4.6 Article

MoS2 reinforced PEEK composite for improved aqueous boundary lubrication

Journal

FRICTION
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages 1660-1672

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40544-022-0673-y

Keywords

polyether-etherketone (PEEK) composite; MoS2; anti-wear performance; aqueous lubrication; boundary lubrication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, PEEK/MoS2 composites were prepared to improve the anti-wear performance of PEEK in aqueous boundary lubrication. The COF and wear rate of PEEK composite with 0.25 wt% MoS2 were significantly reduced, and a COF of less than 0.05 was achieved for the first time. The anti-wear performance of the PEEK/MoS2 composite was found to be better than that of PEEK/CF and Thordon composites, making it a potential material for underwater equipment.
Polyether-etherketone (PEEK) is a corrosion-resistant material that has been widely used in aqueous lubrication. However, its anti-wear performance must be improved for its application in the industry. In this study, to improve the anti-wear performance of PEEK for aqueous boundary lubrication, PEEK/MoS2 composites were prepared by ball-milling and spark plasma sintering processes. A competitive MoS2 mechanism between the low shear strength property and the role of promoting wear debris generation influences the anti-wear performance of PEEK/MoS2 composites. Experiments demonstrated that the coefficients of friction (COF) and wear rate of PEEK composite with 0.25 wt% MoS2 were significantly reduced 68% and 94%, respectively. Furthermore, this was the first time that a PEEK composite could achieve a COF of less than 0.05 in aqueous boundary lubrication. Its anti-wear performance was verified to be better than that of PEEK/carbon fiber (CF) and Thordon composites. The PEEK/MoS2 composite may be a potential material for underwater equipment because of its outstanding anti-wear performance in aqueous boundary lubrication.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available