0
DISCUSSION

Discussion: “A Paradox in Sliding Contact Problems With Friction” (Adams, G. G., Barber, J. R., Ciavarella, M., and Rice, J. R., 2005, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 72, pp. 450–452) OPEN ACCESS

[+] Author and Article Information
D. A. Hills1

Department of Engineering Science,  University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UKdavid.hills@eng.ox.ac.uk

A. Sackfield, C. M. Churchman

Department of Engineering Science,  University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

1

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Appl. Mech 73(5), 884-886 (Sep 01, 2006) (3 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2201886 History:

In this interesting paper, the authors address an anomaly which arises when a rigid, square-ended block is pressed against a linear elastic half plane and slid along. The authors note that, within the framework of linear elasticity, the singularity in the contact pressure, and hence shearing traction, produces, adjacent to the edges, regimes in which the implied local relative slip direction dominates the rigid-body sliding velocity, and hence produces a violation of the Coulomb friction law. They seek to resolve the paradox by appealing to a more sophisticated strain definition. All of this is within the context of a quasistatic formulation. The authors recognize, of course, that in any real problem the paradox is unlikely to arise because of (a) the finite strength of the contact giving rise to a yield zone, and (b) the absence of an atomically sharp corner at the contact edge where there is, in all probability, a finite edge radius. Here, we wish to address these issues quantitatively, and so demonstrate that it is unlikely that the paradox described, though interesting, will have any bearing in a real contact.

The punch is moving at velocity U0 in the positive x direction, relative to the half plane (with the coordinate system (x,y) moving with it), and the surface normal displacement, v(x), and tangential displacement, u(x), are given byDisplay Formula

1Adudx=1πcontactq(ξ)dξxξβp(x)
(1)
Display Formula
1Advdx=1πcontactp(ξ)dξxξβq(x)
(2)
whereDisplay Formula
A=1νμ,β=12ν2(1ν)
(3)
ν being the Poisson’s ratio and μ the modulus of rigidity of the half plane. The slip velocity of particles on the punch surface relative to particles on the half-plane surface, U(x), is given in the original paper byDisplay Formula
Ududt=dudxdxdt=U0dudx
(4)
As the contact is sliding the tractions are related everywhere by q(x)=fp(x), where f is the coefficient of friction, so that Eq. 1 becomesDisplay Formula
dudx=fAπcontactp(ξ)dξxξAβp(x)
(5)
and from Eq. 2 we haveDisplay Formula
1πcontactp(ξ)dξxξ=1Advdx+βfp(x)
(6)
Therefore, the surface normal displacements and surface tangential displacements are given byDisplay Formula
dudx=fdvdxAβ(1+f2)p(x)
(7)
and hence the relative slip velocity isDisplay Formula
U=U0[fdvdx+Aβ(1+f2)p(x)]
(8)
The slip direction is reversed when UUo>1.

Because the region of apparent reverse slip is so small the problem can conveniently be readdressed using an asymptote which gives the problem additional simplicity and applicability. Suppose that a rigid quarter plane is pressed onto the elastic half plane and slid in the positive x direction, with friction. The local contact pressure, p(s), and shearing traction, q(s), may be written in the form (1)Display Formula

q(s)f=p(s)=KNsλ1
(9)
where KN is a generalized stress intensity factor and s is a coordinate measured from the contact edge. The exponent, λ, is given by the characteristic equationDisplay Formula
tanπλ=1fβ,0<λ<1
(10)
We now turn our attention to the finite, flat-ended rigid punch, of half-width a, to which a normal load, P, is applied, together with a force sufficient to cause sliding in the positive x direction. This develops a contact pressure, p(x), (2) given byDisplay Formula
p(x)=Paπsinπλ(1+xa)λ1(1xa)λ
(11)
such that p(x) is positive in compression. If we apply the change of coordinate sa=1+xa we getDisplay Formula
p(s)=Paπsinπλ(sa)λ1[2(sa)]λ
(12)
Display Formula
poπsinπλ(s2a)λ1[1+λ(sa)2+]
(13)
where we have introduced an average pressure po=P2a, and henceDisplay Formula
KN=(2a)1λpoπsinπλ
(14)
We now apply the relationship for the slip velocity U(x) to this solution where, of course, dvdx=0, and the region where the implied slip direction is reversed is whenDisplay Formula
Aβ(1+f2)KNsλ1>1
(15)
i.e., over a region s<e whereDisplay Formula
e=[AβKN(1+f2)]1(1λ)
(16)
Therefore, for this specific geometry, when we employ the calibration for KN, the reversal in slip direction occurs over a region s<e whereDisplay Formula
ea=2[12ν2πpoμ(1+f2)sinπλ]1(1λ)
(17)
Thus, the phenomenon presented in the original paper occurs whenever the half plane has a finite compressiblity (ν<12), even if no shearing tractions arise (f=0), but clearly the region of violation increases in size with (a) friction, (b) reduced Poisson effect, (c) dimensionless contact pressure (poμ). The most extreme values one might expect to encounter in practice might be a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, a coefficient of friction of 0.8, and a mean contact pressure of poμ=0.001, giving λ=0.41, so thatDisplay Formula
ea=7.1×107
(18)
which is itself tiny, and readily swamped by local plasticity or the effects of rounding.

We turn now to the question of envelopment of the region of reverse slip by plasticity. As the complete stress field associated with the asymptote is known, through the Muskhelishvili potential, it is straightforward to establish an estimate of the size of the edge plastic zone, simply by seeing where the yield condition is exceeded, in the spirit of the usual fracture mechanics crack-tip plasticity correction.

The Muskhelishvili potential for a rigid punch on a half plane is given byDisplay Formula

Φ(z)=(1if)2KNzλ1
(19)
where z=s+iy is a complex coordinate in the half plane (and i=1). The second invariant of the stress tensor as described by von Mises’ equivalent stress is (along the interface, y=0)Display Formula
σe=KNsλ13f2+(1ν)2
(20)
and yield is expected to occur when σe=σY=3τY. This condition is satisfied over a region s<rp, where rp isDisplay Formula
rp=(KNσY)1(1λ)[3f2+(1ν)2]12(1λ)
(21)
and again using the calibration for KN from the finite geometryDisplay Formula
rpa=2(poσYsinπλπ)1(1λ)[3f2+(1ν)2]12(1λ)
(22)
which for ν=0.2,f=0.8, and σYμ=3×103 (hence poσY=13) givesDisplay Formula
rpa=0.0934
(23)
Thus, for this contact pressure, there will be plasticity over a region roughly 105 times larger than the zone over which the paradox occurs.

To probe the effect of edge rounding we consider sliding contact between another rigid semi-infinite punch pressed onto the half plane and sliding. This time, contact is assumed to extend from d<x<, and the surface displacement gradient is defined byDisplay Formula

dvdx=1Rx,dx0
(24)
Display Formula
=0,x>0
(25)
i.e., the indenter has the form of a parabolic arc of equivalent radius R to the left of the origin, and is flat to the right of the origin. This profile is substituted into integral Eqs. 1 and 2 and solved, giving a pressure along the interface ofDisplay Formula
p(x)=dsin2λπARπ(sd)λ[11λ+1(sd)λF12(1,λ;1+λ;(sd))](sd)<1
(26)
Display Formula
=dsin2λπARπ(1λ)(2λ)(sd)λ1F12(1,1λ;3λ;1(sd))(sd)>1
(27)
where s=x+d and F12(.) is a standard hypergeometric function. We note that, when (sd)1, p(x)sλ1, so that the asymptotic form given by Eq. 27 applies, and calibration shows that the generalized stress intensity factor is given byDisplay Formula
KN=sin2λπd2λARπ(1λ)(2λ)
(28)
This scaling factor serves both to provide a connection between the applied load (KN) and the extent of contact in the radiused portion, d, and it enables us to write the contact pressure asDisplay Formula
d1λp(s)KN=(2λ)(sd)λ[1+(1λ)λ(1(sd))F12(1,λ;1+λ;(sd))](sd)<1
(29)
Display Formula
=(sd)λ1F12(1,1λ;3λ;1(sd))(sd)>1
(30)
whereas the relative slip displacement is given byDisplay Formula
UU0=dRΨ(sd,f,β)
(31)
Display Formula
Ψ(sd,f,β)=f[1(sd)]+β(1+f2)π(1+f2β2)(sd)λ[1(1λ)+1λ[1(sd)]F12(1,λ;1+λ;(sd))]
(32)
and, employing the contact law for this problem,Display Formula
d=(KNARπ(1λ)(2λ)sin2λπ)1(2λ)
(33)
givesDisplay Formula
UU0=(KNARλ1)12λ(π(1λ)(2λ)sin2λπ)1(2λ)Ψ(sd,f,β)
(34)
Display Formula
=(2aR)(1λ)(2λ)(poμ(1ν))1(2λ)((1λ)(2λ)sinλπ)1(2λ)Ψ(sd,f,β)
(35)
Therefore there is a violation in slip direction when UU0>1, i.e., whenDisplay Formula
(R2a)λ1(poμ(1ν))>(sinλπ(1λ)(2λ))[Ψ(sd,f,β)]λ2
(36)
The violation is more likely to occur for cases when R2a is very small and the load poμ is relatively high. However, unlike the perfectly sharp solution, the function Ψ(sd,f,β) does not exhibit a monotonically increasing value as s0 but shows a maximum. This cannot be found analytically, but has been found numerically for the extreme example case used earlier (f=0.8, ν=0.2) so that the maximum of Ψ(sd,f,β) occurs at sd=0.133 and is of magnitude 1.002. Therefore, using the same load as before, poμ=0.001, we find that the paradox will occur ifDisplay Formula
R2a<5.9×106
(37)
If we have a contact of total width 20mm then in order to avoid the paradox occurring we require R>120nm. This is such a tiny radius that for all contacts of practical importance the paradox will not exist.

The region of reverse slip violating the friction law has been quantified and shown to be extremely small. Physical boundaries for its envelopment by plasticity or absence through local rounding have also been explicitly found. It is very probable that plasticity will produce the greater effect.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
View article in PDF format.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In