journal article·2020-02-28Open access

Extending the range of constant strain rate nanoindentation testing

Benoit Merle, Wesley H. Higgins, George M. Pharr

Journal of Materials Research· Volume 35· Issue 4

Abstract

Constant strain rate nanoindentation hardness measurements at high sustained strain rates cannot be made in conventional nanoindentation testing systems using the commonly employed continuous stiffness measurement technique (CSM) because of the “plasticity error” recently reported by Merle et al. [Acta Mater.134, 167 (2017)]. To circumvent this problem, here we explore an alternative testing and analysis procedure based on quasi-static loading and an independent knowledge of the Young’s modulus, which is easily obtained by standard nanoindentation testing. In theory, the method applies to any indentation strain rate, but in practice, an upper limit on the rate arises from hardware limitations in the testing system. The new methodology is developed and applied to measurements made with an iMicro nanoindenter (KLA, Inc.), in which strain rates up to 100 s−1were successfully achieved. The origins of the hardware limitations are documented and discussed.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal and Thin Film Mechanics · Diamond and Carbon-based Materials Research · Advanced materials and composites

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/0370-1301/62/11/30210.1088/0370-1301/62/11/302 ↗
2. 10.1557/JMR.1998.014610.1557/JMR.1998.0146 ↗
3. The use of flat-ended projectiles for determining dynamic yield stress I. Theoretical considerations10.1098/rspa.1948.0081 ↗
4. 10.1557/jmr.2013.3910.1557/jmr.2013.39 ↗
5. 10.1021/ac60214a04710.1021/ac60214a047 ↗
6. 10.1557/JMR.1998.018510.1557/JMR.1998.0185 ↗
7. 10.1557/jmr.2004.19.1.310.1557/jmr.2004.19.1.3 ↗
8. 10.1016/0167-6636(85)90033-X10.1016/0167-6636(85)90033-X ↗
9. 10.1080/1478643090331369010.1080/14786430903313690 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.01.02010.1016/j.msea.2013.01.020 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.05.02810.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.05.028 ↗
12. 10.1557/jmr.2011.15610.1557/jmr.2011.156 ↗
13. 10.1557/JMR.2002.038610.1557/JMR.2002.0386 ↗
14. 10.1557/jmr.2012.5210.1557/jmr.2012.52 ↗
15. Influence of cooling rate on cracking and plastic deformation during impact and indentation of borosilicate glasses
16. 10.1016/0022-5096(64)90028-610.1016/0022-5096(64)90028-6 ↗
17. Chen · 2010
18. 10.1080/21663831.2013.87888410.1080/21663831.2013.878884 ↗
19. 10.1007/s11661-018-4706-010.1007/s11661-018-4706-0 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.00810.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.008 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.05010.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.050 ↗
22. 10.1557/jmr.2011.24510.1557/jmr.2011.245 ↗
23. 10.1557/jmr.2019.29210.1557/jmr.2019.292 ↗
24. 10.3390/ma1006066310.3390/ma10060663 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.eml.2018.11.00510.1016/j.eml.2018.11.005 ↗
26. Fraden · 2004
27. 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2010.00618.x10.1111/j.1747-1567.2010.00618.x ↗
28. 10.1557/JMR.1990.012310.1557/JMR.1990.0123 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.05.03610.1016/j.actamat.2017.05.036 ↗
30. 10.1557/JMR.1992.156410.1557/JMR.1992.1564 ↗
31. 10.1080/21663831.2017.133138410.1080/21663831.2017.1331384 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.04.04510.1016/j.matdes.2018.04.045 ↗
33. 10.1016/S0040-6090(01)01397-910.1016/S0040-6090(01)01397-9 ↗
34. 10.1007/s11661-999-0051-710.1007/s11661-999-0051-7 ↗
35. 10.1007/s10853-009-3780-510.1007/s10853-009-3780-5 ↗
36. 10.1557/jmr.2017.6910.1557/jmr.2017.69 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jmps.2012.09.00910.1016/j.jmps.2012.09.009 ↗