Research Papers

Surface Roughness Effects on Energy Dissipation in Fretting Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Eriten

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

A. A. Polycarpou1

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801polycarp@illinois.edu

L. A. Bergman

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801


Corresponding author.

J. Appl. Mech 78(2), 021011 (Nov 09, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002433 History: Received January 19, 2010; Revised August 13, 2010; Posted August 24, 2010; Published November 09, 2010; Online November 09, 2010

The effect of roughness on the frictional energy dissipation in fretting contact of nominally flat rough surfaces is studied. The contact is modeled as the statistical sum of asperity tip junctions. A mathematical analysis with a probability distribution of asperity heights in the form of a delta sequence is conducted to analytically show that a rougher surface dissipates more energy than a smoother surface. Numerical simulations with three typical measured surface roughness profiles are presented, validating the analytical finding that rougher surfaces dissipate more energy than smoother surfaces in fretting contact. The proposed statistical approach is compared with so called “direct” calculation methods, which analytically model discrete asperity contacts, and the differences regarding the energy dissipation in fretting are discussed.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Fretting contact of nominally flat rough surfaces: (a) nominally flat surface with combined roughness in contact with a rigid flat and (b) typical normal and tangential loading history in fretting contact

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Asperity height distribution and three asperity-behavior regions under unloading condition

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Normal probability density functions (PDF) of asperity heights of three typical surfaces with different rms roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Contact parameters in normal loading: (a) normalized contact force, (b) real area of contact versus separation between surfaces, and (c) real area of contact versus normal contact force in loglog-scale

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Tangential force under tangential loading: (a) for the nominally flat rough surface and (b) for three asperities with heights z=0.5σ,1.5σ,3σ(smoothest case σ=25.3 nm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Energy dissipation versus normalized maximum tangential force: (a) full range until gross sliding occurs and (b) zoom-in of the plot in Fig. 6




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