Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Leakage at interfaces: a comprehensive study based on Persson contact mechanics theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For dry rubber stopper-glass barrel contacts, the Persson effective-medium leakage theory, supplied with measured roughness power spectra and FEM contact pressures, predicts gas leak rates that fall inside the experimentally measured…

desk verdict A competent applied extension of Persson leakage theory to a real syringe stopper, but the validation hinges on one modulus transfer that the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows could shift predictions by orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09571 v1 pith:FMGNTUXB submitted 2025-07-13 cond-mat.soft physics.class-ph

R. Xu , L. Gil , J. Singer , L. Gontard , W. Leverd , B.N.J. Persson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.class-ph
keywords gasleakagecontactmechanicssurfaceroughnesspowerspectraldensityelasticsealspercolationthresholdrubber-glassinterfaceballisticflowfiniteelementpressure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that gas leakage through a nominally dry, rough rubber-glass seal can be predicted quantitatively by feeding measured surface-roughness power spectra and finite-element contact pressures into the Persson contact mechanics theory, without assuming a Hertzian or rectangular pressure profile. The pipeline is applied to the first rib of a pharmaceutical syringe stopper, where the contact pressure is asymmetric and shaped by the stopper geometry, and compared with direct displacement-based leak measurements. The predicted leak rates fall inside the measured range and reproduce the observed increase of leak rate with internal fluid pressure. The broader claim is that this combination, measured roughness spectra, FEM pressures including fluid-pressure deformation, and a ballistic-limit gas-flow theory, constitutes a general route for leakage prediction in arbitrarily shaped seals. The paper also shows that near the percolation threshold the leak rate is strongly sensitive to the elastic modulus and contact pressure, which sets practical limits on input accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the effective flow conductivity $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ obtained by averaging the microscopic conductivity over the Persson-theory probability distribution $P(u)$ of interfacial separation using Bruggeman effective medium theory, with a modified dimension $n \approx 1.75$ that places contact-area percolation at $A/A_0 \approx 0.42$ instead of 0.5. For a gas, the microscopic conductivity interpolates between diffusive flow scaling as $u^3$ and ballistic flow scaling as $u^2$, and the leak rate follows by integrating $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}^{-1}$ along the flow direction under the FEM contact pressure $p_0(x)$, including fluid-pressure lift-off. This machinery replaces the customary Hertzian or rectangular pressure assumptions with an arbitrary FEM pressure distribution.

What would settle it

Measure dry first-rib leak rates with independently known barrel and stopper surfaces at $p_a = 0.15$ and $0.414$ MPa, determine the effective modulus from the first rib's own FEM pressure distribution, and compare with the predictions; the central claim is falsified if the measured rates fall outside the predicted band, especially at low $p_a$ where the model predicts the strongest sensitivity to stiffness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the first-rib rubber-glass interface of a syringe stopper, the effective-medium leakage theory built on Persson contact mechanics, with the interfacial separation distribution $P(u)$ computed from measured roughness PSDs and the macroscopic contact pressure $p_0(x)$ taken from FEM rather than an idealized Hertzian contact, predicts gas leak rates that agree with controlled dry experiments. The theory treats gas flow in the ballistic limit, where the critical-junction separation is much smaller than the air mean free path, and interpolates between ballistic and diffusive transport. Both predicted and measured leak rates generally increase with fluid pressure $p_a$, because fluid pressure lifts the stopper off the barrel and widens the leak paths; for siliconized surfaces, the model attributes the absence of leakage to capillary bridges and slow silicone-oil squeeze-out. Sensitivity tests show that near percolation, changes of $\pm 15\%$ in the effective modulus $E_\mathrm{eff}$ or $p_0$ shift the predicted leak rate by up to two orders of magnitude, so the agreement depends on accurate FEM and material inputs.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the rubber stiffness estimated by fitting the second rib's FEM contact pressure is the same inside the tiny rough contacts of the first rib, where the predicted leak rate changes by up to a hundredfold when that stiffness changes by fifteen percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same roughness-PSD plus FEM-pressure plus leakage-theory pipeline transfers to any seal geometry with an arbitrary pressure profile, so O-ring-specific Hertzian or rectangular assumptions are no longer required.
  • At low fluid pressure, where the contact is near the percolation threshold, predicted leak rates are strongly sensitive to elastic modulus and contact pressure; a 15 percent error in either can shift the rate by up to two orders of magnitude.
  • For fixed geometry and linear elasticity without lift-off, the leak rate depends on the ratio $p_0/E$, so scaling both pressure and modulus together leaves the leak rate unchanged; lift-off breaks this scaling at high $p_a$.
  • Increasing contact pressure, for example by tightening the seal, is the most effective way to reduce leakage across most fluid pressures, while softer rubber helps most at low pressure.
  • The observed increase of leak rate with fluid pressure, although non-monotonic, is consistent with fluid-pressure-induced lift-off widening the leak paths.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper tests only air, but the same effective-medium machinery with liquid conductivity scaling as $u^3$ predicts that near-percolation liquid leak rates should be even more sensitive to modulus and pressure; a water or glycerin leak test on the same stopper geometry would probe that prediction.
  • A sharp test of the method would be to determine the effective modulus by fitting the FEM pressure distribution on the first rib itself rather than transferring the second-rib value, since the stated transfer assumes comparable compression in both locations.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to other non-Hertzian seals, such as valve seats or gaskets, with the caveat that lubrication and contamination effects would need their own treatment.
  • A percolation-based consequence not measured here is that a single particle lodged at a critical junction should dramatically raise the leak rate; controlled contamination experiments with particles of known size would test whether the critical-junction picture captures real failure modes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies Persson contact mechanics, implemented in the MCM software, to predict air leakage through the first rib of a rubber stopper pressed against a glass barrel in a prototype syringe. The inputs are a measured surface-roughness power spectral density (from stylus and AFM measurements), FEM-computed contact pressure distributions for seven fluid-pressure values, and an effective elastic modulus obtained by fitting Hertzian contact to the FEM pressure peak on the second rib. The predicted leak-rate range is compared with dry-contact leakage measurements; siliconized systems show no leakage, attributed to capillary bridges. A sensitivity analysis quantifies how ±15% changes in E and p0 affect the predicted leak rate, especially near the percolation threshold. The authors claim that the method provides a generalized, validated framework for leakage prediction in arbitrarily shaped seals.

Significance. If the validation holds, this is a useful step beyond the usual assumption of Hertzian or rectangular pressure distributions in Persson-theory leakage calculations: the paper combines measured PSDs, FEM pressure fields that include fluid-pressure-induced stopper deformation, a ballistic-gas-flow interpolation, and a direct comparison with dry leakage experiments. A notable strength is that no leak-rate data were used to calibrate the model; the effective modulus is fitted to FEM contact pressure rather than to leakage measurements. The sensitivity analysis is also a valuable practical contribution, showing how strongly leakage responds to E and p0 near percolation. The main risk is the unvalidated transfer of the effective modulus from the second rib to the first rib, combined with the demonstrated exponential sensitivity of the leak rate to E; this makes the reported agreement in Fig. 9 less conclusive than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Other Material Properties] The effective modulus Eeff = 1.8 MPa is determined by matching the Hertzian peak pressure to the FEM peak pressure on the second rib, then transferred to the first rib based only on the estimate that the ~35% compression of the second rib is similar to the compression of the asperity contact regions. This transfer is load-bearing: the paper's own sensitivity test (Figs. 10 and 12, with the discussion following Fig. 12) shows that a ±15% change in E changes the predicted leak rate by up to two orders of magnitude at pa = 0 and by factors of 4 to 9 at pa = 0.414 MPa. Since the experimental comparison in Fig. 9 begins at pa = 0.15 MPa, where sensitivity is still substantial, an error in the transferred Eeff of only about 15% could shift the prediction by a large factor and make the agreement coincidental. The paper should provide an independent measurement of Eeff on the first rib at the relevant strain (e.g., DMA or nanoindentation), or a direct FEM-to-Persson fit on the first rib, and should show the quality of the Hertzian fit used on the second rib.
  2. [Experimental Setup] The dry friction between stopper and barrel is stated to be approximately 10 N, while the minimum applied load is 44 N (pa = 0.15 MPa). This means the uncertainty in pa = FN/A0 is about 23% at the lowest load, yet the experimental leak-rate points in Fig. 9 are shown without an uncertainty band reflecting this. Because the predicted leak rate is most sensitive to contact conditions at low pa, the low-pressure region of the comparison is exactly where this systematic error matters most. The authors should correct the friction force explicitly (or demonstrate that it is negligible with a measurement), and propagate the resulting pa uncertainty into the comparison.
  3. [Surface Topography Power Spectra] A roll-off region was 'added to the fitted PSD' at qr = 2π/L 'for technical reasons.' The PSD is described as the most critical input of the model, and the long-wavelength content of the spectrum has a strong influence on the percolation channels and hence on the predicted leakage. The paper provides no measured justification for this added roll-off and no sensitivity test with respect to qr. The authors should either support the roll-off with measured data at the relevant scan lengths or quantify how the predicted leakage range in Fig. 9 changes when qr is varied within a physically reasonable interval.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) appears with a missing plus sign between the delta-function term and Pc(u); it should read P(u) = (A/A0) δ(u) + Pc(u).
  2. [Introduction] There is a grammatical error: 'it rely on several assumptions' should be 'it relies on several assumptions.'
  3. [Appendix A and Fig. 13] The terminology is inconsistent: the text uses 'Tripp number γ' while the Fig. 13 caption uses 'Trip number γ'; please unify the spelling.
  4. [Other Material Properties] The phrase 'an effective elastic modulus Eeff can be driven from the fit' should read 'derived from the fit.'
  5. [Fig. 9] The experimental points would be easier to interpret with error bars and with the number of repeated measurements per pa indicated; the text states that about 20 stoppers and 10 barrels were tested, but it is not clear how many leakage measurements underlie each hollow square.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No leak-rate data are used as model inputs: Eeff is fitted to FEM contact pressure, and the n≈1.75 correction is benchmarked against numerical simulations, so the leak-rate comparison does not reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is input-to-prediction: measured topography gives the PSD, FEM gives p0(x), material parameters give Eeff and the flow properties, and the MCM/Persson effective-medium calculation yields P(u), σeff, and the leak rate via Eqs. (7)–(10). No experimental leak-rate value is used as a fitting target anywhere in the paper. The effective modulus is obtained by matching a Hertzian pressure distribution to the FEM peak on the second rib ('we chose Eeff to reproduce the maximum contact pressure predicted by FEM. This yields an effective modulus of Eeff ≈ 1.8 MPa'), and it is then transferred to the first rib by an estimated similarity of compression; this is a parameter-transfer uncertainty—exposed by the paper's own ±15% sensitivity analysis—not a circular reduction, because the leak data were never used in that fit. The Bruggeman correction n≈1.75 is imported from earlier Persson-group references, but it is anchored to agreement with first-principles flow simulations in Ref. [15], which is an external numerical benchmark rather than a fit to the present experimental leak rates. The comparison in Fig. 9 is independent: dry leak rates are reported to fall within the predicted upper/lower bounds and to follow the pa trend. Two passages deserve explicit flagging but do not create circularity: the Theory section contains a missing-reference artifact ('correct percolation threshold [ ? ]'), and the Eeff transfer relies on an unverified strain-similarity estimate; both are completeness/robustness concerns. Under the hard rule that circularity requires exhibiting a specific reduction of the prediction to its own inputs, no such reduction is present, so the finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on three fitted or inherited parameters (Eeff, PSD roll-off, Bruggeman n), several domain assumptions from Persson and Bruggeman theory, and one ad hoc transfer assumption connecting the second rib's fitted modulus to the first rib. No new physical entities are postulated. The most consequential input is Eeff, because the sensitivity analysis shows that modest errors in E or p0 can change leak rates by orders of magnitude near percolation.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective elastic modulus Eeff = 1.8 MPa
    Chosen by fitting the FEM contact-pressure peak of the second rib to Hertz theory and transferred to the first rib. The leak-rate prediction is highly sensitive to E, with orders-of-magnitude changes for ±15% variation near percolation.
  • PSD roll-off wavenumber qr = qr = 2π/L, with L the contact width in the flow direction
    A roll-off region was added to the fitted PSD 'for technical reasons'. This low-wavenumber cutoff shapes the large-wavelength roughness and hence the predicted leak-path size, but its value is not derived from measurement.
  • Bruggeman effective dimension n = n ≈ 1.75
    Introduced in the effective medium theory to reproduce the numerical percolation threshold A/A0 ≈ 0.42 from Ref. 15. It is an adjustable theory parameter inherited from prior literature, not fitted to the present leakage data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Persson contact mechanics theory gives an accurate interfacial separation probability P(u) for the rubber-glass contact.
    The entire leakage calculation uses P(u) from Persson theory with linear elasticity; the paper does not independently benchmark P(u) for this specific material and roughness.
  • domain assumption The Bruggeman effective medium approximation with n ≈ 1.75 correctly describes flow conductivity and percolation for this roughness.
    Equation (8) and Appendix A rely on the effective-medium approximation and its percolation correction from prior numerical simulations (Refs. 15, 31, 32).
  • domain assumption The FEM smooth-contact pressure distribution p0(x), including fluid-pressure effects, remains representative once roughness and lift-off are introduced.
    FEM p0(x) is an input to the MCM calculation; the method assumes roughness does not macroscopically alter the rib-barrel pressure distribution and that lift-off is captured separately by the MCM software.
  • domain assumption Gas flow is stationary and isothermal, and the fluid pressure in the conductivity expression can be replaced by its average (pa+pb)/2.
    In the Theory section, p in Eq. (6) is replaced by the average pressure so that sigma depends only on u; this approximation is needed for the effective-medium treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective modulus determined on the second rib applies to the first rib because both experience about 35% compression.
    This is the load-bearing transfer assumption from the 'Other Material Properties' section. Its accuracy is not directly measured, and the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows large leak-rate consequences from E variations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leakage at interfaces: a comprehensive study based on Persson contact mechanics theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMGNTUXB

@misc{pith2026250709571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leakage at interfaces: a comprehensive study based on Persson contact mechanics theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMGNTUXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09571}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of gas leakage at interfaces based on Persson contact mechanics theory. A prototype syringe system consisting of a rubber stopper and a glass barrel is selected, where surface roughness is characterized using measurements from stylus profilometry and atomic force microscopy, and contact pressure distributions are obtained from Finite Element Method (FEM) calculations. Leakage prediction is performed using Multiscale Contact Mechanics (MCM) software. The predicted results show good agreement with experimental measurements under controlled dry conditions. Sensitivity analyses indicate that small variations in elastic modulus and contact pressure can significantly influence leakage, particularly near the percolation threshold. This work provides a generalized and validated framework for leakage prediction and offers practical guidance for the design of sealing systems in pharmaceutical and engineering applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cross-section of a circular seal orthogonal to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the studied system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. General process for investigating leakage using MCM software. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 2D surface roughness power spectra calculated from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) During fluid injection, the fluid pressure in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. FEM-simulated contact pressure distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Experimental setup used in this study. (b) Schematic representation of the setup. (c) Glass barrel glued to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Cuts and corresponding non-contact areas on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Leak rate as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Predicted leak rate with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Predicted leak rate with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (a) Fluid flow in a contact with anisotropic rough [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    When p0 is fixed, the leak rate increases with in- creasing E

    work page

  2. [2]

    When E is fixed, the leak rate decreases with in- creasing p0

    work page

  3. [3]

    At lower pa, the influence of changes in p0 and E on ˙V is more pronounced than at higher pa

    There is a nonlinear relationship between the leak rate ˙V and the parameters p0 and E across differ- ent fluid pressures pa. At lower pa, the influence of changes in p0 and E on ˙V is more pronounced than at higher pa. For example, at pa = 0 MPa, the difference in ˙V between the prediction using E = 1.8 MPa and those using E+ and E− spans approximately o...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In traditional FEM simulations, errors of 15% are common and often considered acceptable

    The errors caused by scaling E or p0 highlight the importance of accurate FEM results when pre- dicting leakage using Persson contact mechanics. In traditional FEM simulations, errors of 15% are common and often considered acceptable. How- ever, our results show that such errors can lead to variations in predicted leak rates by several orders of magnitude

    work page

  5. [5]

    This is because increasing E raises the contact pressure, but simultaneously reduces the ability to conform to asperities in rubber

    Within the framework of linear elasticity, and as- 10 suming that pa does not affect the contact pressure (i.e., lift-off effects are negligible), leakage becomes independent of E when compression is fixed (i.e., the geometry of the stopper and barrel remains un- changed). This is because increasing E raises the contact pressure, but simultaneously reduce...

    work page

  6. [6]

    12 at pa = 0.414 MPa)

    To improve sealing performance, reducing E and increasing p0 yield similar effects across most pa values, except at very high pa (e.g., Fig. 12 at pa = 0.414 MPa). Therefore, the most effective method for reducing leakage is to increase the con- tact pressure, for instance by tightening the seal. CONCLUSION In this study, we employed Persson contact mecha...

    work page

  7. [7]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Contact mechanics for randomly rough surfaces,” Surface Science Reports, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 201–227, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”On the fractal dimension of rough surfaces,” Tribology Letters, vol. 54, pp. 99–106, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Ranganath Nayak, ”Random process model of rough surfaces,” 1971

    P. Ranganath Nayak, ”Random process model of rough surfaces,” 1971

    1971

  2. [10]

    Brodsky, Jean-Fran¸ cois Molinari, and Srinivasan Chandrasekar, ”How roughness emerges on natural and engineered surfaces,” MRS bul- letin, vol

    Ramin Aghababaei, Emily E. Brodsky, Jean-Fran¸ cois Molinari, and Srinivasan Chandrasekar, ”How roughness emerges on natural and engineered surfaces,” MRS bul- letin, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1229–1236, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Greenwood and J

    James A. Greenwood and J. B. Pl Williamson, ”Con- tact of nominally flat surfaces,” Proceedings of the royal society of London. Series A. Mathematical and physical sciences, vol. 295, no. 1442, pp. 300–319, 1966

    1966

  4. [12]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 3840–3861, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Adhesion between an elastic body and a randomly rough hard surface,” The European Physical Journal E, vol. 8, pp. 385–401, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Carbone and F

    G. Carbone and F. Bottiglione, ”Contact mechanics of rough surfaces: a comparison between theories,” Mecca- nica, vol. 46, pp. 557–565, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Relation between interfacial separa- tion and load: a general theory of contact mechanics,” Physical review letters, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 125502, 2007. 13

    2007

  8. [16]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”On the elastic energy and stress corre- lation in the contact between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces,” Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, vol. 20, no. 31, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    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, vol. 20, no. 21, pp. 215214, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Campana, N

    Andreas Almqvist, C. Campana, N. Prodanov, and B. N. J. Persson, ”Interfacial separation between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces: comparison between the- ory and numerical techniques,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 2355–2369, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    A. W. Bush, R. D. Gibson, and T. R. Thomas, ”The elastic contact of a rough surface,” Wear, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 87–111, 1975

    1975

  12. [20]

    W. R. Chang, I. Etsion, and D. B. Bogy, ”An elastic- plastic model for the contact of rough surfaces,” Journal of Tribology, 1987

    1987

  13. [21]

    Avinash Tiwari, Leonid Dorogin, Muhammed Tahir, Klaus Werner St¨ ockelhuber, Gert Heinrich, Nuria Espal- largas, and Bo N. J. Persson, ”Rubber contact mechanics: adhesion, friction and leakage of seals,” Soft Matter, vol. 13, no. 48, pp. 9103–9121, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Dapp, Andreas L¨ ucke, Bo N

    Wolf B. Dapp, Andreas L¨ ucke, Bo N. J. Persson, and Martin H. M¨ user, ”Self-affine elastic contacts: percola- tion and leakage,” Physical review letters, vol. 108, no. 24, pp. 244301, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    B. N. J. Persson and C. Yang, ”Theory of the leak-rate of seals,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, vol. 20, no. 31, pp. 315011, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Lorenz and B

    B. Lorenz and B. N. J. Persson, ”On the dependence of the leak rate of seals on the skewness of the surface height probability distribution,” Europhysics Letters, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 38002, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Leakage of metallic seals: role of plas- tic deformations,” Tribology letters, vol. 63, pp. 1–6, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    F. J. Fischer, K. Schmitz, A. Tiwari, and B. N. J. Pers- son, ”Fluid leakage in metallic seals,” Tribology Letters, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 125, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Felix Fischer, Hubertus Murrenhoff, and Katharina Schmitz, ”Influence of normal force in metallic sealing,” Engineering Reports, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. e12399, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Chao Peng, Xiaoping Ouyang, Katharina Schmitz, Wei Wang, Shengrong Guo, and Huayong Yang, ”Investiga- tion of the tribological performance of reciprocating seals in a wide temperature range,” Proceedings of the Insti- tution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engi- ne...

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. G. Akulichev, A. T. Echtermeyer, and B. N. J. Pers- son, ”Interfacial leakage of elastomer seals at low tem- peratures,” International journal of pressure vessels and piping, vol. 160, pp. 14–23, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Fluid leakage in static rubber seals,” Tribology Letters, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 31, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Nestor Rodriguez, Avinash Tiwari, and B. N. J. Persson, ”Air leakage in seals with application to syringes,” Ap- plied Surface Science Advances, vol. 8, pp. 100222, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Carine Huon, Avinash Tiwari, Cinzia Rotella, Paolo Mangiagalli, and B. N. J. Persson, ”Air, helium and wa- ter leakage in rubber O-ring seals with application to syringes,” Tribology Letters, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 35, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Felix Fischer, Dariush Bady, and Katharina Schmitz, ”Leakage of Metallic Ball Seat Valves with Anisotropic Surfaces,” Chemical Engineering & Technology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 102–109, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Niklas Bauer and Katharina Schmitz, ”Influence of Man- ufacturing Tolerances on the Behavior of Pneumatic Seals using EHL Simulations,” Tribologie und Schmierung- stechnik, vol. 69, no. 5+6, pp. 62–69, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Comments on the Theory of Fluid Flow Between Solids with Anisotropic Roughness,” Tri- bology Letters, vol. 69, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Jiehao Wang, Jing Li, Niklas Bauer, and Katharina Schmitz, ”Numerical study of leakage rate in recipro- cating seal with non-Gaussian topography characteristics using percolation mechanism,” Tribology International, vol. 199, pp. 109955, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Side-leakage of face mask,” The Euro- pean Physical Journal E, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 75, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Lorenz and B

    B. Lorenz and B. N. J. Persson, ”Leak rate of seals: Com- parison of theory with experiment,” EPL, vol. 86, no. 4, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Lorenz and B

    B. Lorenz and B. N. J. Persson, ”Leak-rate of seals: ef- fective medium theory and comparison with experiment,” 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Lorenz and B

    B. Lorenz and B. N. J. Persson, ”Time-dependent fluid squeeze-out between solids with rough surfaces,” The Eu- ropean Physical Journal E, vol. 32, pp. 281–290, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Lorenz, N

    B. Lorenz, N. Rodriguez, P. Mangiagalli, and B. N. J. Persson, ”Role of hydrophobicity on interfacial fluid flow: Theory and some applications,” The European Physical Journal E, vol. 37, pp. 1–14, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    O. H. Yeoh, ”Some forms of the strain energy function for rubber,” Rubber Chemistry and Technology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 754–771, 1993

    1993

  35. [43]

    M¨ user, ”Percolation and Reynolds Flow in Elastic Contacts of Isotropic and Anisotropic, Randomly Rough Surfaces,” Tribology Let- ters, vol

    Anle Wang and Martin H. M¨ user, ”Percolation and Reynolds Flow in Elastic Contacts of Isotropic and Anisotropic, Randomly Rough Surfaces,” Tribology Let- ters, vol. 69, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    M. Scaraggi, ”The friction of sliding wet textured sur- faces: the Bruggeman effective medium approach revis- ited,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 471, no. 2183, pp. 20140739, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    for the case n = 2 (a misprint in the derivation was overlooked during proofreading, but the final result is correctly stated)

  38. [46]

    Bottiglione, G

    F. Bottiglione, G. Carbone, L. Mangialardi, and G. Mantriota, ”Leakage mechanism in flat seals,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 106, no. 10, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    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, vol. 416, no. 7, pp. 636–664, 1935

    1935

  40. [48]

    B. N. J. Persson, ”Interfacial fluid flow for systems with anisotropic roughness,” The European Physical Journal E, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 25, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    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, vol. 73, no. 1, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Adamson and Alice Petry Gast, Physical chemistry of surfaces

    Arthur W. Adamson and Alice Petry Gast, Physical chemistry of surfaces. New York: Interscience publish- ers, 1967, vol. 150

    1967

  43. [51]

    P. A. A. N. Kralchevsky and Kuniaki Nagayama, Par- 14 ticles at fluid interfaces and membranes: attachment of colloid particles and proteins to interfaces and formation of two-dimensional arrays. Elsevier, 2001

    2001

  44. [52]

    B. N. J. Persson, N. Prodanov, B. A. Krick, N. Ro- driguez, N. Mulakaluri, W. G. Sawyer, and P. Mangia- galli, ”Elastic contact mechanics: percolation of the con- tact area and fluid squeeze-out,” The European Physical Journal E, vol. 35, pp. 1–17, 2012. 15

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.