Why Reciprocating Friction Tests Don’t Match: Toward a Harmonized CoF Standard скачать в хорошем качестве

Why Reciprocating Friction Tests Don’t Match: Toward a Harmonized CoF Standard

In this TriboNet webinar + panel, experts from BAM (Germany) and Monan University explain why reciprocating friction tests so often disagree—even for the same test. The core issue: no harmonized method for evaluating friction loops into a single coefficient of friction (CoF). Peak, mean, “peak-to-peak,” and energy-based approaches can produce wildly different numbers. Literature surveys and round-robin data confirm that existing standards (ISO/ASTM) are vague or inconsistent, many papers don’t report their method, and manufacturers ship proprietary processing—making machine-to-machine comparisons impossible. The session ends by launching the Tribology Challenge—a bottom-up, community-driven effort to gather real-world evaluation practices and build a consensus standard (e.g., via a CEN Workshop Agreement) that can later align with ASTM/ISO. 👉 Subscribe to TriboNet for expert content on tribology, metrology, coatings, and lubrication. Chapters 00:00 The reproducibility problem (lab & operator dependence) 06:17 Evidence from shared databases (same test, different results) 11:05 What is a friction loop—and how do you turn it into CoF? 15:05 Method matters: peak vs. mean vs. energy-based (up to 200% swing) 37:21 Where ISO/ASTM fall short (vague & conflicting instructions) 43:25 “Peak” / “peak-to-peak” / filtering / windowing—pitfalls defined 1:11:10 Round-robin outcome: scatter before vs. after harmonization 1:12:50 Physical variables: specimen quality, roughness, pre-defects 1:00:30 The Tribology Challenge: contribute loops, methods & metadata 1:18:00 Next steps: toward a CWA → ASTM/ISO alignment Key takeaways No harmonized CoF evaluation = no comparability. Until friction-loop processing is standardized, cross-lab results will keep diverging. Energy-based CoF often better reflects reciprocating mechanics—but needs a clear definition and reference implementation. Report your method. Every paper/test must document loop metrics, filtering, cycle selection, and statistics. Harmonize the chain. Beyond data analysis, control specimen quality, surface topography, machine dynamics/compliance, and operator steps. Related reading on TriboNet Friction — Wiki: https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/friction/ Wear — Wiki: https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/wear/ Boundary Lubrication — Wiki: https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/boundar... Stribeck Curve — Wiki: https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/stribec... Tribochemistry — Wiki: https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/triboch... Who is this for? Lab managers, R&D engineers, tribometer users, standardization bodies, peer reviewers—anyone who needs reliable reciprocating friction data. 👍 Like, 🔔 subscribe, and share with your team. 💬 Comment with your loop-evaluation method (peak/mean/energy), filtering, windowing, and reporting approach—help shape the Tribology Challenge dataset. #tribology #friction #standardization #reproducibility #metrology #tribometer #CoF #Stribeck #materials #TriboNet SEO keywords reciprocating friction; friction loop; coefficient of friction calculation; energy-based coefficient of friction; peak vs mean CoF; tribology reproducibility; round-robin study; ISO vs ASTM; tribometer data processing; lab-to-lab variability; operator dependence; metrology in tribology; harmonized evaluation; Stribeck curve; boundary lubrication; TriboNet wiki; data quality; BAM Germany; community standard