0
Research Papers: Applications

First-Body Versus Third-Body: Dialogue Between an Experiment and a Combined Discrete and Finite Element Approach

[+] Author and Article Information
Mathieu Renouf

Associate Researcher
LMGC,
University of Montpellier 2,
CNRS,
Montpellier F-34096, France
e-mail: Mathieu.Renouf@univ-mont2.fr

Viet-Hung Nhu

LaMCoS,
University of Lyon,
CNRS,
INSA Lyon,
Villeurbanne F-69621, France
e-mail: Viet-Hung.Nhu@insa-lyon.fr

Aurélien Saulot

Associate Professor
LaMCoS,
University of Lyon,
CNRS,
INSA Lyon,
Villeurbanne F-69621, France
e-mail: Aurelien.Saulot@insa-lyon.fr

Francesco Massi

Associate Professor
DIMA,
University of Rome “La Sapienza,”
Rome 00184, Italia
e-mail: Francesco.Massi@uniroma1.it

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received June 25, 2013; final manuscript received November 14, 2013; published online February 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Prof. C. Fred Higgs III.

J. Tribol 136(2), 021104 (Feb 19, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: TRIB-13-1129; doi: 10.1115/1.4026062 History: Received June 25, 2013; Revised November 14, 2013

The present paper proposes to analyze relations between the behavior of two bodies in contact (local stress and vibration modes) and the rheology of third-body particles. Experiments are performed on a system composed of a polycarbonate disk in contact with a steel cylinder, where birefringent property of polycarbonate allows us to observe shear-stress isovalues. Multiscale numerical simulations involve the coupling between finite elements and discrete elements to model simultaneously nonhomogeneous third-body flows within a confined contact and dynamical behavior of the bodies in contact. Comparisons between experiments and simulations are performed on the dynamic response of the system, the stress distribution, as well as the evolution of third-body particles within the contact. Such comparisons exhibit not only qualitative results but also quantitative ones and suggest a new approach to study in deeper third-body rheology.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Berthier, Y., 1990, “Experimental Evidence for Friction and Wear Modelling,” Wear, 139, pp. 77–92. [CrossRef]
Saulot, A., Descartes, S., Desmyter, D., Levy, D., and Berthier, Y., 2006, “A Tribological Characterization of the Damage Mechanism of Low Rail Corrugation on Sharp Curved Track,” Wear, 260(9–10), pp. 984–995. [CrossRef]
Richard, D., Iordanoff, I., Renouf, M., and Berthier, Y., 2008, “Thermal Study of the Dry Sliding Contact With Third Body Presence,” ASME J. Tribol., 130(3), p. 031404. [CrossRef]
Raje, N., Sadeghi, F., Rateick, R. G., and Hoeprich, M. R., 2007, “Evaluation of Stresses Around Inclusions in Hertzian Contacts Using the Discrete Element Method,” ASME J. Tribol., 129(2), pp. 283–291. [CrossRef]
Godet, M., 1990, “Third-Bodies in Tribology,” Wear, 136(1), pp. 29–54. [CrossRef]
Adams, G. G., 1995, “Self-Excited Oscillations of Two Elastic Half-Spaces Sliding With a Constant Coefficient of Friction,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 62(4), pp. 867–872. [CrossRef]
Ranjith, K., and Rice, J. R., 2001, “Slip Dynamics at an Interface Between Dissimilar Materials,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 49, pp. 341–361. [CrossRef]
Di Bartolomeo, M., Massi, F., Baillet, L., Culla, A., Fregolent, A., and Berthier, Y., 2012, “Wave and Rupture Propagation at Frictional Bimaterial Sliding Interfaces: From Local to Global Dynamics, From Stick-Slip to Continuous Sliding,” Tribol. Int., 52, pp. 117–131. [CrossRef]
Peillex, G., Baillet, L., and Berthier, Y., 2008, “Homogenization in Non-linear Dynamics Due to Frictional Contact,” Int. J. Solid Struct., 45(9), pp. 2451–2469. [CrossRef]
Elrod, H., and Brewe, D., 1991, “Numerical Experiments With Flows of Elongated Granules,” Tribol. Ser., 21, pp. 219–226. [CrossRef]
Iordanoff, I., Seve, B., and Berthier, Y., 2002, “Solid Third Body Analysis Using a Discrete Approach: Influence of Adhesion and Particle Size on Macroscopic Properties,” ASME J. Tribol., 124(3), pp. 530–538. [CrossRef]
Temizer, I., and Wriggers, P., 2008, “A Multiscale Contact Homogenization Technique for the Modeling of Third Bodies in the Contact Interface,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 198(3–4), pp. 377–396. [CrossRef]
Cao, H.-P., Renouf, M., Dubois, F., and Berthier, Y., 2011, “Coupling Continuous and Discontinuous Descriptions to Model First Body Deformation in Third Body Flows,” ASME J. Tribol., 133(4), p. 041601. [CrossRef]
Leonard, B. D., Patil, P., Slack, T. S., Sadeghi, F., Shinde, S., and Mittelbach, M., 2011, “Fretting Wear Modeling of Coated and Uncoated Surfaces Using the Combined Finite-Discrete Element Method,” ASME J. Tribol., 133(2), p. 021601. [CrossRef]
Tonazzi, D., Massi, F., Culla, A., Baillet, L., Fregolent, A., and Berthier, Y., “Instability Scenarios Between Elastic Media Under Frictional Contact,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. (in press).
Renouf, M., Massi, F., Fillot, N., and Saulot, A., 2011, “Numerical Tribology of a Dry Contact,” Tribol. Int., 44(7–8), pp. 834–844. [CrossRef]
Renouf, M., Massi, F., Saulot, A., and Fillot, N., 2012, “Dialogue Numérique Entre Echelles Tribologiques,” ANR JC Tech. Rep.
Moreau, J. J., 1994, “Some Numerical Methods in Multibody Dynamics: Application to Granular Materials,” Eur. J. Mech. A Solids, 13(4-suppl.), pp. 93–114.
Jean, M., 1999, “The Non-smooth Contact Dynamics Method,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 177(3–4), pp. 235–257. [CrossRef]
Renouf, M., Dubois, F., and Alart, P., 2004, “A Parallel Version of the Non Smooth Contact Dynamics Algorithm Applied to the Simulation of Granular Media,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., 168(1–2), pp. 375–382. [CrossRef]
Mohammad, D., and Khan, N., 1995, “On the Role of Rayleigh Damping,” J. Sound Vib., 185(2), pp. 207–218. [CrossRef]
Lee, J., Xu, G., and Liang, H., 2001, “Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Friction and Wear Behavior of Polycarbonate,” Wear, 251(1–12), pp. 1541–1556. [CrossRef]
Mergler, Y., Kampen, R. V., Nauta, W., Schaake, R., Raas, B., Griensven, J. V., and Meesters, C., 2005, “Influence of Yield Strength and Toughness on Friction and Wear of Polycarbonate,” Wear, 258(5–6), pp. 915–923. [CrossRef]
Linck, V., Baillet, L., and Berthier, Y., 2003, “Modeling the Consequences of Local Kinematics of the First Body on Friction and on Third Body Sources in Wear,” Wear, 255(1–6), pp. 299–308. [CrossRef]
Bagi, K., 1996, “Stress and Strain in Granular Assemblies,” Mech. Mater., 22(3), pp. 165–177. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of the (a) face and (b) lateral views of the experimental setup and (c) photograph of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Spectrogram of instability states (a) during the increase of third-body flow and (b) with a stable third-body flow for a radial expansion of 20 μm and a rotation speed ω = 0.2 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Evolution of isochromatics during the creation of third-body particles for a radial expansion of 20 μm and a rotation speed ω = 0.2 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Zoom on third-body particles on the inner diameter disk with a binocular microscope

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Definition of the list of first neighbors of particle i (dashed particles) (a) and of the local frame (tα,nα) for a contact between two particles (b) and between one particle and a deformable structure (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Numerical model used for standalone FEM and the combined FEM-DEM simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Frequency calculated on the standalone FEM model and the combined FEM-DEM model during the frictional process compared to the experimental result

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the deviatoric stress values between the FEM-DEM model and experimental results without third-body (cf. Fig. 3(a)).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of the deviatoric stress field between the FEM-DEM model and experimental results with third-body. The numbers from 1 to 10 correspond to the number of fringes identified in the experiment.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Visualization of the equivalent velocity field within a macroparticle during the process for different cohesion values: (a) 0, (b) 0.1, (c) 0.2, and (d) 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Visualization of the equivalent deviatoric stress within a macroparticle during the process for different cohesion values: (a) 0, (b) 0.1, (c) 0.2, and (d) 1.0

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