0
Discussion

Discussion of “Measuring and Understanding Contact Area at the Nanoscale: A Review” (Jacobs, T. D. B., and Ashlie Martini, A., 2017, ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 69(6), p. 060802)

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Ciavarella

Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management,
Center of Excellence in Computational Mechanics,
Politecnico di BARI,
Viale Gentile 182,
Bari 70125, Italy
e-mail: michele.ciavarella@poliba.it

A. Papangelo

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Hamburg University of Technology,
Am Schwarzenberg-Campus 1,
Hamburg 21073, Germany
e-mail: antonio.papangelo@poliba.it

Manuscript received September 23, 2017; final manuscript received October 3, 2017; published online November 2, 2017. Editor: Harry Dankowicz.

Appl. Mech. Rev 69(6), 065502 (Nov 02, 2017) (3 pages) Paper No: AMR-17-1067; doi: 10.1115/1.4038188 History: Received September 23, 2017; Revised October 03, 2017

Jacobs and Martini (JM) give a nice review of direct measurement methods (in situ electron microscopy), as well as indirect methods (which are based on contact resistance, contact stiffness, lateral forces, and topography) for measurement of the contact area, mostly at nanoscale. They also discuss simulation techniques and theories from single-contact continuum mechanics, to multicontact continuum mechanics and atomistic accounting. As they recognize, even at very small scales, “multiple-contacts” case occurs, and a returning problem is that the “real contact area” is often an ill-defined, “magnification” dependent quantity. The problem remains to introduce a truncation to the fractal roughness process, what was called in the 1970s “functional filtering.” The truncation can be “atomic roughness” or can be due to adhesion, or could be the resolution of the measuring instrument. Obviously, this also means that the strength (hardness) at the nanoscale is ill-defined. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to fix the magnification and observe the dependence of contact area, and strength, on any other variable (speed, temperature, time, etc.).

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Pitenis, A. A. , Dowson, D. , and Sawyer, W. G. , 2014, “ Leonardo Da Vinci's Friction Experiments: An Old Story Acknowledged and Repeated,” Tribol. Lett., 56(3), pp. 509–515. [CrossRef]
Bowden, F. P. , and Tabor, D. , 1939, “ The Area of Contact Between Stationary and Between Moving Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 169(939), pp. 391–413. [CrossRef]
Archard, J. F. , 1957, “ Elastic Deformation and the Laws of Friction,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 243(1233), pp. 190–205. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , Demelio, G. , Barber, J. R. , and Jang, Y. H. , 2000, “ Linear Elastic Contact of the Weierstrass Profile,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 456(1994), pp. 387–405. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , and Demelio, G. , 2001, “ Elastic Multiscale Contact of Rough Surfaces: Archard's Model Revisited and Comparisons With Modern Fractal Models,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 68(3), pp. 496–498. [CrossRef]
Persson, B. N. , 2001, “ Theory of Rubber Friction and Contact Mechanics,” J. Chem. Phys., 115(8), pp. 3840–3861. [CrossRef]
Greenwood, J. A. , and Williamson, J. P. , 1966, “ Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 295(1442), pp. 300–319. [CrossRef]
Whitehouse, D. J. , and Archard, J. F. , 1970, “ The Properties of Random Surfaces of Significance in Their Contact,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 316(1524), pp. 97–121. [CrossRef]
Thomas, T. R. , and Sayles, R. S. , 1973, “ Discussion to Radhakrishnan V. Analysis of Some of the Reference Lines Used for Measuring Surface Roughness,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 187, pp. 575–582. [CrossRef]
Thomas, T. R. , and Sayles, R. S. , 1978, “ Some Problems in the Tribology of Rough Surfaces,” Tribol. Int., 11(3), pp. 163–168. [CrossRef]
Derjaguin, B. V. , Muller, V. M. , and Toporov, Y. P. , 1975, “ Effect of Contact Deformations on the Adhesion of Particles,” J. Colloid Interface Sci., 53(2), pp. 314–326. [CrossRef]
Johnson, K. L. , Kendall, K. , and Roberts, A. D. , 1971, “ Surface Energy and the Contact of Elastic Solids,” Proc R. Soc. London A, 324(1558), pp. 301–313.
Fuller, K. N. G. , and Tabor, D. F. R. S. , 1975, “ The Effect of Surface Roughness on the Adhesion of Elastic Solids,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 345(1642), pp. 327–342.
Pastewka, L. , and Robbins, M. O. , 2014, “ Contact Between Rough Surfaces and a Criterion for Macroscopic Adhesion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111(9), pp. 3298–3303. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , 2016, “ On Pastewka and Robbins' Criterion for Macroscopic Adhesion of Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 139(3), p. 031404. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , 2017, “On the Use of DMT Approximations in Adhesive Contacts, With Remarks on Random Rough Contacts,” Tribol. Int., 114, pp. 445–449.
Ciavarella, M. , 2016, “ On a Recent Stickiness Criterion Using a Very Simple Generalization of DMT Theory of Adhesion,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 30(24), pp. 2725–2735. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , and Papangelo, A. , 2017, “ A Modified Form of Pastewka–Robbins Criterion for Adhesion,” J. Adhes., epub.
Ciavarella, M. , Papangelo, A. , and Afferrante, L. , 2017, “ Adhesion Between Self-Affine Rough Surfaces: Possible Large Effects in Small Deviations From the Nominally Gaussian Case,” Tribol. Int., 109, pp. 435–440. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , and Afferrante, L. , 2016, “ Adhesion of Rigid Rough Contacts With Bounded Distribution of Heights,” Tribol. Int., 100, pp. 18–23. [CrossRef]
Joe, J. , Scaraggi, M. , and Barber, J. R. , 2017, “ Effect of Fine-Scale Roughness on the Tractions Between Contacting Bodies,” Tribol. Int., 111, pp. 52–56. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , 2015, “ Adhesive Rough Contacts Near Complete Contact,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 104, pp. 104–111. [CrossRef]
Ciavarella, M. , Xu, Y. , and Jackson, R. L. , 2017, “ Some Closed-Form Results for Adhesive Rough Contacts Near Complete Contact on Loading and Unloading in the Johnson, Kendall, and Roberts Regime,” ASME J. Tribol., 140(1), p. 011402. [CrossRef]
Luan, B. , and Robbins, M. O. , 2005, “ The Breakdown of Continuum Models for Mechanical Contacts,” Nature, 435(7044), pp. 929–932. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Greenwood, J. A. , and Tripp, J. H. , 1967, “ The Elastic Contact of Rough Spheres,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 34(1), pp. 153–159. [CrossRef]
Johnson, K. L. , 1985, Contact Mechanics, University Press, Cambridge, UK. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed]
Barber, J. R. , 2003, “ Bounds on the Electrical Resistance Between Contacting Elastic Rough Bodies,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 459(2029), pp. 53–66. [CrossRef]
Ben-David, O. , and Fineberg, J. , 2011, “ Static Friction Coefficient Is Not a Material Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 106(25), p. 254301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rubinstein, S. M. , Cohen, G. , and Fineberg, J. , 2004, “ Detachment Fronts and the Onset of Dynamic Friction,” Nature, 430(7003), pp. 1005–1009. [CrossRef]

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In