Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this paper a thorough analysis of the equivalent indenter concept applied to nano-indentation is carried out, motivated by the fact that previous works in the field have not considered the requirement of a consistent relation between contact depth and projected contact area. Dimensional analysis is initially used to prove that the shape of the axisymmetric equivalent indenter can be regarded as a material property, provided that size-effects are negligible. Subsequently, it is shown that such shape can effectively be employed to describe the nano-indentation unloading stage by means of Sneddon’s elastic solution which is formally valid only for indentation into a flat surface. This allows for formulating the problem of extracting Young’s modulus from the unloading curve as an optimization problem. However, it is proved that the latter does not have a unique solution, due to the particular mathematical structure of the underlying equations; hence, additional constraints are needed to set restrictions on the admissible equivalent indenter shapes. An example of such constraint is hidden in some apparent inconsistencies of the well-known Oliver–Pharr method, which is demonstrated to be based on an equivalent conical indenter whose semi-apical angle depends on the ratio between residual and total penetration. Specifically, this angle tends to 90° when the material exhibits extensive inelastic deformation, whereas it reduces to the one characteristic of the real indenter for a perfectly elastic material. This provides a new physical explanation for the relatively good accuracy of the method even in presence of a non-negligible residual contact impression on the sample.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andriollo et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: