0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

The Use of Ultrasound in the Investigation of Rough Surface Interfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
R. S. Dwyer-Joyce

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD England

B. W. Drinkwater, A. M. Quinn

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Queens Building, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR England

J. Tribol 123(1), 8-16 (Sep 21, 2000) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1330740 History: Received March 14, 2000; Revised September 21, 2000
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tattersall,  H. G., 1973, “The Ultrasonic Pulse-Echo Technique as Applied to Adhesion Testing,” J. Appl. Phys., J. Phys. D, D6, pp. 819–832.
Kendall,  K., and Tabor,  D., 1971, “An Ultrasonic Study of the Area of Contact Between Stationary and Sliding Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 323, pp. 321–340.
Krolikowski,  J., Szczepek,  J., and Witczak,  Z., 1989, “Ultrasonic Investigation of Contact Between Solids Under High Hydrostatic Pressure,” Ultrasonics, 27, pp. 45–49.
Krolikowski,  J., and Szczepek,  J., 1991, “Prediction of Contact Parameters Using Ultrasonic Method,” Wear, 148, pp. 181–195.
Baik,  J.-M., and Thompson,  R. B., 1984, “Ultrasonic Scattering from Imperfect Interfaces: A Quasi-Static Model,” J. Nondestruct. Eval., 4, No. 3/4, pp. 177–196.
Haines, N. F., 1980, “The Theory of Sound Transmission and Reflection at Contacting Surfaces,” Report Number, RD/B/N4744, Central Electricity Generating Board, Research Division, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Berkeley, CA.
Pialucha, T. P., 1992, “The Reflection Coefficient from Interface Layers in the NDT of Adhesive Joints,” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University of London.
Drinkwater,  B. W., Dwyer-Joyce,  R. S., and Cawley,  P., 1996, “A Study of the Interaction between Ultrasound and a Partially Contacting Solid-Solid Interface,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 452, pp. 2613–2628.
Thomas, T. R., and Sayles, R. S., 1977, “Stiffness of Machine Tool Joints: a Random-Process Approach,” ASME Paper 76-WA/Prod-23.
Yoshioka,  N., and Scholz,  C. H., 1989, “Elastic Properties of Contacting Surfaces Under Normal and Shear Loads 2. Comparison of Theory with Experiment,” J. Geophys. Res., 94, pp. 17691–17700.
Greenwood,  J. A., and Williamson,  J. B. P., 1966, “Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 295, pp. 300–319.
Webster,  M. N., and Sayles,  R. S., 1986, “A Numerical Model for the Elastic Frictionless Contact of Real Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 108, No. 3, pp. 314–320.
Clark,  A. V., and Chaskelis,  H. H., 1981, “Measurement of Ultrasound Reflected from Ultra-Thin Defects,” Ultrasonics, 19, pp. 201–207.
Angel,  Y. C., and Achenbach,  J. D., 1985, “Reflection and Transmission of Elastic Waves by a Periodic Array of Cracks,” J. Appl. Mech., 52, pp. 33–40.
Tada, H., Paris, P., and Irwin, G., 1973, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Del Research Co., St. Louis.
Drinkwater,  B. W., Dwyer-Joyce,  R. S., and Cawley,  P., 1997, “A Study of the Transmission of Ultrasound Across Solid-Rubber Interfaces,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 101, pp. 970–981.
Zeller, B. D., Kinloch, A. J., and Cawley, P., 1998, “Characterization of Epoxy-Coated Oxide Films Using Acoustic Microscopy,” Review of Progress in QNDE, D. O. Thompson, and D. E. Chimenti, eds., Plenum Press, New York.
Bowden, F. P., and Tabor, D., 1950, “The Friction and Lubrication of Solids, Part I,” The International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Bowden, F. P., and Tabor, D., 1964, “The Friction and Lubrication of Solids, Part II,” The International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press.
Tabor, D., 1975, “Interaction Between Surfaces: Adhesion and Friction,” Surface Physics of Materials, II , chap. 10, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Johnson, K. L., 1976, “Adhesion at the Contact of Solids,” Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Proc. 4th IUTAM Congress, Amsterdam, p. 133.
Woo,  K. L., and Thomas,  T. R., 1980, “Contact of Rough Surfaces: A Review of Experimental Work,” Wear, 58, No. 2, pp. 331–340.
Whitehouse,  D. J., and Archard,  J. F., 1970, “The Properties of Random Surfaces of Significance in their Contact,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 316, pp. 97–121.
Pullen,  J., and Williamson,  J. B. P., 1972, “On the Plastic Contact of Rough Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 327, pp. 159–173.
Nayak,  P. R., 1973, “Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces in Plastic Contact,” Wear, 26, pp. 305–333.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic diagram of ultrasound reflection measuring apparatus
Grahic Jump Location
Measured variation of the aluminum-steel reflection coefficient with frequency for a range of nominal contact pressures
Grahic Jump Location
The stiffness of an interface, as measured by ultrasonic reflection, is shown to be frequency independent
Grahic Jump Location
Schematic diagram of the modeling of a contacting interface as an array of penny shaped cracks
Grahic Jump Location
Reflection coefficient variation with percentage contact for different interfacial gap sizes as predicted using the crack model shown schematically in Fig. 4. Note that w is the width of the gaps and s is their spacing.
Grahic Jump Location
Interface stiffness determined during three cycles of loading on an aluminum-steel interface. The first loading is plastic: subsequent loading and unloadings are largely elastic but also exhibit some hysteresis.
Grahic Jump Location
Sketches representing the interface stiffness/pressure relationships for a series of idealized cases (a) no further plasticity after first loading, (b) successive plasticity on reloading, i.e., ratchetting, (c) no further plasticity but some other contact irreversibility, and (d) successive plasticity and contact irreversibility.
Grahic Jump Location
Interface stiffness measured during a single loading cycle on specimen pairs of three different roughness. Each specimen pair was loaded to the same end nominal contact pressure.
Grahic Jump Location
Series of loading and unloading cycles for three pairs of specimens. Each specimen pair was loaded to the same end reflection coefficient (and hence interface stiffness).
Grahic Jump Location
Series of loading and unloading cycles for a single specimen pair. Each successive cycle has been carried to a greater final load.
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted contact parameters calculated from the experimental data shown in Fig. 9: (a) average size of contact, and (b) number of contacts per unit area.
Grahic Jump Location
Relationship between interface stiffness and nominal pressure for elastic contact. The Greenwood and Williamson (chain dash line), is compared to experimental unloading (solid lines) using the same dimensionless axes.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison between experiment (solid lines) and the interface stiffness predicted by the elastic numerical contact model of Webster and Sayles (dashed lines)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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