DataVXCellulose Chemistry and TechnologyPaper
journal article·2022-05-05Open access

"SLIDING FRICTION BETWEEN AMORPHOUS COTTON FIBER AND CHROMIUM SURFACES: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS STUDY "

", ZHE YAN, School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", KAIXIANG JIANG, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", PENGWEI FAN, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", WENJUAN FANG, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", CUNZHOU ZHU, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", PENG PAN, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China", HUI CAO, State Key Laboratory of Tribology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China, YOUQIANG ZHANG, "School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China"

Cellulose Chemistry and Technology· Volume 56· Issue 3-4
Publisher pageOpen full text
Source abstract

Abstract

"It is challenging to experimentally determine the micro-friction mechanism of cotton fiber and metal in the sliding process. The influence of load and temperature on the interface behavior during dry friction between amorphous cotton fiber and chromium, the contact interface evolution and friction coefficient are studied using reactive molecular dynamics. The simulation results show that chromium–oxygen bonds are formed on the contact interface of the friction system during the sliding process. Furthermore, the relationship between friction coefficient, temperature, and load varies with the mechanical state of cotton cellulose. The relationship is positive when the cotton cellulose is in the glassy state. However, when cotton cellulose is in a highly elastic state, its friction coefficient is negatively related to the load. This study systematically evaluated the effects of temperature and load on the slip process from the atomic scale, provided a reason for the wear of the hard materials of the friction pair, and provided theoretical support for the study of this type of friction mechanism."
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Adhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions · Diamond and Carbon-based Materials Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. "1 M. Zhang, Y. Tan and S. Liu, J. Textile Sci. Eng., 38, 68 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2096-5184.2021.03.013
2. 2 Y. Su and M. Ge, J. Clothing Res., 3, 9 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7147.2018.01.002
3. 3 W. Yu, "Textile Materials", Beijing, China, Textile and Apparel Press, 2006
4. 4 E. S. Ankuda, V. V. Kalmykov, M. V. Musokhranov and I. D. Sokolova, in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC, October 2021, vol. 2410, No. 1, p. 020005, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.006874510.1063/5.0068745 ↗
5. 5 A. Hussain and M. Abbas, J. Modern Nanotechnol., 1, (2021), https://doi.org/10.53964/jmn.202100410.53964/jmn.2021004 ↗
6. 6 K. Eshkobilov, S. Negmatov, S. Abed and G. Gulyamov, in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2021, vol. 1030, ID 01217210.1088/1757-899X/1030/1/012172 ↗
7. 7 F. Hosseinali and J. A. Thomasson, Tribol. Int., 127, 433 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2018.06.02910.1016/j.triboint.2018.06.029 ↗
8. 8 Y. Zhang, Y. Tian and Y. Meng, Sci. Rep., 6, 25403 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/srep2540310.1038/srep25403 ↗
9. 9 R. Chen, J. Ye and W. Zhang, Friction, 9, 1050 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-020-0398-810.1007/s40544-020-0398-8 ↗
10. 10 C. Zhang, K. D. Sinan and C. Dominique, Carbohyd. Polym., 258, 117682 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11768210.1016/j.carbpol.2021.117682 ↗
11. 11 S. A. Bochkareva, S. V. Panin, B. A. Lyukshin, P. A. Lyukshin and V. O. Aleksenko, Phys. Mesomech., 23, 147 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1134/S102995992002006X10.1134/S102995992002006X ↗
12. 12 R. M. Muthoka, H. C. Kim, J. W. Kim, L. Zhai, P. S. Panicker et al., Materials, 13, 710 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030710.10.3390/ma13030710 ↗
13. 13 J. A. Sánchez-Badillo, M. Gallo, J. G. Rutiaga-Quiñones and P. López-Albarrán, Cellulose, 28, 6767 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03992-710.1007/s10570-021-03992-7 ↗
14. 14 S. Huang, X. Wu and P. Li, Fibres Text. East. Eur., 29, 32 (2021), https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.271910.5604/01.3001.0015.2719 ↗
15. 15 S. Tsuneyuki, Acta Cryst. A, Found. Adv., A49 Supplement, C5 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1107/S010876737809984510.1107/S0108767378099845 ↗
16. 16 I. Leven, H. Hao, S. Tan, X. Guan, K. A. Penrod et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput., 17, 3237 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.JCTC.1C0011810.1021/acs.jctc.1c00118 ↗
17. 17 H. H. Seung, H. Liu and A. V. Duin, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 103, 3060 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.1700810.1111/jace.17008 ↗
18. 18 M. Wang, F. L. Duan and X. Mu, Langmuir, 35, 5463 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b0429110.1021/acs.langmuir.8b04291 ↗
19. 19 Y. Dong, Q. Li, J. Wu and A. Martini, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 19, 065003 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1088/0965-0393/19/6/06500310.1088/0965-0393/19/6/065003 ↗
20. 20 Y. Dong, Tribol. Lett., 44, 367 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11249-011-9850-210.1007/s11249-011-9850-2 ↗
21. 21 A. C. T. van Duin, S. Dasgupta, F. Lorant and W. A. Goddard, J. Phys. Chem. A, 105, 9396 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1021/jp004368u10.1021/jp004368u ↗
22. 22 K. S. Yun, H. Kwak, A. V. Vasenkov, D. Sengupta and A. V. Duin, ACS Catal., 5, 7226 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.5b0176610.1021/acscatal.5b01766 ↗
23. 23 A. V. Duin, A. Alejandro, S. Shannon, Q. Zhang, X. Xu et al., ACS Catal., 107, 3803 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1021/jp027630310.1021/jp0276303 ↗
24. 24 X. Zhang, PhD Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, (2013), https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CDFD1214&filename=1013359151.nh
25. 25 P. J. Flory, Phys. Today, 23, 5, 71 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00008a01310.1021/ma00008a013 ↗
26. 26 K. Mazeau and L. Heux, J. Phys. Chem. B, 107, 2394 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1021/jp021939510.1021/jp0219395 ↗
27. 27 W. Chen, G. C. Lickfield and C. Yang, Polymer, 45, 7357 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2004.08.02310.1016/j.polymer.2004.08.023 ↗
28. 28 H. E. Swanson, R. K. Fuyat and G. M. Ugrinic, Phys. Today, 7, 22 (1954), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.306172910.1063/1.3061729 ↗
29. 29 M. P. Florian, ChemPhysChem, 3, 754 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1002/1439-7641(20020916)3:93.0.CO;2-U10.1002/1439-7641(20020916)3:9<754::AID-CPHC754>3.0.CO;2-U ↗
30. 30 Y. Zhang, W. Wang and J. Liao, Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 33, 45 (2017), https://doi.org/10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.18.006
31. 31 T. Schneider and E. Stoll, Phys. Rev., 17, 1302 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.17.130210.1103/PhysRevB.17.1302 ↗
32. 32 Y. Zhang, S. Luo and H. Zhang, Noise Vibr. Control, 37, 41 (2017), https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-1355.2017.06.008
33. 33 S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys., 117, 1 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.103910.1006/jcph.1995.1039 ↗
34. 34 A. Stukowski, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 18, 2154 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/01501210.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 ↗
35. "