Inclusion of “interaction” in the Greenwood and Williamson contact theory

Recent direct implementation of asperity theories is reinterpreted here to formulate an improved version of the Greenwood and Williamson (GW) theory with the inclusion of interaction between asperities. This is achieved by treating the contact pressures as uniformly distributed over the apparent contact area and the resulting deformation as uniform. The correction is equivalent to an increase of the effective separation of the mean planes by a quantity proportional to the nominal pressure, resulting in a reduction of the “real” area of contact and of total load for a given separation. However, the area–load relationship is unchanged. The correction effectively depends on the ratio between the nominal pressure and the elastic modulus multiplied by the ratio between the size of the nominal contact area and standard deviation of the asperity heights. For contacts much larger than the size of roughness, uniform interaction effects would be dominant at relatively modest pressures (particularly for soft materials). This also means that the effect of interaction is unlimited. However, the only significant change is in the prediction of gas-tightness, it is harder to seal a large area than a small one. The modification of the theory has a significant effect on stiffness and conductance. Indeed, a parallel is drawn between this correction and the “clustering” terms of resistance in the Holm–Greenwood formulae for a cluster of circular spots. Finally, numerical contact simulations using Weierstrass–Mandelbrot (WM) surfaces show a general agreement with the improved theory but also significant scatter for low load levels. Taking into account the effect of asperity interaction, the improved GW theory is now able to predict the numerically obtained contact response for intermediate load levels. © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

[1]  Yong Hoon Jang,et al.  Linear elastic contact of the Weierstrass profile† , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[2]  J. Barber,et al.  Bounds on the electrical resistance between contacting elastic rough bodies , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[3]  Michele Ciavarella,et al.  A “re-vitalized” Greenwood and Williamson model of elastic contact between fractal surfaces , 2006 .

[4]  Michele Ciavarella,et al.  Conductance of rough random profiles , 2008 .

[5]  J. Greenwood Constriction resistance and the real area of contact , 1966 .

[6]  Alberto Carpinteri,et al.  Scaling phenomena due to fractal contact in concrete and rock fractures , 1999 .

[7]  J. Molinari,et al.  Finite-element analysis of contact between elastic self-affine surfaces. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  R. Jones,et al.  A method for determining the asperity distribution of contacting rough surfaces , 2005 .

[9]  J. Greenwood A simplified elliptic model of rough surface contact , 2006 .

[10]  Michele Ciavarella,et al.  Elastic contact stiffness and contact resistance for the Weierstrass profile , 2004 .

[11]  S. Timoshenko,et al.  Theory of elasticity , 1975 .

[12]  J. Greenwood,et al.  Contact of nominally flat surfaces , 1966, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[13]  M. Ausloos,et al.  A multivariate Weierstrass–Mandelbrot function , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.