1-20 of 306 Search Results for

coefficient of friction

Sort by
Image
Published: 01 August 2012
Fig. 7.16 Effect of die pressure on mean coefficient of friction, μ m . Source: Ref 7.23 More
Image
Published: 01 August 2012
Fig. 7.17 Effect of furnace temperature on mean coefficient of friction, μ m , both under the dry condition and with a lubricant (Lub.), for two types of steel. Source: Ref 7.23 More
Image
Published: 01 August 2012
Fig. 7.18 Effect of scale thickness on mean coefficient of friction, μ m . Source: Ref 7.24 More
Image
Published: 01 March 2001
Fig. 1 Inclined plane used to determine coefficient of static friction, μ s . (a) Tilting flat surface through smallest angle, θ, needed to initiate movement of the body down the plane. (b) Relation of the friction angle to the principal applied forces More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.8 Ranges of coefficient of friction for plastic versus steel tribosystems (from various plastics manufacturers’ catalogs). PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.9 Effect of normal force on the coefficient of friction (kinetic) of acetal versus 316 stainless steel More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.10 Static coefficient of friction of various plastics versus 52100 steel (60 HRC). PE, polyethylene; PTFE; polytetrafluoroethylene; PP, polypropylene; PBT, polybutylene terephthalate; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; PA, polyamide; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PMMA More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.21 Breakaway coefficient of friction of 14 commercially manufactured shoes (soles) on prefinished oak flooring More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.24 Kinetic coefficient of friction (COF) of four different shoes (same wearer) versus an aluminum walking surface using normal gait More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 11.26 Breakaway coefficient of friction (COF) of five rubbers sliding on three different counterfaces using the ASTM International D1894 test procedure. PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene; CBR, cis polybutadiene rubber; CR, chloroprene rubber; EPDM, ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber; SBR More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 12.8 Kinetic coefficient of friction of test couples measured during steady-state wear in the ASTM International G77 block-on-ring test More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 14.8 Breakaway coefficient of friction in an inclined plane test (ASTM International G214) of aluminum versus liquid-covered polytetrafluoroethylene More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 3.2 The coefficient of friction of various web materials, thin materials that can be conveyed on rollers, versus a 4-in. diam. aluminum roller with a 0.5 μm roughness average (R a ) hardcoat finish. Test velocity was 0.1 m/s. Six replicates were conducted on a fresh surface of each More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 3.15 The trend for friction coefficient measured for many metal-to-metal couples in the ASTM G98 galling test. The coefficient of friction reduces when gross plastic deformation of the rubbing surfaces takes place. More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 3.16 Correlation of sole rubber hardness with coefficient of friction versus prefinished oak flooring More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 3.18 Coefficient of friction of candidate bearing for a slow-moving linear slide that could tolerate no stick-slip behavior More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 3.20 Friction coefficient trends observed over 30 years of laboratory testing of many different tribocouples More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 6.2 Effect of normal force on the coefficient of friction of copper (Cu) in continuous unlubricated sliding on type 316 stainless steel (SS) More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 9.7 Coefficient of friction (μ k ) of various stainless steel couples wear tested in a thrust bearing type of contact. (e.g., Fig. 9.8 ) More
Image
Published: 30 April 2021
Fig. 10.5 Coefficient of friction of various ceramics in block-on-ring testing, where * indicates thermal spray coatings More