An interaction stress analysis of nanoscale elastic asperity contacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new contact mechanics model is presented and experimentally examined at the nanoscale. The current work addresses the well-established field of contact mechanics, but at the nanoscale where interaction stresses seem to be effective. The new model combines the classic Hertz theory with the new interaction stress concept to provide the stress field in contact bodies with adhesion. Hence, it benefits from the simplicity of non-adhesive models, while offering the same applicability as more complicated models. In order to examine the model, a set of atomic force microscopy experiments were performed on substrates made from single-walled carbon nanotube buckypaper. The stress field in the substrate was obtained by superposition of the Hertzian stress field and the interaction stress field, and then compared to other contact models. Finally, the effect of indentation depth on the stress field was studied for the interaction model as well as for the Hertz, Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov, and Johnson-Kendall-Roberts models. Thus, the amount of error introduced by using the Hertz theory to model contacts with adhesion was found for different indentation depths. It was observed that in the absence of interaction stress data, the Hertz theory predictions led to smaller errors compared to other contact-with-adhesion models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".