Contact radius model

Often, Hertz s work [27] is presented in a very simple form as the solution to the problem of a compliant spherical indentor against a rigid planar substrate. The assumption of the modeling make it clear that this solution is the same as the model of a rigid sphere pressed against a compliant planar substrate. In these cases, the contact radius a is related to the radius of the indentor R, the modulus E, and the Poisson s ratio v of the non-rigid material, and the compressive load P by... 

The JKR model predicts that the contact radius varies with the reciprocal of the cube root of the Young s modulus. As previously discussed, the 2/3 and — 1/3 power-law dependencies of the zero-load contact radius on particle radius and Young s modulus are characteristics of adhesion theories that assume elastic behavior. 

It is apparent that, in order to satisfy Eq. 30, the JKR model requires that detachment occurs, not when the contact radius vanishes, as might at first be thought, but rather at a finite value 0.63a(0). 

As indicated, an implicit assumption of the JKR theory is that there are no interactions outside the contact radius. More specifically, the energy arguments used in the development of the JKR theory do not allow specific locations of the adhesion forces to be determined except that they must be associated with the contact line where the two surfaces of the particle and substrate become joined. Adhesion-induced stresses act at the surface and not a result of action-at-a-distance interatomic forces. This results in a stress singularity at the circumference of the contact radius [41]. The validity of this assumption was first questioned by Derjaguin et al. [42], who proposed an alternative model of adhesion (commonly referred to as the DMT theory ). Needless to say, the predictions of the JKR and DMT models are vastly different, as discussed by Tabor [41]. 

Upon comparison of Eqs. 29 and 36, it is readily apparent that both theories predict the same power law dependence of the contact radius on particle radius and elastic moduli. However, the actual value of the contact radius predicted by the JKR theory is that predicted by the DMT model. This implies that, for a given contact radius, the work of adhesion would have to be six times as great in the DMT theory than in the JKR model. It should be apparent that it is both necessary and important to establish which theory correctly describes a system. 

There have been several theories proposed to explain the anomalous 3/4 power-law dependence of the contact radius on particle radius in what should be simple JKR systems. Maugis [60], proposed that the problem with using the JKR model, per se, is that the JKR model assumes small deformations in order to approximate the shape of the contact as a parabola. In his model, Maugis re-solved the JKR problem using the exact shape of the contact. According to his calculations, o should vary as / , where 2/3 < y < 1, depending on the ratio a/R. 

As is evident, there are several distinctive characteristics of adhesion-induced plastic deformations, compared to elastic ones. Perhaps the most obvious distinction is the power-law dependence of the contact radius on particle radius. Specifically, the MP model predicts an exponent of 1/2, compared to the 2/3 predicted by either the JKR or DMT models. 

Perhaps the most significant complication in the interpretation of nanoscale adhesion and mechanical properties measurements is the fact that the contact sizes are below the optical limit ( 1 t,im). Macroscopic adhesion studies and mechanical property measurements often rely on optical observations of the contact, and many of the contact mechanics models are formulated around direct measurement of the contact area or radius as a function of experimentally controlled parameters, such as load or displacement. In studies of colloids, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has been used to view particle/surface contact sizes from the side to measure contact radius [3]. However, such a configuration is not easily employed in AFM and nanoindentation studies, and undesirable surface interactions from charging or contamination may arise. For adhesion studies (e.g. Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) [4] and probe-tack tests [5,6]), the probe/sample contact area is monitored as a function of load or displacement. This allows evaluation of load/area or even stress/strain response [7] as well as comparison to and development of contact mechanics theories. Area measurements are also important in traditional indentation experiments, where hardness is determined by measuring the residual contact area of the deformation optically [8J. For micro- and nanoscale studies, the dimensions of both the contact and residual deformation (if any) are below the optical limit. 

In the absence of a load (F = 0) the indentation is zero and the contact radius is also zero. Since no attractive surface forces were considered there is also no adhesion in the Hertz model. 

The contact radius is estimated using the JKR model. Without external forces we have... 

In these equations, the repulsion of the sample became interrelated with the adhesion force via the contact area. Several models have been developed to include the effect of the adhesion forces [80-83]. Johnson, Kendall, and Roberts derived the following expression for the contact radius and surface indentation ... 

There are two major sources of the deformation in contact-mode SFM the elasticity of the cantilever and the adhesion between the tip and sample surface. For purely elastic deformation, a variety of models have been developed to calculate the contact area and sample indentation. The lower limit for the contact diameter and sample indentation can be determined based on the Hertz model without taking into account the surface interactions [79]. For two bodies, i.e. a spherical tip and an elastic half-space, pressed together by an external force F the contact radius a and the indentation depth 8 are given by the following equations ... 

In analogy to indentation experiments, measurements of the lateral contact stiffness were used for determining the contact radius [114]. For achieving this, the finite stiffness of tip and cantilever have to be taken into account, which imposes considerable calibration issues. The lateral stiffness of the tip was determined by means of a finite element simulation [143]. As noted by Dedkov [95], the agreement of the experimental friction-load curves of Carpick et al. [115] with the JKR model is rather unexpected when considering the low value of the transition parameter A(0.2Further work seems to be necessary in order to clarify the limits of validity of the particular contact mechanics models, especially with regard to nanoscale contacts. 

Near the contact, the vertical arrows at the dashed contour schematically represent the surface forces which cause an additional deformation of the elastic sphere thus increasing the contact radius from aH (Hertz) to aJKR (JKR). The contact radius for the JKR model is a function of the external load, the work of adhesion, the radius of the contacting sphere (or the reduced radii of the contacting spheres, if two spheres are in contact) and the elastic constant K (a combination of the Young s moduli and the Poisson s ratios of the contacting materials), defined as... 

In the limits of established contact mechanics models, including those developed by Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) [5] or by Derjaguin, Muller, and Toporov (DMT) [6], the measured forces are a function of the chemical identity of the contacting surfaces (via the work of adhesion W12 that depends on the surface and interfacial free energies involved). In addition, we need to consider the nature of the medium, the radius of the AFM tip, and also temperature and loading rate. 

In these studies the rate of the mass and contact diameter of water and -octane drops placed on glass and Teflon surfaces were investigated. It was found that the evaporation occurred with a constant spherical cap geometry of the liquid drop. The experimental data supporting this were obtained by direct measurement of the variation of the mass of droplets with time, as well as by the observation of contact angles. A model based an the diffusion of vapor across the boundary of a spherical drop has been considered to explain the data. Further studies were reported, where the contact angle of the system was 9 < 99°. In these systems, the evaporation rates were found to be linear and the contact radius constant. In the latter case, with 9 > 99°, the evaporation rate was nonlinear, the contact radius decreased and the contact angle remained constant. 

The contact resistance of the sphere-flat contact shown in Fig. 3.23 is discussed in this section. The thermal conductivities of the sphere and flux tube are /c, and k2, respectively. The total contact resistance is the sum of the constriction resistance in the sphere and the spreading resistance within the flux tube. The contact radius a is much smaller than the sphere diameter D and the tube diameter. Assuming isothermal contact area, the general elastoconstriction resistance model [143] becomes ... 

Elastoplastic Contact Model and Relationships. Sridhar and Yovanovich [106] developed an elastoplastic contact conductance model that is summarized below in terms of the geometric parameters (1) ArlA , the real to apparent area ratio (2) n, the contact spot density (3) a, the mean contact spot radius and (4) X, which is the dimensionless mean plane separation ... 

A prerequisite for the apphcation of the Hertz or Johnson-KendaU-Roberts (JKR) contact models is that the contact radius a is much smaller than the radius of curvature R of the apex of the tip [21]. 

The quantification of contact pressures in spherical indentation is based on the indentation model of Field and Swain [43]. The procedure is similar to the point-force indentation and includes the evaluation of the contact radius at a given load (fle) from its value at peak load (ac.max)- The mean contact pressure is then found as [43]... 

---