5

THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI

FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590

SOME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE

OF SURFACE COATINGS ON THE WEAR OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER-
KETONE (PEEK) POLYMERIC GEARS

Dimitar PETROV1, Karl DEARN2, Doug WALTON2, Richard BANKS2

1
TU – Sofia, branch Plovdid, str. Tsanko Dyustabanov 25, BULGARIA,
2
The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UNITED KINGDOM
e-mail: dimgog@abv.bg, k.d.dearn@bham.ac.uk, D.Walton@bham.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
Gears made of general purpose Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) polymeric
material and coated on their flanks with a thin layer of different solid lubricants
MoS2, graphite (C), BN and PTFE are tested in relation to wear and mesh point
temperature in conditions of prolonged running. The derived experimental results
are graphically shown. Some conclusions are given (the order of wear increasing
according to the type of coating (PTFE – the least wear, uncoated, graphite, MoS2,
BN); proportional correlations between the wear and the mesh temperature etc.)

Keywords: wear, polymer gears, solid (dry) lubricant coatings

1. INTRODUCTION filled and unfilled PA6/6 and polyacetal. The

The applications of polymeric gears increase
because of their most beneficial properties: low cost
(when injected /moulded), light weight and low inertia,
capability to absorb shock and vibration as a result of
their elastic compliance, noiselessness, tolerances often
less critical than for metal gears due, in part, to their
greater resilience, their ability to operate under dry un-
lubricated conditions etc. [1, 2]. Their most perceived
disadvantages are: lower strength leading to less load
carrying capacity, sensitivity to temperature, sensitivity
to post mould distortion and moulding complications
such as shrinkage; polymeric gears are subjected to
greater dimensional instabilities due to their greater
coefficient of thermal expansion and moisture
absorption etc. Connected with the first two mentioned
disadvantages, the most common ways of fail of
polymeric gears are thermally related tooth failures,
tooth root and pitch point fatigue. However, the most
common failure is wear, which has been extensively
reported [3-8]. Various authors have investigated
different parameters thought to influence wear.
Akkurt [7] examined the effect of surface roughness
of steel gears running against polymer (acetal) gears.
Rao et al. [8] using a twin disc rolling-sliding test rig,
looked at the effect of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
as an internal lubricant on the friction and wear of
experimental results showed that the friction and wear
performance of the PTFE filled polymers was
superior to those of the unfilled polymers.
In an attempt to increase the transmissible power
levels, still higher problems of surface temperatures
arise due to the frictional losses between mating gear
teeth. This leads to high wear rates and high surface
temperatures resulting in the gear flanks melting and
rapid failure.
With an aim to investigate the influence of
surface coating on dry running polymer gear wear, a
number of polymeric gears were coated with a thin
coating of dry lubricants. Within the framework of
one bigger project, the authors investigated gears
made of three polymeric materials - general purpose
polyamide (PA 66), unreinforced Poly-Ether-Ether-
Ketone (PEEK 450G) and a 30% carbon fiber
reinforced Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK
450CA30). This paper reports only on the wear and
temperatures of the (PEEK 450G) gears with the
specified coatings and compares the wear with that of
the uncoated gears. As polymer gears are frequently
run against a steel gear, coated polymer gears running
with steel were also tested. The results described
below were based on a pilot study of the influence of
coatings on the gear wear.
6
THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590

2. POLYMER GEAR WHEELS, THEIR

COATINGS, TEST RIG AND
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
All examined gears had 30 teeth, 2 mm module
and 30o pressure angle with a face width of 17.4 mm
– Figure 1. The polymeric gear wheels were made of
PEEK 450G by injection moulding. In the
experiment, steel gears were used, too, with the same
geometrical parameters.
The investigated coatings were solid lubricants
of molybdenum disulphide (MoS2), graphite flake
(C), boron nitride – hexagonal (BN) and PTFE
powder. The coatings were laid by Indestructible
Paint Ltd, Birmingham. The coating procedure
included – substrate preparation (using grit blasting
with 12/220 Aluminium Oxide grit to remove the
substrate contamination leaving a finely abraded
surface that helped to promote coating adhesion and
then the dust residue removal by compressed air
blow-off prior to coating), coating application (by
hand spraying using a conventional air atomizing
spray gun and a filtered air supply at an ambient
temperature of 16...18C), coating curing (10 minutes
flash off at 16-18C following spraying, 1 hour at
190C in a laboratory air circulating oven, cooling
specimens and de-masking prior to visual
examination to ensure no contaminants are present in
the dry film). The densities of dry film coatings were
1.56 g/cm3 for MoS2 and 1.385 g/cm3 for the other
dry film lubricants. The measured coating thicknesses
were for MoS2 0.06 mm, for graphite 0.07 mm, for
BN 0.1 mm and for PTFE 0.05 mm. These are
average thicknesses as the coating layer was not
uniform along the flank of the gear teeth, being
thicker at the base of the tooth than at the tip.
Fig. 1. Two tested polymeric gears with BN coating
The test rig used for all the tests is shown in
Figure 2. It is a closed loop rig designed specifically
for testing polymer gears and is described in [3, 11].
When using a closed loop system, the torque is
normally wound-in but for plastic gears wear and
tooth deformations would mean that the torque would
change (reduce) with time. Using a pivot block and
load arm to load the gears ensured that the test gears
were subjected to a constant load throughout the test.
Temperatures were measured using non-contacting
infra-red thermocouples and the data stored on a
computer. Three of these thermocouples can be seen
in Figure 2 facing the test gears - the central infrared
thermocouple measured the mesh temperature, two
others – the temperatures of the bodies of the two test
gears. Two precise analytical balances for
measurement of weight were used – analog and
digital devices.
The wear was evaluated by measuring the
weight loss after a number of cycles. The gears were
removed each time the weighing took place. A non-
running control gear was mounted on the pivot block
assembly and the weight of this gear was measured so
that any moisture either absorbed or released from the

Fig. 2. The test rig

 7
THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590

PEEK gears could be added or subtracted from the
test gear measurements. Wear is shown by the
percentage relative weight loss R% calculated by
means of the formula:
R%i={[(Qi  Q0).P0Pi]  P0}.100% (1)
Where: P0 – the original gear weight; Pi – the current
gear weight; Q0 – the original control gear weight; Qi
– the current control gear weight; R%i – the current
relative weight loss.
All the tested gears were loaded to a torque of 7
N.m, running at 1500 revs/min. Note that 1500
revs/min is a relatively high speed for unlubricated
polymer gears, but this speed has been chosen for
0.25%
achieving 2.5 million cycles in 2 days of continuous
running.
3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Figure 3 shows the wear for an uncoated PEEK
450G gear pair together with such gears (both pinion
and wheel) coated with MoS2, graphite, BN and
PTFE against the number of running cycles. Note that
each point on the graph represents the average of the
pinion and wheel weight losses. Figure 4 shows the
temperatures of these gears, where the temperatures
were measured at the mesh point.

0.20%
Relative Weight Loss, %

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & uncoated pinion) PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - MoS2 coating)
PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - graphite coating) PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - PTFE coating)
PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - BN coating)

Fig. 3. The relative wear in the cases of meshing two identical gears - coated or uncoated
45

40
Temperature, C

35

30

25

20
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles

PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & uncoated pinion) PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - MoS2 coating)

PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - graphite coating) PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - PTFE coating)
PEEK450G(pinion_&_wheel - BN coating)
Fig. 4. The mesh temperature in the cases of meshing two identical gears
8
THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590

0.35%

0.30%
Relative Weight Loss, %

0.25%

0.20%

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles

PEEK 450G uncoated [wheel] & Steel [pinion] PEEK 450G (coating MoS2) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]
PEEK450G(coating Graphite)[pinion] & Steel[wheel] PEEK 450G(coating PTFE) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]
PEEK 450G(coating BN) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]

Fig. 5. The relative wear for polymeric gears (coated and uncoated) running against a steel gear

50

45

40
Temperature, C

35

30

25

20
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles
PEEK 450G uncoated [wheel] & Steel [pinion] PEEK 450G (coating MoS2) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]
PEEK450G(coating Graphite)[pinion] & Steel[wheel] PEEK 450G(coating PTFE) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]
PEEK 450G(coating BN) [pinion] & Steel [wheel]

Fig. 6. The mesh temperature in the cases of meshing the gears shown in Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the relative weight loss for the
coated and uncoated polymer gears, one by one
running against a steel gear. Figure 6 shows the mesh
temperatures of the gears shown in Figure 5. Figure 7
shows the wear of coated gears running against
uncoated gears and Figure 8 shows the running
temperatures for the gears shown in Figure 7.
All the curves shown in Figures 3, 5 and 7
exhibit the characteristic shape of polymer gear wear,
namely a high initial wear rate followed by a period
of linear wear. The tests were stopped before the wear
rate would again have increased towards the end of
the gears’ life.
 9
THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590

All the results for coated gears, except for the
PTFE coated ones, showed worse performance as
compared to the uncoated gears.
The best performance was for the PTFE coated
gears, uncoated gears were the next best, then
followed by graphite, MoS2 and BN coated gears,
which showed similar, but still worse performances.
However we should note that polymeric gears with
0.16%
the graphite coating had less slope of relative weight
loss than the same for uncoated gear (see Fig. 3 and
Fig. 5). So, after approximately 3.106 cycles, the
polymeric gears with graphite coating would have
less wear.
Running of polymeric gears against steel ones
gave more wear than in the other cases.

0.14%

0.12%
Relative Weight Loss, %

0.10%

0.08%

0.06%

0.04%

0.02%

0.00%
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles

PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & uncoated pinion) PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & MoS2 coated pinion)
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & graphite coated pinion) PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & PTFE coated pinion)
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & BN coated pinion)

Fig. 7. The relative wear for polymeric gears (coated and uncoated) running against such uncoated gear
55

50

45
Temperature, C

40

35

30

25

20
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 2.5E+06 3.0E+06
Cycles
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & uncoated pinion) PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & MoS2 coated pinion)
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & graphite coated pinion) PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & PTFE coated pinion)
PEEK 450G(uncoated wheel & BN coated pinion)

Fig. 8. The mesh temperature in the cases of meshing the gears shown in Figure 7
10
THE ANNALS OF “DUNĂREA DE JOS“ UNIVERSITY OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, TRIBOLOGY, 2011 (XVII), Issue 1
ISSN 1221-4590
4. CONCLUSION
In all the cases of running (coated or uncoated
polymeric gears against identical gears or against
steel counterparts, coated polymeric gears against
uncoated polymeric gears), experimental results
showed that the PTFE coated gears had less wear than
any of the other uncoated and coated gears, but
uncoated gears had less wear than gears covered with
MoS2, graphite or BN.
Polymeric gears with BN coating showed the
worst results concerning wear in all cases of running,
polymeric gears with MoS2 coating had the next
worst results (excepting the results shown in Fig. 7).
Graphite coatings gave intermediate results between
the cases with BN or MoS2 coatings on the one hand,
and the cases with PTFE coatings or without coatings
on the other hand (excepting the results shown in
Figure 7).
Polymeric gears (coated and uncoated) running
against steel counterparts showed more wear than in
the other mentioned cases. The influence of steel gear
surface roughness would need to be included in a
longer term project.
As a rule the registered mesh temperature were
usually proportional to the wear intensity, the lower
the temperature the less the wear.
All the coated gears survived the tests without
the coatings separating from the substrate or the
substrate and the base polymer.
All the described tests were carried out at one
speed and load. Further work needs to be carried out
exploring a range of loads and speeds as well as
examining the influence of different base polymers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Bulgarian
Ministry of Education and Science for supporting this
research project allowing Prof. D. G. Petrov to work
in UK for 8 months. They also wish to thank
Indestructible Paint Limited for coating all the gears
used in this programme of work.
REFERENCES
1. Petrov D., Dinev G., 2005, Model investigations on different
original designs of nonmetal tooth gears with sheet iron bandage,
Proceedings of the DEMI’2005 – 7th International Conference on
Accomplishments in Electro and Mechanical Industries, Banja
Luka University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Banja Luka,
27-28.05.2005, pp.83-88.
2. Engineering polymers for gears from DuPont, available on-line
at the address (5.06.2011):
http://plastics.dupont.com/plastics/pdflit/americas/markets/gears.pdf
3. Mao K., 1993, The performance of dry running non-metallic
gears. PhD thesis, Birmingham University.
4. Breeds A.R., Kukureka S.N., Mao K., Walton D., Hooke
C.J., 1993, Wear behaviour of acetal gears, Wear, 166, pp. 85-91.
5. Kukureka S.N., Chen Y.K., Hooke C.J., Liao P., 1995, The
wear mechanisms of acetal in unlubricated rolling - sliding contact,
Wear, 185, pp. 1-8.
6. Tsukamoto N., Maruyama H., Shi J., 1986, Investigation of
tooth profile change of nylon gears, Bulletin of JSME, vol 29, no.
252.
7. Li C.J., Limmer J.D., 2000, Model based condition for
tracking gear wear and fatigue damage, Wear, 241, pp. 26-32.
8. Voss H., Friedrich K., 1987, On the wear behaviour of short-
fibre-refinforced PEEK composites, Wear, 116, pp. 1-8.
9. Akkurt S., 1995, On the effect of surface roughness on wear
of acetal-metal gear pairs, Wear, 184, pp. 107-109.
10. Rao M., Hooke C.J., Kukureka S.N., Liao P., Chen Y.K.,
1998, The effect of PTFE on the friction and wear behavior of
polymers in rolling-sliding contact, Polymer Engineering and
Science, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1946-1958.
11. Cropper A.B., 2003, The failure mode analysis of plastic
gears, PhD thesis, Birmingham University.