Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: doi:10.22028/D291-39136
Volltext verfügbar? / Dokumentlieferung
Title: Meeting the Contact-Mechanics Challenge
Author(s): Müser, Martin
Dapp, Wolf B.
Bugnicourt, Romain
Sainsot, Philippe
Lesaffre, Nicolas
Lubrecht, Ton A.
Persson, Bo N. J.
Harris, Kathryn
Bennett, Alexander
Schulze, Kyle
Rohde, Sean
Ifju, Peter
Sawyer, W. Gregory
Angelini, Thomas
Ashtari Esfahani, Hossein
Kadkhodaei, Mahmoud
Akbarzadeh, Saleh
Wu, Jiunn-Jong
Vorlaufer, Georg
Vernes, András
Solhjoo, Soheil
Vakis, Antonis I.
Jackson, Robert L.
Xu, Yang
Streator, Jeffrey
Rostami, Amir
Dini, Daniele
Medina, Simon
Carbone, Giuseppe
Bottiglione, Francesco
Afferrante, Luciano
Monti, Joseph
Pastewka, Lars
Robbins, Mark O.
Greenwood, James A.
Language: English
Title: Tribology letters
Volume: 65
Issue: 4
Publisher/Platform: Springer Nature
Year of Publication: 2017
Free key words: Contact mechanics
Adhesion
Modeling
Nominally flat surfaces
DDC notations: 500 Science
Publikation type: Journal Article
Abstract: This paper summarizes the submissions to a recently announced contact-mechanics modeling challenge. The task was to solve a typical, albeit mathematically fully defined problem on the adhesion between nominally flat surfaces. The surface topography of the rough, rigid substrate, the elastic properties of the indenter, as well as the short-range adhesion between indenter and substrate, were specified so that diverse quantities of interest, e.g., the distribution of interfacial stresses at a given load or the mean gap as a function of load, could be computed and compared to a reference solution. Many different solution strategies were pursued, ranging from traditional asperity-based models via Persson theory and brute-force computational approaches, to real-laboratory experiments and all-atom molecular dynamics simulations of a model, in which the original assignment was scaled down to the atomistic scale. While each submission contained satisfying answers for at least a subset of the posed questions, efficiency, versatility, and accuracy differed between methods, the more precise methods being, in general, computationally more complex. The aim of this paper is to provide both theorists and experimentalists with benchmarks to decide which method is the most appropriate for a particular application and to gauge the errors associated with each one.
DOI of the first publication: 10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2
URL of the first publication: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2
Link to this record: urn:nbn:de:bsz:291--ds-391368
hdl:20.500.11880/35286
http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-39136
ISSN: 1573-2711
1023-8883
Date of registration: 23-Feb-2023
Faculty: NT - Naturwissenschaftlich- Technische Fakultät
Department: NT - Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik
Professorship: NT - Prof. Dr. Martin Müser
Collections:SciDok - Der Wissenschaftsserver der Universität des Saarlandes

Files for this record:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in SciDok are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.