User login

Navigation

You are here

A comment on "A dimensionless measure for adhesion and effects of the range of adhesion in contacts of nominally flat surfaces" by M. H. Muser

Mike Ciavarella's picture

I attach a Letter I sent to the Editor of a tribology journal, concerning adhesion of rough surfaces. 

I contend that some "criteria" that have been proposed based on extrapolation of numerical results are due to the limitations in present numerical sophisticated rough contact simulations, which only span at most 3 orders of magnitude of wavelengths, so typically people simulate from nanometer to micrometer scale.

The problem occurs that, even using dimensional analysis, even very good people (like Muser here, but previously Pastewka and Robbins too) "interpolate" their results.   When however one attempts to "extrapolate" to real surfaces, which have typically much wider range of scales roughness, results of these criteria become simply paradoxical.

Comments are welcome.

p.s.I found two small misprints:   In eqt.2, a factor delta_r (range of attractive forces) is missing.  In eqt.5, zita0 should be really q0.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon muser-view.pdf59.5 KB

Comments

Mike Ciavarella's picture

there is obviously a small misprint in my equation reporting mMuser's delta_gamma_rss, missing the range of attraction. The conclusion is unchanged of course. Thanks for the friend who has noticed that and told me. 

Subscribe to Comments for "A comment on "A dimensionless measure for adhesion and effects of the range of adhesion in contacts of nominally flat surfaces" by M. H. Muser"

Recent comments

More comments

Syndicate

Subscribe to Syndicate