STM 279 PDF
STM 279 PDF
STM 279 PDF
B.D. DUNN
ESA/ESTEC
STM-279
November 2009
B.D. Dunn
Manufacturing Technology Advisor,
Product Assurance and Safety Department,
ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, the Netherlands
K. Fletcher
Editing/Layout
Publisher
ESA Communication Production Office
ESTEC, PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 71 565 3408 Fax: +31 71 565 5433 www.esa.int
ISBN
978-92-9221-900-6
ISSN
0379-4067
Copyright
ESA STM-279
Abstract
A common failure mode seen during the testing and operation of spacecraft
is termed cold welding. European laboratories refer to this as adhesion,
sticking or stiction. This publication is intended to provide the space
community with the most recent understanding of the phenomenon of
cold welding in relation to spacecraft mechanisms with separable contact
surfaces. It presents some basic theory and describes a test method and the
required equipment. Cold welding between two contacting surfaces can occur
under conditions of impact or fretting. These surfaces may be bare metals,
or inorganically or organically coated metals and their alloys. Standard
procedures for quantifying the propensity of material surface pairs to cold
weld to each other are proposed. Of particular interest will be the contact data
of different materials, which are presented in numerical form and as tables
summarising contacts between materials that can be either recommended or
considered unsuitable for use under vacuum. The data have been compiled in
a database that can be accessed online.
iii
ESA STM-279
Contents
1
Introduction
1.1 Failures due to cold welding
1.2 Objective of the setup test method
1.3 Background to the cold welding effect
1
1
2
2
7
7
11
12
14
15
16
21
21
21
22
Conclusions
25
References
Materials: abbreviations and data
27
29
31
31
33
35
35
35
37
42
47
48
49
53
ESA STM-279
1 Introduction
1.1 Failures due to cold welding
Spacecraft subsystems contain a variety of engineering mechanisms that
exhibit ball-to-flat surface contacts. These may be periodically closed up to
several thousand times during ground testing and the operational life of the
spacecraft. These contacts are usually designed to be static, but in reality they
are often subjected to impact forces. Other static contacts are closed without
impact, but will be subjected to fretting during the launch phase or during the
deployment of arrays, as well as during the service life of the spacecraft. In
the latter case, the fretting originates from vibrations of the spacecraft caused
by gyros or the motion of antennas.
In most cases, metals are used in the construction of these mechanisms,
preferably light metal alloys, but these are strongly prone to adhesion. Impacts
and fretting also occur in terrestrial applications, but the main difference in
space is the absence of atmospheric oxygen.
On the ground it is unusual to witness adhesion between metallic interfaces
independently of whether they are subjected to impact or fretting. This
is because the surfaces are re-oxidised after each opening, so that the next
closing is made on new oxide layers. In space, the oxide layers are broken
irreversibly. Therefore, the following closing is metalmetal contact, thereby
enabling welding effects. In the literature, these effects may also be referred
to as sticking, stiction or adhesion. Regarding ESAs space mechanisms, the
relevant standard is ECSS-E-ST-33-01C [1], which uses the term separable
contact surfaces.
Impacts during closing can eventually degrade the mechanisms surface layers,
whether they are natural oxides, chemical conversion films or even metallic
coatings. This can dramatically increase the tendency of these contacting
surfaces to cold weld to each other. An example of such a mechanism is
shown in Fig. 1. This picture illustrates how the Y-piece, manufactured from
a magnesium alloy, has cold welded against one of the end-stops (labelled C
in the figure), which is also made of a similar magnesium alloy. All corrosion
protection coatings on these alloy parts have been worn away due to several
hundreds of thousands of impacts to leave bare contacting points. The
photograph shows the mechanism after ground-based tests performed under
vacuum. Those test conditions replicated the conditions experienced by a
similar mechanism that had failed in orbit on an Earth observation satellite.
In technical terms, the adhesion forces were greater than the separation
forces available from the spring in this mechanism. Ground simulation of the
mechanism in a vacuum chamber indicated an adhesion force in the range of
0.3N. This was later confirmed by impact testing at the Austrian Institute of
Technology (AIT) [2].
Another, even more dangerous effect is fretting. Vibrations occurring during
launch or during the movement of antennas in space, for example, can lead to
small oscillating movements in the contact, which are referred to as fretting.
This lateral motion can cause even more severe surface destruction than impact,
ESA STM-279
and may lead to cold welding effects similar to bonding techniques. Adhesion
forces may increase to values higher than the closing forces. One documented
example of a failure due to cold welding after fretting occurred on the Galileo
spacecraft in 1991 [3], when the high-gain antenna could not be fully deployed.
The ribs of the umbrella-shaped antenna were locked for launch, but failed
to open. Investigations have shown that fretting during transport and lift-off
caused the ribs to cold weld together in the launch position.
ESA STM-279
Fig. 2. Adhesion force as a function of the number of cycles (one closing and
separation each) [8]. Comparison of adhesion under static (load 29N), impact
(load 29N) and fretting (load 4N) conditions under vacuum. The risk and severity
of adhesion increase with contact in the order static, impact, fretting (maximum
adhesion: static 0.1N after >25000 cycles; impact 0.96N; and fretting 9.5N).
From general experience [7], and as discussed in previous papers [8], [4],
contact situations may be classified into three types: static, impact and
fretting. In a cyclically closed and opened contact, the amount of destruction
of the surface layers increases in the order: static, impact and fretting. As the
surface layers are destroyed we see an increase in the adhesion forces. Figure
2 shows three plots of the adhesion force as a function of the number of cycles
(=openings). The three plots refer to three types of contact applied to a pairing
of titanium alloy (IMI834) and stainless steel (AISI440C) [8]. Under fretting
conditions, the maximum adhesion force throughout the test was 9.5N (2.5
times the load of 4N), under impact it was 0.96N (load 29N), whereas in
static contact after 25000 cycles the adhesion force was less than 0.1N (load
29N). A theoretical deduction would have given an estimate of 7.7N without
any relation to the real contact situation: the Hertzian contact area 0.006mm2
times the yield stress of this Ti alloy (~1200MPa).
In summary, under impact and fretting conditions, contaminant layers (oxides)
are removed much more quickly than under static contact, and cold welding
occurs much sooner than expected. This may not only reduce the lifetime of a
satellite, but can also endanger space missions, since any opening or ejection
mechanism may fail due to cold-welded contacts. A typical opening/closing
mechanism can fail if the adhesion force exceeds the force that is available to
open the mechanism, e.g. by a spring. This blocking value may be much lower
than the applied load. The blocking of the mechanism shown in Fig. 1 under
impact conditions was reported with an adhesion force in the range of 0.3N.
This value was confirmed by a verification study of the impact device [2].
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
Fig. 3. Detail of the fretting device, showing the fixation of the pin (upper rod)
and the disc (mounted directly on a force transducer). The piezo actuator that
generates the fretting movement can be seen on the right.
Therefore, the results obtained from cold welding tests conducted in accordance
with the ARC Seibersdorf (ARCS, now AIT) in-house specification [5] can
be used to address the necessary opening forces for actuators in mechanisms
(both impact and fretting tests are done at 60% EL).
A full description of the test equipment is given in Annex A. The test method
[5] and the specimen geometries are given in Annex B. Several tests have
been performed since the test method was standardised, and the results are
compiled in Annex C (the data in Annex C can be obtained from the online
database: http://service.arcs.ac.at/coldwelddata).
ESA STM-279
Fig. 4. Adhesion force under impact for materials in contact with themselves. The
highest adhesion forces are found for stainless steels with nickel (e.g. SS17-7PH)
and Al alloys (Al AA7075), medium for Ti alloy, and the lowest for bearing steel
AISI 52100 (no Ni).
ESA STM-279
Fig. 5. Adhesion force under impact for different types of steel in contact with
themselves: austenitic steels and Ni seem to promote high adhesion: SS17-7PH
(7%Ni), AISI 316L (11%Ni) and Inconel 718 (52%Ni). No adhesion was found
for AISI52100 in contact with itself (52100). The high adhesion of AISI440C
has yet to be confirmed. With combinations of different steels, adhesion seems
to increase in those in contact with steels with a higher tendency to cold welding
(indicated by arrows).
The effectiveness of the first group of hard coatings depends on the loadbearing capacity of the underlying bulk: if it is too soft, it is deformed under
impact, and the hard coating breaks [11]. Then the underlying metal comes
into contact with the metal of the opposing surface, and adhesion occurs.
However, pieces of the hard coating (TiC) are still present, and they may be
transferred and act as additional abrasive particles. Hence, the adhesion may
be reduced compared with bare metal surfaces, but since the destroyed surface
areas cannot be recoated, adhesion still occurs. An example of this is TiC
(2000HV) on SS17-7PH (only 441HV); the coating reduced the adhesion force
by about four times, but after the TiC broke off it was no longer effective and a
marked increase in the adhesion force was measured (see Fig. 6).
Hence, hard coatings should be applied to steel types that enable a higher hardness,
e.g. AISI440C or AISI52100 (up to 700HV). This would avoid plastic deformation
of the underlying steel substrate, which results in cracking of the coating.
Instead of using a hard coating, a harder steel type may be selected for contact
with stainless steel SS17-7PH. By using steel AISI 52100 in contact with
Fig. 6. Adhesion force as a function of static load for different coatings on steel.
The lowest adhesion is for SS17-7PH (SS17) with MoS2. The adhesion is highest
for TiC (coatings were broken), and negligible between bronze (LB9) and SS177PH (LB9-SS17(Nitr)). The low adhesion between AISI52100 and SS17-7PH can
be further reduced by using a DLC coating (52100(DLC)SS17).
ESA STM-279
SS17-7PH, lower adhesion can be achieved (222mN; see Fig.5). This can
be further reduced by applying a hard coating (diamond-like coating (DLC)
produced by the company Vito) on hard steel [12] (Fig.6). The hard DLC film
did not (visibly) peel off and after more than 37000 cycles no adhesion was
measured. A small amount of steel was transferred from the (uncoated) pin to
the DLC-coated disc. Before selecting DLC film, however, attention should
be paid to its composition, since most conventional DLC coatings are not
compatible with vacuum applications.
The second group of soft coatings was also tested. A soft lubricant coating
on SS17-7PH could avoid any adhesion to another SS17-7PH pin. Hence,
under impact, soft lubricant coatings on stainless steels are more effective than
hard coatings in preventing cold welding.
10
ESA STM-279
Fig. 8. Adhesion force under impact for different coatings on Ti alloys. Hard
coatings provide good protection against cold welding, but solid lubricants
(MoS2, WS2) fail.
Fig. 9. Adhesion force under impact for different combinations with MoS2.
Coatings and composites are effective in preventing cold welding (SP3 = Vespel
SP3, Ag10Cu = coin silver, AgMoS2 = silver composite with 15vol% MoS2).
ESA STM-279
Fig. 10. Comparison of adhesion force under impact (I) and fretting (F) for
different steels and Ni alloys in contact with themselves. Fretting initiates higher
adhesion, but for ferrous alloys adhesion decreases with decreasing Ni content,
as indicated in [10].
11
12
ESA STM-279
on steel compared with those for contacts between bare materials. Applying
an MoS2 coating by PVD to one of the two SS17-7PH counterparts could
not prevent adhesion: in two tests the lubrication effect was lost after only
50 (20) cycles, i.e. 8 (3) minutes fretting or 100000 (42000) strokes. This was
combined with a distinct increase in adhesion force. High adhesion forces
of up to 5870 mN were found. This refers to a reduction in the maximum
adhesion force of approximately 50% (compared with SS17-7 without coating)
(Fig. 11). The same tendency can be seen for one TiC coating between two
SS17-7PH counterparts (Fig. 11, SS17-SS17(TiC)). Adhesion is only reduced
to approximately one-third of that of the uncoated combination. SEM images
and EDAX analyses confirm the breaking up of the coating and adhesive wear.
The influence of nitriding SS17-7PH surfaces was investigated, and
no significant reduction in adhesion was visible (still 8517 mN; Fig. 11,
SS17-SS17(nitr)). Based on this result, the low adhesion between nitrided
SS17-7 and lead-bearing bronze LB9 (5001087 mN) may be due to the
lubrication effect of the lead (which is known for its tribological applications).
Applying a diamond-like coating (DLC) onto AISI 52100 in contact with
SS17-7PH reduces adhesion from 2499mN to 856mN.
The effect of grease (Braycote 601) was tested in AISI440C in contact with
itself, but no significant effect was observed. Hence the risk of contamination
due to outgassing is superior to the efficiency in avoiding adhesion (Fig. 11,
440C(bray)-440C).
MoS2 coating in a special pairing (AISI440C+MoS2 versus SS17-7PH+TiC):
MoS2 + TiC resulted in a breakthrough (at 366 cycles = 61 min = 700000
strokes) and medium adhesion forces of up to 2210mN. Applying only MoS2
on a AISI440C disc and testing it in contact with SS17-7PH, only very low
Fig. 11. Adhesion force of steel-based coatings under impact (I) and fretting (F)
conditions. Coatings in general reduce adhesion. For SS17-7PH, no tested coating
of the disc is able to reduce adhesion significantly (TiC, MoS2 or nitriding). In
contacts between AISI440C and SS17-7PH, TiC should be avoided. The efficiency
of grease (Braycote 601) is not significant in AISI440C in contact with itself, and
that of the MoS2 coating under fretting is limited to low endurance
ESA STM-279
adhesion forces were found (compare with AISI440C in contact with itself
without coating; Fig.11, SS440C). It can therefore be concluded that the TiC
destroys the surface layers of the AISI440C, which could have been regarded
as adhesion prevention layers.
Fig. 12. Adhesion force of aluminium-based coatings under impact (I) and
fretting (F) conditions. Adhesion between the Al parts is strongly reduced by
hard anodising (anod), CrNi plating (CrNi), with no adhesion for (thick)
Keronite [13],[18]. A single Alodine coating (alod) is not effective in preventing
cold welding because of its low thickness <1m.
13
14
ESA STM-279
Fig. 13. Adhesion force of coatings on Ti6AV under impact (I) and fretting (F)
conditions. Under impact, hard coatings prevented cold welding, but under
fretting, all coatings were broken. The lowest adhesion forces were found for
Ti6AV with thin (~6m) coatings of Balinite B and Keronite.
ESA STM-279
15
a) Impact
b) Fretting
Fig. 14. Surface of a pin (SS17-7PH) after impact and fretting. (a) Some plastic
flow is visible from the piling up of edges. (b) Strong destruction of the surface,
adhesive wear combined with high adhesion forces (compare with Fig. 10 for
adhesion forces: SS17-7).
16
ESA STM-279
Fig. 15. Surface of disc of SS17-7PH with MoS2 coating after fretting tests
(compare with Fig. 11 for adhesion forces). The lubrication effect was lost after
fretting movements lasting less than 20 s (confirmed by EDAX mapping; no Mo
was present in the contact area).
Fig. 16. Comparison of Al coatings under fretting. Left: The hard anodising on
Al7075 was broken. Right: The Keronite coating on Al AA 2219 shows no fretting
marks (compare with Fig. 11 for adhesion forces).
ESA STM-279
17
Fig. 17. Adhesion force (in mN) of steel SS17-7PH in contact with itself (uncoated)
under impact. The adhesion increases with static loads related to contact
pressures of 40%, 60% and 100%EL.
18
ESA STM-279
Tip radius
(mm)
Load
(N)
Contact pressure
(MPa)
Contact pressure
(% EL)
Contact area
(mm2)
F1x
1272
118
0.0012
F2x
611
57
0.0025
F3x
10
12
209
58
0.0287
F5x
15
627
19
0.0072
ESA STM-279
Fig. 18. Adhesion forces calculated using the yield strength times the Hertzian
contact area.
Fig.19. Adhesion forces calculated using the wear contact area (the contact area
measured after the fretting test) times the yield strength.
Fig. 20. Adhesion forces: measured values (average values of three parallel tests,
uncertainty of test method 30%).
On the other hand, fretting wear leads to an increase in the contact area. In the
test with the higher load, the contact area is significantly higher than in the
others. Hence, the wear is greater with higher loads, even with comparable
contact pressures: ~58%EL for a radius of 10mm and load of 12N, and a
radius of 3mm and load of 1N.
19
20
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
d ata that are fully comparable based on test parameters related to material
properties
data covering the contact modes impact and fretting
summary tables showing the material combinations for which data are
available, and a classification based on the severity of adhesion
a detailed data sheet for each test.
Fig. 21. Data sheets generated for all cold welding tests carried out in accordance
with the ARCS in-house test method [5] are available online.
21
22
Symbol
ESA STM-279
Comment on adhesion
Comment on Use
200
Use recommended
201
500
501
5000
Strong adhesion
5001
higher
Severe adhesion
Lower limit
Upper limit
The summary (or so-called survey) tables are based on the classification of
adhesion forces found in different material combinations as shown in Table 2.
ESA STM-279
23
24
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
5 Conclusions
1. Test equipment (Annex A) and a test method (Annex B) have been
developed to study the cold welding of material interfaces that make
contact under impact and fretting conditions. The method and the results
represent a step forward in studies of cold welding effects from common
experience to measurable data that will be useful for designers of
spacecraft applications.
2. In order to provide engineers with the experimental data, AIT has set up
an online database that aims to bring together all the data generated from
all studies performed for ESA and industry. The database can be accessed
free of charge after registration: http://service.arcs.ac.at/coldwelddata.
3. It has been shown that the theoretical predictions are by no means
comparable with experimental data. The main reason is that the
adhesion force is driven by the real contact area, which can not be
predicted. Hertzian theory would predict a nominal contact area,
neglecting surface roughness and surface contamination. The latter in
particular is the main contributor and remains unpredictable.
4. A wide range of material combinations, including metalmetal (SS177PH in contact with itself and Al alloy AA 7075 in contact with itself),
metalpolymer (SS17-7PH versus Vespel SP3), as well as several
coatings on steel, aluminium and titanium have been investigated under
impact and fretting conditions. The data can be found in Annex C. These
results and those of future work are now searchable online.
5. Tests have revealed that the range of adhesion forces in uncoated metal
metal contacts with typical engineering surfaces and without coatings
depend on the type of contact:
25
26
ESA STM-279
coatings. Stainless steels are generally too soft to support hard coatings
under impact conditions. Hard anodised aluminium can withstand
impact. Titanium alloys must be coated with hard coatings to resist cold
welding if only impact is expected.
8. Under fretting conditions, none of the investigated coatings on stainless
steel (SS17-7PH) is able to prevent cold welding. Also MoS2 is not
effective under fretting, and the lubrication is quickly lost. Hence, the
best strategy must be to use different steels (maximum one of which
should be austenitic). Hard coatings should not be used on hard steels.
In contrast with steel, hard anodising of aluminium prevents adhesion
under fretting conditions, but much loose debris is formed. A thick
Keronite coating (20 m), which is based on a plasma-electrolytic
oxidation (PEO) process, is not only resistant to fretting but also avoids
debris formation. A test using an uncoated titanium pin against coated
titanium discs did not provide a general solution. All thin coatings solid
lubricants and hard coatings were destroyed in the fretting contact. The
best combinations still showed medium adhesion after breakage of the
coating. The combination titanium and low-adhesion steel also did not
provide a solution. Further research will target thick coatings produced
by PEO (Keronite).
ESA STM-279
References
[1] E
uropean Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) ECSS-E-ST-3301C (2009), Mechanisms, section 4.7.5.4.5 Separable contact surfaces.
[2] Merstallinger, A. & Semerad, E. (1995). Tribological Properties of
Ga3Z1. ESTEC Contract no. 8198/89/NL/LC, WO 32.
[3] Johnson, M.R. (1989). The Galileo High Gain Antenna Deployment
Anomaly. California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL), Pasadena, CA.
[4] M
erstallinger, A., Semerad, E., Dunn, B.D. & Stri, H. (1995). Study on
Cold Welding under Cyclic Load and High Vacuum. 6th European Space
Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium, Zrich, Proceedings ESA SP-374.
[5] Merstallinger, A. & Semerad, E. (1998). Test Method to Evaluate Cold
Welding under Static and Impact Loading. In-house standard by ARCS
approved by ESA, Issue 2. Uncertainty Evaluation for Test Method
to Evaluate Cold Welding under Static and Impact Loading, in-house
standard by ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Issue 2, audited in 2003.
[6] Merstallinger, A., Sales, M., Semerad, E. & Dunn, B.D. (2009). Reduction
of Cold Welding by Geometric Parameters. Proc. 13th European Space
Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium, Vienna, ESA-SP-670 (ESTEC
Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO65).
[7] Roberts, E. (2001). Space Tribology Handbook. ESTL, AEA Technology.
[8] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E. & Dunn, B.D. (1997). Cold Welding due
to Fretting under Vacuum, Helium and Air. Proc. 7th European Space
Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium, ESTEC, Noordwijk, the
Netherlands.
[9] Johnson, K.H. (1985). Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
[10] Persson, U., Chandrasekaran, H. & Merstallinger, A. (2001). Adhesion
between Some Tool and Work Materials in Fretting and Relation to Metal
Cutting. Wear 249, 293301.
[11] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E. & Dunn, B.D. (1999). Influence of Impact
Parameters and Coatings on Cold Welding due to Impact under High
Vacuum. Proc. 8th European Space Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium,
Toulouse, France (ESTEC Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO 12, 1998).
[12] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E., Scholze, P. & Schmidt, C. (2001).
Screening of Contact Materials for Cold Welding due to Fretting. ESTEC
Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO20, Materials Report 3150.
27
28
ESA STM-279
[13] Shrestha, S., Merstallinger, A., Sickert, D. & Dunn, B.D. (2003). Some
Preliminary Evaluations of Black Coating on Aluminium AA2219 Alloy
Produced by Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO) Process for Space
Applications. Proc. 9th International Symposium on Materials in Space
Environment (ISMSE), ESTEC, Nordwijk, the Netherlands.
[14] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E., Scholze, P. & Schmidt, C. (2000).
Influence of Coatings on Adhesion under Impact. ESTEC Contract no.
11760/95/NL/NB, CO21, Materials Report 2663.
[15] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E. & Costin, W. (2004). Influence of Steel
Types on Cold Welding under Fretting and Impact. ESTEC Contract no.
11760/95/NL/NB, CO40.
[16] Sales, M., Merstallinger, A., Costin, W., Mozdzen, G. & Semerad, E.
(2006). Influence of Titanium Alloy Ti6Al4V on Cold Welding under
Fretting and Impact. ESTEC Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO52.
[17] Shresta, S. & Dunn, B.D. (2007). Advanced Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation
Treatment for Protection of Lightweight Materials and Structures in
Space Environment. Surface World, November, 4044.
[18] Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E. & Costin, W. (2002). Assessment of
Keronite for Cold Welding and Friction. ESTEC Contract no. 11760/95/
NL/NB, CO39, Metallurgy Report no. 3522.
[19] Sales, M., Merstallinger, A., Shresta, S. & Dunn, B.D. (2008). Combating
the Fretting Wear and Cold Welding of Aluminium Alloys on Spacecraft
Hardware using the Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO) Process.
22nd International Conference on Surface Modification Technologies
(SMT22), Trllhttan, Sweden. ESTEC Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB,
CO60.
[20] Sales, M., Merstallinger, A., Shresta, S. & Dunn, B.D. (2009). The
Fretting Wear Behaviour of Plasma Electrolytic Oxide Coatings on
Aluminium Alloys. Proc. 11th International Symposium on Materials
in Space Environment (ISMSE), Aix-en-Provence, France. ESTEC
Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO72.
[21] Sales, M., Mozdzen, G., Merstallinger, A., Semerad, E. & Costin, W.
(2008). Cold Welding Summary Chart Collection of Data of all Performed
Studies. ESTEC Contract no. 11760/95/NL/NB, CO53.
85PI15MoS2
Ag 15vol% MoS2
AISI 440C
Ti-IMI 834
Ti-IMI 318
Vespel SP3
Ag/MoS2
Ag10Cu
AISI316L
AISI52100 (SKF)
AL AA 2219
Bronze LB9
SS15
440C
SS17
Ti834
Ti6AV
Vespel SP3
AgMoS2
Ag10Cu
Inconel718
SS316L
52100
AL 2219
6.3Cu0.3Mn0.18 Zr0.1V0.06Ti
Fe1C0.3Si0.4Mn0.03P0.03S1.6Cr0.3Ni
0.3Cu
Fe0.011C0.41Si1.42Mn0.031P17.3Cr11.2Ni
2.09Mo0.05W0.098Co0.041V0.026S
Fe53.6Ni18.9Cr5.3Nb3Mo0.98Ti0.03C
0.13Si0.12Mn0.008P0.001S0.49Al0.2Co
0.06Cu0.004B
Ag10Cu
Ti6Al4V
Ti5.8Al4Sn3.5Zn0.7Nb0.5Mo0.35Si0.06C
17Cr7Ni1Al
Fe1.01C0.47Si0.56Mn0.014P<0.002S
17.81Cr0.27Ni0.48Mo
1415.5Cr3.55.5Ni0.150.45Nb<0.07C2.54.5Cu
Cu46Sn810Pb2Zn0.25Fe0.01Al0.2Mn2Ni
0.5Sb0.1S
2.12.9Mg1.21.6Cu0.180.28Cr5.16.1Zn
Al alloy Al AA 7075
Al7075
Composition
Designation
Abbreviation
T851
AR
Austenitic
AR
AR
138
700
175
348
150
26
18
AR
AR
338
334
441
700
393
160
170
HV
(daN/mm)
AR
AR
PH
Harden
H1025
AR
T7351
Condition
531
2692
675
1338
620
138
68
850
1285
1697
2692
1000
130
654
Yield
(MPa)
0.33
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.367
0.367
0.41
0.32
0.32
0.29
0.283
0.27
0.34
0.33
Poisson
73.8
200
190
211
82.7
71
2.5
105
112
210
200
196
80
72
E
(GPa)
ESA STM-279
29
ESA STM-279
31
32
ESA STM-279
was given to the universality of the test setup, which covers a wide range of
impact energies, contact pressures and contact times.
The contact is made between a ball and a flat disc. The ball is mounted on a
pushrod, which is driven by an electromagnet. A low-friction loading system
enables an accuracy of 1 mN (0.1 g) for the adhesion force measurement,
which is made directly above the pin in the vacuum chamber using a piezo
force transducer. The transducer measures the impact force as well as the
adhesion, i.e. the force needed to separate the two materials.
Cyclic loading may be done either slowly (static) or by impact (dynamic)
with defined energies that are determined by the mass of the pushrod and its
velocity at impact, as measured by a distance sensor. The impact energy, the
impact force, the contact duration, the load during contact and the separation
are controlled by computer. By varying the ball radius (typically 220mm),
the contact pressure can be adjusted to the yield strength of most materials. As
an option, the contact surfaces can be cleaned in situ by glow discharge before
the test. The surface roughness is characterised by profilometry.
The above test methods are adequate to detect the propensity to cold welding
at an early stage. They are capable of assessing the statistical spread with
increasing contact cycles in order to see if there is a tendency to cold welding
or single catastrophic failure.
Cold welding (2): Fretting test facility
The fretting facility (Fig. A.2) allows investigations of the influence of fretting
on the tendency to cold welding of materials. After a certain number of fretting
cycles the adhesion force between contacts is measured.
The loading mechanism is similar to that of the impact test device described
above. The loading and adhesion forces are measured by the z-direction of a
3-axis piezo transducer mounted directly below the disc under vacuum. The
friction force due to the fretting movement is measured in the x-direction.
The fretting movement (sine, triangle or square wave) is generated by a piezo
actuator for frequencies between 0 and 300Hz and amplitudes up to 100m.
This lateral movement is transduced to the pin via a CuBe plate and controlled
at the contact by a triangulation sensor.
This facility has allowed for the first time the simulation of high-frequency
vibrations resulting from bearings, for example, combined with measurements
of the adhesion force.
ESA STM-279
Fig. A.2. Fretting facility: device (top left); inside view (top right); functional
sketch (bottom).
33
34
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
B.1 Scope
This specification describes a test to determine the cold welding tendencies
of materials and/or coatings intended for use in all types of contacts that are
cyclically closed and opened. Simulations of such contacts include static or
impact loading as well as subjecting the contact to fretting, i.e. micro-vibrations
in the direction of the contact plane. Cold welding is assessed by measuring the
separation force in the vertical direction, referred to as the adhesion force. This
includes deployment or end-stop mechanisms. This test is able to demonstrate
the reliability of an opening device in accordance with the section on cold
welding in the Space Mechanisms Standard Requirements Specification.
This specification has been used to set up a database on cold welding for
common material and coating pairings.
B.2 General
B.2.1 Introduction
Repeated loading and unloading of contacts results in the destruction of oxide
layers on the surface, which leads to increasing adhesion between the two
surfaces, especially metals. Adhesion forces were found to increase in the
order static contact, impact contact and fretting during static contact [B1].
Under fretting conditions at low loads, the adhesion can even exceed the load
force.
Due the fact that the opening is done by some kind of spring with limited
tension, the mechanism fails if the adhesion force exceeds the tension. This
may be much less than the adhesion force, which is commonly related to cold
welding in the sense of a real weld.
With this test method it is possible to assess the cold-welding tendency of a
combination of two materials with or without coatings. To avoid alignment
35
36
ESA STM-279
influences, the contact is made between a pin with a spherical tip and a (flat) disc.
The contact is closed and opened several times, referred to as cycles. During
each unloading, the force necessary to separate them in the vertical direction,
i.e. the adhesion force,1 is measured. Thereby, the maximum adhesion force
is evaluated for a definite contact condition. The effect of surface cleanliness
on the adhesion force may be simulated by applying a glow discharge (GD)
cleaning process in situ directly before closing the contact.
The test parameters have been used to set up a database that will provide
designers of space mechanisms with data on adhesion/cold welding.
At present, it is not the aim to investigate the static friction force, i.e. the force
needed to start sliding.
ESA STM-279
If GD is applied, instead of a disc, a second pin with flat surface is needed (see
section B.7.5 for illustrations):
B.3.2.1.3 Finish
The standard finish shall consist of grinding with paper to surface roughnesses of:
Disc: Ra 0.1 0.02 m
Pin: Ra < 0.1m (curvature)
However, this is common practice in tribology, since the contact refers to a similar
stress situation.
3
37
38
ESA STM-279
It is good practice even before cleaning to check the surface finish for scratches
or adhering debris by visual inspection (using an optical microscope). The
surface roughness must also be recorded. In the case of soft materials, and if
no in situ glow discharge is applied, this may be done after the test, in order to
prevent scratches resulting from the diamond stylus of the profilometer.
If not otherwise specified, the final grinding shall be done directly before the
test, i.e. evacuation shall be started 30 minutes after completing the finish.
In addition, other finishes or coatings may be chosen in order to comply with
definite applications. If the finish is not applied in-house, the samples must be
sealed in suitable bags. The unsealing of protection bags, and the removal of
samples, shall be done less than 30 minutes before commencement of the test.
B.3.2.2 Cleaning/handling
The cleaning procedure shall be similar to that applied during construction of
the mechanism. If not otherwise specified, the following standard procedure
will be followed after machining and directly before the test:
ESA STM-279
which fretting may be applied but shall be stopped before unloading. At each
separation the vertical force necessary to separate the pin and the disc, i.e. the
adhesion force, shall be measured. This sequence (or cycle) shall be repeated
several thousand times fully automated.
During adhesion tests the vacuum system shall be pumped by an ion getter
pump to ensure vibration-free measurements and to avoid oil contamination
(e.g. in the case of a diffusion pump). In addition, the chamber shall be fixed
on a heavy ground plate to provide vibration damping. For static testing an air
damping system is required.
Before the test, in situ glow discharge (GD) cleaning of the contact surfaces
should be possible. Therefore, suitable gas inlet pipes and valves, low vacuum
gauges, a high-voltage source and a voltmeter are necessary. A shutter that
can be moved between pin and disc during the GD process shall be available;
otherwise cross-contamination can occur. Both sample surfaces have to be
taken as cathodes and the vacuum chamber and the shutter act as the anode.
In addition, all parts connected to high voltage must be shielded in order to
expose only the contact surfaces to the GD.
The tribo-system shall consist of a movable pin with a spherical tip and a fixed
disc. The movement of the pin shall be smooth, in order to prevent breaking
the adhesive junctions before separation. To ensure the required sensitivity, all
forces should be measured directly in the vacuum chamber. The impact energy
may be determined outside the vacuum chamber by measuring the impact
velocity. Loading shall be possible either slowly, i.e. static, or by an impact
with a defined energy.
To enable independent selection of the impact energy and the subsequent
static load, no dead-weight-like loading system shall be used. A preferred
setup consists of a loading mechanism using an electromagnet outside the
vacuum chamber. The load is applied via a pushrod through a bellow to the
pin. The pushrod itself is suspended frictionless by springs. A piezo force
transducer may be used for the measurement of all forces under vacuum. At
each separation the force necessary to separate the pin and the disc vertically,
i.e. the adhesion force, must be measured.
To enable controlled impacts, a suitable electronic device is necessary to
provide the electromagnet with defined energy pulses. For the determination
of the impact energy, the mass of the pushrod including the force sensor the
pin is neglected and the impact velocity must be known. The latter shall
be measured by an external distance sensor and recorded using a storage
oscilloscope.
If fretting is selected, it must be applied only during closed contact and stopped
before unloading. The horizontal force needs to be controlled in order to reduce
any lateral force, which commonly exists after stopping fretting. Otherwise
junctions would be sheared off during unloading and at the separation itself no
adhesion would be measured. The fretting movement may be introduced by a
plate using a piezo transducer and verified by a displacement sensor. Here, the
lateral and vertical forces (load, adhesion) must be measured, which may be
achieved by a 3-axis force transducer (see Fig. B.1).
39
40
ESA STM-279
The control and data acquisition software must fulfil the requirements given
below. The main requirement is to measure and acquire the adhesion force at
each separation automatically.
B.3.2.4.2 Technical specifications
Requirements for equipment necessary to perform tests:
Vacuum, vibration damping
ion pumps, damping system
Vacuum (base pressure):
static
<1108 mbar
impact
<5108 mbar
fretting
<5107 mbar
Frictionless loading system e.g. electromagnet (computercontrolled), pushrod suspended
by springs
Applicable (static) loads:
static, impact
1100N
fretting
140N
Impact
Energies:
0 (static) to 0.02 J (impact)
velocities (calculated from energies) 0 to 0.25 m/s
duration of contact and opening selectable seconds (typical) to
hours
Fretting:
oscillating frequency
2200 Hz, triangle or sine wave.
sliding amplitude (max.)
1060 m
on/off control
(separation without fretting!)
control of amplitude
horizontal force has to be at zero
before separation
ESA STM-279
41
cycling
s eparation sequence (adjusting the force sensitivity to the highest possible
value)
zeroing of horizontal force after fretting and before separation (a critical
value is defined below)
load
vacuum
adhesion force (value of each cycle, time resolution 25ms)
backup of separation sequence for maximum adhesion
impact velocity
impact force
impact sequence (rebounds)
fretting frequency, amplitude
42
ESA STM-279
Using Hertzian theory and the Tresca criterion, the critical static load related
to the onset of yield, i.e. 100%EL, can be calculated (see section B.7.2):
[N]
(B1)
The critical impact energy (WY), which is related to the onset of plastic yield
at low-impact velocities, may be calculated according to the dynamic Hertzian
theory (see section B.7.2):
[N]
(B2)
Start test at the elastic limit according to Hertzian theory, i.e. 100% EL
After reaching constant adhesion level, increase to 188%EL.
To achieve the required contact pressure, the radius of curvature (R) can be
adjusted in the range from 0.5mm to approximately 30mm. This results in
static loads within the ranges 510N (100%EL) and 4050N (188%EL).
Impact adhesion test
For the contact pressure, three values shall be used:
ESA STM-279
43
40 * WY
200 or 4000 * WY
(Note: The parameters adopted are based on studies of the influence of impact
parameters on adhesion [B3]; higher impact energies do not increase adhesion
significantly.)
Fretting adhesion test
For the contact pressure, the following value shall be used:
50%EL
Static
Impact
Fretting
Static with GD
<1108 mbar
<5108 mbar
<5107 mbar
<5108 mbar
40 WY
(200, 4000 WY)
Parameter
Vacuum required
Impact energy
Fretting frequency
Fretting amplitude
Contact
(%EL)
pressure
200 Hz
50 m
100, 188*
60
100
350N
3100 N
340 N
350 N
Holding time
30 s
10 s
10 s
1. Cycle: 900 s
30 s
Resting time
5s
510 s
510 s
5s
* Theoretical calculations.
44
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
45
Machine, condition
Machine, condition
see section B.3.2.1 (Customer)
Finish
30 minutes
Measure roughness
see section B.3.2.1
Cleaning
see section B.3.2.2
optional
Glow discharge
see section B.4.3.5
Adhesion testing
see sections B.4.3.64.3.8
Required only
if GD was applied
Post-investigations: SEM/EDX
see section B.4.3.9
Roughness (post)
see section B.4.3.9
46
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
47
W = (m v 2 ) / 2
[J]
The parameters of the contact load level, duration of contact, duration of open
contact, loading/unloading speed are controlled by computer. It is good practice
to confirm the correct process control of the PC during the first 10 cycles, and to
acquire the adhesion force every few thousand cycles.
B.4.3.7 Change of parameters
For economic reasons, and if only the destruction in the most severe case is of
interest, the load, holding and resting duration, as well as the impact energy may
be varied after a steady state has been achieved by the former set of parameters.
Due to the probability of work hardening, only the load or the impact energy
values should be increased (see section 4.2 and e.g. Table 1).
B.4.3.8 End of test
In all three types of test, the cycling may be stopped when
1. the steady state of the adhesion force is determined, or
2. the standard number of cycles is achieved, or
3. the desired lifetime, i.e. number of cycles, is achieved.
B.4.3.9 Post investigations
During unloading of the samples, the presence of debris shall be noted. Especially
if GD cleaning has been applied, any changes in the surface structure and the
surface roughness must be determined by SEM and a profilometer, respectively.
At least the contact area and possible material transfer shall be detected (in the
case of static loading and rough surfaces it may be impossible to detect the contact
area, so the theoretical values may be taken).
48
ESA STM-279
Hence, if the designer of the mechanism has specified the force of the
separating actuator, the adhesion force must not exceed 30% of this force.
ESA STM-279
B.6.2 Non-conformance
Any non-conformance e.g. an interruption due to a power failure must be
documented.
B.6.3 Calibration
All measuring equipment, including the data acquisition, should be calibrated
and any suspected or actual failures documented.
B.6.4 Traceability
To ensure the traceability of all specimens, each one is accompanied by a
sample life sheet.
ultrasonic (bath)
glow discharge
high voltage
scanning electron microscope
relative humidity
mean roughness (arithmetic),
maximum peak-to-valley distance
Contact parameters:
Vickers hardness
HV
Y
yield strength
YHV yield strength calculated from the Vickers hardness
pm
mean contact pressure in the contact area
p0
maximum contact pressure
P
load (PY refers to load at the elastic limit)
R
radius of curvature (spherical to flat contact; otherwise refer to e.g.
ref. [B4])
E
Youngs modulus (of material 1: E1)
n
Poissons ratio (of material 1: n1)
E*
reduced Youngs modulus (for formulas, see section B.7.2)
W
impact energy (WY refers to the energy that first causes yield)
m
mass (here of the pushrod)
v
velocity
49
50
ESA STM-279
[Pa]1
(B3)
[m]
(B4)
[Pa]
(B5)
The elastic limit is related to the onset of yield (which occurs not at the surface
but inside the softer material). Both the Tresca and von Mises criteria yield the
same relation (see [B4], p.155):
[Pa]
(B6)
[N]
(B7)
[N]
(B8)
Using the yield criterion, Hertzian theory can also be used to calculate the
(kinetic) energy (WY) necessary to cause yielding (see [B4], p.361):
[J]
(B9)
For the definition of the impact velocity at ARCS, the mass of 0.48 kg is used:
[m/s]
(B10)
ESA STM-279
References to Annex B
[B1]
[B2] Merstallinger, A., Sales, M., Semerad, E. & Dunn, B.D. (2009).
Assessment of Cold Welding between Separable Contact Surfaces
due to Impact and Fretting under Vacuum. ESA STM-279, European
Space Agency, Nordwijk, the Netherlands.
[B3]
[B4]
51
52
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
53
54
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
55
56
ESA STM-279
ESA STM-279
57