首页|Corrigendum to ‘Understanding and modelling wear rates and mechanisms in fretting via the concept of rate-determining processes - Contact oxygenation, debris formation and debris ejection’ [Wear 486–487 (2021) 204066] (Wear (2021) 486–487, (S004316482100452X), (10.1016/j.wear.2021.204066))
Corrigendum to ‘Understanding and modelling wear rates and mechanisms in fretting via the concept of rate-determining processes - Contact oxygenation, debris formation and debris ejection’ [Wear 486–487 (2021) 204066] (Wear (2021) 486–487, (S004316482100452X), (10.1016/j.wear.2021.204066))
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NSTL
Elsevier
? 2021The authors regret that we made an error in the equation proposed to describe one of the key processes in fretting, and would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The error relates to the equation proposed to describe the transport of oxygen to the active surface to form oxide debris. The main proposal and argument of the paper (namely that of the concept of rate-determining processes in fretting) is not affected by this error. Indeed, in the original paper itself (as highlighted in the abstract), we said: “A number of assumptions have been made in deriving the equations which describe the key processes and it is recognised that these equations themselves may be refined in light of future research; however, any such revised equations can simply replace those proposed as part of the rate-determining process framework.” A new framework which describes the role of three key processes in fretting wear of metals was proposed, with these three processes being: (i) oxygen transport into the contact; (ii) formation of oxide-based wear debris in the contact and (iii) ejection of the wear debris from the contact. To maintain system equilibrium in steady-state fretting, it was argued that these three processes must operate at the same rate as each other (i.e. that debris cannot be ejected from the contact faster than it is formed, and that debris cannot be formed faster than it is ejected). Accordingly, the observed wear rate is the rate of the process with the lowest rate of the three processes, with this process being termed the rate-determining process (RDP). It is noted that two of the three key processes can be classified as transport processes (i.e. transport of oxygen into the contact to form oxide debris and transport of that debris out of the contact). In our original paper, it was proposed that the rates of both transport processes decrease with increasing fretting contact size (i.e. the distance over which transport of the species takes place). There is no general expectation that the dependence of these two rates upon the contact size will be the same and a generalised schematic diagram (Fig. 5) was proposed in the original paper to describe this; this key figure is reproduced here in this corrigendum for clarity.1 It is noted that this is a schematic diagram and is therefore not affected by the error made in the derivation of the equation to describe one of these transport processes. Furthermore, it is argued that the RDP concept proposed is applicable to all fretting contacts, irrespective of whether the contact is conforming or non-conforming, and irrespective of its dimensions and the direction of the fretting motion with respect to those dimensions. [Formula presented] A key assumption in the original paper is that the instantaneous rate of surface recession (wear), summed over the two specimens in the fretting pair, must be the same at all positions within the wear scar at any point in time. It was then argued that this means that the rate of consumption of oxygen required for formation of oxide debris, [Formula presented], will be the same at every point in the contact at a given time. It is noted that [Formula presented] is defined as the consumption rate of oxygen per unit area of contact in the formation of oxide-based debris (with S.I. units of kg m-2 s-1). The error made in the original paper relates to the derivation of the rate equation related to oxygen transport into the contact to form oxide-based wear debris. In the formulation of Equation (A1.8) in Appendix 1 of the original paper, we proposed that the total rate of consumption of oxygen required for debris formation across the whole contact will be directly proportional to the observed time-based rate of wear in the contact. We stand by this proposition; however, we made in an error in the way that this concept was formulated into an equation (we misinterpreted [Formula presented] as being the rate of consumption of oxygen across the whole
NSTL
Elsevier
