Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids

52 (2004) 1911 1934

www.elsevier.com/locate/jmps

Ultrasonic assessment of rough surface contact

between solids from elastoplastic
loadingunloading hysteresis cycle
J.-Y. Kim, A. Baltazar1 , S.I. Rokhlin
The Ohio State University, Nondestructive Evaluation Program, Edison Joining Technology Center,
1248 Arthur E. Adams Drive, Columbus, OH 43221, USA
Received 30 September 2003; received in revised form 20 January 2004; accepted 25 January 2004

Abstract
An ultrasonic method to characterize the elastoplastic contact between two rough surfaces
is presented. Ultrasonic experiments are performed on three di4erent interfaces formed by aluminum surfaces with di4erent levels of roughness. The frequency-dependent ultrasonic re7ection coe8cient from the interface is measured during loading and unloading cycles as a function of pressure, from which the ultrasonic interfacial contact sti4ness is reconstructed by the
least-squares inversion procedure. It is shown that one should distinguish between the ultrasonic
(dynamic) interfacial sti4ness and static interfacial sti4ness for rough surfaces in elastoplastic
contact (they are identical for purely elastic contact). It is shown that ultrasonic sti4ness is
associated with local unloading sti4ness. An elastoplastic micromechanical model is used to describe the plasticity-induced hysteresis in the ultrasonically measured interfacial sti4ness during
loadingunloading cycles. The topographic parameters of the interface contact are reconstructed
by matching the model-predicted results with the experimentally determined ultrasonic sti4ness.
Using these parameters the real area of contact, which is not directly measurable, is predicted
during loadingunloading cycles using the model.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Elastoplastic contact; Ultrasonic waves; Contact sti4ness; Imperfect interface

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-614-2927823; fax: +1-614-2923395.

E-mail address: rokhlin.2@osu.edu (S.I. Rokhlin).

1 Current address: Division de Estudios de Posgradoe Investigation Av., Instituto Tecnologico de

Hermosillo, Technologico S/N C. P. 83170 A.P. 518, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

0022-5096/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2004.01.006

1912

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1. Introduction
For many applications of tribology it is important to determine in situ the state of
mechanical contact between solids. Several di4erent techniques using electrical, thermal,
optical and ultrasonic interactions have been proposed for interfacial contact study
(Kendall and Tabor, 1971). Stimulated by this work the interaction of ultrasonic waves
with rough surfaces in contact or imperfect interfaces has been studied extensively by
many authors (Nagy, 1992; Drinkwater et al., 1996, 1997; Lavrentyev and Rokhlin,
1998; Dwyer-Joyce et al., 2001; Baltazar et al., 2002). The ultrasonic technique has
several advantages: it is not disturbed by surface oxidation as is the electrical resistance
technique; it can be applied to non-metallic and opaque materials to which electrical
and optical techniques are not applicable. As was indicated by Kendall and Tabor, the
ultrasonic and other measuring techniques obtain the average radius of contact between
rough surfaces rather than the area of contact. Therefore, to determine ultrasonically
the real contact area, micromechanical description of the contact is necessary (Baltazar
et al., 2002).
Most prior studies address analyses of ultrasonic wave interaction with rough contact interfaces assuming an elastic contact between asperities. However, experiment
clearly shows loadingunloading hysteresis in ultrasonic data (Drinkwater et al., 1996;
Baltazar et al., 1999; Dwyer-Joyce et al., 2001). The question of quantitative physical
interpretation of this hysteresis has been open. To perform such an interpretation and
apply the analysis to interface property reconstruction from ultrasonic data is the main
objective of this paper. To do this we have applied elastoplastic micromechanical analysis to describe ultrasonic wave interaction with a rough interfacial contact between
two solids.
SigniGcant e4ort has been put forth by many authors to model elastoplastic behaviors of rough surfaces in contact. Some earlier models for the plastic deformation of
contacting rough surfaces (Abbott and Firestone, 1933; Pullen and Williamson, 1972;
Nayak, 1973) are more suitable to fully plastic deformation which is unlikely to occur between most engineering rough surfaces in contact. The problem of elastoplastic
contact of two identical spheres or, equivalently, a single sphere on an ideally rigid
7at has been studied by several authors since it is fundamental for the analysis of
rough surfaces and particles in contact. Models for contacting rough surfaces based on
improved elastoplastic descriptions of the two-spheres contact problem have been proposed (Chang et al., 1987; Zhao et al., 2000). Recently, theoretical and Gnite element
analysis (FEA) of the elastoplastic contact behavior of two spheres during loading
cycles have been reported by Vu-Quoc and Zhang (1999), Mesarovic and Johnson
(2000), Mesarovic and Fleck (2000) and Li et al. (2002). Kogut and Etsion (2002)
performed detailed FEA elastoplastic analysis of spheres in contact and based on the
FEA results provided empirical coe8cients of dimensionless relations for load, real
area of contact and contact pressure versus relative approach. These relations cover a
wide range in the elastoplastic contact regime and due to their non-dimensional nature are applicable to di4erent materials and sphere sizes. Another issue, which has
not been fully addressed in the literature, is the unloading of the contacting asperities.
Yoshioka (1994) studied the problem of loading/unloading on contacting asperities on

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1913

the assumption that the contact area increases linearly with load going into the elastoplastic contact regime. However, the change in the radius of curvature was not accounted for. Vu-Quoc and Zhang (1999) and Li et al. (2002) have assumed in their
models perfect elastic recovery during unloading and have taken into account the fact
that the radius of curvature was modiGed during loading.
In this paper, to understand the physical implication of the ultrasonically determined
interfacial sti4ness of rough surfaces in elastoplastic contact, we introduce ultrasonic
interfacial sti4ness, which is di4erent from the static sti4ness for elastoplastic contact.
The experimentally observed hysteresis of ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness versus load
during loadingunloading cycles is attributed to plastic deformation of asperities. Using the elastoplastic asperity contact model of Kogut and Etsion (2002) for loading, and
the unloading model of Li et al. (2002), we describe the plasticity-induced hysteresis
in interfacial sti4ness during loadingunloading cycles and determine the ultrasonic
sti4ness similar to the dynamic sti4ness in nanoindentation (Oliver and Pharr, 1992;
Johnson, 1996). The topographic parameters of interfaces are reconstructed from the
experimentally obtained ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness by inversely applying the elastoplastic model using a nonlinear least-squares optimization. The real area of contact is
predicted using the model with interface parameters determined in this way. The ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness was determined from ultrasonic re7ection spectra measured
by ultrasonic spectroscopy (Baltazar et al., 2002, 2003) which was applied to di4erent
interfaces formed by aluminum surfaces with di4erent levels of roughness. The interfacial contact sti4ness values are calculated from ultrasonic re7ection spectra measured
during loading/unloading cycles.
2. Ultrasonic determination of interfacial stiness
2.1. Experimental procedure
Ultrasonic measurements of interfacial sti4ness were performed on two 6061-T6
aluminum alloy blocks pressed together in dry mechanical contact in the MTS 810
hydraulic testing machine. The apparent nominal contact area was 5:06 cm2 . The experimental setup for the ultrasonic measurements is shown schematically in Fig. 1.
Loading cycles were programmed using a commercial MTS controller (458 MicroProGler). Repetitive loadingunloading cycles with maximum pressure 85 MPa were
applied to the sample. To assure that the same pairs of asperities were in contact during repeated loadingunloading cycles, the samples were unloaded to a small (5 MPa)
but not zero load before the start of the next loading cycle. Special attention was
paid to maintain the parallelism of the two surfaces during application of the load:
this was done by using a specially designed ball-joint alignment device at both ends
of the sample holder, which allows self-alignment under load. A pulse-echo method
with a single broadband 10 MHz longitudinal wave transducer was used to perform
ultrasonic measurements of the interface re7ection spectra at normal incidence. A short
ultrasonic pulse was excited by a pulser; a re7ected signal from the sample interface
was fed through the receiver to a digital oscilloscope (LeCroy 9400-125 MHz) and the

1914

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for ultrasonic measurements of interfacial sti4ness.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the aluminum 6061-T6 alloy samples
Property

Value

Young modulus, E
Hardness, HB
Yield stress, Y
Poissons ratio, 
Rms surface roughness, 
Nominal contact area, An

71:0 Gpa
94
235 MPa
0.33
0.23 and 2:4 m
5:06 cm2

digitized signal was transferred to a computer for further analysis. The signal re7ected
from the interface was Grst fast-Fourier-transformed then deconvolved with the transducer spectrum and represented as re7ected spectra at di4erent mechanical pressures.
The sample surfaces with di4erent levels of roughness were prepared with abrasive 600 sandpapers or by sandblasting. Roughness measurements were carried out
at several di4erent locations and in di4erent directions using the Surface Analyzer
(Model 4000) proGlometer. The statistical parameters of the rough surfaces were obtained after performing digital Gltering on the raw surface proGles. The results indicate
good surface isotropy and homogeneity. The average rms roughness values of surfaces
sandpaper-ground and sandblasted on samples used in this study were 0.23 and 2:4 m,
respectively. Prior to the surface preparation, sample hardness was measured, giving
the usual value for aluminum 6061-T6 alloy. The sample properties are summarized in
Table 1.

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1915

2.2. Experimental results

Ultrasonic measurements were performed on the rough surface contact interface in
the following three combinations: (1) smooth/smooth surfaces, both surfaces having
rms roughness of 0:23 m obtained by sandpaper grinding; (2) smooth/rough surfaces,
the upper surface sandpaper-ground (0:23 m) and the bottom sandblasted (2:4 m);
and (3) rough/rough surfaces, both surfaces having rms roughness of 2:4 m obtained
by sandblasting.
As an example, Fig. 2 shows the ultrasonic re7ection spectra measured from the
smoothrough interface during Grst and second loading cycles (points). The e4ect of
0

Amplitude, dB

-3

-6
14

-9

QSA

-12

-15
3

(a)

p (MPa) K N (X10 N/m )

9
1.27
18
1.76
26
2.24
34
2.66
48
3.27
64
3.87
79
4.44

10

Frequency, MHz
0

Amplitude, dB

-3

-6
14

-9

QSA

-12

-15
3

(b)

p (MPa) K N (X10 N/m )

9
2.44
18
2.87
26
3.27
34
3.64
48
4.01
64
4.42
79
4.61

10

Frequency, MHz

Fig. 2. Longitudinal wave re7ection spectra at normal incidence from a single interface under varying load
during: (a) Grst loading and (b) second loading. The rms roughness values of the surfaces are 2.4 and
0:25 m (roughsmooth interface in contact).

1916

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

the applied load on the re7ection spectrum is clearly observed. Reconstruction of interfacial sti4ness from the ultrasonic re7ected spectra was performed using the approach
described by Baltazar et al. (2002, 2003). The theoretical ultrasonic re7ection spectra
are calculated for an imperfect solid/solid interface modeled by the spring boundary
conditions which assumes continuity of normal stress  and discontinuity of displacement Qu across the imperfect interface. When the characteristic length of the imperfectness is su8ciently smaller than the wavelength, the stress and the displacement jump
are related by the quasistatic (spring) boundary conditions =KN Qu where KN (N=m3 )
is the normal interfacial contact sti4ness. Such introduced interfacial sti4ness is determined from a stress (pressure) versus displacement relation and has units of N=m3 . In
the contact mechanics literature the contact sti4ness coe8cient is often deGned from a
force/displacement relation and has units N/m (Johnson, 1985); to distinguish we will
call this latter coe8cient contact spring coe8cient or contact spring.
Optimizing, by least squares, the Gt between the experimental spectrum and that
calculated from the model, the average interfacial sti4ness of the area illuminated by
the ultrasonic beam is reconstructed. Fig. 2 shows by solid lines the calculated re7ection
spectra using the reconstructed interfacial sti4ness obtained by the optimization process.
Good Gt indicates quality of the reconstructed sti4ness. In this way the interfacial
sti4ness was determined for di4erent load levels during the loadingunloading cycles
for interfaces formed by substrates with di4erent surface combinations.
Fig. 3 summarizes experimental results on ultrasonically measured normal interfacial sti4ness versus applied nominal pressure. Measurements are shown by points for
repeatable cyclic loading for the contact interface with three di4erent roughnesses.
The data for the smooth/smooth interface (Fig. 3(a)) exhibit relatively small hysteresis indicating that the process is nearly elastic. There is no hysteresis between
the Grst and second loading cycles and a small hysteresis seems occurs prior to the
fourth loading stage. In fact, as will be shown later, the onset of plastic yielding at
Y occurs at almost the maximum nominal pressure pY as marked in the Ggure by
an arrow. Results for the smooth/rough interface are shown in Fig. 3(b). A strong
hysteretic behavior is clearly observed during the Grst cycle, which manifests the plastic deformation of the contacting asperities. The sti4ness for the repeated cycles follows the same loadingunloading path without visible hysteresis indicating Hertzian
type behavior. Results for the rough/rough contact interface are shown in Fig. 3(c)
which also has a strong hysteresis during the Grst loading cycle. The measured interfacial sti4ness for the rough/rough surface contact is much smaller than those for
smooth /rough (Fig. 3b) surface contact. The asperities in roughrough surface contact become plastically deformed earlier than in roughsmooth surface contact and
thus the contact between roughrough surfaces is more compliant than that between
roughsmooth surfaces. In these cases, the interfaces exhibit the hysteresis during the
Grst cycle and elastic type behavior during subsequent cycles. The interfacial sti4ness exhibits the same value at the maximum applied load 85 MPa for all cycles
indicating that no further plastic deformation occurs at the asperities in subsequent
loading cycles.
In the following sections, the ultrasonically determined interfacial sti4ness will be related to the topographical and elastoplastic properties of the surfaces using the

Ultrasonic interfacial stiffness KN (X10 N/m )

18
16

pY

14
12
10
8

Micromechanical model
First loading
Second loading
Fourth loading
pY = 84.6 MPa

6
4
2
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Micromechanical model
First loading
Second loading
Fourth loading
pY =18.4 MPa

pY
1

0
0

20

(b)

Nominal pressure,MPa

40

60

80

100

Nominal pressure, MPa

Ultrasonic interfacial stiffness KN (X10 N/m )

(a)

1917

14

14

Ultrasonic interfacial stiffness KN (X10 N/m )

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

14

Micromechanical model
First loading
Second loading
Fourth loading
pY =3.3 MPa

(c)

pY

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Nominal pressure, MPa

Fig. 3. Interfacial sti4ness versus nominal pressure. Points are experimental results. The solid lines correspond
to the simulated hysteresis cycle. pY is determined from the model and indicates the nominal pressure at
the onset of the plastic deformation at the interface. (a) Interface formed by two smooth surfaces with rms
roughness 0:25 m. (b) Interface formed by a rough (rms roughness 2:4 m) and a smooth (rms roughness
0:25 m) surfaces. (c) Interface formed by two rough surfaces with rms roughness 2:4 m.

micromechanical model. We will focus our analysis on the micromechanical description

of the contact area and asperity deformation during loading/unloading cycles.
2.3. Physical implication of ultrasonically determined interfacial sti6ness
When an ultrasonic wave interacts with an interface, a small-scale loadingunloading
cycle, centered on the static stress, occurs (vibration displacement in an ultrasonic
S scale). In the elastic static contact regime, the ultrasonically induced
wave is of A
loadingunloading occurs on the same static pressureapproach curve (Fig. 4), and
thus the ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness equals the static one which is the slope of the
pressuredisplacement curve. When the contacting asperities are plastically deformed,
the local unloading occurs along a curve di4erent from the loading curve due to the
hysteresis. The ultrasonically induced loadingunloading cycles occur along the local

1918

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

Elastic

Normalized pressure p/pmax

1.0

Elastoplastic

0.8
0.6
Local
unloading

0.4
Ultrasonic wave
actions

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Normalized approach /max

Fig. 4. Schematic of pressure-approach loadingunloading cycle for a rough interface in elastoplastic contact.
The relation of the static and ultrasonic contact sti4ness to the slope of the pressureapproach curve is shown.

static unloading curve (Fig. 4). Thus, the ultrasonically determined interfacial sti4ness,
which we call ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness, is the local unloading sti4ness. In the
following sections for a single asperity we will also use the ultrasonic contact spring
obtained from the loadrelative approach relation.
As will be shown in the next section, in the elastoplastic contact regime the ultrasonic
interfacial sti4ness is much higher than the static loading interfacial sti4ness. This is
because in the elastoplastic regime, the asperities have reduced their static sti4ness
with load due to progressive plastic deformation. Therefore, with increase of pressure
the rate of static sti4ness increase is less than that of the contact area. However, the
ultrasonic sti4ness corresponds to the local unloading slope and it does not feel the
plastic softening e4ect of the asperities and its increase is related solely to the contact
radius growth (Fig. 4). This di4erence in the ultrasonically measured sti4ness and static
elastoplastic sti4ness was not recognized in prior publications on the topic. One should
note that a similar phenomenon occurs when one measures ultrasonic velocity during
plastic deformation in the bulk of the solid. The ultrasonically measured elastic modulus
does not follow the slope of the stressstrain curve and changes only slightly relative to
the modulus measured in the elastic regime. The added nonlinear part (stress-dependent
part, which is associated with high-order elastic moduli) is very small (modulus change
is below 1%).
3. Ultrasonic contact spring for loading/unloading cycles of spheres in elastoplastic
contact
3.1. Elastoplastic loading
Our micromechanical model for the contacting asperities of rough surfaces is based
on the non-interacting single asperity contact behavior. Our analysis of the elastoplastic

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1919

contact of two spheres is mainly based on the recent Gnite element modeling (FEM)
results of Kogut and Etsion (2002) (KE model). While many FEM results for elastoplastic contact of spheres have been obtained recently, we have selected the KE model
since it is formulated in non-dimensional variables and thus is universally applicable
to di4erent materials.
Le us consider two identical deformable spheres with radius Ro , Youngs modulus E,
Poissons ratio  and yield stress Y . The spheres are pressed by an external load P to
be in normal contact producing a relative normal approach . The critical approach c
at which a local plastic yielding commences (yielding inception) (Chang et al., 1987)
is given by
2


kH
c =
Ro ;
(1)
2E
where E = E=(1 2 ); the hardness of the spheres H is related to yield stress by
H 2:8Y (Tabor, 1951); the hardness coe8cient k is given by k = 0:454 + 0:41
(Kogut and Etsion, 2002).
Based on the Gtting of the FEM results, Kogut and Etsion (2002) have represented
the normalized load and the radius of contact area versus the normalized approach for
elastic and elastoplastic contact of spheres in a uniGed way:

1
P

= C1
;
(2)
Pc
c

2

a
;
(3)
= C2
c
ac
where a is the contact radius, Pc and ac are the load and the radius of contact area
respectively at the yield inception given by Hertz theory:
4
Pc = E Ro1=2 c3=2 ;
(4)
3
ac = (Ro c )1=2

(5)

and C1; 2 and 1; 2 are coe8cients obtained for di4erent ranges of the normalized approach ( = c ). The Hertz equations for the two spheres in elastic contact are recovered
by setting C1 =C2 =1, 1 =1:5 and 2 =0:5 for = c 6 1. For elastoplastically contacting
spheres, Kogut and Etsion (2002) obtained those coe8cients from curve Gtting of their
FEA results in di4erent ranges of the elastoplastic contact regime up to = c = 110. In
the range 1 6 = c 6 6 the coe8cients are C1 = 1:03, C2 = 0:96, 1 = 1:425, 2 = 0:568;
and in the range 6 6 = c 6 110 they are C1 = 1:40, C2 = 0:97, 1 = 1:263, 2 = 0:573.
Kogut and Etsion (2002) concluded from their FEA results that the plastic yielding
Grst occurs below the contact surface and the contacting interface remains elastic until = c = 6, at which the plastic yielding starts at the interface. As a result of the
transition on the contact interface from elastic to elastoplastic conditions, there exists
a certain discontinuity of slope of the loaddisplacement curves at = c = 6. Since
the coe8cients are those for dimensionless expressions (Eqs. (2) and (3)), the results
are not restricted to a speciGc material or sphere radius. Although Kogut and Etsions
(2002) results are valid strictly for elastic-perfectly plastic materials, they noted based

1920

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

on their FEA study that the coe8cients could be used for strain-hardening spheres with
a maximum error of 20%. Since for most engineering materials the fully plastic 7ow
is virtually absent even in the contact of highly rough surfaces (Zhao et al., 2000),
the elastoplastic analysis of Kogut and Etsion (2002), with = c 6 100, is su8cient
to describe the contacts that occur in our experiments and we have employed Eqs.
(2)(5) in our model for the rough surface contact.
3.2. Ultrasonic contact spring during loading part of cycle
In Section 2.2 and in Baltazar et al. (2002) we have deGned the ultrasonic interfacial
sti4ness KN (=N m3 ) from the boundary conditions relating stresses and displacements
and in a micromechanic model (Baltazar et al., 2002) from the relationship between
the external pressure and relative approach. As discussed in Section 2.3, the ultrasonically measured interfacial sti4ness at a given pressure p is obtained from the slope
(dpunload =d ) of the local unloading curve as shown in Fig. 4. It is di4erent from the
slope (dpload =d ) of the loading curve corresponding to the static contact sti4ness.
In this section, in relation to a single asperity, it is more convenient to introduce a
contact spring with dimensions N/m obtained from a load P versus relative approach
relationship. The local unloading model is applied to calculate the ultrasonic interfacial
spring during a loading segment of the static loadingunloading cycle. At any point of
the loading curve the slope of the initial unloading curve (dPunload =d ) can be calculated
(Johnson, 1996) as
dPunload
= 2aE ;
d

(6)

where the elastoplastic radius of the contact area a is obtained from the loading model
Eq. (3). Thus, the ultrasonic contact spring during loading for the single asperity (l )
is
l =

dPunload
= 2aE :
d

Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (7), one obtains

2

l = 2C2 E ac
:
c

(7)

(8)

The relation between ultrasonic contact spring and ultrasonic contact sti4ness is immediately obtainable from the load pressure relation using Eq. (3) for the contact radius
a. It should be noted that the above interpretation of ultrasonic measurement of a
contact spring is analogous to the recently described dynamic spring (sti4ness) measurement in instrumented nanoindentation tests. By applying a small oscillating load
during the indentation into the material and calculating the unloading slope (Eq. (6)),
Youngs modulus at the excitation frequency is measured continuously during indentation (Oliver and Pharr, 1992; Johnson, 1996; Cheng and Cheng, 1997; Fisher-Cripps,
2002).

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1921

3.3. Unloading contact spring

Since the unloading process is predominantly elastic the slope at any point on the full
unloading curve from the maximum load to zero is given by Eq. (6) (Johnson, 1996).
However the relationship between the displacement ( ) and the radius of contact area
(a) is generally unknown during the recovery from an arbitrary plastic state. Therefore,
to use it along the whole unloading curve an approximate unloading model is required
for calculating the contact spring from the above equation.
An approximate unloading model can be evaluated by checking if it satisGes the fundamental relationship (6). Several approximate unloading models have been proposed
for two spheres in elastoplastic contact (Vu-Quoc et al., 1999; Li et al., 2002).
Li et al. (2002) proposed a model by modifying the earlier version (Thornton, 1997),
in which a truncated Hertzian contact pressure distribution is assumed over the contact area: a uniform pressure in the inner circular area plus the elastic pressure in the
outer area. Such an assumption is supported by the recent analysis of Mesarovic and
Johnson (2000). The boundary between the two areas is determined using the assumed
relationship between the contact pressure and the radius of contact area. In their approximate model for loading they considered the increase of the radius of curvature
and related it to the radius of contact area using the parabolic law of the elastic contact
problem, R = a2 = . For the unloading, the Hertzian equation is then used but with the
radius of curvature at the corresponding maximum load (it is assumed that it doesnt
change during the unloading). In this way, the area of contact changes continuously
during the transition from loading to unloading. According to Li et al. (2002), the load
displacement relation during unloading is
1=2 

3=2
3=2 


P
max
Pmax
Rmax

;
(9)
=

Pc
Pc
Ro
c
c
where Pmax and max are the maximum load and the corresponding maximum approach
during the loadingunloading cycle; Rmax is the radius of curvature at the maximum
load. The residual deformation of the asperities r is obtained at the Gnal point of
unloading as the load reduces to zero:
3=2


1=2 2=3

 

max
Pmax Rmax
r
=

:
(10)
c
c
Pc
Ro
Di4erentiating Eq. (9) with respect to the approach, the contact spring for the single
asperity during unloading is given as
u = 2E (Rmax )1=2

(11)

for r 6 6 max . It is noted that at the initial point of unloading the unloading contact
spring coincides with the ultrasonic contact spring Eq. (7) at this point on the loading curve. The radius of contact
area a during unloading is calculated approximately
using the parabolic law a = Rmax and thus the area of contact is A = Rmax . As
discussed before, the exact a relation during unloading from the plastic deformation
is unknown but because the unloading is nearly elastic the pure elastic parabolic law is

1922

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

700

Loading: Eq. (2) (Kogut & Etsion (2002))

Unloading: Eq. (9) (Li et al. (2002))
Model of Li et al. (2002)
Hertz theory (Johnson (1985))

Normalized load, P/Pc

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Normalized approach, / c

Fig. 5. Load-approach curves during loadingunloading of two identical spheres in contact.

reasonable. Li et al. (2002) demonstrated that this model agrees well with FEA results
and experimental data for the unloading load-approach curve and with the coe8cients
of restitution calculated using the model. In this work, we adopt the unloading model
(9)(11) in the rough interface contact model.
3.4. Loading/unloading cycle
Fig. 5 shows the normalized loaddisplacement curve calculated for aluminum spheres
(E = 70 GPa,  = 0:3, Y = 110 MPa) using Eqs. (2) and (9) together with those calculated using the approximate model of Li et al. (2002). The radius of the spheres is
10 cm. The loading curve was calculated for loads up to P = 530Pc which corresponds
to = 110 c in Eq. (2). The approximate model of Li et al. (2002) shows a good
approximation in the wide range. However, this loading model is not employed in this
paper since the virtually exact results of Kogut and Etsion (2002) are available. Fig.
6 compares the static and ultrasonic interfacial springs during loading and unloading.
The ultrasonic contact spring during loading was calculated with Eq. (8) and the unloading contact spring with Eq. (11). The ultrasonic contact spring is continuous at the
maximum load. The static loading contact spring was calculated as the slope of the
loaddisplacement curve. Since the unloading is elastic, the static unloading spring is
identical with the ultrasonic unloading spring. The ultrasonic unloading spring remains
Gnite at load removal which corresponds to the inGnitely small load at the residual
displacement based on which the spring is determined. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the
static loading contact spring is much lower than the ultrasonic spring and the di4erence
increases with the progress of the plastic deformation whereas they are identical in the
elastic region. Also a large discontinuity of the loading/unloading static sti4ness occurs
at the initial point of unloading while the ultrasonically measured sti4ness remains continuous. This is physically clear since the ultrasonic sti4ness at a given load depends
only on the contact area, which remains unchanged at the initial unloading point.

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

Ultrasonic contact spring (N/m)

during loading and unloading cycles (/108)

12

1923

Ultrasonic contact spring during loading

Ultrasonic contact spring during unloading
Static contact spring during loading

10
8
6

Ultrasonic

4
2

Static
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Normalized load, P/Pc

Fig. 6. Ultrasonic contact spring during loading and unloading of two identical spheres in contact. The static
contact spring (dPload =d ) is also shown (dash-dotted line); the locus for the static unloading contact spring
coincides with that for the ultrasonic unloading spring.

4. Micromechanical elastoplastic model of ultrasonic interaction with rough contact

interfaces
4.1. Statistical description of contacting rough surfaces
The topography of two contacting rough surfaces plays a signiGcant role in the
ultrasonic interaction model. As in Baltazar et al. (2002), it is accounted for through
the statistical properties of the Gctitious composite surface proposed by Brown and
Sholtz (1985) that is deGned by means of an appropriate algebraic sum of the proGles
of the two contacting surfaces. In this way, the contact of the real rough surfaces is
transformed into that of the composite surface in contact with a rigid 7at surface. The
distribution of the peaks of the asperity heights is described by a probability density
function (z) that describes the probability of Gnding peaks of asperity heights in the
interval d z around z. As before, we use the 2 -distribution function for the distribution
of heights of asperity peaks, proposed by Adler and Firman (1981) and improved later
by Aronowich and Adler (1985). This allows describing the skewness of the peak
distribution, as shown in Fig. 7, toward the sample surface. Since the origin of our
coordinate system is attached at the top of the asperity as shown in Fig. 7(a), we
use the ordinary 2 -distribution function, without inverting it as in Brown and Sholtz
(1985).
In this work, the following simple expression for (z) is used (Fig. 7):

 


 1 ( (=2)z=)(2)=2
 z
;
(12)
(; z) =
exp
2
(=2)
2 
where  is the rms roughness value of the composite surface proGle, deGned as  =
[12 + 22 ]1=2 , 1; 2 are rms roughness values of the two surfaces, and z is the coordinate
attached at the top of the highest asperity with its positive direction coincident with
the depth direction as shown in Fig. 7(b). A similar equation was used in our previous

1924

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

0

o
z

Elastoplastic

D
C

Elastic

(a)

Original profile;

Profile at approach z=;

z=

max-c
max

Profile after unloading

Plastically
deformed asperities
0.4

(z)

0.3

0.2

max

0.1

Elastically
deformed
asperities

0.0
0.0

(b)

0.5

(max- c)

1.0

1.5

2.0

z, m

Fig. 7. (a) Schematic showing coordinate system and top part of asperities under elastoplastic deformation:
Four asperities under di4erent deformation states are indicated. Original surface proGle prior to deformation
is shown by a solid line. max is maximum approach during loading. All asperities with the original height
below max c (z max c ) are deformed elastically (asperity C) while asperities with height above this
line are deformed elastoplastically. Surface proGle after complete unloading is shown by dashed line. Gaps
between dashed and solid proGles indicate residual deformation of asperities. Level of residual deformation
of rough surface is shown by horizontal line o . After unloading from the approach max to the approach
the asperities A, D and C are not loaded since their residual heights are below . B is the only load bearing
asperity (surface proGle at approach is shown by dotted line). (b) Asperity height distribution function.
The ranges of approach in which asperities are deformed plastically and remain elastic are shown.

work (Baltazar et al., 2002) but here the previous equation is normalized and modiGed
to have correct dimensions, that is, [(z)] = L1 . Although in the original deGnition of
the 2 -distribution function the number of degrees of freedom  is an integer, here it
is considered to be a real number. We deGne the following non-dimensional form of
Eq. (12) which will be used in our rough surface contact model:
(; z) = (; z):

(13)

Since the distribution of heights of asperity peaks is unknown and to be determined

from the ultrasonically measured elastoplastic response of the interface, the use of
the 2 -distribution function is advantageous due to its generality. In limiting cases

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1925

it becomes the exponential distribution at  6 2 and the Gaussian distribution at

 .
4.2. Micromechanical model
The framework of the statistical asperity micromechanical model employed in this
paper for describing elastoplastic contact of two rough surfaces is based on that of
Greenwood and Williamson (1966) who made several assumptions which have been
followed in most previous work on the elastoplastic behavior of rough surfaces in
contact (Chang et al., 1987; Chang, 1997; Zhao et al., 2000). These assumptions are:
(1) the rough surface is isotropic; (2) all asperities are spherical near their summits with
the same radius Ro before contact, but their heights vary randomly; (3) asperities are
far apart and interaction between them is neglected; (4) there is no bulk deformation
of the contacting body and only asperities deform during contact. As was discussed by
McCool (1986) assumptions (1) and (2) do not limit the generality of the model even
though these are very simple. Assumption (3) is known to be a good approximation
since in most cases the real area of contact is low compared to the nominal contact
area (typically less than 20%; Drinkwater et al., 1996). As shown later, our results for
elastoplastic contacts show the real area of contact to be mostly less than 20% of the
nominal contact area.
Using the composite surface and the probability density function for peaks of
asperity heights, the total load PW on contacting asperities, the total ultrasonic
contact spring W and the real area of contact AW are expressed as functions of the
approach :

W
P( )
= An
P( z)(z) d z;
(14)
0

( )
W
= An
W
A( )
= An

( z)(z) d z;

(15)

A( z)(z) d z;

(16)

where  is the number of asperities per unit area; the overbar denotes the statistical
average of a random physical quantity, An is the nominal contact area, ( z) is the
deformation of a given asperity at approach and P( z), ( z) and A( z) are
the corresponding functions for the contact of a single spherical asperity. The above
equations assume the asperityasperity interaction to be normal. The e4ect of asperities
misalignment for the elastic case has been discussed by Brown and Sholtz (1985) and
Baltazar et al. (2002). It was shown by Brown and Sholtz (1985) that for materials
like aluminum the correction factor is close to one in a large range of contact angles
assuming non-slip conditions at the asperities (the non-slip conditions are justiGable for
ultrasonic wave interaction, Baltazar et al., 2002). For this reason we set the correction
factor for the oblique contact between two spheres to be unity.

1926

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

4.3. Loading
To compare the model results with the measured ultrasonic sti4ness KN described
in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 we relate the total ultrasonic contact spring W (15) to the
ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness KW obtained at nominal pressure pW as the total load on
contacting asperities divided by the nominal contact area:
W
p( )
W
= P( )=A
n;

W
K( )
= ( )=A
W
n

(17)

W
(we have omitted the subscript N in the ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness K).
Substituting Eqs. (2), (8) and (17) into Eqs. (13)(15) and normalizing them appropriately, the total pressure and the ultrasonic sti4ness of the interface during loading
are obtained as




pW l (  ) 4
1=2
3=21
=
R

(  z  )1 (; z  ) d z  ;
(18)
C
1
o
c
E
3
0



KW l (  )
1 
2
a

(  z  )2 (; z  ) d z 
R
=
2C
2
o
c c
E =
0

and from Eqs. (3), (13) and (16) the normalized actual area of contact is


W )






A(
= C22 Ro1 ac2 c22
(  z  )22 (; z  ) d z  ;
An
0

(19)

(20)

where =Ro 2 is the non-dimensional parameter depending only on the rough surface
properties; the subscript l denotes loading; the prime denotes normalization of the
length scale by the rms roughness  of the composite surface, e.g. Ro = Ro = and
z  = z=. It should be noted that the contact pressure, the sti4ness and the area of
contact are all linearly proportional to the non-dimensional parameter  which links
together the parameters Ro , , and . Below we will determine three independent
parameters (=Ro ; ; ) from the ultrasonic sti4ness measurements during the loading
unloading cycle. These parameters are necessary to compute the contact pressure (18)
and the actual area of contact (20) as functions of the approach.
4.4. Unloading
To calculate the interfacial sti4ness during unloading, Eqs. (9) and (11) for a single
asperity are used. Since the maximum displacement and the maximum load applied
during loading are di4erent for asperities with di4erent heights, the asperities undergo
di4erent amounts of plastic deformation. The plastic deformation during loading leads
to a 7attening of the contact area, which results in an increased radius of curvature, and
to the residual deformation. These changes of the geometrical parameters of asperities
occurring during loading should be taken into account in the unloading model. As in
the unloading model of Li et al. (2002), it is assumed that the radius of curvature of
the asperity resulting from the loading remains unchanged during the elastic unloading.
The Gnal curvature radius Rmax , resulting from the loading, of asperities with di4erent
heights z is calculated as a function of z using Eq. (3) and applying the parabolic

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1927

law (Rmax (z) = a2max (z)= max (z)). The residual deformation r (z) is calculated also as
a function of z using Eq. (10) for a given maximum approach max . Therefore at the
end of the loading, all parameters of plastically deformed asperities are known as a
function of their initial heights z in distribution (12).
Using the load-approach unloading relation (9) for a single asperity and Eqs. (4),
(13) and (17) similar to the loading case we obtain for the total pressure during
unloading:


Pmax (z  ) 4 
pW u (  )
1
 1=2

 3=2

 3=2
=
R

(z
))
[(

z
)
(
z
)
]
(R
o
max
E 2
3 max
E
0
(; z  ) d z  ;

(21)

where the subscript u denotes unloading and the operator   is deGned as


0 for f 6 0;
f =
f for f 0:
The residual approach o of the rough surface at which all asperities are unloaded is
the approach at which the total pressure on the asperities becomes zero. It is deGned
as the maximum approach that satisGes the condition (see Fig. 10):
pW u ( o ) = 0:

(22)

o 0 is positive due to residual plastic deformation of the asperities after unloading,

where 0 is the lower bound of the undeformed surface (Fig. 7(a)) (for the elastic deformation o = 0). As will be discussed below only load bearing asperities are accounted
for in the integration.
The interfacial sti4ness is obtained similarly to Eq. (15) using the contact spring for
the single asperity during unloading (11) and relations (17):






KW u (  )
1
1=2 
= 2Ro
Rmax
(z )(  z  )1=2 (; z  ) d z  :
(23)
E =


o
Alternatively, since the unloading is elastic, the same equation (23) for the ultrasonic
interfacial sti4ness KW u during unloading is obtained by di4erentiating total pressure
during unloading pW u (Eq. (21)) with respect to the normalized relative approach  .
The real area of contact is calculated as




AW u (  )
1
= Ro
Rmax (z  )(  z  ) (; z  ) d z  :
(24)
An

o
In integrals (21), (23) and (24)  is between o and max . The integration considers
all load bearing asperities during unloading. As shown in Fig. 7(a) those asperities
are or elastically or plastically deformed if max c  max , they are all plastically deformed when max c  o . At a given  we include in the calculations only those plastically deformed asperities, with original summit heights in the
range 0 z   , whose heights remain in the range o z   after the load is
relieved; otherwise they are not load-bearing asperities. For example, the undeformed
height of asperity A (Fig. 7a) has the coordinate z from distribution (12) in the range

1928

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

o z   ; however after loading it is residually deformed and its z  is larger than

 and it is out of this range (its residual height is reduced and is below the line in
Fig. 7a). Therefore in performing a calculation, Grst for a given  , the pressure on the
asperities of certain summit height z  is determined (the term in the operator   in
Eq. (21)). Once at given  the pressure at this asperity height becomes zero, the asperities at this height are excluded from calculations of the interfacial sti4ness and the
contact area (asperity marked A in Fig. 7(a)). In this way, only load-bearing asperities
are included in the integration accounting for their residual plastic deformations.
5. Reconstruction of model parameters from ultrasonic data
In Fig. 3, the calculated ultrasonic dynamic interfacial sti4ness for loading/unloading
cycles is shown by solid lines along with those measured for three di4erent surface
combinations: smoothsmooth (Fig. 3(a)), roughsmooth (Fig. 3(b)) and roughrough
(Fig. 3(c)) surfaces. The pressures at the onset of plastic deformation (pY ) for the
tallest asperities at z=0 are indicated. The theoretical curves were obtained using the
material and surface properties listed in Table 1. The non-dimensional parameters ,
Ro and  were found by nonlinear least square optimization (Baltazar et al., 2002)
between experimental data KiExp and model computations KiTheory for a complete loading
unloading cycle:
M
1 Exp
(Ki KiTheory ( ))2 ;
(25)
Minimize
e
=
;R
; n
2
i=1

where M denotes the number of experimental data points. In the minimization algorithm, Grst a set of initial guesses (; Ro ; ) is selected and the pressure and the
ultrasonic sti4ness are computed using the elastoplastic contact model. Then, the error function e is computed and the parameters (; Ro ; ) are adjusted minimizing the
error function. The optimization continues until the error function Eq. (23) is smaller
than the allowable error tolerance. The parameters (; Ro ; ) in7uence directly both the
elastic and plastic behaviors of a rough interface (see Eqs. (18)(20), (21), (23), and
(24)) and are computed using experimental data from both loading and unloading cycles to determine a single set of parameters. Using the parameters determined through
the optimization (Table 2), the nominal pressure
at the onset of plastic deformation

(pY ) and the plasticity index = 2E=kH Ro (1 3:717 104 =2 )0:25 (Chang et al.,
1987) of the interface are calculated.
The interface between two smooth surfaces exhibits a nearly elastic behavior with
very small hysteresis as shown in Fig. 3. The onset of plastic deformation occurs at
almost the maximum applied pressure, pY = 84:6 MPa. Two other interfaces exhibit
elastoplastic behaviors with higher levels of hysteresis. The reconstructed parameters
show increasing levels of plasticity with increase of rms roughness. For example, the
plasticity index for the roughrough interface is highest and that for the smooth
smooth interface is lowest. For aluminum rough surfaces, elastoplastic behavior occurs
when 1 (Huchings, 1992). Our results agree with this observation. The parameter
 for the smoothsmooth interface ( = 3) is close to those obtained in our previous

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1929

Table 2
Model parameters
Surface

Smoothsmooth
Roughsmooth
Roughrough
a RMS

Given

Reconstructed

a (m)

=R

0.325
2.4
3.4

104

2:01
1:20 103
1:92 103

Calculated using reconstructed

parameters


2.4
2.62
1.27

3.0
1.5
2.0

pY (MPa)
1.63
4.01
5.12

84.6
18.4
3.30

roughness of composite surface.

work for elastic contact of smooth interfaces (Baltazar et al., 2002). In contrast, those
for the roughsmooth and roughrough interfaces are relatively small ( 6 2) leading to nearly exponential type distribution functions, which implies that the summits
of asperities are densely populated near the sample surface (z = 0). Since the ultrasonic measurements of interfacial sti4ness for these interfaces are made mostly in the
elastoplastic region (at loads higher than pY of the interface), the ultrasonic wave Grst
probes the interfaces after the highest summits are already plastically deformed so the
surface is e4ectively 7atter than the initial surface. Moreover, the unloading starts with
the interface asperities further 7attened due to loading producing even smaller values
of . The smallest value of  for the smoothrough case is due to appearance of the
indentations on the smooth surface because of the action of the rough surface asperities. This increases conformity between the surfaces, which corresponds to equivalent
7attening of composite surface asperities and therefore to  decrease.
6. Simulation of loadingunloading hysteresis behavior
After the rough surface parameters are estimated from the ultrasonic data we can
use them in the model to investigate further the hysteretic behavior during loading
unloading cycles. Fig. 8 shows the ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness for four loading
unloading cycles of two aluminum rough surfaces in contact with the surface parameters: =Ro = 1:92 103 ,  = 2 and  = 3:5 m, and the material parameters: Youngs
modulus E = 69 GPa, Poissons ratio  = 0:33, yield stress Y = 235 MPa and plasticity
index = 5:1. The calculations were done using Eqs. (18) and (19) for loading and
Eqs. (21) and (23) for unloading. At load removal, the ultrasonic sti4ness values of the
rough interfaces reduce to zero while that of the interface between two spheres remains
Gnite. When two spheres are loaded, the contact sti4ness starts at zero since the initial
area of contact is zero. However during unloading the area of the plastically deformed
contact changes discontinuously from a Gnite value to zero with complete removal of
the load, Fig. 6. When the multiple asperities of the rough surface are in contact, the
unloading process occurs gradually due to distribution of the asperity heights. With
load removal, fewer and fewer asperities are in contact and bearing the load. At negligibly small load, only a few (the number depends on the height distribution) of the

1930

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

Ultrasonic intrefacial stiffness

14
3
(X10 N/m )

40

30
D
B
C

20

10

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Nominal pressure (MPa)

Fig. 8. Ultrasonic interfacial sti4ness versus nominal pressure during loading and unloading cycles with
increasing maximum load of the cycle. The parameters in the calculation are =R = 1:92 103 , n = 2 and
 = 3:5 m, Youngs modulus E = 69 GPa, Poissons ratio  = 0:33, yield stress Y = 235 MPa and plasticity
index = 5:1.

numerous asperities remain in contact resulting in negligible contact sti4ness. In fact,

this process is described in our model by excluding the asperities which are not in
contact.
Increased hysteresis is observed for cycles at higher loads due to increasing plastic
7ow. The loadingunloading path for the third cycle is labeled in Fig. 8. Since the
unloading is assumed to be elastic, the reloading curve (C) coincides with the unloading
curve (B) in the second cycle. The path for loading (D) beyond the previous maximum
load follows the original loading curve path. It is also observed that the slope of the
interfacial ultrasonic sti4ness at the initial stage of unloading (marked in Fig. 8 by
arrows) decreases with increasing maximum load in the cycle (from the Grst to fourth
hysteresis loop). This indicates increasing conformity between the two surfaces with
increase of maximum load due to signiGcant plastic 7ow accumulated during loading so
that the area of contact (and the unloading curve slope) changes very little during the
initial stage of unloading. Similar hysteretic behavior has been observed experimentally
by Dwyer-Joyce et al. (2001).
Fig. 9 shows the real area of contact normalized with the apparent contact area
versus the normalized pressure for the three interfaces considered in our experiments. It
is noted that the real area of contact increases nearly linearly with the load, especially
in the region of the elastoplastic deformation (this was experimentally observed by
Greenwood and Williamson, 1966), whereas unloading behavior is nonlinear with very
sharp decreases to zero of the contact area with the load removal.
It has been noted by Kendall and Tabor (1971) that the real area of contact cannot be
determined in a purely experimental way. Indeed the average radius of the contact area
is the parameter that can be determined from the measured interfacial sti4ness (e.g. Eq.
(7)), while both the number of contacting asperities and the average radius of contacts
need to be known to determine the total area of contact. The asperities in Kendall and
Tabors (1971) experiments were artiGcially made and had the same heights (thickness).

Normalized real area of contact (A/An)

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1931

0.4
Smooth-smooth

0.3
Rough-smooth

0.2
Rough-rough

0.1

0.0
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0012

Normalized nonimal pressure (p/E')

Fig. 9. Normalized real area of contact versus normalized nominal pressure for smoothsmooth ( = 1:63;
 =0:325 m), roughsmooth ( =4:01;  =2:4 m), roughrough ( =5:12;  =3:4 m) surfaces; calculated
using the surface parameters reconstructed from experimental data (Table 2).

Nominal Pressure, MPa

90

Smooth-smooth

Rough-rough

Rough-smooth

60

30

0
0.0

0.2 o

0.4

0.6

0.8

Approach, m
Fig. 10. Pressure-approach curves for interfaces formed by di4erent combinations of rough surfaces in contact:
smoothsmooth ( = 1:63;  = 0:325 m), roughsmooth ( = 4:01;  = 2:4 m), roughrough ( = 5:12;
 = 3:4 m).

However, for the real rough contact surfaces the distribution of the asperity heights
must be known in addition to determine the real area of contact as a function of applied
pressure. In the present work, we have demonstrated the feasibility of predicting the real
area of contact. This is done by applying the statistical elastoplastic contact model to

1932

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

the ultrasonically measured interfacial sti4ness and determining the unknown necessary
parameters: the asperity number density and the vertical distribution of the asperities
related to the parameter . This produces the minimal su8cient set of parameters
needed to compute the real area of contact.
This set of parameters obtained from experiment also allows us to simulate the detailed history of elastoplastic deformation at the interface. For example, Fig. 10 shows
the pressureapproach curves for the three interfaces under consideration; the residual approach o is indicated. The behavior of loading curves is signiGcantly di4erent
from that for a single asperity (Fig. 5); they are much more curved. This is due to
monotonic increase of the number of asperities in contact with approach, resulting in
increasing slope of the pressure/approach curves. Similarly shaped pressureapproach
loading curves have been obtained by Tworzydlo et al. (1998) using Gnite element
computations and supported by experiment. It is interesting that their actual contact
area versus pressure during loading is also close to linear, as in our Fig. 9.
7. Summary
A method based on an elastoplastic contact model is presented for the determination of interface properties and the real area of contact using data from ultrasonic
experiments. Ultrasonic measurements were performed during loadingunloading static
cycles on three di4erent interfaces formed by aluminum surfaces with di4erent levels
of roughness. From the measured ultrasonic re7ection spectra, the interfacial sti4ness
constants were calculated. In the loadingunloading cycle the experimental interfacial
sti4ness exhibits hysteresis versus pressure which is attributed to plastic deformation
at the tips of the asperities. To explain the ultrasonically measured sti4ness of rough
surfaces in elastoplastic contact, the dynamic sti4ness, which should be distinguished
from the static loading sti4ness, is introduced. The analogy between the present ultrasonic measurement of interfacial sti4ness and the dynamic method in the instrumented
indentation test is noted.
An elastoplastic micromechanical asperity contact model is proposed to describe the
mechanical hysteresis during loading and unloading cycles. The model was used to
evaluate the interfacial sti4ness versus the applied nominal pressure, and was applied
to the experimental data for inverse determination of the contact interface parameters.
By matching the dynamic interface sti4ness from ultrasonic experiments and theoretical
calculations, the topographical surface parameters are reconstructed. The results exhibit
consistent and physically meaningful values of the surface parameters. The real area
of contact, which is not directly measurable, is then predicted using the interface parameters thus determined. This also allows us to demonstrate the elastoplastic histories
during loadingunloading cycles.
References
Abbott, E.J., Firestone, F.A., 1933. Specifying surface qualitya method based on accurate measurements
and comparison. Mech. Eng. 55, 569.

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

1933

Adler, R.J., Firman, D., 1981. A non-Gaussian model for random surfaces. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London.
Ser. A 303, 433462.
Aronowich, M., Adler, R.J., 1985. Behaviour of 2 processes at extrema. Adv. Appl. Prob. 17, 280297.
Baltazar, A., Rokhlin, S.I., Pecorari, C., 1999. On the relationship between ultrasonic and micro-structural
properties of imperfect interfaces in layered solids. In: Thompson, D.O., Chimenti, D.E. (Eds.), Review of
Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. 188, American Institute of Physics, New York,
pp. 14631470.
Baltazar, A., Rokhlin, S.I., Pecorari, C., 2002. On the relation between ultrasonic and micromechanic
properties of contacting rough surfaces. Journal of Mech. Phys. Solids 50, 13971416.
Baltazar, A., Wang, L., Xie, B., Rokhlin, S.I., 2003. Inverse ultrasonic determination of imperfect interface
and bulk properties of a layer between two solids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 14241434.
Brown, S.R., Sholtz, C.H., 1985. Closure of random elastic surfaces in contact. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 5531
5545.
Chang, W.R., 1997. An Elastic-plastic contact model for surface with an ion-plated soft metallic coating.
Wear 212, 229237.
Chang, W.R., Etsion, I., Bogy, D.B., 1987. An elasticplastic model for the contact of rough surfaces. ASME
J. Tribol. 109, 257263.
Cheng, C.-M., Cheng, Y.-T., 1997. On the initial unloading slope in indentation of elastic-plastic solids by
an indentor with an axisymmetric smooth proGle. Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 26232625.
Drinkwater, B., Dwyer-Joyce, R., Cawley, P., 1996. A study of the interaction between ultrasound and a
partially contacting solid-rubber solid interface. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 452, 26132628.
Drinkwater, B., Dwyer-Joyce, R., Cawley, P., 1997. A study of the transmission of ultrasound across
solid-rubber interfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 970981.
Dwyer-Joyce, R.S., Drinkwater, B.W., Quinn, A.M., 2001. The use of ultrasound in the investigation of
rough surface interfaces. ASME Trans. J. Tribol. 123, 816.
Fisher-Cripps, A.C., 2002. Nanoindentation. Springer, New York.
Greenwood, J.A., Williamson, J., 1966. Contact of nominally 7at surfaces. Proc. Roy. Soc., London, Ser. A
295, 300319.
Huchings, I.M., 1992. Tribology; Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials. St. Edmundsbury Press,
Cornwell.
Johnson, K.L., 1985. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Johnson, K.L., 1996. Modelling the indentation hardness of solids. Proceedings of the First Royal
Society-Unilevel Indo-Uk Forum in Material Science and Engineering, SolidSolid Interactions. Imperial
College Press, London, pp. 1628.
Kendall, K., Tabor, D., 1971. An ultrasonic study of the area of contact between stationary and sliding
surfaces. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 323, 321340.
Kogut, L., Etsion, I., 2002. Elastic-plastic contact analysis of a sphere and a rigid 7at. J. Appl. Mech. 69,
657662.
Lavrentyev, A.I., Rokhlin, S.I., 1998. Ultrasonic spectroscopy of imperfect interfaces between a layer and
two solids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 657664.
Li, L.-Y., Wu, C.-Y., Thornton, C., 2002. A theoretical model for the contact of elastoplastic bodies. Proc.
Instn. Mech. Engrs. 216 (Part C), 421431.
McCool, J.I., 1986. Comparison of models for the contact rough surfaces. Wear 107, 3760.
Mesarovic, S.Dj., Fleck, N.A., 2000. Frictionless indentation of elastic-plastic solids. Int. J. Solids Struct.
37, 70717091.
Mesarovic, S.Dj., Johnson, K.L., 2000. Adhesive contact of elastic-plastic spheres. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48,
20092033.
Nagy, P.B., 1992. Ultrasonic classiGcation of imperfect interfaces. J. Non-Destruct. Eval. 11 (3/4), 127140.
Nayak, P.R., 1973. Random process model of rough surfaces in plastic contact. Wear 25, 305407.
Oliver, W.C., Pharr, G.M., 1992. An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using
load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J. Mater. Res. 7, 15641583.
Pullen, J.L., Williamson, J.B.P., 1972. On the plastic contact of rough surfaces. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London)
A 327, 159173.
Tabor, D., 1951. The Hardness of Metals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1934

J.-Y. Kim et al. / J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52 (2004) 1911 1934

Thornton, C., 1997. Coe8cient of restitution for collinear collision of elastic perfectly plastic spheres. J.
Appl. Mech. 64, 383386.
Tworzydlo, W.W., Cecot, W., Oden, J.T., Yew, C.H., 1998. Computational micro- and microscopic models
of contact and friction: formulation, approach and applications. Wear 220, 113140.
Vu-Quoc, L., Zhang, X., 1999. An elastoplastic contact force-displacement model in the normal direction;
displacement-driven version. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 455, 40134044.
Yoshioka, N., 1994. The role of plastic deformation in normal loading and unloading cycles. J. Geophys.
Res. 99 (B8), 1556115568.
Zhao, D., Maietta, M., Chang, L., 2000. An asperity microcontact model incorporating the transition from
elastic deformation to fully plastic 7ow. J. Tribol. ASME 122, 8693.