Skip to main content
Log in

Fundamental relations used in nanoindentation: Critical examination based on experimental measurements

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The fundamental relations used in the analysis of nanoindentation load–displacement data to determine elastic modulus and hardness are based on Sneddon’s solution for indentation of an elastic half-space by rigid axisymmetric indenters. It has been recently emphasized that several features that have important implications for nanoindentation measurements are generally ignored. The first one concerns the measurement of the contact depth, which is actually determined by using a constant value ε = 0.75 for the geometry of a Berkovich indenter and for any kind of material, whereas the reality is that ε is a function of the power law exponent deduced from the analysis of the unloading curve. The second feature concerns the relation between contact stiffness, elastic modulus, and contact area, in which a correction factor γ larger than unity is usually ignored leading to a systematic overestimation of the area function and thus to errors in the measured hardness and modulus. Experimental measurements on fused quartz are presented that show the variation of ε with the geometry of the tip–sample contact; that is to say with the contact depth, as well as the existence of the correction factor γ, as predicted in some recent articles. Effects of both ε and γ on harness and modulus measurements are also shown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J.B. Pethica, R. Huthchings, and W.C. Oliver, Philos. Mag A 48, 593 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. W.C. Oliver and G.M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. J.L. Loubet, J.M. Georges, O. Marchesini, and G. Meille, J. Tribology 106, 43 (1984).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. M.F. Doerner and W.D. Nix, J. Mater. Res. 1, 601 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. I.N. Sneddon, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 3, 47 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Bolshakov and G.M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 13, 1049 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Y-T. Cheng and C-M. Cheng, Philos. Mag. Lett. 78, 115 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. J.C. Hay, A. Bolshakov, and G.M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 14, 2296 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Y-T. Cheng and C-M. Cheng, J. Appl. Phys. 84, 1284 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Dao, N. Chollacoop, K.J. Van Vliet, T.A. Venkatesh, and S. Suresh, Acta. Mater. 49, 3899 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. J. Woirgard and J-C. Dargenton, J. Mater. Res. 12, 2455 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Y-T. Cheng and C-M. Cheng, J. Mater. Res. 13, 1059 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, M., Troyon, M. Fundamental relations used in nanoindentation: Critical examination based on experimental measurements. Journal of Materials Research 17, 2227–2234 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1557/JMR.2002.0328

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1557/JMR.2002.0328

Navigation