4.6 Article

Effects of Nanoscale Surface Texture and Lubricant Molecular Structure on Boundary Lubrication in Liquid

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 29, 期 44, 页码 13419-13426

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la402574d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1131128, ECS-0335765]
  2. Pennsylvania State University Materials Research Institute Nanofabrication Lab
  3. U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1131128] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoconfinement effects of boundary lubricants can significantly affect the friction behavior of textured solid interfaces. These effects were studied with nanotextured diamond-like carbon (DLC) surfaces using a reciprocating ball-on-flat tribometer in liquid lubricants with different molecular structures: n-hexadecane and n-pentanol for linear molecular structure and poly(alpha-olefin) and heptamethylnonane for branched molecular structure. It is well-known that liquid lubricants with linear molecular structures can readily form a long-range ordered structure upon nanoconfinement between flat solid surfaces. This long-range ordering, often called solidification, causes high friction in the boundary lubrication regime. When the solid surface deforms elastically due to the contact pressure and this deformation depth is larger than the surface roughness, even rough surfaces can exhibit the nanoconfinement effects. However, the liquid entrapped in the depressed region of the nanotextured surface would not solidify, which effectively reduces the solidified lubricant area in the contact region and decreases friction. When liquid lubricants are branched, the nanoconfinement-induced solidification does not occur because the molecular structure is not suitable for the long-range ordering. Surface texture, therefore, has an insignificant effect on the boundary lubrication of branched molecules.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据