Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact

THREE-DIMENSIONALELASTIC BODIES IN ROLLING CONTACT
SOLID MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS

Volume 2
Series Editor:
G.M.L. GLADWELL
Solid Mechanics Division, Facu/ty of Engineering
University o!Water/oo
Water/oo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3GI
Aims and Scope of the Series
The fundamental questions arising in mechanics are: Why?, How?, and How much?
The aim of this series is to provide lucid accounts written by authoritative researchers giving vision and insight in answering these questions on the subject of
mechanics as it relates to solids.
The scope of the series covers the entire spectrum of solid mechanics. Thus it
inc1udes the foundation of mechanics; variational formulations; computational
mechanics; statics, kinematics and dynamics of rigid and elastic bodies; vibrations
of solids and structures; dynamical systems and chaos; the theories of elasticity,
plasticity and viscoelasticity; composite materials; rods, beams, shells and
membranes; structural control and stability; soHs, rocks and geomechanics;
fracture; tribology; experimental mechanics; biomechanics and machine design.
The median level of presentation is the first year graduate student. Some texts are
monographs defining the current state of the field; others are accessible to final
year undergraduates; but essentially the emphasis is on readability and c1arity.
For a list ofre/ated mechanics tit/es, seefina/ pages.
Three-Dimensional
Elastic Bodies
in Rolling Contact
by
J.J.KALKER
Department of Mathematics and Informatics.
TH Deljt. The Netherlands
Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ka 1ker. J. J.
Three-dlmenslonal elastlc bodles ln roll1ng contact I by J.J.
Kalker.
p.
cm. -- (Sol id mechanics and its appl icatlons ; v. 2)
Includes bibliographical references (p.
) and index.
1. Rolling contact.
TJ183.5.K34 1990
620. l' 05--dc20
2. Elastic solids.
I. Title.
11. Series.
90-5239
ISBN 978-90-481-4066-4
ISBN 978-94-015-7889-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-7889-9
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved
1990 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1990.

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1990
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or

utilized in any fonn or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written pennission from the copyright owner.
To my Wife
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction
Notation
CHAPTER 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1. 7
XIII
XV
XXI
THE ROLLING CONT ACT PROBLEM

Statement of the problem
Mathematical modeling of the contact formation
Mathematical modeling of the slip
Mathematical modeling of friction
The complete boundary conditions
The half -space approximation
1.6.1 Many geometries are elastically alike
1.6.2 A(x,y) may be calculated exactly
1.6.3 Quasiidentity is common in half -space problems
1.6.3.1 The Panagiotopoulos process
1.6.3.2 An Alternative to the Panagiotopoulos
process (K OMBI)
1.6.3.3 The Johnson process
1.6.3.4 Symmetry and quasiidentity
1.6.3.5 Mindlin's method
1.6.4 Exact three-dimensional solutions of contact problems
Boundary conditions for some applications
1. 7.1
The Hertz problem
1. 7.2 Frictionless or quasiidentical contact formation for
concentrated or semi-concentrated non-Hertzian contact
4
6
10
18
20
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
28
28
28
28
35
VII
1. 7.3
CHAPTER 2
2.1
2.2
VIII
F rictional boundary condi tions f or bodies of

revolution with the axes almost in one plane
1. 7.3.1 Concentrated, e.g. Hertzian, geometry
1.7.3.2 A ball rolling in a conforming groove
41
44
45
REVIEW
47
Frictionless contact
2.1.1
Element methods
2.1.1.1 Fridman and Chernina
2.1.1.2 Later authors
2.1.1.3 Influence Function Methods for the half-space:
choice of elements
2.1.1.4 The accuracy of the elements
2.1.1.5 Conclusion
Elastic rolling contact
2.2.1 Carter and Fromm
2.2.2 The no-slip theory of rolling contact
2.2.2.1 Comparison of Johnson's spin theory with the
exact values
2.2.2.2 Comparison of Vermeulen and Johnson's no-spin
theory with the exact values
2.2.2.3 Calculation of the exact values of the C .. by
separating the variables in Laplace's eq:!ation
2.2.2.4 Calculation on the basis of a generalisation of
Galin's Theorem
2.2.2.5 Strip theory /line contact theory
2.2.2.6 IF methods for the half -space
2.2.3 Nonlinear, finite friction rolling contact
2.2.3.1 Johnson and Vermeulen-Johnson
2.2.3.2 Strip theory
2.2.3.3 Simplified theory
2.2.3.4 The first exact theory
2.2.3.5 A linear programming method for the
two-dimensional case
2.2.3.6 Generalisation of the method of Sec. 2.2.3.5 to
the three-dimensional case
2.2.3.7 Duvaut-Lions based methods
48
49
50
51
52
56
59
59
59
64
66
67
68
69
71
73
74
74
78
80
82
84
94
95
CHAPTER 3
THE SIMPLIFIED THEORY OF CONTACT
Recapitulation of the linear theory of elasticity

The thin elastic layer
Validation by frictionless contact
3.3.1 Comparison with the theory of Meijers
3.3.2 Comparison with the Hertz theory
3.3.3 Conclusion
3.4 Frictional compression
3.5 The FASTSIM algorithm
3.6 The shift
3.6.1 1/J = 0, w = (L I ,o{, elliptic contact
3.6.2 1/J=L w=O
1'
3.7 Steady state rolling contact
3.7.1 The full adhesion solution
3.7.2 Finite friction coefficient
3.8 Transient rolling contact
3.9 An alternative method to find the L.
I
3.1 0 Conclusion of tangential simplified theory
3.1
3.2
3.3
CHAPTER 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
99
100
101
103
103
107
112
112
117
119
120
122
122
123
126
133
133
134
VARIATIONAL AND NUMERICAL THEORY OF CONTACT
137
The principle of virtual work and its dual for contact problems
4.1.I
Virtual work
4.1.2 Complementary virtual work
Application to elasticity
4.2.1 Minimality of the potential energy, maximality of the
complementary energy, and uniqueness of the solution
4.2.2 The case Sg 4< 0
4.2.3 Existence-uniqueness theory
4.2.4 Surface mechanical principles
4.2.5 Complementary energy or potential energy in numerical
work?
Implementation
4.3.1 The basic algorithm
4.3.2 Discretisation of the contact problem
4.3.3 The algorithm of 4.3.1 applied to half -space contact
problems
4.3.4 Steady state rolling, elastic and viscoelastic
4.3.5 Prescription of total force components
138
138
144
148
150
154
156
157
158
159
160
168
172
181
181
IX
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
4.3.9
CHAPTER 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
CHAPTER 6
Sensitivities
Calculation of the infIuence numbers in a half -space
The subsurface elastic field in a half -space
Note on the generalisation to non-concentrated contacts
182
183
184
184
RESUL TS
185
The normal contact problem

5.l.l Validation (normal contact)
5.1.2 New results achieved by RNJLK and CC
Quasiidentical frictional contact problems
5.2.1 Validation
5.2.l.l The Cattaneo shift
5.2.1.2 The Mindlin shift
5.2.1.3 The creepage and spin coefficients for steady
state rolling
5.2.1.4 The theory of Vermeulen-Johnson on steady
state rolling and i ts generalisations
5.2.1.5 The Vermeulen-Johnson theory and its
generalisations: Validation
5.2.1.6 Brickle's experiments compared with CONT ACT
and F ASTSIM
5.2.2 New results in Hertzian frictional rolling contact
5.2.2.1 The total tangential force
5.2.2.2 The areas of adhesion and slip
5.2.2.3 Surface tractions
5.2.2.4 Subsurface stresses
5.2.2.5 Transient rolling contact
5.2.2.6 Some remarks on corrugation
Non-quasiidentical frictional contact problems
5.3.1 Validation
5.3.2 New results
5.3.2.1 Unloading the Spence compression
5.3.2.2 Transition from the Spence compression to steady
state rolling
186
188
193
202
203
203
205
CONCLUSION
237
206
207
213
214
215
216
218
219
221
224
229
231
231
233
233
235
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
A
B
C
D
Appendix E
Bibliography
Index
The basic equations of the linear theory of elasticity

Some notions of mathematical programming
Numerical caiculation of the elastic field in a half -space
Three-dimensional viscoelastic bodies in steady state
frictional rolling contact with generalisation to contact
perturbations
Tables
239
245
255
265
285
295
307
XI
PREFACE
This book is intended for mechanicians, engineering mathematicians, and, generally for
theoretically inclined mechanical engineers. It has its origin in my Master's Thesis (J 957),
which I wrote under the supervision of Professor Dr. R. Timman of the Delft TH and
Dr.Ir. A.D. de Pater of Netherlands Railways. I did not think that the surface of the
problem had even been scratched, so I joined de Pater, who had by then become Professor
in the Engineering Mechanics Lab. of the Delft TH, to write my Ph.D. Thesis on it. This
thesis (1967) was weil received in railway circles, which is due more to de Pater's
untiring promotion than to its merits. Still not satisfied, I feit that I needed more mathematics, and I joined Professor Timman's group as an Associate Professor. This led to the
present work.
Many thanks are due to G.M.L. Gladwell, who thoroughly polished style and contents of
the manuscript. Thanks are also due to my wife, herself an engineering mathematician,
who read the manuscript through critically, and made many helpful comments, to G.F.M.
Braat, who also read an criticised, and, in addition, drew the figures together with
J. Schonewille, to Ms. A.V.M. de Wit, Ms. M. den Boef, and Ms. P.c. Wilting, who typed
the manuscript, and to the Publishers, who waited patiently.
J.J. Kalker
Delft-Rotterdam, 17 July 1990.
XIII
INTRODUCTION
Contact mechanics can be defined as the mechanics of the interaction of deformable

bodies that touch each other in a contact zone, which will also be named the "contact",
"contact region", "contact patch", or "contact area". In this work we will confine ourselves
to the contact of two or more solid, three-dimensional linearly elastic bodies, subject to
Coulomb friction. In the sequel we will write "elastic" when we mean "linearly elastic".
We distinguish between concentrated and non-concentrated, or diversified contacts. A
contact is called concentrated when the dimensions of the contact region are small with
respect to a typical local dimension of the contacting bodies. In concentrated contacts the
contacting bodies may be approximated by half -spaces as far as the elasticity calculations
are concerned, while the boundary conditions of contact are determined for the real
geometry and the real kinematics. A contact which is not concentrated will be called
di versified.
Examples of concentrated contacts are:
Two elastic spheres in contact;
The non-flanging contact of a railway wheel and arai!.
Examples of diversified contacts are:
A cylinder pressed on a thin, elastic layer;
A screw in a nut;
A shrink fit.
Semi-concentrated contacts are contacts with the short axis of the contact zone smalI, and
the long axis of the contact not small with respect to a typical diameter of the bodies.
Examples are:
Two cylinders with parallel axes in contact;
The contacts in many unlubricated roller bearings.
Semi-concentrated contacts can often be treated by considering the geometry as twodimensional, as in the two cylinders with parallel axes in contact. This simplification is
sometimes too crude, e.g. in the contact problems of the roller bearings.
xv
Although there is no difference in principle between concentrated and diversified

contacts, there is a difference in practice. The effect of a concentrated load on a threedimensional half-space is known analytically (Boussinesq, 1885; Cerruti, 1882). This
opens the door to three-dimensional contact calculations of concentrated contact problems,
and some diversified and semi-concentrated contact problems. For most diversified
problems the half -space approximation is neither feasible nor desired, and a finite
element method is required. Whereas such a calculation is well-established practice for
two-dimensional problems, it is still in its infancy for three-dimensional FEM analysis.
This justifies the practical distinction between concentrated and diversified contacts.
Consequently, when, in Ch. 4, we consider the general, variational theory of contact, and
the theoretical side of the algorithms, our analysis is valid for three-dimensional diversified contacts with Coulomb friction. But all our results concern half -spaces, i.e. concentrated and some semi-concentrated problems.
Much has already been written on concentrated, three-dimensional contact problems. In
frictionless contact, we have the giant figure of Hertz (1882a,b). In frictional contact we
have Cattaneo (1938), and Mindlin and his co-workers, from 1949 onward till the midfifties. Three-dimensional rolling contact problems were initiated by Johnson in 1958.
There are a few books devoted exclusively to contact mechanics:
Galin published two books (1953, 1980), on elastic and viscoelastic contact problems. The 1953 book is based mostly on Muskhelishvili's works (1946, 1949). This
theory is two-dimensional. The 1980 book contains a large chapter on threedimensional, frictionless contact problems.
Fichera (1964) and Duvaut and Lions (1972) established the variational theory of
contact, in which they concentrate on existence and uniqueness proofs of the solutions. Duvaut and Lions consider also viscoelastic and dynamic contact problems.
Gladwell (1980) published a treatise on contact mechanics. For the most part he
considers only frictionless or bonded contacts, concentrated and diversified.
In 1985 Johnson's book on contact mechanics appeared, in which a complete survey
is given of concentrated contact theory and engineering practice, and many contact
problems are treated. There is a chapter on rolling contact of elastic bodies, and one
on inelastic rolling contact.
Kikuchi and Oden (1988) wrote a book on elastic, frictionless and frictional
contact mechanics in which they concentrate on the theoretical background of finite
element methods and variational theory.
XVI
In the present work we confine our attention to three-dimensional elastic contact

problems with Coulomb friction. The main theme is rolling contact, with a spin-off to
other types of contact problems such as frictionless contact and the frictional shift. Choice
and treatment of the subject matter are such that they are complementary to the abovementioned books. Many results described have been published before as articles, but there
is also much new, as yet unpublished, material. We survey the contents of the book.
In Ch. I the problem is stated and modeled. The boundary conditions are derived. The
chapter is introducory, and required reading for the succeeding chapters which can be
read independently.
In Ch. 2 the elastic rolling contact theories that have been set up are reviewed extensively. We discuss the accuracy and the calculating speed of the finite element methods
(FEM) and the boundary element methods (BEM) and explain why the half -space
approximation, where applicable, leads to faster computer programs. The chapter is
intended for the rail vehicle dynamicist whom it will aid in choosing the roIling contact
theory appropriate to his work.
In Ch. 3 we discuss the simplified theory of contact. Simplified theory, discussed by
Johnson (1985) under the name of "mattress theory", is extremely useful in explaining a
number of complicated contact phenomena. So weIl does it explain them, notably in
rolling contact, that successful attempts have been made to convert simplified theory from
a qualitative theory to an approximate quantitative theory. This does not always work, so
validation is essential. Also, the usefulness of simplified theory resides in the speed of the
resulting computer programs. So, in Ch. 3 we consider the derivation, validation, and
numerical analysis of the simplified theory. Simplified theory is important for wheel/rail
theory, and for wheel/rail flanging phenomena. It also describes diversified layer phenomena, which may find application in biomedical mechanics, notably in the theory of
joints.
Duvaut and Lions, who founded the variational theory of frictional contact in 1972, gave
no physical explanation of the variational inequality upon which they based their
existence and uniqueness proofs. Such a basis is given in Ch. 4, which also contains a
statement and proof of the active set algorithm that numericaIly solves the contact
problem on the basis of the variational theory. This chapter is primarily intended for
contact mechanicians.
In Ch. 5 numerical results and applications are given. It contains many interesting and
chaIlenging test cases; care has been taken to specify the problems completely. This
chapter is intended for researchers who want to test their own algorithms.
XVII
Appendices A and B contain some elementary not ions on the theory of elasticity and on
mathematical programming, respectively.
In Appendix C an algorithm is given to calculate the elastic field in the interior and on
the boundary of a half -space wh ich is loaded by a uniform load on a rectangle Iying in
the bounding plane.
Appendix D contains the extension of the three-dimensional elastic half -space theory of
steady state rolling to the viscoelastic case. Further , it contains an extension of the theory
of sensitivities (described in Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3.8), to perturbations that are periodic in time,
both in the elastic and in the viscoelastic case. Finally an explanation is given for the fact
that the calculation of the sensitivities, notably the creepage and spin coefficients of
rolling contact, see Kalker (l967a), Ch. 4, are calculated so inaccurately by the program
CaNT ACT that is based on the theory of Ch. 4.
Appendix E contains tables for the Hertz theory and related problems, and for the linear
theory of rolling contact.
My own results that are described in this book were obtained with two programs, viz.
ROLLEN (Hertzian rolling contact: simplified theory) and CaNT ACT (complete elastic
half -space contact theory).
- ROLLEN implements the Hertz theory, the linear theory of Hertzian rolling
contact, and the simplified theory of Hertzian rolling contact. In addition, it
implements Hertzian deep groove rolling.
- CONTACT computes:
Contact formation;
Shift problems, such as Cattaneo's problem, both single step and transient;
Rolling contact problems, both steady state and transient;
The elastic fields inside a half -space.
All these problems can be solved for Hertzian and non-Hertzian contact, and for
equal and different materials of the contacting bodies. All calculations concern
three-dimensional, homogeneous, isotropic half -spaces in concentrated contact.
ROLLEN and CaNT ACT have a user-friendly input. Prerequisite of ROLLEN is a
thorough knowledge of Ch. I, and some knowledge of Ch. 3. Prerequisite of CaNT ACT
is a thorough knowledge of Chs. land 5, and some knowledge of Ch. 4.
XVIII
The programs are available as a FORTRAN source code on a floppy disk, ready for use
on a 640 kB pe AT. Prices are available upon request. For information contact:
Prof.Dr.lr. J.J. Kalker
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics
P.O.B.356
NL-2600 AJ Delft
The Netherlands
FAX (31)(15)787022.
XIX
NOTATION
NI.
GENERAL
A roman, non- bold faced capital letter signifies a point set or an index set.
A roman bold faced letter signifies a vector or a matrix, except B, C, D, E, K, see below
in S2.
An italic letter indicates a scalar variable.
All symbols may carry an index:
Index a: body number, I or 2.
Indices i, j, h, k run from I to 3, or over x, y, z; they indicate Cartesian components.
Indices 0:, , 1, r run from I to 2; they also indicate components.
r has the connotation: "tangential component".
Indices I, J indicate element numbers.
All these indices, except a, are subject to the summation convention of summing over the
entire range of repeated indices in a product, except where otherwise indicated.
All other indices serve to complete the identifier.
(0) =
,material derivative.
( ') may complete the identifier; in addition, it may indicate that the variable is taken at
the time t ' .
. = 8/8x.; analogously for j, h, k.
ft
,I
"sub" means "subject to the auxiliary condition(s)".
N2.
LIST OF VARIABLES
This list shows variables whose meanings extend beyond the section where they are
defined. The construction of an entry is as follows:
Symboles) Definition, comment Reference
XXI
In the reference, numbers between brackets refer to equations, and without brackets to
sections.
A
A
profile curvature difference
( 1.58)
profile curvature
( 1.54)
A (y)
(1.59a)
profile function
a
influence function
A(x,y), A ..(x,y), A ..(x - y )
IJ
IJ a
a
A IiJ j
influence coefficient
AJA ca )
potential contact area (at body a)
(1.3 7),(2.39),(2.40),( 4.39)

4.3.7,( 4.39)-( 4.46)
(1.39)
A p' (A ap)
region of surface where traction is prescribed
(1.39)
Au' (A au)
region of surface where displacement is prescribed
( 1.39)
A(x.)
index set of inequalities active at x.
Index
a, (a ')
( 4.28e)
body number, a = 1,2
contact (adhesion) semi-axis in rolling direction (1.58b),(2.11)-(2.l2)

contact ellipse semi-axes
profile curvature difference
( 1.58)
profile curvature of body a
(1.54)
B (y)
profile of body a
complete elliptic integral
(1.57a),(1.58)
( 1.59a)
(1.57)
(4.31a)
index set of constraints
B(x.)
index set of constraints active at x.
semi-axis of contact ellipse (lateral)
(4.28f)
(1.58 b ),( 1.5 8d)
complementary energy
(4.21 b ),( 4.2 7b ),( 4.4 7)
c* =-c
complementaryenergy
( 4.47)
C ..
creepage and spin coefficients
complete elliptic integrals
contact area
ce
collection of programs having a method in common
c = ..;ab
a, b: semi-axes of contact ellipse
IJ
curvature differences
differential operator
XXII
2.2.2,(2.14)
(1.57)
4.3.3
5.1
(1.58d)
(1.54),(1.58)
(1.57)
Young's modulus
App.A
Eijhk
elastic modulus
App.A
exterior area, A \C
local distance in deformed state = deformed distance
(1.5 7)
4.3.3
e.
local shift
e ..
strain
I)
F.
I
= 1,2,3 or = x,y,z
1.2,(1.1),(1.5)
(1.11)
App.A
1.4,( 1.64)
total force transmitted by contact
FEM
finite element method
/; / stat' / kin
coefficient of friction; static, kinetic
1.4,(1.31)
/.I
body force
combined modulus of rigidity
(1.44 )
modulus of rigidity of body a
(1.44 )
G
g
(4.1 ),App.A
I. traction bound
1.4
2. axial ratio, a l / a2 , of contact ellipse

constraint function
H
area of adhesion
local distance in the undeformed state =

=
undeformed distance
linear velocity of body a regarded as rigid
(1.57a)
(4.28a,c)
4.3.3
Fig.1.3,( 1.5)
1.7.3,(1.73)
elastic difference parameter
(1.44)
( 1.57)
excentricity of contact ellipse
(1.57a)
L,L.
flexibility parameter
(3.10),(3.53)
L.'
values of the f1exibility parameter
(3.51 ),(3.52)
moment about z-axis exerted on body I, at the contact area.
XXIll
( 4.3Ia)
index set of inactive constraints
N(x.)
index set of constraints not active in x.
n, nj
outer normal on V; can carry subscript a
I. origin of coordinate system
( 4.28g)
(4.3c)
1.2
2. order-of -magnitude symbol

prescribed surface traction at A
(1.39),( 4.4)
traction; can carry all types of indices
App.A
tangential traction exerted on body I
(1.32)
(1.6)
normal traction in z-direction exerted on body I
index set of all indices
I. distance traversed
(4.28h)
( 1.24)
2. approach
(1.53),(1.55)
q.
rigid shift at origin
(1.62)
radius of curvature of body a at 0 in the x-direction
( 1.27)
R.
Q/
radius of curvature of body a at 0 in the x .-direction
(1.45)
RNJLK
set of routines implementing a method
local shift
slip area
dS
element of area
local slip
5.1
( 4.8a)
4.3.3
(1.15),( 1.20)-( 1.26)
stress deviator
(5.18)
(present) time
1.3
t '
previous time, t' t t
1.3
potential energy
(4.21 ),( 4.27),( 4.48)
U*
potential energy
(4.5Ia)
XXIV
displacement difference
(1.21 )
displacement of body a
1.2
displacement of body a, at time

prescribed displacement in A
(1.7),(1.8)
(1.39),(4.4)
ua
magnitude of rolling velocity
volume occupied by body
volume occupied by body a
a
dV
(1.21c)
(4.1 )
element of volume
rolling velocity
(1.21c)
rolling direction
(1.23b)
W a , Wai
angular velocity of body a about its axis
local rigid shift
(4.8b)
w, wi' wr
local rigid slip
(1.21d)
1.7.3,(1.72)
Lagrange multiplier of Coulomb's Law
4.3.3-Point 4
relative local rigid shift
plane X
(1.21e)
= Xl = 0
x, xl
x.
coordinate in rolling direction
between (1.23) and (1.24)
Cartesian coordinates, origin 0
1.2
X.
Cartesian coordinates of body a
x a ' x ai
particle coordinates in undeformed state at time
a/
x'.
as
plane Y
a/
y =
x2
Ya' Y ai
I
Y ai
.,
a/
1.7.1
at time t I
1.2
1.2
= x2 = 0
coordinate in lateral direction

particle coordinates in deformed state at time
as Y ., at time
a/
1.3
1.3
1. plane z = x 3 = 0
2. feasible set
(4.3)
coordinate pointing normally into body 1
variation operator
6 ..
Kronecker delta,
I)
ch.4
= 1 if i = j, = 0 else
xxv
'1
lateral creepage
(1.82)
combined Poisson's ratio
(1.44)
Poisson's ratio of body a
v.
Lagrange multiplier
v[
Lagrange multiplier of non-penetration conditions
longitudinal creepage
density
r7 .
I)
stress
r7[
ideal stress
(5.19)
r/>
spin
( 1.82)
w
a
angle between planes of principal curvature
XXVI
(4.29)
4.3.3,Point 4
(1.82)
App.A
1.7.1
CHAPTERI
THE ROLLING CONTACT PROBLEM
In this chapter we will consider the continuum theory of rolling contact. In our considerations, we concentrate on the continuum aspects of rolling: how a contact region is formed
between massive elastic bodies, and how the tangential force is distributed over the contact
region and inside the elastic bodies. In a rigid body system with friction, the bodies either
slip over each other, or the friction keeps them glued together. In an elastic body system
with friction, it can be that in part of the contact area there is slip, while in another part
there is adhesion. As a consequence, the bodies seem to slide slowly at the contact, a
phenomenon called creepage. Rigid systems and elastic bodies are compared in Fig. 1.1.
v< 0
v=o
V>O
TRANSITION ( JUMP)
TRANSITION (SMOOTH)
Figure 1.1 The force F as a function of the slip v in rolling.

(a): Rigid body system .. (b): Elastie body system. is the initial slope.
Chapter 1: The Rolling Contact Problem

This shows the slip v and the tangential force F by which it is accompanied. As soon as
slip occurs in the rigid system the force F jumps to its maximum, see Fig. 1.1a; on the
other hand, in the elastic case, shown in Fig. l.lb, the force grows gradually to its saturation value. As all bodies are in reality deformable, the situation 1.1 b is actually universally valid, albeit with various initial slopes of the v-F curve. It depends on the
nature of the application under consideration, and on the necessary accuracy of the
modeling, whether one will approximate a given problem by l.la or 1.1 b.
If one is interested in the global motion of the system, as in the study of the motion of a
bicycle, it would seem that the l.la approximation is good enough. On the other hand
there are problems in which the elastic properties of the contact play an important role.
We now list some of them.
A.
The parasitic motion and the stability
0/ a railway vehicle
Consider a railway carriage. Under the carriage there are two so-called bogies, which consist of a frame and two sets of wheels-and-axles, so-called wheel sets. The principal motion
of a railway vehicle is a rolling motion, with the bogies running parallel to the railway
track. However, superimposed on the principal motion is a so-called parasitic motion of the
bogies and carriage in the direction lateral to the track. It is especially interesting to find
out whether the parasitic motion continues or not. If it does, the movement of the railway
carriage will be rough, if it does not continue, the motion of the carriage will be smooth.
Clearly the parasitic motion can only be described weIl by a model like 1.1 b.
B.
Image distortion in a printing press
An offset press consists (in principle) of two steel cylinders which are covered with a rubber sheet. One of the cylinders carries the image to be printed, and it is inked in the appropriate spots; the other cylinder serves to press the paper which is between the cylinder
against the image carrier. The cylinders roll, and the paper is carried through, but owing
to the elasticity the rubber sheets will deform, and the deformation of the sheet will be
accompanied by adeformation of the printed image. We need to know whether this deformation is small enough to be tolerated, and, if not, what to do to diminish the deformation.
This problem has all the typical features of continuum rolling theory: the kinematics are
very simple, and attention is directed towards the elastic properties of the bodies.
C.
Energy losses in bearings
Bearings are designed to transmit a certain load from a housing to an axle. The kinematics
of a bearing is well-prescribed. Yet there remain choices to be made, and they are made
to minimise energy lasses, or to ensure a smooth operation of the bearing. It is important
to have a deep insight into the frictional behavior of the bearing. We will not be satisfied
with the rigid system 1.1a but will need a more complicated model of the type l.lb.
2
D.
Profile development
Consider two bodies rolling over each other. A contact area has come into being between
them. Normal and tangential tractions are transmitted across the contact area. Friction and
slip take place in the contact area, and as a consequence of friction and slip, wear. One
form of wear occurs when tiny particles are pried loose from the contacting bodies, so
that the bodies change their shape. This in turn influences the contact area and the play
of forces in it. The evolution of wear and the shape of the bodies is most interesting, and
has important consequences for component replacement policy. As particular instances, we
will mention two railway applications.
D.I
Profile development of railway wheel and rai!
The contacting bodies are a railway wheel and rail. The motion that wheel and rail perform with respect to each other is very complicated and varied, yet it is found that the
worn form of wheel and rail converge to standard forrns. It would be interesting if such
standards would arise from theoretical studies and simulations.
D.2
Railway wheel/rail corrugation
Visual observation of many railway lines indicate that the surface of the rail is not flat,
but slightly wavy in the direction of the track, with a wave length of about 6 cm. This is
called the corrugation of the track. In some tracks it is much worse than in others. Many
researchers have sought explanations, but either they found none, or they found one
which predicted corrugation on every track. Clearly, the situation is highly complex;
probably there are several causes of corrugation. At any rate it is a wear phenomenon,
and continuum rolling contact theory must be invoked to explain it.
E.
Automotive tire behavior
An automotive tire is a most complicated mechanical system. It combines complicated

kinematics with a pronounced continuum behavior. At present, an exact theory of the
automotive tire is beyond the state of the art, but there are many good approximate theories. We mention a few complications: the construction of the tire, consisting as it does of
soft rubber and a carcass made of steel wires; the profile blocks on the tread; the fact that
it is not massive, but air inflated; the complicated form. Further , the wheel can be freely
rotated, which leads to much larger slips than in the railway wheel, and finally there is
the immense variety of automotive tires. All this makes clear that the automotive tire is
perhaps the supreme challenge of continuum rolling theory.

l.l
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the present section, we will first state the problem in non-mathematical terms, and
discuss it. Then we will give a formal definition of the problem.
Consider two elastic bodies of revolution. The axis of each of these is embedded in the
center line of a rigid axle, see Fig. 1.2. The bodies are pressed together by their axles as
handles, so that a contact area comes into being between them. The contact area carries
normal and tangential tractions. The bodies roll over each other, rotating their axles.
Friction and slip occur between them, as a consequence of which tangential tractions
arise. These tangential and normal tractions are accompanied by an elastic field of displacements, strains and stresses in the bodies. It is required to find that elastic field, and
in particular the elastic field at the surface of the bodies where the contact phenomena
occur. Contact phenomena which are of special interest are the total force that the bodies
exert on each other, and the state 0/ motion 0/ the rigid axles in the bodies.
We make a number of remarks, in which we give definitions that will be used in the
sequel.
'I>~"/
-2
Figure 1.2 Two bodies rolling over each other.
1.1: Statement of the Problem

A.
The axles
We have modeled the bodies as mounted on rigid axles, because we want to have a welldefined reference state of the elastic displacement. Also, we want to speak of the rigid
motion of the bodies, and by that we mean the motion of the axles. Generally , all rigid
positions of the bodies relative to each other may be expressed with the aid of the axles.
B.
Contact formation
The statement of the problem includes the contact formation. Indeed, contact formation is
taken to precede frictional phenomena, so that the continuum theory of rolling has to include contact formation. The simplest form of contact formation is contact formation
without friction. This form of contact formation plays a very important part in continuum
rolling theory, and we will pay due attention to it. Of course, frictional contact formation is even more important, but this problem is difficult and still partly open.
C.
Friction
The basic principles of friction may be found in Leonardo da Vinci's Notes, dating from
the 15th century. The next to study friction was d'Amontons in the 17th century. However, the theory of friction is commonly dated from Coulomb's paper (1785).
It is generally agreed that the Law of Coulomb, applied locally, is wrong. Yet no universally applicable alternative has been proposed. We will usually employ some variant of
Coulomb's Law. For the small slips that occur in rolling contact, see below, this seems a
reasonable assumption. As soon as large slips occur, Coulomb's Law is grossly at fault.
D.
The emphasis on the surface field
Contact takes place at the surface, hence contact phenomena are most pronounced at the
surface. Quantities like the distance between opposing point of the bodies, and the surface
traction, are surface properties. If one knows the surface traction on a body, the internal
elastic field is known in principle, and in several cases in practice as weIl. So the surface
determines the state within, which explains the emphasis on the surface field.
E.
Dynamic and quasistatic phenomena
Most studies on continuum rolling contact theory presuppose that the physical phenomena
proceed so slowly that inertial effects may be neglected. There are a few studies in twodimensional contact elastodynamics, e.g. Oden and Martins (1985), and Wang and Knothe
(1989); especially the latter is an interesting study.

F.
The state of motion of the axles
Not much is specified about the state of motion of the axles, and this implies that the
statement of the problem leaves considerable freedom in this respect. We distinguish the
following motions.
f.1
f.2
f.3
f.4
f.5
1.2
A rolling motion exists when the relative velocity of all contacting particles is
much smaller than the velocity of these particles with respect to the contact area.
A shift exists when the relative velocity of some contacting particles is of the same
order of magnitude as the velocity of these particles with respect to the contact area.
We speak of a steady state if a Cartesian coordinate system can be introduced in
which all physical quantities are independent of time. In particular, the contact
area is stationary, and the axles seem to be standing still.
A motion which is not steady is called transient.
A motion which takes place during a finite interval of time du ring which all
physical quantities change linearly is called finite. For instance, Cattaneo (1938)
and Mindlin (1949) considered a "finite shift".
MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE CONTACf FORMATION
We consider two bodies in contact. They are mounted on rigid axies, in the manner described in the previous section. We introduce a Cartesian coordinate system (0; x I ,x 2 ,x 3);
the time is denoted by t. Two matters are assumed.
First, we assume that, at any instant of time t, the unstressed reference state may be
chosen so that the displacement components u. (i = 1,2,3) are small with respect to a
I
typical diameter of the bodies. In order to see the significance of this assumption, consider
a wheel on the ground.
It rolls from one spot to the other. In an unstressed reference state which is independent
of time the displacement is large. However, at each instant an unstressed reference state
may be found in which the elastic displacement is small with respect to the diameter of
the wheel.
Secondly, we assurne that the dis placement gradients in the above reference state, defined as u . . (i,j = 1,2,3; . = 8/8x.) are in absolute value much smaller than 1. The significance ~I this assumPtio~ is that
displacement throughout the bodies changes slowly
with position. The Lagrangean strain which describes the deformation of the bodies is
defined by
Ihe
g .. = -2 (u . . + u . . + uk .uk .).
I}
I,}
},I
,I,}
1.2: Mathematical Modeling of the Contact Formation
When the displacement gradients are small, one can neglect the third term on the righthand side with respect to the first two. This yields the linearised strain
I
e . . = -2 (u . . + u . .)
IJ
I,J
J,l
which is used in linear elasticity to describe the deformation.

Also, in the sequel, we will use the smallness of the displacement gradients direct1y. Note
that there are 9 displacement gradients and only 6 strains, so that the smallness of the
strains does not imply the smallness of the displacement gradients. The converse is true, of
course.
In the above we assumed a new reference state at every instant of time. One can also
attach a reference state to each body separately. These unstressed states coincide with the
rigid fields induced by the axles. We will refer to this unstressed reference state as the
undeformed state.
Contact phenomena take place in the deformed state, that is, the final stage of deformation from the undeformed state. It is of supreme importance to know whether two particles
are in contact, and, if they are, whether they slide with respect to each other, or not. To
determine whether the particle y on the surface of body I is in contact with the surface
of body 2, we determine the distance e(y) of y to the surface of body 2. Three cases are
distinguished:
a) e(y) > 0 b) e(y) = 0 c) e(y) < 0 -
is not in contact with the surface of 2; and it lies outside body 2.

y is in contact with the surface of body 2.
this is a formal inequality. It is taken to mean that y, a particle of body
I, lies inside body 2.
The case c) can occur when welding takes place between the bodies, but the phenomena
that occur when we permit this penetration deviate so much from ordinary mechanical
contact theory and practice that we do not consider penetration phenomena to be apart of
contact mechanics.
This leads us to the first law of contact formation, namely
e(y) ~ 0 -
No penetration of the contacting bodies is possible.

Contact.
e(y) > 0 - No contact.
e(y): Distance of surface particle y to the other body.
e(y) = 0 -
(1.1 )

It is usual in the theory of elasticity to refer the phenomena to Lagrangean coordinates,
that is, to describe events with respect to the undeformed state. Here (1.1) is described
with respect to the final, deformed state, and we need to know how to describe it in the
undeformed state.
_J---------
x,
?-d,...U-1-n-()-O-j-_-_--
Undeformed
:~:::::dOf 1
surface of1
J
X Oie
- 1- - -;;2J>~)1?2- -- - - - - -- '",'m 0'
D,'o,rn'd
I~
Xz
Undeformed
surface of 2
Figure 1.3 The delormed distance e, the undelormed distance h. the undelormed
position 01 the particles x l ,x 2 ; the opposing particles in the delormed
state YI ,Y 2; x is the mean 01 x I ,x 2 , r is an arbitrary point.
We refer to Fig. 1.3. The full horizontal lines are the undeformed surfaces of body land
body 2. The broken horizontal lines are the deformed surfaces of body land body 2. The
point y 2 lies on the deformed surface of body 2. The point YI is the point of the deformed surface I closest to y 2' The point x I is the point of the undeformed surface I that
corresponds to y I' and x 2 similarly corresponds to y 2'
Now we determine a set of points x land x 2 which is such that it contains at least all the
particles which are in contact after the deformation: the potential contact region. To that
end we first observe that the undeformed surfaces near x land x 2 are almost parallel.
Indeed, after deformation the deformed surfaces are supposed to touch and hence are
parallel, while their orientation differs only slightly from the corresponding undeformed
surface elements, owing to the smallness of the displacement gradients. Hence the undeformed surfaces are almost parallel.
8
1.2: Mathematical Modeling
01 the Contact
Formation
Next we observe that x land x 2 need not be further apart than an order of magnitude of
an elastic displacement. This means that the distance between undeformed land undeformed 2 in the potential contact region need not exceed the order of magnitude of a displacement.
Finally, within a ball with diameter equal to an elastic displacement the orientation of
the undeformed surfaces changes little, since the elastic displacement is much smaller
than a typical diameter of the contacting bodies. So in such a ball the surfaces are almost
plane and parallel.
Thus the potential contact region may consist of the part of the surfaces of the bodies that
are almost parallel and are at most the order of a displacement apart. Figure 1.3 shows the
situation in a ball whose diameter is a typical displacement: the undeformed and the deformed surfaces are formalised to a set of parallel planes. The distance between the undeformed surfaces, measured from (2) to (I), is called the undelormed distance (symbol: h);
similarly, the distance between the deformed surfaces, measured from (2) to (I), is called
the delormed distance (symbol: e).
Now consider point r of Fig. 1.3. We consider the displacement fields u l (x), u 2 (x) of
bodies land 2, and we expand them about the field quantities for the arbitrary point r.
We have
uI(x I )
since (Xl - r)
= ul(r)
=
dUI (r)
dX
(u l ) and
(xI - r)
I du/dx I I
1'::1
ul(r)
= ul
( 1.2)
1. Similarly,
(1.3)
Then we have, see Fig. 1.3

h = e + u ln + u2n '
u : Component of the displacement along the outer normal on body a
an
or,
e=h-u
In
-u
2n
We note that in (1.4) the displacement

Here, u2n is the component of u 2 in
u l in the direction of n 1 (opposite
u ln
(1.4 )
enters into the distance equation as (u ln + u2n ).

the direction of n 2 , while u ln is the component of
n 2 ). If we define z as the direction of n 2 , then
= -u 1z ' and u2n = u2z ' so that
Chapter 1.' The Rolling Contact Problem

(1.5)
We turn to the normal contact force. When the bodies do not attract each other, the process
of establishing and relinquishing contact proceeds as folIows. The two bodies approach
each other; at that time their surfaces are free of traction. The bodies touch, and a resistive compressive contact force builds up. When the contact starts to relinquish, the contact
force diminishes and vanishes when the contact is broken. We deduce from this the following second law of contact formation:
e>O:p =0
z
e=O:p >0
p : z-component of the surface traction on body I

z
compressive normal traction.
(1.6)
When the bodies attract each other, the attractive force is superimposed.
An alternative to (1.6) is provided by Oden and Martins (1985).
Using the notation
when g > 0
when g < 0
( 1.6a)
they propose
pz
= Pie -
IN '
P,N: positive constants.
(1.6b)
Note that their model allows penetration (e < 0).
1.3
MA THEMATICAL MODELING OF THE SLIP
Now we set the axles of the bodies in motion, and we consider the slip and the shift. The
construction is shown in Fig. 1.4.
Agiobai Cartesian coordinate system (O;x l ,x2 ,x 3 ) (also called (O;x,y,z)) is introduced,
and we observe the partic1e P of body a, a = 1,2. We distinguish between its position in
the undeformed state generated by the axles, and the deformed state of reality. At the
time t l the pocition of P in the undeformed state is
a
Xl.
Q/
~f x .(t
-
al
l )
'
i=I,2,3
and its position in the deformed state is
10
(1.7)
Xi
u;
x;+u;
Xl
P,
--U-l--I~~IP,
Cf)
U'z
Xi
Xl +Ul
I
I
CD
xi+Ui
0/ the Slip
I
I
I
I
I
e
Uz
- - - - - - - . . - ~ p.
Xz
X2 +U Z
2
Pz
e={X l +U l )-{X Z+U Z) = shif t

choose:
X;+U;=Xi+Ui
Figure 1.4 The construction

y ,.
aJ
0/ the shi/t e.
= x'aJ. + u'aJ. = x al.(t ') + uaJ.(x'.

t I).
aj'
An instant later, at the time t > t " we have for the particle P , a
a
(I.8)
=
1,2:
t: present time; t ': previous instant; undeformed state

( I.9)
y . = x . + u . = x .(t) + u .(x .,t)
deformed state i,j = 1,2,3.
aJ
aJ
aJ
aJ
aJ
aj
Now we suppose that PI and P 2 are in contact in the real, deformed state at time t ':
"PI(t ') - P 2 (t ')":
(xli(t ') + uli(X1j't I)} - (x 2
P') + u2 /x:L,t I)} = o.
(l.l 0)
We require the relative position of PI and P2 at the time t, that is, the shi/t ei :
"PI(t) - P 2(t)":
e. = (xI .(t) + u l .( Xl .,t)} -(x 2 (t) + u2 ( x 2 .,t)} .
I
I
I
j
I
I
j
(l.ll)
Subtracting (l.l0) from (l.ll) we find

e. = {(XI - XI') - (x 2 - x 2' .)} + {(u I - u I') - (U 2 - u2' .)}.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(l.l2)
11
We introduce the following notation:

(0) =
~ : the time derivative with the partic1e kept constant:

material time derivative.
We write
x . - x' . I':j
x .(t -
az
az
al
e. = s.(t - t').
I
t ')
(l.l3)
Here, s. is the slip; note that t - t' > 0, the system evolves from t' to t. Hence e. is proI
I
portional to s. with a positive constant of proportionality, which is important in frictional
I
considerations: one of the conditions of friction is that the tangential component of the
slip/shift is opposite to the frictional traction, where the tangential component of a vector
is its projection on the potential contact area.
The shift becomes
(l.l4)
We make the following remarks:
W.
I
= (XI' I
x2 ) is called the rigid slip of the bodies, and

I
is the rigid shift, while the deformation shift is defined as
(u . - u' .) is the elastic displacement of partic1e P in the time interval from t' to t. The
al
al
a
deformation shift is the difference of the elastic displacement of the particles (J - 2)
from time t' to time t.
We note that the displacements, both past and present, enter the slip expression (l.l4) and
the distance function (1.5) only as the difference (u li - u2i ) at a point of the interface.
This is characteristic of the contact problem, both for contact formation and for slip. The
difference is called the dis placement difference; it is denoted by u ..
I
12
01 the
Slip
We also observe that the deformation shift has the character of a backwards dillerence.
This reflects the fact that the frictional process is an evolutionary process, in which the
future has no influence on the past nor on the present.
The expression (1.14) is the basis of the numerical treatment of slip. A sharp distinction
should be made between an instationary process and a steady state.
In an instationary process the evolution we mentioned before runs unchecked. The field
quantities x' . and (u l'. - u2'.) are known at the "previous" instant t', in addition to the
al
I
I
motion of the axles. The motion of the axles determines x . at the time t. Together with
al
the laws of contact mechanics these quantities provide the elastic field at the time t, and
in particular the displacement difference u l . - u2 .. The quantities x . and u l . - u2 . just
I
I
az
I
I
computed become the data of a new time step, and so the calculation of the evolution
proceeds.
In a steady state process, the extra condition of stationarity is added to the problem. One
can solve such a problem in two ways; the first is to let the instationary process run under
the conditions that control the steady state, by letting the axles rotate in a special way,
until the steady state sets in. The other way is to calculate the steady state directly. Let
the global coordinate system we introduced at the beginning of this section be the system
in which the process is stationary, i.e. time independent. Then
U ai
ua/xaj't)
ua/x a ),
u' . = U .(x' .,t ') = U .(x' .),

al
al
aJ
az
aJ
independent of t
independent of
t '.
We see that both U . and u'. are unknown apriori, as distinct from the transient case
az
az
where u'. is known and u . unknown.
al
al
We construct a limiting form of Eq. (1.14). We write:
s.I
= (xl' I
X2 I)
+ (~1 . - ~2 .),
I
( 1.15)
where
.=(au .Iax .)x .+au .jat

al
al
aJ
aJ
az
= the material u-derivative with respect to time ("particle unchanged").
Note that we use the Einstein convention that a repeated index indicates summation over
the entire range, that is, l,2,3 in the case of Latin indices, and 1,2 in the case of Greek
indices (the body number a is excepted from this rule).
13

We write (1.15) explicitly:
..
s. = (xl' - x 2 ) + xl' 8u l /8x l - x 2 8u 2 ./8x2 + 8(

u I I )
8t.
- u2/
I
I
I }
I } }
I}
I
( 1.16)
We will simplify this formula. To that end we will replace the differentiations with
respect to the X . by differentiations with respect to the coordinate X ., which is defined
as the mean of x lj and x 2f

a}
( 1.17)
comparable to the point r in Fig. 1.3. Now we have
( 1.18)
The particles xl and x 2 are in contact after deformation, so that they are O(u) apart
I x 2k -
I = O(u)
x lk
and (1.18) becomes

8/8X lj = (okj + O(du/dx 8/8x k
Rl
/x j
ojk = Kronecker delta, = 1 if j = k, = 0 if j
'" k,
( 1.19)
where we made use of the smallness of the displacement gradients du/dx. (1.16) becomes
X2} U2I,}
. + (u l I
s. = (xl' - x 2 ) + xl . I . I
I
I
}
I,}
u2 )/t
I
with . = /x ..
,}
We rewrite s. in order to neglect a term. It may be verified that

I
I.
s. = (xl' - x 21) + -2 (Xl' - x 2 .)(u l . + u2 .) + -2 (xl' + x 2 .)(u l . - u2 .)

I
I
}}
I,}
I,}
}}
I,}
I,}
+ (u 1i - u2i )/ I.
Since du/dx 1, the second term on the right-hand side may be neglected with
respect to the first, so that we find for the slip
s. = (xl' - x 2 ) + -2 (xl' + x 2 .)(u l . - u2 .) + (u l - u2 .)/t.

I
I
I
}}
I,}
I,}
I
I
(1.20 )
Note that this expression for the slip is valid for all types of contact problems in a small
displacement-displacement gradient theory. We call
14

I
+ X2 )
="2 (XI
= u l - u2
.xI"2-(xIx.2 +
I
v = w =
wR
X 2)
= (XI - X2)/V
01 the Slip
middle coordinate
(1.2Ia)
displacement difference
(1.2Ib)
rolling velocity, V
(1.2Ic)
Iv I
rigid slip
(1.2Id)
relative rigid slip or creepage;

this expression holds only when V'" 0.
(1.2Ie)
Then the slip becomes

( 1.21f)
A shilt is characterised by the fact that w is of the same order of magnitude as v. So we
may neglect v .u. . with respect to w., and the slip becomes
)
s.
/
I,)
= w./ + au./at
/
(shift).
( 1.22a)
In steady state rolling all dependence on explicit time vanishes, when the coordinate
system is weIl chosen. The slip becomes
s. = w. - V.u ..
/
I,)
(steady state roIling).
(1.22b)
In transient rolling (1.21f) is retained.

When v '" 0, we divide by the magnitude of the rolling velocity V. Then V dt
increment of the distance traversed in rolling, while the slip equation becomes
sR'/~f
s /./V = wR/
vR . au.;ax.
+ au.;aq
.- )
/
)
/
= dq is the
( 1.23a)
wRi : see (1.2Ie);

vR . = v./V,
I
I
V = magnitude of rolling velocity.
(1.23b)
sRi is called the relative slip. Conventionally one takes the direction of the rolling velocity (v Ri ) = (1,0,0), that is, the rolling takes place in the l-direction. Under the classical
condition that friction takes place with a slip independent coefficient of friction, the
relative slip and the creepage may replace the slip and the rigid slip in all considerations,
and then the phenomena become independent of the magnitude of the rolling velocity V.
The time should then be replaced by the geometric quantity "distance traversed" q, see
above (1.23),
Jo
t
Vdt
(1.24)
15

and the slip equation be comes
SR'I
= wR I - aulax
+ au./aq.
I
I
(1.25)
In steady state rolling, the phenomena are independent of explicit time t, or, equivalentIy, of the distance traversed q, when the coordinate system is properly chosen. Also, the
rolling direction will be constant, and can always be taken as (1,0,0). The slip in the
steady state is given by
SR'I
= wR I - au./ax,
I
i = 1,2,3.
(1.26)
We finish this section by analysing the rigid slip for bodies of revolution that are rotated
about their axes, which may, as usual, be thought embedded in rigid axles, and which
are almost in the same plane. A number of interesting technological applications fall into
this category. We mention a few of them.
A.
Problems in which the contact area is almost Ilat
Examples are:
a.1
A ball rolling over a plane;
a.2
An offset printing press, where the contact area is short in the rolling direction,
and long in the lateral direction;
a.3
An automotive wheel rolling over the road.
B.
Problems in wh ich the contact area is short in the rolling direction, and curved in
the lateral direction

Examples are:
b.1
A railway wheel rolling over a rai!;
b.2 A ball rolling in a deep groove, as it occurs in ball bearings.
C.
Problems in which the contact area is curved in the rolling direction, and
lorming in the lateral direction
COI1-
Example: A pin rolling in a hole.

The bodies are first brought into contact so that they touch at a point or a line in the
plane X of the axes, see Fig. 1.5. Take the origin in that point or on that line. A
Cartesian coordinate system (O;x,y,z) ;: (O;x I ,x2 'x 3 ) is introduced, in which the z-axis
lies in the plane X, and points normally "upwards", into body I, as usual; the x-axis is
normal to the plane X, and points in the rolling direction. The y-axis lies in the plane X,
and completes the right-handed coordinate system. Then the bodies are compressed, and
rotated about their axes with angular velocity W (W ,W ,W ). Superimposed on this
a ax ay az
16
1.3: Mathematical Modeling 0/ the Slip
ROLLING DIRECTION
~LLlNG
/DIRECTION
Z,NORMAL
Figure 1.5 Two bodies or revolution, with axes (almost) in one plane, rolling over
each other. Two views are shown: (a) The x- z plane (Y) is the plane
0/ the drawing; (b) The y-z plane (X) is the plane 0/ the drawing.
The axes 0/ the bodies almost intersect the y-axis.
rotation, the bodies have a linear velocity h = (h ,h ,h ) at the origin.

a
ax ay az
The situation is shown in Fig. 1.5.
The axis of z intersects the axis of body a in (0,0,'- ), where l = (-I )a-I R ,and R is
a
a
a
a
the radius of body a in the x-direction, positive if it is convex in the x-direction. The
velocity of the point (x,y,z), when the bodies are regarded as rigid, is
a a a
(x ,y ,; ):
17
xa = hax + (z - l a) Way - yWaz
(1.27a)
ya = h ay + xWaz - (z - l a) Wax
za = haz + yWax - xWay
1.4
(1.27b)
(1.27c)
MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF FRICTION
Friction is the phenomenon in which a sliding motion of one body over another is opposed
by a force. This force is called the friction force. Usually a finite compensating force is
needed to set a body sliding, while in many experiments the friction force remains constant during sliding. So it is assumed that the shearing force is bounded by a force bound
g, which depends on the normal force F , the magnitude of the sliding velocity V, and
z
other parameters; thus
g = g(F z,V, ... )
... = other parameters;
F : normal component of the total contact force.
(1.28)
When the sliding velocity (called the slip) vanishes, the tangential force may fall below
the force bound g in absolute value; when sliding occurs, the tangential force is at the
force bound, and it opposes the slip:
I Fr I ~ g(F z,V, ... ),
( 1.29a)
I Fr I
Fr: tangential component of total contact force, r = 1,2,
if V", 0: F = -gv IV
Greek index: tangential component
r
r
v : tangential component of the sliding velocity; V = I v I.
r
j F~ + F~,
(1.29b)
Coulomb (1785) stated that g is proportional to the normal force F with a constant of
z
proportionality called the coellicient ollrietion:
g(F z'V, ... )
= IF z
(Coulomb (1785.
(1.30)
In order to interpret (1.28), Archard (1957) proposed that friction was primarily caused
by the adhesion of the bodies to each other. This adhesion takes place at the tips of the
roughnesses, called asperities of the surfaces of the bodies. At the tops of these asperities
the bodies are in contact, and all these junctions form the real area 01 eontaet A , as
r
opposed to the apparent area of contact C which consists of the real area together with the
region in between the junctions. Archard showed that the size of the real area of contact
I A I is proportional to the normal compressive force F .
r
18
01 Friction
At the real area of contact the bodies are welded to each other by interatomic forces.
Owing to the sliding motion, the welded asperities shear, producing a shearing surface
traction, which adds up to a tangential force F . When the shear of an asperity gets too
T
large, the junction breaks, and the freed asperities establish renewed contact with other
partners. The shearing of the asperities will be accompanied by plastic deformation, and
also by the detachment of debris from the asperity tops: these are both mechanisms of
wear, from which it is seen that friction and wear are closely connected.
Despite this bolstering of Coulomb's Law, and the fact that (1.29) is generally accepted
for isotropie surfaces, it is agreed by tribologists (scientists who concern themselves with
friction and wear) that (1.30) must be modified. In fact, most authors agree that the coefficient of friction (1.30) is not a constant. The simplest hypothesis to the contrary was
made by Blok (1940), and it states that the coefficient of friction has two values, viz. the
static coefficient 1 t t whieh obtains when V = 0, and the kinetic coefficient I k . , which
sa
m
holds when V'" 0:
1 = I(V);
1(0) = Istat< I(V) = I kin ,
(1.31)
This did not suffice in the eyes of many researchers, and they proposed more complicated
formulae for I(V).
So far we have considered the total contact force, and the global velocity in sliding. In
contact mechanics in general, and in rolling contact theory in particular, there are wide
variations in the contact forces and slips in the contact area, and aglobai theory is not
suffieient. We need a local theory of friction.

A very simple extension of friction theory suggests itself: that is, to translate global
quantities directly into local quantities. If we define the traction p at a point on the surface of the body to be the density of the force exerted on it, then
I PT I ~ g(p z' I s 1. ... )

if I si'"
0 * PT = -gs T / I sT I
T
( 1.32)
P : tangential traction component,

T
s : slip component,
T
T =
1,2.
This law was stated and experimentally confirmed by Rabinowicz (1965); it was
employed earlier in theoretical work by Cattaneo (1938), Mindlin (1949), and, in a twodimensional setting, as early as the late 1920's by Carter (1926) and Fromm (192 7). The
form of the traction bound g is generally taken as
19

g(pz'
I sr I ,...) = I( I sr I ,... ) Pz
(p
> 0, compressive)
(1.33)
and I is taken constant (very usual), or as in (1.31), in a more complicated fashion.

It is the experience of some tribologists (e.g. Maugis, (\ 985 that sometimes there is no
definite coefficient of friction at all:
1= I(x r )
x : position.
r
(1.34)
In 1985, Oden and Martins proposed a theory of combined normal and tangential contact.
According to this theory, the normal pressure p is given by
z
p
=K(-e)
K,E: constants,
~f min (e,O);
Ln si)
- -
g =
(e
e: deformed distance
(1.3 5)
L,F ,G: constants, s: slip.
Note that in this theory the deformed distance e is negative in the contact!
A final mention is made of the work of Hayd and Maurer (\ 986), who have calculated
frictional problems with the aid of solid state physics.
1.5
THE COMPLETE BOUNDAR Y CONDITIONS
There are the elasticity relations between force quantities and displacement quantities.
They are, according to Hooke, see Appendix A:
(J . :
I)
stress,
ehk: strain,
E ijhk : elastic constants.
(1.36)
They are valid for all types of bodies. For bodies subject to certain regularity conditions
it is possible to bring them in a surface mechanical form:
u(x)
Jav
u.(X)=J
I
A(x,y) p(y) dS
(1.37a)
av A I)..(x,y)p.(y)dS
)
(1.37b)
where A(x,y) is the displacement at x due to a point load at y; it is called the inlluence
lunctioll. The influence function depends strongly on the form of the body. In twodimensional elasticity the influence functions have been calculated for many
20
1.5: The Complete Boundary Conditions
AlP
e l =el
CD
_AlU
RIGID AXLE
AlP
AlP
Yl=Yl
Z or X3
Y or XZ
A2P
A2P
e2=e2
X or X,
((ontaet Conditions)
AZU
Y2=Y2
Figure 1.6 Two bodies in contact,with the regions A
au
,A
ap
,A shown.
configurations; in three-dimensional elasticity A has been calculated for a few bodies;

one of these is the half -space, see Sec. 1.6.
The advantage of (1.37) over (1.36) resides in the fact that for a three-dimensional body
(1.37) is taken over only its two-dimensional boundary, while (1.36) extends over the
whole three-dimensional interior.
Finally the differential equations of homogeneous, isotropie elasticity read
{ u ... + -1-2I
u... } + f
2(1 E
+ /J )
I,))
/J } ,} I
I
. = 8/8x.,
,}}
/J:
(0)
- =0
- pu.
I
i,j
1,2,3;
(1.38)
= d/dt; f.: body force, p: density, E: Young's modulus,

I
Poisson's ratio.
21
In the quasistatic case (p = 0) Eq. (1.38) yields three elliptic second order partial
differential equations whose solution is uniquely determined by three appropriate
boundary conditions on the entire boundary of each body. We formulate these in the case
of contact, see Fig. 1.6.
Let A be the surface region where p is prescribed.
Let A P be the surface region where u is prescribed.
u
Let A be the potential contact area, and av = A u A u A .
c
P
u
c
Abbreviate "Boundary Conditions" as Be. Then we have:
in A
in A
in A
P
u
p.
I
u.
I
= p.,
prescribed
I
= .,
prescribed
I
Pli
= -P 2i
=h + UIz
e = 0,
e> 0,
in C:
(3 BC)
(3 BC)
Newton's Third Law
- u2 z
P ~ 0:
z
Pz = 0:
Contact area C
Exterior area E
.
.
. .
sr = x I r - x 2r + u l r - u2r
(Adhesion)
I s r I = 0: I Pr I ~ g
I s r I *' 0: Pr = -gs r / I s r I (Slip)
e=O
in E:
(3 BC)
( 1.39)
(2 BC)
(2 BC)
(I BC)
p.
I
=0
(3 BC)
We have the requisite number of boundary conditions on each body, together with inequalities. Note that A lies on both bodies. One can prove existence and uniqueness of
c
the solution under certain restrictive conditions, see Ch. 4.
1.6
THE HALF-SPACE APPROXIMATION
This work will be concerned mainly with three-dimensional contact problems. One of the
ways to attack a three-dimensional contact problem is by the finite element method, by
which variants of the variational principles of Ch. 4, which describe contact problems,
are discretised. An advantage of this method is its great generality, a disadvantage is the
large amount of computer time needed. An alternative is the boundary element method
which operates on one of the representations (1.37). A special case of such a method occurs
when the contacting bodies may be approximated by so-called elastic half -spaces. Under
those conditions the matrix A(x,y) is explicitly known.
22
1.6: The Half-Space Approximation

A half -space consists of all points on one side of a plane, the bounding plane; for
instance, in a Cartesian coordinate system (O;x 1 ,x2 ,x3 ), a half -space may be defined by
{x I x 3 ~ Q}. The contact field in an elastic body can be calculated by half -space theory,
when (see Fig. 1.7) the contact area is small with respect to a typical dimension of the
body, such as the diameter or the minimum radius of curvature near the contact.
Here the
approximat
elastie
field is
very
small
ZONE WHERE
HALF - SPACE
\ " APPROXIMATION /
'HOlOS
/
........
IHALF - SPACE I
_--""
Here the elastie field

is very small
IELASTIC
BOOY
Figure 1.7 The half-space approximation.
Under those circumstances the elastic field in the contact part is determined by replacing
the body locally by a half -space. The boundary conditions are those of the real body, the
elasticity equations are solved for the half -space.
Properties of the half -space approximation are:
1.6.1
MANy GEOMETRIES ARE ELASTICALLY ALIKE
This is a most important advantage, as it renders half -space theory and software applicable to many situations. The half -space approximation is similar to the process of linearisation in applied mathematics. The relative ease of the half -space approximation leads
one to use it even when this may lead to serious errors.
1.6.2
A(x,y)
MAY BE CALCULATED EXACTLY
The resulting expressions for A(x,y) are due to Boussinesq (1885) and Cerruti (1882);
derivations mayaIso be found in Love (1926) and Gladwell (1980).
23
1.6.3
QUASIIDENTITY IS COMMON IN HALF-SPACE PROBLEMS
The property of quasiidentity, to be defined in Sec. 1.6.3.4, greatly simplifies and accelerates the calculation of frictional contact problems. Also, existence and uniqueness of
quasiidentical frictional contact problems can be proved, as opposed to existence only in
non-quasiidentical frictional contact problems.
In order to understand quasiidentity it is necessary to have an idea how a contact problem
is calculated. Such an idea will be given in the Secs. 1.6.3.1 to 1.6.3.3. In 1.6.3.4 the
not ions of symmetry and quasiidentity are introduced and discussed.
1.6.3.1
The Panagiotopoulos process
The first process to be discussed is the Panagiotopoulos process. It runs as folIows.

a)
Set 1= O. Assume that the tangential traction vanishes (p(O) = 0).
b)
Determine the normal traction
p~)
with
p~l)
as tangential traction.
p~+ I) with p~) as normal traction, and
g(J)
c)
Determine
d)
If p(J+I) is cIose enough to p(J) stop, otherwise set I

T
fp~) as traction bound.
I + I, and restart at b).
We observe that b) and c) can be performed by means of the Principle of Complementary

Energy, see Ch. 4, Sec. 4.2.2, in the case of elastostatics.
This is the Panagiotopoulos process (1975). It was used by Oden and Pires (1983) to prove
existence of the elastic field for elastostatic contact. I used it myself to perform calculations for half -space elastostatic contact, and for two-dimensional frictional contact of
elastic layers. I found that in the two-dimensional case the Panagiotopoulos process
converges with few exceptions. In the three-dimensional case I found that the process
only converges when I fK I is smalI, where f is the coefficient of friction, and K is the
difference parameter to be defined later on in this section, viz. in (1.44).
1.6.3.2
An Alternative to the Panagiotopoulos process (KOMBI)
There is an alternative to the Panagiotopoulos process, which is slower, but more reliable.
It runs as folIows.
a)
b)
c)
24
Set 1= O. Assume that p~O) = 0 and calculate p~O)

Set g(J) - fp(J)
3
With g(J) fixed, determine p~l+l) and p~l+l) in the elastostatic case, by means
of e.g., the Principle of Complementary Energy, see Ch. 4, Sec. 4.2.2.

(1+1)
(1+1)
Set g
= fp3
and go to c).
d)
. If g
(1+1) .
IS
close enough to g
(I)
we stop; else, set 1= 1 + 1,
This Alternative converges whenever the Panagiotopoulos process does, but in additional
cases as weil. In principle the Alternative is somewhat slower than the Panagiotopoulos
process.
1.6.3.3
The Johnson process
A one-step Panagiotopoulos process was introduced by Johnson in 1962 as an approximation; it was also used by Kalker (1971); we will refer to it as a Johnson process.
1.6.3.4
Symmetry and quasiidentity
In general, the processes 1.6.3.1-2 require an infinite number of steps for convergenee. It
is of interest to investigate cases where the Panagiotopoulos process terminates after a few
steps. One iteration (the Johnson process) suffiees for the ease of symmetry, i.e. when A
c
is a plane about whieh the bodies land 2 are geometrieally and elastieally symmetrie, so
that the bodies land 2 have equal elastie eonstants (de Pater, 1962). We deeompose the
elastie field into a field whieh is mirror symmetrie about this plane, whieh we take to be
the plane x 3 = 0, and one whieh is mirror antisymmetrie.
Consider a loading of the bodies whieh is mirror symmetrie with respeet to the plane A .
c
= -P2i' and by symmetry (see Fig. 1.8a)
Then, by Newton's Third Law, Pli

/s) def /s) = _/s) #- 0
P (s)
T
13
23
at least gene rally
def p(s) = p(s) = _p(s) = 0

=
1r
2r
2r
'
= 1,2
(s) = _u(s) ~ u(S)

(s) _ 2 (s) def u(s)
23 ~ 13 - u23 - u 13 =
3
u 13
(s)
u1r
( 1.40)
(s) ~ u(s)
(s)
0
u2 r ~ 1r - u2 r = .
Consider now a loading which is mirror antisymmetrie with respeet to the plane A .
Then, by symmetry, and by Newton's Third Law, see Fig. 1.8b:
25
Chapter 1: The Rolling Contaet Problem
p(sl =_plsl
13
23
Ulsl __ Ulsl
13 23
8
p{sl
lt
=p(sl =0
...
2t
U lsl
lt
= U{sl
p'(al
lt
2t
13-23-
=_p{al
2t
..
Z ,,0
U{sl
2t
CD
U lal =U lal
13
23
plal _ p(al_ 0
CD
plsl
2)
U(aL u{al
lt-- 2t
u2t
'"
u(al
23
Figure 1.8 Deeomposition 01 the elastie lield. The x-z plane is the plane 01 the
drawing. (a): Symmetrie loading, (b): Antisymmetrie loading.
(a) _ 0
(a) def (a) _ (a) _
P3
=
PD - P23 - -P23 (a) def (a)
= _
(a) '" 0
at least generall y
PT
u(a)
= +u(a) => Ja) _ u(a) = 0
u(a)
IT
= _u(a) => u(a) _ u(a) = 2u(a)
13
P IT
23
2T
P 2T
13
IT
(1041)
23
2r
Ir
~f u(a).
The total field is a superposition of the fields of Eq. (1.40) and Eq. (1.41); indeed, the
problem separates into the symmetrie, normal problem:
(1.42)
and the antisymmetrie, tangential problem:
(1.43)
26

It is seen that the tangential traetion does not influenee the normal displaeement differ-
enee u3 whieh determines the deformed distanee. Thus we ean ealeulate the normal, symmetrie field first, without referenee to the tangential traetion. P3 is then known, and the
tangential traetion ean be ealeulated: that is, we perform a Johnson process. Not only does
this give a eonsiderable saving in computer time, but also the theorems of Fiehera (1964)
and Duvaut and Lions (1972) apply; these guarantee existenee and uniqueness of the
solution.
In elastie half -spaees with equal elastie eonstants there is geometrie symmetry whatever
the real form of the bodies, as long as they ean be approximated by half -spaees for the
purpose of elastieity ealeulations. But for half -spaees the separation (1.42)-( 1.43) into
symmetrieal and antisymmetrieal problems ean be made in other eases also. Indeed, it
follows from Boussinesq-Cerruti theory, see Ch. 2 (2.39), (2.40), that the same decomposition holds when both half -spaees are ineompressible (Poisson's ratio 11 = 0.5 in both
a
bodies (a = 1,2), e.g. rubber on rubber), or if one is ineompressible and the other
relatively rigid (rubber on steel, e.g.). The reason is as follows.
Young's modulus, the modulus of rigidity, and Poisson's ratio of body aare denoted by
E , G , v , respeetively. The elastic behavior of the bodies in eontaet is governed by
a
a
a
three eombined eonstants, viz.
The combined modulus
0/ rigidily G:
E
a
..
a =
2( 1 + v ) .
a
The combined Poisson's ratio 11:
NB
def
The di//erence parameter K:
11
G = 2"
K
(G7 + G22 )'

vI
11
1 (1 - 2v I
G = 4"
GI
(1.44 )
- 2v
G 2).
2
When the bodies are either symmetrieal, or the half -spaee approximation is valid with
the differenee parameter K = 0, see (1.44), in the homogeneous isotropie ease, we eall the
bodies QUASIIDENTICAL; in the quasiidentieal ease, we ean make the separation into
(1.42)-(1.43), beeause the tangential traction p influenees the normal displaeement dif1"
ference u3 only through the A31 and A 32 of Eq. (2.30), and they vanish when K = O.
Note that the teehnologieally important ease of steel on steel half -spaees is an example of
quasiidentity. The separation property is also possessed by bodies whieh are elastically and
geometrieally symmetrie, but whieh are not half -spaces; examples are steel, equally long
eylinders with parallel axes and equal radii. The demand of geometrie symmetry is automatically fulfilled for half -spaces, so that quasiidentity is the rule rather than the
exeeption in eoneentrated (half -spaee) problems, while it is the exeeption rather than the
27
rule in diversified frictional contact problems. This underlines once more the importance
of the concept of the half -space approximation. Quasiidentity is also discussed in Ch. 3,
Sec. 3.4.
1.6.3.5 Mindlin's method
At this point we introduce the oldest way of handling non-quasiidentity. It is due to

Mindlin (1949), and in it G and lJ are defined as above in (1.44), but K is simply set
equal to zero. Then, Johnson's process is employed. In the Johnson process described earlier, in 1.6.3.3, the influence of the normal pressure on the slip is taken into account, but
not the influence of the tangential traction on the deformed distance. As the tangential
traction is bounded by fp , it will have little influence on the deformation when Kor f
z
are small. In Mindlin's method the interaction between tangential and normal problems is
neglected aItogether, so that it is approximately valid when K is small.
1.6.4
EXACT THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTIONS OF CONTACT PROBLEMS
We mention as an example the frictionless contact problem of Hertz (1882), and the solution of the Cattaneo (1938) - Mindlin (1949) shift, which latter is confined to the quasiidentical case. These problems are also treated in Kalker (1967a), Sec. 3.2 and subsections.
Also, the work of Lubkin (1951) on rotation shift should be mentioned, as weil as
Goodman's work (1962) on the contact of perfectly rough spheres.
1.7
BOUNDAR Y CONDmONS FOR SOME APPLICA TIONS
We will consider some examples, viz.

1.
2.
3.
1.7.1
The Hertz problem of concentrated frictionless or quasiidentical contact;

Frictionless or quasiidentical contact formation for concentrated and semi-concentrated non - Hertzian contact;
Frictional boundary conditions for bodies of revolution with the axes almost in
one plane.
THE HERTZ PROBLEM
Consider the elastic bodies numbered land 2, and mounted on axles, see Fig. 1.2. They
are brought into contact with each other, so that they touch at a point. This point, 0, is
taken as the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system (0; x I ,x 2 ,x3 ). The plane of x 3 is the
common tangent plane, the x 3 -axis points into body 1. The orthogonal axes of x land x 2
lie in the plane x 3 = 0, and will be chosen presently. We assurne the bodies to be Hertzian,
28
1.7: Boundary Conditions lor Some Applications

i.e. the surfaces near 0 are twice continuously differentiable, and that the radi i 01
curvature 01 a body near 0, viz. R al and R a2 , are ellectively constant. In a properly
chosen coordinate system (0;xal,xa2,xa3) in each body, in which the plane x a3 = 0

coincides with x 3 = 0, while x a3 points into body a, the surface of body a ne ar 0 is
given by
- (x I x 2)
[1/(2R al )
( 1.45)
Note that the undeformed distance h equals

h
= undeformed distance = x l3
+ x 23 .
(1.46)
The R , r = 1,2, are the principal radii of curvature Iying in the plane of x . They are
ar
ar
taken to be positive if the corresponding center of curvature lies in the half -space x a3 ~ O.
Assume that the angle that x al makes with x I equals wa ' see Fig. 1.9. Note that
W = WI
- w2 ' the angle between the axes xII and x 21
Figure 1.9 The intersection 01 the principal planes 01 curvature

bodies in the undelormed state with the plane z = O.
(1.47)
01 two contacting
29

We have, in terms of the coordinates (x ):
r
[
with c
cos
W,
Ca
S
-Sa]
c
a
[R~: ~I]
R 2
a
sin w,
a
[Xl]
[_Ca Sa]
sc
a
a
(1.48)
x2
1,2.
We perform the matrix multiplications of (1.48). We find
where
2
A a = c a IR a 1 + s a IR a 2
B a = c a IR a 2 + s a IR a 1
-1
-1
(1.49)
Ca = cas a {R al - R a2 }
Next we form the undeformed distance
(1.50)
We determine w1 and w2
in (1.50) vanishes:
w1 -
in such a way that the coefficient (C 1 + C 2 ) of xl x 2
-1
-1
-1-1
2s I c I (R II - R I2 ) + 2s2c2 (R 21 - R 22 ) = 0
tan 2w I = sin 2wl(cos 2w + 1) -1

tan 2w 2 = -sin 2wl(cos 2w + 1 )
( 1.51)
whence
1
2
-"2
(1 + tan 2w) },
="2 {l + ta
al
2
-"2
2
1
sa ="2 {l - t (1 + tan 2w) },
2
ca
= cos
= sin
w
a
= 1; this represents the non - uniqueness of the definition of c
(1.52)
and s .
If we define the axis of X in the manner of Fig. 1.9, with w defined by (1.51), then the
a
undeformed distance h becomes
30
1.7: Boundary Conditions for Some Applications
(1.53)
Note that the w vanish when w = 0, see (1.51), that is when the planes of principal
a
curvature of the surfaces at 0 coincide. This is a technologically most important case. It
obtains when the bo(lies are bodies of revolution with axes almost in the same plane, as is
usual in rolling contact. Under these circumstances
(1.54)
After the bodies have been brought into contact, the axes are shifted and/or rotated, and
as a consequence the bodies approach each other over a distance q; that is, the undeformed
distance becomes
(1.5 5)
so that the contact formation boundary conditions become
in pot. contact A
D 1x 1 + D2x 2 - q + u l3 - u23 = h + u3 ~ 0
c
= 0 in contact;
N.B. u 3 = u l3 - u23 .
Pi = 0 outside contact
in potential contact A
P3 = Pl3 = -P13 ~ 0
c
p e = 0
in A
3
c
approach q prescribed.
=
( 1.56a)
( 1.56b)
(1.56c)
(1.56d)
(1.56e)
( 1.56f)
It may be that, instead of the approach q, the total force along the x 3 -axis is prescribed,
in which case (1.56f) is replaced by

(1.56f ')
The potential contact must encompass the real contact.
These conditions have to be complemented by two tangential conditions in A , and by
c
three conditions in A and A . The tangential conditions are, e.g., p = 0; other tangential conditions will bf discuss~d in Sec. 1.7.3. For the region A w; will take the plane
x 3 = 0 outside Ac; the region Au will be taken as {x I x 3 --->
that is, the half -space
will have a fixed position at infinity. As a shift at infinity can be modeled by a zero dis-
001,
31
placement at infinity and a shift in A , we use the condition

c
u.->O
I
p. = 0
I
aslx.l->oo
I
(A )
( 1.56g)
( 1.56h)
in A
but several authors (Galin, 1953) have considered the case that
p. = prescribed, not necessarily 0 in A .
(1.56h')
If (1.56a-f,g,h) are considered, and the tangential traction either vanishes (frictionless
case) or quasiidentity obtains, then
p = 0
in A ,or the bodies are quasiidentical.

c
( 1.56i)
The contact area is bounded by an ellipse with half-axes a l and a 2 . Without loss of
generality we may take a l ~ a 2 , then D I ~ D 2 . Define:
cas a: = (D I - D 2 )/(D I + D 2 ); it equals
2
cos a: = k (D - C)/E, where
k, D, C, E are given in (1.57) below.
The solution of the problem has been given by Hertz (1882). For a long time this was
essentially the only three-dimensional, smooth-edged contact problem that had been
solved. 56 years later, in 1938, Cattaneo published his solution of the problem in which
two quasiidentical bodies are pressed together and then shifted in the tangential direction.
AIthough it is impossible to trace the thoughts of a genius like Hertz, he may have considered that the simplest analytic form - a paraboloid - must give rise to an equally
simple contact area - viz. the elliptic disko Added to that came the analogy with an
elastic potential due to a charged ellipsoid, which gives rise to a polynomial distribution
of the potential on the surface of the ellipsoid. The connection between elasticity and
potential theory was weH realized at the time, and indeed elaborated in the 1880's by the
works of Hertz himself, Boussinesq and Cerruti. Genius blended this all into the
harmonie entity known as the Hertz theory.
The resuIts of this theory wilI be described here, a derivation is found in Gladwell's book
(I980). The contact area is bounded by an ellipse with half -axes aland a 2 . Without loss
of generality we may take a l ~ a2 , then D I ~ D 2 . Define
(1.57a)
32
Here, D, C and E are complete elliptic integrals,

D
C=
E
J
J
7r/2
2
2
2
0
sin,p (I - k sin
,p)
7r/2
2
2
0
sin,p cos
- k
,p (I
7r/2
2
2
0
(1 - k sin
_1
2
sin
d,p
,p)
-~
2
d,p
(1.57b)
,p) 2 d,p.
The following complete elliptic integrals are also of interest,
B=
J
J
7r/2
2
2
0
(I - k sin
,p)
_1
2
d,p
7r/2
2
2
2
0
cos,p (I - k sin
,p)
_1
d,p.
( 1.57c)
K and E are tabulated in Abramowitz-Stegun (1964) with great precision.

K, E, C, D, Bare tabulated in lahnke-Emde (1943) with aprecision of about 4 decimals. An excerpt of this table is given in Appendix E.
There exists a relation between any three of them. Some of these relations are
= 2D - k 2C, E = (2 - k 2 ) D - k 2C,
D = (K - C)/k 2 , B = K - D,
K
B=D-kC
2
C = (D - B)/k .
(1.57d)
Then we have as the solution:
ai
27r (D 1 + D 2 ) a 2 + (typical diameter 01 contact)3

where Q = (I - v)/G, see (1.44)
3F 3QE
Approach:
q
(D I + D 2 ) a l K/E.
Sur face traction:

P3 = P3max {l - (x/al)
=
2"2
- (x 2 /a 2 ) }
(1.57e)
in E
with P3max
in C
= 3F /(27r a l a 2 ) = (D 1 + D 2)
a /(EQ).
Numerical tables and a derivation are given in Appendix E.
33
In Hertzian rolJing contact we use a different convention. RolJing commonly takes place
either in the xI - or in the x 2 -direction, that is, in a principal direction of the contact
ellipse. We introduce a new coordinate system in which we take the positive x-direction in
the direction of rolling, z in the x 3 -direction, and y so that (x,y,z) forms a right-handed
orthonormal coordinate system. The undeformed distance and the contact area are given by
h = Ax + By
(xl a)
+ (Ylb)
- q
undeformed distance
(1.58a)
contact area C.
(1.58b)
The connections between A, Band the D (T

T
= 1,2) and between a,
b, c and the a is
T
D 1 = max (A,B)
D 2 = min (A,B)
(1.58c)
a l = min (a,b)
a 2 = max (a,b)
( 1.58d)
The situation is shown in Fig. 1.10.
X1 =y
---r--~+-----r---X1=X
a=a 2
---+--------~--------+---X2=x
Rolling direction
Figure 1.10 The connection between (x,y) and (a,b) on the one hand, and the x
and a T on the other. (a): a = a l < b = a 2 ; (b): a = a 2 > b = a l .
34
1.7: Boundary Conditions lor Some Applications

1.7.2
FRICTIONLESS OR QUASIIDENTICAL CONTACT FORMATION FOR CONCENTRATED OR

SEMI-CONCENTRATED NON-HERTZIAN CONTACT
It has been argued that the Hertzian contact formation is the only frictionless contact
problem possible when the half -space approximation obtains for both contacting bodies.
The argument given is that higher order terms in the undeformed distance are of smaller
order of magnitude than the vertical displacement, and hence are negligible.
A higher degree of conformity leads to violation of the half -space approximation. This is
evident in bearing theory, where one has very long contact areas extending over the
entire length of the roller, and one has difficulty in taking care of end effects and in
finding the true approach of the bodies (q in the previous Sec. 1.7.1). Such a contact is
called semi-eoneentrated.
In order to circumvent this, Chiu and Hartnett (1987) abandoned the half -space approximation, and worked on an elastic cylinder instead, to the cost of much computer time. But if
one wishes to work reasonably fast, there is at present no alternative but to accept the errors or to compensate for them in an ad-hoc fashion (de Mul-Kalker- Frederiksson, (1986.
Figure 1.11 A rai! prolile eomposed

Right: the eonstruetion.
01 eireular ares. Lelt: the linal prolile.
There is, however, an application which conforms perfectly to the half -space approximation, yet wh ich is essentially non-Hertzian. Suppose that the radi i 01 eurvature are
diseontinuous somewhere in the eontact area, or almost so. This occurs in practice in railway wheels and rails, in the lateral direction, see Fig. l.ll. In the past, engineers constructed the profiles of wheel and rail with the aid of tangent circles. Thus the radius of
35
,~
'I'
I ,
uylmm
,-,
I
I
--- ellipticised contact area

- true contact area
Y
X
--- --- ...
-10
I
10
position of wheel set

I
"",.-
"
20
-- ....
y
x
Figure 1.12 Areas 01 contact in the railway wheel-rail system. Lower hall 01 each
subligure: The real contact area. U pper half 01 each subligure: The
Hertzian approximation 01 the contact area. Reprinted Irom Le The
(1987 ).
36
1.7: Boundary Conditions tor Some Applications
curvature would jump across the profile, and a non - Hertzian contact would result, see
Fig. 1.12. At the present time rails are made differently, in that one tries to design for
minimum wear, and to that end gives a new wheel or rail an "al ready worn" form.
Nevertheless, wheels and rails contain regions where the radii of curvature change
appreciably within the area of contact. In Fig. 1.12 we show the evolution of the contact
area, when the wheel is displaced over the rail in the lateral direction. The figure is
based on very painstaking calculations of Le The (1987). It is seen that the non-elliptic
and hence non-Hertzian forms prevail, even though there is a truly concentrated contact.
In this section we will derive the boundary conditions for these non-Hertzian problems.
They are all rolling contact problems. Indeed one can model them as two contacting bodies
of revolution: roller-race (bearings), wheel-rail (railways), wheel-disk (roller rig))
whose axes are almost in one plane, see Fig. 1.5. The axes need not be parallel. Note that
the contact area need not be flat.
We think of the axes as embedded in rigid axles whose center line coincides with the axis
under consideration. Two coordinate systems (x,y,z ), a = 1,2 are introduced of which
a
the x-axis points in the rolling direction, the y-axis points laterally, and the Z -axis
a
points into body a, see Fig. 1.13. Z 1 is also denoted by z. Let D (n ,n ,n ) be the
a
ax
ay
az
inner normal to a at the generic point x(x,y,z) of the potential contact A . Let z = z (x,y)
c
a
be the equation of the surface of body a in this coordinate system. We have, owing to the
property of body of revolution, and since the axis of x is perpendicular to the axes of
both bodies,
1
2
z (x,y) = -2 A (y) x + B (y).
a
The normal
Dl
( 1.59a)
at (x,y,z) is given by
Let zI,i ~f 8z/8i,

DI(n i ,nI ,nI)
x
y
z
(zi
,x
,zI
,y
,1)/
I
= (A I (y)X'-2
x,y; we have
z2I + z2I + 1
,x
,y
AI ,y i+B I ,y ,l)/jz~ ,x
+z~ ,y +1.
(1.59b)
Now x is small with respect to unity, since the bodies are counterformal in x-direction.
So
D l RI
(O,B l
,y
= 1/
,1)/
B7
+ 1.
( 1.60)
= nl z
(1.61a)
,y
Calling
COS 0:
1 + B7,y
37
x
Q
a<O
Z=Zl
y---r
b
Figure 1.13 Two counter/ormal (a) -con/ormal (b) bodies in near contact.
see Fig. 1.13, we find for the undeformed distance
(1.6Ib)
The similarity with the He\tz t~eory is striking; there, cos a = I, Al' A 2 are independent of y, and (B I + B 2 ) = 2" By
38
1.7: Boundary Conditions for Same Applications
We can add to this a displacement q. (i = x,y,z) of the entire body I with respect to the
I
body 2. The effect is that the normal component of q appears in (1.61) as
since (n Ix,n Iy,n I z)
(O,-sin
0:,
cos
0:),
see Fig. 1.13.
The remaining Hertzian boundary conditions of (1.56) remain valid. Prescription of the
total normal force becomes more complicated if the contact area is warped, i.e. 0: is not
constant. Suppose that we want to prescribe the total force components F , F , or F on
body I. It seems reasonable to interpret (p I ,P2 ,P3) of the half -space appro'xin!ation
the
components in the rolling, or x, direction, in the local lateral direction, and in the local
normal direction, respectively:
a:
( 1.63)
The total forces in x,y,z-directions become
(F ,F ,F ) =
x y z
JJ Contact (PI' P2 cos
0: -
P3 sin
0:,
P2 sin
0:
+ P3 cos
0:)
For concentrated contacts, 0: is a constant. For an example of a variable angle

1.13; a practical example is a flanging railway wheel.
dxdy .
cos 0:
(1.64 )
0:,
see Fig.
We finish this subsection by considering the potential contact region A . In practical

C
numerical calculations it is of interest to keep Aassmall as possible, because we do not
C
have to take into account the surface of the half -space outside A since it is traction free,
C
see (1.56c), (1.56h). Also, many algorithms need an estimate of the contact; this leads to
fewer iterations because the initial estimate is better. Here we will give a general expression for this estimate A , which is sharp in the sense that it cannot be improved without
C
specifying the geometry. It is valid in the frictionless, or quasiidentical case.
To that end we observe that, owing to the positive definiteness of the elastic energy, the
influence coefficient A 33 (x,y) of a weil supported body is positive. As a consequence we
have, owing to (1.56d), that in the frictionless or quasiidentical case u l3 ~ 0, u 23 ~ 0
(axis of 3 points into I). So
e(x,y) = h + u l3 - u23
h.
( 1.65)
Since e(x,y) is always positive outside the contact area, a feasible choice for A is
C
39

Ac
{x I z
0, h ~ o}.
( 1.66)
Note that this condition presupposes p = outside A . This, and only this is the reason
z
c
for the restrictive condition (1.56h). When one has a non-vanishing p in A one must
first calculate the surface without reference to the contact conditions, i.e. moify h, and
then one can apply (1.66).
In special cases A may be smaller than the form (1.66). Examples are:
c
The bearing with long contact area: use 0.25 h instead of hin (1.66);
The railway wheel-rail contact:
use 0.65 h instead of h in (1.66).
On the other hand, when the contacting bodies consist of a rigid core and a thin layer
mounted on it, so that the contact area diameter is at least 5 times the layer thickness,
then A as calculated in (1.66) actually coincides with the contact area, see Ch. 3.
c
If the normal force is prescribed, and Q is constant, so that no warping of the contact
occurs, we can rotate the coordinate system so that the axis of x 3 is normal to the contact
and points into I. The normal force becomes
F
ff
Contact
p (x,y) dxdy.
(1.67)
Then, an explicit expression like (1.66) seems hard to find. One way of proceeding is to
assurne a certain size for A , and to adjust the normal approach q in such a way that
c
A
= {(x,y,z) I Z = 0,
h - q ~ 0, q is prescribed, or the area of A is prescribed}.
( 1.68)
After calculating p with this A , the actual q, say q', is found. Then the A contains
Z
c
c
the contact if q' ~ q. If q' > q this is uncertain. However, it seems reasonable to suppose
that q' is an overestimate of the true q, since the contact is apt to be too smalI, while the
force remains constant. So an expression for A is
c
Ac
= {(x,y,z) I z = 0,
h - q' ~ o}.
( 1.69)
The procedure for finding A , if F . is prescribed, reads
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Estimate the area of A => q

c
Determine A by (1.68)
c
Determine q' from (1.56), (1.62), (1.67)
If q' > q then determine A from (1.69); goto "3"
c
Else: READY.
Note that (1.70) "4"
40
true means doing an entire calculation all over again.
( 1.70)
1.7: Boundary Conditions jor Some Applications
1.7.3
FRICTIONAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR BODIES OF REVOLUTION

WITH THE AXES ALMOST IN ONE PLANE
Consider a typical situation, such as given in Fig. 1.5. Let l be the z-coordinate of the
a
center of curvature in x-direction at the origin of the coordinate system, which lies in
the contact area. Then,
(1.71)
The bodies are rotated about these centers with angular velocities W (W ,W ,W ), so
. t h e x- d'lrectlOn.
.
In add"Itlon to t h'IS rotation
a ?lx the
a Yb0 daz
.
t hat t h ey ro ll over eac h ot her m
y a IS
given a translational velocity h (h ,h ,h ). The axes of rotation pass through
a ax ay az
(O,O,R lx )' and (O,O,-R 2 ), respectively; they lie almost in the plane of y and z. So we
have:
I Wax I j
W2 + W2
ay
az
W . = angular velocity of body a about the i-axis, i
a/
= x,y,z
( 1.72)
and the rigid velocities of the bodies land 2 become
.
z
h
h
ax
+ (z - l ) W
+xW
ay
az
h
+ yW
az
ax
ay
- yW
az
-(z-l)W
;ll=R lx
a
ax
- xW
l2 = -R 2x'
ay
(1.73)
The rigid slip is given by (cf. (1.16) and below)

h Ix -h 2x+z(W ly -W 2y)-(R Ix W Iy +R 2x W2y)- y(W I z -W 2z)
[ h Iy -h 2y +x(W I z -W2z)+(R Ix W Ix +R 2x W2)-z(W Ix -W 2)
hlz-h2z+y(Wlx-W2)
-x(W ly -W 2y )
(1.74)
The rolling velocity is given by (cf. (1.28))
41
v
x
v
I [-h Ix -h 2x -z(W Iy +W 2y)+(R lx W Iy -R 2x W2y)+Y(W Iz +W 2z)

-h Iy -h 2y -x(W lz +W 2z)-(R lxW Ix -R 2xW2)+z(W Ix+ W2)
2"
-hlz-h2z-y(Wlx+W2x)
(1.7 5)
+X(W ly +W 2y )
The slip is given in (1.21). Hs tangential components are:
l'
w - v. 8u /8x. + 8u / 8t,
= U
l'
l'
Ir
l'
- U
21"
l'
s def
(5
x' Y
l' =
X,y; i = x,y,z
)T
(1.76)
and Coulomb's Law reads
Iprl<t:,g,
e.g. g=fPz'
ifs,pO: p =-gs/Isl.
f = f(
I s I,xl')
(1. 77)
l'
Now, by (1.72), W
is of a smaller order of magnitude than the other c(Jmponents, W
u
~
and W . Also, x,y,z are of a smaller order of magnitude than R . So we will omlt
az
ax
terms like yW
and zW . Furthermore it appears from (1.75) that by far its largest
ax
ax
term is (RlxW I - R 2xW2y )' On the other hand, (RIXW ly + R 2x W2 ), which occurs in
the rigid slip
74), is of the same order of magnitude as the other terms of (1.74), at
any rate when rolling takes place, as we assurne. So we have:
(1.78)
We have by (1.59) that
-2 R
-I
ax
We note that z
x + B (y).
a
zl
Rj
-z2 in contact, while
-I
2"I R ax
is very smalI, but Ba is not
necessarily small. Thus we have

z
Rj
or z
42
zI
Rj
Rj
BI (y)
(-I)
a+1
Rj
-z2
B (y),
Rj
-B 2 (y)
a = 1,2, body number.
(1.79)
So, (1.7 4) becomes
and (1.75), if we retain only the largest term:
V: rolling velocity. (1.81)
In rolling,
=
TI
Iw I
V, the rolling velocity, hence we call
{h lx - h 2x - (RlxW ly + R 2xW 2y )} / V
= {h ly
longitudinal creepage
lateral creepage
- h 2y + (WI/W ly - W 2 /W 2y ) V} / V
<p = (W
- W )/ V
Iz
2z
( _l)a+ I B ( )(R - I + R -I)
a y
Ix
2x
spin creepage
(1.82)
conformity term.
h Ix - h 1 represents the sliding of

the upper body lover the lower body 2. R W is the vel~ity of body a due to the
. W
. wlth
. ra d'lUS R ax. ay
rotation
about t h e y-axls
ay
ax
TI, the lateral creepage, likewise consists of two terms. h 1 - h 2 represents the lateral
is the tangent oiYthe ya~ angle of body a, that
sliding of body lover body 2. W /W
is, the angle between the axis of ro~:tio~~nd the lateral, y, direction.
<P, the spin, represents the relati ve rotation about the z-axis.
, the longitudinal creepage, consists of two terms.
With these concepts, (1.80) becomes
<py + (-I) a+ I B a (y)(R 1x

-I + R 2- X>
1
TI + <pX
V.
-I
(1.83)
-1
[h lz - h 2z - xV (R lx + R 2x )] / V
43
Chapter 1.' The Rolling Contact Problem
We consider ; 1 - ;2' Assume that the axis of z is normal to the contact area, so that the
angle a in (1.62) vanishes. We note that by our definition of z 1 and z2 and by (1.62)
zl - z2
1(Al(y) + A 2(y)} i
+ Bl(y) + B 2(y) - q.
( 1.84a)
The deformed distance reads

(1.84b)
Since in the contact area e = 0, we have that
( 1.84c)
The z-component of the slip reads
(1.84d)
Now, the bodies are counter formal in the x-direction, and the angle w between the planes
of principal curvature vanishes, since the axes of the bodies lie in the plane X, which is a
plane of principal curvature. So w = 0, a = 1,2, whence
a
ca = cos wa
= 1
'
s a = sin w = 0
-1
-1
(1.84e)
AI (y) + A 2 (y) = R 1x + R 2x '
Equating aq/at = h 2 - h 1 yields the result S = 0, that is, slip takes place only in the
z
z
z
plane of x and y; it has no z-component. We denote the slip by S , T = 1,2:
T
SR = wR T
T
(w RI ,w R2 )
S
1.7.3.1
=V
sR;
T
auT lax + (I/V) auT /at;
= (e
W
Rolling velocity (v 1,v 2 )
(V,O);
- ~y, TI + ~x),
a rolling translation and a rotation
= V wR T ;
steady state: au lat = O.
(1.85)
Concentrated, e.g. Hertzian, geometry
In the case of counter formal geometry, B (y) ~ 0 in and near the contact, since y ~ 0,
a
and the tangent plane at the origin is the plane of x and y. Hence the tangential component of the rigid slip becomes
44
1.7: Boundary Conditions for Some Applieations
= (x I
ereepage
- x )
2r
= [;(1-;(2] =
Y I - Y2
[~-r/>Y] V
(1.86)
TI + r/>x
TI, r/>: see (1.82), V: see (1.81).
Note that the axes of rotation need not be parallel to the plane of x and y, and that from
that eireumstance arises a contribution to the spin r/>, see Fig. 1.14, which we call the spin
due to geometrie causes.
-----......
Y~~~~~~T7T7T7~-----------~~~~~
Figure 1.14 Spin due to geometrie eauses.

1.7.3.2 A ball rolling in a eonforming groove
For a ball of radius R rolling in a conforming groove whose radius in the y (lateral)
direction is -(1 + ) R, 0 < I, and in the rolling (x) direetion is R 2x ' we have
h(x,y)
2"I {R -I
Next, BI(y) = R - (R 2 _
XI - x 2
= {~ -
-I
+ R 2)
i)2
1
Ri
2"I R -I
-t i
- q.
(1.87)
R- I , and the rigid slip beeomes
I 2 -I
-I
-I
r/>y + 2" y R
(R
+ R 2x )) V
Y I -Y2=(T1+r/>X)V
( 1.88)
s z = o.
45
CHAPTER2
REVIEW
In this chapter we review the theory of the rolling contact problem in the theory of elasticity. Specialised books on contact mechanics are the works of Galin (1953, 1980),
Gladwell (1980), Johnson (1985), and Kikuchi and Oden (1988).
Galin was one of the greatest experts on contact mechanics as well as in other branches of
mechanics. He was a very many-sided man. His book (1953) was translated into English
under the supervision of Sneddon, in 1961. This book treats mainly two-dimensional
theory. The second book (1980) treats the newer developments and notably extends the
previous work to viscoelastic problems. Three-dimensional rolling contact is not treated.
Gladwell was the first to write a general treatise on contact mechanics in the West. This
book (1980) is an exhaustive account of what he calls the classical theory of contact
mechanics. Finite element methods, and with that complicated frictional loadings such as
rolling, are excluded. Three-dimensional problems are treated in three chapters, viz. X,
XI, XII.
Johnson is certainly the greatest contact mechanicist alive today. His book (1985) is
primarily directed towards the practising engineer with a love for theory. Normal,
sliding, and rolling contact of elastic and inelastic solids are all treated. There are chapters on calendering and lubrication, dynamic effects and impact, thermoelastic contact,
and rough surfaces. No sharp distinction is being made between two-dimensional, axially
symmetrie, and three-dimensional geometries. The divisions made in the book are purely
contact mechanical. It is seen that it is an excellent complement to Gladwell's work, and
that subsequent books can only consider new developments, or treat special subjects in
depth.
Especial need exists for a treatment of the variational principles and numerical methods
and numerical analysis of frictionless and frictional contact. Part of this area is covered
47
Chapter 2: Review
by the book of Kikuchi and Oden (1988), who wrote an impressive monograph dealing
with the variational theory of frictionless and frictional contact on the basis of the works
of Fichera (1964) and Duvaut and Lions (1972), and with the finite element methods
that can be developed on that basis. They deal extensively with existence, uniqueness,
convergence and accuracy of their methods. Their examples are two-dimensional, which
is perhaps due to the slowness of the finite element method.
So there is room for methods geared to special, notably three-dimensional geometries,
which are so fast that they can be conveniently implemented on a small scale computer
system. To the development of such methods the present work is dedicated. Notably the
determination of surface and subsurface stresses in three-dimensional half -spaces is of
interest, and indeed all examples of Ch. 5 concern that geometry; they were actually calculated on a 1988 IBM AT -type Personal Computer.
2.1
FRICTIONLESS CONTACT
The first problem of three-dimensional contact mechanics, viz. the Hertz problem (1882),
was already reviewed in Sec. 1.7.1. The problem may be formulated as folIows.
Two bodies are pressed together so that a contact area forms between them in wh ich friction is assumed to be absent. Their radi i of curvature are assumed to be virtually constant
in the contact. We assume that the contact is small with respect to a typical diameter of
the bodies. Then the bodies may be approximated by half -spaces, see Sec. 1.6, and the
contact area is an ellipse, see Eq. (1.57), while the contact pressure is semi-ellipsoidal.
After 1882 the work on the normal problem was first concentrated on the contact of
sharp-edged punches, i.e. punches that imprint a fixed contact area on the substrate.
Under these conditions the boundary conditions in and ne ar the contact area are:
Sur face traction:
Deformed distance:
Tangential traction:
p=O
e=h+u
-u =0
In
2n
p = 0
T
outside contact.
inside contact.
inside contact.
(2.1 )
(2.2)
(2.3)
This constitutes a classical boundary value problem of solid mechanics; we refer to

Gladwell's book (1980). We will not occupy ourselves with this problem.
The problem of sharp-edged punches stands in contrast to the problem of smooth edged
punches in which the contact area is not known apriori. Indeed, conditions (2.1) and
(2.3) are retained in frictionless problems, but (2.2) is replaced by (cf. Sec. 1.5):
e
48
0,
p n ~ 0 (compressive),
ne
= 0
in potential contact A.
c
(2.2 ')
2.1: Frictionless eontact

The problem (2.1), (2.3) with the inequality-complementarity relations (2.2 ') is evidently more complicated than the problem (2.1), (2.3) with the Eq. (2.2), as in the latter case
the contact area is sought, while it is known in the former case. Yet it has its own difficult points owing to the presence of infinite singularities, see Appendix E, Secs. 9 and
10.
Work on the smooth-edged punch was also taken up, and concentrated on two-dimensional and axisymmetric profiles. Here the problem of finding the contact area is essentially reduced to searching for the position of a single, or perhaps a few, points. Here,
and also in the sharp-edged punches, the important authors are Muskelishvili (1945,
1949) and Galin (1953); the theory is also described in Galin (1980) and Gladwell
(1980).
2.1.1
ELEMENT METHODS
True three-dimensional problems came to the fore with the advent and development of
computers, that is, with the emergence of the finite element methods. When massive
elastic bodies are treated with a finite element method there are two ways of proceeding.
In the first method, the finite element method proper (FEM), the interior of a body as
weIl as its boundary are divided into a finite number of non-overlapping elementary
regions, e.g. triangles or tetrahedra. In these elementary regions, the elastic field is simplified: for instance, the displacement field is taken to be a linear or quadratic function
of the position, whence the stresses and strains are constant, or linear functions of the
position. Here we have started from the displacement (displacement method), but one may
also start from the stresses (force method). The region with its simplified elastic field is
called an element. The elements are put together by means of the compatibility relations,
and the non-discretised field in the entire body is approximated by the discretised field
which is the union of the fields of all elements. The subsequent field is analysed by using
the Principle of Virtual Work. Finite element methods of this type are described in, e.g.
Zinkiewicz (1988). They were applied to two-dimensional contact problems by Paczelt,
see, e.g. (1974,1977).
In order to solve a contact problem, several trial loadings have to be considered, see
Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3 and subsections. These loadings vary only in the potential contact area.
Thus it is necessary to express the elastic field in terms of the loading in the potential
contact only. This leads to an 1n/luence Function Method, see Ch. 1, Sec. 1.5, Eq. (1.37).
Such a representation can be derived numerically from a FEM. It is our experience that
the influence function A(x,y) of Eq. (1.37) must be determined with high precision in
order to avoid numerical oscillations wh ich spoil the results. Thus a great many elements
are needed to find the influence functions correct1y; this is especially true in the threedimensional case. Indeed, three-dimensional solutions of the contact problem by FEM are
49
Chapter 2: Review
extremely scarce. Notable exceptions are the paper by Klarbring (1986) and Bjrkman's
Thesis (1988), which was supervised by Klarbring.
The large amount of elements generates the need to deal with them efficiently both as
concerns memory space as weil as computer time. This problem is at the moment being
attacked in two ways, from the software and from the hardware side.
As to software, methods of dealing with sparse matrices are weil developed. In the elastic
system, one is helped by the fact that the systems of equations are, or almost are, diagonally dominant. This development is still continuing.
As to hardware, we are in the middle of a spectacular development. Memories are getting
larger and larger, parallel computers, especially vector computers, have been developed,
and are being perfected at a fast pace, while the newest developments are the special
purpose computers - computers that are especially designed to deal efficiently with a
particular problem. It may very weil be that in the near future a special purpose
computer will be developed for the three-dimensional element method.
All this makes it extremely difficult to make a comparison between the efficiency of the
FEM and another method, which is based on simplification of the geometry to a point
where analytic determination of the influence functions is possible. One of these simplifications is the half-space approximation, in which the bodies are replaced by half -spaces
for the purpose of the deformation-stress field calculations. An extensive discussion of the
properties, advantages and disadvantages of the half -space approximation is found in
Ch. 1, Sec. 1.6 and its subsections. Programs based on the half -space approximation can be
easily executed on current conventional computers, which do not contain parallel devices
or other special purpose hardware. Also, if one does not mind only moderate accuracy,
one can run them on current fast and large Personal Computers. All the calculations of
Ch. 5 which were performed by myself were executed on such a Personal Computer.
Here, also, new solution methods in software, e.g. multigrid methods (see Brandt and
Lubrecht, 1990?) are being developed, while also vector computers will have their
impact in further accelerating the programs. So for me at any rate the balance is at present still tilted towards the analytically determined influence function methods. However,
when discussing the Influence Function Method (IFM) I will not concern myself with the
manner in which one obtained the influence function under consideration, but I will
concentrate on the contact part of the problem.
Now the various authors and their work will be discussed.
2.1.1.1
Fridman and Chernina
The first to apply a FEM to the frictionless contact problem were Fridman and Chernina
(1967). They pointed out that the discretised frictionless contact problem can be reduced
to a problem in quadratic programming, that is, to the minimisation of a positive definite
50
2.1: Frictionless Contact
quadratic form under linear equality and inequality constraints. The quadratic programming problem under consideration is the discretisation of a convex, quadratic variational principle, which consists of the minimisation of a convex quadratic functional
under linear equality and inequality constraints. The validity of this variational, or
weak, virtual work formulation of the frictionless contact problem had been surmised by
Signorini (1959) while Fichera (1964) formulated the problem rigorously, proved existence and uniqueness of the solution, and established the equivalence with the frictionless
contact problem. Fridman and Chernina were unaware of the works of Signorini and
Fichera at the time they wrote their paper. Their work is, moreover, entirely directed
towards numerical results. Their three-dimensional half -space example is axisymmetric.
In the Fridman and Chernina treatment of the frictionless contact problem two aspects
emerge: In the first place they use an influence function method to find the relation
between the surface load and the elastic field on the surface and inside the contacting
bodies; then they use quadratic programming as a strategy to determine which surface
elements belong to the contact area, and which do not.
2.1.1.2
Later authors
Methods based on quadratic programming have the advantage that rigorously proved
algorithms exist which implement it in a finite number of steps. Kalker and van Randen
(1972), who were unaware at the time of Fridman and Chernina's work, likewise used a
quadratic programming formulation and applied Wolfe's algorithm (1959) to implement
it. Conry and Seireg (1972) also used a mathematical programming method, but with
essentially double the number of variables. They were the first to formulate and implement the optimal design problem for contact stresses.
It appears that the frictionless contact problem is rather insensitive to the strategy
employed to find the contact area. Most methods yield the solution eventually (e.g. Oh and
Trachman, 1976; Paul and Hashemi, 1981), although in several cases (Singh and Paul,
1974; Hartnett, 1979) considerable work has to be done to remove ill-conditioning. The
objective is to find a strategy that is efficient, easy to understand, and that converges in
all possible cases. The latter is guaranteed if the method can be rigorously proved to
converge. Mathematical programming solution methods usually have the drawback that
they are not easy to interpret mechanically, but they do have the advantage that they can
be established rigorously, or at least are a modification of an algorithm that can be
established rigorously. Ad hoc methods that are not based on a mathematical programming
formulation often have the advantage that the engineer can understand exactly what is
happening, but have the drawback that they cannot be proved to converge, and therefore
need not be universally applicable.
51
Chapter 2: Review
There is a method, originally due to Ahmadi, Keer and Mura (1983), and developed
further , and rigorously proved by Kalker (1983, 1988) and Bischoff and Mahnken
(1984), which combines the advantages of both quadratic programming and ad hoc
methods. It is described in eh. 4, Sec. 4.3 and subsections, and it is actually an efficient
quadratic program solver whose every step can be interpreted mechanically. Modifications of this method can be used for frictional problems, see eh. 4, loc. cit.
2.1.1.3
lnlluence Function Methods lor the half-space: choice 01 elements
The various elements we consider are:

a) Triangular elements in which the traction distribution is linear, and the total traction
distribution is continuous and piecewise linear, see Fig. 2.1. The element distribution
is chosen apriori, and is not influenced by the contact area (Kalker-van Randen,
1972b).
b) Rectangular elements in which the traction is constant, and the total traction distribution is discontinuous and piecewise constant, see Fig. 2.2. The element distribution is
chosen apriori (de Mul-Kalker-Frederiksson, 1986).
c) As in b), but the element distribution is adapted to the contact area, see Fig. 2.3
(Paul-Hashemi, 1981).
d) Elements carrying a semi-elliptical traction distribution which spans the contact area,
see Fig. 2.4; the rectangular planform is adapted to the contact area (Reusner, 1978;
Nayak-Johnson, 1979; Le The, 1987).
We give some background of the elements of type d).
They are especially suited for use in the frictionless rolling contact problem, as in roller
bearings (Reusner, Nayak-Johnson) or in wheel-rail contact in railways (Le The). In both
cases the undeformed distance h (see Sec. 1.2, Fig. 1.3, Eq. (1.4 can be regarded as quadratic in x, the coordinate in the rolling direction, see eh. 1, Eq. (1.59a):
h(x,y)
x:
y:
z:
= A(y)
x 2 + B(y)
(2.4)
coordinate in rolling direction

coordinate in lateral direction
coordinate in normal direction, pointing into body 1.
If one disregards the dependence on y, one obtains a set of two-dimensional problems

depending on y as on a parameter. These problems can be solved exactly, with the result
that the normal pressure is given by
1
52
z ~f
-
lz
= C(y)
(a(y)
22
- x }
(2.5)
Figure 2.1 Type a) element distribution: Kalker-van Randen. Elements in contact

shown shaded. Real colltact area: a circle.
I
I
I
--Li
---
~_.J
---
/'
---
1_::-::-:'
'l_
'\:
1/
IJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
-~
I
r~
-~
I
I
t---
---
--V
IV
1
1
1
I
Figure 2.2 Type b) element distribution: de Mul-Kalker-Frederiksson. Real contact

circular. Approximated contact boundary shown in broken fines.
53
Chapter 2: Review
1/
-- ~
""
/
\
,\
"" - ~
1\
/
Figure 2.3 Element net adapted to the contact (Paul and Hashemi). Type c).
with
C(y):
a(y):
a function of the parameter y

the half-width of the contact area at the coordinate y.
In all problems concerning the contact of two bodies of revolution with axes in the same
plane, the undeformed distance is given by (2.4). It is assumed by the users of element d)
that the pressure distribution is given by (2.5). As the planform of the elements is rectangular, see Fig. 2.4, C and aare constant in each element, and the total functions C(y)
and a(y) are piecewise constant.
Reusner bases his calculation of the influence function on Kunert's work (1961). Kunert
showed that the stresses and strains in the interior of a half -space due to the element d)
with pressure distribution (2.5) can be expressed in elementary functions.
From that representation the surface displacement is found by a numerical integration
starting at infinity. Nayak and Johnson as weIl as Le The start from the well-known
Boussinesq-Cerruti integral representation (see Eqs. (2.39), (2.40)). This reduces to an
integral over the rectangular planform of element d); the integration in y-direction may
be performed analyticaIly, but in the x-direction recourse must be had to a numerical
integration algorithm such as Simpson's Rule.
54
(-a,y)
pza...:::
/ Pz,max
(0, y)
(a, y)
Figure 2.4 Elements 0/ type d). (a): Plan/orm. Real contact area circular.
(b): Pressure distribution in x-direction: circular i/ the scale
is properly chosen.
55
Chapter 2: Review
This numerical integration is a slow affair as compared to the evaluation of an elementary

analytic expression. This induced the author to use instead of (2.5) a parabolic traction
distribution,
p (x,y) = C '(y) {a '(y)2 _ x 2 )
z
piecewise constant
C '(y), a '(y)
(2.5 ')
whose surface displacement can be expressed in elementary functions, and which is, we
hope, close to (2.5). This work was not published by me. The element d) in combination
with (2.5 ') was implemented and used successfully in Industry, with certain adaptations
of an ad hoc nature.
2.1.1.4
The accuracy ui :he elements
We investigate the accuracy and the relative efficiency of the half -space elements of the
previous subsection.
Three aspects vary in the elements.
A. The semi-elliptic traction distributions spanning the contact area of the element of
type d) as opposed to the local traction distributions such as in elements of the types
a), b), c).
B. Continuous distributions, like Kalker-van Randen (type a) as opposed to discontinuous
distributions like de Mul-Kalker-Frederiksson (type b), Paul-Hashemi (type c), or,
to a lesser extent, Reusner (type d).
C. Element nets that are fixed apriori (types a, b), or that are adapted to the contact
area (types c, d).
A. Elements
0/ type d) as opposed to elements 0/ types a). b).
c)
The accuracy of the elements can be assessed by using them on the same problem, and
comparing the results. This has been done by comparing de Mul-Kalker-Frederiksson
(type b) with Reusner (type d). The results confirm one another roughly within the
available accuracy. Which method should one use? This is decided by the calculating
speed which will be discussed below.
Another feasible option is the program based on (2.5 I), which is quite fast. It should be
noted that the a), b), c) methods are applicable whatever the undeformed distance h,
while the d)-method is confined to undeformed distances h as in (2.4).
56
B. Continuous distributions as opposed to discontinuous distributions

The displacement u can be expressed in terms of the surface traction p by the relationz
z
ship
uz(x,y) =
ff
A(x - x', y - y') pz(x',y') dx'dy'
with
(x,y), (x ',y I):
A:
(2.6)
points of the surface of the half-space

an integrable, singular kerne!.
We note that the replacement of p by a piecewise constant distribution amounts to

z
evaluating (2.6) by the Mid-Point Rule. This, as is weil known, has about the same accuracy as the approximation by the Trapezoidal Rule, using a continuous, piecewise linear
approximation of p (x',y'). We conclude that making the pressure in an element contiz
nuous does not lead to greater accuracy in the dis placement.
C. Fixed element nets as opposed to adapting element nets
It remains to compare element nets which are fixed (types a, b) to nets that are adapted to
the contact area. Near the edge of the contact area, the behavior of the pressure is
0(";;;), where p is the distance to the edge of the contact area. Type d) elements (but
only if combined with (2.5)) have this kind of behavior, but the edge of the contact is not
very weil fitted, so that it is questionable whether the error is less than 0(";;;). So, to be
on the safe side, we state that the error in all elements is 0(";;;) near the edge of the
contact. This holds for fixed and adapting discretisation nets alike. Fortunately, the mean
of the error in the traction distribution vanishes, so that the adverse effect of the
near-singular behavior of the traction is only local, by the de Saint- Venant Principle in
elasticity.
We concJude that the accuracy of the element methods a), b), c) is roughly the same for
equal number, n 2 , elements employed. The element method d) need considerably fewer
elements, say n, to achieve the same accuracy as the a), b), c) methods with n 2 elements.
However, the methods a), b) need calculation of the influence functions of the elements
only once for every geometry, while the methods c), d) must update their influence
functions together with their contact area. From this it is seen that the method c) (Paul
and Hashemi, 1981) has the disadvantages of a), b), viz. many elements, and of d):
several recalculations of the influence functions. In all the cases a), b), c), several sets of
n 2 linear equations with n 2 unknowns must be solved; in method d) one must solve n
linear equations several times. The matrices of these equations are ful!. In addition, the
methods c) and d) must calculate respectively O(n 4), and 0(n 2 ) influence functions
57
Chapter 2: Review
several times. It was noted before that the methods a), b), c) are general, while method d)
is limited to undeformed distances h as in (2.4).
We will determine the accuracy of the methods a), b), c), and hence of d) under the
following simplifying suppositions:
Q.
The error in u(x) may be regarded as the error of integration of (2.6) by a twodimensional midpoint rule over small rectangular elements (method b).
The error in u(x) due to the integration (2.6) over one element is a normally distributed stochastic variable with zero mean, whose standard deviation will be
determined below.
Let i be a typical diameter of the contact region. Then the area of contact is O(i). The
number of elements in the contact area is n2 , and the length of a contact element is i/li.
Then the error in the traction distribution of a linear interpolation is 0((i/II)2), hence the
contribution of one element to the error in u(x) is 0((I./n)4), which is also the order of
magnitude of the standard deviation. The expectation of the sum over the n 2 elements
vanishes, and the standard deviation of the total error is proportional to the square root of
the number of elements, and hence is 0(i4/n\
That is:
The error of the displacement u(x) is 0(11 - 3), where 11 2 is the
number of elements in methods a), b), c), and n is the number
of elements in method d).
(2.7)
Finally we will consider the choice of body by which the geometry is approximated for
the pur pose of elasticity calculations. In the fOllowing cases an analytic calculation of the
influence functions has been given or seems feasible:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The
The
The
The
homogeneous and isotropie half -space;

quarter space;
layer or layered half-space;
circular cylinder.
It should be noted that the calculation of the influence function

l. .(x ) =
lJ
Q,
58
ff
= 1,2,
element
A ..(x ,Y ) dy l dY 2
lJ
i,j = 1,2,3
(2.8)
2.2: Elastic Rolling Contact

is easy only for the homogeneous, isotropic half -space; in all other cases it is very difficult and time consuming. So a half -space approximation will be used unless the error becomes unacceptable. De Mul et al. (1986) used simple ad hoc corrections to adapt the
half-space solution to the semi-concentrated contacts in roller bearings. The other solutions are extremely useful in assessing the error of the half -space solution.
2.1.1.5
Conclusion
It is our opinion that the methods a) and b) (Kalker-van Randen; de Mul et al.) are
interchangeable and quite efficient. Method c) (Paul and Hashemi) seems to be rather
slow. Method d) (Reusner; Nayak-Johnson; Le The; Kalker) may be more efficient than
the methods a) and b), but it is confined to a special geometry. All these methods are confined to half -spaces. There are methods for three-dimensional bodies that are not halfspaces, but at present they are far slower and far more memory consuming than halfspace methods. In the future, however, non-half -space methods will become more efficient and hence more suitable for technological problems.
2.2
ELASTIC ROLLING CONTACT
In this section, we survey the various rolling contact theories. In order to aid the understanding, we give here a scheme showing the theories and their interrelations. We mention the author, the period of their development, the section of this book where they are
discussed, and a code from which their basic hypotheses may be read off. This code is
explained on page 61.
2.2.1
CARTER AND FROMM
Two authors stand at the cradle of the continuum theory of rolling, viz. F.W. Carter
(1926) and H. Fromm (1927). They worked independently, one in England, the other in
Germany.
Carter's paper is entitled: On the action o[ a locomotive driving wheel. He modeled the
railway track as an elastic half -space, and the wheel as an elastic cylinder; he gave these
bodies the same elastic constants. After setting up the boundary conditions Carter approximated the cylinder by a half -space, and solved this double half -space problem of twodimensional elasticity.
Fromm considers the rolling contact problem of two elastic cylinders with the same elastic
constants, and succeeds in solving that problem of two-dimensional elasticity without
having recourse to the half -space approximation.
59
Chapter 2: Review
THEORIES AND THEIR INTERRELATIONS
(Generalisation of Galin's Theorem)

[Kalker] 1967
2.2.2.4; nix
r - --- - --- --I
,I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,,
,
I
,I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
r-- - - - - __ I
I
I
I
I
Hertz Theory
1882
1.7.1; 5.1.1; E.2; aix 7
(Mathematical
Programming Theory
App. B
(Cattaneo)
1938
5.2.2.1; vp
Vermeulen - Johnson
1964
2.2.2.2; 2.2.3.1
5.2.1.4; 5.2.1.5; pt!
Carter
1926
2.1.1; wx
Strip theory
[*]1963-1967
2.2.2.5; 2.2.3.2
spt s
Johnson
pure spin
1958
2.2.2.1; cfpt
... -
..
r-
KalkerGoedings
1972
2.2.3.6; xt 6
(DuvautLions)
1972
Ch. 4; bsnvx
DUVOROLtCONTACT
[Kalker] 1979- ...
2.2.3.7; Ch. 4, 5, sankx 6
1
Linear theory
[*; Kalker] 1958- ...
2.2.2.4; 4.3.6; E.3; snfx
Simplified
theory
[Kalker] 1973
2.2.3.3; Ch. 3
bsnp
FASTSIM
[Kalker] 198
Ch. 3; bsnp
60
Kalker
1967
2.2.3.4; pt 4
Line contact
[Kalker] 197
2.2.2.5
sankxt s
Shen-HedrickElkins; 1983
2.2.3.1; 5.2.1.4
5.2.1.5; p2
l
(Mindlin)
1949
5.2.1.2; fvx
2.2: Elastie Rolling Contaet
A -------+ B means:
A - - ~ B means:
Theory A has a direct infl uence on theory B.

Theory B can be derived from theory A, but this was not done
originally.
The theories whose names are between brackets are supporting theories.
Where necessary, authors' names are gi yen in square brackets.
The codes of the hypotheses must be read as folIows:
Unless otherwise specified, the body is a half -space; the contact area is elliptic; the
materials are quasiidentical; the normal pressure is elliptic; the tangential traction is
unrestricted; and we have rolling contact. The codes added to the theories constitute
exceptions to these rules. Each letter of the code refers to the exception listed below.
Also, a superscript may be added to the code; this refers to the notes that are also
listed.
The exceptions are:
a
Material asymmetry (non-quasiidentity).
b
Unrestricted bodies.
c
Circular contact area.
f
No slip.
Slip irrelevant.
k
Unrestricted modes of slip.
n
Unrestricted normal pressure.
p
Essentially approximate theory.
s
Unrestricted contact area.
v
Shift.
w Cylinders with parallel axes.
x
Essentially exact theory.
Notes:
2
3
4
5
6
[*]
Adhesion area elliptic. No spin.

Unrestricted creepage, small spin. Excellent approximation.
Slender contacts only.
Not completely reliable.
Not completely reliable; slow in operation.
Fully reliable for quasiidentity or vanishing friction; very reliable otherwise.
Determines the normal pressure. Friction is only admissible in the presence of
quasiidentity.
Various authors.
The theory is now obsolete.
61
Chapter 2: Review
PzO~
/ Pz,mnx
____L-__________
-0
___________!----x
Q
CONTACT AREA C
I~
.-1
Figure 2.5 The normal pressure p . in Carter's paper ( 1926).
Both authors assurne that the surface traction component on body I along its inner normal
vanishes outside contact, and is compressive inside, see Fig. 2.5. Moreover they assurne
z
that the slip throughout the contact area has one and the same sign, i.e. that the slip is
everywhere directed in one and the same sense. Their theory is, finally, two-dimensional.
The normal pressure is two-dimensional-Hertzian:
p
p
z
z
outside contact ( I x
= 0
I > a)
compressive inside contact ( I x
~ 0
p (x) = {p (0)/ a} [a
x:
21.
- x ]2
I ::!> a)
inside contact
(2.9)
tangential coordinate.
It was assumed by both authors that the tangential component of the traction p (x), that
x
is, the component of the surface traction in the x-direction, satisfies the loeal Coulomb
Law, i.e.
Ipxl
~fPz'
s :
x
if s x '" 0:
f: coefficient of friction
slip of half -space lover half -space 2

p
= -fp z
sign (s ).
(2.10)
The material of the bodies flows through the area of contact with rolling velocity from
the edge x = +a (the leading edge) to the edge x = -a (the trailing edge). Both authors
show that the contact area is divided into two; in the region bordering on the leading
edge x = a the slip vanishes (area of adhesion); in the other area, bordering on the trailing edge, x = -a, there is slip (area of slip).
62

Let the length of the adhesion area be 2a ' ; set
x'=x-a+a'
then x'
(2.11 )
0 at the center of the contact area. Carter and Fromm show that
P (x) = 0
P (x)
if
slp (x)
I x I > a (exterior)
= s (fp z (O)/a)
if
[a
I x I :$ a, I x ' I > a ' (slip)
= s (fP (0)/ a} {[ a
if
with
s = -1
=
+1
21.
- x ] 2
2"2
2
21.
- x] - [a' - x' ] 2}
I x I :$ a, I x' I :$ a' (adhesion)
(2.12)
if s > 0
xif s < O.
x
(2.13)
The solution is shown in Fig. 2.6. For a further discussion of Carter's problem we refer to
Appendix D, Sec. D9.
Rolling
Direetion
".;.,.------....,
/
",
,,
\
\
~--J-4--------------------L-X
-a
slip
adhesion area
\
I
-0
slip
adhesion area
Figure 2.6 The tangential traction according to Carter and Fromm. The theories
01 Carter and Fromm are two-dimensional. (a): PSr is the traction
corresponding to sliding: PAr acts over the adhesion area.
The traction distributions are simultaneously circular, il the scale is
properly chosen. The actual tangential traction p = Ps - PA .. it is
r
r
r
shown in (b).
63
Chapter 2: Review
The construction (2.12), according to which the tangential traction is found by postulating the ful1 slip solution fp over the entire contact area and by subtracting a term in
z
the adhesion area proved quite fruitful. The Johnson (l958b) and Vermeulen-Johnson
(1964) solution (see Sec. 2.3.3.1) employs it, as wel1 as the strip theoretic solutions of
Haines-Ol1erton (1963), Hal1ing (1964), and Kalker (l967c, Sec. 2.2.3.2). The power of
the method resides in the fact that illustrative, and exact or near exact solutions of the
rol1ing contact problem can be obtained. The weakness lies in its inability to handle spin
creepage, and in its inability to find the no-spin solution in the three-dimensional case,
see Sec. 2.2.3.1. This is the reason why the approach was largely abandoned after 1967.
2.2.2
THE NO-SLIP THEORY OF ROLLING CONTACT
The next to successful1y concern hirnself with elastic rolling contact was K.L. Johnson. In
1958 he published two articles, one on rol1ing with pure creepage, and one on rol1ing
with spin. Both articles consider circular contact areas; the article on pure creepage was
subsequently generalised to elliptical contact areas by Vermeulen and Johnson (1964).
The articles are based on the supposition of quasiidentity (see eh. I, Sec. 1.6).
In this section we wil1 start by considering the article on spin creepage. This article is
remarkable because the concept of spin (see Eqs. (1.82), (1.85), Fig. 1.14) emerges here
for the first time. It wil1 be recalled that the spin is proportional to the rotation of the
bodies relative to each other about an axis perpendicular to the contact area (the z- or
x 3 -axis). Johnson found that in the absence of longitudinal and lateral creepage (see
Eqs. (1.82), (1.85, spin is accompanied by a lateral tangential force, and by a moment
about the z-axis. Johnson formulated this somewhat differently: in the absence of a tangential force, spin creepage is accompanied by lateral creepage, and by a moment about
the z-axis.
Johnson's spin theory is a no-slip theory, that is, it is assumed that the coefficient of friction is infinitely large, so that the slip vanishes throughout the contact. In addition, the
tangential traction has to vanish at the leading edge, that is, the part of the boundary of
the contact area at which particles enter it. Johnson later (1962) gave an argument for
this leading edge condition which amounts to the following:
A partic1e lies in front of the contact area. As it is outside contact, it carries no
traction. The particle moves towards the contact area, and enters it while it still
carries no traction. Traction builds up as the partic1e traverses the contact area,
until the traction reaches the traction bound. Slip sets in and relieves the traction:
this will of course not happen if the traction bound is infinite, as it is in the
no-slip theory. Finally the particle leaves the contact area, whereupon all surface
traction that is left on it is suddenly annihilated.
64

It is seen from this argument that at the trailing edge, that is, the edge of the contact area
where particles leave it, the traction need not vanish; on the other hand, on the leading
edge it does vanish. It is also seen that the no-slip theory does not depend on the actual
value of the friction coefficient, as it is just this quantity that is removed from the problem by becoming infinite, or, in other terms, the problem with finite friction coefficient
is approximated by the same problem but with infinite friction.
The first to apply a no-slip theory in three-dimensional frictional contact was Mindlin
(1949). He solved the no-slip problem of two quasiidentical Hertzian bodies pressed together and subsequently displaced and rotated about the z-axis over a finite angle with
respect to each other, without rolling. This problem is remarkable because the contact
area possesses neither leading nor trailing edge: all particles in the contact area remain
there in the course of time. Mindlin as well as Cattaneo before hirn (1938), solved the
problem of quasiidentical Hertzian bodies pressed together, and displaced monotonically,
without rotation or rolling, with finite friction. SubsequentlY' Lubkin (I 951) solved the
problem of quasiidentical spheres pressed together and rotated about the z-axis without
linear displacement, and Mindlin and Deresiewicz published (1953) a complete study of
the unidirectional, non-monotonie displacement, without rotation or rolling, of two
quasiidentical spheres, all with finite friction. Non-quasiidentical compression of spheres
without linear tangential displacement, rotation, or rolling was considered by Goodman
(1962: no-slip theory with infinite friction), and by Spence (1975: finite friction). A
direct numerical IFM treatment of Spence's problem is found in Ch. 5, Sec. 5.3.1.
In a linear theory of rolling, the tangential traction, and hence the total force and the
moments about the coordinate axes that are derived from it are linear lunctions 01 the
creepage and the spin. Hence the no-slip theory is also called the linear theory 01 rolling
contact. For quasiidentical bodies with Hertzian contact area, in which rolling takes place
in the direction of one of the principal axes of the contact ellipse (conventionally the
x-axis), the total tangential force (F ,F ), and the moment about the z-axis, M , have
x y
z
the form
Fx
2
-c GClle,
c =..rab
G
C ..
I}
e, TJ, t/>
where a and bare the semi-axes of the contact ellipse in

rolling (x) and lateral (y) directions.
The combined modulus of rigidity, see Eq. (1.44).
The creepage and spin coefficients, constants of proportionality.
It appears from numerical calculations, that C 32 = -C 23 .
(2.14a)
The C .. are tabulated in Appendix E, Table E3.
Longi:~dinal (= in rolling direction), lateral and spin creepages
of body I with respect to body 2, see Ch. 1, Sec. 1.7.3, Eq. (1.82).
65
Chapter 2: Review
Total force components in x (rolling) and y (lateral) directions,

exerted on body 1.
Moment exerted on body labout the z-axis, i.e. the axis perpendicular to the contact area and pointing into body I.
2.2.2.1
Comparison 0/ Johnson's spin theory with the exact va lues
Johnson's spin theory (l958a) is the first no-slip theory that concerns itself with rolling.
and TI both
vanish, and the tangential traction goes to infinity as one approaches the entire edge of
the contact, with the exception of the foremost point (a,O) of the contact area. At this
foremost point Johnson makes the tangential traction vanish, whereas it should vanish in
the entire part of the edge with positive x. In Johnson's article on the linear theory of
rolling with spin he considers the case that F = O. Under these conditions the lateral
creepage TI is proportional to the spin creepag/e/>; indeed, for the circular contact area,
Johnson finds (l958a)
It is confined to quasiidentical bodies with a circular contact area. In it,
TI
-ce/> C 2 /C 22
-2(2 - 11) ce/> I (3(3 - 211)},
2
c = (ab) .
(2.15)
This is compared with the exact linear theory of Kalker (1964, 1967a). The theory
(1964) is described in Sec. 2.2.2.3; the theory (I 967a) is described in Sec. 2.2.2.4. In these
theories, the leading edge condition on the tangential traction is fully taken into account.
Johnson also calculated the no-slip moment M (I 958a). He found
z
4 2 4
M z = -32(2 - 11) I (9(3 - 211)} c Ge/> = - (C 33 + C23/C22) c Ge/>.
(2.16)
(2.15) and (2.16) are compared with Kalker's exact values of the C .. in Table 2.1.
lJ
TABLE 2.1 Comparison of Johnson's linear spin theory (2.15), (2.16) with
Kalker's theory. alb = I, circular contact area.
Error = {Approx. (J) - Exact (K)} I Exact x 100%.
C23/C22
(Kalker)
11=0
1
11="4
1
11=2
66
2{2 - II}
3(3 - 211)
(Johnson)
2
C33+C23/C22
(Kalker)
32{2 - II}
9(3 - 211)
(Johnson)
0.391
0.444
14%
1.73
2.37
37%
0.40 I
0.467
16%
1.78
2.49
40%
0.410
0.500
22%
1.83
2.67
46%
Exact
Approx.
Error
Exact
Approx.
Error
2.2.2.2 Comparison 0/ Vermeulen and Johnson's no-spin theory with the exact values
Also in 1958 Johnson eonsidered the finite slip, finite friction ease of pure ereepage
without spin (cP = 0) (l958b), for quasiidentieal bodies with eireular eontact area. This
work was extended by Vermeulen and Johnson (1964) to quasiidentieal bodies with
elliptie eontaet area. This theory will be discussed in Sec. 2.2.3.1 and in eh. 5, Sees.
5.2.1.4, and 5.2.1.5.
The theories of Johnson and Vermeulen-Johnson may be used to obtain approximate analytieal expressions for C 1l , C 22 , and C 32 . Moreover, by (2.14a), C 23 = -C32 , a relation
unknown to Vermeulen and Johnson at the time, so that the Vermeulen-Johnson theory
aetually furnishes the following explieit expressions for four out of the five ereepage
eoeffieients:
a:;; b: Cl 1 Rj -lI'/{B-v(D-C)),
C 22
Rj
-lI'/{B-viC),
C 23 = -C 32
a ~ b: C 11 Rj -lI'/{gD-vg(D-C)), C 22 Rj -lI'/{gD-vgC), C 23 = -C 32
B, C, D: see (1.57)
a, b, C .. : see (2.14)
g = min (a/b, b/a)
v: co~bined Poisson's ratio, see (1.44).
Rj
(C 22 Vg)/3
Rj
C 2 /(3Vg)
(2.17)
In Table 2.2 these values are eompared with Kalker's exaet theory.
TABLE 2.2 Comparison of Vermeulen-Johnson (V -J) with the exaet values of

Kalker (Ex.), see Appendix E, Table E3.
Error = Relative error, 100% x {(V -J) - (Ex.))/(Ex.).
C 22
Cl I
v=O
v='4
v='2
v=O
v='4
C 23
1
v='2
v=O
v='4
v='2
Ex.
V-J
Error
alb = 0.1
2.51 3.31 4.85

3.18 4.21 6.24
+27% +27% +29%
2.51 2.52 2.53

3.18 3.19 3.21
+27% +27% +27%
.334 .473 .731

.335 .336 .338
0% -29% -54%
Ex.
V-J
Error
alb = 1.0
3.40 4.12 5.20

4.00 4.92 6.40
+18% +19% +23%
3.40 3.67 3.98

4.00 4.27 4.57
+18% +16% +15%
1.33
1.33
0%
1.47
1.42
-3%
1.63
1.52
-7%
Ex.
V-J
Error
alb
10.7
11.6
+8%
10.7
11.6
+8%
12.2
12.2
0%
14.6
14.6
0%
18.0
18.0
0%
= 10.0
11.9
12.8
+9%
12.9
14.2
+10%
12.8
13.8
+8%
16.0
17.1
+7%
67
Chapter 2: Review
2.2.2.3 Calculation 0/ the exact values 0/ the C .. by separating the variables in
I)
Laplace's equation
The theory of Kalker (1964, 1967a) was already mentioned. The 1964 paper eoneerns itself with the linear theory for a eireular eontaet area. The major part of the paper is eoneerned with a representation of the elastie field with the aid of three harmonie funetions,
akin to the Papkovieh-Neuber funetions (see, e.g. Gladwell (1980) Ch. 1, p. 34), and the
harmonie funetions introdueed by Alblas (1957). Laplaee's equation is separated in an
oblate spheroidal eoordinate system, see Fig. 2.7. In sueh a eoordinate system the eoordinate surfaees are planes, hyperboloids of revolution of one sheet, and flattened ellipsoids of revolution. The eireular eontaet area and the exterior of it, whieh together form
the surfaee of the half -spaee, are eaeh one of these eoordinate surfaees. The solution is
found as finite or infinite se ries of produets of sines and eosines, and assoeiated Legendre
funetions of the first and seeond kinds, see Erdelyi et al. (1951), Vol. 1, Ch. 3.
Hyperboloid
Figure 2.7 Oblate spheroidal coordinate system.
68

Care was taken to make the theory user friendly, and indeed the necessary space derivatives can be easily calculated. The Legendre functions have orthogonality properties, so
that one can easily obtain integrals of the solution, such as the total force and the torsional
moment acting in the contact area. The value of the elastic field at a given point of the
half -space is harder to obtain, as one must evaluate the associated Legendre functions,
and sum the finite, or, in more complicated cases, the infinite series. Also, it is very hard
to assess the behaviour of a double, infinite se ries of associated Legendre functions.
The Hertz solution and the Johnson, 1958 solutions for spin and for pure creepage consist
of one or two terms. The contact problem for the quasiidentical linear theory of rolling
contact leads to infinite series. We surmise that the non-quasiidentical contact problems
such as treated by Goodman (1962) can also be handled by this theory. So the solution of
all these problems can be obtained from a single point of view.
2.2.2.4 Calculation on the basis 01 a generalisation 01 Galin's Theorem
Kalker's (l967a) linear theory occupies itself with elliptic areas of contact. A property 01
the method is that the dis placement diflerence is obtained only lor quasiidentical
bodies, and inside the elliptic contact area only. So, only Mindlin's method can be
applied, see Ch. I, Sec. 1.6.3. It is based on a theorem by Galin (1953), which was generalised by Kalker (1967a), to
Generalisation 01 Galin's Theorem
Let the interior of the contact ellipse be given by
C={(x,y)l(x/a) + (y/b)
<I}
and let
J(x,y)
= {I =
(x/a)
2 -"2
- (y/b) }
if (x,y) E C
elsewhere.
If the traction, normal and tangential, is given by

p(x,y)
J(x,y) PM(x,y)
(2.18)
with PM(x,y) some vector-valued function whose components are polynomials in x and y of degree M,
then, in the case of quasiidentical half -spaces, the displacement difference in the elliptical contact C is given by
u(x,y)
= u l (x,y) - u 2(x,y) = QM(x,y), (x,y)
where QM is another vector-valued function whose components are polynomials in x and y of degree M.
Details of the theorem are given in Appendix E, Sec. 4.
69
Chapter 2: Review
The theorem is proved by ente ring the expression (2.18) of p into the Boussinesq-Cerruti
integral representation for (u l - u 2 ) for the quasiidentical case, and by applying general
considerations on the Boussinesq-Cerruti integrand and integral. The precise relation
between PM and QM is determined by a method due to Dovnorovich (1959), or see
Gladwell (1980), Ch. XII. The Hertz problem, the Vermeulen-Johnson (1964) problem,
as weil as the Cattaneo shift (1938), the Mindlin shift (1949) and the response on a halfspace of an elliptical flat-ended punch are within the range of this theory.
The methods of Sec. 2.2.2.3 and of the present section were applied to find the total force
(F ,F ) and the torsional moment M due to rolling with creepage and spin in the
no:sli~ case. To that end we start with the slip as given by (1.85), with (v l' v2 ) Rl (V,O):
s
w - vau lax
r
(stead y state rolling)
(2.19)
where
is the coordinate in rolling direction

is the rolling velocity; vectorial rolling velocity is (v l' v2 )
V
r = 1,2
.Ir
= xI
(V,O)
is the slip velocity component of body I w.r.t. 2

is the tangential displacement difference component
- u2r
- x 2 = rigid slip =
r
In the no-slip case, S

r
in the contact
(e - </!y, TI + </!x)
V, see (1.85),
e, TI, </!: constant.
= 0, and we can integrate (2.19) with respect to x, so that we find
(u 11 - u21 ' u 12 - u22 ) = (e - </!y, TI + </!xI2) x + (f(y),g(y
(2.20)
where f(y) and g(y) are arbitrary, continuous functions of y ("constants of integration").
fand gare determined by the demand that the leading edge is free of traction. Johnson
(1958a) limits himself in his paper on spin to the case that fand gare constants. Kalker,
in his papers (1964, 1967a) regards fand g as polynomials and takes their degree as high
as is necessary for the numerical convergence of the C ... The results are tabulated in
lJ
Appendix E, Table E3.
The linear theory is in general use in the railway industry. It is employed as the
creepage-force law when the motion of a railway vehicie is simulated in a linear fashion.
The linear theory is also essential for the quantitative, nonlinear simplified theory of
rolling contact, which is described below in Sec. 2.2.3.3 and in Ch. 3.
70
2.2: Etastic Rolling Contact

2.2.2.5
Strip theory/line contact theory
Strip theory was initiated by Haines and Ollerton in 1963. They considered steady state
rolling. The idea is to regard contact areas which are slender in the lateral y-direction, so
that the solution of the elastic problem may be considered as the solution of CarterFromm, see Sec. 2.2.1, in which all parameters are functions of y, see Fig. 2.8; so the
solution depends on y as on a parameter. The original strip theory was confined to longitudinal creepage ~, but in 1967 it was extended to lateral creepage Tl and spin 4> (Kalker,
1967c). The theory was given a rigorous foundation in line contact theory (Kalker
1972a, 1977a) which can handle any slender contact area with sharp tips, see Fig. 2.9;
the center line of the contact area may be curved, and even c1osed, see Fig. 2.10. In
principle, strip theory /line contact theory is suitable for both quasiidentical as weIl as
non-quasiidentical bodies, but only the quasiidentical option has been exercised so far.
~,
Direction
/------~-2
dirn. solution
1 - - - - - - - - " ' 1 - 2 dirn. solution
\-------~--2
dirn. solution
Figure 2.8 The idea 01 strip theory: the contact area is slender in the lateral (y)
direction .. two-dimensional solutions are placed alongside each other.
The asymptotic values at the top and bottom of Table E3, in Appendix E, were obtained
with strip theory /line contact theory. Line contact theory is very sensitive to the
condition at the tips of the contact area; if the tips are too blunt, the theory will sometimes not work at all. This is the reason why the theory was superseded on the one hand
by the simplified theory (see Ch. 3), and on the other hand, for normal contact, by the
71
Chapter 2: Review
CONTACT
AREA
Figure 2.9 Sharply tipped (a) and bluntly tipped (b) contact areas.
E . . . . .
.00)
y(laterall
Lx,rOllingJ
a
Figure 2.10 Forms 0/ the contact area center Zine. shown broken. wh ich can be
handled by Zine contact theory. Strip theory handles only (a):
center Zine in lateral direction .. (b): center Zine in longitudinal
direction .. (c): closed center Zille .. (d): curved. open center Zine.
Double points give di//iculties.
72
Generalised line contact theory initiated by Reusner (1978) and Nayak-Johnson (1979),
which is considered in Sec. 2.1.1.3, Element d), and by the numerical theories mentioned
below.
2.2.2.6
IF methods tor the half-spaee
All the above menthods, except strip theory /line contact theory are confined to elliptical,
or even circular contact areas. For a circular contact area (Sec. 2.2.2.3), the entire elastic
field is known in principle; it is contained in the method. For elliptical contact (Sec.
2.2.2.4) only the surface traction is known, as weil as the surface displacement difference
inside the elliptical contact; and moreover it is confined to the quasiidentical case. In
these theories, the linear theory coefficients are perfectly represented.
The question arises, what to do with half -space problems with differently formed contact
areas? The answer is partially provided by strip theory /line contact theory, but that can
only handle slender contact areas with slender tips. Apart from that, one can use the
half -space IF methods of Sec. 2.1.1.3, Element b), which, for the tangential problem, was
introduced by myself (1979) as far as the surface displacement was concerned, and also
by myself (l986b) for the elastic field inside the half -space. This element was implemented in my steady state rolling program DUVOROL (1979), and later, from 1982 onwards, in my program CONT ACT.
In CONTACT-1982 the linear theory is found by using the no-slip solution directly; the
leading edge condition is automatically taken care of. Since CONT ACT -1986 the linear
theory emerges as a special case of the sensitivity analysis of the contact loading, in which
the effect on the total force and moment is calculated due to aperturbation of the creepage, spin, and normal approach.
The accuracy of CONTACTs linear theory is not very favorable. 10% error with 70
elements in the contact is common. The reason as far as we can see it, is twofold.
1
Fir st, the tangential traction at the trailing edge goes to infinity O(p -2), where p is the
distance to the trailing edge; such a traction distribution is very badly represented by the
piecewise constant IFM element employed by CONT ACT, see Appendix D, Sec. 10.
Seeondly, the approximation of the form of the contact area is crude, see Fig. 2.2.
In our opinion, the first reason, viz. the poor representation of the singularity at the
trailing edge, is more important. We base this on our experience that for finite creepage
with finite friction the accuracy improves to be at least 8% with 30 elements. In this case
the singularity at the trailing edge is eliminated, but the crudeness of the contact area
approximation remains. On the other hand, the finite friction serves as a correction of the
inaccurate form of the contact area since, with it, the traction becomes small in the elements near the edge, so that anyway they contribute Iittle to the total force.
73
Chapter 2: Review
Whatever the reason for the error, it is necessary to improve the linear theory for nonHertzian contact areas, because presumably the linear theory is faster in operation than
the nonlinear theory, with finite friction and finite creepage. At present, the difference
in calculating speed with the same number of elements is expressed by a factor 5 to 10.
The theory of CONTACT, which uses the element of Sec. 2.1.1.3 (b), is not confined to
quasiidentical bodies. However, when the bodies are not quasiidentical, the total force
with an elliptical contact area is of the form
a:
b:
semi-axis of contact ellipse in rolling, x, direction

semi-axis of contact ellipse in lateral, y, direction
but there is the consideration that the Hertz solution is not valid for non-quasiidentical
bodies, so that the contact area is not elliptic when the difference parameter K "* O. For
small I K I this is not important, but for large values of I K I the effect may be considerable. If one applies a Johnson process to find the constant CK' see Sec. 1.6.3.3, then one
has no trouble on this score, as the Hertzian normal pressure is employed; but one cannot
apply the general Panagiotopoulos process.
2.2.3
NONLINEAR, FINITE FRlCTION ROLLING CONTACT
2.2.3.1
Johnson and Vermeulen-Johnson
The first article on nonlinear, finite friction rolling contact is due to K.L. Johnson
(l958b). In this article, quasiidentical bodies are considered; spin is assumed to be absent,
and the contact area is circular in form. This work was generalised by VermeulenJohnson (1964) to the same problem with elliptical contact area. It was found that the
contact area is divided into two regions, viz. the area of adhesion where the slip vanishes,
and the area of slip where it does not.
An approximate solution is found by assuming that the adhesion area is also elliptic with
the same orientation of the axes as the contact ellipse, and with the same ratio of the axes.
The creepage determines the position of the center of the adhesion area, and the requirement that the slip and tangential traction are opposite is best satisfied when the adhesion
ellipse is taken so large that it touches the contact ellipse at the foremost point (a,O), see
Fig. 2.11. The analysis is approximate because in the area shown shaded in Fig. 2.11 the
slip is almost in the same sense as the traction, which is not as it should be. In the
remaining part of the proposed slip area it is almost opposite, which is correct.
74
__
Adhesion
~~==~==~~~~4====~~-X
Rolli ng Direction
Figure 2.11 Contact area division according to Johnson (1958b) and Vermeulen
and Johnson (1964). In the shaded area the slip has the wrong sense.
The most important parameter relating to rolling contact is the total transmitted force.
The formulae of the Johnson- Vermeulen theory for it read:
(a)
3/F
= tangential traction = 27ra~
Pr
F
2
2
-;- {[ I - (xl a) - (Ylb)]
+
1
- [I - (x 'la ,)2 - (ylb ,)2]2)

=
=
(b)
contact ellipse
3/F z
27rab
Fr
if x
[1 - (xla)
2
- (ylb) ]
E, i.e. on surface outside C.
{(x,y) I (xla)2 + (Ylb)2
if x
S
(2.21 a)
~ I)
H = adhesion area = {(x,y) I x' = x + a' - a; a 'la = b 'Ib = '1;

(x'la,)2 + (Ylb,)2
~ I), see Fig.
2.11;
S = slip area = C\H; /: coefficient of friction.

(c)
if x EH
total normal force;
= IF
(2.2Ib)
I,
F = (F ,F ) = total tangential force.

x Y
r
(2.2Ic)
7S
Chapter 2: Review
(d)
Let 1
o~
a 'la;
F=/F(I-1 3 )'*1
1
1 ~ I
if Fand /F are given:

z
1 = {I - FIUF )}a.
(2.21 d)
(e)
(f)
Set
3/F 1(1rabG),
z
G: combined modulus of rigidity, see (1.44).
(2.2Ie)
If a
b:
~ =
-(B - /J(D - C)} (F IF)(I - 1)
b:
~ =
-(D - /J(D - C)} g(F IF)(I - 1)
= -(1rIC II )(F / F)(I

g = min (alb, bl a).
~
- 1), see (2.17)
Similarly,
if a
a
~ b:
T] =
-(B - /Jg 2C) (F I F)(I - 1)
b:
T] =
-{D - /JC} g(F I F)(I - 1)
'*
T]
y
= -(1rIC22)(F/F)(I - 1).
B, C, D: see Ch. I, Sec. 1.7.1, between (1.5 7 c) and (1.5 7 d).
(2.21 f)
It is seen from (2.2Ia) and (1.57) that the solution consists of the sliding traction
I PT,S ld
(x,y) I = /p (x,y) =
1 mg
z
with p (0,0)
3F 1(21rab)
/p z (0,0)
{l - (xla)
2-
- (ylb) } 2,
acting over the entire contact area, from which a traction of similar form is subtracted in
the adhesion area H. By doing this the tangential traction is set at the traction bound in
the slip area. The traction subtracted in the adhesion area is chosen so that the no-slip
condition is satisfied in H.
This device was introduced in the two-dimensional case by Carter (1926) and Fromm
(1927), see Sec. 2.2.1, and in the three-dimensional case by Cattaneo (1938), in the context of the shift problem in which two quasiidentical bodies are compressed according to
Hertz, and then displaced ("shifted") as a whole with respect to each other in the tangential di rection.
As to (2.2Id), we note that when 1-+ I, then F -+ 0, and indeed FI(I - 1) -+ 3/F when
z
i 1, and, by this, (2.2Ie) and (2.21 f), F x -+ -abGC II~' F -+ -abGC22 T], which is the
linear theory of rolling contact. We also note that for a lixed direction of the force
(F /F, F/F) the direction of (~,T]) is also fixed; indeed,
(a)
76
= (ex,e y ) = (CII~' C 22 T]),

then el I e I = - F / F, and
if eT
C i / see (2.14), (2.17)
(2.22a)
lei
(b)
= 7r (I -1)=>1= 1- lel/7r={l-(F//F
so that
F / /F
= I - 1 3 = I - (I -
I e I /7r)3
if
if
= 3/F z /(7rabG), see (2.21 e).
)}3~O,
z
I e I :.:; 7r
I e I ~ 7r,
(2.22b)
Vermeulen and Johnson did experiments to verify their theory. A comparison is shown in
Fig. 2.12. In this figure we normalise the creepages ~, TI by multiplying them by
C I /(7r), C 22 /(7r), respectively. It is seen from Fig. 2.12 that the theoretical line,
shown broken, lies weil above the experimental points. However, instead of the
Vermeulen-Johnson values (2.17) of C '" Hobbs (I967) proposed to use the values C" of
11
11
Table E3 (Appendix E), wh ich are more accurate. The resulting creepage-force line is
shown full in Fig. 2.12. The improvement is marked. The device of Hobbs was generalised by Shen, Hedrick and Elkins (I 984) who replaced the e of Eq. (2.22) by
T
(ex,e y ) = (CII~' C 22 T1 + cC 23 r/!),
r/!: spin,
c = (ab)2,
a,b: semi-axes of contact ellipse,
1.0
0.9
__ -
0.8
1
F
f FZ
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
y /,
Vermeulen- JOhnSOn
II
/'
-:;, -
(j<b.
b.
/ X
b.
(2.23)
""'THEOREIICAL CURVE"
n/b=0.276
(22=2.73
f=0.10 (estimatedl
b.
n/ b=0.683
(22= 3.28
f=0.18 (
n/b=1.S70
(22=4.44
f=0.19 (
n/b=2.470
(22=5.53
f=0.12 (
v = 0.28
I
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 05 0.6 07
w'
0.8 0.9 1.0
1.1
1.2 1.3
Figure 2.12 Vermeulen alld Johnson's experiments vs. their theory (2.22).
Points: experiments. Broken lilie: C" accordillg to their theory.
11
Drawn line: C" according to Kalker (Table 3.3 in Ch. 3).
11
77
Chapter 2: Review
thus taking spin into account. The resulting formula holds for all creepages
small spin r/>.
e, '1 and for
The theory of Vermeulen and Johnson is applicable to quasiidentical bodies only, and
therefore can only approximate the non-quasiidentical case by Mindlin's process.
The creepage-force law provided by Vermeulen-Johnson as modified by Shen, Hedriek
and Elkins is perhaps the best nonlinear theory available to-day for railway vehicle
simulation, as it is extremely fast and suitable for all values of the creepage and small
values of the spin such as oceur in non-flanging contaet of wheels and rails; note that the
wheel/ rai! system is quasiidentieal.
A more detailed account of Vermeulen-Johnson and its generalisations is found in eh. 5,
Sees. 5.2.1.4 and 5.2.1.5.
2.2.3.2
Strip theory
When we regard Fig. 2.11, it beeomes clear that the theories of Johnson and VermeulenJohnson left open the problem of the exaet shape of the adhesion area. This problem was to
a great extent solved by the strip theory (Haines-Ollerton, 1963; Haines, 1964- 5; Halling,
1964; Kalker, 1967e), whieh has already been deseribed in Sec. 2.2.2.5. It was found by
Haines and Ollerton that for pure longitudinal ereepage the adhesion area is as shown in
Fig.2.l3.
of
---+----------+-----------------+---x
Adhesion
Rolling Direction
Figure 2.13 The contact area according to Haines and Oller ton (no spin,
no lateral creepage).
78
rolling
-.
a)~
(S)
f)Q
CD
5
Figure 2.14 The areas 01 slip and adhesion as calculated by Kalker, and seen by
Poon and by Ollerton. (a): Pure creepage (t/! = 0); (b): Pure spin
( = TJ = 0); (c): spin and lateral creepage, = 0; (d): Spin and
longitudinal creepage, TJ = 0; (e): General case, '* 0, TJ '* 0, t/! '* 0;
(I): Pure spin (large). From: Kalker ( 1979a).
They also confirmed their findings experimentally by photoelastic methods, in three

dimensions. Kalker (l967c) extended these results to general lateral creepage and also to
small spin; he found that the contact area division of Haines and Ollerton is also valid for
combined longitudinal and lateral creepage, without spin. If spin is present, he found
contact area divisions as shown in Fig. 2.14.
This division of the contact area can also be reproduced by simplified theory (Kalker,
1973). The contact area div ision was seen by Poon (1967); and also Lee and Ollerton
(I966) made three-dimensional photoelastic measurements of rolling with spin. Ollerton
also made an apparatus by which the areas of slip and adhesion could be viewed optically.
I inspected this device myself in 1969. This apparatus consisted of a rubber ellipsoid of
revolution mounted on an axle, which was pressed on a perspex slide. A couple could be
79
Chapter 2: Review
exerted on this axle, and axle and slide could be moved, so that the ball rolls over the
perspex plate. One can then observe, through the perspex, the evolution of the contact
area, and of the areas of slip and adhesion.
It seems strange that a theory that predicts the contact area division so well, should fail
largely as a predictor of the total tangential force. The reason is that although strip
theory is qualitatively correct, it is quantitatively correct only for contact areas that are
narrow in the rolling direction.
In principle strip theory is applicable to non-quasiidentical bodies, but it has been
employed only for quasiidentical bodies (Mindlin's method).
Strip theory does not accord with linear theory, except when the contact area is very
slender (axial ratio about 0.1 or 10). This, and the excellent performance of the simplified theory, see Sec. 2.2.3.3 below and eh. 3, explains why it was superseded by the
simplified theory. Only one vestige remains: the asymptotic values of the creepage and
spin coefficients for very small and very large axial ratios of the contact ellipse.
2.2.3.3
Simpli[ied theory
In the simplified theory of rolling contact, which I developed over the years 1973-1982,
the elastic body is replaced by a set of springs, see Fig. 2.15; indeed, we set
L> 0,
(2.24)
where L is the flexibility parameter.
Figure 2.15 The idea o[ simpli[ied theory: sur[ace traction p is proportional

to sur[ace displacement u.
80
2.2: Elastie Rolling Contact
If one gives the traction bound fp

fp
the paraboloidal form

2
= fp z (0,0) {I - (x/a) - (y/b) }

z
with a, b the semi-axes of the contact ellipse
(2.25)
and calculates the rolling contact problem as is done in Ch. 3, then one obtains Figs. 2.13
and 2.14 for the contact area division. A quantitative agreement with the exact theory of
rolling contact is possible, by a proper choice of the flexibility parameter L, see Ch. 3.
Among other things this flexibility parameter L depends on the creepage and spin coef'7, rjJ
ficients C .. of the linear theory of rolling contact, and on the creepages
lJ
themselves. The accuracy is at least 15%, and often much more favorable.
e,
The great advantages of the theory are its relative simplicity of conception and its speed
of operation. This is due to the very efficient scheme of calculation called the F ASTSIM
algorithm. This is described in Kalker (I982), and in Ch. 3, and is typically 1000x as
fast as the CONT ACT routine of Sec. 2.2.3.7 and Chs. 4 and 5.
The flexibility parameter L depends on the C ... The operation of the simplified theory of
rolling contact is confined to those contact a:~as, namely ellipses, for which the C .. are
lJ
tabulated; non-elliptical areas are less favorable on three counts:
a) First of all, the non-elliptical contact area must be determined by one of the methods
of Sec. 2.1 and its subsections. This is a rather slow operation, in which most of the
speed advantage over CO NT ACT is lost.
b) After we have found the non-elliptical contact area, we have to calculate the creepage and spin coefficients. This must be done by a CONT ACT type algorithm, and it
costs roughly as much computer time as the generation of the non-elliptical contact
area. All in all, the gain in speed of the F ASTSIM based program over CONT ACT
will be of the order of a factor 5 in the non-elliptical case. Of course this factor will
be more favorable to the F ASTSIM based program when more than one loading must
be calculated with the same contact area; the contact area and the creepage and spin
coefficients need to be calculated only once.
c) The determination of the creepage and spin coefficients of the linear theory by
CONT ACT is not very accurate, indeed noticeably less than the CONT ACT analysis
of the nonlinear rolling contact problem using the same discretisation. We refer to Sec.
2.2.2.6 for a discussion of this phenomenon.
We conclude that the simplified theory of rolling contact is very favorable, with an error
of at most 15% and a very fast operation, when the contact area is elliptic. For
81
Chapter 2: Review
non-elliptic contact areas it does not seem to make much sense to use the simplified
theory. A possible solution in the latter case is to approximate the contact area by an
ellipse. This is a very usual practice in railway theory; for an example we refer to Le
The (1987), p. 134, see Fig. 1.12; an application is formed by the railway wheel profile
calculations of Kalker and Chudzikiewicz (1990 ?).
It appears that non-quasiidentical bodies cannot be modeled by simplified theory.
Simplified theory is extensively used in the railway industry.

2.2.3.4
The first exact theory
Up to now we have considered theories in which an error is implied. So, in Vermeulen

and Johnson, Sec. 2.2.3.1, it is assumed that the area of adhesion is elliptic, whereas it is
actually given in Fig. 2.13. In strip theory, Sec. 2.2.3.2, the functional dependence on the
lateral coordinate is neglected, while the simplified theory of Sec. 2.2.3.3 uses a bed of
springs to approximate the elastic medium.
In order to assess the errors of these theories one wants a theory which is exact even if
only in the sense that, given enough computer time and space one can in principle calculate the contact problem under consideration to any desired accuracy. Incidentally, the
proof of the exactness in this sense has never been given for the tangential contact
theories treated here, but we content ourselves with an indication that it is true. We will
adopt that usage in this work.
The first exact rolling code was published by Kalker in 1967a. It is based on the generalisation of Galin's Theorem of Sec. 2.2.2.4, which is valid in the case of quasiidentity:
Let C
= Contact area = {(x,y) I (x/a) 2

J(x,y)
= {I
=0
- (x/a)
+ (y/b)
2 _1.
- (y/b) }
Then p (x,y) = J(x,y) PM *> U

T
T
T
:5 I};
if (x,y) E C
if (x,y) ~ C;
= displacement difference
= QMT
PMT' Q MT: polynomials in x, y of degree up to M, whose coefficients

determine each other reciprocally.
(2.26)
The theory is exact, since any displacement or traction can be approximated to any
desired accuracy by choosing M large enough.
82
The conditions of Coulomb's Law are:

(2.27)
Now in Hertzian contact,
fp
- (x/a)
22
- (y/b) }
Z
2
2
fp (0,0) J(x,y) {l - (x/a) - (y/b) }.
= fp (0,0) {l
Z
(2.28)
So it is reasonable to suppose that p has the form

T
(2.29)
where P M-2,T is a polynomial of degree M-2 in (x,y). Then, in terms of PM-2,T' the
conditions of (2.27) become
I sT I = 0, or PM - 2 ,T = -s T/ I s T I
(2.30)
Distinctions are made between contact problems through the form of s ; in steady state
T
rolling, e.g. we have
w - V 8u /8x,
(2.31 )
where w is the rigid slip, and V the rolling velocity; rolling takes place in the positive
T
x-direction, and the coordinate system (x,y) is contact fixed, i.e. moves with the contact.
The equations and inequalities (2.30) cannot be satisfied simultaneously for a finite
degree M. So we choose M finite as an approximation, and determine the coefficients of
PM -2,T by the minimisation problem
inf
IIc IlsTI
PM_2,T+STI2dXdy,
sub I PM _2 ,TI:;; 1, in C.
(2.32)
Note that the minimisation tries to render either I s T I or I PM -,T

2 + sT/ I s T I I zero,
and that the largeness of one factor provokes the smallness of the other in each point of
the contact C. Note that I sT I is the slip, and I PM -,T
2 + s T/ I sT I I the normalised
deviation of the traction from the Coulomb value.
83
Chapter 2,' Review
We make an additional observation. In 1967 I was not able to handle the inequality
condition I P M-2 TI:<;; 1. Observing that the inequality is enforced in the slip area by
the objective function of (2.32) to a certain extent, I decided to omit the condition
" I pi:<;; fp # I PM 2 I :<; I in C". This omission devalues the claim of exactness of
T
Z
- ,T
the method. Nevertheless, reasonable results were obtained for contact eIIipses with
alb:<;; I, that is, for ellipses lang in the lateral direction.
In 1977 I returned to this problem (program XCTROL) and I used a piecewise constant
function for p (x,y), see Sec. 2.1.1.3, Element b). The inequality I pi:<;; fp was comT
T
Z
pletely taken into account. Curiously enough, for eIlipses with alb ~ I, that is, for
eIIipses lang in the rolling direction, difficulties arose; in many cases obviously erroneous
solutions were obtained. This is apparently due to the nonconvex character of the minimisation problem (2.32).
Since the method is based on an extension of Galin's Theorem (Kalker, 1967a) it is confined, as Galin's Theorem is, to quasiidentical bodies; the method XCTROL based on the
piecewise constant traction of Sec. 2.1.1.3, Element b) is not limited to quasiidentity.
However, owing to the disappointing performance of XCTROL when a > b, I did not
pursue this line of research.
The 1967 "Thesis" program was used to construct a table of the creepage-force law for
steel-on-steel contact in all cases that could be covered by it, i.e. for unconstrained
creepages and spin, and for 0 < alb< I (Kalker, 1967b). The values laid down in this
table were confirmed by all subsequent exact theories which did take the condition
I pi:<;; f p into account.
T
2.2.3.5
A linear programming method for the two-dimensional case
In this section we describe a linear programming method. Linear programming is a

special case of mathematical programming, see Appendix B. With its aid one can minimise
a linear objective function subject to linear equality and inequality constraints. Steady
state and transient contact problems have been treated in the two-dimensional case of
quasiidentical and non-quasiidentical cylinders (half -spaces) with parallel axes (Kalker,
197 I). lohnson's method was used in the non-quasiidentical cases. The method may be
extended to the three-dimensional case, but then it becomes a problem of a more general
type of mathematical programming. The two-dimensional and three-dimensional problems are both convex, see Appendix B, which means that any minimum of the constrained
objective function is also a global minimum. Further , in linear programming, if there is
a minimum present, it will be found in a finite number of steps (which number may be
large), or an indication will be given that no finite minimum exists.
84
2.2: Etastic Rolling Contact

We use the following notation and conventions.
Greek indices run from I to 2; Latin indices from I to 3; repeated indices imply
summation. When no confusion may arise, the indices are dropped.
1
l ai
a
2-
def
{a I + a2 } 2 -> O,
=
Denote the traction bound fp
by g. Let
(2.33)
that is, the tangential traction P is within or on the traction bound. If

T
will show that
I PT I ~ g
=>
5 P
T T+
is the slip, we
gis T I ~ 0
with equality if and only if Coulomb's Law is satisfied.
(2.34 )
Indeed, we have
5 P
TT
- 15
I I pi>
-g I 5 T I
T
-
with equality if and only if 5 = 0 or p is opposite s , while in the latter case

T
T
T
- that is, Coulomb's Law is satisfied. So we have
I pi<
g => 5 TT
P + gis T
I -> 0
T
I PT I ~ g, 5 TPT + gis T I = 0 ~
I PT I = g
always;
(2.35)
Coulomb's Law is satisfied.
As a consequence, the integral
ff
gl ST I) dx l dx 2 ~ 0
with equality ~ 5 P + gis I = 0
T T
T
C
(STPT
if
I PT I ~ g
everywhere
almost everywhere.
Now, 53 = 5 = 0, as we showed in Ch. 1, at the end of Sec. 1.7.3. Moreover,

Z
depends linearlyon the displacement difference u. = u 1 . - u2 .. Indeed
5
i = i
i'
In rolling:
5.,
I
i = 1,2,3
= dldt ,.
= -V
W.: rigid slip, see (1.83);

I
(2.36)
8/ax 1 + alat
V: rolling velocity;
rolling takes place in the xl -direction
(2.37)
85
Chapter 2: Review
while, as we will see below, u depends linearlyon the tangential traetion p. So, Coulomb's
Law, if it ean be satisfied, is eharaeterised by
sub
I p r I ~ g.
(2.38)
The eonneetion between the surfaee traetion and the displaeement differenee (the
Boussinesq (1885) - Cerruti (1882) formula) is summarised here:
u/X) = ffcAi/X-Y)P}Y)dYldY2
with K, G, 11: eombined elastie eonstants, see (1.44)

IZa l ;
C: eontaet area;
R =
-I
-I
A II (z)=1rG{(1-II)R
A 22 (z) = 1rG {(I - 11) R
A 33 (z) =
A 12 (z)
2-3
+lIz l R
},
2-3
+ IIz 2 R },
I - 11
-I
--;c;
R ,
= A 21 (z) =
11
21rG zI z 2R
K
-2
-2
A 13 (z) = -A 31 (z)= 1rG zl R

A 23 (z) = -A 32 (z) = 1rG z2R
-3
,
.
(2.39)
The eoefficients of the integrand of (2.39) are easily seen to have the following properties:
(e)
(d)
A ..(z) is homogeneous of degree (-1) in the z ,

~
a
asR-+oo
A ..(z) = (1/R)
IJ
Aa/z) = Aa/-z) = Aa(Z)
A 33 (z) = A 33 (-z)
(e)
A a3 (z)
(a)
(b)
(f)
(g)
= -A 3a(z) = -A a3 (-z) = A 3a(-z)

in ease of quasiidentity
A a3 (z) = 0
always.
A ..(z) = A ..(-z)
IJ
(2.40a)
(2.40b)
(2.40e)
(2.40d)
(2.40e)
(K
= 0)
JI
(2.40f)
(2.40g)
We simplify the objeetive funetion (2.38) for steady state rolling. First we observe that
ff
w/ i dx l dx 2
is linear in the traetion.
Seeondly we observe that in steady state rolling with velocity V

are interested in the following term due to u:
86
(2.41 )
= 1,~.I = -au.;ax
1. So we
I

1= JJCP/X)(8U/8XI)dXldX2=
=
JJc
p/x)dx l dx 2 {
8: 1 JJCAi/X-Y)P/Y)}dYldY2'
We will prove that I = O.

To that end, we interchange differentiation and integration. It can be established that
(2.42)
Then we note that by (2.40g)
8A ..(x - Y )/8x l = -8A ..(x - Y )/8Y l
I) Cl
Cl
I) Cl
Cl
=-
8A ..(y
)1
Cl
- x )j8y l :
Cl
Finally we interchange i and j, x and Y, and the order of integration of x and y:
which is the opposite of the I of (2.42), see above. So I

Hence the term
= -I = 0, as we set out to prove.
(2.43)
which is linear in the traction.
Now we consider the two-dimensional case. We use the following notation and conventions:
The tangential quantities are the x l-components of 2-vectors. They are written
without index. The second component of the 2-vectors are the normal components,
in the x 3 -direction. They are given a subscript z. When we refer to the entire
vector, we give the components a Latin subscript (not z). The central characters
remain unchanged.
We consider the term, cf. (2.39)
I si
Iw - V -88X. CA).(x -
A .: see Kalker 1972a, Eq. (37).

)
y) P .(y) dy
)
I
(2.44)
87
Chapter 2: Review
s is a linear form in the p .. We write it as follows:

I
s = a - b,
0, b
0, ab
Isl
= 0;
=a+b
here a and b are linear in the traction, hence sand I s I are also linear in the traction.
Further , for quasiidentity or with one of the calculation schemes of Ch. 1, Sec. 1.6.3 and
subsections, the traction bound g is a known positive function of position. So
Cis I g dy
is a linear function of the p "

J
The entire problem becomes a linear program in the two-dimensional case, wh ich before
discretisation has the form
p ~f q _
p z = qz
r,
- r z'
s def
a - b,
=
rz = 0
(2.45)
a - b = w - V dd
in!
q z ~ 0,
is nonnegative, w is a known function of position.
Tableau:
q+r=g
a,b,q,r~O
a ~ 0, b ~ 0
g is positive; p
Object:
q ~ 0,
A .(x - y) [q(y) - r(y)] dy.

J
{w .(q. - r .) + g(a + b)} dx.

J J
J
Note that the condition ab = 0, which is necessary for a + b =

matically since (a + b) g is minimised.
I si,
is satisfied auto-
With this scheme the problem of steady rolling was attacked (Kalker, 1971). When K = 0,
an analytical solution was known (Carter, 1926; Fromm, 1927), see Sec. 2.2.1, but when
K", 0 the solution was known only in a few isolated cases (Bentall and Johnson, 1967).
With the aid of the above method we were able to give the solution in a great many cases,
see Figs. 2.16 and 2.17. The Johnson process, see Ch. 1, Sec. 1.6.3.2-3 was employed.
We can also apply linear programming to solve the problem of two-dimensional nonsteady rolling. To that end we reexamine the objective function (2.38), and observe that,
in non-steady rolling, the p. can be regarded as the tractions at the previous instant t ' ,
I
and therefore are known. The slip s. depend on the time derivative of the traction, which
I
88
2.2,' Elastic Rolling Contact
.1
-.3
-.~
-.5
-.6
-.7
-.8
*-\~+
;'?
-.9
-1
Figure 2.16 Two-dimensional theory. The total tangential lorce transmitted in

rolling when the difference parameter K", O. A Johnson process is
employed (Kalker, 1971).
Notation,' J.L = I, coellicient 01 Iriction .. X = p ,tangential traction ..
x
F = F ,total tangential lorce .. 1= F /J.LF , normalised tangential
x
z
lorce .. K = K, dillerence parameter .. t! = e, longitudinal creepage.
is regarded as unknown. Linear programming is then used to calculate the time derivative
of the traction, by means of which the traction is updated by an Euler process, and so the
contact evolves, time step by time step. Some results are shown in Figs. 2.18, 2.19, and
2.20. These figures are taken from Kalker (1971).
89
Chapter 2: Review
=ill,4-,...::....:..:.!.-,,-----/l----'---I....::-:.:.L:-+- xI rolling
leading edge
f=O
KIr- =- 5.76
Figure 2.17 Two-dimensional theory. The traction distribution over the contact
area in rolling with K", O. A Johnson process is employed (BentallJohnson, 1967 .. figure from Kalker. 1971).
Notation: see Fig. 2.16.
90

Il Z
rolling
directio~
-1
rolling directlo.!'
__
__
-~-
~~
~~
~~
__________
__________
~~
~X
t=1.0 (e)
________
~x
L -__________- L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~x
Figure 2.18 Two-dimensional transient rolling contact: "From Cattaneo to Carter".

(K= 0), (Kalker, 197J).
Notation as in Fig. 2.16 .. in addition t = t, time or distance traversed,
as the rolling velocity V = l. Constant tangential force, 3/4 of the
saturation value.
91
Chapter 2: Review
rolling directio!,
t= 1.2
Bound of tradion
____________-L______
~~
____
~X
L-________-L~======~x
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__________
________
~x
~x
Figure 2.19 Two-dimensional transient rolling contact: "Periodically varying

contact width" (K = 0). (Kalker. 1971).
Notation as in Figs. 2.16 and 2.18. In addition. a = a. the half-width
0/ contact. The total tangential force is constant: F = 0.255.
'Ir. a = 1 + (O.4/'Ir) sin (2'1rt). V = 1.
92
-~
__________
~
I
\
________
~x
Figure 2.20 Two-dimensional transient rolling contact: "From Goodman to

Bentall" (K '" 0) .. Johnson process). (Kalker. 1971).
Notation: see Figs. 2.16-2.19. a = 1, V= 1. Starting from Goodman's
compression without creepage, but with friction, rolling starts, until
finally the Bentall-Johnson traction distribution is achieved.
93
Chapter 2: Review
2.2.3.6 Generalisation 0/ the method 0/ Sec. 2.2.3.5 to the three-dimensional case
In the three-dimensional case the picture is less rosy. Indeed, the mathematical program
may be formulated as follows
f fc (si(x) p;<x) + 1si 1 g} dx l dx 2 = f fc (w;<x) p;<x) + 1si 1 g} dx l dx 2 ,

subs.=w.-vaax I ff C A ..(x -y ) p.(y)dYldY2'
I
lJ
Iprl-/P3'.5:0,
O!
O!
(2.46)
Pz=P3'
A convex function is defined as having the property

/ [qp + (1 - q)
rl
'.5: q/(p) + (1 - q) /(r),
(2.47)
It is shown in Appendix B that
a)
b)
c)
d)
h(p) and -h(p) are convex if h is linear in p

ch(p) is convex if h is convex and the constant c ~ 0
h + k is convex if hand kare convex
1h(p) 1 (Euclidean norm) is convex if h(p) is linear in p.
(2.48a)
(2.48b)
(2.48c)
(2.48d)
So s. is a convex function of the traction; gls.1 is a convex function; W.p. is convex;

I
I
I I
hence the objective function is convex, and the constraint function I Pr I - fp) is convex.
Such a problem is called a convex program, and a convex program may be shown tohave
the property that every minimiser ("solution") is aglobai minimiser of the problem, see
Appendix B. Note that a linear program is a special case of a convex program. Under
certain conditions, existence and uniqueness of the solution of such a program is guaranteed. In the discretised case sufficient conditions are:
uniqueness:
existence:
strict convexity of the objective function, i.e.

f[qp + (1 - q) rl < q/(p) + (1 - q) /(r) if 0 < q < I, p
/(p)
-+ 00
if 1 p 1
-+ 00,
and 3PO I/(po) < 00.
(2.49a)
(2.49b)
This problem is solved as folIows. As differentiability of the functions involved is very

important for solving the problem, we regularise the square root 1 sr 1
{Si + S;}"2 to
I sr I ~ {sI2 + s22 + f 2"2

}
94
(2.50)

The regularised function on the right is infinitely often differentiable with respect to s;
the function on the left is not differentiable at sI = s2 = 0, a value that is often taken.
Also, a penalty function approach may be used to enforce the constraints I PT I ~ g.
I made such an implementation, assisted by the students G. Visser and H. Goedings. It is
described in the report by Kalker-Goedings (1972c). It appeared that the number E in
Eq. (2.50) could not be chosen initially to be arbitrarily small. We had to give it a fairly
large value, optimise, decrease the value of E, optimise again, etc. (sequential method).
Sometimes up to 20 values of E were taken until the effect of the regularisation was no
Ion ger noticeable: and even then, sometimes our optimisation diverged. Needless to say,
this method is very slow, and not very robust; this was why it was abandoned in favor of
the Duvaut-Lions based method which will be very extensively described in this book.
Yet at the time (1971-1972) the New Numerical Method, as it was called, was the first
exact method in which all three-dimensional rolling contact conditions were taken into
account.
The New Numerical Method was used to verify the imperfect exact theory of my thesis
(see Sec. 2.2.3.4). To our great surprise and relief we found that the theory of my thesis
was confirmed, as far as the total force was concerned. We also found that the New
Numerical Method gave good results also when the contact ellipse was long in the rolling
direction, in which case the theory of my thesis failed. It also confirmed the simplified
theory of eh. 3 and Sec. 2.2.3.3. Finally the New Numerical Method clearly showed areas
of slip, where the traction was exactly opposite the traction, and areas of adhesion, where
the slip vanished exactly. The forms of the areas of slip and adhesion were not clear
owing to the crudeness of the approximation, yet they were compatible with the results of
strip theory, see Sec. 2.2.3.2, and with the simplified theory.
2.2.3.7
Duvaut-Lions based methods
In 1972 the famous book by Duvaut and Lions was published. In it, the frictional contact
problem was formulated as a variational inequality, which appeared (Kalker, 1977b) to
have the meaning of the principle of virtual work. Duvaut and Lions proved their principle for the case in which the traction bound g depends on position only, which happens
to be so in the quasiidentical case. The principle was stated in two forms, viz. for virtual
work, and for complementary virtual work. These principles were integrated to the
principle of minimum potential energy and maximum complementary energy, so that the
methods of mathematical programming could be used to solve the frictional contact
problems.
The principles are formulated in terms of a single shift. For rolling one must consider a
contact evolution, in which shifts are placed one after the other. Transient rolling may
95
Chapter 2: Review
result from this, and steady rolling is the limiting case of transient rolling with constant
creepage. This was implemented by Kalker in 1979 (Program DUVOROL). In the
program DUVOROL only steady state rolling of quasiidentical bodies is considered, with
known Hertzian contact area and normal pressure. The theory and some results are
described by Kalker (1979). The most pronounced features of DUVOROL, and later
CONTACT are their robustness and their perfect reliability in the quasiidentical case.
As to the results and applications of DUVOROL, the program was first compared with
the New Numerical Method of Sec. 2.2.3.6, with very favorable results to both prograrns.
Then it was used by British Rail to construct a table of the creepage-force law for
steel-on-steel contact, in which the ratio of the axes, the longitudinal creepage, the
lateral creepage and the spin were varied. Use was also made of the 1967b table
constructed by my thesis program, see Sec. 2.2.3.4.
It appeared impossible to formulate the virtual work inequality for steady state rolling.
However, Kalker described a scheme (1983, 1985, 1988), based on Duvaut-Lions, in

which steady state rolling could be calculated directly, without loss of robustness, and of
reliability in the quasiidentical case.
The principles of virtual work and complementary virtual work can be given for nonquasiidentity, see Ch. 4. However, in the non-quasiidentical case these principles cannot
be integrated to extremum principles, such as the principle of minimum potential energy
and of maximum complementary energy. One solution is to employ the Panagiotopoulos
process or its Alternative, see Ch. 1, Secs. 1.6.3.1, 1.6.3.2, as the extremum principles may
be formulated for each iteration step of these processes. Neither the Panagiotopoulos
process nor the Alternative is fully reliable. In our experience the Alternative process is
significantly more reliable than the Panagiotopoulos process, but still there are cases
where even the Alternative fails. It is, however, our experience and that of others that
the Panagiotopoulos process is fully reliable in the two-dimensional case; presumably the
same holds for the Alternative. However, as the Alternative is in principle slower than
the Panagiotopoulos process, the Alternative was never given a trial in a true two-dimensional program. The experience that the two-dimensional case is significantly easier than
the three-dimensional case, also with respect to non-quasiidentity, is shared by Curnier,
of the Lausanne, Switzerland, EPFL, author of a paper on friction (1984) and by
Klarbring, of Linkping University, Sweden.
The program CONT ACT was built on the complementary energy principles of Fichera
(1964) and of Duvaut-Lions (1972), which were implemented in a special algorithm by
Kalker (1983, 1988). The normal problem, the static shift problem in its incremental
form, non-steady state rolling and steady state rolling are all implemented. The elastic
field in the interior of the half -spaces in contact: displacements, displacement gradients,
96
linearised strains and stresses due to the traction under consideration, can all be calculated
at any point. This is done by a method described in Kalker (l986b), which is reprinted
in this work as Appendix C. In the non-quasiidentical case one has a choice between the
Panagiotopoulos process and its Alternative. The program contains a special option for
Hertzian normal contact. In a wide variety of cases one may specify a total force component instead of the corresponding displacement quantity. The derivative of the force
components with respect to approach and creepages is also calculated.
This wide variety of options and possibilities necessitates a complicated input. Consequently, we have provided CONTACT with a menu-guided input, which, together with
the User's Manual, is sufficient to operate the program. CONT ACT runs on a 640 kB
IBM compatible Personal Computer.
CONT ACT has been used to calculate all the exact theoretic examples of Ch. 5.
97
CHAPTER3
THE SIMPLIFIED THEORY OF CONTACT
The theory of elasticity is based on a linear relationship between stresses and strains, see
Appendix A. Consequently, the surface displacement of a body at a certain point depends
linearlyon the surface tractions at all points of the surface, in the manner of Eq. (1.37)
(Ch. I). In the simplified theory of rolling contact, introduced by Kalker in 1973, this
complicated relation is replaced by the assumption that the surface displacement at a
point x depends linearlyon the surface traction at the same point x only.
The idea of simplified theory was already discussed in Sec. 2.2.3.3 of Ch. 2. The simplified theory reproduces qualitatively so many contact phenomena known from the exact
theory that the question arises whether a quantitative simplified theory may be constructed. In the present chapter we give a detailed analysis of this matter, and we validate
our findings with the aid of problems whose solution is known. In Sec. 3.5 we describe a
very fast algorithm called FASTSIM, to calculate frictional stresses according to the simplified theory. This algorithm is about 1000 times faster than the exact contact code
CONTACT.
It appears that the assumption of simplified theory is verified when the elastic body is a
thin layer bonded to a rigid substrate. Indeed it is asymptotically correct when blc t 0,
when b is the layer thickness and c is the contact half -width. The frictionless contact of a
layer and a rigid cylinder was treated by Meijers in 1968. AIthough nowadays much
more powerful computer based techniques are available for the frictionless and frictional
layer problem, Meijers's study is valuable for the wealth and completeness of its numerical results, which we use gratefully for validation purposes: we compare the simplified
theory with Meijers' results for all values of (blc) in Sec. 3.3.
Also, a comparison is made with the frictionless three-dimensional theory of Hertz
(1882). The Hertz theory was described in eh. I, Sec. 1.7.1. It is found that only a qualitative agreement is obtained between the exact Hertz theory and the approximate
99
Chapter 3: The Simplilied Theory 01 Contact
simplified theory. Nevertheless, the results of the simplified theory ean be adapted to the
Hertz theory so that a quantitative agreement arises. This is needed for the use of the
simplified theory as an approxirnator of three-dimensional frietional eontaet stresses,
whieh is the subjeet of Sees. 3.4 to 3.10. It appears that the simplified theory is espeeially
sueeessful as an approximator of steady state rolling eontaet phenomena.
3.1
RECAPITULATION OF nIE LINEAR nIEORY OF ELASTICITY

(see also Appendix A)
In the linear theory of elasticity it is more eonvenient to work with index notation than
with veetor-matrix notation. In index notation the displaeement u is denoted by its eomponents U., i = 1,2,3, in a Cartesian eoordinate system. Partial differentiation with respeet
I
to the eoordinate x. is denoted by .:
j
u. . ~f
-
I,j
,j
au.
-a
I ,
x.
the displaeement gradient.
Repeated subseripts imply summation over 1,2,3. This summation convention is undone
by plaeing one or more of the repeated subseripts between braekets.
We work in a small displaeement, small displaeement gradient theory. The (linearised)
strains are defined as e . . = -21 (u . . + u . .) = e .. , and the stress is given by a. " The equaIj
I,j
j,1
jl
Ij
tions of equilibrium are a .. = a ", and a .. . = 0; we disregard body forees sueh as
Ij
jl
Ij,j
gravity. The surface load is p. = a ..n. where n. is the outer normal on the surface.
.
I
Ij.j
.
j
.
.
Aeeordmg to Hooke's La w, there IS a lInear relatIOnship between the stresses a . . and
Ij
strains e. " For an isotropie material this relation reads
Ij
e"=-2(u .. +u .. )
Ij
ij
=---
I +
11
I,j
j,1
e .. +
(3.1 )
Ij
with
E : Young's moclulus,
11:
0 .. : Kroneeker delta,
oIj.. = 0 when i
Ij
100
Poisson's ratio: elastie eonstants

j, = 1 when i = j.
'*
3.2: The Thin Elastic Layer

3.2
THE TIllN ELASTIC LA YER
Consider a flat rigid base to which an elastic layer of thickness b is rigidly attached, see
Fig. 3.1. A coordinate system (XI ,x 2 ,x 3 ) is introduced of which the axes of land 2 lie in
the surface of the layer, and the axis of 3 is parallel to the outer normal to the layer. The
layer is loaded in a region which is large with respect to the layer thickness.
r~Xl
"
Figure 3.1 A layer mounted on a base.
As a consequence of the load a displacement ui comes into being. It will vanish at x 3 = -b,
and it can be represented as
00
u. =
I
LV. (x)(b + x 3 )m,

m=l Im
= 1,2, i = 1,2,3.
(3.2)
Here we use the convention that a Greek index runs over the values 1,2, while a Latin
index runs over the values 1,2,3, unless specified differently, for example m in Eq. (3.2).
We look for an asymptotic expression, and to that end we retain only the first term in
(3.2):
(V.=V I )
I
(3.3)
We write down the displacement gradients:

u.
1,1
= v.1,1(x)(b
+ x 3 ),
ui ,3 = vi"
(3.4 )
Now, we assume that the wave length l of the applied load is large with respect to the
layer thickness b. Hence
101
Chapter 3: The Simplijied Theory 0/ Contact

u.
v. (x)(b + x 3 ) = O( v .b/i),
u. 3
v.(x ) = O(v.).
1,1
I,
1,1
i: wave length of the applied load
(3.5)
So we see that u. u. 3 and, as an approximation, we will set u.

1,1
I,
1,1
Thus we have:
i = 1,2,3;
O.
,1 = 1,2.
(3.6)
The strains become

(3.7)
and the stresses are

E(1 - v) v3 .
u33 = (1 + v)(1 - 2v) ,
(3.8)
It is seen /rom the expression tor u(ii) that our approximation ceases to be valid when
Rj 0, that is, when the layer is (nearly)
incompressible. We will, there/ore,
assume that this is not so.
The surface displacements, at x 3 = 0, are
(1 - 2v)
= bv 1 = b
2(1 + v)
_ b 2{1 + v)
E
u31 E
PI
u.
u2
= bV 2 = b
2(1 + v)
E
P2
p.: surface loads
u3
= bV3 = b
{1 + v){1 - 2) v
(1 - v) E
= u.(x,O);
p. = u. 3(x ,0)
1
1
1
P3
(3.9)
u.: surface displacements.

1
We can write them as folIows:

(3.10a)
with
L3 = b
102
(1 + v)(l - 2v)
(1 - v) E
(3.10b)
3.3.' Validation by Frictionless Contact
The constants L. are called the flexibility parameters. They are also referred to as the
I
simplified theory parameters.
These are the equations of the simplified theory. It is seen that the displacement at a point
depends only on the load at the same position. The law (3.10) holds for a thin layer. We
are interested to see how it behaves for thicker layers, and eventually, for an infinitely
thick layer (a half -space). The flexibilities L. may be adapted to suit a geometry which
I
differs from a thin layer. To that end, we validate the simplified theory, first by considering frictionless contact, then frictional contact.
3.3
VALIDATION BY FRICTIONLESS CONTACT
We first consider frictionless, two-dimensional contact of layers which are not necessarily
thin. Their behavior was described by Meijers in 1968. We also consider the contact of
thick, massive bodies that touch each other in a contact area whose dimensions are small
with respect to a typical diameter of the bodies. Such bodies are approximated by halfspaces, and the contact was described by Hertz (1882).
3.3.1
COMPARISON WITH THE THEORY OF MEIJERS
Consider a two-dimensional elastic layer mounted on a rigid base (body 2). A rigid circle
with radius R just touches it at the time t = O. We approximate the rigid circle by a
parabola with equation
hence
(3.11)
Next, the rigid parabola is pressed into the layer. Let v 0 be the depth of penetration (the
approach). Then, by (1.5) or (1.56) with u l = 0, U = u 2 ' P = -P2' u 3 = u 2z ' P3 = Pz' the
deformed distance reads,
(3.12)
We see that in contact

hence
if and only if
(3.13)
I xI I ~ v'2Rv O .
103
b
;-.----x,
---~--------i---------~---x
.,.c
Figure 3.2 A rigid cylinder (eirele) in contact with an elastic layer (a)
with pressure distribution (b).
Outside contact, p 3 = 0 hence u3 = 0; as u must be continuous since the material is not

tom, we find that on the edge of contact, x~ 1(2R) = vO. So we satisfy all the requirements
if
I x I ~ c = v' 2Rv O
p(O)
then
~f P3(x l ,t) = (2Rv O - X~}/(2RL3)

2 2
vOI L 3 ;
I Xl I >
p(x I )
p(xl)lp(O) = I - x/c
then
p(X I ) = 0,
(3.14)
u 3(x l )=0.
The solution is shown in Fig. 3.2. The pressure distribution is parabolic. The total force
F 3 is given by
2
c
Vo
(3.15a)
F3 =
{-L---~ dx l =
-c
3
3
1
XI}
= semi-contact width = (2RV O)2.
(3.15b)
p(xl)lp(O) as found by Meijers is shown in Fig. 3.3 (note that x == Xl)' viz. for /J = 0.30
(a) and for /J = 0.5 (b).
We see the deviation due to /J = 0.5 very clearly in Fig. 3.3b. Nevertheless the pressure
distribution for all /J and for all clb can reasonably be represented by the parabolic
pressure distribution of simplified theory. Figure 3.4 shows Meijers' RVOlb2 as a function
of clb and /J. In the simplified theory we have RV ol b2 = c2/(2b 2 ). This line is shown
broken in Fig. 3.4. Jt represents the situation very weil for 0 ~ 11 ~ 0.48. Finally we
compare the total compressive force F 3 given by Meijers and by our theory, in Table 3.1.
104
3.3: Validation by Frictionless Contact
xlu e
~I-
--..!./
Q.
1.0
Q.
O.B
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
O.B
1.0
x
c
(a)
xlu ~
~I-
'-.;../
Q.
1.0
Q.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
x
c
(b)
Figure 3.3 p( x /c)1 p(O) according to Meijers. (a): v = 0.30. The curve clb
the parabolic distribution; (b): v = 0.50. From: Meijers (1968).
00
is
105
&0IN.0
~~ ;.01
7 f--
}J
040 VI}
0.30
72c
f--
v =0
J11/
I/I /
-"
v///"//////;//,,j
VII
/I1/& ~:/
I!/I 11 11
!JVI Im lE
'Ij f/ )1 V
I(/; 1/ /
Ihf7;
YoR_~~ J
b2 - 2 b27/}
w:
W.4i' ~
V/
~~
17
I~ ~
IA ~
0.4 08
12
1.6
2.0 2.4
2.8
3.2 3.6 4.0

c
b
---
Figure 3.4 RV Ol b2 as a lunction 01 II and clb. vO: approach. Broken fine:

simplilied theory. From: Meijers (1968).
106
3.3: Validation by Frictionless Contact

Meijers uses the dimensionless form 4F 3R(1 - })/(7rEc 2 ) as a function of clb and
the simplified theory
8c(1 - 11
37rEL 3
(see (3.IOb
2
8(1 - 11)
h(1 - 211)
c
b
11.
In
(3.16)
We tabulate this quantity in Table 3.1 according to Meijers and according to the simplified theory, see (3.16).
TABLE 3.1 4F 3R(1 - })/(7rEc 2 ) as a function of

M: Meijers, S: Simplified theory.
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.45
and clb.
clb
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.25
1.83
3.08
1.6
1.7
1.93
2.65
3.40
4.16
6.11
10.3
3.9
4.55
5.73
7.3
clb
11
11
1.2
clb
We conclude that for large clb (thin layers) the agreement is reasonable (about 12%) for
11 ~ 0.4. For smaller clb the flexibility parameter L 3 must be adjusted. For 11 > 0.4
the agreement is poor.
A new element has just been introduced, namely the adjusted L 3 . We investigate this for
very thick layers (the half -space) in the next section.
o~
3.3.2
COMPARISON WITH THE HERTZ THEORY
Consider two elastic bodies (I) and (2) that are just touching at the origin at time t = o.
We choose the coordinate system (x I ,x 2 ,x 3) so that the axes land 2 lie in the common
tangent plane, while the axis 3 points normally into the upper body 1. The surfaces of
the bodies have the equations, cf. (1.49)
(a = 1,2).
The distance between corresponding points of the bodies at time t
(3.17)
=
0 is given by
(3.18)
107

We take the direction of the axes x I ,x2 so that CI = C 2 and (A I - A 2 )
e(x,O) takes the form:
e(x,O) = Ax I + BX 2
~ (B I
A>B
- B 2 ). Then
(3.19)
with
a2 e(x,O)
2
=B
aXI
_B
= 1. a e(x,O)
2
a e(x,O) = O.
aX 2 ' ax l ax2
2
The distance must be positive for all x = (x I ,x2 ) "* 0, so that

A > 0,
B> 0;
by construction, A > B.
(3.20)
Next the bodies are compressed without friction being present, over a distance q at the
time t, and the deformed distance becomes, cf. (1.56), since O 2 = -0 1 = (O,O,l)T
e(x,t) = AX I + BX 2 - q + u 13 (x) - u23 (x)
(3.21)
with Uo. 3(x ) the 3-component of the surface displacemeot of body 0. at time t.
We call u = u l - u 2 the displacement dillerence. This concept plays an importaot role
also in frictional theory, see Eq. (1.14). With this notation we have
def e(x,t)-Ax
_
2 +Bx 2 _ q+u3(x)~0,
=0 incontact
1
2
-0"33 = P3(x ) ~ 0
(P3: load on body I, positive if compressive, at time t); (3.22)
( ) =
eX
P3(x ) e(x)
= O.
Frictionless contact: p rex ) = O.

We must find the parameters of the simplified theory for the displacement difference.
Note that P = PI = -P 2 by Newton's Third Law, so that if
u .(x) = L( ') p .(x)
Q/
Q/
Q/
(3.23)
Therefore, in simplified theory, (3.22) becomes
(3.24)
108
3.3: Validation by Frictionless COlltact
Hence the contact area is characterised by
that is, an ellipse.

Semi-axes of ellipse C: in I-direction: v'qjA, in 2-direction: VqjiJ.
Note that the ratio of the axes is independent of q, and therefore of the total compressive
force F 3. The area of the contact region C is denoted by I Cl; we can express q in I C I
by
The pressure distribution p is parabolic, viz.
The total compressive force is given by
We summarise the formulae. We add a subscript S to P3' q, C, u i and F 3' to indicate that
we are dealing with the simplified theory.
(3.25a)
semi-axes:
I:
VqS/A,
2:
VqS/B
(3.25b)
(3.25c)
(3.25d)
(3.25e)
A subscript S indicates the simplified theory.
We turn to the Hertz theory. According to that theory, see Ch. I, Sec. 1.7.1, the contact
area is elliptic with semi-axes (a,b),
CH = {(X ) (x/a)
+ (x/b)
2
::c::
l},
::c::
b if A
(3.26a)
subscript H indicates Hertz theory.

109
Chapler 3: The Simplilied Theory 01 Conlacl
The ratio ofaxes depends on A and B alone, not on the applied load, just as in simplified
theory. The pressure distribution is given by
3F
~f P3H = 2:~ j
PH(x)
~--------------
1 - (x/a)2 - (x2Ib)2 , semi-ellipsoidal.
(3.27)
We noted in Sec. 3.3.1 that the form of a half -circle does not deviate much from the
form of a parabola of the same area and the same base. We therefore compare the Hertz
theory and the simplified theory when A and Bare the same, and
(3.28)
Now, according to (1.57e) and (1.58) (Hertz theory),
F3 =
with
E =
1C 12 (A + B) E
b(A + B) E
2
3( 1 - v ) E
1I"a
211"
311"(1 -
Eb
'
E = 2(1 + v) G
(3.29a)
2
2
2{cos q + (alb) sill q} 2 dq,
(a
:5;
b)
(3.29b)
(complete elliptic integral of the second kind, see Appendix E)

1
h
b
. h (3 .28) , Yle
. Id s L 3 = 3(1 -(1v +) BI
b(BIA)
w h IC
, 1ll com lllatlon Wit
A) E
Also,
1c 1 (alb)(A + B) K
qH =
1I"E
with
K
a (A + B) K
E
211"
(alb) K(A + B)
1
(AB)2 E
qs
(3.30a)
{cos q + (alb)
sin q}
-2
dq,
(a
:5;
b)
(3.30b)
(complete elliptic integral of the first kind, see Appendix E)

so that
qs/qH
(BIA)2
I + (BIA)
E
(alb) K
(3.31)
The ratio of the axes of the Hertzian ellipse g H = (alb) depends in a complicated manner
on g S = .,; BI A . We tabulate the interesting quantities for VB7A = 0 (0.2) 1 in Table
3.2:
110
3.3.' Validation by Frictionless Contact
T ABLE 3.2 A comparison between the Hertz theory and the simplified theory.
gs =
V B/A
gH = alb
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00
0.12
0.30
0.50
0.74
1.00
100% x (gs-gH)/g H
(= error)
67%
33%
20%
8%
0%
00
1.00
1.02
l.l0
1.21
1.38
1.57
3.56
2.65
2.16
1.82
1.57
It is seen that the ratios of the axes are reasonably close only as long as 1 ~
gslgH
0.459
0.477
0.494
0.500
0.500
..fEijA ~ 0.8.
Below that value, intolerable deviations occur. The ratio of the approaches is almost a
constant 0.5. The reason is shown in Fig. 3.5.
Figure 3.5 The approach in the Hertzian (a) and the simplijied (b) case.
111

3.3.3
CONCLUSION
The simplified theory gives a qualitative picture of the normal contact problem. As a
quantitative theory and with the thin layer values of the flexibility parameters L., it
I
gives reasonable results when (clb) ~ 4, and Poisson's ratio /J < 0.45. When we consider
the half-space, even when we adapt the flexibility parameter L 3 , the form of the
pressure distribution is reasonably good, but the normal displacement difference u3S has
the fundamental defect of vanishing outside the eontact, while u3H is about qH at the
edge of the contact area. In addition, the ratio of the axes of the contact ellipse shows
grave errors as soon as g S .:5 0.6.
We conclude that the simplilied theory 01 contact can be used in the Irictionless problem
in the two-dimensional case only when clb > 4 (thin layers), and Poisson's ratio
/J < .45.
Also we conclude that onee the contact area and the approach have been found, the
parabolic pressure distribution of simplified theory is a reasonable approximation of the
elliptical distribution of Hertz theory, so that we still have the possibility of using the
simplified theory in the tangential contact problem with a contact area furnished by the
complete theory. In the following sections we investigate this possibility.
3.4
FRICTIONAL COMPRESSION
In the present section we compare the simplified theoretic solution of frictional compression with the solutions of the exact theory.
According to Ch. 1, Eq. (1.5), contact formation is governed by the equation
n2
-nI
(0,0,1).
This holds for time independent and for time dependent contacts alike. We denote by
z = (x I ,x2 ) the surface point x = (x I ,x2 ,0), and the time by t. At the time t = 0 the
bodies are just in contaet, without deformation, and at time t they have approached each
other over a distance q(t) along the 3 -axis. Then
h = h(z,t) = e(z,O) - q(t)
and
e(z,t)
112
e(z,O) - q(t) + u 3(z,t)
= (xI ,x2),
0,
surface point (x 1,x2 ,0);
P3(z,t) e(z,t)
U
= u1 -
0,
u2 ' displacement difference.
(3.32)
3.4: Frictional Compressioll
By simplified theory, this becomes

e(z,t) = e(z,O) - q(t) + L 3 P3(z,t)
L 3 : flexibility parameter.
0,
(3.33)
All types of compression: frictionless, full friction, Coulomb friction are satisfied by
setting
(3.34a)
or, equivalently,
(3.34b)
Generally speaking, this is not so in the exact theory. To see this, it must be remembered
that in the exact theory all surface load components at a point influence all components of
the surface displacement at all points. General statements regarding this field may be
made on the ground of symmetry considerations; note that we have assumed the material
to be isotropie.
Consider a curved elastic layer mounted on a rigid base. If the contact area is small with
respect to a radius of curvature, then we may consider the layer as flat for the purpose of
elastic calculations, but not for boundary conditions. Likewise if we consider a massive
body and the contact area is assumed to be small with respect to the radi i of curvature of
the body and to a typical diameter, then we may regard the body as a half -space for the
purpose of elastic calculations, but not for boundary conditions. The importance of such
approximations is far-reaching. It is discussed extensively in Ch. I, Sec. 1.6. In a flat
layer, the influence of the radii of curvature is neglected; in the half -space, all bodies
are given the same form. The half -space approximation appeared in the 1882 Hertz
theory; Hertz performed experiments to verify it. The background of the half -space
theory is shown in Fig. 3.6. At the surface region BAAB the surfaces are elose; at the
surface region BCB the stress in the half-space is O(ac 2 /R 2 ) (a: stress at the contact, c:
diameter of the contact, R: distance to the contact) and is therefore small; it vanishes in
the real body.
The layer is the simplest non-half -space body, the depth not being large with respect to
the contact area diameter.
Now we consider a half -space or layer, see Fig. 3.7. Assume anormal concentrated force
acting in the origin. The displacement field is presumably that which is shown in Fig. 3.7.
The normal displacement is even in xI' the tangential displacement is odd. This may be
seen by mirroring the body with the displacements about the x 2 x 3 plane; the displacement
113
contact
c
Figure 3.6 The half-space approximation: the curve BA AB almost coincides with
the boundary 01 the half-space. On the boundary 01 the body outside this
curve the stresses in the half-space are small, so that, there also, the
boundary conditions are approximately met.
u,
U,
U3
- -
I
U3
U,
U,
U3
Figure 3.7 Displacement lield due to anormal concentrated lorce.

114
X1
3.4: Frictional Compressioll
field should remain the same. The tangential displacement field due to a eoneentrated
normal load aeting in the origin 0 is radial. To see that, we eonsider the plane of Fig.
3.8, and in it the generie line e through the origin, and the eircle C. On the eircle C the
eireumferential eomponent of the tangential traetion is eonstant and mirror-symmetrie
about the line e, so that it vanishes. So the tangential field is radial; it is present in the
exaet theory, but absent in the simplified theory. Note that, generally, u 11 '" u21 see Fig.
3.9, when there is no frietion, from whieh it follows that tangential traetions will be
generated when frietion is present. There is an exeeption, however, namely when the
bodies are elastieally symmetrie (EI = E 2 , v I = v 2) and geometrieally symmetrie (halfspaees, or equally thiek layers). Then, u 11 = u21 ' u 12 = u22 ' and no tangential force will
be genera ted.
Half -spaee eontaet elastieity is determined by three eombined elastie eonstants:
v(l + v)
E
1
2
(3.35)
K=-.l
4 1+v
-----------4----~~~--t_----------X1
Figure 3.8 The dis placement field due to anormal concentrated force at the
origin is radial.
115
Figure 3.9 Two bodies in contact wIder compression.
l'
Of these, K governs the "elastie differenee effeet" of Fig. 3.9. I K I is maximally

but
normally mueh smaller. It vanishes when EI = E 2 and 11 1 = 11 2 , or when both bodies are
ineompressible (ll i =
or one body ineompressible (11 1 =
and the other rigid
(E I E 2 ) In half -spaces, both cases will be here referred to as "quasiidentity". In
layers, geometrie asymmetry plays a role together with elastie asymmetry in the "differenee effeet" of Fig. 3.9, and we will refer to geometrie and elastic symmetry as "quasiidentity". In the eontaet of two half -spaces there is no geometrie asymmetry, so that K is
the only determining faetor. Quasiidentity is also diseussed in Ch. I, See. 1.6.3 and its
subseetions.
1)'
1)
11 there is quasiidentity, the dillerence ellect vanishes and the situation, as lar as the
tangential traction is concerned, is as in simplified theory. Otherwise, the diflerence
ellect comes to the lore and simplilied theory cannot be applied.
Just as there is an effeet of the normal traetion on the tangential displaeement, there is an
effeet of the tangential traetion on the normal displaeement, see Fig. 3.10. For two
quasiidentieal bodies pressed together we have Fig. 3.11: u ln = u2n ' When there is nonquasiidentity we have u l n u2n ' whieh must be eompensated by the normal traetion. The
effect is not accounted for in simplified theory.
'*
116
3.5: The FASTSIM Algorithm
Il
I
1
I
,"
/',/,
' , " 1
//'1/
Un
1
I
Un
Un
P
U
_t._t~
Il
1
1
I
._1:
:::}
1/
/j// /
mirror
about
1
I
Jl
..
:::::} ,
/
)( (-1)
Un
/
/
. 1/
///)/
Un
,/
/'
Un
Figure 3.10 The effect of a tangential concentrated force on the normal

dis placement.
u1n +
...
~1:
U2ni
-p_t
U1n
Figure 3.11 The effect of a tangential force on contact formation.
We conclude: Frictional simplified theory is applicable only when the contacting bodies
are quasiidentical.
3.5
THE F ASTSIM ALGORITHM
Let us have a look at the boundary conditions of friction, and formulate them in terms of
the simplified theory. We consider quasiidentical bodies, and we assume that the contact
area and the normal pressure are given by the theory of elasticity, viz. the Hertz theory
for half -spaces, and the simplified theory for thin elastic layers. Contact area and normal
traction distribution are independent of the tangential traction/surface displacement, by
the assumed quasiidentity.
We consider two instants, t' and t, with t '< t. We have, according to Coulomb, see
(1.32), (1.33)
117
Chapter 3: The Simplilied Theory 01 Conlacl

s
slip
s f. 0
I PT I :5
hence
PT
hence
s(z,t 1)(1 - 1 1)
= UT (Z,t)
-IPn = IP3
(0
= -Ip 3S(Z,t)/ I S(Z,t) I
= 0 1 = (0,0,-1)T )
- u (Z,t I),
T
We assurne the bodies to be mounted on rigid axles; consider the reference state in wh ich
the bodies just touch initiaIly; freeze the particIes; bring the axles to the positions they
occupy at the times t l and t; the difference of the rigid displacement fields at time 1 and
t l is w(z,t)(t - t I). If we measure the real displacement at the times I, t l with respect to
the frozen states at 1 and t I, then
s(z,t)(t - 1 I) = w(z,t)(t - 1 I) + u (Z,/) - u (Z,I I),
In simplified theory, u/z,t)

Hence
z E C(/).
(3.36a)
LI p/z,t), LI: fIexibility, see (3.23); z: surface point.
S(Z,/)(t - t I) = W(z,/)(t - t I) + L1(p (z,t) - P (z,t I

r
r
z = (x(t),O) E C(t).
(3.36b)
We ass urne that P (z,1 I) and w(z,t) are known, and that P (z,t) must be found. The
T
T
F ASTSIM algorithm requires that we define
(3.37)
Adhesion in (z,t) is characterised by
I PH(z,t) I :5 IP3: area of adhesion,
where we set P /Z,/)
Indeed it follows then from (3.36b) and (3.37) that s(z,t)(t - t I)

satisfied, the F ASTSIM algorithm requires that we set
in area of slip.
Then, indeed,
IPHI
PH(z,/).
=
(3.38a)
O. When (3.38a) is not
(3.38b)
I p/z,t) I = Ip 3(z,t), and
Since
j( Ip 3 ) > I when (3.38a) is not satisfied the slip opposes the traction. This
establishes the F ASTSIM algorithm.
118
3.6: The Shift
We specialise this to staty state roIIing contact. In Ch. I, Sec. 1.1 .f.3 we defined a steady
state as one in which a coordinate system (0; y) could be found where aII elastic field
quantities are independent of explicit time. In steady state roIIing this coordinate system
is contact fixed, and moves with a velocity v with respect to the coordinate system (0'; x)
which is attached to the particles of the bodies. A particle x that occupies the position y at
time t, occupied the position y + v(t - t ') at time t '. Let <jJ be an elastic field quantity. In
the y-coordinates it is independent of time:
<jJ = <jJ(y).
In the x-coordinates it depends on x and time:

<jJ = 1f;(x,t).
We compare <jJ at the times t, t' for the same particle x:

t/J(x,t)
<jJ(y);
t/J(x,t ')
<jJ(y + v(t - t ')).
(3.39)
We apply this to (3.36b):

s(y)(t - t ')
w(y)(t - t ') + LI {p (y) - P (y + v(t - t '))},

T
yEC
(3.40)
which can be used directIy in the F ASTSIM algorithm, where it is noted that outside
contact the surfaces of the bodies are free of traction.
This algorithm yields extremely fast computer programs for the simplified theory, hence
the name "FASTSIM". It is perfectIy general.
3.6
THE SHIFT
Two quasiidentical bodies are pressed together so that a contact area C forms. The contact
area carries anormal pressure - P . Contact area and normal pressure are found with the
11
theory of elasticity which coincides with the simplified theory for thin layers in contact.
The traction acting in the contact area is defined as P = PI = -P2' so that Pli = -P 3 < 0 is
the normal traction. Next, the bodies are shifted over a distance wand rotated over an
angle 1f; about the 3 -axis. We denote the tangential (I ,2) component of a vector by a subscript T. We have, by (1.12), if we set
119
Chapter 3: The Simpli/ied Theory 0/ Contact

tf;(t ') = 0,
w(t ') = 0,
w(t)=wt,
Cl.r
tf;(t) = tf;t,
e (z,t) = tangential shift =

r
(z,t ') = 0,
u~ful-u2
t'=O,
[-Xxl2 ] tf;t
z surface particle, w tangentially directed

(3.41)
+ wt + u (z,t).
r
In the simplified theory we have ur = LIP r , LI: flexibility parameter, see (3.23), so
that
e (z,t)
r
(-Xxl2 ] tf;t
+ wt + LIP (z,t).
r
The solution of the problem may be found numericaHy with the aid of FASTSIM.
Analytical solutions are possible in two special cases, viz. w = (L 1,O{, tf; = and an
elliptic contact, and w = 0, tf; = LI in a circular contact area.
3.6.1
tf;
= 0,
= (L 1,O{,
ELLIPTIC CONTACT
The tangential traction has no 2-component. We write PA for the fuH adhesion traction
component in the l-direction. We have:
hence
PA
= -t = constant for fixed t.
(3.43)
In an elliptic contact area according to Hertz

P3
=D
{l - (xl/a)
2"2
- (x 2 /b) } ,
D > 0, constan t.
~--~------------------~--X1
Figure 3.12 Tractioll distribution due to a shi/t without rotation.

(a): Cattaneo; (b): simpli/ied theory.
120
3.6: The Shift
------------~~~------------x,
-4L-------------------L-x,
--~------------------L--x,
Figure 3.13 The tangential traction due to a rotation shift. (a): the traction
distribution; (b): for a circular contact area, the traction on a
radial (simplified theory); (c): the same, exact theory
(Lubkin, 1951).
121
Chapter 3: The Simplijied Theory 01 Contact
Hence the area of adhesion is given by
ID {I - (x/a)
2"2
- (x/b)}
so that the area of adhesion is elliptic, the ellipse is oriented just as the contact ellipse,
and has the same ratio of the axes. This also follows from the exact theory (Cattaneo,
1938). The traction distribution is given in Fig. 3.12, (a): exact theory; (b): simplified
theory. It is seen that the agreement is reasonable, especially from a qualitative point of
view.
3.6.2
.1.
'I'
= L 1'
=0
The traction in the adhesion area PA is gi yen by
hence
(3.44)
This is a rotating field, see Fig. 3.13. For a eireular eontaet area the traetion is axially
symmetrie about the 3-axis. The traetion is shown in Fig. 3.13.
It is seen that the agreement is very good; we ean equalise the moments about the vertieal
3-axis by a proper ehoice of the flexibility parameter LI'
3.7
STEADY STATE ROLLING CONTACT
In the present seetion we eonsider steady state rolling eontaet in a Hertzian setting. The
expression for the slip reads, see (3.40)
s(y)(t - t I)
= U (y) - u (y + v(t
T
T
= (p (y) - p (y + v( t
T
T
- t I + w(t - t I);
v
- t I))} L 1 + w(t - t I)
(V,O)
(3.45)
while aeeording to (1.21), (1.85)

8u (y)
(y)
= - -T- + w
8Yl
(y)
= -L l -
8p (y)
T
8-Y + wR(y)
1
(3.46a)
with
SR(Y) = s(y)/V,
wR(Y)
122
= w(y)/V = (~ - <PY2' Ti + <PY )
(3.46b)
3.7: Steady State Rolling Contact
The former definition, (3.45), is suitable for FASTSIM; the latter, (3.46), for analytic
work. The point where w = 0 (viz. YI = -17N, Y2 = ~N) is called the spin pole.
3.7.1
THE FULL ADHESION SOLUTION
We determine the full adhesion solution, with v = 0; we recall that the traction should be
continuous across the leading edge. In Fig. 3.14 a contact area is shown; the leading and
trailing edges are indicated. Since p vanishes outside contact, it will be clear that p = 0
T
T
at the leading edge:
p/YL'Y 2 ) = 0;
Y L = Y L (Y 2 ) is the l-coordinate of the leading edge at 2-coordinate Y 2 .
(3.4 7)
trailing~ge
particles
entering
the contact
particles
leaving
the contact
THE CONTACT AREA

Figure 3.14 Leading and trailing edges in rolling contae!. Leading edge shown
shaded.
= -
1 fYI
LI
YL
[~-
epy 2 ) dy = - 1
L1
17 + ep Y
[~-
2
epY
I
17 + "2 ep(y I + Y L
) (y
- Y ).
L
(3.48)
123
YL
~--------~--'---~Y
~--------;---------+-y
a.
Figure 3.15 Comparison 01 simplilied (a) and exact (b) lull adhesion rolling
contact theory.
A comparison with the exact theory when the spin I/! vanishes as weIl as Tl is shown in Fig.
3.15.
The agreement is not good. Yet the relation is useful in that it can be used to adapt the
coefficient LI. To that end, we determine the total force in the simplified case.
(3.49)
For Hertzian contacts with contact area C,
2
2
C={(YI'Y2)j(y/a) +(Y2/ b) :51}1
YL(Y2)
= -YT,(Y2) = a {l
2"2
- (Y2/ b) } ;
YTr: I-coordinate of trailing edge at 2-coordinate Y 2

Introduction of (3.50) into (3.49) yields finally
124
(3.50)
2(1 -: v)' modulus of rigidity; E,v: combined constants, see (3.35)
(3.51 )
LI',Ld,L{ possible values of LI to adapt the simplified theory to the complete.

The coefficients C .. of the exact theory are tabulated in Appendix E, Table E3. There,
the following con:intion is observed: x I' aare always in the direction of rolling, and
x 2 ' bare always in the lateral direction. The semi-axis a of the contact ellipse may be
larger or smaller than the semi-axis b.
We see from (3.51) that
2
LI'=8al(3CIIG),
Ld=8al(3C22G),
L3=7ra3/(4b"2C23G).
(3.52)
Ideally, all L.' should be equal. We compare them for the elliptic contact area for
I
v = 0.25 and for various values of alb in Table 3.4.
TABLE 3.4 L.' in dependence on alb. v

I
alb
0.1
0.3
1.0
3.333
10.0
= 0.25.
LI'Gla
Ld Gla
L 3 Gla
0.806
0.755
0.647
0.421
0.228
1.058
0.926
0.727
0.416
0.208
0.525
0.602
0.534
0.332
0.170
It is seen from this table that for every ratio alb there should be a different flexibility
parameter LI' It is also seen that the supposed equality of the coefficients L / improves as
alb increases. On the other hand there is a way to make the agreement perfeet, and that is
to substitute for LI a weighted me an of LI" Ld, L 3 :
LI
= ( I~ I
Note that when TI

~ = TI = O.
LI' +
ITI I Ld + c I ~ I
= ~ =
0, LI
2 2"2
L I (~ + TI + c ~ ) ,
LI; similarly, LI
Ld if ~
= ~ =
"2
(ab) .
0, and LI
(3.53)
=
L 3' if
125
Chapter 3: The Simplijied Theory oj Contact
We note that the total force in both the exact theory and in the simplified theory are
linear in v I' v 2' 4>; this is why we call the full adhesion theory the linear theory.
3.7.2
FINITE FRICTION COEFFICIENT
We confine our attention to a Hertzian normal pressure and an elliptic contact area.
Moreover, we replace the ellipsoidal pressure distribution by a paraboloidal, because the
latter yields better results when we consider the areas of slip and adhesion. While we
consider the tangential traction distribution, we confine ourselves to the case 4> = 0 (pure
translational creepage). The linear theory reads in that case, see (3.48):
* -Y L ),
PA (Yl'Y2)=w(YI
with w* =
(,T/{/ LI'
2"2
and Y L = a {1-(y 2 /b) )
(3.54)
We define:
w*
1w* I.
(3.55)
We need the normal pressure distribution p3(y),
1YI 1 < Y L
(3.56)
=
IYII~YL'
The boundary Y I = Y G(Y 2) between stick and slip area is found by setting
hence either Y G = YL (leading edge of contact; disregarded), or

YG
2 *
2 *
= -Y L + -aj -w- = Y T + -aj -W P30
P30
'Y T
= -Y L
' coor d .0 f tral'1'mg ed ge.
(3.57)
Y dY 2) must be smaller than Y L (y 2) if a stick area is to exist at that value of Y 2' If it is
larger there will be sliding throughout. We see that the stick-slip boundary is the trailing edge of contact moved forward over the constant distance a 2 w* !(fP30)'
126
ro lling
~
a)~
Ci)
tlQ
CD
5
Figure 3.16 Areas 0/ slip and adhesion; (a): pure creepage (rjJ = 0), (b): pure
spin ( = Tl = 0), (c): lateral creepage with spin ( = 0), (d): longitudinal creepage with spin (Tl = 0), (e): general case, (/): pure spin
(large) (simpli/ied theory). From: Kalker ( 1979a).
When there is spin such an analytic treatment is not longer possible; instead, the areas of
slip and adhesion can be found using FASTSIM. Pictures of the areas of slip and adhesion
due to simplified theory are given in Fig. 3.16, while Fig. 3.17 shows them obtained by
the exact theory. The agreement is striking, as weil as the agreement with the experiment.
The proposed traction distribution has the form shown in Fig. 3.18, when < 0 and when
Tl
O.
127
Chapter 3: The Simplilied Theory
01 Contact
Rotling direction
(a)
x x
Value of the tangential traction at x-x in a) and d).
(c)
Figure 3.17 Division 01 a Hertzian contact area into areas 01 adhesion (A) and
slip (S). Also shown is the direction 01 the local tangential traction.
The spin pole is indicated by . (a.a'): pure spin, smalI; (b): longitudinal creepage + spin, smalI; (c): lateral creepage + spin, smalI;
(d): (d,d'): longitudinal creepage, small (exact theory); (e):
pure spin, large. From: Kalker (1979a).
128
, - - ..........
I
/'
" '\
\ fP 3
\
----~~------------~~---~
adheslon
Figure 3.18 The tangential traction distribution P/Yl) when there is an area
adhesion (a) and when there is none (b). In (a), dotted: traction
bound. In (b), dotted: no slip solution.
0/
We show that there can be slip in the interval [Y Tr ' YTr + a 2 w* /(fP 30 )].
We propose:
hence
aPr
-a=
Y
1
* *
2
2(w /w ) /(P 30 /a ) Y 1
The relative slip is
It must be opposite to the traction vector p , that is, opposite to the vector -w*. In other
terms, (w* - 2Y 1/P 30 /a 2 ) must be > O. That r will be so when
22*
*
0< w - 2(fP 30 /a )(Y Tr + a w /(fp 30 )) =
=
2
* 2
(fP 30 /a ){Y L - Y Tr - w a /(fP 30 )}
= (fP 30 /a 2 ){Y L
- y G}.
This will indeed be true when there is an area of adhesion, that is, when
129
Chapter 3: The Simplilied Theory
01 Contact
Figure 3.19 Traction distribution lor pure spin (large). On line x-x 01 Fig. 3.18e:
(a): exact theory, (b): simplilied theory. Outside this fine Y2 = 0
there is no adhesion.
HFX,Fyll
f Fz
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
v =0,25;
+ :
alb = 0.3,
~I =0
A :
alb =0.7,
~I
o : bla =0.6 ,
x : b/a = 0.4,
1] I
=1]
=0
CONTACT
~ I =0
- : FASTSIM,all v and
axia I ratios
} FASTSIM
0.1 0.2 03 0.4 05 0.6 01 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 3.20 The tangential lorce in the no-spin case, calculated with the programs
CONTACT and F ASTSlM. Hertzian contact.
3
F )} rP.
(~' ,TI ') = -{[abG]/[3IF zn (C 11~' C 22 T1), rP' = -([ab) 2 GC 2
/U
130
o:FASTSIM b/a = 0.1

FASTSIM. b = a
0.8
+:
0.7
: FASTSIM. a/b= 0.2
0.6 -:CONTACT
v =0.25
05
0.4
03
0.2
0.1
OD~~~~~--~~~~~~+-~~~~--r-~~~~~
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 0.8 09 1.0 1.11 125 1.43 167 2.0 2.0 133 5.0 10.0
a:>
4"Figure 3.21 The tangential (lateral) force due to spin in the Hertzian case, calculated by the exact theory code CONT ACT (drawn) and the simplified
theory code F ASTSlM, with L as in (3.54). <f; I : see Fig. 3.20.
When there is no area of adhesion, w*
2YLfp301a2, and
*
2
2
w - 2Ylfp30la ~ 2fp30(YL - Yl)la > O.
So the representation of Fig. 3.18 is correct; its counterpart from exact theory is shown in
Fig. 3.17. A traction distribution due to large pure spin is shown in Fig. 3.19; both the
simplified and the complete results are shown.
Also interesting is the agreement between the total tangential force
(3.58)
of simplified theory when we use (3.53), and of the exact theory (CONTACT). The L. I
1
are given in (3.52). The result for pure creepage is shown in Fig. 3.20; that for pure spin
(e = TI = 0) in Fig. 3.21. In both figures the axes are so scaled, that for every ratio (alb),
the initial slopes of the curves are identical.
131
Chapter 3: The Simplilied Theory 01 COlltact

(Fx.Fyl/fFz
0.8
0.7
0.6
05
- : CONTACT} Fx
x
: F.ASTSIM
0.4
0.3
-- -- : CONTACT} Fy
o : FASTSIM
~~~~~~~~--r-~-r~--~~~'=~'
o -.05 -.10 -.15 -20 -.25 -30 -35 -.40 -.45 -.50 -55 -.60
(Fx.Fyllf Fz
0.9
0.8
-
0.7
x
0.6
----:CONTACT}F
o : FASTSIM
Y
0.5
0.4
,.-e-
0.3
... .0;-
0.2
0.1
: CONTACT } Fx
FASTSIM
o'~
"
..0'
o~
o -0.05 -0.10 -.15
_.o.~
.. ,
-0-,
',0
''0
''0
\
-20 - 5 -3125-.416""'.625- 25-CI> ~'= \p'
Fy/fF_
0.9
..
0.8
00
0
0.7
0.6
0.5
-:CONTACT}
o : FASTSIH
Fy
0.4
03
Fx :: 0
0.2
0.1
'0 0.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.22 The total lorce lor I = 1, F
z
(1) = TI, rP = 0; (2) = rP, TI
(ei, TI', rP I: see Fig. 3.20).
132
1.25
1.67
2.5
5.0 1020
= 1, a = b = 1, G = 1, LI = 0,25,
= 0 .. (3) " = -rP, ~ = o.
."
alld
3.8: Transient Rolling Contact
It is seen that for pure translational creepage (Fig. 3.20) the agreement is quite good, the
errors are no more than 5%, even when the creepage is large. This is agreeably surprising, because we fitted the curves only for small creepage. The agreement for pure
spin (Fig. 3.21) is worse; errors of up to 10% occur when the spin is large. Spin is, essentially, a much more complex loading case than pure translational creepage.
In Fig. 3.22 we show some cases of combined creepages. Both components of the force are
shown in Fig. 3.22 (1) (combined longitudinal and lateral creepage) and in Fig. 3.22 (2)
(combined longitudinal creepage and spin). Errors of about 10% are observed. We think
that these cases are representative. Figure 3.22 (3) shows the case of combined spin and
lateral creepage. The x-component of the force vanishes, and we see that there are fairly
large errors, up to 20%. We believe that this case is not representative. We have here that
rP' = -TI' (rP', TI' are defined in Fig. 3.20). When rP' = TI', the picture is much more
favorable.
Figure 3.22 (1) and (2) show that the error incurred by the FASTSIM assumption that the
flexibility is isotropie, is insignificant compared to the errors which occur with combined
lateral creepage and spin; the latter does not change whether one takes the flexibility
isotropie or not.
In conclusion it may be said that FASTSIM with the flexibility of (3.54) works remarkably weil, as it achieves results with an error of about 10% in calculating times which
are 1000x shorter than those of CO NT ACT. It is seen that the agreement is fair, and even
good if one realises that the simplified results with given contact area and pressure, are
obtained in 1/1000 of the computer time needed by the exact theory.
3.8
TRANSIENT ROLLING CONTACT
Transient rolling contact is not weil represented in simplified theory.
3.9
AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD TO AND THE L.

I
When the contact area is no longer elliptical, we can no longer rely directly on the formulae (3.52)-(3.53) for the flexibility LI' since for non-elliptical contacts the L/ are not
tabulated. One can then of course determine the C .. , but this is time consuming. The
I)
following method is also applicable.
133
Chapler 3: The Simplilied Theory 01 COlllael
Suppose that in the exact theory the displacement difference u is discretised in some way
r
as u rm ' m = 1,2, ... ,M, and the traction as Pm' Il = 1,2, ... ,M.
They are connected by
U
= A mll
rm
rll'
mll
: influence matrix.
(3.59)
Likewise, the discretised displacement difference u' of the simplified theory is

rm
connected to P by
rll
u'
rm
= p
L.
rm
(3.60)
and u
known. We determine L in such a manner
Now L is unknown; we assurne P
rm
rm
that it minimises the least squares function Q,
Q
= -2
m=l
(u
rm
- u' )
rm
= -2
m=l
For this it is sufficient that
o=
!!Q
dL
= L
m=l
T
P rm (p
2
(u rm - PrmL) .
rm
L - u
rm
(3.61 )
Prm u rm
m=l
so
that
L
=
---'-'..:""--.:.---)
m=l
(3.62)
Prm Prm
The performance of (3.62) is, in the Hertzian case, about the same as that of (3.52)-(3.53).
3.10 CONCLUSION OF TANGENTIAL SIMPLIFIED THEORY

We conclude that for eompressioll the simplified theory fails, except when the layers are
thin compared to the diameter of contact', or when the bodies are quasiidentical. Therefore we confine ourselves to such cases, when we consider compression. When we consider
tangential problems of contact, we use the contact areas provided by the exact theory of
elasticity (the Hertz theory, or the results of CONTACT or another normal contact code).
We can make the following statements regarding the agreement or deviation between the
results of simplified theory and the exact theory of elasticity.
Concentrating on half -space contact, we conclude that the results for shitl problems show
a reasonable agreement, especially as to the form of the regions of slip and adhesion.
Moreover, rotation shift is found accurately. As to rollillg eOlltaet we state that transient
134
3.10: Conclusion
01 Tangential Simplilied Theory
problems are not weil presented, but steady state rolling results show an excellent qualitative agreement. The total force due to pure creepage shows an excellent agreement
while the total force due to pure spin is somewhat worse. In general, it is our experience
that the deviation of the total tangential force of simplified theory is never more than
0.15 IF (F : total normal force). Such deviations are often acceptable in view of the fact
z z
that simplified theory gives its (Hertzian) results in 1/1000 of the computer time needed
by the exact theory.
135
CHAPTER4
VARIATIONAL AND NUMERICAL THEORY OF CONTACT
The principle of virtual work and its dual, the principle of complementary virtual work,
are the basis of many calculations in continuum mechanics. This also holds for the contact
problem, which is a special kind of boundary value problem. In the past, the principles
of virtual work and complementary virtual work for contact problems were derived for
special constitutive relations such as linear elasticity and viscoelasticity (Fichera, 1964;
Duvaut-Lions, 1972), and nonlinear elastostatics (Kalker, 1977b). In Sec. 4.1 of this
chapter, however, we derive these principles without any reference to the constitutive
relations of the bulk material, in the manner of Bufler (1984), who confined himself to
the normal contact problem, and Kalker (l986a). Here we confine ourselves to small
deformations, and we present a new deri vation.
In Sec. 4.2, the theory is applied to elastostatics. The conventional extremum principles of
elastostatics are extended to all frictionless contact problems and to quasiidentical
frictional contact problems in which inertial effects are neglected. Under these circumstances, existence and uniqueness of the solution can be proved (Fichera, 1964; DuvautLions, 1972). For the asymmetric case, iterative methods to salve the problem were proposed in eh. 1. The existence and uniqueness of the solution in this case are briefly
discussed.
In Sec. 4.3 we present our implementation of the foregoing theory. First, a so-called
"active set" algorithm is introduced and proved, followed by its application to the contact
of half -spaces. Methods are discussed for dealing with steady state rolling, and with some
special features. The section and chapter close with abrief remark on non-concentrated
contacts.
137
Chapter 4: Variational and Numerical Theory 01 Contact

4.1
THE PRINCIPLE OF VIRTUAL WORK AND ITS DUAL FOR

CONTACf PROBLEMS
In this seetion we derive two variational prineiples for the eontaet problem on the basis of
the prineiple of virtual work. We assume geometrie linearity, that is, the strains are small
with respeet to unity, and the displaeements are small with respeet to a typieal diameter
of the bodies.
We freely use the eoneepts of Appendix A, although in this seetion we will not use the
eonstitutive equations of elastieity.
The point of departure, both for the derivation of virtual work and of its dual, the prineiple of eomplementary virtual work, are the equations of equilibrium:
- p;;.1 = 0,
Cl .. . + I.
IJ,J
i,j
= 1,2,3; summation eonvention
where
u.
is the displaeement,
Cl. . is the linearised stress,
. h
f
.
I IJ.
IS t e body oree per unlt volume,
I
(0) = d/dt, t: time; particle fixed time differentiation,
.=8/8x.,
1
,1
(4.1)
in two bodies that oceupy the volumes V I and V 2'

4.1.1
VIRTUAL WORK
We multiply the equations of equilibrium (4.1), with minus the variation of U.: -DU., and
1
integrate over V I and V 2:
0=-
L:
a--I ,2
Va
(Cl ... + I.
IJ,J
p;;.) DU. dV.

1
(4.2)
The integrand of the right-hand side is the virtual work done on a particle with volume
dV. So, (4.2) is the virtual work equation. We write this as
0=
{-
- L:
L:
-I 2
a- ,
a=I,2
138
(Cl ... + I
8V a
IJ,J
p.6u. dS
1
p;;.) DU. dV +
1
8V
p.DU. dS} +
1
(4.3a)
4.1: The Principle
0/ Virtual Work and Its Dual tor Contact Problems
with
dV: element of volume, dS: element of area,
p. = o ..n ., surface load on av, body number a omitted
I
lj j
(n .): outer normal on V at av.
(4.3b)
(4.3c)
In the third term of (4.3) we introduce the boundary conditions, of Ch. 1, Sec. 1.5.
u.
I
= U.,I
p. =
I
prescribed displacement in surface region A c

ua
=> ou. = 0 on A
I
ua
av a
p.,I prescribed surface load on region A pa c av a.
In the potential contact area A 1

c
A2
(4.4a)
(4.4b)
A :
c
- P2i d
f 'lll A
' Th'Ir d L aw
Pli-= ePi
c' N
ewtons
=> P1I oU 1I + P2I ou2I = p.o(u
1I - u2 I.) = p.ou.,
I
I
I
with u i ~f u li - u2i ' displacement difference.
(4.4c)
This gives for (4.3a):

0=
a=1,2
{-f
Va
(o ... +/.-p.)ou.dv+f
lj,j
- L
{f
p.ou. dS} - f
p.ou. dS.
-1 2
A
I
I
A
I
I
a- ' p a
c
aV a
P.ou.dS} +
I
(4.5)
In the potential contact area A we introduce a right-handed orthogonal, curvilinear net

c
of coordinates x,y: they are represented by Greek indices, which run through the va1ues
x,y. We introduce a coordinate z along the inner normal to body 1 at (x,y). dS is the
element of area at the point (x,y). Then we can write
Pioui = p iUz + Prour;
p : normal pressure, positive if compressive;
p : tangential traction.
(4.6)
We consider the deformed distance and the slip. The deformed distance e = h + u ; h is
z
prescribed, so p ou = p oe. Now, as we saw in Ch. 1, Sec. 1.2, if e > 0 then p = 0
z z
z
z
(outside contact). If e = 0 (inside contact) then p z ~ 0 (compression). e cannot be negative,
so, if e = 0 then oe ~ 0, since varied quantities must be feasible. Thus if the contact
formation conditions are satisfied, then
139
Chapter 4: Variational and Numerical Theory 0/ Contact
(4.7a)
where "sub" = "subjeet to the auxiliary eondition(s)".
A way of briefly summarising the eontaet formation eondition is
(4. 7b)
The eontaet area does not oceur explieitly (4.7a) and (4.7b).
The slip, that is the velocity of body lover body 2, is given by (see eh. I, (1.39))
s =w +u
T
with uT
and
wT
(4.7e)
u
.
.
=
= ul T
xI T
(4.7d)
2T
(4.7e)
- x 2T
u is ealled the displaeement differenee, and w is the rigid slip, whieh is defined as the
T
T
loeal veloeity of body I relative to body 2, when both are regarded as rigid.
I'
We integrate (4.7e) from time
J:,
s (x ; q) dq = S
J:,
wT
(x ; q) dq = W
aT
TaT
r::l
r::l
to time
(t - 1 ')
I,
(t - t ') w
where
I' < I.
We eall
(local) shift
(4.8a)
(local) rigid shift
(4.8b)
and we denote the displaeement differenee

u = u (x ,I)
T
T a
( 4.8e)
u'
(4.8d)
u (x 1 I).
T a'
Note that u' is the displaeement differenee at time t " not a derivative.
T
Note also that the eoordinate system is particle fixed. The integral of (4.7e) is
S
W + u - u'.
T
(4.9)
We eonsider a eontaet evolution, that is, we proceed stepwise, in this ease one step is from
t' to I. That means that u' is known in (4.9) when we start eonsidering the phenomena at
T
time t. Also the rigid slip w is known, and with that the rigid shift W ; it eontrols the
T
T
evolution. So we have
140
4.1: The Prineiple
oS
-
01 Virtual
ou .
(4.10)
T'
I si'"
0, hence I Si'" 0, and
T
T
Let us assurne that there is slip. Then

P
Work and Its Dual lor Contaet Problems
/ IS
= -g S T
I, I S T I
S21 + S22
(4.lla)
where g is the traction bound, and we have adapted Coulomb's Law to shifts, see, e.g.,
Duvaut-Lions (1972). So we have:
I si'"
0 =* pToS
= -gSToST / I S a I = -go I S T I
T
T
-
(4.1lb)
Let us assurne that there is no-slip. Then
I ST I = 0 =* I pi<
g.
T
-
(4.1lc)
By Schwartz's inequality and (4.11c), we have
I I
p T oST
~ - a
p T
loS
Since S
= 0, T = 1,2,
I~
-g los T
(4.11d)
we have
I oST I = I S T + oST I = I S T + oS T I - I S T I = 0 I S T I if I S T I = o.
(4.11e)
so that by (4.10) and (4.11d,e), (4.11 b)

pou =poS ~-goIS
TT
TT
~pou =-goIS
TT
1+
+ nonnegative quantity for slip and no-slip.
(4.llf)
We note that (4. 7a) holds both inside and outside the contact, while (4.11 f) holds both in
the slip area (I s i ' " 0) and in the adhesion zone (I S I = 0). So (4.7a) and (4.llf) will
T
T
lead to a uniform formulation of the contact conditions on A in which neither the une
known contact area nor the unknown areas of slip and adhesion are mentioned explicitly;
note that A is known apriori.
e
We conclude from (4.5), (4.7a), (4.llf) that a necessary condition for contact is
0= -1
L 2 {-J V
a- , a
- L
-1 2
(C7 ..
a- ' p a
"Iou. sub u.
I
= U.I
in A
I},}
+I.-P.)oU.dV+J
I
I
I
av P.oU.dS}
I
I
p.ou. dS +
I
ua
; e ~ 0 in A
I I dS - a nonnegative quantity
go S
(4.12)
e
141
so that, rearranging, and using (4.4a), we deduee from the eontaet eonditions that
o
~ oV ~f -1
L
a- ,
{-
+f A
L
-1 2
a- ,
{f
(0" ... + I. lJ,J
p~.)Ou.
dV +
I
I
pa
p.)I ou.I dS}
(p. I
{P.ou.+goIS l}dS=
I
(4.13a)
(0" ..ou . . + p.ou. - Iou.) dV lJ
I,J
pa
p.ou. dS} +
I
go I S T I dS;
Vou.I sub u.I
= .I
in Aua ; e
(4.l3b)
= h + u z -> 0 in Ac
(4.13e)
with h,e: distanee between opposing points in the undeformed, respeetively deformed
state,
where (4.13b) is derived from (4.13a) by partial integration of the first term.
We show that the eondition (4.l3) is not only neeessary but also suffieient. Neeessity has
already been shown; moreover, (4.13a) is equivalent to (4.13b), so that we need only
eonsider (4.13a) sub (4.l3e).
The eonditions that the solution has to satisfy are (4.1): equilibrium; (4.4a): preseribed
displaeement in A ; (4.4b): prescribed traction in A ; (4.7b): eontact formation
conditions; (4.11a), (f.lle): Coulomb's frietion Law. We veff}y them.
a. Set the boundary variations equal to zero. Then it follows from the independenee of
the oU.:
I
_
(0".. . + I. - pu.) ou. ~ 0, no sum over i.
lJ,J
Let ou. > 0 => 0".. . + I.

I
I J ,J
- p~. ~
I
_
Let ou. < 0 => 0".. . + I. - pu.
I
lJ,J
0 }
=>
~
0".. . + I.
lJ,J
_
pu. = 0
I
equations of equilibrium.
( 4.1)
Definitions: The property that the ou. are independent and ean assurne both positive
I
and negative values is ealled the bilaterality of ou .. If a variation ean assurne only
I
nonpositive or only nonnegative values, we speak of unilaterality of the variation.
142
4.1,' The Principle
01 Virtual
Work and lts Dual lor Contact Problems
b. (4.4a) is prescribed, see (4.13c).
(4.4a)
c. The volume integral now vanishes. Set ou. = 0 on

I
bilaterality of the ou. that
av outside A pa . We obtain from
the
p. =
I
p.I in A pa
: prescribed surface load.
(4.4 b)
d. Set OU = oS = O. We have
r
p oe
z
0 sub e
0, by (4.13c).
- Consider a point outside the contact. Then e > 0, and oe is bilateral. So

p
ep
= 0, =>
= 0 outside contact,
- For a point inside the contact, e

tive, unilateral. Hence
p
0, e p
e > O.
0, (e + oe)
cf. (4.7b)
~
0 => oe
0, so that oe is nonnega-
z = 0, e = 0 inside contact
cf. (4.7b)
These two cases establish the contact formation conditions

e. Set ou
= oe = O. Then, by (4.13b), (4.6), (4.10)
goi Sr I + Pr oS r
~ O.
- Let us suppose that
01 Sr
(4.14a)
I S r I '* 0; that is, there is slip. We have by (4.14)
I = Sr oS r 1I Sr I.
The oS
p
(4.7b)
OU are bilateral, so
= -gS r 1I S r
I in the area of slip.
(4.14b) -<==> (4.lla)
- Suppose that there is no-slip, i.e. I S I = O. Take the bilateral vector (oS) opposite
r
r
the vector (p ). Then, by (4.14a), and (4.1le)
r
o -< goi Sr
I - I pr I loS r I = g loS r I - I pr I los r I
Now, loS
I is unilateral and positive, hence
143
o <- g
I pi-<==>
I p r I :5 g in the area of adhesion ( I S I = 0).
r
T
(4.14e)
The conditions
(4.14b): I Pr I :5 g
(4.14c): p r = -gS r / I S r
in the area of adhesion

in the area of slip
(4.llc)
(4.lla)
together constitute Coulomb's Law in its local shift form.
So we find:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
(4.13)
(4.13)
(4.13)
(4.13)
(4.13)
implies
implies
implies
implies
implies
the equations of equilibrium inside the bodies.

that the displacement is prescribed on the surface regions A .
ua
that the surface load is prescribed on the surface regions A .
pa
the conditions of contact formation in A .
c
the locallaw of Coulomb in A .
Conversely, the equations of equilibrium, the prescribed surface displacements and

loading, and the contact conditions imply (4.13). We conclude that (4.13) is another way
of formulating the contact problem. The formulation is called a variational, or weak
formulation of the contact problem.
4.1.2
COMPLEMENTARY VIRTUAL WORK
We start from the equilibrium equations (4.1), which we take as auxiliary conditions that
must always be satisfied. We consider the so-called quasistatic case that the density p = 0:
that is, accelerations are not taken into account. The fact that (4.1) is an auxiliary
condition and the body force I. is prescribed, so that 01. = 0, implies
I
o(a .. . + I.) = oa .. . = 0
I),)
(p
I),)
We multiply (4.15) by the displacement

0=
-I , 2
a-
Va
-Jav
u.oa ... dV
I
lJ,J
u.op. dS +
I
U.,
I
-I , 2
a-
Jav
0)
and integrate:
{J
Va
u.oa ... dV +
I
I),)
u.op. dS},
I
where we add and subtract boundary terms in the manner of Sec. 4.1.1, (4.3a).
144
(4.15)
(4.16)
4.1: The Principle
01 Virtual
Work and 1ts Dual lor Contact Problems
In the last integral we introduce the boundary conditions of contact,

a. u.
= U.I
in A
b. p.
= p.I
in A
=> u.op.
ua
pa
= u.op.
I
I
=> u.op.
I
= 0,
(4.17a)
since op.
I
(4.17b)
c. In A we have
c
PI'I
= -P2'I = p.I
=> oPI'I
= -oP2'I = op.I
by Newton's Third Law, so that

u I .0 PI' + u 2 0 P2' = U.O p.
I
I
I
111
= U Z0PZ + UT0PT .
It follows from the contact conditions that
u op = (e - h) op
Z
-hop
since eop Z ~
owing to the circumstance that p Z ~ 0, e ~ 0, and e
(pressure only in contact). Therefore,
u op
Z
= -hop z
+ nonnegative number.
if p z >
(4.17c)
d. According to (4.10b) we have

u op = (S - W + u') op .
T
By (4.11 a), in the area of slip;
Hence
I s T I .5 I pT I
when
I p T I = g.
The Coulomb condition reads

g -
Ip I ~ 0.
T
This means that
Ip
land g may be varied only so that
145
I Pr I ) ~ 0
o(g -
if
I p r I = g.
Therefore,
S op = - I s I og + I s I (og - 0 I pi) = - I s I og + nonnegative.
r r
r
r
r
r
(4.l7d)
This gives for (4.16)
0= nonnegative + nonnegative +
-fav
-f
u.op. dS +
I
ua
a--1 , 2
{f
Va
u.O(1 ... dV +
I
I},}
.op. dS} +
I
I I
{h op + s
og + (W - Ul)Op } dS
z
r
r
r
r
c
Vop., 0(1 .. . sub (1 ... + /. = 0 in V
I
I),}
I},}
I
a
p.=p.inA ,p ~O, Ip I ~ginAc
I
I
pa z
r
A
or,
o ~ oC = -1L
a- ,
{f
-f
-1 2
a- ,
{f
-f
a
c
a
c
U.O(1 ... dV I
I},}
{h op
I}
{hoP z +
fA
Is r I
I)
I},}
p.I in A pa ; p z
I},}
u.op. dS +
I
ua
ua
l)Eip } dS
(4.18a)
.op. dS} +
I
(4.18b)
~ 0, I p I ~ g in A .
.op. dS} +
og + (W r - UrI) op r } dS
Vop., 0(1 .. ,0(1 .. . sub (1 ... + /. = 0 in V

p. =
I s r I og + (W r
-e ..0(1 .. dV +
I}
fav
(4.l8c)
In (4.l8b) the term -e ..0(1 .. appears instead of -u ..0(1 ... These express ions are equal
I} I}
I,} I}
because 0(1 . . = 0(1 .. :
I}
}I
1
1
-u I,}O(1I} = - -2 u . . (0(1 .. + 0(1 .. ) = - -2 (u . . + u . .)0(1 .. =
I,)
146
-e ..0(1 ...
I}
I}
I}}I
I,}
},I
I}
4.1: The Principle
01 Virtual
Work and fts Dual lor Contact Problems
The conditions (4.18) are implied by the contact problem. Conversely, the contact problem is implied by (4.18). We prove this.
To that end we confine ourselves to the conditions in A . The other conditions are treated
c
as in Sec. 4.1.1.
We start from (4.18a), which is equivalent to (4.l8b). In (4.18a) we note that 6a .. . = 0 in
1),)
av a , outside A c ,then
a
1
V ; if we set 6p. = 0 on
I s T I 6g + (W T -
{ u Z6pZ + uT6pT + h6p Z +
A. Set 6p = 6g
T
of the 6p
u')6p } dS.
T
0; this is the normal contact problem. We obtain, by the independence
o~
(u
+ h) 6p
e6p
If p > 0 => 6p is bilateral, and e = 0 (contact).

Z
Z
If Pz = 0 => 6pz ~ 0, and e ~ 0 (no contact).
Here we define the contact area as the region where p > 0 ("Force" definition).
Z
It then appears that the deformed distance e ~ 0 outside contact, and = 0 inside.
B. Now we set 6p
o~
=
O. We are left with
(u + W - u') 6p +
T
T
T
T
S 6p + s
6g
T T
T
I I
I sT I 6g =
sub g -
I PT I ~ O.
- If I pi<
g ("force" definition of the area of adhesion), then 6p and 6g are inder
T
pendent and bilateral, so that
s T = Is r I =
O.
- If I p I = g ("force" definition of the area of slip), then 6g - 61 p I ~ O. We

T
T
decompose Sand 6p into components SP, 6p P parallel to the vector (p ), and
r
T
T
T
r
components So, 6po orthogonal to p .
T
r
T
We set 6p P = 6g = O. Then SO 6/ ~ O. Now 6/ is bilateral, since to first order it does not
r
contribute to 61 p I =
I pT 12 +
T
parallel to the tangential traction:
1 6po
12 -
I p T I Thus
SO = 0, that is, the slip is

T
147
Chapter 4.' Variational and Numerical Theory 0/ Contact
Sr = Isr Ip r /Ip r I
Suppose
Sr = + I sr I p r / I pi.
Then
r
Now take Sg = O. As
I p r I = g, si p r I ~ 0, and
o~ I sr I S I p r I ~ 0 * I sr I = O.
Evidently this does not correspond to an area of slip, and anyway this situation (and much
more) is described by
sr =- IS rIpr /Ip r I, Ip r I =g<=*p r =-gS r /Is r I

Then we have
o~ I sr I (Sg - S I pi)
= I sr I S(g - Ipi)
r
r
S(g - I Pr I ) ~ 0, unilateral, hence I Sr I ~ 0, which corresponds to slip opposite the
traction p when it is at the traction bound.
r
We have established Coulomb's Law:
Ipr I <g*Sr =0
I pr I = g * S r = - I S rIr
p / I p r I <=* Pr = -S rg / I S r I
A and B constitute the contact conditions.
4.2
QED.
APPLICA nON TO ELASTICITY
We assume elasticity:
1 (u . . + u.
-2
I,)
(J
I)
00
0)
),1
= eI) = e)1 linearised strain;

00
00'
= E I)0hkehk' stress-strain relations;
E ijhk
(J
I)
00
= (J)1 stress;
(4019a)
00'
= E jihk = E hkji' elastic constants;
Elastic energy /unit volume = -21 E 'hke oe hk > 0 unless e oe = O.

I)
I)
IJ IJ
0
148
4.2: Application to Elasticity
We can invert the stress-strain relations:

e hk = S hki/ij'
S hkij
S khij
Sijhk;
if (J ..(J ..
Sijhk(Ji/hk> 0
I) I)
* O.
(4.19b)
We set
p = 0:
elastostatics
Sg = 0
( 4.20a)
(4.20b)
'* g is given apriori
in order to be able to define a potential energy and a complementary energy of the

system. We have, by (4.13 b)
0:0:; SU
I:
a= I ,2
{f
+
[E. 'hkuh k Su .
Va
a- , 2
-f
. - I.Su.] dV -
I,)
I T I dS =
p.Su. dS} +
pa
gS S
C
(f V
= S {I:
-I
I)
[-21 E .. hku ..uh k - I.u.] dV +

I)
p.u. dS) +
I I
pa
I,),
giS
I I
I dS}
sub (4.20), (4.13c).
This is equivalent to
SU
U
0, sub (4.20), (4.13c), with
-I , 2
a-
{J
+
Va
fA
[-21 E "hkuh k U '

I),
giS
. -
I,)
/.u.] dV I I
JA pa
p.U.
I I
I dS.
dS} +
( 4.21a)
U is called the potential energy of the system. In the same way,
SC:o:; 0, sub (4.18c), (4.20) with
f
-f
I: {-
-1 2
a- ,
V
A
1 S "hk(J (Jhk dV +
-2
I)
{hp
C
I)
+ (W T
U I)
T
P } dS.
T
ua
.p.
I I
dS} +
(4.21b)
C is called the complementary energy.
149
Chapter 4.' Variational and Numerical Theory 01 Contact
We will show in the next subsection that these conditions characterise

a)
b)
c)
d)
The
The
The
The
global minimality of U at the solution;

global maximality of C at the solution;
equality of U and C at the solution;
uniqueness of the solution,
all under the rather restrictive conditions (4.20).

4.2.1
MINIMALITY OF THE POTENTIAL ENERGY, MAXIMALITY OF THE COMPLEMENTARY

ENERGY, AND UNIQUENESS OF THE SOLUTION
Let {u.,e .. ,0 .. ,p.} be a solution of the principle (4.21a) which defines the potential
I I) I) I
energy and the criterion for the solution. Let {(u. + v .),(e . . + . .),(0 . . + t . .),(p. + q .)} be
I
I
I)
IJ
IJ
IJ
I
I
acceptable displacement, strain, stress, and surface traction fields in the sense that they
satisfy the definitions (4.l9a), (4.3b-c), and the auxiliary conditions (4.l3c). They can be
considered as providing aperturbation of the solution of the principle (4.21 a).
Let U be the value of the potential energy at the solution, and U + f::.U that of the
perturbed field. We will show that f::.U > 0 unless E .E . = e, i.e. = 0 a.e. (= almost everywhere in the sense of Lebesgue integration, see e.g. A'afihos).
Prool.
We take S + f::.S as the perturbation of the shift S . We have
T
(U + f::.U) - U = f::.U =
a=I,2
[Iv a (-21 E"hk' 'hk

I)
I)
+ Ehkehkv
. . - I.v.)
dV +
IJ
I,)
I I
Now,
Iv a
with equality iff (= if and only if)
1=
-1 2
a- ,
{I
+
150
e, see (4.19a), and with
(E"hkehk v " - Iv.) dV IJ
g {
....
IJ IJ
I,J
I I
IST + f::.S T I - IST I }
pa
dS =
p.v. dS} +
I I
{J
I) I,)
(0 ..v . . - Iv.) dV -
-1 2
V
a- ' a
{J J
Jav
-1 2
a- ,
But
0.. .
I),)
I.I =
since p. =
p.I
I=
I),)
g {
= L
p. v. dS
-1 2
I I
pa
,v. =
in A
ua
J
=*-
Also, p v = p
TT
TT
-pS
T
(p v
Z Z
+ p v ) dS
T T
I ST + S T I - I ST I })
pZ vZ dS
= vZ .
=*- p Z (e + e) ~
dS.
and
~ 0.
U I
,b..S
= vT . So,
I ST + S T I - I SI}
= p (S + S ) + giS + S I +
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
-giS I
T
I=
when S T
I t-O,p T =-gS T fiS T I =*-p TT

S =-gIS T ITherefore
P T VT
I I
But, according to Coulomb's Law, p T S T + giS T

Is
p.v. dS} +
pa
where the displacement is prescribed. Therefore
(S T + S T ) - pS,
as S = W T T
T
T
p v +g {
I I
{p TT
v +g {
p. v. dS +
a- ' p a
zz
Z
Z
But p ze = 0, and p Z ~ 0, e + e ~
I I
dS.
T
Now p v = p (e + e) - p e, as e = h + U
p Z vZ
p.v. dS a
I)
p zz
v dS +
in A
I I
since o . . is the stress field of the solution. Also,
Jav
a= 1 2
,
(0 .. . + I) v. dV +
p.v. dS} +
pa
dS =
T
g {
I I
= 0, while if
IST + S TI - IST I } = p /S T + S T) + giS T + S T I ~

- I PT I IST + S TI + giS T + S T I ~ 0,
+g {
151
Chapter 4: Variational and Numerical Theory

since
01 Contact
I Pr I :$ g at the solution. We find:

l!.U
0, with equality iff
= (J.
E . E
IJ IJ
If we assurne that A #- 1}, a = I or 2, then E . E #ua

IJ IJ
(J *=>
v.v. '"
I I
(J.
So we find
U achieves a global minimum sub (4.13c) and sub A #- 1} lor

ua
a = 1 or 2, at the unique solution. U actually exists il (4.20) is
satislied (Duvaut-Lions, 1972; Fichera, 1964).
(4.22)
For the maximality of the complementary energy C we start again at a solution of (4.21b)
which we denote by {u.,e .. ,0' .. ,p.}, as before.
I IJ blJ
. I IS
. .mtro d uce d , w hlC h we d enote b y {e .. + E . , 0' . . + t . .,
. an acceptable pertur
atlOn
Agam
IJ
IJ IJ
IJ
p. +q .}. A perturbed displacement need not exist, but the perturbed field should satisfy
1
1
the "force" conditions (4.3b-c), (4.18c), (4.l9b). Note that the perturbed fieldneednotbe
compatible, so that there may not be a v. such that E . = -21 (v . . + v . .). We denote the
I
IJ
I,J
J,I
perturbed complementary energy by C + l!.C, and, generally, l!. (a quantity) is the value
of its perturbation due to E ,t .. ,q .. We have
IJ IJ
(C + l!.C) - C = l!.C =
a=I,2
{f (- i-
Sijhkt;/hk - SijhkO';/hk) dV +
Va
.q. dS} 1I
hq dS -
(W zAr
I) q dS.
Now,
unless
E . E
IJ IJ
-f
= (J
*=>
t ..t . . = (J, when the integral vanishes.

IJ IJ
Since (t hk) is an equilibrium field, see (4.l8c), the volume integral vanishes. So,
- L
a=I,2
Va
SihkO'ithkdV=J
-I 2
a- ,
152
.q . dS -
All
ua
a=I,2
aV a
uhqh dS =
(u q + u q ) dS (q. = 0 in A ).
Z Z
r r
I
pa

This gives:
f::,.C=(negativeunlessE ..E.. =I:I)+

I) I}
-f
(h + u ) q dS zz
-1 2
a- ,
ua
(W + u -
Ar
(u.-u.)q.dS+
l'
= (negative unless E..E.. = 1:1) I} I}
eq dS -
U I) q
1'1'
dS =
S q dS.
zAr
l'
But, by (4.7a) and (4.18c)
- eq = - e(p
Z
+ q ) + e p = - e(p + q )
Z
and
I S l' I g + I s l' I g =
- S q = - S (p + q ) + S P 1'1'
1'1'
= -
since S p +
l'
l'
1'1'
l'
S (p + q ) l'
l'
l'
I s 1" I
I s l' I g = 0 by Coulomb's Law. Hence, by (4.l8c)
Therefore
f::,.C = (negative unless
~
E. .E ..
I} I}
= 1:1)
+ nonpositive + nonpositive
0, equality only when E..E..

I} I}
= 1:1.
In the same manner as before, this establishes

C achieves a global maximum sub (4.18c), A
'" 1), a = 1, or 2
au
at the unique solution. C actually exists if (4.20) is satisfied.
(4.23 )
Finally we show that
C -< Cmax = C
' = U soI ut/On
. = Umln
. -< U.
so I
ut/On
( 4.24)
To that end we determine
153
{1
umin-cmax=al1,2 [I Va
-I
I
-I 2
[I V
ua
c
.p. dS I
pa
pI.u.I dSJ
{hp z + (W r - U r') Pr + giS r

{Cl ..e .. -
~,a
- IA
Eijhk eifhk+1 SijhkCli/'hk-1h}dV+
pa
I) I)
I.U.} dV - IA
I I
I} dS =
.p. dS +
~
p.u.dSJ
+I A {hP z +(Wr -u')p
+glS r
II
r
r
c
l}dS.
Now Cl ..e .. = Cl. u . .; this term is partially integrated over both volumes VI and V 2 . In so
IJ I) I I) I,J
. h es as t h e equatlOns
.
f
'I'b .
I'k .
d omg
the
vo urne mtegraI vafllS
0 equi I flum appear; I eWIse, the
seeond and third integrals vanish in eombination with the surfaee integrals due to the
partial integration. We are left with the integrals over A :
c
u mln
. - Cmax
I A {(h + uz ) p z + (W r + ur - u')
r pr +
c
IA {epz+(SrPr+
c
sinee ep z
0 and S r p r +
IS r I g =
Isrl
I Sr I g} dS =
g)}dS=O
0 by Coulomb's Law.
= U . ; the unique solution oceurs at C

and at
max
mln
max
U . ; also, any C :5 C
, and any U ~ U . ,so that (4.24) is indeed satisfied.
mln
max
mln
This establishes the equality C
4.2.2
THE CASE
og + 0
Aeeording to (4.20), the theory of Sees. 4.2-4.2.1 does not seem to exist when og is not
eonstrained to be zero, that is, when g is not preseribed beforehand. We saw in Ch. I, Sec.
1.6.3, that the normal pressure is independent of the tangential traetions for symmetry of
all three-dimensional bodies, and for quasiidentieal half -spaees. As the normal problem is
not influeneed by g, we ean determine the normal traetion regardless of g in these eases;
thereafter g is fixed, equal to Ip , (f: eoeffieient of frietion), and we aetually have
z
og = O. So in these eases the theory of 4.2-4.2.1 is aetually verified.
Other processes are proposed in Ch. I, Sec. 1.6.3, to deal with the ease og + O. There we
deseribed MindIin's method, Johnson's method (both approximate), Panagiotopoulos's
154
method, and an alternative. The latter two methods are iterative, and result in the exact
solution when they converge, which is not certain. They are designed in such a way that
the methods of Sees. 4.2 - 4.2.1 can be used in each iteration.
To see this for the Panagiotopoulos process, we work as folIows.
It will be recalled from Ch. I, Sec. 1.6.3.1, that the Panagiotopoulos process reads
/0)
a)
Set m
b)
Determine p(m) with p(m) as tangential traction.
c)
Determine p(m+ I) with p(m) as normal traction, and
O. Assurne that
g =
/m)
Z
O.
as traction bound.
If /m+ I) is elose enough to p(m) , stop; otherwise set m

T
T
and go to b).
d)
=m + I
Both b) and c) can be described by the principle of maximum complementary energy:

max C sub a .. . + f.
I),)
I
a,p
-1 2
a- ,
= 0 in Va ,
{f V
-f
= p.I in Apa ,
-21 S "hk a . .ahk dV +
p.
I)
{hp
C
I)
ua
~ 0,
I p T I :0:; g in AC,
.p. dS} +
I
+(W -u1)p}dS,
T
( 4.25)
which is valid when g does not vary.
The latter condition is indeed valid for the Panagiotopoulos process. Under condition b),
P is given, so that we may omit the term
(W
T A T
auxiliary condition
Ipi<
g
T
-
/m) and
Under condition c),
Jc
A
hp
is replaced by p
U ')
T
p dS from (4.25), while the

T
~ p(m).
T
hence gare given, so that we may omit the term
dS from (4.25) and replace the auxiliary condition p
> 0 by p
Z-
= p(m) .
Z
We now consider the alternative that was presented in Ch. I, Sec. 1.6.3.2. It reads
A)
Set m = O. Assurne
Set g(o) = f
B)
/0).
/0)
= 0, calculate /0).
T
Z
With /m) fixed, determine
p~m+l) and p~m+l).

155

C)
D)
.
(m+l)
(m+l)
Determme g
= / p
.
(m+l) .
Z
(m)
If g
1S close enough to g
, stop,
else set m = m + I, and go to B).
As g is fixed in step B) we can use (4.25) immediately, without modification.

For a further description of the processes used when 6g '" 0, we refer to eh. I, Sec. 1.6.3
and subsections.
An algorithm for the alternative process is given in Secs. 4.3.1, 4.3.3.
4.2.3
EXISTENCE-UNIQUENESS THEORY
The principle of virtual work has been used to establish the existence and uniqueness of
the contact mechanical field for several types of bulk material.
Fichera established the existence-uniqueness of the linear elastostatic field of frictionless
contact (g = 0) in 1964.
In 1972 Duvaut and Lions established the existence-uniqueness of the linear viscoelastostatic and dynamic fields due to friction when the traction bound g is a function of
position alone, independent of time and other quantities.
Oden and Pires (1983) proved the existence of the linear elastic field due to normal
contact and friction under the hypothesis that the traction bound g has a so-called
mollified, nonlocal form:
exp (
= 1,2 tangential coordinates on av C; / coefficient of friction. In addition they

proved that the elastic field is unique when the coefficient of friction is small enough.
y , T
T
In the foregoing analysis we have considered contact problems in which a single step is
taken from a "previous" instant t' to the present time t. The preceding existenceuniqueness proofs have been given for this case. When a finite or infinite number of steps
are taken, or if the steps are continuous, we speak of a finite, infinite, or continuous
contact evolution. For a continuous evolution it is not cIear apriori whether the solution
exists and is unique as a function of time. Under certain restrictive conditions this question was answered in the affirmative by Klarbring, Mikelic, and Shillor (1990 ?).
156
Another problem is the existence-uniqueness of a steady state in a continuous evolution.

Kalker (1970) proved this for quasiidentical, two-dimensional no-slip half -space rolling
contact under the conditions that the normal compressive force and the creepage are
constant from a certain instant of time onwards.
4.2.4
SURFACE MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES
We express the principles in a surface mechanical form, i.e. a form in which the volume
integral is absent. To that end we take test functions in the principles of minimum
potential and maximal complementary energy which satisfy all elasticity equations as weil
as the homogeneous boundary conditions . = 0, p. = in A and A ,respectively. We
assurne that the body force f. = 0, so that :he equi1librium c~gdition r~~ds a .. . = in the
..
.
. I
.
I),)
quaslstahc case whlch we WIll conslder. We have
(4.26a)
(4.26b)
( 4.26c)
Further,
(4.26d)
and we integrate these terms over the volume, where we use (4.26b):
L:
Ja. u. .dV = -IL: 2 Jav
-I '2 a
V
a-
L:
-I 2
{f
I) I,)
A
a- ' u a
a- ,
p.. dS +
I I
pa
p.U. dS
I I
p.u. dS} +
I I
(uzpz + urPr)
dS
(4.26e)
in which we have written u. = u 1 . - u2 . in A .

I
I
I
C
We insert (4.26) into the two principles (4.2Ia,b). This yields
min U
u,p
= L:
a=1,2
{-i JA
+
sub (4.26a,b,c), and e
pa
Piui dS +
J {1
A
c
0, e
pZU z +
h + Uz
1 JA
(1
ua
Pii
dS} +
p rU r + giS r
I) }
dS
(4.27a)
157
sub (4.26a,b,c), and p ~ 0,

Z
IpT I ~ g
(4.27b)
which lack volume integrals. Note that they are valid only when p = 0, Sg = 0; when
Sg'" one of the methods described in Ch. I, Sec. 1.6.3, and in Sec. 4.2.2 must be used in
combination with (4.27a or b). The principle (4.27b) has been used extensively in our
numerical work (DUVOROL, 1979; CONT ACT, since 1982).
4.2.5
COMPLEMENTARY ENERGY OR POTENTIAL ENERGY IN NUMERICAL WORK?
In the above analysis, the choice between SC and SU has been left open. A disadvantage
of the method "SU ~ 0" is that the integral over Ac at one stage or another contains the
variation Si si, while the derivative of I s I is discontinuous when I s I =0.
T
The method "SC ~ 0" does not have this disadvantage, but it does have the drawback that
it is confined to statics, and the equations of equilibrium have to be satisfied in the
interior V 0 of the bodies. This is no problem when one can use a boundary element
a
.
method, as is the case, for instance, in linear elastostatics. Under these conditions the
advantage lies with the complementary virtual work principle SC ~ 0, which I used
(1979), (1985) to calculate three-dimensional elastostatic frictional contact problems.
In dynamics, or when there is no boundary element method available, the virtual work
principle "SU ~ 0" is to be preferred. The function I s I is regularised, for instance as
T
follows:
I sT I = v'SS
~ W1 = j
T T
s s + 2 (Kalker and Goedings, 1972c)

T T
I
2
I
s I (1 - I s 1/3)
Isl~w= {
T
T
T
2
I sT I (1 - /3)
I sTI O
~ }d e n and Martins (1985).
if I si>
if
After the calculation has been performed, the regularisation parameter should be
reduced, and the last found solution should be used as a starting point for the next
(sequential method, cf. Fiacco and McCormick, 1968), and should be reduced again
until convergence occurs, if it does. Such a sequential method has been implemented by
Kalker and Goedings (l972c). In many cases convergence has been achieved, but always at
158
4.3: Implementation
the cost of much computing time, due to a slow reduction of the regularisation parameter
In several cases, moreover, divergence occurred. Kalker and Goedings operated on a
system in which the complementary principle was also feasible; later programs by Kalker
(1979), (1985) based on this principle are 20 times faster, and have always converged.
This illustrates the superiority of the complementary principle over the virtual work
principle in cases where the former is feasible.
.
4.3
IMPLEMENTATION
In this section we will use some notions of mathematical programming. They are described
in Appendix B. Specifically, we will use the Kuhn-Tucker Theorem, see Sec. B2, which
gives necessary conditions which the minimiser of a constrained programming problem
has to satisfy; a point satisfying these Kuhn-Tucker (K-T) conditions is called a K-T
point. Further we will use the method of Newton-Raphson, see Sec. B3, for unconstrained minimisation, and finally we use some convex analysis, see Sec. B4, viz. the
not ions of convexity and concavity, strict convexity and strict concavity, and some
theorems on the minimisation of a convex function, which culminates in the theorem that
the necessary K- T conditions are sufficient for global minimisation in the convex case. In
the strict1y convex case this can be sharpened to the proposition that the minimiser, when
it exists, is unique. Weierstrass's Theorem, e.g., may be used to establish the existence of
the minimiser.
First, in Sec. 4.3.1, we will present a method for the minimisation of a strict1y convex
objective function subject to linear equality and inequality constraints. This algorithm has
been described before in Kalker (1983, 1988). The question arises why we present a new
algorithm for an old problem that has been solved in many ways. The answer is that the
special algorithm exploits characteristic features of the problem such as the absence of an
objective function for steady state rolling.
Then, in Sec. 4.3.2, we give the discretisation of the contact problem, and specify it in
the half -space case.
In Sec. 4.3.3 we describe the KOMBI algorithm for solving an elastic contact problem,
both frictionless and with friction, when the traction bound g is known and there are no
inertial effects. KOMBI deviates from the mathematical programming algorithm, but it
appears to be so robust that up to now the mathematical programming part has rarely
failed, and when it did it was in extreme three-dimensional non-quasiidentical cases,
which are difficult anyway. A feature of the KOMBI algorithm is that it is couched in
terms and concepts which are purely mechanical. This enables us to use KOMBI even
when a variational formulation in terms of an objective function does not exist. The
159
Chapter 4: Variation al and Numerical Theory 01 Contact
variational formulation breaks down for steady state rolling, yet KOMBI experiences no
difficulties whatsoever.
It was said that KOMBI may fail in extreme three-dimensional cases. Also, an organisation must be made by which the correct traction bound may be found. One method is
the Panagiotopoulos process, the other is the Alternative of Ch. 1, Sec. 1.6.3. Neither
method works in extreme cases of non-quasiidentity. So the non-quasiidentical problem is
still open. In our opinion the Alternative is more robust than Panagiotopoulos. Neither
method experiences difficulties in the two-dimensional case.
Sections 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7 treat some extensions of the theory. In Sec. 4.3.8 and
in Appendix C we consider the subsurface elastic field in a half -space. In Sec. 4.3.9 a
remark is made on the generalisation to non-concentrated contacts.
Notation and Definitions

The contact area, and the areas of slip and adhesion, are discretised on finite unions of
numbered rectangles with non -over lapping interiors. The discretised areas may be
represented by the set of numbers corresponding to the rectangles constituting them. Such
sets are called index sets; as the index set is isomorphic with the discretised region it
represents, we designate the index set as the Contact area, area of Adhesion, or Slip zone.
THE BASIC ALGORITHM
4.3.1
Consider the following strict1y convex programming problem,

min 4>(x.) sub g).(x/.) = 0, j = l, ... ,m; i = l, ... ,n;
x.
g.(x.)~O,j=m+l, ... ,m'.

)
with 4>:
a twice continuously differentiable, strictly convex function

such that there exists a feasible point y. with 4>(y.) < 00,
/
/
while 4>(x.) -> 00 as x.x. -> 00
/
g .(x o)
)
t.
g /x~
160
t.
(4.28b)
= g p:."xot. + g.)0 , g )t. E JR, l = O, ... ,n

= 0: equality constraints,
0
g .(x o) > 0:
)
(4.28a)
inequality constraints.
( 4.28c)
4.3: lrnplernentation
Z: feasible set:
Z = (x. </I(x.) <

I
g .(x.) = 0, j = I, ... ,rn; g .(x.) ~ 0, j =rn+I, ... ,rn '}

J (.
J (.
00,
We assume Z '" fl
An element of the feasible set Z is called a feasible point.
( 4.28d)
A(x .), x. E Z: the index set of inequality constraints active in x., i.e.
I
A(x j ) = (j
U=
rn+I, ... ,rn'; g/x j )
= O}
(4.28e)
B(x .), x. E Z: the index set of all constraints active in x., i.e.
I
B(x.) = (j j = I , ... ,rn'; g .(x.) = O} = {j = I ,... ,rn} U A(x.)

I
( 4.28f)
N(x .), x. E Z: the index set of constraints inactive in x., i.e.

I
N(x.) = (j j = I , ... ,rn'; g .(x.) > O} = Q\B

I
J I
Q=
{l , ... ,rn I}.
( 4.28g)
( 4.28h)
We assume that the matrix (g .), j

J(.
independent rows.
B(x .),
I
x.
I
Z, has linearly
( 4.28i)
Note that the equality constraints in a feasible point are automatically active, see (4.28a),
cf. (4.28f).
Solving this problem is equivalent to solving the K - T conditions. To exhibit them we
introduce the Lagrange multipliers of the g., which we denote by v .. Then the K - T
J
J
relations are
3v.
}
I </I
.(x.) = v . g . lx.)
,<.
J,(.
(4.29a)
where
v . is unrestricted, j = I, ... ,rn (equality constraints)
/ ~ 0, v .g .(x.) = 0, g .(x.) ~ 0, j = rn+ I , ... ,rn' (inequality constraints)
J
JJI
JI
(4.29b)
(4.29c)
We can also say instead of (4.29c)

g.(x.) > 0, v.=O
J I
J
g .(x.) = 0, vJ' ~ 0
J I
if jE N(x.)
I
if jE A(x .).
( 4.30)
It may be shown that the v. are unique by virtue of (4.28i), for each minimiser x., and
also that the minimiser x. elists and is unique owing to (4.28b).

I
161
0/ Contact
In order to solve problem (4.28) we consider a chain of simpler problems, viz.

min rP(x.) sub g .(x.)
= 0, jE B = B(y.); N = N(y.)
)
I
I
I
corresponding to a feasible point y.;
x.
I
(4.31a)
solution: y.(B); rP(y .(B))

I
rP(y) with equality iff y.(B) = y ..

I
(4.31 b)
We will now state and prove the basic algorithm, see Fig. 4.3.
4.3.1.0 Step 0 0/ the basic algorithm
We choose a feasible starting point y .. Consider problem (4.31a).

I
4.3.1.1 Step 1 0/ the algorithm - solution 0/ problem (4.31 a)

We may add the constraint
rP(x.) ~ rP(y)
I
to (4.31a) without changing the solution and the convexity of the problem, as rP(x.) is a
I
convex function, and hence Z I = {x. 1rP(x.) ~ rP(y.)} is a convex set. The set Z I n Z is
I
I
I
bounded and closed, see (4.28b), and non-empty, hence by the continuity of rP the
minimum exists, by Weierstrass's Theorem, and is unique by the strict convexity of rP on
its convex domain Z I n Z.
We denote the minimiser by y.(B). If this minimiser equals y., then the feasible region
I
I
Z I n Z shrinks to a point, and the problem has been solved. So we will assurne that
rP(y.(B < rP(y.), from which it is clear that the constraint rP(x.) ~ rP(y.) is inactive, and
I
I
I
I
therefore has a vanishing Lagrange multiplier at y.(B). This in turn means that we need
I
not consider this constraint. Consequently, the K - T relations of (4.31 a) read
rP .(x.) = v. g . .(x.); v. unrestricted, j E B; v. = 0, JEN
I
,t.
g .(x.)
)
),t.
= g)t. X t.o + g.)0 = O.
(4.32)
'0
When rP(x) is a positive definite quadratic form in the x.,

I
1 xH . .x. with (H .. ) > 0

rP(x.) = h.x o + -2
I
(. t.
the equations for x., v. are

I
162
I))
I)
( 4.33)
4.3: lmplementatioll
i,i
= I, ... ,n; jE Q
i = 1, ... ,n; j E B
(4.34)
JEN
They are easily solved, see below. When I/> is not quadratic, the Eqs. (4.32) are solved by
Newton-Raphson's method, if that is valid.
Since the solution of (4.31) exists and is unique, and the satisfaction of the K - T relations
is equivalent to it, the Eqs. (4.34) are clearly regular, and they can be solved by Gauss
elimination. Note that in the applications considered here the matrix (Hij) is full.
4.3.1.2
Step 20/ the basic algorithm - Test
There are two possibilities: either y.(B) f/:. Z, i.e. is not feasible, in which case we move to
I
step 3, or y.(B) E Z, i.e. is feasible, in which case we go to step 4.
I
We note that y.(B) may very well be unfeasible; and the question arises, why go to the
I
trouble of a complete Newton-Raphson determination of it? The answer is, that the
feasibility or unfeasibility of the point y.(B) may be numerically critical. Also we need
I
the Lagrange multipliers when y.(B) E Z, and then the K - T point y.(B) has to be known
I
I
quite accurately. Note that y.(B) is a K - T point of the simpler problem (4.31 a).
I
Step 3 0/ the basic algorithm
4.3.1.3
This step is used when y.(B) f/:. Z, that is, it is not a feasible point of the original problem
I
(4.28a). We restore it to feasibility in such a way that the restored point y.' satisfies the
I
following requirements:
y.' E Z, i.e. is feasible
(4.35a)
B(y.) C B(y.')
(4.35b)
"*
B(y.).
I
The condition (4.35b) is needed to prove the finite termination of the algorithm, see Sec.
4.3.1.6. Finally, the function should strict1y decrease:
I/>(Y .) > I/>(y.').
I
(4.35c)
In order to show that the conditions (4.35) can always be satisfied, we exhibit a process
that achieves it.
The situation is shown in Fig. 4.1. y.', on the line between y. and y.(B), is the feasible
I
I
I
point on it closest to y.(B). All constraints active in y. and y.(B) are active in y.'. MoreI
I
I
I
over, the constraint g. > 0 is inactive in y., but active in y.'. Hence y.'"* y., and, since
I -
163
FEASIBLE
0/ Contact
NOT FEASIBLE
gj<O
gj <0
gk=O, keBly)
g?O
g/O
gk=O, ke Bly)
Figure 4.1 Restoration.
Y;'E Z, y;'* y/B) ~ Z.
By the strict convexity of rjJ, and since y.' lies between y. and y.(B),
I
:3>', 0 < >. < 1
I y.'I = >.y.I + (1
- >') y.(B) =>

I
=> rjJ(y .') < >'rjJ(y.) + (1 - >') rjJ(y.(B)) < rjJ(y.),

I
the right most inequality because of (4.31 b).

So (4.35a,b,c) are all satisfied.
In practice, other restoration methods are used, see 4.3.3 Point 6, and, analogously, 4.3.3
Point 8.
After the restoration we set y.
I
4.3.1.4 Step 4
0/ the basic
y.', and go to step 1, Sec. 4.3.1.1.

I
algorithm - Test
Now that x. =y.(B) is feasible, we note that rjJ .(x.) can indeed be decomposed as in
I
I
<. I
(4.29a), as y.(B) is the K- T point of problem (4.3ia).
I
The decomposition is unique, by (4.28i). We note, moreover, that v. = 0 for JEN; so we
need only check whether vj ~ 0 for j E A, the set of active in~quality constraints of
(4.28a). If all these vj ~ 0, stop; else proceed to step 5.
164
4.3: Implement at ion

4.3.1.5
Step 5 0/ the basic algorithm - Release 0/ a constraint
Now y. = y.(B) is feasible. Assurne that v. < 0, for certain j E A. We release one such
constrafnt, sfty g k' that is, we set A' = P!\{k}, B' = B\{k}. Then, starting from Y i' we
solve problem (4.31) with B = B " by going to step I. The result of step I is y !' = y.(B I).
I
I
We compare the situation in y. and in the resulting y!' in (4.36a,b):
I
y.:
I
g i Y i)
0, vi unrestricted, i
(4.36a:A)
B'
gk(Yi) = 0, vk < 0
g h(y i) ?: 0, vh = 0, h E N
(4.36a: B)
(4.36a:C)
v.: Lagrange multipliers at y.; j

1
I
y":
I
Q; v. unique
1
g (y ") = 0 v 11 unrestricted i E B '

i i
' i
'
g k(y j') = ?, v = 0
g h(y j') is unrestricted, v
(4.36b:B)
h= 0, h E N
v'!: Lagrange multipliers at y !'; j

1
(4.36b:A)
(4.36b:C)
Q; v. unique.
1
We note that vk f. v k" '* y. f. y!', so that 4>(y") < 4>(y.), by (4.31 b). On the other hand:
I
I
I
I
- by the strict convexity of 4>;
- since g . is linear;
- since / is the K-T point of (4.3Ia) with active set B
I
we have
4>(Y !') > 4>(y.) + (y '! I
I
1
= 4>(y.) + (y'! I
1
with
y .) 4> .(y.) =
1 ,c. I
y .) v.g . + (y !' - y.) vkg k + (y'! - y.) vhg h .
1 c. c.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i,j = 1, ... ,n; lEB '; k fixed, see (4.36a:B, b:B), h E N = Q\B
summation over repeated indices over their entire range.
According to (4.36), this can be written

4>(Y j') > 4>(Yi) + vi (giY j')
=
4>(Y i)
- giYi)} + vk (gk(y j') - gk(Yi)} =

+ vk g k(y j') > 4>(Y j') + vk g k(y j').
(4.37)
from which it follows that vk g k(Y j') < O. Since vk < 0, this implies g k(y j') > O. Hence, as
/ar as gk(x i ) is concerned, we are moving in a /easible direction. This means that the
entire process will eventually yield an y.' different from y., with 4>(y.) > 4>(Y'). This
I
establishes that the basic algorithm will proceed until Z' n Z = {y .}, see 4.3.1.1, that is,
I
until a solution is reached.
165
Chapter 4: Variation al and Numerical Theory 0/ Contact
b
y/'
FEASIBLE
NOT FEASIBLE
Figure 4.2 (a): We canno! move, y.'= y ..

I
I
(b): We can move.
We note that we release the constraints one by one in this proof. In practice we release alt
constraints j I v . < O. This seems to be effective in the practice of the contact algorithm,
yet the proof ~hich we gave above is not valid. Indeed, the k of (4.37) then belong to a
set wi th more than one member, and we cannot concl ude f rom (4.3 7) w i th all vk < 0,
4>(Y!') < 4>(y.) that alt gk(Y!') > 0, but only that at least one gk(Y!') > O. Having a
I
I
I
I
gk(y !') < 0 may mean that the restored y.' may coincide with y., and we do not proceed,
1
I
I
see Fig. 4.2.
This concludes the description of the basic algorithm.
166
4.3: Implementation
4.3.1.6
Finite Termination Prool
We will now prove that the solution will be reached after a finite number of steps I,
which, when rP is quadratic and positive definite, reduces to the solution of regular linear
equations. Indeed, in a finite number of steps one is either ready or one arrives step 5,
because the finite set N decreases strictly monotonically in step 3.
Consider a set B, which, through step I, resuIts in a feasible unique y.(B). So one can
I
associate with each such B a function value rP(y.(B)). These function values form a strictIy
I
decreasing sequence, and this implies that such B's never recur. Since there are only a
finite number of such B's, the algorithm will stop after a finite number of steps 5 and
hence of steps land we showed that it only stops at the minimum.
Problem: n}/n rP(x i ) sub g/x i ) = 0, j = I, ... ,m; g/x i ) ~ 0, j = m+I, ... ,m'.
I Choose y. E Z, set = true; Z is feasible set.
I
is an auxiliary boolean.
While do
Determine B = (j I g .(y.) = O}, A = B\{1 ,... ,m}; N = Q\B.
}
Bare the active constraints, A the active inequality constraints.

Solve:
X.,V.
I}
I rP , ix.)I = v.} }g.,ix.);

g .(x.) = 0, j
I
}
I
E B; v. = 0, JEN,
}
i.e. solve min rP(x.) sub g .(x.) = 0, j E B (4.31). Solution: y.(B), v.

I
~:EZ~
Yes
~'~
No
Y~
= false
choose
READY
k E A, vk < 0;
____
~
No
Restore; resuIt: y.' E Z, with

I
rP(y') < rP(y)

I
B(y.)
B(y.'), properly;
I
Set y. = y.'.
I
B := B\{k}
A := A\{k}
Figure 4.3 Structural diagram 01 the basic algorithm.
167
Chapter 4: Variational and Numerieal Theory
01 Contaet
We eonclude:
The basic algorithm computes the unique minimiser of a linearly constrained strictIy
convex programming problem in a finite number of steps.

A structural diagram of the basic algorithm is found in Fig. 4.3.
4.3.2
DISCRETISATION OF THE CONTACT PROBLEM
In the present section we formulate the contact problem in such a way that the algorithm
of Sec. 4.3.1 can be applied to it, if necessary with some modification. To that end we
start with the principle of complementary energy for elastostatics, without body force, in
surface mechanical form, (4.27b). We set p. = . = 0:
max C = up
J
A
(h + -21 u ) p dS Z
' e
sub a .. . = 0 in V ,u.
I),)
Pz'?O, IPr
1 u - u') p dS
(W + -2
zAr
= 0 on Aua ,p.I = 0 on
pa
( 4.38a)
(4.38b)
(4.38c)
:5ginA c
aij = Eijhkuh,k' Pi = ai/I
( 4.38d)
As an example, we suppose that the contacting bodies are half -spaces, viz. x 3 '? 0 and
x 3 :5 0, so that Z = x 3 ' xl = x, x 2 = y. Then we have, according to Boussinesq (1885) and
Cerruti (1882) that (see Kalker, 1985)
u.(x
)=
I
Q
SI A
A I)
..(y Q - X Q ) P) .(y Q ) dYldY2
Q,
1,2
( 4.39a)
with
K,G,lJ combined elastic constants of the two half -spaces, see (1.44);
(4.39b)
(4.39c)
(4.39d)
(4.3ge)
( 4.39f)
(4.39g)
We describe the traction to be piecewise constant over a mesh of rectangles wh ich are
numbered from I to N. We now give the response of a traction of the form 0ih'
h = 1,2,3, i fixed, which vanishes outside the rectangle M whose vertices have the
coordinates (y I
168
~ .6.x l'
Y2
~ .6.x 2 ) so
that (y I ,y 2) is the center, and .6.x I' .6.x2 are
4.3: ImpZementation
the sides. A derivation is found in Appendix D, Sec. 4. Let
I ..(y
I}
- x , t1x ) = f
dz 1 f
A ..(z ) dz 2 ,
( 4.40a)
I}
with
1
= y 1 - xI -
2" t1x I' b = y
= Y2 -
2" t1x 2
x2 +
1
1
+ 2" t1x I' e = y 2 - x 2 - 2" t1x 2 ,
- x
(4.40b)
( 4.40c)
and
(4.4la)
2
=>
J 2 (Ya - x a ) =
=>
J 3(y
- x )
a
a
b
fd z2
f a dZ I e -;;} dZ 2
=f
dZ I
b
J 4(y a - x a)
J 5(Ya-
= fad Z 1
b
a)= fa dZI
fd dZ 2
-3eR
d
fe
d
= J1(y -
zI z 2 dZ 2
R3
Z 1 dZ 2
R2
Zn (z2 + R)]]
(4.4lb)
x ) + J 2(y - x )
a
a
a
(4.4lc)
[[zi
a
[[-R]]
[[Z2Zn (R) +
(4.4ld)
zi
aretan (z/zl)]]
(4.4le)
=>
b
d
J 6(y a - x a ) = fa dz 1 fe
Z2 dZ 2
R2
[[Z 1 Zn (R) + z2 aretan (z /z2)]]'

(4.41f)
Here, use is made of the formula
(4.42 )
Then we can express (4.40a) in the J. of (4.41), as folIows:

I
169
Chapter 4: Variation al and Numerical Theory
0/ Contact
A I J = I. ,(xJ
- xI )
a
a
(x Ia): the center of rectangle number I
I J
l!"GA IlJI = J 3 - I/J2 , l!"GA I2J2

l!"GA IlJ2 = l!"GA I2JI
l!"GA I2J3
( 4.43a)
lJ
=J 3
(4.43b)
- I/J I , l!"GA I3J3
= I/J 4 , l!"GA IlJ3
= -l!"GA I3JI
= (l
- 1/) J 3 ,
= KJ 5 ,
= -l!"GA I3J2 = KJ6'
Argument of the J. = (x J - xI )
I
a
a
(4.43c)
( 4.43d)
(4.43e)
( 4.43f)
So, summing over all J,j, we have, if we sampie the displacement in the centers of the
rectangular elements,
. u,(x I ) = A I 'J 'P J " PJ ' = P ,(xJ ).

I
a
lJ J
J
J
a
(4.44)
It can be shown that
(4.45)
A(Ii)(Jj) = A(Jj)(Ii)
so that, if we regard (I,i) and (J,j) each as a single index, the matrix of influence
numbers (A(Ii)(Jj) ) is symmetric. If we keep the half-spaces fixed at infinity:
=(x.1 Ix.1 =oo},andifweletA =(xlx 3 =0,x f/:.A}:theexteriorofthe
ua
I
J
Ipa
I
a
c
potential contact is free of traction, then "2 PIi A IiJ/ J j is an approximation of the elastic
energy, which is positive definite. Hence, presumably, the matrix

(4.46)
(A(l i)(J j) ) > 0.
When 5g = 0, p = (g may vary in the course of time in a prescribed way) the principle
of maximum complementary energy (4.38) becomes, if we introduce
( 4.47a)
sub
PJ3 ~ 0, I PJr I :;
gi the rectangles, with identical areas Q,

constitute the potential contact area.
Note that C* is strictly convex.

The principle of minimum potential energy becomes, see (4.2 7a)
170
(4.47b)
4.3: Implementation
( 4.48a)
with
(4.48b)
Note that U is strictly convex.
In the two-dimensional case we can formulate (4.47) as a linearly constrained, strictly
convex quadratic program, which is, therefore, suitable for treatment by our active set
algorithm 3.3.1, as weIl as by other methods (e.g. Wolfe, 1951). To see this, we observe
that the correct form may be achieved by noting that f has the single value 1, so that
Iplrl
~g/<i==*PIr=O
g/-PIr~O,g/+PIr~O
ifg/=O,
(4.49a)
if g / > O.
(4.49b)
By this interpretation, (4.4 7) becomes a quadratic program of the stated type.

In the two-dimensional case, (4.48) can be formulated as a quadratic program that is
convex, but not strictly convex. Here the absolute value I Sir I can be formulated as a
linear form, in conjunction with linear constraints. To that end we replace I Sir I by the
new variable qI in (4.48a), when gI*' 0 (actually > 0) and we constrain qI by
(4.50a)
(4.50b)
The problem (4.48) becomes
* 21
min U =
P Ii,qI
Pli A 1iJj PJj + gIqI
sub (4.48b), (4.50a,b).
(4.5Ia)
(4.5Ib)
It is easy to see that in the minimum one or both inequalities (4.50a,b) will be active, for
all pertinent I. It is also observed that the convexity property is retained, but the
strictness property is lost. Yet it can be proved that if one starts with a feasible solution
in which, for all pertinent I, (4.50a) or (4.50b) is active, the active set algorithm 3.3.1
experiences no difficulty. (4.51) mayaiso be treated by other methods (e.g. Beale, 1959).
In the three-dimensional case, the constraints I P/ I < g / that occur in (4.47) are of the
+
~
Although they ~re -nonlinear, they are fairly easy to
nonlinear form
pil pi2 g;.
171
handle. This is not so with the form! SIr!
=J S}l + S}2 ' which occurs in (4.48). The
reason of the difference lies in the fact that ! SIr! = 0 in the entire area of adhesion,
and ! SIr! is not differentiable in SIr = O. So we prefer (4.47), the principle of
maximum complementary energy, to (4.48), the principle of minimum potential energy,
in the three-dimensional case. In the remainder 01 this chapter we will conline our
attention to (4.47).
There are many mathematical programming methods that can deal with (4.47), (4.49),
and (4.51). We already mentioned the method of Wolfe (I951) for the convex quadratic
programming problems of two-dimensional (4.47)-(4.49), and (4.5 I).
Programs that can deal with three-dimensional (4.4 7) are in every mathematical computer
program library. The method of 4.3.1 has the advantage over all these methods that its
every step can be interpreted mechanically. Moreover, it is an extremely efficient method.
We will confine our attention to the treatment of the three-dimensional case by the
method of 4.3.1. Indeed, we will solve the three-dimensional problem (4.47).
4.3.3
THE ALGORITHM OF
4.3.1
APPLIED TO HALF-SPACE CONTACT PROBLEMS
This algorithm, KOMBI, is an alternative to the Panagiotopoulos process. In it, the

traction bound g is estimated; on the basis of this estimated traction bound, the active set
algorithm of Sec. 4.3.1 determines the normal and tangential traction p Ir On the basis of
the normal pressure p I3 the traction bound is reestimated, until convergence occurs, if it
does. I is the number of the elementary rectangle; I = 1, ... ,N.
We use the following notation. All regions are defined by a "force" definition. The
potential contact is indicated by the letter Q; Q = {l, ... ,N}.
U! P/3 > O}
E = U! p = O}
/3
c=
- exterior, normal force definition;
cr=ulgI>O}
- contact area, tangential force definition;
Er
- exterior, tangential force definition;
= ul g I = O}
= ul I p Ir I < g I}
S=
172
- contact area, normal force definition;
ul
I p Ir I
g I}
- adhesion area, force definition;

- slip area, force definition.
4.3: Implementation
Set g = 0 VI' => S = E = Q H =

I
"
r'
l.
2.
3.
= 0
(t)
(n)
(t)
Choose y. E Z
Set p I3 = 0, I E Q: clear all normal tractions

Set p Ir = 0, I E Q: clear all tangential tractions
Determine
B consists of two separate parts, viz. a normal part (E),

and a tangential part (S). The normal part corresponds
B = {j g .(y.) = O};
A = B;
= Q\B
4.
0 => PIr
N'
Solve x., v . from:
J
4> ix.) = v . g . ix .)
J J.
I
g lXi) = 0, j E B;
Vj=O,jEN
to p I3' vI; the tangential part to p Ir'
Wr
Solve Pr' VJ' w I from:

PI3 = 0/1 E E: Set pressure = 0 outside contact
e I == A I3Jj PJj + h I = vI = 0, I E C:
set deformed distance zero in C.
u;
(n)
(n)
SIr = AIr J j PI j + (WIr - r) = - W I PIr / I PIr I : (t)

set the slip parallel to the tangential traction.
(t)
(t)
Determine W I; W I = 0 if I E H: No slip in H
I PIr I = gI if I E S: Traction bound attained in S. (t)
It is clear that PI3 = 0, lEE can be substituted;
also in E , the traction bound vanishes, and PI
r
r
vanishes with it; so PI = 0, lEE can also be
r
r
substituted.
The meaning of the Lagrange multipliers (LM's);
vI of PI3 ~ 0 and W I of gI - PIr ~ 0, calls for

comment: W 1= SIr
if W I is negative, then the
slip has the wrong sense. v1= e/ the LM has the
meaning of the deformed distance; if it is negative
in E, there is penetration.
5.
y.(B) E Z?
I
If "no" goto 6.
If "yes" goto 7.
I;
The y.(B) are the primal variables PI" at the solution

of the1equations 4. That is, we ask: J
(n)
Are all PI3 ~ 0, I E Q?
We can confine attention to C, since in E, PI3 = O.
Further ,
Are all PI r ~ gI if I E Q?
(t)
We can confine attention to I E H, since in E , S

r
IpIrl =gr
If "no" goto 6.
If "yes" goto 7.
173
Chapter 4: Variation al and Numerical Theory 01 Contact
6.
Restore one,
goto 4.
We work differently. We restore all constraints as

folIows:
If p J3 <
set p J3
= 0; else do not touch it.

set PIT = PIr g11 PICl! I .
(n)
(I)
If I ph1 > g ['

That is, we set offending normal pressures zero;
and we reduce the length of the vector (p Ir) without
changing its sense, so, that it lies on the traction bound.
The adapted contact area C and/or the adhesion area H
have strictly decreased.
GOTO 4.
7.
Is any Lagrange
multiplier v. < 0,
.
?
)
) E A.
If "yes", goto 8.
If "no", goto 9.
h on"I <? Thot;" ;, '"'''1 = 'I < in Q? }

(n)
We can confine ourselves to the exterior E.
If "yes", goto 8.
Is any W I < o? That is, has the slip (Sir)
} (l)
the wrong sense? If yes, goto 8.
Else: goto 9.
8.
There is a LM
v. < 0, j E A.
Again we work on all "wrong" variables.

If vI = e I < 0, I is removed from contact C
and placed in E.
If W I = I Sir I < 0, I is removed from slip
area S, and placed in adhesion area H.
Choose one of them,

say k, and set
B
= B\{k},
A = A\{k}
} (n)
} (t)
GOTO 4.
GOTO 4.
9.
We are ready.
If max I gI - Ip J3 I < (a tolerance), we are

I
ready.
Else we set gI = IPJ3 VI, let S consist of E and
all slip points in C : S = E U (C n S), let H
T
T
consist of all new contact points C\C and all
T
adhering points in C: H = (C\C ) U (C n H),
T
then H n S = ~, H U S = Q; change E to E,
T
C to C, and GOTO 4.
T
174
(n)
(t)
4.3: Implementation
The mathematical programming problem reads

mpin rP
li
1PliAliJ/
sub P/3 ~ 0, I E Q;
Jj + h l P/3 + (WIr - U}r) Plr
I P/r I ~ gl' I E Cr
We now describe the algorithm. To the left, we have entered the steps of the active set
algorithm; to the right the application to the contact problem is shown, together with the
mechanical interpretation. The structure diagram of the algorithm on the right is given
in Fig. 4.4.
Remark: The system 4 is a nonlinear system. We have had excellent results using a
Newton-Raphson technique to solve it. In the two-dimensional case, and when one considers the normal problem only, the equations are linear. They have a full matrix and
relatively large diagonal elements.
Remark: We perform a restoration on all "wrong" variables and LM's in order to avoid
many calculations of the solution of the equations of step 4. When the equations are
linear, restoration of a single variable or LM becomes interesting, since one can update
the solution of the equations 4 very efficiently.
Remark: Unfortunately, this KOMBI routine does not always converge in the case of
non-quasiidentity, but we believe it converges more often than the Panagiotopoulos
process. It seems that in the two-dimensional case both processes always converge. We
surmise that the failure of KOMBI-Panagiotopoulos to converge is due to the proximity
of the non-uniqueness in the solution, to which the Panagiotopoulos process is somewhat
more sensitive than KOMBI.
Remark: In some cases, notably for quasiidentity, and in the Panagiotopoulos process,
either the normal pressure P I3 or the tangential traction PIr is known. Under those
circumstances, the algorithm can be simplified, as folIows:
When the tangential traction is given, ignore Points land 9, as weil as all lines
marked (t). The resulting routine is called NORM; it operates on the N variables P/3'
where N is the number of elements in the potential contact. The time the routine uses
is about L N 3 , where L is the number of times step 4 is invoked. L Rl 4.
n
n
n
When the normal traction is given, ignore Points 1 and 9, as weil as the lines marked
(n). The resulting routine is called TANG; it operates on the 2 N variables PI' and
the time the routine uses is about 8 L tN3, where L t is the number of times st:p 4 is
invoked. L t Rl 4.
175
Set gl = 0, VI
2,3
'* Er = Q '* C r = ~.
'* S = Q\H.
Set Pn = 0, VI; '* E = Q '* C = tl.
Ph = 0, VI; Determine H
(I)
Set Cl = true
(n)
(n),(1)
(n)
Def. el = AnJjPJj + h I
Def.S/r=AhJjPJj+Wlr-uJr
(t)
Solve Pn' el ; Plr ' wI from

Pn = 0, lEE; el = 0, I E C.
(n)
gl=O'*Plr=O./ES,gl"'O,* Iphl =g['
and 3wI I SIr = -w I PIT , wI = ~ I SIr I /g I
'* SIr =
'* Pn' PIT , wr
I EH
5,6
If Pn <
'*
(n)
no
P13 = 0, C = C\{I}. E = Eu (I), Cl = true.
If IplTl >gl'*PIT=PlTg/lplrl.
H = H\{I), S = S U {I}, Cl = true.
(t)
Cl~
true
fa=-------------
If e l <
'*
C = C U {I}, E = E\{I}, Cl = T.
(n)
(I)
no
~re~
yes
no
(t)
(n),(I)
Set Boolean Cl = false.
i~
7,8
(t)
Set Cl = true
while Cl do
(n)
Neither
nor
(n)
Cl = true
(n)
(not ready)
I~rea~(t)
yes
_
no
If
9
I<
'*
H = H U (I), S = S\(I), Cl = T.
(I)
~Cl?~
I IPn-g I I >i,*Cl=T
g 1=lp /3; S=Eu(CrnS);
H=Q\S, Er=E, Cr=C
(not ready)
If
Cl = true
neither
(n)
nor
(t)
Figure 4.4. Structural diagram 01 the algorithm KOMBI. (3 N variables) with

organisation to determine gl (Points 1.9). T", true.
Routine NORM lor Panagiotopoulos/Quasiidentity: (n) (N variables).
Routine TANG [or Panagiotopoulos/Quasiidentity: (I) (2 N variables).
176
4.3: Implementation
When neither traction is given, one can apply the routine KOMBI, which operates on
the 3 N variables Pr The time the routine uses, including Points land 9, is about
27 L k N 3 , where L k is the number of times step 4 is invoked. L k Rj 9.
Aiternatively, one may use the Panagiotopoulos process. The number L of
Panagiotopoulos iterations Rj 5; each such iteration consists of one call of NORM and
one call of TANG. The timing is L (L + 8 L) N 3 = 180 N~,asopposed to 240 N 3
for KOMBI. So KOMBI is somewhaf sl~wer th~n Panagiotopoulos in the non-quasiidentical case. In the quasiidentical case one finds the solution by applying NORM
and then TANG just once. They are then fully reliable. KOMBI and Panagiotopoulos
are fully reliable in the two-dimensional case, and Panagiotopoulos is distinctly faster
then. So we conclude:
Use Johnson (l x NORM, I x TANG) in the quasiidentical case,
Panagiotopoulos in the two-dimensional, non-quasiidentical case,
KOMBI in the three-dimensional, non-quasiidentical case.
We now describe the algorithms NORM and TANG. First we consider NORM:
We suppose that the tangential traction PIr is given, and that the normal pressure P/3 is
to be found. The problem is described by the KOMBI mathematical program with PIr
prescribed:
min <p =
i-
sub P/3
and sub
p/iAliJjPJj + h I P/3 + (WIr - u1r ) PIr
( 4.52a)
(4.52b)
I PIr I
~ g l'
(4.52c)
PIr given.
(4.52d)
The question arises how to consider (4.52c) in view of (4.52d). As (4.52c) is a condition
on the given PIr' it should be satisfied by the PIr given by (4.52d), so that we may drop
(4.52c). Also, remembering that A/iJj = A JjIi' we may write (4.52) as folIows:
mm
A.
'I'
="21 Pn
h*
W*
A nJ3 p J3 + IPn +
with PIr given, h; = A /3JrP Jr + h l'
* ="2I p/rA /rJa PJa
and sub P/3
o.
+ (WIr - u}r) PIr'
h; given
.
W* glven
( 4.53a)
(4.53b)
(4.53c)
( 4.53d)
Note that A /3JrP Jr' which occurs in h;, is the normal displacement difference due to the
tangential traction PIr' and that the constant W* does not affect the minimisation.
177
0/ Contact
The Algorithm NORM
N2
Choose y. E Z
Set P13 = 0, I E Q = {l, ... ,N};

clear all normal tractions.
N3
Determine
B = (j I g(y.) = O};
I
A = B; N = Q\B
B = E, the exterior of this contact area;

N = C, the contact area.
Initially, E = Q, C = p.
N4
Solve
4> lx.)
,
I
vI <!;f A 1313 P13 + h; = eI;

p 13 = 0, lEE: the normal traction vanishes outside
= v). )g ,lx.)I
g.(x.)=O,jEB
)
I
v. = 0, JEN
el
N5
y.(B) E Z?
I
If "no", goto N6.
If "yes", goto N7.
Are all normal tractions p 13

p 13 = 0 ~ 0, lEE.
If "no", goto N6
If "yes", goto N7.
N6
Restore
If P13 < 0, I is placed in E

(Remove wrong I from C).
GOTO N4.
N7
Is any v. < 0,
.
)
) E A?
If "yes", goto N8.
If "no", goto N9.
Is any e l = vI< 0, lEE? e l

If "yes", goto N8.
If "no", goto N9.
N8
Release
If e l < 0, lEE: place I in C

(Remove wrong I from E).
GOTO N4.
N9
READY:
We have here:
p13 > 0, e l = 0, I E C
P13 = 0, e I ~ 0, lEE.
These are the contact conditions: we are ready.
178
= A 1313 P13 + h; = vI = 0, I E C: the distance
vanishes in C => p 13' I E Q.

~
0, I E C?
=0
0, I E C.
4.3: Implementation
The algorithm NORM to solve this problem is derived from KOMBI by collecting the
steps marked with (n) in KOMBI.
We now suppose that the normal traction PI3 is given, and that the tangential traction PJr
is to be found (TANG). This problem is described by the KOMBI mathematical program
with PI3 prescribed:
mi
n~ i
=
sub P13
andsub
Pli A Ii J j PJ j + hIP 13 + (WIr 0
IpJrI
~gr'
u;r) PIr
(4.54a)
(4.54b)
( 4.54c)
PI3 given.
(4.54d)
The question arises how to consider (4.54b) in view of (4.54d). As (4.54b) is a condition
on the given PI3 , it should be satisfied by the PI3 given by (4.54d), so that we may drop
(4.54b). Also, recalling that A IiJj = A JjIi' we may write (4.54) as folIows:
A.
I
A
W**
h**
mm 'I' = 2' PJr JrJaPJa + Ir PIr +
with PI3 given,
(4.5 5a)
(4.55b)
I
W**
Jr-- A Ir13P13+ WJr-uIr'
given,
(4.55c)
given,
( 4.55d)
** =2'P13A1313P13+hIP13'
I
sub
I PIr I ~ g r
(4.55e)
Note that AIr J3 P13 is the tangential displacement difference due to the normal traction
P13 alone. Consequently, W;; is the shift due to the normal traction, the rigid shift, and
the previous tangential displacement difference. We note that the constant h ** does not
affect the minimisation.
The algorithm TANG to solve this problem is derived from KOMBI by collecting the
steps marked with (t) in KOMBI.
179
Chapter 4: Variation al and Numerical Theory 0/ Contact
The Algorithm TANG
T2
Choose y. E Z
Set p Ir
T3
Determine
B=ulg(y)=O};
A = B; N'= Q\B
Q = {(I,r)
Salve
Salve PJa' W I from: *

S =A
p
+ WIr = -w I p Ir
Ir
Ir Ja Ja
no sum on right-hand side
IpIrI = gI' IES
IE H
w I = 0,
T4
i x I.) = v}. }
g . ix.)
,
,
I
g .(x.) = 0, j E B;
}
I
v. = 0, JEN
}
T5
y.(B) E Z?
I
If "no", goto T6.
If "yes", goto T7.
T6
Restore
T7
Is any v. < 0,
.
}
} E A?
If "yes", goto T8.
If "no", goto T9.
T8
Release
T9
READY:
= 0,
VI: clear all tangential tractions.
I l' = 1,2; 1= 1, ... ,N}; B = S; N = H.
Initially, H
= Cl' ; S = ~.
IpIrI ~gI' VIEH?Note:

If "no", goto T6.
If "yes", goto T7.
I p Ir'I
(Linearise)
(Linearise)
(Linear)
I p Ir I = g I'
I E S.
If I p Ir I > gI' I E H then

- I is placed in S;
- Plr=Plrglllplal (no sum).
GOTO T4.
Is any W I < 0, I ES? Note:
If "yes", goto T8.
If "no", goto T9.
If W I = I SIr
GOTO T4.
WI
= 0,
I E H.
I < 0, I goes from S to H.
I PIr I ~gI'SIr=O,IEH
I PIr I = gI' SIr = -w I PIr I I Pla I, (no sum),
wI~O
IES.
Coulomb's Law is satisfied: we are ready.
In the next subsections, we present some extensions of the theory.
180
4.3: /mplementation
4.3.4
STEADY STATE ROLLING, ELASTIC
AND
VISCOELASTIC
We now consider the first extension, viz. steady state rolling. It may cause some surprise
that this actually needs an extension of the theory, but the fact is that the minimisation
problem (4.27b) does not describe steady state rolling. Indeed, the quantity u I, the
T
tangential displacement difference at the previous time t ' , should be known apriori for
(4.27b) to be valid, but it is not. To see that, consider the coordinate system that
corresponds to the steady state, in which all quantities are independent of explicit time.
The particles of both bodies flow though this coordinate system with velocity -v Q ,
Q = 1,2, where (v ,v ,O) is the rolling velocity vector.
l 2
Consider a particle that lies at x Q at time t; it was lying at x Q + vQ (t - t ') at time t I.
Consequently, if the displacement of the particle at time t is u.(x ) - time is not present
I
Q
in this description of the elastic field as we are working in the coordinate system of the
steady state - then its displacement u.' (x ) is
I
u'(x )=u.(x + v (t - t '

I
( 4.56)
and it is just as unknown as u .(x ). So an axiom disappears, and our considerations are no
I
Q
longer valid.
It appears, however, that the mechanical interpretation of the KOMBI-NORM-TANG
u;
algorithm, which is the one that will be actually implemented, can take (4.56) into
had been known
account in Point 4 of Sec. 4.3.3, and the algorithm works as weil as if
apriori.
Steady state rolling has been implemented in the program CONT ACT in the elastic case.
The linear viscoelastic case is eminently suitable for an implementation which is almost as
fast as the elastic case. The necessary analysis has been performed in Appendix D.
4.3.5
PRESCRIPTION OF TOTAL FORCE COMPONENTS
We suppose that F 3 is prescribed. Then the approach q of the bodies can no longer be
specified, and
e/
= A I3Jj PJj
F3 = Q
L p I3
+ h/ - q,
q: a variable
( 4.57a)
prescribed,
Q: area of elementary rectangle.
(4.57b)
The Eq. (4.57b) is added to the equations of Sec. 4.3.3, Point 4. The equations for e/ are
modified in (4.57a), and q is added to the set of variables. Note that q is independent of
the element number /.
181
0/ Contact
We act analogously when a tangential total force component is prescribed, say F . Then
r
the rigid shift in x -direction, viz. q , can no longer be prescribed, and becomes a
r
r
variable. We add the equation
to the equations of Sec. 4.3.3, Point 4, and regard q as a new variable:

r
SIr
( 4.58a)
AIrJ/Jj + WIr - u}r + qr
r..I PI'r
(4.58b)
Note that q is independent of the element number I.

r
4.3.6
SENSITIVITIES
A contact problem depends on a number of parameters, such as the global approach q, the
creepages ql and q2' the elastic difference parameter K, and the combined modulus of
rigidity G. Let us designate a generic parameter by the symbol A. Then we wish to sol ve:
Given the solution 0/ a contact problem with parameter A = AO' what is the
solution corresponding to A = AO + , with I I vanishingly smalI?
The contact problem is determined by the division of the surface elements over the
regions C, E, H, S, and the normal and tangential tractions p J .. The regions are discrete,
so that a division of elements corresponds to values of A occu'pying a certain interval or
combination of intervals.
Generally , AO lies in the interior of such an inter val, so that for I I small enough,
AO + lies in the same interval, and A corresponds to the same element division as AO'
p;
As to the traction distribution, PJ . corresponds to AO' as we stated above, and PJ . +

.
= 8/8A) and PJj satisfy th/same equations of Sec. 4.3.3, Point 4. These e'quatio~s
may be linearised:
.)'
(p Jj known variables, q/i: right-hand sides)
(4.59a)
(4.59b)
Expand (4.59b), subtract (4.59a), and divide by
182
let
--+
0:
4.3: Implementation
(4.60)
Note that (4.60) has the same coefficient matrix as (4.59a); only the right-hand sides are
different. In a Newton-Raphson process the equations are actuaBy linearised as in
(4.59a); to take the sensitivities into account we add the right-hand sides of (4.60) to the
system (4.59a), and solve aB equation sets. This costs hardly more time than solving
(4.59a) with a single right-hand side.
It has been argued that one should modify the discretisation when determining the
sensitivities. However, aB theory has been derived with a fixed discretisation of the
potential contact; the effect of changing the shape and size of the rectangles constituting
the potential contact is unknown at present. It seerns a hazardous operation, and an
unnecessary one.
A generalisation of the sensitivities in the elastic and the viscoelastic case is presented in
Appendix D (perturbation theory of rolling contact). This appendix also contains some
remarks on the accuracy of sensitivity calculations.
4.3.7
CALCULATION OF THE INFLUENCE NUMBERS IN A HALF-SPACE
We recaB from Sec. 4.3.2 that the influence number A IiJ' in a half -space is the contribution of a unit load density in j-direction on rectangl~ J to the i-component of the
displacement difference in the center of rectangle I.
The foBowing relations hold:
A IiJj = A JjIi
(i,j = 1,2,3)
(4.61a)
A I3Jr
(r= 1,2)
(4.6Ib)
= -A IrJ3
(4.61c)
So, for fixed (l,J) - (J,J), only 5 influence functions need to be calculated independently.
The center of rectangle I is denoted by x Ia' and the sides are t::.xIl ' t::.x /2' In general,
then, as I,J = 1, ... ,N and i,j = 1,2,3, aB ~ N(N+I) independent A IiJj must be calculated
separately. However, if
VI
( 4.62)
then aB rectangles are equal and equaBy oriented, the theory of Sec. 4.3.2 holds, and we
note that A IiJj depends on land J only through the quantity x Ir - x Jr' So we can write
183

A I J . = B. ,(x I
I )
I)
- x J ), I,J = I, ... ,N, i,j = 1,2,3;

T
= 1,2.
(4.63)
If the potential contact is a rectangle with sides in the 1,2 directions, the number of
influence numbers to be calculated is based on the N values that I I -J I can assurne, and
amounts to 5 N, which is considerably less than the N(N+I) of the general case.
4.3.8
THE SUBSURFACE ELASTIC FIELD IN A HALF-SPACE
The theory of Boussinesq-Cerruti provides a way of calculating the elastic field in a

half -space due to a block load on a rectangle on the surface of the half -space. This
involves the evaluation of a number of complicated double integrals. This evaluation,
which leads to explicit and exact expressions, is described in Appendix C. The integrals
are put together in the form uJ /x k ), which is the i-component of the displacement at x k
due to a unit traction distribufion in j-direction which acts over the J-th element. Also,
the displacement gradient uJji,ix k ) can be constructed from the integrals.
From the displacement gradients the linearised strains and the Hookean stresses may be
found as weil as their invariants and eigenvalues. This completes the calculation of the
elastic field in the point x k .
4.3.9
NOTE ON THE GENERALISATION TO NON-CONCENTRATED CONTACTS
In this Sec. 4.3, from 4.3.2 onwards, we have confined ourselves to half -spaces. The
generalisation to move general bodies is direct, with the exception of subsections 4.3.2,
4.3.7,4.3.8.
184
CHAPTER5
RESULTS
In the present ehapter we will diseuss numerieal results of various computer programs by
several authors, and indieate their applieation to teehnological problems. The eontaet is
assumed to be eoneentrated, that is, the bodies are approximated by half -spaees as far as
the elastieity ealeulations are eoneerned, while the boundary eonditions are set up for the
real geometry and kinematies, see Ch. I, Sec. 1.6. Frietion is or is not present; when there
is frietion, it is dry, and modeled by Coulomb's Law. In addition, the bodies are assumed
to be homogeneous and isotropie.
The elastie properties of the bodies are determined by the modulus of rigidity G of body
a
a, a = 1,2, body I = {z ~ O}, body 2 = {z ~ O}, and the Poisson ratio LI From these
a
eonstants the eombined modulus of rigidity G, the eombined Poisson ratio LI, and the
differenee parameter K may be formed, as folIows, see Ch. I, Eq. (1.44):
The combined modulus 01 rigidity G:
N.B. G
~f
a -
a
2(1 + LI
i i (-t-- -t--) .
+
a
The combined Poisson's ratio
The di/lerence parameter K:
E: Young's modulus.
(5.1)
LI:
- 2L1
2).
The elastie eonstants appear in the frietionless, so-ealled normal problem only in the
eombination (1 - LI)/G. In frietional eontaet, all three eonstants G, LI, and K of (5.1) oceur.
A further distinetion is made between quasiidentieal bodies (K = 0), and non-quasiidentieal bodies (K 0). In quasiidentieal bodies, the tangential stress in the eontaet does
not influenee the deformed distanee, while in the non-quasiidentieal ease it does, and the
more so as K inereases. So there are three eategories:
'*
185
Chapter 5: Results
a)
b)
c)
Normal contact problems, see Sec. 5.1.

Quasiidentical frictional contact problems, see Sec. 5.2.
Non-quasiidentical contact problems with friction, see Sec. 5.3.
Each of these sections consists of three subsections:

A)
B)
C)
5.1
Brief description of some available routines for each category. We confine our
attention to routines that consider three-dimensional problems and exploit the
special properties of the half -space approximation.
Validation of the results with the aid of exact solutions and experimental evidence.
Presentation of new results, with an indication of the application in which they
are used.
THE NORMAL CONTACf PROBLEM
There are two basic methods of calculating the normal contact problem numerically.
In the first (CC), the contact area is approximated by a set of non-overiapping rectangles
("elements") with the same orientation. The normal pressure is constant in each element. In
the program CO NT ACT (Kalker) the elements are equal, in the program CONSTIF
(de Mul-Kalker-Frederiksson, 1986) this restriction is partly removed, which makes
local refinement of the element net possible. Fr unequal elements (CONSTIF) the
n(n + I), where n is the
number of influence functions that must be calculated is
number of elements making up the potential contact area. Owing to the symmetry both of
the Boussinesq-Cerruti relations and of the element net this number may be reduced to n
for equal elements (CONT ACT). During the calculation the net is fixed, so that the
influence functions need only be computed at the beginning, or they need not be
computed at all if they are read from a precalculated file.
-l
Both in CONT ACT and in CONSTIF the contact algorithm is the very effective active
set method described in Ch. 4. The number of active set iterations rarely exceeds 4, and is
less if the potential contact tightly fits the actual contact. In many cases a tighter fit can
be obtained by introducing a "small potential contact" consisting of the m ~ n elements
having the smallest undeformed distances, where m is a user-chosen number. This feature
is present in CONTACT. In the sequel, n refers to the number of elements in the potentical contact that is actually used, while k is the number of elements in the current
contact area.
186
5.1: The Normal Contact Problem

In each active set iteration, the linear equations are set up and solved. In CONSTIF and
CONT ACT the solution of the linear equations is achieved by Gauss elimination. The
time needed for this dominates the calculation time. Carneiro Esteves (1987) uses up to
n = 1000 elements, and solves the linear equations by the Gauss-Seidel method; in this
method he stores only one line of equations at a time. Only few iterations appear to be
needed to obtain the solution. Vectorisation of the program further reduces the calculation
time. Carneiro reports that the time is reduced by a factor of 50. Storage is further kept
at a mini um since there are only n influence functions. The approach described by
Brandt and Lubrecht (1990?) also yields fast results.
The Gauss-Seidel method works fast only when the main diagonal is dominant. This is not
so when the total force is prescribed directly in the equations, which is why the GaussSeidel method may not be applicable in this very important case. More research is needed
in this direction.
The second method (RNJLK) is based on the fact that when two bodies of revolution
with their axes in one plane are brought in contact, the undeformed distance is quadratic
in a plane orthogonal to the common tangent plane and the plane of the axes. It was
observed by Reusner (1977) and Nayak and Johnson (1979) that in this plane Y the
normal pressure is almost semi-elliptic. This is exactly true when two parallel cylinders
are in contact, and also asymptotically true under line contact conditions, see Kalker
(1972a). Consequently they use elements which extend over the entire contact width, and
which have a semi-elliptical pressure distribution over the contact width. In the course of
the calculation, the contact width and the contact length are reestimated from the
pressure distribution that results from the elastic calculation on the basis of the latest estimate of the contact area. About 5 iterations are needed when the number of elements is of
the order of 15. The number of influence functions is proportional to n 2 , where n is the
number of elements. As the calculation tends to be lengthy, see below, Le The (1987)
attempted to reduce the number of iterations by an appropriate choice of the initial estimate. He succeeded in reducing the number of iterations to 2 for his application, viz. the
railway wheeljrail system. Le The did this thesis work under the supervision of Prof. K.
Knothe (TU Berlin).
In CONT ACT and CONSTIF we express the influence functions in terms of elementary
functions. Reusner, Nayak-Johnson, and Le The could not do this. Reusner used a device
due to Kunert (1961), which avoids the Boussinesq-Cerruti integrals. Nayak-Johnson and
Le The reduce the influence function to a one-dimensional integral, which they calculate
numerically - a time consuming process. Kalker, in the program PA RSTIF , used
elements with rectangular plan form wh ich extend over the entire contact width and
have a pressure distribution which is parabolic rather than semi-elliptic. The influence
functions may then be expressed in elementary functions. This speeds up the calculation
with respect to the previously mentioned programs. The drawback is that the parabola
187
Chapter 5: Results
only approximates the semi-ellipse. We have tried to guess the correct form of the semiellipse from the parabola, but with indifferent success.
Advantages of RNJLK over CC are:
a) The contact area is found more closely;
b) The number of elements in RNJLK is roughly the square root of that of Ce.
Advantages of CC over RNJLK are:
c) The influence numbers of CC are relatively easy to calculate; they can also be
read in; and all this needs to be done only once for every calculated case.
d) CC is applicable to any kind of undeformed distance; RNJLK can be applied
only when the pressure distribution in one direction is semi-elliptical.
e) The contact finding algorithm of CC has been proved mathematically; it never
fails.
Finally we observe that there are very many more authors, notably B. Paul (1974,1981),
who have written normal contact codes. These codes may use adaptive element nets as in
RNJLK, or a fixed net, as in Ce. The codes further differ in the way that the contact
area is calculated. CC has the added advantage that its contact adaptation proceeds by a
method wh ich has asound mathematical foundation. As the main thrust of the present
work is frictional contact, we will not review and compare all these excellent codes.
An additional, somewhat more mathematical discussion of the matters treated in this section is found in Ch. 2, Sec. 2.1 and subsections.
The active set contact finding algorithm of CC is described in Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3 and subsections.
5.1.1
VALIDATION (NORMAL CONTACT)
We start with CC, notably with the routine CONTACT, which discretises the surfaces
using equal rectangles. We compare it first to the Hertz problem, see Ch. 1, Sec. 1.7.1.
To that end we consider two equal steel spheres with radius R = 176.8 mm, modulus of
rigidity G = 0.82eS N /mm 2 , Poisson's ratio 11 = 0.28, which are pressed together with a
force F = (211"/3)e-2 G N = 1717.4 N. The maximum pressure is 0.01 G = 820 N/mm 2.
z
As a consequence a circular contact area forms with a radius of 1 mm. The approach of
the bodies appears to be PEN = 2i / R = 0.01131 mm.
188
Summar ising:
2
G = 0.82e5 Nimm;
v = 0.28;
R = 176.8 mm;
h = undeformed distance = Ax 2 + Bi - PEN,
A = B = 0.5656e-2Imm,
PEN = 0.01131 mm;
F = 2.0944e-2 G = 1717.4 N;
z
a = I mm.
(5.2)
Two discretisations are introduced, with square elements with sides DX = DY = 0.2 mm,
and parallel to the x and y axes, see Fig. 5.la. In the left Fig. 5.1 a, we used a 9x9 net of
elements; in that way, the center of the contact circle lies in the center of an element. In
the right Fig. 5.la, we used an 8x8 element net; in this net, the center of the circle lies
in the corner of an element. The results are as follows.
The penetration PEN was prescribed; when this is the case, the total compressive force F
z
can no longer be prescribed, and is actually the result of the calculation. We find:
F
= (theoretical)
=
=
(9x9)
(8x8)
0.02094 G mm
2
0.02105 G mm
2
0.02108 G mm .
(5.3 )
The traction distribution is shown in Fig. 5.1 b. The traction distribution is axially sym1
metric and thus depends only on r = (x 2 + i)2. It is actually spherical if the scales of the
axes are properly chosen. This has been done in Fig. 5.1 b: the maximum value of p is
z
0.0 lOG, and the radius of the contact area is I mm. As a consequence, the theoretical line
is a circle. The points represent the intensity of the traction at each element; we consider
it representative for the traction in the center of the element.
It is seen that with this number of elements in the contact area (52 in the case 8x8, 69 in
the case 9x9) a remarkably tight fit is obtained, both as to the total force (errors of about
0.5%) and as to the normal pressure.
As a second example, we consider a rigid circular plate of radius I, which is pressed into
and Poisson's ratio /J = 0.4. The base of the
a half -space with modulus of rigidity G =
plate is fiat, and it is pressed into half -space I, {z ~ O} in such a way that the base is
given by
-&'
189
Chapter 5: Results
i'-
:
I
,I
"'\
,I
I
I
I
I
L_
i'--
f\
-- - -- - -- - --
a
p'/G
z
Theoretical
0.010
9x9
0.009
8x8
0.008
0.007
0006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
O.OO(}l------------------...L...-
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
r, mm
Figure 5.1 The problem 0/ Hertz tor a circular contact area.

(a): The contact area is enclosed in a square, which is divided into
9x9 and 8x8 equal suhsquares. Note that in 9x9 the center 0/ the
contact lies in the center 0/ an element (square), whereas in 8x8 on
a corner .. (b): The traction distribution is axially symmetrie. The
theoretical fine is drawn: dots are 9x9 results, circles the results 0/
8x8.
190
5.1: The Normal Contaet Problem
Fig.a
Fz =N=0.9110 NUM.; 1.0000 EXACT
1.2
Pn
2G
APPROX.
1.2
EXACT
II
y=O.8 -
lO
IJ.
y=O.6 _.-
.9
y=O.4 - - -
.8
y=O.O -
+,
y= 8
1.1
1.0
IJ.
.9
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
.5
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
-.8 -.6 -.4 -.2
.2
.4
.6
.8
Exact boundary of
1.0
1.0
Approximate
boundary of 8
contact
.~
.4
.2
eie ment
.8-0 in fig.a __
IJ.
IJ.
IJ.
IJ.
IJ.
.6
-IJ.
in fig.a _._._
.4-+ in fig.a ___
.2
0 - . in fig.a _
.0
-lO -.8 -.6
Fig.b
-.4 -:2
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
-x-
Figure 5.2 Allat, rigid, tilted plate 01 circu1ar cross-section pressed into a
hall-space. The contaet is Irietionless.
(a): The loeal pressure. Lines: theoretieal. Points: CC (CONT ACT);
(b): Diseretisation.
191
Chapter 5: Results
2
x+Y:$I;
11 1
= 004,
11 2
It is shown in Kalker (1967a), Sec. 3.211, that the total compressive force N
the normal pressure Z = P are given by
= 1
'
(5Aa)
= immaterial.
= Fand
z
1
2 -"2
p = -2 {l - r}
(1 + x),
Z
'Ir
(5Ab)
The derivation of this formula is based on the generalisation of Galin's Theorem, see
Appendix E, Sec. 4.
In the numerical work by CONT ACT we used a 9x9 discretisation as shown in Fig. 5.2b.
We found that the total compressive force is given by F (exact) = 1, F (numerical) =
z
z
= 0.9110. It is seen that the error is 9%, considerably higher than in the Hertz case, see
above. The surface tractions are plotted in Fig. 5.2a. The traction is reasonably represented
only weIl away from the traction singularity on the edge of the contact area. Note that
where there is no traction singularity on the edge, viz. at the point (x,y) = (-1,0), the
traction is weIl represented. An interpretation of these phenomena is given in Appendix
D, Sec. 10.
We turn to RNJLK. The best validation was made by Nayak and Johnson (1979). They
confine their attention to contact areas which are slender, with the short side parallel to
the pressure element. Kalker, in PARSTIF, did the same, as weIl as Reusner (1978);
they were all interested in roller bearings. Le The does not mention this restriction,
which may be important; he was interested in wheel/rail contact. As to the Hertz problem
we consider Nayak and Johnson's Fig. 2, here Fig. 5.3. The maximum pressure on each
pressure element is shown. The drawn semi-circle is the exact result. It is seen that
appreciable differences from the norm occur only when the number of pressure elements
is less than 8. This is the order of magnitude of the number of element per slice used by
CC to maintain the same accuracy, so that
(Number of elements of CC)
RI
(Number of pressure elements in RNJLK)2
(5.5)
for equal accuracy.
Conclusion.
In concentrated contacts without singularities, a CC routine requires roughly 50 elements
to achieve a 1% accuracy in the total normal force. About 10 slices suffice for a RNJLK
routine to achieve the same end. When there are infinite singularities on the edge, special
measures should be taken, as indicated in Appendix D, Sec. 10.
192
4'0
30
c..
'" '0
Figure 5.3 The Hertz problem calculated by Nayak and Johnson (RNJLK).
alb = 10. R IR = 0.0274. Full: theoretical. Points: Nayak and
y x
Johnson: x: 4 points, 0: 10 points, +: 20 points, D: 20 points
(different method). From: Nayak and Johnson (1979).
5.1.2
NEW RESULTS ACHIEVED
BY
RNJLK AND CC
The first new results we discuss are due to Nayak and Johnson (1979), who used their
RNJLK routine. We show their Fig. 4, he re Fig. 5.4. It is of importance for the bearing
industry. Three cases are shown, labeled A, B, C. Case A is a Lundberg (1939) profile,
that is, a profile designed so that the contact area is rectangular , and the maximum pressure of all pressure elements is the same. To obtain a Lundberg profile from the rigid
cylinder {(x,y,z) l i + z2 ~ R 2 , I x I ~ a}, R,a constant, pressed on a flat surfaced,
elastic half -space with modulus of rigidity Ghand Poisson's ratio v h' one should add to R
an amount AR:
1 - v
2
h(xla) = -AR(xla) = - 2G POb In [l - (xla) ],
PO: maximum pressure; v = v h ' G = 2G h , see (5.1).
Then, the contact area is rectangular: {(y,z)
I x I < a,
I I y I < b, z =
b: half contact width

(5.7a)
O}, with b constant:
193
Chapter 5: Results
10
'Z~
0-
05
o~
______
~~
____
~~
______
~~~
__
~~
______
~~
__
10
I
02
I
04
g-%
1
06
08
10
(b)
Figure 5.4 RNJLK results: contact problems tor protiled rollers.

(a): Pressure distributions with profiled rollers. A: Lundberg profile;
B: slope discontinuity at x = l; C: crowned roller with "dub-off" ends;
(b): Contact plan forms A, B, C: as in a. From: Nayak and Johnson
(1979 ).
194

b
2RPO(l - v)!G;
1- v
PEN = penetration = ----u.; POb
(5.7b)
1
[2" + In
(4a!b)].
Note that the expression (5.7a) becomes infinite at the ends x = a. So a Lundberg roller
is always approximate, and difficult to manufacture, as pointed out by Nayak and
Johnson (1979). The Lundberg theory can be derived with line contact methods (Kalker,
1972a; Sec. 7.3).
The case of two elastic rollers with parallel axes is approximate because of the finiteness
of the length of the rollers. In order to make an approximation of Lundberg rollers, one
should interpret G and v as combined constants in the sense of (5.1), and h(x! a) as the
required undeformed distance.
Case C concerns a so-called "dubbed off" roller. In this case flR(x) is given by
flR(x) = 0
= _(x 2 _ ?)!(2R)
O::s I x I ::s l
l::s Ix I ::s a.
(5.8)
In this case the profile of the roller is a straight line, with tangent circles added at the
ends.
In Case B, finally, a dub-off is considered in which the slope of flR(x) is discontinuous
at I x I = l. There is a logarithmic singularity at l.
An aspect of the contact mechanics of roller bearings should be mentioned: the influence
of the finite dimensions of the construction. This is important, since the contact in the
bearing is semi-concentrated: the contact area is much longer than it is wide, and the
length of the long axis is comparable to the dimensions of the bearing. Reusner (1978),
followed by de Mul et al. (1986), introduced a simple correction for the finiteness of the
depth of the roller, and its finite length. These corrections have the advantage that they
are easy to apply; their efficacity is open to doubt, however. An improvement is due to
Chiu and Hartnett (1987), who approximated the roller by a finite cylinder rather than a
half -space. It will be clear that the calculation of the influence functions costs very much
time in such an approach.
A second set of new results concerns the contact between a railway wheel and a rai!.
Usually this contact is treated as Hertzian. To do so, the so-called contact point is determined, that is, the point where wheel and rail would touch if they were regarded as
rigid. At the contact point the curvatures of wheel and rail are determined, as weIl as the
load acting in the contact. These are sufficient data to perform a Hertzian analysis, see
195
Chapter 5: Results
b.
a.
., ~
,.
,.'"
~I.
,.
l'
"t
tJ(
"t"
~
i .. "
c.
.....
.....
.:
'.100
..
0.000
~
z
,1.
. .t'
....
r-Dlft.Dr 'Ht L"ftGt
"
&
" '"
....pa,. ....
"Oll 111M cu....

l .. AlU.
-n. nt
"'GA.'
1.1110
-1#
Ei
.It"~
I.'"
pt
1.000
DoIDO
'.'00
CD"'""
I."
," 1
1.11
I.
"
0.000
n.t
d.
."
-I
I.n.
"Go.! 111. IlMIII.
I-UI"
n.nl
.".,
.11.1
"'.10'
...0
....'I! .....
.'" '.Il00
D
::I
E ......
-0.100
-"'00
,0. IO. _+:''"'.",--"'.'"'.",...,-.c.....

06""I\'D-'"-A'~,t="o-,..."~,..,-r:-l--s...,d,..,ll,...--...":~o"":a-.-".: ."
..".t .:-::...,--."'.""...=-,-.c......O=rO-IN-ri.....
't""
..o-,..."~,..,r"..I-.s...,d,..,c'l,--...,,:""0""18-.-"..: .N
Figure 5.5 Two-point contact on allanging railway wheel.

All plots were made automatically. F = 0, '1 = 0, <p = 0, = -0.21e-3,
x
F = 105 kN, F = 25 kN, G = 0.82e5 N jmm, 11 = 0.28, radius wheel
z
y
Rj 500 mm. In the plots, tractions are normalised by dividing them by G.
(a): Discretisation, and direction of the traction (arrows). D: element
of adhesion area. Bold arrows: indication of the slice along wh ich the
surface traction is plotted in Figs. b, c, d. At this slice, the surface is
tilted -23.738 with respect to the vertical. The flange is lying at the
left; rolling takes place in the "up" direction. We deal with a right wheel;
(b): Plot if the normalised normal traction (pN jGA = p jG) along the
z
fine {( x,y) I y = 1 mm}; (c): Plot of the normalised sur face traction in
x-direction (PTXjGA = p jG) along the same line; (d): Plot of the
x
normalised surface traction in y-direction (PTYjGA = p jG) along the
y
same line. Courtesy: J. de Vre.
196
1]
(inch)
- - - i . - - ' - - - . . . . L . . . - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - " - - - - I - -.....--'.....~~ (inch)
a
P (10 6 PSI)
_1t-_...l-_ _--1_ _ _...l-_ _--I._ _ _.L-_ _- ' - _.......
_~ ~
-;5
-.4
-:3
-:2
-.1
(inch)
.1
b
Figure 5.6 A non-Hertzian railway wheel/rail contact (no friction).
(a): Contact area; (b): Frictionless pressure distribution.
From: Paul-Hashemi(1981).
197
Chapter 5: Results
Ch. I, Sec. 1.7.1. In some cases two contact points are found, see Fig. 5.5. This figure and
the corresponding program were made by J. de Vre in the course of his Master's Thesis
work with me. The problem is then, how the load is distributed over the contacts. A
method for solving this problem is given in Piotrowski (1982); in Piotrowski and Kalker
(1988) a simple algorithm is given to take the proximity of the contacts into account. This
analysis is geared to the wheel-rai! system.
However, the question arises whether the contact is actually Hertzian. Paul and Hashemi
(1981) were the first to ans wer this question in the negative. They published a picture of
a non-Hertzian wheel-rail contact in their paper, see Fig. 5.6. The matter was taken up
by Le The (1987), see Fig. 5.7 (= Le The, 1987; Fig. 8.1). This figure shows a wheel set,
that is, two wheels connected by an axle, running over a track, while there is also a
displacement of the wheel set in the lateral direction, orthogonal to the track. Next to the
picture of the moving wheel set are shown the contact areas between wheel and rail
which have been calculated by Le The's RNJLK type routine (lower half of each subfigure). Also shown is the elliptic approximation of the contact area with the aid of the
Hertz theory (upper half of each subfigure).
A similar problem was considered by Kalker (1987) in the course of his investigation into
the evolution of the profile of wheel and rai! due to wear. The wear rate was taken
proportional to the frictional work. The local frictional work was calculated with the aid
of the CONT ACT program, and used to modify the profiles. Afterwards, the modified
local frictional work was recalculated, and so forth. Although the results were only preliminary, as a erude approximation of the ereepages was used, the contact mechanical
principles are sound. Figure 5.8 is a by-product; it shows the non-Hertzian contact areas
with regions of slip and adhesion, as the wheel rolls over the rail and also moves in the
lateral direction. Note that the fixed net contact areas are much cruder than those of
Le The. Later, Kalker and Chudzikiewicz (1990?) used the simplified theory (Ch. 3,
FASTSIM) and ellipticised contact areas to compute the same problem. Gains in calculating times of the order of a factor 1000 were achieved by using F ASTSIM instead of
CONTACT, with some sacrifice of accuracy (20%).
The final result is due to Carneiro Esteves (1987) who used a CONTACT based routine.
He considered the case of a perfectly flat surface pressed without friction against a
rough, asperity covered body. The interest is here tribological. Usually such a problem is
treated by assuming that the elastic fields of the asperities do not interact, and that each
individual eontact is Hertzian. Johnson, Greenwood and Higginson (i 985) assumed a twodimensional sinusoidal array of asperities on the surface of a half -space. Using the principle of maximum complementary energy, see Ch. 4, they succeeded in solving that
contact problem.
198
5.1: The Normal Conlacl Problem
,'t.
'1'
I ,
I I
'
, ...,
,
I
-- - ellipticised contact area

true contact area
Y
X
-- ---
~,
-10
,,
,
10
20
y~
(mmJ
position of wheel set

I
, .-- ... -- .....

Y
X
Y
X
Figure 5.7 Position 0/ the contact point as weil as the ellipticised and real contact
areas on the railhead at various lateral positions 0/ the wheel set.
(Righl wheel.) From: Le The ( 1987).
199
Chapter 5: Results
q=O
'Uy= 0.000'56
If,I=0.40O'5
q:l5mm
Uy= 0.00170
Ift l=0.823'5
'U y=-O.OOOO'5
'Uy= 0.0010'5
If tI= 0.13'58
Ift~0.6213
I'\..'\.'\.~
q=3mm
'Uy=0.000S7
I fd=0.4436
q=4.'5mm
Uy= - 0.00114
'Uy=0.000J7
If 11=0.617'5
I f =0.2307
tI
16
q=6mm
'Uy= -0.00169
'\.
I\.'\:
I'\. '\. '\.
17 1619 20 21 12 2J 2l. 25 26'27 2& 2930)112 l3 34

x 1,Smm
Uy=-Q00027
If 1I:O.7'564
:r
If,I=0.1651
I'\:
I'\. '\.
"''\.'\.
q=7.'5mm
'Uy= -0.00224
Uy= -0.00073
1ft! =0.8644
1ft 1=0.3660
lSl =slipping elemen t
=adhering element
~?rl!~~?on
Figure 5.8 The contaet patehes 0/ a rolling wheel set with various lateral displaeements with respeet 10 the rail.
Areas 0/ slip and adhesion are shown. There is some geometrie spin. and
no longitudinal ereepage. There has been no "editing" 0/ the /igures in
the sense 0/ Sec. 5.2.2.5.
200
N/mm'2.
200
400
600 mm
Q
champ dl" pression
\-Im
Figure 5.9 The results 0/ Carneiro Esteves (1987) on an asperity covered. twodimensional body pressed without /riction against a rigid slab.
Without the asperities the contact would be Hertzian. Friction is absent.
(a): Normal pressure. The circle represents the corresponding Hertzian
pressure; (b): Subsur/ace stresses: lines 0/ equal maximum shear stress.
From: Carneiro Esteves ( 1987 ).
201
Chapter 5: Results
Carneiro considered a realistic rough surface, with elastic interaction of the asperities.
The analysis, however, is two-dimensional. The results are summarised in Fig. 5.9. In
Fig. 5.9a (Carneiro Esteves, Fig. I1I.22, p. 119) we show the surface pressure distribution, which approximates the global Hertzian pressure. In Fig. 5.9b (Carneiro Esteves,
Fig. I1I.24b) the subsurface stresses (maximum shear stress lines) are shown; they have
been calculated along the same lines as in Appendix C. About 1000 elements were used,
which is remarkable in itself. For the solution of the linear equations wh ich must be performed in the active set algorithm of CONTACT, see Ch. 4, Carneiro used the method of
Gauss-Seidel, and he also used a vector computer. The total acceleration amounted to a
factor of 50.
5.2
QUASllDENTICAL FRICflONAL CONTACf PROBLEMS
There are two basic mathematical methods for calculating three-dimensional frictional
contact. Both are element based. One of them is founded on the simplified theory of
contact, see Ch. 3, and the other on the Boussinesq-Cerruti integral representations for
the elastic half -space, see Ch. 4. In this section we confine our attention to quasiidentical
concentrated contacts, which in practice occur in concentrated steel-on-steel contacts. The
most important application is steady state rolling.
The simpIified theory has been described in Ch. 3. It was shown there that it can only be
used as a quantitative half -space theory for steady state rolling. F ASTSIM is the fastest
algorithm for the simplified theory. FASTSIM is effectively confined to Hertzian contact
areas, because the creepage and spin coefficients C .. of the linear theory, upon which
F ASTSIM is based, are tabulated only for Hertziari! elliptic contacts, see Appendix E,
Table E3.
The Boussinesq-Cerruti theory is more general than simplified theory; it is the basis for
the routine CONT ACT. The principles of CO NT ACT have been described at length in
Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3 and its subsections. Apart from anormal contact code, see Sec. 5.1,
CONT ACT has special routines for quasiidentical tangential contact, for non -quasiiden tical contact, and for the calculation of subsurface stresses, strains, and displacements.
Sensitivities, in the sense of Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3.6, are computed. The sensitivities are contact
perturbations in the sense of Appendix D; the traction distribution is approximated by
piecewise constant functions. Whereas this gives good results for continuous traction
distributions, it is not very successful for the calculation of the sensitivities, see Appendix D, Sees. 9 and 10. CO NT ACT can calculate the surface and subsurface elastic field
and the sensitivities of the following problem c1asses:
202
5.2: Quasiidentical Frictional Contact Problems
Normal contact problems.

Steady state rolling.
Shift evolutions, in particular one-step shift problems (Cattaneo, 1938
- Mindlin, 1949).
Transient rolling.
CONTACT can handle both Hertzian and non-Hertzian contacts. It has special entry
points for quasiidentical Hertzian and non-quasiidentical "almost" Hertzian frictional
problems. CONTACT operates on a regular network of rectangles, F ASTSIM on an irregular mesh of rectangles, designed to fit the known, elliptical contact area.
In this section, G and
(1.44).
5.2.1
]I
are the combined modulus of rigidity and Poisson ratio of Ch. 1,
VALIDATION
We have the fOllowing standard problems:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.2.1.1
The Cattaneo shift (1938);

The Mindlin shift (1949);
The creepage and spin coefficients of steady state rOlling, see Appendix E,
Table E3.
The experiments of Johnson (I958) and Vermeulen and Johnson (1964) on
Hertzian steady state rolling with pure longitudinal and lateral creepage.
Brickle's experiments on Hertzian steady state rolling with combined lateral
creepage and spin (1973).
The Cattaneo shif!
Two quasiidentical spheres are pressed together, and then shifted tangentially. The theory
is also described in Kalker (l967a), Sec. 3.222. We consider only one circular case. Give
1
= b = 1; the traction bound is semi-ellipsoidal, fp Z = G {I - r 2 }2,

resultant is fF = 27rG/3. A tangential force of F = (7/8) fF is
Z
x
Z
the contact a radius a

r
= {x 2 +
ii".
Its
applied to the upper sphere, and an opposite force -F is exerted on the lower sphere. As
x
a consequence, the bodies slip over each other except in the adhesion area, which is here
the interior of a circle of radius 0.5 that is concentric with the contact circle. The
tangential traction is in the direction of the x-axis:
203
Chapter 5: Results
-y
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
OA
Px
0.2
0.2
0
-1.0
-8
-r
-.6
-.2
-.4
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Figure 5.10 The Cattaneo (1938) shi/t.

Two equal spheres are pressed together, and then are shi/ted with
respeet to eaeh other along the x-axis. (a): Radially symmetrie
p -distribution. Fullfine: solution aeeording to Cattaneo. Points:
x
CONT ACT, diseretisation 9x9 .. (b): Contaet area and area 0/
adhesion. Drawn circles: exaet solution, adhesion radius =
(eontaet radius). Broken bloek fines: adhesion and eontaet
boundaries, by CONTACT, see (a).
1-
2"2
=G{l-r}
--2G{l
2"2
when 0:<;;
r:<;;
2'1
1
=G{l-r}
when
2:1
:<;
r:<;;
=0
when r
and the shift q of the upper sphere with respect to the lower sphere is in the direction of
x
the force Fand has a magnitude of
qx = 0.75 (}- v
1)
1.0132
(v
= 0.28).
This Cattaneo solution is not altogether correct; there is a traction component orthogonal to
F which is neglected.
We ran this problem with CONTACT, discretisation 9x9. A perfect fit was obtained
between Cattaneo and CONTACT, see Fig. 5.10. Note that CONTACT does not make the
error inherent to the Cattaneo solution, and it appears from the good fit that the error is
altogether unimportant, even though the CO NT ACT traction rnakes angles of up to 100
with the direction of the total tangential force F. The areas of contact and adhesion of
CONT ACT are as good as they can be with this discretisation.
204

5.2.1.2
The Mindlin shi/t
The Mindlin shift is like the Cattaneo shift, but the magnitude of the shift is small, so
small that the adhesion area may be assumed to cover the entire interior of the contact
area. As a consequence the tangential traction goes to infinity at the edge of contact,
which indicates an area of slip there. The case is described in Kalker (I967a), Sec. 3.212.
The traction distribution has the character of a contact perturbation, and the presence of
a singularity at the edge of the contact is not surprising, see Appendix D, Sec. 9. It
appears that the two force components F ,F and the torsional couple M are linear
functions of the two shift components q ,~ , Ind the torsion . When the co~tact area is
elliptic with semi-axis a, b, then the for~e-shift relations are:
b 3G
ifa~b
Fx=-DllbGqx'
F y =-D 22 bGqy,
M =-D
D 11 = 1t'/(K - vD),
D 22 = 1t/(K - vB),
D 33 = 1t'(E - 4vg C)/{3(BD - vEC)}
33'
2
(5.9)
where K, E, B, C, D are complete elliptic integrals defined in Ch. 1, Eq. (1.57) and
1. The D 11.. depend
tabulated in Appendix E, Table EI, while g is the axial ratio (alb) <
on v and (alb) only.
TABLE 5.1 The Mindlin shift-torsion coefficients

alb
1.0
->
D 11 :
7x7
8x8
exact
D 22 :
7x7
8x8
exact
D 33 :
7x7
8x8
exact
0.1
0.3
error
error
error
2.191
2.233
2.326
-6%
-4%
1.386
1.403
1.457
-5%
-4%
1.027
1.033
1.069
-4%
-3%
2.191
2.233
2.326
-6%
-4%
1.257
1.278
1.329
-5%
-4%
0.878
0.886
0.919
-4%
-4%
2.261
2.492
2.667
-15%
- 7%
0.697
0.748
0.792
-12%
- 6%
0.434
0.453
0.478
-9%
-5%
We determine these shi/t and torsion coefficients D 00' i = 1,2,3 by means of CONTACT,
11
with a discretisation that uses the circumscribed rectangle of the contact ellipse as the
205
Chapter 5.' Results
potential contact. We divide the potential contact into 7x7 and 8x8 elements and compare
the exact values (5.9) for 11 = 0.28, and alb = 0.1, 0.3, 1.0. We use the sensitivity option
of the program CONTACT, see Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3.6, which means that we approximate the
singular traction distribution by a piecewise constant one. This leads to large errors
according to Appendix D, Sec. 10, as we can indeed see from Table 5.1.
The error in D 11 and D 22 is of the order of 5%. The torsion coefficient D 3 3 has a larger
error, viz. 0(12%) for 7x7, and 0(6%) for 8x8. We see that the values of the coefficient
are very sensitive to the discretisation.
5.2.1.3 The creepage and spin coeJJicients Jor steady state rolling
Two quasiidentical bodies are pressed together so that a Hertzian, elliptical contact area
with semi-axes a and b forms between them. Then they are rolled over each other in the
direction of the semi-axis with length a. A small tangential force (F ,F ) and a small
torsional couple Mare applied. As a consequence, creepages TI and ~ sJin rP come into
z
being. It is assumed that the bodies adhere all over the contact area, so that the no-slip
theory of Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.2 applies. According to this theory, the tangential traction is
continuous at the leading edge of contact, but at the trailing edge there is a variable
strength, inverse square root singularity in the traction.
e,
The total force (F ,F ) and the torsional couple M are linear functions of the creepages
z
and the spin, in th: fo11owing manner:
where the creepage and spin coefficients C .. are given in Appendix E, Table E3. This
table has the feature that the asymptotic v~lues of the C .. are given when the contact
ellipse becomes very slender. These asymptotic expressions !}ere calculated with the aid of
line contact theory, see Kalker (1972a). The C .. depend on (alb) and 11 only.
I}
Using the same discretisation as in the previous subsection 5.2.1.2 on the Mindlin shift,
we calculated the creepage and spin coefficients for alb = 0.4, 1.0, and 10. The sensitivity analysis option of CONTACT was used, see also Sec. 5.2.1.2. 11 = 0.28. The result
is shown in Table 5.2. It is seen that the relative error nowhere exceeds 8%, and is
usually much lower, of the order of 3%. Also, the 8x8 discretisation tends to overestimate
the creepage/spin coefficients, while the 7x7 tends to underestimate them. As it is
estimated that the 7x7 and 8x8 discretisations yield an accuracy of about I % in the total
force of the finite friction case in the range 0.2 < alb< 3, this supports the findings of
Appendix D, Sec. 10.
206
TABLE 5.2 Creepage and spin coefficients C .. for various discretisations

I}
compared with the exact value. j) = 0.28.
alb
1.0
-+
004
1.0
error
+5%
+8%
C Il :
7x7
8x8
exact
12.5
12.7
11.8
C 22 :
7x7
8x8
exact
14.l
14.2
13.1
+8%
+8%
C 23 =-C 32 :
7x7
8x8
exact
15.2
15.7
14.9
+2%
+5%
4.16
4.37
4.23
error
-2%
+3%
3.70
3.86
3.70
0%
+4%
1045
-3%
+5%
1.56
1.49
3.77
3.95
3.83
2.85
2.99
2.89
.801
.874
.839
error
-2%
+3%
-1%
+3%
-5%
+4%
5.2.1.4 The theory 0/ Vermeulen-Johnson on steady state rolling

and its generalisations
In 1964, Vermeulen and Johnson published a theory which may be considered as the basis
of a unified theory for the total force transmission in Hertzian steady state rolling in the
absence of spin creepage. It was reviewed in Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.3.1. We recall that in that
theory the contact area was taken to be elliptical, with semi-axes a and b:
2
2
Contact area:
{x I (xla) + (Ylb) ~ I, z = O}
x-axis points in the rolIing direction
while the adhesion area is also elliptic with semi-axes a", b ". The axial ratio of the
adhesion area equals that of the contact ellipse, while the adhesion area borders on the
edge of the contact area in the foremost point (a,O):
Adhesion area: {x I (x lila 11)2 + (Ylb 11)2

a"lb" = alb; x" = x - a + a",
I, z
= O)
see Fig. 5.11. In the part shown shaded in this figure the slip is nearly in the same sense
as the traction, i.e. wrongly directed, which indicates that the theory is approximate.
207
Chapter 5: Results
Figure 5.11 Quasiidentical rolling contact: areas 01 contact (circular). adhesion

(circular) and slip according to Vermeu/en and Johnson (1964).
In the shaded part 01 the slip area the slip direction is wrong; in the
remainder, the slip direction is (almost) right.
We can derive the theory by using Sec. 3.222 of Kalker (l967a), and Appendix E, Sec. 4.
Let
= Re {l - (x/a)
2 "2
- (y/b) }
1
2
2"2
K"(X,y) =Re{l - (x"/a") - (y/b")}
K(x,y)
where a and bare the semi-axes of the contact ellipse; the axis of x points in the rolling
direction. The total tangential traction (p ,p ) is the difference of a traction on the entire
contact area (complete slip traction (p I ,p'1), ~nd a traction acting over the adhesion ellipse
x v
along (p ~I,p ;1):
.
pz
= K(x,y) 100G
(px,Py) = (p~,p;) - (p;,p;I) = (K(x,y) 100 - K"(X,y)
with
208
IO'O}
IG(F x,F y)/F
I:
coefficient of friction
F , F :
F =
I (Fx ,Fy ) I
total tangential force

3
= IF {I - (a "la) }, where F is the total normal force
Z 1
a lila = {I - FI(fF )}3
100
= 3F /(21rabG)
100 = (a lila) 100 , see Kalker (l967a), Eq. (3.61).
If (u "v'), (u ", v"), (u, v) are the displacement difference in the adhesion ellipse H due to
(X',Y I), (X ",Y "), (X,Y) respectively, we have by Kalker (I 967a), Eq. (3.60)
(u,v)
+ 2(a 20 ,b 20 )(a - a ") x + (all ,bll)(a - a ") y
= Constant
in H.
The relative slip should vanish inside the adhesion area H:
s Rx = ~ - ulx = ~ - 2a 20 (a - a ") = 0
s
= 1'/ - vlx = 1'/ - 2b
(a - a ") = 0
Ry
20
Note that the constant vector
and Sec. 1.7, Eq. (1.85).
(~,I'/)
'* 2a 20 (a - a ") = ~
'* 2b20 (a - a ") = 1'/.
is the relative rigid slip of Ch. I, Sec. 1.3, Eq. (1.21),
We see that this theory leads to a rigid slip in which the spin creepage r/> is absent. By
Kalker (1967a), Eq. (3.59), we have, cf. Appendix E, Sec. 4,
0'00
a 20 = (F 20
b20
(F~bOO
(a - a")
100
1'00
- vF 40
-
) IIOO(F /F)
VF~100) IIOO(F /F)

1
= {I
- [I - FI(fF )f3} a
(Eq. (3.62); Kalker, 1967a)
= 3F /(21rabG),
see above.
By Kalker (l967a), Eq. (3.22), this leads to

1
~ =
'3
-(B - v(D - C)}{l - [l - F I(fF )] } (3/F F )/(1rabGF)

z 1
z x
2
'3
1'/ = -(B - vC(alb) } (l - [l - F I(fF )] } (3/F F )/(1rabGF)

z
z y
F </F ,
b;
209
Chapter 5: Results
1
= -{D -
II(D - C)}{I - [I - F /(fF )(S} (3fF F )/(1ra 2GF)
F <fF ,
z x
1.
2
TI = -{D - IIC} {I - [l - F /(fF )] 3} (3fF F )/(1ra GF)
b.
The complete elliptic integrals B, C, D are tabulated in Appendix E, Table El. We seale
, TI in the following manner:
'
= -
1rabG
--:stF
(B -
1ra G
=- ~
TI' = -
a~ b
(5.IOa)
-I.
= (Par. mdep. F) x
a ~ b
(5.l0b)
2 -I
.
lIC(a/b)} TI = (Par. mdep. F) x TI:
a ~b
(5.IOe)
(5.IOd)
(D - II(D - C)}
1rabG
--:stF
(B -
1ra G
=- ~
-I.
= (Par. mdep. F) x
II(D - C)}
{D - IIC}
-1
TI
= (Par.
indep. F) x TI:
b.
In terms of these parameters we have
w'
~f I (' ,TI 'H
= I - [l - F /(fF )]3
~
F <fF
F=fF
(',T/') = (w'/F)(Fx,F y )'
(5.lla)
(5.llb)
3
F = fF {l - (1 - w') }
z
=fF
w'
~ I
w' > I
(5.lle)
from whieh we clearly see that the ereepage parameter w' depends only on the relative
total tangential foree [F /(fF )], while and TI are proportional to ' and TI' with negative
z
proportionality eonstants independent of Fand F .
x
y
The linear theory reads
dFF=-
dw'
w'=O
w' = 3fF w'
=* (F x,F y) = 3fF z(' ,TI ') = -abG(C 11 , C 22 T1)

with
210
(5.12)

C 11 = ll'/{B - v(O - C)},
-1
= ll'g /(O - v(O - C)}
When a/b
= 1,
and v
= 0.25,
C22
= a/b
= ll'/{B
- vCg },
= ll'g
/{O - vC},
g=b/a~1.
-1
(5.13)
this leads to
C 11 = 4.92 (exact: 4.12, error: 19%)
C 22 = 4.27 (exact: 3.67, error: 16%)
from which we can estimate the error of Vermeulen and Johnson, viz. about 15%.
An improvement may be found by using (5.12) instead of (5.10) in (5.11):
Tl'
= (abGC 22 /(3/F )},
(5.14)
where we take C 11' C 22 from Appendix E, Table E3, rather than from (5.13). This
result will be checked with the aid of CONTACT and experiments by Vermeulen and
Johnson thernselves in Sec. 5.2.1.5.
Another generalisation runs as follows. Starting from the linear theoretic expressions
1
c = (ab)
"2
(5.15)
Shen, Hedrick and Elkins (1984) used the
(5.10) or (5.14).
e'
and Tl' so defined in (5.11) rather than
As a preliminary check on this formula we consider the case of pure spin, i.e.
Then
e' = 0,
e = TJ =
O.
i)
Except for a constant (viz.

this parameter Tl' coincides with the normalisation parameter tP of Fig. 5.16 of Sec. 5.2.2.1, in which the lines of pure spin as calculated by
CONTACT and FASTSIM are shown. Shen, Hedrick and Elkins imply that [F /(fF )]
would depend on Tl' only, and not on the axial ratio a/b. According to Fig. 5.1.1(; thi: is
not so, except where the linear theory is valid.
So, we can only hope that Shen-Hedrick-Elkins is valid for unrestricted creepage, and
small spin. To verify that hope, we observe that it is necessary and sufficient that
211
Chapter 5: Results
The results for pure creepage (i.e. no spin) are correct;
The sensitivities [8/8<p(F x,F )]<p=0 are correct, which means that they must
approximately agree with {he corresponding sensitivities of CONTACT,
which, as we know, are rather inaccurate.
a)
b)
According to the Shen-Hedrick-Elkins theory, it can be shown by some calculation that
w'
where
~ I
(5.16)
e', TI' are given by (5.15), or, for <p = 0, by (5.14) or (5.10).
The verification of the conditions a) and b) will follow in Sec. 5.2.1.5.
1.0
F
fF z
0.9
Vermeu(en- Johnson
0.8
0.7
/
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
/
X
'y
./" =t-
---/!.
(]<A.
''THEORETICAL CURVE'"
a/b=0.276
(22=2.73
f=0.10 (estimatedl
A.
a/b=0.683
(22=3.28
f=0.18 (
a/b=1.570
(22=4.44
f=0.19 (
X a/b=2.470
(22=5.53
f=0.12 (
A.
/!.
v = 0.28
I
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 01 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
w'
1.2 1.3
..
Figure 5.12 Quasiidentical rolling contact with pure creepage: the VermeulenJohnson experiments on lateral creepage.
Full: curve 0/ (5.11 ), (5.14). Broken: curve 0/ (5.10), (5.11). Points:
the experiments. 11 = 0.28, K = O.
212

5.2.l.5 The Vermeulen-Johnson theory and its generalisations : Validation
In order to validate the results of the previous subsection we first consider the experiments on pure creepage by Vermeulen and Johnson dating from 1964. They are shown in
Fig. 5.12. Also shown is the Vermeulen-Johnson line which is based on Eqs. (5.10) to
(5.12). We also draw the line based on Eqs. (5.11) and (5.14), which coincides with the
Shen-Hedrick-Elkins line based on Eqs. (5.11) and (5.15) for vanishing spin (if> = 0).
It is seen that the latter substantially improves the original Vermeulen-Johnson line, to
the extent that it can be taken as the standard for pure creepage. We note also, that the
experiments for various axial ratios lie on a single line. We compare this new standard
with the results of CONTACT in which we use the circumscribed rectangle of the elliptical contact area, with sides in the direction of the x,y-axes, as the potential contact. The
potential contact is subdivided into 7 equal rows and 7 equal columns, cf. Sec. 5.2.l.3,
which discretisation usually gives an 0(3%) error in the creepage and spin coefficients,
'7, alb. if> = 0 throughout. Figure 5.13 shows the results of
see Sec. 5.2.l.3. We vary 1/,
CONTACT and of the simplified theoretic routine FASTSIM, see Ch. 3, Sec. 3.3. All
points of CONT ACT lie on one curve which slightly overestimates (5.11). The results of
F ASTSIM coincide with (5.11).
e,
"THEORETICAL CURVE"
v=0.25
1
F
fF z
0.1
a/b=0.3
g=o
1::.
a/b=O.7
~=lJ
b/a=0.6
l)=0
b/a=0.4
g=o
FASTSIM, alt vand axial ratios

diser. SOxSO
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 01 0.8 0.9 10 1.1
w'--...._-
1.2 13
Figure 5.13 Quasiidentical rolling conlact wilh pure creepage.

Vermeulen and Johnson (1964), curve 0/ (5.11), (5.14) compared with
CONTACT and FASTSIM (points). 1/ = 0.28, K = O.
213
Chapter 5: Results
a( Fy /fFz)
olji
-f
<1>=0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
A
A
02
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
~ W'
Figure 5.14 Quasiidentieal rolling eontaet: Shen-Hedriek-Elkins eompared with

CONTACT.
The sensitivity {F I( IF )}/1/J I./~o as a lunetion 01 w' lor various
y
'1'-
values 01 (alb) and 01 (e,17). !I = 0.28, K = O. Full: CONTACT. Points:

Shen-Hedriek-Elkins. 1/J = _(Ge 3C 23 /( IF z)} cf>, cf>: spin. (a): bl a = 0.6,
17
= 0; (b):
alb
= 0.7, e= 17; (c): e= 0; +:
alb
= 0.3, x: bla = 0.4.
In order to validate Shen-Hedrick-Elkins, we used the sensitivities F Icf>, F Icf>,

calculated by CONTACT, alongside the forces of Fig. 5.13. We compared ~hem to (5.16),
calculated for cf> = 0, in Fig. 5.14. We recall that the equality of the two implies, and is
implied by, the validity of the Shen-Hedrick-Elkins extension of the (5.14)-(5.11)
modification of the Vermeulen-Johnson theory; we observe that the error in ShenHedrick-Elkins's spin sensitivities is 20% of the maximum value. Taking into account
that the sensitivities of CONT ACT are inaccurate and that the errors of simplified theory
are of the order of maximally 15%, we eonclude that Shen-Hedriek-Elkins may be used
in non- Ilanging railway theory as a substitute lor Hertzian simplilied theory.
5.2.1.6
Briekle's experiments compared with CONT ACT and F ASTSIM
In 1973, Brickle performed a number of experiments on combined lateral creepage and

spin. Seme of his results are shown in Fig. 5.15, together with the corresponding results
of CO NT ACT and FASTSIM. Surprisingly, F ASTSIM follows the results with perfeet
214
<1>=1.939
a/b=I.O'
TYJ,N
1.0
+
0.9
((=0.7)
0.6
~ +~e ~~ ~~~:ElB q9
+ 'q fl!f.tJj.fT
~~.
j~~G
U El0"'e
i
C- ~,G
...'6!- 00.2
~
- }13 \t:J"X0.5S
-0.2
r:{~
l)
2.26
-1.70
0
f;\
"'7l.
&I
.I.
I).
x!J;/},.!J;
'AI.'
/},.
,,~
tAr-
-0.'
-0.6
0.56
1.13
VO 1]'
FAST~IM
CON~ACT
-0.9
-1.0
2.2 6
A N=129
EI N=262
+N=396
Figure 5.15 Brickle's experiments on quasiidentical rolling with combined spin

and lateral creepage.
r/>' = -(21ra 2 bG/(3/F z )} r/>, '1' = -(21rabG/(3/F z )} '1, N = F z , T y = F y .

From: Brickle (1973).
accuracy, while there are some discrepancies from the CO NT ACT results. The difference
is at most 20% of the maximum value of the tangential force.
5.2.2
NEW RESULTS IN HERTZIAN FRICTIONAL ROLLING CONTACT
We will consider the steady state first, (1-4), then transient rolling (5); successively,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The total transmitted force;

The areas of adhesion and slip;
Surface loads;
Subsurface stresses;
Transient rolling contact.
215
Chapter 5,' Results

5.2.2.1
The total tangential force
The total tangential force is of great importance technologically, notably in vehicle

dynamies. Much effort has gone into the development of fast routines to calculate it.
Vermeulen-Johnson and its generalisations, and the linear theory calculate only the total
tangential force. They do not cover the entire creepage-spin parameter field, which is
the reason why FASTSIM (fast, 15% error) and DUVOROL and CONTACT (slow, small
error in principle) were developed. These latter theories have a significance transcending
the total force.
The results for pure creepage were given in Sec. 5.2.1.5, and shown in Fig. 5.13. Figure
5.16 shows the results of CONTACT for pure spin; F I(fF ) is plotted against
y
where
G
a,b
is the combined modulus of rigidity,

are the semi-axes of the contact ellipse, a in the rolling direction,
1.0
0.9
0.8
~
f~
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
1.1
..
1.25 1.43 1.67 2.0
Figure 5.16 The total lateral force in quasiidentical steady state rolling
(Hertzian) with pure spin ( = '1 = 0). as calculated by CONTACT.
11 = 0.28, K = 0, F = 0 .. various values of (alb).
x
216

1
= (abf2,
C 23
is
is
is
is
is
4>
F
z
y
the
the
the
the
the
spin coefficient, see Appendix E, Table E3,

coefficient of friction,
total compressive force, > 0,
spin, see eh. 1, Eq. (1.82),
lateral component of total force.
(5.17)
In the figure, t/J is plotted from left to right up to t/J = I; IN is plotted from right to left,
likewise until t/J = I. In such a plot, a differentiable function of t/J remains differentiable,
and the infinite interval 0 ~ t/J ~ 00 is transformed into a finite interval.
A spin 4>, which is the angular velocity about a vertical axis of body I with respect to
body 2, divided by the rolling velocity which is in the positive x-direction, gives rise to
a frictional force F on body I which is directed in the negative y-direction. This fact
was discovered in 1~58 by K.L. Johnson; it is borne out here in Fig. 5.16. The curves are
scaled so that their initial slopes coincide, (8F 18t/J) t/J=O = I; the curves go through a maximum which lies, roughly, at t/J = 1, and the~ drop down to zero as t/J --+ 00. The curves do
not coincide, as do the curves of pure creepage when scaled in the same manner.
1.0
3..
f~
0.9
FASTSIM,
0.8
FASTSIM,
0.7
FASTSIM,
0.6
"".'}
bio =1
0
discr.50.50
0
O'
alb =0.2
-CONTACT
05
O.
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1-0 1.1
..
1.25 1.43 1.67 2.0
Figure 5.17 The total tangential lorce lor pure spin (Hertzian quasiidentical
rolling). 11 = 0.28, K = 0, F = 0 .. various values 01 (alb). Compax
rison between FASTSIM (dots) and CONTACT (lulI). The fines
01 CONTACT are taken Irom Fig. 5.16.
217
Chapter 5: Results
In Fig. 5.17 we took out the curves for b/a = 0.1, I, 5, and compared them to the results
of FASTSIM. For the remainder of the comparisons of the total force by CONTACT and
FASTSIM we refer to Ch. 3, Sec. 3.7.2, in particular to Figs. 3.20 to 3.22.
5.2.2.2 The areas 0/ adhesion and slip
Figure 5.18 shows the
typical combinations of
simp1ified theory, and
circular area of contact.
areas of adhesion (A) and slip (S) in rolling contact for various
creepage and spin. The figure was obtained with the aid of the
it is confirmed by DUVOROL-CONT ACT. They are all for a
The rolling direction is from left to right.
In Fig. a, we show the case of moderate creepage (no spin). The area of adhesion is
bounded by two circular ares of the same radius. When the creepage increases, the
rolling
~
a)~
c)
eS)
0Q
d)
CD
5
Figure 5.18 Areas 0/ slip and adhesion in quasiidentical steady state rolling with
circu1ar contact area.
(a): Pure creepage (if> = 0); (b): Pure spin
= 11 = 0); (c): Lateral
creepage with spin (e = 0); (d): Longitudinal creepage with spin
(11 = 0); (e): General case; (I): Large pure spin.
218

left-hand bound moves towards the right, until no area of adhesion is left: we then have
complete sliding, and saturation of the force.
In Fig. b, we show the case of moderate pure spin. The area of adhesion is pointed, and
extends from the leading edge to a point of the trailing edge. When the spin increases,
the "pliers" elose. When they are elosed, the adhesion area becomes an island (Fig. f)
which with increasing spin moves towards the center of the contact area.
In Fig. d, we show the combination of longitudinal creepage and spin. Again, the adhesion area has the "plier" form; the pointed end moves along the trailing edge away from
the x-axis when the longitudinal creepage increases, and the pliers close when the spin
increases, while then, also, the pointed end moves along the trailing edge towards the xaxis. Shown is the case that sign (</ = - sign (</ = sign (e), the po in ted end lies above the
x-axis.
In Fig. c, we show the combination of lateral creepage and spin. The picture is similar to
Fig. a, save that the trailing edge of the adhesion area is more curved than that of Fig. a.
Again, the effect of spin is to elose the "pliers", and that of the creepage to move the
trailing edge of the adhesion area towards the leading edge.
Finally, Fig. e shows a combination of all three parameters.
5.2.2.3
Surface tractions
We show the surface tractions in Fig. 5.19. The rolling direction is from left to right.
The black dots indicate when the rigid slip vanishes (the spin pole). Five combinations of
creepage and spin are shown.
In Fig. a we recognise the case of moderate pure spin. The adhesion area has its characteristic pointed form. The arrows represent the direction of the tangential traction. It is
nearly a rotating field, but it is clear that a lateral force results. On the line x-x, which
is the path of a particle, the absolute value of the tangential traction is shown, see Fig.
a '. The form is characteristic, as in Carter's theory, see Ch. 2, Fig. 2.6, with a vertical
tangent at the adhesion-slip boundary.
Fig. b shows the combination of longitudinal creepage and spin. Again the arrows indicate the direction of the traction. Here it is clear that there will be both a longitudinal
and a lateral component of the total force.
Fig. c shows combined lateral creepage and spin; the sense of the traction becomes more
directed along the y-axis, as compared with Fig. a.
219
Chapter 5: Results
Rolling direction
..
(a)
x x
Value of the tangential traction at x-x in a) and d).
(q
Figure 5.19 Contact stresses in quasiidentical steady state rolling with circular
contact area.
(a): Pure spin, e = 1] = 0; (b): Combined longitudinal creepage and
spin, 1] = 0; (c): Combined lateral creepage and spin, e = 0;
(d): Pure longitudinal creepage, TI = <P = 0; (e): Large pure spin,
e=1]=O;(a'): I(p ,p)1 onthelinex-xoIFig.a;(d'): Ip 1
x
x
on the line x-x 01 Fig. (p = 0). The dot (.) indicates the spin
y
pole (1]I<P, -eI<P)
220

Figure
Figure
theory.
present
d shows pure longitudinal creepage, all tractions are almost parallel to the x-axis.
d I shows the traction along the line x-x; again the impression is one of Carter's
Note that, with almost the same adhesion-slip area division as in Fig. a l , the
graph is "thinner".
Finally, Fig. e shows the case of large spin, with hardly an adhesion area; the field is
now fully rotating, and the lateral force is definitely lower than in Fig. a, which also
represents pure spin.
5.2.2.4
Subsurface stresses
We turn to the subsurface stresses. They are important in strength and endurance calculations. They are computed by CONTACT according to Appendix C (Kalker, 1986b). In
this appendix, an algorithm is presented to calculate the displacements and the displacement gradients on and inside the elastic half-space {z ~ O} due to a uniform load of arbitrary direction acting on a rectangle on the surface of the half -space. The half -space is
homogeneous and isotropie, with modulus of rigidity G and Poisson's ratio 11. The displacement gradients yield the strains, and they yield the stresses.
The most important stress quantities, which determine the strength of the material, are
the first and second stress invariants, viz.
1st invariant:
(J ..
2nd invariant:
S .. S .. ,
I) I)
11
sij
with
= (Jij - 3 (Jhhoij' stress devIator.
(5.18)
To obtain an ideal stress (J/ from the second invariant, we take the square root of the
latter,
1
(J/={s .. s .. ).
(5.19)
I) I)
The von Mises yield criterion bounds the ideal stress,

with k the yield stress.
(5.20)
Figure 5.20 shows (J/ and -(J .. on the z-axis for a uniform load on a square, centered at
11
the origin, with sides unity, and loaded
221
Chapter 5: Results
_ _ Pz =1, Px =Py=O,
dX=dy=1,G=l, v=0.28
2.6
_____ px=l, Py=Pz=O, 0ii =0.
1.4
\
1.2 \
\
1.0 ,
0.8
0.6
,ar
\
Figure 5.20 Subsurface stresses in the half-space {z ~ O}.

(-u .. ) and u/ (see (5.19)) due to two loadings on a square with unit
11
sides on z = 0, centered in the origin. 11 = 0.28. Full: p /G = 1,

z
p =p =O.Brokenline:p /G=l,p =p =O;u .. =O.
11
1.
2.
By a uniform traction in the z-direction, of intensity unity;

By a purely shearing uniform traction of intensity unity, directed along
a side of the square.
Poisson's ratio 11 = 0.28, G = 1.
In case I, the purely normal load, shown by the fulllines of Fig. 5.20, the ideal stress u/
shows a maximum of 0.55 at about 004 side-Iength under the surface. This is well-known
behavior. -u .. shows a boundary maximum of 2.6, and a rapid drop to where its value
11
meets the falling -off branch of the u/ curve at z ~ 1040.
222
(e)
0.36
0.34
0.32
fr
i'I 5
1'5
.-
't-l
A
::
..tY
5
5
IN:'
~11 ..
7.1 :l1 :"1.1i ~~ :"I.tl M~~ ~jI
s:: i\::
\5
~ ~
14
lai
(cl
L.
--
Ibl
x 1rolling
(dl
(e)
oll
1.251.431.672.0 2.5 3 .33 5.0
x 3 ,depth
Figure 5.21 Hertzian quasiidentical steady state rolling under the inlluence 01 a
braking lorce.
(a): Division 0/ the contact area according to CONTACT, without
editing in the sense 0/ 5.2.2.5. N: no contact. S: slip. A: adhesion.
Central slice: numbered; (b): Division 0/ the contact area, edited,
based on a; (c): Traction distribution in the central slice, without
editing; (d): Traction distribution in the central slice, edited, based
on c; (e):
on lines parallel to the x/z) axis. The line corresponding to curve J intersects the plane {z = O} in the midpoint 0/ element
J 0/ the central slice.
a;
223
Chapter 5: Results
In case 2 (J .. = O. (JI' which is the broken line in Fig. 5.20, behaves like -(J .. in case I,
11
11
starting as it does at (JI = 1.42 on z = 0, but dropping off much more rapidly, so that it
has virtually vanished at z = 1.67 side length.
Now we turn to Fig. 5.21, which is a reproduction of Fig. I of Appendix C. This figure
shows a case of rolling with pure longitudinal creepage over a circular contact area.
G = I, 11 = 0.28, and the coefficient of friction I = 1. Figure 5.21 e shows plots of
(J; = s .. s . . on lines parallel to the z-axis through the centers of the squares marked I to
9 in ifg.'~. It is seen that qualitatively the lines under the squares I, 2, 3, 4 show shear
behavior near the surface, see Fig. 5.20. This is indeed to be expected, as I, 2, 3,4 are in
the slip area, where the shear traction equals the normal pressure (recall that I = I), and
6, 7, 8, 9 are in the area of adhesion, where the shear traction is much lower. Only
square 5, on the adhesion-slip boundary, has a transitory form. Deeper in the half-space
the ideal stress (JI is dominated by normal pressure, as the effect of the shear stress dies
out quickly. From this we conclude that the behavior of the stress is indeed qualitatively
as shown in Fig. 5.20. As we saw from Sec. 5.2.2.3 that the surface traction for spin is
similar to the surface load for creepage, Figs. 5.20 and 5.21 gi ve a valuable insight into
the subsurface behavior of the ideal stress (Jr
Figure 5.20 can be used to assess the quality of the half -space approximation. We just saw
that the stress behavior is dominated by the normal pressure far from the area of application of the traction. Looking at Fig. 5.20, drawn lines, we see that at a depth of three
sides of the square where the load applies, the ideal stress has dropped to 10% of its
maximum value, and -aii to 2.5% of its maximum value. So it seems safe to state that the
stresses have almost died out at that level. This supports the statement that the hall-space
approximation is justilied, when the diameter 01 contact is less than 1/3 01 the
diameter 01 the contacting bodies. At the depth of 5 sides of the squares, the numbers are
1% and 0.25%, respectively.
A more precise analysis of the subsurface stresses requires the use of the algorithm of
Appendix C, which has been coded in CONT ACT.
5.2.2.5
Transient rolling contact
Consider a wheel on a base. An accelerating force is applied to the wheel. Owing to

inertia, first a Cattaneo shift takes place, and then rolling starts. We simulate that case
with the aid of CO NT ACT by considering two spheres in contact; rolling takes place
while the accelerating force is kept constant. The results, together with the complete data,
are shown in Fig. 5.22. The figures in the four upper rows show the longitudinal traction
distribution; the lateral traction almost vanishes. The independent variable is the x,
rolling coordinate, measured in "units" of length. The tractions are measured in "units" of
224
stress. The four upper rows represent the traction distribution in the various lateral, y,
coordinates in the contact area. The lowest row shows the contact area division in regions
of adhesion (A) and slip (S). Each column refers to a certain distance traversed,
7 units = I contact diameter. Results are given for 0, 1,2, 3, 5, 7 units. At 7 units, the
steady state has set in.
The traction distributions of the steady state may be compared with Fig. 5.1 9d '. The
contact area division of the steady state may be compared with Fig. 5.18a, 5.19d. The
traction distributions in the intermediate stages may be compared with those of the twodimensional case of Fig. 5.23, in which the intermediate stages are shown below each
other.
In body fixed coordinates the peak of the leading edge in Stage 0 retains its position,
until it is swallowed up by the trailing edge peak which moves forward. This happens
when y = 2 at 3 unit lengths traversed, when y = I at 4 units, and when y = 0 at 4.5
units. After swallowing the leading peak, the trailing peak moves forward a bit, and the
steady state sets in very quickly. The position of the trailing peak is reflected also in the
contact area division into regions of slip and adhesion.
Remark on the figures.

We observe that the number of caIculated points in Figs. 5.22 and 5.27 is actually very
smalI, no more than 7 in each slice y = constant. There are two ways of proceeding. The
first is to simply draw a smooth curve through the points. This approach was chosen in
Fig. 5.5, which is computer made. One mayaIso be interested in the best interpretation
the investigator is able to give to the curves. In Figs. 5.22 and Fig. 5.27 we have foIIowed the latter procedure, with the foIIowing rules.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Calculated points must lie on the curves.

On the leading and the trailing edge of the contact area, and on the leading
edge of a slip area, the traction has a vertical tangent.
When in Fig. 5.27 I p I becomes zero, p and p simply change sign; I p I
T
X
Y
T
is reflected by the x-axis, as in a mirror.
In Fig. 5.27 we took the contact area to be circular. The actual deviation is
smaII, and is drowned by the error in the graphical extrapolation.
An illustration of this "editing" is given in Fig. 5.2 I.
225
Chapter 5: Results
/- 7-,
.10'
16\
,.
r-",
.10'
{h,
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
y
o uriits
1 unit
2 units
Figure 5.22 Quasiidentical transient rolling.- Irom Cattaneo to steady state.

Two identical spheres are compressed and rolled over each other.
Radius spheres: R = 337.5, GI = G2 = G = 1, vI = v 2 = v = 0.28.
F = constant = 004705 = (7/9? a = b = 3.5. 1 = 004013. Radius
z
adhesion area. nCattaneo": 0.7a = 2045. Fx = constant throughout =
= -I x F x 0.657 = -0.1240.11 = 4> = o.
z
After the Cattaneo shift. the sphere roll with constant force (F x ,O,Fz ),
without spin. with velocity V = 1. Step is Vt = 0.5. Elements: squares
with side 1. Potential contact: 9x9. center in origin.
226
x
~1
10- 3
__
y=O
6 '\
x
y=i 1
Ll&
-3 -2 -1
2 3
2 \
1 \
-2 -1
0 1 2
"
3 units
(cont inued)
m w
-3 -2 -1
1 2 ,3
2
1
-~
-1
,o
-3
-1
2 3
X
y=t3
1 2
5 units
-2 -1
1 2
steady state
In the ligures. p is shown. lor various values 01 y (upper 4 rows).

x
Full: p , dotted: traction bound Ip .
x
z
In the lowest row. we show the areas 01 slip (S) and adhesion (A).
The columns correspond to Vt = 0,1,2,3,5,7 = 00. Editing has taken
place.
227
Chapter 5,' Results
Bound of traction IJ.Z

(al
A
rolling
directio~
ad esion
,
L=:-~~=i~--~_~:__~~__________--lX
rolling directlo.n
~-
L..:=--==:....-=~xb---------l
I-------l.-c-;-------'"X
L-_ _ _ _ _- L_ _ _ _ _
~x
Figure 5.23 Quasiidentical. two-dimensional steady state rolling. Transition trom
Cattaneo to Carter.
F HfF ) = 0.75. V= 1.
228

5.2.2.6
Some remarks on corrugation
In Sec. 5.2.2.5 we supposed that the rolling contact data were kept constant during the
transition. We saw that the phenomenon reached a steady state after about one contact
width had been traversed. This means that in many cases we can approximate transient
rolling phenomena by a succession of steady states. Knothe & Gross- Thebing (I986)
claimed that this is not true for rail/wheel corrugation problems. Corrugation of rails and
wheels consists of the formation of ridges on the contacting surfaces. These ridges are
approximately periodic with aperiod of 30-70 mm, and have varying amplitudes; the
contact area has a radius of about 5 mm. We are interested in the wear behavior, we
consider two mechanisms, viz. frictional work and plastic deformation. Frictional work is
provided direct1y by CONT ACT and FASTSIM, and plastic deformation is indicated by
the ideal stress (Jl' see Sec. 5.2.2.4.
We propose to test Knothe & Gross- Thebing's hypothesis, by comparing a steady state and
a true transient analysis of the corrugation phenomenon. There seem to be two kinds of
plastic deformation, viz. surface plasticity induced by the shear forces, and subsurface
plastic deformation, triggered by the normal pressure. As the normal pressure is the same
in the steady state and in the transient analysis, it defies Knothe & Gross- Thebing's
hypothesis. Both frictional work and surface plasticity may be crucially influenced by the
difference between the true transient analysis, and the steady state approximation.
We consider a specific example in which the corrugation is weIl developed. Indeed we
consider the following problem.
1.
We model the corrugation as a sinusoidal wave on the rai!, with amplitude 0.1
mm and a wave length of 48 mm. Indeed, we prescribe the undeformed distance as
h(x,y,1)
2.
= 0.003 (x 2 + i) + 0.1 {sin [27r(x - 1)148] - I}.
The coefficient of friction = 0.3, the lateral creepage and the spin vanish, and
the longitudinal creepage = 0.002 = constant. We consider steel, with modulus
of rigidity G = 0.82e5 N Imm 2 , and Poisson's ratio v = 0.28. Summarising:
/ = 0.3
TI = rp = 0,
= 0.002
2
G = 0.82e5 Nimm,
v
= 0.28.
The analysis is performed by FASTSIM, and the results of the frictional work calculation
are shown in Fig. 5.24. Here, temporarily, we use the term "/rictional work" as an
abbreviation 0/ "/rictional work/mm distance traversed", uni!: N. In this figure, the
229
Chapter 5: Results
F.W.lDI (N)
36
STEADY STATES
000
TRANSIENCE
32
0
0
0
0
28
24
20
16
12
4
-12
-8
-4
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
x(mm)
Figure 5.24 Frictional work in rolling over a sinusoidal surface. with constant ;
0; calculated by FASTSIM.
Dots: succesion of steady states .. line: transient calculation.
h = undeformed distance, including approach = 0.003 (x 2 + / ) + 0.1
{sin [271" (x - t)/48) - I} mm. At the deepest point, there is no contact.
Maximal normal force: 1.64ge5 N. Maximal semi-axes: a = 4.984 mm,
b = 5.893 mm. Maximal tangential force: steady state: 1.737e4 N,
transient: 1.463e4 N.
,,= ,,=
dots represent the frictional work calculated from a succession of steady states. We see that
the frictional work is roughly sinusoidal, and follows the undeformed distance closely.
The full line represents the transient analysis. We see that the maximum of the frictional
work is lower in the transient case than in the succession of steady states. We also observe
asymmetry, which seems to indicate that the ridges wander a little in the direction of
rolling. This Iatter effect is not pronounced. All in all, it would seem that the effect of
230
5.3: Non-Quasiidentical Frictional Contact Problems
Knothe & Gross- Thebing is not very important, because there is not much difference
between the transient calculations and the multiple steady state ones, and that the effect
of the frictional work is that the ridges are ground down.
We have not performed the plastic analysis.
5.3
NON-QUASIIDENTICAL FRICTIONAL CONTACT PROBLEMS
Non-quasiidentical frictional contact problems occur in technology wherever a soft body

is pressed against a stiff one, and friction is present.
In Sec. 5.3.1 we consider the validation with the aid of Spence's partly analytical, partly
numerical results (1975) on the frictional compression of non-quasiidentical spheres. In
Sec. 5.3.2 we consider some new results, viz. unloading the Spence compression, and the
transition of the Spence compression to steady state rolling with vanishing creepage and
spin.
Originally we computed the results with the Panagiotopoulos process of alternatingly
calculating the normal problem by NORM and the tangential problem by TANG until
convergence occurs, if it does, rather than with the alternative process KOMBI. When the
product of the difference parameter K (see Ch. I, Eq. (1.44 and the coefficient of
friction f is smalI, the Panagiotopoulos process needs only a few iterations. As the
Panagiotopoulos process works on fewer variables than the KOMBI process, it is faster
than KOMBI. But when the product fK increases, the Panagiotopoulos process may use
many more iterations than KOMBI, and may sometimes diverge. So then KOMBI wins
out; we have found that it performs evenly, efficiently, and reliably, and this is why we
prefer it. All results in the present section have been calculated by KOMBI.
5.3.1
VALIDATION
In 1975 Spence published a paper in which he treated the following problem.

Consider an elastic sphere with Poisson's ratio v. It is pressed on a rigid half -space
in the presence of dry friction, with coefficient f. There is rotational symmetry;
the contact area C and the adhesion area H are circular, and the ratio of the contact
radius and the adhesion radius is a constant depending only on fand v.
Let R be the radius of contact; if the normal and radial tractions are p = p (r) and
n
n
p = p (r), with r the radial coordinate, and the radius of contact increases from R to R "
r
r
the normal and radial tractions become
231
Chapter 5: Results
p I(r)
n
= (R 'IR)
p (rRIR I),
n
p I(r)
r
(R 'IR) p (rRIR I).

r
We performed a simulation of the frictional compression. We took a sphere of radius 121.5

units of length, G = 1 unit of stress, 11 = 0, f = 0.2986; F = (kI9)3 units of force,
z
k = 1 (1) 7, and compressed it in 7 stages, as shown in the expression for F . The
z
elements in the surface were squares with sides of 1 unit of length, making up a square
potential contact with sides of 7 units. It was found that there was radial symmetry in
spite of the rectangular discretisation mesh. The results are shown in Fig. 5.25. In (a) is
shown the normal traction in all 7 stages; also shown is the Hertz distribution in the 7th,
final, stage. In (b) is shown the radial traction together with the values taken from
Spence's work. The agreement is very good. Note the large deviation of the Hertz distribution from the real traction. In this connection it should be recalled that the difference
parameter K has its maximal value, viz. 0.5, so that the non-quasiidentical effect is large.
We conclude that the KOMBI routine works very weIl.
Benchmark: SPENCE
TRACTION ON THE ELASTIC BODY:
RADIALLY OUTWARD
RIGID ON ELASTIC BODY, "\1=0
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION = 0.2986
HERTZIAN PRESSURE = 0
CORRESPONDING TO THE OUTERMOST
GRAPH
0.006
---
TRACTION SOUND
-lpJ
* 'SPENCE
-x
Figure 5.25 Spence compression in 7 stages.

(a): The normal traction: full. Hertzian normal pressure at the 7th.
last. stage: dots; (b): The radial. tangential traction. fu!!. according
10 CONTACT. x: Spence's work. Broken fine: traction bound.
Data: Sphere compressed on rigid slab. Radius sphere: 121.5,
G l = 0.5, G2 = 00, G = 1,11 1 = 0,11 2 = immaterial, 11 = 0; K = 0.5;
f = 0.2986; F = (kI9)3, k = 1,7; a = b (Hertzian) = k12.
z
232
b
0.6
0.\
.10- 2
0.2
GN/mm2
01
"
".,
"
"
,
,
A:S: 's':
l 00
k=7
I
k=~J)-J
,
,,
Figure 5.26 Unloading the Spence compression.

Data as in Fig. 5.25. k = 7 (-0.5) 4.5. (a) Areas 01 adhesion (A,A ')
and slip (S,S'), Arrows: Slip. (b) The radial, tangential traction on
the sphere (Iull),' broken line: traction bound.
5.3.2
NEW RESULTS
We consider unloading the Spence problem, and the transition from the Spence compression to steady state rolling,
5.3.2.1
Unloading the Spence compression
We continued the process of Sec. 5.4.1 by unloading: F = (k/9)3 x 2, k = 7 (-0.5) 4.5.

z
The results are shown in Fig. 5.26. Note the formation of the outer annulus on the elastic
sphere S '. This has a radially in ward traction which gives rise to outward slip of the
sphere over the half -space. Closer to the centre there lies an annulus of adhesion A " in
which the radial, tangential traction changes sign. Then follows an area of slip S with
inwardly directed velocity, and finally we have an area of adhesion A in the form of a
circular disko For values of the loading parameter below 4.5, too few points are present
in the contact area to permit a sensible conclusion.
233
Chapter 5.' Results
.10-3
y=-2
@ T~SA ~_SA
SA
4 3
/ I \
2 3 4X
1 UNIT TRAVERSEn
2 UNITS TRAVERSED
S \
3 UNITS TRAVERSED
Figure 5.27 Spence compression lollowed by instationary rolling with constant

normallorce.
Creepage. spin.' zero throughout. Coellicient ollriction
(I ST AT = f KIN) 0.4013. S phere witt r~dius 243 units on a rigid k
Ilat substrate. G = 2, /l = 0, F z = (9) * 2, k = 0, ... ,7. A = B = 2"
The compression takes place in 7 steps.
Rolling is from lelt to right. Shown is the tangential traction lor
y = 0, -1, -2, - 3, together with the traction bound (broken line).
Arrows,' direction 01 traction. Bottom row,' contact area with areas
01 slip and adhesion. 0.' zero 01 traction.
234
@
SA
S
4 UNITS TRAVERSEO
(o~nact
S
S
S
A
A
S
5 UNITS TRAVERSEO
SSAeSAe
A S A SSAA
@
S
J UNITS TRAVERSEO
10 UNITS TRAVERSEO
STEAOY STATE; 13 UNITS
5.3.2.2 Transition Irom the Spence compression to steady state rolling
We start again from the Spence compression, viz. a sphere with radius 243, modulus of
rigidity G = 2, and Poisson's ratio 11 = 0 pressed into a flat, rigid slab. The friction coefficient is I = 0.4013. The final radius of contact is 3.5 units. Then rolling starts in the xdirection, with creepage and spin kept zero. The surface is discretised into squares with
side 1; the potential contaet is a square with sides 7. The distanee traversed v(t - t ') is
discretised into steps of 0.2 units. The resuIts are shown in Fig. 5.27. This figure is similar
to Fig. 5.22. In the basie figures the absolute value of the tangential traetion I plis
T
shown drawn, together with the traetion bound Ip (broken line), as funetion of the rolln
ing, x, coordinate, with the lateral, y, eoordinateasaparameter. We show y = 0,-1,-2,-3
in the four upper rows. The tangential traction distribution is mirror symmetrie about the
x-axis. Under the x-axis are displayed arrows whieh represent the direetion of the
235
Chapter 5: Results
traction, for the values of x and y shown. The lowest row shows the contact area, which is
taken circular, and its division into regions of slip (S) and adhesion (A). The columns
depict the situation when the distance traversed Vt = 0,1,2,3,4,5,7,10,13. At the final
position, which represents almost 2 contact diameters traversed, the steady state has been
virtually attained, as is seen from the figure. Figure 5.27 has been made according to the
rules laid down in Sec. 5.2.2.5.
In contrast to those in Fig. 5.22 the phenomena in Fig. 5.27 move very much in a continuous manner. The only discrete event is the jump to the right of the zero of I
T
which takes place between Vt = 2 and Vt = 4. This can be followed in the row y = 0, and
is clearly shown in row 5, where the zero is indicated in the adhesion area. Prominent
the decrease of the adhesion area, and the fact that the
features are the increase of I
T
tangential traction is more and more directed towards the negative x-axis, as shown by
the arrows.
pi,
pi,
The results should be viewed with some scepticism, as we have only very few sampling
points in the contact area.
236
CHAPTER6
CONCLUSION
In the present work we have given an account of the three-dimensional frictional rolling
contact problem in the theory of elasticity. Four theories stand out: the linear theory
which is at the root of many analyses, the theory of Shen-Hedrick-Elkins, important for
rail vehicle dynamics, the simplified theory with the FASTSIM algorithm, and the variational theory based on virtual work, on wh ich are built the DUVOROL and CONT ACT
programs.
At present, the linear theory is confined to elliptic contact areas. Attempts have been
made to implement the linear theory for non-elliptic contact regions, but they lead to
slow programs which are not sufficiently accurate. The same holds for contact perturbations and sensitivities; an analysis of the cause of the inaccuracies is found in Appendix
D, Secs. 9 and 10. More research is needed on that subject.
The flexibility parameter L of the simplified theory depends on the results of the linear
theory. This underscores once more the importance of the linear theory.
The curse of the very reliable and versatile DUVOROL-CONT ACT programs is their
slow operation. To give an example, on an IBM type AT PC current in 1988 the calculation of steady state rolling, using 40 elements in the non-quasiidentical case took about
one hour. Thus the calculation of Fig. 5.27, with its 70 contact problems, took 75 hours
of calculating time. Additional numerical experimentation raised that to 150-200 hours.
At the heart of the DUVOROL-CONT ACT codes is the single Newton step, which
consists of setting up linear equations and solving them. Up to now, Gauss elimination has
been used for the latter, but faster methods may be feasible. Also, vectorisation of the
program may accelerate it further. Finally, the memory space may be drastically reduced
by these methods. All this has been put into practice by Carneiro Esteves (1987) for the
normal contact problem. More research is needed in that direction. This will provide us
with a fast, high capacity contact programming system.
237
Chapter 6: Conclusion
We finally mention that the CONTACT algorithms NORM, TANG and KOMBI may be
extended to other geometries than 3D elastic half -spaces. Wang and Knothe (1988) used
them successfully in the rolling contact problem of the viscoelastic 2D half -space, and
(1989) in the dynamic rolling contact problem of the 2D elastic half -space. Kalker
(1988b) used them for the 2D rolling contact of f1at elastic layers, with complete success,
and introduction into the 2D rolling contact of f1at viscoelastic multilayers (Kalker,
1989) is in progress. The method has also been used by Leroy (1989) for the thermoelastic
contact of f1at elastic layers, with complete success, and by Dubourg (1989) for the
analysis of frictional self -contact of cracks in a 2D elastic half -space. Initially Dubourg
used Panagiotopoulos's process of alternatingly calculating the normal problem by NORM
and the tangential problem by TANG, until convergence occurs, if it does. But sometimes
this process diverges. Later she used KOMBI, which up to now has proved to be completely reliable. I had similar experiences with the Panagiotopoulos process and KOMBI,
see Ch. 5, Sec. 5.3. All these problems are solved by computing the influence functions
analytically or for the most part analytically, and using NORM, TANG or KOMBI subsequently. The latter routines have proved to be very efficient and reliable. We are convinced that they would be equally effective when the influence functions were calculated with Finite Element techniques, but that has not been done yet.
238
APPENDIXA
Consider a deformable body. Hs particles are labeled by their Cartesian coordinates x.,
I
i = 1,2,3 in an undeformed state. The body undergoes adeformation, as a consequence of
which the particle x. comes to be at x. + u .. u. is called the displacement of the particle.
I
I
I
I
Let ds be the distance between two neighboring points x. and x. + dx ..
I
ds
= dx.dx.
I
(summation over repeated indices

over their range, here 1,2,3).
(Al)
ds deforms to ds:
-2
ds
:; (dx. + du.)(dx. + du.) = (5 .. + u ..)(5k + u. k) dx .dxk

1
1
I
I
I)
I,)
1
I,
)
where . ~f -aa and 5 .. = Kronecker delta = 0 if i

,) x.
I)
'* j,
(A2)
1 if i = j
or
-2
ds
=(5. k +u k +u k .+u .. u.k)dx.dx k .

)
I,
,)
I,) I,
)
(A3)
We assume that the state of the purely elastic body is determined solely by
-2
ds
- ds
(u. k + uk . + u .. u. k) dx .dx k
),
,)
I,) I,
)
(A4)
The quantities
t k
)
="2I (u.), k + uk ,). + uI,)

.. u. k)
I,
(A5)
239
Appendix A: The Basic Equations 0/ the Linear Theory 0/ Elasticity
are called the Lagrangean strains; in many cases the quadratic term may be neglected,
which yields the linearised strain, or strain for short. We denote it as
e) k
"2 (u ),. k
(A6)
+ uk ,).).
Note that the strain is symmetrie in its indices. This implies that there are 6 strains in
each point, as opposed to 9 displacement gradients u. ..
I,)
Thermodynamics requires that there exists a function of position called the elastic energy
which describes the behavior of the physical body. In elasticity this means that the elastic
energy is a function of the position and the strains alone. We expand the elastic energy U
about zero strain, and we find
U
= U o + s I)..(x)
1
e ..(x) + -2 E. hk(x) e ..(x) ehk(x) + O(
I)
I)
I)
3
1e1
).
I)
(A?)
The derivatives of the elastic energy U with respect to the strains e . . are called the
stresses; it was because of the stresses that we introduced the elastic en~/gy. The stresses
are denoted by (J ; we have
I)
(J
I)
a
-aEij
U(e hk) = s ..(x) + E. hk(x) e hk(x) + ....

I)
I)
The s .. are the so-called pre-stresses, that is, the stresses that exist when the strain
vanish~s identically. The residual stresses of plasticity can be described with their aid. We
will omit them here as well as the higher order terms, so that we will say that a strainless
state is also a stressless state:
(A8)
These are the so-called constitutive relations of the body (generalised Hooke's Law).
We may regard the indices ij of the strain as a single index. Then, since the elastic
energy is a quadratic form in the strains with (E(i ")(hk as (symmetrie) Hessian matrix,
we have for the elastic modul i E ijhk:
)
E ijhk
(A9)
= E hkij.
Further , since e . . = e .. , we can set

I)
)1
(AIO)
240
This leads to a maximum of 21 independent constants (i,j,h,k = 1,2,3). For a homogeneous body, the elastic moduli are independent of the position X., and, indeed, are
I
eonstants. For an isotropie body, the 21 eonstants reduee to 2, the Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio, or any two independent combinations of those two. We have
eij
I +v
---y- 0ij - E kkoi}'
I
v
eIl = EOII - E (22 + 33)'
(All)
e 31
I +v
---y- 31 ;
E
vE
ij = I+;; eij + (1 + v)(l - 2v) ekko i}"

v: Poisson's ratio.
E: Young's modulus;
This is Hooke's Law for isotropie bodies.

We derive the equations 0/ equilibrium. To that end we apply Hamilton's Principle,
whieh is abasie variational principle in mechanies. We eonsider an elastie body under the
boundary eonditions that the elastic displaeement is preseribed as .(x,t) on apart of the
I
surface
of the body A u(t), which may depend on time, and the surface load is preseribed
_
as p .(x,t) on the remainder A (t) of the boundary. Other boundary eonditions, notably of
eont~et, are likewise possible! see eh. 1. A body force f I.(x) aets inside the body V. The
body undergoes velocities .(x,t) (' = d/dt). Hamilton's prineiple reads
f: (U -
oL =
T) dt = 0
U: potential energy,
(AI2)
T: kinetie energy.
We have that
241
Appendix A: The Basic Equations 0/ the Linear Theory 0/ Elasticity
f 1 A
= V
U= f V
(1
dV,
Eijhkeije hk - /i U)
fA
dV -
= dx l dx 2dx 3 ,
dV
= density,
(AI3)
p
PiU i dS,
dS: element of surface.
The time integration takes place from t = 0 to t = tf At both end-points of the time integration all variations are assumed to vanish. We integrate the kinetic energy partially
with respect to time and we find
0= oL
f / {f
-f
t
= o dt
V
A
(E "hk e .. oe hk - /.ou. + . ou.) dV

lJ
lJ
(AI4)
all Ou ..
p.ou. dS},
I
We may now omit the integration over t, as no time derivatives occur in the variations,
f
-f
0= oL' =
(E"hkehk oe .. - /.ou. + .ou.) dV
lJ
lJ
all Ou ..
p.ou. dS,
I
We may replace oe . . by Ou . ., by the symmetry of the form in which it occurs; and we

may integrate the lierm
oUh,k partially. n; is the outer normal on the body, and
wlt&
Eijhkehk
0=
aij' So
(-a .. . - /. + pu.) Ou. dV +

lJ,J
+
u. is prescribed on A , hence ou.
I
calculus of variations
a .. . + /. - p.
lJ,J
p.=a .. n.
I
lJ
= 0:
f
f
A
A
(a .. n. - p.) Ou. dS
lJ
(AI5)
a .. n .Ou. dS.
U
lJ J
= 0 on AU, and we find, by applying the rules of the
equations of equilibrium
definition of the surface load.
(AI6)
We see from the second equation (A 16) that we can express the surface load in terms of
the stress a ..(x), which emerges as the force per unit area in the i-direction acting on the
part of the fi'ody in the half -space {y.1 y . ~ x., i = 1,2,3; j fixed}.
I
242
We express the equations of equilibrium in terms of displacement quantities with the aid
of Hooke's Law for isotropie bodies (A 11). In fact, we substitute (A I I) expressing 17 . in
I}
(jij ,j in terms of ehk' and use the definition (A6) of ehk' A simple eaIculation yields
E
2(1 +
1/)
{u.
I } +/.-pu.=O.
..
"+-I--2-u ...
I,}}
1/
} ,) I
(A I 7)
The eonstant
G=
E
2(1 +
(AI8)
1/)
whieh figures prominently in (AI7) is eaIIed the rnodulus 0/ rigidity. (AI7) loses its
validity when 1/ =
Note that the volurne strain, that is, the relative inerease of the
volume, and whieh has the value e .. = I -E2 1/ 17 .. , is always zero in that ease; this means
11
11
that the volume is ineompressible.
i-.
243
APPENDIXB
BI.
INTRODUCTION
A very important problem is the branch of mathematics called mathematical programming is the following:
min <!>(x.)
x.
I
I
sub g lXi) = 0,
and g/x i ) ~ 0,
j = I, ... ,m;
= m+ 1, ... ,m ' ;
(BI)
i
= l, ... ,n
where
the x. are the independent variables, (x.) is a vector (point) with components x.; rf;,
I
I
I
-+ ]R, and sub is
a~ abbreviation of "subject to".
I
g. are twice continuously differentiable functions of the x.: ]Rn
We collect indices i and j in sets which are called index sets. The indices of an index set
have specific properties, e.g.
1 ,\1
m = (m+l, ... ,m')
(B2)
with
A \B = A n (complement of B).
We call
Z=((x.)lg.(x.)=O,iE1
1)1
;g.(x.)~O,iE1
mJI
,\1}
mm
(B3)
the feasible set; a point belonging to it is called jeasible.
245
Appendix B: Some Notions
0/ Mathematical
Programming
An inequality constraint g. is called active in (x.) if g .(x.) = 0; it is called inactive in

(x.) if g .(x.) > O. The
of indices of the acti~e con!trafnts in (x.) E Z is called the
I
aciive sed it l is denoted by A(x .), and it is defined by
sei
(B4)
A(x.) = (j 1g .(x.) = 0, j = m+ I , ... ,m '}.

I
J I
The index set N(x.) is defined by

I
(B5)
B2.
THE KUHN- TUCKER THEOREM: NECESSARY CONDITIONS

FOR A MINIMUM
We consider a point (y.) E Z, and it is given that 4J takes on a minimum at (y.); we say
I
I
that (y.) is a minimiser of 4J. A minimiser may be global or local, depending on the
I
corresponding minimum being global or local. We seek properties characterising a local
minimiser (y.).
I
To that end we decompose the inequality constraints into active and inactive ones at the
minimiser:
g .(y.) = 0
J I
g .(y.) > 0
I
I , ... ,m ' .
J.1_
- m+
if j
if j
E A(y.),
I
E N(y.),
I
active constraints
inactive constraints
(B6)
Since the functions g. are continuous, there is an -neighborhood U of (y.),

U = {(x.) 11x. - y1 / }, in which all inactive constraints remain inactive. When ~e
I
I
I
confine ourselves to the neighborhood U, as we do at present, we may omit the inactive
constraints N(y.), because they are always satisfied. On the other hand, active inequality
I
constraints may become inactive in the neighborhood U, so that they must be retained as
weak inequalities. Equality constraints must also be retained, because they are always in
operation.
We renumber the active constraints so that the equality constraints are still the first m,
and the active inequality constraints are numbered m+ I , ... ,k:
246
A ~f {m+ I ,... ,k}
inequality constraints active in (y.)
Im = {l, ... ,m}
represent the equality constraints.
(B7)
B2: The Kuhn-Tucker Theorem: Necessary Conditions jor a Minimum
We consider the matrix

(g .) ~f (Jg .(y .)1 Jy .)
-
J,f.
jE Im U A
f.
= {l, ... ,k}.
(B8)
The rows of this matrix are the gradients of the constraint functions gl , ... ,g k' We suppose
them to be linearly independent: this is called the constraint qualijication. The constraint qualification is assumed to hold throughout this appendix. Then, by renumbering
the columns and the independent variables if necessary, the matrix with elements
g . ~f Jg .(y .)/Jy.
Jf.
j = l, ... ,k
f.
= jl
(B9)
= k+l , ... ,n
can be made to have independent rows. The matrix (B9) is constructed from the matrix
(B8) by adding the (n-k) unit rows (0 'e)' l = l, ... ,m, j = k+l, ... ,n. It is square and
regular; its inverse is denoted by
We define new coordinates Zj by
(g;}J
= (x. - Y.) g . = g .(x.)
+ O( 1x. - y1 ),
j = l, ... ,k
=x'-Yl
j=k+l, ... ,n
summa1ion over repeated indices over the range under consideration.
Z .
)
f.
f.
Jf.
(BIO)
Note that g .(y.) = O. We expand 4> about (y.) in the neighborhood Z n U, in which
Z . = g .(x.) ~ O~ j EI; z. = g .(x.) > 0, j E A~ z. is unrestricted, j = k+ 1 , ... ,n. Note that
r/!{Y.)
r/!(x .), since (;) it a m1ni:ni~er, and (x.) JIies in U and is feasibie. The following
I
I
I
I
inequality holds:
(B 11)
with
-1
v) . = r/! , g l") ).
The v . are called Lagrange multipliers.

)
o Let j = (l, ... ,m); let
zl = 0, l j.
Then z. = g .(x.) = 0, as g . is an equality constraint function, and v. is
J
) I
J
J
unrestncted.
Let jE A; let z. = 0, l j. Then z. = g .(x.) ~ 0 as g. is an inequality
f.
J
J I
J
constraint function. To ensuTe that ~(x.) - r/!(y.) ~ 0, we must have v . ~ O.
247
Appendix B: Some Notions 01 Mathematical Programming
o Let
j E {k+l , ... ,n}; let zl = 0, l*" j. Then z. is unrestricted, from which
it follows since 0
We conclude
r/>(x.) - r/>(y.) that v . =

I
I
J
cf
from which it follows that
with v. unrestricted
J
vj ~ 0
v. = 0
j = l, ... ,m:
equalities
(BI2)
j = m+l, ... ,k: active inequalities

j
= k+l, ... ,n:
the remainder.
Without loss of generality we can omit the terms with j = m+ I , ... ,n, which correspond to
the artificial constraint functions (x. - y.). We reintroduce the original numbering of the
variables and constraints, and note Jthat <Ve can add the inactive constraints to (BI2) with
Lagrange multiplier v. = O. Then we have:
J
r/> l =
vgl
J J
with v. unrestricted
J
vj ~ 0
v. = 0
j = l, ... ,m:
jEA(Yi):
jE N(y i ):
equalities
active inequalities in (y.)
I
inactive inequalities in (y,).
(BI3)
We define the Lagrange function as follows:

L(x " v .) = r/>(x.) - v .g .(x ,)
I J
I
J J I
j = I, ... ,n.
In terms of the Lagrange function we can state the following
Theorem (K uhn - Tucker, 1951).

Let (y.) be a local minimiser of r/>(x .). Consider the matrix (g . l) whose elements are the
gradie~ts of the constraint functions~ We regard only the madix of the gradients of the
active constraints, and stipu!ate that this matrix has linearly independent rows. Then
there exist Lagrange multipliers v ., j = I , ... ,m I, such that
J
248
83: An Algorithm for the Unconstrained Case

g .(y.) =
}
0;
g.(y.)~O;
}
v.
unrestricted;
v.~O;
}
j = I, ... ,m;
g.(y.)v.=O;
}
equality constraints
j=m+I, ... ,m';
(a)
inequalityconstraints(b) (BI4)
and which satisfy

8L(y., v .)/8y 0
I}
<.
- v.g . .(y.)
= </! ,<..(y.)I
},<.
(c)
= O.
A point satisfying (BI4) is called a Kuhn-Tucker point, usually abbreviated to KT point.
B3.
AN ALGORITHM FOR THE UNCONSTRAINED CASE
In an unconstrained minimisation problem, that is a minimisation problem in wh ich there

are no constraints:
min </!(x.)
x.
(BIS)
the Kuhn- Tucker Theorem reduces to

</! 1x.)
,l'
= O.
(B16)
We expand this gradient about the point (x I):

I
o=
</! .(x.)
,<.
</! l(x .') + (x. - x!) </! l .(x .') + O( I x . - x!
,}
}}
I 2 ).
(B 17)
We assurne that the Hessian matrix (</! l') is regular, and we solve x. from this equation,
.
, J
}
where we neglect the hlgher order terms.
Then we obtain the following algorithm: (Newton-Raphson):
Choose an initial x!; choose a small number c;
}
(a)
Set x.
}
x! - </! l(x .')(</!

}
.(x .')( I
I,<.}
if 11 x. - x.' 11 > c goto (a)

I
I
else exit
(repeat the process)

(we are ready).
(BI8)
249
Appendix B: Some Notions
B4.
0/ Mathematical
Programming
CONVEX SETS AND FUNCTIONS
A region (set) Z is called convex if

(x.) E Z, (y.) E Z => ().x. + (l - ).) y.) E Z
I
if 0 < ). < I.
(BI9)
The intersection of two convex sets is convex.

A function
~,
defined on a convex region (set) Z, is called convex if
(x.) E Z, (y.) E Z =>

I
for 0
).
~().x.
I
1.
+ (l - ).) y.)
I
~ ).~(x.)
I
+ (I - ).)
~(y.)
I
(B20)
It is called strictly convex, if

(x.) E Z, (y.) E Z, (x.) '" (y.) =>
I
for 0 < ). < 1.
~().x.
I
+ (l - ).) y.) <

I
).~(x.)
I
+ (l - ).)
~(y.)
I
(B2l)
A function ~ is called concave (strictly concave) if -~ is convex (strictly convex).

The product of a nonnegative scalar and a convex function is convex.
The product of a positive scalar and a strictly convex function is strictly convex.
The finite sum of convex functions is convex. If such a finite sum contains a strictly
convex term, the sum is strictly convex.
The set Z = (x.) I ~(x.) ~ K, ~(x.) concave} is convex.
I
I
I
The set Z = (xi) I gexe + go = 0, ge,go: constant} is convex.
A convex program is defined as
min
X.
I
~(x .):
~(x.),
a convex function,
sub g ) .(x.)
~f
g 'exe + g ) '0 = 0,
I
--)
linear equality constraints, j = l, ... ,m
gixi)~O
concave inequality constraints, j = m+ I ,... ,m '.
Note that the feasible region is convex.

We prove the following
Theorem.
~
is a once continuously differentiable function. Then it is convex iff (= if and only if)
~(y.) ~ ~(x.)
I
+ (Yg - x.)
<.
~ .(x .).
,<.
It is strictly convex iff (B22) holds with a sharp inequality ( when (xi) '" (Yi)'
250
(B22)
B4: Convex Sets and Functions

Proof
The function </! is eonvex iff
</!()..y. + (1 - )..) x.)
I
)..</>(y.) + (1 - )..) </>(x .),

I
or, in other terms, iff

</>(x. + )..(y. - x. - </>(x.) ~ )..(</>(y.) - </>(x
I
..
Divide by ).., and let).. ! 0; then

</>(y.) ~ </>(x.) + (Yl - xl) r/> l(x .).
I
Vice versa, if r/>(y.)

I
~ r/>(x.) + (Yl - xl) r/> (x .),
,l'
then
r/>()..x. + (l - )..) y.) + )..(Y l - xl) r/> l()..x. + (l - )..) y.) < r/>(y.)
I
and
r/>()..x. + (l - >') y.) + (l - )..)(xl - Yl) r/> l()..x. + (l - )..) y.) ~ r/>(x.).
I
I
,
I
I
I
MuItiply the first line with (l - )..) and the seeond by ).., and add:
r/>(h. + (l - )..) y.)
I
Strietly eonvex: replaee
(l - )..) r/>(y.) + )..r/>(x.).

I
by <,
by >, and set (x.) '" (y.).

I
QED
Theorem.
</> is a twiee eontinuously differentiable funetion. Then r/> is eonvex iff the
. is positive semi-definite.
Hessian matrix (</!
A matrix (V . .) is c'alle~ positive semi -definite if it is symmetrie and
x.v ..x . ~ 0 Vor aB (x .). It is eaBed positive definite if this is a sharp inequality
1 I) )
I
(> instead of ~), when (xi) '" (0).
ix
(B23)
Proof.
1
</!(y.) = r/>(x.) + (Yl- x.) </! l(x.) + -2 (Y. - x.)(y. - x.) r/> ix. + O(y. - x.
I
"
",,))
,)"
for some 0 between 0 and I.
251
Appendix B: Same Nations 01 Mathematical Programming
If (c/J
'f)
is positive semi-definite then (B22) holds and c/J is convex.
Viee '~ersa, if (B22) holds
1
-2 (Y. - x.)(y. - x.) c/J 'f.,(x. + l1(y. - x.))
'-
'-)
Let (Ye - xi
folIo ws that
= V e, with
,)
I vel
= 1; then
O.
VeVjc/J,ji\ + (}(Yi - xi)) ~ O. Letting
~ 0 it
V.V.c/J ..ex.) ~ 0
'-)
,)'-
Hence (c/J ..ex.)) is positive semi-definite.

,)'-
QED
Examples.
A linear function is concave and convex;

convex function.
]R.
is a convex set;
is a convex set;
I x1I
is a

Theorem.
A local minimum of a convex program is global.
(B24)
Prool.
Let (y.) E Z be a local minimiser, and let the corresponding minimum be c/J(y.) = M.
I
I
Suppose there is an (x.) E Z with c/J(x.) < M. Consider the line between (x.) and (y.); take
I
I
I
I
a point (z.) on it sufficiently elose to (y.) so that c/J(z.) ~ M; indeed, let z. = >.x.+ (I - >') y.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
for >. smaII enough, between 0 and 1. Then M ~ c/J(z.) ~ >'c/J(x.) + (I - >') c/J(y.) < M,
I
I
I
which constitutes a contradiction.
QED
We prove the foIIowing
Theorem.
The minimum of a strictly convex program is unique.
(B25)
Proo!.
Let (x.) E Z be aglobai minimiser of c/J; let M be its value. Let (y.) E Z be any minimiser
I
I
of c/J (value: likewise M). If (y.) differs from (x .), any point on the line between them,
I
I
which is also in Z, has a lower functional value then (x.) and (y.). This contradicts that
I
I
(x.) and (y.) are global minimisers; hence (x.) = (y.) and thus the global minimiser is
I
I
I
I
unique.
QED
252
B4:
Convex Sets and Functions

Theorem.
Consider the convex program

min </l(x.)
x.
sub g . ~f g . x. + g.O
J -
J<.
and g .(x.)
J
<.
= 0,
0,
j = l, ... ,m,
</l
g j concave,
j = m+l , ... ,m I.
(B26)
convex
Then aglobaI minimiser is a Kuhn-Tucker point, and vice versa.
Proo/.
AglobaI minimiser is indeed a Kuhn- Tucker point.
Let (x.) be a Kuhn- Tucker point, with Lagrange multipliers v .. The Lagrangean is
J
L(x., v.) = </l(x.) - V.g .(x.)

I J
.
I
J J I
where v.
J
unrestncted, when J
IS
g .(x.) v. =
J I J
and vJ' ~ 0,
= l, ... ,m,
for j = m+l, ... ,m I.
Clearly, for fixed Lagrange multipliers v., L(x.,v.) is convex. Also, at the Kuhn-Tucker
point, </l(x.) = L(x., v.), and at any feasibte' pointl
we have that </l(y.) ~ L(y .,v .). So,
I
d.)
IJ
IJ
</l(x.) = L(x.,v.) ~ L(y.,v.) + (x. - Y.) L .(x.,v.) = L(y.,v.) ~ </l(y.)

I
I J
I J
<.
<.
,<.
I J
I J
I
lI(y.) E Z,
or,
</l(x.) ~ </l(y.)
or,
(x.) is aglobaI minimiser of (B26).
QED
253
APPENDIXC
NUMERICAL CALCULATlON OF THE ELASTlC FlELD IN A
HALF-SPACEt
1. J. KALKER
Deparrme1l1 o[ Mathematics tlud Cvmpwer Science. Dei!! Universi/.'r'
vI Techno/ag)',
Delfl, The Netherfullds
SUMMARY
In this paper the title problem is solved by discretizing the region 01 application of the load as a finite union of
rectangles with non-overlapping interiors. The surface traction is discretized by taking it consl'ant over each
rectangle. Then the displacement and the displacement gradients at an arbitrary point of the half-space. due 10
the discretized load. can be found exactly as a finite concatenation of elementary operations and of arctangents
and logarithms. Although this representation is numerically appropriate near the rectangle which generates the
(partial) elastic field. it is less suitable far away from it. An asymptotic expression for the elastic field in this
region is provided. An algorithm for the calculation of the elastic field is given. The method is applied to two
examples, viz. the sub-surface stresses of the Hertz frictionless problem and the steady state frictional rolling
problem, both wirh a circular contact area.
INTRODUCTION
In the present paper the displacements, stresses and strains in a half-space due to a surface load
which is constant in a rectangle on the surface, and which vanishes on the surface outside the
rectangle, are calculated. This has been done before by Ahmadi. I Ahmadi expresses the elastic field
in terms of 52 integrals. In the present paper the building blocks are the three express ions (17). (18)
and (19) from wh ich the 5 essentially different displacementJdisplacement gradients (16) may be
synthesized. The result is extremely simple to encode on a computer. Consider an elastic half-space
with modulus of rigidity G and Poisson's ratio v, which is held fixed at infinity. In a Cartesian
coordinate system (XI' X2, X3) it occupies the region X3 ~ O. It is loaded by a distributed normal and
shearing load acting in a bounded region K of the surface X3 = 0 of the half-space. It is required to
find the eIastic field: stresses, strains and displacements in the entire half-spaee including the
surface.
NOTATIONS
The region K is enclosed, in the surfaee X3 = 0, by a region whieh is the finite union of rectangles QJ
(/=1, ... , N) wilh sides parallel 10 the X" X2 axes whose interiors do not overlap.
We will employ variables whieh are usually subseripted and which may be funetions of other
(subscripted) variables, e.g. P'1i (Xj)' The variable upon which a (subseripted) variable depends, as
weil as the subseripts, may be omitted if no eonfusion arises. Unless otherwise stated, small latin
subseripts (in our example: i) run from 1 to 3, and refer to the eoordinate directions. Capitallatin
subscripts (in our example: I) run from 1 to N, and refer to the rectangles QJ' Small Greek
subscripts run from 1 to 2, and refer to the 1,2 directions of the eoordinate system. As an example,
Al< denotes the length of the side in the E-direetion of rectangle Ql' Differentiation with respect to
the variable Xk (k=I,2,3) is indieated by the subscript .k The subseript .4 indieates that the
undifferentiated value must be taken, e.g.
(x)
".
"Ii).k defllliL
=
dXk' k=1 , 23'
, ,
t This research was sponsored
d,;f
vh,
(1 )
by the SKF Engineering Research Centre, Nieuwegcn, Holland
COMMUNICATIONS IN APPLIED NUMERICAL METHODS.
1986 by John Wiley &
VliJ.'
Vol. 2. 401-410 (1986)
Sons, LId.
Reproduced by permission 0/ lohn Wiley and Sons Limited.

255
Appendix C: Numerieal Caleulatioll 0/ the Elastie Field in a Half-Spaee

The following notations will be used:
Range 1.2; .=2 if .=1. .'=1 if .=2; briefly .=3-.
Range I,2,3; i': 1'=2,2'=3,3'=1; i"=(i')'
Range 1,2,3; if i '" j then (ij)' has range 1,2,3, (ij)' '" i, (ij)' '" j
.:
i:
i,j:
(2)
No summation is intcnded ovcr repeated subscripts.
DlSCRETIZA TION
We denote the displacement in the point x of the half-space by u=u(X)=(Ui(X,. The strain is
linearized:
'I
= ('1ij (xl); '1ij ,~f
(Ui.j
lI j ,;}/2;
D d~f Dilatation
= L,
'1ii
(3)
The stress is given by Hooke's Law:
(4)
with oi;=I. if i=j or 0 = Ootherwise
We discretize the distributed surface loading p=(p,(x by sctting
II
P'Jj = (I/IQII)
pi(x)dA. dA=dx l dx 2 , IQk area of QI
(5)
0,
and by replacing Pi by P'Jj in the rectangle Q/

We denote by vJjj(x) the j-component of the displacement in x due to the following load:
p=O outside Q" PI=8 il inside QI; it gives rise to:
displacement vJjj(x). strain eJj" (x), stress SJjjl (x) in point x
Then. the required discretized clastic field at x is given by

{U. 'I. a}:
lI j.k(X)
= L VJjI.k (x) p'Jj. k=I, .... 4, (see (I;

I.,
e,s from vJjI.",(see (3) and (4));'1, a from Uj.", (see (3) and (4))
Therefore (he problem will be solved if we know VJjj.b k=I, ... 4.
THE CALCULATION OF V
The basis of the ca1culation is the integral representation of Boussinesq-Cerruti. which express the
displacement in the half-space in the surface load. Before we give it we introduce some further
notations:
x' d~f (X'I.) are the x" X2 coordinates of the centre of QI'
YI, Y2 are the integration variables: Y d~f (YI. Y2. z) d~f (y" Y2, y,,).
II
g dA
256
w=
d~f
V(y~ + y~ + Y3)
r,,-x'+I>"12 dYI
(,,-,,+1>,,'2 g(y) dY2
X'/l-Xl-A'112
x'l2- x z- An/2
(H)
The Boussinesq-Cerruti integrals yield the following expressions for v:
v,,, (x) = (1I41TG) ff{IIW + Y;/W' + (1-2v) [1/(z+W) - y;/W(Z+W)2]) dA

v,,,,(x) = v",(x) = (1/41TG) ff{Y'Y2/W' - (I-2v)Y'Y2/W(Z+W)2) dA (E': see (2
V'd
(x) = (1/41TG) ff{-y,zIW' - (1-2v)y.lW(z+W)) dA
1'/3,
(x) = (1/41TG) ff{-y,zIW'
+ (1-2v)y,/W(z+W)}
(9)
dA
Vm (x) = (1/41TG) ff (Z2/W' + 2(I-v)/W) dA

Exacl expression oJ V""k
We denote
li
= li(y) = In(yi+ W)
li = l,(y) = arclanYi'+Yi,,+Wly;) (i',i": see (2
( 10)
Now it is easy 10 see that with the notations (8), (10)
(11)
ffK'2(Y) dA = [g(y)]
We will establish in Appendix I that
V'''k(X)
(1/41TG) [(Y.!")k+2(y"I,)k + 4lV,t,),k + (1-2v) {(y,I,'),k-2(y,I,),dl
(E': see (2))

VI .. ',k(X)
= (1/41TG) [( - W),k+(1-2v) {(W)k-(y,l,),k)]
Vld,k(X)
(1/41TG) [(Y'!,)k - (I-2v) {(y'!'),k+(y,l")k
+ (2y,I,).)]
( 12)
Vn"k(X) = (1/41TG) [(y,l,),k + (1-2v) {(y"I'),k+(y,l"),k+(2y,t.l.d]

Vm,k(X) = (1/41TG) [-2(y,I')k+2(l-V) {(y,l2),k+(Y2l,j,k+(2y,I,)d]
We then necd expressions for W k , (y,l,),k ' (y,I,),k , k = 1.2,3
These expressions are:
(13)
and
(Y/,),k = {O"I,+V,(y,(.I',+ W)-o" W(y, +Y2+Y'+ W)/2W()',.+ W)()'r+ W) }Yu

e,g, when j = k: {O;,I,-Yi(r,.(v,.+ W)+y,.{v,.+ W/2WCv,.+ W) CVr+ W)}Yu
and whcn j cF k: {O"I,+)';y;l2W(Y\lkI'+ W)}Yu
1(15)
257
Appendix C: Numerieal Caleulation 01 the Elastie Field in a Half-Spaee

VUj,k
when x is [ar [rom Q,
When x is far from Q" the integrals V Uj (see (9)) may be found by numerical integration, e,g, the
midpoint rule, The midpoint rule reads:
'I/~
g(x)dx = h g(O)
+ error,
I
error "" -, h~g" (0)
24
~"!'2
(16)
and in two dimensions:

] =
[,,/2 dx [',12 g(XI +x, x2+y)dy = Q, g(x" X2) + error

-.l/1!2
-l/~!2
error ""di,!Q/!{A,kll (XI,x2) +
(17)
A,~g,22 (XI,x2)}.!Q,!:
area of rectangle Q,
lt is seen from (17) that if we neglect the error, the derivatives ofJ can be found by differentiating g,
This will be done in the following subsection; it leads to a gain in calculating speed over the exact
method,
The method sketched above is indeed necessary in the calculation of V hj and its derivatives when
W is large, for then the bracket rule (10) and (11) will lead to loss of significance as almost equal
numbers are subtracted. The decision which form to use, either the exact formulae or the numerical
integration, is governed by the user defined constant [in the following manner:
if W < [. \I(A71
+ Ah) then calculate 'exact' else use
the midpoint rule
(18)
The question arises of how to determine an appropriate [. To that end we consider (17) with a
typical g, e,g, g = W2 = x1 + x~. Then the error of (17) becomes
and the relative error is

E = relative error =
~}-!Q,J (A]I + Ak)/w2
Now, if we denote the permiUed relative error of

safety, we estimate
VUj,k
by eps and take a considerable margin of
or
W ~ \1(11(6 eps)) x \I(A71
~ f ~ \1(11(6 eps))
+ Al2)
(19)
A realistic value of eps in engineering calculations would see m to be I per cent hence
eps = I d~2: [~ \1(100/6) = 4; take [= 20 (d: exponent)
or
eps = I d~4: [~ \1(1 d 4/6) = 40; take [= 100
We proceed to perform the calculation of the

Calculation o[
Vlij,k
Vlij,k
when x is [ar [rom QI
We let k run from I to 4; k=4 corresponds to the undifferentiated form.
258
(20)
Let
(21 )
Then
VI.. ,k =< (IQII/41TG) {(IIW)k+(y;IW'>,. + (l-2V)[(1I(y3+ W..-(y;IW(Y3+ Wf),.)}
VI..... =< <lQII/41TG) {(YIY2IW'),k - (l-2v) (YIY2IW(y,+W)2).)
VI.'.k =< (JQII/41TG) {- (Y.YJlW')k - (1-2v) (y,lW(y,+ W
VJ3 . k =< (IQ/I/41TG) {- (Y.Y,IW').k
..J
(22)
+ (1-2v) (y,lW(Y3+ W,k)
VJ33.k =< (IQ/I/41TG) {(y~/W').k + 2(I-v) (1IW).J

It is seen that the following functions have to be determined:
We have:
(g),4 = g; in the remainder of this equation k runs from 1 to 3

(1IW).k = (-YkIW')Yk,k
(Yi.Y/ W3 ),k = llikYj
ll}kYilIW' - 3Yi.YjYk IW ) Yk,k
(1I(Y3+W,k = -{(M'k
+ Yk)IW(W+y',)2) Yk,k (e,g,
= -1I(y,+W)W if k=3)
(23)
(Yi.Y/W(Y3+ W)2).k = (Yilljk+yjllik)IW(y,+ W)2_Yi.YjYkIW3 (Y3+ W)2

- 2Yi.Yj(83k W+y.)IW2(Y3+ W)'} Y...
(y/W(Y3+ W).k = (llikIW(y, + W) - YiYkIW'(y,+ W) - Yi(Yk+8,'k W)IW2(y,+ W)z} Yk,k
AN ALGORITHM
The complete calculation of VIi}k,k , eli,k , S",k , Uj.k , "Vjk , fIjk proceeds as folIows:
1. Form the arrays ll'j' i', ', (ij)', Yu
2. Set Ui.Jo "Vij' fJij = 0
3, do 20 1=I,N
4, Calculate W = YX'Il-XI)2 + (X"Z-X2)2+ZZ)
5, If W < f Y(d71 + di2) goto 9
6, Set Y. = x',. - x" y,=z
7. Calculate (lIW).k' (Yiy/W').k, (lI(y,+W)).k> (y,y/W(y,+W)2) ,. ' (y/W(y,+W. from (23)
8. Form vlij.k according 10 (22) Golo 16
5 --> 9. SeI Vlijk = 0
10, do 15 n=I,3,2 and m=I,3,2
11. Set Y=(X'Il- Xl +(11- 2)d Il /2, X'I2- xz+(m-2)d 1212,z)
12, Calculale W hy (R).I; , " hy (10)
13. Form W,k by (\3), (y;l,). by (14), (y/;). hy (15)
14. Form Vii,.' = Vii,.' + '(12)' * (1I-2)(m-2)
10 --> 15, Conlinue
8 --> 16, Conlinue
17t Form eli;' according 10 (7)
IRt Form SIi,. according 10 (7)
259
Appendix C: Numerical Calculation
19.
3 -> 20.
21.
22.
0/ the Elastic Field in a Halj-Space
Form 1I;.1,; = lI;.k + lj t'Ii;.I, P'Jj

Continue
Form "Y;h from (3), U/ h from (4)
END
Note. The statements marked t may be omitted as a block.
Test run
To facilitate the debugging of the algorithm, we include a test run.
6 11 = 1. 6/2 = 2,
X'II
= X'/2 = 0,
Remark. WIY(6], + 6],) = 8.11
= 0.3,
41rG
I, x,
10,
X2
15, x,
In (a), take!> 8.12, in (b)!< 8.10
(a) Exact calculation

Table I.
j=!
2
Unit distributcd load in I-direction:
V"i.>
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=4
-020594 d-2
019194 d-3
097838 d- 3
-098709 d-2
-025240 d-2
-028209 d-2
-()22114 d-2
097992 d-3
018938 d-2
()'17278
()33966 d-I
028650 d-l
Table 11.
Unit distributed load in 3-direction: vn;.'
k=1
k=2
-086555 d-3
097992 d-3
-0483()0 d-2
097992 d-3
-0,5180 d-4
-0,72283 d-Z
k=3
045833 d-2
068596 d-2
037904 d-3
k=4
-01520Z d-I
-022779 d-l
{j'155RIl
Note: d indicates the exponent
(b) Asymptotic calculation

Table III.
j=1
2
3
k=1
k=2
k=3
-()204!2 d-2
020085 d-3
098393 d-3
-0,98536 d-2
-025286 d-2
-028147 d-2
-(}22064 d-2
098108 d-3
018886 d-2
Table IV.
j=1
2
260
Unit distributed load in I-direction: v"/.'
k=4
017263
033959 cl-I
0286(J4 cl-I
Unit distributcd load in 3-direction: vnp
k=1
k=2
-0'86577 cl-3
(j98108 d-3
-0-48143 d-2
098108 d-3
-(J48201 d-4
-1)72215 d-2
k=3
045698 d-2
(J68547 cl-3
037773 d-3
k=4
-(J15198 d-I
-()Z2797 d-I
(I1S571
Warning
When (XI' Xz, X,) approaches the edge of a reetangle, several of the VU/.k become very large. This
is a discretization error, which diminishes as one moves away from the edge.
EXAMPLES
We consider two examples, viz. Hertzian frictionless contact, used as validation, and Hertzian
steady state rolling, an attractive novel calculation.
Hertzian Jrictioilless mntact
The famous Hertz theoryZ can treat the following problem. Consider two smooth surfaced
spheres made of the same elastic material, with modules of rigidity G and Poisson's ratio v. They are
pressed together so that a contact area forms between them. Find the normal component of the
contact pressure and the stress inside the spheres produced by it.
By approximating the bodies by half-spaces, Hertz found that the contact area is circular and the
normal component of the surface traction is semi-ellipsoidally distributed. Neither p, nor the
contact area is inlluenced by the tangential component of the surface traction (PI, pz). The problem
of the internal stresses due to p, under the contact area was discussed by a number of authors, of
whom we mention Lundberg and Sjvall.' We calculated the internal stress with the aid of our
theory by a mesh of 7 x 7 squares that just enclosed the contact area, which resulted in 37 elements
carrying a non-vanishing press ure (see Figure l(a. We denote the maximum surface press ure by
P3max and the radius of contact by a. The results are given in Table I; the corresponding exact values
of Lundberg-Sjvall' are also shown.
In Table V we give the maximum of s,;s,! (summation convention is adopted in this section), the
second invariant of the stress deviator
s';
= (T,; -
~ (Tu Oij
(summation convention is adopted in this section)
(24)
s'r i; plays an important part in the plastic tlow criterion of von Mises. Its maximum which is given in
units of max(p,)2 occurs directly under the centre of the circular contact area at a depth of
which is given in units of the contact radius a.
Table V.
Maximum value of Si,Si, and where it is assumed
Lundherg-Sjvall
x max(p,)'
max(sit'ii)
Zmax X
Our own values

max(s'jS'i)
0394
0343
0297
0256
03R
0041
00445
(jAR
2 ma, X a
._--_.__. _ . _ - - -
x max(p,)'
----
00
01
02
03
Zm.x'
0388
0336
0291
0251
038
041
0445
0048
It is seen that the position of the maximum Zm,,, is perfectly predicted, but the value of the maximum
has errors of up to 2 per cent. These errors are attributed to the small number of elements (36).
Hertzian sleady slale mI/in/(
As a second example, now of novel character, we consider again the two spheres of the previous
example and we let them roll over each other under the intluence of Coulomb friction, while a
frictional force is acting in the system. It is required to find the tangential traction in the contact area
261
Appendix C: Numerical Calculation of the Elastic Field in a Half-Space

and also the subsurface stress. A description of this problem, which defies analytic treatment, its
history, and a somewhat dated outline of its numerical solution can be found in Reference 4.
In the Coulomb law, distinction is being made between a local state of slip, in which at the surface
point 1 considered, the bodies slide over each other with a velocity W, = (W II ,W/2) (upper sphere
over lower sphere) and astate which is commonly ca lied adhesion in which, at the surface point 1
considered, W, = O. The surface points 1 of the contact at which W, '" 0 constitute the area of slip 5
and the surface points 1 at which W, = 0 make up the area of adhesion A. The surface points 1 which
are not in contact form the area outside N. According to Coulomb's law, the tangential traction at
the surface point I, P't = (P",P/2), wh ich is exerted on the upper sphere, attains in magnitude the
traction bound IP (f: coefficient of friction, PI.': normal pressure at surface point I) in the area of
slip, while it falls below the traction bound in the area of adhesion. Also, in the area of slip, the
tangential traction P't and the slip are precisely opposite. Summarizing,
} (25)
Coulomb's law has proved eminently sueeessful in wheel-rail rolling contaet and in the rolling
eontact of rubber eovered steel eylinders.
The required surface tractions and sub-surfaee stresses may be ealculated by means of the
program system 'Contaet' whieh is eommereially available. The first version dates from 1982, the
la test from 1985. This latest version contains the algorithm of this paper as one of the subroutines.
'Contact' can handle virtually all half-spaee eontact problems with or without Coulomb frietion.
The speeifie example treated by it for this paper ean be summarized as folIows.
( e)
NY
S s A
N' S
'tl
IN{\"
5/1 }J
5
Ajl:
1\ S
N
f?o
At"- AIS
A{1
AIS
ty
A I<
,o!
NJ1l
(e)
oll
02 03 OL
Figure I.
OS 06 07
oe
09'0 '11 U5":l '67 20 25 333 SO
'J.d.pl"
Hertzian steady state rolling under the influence of a braking force: (a) Division of the contact arca, computcd hy
'Cantace. N:"o contact. A: adhesion. S: slip. Central slice: shaded; (b) Division of the cantact area. 'Artist's impression',
based on (a); (e) Traction distribution in central slice, show" shaded in (a), as calculated by 'Contact'; (d) 'Artist's
impression', based on (e); (e) .l"j;l"ij on lines parallel to the Xr3xis. The line corrc:sponding to curvc J intcrsccts thc phmc x, = ()
in the midpoint of element J of the central slice.
262
We denote: Fi =
ff
Pi (XI,xZ.O) dxldx z
contaci
Contact area = {/II - X71 -
X7z >
O}. circle with radius I
(F"Fz,F3 ) = (0,7037 G,O,G) => max(p3) = 04775 G

f = coefficient of friction = I
11 = Poisson's ratio = 025
Discretization: see Figure I(a) 7 x 7 square elements, 37 in contact
(longitudinal, lateral, spin) creepage(see Reference 4) = (11" IIZ, <1 = (-0'2170, 0, 0).
(26)
lt should be noted that the division of the contact area in areas of slip and adhesion (see Figure I(a))
is initially unknown and is determined by 'Contact'. The resulting values Pli at the elements shown
shaded in Figure I(a) (the 'central slice') are given in Figure l(c). An 'artist's impression' of the
contact area division and the traction distribution in the central slice wh ich accords with the
available qualitative knowledge of the rolling contact problem (see Reference -4) are given in
Figures l(b) and I(d) respectively. The sub-surface stress was calculated at sufficient points in the
range 0 :5 X3 < 00 directly above all midpoints of the squares constituting the central slice. The
invariant Silij (see (26 is plotted in Figure I(e). The numbers of the curves, I, ... ,9, correspond to
the numbers of the elements of the central slice (see Figure l(a. It is seen that the internal stress
falls off rapidly outside contact (curves land 9) and that there is a marked difference between the
slip zone sub-surface stresses and those corresponding to the adhesion zone. This is because the
A-curves are normal pressure dominated, while the S-curves are surface shear dominated.
ACKNOWlEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank Mr. J. de Mul for valuable discussions.

APPENDIX I: PROOF OF THE ANAL YTICAL EXPRESSIONS (16) FOR
V/ij.k
According to (11) we note that Vlij.' of (12) is the required displacement, if g.IZ with g defined as the
appropriate expression between the brackets of (ll) with k=4, equals the corresponding integrand
of (9). Then also, the displacement gradients IIlij.k ' k=I.2,3 are correctly given. We establish the
expression (16) by me ans of 4 lemmas. In the proofs, the notations given earlier and the formulae
(13H 15) are freely used.
Lemma 1 (VI.. )
(a) (y./.-+2y.-/.+4YJ13).IZ = IIW + y;/WJ
(b) (y./.--2N.)lz = l/(y3+ w) - y;/W(Y3+ W)2
PToof
(y./.o)
IZ
y./.-) . -) .
= -(y./w) . = IIW - y;/W3
(Y . /.).12 = l/W - y;.fW3
(2Y3(3).IZ = -(yYW(Yz+w)b = -y~(yz/W3(yz+W) + lIW 2(yz+W) = _yyw3

(2N.).lz = -(Y3y./W(Y3+ w) . = Y3/ W(W+Y3) - Y3Y; (IIW+ l/(y3+ W)/W z (Y3+ W)
so that
which establishes (a).

(y./.--2YJ1.).IZ = (I/W-y;/W') - Y3/W(W+Y3)+Y3y;;W3(Y3+W) + y.,y;/Wz(y.,+W)z
= l/W - y;/W Z(y3+ W)+Y3Y;/W Z (Y3+ W)Z - Y3/W(W+y.,) J, l/(y3+ W) - y;/W(y.,+ W)Z
wh ich establishes (b).
QED
263
Appendix C: Numerical Calculatiol1 01 the Elastic Field in a Hall-Space

Lemma 2 (VI",)
(a) (-W).12 = Yly 21W'; (b) (W-y,1,).12 = - Yly2IW(h+W)2.
Proof
(a) obvious.
(b) W ,2 = - YIY2IW'
(y,1,).12 = -Y1y ,IW(y,+W.2 = -YIY2Y,IW' (Y3+W) - YIY2Y,IW2 (y,+W)2
QED
which establishes (b).
(a) (y,1").12 = - y.y,IW' .

(b) (y,,13+Y31,,+2y,I,).12 = y,IW(y,+W),
Proof
(a) (Y31").12 = y,1,').,1, = -(Y3IW)., l -y.y3IW3.

(b) (y,,13+2y,I'+Y31").12 = -(13+ y;.fW(Y3+W) + y;IW(Y3+W) + YJ!W)., = -(13
W(Y3+ W) + y,IW., = -(I,+(W-Y3)IW + Y3/W)., =-(13+1)., l y,IW(W+Y3)'
Lemma 4 (vm)
(a) (-2YJ13).12 = AlwJ
(b) (Y,12+Y21,+2Y31,).12 = liW.
Proof
(a) See proof of Lemma 1.

(b) (See proof of Lemma I):
QED
These four lemmas establish (12) in the manner indicated at the beginning of this Appendix.
APPENDIX 11: LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol
G
K
I
N
P
p'
Q
Position of definition
Symbol
(6)
(18)
lntroduetion
Notations section
(10) and (14)
Notations sectiorl
Between (4) and (5)
(5)
Notations seetion
(6)
(lO)and(15)
above (3)
(6). (9). (12). (22) and Appendix I
x'
(J
ffdA
11
Position of definition
(8) and (13)
lntroduetion and (8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(3)
(4)
Notations seetion
Introduction
(4)
(8)
(10)
I/.i.j.k,III.' are subscriptsl
REFERENCES
I. N. Ahmadi. 'Non-hertzian normal and tangential loading of elastic hodies in contacC. Ph.D. Thesis. appendix C2.
North-Wcstern Univcrsity, Evanston )tL (19R2).

2. H. Hertz. sec. C.q. A. E. 11. Love. A Treal;u ol1lhe Mat"ematical Theory of Elasricity. 4th cdn .. Cambridge University
Press.
3. G. Lundbcrg and H. Sjvall.
SrrfJ.~
(111(/
[)cfomw(;oll i/F EhlSfir Conto('(, Puh!. 4. Inst. Th. of Elasticity and strength of
materials, Chalmcrs Univ., Gothcnhurg (195H).

4. J. J. Kalker. 'Survey of whcc\-rail rolling contact theory', Veh. Sy.H. Dy". 5317-358 (1979).
264
APPENDIXD
Dl.
INTRODUCTION
In the main part of this book we have occupied ourselves with purely elastic materials.
The question arises, how we can extend the theory of Ch. 4 to more general materials.
The materials that are cIosest to elastic materials are the linearly viscoelastic materials.
The constitutive relations of these materials are defined in Sec. D2 of this appendix.
There exists an extensive literature on two-dimensional frictionless viscoelastic contact
problems, starting with the cIassical study by S.C. Hunter (196 I). An important contribution on two-dimensional frictional contact was made by I.G. Goriacheva (1973). For a
modern survey of the literature we refer to Wang and Knothe (1988). The only contribution to three-dimensional viscoelastic contact theory they mention is a study by Panek
and Kalker (1980), who treat a frictionless, three-dimensional contact problem with
slender contact area, with the aid of line contact.
In the present appendix a method is presented which, it is hoped, will solve the threedimensional viscoelastic steady state rolling contact problem by means of the program
CO NT ACT which is based on the theory of Ch. 4, in a processing time comparable to that
for the elastic case. We note that Duvaut and Lions (1972) proved the existence and the
uniqueness of the solution of the quasiidentical tangential viscoelastic contact problem.
In addition, we will consider time dependent contact perturbations in the elastic and
viscoelastic cases. In particular, we will examine the numerical aspects of the theory:
indeed, we will explain why contact perturbations (sensitivities) are computed so inaccurately by the program CONT ACT.
Consider two deformable bodies of revolution. They are pressed together, and then rolled
over each other. We are interested in the steady state of frictional rolling with creepage
265
Appendix D: Viscoelastic Rolling,' Contact Perturbations
and spin. We assurne small displacements with respect to a certain unstressed state, and
Coulomb friction with a constant coefficient. We assurne that the bodies may be approximated by half -spaces for the calculation of the deformation.
When the bodies are elastic, the rolling contact problem may be solved with a method
described in Kalker (1985), and proved in Kalker (1983, 1988); see Ch. 4. In this
method, a finite number of standard loadings are superimposed to approximately fulfill
the rolling contact conditions. This method is implemented in the program CONTACT,
which works fast and effectively.
When the bodies are viscoelastic, the method should work in exactly the same manner,
except that the surface displacement due to the standard loadings differ in viscoelasticity
from those in elasticity. These surface displacements are essential for the operation of
CO NT ACT's method.
Consequently. this appendix is devoted to jinding the surjace displacement in a threedimensional viscoelastic half-space due to the standard loading (injluence junction).
The standard loading is independent of explicit time in a coordinate system that moves
with the contact area over the half -space. In this coordinate system, the standard loading
vanishes outside a rectangle M, and inside the rectangle it has a constant (vectorial)
intensity.
The appendix is structured as follows. In Sec. D2, the equations of viscoelastostatics are
introduced; body forces and inertial effects are omitted. By the application of a complex
Fourier transform with respect to time, it is shown that the Fourier transform of the
viscoelastic field is, actually, an elastic field. Hence, for this field, the integral representation of Boussinesq -Cerruti for elastic half -spaces, loaded by a known surface traction
and kept fixed at infinity, is valid. The viscoelastic counterpart is derived.
In Sec. D3 we assurne that the load moves with constant velocity over the half -space,
without changing in any other respect. Explicit time is eliminated, and the particle-fixed
time differentiation is replaced by aspace differentiation.
In Sec. D4 the load is specified, and a relationship is derived for the required surface
displacement, with the aid of the surface displacements due to these loadings in elasticity.
In Sec. D5, the required surface displacements are found with the aid of the complex
Fourier transform. Inversion of the transform leads to a number of convolution integrals
which may easily be evaluated numerically.
Rolling contact is controlled by several parameters among which there are the mutual
approach of the rolling bodies, and the creepages. The viscoelastic theory, which was just
266
D2: Viscoelastostatics
derived, is applied to find the response of the rolling bodies to harmonic variations of the
controlling parameters (contact perturbations). When the frequency of the variations
vanishes, the theory of sensitivities (see Ch. 4) is regained. The analysis of contact perturbations is performed in Secs. D6-DIO. We call attention to Sec. DIO, where we consider
questions of accuracy.
D2.
VISCOELASTOST A TICS
The governing equations of viscoelasticity we will consider are:

(DIa)
with
eim = eim(xh,t) = (Ui,m + Um,i)' linearised strain,

(O;x I 'X 2 ,x 3 ): a Cartesian coordinate system, particle fixed
(Dlb)
u.:
displacement component in i-direction
(Dld)
8/8x
(DI e)
,m
Latin indices run from I to 3, Greek indices from I to 2,

summation over repeated indices over their range is understood.
d/dt, particle fixed differentiation w.r.t. time t
(Dlc)
(Dlf)
(DIg)
ahk : stress component
(Dlh)
E imhk' Simhk' S imhk: material constants
(D li)
a.
(Dlj)
Im,m
= 0: equations of equilibrium.
We consider a complex Fourier transform of the function I (the original) with respect to
time. The parameter is r, and the transform is indicated by a hat ():
J':
J(r) =
I(t) e jrt dt: complex Fourier transform
..2
I
. ..
J: Imagmary umt, } =-
(D2b)
jrt
(D2c)
l(t)
1\
I
= 21r
= -
00
-00
1\
I(r) e
dr: inversion formula
(D2a)
1\
jr I: differentiation formula.
(D2d)
1\
The original of ! ~ is
!*g
= g*! =
J:
I(x - q) g(q) dq: convolution.
(D2e)
267
Appendix D: Viscoelastic Rolling; Contact Perturbations
We apply a Fourier transform to (DI):

. EI
A
S
A
SI
A
e im - Jr imhkehk = imhk(Jim - Jr imhk(Jhk
A
I A
A
e. =-2(u.
+u .)
Im
I,m
m,1
A
~.
= O.
Im,m
(Dia)
(D3a)
(DI b)
(D3b)
(Dlj)
(D3c)
These are recognised as the field equations of linear elastostatics. We will assume that
there is isotropy, so that the stress-strain relations (D3a) become
(D4a)
E
where
and
= E(r), v = ver) are Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio;

= I if i = j; 0 .. = 0 if i '" j is the Kronecker delta.
0 ..
IJ
IJ
(D4b)
(D4c)
-!-:
In many applications, Poisson's ratio v is taken constant; indeed, a favored value is v =

an incompressible medium. We will conform to this practice, and take v = constant, but
I
not necessan'1 y 2":
v = constant, independent of r.
(D4d)
We take
E(r) = (1 - jqr)/(K - jqLr),
(D5a)
F,u I
r=---L------,
FI
FI,u I
= k 2u 2
F2
= G 2
!L-_ _ _ _--'I ! F 2 ,u2

! F,u
Figure El Two-spring, one-damper model of a one-dimensional viscoelastic

solid. F: force, F I,F 2: forces, F I + F 2 = F; u,u I ,u2 : dis placements,
u = u l + u2 ; k l = spring constant = IIL, see (E5b); k 2 = spring
constant = I/(K - L), see (E5c); G = damper constant, = ql(K - L),
see (E5d) .. Differential equation .. u + q = KF + qLF; u # e. ,
Im
(Jhk'
F
268
D2: Viscoelasloslalics
L: initial compliance, L >

K: final compliance, K ~ L >
q: relaxation time, q >
if K = L, q = or q = 00, elasticity is regained.
with
(D5b)
(D5c)
(D5d)
(D5e)
This form is based on the two-spring, one-damper model of a viscoelastic one-dimensional solid, see Fig. D I.
More complicated forms of E(r) and ver) can be treated with the method proposed here.
According to (D5a), we have
I
E=L
K - L
+ I - jqr .
(D6)
We now consider the viscoelastic half -space x 3 ~ in which the material obeys (D4),
(D5). The Boussinesq-Cerruti integral representation holds for the transformed quantities
(D3). Thus
(D7a)
a,
with
-00
I ,2;~: transformed surface displacement
I y I = j y~
P (x
m ' ,I)
+ y;
(D7c)
= surface load = -CJm3(x'a ,0,1)
A II (y)=(1- v)/lyl
2
3
+ vYl/lyl
I I + vy 2/ I y I 3
A 33 (y) = (l - v)/1 y I
3
A I2 (y) = A 21 (y) = vYIY/ I Y I
A 2 Y)
= (l
(D7b)
(D7e)
- v)/ y
(D7f)
(D7g)
(D7h)
2
I
2
2v) Y2/1 Y I .
A l3 (y)
= -A 31 (y) = (1
- 2v) YI/I Y
A 23 (y)
= -A 32 (y) = (1
(D7d)
(D7i)
(D7j)
We write this as
00
-00
Then, we invert (D8a):
269
Appendix D: Viscoelastic Rolling .. Contact Perturbations

00
I + v (K + qL d/dt)
(1 + q d/dt) u/x,t) = -11'-
JJ
(D8b)
-00
D3.
MOVING LOADS IN A STEADY ST ATE
We assurne that the load Pm moves with constant velocity V in the positive xl-direction,
and that a steady state has set in. Then we have
u/x,t)
= u/x 1- Vt, x 2 )
(D9a)
Pm(x',t) = Pm (x 1-Vt, x 2)
(D9b)
In the integral (D8b) we introduce

y
1= XI
- Vt (new variable);
dy
1= dx l'
(DIO)
Then (D8 b) becomes

00
(1 + q d/dt) u(xl-Vt, x 2 )
I +v
= -11'-
(K + qL d/dt)
JJ
-00
2
x Pm(y 1,x 2)dy 1dx 2
Aim(y +Vt-x I' x -x 2 ) x

(Dll)
We now introduce y I = x I - Vt as a new variable; or, in other terms, we transform to a

coordinate system that moves with the load P . We have
m
(DI2)
Replacing y land y
1by x I and Xl' we obtain for (D ll)

00
8 ) u.(x)
(1 - Vq -8
xI I
l+V(
8)JJ A.Im(x'a - x a ) Pm(x') dx'ldx2'
=- K - qVL -8
11'
XI
(Dl3)
-00
We have now removed the time from the problem, and have described the displacements
in terms of a Boussinesq-Cerruti integral. Also, the only differentiations that occur are
those for the single space variable x I'
270
D4: The Boussinesq-Cerruti Integral
D4.
THE BOUSSINESQ-CERRUTI INTEGRAL
We now specify the load. We take it nonzero only in the rectangle M, and of constant
intensity P E JR inside M. The vertices of Mare given by
M: (xI ax l /2, x 2 ax 2 /2)

ax I ,a~
: length!r the sides of the rectangle M
(x lp ,x2p ,O): the center of M on the surface of the half-space.
(DI4a)
(Dl4b)
(Dl4c)
Hence, we can write
Jf Aim(x~-\)
00
Pm(x') dx l dx 2 = Pm
Jf
A. (x' -x ) dx' dx' ~f P l. (x -x).

Im a a l
2 m Im ap a
-00
(DI5)
Using the following abbreviated notation

x
[... ]a = [... ]x
-x +ax /2
a
a
A
-x - ....
x /2'
ap a
a
ap
= 1,2
(DI6)
we have
ff
M
8 I(x' - x ) dx 'dx '

aal 2
8x' 8x '
I 2
(DI7)
[[/(x I)] 1]2
and it may be verified that, with

sh-I(y)
II(x)
12(x)
~f In (y + ~), Y E
JR:
~f x 2sh -I(x/ I x21) + x 1sh -1(x2/1 xl I);

~f x2Sh-l(xl/lx21);
~f xlSh-l(x2/lxll);
lix) ~f -I x I;
15(x)~fx2In lxi +x 1 tan- 1 (x 2 /x 1);
1 3(x)
16(x) def
=
xI In
I x I + x 2 tan - 1 (x/x 2);
(D 18a)
I/I x I
(DI8b)
=x~/lxI3
(DI8c)
82/3/8X18X2 =x;/l x I 3
(DI8d)
821/8X18X2 =
821/8X18X2
I 1
ili8X18X2 = x 1x/ x 3
(DI8e)
82/5/8XI8X2=x/lxI2
(D 18f)
8 216/8x18x2 -_ x 2 / I x I 2 .
(Dl8g)
Alternative expressions for 1 1, 12 , 1 3 are found in eh. 4, Eqs. (4.39)-(4.41).
271
Now we can evaluate (DI5) with the aid of (D?), (DI6), (DI?), (DIS):
+ /lf2(x~)l112
(DI9a)
f 1(x ~) + /If 3(x ~) 1112
(Dl9b)
11l(XQP - XQ)
= [[(1 - /I) fI(X~)
122(XQP - XQ)
= [[(1 - /I)
133(XQP - XQ)
= [[(1
- /I) f 1(x ~)lI12
(DI9c)
II2(XQP - x a ) = 12I(Xap - Xa ) = [[/lfix~)l112
(DI9d)
113(xQP - XQ) = -13I(Xap - XQ) = [[(1 - 2/1) f5(x~)l112
(DIge)
123(xQP - x Q) = -132(xap - x Q) = [[(1 - 2/1) f6(x~)lI12.
(DI9f)
With this notation, (DI3) becomes
1+/1
(1-Vq-a )u.(x)=--(K-qVLa Xl )pm I.Im(x ap -x).

x1 I
7r
Q
(D20)
Note that this section, up to (D20), was a purely elastic analysis.
D5.
THE ULTIMA TE DEVELOPMENT
In order to salve u. explicitly from (D20), we apply a Fourier transform in the space
I
coordinate x I. Again we denote a transformed quantity by a hat ('), and we write r for
the parameter:
(1 +
jVqr)~.(r,x2)
= ~
I
7r
(K + jqVLr) p
I.
m Im
(r, X2 -x 2 )
p
(D2Ia)
where
(D2Ib)
Therefore
(D22a)
with
A
UI 1
1+/1
7r
m Im
= - - Lp
I. (r, x 2 -x 2 )
p
(D22b)
(D22c)
272
D5: The Ultimate Development
The inversion of ~il is direct:

I + v
u.I(x) = - - Lp I(x
11"
- x ).
er.p
(D23)
er.
To invert ~i2' we apply the convolution theorem. We first invert
w
A
= (1
+ jVqr)
-I
(D24a)
Indeed,
w=_1
211"
e - jrx 1 dr
fOO
-00
I
__
I + jVqr - 211"jVq
00
-00
-jrx 1
dr
r _ (jjVq)
V,q> 0,0
(D24b)
'* if xI> 0 then w = -211"j E Residues lower complex half-plane = 0
(D24c)
x/Vq
if x I < 0 then w = 211"j E Residues upper complex half -plane =
Vq
(D24d)
or, with the Heaviside function H(s) which is defined as

H(s)
= 0 if
s < 0,
H(s)
= I if
s>0
w = H(-x l ) exp (x/(Vq/(Vq).
(D25)
With the aid of the convolution theorem (D2e) we obtain from (D22c), (D24a), (D25),
and (D2Ib):
u 2 (x)
I
(1 + v)(K - L) p
= ---V--~
m
11" q
_(_I_+_V_)_(K-;::---_L_)_p..:..:.m-,-1I"Vq
00
-00
fOOo
(1 + v)(K - L) P
----------~m~exp
1I"Vq
(D26a)
(I Vq- x IP )
fOO
e-s/(Vq) I. (-s, x -x 2 )ds.

Im
2p
x -x
Ip
(D26b)
This integral must be evaluated numerically. The form (D26b) is especially suitable if
the integral must be calculated for equidistant (x I - x I ), and various fixed values of
(x 2 - x 2 ). The integration is not difficult if the positfve constant Vq is not too large.
Also, th!functions I. are well-behaved.
Im
273
We summarise the result on the basis of (D26b):

u.(X) =
(I+v)(K-L)p
'Ir
m exp (
(I + v) Lp
'Ir
xl-xl
V P)
q
00
-x
Ip
s ) I. (-s,x -x ) ds +
exp (- -V
2
2
q
Im
Iim(x ap - x a )
(D27)
when q -+ 00, ui2 (x) -+ 0, see (D26a), and we obtain the elastic problem with Young's
modulus = 1/L. We obtain the same elastic solution if K = L. Note that we had stipulated
that K ~ L, see (D5c), so that the elastic theory is contained in the Eq. (D27).
D6.
CO NT ACT PERTURBATIONS
The viscoelastic field of rolling contact depends on a number of parameters, viz.

- The total force componen ts F. (i = 1,2,3).
I
- The undeformed distance; in a Hertzian geometry this is given by
2
2
h = D1x I + D 2 X 2 - q3;
the parameters are the form parameters D 1 and D 2 , and the approach q3'
- The creepages , 1'], <p.
We designate by b any such parameter, and we denote by V(x,t,b) the viscoelastic field
determined by b, viz. the displacement, strains and stresses in any 80int of the contacting
half -spaces. Suppose now that b oscillates about a fixed value b E:IR by an amount
b l e jwt , w E :IR, b l E ([:. We are interested in the field V(x,t,bO + b l jwt). This field
depends on b in a complicated way. As a first attempt to analyse it, Knothe & GrossThebing (I986) proposed to consider the case that
a.
b.
b l is vanishingly smalI, so that (b l )2 may be neglected throughout;
Areal pseudo-steady state has set in, in which
V(x,t,b) = V (x,b ) + V I (x,b ,w) b I e jwt + V 1*(x,b ,w) b 1*e - jwt
(D28)
where the coordinates xi move with rolling velocity (v l ,v 2 ,0) with respect to the
particle fixed undeformed state, and a star * designates a complex conjugate.
We are primarily interested in Vi (x,bO,w); VO(x,bO) is assumed known: it is real.
274
D7: Load-Displacement Equations
D7.
LOAD-DISPLACEMENT EQUATIONS
We first establish the load-displacement equations. To that end we start from (D8b), in
which we observe that the material time derivative
d/dt = -v 8/8x + 8/8t.
(D29)
In accordance with (D28) we set u. real, and equal to

/
I
I jwt
I*
1* - jwt
u.(x,t)=u.(x)+u.(x)be
+u. (x)b e
.
/
(D30a)
As the three terms on the right-hand side are independent, and the third term is the
complex conjugate of the second, we abbreviate (D30a):
u/.(x,t)
= u. (x)
/
1
1 jwt
+ u. (x) b e .
(D30b)
Analogously,
1
1 iwt
p (x,t) = p (x) + p (x) b e' .
m
m
m
(D8b) becomes
On the other hand, similarly,

00
1= (K - qLv 8/8x)
IJ
A. (x' - x ) pO (x') dx'dx' +

Im
-00
+ {(K + jqLw) - qLv 8/8x}
amI
00
II
Aim(x~
- xa)
p~(x') dX;dx2bl~wt.
-00
This is an identity in t, hence
Jf
00
(I - qV 8/8x) u~(X) = (K - qLv 8/8x )
Aim(x~ -
xa)
p~(x') dX;dx Z
(D3Ia)
275
with
q
= q(l + jqw) -I ,
= (K + jqwL)(l + jqwf I ,
LI = L.
(D3Ic)
Note that ql and K I are complex, but when L = K it follows that K I = K = L, whereby
the elastic solution is regained, and the operators in (D31 a) and (D31 b) coincide.
The discretised load-displacement equations become:
1 I iwt
U/i = u/i +u/ib I?" ,
with
I
U/i = A /iJm p Jm
where A}ilm (-y = 0,1) is the component of u;(x/p) due to a load with unit intensity in
the m-direction acting over the discretisation rectangle with center in x Jp; 1 = 0,1.
A 1/. J can be determined with the aid of (D26). In the elastic case, A/~J = A/~J . In
Im
I
Im
Im
the general case A /ilm E JR, A /ilm E :.
D8.
THE CONT ACT CONDITIONS
The contact area and the areas of slip and adhesion are discretised by a finite number of
equal rectangles which form a net covering the entire potential contact area. In a
perturbed solution, the areas of contact, slip, and adhesion oscillate about the unperturbed
regions corresponding to bO. So, when the perturbation is vanishingly smalI, the oscillating regions are discretised by one and the same discretisation, viz. the discretisation
corresponding to b0 .
It may be argued that once the areas of contact, slip, and adhesion are known, the discre-
tisation net may be optimally chosen, and that this optimal discretisation does oscillate.
However, the theory of Ch. 4 presupposes an invariant discretisation net, and, moreover,
it seems hard to prescribe the conditions that an optimal net has to satisfy.
A good approximation to the areas of slip and adhesion may be found, in principle, as
folIows. The tractions p Jm that are found seem to correspond best to the values of the
continuous distribution Pm at x Ja' the center of the discretisation rectangle M J" If one
determines numerically the solution x a of the equations P3(xa ) = 0 from the p J3 with
JE C, the discretised contact, one finds a good approximation of the contact boundary.
276
D8: The Contact Conditions
Similarly, if one solves the equation I p Ci.(x ) I = fp3(x) for x ' based on
the discretised area of adhesion, one finds the slip-stick boundary.
P Ji'
JE H,
At any rate, the index sets C and H, discretised contact and adhesion area, should be
determined by the unperturbed solution corresponding to bO
The contact formation condition is determined by the undeformed and deformed
distances e, h:
.
o = e = eo + e I b I e'iwt + e I *b 1* e - jwt = h + u3 In
C;
eO = 0 in C => e l = 0 in C. hO and hlgiven,

h = h O + hljwt + hl*e- jwt .
In the adhesion area we have:

.
o = sCi. = s Ci.o + s Ci.I b I e jwt + s Ci.I * b1*e- jwt
I n H
'
s O = 0 in H => si
Ci.
Ci.
= 0 in
H,
where
s"/
Ci.
w"/ - v au"/ lax + j,,/wu "/

Ci.
Ci.
"/ = 0,1; a, = 1,2.
Ci. ,
In the slip area we have, if we define r = (_I)Ci. P3 ,that P r = 0, or, r is orthoCi.

-01
Ci. Ci.
01
gonal to p . The slip is parallel to the traction, that is, orthogonal to r :
01
01
( r 0 +r Ibl e jwt +r I*b l *e -jwt)( s 0 +s Ibl e'iwt +s I*b l *e -jwt)

Ci.
Ci.
Ci.
Ci.
Ci.
Ci.
0
=.
Hence, since I, e jwt , e - jwt are independent functions of time, and (b 1)2 is neglected, we
find
o 0 =0
r 01 s 01
in S
r Osi + sO r 1 = 0 in S.
Ci. Ci.
Ci.
Ci.
Also, p must be on the traction bound. That is, p p = (fP3)2

Ci.
Ci. Ci.
Exactly as above this leads to
277

The course of the calculation is as folIows:
1.
2.
3.
Determine the influence numbers A}iJm; note that they are independent of "I in
the elastic case, namely K = L.
Solve the unperturbed problem
pO . This problem is nonlinear since the areas
I
m
C, H, S are unknown, and follow from the inequalities governing the
unperturbed solution. Also, the unperturbed equations in S are nonlinear.
Solve the perturbed problem:
(D33a)
e l = in C
..... 1 equation
u?,
s i = in H, p'
= on leading edge of H ..... 2 equations.
r~s~ s~r~ =1
} in S
0:
0:
..... 2 equations
Po:Po:=! P3 P 3
(0:
= 1,2)
(D33b)
(D33c)
Note that there are three equations in each point of C, enough to determine the solution.
The inequalities of the problem are automatically satisfied if Ib l I is small enough.
(D33d)
D9.
AN EXAMPLE
Consider Carter's problem (1926), see Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.1, concerning the steady state rolling
of two elastic cylinders (half -spaces) with parallel axes. This is actually the only known
exact analytically formulated solution of a frictional rolling contact problem. Although it
is two-dimensional, elastic, and time independent, and therefore a very limited special
case of the systems we have considered up to now, it gives valuable information on many
aspects of the perturbed rolling contact problem. Indeed, time independent perturbed
fields can be studied by the simple differentiation of the Carter solution with respect to
its governing parameters.
A coordinate system (0; xl ,x 3 ) is introduced in which the plane x 3 = is the common
tangent plane, with the axis of x 3 pointing normally into the upper cylinder, while the
axis of xl points into the rolling direction. The contact area C is the strip -a ~ xl ~ a,
x 3 = 0, the exterior E is I x 1 I > a, x 3 = 0, the adhesion area H, of width 2a " borders
on the leading edge (a,O), and is given by the strip x 3 = 0, a - 2a' ~ x 1 ~ a, ~ a ' ~ a.
The area of slip S is given by the strip x 3 = 0, -a ~ x ~ a - 2a'. The normal traction
distribution in the two-dimensional Hertz problem is given by:
P3(x l )=P(a
=0
278
2"2
-xI)
in C
in E
(D34a)
(D34b)
D9: All Example
with
P=
G
(_I + _I )
2(I-v)
RI
R2
(D34c)
where
G,v: combined modulus of rigidity, Poisson's ratio (Ch. I, (1.44
: radius of cylinder a, a
1,2.
(D34d)
(D34e)
For quasiidentity, the tangential surface traction PI (x I) due to steady state rolling is
given by
in E
(D35a)
in S
(D35b)
in H
(D35c)
with
= longitudinal creepage = -(I

f = coefficient of friction.
- v)(a - a I) fPIG
(D35d)
(D35e)
The equations (D35) may be derived by line contact theory.

We consider several contact perturbations.
We perturb the creepage by a time independent amount, keeping P, f, a constant.
Only a l depends on ; we have
D9.1.
da Ild = G/{(I - v) fP}.
(D36a)
Then, the perturbation p!(x I ) of PI(x I ) is

I
PI(x I ) = 0
=0
= -fP {al - (xl - a + a')} {al
1
"2
=-{GI(I-v)}{a-x l }
2 -"2
- (Xl - a + a l )}
{2a l -a+x I }
-"2
in E
in S
(D36b)
(D36c)
dalld=
inH.
(D36d)
When a l = a, (D36) represents the linear law, which is characterised by a vanishingly

small creepage , zero slip inside contact, and a continuous traction at the leading edge
(a,O). (D36) itself represents the same solution, but on the adhesion area H, rather than on
C. But then (D33) is exactly the solution described by (D36), namely the exact solution of
the perturbation problem. This illustrates the validity of (D33).
279
p!
Note that
(x 1) has an inverse square root behavior at the trailing edge of the adhesion
(x I)
area, see (D36d). This behavior gives problems when we attempt to calculate
numerically. Section DIO is devoted to this problem.
p!
D9.2. We perturb the coefficient of friction
I,
keeping a, P, and
econstant. We have:
e= constant = -(1
=>=>-
- v)(a - a ') IP /G
0 = (1 - v)(fP/G) da '/dl - (1 - v)(a - a ') P/G
da '/dl = (a - a ')/1.
So, as in example D9.l,
1
PI (x 1) = 0
=P(a
=P{(a
in E
22
-xl)
22
-xl)
-(a'
inS
22
-[xl -a+a'j)}+
1
2
-2
- P(a - a')(a - xl) (2a' - a + xl)
in H.
Again, this has an inverse square root singularity at the trailing edge of the adhesion
area, and is continuous at the leading edge.
D9.3. We perturb the contact width a, keeping all other parameters except a' constant.
We have
e= constant = -(1
=>-
- v)(a - a ') IP/G

0 = 1 - da'/da =>- da'/da = 1.
We have
1
P3(x I )
Pa(a
1
Pi(X I ) = 0
2 -"2
- Xl)
in C
in E
in S
in H
which has a singularity at all edges of Sand H. The behavior of the traction at the leading edge (a,O) is as folIows:
280
D9: An Example
Pl(x l ) -+
P3(x l ) -+
/PV2 (Va - ~) ~
PV2 Va ~
P~(xl) -+ 1/PV2 (Va _ ~) ~

1
P 3(x l ) -+"2
r::;
r-
-1
~-l
Pv 2 va v a - xl
as xl ja.
We interpret this, and generalise to the three-dimensional case.

The unperturbed traction consists of two parts: a sliding term on S, and an adhesion term
on H. The sliding term is proportional to the normal traction. For the adhesion term, we
have in the three-dimensional case
ou lox
X
with
~,'1,
IP:
=~ -
the longitudinal, lateral, and spin creepages, respectively;
: the tangential displacement difference,
x,y
= x,y
: the rolling, respectively lateral directions.
We integrate ou lox to obtain

U
in H
oulox='1+lPx
IPY,
= ~x - IPxy
+ k (y),
X
U ,
see Appendix D, Ch. 4,

1 2
y = '1X + -2 IPx + k y (y)
in H,
with k (y): an arbitrary function of y (integration constant).

T
Note that "u (x) given" is a classical boundary condition of elasticity. In the present case,
T
contains an unknown function of y, viz. k (y). It is determined by the requirement
T
T
that P has an inverse square root singularity of prescribed strength at the leading edge
T
of H. In many cases this strength is determined by the requirement that the traction PT
vanishes at the perturbed leading edge of contact.
When the leading edge is not perturbed, as in examples D9.1 and D9.2, the traction
vanishes on the leading edge.
When the leading edge is perturbed, one should know the effect on the traction of the
perturbation of the edge of contact. This is found by the observation that in the
quasiidentical case normal contact perturbations are independent of the tangential
perturbations, and that normal contact perturbations always reduce to a boundary
value problem of the type
p1=o inC;
T
p.
I
=0
in E
wh ich is a classical problem with a unique solution. As the perturbed normal traction
281
P~ vanishes on the perturbed edge of contact, and the tangential traction near the
edge behaves like the normal traction, we propose the following behavior of p I (x):
r
as x
--+
leading edge from inside C.
We note that on the edge common to Sand C this leads to

f: coefficient of friction;
while in Carter's case, example D9.3,
as xl t a,
which is as it should be. In the examples D9.1-2,
P~(xI) --+ 0 ~
P:(x l )
--+
0 as xl t a.
In the non-quasiidentical case, one should apply a Panagiotopoulos process to find the
behavior of both P~ and of
p!.
DlO. THE ACCURACY

It is usual in the program CONT ACT, and indeed throughout this work, to use a piece-
wise constant approximation for all tractions in the integrals that occur in the problem,
notably to find the influence numbers A}iJm' Up to now all tractions were continuous,
but in contact perturbations and in sharp-edge? normal contacts, we are faced with
tractions with an inverse square root behavior: x - 2 ,x ~ 0, see Sec. D9. In order to assess
a
a
the value of the piecewise constant approximation, we calculate
[=
J0a
(a-x)
i x -i dx= 1I'a/2
1
15.708
ifa=IO.
(D37)
The traction distribution (a - X)2 x -2 has inverse square root behavior x -2 near x = 0,
1
and square root behavior (a - x)2 near x = a.

We calculate [ using a piecewise constant approximation.
282
DIO: The Accuracy

1
2
2
2
2
I ~ l 1 = 2 {(9/l) + (7/3) + I + (3/7) + (1/9) } = 13.03;
error = (11 - 1)/1 = -17%.
1
(D38)
Next, we calculate I by replacing (9/1)2 in (D38) by (9)2 x- 2 , which latterapproximates more closely the integrand in 0 < x
2. We find
1~/2=2{3x2 +(7/3)
error (12 - 1)/1 = -1.2%,
+1+(317)
+(1/9) }=15.516
(D39)
a vast improvement over (D38). Also we see that the root singularity ~ is weIl
handled by the piecewise constant elements, which accounts for the success of the
program CONTACT in the nonlinear case. The above analysis also accounts for the relatively bad behavior of CONTACT when sharp edges are present, and in the relatively
unfavorable values of the linear theoretic creepage and spin coefficients.
In Sec. D8 we showed how we could obtain reasonably good approximations to the areas of
contact, slip and adhesion. Perhaps this can be combined with the experiences of the
present section to obtain better results when the traction has an inverse square root
singularity.
283
Appendix D: Viscoelastic Rolling; COlltact Perturbations
REFERENCES
I.G. Goriacheva (1973): Contact problem of rolling of a viscoelastic cylinder on a base of
the same material. P.M.M. 37, No. 5.

S.c. HUllter (1961): The rolling contact of a rigid cylinder over a viscoelastic halfspace. J. Appl. Mech. 28, pp. 611-617.
J.J. Kalker ( 1980): See Panek.
J.J. Kalker (1983): Two algorithms in contact elastostatics, in: Contact Mechanics and
Wear of Wheel-Rail Systems, eds. J. Kalousek, R.V. Dukkipati, G.M.L. Gladwell;

Univ. of Waterloo Press, pp. 275-312.
J.J. Kalker (1985): On the contact problem in elastostatics, in: Unilateral Problems in
Structural Analysis, eds. G. dei Piero, F. Maceri; Springer Wien-New York, CISM
288, pp. 81-118.
J.J. Kalker (1988): Contact mechanical algorithms, Comm. Anal. Num. Meth. 4, pp.
25-32.
J.J. Kalker (1989): Elastic and viscoelastic analysis of two multiply layered cylinders
rolling over each other with Coulomb friction. T.U. Delft, TWI Report 89-50.
K. Kllothe, A. Gross-Thebing (1986): Derivation of frequency dependent creep coef-
ficients based on an elastic half -space model, Veh. Sys. Dyn. 15, pp. 133-154.
K. Knothe ( 1988): See Wang.
C. Panek and J.J. Kalker ( 1980): Three-dimensional contact of a rigid roller traversing
a viscoelastic half-space. J. lust. Maths. Applics. 26, pp. 299-313.
G. Wang and K. Kllothe ( 1988): Theorie und numerische Behandlung des allgemeinen
rollenden Kontakt zweier viskoelastischer Walzen. Fortschrittberichte VDI, Reihe
1, No. 165, VI + 97 pp.
284
APPENDIXE
In this appendix we present four tables, viz.

1.
2.
3.
EI.
A table of the complete elliptic integrals B, C, D, E, K, see Ch. I, Eq. (1.5 7).
Two tables of dimensionless numbers connected with the Hertz theory.
A table of the creepage coefficient of the linear theory of rolling contact with
elliptic contact area.
COMPLETE ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS
The independent variable is g = 0.0 (0.1) 1.0 (column I); k =

In columns 2/6 we tabulate the elliptic integrals:
column 2:
B=
=
column 3:
C=
column 4:
column 5:
column 6:
f
f
f
7r/2
2
2
2
0
cos!/J (1 - k sin
!/J)
7r/2
2
sin!/J)
2
2
cos!/J (cos
7r/2
2
2
0
Sill!/J cos
!/J
+g
- k
!/J (1
_1
2
sin
~.
d!/J =
-1 d!/J
!/J)
-~
2
d!/J
7r/2
2
2
2 _1
0
Sill!/J (1 - k sin !/J) 2 d!/J
f
=f
7r/2
2
2
0
(1 - k sin
!/J) 2 d!/J
7r/2
2
2
0
(1 - k Sill
!/J)
_1
2
d!/J
2
2
In column 7 we tabulate k = 1 - g
These elliptic integrals are important in the Hertz theory and related subjects.
285
Appendix E: Tables
T ABLE EI. Complete elliptic integrals (Jahnke-Emde, 1943).
E2.
-2+1n(4/g)
1.7351
1.1239
0.8107
0.6171
0.4863
0.3929
0.3235
0.27060
0.22925
0.19635=11"/16
1
0.9889
0.9686
0.9451
0.9205
0.8959
0.8719
0.8488
0.8267
0.8055
0.7864=11"/4
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-1+ln(4/g)
2.7067
2.0475
1.6827
1.4388
1.2606
1.1234
1.0138
0.9241
0.8491
0.7854=11"/4
1.0160
1.0505
1.0965
1.1507
1.2111
1.2763
1.3456
1.4181
1.4933
1.5708=11"/2
+ln(4/g)
3.6956
3.0161
2.6278
2.3593
2.1565
1.9953
1.8626
1.7508
1.6546
1.5708=11"/2
k2
1.00
0.99
0.96
0.91
0.84
0.75
0.64
0.51
0.36
0.19
0.00
HERTZ THEORY
We refer to Ch. 1, Eqs. (1.54)-(1.57); according to these equations we have

O~k:51.
a l ~ a 2 '2 D I
;:0: f2;
a r : semi-axis of contact area.
D 1x 1 + D 2 x 2 - q;
h: undeformed distance, q: approach
1 -1
-1
D = -2 (R 1 + R 2 ), r = 1,2; R : radius of curvature of body a in the r- 3 plane.
r
r
r
ar
/1 = D 1 + D 2 ;
Q = (1 - v)/G = 2(1 - })/E, combined elastic constants, see (1.44).
F 3 = total compressive force.

According to (1.5 7):
a 3 /1
a: def_l__ ~
=
F Q - 211"
3
def.-!L
=
286
a 1/1
~
E
E3: The Linear Theory 0/ Rollillg Contact

D1
'" def_
I
=
Ll
B
E'
=_
The dimensionless quantities g, a, , "I are tabulated in Table E2. I, and g is tabulated as
a function of "I in Table E2.2. If "I or gare specified, a, , and "I are known,
T ABLE E2.1. a, , "I as functions of g.

g
tO.O
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4775g
0.04851
0.10031
0.15706
0.2198
0.2891
0.3656
0.4497
0.5417
0.7110
"I
"I
1.0000
0.9733
0.9220
0.8619
0.7999
0.7397
0.6831
0.6308
0.5830
0.5461
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
0.98
1.00
1.0000
0.8748
0.763(1
0.6624
0.5697
0.4827
0.3999
0.3191
0.2376
0.1491
0.0833
0.0000
0.7500=4
ln(4/g)
3.637
2.004
2.397
2.050
1.781
1.563
1.3842
1.2346
I.1 080
1.0000=1
T ABLE E2.2. g as function of "I
0.5000=2
and we can specify any 3 of the 6 variables q, a 1, Ll, F 3' Q, D l' to find all 6, unless
this leads to a conflict (e.g. D 1 and Ll, or q, a 1, Ll specified).
E3.
THE LINEAR THEOR Y OF ROLLING CONT ACT
We tabulate the creepage coefficients of the linear theory of rolling contact. They are
defined as folIows:
F 1 = -c 2 CC I I~' c
= v'Qb, a: semi-axis of contact ellipse in rolling direction,

b: semi-axis of contact ellipse in lateral direction,
~:
longitudinal creepage, see (1.82);
2
3
F 2 = -c CC 22 TJ - c CC23tP, TJ: lateral creepage, see (1.82),
tP: spin creepage, see (1.82);
287
Appendix E: Tables
T ABLE E3. The creepage coefficients C .. of the linear theory of rolling contact
"
I}
f or e11 IptIC
contact areas.
11=0
2.
a
1/4
1/2
11=0
1f 2/4(1-II)
tO.O
CII
C 22
1/4
C 23
1/2
1/4
ntg
1.
0.334
0.483
0.607
0.720
0.827
0.930
1.03
1.13
1.23
0.473
0.603
0.715
0.823
0.929
1.03
1.14
1.25
1.36
1/2
11=0
2.51
2.59
2.68
2.78
2.88
2.98
3.09
3.19
3.29
3.31
3.37
3.44
3.53
3.62
3.72
3.81
3.91
4.01
4.85
4.81
4.80
4.82
4.83
4.91
4.97
5.05
5.12
2.51
2.59
2.68
2.78
2.88
2.98
3.09
3.19
3.29
2.52
2.63
2.75
2.88
3.01
3.14
3.28
3.41
3.54
2.53
2.66
2.81
2.98
3.14
3.31
3.48
3.65
3.82
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
3.40
3.51
3.65
3.82
4.06
4.37
4.84
0.3
5.57
4.12
4.22
4.36
4.54
4.78
5.10
5.57
6.34
7.78
11.7
5.20
5.30
5.42
5.58
5.80
6.11
6.57
7.34
8.82
12.9
3.40
3.51
3.65
3.82
4.06
4.37
4.84
5.57
6.96
10.7
3.67
3.81
3.99
4.21
4.50
4.90
5.48
6.40
8.14
12.8
3.98
4.16
4.39
4.67
5.04
5.56
6.31
7.51
9.79
16.0
1.33
1.44
1.58
1.76
2.01
2.35
2.88
3.79
5.72
12.2
1.47
1.59
1.75
1.95
2.23
2.62
3.24
4.32
6.63
14.6
0.731
0.809
0.889
0.977
1.07
1.18
1.29
1.40
1.51
1.63
1.77
1.94
2.18
2.50
2.96
3.70
5.01
7.89
18.0
C 33
1/4
1/2
1f 2 /16(1_II)g
3(1-11) (I +II( 2A+ln4-5
//4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2 6.96
0.1 10.7
11=0
= -C 32
6.42
3.46
2.49
2.02
1.74
1.56
1.43
1.34
1.27
8.28
4.27
2.96
2.32
1.93
1.68
1.50
1.37
1.27
11.7
5.66
3.72
2.77
2.22
1.86
1.60
1.42
1.27
1.21
1.16
1.10
1.05
1.01
0.958
0.912
0.868
0.828
0.795
1.19
1.11
1.04
0.965
0.892
0.819
0.747
0.674
0.601
0.526
1.16
1.06
0.954
0.852
0.751
0.650
0.549
0.446
0.341
0.228
~{ 1+(I-II)(3-ln4))
tQ.O
21f {I 3-ln4}
(A-211)g
+ A-211
288
In (l6/i); g
(1-1I)A+2117
(I-II)A+211
= mill (a/b;b/a);
III 4
21f
3g g
~ /{(I-II)A-2+411)
= 1.386
1f { I
"4
II(A-2)
}
(I-II)A-2+411
E4: The Generalisatioll 0/ Galin's Theorem
G: combined modulus of rigidity, see (1.44),

(F I,F 2): total tangential force on body I,
M 3: couple about 3-axis on body 1.
It is an unexplained fact that C 32 = -C23
The creepage coefficients C .. depend on alb and on the combined Poisson's ratio 11. They
are tabulated in Table E3. f'he asymptotic values (for g ! 0) were calculated by Kalker
(I 972a); the main body of Table E3 was calculated by Kalker (I 967a).
E4.
THE GENERALISA nON OF GALIN'S THEOREM
This subject is also discussed in Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.2.4; the generalisation is due to Kalker
(l967a); it is on this work that the present discussion is based.
Let the contacting bodies, (I) and (2), be approximated by the quasiidentical half -spaces
x 3 ~ 0: (I), and x 3 :0::; 0: (2), with combined modulus of rigidity G and Poisson's ratio 11.
The quasiidentity is implied by the vanishing of the difference parameter K. The definition of these constants is found in (1.44).
The contact area C is assumed to be elliptic:
and the exterior E is defined as
We define
if (XI ,x2 ,0) E C
if (x 1,x2 ,0) E E
s=1.
If
5 =
5 =
-1, then J
+1, J
--->
---> 00
at the edge of the contact area C, as in Mindlin's problem; if
0 at the edge of C, as in Hertz's problem.
Let the surface traction components exerted on boqy (1) (x 3

plied by a polynomial in X I ,x2' with coefficients d~',~.
0) be given by J multi-
I,J E ]N ~f (0,1 ,2, ... }
289
Appendix E: Tables
so that the total force reads
where for arbitrary e

(e)o = I,
JR, and n
JN
(e)n = e(e + I) ... (e + n - I),
n ~ 1.
Then the surface displacement difference u. = u l . - u2 . is given by

I
I
I
K,L E JN
with
bl,s
2
I {dl,S (EO,s;I,J _ vEI,s;I,J ) _ vd 2 ,s EI,s;I,J
}
K,L = K!L! I,J
I,J
K,L
K+2,L
I,J
K+I,L+I
b 2 ,s = _2_ I {d 2 ,S (EO,s;I,J _ vEI,s;I,J ) _ vdl,sEI,s;I,J
}
K,L
K!L! I J
I,J
K,L
K,L+2
I,J
K+I,L+I
b 3 ,s = ~ I d 3 ,s EO,s;I,J
K,L
K!L! I J I,J
K,L'
The influence coefficients Eh,s;ii (h =

,
1.
I,J,K,L E JN;
2.
2h + s + I + 1+ J - K - L ~ 0;
3.
1+ K and J + L are both even.
or I) vanish unless
In Table E4 all Eh,s;i'i are given in terms of the complete elliptic integrals B, C, D, E,
,
K for
h = 0:
0~I+J~2
h=l,s=-I:
h=l,s=I:
O~I+J~I
1+ J
= 0.
The following notations are used in Table E4, which is taken from Kalker (l967a):
290
E4: The Generalisation 01 Galin's Theorem

Eh;!J def Eh,-I;I,J.
KL =
K,L'
Fh;IJ def Eh,+I;I,J.
KL =
K,L'
0< g
= a/a 2 ;
=~;
General expressions for the

(1967a).
Eh,s;i~,
s = al.
together with all derivations, are found in Kalker
'
Example I - The Hertz problem, see Sec. 1.7.1, and E2.

We assurne that P3 has a semi-ellipsoidal distribution:
d~' b is the intensity of the

consid~r u3' as we will. When
where
pressure distribution. PI and P2 are immaterial when
s = I, the parameters b1'~ that go into u3 are nonzero

we
,
0
0
0 .
only when K even, L even, and 0 :-:; K + L :-:; 2, as follows from the rules I , 2 , 3 glven
above. Consequently, (K,L) = (0,0), (2,0), or (0,2). We have:
in the contact area C;
in the contact area, on the other hand, see (1.56a,b)
so that we can identify

_ b3, 1
0,0
q -
-D =b 3 ,1
I
2,0
2(1 - v) d 3 ,1 FO;OO
O!O!
0,0
00
= 2(1 -
2!0!
v) d 3 ,1 FO;OO
0,0
20
(1
- v al
= _ (I
Kd 3 ,1
0,0
_ ) -I Bd 3,1
v al
0,0
-D = b3 ,1 = 2(1 - v) d 3 ,1 FO;OO = - (1 - v) a-l l

2
0,2
0!2!
0,0
02
Dd 03 ,'OI.
The dimensionless contacts a,,"!, cf. Sec. E2 are, when we use the identity B + g2 D
= E,
see (1.57d):
29\
Appendix E: Tables
= 2
al
=---.K,
E'
E'
aI(D I + D 2 )
as we had already stated in Sec, EI.
Example 2 - Approximation 0/ steady state rolling with sliding in the negative

x l-direction everywhere in the contact,
We assume a Hertzian normal pressure distribution,
Also, we assume
The normal displacement difference u3 is as in Example 1, in accordance with the hypothesis of quasiidentity, We have for the relative slip in steady state rolling with relative
rigid slip constant in x l-direction, and zero in x 2 -direction,
wRI
= constant,
wR2 = 0,
We showed between (1.84d) and (1.85) that the 3-component of the relative slip vanishes
identically, whatever the rigid slip,
We determine u l and u2 ' They are polynomials in x r (r = 1,2) inside the contact area C.
First we decide which coefficients
do not vanish identically, We do that by means
of the rules 1,2,3, The following E:functions are of interest. Clearly, s = 1.
bi/L
b l, I ,
K,L'
EO,I ;0,0
K,L
b2 ,1 ,
K,L'
EI,I;O,O
FO;O,O,
K,L'
0, L
bi,~:
Rules 2, 3:
'*
EI,I;O,O
K+2,L
FI;O,O
K+2,L
_ FI;O,O
K+I,L+I -
292
K+I,L+I'
0, integers;
2 - K - L
~ 0,
(K,L) = (0,0), (2,0), (0,2)
4 - (K + 2) - L
for u l
~ 0,
K,L even
E4: The Generalisation 01 Galin's Theorem
bi',~:
'*
4 - (K + I) - (L + I)
K,L odd
0,
for u2 .
(K,L) = (l, I)
So we find
ul =
b l,1
bl,1 2 bl,l 2
0,0 + 2,Ox I + 0,2 x 2'
/8
l,1
= 2b 2,Ox I =
21d3,1
2 (FO;OO
0,0 2!0!
20 -
11
FI;OO)
40
3 I
= 2I d O',0 [B - lI(D - C)] (x/al)
u2
/8
x1 =
b2 ,1 x
Id 3 ,1
2 (F1;00)
21d 3 ,1 2C( /
)
1,l 2=
o,olTlT
-11
22 x 2 = 11 o,og
x2 a1
Counterslip is said to occur when sR 1 > 0 at a point. It first occurs at the point (a 1,0,0),
namely when wR1 = -2Id~'~ [B - lI(D - C)] ~f w;l' As counterslip cannot occur in
reality, the assumption of complete sliding is not tenable when counterslip appears in the
calculation: in fact, an area of adhesion forms. When wRI :.:; w~l' sRI has everywhere the
correct negative sign.
0, so that the solution is at best approximate. In order to
assess the error, we assume a circular contact area:
g = I, C = 1r/16, B = D = 1r/4. Then we have:
It is seen that sR2 '" 0 when
sR1
I
= 21d 3,
O,0
sR2 =
11 '"
[(1r/4) - (31r1l/16)][(x/a l ) - (wR/wRI )], when wR/wR1 ~ 1
-2Id~',~(1r1l/16)(x2/al)
from which it is seen that for practical values of

sR 1 in most of the circular contact area.
11,
e.g.
11 =
0.3, sR2 is small relative to
293
Appendix E: Tables
T ABLE E4. The influence numbers of Galin's Theorem .
.!EO;OO FO;OO
(o.! 2 ) .! K
,
00
00 s -.' C .s
0'00
-I
F '20
= -s (O-e
F O;OO
02
-I 2
= -s g 0
C) =
-s
-I
.!EO; 10 _ F O; 10 _.! (0 2C ) _.! B

10 10 - ,s -e
- ,s
,
0'10
F '30
-I
2-1
= -s {20t(l-3e)C} = s (0-3B-C)
FO;IO = -s-l g 2(0-C)

12
.s
.!EO;OI _FO;OI_.! 0
2
01 01 FO;OI _ -s-I(O-C)
21 -
FO;~! = -s-li(20tC)
.s
.!EO;20 _ FO;20 _.! 3D
00 00 I
0'20
0'20 I
2
I
zE '20=F '20 = zs{Ot(I-2e )C}=zs(2B-0+C)
.!EO;20 _ FO;20 _ .! 2C
,
02 02 - - ,sg
,s 3
.!EO; 11
II
= FO; 11 =.! (O-C)
iEO;g~
11
Fo;g~
8g
.!EO;02 _ FO;02 __ .! C
20 20 - .s
.!EO;02 F O;02
2
02 =
02
294
~ (O-/C) _ ~ B
-.s
.! (0 C)
+
8g
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bold italic numbers after each entry refer to pages in the text.
M. Abramowitz. I. Stegun ( 1964): Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover Publications, New York. 33
N. Ahmadi (1982): Non-Hertzian normal and tangential loading of elastic bodies in
contact. Ph.D. Thesis, Appendix C2, Northwestern University, Evanston ILL, USA.
255
N. Ahmadi. L.M. Keer. T. Mura ( 1983): Non-Hertzian stress analysis for an elastic halfspace in normal and sliding contact. International Journal of Solids and Structures
19, p. 357-377. 52
J.B. Alblas ( 1957): Theorie van de driedimensionale spanningstoestand in een doorboorde
plaat. (Dutch). Thesis Delft. 68
J.F. Archard (1957): Elastic deformation and the laws of friction. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Ser. A 243, p. 190-205. 18
E.M.L. Beale (1959): On quadratic programming. Naval Research and Logistics Quarterly 6. 171
R.H. Bentall. K.L. Johnson (1967): Slip in the rolling contact of two dissimilar elastic
rollers. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 9, p. 389-404. See Index
(Johnson).
D. Bischoff. R. Mahnken (1984): Zur Konvergenz von Kontakt Algorithmen, die auf
aktive Set Strategien beruhen. In: Seminar ber Unilaterale Probleme, Ed. H.
Bufler. Inst. Mechanik (Bauwesen), Univ. Stuttgart. 52
G. Bjrkman ( 1988): The numerical solution of contact problems using linear complementarity. Linkping Studies in Science and Technology. Thesis No. 136. 50
295
Bibliography
H. Blok ( 1940): Fundamental mechanical aspects of boundary lubrication. S.A.E. Journal
42 (2), pp. 54-68. 19
J. Boussinesq ( 1885): Application des Potentieis a l'Etude de l'Equilibre et du Mouvement des Solides Elastiques. Paris, Gauthier- Villars. See Index (Boussinesq-Cerruti).
A. Brandt, A.A. Lubrecht ( 1990?): Multilevel multi-integration and fast solution of integral equations. Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, The
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, 76100 Israel. To appear. 50, 187
BY. Brickte ( 1973): The steady state forces and moments on a railway wheel set incIuding flange contact conditions. Thesis Loughborough University. 214-215
H. Butler (1984): Derivation of the variational inequality and extremum principles of
the frictionless elastic contact problem. In: H. Bufler (ed.), Proceedings of the
Seminar on Unilateral Problems. Univ. Stuttgart, 25 -26 October. 137
A. Carneiro Esteves (1987): Resolution du contact elastique entre deux corps rugueux.
L'Institut National de Sciences Appliquees de Lyon. Thesis No. 87 ISAL 0047. 187,
198,201,202,237
F.W. Carter (1926): On the action of a locomotive driving wheel. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, A112, p. 151-157.19,59-64,71,76,88,278
C. Cattaneo ( 1938): Sul contatto di due corpi elastici: distribuzione locale degli sforzi.
Accademia Nazionale Lincei, Rendiconti, Sero 6, Vol. XXVII, p. 342-348, 434-436,

474-478. See Index (Cattaneo-Mindlin).
V. Cerruti (1882): Accademia dei Lincei, Roma. Mem. fis. mat. See Index (Boussinesq-
Cerruti).
V.S. Chernina ( 1967): See Fridman.
Y.P. Chiu, M.J. Hartnetl (1987): A numerical solution for the contact problem involving
bodies with cylindrical surface considering cylinder effect. Journal of Tribology
109, p. 479-486. 35, 195
A. Chudzikiewicz (1990?): See Kalker.

T.F. Conry, A. Seireg (1971): A mathematical programming method for the design of
elastic bodies in contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics 38, p. 387-392. 51
C.A. Coulomb (1785): Theorie des machines simples. Memoire de Mathematique et de
Physique de l'Academie Royale, p. 161- 342. See Index (Coulomb).
A. Curnier (1984): A theory of friction. International Journal of Solids and Structures
20, p. 634-647. 96
J.M. de Mul, J.J. Kalker, B. Frederiksson ( 1986): The contact between arbitrarily curved
bodies of finite dimensions. Journal of Tribology 108, p. 140-148. 35, 52, 53, 56,
59, 186, 195
296
H. Deresiewicz (1953): See Mindlin.
V.l. Dovnorovich (1959): Three-dimensional Contact Problems in the Theory of Elasticity,

Minsk. (In Russian). 70
M.C. Duhourg ( 1989): Le contact unilateral avec frottement le long de fissures de fatigue
dans les liaisons mecaniques. Thesis INSA Lyon, No. 89 ISAL 0088. 238
G. Duvaut, J.-L. Lions (1972): Les Inequations en Mecanique et en Physique. Dunod,

Paris. XVI, 27, 48, 95-97, 137, 141, 152, 156,265
J.A. Elkins (1983): See Shen.
A. Erdelyi et al. ( 1953): Higher Transcendental Functions, McGraw- Hill, 3 Vois. 68
AY. Fiacco, G. McGormick ( 1968): Nonlinear Programming. Wiley, New York. 158
G. Fichera (1964): Problemi elastostatici con vincoli unilaterale: il probleme di Signorini

con ambigue condizioni al contorno. Memorie Accademie Nazionale dei Lincei, Ser.
8,7, p. 91-140. XVI, 27,48,51,96,137,152,156
B. Frederiksson (1986): See de Mul.
V.M. Fridman, V.S. Chernina (1967): The solution of the contact problem of elastic
bodies by means of an iteration method. (In Russian). Mekhanika Tverdogo Tela
Akademia Nauk SSSR 1, p. 116-120.50-51
H. Fromm (1927): Berechnung des Schlupfes beim Rollen deformierbarer Scheiben.
Zeitschrift fr angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 7, p. 27-58.19,59-64,71,
76,88
L.A. Galin (1953): Contact Problems in the Theory of Elasticity. (In Russian).
Goztekhizdat, Moscow. English translation, Ed. I.N. Sneddon, North Carolina State
College, Dept. of Mathematics, Raleigh NC, USA (1961). XVI, 32, 47,49. See also
Index (Galin's Generalised Theorem).
L.A. Galin (1980): Contact Problems of the Theory of Elasticity and Viscoelasticity. (In
Russian). Izdatelstvo "Nauka", Moscow. XVI, 47, 49
G.ML. Gladwell (1980): Contact problems in the classical theory of elasticity. Sijthoff
and Noordhoff, Alphen a/d Rijn, the Netherlands. XVI, 23, 32, 47, 48,49, 68,
70
H. Goedings (1972): See Kalker.
L.E. Goodman (1962): Contact stress analysis of normally loaded rough spheres. Journal
of Applied Mechanics 29, p. 515-522. See Index (Goodman).
I.G. Goriacheva ( 197 3): The contact problem of the rolling of a viscoelastic cylinder on a
base of the same material. Prikladnaya Matematika i Mekhanika 37, No. 5. 265
297
Bibliography
J.A. Greenwood (1985): See Johnson.
A. Gross- Thebing ( 1986): See Knothe.
D.J. Haines, E. Ollerton ( 1963): Contact stress distributions on elliptical contact surfaces
subjected to radial and tangential forces. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 177, p. 95-114. 64,71,78,79
DJ. Haines (1964-5): Contact stresses in flat elliptical contact surfaces which support
radial and shearing forces during rolling. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers 179, Part 3. 78
J. Halling (1964): Microslip between a rolling element and its track arising from geometric conformity and applied surface traction. Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science 6, No. I, p. 64- 7 3. 64, 78
P.R. Halmos.' Measure Theory. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, Latest Edition. 150

MJ. Hartnett (1979): The analysis of contact stresses in rolling element bearings. Journal of Lubrication Technology 101, p. 105-109.51
M.J. Hartnett (1987): See Chiu.
J. Hashemi (1981): See Paul.
A. Hayd, M. Maurer (1985): Physikalische Rechenverfahren zur Ermittlung von makroskopischen Kenndaten im Kontaktbereich. Report MAN Mnchen, No. B 099 093EDS-OOL 20
J.K. Hedrick (1983): See Shen.
H. Hertz (1882a): ber die Berhrung fester elastischer Krper. Journal fr reine und
angewandte Mathematik (Crelle) 92, p. 156-171. Also in: H. Hertz, Gesammelte
Werke, Band 1. Leipzig: J.A. Barth (1895) 155-173. See Index (Hertz).
H. Hertz (1882b): ber die Berhrung fester elastischer Krper und ber die Hrte. In:
H. Hertz, Gesammelte Werke, Band 1. Leipzig: J.A. Barth (1895) 174-196. See
Index (Hertz).
J.G. Higginson ( 1 985): See Johnson.
A.E.W. Hobbs (1967): A survey of creep. Report DYN 52. British Rail Research Department, Derby (UK). 77
S.c. Hunter ( 1 961): The rolling contact of a rigid cylinder over a viscoelastic half -space.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 28, p. 611- 617. 265
E. Jahnke, F. Emde (1943): Tables of Functions. Dover Publications, New York. 33,
286
298
K.L. Johnson (1958a): The effect of spin upon the rolling motion of an elastic sphere
upon a plane. Journal of Applied Mechanics 25, p. 332-338. See Index (Johnson).
K.L. Johnson (1958b): The effect of a tangential contact force upon the rolling motion of
an elastic sphere on a plane. Journal of Applied Mechanics 25, p. 339-346. See
Index (Johnson).
K.L. Johnson (1959): The influence of elastic deformation upon the motion of a ball
rolling between two surfaces. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 173, No. 34, p. 795-810.
K.L. Johnson (1962): Tangential tractions and microslip in rolling contact. Proceedings
Symposium Rolling Contact Phenomena, Ed. J.B. Bidwell, Elsevier p. 6-28. See
Index (Johnson).
K.L. Johnson ( 1964): See Vermeulen.
K.L. Johnson (1967): See Bentall.
K.L. Johnson (1979): See Nayak.
K.L. Johnson (1985): Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
XVI, XVIII, 47
K.L. Johnson. J.A. Greenwood. J.G. Higginson (1985): The contact of elastic regular
wavy surfaces. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 27, No. 6, p. 383-396.
198
J.J. Kalker (1964): The transmission of force and couple between two elastically similar
rolling spheres. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, B67, p. 135-177.66,68,70
J.J. Kalker (1967a): On the rolling contact of two elastic bodies in the presence of dry
friction. Thesis Delft. XVIII, 28, 66, 68, 69, 70, 77, 82, 84, 95, 192, 203, 205,
289, 291
J.J. Kalker (1967b): On the rolling contact of two elastic bodies in the presence of dry
friction: Numerical Results. Report, 64 pp. 84, 96
J.J. Kalker (1967c): A strip theory for rolling with slip and spin. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, B70, p. 10-62. 64,
71, 78, 79
J.J. Kalker (1968): On the uniqueness of contact problems in the theory of elasticity.
Rapport 387, Laboratorium voor Technische Mechanica, TU Delft. 157
J.J. Kalker (1970): Transient phenomena in two elastic cylinders rolling over each other
with dry friction. Journal of Applied Mechanics 37, p. 677-688.157
299
Bibliography
J.J. Kalker ( 197 1): A minimum principle of the law of dry friction with application to
elastic cylinders in rolling contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics 38, p. 875-880,

881-887.25,84,88,89, 90,91,92,93
J.J. Kalker (197 2a): On elastic line contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics 39, p.
1125-1132.71, 87, 187, 289

J.J. Kalker, Y. van Randen (197 2b): A minimum principle for frictionless elastic contact
with application to non-Hertzian half -space contact problems. Journal of Engineering Mathematics 88, p. 193-206.51,52,53,56,59
J.J. Kalker, H. Goedings (1972c): A programme for three-dimensional steady state
rolling. Report TU Delft, Faculty TWI, Section TA. 95, 158

J.J. Kalker (1973): Simplified theory of rolling contact. Delft Progress Report 1, p.
1- 10. 79, 80-82
J.J. Kalker (1977 a): The surface displacement of an elastic half -space loaded in a
slender, bounded, curved surface region, with application to the calculation of the
contact pressure under a roller. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its
Applications 19, p. 127-144.71
J.J. Kalker (1977b): Variational principles of contact elastostatics. Journal of the Insti-
tute of Mathematics and its Applications 20, p. 199-219.95,137

J.J. Kalker (1979): The computation of three-dimensional rolling contact with dry
friction. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 14, p.
1293-1307.73,96,158,159
J.J. Kalker (1979a): Survey of wheel-rail contact theory. Vehicle System Dynamics 5, p.
317-358. 79,
12~
262
J.J. Kalker (1980): See Panek.

J.J. Kalker ( 1982): A fast algorithm for the simplified theory of rolling contact. Vehicle
System Dynamics 1 I, p. 1- 13. 80-82
J.J. Kalker ( 1983): Two algorithms for the contact problem in elastostatics. In: Contact
Mechanics and the Wear of Wheel-Rail Systems, Eds. J. Kalousek, R.V. Dukkipati,
G.M.L. GladweIl, University of WaterIoo Press, p. 101-120.52,96,159,266
J.J. Kalker (1985): On the contact problem in elastostatics. In: Unilateral problems in
structural analysis, Ed. G. deI Piero/F. Maceri, CISM courses and lectures No. 288,
Springer, Wien/New York. 96, 158, 159, 168,266
J.J. Kalker (1986a): The principle of virtual work and its dual for contact problems.
Ingenieur-Archiv 56, p. 453-467. 137

J.J. Kalker (1986b): Numerical calculation of the elastic field in a half-space. Communications of Applied Numerical Methods 2, p. 40 1-410. Reprinted as Appendix C
in this work. 73, 97, 221
300
J.J. Kalker (1986c): See de Mul.

J.J. Kalker (1987): Wheel-rail wear calculations with the prograrn CONTACT. In:
Contact Mechanics and Wear of RailjWheel Systems II, Eds. G.M.L. Gladwell, H.
Ghonem, J. Kalousek, University of Waterioo Press, p. 3-26. 198
J.J. Kalker (1988): Contact mechanical algorithms. Communications of Applied Numerical Methods 4, p. 25-32. 52, 96, 159,266
J.J. Kalker (1988a): See Piotrowski.
J.J. Kalker (1988b): The elastic stress and the displacement on the surfaces of two
rubber-clad steel cylinders between wh ich paper is led. Report TU Delft, TWI
88-23. 238
J.J. Kalker (1989): Elastic and viscoelastic analysis of two multiply layered cylinders
rolling over each other with Coulomb friction. TU Delft, Report TWI 89-50. 238
J.J. Kalker, A. Chudzikiewicz (1990?): Calculation of the evolution of the form of a
railway wheel profile through wear. To appear. 82, 198
L.M. Keer (1983): See Ahmadi.
N. Kikuchi, J.T. Odell (1988): Contact Problems in Elasticity: a Study of Variational
Inequalities and Finite Element Methods. SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia. XVI, 47, 48
A. Klarbrillg (1986): A mathematical programming approach to three-dimensional
contact problems with friction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 58, p. 175-200.50
A. Klarbrillg, A. Mikelic, M. Shillor (1990?): Agiobai existence result for the quasistatic frictional contact problem with normal compliance. Proc. IV. Meeting on
Unilateral Problems in Structural Analysis, Ed. F. Maceri et al., Birkhuser
Verlag, Zrich. To appeaL 156
K. Kllothe, A. Gross- Thebillg (1986): Derivation of frequency dependent creep coefficients based on an elastic half -space model. Vehicle System Dynarnics 15, No. 3, p.
133-153.229-231,274
K. Kllothe ( 1988): See Wallg.

K. Kllothe ( 1989): See Wallg.
H.W. Kuh 11 , A.W. Tucker (1951): Nonlinear programming. In: Proceedings of the Second
Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. University of
California Press, Berkeley, p. 481-493. See Index (Kuhn-Tucker).
K. KUllert (1961): Spannungsverteilung im Halbraum bei elliptischer Flachenpressung
ber einer rechteckigen Druckflche. Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Ingenieurswesens 27, No. 6, p. 165-174.54,187
301
Bibliography
Le The Hung (1987): Normal- und Tangentialspannungsberechnung beim rollenden
Kontakt fr Rotationskrper mit nichtelliptischen Kontaktflchen. Fortschrittberichte VDI, Reihe 12: Verkehrstechnik/Fahrzeugtechnik, No. 87. 36, 52, 54,
59, 82, 187, 198, 199
A.J.C. Lee, E. Ollerton ( 1966): The photoelastic investigation of rolling with spin. VDIBerichte, No. 103, p. 25-28. 79
J.-M. Leroy (1989): Modelisation thermoelastique de revetements de surface utilisees
dans les contacts non lubrifies. Thesis INSA Lyon, No. 89 ISAL 0090. 238
J.-L. Lions (1972): See Duvaut.
A.E.H. Love (1926): A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th Ed.
Cambridge (1952). 23
J.L. Lubkin (1951): The torsion of elastic spheres in contact. Journal of Applied
Mechanics 18, p. 183-187.28,65,121
A.A. Lubrecht ( 1990? ): See Brandt.
G. Lundberg (1939): Elastische Berhrung zweier Halbrume. Forschung auf dem
Gebiete des Ingenieurswesens 10, p. 201. 193-195
G. Lundberg, H. Sjvall (1958): Stress and deformation in elastic contact. Publ. 4. Inst.
Th. of Elasticity and Strength of Materials, Chalmers Univ., Gothenburg. 261
R. Mahnken (1984): See Bischoff.
J.A.c. Martins (1985): See Oden.
D. Maugis (1985): Private Communication, Villeurbanne (F). December 1987.20
M. Maurer (1985): See Hayd.
G. M cCormick ( 1968): See Fiacco.
P. M eijer s (1968): The contact problem of a rigid cylinder on an elastic layer. Applied
Scientific Research 18, p. 353-383. 99, 103-107
A. Mikelic (1990?): See Klarbring.
R.D. Mindlin (1949): Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. Journal of Applied
Mechanics 16, p. 259-268. See Index (Mindlin).
R.D. Mindlin, H. Deresiewicz (1953): Elastic spheres in contact under varying oblique
forces. Journal of Applied Mechanics 20, p. 327 -344. 65
T. Mura ( 1983): See Ahmadi.
302
N.l. Muskhelishvili (1946): Singular Integral Equations. Trans!. J.R.M. Radok, Noordhoff, Groningen, the Netherlands (1953).49
N.l. Muskhelishvili ( 1949): Some Basic Problems in the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Trans!. J.R.M. Radok, Noordhoff, Groningen, the Netherlands (1953).49
L. N ayak, K.L. Johnson ( 1979): Pressure between elastic bodies having asIender area of
contact and arbitrary profiles. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 21, p.
237-247.52,54,59, 73, 187, 192, 193, 194
J.T. Oden, E.B. Pires (1983): Nonlocal and nonlinear friction laws and variational principles for contact problems in elasticity. Journal of Applied Mechanics 50, p.
67-76.24,156
J.T. Oden, J.A.C. Martins (1985): Models and computational methods for dynamic friction phenomena. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanical Engineering 52, p.
527-634.5, 10,20, 158
J.T. Oden ( 1988): See Kikuchi.
K.P. Oh, E.G. Trachman (1976): A numerical procedure for designing rolling elements.
Journal of Lubrication Technology 98, p. 547-552, 574. 51
E. Ollerton ( 1963): See Haines.
E. Oller ton ( 1966): See Lee.
I. Paczelt (1974): Iteration method applied to the solution of contact problems of elastic
systems in unilateral relation. Acta Technica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

76, p. 217-241. (In Russian). 49
I. Paczelt (1977): Use of finite element development method for the solution of elastic
contact problems. Acta Technica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. (In Russian).

49
P.D. Panagiotopoulos (J 97 5): A nonlinear programming approach to the unilateral
contact and friction-boundary value problem in the theory of elasticity. IngenieurArchiv 44, p. 421-432. See Index (Panagiotopoulos process).
C. Panek. J.J. KaI ker ( 1980): Three-dimensional contact of a rigid roller traversing a
viscoelastic half -space. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications
26, p. 299-313. 265
A.D. de Pater (1962): On the reciprocal pressure between two bodies. Proceedings of the
Symposium Rolling Contact Phenomena, Ed. J.B. Bidwell, Elsevier, p. 29-75. 25
B. Paul ( 1974): See Singh.
B. Paul, J. Hashemi ( 1981): Contact pressures in closely conforming elastic bodies. Journal of Applied Mechanics 48, p. 543-548. 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 188, 197, 198
303
Bibliography
l. Piotrowski (1982): A theory of wheelset forces for two point contact between wheel
and rail. Vehicle System Dynamics ll, p. 69-87. 198
l. Piotrowski, l.J. Kalker (1988): The elastic cross-influence between two quasiHertzian contact zones. Vehic1e System Dynamics 17, p. 337-355. 198
E.B. Pires ( 1983): See Oden.
S.Y. Poon (1967): An experimental study of the shear traction distribution in rolling
with spin. Wear 10, No. 1, p. 61-69. 79
E. Rabinowicz (1965): Friction and Wear of Materials. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
19
H. Reusner (1977): Druckflchenbelastung und Oberflchenverschiebung in Wlzkontakt von Rotationskrpern. Thesis Karlsruhe, SFK Schweinfurt. 52, 54, 56, 59,
73, 187, 192, 195

A. Seireg (1971): See Conry.
Z.Y. Shen, l.K. Hedrick, l.A. Elkins (1984): A comparison of alternative creep-force
models for raH vehicle dynamic analysis. In: The Dynamies of Vehicles, Ed. J.K.
Hedrick. Proceedings of the 8th IA VSD Symposium. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Swets
and Zeitlinger, Lisse, the Netherlands. See Index (Shen, Hedrick, Elkins).
M. Shillor (1990?): See Klarbring.
A. Signorini (1959): Questioni di elasticita non linearizzata e semilinearizzata. Rend. di
Matern. e delle sue Appl. 18.51
K.P. Singh, B. Paul (1974): Numerical sOlution of non-Hertzian contact problems. Journal of Applied Mechanics 41, p. 484-490. 51,188
H. Sjvall (1958): See Lundberg.
D.A. S pence ( 1975): The Hertz problem with finite friction. Journal of Elasticity 5, p.
297-319. See Index (Spence).
I. Stegun ( 1964): See Abramowitz.
E.G. Trachman (1976): See Oh.
F.G. Tricomi ( 1957): Integral Equations. Interscience, N.Y.
A.W. Tucker (1951): See Kuhn.
P.J. Vermeulen, K.L. lohnson (1964): Contact of nonspherical bo(Iies transmlthng
tangential forces. Journal of Applied Mechanics 31, p. 338-340. See Index
(Johnson).
304
G. Wang, K. Knothe (1988): Theorie und numerische Behandlung des allgemeinen rollenden Kontakts zweier viskoelastischer Walzen. Fortschrittberichte Verband
Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), Reihe 1, No. 165. 238, 265
G. Wang, K. Knothe (1989): The influence of inertia forces on steady-state rolling

contact. Acta Mechanica 79, p. 221-232. 5, 238
P. Wolfe (1959): The simplex method for quadratic programming. Econometrica 27, p.
382-398.51,171,172
O. Zinkiewicz (1988): The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science. 4th Ed,
McGraw-Hill. 49
305
INDEX
a.e. = almost everywhere 150

Accuracy 48, 56-59, 73, 81, 82, 163, 183,
192, 198, 282-283
Active set (algorithm) 137,160-167,
171-184,186,187,188,246
Adhesion (area) 18-20, 22, 59-82, 84-95,
113,117-131, 134-135, 138-148,
172-180,218,219,276
Ad-hoc method 51,52
Aigorithm, see also Active set (algorithm) 259
- FASTSIM, see also ROLLEN code
117-119, 120, 127, 130, 131, 133,
198,202,213,214,216,229,237
- KOMBI, see alsoCONTACT code 24-25,
155-156, 172-177, 181,231,238
- NORM, see also CO NT ACT code
177-179, 181,231,238
- TANG, see also CONTACT code
179-181,231,238
Alternative process (method), see Aigorithm,
KOMBI
Antisymmetry, see Symmetry
Asymmetry, see Quasiidentity, non
Approach 31,33,35,106, I I I, 112
Approximation 22-28,49, 50, 53, 58, 59,
61,64-74,74-82,83,95,99-135,154,
198, 229, 276, 293
Asperities 18, 19, 198,201,202
Axle 2,4,5,6, 10, 13, 16,28,37, 118
B.E.M. 22
Ball 16,45,80
Bearing XV, 2, 16,35,37,40,52,59,
192,193, 195
Bilateral 142, 143, 147
Biomedical mechanics XVII
Body
- force 21, 100, 138, 144, 157
-, Hertzian 28-29, 44, 65
-,of revolution 4,16,28,41-45,54,187
Boundary conditions 20-22, 23, 28-45, 48,
114, 138-148
Boundary value problem 137
Boussinesq-Cerruti XVI, 27, 54, 70, 86,
168-170,202,256,266,269-274
British Rail 96
Calculating speed, see Computer
Calendering 47
Carter-Fromm (problem) 59-64,71,76,
88,91
Cattaneo-Mindlin (problem) XVI, 6, 32,
70,76,91, 120, 122,203,206
CCtypecode 186-188
Compatibility relations 49
Complementarity 49
Complete, see Exact
Compression 16,76,108,112-117,134,
139,231-234
307
Index
Compressive 10, 20, 62
Computer 22, 23, 27, 35, 48, 49, 50, 56,
59,74,81,82,97,99,119,133,135,
159,172,175,187,196,202,237,255
Concave (strict) 159, 250
Concentrated contact problem XV, 27, 28,
35-40, 44, 185, 202
- - -, non-, see Diversified contact
problem
- - -, semi- XV, 35-40, 59,195
Conformal 16, 35, 38, 45
CONSTIF 186-187
Conformity term 43
Constitutive relations 20,99,137,138,
148, 149, 240, 267
Constrained programming problem 159, 171
Constraint 94,95, 161, 162
-, active 161,163,164,167,171,246
-, equality 51,83,84,159,160, 161
- function 247
-, inactive 161,162,163,246
-, inequality 49,51,83,84, 159, 160,
161,164,167,171
- qualification 161, 247
- release 165-166,178,180
Contact XV, 7,10,172
- area, apparent 18
- area, circular 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 73,
74, 120, 121-122, 188
- area division 75,79,80,81,218-219,
225-227, 233
- area, elliptic 32, 61, 64, 65, 67, 69,
74,81, 120-122, 125,237
- area, Hertzian, see Contact area, elliptic
- area, non-elliptic, see Contact, nonHertzian
- area, potential 8,9,11,22,31,37,39,
48,49,139,141,170,175,183,184,
186
- area, real 18, 19
- conditions 141,142,145,148,178
- ellipse 65,69,74,75,77,80,81,84,
308
95, 109, 125

- formation 5,6-10,28,31,35-40,
112,117,140,142,143,144
-, Hertzian 65,82,83,96,97, 124,
128,130, 131, 135, 195,206-231
- mechanics XV, XVI, 19,47,48,156
-, non-Hertzian 28, 35-40, 37, 73, 74,
81,82,133, 198,237
- point 195, 199
- pressure, see Traction, normal
- problem 14, 22, 24, 28, 32, 49, 82,
83,137,138-148,159,168-172,
172-180, 182
- -, normal, see Frictionless contact
problem
- -, tangential, see Frictional contact
problem
-, slender 61,71, 73, 80, 206
-, sliding 47
CONTACT code XVIII-XIX, 73, 74, 81,
96,97,99, 130, 131, 133,134,158,181,
186-238, 265, 266
Convergence 48,51,70, 155, 158, 159,
172, 175
Convex (strict) 51,84,94, 159, 164, 165
- analysis 159, 250-253
- function 159,160,162,170,171,
250, 251
-, non 84
- program 94, 160, 162, 168, 171
- set 162, 250
Convolution integral 267, 273
Coordinate
-,contactfixed 83,119
-, middle 15
-, particle fixed 119, 140
Corrugation 3, 229-231
Coulomb Friction (Law) XV, 5, 19, 42, 62,
83,85,86,113,117,141,142,144,145,
148, 151, 153,154,180, 185
Counterformal 37,38,44
Crack 238
Creepage I, 15,61,65,70,73,74,77,78,
79,81,84,93,96, 128
- and spin coefficients 65, 67, 73, 76,
77,80,81,125,206-207,287-289
-, finite 73, 74
- force law 70, 78, 84, 96
-, lateral 43,64,65,66,71,79,127
-, longitudinal 43,65,71,78,89,124,
127, 157,262
-, pure, see Creepage, translational
-, spin 43,45,61,64,65,66,69,71,
73,78,79, 127, 130, 131, 133, 135,
182,216
-, translational 64,67,69,74,78, 126,
130, 131, 133, 135, 182,207-211,
216,217
Curvature 44
-, radius of 17,23,29, 35, 37, 48, 113
Cylinder 27,35,58,59,61,99, 104, 195
-, elastic 12
- gradient 6,7,8,14, 100, 101, 184,
240
- -, small 6-7,14,138
- method 49
-, normal 113, 116, 117
-, small 6, 14, 138
-, tangential 113, 115, 116
Distance
-, deformed 9,20,28,44,103, 108,
139,173,178
- traversed 15, 16,91,225-231,
235-236
-, undeformed 9, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 52
Diversified contact problem XV, 28, 137,
160, 184
Duvaut-Lions based method 95-97
DUVOROL code 73,96, 158,216,237
Dynamic, see also Elastodynamics 5, 47
Damper 268-269
Deformation 2,6,7, 14,28,50, 112, 137,
239
Density 21, 144
Design, optimal 51
Diameter 6,23,40,48, 103, 113, 134, 138
Difference parameter 24,27, 74, 89, 116,
182
Direction
-, lateral 16,34,35,37,39,45,52,65,
71, 125
-, normal 16,39,45,52
-, rolling 16,34,37,39,52,65,70, 125
-, tangential 32, 76
Discretisation 49,81,94,159,168-172,
183, 276
-, adaptive net 52,54,56,57,187-202
-, fixed net 52, 56, 57, 186-236
Displacement, see also Surface displacement
4, 5, 114, 170, 184, 239
- difference 12, 13, 15,27,69,70,86,
112,134, 183-184
Editing of a figure 225, 226-227, 234-235

Elastic XV, 1,2,47,59-97, 181,239
- constants (moduli) 20,21,25,27,115,
148, 185,240
- field 4,49,68,69,156-157
Elasticity 7,8,20,21,23,47,59-97,99,
100-103,115, 134-135, 148-159,237
Elastodynamics 5,137, 156, 158,238
Elastootatics 24,137,149, 156, 158, 168
Element 49, 50, 52-56, 56-59, 73, 74
- methods 49-59
-, semi-elliptic 52
Elliptic integrals, complete 33, 67, 76, 110,
205, 285-294
Energy
-, complementary 149,150-154,155,
157,158-159,168,170,172,198
-, elastic 39, 148, 170, 240
-, kinetic 241
-, potential 149,150-154,157,
158-159, 170-172,241
Equality, see Constraint, equality
309
Index
134-135, 206-207
Frictional 28
- compression, see Compression
- contact problem 20, 24, 28, 59-97,
112-135,137-184,202-236,237
- work 198, 229
Frictionless contact problem 28-40, 48-59,
103-112, 137-184, 186-202
Equilibrium equations 100, 138, 142, 144,

152, 154, 157, 158,241
Error 23,35,57,58,59,73,74,81,82,
84,111,112,132,189,192,204,206,
211,214,215,258,293
Estimate 39, 40
Evolution 13,37,80,89,95,96, 140, 156,
198
Exact (theory) 61,64,68-70, 82-97,
100-103,112-117,121,124, 127-128,
130-131, 134, 137-184
Existence and uniqueness XVI, 22, 48, 94,
152,153,156-157,159,161,162
Experiment 19,76,79, 127,212,214
Exterior 22,68, 172
Galin's generalised theorem 69-71, 82, 84,

192, 289-294
Gauss elimination 163, 187, 237
Gauss-Seidel method 187, 202
Goodman (problem) 28, 65, 69, 93
Groove, conforming, see Conformal
F.E.M. XVI, 22, 48, 49, 50, 238

FASTSIM, see Aigorithm F ASTSIM
Feasible 139, 161, 169,245
Finite termination 25,51,84,167-168
Flanging, see Railway
Flexibility parameter 80, 81, 102-103,
107,108,112,123-125,133,237
Force
- bound 18
-, concentrated XVI,20, 113, 114, 115,
Half -space 22-28,28-45, 48-97, 107 -112,

113-116,119-133,134-135,168-171,
185, 202, 224, 238
Hamilton's Principle 241
Heaviside function 273
Hertz (problem, theory) XVI, 28-34, 61,
69,70,96,97,107-112,117,120,122,
126,134, 188, 190, 193,261,286-287,
291
Hooke's Law 20, 100,241
117
- definition of regions 147, 172

- method 49
-, total normal contact 18, 39, 40, 104,
157
-, total tangential contact 18,65,74,
75-76,89, 124, 130, 131, 132, 133,
135,205,206,216-218
-, total contact 4, 39, 75-76, 97,
181-182
Fourier transform 266, 267, 272
Friction 4, 5, 18-20, 61
- coefficient 18-20, 64
-, finite 61,65,74-97, 112-123,
126-133, 134-135
-; infinite 61,64-74,123-126,
310
I.F.M. 49,50,51,52-56,65,73-74
Il1 conditioning 51
Impact 47
Implementation 137, 159-184
Incompressible 27,102,116
Incremental, see Evolution
Index notation 100
Index set = discretised region 160, 161, 245
Inelastic 47
Inequality (condition), see Constraint,
inequality
Influence
- function 20, 29, 50, 57, 58, 183, 186,
187, 266
- number, coefficient 39, 134, 170,
183-184,278,290
Instationary, see Transient
Isotropy, see Elasticity
Johnson XVI
- and Bentall's problem 88, 90, 93
- and Vermeulen's no spin theory 67 -70,
74,207-214,215, derivation: 207-211
- method, process 25,27,28,74,84,88,
89, 90, 93, 154
- spin theory 66, 67, 217
Kronecker delta 14, 100,239
Kuhn- Tucker
- conditions 159,161, 162, 163,248-249
- point 159, 163, 164, 165,249
- theorem 159,246-249
Lagrange multiplier (LM) 161, 162, 163,
165, 173, 175, 247
Lagrangean function 248
Layer 24,40,58,101-107,112,113,117,
119,134
Leading edge 62, 64, 65, 70, 123, 126
- - condition 64,70,73, 123,206
Legendre functions, associated 68, 69
Line contact (theory) 71-73, 187
- -, generalised 73
Linear programming 84-93, 94
Linear theory, see Theory, linear
Load, surface, see Surface traction
-, point, see Force, concentrated
Lubrication 47
Lundbergprofile 193-195
Mathematical programming 51, 84, 94, 95,
159,172,177,179,245
Material time derivative 12, 13, 138
Matrix 100
Maximum (global) 150-154
Mechanics, continuum 137
-, solid 48
Memory, see Computer
Mid-Point Rule 57
MindIin (method, process) 28, 69, 78, 80,
154
- Cattaneo problem, see Cattaneo-Mindlin
Minimisation 50, 83, 84, 159, 177, 179,
181
-, global 159
-, unconstrained 159, 249
Minimiser 94, 134, 159, 161, 162, 168,246
Minimum (global) 84,150-154,167,171,
252
Modulus of rigidity 27,65,76, 125, 182,
243
Mollified form 156
Moment 64,65,66,69,70,73,122,205,
206
Motion 2, 4, 6, 70
-, rigid 5
-, rolling 6
Multigrid methods 50
New Numerical Method 95, 96
Newton
- Raphson 159,163,175,183,237,249
- Third Law 25, 108, 139, 145
Non-convex, see Convex
Non-penetration condition, see Penetration
Non-steady, see Transient
Normal 100, 101
Normal contact problem 26,28,47,48,71,
96,97, 156
Numerical 13,47,49,51,54,56,65,70,
73,99, 120, 158-159, 163, 185-226,
273, 255-264
Objective function 84, 86, 88, 94, 159
Ollerton's Apparatus 79-80
Outside contact = Exterior
311
Index
Panagiotopoulos process 24,25,74,96,97,
154,155,160,172,175,177,231
Papkovich-Neuber functions 68
PARSTIF 187, 192
ParticJe 13 8, 181
- fixed derivative = Material time
derivative
Penalty function 95
Penetration, see also Approach 7, 10,33,
173
Perturbation, see also Sensitivity 73, 150,
152,183,205,237,267,274-284
Photoelasticity 79
Plastic deformation 19,229
Plate, rigid circular 189-192
Poisson's ratio 21, 27, 67, 100, 112, 241,
268
Polynomial 32, 69, 70, 82, 83, 289
Positive (semi-) definite 162, 167,251
Potential theory 32, 68
Pressure, see (Surface) Traction, normal
Principle
-, extremum, maximum, minimum 96,
137
-, surface mechanical, see Surface
mechanical concepts
-, variational 22,47,51, 138,241
Printing press 2, 16
Process
-, KOMBI, see Aigorithm
-, NORM, see Aigorithm
-, TANG, see Aigorithm
Profile 3,35,37,49,198
Punch 48, 49, 70
Quadratic form 162, 167
Quadratic program 50, 51, 52, 171, 172
Qualitative 80, 99, 112, 122, 135
Quantitative 70, 80, 81, 99, 100, 112
Quarter space 58
Quasiidentity 24-28,28-41,61,59-84,
91,92,95-97,117-135,154,157,175,
312
177, 202-231
-, non 84-97, 138-148, 154-156,
159,160, 175, 177,202,231-236
Quasistatic 5,22, 144, 157, 159
Rail, see Railway
Railway 2, 3, 16, 35, 37,40, 52, 59, 70,
78,82, 195, 196
Ratio of the axes of the contact ellipse 110,
111, 112, 122,125, 131,213
Regularisation 94, 95, 158, 159
Reliability 64, 96, 237
Restoration 163,164,167,174,175,178,
180
Rigid 1,2,27,99,101,103, 104, 118
RNJLK type code 186-188,192,193
ROLLEN code XVIII-XIX
Rolling 1-5,41,42
- contact (theory), see also Steady state
rolling XVI, 1-5,34,37,52,59-97,
119,122-133, 134-135, 181-182,
215-231, 237, 287 -289
- velocity 15,41-44,70, 181
Rough surface 28, 47, 198, 20 I, 202
de Saint Venant's Principle 57
Saturation 2, 91
Schwartz inequality 141
Semi-axis 65, 74, 77, 81, 99, 104, 109, 125
Semi-contact width, see Semi-axis
Sensitivity 73,97, 182-183,206,214,237
Sequential method 158
Shearing, see Tangential
Shen-Hedrick-Elkins (theory) 77, 78,
211-214,237
Shift 6,10-18,32,61, 119-122, 134, 141,
144,203-206
-, deformation 12, 13
-, one step 95,203-206
-,rigid 12,140,179,182
-, rotation 119, 121, 134
Simplified theory XVII, 70, 71, 79, 80-82,
95,99-135,202,214,237
- - parameter'" flexibility parameter
Simpson's Rule 54
Singularity 49, 73, 205
-, inverse square root 206, 280, 282-283
Sliding 1,7, 18, 19,43,63, 126
Slip 1-5,10-18, 19,42,44,61,85, 140
- area 22,75,79,95, 127, 128, 134,
141,147,172,218-219,276
-,complete 64,130
-, finite 67
-, no-, see Friction, full
-, relative 15, 129
-, relative rigid 15
-, rigid 12,15,16,41,42,44,45,70,
83, 85, 140
Solid state physics 20
Software, see Computer
Spence (problem) 231-236
Spheroidal coordinate system, oblate 68
Spin, see Creepage
Spin pole 123, 128,219,220
Spring 80, 82, 268-269
State
-, deformed 7, 8, 10, II
-, reference 5, 6, 7, I I 8
-, undeformed 7,8,10, II
Stationarity, see Stead y state
Steady state 6, 13, 16, 44, 70, 84, 119,
157,181,270-274
- -, non, see Transient
- -, pseudo 274
- - rolling, see also Rolling contact 16,
70,71,73,86,96,119,122-132,
135,181,202,206,221,262,265-284
Stick area, see Adhesion area
Strain 6, 7, 20, 100, 102, 148, 184, 240
-, subsurface 54, 97
Strength and endurance ca1culations 221
Stress 20,51, 100, 102, 113, 114, 138,
148, 184, 240
- invariant 184,221,261
-, pre- 240
- - strain relations, see Constitutive relations
-, subsurface 48, 51, 54, 69, 97
-,surface 48,51
-, von Mises 221-224,229,261
Strip theory 64, 71-73, 78-80, 82, 95
Structural diagram 167,173-174,176,
178,180
Subsurface
- displacement 96, 184, 221
- - gradient 96, 184, 221
- elastic fjeld XVITI, 5, 73,160, 184,
255-264
- strain 54, 97, 184
- stress 48,51,54,69,97, 184,201,
221-224
Summation convention 13,100, 138
Surface 100,101,107,113,139,144
-, deformed 8, 9
- displacement 54,56,73,80,99,102,
108, 113, 117
- -, prescribed 22,138, 142, 144, 151
- field, see Surface mechanical concepts
- mechanical concepts 5,20,157-158,
168
-point 112,118,120
- traction 19,33,48,80,86, 100, 139,
219-221,242
- -, prescribed 22, 138, 142,143, 144
-, undeformed 8,9, 37
Symmetry 24, 25-28, 113, 154
-, axial 47,49,51
Theory 60-61
-, continuum rolling contact I, 2, 3, 5
-, linear 65, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 80,
81, 126,216,237,287-289
-, nonlinear 74,81
-, no-slip, see Friction, full
-, variational XVI, 48, 237
Thermoelasticity 47, 238
313
Index
Three-dimensional XV, 21, 22, 24, 47, 49,
60,64,65,76,79,94-95, 117-135, 158,
159-160,171-172,177,202,237,287-289
Time, see also Distance traversed 6, 10, 12,
13,15,117,140,157
Tire, automotive, see Wheel, automotive
Traction 82, 86, 87, 89, 168, 183, 184
-, bound 18-20,64,76,81,85,88,
141,148,155-156,172,174
- distribution 56, 58, 63, 73, 90, 93, 182
- distribution, normal ellipsoidal (elliptic)
48,55,56,61,63,110,112,126,187
- distribution, normal paraboloidal (parabolic) 56,81, 104, 105,109,112,
126, 187
-, f rictional 12
-, normal 4,24,25-34,48,52,61,62,
69, 103-112, 126, 139, 154-156,
177-179
-, sliding 76
-, tangential 4, 19, 24, 25-28, 48, 61,
59-97,100-103, 112-135, 147,
155-156, 172, 179-180, 224-228
Trailing edge 62,65,73, 123, 124, 126,
206
Transient, see also Evolution 6, 13, 84
- rolling, see also Rolling contact 6, 15,
88,90,91,92,93,95,96, 133, 134,
224-231,235-236
- shift 6
Trapezoidal Rule 57
Tribology 19, 20, 198
Two-dimensional XV, 5, 19,20,21,24,
47, 49, 52, 59-64, 71-73, 76, 84-94,
103-107,112,157,171,175,177
Uniform formulation 141
Unilateral 142, 143, 148
Uniqueness, see Existence and uniqueness
314
Validation 99, 103-112, 188-193,

203-215,231-232
Variation 138, 142, 158
Variational inequality XVII
Variations, calculus of 242
Vector-matrix notation 100
Vehicle dynamics XVII, 216, 237
Velocity 17
-, angular 16,41
-, linear 17, 41
-, rigid 41
-, sliding, see Slip
Virtual work 49,51,95,96, 137,
138-148,156,237
Virtual work, complementary I, 95, 96,
137,138-148
Viscoelasticity 47,137,181, 183,265-284
Viscoelastostatics 156, 266, 267 -270
Weak formulation 51, 144, 159, 160
Wear 3, 19, 198, 229
Weierstrass's Theorem 159, 162
Wheel 6
-, automotive 3, 16
- Irail contact XV, 35, 52,192,
195-200,214
-, railway 16,35,37,39,59,78,82,
229-231
XCTROL code
Yawangle 43
Young's modulus
84
21,27,100,241,268

Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THREE-DIMENSIONALELASTIC BODIES IN ROLLING CONTACT

SOLID MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS

Aims and Scope of the Series

For a list ofre/ated mechanics tit/es, seefina/ pages.

Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

1990 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1990.

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or

THE ROLLING CONT ACT PROBLEM

F rictional boundary condi tions f or bodies of

THE SIMPLIFIED THEORY OF CONTACT

Recapitulation of the linear theory of elasticity

VARIATIONAL AND NUMERICAL THEORY OF CONTACT

The normal contact problem

The basic equations of the linear theory of elasticity

Delft-Rotterdam, 17 July 1990.

Contact mechanics can be defined as the mechanics of the interaction of deformable

Although there is no difference in principle between concentrated and diversified

In the present work we confine our attention to three-dimensional elastic contact

"sub" means "subject to the auxiliary condition(s)".

profile curvature difference

(1.3 7),(2.39),(2.40),( 4.39)

region of surface where traction is prescribed

region of surface where displacement is prescribed

index set of inequalities active at x.

body number, a = 1,2

contact (adhesion) semi-axis in rolling direction (1.58b),(2.11)-(2.l2)

profile curvature difference

profile curvature of body a

complete elliptic integral

index set of constraints

index set of constraints active at x.

semi-axis of contact ellipse (lateral)

(1.58 b ),( 1.5 8d)

(4.21 b ),( 4.2 7b ),( 4.4 7)

creepage and spin coefficients

complete elliptic integrals

collection of programs having a method in common

a, b: semi-axes of contact ellipse

complete elliptic integral

local distance in deformed state = deformed distance

total force transmitted by contact

finite element method

coefficient of friction; static, kinetic

combined modulus of rigidity

modulus of rigidity of body a

2. axial ratio, a l / a2 , of contact ellipse

local distance in the undeformed state =

linear velocity of body a regarded as rigid

elastic difference parameter

complete elliptic integral

excentricity of contact ellipse

values of the f1exibility parameter

moment about z-axis exerted on body I, at the contact area.

index set of inactive constraints

index set of constraints not active in x.

outer normal on V; can carry subscript a

I. origin of coordinate system

2. order-of -magnitude symbol

traction; can carry all types of indices

tangential traction exerted on body I