% 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}, }