Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442

www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Contact modeling — forces
G.G. Adams *, M. Nosonovsky
Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA

Abstract

This paper reviews contact modeling with an emphasis on the forces of contact and their relationship to the geometrical, material
and mechanical properties of the contacting bodies. Single asperity contact models are treated first. These models include simple
Hertz contacts for spheres, cylinders, and ellipsoids. Further generalizations include the effects of friction, plasticity, adhesion, and
higher-order terms which describe the local surface topography. Contact with a rough surface is generally represented by a multi-
asperity contact model. Included is the well-known Greenwood–Williamson contact model, as well as a myriad of other models,
many of which represent various modifications of the basic theory. Also presented in this review is a description of wavy surface
contact models, with and without the effects of friction. These models inherently account for the coupling between each of the
contacting areas. A brief review of experimental investigations is also included. Finally some recent work, which addresses the
dynamics and associated instabilities of sliding contact, is presented and the implications discussed.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: Contact; Contact mechanics; Contact pressure

1. Introduction contact and Bhushan [8] for multi-asperity contacts give
comprehensive reviews of contact mechanics of rough
This paper provides a review of contact modeling with surfaces.
an emphasis on contact forces, rather than on the detailed In problems involving topograpically smooth surfaces
state of stress in the contacting bodies. Related to contact the real area of contact is the same as the apparent area
modeling is contact mechanics in which the two con- of contact. Real surfaces, however, always possess some
tacting bodies are topographically smooth and the degree of roughness. Thus contact between two bodies
emphasis is on determining the relationship between the always occurs at or near the peaks of contacting
applied load, contact area, and contact stress. Due to the asperities and so the real area of contact will generally be
mathematical complexity involved, such problems are much less than the apparent contact area. Thus contact
typically restricted to linear elasticity, although the finite modeling consists of two related steps. First the equa-
element method and the boundary element method have tions representing the contact of a single pair of
also been used in order to obtain solutions to problems asperities are determined. In general this procedure
with complicated geometries and material behaviors. includes elastic, elastic–plastic, or completely plastic
The monographs by Johnson [1] and Hills et al. [2] pro- deformation. Depending on the scale of the contact, plas-
vide comprehensive treatments of contact mechanics, ticity effects may be penetration depth dependent. For
whereas those of Gladwell [3] and Galin [4] give more namometer scale contacts the effects of adhesion on the
mathematical descriptions of contact problems, and normal force may also be important. The applied force
Kikuchi and Oden [5] and Khludnev and Sokolowski [6] may be normal to the contacting area or it may include
provide variational and finite element treatments. Finally a tangential component. The tangential component is
the review articles by Bhushan [7] for single asperity resisted by friction. Although the effect of surface layers
may be important in many applications, a review of that
area is outside the scope of this work. The monographs
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-617-373-3826; fax: +1-617-373- [1,2] and the review article [8] are valuable sources of
2921. information for study in that area. Because real surfaces
E-mail address: adams@coe.neu.edu (G.G. Adams). have roughness, it is necessary to combine the effects of

0301-679X/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 1 - 6 7 9 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 3 - 3

Hertz contact of two nonconforming elastic bodies. The assumptions for what Analogous expressions may be written for the contact has become known as the Hertz contact problem are: (1) of two cylindrical bodies whose long axii are parallel to the contact area is elliptical. the contact area and the interference each vary as the each of which constitutes a single asperity contact. and have recently been shown to occur under nominally ste. the y–axis. This inde- and the z–axis directed downwards. a⫽ .1. The nor- system with the x–y plane as the common tangent plane mal approach d is. It is 2/3 power of the applied force. maximum value at the origin equal to 3/2 of the average ution of this problem was developed in the late nine. E1. during compression by the normal load loading of an elastic half-space — the approach of dis- P. Two contacting solids tion. Detailed results for contact area and interference vs. Hertz contact n1. The interference. 6PE∗2 1/3 1 1−n21 1−n22 1 1 1 p0⫽ . from each other. resultant of interface shear stresses that would be 16RE∗2 4E∗ 冉 冊 obtained with Coulomb’s sliding friction law. this time with a maximum value at the origin contact is taken as the origin of a cartesian coordinate equal to 4/p times the average contact pressure. The contact area is elliptical and the contact pressure distribution is semi-ellipsoidal. The well-known sol.R2 are the radii of cur- contact through the action of applied forces. and (5) the contact is frictionless. depending upon the choice of datum. are also given. Finally dynamic instabilities is circular. p0⫽ 冉 冊 P⬘E∗ pR 1/2 (2) be valid.E2 and 2. Contact vature of the lower and upper bodies respectively. Approxi- mations which are more accurate for higher ellipticities Fig. For moderately elliptical con- tacts. Contact mechanics for a single asperity where p0 is the maximum contact pressure (which occurs at r=0). indeterminate. Greenwood [11] showed that the contact pressure and approach can be approximated by using the circular contact formulas with an equivalent radius of curvature equal to (AB)⫺1/2. Using the notation terminacy is a general consequence of two-dimensional of Johnson [1]. the contact area coupling is very important. The point of first elliptical. distant points T1 and T2 displace distances d1 and d2 tant points in the cylinders can take on any value respectively parallel to the z–axis towards O. however. nor- mal force are fairly complicated and are given by John- son [1] and Cooper [10]. ⬅ ⫹ . R is the com- Consider two rough solid bodies brought into physical posite radius of curvature and R1. whereas in other instances the effect of For the case of solids of revolution. The quan.n2 are the Young’s modulii and Poisson’s ratios for the lower and upper body respectively.432 G. contact radius (a). where A and B are the principal rela- tive curvatures. The contact pressure dis- necessary to relate the force acting on a single asperity tribution is semi-elliptical with radius r and has a to its deformation and contact area. Thus between the two bodies occurs over many small areas. These instabilities can lead to dif- ferences between the measured friction force and the 9P2 1/3 3PR 1/3 d⫽ . (2) each body is approxi. These Eqs. maximum contact pressure are given by [1] 冉 冊 冉 冊 ady sliding conditions. (1) and (2) are special cases of the more general results for nonconformal contact of bodies of general ellipsoidal profiles. E* is the composite Young’s modulus. so that only where P⬘ is the applied load per unit length of y–direc- a normal pressure is transmitted. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 a large number of asperity contacts. (3) the dimensions of the contact area must be small compared to the dimensions of each body and to the radii of curvature of the surfaces.G. M. In many instances tity d⬅d1+d2 is called the normal approach or the inter- it may be possible to treat these contacts as uncoupled ference. contact pressure. ⬅ ⫹ (1) p3R2 E∗ E1 E2 R R1 R2 2. The contact pressure distribution is again semi- are shown after deformation in Fig. teenth century by Hertz [9]. . In [12] Greenwood compares different approximate methods for calculating stresses in elliptical Hertzian contacts and concludes that the method of [11] gives less than a 3% error for 1ⱕB/Aⱕ5. 1. (4) the strains are sufficiently small for linear elasticity to a⫽ 冉 冊 4P⬘R pE∗ 1/2 . 1. The results for the half-width of the contact mated by an elastic half-space loaded over the plane strip (a) and the maximum contact pressure are [1] elliptical contact area. Adams.

the contact pressure face [22]. |s2⫺s3|. This uncoupling greatly (s1⫺s2)2⫹(s2⫺s3)2⫹(s3⫺s1)2⫽2Y2 (4) simplifies the analysis. fully plastic behavior corre. Friction and tangential loading a critical value. and hence the tran- in the middle is somewhat higher than the mean contact sition from elastic–plastic to fully plastic behavior pressure (pm). They show that the effect of friction plastic deformation. The details of initiates at pm=1. Bhushan [18]).27]. Equations analogous to Eqs. Consider now the application of a tangential load (F) max{|s1⫺s2|. Adams. the tangential contact stress q. Furthermore for sufficiently high friction elastic material. Indentation testing has been known to give hardness 2.3) the maximum shear stress occurs at the inter- for full plasticity by Ishlinsky [14]. yield strength. i.60Y.g.8Y (6) The effect of dry friction without tangential loading has been incorporated into a study of contacting spheres where H is called the hardness of the lower yield by Goodman [24]. Conventional plasticity theories lack a been tacitly assumed that the contacting bodies are non- . [15] give a relationship materials the coupling between normal and shear stresses between pm and H which depends upon the Possion’s is small and is sometimes neglected [24]. M. This sliding occurs with Coulomb’s law of slid- E∗2 E∗ ing friction satisfied (F=mP). In the absence of a tangential force. Another theory. the smaller the indentation depth the greater is the meas. it is constrained by the surrounding initiated. states that yielding occurs when In these cases normal stresses do not cause relative tan- the distortional strain energy reaches a critical value. The first situation to be treated is applicable for any of three cases — (1) a pair of identical where s1.3.32R (5) begins. This tangential contact As the load continues to increase.2 . G. the maximum the plane strain contact of two cylinders. |s3⫺s1|}⫽Y (3) to a Hertzian contact. However. until the plastic zone changes the load at which plastic deformation is reaches the surface.4. Recently several strain–gradient theories of plas- The solutions for Hertz contact remain valid until the ticity have been developed which provide the needed applied load is sufficiently large so as to initiate plastic length scale. The gential displacements and shear stress do not produce result for the initiation of yielding is relative normal displacements. For For the Hertz contact of two spheres. Complete sol- ratio. In the above description of Hertzian contacts it has ured hardness. Work-hardening materials which is to increase the load required to produce a contact of strain-harden according to a power law were considered a given size by less than 5%. pressible (n=1/2). the von Mises criterion. Thus while elastic–plastic behavior occurs more rapidly than without friction. Tabor [16] showed that the load increases by a utions which include the effect of shear tractions on nor- factor of about 300 and the contact radius increases by mal pressure have been obtained by Mossakovski [25] a factor of about 10 from the onset of yielding until fully and Spence [26. pm⫽H⫽2. Elastic–plastic and fully plastic contacts length scale and so are incapable of predicting this effect. it was shown shear stress for n=0. Chang et al.G. the size of the plas. An analytical solution has been obtained (m⬎0. by Matthews [17].s2. or (3) both materials incompressible.48 a and independently by Cattaneo [20] and Mindlin [21] that has a value of 0.31 p0. where m is the coefficient of sliding friction and with no distinction between static Yielding will initiate in the material with the lower and kinetic friction. Non-Hertzian elastic contacts values which are depth dependent (e. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 433 2. rather than sub-surface.e. for pure shear. (3)–(5) are After sliding of an asperity is initiated. The Tresca maximum shear stress [19]. theory states that plastic deformation begins at a point in the body at which the maximum shear stress reaches 2.3 occurs at a depth of 0. the size of the 冉冊 stick region decreases until overall sliding of the asperity R2Y3 Y 2 (p0)Y⫽1. dY⫽6. These papers are reviewed by Hutchinson deformation [13]. Thus both the Tresca and von there is a central stick region surrounded by two slip Mises theories predict the onset of yielding when [7] zones.2. (2) one rigid material and the other incom- yield stress in the simple tension test. the contact stresses for sliding of dissimilar materials sponds to was determined by Bufler [23] and are recorded by John- son [1]. For a pair of different elastic strength material. the effect of given by Johnson [1] and Bhushan [7] for the plane friction is to superimpose a stress which is caused by strain contact of two cylinders.s3 are the principal stresses and Y is the materials. contacting points will not tend to undergo tangen- which. As the tangential force increases.07 Y. PY⫽21.5% tial displacements and therefore slip does not tend to higher than does the Tresca criterion. occur regardless of whether or not friction is present. stress alters the stresses in the half-spaces and hence tic zone also increases. predicts yielding at a stress 15.

(14) g1. can be applied.g2.G.g12 are the corresponding surface slope. A model of the adhesion force was developed by space (Fig. whereas the equilibrium separation. This problem was considered by Love Bradley [32] for rigid spheres which gives P⫽⫺ 8pwR 1 z 3 4 z0冋冉 冊 冉 冊 册 −8 ⫺ z z0 −2 (15) The corresponding pull-off force PC occurs when z=z0 and is given by PC=2pwR. flat-ended punch which has singular stresses at the cor. P⬘⫽aE∗cot a (12) 4AnE∗ngna2n+1 P⫽ . half-cone angle a is close to 90°) with an elastic half. but the effects of surface initial gap given by forces in the immediate vicinity of the contact region can become important [31]. 2·4…2n 2. The adhesive stress s(z) is h(x)⫽Anx2n (9) typically represented by the Lennard–Jones potential 冋冉 冊 冉 冊 册 the force per unit length is related to the half-width of −3 −9 contact by 8w z z s(z)⫽⫺ ⫺ (13) 3z0 z0 z0 P⬘⫽npE∗Ana2n/gn (10) where z is the separation between atomic planes.e. and w is the work of for large n. These models were due to Johnson. The results for the corresponding two-dimensional ture which increases from zero at its peak and may be contact of a blunt wedge with an elastic half-plane are useful in modeling a highly burnished asperity. 2 2 symmetric bodies is given by h(r)⫽Anr2n (7) Note that the contact area is proportional to the applied force and the interference varies as the square-root of the where n is a positive integer. the gap between the undeformed axi. Adams. the maximum shear stress is bounded. The local geometry of such non-conforming [29] and. Consider now the contact of a blunt cone (the energies. i. contact in which the profile(s) of the contacting bodies cannot be adequately represented by a second-degree 1 1 P⫽ pa2E∗cot a. 2). the stress distribution approaches that of a adhesion. The Hertz contact theory is restricted to cases in which the surface profile has continuous displacement and In Eq. z0 is For n=1 the above reduces to Hertz contact. These theories appeared at first to be contradictory until it was pointed out by Tabor [35] that these models were valid for differ- ent ranges of the parameter m defined by Fig. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 conforming. i. i. Such a surface has a curva- force. Sneddon [30]. d⫽ pa cot a (11) polynomial. Now consider an example of a applied force and the interference. m⫽ 冉 冊 Rw2 E∗2z30 1/3 (16) . in which the bodies are mod- eled as elastic half-spaces. Muller and Toporov (DMT) [34]. The sol- given by Johnson [1] as ution of Stuermann [28]. d⫽Angna2n (8) 2n+1 Although the contact stress is singular under the apex of where the cone/wedge. using a different technique. w⫽⌬g⬅g1⫹g2⫺g12 (14) ners. the at the contacting points. M. Subsequently two different models were proposed for the contact of elastic spheres.e. A blunt elastic wedge (cone) pressed against an elastic half-space.e.5. i. Contact at the nanometer scale — adhesion gn⬅ 1·3…(2n−1) At a scale of many nanometers.e. who contacts can be characterized by the radii of curvature determined the relation between the contact radius.434 G. the solid bodies can For the two-dimensional contact problem with an still be treated as a continuum. Kendall and Roberts (JKR) [33] and Derjaguin. 2.

5pwR. body simultaneously. Adams. but the aver- Molecular dynamics simulations of a small number of age size of each asperity contact remains constant. These The investigation of Muller. i. suggesting an interaction between nor- 冕 ⬁ mal adhesive and tangential frictional forces. There is some experimental evidence that probability of contact (P) at a given asperity of height under tangential loading an adhesive contact will tend z.1. done against surface forces (both adhesive and The statistical models are based on the calculation of frictional). is that if the number of asperities (N) in contact is con- quently additional work is needed to separate these stant and the deformation is elastic. showing that the load-approach curve is S–shaped. then atoms also show this phenomenon [45]. [38] and the atomic force microscope [47] has made d it possible to measure friction and adhesion forces in a sliding experiment.41]. differs significantly from the nominal contact area. and Derjaguin quantities differ because contact between rough surfaces (MYD) [39] uses a Lennard–Jones potential and allows takes place only at and near the peaks of the asperities. G. whereas for large values of boundary value problems which can be solved analyti- m the JKR model is appropriate. Ana. The approach is important because it allows an adhesion based friction through the concept of fracture mechanics. Experimental obser. Ductile separation has been observed tact A is proportional to P2/3. Yushenko. Uncoupled contact models represent surface tic deformation compared with the range of surface roughness as a set of asperities. coupled. the the adhesive forces act outside of the contact area and cumulative effect is the summation of the actions of indi- yields PC=2pwR. Greenwood [40] conducted the on friction and wear. . The theory of [43] is in good agree- ment with experimental findings. for a continuous variation of m between the limits of the It is the real contact area which has a profound effect DMT and JKR models. A is proportional to P regardless of whether the defor- Johnson [43] extended the models of adhesion to mation is elastic or plastic. A rough half-space and a flat body soon to be in contact.e. where P is the applied load. often with statistically forces. This proportionally is include static and sliding friction. 3. cally only for simple configurations. have also been used to model contacts. Recently fractal analyis methods MYD analysis more accurately and in greater detail. [36] and Pashley surfaces are more complicated mathematically because [37]. for two surfaces separated by a distance d. For and the material and mechanical properties are also inelastic unloading the energy released must overcome important. with an atomic force microscope [44] at a scale of 2 nm. Uncoupled multi-asperity models that the JKR theory does not allow for the existence of a pull-on force whereas other theories do [39. to peel apart [46]. Elastic contacts lytical results for the transistion between DMT and JKR Various statistical models of contact have been were presented by Maugis [41] using a simplified model developed which are related to the pioneering work of of adhesion based upon the Dugdale [42] crack model. the true area of con- deformed surfaces. Recently the use of the surface force apparatus (SFA) Homola et P(z⬎d)⫽ p(z)dz (17) al. It is noted 3. 3. M. For small m the elastic deformation is negligible the equations of elasticity must be solved for the entire and the Bradley model provides a reasonable approxi. lead- ing to a pull-in as well as a pull-off force. 3). The validity of the DMT model was vidual asperities. This procedure leads to mixed mation of adhesive forces. The density of surface asperities deformation leads to “adhesion hysteresis” [43]. Coupled contact problems with rough brought into question by Muller et al. assume some distribution laws for asperity heights and ing and unloading occurs elastically. The DMT model assumes that local and considered separately from other asperities. If the number of asperity contacts increase.1. Greenwood and Williamson [48] in 1966. Multi-asperity contact models Conventional multi-asperity contact models may be categorized as predominately uncoupled or completely Fig. However inelastic for asperity curvatures. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 435 The parameter m represents the magnitude of the elas. in which the theory to be consistent with the observed Amontons– elastic strain energy release rate is equated to the work Coulomb friction law. Results agree well models is the calculation of the true contact area which with the JKR theory. The JKR theory assumes that the adhesive forces distributed parameters such as height or summit curva- are confined to inside the contact area and thus gives a ture (Fig. 3. the result of this type of analysis dissipation as well as the work of adhesion and conse. These models The above discussion of adhesion assumes that load. In general.1. One of the most vations of contact area and load have been obtained tribologically important results of using these asperity using the surface force apparatus [38]. The effect of each individual asperity is pull-off force of 1.G.

and (4) there is no nearly proportional relation between contact area and bulk deformation and thus no interaction between force. (27) The plasticity index is responsible for the transition from elastic to plastic deformation — low values of f corre- spond to elastic deformations whereas high values are Whitehouse and Archard [56] considered the random associated with plastic deformation. (3) all extended Zhuravlev’s model for non-aligned asperities asperity summits have the same radius of curvature and demonstrated that misalignment leads to a more while their heights vary randomly. R R1 R2 ticity index f given by and the peak-height distribution of the equivalent surface f⫽(E∗/H)(s/R)1/2 (22) has a standard deviation given by where s is the standard deviation of asperity heights. Greenwood p(z)⫽ e−z 冑 (21) 2p and Tripp [51] showed that the contact of two rough surfaces can be modeled by the contact of one flat and one rough surface. 冑 sp⫽ s2p1+s2p2. The equivalent rough surface is The exponential distribution leads to a linear depen. while at lower loads the effective pressure distri- P⫽(4/3)E∗NR1/2 (z⫺d)3/2p(z)dz (19) bution is much lower and extends much further than for smooth surfaces. Onions and Arch- deformations and residual stresses which can cause ste. 1 1 1 ⫽ ⫹ (26) Greenwood and Williamson [48] also use the plas. Ling [52] used a simple rectangular neighboring asperities. However repeated loading introduces permanent distribution of both heights and radii. like the case of a pure plastic material. z⬎0 (20) uted asperity heights. ard [57] studied a model with a Gaussian distribution of ady state stresses to become elastic [1]. Greenwood [55] also showed that for elastic solids with randomly distrib- p(z)⫽e−z. Gupta and Cook [58] permitted wood and Williamson. Adams. an almost linear result The Greenwood and Williamson (GW) model [48] A⫽CP10/11 (24) assumes that. of the asperity curvatures of the two rough surfaces. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 where p(z) is the probability density function of was considered in 1940 by Zhuravlev [50] and yielded asperity heights. surface heights (rather then asperity heights) and of Even before the well-known classic work of Green. He applied a constriction resistance method to measure the area of Two distributions of the asperity heights were con. A=CP12/13.e. a linear distribution of heights of the tip heights to be Gaussian distributed whereas the aligned spherical asperities asperity radii were log-normally distributed. (1) the rough surface is isotropic. Nayak [59] considered a more sophisticated statistical model which 2 characterizes a random surface by three spectral p(z)⫽ 2(L⫺z). the average size of an asperity con- and the Gaussian distribution tact is almost independent of load. height distribution and an autocorrelation function. During the initial surface profile as a random signal characterized by a contact of most metal surfaces prepared with an engin. Greenwood [54] studied the true area d of contact between a rough surface and a flat.G. (2) where C is a constant. whereas the Gaussian distribution yields an almost lin- ear dependence. This eering finish the deformation will be predominantly plas. i.436 G. which are equiv- . and m4.e. true contact and developed a method of finding the sidered — the exponential distribution resistance of a cluster of microcontacts. asperity peak curvatures. 0⬍z⬍L (23) L moments of the profile: m0. M. Greenwood and Tripp [51] asperities are spherical near their summits. is shown to be equivalent to asperities having a statistical tic [49]. ⫺L⬍z⬍L (25) 冕 ⬁ 2L A⫽pNR (z⫺d)p(z)dz (18) and obtained similar results. m2. Therefore. characterized by an asperity curvature which is a sum dence of the true contact area on the applied load. height distribution tact is 1 p(z)⫽ . They found that the Hertzian results are valid at sufficiently high 冕 ⬁ loads. in the contact between one rough and one smooth surface. Thus the total area of true con. d The contact of a rough sphere with a smooth sphere and the total load is was studied by Greenwood and Tripp [53]. the dependence of the 1 2/2 true contact area on the load is almost linear. i.

the contact is elastic. and Bogy (CEB) [15]. model for the case in which faces based on deformation of elliptical elastic asperities. G. was introduced by Chang. Plastic and elastic–plastic contacts values for m0. This leads to with those of the simpler GW model. The contact area. microgeometry model by 冉 冊 onal directions. They concluded “profilometric model” by Abbot and Firestone [72]. using a plane plastic deformation and K relates the mean contact press- strain solution from the literature for a sinusoidally cor. model. An elastic–plastic contact model which square surface slope and to the macro-contact pressure. For an interference less then rugated half-space. P⫽AKH. M. The mean curvature is not constant but 1/2 varies with summit heights. Adams. while for d⬎dC tions that the asperities are micro-Hertzian (i.1. [65] faces and that volume conservation during plastic defor- considered a rough surface with a random anisotropic mation is obtained by a uniform rise of the noncontacting distribution of asperity radii. which assumed that some asperities are in tic contact model which treated asperities as elliptical stick contact while others are in slip contact. Sayles and Thomas [66] investigated a devi- Etsion. 2% lower. their results for the contact area are somewhat lower than that obtained with the Bush et al. The summits are regarded as elliptical parab. as the truncation of the rough surface at its intersection Tallian [63] developed a model for strongly aniso- with the flat. An elastic–plastic model based moments. d⬎dC (30) McCool [67] investigated the limit of applicability of where dC is the critical interference at the inception of elastic contact models of rough surfaces. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 437 alent to the variances of the distribution of profile model and his results demonstrated very good agreement heights. A⫽pRd 2⫺ 冉 冊 dC d . Such a distribution is surface. force. The bandwidth parameter pa m0 m 4 a⫽ 2 (28) Ju and Farris [69] applied spectral analysis methods m2 and the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to characterize a is introduced. He showed also a distribution of peak heights which is different from that the separation d in the GW asperity model can be Gaussian. Hisakado [64] pointed proportional to the true contact area. and thus the total load is determine the contact behavior. distribution. Bjorklund at a given separation depends only on a. This term implies that contact spots have the form of randomly oriented ellipses. and it is shown that the real contact area surface in two-dimensional contact problems. while the load [70] developed a contact model of one rough and one depends on both a and m2. O’Callaghan and Cameron [61] and Francis sidered a model for micro-slip between contacting sur- [62] extended the Bush et al. both surfaces are rough and asperities need not contact at their summits. [60] used the perfectly flat elastic surface with random asperity height Nayak microgeometery assumptions to develop an elas. The pressure in the contact area is found that surface frequency and not just roughness just the indentation hardness. depending paraboloids with random principal axis orientations and on asperity height. generalizes the CEB model by taking into account the McCool [68] also considered a general anisotropic directional nature of surface roughness and by consider- . The range of validity of the assump. Compared with the asymptotic solution for the on volume conservation of an asperity control volume isotropic case. and of the rough one. and curvature respectively. Nayak [73] applied out that a Gaussian distribution of asperity heights and his “random process profile model” [59] to this plas- curvatures for a given asperity shape may lead to a non- ticity model.e. He considered contact is the geometrical intersection of the two sur- a parabolic and a conical asperity shape.2. surface oloids with principal curvatures ␬1 and ␬2 in two orthog. Bush et al. slopes. which is Pullen and Williamson [74] assumed that the area of unrealistic for most engineering surfaces. ure to the hardness [15]. Bush et al. Hagman and Olofsson [71] con- aspect ratio. that they the contact is plastic. These assumptions may be correct for very characterized by nine values of mij known as bispectral heavily loaded contacts. They used the single asperity can be approximated by a second order polynomial in results to develop a multi-asperity model for elastic– the vicinity of the contact point) and that the asperities plastic deformation using assumptions similar to those of deform elastically was shown to be related to the mean the GW model. They obtained corresponding equivalent 3. m2. higher summits have larger m0 h⫽d⫹4 (29) mean curvature. Gaussian distribution of the surface height. The true area of contact is the geometric tropic surfaces in which the surface is modeled as a ran- intersection of the flat surface with the original profile dom process with Gaussian distributed heights. The that this type of contact is negligibly different from the deformation of a rough surface against a flat is treated GW model. and m4 which reduce this case to that The basic plastic contact model is an outgrowth of the of one smooth and one rough surface. ation from isotropy which they called “elliptic ani- and interference for a single asperity are related by sotropy”. the critical value. related to the separation h of the Bush et al. their model gives a contact area which is during plastic deformation.G.

the hardness. where D relates to distri- sinusoidal. M.438 G. Westergaard [86] used the complex Larsson et al. Archard fractal model is not sufficiently developed at this point. A⫽CP8/9. a first approximation was considered. It is possible to tic asperities based on a Cantor set of repeatedly magni- show that the problem with two elastic bodies in contact fied scales. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 ing contact spots of elliptic form was proposed by Horng D and G. However. the non-mixed boundary conditions (e. normal displacements are continuous in the Unlike statistical models. The nominal pressure based on this fractal sumption that surface geometry replicates itself at differ.g. pendent parameters D and G. [76] developed a multi-asperity model and creep exponents. In order to handle this meters.g. Borodich potential method. Usually butions of different frequencies in the surface profile and these problems are solved by using the Green’s function G to the magnitude of variations at all frequencies. Zhao et al. two mixed boundary conditions must be applied. must be These dependencies tend to converge to a linear applied to the entire surface. Sadowsky [85]. he calculated the dependence of Othmani and Kaminsky [83] as well as Podsiadlo and the true contact zone on the load for one. Hertzian elastic model. function.2. In the case of perfectly plastic which incorporates the transition from elastic defor. by applying series techniques. where c2 is a function of the strain hardening [75]. and lead to singular integral equations and Mosolov [78] studied a model for flat perfectly plas- for the contact pressure distribution. For the fractal model they obtained lem of an elastic half-space with a wavy sinusoidal inter- a non-linear relation between the impression depth h and face (Fig. This The frictionless two-dimensional elastic contact prob- model also introduces a critical area for plastic defor- lem for a surface loaded by a periodic system of rigid mation which is a function of D.3. Adams. A⫽CP14/15. Polonsky and Keer [82] stud- have even smaller asperities of radius R3. [77] investigated a model of equidistant spherical Warren and Krajcinovic [81] introduced a model for asperities of the same radius R1. two. The method. or by a complex fractal dimension D is in the range 1⬍D⬍2. Instead of a random distribution of characterizes surface roughness by two scale-inde- asperity heights only periodic interface profiles. and flat punches was solved for the contact pressure by the moduli of elasticity of the bodies. astic model. 4). The results for the contact of a measure fractal parameters of a surface. the slope of 3. Coupled contact models A⫽CP2/3. plane and a sphere are 3. which may indicate that the fractal objects by mathematicians in the 1970’s. e. However for hardening materials. in addition to dependence as the “order” of the asperities is increased. A⫽CP26/27 (31) and for the contact of one smooth and one rough plane 3. both unmixed and mixed. model does not converge unless the fractal dimension is ent length scales. the hardness value for both the stochastic and fractal models. load for the fractal model and is in contrast to the stoch- metries have been developed which are based on the pre. continuity of It is known that surface roughness measurements the normal and shearing stresses and Coloumb’s friction depend on the resolution of the measuring instrument law). and hence traditional roughness data is scale-dependent. are considered with this approach. Therefore. which in turn on the random Cantor set. A⫽CP44/45 (32) complicated mathematically since the equations of elas- ticity must be solved in the whole body and thus the boundary conditions. behavior they find that the contact pressure reduces to mation to fully plastic flow.G.1. Based on the ied scale effects in elastic–plastic asperity contacts. Fractal analysis the contact area versus loading curve increases with the In the past years models with fractal surface geo.2. Majumdar and Bhushan [79] considered a can be reduced to an equivalent problem with one rigid three-dimensional surface model based on the Weier- body and one elastic body with effective material para- strass–Mandelbrot wave function. G. which have asperities elastic–perfectly plastic contact of rough surfaces based of a smaller radius R2 on their surface. modern fractal models account contact zone(s) and the normal stress vanishes in the sep- for the multi-scale nature of surfaces.1. Namely. Fractal analysis aration zone(s). [80] investigated the inelastic flattening stress function technique to obtain a closed-form sol- of rough surfaces and compared the results of stochastic ution for the two-dimensional frictionless contact prob- and fractal models. Analytical models The coupled contact problems with asperities are more A⫽CP4/5. and three Stachowiak [84] developed experimental techniques to sets of the asperities. long before the discovery of less then a certain number. He showed that the normal stresses at the the area of true contact contact zone of the surface are given by 冉 4(2−D) h⫽GD−1 A 2 pc D 冊1−D/2 (33) syy⫽C cos x(sin2a⫺ sin2x)1/2 where C is a constant depending on the load and geo- (34) which includes two scale-independent fractal parameters metric parameters of the profile and a is the half-contact .

the mechanics of contact and friction is quite complex gral equation method were used by Soviet researchers as friction is a consequence of many interacting phenom- Muskhelishvili [88. (34) yields a relation between the load and the half-width of the contact area. out friction for periodic profiles with higher harmonics These instabilities raise issues about the nature of of waviness. a solution is also possible. perhaps more importantly from a solution. Shtaerman [90]. asperity interactions and adhesion forces. nowicz [101]. Although lem was solved by Dundurs et al. then to separ- ation areas which are nearly circular. Kuz. A recent paper by Bengisu and Akay With steady sliding and Amontons–Coulomb friction [102] develops a model for dry friction based upon included in the analysis. the separation zones are almost circular and behave like pressurized penny-shaped cracks. As the load is increased. Dynamic instabilities in sliding contacts tact problem with a sinusoidal contact profile for arbi- trary sliding velocities. At light loads the contact area is approximately circular and the Hertz theory can be applied. Basically the friction force is attributed to tangential Galin [4]. . [100]) of statistical and fractal models have been made as well as measurements of the topography of surfaces by stylus. (35) 4. Kuznetzov [92] obtained a solution the static contact of elastic and plastically deforming to the Westergaard problem using an alternative method.G. The relative sliding motion of two surfaces is resisted ticity does not allow for the solution of the interference. i. and finally to the complete contact 3. Frictional sliding contacts As for the Hertz contact problem. by a tangential force which is called the friction force.2. Thus the friction force should be pro- periodic contact problem can be reduced to a singular portional to the real area of contact. As has been pre- integral equation which can be solved analytically for viously mentioned. Handzel–Powierza et al. The reader is referred to the sinusoidal profile was investigated by Berthe and Vergne review article by Tabor [49] and the monograph of Rabi- [93] utilizing the results of Westergaard [86]. [104]. Lurie [91]. dynamic friction see Oden and Martins [103] and Mar- ing problem by using a complex potential which reduced tins et al. polynomials. this proportionality is nearly true for sinusoidal waviness. ing aspect of dynamic contact. as well as asymptotic solutions for small and practical point of view. Recent analysis as well as simulations have disco- Manners [96] obtained a solution of the problem with. Adams. of experimental tests (see Woo and Thomas. [99] veri- fied experimentally the GW model and obtained good agreement with the theory within the range of elastic Fig. called the coefficient of kinetic friction (m). When contact is almost complete. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 439 dimensional waviness. The following summarizes one interest- to the Westergaard’s solution in the case of zero friction. G. A complete review of friction is well beyond The limits of applicability of uncoupled models for a the scope of this work.89]. two-dimensional elas. or electrical contact. influence the predicted tangential large zones of contact for the frictionless case of two.e. the numerical analysis demonstrates a change of the contact area from almost circular to almost square. A number space. Nosonovsky and Adams [95] solved the frictional con. Johnson et al. Experimental results The effect of interaction between neighboring asperity contacts was studied by Leibensperger and Brittain [98] using photoelasticity. and ena. asperities. Results were obtained only for contact pressures. width. optical methods. For reviews of netzov [94] considered the frictional (low velocity) slid. Another approach to the mixed boundary conditions The ratio of this tangential force to the normal force is is to use a series technique. contact forces. 4. [87] using Legendre this coefficient can easily be determined experimentally. Contact of a wavy elastic half-space with a flat elastic half. deformations and for quasi-isotropic surfaces. Thus the Westergaard prob. vered dynamic instabilities in frictional sliding contacts.1. M.2. [97] obtained a numerical dynamic sliding and. and by scanning tunnelling microscopy methods. 4. Eq. The complex potential approach and inte. p P⫽C 冑2 (1⫺ cos a). Shtaerman [90] showed that the frictionless adhesion forces.

1985. and convention coupled con- from the observed sliding conditions. even at low sliding to produce relative motion is less than would be pre- speeds. The existence tational wave and a plane shear wave) radiated from the of these instabilities does not depend upon a friction sliding interface. Although Coulomb’s [107] showed that the steady sliding of two elastic half. Experimental verifications are also briefly interface coefficient of friction (the ratio of interface discussed. Steady-state sliding is shown Adams [114] also investigated the role of elastic body to give rise to a dynamic instability in the form of self. [105] investigated the sliding of elastic of different material properties. Moscow (in Russian. has been reviewed.440 G. Adams coefficient is speed-independent. Mechanics of elastic contact. 1961. slip-wave destabilization. waves in the sliding of an elastic half-space against a excited motion. inequality is satisfied at the interface. the force necessary spaces is also dynamically unstable. In particular an tact models. due to a separation pulse [3] Gladwell GML. without slipping. single asperity and the combined effects of a great many Adams [110] then investigated the sliding of two dis. [2] Hills DA. These waves radiate energy allowing coefficient which decreases with increasing speed. rigid surface and in the sliding of two elastic half-spaces ally confined to a region near the sliding interface and [115]. No distinction is These instabilities were thought to play a role in Schalla. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 Martins et al. and are sub- Dynamic instabilities were found for cases in which the jected to applied normal and shear stresses which are friction coefficient and the Poisson’s ratio were large. However the apparent coefficient of friction is less than the interface friction coefficient. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- a slip pulse travelling through a region which otherwise sity Press. dation for its support under Grant No. made between static and kinetic friction. Contact problems in the classical theory of elas- ticity. The mechanism of insta. fractal contact models. asperity contact models include uncoupled contact mod- bility. nor for sliding to occur with less energy dissipated due to does it require a nonlinear contact model as with Martins frictional heating than is supplied through the work done and Oden [104]. Nowell D. It was shown that steady sliding is compatible can eventually lead to either partial loss-of-contact or to with the formation of a pair of body waves (a plane dila- propagating regions of stick–slip motion. The interface friction coefficient can be constant and contact dynamics. The authors are grateful to the National Science Foun- Thus the measured coefficient of friction does not neces. Contact mechanics. 1980. CMS-9622196 of sarily represent the behavior of the sliding interface. satisfy Coulomb’s fric- and viscoelastic half-spaces against a rigid surface. insufficient to produce global slipping. Raleigh: North Carolina State College. These analytical results are consistent by the external forces. contacts. allows for the interface sliding conditions to differ els. Adams. and the friction mach waves [106]. In another investigation. 1993. It was found that loading. has been investigated by Comninou and Dundurs [112] [4] Galin LA. Conclusions to investigate instabilities caused by sliding of a rough surface on a smooth surface. which results from a self-excited insta. tion inequality at their common interface. Contact modeling. with the numerical simulations of Andrews and Ben– Zion [108]. the Surface Engineering and Tribology Program. tangential stick propagating along the interface. English translation. The instability mechanism is essentially one of dicted by Coulomb’s law. In the limit References as the slip region becomes very small compared to the stick region. or an increasing/decreasing function of slip velocity.). Maryland. These self-excited oscillations are gener. Included are effects of elastic and plastic defor- similiar elastic bodies due to periodic regions of slip and mations. USA: Sijtoff and Noordhoff. sticks [111]. Acknowledgements ent coefficient of friction can decrease with sliding speed even though the interface friction coefficient is constant. Contact problems in the theory of elasticity. . to each other. Sneddon materials. with an emphasis on forces rather bility in that investigation is due to the interaction of a than stresses. Also the presence of slip waves may make it possible for two frictional bodies to slide without a resisting shear stress and without any interface separation. Contact modeling has complex mode of vibration with the sliding friction been divided into two distinct phases — the contact of a force. Future work in contact modeling should shear stress to normal stress) and an apparent coefficient address issues at the nanometer scale (including nano- of friction (ratio of remote shear to normal stress) were meter scale plasticity and effects of contaminant films) defined. The two semi-infinite isotropic elastic bodies.G. non-Hertzian geometries. Furthermore the appar. the results of Adams [110] become that of [1] Johnson KL. M. 1953. editor. IM. Sackfield A. Gostehiz- for identical materials and by Adams [113] for different dat. Multi- such motion. depth–dependent plasticity models. The possibility of two elastic bodies sliding relative Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. In a different investigation. and adhesion. Adams [109] uses a simple beam-on-elastic-foundation model in order 5.

Coll Surf 1984. Scanning force microscopy: with applications to electric. Proc Royal Soc London Ser A Elasticity 1975. [60] Bush AW. [56] Whitehouse DJ. J Colloid Interface Sci 1992.31:413–8. Philadelphia: [36] Muller VM. Kluwer. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 441 [5] Kikuchi N.35:87–111. Plasticity at a micron scale. J Mech tacts. ASME J Tribol 1985. Williamson JBP.A295:300–19. Oden JT.93:398–407. [21] Mindlin RD.the present state of our understanding. Inst. Thomas TR.16:259–68.107:501–4.94:19–26. Rendiconti dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Lincei [49] Tabor D.10:1447. J Colloid Interface Sci 1980. [32] Bradley RS. Derjaguin BV. Cameron MA.4:1–35. The elastic contact of rough spheres. Adams. Tripp JH. Constriction resistance and the real area of con- [25] Mossakovski VI. On asperity distribution of metallic surface. . with incremental loading. 1997. Contact mechanics of rough surfaces in tribology: [39] Muller VM.150:243–69. Compression of elastic bodies under conditions tact.28:311–8. 1995. F Phys in Tech 1970.30:235–7. J reine und angewandte Mathematik [40] Greenwood JA. contact of elastic solids).27(6):342–8. Hardness of solids. Modelling and control in solid [37] Pashley MD. Coll Surf SIAM. Wear [34] Derjaguin BV.A324:301–13. Proc Royal Soc [18] Bhushan B. Adhesion of spheres: the JKR-DMT transition using ASME J Appl Mech 1969. [54] Greenwood JA. The Hertz contact problem with finite friction. Phys Solids 1960.49:275–98. J Phys D Appl Phys 1973.45:221–69. Effect of surface roughness on contact between solid face Sci 1976.G. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits.44:492. Phil Mag 1932. [24] Goodman LE. McGuiggan PM. Proc Royal Soc London [13] Hill R.103:169–79. Formulas for moderately elliptical Hertzian con. Prikladnaia Mathematika i Mekhanika 1944.185:624–33. The properties of random surfaces [27] Spence DA. Handbook of micro/nanotribology. Further considerations of the DMT model for elastic mechanics. [19] Hutchinson JW. Proc Royal Soc Lon- 1882. Wear 1972. Int J Sol Struct. Yushchenko VS. contact of elastic solids. don 1997. [44] Agrait N. J Appl Phys [23] Bufler H. [28] Stuermann E. [57] Onions RA. Vieira S. Appl Mech Rev 1996. (on the sticking to a rigid plane. Mechanics of adhesion. Muller VM. On the influence of multiple asperity contact. Proc Royal Soc London [62] Francis HA. An elastic–plastic model for the simulations of adhesive contact formation and friction. Yushchenko VS. 1950. The effect of a tangential force on 1980. Shtaerman IY. mations on the adhesion of particles. Cook NH. molecular forces on the deformation of an elastic sphere and its [9] Hertz H. Series E. ASME J [50] Zhuravlev.21:49–101. Israelachvili JN. Contact of nominally flat sur- [20] Cattaneo C. [52] Ling FF. tion of rough surfaces. Fundamentals of friction NATA ASI. J Lubrication Tech 1981. The axisymmetrical problem in plasticity and the scale contacts. Statistical analysis of mechanical interac- [29] Love AEH. Kendall K. 1983. nominally flat surfaces in which deformation is purely elastic. Wear 1990. Quart J Math. Surface energy and the Wear 1976. law of friction. [48] Greenwood JA. J of significance in their contact. Tripp JH. ASME J Appl Mech 1962. Boca Raton. Proc Royal Soc London 1966. Bogy DB. Fundamental studies in Tribology. Etsion L. Hertzian contact-stress deformation coefficients. Proc Inst Mech Engrs 1971. U ¨ ber die beru¨hrung fester elastischer ko¨rper. Tribol Int 1998. Briggs GAD. J Colloid Interface Sci [63] Tallian TE. Self-similar solutions to adhesive contact problems flats.13:853–62. 1977. The theory of partial elastohydrodynamic contact. Boussinesq’s problem for a rigid cone. Contact problems in elasticity. Oxford University Press. 220. The area of contact between rough surfaces and [26] Spence DA. ASME J Tribol 1987. Prikladnaia Mathematika i Mekhanika 1963. Archard JF. Oxford Series 1939. Surface forces and surface interactions. Static contact under load between surface energy of solids. [8] Bhushan B.8:100.27:137. J Tech Phys USSR 1940. 1959. in press. Zur theorie der rollenden reibung. vol.8:204. [47] Sarid D. Brinnel test. [6] Khludnev AM. Lubrication Tech 1971. 1977. Adhesion and friction between a smooth elastic Int 1997. surfaces. University Press. Jefferis JA. Contact mechanics of rough surfaces in Tribology: [38] Homola AM. [35] Tabor D.34:153–9. 1985. Ringer EM. Wear 1975.12:69–77. Gibson RD. Analysis of elliptical Hertzian contacts.28:217–34. ASME J Lubrication Tech 1967. The mathematical theory of plasticity. Application of spherical indentation mechanics to 1971.109:257–63. Hellgeth JW. single asperity contact. [53] Greenwood JA. reversible and irreversible contact between rough surfaces. editors. Rolling rough surfaces. In: Singer. Toporov YP. [10] Cooper DH.29:515–22. G.A453:163–79. [16] Tabor D. surfaces. 1970. Random process model of rough surfaces. Effect of contact defor. contact. The elastic contact of rough [31] Johnson KL. the contact of elastic solids in adhesion. [33] Johnson KL. [42] Dugdale DS. J Colloid Inter. Brit J Appl Phys 1966. ASME J Lubrication Tech 1972.94:156–71.53:314–26.136:65–84.A356:103–14. 433–6. Proc Royal Soc 1968. Contact Fatigue. Adhesion of elastic spheres. [45] Landman U. Molecular dynamics [15] Chang WR. 1991. [64] Hisakado T. Plastic flow and residual stresses in rol. ASME 1938. a Dugdale model. contact of rough surfaces. Tribol Let 1998. Acta Met [46] Savkoor AR. Oxford: Oxford 1997. spheres. l’Acade´mie des Sciences de l’URSS 1939. The contact of surfaces having a random mation of compressed bodies. The cohesive force between solid surfaces and the [61] O’Callaghan M. Plastic deformation in nanometer [14] Ishlinsky AJ.6:289–304. ASME J [30] Sneddon IN. Indentation hardness and hot pressing. Archard JF. Contact stress analysis of normally loaded rough ASME J Appl Mech 1967. [12] Greenwood JA. Mech. [11] Greenwood JA.36:296–303. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag. spherical asperity and a plane surface. ida: CRC Press. magnetic and atomic forces. Roberts AD. Ing Arch 1958. Sokolowski J. Proc.316:97–121. Tribol [43] Johnson KL. Engrs. Comptes Rendus (Doklady) de structure. [22] Johnson KL. [55] Greenwood JA. Friction . 474–8.1:81–91.77:91–101.27:418. Pollock. Proc Cam.1:145–79. [41] Maugis D. M.5:297. Luedtke WD. Rubio G. Derjaguin BV. of adhesion.10:161–75. [7] Bhushan B. On the physical basis of the amontons —Coulomb Appl Mech 1949. 1975.36:79–97. 1992. Sul contatto di due corpi elastici: distribuzione locale faces. Boussinesq’s problem for a rigid cone. 1963:50.A305:55–80. Sym.29:1168–74. Flor. The contact of two nominally flat ling and sliding contact.17:1621–32. [51] Greenwood JA. [58] Gupta PK.77:91–101. [17] Matthews JR.25:359–61. On Hertz theory of local defor. degli sforzi.58:2–13. [59] Nayak RP. Langmuir 1995.18:4505–9.A453:1277–97. Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. bridge Phil Soc 1948. Wear 1974.

in press. 1953. 1985. ASME J Tribol 1996. Wear 1980. submitted.95:277–86. plastic flow. Int J Mech Sci 1985. Com Meth Appl Mech Engng Royal Soc London A 1957. Tribol Int [98] Leibensperger RL. [103] Oden JT. Soviet Appl Mech 1976. Wear [66] Sayles RS.454:3203–21. 1928.56:681–90. Olofsson U. Mech 1995.G. iodic profiles. [79] Majumdar A. A study of static and kin- lem. Relation of dry-friction to surface rough- incorporating the transistion from elastic deformation to fully ness.. Specifying surface quality. Engng 1933. A model for micro-slip between flat [97] Johnson KL. Comparison of models for the contact of rough sur. Wear 1973. Tsai KC. Wear 1986. ASME J Appl 1996. Thomas TR. [71] Hagman LA. [81] Warren TL.8(2):107–21. Appl Energy 1976. Klimczak T. Wear sliding with a constant coefficient of friction. Simo˜es FMF.102:553–71. Williamson JBP. An asperity microcontact model [102] Bengisu MT. M. Fractal roughness in contact prob. [88] Muskhelishvili NI. [104] Martins JAC. submitted. [94] Kuznetsov EA. Radiation of body waves induced by the sliding of theory elasticity. Keer LM. Partial contact between elastic surfaces with per- flat surfaces. Martins JAC.118:819–23. Wear 1987. 1995. Guimara˜es J. ASME J Appl [90] Shtaerman I Ya. ASME J Tribol 1999. Firestone FA. 1953. [93] Berthe D. . Polijaniuk A. How does rubber slide? Wear 1971.120:82–8.A327:159–73. Stachowiak GW. in linear elasticity and viscoelasticity with frictional boundary [80] Larson J. Contact problems of the theory of elasticity. [106] Schallamach A. [70] Bjorklund S. Inc. Dynamic motion of two elastic half-spaces in rela- Noordhoff.27:383–96. Thomas TR. rough surfaces. tive sliding without slipping. Greenwood JA. J Appl Math Mech 1992. Wear 1992. Nosonovsky / Tribology International 33 (2000) 431–442 [65] Bush AW.65:470–5. On the plastic contact of rough sur. etic friction. ASME J Tri- problems. for forces of friction.26:305–33. [89] Muskhelishvili NI. faces. Can two solids slide without slipping? with wavy surfaces. [108] Andrews DJ. Brittain TM. in Russian. Shear stress below asperities in 1998. experimental work.3:109–15. Moscow: Gostehizdat. parametric study and experimental investigation. Gibson RD. [82] Polonsky IA.14:251–60. Int J Engng Sci. naia Matematika i Mehanika 1941. faces. Groninghen: [113] Adams GG. contact of rough surfaces. ASME J Tribol 1997. Adams. Contact problem in the theory Mech. ASME J Appl between dissimilar media. Int J Solids Struct 1978. Kaminsky C. Farris TN. Fractal model of elastic–plastic contact [105] Martins JAC. ASME J Appl Mech rie. Contact between elastic bodies [112] Comninou M. J Elasticity 1973.28:29–92. Wear 1997. [110] Adams GG. [87] Dundurs J. [111] Rice JR. ASME J Tribol 1996. Spectral analysis of two-dimensional contact two elastic bodies with a wavy contact interface. An elliptic elastic–plastic asperity model for rough [101] Rabinowicz E. Steady sliding of two elastic half-spaces with fric- [85] Sadowski MA. Groninghen: Noordhoff. Periodic contact problem for half-plane allowing [68] McCool JI. ASME J Lubrication Tech 1979. Slip pulse at low driving stress along a frictional fault [86] Westergaard HM. [95] Nosonovsky M.31:29–41. Storakers B. Proc Royal Soc London Ser A 1998.117:445–51. Contact of rough surfaces: a review of faces. Mech cation Tech 1973. Akay A.52:527–634. Effect of fluid lubricant on the contact character- surfaces.217:24–34.113:1–11.86:105–18. Elastic deformation and the laws of friction. Self-excited oscillations in sliding with a constant [84] Podsiadlo P. Wear 1996. Thermal conductance of rough elastic 1985. 1949. Some basic problems of the mathematical [114] Adams GG. Strongly anisotropic rough [92] Kuznetsov EA.17:301–12. ASME J Tribol methods for the characterization of wear particles. Limits of applicability of elastic contact models of asperity interactions.107:37–60.12:37–44. ing interface between two elastic half-spaces. Adams GG. J Geophys Res 1997. Dynamic surface solutions between rough surfaces. ASME J Tribol 1998.62:867–72. 1997.118:335–40. Vergne P.442 G.6(2):A49–53. istics of rough elastic bodies in compression. tion reduction due to interface stick-slip. Wear 1983. York: John Wiley and Sons.214:147–50. Chang L. ASME J Tribology.243:190–205.117:211–22. Friction and wear of materials.55:569. 1998. Faria LO. Geophys. Higginson JG. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik. [115] Nosonovsky M. Dundurs J. Scale effect of elastic–plastic behavior of microscopic asperity contacts. Body waves radiated from the slid- [91] Lurie AI. Random process model of rough surfaces in plastic mental verification of the Greenwood–Williamson model for the contact. sheet metal surface. Mech 1939. Ben-Zion Y.121:455–61. [100] Woo KL. bol. ASME J Vib Acou 1995.2:249–67. Models and computational methods for [77] Archard JF. Hertzian contact as measured by photoelasticity.31:209–17. Keogh GP.101:15–20. [75] Horng JH. B 1998. contact. Steuermann E.118:320–8. ASME J Tribol 1991. in press. Oden JT. of elasticity. Evaluation of boundary fractal friction coefficient — a simple model.5:383–408. Bhushan B. Union.58:331–40. ASME J Tribol 1997. Krajcinovic D. Am. EOS Trans. ASME J Lubri- [72] Abbot EJ. Mech Mat 1999. [74] Pullen J. Self-excited oscillations of two elastic half-spaces elastic–perfectly plastic contact of rough surface. Zwiedimensionale probleme der elastizitatshtheo. Wrinkle-like slip pulse on a fault [83] Othmani A. Maietta DM.196:1–15. Three dimensional fractal analysis of between different materials.119:18–25. Bearing pressures and cracks. The contact of elas- surfaces based on deformation of elliptical elastic asperities — tic regular wavy surfaces. Biwa S.119:726–32. Singular integral equations. On the experi- [73] Nayak RP.154:115–24. A random model for micro-slip between nominally [96] Manners W. Adams GG. An elastic approach to rough contact with [67] McCool J. Keer LM. [78] Borodich FM. New surfaces.157:177–94. Proc dynamic friction phenomena. Priklad. Int J Engng Sci 1990. Steady state frictional sliding of [69] Ju Y. an elastic half-space against a rigid surface. Proc Royal Soc 1972. 2nd ed. Random cantor set models for the [107] Adams GG. [99] Handzel-Powierza Z. [76] Zhao Y. [109] Adams GG. Mosolov AB.78(46) Fall Meeting Supplement: F464. Inelastic flattening of rough sur- conditions.