0
Research Papers: Friction and Wear

Modeling Wear of Multimaterial Composite Surfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
Mark A. Sidebottom

Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Mechanics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015

Florian Feppon

Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Mechanics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015;
Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées,
École polytechnique,
91128 Palaiseau, France

Natasha Vermaak

Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Mechanics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015

Brandon A. Krick

Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Mechanics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015
e-mail: bakrick@lehigh.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received July 5, 2015; final manuscript received September 22, 2015; published online July 26, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Robert L. Jackson.

J. Tribol 138(4), 041605 (Jul 26, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: TRIB-15-1242; doi: 10.1115/1.4032823 History: Received July 05, 2015; Revised September 22, 2015

Iterative numerical wear models provide valuable insight into evolving material surfaces under abrasive wear. In this paper, a holistic numerical scheme for predicting the wear of rubbing elements in tribological systems is presented. In order to capture the wear behavior of a multimaterial surface, a finite difference model is developed. The model determines pressure and height loss along a composite surface as it slides against an abrasive compliant countersurface. Using Archard's wear law, the corresponding nodal height loss is found using the appropriate material wear rate, applied pressure, and the incremental sliding distance. This process is iterated until the surface profile reaches a steady-state profile. The steady-state is characterized by the incremental height loss at each node being nearly equivalent to the previous loss in height. Several composite topologies are investigated in order to identify key trends in geometry and material properties on wear performance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of wear model that couples the evolution of contact pressure and the surface topography. (a) Nonuniform wear in multimaterial surfaces. The wear rate of material B, Kb, is less than that of material A. (b) Schematic of pressure and topography model. (c) Example evolution of contact pressure and surface topography for a bimaterial surface after 0, 25, and 250 sliding cycles.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Physical description of the numerical wear model. The Pasternak elastic foundation model is composed of spring elements that are coupled with a bending beam element; the corresponding parameters are ks and kg, respectively. The pressure applied at each node is a function of the deflection of the spring element (δ) and the local curvature (∇2z).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) and (b) Simplified diagram showing the discretization of a composite surface. There are two materials (A, B) with the wear rates Ka > Kb for this example. (c) Schematic worn profile.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Model iterations revealing evolution of topography and compressive contact pressure for small-inclusion and large-inclusion configurations with the same area fraction. Ka = 0.25 mm3/Nm, Kb = 0.025 mm3/Nm, ks = 0.28 N/mm3, kg = 2.8 N/mm, P = 0.083 (MPa), Δs = 0.002, Aa = 0.441 m. Note: Topography has fixed z-axis (not to 1:1 scale), but a changing color scale is used for ease of visualization. Pressure has a fixed axis and colorscale.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Model iterations and convergence for several material topologies. (a) A comparison of two 16 × 16 mm material distributions with the same area fraction (Aa = 0.441). The more finely distributed material converges to a steady-state wear rate with less sliding distance than the single inclusion domain. (b) Current wear rate for each iteration bothconfigurations; example values of convergence criterion (ϵ) highlighted with star data points. (c) Rescaled worn volumeversus sliding distance to emphasize the difference inrun-in wear volume. Note: Ka = 0.25 mm3/Nm, Kb = 0.025 mm3/Nm, ks = 0.28 N/mm3, kg = 2.8 N/mm, P = 0.083 MPa, and Δs = 0.002 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Model results for various area fractions of material A (ranging from 0.01 to 0.99). A 16 × 16 mm domain (160 × 160 nodes) was modeled with the following parameters: Ka = 0.25 mm3/Nm, Kb = 0.025 mm3/Nm, ks = 0.28 N/mm3, kg = 2.8 N/mm, P = 0.083 MPa, and Δs = 0.0002 m. Total wear rate (a), steady-state wear rate (b), and run-in volume (c) are shown for various material configurations (d).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of kg/ks and Ka/Kb ratios on run-in wear volume. Run-in wear volume at convergence (ϵconverge = 10−6) plottedfor various kg/ks ratios (ranging from 0.1 to 10, with ks = 0.28 N/mm3 fixed) and Ka/Kb ratios (ranging from 1.5 to 100;selected to have a constant steady-state wear rate of Kss = 4.14 × 10−2 mm3/Nm for Aa = 0.441). A 16 × 16 mm domain (160 × 160 nodes) was modeled with the P = 0.083 MPa. Inset in bottom left corner shows the material distribution used for all simulations.

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