journal article·2009-10

A critical assessment of indentation-based ductile damage quantification

C.C. Tasan, J.P.M. Hoefnagels, M.G.D. Geers

Acta Materialia· Volume 57· Issue 17
Publisher page

Abstract

This paper scrutinizes the reliability of indentation-based damage quantification, frequently used by many industrial and academic researchers. In this methodology, damage evolution parameters for continuum damage models are experimentally measured by probing the deformation-induced degradation of either hardness or indentation modulus. In this critical assessment the damage evolution in different sheet metals was investigated using this indentation approach, whereby the obtained results were verified by other experimental techniques (scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography and highly sensitive density measurements), and by finite element simulations. This extensive experimental–numerical assessment reveals that the damage-induced degradation of both hardness and modulus is at least partially, but most likely completely, masked by other deformation-induced microstructural mechanisms (e.g. grain shape change, strain hardening, texture development, residual stresses and indentation pile-up). It is therefore concluded that hardness-based or modulus-based damage quantification methods are intrinsically flawed and should not be used for the determination of a damage parameter.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal and Thin Film Mechanics · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Microstructure and mechanical properties

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

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Sadagopan S, Urban D. Formability characterization of a new generation of high strength steels. AISI/DOE technology roadmap program; 2003.
2. Fekete · Iron Steel Technol · 2008 · 5 · 55
3. Rashid · Ann Rev Mater Sci · 1981 · 11 · 24510.1146/annurev.ms.11.080181.001333 ↗
4. Maire · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 495410.1016/j.actamat.2008.06.015 ↗
5. Kachanov · Tzv Akad Nauk SSR Otd Tekh · 1958 · 8 · 26
6. Bonora · J Strain Anal Eng · 1999 · 34 · 610.1243/0309324991513894 ↗
7. Poole · Scripta Mater · 1998 · 39 · 128110.1016/S1359-6462(98)00326-1 ↗
8. Maire · J Mech Phys Solids · 2005 · 53 · 1110.1016/j.jmps.2005.06.005 ↗
9. Alves · Mech Based Des Struct · 2001 · 29 · 451
10. Lemaitre · Eng Fract Mech · 1987 · 28 · 64310.1016/0013-7944(87)90059-2 ↗
11. Öchsner · Mat Sci Eng A-Struct · 2001 · 318 · 32810.1016/S0921-5093(01)01279-5 ↗
12. Pardoen · Acta Mater · 1998 · 46 · 54110.1016/S1359-6454(97)00247-4 ↗
13. Lapovok · Int J Fract · 2002 · 115 · 15910.1023/A:1016399111787 ↗
14. Chae · Mat Sci Eng A-Struct · 2003 · 366 · 29910.1016/j.msea.2003.08.040 ↗
15. Horstemeyer · Theor Appl Fract Mech · 2003 · 39 · 2310.1016/S0167-8442(02)00136-2 ↗
16. Morgeneyer · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 167110.1016/j.actamat.2007.12.019 ↗
17. Bouaziz · Rev Metall-Paris · 2008 · 2 · 10210.1051/metal:2008021 ↗
18. Babout · Acta Mater · 2003 · 52 · 247510.1016/j.actamat.2004.02.001 ↗
19. Everett · Scripta Mater · 2001 · 44 · 16510.1016/S1359-6462(00)00561-3 ↗
20. Hoefnagels JPM, Tasan CC, Louws LCN, Geers MGD. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on fracture. ICF; 2009.
21. Tasan · Scripta Mater · 2009 · 61 · 110.1016/j.scriptamat.2009.02.049 ↗
22. Moussy FH, Lefebure P. In: Computational methods for predicting material processing defects: proceedings. Studies in applied mechanics, vol. 15. p. 275–88.
23. Stigh · J Appl Mech · 1986 · 53 · 48510.1115/1.3171800 ↗
24. Jansson · J Appl Mech · 1985 · 52 · 60910.1115/1.3169109 ↗
25. Lemaitre · CR Acad Sci Paris · 1987 · 304 · 601
26. Guelorget · Mater Lett · 2006 · 61 · 3410.1016/j.matlet.2006.03.146 ↗
27. Oliver · J Mater Res · 1992 · 7 · 156410.1557/JMR.1992.1564 ↗
28. Ye · Int J Fatigue · 2001 · 23 · 8510.1016/S0142-1123(00)00034-7 ↗
29. Arnold · Int J Form Process · 2002 · 5 · 163
30. Cotterell · J Mater Process Technol · 2002 · 124 · 29310.1016/S0924-0136(02)00203-0 ↗
31. Lebedev · Strength Mater · 2002 · 39 · 56710.1007/s11223-007-0064-7 ↗
32. Mkaddem · J Mater Process Technol · 2006 · 178 · 11110.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.02.018 ↗
33. Luo · Ceram Int · 1999 · 25 · 28110.1016/S0272-8842(98)00037-6 ↗
34. Adachi · J Nucl Mater · 2006 · 358 · 10610.1016/j.jnucmat.2006.07.002 ↗
35. Portinha · Surf Coat Technol · 2005 · 195 · 24510.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.07.094 ↗
36. Duttagupta · Solid State Commun · 1997 · 101 · 3310.1016/S0038-1098(96)00546-7 ↗
37. Oh · J Mech Work Technol · 1986 · 13 · 17510.1016/0378-3804(86)90064-1 ↗
38. Tasan CC, Hoefnagels JPM, ten Horn CHLJ, Geers MGD. Mech Mater, doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2009.08.003.10.1016/j.mechmat.2009.08.003 ↗
39. Brookes · Proc Roy Soc Lond A · 1971 · 322 · 7310.1098/rspa.1971.0055 ↗
40. Vlassak · J Mech Phys Solids · 1994 · 42 · 122310.1016/0022-5096(94)90033-7 ↗
41. Bridgman · J Appl Phys · 1953 · 24 · 56010.1063/1.1721329 ↗
42. Tirosh · Mech Mater · 2007 · 39 · 76010.1016/j.mechmat.2007.01.001 ↗
43. Xu · Philos Mag · 2007 · 87 · 229910.1080/14786430601175516 ↗
44. Chen · J Mater Res · 2001 · 16 · 297410.1557/JMR.2001.0408 ↗