The fractal parameters (fractal dimension and topothesy), describing the contact behavior of rough surface, were considered as constant in the earlier models. However, their results are often significantly different from the experimental results. In the present study, these two roughness parameters have been derived analytically as a function of the mean separation first, then they are found with the aid of the experimental results. By equating the structure functions developed in two different ways, the relationship among the scaling coefficient in the power spectrum function, the fractal dimension, and topothesy of asperity heights can be established. The variation of topothesy can be determined when the fractal dimension and the scaling coefficient have been obtained from the experimental results of the number of contact spots and the power spectrum function at different mean separations. The probability density function of asperity heights, achieved at a different mean separation, was obtained from experimental results as a non-Gaussian distribution; it is expressed as a function of the skewness and the kurtosis. The relationship between skewness and mean separation can be established through the fitting of experimental results by this non-Gaussian distribution. For a sufficiently small mean separation, either the total load or the real contact area predicted by variable fractal parameters, as well as non-Gaussian distribution, is greater than that predicted by constant fractal parameters, as well as Gaussian distribution. The difference between these two models is significantly enhanced as the mean separation becomes small.

1.
Greenwood
,
J. A.
, and
Williamson
,
J. B. P.
, 1966, “
Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
1364-5021,
295
, pp.
300
319
.
2.
Nayak
,
P. R.
, 1971, “
Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Lubr. Technol.
0022-2305,
93
, pp.
398
407
.
3.
Nayak
,
P. R.
, 1973, “
Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces in Plastic Contact
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
26
, pp.
305
333
.
4.
McCool
,
J. I.
, 1986, “
Comparison of Model for Contact of Rough Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
107
, pp.
37
60
.
5.
Chang
,
W. R.
,
Etsion
,
I.
, and.
Bogy
,
D. B
, 1987, “
An Elastic-Plastic Model for The Contact of Rough Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
109
, pp.
257
263
.
6.
Pullen
,
J.
, and
Williamson
,
J. B. P.
, 1972, “
On The Plastic Contact of Rough Surfaces
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
1364-5021
327
, pp.
159
173
.
7.
Kogut
,
L.
, and
Etsion
,
I.
, 2002, “
Elastic-Plastic Contact Analysis of a Sphere and a Rigid Flat
,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech.
0021-8936,
69
, pp.
657
662
.
8.
Kogut
,
L.
, and
Etsion
,
I.
, 2003, “
A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surface
,”
Tribol. Trans.
1040-2004,
46
, pp.
383
390
.
9.
Gagnepain
,
J. J.
, and
Roques-Carmes
,
C.
, 1986, “
Fractal Approach to Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Surface Roughness
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
109
, pp.
119
126
.
10.
Majumdar
,
A.
, and
Tien
,
C. L.
, 1990, “
Fractal Characterization and Simulation of Rough Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
136
, pp.
313
327
.
11.
Russ
,
J. C.
, 1994,
Fractal Surfaces
,
Plenum
, New York.
12.
Majumdar
,
A.
, and
Bhushan
,
B.
, 1990, “
Role of Fractal Geometry in Roughness Characterization and Contact Mechanics of Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
112
, pp.
205
216
.
13.
Majumdar
,
A.
, and
Bhushan
,
B.
, 1991, “
Fractal Model of Elastic-Plastic Contact between Rough Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
113
, pp.
1
11
.
14.
Bhushan
,
B.
, and
Majumdar
,
A.
, 1992, “
Elastic-Plastic Contact Model for Bifractal Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
153
, pp.
53
64
.
15.
Zhou
,
G. Y.
,
Leu
,
M. C.
, and
Blackmore
,
D.
, 1993, ”
Fractal Geometry Model for Wear Prediction
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
170
, pp.
1
14
.
16.
Blackmore
,
D.
, and
Zhou
,
G.
, 1998, “
A New Fractal Model for Anisotropic Surfaces
,”
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.
0890-6955,
38
, pp.
551
557
.
17.
Blackmore
,
D.
, and
Zhou
,
J. G.
, 1998, “
Fractal Analysis of Height Distributions of Anisotropic Rough Surfaces
,”
Fractals
0218-348X,
6
, pp.
43
58
.
18.
Zahouani
,
H
,
Vargiolu
,
R.
, and
Loubet
,
J. L
, 1998, ”
Fractal Models of Surface Topography and Contact Mechanics
,”
Math. Comput. Modell.
0895-7177,
28
, pp.
517
534
.
19.
Yan
,
W.
, and
Komvopoulos
,
K.
, 1998, “
Contact Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Fractal Surfaces
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
0021-8979,
84
, pp.
3617
3624
.
20.
Mandelbort
,
B. B.
, 1982,
The Fractal Geometry of Nature
,
Freeman
, New York.
21.
Chung
,
J. C.
, and
Lin
,
J. F.
, 2004, “
Fractal Model Developed for Elliptic Elastic-Plastic Asperity Microcontacts of Rough Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
126
, pp.
646
654
.
22.
Komvopoulos
,
K.
, and
Ye
,
N.
, 2001, “
Three-Dimensional Contact Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Layered Media With Fractal Surface Topographies
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
123
, pp.
632
640
.
23.
Othmani
,
A.
, and
Kaminsky
,
C.
, 1998, “
Three Dimensional Fractal Analysis of Sheet Metal Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
214
, pp.
147
150
.
24.
Johnson
,
K. L
, 1987,
Contact Mechanics
,
Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, UK.
25.
Tabor
,
D.
, 1951,
The Hardness of Metals
,
Clarendon Press
, Oxford, UK.
26.
Mesarovic
,
S. D.
, and
Fleck
,
N. A.
, 1999, “
Spherical Indentation of Elastic-Plastic solids
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
1364-5021,
455
, pp.
2707
2728
.
27.
Ogilvy
,
J. A.
, 1991, “
Numerical Simulation of Friction between Contacting Rough Surfaces
,”
J. Phys. D
0022-3727,
24
, pp.
2098
2109
.
28.
Berry
,
M. V.
, 1979, “
Diffractals
,”
J. Phys. A
0305-4470,
12
, pp.
781
797
.
29.
Bush
,
A. W.
,
Gibson
,
R. D.
, and
Keogh
,
G. P.
, 1979, “
Strongly Anisotropic Rough Surface
,”
ASME J. Lubr. Technol.
0022-2305,
101
, pp.
15
20
.
30.
Kotwal
,
C. A.
, and
Bhushan
,
B.
, 1996, ”
Contact Analysis of Non-Gaussian Surfaces for Minimum Static and Kinetic Friction and Wear
,”
Tribol. Trans.
1040-2004,
39
, pp.
890
898
.
You do not currently have access to this content.