A stick-slip tangential contact model between rough surfaces was proposed in this paper. The Mindlin partial slip solution for elastic contact and the double linear formulation developed by Fujimoto for plastic contact in conjunction with the Coulomb dry friction law were used to derive tangential contact formulas. Pearson system of frequency curves was used to generate non-Gaussian random surfaces. Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal and tangential contact responses were studied independently. The results showed that negative skewness predicted lower mean separation for a given normal force and greater tangential stiffness, while for positive skewness, there exist different trends from negative skewness. With the increase of kurtosis, the load capacity and tangential stiffness decreased. The practical significance of these findings is that it can help engineers to design proper surface textures based on their requirements. A comparison of initial tangential stiffness between predicted results and published experimental results was made. The results well agreed with the experimental results when the non-Gaussian surface effects were taken into consideration.
JacksonRLGreenI. On the modeling of elastic contact between rough surfaces. Tribol Trans2011; 54: 300–314.
5.
KalinMPogačnikAEtsionIet al.Comparing surface topography parameters of rough surfaces obtained with spectral moments and deterministic methods. Tribol Int2016; 93: 137–141.
6.
XuYJacksonRL. Statistical models of nearly complete elastic rough surface contact-comparison with numerical solutions. Tribol Int2017; 105: 274–291.
7.
BjoürklundS. A random model for micro-slip between nominally flat surfaces. J Tribol1997; 119: 726–732.
8.
Al-BenderFLampaertVSweversJ. A novel generic model at asperity level for dry friction force dynamics. Tribol Lett2004; 16: 81–93.
9.
DiniDHillsDA. Frictional energy dissipation in a rough Hertzian contact. J Tribol2009; 131: 021401–021401.
10.
LiYHaoZ. A six-parameter Iwan model and its application. Mech Syst Signal Process2016; 68–69: 354–365.
11.
PapangeloAHoffmannNCiavarellaM. Load-separation curves for the contact of self-affine rough surfaces. Scient Rep2017; 7: 6900–6900.
12.
CiavarellaMPapangeloA. Discussion of “Measuring and understanding contact area at the nanoscale: A review” (Jacobs, T. D. B., and Ashlie Martini, A., 2017,. ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 69(6), p. 060802). Appl Mech Rev2017; 69: 065502–065502.
13.
CiavarellaMDemelioGBarberJRet al.Linear elastic contact of the Weierstrass profile. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser A: Math Phys Eng Sci2000; 456: 387–405.
14.
CiavarellaM. On the effect of wear on asperity height distributions, and the corresponding effect in the mechanical response. Tribol Int2016; 101: 164–167.
15.
CiavarellaMPapangeloAAfferranteL. Adhesion between self-affine rough surfaces: Possible large effects in small deviations from the nominally Gaussian case. Tribol Int2017; 109: 435–440.
16.
ChangLJengY-R. Effects of negative skewness of surface roughness on the contact and lubrication of nominally flat metallic surfaces. Proc IMechE, Part J: J Engineering Tribology2012; 227: 559–569.
17.
EldertonWPJohnsonNL. Systems of frequency curves, London, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
18.
EtsionI. Revisiting the Cattaneo–Mindlin concept of interfacial slip in tangentially loaded compliant bodies. J Tribol2010; 132: 020801–020801.
19.
JohnsonKL. Surface interaction between elastically loaded bodies under tangential forces. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser A: Math Phys Sci1955; 230: 531–531.
20.
Segalman DJ, Gregory DL, Starr MJ, et al. Handbook on dynamics of jointed structures. Report no. SAND2009-4164, 2009-07-01. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 2009.
21.
KartalMEMulvihillDMNowellDet al.Measurements of pressure and area dependent tangential contact stiffness between rough surfaces using digital image correlation. Tribol Int2011; 44: 1188–1198.
22.
FilippiSAkayAGolaMM. Measurement of tangential contact hysteresis during microslip. J Tribol2004; 126: 482–489.
23.
Gonzalez-ValadezMBaltazarADwyer-JoyceRS. Study of interfacial stiffness ratio of a rough surface in contact using a spring model. Wear2010; 268: 373–379.
24.
ArgatovIIButcherEA. On the Iwan models for lap-type bolted joints. Int J Non-Linear Mech2011; 46: 347–356.
25.
ZhangXMWangBLWeiHT. Calculation of nonlinear restoring forces and energy dissipation of Iwan model. Eng Mech2012; 29: 33–39.
26.
FujimotoTKagamiJKawaguchiTet al.Micro-displacement characteristics under tangential force. Wear2000; 241: 136–142.
27.
GadelmawlaEKouraMMaksoudTet al.Roughness parameters. J Mater Process Technol2002; 123: 133–145.
28.
KotwalCABhushanB. Contact analysis of non-Gaussian surfaces for minimum static and kinetic friction and wear. Tribol Trans1996; 39: 890–898.
29.
TaborD. The hardness of metals, London: Oxford University Press, 1951.
30.
EritenMPolycarpouAABergmanLA. Physics-based modeling for fretting behavior of nominally flat rough surfaces. Int J Solids Struct2011; 48: 1436–1450.
31.
MindlinRD. Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. J Appl Mech1949; 16: 259–268.
32.
CiavarellaM. Tangential loading of general three-dimensional contacts. J Appl Mech1998; 65: 998–1003.
33.
JaügerJ. A new principle in contact mechanics. J Tribol1998; 120: 677–684.
34.
ZhaoYMaiettaDMChangL. An asperity microcontact model incorporating the transition from elastic deformation to fully plastic flow. J Tribol2000; 122: 86–93.
35.
TayebiNPolycarpouAA. Modeling the effect of skewness and kurtosis on the static friction coefficient of rough surfaces. Tribol Int2004; 37: 491–505.
36.
SedlačekMPodgornikBVižintinJ. Correlation between standard roughness parameters skewness and kurtosis and tribological behaviour of contact surfaces. Tribol Int2012; 48: 102–112.
37.
PerssonBNJ. Relation between interfacial separation and load: A general theory of contact mechanics. Phys Rev Lett2007; 99: 125502–125502.
