Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
46 (2003), 3, 383-390
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS
Bogy) model shows identical results for pure elastic contacts having plasticity index values below 0.6 but substantial differences
for elastic-plastic contacts having plasticity index values above 1.
KEY WORDS
Contact Mechanics; Elastic-Plastic Contact; Rough Surfaces
INTRODUCTION
An accurate characterization of the contact between rough surfaces is important for analyzing many tribological problems.
These include sealing (21), friction (6), performance and life of
machine elements (22), and thermal (20) and electrical conductivity (15) to name a few. The high level of interest in this subject is
evident from the impressive number of works that were published
so far (see e.g. review papers by Bhushan, (3), Liu, et al., (18) and
Adams and Nosonovsky, (2)).
NOMENCLATURE
An
Ap
A
*
A
d
*
d
E
H
h
*
h
K
N
Nc
P
*
P
R
S
ys
s
*
c
c
SUBSCRIPTS
c
= yielding inception
SUPERSCRIPTS
= single asperity
383
384
Several approaches exist in modeling contacting rough surfaces. However, it seems that the most convenient one is the probabilistic approach, which is based on incorporating the behavior of
a single asperity in a statistical model of multiple asperity contact.
The mathematical modeling of contacting rough surfaces according to this approach (10) consists of:
1. Replacing the two rough surfaces by a smooth surface in
contact with an equivalent rough surface.
2. Replacing asperities with simple geometrical shapes.
3. Assuming a probability distribution for the asperity parameters.
The first probabilistic model for the contact of rough surfaces
was presented in the pioneering work of Greenwood and
Williamson (11) (GW model). This classic model is based on the
Hertz solution for a single elastic spherical asperity (see, e.g.
Johnson, (13)) and, hence, is mainly suitable for pure elastic contacts. Some pure plastic contact models emerged from the work of
Abbott and Firestone (1) that relates the bearing area of a rough
surface to its geometrical intersection with a flat.
The models for either pure elastic or pure plastic contact of
rough surfaces overlook a wide intermediate range of interest
where elastic-plastic contact prevails. An attempt to bridge this
gap was made by Chang, et al. (5) (CEB model). In this model
each contacting asperity remains in elastic Hertzian contact until
a critical interference is reached, above which volume conservation of the asperity tip is imposed and a uniform average contact
pressure is assumed. This simplifying assumption introduces a
discontinuity in the contact load at the transition from elastic to
elastic-plastic contact and triggered several modifications to the
original model e.g. Evseev, et al. (9), Chang (4) and Zhao, et al.
(25). Unfortunately, all these modifications are based on mathematical, rather than physical, considerations to smooth the discontinuity in the CEB model.
The original CEB model, because of its simplicity, was extended to different contacting surface geometries, asperity shapes and
asperity height probability density functions, e.g. Kogut and
Etsion (16), Horng (12) and Yu and Polycarpou (24). However, all
these works do not provide a solution to the basic problem of lacking accuracy in the elastic-plastic contact regime. Such accurate
solution calls for the use of a Finite Element Method (FEM).
Kucharski, et al. (14) used FEM to solve elastic-plastic contact
of a single asperity and provided empirical proportional expressions for the contact load and the contact area. Although the
s
=
3.717E 4
2
[1]
= R
and is the area density of the asperities.
All length dimensions are normalized by and the dimension*
less values are denoted by . Hence, ys is the difference between
*
*
h and d and is given by (see Etsion and Amit, (8)):
1.5
ys = h d =
108
[2]
A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces
Nc = An
*
(z )dz
(z ) =
exp[ 0.5( )2 (z )2 ]
2 s
s
The dimensionless interference is defined as
= z d
[3]
c = (
KH 2
) R
2E
[4]
385
The integrals in Eqs. [6] and [7] are solved in parts for the different deformation regimes of the contacting asperities.
Kogut and Etsion (17) used FEM to solve the elastic-plastic
contact problem of a single asperity and found that the entire elastic-plastic regime extends over interference values in the range 1
/c < 110 with a distinct transition in the mean contact pressure at /c = 6. Up to the transition interference of /c = 6 a
plastic region develops below the contact interface while the
entire contact area is elastic. Above /c = 6 the contact area contains an inner elastic circular core that is surrounded by an external plastic annulus. This elastic core shrinks with increasing interference and finally disappears completely at /c = 68. From
there on the entire contact area is plastic but the mean contact
pressure continues to grow until it becomes constant and equal to
the hardness at /c = 110, marking the beginning of fully plastic
contact.
and P on in the elastic-plastic regime
The dependence of A
was presented by Kogut and Etsion (17) in a dimensionless form
through normalizing the relevant parameters by their critical valc , Pc and , respectively.
ues at yielding inception A
c
The dimensionless expressions can be expressed in the general forms:
K = 0.454 + 0.41v
Ac = b(/c )m
A/
[8]
P /Pc = c(/c )n
[9]
1
1 12
1 22
=
+
E
E1
E2
E1, E2 and v1, v2 are Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios of
the contacting surfaces, respectively.
The dimensionless critical interference, c , is another form of
the plasticity index, , defined by Greenwood and Williamson
(11) as
= (c
0.5
2E s 0.5
)
=
( )
s
KH R
[5]
As can be seen the plasticity index depends on surface roughness and material properties. Rougher and softer surfaces have
higher plasticity index.
, and the contact load,
During loading, the area of contact, A
P , of each individual asperity depend only on its own interference, , assuming there is no interaction between asperities. The
and P on must be determined by the asperity
dependence of A
mode of deformation, which can be elastic, elastic-plastic or fully
plastic. Once these expressions are known, the total contact area,
A, and contact load, P, are obtained by summing the individual
asperity contributions using a statistical model:
A = An
d)(z)dz
A(z
[6]
P = An
d
[10]
2
Pc = KHRc
3
[11]
d +c
A
A =
= c (
I 1 + 0.93
An
d
d +6c
1.136
d +c
d +110c
Ac = Rc
+ 0.94
d +110c
d +6c
I 1)
I 1.146 + 2
[12]
P (z d)(z)dz
[7]
I = (
z d
) (z )dz
c
[13]
386
Deformation Regime
Fully elastic, /c < 1
1st elastic-plastic regime, 1 /c 6
2nd elastic-plastic regime, 6 /c 110
Fully plastic, /c > 110
Ap
c
A
[14]
Ap
=
A
d +68c
d +6c
(0.016I 1 0.081I 0 ) +
CONSTANT
m
1
1.136
1.146
1
b
1
0.93
0.94
2
I 0 [15]
d +68c
Following the same procedure that have lead to Eq. [12], with
*
Eqs. [9], [11] and [7], the dimensionless contact load, P , is
obtained in the form:
P =
P
An H
c
1
1.03
1.40
3/K
n
1.5
1.425
1.263
1
= 23 Kc
d +
d +6
( d c I 1.5 + 1.03 d + c I 1.425 + 1.4
c
d +110c
d +6c
I 1.263 +
3
K
d +110c
I 1)
[16]
*
>(
k
)1/2
3 d
[17]
It is clear from Eqs. [12] and [16] that the contribution of their
*
last threeintegrals (where k 1) vanish for any d > 0 whenever
< 1/ 3. Therefore, = 0.6 can be defined as the plasticity
index value below which the contact problem is fully elastic.
Following the same reasoning it is clear from the first integral of
Eq. [15]
(where k=6) that the ratio Ap/A is equal to zero for any
< 2. Therefore = 1.4 marks the transition from pure elastic to an elastic-plastic real contact area.
Similarly, the last integral in Eqs. [12] and [16] (where k =
110) becomes appreciable only if > 6. Below this value no
asperity can reach a fully plastic state. The significance of this last
integral, which sums up contributions of fully plastic asperities
only, can be evaluated by calculating the percentage of these
asperities in the total population of contacting asperities. It can be
easily shown from the Gaussian distribution that asperities with
*
heights z 0.68 account for 50% of all contacting asperities when
*
d = 0. For this to happen the lower limit of integration of this last
*
integral should be 0.68 which, with d = 0, corresponds to =
12.7. Similarly 32% and 10% of all contacting asperities will be
A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces
387
/c
= 32 . Hence, the transition value of corresponding
to /c = 16 is = 2.3.
It is interesting to investigate the dimensionless stiffness, S, of
contacting rough surfaces, which can be defined as
S = P /h . Figure 3 presents this stiffness vs. the dimen*
sionless contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index,
. As can be seen the stiffness is almost constant, independent of
*
and very small at low contact loads P < 0.001. In this range
*
the contact behaves like a linear spring. As the contact load P
increases and more asperities come into contact the stiffness
*
increases sharply with P and becomes appreciably sensitive to
*
variations in . This behavior at high P values may provide a
convenient experimental way for estimation of the plasticity
index, , by measuring the contacting surfaces stiffness as their
approach changes due to small increase of the contact load.
388
Fig. 5Plastic portion of the real contact area, Ap/A, vs. the dimension*
less contact load, P , for various values of the plasticity index, .
A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces
A=
P/H
0.41/
389
[19]
P /A = 0.41/
[18]
An improved elastic-plastic model for the contact of rough surfaces that is based on an accurate FEA solution of a single asperity contact was presented. It predicts the contact parameters, such
as separation, real area of contact and real contact pressure as
functions of the plasticity index and contact load. The present
model is based on constitutive laws appropriate to any regime of
deformation, be it elastic or plastic and therefore, provides more
accurate and reliable results than previous approximate models. A
comparison with the approximate elastic-plastic CEB model
shows identical results for pure elastic contacts having plasticity
index values below 0.6 but substantial differences for elastic-plastic contacts with plasticity index values above 1.
The main findings of the present model are the following.
The plasticity index is the main dimensionless parameter
that affects the contact of rough surfaces. Up to = 0.6 the contact problem is purely elastic, = 1.4 marks the transition of the
real contact area from entirely elastic to elastic-plastic, and = 8
marks the transition of the contact problem from an elastic-plastic
to fully plastic.
The contact stiffness of rough surfaces is very low and insen*
sitive to the plasticity index and contact load for P < 0.001. At
*
higher P values the stiffness becomes sensitive to variations of
, and may be used for estimating the plasticity index.
The mean real contact pressure is practically independent of
the contact load, similarly to the material hardness in fully plastic
contact. An elastic-plastic hardness in the form 0.41/ H can
therefore be used to relate the contact load and real area of contact.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported in parts by the Fund for the
Promotion of Research at the Technion, by the J. and S. Frankel
Research Fund and by the German-Israeli Project Cooperation
(DIP).
REFERENCES
(1) Abbott, E. J. and Firestone, F. A. (1933), Specifying Surface Quality - a Method
Based on Accurate Measurement and Comparison, Mech. Eng., 55, pp 569572.
(2) Adams, G. G. and Nosonovsky, M. (2000), Contact Modeling Forces, Trib.
Int., 33, pp 431-442.
(3) Bhushan, B. (1998), Contact Mechanics of Rough Surfaces in Tribology:
Multiple Asperity Contact, Trib. Lett., 4, pp 1-35.
(4) Chang, W. R. (1997), An Elastic-Plastic Contact Model for a Rough Surface
with an Ion-Plated Soft Metallic Coating, Wear, 212, pp 229-237.
(5) Chang, W. R., Etsion, I. and Bogy, D. B. (1987), An Elastic-plastic Model for
the Contact of Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 109, pp 257-263.
390
(6) Chang, W. R., Etsion, I. and Bogy, D. B. (1988), Static Friction Coefficient
Model for Metallic Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 10, pp 57-63.
(7) Christensen, H. (1969-70), Stochastic Models for Hydrodynamic Lubrication
of Rough Surfaces, in Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., 184, pp 1013-1025.
(8) Etsion, I. and Amit, M. (1993), The Effect of Small Normal Loads on the Static
Friction Coefficient for Very Smooth Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 115, pp
406-410.
(9) Evseev, D. G., Medvedev, B. M. and Grigoriyan, G. G. (1991), Modification of
the Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces, Wear, 150, pp 7988.
(10) Greenwood, J. A. (1984), A Unified Theory of Surface Roughness, in Proc.
Roy. Soc. (London), Series A, 393, pp 133 - 157.
(11) Greenwood, J. A. and Williamson, J. B. P. (1966), Contact of Nominally Flat
Surfaces, in Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), Series A, 295, pp 300-319.
(12) Horng, J. H. (1998), An Elastic-Plastic Asperity Microcontact Model for
Rough Surfaces, ASME Jour. of Trib., 120, pp 82-88.
(13) Johnson, K. L. (1985), Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
(14) Kucharski, S., Klimczak, T., Polijaniuk, A. and Kaczmarek, J. (1994), Finite
Elements Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces, Wear, 177, pp 1-13.
(15) Kogut, L. and Etsion, I. (2000a), Electrical Conductivity and Friction Force
Estimation in Compliant Electrical Connectors, Trib. Trans., 43, pp 816-822.
(16) Kogut, L. and Etsion, I. (2000b), The Contact of a Compliant Curved and a
Nominally Flat Rough Surfaces, Trib. Trans., 43, pp 507-513.