Coefficient of friction of various materials not listed in standard references

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the coefficients of friction for various material combinations, specifically copper on aluminum, copper on graphite, and graphite on aluminum. Participants explore the differences between static and kinetic friction and express uncertainty about the availability of data for these specific combinations, as well as their relevance to practical applications, particularly in motors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express interest in the coefficients of friction for specific material combinations, noting the potential impact of the order of materials on the results.
  • There is a discussion about the difference between static and kinetic friction, with some participants unsure which value is more relevant for their applications.
  • One participant suggests that the lack of published values for the specified combinations may be due to the numerous possible material pairings and the variability in measurement methods.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of knowing the friction values for their application in motors, where graphite is used as brushes, and expresses concern over the lack of data.
  • Some participants propose estimating friction values by comparing similar materials from existing tables, while others consider conducting their own tests to measure friction directly.
  • There is mention of the need for testing to replicate real-world conditions to obtain reliable friction values.
  • One participant raises concerns about the feasibility of achieving very high RPMs in practical applications, questioning the realism of the proposed scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for specific friction data for the materials in question, but there is no consensus on the availability of such data or the best approach to obtain it. Multiple competing views exist regarding the estimation of friction values and the practicality of the proposed applications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the details of the measurement method can significantly affect the results, and there is uncertainty about the adequacy of the materials available for testing. The discussion also highlights the potential limitations of relying on common sources for friction coefficients.

R_Rose
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm interested in finding out what the coefficient of friction would be for a few different materials such as:Copper on aluminum
Copper on graphite
graphite on aluminum

I'm not sure if it matters if the order is reversed such as Aluminum on copper vs copper on aluminum..

also I've seen that there is a difference between static and kinetic which I'm not sure what the difference is - obviously kinetic means moving but I'm not sure which I'd need b/c the material will be static until it starts moving - then it will speed up and I'm trying to calculate how quickly it may speed up with respect to the friction & energy input. This page shows how much difference there is between some static and kinetic coefficients - http://www.physlink.com/Reference/FrictionCoefficients.cfm

This page gives a lot of values for static friction but it doesn't have the ones I listed above - http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
Is there any way I can find out either static or kinetic of those I listed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
R_Rose said:
I'm interested in finding out what the coefficient of friction would be for a few different materials such as:Copper on aluminum
Copper on graphite
graphite on aluminum

I'm not sure if it matters if the order is reversed such as Aluminum on copper vs copper on aluminum..

also I've seen that there is a difference between static and kinetic which I'm not sure what the difference is - obviously kinetic means moving but I'm not sure which I'd need b/c the material will be static until it starts moving - then it will speed up and I'm trying to calculate how quickly it may speed up with respect to the friction & energy input. This page shows how much difference there is between some static and kinetic coefficients - http://www.physlink.com/Reference/FrictionCoefficients.cfm

This page gives a lot of values for static friction but it doesn't have the ones I listed above - http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
Is there any way I can find out either static or kinetic of those I listed?
I spent the usual 'PF vs other things' allocated time and. like you, I could find nothing in the usual lists of friction coefficients. Surprising but perhaps not, when you think of the number of combinations of materials possible.
Why have you chosen those particular combinations? Is there some particular application?
Perhaps it might be best to forget about it and quote some different, well known pairs of materials. Several of the Google hits about friction coefficient make the point that the details of the measurement method can affect the result. So you would probably need more than one independent source to get a reliable answer. I get the feeling that many of the published values are pinched from common sources.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I spent the usual 'PF vs other things' allocated time and. like you, I could find nothing in the usual lists of friction coefficients. Surprising but perhaps not, when you think of the number of combinations of materials possible.
Why have you chosen those particular combinations? Is there some particular application?
Perhaps it might be best to forget about it and quote some different, well known pairs of materials. Several of the Google hits about friction coefficient make the point that the details of the measurement method can affect the result. So you would probably need more than one independent source to get a reliable answer. I get the feeling that many of the published values are pinched from common sources.
I agree with you about the numbers probably being taken from a common source or a chain of references leading back to one source - THIS is one thing which I fear the Internet has allowed to happen all too often and it could lead to very bad consequences.

As for the materials listed, I need to know those specifically as they are the only materials available, moderately priced, with the physical characteristics and electrical conductivity/resistivity which would work in my application.

Basically I'm looking for low friction with high electrical conductivity and is easily affordable.

What I find odd about graphite and copper (or graphite & aluminum) not being listed is that they are often used in motors with the graphite being the brushes for the rotor. I would think that knowing the friction of these two would be imperative to know the heat generated, the wear time and the reduction of power to the motor.

In my application, there may be a point where the two substances are static but they will most likely be constantly accelerating up to a point where they reach peak velocity and then sustained at that point - but it is a long linear acceleration period - think of a motor starting from 10rpm going up to 500,000 rpm with an increase of 300rpm per minute until 500k is reached. I need to know the frictions of the materials to see how much heat will be generated, energy lost, etc.
 
Thanks for the link!

I was wondering if the values could be estimated from comparing similar materials such as:
from table: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
aluminium - mild steel = .61
Copper - Mild Steel = .53, .36 (IDK why 2 values are given...)
Graphite - steel = .1
steel - steel = .5 - .8

IDK if any values can be extrapolated from these values.

The problem with needing the different values is that as I said, they need to be very electronically conductive and operate within specific electromagnetism properties (eddy currents, flux, becoming slightly magnetic, etc)

Alternatively, I'd be able to do some testing as I have Cu, Al and graphite and I guess I could make an area 1"^2 and place a weight on it and pull it and see how much force is required. If I place 1000g on the area, and it requires 250g of force to pull, then it should be .25, is that correct? There should be an amount to break free (static) and then amount to keep moving - kinetic. My only worry is if the materials I have will be adequate for the test.

I have:
Copper flashing (thin sheet) as well as various copper pipe which can be flattened as well as a round copper plug (1" diam x 1" high CPU heat sink center)
Al - tons of heat sinks, 6160 bar stock, flashing, etc.
Graphite - 3/4" x 6" x 1/8" rods - don't know what "kind" of graphite.

I'm wondering if I should sand the contact surface with 1000-4000 grit sand paper or try it with non-sanded and then different states like sanded with 100, 220, 320, 400, 800, 1000, 2000, 4000 and see if it makes much difference.
 
For a real world project a friction test would ideally be conducted in a way that replicated the conditions that will exist in the actual machine being designed .
 
In my reading around, I came across numerous links about composites for low friction. But that could be an expensive route for you.
 
R_Rose said:
In my application, there may be a point where the two substances are static but they will most likely be constantly accelerating up to a point where they reach peak velocity and then sustained at that point - but it is a long linear acceleration period - think of a motor starting from 10rpm going up to 500,000 rpm with an increase of 300rpm per minute until 500k is reached. I need to know the frictions of the materials to see how much heat will be generated, energy lost, etc.

Those sort of numbers are not realistic for practical devices .

Please tell us more about what you are actually trying to do .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
19K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K