Statistical and fractal approaches for characterizing surface topography have been used widely in contact mechanics. In the present study, a comparison is conducted between contact mechanics results obtained with statistical and fractal approaches to characterize surface topography. Specifically, a three-dimensional fractal surface was generated and statistical surface parameters were extracted using different sampling resolutions. Contact mechanics simulations were performed using the simulated fractal surface and statistical surfaces represented by the extracted statistical surface parameters. Purely elastic contact (Hertz) is studied in order to eliminate any possible influence of the individual asperity mechanical response on the obtained results. Therefore, differences in the simulated contact area and load can be related solely to the different approach employed for surface characterization.

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.
Majumdar
,
A.
, and
Tien
,
C. L.
, 1990, “
Fractal Characterization and Simulation of Rough Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
136
, pp.
313
327
.
3.
Mandelbrot
,
B. B.
, 1983,
The Fractal Geometry of Nature
,
Freeman
, New York.
4.
Majumdar
,
A.
, and
Bhushan
,
B.
, 1991, “
Fractal Model of Elastic-Plastic Contact Between Rough Surfaces
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
113
, pp.
1
11
.
5.
Warren
,
T. L.
, and
Krajcinovic
,
D.
, 1995, “
Fractal Models of Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Contact of Rough Surfaces Based on the Cantor Set
,”
Int. J. Solids Struct.
0020-7683,
32
, pp.
2907
2922
.
6.
Willner
,
K.
, 2004, “
Elasto-Plastic Normal Contact of Three-Dimensional Fractal Surfaces Using Halfspace Theory
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
126
, pp.
28
33
.
7.
Yan
,
W.
, and
Komvopoulos
,
K.
, 1998, “
Contact Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Fractal Surfaces
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
0021-8979,
84
, pp.
3617
3624
.
8.
Lumbantobing
,
A.
,
Kogut
,
L.
, and
Komvopoulos
,
K.
, 2004, “
Electrical Contact Resistance as a Diagnostic Tool for Mems Contact Interfaces
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
13
, pp.
977
987
.
9.
McCool
,
J. I.
, 1986, “
Comparison of Models for the Contact of Rough Surfaces
,”
Wear
0043-1648,
107
, pp.
37
60
.
10.
Johnson
,
K. L.
, 1985,
Contact Mechanics
,
Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge.
11.
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
.
12.
Kogut
,
L.
, and
Etsion
,
I.
, 2003, “
A Finite Element Based Elastic-Plastic Model for the Contact of Rough Surfaces
,”
Tribol. Trans.
1040-2004,
46
, pp.
383
390
.
13.
Zhao
,
Y.
,
Maletta
,
D. M.
, and
Chang
,
L.
, 2000, “
An Asperity Microcontact Model Incorporating the Transition From Elastic Deformation to Fully Plastic Flow
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
122
, pp.
86
93
.
14.
Komvopoulos
,
K.
, and
Ye
,
N.
, 2001, “
Three-Demensional Contact Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Layered Media With Fractal Surface Topographies
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
123
, pp.
632
640
.
15.
Greenwood
,
J. A.
, 1984, “
Unified Theory of Surface Roughness
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
1364-5021,
393
, pp.
133
157
.
16.
Green
,
I.
, 2002, “
A Transient Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Seals Including Asperity Contact and Face Deformation
,”
Tribol. Trans.
1040-2004,
45
, pp.
284
293
.
17.
Barber
,
J. R.
, and
Ciavarella
,
M.
, 2000, “
Contact Mechanics
,”
Int. J. Solids Struct.
0020-7683,
37
, pp.
29
43
.
You do not currently have access to this content.