Two-body and three-body abrasion: A critical discussion

Abstract

It is argued that the common classification of abrasive wear into ‘two-body abrasion’ and ‘three-body abrasion’ is seriously flawed. No definitions have been agreed upon for these terms, and indeed there are two quite different interpretations, the implications of which are mutually inconsistent. In the dominant interpretation, the primary thrust of the two-body/three-body concept is to describe whether the abrasive particles are constrained (two-body) or free to roll (three-body). In this view, two-body abrasion is generally much more severe than three-body. The alternative interpretation emphasises the presence (three-body) or absence (two-body) of a rigid counterface backing the abrasive. In this view, three-body abrasion is equated to high-stress (or grinding) abrasion and is generally more severe than two-body (low-stress) abrasion. This paper recommends that the ‘two-body/three-body’ terminology be abandoned, to be replaced by an alternative classification scheme based directly upon the manifest severity of wear.