aIENERAL 0YNAMICt E
CONVAIR
4 1-385 Report No. Material
-
"
.--
R. J.
8926-133
Finishes and Coatings - Wear Preventative and Titanium for Aluminum Comparative Wear Resistance
Barlow, A. R. Vollmecke, W. E. Wise
26 April 1957
Published and Distributed under Contract AF33 (657)-8926
Poet Office Box 1950, San Diego 12, California Material Poest Office Box 2071
296-6611
273-8000 1 Accounting Poet Office Box 510
GIIIIIIIID MOOIL
URNniL&L DYNAMICO
I CONVAjIR
BATE
REPORT NO.
Report No.
8926-133
Material - Finishes and Coatings - Wear Preventative for Aluminum and Titanium Comparatiire Wear Resistance
Abstract: The wear resistance of twenty-five different finish coatings applied on 7075-T6 aluminum alloy and AMS 4925 titanium alloy was tested. with wear couples incorporating either coated aluminum or titanium alloy anI chrýome plated 4130 steel. Comparisons of individual test results were made by reference to t'ests made 'vth chrome plated 1d4130 steel anI Specification MIL-B-6946 bronze. All teats were made ý-ith a Timken wear test machine. Nitrided and molybdenum spray coatings appiied to titanium, and hi.rd anodize or chrome plate applied to aluminum provided better wear resistanceE in couples lubricatel with Specification MIL-L-7870 lubricating oil than similarly lubricated chrome plated steel-bronze wear couples. Electrofilm 4396 solid film dry lubricant ýrcided the greatest wear life of all such lubricants tested. Five hun&rdd hours of salt spray impingement produced no corrosive effects on titanium. Two hundred fifty hours of salt spray resulted in no corrosion of hard anodized or Electrofilm .396"coated 7075-T6 bare aluminaum; however, only Electrofilm 4396 withstood the salt spray impingement when 7075-T6 clad aluminum was tested. Nitrited titanium surfaces adhered well in material subjected to tension, but was poor in compressed material. Chrome plated titanium and aluminum withstood both tensile and compressive deformations. Hard anodized aluminum behaved well in tension, but was poor in compression. Supplementary tests with anodized titanium indicated the better perforwance, among'anodic coatings, of a proprietary "tri-oxide" process. Reference:
1.
Barýw, R. J., Vollmecke, A, R.,
Wise,
W. E., "Wear.iTest of-aqrfae Treatments on Aluminum Alloy'and Titanium Alloy," General Dynamics/Convair Report b.L. 56-64, San Diego, California, 26 April 1957, (Reference attached).
2. Baz•low, R. J., Volimecke, A. R., of Anodic Treatment on Titanium.,"
e W. E., 'vWear General Dynamic
Report S.L. 56-64, Add. I, San Di,u.. 1958, (Reference Fittri.,rd).
uL*Silo E(RV.
Ia/611
Catlifurnin,
Test
ElGflNEiMRU
_________________________
0
C A
[,.-IJON
V
N OF
A
GENERAL DY'NAMICS
I
R
'*
CORPORATION
S.
T.&ST LAI3OWLTORIES
REPORT DATE
56-64 4-26-57
MODE L
L (RF
7634)
TITLE
.
.Z•QRT NQ,, 56-,& WEAR W1~ OF MURagi TREAT) S ON ••LoIZL i wMa TATOY AND
I
.
.
.
..
"1'$ o I .
PREPARED BY
GROUP STRUGCTUIS LABORATORIES
.
R. J. Barlow :
CA
BY
CHICKED BY
. i\. A. R. Vollimeoke
Z. Y. 'strong
W. E. Wise$ rTest Fngineer
CGroup Engineer Laberatories
NO. OF PAGESTT7ti NO. OF DIAGRAMS
Gedrge W. Oliver
_
APPROVED BY
•---ea• .
,, -C
d
REFERENCE
18
II
REVISIONS o NO.
No
DATE DBCHANIIGE'
- 1-
P0Iq I6II2A4
-PAGES AFFECTED
BY
Wise
rn
Table I and Tabl
I
orrýeed
and 10
U
C 0
ANAVIN SCH i
ZCK WOmy my
R. Barlow W. J. E. Wise
PRIPARKD
AM
N V A I R .MOf
.ArnCSCOOPORn"m SAN C1194
REW ORD BY
~REPORT
"
NO,
PAa@ REPOWrNO. MO DEL DAT E
I
5664 All (R UA7634) 4-26-57
56-6
WEAR TEST OF SURFACE TREAMENTS QN ALUKIMI• ALLOY AND TITANIUM ALLOY
(a)
Convair Teot Report No. 56-212 - "Corrosion Inhibitive Properties of Various Coatings of Solid Film lubricants" September 10, 1956.
INTRODU'TIO~t
This test was undertaken to find a coating or a surface treatment for aluminum and titanium which would be suitable as a friction bearing surface,
OBJECT: A. To compare the wear performance characteristics of treated aluminum and titanium surfaces rubbig on chrome molybdenum steel to a standard of bronze rubbing on chrome plated chrome molybdenum steel. B. To determine the corrosive effects of 250 hours of salt spray exposure on specimens having surface conditions identical to wear test specimens. C. To determine the adhesion of the surface treatments on specimens identical to those in part "B".
CONCLUSIO t _A. Wear Too&:
Two titanium surface treatments produced greater wear resistance surfaces than the bronze standard. These were a nitrided surface and a molybdenum spray coating. Hard anodize or chrome plate on 7075-T6 aluminum also produced greater wear resistance than the standard. Chrome plating by the Chrome-ito process showed superior wear resistance when bearing pressures were in the lower portion of the base material elastic region.
PORM IIoI-A
*
a
C 0 N V A I R
ANALYb.. PREPARED BY CHECKED my
R. J. Barlow ADIVISmON Of usNINAL DYNAmiCS C04O310N1 A. R. Vollmeckod. E. Wise BAN DINO
REVISZD By
0CNLgJ
PAGE 2 REPORT NO.
MODEL DATE
56-64
ALL (REA 7634)
4-26-57
(Cont'd.) A. Wear Test: (COnt'd.)
Electrofilm 4396 as applied per Convair Specification 0-05000 had the greatest wear life of all the solid film lubricants tested. An experimental room temperature catalyzing resin produced an unsatisfactory solid lubricant bond. B.
Corrosion Tests:
500 hours of salt spray exposure had no corrosive effects on any of the titanium specimens. 250 hours of salt spray exposure had no corrosive effects on bare 7075-T6 aluminum coated with either hard anodize or Electrofilm 4396C. On clad 7075-T6 aluminum, only Electrofila 4396C withstood exposure without evidence of corrosion. C.
Adhesions
The nitrided titanium surface had good adhesion when the treated surface was subjected to a tensile force longitudinally, but poor when subjected to a compressive force longitudinally. Chrome plate on titanium by the Chrome-ite process produced a coating with very good adhesion when subjected to either longitudinal compression or tension. Hard anodize had good adhesion on aluminum. Adhesion was greater to a surface in tension than to a surface in compression; it was also greater for a clad aluminum alloy surface than for a bare aluminum allay serface.
The test equipment consisted of a modified Timken machine and test cups similar to Tiaken Test Cop T-5"148. A sketch of the test cup is shown in Figure 3. The outside diameter of these test cups had a 63 RM or a 16 RW0 finish surface, on which a treatment was applied. Test cups consisted of the following materials:
oPomael-"
Specification M•l,-B-6946 with a 16 RNS finish.
1.
Bronze,
2.
Titanium, ANS 4925 with the following surface treatments t
2.3.
Untreated
2.2
Electrofilm 4396 on a 63 RNS finish per Convair Specification No.0-05C00 by National Plating & Processing Company, National City, California.
CO0N VAIVR PREPARED BY CHECKED BY REVISD BY
R. J. Barlow
AMON OMIN"m o, a. .racoftC.SPeIO,
A. R. Vollmecko/bI. E. Wise
Sm 0liW
PAGOE3 REPORT NO. 56-64 MODEL ALL (R.EA
OATS 4-26-57
TFT P C=
(Cent Id. ) 2.3
Nitride per Convair Specification Standard Q1837 on a 16 RMS finish by Convair San Diego, California.
2.4
Anodic treatment sesqui-oxide on a 63 RNS finish by Chem-Tronics Laboratory, San Diego, California.
2.5
Sesqui-Lubes, a solid film lubricant over sesqui-oxide on a 63 R6S 'iniash by Chem-Tronios Laboratory, San Diego, California.
2.6
Electrofilm 4396 over sesqui-oxide on a 16 RMS finish by National Plating and roecessing, National City, California.
2.7
Electrofila 4396C over sesqui-oxide on a 16 RMS finish by National Plating and Processing, National City, California.
2.8
Chrome Plate without grinding on a 16 RMS finish.
The Chrome-
its Process by Por•epa Tool and Die Service, Los Angeles, California.
rgNm 19-
2.9
Molybdenum spray by Metalising Co. of Los Angeles and ground to a .010 1 .001 thioka ss by Convair - San Diego.
2.10
Nickel Plate .001 * .0002 per Convair Specification 0-05009 on a 16 M16 finish by Chemplate Corporation, Los Angeles 58, California.
2.U1
L-PN-530 treatment on a 16 RMS finish by American Chemical and Paint Coapany.
2.12
Selid film lubricant (Upon $28-20 gin., R eyamid #125-10 gm., and Molykote 75 p.) experimental room" temperature catalyuing resin on a 16 RMS finish by Convair Test Laboratories.
2.13
Teflon coating on a 16 RM1 finish per Specification FPS-0004 with the exception ot a seequi-oxide undercoat by hinm-Tronics Laboratories, San Dii.o, Oalifornia.
2.14
Nylon coating per DTpont Bulletin, 'Zytel-lylon Resins on a 16 RMS finish applied by Convair, San Diego, California.
2.15
1olykote solid film lubricant (U coat of 1107 and 1 coat of 1106) on 16 RM6 finish by CoVair, San Diego, California.
2 ..
Alumini ?075T6, Speisoida mrface treatment.:
3,1
Bare with a 20 a6 finish.
n QQ-A,277 wi4b the following
7634)
C 0
NAYI PREPARED BY CHECKED BY REVISED BY
N V A I R
£, DIVISION or G=CIN.9 R. J. Barlow ZAN A. R. Vollmecke/W. E. ,jm
MET §I•ECIHENS:
PAGE REPORT NO.
D0Y.A.,CS CO*.I.O...o
56-64
MOD.LAL.L DATL
(iuIA 7631)
4-26-57
(CONT' D.)
3.2
Nickel Plate .001-t .0005 thick per Convair Specification 0-0%9 by Langley Company, San Diego,, California.
3.3
Hard anodize, Alcoa process X-226, on a 50 R1S finish by the Sanford Process Co., Inc., Los Angeles.
3.4
Electrofilm No. 4396 on a 50 RMS finish per Convair Specification No. 0-05000 by National Plating and Processing Company, National City, California.
3.5
Electrofili No. 4396C, .0012 inches thick, on a 16 RMS finish by the Convair-S&n Diego Test Laboratories.
3.6
Electrofilm No. 4396C, .0008 inches thick, on a 16 R.'6 finish by Convair-San Diego, California, Test Laboratories.
3.7
Electrofilm 4396C. .00075 inches thick, on a 16 RMS finish by the Ponvair-San Diego Test Laboratories.
3.8
Electrofilm 4396C per Electrofilm specifications, by National Plating and Processing Company, National City, California.
3.9
Stainless steel spray by Yotalizing Compeny of Los Argel~s, California. These specimens were ground to a .002 1 .C8u5 thickness with a 16 1*S finish by Convair-San Diego.
3.10
Molybdenum spray by Metalizing Company of Lcs Angeles and ground to a .002 ± .0005 thickness with a 16 RBS finish by Convair - San Diego.
3.12
Chrome plate per Specification QQ-C-320+ CI 8f 2 by Langley :0OO thickness with Corp., San Diego, and ground to a .001 a 16 RM finish by Convair, San Diego. -
Adhesion and corrosion specimens wero made for each of the surface treatments listed for aluminum and titanium wear specimens. The specimens were 2 x 8 inch rectangles cut from .040 thick sheet stock. The materials were titanium A)0 4908 and aluminum 7075-T6. TE.Sr'y PRQG(M,
A. .,Wear Tests: was conduced w1th a modified Timken machine at 70 R.P.M. steel Thi prxodod•asiiding velocity of 25.2 feet 1e r minute. A chrome-moly the applied incheb, .020 of depth a block, with RC55-60 surface hardness to bearing pressure. Upon rotation of the cup, sliding took place between the outside dialterof in Ilive 6.ýhe cup and the stationary block. A typical test set-up is shovA
FORM 1412-A
C 0
A UWM"n ,, PnEPARED mY RL J. Barl'w CHECXKD my A. R. Vollmeoke/W. E. Wise REWvnSD my
N V A I R e0333, DYNAICI COa•WAfOSAN DIE,
PAGES REPORT NO. 5-&g4 (RKA MODEL ALL DATE 4-26-57
s,. (Cont'd.) L A•.
WarTets:
(Oont °do)
Solid film lubricants, such as Blectrofili and Sesqui-lube, were tested dry. All other tests had liquid lubrication. This was accomplished by rotating the cup in a sump of lubricating oil Specification MIL-L-7E70 during the test operation. The performance of bronze cups rubbing on a chrome plated steel block was obtained for a comparative standard. Testing consisted of the following phases: 1) 2 hours at 5,000 psi 2)1 lhour at40,OOOpsi
3)
1/2 hour at 80,000 psi
In some cases the specimen was tested beyond the one half hour time and second phase The time limit for the first limit for the 80,000 psi phase. was not extended. These test phases were applied to all specimens except for the teflon and nylon coatings. Testing for all specimens terminated at the time of failure except bare aluminum,, bronze, nitrided titanium, and molybdenum-sprayed titanium. Tests of the unfailed specimens were terminated in the third phase at the time that their wear life had greatly exceeded that of the bronze standard. A failure is defined as any one of the following: 1. A 25 percent increase in friction over normal running friction. (This friction increase would activate a preset switch causing the test machine to shut-off automatically). 2.
An abnormal increase of either frictional force or temperature.
The exposure of untreated or bare surfaces in the case of the 3. coatings or surface treatments. 4.
Bond failure of the solid film lubricant.
0orrislon testing was in accordance with reference (a), a standard salt spray exposure test.
The scraps test, as shown in Figure 4, and the bend test, as shown in figure 5 were used to determine the adhesion of coating and surface treatments.
PtM 10S8A
7634)
0
#•'C bytR. J. Barlow POMtOY CHECK= MY REVIMS my
W.E. Wise
AcMM,,Wo
P^Q
N1 V A I R
vMU MAMNoIOo
REPORT NO. MODEL
DATE
6! 56-64
Anl (RFA 7634)
4-26-57
A. Wear Testsa The results are shown in graphic form in Figures 1 and 2. At the top of each chart are wear characteristics of a bronze cup rubbing on a chrome plated steel block. This serves as a comparative standard for other bearing material performance. Figures 1 a"d 2 are compoacd of averages of two specimens. For tabulated discussion of results see Table VII. B. Corrosion Tests The results are shown in Tables I, II, and III. The panel numbers correspond to the test cups listed under Test Specimen and Figures 1 and 2. C, Adhesion Tests: The results are shown in Tables IV, V, and VI. The specimen numbers correspond to those listed under Test Specimen and Figures 8, 9, 10, and 31 of this report.
The test data from which this report was prepared are recorded in Engineering Test laboratories Data Book No. 393.
SPmM
1818-£
•
C 0' N V A I R
ML•v, EAmmED My Le CEK3 E Y A. EVmSo my
J.
Barlov
U*UU
w**
Paz 7 mEPOir NO. 56-64
R. VollmEa•td. E. Wise
moODEL ALL (REA 7634) oATE 4-26-57
1.
WEAR CHARACTERISTICS OF AJS 4925 TITANIUM ON SAE 4130 STEL COMPARED WITH A STANDARD
17
2,
WEAR CHARACTERISTICS OF 7075-T6 ALUMINUM ON SAE 4130 STEL COMPARED WITH A STANDARD
18
3.
TEST CUP AND BLOCK DIMENSIONS
19
40
SCRAPE TEST
20
BEND TEST
21
WEAR TEST MACHINE
22
TYPICAL WEAR TEST CUP AND BLOCK
23
5.
re" lei"3
it"Men ooftem
6.
06704
7.
7741
8.
08464
TITANIUM CORROSION SPECIMENS BEFORE EXPOSURE
24
9.
10004
TITANIUM CORROSION SPECIMENS AFTER EXPOSURE
25
10.
08465
ALUMINUM CORROSION SPECIMENS BEFORE EXPOSURE
26
11.
09653
ALUMINUM CORROSION SPECIMENS AFTER EXPOSURE
27
PAGE RE~RT No.
*.-4
0
0
S0
cu
0
H
9h
0
CUv '0
U'
0 M
i
I?0
'
Hn (
n
0ý (
0o0
Ho
0
CU
H
U
1n
8 56-64~
0
Report No. 5&-64
ON
.4.4
0
0 Nq
-t
0
0
0v
0
0
0n
t^ ',
Hn
-4
0 4
tfl~~~C
t8-
WN
0 r4
-t
0
in
4'
Nq
0
N -t
V%
0
%0A
r-4
ro-4
0'
C'-
0
*
9
r%
m
m 0
4
n
'o
m%
g
'o
V% n
m
0
0
-
a
ON I
0
PAGE
REPORT NO.
4-3
0
I H
0
FA @1
UN
4.)
"4%A
V
U
(AU
UH
02
-A
S
U
4
4
VA f
CM
~
m~ u-, 0f-- E-
cm cm
CC 0
CU CUC
CU cmCU CUU C
4-'
10
56-64
Page 11
No*
4 151
I3a
49pot
cmI
0
0a
II
0
q
C
%
00q
IN
4
4
C04
q
C
V
N
N
c
Page12
Report No. 56-6k
00 400
CI
Il
I
C- 00
A01
A
A
*Fpape
13 Report No, 56-64
000 448
i~4
-1*0
t 44 I. 41
to a'
a,~
A..!
-of
4q4
-40=
=0
48q4
-
~941
4t,
Is
A
A A
AA
g
AAC
I.
.
.4
.2
.
v
o
w8
* ~-
ir
*
-
.4
v
.4
4
C) 4
o.
"c4
44
-d
-c
It
--
---
S
4)
4. 0..
41
4
4i
*4¶~ ~
4
'1.
0 44.4
Q
V
~
i01
ý.
88
.
41 1.
.I-
if -4
..
.
.
, a
a
1 .
-J
*
Ji u j
a
0
S S *
...
1
I II )
.US
lj §V g .4
0
I 1
a .4.
a
I-.
-'
14~~~~~. r~dW~'J, J.
..
...
LLJ I
r
I ~~tl
----------
2-
.9 j
1i
44,4
I
.......................
L44
3.l
t,---31
_
_
_
-- - -
.. .
j'ii2;i:Liui
I I
T.!-
IiJl
I-'.
IJ1Lrt
'4
'1-1
c
+
..
... .....
- - --
L) i4V?
U_
1 4
------
9J
--
Lq
,A, -.-----------... -.
jtj
i
.~.
______
.J..t
I
________
________
4i
S~ (Y0
in,...........
Lj
I
.
Lur13
L
C d
ANýLVdi PREPmAD my Re Je Baelow
N V A I R
,,
PA
19 No. 56-"
,mvwr
CMECKE my A. R. Vollmake/V. 3E Wisoe
MOeL. ALL (RJ•7634)
Nmm
RErVSEm my
Dyg
4-26-57
170
SECTION "71MKEN TEST
CUP T-51/18s
\OS4HOLE
-4-
307.i40-4
TEST TE5T CUP
BLOCK
BLOCK
DIMENSIONS FIG. 3
FL
II1l.A
kNALYM PREPARED myR. J.
cS C
N VA IR
Barlow £ uwn.ifema CHECCKED my A. Rt. Vo11.ke/ok4.E Wise M
sweaomamMI
REISED my
RMwO
PA@3 20 NO.56-.64 MOOSLALL (M DAT84-26-.57
6 IN4CH- STEEL SCALE
SPEC It'NE N 1.0
zo1
S CRA,,PE
TEST
FIG. 4 NO6W ISWA
7634)
AN"-yh"I PREPARED mY
C 0 R. J. Barlow
CHECKED mY A.
N
V A
I R
PASE REPORT NO.
suemnoueo ASt.m or s-.m. "BAUMa
1. Vollmecke.A. E. Wise
DATE
BENDING FORCE
~TOGETHE~R
TEST
F I G S. roe.
56-4 (REA 7634) 4-26-57
MoDEL ALL
"M Dim"
RUVGED my
BEND
•.
Iig5"
C 0 N V A I R
ANALY618 PREPARED BY CHECKED BY REVISED mY
MOOM IOgISA
R. J.
Barlow
W. E. Wise
A DIVISION OF ONSPAL
DYNAUICS CORPOIATION
SAN D942O
PAGE REPORT NO. MODEL
DATE
22 56-.64 All 4-26-57
ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY
R. j.
Barlow
L.. Wise
C 0
N
V
A I
R
PAGE
REPORT NO. MODEL
A DIVIISIONOF GENERALDYNAMICS CORPORATION SAN
DIEGO
REVISED BY
DATE
NIJ
4-1-
4 .44
AV
VORtM Ili1 A-A
23 56-.64 All 4-2b-57
C
-ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY
R. .3. Barlow W. E. 'Wise REVISD
REVErE
FORM_
0
A DIVISION OF
N
V
SAN DIEGO
BYDATE
B1Y
__
__
_
__
_
A I R
GENERAL DYN MCS
1919-
CORPOFIATIOM
PAGE
REPORT No. MODEL
24
56-64 ull
4-26-57
ANALYSIS PREPARED BY
CHECKED BY
C O0N R. J. Barlow W. E. Wiae
V
A
A DIVISION01 GENERPL.p-.1
I
R
PAGE REPORT NO.
CORPORATION
MODEL
SAN DIEGO
REVISED BY
DATE
25
5t,-.64 All 4-26-57
-C)
tJ
4p_
A4
.. t. .OR
"_
_
__
_
_
_
_______
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
C
ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
R. J. Barlow
CHECKED BY
W. E. Wise
0 N V A I
R
A DIVISION OF GENERALDYNAMICS CORPORATION
PAGE
REPORT NO. MODEL
BAN DIEGO
REVISED BY
DATE
-
-.
vim.
26
56-64 All 4-26-57
'WC 79)
jit
FOR~A tRIS-A
C O
ANALYSIS
PREPARED By
R.J. Barlow
CHECKED BY
W,. .E. Wise
A DIv•IIO.
N
V
A I
R
PAUE
OF GENERALD.YNAMCSCORPORAIUO"
REPCRT 1`O.
SAN DIEGO
MODEL.
REVISED BY
DATE
27
56-64 All 4-26-57
.............
jj p
_ _
'3
'iV....j"
_
)-)
4L1
rOflM 1tallA
STRUCTURES & MATERIALS IES
_________________LABORAOR
, N
C
I R
V A
REPORT
DATE
OIVISION OF GENERAL OYNAMICS CORPORATION
SAN DIEGO
56-6L.
Add I
19 March 1958 All
MODEL.
Test No.
57-909
TITLE
REPORTNO. 5,6-64 ADDENDUM I W'EAR TEST OF ANODIC- TRAa M "n TTANIUM
MODEL ALL
GRouP STRUCTURES LABORATORIES
PREPARED BY________________
R. J. Barlow /
_
_
REFERENCE
__/_
A. R. Voilmeoke CHECKED BY •
e. •-
-
APPROVED B
W. E. Wise
E. F. Strong Chief of Test
No. OF PAGES___
Laboratories 1
NO. OF DIAGRAMS
REVISIONS NO.
ee FrORM
1612IIA*4
DATE
BY
CHANGE
PAGES AFFECTED
• '
C
0
N
V
A
'ANALYeis
PREpAR*omy
R.
J.
Barlow
CNCKEDY
W. E. Wise
SAN 0100ý
I
R PAGE1 REPORT NO. 56-64
MODML
REVSoD B
DATE
Add I
All 19 March 1958
REPORT NO. 26-6% ADDENDUM I WEAR TEST OF ANODIC TREATMENT ON TITANIUM MODEL ALL
INTRODUCTION: This test was initiated to evaluate the quality of anodic treatment, on titanium produced by a possible alternate process. The Ti-oxide Sesqui-oxide process is the present anodic treatment. and Hardas processes were considered as a second source.
OBJECT: To compare the wear characteristics of anodic surface treatment on titanium alloy with sesqui-oxide treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The Hardas and the Ti-oxide processes were both superior to the sesqui-oxide process for properties tested. (no corrosion or adhesion tests were made.) See Figure 1 for graphic presentation of wear characteristics.
TEST SPECIMES: The same type of test specimens were used as described in the basic report. The test cups were machined from AMS 4925 titanium alloy, after which the following anodic treatments were applied. 2.16 and 2.17
Ti-oxide process, on surface of 16 RMS finish, by San Diego Plating Company, San Diego, Calif.
2.18
Sesqui-oxide, on surface of 16 RMS finish by Chem-Tronics Laboratory, San Diego, Calif.
2.19 and 2.20
Hardas Process, on surface of 16 RMS finish, by Anachrome Corporation, South Gate, Calif.
TEST PROCEDURE: The same test procedure Was used as described on page 4 and 5 of the basic report. No corrosion or adhesion test were made.
re". los-.%
NALYSIS PREPARID mY
R.
CHECKfDmy
W. E. Wise
J. Barlow
C
0
N
V A . .oo
I
REVISED my
R
PAG REPORT NO.
MODEL DATE
56-64 Add I
All 19 March 1958
RESULTS: Anodic treatments of titanium surfaces have greater wear and anti-galling resistance then untreated surfaces. The results are shown in graphic form in Figure 1. Zach bar in Figure 1 shows data which was obtained from one test specimen. see page 5 of the original report.
For description of failure
Depth of wear for the sesqui-oxide treated test specimen was not Titanium particles adhered to measureable by conventional methods. the steel block immediately after the surface treatment was worn away. Although the cup wear was small, the friction doubled at failure. The oil lubricated test cups showed less severe wear than the Test cup 2.19 was slightly convex with two unlubricated test cups. The specks were formed specks in the center of the wear surface. by the absence of coating at these points. Wear was first observed on test cup 2.19 by the appearance of a concentric band approximately 1/64 inch wide passing through the specks. This wear surface resulted The actual amount of in an increase in the actual bearing pressure. The welding to the steel block was surface wear was negligible. slight for this test cup. A dry test cup 2.20 with a Hardas process treated surface, produced Actual contact good wear resistance at 5,000 psi bearing pressure. area on the Hardas process coating became black and polished after Sufficient boundary lubrication was 5 minutes of rubbing time. rovided by the coating of test cup 2.20 when subjected to 5,000 psi Failure occurred within a few revolutions of the earing pressure. The parent test cup when 40,OOC psi bearing pressure was applied. material failed under the coating. None of the anodic treated titanium surfaces rubbing on lubricated chrome molybdenum steel compared favorably to the bronze standard as a friction bearing material combination.
NOTE: The test data from which this report was prepared are recorded in Structures Test Laboratory Data Book No. 393, pages 119 to 123.
"~OIm Il
4-~±f
'wi 0IE
I
+42 17TTI
........
IBIL
m
77K
hi
21-
F.
a, a-uJ~o
ci a.1i
I
I.
