Understanding Nanoscale Topology–Adhesion Relationships Via Support Vector Regression
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Adhesion is an important property related to interfacial failure and is crucial in nanofabrication, nanodevices, and biomedicine. Nanoscale roughness significantly reduces the adhesion predicted by classical mechanical models. To quantify the adhesion, an intrinsic traction–separation relation is required. Previous investigations establish traction separation laws with pre‐assumed forms and use statistical topological parameters to summarize details of roughness. Here, support vector regression (SVR) is performed on nanoscale topology–adhesion correlated atomic force microscopy (AFM) data to establish a data‐driven traction–separation relation. Instead of using statistical parameters, full details of the roughness are used as input features. Over 200 000 topological data sets are analyzed and an accurate prediction of adhesion with R2 more than 0.98 is achieved. More importantly, a traction–separation relation is derived from an SVR‐based machine learning process, followed by validation via finite element analysis. This work presents an AFM–SVR integrated approach to characterize nanoscale adhesion that can be generalized for different materials and interfaces.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Adhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions · Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering University of North Texas Denton TX 76201 USA
Information Services and Technology Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Philadelphia PA 19107 USA
Department of Physics and Astronomy Carleton College Northfield MN 55057 USA
Funding
University of North Texas
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nmat143110.1038/nmat1431 ↗
2. 10.1021/la047750x10.1021/la047750x ↗
3. 10.1021/nl050861b10.1021/nl050861b ↗
4. 10.1177/027836491038286210.1177/0278364910382862 ↗
5. 10.1039/C9CS00285E10.1039/C9CS00285E ↗
6. 10.1098/rspa.1971.014110.1098/rspa.1971.0141 ↗
7. 10.1016/0021-9797(75)90018-110.1016/0021-9797(75)90018-1 ↗
8. 10.1016/0021-9797(92)90285-T10.1016/0021-9797(92)90285-T ↗
9. 10.1016/j.eml.2016.05.01310.1016/j.eml.2016.05.013 ↗
10. 10.1007/s10704-012-9758-310.1007/s10704-012-9758-3 ↗
11. 10.1002/admi.20140054710.1002/admi.201400547 ↗
12. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.12550210.1103/PhysRevLett.99.125502 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.jmps.2012.09.00310.1016/j.jmps.2012.09.003 ↗
14. 10.1163/156856105435266710.1163/1568561054352667 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.01510.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.015 ↗
16. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.12430110.1103/PhysRevLett.95.124301 ↗
17. 10.1021/la201727t10.1021/la201727t ↗
18. 10.1007/s11249-012-0097-310.1007/s11249-012-0097-3 ↗
19. 10.1073/pnas.132084611110.1073/pnas.1320846111 ↗
20. 10.1073/pnas.191312611610.1073/pnas.1913126116 ↗
21. 10.1098/rspa.1966.024210.1098/rspa.1966.0242 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.489578910.1063/1.4895789 ↗
23. 10.1098/rspa.1975.013810.1098/rspa.1975.0138 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.07.19210.1016/j.apsusc.2014.07.192 ↗
25. 10.1007/s10035-002-0122-610.1007/s10035-002-0122-6 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jcis.2004.06.02910.1016/j.jcis.2004.06.029 ↗
27. 10.1038/s41524-019-0221-010.1038/s41524-019-0221-0 ↗
28. 10.1038/s41586-018-0337-210.1038/s41586-018-0337-2 ↗
29. 10.1126/sciadv.170181610.1126/sciadv.1701816 ↗
30. 10.1038/s41524-018-0094-710.1038/s41524-018-0094-7 ↗
31. 10.1098/rsif.2017.084410.1098/rsif.2017.0844 ↗
32. 10.1088/1361-6528/aa75ac10.1088/1361-6528/aa75ac ↗
33. 10.1039/c3sm50942g10.1039/c3sm50942g ↗
34. F.Pedregosa R.Weiss M.Brucher 2011 12 2825.
35. 10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.8810.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88 ↗
36. 10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-010.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 ↗
37. 10.1109/78.65010210.1109/78.650102 ↗
38. 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.23542910.1103/PhysRevB.76.235429 ↗
39. 10.1063/1.114397010.1063/1.1143970 ↗
40. 10.6028/jres.102.03010.6028/jres.102.030 ↗