Talk:Contact mechanics

Too technical

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.

Edwinv1970 (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Line contact on a plane section

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 $z$-axis pointing down. The results given in this article assume that the $z$-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)

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)

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 σ_y ) 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)

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...

thanks,

Mike Strickland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.178.59 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hertz solution for the elastic displacements in the region of contact is

$u_{1}+u_{2}=\delta -Ax^{2}-By^{2}$

where $x,y$ are coordinates of the contact surfaces projected on to the $x-y$-plane. For a circular contact area with radius $a$,

$A=B={\tfrac {1}{2}}\left({\tfrac {1}{R_{1}}}+{\tfrac {1}{R_{2}}}\right)$

If the second surface is a half-plane, $R_{2}\rightarrow \infty$ and we have

$A=B={\tfrac {1}{2R_{1}}}={\tfrac {1}{2R}}$

Therefore,

$u_{1}+u_{2}=\delta -{\tfrac {1}{2R}}r^{2}$

where $r$ is the radial distance to a point in the contact region from the center of contact. The Hertzian pressure distribution

$p=p_{0}\left[1-({\tfrac {r}{a}})^{2}\right]^{1/2}$

leads to the displacement field

$u_{1}=\left({\tfrac {1-\nu _{1}^{2}}{E_{1}}}\right)\left({\tfrac {\pi p_{0}}{4a}}\right)\left(2a^{2}-r^{2}\right)~;~~u_{2}=\left({\tfrac {1-\nu _{2}^{2}}{E_{2}}}\right)\left({\tfrac {\pi p_{0}}{4a}}\right)\left(2a^{2}-r^{2}\right)$

Plugging these into the relation for $u_{1}+u_{2}$ gives

$\left({\tfrac {1}{E^{*}}}\right)\left({\tfrac {\pi p_{0}}{4a}}\right)\left(2a^{2}-r^{2}\right)=\delta -{\tfrac {1}{2R}}r^{2}$

At $r=0$

$\delta ={\tfrac {\pi p_{0}a}{2E^{*}}}$

For $r=a$ plugging in the expression for $\delta$ gives

$a={\tfrac {\pi p_{0}R}{2E^{*}}}$

Therefore

${\tfrac {a}{\delta }}={\tfrac {R}{a}}\Leftrightarrow a^{2}=R\delta \implies a={\sqrt {R\delta }}\quad \square$

Bbanerje (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Error in rigid conical indenter and an elastic half-space?

The German Wikipedia has a and d switched in this formula: $a={\frac {2}{\pi }}d\tan \theta$. 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)

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

They have the sphere on

force=E/(1-v^2)*(((a^2+R^2)/2)*ln((R+a)/(R-a))-a R)

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)

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.