. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 29.

Published in final edited form as: Wear. 2011 Jul 29;271(9-10):1210–1219. doi: 10.1016/j.wear.2011.01.086

Table 4.

Test conditions and a comparison between systems A and B.

Similarities		Differences
Similarities		System A	System B
Applied potential	-0.345V	Pin-on-plate	Ball-on-flat
Sliding time	1800 sec	Reciprocating motion	Oscillatory/rotary motion
No. of cycles	1800	Reciprocating motion	Oscillatory/rotary motion
Frequency	1Hz	Area exposed to electrolyte (2.28 cm²)	Area exposed to electrolyte (1.13 cm²)
Protocol	Three phases	Low loads (0.05N, 0.5N, 1N)	High loads (16N, 32N, 64N)
Material (sample)	Low carbon-CoCrMo	PBS solution (30mL)	BCS solution (150mL)
Counterbody	Ceramic ball	Total distance (18m)	Total distance (26.4 m)
Average velocity		Sliding distance (10 mm/s)	Sliding distance (14.7 mm/s)
Velocity profile	Sinusoidal	Horizontal position of the plate causes the wear debris to spread in the vicinity of the contact zone	Vertical position of the pin causes the release of the wear debris to the solution (under gravity force)