Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Contact mechanics is the study of the deformation of solids that touch each other at one or more
points.[1][2] The physical and mathematical formulation of the subject is built upon the mechanics of
materials and continuum mechanics and focuses on computations involving elastic, viscoelastic, and
plastic bodies in static or dynamic contact. Central aspects in contact mechanics are the pressures and
adhesion acting perpendicular to the contacting bodies' surfaces (known as the normal direction) and the
frictional stresses acting tangentially between the surfaces. This page focuses mainly on the normal
direction, i.e. on frictionless contact mechanics. Frictional contact mechanics is discussed separately.
Contact mechanics is part of Mechanical engineering; it provides necessary information for the safe and
energy efficient design of technical systems and for the study of tribology and indentation hardness.
Principles of contacts mechanics can be applied in areas such as locomotive wheel-rail contact,
coupling devices, braking systems, tires, bearings, combustion engines, mechanical linkages, gasket
seals, metalworking, metal forming, ultrasonic welding, electrical contacts, and many others. Current
challenges faced in the field may include stress analysis of contact and coupling members and the
influence of lubrication and material design on friction and wear. Applications of contact mechanics
further extend into the micro- and nanotechnological realm.
The original work in contact mechanics dates back to 1882 with the publication of the paper "On the contact of elastic solids"[3] ("Ueber die Berhrung
fester elastischer Krper" (http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/no_cache/dms/load/img/?IDDOC=251917)) by Heinrich Hertz. Hertz was attempting to
understand how the optical properties of multiple, stacked lenses might change with the force holding them together. Hertzian contact stress refers to the
localized stresses that develop as two curved surfaces come in contact and deform slightly under the imposed loads. This amount of deformation is
dependent on the modulus of elasticity of the material in contact. It gives the contact stress as a function of the normal contact force, the radii of curvature
of both bodies and the modulus of elasticity of both bodies. Hertzian contact stress forms the foundation for the equations for load bearing capabilities and
fatigue life in bearings, gears, and any other bodies where two surfaces are in contact.
Contents
1 History
2 Classical solutions for non-adhesive elastic contact
2.1 Contact between a sphere and a half-space
2.2 Contact between two spheres
4
5
6
7
8
History
Classical contact mechanics is most notably associated with Heinrich Hertz.[4] In 1882, Hertz solved the contact problem of two elastic bodies with curved
surfaces. This still-relevant classical solution provides a foundation for modern problems in contact mechanics. For example, in mechanical engineering
and tribology, Hertzian contact stress is a description of the stress within mating parts. The Hertzian contact stress usually refers to the stress close to the
area of contact between two spheres of different radii.
It was not until nearly one hundred years later that Johnson, Kendall, and Roberts found a similar
solution for the case of adhesive contact.[5] This theory was rejected by Boris Derjaguin and co-workers
[6]
who proposed a different theory of adhesion[7] in the 1970s. The Derjaguin model came to be known
as the DMT (after Derjaguin, Muller and Toporov) model,[7] and the Johnson et al. model came to be
known as the JKR (after Johnson, Kendall and Roberts) model for adhesive elastic contact. This
rejection proved to be instrumental in the development of the Tabor[8] and later Maugis[6][9] parameters
that quantify which contact model (of the JKR and DMT models) represent adhesive contact better for
specific materials.
Further advancement in the field of contact mechanics in the mid-twentieth century may be attributed to
names such as Bowden and Tabor. Bowden and Tabor were the first to emphasize the importance of
surface roughness for bodies in contact.[10][11] Through investigation of the surface roughness, the true
contact area between friction partners is found to be less than the apparent contact area. Such
understanding also drastically changed the direction of undertakings in tribology. The works of Bowden
and Tabor yielded several theories in contact mechanics of rough surfaces.
The contributions of Archard (1957)[12] must also be mentioned in discussion of pioneering works in
this field. Archard concluded that, even for rough elastic surfaces, the contact area is approximately
proportional to the normal force. Further important insights along these lines were provided by
Greenwood and Williamson (1966),[13] Bush (1975),[14] and Persson (2002).[15] The main findings of
these works were that the true contact surface in rough materials is generally proportional to the normal force, while the parameters of individual microcontacts (i.e., pressure, size of the micro-contact) are only weakly dependent upon the load.
The theory of contact between elastic bodies can be used to find contact areas and indentation depths for simple geometries. Some commonly used
solutions are listed below. The theory used to compute these solutions is discussed later in the article.
indents an elastic half-space to depth , and thus creates a contact area of radius
by[16]
where
and
The distribution of normal pressure in the contact area as a function of distance from the center of the circle is[1]
where
by the equation
and
for
, the area of contact is a circle of radius . The equations are the same as for a sphere in contact with
is defined as[16]
and a plane.
where
The relationship between the indentation depth and the normal force is given by
[17]
with
Contact between
two spheres.
using a rigid conical indenter, the depth of the contact region and contact radius
defined as the angle between the plane and the side surface of the cone. The total indentation depth
is given by:
In contact between two cylinders with parallel axes, the force is linearly proportional to the indentation depth:[16]
The radii of curvature are entirely absent from this relationship. The contact radius is described through the usual
relationship
with
Bearing contact
The contact in the case of bearings is often a contact between a convex surface (male cylinder or sphere) and a concave surface (female cylinder or sphere:
bore or hemispherical cup).
The classical theory of contact focused primarily on non-adhesive contact where no tension force is allowed to
occur within the contact area, i.e., contacting bodies can be separated without adhesion forces. Several analytical
and numerical approaches have been used to solve contact problems that satisfy the no-adhesion condition.
Complex forces and moments are transmitted between the bodies where they touch, so problems in contact
mechanics can become quite sophisticated. In addition, the contact stresses are usually a nonlinear function of the
deformation. To simplify the solution procedure, a frame of reference is usually defined in which the objects
(possibly in motion relative to one another) are static. They interact through surface tractions (or
pressures/stresses) at their interface.
As an example, consider two objects which meet at some surface in the ( , )-plane with the -axis assumed
normal to the surface. One of the bodies will experience a normally-directed pressure distribution
and in-plane surface traction distributions
and
over
the region . In terms of a Newtonian force balance, the forces:
must be equal and opposite to the forces established in the other body. The moments corresponding to these forces:
are also required to cancel between bodies so that they are kinematically immobile.
Additional complications arise when some or all these assumptions are violated and such contact problems are usually called non-Hertzian.
Analytical solution methods for non-adhesive contact problem can be classified into two types based on
the geometry of the area of contact.[20] A conforming contact is one in which the two bodies touch at
multiple points before any deformation takes place (i.e., they just "fit together"). A non-conforming
contact is one in which the shapes of the bodies are dissimilar enough that, under zero load, they only
touch at a point (or possibly along a line). In the non-conforming case, the contact area is small
compared to the sizes of the objects and the stresses are highly concentrated in this area. Such a contact
is called concentrated, otherwise it is called diversified.
A starting point for solving contact problems is to understand the effect of a "point-load" applied to an
isotropic, homogeneous, and linear elastic half-plane, shown in the figure to the right. The problem may
be either plane stress or plane strain. This is a boundary value problem of linear elasticity subject to the traction boundary conditions:
where
is the Dirac delta function. The boundary conditions state that there are no shear stresses on the surface and a singular normal force P is
applied at (0,0). Applying these conditions to the governing equations of elasticity produces the result
The same principle applies for loading on the surface in the plane of the surface. These kinds of tractions would tend to arise as a result of friction. The
solution is similar the above (for both singular loads and distributed loads
) but altered slightly:
These results may themselves be superposed onto those given above for normal loading to deal with more complex loads.
Point contact on a (3D) half-space
Analogously to the Flamant solution for the 2D half-plane, fundamental solutions are known for the linearly elastic 3D half-space as well. These were
found by Boussinesq for a concentrated normal load and by Cerruti for a tangential load. See the section on this in Linear elasticity.
Distinctions between conforming and non-conforming contact do not have to be made when numerical solution schemes are employed to solve contact
problems. These methods do not rely on further assumptions within the solution process since they base solely on the general formulation of the
underlying equations [21] [22] [23] [24] .[25] Besides the standard equations describing the deformation and motion of bodies two additional inequalities can be
formulated. The first simply restricts the motion and deformation of the bodies by the assumption that no penetration can occur. Hence the gap
between two bodies can only be positive or zero
where
denotes contact. The second assumption in contact mechanics is related to the fact, that no tension force is allowed to occur within the
contact area (contacting bodies can be lifted up without adhesion forces). This leads to an inequality which the stresses have to obey at the contact
interface. It is formulated for the contact pressure
Since for contact,
pressure is zero,
These conditions are valid in a general way. The mathematical formulation of the gap depends upon the kinematics of the underlying theory of the solid
(e.g., linear or nonlinear solid in two- or three dimensions, beam or shell model).
between a "random rough" surface and an elastic half-space, the true contact area is related to the normal force
with
equal to the root mean square (also known as the quadratic mean) of the surface slope and
by
[1][26][27][28]
. In contact
For the situation where the asperities on the two surfaces have a Gaussian height distribution and the peaks can be assumed to be spherical,[26] the average
contact pressure is sufficient to cause yield when
where
called the plasticity index that could be used to determine whether contact would be
The Greenwood-Williamson model requires knowledge of two statistically dependent quantities; the standard deviation of the surface roughness and the
curvature of the asperity peaks. An alternative definition of the plasticity index has been given by Mikic.[27] Yield occurs when the pressure is greater than
the uniaxial yield stress. Since the yield stress is proportional to the indentation hardness , Micic defined the plasticity index for elastic-plastic contact
to be
In this definition represents the micro-roughness in a state of complete plasticity and only one statistical quantity, the rms slope, is needed which can be
calculated from surface measurements. For
, the surface behaves elastically during contact.
In both the Greenwood-Williamson and Mikic models the load is assumed to be proportional to the deformed area. Hence, whether the system behaves
plastically or elastically is independent of the applied normal force.[1]
the area of contact was larger than that predicted by Hertz theory,
the area of contact had a non-zero value even when the load was removed, and
there was strong adhesion if the contacting surfaces were clean and dry.
This indicated that adhesive forces were at work. The Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) model and the Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov (DMT) models were the
first to incorporate adhesion into Hertzian contact.
It is commonly assumed that the surface force between two atomic planes at a distance
potential. With this assumption
is the total surface energy of both surfaces per unit area, and
The Bradley model applied the Lennard-Jones potential to find the force of adhesion between two rigid spheres. The total force between the spheres is
found to be
where
The two spheres separate completely when the pull-off force is achieved at
at which point
Roberts[5] formulated the JKR theory of adhesive contact using a balance between the
stored elastic energy and the loss in surface energy. The JKR model considers the
effect of contact pressure and adhesion only inside the area of contact. The general
solution for the pressure distribution in the contact area in the JKR model is
The Hertz equation for the area of contact between two spheres, modified to take into account the surface energy,
, the Hertz equation for contact between two spheres is recovered. When the applied load is zero, the contact
, is predicted to be
This force is also called the pull-off force. Note that this force is independent of the moduli of the two spheres. However, there is another possible
solution for the value of at this load. This is the critical contact area , given by
and
Tabor coefficient
In 1977, Tabor[32] showed that the apparent contradiction between the JKR and DMT theories could be resolved by noting that the two theories were the
where
is the equilibrium separation between the two surfaces in contact. The JKR theory applies to large, compliant spheres for which
DMT theory applies for small, stiff spheres with small values of .
is large. The
Further improvement to the Tabor idea was provided by Maugis[9] who represented the
surface force in terms of a Dugdale cohesive zone approximation such that the work of
adhesion is given by
where
is the maximum force predicted by the Lennard-Jones potential and
is the
maximum separation obtained by matching the areas under the Dugdale and LennardJones curves (see adjacent figure). This means that the attractive force is constant for
. There is not further penetration in compression. Perfect contact
occurs in an area of radius and adhesive forces of magnitude
extend to an area of
radius
. In the region
, the two surfaces are separated by a distance
with
and
. The ratio
is defined as
.
In the Maugis-Dugdale theory,[33] the surface traction distribution is divided into two
parts - one due to the Hertz contact pressure and the other from the Dugdale adhesive
stress. Hertz contact is assumed in the region
. The contribution to the
surface traction from the Hertz pressure is given by
is given by
is
is
is
Zheng and Yu [34] suggested another value for the step cohesive stress
. When
The equation for the cohesive gap between the two bodies takes the form
simplifies the process by using the following relation to determine the contact radius :
where
The case
corresponds exactly to JKR theory while
corresponds closely to the Maugis-Dugdale solution for
by
See also
Adhesive
Adhesive bonding
Adhesive dermatitis
Adhesion railway
Adhesive surface forces
Bearing capacity
References
Bioadhesives
Contact dynamics
Dispersive adhesion
Electrostatic generator
Energetically modified
cement
Frictional contact mechanics
Friction drive
Galling
Goniometer
Non-smooth mechanics
Plastic wrap
Rolling (metalworking)
Shock (mechanics)
Signorini problem
Surface tension
Synthetic setae
Unilateral contact
Wetting
12. Archard, JF, 1957, Elastic deformation and the laws of friction, Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, 243(1233), pp.190--205.
13. Greenwood, JA and Williamson, JBP., 1966, Contact of nominally flat
surfaces, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, pp. 300-319.
14. Bush, AW and Gibson, RD and Thomas, TR., 1975, The elastic contact of a
rough surface, Wear, 35(1), pp. 87-111.
15. Persson, BNJ and Bucher, F. and Chiaia, B., 2002, Elastic contact between
randomly rough surfaces: Comparison of theory with numerical results,
Physical Review B, 65(18), p. 184106.
16. Hanaor, D. A. H.; Gan, Y.; Einav, I. (2015). "Contact mechanics of fractal
surfaces by spline assisted discretisation". International Journal of Solids and
Structures 59: 121131. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.01.021.
17. Sneddon, I. N., 1965, The Relation between Load and Penetration in the
Axisymmetric Boussinesq Problem for a Punch of Arbitrary Profile. Int. J.
Eng. Sci. v. 3, pp. 4757.
18. Popov, V.L., Method of reduction of dimensionality in contact and friction
mechanics: A linkage between micro and macro scales, Friction, 2013, v.1,
N. 1, pp.4162.
19. Popov, V.L. and He, M., Methode der Dimensionsreduktion in
Kontaktmechanik und Reibung, Springer, 2013.
20. Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., 1989, Mechanical Engineering Design, Fifth
Edition, Chapter 2, McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1989, ISBN 0-07-056899-5.
21. Kalker, J.J. 1990, Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact.
(Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht).
22. Wriggers, P. 2006, Computational Contact Mechanics. 2nd ed. (Springer
Verlag: Heidelberg).
External links
29. Bradley, RS., 1932, The cohesive force between solid surfaces and the
surface energy of solids, Philosophical Magazine Series 7, 13(86), pp. 853-862.
30. Derjaguin, BV and Muller, VM and Toporov, Y.P., 1975, Effect of contact
deformations on the adhesion of particles, Journal of Colloid and Interface
Science, 53(2), pp. 314-326.
31. Muller, VM and Derjaguin, BV and Toporov, Y.P., 1983, On two methods of
calculation of the force of sticking of an elastic sphere to a rigid plane,
Colloids and Surfaces, 7(3), pp. 251-259.
32. Tabor, D., 1977, Surface forces and surface interactions, Journal of Colloid
and Interface Science, 58(1), pp. 2-13.
33. Johnson, KL and Greenwood, JA, 1997, An adhesion map for the contact of
elastic spheres, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 192(2), pp. 326333.
34. Zheng, Z.J. and Yu, J.L., 2007, Using the Dugdale approximation to match a
specific interaction in the adhesive contact of elastic objects, Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, 310(1), pp. 27-34.
35. Carpick, R.W. and Ogletree, D.F. and Salmeron, M., 1999, A general
equation for fitting contact area and friction vs load measurements, Journal
of colloid and interface science, 211(2), pp. 395-400.
[1] (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970025228_1997043322.pdf): More about contact stresses and the evolution of bearing
stress equations can be found in this publication by NASA Glenn Research Center head the NASA Bearing, Gearing and Transmission Section,
Erwin Zaretsky.
[2] (http://www.mathworks.se/matlabcentral/fileexchange/43216): A MATLAB routine to solve the linear elastic contact mechanics problem
entitled; "An LCP solution of the linear elastic contact mechanics problem" is provided at the file exchange at MATLAB Central.
[3] (http://www.fxsolver.com/solve/share/VhTovbqoPtGglYEgSNndkw==/): Contact mechanics calculator.
[4] (http://www.msc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~cgay/homepage/doku.php?id=diffusion:jkr): detailed calculations and formulae of JKR theory for two
spheres.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.