Contact Mechanics

MTMG260/ECEG244
SEM Image of Early Northeastern
University MEMS Microswitch

Asperity

MTMG260/ECEG244
SEM of Current NU Microswitch

Asperities

MTMG260/ECEG244
Two Scales of the Contact
• Contact Bump (larger, micro-scale)

• Asperities (smaller, nano-scale)

Nominal Surface

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Basics of Hertz Contact
The pressure distribution:
p ( r )  p0 1  ( r / a ) 2 , r  a
p(r)
produces a parabolic depression p
on the surface of an elastic body. 0
Pressure Profile
(1  2 )
Depth at center   p0 a r
2E
a
Curvature in contact region
1 (1  ) p0
2

R 2 Ea
Resultant Force
a 2 2
P p (r )2 rdr  a p0
0 3 MTMG260/ECEG244
 Basics of Hertz Contact
Elasticity problem of a very “large” initially flat body
indented by a rigid sphere.
P

R
rigid r
δ
R
a

z r
R  R2  r 2

We have an elastic half-space with a spherical

depression. But: ( r  R )
w(r )    ( R  R 2  r 2 )    R(1  1  r 2 / R 2 )    r 2 / 2R
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Basics of Hertz Contact
 So the pressure distribution given by:
p ( r )  p0 1  ( r / a ) 2 , r  a

gives a spherical depression and hence is the pressure

for Hertz contact, i.e. for the indentation of a flat elastic
body by a rigid sphere with
1 (1  ) p0 (1  )
2 2
  p0 a
R 2 Ea 2E

 But wait – that’s not all !

 Same pressure on a small circular region of a locally

spherical body will produce same change in curvature.

MTMG260/ECEG244
Basics of Hertz Contact
P

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Hertz Contact
Hertz Contact (1882) P

2/3
 3P 
   * 1/ 2  Interference
 4E R 

1/ 3
 3PR 
a *  Contact Radius
 4 E 
E2,2
R2
1 1  12 1  22 Effective 
 
E* E1 E2 Young’s modulus
1 1 1
  Effective Radius 2a
R R1 R2
of Curvature E1,1
R1
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Assumptions of Hertz
 Contacting bodies are locally spherical
 Contact radius << dimensions of the body
 Linear elastic and isotropic material properties
 Neglect friction
 Neglect adhesion
 Hertz developed this theory as a graduate student during
his 1881 Christmas vacation
 What will you do during your Christmas vacation ?????

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Onset of Yielding
 Yielding initiates below the surface when VM = Y.

Fully Plastic
Elasto-Plastic
(uncontained plastic flow)
(contained plastic flow)
 With continued loading the plastic zone grows and reaches
the surface
 Eventually the pressure distribution is uniform, i.e. p=P/A=H
(hardness) and the contact is called fully plastic (H  2.8Y).

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Round Bump Fabrication
Shipley 1818
Shipley 1818 The shape of the photo
resist is transferred to the
silicon by using SF6/O2/Ar
ICP silicon etching
process.

Photo Resist Before Reflow Photo Resist After Reflow

Silicon Bump Silicon Bump

• Critical issues for
profile transfer:
– Process
Pressure
– Biased Power
– Gas Ratio O2:SF6:Ar=20:10:25 O2:SF6:Ar=15:10:25

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Evolution of Contacts

After 10 cycles After 102 cycles After 103 cycles After 104 cycles

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Elasto-Plastic Contacts
(L. Kogut and I Etsion, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2002, pp. 657-662)

 KH 
2
4 E *aC3
C   * 
R, K  0.454  0.41 , H  2.8 Y , aC   C R , PC 
 2E  3R
c, aC, PC are the critical interference, critical contact radius,
and critical force respectively. i.e. the values of , a, P for
the initiation of plastic yielding
Curve-Fits for Elastic-Plastic Region
1.425 1.136
P   A   
 1.03  ,  0.93  , 1 6
PC  C  AC  C  C

1.263 1.146
P   A   
 1.40  ,  0.94  , 6  110
PC  C  AC  C  C

Note when /c=110, then P/A=2.8Y

MTMG260/ECEG244
Fully Plastic Single Asperity Contacts
(Hardness Indentation)

Contact pressure is uniform and equal to

the hardness (H)

Area varies linearly with force A=P/H

Area is linear in the interference  = a2/2R

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Nanoindenters

Hysitron Ubi®
Hysitron Triboindenter®
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Nanoindentation Test

Indent
Force vs. displacement

MTMG260/ECEG244
Depth-Dependent Hardness
Depth Dependence of Hardness of Cu
12

10

8
H h*
 1
H0 h
(H/H )2
0

H0=0.58 GPa
4

h*=1.60m
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1/h (1/ m)

Data from Nix & Gao, JMPS, Vol. 46, pp. 411-425, 1998.
MTMG260/ECEG244
Microscale Testing – Scale Effect
John W. Hutchinson, “Plasticity at the Micron Scale,”
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 37, 2000, pp. 225-238.

Tension Test Torsion Test

Uniform Stress
Nonuniform Stress

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Microscale Testing – Scale Effect
Bending Test Hardness Test

Nonuniform Stress
Nonuniform Stress
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Geometrically Necessary and
Statistically Stored Dislocations

B. Bhushan and M. Nosonovsky, Acta Materialia, 2003, Vol. 51, pp. 4331-4345.
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Strain Gradient Plasticity Theory
(Hutchinson & Fleck; Gao & Nix)

 Stress is related to strain and also to the strain-gradient

 Strain gradient plays a primary role in yielding and in
post-yield behavior
 Smaller is stronger
 Theory applicable down to length scales of 100’s of nm
 Competition between geometrically necessary and statistically
stored dislocations
 Semi-empirical relation for scale-dependent hardness
H h* , H0 is the macro-hardness, h* is a characteristic length
 1
H0 h
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Surface Topography
Mean of Asperity Summits

Mean of Surface

1 L
Standard Deviation of Surface Roughness   0 ( z  m) dx
2 2

L
N
1
Standard Deviation of Asperity Summits S 
2

N
 Si S
( z
i 1
 z ) 2

Scaling Issues – 2D, Multiscale, Fractals

MTMG260/ECEG244
Contact of Surfaces
Flat and Rigid Surface

Reference Plane
Mean of Asperity
Summits

Typical Contact
MTMG260/ECEG244
 Typical Contact

Original shape P
Contact area

2a
R

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Multi-Asperity Models
(Greenwood and Williamson, 1966, Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London, A295, pp. 300-319.)

Assumptions
 All asperities are spherical and have the same summit
curvature.
 The asperities have a statistical distribution of heights
(Gaussian).
z (z)

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Multi-Asperity Models
(Greenwood and Williamson, 1966, Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London, A295, pp. 300-319.)

Assumptions (cont’d)
 Deformation is linear elastic and isotropic.
 Asperities are uncoupled from each other.
 Ignore bulk deformation.
z (z)

MTMG260/ECEG244
Greenwood and Williamson

MTMG260/ECEG244
Greenwood & Williamson Model
 For a Gaussian distribution of asperity heights the
contact area is almost linear in the normal force.
 Elastic deformation is consistent with Coulomb friction
i.e. A  P, F  A, hence F  P, i.e. F = N
 Many modifications have been made to the GW theory to
include more effects  for many effects not important.
 Especially important is plastic deformation and adhesion.

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Contacts With Adhesion
(van der Waals Forces)
 Surface forces important in MEMS due to scaling
 Surface forces ~L2 or L; weight as L3
 Surface Forces/Weight ~ 1/L or 1/L2
 Consider going from cm to m
 MEMS Switches can stick shut
 Friction can cause “moving” parts to stick, i.e. “stiction”
 Dry adhesion only at this point; meniscus forces later

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Forces of Adhesion
 Important in MEMS Due to Scaling

 Characterized by the Surface Energy () and

the Work of Adhesion ()    1   2   12

 For identical materials

  2
 Also characterized by an inter-atomic potential

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Adhesion Theories
(A simple point-of-view)
1.5
Some inter-atomic
potential, e.g.
1
Lennard-Jones

0.5 Z0
TH
 /

0
Z

-0.5

-1
0 1 2 3
Z/Z 0

For ultra-clean metals, the potential is more sharply peaked.

MTMG260/ECEG244
Two Rigid Spheres:
Bradley Model
1 1 1
P  
R R1 R2

R2 PPullOff  2 R

Bradley, R.S., 1932, Philosophical Magazine,

R1 13, pp. 853-862.

P
MTMG260/ECEG244
 JKR Model
Johnson, K.L., Kendall, K., and Roberts, A.D., 1971, “Surface Energy and the Contact
of Elastic Solids,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A324, pp. 301-313.

• Includes the effect of elastic deformation.

• Treats the effect of adhesion as surface energy only.
• Tensile (adhesive) stresses only in the contact area.
• Neglects adhesive stresses in the separation zone.
P1 P

a a

MTMG260/ECEG244
Derivation of JKR Model
Stored Elastic Mechanical Potential Surface
Energy Energy in the Applied Load Energy

Total Energy ET
dET
Equilibrium when 0
da

a3 K 4 *
 P  3R  6RP  (3R) 2 , K E
R 3

a2 8a
  PPullOff  1.5R
R 3K

MTMG260/ECEG244
 JKR Model Deformed Profile of
Contact Bodies
Pressure Profile
P
p(r)
• Hertz model Hertz
Only compressive stresses
can exist in the contact area. a
a r

 JKR model p(r)

P
 Stresses only remain JKR
compressive in the center.
 Stresses are tensile at the a r
edge of the contact area.
 Stresses tend to infinity
a
around the contact area.
MTMG260/ECEG244
 JKR Model
1. When  = 0, JKR equations revert to the Hertz equations.

2. Even under zero load (P = 0), there still exists a contact radius.
1 1
 6R 2
 3
a0
2
 4  R 
2 2 3
a 0    0    2

 K  3 R  3K 

3. F has a minimum value to meet the equilibrium equation

1/ 3
3  3 R 2 
Pmin   R  min   
2  2 2K 
i.e. the pull-off force.

MTMG260/ECEG244
 DMT Model
Derjaguin, B.V., Muller, V.M., Toporov, Y.P., 1975, J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 53, pp. 314-326.
Muller, V.M., Derjaguin, B.V., Toporov, Y.P., 1983, Coll. and Surf., 7, pp. 251-259.

DMT model p(r)

 Tensile stresses exist outside
the contact area.
 Stress profile remains Hertzian
inside the contact area.
a r
Applied Force, Contact Radius & Vertical Approach

a3 K a2
 P  2R, 
R R

PPullOff  2  R
MTMG260/ECEG244
 JKR-DMT Transition
1/ 3
  R 
2

Tabor Parameter:    2 3 
 E Z0 

  1 DMT theory applies

(stiff solids, small radius of curvature, weak energy of adhesion)

  1 JKR theory applies

(compliant solids, large radius of curvature, large adhesion energy)

Recent papers suggest another model for DMT & large loads.
J. A. Greenwood 2007, Tribol. Lett., 26 pp. 203–211
W. Jiunn-Jong, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008), 185301.

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Maugis Approximation
1.5
Maugis approximation  TH , Z  Z 0  h0
 
 0, Z  Z 0  h0
1

0.5
where
TH
 /

0 h0 TH  
h0
-0.5

 h0  Z 0
-1
0 1 2 3
Z/Z 0

MTMG260/ECEG244
Elastic Contact With Adhesion

MTMG260/ECEG244
Elastic Contact With Adhesion

w=

MTMG260/ECEG244
Elastic Contact With Adhesion

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Adhesion of Spheres
1.5
JKR Tabor Parameter
Maugis 1/ 3
1  R 
2
   
*2 3 
 E Z0 
0.5
TH

Lennard-Jones
JKR valid for large 
 /

0
DMT DMT valid for small 

-0.5

-1
0 1 2 3
Z/Z0

 and TH are most important

E. Barthel, 1998, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 200, pp. 7-18

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Adhesion Map
K.L. Johnson and J.A. Greenwood, J. of Colloid Interface Sci., 192, pp. 326-333, 1997

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Multi-Asperity Models
With Adhesion
• Replace Hertz Contacts of GW Model with JKR Adhesive
Contacts: Fuller, K.N.G., and Tabor, D., 1975, Proc. Royal
Society of London, A345, pp. 327-342.
• Replace Hertz Contacts of GW Model with DMT Adhesive
Contacts: Maugis, D., 1996, J. Adhesion Science and
Technology, 10, pp. 161-175.
• Replace Hertz Contacts of GW Model with Maugis
Adhesive Contacts: Morrow, C., Lovell, M., and Ning, X.,
2003, J. of Physics D: Applied Physics, 36, pp. 534-540.

MTMG260/ECEG244
Morrow, Lovell, Ning

DMT

JKR
( ) ???

MTMG260/ECEG244
Microscale Friction

F  P Amontons-Coulomb Friction

Friction at the Microscale ?

F  A P

MTMG260/ECEG244
 Two Separation Modes
Brittle Separation:
Little if any plastic deformation
during separation (Au-Au).

Ductile Separation:
varying degrees of plastic
deformation during separation
(Au-Au).
MTMG260/ECEG244
Contact Radius vs. Interference

MTMG260/ECEG244
External Force vs. Interference

MTMG260/ECEG244
Sphere Profile Before Separation
Ru Au

No Neck Neck

MTMG260/ECEG244