% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Mser:838182,
author = {Müser, Martin and Dapp, Wolfgang and Bugnicourt, Romain
and Sainsot, Philippe and Lesaffre, Nicolas and Lubrecht,
Ton A. and Persson, Bo and Harris, Kathryn and Bennett,
Alexander and Schulze, Kyle and Rohde, Sean and Ifju, Peter
and Sawyer, W. Gregory and Angelini, Thomas and Ashtari
Esfahani, Hossein and Kadkhodaei, Mahmoud and Akbarzadeh,
Saleh and Wu, Jiunn-Jong and Vorlaufer, Georg and Vernes,
András and Solhjoo, Soheil and Vakis, Antonis I. and
Jackson, Robert L. and Xu, Yang and Streator, Jeffrey and
Rostami, Amir and Dini, Daniele and Medina, Simon and
Carbone, Giuseppe and Bottiglione, Francesco and Afferrante,
Luciano and Monti, Joseph and Pastewka, Lars and Robbins,
Mark O. and Greenwood, James A.},
title = {{M}eeting the {C}ontact-{M}echanics {C}hallenge},
journal = {Tribology letters},
volume = {65},
number = {4},
issn = {1573-2711},
address = {Cham},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-06856},
pages = {118},
year = {2017},
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.},
cin = {NIC / JSC / IAS-1 / PGI-1},
ddc = {670},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)NIC-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406 /
I:(DE-Juel1)IAS-1-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)PGI-1-20110106},
pnm = {511 - Computational Science and Mathematical Methods
(POF3-511) / 141 - Controlling Electron Charge-Based
Phenomena (POF3-141) / Forschergruppe Müser
$(hkf1_20110501)$},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-511 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-141 /
$G:(DE-Juel1)hkf1_20110501$},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000411059900003},
doi = {10.1007/s11249-017-0900-2},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/838182},
}