Bradley (1932) showed that if two rigid spheres of radii R1 and R2 are placed in contact, they will adhere with a force 2πRΔγ, where R is the equivalent radius R1R2/(R1+R2) and A7 is the surface energy or 'work of adhesion' (equal to 71+72 712). Subsequently Johnson et al. (1971) (JKR theory) showed by a Griffith energy argument (assuming that contact over a circle of radius a introduces a surface energy -πa2Δγ) how the Hertz equations for the contact of elastic spheres are modifed by surface energy, and showed that the force needed to separate the spheres is equal to (3/2)πRΔγ, which is independent of the elastic modulus and so appears to be universally applicable and therefore to conflict with Bradley's answer. The discrepancy was explained by Tabor (1977), who identified a parameter μ, = R1/3Δ2/3/E* 2/3ε governing the transition from the Bradley pull-off force 2πRΔγ to the JKR value (3/2)π.RΔγ. Subsequently Muller et al. (1980) performed a complete numerical solution in terms of surface forces rather than surface energy, (combining the Lennard-Jones law of force between surfaces with the elastic equations for a halfspace), and confirmed that Tabor's parameter does indeed govern the transition. The numerical solution is repeated more accurately and in greater detail, confirming the results, but showing also that the load-approach curves become S-shaped for values of βgreater than one, leading to jumps into and out of contact. The JKR equations describe the behaviour well for values of /j, of 3 or more, but for low values of βthe simple Bradley equation better describes the behaviour under negative loads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J. A. Greenwood (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: