A Comparative Study on Asperity Peak Modeling Methods
The peak identification scheme based method (three-point definition) and the spectral moments based method (spectral moment approach) are both widely used for asperity peak modeling in tribology. To discover the differences between the two methods, a great number of rough surface profile samples with various statistical distributions are first randomly generated using FFT. Then the distribution parameters of asperity peaks are calculated for the generated samples with both methods. The obtained results are compared and verified by experiment. The variation rules of the differences between the two methods with statistical characteristics of rough surfaces are investigated. To explain for the discovered differences, the assumptions by spectral moment approach that the joint distribution of surface height, slope and curvature is normal and that the height distribution of asperities is Gaussian, are examined. The results show that it is unreasonable to assume a joint normal distribution without inspecting the correlation pattern of [z], [z′] and [z′′], and that the height distribution of asperities is not exactly Gaussian before correlation length of rough surface increases to a certain extent, 20 for instance.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Due to technical limitations, full-text HTML conversion of this manuscript could not be completed. However, the manuscript can be downloaded and accessed as a PDF.
Posted 19 May, 2020
On 28 Dec, 2020
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Received 23 Jun, 2020
On 02 Jun, 2020
On 02 Jun, 2020
Invitations sent on 01 Jun, 2020
On 12 May, 2020
On 12 May, 2020
On 11 May, 2020
On 11 May, 2020
A Comparative Study on Asperity Peak Modeling Methods
Posted 19 May, 2020
On 28 Dec, 2020
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Received 23 Jun, 2020
On 02 Jun, 2020
On 02 Jun, 2020
Invitations sent on 01 Jun, 2020
On 12 May, 2020
On 12 May, 2020
On 11 May, 2020
On 11 May, 2020
The peak identification scheme based method (three-point definition) and the spectral moments based method (spectral moment approach) are both widely used for asperity peak modeling in tribology. To discover the differences between the two methods, a great number of rough surface profile samples with various statistical distributions are first randomly generated using FFT. Then the distribution parameters of asperity peaks are calculated for the generated samples with both methods. The obtained results are compared and verified by experiment. The variation rules of the differences between the two methods with statistical characteristics of rough surfaces are investigated. To explain for the discovered differences, the assumptions by spectral moment approach that the joint distribution of surface height, slope and curvature is normal and that the height distribution of asperities is Gaussian, are examined. The results show that it is unreasonable to assume a joint normal distribution without inspecting the correlation pattern of [z], [z′] and [z′′], and that the height distribution of asperities is not exactly Gaussian before correlation length of rough surface increases to a certain extent, 20 for instance.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Due to technical limitations, full-text HTML conversion of this manuscript could not be completed. However, the manuscript can be downloaded and accessed as a PDF.