Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elasto-Plastic Hemispherical
Robert L. Jackson1
Contact Against a Rigid Flat
Member, ASME
This work presents a finite element study of elasto-plastic hemispherical contact. The
Itzhak Green results are normalized such that they are valid for macro contacts (e.g., rolling element
Fellow, ASME bearings) and micro contacts (e.g., asperity contact), although micro-scale surface char-
acteristics such as grain boundaries are not considered. The material is modeled as
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical elastic-perfectly plastic. The numerical results are compared to other existing models of
Engineering, spherical contact, including the fully plastic truncation model (often attributed to Abbott
Georgia Institute of Technology, and Firestone) and the perfectly elastic case (known as the Hertz contact). This work finds
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405 that the fully plastic average contact pressure, or hardness, commonly approximated to be
e-mail: gt2433a@prism.gatech.edu a constant factor of about three times the yield strength, actually varies with the deformed
contact geometry, which in turn is dependent upon the material properties (e.g., yield
strength). The current work expands on previous works by including these effects and
explaining them theoretically. Experimental and analytical results have also been shown
to compare well with the current work. The results are fit by empirical formulations for a
wide range of interferences (displacements which cause normal contact between the
sphere and rigid flat) and materials for use in other applications.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.1866166兴
Introduction It should be noted that Abbott and Firestone 关9兴 intended their
model to be used to describe a wear process rather then a defor-
The modeling of elasto-plastic hemispheres in contact with a
mation process, but literature has still traditionally attributed this
rigid surface is important in contact mechanics on both the macro
fully plastic truncation model to them 共see Appendix A for a de-
and micro scales. This work presents a dimensionless model that
tailed description兲. Although these previous models have proven
is valid for both scales, although micro-scale surface characteris-
useful, they contain clear pitfalls which may be detrimental to
tics such as grain boundaries are not considered. In the former,
their validity.
e.g., rolling element bearings, load may be high and the deforma-
Additionally, the reversed case of a rigid spherical indentation
tions excessive. In the latter, e.g., asperity contact, a model on the
of a deformable half-space has been thoroughly investigated ex-
micro-scale is of great interest to those investigating friction and perimentally 关12–14兴 and numerically 关15–19兴. Work has also
wear. In addition, the real area of contact of such asperities will been done on the contact of a rigid cylinder contacting an elasto-
affect the heat and electrical conduction between surfaces. In ei- plastic layered half-space 关20兴. More generally, various experi-
ther scale contact is often modeled as a hemisphere against a rigid mental and numerical works have investigated other contacting
flat. Much interest is devoted in the literature to the reverse case geometries and hardness tests 关11,21,22兴. The two works by Bar-
of indentation loading where a rigid sphere penetrates an elasto- ber et al. 关23兴 and Liu et al. 关24兴 provide a more in-depth look at
plastic half-space. It is worthy to emphasize that indentation past and more recent findings in the field of contact mechanics.
共other works兲 and hemispherical deformation 共this work兲 are sig- Perhaps a most important and relevant work is by Johnson 关25兴,
nificantly different in the elasto-plastic and fully plastic regimes, who experimentally measured the plastic strains between copper
and only the latter is the subject of this work. cylinders and spheres. Johnson’s experimental results compare fa-
One of the earliest models of elastic asperity contact is that of vorably with the findings of the current work. Despite the exten-
Greenwood and Williamson 关1兴. This 共GW兲 model uses the solu- sive body of works, the results, trends, and theories presented in
tion of the frictionless contact of an elastic hemisphere and a rigid the present work, to the authors’ knowledge, have not yet been
flat plane, otherwise known as the Hertz contact solution 关2兴, to thoroughly documented.
stochastically model an entire contacting surface of asperities with The current work uses the finite element method to model the
a postulated Gaussian height distribution. The GW model assumes case of an elastic-perfectly plastic sphere in frictionless contact
that the asperities do not interfere with adjacent asperities and that with a rigid flat 共see Fig. 1兲. The von Mises criterion defines the
the bulk material below the asperities does not deform. The yielding of the material. The resulting numerical data is also fitted
Gaussian distribution is often approximated by an exponential dis- by continuous functions that capture deformations all the way
tribution to allow for an analytical solution, although Green 关3兴 from purely elastic to fully plastic conditions. These expressions,
has analytically solved the integrals using the complete Gaussian which have a relatively low statistical error, may be used in other
height distribution. Supplementing the GW model, many elasto- applications whether they are on macro or micro scales. For ex-
plastic asperity models have been devised 关4 – 8兴. Appendix A pro- ample, a statistical model for asperity contact 共such as GW 关1兴兲
vides a summary of these models. Many of these elasto-plastic can greatly benefit from such expressions.
models make use of the fully plastic Abbott and Firestone model The finite element analysis presented in this work produced
关9兴, while Greenwood and Tripp derive a very similar model 关10兴. different results than the similar Kogut and Etsion 共KE兲 model 关4兴.
The current work accounts for geometry and material effects
1
Currently at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University, which are not accounted for in the KE model. Most notable of
Auburn, AL, 36849; e-mail: robert.jackson@eng.auburn.edu
Contributed by the Tribology Division for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF
these effects is that the predicted hardness is not a material con-
TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Tribology Division April 29, 2004; revised stant as suggested by Tabor 关11兴 and many others; rather hardness
manuscript received September 8, 2004. Review conducted by: J. Tichy. changes with the evolving contact geometry and the material
Journal of Tribology Copyright © 2005 by ASME APRIL 2005, Vol. 127 Õ 343
Fig. 1 Spherical contact model before contact „a…, during mostly elastic deformation „b…, and during mostly plastic deforma-
tion „c…
properties as proven in this work. Moreover, the current work uses The critical load, P c , is then calculated from the critical inter-
a mesh that is orders of magnitude finer than that in 关4兴 which was ference, c , by substituting Eq. 共1兲 into Eq. 共A2兲. The resulting
mandated by mesh convergence. The current work models defor- critical contact force at initial yielding is thus
冉 冊冉 冊
mation surpassing / c ⫽110 共the limit of KE兲, and likewise 2 3
models five different material strengths, S y , that showed a mark- 4 R C
P c⫽ •S y (3)
edly different behavior in the transition from elasto-plastic to fully 3 E⬘ 2
plastic deformation. The formulations derived in the current work
Similarly, the critical contact area is calculated from Eq. 共A1兲 and
are also continuous for the entire range of modeled interferences,
is given by
whereas the KE model is discontinuous in two separate locations.
There is ambiguity and a lack of a universal definition of hard-
ness. Not only are there various hardness tests for various scales
and materials 共Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers, Knoop, Shore, etc.兲, the
A c⫽ 3 冉 冊
CS y R
2E ⬘
2
(4)
Metals Handbook 关12兴 defines hardness as ‘‘Resistance of metal to These critical values predict analytically the onset of plasticity.
plastic deformation, usually by indentation. However, the term These values are, therefore, chosen to normalize the results of all
may also refer to stiffness or temper, or to resistance to scratching, the models. The normalized parameters are
abrasion, or cutting. It is the property of a metal, which gives it
the ability to resist being permanently, deformed 共bent, broken, or *⫽ / c (5)
have its shape changed兲, when a load is applied. The greater the P * ⫽ P/ P c (6)
hardness of the metal, the greater resistance it has to deforma-
tion.’’ Another definition is that hardness measures the resistance A * ⫽A/A c (7)
to dislocation movement in the material, in which case it is di-
rectly related to the yield strength 共and thus is interchangeable and Normalizing the Hertzian contact area 关Eq. 共A1兲兴 and force 关Eq.
perhaps redundant兲. A common definition that has gained status in 共A2兲兴, and the AF contact area 关Eq. 共A5兲兴 and force 关Eq. 共A6兲兴, by
the field is that hardness equals the average indentation pressure the critical values given in Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲, results in the follow-
that occurs during fully plastic yielding of the contact area. As is ing simplified expressions:
shown in this work, hardness of this type of definition varies with A E* ⫽ * (8)
the plastic and elastic properties and the contact geometry of the
surface, i.e., with the deformation itself. A hardness geometric P E* ⫽ 共 * 兲 3/2
(9)
limit will be defined and discussed in the foregoing.
* ⫽2 *
A AF (10)
Critical Interference 3H
* ⫽
P AF * (11)
While in the elastic regime, the stresses within the hemisphere CS y
increase with P and . These stresses eventually cause the mate-
rial within the hemisphere to yield. The interference at the initial Finite Element Model
point of yielding is known as the critical interference, c . The
To improve upon the efficiency of computation, an axisymmet-
current work derives this critical interference analytically using
ric 2-D model is used. The present study utilizes the commercial
the von Mises yield criterion 共VM兲. The following equations, for
program ANSYS™, while ABAQUS™ produces the same results.
the critical interference, contact area, and load, are all independent
Kogut and Etsion 关4兴 also use ANSYS™. However, the mesh 共see
of the hardness, which the current work shows not to be constant
Fig. 2兲 in the current analysis is orders of magnitude more refined,
with respect to S y . This is a notable improvement compared to
as necessitated by mesh convergence 关26兴. The nodes at the base
previous elasto-plastic contact models 关4 – 6兴. The derivation is
of the sphere are fixed in all directions. This boundary condition
given in Appendix B, resulting in
may be valid for the modeling of asperity contacts for two rea-
c⫽ 冉 •C•S y
2E ⬘ 冊 2
R (1)
sons: 共1兲 The asperities are actually connected to a much larger
bulk material at the base and will be significantly restrained there,
and 共2兲 since the high stress region occurs near the contact, the
where C is derived in the Appendix to be boundary condition at the base of the hemisphere will not greatly
effect the solution because of Saint Venant’s principle. The change
C⫽1.295 exp共 0.736 兲 (2)
in results between the said boundary conditions and one in which
The Poisson’s ratio, , to be used in Eq. 共2兲 is that of the material the nodes along axis x are allowed to translate radially have
which yields first. For ⫽0.32, as is used in this work, Eq. 共2兲 shown only marginal difference 共less than 3% difference in area,
results in C⫽1.639. and less than 1% in load兲. While these boundary conditions may
seems that hardness is not a constant material property. The cause ing coefficient and is fit to the numerical data. Figures 3–5 show
of this trend will be discussed later in greater detail. The work by that there are two distinct regions in the FEM data; thus a piece-
Mesarovic and Fleck 关15兴 also confirms this trend, but does not wise formulation is used to fit the data. At small interferences the
address the trend theoretically. Hertz solution is assumed and at large interferences the power
function is fit to the FEM data, resulting in the following:
Empirical Formulation For 0⭐ * ⭐ t*
General empirical approximations of the FEM data are desired
for use at any deflection and for any set of material properties. A F* ⫽ * (12)
This will help designers in a variety of single contact problems,
and it will be readily incorporated into statistical models to model and for t* ⭐ *
冉 冊
rough surfaces.
As mentioned previously, the FEM solution for the area of con- * B
A F* ⫽ * (13)
tact continues past the AF model with increasing interference. t*
Hence, the leading coefficient in Eq. 共10兲 is allowed to vary when
equations are fitted to the FEM data. This is reasonable, since the where
AF model is not an exact solution 共it is based on a truncation
assumption兲. Here a power function is used in place of this lead- B⫽0.14exp共 23e y 兲 (14)
e y⫽
Sy
E⬘
(15)
HG
Sy 冋
⫽2.84 1⫺exp ⫺0.82
a
R 冉 冉 冊 冊册 ⫺0.7
(17)
t* ⫽1.9 (16) This formulation is plotted alongside the data in Fig. 6. Interest-
ingly, as a/R approaches zero, the limiting value of H G /S y
The value t* represents the transition point from elastically
⫽2.84 agrees almost precisely with the theoretical value of 2.83
dominant behavior to elasto-plastic behavior. The formulation fol-
共Williams 关关29兴, p. 109兴兲. Equation 共17兲 is only valid for the range
lows the Hertzian solution 关Eq. 共12兲兴 for * ⬍1.9. Then it transi- of fitted data 共or 0⬍a/R⭐0.412). Caution should thus be taken
tions to the elasto-plastic case and eventually continues past the when using this function outside this range. This range is accept-
AF model for high values of * . Equation 共13兲 is also somewhat able for many applications, particularly tribological applications
dependent on the material properties, according to the definition in where deformations above this range are either unlikely or unac-
Eqs. 共14兲 and 共15兲. Statistically, Eq. 共13兲 differs from the FEM ceptable. From the relation A⫽ •a 2 , a is solved for and normal-
data for all five materials by an average of 1.3% and a maximum
ized by R. Then A c •A F* is substituted for A. Equation 共13兲 is then
of 4.3%. An equation of the same form as the ZMC model fitted to
the FEM data results in an average error of 43.2%. Notably, Eqs. substituted for A F* , andEq. 共4兲 for A c , thus yielding
共12兲 and 共13兲 are continuous at t* .
In order to formulate a fit for the FEM contact force, the
material-dependent trend at high interferences shown in Fig. 4 is
a 冑A c •A F*
R
⫽
冑 R
⫽ 冑 3 共 CS y R 兲 2 * 共 * / t* 兲 B
4 共 RE ⬘ 兲 2
冋 冉 冊册
modeled. To assist in this model, a plot of P/(AS y ) as a function
of a/R in Fig. 6 reveals the cause of the material dependency. In Ce y * B 1/2
⫽ * (18)
this plot a limit appears to emerge for the fully plastic average 2 t*
pressure, commonly referred to as the hardness. Here the hardness
appears to change as a function of a/R, or with the evolving This substitution is valid only when * ⭓ t* . Equation 共18兲 can
geometry of contact. The trend may be explained by the progres- then be substituted into Eq. 共17兲 so it may then be rewritten as a
sion schematically shown in Fig. 7. As the interference increases function of * as follows:
and the contact geometry changes, the limiting average pressure to
yield strength ratio, H G /S y , must change from Tabor’s predicted
value of 3 to a theoretical value of 1 when a⫽R. The contact
region when a⫽R is essentially the case of a deformable blunt
HG
Sy 冋 冉 冉
⫽2.84 1⫺exp ⫺0.82
Ce y
2
冑 *
*
t* 冉 冊 冊 冊册B/2 ⫺0.7
冋 冉 冊册
these models do not intersect with the Hertzian solution at
1
P F* ⫽ exp ⫺ 共 * 兲 5/12 共 * 兲 3/2 P/(AS y )⫽2•C/3. The discontinuity in the slope in the KE model
4 at a value of 6 and in the current model at a value of 1.9 is also
冋 冉 冊册
clearly evident 关see Eqs. 共A8兲 and 共A9兲 and Eqs. 共12兲–共21兲兴.
4H G 1
⫹ 1⫺exp ⫺ 共 * 兲 5/9 * (21)
CS y 25
Comparison with Experimental Results
where t* ⫽1.9. This formulation approaches asymptotically the
Hertz elastic model at small interferences, and approaches and Johnson 关25兴 performed experiments on the elasto-plastic con-
continues past the AF model at large interferences. Statistically tact of copper cylinders and spheres. During one experiment, he
this formulation differs from the FEM data for all five materials tested the contact of a copper sphere and a comparatively rigid
by an average error of 0.94% and a maximum of 3.5% when Eq. steel surface. These test conditions are comparable to the sphere
共19兲 is used for H G . against a rigid flat case modeled in this work. For the highest load
The average pressure to yield strength ratio, P/(AS y ), can now tested, the contact has a nearly uniform pressure distribution, thus
be modeled by combining Eqs. 共12兲–共16兲 and Eqs. 共20兲 and 共21兲. suggesting it is in the fully plastic regime. At this load, the a/R
Since these equations are normalized by their critical values, the ratio is given as 0.204 and the average pressure as 2.59•S y . In-
resulting formulation for the average pressure is terestingly, the predicted geometric hardness limit or average pres-
sure for the same a/R using Eq. 共17兲 is 2.61•S y . In comparison,
P 2 P F* the KE model, which assumes the AF model at this interference,
⫽ C (22) predicts an average pressure of 2.8•S y .
AS y 3 A F*
Johnson provides the contact radius and load in his results,
This ratio is shown in Fig. 8 共only the weakest and strongest which can also be compared with the predictions of the current
materials are plotted for clarity兲. The largest differences between formulations 关Eqs. 共12兲–共21兲兴 and those of the KE model 关Eqs.
the ZMC and KE models and the current FEM model then appear. 共A8兲 and 共A9兲兴. Table 2 presents this comparison. The material
It is apparent that the KE and ZMC models do not account for properties provided by Johnson were used when available; other-
material dependence in the limiting average pressure to yield wise values from 关27兴 were used. All material properties are given
strength ratio, H G /Sy. Both the ZMC and KE models are mono- in Table 2. Since Johnson does not provide the interference at
tonically increasing and truncated at some point that traditionally each load, the predicted pressure is calculated from the experi-
mental contact area using the current formulations and the KE gion of elastic material 关see Fig. 10共a兲兴. It should be noted that
model. Both numerical models compare well with the experimen- because of plotting resolution the region of plastic deformation is
tal results and differ by a maximum of just over 10%. However, smaller then the highest stress region shown in each plot. For
overall the current model proves to be a more accurate model. In instance, the highest stress region in Fig. 10共b兲 has a von Mises
fact, at the largest load the difference is merely 1.7%. These re- stress range between 1.444 and 1.624 GPa, and thus not the entire
sults also indicate that there is a definite need for formulations region in this stress range is at the yield stress of 1.619 GPa. With
which can accurately capture elasto-plastic hemispherical contact increasing interference, the plastic region expands until it reaches
at large interferences. The experimental results also show again the surface of the sphere 关Figs. 10共b兲 and 10共c兲兴. From close in-
that the hardness or the fully plastic average pressure varies with spection of postprocessing data, according to the current model,
deformation and is not constant at 2.8•S y or 3•S y 关4,9兴. the interference at which the plastically deformed region first
reaches the surface is approximately when s* ⫽9.6, for material 5
Evolution of Deformation 共this differs from the value s* ⫽6 as reported by Kogut and Et-
As long as the deformations are purely elastic, i.e., below the sion 关4兴兲. The value of s* also varies slightly with the material
critical interferences, the entire hemisphere will abide to 3D yield strength and the deformed contact geometry for the same
Hooke’s law. Conforming to Poisson’s effect, the material volume reason that the average pressure or hardness varies with strength.
should compress with a compressive contact pressure 关as shown Repeated FEM analyses were performed to search for the inter-
schematically in Fig. 1共b兲兴. To investigate this phenomenon Fig. 9 ferences of two important cases: 共1兲 when plastic deformation first
shows the radial deformation of the last contact point between the reaches the contacting surface at the far right end point, and 共2兲
deformed hemisphere and the rigid flat as extracted from the FEM when the contact surface first becomes entirely 共fully兲 plastic.
postprocessing data. Indeed at relatively small values of * there Table 3 gives these results. To pinpoint precisely these values,
seems to be a shrinkage in volume 共even though that some plastic much more arduous searches are needed. The search performed
deformation has already taken place, but overall the elastic defor- here, albeit intensive, was not exhaustive and, therefore, the val-
mation of the entire hemisphere dominates兲. At values below an ues given here contain some uncertainty 共given as the resolution
approximate value of * ⫽22, the radial displacements are all in Table 3兲. Searches were done on the stronger materials exclud-
negative, very small, and are generally strength independent 共see ing materials 1 and 2, which have the slowest convergence rates.
inset兲. In plasticity, however, volume is conserved. As the defor- After plastic deformation has reached the surface, an elastic
mation increases, the yielded material flows plastically and is in- volume on the loaded tip of the sphere is still maintained 关Fig.
compressible, making Poisson’s ratio effectively equal to 0.5 关30兴. 10共c兲兴 by the presence of hydrostatic stresses, which suppress
The FEM results find that beyond * ⫽22 共approximately兲, the yielding according to the von Mises criterion. Eventually this elas-
radial deformation of the last contact point displaces positively, tic region will turn plastic as the interference is increased. Figure
i.e., the schematics of the deformation follows the geometry de- 10共d兲 shows a state of stress just before the fully plastic state is
picted in Fig. 1共c兲. The positive displacement becomes material reached on the contact surface. Although an exhaustive analysis of
dependent, which increases with material strength. *f p is not performed here, this initial fully plastic interference
seems to range between * ⫽70 and * ⫽80, depending on the
Stress Distribution and Evolution material yield strength. This range of values is also close to the
Initially, at small interferences, the sphere will deform only value of 68 as predicted by the KE model.
elastically. While in the elastic regime, the maximum von Mises
stress will always occur beneath the contact surface and within the Conclusions
bulk material. Eventually, as the interference increases and the This work presents a 2D axisymmetric finite element model of
stresses increase, yielding will initiate at the point of maximum an elastic-perfectly plastic hemisphere in contact with a rigid flat
von Mises stress. surface. A comparison is also made with other existing models.
At interferences just above the critical, the plastically deformed The material is modeled as elastic-perfectly plastic, and yielding
region is small and confined below the surface by a sizeable re- occurs according to the von Mises criterion. A concise form is
presented for the critical interference at which plastic deformation although still does not capture the varying hardness trend. An
initiates within the hemisphere. It is derived from the Hertzian empirical formulation for the contact area is also fitted to the FEM
solution and the von Mises yield criterion. An a priori definition of data as a function of the material properties and interference.
the hardness is not needed. The FEM results of the contact force predict a lower load car-
The resulting plots indicate that the FEM results for the contact rying capacity than the AF model for most materials and values of
area agree closely at small interferences with the trends of the * . This is because the AF model assumes that the average pres-
Hertzian solution. While at large interferences the FEM predicts sure distribution is simply the hardness, which is approximated by
contact areas that surpass Abbot and Firestone’s fully plastic 3•S y . It is found, however, that the fully plastic average contact
model 关9兴 共that is based upon truncation兲. The ZMC model is pressure or hardness is not constant as is widely accepted. Rather,
found to differ significantly from the FEM results, where the KE the limiting value of the fully plastic average pressure varies with
model 共which is also based on FEM results兲 follows more closely, the deformed contact geometry, which in turn is coupled to the
Table 3 FEM generated interferences for initial yield of the surface and the fully plastic regime
冉 冊
Poisson’s ratio
Subscripts KH 2
c⫽ R (A7)
2E ⬘
E ⫽ elastic regime
F ⫽ fit to current FEM data where K is the hardness factor given by K⫽0.454⫹0.41 and the
c ⫽ critical value at onset of plastic deformation hardness is assumed H⫽2.8•S y . While from an engineering per-
o ⫽ maximum spective the corresponding values given by Eqs. 共1兲 and 共A7兲 are
冉 冊
CEB model contains a discontinuity at c .
Zhao et al. 关6兴 devised an elasto-plastic 共ZMC兲 model, which d Sy
⫽⫺az 关 a 2 共 4⫹ 兲 ⫹ 共 1⫹ 兲 z 2 兴
interpolates between the elastic and fully plastic 共AF兲 models. The dz p o
冋 冉 冊册
ZMC model divides the interference into three segments: 共1兲 elas-
tic 共Hertz兲, 共2兲 elasto-plastic 共using a template兲, and 共3兲 fully plas- a
⫹ 共 1⫹ 兲共 a 2 ⫹z 2 兲 2 tan⫺1
tic 共AF兲. A template function satisfies continuity of the function z
and its slope at the two transitions. The works 关7,8兴 take semi-
analytical approaches to the problem. ⫽0 (B5)
Kogut and Etsion 关4兴 also performed a FEM analysis of the This equation is solved numerically for Poisson’s ratios between
same case of an elastic-perfectly plastic sphere in contact with a 0.01 and 0.50 to find the locations, z, at initial yielding. These
rigid flat. Again in their analysis, the value of H is set to be fixed locations are then substituted in Eq. 共B4兲 to find the applied maxi-
at 2.8•S y . Notably, the slope of P/(AS y ) is not zero 共it still in- mum contact pressure to yield strength ratio, p oc /S y . This ratio,
creases monotonically兲 at the point where full plasticity is as- p oc /S y, is referred to as the yield strength coefficient and desig-
sumed. Their work gives a very detailed analysis of the stress nated by the symbol C. An empirical function is fitted to the final
distribution in the contact region, and empirical expressions are numerical data, which is given by
provided for the contact area, the contact force, and the average
contact pressure. The resulting equations have a discontinuous p oc
⫽C⫽1.295 exp共 0.736 兲 (B6)
slope at * ⫽6, and they describe the deformation only up to Sy
* ⫽110, at which point full plasticity is assumed. These are Equation 共B6兲 differs from the numerical solution by an average
given in a piecewise form: of 1.2% and by no more than 3.1%.
For 1⭐ * ⭐6 The interference,, is given as a function of p o by the Hertz
* ⫽1.03共 * 兲 1.425
P KE elastic solution in Johnson 关20兴 as
* ⫽0.93共 * 兲 1.136
A KE (A8) ⫽ 冉 冊
•p o
2E ⬘
2
R (B7)
冉 冊P
AS y KE
⫽1.19共 * 兲 0.289 Thus, to find the critical interference, or the interference at the
initial point of yielding, the maximum pressure when yielding first
occurs, p oc , is substituted into Eq. 共B7兲 for p o . This maximum
For 6⭐ * ⭐110 pressure is the pressure given by the maximum contact to yield
* ⫽1.40共 * 兲 1.263
P KE strength ratio given in Eq. 共B6兲. The equation p oc ⫽CS y is substi-
tuted into Eq. 共B7兲, resulting in Eq. 共1兲.
* ⫽0.94共 * 兲 1.146
A KE (A9) A similar derivation is also given in Chang 关31兴. However, that
冉 冊
derivation assumed a fixed value between strength and hardness,
P S y ⫽0.35H, which resulted in an equation for the hardness coef-
⫽1.61共 * 兲 0.117
AS y KE
ficient, K⫽0.454⫹0.41 . Such an assumption is not made in this
work 共see discussion on H G within兲.
These equations have a discontinuous slope at * ⫽6, and they
describe the deformation only up to * ⫽110, at which point full
plasticity and the AF model is assumed. At values * ⬍1 the References
Hertz contact solution is assumed. 关1兴 Greenwood, J. A., and Williamson, J. B. P., 1966, ‘‘Contact of Nominally Flat
Surfaces,’’ Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 295, pp. 300–319.
关2兴 Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J. N., 1951, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill,
Appendix B: Critical Interference New York.
关3兴 Green, I., 2002, ‘‘A Transient Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Seals Includ-
The Hertz solution results in the following equations for stress ing Asperity Contact and Face Deformation,’’ Tribol. Trans., 45共3兲, pp. 284 –
within the deformed sphere along the axis of revolution, z 293.
共Johnson, 关20兴兲: 关4兴 Kogut, L., and Etsion, I., 2002, ‘‘Elastic-Plastic Contact Analysis of a Sphere
冉 冉 冊冊
and a Rigid Flat,’’ Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech., 69共5兲, pp. 657– 662.
2 ⫺1 关5兴 Chang, W. R., Etsion, I., and Bogy, D. B., 1987, ‘‘An Elastic-Plastic Model for
z
1 ⫽⫺p o 1⫹ (B1) the Contact of Rough Surfaces,’’ ASME J. Tribol., 109, pp. 257–263.
a 关6兴 Zhao, Y., Maletta, D. M., and Chang, L., 2000, ‘‘An Asperity Microcontact
再冋 冉 冉 冊 冊册 冋 冉 冊 册冎
2 ⫺1
Model Incorporating the Transition From Elastic Deformation to Fully Plastic
z z a Flow,’’ ASME J. Tribol., 122, pp. 86 –93.
2,3⫽p o 2 1⫹ ⫺ 共 1⫹ 兲 1⫺ tan⫺1 关7兴 Jacq, C., Nelias, D., Lormand, G., and Girodin, D., 2003, ‘‘Development of a
a a z Three-Dimensional Semi-Analytical Elastic-Plastic Contact Code,’’ ASME J.
(B2) Tribol., 125, pp. 653– 667.
关8兴 Vu-Quo, L., Zhang, X., and Leesburg, L., 2000, ‘‘A Normal Force-
where the origin of the z-axis lies at the point of initial contact Displacement Model for Contacting Spheres Accounting for Plastic Deforma-
between the hemisphere and the rigid flat, and p o is the maximum tion: Force Driven Formulation,’’ ASME J. Appl. Mech., 67, pp. 363–371.
contact pressure. 关9兴 Abbott, E. J., and Firestone, F. A., 1933, ‘‘Specifying Surface Quality-A
The von Mises yield criterion is given as Method Based on Accurate Measurement and Comparison,’’ Mech. Eng. 共Am.
Soc. Mech. Eng.兲, 55, pp. 569–572.
S y⫽ 冑 1
2
关共 1 ⫺ 2 兲 2 ⫹ 共 2 ⫺ 3 兲 2 ⫹ 共 3 ⫺ 1 兲 2 兴 (B3)
关10兴 Greenwood, J. A., and Tripp, J. H., 1971, ‘‘The Contact of Two Nominally Flat
Rough Surfaces,’’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 185, pp. 625– 633.
关11兴 Tabor, D., 1951, The Hardness of Materials, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
关12兴 Davis, J. R., 1999, Metals Handbook, 2nd ed., ASM International, Metals
By substituting the principal stresses given in Eqs. 共B1兲 and 共B2兲 Park, OH.
into Eq. 共B3兲 and then simplifying, the following equation for the 关13兴 Francis, H. A., 1976, ‘‘Phenomenological Analysis of Plastic Spherical Inden-
von Mises yield criterion is obtained: tation,’’ ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 98, pp. 272–281.
关14兴 Oliver, W. C., and Pharr, G. M., 1992, ‘‘An improved technique for determin-
Sy 3
⫽
po 2
1⫹
z
a冉 冉 冊冊 2 ⫺1
冋
⫺ 共 1⫹ 兲 1⫺
z
a
tan⫺1
a
z 冉 冊册 (B4)
ing hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing inden-
tation,’’ J. Mater. Res., 7共6兲, pp. 1564 –1583.
关15兴 Mesarovic, S. D., and Fleck, N. A., 2000, ‘‘Frictionless Indentation of Dissimi-