Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41304383›Full record

ArticlePolymers2025

Analysis of the Hertz Contact Model for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Polymers Using the Finite Element Method.

Laisvidas Striska, Rokas Astrauskas, Nikolajus Kozulinas, Dainius Udris, Sonata Tolvaisiene, Eugenijus Macerauskas, Inga Morkvenaite, Arunas Ramanavicius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Laisvidas StriskaDepartment of Nanotechnology, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Sauletekio al. 3, 10257 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Rokas AstrauskasFaculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius University, 01513 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0003-2418-1507
Nikolajus KozulinasFaculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius University, 01513 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-4543-721X
Dainius UdrisDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytines g. 25, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-9005-4963
Sonata TolvaisieneDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytines g. 25, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-8303-0576
Eugenijus MacerauskasDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytines g. 25, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Inga MorkvenaiteDepartment of Nanotechnology, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Sauletekio al. 3, 10257 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0001-5936-9900
Arunas RamanaviciusDepartment of Nanotechnology, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Sauletekio al. 3, 10257 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-0885-3556

Funding

Inoprogress 02-019-K-0116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is widely used to quantify mechanical properties, typically Young's modulus, by fitting force-indentation data with various mathematical contact models. However, results across laboratories often diverge, and the causes remain unresolved. Here, we interrogate the methodology by which mechanical properties are defined in AFM indentation and identify key limitations of the Hertz model, the standard model for determining mechanical properties, notably that the contact radius is not directly determined, which limits the accuracy of the estimated Young's modulus. We hypothesize that this inference systematically overestimates the true tip-sample contact, which inflates the contact area and thereby underestimates Young's modulus. This bias is amplified under large indentation conditions, which are frequently used in soft-material studies. To isolate and clarify the issue, we focus on a well-characterized polymer, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), using it as a controlled testbed for contact radius overestimation. Our analysis is focused on the contact radius and Hertz-based extraction of Young's modulus. We determined the contact radius and Young's modulus using AFM with two different probes: a sphere with a 20 nm radius (SPHERE20) and a sphere with a 2 µm radius (SPHERE2000). The results were compared to macroscopic data obtained using a standard measurement (ISO 527-1:2019) of Young's modulus. The contact was modeled using finite element analysis (FEA). The dependence of the contact radius on the indentation was compared to the Hertz model. The results from FEA fit corrected contact radius values, and it is smaller by 15.46% (SPHERE20) and 57.9% (SPHERE2000) than those calculated by the Hertz model.

Indexed as

atomic force microscopecontact radiuselastic modulusfinite element analysispolymerYoung’s modulus

Identifiers

PMID41304383
PMCPMC12656395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.