Determination of the true projected contact area by in situ indentation testing
Source abstract
Abstract
A major limitation in nanoindentation analysis techniques is the inability to accurately quantify pile-up/sink-in around indentations. In this work, the contact area during indentation is determined simultaneously using both contact mechanical models and direct in situ observation in the scanning electron microscope. The pile-up around indentations in materials with lowH/Eratios (nanocrystalline nickel and ultrafine-grained aluminum) and the sink-in around a material with a highH/Eratio (fused silica) were quantified and compared to existing indentation analyses. The in situ projected contact area measured by Scanning Electron Microscopy using a cube-corner tip differs significantly from the classical models for materials with lowH/Emodulus ratio. Using a Berkovich tip, the in situ contact area is in good agreement with the contact model suggested by Loubet et al. for materials with lowH/Eratio and in good agreement with the Oliver and Pharr model for materials with highH/Eratio.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal and Thin Film Mechanics · Adhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions · Diamond and Carbon-based Materials Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1557/jmr.2011.15610.1557/jmr.2011.156 ↗
2. 10.1007/BF0012699310.1007/BF00126993 ↗
3. 10.1557/PROC-239-32510.1557/PROC-239-325 ↗
4. 10.1002/978352762257310.1002/9783527622573 ↗
5. 10.1557/mrs2010.56710.1557/mrs2010.567 ↗
6. 10.1021/am101262g10.1021/am101262g ↗
7. 10.1080/1478643060062730110.1080/14786430600627301 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.tsf.2004.08.09610.1016/j.tsf.2004.08.096 ↗
9. Volz · 2017 · UNSP 012013
10. 10.1016/j.matlet.2007.11.06710.1016/j.matlet.2007.11.067 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.02.03610.1016/j.actamat.2014.02.036 ↗
12. 10.1088/0370-1328/78/2/30210.1088/0370-1328/78/2/302 ↗
13. 10.1080/0141861960823970710.1080/01418619608239707 ↗
14. Loubet · NATO Adv. Study Inst. Ser., Ser. E · 1993 · 429
15. 10.1557/PROC-436-14110.1557/PROC-436-141 ↗
16. 10.1063/1.114976910.1063/1.1149769 ↗
17. Loubet · 1986 · 72
18. 10.1557/jmr.2004.19.1.310.1557/jmr.2004.19.1.3 ↗
19. 10.1016/0020-7683(87)90116-810.1016/0020-7683(87)90116-8 ↗
20. 10.1016/0020-7225(65)90019-410.1016/0020-7225(65)90019-4 ↗
21. Determining Young modulus from the indenter penetration diagram
22. 10.1557/JMR.1992.156410.1557/JMR.1992.1564 ↗
23. 10.1557/JMR.1992.061310.1557/JMR.1992.0613 ↗
24. 10.1557/JMR.1998.014610.1557/JMR.1998.0146 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2012.08.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2012.08.001 ↗
26. 10.1016/S1359-6454(02)00568-210.1016/S1359-6454(02)00568-2 ↗
27. 10.1016/0020-7403(92)90016-A10.1016/0020-7403(92)90016-A ↗
28. 10.1007/978-0-387-22462-610.1007/978-0-387-22462-6 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.03.04310.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.03.043 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01561-110.1016/S0921-5093(01)01561-1 ↗
31. Tabor · 200010.1093/oso/9780198507765.001.0001 ↗
32. 10.1557/jmr.2012.26110.1557/jmr.2012.261 ↗
33. 10.1557/JMR.1998.018510.1557/JMR.1998.0185 ↗
34. 10.1002/adem.20050004910.1002/adem.200500049 ↗
35. Guillonneau · 2012
36. 10.1016/S0257-8972(00)01063-X10.1016/S0257-8972(00)01063-X ↗
37. 10.1007/s11661-012-1375-210.1007/s11661-012-1375-2 ↗
38. 10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01086-310.1016/S0921-5093(01)01086-3 ↗
39. 10.1080/0022234990824813110.1080/00222349908248131 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.03.04510.1016/j.msea.2015.03.045 ↗
41. 10.1016/0022-5096(54)90002-210.1016/0022-5096(54)90002-2 ↗
42. 10.1088/0034-6683/1/3/I0110.1088/0034-6683/1/3/I01 ↗