17 years ago, while a postdoc at IBM meant to be doing other things, I thought about the following. Then recently I visited Ali Argon at MIT, and we discussed conventional bubble rafts and how useful they had been in studies of some problems in mechanics...such as of defects and so on.
In the attached pre-print, we investigate quantum confinement induced strain in quantum dots. This paper has been written keeping in mind the condensed matter physics/quantum dot community (accepted for publication in Phy.
They filled a pool with a mix of cornstarch and water made on a concrete mixer truck. It becomes a non-newtonian fluid. When stress is applied to the liquid it exhibits properties of a solid. Video was recorded at Barcelona, Spain.
I am trying to find out the theoretical adhesive strength limit of a few materials, or more precisely the ratio adhesive strength limit to elastic modulus. I think this is after all part of the Lennard-Jones constants potential - theoretical adhesive strength limit is simply the maximum of the curve.
There have been several posts recently discussing new directions in computational mechanics. Here is a review article that appeared recently that may be of interest.
Large-scale hierarchical molecular modeling of nanostructured biological materials
Dear all,
I just joined this group last week. And, I'd like to share some of reading material that I found regarding research directions in computational mechanics. The paper was published in 2003, written by Tinsley Oden, Belytschko, Babuska and Hughes. It's entitled "Research Directions in Computational Mechanics" (Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192, pp 913-922, 2003). They outlined six areas with significant research opportunities in CM:
A normalising loading parameter useful in summarising the mechanical response of plane, pin in plate-like contacts is extended to axisymmetric, ball in socket-like contacts. Various diagrams reporting
In between stress and strain, which one is the more fundamental physical quantity? Or is it the case that each is defined independent of the other and so nothing can be said about their order? Is this the case?
A recent string of papers originated from Persson's paper in the physics literature contain a number of interesting new ideas, but compare, of the many theories for randomly rough surfaces, only Persson's and Bush et al, BGT. These papers often assume the original Greenwood and Williamson (GW) theory [1] to be inaccurate, but unfortunately do not test it, assuming BGT to be its better version. The original GW however is, I will show below, still the best paper and method today (not surprisingly, as not many papers have the level of 1300 citations), containing generally less assumptions than any other model, including the constitutive equation which does not need to be elastic! I just submitted this Letter to the Editor: On "Contact mechanics of real vs. randomly rough surfaces: A Green's function molecular dynamics study" by C. Campaña and M. H. Müser, EPL, 77 (2007) 38005. C. Campaña and M. H. Müser also make several questionable statements, including a dubious interpretation of their own results, and do not even cite the original GW paper; hence, we find useful to make some comments.
It was recently pointed out that much of the technical literature is inaccessible to the English speaking world, having been published in other languages such as Russian or Chinese. At the moment iMechanica is primarily an English-language website and we are therefore potentially limiting the discussion based on language.
