A Critical Appraisal of the Instrumented Indentation Technique and Profilometry‐Based Inverse Finite Element Method Indentation Plastometry for Obtaining Stress–Strain Curves
Jimmy E. Campbell,Hannah Zhang,Max Burley,Mark Gee,Antony Thomas Fry,James Dean,Trevor William Clyne
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202001496
IF: 3.6
2021-02-16
Advanced Engineering Materials
Abstract:<p>A comparison is presented, for three materials, between conventional tensile stress‐strain curves and those obtained via two methodologies based on (spherical) indentation. The first of these, termed IIT, involves conversion of the load‐displacement plot to a stress‐strain curve via analytical expressions. This has been done using both nanoindenters (loads below 1 N) and a larger scale indenter (loads in the kN range). The other procedure, termed PIP, is based on repeated FEM simulation of the indentation test, using the residual indent profile as the target outcome, so as to obtain the best fit set of parameter values in a constitutive stress‐strain law. This has been done on a relatively large scale only. It is shown that the data from nano‐IIT tends to be noisy and variable, whereas those from macro‐IIT are more reproducible and less noisy. With one of the two empirical formulations employed, agreement of the macro‐IIT with experiment is close to being acceptable for the work hardening characteristics, but not for the yield stress. In contrast to this, the PIP procedure provides outcomes that are in close agreement with those from tensile testing, concerning both yield stress and work hardening. The causes of this are explored and discussed.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>
materials science, multidisciplinary