2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2019.103724
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A magnification-based multi-asperity (MBMA) model of rough contact without adhesion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
(182 reference statements)
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the magnification-based multiasperity (MBMA) model, a surface could be regarded as a series of asperities decorated with smaller asperities. , The surface profile of zinc-coated steels could be separated into SSA and LSA. The asperities smaller than SSA could be treated as flattened areas, while the LSAs were too rigid to deform.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on the magnification-based multiasperity (MBMA) model, a surface could be regarded as a series of asperities decorated with smaller asperities. , The surface profile of zinc-coated steels could be separated into SSA and LSA. The asperities smaller than SSA could be treated as flattened areas, while the LSAs were too rigid to deform.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The G–W model considers the surface asperities to be single-scaled and neglects the influence of asperities in different scales, which leads to a deviation from practical application. The multiscale asperities are thought to strongly contribute to the contact characteristics such as contact condition and frictional behavior in many friction experiments. Therefore, the stick–slip mechanism based on the G–W model would not provide a reliable explanation or prediction when multiscale asperities cannot be neglected. , As a result, the scale effect of surface asperities on stick–slip behavior remains elusive.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first studies of large assembly surfaces were conducted using experimental methods; however, the experimental approach could only obtain inputs and outputs, which did not reveal the intrinsically complex mapping relationships. Therefore, in order to clarify the relationships between the influencing factors mechanistically and to establish a model of contact characteristics under multi-factor coupling, various experts began to study the dynamic characteristics of assembly interfaces by establishing theoretical models [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ciavarella suggested a simple closed-form approximate solution to the adhesive contact problem based on Persson's model [27]. Guo et al, developed a magnification-based multi-asperity (MBMA) model by evolving magnification into the GW model, and the multilength nature of a rough surface was taken into account properly [28]. Liu et al, presented an observation length-dependent (OLD) model of rough contact without adhesion, which covered the shortage of the real contact area stops changing as the average stress reaches the plastic yield stress in the Perrson model [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%