Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-8058-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Surface texturing to control friction and wear for energy
efficiency and sustainability
Pradeep L. Menezes 1
Received: 24 July 2015 / Accepted: 27 October 2015 / Published online: 7 November 2015
# Springer-Verlag London 2015
Abstract Precise control of friction and wear is very impor-
tant for energy efficiency and sustainability in manufacturing
processes. In this research, different kinds of surface textures
have been created on steel surfaces to vary the frictional con-
ditions at the interface. The surface textures were varied from
unidirectional pattern to criss-cross pattern by rubbing the
steel surfaces under dry conditions against different grits of
emery papers for various numbers of cycles. The sliding ex-
periments were conducted at a velocity of 2 mm/s using an
inclined pin-on-plate apparatus with Al–Mg alloy pins against
steel plate surfaces of different textures with roughness under
dry and lubricated conditions at ambient conditions. Results
showed that the coefficient of friction (COF) and transfer layer
formation on the plate surfaces were controlled by the surface
textures of the steel materials under both dry and lubricated
conditions. Analyzing the surfaces in terms of various rough-
ness parameters, it was found that the asperity angle of the
steel surface played a key role in controlling the COF and
transfer layer during sliding. The friction and wear perfor-
mance can be accurately controlled by creating appropriate
surface textures and understanding their surface roughness
parameters in order to enhance energy efficiency and the qual-
ity of finished products in manufacturing processes.
Keywords Roughness parameters . Surface texture . Friction
coefficient . Al–Mg alloy
* Pradeep L. Menezes
pmenezes@unr.edu
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada Reno,
Reno, NV 89557, USA
1 Introduction
Friction, the resistance to relative motion of two bodies that
are in contact, is a subject that has been of interest to mankind
for ages. It is described in terms of a coefficient, i.e., coeffi-
cient of friction (μ), defined as the ratio of tangential force (T)
to the normal force (N) [1]. In manufacturing, such as metal
forming process, friction controls the tool load, product qual-
ity (geometry, tolerance, and surface finish), and tool wear. If
coefficient of friction (COF) is controlled properly, then it
could generate the required stresses to deform the metal to
the required shape. If the COF is not controlled properly, then
it could lead to failure of the workpiece, e.g., fracture of sheet
in sheet metal forming [2, 3]. Design and implementation of
the optimal surface texture may reduce the usage of conven-
tional petroleum-based lubricants, which are otherwise need-
ed to achieve different friction levels. So, surface texturing
also aids in facilitating environmental sustainability [3].
Considerable efforts have been made to understand the
tribological conditions that exist between the sheet and tool
materials in metal forming and the role of surface texture
played on process optimization [4–13]. Barber et al. [14] con-
ducted experimental investigation on the frictional character-
istic of lasertex steel sheets and shot-blasted sheets during
metal forming. The lasertex sheets were found to have lower
COF than the shot-blasted sheets over the range of surface
roughness and sliding velocities investigated. The effect of
surface topography on frictional resistance was examined by
Rasp and Wichern [15] and found a good correlation between
roughness of the surfaces and frictional behavior. Saha et al.
[16] found that friction increased with the strain occurring
during the contact, which supports the model relating friction
to flattening of strip asperities and real area of contact.
Wihlborg and Crafoord [17] developed a new surface rough-
ness parameter and found a good correlation with COF.
1386
Similar to the surface texture of the sheet materials, the
surface texture of the tool materials is also a very important
aspect in controlling friction during metal forming process
[10]. The effect of tool surface texture on COF under bound-
ary lubricated conditions was studied by Kumar et al. [18]. In
their study, both isotropic and directional textures were gen-
erated on the surfaces of the harder courter surfaces and found
that COF depended considerably on the surface textures.
Costa and Hutchings [19] investigated the influence of surface
texture on friction during metal forming process and conclud-
ed that friction was strongly influenced by the relative orien-
tation between the grooves generated on the die surfaces and
the drawing direction. The bulging effect of aluminum solid
cylinders by varying the frictional conditions at the tool sur-
faces was examined by Malayappan and Narayanasamy [20].
They concluded that barreling depends on the friction which
in turn depends on the surface texture at the tool surfaces.
Määttä et al. [21] analyzed the friction of stainless steel strips
against different tool steels and found that the surface texture
of the tool has a marked effect on the friction between the tool
and the workpiece. The relation between the friction and sur-
face texture for various lubricants was studied by Hu and
Dean [22] during upsetting tests. They determined that a ran-
dom smoother surface could retain more lubricant and reduce
friction. The influence of tool grinding mark directionality on
the friction under lubricated conditions was studied by
Lakshmipathy and Sagar [23]. Their research indicated that
the friction was lower for a tool surface that had the criss-cross
surface pattern when compared to the tool surface that had the
unidirectional ground pattern. Staph et al. [24] examined the
influence of surface texture and surface roughness of AISI
9310 steel on frictional behavior. An increase in the surface
roughness increased the COF, and the cross-ground surfaces
resulted in a lower COF than the circumferentially ground
surfaces. Koura [25] studied the effect of surface texture on
plowing and shearing components of friction and found that
the friction mechanisms during sliding depend on the degree
of roughness. Wakuda et al. [26] studied the frictional proper-
ties of surfaces in which dimple patterns were machined with
different size, density, and geometry. They concluded that the
tribological characteristics depended greatly on the size and
density of the microdimples rather than shape of the
microdimples. Xie and Williams [27] proposed a model in
order to predict the value of the overall COF and wear rate,
when the soft surface slid against a rough harder surface. This
model points to the fact that both COF and wear depend es-
sentially on the roughness characteristics of the harder surface,
the mechanical properties of both surfaces, nominal contact
pressure or load, and the state of lubrication.
Surface roughness parameters were obtained when charac-
terizing the surfaces using profilometers, such as contact type
or optical profilometer. Friction between the surfaces can be
accurately controlled by optimizing appropriate roughness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
parameter values on the surfaces to improve energy efficiency
and the quality of manufacturing products [1]. Several re-
searchers characterized the surface textures in terms of rough-
ness parameters, and attempts were made to correlate surface
roughness parameters with COF [28, 29]. Sedlaček et al. [30]
investigated the correlation between surface roughness param-
eters and COF. They concluded that roughness parameters like
Rku, Rsk, Rpk, and Rvk correlated well with COF. Myers [31]
reported that the root mean square of the first derivative of
surface profile was most useful in predicting the COF.
Wieleba [32] analyzed the statistical correlation of the COF
and wear rate when polymer composites slid against steel
counter surface with varying roughness under dry conditions.
The roughness of steel surface was described with different
parameters, such as Ra, Rz, R3z, Rp, Rk, Sm, Δα, r, and Δ. The
roughness parameters, Sm, Δα, and Rk were found to have
strongest influence on the COF. Singh et al. [33] investigated
the role of surface topographic features of four precision fin-
ished surfaces (ground, hard turned, honed, and isotropic)
commonly used in the bearing industry on their frictional re-
sponse. It is shown that the root-mean-square deviation of
surface and spatial parameters, such as density of summits
and texture direction of the surfaces, could be important to
predict the frictional behavior of the surfaces studied. From
the above discussions, it is clear that the correlation between
surface roughness parameters and friction is very complex and
system dependent.
In this investigation, various surface textures were created
on the harder counterpart material using different grinding
methods to study the influence of surface texture on COF
under dry and lubricated conditions. Further, surface textures
were characterized using roughness parameters, and attempts
were made to correlate 25 surface roughness parameters with
COF.
2 Experimental details
In the present investigation, unidirectional grinding marks
were produced on the steel plate by dry grinding the steel
surfaces against dry emery paper of 220 grit size. This is
considered as 0th cycle (i.e., original grinding marks). Then,
the steel plate was rubbed perpendicular to the original unidi-
rectional grinding mark direction for different number of cy-
cles, namely 1, 2, 8, 15, 20, 30, 40, 80, or 120 cycles. It was
observed for the 120th cycles that most of the grinding marks
were unidirectional and perpendicular to the original grinding
mark direction. Thus, ten kinds of surface textures (two are
unidirectionally ground (0th and 120th cycle) and others are
criss-cross ground) were generated using a particular emery
paper. To vary the surface roughness, the above-noted tech-
nique was repeated using different emery papers, such as 400,
600, and 1000 grit sizes. Figure 1 shows the surface profiles of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
Fig. 1 Profiles of steel plates for (a)
the a 0th, b 2nd, c 8th, and d
120th cycles
(b)
the steel plates generated using optical profilometer for the (a)
0th (b) 2nd (c) 8th, and (d) 120th cycles.
Experiments were performed on the prepared steel plates
using an inclined pin-on-plate apparatus. The details of the
apparatus and working principle are presented elsewhere
[34, 35]. The materials used for the present experiments are
as follows: Al–4Mg alloy pins of 10 mm in length and 3 mm
in diameter with tip radius of 1.5 mm and H-11 die steel plate
with the dimensions of 28 mm×20 mm×15 mm (thickness).
Vickers microhardness tester at ambient conditions was used
to measure the hardness of the Al–4Mg alloy pins and die steel
plates. The hardness values were found to be 105HV0.1 and
208HV0.1 for the Al–4Mg pin and steel plate, respectively.
Before each tests, the Al–4Mg alloy pins and steel plates were
thoroughly cleaned with distilled water, aqueous soap solu-
tion, and acetone using an ultrasonic cleaner apparatus.
In the pin-on-plate apparatus, the plate was fixed at an
angle of 1°±0.1° with respect to the horizontal base. Then,
pins were slid against the prepared steel plate starting from the
lower end to the higher end of the inclined surface for a sliding
length of 10 mm at a sliding speed of 2 mm/s. The normal load
was varied from 1 to 120 N for a sliding length of 10 mm
during the tests. It was observed that the COF did not vary
much with normal load up to 120 N or the sliding distance of
10 mm. In order to minimize the variations in roughness for a
particular test, five parallel sliding tests were conducted under
dry and lubricated conditions separately on a given steel plate.
The lubricant used was an engine lubricant containing zinc
dialkyl dithiophosphate (ZDDP) as an additive. A few drops
(5 ml) of the lubricant were smeared on the surface before the
lubricated test. Surface topographical profiles of the steel
plates were recorded using an optical profilometer. Scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) of the contact surfaces of pins and
1387
(c)
(d)
plates was analyzed to study the transfer layer. Data-driven
statistical correlation assessments were made through a linear
regression by examining the Pearson product-moment corre-
lation coefficient to study the effect of roughness parameters
on COF and variations in friction with surface textures.
3 Results and discussion
The variation in COF with sliding distance for Al–4Mg alloy
pins slid perpendicular to the unidirectional grinding marks
(i.e., 0th cycle) on steel plates, with varying roughness under
both dry and lubricated conditions, is shown in Fig. 2. The
COF is more or less constant throughout the sliding distance
of 10 mm with values close to 0.6 under dry and 0.35 under
lubricated conditions. The Ra values presented in the figure
were obtained by measuring the roughness profile along the
sliding direction of the pin. This is because the COF depends
on the direction of sliding [36].
The variation in COF with sliding distance for Al–4Mg
alloy pins slid parallel to the unidirectional grinding marks
(i.e., 120th cycle) on steel plate with varying roughness again
under both dry and lubricated conditions is presented in Fig. 3.
The average COF obtained for dry conditions is 0.4 and 0.25
under lubricated conditions. These COF values are lower
when compared with the corresponding values for the 0th
cycle (Fig. 2). In Fig. 3, the Ra values are slightly lower than
that in Fig. 2 for a corresponding surface preparation condi-
tion. This is because the surface profiles were recorded along
the sliding direction of the pin. It is interesting to note that for a
given Ra value, the COF is much higher for 0th cycle when
compared to 120th cycle.
1388 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394

1.0
0.9 R = 0.47 µ m R = 0.28 µ m
a a
R = 0.20 µ m R = 0.15 µ m
a a
0.8
Coefficient of Friction

0.7
Dry
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Lubricated
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 4 Variation of coefficient of friction with grinding cycles
Sliding Distance (mm)
Fig. 2 Variation in coefficient of friction with sliding distance for
different roughness for the 0th cycle where the sliding is perpendicular for different grinding cycles. The range of Ra varied between
to the unidirectional grinding marks 0.1 and 0.5 μm for different textured surfaces (i.e., from UPD
to UPL). In Fig. 4, it can be observed that the COF decreases
Similar plots were obtained for the experiments conducted considerably with increasing grinding cycles at lower number
on other criss-cross ground surfaces, prepared by various of cycles (up to about 30 cycles), and thereafter, the COF
grinding cycles, namely 1, 2, 8, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 80. decreases slowly under both dry and lubricated conditions.
When considering the variation of average COF values with The correlation coefficient between COF and grinding cycles
Ra without considering grinding cycles, the correlation coef- is found to be 0.74 under dry condition and 0.73 under lubri-
ficient between COF and Ra was found to be 0.56 under dry cated condition. The correlation between COF and grinding
condition and 0.64 under lubricated condition. From this anal- cycles showed a stronger correlation than the correlation be-
ysis, it can be inferred that the roughness parameter, Ra, is not tween COF and Ra of the surfaces.
sufficient to adequately explain the variation in COF with Scanning electron micrographs (SEMs) of the steel plate
surfaces. Hence, surface texturing concepts need to be consid- surfaces tested under dry conditions for the case 0th cycle, 1st
ered to explain the variations in COF with surfaces. cycle, 15th cycle, and 120th cycle are presented in Fig. 5a–d,
The variation in COF with grinding cycles for Al–4Mg respectively. In the micrographs, it can be seen that a consid-
alloy pins slid on steel plates under both dry and lubricated erable amount of Al–4Mg alloy transfer layer formed on the
conditions is shown in Fig. 4. The error bar in the Fig. 4 steel plate surfaces under dry condition. The amount of trans-
indicates the maximum and minimum values of COF obtained fer layer formed on a steel plate surface is highest for the 0th
for different surface roughness for a given grinding cycle, and cycle (Fig. 5a), followed by 1st cycle (Fig. 5b), 15th cycle
the connecting line indicates the average COF values obtained (Fig. 5c), and 120th cycle (Fig. 5d). Figure 5e–h shows the
corresponding SEM of the steel plate surfaces under lubricat-
1.0 ed conditions. The amount of transfer layer formed on the
0.9 R = 0.28 µ m
a
R = 0.19 µ m
a steel plates decreased under lubricated conditions. Similar to
R = 0.17 µ m R = 0.12 µ m
0.8 a a dry conditions, the amount of transfer layer formed on steel
Coefficient of Friction

plate surface was highest for the 0th cycle followed by 1st
0.7
cycle, 15th cycle, and least for the 120th cycle under lubricat-
0.6
ed conditions. Both dry and lubricated tests showed that the
0.5 Dry amount of transfer layer formed on the steel plate did not vary
0.4 much with surface roughness, Ra. For a given testing condi-
0.3 tion, the amount of transfer layer increased with increasing
0.2
normal load.
The SEMs of pin surfaces that are slid against steel plate
0.1 Lubricated
surfaces of 0th cycle, 1st cycle, 15th cycle, and 120th cycle
0.0 under dry and lubricated conditions are shown in Fig. 6.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Sliding Distance (mm) Surface shearing and plowing marks were observed on the
Fig. 3 Variation in coefficient of friction with sliding distance for
pin surfaces under dry condition. Under lubricated conditions,
different roughness for the 120th cycle where the sliding is parallel to the intensity of surface shearing was reduced in comparison
the unidirectional grinding marks with that occurring under dry conditions. The surface shearing
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394 1389

Fig. 5 Backscattered SEM of

steel plates under dry (a–d) and
lubricated conditions (e–h) for 0th
(a, e), 1st (b, f), 15th (c, g), and
120th (d, h) cycles. The arrows
indicate the sliding direction of
the pin relative to the plate

was found to be highest for the 0th cycles (Fig. 6a), followed (Fig. 6d). Similar observations can be made when the tests
by 1st cycle (Fig. 6b), 15th cycle (Fig. 6c), and 120th cycle were conducted under lubricated conditions.
1390
Fig. 6 SEM of Al–Mg alloy pins
tested under dry (a, b, c, d) and
lubricated conditions (e, f, g, h)
that are slid against surface of 0th
(a, e), 1st (b, f), 15th (c, g) and
120th (d, h) cycles
It can be seen in Fig. 4 that the COF values can be accu-
rately controlled by designing surface textures, and thus, en-
ergy efficiency can be improved. If an adequate understanding
is developed, then the surface texturing method has a potential
to be a cost-effective and easy-to-implement method to opti-
mize friction properties and wear behavior in manufacturing
process. As the surface roughness parameter, Ra, is not enough
to adequately explain the variations in the COF with surfaces,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
other roughness parameters need to be investigated. Hence,
detailed characterization of these surface textures can be per-
formed using an optical profilometer to accurately character-
ize the surface textures in terms of surface roughness param-
eters. Hence, attempts were made to characterize the surfaces
and to correlate roughness parameters of the surface textures
with the COF. These surface roughness parameters include
amplitude, spatial, and hybrid. The details of these roughness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394 1391

parameters are presented elsewhere [1]. The correlation anal- Table 1 Description of surface roughness parameters
yses between surface roughness parameters and the COF un- Roughness Parameter Description
der dry and lubricated conditions are presented in Fig. 7a, b,
respectively. Table 1 presents the description of the 25 rough- Rq (μm) Root-mean-square roughness
ness parameters that are considered in the present study and Ra (μm) Average roughness
correlated with COF as presented in Fig. 7. The correlation Rt (μm) Maximum height of the profile
coefficient values varied over a wide range, from 0.04 to as Rp (μm) Maximum profile peak height
high as 0.78, in absolute values, depending on the surface Rv (μm) Maximum profile valley depth
roughness parameter. The maximum correlation coefficient Rsk Skewness
between COF and surface roughness parameters was calculat- Rku Kurtosis
ed to be 0.70 for dry conditions and 0.78 for lubricated con- Rz (μm) Average maximum height of the profile
ditions. These values were obtained for the correlation coeffi- Rmax (μm) Maximum roughness depth
cient between the COF and the mean slope of the surface Rpm (μm) Average maximum profile peak height
asperities. These values were much higher than the correlation Rvm (μm) Average maximum profile valley depth
coefficient between the COF and Ra under both dry and lubri- Del a (Δa) (mrad) Average slope of the profile
cated conditions as described earlier. Lam a (λa) (μm) Average wavelength of the profile
Attempts were made to further analyze the variations be- Del q (Δq) (mrad) Root-mean-square (RMS) slope of the profile
tween COF and mean slope of the surface asperities. The Lam q (λq) (μm) Root-mean-square (RMS) wavelength
mean slope of the surface asperities is represented by a nota- of the profile
tion “Δa” (Del a) [1, 37]. The Δa roughness parameter is Htp (μm) Profile section height difference
Rk (μm) Core roughness depth
Rpk (μm) Reduced peak height
Rvk (μm) Reduced valley depth
Mr1 (%) Peak material component
Mr2 (%) Valley material component
S (μm) Mean spacing of local peaks of the profile
Sm (μm) Surface material volume
Pc (/mm) Peak count
FD Fractal dimension

described as the mean absolute profile slope over the assess-

Fig. 7 Correlation coefficient between the coefficient of friction and
roughness parameters under a dry and b lubricated conditions. Red and
blue bars represent positive and negative correlations, respectively
ment length. The Δa is calculated by calculating all slopes
between each two successive points in the roughness profile
and then calculating the average of these slopes [1]. The var-
iation in COF with roughness parameter, Δa, for various
grinding cycles under dry and lubricated conditions is shown
in Fig. 8a, b, respectively. It can be observed that higher values
of Δa give higher COF. For e.g., 0th cycle texture has higher
values of Δa and also higher COF. Similarly 120th cycle tex-
ture has lower Δa values and also lower COF. From this anal-
ysis, it can be inferred that the COF strongly depends on mean
slope of surface asperities than Ra irrespective of grinding
mark orientation. In the literature, one of the early attempts
to demonstrate the variations in COF with surfaces was made
by considering the roughness of the surfaces. This is because
the surfaces are not smooth, as they consist of asperities with
varying amplitude and spacing. Further, the roughness theory
presumed that the frictional force can be demonstrated in
terms of forces that change during the surface variation with
asperity slope θ and the COF is correlated to tanθ [2]. Koura
and Omar [38] investigated the effects of several surface
1392 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394

Dry Condition direction normal to its wedge. The conditions of the tests were
0.70
0 cycle
Correlation Coefficient = 0.70
approximately plane strain. The experiments were investigat-
1 cycle
0.65 2 cycle ed for a wide range of wedge angles and various lubrication
8 cycle conditions and reported that the COF increases as the wedge
Coefficient of Friction

0.60 15 cycle
20 cycle angle increases. Using slip line field theory, Challen and
30 cycle
0.55
40 cycle
Oxley [42] demonstrated various modes of deformation such
0.50
80 cycle as rubbing, wear, and cutting during sliding against a wide
120 cycle
range of hard wedge angles and showed that the overall
0.45 COF increases when the asperity (wedge) angle or the inter-
0.40
facial friction increases. Based on the above analysis, it can be
inferred that the slope of the surface asperities is an important
0.35 roughness parameter that can be used to predict COF. This
0.30 means that when the slope of the harder asperities increases,
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the stresses in the softer materials required to overcome these
Del a (mrad) higher slope harder asperities also increase during sliding.
This situation induces a higher level of shear stresses in the
Lubricated Condition
0.40 softer sliding material which ultimately lead to severe shear
0 cycle Correlation Coefficient = 0.78
1 cycle
failure of softer material and higher amount of material trans-
2 cycle fer to the counter steel material. As higher values of Δa were
8 cycle
obtained in the case of sliding perpendicular to the unidirec-
Coefficient of Friction

0.35 15 cycle
20 cycle
30 cycle
40 cycle
80 cycle
0.30 120 cycle
0.25
0.20
10 20 30 40 50 60
Del a (mrad)
Fig. 8 Variation of coefficient of friction with roughness parameter under
dry and lubricated conditions
roughness parameters on COF. Among various surface param-
eters that affect COF, the two most important parameters are
the asperity height and the wavelength. Further, the average
slope of asperities that includes both asperity height and wave-
length contributions was found to be the single parameter that
correlated the best with the COF. Using profilometry,
Torrance [39] carried out a quantitative assessment on the
slopes of asperities that can be measured and used to predict
boundary friction and wear coefficients and reported that the
COFs vary when the asperity slopes of the surfaces vary. Also,
Menezes et al. [29, 40] prepared the surfaces with dry and wet
polishing techniques, such as SiC powder of different sizes,
alumina powder, and diamond paste; these prepared surfaces
were tested against different soft metals, alloys, and polymers,
and they reported that the COF depends on the average slope
of the harder surface asperities. Further, Black et al. [41] con-
ducted experiments in which a tool steel wedge was indented
vertically into the horizontal surface of an aluminum specimen
with subsequent sliding of the wedge along the surface in a
tional grinding marks (i.e., 0th cycle), the COF and material
transfer would be large. As the value of Δa decreases, the
shear stresses required to overcome the harder steel asperities
are also projected to decrease. Thus, for the case of sliding
parallel to the unidirectional grinding marks (i.e., 120th cycle),
the lower values of Δa cause lower stresses and corresponding
COF results in a mild shear failure and a lower material trans-
fer. Thus, the COF and wear properties under both dry and
lubricated conditions would be higher for high Δa surface
70 80 90 100
textures (i.e., 0th cycle) and lower for low Δa surface textures
(i.e., 120th cycle). For other cycles, the COF and the transfer
layer on the steel plate lie in between these two extremes.
Hence, surface asperity slope parameter is an important rough-
ness parameter that can be used to demonstrate the variations
in COF. This parameter can also be considered to design tri-
bological surfaces in order to facilitate energy efficiency dur-
ing manufacturing.
4 Conclusions
In this study, the effect of surface texture and roughness on
friction and transfer layer was studied under both dry and
lubricated conditions using an inclined pin-on-plate sliding
tester. The coefficient of friction and the amount of transfer
layer formed on the counterpart materials are controlled by the
surface textures of counterpart materials under both dry and
lubricated conditions. The surface textures were characterized
in term of roughness parameters, and among the 25 surface
roughness parameters investigated, the surface slope of asper-
ities was correlated well with coefficient of friction under both
dry and lubricated conditions. The higher value of coefficient
of friction is attributed to the higher value of asperity slope,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
and the higher asperity slope induces a higher level of shear
stress in the softer material during sliding, and hence, it in-
creases the amount of transferred material forming a layer on
the steel counterpart. In the same way, lower value of coeffi-
cient of friction is attributed to the lower value of asperity
slope and lower value of asperity slope induces a lower level
of shear stress in the softer material during sliding, and hence,
it reduces the shear failure of the softer material and, thus, the
amount of transferred material to the counterpart materials.
Thus, precise control of friction and wear can be made by
designing appropriate surface texturing methods and consid-
ering their roughness parameters in order to improve energy
efficiency and sustainability in manufacturing processes.
References
1. Menezes PL, Kailas SV, Lovell MR (2013) Fundamentals of engi-
neering surfaces. In: Menezes PL, Nosonovsky M, Ingole SP,
Kailas SV, Lovell MR (eds) Tribology for scientists and engineers.
Springer, New York, pp 3–41
2. Menezes PL, Nosonovsky M, Kailas SV, Lovell MR (2013)
Friction and wear. In: Menezes PL, Nosonovsky M, Ingole SP,
Kailas SV, Lovell MR (eds) Tribology for scientists and engineers.
Springer, New York, pp 43–91
3. Menezes PL, Reeves C, Kailas SV, Lovell MR (2013) Tribology in
metal forming. In: Menezes PL, Nosonovsky M, Ingole SP, Kailas
SV, Lovell MR (eds) Tribology for scientists and engineers.
Springer, New York, pp 783–818
4. Hawkyard JB, Johnson W (1967) An analysis of the changes in
geometry of a short hollow cylinder during axial compression. Int
J Mech Sci 9:163–182
5. Robinson T, Ou H, Armstrong CG (2004) Study on ring compres-
sion test using physical modelling and FE simulation. J Mater
Process Technol 153–154:54–59
6. Xu WL, Rao KP (1997) Analysis of the deformation characteristics
of spike-forging process through FE simulations and experiments. J
Mater Process Technol 70:122–128
7. Wang XW, Zhu XH (1995) Numerical simulation of deep-drawing
process. J Mater Process Technol 48:123–127
8. Wang Z, Lu J, Wang ZR (2001) Numerical and experimental re-
search of the cold upsetting–extruding of tube flanges. J Mater
Process Technol 110:28–35
9. Lazzarotto L, Dubar L, Dubois A, Ravassard P, Oudin J (1997)
Identification of Coulomb’s friction coefficient in real contact con-
ditions applied to a wire drawing process. Wear 211:54–63
10. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV, Lovell M (2015) Influence of
surface texture and roughness of softer and harder counter materials
on friction during sliding. J Mater Eng Perform 24:393–403
11. Wagner S (2001) Optimizing friction between die and sheet metal.
In proceedings of second global symposium on innovations in ma-
terials, Processing and manufacturing, TMS, New Orleans,
February 12-15, United States, p 245–267
12. Bello DO, Walton S (1987) Surface topography and lubrication in
sheet-metal forming. Tribol Int 20:59–65
13. Schedin E (1994) Galling mechanisms in sheet forming operations.
Wear 179:123–128
14. Barber GC, Gao H, Tung SC (2005) Experimental study on the
friction characteristics of lasertex steel sheets during metal forming
process. Tribol Trans 48:245–249
1393
15. Rasp W, Wichern CM (2002) Effects of surface-topography direc-
tionality and lubrication condition on frictional behaviour during
plastic deformation. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:379–386
16. Saha PK, Wilson WRD, Timsit RS (1996) Influence of surface
topography on the frictional characteristics of 3104 aluminum alloy
sheet. Wear 197:123–129
17. Wihlborg A, Crafoord R (2001) Steel sheet surface topography and
its influence on friction in a bending under tension friction test. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 41:1953–1959
18. Kumar CP, Menezes PL, Kailas SV (2008) Role of surface texture
on friction under boundary lubricated conditions. Tribol Online 3:
12–18
19. Costa HL, Hutchings IM (2009) Effects of die surface patterning on
lubrication in strip drawing. J Mater Process Technol 209:1175–
1180
20. Malayappan S, Narayanasamy R (2004) An experimental analysis
of upset forging of aluminium cylindrical billets considering the
dissimilar frictional conditions at flat die surfaces. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 23:636–643
21. Määttä A, Vuoristo P, Mäntylä T (2001) Friction and adhesion of
stainless steel strip against tool steels in unlubricated sliding with
high contact load. Tribol Int 34:779–786
22. Hu ZM, Dean TA (2000) A study of surface topography, friction
and lubricants in metal forming. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:1637–
1649
23. Lakshmipathy R, Sagar R (1992) Effect of die surface topography
on die-work interfacial friction in open die forging. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 32:685–693
24. Staph HE, Ku PM, Carper HJ (1973) Effect of surface roughness
and surface texture on scuffing. Mech Mach Theory 8:197–208
25. Koura MM (1980) The effect of surface texture on friction mecha-
nisms. Wear 63:1–12
26. Wakuda M, Yamauchi Y, Kanzaki S, Yasuda Y (2003) Effect of
surface texturing on friction reduction between ceramic and steel
materials under lubricated sliding contact. Wear 254:356–363
27. Xie Y, Williams JA (1996) The prediction of friction and wear when
a soft surface slides against a harder rough surface. Wear 196:21–34
28. Pottirayil A, Menezes PL, Kailas SV (2010) A parameter charac-
terizing plowing nature of surfaces close to Gaussian. Tribol Int 43:
370–380
29. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV (2008) Influence of roughness
parameters on coefficient of friction under lubricated conditions.
Sadhana 33:181–190
30. Sedlaček M, Podgornik B, Vižintin J (2009) Influence of surface
preparation on roughness parameters, friction and wear. Wear 266:
482–487
31. Myers NO (1962) Characterization of surface roughness. Wear 5:
182–189
32. Wieleba W (2002) The statistical correlation of the coefficient of
friction and wear rate of PTFE composites with steel counterface
roughness and hardness. Wear 252:719–729
33. Singh R, Melkote SN, Hashimoto F (2005) Frictional response of
precision finished surfaces in pure sliding. Wear 258:1500–1509
34. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV (2009) Study of friction and trans-
fer layer formation in copper-steel tribo-system: role of surface
texture and roughness parameters. Tribol Trans 52:611–622
35. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV (2009) Influence of roughness
parameters and surface texture on friction during sliding of pure
lead over 080 M40 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:731–743
36. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV, Lovell MR (2010) Response of
materials as a function of grinding angle on friction and transfer
layer formation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 49:485–495
37. Gadelmawla ES, Koura MM, Maksoud TMA, Elewa IM, Soliman
HH (2002) Roughness parameters. J Mater Process Technol 123:
133–145
1394
38. Koura MM, Omar MA (1981) The effect of surface parameters on
friction. Wear 73:235–246
39. Torrance AA (1995) Using profilometry for the quantitative assess-
ment of tribological function: PC-based software for friction and
wear prediction. Wear 181–183:397–404
40. Menezes PL, Kishore, Kailas SV, Lovell MR (2011) Friction and
transfer layer formation in polymer–steel tribo-system: role of sur-
face texture and roughness parameters. Wear 271:2213–2221
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:1385–1394
41. Black AJ, Kopalinsky EM, Oxley PLB (1988) An investigation of
the different regimes of deformation which can occur when a hard
wedge slides over a soft surface: the influence of wedge angle,
lubrication and prior plastic working of the surface. Wear 123:97–
114
42. Challen JM, Oxley PLB (1979) An explanation of the different
regimes of friction and wear using asperity deformation models.
Wear 53:229–243