A contact model with refined surface topography is important to the frictional wear study of rubber seal. But the traditional modeling method relies on the measurement of surface characteristics of rubber material, which increases the cost due to high-precision instruments and complex data processing. In the paper, a new modeling method on reconstructing the 3D surface topography is proposed. The coordinate cloud of the surface is generated based on the random distribution of asperity height, which is established according to the initiate parameters of the surface roughness. The metal-rubber assembly model with 3D topography of rough surfaces are built. The simulation on metal-rubber contact behavior is conducted in ANSYS. The result shows a power-exponent relation is between the real contact area and the external pressure, and three contact states of no contact, adhesion and slippage are defined to describe the dynamic distribution of real contact area. The authors proved the reliability of the topography reconstruction method by an indentation experiment on rubber material. The area ratio reflects not only the change rule of contact area under an increasing pressure, but also the difference of contact behavior of the contact pairs under different surface roughness.
DelpreteCRazavykiaA. Piston ring–liner lubrication and tribological performance evaluation: a review. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2018; 232(2): 193–209.
2.
LiuZLiangFZhaiL, et al. A comprehensive experimental study on tribological performance of piston ring–cylinder liner pair. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2022; 236(1): 184–204.
3.
HolovenkoYAntonovMKolloL, et al. Friction studies of metal surfaces with various 3D printed patterns tested in dry sliding conditions. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2018; 232(1): 43–53.
4.
FlavienFFChristophBStefanT, et al. Analysis of the sealing capability of radial shaft sealing rings using a semi-analytical contact model. Tribol Online2022; 17(2): 97–109.
5.
EmamiAKhaleghianSTaheriS. Asperity-based modification on theory of contact mechanics and rubber friction for self-affine fractal surfaces. Friction2021; 9: 1707–1725.
6.
GuCMengXWangS, et al. Study on the mutual influence of surface roughness and texture features of rough-textured surfaces on the tribological properties. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2021; 235(2): 256–273.
7.
ZhaoJShengWLiZ, et al. Modeling and analysis of sliding wear based on fractal surface reconstruction in line contact mixed lubrication. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2022; 236(12): 2507–2521.
8.
ChenZLiuYZhouP. A comparative study of fractal dimension calculation methods for rough surface profiles. Chaos Solitons Fractals2018; 112(C): 24–30.
9.
de GrootPJ. The instrument transfer function for optical measurements of surface topography. J Phys Photonics2021; 3(2): 024004.
10.
LungevicsJJansonsEBoikoI, et al. A holistic approach towards surface topography analyses for ice tribology applications. Front Mech Eng2021; 7: 691485.
11.
NieslonyPKrolczykGMZakK, et al. Comparative assessment of the mechanical and electromagnetic surfaces of explosively clad Ti–steel plates after drilling process. Precis Eng2017; 47: 104–110.
12.
KrolczykGMMarudaRWKrolczykJB, et al. Parametric and nonparametric description of the surface topography in the dry and MQCL cutting conditions. Measurement2018; 121: 225–239.
13.
KapłonekWNadolnyKKrólczykGM. The use of focus-variation microscopy for the assessment of active surfaces of a new generation of coated abrasive tools. Meas Sci Rev2016; 16(2): 42–53.
14.
ChenDWuJWangY, et al. High-speed tribology behaviors of aircraft tire tread rubber in contact with pavement. Wear2021; 486-487: 204071.
15.
MagdalenaNMonikaMJoannaK, et al. A comparative study of the surface topography in dry and wet turning using the confocal and interferometric modes. Measurement2022; 204: 112144.
16.
KrolczykGMMarudaRWNieslonyP, et al. Surface morphology analysis of duplex stainless steel (DSS) in clean production using the power spectral density. Measurement2016; 94: 464–470.
17.
SetiyanaBJamariJIsmailR, et al. A numerical investigation of the sliding contact between a rigid spherical indenter and a rubber surface: the effect of sliding depth and surface roughness. J Tribol2022; 33: 20–30.
18.
WojciechowskiSWiackiewiczMKrolczykGM. Study on metrological relations between instant tool displacements and surface roughness during precise ball end milling. Measurement2018; 129: 686–694.
19.
Pinto CarvalhoRCouto CarneiroAMAndrade PiresFM, et al. An efficient multiscale strategy to predict the evolution of the real contact area between rough surfaces. Tribol Int2022; 165: 107255.
20.
PawlusPReizerRWieczorowskiM. A review of methods of random surface topography modeling. Tribol Int2020; 152: 106530.
21.
YangPZangMZengH. DEM–FEM simulation of tire–sand interaction based on improved contact model. Comput Part Mech2020; 7: 629–643.
22.
GhaedniaHWangXSahaS, et al. A review of elastic–plastic contact mechanics. Appl Mech Rev2017; 69(6): 060804.
23.
YashimaSRomeroVWandersmanE, et al. Normal contact and friction of rubber with model randomly rough surfaces. Soft Matter2015; 11: 871–881.
24.
WeissMMajchrzyckiŁBorkowskaE, et al. Nanoscale dry friction: dependence on load and sliding velocity. Tribol Int2021; 162: 107133.
25.
ManziSJCarreraSEFurlongOJ, et al. Prandtl–Tomlinson-type models for molecular sliding friction. Tribol Lett2021; 69(4): 1–10.
26.
GreenwoodJATrippJH. The contact of two nominally flat rough surfaces. Proc IMechE, 1970; 185(1): 625–633.
27.
BanLQiCShanR, et al. An improved GW model considering the changing curvature radius of asperities. J Min Sci Technol2018; 3(5): 442–450.
28.
LyashenkoIAPohrtR. Adhesion between rigid indenter and soft rubber layer: influence of roughness. Front Mech Eng2020; 6: 49.
29.
MalekanARouhaniS. Model of contact friction based on extreme value statistics. Friction2019; 7(4): 327–339.
30.
HaoQShenYWangY, et al. A fractal model of acoustic emission signals in sliding friction. Tribol Lett2019; 67(1): 31–40.
31.
PeiLHyunSMolinariJF, et al. Finite element modeling of elasto-plastic contact between rough surfaces. J Mech Phys Solids2005; 53(11): 2385–2409.
32.
YastrebovVADurandJProudhonH, et al. Rough surface contact analysis by means of the finite element method and of a new reduced model. C R Mec2011; 339(7-8): 473–490.
33.
VanglaPLatha GaliM. Effect of particle size of sand and surface asperities of reinforcement on their interface shear behaviour. Geotextiles Geomembranes2016; 44(3): 254–268.
34.
KlitK, P, Implementation and applications of a finite-element model for the contact between rough surfaces. Wear2013; 303(1/2): 1–8.
35.
WangLLiuHZhangJ, et al. Analysis and modeling for flexible joint interfaces under micro and macro scale. Precis Eng2013; 37(4): 817–824.
36.
ZouYWZhangJHShiX. Numerical comparison and analysis of normal contact modeling between two rough surfaces. Lubr Eng2017; 42(11): 19–25.
37.
YuHFLiFZYangHB, et al. Study on nonlinear hyper-viscoelastic constitutive model for rubber composit. China Rubber Industry2017; 64(12): 719–723.
38.
LiuSCuiYFuY, et al. Modeling of lubricated translational joints in rigid-partially flexible multibody systems and its application in two-stroke marine diesel engines. Tribol Int2022; 165: 1072441.
39.
MinnertCDurstK. Nanoindentation creep testing: advantages and limitations of the constant contact pressure method. J Mater Res2022; 37: 567–579.
