KONINICL. NEDERL. A K A D E M I E V A N WETENSCHAPPEN AMSTERDAM R e p r i n t e d f r o m P r o c e e d i n g s , Series B , 7 0 , N o .

1, 1967
M E C H A N I C S

A STRIP T H E O R Y FOR R O L L I N G W I T H SLIP A N D SPIN. I '

BY

J. J.

KALKERi)

( C o m m u n i c a t e d b y P r o f . W . T . K O I T B B a t t h e m e e t i n g o f J u n e 2 5 , 1966)

SUMMARY

I n recent years, several authors [ 3 ] , [ 4 ] have proposed a strip theory to deal w i t h the transmission o f force during the r o l l i n g o f t w o elastic bodies. These theories have been hampered b y the f a c t t h a t only slip in the direction o f r o l l i n g could be considered. This was due to the circumstance t h a t the basic C A R T E R - P O R I T S K Y theory [ 1 ] does n o t take lateral slip, or spin into account. The present paper supplies an approximative theory to remove this restriction. This t h e o r y is v a l i d f o r a l l values o f the creepage, b u t only f o r a l i m i t e d range o f the spin parameter. I t is tested b y the case o f pure creepage, and b y the case o f pure spin. I n the case of pure creepage, i t is f o u n d t h a t the t o t a l tangential force is close to the tangential force obtained f r o m other sources [ 6 ] , when the contact ellipse is narrow i n the direction o f rolling. I n the case o f a circular contact area, the agreement is m u c h worse: relative errors of up to 2 5 % occur, while i t also appears t h a t the influence of Poisson's ratio is incorrectly accounted f o r b y the strip theory. The adhesion area, however, is i n excellent agreement w i t h the experiments [ 3 ] . I n the case o f pure spin the t o t a l force has a relative error w i t h respect to the results o f K A L K E R ' S numerical t h e o r y [ 6 ] o f at most 2 0 % when the axial ratio o f the contact ellipse is 0 . 2 (minor axis i n rolling direction), while i n the case o f a circular contact area the error is up to 4 0 % . I n b o t h cases considered, Poisson's ratio is 0.28. I t also appears f r o m a comparison w i t h theories o f infinitesimal spin t h a t even f o r slender ellipses the dependence on Poisson's ratio is more complex t h a n t h a t envisaged b y the strip theory. Judging f r o m the experimental evidence of P O O N [ 1 0 ] ( 1 case), i t w o u l d appear t h a t the adhesion area is excellently predicted by the strip t h e o r y i n the case of a circular contact area.
1

nr.

L a b o r a t o r i u m v o o r T e c h n i s c h e M e c h a n i c a , T . H . D e l f t , M e k e l w e g 2. R e p o r t 327.

11 TABLE Summary List of Symbols 1. Introduction 2 . The Theory of Hertz 3. Boundary Conditions of Rolling 4. Solution of the Elasticity Problem under Three Simplifying Assumptions 4.1. The Connection between Surface Traction a n d Displacement i n a H a l f s p a c e . T h e Cross-Dependence o f N o r m a l a n d T a n g e n t i a l T r a c t i o n s 4.2. T h e S t r i p t h e o r y A s s u m p t i o n 4.3. T h e C a r t e r A s s u m p t i o n 5. The Solution of the Problem in Strips with an Adhesion Area 5.1. The Basic Solution i n Strips w i t h a n Adhesion A r e a 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 6. 7. The F r i c t i o n L a w i n the A r e a o f Slip The Friction L a w i n the Area o f Adhesion The Solution under a Restriction Area Body Leading Edge of the 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 49 52 56 57 57 58 59
6 0

OF

CONTENTS Page 10 11 13 14 16 17 18 21 23 25 25 29 32 34 37 41 41

The Solution in Strips without Adhesion The Total Force Exerted on the Lower 7.1. 7.2,
x y

The Primitives of F and F The Intersection o f the Separatrix w i t h the Contact Area

8.

Two Special Oases 8 . 1 . T h e Case o f Creepage w i t h o u t S p i n (y = 0) 8.11. T h e D i v i s i o n o f the Contact A r e a 8.12. T h e T r a c t i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n 8.13. T h e S l i p 8.14. T h e A n g l e b e t w e e n S l i p a n d T r a c t i o n 8.15. T h e T o t a l F o r c e T r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e 8.2. T h e Case o f P u r e S p i n 8.21. T h e D i v i s i o n o f the Contact A r e a 8.22. T h e Traction Distribution 8.23. T h e S l i p 8.24. T h e A n g l e b e t w e e n S l i p a n d T r a c t i o n 8.25. T h e T o t a l F o r c e T r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e

Upper Body

to the

Lower

Upper Body

to the

Lower

9.

8.26. T h e Conclusion References

Case | y | > 1

61 62

L I S T OF

SYMBOLS

B o l d face symbols designate vectors. A superscript + indicates t h a t the quantity quantity belongs t o the lower body. A superscript indicates t h a t the belongs to the upper b o d y . Reference equation

S y ^

dimensionless constant connected w i t h normal pressure. (2.7) (x) (2.1) (y) (2.1)

S e m i a x i s o f c o n t a c t ellipse i n r o l l i n g direction. S e m i a x i s o f c o n t a c t ellipse i n l a t e r a l direction

12 Reference equation

Symbol

Meaning

c E E' E

H a l f w i d t h o f contact

interval.

(4.8) (2.1) (4.9) (2.7), Table 1 Sec. 3. A l s o : (5.42) Sec. 3. A l s o : (5.42) (2.2) (8.16b) (8.21b) second

C o n t a c t area, i n t e r v a l . Contact area i n strip a p p r o x i m a t i o n . Complete elliptic integral of the k i n d (no v e c t o r ) .

Fa

Slip area, i n t e r v a l . L o c k e d area, i n t e r v a l . E x c e n t r i c i t y o f c o n t a c t ellipse. Unit vectors.

F ,F
x

T o t a l tangential force per u n i t length i n indirection. (5.7) (2.6) ellipse, (2-2), Table 1 Sec. 5 1, E i g . 1 , (5.40) Sec. 5.1 F i g . 1 , (5.40) (5.41) Sec. 2 (4.9) (2.7) area. (6.10), (6.11) , (6.16) C o o r d i n a t e yjb o f b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n s t r i p s w i t h Eh a n d s t r i p s w i t h o u t Eh. (7.10), (7.12) , (7.14) Sec. 2 Sec. 2 (3.3), (3.4), (5.2a) T o t a l tangential force. Modulus of rigidity: combined, lower body, upper body. R a t i o o f t h e axes o f t h e c o n t a c t H a l f w i d t h o f adhesion interval.

67, G+, 67

9
h h'

D i s t a n c e o f c e n t e r o f Eh t o l e a d i n g edge of E. D i s t a n c e o f t r a i l i n g edge o f E t o s e p a r a t r i x . M a j o r semiaxis o f contact ellipse. A large l e n g t h . N o r m a l force. y) Dissipation per u n i t t i m e per u n i t

k I
M N P{x,

x>

v<

x '

R a d i i o f curvature of lower and upper body. M i n o r semiaxis o f contact ellipse. Relative slip (of upper b o d y over lower).

u,
+

v+, u>+, y)

u~, v~, u>u(x, y), v(x, y), w(x, V

(x, y, z) c o m p o n e n t s o f e l a s t i c d i s p l a c e m e n t . Displacement differences. Rolling velocity. V e l o c i t y o f a particle o f t h e bodies. Rigid velocity of the bodies. A f o r m i n v o l v i n g creepage a n d s p i n p a r a meters a n d y. slip. of tangential traction

Sec. 3 (4.2) (3.1) (3.2), (3.3) (3.1), (3.2) (5.19a) (3.5)

V+, vw
(W ,
X

Wy)

U n i t vector i n the direction of the (x, y) components acting on lower body.

X , Y X', X", Y' Y"

The part of tangential traction acting on whole E. system. (5.4) (5.5) Sec. 2 T h e p a r t o f t a n g e n t i a l t r a c t i o n a c t i n g o n Eh. Cartesian coordinate

x, y, z

13 Reference equation (5.5) (2.7) (5.4) constants connected with (5.5) ( 5 . 2 4 ) , (5.26) (8.14) and (8.14) (5.13) (8.33) (4.3), T a b l e 2 (5.19b) (5.20) (3.5) (5.13) (5.13) bodies. lower body, (2.3) (2.6) (2.5), T a b l e 1 (8.2) (3.2) (5.1) (3.2) (3-2) (8.43) (5.13)

Symbol

Meaning

x' Z

^ - c o o r d i n a t e m e a s u r e d f r o m c e n t e r o f EnN o r m a l pressure a c t i n g o n t h e lower b o d y . Dimensionless constants connected with X', Y'. Dimensionless

<*', p" e Q V n

X", Y". A n g l e between slip a n d tangential t r a c t i o n . Angle between slip a n d a;-axis; also, in 8.26, a s m a l l p o s i t i v e q u a n t i t y . Angle between tangential traction a-axis. L a t e r a l creepage p a r a m e t e r .

(l-a)n

A n g l e o f a p e x o f a d h e s i o n area i n p u r e s p i n . A combined elasticity constant. A positive f u n c t i o n . A positive function. Coefficient o f f r i c t i o n (taken constant). L o n g i t u d i n a l creepage p a r a m e t e r . E f f e c t i v e l o n g i t u d i n a l creepage p a r a m e t e r in a strip. Characteristic length o f the Poisson's r a t i o . C o m b i n e d ,

h(x') h{x) ft 1

1 y, cr+, o~
X Q

upper body. Angle of Hertz. I n 8 . 1 : p a r a m e t e r t o describe t o t a l force. L o n g i t u d i n a l creepage. E f f e c t i v e l o n g i t u d i n a l creepage i n a s t r i p . L a t e r a l creepage. Spin. A parameter connected with pure spin.

Vx Vx Vy

<P X V

Spin parameter.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Consider t w o bodies of revolution w h i c h are pressed together w i t h a force N , and w h i c h r o l l over each other. Owing to the n o r m a l force N, a contact area E is f o r m e d i n w h i c h the bodies touch. I f the c o n f o r m i t y of the bodies is not too strong, and changes of curvature are small, t h e contact area and the n o r m a l pressure t r a n s m i t t e d across i t are given b y the H e r t z theory, according to w h i c h E is an ellipse, and the n o r m a l pressure distribution is h a l f ellipsoidal. The results of the H e r t z t h e o r y are given i n Section 2 . I n addition t o the n o r m a l pressure, a tangential force can be t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m one b o d y t o the other, owing t o f r i c t i o n . W h e n the velocities of the bodies at the contact area are almost equal, slip w i l l occur i n p a r t of the contact area, called the area of slip E , while i n the other p a r t , the locked area E , there is no velocity of one body w i t h respect t o the other. This is a consequence of the fact t h a t the elastic
g h

14

deformation modifies the local velocity p a t t e r n near the contact area. I n the area of slip, w o r k is done b y the f r i c t i o n forces; macroscopically this results i n a difference of the overall circumferential velocities of the bodies. This difference is described b y the concepts creepage and spin. A rigorous definition of these concepts w i l l be f o u n d i n Section 3 . The first study of r o l l i n g w i t h creepage was made b y CARTES, [ 1 ] , i n 1 9 2 6 . H e considered the case t h a t the contact area is a strip (as i t is i n t w o cylinders w i t h parallel axes), and t h a t the bodies r o l l over each other w i t h creepage i n the direction of rolling. I n recent years, Carter's results have been applied b y H A I N E S and O L L E R T O N [ 3 ] , and also b y J O H N S O N [ 4 ] , to calculate the more general case o f an elliptical area o f contact. The process, w h i c h is due to Haines, is as follows. The contact area is split up i n v e r y narrow strips w i t h the long side parallel t o the direction of rolling. For each strip, the stress distribution is calculated according to Carter; these stress distributions, p u t beside each other, give an approximation o f the true stress distribution. This approximation is good for slender contact ellipses w i t h the narrow side i n the direction of rolling, while f o r non-slender ellipses i t gives a good qualitative insight i n the real stress distribution. This process was applied b y H A I N E S and O L L E R T O N [ 3 ] to creepage i n the direction of rolling, i n an elliptic contact area. Then, Carter's theory can be used w i t h o u t modification. Carter's treatment of the elastic problem, however, is restricted to displacements i n the r o l l i n g direction only, and hence cannot be used when there is lateral creepage or spin. I t is the object o f the present paper, to give a treatment o f the elastic problem w i t h o u t this defect. As a consequence, we are able to give strip solutions applicable t o longitudinal creepage, lateral creepage, and spin. I n our considerations o f elasticity, the bodies are approximated b y halfspaces.

2.

T H E T H E O R Y OE H E R T Z

W h e n the bodies are pressed together, a contact area E is f o r m e d between t h e m . This contact area, and the n o r m a l pressure Z carried b y i t are the object o f study i n the theory of H e r t z (see, f o r instance, L O V E [ 8 ] , p. 1 9 2 sqq). I n this theory, the bovmdary conditions are set up f o r Motionless, counterformal finite bodies. Then, i n order to s i m p l i f y the solution as much as possible, the geometry of the bodies is simplified b y approximating the bodies b y elastic halfspaces, which i n a cartesian system (x, y, z) are given b y z > 0 and z < 0 . The boundary conditions are retained w i t h only slight modification, the most i m p o r t a n t of w h i c h is, t h a t the elastic displacement u and the stresses become unnoticeable f a r f r o m the contact area. I t is t h e n f o u n d t h a t the contact area is elliptic i n f o r m . We adopt a coordinate system (x, y, z) i n w h i c h the origin lies i n the centre of the

15 contact area, and i n which the axes of the ellipse are the axes of x and y. The axis of z coincides w i t h the inner n o r m a l of the lower body (halfspace 2 > 0) at the centre of the contact ellipse. So, the contact area E is given b y (2.1) E={x, y, z: 2 = 0 , (a;/a)2 + ( y / 6 ) 2 < l } .

The ratio o f the axes of the ellipse is completely determined b y the geometry o f the mideformed bodies, a and b are the semiaxes i n x and y direction; apart f r o m t h a t we w r i t e I f o r the m a j o r semiaxis of the ellipse, and s f o r the minor semiaxis; f u r t h e r , we set (2.2) g-sjl, e= ]/l-g*.

We assume t h a t the planes of principal curvature almost coincide. This is the case w h e n t w o bodies o f revolution r o l l steadily over each other: indeed, the parallel circles of the bodies lie t h e n almost i n parallel planes. Under this assumption, the principal directions of the ellipse lie almost i n the planes of principal curvature. I t should be noted t h a t the assumption is n o t necessary f o r the v a l i d i t y of the H e r t z t h e o r y (see L O V E [8], p . 194), b u t the analysis is somewhat simpler t h a n i n the general case. We w r i t e R, Rf f o r the principal r a d i i o f c m v a t u r e of the lower body which correspond t o the plane y = 0, x = 0 respectively. We take R+, R+ positive when the corresponding centre o f curvature lies i n the lower halfspace z > 0 . I n the same manner, R~ and R~ are denned as the principal r a d i i of curvature o f the upper body; t h e y are taken positive, when the corresponding centre o f curvature lies i n the halfspace z < 0 . We define the characteristic length q of the bodies as f o l l o w s : (2.3) l/ = | ( W + W
e

+ W

+ l/i2 -).
v

I n the case of a sphere on a plane, q i n the diameter o f the sphere. N o w , we have: (2.4) ( I f (1/R+ + 1/R-)>(1IR+ I ( I f {1IR+ + IIR-)<{1IR+ + 1/R-), + 1IR-), then l = b>a=s,

then s = & < a = Z.

The ratio o f the axes g is tabulated b y H e r t z w i t h the aid of Hertz's angle T , w h i c h is defined as (2.5) cos r = fc[(l/i?+ + l / ^ - ) - ( l / i ? + + l / i 2 - ) | .

Hertz's table is reproduced i n table 1. The pressure distribution, and the l e n g t h of the semiaxes depend on the elastic constants of b o t h bodies, combined i n special manner. L e t G+, G- be the modulus of r i g i d i t y of lower, upper body, and let a+, a" be Poisson's r a t i o o f lower, upper body. T h e n the results can be described i n terms o f a combined modulus of r i g i d i t y G and a combined Poisson

16

ratio a, w h i c h are defined as f o l l o w s : I 1 / 0 = 1 ( 1 / 6 ? + + I/O-), (2.6) I a , a~\

+

a\G = !(ff+/G+ + ff-/67-),

Poisson's ratio of lower, upper body, modulus of r i g i d i t y of lower, upper body.

' G , G~:
+

I t is f o u n d t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f n o r m a l pressure Z is h a l f ellipsoidal, and t h a t the length o f the semiaxes is p r o p o r t i o n a l to N ' , where N is the t o t a l n o r m a l force:
1 3

Z =G A ] / \ - ( x \ a f - ( y \ V f , . A
(2.7)

3N 2nabG

2 (l-o-)E

s g'

l/l-e sin 0cZ0,

2 2

e: excentricity o f contact ellipse; s = minor semiaxis. N = t o t a l n o r m a l force

3(1-a)

gE

is the complete elliptic integral of the second k i n d ; i t is entered i n table 1 .

TABLE The quantities g and E
X g

1 as f u n c t i o n s o f x.
50 40 30 20 10 0

90
s/l

80

70

60

=
E

1.00 1.57

0.79 1.41

0.62 1.29

0.47 1.19

0.36 1.13

0.26 1.08

0.18 1.04

0.10 1.02

0.05 1.01

0.00 1.00

3.

B O U N D A R Y C O N D I T I O N S OF P O L L I N G

A f t e r being pressed together, the bodies are rotated about their axes, so t h a t t h e y r o l l over each other. We r e t a i n the coordinate system o f Section 2 , i n w h i c h the origin lies i n the centre o f the contact ellipse, and i n w h i c h the axes of x and y coincide w i t h the principal directions of the contact ellipse, so t h a t the material flows t h r o u g h the coordinate system. We take the rolling direction to be almost parallel to the a;-axis, as we may, since rolling takes place along the parallel circles of the bodies. I f we disregard the elastic deformation, the velocity of the lower body is given b y V+, and t h a t o f the upper body b y V~. The rolling velocity V is defined b y
(3.1) i(V+ + l i n e a r contact area (~V,
x

0 ) , V> 0.
y

The l o n g i t u d i n a l creepage v , the lateral creepage v , and the spin cp are given b y the relation
(3.2) (V ~ V+JInear contact area = V(v
R x

(py, V + (px).
v

The real velocity o f the bodies is influenced b y the elastic deformation. This influence is o n l y noticeable near the contact area, since we take the

17

unstressed state so t h a t the elastic deformation dies out f a r f r o m the contact area. We denote b y V+, V~ the real velocity o f lower, upper body. The relative slip is defined as the velocity of the upper body with respect to the loiuer, divided by the rolling velocity: (3.3) s(s ,s )
x y

(l/V)(V--V+).

According to K A L K E R [ 6 ] , Sec. 2 , the relative slip is, under conditions of steady rolling, .. (3.4) = v -cpy
x

S x

b(u+ u~) b(v+v~) + - ^%=-%+pg;+ "

5 v

where (u+, v+) are the (x, ^-components o f the elastic disjDlacement o f the surface of the lower body, while [vr, v~) are the corresponding quantities of the upper body. D e n o t i n g the slip area b y E , the locked area b y En, the tangential t r a c t i o n exerted on the lower body b y ( X , Y), the boundary conditions are, according t o K A L K E R [ 6 ] , Sec. 2 :
g

(X,

Y) = (iv , w ) ixZ,
x y

/u: coefficient of f r i c t i o n , taken constant,

W x

\ in

E,
g

= S jS,
x

Wy = SyJS, S =

I (S ,
X

Sy) | =

+ S^

(3.5)

s = s = 0, \{X, Y)\<pZ
x y

in

X=Y=0

on 2 = 0, outside E,

stresses and displacements vanish at i n f i n i t y .

4.

S O L U T I O N OE T H E E L A S T I C I T Y P R O B L E M U N D E R SIMPLIFYING- ASSUMPTIONS

THREE

I n the present Section we w i l l solve the elasticity problem under three s i m p l i f y i n g assumptions. F i r s t l y , i n Sec. 4 . 1 , we w i l l give the connection between the surface tractions and the elastic displacements. A plausibility argument w i l l show us t o do away w i t h the observed cross dependence of the problem o f n o r m a l t r a c t i o n and the tangential tractions present i n the contact area. This is done w i t h greater confidence, since the following assumptions are o f a m u c h more sweeping nature. Secondly, i n Sec. 4 . 2 , we assume t h a t the t r a c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n changes very slowly w i t h the lateral coordinate y, so t h a t the slip can be calculated as i f this change does n o t exist. T h i r d l y , i n sec. 4 . 3 , we assume, led b y the example o f Carter's solution, t h a t the t r a c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r fixed lateral coordinate y is the difference of t w o h a l f e l l i p t i c a l t r a c t i o n distributions, one acting on the whole contact w i d t h and the other on the adhesion i n t e r v a l , and the displacement functions needed are calculated explicitly.

18

4.1.

The Connection Between Surface Traction Halfspace. The Gross Dependence of Normal

and Displacement in a and Tangential Tractions

According to L O V E [ 8 ] , p. 1 9 1 and 2 4 3 , the connection between the elastic displacement w h i c h vanishes at i n f i n i t y , and the surface tractions acting i n the contact area E, are given b y v?{x, y, T \z\)

=JL.
\z\ + r
+

x{x', y')

' \r

t*

r{\z\ \-r}*

(x-x'){y-y') 3
r

(l-2cff)(x-x')(y-y') r{\z\+r)z

(4.1)

(s-s')|z|

(l-2 T)( - .')

g 3 ! a

KN+r)

= ]/( . r ' ) + (?/ ?/') + |z[ . Upper sign f o r upper halfspace,

2 2 2

lower sign f o r lower halfspace. For the solution of the boundary value problem, we need only the displacement at the boundary o f the bodies, t h a t is, at 2 = 0. Furthermore,

19 we are only interested i n u(x, y) = u+(x, y, 0) - u~(x, y, 0), for the problem of tangential traction, (4.2) I v(x, y) = v+{x, y, 0) - v (x, y, 0), for the problem of tangential traction, w(x, y) = iv+{x, y, Q)-w-{x, y, 0), for the problem of n o r m a l traction.

Here we have included the problem of n o r m a l t r a c t i o n , i n order to motivate our use of Hertz's solution of t h a t problem. W r i t i n g (4.3) 1 / l 1\ a = i ( ^ + ^ J > , (a+ H ^ a~\ ^ r n ( finally
l

~~
2a

we calculate u(x, y), v(x, y) and w{x, y), and u(x, y) = u+{x, y, 0)-u~{x, y, 0) =

find

Y(x',

g(*-*')(y-y') _
i2
3

^ ( - O iJ2

(a;, ?/) s +(, i / , 0 ) - - ( , y, 0) = (4.4) . (a; , y ) R* r

/ \ >(x,y)=^Q

f f [r<r> li

i / \ ^
H X ,

I F(x' ' ) + J i*>yj

V ,

^ ~ ^ I ^ -t2 7 5

+ Z(x', y') i ^ ] cfo'

i ? = l/O^'-^T + ^ - y ) -

We see t h a t u, v and w near the contact area are composed of three terms, of the order of magnitude of u = 0(T jnGl)
x

+ 0{oTy\nGl) + 0(T \nGl)

y

+ 0(KJV>677), + + OixNjnGl), 0({l-a)NjnGl),

v = 0(aT \nGl)
x

(4.5)

\w = 0[nT \nGl)
x y y

+ O^Ty/nOl)

T , T , N: t o t a l force i n the (*, y, z)-directions. W e see f r o m (4.3) t h a t % vanishes when the elastic constants of the bodies are equal: a+ = a~ = a, G+ = G~ = G, or when b o t h bodies are i n compressible: a+ = o~ = i - I n these cases, u and v are not influenced b y Z' nor is w influenced b y X and Y. This implies t h a t the H e r t z theory can

20

be used for the determination o f the contact area E and the n o r m a l pressure Z, while Z does n o t directly influence the relative slip (see eq. ( 3 . 4 ) ) . I n table 2 , we give the value o f n f o r a f e w combinations o f materials f o r which i t does n o t vanish. We see f r o m this table t h a t n is always quite small. This justifies us to neglect its influence altogether, and we are the more justified i n doing this, since we w i l l make assumptions of a m u c h more sweeping nature i n Sections 4 . 2 and 4 . 3 . I n a more precise theory, one would, i t seems, always be justified i n neglecting the influence o f X and Y on w.
TABLE 2 T h e v a l u e o f x f o r d i f f e r e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s o f m a t e r i a l s . T h e f i r s t - m e n t i o n e d is t h e m a t e r i a l o f t h e u p p e r b o d y ( ) , t h e s e c o n d - m e n t i o n e d is t h e m a t e r i a l o f t h e l o w e r b o d y ( + ). Material Steel/Brass + 0.03 Brass/Aluminum + 0.02 Steel/Aluminum + 0.06 Brass/Glass + 0.10 Steel/Glass + 0.13

Material

X
Remark.

Aluminum/Glass + 0.03

= 0 w h e n (a+, 67+)= ( o " , G~), o r w h e n < x + = o = J j ;0 w h e n o - * = J , 67* > 67.

x y

Indeed, T and T are of t h e order /uN, where p is the coefficient o i f r i c t i o n which is ordinarily m u c h smaller t h a n u n i t y . So the influence o F and F on tu is o f order O^inNjnGl), w h i c h w o u l d seem to be negligible w i t h respect t o the influence o f Z which is 0((l-a)NjnGl). B u t the direct influence of the n o r m a l pressure distribution on the tangential displacement differences u and v should be retained i n a more precise t h e o r y ; i t is of the order 0(xNjnGl), while the influence of the tangential t r a c t i o n [X, Y) is o f the order 0{/.iNjnGl). So the relative influence of the t e r m w i t h H is larger b y a factor 0 ( [ 1 -o-j/yt ), as compared w i t h the problem of the n o r m a l force.
x y 2

As we said before, we w i l l here neglect the terms w i t h %. This implies t h a t the H e r t z t h e o r y can be used f o r the determination o f the contact area and the n o r m a l pressure, while the n o r m a l pressure does not directly influence the relative slip. The horizontal displacement differences u and v are hence given b y u(x, y) = 1 P , . .. f l - o X(x', y') 7lG E L R y') o{x-x')(y-y')' i?3 ( x ' , >) *-<o<*-jn
y

a{x-x'f i?3 dx' dy',

+
(4.6)

v(x,

y)

Y ( x W ) [ ^
x

a +

- ^ } ] d x ' d y ' ,

R = y-fiZ- ')z

(y-y')z.

21 4.2. The Strip Theory Assumption

' W e w i l l now assume t h a t the t r a c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n changes very slowly i n the lateral (y) direction. One w o u l d judge t h a t the results based on this hypothesis are best v a l i d f o r ellipses w h i c h are narrow i n the direction of rolling. This is indeed p a r t i a l l y borne out b y the results. On the basis o f this assumption we calculate the displacement differences u and v i n the p o i n t {x, y), as i f the tangential t r a c t i o n distribution X(x', y'), Y(x', y') were given b y (4.7) X(x', y')=X(x', y), Y(x', y') = Y(x', y),

where we l e t y' r u n i n principle f o r m - c o t o + o o . L e t the w i d t h of the contact area at the line y y

r

be given b y c,

(4.8)

c= al/l-(#)2,

t h e n the new contact area E' is given b y (4.9) E' = {x',y': -c<x'<c, -M<y'-y<M, M - > oo}.

W e do n o t set M = oo, since this w o u l d lead t o i n f i n i t e u and v. The large t e r m vanishes, however, when we differentiate u and v w i t h respect to x, so t h a t after the differentiation is performed, we can let M - > oo. We f i n d the following expressions f o r u and v:

(4 I0

'>

v) -

Uw,

v) &

V+

1f =

}/(x-x'y+y'z. as integrand vanish, since the integrands

z z

The integrals w i t h

are odd i n y'. Furthermore, we can w r i t e y'*=f {x-x') .

So we

find

{ f =

]/{x-x') +y' .
z z

54

direction of traction y=-qb direction of slip, y<0

spin

x, rolling

(a)

direction of slip

y>0

y = qb direction of traction

direction of traction

direction of s l i p , spin x, rolling

y=0 (b)

direction of slip, y > 0

direction of traction

F i g . 7.

T r a c t i o n a n d s l i p f o r p u r e s p i n , a/b = 1, a 0.50. (a): ip = ( 6 ) : yi = 0.800. O p e n a r r o w s : s l i p . Closed a r r o w s : t r a c t i o n .

0.305.

N e g a t i v e d i s s i p a t i o n areas s h o w n s h a d e d . T r a c t i o n a n d s l i p are m i r r o r a n t i - s y m m e t r i c a b o u t t h e a - a x i s . T h e scale o f t h e a r r o w s i n (&) is h a l f t h e scale o f t h e a r r o w s i n (a).

55

F i g . 8.

T r a c t i o n a n d s l i p f o r p u r e s p i n , a/b =

0.2, a =

0.50.

(a) y> = 0.305, (b) if = 0.800. O p e n a r r o w s : s l i p . Closed a r r o w s : t r a c t i o n . N e g a t i v e d i s s i p a t i o n a r e a s h o w n s h a d e d . T r a c t i o n i n (a) as i n ( b ) . and

s l i p are m i r r o r a n t i - s y m m e t r i c a b o u t t h e s - a x i s . T h e scale o f t h e a r r o w s i n t h e s a m e

56

i.
tiN
numerica values = o-=0-28 b o numerica values = >2 a=0-28 D 05

03

0-2 /o S~5 g=0-2 o o o ^"S o

of/
0-1

7
0 0-2 0 0-6 0-8 10

Fig. 9 .

The t o t a l force f o r pure spin; a = 0 . 2 8 . Also shown are numerical values of the force f r o m K A I K B B [ 6 ] .

I t is seen f r o m f i g . 9 t h a t i n the case a/5 = 0.2, cr = 0.28 the strip theory gives f a i r l y good results for values o f \ip\ up t o 0.9 (error: up t o 20 % ) . I n the case o f a circular contact area (ajb= I, c r = 0 . 2 8 ) o f fig. 9 the error is considerably larger (up t o 40 % f o r \y>\<0.8). The f a c t t h a t the solution gets worse w h e n \y>\ increases is borne out i n t h a t the character of the curve of the strip solution f o r large spin is n o t the same as t h a t of the numerical theory. F r o m a comparison o f fig. 9 w i t h fig. 6 (the t o t a l f o r c e i n case of vanishing spin), i t is seen t h a t especially f o r ellipses narrow i n the direction o f rolling the strip t h e o r y is m u c h better for pure creepage t h a n f o r pure spin. 8.21. The Division of the Contact Area

As always i n the case when \y\< I, the area o f adhesion J$n borders on the leading edge o f the contact area. The separatrix o f E and E% is most easily constructed b y means of the distance h f r o m the t r a i l i n g edge of E to the separatrix:
g

(8.26) (8.32)

h = 2\fy\j{l-a)]/Y^f.

The division o f the contact area into an area o f slip and an area of adhesion is shown i n fig. 7a f o r the circle case a/b=l, Poisson's ratio cr = 0.50, and the spin y> = 0.305. This is the case treated b y P O O N [ 1 0 ] . The division of the contact area is shown i n f i g . 7b f o r a/6 = l , o - = 0 . 5 0 , f = 0.8, i n

57

fig. 8a f o r a/6 = 0.2, rr = 0.50, y = 0.305, and i n f i g . 8b f o r a/b = 0.2, o- = 0.50, y > = 0.8. The angle 9 o f the apex of the area of adhesion is
OI,.l

(8.33) i n the case of fig. 7a, 9 = The angle 9 diminishes for tpl. I t should be ratio g of the contact 8.22. The Traction as i n (8.28). We

9 = 2 cot"

(l-o-)

Vi-y>

76. This is precisely the value f o u n d b y P O O N [10]. monotonically as tp increases, and finally vanishes noted t h a t neither h nor 9 depends on the a x i a l ellipse. Distribution. find:
2 2 2

The t r a c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n is given i n (5.44) w i t h the parameters a, ft,

' X = (1/a) f.iAG ] / l - y sign ( - y>y) {]/c -x

+ x' = x-c + h, i n E;
h

- Yhz-x'*}, = / . i Z ] / l - f sign {-tpy)

2

| # I < # , i n Eg', \y\ > qb, \y\<qb, \y\>qb, = ^ t ? (c/a) H ' l - ( * / ) .

(8.34) < (

= fiZ sign ( - y>y) T ^ f i Z f = o Z = AG]/l-{xla)2-(ylbf

We see t h a t i n the locked area, Y is a constant m u l t i p l i e d b y fxZ, the constant being the spin parameter y> (see fig. 2c). X as always has the same character as i n the case of vanishing spin. We see f r o m (8.34) t h a t the t r a c t i o n is m i r r o r antisymmetric about the c-axis (i.e., the .^-component is odd i n y, the ^/-component is even i n y). I n figs. 7 and 8, the t r a c t i o n has been sketched f o r the values o f the parameters w h i c h prevail there, for \y\<bq. I n strips w i t h o u t locked area, \y\>bq, the ^-component o f the t r a c t i o n vanishes entirely. 8.23. The Slip

The slip is given b y (8.29): ( X,

S

Sy)

= [2/tA(l
=

ff)l/T^2

( l / o ) Vz'*-Jfi

sign ( - rpy), 0) i n E ,
g

\y\<qb, \y\>qb.

( f ^ [ - - | - (1 \ a

a)x sign ( f y ) ] ,

ipx) , /

W e see t h a t i n strips w i t h locked area (\y\<qb), the slip is parallel t o the .r-axis, while i n strips w i t h o u t locked area (\y\>qb), i t does not have a f i x e d direction. The slip is m i r r o r antisymmetric about the a;-axis,

58

as is the traction. The slip has been sketched i n figs. 7 and 8 f o r the strips w i t h o u t locked area \y\>qb. I t is seen f r o m fig. 7b, t h a t large slips occur close to the adhesion area when |y| = 0.8. This underlines once more the bad q u a l i t y of the solution f o r large values o f \%p\. 8.24. The Angle between $%> and Traction

We first consider the angle between slip and t r a c t i o n i n the area o f slip of the strips w i t h adhesion area (\y\<qb). This is actually quite easy t o do, since the angle between slip and rolling direction (the positive .T-axis) vanishes when fy<0, and is 180 when ipy>0. I t can be f o u n d f r o m (8.34) t h a t when \y\<qb the t r a c t i o n i n the slip area makes an angle f w i t h the positive rc-axis, w h i c h is given b y
(8.36)

t = sin"

sign (-ipy)]+
1

[ 1 + s i g n (tpy)] 90
1

90 < s i n - x < 90, s i n " i n degrees,

while the angle o f the slip w i t h the positive a;-axis is given b y (8.37) e = [ 1 + s i g n {yy)] 90.

The angle < 5 between slip and t r a c t i o n becomes t h e n (8.38) 8 = e- = sin-i sign (y)].

We see f r o m this t h a t \d\< 90, f r o m which i t follows t h a t the dissipation is always positive. |<5| increases f r o m 0 w h e n yj = 0 to 90 when | f | = l . Intermediate values are given i n table 4. I n the case o f figs. 7a and 8a, |<5| = 17.8 (y = 0.305) i n \y\<qb. I t should be noted t h a t the angles e, < 5 and f are independent o f the axial r a t i o ajb of the contact ellipse.
TABLE 4
g

T h e a n g l e \d\ b e t w e e n s l i p a n d t r a c t i o n i n E , \y\<qb, 0.1 5.7 0.2 11.6 0.3 17.4 0.4 23.5 0.5 30 0.6 37 0.7 44

=ri = Q. 0.8 53 0.9 64 1.0 90

|5| =

I n the strips \y\>qb, the angle between t r a c t i o n and slip varies. The traction is always parallel t o the a-axis. W e see f r o m figs. 7 and 8 t h a t the angle becomes smaller as \y\ increases. A n a l y t i c a l l y this can be seen f r o m the f a c t t h a t on lines w i t h x = constant, the /-component o f the slip is constant, while the t e r m ipy of the ^-component increases i n absolute value. Also, as we approach the tips o f the ellipse, the m a x i m u m absolute value c of \x\ decreases, w h i c h also has the effect of improving the angle. I t can be shown t h a t i n a l l cases 0 < y > < 1 there is an area o f negative dissipation present i n the region \y\>qb w h i c h is shown shaded i n figs. 7 and 8. I t is determined b y the condition (see (8.31)): (8.39) P(x,y)
{I vyl ( i o r ) < o

\w\ 1-0

< X < c.

59
T h e m i n i m u m o f \y\ i s qb, w h e r e q i s g i v e n i n ( 8 . 2 7 ) , a n d i t c a n i n d e e d shown that be

(8.40)

<

/ i - ^

^ ] /

( _ ^ )

I r

"

I t is seen f r o m figs. 7 a n d 8 t h a t t h e area o f n e g a t i v e d i s s i p a t i o n increases as tp i n c r e a s e s .

8.25.
We

The Total

Force Transmitted

by the Upper

Body

to the

Lower
upper

n o w calculate t h e t o t a l f o r c e w h i c h is t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m t h e

b o d y t o t h e l o w e r b o d y . We see f r o m ( 8 . 3 4 ) t h a t o w i n g t o t h e of X

antisymmetry The to

a b o u t t h e a-axis, the - c o m p o n e n t o f t h e t o t a l force vanishes.

/-component o f the traction vanishes w h e n

\y\>qb,

w h i l e i t is e q u a l

/.iAG(cja)]/l

(xlc) ip
2

when

length carried b y a strip w i t h

\y\<qb. S o w e f i n d t h a t t h e f o r c e p e r u n i t \y\<qb i s , a c c o r d i n g t o ( 5 . 7 ) a n d ( 8 . 2 8 a ) :
C

F
(8.41)

= \i.mGA ( 2 / a ) y>, c = a]/l- ( y j b f , = ^mGAa{l-(ylbf}y>,

respect to y between the limits qb and +qb

which, gives

integrated

with

/ Ty = imGabAqil T
(8.42)
x

- \q*) y> = ^Ny>q(l

- \q*),

0, - - l

v
y

a(\ a)/

We see f r o m ( 8 . 4 2 ) t h a t T is an odd f u n c t i o n of the spin parameter ip. I t is also seen f r o m ( 8 . 4 2 ) t h a t i n the expression Ty/f^N, Poisson's r a t i o and the r a t i o between the axes of the contact ellipse occur simultaneously i n the f o r m of the parameter
^ * = [ a T ^ J -

I n terms of % we have

1/,

xy* y) '
2

I n f i g . 9, w e h a v e s k e t c h e d viz. # = 48.1, and cr = 0 . 2 8 , a n d #=1.94. ^=1.94

T //.iN
y

as a f u n c t i o n o f

y> f o r t w o v a l u e s o f %,
the c a s e a/5 = 0 . 2 , cases,

# = 48.1 corresponds w i t h

corresponds w i t h
y

cs/5 = l , o - = 0 . 2 8 . F o r b o t h

alb = 0 . 2 , a/b = l , w e c a l c u l a t e d T j/.iN

described i n KALKER

b y means of the numerical method between

[ 6 ] . T h e c a l c u l a t e d p o i n t s a r e a l s o s h o w n i n f i g . 9.

I t i s s e e n t h a t i n t h e c a s e a/b = 0 . 2 t h e r e i s a f a i r l y g o o d a g r e e m e n t

60

strip theory and numerical theory, the relative error being smaller than 20 % f o r \y)\<0.9. I n the case a/b = l the agreement is much worse, the relative error is up to 40 % for | y | < 0 . 8 . We do see f r o m fig. 9 t h a t the magnitude of the m a x i m u m of TyjfiN, as well as its position, are reasonably well predicted b y the strip theory. I n judging the strip solution, however, i t should be k e p t i n m i n d t h a t the numerical t h e o r y contains errors of up to 8 % . A feature which can be compared w i t h another theory is the i n i t i a l slope of the {TylftN) graph, viz. [(b/byj^Tyl/itN)]^. I t is seen f r o m (8.44) t h a t this i n i t i a l slope is u n i t y i n a l l cases. The slope was calculated i n K A L K E R [ 7 ] b y means o f a threedimensional t h e o r y ; the results are p a r t i a l l y given i n table 5. We see f r o m this table t h a t f o r a = 0 the slope approaches the strip theoretical value o f 1.00 as the ratio ajb decreases.
TABLE T h e i n i t i a l slope 5
B

U>/y>(T //tN)-]
v

v Q according to K A I K E t h e o r y , i t is e q u a l t o L

[7|_. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t r i p

a/b slope, a = 0 slope, a = J slope, a = \

0.1 1.01 1.43 2.21

0.2 1.03 1.29 1.72

0.3 1.06 1.25 1.54

0.4 1.09 1.24 1.47

0.5 1.12 1.25 1.44 1.00

0.6 1.14 1.27 1.45

0.8 1.20 1.34 1.50

0.9 1.24 1.36 1.52

1.0 1.27 1.40 1.56

slope, s t r i p t h e o r y

This is n o t so when o^O: f o r c r = , the m i n i m u m value of 1.24 is reached for ajb = 0.4, and f o r a = 0.5, the m i n i m u m value o f 1 . 4 4 is reached f o r ajb = 0.5. Thereafter, the slope increases again as a/b decreases. F r o m this we see t h a t the dependence on Poisson's ratio a is given incorrectly by the strip theory. I t would seem t h a t this must be brought home to the strip approximation, since the angle between slip and t r a c t i o n i n the area o f slip (see ( 8 . 3 8 ) ) is independent o f a, and any w a y infinitesimal. Looking again at the equations ( 4 . 1 0 ) / ( 4 . 1 3 ) we observe t h a t the terms w i t h o(x-x') /R and oy'{x-x')jRz do not give any contribution i n the strip approximation. A p p a r e n t l y this is n o t true i n the present case, and we suspect t h a t the largest o f the t w o , viz. ay'{x-x')jR^ does give a c o n t r i b u t i o n i n the pure spin case, when a^0.
2

I f the definition ( 6 . 8 ) o f and 0 i n \y\>qb is retained, T =0 and Ty = fiNy>. This is completely at variance w i t h the results o f the numerical theory, and i t was indeed m a i n l y because o f t h i s t h a t ( 6 . 8 ) was rejected as a definition o f oc and /3 i n \y\>qb.
x

8.26

The Case

\y\>l.

To r o u n d off our discussions, we make some observations on the case that |y>|>l. I f \f\ f 1 , we see f r o m ( 8 . 2 6 ) t h a t k -> oo f o r y^0. I t appears f r o m this

61

t h a t w i t h increasing spin the area of adhesion Eu becomes smaller and smaller, and t h a t i t vanishes i n the l i m i t i n g case \y\ = 1 . I t can be argued t h a t i t w o u l d seem t h a t i n the case \y\ > 1 no area o f adhesion forms at a l l : according t o ( 8 . 2 6 ) , k is t h e n p u r e l y imaginary. This w o u l d lead t o a completely vanishing t o t a l force. However, we see f r o m fig. 9 t h a t according to the numerical theory, and also according t o JOHNSON'S experiments [ 5 ] , the tangential force does n o t v a n i s h : i t vanishes o n l y i n the l i m i t \ip\ - ^ o o . So there is l i t t l e p o i n t i n applying the strip t h e o r y to the case o f pure spin, when |ty>|>l. We saw here t h a t f o r pure spin the area of adhesion vanishes as \ip\ > 1 . This is n o t always so. Take, f o r instance, the case ipl e, e | 0 , f = 0 , ?]<0. Then we have, according to ( 5 . 4 1 ) , 2a
{Yrj* + { l - y j ) i + fjy>} -> a\rj\
2 2

( 1 a) a\7]\
2

We see t h a t when ?/ = 0 and | ? ? | < 2 , k<2a = 2c\ = , so t h a t there is an adhesion area. Such an adhesion area is sketched i n fig. 1 0 , f o r a/b = l, o- = 0 . 2 9 , ip=l, f)=-rQ.&, 1 = 0 .
y 0

x, rolling

F i g . 10.

T h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e c o n t a c t area f o r

a/b = l , o - = 0.29, y> = 1 , tj = 0.5, f = 0.

9. CONCLUSION

I t is possible to extend the strip t h e o r y of Haines and Ollerton i n such a w a y t h a t i t is possible to describe lateral tractions. W i t h t h i s theory, a solution can be f o u n d f o r the p r o b l e m of lateral creepage i n rolling, and also f o r the p r o b l e m o f spin, as long as the spin is smaller t h a n a certain value (\f\<l). The solution has the same character as Carter's well-known t r a c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r longitudinal slip i n r o l l i n g . The solution f o u n d has the disadvantage t h a t slip and t r a c t i o n are n o t continuous w h e n one passes f r o m strips w i t h adhesion area t o strips w i t h o u t . There is indeed a t h e o r y f o r the strips w i t h o u t adhesion area w h i c h does n o t have this defect, b u t t h e performance of t h a t solution

62

i n the t o t a l force was worse t h a n the performance o f the discontinuous theory. The theory was discussed i n detail f o r the case o f pure creepage and for the case o f pure spin. I n the case of pure creepage i t was f o u n d t h a t the theory worked well, especially i n the case o f contact ellipses w h i c h are narrow i n the direction o f rolling. As to the t o t a l force, a good quantitative agreement w i t h K A L K E R ' S numerical theory [ 6 ] was f o u n d ; t h i s agreement was not so good i n the case o f a circular contact area, where apart f r o m a numerical disagreement i t was also f o u n d t h a t the dependence on Poisson's ratio was given incorrectly. I n the case o f pure spin there is much less agreement w i t h the numerical theory. Por contact ellipses w h i c h are narrow i n the direction o f rolling, a relative error of not more t h a n 20 % is present i n the results when \y>\ < 0.9. For the case o f a circular contact area, the relative error can grow to as m u c h as 40 % when j y i | < 0 . 8 . F r o m a comparison w i t h the theory of infinitesimal pure spin i t is seen t h a t i n the case a = 0 there is an asymptotic agreement f o r ajb^O. I n the case o ^ O this is not t r u e ; the error is a t t r i b u t e d t o the strip theory assumption (see sec. 4 . 2 ) . I n the case o f creepage w i t h o u t spin, see H A I N E S [ 2 ] , and H A I N E S O L L E R T O N [ 3 ] , the area of adhesion is excellently predicted b y the strip theory. The same seems to hold i n the case of pure spin, i f one m a y judge f r o m the experiment o f Poon on the case a/b1, a=0.5, y>=0.305.

REFERENCES 1. 2. C A B T E R , F . W . , O n t h e A c t i o n o f a L o c o m o t i v e D r i v i n g Wheel. Proc. R o y . S o c , A 112, 1 5 1 - 1 5 6 (1926). HAINES, D . J . , Contact Stresses i n F l a t E l l i p t i c a l C o n t a c t Surfaces which S u p p o r t R a d i a l a n d Shearing Forces E n g r s . , 179, P a r t 3. 3. during Rolling. Inst. Mech.

, a n d E . O L L E R T O N , C o n t a c t Stress D i s t r i b u t i o n s o n E l l i p t i c a l C o n t a c t Surfaces S u b j e c t e d t o R a d i a l a n d T a n g e n t i a l Forces. Proc. I n s t . M e c h . E n g r s . , 177, 95-114 (1963). K . L . , Tangential Tractions and Microslip i n Rolling Contact. Proc. Symp. Rolling Contact Phenomena. p. 6 sqq. E d . Bidwell, Elsevier 1962,

4.

JOHNSON,

5.

6. 7. 8.

, The Influence o f Elastic D e f o r m a t i o n u p o n the M o t i o n o f a B a l l R o l l i n g b e t w e e n T w o S u r f a c e s . P r o c . I n s t . M e c h . E n g r s . , 173, 7 9 5 - 8 1 0 (1959). K A L K E R , J . J . , R o l l i n g w i t h S l i p a n d S p i n i n t h e Presence o f D r y F r i c t i o n . W e a r 9, 2 0 - 3 8 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . , O n t h e R o l l i n g C o n t a c t o f T w o E l a s t i c B o d i e s i n t h e Presence o f D r y F r i c t i o n . D o c t o r a l Thesis, t o a p p e a r . L O V E , A . E . H . , A T r e a t i s e o n t h e T h e o r y o f E l a s t i c i t y . 4 t h E d . C a m b r i d g e , 1927.

9. M t r s K H E M S H V i M , N . I . , S i n g u l a r I n t e g r a l E q u a t i o n s . N o o r d h o f f 1953. 10. P O O N , S. Y . , A n E x p e r i m e n t a l S t u d y o f t h e S h e a r T r a c t i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n i n R o l l i n g w i t h Spin. W e a r , t o appear. 11. V E R M E U L E N , P . J . a n d K . L . J O H N S O N , Contact o f Nonspherical Bodies Transm i t t i n g T a n g e n t i a l Forces. J . A p p l . M e c h . , p . 338-340 (1964).