4.7 Article

Identifiability of single crystal plasticity parameters from residual topographies in Berkovich nanoindentation on FCC nickel

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2020.103916

关键词

Crystal plasticity; Berkovich nanoindentation; Parameter identifiability

资金

  1. French Ministry of Higher Education and Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The information richness of imprints topographies obtained after Berkovich nanoindentation tests at grain scale is assessed for identifying all or part of the parameters of a single crystal plasticity law. In a previous paper (Renner et al., 2016), the strong potential of imprints topographies has been shown through a large experimental campaign conducted on nickel samples. A 3D crystal plasticity finite element modelling (CPFEM) of the nanoindentation experiment using the Meric-Cailletaud has also showed a large sensitivity of residual topographies to the indenter/grain orientation and to the plastic parameters, including the interaction matrix coefficients specifying the interactions between dislocations on different slip systems. This makes imprints topographies very good candidates to provide information for the single crystal parameters identification. The present paper focuses on the Meric-Cailletaud law parameters identifiability using residual topographies. A method is built to define the best well-posed inverse problem to ensure the parameters identification using a crystal plasticity finite element modelling updating (CPFEMU) method. An identifiability index proposed by Richard et al. (Richard et al., 2013) for measuring the information richness of the indentation curve is extended to the analysis of residual topographies. This index quantifies the possibility to achieve a stable/unstable solution using an inverse method. For the studied behaviour, the results show that eight of the nine Meric-Cailletaud law parameters can be identified using three topographies. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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