Nanoindentation creep testing: Advantages and limitations of the constant contact pressure method

Different loading protocols have been developed in the past to investigate the creep properties of materials using instrumented indentation testing technique. Recently, a new indentation creep method was presented, in which the contact pressure is kept constant during the creep test segment, similar to the constant stress applied in a uniaxial creep experiment. In this study, the results of constant contact pressure creep tests are compared to uniaxial and constant load hold indentation creep experiments on ultrafine grained Cu and CuAl5. The constant contact pressure method yields similar stress exponents as the uniaxial tests, down to indentation strain rates of 10(-6) s(-1), whereas the constant load hold method results mainly in a relaxation of the material at decreasing applied pressures. Furthermore, a pronounced change in the power law exponent at large stress reductions is found for both uniaxial and constant contact pressure tests, indicating a change in deformation mechanism of ultrafine grained metals.

Automated summary

Different loading protocols have been developed to investigate the creep properties of materials using instrumented indentation testing technique, with a recent focus on a new indentation creep method maintaining constant contact pressure. This study compares results from constant contact pressure creep tests with uniaxial and constant load hold indentation creep experiments, revealing similar stress exponents between constant contact pressure and uniaxial tests. Additionally, a significant change in the power law exponent at large stress reductions was observed in both uniaxial and constant contact pressure tests, indicating a shift in deformation mechanism of ultrafine grained metals.