Fast Methods for Solving Rough Contact Problems: A Comparative Study

[+] Author and Article Information
I. A. Polonsky, L. M. Keer

Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-3109

J. Tribol 122(1), 36-41 (Apr 20, 1999) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.555326 History: Received October 09, 1998; Revised April 20, 1999
Copyright © 2000 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Greenwood,  J. A., and Williamson,  J. B. P., 1966, “Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 295, pp. 300–319.
Whitehouse,  D. J., and Archard,  J. F., 1970, “The Properties of Random Surfaces of Significance in Their Contact,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 316, pp. 97–121.
Nayak,  R., 1973, “Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces in Plastic Contact,” Wear, 26, pp. 305–333.
Greenwood,  J. A., 1967, “The Area of Contact Between Rough Surfaces and Flats,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 89, pp. 81–91.
Williamson,  J. B. P., and Hunt,  R. T., 1972, “Asperity Persistence and the Real Area of Contact Between Rough Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 327, pp. 147–157.
Pullen,  J., and Williamson,  J. B. P., 1972, “On the Plastic Contact of Rough Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 327, pp. 159–173.
Berthe,  D., and Vergne,  Ph., 1987, “An Elastic Approach to Rough Contact With Asperity Interactions,” Wear, 117, pp. 211–222.
Goryacheva,  I. G., and Dobychin,  M. N., 1991, “Multiple Contact Model in the Problems of Tribomechanics,” Tribol. Int., 24, pp. 29–35.
Sayles,  R. S., and Thomas,  T. R., 1978, “Surface Topography as a Nonstationary Random Process,” Nature (London), 271, pp. 431–434.
Greenwood, J. A., 1992, “Problems With Surface Roughness,” I. L. Singer, H. M. Pollock, eds., Fundamentals of Friction: Macroscopic and Microscopic Processes, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 57–76.
O’Callaghan,  P. W., and Probert,  S. D., 1970, “Real Area of Contact Between a Rough Surface and a Softer Optically Flat Surface,” J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 12, pp. 259–267.
Majumdar,  A., and Bhushan,  B., 1991, “Fractal Model of Elastic-Plastic Contact Between Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 113, pp. 1–11.
Bhushan,  B., and Majumdar,  A., 1992, “Elastic-Plastic Contact Model for Bifractal Surfaces,” Wear, 153, pp. 53–64.
Hendriks,  C. P., and Visscher,  M., 1995, “Accurate Real Area of Contact Measurements on Polyurethane,” ASME J. Tribol., 117, pp. 607–611.
Polonsky,  I. A., Chang,  T. P., Keer,  L. M., and Sproul,  W. D., 1997, “An Analysis of the Effect of Hard Coatings on Near-Surface Rolling Contact Fatigue Initiation Induced by Surface Roughness,” Wear, 208, pp. 204–219.
Sutcliffe, M. P. F., 1999, “Flattening of Random Rough Surfaces in Metal Forming Process,” ASME JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY , in press.
Lai,  W. T., and Cheng,  H. S., 1985, “Computer Simulation of Elastic Rough Contacts,” ASLE Trans., 28, pp. 172–180.
Webster,  M. N., and Sayles,  R. S., 1986, “A Numerical Model for the Elastic Frictionless Contact of Real Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 108, pp. 314–320.
Seabra,  J., and Berthe,  D., 1987, “Influence of Surface Waviness and Roughness on the Normal Pressure Distribution in the Hertzian Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 109, pp. 462–470.
Ren,  N., and Lee,  S. C., 1993, “Contact Simulation of Three-Dimensional Rough Surfaces Using Moving Grid Method,” ASME J. Tribol., 115, pp. 597–601.
Kalker,  J. J., and van Randen,  Y. A., 1972, “A Minimum Principle for Frictionless Elastic Contact with Application to Non Hertzian Problems,” J. Eng. Math., 6, pp. 193–206.
Kubo,  A., Okamoto,  T., and Kurokawa,  N., 1981, “Contact Stress Between Rollers with Surface Irregularity,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 103, pp. 492–498.
Francis,  H. A., 1983, “The Accuracy of Plane Strain Models for the Elastic Contact of Three-Dimensional Rough Surfaces,” Wear, 85, pp. 239–256.
Brandt,  A., and Lubrecht,  A. A., 1990, “Multilevel Matrix Multiplication and Fast Solution of Integral Equations,” J. Comput. Phys., 90, pp. 348–370.
Venner,  C. H., and Lubrecht,  A. A., 1996, “Numerical Analysis of the Influence of Waviness on the Film Thickness of a Circular EHL Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 118, pp. 153–161.
Lubrecht,  A. A., and Ioannides,  E., 1991, “A Fast Solution of the Dry Contact Problem and the Associated Subsurface Stress Field, Using Multilevel Techniques,” ASME J. Tribol., 113, pp. 128–133.
Polonsky, I. A., and Keer, L. M., 1999, “A Numerical Method for Solving Rough Contact Problems Based on the Multi-Level Multi-Summation and Conjugate Gradient Techniques,” Wear, accepted for publication.
Hestenes, M. R., 1980, Conjugate Direction Methods in Optimization, Springer-Verlag, New York, Chaps. 2, 3.
Nogi,  T., and Kato,  T., 1997, “Influence of a Hard Surface Layer on the Limit of Elastic Contact-Part I: Analysis Using a Real Surface Model,” ASME J. Tribol., 119, pp. 493–500.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kalker,  J. J., 1986, “Numerical Calculation of the Elastic Field in a Half-Space,” Commun. Appl. Numer. Meth., 2, pp. 401–410.
Venner, C. H., 1991, Multilevel Solution of the EHL Line and Point Contact Problems, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Cooley,  J. W., and Tukey,  J. W., 1965, “An Algorithm for the Machine Calculation of Complex Fourier Series,” Math. Comput., 19, pp. 297–301.
Stoer, J., and Bulirsch, R., 1980, Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Sackfield,  A., and Hills,  D., 1983, “A Note on the Hertz Contact Problem: A Correlation of Standard Formulae,” J. Strain Anal., 18, pp. 195–197.


Grahic Jump Location
Relative error (a) and CPU time (b) versus normalized grid length for FFT (empty symbols) and MLMS (filled symbols). The errors in both the contact pressure (diamonds) and the subsurface Mises stress (squares) are shown in Fig. 3(a).
Grahic Jump Location
CPU time versus the number of grid rows per contact length, for MLMS with fixed parameters (filled triangles) and FFT with L/(2R)≈2 (empty triangles).
Grahic Jump Location
Relative error versus the number of grid rows per contact length, for MLMS (filled symbols) and FFT (empty symbols). The errors in both the contact pressure (diamonds) and the subsurface Mises stress (squares) are shown. The curves ε=2(M*)−3/2 (solid line) and ε=2(M*)−2 (dashed line) are also shown for comparison.
Grahic Jump Location
Relative error in the subsurface Mises stress versus normalized depth for MLMS (filled squares) and FFT (empty squares)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In