Location of Repository

A note on Merwin's measurements of forward flow in rolling contact

By A.R.S. Ponter, L. Afferante and M. Ciavarella


The first quantitative analysis of the forward flow in frictionless rolling contact, firstly discovered experimentally by Crook [Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. London 171 (1957) 187], was conducted by Merwin [Plastic deformation of surfaces in rolling, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, UK, 1962] who attempted to model the ratchetting phenomenon in excess of shakedown (the cumulative forward flow due to continuous shear strain increase observed in experiments) as a function of load using a simple perfect plasticity model and a simplified solution to the elasto-plastic problem. However, later FEM analysis [J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 52 (1985) 67, 75] and more refined calculations still based on perfect plasticity but using distributed dislocations [J. Mech. Phys. Solids 33 (1987) 61], found that the ratchet rate was much higher than what measured in experiments, showing the Merwin’s approximate solution method was not effective. However, later analysis have concentrated on sophisticated non-linear hardening laws, also because the ratchetting strain rate was found to slowly decay in rail steel materials. This note is focused on another, less known, aspect of the original Merwin’s analysis: his material data were limited to monotonic curves, but his yield limit choice corresponds for around 1% for mild steel and Dural, but to nearly 25% deformation in copper, indicating that hardening plays a significant role into the mechanics of the problem, and that Merwin had taken this into account a posteriori by looking at the load where ratchetting begins.<br/>The paper suggests that the cyclic strain growth can be divided into two sequential phenomena: the first, assuming there is no long term material ratchetting (MR), i.e. a calculation based upon elastic properties and a monotonic stress–plastic strain curve, and a second, steady state, for a hardened structure, depending only on MR. In the first phase, we assume the plastic flow is dominated by structural ratchetting (SR), i.e. assuming the ratchetting is well described by the perfectly plastic prediction, where the yield limit is increased according to the level of deformation. This process leads to a quick saturation and the following deformation is attributed to the steady-state material response which we denominate MR. Further, it is shown that experimental measurements of Merwin have more to do with MR than SR

Topics: T
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:23261
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles



  1. (1994). A re-evaluation of the life to rupture of ductile metals by cyclic plastic strain,
  2. (1983). A theoretical and experimental investigation of material ratchetting rates in a bree beam element,
  3. (1963). An analysis of plastic deformation in rolling contact,
  4. (1985). An elastic–plastic finite-element model of rolling contact. Part I. Single contacts,
  5. (1985). Contact Mechanics,
  6. (1987). Cumulative plastic flow in rolling and sliding line contact,
  7. (1963). Cyclic stress induced creep of close-packed metals, in:
  8. (1984). Experimental investigations into the influence of cyclic phenomena of metals on structural ratchetting behavior,
  9. (1998). Fatigue in transport: problems, solutions and future threats,
  10. (1962). Plastic deformation of surfaces in rolling,
  11. (1963). Plastic flow of rollers loaded above their yield point,
  12. (1957). Simulated gear-tooth contacts: some experiments upon their lubrication and subsurface deformation,
  13. (1989). The influence of strain-hardening on cumulative plastic-deformation in rolling and sliding line contact,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.