Accepted Manuscript

Thermoelastic instability of functionally graded coating with arbitrarily

varying properties considering contact resistance and frictional heat

Jia-Jia Mao , Liao-Liang Ke , Jie Yang , Sritawat Kitipornchai ,

Yue-Sheng Wang

PII: S0307-904X(16)30618-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2016.11.013
Reference: APM 11439

To appear in: Applied Mathematical Modelling

Received date: 7 June 2016

Revised date: 5 October 2016
Accepted date: 10 November 2016

Please cite this article as: Jia-Jia Mao , Liao-Liang Ke , Jie Yang , Sritawat Kitipornchai ,
Yue-Sheng Wang , Thermoelastic instability of functionally graded coating with arbitrarily varying prop-
erties considering contact resistance and frictional heat, Applied Mathematical Modelling (2016), doi:
10.1016/j.apm.2016.11.013

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

• Stability boundaries grow with the increasing gradient index of the FGM coating.

• Stability boundaries grow with the decreasing thermal contact resistance and friction coefficient.

• An appropriate gradient type of the FGM coating can adjust the TEI of sliding systems.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Thermoelastic instability of functionally graded coating with

arbitrarily varying properties considering contact resistance and
frictional heat

T
Jia-Jia Mao a,b, Liao-Liang Ke a*, Jie Yang b, Sritawat Kitipornchai c, Yue-Sheng Wang a

IP
CR
a
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, PR China
b
School of Engineering, RMIT University, PO Box 71, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia
c

US
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
AN
Abstract.

Using the homogeneous multi-layered model, this paper studies the thermoelastic instability (TEI) of

the functionally graded material (FGM) coating with arbitrary varying properties considering the frictional
M

heat and thermal contact resistance. A homogeneous half-plane slides on an FGM coated half-plane at the
ED

out-of-plane direction under a uniform pressure. The perturbation method and transfer matrix method are

used to deduce the characteristic equation of the TEI problem, which is then solved to obtain the
PT

relationship between the critical sliding speed and critical heat flux. The effects of the gradient index and

varying form of material properties of the FGM coating on the stability boundaries are examined. The
CE

results show that FGM coating can adjust the thermoelastic contact stability of sliding systems.
AC

Keywords: Functionally graded materials; Frictional heat; Thermal contact resistance; Thermoelastic

instability

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 86-10-51685755; Fax: 86-10-51682094

E-mail address: llke@bjtu.edu.cn (Liao-Liang Ke)

1. Introduction

When two conforming bodies are placed in contact, the contact pressure distribution is sensitive to

comparatively small changes in the surface profile. Thermoelastic deformations, though generally small,

can therefore have a major effect on systems involving contact. Furthermore, the thermal boundary

conditions at the interface are influenced by the mechanical contact conditions. So, the thermoelastic

T
problems are coupled through the boundary conditions, and as a consequence the steady-state solution

IP
may be nonunique and/or unstable [1], which can be divided into two different categories, i.e.,

CR
frictionally-excited thermoelastic instability (TEI) and static TEI [2].

In the sliding system, there is a certain critical value of the sliding speed, exceeding which even if a

US
small perturbation in the uniform contact pressure between two sliding half-planes can cause unstable

because of the coupled interaction of the frictional heat, thermoelastic distortion and elastic contact. This
AN
instability is often called as the frictionally excited TEI [3-5]. Generally, it leads to the establishment of

localized high temperature at contact regions known as hot spots [6], which is the directly attributable to

the damage and early failure in the sliding system especially for the brake disk in cars and trains. For the
M

frictionally excited TEI, Burton et al. [5] raised a perturbation method to discuss two flat plates contacting
ED

on a straight common edge with sliding parallel to the line of contact. Then, Lee and his co-authors used

this method to investigate the frictionally-excited TEI in the automotive disk brake [6] and drum brake

systems [7]. Decuzzi et al. [8] introduced a new two-dimensional analytical model, where metal and
PT

friction disks were replaced by layers with the finite thickness, to consider the frictionally-excited TEI in
CE

multi-disk clutches and brakes. Du et al. [9] first gave the numerical implementation of Burton's

perturbation analysis for the TEI problem in the sliding system. Barber and his co-authors determined the
AC

critical sliding speed for the TEI for a brake disk [10] and an axisymmetric clutch/brake [11] using the

finite element method. Furthermore, some investigators [11-13] presented a series of experimental studies

on the hot spots induced from the TEI in the railway and aircraft brakes. Panier et al. [13] classified and

explained the thermal gradients appearance on the surface of the railway disc brakes by thermograph

measurements with an infrared camera. Recently, Afferrante and his co-authors present a series of

excellent works [14-17] on the dynamic thermoelastic instability (DTEI) in the sliding systems, like

brakes and clutches. Zelentsov et al. [18] investigated the thermoelastic frictional sliding of a rigid

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

half-plane against the surface of an elastic coating of another half-plane through quasi-static and dynamic

formulations.

TEI problems can also be cause by the static conduction of the heat across an interface between two

thermoelastic bodies because the extent of the contact area influences the heat conduction problem and in

turn depends on the thermoelastic distortion [1, 2]. By introducing a pressure-dependent thermal contact

resistance at the contact interface, Barber [19] investigated the static thermoelastic contact showing that

even a small sinusoidal contact pressure perturbation on a nominally uniform pressure between two

T
half-planes could cause the unstable, only if the flux was sufficiently large. Later, Barber and his

IP
co-authors analyzed the influence of material properties on the stability criterion for the free interfaces

CR
between two half-planes [20], a layer and a half-plane [21] and two layers [22]. Schade and his co-authors

considered the static TEI of two bonded half planes [23] and a layer bonded to a half plane [24].

US
Johansson [25] illuminated that there was the pressure-dependent thermal contact resistance at the sliding

interface, which may cause an interaction between the above two instability mechanisms. Recently,
AN
Ciavarella and his team examined the effect of this interaction on a rod contacting a rigid wall [26], the

sliding contact of two half-planes [27, 28] and a rectangular block sliding against a rigid plane [29]. They

showed that frictional heating might stabilize the system for some certain forms of pressure-dependent
M

thermal contact resistance [29].

ED

To satisfy the special function or requirement, functionally graded materials (FGMs) are

manufactured by a special spatial gradient in structure and/or composition, which can reduce the

magnitude of residual and thermal stresses, mitigate stress concentration and increase fracture toughness
PT

[30-33]. Many authors studied the contact mechanics of FGMs via theory, experiment and/or numerical
CE

simulation. Their results showed that controlling a material property gradient in FGMs could lead to a

significant improvement in the resistance to the contact deformation and damage [34-39]. In the past few
AC

years, the frictionally-excited TEI and static TEI of FGMs were investigated by Jang and his co-authors

[40, 41] and Ke and his co-authors [2, 42, 43], respectively. Specially, Liu et al. [44] analyzed the dynamic

instability of an elastic solid sliding against a functionally graded material coated half-plane without

frictional heat. They found that FGMs have the potential application to improve the contact stability of

systems. The effects of the frictional heating and pressure-dependent thermal contact resistance on the TEI

of FGMs have been extensively studied in isolation, but quite few work was reported to consider the their

possible interaction. Only Ke and his co-authors investigated the frictionally excited TEI of an FGM

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

half-plane sliding against a homogeneous half-plane in the out-of-plane direction with the thermal contact

resistance [45].

In this paper, we further investigate the TEI of a homogeneous half-plane sliding out-of-plane on an

FGM coated half-plane considered the coupled effect of the frictional heat and thermal contact resistance.

The material properties of the FGM coating are assumed to vary arbitrarily along the thickness direction.

The homogeneous multi-layered model is used to deal with the arbitrarily varying properties. Using the

perturbation method and transfer matrix method, we can derive the characteristic equation of the TEI

T
problem, which is then solved to obtain the relationship between the critical sliding speed and critical heat

IP
flux. The effects of the gradient index and varying form of material properties of the FGM coating on the

CR
stability boundaries are discussed in detail.

Compared with our previous papers [2, 42, 43, 45] on the TEI of FGMs, the new aspects of this paper

US
are: (1) The main concern of these papers was placed on the static TEI of FGMs, which was induced only

by the thermal contact resistance. In this paper, we discuss the coupled effect of the frictional heating and
AN
thermal contact resistance on the TEI of FGMs. (2) The material properties of FGM coating are allowed to

change arbitrarily along the thickness direction. (3) The effect of different types of inhomogeneity on the

coupled TEI of FGMs is considered in this paper. (4) Special attention is paid to the effect of graded
M

variation of the thermal diffusivity coefficient by depth of the coating, which was neglected in previous
ED

works.

2. Formulation
PT

Fig. 1a shows the schematic map of the frictional sliding between an FGM coated half-plane ( y  h )
CE

and a homogeneous half-plane ( y  h ) with a relative speed V at the out-of-plane direction (i.e. z

direction). The thickness of the FGM coating is h. These two contact bodies are pressed together by a
AC

uniform pressure p0. The thermoelastic properties of the upper homogeneous half-plane are expressed as

the shear modulus  , thermal conductivity coefficient k , thermal expansion coefficient  , thermal

diffusivity coefficient  and Poisson’s radio   . The thermoelastic properties of the coating are

position-dependent along the thickness direction and follow arbitrary smooth and continuous functions,

which are written as the shear modulus   y  , Poisson’s ratio v  y  , thermal conductivity k  y  ,

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

thermal expansion coefficient   y  and thermal diffusivity coefficient   y  . The thermoelastic

properties of the bottom homogeneous half-plane are equal to those of the FGM coating at y  0 , i.e.,

0    0 , k0  k  0  , 0    0  , 0    0  ,  0    0  .

Note that many papers studied the TEI of FGMs with the thermoelastic properties varying

exponentially [2, 40-45]. In their analysis, the thermal diffusivity coefficient of FGMs treated as a constant

directly for mathematical convenience because it is impossible to obtain the analytical solution for the

T
transient heat conduction equation with graded thermal diffusivity coefficient. To overcome this problem,

IP
the homogeneous multi-layered model [39] shown in Fig. 1b is used to simulate the arbitrarily varying

CR
material properties of the FGM coating. That is why the homogeneous multi-layered model is employed in

the present analysis. The FGM coating is divided into N sub-layers with the equal thickness

( h j  jh / N , j  1, 2,..., N ). In each sub-layer, the thermoelastic properties,  j , k j ,  j ,  j , and  j are

constants.
US
AN
It is assumed that all of the friction-induced heat flow into the two contact bodies. There is a

frictional heat   fVp caused by the friction coefficient f, normal contact pressure p and sliding speed V
M

during the movement. Since there is a thermal contact resistance at the sliding interface, it is necessary to

define a partitioning parameter of the frictional heat generation  [25, 28], which means the proportion
ED

of the frictional heat which flows into these two contact bodies.

Supposing the heat flux which enters into the upper homogeneous half-plane is positive. Defining the
PT

temperature of the sub-layer N of the FGM coating and the upper homogeneous half-plane as TN and
CE

T , respectively, there is a temperature drop TN  T across the sliding surface. A thermal contact

resistance R  p  exists and deduces with the pressure at the contacted interface [46]. Thus,
AC

TN  T
q    fVp , (1)
R  p

for the upper homogenous half-plane, and

TN  T
qN   1    fVp , (2)
R  p

for the sub-layer N of the FGM coating, the subscripts “N” and “  ” respectively represents the sub-layer

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

N of the FGM coating and the upper homogeneous half-plane.

At the interface of y  h , the heat flux flows into the upper half-plane q and the sub-layer N qN

must satisfy

q  qN  fVp , y  h , (3)

T TN
where q  k and qN  k  hN  .
y h
y y h
y h
y y h

T
Using the small perturbation to Eqs. (1) - (3) [1, 45], we have

IP
q R0  T  p  Rq 0   fV  R0  p0 R , (4)

CR
and

T T
k  k  hN  N  fV p  0 , (5)
y y

where US
R  Rp , R  dR  p  / dp , R0  R  p0  , T   TN  T  ,
AN
(6)

TN 0  T 0
q 0    fVp0 , (7)
R0
M

with the steady-state values for the thermal contact resistance R0 , the contact pressure p0 , the heat flux
ED

on the upper homogeneous half-plane q 0 , temperature on the sub-layer N of the FGM coating TN 0 and
PT

temperature on the upper homogeneous half-plane T 0 . Note that the perturbations of the heat flux for the

upper homogeneous half-plane q , temperature drop T and contact pressure p at the interface
CE

will be settled in the next part.

AC

3. Stability analysis

3.1 Temperature perturbation

The temperature perturbations in the upper homogeneous half-plane, FGM coating and bottom

homogeneous half-plane can be written as [45]

Tl  xl , yl , t   fl  yl  ebt i mxl , l  0,1, 2,..., N , , (8)

with i  1 ; the coordinates of the upper homogeneous half-plane, sub-layers of the FGM coating and
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bottom homogeneous half-plane xl , yl ; wave number m; complex functions fl  yl  which can be

solved by the transient heat conduction equation and exponential growth rate b which is either real or

complex. Referring to Zhang and Barber [20], a positive real b or a complex b with a positive real part

could lead the system to be unstable.

The temperature perturbations must satisfy the transient heat conduction equations

 2T  2T 1 T

  , (9)
x 2
y 2
 t

T
 2T j  2T j 1 T j

IP
  , j  1, 2,..., N , (10)
x j 2
y j 2
 j t

CR
 2T0  2T0 1 T0
  , (11)
x0 2 y0 2 0 t

US
for the upper homogeneous half-plane, sub-layers 1~N of the FGM coating and bottom homogeneous

half-plane, respectively; and the coordinates of them satisfy

AN
x  x  x j  x0 , y  y  h  y j  y0 . (12)

Substituting Eqs. (8) and (12) into Eqs. (9), (10) and (11) and considering the condition at the infinity:
M

T  0 as y   and T0  0 as y   , we can obtain the temperature perturbation for the

ED

upper homogeneous half-plane, sub-layers 1~N of the FGM coating and bottom homogeneous half-plane

T  x, y, t   C 1e a  y hebt imx , (13)

 e
PT

Tj  x, y, t   C j1e
a j y bt imx
 C j 2e
aj y
, (14)

T0  x, y, t   C01ea0 y ebt imx , (15)

CE

where C 1 , C j1 , C j 2 and C01 are unknown constants, and

AC

b
al  m2  , l  0,1, 2,..., N , . (16)
l

3.2 Thermoelastic stress and displacement fields

Since we employ the homogeneous multi-layered model to the FGM coating, the governing equations

of the sub-layers 1~N are the same as those of two homogenous half-planes. They can be written as

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2   2uxl  u yl  4 l Tl
2

 uxl 
2
   , (17)
 l  1  x 2 xy   l  1 x

2   u yl  2uxl  4 l Tl
2

 u yl 
2
   . (18)
 l  1  y 2 xy   l  1 y

The stress field for them is given by

 yl 
l  1 l  u yl  l  3 uxl   4ll T
  l, (19)
 l  1  y  l  1 x   l  1

T
 u yl uxl 
 xyl  l   .

IP
(20)
 x y 

CR
where l  0,1, 2,..., N , ; uxl  uxl ( x, y, t ) and u yl  u yl ( x, y, t ) are the displacements in the x and y

directions, respectively;  yl and  xyl are, respectively, the normal stress and shear stress in the plane of

xOy; and
US
l  l (1  l ) ,  l  3  4 l . (21)
AN
The temperature perturbation can induce the displacement field among the upper homogeneous

half-plane, sub-layers 1~N and bottom homogeneous half-plane. The displacement field is assumed as [2]
M

uxl  x, y, t   U xl  y  ebt imx , (22)

ED

u yl  x, y, t   U yl  y  ebt imx , (23)

where U xl  y  and U yl  y  are complex functions of the real variable y.

PT

Substituting Eq. (13) to Eqs. (17) and (18), we obtain

CE

  1 2 2i m 4i m
U x ( y)  m U x ( y )  U y ( y )  C 1e  a  y h , (24)
  1   1   1
AC

  1 2i m 4a 
U y ( y )  m2U y ( y )  U x ( y )     C 1e  a  y h  . (25)
  1   1   1

The solutions of Eqs. (24) and (25), which are composed by a homogeneous solution and a particular

solution,


ux ( x, y, t )   A 1  A 2  y  h  e
 m y  h 
 A 3e
 a  y  h 
e bt i mx
, (26)

      ia 
u y ( x, y, t )  i  A 1   y  h    A 2  e  m y h    A 3e  a  y h   ebt i mx . (27)
   m  m 
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Substituting Eq. (14) into Eqs. (17) and (18), we obtain

 j 1 2 4i m j
U xj  y  
 j 1
m U xj  y  
2i m
 j 1
U yj  y  
 j 1
C j1e 
a y
 C j 2e ,
a y j j
 (28)

 j 1 2i m 4a j j
U yj  y   m2U yj  y   U xj  y    C j1e  a y  C j 2e a y  .
j j
(29)
 j 1  j 1  j 1  

So the displacement field of sub-layers 1~N of the FGM coating can be expressed as

uxj ( x, y, t )   Aj1  Aj 2 y  emy   Aj 3  Aj 4 y  e my  Aj 5e  ebt i mx ,

a j y
 A j 6e
aj y
(30)


T
        

IP
  
u yj ( x, y, t )  i  Aj1   y  j  A j 2  e my  i  A j 3   y  j  A j 4  e  my

   m    m  , (31)

CR

 
ia j a y
Aj 5e j  Aj 6e j  ebt i mx
a y
+
m 

US
Similarly, substituting Eq. (15) into Eqs. (17) and (18), we can obtain the displacement field of the

bottom homogeneous half-plane [45]

AN
ux 0 ( x, y, t )   A01  A02 y  emy  A03ea0 y  ebt i mx , (32)

      ia 
u y 0 ( x, y, t )   i  A01   y  0  A02  emy  0 A03e a0 y  ebt i mx . (33)
M

   m  m 
The stresses field of the upper homogeneous half-plane, sub-layers 1~N of the FGM coating and bottom
ED

homogeneous half-plane can be respectively rewritten as

 1     
 y ( x, y, t )  2i   mA 1    m  y  h   A 2  e m y h   mA 3e  a  y h   ebt i mx ,
PT

(34)
  2   

  1 2   
 m  y  h   A 2  e m y h   a e a  y h  A 3  ebt i mx ,
CE

 xy , ( x, y, t )  2 mA 1   (35)

  2   


 yj ( x, y, t )  i j 1   j  Aj 2  2m  Aj1  Aj 2 y  e my  1   j  Aj 4
AC


, (36)

2m  Aj 3  Aj 4 y   e my  2m Aj 5 e j  Aj 6 e j
a y a y
ebt i mx


 xy , j ( x, y, t )   j  2mAj1   2my  1   j  Aj 2  e my  2mAj 3
, (37)
  2my  1   j  Aj 4  e my  2a j Aj 5 e j  2a j Aj 6 e j ebt i mx
a y a y

  1  0   
 y 0 ( x, y, t )  2i 0  mA01    my  A02  e my  mA03e a0 y  ebt i mx , (38)
  2   
10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

  1 2   
 xy ,0 ( x, y, t )  20 mA01    my  A02  emy  a0e a0 y A03  ebt i mx , (39)
  2   
where

C 1 
a 2
  m2    1
A 3，
4i m

C j1 
a 2
j  m2   j  1
Aj 5 , C j 2 
a 2
j  m2   j  1
Aj 6 , (40)
4i m j 4i m j

T

a 2
0  m2   0  1

IP
C01 A03 .
4i m 0

CR
The unknowns A 1 ~ A 3 , Aj1 ~ Aj 6 and A01 ~ A03 could be solved by the boundary conditions. Then,

q , T and p can be expressed as

q  q  x, h, t   a  US a
2
 m2    1
4im
A 3ebt i mx ,
AN
  aN2  m 2   N  1
T  TN ( x, h, t )  T ( x, h, t )  
 4i m N
, (41)
M


a 2
 m 2
  A  ebt i mx
   1 
AN 5e aN h  AN 6 e  aN h   4i m
3

ED

 1    
p   y ( x, h, t )  2i   mA 1  A 2   mA 3  ebt i mx .
 2  
PT

3.3 Boundary conditions

CE

3.3.1 The FGM coating

The displacement field, temperatures, heat flux and stress field are continued at the interface of the
AC

sub-layers, e.g.,

uxj  x, h j , t   ux, j +1  x, h j , t ，u yj  x, h j , t   u y , j 1  x, h j , t  ,

Tj  x, h j , t   T j 1  x, h j , t ，q j  x, h j , t   q j 1  x, h j , t  , (42)

 yj  x, h j , t    y , j 1  x, h j , t ， xyj  x, h j , t    xy , j 1  x, h j , t  .

Then, Eq. (42) can be written in the matrix form

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 j  h j   j   j 1  h j   j 1 , (43)

 
T
where  j  Aj1 , Aj 2 , Aj 3 , Aj 4 , Aj 5 , Aj 6 and

 j  y    1 ,  2 ,  3 ,  4 ,  5 ,  6  ,
T


1 = emy，yemy，e my，ye my，e
a j y
，e
aj y
,

 j  my  my   j  my a j  a y a j a y 

 2 = emy，
  y  e ，e ，   ye ， e ，  e , j j


 m  m  m m 


T

  a 2j  m2   j  1  a j y  a 2j  m2   j  1 a j y 


IP
 = 0, 0, 0, 0，
3
e ， e ,
 j j 
 

CR


 = 0, 0, 0, 0, a j  j
4  a 2j  m2   j  1  a j y
e , a j  j
 a 2j  m2   j  1  a j y 
e ,

 j j 
 


 =2m e
6 my
US
 5 = 2m j emy ,  j  2my   j  1 emy , 2m j e my ,  j  2my   j  1 emy , 2m j e

,  j  2my   j  1 emy , 2m j e my ,  j  2my   j  1 e my , 2 j a j e

a j y

a j y
, 2m j e

, 2 j a j e
aj y

aj y
,
.
AN
j

Thus,  j 1   j  j , where  j   j11 h j  j h j     is the transfer matrix. Finally, we have

M

N  N 1N 2 ...11 . (44)

ED

3.3.2 At y  0

In order to maintain the integrity of the FGM coating and bottom homogeneous half-plane, we
PT

assume the boundary conditions at y  0 to be continuous

CE

ux 0  x,0, t   ux1  x,0, t ，u y 0  x,0, t   u y1  x,0, t  ,

T0  x,0, t   T1  x,0, t ，q0  x,0, t   q1  x,0, t  , (45)

AC

 y 0  x,0, t    y1  x,0, t ， xy 0  x,0, t    xy1  x,0, t  .

Eq. (45) can be expressed in the matrix form 00 =1  h0  1 , then

1 =1-1  h0 00 , (46)

where 0   A01 , A02 , A03 and

T

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0  01 ,02 ,03 ,

01  1, 1，  2m0 , 2m0  ,

T
0，0，

 
T

2
0 0, 0  0  1 , 0 1   0   ,
  0， 0 , 0，
 m 

a0  a0  m   0  1  a02  m2   0  1
T


2 2


  1，
3
 , , a00 , 2m0 , 2a0 0  .
0
 m 0 0 
 

T
IP
3.3.3 At y  h

CR
At the sliding surface ( y  h ), the displacements and stresses are continuous [28, 45], i.e.,

u y  x, h, t   u yN  x, h, t  ,
US
 y  x, h, t    yN  x, h, t  ,
(47)

(48)
AN
 xy  x, h, t   0 , (49)

(50)
M

Similarity, the matrix form of Eqs. (47)-(50) and (4-5) is

  = N N
ED

(51)

where    A 1 , A 2 , A 3 
T
and
PT

  1 ,2 ,3 ,

  1   N     1   N   
T
CE


 
  1, 2m , 2m, 0, 2mV * 1    , m  Q  2 R V  1 
1 * * *
 ,

   N 1       N 1     

AC

  1   N   * 1      1   N  
T

 
* * 
    ,   1    ,1   , 0, 1    1   1    Q  2 R V  ,
2 *
V ,
m
   N 1     2   N 1     

 a   1   N   a  a  m 
2 2

   , 2m , 2a , 0, 2mV 1 

3  *
 ,
 m   N 1      m 2

  1   N    a  m   a *  
T
2 2

m  Q  2 R V  1 
* * *
 1  R   ,
  N 1      m  m  

 N   N1 , N2 , N3 , N4 , N5 , N6  ,
T

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

  N   mh  N   mh aN  aN h aN aN h 
 N1  emh ,   h  e ,e , h 
mh
e , e , e ,
  m  m  m m 

 N2  2mN emh , N 1   N  2mh  emh , 2mN e mh , N 1   N  2mh  e mh , 2mN e a h , 2mN ea

N Nh
,
 N3 = 0,0,0,0,0,0 ,

 N4  2memh ,  2mh   N  1 emh , 2me mh ,   2mh   N  1 e mh , 2aN e a h , 2aN ea

N Nh
,

 aN N  N  1  aN2  m2   a h aN N  N  1  aN2  m2  a h 

  0, 0, 0, 0,
5
e N , e N ,

T
m   N   1 m   N   1
N 2 2

 


IP

   N  1  aN2  m2   a h   N  1  aN2  m2  a h 
  0, 0, 0, 0,
6
e N , e N ,
 N  
    N  
  
N
m 1 m 1

CR

 

with

 1 1  1   1   N 
R*  mR0 k , Q*  4 RM
TN 0  T 0
R0 US
, V * =2 fMV  ,  
mk M 2  

N 
.
AN
Note that R*，Q* and V * are respectively the dimensionless thermal contact resistance, interface

temperature drop or heat flux and sliding speed at the interface [28].
M

From Eqs. (44), (46) and (51), we obtain

   0 . (52)
ED

where    N N 1 N 2 ...111  h0 0 . Eq. (52) can be expressed in the dimensionless form as

*  *0 ,
PT

(53)

by utilizing the following dimensionless parameters

CE

a0 b  a b
a0*   1+ 2  1   z , a*    1  2  1  z , (54)
m m 0 0 m m 
AC

aj b  b
a*j   1  1 z , z  2 , H  mh , (55)
m m j
2
j m 

where * and * are the dimensionless forms of  and  . It is easy to know that * and *

are 6  3 matrix, so Eq. (52) can be treated as six homogeneous linearity equations with six unknowns

A01 , A02 , A03 , A 1 , A 2 and A 3 . If and only if the coefficient matrix equals to zero, there are

nontrival solutions for these six equations. That is to say,

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

det * , *   0 . (56)

Eq. (56) is the characteristic equation of the exponential growth rate z z  b / m  .

2
 Eq. (56)

includes the interaction of the friction coefficient and the thermal contact resistance, which makes it

possible for us to study the coupled effects of them on the stability boundaries meanwhile.

4. Stability criterion

T
It will cause the system to be unstable if the assumed form perturbation has a dimensionless

 

IP
exponential growth rate z z  b / m2 with real and positive or complex with positive real part [20].

CR
To study the stability boundary, we consider two different kinds of the exponential growth z.

Firstly, z is real and z  0 . The characteristic equation (56) turns to the linear relation between the

US
critical sliding speed V * and critical heat flux Q* . Secondly, z is complex with Re[z]  0 . There are

three unknowns in the characteristic equation (56), i.e., the critical sliding speed V * , critical heat flux
AN
Q* and real w. Separating the real and imaginary parts of Eq. (56), we have

Re det * , *   =0 ， (57)

M

Im det * , *    0 , (58)

ED

from which we can have the relationship between V * and Q* via the parameter w.
PT

5. Results and discussion

CE

In the sliding systems like brakes and clutches, the frictional heat and thermal contact resistance

always exist at the same time. They will lead to the non-uniform thermal distortions and thermal
AC

distribution, which ultimately induce one of the commonest and most dangerous appearances, i.e., the hot

spots. It is not accurate enough only considering one of them. In this section, we will focus on the

thermoelastic contact instability between a homogeneous half-plane and an FGM coated half-plane with

arbitrarily varying properties, taking both the frictional heat and thermal contact resistance into account. In

this paper, we mainly study the effects of the thermal diffusivity coefficient  , the gradient index, the

thickness of the FGM coating H, the thermal contact resistance R* , the friction coefficient f and the heat

partition coefficient  on the stability boundaries. The FGM coating is made by a mixture of the ceramic
15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and nodular cast iron. The material of the FGM coating at y  0 is nodular cast iron. The material of the

bottom homogeneous half-plane is also taken as the nodular cast iron. The material of the upper

homogeneous half-plane is made by the friction material [40]. The properties of the metal, ceramic and

friction materials are listed in Table 1 [20, 40].

Since the homogeneous multi-layered model can simulate FGMs with arbitrarily varying properties,

we consider FGMs with the power-law form, exponential function, sinusoidal function and cosine function,

respectively. We name the power-law form as Case 1 in which the properties of the FGM coating follow

T
the power-law function through the thickness direction,

IP
n
 y
1

  y   0    N  0    ,

CR
(59a)
 
h
n
 y
2

k  y   k0   k N  k0    , (59b)

US h

 y
  y    0   N   0    ,
3 n

(59c)
AN
h
n4
 y
  y   0   N  0    , (59d)
 
M

h
n5
 y
  y    0   N  0    , (59e)
ED

h
the exponential form
PT

  y   0e y , 1  ln  N / 0  / h ,
1
(60a)

k  y   k0e2 y , 2  ln  kN / k0  / h , (60b)
CE

  y    0e y , 3  ln  N /  0  / h ,
3
(60c)
AC

  y   0e y , 4  ln  N / 0  / h ,
4
(60d)

  y    0e y , 5  ln  N /  0  / h ,
5
(60e)

as Case 2; the sinusoidal form

 y 
  y   0    N  0  sin  , (61a)
 2h 

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 y 
k  y   k0   k N  k0  sin  , (61b)
 2h 

 y 
  y    0   N   0  sin  , (61c)
 2h 

 y 
  y   0   N  0  sin  , (61d)
 2h 

 y 
  y    0   N  0  sin  , (61e)

T
 2h 

IP
as Case 3 and the cosine form

CR
0   N 0   N  y 
  y   cos  , (62a)
2 2  h 

 y 
k  y 
k0  k N k 0  k N
2

2 US
cos 
 h 
, (62b)

0   N 0   N  y 
AN
  y   cos  , (62c)
2 2  h 

0  N 0  N  y 
  y 
M

 cos  , (62d)
2 2  h 

 0  N  0  N  y 
ED

  y   cos  , (62e)
2 2  h 

as Case 4, where  N , kN ,  N , N and  N are the shear modulus, thermal conductivity coefficient,
PT

thermal expansion coefficient, thermal diffusivity coefficient and Poisson’s radio of the upper surface of
CE

the FGM coating, respectively.

AC

5.1 Convergence and comparison studies

Before analyzing the TEI of FGMs, we need to examine the convergence of the homogeneous

multi-layered model. Table 2 shows the effect of the total number of sub-layers (N) on the critical sliding

speed V * with H =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3, Q*  30 and   0.5 . Note that both n  0.1 and n  10

stand for the greatly varying material properties of FGM. It is observed that the critical sliding speeds

become closer to each other with an increasing N. Obviously, the accurate results can be obtained if the

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

number of sub-layers N = 8 or 10 for n  1.0 , and N = 12 or 14 for n  0.1 and 10 . Therefore, we

choose 12 sub-layers for all examples in the next analysis. It should be pointed out that the extreme

gradient slop of FGMs, for example n  0.01 and n  100 , are beyond the consideration of the
present analysis. Actually, it is hard to fabricate FGMs with the extreme gradient slop. So, the gradient

index is limited at the range 0.1  n  10 in our discussion.

We choose the stainless and aluminum alloy, respectively, as the material of the upper homogeneous

and bottom homogeneous half-plane. The present problem can be reduced to the static TEI problem [20] if

T
we set the sliding speed and the thickness of the FGM coating as zero. Fig. 2 presents the stability

IP
boundaries ( Q* vs R*) for a homogeneous stainless steel half-plane and a homogeneous aluminum alloy

CR
half-plane with V *  0.0 . Zhang and Barber’s results are also plotted in Fig. 2 to validate the present

analysis. Obviously, the present results are in good agreement with Zhang and Barber’s results [20].

US
If we neglect the sliding speed and bottom homogeneous half-plane, the present coupled TEI problem

can be reduced to the static TEI problem between and FGM layer and a homogeneous half-plane reported
AN
by Mao et al. [2]. Fig. 3 compares the stability boundaries of the static TEI problem by using the

homogeneous multi-layered model and exponential model with H=1.0 and n =0.2. The FGM coating is
M

made by a mixture of the ceramic and nodular cast iron. Again, it can be seen that multi-layered model’s

results agree well with exponential model’s results [2].

ED

5.2 The results for the power-law case

PT

For the sake of convenience, we assume that the gradient indices have the same value n in Eq. (59),

i.e., n1  n2  n3  n4  n5  n . Fig. 4 depicts the effect of the gradient index n on the stability
CE

boundaries with H =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 . The stability boundary depends on the real root
AC

first and then on the complex root for n = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. In the present analysis, we call a special point

as the turning point where the instability changes from the real root to the complex root. We can see that

the critical sliding speed at the turning point decreases with the decrease of the gradient index n, for

example V *  370 for n = 2.0, V *  310 for n = 1.0 and V *  240 for n = 0.5. For the real root

instability, the relationship between V * and Q* is linear. However, it is no longer linear for the

complex root instability. The same phenomenon is also found by Afferante et al. [28]. For the positive heat

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

flux, the critical sliding speed decreases with the increase of Q* . But the trend is opposite for the

negative heat flux for which the critical sliding speed increases with the increase value of Q* . In other

words, the frictional heat can make the system stable in certain situations when considering the

pressure-dependent thermal contact resistance [29]. With the increase of the gradient index, the stability

area becomes larger. That is because the bigger the gradient index is, the upper sub-layers of the FGM

coating are the ceramic-rich layers, which is more easier to keep stability than the metal-rich layers.

T
Fig. 5 examines the effect of the thickness H on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3

IP
and   0.5 . The stability boundaries are all relied on the real roots first and then complex roots for the

CR
given thickness H = 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0. Similar to Fig. 3, the relationship between V * and Q* is no longer

linear for the complex root instability, and the positive heat flux unstabilizes the system, while the

US
negative heat flux stabilizes the system. It is found that the critical speed at the turning point decreases

with the increase of H. The dimensionless critical speed is 310 for H = 1.0, 190 for H = 2.0 and 140 for H
AN
= 3.0. Note that this conclusion depends on the combinations of coating and substrate materials and the

ratios of the material parameters at the bottom and upper surfaces of the coating. If we take other
M

combinations of coating and substrate materials, the conclusion may be opposite from the current one.

Fig. 6 explores the effect of the thermal contact resistance R* on the stability boundaries with n =1.0,
ED

H = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 . There is still a critical sliding speed V * at the turning point for each curve,

below which the stability boundaries are decided on the real roots, and above which the boundaries
PT

depend on the complex roots. Interestingly, the critical sliding speed at the turning points has the same

value 310 for three different R*  0.5, 0.8, 1.0. That is to say, the thermal contact resistance has no
CE

effect on the turning point. However, it has a great effect on the stability area, which decreases with the
AC

increase of the thermal contact resistance. The bigger the thermal contact resistance is, the more the

frictional heat accumulated at the interface. So the system is much more possible to be unstable.

Fig. 7 presents the effect of the friction coefficient f on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, H = 1.0, R*

= 1.0 and  =0.5 . It can be seen that the critical speed V * at the turning point increases with the

decrease of the friction coefficient f, e.g. V *  310 for f = 0.30, V *  370 for f = 0.25 and V *  465

for f = 0.20. The increase of the friction coefficient f leads to the decrease of the stability area. In the

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sliding system, the frictional heat is one of the most important factors for the TEI. The bigger the friction

coefficient is, the more the heat generated by the friction is. Thus, the system is much more possible to be

unstable with the bigger friction coefficient f.

Fig. 8 shows the effect of the heat partition coefficient  on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, H

= 1.0, R* = 1.0 and f = 0.30. It is extremely difficult to confirm the value  because it is closely relevant

to the mechanism of the interface. Unless there are available data obtained from the experiments,

T
researchers always select the value within the range of the possible values 0.0~1.0 [28]. Therefore, it is

IP
chosen as 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 in the discussion. It is observed that the turning point is insensitive to the heat

partition coefficient. However, the stability area is increasing by the decreasing heat partition coefficient.

CR
According to the definition of the heat partition coefficient in section 2, the smaller heat partition

coefficient  indicates that small amount of the frictional heat flows into the upper homogeneous

US
half-plane, but large amount of the frictional heat flows into the FGM coated half-plane.
AN
5.3 Compare the results for different gradient types

It is known that the homogeneous multi-layered model has the merit to simulate the arbitrarily
M

varying material properties of FGMs. By using this model, it is possible to check the effect of different
ED

gradient types of FGMs on the stability behavior of system. Indeed, we can select a lot of types of

distribution in the analysis. For simplicity, we only select four gradient types of FGMs, i.e, the power-law

function, exponential function, sinusoidal function and cosine function.

PT

Fig. 9 illustrates the stability boundaries for the four different cases with H = 1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and
CE

  0.5 . For Case 1, the gradient index is takes as n  1.0 . Among the four cases, it is found that Case 1

has the largest stability area and the critical sliding speed at the turning point. The difference of results
AC

obtained from different gradient types is great for the complex root instability, while it is relatively small

for the real root instability. These results indicate that an appropriate gradient type of the FGM coating can

adjust the TEI of systems.

5.4 Discuss the effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient

In previous works concerning the thermoelastic crack problem of FGMs [47, 48], thermoelastic

contact of FGMs [36] and TEI of FGMs [40-45], the thermal diffusivity coefficient is always treated as a
20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

constant for the mathematical convenience. In fact, the thermal diffusivity coefficient is inhomogeneous

along the thickness direction. Therefore, this treatment of the thermal diffusivity coefficient may lead to

the error in the TEI analysis of FGMs.

Firstly, we discuss the effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient on the TEI of FGMs considering

the coupled effect of the frictional heat and thermal contact resistance. The properties of the FGM coating

follow the power-law function (i.e., case 1). Tables 3 presents the effect of the different form of the

thermal diffusivity coefficient  (the graded  and the constant  ) on the critical sliding speed V *

T
with H =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 . Note that 0 and N are the thermal diffusivity coefficient

IP
of FGM coating at the bottom surface and upper surface, respectively. “Graded  with n =1.0” denotes

CR
that the thermal diffusivity coefficient is inhomogeneous along the thickness direction. “   0 ”,

“   (0 +N ) 2 ” and “   (0 +N ) 2 ” denote the ways to treat the thermal diffusivity coefficient as
US
constant. The homogeneous multi-layered model is used to solved the TEI of FGMs with the graded 
AN
or the constant  . The values in the bracket denote the relative difference percentages between the

solutions of the constant  and graded  . It is defined as the absolute value of (graded  solution -

constant  solution) / (graded  solution). It can be observed that there is no difference between the
M

graded thermal diffusivity coefficient and the constant  for the real root instability. However, for the
ED

complex root instability, the different forms of the thermal diffusivity coefficient have a great effect on the

critical sliding speed.

PT

Secondly, we want to examine the error in our previous work about the TEI of FGMs [2, 41-43] with

the thermoelastic parameters varying in the exponential form. In those works, the thermal diffusivity
CE

coefficient is treated as a constant by assuming that the gradient indices of the thermal conductivity,

density and specific heat satisfy a certain relation [2, 40-45]. Here, we only consider the effect of the
AC

different form of  on the critical siding speed V * for the complex root instability since it indeed has

no effect on the real root instability behavior. Table 4 tabulates the effect of the thermal diffusivity

coefficient  on the TEI of FGMs with their properties varying exponentially (i.e., case 2). For the

graded  , we assume that the gradient indexes have the same value  in Eq. (60), i.e.,

1  2  3  4  5   . For the constant  , we have 1  2  3  5   and  j  0 or

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 j  N . The bottom surface of the FGM coating is chosen as the nodular cast iron. The gradient index

 is respectively selected as 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 0.6. It is found that the error is about 0.03%~3.74%

between the constant  and graded  when the gradient index   0.6 . This example indicates that

the assumption of constant  is reasonable in our previous works [2, 42, 43, 45] when the gradient index

of the exponential function is small.

T
6. Conclusions

IP
This paper presents the TEI of FGMs considering the coupled effect of the thermal contact resistance

CR
and frictional heat in the plane strain state through the perturbation method and the transfer matrix

method. A homogeneous half-plane slides against an FGM coated half-plane at the out of plane direction.

US
The properties of the FGM coating vary arbitrarily. The homogeneous multi-layered model is used to

deal with the arbitrarily varying properties of the FGM coating. The effects of the gradient index,
AN
different gradient types and the thermal diffusivity coefficient of the FGM coating on the stability

boundaries are discussed. It is found that：

(1) For the power law case, the stability boundaries grow with the thermal contact resistance, friction
M

coefficient, heat partition coefficient and the increasing gradient index of the FGM coating.
ED

(2) An appropriate gradient type and thickness of the FGM coating can adjust the TEI of systems.

(3) For the power law case, the different form of the thermal diffusivity coefficient of FGM coating has

no effect on the real root instability, but the effect is great for the complex stability behavior. Interestingly,
PT

the results obtained from the average value of the thermal diffusivity coefficient are very close to those
CE

obtained from the graded thermal diffusivity coefficient.

(4) For the exponential case, the assumption of the constant thermal diffusivity coefficient is reasonable
AC

for the TEI of FGMs when the gradient index is small.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central

Universities under Grant number 2016YJS106.

References

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[1] Barber JR. Thermoelasticity and contact. Journal of Thermal Stresses 1999;22(4-5): 513-25.

[2] Mao JJ, Ke LL, Wang YS. Thermoelastic contact instability of a functionally graded layer and a

homogeneous half-plane. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2014;51(23): 3962-72.

[3] Barber JR. Thermoelastic instabilities in the sliding of comforming solids. In: Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. The Royal Society:

1969. p.381-94.

[4] Dow TA, Burton RA. Thermoelastic instability of sliding contact in the absence of wear. Wear

T
1972;19(3):315-28.

IP
[5] Burton RA, Nerlikar V, Kilaparti SR. Thermoelastic instability in a seal-like configuration. Wear

CR
1973;24(2):177-88.

[6] Lee K, Barber JR. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability in automotive disk brakes. Journal of

Tribology 1993;115(4):607-14.

US
[7] Lee K. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability in automotive drum brakes. Journal of Tribology
AN
2000;122(4):849-55.

[8] Decuzzi P, Ciaverella M, Monno G. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability in multi-disk clutches

and brakes. Journal of Tribology 2001;123(4):865-71.

M

[9] Du S, Zagrodzki P, Barber JR, Hulbert GM. Finite element analysis of frictionally excited
ED

thermoelastic instability. Journal of Thermal Stresses 1997;20(2):185-201.

[10] Yi YB, Du S, Barber JR, Fash JW. Effect of geometry on thermoelastic instability in disk brakes and

clutches. Journal of Tribology 1999;121(4):661-6.

PT

[11] Yi YB, Barber JR, Zagrodzki P. Eigenvalue solution of thermoelastic instability problems using
CE

Fourier reduction. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and

Engineering Sciences. The Royal Society: 2000:2799-821.

AC

[12] Audebert N, Barber JR, Zagrodzki P. Buckling of automatic transmission clutch plates due to

thermoelastic/plastic residual stresses. Journal of Thermal Stresses 1998;21(3-4):309-26.

[13] Panier S, Dufrenoy P, Bremond P. Infrared characterization of thermal gradients on disc brakes. In:

AeroSense 2003:295-302.

[14] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M, Barber JR. Sliding thermoelastodynamic instability. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2006;462(2071):

2161-2176.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[15] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M. Thermo-elastic dynamic instability (TEDI) in frictional sliding of two

elastic half-spaces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 2007; 55(4):744-764.

[16] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M. Thermoelastic dynamic instability (TEDI) in frictional sliding of a

half-space against a rigid non-conducting wall. 2007; 74(5): 875-884.

[17] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M. Thermo-elastic dynamic instability (TEDI)—a review of recent results.

Journal of Engineering Mathematics. 2008; 61:285-300.

[18] Zelentsov VB, Mitrin BI, Aizikovich SM. Dynamic and quasi-static instability of sliding

T
thermoelastic frictional contact. Journal of Friction and Wear. 2016;37(3):213-220.

IP
[19] Barber JR. Stability of thermoelastic contact. In: Proceeding Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

CR
International Congress on Tribology 1987:981-86.

[20] Zhang R, Barber JR. Effect of material properties on the stability of static thermoelastic contact.

Journal of Applied Mechanics 1990;57(2):365-9.

US
[21] Yeo T, Barber JR. Stability of thermoelastic contact of a layer and a half-plane. Journal of Thermal
AN
Stresses 1991;14(4):371-88.

[22] Li C, Barber JR. Stability of thermoelastic contact of two layers of dissimilar materials. Journal of

Thermal Stresses 1997;20(2):169-84.

M

[23] Schade DT, Oditt K, Karr DG. Thermoelastic stability of two bonded half planes. Journal of
ED

Engineering Mechanics 2000;126(9):981-5.

[24] Schade DT, Karr DG. Thermoelastic stability of layer bonded to half plane. Journal of Engineering

Mechanics 2002;128(12):1285-94.
PT

[25] Johansson L. Model and numerical algorithm for sliding contact between two elastic half-planes with
CE

frictional heat generation and wear. Wear 1993;160(1):77-93.

[26] Ciavarella M, Johansson L, Afferrante L, Klarbring A, Barber JR. Interaction of thermal contact
AC

resistance and frictional heating in thermoelastic instability. International Journal of Solids and

Structures 2003;40(21):5583-97.

[27] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability in the presence of contact

resistance. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2004;39(4): 351-7.

[28] Afferrante L, Ciavarella M. Instability of thermoelastic contact for two half-planes sliding

out-of-plane with contact resistance and frictional heating. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of

Solids 2004;52(7):1527-47.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[29] Ciavarella M, Barber JR. Stability of thermoelastic contact for a rectangular elastic block sliding

against a rigid wall. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 2005;24(3):371-6.

[30] Suresh S, Mortensen A. Functionally graded metals and metal-ceramic composites: Part 2

Thermomechanical behaviour. International Materials Reviews 1997;42(3):85-116.

[31] Krenev LI, Aizikovich SM, Tokovyy YV, Wang YC. Axisymmetric problem on the indentation of a

hot circular punch into an arbitrarily nonhomogeneous half-space. International Journal of Solids and

Structures 2015;59:18-28.

T
[32] Chen P, Chen S, Peng Z. Thermo-contact mechanics of a rigid cylindrical punch sliding on a finite

IP
graded layer. Acta Mechanica 2012;223(12):2647-65.

CR
[33] Chen P, Chen S. Partial slip contact between a rigid punch with an arbitrary tip-shape and an elastic

graded solid with a finite thickness. Mechanics of Materials 2013;59:24-35.

US
[34] Suresh S. Graded materials for resistance to contact deformation and damage. Science

2001;292(5526):2447-51.
AN
[35] Eshraghi I, Dag S, Soltani N. Bending and free vibrations of functionally graded annular and circular

micro-plates under thermal loading. Composite Structures 2016 Mar 31;137:196-207.

[36] Liu J, Ke LL, Wang YS. Two-dimensional thermoelastic contact problem of functionally graded
M

materials involving frictional heating. International Journal of Solids and Structures

ED

2011;48(18):2536-48.

[37] Kulchytsky-Zhyhailo R, Bajkowski AS. Axisymmetrical problem of thermoelasticity for halfspace

with gradient coating. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2016 Feb 29;106:62-71.
PT

[38] Chen PJ, Chen SH, Yao Y. Nonslipping contact between a mismatch film and a finite-thickness
CE

graded substrate. Journal of Applied Mechanics 2016;83(2):021007.

[39] Liu J, Ke LL, Wang YS, Yang J, Alam F. Thermoelastic frictional contact of functionally graded
AC

materials with arbitrarily varying properties. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

2012;63(1):86-98.

[40] Lee SW, Jang YH. Effect of functionally graded material on frictionally excited thermoelastic

instability. Wear 2009;266(1):139-46.

[41] Lee SW, Jang YH. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability in a thin layer of functionally graded

material sliding between two half-planes. Wear 2009;267(9):1715-22.

[42] Mao JJ, Ke LL, Wang YS. Thermoelastic instability of functionally graded materials in frictionless

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

contact. Acta Mechanica 2015; 226: 2295-311.

[43]Mao JJ, Ke LL, Wang YS. Thermoelastic instability of a functionally graded layer interacting with a

homogeneous layer. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2015; 99:218-27.

[44]Liu J, Wang YS, Ke LL, Yang J, Alam F. Dynamic instability of an elastic solid sliding against a

functionally graded material coated half-plane. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

2014;89:323-31.

[45] Mao JJ, Ke LL, Wang YS, Liu J. Frictionally excited thermoelastic instability of functionally graded

T
materials sliding out-of-plane with contact resistance. Journal of Applied Mechanics

IP
2016;83(2):021010.

CR
[46] Li C. Thermoelastic contact stability analysis, Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan, Michigan: 1998.

[47] Jin ZH, Noda N. Transient thermal stress intensity factors for a crack in semi-infinite plate of a

US
functionally gradient material. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1994; 31:203-18.

[48] Shodja HM, Ghahremaninejad A. An FGM coated elastic solid under thermomechanical loading: a
AN
two dimensional linear elastic approach. Surface and Coatings Technology 2006; 200(12):4050-64.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table captions

Table 1 Thermoelastic properties of selected materials

Table 2 The effect of the total number of multi-layers (N) on the critical sliding speed V* for different

gradient types

Table 3 The effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient  on the critical sliding speed V*: Power-law

function (Case 1)

T
Table 4 The effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient  on the critical sliding speed V* with Q* = -180:

IP
exponential function (Case 2)

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure captions

Fig. 1 Schematic map of the thermoelastic contact problem for a homogeneous half-plane sliding out of an

FGM coated half-plane (a) and the homogeneous multi-layered model (b).

Fig. 2 The stability boundaries for a homogeneous stainless half-plane and a homogeneous aluminum

alloy half-plane with V* = 0.0 with R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 .

Fig. 3 The stability boundaries of the static TEI problem with H = 1.0 and n  0.2 .

T
Fig. 4 The effect of gradient index n on the stability boundaries with H =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and

IP
  0.5 .

CR
Fig. 5 The effect of the thickness H on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 .

Fig. 6 The effect of thermal contact resistance R* on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, H = 1.0, f = 0.3

and   0.5 . US
AN
Fig. 7 The effect of the friction coefficient f on the stability boundaries with n = 1.0, H = 1.0, R* = 1.0

and   0.5 .
M

Fig. 8 The effect of heat partition coefficient on the stability boundaries  with n =1.0, H = 1.0, R* = 1.0

and f  0.3 .
ED

Fig. 9 The stability boundaries for the four different cases with H = 1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and  =0.5 .
PT
CE
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Thermoelastic properties of selected materials

Friction Nodular Ceramic Aluminium Stainless SiC

Properties
material cast iron alloy steel sintered

T
E (GPa) 0.3 168 151 72 200 400

IP
  o C1  10
6 4.4
14.0 13.7 12.0 22.0 14.0

CR
k (W/moC) 0.241 48.9 3.0 173.0 21.0 110.0

 ( mm2/s) 0.177 16.05 1.15 67.16 5.93 35.48

 0.12 0.31
US
0.30 0.32 0.30 0.16
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 The effect of the total number of multi-layers (N) on the critical sliding speed V* for different

gradient types

Total number of multi-layers (N)

T
n
4 6 8 10 12 14 16

IP
n = 0.1 93.07 94.44 95.02 95.35 95.55 95.70 95.80

CR
n = 1.0 100.06 102.86 103.93 104.47 104.80 105.02 105.17

n = 10.0 101.81 105.29 106.65

US 107.36 107.79 108.07 108.27
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 The effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient  on the critical sliding speed V*: Power-law

function (Case 1)

Q*

T

2 -30 -120 -160

IP
Graded  with

CR
6.40 104.80 347.11 398.96
n =1.0

320.57 333.25
  0

  (0 +N ) 2
6.40

US
104.80
(7.65%)

343.44
(16.47%)

390.17
AN
6.40 104.80
(1.06%) (2.20%)

379.29 491.42
  N 6.40 104.80
M

(9.27%) (23.18%)

Instability Types Real Real Complex Complex

ED
PT
CE
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 The effect of the thermal diffusivity coefficient  on the critical sliding speed V* with Q* = -180:

exponential function (Case 2)

T

0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6

IP
Graded  592.72 585.30 540.55 518.40

CR
592.87 586.47 550.12 533.27
  0
(0.03%) (0.20%) (1.77%) (2.87%)

  N
592.54

(0.03%)
US
583.98

(0.23%)
527.92

(2.33%)
499.00

(3.74%)
AN
Instability Types Complex
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Interface

T
IP
CR
US
(a)
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

(b)

Fig. 1 Schematic map of the thermoelastic contact problem for a homogeneous half-plane sliding out of an

FGM coated half-plane (a) and the homogeneous multi-layered model (b).

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30

Present results:

T
-30 Real root
Complex root

IP
*
Q

-60

CR
Zhang and Barber's results:
-90 Real root

-120
0.0 0.2 0.4
US Complex root

0.6 0.8 1.0

AN
*
1/(1+R )

Fig. 2 The stability boundaries for a homogeneous stainless half-plane and a homogeneous aluminum
M

alloy half-plane with V* = 0.0 with R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 .

ED
PT
CE
AC

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

120

105 Exponential model [2]

Multi-layered model

T
90

IP
*
Q

75

CR
60

45
US
AN
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60
*
1/(1+R )
M

Fig. 3 The stability boundaries of the static TEI problem with H = 1.0 and n  0.2 .
ED
PT
CE
AC

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

-20

T
-40

IP
Real roots: Instability
-60
n = 0.5
*
Q

n = 1.0

CR
-80
n = 5.0
-100
Complex roots
n = 0.5
-120

-140
n = 1.0
n = 5.0 US
Stability
AN
-160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
*
V
M

Fig. 4 The effect of the gradient index n on the stability boundaries with H =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and

  0.5 .
ED
PT
CE
AC

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

0
Real roots:
-20 H = 1.0
H = 2.0

T
-40 Instability
H = 3.0

IP
-60
*
Q

CR
-80

-100 Complex roots:

H = 1.0
-120

-140
H = 2.0
H = 3.0 US
Stability
AN
-160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
*
V
M

Fig. 5 The effect of the thickness H on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and   0.5 .
ED
PT
CE
AC

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

-20 Instablity

T
-40
Real roots:

IP
*
-60 R = 0.5
*
*

R = 0.8
Q

CR
-80 *
R = 1.0
-100 Complex roots:
*
R = 0.5 Stablity
-120

-140
*
R = 0.8
*
R = 1.0
US
AN
-160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
*
V
M

Fig. 6 The effect of the thermal contact resistance R* on the stability boundaries with n =1.0, H = 1.0, f =

0.3 and   0.5 .

ED
PT
CE
AC

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

-20 Instability Complex roots:

f = 0.30

T
-40 f = 0.25
f = 0.20

IP
-60
*
Q

-80 Real roots:

CR
f = 0.20
-100
f = 0.25
f = 0.30
-120

-140 US
Stability
AN
-160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
*
V
M

Fig. 7 The effect of the friction coefficient f on the stability boundaries with n = 1.0, H = 1.0, R* = 1.0 and

  0.5 .
ED
PT
CE
AC

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30

0
Instability
-30

T
-60 Real roots:


IP
-90 
*
Q

CR

-120
Complex roots:
-150  Stability

-180

 US
AN
-210
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
*
V
M

Fig. 8 The effect of heat partition coefficient on the stability boundaries  with n =1.0, H = 1.0,
ED

R*  1.0 and f = 0.3.

PT
CE
AC

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

0
Real roots:
-20 Instability Case 1 (n = 1.0)
Case 2

T
-40
Case 3

IP
-60 Stability Case 4
*
Q

CR
-80
Complex roots:
-100 Case 1 (n = 1.0)
Case 2
-120

-140
Case 3
Case 4 US
AN
-160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
*
V
M

Fig. 9 The stability boundaries for the four different cases with H = 1.0, R* = 1.0, f = 0.3 and  =0.5 .
ED
PT
CE
AC

41