2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2005.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A statistical model of elasto-plastic asperity contact between rough surfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
127
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 241 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
127
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from both models show the same nearly linear change in the real contact area as a function of load, and also quantitatively compare very well. Note that this confirms the nearly linear trend, of many previous rough surface contact models as well [1,17,18]. Also shown is a conventional model that calculates the contact pressure as the hardness (2.8螄S y ) [19,20].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The results from both models show the same nearly linear change in the real contact area as a function of load, and also quantitatively compare very well. Note that this confirms the nearly linear trend, of many previous rough surface contact models as well [1,17,18]. Also shown is a conventional model that calculates the contact pressure as the hardness (2.8螄S y ) [19,20].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…[4] and [5]. Models that intend to include multiple size-scales normally deviate from the Greenwood & Williamson approach.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kogut and Etsion [11,12] (KE Model) presented empirical coefficients for relations between dimensionless contact parameters (real contact area, contact load and mean pressure) and interference. Jackson and Green (JG model) performed similar research [13,14] using denser grid of elements than Kogut and Etsion for stick contact conditions. JG model is based on yield stress, contrary to KE model based on hardness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%