z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Hertz model or Oliver & Pharr analysis? Tutorial regarding AFM nanoindentation experiments on biological samples
Author(s) -
Stylianos Vasileios Kontomaris,
Anna Malamou
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
materials research express
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.383
H-Index - 35
ISSN - 2053-1591
DOI - 10.1088/2053-1591/ab79ce
Subject(s) - hertz , nanoindentation , modulus , atomic force microscopy , contact mechanics , elastic modulus , value (mathematics) , materials science , statistical physics , nanotechnology , computer science , mathematics , mechanics , physics , composite material , statistics , thermodynamics , finite element method , quantum mechanics
The data processing regarding AFM nanoindentation experiments on biological samples relies on the basic contact mechanics models like the Hertz model and the Oliver & Pharr analysis. Despite the fact that the two aforementioned techniques are assumed to provide equivalent results since they are based on the same underlying theory of contact mechanics, significant differences regarding the Young’s modulus calculation even on the same tested sample have been presented in the literature. The differences can be even greater than 30% depending on the used model. In addition, when the Oliver & Pharr analysis is used, a systematic greater Young’s modulus value is always calculated compared to the Hertzian analysis. In this paper, the two techniques are briefly described and two possible reasons that accurately explain the observed differences in the calculated value of the Young’s modulus are presented.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom