Materials Transactions, Vol. 52, No. 2 (2011) pp. 147 to 154 #2011 The Japan Institute of Metals
Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Finite Contact Width on Fretting Fatigue Heung Soo Kim1; * , Shankar Mall2 and Anindya Ghoshal3 1
Department of Mechanical, Robotics and Energy Eng. Dongguk University-Seoul, 100-715 Korea Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433, USA 3 US Army Research Lab, APG, MD 21005, USA 2
Three-dimensional effects of finite contact width fretting fatigue were investigated using the combination of full three-dimensional finite element model and two-dimensional plane strain finite element model, named as a hybrid layer method. Free edge boundary effect in finite contact width fretting fatigue problem required full three-dimensional finite element analysis to obtain accurate stress state and relative displacement in contact zone. To save the computational cost with sufficient accuracy, traction distributions obtained from coarse threedimensional finite element analysis was applied to the two-dimensional plane strain finite element model. The key idea of this hybrid layer method was that traction distributions converged faster than the stresses. The proposed hybrid layer method predicted the free edge boundary effects of finite contact width fretting fatigue less than eight percent error bound and reduce the execution time to 5 percent of three-dimensional submodeling technique. [doi:10.2320/matertrans.M2010268] (Received August 9, 2010; Accepted November 8, 2010; Published December 22, 2010) Keywords: fretting fatigue, contact, stick-slip, finite element analysis, three-dimensional effects, traction distribution, hybrid layer method
1.
Introduction
Fretting is referred to wear and sometimes corrosion damage at or near interface of two bodies in contact subjected to oscillatory loads or vibratory excitation. In contrast to at or near surface damage associated with large scale relative motion from either rolling or sliding action, fretting damage is a product of microslip amplitude concentrated in regions near the edges of contact. As a result, cracks are initiated in the contact zone and the unexpected and/or premature failures under the fretting condition have been observed in many structural components at stress levels below the fatigue limit of materials.1–11) One of the most common examples, where the mechanical failure is caused by fretting fatigue, is the dovetail joint of the blade and disk attachments in gas turbine engines. In the last decade, a number of finite element analyses of fretting tests with various contact geometries (spherical, cylindrical and flat pad geometry) have been reported. Most of them are two-dimensional analyses based on the plane strain assumption. For example, McVeigh and Farris evaluated the influence of the bulk stress on the contact pressure for fretting fatigue contact problems.12) Namjoshi et al. used four noded quadrilateral plane strain element to estimate fretting fatigue life.13,14) Tsai and Mall incorporated elastoplastic isotropic hardening model with a von Mises yield criterion in order to obtain the evolution of stress and strain during a fretting fatigue test.15) Szolwinski and Farris suggested juxtaposing an accurate characterization of the near surface contact stress field with a multiaxial fatigue life model to predict fretting fatigue behavior.16) Cormier et al. developed aggressive submodeling techniques to predict accurate stress concentrations near the edge of contact region.17) Fadaga et al. also developed submodeling technique to analyze crack growth behavior of titanium alloy *Corresponding
author, E-mail:
[email protected]
under fretting fatigue condition.18) These analyses exploit the general assumption that for contact areas with aspect ratio much less than one, the contact can be modeled accurately as a plane strain line contact of a pad with infinite length in contact with a half or finite thickness space. For realistic finite width contact, this plane strain approach will approximate most closely the conditions at and near the mid-plane of the contact region and cannot explain the three-dimensional effects of the finite width of fretting fatigue test configuration (i.e. specimen and pad). Johnson has provided a concise summary of ‘‘roller end effects’’ that arise due to the free edge boundaries of finite width fretting fatigue tests.19) The impact of these end effects varies with the geometric details of the free edge boundaries, i.e. from an out-of-plane bulging of two coincident sharp faces generated by the Poisson’s effect to a broadening of the contact area where the free faces are not perfectly matched. Szolwinski and Farris addressed these end effects of finite width fretting fatigue tests using three-dimensional finite element model and infrared imaging system.20) Tur et al. showed the influence of finite dimensions of the specimen in contact with a spherical pad and subjected to fretting using a three-dimensional finite element model and an h-adaptive mesh refinement process.21) Kim and Mall studied threedimensional effects of finite contact width on fretting fatigue by full three-dimensional finite element model and submodeling technique.22) Three-dimensional finite element analyses provided clear roller end effects and were in good agreement with their experimental counterparts. However, the threedimensional modeling requires significant computational cost to implement the fine meshes at the edge of contact. Therefore, the need arose to develop an efficient computation method, which can reduce computational cost with sufficient solution accuracy of stress state at the edge of contact. The present study focused on the computational efficiency of three-dimensional stress analysis under finite contact width fretting fatigue condition. The specific objective of this
148
H. S. Kim, S. Mall and A. Ghoshal
P Q
y
pad
Q
Q P
x lateral spring
P
specimen
pad geometry R=50.8mm
σ axial
sub2 R=2.54mm
sub4/sub5 sub1 sub3
13.97mm
σaxial sub4/sub5
Fig. 1 Schematic of fretting fatigue test, specimen and pad.
sub4/sub5
y
paper was therefore to develop a hybrid layer method, which was a combination of coarse three-dimensional finite element analysis and fine two-dimensional plane strain analysis. The hypothesis in the present study was that the traction distributions converged faster than the stresses. The hypothesis was evaluated in the paper and the proposed hybrid layer method was used to investigate into the three-dimensional effects of finite width of the specimen subjected to fretting fatigue and in contact with pad having either cylindrical or flat with rounded edge configuration. 2.
Model Development
2.1 Three-dimensional finite element model Figure 1 shows the schematic of fretting test configuration analyzed in this study, which consists of a flat specimen and a pair of fretting pads.14) Two zones of contact were generated on a flat specimen when pressed by a constant contact load, P on the two fretting pads. A cyclic tangential load, Q and cyclic bulk stress, axial were applied during a fretting test after the application of contact load. All tests were conducted under the partial slip condition where the tangential load Q is less than P, and is friction coefficient, so both slip and stick regions were present in the contact area. Two different contact configurations, cylinder-on-flat and flat with rounded edges-on-flat were used to investigate three-dimensional effects on fretting fatigue behavior. Cylindrical pad had an end radius of 50.8 mm. A specimen thickness of 1.90 mm (along y-direction in Fig. 1) and width of 6.35 mm (along z-direction in Fig. 2) were used in the analyses, which were the actual dimensions of specimens in the experiments.14) The pad width was equal to the width of the specimen (6.35 mm). The other pad geometry had a flat center section with rounded edge. Flat pad configuration had edge radius of 2.54 mm and a flat center section of 13.97 mm. Both specimen and pad were made of titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-4V whose elastic modulus was 127 GPa and Poisson’s ratio was 0.32. The coefficient of friction was assumed as 0.8 in this analysis which varied from 0.5 to 0.8 in experiments.23) Since the contact zone is the most critical region of any fretting problem, refinement of mesh is required to obtain the
z
x Fig. 2
Details of submodels.
accurate stress state, particularly, at the edge of contact, where the fretting fatigue cracks initiated in experiments.14) Three-dimensional contact analysis requires extremely fine meshes for accuracy which requires enormous computer memory and computation time. Therefore, the submodeling technique is generally used.17) The basic concept of submodeling is to study a local portion of a model with a refined mesh based on interpolation of a solution from an initial, relatively coarse, global model. Submodeling is a useful and powerful tool when it is necessary to obtain an accurate, detailed solution in a local region and the detailed modeling of that local region has a negligible effect on the overall solution, which is the case in contact problems. A submodeling analysis consists of: running a global model analysis and saving the results in the vicinity of the submodel boundary; defining the total set of driven nodes in the submodel; defining the time variation of the driven variables in the submodel analysis by listing the actual nodes and degrees of freedom to be driven in each step; and running the submodel analysis using the ‘‘driven variables’’ to obtain the solution.24) There are two symmetry planes in the fretting fatigue configuration shown in Fig. 1, i.e. along the axial and transverse direction of specimen. Therefore, one quarter of actual specimen and one of the pads were modeled as shown in Fig. 2. The details of various submodeling geometries of the current fretting fatigue problem are also given in Fig. 2. The directions x, y, z represent the length, thickness and width directions of the specimen. A commercially available finite element code ABAQUS was used in the study.24) Eightnode, linear brick element with reduced integration (C3D8R) was used with the master-slave contact algorithm on the contact surface between the fretting pad and specimen. A small sliding contact condition was used between the contact pair to transfer loads between the two bodies. For this, the surface of the pad was defined as a master contact surface and the surface of the specimen was defined as a slave contact surface. Both surfaces were defined as a contact pair that
Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Finite Contact Width on Fretting Fatigue Table 1
Mesh details
Finite element mesh and stress convergence for cylindrical pad. Element size (mm)
Peak stresses at the
Peak stresses at the edge
center of specimen (MPa)
of specimen (MPa)
xx
yy
xy
xx
yy
xy
3D global
119
167
287
144
182
247
149
sub1
59.5
198
304
161
220
245
169
sub2
29.8
284
337
185
287
246
173
sub3
14.5
324
342
193
312
232
170
sub4
9.93
355
358
198
318
232
166
sub5
7.45
370
361
200
326
231
167
enabled ABAQUS to determine if the contact pair was touching or separated. The surface in contact was defined as a contact region. The contact region consisted of stick and slip regions. The stick region did not have a relative movement between the top and bottom of contact surface (i.e. pad and specimen). The slip region showed a small relative movement between the top and bottom contact surface (i.e. pad and specimen) which is commonly observed in a fretting fatigue test. The FEA model had three bodies, fretting specimen, fretting pad and lateral spring as shown in Fig. 2. The lateral spring with elastic modulus of 34 KPa was attached to the left side of the pad to prevent rigid body translation of pad. The submodeling with mesh refinement was continued until an appropriate convergence of the stress state was achieved, i.e. when the maximum stress between subsequent mesh refinements was less than a specific amount. For this study, a difference of 5 percent between the two consecutive steps was used as the convergence criterion.22) Table 1 shows finite element mesh size and peak stresses of each three-dimensional FEA model for cylindrical pad. The convergence rates at the center of specimen of submodel 5 were 4.18, 0.82 and 1.12 percents for xx , yy , and xy , respectively. Those at the edge of specimen were 2.42, 0.88 and 0.37 percents for xx , yy , and xy , respectively. The peak stresses converged with five steps of submodeling. The original and final mesh sizes of cylindrical pad were 119 mm and 7.45 mm, respectively. 2.2 Hybrid layer method Submodeling convergence process took 31 CPU hours of computation and additional post processing of each successive model was required. Therefore, the computational cost of full three-dimensional submodeling convergence process is quite expensive. In order to reduce the required run time of the contact problem and maintain the accuracy of 3D edge of contact problem, a hybrid method of a global 3D FEA solution and 2D plane strain FEA was developed. In our group, 2D plane strain finite element model was developed to investigate fretting fatigue behavior.15) This model is based on four node, plane strain quadrilateral element (CPE4) in ABAQUS. The convergence study of this plane strain model was performed by comparing the finite element results with the analytical solution by Nowell and Hill.25) The final mesh size of the 2D plane strain model in cylindrical pad configuration was 6:2 6:2 mm, which is similar to 3D FEA model. Figure 3 shows 2D plane strain finite element mesh configuration.
Lateral spring
P
149
Pad
Specimen
Q
σaxial
Fig. 3 2D plane strain finite element mesh configuration.
P
traction distribution Q
z
x
contact surface
Fig. 4
Schematic of traction distributions at the contact surface.
The 3D FEA model allows for the stress analysis of boundary effects where 2D FEA model fails. The proposed hybrid layer method is developed to save the efforts of computational time and post process keeping with 3D boundary effect. The proposed method involves obtaining traction distributions from a relatively coarse 3D FEA model to use as an input loading in 2D plane strain FEA model. The schematic of contact traction distribution along the axial line at the contact surface is shown in Fig. 4. The hybrid layer method assumes that the forces converge much more quickly than the longitudinal normal stress peak occurring at the edge of contact. The traction distributions at the local contact zone are normal contact force and two shear forces along the specimen length and width (x and z direction in Fig. 4). In this work, tangential shear stress along the specimen width (z direction in Fig. 4) is ignored. This is because the geometry is symmetric along the width and the axial load and induced shear stress are applied to the axial direction only. The resultant normal traction and shear traction from 3D coarse mesh are obtained as follows. Z P ¼ t yy dl Z ð1Þ Q ¼ t xy dl where t is width of the specimen and l is tangential length along the contact surface. The specimen width, t, is used to get the exact dimension of traction distribution and an input force of 2D plane strain finite element model. 3.
Results and Discussion
To study three-dimensional effects of finite width of the two contact geometries (cylinder and flat), the comparison and differences of stress profiles and relative displacements
150
H. S. Kim, S. Mall and A. Ghoshal
Center of specimen Edge of contact
Edge of contact
z x
Typical micrograph of scar on fretted specimen in contact with cylindrical pad
Free edge affected region Edge of specimen
Fig. 5 Contour plot of contact pressure and typical micrograph of scar on fretted specimen.
-1.5
1 0.5 0
-1
-0.5
shear at center shear at edge RD at center RD at edge
0.8
0
0.5
1
1.5
− σ xy /p0
σxx /p0
center edge
0.01
1
0.008
0.6
0.006
0.4
0.004
0.2
0.002
-0.5
relative displacement (u/a)
1.5
-1 0
0
-1.5 x/a
-1.5
-0.5
x/a
0.5
1.5
Fig. 6 Comparison of longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) at center and edge of specimen.
Fig. 7 Comparison of shear stress (xy =p0 ) and relative displacement (RD, u=a) at center and edge of specimen.
along the contact surface at the center and edge of the specimen were investigated in the following discussion.
specimen. Stress component was normalized with the peak contact pressure, p0 , which was obtained during the first loading step, i.e. after the application of contact load only. The corresponding peak contact pressure (p0 ) was 358 MPa. Stress profile at center of the specimen is close to 2D plane strain counterpart, but the edge stress shows large deviation from the center stress. The magnitude of overall edge stress decreased due to the decrease of the contact pressure. Peak stress at the leading edge of contact reduced 18 percent compared to the counterpart of center stress. The peak of longitudinal normal stress indicates edge of contact. Therefore, the contact zone also decreased due to the free edge boundary effect. The change of contact zone is clearly observed in shear stress profile in Fig. 7. Zero shear stresses represent no contact occurred in the specimen. The overall shear stress at the edge of specimen decreased compared to the counterpart at the center. Relative displacements (RD) in contact zone are also presented in Fig. 7. Stick zone at the edge of specimen decreased 54 percent and large partial slip is observed in the figure. This partial slip can increase the fretting fatigue. From the observations, stress analysis in
3.1 Cylindrical pad geometry For the cylindrical pad configuration, the contact force and shear force of cylindrical pad are 1335 N and 554 N, respectively. The applied axial stress is 53 MPa. These loads are the representative values from fretting fatigue tests.14) Three-dimensional boundary edge effects of finite width fretting fatigue were investigated first. Figure 5 presents contact pressure on fretting surface obtained from the threedimensional FEA model and typical micrograph of scar on fretted specimen. The contact pressure dictates the size and shape of the fretting scar, which were constant over most of the specimen width except for the region near the free edge. Contact pressure decreased at the edge of contact due to free edge boundary. The computed contour of contact pressure is in good agreement with the shape of fretting scar from the experiment as shown in the figure. Figure 6 shows stress profiles of normalized longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) obtained by 3D FEA model at center and edge of the
Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Finite Contact Width on Fretting Fatigue
Mesh
Traction distribution from 3D coarse model, cylindrical pad. Center of specimen (N)
1.5
Edge of specimen (N)
details
P
Q
P
Q
3D global
1263
525
1037
561
sub1
1317
549
1061
558
3D stress at center
1
Hybrid stress at center 0.5
σxx/p0
Table 2
151
0 -1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
-0.5 -1 -1.5 x/a
(a) 0 -1.5
-1
-0.5
0 -0.2
σyy /p0
-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1
3D stress at center Hybrid stress at center
-1.2 x/a
(b) 1
0.6
0.008 0.006
0.4
0.004
0.2
0.002
0
relative displacement (u/a)
0.01 3D stress at center hybrid stress at center RD from 3D model RD from hybrid model
0.8
− σ xy /p0
finite width fretting fatigue problem must consider free edge boundary effect. 2D plane strain FEA model cannot explain this free edge boundary effect. To implement the proposed hybrid layer method, the convergences of traction distributions are investigated next. Traction distributions obtained from 3D global mesh and first submodeling at the center and edge of the specimen is presented in Table 2. The mesh sizes of 3D global model and first submodeling are 119 mm and 59.5 mm, respectively. The final mesh size of 3D model is 7.45 mm. Two steps satisfies 5 percent convergence criterion, whereas submodeling of 3D model took six steps for peak stress convergence. This proves our initial hypothesis that traction distributions converged faster than peak stresses. Contact traction at the center of specimen is converged to the original contact force. However, contact traction at the edge of specimen is converged to 80 percent of the original contact force. This is due to the free edge boundary effect, which means the lack of out of plane constraint. The differences of resulting contact pressure from original load at the center of specimen are 5.4 percent from 3D global model and 1.3 percent from first submodel. The shear force resultant at the center of specimen is converged from the lower value. The differences of shear force resultant from original load at the center of specimen are 5.2 percent from 3D global model and 0.9 percent from first submodel. Shear force resultant at the edge of specimen is converged from higher value to the original load. The differences of shear force resultant at the edge of specimen are 1.3 percent from 3D global model and 0.7 percent from first submodel. The shear force resultant at the edge is higher than its counterpart at the center. To conclude, at the edge of specimen, the contact pressure converged to 80 percent of its original load, but shear load converged to its original load. It is also concluded that the forces are converged much faster than the tensile normal stresses in 3D submodeling FEA. The resulting contact force and shear forces obtained from the 3D modeling is applied to the 2D plane strain finite element model. The corresponding longitudinal and transverse normal stresses, shear stresses, and relative displacements at the center of specimen are given in Fig. 8. Stress profiles obtained from the 3D model and hybrid layer methods are very close to each other as shown in Fig. 8(a). The difference of maximum normal stresses between 3D modeling and hybrid layer method is 3.2 percent. The edge of contact is also close to each other. The edge of contact is also close to each other. Transverse normal stress (yy ) shown in Fig. 8(b) shows almost no difference between these two models. The shear stresses (xy ) and relative displacements are also close to each other as shown in Fig. 8(c). The peak difference of shear stresses between 3D modeling and hybrid layer method is 4.3 percent and stick zone obtained from layer method is 2.9 percent smaller than that obtained from
0 -1.5
-0.5
x/a
0.5
1.5
(c) Fig. 8 Comparison of stresses between 3D model and Hybrid layer method at the center of specimen, cylindrical pad; (a) longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) along the contact surface, (b) transverse normal stress (yy =p0 ), and (c) shear stress (xy =p0 ) and relative displacement (RD), u=a.
3D modeling. One can find that 2D plane strain finite element model approximates most closely the conditions at the midplane of the contact specimen. The corresponding stresses and relative displacements at the edge of the specimen are shown in Fig. 9. The location of maximum normal stress (xx ) obtained from hybrid layer method is shifted 7.7 percent from 3D stress at the edge of specimen and the peak value is 7.6 percent smaller than its counterpart of 3D stress as shown in Fig. 9(a). Although there is a little bit large deviation in the prediction of location and magnitude of maximum peak stress at the edge of contact, transverse normal stress (yy ) obtained from the hybrid method can be approximate free edge boundary
152
H. S. Kim, S. Mall and A. Ghoshal Table 3
1.5 3D stress at edge Hybrid stress at edge
Mesh details
1
σxx/p0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Center of specimen (N)
Edge of specimen (N)
P
Q
P
Q
3D global
4090
346
3759
436
sub1
4083
357
3695
445
0 -1.5
Traction distribution from 3D coarse model, flat pad.
1.5
-0.5
displacements and edge of contact. It is observed that the hybrid layer method provides the trend of free edge boundary effect. The total execution time of the proposed hybrid method is less than 1.5 CPU hours and just 5 percent of 3D submodeling analysis.
-1 -1.5 x/a
(a) 0 -1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-0.2
σyy/p0
-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 3D stress at edge Hybrid stress at edge
-1 -1.2 x/a
(b) 1
− σ xy /p0
0.8 0.6
0.008 0.006
0.4
0.004
0.2
0.002
0
relative displacement (u/a)
0.01 3D stress at edge hybrid stress at edge RD from 3D model RD from hybrid model
0 -1.5
-1
-0.5
0 x/a
0.5
1
1.5
(c) Fig. 9 Comparison of stresses between 3D model and Hybrid layer method at the edge of specimen, cylindrical pad; (a) longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) along the contact surface, (b) transverse normal stress (yy =p0 ), and (c) shear stress (xy =p0 ) and relative displacement (RD), u=a.
effects as shown in Fig. 9(b). The peak of maximum shear stress (xy ) obtained from hybrid layer method is 8.6 percent larger than its counterpart of 3D stress at the edge and the size of stick zone obtained from layer method is 2.8 percent larger than that obtained from 3D FEA solution as shown in Fig. 9(c). The edge of contact obtained from layer method is 1.7 percent smaller than that obtained from 3D solution. It is observed that the proposed hybrid layer method can predict accurate stress profiles and relative displacements at the center of the fretting model. However, there are around 8 percent differences in the prediction of stresses at the edge boundary, but small differences in the prediction of relative
3.2 Flat pad geometry For the flat pad configuration, the original contact pressure and shear stress of flat pad are 4003 N and 440 N, respectively. The applied axial stress is 423 MPa. These loads are also the representative values of the previous fretting fatigue tests.14) The force resultants obtained from 3D global mesh and first submodeling at the center and edge of the specimen are presented in Table 3. Contact traction at the center of specimen is also converged quickly to the original contact force. However, contact traction of edgeline is converged to 77 percent of the original contact force due to the free edge boundary effect. The differences of resulting contact pressure from original load at the center of specimen are 2.2 percent from 3D global model and 2.0 percent from first submodel. Both of shear force resultants at the center and edge of the specimen are converged from the lower value. The corresponding normal and shear stresses at the center of specimen are given in Fig. 10. The stresses at the center of specimen show small shift in the contact zone. However, the difference of maximum normal stresses between 3D modeling and hybrid layer method is 0.02 percent. Stress profiles at the middle of contact zone shows small deviation. The edge of contact is exactly same in this case. The tangential shear stresses are shifted inside contact zone, but it can precisely predict edge of contact. This is because the contact zone of flat pad configuration is larger than that of cylindrical pad configuration. The corresponding stresses at the edge of the specimen are shown in Fig. 11. The differences of maximum normal stresses are 1 percent. Stress profiles of both normal and shear stresses are very close to each other. The total execution time of the proposed hybrid method is also less than 1.5 CPU hours and just 5 percent of 3D submodeling analysis. In both cylindrical and flat pad geometries, 2D plane strain hybrid layer method can provide accurate prediction of free edge boundary effect using the force resultants from the 3D coarse analysis with computational efficiency. 4.
Conclusions
The combination of three-dimensional FEA model and two-dimensional plane strain FEA model were developed to investigate the effects of finite width on the contact characteristics and fretting fatigue behavior. Small sliding condition at the contact interface and master-slave contact algorithm in ABAQUS were used to model fretting fatigue configuration. Submodeling technique was adopted to obtain
8
8
6
6
σxx/pave
σxx /pave
Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Finite Contact Width on Fretting Fatigue
4
2
4
2
3D stress at center Hybrid stress at center
0 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 x/a
3D stress at edge Hybrid stress at edge
0 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 x/a
(a)
(a)
1.5
1.5
3D stress at center Hybrid stress at center
1
3D stress at edge
1
Hybrid stress at edge
0.5
0.5 0 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 -0.5
σxy /pave
σxy /pave
153
0 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 -0.5
-1
-1 -1.5
x/a
-1.5
(b) Fig. 10 Comparison of stresses between 3D model and Hybrid layer method at the center of specimen, flat pad; (a) longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) along the contact surface, and (b) shear stress (xy =p0 ) along the contact surface.
an accurate stress and displacement states in the contact region. Two quite different pad geometries were investigated; cylinder and flat with rounded edge. Traction distributions obtained from the coarse three-dimensional meshes were used as input loadings for the two-dimensional fine mesh finite element model to increase computational efficiency and named as a hybrid layer method. Followings are important observations made from the present investigation. (1) Free edge boundary effect in finite width fretting fatigue problem was clearly observed, which resulted that contact pressure and overall stress distributions decreased near the free edge boundary due to the lack of constraints. Full three-dimensional finite element analysis is required to obtain accurate stress profiles and relative displacement. (2) The convergences of traction distributions were much faster than the convergences of peak stresses, which resulted that the hybrid layer method was possible. The converged traction distributions at the center of specimen were almost same as the original external loads, whereas those at the edge of specimen were around 80 percent of the original external loads due to the free edge effect.
x/a
(b) Fig. 11 Comparison of stresses between 3D model and Hybrid layer method at the edge of specimen, flat pad; (a) longitudinal normal stress (xx =p0 ) along the contact surface, and (b) shear stress (xy =p0 ) along the contact surface.
(3) Two-dimensional plane strain finite element analysis provides the most of contact characteristics and fretting fatigue behavior as obtained from the three-dimensional finite element analysis at the center of the specimen for both fretting configurations. Based on this two-dimensional plane strain finite element model, hybrid layer method can predict the free edge boundary effects of finite width fretting fatigue less than eight percent error bound and reduce the execution time to 5 percent of three-dimensional submodeling technique. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Dongguk University Research Fund of 2010. REFERENCES 1) R. B. Waterhouse ed.: Standardization of Fretting Fatigue Test Methods and Equipment, ASTM STP 1159, (West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1992). 2) D. W. Hoeppner, V. Chandrasekaran and C. B. Elliot ed.: Fretting
154
3)
4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)
H. S. Kim, S. Mall and A. Ghoshal Fatigue: Current Technology and Practices, ASTM STP 1367, (West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000). Y. Mutoh, S. E. Kinyon and D. W. Hoeppner ed.: Fretting Fatigue: Advances in Basic Understanding and Applications, ASTM STP 1425, (West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2003). T. C. Lindley: Int. J. Fatigue 19 (1997) 39–49. B. U. Wittkowsky, P. R. Birch, J. Dominguez and S. Suresh: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 22 (1999) 307–320. O. Jin and S. Mall: Int. J. Fatigue 24 (2002) 1243–1253. P. A. McVeigh, G. Harish, T. N. Farris and M. P. Szolwinski: Int. J. Fatigue 21 (1999) S157–S165. R. S. Magazinera, V. K. Jaina and S. Mall: Wear 264 (2008) 1002– 1014. R. S. Magazinera, V. K. Jaina and S. Mall: Wear 267 (2009) 368–373. H. Lee and S. Mall: Tribol. Lett. 38 (2010) 125–133. G. N. Frantziskonis and T. E. Matikas: Mater. Trans. 50 (2009) 1758– 1767. P. A. McVeigh and T. N. Farris: J. Tribol. Trans. ASME 119 (1997) 797–801. S. A. Namjoshi, V. K. Jain and S. Mall: J. Eng. Mater. Technol. Trans. ASME 124 (2002) 222–228.
14) S. A. Namjoshi, S. Mall, V. K. Jain and O. Jin: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 25 (2002) 955–964. 15) C. T. Tsai and S. Mall: Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 36 (2000) 171–187. 16) M. P. Szolwinski and T. N. Farris: Wear 198 (1996) 93–107. 17) N. G. Cormier, B. S. Smallwood, G. B. Sinclair and G. Meda: Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 46 (1999) 889–909. 18) H. A. Fadaga, S. Mall and V. K. Jain: Eng. Fract. Mech. 75 (2008) 1384–1399. 19) K. L. Johnson: Contact Mechanics, (Cambridge University Press; 1985). 20) M. P. Szolwinski, C. Tieche, G. Harish, T. N. Farris, T. Sakagami and M. Heinstein: Proc. SEM Conf. on Theoretical, Experimental and Computational Mechanics, (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1999). 21) M. Tur, J. Fuenmayor, J. J. Rodenas and E. Giner: Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 39 (2003) 933–949. 22) H. S. Kim and S. Mall: Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 41 (2005) 1140–1159. 23) S. A. Namjoshi, S. Mall, V. K. Jain and O. Jin: J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 37 (2002) 535–547. 24) ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Vol. 2–3, (Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc; 2002). 25) D. Nowell and D. A. Hill: Int. J. Mech. Sci. 29 (1987) 355–365.
