Wear,28(1974)217-234 217

7’ Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne - Printed in The Netherlands

EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACT BETWEEN SOLID

SURFACES

T. HISAKADO
Depurtment of Precision Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka (Japan)
(Received June 21, 1973; in revised form November 22, 1973)

The analysis of the mechanism of contact between two solids was carried
out considering the distribution of the radii of curvature of asperity peaks. The
analytical results show that the mean radius of curvature of asperity peaks has a
considerable effect on the nature of the deformation of contact asperities, i.e.
whether the contact is plastic or elastic, and more effect on the real area of
contact than the variation of the distribution of the radii of curvature.
The radii of curvature at the asperity peaks and the real area of contact
between two smooth surfaces were measured for comparison with the theoretical
results. The results for isotropic surfaces produced by buffing and sandpaper
agree with the theory; the real area of contact increases with decreasing
surface roughness.

NOMENCLATURE

total area of real contact

real area of elastic contact
real area of plastic contact
radii of contact points (i = 1, 2, 3, . . ., E)
mean radius of contact points = i ai/n
i=t
land length
fractional land length
Young’s modulus of contacting material
equivalent Young’smodulus, l/E’=( 1 -vf)/E, +(l -v:)/E,
probability density of surface heights

S(u)=(2z)-*a-’ exp(- 1/2)(u/o)2

G(u) = 1”’
”
g(u)du

dw) = IfW -.f(4>

f(~)=(2n)-f(af+cr$)-+ exp(- 1/2)(w/(c++~++)~
 Vickers hardness number (microhardness number)
probability density of radii of curvature on profile curve
Jacobian
apparent contact area
constant (m is dependent on R,,,,, and type of machining
operation)
number of contact points
flow pressure of softer surface
mean real pressure
probability density of I
maximum height of irregularities
radii of curvature at peaks of asperities
mean radius of curvature
total area of real surface in apparent contact area L,L,
equivalent area of real surface in apparent contact area
LL,
compliance of a surface
compliance of one asperity
critical compliance of asperity whose radius of curvature
is rrn
critical compliance of asperity whose radius of curvature
is ri
separation between a smooth surface and a rough surface
in contact
total load
load borne by one asperity
separation between two rough surfaces in contact
equivalent radii of curvature= l/z= t/r, + l/r,
mean equivalent radius of curvature
Poisson’s ratio
radii of curvature of asperities on profile curve
mean radius of curvature on profile curve
standard deviation

An understanding of the details of surface contact such as the real area

of contact and the real contact pressure is important in the analysis of the
mechanism of friction and wear, It is widely accepted from ear-her theories’ and
experimental results of surface contact that the real area of contact depends
upon the plastic deformation of asperities. From recent theoretical analysis’ the real
area of contact between two smooth surfaces can depend upon elastic deformation,
but the analysis requires experimental con~rmation. As it is considered that
the proportion of the area of contact supported by plastic deformation is
affected by the distributions of surface heights and the radii of curvature
of contact asperities, and by the mechanical properties of contact surfaces, the
experimental relationship between the surface roughness and the distribution of
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 219

the radii of curvature is important.

Assuming that the radii of curvature of contact asperities are hemispheres,
an analysis of the mechanism of contact between two isotropic surfaces with a
Gaussian distribution of surface heights has been carried out. The effects of
the distribution of the radii of curvature and the mean radius on the proportion of the
area of contact supported by plastic deformation, the number of contact points,
the real contact pressure and the mean radius of contact points are discussed.
To check the theory, the radii of curvature of the peaks of asperities
and the real area of contact between two smooth surfaces were measured and
compared with the theoretical results. The results for isotropic surfaces produced
by buffing and sandpaper show that the real area of contact increases with
decreasing surface roughness.

2. THEORY

2.1. Contact between a rough and a flat surfuce

2.1.1. Number of contact points
When a rough surface with asperities of various height and radii of
curvature is in contact with a harder ideal flat surface under an applied load K
separation between the rough surface and the flat surface U, using the centre line
of the rough surface as a reference, occurs as shown in Fig. 1, by deformation of contact
asperities until the area of contact is sufficiently large to support the load.
Assuming that the rough surface consists of a large number of hemispherical
,asperities, for the rough surface the real surface area which lies between the
separations u and u+Au is given by

S ‘(‘)
G(-mcr)
AU

Assuming that no interference occurs between neighbouring asperities, the real

surface area of each asperity in the range of the separation u to u+ AU becomes
2 nri&. Therefore, using the number of contact asperities n between a rough surface
and an ideal flat in a separation U, the real surface area of the rough
surface given by eqn. (1) can be written as follows:
?rnBX
~ZAU i ri =2nAun rq(r)dr = 2 rcAunr, (2)
i=l i
- rmin

Combining eqns. (1) with (2),

2.1.2. Real area of contact and load

The compliance corresponding to the onset of plastic flow of the asperity
with the radius of curvature pi in Fig. 1, Le. the critical compliance U,i is
given by2
220 T. HISAKADO

If the compliance U= (~zG- ~-1~)in Fig. 1 has a value smaller than the maximum
compliance corresponding to the onset of plastic flow of the asperity with the
maximum radius UBmnX =T,~~~,(H~?~E’)~, it is possible that the deformation of some
asperities which began to contact at the separation u=mcf is elastic at separatioil
u=u~. On the other hand, if the compliance U=(ma- ~1~)has a value greater
than Upmlx= r,,,,, (Hv~E’)~, the deformation of the asperities which began to contact
in the range of the separation u =~)HJ’*( ido+ Upnla,) is plastic at the separation
u=zt,,. Thus, the value of the real area of contact must be derived for both cases
of U = (fttc - uO)d rmaX(Hti/E’)’ and U = (VW- uO) 3 r”,;,,(Hu/E’)~. respectively.
(i) In the case of (rno - uO)< ~,,,(HL’/E’)’
Assuming that the distribution of the radii of curvature is independent
of the separation II. the total real area of contact A is given by
A = A,+A, (51
*“lb

A,= -
I
“ U" * (u-uc,)(E'/Ht.)*
rg (r)drdu (6)
‘(U-u”)lE’/Ho)~
A,= - rq(r)drdu (7)

The load W is also given by

r*q (r)drdu

-04- UC>)
(E’/W#
-R rq (r) drdu (8)
(ii) In the case of (mrr - uO) 3 ~*~~(~z~~~‘)’
The values of A, and A, in eqn. (5) are given by

-ug+ rnlax (m/E’)2

A,= - ~9(~)drdz~ (9)
. (u-uo)fE’/H~)~

‘VIIT

A,= - frrnaXrq(r)drdu
.i uo+r,,,IHa/E')* .I lmin
u,,+r,,,(HoJE't* .(U - It*) (E’IHYP
-
*i UI, I
8 *m,n
rq(r)drdu (IO)

The load W is also given by

u”+r,,,(Ht~/E’)2
WC-. rtq(r)drdu+p,A,
W I‘ (u-rq))(E’/Rv)2
(111
where the value of A, in eqn. (1 I) is obtained from eqn. ( IO),
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 221

2.1.3. Sumnation qf radii and wean radius of contact points

(i) In the case of (ma-u,) < ~,,,(HzI/E’)~

The summation of radii of contact points 2 a, which is often used for an

i=t

estimate of the electrical contact resistance3 and the thermal contact resistance4
between two flat surfaces can be expressed as

Hence dividing eqn. (12) by ‘eqn. (3), we obtain the mean radius of contact
points a, as follows:

It Qi 1 rnb
i=i d&4
n,=---- =:--.-------
fu--zr,)f ---&-
n s@%) i #I) i I

_- 42 j .md(u_uo)+ {!g 1
S(%) If0

(ii) In the case of (ntrr- no) >/Y_(H~‘/E’)

The summation of radii of contact points i czi can be expressed as
i=l

u”+rmaxfHu’E’)2 ($) j@-‘“‘“““‘;”

.I
J-(~__~)‘“. r+q(r)drdu
- (14)

WI lmin

Hence dividing eqn. (14) by eon. (3), we obtain the mean radius of contact
points a, as follows:
222 ‘l- HISAKADO

If the contacting surfaces are both rough, whether or not each asperity
makes contact is important. If the radii of curvature i:ary, the probability 01
contact between the peaks of the asperities is less than that of contact
between the shoulders of the asperities, i.e. contact in which the peaks of
asperities are not in alignment ~rpendicu~ar to the rcfcrence plane. However.
it is evident from the experimental results (see Fig. 12) that the mean radius of curve-
ture increases with decreasing surface roughness. When ~he distance between the
peaks in each pair of contact asperities on a reference plane is much smaller
than the radii of curvature of both asperities. the reIationshi~ between
the compliance (displacement) A\v and the radius of contact point lli is given by
Hertz’s equation as follows:

(17)

from eqns. (16) and (17).

a,? = ZAfi (18)
The relationship between two hemispherical asperities in contact as given in
eqn. (18) is equal to that between a hemispherical asperity and an ideal flat
surface in contact. Hence it is possible to replace the contact between two
rough surfaces with that between a rough surface with a distribution of an
equivalent radius of curvature and an ideal f?at surface. If the profile of the
replaced rough surface (equivalent rough surface) has a distribution of surface
heights g( w)/G( -mo). the number of contact points between two rough surfaces
in the separation w= wO, being the separation between two centre lines of the
rough surfaces, can be derived as follows; the real surface area of the replaced
rough surface between the separations w = ma and w = wO is given by

where
.Il”BX
40(z) = (20)
.i r2maxz/fr2mex-~)

Hence if n(mcr) k 0 and qo(z) is dependent of the load W, the number of

contact points n(wo) obtained from eqn. (19) can be written as
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 223

2.2.2. Real area oj contact and load

(i) In the case of (ma--w,)< z~,~(Hu/E’)’
The values of A, and A, in eqn (S), and Win eon. (8)

%nax
A, = - zq,(z)dzdw (24
(w- wo)(E’IHtp

A,,= - (23)

(24)

(ii) In the case of (mcr- w,,) >z,,,(Hu/E’)~

The values of A, arid A, in eqn. (5), and W in eqn. (11) are given by

wo+Z,,,(BV/E’)* Gnar
A, = - zq,(z)dzdw (25)
! W0 fw- wof(E’/H#

s
m.7 &na*

A,= - zq,,(z)dzdw
WO+
G,,~x
(WE’)* Gnin
-(w-woXE’!Ha)2
zq, (z)dz dw (26)
kli n
wo+=mex
(No/W
w=-
%
(27)
where the value of A, in eyn. (27) is given by eqn. (26).

2.23. ~~~~at~~~ of radii and mean ,-ad&s of contact points

Using w, n(w) and qe(z) instead of u, H(U)and q(r) in eqns. (12) to (15) respec-
tively, the values of i L+ and a, between two rough surfaces in contact
i=l
can be obtained by the same process as mentioned ‘previously in the derivation
of eqns. (22) to (27).
If the probability densities of the radius of curvature for two rough
surfaces are given by ql(~1)=(2~~lmax)jl-(rr/rlmax)) and ~~~~*)~~2~~~~~~)~1-
(YJ~~~~J) i.e. a dash-pointed line in Fig. 2, the value of qO(z) obtained from
eqn. (20) in the case of rlma~=r2m4x is shown by a solid line in this figure.
It can be seen that qa(z) has a maximum value for the value of z greater
than z=O.
334 ‘I’. HISAKADO

ii 02 04 06 08 10
(REFERENCE PLANE)
zlrmar rlhx
Fig. I. Schematic diagram of rough surface pressed by ideal flat surface.

Fig. 2. Distribution curw of equivalent radii of curvature ;=r, rz;(rl +r2). [q,(z); the probabihtj
density of z].

2.3. Distrihutiorl qf' radius of’ curvature on profile curve

It is difficult to measure the radii of curvature of asperities on a surface. There-
fore, they must be estimated from the radii of curvature of asperities on a profile
curve. If the stylus traces a hemispherical asperity whose radius of curvature
is I’ as shown in Fig. 3, the radius of curvature on the recorded profile curve
as shown by ABC in this figure, p is smaller than r. Hence the relationship
between r and p must be made clear theoretically. If the probability density of
radius of curvature q(r) is known, the probability density on the profile
curve h(p) is given by

(28)

Consequently, the mean value of radius of curvature on the profile curve /)m is written
as

urn = .\;a’ ph(p)dp (29)

For example, if the probability density of r is given by q(r) = (2/r,,,) { 1 - (r/r,,,)],

h(p) and p, are given by eqns. (28) and (29) as follows;
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 225

-4
0 Q2 a4 a6 0.6 LO
CURVE fbl , rr’rmax
f-,qmax
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of radius of curvature p on the profile curve and peak radius of
curvatureof asperityr.

if the probability density of r is given by 4(rf=(2i’r,,,)(r/r,,,), h(p) and pm are also

given as follows;

pm = 4rm )

The ~robab~Iit~ density k(p) given by eqns, (30) and (31) is shown in Fig. 4.
ft is clear from this figure that the curves of h(p) are different from those of
4(r)*

For the caiculation of theoretical values, the distribution of surface

heights and the flow pressure pf are assumed as follows:

Qf4 u-(4 -fb4> where M= 5, and pr ‘5 Hu. (34

G(-ma) =
F”Io
gb)du

The critical compliance corresponding to the onset of plastic flow of the

asperity with the mean radius of curvature U, is given by eqn. (4). The
dimensionless criticaf compliance’ U~~~=~r~~~~~~~~~i~2fur U, can be used as a
 226 -r. HiSAKAifO

criterion for the type of deformation of contacting asperities. i.c. whether the
contact is elastic under all practical loads or plastic. From the results the
dimensionless critical compliance is an important factor for the analysis of contact
mechanism.
If the probability density (l(r) is shown in Fig. 4, the influence of the
dimensionless critical compliance L’,,jo upon the proportion A,/A of the contact
area which involves plastic flow is obtained from eqns. (5) to (8) and eqns. (9) to
(11) and is shown in Fig. 5. These figures show that the value of U,/a in the
range of A,/A< 0.1 are more than 2.9 in Fig. 5(a) and (b). They also show
that the values of U,,/C in the range of A,/A 20.9 are less than 0.09 in
Fig. 5(a) and less than 0. I4 in Fig. 5(b). Thus comparison of Fig. S(a) and (b)
for a given value of the dimensionless critical comphance U,,I(T shows that the
values of A,;‘A are little influenced by the mode of the distribution curve
q(r) but influenced by the values of 2/,/a in the range of 0.09 to 2.9.

1.0 10

0.6 (G(-muflSJ(Wf!$)= IO-’ 0.6

4
a 0.6 d 0.6
%

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

O I 2 3 ’ 1 2 3
(a) Up/D
lb) Up/P

Fig. 5. Influence of dimensionless critical compliance UP/a on proportion A,,;.4 of contact area
which involves plastic flow: (a) y(r)=(2/r “,,,.)( 1 -rrir,,,,:\); (b) q(r)=(2/r “,,,.)(r,:r,,,,,,).

2.4.2. Separation
The calculated values of the separation u obtained from eqns. (8) and (11)
are plotted W-SUS the load W in the dimensionless form in Fig. 6. Separation

7 -

6 --

b5 -
=1 -

3 -

2 -
1 r
I I
6
0 ’ -3
lo+ lO-' ro-2 10“ 10"
1C6
@(-ma;PSI~WIqI

Fig. 6. Dimensionless separation U/O as a function of load W. [Assuming q(r) =(fir,:,,)( 1 -ri~,~.,~)]
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 227

decreases with an increase of UP/o and the rate of decrease to the applied
loads is greater under high loads. Thus this indicates that gasket materials
which have greater values of dimensionless critical compliance are effective in
a sealing device for a given surface roughness of a gasket and a given
applied load6.

2.4.3. Number of contact points

The calculated values of the number of contact points n obtained
from eqns. (3) (8) and (11) are plotted versus the load Win the dimensionless form in
Fig. 7. In the range of jG( -ma)/S} ( Wlpf) = 2 x 10m5 to 2 x IO-.‘, the value of n
is proportional to W”.914 for UP/o=0 and to W”.796 for U,/o=3.0, and the
index of W decreases with an increase of UP/o. Figure 7 also shows that in
the case of contact between two surfaces of constant values of rm and cr, the
number of contact points for a given value of W/p, increases with increase
of Hv/E’ of the contact materials.

kX-maVSl(W/Ij)
Fig. 7. Dimensionless number of contact points n as a function of load W. [Assuming q(r)=
Wr,J~-?rmaJl.
2.4.4. Real area of contact
The calculated values of A obtamed for eqns. (5) to (11) are plotted versus
W in dimensionless form in Fig. 8. In the range of {G( - ma)/S}( W/p,,) =
3x1o-6 to lo-‘, the value of A is proportional to W’,’ for U,jrs=O and
to W”.923 for U,/a=3.0, and the index of W decreases slightly with an increase
of U,/a. Also, the value of A at (G(-mo)/S}(W/pr)=10-4 in U,/a=3.0 is
5.6 times as large as that of A in UP/a=0 and A at (G( -mo)/S) ( W/pf)= 10m2
in U,/a=3.0 is 4.1 times as large as that of A in U,/a=O. Thus this shows
that the real area of contact in the elastic contact increases considerably in
comparison with plastic contact.

2.4.5. Mean real pressure

The calculated values of Pmobtained from eqns. (5) to (11) are piotted versus
 I‘HISAKADO

Fig. 8. Relationship between real area of contact .A and load Pi’ in dimensionless form: q(r)=
(Xr,,;,,)( I -r/r” ,,(,).

W in dimensionless form in Fig. 9. Comparison of Fig. 9(a) and (b) for a

given value of U,,/ci shows that the values of pm/pf are hardly influenced by
the mode of the distribution curve y(r) but decrease with increase of U,/o and
the values are almost constant for a very wide range of loads. For contact
surfaces which have a greater value of U,,i,i’crthan 0.2, it cannot be assumed
that pm is equivalent to the mean yield pressure or flow pressure, which is
comparable to the indentation hardness of the softer of the two contacting
materials’. Thus it seems reasonable to determine pm from Fig. 9, using the
values of UP/a, if known.

2.4.6. Mean rudius of’contact points

The calculated values of the mean radius of contact points a, obtained
from eqns. (8) (1 I), (13) and (15) are plotted ~WSU.Sthe loads W in the
dimensionless form in Fig. 10. Over the increase of the dimensionless loads
from (G( -mg)/S),( W/pf)= 10e5 to 10-2, the mean radius of contact points
increases by a factor of only 1.34 for C~,/cr=O and by a factor of only 1.50
for U,/cr=3.0. Therefore, the total contact area will be increased mainly owing to
increase in the number of contact points by elastic deformation or plastic
deformation of the contact asperities.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

3.1. Rudius of curvature c?f’asperities

The end ground surfaces of copper cylinders (diameter 25 mm, length 40
mm) were prepared by sandblasting, sandpaper or buffing and with benzine.
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 229

I I I 1 I
0

I I I I 1
0
lo-" 1o-5 lo-‘ 10" 10-Z 10-l
iG(-mctVS/(W/i$)
(b)
Fig. 9. Mean pressure at the real area of contact p, as a function of load W; (a) q(r)=
(W,,,)(l -r/r,,,J; (b) q(r)=(yr,,,)(r/r,,,).

The profile curves of the specimens were recorded with a Taiysurf -4 Surface
Measuring Instrument using a horizontal magnification of 500 and vertical
magnifications of 10000 to 50000. The radii of curvature were obtained from
three ordinates of an asperity, i.e. those of the peak and two points of the
shoulders of the asperity on the profile curve. The maximum heights of the
asperities according to JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard) were the mean values
of 10 profile measurements.

3.2. Real area of contact

3.2.1. Real area of contact from plastic deformation of asperities

In order to study the effect of surface roughness on the real area of
contact, contact asperities between a rough flat surface of copper (CuB2) and a
ground flat surface of tool steel (SKS3) were deformed under an apparent
Fig. IO. Mean radius of contact points a, as a function of load W [Assuming y(r) = (l/r,,,,,.)( I -r/r,,,,,. )].

pressure (102-611 kg/cm’) and observed with a metallographic microscope.

Flattened asperities of copper having impressions of the ground surface of tool
steel enabled the real contact area to be distinguished. The real area of contact
was obtained from the fractional land length or the percentage bearing area
by using a measuring microscope. When the total land length of the deformed
asperities b, to the total extent of land L, is measured with the microscope.
the real area of contact A is given by

A = ; (L,L,) (33)
C xJ
It is considered that this method is simpler and more accurate than that of
using an etching fluid’.

3.2.2. Real area of contact arose due to the elastic dejbrmation of asperities
The real area of contact for a rough copper surface (CuB2) pressed
against a glass plate, covered with an evaporated Al film of thickness less
than about 300 A was measured optically from the impressions of the contact
asperities on the glass plate. The contact impressions were distinguished by film
transfer to the rough surface or film thinning. Specimen details are summarized
in Table I. The standard deviations of the profile ordinates (r.m.s. roughness) g
were estimated from R,,, using the experimental relation of 0.q R.,;,J4.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CONSIDERATION

4.1. Distribution of radii of curvature on profile curve

The histograms of the radii of curvature on a profile curve of a buffed
copper surface and a sandpaper finished silver surface’ are shown in Fig. 11. For
comparison the solid lines in these figures present the distribution curve
calculated from eqn. (30). The modes of the histograms are greater than those
of the calculated curve but the general trend of the experimental results is in
agreement with the calculations.
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 231

TABLE I

TYPES OF FINISH AND DEGREES OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF SPECIMENS FOR

COMBINATIONS OF METALS

(a) Contact between smooth surface and rough surface

1. Specimen
\_
Propertie.\? Upper specimen Lower specimen
\
Material CuB2 SKS3
Young’s modulus
E kg/mm’ 12000 21000
Poisson’s ratio v 0.35 0.3
Finish Sandblasting Grinding
Hardness Hu (O.l)* 100 930
Surface roughness 18.2
I&,., 8.9 0.22
4.4

l The measuring load of microhardness number was 100 g

(b) Contact between smooth glass plate and smooth surface

\ \
Specimen
Upper specimen Lower specimen
Propertie.
\

Material Glass CuB2

Young’s modulus
E kg/mm’ 5500 12000
Poisson’s ratio v 0.2 0.35
Hardness Hu (0.1) 631 100
Surface roughness 5.5 (22.7) SB”
pR,,,x 0.01
(mean radius of
curvature p,~) 0.12-0.089
(403 - 450) B

*’ SB, SP and B refer to the surfaces prepared by sandblasting sandpaper finishing and buffing,
respectively.

Figure 12 shows that the mean radii of curvature of 100~ 120 peaks on
the profile curve P,,, increases with decreasing surface roughness R,,,. The difference
in pm between the copper and the silver surface in the range of 0.1 to 1.4 pR,,,
is attributable to the distribution of the measured values.

4.2. Real area of contact

The ratios of the real area of plastic contact to the apparent contact
area for a sandblasted copper surface (CuB2) on a ground tool steel surface
(SKS3) are plotted against W/L,L, in Fig. 13. As the value of UP/o for
the surface of 4.4pR,,, is about 3.0 x 10e3, the deformation of the contact
asperities is entirely plastic and A, equal to the total real area of contact A. Therefore,
from this figure, the real area of contact increases with increasing roughness of
the softer surface. These surface roughness effects on the real area of contact may be
232 T. HISAKADO

- THEORETICAL
0.099 jlR,x

- THEORETICAL
l-l

(b)

Fig. 11. Histogram of radii of curvature on a profile curve; (a) Copper surface (CuB2) prepared
by buffing. (b) Silver surface (Ag) prepared by sandpaper finishing.

1o-1 1 10
RIMX
Y
Fig. 12. Relationship between mean radius of curvature on a profile curve pm and surfacc
roughness R,,,: B, SP and SB refer to the surfaces prepared by buffing, sandpaper finishing and
sandblasting, respectively.

due to the fact that for a conical asperity pressed by a harder flat surface, the
real area of contact increases with the decrease of the apical angle of the asperity
according to Hill’s equation7, i.e. the greater the surface roughness, the smaller
the apical angles of the asperities become. The mean real pressures ~,,,=p~ ob-
tained from the results in Fig. 13 as a function of the applied load are shown
in Fig. 14. It is suggested from this figure that the greater the surface roughness,
the more significantly the mean real pressures are influenced by the applied
loads. This may be due to the effect of work-hardening of the contact
asperities and difficulty of estimating the mean real pressure from the indentation
hardness of the softer of the two contacting materials.
EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON CONTACTING SURFACES 233

6 _ o 18.2 )~Knax 3 $0
a ~.s)~R,,x ,I/<* i
/” r120 -
5 - //’
l h.‘+j%,x P’ ’ _ _ l _ - - -.-
3
li‘ 4 - ,/ // 4/ ’
‘6 aElof.l- 3-7 -- He -o- _/ -=_=Q
.---0
2. 3 /f //’ / 80- .a +
o/ ’
// ‘a / 60 - /” 0 16.2~RrniX
I/ SB
/a/o/ ’ 40 - o B.SpRmri
KuB2)
I-
2 - 9 t * C.$hwX i
20 -
I I L 11 11
0 1 2 3 L 5 6 X10’ I I I I I I
0 1234 5 6 7
WI LX Ly kg/cm2 W/LxLy kglmm’

Fig. 13. Ratio of total real are? of plastic contact to apparent contact area A,/L,L, us. apparent
contact pressure W/Lx L, between a sandblasted and a ground surface in contact.

Fig. 14. Mean pressure at real area of contact pn vs. apparent contact pressure W,fL.,L,
between a sandblasted and a ground surface in contact.

EXPERIMENTAL
0 5.5pm.x SB
Q 1.2pRmu
SP
e 0.98~~~ f

$0.099-O.lZpRmu B

Fig. 15. Ratio of total area of real contact A ‘to apparent contact area L,L, vs. dimensionless
load ( W/L,L,)/p, between a glass plate, on which Al films were deposited, and a copper surface
(CuB2) in contact: B, SP and SB refer to the surfaces prepared by buffing, sandpaper finishing
and sandblasting, respectively.

The ratios of the real area to the apparent of contact for copper
surfaces (CuB2) pressed against a glass plate on which Al films were deposited
are plotted against W/L,L, in Fig. 15. The calculated values of A/L,L, shown
by a solid line in the figure were obtained from eqn. (5) to (ll), assuming
that q(r)=(Z/r,,,)(l-(r/r,,,)), r,+p, and S.7 L,L,. The theoretical results for
UP/a = 10.4,0.20 and 0 correspond to the experimental results for 0.089 -0.12&,,,,,
0.88 P&II,, and 1.2~ .5.5pR,,,, respectively. The experimental values tend to be
234 ‘I‘.HISAKALX)

greater than the theoretical values in Fig. 15 as the thickness of the deposited
films on the glass plate has an effect on the real area of contact. i.e. the
smaller the surface roughness, the more significantly A:L,L, is affected by the
thickness of the deposited films. These is also a difference between the theoretical
shape of contact asperities and actual surface asperities, i.e. metal surfaces
prepared by sandpaper and buffing have asperities of various shapes different
from hemispheres. it is evident from Fig. 15 that the real area of contact
increases with an increase of the values of U,,,:G.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions derived from theory and experimental evidence are:
(1) The values of A,/A for a given value of UP/a are hardly influenced by the
mode of the distribution curve q(r) but influenced by the values of U,,;io in the
range of 0.09 to 2.9.
(2) Separation decreases with increase of UP/a and the rate of decrease to the
applied load is greater under high loads.
(3) The value of n is proportional to W” 914 for U,,/rr = 0 and to W”.7’6 for
UP/a = 3.0 and the index of W decreases with increase of UP/o.
(4) In the range of (G( -rtrcr)/L?i)(W/p,)=3 x 10eh to IO-‘, the value of n
is proportional to W’ O for UP/a=0 and to W ’ 923 for U,jo=3.0, and the index
of W decreases slightly with increase of U,,/a. Thus the mean real pressure pm is
equal to the flow pressure pf for UP/a=0 but decreases with increase of U,;Q.
(5) For the sandblasted rough surfaces (CuB2)(8.9- 18.2$7,,,) pressed by a
harder ground surface (SKS3)(0.22&,,,,), the mean real pressure pm of the softer
surfaces increases with increase of applied load due to work-hardening of the
contact asperities. Therefore it is very difficult to estimate the value of i>nifrom
indentation hardness.
(6) For buffed surfaces (CuB2) (0.089-0.12 ,uR,,,, U,,/a= 10.4) pressed by a
harder glass plate on which Al films were deposited. contact is almost elastic
under all practical loads.

REFERENCES

I F. P. Bowden and D. Tabor. The Friction rtrd Lubrication qf Solids. Pt. I, Oxford Univ. Press.
London, 1954.
2 J. A. Greenwood and J. B. P. Williamson. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc. Roy, Sot. (Lontlort .J.
A295 (1966) 300-319.
3 T. Tsukizoe and T, Hisakado, On the mechanism of heat transfer between metal surfaces in contact, Pt. 1,
Hear Transf‘rr Jap. Res., 1 (1972) 104-l 12.
4 T. Tsukizoe and T. Hisakado, On the mechanism of heat transfer between metal surfaces in
contact. Pt. 2, Hear Truwfer Jap. Res., I (1972) 23-3 1.
5 T. Hisakado, On the mechanism of contact between solid surfaces, Pt. 5. ‘Frilns. .I@. Sot.
Me&. Engrs., 38 (1972) 2657--2665.
6 T. Tsukizoe and T. Hisakado, Mechanism of gas leakage through the interface of two metal
surfaces in contact, Technol. Repts. Osaku Univ., 16 (1966) 617-630.
7 T. Hisakado, On the mechanism of contact between solid surfaces, Pt. 2, Bull. Jap. Sot. Meek. Enyrs..
12 (1969) 1528-1536.