32 views

Uploaded by xatata

Analysis of Roughness

- Mechanics of Materials II(2)
- SAP2000 Presentation with new Graphics Sept 2002
- A M I E syllabus
- Thesis Fulltext
- Syllabus AD (2)
- avalanche paper
- Altair's Student Guides - A Designer's Guide to Finite Element Analysis
- Finite Elasticity Theory - DAVID J. STEIGMANN
- Assignment 1 2013
- IJAIEM-2014-01-20-041
- FEA
- analisis.pdf
- Syllabus a Diploma
- Plasticity_of_Cold.pdf
- fe textbook 2013-01-22
- Work Ability Criteria in Bulk Forming Processes
- Analyzing Stresses in Pipe Joints
- Silo pressure prediction.pdf
- Stress Concentration at Notches
- Fem

You are on page 1of 8

46 (2003), 3, 383-390

TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS

*

Technion

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Haifa, 32000, Israel

based on accurate Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of an elasticplastic single asperity contact is presented. The plasticity index

is shown to be the main dimensionless parameter that affects the

contact of rough surfaces. Below = 0.6 the contact problem is

purely elastic and above = 8 it is mostly plastic. The mean real

contact pressure is found to be practically independent of the contact load, similarly to the material hardness in fully plastic contact. An elastic-plastic hardness in the form 0.41/ H can

therefore be used to relate the contact load and real area of contact. A comparison with the approximate CEB (Chang, Etsion,

Bogy) model shows identical results for pure elastic contacts having plasticity index values below 0.6 but substantial differences

for elastic-plastic contacts having plasticity index values above 1.

KEY WORDS

Contact Mechanics; Elastic-Plastic Contact; Rough Surfaces

INTRODUCTION

An accurate characterization of the contact between rough surfaces is important for analyzing many tribological problems.

These include sealing (21), friction (6), performance and life of

machine elements (22), and thermal (20) and electrical conductivity (15) to name a few. The high level of interest in this subject is

evident from the impressive number of works that were published

so far (see e.g. review papers by Bhushan, (3), Liu, et al., (18) and

Adams and Nosonovsky, (2)).

in New York City

April 28-May 1, 2003

Final manuscript approved November 4, 2002

Review led by Robert Errichello

NOMENCLATURE

An

Ap

A

*

A

d

*

d

E

H

h

*

h

K

N

Nc

P

*

P

R

S

ys

s

*

c

c

= plastic real contact area

= real contact area

= dimensionless real contact area, A/An

= separation based on asperity heights

= dimensionless separation, d/

= Hertz elastic modulus

= hardness of the softer material

= separation based on surface heights

= dimensionless separation, h/

= hardness factor, 0.454 + 0.41

= total number of asperities

= number of contacting asperities

= contact load

= dimensionless contact load, P/AnH

= asperity radius of curvature

= dimensionless stiffness, P /h

*

*

=h -d

heights

= dimensionless height of an asperity, z/

= surface roughness parameter, R

= dimensionless distribution function of asperity heights

= area density of asperities

= Poissons ratio of the softer material

= standard deviation of surface heights

= standard deviation of asperity heights

= dimensionless interference

= critical interference at the inception of plastic deformation

= dimensionless critical interference, c/

= plasticity index, Eq. [5]

SUBSCRIPTS

c

= yielding inception

SUPERSCRIPTS

= single asperity

University of California, Berkeley, CA

383

384

Several approaches exist in modeling contacting rough surfaces. However, it seems that the most convenient one is the probabilistic approach, which is based on incorporating the behavior of

a single asperity in a statistical model of multiple asperity contact.

The mathematical modeling of contacting rough surfaces according to this approach (10) consists of:

1. Replacing the two rough surfaces by a smooth surface in

contact with an equivalent rough surface.

2. Replacing asperities with simple geometrical shapes.

3. Assuming a probability distribution for the asperity parameters.

The first probabilistic model for the contact of rough surfaces

was presented in the pioneering work of Greenwood and

Williamson (11) (GW model). This classic model is based on the

Hertz solution for a single elastic spherical asperity (see, e.g.

Johnson, (13)) and, hence, is mainly suitable for pure elastic contacts. Some pure plastic contact models emerged from the work of

Abbott and Firestone (1) that relates the bearing area of a rough

surface to its geometrical intersection with a flat.

The models for either pure elastic or pure plastic contact of

rough surfaces overlook a wide intermediate range of interest

where elastic-plastic contact prevails. An attempt to bridge this

gap was made by Chang, et al. (5) (CEB model). In this model

each contacting asperity remains in elastic Hertzian contact until

a critical interference is reached, above which volume conservation of the asperity tip is imposed and a uniform average contact

pressure is assumed. This simplifying assumption introduces a

discontinuity in the contact load at the transition from elastic to

elastic-plastic contact and triggered several modifications to the

original model e.g. Evseev, et al. (9), Chang (4) and Zhao, et al.

(25). Unfortunately, all these modifications are based on mathematical, rather than physical, considerations to smooth the discontinuity in the CEB model.

The original CEB model, because of its simplicity, was extended to different contacting surface geometries, asperity shapes and

asperity height probability density functions, e.g. Kogut and

Etsion (16), Horng (12) and Yu and Polycarpou (24). However, all

these works do not provide a solution to the basic problem of lacking accuracy in the elastic-plastic contact regime. Such accurate

solution calls for the use of a Finite Element Method (FEM).

Kucharski, et al. (14) used FEM to solve elastic-plastic contact

of a single asperity and provided empirical proportional expressions for the contact load and the contact area. Although the

concentrated on the behavior of the asperity deep into the fully

plastic regime. More recently, Kogut and Etsion (17) presented an

accurate elastic-plastic finite element solution for the contact of a

deformable sphere pressed by a rigid flat. Their solution provides

convenient dimensionless expressions for the contact load and

contact area covering a large range from yielding inception to

fully plastic contact of the sphere. It also shows large differences

in comparison with the existing approximate elastic-plastic solutions like the CEB model and its subsequent modifications,

Evseev, et al. (9), Chang (4) and Zhao, et al. (25).

The more accurate FEM solution of Kogut and Etsion (17)

enables a revision of the CEB elastic-plastic model of contacting

rough surfaces (Chang, et al., (5)). The present paper offers such

a revision.

ANALYSIS

Figure 1 describes schematically the geometry of the contacting rough surfaces. The basic assumptions of the GW model

(Greenwood and Williamson, (11)) regarding the shape and statistical distribution of the asperities along with the transformation to

the more practical surface height distribution of the CEB model

(Chang, et al., (5)) are adopted in the present analysis. According

to these assumptions the rough surface is isotropic, asperities are

spherical near their summits with a uniform curvature and random

heights distribution, asperities are far apart and there is no interaction between them, and finally no bulk deformation occurs during contact. In Fig. 1 R is the uniform asperity radius of curvature,

z and d denote the asperity height and separation of the surfaces,

respectively, measured from the reference plane defined by the

mean of the original asperity heights. The separation h is measured from the reference plane defined by the mean of the original

surface heights. The standard deviations s and correspond to

the asperity and surface heights, respectively and are related by

(McCool, (19)):

s

=

3.717E 4

2

[1]

= R

and is the area density of the asperities.

All length dimensions are normalized by and the dimension*

less values are denoted by . Hence, ys is the difference between

*

*

h and d and is given by (see Etsion and Amit, (8)):

1.5

ys = h d =

108

[2]

N = An

where An is the nominal contact area. The number of asperities in

contact is:

A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces

Nc = An

*

(z )dz

(z ) =

exp[ 0.5( )2 (z )2 ]

2 s

s

The dimensionless interference is defined as

= z d

[3]

contact.

The critical interference, c, that marks the transition from

elastic to elastic-plastic deformation is given by (see e.g. Chang,

et al., (5))

c = (

KH 2

) R

2E

[4]

coefficient, is related to the Poisson ratio of the softer material by

(see Chang, et al., (6)):

385

The integrals in Eqs. [6] and [7] are solved in parts for the different deformation regimes of the contacting asperities.

Kogut and Etsion (17) used FEM to solve the elastic-plastic

contact problem of a single asperity and found that the entire elastic-plastic regime extends over interference values in the range 1

/c < 110 with a distinct transition in the mean contact pressure at /c = 6. Up to the transition interference of /c = 6 a

plastic region develops below the contact interface while the

entire contact area is elastic. Above /c = 6 the contact area contains an inner elastic circular core that is surrounded by an external plastic annulus. This elastic core shrinks with increasing interference and finally disappears completely at /c = 68. From

there on the entire contact area is plastic but the mean contact

pressure continues to grow until it becomes constant and equal to

the hardness at /c = 110, marking the beginning of fully plastic

contact.

and P on in the elastic-plastic regime

The dependence of A

was presented by Kogut and Etsion (17) in a dimensionless form

through normalizing the relevant parameters by their critical valc , Pc and , respectively.

ues at yielding inception A

c

The dimensionless expressions can be expressed in the general forms:

K = 0.454 + 0.41v

Ac = b(/c )m

A/

[8]

P /Pc = c(/c )n

[9]

where:

1

1 12

1 22

=

+

E

E1

E2

E1, E2 and v1, v2 are Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios of

the contacting surfaces, respectively.

The dimensionless critical interference, c , is another form of

the plasticity index, , defined by Greenwood and Williamson

(11) as

= (c

0.5

2E s 0.5

)

=

( )

s

KH R

[5]

As can be seen the plasticity index depends on surface roughness and material properties. Rougher and softer surfaces have

higher plasticity index.

, and the contact load,

During loading, the area of contact, A

P , of each individual asperity depend only on its own interference, , assuming there is no interaction between asperities. The

and P on must be determined by the asperity

dependence of A

mode of deformation, which can be elastic, elastic-plastic or fully

plastic. Once these expressions are known, the total contact area,

A, and contact load, P, are obtained by summing the individual

asperity contributions using a statistical model:

A = An

d)(z)dz

A(z

[6]

P = An

d

[10]

2

Pc = KHRc

3

[11]

contact mode in four different deformation regimes and are summarized in Table 1.

Multiplying Eqs. [8] and [10] and using the values in Table 1,

, of a single asperity in the four different deforthe contact area, A

mation regimes can be obtained. Substituting in Eq. [6], using the

dimensionless length definition and Eq. [3] one can obtain the

*

dimensionless contact area, A , between the rough surfaces:

d +c

A

A =

= c (

I 1 + 0.93

An

d

d +6c

1.136

d +c

d +110c

Ac = Rc

+ 0.94

d +110c

d +6c

I 1)

I 1.146 + 2

[12]

P (z d)(z)dz

[7]

I = (

z d

) (z )dz

c

[13]

386

Deformation Regime

Fully elastic, /c < 1

1st elastic-plastic regime, 1 /c 6

2nd elastic-plastic regime, 6 /c 110

Fully plastic, /c > 110

integration represent the contribution of the asperities in elastic,

elastic-plastic (in the two sub-regions) and fully plastic contact,

respectively. This methodology will be maintained in the following.

As can be seen from Eq. [5] the dimensionless critical interference, c , is another form of the plasticity index, . The ratio

/s that is given in Eq. [1] as a function of can be assumed

/s 1 for practical values of . Therefore, the plasticity index

can be related to the dimensionless critical interference in the

form c

= 2 . Higher plasticity index is associated with

smaller dimensionless critical interference and hence, for higher

values the integration spans of the first three integrals in Eq.

[12] become smaller while the last integral, that represents the

fully plastic asperities, becomes dominant. From the approximation c

= 2 it can also be seen that at high values c and

hence, the real area of contact become less sensitive to variations

in . The opposite is true for smaller values where a predominantly elastic contact is obtained and the real contact area is more

sensitive to variations of . From the above discussion it may be

deduced that the plasticity index is the main dimensionless

parameter that affects the contact problem.

As mentioned by Greenwood and Williamson (11) plastic

deformation at the real area of contact may be of vital importance

even when the area of plastic contact is trivial. Frequently with

oxide covered surfaces electrical contact will occur at plastically

deformed asperities. Thus, the conductance through the plastic

contacts is of great interest. The plastic portion of the contact area,

Ap /A, of a single asperity can be obtained from the location of

the elastic-plastic boundary for 6 /c 68 that was presented

by Kogut and Etsion (17). Curve fitting the results of Kogut and

Etsion (17) gives the form:

Ap

c

A

[14]

p /A = 0) while for / > 68 the entire contact area is plastic

(A

c

p /A = 1. Collecting the contribution of the asperities with

and A

/c 6 one can obtain the plastic portion of the real contact area,

Ap/A.

Ap

=

A

d +68c

d +6c

(0.016I 1 0.081I 0 ) +

CONSTANT

m

1

1.136

1.146

1

b

1

0.93

0.94

2

I 0 [15]

d +68c

Following the same procedure that have lead to Eq. [12], with

*

Eqs. [9], [11] and [7], the dimensionless contact load, P , is

obtained in the form:

P =

P

An H

c

1

1.03

1.40

3/K

n

1.5

1.425

1.263

1

= 23 Kc

d +

d +6

( d c I 1.5 + 1.03 d + c I 1.425 + 1.4

c

d +110c

d +6c

I 1.263 +

3

K

d +110c

I 1)

[16]

*

dividing the nominal contact pressure, P/An, by the hardness, H,

*

and hence, P = 1 is the load corresponding to a fully plastic state

(i.e., mean contact pressure that is equal to the hardness) of the

nominal contact area. This form of normalization is more adequate for elastic-plastic contact than that of the CEB model

(Chang, et al., (5)), where AnE normalized the contact load.

From Eqs. [15] and [16] it can be seen once again that the plasticity index, through its relation with the critical interference, is

the main dimensionless parameter that affects the contact problem. Some insight regarding the role of this parameter in cases of

a Gaussian distribution of asperity heights can be gained from the

following observation:

For Gaussian distribution the maximum practical height of an

*

asperity is z 3. Hence, the various integrals in Eqs. [12], [15]

and [16] are practically zero whenever their lower limit is higher

than 3. Using the approximation c

= 2 and noting that the

*

-2

limits of integration have the general form d + k the condition

for meaningful contribution of any of the integrals is:

>(

k

)1/2

3 d

[17]

It is clear from Eqs. [12] and [16] that the contribution of their

*

last threeintegrals (where k 1) vanish for any d > 0 whenever

< 1/ 3. Therefore, = 0.6 can be defined as the plasticity

index value below which the contact problem is fully elastic.

Following the same reasoning it is clear from the first integral of

Eq. [15]

(where k=6) that the ratio Ap/A is equal to zero for any

< 2. Therefore = 1.4 marks the transition from pure elastic to an elastic-plastic real contact area.

Similarly, the last integral in Eqs. [12] and [16] (where k =

110) becomes appreciable only if > 6. Below this value no

asperity can reach a fully plastic state. The significance of this last

integral, which sums up contributions of fully plastic asperities

only, can be evaluated by calculating the percentage of these

asperities in the total population of contacting asperities. It can be

easily shown from the Gaussian distribution that asperities with

*

heights z 0.68 account for 50% of all contacting asperities when

*

d = 0. For this to happen the lower limit of integration of this last

*

integral should be 0.68 which, with d = 0, corresponds to =

12.7. Similarly 32% and 10% of all contacting asperities will be

A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces

tact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, .

8 can therefore be regarded as the transition from elastic-plastic to

fully plastic contact. Any small increase of the plasticity index

above this value increases rapidly the portion of fully plastic

asperities and makes the contact problem more and more plastic.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In accordance with the above observation a wide range of plasticity index values from = 0.5 to = 8, was covered to analyze

the effect of surface roughness and material properties on the contact of rough surfaces. The value = 0.04 was selected according

to the findings of Greenwood and Williamson, (11). A constant

value of K = 0.577 was used corresponding to a typical Poissons

ratio, v = 0.3, for metals.

*

*

Equation [16], which presents P as a function of d and c

*

can be transformed by Eqs. [2] and [5] to present P as a function

*

of the more practical separation h and plasticity index, . In the

following, only the results for the range of practical engineering

*

*

interest 0 h 3 will be presented. At larger separations, h > 3,

the number of asperities in contact is very small and in fact the

surfaces are practically separated, see e.g. Christensen (7). For

*

smaller separations, h < 0, the present model may be invalid since

asperities can undergo very large deformations which may violate

a basic assumption of no interaction between them. Additionally,

*

the results will be limited to P 0.1 which represents a mean

nominal contact pressure, P/An, that can reach 10% of the materi*

al hardness, H. For higher values of P bulk deformation may

occur which violates another basic assumption of the present

work.

*

Figure 2 presents the dimensionless mean separation, h , vs.

*

the dimensionless contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, . As can be seen the dimensionless separation, at a

given load, increases with increasing plasticity index, but

becomes less sensitive to changes in the plasticity index. This is

because as increases the contact becomes more plastic and the

387

*

dimensionless contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, .

a given hardness, less real area is required to carry a given external load, and hence, less contacting asperities and higher separation are sufficient. Increasing the dimensionless load at a given ,

decreases the separation as would be expected. Note the very high

*

*

values of P that are required for reducing the separation to h =

0, particularly for high values. Small separation is important in

sealing applications where low values are beneficial if low

clamping loads are desired.

Figure 2 also shows, in dashed lines, the results of the CEB

model (Chang et al., (5)). For pure elastic contact, with 0.6,

both the present and the CEB models yield identical results as

would be expected. However, large differences (of up to 50% in

the contact load for a given separation) are found for 1. The

CEB model overestimates the results for plasticity index values

0.6 < 2 and underestimates them for higher values. Kogut

and Etsion (17) showed similar behavior for a single asperity with

a transition at /c = 16. Recall that for a Gaussian asperity

heights distribution the maximum practical height of an asperity is

*

*

z 3 hence, using Eq. [3] with d = 0 and the approximation

c

= 2 , the maximum practical dimensionless interference is

/c

= 32 . Hence, the transition value of corresponding

to /c = 16 is = 2.3.

It is interesting to investigate the dimensionless stiffness, S, of

contacting rough surfaces, which can be defined as

S = P /h . Figure 3 presents this stiffness vs. the dimen*

sionless contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index,

. As can be seen the stiffness is almost constant, independent of

*

and very small at low contact loads P < 0.001. In this range

*

the contact behaves like a linear spring. As the contact load P

increases and more asperities come into contact the stiffness

*

increases sharply with P and becomes appreciably sensitive to

*

variations in . This behavior at high P values may provide a

convenient experimental way for estimation of the plasticity

index, , by measuring the contacting surfaces stiffness as their

approach changes due to small increase of the contact load.

388

tact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, .

Fig. 5Plastic portion of the real contact area, Ap/A, vs. the dimension*

less contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, .

Fig. 3 (and in the following figures) is in accordance with the

maximum load shown in Fig. 2.

*

From Eq. [12] it is possible to calculate and present A as a

*

*

function of h and similar to the presentation of P . It is, how*

ever, more practical to present the real contact area, A , as a func*

tion of the known applied contact load, P . This can be easily done

*

*

*

by cross plotting the results of A and P at the same values of h

*

and . Figure 4 presents the real area of contact A vs. the contact

*

load P at various values. As can be seen the real area of contact, at a given load, decreases with increasing plasticity index and

becomes less sensitive to changes in the plasticity index. This,

again, is because the average contact pressure (for a given hardness) increases with and approaches the hardness hence, a

smaller real area is needed to carry a given load. For the same rea-

less contact load, P , for various typical values of the plasticity

index, .

increasing plasticity index. The real area of contact at a given

increases with increasing loads, as would be expected. Note that

*

the values of A representing the ratio between real and nominal

areas of contact are very small, in the range of 0.1% to 10% only.

Figure 4 also shows, in dashed lines, the results obtained from

the CEB model (Chang, et al., (5)). As can be seen the CEB model

predicts a fully plastic contact area that is insensitive to already

for 2, while the present model produces changes in the contact area at least up to = 8. This is because the CEB model

assumes fully plastic deformation for asperities that have reached

the critical interference c, whereas in the present model the fully

plastic regime is not reached until the interference is larger than

110c (Kogut and Etsion, (17)).

Figure 5 presents the plastic portion of the real contact area,

*

Ap/A, (Eq. [15]) vs. the dimensionless load, P , for various values

of the plasticity index, . The results are shown for plasticity

index values > 1.4 only, in accordance with Eq. [17] for k = 6.

As can be seen at = 2 the ratio Ap/A is still very small and even

*

for the largest load P = 0.1 it is less than 5%. This is clearly different from the claim made by Greenwood and Williamson (11)

that for > 1 plastic flow will occur even at trivial nominal pressure.

Figure 6 presents the dimensionless mean contact pressure,

* *

*

P /A , vs. the dimensionless load, P , for various values of the

* *

plasticity index, . The ratio P /A is obtained from Eqs. [12] and

[16] and represents the real mean contact pressure, P/A, normal*

*

ized by the hardness H, (see the definitions of A and P ). A fully

plastic contact is characterized by P/A=H (Tabor, (23)), which

* *

* *

corresponds to P /A = 1. Note from Fig. 6 that P /A for = 8 is

only 10% below this limiting value over the entire range of rele*

vant P values. This reassures the observation made earlier that

= 8 marks the transition from elastic-plastic to fully plastic contact, which is insensitive to the plasticity index, .

A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces

A=

P/H

0.41/

389

[19]

either the purely elastic GW model or purely plastic model. It is

worth noting though that these models are limiting cases only and

indeed for 0.6 the present model compares well with the GW

model while for 8 it agrees with the fully plastic results.

CONCLUSION

index, .

*

* *

magnitude barely affects the value of P /A at any given plasticity index value. Greenwood and Williamson (11) also noticed this

same behavior for pure elastic contact and coined the term hardness of an elastic contact that plays the same role as the material

hardness does in a fully plastic contact. Greenwood and

Williamson (11) showed that the plasticity index is actually the

ratio between this elastic hardness and the plastic hardness.

From Fig. 6 it is clear that the dimensionless mean contact pres* *

sure P /A is approximately constant for elastic-plastic contacts as

well and, hence, can be defined as the dimensionless elastic-plastic hardness. Knowing the value of such elastic hardness or

elastic-plastic hardness provides a simple mean for calculating

the real area of contact A for any given contact load P.

Also shown in Fig. 6, in dashed lines, are the results obtained

from the CEB model (Chang et al., (5)) that exhibits a quite dif* *

ferent behavior. In this model the upper limit of P /A , that is

insensitive to the plasticity index , is obtained already for 2.

This upper limit of the mean contact pressure is K (K = 0.577 for

the present case). This is due to an assumption of the CEB model

that all the asperities with interference larger than the critical one

have constant contact pressure of KH. Apparently, for 2 most

of the asperities deform with such interference.

Figure 7 shows numerical results (the open circles) of the aver* *

age dimensionless mean contact pressure, P /A , that was

obtained from Fig. 6 at each discrete value of the plasticity index

. The solid line in Fig. 7 represents the best fit of the numerical

results and has the form:

P /A = 0.41/

[18]

hardness. As can be seen this hardness approaches asymptotically the value of 1 as the plasticity index increases. It provides a

powerful tool for calculating the dimensional real contact area of

contacting rough surfaces under any contact load in the form

An improved elastic-plastic model for the contact of rough surfaces that is based on an accurate FEA solution of a single asperity contact was presented. It predicts the contact parameters, such

as separation, real area of contact and real contact pressure as

functions of the plasticity index and contact load. The present

model is based on constitutive laws appropriate to any regime of

deformation, be it elastic or plastic and therefore, provides more

accurate and reliable results than previous approximate models. A

comparison with the approximate elastic-plastic CEB model

shows identical results for pure elastic contacts having plasticity

index values below 0.6 but substantial differences for elastic-plastic contacts with plasticity index values above 1.

The main findings of the present model are the following.

The plasticity index is the main dimensionless parameter

that affects the contact of rough surfaces. Up to = 0.6 the contact problem is purely elastic, = 1.4 marks the transition of the

real contact area from entirely elastic to elastic-plastic, and = 8

marks the transition of the contact problem from an elastic-plastic

to fully plastic.

The contact stiffness of rough surfaces is very low and insen*

sitive to the plasticity index and contact load for P < 0.001. At

*

higher P values the stiffness becomes sensitive to variations of

, and may be used for estimating the plasticity index.

The mean real contact pressure is practically independent of

the contact load, similarly to the material hardness in fully plastic

contact. An elastic-plastic hardness in the form 0.41/ H can

therefore be used to relate the contact load and real area of contact.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported in parts by the Fund for the

Promotion of Research at the Technion, by the J. and S. Frankel

Research Fund and by the German-Israeli Project Cooperation

(DIP).

REFERENCES

(1) Abbott, E. J. and Firestone, F. A. (1933), Specifying Surface Quality - a Method

Based on Accurate Measurement and Comparison, Mech. Eng., 55, pp 569572.

(2) Adams, G. G. and Nosonovsky, M. (2000), Contact Modeling Forces, Trib.

Int., 33, pp 431-442.

(3) Bhushan, B. (1998), Contact Mechanics of Rough Surfaces in Tribology:

Multiple Asperity Contact, Trib. Lett., 4, pp 1-35.

(4) Chang, W. R. (1997), An Elastic-Plastic Contact Model for a Rough Surface

with an Ion-Plated Soft Metallic Coating, Wear, 212, pp 229-237.

(5) Chang, W. R., Etsion, I. and Bogy, D. B. (1987), An Elastic-plastic Model for

the Contact of Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 109, pp 257-263.

390

(6) Chang, W. R., Etsion, I. and Bogy, D. B. (1988), Static Friction Coefficient

Model for Metallic Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 10, pp 57-63.

(7) Christensen, H. (1969-70), Stochastic Models for Hydrodynamic Lubrication

of Rough Surfaces, in Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., 184, pp 1013-1025.

(8) Etsion, I. and Amit, M. (1993), The Effect of Small Normal Loads on the Static

Friction Coefficient for Very Smooth Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 115, pp

406-410.

(9) Evseev, D. G., Medvedev, B. M. and Grigoriyan, G. G. (1991), Modification of

the Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces, Wear, 150, pp 7988.

(10) Greenwood, J. A. (1984), A Unified Theory of Surface Roughness, in Proc.

Roy. Soc. (London), Series A, 393, pp 133 - 157.

(11) Greenwood, J. A. and Williamson, J. B. P. (1966), Contact of Nominally Flat

Surfaces, in Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), Series A, 295, pp 300-319.

(12) Horng, J. H. (1998), An Elastic-Plastic Asperity Microcontact Model for

Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 120, pp 82-88.

(13) Johnson, K. L. (1985), Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

(14) Kucharski, S., Klimczak, T., Polijaniuk, A. and Kaczmarek, J. (1994), Finite

Elements Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces, Wear, 177, pp 1-13.

(15) Kogut, L. and Etsion, I. (2000a), Electrical Conductivity and Friction Force

Estimation in Compliant Electrical Connectors, Trib. Trans., 43, pp 816-822.

(16) Kogut, L. and Etsion, I. (2000b), The Contact of a Compliant Curved and a

Nominally Flat Rough Surfaces, Trib. Trans., 43, pp 507-513.

and a Rigid Flat, ASME Jour. of Appl. Mech, 69, pp 657-662.

(18) Liu, G., Wang, Q. J. and Lin, C. (1999), A Survey of Current Models for

Simulating the Contact between Rough Surfaces, Trib. Trans., 42, pp 581-591.

(19) McCool, J. I. (1986), Predicting Microfracture in Ceramics Via a Microcontact

Model, ASME Jour. of Trib., 108, pp 380-386.

(20) Mikic, B. (1974), Thermal Contact Conductance; Theoretical Considerations,

Int. Jour. Heat Mass Transf., 17, pp 205-214.

(21) Polycarpou, A. A. and Etsion, I. (1998), Static Sealing Performance of Gas

Mechanical Seals Including Roughness and Rarefaction Effects, Trib. Trans.,

41, pp 531-536.

(22) Sayles, R. S. (2001), How Two and Three Dimensional Metrology Data Are

Being Used To Improve The Tribological Performance and Life of Some

Common Machine Elements, Trib. Int., 34, pp 299-305.

(23) Tabor, D. (1951), The Hardness of Metals, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

(24) Yu, N. and Polycarpou, A. A. (2002), Contact of Rough Surfaces With

Asymmetric Distribution of Asperity Heights, ASME Jour. of Trib., 124, pp

367-376.

(25) Zhao, Y., Maietta, D. M. and Chang, L. (2000), An Asperity Microcontact

Model Incorporating the Transition from Elastic Deformation to Fully Plastic

Flow, ASME Jour. of Trib., 122, pp 86-93.

- Mechanics of Materials II(2)Uploaded bysoulcivic
- SAP2000 Presentation with new Graphics Sept 2002Uploaded byAndrei Ulmeanu
- A M I E syllabusUploaded byMritunjaya Dwivedi
- Thesis FulltextUploaded byChris Cmecs Magadia
- Syllabus AD (2)Uploaded byselmaramesh
- avalanche paperUploaded bybotee
- Altair's Student Guides - A Designer's Guide to Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byKFourMetrics
- Finite Elasticity Theory - DAVID J. STEIGMANNUploaded byAlex Oliveira
- Assignment 1 2013Uploaded byJames Wright
- IJAIEM-2014-01-20-041Uploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- FEAUploaded bynishanth87
- analisis.pdfUploaded byArte Machaca
- Syllabus a DiplomaUploaded bySeshanRamanujam
- Plasticity_of_Cold.pdfUploaded byJonathan Chang
- fe textbook 2013-01-22Uploaded byPrajwal Pokharel
- Work Ability Criteria in Bulk Forming ProcessesUploaded bymehanny_sherif7140
- Analyzing Stresses in Pipe JointsUploaded byhernandez15
- Silo pressure prediction.pdfUploaded byLuis Hoyos Avalos
- Stress Concentration at NotchesUploaded byRodrigo Marin
- FemUploaded byroscilla
- DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN FEM FORMULATION FOR LINEAR THERMO-ELASTO-DYNAMIC PROBLEMSUploaded byMarco André Argenta
- M.Tech MEUploaded byanon_702576905
- SEAsia201007Uploaded bytamlb0507
- CIVL4111Uploaded byMark Samsel Rohan
- recos2.pdfUploaded byVincenzo Piluso
- Ref_90Uploaded byphuong2311
- 01_FEM_1_INTRO1Uploaded byEmin Ozturk
- Discontinuous Galerkin Subgrid Finite Element MethUploaded byanandnick3212232
- FEM03Uploaded byHammadMehmood
- duesterpamm-stpl-adUploaded byAnkur Naraniwal

- WebOcalc ReportUploaded byxatata
- 1711.06333Uploaded byxatata
- slam05-ukf-4Uploaded byxatata
- 1313_BC-1100Uploaded byxatata
- RC Plane Lec TakneekUploaded byxatata
- Design for Liquid Propellant RocketUploaded byxatata
- ChatteringUploaded byxatata
- A Beginner’s Guide to LATEXUploaded byzaphod123
- Help - Lightweight Airplane Design.pdfUploaded byxatata
- Oil Pipeline Vandalization and the Socioeconomic Effecta in Nigeria's Niger Delta RegionUploaded byxatata
- OCAM Prep.psUploaded byxatata
- Errata 1Uploaded byxatata
- Lecture TimetableUploaded byxatata
- Gantt ConcurrentUploaded byxatata
- Matlab CodeUploaded byxatata
- Flight pricingUploaded byxatata
- speed,path,heading.pdfUploaded byxatata
- Kac 2013Uploaded byxatata
- ptj-1-2013Uploaded byranjith_asp
- eia-nigeriaUploaded byOphess Mahte
- Infographic_ Pipeline Vandalisation in Nigeria_ 2002-2011 _ InfogramUploaded byxatata
- Fourier Sine and Cosine SeriesUploaded byxatata
- Attitude CommandUploaded byxatata

- Smar Sr301ceUploaded byBilly Isea Denaro
- How to use Pyroelectric (_Passive_) Infrared Sensors (PIR).pdfUploaded byAnton Sutrisno
- ULC UL142 Comparison SpreadsheetUploaded bygrincheu70
- Ligand binding and Hemoglobin.pdfUploaded byJabeen Thaz
- CIDECT Final Report 8G-10_06(1of4)Uploaded byRaquel Carmona
- Beck and Jennings 2003Uploaded byJ.D. Noble
- inverterUploaded byD'ivy M Chico
- Morphological Image ProcessingUploaded byGokulram94
- Ch. 8.pdfUploaded byPythonraptor
- Impact testing and exponential windows.pdfUploaded bycelestinodl736
- h2s multiflowUploaded byfbrays
- Cnc MachiningUploaded byVeera Bhadrappa T
- equipment standardUploaded bysorenarya
- Monitoring of Power Transformer Incipient FaultUploaded byIJIRST
- Mass TransferUploaded bySizwe Makhubo
- li-fi-140228113837-phpapp01Uploaded byArun B Thaha
- 5695Uploaded byCu Phương
- Natural Convection in Electronic DevicesUploaded byMerazka Farouk
- PAPER_Deformation Monitoring With Total StationUploaded byfranciscovela
- Scalar Speed Control of Induction MotorsUploaded byRami
- UNIT 8Uploaded byDebanjan Sen
- geophysis 02Uploaded byFranklyn Frank
- Cold Storage BrochureUploaded bychi06067
- sa-609Uploaded bysreenatha
- Capela, 2007Uploaded bymmoradi55
- CSS-1h-pdsUploaded byMehedi Hasan Lincoln
- Water Purification Using Thermal MethodUploaded byAwesm Rishu
- Ritz Method ExamplesUploaded byBright Muza
- WIND Pressure-875-3-1987 code old.xlsUploaded bysitaram gv
- Antigen Antibody ReactionUploaded bySai Sridhar