Effect of Skewness and Roughness Level on the Mechanical Behavior of a Rough Contact
In this work, we investigate the effects of roughness level and asymmetry of profile on the mechanical behavior of an engineering surface. A numerical model was performed to simulate bi-dimensional surfaces with different roughness parameters (The arithmetic average height parameter Ra and skewness) values. This model predicts the contact load, real area and interfacial stiffness. It takes into account the elastic-plastic material behavior, asperities interactions and more realistic geometry than the analytical models. Both symmetric and asymmetric profiles were simulated. Symmetric (Gaussian) profiles were generated through experimentally measured surfaces. These profiles were artificially edited in order to put forward the effect of roughness parameters on the contact performances. The Pearson system of frequency curves is used to produce asymmetric profiles with the same roughness level. The effect of crushing and roughness level as well as the skewness parameter on the contact performance in terms of real area, contact load and interfacial stiffness was analyzed.
KeywordsMechanical behavior real contact area Normal stiffness Numerical simulation Roughness parameters
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bowden, F.P., Tabor, D.: The friction and lubrication of solids, pt. 1. Oxford University Press (1950)Google Scholar
- Elderton, P.E., Johnson, L.: System of frequency curves. Cambridge University Press, London (1969)Google Scholar
- Greenwood, J.A., Williamson, J.B.P.: Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 295, 300–319 (1966), , doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.12.009
- International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), NF EN ISO 12085, Spécifications géométriques des produits - Méthode du profil - Paramètres lies aux motifs (1988)Google Scholar
- Shi, X., Polycarpou, A.A.: Measurement and Modeling of Normal Contact Stiffness and Contact Damping at the Meso Scale. ASME 127, 52–60 (2005)Google Scholar