0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Numerical Study of the Contact Mechanics and Sub-Surface Stress Effects Experienced Over a Range of Machined Surface Coatings in Rough Surface Contacts

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Kadiric, R. S. Sayles

Tribology Section, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College, London, SW7 2BX, UK

Xiao Bo Zhou, E. Ioannides

SKF Engineering and Research Centre BV, 3430 DT Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

J. Tribol 125(4), 720-730 (Sep 25, 2003) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1574520 History: Received July 31, 2001; Revised December 18, 2002; Online September 25, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Cole,  S. J., and Sayles,  R. S., 1991, “A Numerical Model for the Contact of Layered Elastic Bodies With Real Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 114, pp. 334–340.
Cole, S. J., and Sayles, R. S., 1992, “Stresses in and Beneath a Surface Coating Due to a Rough Surface Contact,” “Property Relationships and Correlations with the Environmental Degradation of Engineering Materials,” D. A. Wheeler, G. W. E. Johnson, D. V. Wiley, and M. B. Lonthom, eds., ASM international, OH. Microstructural Science, 19 , ISBN: 0-87170-463-3.
Gupta,  P. K., and Walowit,  J. A., April 1974, “Contact Stresses between an Elastic Cylinder and a Layered Elastic Solid,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 96, pp. 250–257.
Sainsot, P., 1989, “Effect of Surface Coatings in a Rough Normally Loaded Contact,” Mechanics of Coatings, Proc. 16th Leeds-Lyon Symp. on Tribology, Lyon, France.
Kannel, J. W., and Dow, T. A., 1985, “Evaluation of contact Stresses Between Rough-Elastic and Layered Cylinders,” Mechanisms+Distress−Global Studies of Mechanisms and Local Analyses of Surface Distress Phenomena, Proc. 12th Leeds-Lyon Symp. on Tribology, Lyon, France.
Olver, A. V., Cole, S. J., and Sayles R. S., 1993, “Contact Stresses in Nitrided Steels,” Proc. 19th Leeds-Lyon Symp. on Tribology, Thin Films in Tribology Dowson et al., eds., Elsevier.
Holmberg,  K., and Mathews,  A., 1994, “Coatings Tribology: a Concept, Critical Aspects and Future Directions,” Thin Solid Films, 253, pp. 173–178.
Erdemir,  A., and Hochman,  R. F., 1998, “Surface Metallurgical and Tribological Characteristics of TiN-coated Bearing Steels,” Surf. Coat. Technol., 36, pp. 755–763.
Polonsky,  I. A., and Keer,  L. M., 1999, “A Fast and Accurate Method for Numerical Analysis of Elastic Layered Contacts,” ASME J. Tribol., 122, pp. 30–35.
Peng,  W., and Bhushan,  B., 2000, “A Numerical Three-Dimensional Model for the Contact of Layered Elastic/Plastic Solids with Rough Surfaces by a Variational Principle,” ASME J. Tribol., 123, pp. 330–342.
Oliveira,  S. A. G., and Bower,  A. F., 1996, “An Analysis of Fracture and Delamination in Thin Coatings Subjected to Contact Loading,” Wear, 198, pp. 15–32.
Webster,  M. N., and Sayles,  R. S., 1986, “A Numerical Model for the Elastic Frictionless Contact of Real Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 108(3), pp. 314–320.
Whitehouse,  D. J., and Archard,  J. F., 1970, “The Properties of Random Surfaces of Significance in Their Contact,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, A316, pp. 97–121.
Hirst,  W., and Hollander,  A. E., 1974, “Surface Finish and Damage in Sliding,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, A337, pp. 379–394.
Poon,  C. Y., and Sayles,  R. S., 1992, “The Classification of Rough Surface Contacts in Relation to Tribology,” J. Phys. D, 25, pp. A249–A256.
Greenwood,  J. A., and Williamson,  J. B. P., 1966, “Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, A295, pp. 300–319.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Sayles,  R. S., 1996, “Basic principles of rough surface contact analysis using numerical methods,” Tribol. Int., 29(8), pp. 639–650.
Bhushan,  B., 1998, “Contact mechanics of rough surfaces in tribology: Multiple asperity contact,” Tribol. Lett., 4, pp. 1–35.
Dundurs,  J., 1969, discussion in ASME J. Appl. Mech., 36, pp. 650–652.
Olver,  A. V., 1979, “Correlation factors for the 2D coated Hertzian contact problem,” Wear, 212, pp. 265–267.
Oliveira,  S. A. G., and Bower,  A. F., 1996, “An analysis of fracture and delamination in thin coatings subjected to contact loading,” Wear, 198, pp. 15–32.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Predicted surface pressure distribution and deformations for a ground surface (σ=0.4226 μm*=12.63 μm) with a 5 micron thick coating, (a) hard coating (E=640 GPa) and (b) soft coating (E=36 GPa). As with all the figures, the loading employed is equivalent to a maximum smooth surface Hertz stress (Pos) of 1 GPa for a steel-on-steel contact, which produces a Hertz semi-width of 180 μm.
Grahic Jump Location
Contour plot of maximum subsurface shear stress at the loading conditions defined in the caption to Fig. 1 in (a) a smooth homogeneous steel body, and (b) a smooth steel body coated with a 25 μm hard coating (E=640 GPa,υ=0.25), (all stresses in GPa)
Grahic Jump Location
(a) The subsurface maximum shear stress contours of a steel substrate coated with the hard coating and subjected to a rough surface contact (σ=0.4226 μm, β*=12.63 μm), (b) is a close up view of (a) around the interface region in the central part of the contact. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the ratio of rms roughness/correlation length (σ/β*) for the 5 μm hard and soft coatings. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the ratio of rms roughness/correlation length (σ/β*) for the 5 and 25 μm hard coatings. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the rms roughness σ for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the correlation length β *  for a 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the average of the 10 biggest micro-contact widths at the contact interface, normalized by the smooth surface semi-width a. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the correlation length β*, normalized by the Hertz semi-width a, for the 5 μm hard and soft coatings. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the correlation length β*, normalized by the Hertz semi-width a, for the 5 and 25 μm hard coatings. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the rms roughness σ, also normalized by the layer thickness h, for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the ratio of rms roughness/correlation length (σ/β*), for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average depth of the 10 biggest maximum shear-stress regions found in the layer, normalized by the layer thickness h, and plotted against the density of profile peaks (per mm) for the 5 μm soft and hard coatings. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average tensile stress acting at the coating-substrate interface, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the rms roughness σ normalized by the layer thickness h, for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average tensile stress acting at the coating-substrate interface, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the correlation length β* normalized by the Hertz semi-width a, for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.
Grahic Jump Location
The average tensile stress acting at the coating-substrate interface, normalized by Pos, and plotted against the ratio of rms roughness/correlation length (σ/β*), for the 5 μm hard coating. Loading conditions are defined in the caption to Fig. 1.

Tables

Errata

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