BibTex format
@article{Mueser:2017:10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2,
author = {Mueser, MH and Dapp, WB and Bugnicourt, R and Sainsot, P and Lesaffre, N and Lubrecht, TA and Persson, BNJ and Harris, K and Bennett, A and Schulze, K and Rohde, S and Ifju, P and Sawyer, WG and Angelini, T and Esfahani, HA and Kadkhodaei, M and Akbarzadeh, S and Wu, J-J and Vorlaufer, G and Vernes, A and Solhjoo, S and Vakis, AI and Jackson, RL and Xu, Y and Streator, J and Rostami, A and Dini, D and Medina, S and Carbone, G and Bottiglione, F and Afferrante, L and Monti, J and Pastewka, L and Robbins, MO and Greenwood, JA},
doi = {10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2},
journal = {TRIBOLOGY LETTERS},
title = {Meeting the Contact-Mechanics Challenge},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2},
volume = {65},
year = {2017}
}
RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)
TY - JOUR
AB - 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.
AU - Mueser,MH
AU - Dapp,WB
AU - Bugnicourt,R
AU - Sainsot,P
AU - Lesaffre,N
AU - Lubrecht,TA
AU - Persson,BNJ
AU - Harris,K
AU - Bennett,A
AU - Schulze,K
AU - Rohde,S
AU - Ifju,P
AU - Sawyer,WG
AU - Angelini,T
AU - Esfahani,HA
AU - Kadkhodaei,M
AU - Akbarzadeh,S
AU - Wu,J-J
AU - Vorlaufer,G
AU - Vernes,A
AU - Solhjoo,S
AU - Vakis,AI
AU - Jackson,RL
AU - Xu,Y
AU - Streator,J
AU - Rostami,A
AU - Dini,D
AU - Medina,S
AU - Carbone,G
AU - Bottiglione,F
AU - Afferrante,L
AU - Monti,J
AU - Pastewka,L
AU - Robbins,MO
AU - Greenwood,JA
DO - 10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2
PY - 2017///
SN - 1023-8883
TI - Meeting the Contact-Mechanics Challenge
T2 - TRIBOLOGY LETTERS
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2
UR - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000411059900003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/53220
VL - 65
ER -