Research Papers

Asperity Interaction and Substrate Deformation in Statistical Summation Models of Contact Between Rough Surfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
Antonis I. Vakis

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
University of Groningen,
Nijenborgh 4,
Groningen 9747 AG,Netherlands
e-mail: a.vakis@rug.nl

Manuscript received June 25, 2013; final manuscript received September 6, 2013; accepted manuscript posted September 12, 2013; published online October 16, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Anand Jagota.

J. Appl. Mech 81(4), 041012 (Oct 16, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: JAM-13-1259; doi: 10.1115/1.4025413 History: Received June 25, 2013; Revised September 06, 2013; Accepted September 12, 2013

A method is proposed to account for asperity interaction and bulk substrate deformation in models that utilize statistical summation of asperity forces to characterize contact between rough surfaces. Interaction deformations of noncontacting asperities are calculated based on the probability that they have taller neighbors in their vicinity, whose deformation upon contact, in turn, induces local substrate deformations. The effect of the order of interaction on the total contact force is explored and a limit is proposed based on asperity density. The updated contact force accounting for asperity interaction is found to tend to a constant fraction of the nominal contact force at the mathematical limit of asperity contact independent of the order of interaction, roughness, or material properties. For contact in the vicinity of zero mean plane separation, rough surfaces are found to exhibit greater asperity interaction resulting in reduced contact forces. A simplified curve-fitted expression is introduced that can be used to account for asperity interaction by adjusting the nominal contact force predicted by other models.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Greenwood, J., and Williamson, J., 1966, “Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat., 295(1442), pp. 300–319. [CrossRef]
Bush, A. W., Gibson, R. D., and Thomas, T. R., 1975, “The Elastic Contact of a Rough Surface,” Wear, 35(1), pp. 87–111. [CrossRef]
McCool, J. I., 1986, “Comparison of Models for the Contact of Rough Surfaces,” Wear, 107(1), pp. 37–60. [CrossRef]
Chang, W. R., Etsion, I., and Bogy, D. B., 1987, “An Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 109(2), pp. 257–263. [CrossRef]
Kogut, L., and Etsion, I., 2002, “Elastic-Plastic Contact Analysis of a Sphere and a Rigid Flat,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 69(5), pp. 657–662. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M., Delfine, V., and Demelio, G., 2006, “A ‘Re-Vitalized’ Greenwood and Williamson Model of Elastic Contact Between Fractal Surfaces,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 54(12), pp. 2569–2591. [CrossRef]
Suh, A. Y., Lee, S.-C., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2006, “Design Optimization of Ultra-Low Flying Head-Disk Interfaces Using an Improved Elastic-Plastic Rough Surface Model,” ASME J. Tribol., 128(4), pp. 801–810. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M., Greenwood, J. A., and Paggi, M., 2008, “Inclusion of ‘Interaction’ in the Greenwood and Williamson Contact Theory,” Wear, 265(5–-6), pp. 729–734. [CrossRef]
Medina, S., Nowell, D., and Dini, D., 2013, “Analytical and Numerical Models for Tangential Stiffness of Rough Elastic Contacts,” Tribol. Lett., 49(1), pp. 103–115. [CrossRef]
Vakis, A. I., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2013, “An Advanced Rough Surface Continuum-Based Contact and Sliding Model in the Presence of Molecularly Thin Lubricant,” Tribol. Lett., 49(1), pp. 227–238. [CrossRef]
Jeng, Y.-R., and Peng, S.-R., 2006, “Elastic-Plastic Contact Behavior Considering Asperity Interactions for Surfaces With Various Height Distributions,” ASME J. Tribol., 128(2), pp. 245–251. [CrossRef]
Yeo, C.-D., Katta, R. R., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2009, “Improved Elastic Contact Model Accounting for Asperity and Bulk Substrate Deformation,” Tribol. Lett., 35(3), pp. 191–203. [CrossRef]
Chandrasekar, S., Eriten, M., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2013, “An Improved Model of Asperity Interaction in Normal Contact of Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 80(1), p. 011025. [CrossRef]
Komvopoulos, K., and Ye, N., 2001, “Three-Dimensional Contact Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Layered Media With Fractal Surface Topographies,” ASME J. Tribol., 123(3), pp. 632–640. [CrossRef]
Eid, H., and Adams, G. G., 2007, “An Elastic–Plastic Finite Element Analysis of Interacting Asperities in Contact With a Rigid Flat,” J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 40(23), p. 7432–7439. [CrossRef]
Paggi, M., and Ciavarella, M., 2010, “The Coefficient of Proportionality K Between Real Contact Area and Load, With New Asperity Models,” Wear, 268(7–8), pp. 1020–1029. [CrossRef]
Greenwood, J. A., 2006, “A Simplified Elliptic Model of Rough Surface Contact,” Wear, 261(2), pp. 191–200. [CrossRef]
Persson, B. N. J., 2007, “Relation Between Interfacial Separation and Load: A General Theory of Contact Mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 99(12), p. 125502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Carbone, G., and Bottiglione, F., 2008, “Asperity Contact Theories: Do They Predict Linearity Between Contact Area and Load?,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 56(8), pp. 2555–2572. [CrossRef]
Yu, N., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2002, “Contact of Rough Surfaces With Asymmetric Distribution of Asperity Heights,” ASME J. Tribol., 124(2), pp. 367–376. [CrossRef]
Sahoo, P., and Ali, S. M., 2008, “Elastic-Plastic Adhesive Contact of Non-Gaussian Rough Surfaces,” Sadhana, 33(4), pp. 367–384. [CrossRef]
Pullen, J., and Williamson, J. B. P., 1972, “On the Plastic Contact of Rough Surfaces,” P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat., 327(1569), pp. 159–173. [CrossRef]
Archard, J. F., 1974, “Surface Topography and Tribology,” Tribol., 7(5), pp. 213–220. [CrossRef]
Kogut, L., and Etsion, I., 2003, “A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces,” Tribol. Trans., 46(3), pp. 383–390. [CrossRef]
Nayak, P. R., 1971, “Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces,” J. Lubr. Technol., 93(3), pp. 398–407. [CrossRef]
Suh, A. Y., and Polycarpou, A. A., 2006, “Digital Filtering Methodology Used to Reduce Scale of Measurement Effects in Roughness Parameters for Magnetic Storage Supersmooth Hard Disks,” Wear, 260(4–5), pp. 538–548. [CrossRef]
Bhattacharyya, P., and Chakrabarti, B. K., 2008, “The Mean Distance to the nth Neighbour in a Uniform Distribution of Random Points: An Application of Probability Theory,” Eur. J. Phys., 29(3), p. 639. [CrossRef]
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kogut, L., and Etsion, I., 2003, “A Semi-Analytical Solution for the Sliding Inception of a Spherical Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 125(3), pp. 499–506. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Evolution of GW-type, rough surface contact (highly skewed aspect ratio): asperities with taller neighbors will experience interaction through substrate deformation, resulting in modified distributions of asperity heights

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the interaction between three neighboring asperities through substrate deformation (highly skewed aspect ratio)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Dimensionless contact force versus mean plane separation for up to first, eleventh, and fiftieth order interactions (σ = 10 nm, R = 0.5 μm, η = 100 μm−2, E* = 70 GPa, H = 9.6 GPa)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Ratio of new to nominal contact force at zero mean plane separation as a function of the order of interaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Closeup of the dimensionless contact force versus mean plane separation for up to first, eleventh, and fiftieth order interactions, including the prediction of Ciavarella et al.'s model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normalized contact force versus interference comparison with Chandrasekar et al.'s analytical model and FE results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of cumulative interaction deformation for up to first, eleventh, and fiftieth order of interaction with normal (nominal) asperity height distribution. The maximum dimensionless first order interaction deformation (black cross marks) is 7.6 × 10−4 at d* ≈ −0.8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Ratio of new to nominal contact force versus mean plane separation for up to fiftieth order interactions. Arrow indicates direction of increasing order of interaction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Curve fits to full model results for minimum and maximum roughness parameter β

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Snapshot of 500th test counting the number of noncontacting asperities for d* = 1 that lie within r < r2 (σ = 10 nm, R = 0.5 μm, and η = 100 μm−2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Asperities found to lie within second order cut-off circle over 500 tests for zref* = 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of the number of asperities shorter than the reference and lying within the second interaction order cut-off circle predicted analytically and found from numerical experiments as a function of dimensionless mean plane separation (d* = zref*)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Results of variable roughness 32 full factorial study (E* = 70 GPa, H = 9.6 GPa). The roughness parameter β = σRη increases in the direction of the arrow.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Results of variable material properties 32 full factorial study (σ = 10 nm, R = 0.5 μm, and η = 100 μm−2)




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