4.6 Article

A study on robust indentation techniques to evaluate elastic-plastic properties of metals

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.11.003

关键词

Representative stress and strain; Spherical indenter; Friction coefficient; Contact diameter; Elastic modulus; Yield strength; Strain-hardening exponent; Finite element analysis

资金

  1. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation [KOSEF R01-2007-000-10942-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spherical indentation is studied based on numerical analysis and experiment, to develop robust testing techniques to evaluate isotropic elastic-plastic material properties of metals. The representative stress and plastic strain concept is critically investigated via finite element analysis, and some conditions for the representative values are suggested. The representative values should also be a function of material properties, not only indenter angle for sharp indenter and indentation depth for spherical indenter. The pros and cons of shallow and deep spherical indentation techniques are also discussed. For an indentation depth of 20% of an indenter diameter, the relationships between normalized indentation parameters and load-depth data are characterized, and then numerical algorithm to estimate material elastic-plastic curve is presented. From the indentation load-depth curve, the new approach provides stress-strain curve and the values of elastic modulus, yield strength, and strain-hardening exponent with an average error of less than 5%. The method is confirmed to be valid for various elastic properties of indenter. Experimental validation of the approach then is performed by using developed micro-indentation system. For the material severely disobeying power law hardening, a modified method to reduce errors of predicted material properties is contrived. It is found that our method is robust enough to get ideal power law properties, and applicable to input of more complex physics. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据