Static Versus Dynamic Friction: The Role of Coherence
Z. Farkas, S. R. Dahmen, D. E. Wolf
Abstract
A simple model for solid friction is analyzed. It is based on tangential springs representing interlocked asperities of the surfaces in contact. Each spring is given a maximal strain according to a probability distribution. At their maximal strain the springs break irreversibly. Initially all springs are assumed to have zero strain, because at static contact local elastic stresses are expected to relax. Relative tangential motion of the two solids leads to a loss of coherence of the initial state: The springs get out of phase due to differences in their sizes. This mechanism alone is shown to lead to a difference between static and dynamic friction forces already. We find that in this case the ratio of the static and dynamic coefficients decreases with increasing relative width of the probability distribution, and has a lower bound of 1 and an upper bound of 2.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Necessary conditions for benchmarking next-generation AI in materials discovery
Daniel E Widdowson, Tatiana V Kurlina, Olga D Anosova et al.
Doubly Metastable Synthesis for Accelerated Quantum Materials Discovery
Kyuho Lee, Berit H. Goodge, Soonhyun Kwon et al.
Phononic Frequency Combs in Twisted Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Heterostructures from First Principles
Naman Arora, Adarsh Ganesan
Improved screening of doped ZrO2 catalysts for CO2 hydrogenation from graph-based machine learning
Karsten Walz Jensen, Mie Andersen, Raffaele Cheula
Dislocation mediated twin boundary faceting in β-Sn
John Israel, Ian Chesser, Khanh Dang et al.
Ferroelectric Domain-Wall Motion, Stability, and Frequency Responses under Different Screening-Charge Conservation Laws
Sergei V. Kalinin