See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317693147

A new analytical method for press-fit curve prediction of interference fitting

parts

Article  in  Journal of Materials Processing Technology · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.06.022

CITATIONS READS

9 2,434

4 authors, including:

Xingyuan Wang Zhifeng Lou

Harbin Engineering University Dalian University of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xingyuan Wang on 04 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

A new analytical method for press-fit curve prediction of interference fitting MARK
parts
⁎
Xingyuan Wanga, Zhifeng Loua,b, Xiaodong Wanga,b, , Chonglin Xua
a
Key Laboratory for Micro/Nano Technology and System of Liaoning Province, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
b
Key Laboratory for Precision and Non-traditional Machining of Ministry of Education, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Press-fit assembly is one of the traditional methods for assembly of interference fitting parts. But the connection
Press-fit assembly quality cannot be obtained directly from this method. At present, the press-fit curve is employed for quality
Interference fitting parts estimation, and thick-walled cylinder theory (TCT) is used for standard press-fit curve prediction. However, the
Press-fit curve prediction results have a large relative error which may reach to larger than 18% for neglecting the influence of
Resistant force
non-contact regions. This paper aims to build an accurate analytical method to predict the press-fit curve under
Analytical method
the linear elastic hypothesis. The finite element method (FEM) was used to analyze the influence of non-contact
regions, and the results show that the non-contact regions generate a constant resistant force in the press-fit
process. To establish the analytical method, a simplified model was proposed. The calculation method of re-
sistant force was deduced based on the simplified model, and the analytical method was established based on
both of TCT and the resistant force calculation method. The analytical results were compared with numerical
results and validated by experimental results. The results show that the new analytical method can predict the
press-fit curve accurately, and it is more efficient than FEM in design of interference fitting parts.

1. Introduction
An interference fit is obtained by inserting a shaft into a hole with a
slightly smaller diameter. To accommodate this interference, the shaft
must contract radially, and the hole expands, producing a radial contact
stress at the interface (Selvage, 1978). Recently, interference fit is
commonly used in various fields including aerospace, energy, agri-
culture, transportation and medicine for its high ability of transmitting
an axial force or torque between a shaft and hub with the help of
friction effects (Yang et al., 2002).
Press-fit assembly is one of the traditional methods for assembly of
interference fitting parts, and its assembly quality has attracted the
attention of many researchers. Generally, the strength of assemblies
depends on various parameters such as amount of interference, material
properties, physical dimensions, geometrical irregularities of mating
members and friction coefficient of contact surfaces (Seifi and Abbasi,
2015). Hence, many studies have been performed to investigate the
effect of various parameters on the load bearing ability of interference
fits. Application of finite element methods (FEM) to simulate and in-
vestigate interference joints is widely spread. Teng et al. (2012) ana-
lyzed the stress distribution of cylindrical interference fit by FEM. The
influencing factors such as joint diameter, joint width, outer diameter of
the container, and interference were investigated in detail. For the
friction coefficient is also an important factor for load bearing ability,
Seifi and Abbasi (2015) estimated the friction coefficient in shaft/bush
interference fit by an updated FE model. However, in practice, there is a
form error in the contact surface which will lead to a weak interference
fit. The research of Boutoutaou et al. (2011) also supports that form
defects have a negative effect on the assembly strength and can't be
neglected in intensive tightening. Furthermore, connection perfor-
mance is also affected by operating conditions such as separation fre-
quencies. Kovan (2011) founds that the separation frequency has a
great influence on stress distribution of interference fit assembly be-
tween hollow shaft and hub, and the FEM gives more accurate results
than thick-walled cylinder theory.
The researches mentioned above all focus on a finished interference
fit. But in practice, it’s unreasonable to measure the roughness and form
error of each part, and then estimate the actual interference value and
simulate the contact status. Therefore, it’s necessary to pay attention to
the assembly process to estimate the assembly quality. Kleditzsch et al.
(2014, 2015) made a detailed numerical investigation on the joining
process and load characteristics of steel-aluminum knurled interference
fits, and the results showed that the joining process is significant for
axial strength and the transmission behavior of the connection.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory for Micro/Nano Technology and System of Liaoning Province, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China.
E-mail address: xdwang@dlut.edu.cn (X. Wang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.06.022
Received 29 January 2017; Received in revised form 16 June 2017; Accepted 17 June 2017
Available online 19 June 2017
0924-0136/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

However, in practice, the strength of each connection pair is impossible

to be obtained by pull-out test. Since press-fit curve (the relationship
between press-mounting force and displacement) is carefully followed
by the operator during its generation, it is used for real-time monitoring
and evaluating the assembly quality by checking that it is within the
boundary curves imposed by the standards (Benuzzi and Donzella,
2004). The research of You et al. (2015) shows that press-mounting
failure causes can be evaluated according to the gradients of press-fit
curves and the varieties of maximum press-mounting forces. Benuzzi
and Donzella (2004) established a simplified model to predict the press-
fit curve of a railway axle and wheel, and the prediction results de-
monstrated the advantages of an easy and adequate tool for use in
workshop operations.
Thick-walled cylinder theory (TCT) is commonly used to predict the
deformation (Bae et al., 2012) and contact pressure (Ozturk, 2011) of
Fig. 2. The principle of an axial press-fit assembly.
interference fit. But the TCT is not accurate enough to predict the press-
fit curve for neglecting the non-contact regions. Recently, FEM is
mainly used for press-fit curve estimation, but a few researchers pay
attention to analytical model updating. Therefore, this paper aims to
build a new analytical model to predict the press-fit curve. In this study,
the FEM and TCT were used to analyze the influence of non-contact
regions, and the results show that the non-contact regions generate a
constant resistant force in the press-fit process. Therefore, a simplified
model was proposed by dividing the geometric model into three parts:
contact region, non-contact regions of part A and part B respectively
(Fig. 1). The calculation method of resistant force was deduced based
on the simplified model. Then, the analytical method was built based on
the calculation methods of the friction force and resistant force. Finally,
the analytical results were compared with numerical results and vali-
dated by experiments. The deviation between the maximum press-
mounting forces was also analyzed.

2. Numerical simulation and thick-walled cylinder theory Fig. 3. Geometric dimension.

2.1. Finite element model
To predict the press-fit curve, a 3D FE model was set up. This model
was realized with the finite element software, ANSYS Workbench.
The design of the simulation conforms to the principle of the axial
press-fit assembly (Fig. 2). The geometric dimension of part A and part
B is shown in Fig. 3. In order to obtain accurate results, it is necessary to
mesh the model with small element size (0.1 mm). Considering the
small mesh size and axisymmetric characteristic, only a quarter of the
connection was modeled with hexahedral elements (Fig. 4). The
number of the elements and nodes are 68859 and 299345 respectively.
The maximum skewness is 0.5278. Boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 5.
For the presented FE model, the interference value is defined by
setting an offset of mating surface. The materials of part A and part B
are Ni36CrTiAl (3J1) and 50Ni-50Fe (1J50) respectively. The material
parameters of Ni36CrTiAl and 50Ni-50Fe are shown in Table 1 (You
et al., 2015). The friction coefficient between part A and part B is as-
sumed as 0.09 which is calculated based on experimental results and

Fig. 1. Simplified model.

17
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Goodier, 1951):

Pr2 ⎛ r12 + r22

u1 = ⎜ + μ1⎞⎟
E1 ⎝ r22 − r12 ⎠ (1)

Pr2 ⎛ r32 + r22

u2 = ⎜ − μ 2 ⎞⎟
E2 ⎝ r32 − r22 ⎠ (2)

Fig. 4. A quarter of finite element model.
Where r1, internal radius of part A; r2, contact radius; r3, external radius
of part B; E1, Elastic Modulus of part A; μ1, Poisson’s ratio of part A; E2,
Elastic Modulus of part B; μ2, Poisson’s ratio of part B.
Since the interference value equals the total deformation of mating
surface of part A and part B. So the following equation can be obtained.

Z = u1 + u2 (3)

Where, Z is half of interference value.

Substituting Eqs. (1) and (2) into Eq. (3), the contact pressure can be
obtained.
Z
P=
r 2 r32 + r22
r2
E1 ( r 12 + r22
r22 − r 12 )
+ μ1 + ⎛
E2 r32 − r22
⎝
− μ2 ⎞
⎠ (4)

The friction force generated by the contact region can be calculated

based on the Coulomb’s friction law:
Ff = 2πr2 LPf (5)
Fig. 5. Boundary conditions.
Where, f is the friction coefficient; L is the contact length.
Table 1
Mechanical properties of Ni36CrTiAl and 50Ni-50Fe. 2.3. Comparison between numerical and TCT results

Material Young’s Poisson’s ratio Yield Tangential As shown in Fig. 7, press-fit curves under different interference
modulus strength modulus (MPa)
values were obtained by TCT and numerical simulation. Obviously the
(GPa) (MPa)
press-mounting force obtained by numerical simulation has a sudden
Ni36CrTiAl 157 0.34 686 942 change at the initial stage. Because at the beginning stage of press-fit
50Ni-50Fe 186 0.3 882 1116 process, part A and part B transit from non-contact to contact state, so
the press-mounting force increases sharply to a certain value. Then the
press-mounting force increases almost linearly with displacement. In
TCT, and the calculating process will be introduced in Section 4.2.
the final stage, the increment of press-mounting force becomes smaller.
Furthermore, another important phenomenon that a basically un-
2.2. Thick-walled cylinder theory changed deviation exists between the TCT and numerical results were
observed, and the relative error is larger than 18%.
For the parts are pressed together quasi-statically under constant In the press-fit process, the flange of part B may have an effect on
velocity (0.5 mm/s), the press-fit curve is usually predicted by thick- the press-mounting force. So it’s necessary to analyze the influence of
walled cylinder theory (TCT). For example, the external radius of part A the flange. The press-fit curves with and without flange were obtained
is larger than the internal radius of part B by the amount Z. According from numerical simulation and are shown in Fig. 8. Obviously, there is
to the definitions and parameters (Fig. 6), the contact pressure P, the a small deviation between these two curves. The relative error of the
decrement of external radius of part A u1, and the increment of internal maximum press-mounting force is about 3%, so the influence of the
radius of part B u2, u1 and u2 can be calculated by TCT (Timoshenko and flange is small enough to be ignored, and the unchanged deviation is

Fig. 6. Contact behavior of part A and part B. Fig. 7. Comparison between the results of TCT and numerical simulation.

18
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Fig. 8. Comparison between press-fit curves with and without flange. Fig. 10. Normal stress comparison of the contact surface of part A (interference value
12 μm, contact length 2.3 mm).

not mainly caused by the flange.

In order to reveal the cause of this deviation, the radial position of
the mating surface in the press-fit process was obtained by numerical
simulation. As shown in Fig. 9, the axis Ox is set along the contact
surface and the origin is located at the left end of part B. Obviously, the
non-contact regions are also deformed and this deformation is caused
by the extrusion of contact region. The deformation zone of non-contact
regions is defined as resistant region. The resistant region has a limited
length and applies a counter force on the contact region near the con-
tact boundary. As a result, the normal stress of the contact region in-
creased. In order to certify the above analysis, the normal stress dis-
tributions of the contact surface with and without non-contact regions
were compared, and the comparison results of part A and part B are
shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 respectively. Obviously, the normal stress
near the contact boundary with non-contact regions is higher than
without non-contact regions. So the non-contact regions have a great
influence on normal stress. Therefore, the contact pressure P increased.
Fig. 11. Normal stress comparison of the contact surface of part B (interference value
According to Eq. (5), the press-mounting force increased.
12 μm, contact length 2.3 mm).
Furthermore, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11, the contact pressure
calculated by TCT is in good agreement with the numerical results
As shown in Fig. 1, the geometric model is divided into three parts:
without non-contact regions. The research of You et al. (2014) also
contact region, non-contact regions of part A and Part B. In the press-fit
support that TCT has a high accuracy in pressure calculation. This in-
process, the distribution of contact pressure is affected by non-contact
dicates that the TCT does not take the resistant force into account and
regions. While in the separate condition, the contact pressure is de-
only can be used to calculate the friction force without non-contact
composed into three parts: uniform pressure P at the contact region,
regions.
uniform linear load FLB along the inner-edge at the end of the non-
As discussed above, the constant deviation is caused by the resistant
contact region of part B, and uniform linear load FLA along the outer-
force generated by the resistant regions applying a counter force on the
edge at the end of the non-contact region of part A (Fig. 1).
contact region, and the press-mounting force is composed of the friction
For the model of the non-contact region is axisymmetric, and the
force and resistant force generated by non-contact regions.
linear load is uniform in circumferential direction, it can be analyzed by
the assumption of plain strain. After symmetric extension, the model
3. Establishment of the analytical method becomes as Fig. 12a. Since the interference value is much smaller than
the parts dimension, it can be considered as a concentrated force Fc
The TCT cannot predict the press-mounting force accurately for acting on a horizontal straight boundary of a semi-infinitely large plate
ignoring the resistant force generated by non-contact regions. So, in (Fig. 12b). The thickness of the plate is taken as unity, so Fc is the load
order to establish the analytical method, it’s necessary to deduce the per unite thickness. The stress distribution in this case can be derived
resistant force calculation method. from a special problem that a concentrated force acting on the end of a

Fig. 9. Radial position of mating surface (L = 2.3 mm, Z = 6 μm).

19
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Fig. 12. Simplified model of non-contact region: (a)

Extended model, (b) Semi-infinitely large plate
model, (c) Wedge model.

wedge (Fig. 12c). The stress components in any points of the wedge is as For the symmetry condition, the deformation on the x-axis in the
follows (Chen, 2007) direction of ϕ is zero.
(uφ)φ = 0 = 0 (12)
⎪ ρ (
⎧ σρ = − 2Fc cos β cos ϕ + sin β sin ϕ
α + sin α α − sin α )
σ ϕ = 0 Substituting Eq. (12) into (11), H and K can be obtained.
⎨
⎪ τρϕ = τϕρ = 0 (6) H = 0; K = 0
⎩
Where, Fc is two times of linear load. So Eq. (11) becomes as follows:
When the central angle of the wedge equals π, the wedge will turn 2F (1 − μ ′) F
⎧uρ = − πEc′ cos ϕ ln ρ − πE′ c ϕ sin ϕ + I cos ϕ
into a semi-infinitely large plate. Since the concentrated force is per-
pendicular to the straight boundary, β equals to zero. So Eq. (6) will ⎨uϕ = 2Fc sin ϕ ln ρ + (1 + μ ′) Fc sin ϕ − (1 − μ ′) Fc ϕ cos ϕ − I sin ϕ
⎩ πE′ πE′ πE′
becomes as
(13)
2F cos ϕ
⎧ σρ = − πc ρ The second function of Eq. (13) can be used to calculate the vertical
⎪
σϕ = 0 deformation of any point on the boundary. uϕ is positive in the direction
⎨
⎪ τρϕ = τϕρ = 0 of ϕ.
⎩ (7)
2Fc (1 + μ′) Fc
Physical equations and geometric equations under polar coordinates − (uφ)φ = π = − ln ρ − +I
2 πE′ πE ′ (14)
are as follows (Chen, 2007):
uϕ is unable to be calculated for unknown I. But the relative deforma-
1
⎧ ερ =E' ρ
(σ − μ′σϕ) tion between two points can be calculated by Eq. (14). As shown in
⎪ 1 Fig. 13, the y coordinates of point B and M are s and ρ respectively. B is
εϕ = E ' (σϕ − μ′σρ)
⎨ set as the reference point. So the relative deformation between B and M
⎪ γ = 1 τρϕ = 2(1 + μ ′) τρϕ in the vertical direction can be obtained.
⎩ ρϕ G E' (8)
2Fc (1 − μ2 ) s
⎧ ερ = ∂ρ
ρ ∂u η= ln
πE ρ (15)
⎪
⎪ uρ 1 ∂u ϕ
εϕ = ρ + ρ ∂ϕ According to Eq. (15), it is necessary to determine the optimal s. For
⎨
⎪ 1 ∂uρ ∂u ϕ uϕ different material, geometry and load, the reference point is different.
⎪ γρϕ = ρ ∂ϕ + ∂ρ − ρ (9) So the reference points of part A and part B need to be determined
⎩
respectively.
In Eq. (8), E′ and μ′ are elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio in plane In order to determine the reference point of part B, a numerical
strain respectively. ερ, εφ and γρφ are strain components of point A. simulation was implemented (Fig. 14). As shown in Fig. 15, the de-
E μ formation distribution under different s was obtained by Eq. (15) and
E′ = ; μ′ =
1 − μ2 1−μ compared with numerical results. Since the resistant region has a lim-
ited length, the deformation distribution within ρ = 1.5 mm was used
Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (9), the following equation can
to determine the optimal reference point. From the comparison be-
be obtained.
tween the analytical and numerical results, the optimal reference point
∂uρ 2F cos ϕ is sB = 14 mm. With the same method, the reference point of part A was
⎧
∂ρ
= - πEc′ ρ
⎪
⎪ uρ 1 ∂u ϕ 2μ ′ F cos ϕ
+ ρ ∂ϕ = πE ′c ρ
⎨ρ
⎪ 1 ∂uρ ∂u ϕ uϕ
⎪ ρ ∂ϕ + ∂ρ − ρ = 0 (10)
⎩
Deformation components of arbitrary point can be obtained by
solving Eq. (10):
2F (1 − μ ′) F
⎧uρ = − πE′ cos ϕ ln ρ − πE′ c ϕ sin ϕ + I cos ϕ + K sin ϕ
⎪ (1 + μ ′) F (1 − μ ′) F
2F
u = sin ϕ ln ρ + πE c sin ϕ − πE c ϕ cos ϕ + Hρ
⎨ ϕ πE′ ′ ′
⎪ − I sin ϕ + K cos ϕ
⎩
(11)
In Eq. (11), I, H, K are constants. Fig. 13. The principle of relative deformation.

20
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Fig. 17. Deformation distribution of part B.

Fig. 14. Simplified model of deformation simulation: (a) part B, (b) part A.
πEη
ρmin = s⋅exp ⎛⎜− ⎞⎟
⎝ 2Fc (1 − μ2 ) ⎠ (16)
ρmin of part A and part B under different concentrated forces are
shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the position of equivalent load point
under different concentrated forces is constant. ρmin_A and ρmin_B are
2.2 μm and 3.3 μm respectively. Therefore the concentrated force
generated by the non-contact regions of part A and part B can be cal-
culated by the following equations.
1 πηA E1
FLA = Fc A = sA
2 4(1 − μ12 )ln ρ (17)
min A

1 πηB E2
FLB = Fc B = sB
2 4(1 − μ 22 )ln ρ (18)
min B

Where, ηA equals u1; ηB equals u2.

Fig. 15. The deformation distribution obtained using FEM and analytical method So the resistant force can be calculated by Eqs. (17) and (18).
(Fc = 50 N/mm).
Fr = 2πr2 f (FLA + FLB ) (19)
Finally the press-mounting force can be calculated by Eqs. (5) and
(19).

F = Ff + Fr (20)

4. Results

4.1. Comparison between numerical and analytical results

As shown in Fig. 18, the press-fit curves with different interference

Fig. 16. Deformation distribution of part A.
obtained, sA = 12 mm. As shown in Figs. 16 and 17, the deformation
distribution under different concentrated forces of part A and part B
was obtained by FEM and Eq. (15), and the prediction results are
consistent with FEM results.
In Eq. (15), when ρ equals zero, the relative deformation uϕ will
values were obtained by FEM and the new analytical method. Clearly,
the analytical results are basically consistent with the numerical results.
But there is a deviation in the final stage. The reason is that the resistant
region has a limited length which would decrease in the final stage.
Therefore, the resistant force will become smaller and reach zero at the
end. But the new analytical method ’t take the influence of the limited
length into account.
Based on above analysis, it’s easy to infer that the new analytical
method can obtain an accurate maximum press-mounting force under
Table 2
ρmin_A of part A under different concentrated forces.

becomes infinite. So an equivalent load point must be used to substitute

Concentrated force Fc_A (N/ Deformation (μm) Equivalent load point ρmin_A
the actual one, and the y coordinate of the equivalent point is set as mm) (μm)
ρmin. The deformation at the load point under different concentrated
forces was obtained by FEM. ρmin can be obtained by the following 50 1.34 2.2
100 2.68 2.2
equation.
150 4.02 2.2

21
X. Wang et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24

Table 3 diameter were measured by Holtest (E3, Mitutoyo corporation) and

ρmin_B of part B under different concentrated forces. Microcallipers (Guilin Measuring & Cutting Tool Works) respectively.
Before the measurement, the Holtest is calibrated by standard setting
Concentrated force Fc_B (N/ Deformation (μm) Equivalent load point ρmin_B
mm) (μm) ring; the Microcallipers is calibrated by gage block. The measurement
precision is improved by averaging the multiple measurement data at
50 1.5 3.3 different locations of the hole and shaft. Then 5 sets of samples for each
100 3.0 3.3
interference value were sorted out. Surface roughness of the shaft and
150 4.5 3.3
hole was measured by portable roughness gauge (TESA-rugosurf 10,
Hexagon Metrology) and surface profiler (ET4000A, KOSAKA
Laboratory Ltd.) respectively. Surface roughness, Ra, of the shaft and
hole are 0.18–0.24 μm and 0.75–0.84 μm respectively, which indicates
that the contact surfaces quality are in good consistency. Finally, the
experiments were implemented by the automatic press-fit instrument
under similar conditions such as no lubrication, similar surface rough-
ness and same pressing velocity.
Friction coefficient is an important parameter for analytical calcu-
lation. In this paper the friction coefficient is calculated based on
Coulomb’s friction law. So it is necessary to obtain the contact area,
contact pressure and press-mounting force. The contact area is easy to
calculate by contact radius and contact length. The contact pressure can
be accurately calculated by TCT method (You et al., 2014). The press-
mounting force can be obtained from experiments. Since the existence
of resistant force, the maximum press-mounting force cannot directly
be used to calculate the friction coefficient. The resistant force is almost
unchanged in the assembly process which was analyzed in Section 2.3.
Fig. 18. Comparison between numerical and analytical results. To avoid the influence of resistant force, the increment of the press-
mounting force when the connection length increased from
the condition that part A is partially inserted into part B. L1 = 0.5 mm to L2 = 3.5 mm was used. So the calculating method is
shown as follows:

4.2. Experimental validation ΔF

In order to validate the new analytical method, the press-fit ex-
periments were implemented with an automatic press-fit instrument. As
shown in Fig. 19, the press-fit instrument is composed of main frame,
position measuring unit, upper and lower fixtures, and XY precision
stages, etc. The main frame is based on 4 guide shafts, and consists of a
force sensor, a liner grating scale and ball screw actuator. The force
sensor and liner grating scale are used to measure press-mounting force
and displacement respectively. Loading and unloading are achieved by
the ball screw actuator driving upper fixture to move up and down.
Parts’ relative position measuring unit consists of two high precision
CCDs and three precision guides, and is used to measure the relative
position of two parts to be assembled. The XY precision guides are used
to adjust parts’ relative position. And this instrument was adjusted to
meet the requirement of precision assembly based on the calibration
method introduced in (Lou et al., 2015).
For experiment and analytical method, it's important to obtain ac-
curate interference value. In this paper, the bore diameter and axial
f=
2πr2 ΔLP (21)
where ΔF is the increment of press-mounting force; ΔL = L2 − L1 is the
increment of contact length; P is the contact pressure which is calcu-
lated by TCT.
As shown in Table 4, friction coefficients under different inter-
ference values were calculated by Eq. (21). In the new analytical model,
the average friction coefficient, 0.09, is used.
In Table 4, FL1 and FL2 are the press-mounting force at the contact
length L1 and L2, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 20, the prediction results of the analytical method
are in good agreement with experiment results. The deviation between
these two methods in the final stage is smaller than the deviation be-
tween analytical and numerical methods. Because, in numerical simu-
lation, the constraint type of locating surface of part A is defined as
frictionless support. Actually there is a frictional contact, and a friction
force would appear at the locating surface to prevent the mating surface
from deforming (Fig. 21). So the resistant force will decrease slowly,
even when the limited length of the resistant region is decreasing. In
order to demonstrate this conclusion, numerical simulations with dif-
ferent constraint types were implemented and the results are shown in
Fig. 22.
As shown in Fig. 22, in the final stage, the growth trend of these two
press-fit curves are different. The maximum force with fixed support is
larger than that with frictionless support. So the constraint type has a
great influence on the maximum press-mounting force of numerical

Table 4
Friction coefficients under different interference value.

Interference value/ FL1/N FL2 /N ΔF/N ΔL/mm P/MPa r2/mm f

μm

12 198.1 575.6 377.5 3 102.41 2.2 0.089

14 207.49 660.2 452.7 3 119.48 2.2 0.091
16 249.9 753.8 503.9 3 136.54 2.2 0.089
Fig. 19. The automatic press-fit instrument.

22
X. Wang et al.
Fig. 20. Comparison between experimental and analytical results.
Fig. 21. Friction force at the locating surface.
Fig. 22. Comparison between different constraint types (Z = 8 μm).
results. In practice, the maximum press-mounting force can be reduced
by reducing the friction coefficient at the locating surface.
To verify the validity of the new analytical method, the resistant
force was also obtained by experiments. Since the resistant force re-
mains unchanged in the assembly process, the press-mounting force is
mainly caused by resistant force when the contact region has a small
length. At the beginning of the assembly process, part A and part B
transit from non-contact to contact region and the contact length starts
to increase. So when the contact length is equal to 0.04 mm, the press-
mounting force is regarded as resistant force. The comparison of re-
sistant forces between experimental and analytical results is shown in
23
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24
Fig. 23. Comparison of the resistant forces between experimental and analytical results.
Fig. 23. The results show that the resistant force increases with the
increase of interference value, and the analytical results are consistent
with experimental results with the relative error less than 12%. This
error may be caused by the form error and stress concentration. Because
the form error will affect the real interference value; the stress con-
centration may cause the damage of the chamfer and finally makes the
real interference value smaller.
Therefore, the new analytical method can be used to calculate the
resistant force with an acceptable relative error and has a high accuracy
to predict the press-fit curve.
5. Conclusion
Since the non-contact regions can generate a large resistant force in
the press-fit process, the non-contact regions have a great influence on
press-mounting force and play an important role in press-fit process.
Compared with FEM results, the relative error of the prediction results
obtained by thick-walled cylinder theory (TCT) is larger than 18% for
ignoring the resistant force.
A new analytical method was established based on the TCT and
resistant force calculation method. The comparison between the ana-
lytical and numerical results shows that they are in good agreement.
For the resistant region has a limited length which would decrease in
the final stage leading to a decreasing resistant force, a large deviation
exists in the final stage. But, when compared with experimental results,
the deviation in the final stage is much smaller. Because, at the locating
surface, the friction force prevents the resistant force from decreasing,
and this conclusion was validated by FEM. Compared with the experi-
mental results, the resistant force obtained by analytical method has a
high accuracy with the relative error less than 12%. Therefore, the new
analytical method has a high accuracy to predict the press-fit curve
under the linear elastic hypothesis, and it is more efficient than FEM in
design of interference fitting parts.
References
Bae, J.H., Kim, J.S., Hwang, B.C., Bae, W.B., Kim, M.S., Kim, C., 2012. Prediction of the
dimensional deformation of the addendum and dedendum after the warm shrink
fitting process using a correction coefficient. Int. J. Automot. Tech-Kor 13, 285–291.
Benuzzi, D., Donzella, G., 2004. Prediction of the press-fit curve in the assembly of a
railway axle and wheel. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. F–J. Rail Rapid Transit 218, 51–65.
Boutoutaou, H., Bouaziz, M., Fontaine, J.F., 2011. Modeling of interference fits taking
from defects of the surfaces in contact into account. Mater. Des. 21, 3692–3701.
Chen, M.X., 2007. Elasticity and Plasticity. Science Press Co.Ltd, Beijing, pp. 110–111.
Kleditzsch, S., Lätzer, M., Awiszus, B., Leidich, E., 2014. Numerical investigation of
knurled shaft-hub connections and especially of the joining process. Mater. Sci.
Forum 773–774, 18–27.
Kleditzsch, S., Awiszus, B., Lätzer, M., Leidich, E., 2015. Numerical and analytical in-
vestigation of steel-aluminum knurled interference fits: joining process and load
characteristics. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 219, 286–294.
Kovan, V., 2011. Separation frequency analysis of interference fitted hollow shaft-hub
connections by finite element method. Adv. Eng. Softw. 42, 644–648.
X. Wang et al.
Lou, Z.F., Wang, X.D., You, B., Xu, Y., 2015. Pressing-fitting technology and instrument
for precision small parts. Opt. Precis. Eng. 23 (6), 16605–16611.
Ozturk, F., 2011. Finite-element modelling of two-disc shrink fit assembly and an eva-
luation of material pairs of discs. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 225,
263–273.
Seifi, R., Abbasi, K., 2015. Friction coefficient estimation in shaft/bush interference using
finite element model updating. Eng. Fail. Anal. 57, 310–322.
Selvage, C.C., 1978. Assembly of Interference Fits by Impact and Constant Force Method.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, pp. 9–10.
Teng, R.J., Zhang, Y.B., Zhou, X.J., Xu, Z.N., 2012. Mechanical properties and design
24
View publication stats
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 250 (2017) 16–24
method of cylindrical interference fit. J. Mech. Eng. 48, 160–166.
Timoshenko, S., Goodier, J.N., 1951. Theory of Elasticity, second ed. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, pp. 58–60.
Yang, G.M., Coquille, J.C., Fontaine, J.F., Lambertin, M., 2002. Contact pressure between
two rough surfaces of a cylindrical fit. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 123, 490–497.
You, B., Luo, Y., Wang, X.D., 2014. The application of computing methods for analysis of
press-fit assembly in elasto-plastic field. J. Inf. Comput. Sci. 11 (9), 3157–3166.
You, B., Lou, Z.F., Luo, Y., Xu, Y., Wang, X.D., 2015. Prediction of pressing quality for
press-fit assembly based on press-fit curve and maximum press-mounting force. Int. J.
Aerosp. Eng. 2015, 823019.