3.8 Article

CONTACT PROBLEM FOR A RIGID FLAT STAMP AND A LINEAR ELASTIC STRIP BONDED TO POROUS HALF-PLANE

期刊

出版社

BULGARIAN ACAD SCIENCES, INST MECHANICS

关键词

contact problems; indentation; porous materials; micro-dilatation theory for materials with voids

资金

  1. Science and Education for Smart Growth Operational Program (2014-2020)
  2. European Structural and Investment fund [BG05M2OP001-1.001-0003]
  3. SOUTHERN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation) [VnGr/2020-07-IM]
  4. BULGARIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE FUND [KP-06-Russia/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the plane contact problem for indentation into an elastic layer system involving voids on a half-plane. The linear elastic response of the material with voids is explained using Cowin-Nunziato's micro-dilatation theory. The contact pressure determination problem is reduced to a singular integral equation and solved using the collocation method. Numerical results are presented to analyze the effects of varying parameters on contact stresses and deformation.
In this article, we consider the plane contact problem for indentation into a system of elastic layer deposited on a half-plane composed of a linear elastic material with voids. The Cowin-Nunziato's micro-dilatation theory is used to explain the linear elastic response of the material with voids occupying the half-plane. It is assumed that the punch is rigid with a flat base and the contact is frictionless. Using the integral Fourier transform, the problem for determining the contact pressure is reduced to a singular integral equation for the unknown contact stress, whose approximate solution is found using the collocation method. The values of the contact stresses and the deformation of the strip's free surface are analyzed by varying the thickness of the elastic strip and the material parameters for the elastic layer and the material with voids. The numerical results are presented in the form of graphs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据