Modeling of Frictional Stick-Slip of Contact Interfaces Considering Normal Fractal Contact

Abstract

In this paper, a new modeling approach is proposed to represent the tangential frictional stick-slip behaviors of contact interfaces in mechanical systems considering the surface fractal feature and normal loading conditions. Initially, surrogate asperities are defined to express the fractal feature of contact surface topography and the normal load of interface, and Jenkins elements are used to describe the tangential stick-slip motions between surrogate contact asperities. Then, a geometric series distribution principle of the normal loads at contact asperities is proposed to determine the yield forces of the Jenkins elements. The criterion for identifying the micro- and macro-slips of the contact interfaces is proposed, which are determined by the stick and slip conditions of the largest contact spot. An experimental setup for measuring the frictional stick-slip of contact interfaces is constructed, upon which tangential quasi-static experiments are conducted. Satisfactory agreements between the theoretical and experimental results indicate that the proposed modeling approach can perfectly predict the stick-slip behavior of contact interfaces. Finally, mechanical characteristics of the contact interfaces are investigated in detail by employing the validated modeling approach. Owing to the definite physical significance of the proposed modeling approach, the mechanism of the tangential stick-slip behavior of contact interfaces is partially demonstrated.

A statistics view of contact pressure distribution for normal contact of fractal surfaces

“…By comparing the arithmetical mean deviation R a of the experimentally measured value by Zong et al 44 with the numerically simulated fractal rough surface in this article, it is observed that the simulated surface for specimens 2 and 3 are in agreement with the experimentally measured results by Zong et al, 44 while R a of simulated and measured surfaces for Specimen 1 have a relative difference of 40%. Overall, the simulated surfaces are related to the surface by Zong et al 44…”

“…According to Zong et al, 44 three rough surfaces with different roughness levels were machined by the fine grinding process, and the surface topographies were measured by a 3D white light interferometric profilometer. According to the surface topography measurement results by Zong et al, 44 the surface roughness R a is directly calculated, and the fractal dimension D and fractal roughness parameter G are obtained by curve-fitting the power spectral density, as listed in Table 1.…”

“…According to Zong et al, 44 three rough surfaces with different roughness levels were machined by the fine grinding process, and the surface topographies were measured by a 3D white light interferometric profilometer. According to the surface topography measurement results by Zong et al, 44 the surface roughness R a is directly calculated, and the fractal dimension D and fractal roughness parameter G are obtained by curve-fitting the power spectral density, as listed in Table 1. By comparing the arithmetical mean deviation R a of the experimentally measured value by Zong et al 44 with the numerically simulated fractal rough surface in this article, it is observed that the simulated surface for specimens 2 and 3 are in agreement with the experimentally measured results by Zong et al, 44 while R a of simulated and measured surfaces for Specimen 1 have a relative difference of 40%.…”

“…According to the surface topography measurement results by Zong et al, 44 the surface roughness R a is directly calculated, and the fractal dimension D and fractal roughness parameter G are obtained by curve-fitting the power spectral density, as listed in Table 1. By comparing the arithmetical mean deviation R a of the experimentally measured value by Zong et al 44 with the numerically simulated fractal rough surface in this article, it is observed that the simulated surface for specimens 2 and 3 are in agreement with the experimentally measured results by Zong et al, 44 while R a of simulated and measured surfaces for Specimen 1 have a relative difference of 40%. Overall, the simulated surfaces are related to the surface by Zong et al 44…”

Influences of Structural and Friction Parameters on Transformation of Contact State in Friction-Induced Vibration

“…Friction is a ubiquitous physical phenomenon in the natural environment, mechanical operation and body movement [1][2][3][4][5]. Friction-induced vibration (FIV) is a common self-excited vibration in the presence of friction [6][7][8].…”