This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
In my opinion the page is too technical, I added the technical template to the top of the page.
The introduction is quite long, and already contains a lot of details. It might try to focus more on the essential ideas.
The distinction between non-adhesive and adhesive contact might be introduced separately.
Classical solutions could be an entire top-level section by itself.
Analytical and numerical solution techniques could also be discussed separately.
The purposes, strengths and weaknesses of the various adhesive contact theories could be introduced in more general terms, before the theories are discussed in detail.
I think the integral formulas given in line contact on a plane section are incorrect. The dimensions don't match. Can someone confirm? I was reading contact mechanics by johnson and the formulas look a little different there.
User:Blooneel 24 June, 2010
Johnson's book assumes a left-handed coordinate system with the -axis pointing down. The results given in this article assume that the -axis points up. That leads to the different relations. See Barber's book on elasticity for the form given in this article.
Bbanerje (
talk)
03:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
There seems to be an inconsitency between the (x,y) directions shown on the diagram and the use of z in the formulas. It needs to be clear what the directions are.
Eregli bob (
talk)
04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Coordinate system
I am wondering about the coordinate system in the Chapter "Loading on a Half-Plane".
The coordinate z seems to be the direction normal to the surface (as also in the chapter before).
Does this chapter present a 3D solution for a point load given in the plane y=0? Than the term "Loading on a Half space" would be better.
Or is a plane strain (plane stress) solution presented?
In any case: the appearance of the y coordinate in the figure ( (x,y) and σy ) is misleading.
For the same reason y should also be replaced by z in the sentence following the formulae : "for some point, (x,y), in the half-plane. "B Sadden (
talk)
14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Error in sphere on half-space?
I may be wrong, but I believe that there is a mistake here; the radius of the contact area is quoted as being sqrt (R * d), I think (from a bit of cursory mathematics) that is should actually be sqrt (2 * R * d), can anyone confirm this, I may be mistaken so I won't change this unless someone else confirms...
Error in rigid conical indenter and an elastic half-space?
The German Wikipedia has a and d switched in this formula: . And indeed, if one lets theta get towards 90° then only the switched version makes sense (radius gets towards 0).
Peterthewall (
talk)
17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Hertz Model for Sphere on Plane is Parabola Approximation
I would like to point out that the sphere on a plane section is for a parabola. Many make the no-slip assumption for a spherical indenter so they can approximate the sphere for a parabola. JPK instruments has a decent read on this in terms of AFM on cells:
www.jpk.com/jpk-app-elastic-modulus4.download.5fb2f841667674176fd945e65f073bad
where a=(R*d)^1/2 (I think)
E is Young's Modulus
v is Poisson's Ratio
d is indentation of plane
I think it would be good to at least state somewhere that it is an approximation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EvanN90 (
talk •
contribs)
21:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
dxe
The description for "Adhesive surface forces" is "dxe" which, according to
this article on wikipedia is related to animal rights.
This should be corrected.