TY  - JOUR
AU  - Müser, Martin
AU  - Dapp, Wolfgang
AU  - Bugnicourt, Romain
AU  - Sainsot, Philippe
AU  - Lesaffre, Nicolas
AU  - Lubrecht, Ton A.
AU  - Persson, Bo
AU  - Harris, Kathryn
AU  - Bennett, Alexander
AU  - Schulze, Kyle
AU  - Rohde, Sean
AU  - Ifju, Peter
AU  - Sawyer, W. Gregory
AU  - Angelini, Thomas
AU  - Ashtari Esfahani, Hossein
AU  - Kadkhodaei, Mahmoud
AU  - Akbarzadeh, Saleh
AU  - Wu, Jiunn-Jong
AU  - Vorlaufer, Georg
AU  - Vernes, András
AU  - Solhjoo, Soheil
AU  - Vakis, Antonis I.
AU  - Jackson, Robert L.
AU  - Xu, Yang
AU  - Streator, Jeffrey
AU  - Rostami, Amir
AU  - Dini, Daniele
AU  - Medina, Simon
AU  - Carbone, Giuseppe
AU  - Bottiglione, Francesco
AU  - Afferrante, Luciano
AU  - Monti, Joseph
AU  - Pastewka, Lars
AU  - Robbins, Mark O.
AU  - Greenwood, James A.
TI  - Meeting the Contact-Mechanics Challenge
JO  - Tribology letters
VL  - 65
IS  - 4
SN  - 1573-2711
CY  - Cham
PB  - Springer International Publishing
M1  - FZJ-2017-06856
SP  - 118
PY  - 2017
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.
LB  - PUB:(DE-HGF)16
UR  - <Go to ISI:>//WOS:000411059900003
DO  - DOI:10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2
UR  - https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/838182
ER  -