MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012018903 · doi:10.1115/1.2005276

Effects of Lubricants on the Friction and Wear Properties of PTFE and POM

2005· article· en· W2012018903 on OpenAlexafffund
H. S. Benabdallah, Jianjun Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tribology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceLubricationComposite materialWettingBoundary lubricationLubricityTribologyDry lubricantMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The friction and wear properties of PTFE and POM were investigated using a ball-on-steel ring tester under dry and lubricated conditions by paraffin and 10W–30 oils. SEM, EDAX, FTIR, and surface wettability techniques were used to characterize and assess the morphology and chemical composition of the original surfaces, as well as the wear track, transfer film, and wear debris at different loads and speeds. Although the friction was high, similar behavior to that reported in the literature was observed. The experimentally determined surface temperature of the plastic revealed optimum loading levels, for each sliding speed, at which the friction and wear rate become a minimum and the thermal effect stabilizes. In boundary-like lubrication using both oils, friction and wear were significantly reduced with the exception of an increase in wear rate with load when POM was lubricated by 10W–30 oil. Surface analysis revealed that the formation of lubricative protective layers on the surfaces in contact is crucial to reducing friction, and more importantly, wear. FTIR results confirmed that film transfer occurs in the case of POM.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TribologySame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207