0
Research Papers: Friction & Wear

Comparison Between Elastic Foundation and Contact Force Models in Wear Analysis of Planar Multibody System

[+] Author and Article Information
Saad Mukras

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Qassim University, Buraydah, Qassim, Saudi Arabiamukras@qec.edu.sa

Nam H. Kim1

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611nkim@ufl.edu

Nathan A. Mauntler

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611mauntler@ufl.edu

Tony Schmitz

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611tschmitz@ufl.edu

W. Gregory Sawyer

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611wgsawyer@ufl.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Tribol 132(3), 031604 (Jul 21, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001786 History: Received September 17, 2009; Revised May 05, 2010; Published July 21, 2010; Online July 21, 2010

In this paper, two procedures to analyze planar multibody systems experiencing wear at a revolute joint are compared. In both procedures, the revolute joint of interest includes a clearance whose shape and size are dictated by wear. The procedures consist of coupled iterative analyses between a dynamic system analysis with nonideal joints and a wear prediction to determine the evolution of the joint clearance. In the first procedure, joint forces and contact pressures are estimated using the elastic foundation model with hysteresis damping via the dynamic analysis. In the second procedure, a contact force model with hysteresis damping is used to estimate the joint forces. In the latter case, however, the contact pressure is estimated using a finite element method (FEM). A comparison in performance of the two models is facilitated through the use of an experimental slider-crank mechanism in which wear is permitted to occur at one of the joints. It is observed that the two procedures provide similar estimates for the dynamic response and wear volumes but substantially different predictions on the wear profiles. Additionally, experimental results show that while predictions on the wear volume from both models are reasonably accurate, the FEM-based model produced more accurate predictions on the wear profile.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

A revolute joint with clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Geometric description of a nonideal revolute joint with eccentricity vector e

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Slider-crank mechanism with joint clearance between the crank and follower

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of reaction forces between the ideal and the nonideal joints for various joint clearances for the contact force model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of reaction forces between the ideal and the nonideal joints for various joint clearances for EFM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Locus of contact point C for a complete crank cycle based on the contact force model. (a) Locus for the pin. (b) Locus for the bushing.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Locus of contact point C for a complete crank cycle based on EFM. (a) Locus for the pin. (b) Locus for the bushing.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Integration of wear analysis into system dynamics analysis based on the contact force model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Integration of wear analysis into system dynamics analysis based on the EFM method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Slider-crank mechanism used in the validation study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Bushing with debris grooves

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Finite element model for the rigid pin and flexible bushing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of the initial joint reaction forces between the two models and the experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Locus of the center of the contact region. (a) Prediction based on the elastic foundation model. (b) Prediction based on the contact force model.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of the wear prediction between the models

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of the wear profile for the models and the experiment. (a) Comparison between experiment and FEM. (b) Comparison between experiment and EFM.

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