Effect of Roughness and Sliding

D. M. Bailey
Research Engineer,
Westland Helicopters Ltd.,
Yeovil, Somerset, England
R. S. Sayles
Lecturer,
Department ot Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine,
London SW7 England
Friction on Contact Stresses
The stress distributions associated with smooth surfaces in contact are rarely ex-
perienced in practice. Factors such as surface roughness, lubricant films, and third
body particulates are known to influence the state of stress and the resulting rolling
contact fatigue life. This paper describes a numerical technique for evaluating the
complete subsurface field of stress resulting from the elastic contact of noncon-
forming rough bodies, based on measurements of their profile. The effect of sliding
friction is included. The presence of asperities within the contact region gives rise
to high shear stresses near the surface. Realistic coefficients offriction for lubricated
sliding contacts (i.e., ix~0.1) causes the "smooth body" shear stresses to interact
with the asperity stresses to produce a large, highly stressed region exposed to the
surface. The significance of these near-surface stresses is discussed in relation to
modes of surface distress which lead to eventual failure of the contacting surfaces.

Introduction
Metal fatigue is known to depend upon the internal stress
field. Nonconforming surfaces such as those of rolling elements
and gear teeth are subject to loads which cause high subsurface
stresses. During rolling, the cyclic nature of these stresses often
initiates fatigue cracks and subsequent failure by pitting or
spalling.
The classic study of the complete stress field in smooth bodies
in line contact is by Smith and Liu (1953). They included
frictional effects as a tangential load proportional to the Her-
tzian normal pressure distribution. The results showed, in com-
bination with the theory for rolling contact fatigue by Lundberg
and Palmgren (1947), that the friction-induced shear stresses
were of special importance for fatigue. For example, using a
coefficient of friction ft = 0.3, Smith and Liu calculated the
maximum reversing shear stress to be at the surface, a feature
which could greatly reduce fatigue life compared to the fric-
tionless case.
Hamilton and Goodman (1966) developed equations for the
complete stress field beneath a circular sliding contact. They
used the von Mises yield criterion as a measure of the risk of
mechanical failure. The results showed that increasing the coef-
ficient of friction from 0 to 0.5 moved the point of yield from
a depth of 0.5a (where a is the Hertzian half width), to the
surface, and that the magnitude of the yield parameter in-
creased with increasing friction coefficient. Explicit equations
for calculating the stresses within smooth, circular sliding con-
tacts have since been given by Hamilton (1983) and Sackfield
and Hills (1983a). The analysis has been extended to the general
case of elliptical contacts by Bryant and Keer (1982) and by
Sackfield and Hills (1983b), who show that the contact pressure
for first yield is almost independent of the shape of the contact
ellipse.
Contributed by the Tribology Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
TRIBOIOOY. Manuscript received by the Tribology Division July 25, 1990; revised
manuscript received October 1990. Associate Editor: F. E. Kennedy, Jr.
However, the stress distributions associated with idealised
smooth surfaces in contact are rarely experienced in practice.
Factors such as surface roughness (Berthe et al., 1977), lu-
bricant films (Kweh et al., 1989), surface furrows and debris
dents (Webster et al., 1985a and Sayles and Macpherson, 1982),
are known to influence the state of stress and the subsequent
fatigue life. Failure by rolling contact fatigue is generally con-
sidered to be a process involving competition between the var-
ious types of localized stress concentrations, both on the contact
surface and at defects within the material (Chiu et al., 1971;
Tallian and McCool, 1971; and Tallian, 1971).
This paper examines the state of subsurface stress associated
with "real" roughness within Hertzian contacts subject to both
normal and tangential loads. The analysis assumes elastic be-
havior (i.e., no plastically deforming asperities) and the contact
is modelled as two-dimensional. Although roughness is gen-
erally three-dimensional, it is idealized as two-dimensional,
with ridges oriented in the third dimension.
Rough Surface Contact Model
The analysis of rough surfaces in contact has, over the past
30 years or so, progressed from the simple asperity-on-asperity
approach of Archard (1957) to the complex random process
models of Bush et al. (1975 and 1979). These models yield
important results about the average properties of the contact
of rough surfaces. However, due to the statistical nature of
the approach, interactions between adjacent asperities are ne-
glected and little information is gained on the real pressure
distribution or deformed shape of individual asperities. Recent
developments in numerical methods has enabled the contact
of rough surfaces to be simulated without the need for statis-
tical modelling.
A numerical contact technique developed by Webster and
Sayles (1986), based on the force-displacement relationship for
a half space, simulates the dry, frictionless, elastic contact of
a smooth cylindrical body normally loaded against digitized

Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 729

Copyright © 1991 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 ^.0 Norma Used P(x)
NORrlfiL FORCE
.. 3.0 =3.SS0 N/mLcro

- 2.0

.. 1.0

.0 559.0 1677.0 microns 223G.0

25.0 Microns

Fig. 1 Simulated elastic contact of an unrun ground surface with hy-

pothetical^ smooth roller showing distribution of actual and Hertzian
pressure and deformed geometry. Pressure shown normalised with max-
imum Hertzian pressure p0

topographic data recorded from a stylus measuring instrument. .. " » ->*- b

*-
The surface pressure distribution and contact geometry are
obtained across the whole interface and do not depend upon
asperity or statistical models of the surface. P

The solution involves imposing a rigid-body movement to

create a theoretical overlap of the surfaces. This permits the '' ' ' V 1' I'

strains in the two bodies in regions of apparent contact to be —-J®,

° J """•"—• ° V'0'
determined. Knowing the strains at these points and their in-
fluence coefficients on all other points of the surface, a set of
simultaneous equations can be set up to determine the unknown '' A(x,z)

pressures of the contacting points. The influence coefficients

define the normal deflection of each element due to unity Fig. 2 Uniform distribution of pressure showing notation used to eval-
uate subsurface stresses
pressure at the origin. Thus, if the pressure on each contacting
element is known, the deflection of any point on the surface
and hence the deformed geometry can be found.
Once the solution for the elemental pressures have been
found then any elements where the pressures are negative are The surface pressures predicted by this elasto-static rough
removed from the assumed contact region (tension indicates surface contact model are used as input to the present sub-
that the assumption of apparent contact was incorrect). The surface stress model.
geometry is then recalculated, and any overlapping points added
to the assumed contact region. Based on the new set of contact Subsurface Stress Model
points the simultaneous equations are solved again. This pro-
cess is repeated until convergence on a particular set of contact In general, a contact surface transmits tangential tractions
points is achieved. due to friction in addition to normal pressure. Using the theory
for an elastic half-space the stress components, due to a normal
The total normal load, calculated by integrating the pressure pressure p(x) and a tangential traction q(x) distributed in an
distribution, is compared to the desired value and the rigid- arbitrary manner, can be evaluated at any point in the body
body overlap adjusted accordingly. Once a solution giving the of the solid (Johnson, 1985).
required load has been achieved, the initial and final geometries
of the two bodies and the pressure distribution are saved to a The simplest example of a distributed traction arises when
data file. the pressure is uniform over the strip (b<x<a) and the tan-
gential traction is absent. Using the notation of Fig. 2, the
Results of a typical analysis are shown in Fig. 1. It shows stresses are given by:
the distribution of pressure with distance across the contact
and the deformed geometry for a smooth roller loaded against P_ f2(0i - 0 ) + (sin 20! - sin 20 ))
2 2 (Iff)
the measured topography of an unrun ground surface. The 'l-K
Hertzian, smooth body, pressure distribution is plotted for
comparison. The actual pressure p, is shown normalised by .[ 2(0, - 02) - (sin 20! - sin 202) j (lb)
T_
the maximum Hertzian pressure p0.

730 / V o l . 113, OCTOBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 -5
5.
o>
u
In

(0

Q.
Q
Fig. 3 Idealisation of the two-dimensional contact of nonconforming
bodies showing plane of action and notation for subsurface stresses

-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

/ INPUT *
Pressure distribution file name / Stress/po
Stress distribution required /
Subsurface mesh resolution / Fig. 5(a)
Coefficient of friction /

Read pressure distribution I

from data file |

| Select first subsurface point | -0.02 -IS

~¥*
Evaluate a . . O i a n d t « d u e to each normally
loaded pressure element using equations 0 )
-0.04

Evaluate a..o< a n d i « due to each tangential 5

traction element using equations (2) o
-0.06 -3:
Sum a-. Or. andi:.? d u e to normal
and tangential traction elements

If required evaluate oi. 02 and ti using equations (3) 1

-0.08
I
-0.10
—»*-j Select next subsurface point!—»»
-1.0 -0.6 -0.4
Stress/po
j Save stress results to data file ) Fig. 5(b)
Fig. 5 Computer predictions of ax, a„ and T „ with depth, for a Hertzian
pressure distribution, along the axis of symmetry
( Select first point of next I
subsurface layer j

interactions may invalidate this assumption, although for the

present case of a smooth-on-rough contact with equal moduli,
Fig, 4 Flow diagram for subsurface stress program SUBSURF
it is considered a reasonable assumption.

2TT
(cos 20!-cos 262) Solution Procedure ( lc )
Figure 3 shows the two-dimensional contact of two non-
where tan 8l2 = z : conforming smooth bodies idealized as an elastic half-space
* (x±a) and a cylinder. A computer program has been developed to
The stresses due to a uniform distribution of tangential trac- evaluate ax, az, and TXZ at each subsurface point for any given
tion acting on the strip (b<x<a) are given by: distribution of surface pressure and coefficient of friction.
The main features of the subsurface stress program are rep-
f*Hs - (cos 20i - cos 202) (2a) resented in the form of a flow chart in Fig. 4. The pressure
distribution is read from the results data file produced by the
rough surface numerical contact program previously described.
(cos 20!-cos 202) (2b) Header information giving details of the contact analysis is
2TT
written to the screen. Next the operator specifies the size and
{2(01-02) + (sin20 1 -sin20 2 )J (2c) resolution of the subsurface mesh in the horizontal and vertical
2TT directions. The mesh is automatically positioned centrally be-
where rh2= {(x±a)2 + z?}ln neath the pressure distribution.
Therefore, given a surface pressure distribution consisting The solution proceeds by selecting each subsurface point in
of uniform elements (as produced by the Webster and Sayles turn, on a layer by layer basis and performing the following
contact model) and a frictional relationship to give the tan- calculations:
gential tractions, the principle of superposition can be used to (i) Using equation (1) the contribution to ax, az, and TXZ from
yield the complete subsurface stress field. each of the normal pressure elements at the surface is evaluated.
In this analysis the imposition of tangential traction is as- (ii) If the friction coefficient is greater than zero then using
sumed to have no effect upon the normal pressure. This is true equations (2) the contributions to ax, az, and TXZ from each of
only when the two bodies are smooth or have the same elastic the tangential traction elements at the surface is evaluated.
constants. In the case of a rough-on-rough contact, asperity (iii) Using the summation of the values from (i) and (ii) the

Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 731

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (a)

Fig. 6 Distribution of contact pressure and subsurface orthogonal and

principal shear stresses for a smooth elastic Hertzian contact, (a) Con-
tact geometry and surface pressure distribution; (£>) isometric view of
orthogonal shear stresses; (c) contour plot of orthogonal shear stress
distribution shown in (b); (d) effect of coefficient of friction ^ = 0.1 on
stress distribution shown in (c); (e) isometric view of principal shear
stresses; (/) Contour plot of principal shear stress distribution shown
in (e); (g) effect of coefficient of friction p. = 0.1 on stress distribution
shown in (/).

principal shear stress T\ and the principal direct stresses <xi and Ox+Oz
(3c)
a2 can be calculated using equations (3) ov
2-\ 1/2
When the required stresses for a complete layer of the sub-
TI= W + (3a) surface mesh have been calculated the results are saved to the
output datafile. When the complete stress field has been cal-
ffv+ff.
= +T, (3b) culated and saved a comprehensive "header" is appended to
°v the end of the file. This gives details of the original measured

732 / Vol. 113, OCTOBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 7 Roughness profiles recorded from disk machine test specimens,
(a) Unrun ground surface; (b) relocated measurement from same spec-
imen as for (a) after 10.5 x10 6 cycles at p*, = 4.15 GPa (slide to roll ra-
tios -0.026); (c) unrun ground and Abral polished surface.

profile, the simulated contact analysis, and the subsurface The complete distribution of orthogonal and principal shear
stress analysis. stresses beneath a smooth elastic Hertzian contact as predicted
The data file are designed to be compatible with the three- by the computer model is shown in Fig. 6. The stresses are
dimensional isometric and contour plotting routines developed displayed as isometric views as well as the more usual contour
at Imperial College (Webster et al., 1985b) for displaying dig- plots. The complex stress distributions from rough surfaces
itised rough surface data; the stress, normalised byp0, replacing are often easier to visualize when displayed as isometric views.
the surface heights in micrometers. Figures 6(d and g) illustrate how sliding friction (/x = 0.1) in-
fluences the distribution of subsurface shear stresses.
Validation of Numerical Results
To assess the accuracy of the subsurface stress model a series Analysis of Rough Surfaces
of test cases using "smooth body" Hertzian pressure distri- The measured surface profiles considered in the subsequent
butions were computed and compared with classical analytical analyses were recorded from disc machine specimens during a
solutions. programme of tests to study the influence of surface roughness
The Hertzian elastic contact stress formulas for the two- on rolling contact fatigue. The specimen material, lubricant
dimensional contact of nonconforming bodies idealized as an and slide to roll ratios were selected to be representative of
elastic half-space and a cylinder, as shown in Fig. 3, are as gear tooth contacts within helicopter transmission systems.
follows; Figure 7 shows two roughness profiles recorded from a ground
/APR specimen before and after testing, and one from an unrun
Semi-contact width a- (4) ground and polished specimen. Profiles (a) and (b) were taken
WE
from the same position on the specimen using precise relocation
where P is the load per unit length, E* is the reduced Young's techniques. This permits detailed analyses of roughness changes
modulus, and R the cylinder radius. to be conducted. The original topography is clearly evident,
PE* although plastic deformation of asperity peaks has occurred.
Maximum contact pressure p0 = { (5) Figures 8 and 9 show the distribution of contact pressure
wR
and subsurface orthogonal and principal shear stress for the
The subsurface stresses along the axis of symmetry (z-axis) simulated elastic contact of profiles (a) and (b) shown in Fig.
are given by: 7, with a smooth cylindrical counterface. The results are pres-
A> ent in the same format and to the same scale as those of Fig.
{(a1 + 2z2)(a2 + z2)'y2-2z} (6a) 6, for the contact of smooth surfaces, thus permitting direct
comparison. The analyses were conducted using conditions as
oz= -Poatf + z2)- (6b) near as possible to those of the disk machine test programme.
These are principal stresses so that the principal shear stress The indentation hardness of the specimen material is ap-
is given by: proximately 7 x 109 N/m2 (700 Hv), which corresponds to 1.7/?0.
2 2 l/2 The elastic contact analysis for the unrun surface (Fig. 8(a)),
Tl=p0a{z-z (a -z?r } (6c) shows that many of the asperity pressures exceed this value,
For all examples of smooth body contact used to evaluate thus suggesting that localized plastic flow may occur. The
the subsurface stress distributions, either with or without fric- pressure at which asperities deform plastically is influenced by
tion, the results agreed well with those given by Johnson (1985). local strain hardening and interactions between neighbouring
The variations of ax, az, and TXZ with depth below the surface asperities. Studies by Childs (1977), of rough surfaces in static
(along the axis of symmetry) as calculated by the computer contact, show that the supportable pressure increases with the
model are plotted in Fig. 5(a). A closer examination of the ratio of real to apparent contact area for ratios above 0.5. The
near surface stresses is shown in Fig. 5(b). Accuracy is main- present analyses show that the contact ratio of the ground
tained even when the depth below the surface is less than the surface increased from 0.69 to 0.87 during testing, and that
sampling interval of the digitized profile. the asperities deformed plastically to give a peak contact pres-

Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 1991, Vol. 113/733

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (d) (g)
Fig. 8 Distribution of contact pressure and subsurface orthogonal and
principal shear stresses for the simulated elastic contact of the unrun
ground surface shown in Fig. 7(a) ({a)~{g) as for Fig. 6)

sure slightly less than the material indentation hardness of 1.7p0
(see Fig. 9(a)). This suggests that in a rolling and sliding lu-
bricated contact the local pressure is limited by the independent
plastic deformation of the surface asperities.
The computer model predictions of subsurface principal and
orthogonal shear stress for each contact analysis are shown as
isometric and contour plots. At depths below the surface in
excess of approximately 0.5a (where a is the Hertzian half-
width) the stress distributions are as predicted by smooth body
theory. However, consideration of surface roughness and fric-
tion influences significantly the distribution of stresses in the
near surface region.
The surface pressures associated with asperity contacts pro-
duce highly stressed zones which reach a maximum at, or very
near, the surface. In the case of the unrun surface many of
the subsurface "asperity" shear stresses are twice the mag-
nitude of the maximum "smooth body" values. However,
these stresses are unrealistically high in that the contact analysis
was purely elastic and many of the asperities would be expected
to, and in practice do, deform plastically. However, this anal-
ysis represents the worst case of stress, as experienced during
the first contact cycle. Indeed cyclic plastic damage done to
asperities during the initial "running-in" period is a principal
source of surface distress micro-pitting.

734 / Vol. 113, OCTOBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 9 Distribution of contact pressure and subsurface orthogonal and
principal shear stresses for the simulated elastic contact of the well run
ground surface shown in Fig. 7(b) {{a)-(<j) as for Fig. 6)

Notice how the asperity stresses interact with the highly
stressed subsurface region dominated by Hertzian effects, even
under conditions of zero friction, to distort the stress distri-
bution toward the surface. This is particularly apparent with
the unrun surface. The combined effect of roughness and fric-
tion is shown in Figs. 8(rf and g) and 9(d and g) for the contact
conditions previously described. A frictional coefficient of
/x = 0.1, considered realistic for lubricated contacts, has been
assumed for these analyses. The well-known effect of the
"smooth-body" stresses rising toward the surface is clearly
evident.
A similar set of results for the ground and polished surface
shown in Fig. 7(c) are given in Fig. 10. In this case the mag-
nitude of the asperity stresses is less than the maximum
"smooth" body values, and are much shallower than for the
ground surface previously analysed.
In Fig. 11 the effect of roughness and friction on the sub-
surface principal shear stress is illustrated in the form of se-
lected cross sections from the stress distributions previously
described. Figure 11(a) compares cross sections of principal
shear stress through the peak asperity values from Figs. 8(e)
and 10(e) with a similarly located section through the smooth

Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 1991, Vol. 113/735

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ^fc±^ffl^_

(a)

Fig. 10 Distribution of contact pressure and subsurface orthogonal

and principal shear stresses for the simulated elastic contact of the
polished surface shown In Fig. 7(c) {{a)-(d) as for Fig. 6)

body stress distribution (Fig. 6(e)). These distributions rep-
resent normal loading conditions (/* = 0) and clearly demon-
strate the interaction of the asperity stresses with the Hertzian
stresses. Figure 11(b) shows similar cross sections of principal
shear stress taken through the right-hand edge of the Hertzian
contact of Figs. 6(f), 6(g), and 8(g). The combined influence
of roughness and friction produces a large highly stressed re-
gion exposed to the surface.
Discussion
Notwithstanding the limitations of the contact model, the
subsurface stress model represents a useful technique for ana-
lyzing the effect of roughness and friction on the distribution
of stresses likely to cause fatigue failures.
Stress predictions for polished surfaces show that smoothing
of the asperity peak significantly reduces the magnitude of the
near-surface stresses. This is in agreement with the results of
disk machine tests conducted in conjunction with this theo-
retical study which show that surface polishing eliminates as-
perity deformation and micro-cracking.
The prediction of high shear stresses immediately beneath
the asperities of ground surfaces is consistent with experimental
results which show the propensity of ground surfaces to suffer

736 / Vol. 113, OCTOBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


0.0 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth below surface (z/a)
Fig. 11(a) Comparison of cross sections through peak asperity values
for unrun ground and polished surfaces with ideal smooth case
Depth below surface (z/a)
Fig. 11(6) Cross sections through edge of Hertzian contact for smooth
and unrun ground surface
Fig. 11 Cross-sections of principal shear stress taken from subsurface
distributions previously described to illustrate effect of roughness and
friction
from micro-pitting and transverse asperity cracking (Olver,
1984 and 1986). The formation of micro-cracks in ground
surfaces, usually during the early stages of running, is tempered
by their reluctance to propagate readily into the highly stressed
subsurface region dominated by Hertzian effects. Generally,
most of the cracks grow very slowly and remain small, with
the exception of one or two which in the latter stages grow
rapidly to form a pit (Clarke et al., 1984).
The foregoing stress predictions clearly identify a region of
relatively low stress separating the highly stressed near-surface
region due to asperity interactions and the subsurface region
dominated by hertzian effects. This low stress region or ' 'quies-
cent" zone, discussed by Tallian et al. (1987) and identified
experimentally by Clarke et al. (1984), is the most likely ex-
planation for this type of crack growth behavior. Clearly, the
formation of a pit requires some means whereby the surface
micro-cracks can propagate through this low stress region.
Motivated by the examination of failed test specimens, Cheng
et al. (1984), analyzed the possibility of subsurface defects
providing the necessary bridge. Their results indicated that even
small inclusions, if strategically located, could provide a mech-
anism for pit formation.
However, this study, utilizing a contact model based on
measured roughness profiles, indicates that the stress distri-
bution associated with certain asperity sizes bridges the quies-
cent zone and provides an additional mechanism for pit
formation.
The main hypotheses concerning the critical stresses in roll-
ing contact fatigue are reviewed by Popinceanu et al. (1981).
Although the hypotheses of maximum orthogonal shear stress,
proposed by Lundburg and Palmgren (1947), was accepted by
the International Organsiation for Standardisation
(A.F.B.M.A., 1960) for calculating the dynamic capacities of
rolling bearings, there is no general consensus as to the truly
critical stresses in rolling contact fatigue.
In addition, contacting surfaces subjected to cyclic loading
may strain harden and develop residual stresses due to local
Journal of Tribology
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
plastic deformation. It has been shown by Olver (1984) and
Voskamp (1985) that the tensile components of these residual
stresses can result in Mode I crack initiation and propagation.
There is also considerable experimental evidence to suggest
that a certain size of debris indentation formed by rolled-in
ductile debris in rolling element bearings combine this residual
stress effect with the Hertzian stresses to bridge the quiescent
zone (Sayles et al., 1989).
In a rigorous analysis of the stresses within elastic-plastic
rolling and sliding contacts these and many other considera-
0.8
tions would need to be addressed. However, this analysis does
go someway toward explaining the influence of roughness on
rolling contact fatigue and is consistent with experimental re-
sults.
Conclusions
A theoretical technique has been developed to determine the
subsurface stress field within real rough surfaces subjected to
both normal and tangential loads. The accuracy and resolution
of this technique is sufficient to permit an analysis of individual
asperity contacts within a normal Hertzian contact of realistic
dimensions.
It is shown that for a range of real rough engineering surfaces
the maximum orthogonal and principal shear stresses occur at
or very close to the surface, even if frictional effects are ig-
nored. For a polished surface the magnitude and position of
the maximum shear stress values are as predicted by smooth
body theory.
Plastic deformation of asperities during running-in reduces
the peak contact pressures and the resulting subsurface stresses.
However, for a well run ground surface the maximum or-
thogonal and principal shear stresses still occur at or very near
the surface.
Using realistic coefficients of friction (//. ~ 0.1) the smooth
body stresses interact with the asperity stresses to produce a
large, highly stressed region exposed to the surface.
It is postulated that the stress distributions associated with
certain asperity sizes could bridge the quiescent stress zone and
provide a mechanism for pit formation.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr.
Andy Olver, Westland Helicopters Ltd for his encouragement
and suggestions throughout this study. The authors are also
indebted to Dr. Martin Salzer, Westland Helicopters Ltd for
his continued support and for permission to publish.
This paper is based on research work funded by Westland
Helicopters Ltd and the Department of Trade and Industry.
References
A.F.B.M.A., 1960, "Method of Evaluating Load Ratings for Ball Bearings,"
I.S.O. Standard, Section 9, Revision 4.
Archard, J. F., 1957, "Elastic Deformation and the Laws of Friction," Pro-
ceedings, Royal Society, Vol. A, No. 243, pp. 190-205.
Berthe, D., Michau, D., Flamand, L., and Godet, M., 1977, "SurfaceRough-
ness Effects in Lubrication-Effect of Roughness Ratio and Hertzian Pressure
on Micropits and Spalls in Concentrated Contacts," Proceedings of the Leeds-
Lyon Symposium.
Bryant, M. D., and Keer, L. M., 1982, "Rough Contact Between Elastically
and Geometrically Similar Curved Bodies," ASME Journal of Applied Me-
chanics, Vol. 49, pp. 345-352.
Bush, A. W., Gibson, R. D., and Thomas, T. R., 1975, "The Elastic Contact
of a Rough Surface," Wear, Vol. 35, pp. 87-111.
Bush, A. W., Gibson, R. D., and Keogh, G. P., 1979, "Strongly Anisotropic
Rough Surfaces," ASME JOURNAL OF LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 101, pp.
15-20.
Cheng, H. S., Keer, L. M., and Mura, T., 1984, "Analytical Modelling of
Surface Pitting in Simulated Gear-Teeth Contacts," SAE Technical Paper Series,
No. 841086,
Childs, T. H. C , 1977, "The Persistence of Roughness between Surfaces in
Static Contact," Proceedings, Royal Society London, Vol. A353, pp. 35-53.
OCTOBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 737
 Chiu, Y. P., Tallian, T. E., and McCool, J. I., 1971, "An Engineering Model
of Spalling Fatigue in Rolling Contact: I. The Subsurface Model," Wear, Vol.
17, pp. 433-446.
Clarke, T. M., Miller, G. R., Keer, L. M., and Cheng, H. S., 1984, "The
Role of Near-Surface Inclusions in the Pitting of Gears," ASLE Trans., Vol.
28, No. 1, pp. 111-116.
Hamilton, G. M., and Goodman, L. E., 1966, "The Stress Field Created by
a Circular Sliding Contact," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 33,
pp. 371-376.
Hamilton, G. M., 1983, "Explicit Equations for the Stresses Beneath a Sliding
Spherical Contact," Proceedings, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol.
197C, pp. 53-59.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.
Kweh, C. C , Evans, H. P., and'Snidle, R. W., 1989, "Micro-Elastohydro-
dynamic Lubrication of a Heavily Loaded Elliptical Contact with Transverse
Roughness," ASME JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY, Vol. I l l , pp. 577-584.
Lundberg, G., and Palmgren, A., 1947, "Dynamic Capacity of Rolling Bear-
ings," Mechanical Engineering Series, Acta Polytechica, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-
80.
Olver, A. V., 1984, "Micropitting and Asperity Deformation," Proceedings
of the 9th Leeds-Lyon Symposium, Lyon.
Olver, A. V., 1986, "Wear of Hard Steel in Rolling Lubricated Contacts,"
Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Popinceanu, N. G., Diaconescu, E., and Cretu, S., 1981, "Critical Stresses
in Rolling Contact Fatigue," Wear, Vol. 71, pp. 265-282.
Sackfield,A.,andHills, D. A., 1983a, "ANoteon the Hertz Contact Problem:
Correlation of Standard Formulae," Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 18, pp.
195-197.
Sackfield, A., and Hills, D. A., 1983b, "Some Useful Results in the Tan-
gentially Loaded Hertz Contact Problem," Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 18,
pp. 107-110.
Sayles, R. S., and Macpherson, P. B., 1982, "Influence of Wear Debris on
Rolling Contact Fatigue," Rolling Contact Fatigue Testing of Bearing Steels,
ASTM STP 771, J. J. C. Hoo, ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp. 255-274.
Sayles, R. S., Hamer, J. C , and Ioannides, E., 1989, "The Effect of Par-
ticulate Contamination in Rolling Element Bearings:-A State of the Art Review,"
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 204, pp. 29-36.
Smith, J. O., and Liu, C. K., 1953, "Stresses Due to Tangential and Normal
Loads on an Elastic Solid with Application to Some Contact Stress Problems,"
ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. 157-166.
Tallian, T. E., and McCool, J. I., 1971, "An Engineering Model of Spalling
Fatigue in Rolling Contact: II. The Surface Model," Wear, Vol. 17, pp. 447-
461.
Tallian, T. E., 1971, "An Engineering Model of Spalling Fatigue in Rolling
Contact: III. Engineering Discussion and Illustrative Examples," Wear, Vol.
17, pp. 463-460.
Tallian, T. E., Chiu, Y. P., and Amerongen, E. V., 1987, "Prediction of
Traction and Microgeometry Effects on Rolling Contact Fatigue Life," ASME
JOURNAL OF LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 156-166.
Voskamp, A. P., 1985, "Material Response to Rolling Contact Loading,"
ASME JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY, Vol. 107, pp. 359-366.
Webster, M. N., Ioannides, E., and Sayles, R. S., 1985a, "The Effect of
Topographical Defects on the Contact Stress and Fatigue Life in Rolling Element
Bearings," Proceedings of the Leeds-Lyon Symposium.
Webster, M. N., West, M. A., and Sayles, R. S., 1985b, " A Method of Three-
dimensional Topography Measurement and Analysis on Arcurate Surfaces,"
3rd Int. Conference "Metrology and Properties of Engineering Surfaces," Tee-
side Polytechnique, England.
Webster, M. N., and Sayles, R. S., 1986, " A Numerical Model for the Elastic
Frictionless Contact of Real Rough Surfaces," ASME JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY,
Vol. 108, No. 3, pp. 314-320.

For Your ASME Bookshelf

TRIB-Vol. 1
Achievements in Tribology
Editors: L. B. Sibley and F. E. Kennedy

It is significant that the major tribology research developments of the past 75 years were driven
by the needs of the automotive, aerospace and nuclear industries. This book serves as a compre-
hensive review of each of the major disciplines in tribology over the past 75 years. An overview is
given of the technology then and now, as well as future needs and expectations, including the
economic and technical drivers of tribology research.

1990 Order No. H00629 192 pp. ISBN No. 0-7918-0536-0

$30 List / $24 ASME Members

To order, write ASME Order Department, 22 Law Drive, Box 2300, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2300
or call 1-800-THE-ASME (843-2763) or FAX 1-201-882-1717.

738 / Vol. 113, OCTOBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use