1

+, plasticity index, describes the likely deformation characteristics of a rough surface.

If + is much less than 1 then asperity deformation is likely to be entirely elastic.
If + is much greater than 1 then asperity deformation is likely to be mostly plastic.
s
s
R
o
This factor is related to
mean slope of the surface
and can be obtained from
profilometry data.
Plastic flow will occur even at
trivial normal loads. Its probability
is virtually independent of the load
and solely a function of as long as
asperities continue to deform .
Designing machine components:
trade-off between obtaining low
Ar/Aa and operating in elastic
regime[ ]
Figure. Influence of plasticity index
(G&W) on the real area of contact.
*
*
*

|
o
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
H
E
(16)
Other plasticity index models:
Whitehouse and Archard
(W&A):
where o is RMS roughness
and |
-
is correlation distance
(degree of randomness) at which
ACF (t) =0.1
Bower and Johnson
(B&J):
s
s
p
E
= ok
*
(17)
where k is asperity tip curvature of
harder surface;
p
s
is shakedown pressure of softer
surface;

s
is plasticity index for repeated
sliding.
For G&Wand (W&A) models, when <0.6
(<0.25) elastic deformation dominates and
when >1 (>0.45) a large portion of contact
will involve plastic deformation. When
1<>0.6 mode of deformation is in doubt.
In B&J model, for
s
<1 the wear rate is
negligible and as
s
increases from 1 to 3.5
the wear coefficients increase by several
orders of magnitude.
Contact of Rough Surfaces (continued)
2
Important relationships for real contact area (A
r
) to apparent contact area (A
a
) in elastic regime:
In plastic regime, each contact can be visualized as a small hardness indentation, and p
m
=H.
Thus, A
rp
is a) inversely proportional to H, b) proportional to normal load, c) independent of A
a
:
Assuming A
rp
/A
re
=0.02 as criterion for onset of plasticity, values (G&W) were obtained in previous Fig.
During sliding, t
max
is larger and closer to surface, thus contacts become plastic at a lower .
Also during sliding, polishing of asperities generally occurs results in smoother surface thus A
r
Greenwood and Tripp (1971) considered the contact of two rough surfaces instead of G&W.
They found that for Gaussian peak-height distribution, the specification of asperity shape and
locations of asperities on one or both surfaces are unimportant. Thus the spherically assumed
shapes of asperities will not affect the contact area calculations.
They also showed the contact of two rough surfaces could be reduced to an equivalent single
rough surface with a smooth plane.
Cameron (1976) also showed for two rough surfaces with asperities not contacting at peaks,
the contact conditions are negligible compared to single rough surface and a smooth plane.
(18)
( )
2 / 1
*
/
2 . 3
~
s s
m
a
re
R E
p
A
A
o
(19)
( )
* *
/
~
| o E
p
A
A
m
a
re A
r
proportional to
load (pressure)
For two random surfaces (1 and 2) in contact, o
and |* of an equivalent surface are summed as:
(G&W)
(Onions & Archard)
2
2
2
1
2
o o o + =
*
2
*
1
*
1 1 1
| | |
+ =
(20)
H
p
A
A
m
a
rp
~
Unlike G&W they did not assume peak radii are constant
Contact of Rough Surfaces (continued)
3
Contact of Rough Surfaces (continued)
Example Two nominally flat steel surfaces are lapped to give standard deviation of peak heights of 0.2
m and mean peak radius of 5 m for each of the two surfaces. When the surfaces are placed in contact,
(a) Would you expect the asperity deformation to be predominantly elastic or plastic?
(b) Does your answer depend on the normal load?
(c) What is the real area of contact for a normal load of 100 N?
Given E
steel
= 200 GPa, u
steel
= 0.3 and H = 8 GPa.
4
Measurement Techniques:
Electrical Contact Resistance
Optical Methods (e.g. optical
interference)
Ultrasonic reflection
Radioactive or thin fluorescent paint
coating transfers to mating surface
Fig. Schematic diagram of the
experimental set-up for measuring the
real area of contact between a flat disk
and a convex lens, by the optical
interference technique.
The optical interferometry is the best choice
with a lateral resolution of about 0.25 m.
The optical technique can only be used for
surfaces with good reflectivity.
Measurement of Real Area of Contact
Fig. Asperity contact areas
at an applied load 500
mN (9.27 MPa at the
contact center). Light
regions correspond to
contact spots.
5
Elastic Contact of
Rough Curved Surfaces
Consider contact of smooth elastic sphere with a rough
surface, instead of two nominally flat surfaces
Need to know when surface roughness on loaded contacts
can be neglected in calculating the contact stresses, so we can
use Hertzian analysis, and under what conditions can they not?
The nominal pressure increases with overall load and the real
area of contact increases in proportion.
The asperities act like a compliant layer on the surface of
the body, so that the contact extends over a larger area than
would be the case if the surfaces were perfectly smooth. Thus,
the contact pressure for a given load will be reduced.
We can describe the influence of the surface roughness by
parameter, _,
The smoother the surface the smaller value of _, since it depends on o.
Conclude that Hertz theory for perfectly smooth surfaces can be used
to calculate the contact stresses on real engineering surfaces without
introducing numerical errors of more than a few percent provided non-
dimensional group (oR/a
2
) is less than about 0.1.
Parameter also applies to tangential loading, however _<0.05 is
3 / 1
2
2 *
2
9
16
)
`

=
)
`

=
W
RE
a
R
o
o
_
R
a
RE
W
2
3 / 1
2 *
2
16
9
=
)
`

= A
Hertzian
point
contact
Smooth elastic
sphere with
a rough surface
Hertz semi-
elliptical
Solid line -effective pressure distribution p(r)
Broken line -Hertz pressure (smooth surface)
(21)
somewhat conservative.
(smooth)
(rough)
5