Comput Mech (2006) 37: 121–130
DOI 10.1007/s00466-005-0664-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Pauli Pedersen
On Shrink Fit Analysis and Design
Received: 19 October 2004 / Accepted: 28 January 2005 / Published online: 6 September 2005
Ó Springer-Verlag 2005
Abstract Shrink fit or interference fit is an important
connection in a number of mechanical parts. In contrast
to the importance, the number of three dimensional
finite element analyses of this contact problem is not
large, because contact between two or more bodies in
general is a particularly difficult non-linear behaviour to
analyze.
In the present paper we show how relatively simple
axisymmetric analysis is possible, and we describe two
different points-of-view. Classical plane analysis is eval-
uated and the design of shrink fit surfaces is included.
The first method determines the shape of a shrink fit
surface that will result in a prescribed distribution of
contact pressure due to the shrink fit.
The second method uses a super element technique,
and determine without iteration and incrementation
the distribution of contact pressure that will result
from a prescribed shrink fit interference. Simplicity is
our goal, so specific linear elastic shrink fits without
friction are treated, but a number of extensions are
possible.
Keywords Shrink fit Æ Interference fit Æ Shape
optimization Æ Optimal design Æ Contact
stresses Æ Parameterization
1 Introduction
Shrink fit or interference fit is an important connection
in a number of mechanical parts, say to obtain a pre-
stress (residual stress) state or simply to connect different
P. Pedersen
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Solid Mechanics
Technical University of Denmark Nils Koppels Allaè,
Building 404, DK-2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark
E-mail: pauli@mek.dtu.dk
parts in a reliable and non expensive manner. A thick
cylinder that must sustain high internal pressure is an
important example, and so are shaft disk connections
that must transmit high torsional and/or axial loads.
Stress concentration is important for the fatigue of the
shafts as described in Norton (2000) with reference given
to the early research of Peterson and Wahl (1935). It is
recognized that the design of the shrink fit components is
an important issue, and still no final answer is given to
the problem.
For the two dimensional classical models, we have
analytical results that follow from a formulation which
gives the Euler differential equation. We first show
such a two dimensional specific solution and then
evaluate these results relative to an axisymmetric finite
element solution. As is well known, the two dimen-
sional model lacks information about the changes in
the axial direction, and this might return some
important modifications to the contact stresses, to the
circumferential stresses, and to the von Mises stresses.
Furthermore it puts our attention toward the fact that
shrink fit interference is not just a value, but should
be treated as a function of the axial direction z.
Immediately, the question of design of this interference
function (shape of the axisymmetric contact surface) is
important.
In contrast to the importance of shrink fit, the
number of papers on three dimensional finite element
analysis of this contact problem is not large, because
contact between two or more bodies is a particularly
difficult non-linear behaviour to analyze. The literature
on the solution of contact problems in general is large,
with a number of different suggested solution proce-
dures. Most of these methods are based on incremental
simulation and iteration with application of tools from
optimization, see the extended reviews in Zhong and
Mackerle (1992) and Mijar and Arora (2000), and in the
book by Wriggers (2002).
Contact problems are difficult to solve, being highly
non-linear and often extremely sensitive. A number of
classifications are possible:
122
(a) only one flexible body (in contact with rigid bodies)
or multiple flexible bodies in contact
(b) non-friction contact for the analysis or a friction
model with, say stick and slip
(c) elastic material or including non-elastic behavior
(d) linear elastic or non-linear elastic
(e) linear geometry (linear strain measure) or non-linear
geometry
(f) known contact surface or unknown contact surface
The shrink fit problem treated in the present paper
is based on a number of assumptions and may hardly
be named a contact problem. We show that it is
possible to obtain a direct solution without iteration.
The obtained simplicity may be applied to more ad-
vanced models, including incrementation and/or iter-
ation. So to classify our problem relative to (a)–(f) we
treat two flexible bodies in contact without friction.
Linear elastic material behavior is assumed with iso-
tropic material (direct extension to anisotropic mate-
rials is possible). Engineering strains with equilibrium
in undeformed system, and to a large extend the
contact connections are known.
We show that it is possible to use relatively simple
axisymmetric analysis, and we describe two different
points-of-view. The first method determines the shape of
a shrink fit surface which will result in a prescribed
distribution of contact pressure due to the shrink fit. For
practical reasons a few parameter description of contact
pressure is applied, and the corresponding equivalent
nodal forces in the axisymmetric model are derived.
Thus the user only has to change one to three parame-
ters in order to obtain the nodal force model for another
contact pressure distribution. The two bodies in contact
are analyzed individually.
From the resulting displacements for the nodes in
contact follows an interference function (vector) that
gives the shape of the shrink fit surface(s), necessary to
obtain the prescribed contact pressure. Contact is not
Fig. 1 Shrink fit model from
Benham et al. (1996) with
internal pressure p and shrink fit
interference e
involved in these linear elastic finite element analyses,
that therefore are robust and inexpensive even with a
large number of degrees of freedom (dof.).
The second method uses a super element technique,
and determines without iteration and incrementation
the distribution of contact pressure that will result
from a prescribed shape of the shrink fit surface equal
to a prescribed interference function (vector). A
practical application of the super element finite ele-
ment method is described. The final expression for the
nodal contact forces involves the inverse of the sum of
two inverse matrices, but the order of these matrices is
only equal to the number of contact dof., and there-
fore inexpensive.
Simplicity is our goal, so only linear elastic shrink fits
without friction are treated, but a number of extensions
are possible.
2 A simple plane test case
As a case for later reference we analyze a plane problem
of shrink fit, taken from Benham et al.(1996). The two
rings (cylinders) to be fitted are shown in Fig. 1 with
definition of the length parameters: a for the inner radius
of the inner ring, b for the nominal outer radius of the
inner ring equal to the nominal inner radius of the outer
ring, and c for the outer radius of the outer ring. The
shrink fit interference e ¼ bi
bo  0 is the actual design
parameter. The two rings are here of the same material
with modulus of elasticity E, and the internal pressure in
the inner ring is p.
Assuming a state of plane stress we get, as is well
known, the Euler differential equation for the radial
displacement. We can solve this problem analytically
and get the two principal stresses as a function of radial
position r, inner pressure load p, scalar value of shrink
 123

fit interference e, and radii a, b and c for the cylinders,

see, Fig. 1.

For inner part, i.e., a  r  b

  
1 2 c 2
rr ¼
pð2a bÞ
1
2bðc2
a2 Þ r

a2 
2 2

eEðc
b Þ 1

r


  
1 2 c 2
rh ¼
pð2a bÞ

1
2bðc2
a2 Þ r

a2 

eEðc2
b2 Þ 1 þ ð1Þ
r
Fig. 3 Resulting circumferential rh and radial stresses rr , alone from
For outer part, i.e., b  r  c shrink fit (no internal pressure)


  
1 2 c 2
rr ¼
pð2a bÞ
1 accounted for in the simple, analytical plane analysis.
2bðc2
a2 Þ r

   We therefore leave the internal pressure p out and
2 2 c 2

eEðb
a Þ
1 concentrate on the stresses related only to the shrink fit
r interference e. The actual parameters with p ¼ 0 gives


  
1 2 c 2 the results shown in Fig. 3.
rh ¼
pð2a bÞ

1 Using a three dimensional, axisymmetric finite ele-
2bðc2
a2 Þ r

   ment model we validate the accuracy of this solution
2 2 c 2

eEðb
a Þ

1 ð2Þ based on the plane stress assumption. Note, that the
r explicit solution in (1) and (2) is independent of Pois-
With the specific values from Benham et al. (1996): son’s ratio m. With m 6¼ 0 the inner part expands in the
a ¼ 0:10 m, b ¼ 0:15 m, c ¼ 0:20 m, e ¼ 0:0001 m, E = axial direction due to the shrink fit pressure, while the
207 G Pa, p = 200 MPa, Fig. 2 shows the actual solu- outer part shrinks in the axial direction, so m must have
tion. The maximum circumferential stress without some influence. Also the stress distribution will not be
shrink fit is 333 Pa and with the actual shrink fit as constant in the axial direction z, and especially at axial
shown in Fig. 2 only 265 Pa. The circumferential stress boundaries the modifications to the shown solutions
rh may be critical at the inner boundary r ¼ a or at the may be important.
common boundary in the outer part at r ¼ b. To get Even with the use of a finite element program, contact
minimum of maximum circumferential stress we may set analysis is a complicated non-linear problem and many
rh ðri ¼ aÞ ¼ rh ðro ¼ bÞ and get a solution in the value alternative solution algorithms are suggested in the lit-
for the shrink fit interference e or for the position b at erature. Reviews are cited in the introduction, and see
the common boundary. The shown solution is close to also the thesis by de la Cour (2003). The algorithm used
this optimal shrink fit design. in the present paper is derived from an inverse point of
However, the shrink fit designs of the present paper view. We aim at designing the contact surfaces to give a
are depending on the axial dimension which is not prescribed distribution of the contact pressure. First we
deal with the practical problem of describing a load
distribution and the transfer of this distribution to finite
element nodal point forces.

3 Pressure and force modeling

3.1 An analytical pressure distribution along a curve

The intention is to find for the contact pressure distri-

Fig. 2 Resulting circumferential rh and radial stresses rr with
combined internal pressure and shrink fit
bution a parameterization with relatively few parameters
that gives an analytical smooth description, and still is
flexible in use. The resulting distributions are assumed
non-negative with zero value at the end of the contact-
surface (except when symmetry is utilized). Good expe-
riences with skew super ellipses in modeling for shape
design is behind our choice.
124
With reference to the parameter presentation de-
scribed in Pedersen (2004), we use p ¼ pðsÞ, where p is
the pressure as a function of the length position s on the
contact curve. In addition to the total length 2S of the
contact curve only three parameters are involved, i.e.,
the magnitude p0 of the pressure at the middle (s ¼ S) of
the contact curve, the super-ellipse power g (shape of the
distribution), and a skewness parameter c (
1 < c < 1).
The algebraic expression for p ¼ pðsÞ is


s
S
p ¼ p0  1 þ c  sinðtÞð2=gÞ
S
with the parameter t from
! r
r1
js
Sjðg=2Þ
t ¼ arccos for 0  s  2S
S where p1 ; p2 are the nodal pressure values, not to be
A classical ellipse is obtained for g ¼ 2, an almost rect-
angular distribution for large g, say g ¼ 10, a symmetric
triangular distribution for g ¼ 1. For c ¼ 0 the skewness
parameter gives a symmetric distribution relative to the
middle of the contact curve at s ¼ S. Triangular skew
distributions are obtained when c ! j1j. When symme-
try is utilized in the finite element modeling, half of the
function (3) is used.
3.2 Nodal loads from pressure on an axisymmetric
model
Figure 4 shows the parameters for derivation of the
equivalent nodal loads Q1 ; Q2 in the axisymmetric finite
element model based on linear displacement triangular
ring-elements. We apply the standard procedure to
determine equivalent consistent nodal forces.
Fig. 4 Definition of symbols used for the derivation of equivalent
finite element nodal loads
The two nodal points are denoted 1 and 2, and a
specific point on the pressure loaded side is denoted r
corresponding to the radial coordinate of this point.
With linear displacement assumption the displacement
vr at the actual point becomes
r
r1
vr ¼ v1 þ  ðv2
v1 Þ ð4Þ
r2
r1
The pressure function (3) gives the pressure value at the
nodal points, and we assume a linear variation of the
pressure along this short part of the total contact curve.
Then for the pressure at the actual point we get
pr ¼ p1 þ  ðp2
p1 Þ ð5Þ
r2
r1
ð3Þ
mistaken for the nodal forces Q1 ; Q2 . Now the work
done by the nodal loads Q1 ; Q2 must equal the work
done by the distributed pressure for all possible nodal
displacements v1 ; v2
Z r2
Q1  v1 þ Q2  v2 ¼ ðpr  vr  2prÞdr ð6Þ
r1
The resulting polynomial to be integrated has up to third
order terms in r, so we use a formula manipulation
program to find the result, and the simpler case of
r2 ¼ r1 is treated separately. The final formulas, directly
suited for computer programming, are omitted here.
Note, that (6) is general and not restricted to the linear
function (5).
3.3 Examples of pressure distributions
Figure 5 shows four cases of pressure distributions with
corresponding parameters. The distributions are plotted
directly from the finite element program, and thus show
nodal loads. In case I an almost uniform pressure
distribution is illustrated, then in case II an almost
Fig. 5 Four cases of pressure distributions with corresponding
parameters. The distributions are plotted directly from the finite
element program, and thus show nodal loads

symmetric triangular distribution, and in case III an
elliptic distribution. These three different distributions
are obtained by only varying the super-ellipse power g.
The fourth case illustrates the influence of the skewness
parameter c.
Although the loaded surface (curve in the radial-axial
plane) is shown in Fig. 5 as a straight line, this is by no
means an assumption. We here treat pressure load, i.e.,
load perpendicular to the loaded surface, but alternative
load directions may also be accounted for. Thus from
the finite element point-of-view, friction modeling by the
present load description is possible.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the used load
description rely on the analytical function (3), and thus
singularities are avoided in the procedure.
4 Analysis of two axisymmetric cases
The test example of Sect. 2 is now analyzed with an
axisymmetric finite element program, using axial sym-
metry relative to the middle of the axial length 2 L, with
the value L = 0.1 m. In addition we have the dimensions
in Fig. 1. We use for each of the two parts 7200 ring
elements with triangular cross-sections as illustrated in
Fig. 6, which corresponds to 7382 degrees of freedom in
each of the two models.
Applying a contact pressure as shown in case I of
Fig. 5 with the magnitude p0 = 22.4 MPa from the
Fig. 6 Finite element models
with mutual contact pressure
loads, reactions at the axial
symmetry surfaces, and magni-
fied displacements. In the full
models the magnification factor
is 100, while the zooms at the top
and bottom have a magnification
factor of 10. The dotted lines
correspond to the surface of
symmetry in the axial direction
and indicate that the two contact
cylinders are shifted in the radial
direction
125
plane analysis illustrated in Fig. 3, we get a gap in
mean equal to 0.0001 m, as predicted by the plane
analysis. However the gap is varying through the
height. Before discussing this variation, which in fact is
our main point of interest, we show and discuss the
overall displacements in Fig. 6 and the three dimen-
sional (axisymmetric) distribution of circumferential
stress and of von Mises’ stress in Fig. 7. In these
Figures, we for illustration separate the two contact
surfaces (half of the two cylinders) in the radial
direction, and we magnify the displacements in Fig. 6.
The axial extension of the inner cylinder as well as
the axial compression of the outer cylinder is seen in
Fig. 6 (most clearly at the top zoom), and this implies
that part of the surface for the inner cylinder can not
be loaded (here assumed no friction). The assumption
of plane stress behind the solution in Sect. 2 is vio-
lated, at the symmetry line (in axial direction) of the
cylinders to the extent that the axial stresses are at the
same level as the radial stresses. This is seen by the
axial nodal reactions in Figs. 6 and 7.
Figure 7 shows at the top the isolines of the circum-
ferential stresses, which are the dominating stresses. For
illustration, the contact pressure nodal loads and
the nodal reactions are repeated in these pictures with
the inner cylinder to the left and the outer cylinder to the
right. The boundary effect at the free end of the cylinder
is clearly seen, and we show this more quantitatively at
the corresponding pictures at the bottom for the
126

Fig. 7 Stresses in contact cylin-

ders, resulting from shrink fit.
Top: circumferential stresses and
bottom von Mises’ stresses. Left:
the inner ring (cylinder) and
right: the outer ring (cylinder).
Internal isolines in 32 linear
steps. Nodal loads fAg and
reactions fRg also shown at the
top, and distribution of von
Mises’ stress rvM ¼ rvM ðzÞ along
the axial lines shown by the
thickness of the distribution
added to the pictures at the
bottom. The dotted lines corre-
spond to the surface of symmetry
in the axial direction and indicate
that the two contact cylinders are
shifted in the radial direction

reference stresses, calculated as the von Mises’ stress. At

the inner and outer boundaries for the inner cylinder to
the left and for the outer cylinder to the right, we have
added the resulting distributions along these lines. The
larger von Mises’ stresses at the radial boundaries vary
for the inner cylinder from 71.8 to 81.1 MPa, and for the
outer cylinder from 80.5 to 91.8 MPa.

4.1 An example of a bronze bush shrunk onto

a steel shaft

An other test example from Benham et al. (1996) illus-

trates two different materials and the deformation of the
shaft close to but outside the bush. Figure 8 shows the
dimensions. The material data for the bush is modulus
of elasticity Eb = 100 GPa with Poisson’s ratio mb =
0.29. The material data for the shaft is modulus of
elasticity Es = 209 G Pa with Poisson’s ratio ms = 0.28.
The shrink fit interference corresponding to contact
pressure equal to 69 MPa is asked for and with analyses
similar to (1) and (2) and the actual material data we
find e = 0.000112 m. The results of our finite element
axisymmetric model confirms this (in the mean). Figs. 9,
10 show the results presented in the same (almost) way
as in Figs. 6 and 7.
As expected the bronze bush is heavily stressed, and
of special interest for the present paper are the details at Fig. 8 Dimensions for models of steel shaft and bronze bush
 127

Fig. 9 Finite element models of

steel shaft and bronze bush with
mutual contact pressure loads,
reactions at the axial symmetry
surfaces, and magnified displace-
ments with a factor of 50. The
dotted line corresponds to the
surface of symmetry in the axial
direction and indicate that the
bronze bush is shifted in the
radial direction

the bush ends in the axial direction. In general the
comments of the first example may be repeated.
5 Design of shrink fit surfaces
We now turn to the design problem, where the initial
contact surface may be curved, and ask for the shape,
which will return a prescribed distribution of contact
pressure. The step from analysis to design (synthesis),
and in the wider perspective optimal design, normally
involves sensitivity analysis and an optimization
algorithm. With an effective and reliable tool of analysis,
optimal design is in most cases not too complicated.
With the two dimensional plane stress assumption we
solve in an effective and reliable manner the shrink fit
problem and obtain the results for a given shrink fit
interference. However, for the three dimensional prob-
lem (even with the axisymmetric assumption) we did not
solve the problem for given shrink fit interference
(interference function). This problem in general must be
solved incrementally and iteratively, and with friction
the problem is furthermore irreversible. Algorithms in
combination with the finite element method are

Fig. 10 Von Mises’ stresses

resulting from shrink fit. Left: the
steel shaft and right: the bronze
bush. Internal isolines in 32
linear steps. The distribution of
von Mises’ stress rvM ¼ rvM ðzÞ
along the axial lines shown by
the thickness of the distribution.
The dotted line corresponds to
the surface of symmetry in the
axial direction and indicate that
the bronze bush is shifted in the
radial direction
128
Fig. 11 Gap function g ¼ gðzÞ from analysis with pressure distribu-
tion parameters g = 6 and c = 0.0. The coordinate z is the axial
position from axial symmetry measured in mm, and the gap function
g (equal to the shrink fit interference function e ¼ eðzÞ is measured in
lm
available, but often we encounter extremely sensitive
and often unstable procedures.
From this point of view, we here suggest to postulate
the shrink fit pressure and then derive the corresponding
shrink fit interference; in the axisymmetric case , the
interference function e ¼ eðzÞ. In reality this is the simple
linear, reversible analysis we have shown in Sect. 4, and
we therefore return to the detailed results from this
section. In Sect.6 we present a simplified procedure for
the direct problem.
5.1 The contact surface for two cylinders
Figure 6 shows the magnified displacements of the two
cylinder contact surfaces. With the outer cylinder surface
of the inner cylinder equal to the inner cylinder surface
of the outer cylinder before the prescribed pressure is
applied, this will result in a gap, a gap function g ¼ gðzÞ
which we show in Fig. 11.
Fig. 12 Gap function g ¼ gðzÞ from analysis with pressure distribu-
tion parameters g = 6 and c = )0.4. The coordinate z is the axial
position from axial symmetry measured in mm, and the gap function
g (equal to the shrink fit interference function e ¼ eðzÞ) is measured
in lm
Then the inverse problem is formulated: given a shrink
fit interference function equal to this gap eðzÞ ¼ gðzÞ, the
results will be a shrink fit pressure distribution as shown
in Figure 5, case I. That this holds is due to the fact that
an extremely small modification of the design with nodal
position modified by eðzÞ will not influence the direct
analysis.
The skewness in pressure distribution is illustrated in
case IV of Fig. 5 as an alternative to the just used case I.
In Fig. 12 we see how strong an influence this has on the
shape of the gap function, when the parameter c is
changed from the value 0.0 to )0.4. The change in
magnitude of gap is not so interesting, because the total
pressure force has not been scaled to the same value. The
change in shape for the gap function is to be noted.
The in-between solution of c = )0.2 gives an almost
constant gap, except for a drop of 4 lm close to the axial
end, to be compared with the 12 lm shown in Fig. 11.
The analysis from given pressure distribution is lin-
ear, direct, robust, and fast. It gives a gap function
which we can use as the corresponding shrink fit inter-
ference function. If the pressure distribution corre-
sponding to a prescribed interference function is our
goal, it may still be advantageously to find this by iter-
ation with the shown procedure, because sensitivity
analysis will also be simple. As an alternative to this, in
the next section we present a direct analysis based on a
finite element super element formulation.
6 A direct shrink fit analysis by super elements
With reference to the case in Fig. 6, for illustration, we
analyze the outer cylinder (here index o) with only the
contact nodal degrees of freedom
½So fDo g ¼ fAg ) Do g ¼ ½So 
1 fAg ð7Þ
where ½So  is the super element stiffness matrix (in the
actual case of order 61 equal to the number of nodes on
the contact surface), fDo g contains the contact nodal
displacements in radial direction, and fAg is the corre-
sponding contact nodal forces (acting in the radial
direction). The determination of the super stiffness ma-
trix ½So  is described later. The solution in terms of the
nodal displacements fDo g for given nodal loads fAg will
give exactly the same result as in the earlier calculation
with the full stiffness matrix (for the case in Fig. 6 of
order 7382). Our goal here is to determine fAg, knowing
fDo g only relative to the displacement of the inner
contact surface.
For the inner cylinder (here index i), with only the
contact nodal degrees of freedom, we have a similar
super element description
½Si fDi g ¼
fAg ) Di g ¼
½Si 
1 fAg ð8Þ
We assume that the contact surfaces have the same
number of (mutual corresponding) nodes, and then the
equilibrium of the nodal actions is accounted for by

assuming the same nodal forces fAg in (8) and (7) except
for the sign.
In a shrink fit analysis the shrink fit interference
(interference function) may be described by a nodal
interference vector feg, that the nodal displacements
fDo g and fDi g should satisfy. Again with reference to
Fig. 6, for illustration, we have
feg ¼ fDo g
fDi g
and inserting the solutions (7) and (8) we get
 
feg ¼ ½So 
1 þ ½Si 
1 fAg )
 
1
fAg ¼ ½So 
1 þ ½Si 
1 feg
In general we can not always expect a meaningful solu-
tion fAg  f0g corresponding to any prescribed inter-
ference vector feg. Testing for negative elements in fAg,
as obtained from (10), we know if the assumed interfer-
ence vector feg is possible from a physical point-of-view.
To test the programmed procedure we calculate fAg
from the vector feg corresponding to the interference
function shown in Fig. 11. Figure 13 shows that the
result agree completely with the force distribution of
case I in Fig. 5.
Figure 14 shows the force distribution in the radial
direction (corresponding to radial stresses rr ) that re-
sults from a constant interference function (feg ¼ ef1g),
and this force distribution is almost constant.
6.1 Calculation of a super element matrix
Solution by a super element algorithm as in (8) and (7)
corresponds to solving the overall finite element equi-
librium equation, say of order 10000 to 100000,
½SfDg ¼ fAg or
" #    the corresponding dof. All the other contact dof. are
½Scc ½Scn fDgc fAgc
¼ ð11Þ
½STcn ½Snn fDgn fAgn
Fig. 13 Nodal interferences as specified, i.e., eðzn Þ and corresponding
resulting nodal actions in radial direction An , with n as nodal number
giving the axial position
129
ð9Þ
ð10Þ
Fig. 14 Nodal interferences constant, i.e., eðzn Þ = 0.0001 m and
corresponding resulting nodal actions in radial direction An , with n as
nodal number giving the axial position
with static condensation of the non contact degrees of
freedom fDgn and thus getting of lower order system,
say of order 10 to 100, for the contact degrees of free-
dom fDgc . For our case fAgn ¼ f0g, thus no conden-
sation of fAgc is involved and we get
½Sc fDc g ¼ fAc gwith ½Sc  ¼ ½Scc
½Scn ½S
1 T
nn ½Scn ð12Þ
where fDc g; fAc g are the actual contact degrees of free-
dom and corresponding nodal loads, as exemplified in
(8) and (7). This technique is well known, and we shall
only comment on the practical evaluation of the super
element matrix ½Sc . Note that this is just an alternative
solution technique and not a further approximation.
The practical evaluation of the super element matrix
½Sc  as specified by (12) may seem complicated, but from
the basic definition of stiffness, as force (at a contact
dof.) per unit displacement (at the same or another
contact dof.), follows that we can get a specific column
of ½Sc , say column k, by a unit forced displacement at
fixed to zero, and the calculated reactions corresponding
to the contact dof. is then the column k of ½Sc .
This implies that without performing the matrix
calculation in (12), we obtain the super element matrix
by solving a number of load cases, corresponding to
the number of contact dof., and doing so by proce-
dures already available in a finite element code. The
computational costs of solving for these additional
load cases correspond at most to one additional Gauss
factorization, and for larger systems far less computer
time is used.
7 Perspectives
Our primary goal for this project is to get additional
insight about the three dimensional effects of shrink fit
connections. For this purpose we used two, in principle,
different approaches with a number of simplifying
assumptions. The two approaches may have a wider
range of applications, which are sketched in this section.
130
In the first approach, the complications of the
contact problem are eliminated by assuming the mu-
tual contact pressure to be given, and thus the contact
bodies can be analyzed separately. This analysis can
therefore, without too much trouble, be extended to
include non-linear elasticity and even plasticity. The
extension to include a large strain measure is also
possible, but in shrink fit analysis this is not needed.
With known pressure, a friction modeling should also
be possible but for stick slip modeling an incremental
procedure is needed.
For non contact problems we have rather simple pro-
cedures for sensitivity analysis, so it should be possible to
iterate on the assumed pressure distribution, and in this
manner solve the problem for a given shrink fit interfer-
ence. For such a sensitivity analysis with respect to change
in the pressure distribution, the suggested simple param-
etrization of the nodal load distribution is valuable.
However, the second approach is oriented toward
this direct problem of calculating the pressure distribu-
tion resulting from a prescribed shrink fit interference
function. With assumed active contact nodes it is shown
that also this problem can be solved directly, without
incrementation and iteration. Adding iteration to the
approach may give a possibility to locate the active
contact nodes, and the approach includes a test for
activeness. In this manner the assumption of known
active contact nodes may be removed.
Super element technique was used in Pedersen et al.
(1998) to model hardness tests (indentation) and this
approach is in an extended version used to calculate the
mutual nodal contact forces. In principle the two bodies
in contact are again analyzed separately, and only for
the final calculation is the sum of two inverted super
element matrices applied. For a number of contact
problems where super element technique is valid this
approach may be valuable. A specific and important
case is the case of pin hole interaction for isotropic as
well as for anisotropic material behaviour.
8 Conclusions
Shrink fit or interference fit is traditionally modeled in
2D with a plane stress model for which analytical
solutions are known. With an axisymmetric finite ele-
ment model for the corresponding 3D problem we
illustrate the influence from the axial boundary condi-
tions.
Contact problems with two flexible bodies is even
with the tools of finite element a complicated problem,
but two direct procedures are described and documented
by examples. This means that with assumptions of no
friction and a known contact domain, we have robust
and inexpensive 3D determination of axisymmetric
shrink fits.
The first method determine a shrink fit surface that
will result in a prescribed distribution of contact pres-
sure due to the shrink fit. With separated models for the
two parts to be shrink fitted, traditional finite element
linear elastic analyses give the results. Practical aspects
of parametrization of the contact pressure and its
translation into nodal forces are described.
The second method uses a super element technique
and determine without iteration and incrementation the
distribution of contact pressure that will result from a
prescribed shrink fit surface. With super element stiffness
matrices for both parts of the shrink fit we evaluate the
inverse of the sum of the two inverted super element
stiffness matrices, and then directly get the nodal forces
corresponding to the contact pressure. The super ele-
ment matrices are of the order 100 in contrast to the
total element matrices of order 10000–100000, thus the
process of getting the inverse is computational non
expensive.
A number of extensions for the used procedures are
indicated, and primarily the important connection
problem with a pin in a hole will be studied.
References
Benham PP, Crawford RJ, Armstrong CG (1996) Mechanics of
engineering materials. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, 2nd
edition, p. 627
de la Cour DD (2003) Identification of material and friction
parameters from deep drawing. Number S 90. Kgs. Lyngby,
Denmark: DCAMM. Ph.D.-thesis, p. 102
Mijar AR, Arora, JS (2000) Review of formulations for elasto-
static frictional contact problems. Struct Multidisc Optim
20:167–189
Norton RL (2000) Machine design - an integrated approach. New
Jersey 07458, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2nd edition, p.1078
Pedersen P, Mortensen SA, Larsen DG (1998) A procedure for
contact problems used in hardness test analysis. In Eriksson A,
Pacoste C (eds), NSCM11: Nordic Seminar on Computational
Mechanics, 31–34
Pedersen NL (2004) Optimization of holes in plates for control of
eigenfrequencies. Struct Multidisc Optim 28(1):1–10
Peterson RE, Wahl AM (1935) Fatigue of shafts at fitted members,
with a related photoelastic analysis. ASME J Appl Mech
57:A1–A11
Wriggers P (2002) Computational contact mechanics. Chichester,
UK: Wiley. p. 441
Zhong Z-H, Mackerle J (1992) Static contact problems - a review.
Eng Comput 9:3–37