1

Normalization of the stress concentrations at the

rounded edges of a shaft–hub interference fit
A Strozzi*, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
Engineering Faculty, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

The manuscript was received on 23 December 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 23 February 2011.

DOI: 10.1177/0309324711403845

Abstract: The elastic stress concentrations developed from the keyless frictionless static press-
fit of a shaft into a hub are addressed. Two configurations are examined, namely (a) an infi-
nitely long solid shaft press-fitted into a hollow hub with bore rounded edges, and (b) a shaft
with filleted extremity, partially inserted into a hub. Derived from an analytical approach, a
normalizing parameter is proposed that accounts for the combined effects on the stress con-
centrations of the fillet radius, the shaft radius, the interference, and Young’s modulus. With
the aid of finite elements, various design charts are compiled that report the elastic stress con-
centrations within the hub versus the proposed normalizing parameter. Each curve is valid
for a fixed ratio of inner to outer hub radii.

Keywords: interference-fit, contact stresses, stress concentration factor, normalizing

parameter, finite elements

1 INTRODUCTION In this paper the elastic maximum contact stresses

Interference fits are widely employed to semi-perma-
nently connect gears, pulleys, flanges, wheels, discs,
rotors, and similar mechanical components, to a
shaft, and for locating ball and roller bearings. The
range of tolerances on the fitted members must be
selected so that a minimum interference allowance
gives a sufficiently tight assembly, whereas the maxi-
mum interference will not produce excessive stres-
ses, see for example references [1, 2]. To confidently
evaluate the contact stresses, it is generally unneces-
sary to account for the whole geometry of the com-
ponent press-fitted onto the shaft; most times, only
the part surrounding the shaft has to be considered,
see for example references [3]; often this part may be
modelled as cylindrical, that is, it is essentially axi-
symmetric, and it exhibits an approximately rectan-
gular cross-section; it is referred to as the hub.
Figure 1(a) illustrates the hub and the shaft.
*Corresponding author: Engineering Faculty, University of
Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Vignolese 905, Modena 41100,
Italy
email:antonio.strozzi@unimore.it
are analysed for the two configurations illustrated in
Figs 1(a) and (b). A detailed knowledge of the contact
stresses is relevant, since it assists the designer in fore-
casting the mechanical strength of the coupling. In
Fig. 1(a) an infinitely long, solid cylindrical shaft is
press-fitted into a keyless cylindrical hub whose bore
edges are rounded; the indentation of the filleted edges
of the hub bore into the shaft surface produces loca-
lized stress peaks, examined in this paper. In Fig. 1(b)
a solid shaft with filleted extremities is partially
inserted into a keyless hub; the indentation of the shaft
rounded extremity on the web bore surface promotes
local stress concentrations, analysed in this paper. The
configuration of Fig. 1(a) is considered first.
The contact stresses that take place in an axisym-
metric shaft–hub press-fit illustrated in Fig. 1(a)
have been addressed in references [1–29], whereas
the parallel plane situation of a rectangular com-
ponent with rounded extremities indenting a half-
plane has been considered in reference [30], p. 49,
and in references [31–34]. The available salient
information on the contact stresses in a shaft–hub
press-fit is summarized in the following.
When a cylindrical shaft of infinite length is
press-fitted into a keyless cylindrical hub of finite

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
2 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
Fig. 1 Complete insertion (a) and partial insertion (b)
of the shaft into the hub
axial length, stress concentrations take place at the
hub–shaft contact extremities, whereas the contact
stresses remain reasonably constant along the cen-
tral portion of the contact, see for example refer-
ences [5, 8, 21, 22, 28]. If the edges of the hub bore
are sharp, infinite elastic pressure peaks occur at
the contact extremities reference [10]. Conversely,
pressure lateral bumps of finite intensity take place
when the edges are rounded, and the contact pres-
sure becomes null at the contact extremities refer-
ence [22]; the Hertzian-type lateral bumps and the
central flattish zone confer to the contact pressure
distribution a camel-backed profile. Consistent with
the Hertzian nature of the pressure bumps, the
maximum equivalent stress within the hub does not
occur at the hub bore surface, but at an internal
point. To introduce fillets at the hub bore edges is
therefore a practically valuable means for weaken-
ing the stress peaks. (In reference [7] the contrasting
photoelastic result is obtained that ‘the radial and
tangential stresses are maximum . not at the edge
of the thick-walled cylinder as commonly assumed.’
In reference [24] the contrasting opinion is stated
that ‘the corner radius has a negative effect on con-
tact stress at edges.’) Additional methods adopted to
relieve the pressure peaks consist in introducing a
shoulder in the shaft or in the hub, or in
employing a grooved hub references [2, 12, 16, 21,
35], or in imposing an interference that varies in the
axial direction [36].
The stress state along the hub central portion may
be thoroughly predicted by modelling the press-fit
problem as plane and by employing the Lamé equa-
tions for thick-walled cylinders, see for example
references [16, 21, 27]; conversely, with regard to the
evaluation of the localized pressure peaks, the pres-
ent authors are unaware of manageable analytical
formulae of ample validity or of easily accessible dia-
grams in the literature. (The analytical studies of [10,
31, 33] attest to the complexity of analytical solu-
tions.) Consequently, the transmissible torque may
be confidently estimated by resorting to the Lamé-
based plane solution, that is valid along most of the
contact axial length; conversely, a cylindrical (as
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
opposed to polar), detailed, specific analysis is gener-
ally needed to evaluate the local stress peaks and to
assess the hub strength.
The configuration of Fig. 1(b) is considered in the
following. This time the solid shaft is only partially
inserted into the keyless hub, so that the filleted extre-
mity of the shaft produces stress concentrations that
depend on the fillet radius. There is little information
at the disposal of the engineer on these stress concen-
trations. To the authors’ best knowledge, the only
contributions dealing with the problem of Fig. 1(b)
are reference [11], which specifically deals with the
shaft insertion mechanism, and reference [37], where
Fig. 8 addresses an incomplete insertion of the shaft.
For both the configurations (a) and (b) of Fig. 1
and for a specific shaft–hub press-fit geometry, the
stress peaks may be accurately evaluated with a
finite element (FE) analysis. It is however difficult to
numerically retrieve stress forecasts of ample valid-
ity, since the level of the contact pressure peaks
depends on the shaft radius, the hub outer radius,
the fillet radius, the interference, and the hub and
shaft Young’s moduli. In addition, the title contact
problem is progressive, since the hub–shaft contact
length in the shaft axial direction increases, albeit
moderately, with the interference imposed. Con-
sequently, this contact problem is non-linear, see
for example [38], and this aspect jeopardizes the
feasibility of a normalization procedure with respect
to the imposed interference.
In this paper a viable way to numerically prepare
design charts addressing the contact stress peaks
in a hub with rounded edges press-fitted onto a
solid shaft, is presented for the two configurations
detailed in Figs 1(a) and (b). In fact, it is shown in
this study that, for a prescribed ratio between the
hub inner and outer radii, the stress concentrations
in the presence of radiused edges of the hub bore
(see Fig. 1(a)) and their analogues due to the
incomplete indentation of the rounded shaft extre-
mity on the hub bore surface (see Fig. 1(b)) depend
upon a single normalizing parameter that com-
prises and summarises the simultaneous effects
of a reference radius for the shaft–hub press-fit (for
example, the shaft radius), the fillet radius, the
interference, and Young’s modulus of the two
press-fitted components.
The above normalizing parameter has here been
determined by following routes analogous to those
successfully adopted in references [39–42], referring
to pin-in-plate contact problems, and to a press-fit
problem. To this aim, the contact problem expres-
sed in the title is formulated in terms of an integral
equation, and the normalization of its right- and
left-hand sides evidences the combination of the
 Normalization of the stress concentrations
key variables that constitutes this normalizing para-
meter. It is additionally noted that the above-refer-
enced examples of definitions of a normalizing
parameter deal with problems cast in polar coordi-
nates, whereas the title problem refers to cylindrical
coordinates.
The formulation of the title problem in terms of
an integral equation serves to define the normaliz-
ing parameter; however, since the integral equation
approach is quite complex, the stress field is more
conveniently evaluated with the FE method, by
varying the normalizing parameter within an inter-
val covering practically significant keyless shaft–hub
press-fit configurations.
When a hub is press-fitted onto a shaft, the hub
expands radially, whereas the shaft contracts radially,
see for example reference [20]. Consequently, the
hoop stresses are (generally) tensile in the hub and
compressive in the shaft. Since most materials emplo-
yed in mechanical elements exhibit higher strength in
compression, the strength of the press-fitted compo-
nents is nor-mally assessed by examining the stresses
within the hub rather than within the shaft. However,
the above considerations are strictly valid when the
shaft–hub contact problem may be modelled as plane,
i.e. when no contact pressure bumps take place at the
shaft–hub contact extremities. This situation occurs in
practice when the shaft and the hub possess identical
axial lengths, see for example reference [6]. If, instead,
the shaft protrudes from the hub cavity, this contact
problem becomes cylindrical (as opposed to plane),
and it is not immediately obvious (a) whether the
maximum equivalent stress occurs within the hub,
and (b) whether the hub hoop stress remains always
tensile along the shaft–hub contact length. With regard
to problem (a), for all the situation examined in the
diagrams reported in section 4 it was numerically
found that the maximum equivalent stress occurs
within the hub and not within the shaft. With regard
to problem (b), it was numerically clarified that the
hub hoop stress becomes generally negative in the
regions where the hub equivalent stress is maximum.
This surprising result is detailed and rationalized in
section 4.2.
With the aid of finite elements, in this paper
design diagrams are presented that express the nor-
malized elastic stress concentration factor within
the hub versus the above normalizing parameter
for a selection of ratios between the hub inner and
outer radii. Such diagrams assist the designer in
choosing the most convenient fillet radius for the
rounded edges of the hub, and in assessing the hub
stress level in a keyless shaft–hub press-fit and the
possible outcome of yielding.
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
3
2 SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS
It is assumed that the rounded edges of the hub
bore, see Fig. 1(a), as well as the filleted shaft extre-
mity, see Fig. 1(b), are described by a quarter of cir-
cumference. Consequently, the fillet radius fully
describes the geometry of the mating surfaces at the
hub–shaft contact.
With reference to the configuration of Fig. 1(a), the
shaft is assumed to protrude from the hub by a size-
able length, so that the effect on the shaft–hub contact
stresses of the shaft extremities is insignificant with
respect to an infinitely long shaft, see for example [5].
By extending the results of [35], addressing a plane
indentation problem, to an analogous cylindrical situ-
ation, it may be deduced that a shaft long twice the
hub axial thickness provides essentially the same
results as an infinitely long shaft. Comparable conclu-
sions have been derived in reference [28]. In the
photoelastic study of reference [7], a shaft of four
times the hub axial length has been considered.
Analogously, with reference to Fig. 1(b), the shaft end
is supposed to be sufficiently far from the two hub
walls perpendicular to the shaft axis, such that the
stress concentrations caused by the indentation of the
filleted shaft extremity on the hub bore surface are
essentially independent of
the above distance.
Again with reference to Fig. 1(a), the hub is
assumed to be sufficiently long to produce, in its
central part, a uniform stress state in the axial direc-
tion; this situation implies that the two pressure
bumps at the contact extremities do not interact.
Consequently, both the stress level along the central
zone of the assembly and that of the lateral pressure
bumps become essentially independent of the hub
axial length and, therefore, only the hub portion in
the vicinity of one of its axial extremities may be
considered in modelling the shaft–hub contact
problem. In reference [6] it is noted that, for a nearly
square hub cross section, the hub extent in the axial
direction is sufficient to guarantee that ‘increasing
its length further would not have affected the stres-
ses in the region of principal interest’, and that ‘[the
stresses] fall close to the common Lamé values at a
distance of about 0.1 [times the shaft diameter]
from the edge.’ The results of Fig. 5 of reference [22]
indicate that, for a hub whose axial length is 1.6
times the shaft radius, a sizeable central zone exists
in which the contact pressure remains uniform in
the axial direction, and the level of the lateral pres-
sure bumps does not essentially change as the
hub axial length is increased. In reference [32] the
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
4 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
pressure lateral bumps are interpreted in the light of
the Hertzian theory, and it is shown that their extent
in the axial direction may be estimated by modelling
the hub lateral, rounded portions as two cylinders
whose radius equals that of the fillet of the hub
bore. According to this modelling, the axial extent of
each lateral bump describing the shaft–hub contact
pressure is of the order of twice the fillet radius. (In
reference [11], Fig. 2.7, a shaft–hub press-fit config-
uration is considered in which the hub axial length
is very small; in this case, the lateral bumps inevita-
bly interact.) The axial length of the lateral pressure
bumps is reconsidered in section 4.3.
The shaft is supposed to be solid. In [23] p. 8–405,
it is noted that, when the Lamé plane solution for
thick-walled cylinders is employed, the pressure
curves valid for a solid shaft are accurate to 5 per
cent even if the shaft is hollow, provided the inside
shaft diameter is not over 25 per cent of the outside.
A similar error is quoted in reference [3]. In refer-
ence [15] it is found that ‘the value of the inner dia-
meter of the shaft is of no consequence as long as
the ratio of shaft outer diameter to shaft inner dia-
meter is more than 2.5 to 3.’ In references [8] and
[28], it is observed that in a hollow shaft the stress
concentration is higher than that in a solid shaft.
This surprising result is rationalized in [8] by noting
that the outer surface of a hollow shaft deflects in a
concave fashion, and this bending action transfers
load to the extremities of the contact region.
The materials of the shaft and of the hub are
assumed to behave elastically and to exhibit the
same Young’s modulus. The approach favoured in
this paper may easily be extended to situations in
which the shaft and hub materials are different.
However, the compilation of specific charts addres-
sing selected ratios of the two Young’s moduli
would require a considerable number of FE runs
and, therefore, this aspect has not been covered for
the time being. (In reference [25] it is observed that,
although plastic working is not generally admitted
by standards, the norm DIN 7190 tolerates plastic
regime up to one-third of the hub diameter.)
The shaft–hub contact is modelled as frictionless.
This limit assumption is critically discussed in refer-
ence [6] together with the complete adhesion ideali-
zation. The assumption of zero friction is employed
in, for example, references [10, 13, 31, 43], and is
supported by the following considerations: (a) in
this kind of application the coefficient of friction for
steel components is sufficiently low, rarely exceed-
ing 0.2, see for example references [2, 3, 11, 44, 45]
(in the case of light materials the coefficient of fric-
tion may reach 0.5, see for example reference [46,
47]); (b) the direction of the shear stresses acting at
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
the hub–shaft contact in the axial direction is often
undefined, since it depends on the assembly proce-
dure. In reference [5] it is noted that, with regard
to a press-fit problem, ‘the radial pressure distribu-
tion changes little from the frictionless to the fully
adherent case’. In reference [48] a shrink-fit problem
is studied in the assumption of partial slip. Figure 7
of this study indicates that shaft–hub sticking occurs
along the central part of the contact, whereas the
mating surfaces slip along the contact lateral zones,
where the contact pressure bumps take place.
The shear stresses connected to the torque trans-
mission have been neglected. Such shear stresses
are deemed not to modify the contact pressure
referring to a frictionless contact, as they alter the
angles and not the radial lengths.
The shaft is supposed not to be subjected to
bending, see for example [13]. In addition, the shaft
is assumed as static, and the inertial forces due to
the shaft rotation are neglected, see for example
references [27, 29].
3 DERIVATION OF THE NORMALIZING
PARAMETER
In this section the normalizing parameter men-
tioned in section 1 is determined by formulating the
frictionless shaft–hub contact problem of Fig. 1(a) in
terms of an integral equation. An example presented
in tabular form evidences the capabilities of the nor-
malizing parameter.
3.1 Formulation of the title problem in terms of
an integral equation
It is convenient to address first the simpler situation
depicted in Figs 2(a) and (b). The integral equation
(1) expresses the imposition that the contact pressure
must move the mating surfaces of the shaft and of
the hub apart until they do not overlap, under the
restriction that the contact pressure be positive.
The unknown function is the contact pressure p,
appearing under integration at the left-hand side of
the integral equation (1); the right-hand side is the
known term, representing the initial clearance/over-
lapping between the two undeformed mating sur-
faces of the hub and of the shaft
ð +a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I
kðx, y Þpð y Þdy =  r + r 2  x2 (1)
a 2
In equation (1), x and y are axial coordinates (see
Fig. 2), k represents the Green function describing
the relative radial displacement at the x coordinate
of the two mating profiles for a collar of a (unit per
 Normalization of the stress concentrations 5

 
ð þa k x
, y    
ri ri ri y y I x2 (4)
p ri d = 
a
ri
E ri ri 2 2r

The following passages aim at normalizing the two

members of the integral equation (4). The contact
pressure p may be normalized with respect to the
reference contact pressure p0, computed by model-
ling the press-fit problem as plane and by employing
the Lamé equations for thick-walled cylinders. The
reference contact pressure p0 describes the contact
pressure along the central portion of the actual
shaft–hub press-fit, and it may be expressed in terms
of the diametral interference I and of the hub radial
Fig. 2 The shaft-hub contact problem
aspect ratio as follows (see for example [27])
unit circumferential length) linear concentrated  
EI 1 EI ri2
force applied at the y coordinate (in the integral p0 = = 1 2
2ri 1 + ri2 + ro2 4ri ro
equation (1), the y coordinate is superposed to the x ro2 ri2
     (5)
coordinate, and it is a dummy (internal) variable), a EI 1 r2 EI ri
is the contact semiwidth (see Fig. 2(b)), I indicates = 1  i2 = f
ri 4 ro ri ro
the diametral interference, ri is the hub inner radius
(it nominally coincides with the shaft radius), ro is
where f denotes a function of the (dimensionless)
the hub outer radius, and r is the radius of the
hub radial aspect ratio ri/ro. By normalizing p over
rounded profile. Since p represents the contact pres-
p0, the integral equation (4) may be recast as
sure, p(y)dy may be interpreted as a force per unit
circumferential length, distributed along a collar of      
ðþa k x
, y
p ryi   r I  x2
infinitesimal axial length dy. ri ri ri y i 2 2r
ri d =   (6)
It is convenient to simplify the right-hand side of ra E p0 ri EI f rroi
i
equation (1), by employing the classical parabolic
approximation adopted in Hertzian contacts (see for
example [22, 31, 33]) (Consistent with the above normalization, in the
definition of the stress concentration factor Kt, the
ð +a contact pressure p0 has been assumed as the nor-
I x2
k ðx, y Þpð y Þdy =  (2) malizing parameter.) Consequently
a 2 2r
 
Since the title problem is essentially cylindrical  p y   I x 2

ðþ a y ri

(the shaft is cylindrical, and the hub is cylindrical, ri k x

, d ryi = I 2f 2rri
ri ri

p0 ðr Þ
apart from the bore radiused edges), for a solid shaft  2 h 2 i o (7)
ra 1 x ri
i = 2f ð
ri 1
and for a hub of prescribed radial aspect ratio ri/ro ro Þ ri rI

the Green function k is expected to be independent

of the shaft radius (recalling that reference is made
to a unit force per unit circumferential length), pro-
vided that coordinates normalized with respect to
the shaft radius ri are employed, namely x/ri and
y/ri. Moreover, the Green function is inversely pro-
portional to the Young’s modulus E common to the
two materials. Therefore
An attentive examination of the normalized inte-
gral equation (7) reveals that, if two press-fit prob-
lems possess the same hub radial aspect ratio ri/ro
and the same normalized radius of the rounded pro-
file r/ri, but they differ in the values of the shaft
radius, ri, of the radius of the rounded profile, r, and
of the diametral interference, I, and if the ratio
2

  ri =ðrI Þ is the same for the two cases, then the nor-
k x y malized contact pressure p/p0 and, more generally,
k ðx, y Þ = , (3)
E ri ri the normalized stress state is the same for the two
cases, and the normalized contact width, defined by
2
where k is a normalized Green function referring a/ri, is the same. Consequently, F = rI=ri is a nor-
to a unit Young’s modulus. For a prescribed hub malizing parameter, summarizing the simultaneous
radial aspect ratio ri/ro, the integral equation (2) effects of the radius r, the diametral interference
thus becomes I, and the shaft radius ri. (The reciprocal of the

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
6 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi

parameter previously reported has been used in the

definition of F, since it is more convenient that the
radius r of Fig. 2(a), which describes the fillet radius
of Fig. 2(c) and may become very small for nearly
sharp edges of the hub bore, appears at the numera-
tor.) In fact, for a prescribed hub radial aspect ratio
ri/ro, and a normalized radius of the rounded profile
r/ri, it is possible to prepare design diagrams report-
ing the normalized von Mises peak stress within the
hub and the normalized contact semiwidth a/ri, ver-
sus the normalizing parameter F. The Young’s mod-
ulus is not included into the parameter F, but it
affects the reference pressure p0, and it manifests
itself when p is computed as (p/p0) 3 p0.
The approach employed to analyse the simplified
configuration of Fig. 2(a) may immediately be
extended to Figs 2(c) and (d), that model the prob-
lem of Fig. 1(a), where r is the fillet radius. In fact,
its modelling in terms of two integral equations is
ð +a Fig. 3 Kt versus F for the geometry of Fig. 1 (a) for
I ri/ro= 0.5, and for a selection of r/r ratios
kðx, y Þpð y Þdy = <0
2
ða
+a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (8)
I
kðx, y Þpð y Þdy =  r + r 2  x2 0<x< þ a
a 2 insensitive to r/ri, provided that the considered
interval of the normalized fillet radii is not too
to which the above procedure may be applied, thus wide. In fact, Fig. 3 reports the FE predictions for
confirming that the normalizing parameter F is the stress concentration factor Kt, defined as the
suitable for the problem of Fig. 1(a) too. von Mises peak stress within the hub, normalized
In addition, the integral approach may be with respect to the reference contact pressure p0,
employed to define the normalizing parameter F for versus the normalizing parameter F, for the com-
the configuration of Fig. 1(b), where this time r monplace hub radial aspect ratio ri/ro = 0.5, and
represents the radius of the filleted extremity of the for a selection of values of the normalized fillet
solid shaft. Space restrictions do not allow the pre- radius r/ri, namely 0.0025, 0.005, 0.01875, 0.025,
sentation of the mathematical details for this case. 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2.
Returning to the problem of Fig. 1(a), it has The selection of p0 as the normalizing parameter
already been underlined that the diagrams reporting in Kt has been discussed with reference to equation
the normalized von Mises peak stress within the (6), and it is consistent with the requirement that
hub versus the normalizing parameter F are strictly the normalizing parameter be easily computable.
valid for prescribed values of the hub radial aspect The present authors are however aware of the fact
ratio ri/ro and of the normalized fillet radius r/ri. that other authors use a different normalizing para-
The following observations clarify the role of the meter, see for example [28].
parameter r/ri. Since the hub bore edge is rounded, Figure 3 confirms that, for a prescribed value of
the axial length of the shaft–hub contact is lower F, Kt increases with r/ri, as a result of the stiffening
than the hub length. The hub lateral axial portions effect of the hub projections beyond the contact
that are not subjected to the contact pressure may zone. However, if r/ri is comprised within the tech-
be interpreted as hub projections beyond the con- nically sufficiently wide interval 0.025–0.15 (see sec-
tact zone, and their presence increases the hub tion 4.1), the maximum error between the two Kt
radial stiffness. Since the filleted edge of the hub curves is about 30 per cent, the minimum error is
bore is assumed to be described by a quarter of 12 per cent, and in most practical cases the error is
circumference, this stiffening effect is expected to within 20 per cent.
increase with the normalized fillet radius for pre- Since the compilation of design diagrams
scribed values of F and ri/ro. However, a FE investi- depending upon the two independent parameters
gation shows that, while the normalized peak stress ri/ro and r/ri would require a considerable number
strongly depends on F and on ri/ro, it is relatively of FE runs, it was decided to accept the error

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
 Normalization of the stress concentrations
Table 1 Comparison between test cases with different
geometries characterized by the same value
of the coefficient F.
Case 1
r 1 mm
ri 20 mm
ro 40 mm
r/ri 0.05
ri/ro 0.5
I 0.04 mm
F = rI=ri
2
0.0001
E 210 000 MPa
po = EI*(1- ri2/ro2) /(4 ri) 78.75 MPa
pmax 981.40 MPa
seq,max,hub 612.30 MPa
sc,hub| where seq, is maximum –155.4 MPa
pmax/po 12.46
sc,hub/po –1.97
Kt = seq,max /po 7.78
a 0.022 mm
a/ri 0.0011
incurred in neglecting the influence of r/ri, and to
prepare design diagrams reporting the stress con-
centration factor Kt versus the normalizing para-
meter F, computed for selected values of the radial
aspect ratio ri/ro, and for the specific value of the
normalized fillet radius r/ri = 0.05, that in Fig. 3 is
straddled by the two curves referring to r/ri = 0.025
and to 0.15. Consequently, if r/ri is comprised with-
in the technically sufficiently wide interval 0.025–
0.15, the maximum error is halved, and it becomes
15 per cent. The numerical examples of section 5
confirm this forecast.
3.2 Numerical validation of the normalizing
parameter F
With reference to the frictionless contact problem of
Fig. 1(a), a detailed numerical example is presented
in tabular form to evidence the normalizing poten-
tials of the parameter F. A mechanical analysis of
two different shaft–hub assemblies, named Case 1
and Case 2, has been carried out with finite ele-
ments and the numerical forecasts are collected in
Table 1. The shaft radius ri (nominally coinciding
with the hub bore radius), the hub outer radius ro,
the fillet radius r, the diametral interference I, and
the Young’s modulus E, are different for the two cas-
es. In addition, the normalized fillet radius r/ri is
different for the two cases. However, the hub radial
aspect ratio ri/ro and the normalizing coefficient F
are the same for the two cases.
In Table 1 the maximum contact pressure, pmax,
the hub maximum equivalent stress, seq,max, and the
hoop stress within the hub, sc, computed where the
hub equivalent stress is maximum, have been nor-
malized with respect to the reference contact
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
7
pressure p0, that incorporates the Young’s modulus
effect.
Table 1 confirms the analytical expectations
according to which, for different radial dimensions
Case 2
of the shaft and the hub, different fillet radii and ini-
0.375 mm tial clearances, different Young’s moduli, and for
15 mm
30 mm
different normalized fillet radii r/ri, albeit falling
0.025 within a sufficiently restricted interval, but for a
0.5 fixed hub radial aspect ratio ri/ro, the normalized
0.06 mm
0.0001 maximum contact pressure, pmax/p0, the hub nor-
100 000 MPa malized hoop stress, sc/p0, the normalized maxi-
75.00 MPa
825.20 MPa
mum equivalent stress within the hub, Kt = seq,max /
530.80 MPa p0, and the normalized contact width, a/ri, are rea-
–120.0 MPa sonably similar for Cases 1 and 2, provided that the
11.00
–1.60 normalizing factor F is the same.
7.08 The results reported in Table 1 also evidence that
0.014 mm the contact width a is poorly approximated by a
0.0009
Winkler-type formula, see for example [49],
obtained by putting x = a in the right-hand side of
equation (2), and by imposing that this termpbe ffiffiffiffi null.
This approach provides the expression
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi a = Ir . For
Case 1 of Table 1, a = 0:0431 = 0:2mm, which con-
siderably differs from the FE forecast a = 0.022 mm.
The differences of about 12 per cent, 5 per cent,
and 9 per cent between the two values of pmax/p0, of
sc/p0, and of Kt, respectively, for the two cases of
Table 1 are imputable to five causes, namely (a) the
errors incurred in the FE numerical solution; (b) the
fact that in contact problems the large deformation
theory is adopted in the FE solution, whereas the
normalization upon which F relies, is valid in linear
elasticity, see for example reference [50]; (c) the
parabolic approximation of the circular fillet, adopt-
ed in equation (2); (d) the idealization of the hub
cross-section in terms of a rectangle. In fact, the
normalization developed in this paper requires that
the Green function refer to a rectangular hub cross-
section, i.e. it be exactly the same independent of
the value of the fillet radius, whereas in the FE solu-
tion the equivalent of the Green function refers to
the actual geometry of the hub cross-section, and,
therefore, it (moderately) changes with the fillet
radius; (e) the influence of the different values of
the normalized fillet radius r/ri for the two cases
analysed in section 3.1 with regard to Fig. 3. The
above errors are consistent with the comments on
Fig. 3 in section 3.1.
The discussion of the five sources of error refers
to the situation illustrated in Fig. 1(a). Moving to
Fig. 1(b), the source of error (e) is negligible, since
the hub is assumed to be infinitely long, and the sol-
id shaft is much stiffer than the hub, see for example
reference [16], p. 698. Consequently, the predictions
referring to Fig. 1(b) are generally more accurate
than those dealing with Fig. 1(a), as confirmed by
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
8 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
Fig. 4 Contact pressure for the two cases of Table 1
the numerical examples presented in section 5. In
fact, the numerical forecasts reported in Fig. 3, deal-
ing with the geometry of Fig. 1(a) and with various
normalized fillet radii, show that, as the normalized
fillet radius is increased, the normalized maximum
equivalent stress within the hub approaches the
forecasts dealing with Fig. 1(b). This result may
be rationalized by observing that the problem of
Fig. 1(b) may be interpreted at that of Fig. 1(a), in
which the hub projections beyond the contact zone
(see section 3.1) become infinite.
It is difficult to examine separately the above five
sources of error. The numerical examples of Table 1
and those presented in section 5 indicate that in
most cases the global error between the FE forecast
and the design curves of Figs 7 and 8 is within, say,
10 per cent, see also the maximum error estimates
presented in section 3.1. An applicability limit valid
for the analogous Hertzian theory, expressed in
terms of the ratio between the contact width and
the fillet radius, is reported in reference [14], p. 57.
Figure 4 details the contact pressure bumps for
the two cases of Table 1. Figure 5 shows the FE out-
put in terms of von Mises equivalent stress for Case
1 of Table 1.
4 DESIGN CHARTS
The formulation of the title problem in terms of
an integral equation has allowed the normalizing
parameter to be determined; however, the integral
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
equation approach is too complex to be employed
in the evaluation of the hub stress field; finite ele-
ments are a more convenient means for forecasting
such stresses. The design charts are prepared by
varying the normalizing parameter within an inter-
val covering technically significant shaft–hub press-
fit configurations. From a practical viewpoint, it is
sufficient to vary only one of the three variables
constituting the parameter F; it is particularly con-
venient to keep fixed the nominal geometries of the
hub and shaft, and to modify the interference alone.
This straightforwardness in preparing the diagrams
stems from the summarizing capabilities of F.
4.1 Design recommendations for the shaft–hub
press-fit
To correctly define the range of the normalizing
parameter F covering practically relevant situations
of the title problem, in this subsection the available
recommendations are collected that address the
optimal radial aspect ratio for the hub, the interval
of the fillet radii adopted for the hub bore edges,
and the selection of the shaft–hub interference.
The hub radial aspect ratios ri/ro considered in [4,
6, 21, 24, 43] range between 0.33 and 0.75 in stan-
dard mechanical applications. In [19], it is demon-
strated that the optimal aspect ratio between the
hub inner and outer radii, that maximizes the load
transmitted by the joint, falls within the range 0.5–
0.7. In the present paper the interval of aspect ratios
comprised between 0.3 and 0.7 has been investi-
gated. (Hubs of radial thickness smaller that those
covered in the diagrams here presented are met in
dental implants, see for example [51].)
The radius of the rounded edge of the hub bore is
addressed in the following. By considering [22, 24],
reference [35] referring to a plane indentation, and
the ball bearing realm, the inference may be derived
that the fillet radii adopted for the hub edges gener-
ally range between 0.025 and 0.15 times the shaft
radius, and that the widest technical interval is
0.0025<r/ri<0.2.
The selection of the shaft–hub interference is
addressed in reference [23], p. 8–405, where the
ANSI B4.2-1978 standards are reported. Following
an order of increasingly demanding applications,
the interference fits are classified in three groups,
namely locational interference fits, medium drive
fits, and force fits. For the first group (employed for
locating ball and roller bearings), and for steel shaft
diameters in the region of 20 mm, the average dia-
metral interference I is about 1/1000 the shaft
diameter; for the second group the coefficient
becomes 1.5/1000, and for the third group the
 Normalization of the stress concentrations
Fig. 5 FE output in terms of von Mises equivalent stress for Case 1 of Table 1
coefficient is 2/1000. Consistently, in [18] the rule of
thumb is quoted, according to which the diametral
interference I must fall within the interval 1/1000–2/
1000 the shaft diameter. Analogously, in reference
[4] the interval suggested is 1/1000<I/(2ri)<3.75/
1000.
The ratio I/r does not appear to have been direct-
ly addressed in the quoted references. From the pre-
viously reported intervals 0.025<r/ri<0.15 and 2/
1000<I/ri<4/1000, it may be deduced that 0.013<I/
r<0.16, but it is difficult to suggest an optimized
value of this parameter. The applicability limit a/
r<0.1 is reported in reference [14], p. 57 with regard
to the Hertzian theory, where a may be interpreted
as the contact semiwidth. The following rough esti-
mates may be made. Accordingpto ffiffiffiffi a Winkler-type
model, e.g.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi reference [49], a = Ir . Consequently,
a=r = I=r . By employing the previous numerical
bounds, the inequality a/r<0.4 should hold, which
does not respect the applicability limit a/r<0.1.
However, from the discussion of the results of
Table 1, it emerges that the Winkler model notice-
ably overrates the contact width, up to ten times, so
that the applicability limit favoured in reference [14]
should be verified for most cases.
From the results collected above, it may be con-
cluded that the interval of the normalizing parameter
F = comprised between 2 3 10-6 and 10-2 generously
covers the commonest practical applications.
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
9
4.2 The sign of the hub hoop stress in the
vicinity of the bore edges
It has already been noted in section 1 that, consis-
tent with the Lamé equations for thick-walled cylin-
ders, the hub radial stresses are compressive
whereas the hoop stresses are tensile along the cen-
tral part of the hub bore surface. Moving to the hub
lateral zones, the presence of infinite pressure peaks
when the bore edges are sharp is responsible for the
hub hoop stresses becoming locally negative. This
interesting result may be rationalized with the aid of
Hooke’s law, according to which ‘the circumferen-
tial strain is proportional to the difference between
hoop stress and the Poisson’s ratio times the radial
stress, the axial component being negligible. When
the radial stress tends to minus infinity, this rela-
tionship requires the circumferential component to
approach minus infinity as well, in order to keep the
hoop strain finite’, see reference [52].
A more physical explanation of the outcome of
compressive hoop stresses at the hub bore edges is
presented in the following. The hub’s most stressed
zones fall in the vicinity of the bore edges, whereas
the remaining hub regions are relatively under-
stressed, see Fig. 6(a). This situation may be idea-
lized by describing the understressed regions as
rigid, since their strains are small; conversely, the
most stressed hub zones are idealized as deformable
rings, whose inner radius is loaded by the local
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
10 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
Fig. 6 Stress concentrations at the hub bore edges: (a)
real geometry, (b) idealization
contact pressure p, whereas their outer radius is
radially restrained by the hub understressed zones,
see Fig. 6(b). The axial stresses within the ring may
be assumed to be null, as a result of the proximity
of the most stressed zones to the lateral free surface.
By computing the stresses within the deformable
ring with the Lamé equations, it may be shown
that, for small radial thicknesses of the ring, the
ring hoop stress is compressive, see reference [16],
p. 705.
The outcome of compressive hoop stresses at the
hub bore edges is photoelastically confirmed in [53],
addressing the insertion of a conical stem into the
conical cavity of a head in a hip replacement; it is
noted that ‘at the ends of the taper contact there
were pressure concentrations and compressive
hoop stresses’.
When the hub bore edges are no longer sharp but
rounded, the contact pressure peaks are mitigated
together with the trend of the hub hoop stresses
towards negative values.
The published FE forecasts reflect only qualita-
tively the local trend of the hub hoop stresses
towards negative values, as a result of the weak
character of this numerical method and of the
coarse meshes unavoidably employed in the past
years. In fact, in references [17] and [52] it is
numerically found that the hub hoop stress sharply
decreases in the vicinity of the contact extremity,
albeit without attaining negative values. Similarly,
Fig. 8 of reference [20] shows that the numerical
hoop stresses along the internal surface of the hub,
positive at the hub central part, drastically diminish
at the contact extremities, and for some configura-
tions they become negative, albeit moderately so.
Since, for an imposed hub radial aspect ratio ri/ro,
the elastic stress profile in the hub depends nearly
exclusively on the normalizing parameter F (see the
comments with regard to Fig. 3), it is now possible to
determine which range of F produces negative hoop
stresses in the vicinity of the hub bore edges. The
corresponding results are presented in Figs 7 and 8.
From the diagrams of Figs 7 and 8, it emerges
that the stress concentration factor Kt decreases
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Fig. 7 Kt versus F for the geometry of Fig. 1 (a)
with F for a prescribed value of ri/ro, whereas it
increases with ri/ro for a prescribed value of F. In
addition, for small (large) values of F, the hub cir-
cumferential stress becomes negative (positive).
Consequently, for decreasing values of F, two con-
flicting trends coexist: (a) an increase of Kt takes
place, and this fact is negative from the viewpoint of
the mechanical strength of the coupling; (b) a nega-
tive hoop stress arises within the hub, and this
aspect is positive, since most materials exhibit high-
er strength in compression. Therefore, each config-
uration constitutes a compromise between these
two conflicting aspects. It is however difficult to
devise an optimal value of the fillet radius, one of
the reasons being the fact that most configurations
are imposed by technological requirements and by
the designer personal background.
4.3 Compilation of the design diagrams
The commercial FE program MSC Marc 2007r1 has
been employed in this study. The problem has been
modelled as axisymmetric. The mesh adopted was
very fine, of about 80 000 nodes, to ensure that the
number of nodes defining the progressive contact
zone under the imposed interference be constantly
higher than 10, see reference [54]. The mean dimen-
sion of the elements modelling the hub/shaft filleted
zones is 2.5 3 1025 3 ri. In some test cases, an even
finer mesh was also employed to assess the numeri-
cal convergence. The interference at the frictionless
unilateral contact interface has been mimicked by
imposing a thermal expansion to the shaft. In order
 Normalization of the stress concentrations
to preclude any undesired discretization disalign-
ment at the mating surfaces as a result of the shaft
axial expansion, a fictitiously orthotropic thermal
expansion coefficient has been adopted.
The normalizing approach favoured in this study
requires that the hub radiused zone not be
described by the exact expression employed in
equation (1), but by its parabolic approximation of
equation (2), which therefore has been adopted in
numerically modelling the two mating profiles.
Diagrams have been prepared for the two geome-
tries of Figs 1(a) and (b) and for the following selec-
tion of radial aspect ratios ri/ro: 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7.
Figure 7 refers to the geometry of Fig. 1(a). For each
radial aspect ratio, the dimensions of the two contact-
ing bodies have been kept fixed and equal to those of
Case 1 of Table 1, whereas only the interference has
been varied in such a way that the parameter F,
reported along the x-axis, covers the required interval
between 2 3 10-6 and 10-2. To get forecasts indepen-
dent of the shaft length, in the numerical simulation
the shaft protrudes from the hub lateral walls by a
distance higher than the shaft diameter.
It is noted that the fillet radius of Case 1 in
Table 1, normalized versus the shaft radius, is a
mid-value with respect to the interval of practically
employed normalized fillet radii discussed in sec-
tion 4.1. The adoption of this mid value allows the
maximum error due to the cause (e) discussed in
section 3.2 to be minimized.
The hub elastic maximum equivalent stress nor-
malized over the reference pressure p0 is reported
along the y-axis. Each curve is defined by 21 points.
A bilogarithmic scale has been adopted. In Fig. 7 a
transition curve has been introduced to evidence
the zones in which the sign of the hoop stress, com-
puted where the maximum elastic equivalent stress
takes place, is positive or negative.
Formula (9) for the elastic stress concentration
factor Kt interpolates the forecasts of Fig. 7 with a
maximum error of about 5 per cent, which remains
lower than 3 per cent for most geometries
h i
F ðri =ro , FÞ = 18:40 + 0:887 log F + 0:208 ðlog FÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:5)3(ri =ro 0:3)
h i
+ 19:27 + 0:474 log F0:328 ðlog FÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:7)3(ri =ro 0:3)
h i
+ 5:30  0:823 log F + 0:140ðlog FÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:7)3(ri =ro 0:5)
Kt = e F ðri =ro , FÞ
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
11
Similarly, Fig. 8 refers to the geometry depicted in
Fig. 1(b). To get forecasts independent of the length
by which the hub protrudes from the shaft
extremity, a length higher than the shaft diameter
has been adopted in the numerical simulation.
Formula (10) for Kt interpolates the forecasts of
Fig. 8 with a maximum error of about 5 per cent,
which remains lower than 3 per cent for most
applications
h i
F ðri =ro , FÞ = 11:62  0:878 logF + 0:142ðlogFÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:5)3(ri =ro 0:3)
h i
+ 6:67 + 3:530 logF0:198 ðlogFÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:7)3(ri =ro 0:3)
h i
+ 0:58  1:906 log F + 0:095 ðlogFÞ2
3(ri =ro 0:7)3(ri =ro 0:5)
Kt = e F ðri =ro , FÞ (10)
In formulae (9) and (10), log is the natural logarithm.
Finally, Figure 5, already referred to in section
3.2, shows the FE output in terms of von Mises
equivalent stress for Case 1 of Table 1.
Diagrams detailing the shaft–hub contact width
and the axial extent of the contact pressure bumps
are omitted for brevity. As an alternative, the follow-
ing concise indications are supplied.
For the geometry of Fig. 1(a), the axial extent of
the pressure bumps may be conventionally defined
as follows. Moving from one of the shaft–hub con-
tact extremities towards the contact centre, the con-
tact pressure is null at the contact extremity, it then
displays a sharp rise, then it declines and it gradu-
ally approaches its central value p0, see Fig. 4. The
axial extent of the pressure bumps is here defined as
the distance between the contact extremity identi-
fied by a in Fig. 2(d) and the axial coordinate at
which the contact pressure equals 1.05 p0. For all
the examined geometries of Fig. 1(a) considered in
Fig. 7, the axial extent of each contact pressure
bump rarely exceeds 3 times the fillet radius r of the
hub bore edge.
Moving to the geometry of Fig. 1(b), the axial
extent of the contact pressure bump is generally
much higher, and it may reach 20 times the fillet
radius r of the shaft extremity. Consequently, a hub
of finite axial length cannot be modelled, numeri-
cally or analytically, by an infinitely long hub.
Moving to the stress concentrations, for small val-
ues of the normalizing coefficient F, Kt of Fig. 8 is
about twice that of Fig. 7, whereas for high values of
(9) F the two stress concentrations become similar.
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
12 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi
Fig. 8 Kt versus F for the geometry of Fig. 1 (b)
5 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Selected numerical examples are presented in this
section, aimed at allowing the nonspecialist to cor-
rectly employ the design charts without excessively
dwelling on the underlying theory.
The first example deals with locational interfer-
ence fits and geometries encountered in the ball
bearing realm. The shaft–hub complete press fit illu-
strated in Fig. 1(a) is examined. The following values
are considered: ri = 5 mm, ro = 13 mm, r = 0.5 mm,
I = 0.0025 mm, E = 205 000 MPa. Consequently, ri/ro =
0.385 and F = 0.000 050. The elastic stress concen-
tration factor Kt predicted by the interpolating for-
mula (9) is 8.97. By employing expression (5), the
reference contact pressure p0 is (205 000 3 0.0025)/
(4 3 5) 3 [1-(5/13)2] = 21.83 MPa. Consequently, the
maximum von Mises equivalent stress within the
hub according to Fig. 7 is 8.97 3 21.83 = 195.85 MPa.
The maximum von Mises equivalent stress forecast
by FE is 212 MPa, with an error of about 7.6 per cent
between the predictions based on the normalizing
coefficient F and the FE forecasts.
The second example addresses an incomplete,
force press-fit illustrated in Fig. 1(b) and defined by
the following values: ri = 12 mm, ro = 22 mm, r = 2 mm,
I = 0.048 mm, E = 210 000 MPa. Consequently, ri/ro =
0.546 and F = 0.000 667. The elastic stress con-
centration factor Kt predicted by the interpolating
formula (10) is 5.95. By employing expression (5), the
reference contact pressure p0 is (210 000 3 0.048)/
(4 3 12) 3 [1-(12/22)2] = 147.52 MPa. Consequently,
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
the maximum von Mises equivalent stress within the
hub according to Fig. 8 is 5.95 3 147.52 = 877.74 MPa.
The maximum von Mises equivalent stress forecast
by FE is 908 MPa, with an error of about 3 per cent
between the predictions based on the normalizing
coefficient F and the FE forecasts.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The elastic stress concentrations developed from
the keyless, frictionless, static press-fit of a solid
shaft into a hub have been addressed. Two config-
urations have been examined, namely (a) an infinite
shaft press-fitted into a hollow hub with bore
rounded edges, and (b) a shaft with filleted extre-
mity, partially inserted into a hub. Derived from an
analytical approach, a normalizing parameter has
been proposed that accounts for the combined
effects on the stress concentrations of the fillet
radius, the shaft radius, the interference, and the
Young’s modulus. With the aid of finite elements,
various design charts have been compiled that
report the elastic stress concentrations within the
hub versus the proposed normalizing parameter.
Each curve is valid for a fixed ratio of inner to outer
hub radii. Such charts assist the designer of a press-
fitted assembly in selecting the most convenient fil-
let radius, in evaluating the maximum equivalent
stress, and in assessing its mechanical strength and
the possible outcome of yielding.
Ó Authors 2011
REFERENCES
1 Horger, O. J. and Nelson, C. W. Design of press-
and shrink-fitted assemblies. J. Appl. Mech., 1937,
4, A183–A187.
2 Jordan, A. Designing interference fits. Machine
Design, 1974, 46, 68–72.
3 Baugher, J. W. Transmission of torque by means of
press and shrink fits. ASME Trans., 1931, 53, 85–92.
4 Trock, B. Shrink fits: holding power can be
increased. Iron Age, 1953, 179, 179–175.
5 Conway, H. D. and Farnham, K. A. Contac stresses
between cylindrical shafts and sleeves. Int. J. Engng
Sci., 1967, 5, 541–554.
6 White, D. J. and Humpherson, J. Finite-element
analysis of stresses in shafts due to interference-fit
hubs. J. Strain Analysis., 1969, 4, 105–114.
7 Bhonsle, S. R. and Work, C. E. Evaluation of three-
dimensional stresses in shrink-fit problems by scat-
tered-light photoelasticity. Exp. Mech., 1970, 10,
19N–28N.
8 Mather, J. and Baines, B. H. Distribution of stress
in axially symmetrical shrink-fit assemblies. Wear,
1972, 21, 339–360.
 Normalization of the stress concentrations
9 Bernasconi, G. Axial-symmetric elastic strains and
stresses in tight cylindrical hub–shaft couplings.
Meccanica, 1972, 7, 54–55.
10 Prasad, S. and Dasgupta, S. Axisymmetric shrink
fit problems of the elastic cylinder of finite length.
J. Elast., 1977, 7, 225–242.
11 Selvage, C. C. Assembly of interference fits by
impact and constant force methods. MSc Thesis,
MIT, 1979.
12 Grimm, T. R. and Chiu, A. C. Design of hubs to
minimize interference stresses – a finite element
study. Comput. Engng, 1988, 3, 85–91.
13 Garnett, M. D. and Grimm, T. R. Finite Element
analysis of interference-fitted shafts subjected to
bending. Comput. Engng, ASME, 1989, 2, 273–280.
14 Schmelz, F., Seherr-Thoss, H. C., and Aucktor, E.
Universal joints and driveshafts, 1992 (Springer,
Berlin).
15 Prasad, N. S., Sashikanth, P., and Ramamurti, V.
Stress distribution in interference joints. Comput.
Struct.s, 1994, 51, 535–540.
16 Strozzi, A. Costruzione di Macchine, 1998 (Pita-
gora, Bologna).
17 Zhang, Y., McClain, B., and Fang, X. D. Design of
interference fits via finite element method. Int. J.
Mech. Sci., 2000, 42, 1835–1850.
18 Norton, R. L. Machine design: an integrated
approach, 2000 (Prentice-Hall, New York).
19 Castagnetti, D. and Dragoni, E. Optimal aspect
ratio of interference fits for maximum load transfer
capacity. J. Strain Anal., 2005, 40, 177–184.
20 Özel, A., Temiz, S., Aydin, M. D., and Sen, S. Stress
analysis of shrink-fitted joints for various fit forms
via finite element method. Mater. Design, 2005, 26,
281–289.
21 Kanber, B. Boundary element analysis of interfer-
ence fits. Turkish J. Engng Env. Sci., 2006, 30,
323–330.
22 Kolonits, F. The influence of rounded edges on the
shaft–hub contact. Periodica Polytechnica Ser.
Transp. Engng, 2007, 51, 35–44.
23 Avallone, E. A., Baumeister, T., and Sadegh, A. M.
Mark’s standard handbook for mechanical engi-
neers, 2007 (McGraw-Hill, New York).
24 Francis, M., Henri, C., and Hoa Ngan, N. Stress
concentration of shrink fit assembly using finite
element method. In IASTED Asian Conference on
Modelling and Simulation, Beijing, China, 8–10
October 2007, pp. 67–70.
25 Ponetchi, P. P. and Vela, I. Stress and strain of
solid shafts in interference fit couplings. Analele
Universitatii, ‘Eftimie Murgu’ Resita, 2008, 15,
331–338.
26 Lanoue, F., Vadean, A., and Sanschagrin, B. Finite
element analysis and contact modelling considera-
tions of interference fits for fretting fatigue strength
calculations. Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory, 2009, 17,
1587–1602.
27 Croccolo, D. and Vincenzi, N. A generalized theory
for shaft–hub couplings. Proc. IMechE, Part C: J.
Mechanical Engineering Science, 2009, 223, 2231–
2239.
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
13
28 Croccolo, D. and Vincenzi, N. Stress concentration
factors in compression-fit couplings. Proc. IMechE,
Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 2009,
224, 1143–1152.
29 Luo, H, Liu, C., and Li, K. Contacting model con-
siderations of interference fit for shaft–hub system.
Adv. Mater. Res., 2010, 118-120, 294–298.
30 Galin, L. A. Contact problems in the theory of elasti-
city. 1953 (Gostekhizdat, Moscow). English transla-
tion by the Department of Mathematics, North
Carolina State College, Raleigh.
31 Goodier, J. N. and Loutzenheiser, C. B. Pressure
peaks at the ends of plane strain rigid die contacts
(elastic). J. Appl. Mech. 1965, 32, 462–463.
32 Strozzi, A. Static stresses in an unpressurized,
rounded, rectangular, elastomeric seal. ASLE
Trans., 1986, 29, 558–564.
33 Ciavarella, M., Hills, D. A., and Monno, G. The
influence of rounded edges on indentation by a flat
punch. Proc. IMechE, Part C: J. Mechanical Engi-
neering Science, 1998, 212, 212–319.
34 Jäger, J. New analytical solutions for a flat rounded
punch compared with FEM. Computational Meth-
ods in Contact Mechanics V (WIT Press, South-
ampton), 2001, pp. 307–316.
35 Bijak-Zochowski, M., Marek, P., and Tracz, M. On
methods of reduction and elimination of stress sin-
gularities in some elastic contact problems. Int. J.
Mech. Sci., 1994, 36, 279–296.
36 Oda, J., Sakamoto, J., and San, K. A method for
producing a uniform contact stress distribution in
composite bodies with interference. Struct. Optim.,
1991, 3, 23–28.
37 Benuzzi, D. and Donzella, G. Prediction of the
press-fit curve in the assembly of a railway axle
and wheel. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid
Transit, 2004, 218, 218–51.
38 Buciumeanu, M., Miranda, A. S., Pinho, A. C. M.,
and Silva, F. S. Design improvement of an automo-
tive-formed suspension component subjected to fret-
ting fatigue. Engng Failure Anal., 2007, 14, 810–821.
39 Ciavarella, M., Baldini, A., Barber, J. R., and
Strozzi, A. Reduced dependence on loading para-
meters in almost conforming contacts. Int. J. Mech.
Sci., 2006, 48, 917–925.
40 Ciavarella, M., Strozzi, A., Baldini, A., and
Giacopini, M. Normalization of load and clearance
effects in ball in socket-like replacements. Proc.
IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2007,
221, 221–601.
41 Pioli, A., Strozzi, A., Baldini, A., Giacopini, M.,
and Rosi, R. Influence of the initial clearance on
the peak stress in connecting-rod small ends. Proc.
IMechE, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering, 2009,
223, 223–769.
42 Strozzi, A., Baldini, A., Giacopini, M., Rosi, R., and
Bertocchi, E. Contact stresses within a split ring
inserted into a circular housing. J. Strain Analysis.,
2009, 44, 1–18.
43 Okubo, H. The stress distribution in a shaft press-
fitted with a collar. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 1952,
32, 178–186.
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46
14 A Strozzi, A Baldini, M Giacopini, E Bertocchi, and L Bertocchi

44 Booker, J. D. and Truman, C. E. A statistical study Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine,
of the coefficient of friction under different loading 1989, 203,
regimes. J. Physics D: Appl. Phys., 2008, 41, 1–12. 15–34.
45 Truman, C. E. and Booker, J. D. Analysis of a 54 Olukoko, O. A., Becker, A. A., and Fenner, R. T.
shrink-fit failure on a gear hub/shaft assembly. Three benchmark examples for frictional contact
Engng Failure Anal., 2007, 14, 557–572. modelling using finite element and boundary
46 Croccolo, D., De Agostinis, M., and Vincenzi, N. element methods. J. Strain Analysis, 1993, 28,
Recent improvements and design formulae applied 293–301.
to front motorbike suspension. Engng Failure
Anal., 2010, 17, 1173–1187.
47 Croccolo, D., De Agostinis, M., and Vincenzi, N.
APPENDIX
Static and dynamic strength evaluation of interfer-
ence fit and adhesively bonded cylindrical joints.
Int. J. Adhesion Adhesives, 2010, 30, 359–366. Notation
48 Ast, M., Rösle, H., and Schenk, R. FEM-Analyse
a contact extent
reibschlüssiger Welle-Nabe-Verbindungen. VDI-
Berichte 1384, ‘Welle-Nabe-Verbingunen - System- E Young’s modulus
komponenten im Wandel’, Fulda, Germany, ISBN F interpolating function
3-18-091384-3, 1998, pp. 227–244. I diametral interference
49 George, A., Strozzi, A., and Rich, J. I. Stress fields k Green function
in a compressed unconstrained elastomeric O-ring k normalized Green function
seal and a comparison of computer predictions
Kt stress concentration factor
and experimental results. Tribol. Int., 1987, 20,
237–247. p contact pressure
50 Strozzi, A. and Unsworth, A. Observations on the p0 reference contact pressure
Paper by O#Carrol et al.. Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. r fillet radius
Engineering in Medicine, 1995, 209, 203–205. ri shaft radius, hub inner radius
51 Bozkaya, D. and Muftu, S. Mechanics of tapered
ro hub outer radius
interference fit in dental implants. J. Biomech.,
2003, 36, 1649–1658. x axial coordinate
52 Andrisano, A. O., Dragoni, E., and Strozzi, A. Axi- y axial coordinate
symmetric mechanical analysis of ceramic heads
sc circumferential stress
for total hip replacement. Proc. IMechE, Part H: J.
Engineering in Medicine, 1990, 204, 157–167. seq von Mises equivalent stress
53 Fessler, H. and Fricker, D. C. A study of stresses in F normalizing parameter
alumina universal heads of femoral prostheses.

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 46

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016