PMC

Physical quantities associated with perceived roughness, hardness, and stickiness when exploring textures through probes. (A) Log power of texture-elicited vibrations vs. subjective roughness magnitude. Correlation coefficients between log vibratory power and perceived roughness, hardness, and stickiness were 0.92, 0.04, and 0.23, respectively. (B) Perceived hardness vs. log relative compliance. Relative compliance was given by the ratio between the displacement of a Delrin 3-mm diameter probe into a textured surface and the weight that produced it (in cm/g). Correlation coefficients between log relative compliance and perceived roughness, hardness, and stickiness were 0.43, −0.93, and 0.59, respectively. (C) Perceived stickiness vs. the log coefficient of friction. Correlation coefficients between log coefficient of friction and perceived roughness, hardness, and stickiness were 0.57, −0.54, and 0.82, respectively. Thus, perceived roughness is associated with vibratory information, perceived hardness with relative compliance, and perceived stickiness with friction.

Correlation between relative change of Martens hardness and relative change of indirect tensile strength for each cement

Variation of density and hardness of MMCs, in respect to sintering temperature, (a) relative sintered density, and (b) Rockwell hardness, versus sintering temperatures. Densities and hardness of neat Alumix-231 sintered at 565, 570, and 575 °C and measured in our samples were essentially the same as those measured by Heard et al. [].

Mechanical Properties of nanolattice film. (a) Specific energy dissipation for Al₂O₃ and ZnO nanolattice plotted against relative density. The Al₂O₃ nanolattice shows more favorable power law scaling. (b) Pop-in hardness versus relative density. The nanolattice shows similar hardness scaling for both Al₂O₃ and ZnO. (c) Elastic recovery of Al₂O₃ nanolattice film plotted as a function of relative density and nanolattice shell thickness. Error bars represent standard deviation in elastic recovery.