pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03607 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.app-ph

Recognition: unknown

Adhesion-controlled sliding and the Stribeck curve in hydrophobic soft contacts

Ruibin Xu , Charlotte Spies , Michele Scaraggi , B.N.J. Persson
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.app-ph
keywords soft contactsStribeck curveadhesionmixed lubricationsliding frictionSchallamach waveshydrophobicPDMS
0
0 comments X

The pith

For sufficiently smooth and adhesive hydrophobic surfaces, adhesion modifies the sliding mode itself, producing Stribeck curves unlike those from classical mixed-lubrication theory.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines sliding of PMMA cylinders on PDMS rubber, both dry and with glycerol lubricant, across different surface roughness levels. Rough sandblasted surfaces produce Stribeck curves that match a mean-field mixed-lubrication model once a constant effective shear stress is included. The smooth surface instead shows a qualitatively different friction-speed relation. The authors attribute the difference to adhesion that persists even under lubrication and triggers macroscopic wave-like instabilities during sliding at low speeds. A sympathetic reader would care because the result indicates that surface smoothness can shift the entire friction mechanism in soft contacts rather than merely adjusting contact area.

Core claim

Dry-friction data combined with adhesion-inclusive contact-area calculations establish a baseline. For the two sandblasted surfaces the measured Stribeck curves are described reasonably well by mean-field mixed-lubrication theory with a fitted velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress. In contrast the smooth surface exhibits qualitatively different behavior attributed to an adhesion-controlled sliding mode involving macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities at low sliding speeds; these instabilities are progressively suppressed as sliding speed increases and forced wetting reduces direct solid-solid contact.

What carries the argument

Adhesion-controlled sliding mode involving macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities that change the sliding response beyond merely altering real contact area.

If this is right

  • Stribeck curves for soft hydrophobic contacts cannot be understood from fluid flow and load sharing alone when surfaces are smooth and adhesive.
  • Low-speed sliding on smooth surfaces occurs through unstable wave-like motion rather than steady sliding.
  • Increasing sliding speed suppresses the instabilities by forcing lubricant into the interface and reducing solid-solid contact.
  • Adhesion can persist and dominate even in the presence of a lubricant for hydrophobic material pairs.
  • Mean-field mixed-lubrication models require extension to capture adhesion-induced changes in sliding mode for sufficiently smooth surfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Surface roughness may be deliberately engineered in soft-contact applications to switch between adhesion-controlled and lubrication-controlled regimes.
  • The same mechanism could operate in other soft hydrophobic systems such as skin, cartilage, or elastomeric seals where adhesion is known to persist under partial lubrication.
  • Varying the degree of adhesion independently while keeping roughness fixed would test whether the wave-like instabilities are the direct cause of the altered Stribeck shape.
  • Classical lubrication design rules may underestimate speed-dependent friction variations in highly smooth soft interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The qualitatively different Stribeck behavior on the smooth surface is caused by adhesion-controlled sliding with wave-like instabilities rather than by unaccounted differences in surface chemistry or lubricant properties.

What would settle it

High-speed video of the smooth contact interface that either reveals or fails to reveal propagating detachment waves whose appearance correlates exactly with the low-speed rise in friction and whose disappearance coincides with the return toward classical lubrication behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03607 by B.N.J. Persson, Charlotte Spies, Michele Scaraggi, Ruibin Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A rigid body is squeezed into contact with an elastic view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The thick lines show the measured surface roughness view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The effective binding energy per unit surface area, view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The relative contact area view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The calculated viscoelastic contribution to the sli view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The real and imaginary parts of the viscoelastic mod view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Schematic illustration showing that the frictiona view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The friction coefficient as a function of the loga view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The friction coefficient as a function of the logarith view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The friction coefficient as a function of the logarith view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The open squares are the frictional shear stress for view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the measured ratio µ = Fx/FN as a func￾tion of sliding distance for the Smooth PMMA cylin￾der (upper two curves) and Sb-R (lower curve) on the PDMS surface lubricated by glycerol. The sliding speed is v = 1 µm/s for Sb-R and v = 1 and 3 µm/s for the Smooth surface, at the normal load of FN/L = 310 N/m. Note the stick-slip oscillations in the friction force for the Smooth surface. Compared to the dry… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Nucleation of a single Schallamach wave in the cylin view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The ratio view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. The ratio view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. The logarithm of the contact pressure ¯p view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. The friction coefficient as a function of the logarith view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The friction factors view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. The surface separation ¯u view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. The fluid pressure ¯p view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Friction coefficient as a function of the logarithm of view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an experimental and theoretical study of dry and glycerol-lubricated sliding for polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylinders with different surface roughness sliding on polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) rubber. This system represents a hydrophobic soft contact, where adhesion may persist even in the presence of the lubricant and thereby modify both the real contact area and the sliding response. Dry-friction measurements, combined with contact-area calculations that include adhesion, provide a baseline for the lubricated study. For the two sandblasted surfaces, the measured Stribeck curves are described reasonably well by a mean-field mixed-lubrication theory with a fitted velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress. In contrast, the smooth surface exhibits qualitatively different behavior. We attribute this to an adhesion-controlled sliding mode involving macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities at low sliding speeds, which are progressively suppressed as the sliding speed increases and forced wetting reduces direct solid-solid contact. The results show that, for soft hydrophobic contacts, the Stribeck curve cannot always be understood from classical fluid flow and load sharing alone. For sufficiently smooth and adhesive surfaces, adhesion changes not only the real contact area but also the sliding mode itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports experimental Stribeck curves for dry and glycerol-lubricated sliding of PMMA cylinders (smooth and sandblasted) on PDMS, together with contact-area calculations that incorporate adhesion. For the two rough surfaces a mean-field mixed-lubrication model with one fitted, velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress reproduces the measured curves; the smooth-surface curve is qualitatively different and is attributed to an adhesion-controlled sliding mode mediated by macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities that are progressively suppressed by forced wetting at higher speeds. The central claim is that, for sufficiently smooth and adhesive hydrophobic soft contacts, adhesion modifies not only the real contact area but the sliding mode itself.

Significance. If the attribution for the smooth surface holds, the work demonstrates that classical fluid-flow and load-sharing descriptions are insufficient for adhesive soft contacts and that adhesion can alter the fundamental sliding mechanism. The experimental data set and the explicit mean-field treatment for rough surfaces constitute a useful baseline for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and the corresponding discussion of the smooth-surface data): the central claim that the qualitatively different Stribeck curve arises from an adhesion-controlled sliding mode involving macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities rests on qualitative inference. No direct confirmation—imaging of propagating fronts, characteristic force signatures, wavelength measurements, or controls that exclude surface-chemistry or glycerol-specific differences between the smooth and sandblasted PMMA samples—is provided. This inference is load-bearing for the paper’s strongest claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and rough-surface modeling section: the mean-field mixed-lubrication description for the sandblasted surfaces employs a velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress that is fitted to the data. While the resulting agreement is reasonable, the physical origin and velocity independence of this parameter are not independently verified, so the match is partly by construction and weakens the contrast drawn with the smooth case.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that dry-friction measurements 'provide a baseline' but does not quantify how the adhesion-inclusive contact-area calculation is validated against the measured dry friction coefficients.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments raise valid points about the strength of evidence for our interpretation of the smooth-surface data and the assumptions in the rough-surface model. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve transparency and acknowledge limitations where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the corresponding discussion of the smooth-surface data): the central claim that the qualitatively different Stribeck curve arises from an adhesion-controlled sliding mode involving macroscopic Schallamach-wave-like instabilities rests on qualitative inference. No direct confirmation—imaging of propagating fronts, characteristic force signatures, wavelength measurements, or controls that exclude surface-chemistry or glycerol-specific differences between the smooth and sandblasted PMMA samples—is provided. This inference is load-bearing for the paper’s strongest claim.

    Authors: We agree that the attribution of the smooth-surface behavior to an adhesion-controlled sliding mode with Schallamach-wave-like instabilities is inferential rather than based on direct observation. The claim rests on the qualitative difference in the measured Stribeck curve, the inclusion of adhesion in contact-area calculations, and the progressive change with speed that aligns with forced wetting reducing solid-solid contact. Direct imaging, force signatures, or wavelength measurements were not performed in this work. We have revised the abstract and relevant discussion sections to present this mechanism as a consistent interpretation supported by the data and literature on similar systems, while explicitly noting the lack of direct confirmation and the absence of dedicated controls for possible surface-chemistry variations (though sandblasting primarily alters topography). This revision maintains the central message without overstating the evidence. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and rough-surface modeling section: the mean-field mixed-lubrication description for the sandblasted surfaces employs a velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress that is fitted to the data. While the resulting agreement is reasonable, the physical origin and velocity independence of this parameter are not independently verified, so the match is partly by construction and weakens the contrast drawn with the smooth case.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the effective interfacial shear stress is a single fitted, velocity-independent parameter chosen to reproduce the overall shape of the Stribeck curves for the rough surfaces within a mean-field mixed-lubrication framework. Its physical origin is presumed to reflect the average adhesive shear resistance at asperity contacts, but we did not conduct separate low-speed friction or shear tests to verify velocity independence independently. We have added text in the modeling section to state these assumptions explicitly and to note that the agreement is phenomenological. Nevertheless, the model still fails to describe the smooth-surface data, which supports the paper’s point that a classical load-sharing description is insufficient when adhesion alters the sliding mode itself. The contrast therefore remains informative even with the acknowledged limitations of the fitted parameter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted shear stress parameter allows descriptive agreement for rough surfaces by construction; smooth-surface claim remains observational

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "For the two sandblasted surfaces, the measured Stribeck curves are described reasonably well by a mean-field mixed-lubrication theory with a fitted velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress."

    The effective interfacial shear stress is adjusted as a free parameter to the experimental Stribeck data; the resulting 'description' of the curves therefore follows by construction from the fit rather than constituting an independent test or prediction of the mixed-lubrication theory.

full rationale

The paper fits a single velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress to match the Stribeck data on sandblasted (rough) PMMA surfaces using a mean-field mixed-lubrication model, producing reasonable agreement that is partly tautological to the fit. The central claim—that adhesion alters the sliding mode itself on smooth surfaces via Schallamach-like instabilities—is presented as a qualitative contrast without a corresponding fitted model or derivation that reduces to the input data. No self-definitional equations, load-bearing self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided text. The overall derivation chain for the strongest claim is therefore observational and independent of the fitted rough-surface description, warranting only a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The rough-surface analysis rests on a standard mean-field lubrication framework plus one fitted parameter; the smooth-surface claim rests on experimental observation and attribution to a known instability type.

free parameters (1)
  • velocity-independent effective interfacial shear stress
    Introduced to describe the lubricated sliding response of the two sandblasted surfaces within the mean-field mixed-lubrication theory.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mean-field mixed-lubrication theory with load sharing between asperity contact and fluid film applies to the rough surfaces
    Invoked to explain the measured Stribeck curves for sandblasted PMMA-PDMS contacts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5516 in / 1365 out tokens · 102649 ms · 2026-05-07T13:20:11.889872+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    092, and 0

    072, 0 . 092, and 0 . 109 MPa. The aluminum box was attached to the machine table, which moved transversely using a servo drive via a gearbox. This setup allows pre- cise control of the relative velocity between the rubber specimen and the PMMA cylinder. The sliding speed was varied from v = 1 µ m/slash.l⟩fts to 1 cm /slash.l⟩fts, while the force cell rec...

  2. [2]

    131, and for Sb-R, A/slash.left A0 = 0. 043, 0 . 052, and 0 . 053. The same figure also shows that for Sb-R the contact area in glycerol (solid red line) is nearly the same as in the dry state (dotted red line). For Sb-S (blue lines), the contact area in the dry state is about 8% larger than in glycerol. For all surfaces, the contact area, including adhesi...

  3. [3]

    FN/slash.left L = 310 N /slash.left m

    08 MPa. FN/slash.left L = 310 N /slash.left m. The blue and red squares are the measured results for Sb-S and Sb-R, respectively, and the solid lines are the calculated friction coefficients obtained by assuming that a velocity-independent frictional shear stress σf acts in the real contact area. For Sb-S and Sb-R we used fitted values of σf = 0. 84 and 1 . ...

  4. [4]

    84, 0. 78, 0. 7, and 0 . 65 MPa, and for Sb-R they are 1 . 08,

  5. [5]

    corrected

    08, 1 . 0, and 0 . 98 MPa. These fitted shear stresses are plotted in Fig. 15 (open squares) as a function of normal load. The fitted frictional shear stresses are systematically larger for Sb-R than for Sb-S. These values should be re- garded as effective parameters within the present mixed- lubrication framework, since the calculations do not in- clude the...

    2000

  6. [6]

    With the present experimental setup, we cannot directly observe what is happening at the buried interface

    The motion is then not controlled by uniform inter- facial slip over the whole nominal contact region, but by instability-mediated motion, which can lead to a much lower effective friction coefficient. With the present experimental setup, we cannot directly observe what is happening at the buried interface. How- ever, we do have indirect evidence for such in...

  7. [7]

    0531 MPa and a contact width of ≈7. 43 mm. For the rough surfaces, the width of the nominal contact re- gion increases due to contact with “high” asperities out- side the Hertzian contact, and the pressure distribution changes continuously from Hertzian-like to Gaussian-like [46, 47] with increasing roughness amplitude. Fig. 24 shows the surface separatio...

  8. [8]

    76 µ m). Sb-S. For v = 0 the maximum contact pressure and the width of the pressure distribution are ≈0. 0526 MPa and ≈8. 34 mm, respectively. Fig. 25 shows the surface separation ¯ u and the contact pressure pcont as functions of the lateral coordinate x for Sb-R. For v = 0 the maximum contact pressure and the width of the pressure distribution are ≈0. 0...

  9. [9]

    798 µ m), and Sb-R (red line, hrms = 15

    372 µ m), Sb-S (blue line, hrms = 2. 798 µ m), and Sb-R (red line, hrms = 15. 76 µ m). ≈10. 64 mm, respectively. For both surfaces, the interfacial separation at “high” sliding speeds has the characteristic form expected from elastohydrodynamics, with the minimum separation close to the exit of the nominal contact region. At the point where the separation...

  10. [10]

    de Vicente, J

    J. de Vicente, J. R. Stokes, and H. A. Spikes, The fric- tional properties of Newtonian fluids in rolling-sliding soft-EHL contact, Tribology Letters 20, 273 (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    Spikes and Z

    H. Spikes and Z. Jie, History, origins and prediction of elastohydrodynamic friction , Tribology Letters 56, 1 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Spikes, Stress-augmented thermal activation: Tribol- ogy feels the force , Friction 6, 1 (2018)

    H. Spikes, Stress-augmented thermal activation: Tribol- ogy feels the force , Friction 6, 1 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    H. Dong, R. Y. Siddiquie, X. Xiao, M. Andrews, B. Bergman, C. Y. Hui, and A. Jagota, Role of wettability, adhesion, and instabilities in transitions during lubrica ted sliding friction , PNAS 122, e2421122122 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    H. Dong, N. Moyle, H. Wu, C. Y. Khripin, C. Y. Hui, and A. Jagota, The transition from elasto-hydrodynamic to mixed regimes in lubricated friction of soft solid surfaces , Advanced Materials 35, 221104 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    B. N. J. Persson and M. Scaraggi, On the transition from boundary lubrication to hydrodynamic lubrication in soft contacts, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21, 185002 (2009)

    2009

  16. [16]

    Scaraggi, J

    M. Scaraggi, J. Angerhausen, L. Dorogin, H. Murrenhof, and B. N. J. Persson, Influence of anisotropic surface roughness on lubricated rubber friction: Extended theory and an application to hydraulic seals , Wear 410–411, 43 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 -4 -2 0 2 4 0.0 1.75 8.9 20.1 v [mm/s] Sb-R (a) (b) x [mm] surface separation ū [μm]...

    2018

  17. [17]

    B. N. J. Persson and M. Scaraggi, Lubricated sliding dy- namics: Flow factors and Stribeck curve , The European Physical Journal E 34, 113 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    B. N. J. Persson, Fluid dynamics at the interface be- tween contacting elastic solids with randomly rough sur- faces, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 22, 265004 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Miyashita and B

    N. Miyashita and B. N. J. Persson, Dry and lubricated sliding friction for rubber on concrete: the role of surface energies, Soft Matter 20, 7843 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Bertin and O

    V. Bertin and O. Pouliquen, Mean-field theory of the Stribeck effect , arXiv:2603.26563

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Bair, The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong? , Tribology International 131, 308 (2019)

    S. Bair, The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong? , Tribology International 131, 308 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    R. Xu, L. Martinie, P. Vergne, L. Joly, and N. Fillot, An approach for quantitative EHD friction prediction based on rheological experiments and molecular dynamics sim- ulations, Tribology Letters 71, 69 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    See, e.g., J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, Academic Press, Third Edition (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    B. N. J. Persson, Sliding Friction: Physical Principles and Applications , Springer, Second Edition (2000)

    2000

  25. [25]

    Rotella, B

    C. Rotella, B. N. J. Persson, M. Scaraggi, and P. Man- giagalli, Lubricated sliding friction: Role of interfacial fluid slip and surface roughness , The European Physical 17 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 (a) (b) Sb-S Sb-R fluid pressure p fluid [MPa] fluid pressure p fluid [MPa] 0.0 1.75 8.9 20.1 v [mm/s] x [mm] 0.0...

    2020

  26. [26]

    Patir, Effects of surface roughness on partial film lu- brication using an average flow model based on numerical simulation, Ph.D

    N. Patir, Effects of surface roughness on partial film lu- brication using an average flow model based on numerical simulation, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical En- gineering, Northwestern University (1978)

    1978

  27. [27]

    Patir and H

    N. Patir and H. S. Cheng, An average flow model for de- termining effects of three-dimensional roughness on par- tial hydrodynamic lubrication , ASME Journal of Lubri- cation Technology 100, 12 (1978)

    1978

  28. [28]

    D. A. G. Bruggeman, Berechnung verschiedener physikalischer Konstanten von heterogenen Substanzen. I. Dielektrizit¨ atskonstanten und Leitf¨ ahigkeiten der Mis- chk¨ orper aus isotropen Substanzen, Annalen der Physik 416, 636 (1935)

    1935

  29. [29]

    W. B. Dapp, A. L¨ ucke, B. N. J. Persson, and M. H. M¨ user,Self-affine elastic contacts: Percolation and leak- age, Physical Review Letters 108, 244301 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    B. N. J. Persson, Relation between interfacial separation and load: A general theory of contact mechanics , Physical Review Letters 99, 125502 (2007)

    2007

  31. [31]

    Yang and B

    C. Yang and B. N. J. Persson, Contact mechanics: con- tact area and interfacial separation from small contact to full contact , Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 215214 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    Almqvist, C

    A. Almqvist, C. Campana, N. Prodan, and B. N. J. Persson, Interfacial separation between elastic solids with 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 μ FN/L [N/m] 310 910 1510 2110 Sb-S (a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 μ FN/L [N/m] 310 910 1510 2110 Sb-R (b) −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 μ Log v [m/s] FN/L [N/m] 310 910 1510 2110 Smooth (c) FIG...

    2011

  33. [33]

    Rodriguez, L

    N. Rodriguez, L. Gontard, C. Ma, R. Xu, and B. N. J. Persson, On how to determine surface roughness power spectra, Tribology Letters 73, 18 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    B. N. J. Persson, Adhesion between an elastic body and a randomly rough hard surface , The European Physical Journal E 8, 385 (2002)

    2002

  35. [35]

    B. N. J. Persson, I. M. Sivebaek, V. N. Samoilov, K. Zhao, A. I. Volokitin, and Z. Zhang, On the origin of Amonton ’s friction law, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 395006 (2008)

    2008

  36. [36]

    Tiwari, L

    A. Tiwari, L. Dorogin, A. I. Bennett, K. D. Schulze, W. G. Sawyer, M. Tahir, G. Heinrich, and B. N. J. Pers- son, The effect of surface roughness and viscoelasticity on rubber adhesion , Soft Matter 13, 3602 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Vudayagiri, M

    S. Vudayagiri, M. Junker, and A. Skov, Factors affecting the surface and release properties of thin polydimethyl- siloxane films , Polymer Journal 45, 871 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    Abdel-Fattah, Surface activation of poly(methyl methacrylate) with atmospheric pressure Ar + H 2O plasma, Coatings 9, 228 (2019)

    E. Abdel-Fattah, Surface activation of poly(methyl methacrylate) with atmospheric pressure Ar + H 2O plasma, Coatings 9, 228 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Cabanillas, A

    B. Cabanillas, A. Mallma-Medina, M. Petkova- Gueorguieva, D. Alvitez-Temoche, R. Mendoza, and F. Mayta-Tovalino, Influence of the surface energy of differ- ent brands of polymethyl methacrylate on the adherence of Candida albicans: An in vitro study , Journal of Inter- national Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 11, 6 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    See https://www.relyon-plasma.com/glossary/ polymethyl-methacrylate/?lang=en

  41. [41]

    H. Zang, J. Gottberg, and S. Ryu, Contact angle mea- surement using a Hele-Shaw cell: A proof-of-concept study, Results in Engineering 11, 100278 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Karimdoost Yasuri, Thirty years of contact angles re- veal universal design rules for wetting control , Scientific Reports 16, 10224 (2026)

    A. Karimdoost Yasuri, Thirty years of contact angles re- veal universal design rules for wetting control , Scientific Reports 16, 10224 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    B. N. J. Persson, Silicone rubber adhesion and sliding friction, Tribology Letters 62, 34 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    M. K. Chaudhury, T. Weaver, C. Y. Hui, and E. J. Kramer, Adhesive contact of cylindrical lens and a flat sheet, Journal of Applied Physics 80, 30 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    Schallamach, How does rubber slide? , Wear 17, 301 (1971)

    A. Schallamach, How does rubber slide? , Wear 17, 301 (1971)

    1971

  46. [46]

    Schallamach, A theory of dynamic rubber friction , Wear 6, 375 (1963)

    A. Schallamach, A theory of dynamic rubber friction , Wear 6, 375 (1963)

    1963

  47. [47]

    B. N. J. Persson and A. I. Volokitin, Rubber friction on smooth surfaces , The European Physical Journal E 21, 69 (2006)

    2006

  48. [48]

    Chateauminois and C

    A. Chateauminois and C. Fretigny, Local friction at a sliding interface between an elastomer and a rigid spher- ical probe , The European Physical Journal E 27, 221 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Maksuta, S

    D. Maksuta, S. Dalvi, A. Gujrati, L. Pastewka, T.D.B. Jacobs, A. Dhinojwala Dependence of adhesive friction on surface roughness and elastic modulus , Soft Matter Soft Matter 18, 5843 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Vorvolakos and M

    K. Vorvolakos and M. K. Chaudhury, The effects of molecular weight and temperature on the kinetic friction of silicone rubbers , Langmuir 19, 6778 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    Wu-Bavouzet, J

    F. Wu-Bavouzet, J. Clain-Burckbuchler, A. Buguin, P.- G. de Gennes, and F. Brochard-Wyart, Stick-slip: Wet versus dry , The Journal of Adhesion 83, 761 (2007)

    2007

  52. [52]

    Martin, J

    A. Martin, J. Clain, A. Buguin, and F. Brochard-Wyart, Wetting transitions at soft, sliding interfaces , Physical Review E 65, 031605 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    Viswanathan and S

    K. Viswanathan and S. Chandrasekar, Fifty years of Schallamach waves: from rubber friction to nanoscale fracture, Philosophical Transactions A 380, 20210339 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Scaraggi, G

    M. Scaraggi, G. Carbone, and D. Dini, Experimental ev- idence of micro-EHL lubrication in rough soft contacts , Tribology Letters 43, 169 (2011)

    2011

  55. [55]

    K. L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics , Cambridge Univer- sity Press (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    Tiwari and B

    A. Tiwari and B. N. J. Persson, Cylinder-flat contact me- chanics with surface roughness , Tribology Letters 69, 4 (2021)

    2021