0
Research Papers

An Improved Model of Asperity Interaction in Normal Contact of Rough Surfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
A. A. Polycarpou

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL, 61801

Manuscript received December 26, 2011; final manuscript received June 10, 2012; accepted manuscript posted July 16, 2012; published online November 19, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Marc Geers.

J. Appl. Mech 80(1), 011025 (Nov 19, 2012) (8 pages) Paper No: JAM-11-1493; doi: 10.1115/1.4007142 History: Received December 26, 2011; Revised June 10, 2012; Accepted July 16, 2012

Normal contact of nominally flat rough surfaces is studied with an improved analytical model of asperity interaction. A finite element model of a representative model rough surface is created, and normal contact of this model is simulated to provide a basis of validation for the developed model. The developed model is also compared to an existing model in the literature and shown to correlate better with the finite element model. Furthermore, asperity spacing (density) is shown to be an important roughness parameter in determining the effects of asperity interaction in the load-interference response of the rough contact.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Modeling approach for multiasperity contact model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Asperity model on a 1:1 scale showing the cross-sectional plane in the middle; (b) cross-sectional view of a plane of asperities. Y:Z scale = 10:1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the pressure profile on the contact surface of an asperity, which is assumed to be the same as the pressure profile on the substrate, used in Ciavarella et al. model [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic showing the distance from asperity tip to substrate level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of pressure profiles on the highest asperity surface and corresponding substrate level for a spacing of 0.35R between asperities. Contact pressure for interference values of (a) 0.63σ and (b) 2.5σ; pressure on the substrate level for interference values of (c) 0.63σ and (d) 2.5σ.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of pressure profiles on the highest asperity surface and corresponding substrate level for a spacing of 1.5R between asperities. Contact pressure for interference values of (a) 0.63σ and (b) 2.5σ; pressure on the substrate level for interference values of (c) 0.63σ and (d) 2.5σ.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison between the percent deviations of the model predictions from the FEA for various spacing and interference values. Solid lines and marker data denote elastic and elastic-plastic formulations of GW model, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized load-interference curves for d/R = 0.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized load-interference curves for d/R = 0.35

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized load-interference curves for d/R = 0.7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Normalized load-interference curves for d/R = 1.5

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In