Wear, 86 (1983) 105 - 118

LIMITS OF APPLICABILITY
ROUGH SURFACES

105

OF ELASTIC

CONTACT

MODELS

OF

JOHN I. McCOOL
SKF Industries
(U.S.A.)

Inc.,

P.O. Box

515,

1100

First Avenue,

King of Prussia, PA 19406

(Received October 20,1982)

Summary
Recent stochastic models for analyzing the contact of rough surfaces
assume that the asperities are microhertzian,
i.e. that they can be approximated as second-order surfaces in the vicinity of contact points, and that the
asperities deform elastically. Using a plane strain solution from the literature
for a sinusoidally corrugated
half-space, the range of validity of these assumptions is shown to be related to the mean square surface slope and the
macrocontact
pressure. By extension to random surfaces characterized
by a
one-dimensional
spectral density function an interval on the surface spatial
frequency is found over which the asperities deform elastically but without
completely flattening. A numerical example is given.

1. Introduction
Numerous
stochastic
models have been developed
to describe the
relationship between the applied load and the mean plane separation and the
real area of contact which result when two microscopically
rough surfaces
are pressed together. In one of the earliest of such models, that of Greenwood and Williamson [ 11, the asperities on an isotropic surface are modelled
as cones with gaussiandistributed
heights and constant-radius
tips. Gupta
and Cook [2] relaxed this assumption permitting the tip radii to be lognormally distributed but independent
of the tip height. Tallian [3] developed
a model for strongly anisotropic surfaces in which the asperities are modelled
as prisms of triangular cross section, gaussiandistributed
height and constant
tip radius. In equating the base angle of the prisms to the measured r.m.s.
surface profile slope in his model, he recognized that surface frequency and
not just roughness height determined the contact behavior.
Nayak [4] showed the applicability
to engineering surfaces of the rich
two-dimensional
random process characterization
developed
by LonguetHiggins [ 51 for describing ocean waves. With this description the dependence
on frequency
content is explicit, the relation between profile and surface
0043-1648/83/0000-0000/$03.00

0 Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

data is resolved and surface anisotropy

is accounted
for in a natural way.
Bush et al. [6] applied the Longuet-Higgins
surface description to solve the
elastic contact problem for isotropic surfaces, treating the surface asperities
as second-order
surfaces in the vicinity of the summits. OCallaghan and
Cameron [ 71 used a simulation model to solve essentially the same problem.
Bush et al. [8] specialized their analysis and solved the contact problem for
strongly anisotropic surfaces.
McCool and Gassel [9] extended the simulation approach of OCallaghan and Cameron to the general anisotropic
case, implementing
the
solution
through
a computer
program
dubbed
ASPERSIM
(ASPERity
SIMulation).
Two assumptions
common
to all these stochastic
random process
contact models are (1) that the surface summits can be approximated
as
second-order
surfaces so that Hertz theory governs the relation between
force, deflection
and contact area at each microcontact
and (2) that the
surfaces deform elastically.
In this paper a solution due to Dundurs et al. [lo] for the elastic
contact in plane strain of purely sinusoidal surfaces is used to examine both
of these issues.
By treating the surface as purely harmonic, limits on the mean square
slope can be found between which the surface asperities will neither completely flatten under load nor experience
any plastic deformation.
It is
suggested that these limits may be used with random surfaces to define the
frequency interval over which purely elastic asperity models are applicable.
The error in real contact area estimation
due to the second-order
hertzian approximation
of a purely harmonic surface is found to be a decreasing function of mean square slope.
It is suggested that a minimum mean square slope criterion should be
used in judging the adequacy of asperity models for random surfaces.

2. The second-order (microhertzian) surface approximation

Let us consider two contacting
half-spaces which, remote from their
interface, are in uniform compression under a stress p acting perpendicular
to the interface.
The interface of one half-space is presumed to be sinusoidally corrugated with amplitude A and frequency
f while the other surface is presumed to be perfectly flat. Expressions for the fraction of the interface that
is in elastic contact computed
using (1) an exact plane strain analysis of a
sinusoidal surface and (2) the hertzian approximation
are as follows (see
Appendix A) :
area fraction

(sinusoidal)

= i

COS-(1 - 2Q)

(1)

107

area fraction

(hertzian

approximation)

=-

2
77

Q l/2

(2)

where Q = p/nfAE, E = E/2(1 - v), E is Youngs modulus, v is Poissons

ratio, p is the uniform compressive stress remote from the interface, f is the
frequency of the sinusoidal interface and A is the amplitude of the sinusoidal
interface.
For either analysis method the maximum compressive stress pmax at the
asperity contacts is the same. The ratio p,,,/p
is a stress concentration
factor expressing how the uniform compressive stress in the half-space is
elevated in transmitting load through the asperity tips. It is expressible as
P,,,~P

2Q-12

(3)

Both expressions (1) and (2) correctly predict an area fraction of zero
at Q = 0. As Q increases, the predicted area fractions diverge. For Q = 1 the
sinusoidal expression predicts full contact while the hertzian approximation
predicts 63% contact. Table 1 shows the two area fractions and their perTABLE1
True uersussecond-orderapproximation
areafraction
Q

Area fraction
(sinusoidal)

Area fraction
(hertzian)

Percentage
difference

Stress concentration
factor Pmax IP

0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.49

0.0637685
0.110825
0.143566
0.170463
0.193973
0.215219
0.234825
0.253183
0.270556
0.287133
0.303053
0.318424
0.333333
0.347849
0.36203
0.375924
0.389573
0.403013
0.416277
0.429394
0.44239
0.45529
0.468116
0.48089
0.493633

0.063662
0.110266
0.142353
0.168434
0.190986
0.211143
0.229537
0.246562
0.262485
0.277496
0.291736
0.305312
0.31831
0.330797
0.34283
0.354455
0.36571
0.376629
0.387241
0.397569
0.407636
0.41746
0.427058
0.436445
0.445634

0.167102
0.504321
0.845466
1.19068
1.54012
1.89395
2.25229
2.61531
2.98318
3.35609
3.73424
4.11782
4.50703
4.90215
5.30338
5.71103
6.12535
6.54667
6.97534
7.41169
7.85612
8.30904
8.77095
9.24232
9.72373

20
11.547
8.94427
7.55929
6.66667
6.03023
5.547
5.16398
4.85071
4.58832
4.36436
4.17029
4
3.849
3.71391
3.59211
3.48155
3.38062
3.28798
3.20256
3.12348
3.04997
2.98142
2.9173
2.85714

centage difference as a function of Q, together with the stress concentration

factor P,,,lP.
It is seen that the percentage error in computed area fraction will not
exceed 5% if
Q = p/nfAE

< 0.27

(4)

For a sine wave of amplitude

A and frequency

f the mean square slope

m2 is
= 2(rrfA)

(5)

where T E l/f is the period.

Substitution
of eqn. (5) into eqn. (4) results in the inequality

(6)
which must obtain for an error of less than 5% in the contact area. For a
different allowable error it is necessary only to replace the number 0.27 in
eqn. (6) by the Q value given in Table 1 corresponding
to the desired error
percentage.
Although strictly applicable to harmonic surfaces it is suggested that
this criterion
on the mean square surface slope be applied to judge the
probable error in second-order asperity models for random surfaces as well.
For random surfaces the value of m2 is conveniently
expressed in terms
of the one-sided spectral density function s(f) as
m2 =

CW2

f2s(f) df

(7)

3. Elastic flattening

The index commonly used to assess the severity of the contact of rough
surfaces is the film parameter A defined as the ratio of the lubricant film
thickness h to the composite r.m.s. roughness u of the contacting bodies (cf.
ref. 11 and ref. 12). Leaver et al. [ 131 recognized that in constructing
this
index it is possible to be seriously misled by the relatively large contribution
to the r.m.s. roughness value of long spatial wavelengths. They argued that
wavelengths which were long relative to the size of a hertzian contact would
not cause interactions but would merely be ridden by the moving contact.
They recommended
the removal by filtering of all low frequency waves
having wavelengths
that exceeded twice the contact width prior to the
computation
of the r.m.s. roughness.

109

Sayles et al. [14] proposed, as a refined cut-off criterion, the elimination as harmless of all waves which will elastically flatten under the applied
load. For purely harmonic surfaces this criterion is readily translated into a
constraint
on the mean square surface slope using the analysis of an elastically deformed sine wave presented in Appendix A.
A harmonic surface of amplitude A and frequency f will, when pressed
against a smooth elastic plane, be fully flattened when the contact halfwidth
b is equal to half the period, i.e. when
b = 1/2f

(8)

As has been noted this occurs when Q =plnfAE

sure remote from the interface has the value

= 1.0,

i.e.

when the pres-

p = rfAE

(9)

Using the expression for the mean square slope in eqn. (5), the flattening condition can be expressed as
p>

(~YFI#~E

rfAE=

(10)

or
2
(11)

This is identical in form with the criterion

using a cylindrical asperity model.

4. Plastic deformation

derived by Sayles et

>

(12)
some degree of plastic flow will occur

y/2

(13)

where Y is the material yield stress in simple tension. By substitution

P Inaxfrom eqn. (A15) and use of m 2 = 2(rfA)2 this criterion becomes
mz >

0.96Y4
(PE,)2

141

the maxi-

= 0.3OP,,X

Under the Tresca yield condition,

below the surface whenever
7 max

criterion

For the hertzian contact of a long cylinder and a half-space

mum subsurface shear stress r,,, has the value (cf. ref. 15)
7 max

al.

= Y4(pE)2

for

(14)

110

5. Frequency

interval for elastic asperity

models

Let us define
(15)
and
h2)P

Y4
__(@)2

(16)

We have seen that a sinusoidally

shaped interface will cause elastic
asperity interaction, i.e. it will be unflattened
but not plastically deformed, if
(1712)E <

1122 <

(17)

(m2)p

Depending on the pressure p in the macrocontact,

than (uz~)~. Equating eqns. (15) and (16) we see that
occur when the macrocontact
pressure exceeds

p = Y/2/2

(m&, may be less

this condition will
(18)

With pressures in excess of Y/212 any sinusoidally shaped interface will

either be elastically flattened or suffer some degree of plastic deformation.
At lower macrocontact
mean pressure levels, i.e. p < Y/212, (m& >
(m& and together they define a range of frequencies
over which surface
interaction
models of the elastic asperity type are valid. Let s(f) denote the
one-sided spectral density function
for a random surface. The applicable
physical picture is a strongly anisotropic
surface, i.e. having a pronounced
lay or directionality
in the roughness process. s(f) is the spectral density of
the roughness profile in the direction perpendicular
to the lay. It is assumed
that the spectrum is negligible below a limit fL and above a limit f, determined by the characteristics
of the measuring system.
Let us consider the function

m2W

= CW2

/f2s(f)

df

(19)

fL

value between fL and f, (fL < f G f,).

increasing function of f as shown in Fig. 1. It
represents the mean square surface slope if all frequencies in excess off were
removed from the roughness process by a low pass filter. As seen in Fig. 1,
the frequency fl is defined implicitly by the relation
where

Mfl)

f is a general frequency
mz(f) is a monotonically

= W2)E

(20)

With this definition

we may assert that if the surface has a purely
harmonic shape with frequency
less than fl it will flatten elastically. This
does not strictly assure that surfaces composed
of sums of sinusoids of

111

f*
Fig. 1. The function mz(fl.

various frequencies each below fi will flatten, even though the mean square
slope rn2 for the composite surface is less than (~tl~)z. Nevertheless it seems
reasonable to regard frequencies below fi as relatively harmless with respect
to asperity interactions.
In the same sense, single-frequency
sinusoids of
frequency lower than f2 defined implicitly by
m2V2)

(21)

= (mz),

will not undergo any plastic deformation.

f2 is suggested as a useful guidepost for establishing a frequency limit for general surfaces below which there
will be no plastic flow.
If it is assumed that real surface interfaces change with running so that
plastic flow eventually ceases and all deformation
becomes purely elastic, f2
will be of the order of the highest frequency present on the run-in surface.

6. Numerical

example

6.1. The macrocon tat t

A long smooth steel roller having a radius R = 10 mm (0.3937 in) is
pressed into a rough steel flat under a load q per unit roller length of 135 N
mm- (760 lbf in-).
A hertzian macrocontact
forms having a halfwidth (cf. ref. 15)

where for steel

112

E'+ ~ ___-E

2(1 - V)2

1.26 X 1ON mm- 2 (18.27 X lo6 lbf in-*)

so that
i 2 x 135 x 10

I*

w = 7~X 1.26 X 10
and the maximum

= 8.26 X lo-* mm (3.25 X 10P3 in)

pressure across the macrocontact

is
(23)

2 X 135 X 1.26 X lo5

P=

7r x 10

This pressure
bearings.

is typical

= 1040 N mm-* (151000

of the contact

pressure

in high speed turbine

6.2. Roughness process description

We assume that the rough flat has a spectral density
s(f) = Cf-2
s(f) f 0

lbf in-*)
engine

of the form

(fL < f< fU)

(otherwise)

(24)

where c = 3.14 X lo- pm3.

Above f, the roughness spectrum is presumed to be attenuated
by the
electrical and mechanical filtering action of the tracing instrument.
From
Church et al. [ 161 and on the basis of attenuation
measurements made with
a popular measuring instrument we take
f, = 5 X 10-l pm- (12 500 in-)
Again, from Church et al. [ 161 the limit fL is taken as
fL =

3/L

(25)

where L is the total length of profile record used in compiling the spectrum.
Frequencies
below fL are believed to be damped as a consequence
of
the removal of a linear trend from the profile record. The assumption that
L = 1500 pm gives

fL = 2 X lop3 pm- (50 in-)

The mean square surface roughness

between

the limits

fL and f, is

fu
$

=
s

s(f) dt

= c(fL-'-fu-I)

(26)

fL
=

3.14 x 10_5{(2 x lo-s)-

= 1.56 X lo-* pm* (25 pin*)

- (5 x lo-)-)

113

6.3. Cut-off for elastic flattening

From eqn. (19) the function
mz(f) = (2~)~ jf2cf-2

mz(f) is

df

(27)

fL

m2(f)

(N2c(f

(28)

- fL)

= (2?7)2 x 3.14 x lOP(f

- 2 x lo-s)

= 1.24 X 10-3(f - 2 X 10-3)

From

eqn. (16) the use of the maximum

macrocontact

for p

pressure

gives
1040
(m2)E

(1.26 X 105)2 = 1.70 X 1O-5

1.24 X 10-3(fl - 2 X 10-j) = 1.70

fl = 1.57 X 10P2 pm- = 393 in-
At this frequency

there are

2w
2 X 82.6
-=
= 25.9
111.57 x 1o-2
l/f1
wavelengths within the contact width.
It should be noted that the criterion of eliminating waves longer than
twice the macrocontact
width would have resulted in the removal of frequencies lower than
flZ

1
__A__
2(2w) = 2 X 2 X 82.6 = 3.03 X 10m3 j.fm- (75.7 in-)

6.4. Upper frequency limit for pure elastic contact

Using Y = 2000 N mrnm2 (290 klbf inm2) for hardened
steel we can obtain from eqn. (17)

AISI-SAE

52100

2ooo4
(m2)p = (1040 X 1.26 X 1O5)2
= 9.32

Equating

x 1o-4
to m2(f2) gives

1.24 X 10-3(f2 - 2 X 10-3) = 9.32 X 1O-4

f2 = 0.753 pm- (18 800 in-)
Since f2 exceeds f, the surface
deform elastically.

represented

by the measured

spectrum

will

114

The variance
computed as
02 =
s

of the surface

rLl
s(f) df = 3.14 X 10-5((1.57

excluding

X 10-2)-

frequencies

below fi may be

- (5 X 10-i)-}

f,
=

1.94 X 10m3 pm2 (3.10 pin2)

so that
u = 4.40 X 10e2 E.trn(1.76 pin)
Thus by excluding elastically flattening waves the r.m.s. roughness is reduced
to 35% of its unfiltered value.
If instead fi, corresponding
to the elimination
of waves longer than
twice the macrocontact
width, is used the variance would be
u 2 = 3.14 x lOP((3.03

x 10-s))

- (5 x lo-)-}

= 1.03 X lop2 pm2 (16.4 pin2)

so that
(7 = 1.01 X 10-l pm (4.06 pin)
Thus with this criterion instead of the elastic flattening
filtered r.m.s. roughness is only reduced to 82% of its unfiltered
6.5. Error in the asperity model area computation
With the surface defined over the frequency
of m2 from eqn. (28) with fL = fl is
m2 = (27~)~X 3.14 X lOP(5

range

criterion
value.

the

fl < f < f, the value

X 10-l - 1.05 X 10P2)

= 6.07 X lop4 rad

From eqn. (6) for an error of less than 5% in true contact
tions with a second-order asperity model we must have

Since 6.07 X lop4 < 18.6 X lop4 the error exceeds

actual error, we compute
Q = p/rfAE

= 22pjm22E

212 X 1040
= (6.07 X 10-4)12 x 1 ?F .: ;$
= 0.47

area calcula-

5%. To estimate

the

115

From Table 1 corresponding

9.24%.

to Q = 0.47 the percentage

error in area is

Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was performed under Contract DEAC02-80ER10693
with the U.S. Department
of Energy. This support and
the encouragement
of Dr. Oscar Manley, the technical project monitor, are
gratefully acknowledged.

References
1 J. A. Greenwood and J. Williamson, Contact of nominally flat surfaces, Proc. R. Sot.
London, Ser. A, 295 (1966) 300 - 319.
2 P. K. Gupta and N. H. Cook, Statistical analysis of mechanical interaction of rough
surfaces, J. Lubr. Technol., 94 (1) (1972) 19 - 26.
3 T. E. Tallian, The theory of partial elastohydrodynamic contacts, Wear, 21 (1972)
49 - 101.
4 R. P. Nayak, Random process model of rough surfaces, J. Lubr. Technol., 93 (3)
(1971) 398 - 407.
5 M. S. Longuet-Higgins, The statistical analysis of a random moving surface, Philos.
Trans. R. Sot. London, 249 (1957) 321- 347.
6 A. W. Bush, R. D. Gibson and T. R. Thomas, The elastic contact of a rough surface,
Wear, 35 (1975) 87 - 111.
7 M. OCallaghan and M. A. Cameron, Static contact under load between nominally flat
surfaces in which deformation is purely elastic, Wear, 36 (1976) 79 - 97.
8 A. W. Bush, R. D. Gibson and G. P. Keogh, Strongly anisotropic rough surfaces,
J. Lubr. Technol., 101 (1) (1979) 15 - 20.
9 J. I. McCool and S. S. Gassel, The contact of two surfaces having anisotropic roughness geometry, ASLE Spec. Publ. SP-7, 1981, pp. 29 - 38 (American Society of
Lubrication Engineers).
10 J. Dundurs, K. Tsai and L. Keer, Contact between elastic bodies with wavy surfaces,
J. Elast., 3 (2) (1973) 109 - 115.
11 T. E. Tallian, Y. P. Chiu, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kamenshine, L. B. Sibley and N.
Sindlinger, Lubricant films in rolling contact of rough surfaces, ASLE Trans., 7 (2)
(1964) 109 - 126.
12 P. Dawson, Effect of metallic contact on the pitting of lubricated rolling surfaces,
J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 4 (1) (1962) 16 - 21.
13 R. Leaver, R. Sayles and T. Thomas, Mixed lubrication and surface topography of
rolling contacts, Proc., Inst. Mech. Eng., London, (1974) 461 - 469.
14 R. Sayles, G. desilva, J. Leather, J. Anderson and P. MacPherson, Elastic conformity
in hertzian contacts, Tribol. Int., 14 (6) (1981) 315 - 322.
15 F. Seely and J. Smith, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, Wiley, New York, 2nd edn.,
1952.
16 E. Church, M. Howells and T. Vorburger, Spectral analysis of the finish of diamondturned mirror surfaces, Proc. Sot. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng., 315 (1982) 202 - 218.

116

Appendix

A.1. Elastic contact area fraction for a sinusoidal surface: exact analysis
versus hertzian approximation
A.l.l. Sinusoidal surface
Let us consider a semi-infinite body with a sinusoidal surface in elastic
contact with another perfectly flat infinite body as shown in Fig. Al.

Fig. Al. Contact of smooth

The equation

and sinusoidal

half-spaces.

of the sinusoid is

y = A cos(2nfx)

(Al)

where A is the amplitude and f is the spatial frequency.

The period of the
sinusoid is l/f.
In the position shown in Fig. Al a load P (per unit length in the direction into the paper) is being supported at each peak, resulting in a contact
region of length 2b.
A.1.2. The solution of Dundurs et al.
This problem was analyzed by Dundurs
load per period is given by
p =$

= +EfA{I

-cos(27rfb)}

et al. [Al]

who found that the

(-1

where E = E/2(1 - v2), E is Youngs modulus and Y is Poissons ratio.

The quantity p represents the uniform pressure acting in the direction
of the contact at points remote from the contact interface.
Solving eqn. (A2) for the contact width 2b gives
2b=

;;lfcos-(l--&)

(-43)

117

The contact
sinusoidal

length as a fraction
2b
= l/f

area fraction

Full contact,

of the period is

1
= - cos -+-&)
,r

i.e. an area fraction

(A4)

of 1 .O, occurs when

2p/1rE fA = 2
or
&-p/fA=rE
A.l.3. Hertzian approximation
For a standard hertzian analysis of the contact of a flat plane and the
tip of a sinusoidal asperity the curvature in the vicinity of the tip may be
calculated as
P=

d2@(xN
dx2

(A51

x=0

where
6(x) = A { 1 - cos(2rfx))
is the separation
position x.
This gives

(A6)

of the undeformed

sinusoid and the flat plane at coordinate

p = A(2rf)2

(A7)

corresponding,
R,L

at the point of initial contact,

to a cylinder

of radius

P
(2rf)2A
The contact length for a cylinder
space under a load P per unit length is

(A8)
of radius R contacting

a flat half-

(A91
and hence the contact length when the sinusoid
der of curvature radius R = 1/(2nf)2A is

is approximated

as a cylin-

l/2

(AlO)
The area fraction,

i.e. the contact

length per unit length, is

l/2

hertzian

area fraction

= 2b
llf

or, with the introduction

= 4

of p = P/f,

(All)

118
l/2

hertzian

area fraction

(A=)

When the sinusoidal

hertzian area fraction

solution
is

hertzian

_ 2 (TE\~
*nE

area fraction

-7

predicts

full contact,

i.e. at P/Af = TE, the

2
= - = 0.6366
7T

for an error of 36%.

A.l.4. Stress concentration
For hertzian contact the normal stress varies elliptically
contact region, i.e. the distribution of normal stress is

1 ot
2

P(x)=Pmax

l-

p(x) = 2nEAf

the

l/2

For the non-hertzian

across

(A131

contact

cos(nxf)

of sinusoids the pressure varies as

(cos(2rfx)

- cos(27rfb)}12

(A14)

---b < x < b

Dundurs

et al. showed that in both cases the maximum

P max = 2(npE Af)

or introducing Q 5 p/Af gives
P max
-P
The term p,,,/p
is a stress concentration
which the localized stress at the asperity
the contacting half-spaces.

stress is
(A15)

(A=)
factor. It represents the factor by
tips exceeds the uniform stress in

Reference for Appendix A

Al

J. Dundurs, K. Tsai and L. Keer, Contact between elastic bodies with wavy surfaces,
Elast., 3 (2) (1973) 109 - 115.

J.