{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024041585445094216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002599090318388564, 'mean_word_length': 5.337448559670782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of contact conditions obtained by direct simulation with statistical analysis for normally distributed isotropic surfaces

In this study, with the aim of establishing a systematic knowledge on the impact of summit extraction methods and stochastic model selection in rough contact analysis, the contact area ratio (Ar/Aa) obtained by statistical contact models with different summit extraction methods was compared with a direct simulation using the boundary element method (BEM). Fifty areal topography datasets with different autocorrelation functions in terms of the power index and correlation length were used for investigation. The non-causal 2D auto-regressive model which can generate datasets with specified parameters was employed in this research. Three summit extraction methods, Nayak’s theory, 8-point analysis and watershed segmentation, were examined. With regard to the stochastic model, Bhushan’s model and BGT (Bush-Gibson-Thomas) model were applied. The values of Ar/Aa from the stochastic models tended to be smaller than BEM. The discrepancy between the Bhushan’s model with the 8-point analysis and BEM was slightly smaller than Nayak’s theory. The results with the watershed segmentation was similar to those with the 8-point analysis. The impact of the Wolf pruning on the discrepancy between the stochastic analysis and BEM was not very clear. In case of the BGT model which employs surface gradients, good quantitative agreement against BEM was obtained when the Nayak’s bandwidth parameter was large.