Review and classification of fretting fatigue test rigs

  • Jan De Pauw
  • Patrick De Baets
  • Wim De Waele


There is no standard or generally accepted test rig for fretting fatigue experiments. Therefore,researchers adopt an existing concept, or build a new test rig that meets their specific requirements.However, too many different test rigs may be disadvantageous because the results of two different test rigsare hard to compare. The increasing amount of diversity is mainly caused by the lack of a recent literaturesurvey on fretting fatigue test rigs. In 1994, Hills and Nowell described a few test rigs in Mechanics OfFretting Fatigue. In this study, the authors made a classification of test rigs based on the contact geometry,which is determined by the test specimens, not by the test rig itself.Ghent University, Laboratory Soete, BelgiumThe authors of this article present a review of the available literature, and present a classification based onthe properties of test rigs. Fretting fatigue test rigs are first divided in two categories based on the geometryof the test specimen: full scale and coupon scale test rigs. The latter are mostly used to perform researchand are subdivided in categories based on increasing functionalities. This is the ability to apply a fatigueload, a constant normal force, and an alternating slip in the range of some micrometers. In time, from thefifties until now, progress has been seen in the design of fretting fatigue test rigs. More parameters can becontrolled during experiments and more measuring techniques are incorporated. State of the art test rigsare classified in the last category with most functionalities, but still have imperfections. Future designerscan use this article to classify their needs, or help to design a better test rig knowing the imperfections ofthe state of the art test rigs.

How to Cite:

De Pauw, J., De Baets, P. & De Waele, W., (2011) “Review and classification of fretting fatigue test rigs”, International Journal of Sustainable Construction and Design 2(1), 41-52. doi:

Download PDF
View PDF



Published on
05 Nov 2011
Peer Reviewed