MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782802414 · doi:10.1115/imece2017-71466

MicroSurface Texturing for a Minimum Coefficient of Friction

2017· article· en· W2782802414 on OpenAlexaff
Ola Rashwan, Vesselin Stoilov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTribometerDimpleComposite materialTexture (cosmology)Contact areaScratchArea densityFriction coefficientComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, micro surface texturing for friction and adhesion control has gained momentum in a wide range of applications, such as MEMS devices, punches, and tools used metal forming processes, and injection molding machines. In this study, air hardened tool steel, A2, with micro hexagonal dimples of different sizes and densities but constant depth, have been modeled and tested under dry sliding contact. Three-dimensional finite element models depict sliding dry contact between a rigid indenter and elastic-plastic textured surfaces are simulated. Coefficients of friction have been determined and compared for different texturing sizes and densities. In addition, these hexagonal patterns were fabricated on tool steel (A2) samples using photolithography. Coefficients of friction were experimentally measured using micro scratch tribometer. Both simulation and experimental results show there is a strong correlation between micro-texturing parameters and coefficient of friction. The results demonstrate that under dry sliding contact, coefficient of friction can be controlled through optimization of micro texturing parameters, specifically the spatial texture density (D/L) which is equal to the ratio of the size of the dimple (D) to the distance between the centers of two consecutive dimples (L). A minimum coefficient of friction exits at values of spatial texture densities (D/L) that range between 0.25 and 0.5 for this specific material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207