The bolted joint is indispensable in mechanical systems for connecting structures, and the normal contact force is a key parameter for evaluating interfacial behaviors. In this paper, a normal contact model of the bolted joint with a rough interface is established. Considering the loading and unloading process of the rough interface, the analytical expressions for the normal contact force are derived, incorporating information about micro-topography, material properties, and displacement. The effects of surface morphology and material properties on the normal contact force-interfacial displacement relationship are discussed through extended mathematical analysis. The results indicate that the contact force for a rougher surface is larger than that for a relatively smooth surface during the loading process. In the unloading process, the contact force for the relatively rough surface is initially slightly larger than that for the relatively smooth surface. Finally, through experimental comparison and verification, the dimensionless normal contact force theoretical calculation values are basically consistent with the experimental values, which validates the accuracy of the model proposed in this study.
LiuYZhuMLuX, et al. A review of cross-scale theoretical contact models for bolted joints interfaces. Coatings2024; 14(5): 539.
2.
YuanPPRenWXZhangJ.Dynamic tests and model updating of nonlinear beam structures with bolted joints. Mech Syst Signal Process2019; 126: 193–210.
3.
BalajiNNChenWBrakeMRW. Traction-based multi-scale nonlinear dynamic modeling of bolted joints: formulation, application, and trends in micro-scale interface evolution. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 139: 1–32.
4.
YuXSunYLiuS, et al. Fractal-based dynamic response of a pair of spur gears considering microscopic surface morphology. Int J Mech Syst Dyn2021; 1(2): 194–206.
5.
SunYChuangHCXiaoH, et al. Prediction of the normal contact stiffness between elastic rough surfaces in lubricated contact via an equivalent thin layer. J Vib Control2020; 26(21–22): 2060–2069.
6.
PorterJHBalajiNNLittleCR, et al. A quantitative assessment of the model form error of friction models across different interface representations for jointed structures. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 163: 108163.
7.
SunYXiaoHXuJ, et al. Study on the normal contact stiffness of the fractal rough surface in mixed lubrication. Proc Inst Mech Eng J J Eng Tribol2018; 232(12): 1604–1617.
8.
YuXSunYYWuSJ.Multi-stage contact model between fractal rough surfaces based on multi-scale asperity deformation. Appl Math Model2022; 109: 229–250.
9.
ZhaoYSWuHCYangCB, et al. Interval estimation for contact stiffness of bolted joint with uncertain parameters. Adv Mech Eng2019; 11(11): 1687814019883708.
10.
DreherTBrakeMRWSeegerB, et al. In situ, real-time measurements of contact pressure internal to jointed interfaces during dynamic excitation of an assembled structure. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 160: 107859.
11.
Mir-HaidariSEBehdinanK.Nonlinear effects of bolted flange connections in aeroengine casing assemblies. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 166: 108433.
12.
ZhouHLongXMengG, et al. A stiffness model for bolted joints considering asperity interactions of rough surface contact. J Tribol2022; 144(1): 011501.
13.
YuXSunYYZhaoD, et al. A revised contact stiffness model of rough curved surfaces based on the length scale. Tribol Int2021; 164: 107206.
14.
CarpickRW.The contact sport of rough surfaces. Science2018; 359(6371): 38–38.
15.
Pérez-RàfolsFAlmqvistA.Generating randomly rough surfaces with given height probability distribution and power spectrum. Tribol Int2019; 131: 591–604.
16.
HuangGLiuCXieW, et al. Normal contact stiffness model for fractal surfaces considering scale dependence and friction behavior. Proc Inst Mech Eng J J Eng Tribol2023; 237: 527–540.
17.
FrérotLAghababaeiRMolinariJF.A mechanistic understanding of the wear coefficient: from single to multiple asperities contact. J Mech Phys Solids2018; 114: 172–184.
18.
AghababaeiRBrinkTMolinariJF, et al. Asperity-level origins of transition from mild to severe wear. Phys Rev Lett2018; 120(18): 186105.
19.
LiLWangJPeiX, et al. A modified elastic contact stiffness model considering the deformation of bulk substrate. J Mech Sci Technol2020; 34(2): 777–790.
20.
YuanYChenJZhangL.Loading-unloading contact model between three-dimensional fractal rough surfaces. AIP Adv2018; 8(7): 075017.
21.
WangYZhangXWenS, et al. Fractal loading model of the joint interface considering strain hardening of materials. Adv Mater Sci Eng2019; 2019: 2108162.
22.
ArmandJSallesLSchwingshacklCW, et al. On the effects of roughness on the nonlinear dynamics of a bolted joint: a multiscale analysis. Eur J Mech2018; 70: 44–57.
23.
JiangKLiuZYangC, et al. Effects of the joint surface considering asperity interaction on the bolted joint performance in the bolt tightening process. Tribol Int2022; 167: 107408.
24.
LiuPZhaoHHuangK, et al. Research on normal contact stiffness of rough surface considering friction based on fractal theory. Appl Surf Sci2015; 349: 43–48.
25.
SunYXiaoHXuJ.Contact stiffness ratio of tribological interface using the equivalent thin layer and the micro-slip model. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci2020; 234(2): 444–456.
26.
ChangWREtsionIBogyDB.An elastic-plastic model for the contact of rough surfaces. J Tribol1987; 109(2): 257–263.
27.
KogutLEtsionI.Elastic-plastic contact analysis of a sphere and a rigid flat. J Appl Mech2002; 69: 657–662.
28.
KadinYKligermanYEtsionI.Unloading an elastic–plastic contact of rough surfaces. J Mech Phys Solids2006; 54(12): 2652–2674.
29.
GreenwoodJAWilliamsonJP.Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci1966; 295(1442): 300–319.
30.
McCoolJI.Predicting microfracture in ceramics via a microcontact model. J Tribol1986; 108(3): 380–385.
31.
BeheshtiAKhonsariMM.Asperity micro-contact models as applied to the deformation of rough line contact. Tribol Int2012; 52: 61–74.
32.
LiuGZengYChenY, et al. Exploring the effect of plasticity on the phase imaging of TM-AFM through molecular dynamics simulations. Acta Mech Solida Sin2024; 37(2): 297–304.
