Paper detail

The surface-topography challenge: Problem definition

We present to the community a surface-definition problem, whose solution we consider to be critical for the proper description of contacts between nominally flat surfaces [1,2]. In 2015, Müser and Dapp issued the Contact Mechanics Challenge, which provided complete topography data for a fictional surface and asked theorists and modelers to compute the expected contact parameters for such a surface. This effort was a success, but exposed one glaring flaw in the community's understanding of the nature of contact: these models require as input a complete description of surface topography, which is rarely or never available for real-world surfaces [3-6]. The present challenge is to experimentalists: we will send you samples of two materials (one smoother and one rougher); you determine the surface topography of these materials. We call on you to measure such surfaces however you wish, using contact-based techniques, light scattering, microscopy, or other techniques. Examples of quantities of interest are: root-mean-square (RMS) parameters; the power spectral density (PSD); or the autocorrelation function (ACF). For the material, we have chosen chromium nitride, a wear- and corrosion-resistant coating used in industrial applications including automotive components, cutting tools, and die-casting. To participate, simply go to: https://contact.engineering/challenge to provide your shipping address and other information, then samples will be shipped out to you. The only requirement of participation is that your raw topography measurements are deposited on the free contact.engineering web app to facilitate data sharing. The purpose of this challenge is for our community to move towards: (a) better agreement on how to describe the multi-scale topography of experimental surfaces; and (b) better understanding of how to apply the well-developed models and theories to real-world surfaces.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.