continuum shell wedge, general-purpose, nite membrane
strains continuum shell element. Using this type of discretization
helps obtain accurate strain measurements and correct bending
behavior of this exible structure, see Figs. 1 and 5.
As discussed previously the local strains were recorded only on
the outher surface and middle of the piece no.1, points B in Fig. 5.
The goal is to validate the experimental analysisdescribed in [23]
and to demonstrate that by considering only these two readings
the friction cofcient may not be dened correctly. This analysiswas done using several cases where the friction coefcient

Projectile

Specimen

Ring

Piece no. 2
(Zone 2)
A - Side
B - Middle

Piece no. 1
(Zone 1)
A - Side
B - Middle

Tube
Fig. 5. 3D FE model used to estimate the dynamic friction measurement device.

90

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

Friction coefficient (-)

0,4
Input 0,3

0,3
0,2

Output average 0,2

0,1
0

0,0005

0,001
Time (s)

0,0015

0,002

Fig. 6. Verication of the friction coefcient values for the case of V 0 23 m/s and
P 49 MPa using numerical simulations.

value was imposed as an input. Of course the nal results (friction

coefcient) should be the same as the input friction coefcient.
However, the coefcient of friction calculated from the present
FE analysis using Eq. (1) did not match the initial imposed value
for the range of normal pressures and initial velocities considered.
Fig. 6 shows an example of the deviation between the initially
imposed and the calculated friction coefcient values for the case
of initial velocity and normal pressure equal to 23 m/s and 49 MPa,
respectively. It can be observed that the existing methodology (i.e.,
by using only two strain readings) underestimated the friction
coefcient and gave an average value of 0.2, for an assumed constant input value of 0.3. In other words, the friction coefcient
calculated using the above mentioned approach was 50% less than
the actual input value. This could be attributed to the no uniformity of the strain and stress elds in the measuring zone. For
this reason, other measuring points were introduced in this study
to record the complete strains history. These new reading points
should be located on the sides of the piece no. 1 such that the
strain histories are measured on both outer and inner sides of each
point (Fig. 5). This means every time on one piece there are four
strain readings. Using these 8 reading points we can now dene
the strain distribution accurately.
In the second part of the paper a new methodology is proposed
to estimate the ction coefcient correctly. Unlike the old methodology, the new analysis will consider distribution of strain history in two zones (pieces no. 1 and no. 2 in Fig. 5). Comparisons of
friction coefcient results between the new and old approaches
will be presented fora wide range of sliding velocities and normal
pressures. Consequently, the present numerical analysis will be
utilized to introduce a correction factor that can be used to correct
the friction coefcient values obtained from the experiments using
the old methodology. Additionally, analysis of the sliding velocity
will be performed, which presents real sliding velocity that is not
equal to impact velocity measured during the test.

4. Detailed numerical simulation

The additional measuring points were introduced in the numerical
model to accurately reproduce the strain distribution. The new measuring points have positions A and B on both thin walls (piece 1 and
2), see Fig. 5. The signals calculated in all 8 points are presented in
Fig. 7.The strains are changing along the piece thickness and also differ
from one piece (A) to another (B).The extensions in and out used in
the legend of Fig. 7 indicate the inside and outside strains, respectively.
The most important observation from the numerical results is that the
strain was not uniform in parts no. 1 and 2, which were bended due to
uniaxial compression.
The signal of point B in piece no. 1 (1B-out in Fig. 7) represents
the only strain reading of the experiment that was used in old

Fig. 7. Strain history in all considered measuring points using the numerical model.

0,5
Friction coefficient [-]

Friction-old
Friction-new

0,4

Average0,303

0,3

Input 0,3

0,2
Average0,202

0,1
0
0

0,0005

0,001
Time [s]

0,0015

0,002

Fig. 8. Comparison of friction coefcient obtained numerically between the two

methodologies, V 0 23 m/s and P 49 MPa.

methodology to obtain the dynamic friction coefcient (the point

with the highest strains was used [2023]).The normal force given
by Eq. (2) is properly dened in the old methodology; however,
the tangential/friction force is incorrect. In the new methodology,
the strain
t is taken as the average of the 8 points (Eq. (3)) to
calculate the tangential/friction force using Eq. (2). This is to
account for the distribution of strains in the entire cross section of
four pieces (thin walls).
8
P

~ t

i1

i t

where i t is the strain reading in each of the 8 points, Fig. 5.

Using a more precise denition of the local strain value during
the process of friction, a better estimation of the friction coefcient
was obtained. Fig. 8 shows a comparison between the original
(old) methodology (1 point) and the new methodology (8 points)
in estimating the friction coefcient value with respect to an
imposed friction constant of 0.3. Considering a simple average of
strains in only two points to dene the friction coefcient did not
allow dening the assumed value accurately. The reason is that the
original methodology [23] used only half of the friction force (the
stresses were multiplied by 20 mm2).
It was visible during the nite element simulations of the
impact process that both pieces were not uniformly compressed
and bended with vibrations. Thus, to calculate the friction coefcient correctly, the total friction force should be calculated after
taking into account the cross-sectional area of the four pieces
together. In other words, the contact area AC should be taken as
80 mm2, see Table 2.
Additionally it is observed that the friction coefcient value can
be decomposed into two parts, according to following equation:

t zone1 t zone2 t

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

The results using Eq. (4) are reported in Fig. 9 which shows 83%
of the friction value is obtained from zone 1 and 17% from zone 2.
Therefore, for this specic case, an error of 30% is observed when
comparing the assumed value with the numerical prediction using
the original (old) analysis reported in [23].
The main goal of this research is to nd a solution as how to
correct the previous experimental results knowing the limitation
of the experimental setup. One of these limitations, is the difculty
to add gauges/sensors on the inner side of the wall to record the
pieces bending (the projectile is ying through the inner hole).
However, the results obtained by the present numerical analysis
for different cases of impact will be utilized to introduce the
concept of a correction factor for the friction coefcient. This
correction factor could be used with the old methodology to
estimate the correct value of friction coefcient.
Although several combinations of normal pressures and impact
velocities were performed experimentally, only four cases are
discussed in this paper and compared with numerical simulations.
The studied cases include four different combinations of normal
pressures and initial impact velocities as listed in Table 3.
The next sub-sections will explain how to calculate and use the
correction factor to correct the friction coefcient obtained
experimentally.
4.1. Correction factor for friction coefcient
The concept of a correction factor (CF) for the coefcient of
friction that is calculated from the numerical simulations using the
original methodology is introduced in this section. Thus, the friction correction factor is calculated as the ratio between the friction
coefcient values obtained using the new methodology and the
ones obtained using the original methodology.
It was observed from the previously veried results of case 1 in
Table 3 that the friction coefcient was consistently underestimated, and a correction factor of 1.5 could be deduced. This
constant value was used to correct the old methodology to obtain
experimental friction coefcients. The correction factor of case
1 was veried fora range of friction inputs between 0.0 and 1.0 as
illustrated in Fig. 10. The variation of the friction coefcient
throughout the impact time step using the old methodology is
shown in Fig. 10a, whereas, the results of the corrected old
methodology (i.e., after considering the CF) are presented in
Fig. 10b.
It can be seen from Fig. 10 that using a constant CF 1.5 accurate corrections of the old methodology could be predicted

regardless of the of friction input used. The friction parameter

history was uctuating around the assumed value, and its average
was very close to the input friction for all values considered. The
maximum difference between the input friction constant and the
results predicted using the corrected old methodology did not
exceed 9% as listed in Table 4. In conclusion, the correction factor
for case-1 was found to be constant, independent of friction, and
can be used to correct the experimental data for this loading
condition.
Numerical analysis was then extended to estimate the correction factor for different loading combinations including the four
cases listed in Table 3, and assuming a xed friction constant input
of 0.3. The dynamic friction analysis for cases 24 was solved using
similar way as for case-1, and the correction factor for these three
additional cases was estimated in the range of 1.32.15 as presented in Table 5. These four loading cases were divided, based on
the initial velocity, into two groups: low sliding velocity (cases 1
2) and high sliding velocity (cases 34). For these loading conditions, the correction factor was found to higher for cases with high
pressure than for low normal pressure within the level of initial
velocity impact considered. Also, the rate of change of CF slightly
differs between low and high impact velocity as illustrated in
Fig. 11.
Next, the correction values will be used to correct the dynamic
friction coefcients obtained experimentally based on one
measuring point.
4.2. Corrected analysis of experiments
The previous analysis has demonstrated that the approximation used for the denition of friction coefcient based on the old
methodology (Eqs. (1)(3)) is not correct. However, after the
analysis presented in Section 4.1, it is now possible to correct the
friction coefcients and nally to report correctly the dynamic
friction. The correction factors presented in Table 5 are used for
correction of the experimental results as shown in Table 6.
The relationship between the friction coefcient and the initial
impact velocity is also presented in Fig. 12(a). The friction coefcient was described based on experiments using the simplest
method as possible averaging but only in limited part of the
curve. After correction it is possible to see how the friction
Table 3
The initial conditions for four considered cases.

Table 2
The data for friction coefcient calculation new methodology.
AG (mm2)

210,000

120

80

0,4

Friction coefficient (-)

AC (mm2)

Friction coefficient (-)

E (MPa)

zone 1

0,3
0,2
83%

0,1
0
0

0,0005

0,001 0,0015
Time (s)

0,002

91

Case

Normal pressure P (MPa)

Initial impact velocity V 0 (m/s)

1
2
3
4

49
168
42
151

23
17
75
76

0,4

zone 2

0,3
0,2

17%

0,1
0
0

0,0005

0,001 0,0015
Time (s)

Fig. 9. Decomposition of friction coefcient measurements (FE results) into zone 1 and zone 2.

0,002

92

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

Friction coefficient

Multiplied by CF
(CF=1,5)
2

1,5

1,5

0,5

0,5

fric 0,0
fric 0,1
fric 0,2
fric 0,3
fric 0,7
fric 1,0

-0,5

-0,5
0

0,0005

0,001

0,0015

0,002

Time (s)

0,0005

0,001
0,0015
Time (s)

0,002

Fig. 10. Friction coefcient variations over the dynamic time step using based on numerical simulations (a) old methodology and (b) after correction.
Table 4
Friction coefcient results predicted using the corrected old methodology, comparison with the original predictions.
imposed
old
new
Error between new and
assumed values (%)

0
0.0049
0.007
100

0.1
0.073
0.109
8.26

0.2
0.139
0.210
4.60

0.3
0.202
0.303
1.13

0.7
0.458
0.688
1.82

1
0.649
0.974
2.68

Table 5
Correction factors for all cases.
Correction factor CF

1
2
3
4

1.5
1.9
1.3
2.15

Correction factor, CF (-)

Case

2,5
2
1,5
1
case 1 and 2
case 3 and 4

0,5
0
0

50
100
150
Normal pressure, P (MPa)

200

Fig. 11. Variation of the correction factor with normal pressure applied using
numerical simulations.

Table 6
Corrected friction coefcients from experiments.
Case

Old friction coefcient

Corrected friction coefcient

1
2
3
4

0.23
0.2
0.15
0.1

0.35
0.36
0.19
0.22

coefcient is dependent on pressure for low and high velocity in

experiment, Fig. 12(b).
4.3. Analysis of the sliding velocity
If a projectile with a high mass impacts a specimen with a
lower mass the specimen is accelerated. For case-1, the initial
velocity of the projectile is 23 m/s, after impacting the specimen,
the following forces act: normal force (pressure) and tangential
force (friction). The normal pressure is equal to 49 MPa. The friction force is proportional to the normal pressure by the friction
coefcient. It is observed based on simulation that the friction
force decelerates the specimen. Of course, for frictionless condition
(i.e., friction coefcient equal to 0.0) the specimen is not decelerated and the sliding velocity is constant (about 34.5 m/s),
according to the law of conservation of momentum. This initial
sliding velocity of the specimen is dependent on the friction
coefcient in a nonlinear trend as presented in Fig. 13.
Another observation is that the sliding velocity is not constant
during a process of contact ring-specimen. The sliding velocity is
constant only if the friction coefcient is equal to zero. If the
friction coefcient is increasing the deceleration of the specimen
during sliding is increasing, see Fig. 14. It can be noticed that for
high friction coefcient the specimen is impacted two times by the
projectile during the deceleration. Of course several impacts can
be observed dependent on the friction coefcient and the sliding
distance (limited by length of specimen), see Fig. 1b.
The sliding velocity are analyzed for all other cases with a
constant friction coefcient value equal to 0.3, see Fig. 15. The
solution for the loadingcase-2 (impact velocity 17 m/s) is interesting. It consists of small sliding velocity together with high
pressure (168 MPa). As discussed previously, high pressure causes
high friction force which decelerates the specimen. The sliding
velocity of the specimen is relatively reduced. The sliding distance
is constant it means that the specimen is ying during a long
time through the ring. The step function, in Fig. 15, is observed for
this case, similar to the solution with high friction coefcient in
Fig. 14. During this simulation, the projectile impacts into specimen ve times and the velocity is decreasing every reloading step
(after every impact). For cases 3 and 4 which include high velocities and two different pressures, the specimen is moving through
the ring and after the limit line, Fig. 15. The friction process is
ended and specimens overshoot the ring in both cases. It shows
that only this part of the signal (before the limit line) should be
included in detailed analysis of dynamic friction parameters.

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

Friction coefficient, m (-)

Friction coefficient, (-)

0,4
0,3
y = -0,0027x + 0,4085

0,2
0,1
0
0

20
40
60
80
Initial impact velocity, V0 (m/s)

0,4

93

y = 8E-05x + 0,3459

0,3
y = 0,0003x + 0,1784

0,2
case 3 and 4

0,1

case 1 and 2
0
0

50
100
150
Initial normal pressure, P (MPa)

200

35
Sliding velocity, VS (m/s)

Maximum sliding velocitty,

VS-max (m/s)

Fig. 12. Variation of corrected friction coefcient with initial (a) impact velocity and (b) normal pressure based on corrected experiments.

y = 1,4192x2 - 3,1084x + 34,548

34

33

32
0

0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
Friction coefficient, (-)

case-2-vel-23

-10

-20

-30
difference in pressure is 119MPa
between case-1 and case-2-vel-23

-40

Fig. 13. FE results showing the inuence of the friction coefcient on the maximum
sliding velocity V S  max for an initial impact velocity V 0 23 m/s.

case-1

0,0005

0,001
Time (s)

0,0015

0,002

Fig. 16. Comparison of the FE results between case-1 and case-2-vel-23.

Second impact of the projectile

Sliding velocity, VS (m/s)

0
-10

fric 0,0
fric 0,2

-20

fric 0,3
fric 0,7

-30
-40

fric 1,0

case-3
case-4

-70
-80
-90

difference in pressure is 109MPa

between case-3 and case-4

-100
0

0,0005

0,001 0,0015
Time (s)

0,002

0
-20
case-2

-40
Limit line - after this line the
friction process is ended

-60

case-3
case-4
case-1

-80

case-2-vel-23

-100
0

0,001

0,002
Time (s)

0,0005

0,001
Time (s)

0,0015

0,002

Fig. 17. Comparison of the FE results between case-3 and case-4.

Fig. 14. Variation of the sliding velocity dependence on friction coefcient for
case-1 using FE analysis.

Sliding velocity, VS (m/s)

Sliding velocity, VS (m/s)

-60

0,003

0,004

Fig. 15. FE sliding velocity for the four cases considered using a constant friction
coefcient of 0.3.

Numerical simulation analysis for another case of loading is

added, named case-2-vel-23 in Fig. 15, with the same initial normal pressure as case-2 and initial projectile velocity equals to
23 m/s as in case-1. It is possible to observe the inuence of the
initial pressure on the sliding velocity. Detailed comparison of this
new case with case-1 is presented in Fig. 16. It is visible that the
difference in mainly concerning the deceleration of the projectiles.
The normal pressure difference between these two cases is equal
to 119 MPa.
Fig. 17 presents the analysis results for cases 3 and 4 which are
dened by high initial velocity of the projectile (75 and 76 m/s). Of
course the deceleration of the specimen is higher in case-4
because the normal pressure is higher by 109 MPa. The sliding
time is reduced in these cases due to high velocity. The specimen
is sliding on the ring and as soon as the contact is lost the velocity
becomes constant (straight line). The deceleration difference
between case-3 and case-4 is similar to that observed between

94

T. Jankowiak et al. / Tribology International 95 (2016) 8694

Acknowledgment

Table 7
Friction analysis data to be used for a proposed friction law.
Sliding velocity (m/s)

Initial normal pressure (MPa)

45.5
159.5

22
0.35
0.36

83
0.19
0.22

case-2-vel-23 and case-1. This analysis helps predict the average

sliding velocity which can appear during experiments.

5. Conclusions
The friction parameters calculated for the experimental cases
considered in the present analysis are presented in Table 7. Taking
into account the variation of the sliding velocity during the friction
process, a friction law can be proposed and utilized in dynamic
friction analysis. It considers an average sliding velocity which is
generally different from the sliding velocity assumed by the initial
impact velocity. It is clear that the sliding velocity is an important
and fundamental parameter as compared with the initial normal
pressure. It should be noted that increasing the sliding velocity
decrease the friction coefcient value. Opposite relation is found
concerning the initial normal pressure.
The present paper discussed in details many aspects of the
current inaccurate experimental methodology used to dene the
dynamic friction law. The main problems of this old method were
identied and discussed. A new methodology was, therefore,
proposed to dene the dynamic friction coefcient accurately for
further experiments with dynamometer ring. The new methodology was developed numerically using nite element simulations of the real experiments. Caution should also be considered in
nite element modeling to account for the evolution of the real
contact area. In fact, the contact area evolves with the normal
pressure and cannot be assumed constant. It was demonstrated
numerically that the simple analysis approach reported in [2023]
is not enough to estimate precisely the friction coefcient under
dynamic loading for different normal pressures. Several assumptions used in those old studies were not consistent as how to
dene the average strain using the dynamometer and the sliding
velocity during the process. In this paper, a precise analysis based
on an inverse method was developed to estimate the correct
values and to correct the previous experiments as reported in [23].
The crucial outcome is the idea of introducing a correction factor
to correct the old methodology in order to dene the dynamic
friction coefcient accurately. In general, this correction factor was
found to be dependent on initial pressure and impact velocity and
independent of friction coefcient.

Thanks to the National Centre of Research and Development for

nancial support under the Grant WND-DEM-1-203/00.

References
[1] Nair RP, Grifn D, Randall NX. The use of the pin-on-disk tribology test
method to study three unique industrial applications. Wear 2009;267:8237.
[2] So H. Characteristics of wear results tested by pin-on-disc at moderate to high
speeds. Tribol Int 1996;29:41523.
[3] Espinosa HD, Patanella A, Fischer M. A novel dynamic friction experiment
using a modied Kolsky bar apparatus. Exp Mech 2000;40:13853.
[4] Rajagopalan S, Irfan MA, Prakash V. Novel experimental techniques for
investigating time resolved high speed friction. Wear 1999;225:122237.
[5] Rajagopalan S, Prakash V. A modied torsional Kolsky bar for investigating
dynamic friction. Exp Mech 1999;39:295303.
[6] Bowden FP, Freitag EH. The friction of solids at very high speeds. I. Metal on
metal; II. Metal on diamond. Proc R Soc Lond Ser Math Phys Sci 1958:35067.
[7] Archard JF. Contact and rubbing of at surfaces. J Appl Phys 1953;24:9818.
[8] Bowden FP, Moore AJW, Tabor D. The ploughing and adhesion of sliding
metals. J Appl Phys 1943;14:8091.
[9] Greenwood JA, Tabor D. Deformation properties of friction junctions. Proc Phys
Soc Sect B 1955;68:609.
[10] Lodygowski T, Rusinek A, Jankowiak T, Sumelka W. Selected topics of high
speed machining analysis. Eng Trans 2012;60:6996.
[11] Cristol-Bulthe AL, Desplanques Y, Degallaix G. Coupling between friction
physical mechanisms and transient thermal phenomena involved in pad-disc
contact during railway braking. Wear 2007;263:123042.
[12] Gellert EP, Cimpoeru SJ, Woodward RL. A study of the effect of target thickness
on the ballistic perforation of glass-bre-reinforced plastic composites. Int J
Impact Eng 2000;24:44556.
[13] Iwamoto Takeshi, Yokoyama Takashi. Effects of radial inertia and end friction
in specimen geometry in split Hopkinson pressure bar tests: a computational
study. Mech Mater 2012;51:97109.
[14] Zhong WZ, Rusinek A, Jankowiak T, Abed F, Bernier R, Sutter G. Inuence of
interfacial friction an dspecimen conguration in split Hopkinson pressure bar
system. Tribol Int 2015;90:114.
[15] Sutter G, Philippon S, Garcin F. Dynamic analysis of the interaction between an
abradable material and a titanium alloy. Wear 2006;261:68692.
[16] Mandard R, Witz JF, Boidin X, Fabis J, Desplanques Y, Meriaux J. Interacting
force estimation during blade/seal rubs. Tribol Int 2015;82:50413.
[17] Rusinek A, Zaera R, Forquin P, Klepaczko JR. Effect of the plastic behavior and
boundary conditions coupled with elastic wave propagation on the collapse
site of a crashbox, ThinWalled Structures. Thin-walled Struc 2008;46:1143
63.
[18] Sanjeev NK, Vinayak M, Suresh H. Effect of coefcient of friction in nite
element modeling of friction stir welding and its importance in manufacturing
process modeling applications. Int J Appl Sci Eng Res 2014;3(4):75562.
[19] Lovell MR, Deng Z. Characterization of interfacial friction in coated sheet
steels: inuence of stamping process parameters and wear mechanisms. Tribol Int 2002;35:8595.
[20] Sutter G, Philippon S, Molinari A. An experimental investigation of dry friction
for a large range of sliding velocities. Matr Tech 2004:337.
[21] Sutter G, Ranc N. Flash temperature measurement during dry friction process
at high sliding speed. Wear 2010;268:123742.
[22] List G, Sutter G, Arnoux JJ. Analysis of the high speed sliding interaction
between titanium alloy and tantalum. Wear 2013;301(12):66370.
[23] Sutter G, List G, Arnoux JJ, Rusinek A. Finite element simulation for analysing
experimental friction tests under severe conditions. Finite Elem Anal Des
2014;85:508.
[24] Rusinek A, Cheriguene R, Baumer A, Klepaczko JR, Larour P. Dynamic behaviour of high-strength sheet steel in dynamic tension, experimental and
numerical analyses. Strain Anal Eng Des 2008;43:3753.
[25] Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Abaqus 6.11 analysis user's manual. Providence (RI): DassaultSystemesSimulia Corperation; 2011.