This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
In my opinion the page is too technical, I added the technical template to the top of the page.
Edwinv1970 ( talk) 09:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
The description for "Adhesive surface forces" is "dxe" which, according to this article on wikipedia is related to animal rights. This should be corrected.
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
In my opinion the page is too technical, I added the technical template to the top of the page.
Edwinv1970 ( talk) 09:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
The description for "Adhesive surface forces" is "dxe" which, according to this article on wikipedia is related to animal rights. This should be corrected.