Rough Contacts Between Actual Engineering Surfaces- Part II: Contact Mechanics
Rough Contacts Between Actual Engineering Surfaces- Part II: Contact Mechanics
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.wear.2007.08.027
复制
发表时间：
2008-05
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
G. Pugliese;S. Tavares;E. Ciulli;L. Ferreira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Pugliese;S. Tavares;E. Ciulli;L. Ferreira
本文用不同的接触力学模型对第一部分中描述的用简单抛物线函数描述粗糙度的模型进行了检验。抛物线近似允许计算每个粗糙度曲率半径，这是接触力学研究的一个基本量。在回顾了主要的接触力学模型后，选择了其中的一些模型：两种不同的弹性模型和两种弹塑性模型，一种在弹性和塑性区域的边界上有不连续性，另一种在弹塑性过渡区有附加的弹塑性过渡区。对于单个抛物面粗糙面和从五个不同粗糙度条件下提取的整个轮廓面，计算了接触区和载荷的幅值，作为每个轮廓面与刚性光滑平坦表面干涉的函数。采用不同的粗糙度描述方法和接触力学模型时，变形区的大小和单抛物线支承的载荷存在较大差异。然而，当考虑到整个配置文件时，这些差异就会减轻。不出所料，当研究具有一定塑性的型材时，弹性模型往往会高估荷载。基于测量轮廓和抛物线近似之间的最小二乘误差的粗糙度描述方法(LMSc1c2)给出了对轮廓的最佳模拟，并且从接触力学或数值观点来看没有任何缺陷。将该方法与赵、Maietta和Chang(ZMC)提出的包括弹塑性转变在内的接触力学模型相结合，似乎保证了最好的结果。
The models of roughness description by using simple parabolic functions described in Part I are here tested with different contact mechanics models. The approximation with parabolas allows the calculation of each asperity curvature radius, a fundamental quantity for contact mechanics studies. After a review of the main contact mechanics models, some of them has been selected: two different elastic models and two elastic–plastic ones, one with a discontinuity at the boundary between the elastic and the plastic region, and one with an additional elastoplastic transition region. The amplitudes of the contact zone and the load are calculated as a function of the interference of each profile with a rigid smooth flat surface for single parabolic asperities and for whole profiles extracted from five engineering surfaces with different roughness conditions. Big differences in the size of the deformed zone and in the load supported by single parabolas using the different roughness description approaches and contact mechanics models were found. However, these differences are mitigated when the whole profiles are considered. As expected, the elastic models tend to overestimate the load when profiles with a certain degree of plasticity are under investigation. The roughness description approach based on the minimization of the least square error between the measured profile and the parabolic approximation (LMSc1c2) gives the best simulation of the profile and does not show any drawback from a contact mechanics or numerical point of view. The combination of this approach with the contact mechanics model including the elastoplastic transition developed by Zhao, Maietta and Chang (ZMC) seems to guarantee the best results.