Friction and wear behavior of ceramic, (Used for Head of Total Hip Replacement)

(1)

3^ème Conférence Internationale sur

le Soudage, le CND et l’Industrie des Matériaux et Alliages (IC-WNDT-MI’12) Oran du 26 au 28 Novembre 2012,

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 179

Friction and wear behavior of ceramic, (Used for Head of Total Hip Replacement)

FELLAHM¹,LABAÏZM¹,

1Departement of Metallurgy and Materials science, Annaba University P.O Box 12 Annaba 23000

E-Mail [email protected] E-Mail [email protected] Abstract

The problems of friction and wear in the prosthesis for substitution of hip joints and knees have been addressed by many authors [1–6] due to its crucial importance in the performance of these devices .The choice of the materials for the head and the cup takes into consideration not only properties such as mechanical resistance, friction and wear, but also biocompatibility and corrosion resistance. The consideration of pro’s and contra’s led to the conclusion that among the best combinations are ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) for the cup and alumina, stainless steel or CoCrMo alloy for the head [1,2].

Keywords: Ceramic, Biomechanics, Friction; Wear, Tribology; Biomaterials, Head

1. Introduction

Ceramic components have been used for total hip arthroplasty in Europe since the early 1970s, with good results [7,8,9]. Such components afford a number of theoretical advantages compared with metal alloys.

They have been shown to have excellent biocompatibility both in animal studies and clinical investigations in Europe [10]. ceramic can begiven avery high, scratch-resistant polish.

This feature, combined with wetability and corrosion resistance of the material, allows for low friction artic ulations with excellent wear characteristics [11]. A number of studies have demonstrated that wear rates for ceramic on ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene are two to twenty times lower than metal alloy on ultrahigh

2. Materials and Methods

a.

Surface and Micro structural analysis

The sample was polished with SiC paper and then 1 μm diamond paste, . The microstructure was studied using optical microscopy (OM, LEIKA DMLM ). The phases present were identified by X-ray diffractometry (XRD, INTEL CPS 120/Brucker AXS) using Cu Kα generated at 40 kV and 35mA. Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive Xray analysis (EDX) were used to study the chemical composition of Ceramic Roughness Analysis of the ceramic on 3 D was studied using (Surface Data Veeco:

Mag 5.0X, Mode VSI) b.

XRD Analisis

The X- ray diffraction was relase at SAPC-UTC ( technology universuty of Compiègne) in france

The phases present were identified by X-ray diffractometry (XRD, INTEL CPS 120/Brucker AXS) using Cu Kα generated at 40 kV and 35mA

c.

Roughness Analysis

The surface roughness before and after wear tests (Ra and R max) of the sample were measured using AFM Nan scope 3100 in the contact mode, type Thermo Microscopes (now Veeco) Auto probe M5 with large area scanning head (100µm×µ100m).

(2)

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 180 Ra is typical parameter for measuring the average roughness of a surface but, although it is in extensive use, it can be deceptive. Two surfaces with the same Ra value may have totally different surface topographies. R max represents the largest peak-to-valley height in any of the five sampling lengths. The data acquisition software was ProScan1.51 b with Image Processing Software IP2.0.

2. Tribological study

Figure 1. Condition and tests wear.

Condition : F=3.5N ; ω=50 rpm Couple : Ceramic- number 320 abrasive paper Siliding distance : 1400m

Spisi m

Condition :

ω=1020 rpm ;F_N=19.34, 28 ; 43.95N

ω=600 rpm ;F_N= (19.34, 28 ; 43 .95N

Couple : Ceramic – Disc on 100 C6 steel

linear contact Plan Contact

Wear tests

Spise men

(3)

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 181 Figure 2. Scheme of the contact geometry; a) plan contact; b) linear contact

3. Resultats and discussions a) Chimical Analysis

2

4 5 6 3 1

L₂ L

1

1 F

9 P

R

R₁ F_T’

2

8 111

y ’y

(4)

Figure 3. Micrographie of Ceramic .

Figure 4. X-ray diffraction specrum of the electrode Ceramic taken with a (XRD, INTEL CPS 120/Brucker

AXS).

b) b. Roughness Analysis

3

5

6

FT’

(5)

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 183 Figure 5. a) Macro structural of Ceramic before Roughness study; b) 3D AFM image of Ceramic before the

wear test.

Figure 6. 2D Roughness profile of Ceramic a) before wear test, b) after wears test using

Parameters Before After

Ra (µm 0.95 0.52

Ry (µm) 7.00 4.35

Rz (µm) 5.22 3.18

Rq (µm) 1.22 0.73

Table 1. The Surface Statistics Ceramic before and after the wear test.

2. Tribological study a. plan contact

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

Perte de masse (g/cm2)

Distance parcourue (m)

Céramique

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

Perte de masse (g/cm2)

Distance parcourue (m)

AISI 316L Céramique

Figure 7. Wear diagrams of Ceramic and SS AISI 316l sliding against (number 320 paper abrasive)

(6)

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 184 Figure 8. Morphology of Ceramic surfaces tested against AIS 316L Stainless steel after defferente

times a) 9min ; b) 18min ; c) 27min ; d) 36min ; b. linear contact

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25

Coefficient de frottement

Temps (min)

19.43N 43.95N 28N

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34

Temps (min)

19.43N 43.95N 28N

Figure 9. Variation of friction coefficient vs times with different slidings speed 1020 tr/min and b) de 600tr/min.

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Temps (min)

1020tr/min 600tr/min

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34

temps (min)

(7)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30

Temps (min)

Figure 10 .Variation of coefficient of friction vs times under different loads a) FN=19.43N,b) FN=43.95N, c) FN=28N

Table 2. Mean coefficient of friction vs times with loads a) FN=19.43N,b) FN=43.95N, c) FN=28N under tow sliding speed 600 tr/min et 1020 tr/min

c . Influence of lubricant

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21

coefficient de frottement

temps (min)

non lubrifié lubrifié

Figure 11.Mean of coefficient of friction vs times under slidings speed 1020 tr/min and load’s o f FN 19.43N.

4. Conclusion

The aim of this research is to study the wear and friction behavior of friction couple Metal/Ceramic, the ceramic used as a cup THR. The tribological behavior is evaluated by a wear test using (pin-on-disc

speed 1020 tr/min 600 tr/min

P (N) 19.43 28 43.95 19.43 28 43.95 Cf 0.18 0.17 0.24 0.22 0.28 0.33

(8)

http://www.csc.dz/ic-wndt-mi12/index.php 186 and sphere-on-plane) equipment with and without (Ringer’s and 9 g.L-1 NaCl) solution as lubricant. This tests consisted of measuring the weight loss, and the friction coefficient of Ceramic under the different conditions of charge (19.43, 28 et 44N) and sliding speed (600tr/min et 1020 tr/min) , The tribological results obtained in this work shows that the Ceramic is a good choice to use as a material combination in artificial joints

5. References

[1] R. M .Hall, A. Unsworth, Friction in hip prosthesis, Biomaterials 18 (1997) 1017–1026.

[2] T. Ahlroos, Effect of lubricant on the wear of prosthetic joint materials, PhD Thesis, Helsinki, University of Technology, Finland,2001.

[3] H. Mc Kellop, I.C. Clarke, K.L. Markolf, H.C. Amstutz, “Friction and wear properties of polymer, metal, and ceramic prosthetic joint Materials evaluated on a multichannels creening device”, J.Biomed. Mater.

Res.15 (5)(1981)619–653.

[4] H.Mc Kellop, B.Lu,P.Benya, “Friction lubrication and wear of cobalt-chromium, alumina and zirconia hip prostheses compared on a joint simulator, in: Proceedings of the ORS 38th Annual Meeting, Washington,DC,16–20 February,1992.

[5] A.Unsworth, R.M. Hall, I.C.Burgess, B.M.Wroblewski, R.M. Streicher,M. Semlitsch, “Frictional resistance of new and explanted artificial hip joints, Wear”190 (1995) 226–231.

[6] H. Oonishi, H. Igaki, Y. Takayama, “Comparisons of wear of UHMWPE sliding against metal and alumina in total hip prosthesis”, Bioceramics1 (1989)272–27

[7] Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, Torre JP, Peille CN. Mechanical properties and short-term in vivo evaluation of yttriumoxide- partically-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:45–61.

[8] Griss P, Heimke G. Five years experience with ceramic–metal composite hip endoprostheses. I. Clinical evaluation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1981;98:157–64.

[9] Shimizu K, Oka M, Kumar P, Kotoura Y, Yamamuro T, Makinouchi K, et al. Time-dependent changes in the mechanical properties of zirconia ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res 1993;27:729– 34.

[10] [37] Cales B. Zirconia as a sliding material. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;379:94–112.

[11] Matthew Slonaker , T. Goswami “Review of wear mechanisms in hip implants: Paper II – ceramics IG004712” Materials and Design 25 (2004) 395–405.