Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-019-00454-5

Overview of Small Punch Test

S. Arunkumar1 

Received: 15 July 2019 / Accepted: 4 September 2019 / Published online: 21 September 2019
© The Korean Institute of Metals and Materials 2019

Abstract
Small Punch Test (SPT) is an evolving small specimen test technique which has the potential to extract the mechanical prop-
erties from small volume specimens. This test method is used to determine the in situ mechanical properties of components
in service for measuring the structural integrity and residual life. The pre-requisite for using this test is to establish correla-
tions between SPT and conventional tests in priori. A number of correlations have been developed between traditional tests
and SPT results for determining mechanical properties. The validity of these correlations have to be examined, as these are
developed from a specified set of materials and testing conditions. To evaluate SPT and the developed correlations, it is
crucial to understand the fundamentals of this test method, the different regimes of deformation experienced by the specimen
and its sensitivity for various testing parameters. The attempt of this work is to relook the SPT as a whole and its potential
to measure the different mechanical properties. This work lists the various SPT configurations, materials used in literature
and the correlations developed. In addition, the influence of test parameters on SPT response, the viability of empirical or
analytical relations used to extract mechanical properties and the general issues in SPT is discussed.

Keywords  Small punch test · Tensile properties · Creep · Fracture

1 Introduction materials. This technique was primarily developed for inves-

Mechanical property data of structural materials is vital
for the material development, integrity and remaining life
assessment. In this regard, Small Specimen Test Techniques
(SSTT) are preferred over conventional tests for two rea-
sons: (1) when limited volume of material is available and
(2) when it is difficult to handle material in large volume,
for example, if the material is radioactive. SSTT is more
promising for integrity and remaining life estimation of in-
service components, as these are easy to conduct and nearly
non-destructive in nature. Of the available SSTT, Small
Punch Test (SPT) is predominantly used for determining
the mechanical properties of thin samples. The specimen
size required for extracting the properties is similar to the
one needed for Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
i.e. ~ 3 mm in diameter [1]. Due to such small size, SPT
is applied for in-service components, and estimation of
local material properties, of weldment, functionally, graded
tigating the post-irradiation effects in nuclear power plants
[1–6]. Later, SPT was extended to find the mechanical prop-
erties of materials like tensile, creep, fatigue, fracture etc.
[7–9]. Recently, finite element method and neural networks
are used for determining tensile properties through SPT. The
results of SPT are not direct, that is, the raw data of SPT
needs to be processed using empirical or analytical relations
established between SPT and conventional full scale tests
[10, 11]. Several researchers have developed many correla-
tions which is presented in the later sections. For SPT results
to be repeatable and consistent, the viability of these corre-
lations needs to be assessed. To do this, an in-depth under-
standing of SPT and the developed correlations is essential.
In this regard, this work is taken up to give a brief overview
of the principle of SPT, its sensitivity to test parameters, and
the mechanical properties estimated from the correlations
developed by various researchers.

* S. Arunkumar
arunkumars@am.amrita.edu
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

720 Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738

Fig. 1  Schematic of SPT setups

a Test fixture of MDBT b Test
fixture of SPT [12]

2 Principle of SPT

Small Punch Test (SPT) is a modified Miniature Disk Bend

Test (MDBT), developed by Manahan M P [1], at MIT in
1981. The primary difference between MDBT and SPT is
the degree of constraint imposed on the specimens. In the
case of MDBT, the sample is simply supported while in
SPT, the sample is clamped between the two dies (Fig. 1).
Thus, MDBT may be used conveniently for brittle mate-
rials and SPT for ductile materials. In case of MDBT, it
is recommended to select such aspect ratio of specimen
where plate buckling does not occur.
In small punch test, a thin specimen, firmly clamped
between the two circular dies, is stretched till failure with
a hemispherical head punch. The punch tip is machined Fig. 2  Schematic of punch geometry a hemispherical head, b ball-
to a hemispherical shape (which is recommended in CEN punch head [87]
Workshop Agreement and used by numerous authors) [6,
13–18]. Alternatively, a hard spherical ball placed at the
tip of flat or concave—head-punch is forced through the This is accomplished by placing a rod right below the speci-
specimen, as shown in Fig. 2 [19, 20]. Either of these men, which is connected to LVDT. Since, the force applied
punch configurations are invariably used in SPT. The on this rod is very small, compliance correction for this rod
advantage of the latter configuration is that, the ball can is not necessary [21]. The typical SPT load–displacement
be replaced by a new one after few trials thereby avoiding response shown in Fig. 3 may be interpreted as follows [22,
the wear of ball and ensuring reproducible results [17]. 23]:
The punch is pushed through the specimen at a constant
displacement rate. A load cell situated above the punch head Zone I Linear elastic—The whole specimen experi-
measures the load applied to the specimen. The displace- ences linear-elastic bending deformation which
ment of the specimen is obtained by a clip gage mounted to is administered by Elastic modulus and Poisson’s
the fixture using knife edges or from the cross-head displace- ratio
ment. The recorded displacement has to be corrected for Zone II Plastic bending—The nature of deformation
compliance. This compliance correction can be eliminated changes to plastic from elastic in this stage. The
by measuring directly the displacement of the specimen. material’s response leaves from linearity with
a slope change due to yielding. This stage is

13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 721
Fig. 3  Characteristic load–displacement curve of SPT [22]
administered by K, strength coefficient, and n,
strain hardening exponent
Zone III Membrane stretching—The specimen is further
stretched due to biaxial stress. As a consequence
of this and due to strain hardening, the slope of
the load–displacement curve increases
Zone IV Plastic instability—Due to continued stretching,
the material thins and damage initiates with void
nucleation and coalescence. The thickness of the
specimen decreases significantly in this stage
Zone V Fracture zone—The crack grows in circumferen-
tial direction leading to specimen failure. This is
reflected by the drop in the load of load–displace-
ment curve
This load–displacement curve is then translated to obtain
the mechanical properties. The various mechanical prop-
erties like, elastic modulus, yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength, creep, fatigue and fracture properties can be esti-
mated through the correlations established between SPT and
conventional full scale test results and a reasonable agree-
ment was observed between the two [10, 24–31]. Thus, a
pre-requisite for using this test technique is to have these
correlations in priori. In addition, for the estimated proper-
ties to be repeatable and reliable, it is necessary to make sure
the uniqueness of the load–displacement response. That is,
a distinct load–displacement curve for a given material has
to be obtained from SPT. In the light of the above, a Euro-
pean code of Practice for SPT was first published in 2006
describing the test apparatus, procedure, specimen prepara-
tion and recommendations for estimating the tensile, creep
and fracture properties. Later this was revised in 2007 [27,
28]. It is also reported in the literature that, SPT response
is affected by the test parameters. Hence, it is necessary to
understand the influencing parameters on the SPT response
to arrive at unique load–displacement curve. The following
section gives a brief idea about this.
3 Analysis of SPT Parameters
Various authors have succeeded in extracting the mechani-
cal properties through SPT for different test parameters i.e.
for different materials, specimen shapes and thickness, test
speed, ball diameter etc. In addition, from the literature it
is found that, the SPT response is influenced by these test
parameters [32–34]. It is therefore imperative to understand
the effect of these parameters. A summary of different
test parameters and materials used by many researchers is
reported in Table 1.
13


Table 1  Selected small punch test configuration reported in the literature

722

Reference Materials tested Specimen details Test speed, Clamping Receiving hole Fillet radius of Punch configuration, mm
mm/min condition diameter, mm receiving die,

13
Shape Size, mm Thickness, mm mm Ball diameter Hemispherical
tip diameter

Manahan et al. SS 316 (20% CW), Circular ϕ3 0.25 0.25 Not specified Not specified 0.3 – 1.02
[1] (MDBT) 302SS
Mao and Taka- Alloy steels: PCA, Circular ϕ3 0.25 0.2 Not specified 1.5 Not specified 1.0 –
hashi [24] SUS316, HT-60,
A533B, HT-9
Mao et al. [88] JIC—HT9 (12Cr– Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.2 Not specified Not specified Not specified 2.4 –
1Mo), A533B,
A508, KIC—SiC,
­Y2O3, ­ZrO2
Kameda and Ferritic and austenitic Square and 10 × 10 and 0.25 for circu- 1.2–1.98 for Not specified 3.4 or 4 for Not specified 2.4 for square –
Mao [23] steels, and Cu–Be circular ϕ3 lar and 0.25 both circular square speci- and 1.0 for
alloys and 0.5 for and square men, 1.5 circular
square for circular
specimen
Eto et al. [25] Neutron irradiated Square and 10 × 10 and 0.25 for circu- 0.5 0.5–1.0 N-m 4 for square 0.2 2.4 for square –
ferritic steels— circular ϕ3 lar and 0.25 specimen, and 1.0 for
F-82, F82H, HT-9, and 0.5 for 1.5 for circu- circular
2.25Cr–1Mo square lar specimen
Xu and Zhao 20% CW 316 SS, D9, Circular ϕ3 0.3 0.06 to 600 Not specified 2.4 Not specified – –
[89] Zr–4
Cheon and SA503—pressure Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.5 Not specified 4.0 Not specified 2.4 –
Kim [90] vessel steel, 12Cr—
turbine rotor steel
Fleury and Ha Pressure vessel Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.25 Not specified Not specified Not specified 2.4 –
(part I and steels—1Cr–
part II) [26, 0.5Mo, 2.25Cr–
91] 1Mo, 12Cr–1Mo,
AISI-403
Lee et al. [92] SA106 grade B, Rectangular 10 × 4 0.5 0.5 Not specified Not Specified 0.6 2.4 –
ASTM A533 grade
B
Ruan et al. [89] Eurofer97 steel Circular ϕ3 0.25 Not specified Not specified Not Specified Not Specified 1.0 –
Hussain et al. Not Specified Square, rec- 10 × 10, 0.5 for 0.2–0.25 Not specified 4.0 0.2 – 1.115, 1.633,
[93] tangular and 10 × 2.4 ϕ 3 square and and 2.309
Circular rectangular
and 0.25 for
circular
Lee and Kim ER309L stainless Square and 10 × 10, ϕ 3 0.5 for square 0.2 Not specified 1.6 for circular Not specified 1.0 for circular –
[94] steel, SA508 Cl-3 circular and 0.28 for and 4 for and 2.4 for
RPV steel plat circular square square
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
 Table 1  (continued)
Reference Materials tested Specimen details Test speed, Clamping Receiving hole Fillet radius of Punch configuration, mm
mm/min condition diameter, mm receiving die,
Shape Size, mm Thickness, mm mm Ball diameter Hemispherical
tip diameter

Eskner and 1Cr–0.5Mo low alloy Circular ϕ 5 and ϕ 3 0.05–0.35 0.06 and 0.3 Not specified 2.8 and 1.5 Not specified 1.0 and 0.5 –
Sandstrom steel, 18Cr–9Ni
[95] austenitic steel
Finarelli et al. Austenitic SS316L Circular ϕ3 0.25 Not specified Not specified 1.5 0.2 – 1.0
[96] (SA and 20%CW),
Low activation
martensitic steel
Budzakoska 6061 (Al–1 Mg– Circular ϕ 10 0.5 – 1.2
et al. [53] 0.6Si)
Contreras et al. Miroalloyed ferritic– Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.2 Not specified 4.0 Not specified – 2.5
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738

[97] pearlitic structural

steel AE460
Peñuelas et al. Not specified Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.2 Not specified 4.0 0.5 – 2.5
[98]
Isselin and Austenitic stainless Circular ϕ3 0.25 0.05 Not specified 1.5 0 1.0 –
Shoji [99] steels 304L (SA,
WR sensitized)
316L (SA, CW,
WR)348 WR
Cuesta et al. Not specified Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.2 Not specified 4.0 0.5 – 2.4
[100]
Zhao and TC4 titanium alloy Circular ϕ 10 0.6 0.036 Not specified 2.0 0.5 – 2.0
Zhang [101]
Garcia et al. High strength steels, Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.2 Not specified 4 0.2 chamfer – 2.4
[102] structural steels, edge
stainless steels,
aluminum alloy
Rasche et al. Pressure vessel Circular ϕ8 0.5 0.4 Not specified 4 0.25 – 2.5
[22] steel:22NiMoCr37,
laser beam welded
steel EMZ 355
Siegl et al. [47] Steels Circular ϕ8 0.5 0.4 15 kN optimal Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
clamping
force

13
723


Table 1  (continued)
724

Reference Materials tested Specimen details Test speed, Clamping Receiving hole Fillet radius of Punch configuration, mm
mm/min condition diameter, mm receiving die,

13
Shape Size, mm Thickness, mm mm Ball diameter Hemispherical
tip diameter

Prakash and SS304, Cu, Brass Square 10 × 10 0.3 0.5 Cu—12– Not specified Not specified 2.5 –
Arunkumar 15 N m
[32] Brass—14–
17 N m
SS306—25–
30 N m
Hong et al. Austenitic stainless Square 10 × 10 0.5 0.12 Not specified Not specified Not specified 2.4 mm –
[103] steel welds (alumnina
ball above
HRC 65)
Bruchhausen Not specified Circular ϕ8 0.5 Not specified Not specified 4 0.2 × 45 deg – 2.4
et al. [17] chamfer
Andres and P22 steel Circular ϕ8 0.5 0.3 Not specified 4 Not specified 2.5 –
Dymacek
[72]
Mareno et al. AISI 304L stainless Circular ϕ 10 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 0.1 Not specified 10 0.5 2.5 ­(Si3Ni4 –
[21] steel ceramic ball)
Altstadt et al.ferritic-martensitic Circular Not specified 0.25, 0.5 0.5 Not specified 4 and 1.75 0.2 × 45 deg – 2.5 and 1.0
[54] Cr-steels (P91, chamfer
P92, Eurofer97)
and bainitic RPV
(22NiMoCr37,
15Kh2MFA)
Dymacek et al. Fe–Al–based alloy Circular ϕ8 0.5 Not specified Not specified 4 Not specified 2.5 –
[73]
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 725
3.1 Specimen Shape
The commonly used specimens for SPT have circular,
square and rectangular shapes with different sizes. The
size ranges for circular, square and rectangular are 3–8 mm
in diameter and 0.05–0.5 mm in thickness, 10 × 10 mm and
0.25–0.5 mm thickness and 10 × 4 mm and 0.25–0.5 mm
thickness respectively. The European “Code of Practice”
CWA 15627:2006 recommends disc shaped specimen of
diameter 8 mm, and 0.5 mm thick [35, 36]. Numerical
simulation revealed that, the SPT response of flat circu-
lar (8 mm diameter and 0.45 mm thick) and rectangular
(6.55 × 11 mm, 0.45 mm thick) were nearly same. Limited
works on SPT using curved samples are also reported in
literature [37, 38]. When the extraction of flat sample is
near to impossible due to significantly large curvature,
curved specimens are used. The SPT results indicated
that the maximum force in curved specimen is attained
for lower displacements in comparison to flat specimen,
which could be due to the curvature of the specimen. In
an interesting work by Cuesta et al., [39] the level of con-
finement of SPT specimen was varied by modifying the
shape of the specimen from conventional square to dog-
bone shape with the same thickness. As the web width of
specimen was decreased, the ductility and maximum load
reduced. This observation needs to be verified for other
materials also. Thus, the specimen shape and degree of
confinement significantly affects the SPT response. As a
consequence, for curved and dog-bone specimens, either
the existing correlations (actually developed from flat
specimens) needs to be modified or new ones have to be
developed. This necessitates the adequate investigation on
the influence of specimen shapes on the response of SPT
and on the different deformation regimes.
3.2 Specimen Thickness
It is found that, the thickness of the specimen affects the
deformation regimes of the load–displacement curve
significantly. For example, a thin specimen shows a less
prominent linear elastic portion, lower maximum load,
and lower ductility when compared with a relatively thick
specimen. These variations observed in the load–displace-
ment curve considerably influence the estimated proper-
ties. Thin samples undergo more elastic bending while
thick samples allow significant plastic indentation and
bending. Also, it is difficult to machine too thin samples
and scooping of excess material than the necessary may
impair the integrity of in-service component. Hence, it is
necessary to suggest a range of thickness within which
unique SPT response can be obtained [22, 40, 41]. In
order to address this problem, normalization technique
was proposed. There are two ways of normalization. In
the first type, the initial stiffness, yield load, peak load is
plotted against thickness normalized with initial sample
thickness respectively, and a power-law scaling relation-
ship was derived [42]. In the second case, the load–dis-
placement curve is normalized to 0.5 mm thick using the
specific expression given in [43]. However, the validity of
normalization outside the materials used and test configu-
ration must be verified.
3.3 Test Speed
There are four basic ways of loading the SPT specimen.
First, the punch is pushed at a constant displacement rate
(CDR) and the force is measured. This is analogous to tra-
ditional tensile tests. Second, the punch is pushed at con-
stant force (CF) and time dependence of displacement is
measured, which is similar to traditional creep tests. Third,
the specimen is given a constant displacement, followed by
a holding time, which allows the relaxation of forces. In
this case, force versus time response is recorded from this
test [44]. Fourth, the punch is pushed cyclically by applying
cyclic loads which is similar to traditional fatigue loads [32,
45]. For extracting the static properties, the first three mode
of loading is used and the fourth one for assessing the fatigue
and behavior. In CDR test, the typical test speed range is
0.2–0.5 mm/min. The rationale for selecting such small test
speeds is to ensure quasi-static punch loading [46]. How-
ever, its influence on the response of SPT is not adequately
deliberated in literature. But, for the case of MDBT, punch
velocity effects at room temperature is sparingly discussed
by Manhan [1]. For the case of cyclic SPT, the frequency of
loading was around 1 Hz was used. The reason for choosing
such a range was, the hysteretic energy was nearly stable
indicating negligible heat and anelastic effects. This ensures
that nearly all of the input work is used in the deforming the
specimen [32].
3.4 Ball Diameter
Both hemispherical ball (1.0–2.5  mm in diameter) and
hemispherical punch tip (1.02–2.5 mm in diameter) have
been used in SPT. The punch configuration may not have its
effect on the load–displacement curve, as only the bottom-
hemisphere of spherical ball or hemispherical head punch
(for a given diameter) will be forced through the specimen.
Nevertheless, the ball diameter has a significant effect on the
response of SPT. As the ball diameter increases, the peak
load increases [22, 40]. It is reported that, for punch tip
diameters smaller than 1.7 mm, the yield and ultimate ten-
sile strengths showed significant scatter [41]. The legitimacy
of this finding needs to be tested for other materials also.
13

726
Table 2  List of SPT yield strength correlations
Reference Yield strength relation
Mao and Takahashi [24] σy = 360Py/t2o
Xu and Zhao [89] σy = 0.477Py/t2o
Cheon and Kim [90] σy = Py/0.39 for 0.5 mm thick specimen,
σy = Py/0.083 for 0.25 mm thick specimen
Fleury and Ha [91] σy = 4.512 ­Py/4πrato, ­ra is the radius of contact area
between punch tip and specimen
Ruan et al. [18] σy = (413 ± 68)Py/to2 + (149 ± 108), 80 ≤ T ≤ 293 K
Lee and Kim [94] σy = 0.231Py/ to2 + 68.1
Eskner and Sandstrom [95] Plate bending theory
Finarelli et al. [96] σy = αPy/to2 , α = 0.36–0.41
Contreras et al. [97] σy = 0.268Py/to2 + 207, − 60 ≤ T ≤ 50 °C
Isselin and Shoji [98] σy =  βEe  , β = 378,115, ­Ee is elastic energy ­(R2 = 0.95)
√
Garcia et al. [102] σy = γPy/ to2,
­ 2 = 0.922
γ = 0.346 for the tested materials with R
3.5 Clamping Force
The clamping force between the specimen and die, prevents
the slipping of the specimen. This is another important
parameter which affects the load–displacement curve. The
clamping force must be strong enough to prevent slipping
and small enough to cause no irreversible deformation in
specimen. Two of the research groups viz., Eto et al. [25]
and Siegl et al. [47] have employed a specified amount of
clamping force in SPT. But, no justification is provided for
selecting such a range. The experiments of Prakash and
Arunkumar [32] showed that the clamping force affected
the deformation behavior of the specimen. As the clamping
force was increased, the peak load increased and at small
displacements higher loads are reached. Specimen thinning
in the clamped region was observed for excessive clamping
force. A range of clamping force was suggested for the tested
materials within which the load–displacement curves were
nearly unique. A similar work was reported by Siegl et al.
[48]. However, for a deeper understanding further experi-
ments or numerical simulations are needed for explaining
the observed behavior.
3.6 Material
In all these tests different class of materials (steels-ferri-
tic, austenitic, irradiated and non-irradiated, non-ferrous
alloys) were used for conducting SPT. It may be observed
that, the load–displacement response of SPT was not iden-
tical for the above combinations of test parameters. How-
ever, the typical load–displacement response remained
the same displaying different regimes of deformation as
shown in Fig. 2. The finite element simulations revealed
13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
Method
Two tangent method
Offset method, ­to/100
Offset method, ­to/20 for circular and ­to/15 for square
Offset method, 0.5 μm offset from the tangent of the
initial linear slope
Two tangent method
Offset method, t/10
Energy method
Offset method, t/10
that, for different elastic modulus, the load–displacement
curve remained nearly same [22]. As the yield strength of
the materials increased, the initial linear portion (zone I)
remained same, but the loads in the rest of zones increased
with increase in yield strength. Thus, the findings from
these experiments or simulations (like the proposed cor-
relations), could not be extrapolated outside the materials
used for testing. As a consequence, a pool of correlations
is developed between the results of SPT and conventional
full-scale test (Table 2 and Table 3).
The other parameters like fillet radius of the receiving
die or the chamfer angle and receiving hole-diameter varied
from author to author. The influence of these parameters
and coefficient of friction (between punch and specimen) on
the load–displacement curve was obtained from numerical
simulations [22, 40]. But, the satisfactory explanation for
observed response is not discussed amply. The list of small
punch test configuration employed by selected authors is
reported in Table 1.
The different mechanical properties that can be extracted
through SPT employing the correlations is described in the
following sections.
4 Tensile Properties
4.1 Ductility
Ductility is a measure of the capability of the material to
plastically deform without failure. In MDBT, the displace-
ment of the specimen prior to failure is the measure of duc-
tility. A good agreement was found between the ductility
values (for 13 different materials) estimated from MDBT
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 727

Table 3  List of SPT ultimate Reference Ultimate tensile strength relation

tensile strength correlations
Mao and Takahashi [24] σuts = 130(Pmax/t2o) − 320, ­Pmax or ­Fm is the maximum load.
Xu and Zhao [89] σuts = nnK, K is strength coefficient, n is strain hardening exponent
Ruan et al. [18] σuts = (77 ± 15)Pmax/t2o + (218 ± 101), 133 ≤ T ≤ 293 K
Lee and Kim [94] σuts = 0.071Pmax/t2o + 60.03
Contreras et al. [97] σuts = 0.051Pmax/t2o + 269, − 60 ≤ T ≤ 50 °C
Garcia et al. [102] σuts = 0.277Pmax/(dmaxto), ­R2 = 0.94, ­dmax displacement corresponding to ­Pmax
Hong et al. [103] σuts = 2.15 ­Pmax + 228
Altstadt et al. [54] Rm= βm Fi/t2o, βm=0.183 for the tested materials with ­R2 = 0.870,

of the load–displacement curve (Fig. 4) obtained from SPT

Fig. 4  Typical load–displacement curve of SPT indicating slope of
initial linear portion
and conventional tensile test [49]. An equation relating the
displacement of the specimen at failure (as indicated by a
drop in load in the disk bend test) to the strain for structural
materials of size 3 mm diameter and 0.3 mm thick was pro-
posed by Hamilton and Huang [50] is given below.
t𝛿
𝜖= (1)
rd2 + 𝛿 2
where, ‘t’ and ‘rd’ are the thickness and radius of the disk
and ‘δ’ and ‘ 𝜖 ’ are the deflection and ductility respectively.
The strain at fracture is a measure of ductility which is simi-
lar to total elongation in tensile test. Satisfactory correla-
tion between the ductility estimated from disk bend test and
tensile tests indicated that, the criterion used in this test for
determining ductility is acceptable. However, for highly duc-
tile materials small punch test is to be used for estimating the
ductility. Thus, the legitimacy of applying the strain equation
obtained from disk bend test to small punch test needs to
be verified since the constrain on the specimen is different.
4.2 Elastic Modulus
There are two ways of calculating the elastic modulus
through SPT. In the first method, the linear elastic portion
is used for estimating elastic modulus of the material.
An equation relating elastic modulus and slope of ini-
tial portion was proposed by Giddings et  al. [51] while
investigating the SPT response of Polymethylmethacrylate
(PMMA) bone cement used in joint replacements and is
given as follows:
E = AS (2)
where E is the elastic modulus, S is the initial stiffness
or slope of initial linear portion and A is the constant of
proportionality which depends on Poisson’s ratio and fric-
tional characteristics of the specimen. The value of A (for
PMMA is 14.6) again, is unique for each material and testing
conditions.
A modified relation was proposed by Prakash et al. [32]
from experimental observations. The ratio of slope of the
initial linear portion of load–displacement curve to the initial
thickness of the specimen is found to be proportional to the
elastic modulus of material. This is given by the following
equation as:
(3)
( )
E = k S∕to
where, E is the elastic modulus in MPa, S is the slope of
initial linear portion, to is the initial thickness of the material,
and k is the proportionality constant. In this case, the value
of the k is determined using the tensile elastic modulus of
the material. In addition, k is unique for each material and
obtained under optimized clamping conditions within which
the load–displacement curve of SPT is nearly distinct. It is
reported that, the value of k for copper, brass and SS304
are 17.47 N/mm, 16.80 N/mm, 20.35 N/mm respectively.
The modulus of elasticity estimated from SPT when com-
pared with tensile elastic modulus, the deviation was under
0.5%. A similar relation proposed by Cuesta et al. [39] is
as follows:
E = 𝜆(S∕t) (4)
where λ is a constant obtained using elastic modulus of ten-
sile test.

13

728
Fig. 5  SPT loading and unloading curves [52]
An improved equation similar to the above was proposed
by Chica et al. [52], which is given as,
(5)
( )
E = 𝜆 Sunl ∕t
where λ is the correlation factor, Sunl is the slope of unload-
ing cycle and t is the specimen thickness. The correlation
factor is related only to geometrical data of the test and
independent of the material plastic properties. Thus, setups
with similar geometry will have same correlation factor. The
rationale behind using slope of the unloading cycle (Fig. 5)
is that, the unloading cycle is purely elastic and zone I is
found to be a mixture of two deformation regimes: plastic
indentation of punch and elastic bending of the specimen
[30]. As a consequence, the combination of plastic and elas-
tic rigidities leads to lower net rigidity. Hence, the slope
of initial portion is not a suitable parameter to be related
with elastic modulus. However, when the specimen was
loaded and unloaded, no plastic deformation observed dur-
ing unloading. The unloading cycle is thus, purely elastic
and is independent of Poisson’s ratio of the material. Based
on these arguments, the elastic modulus of two carbon steels,
aluminum alloy, copper alloy and magnesium alloy was esti-
mated and compared with the tensile elastic modulus. The
deviations were under 3% respectively except for magnesium
alloy, which was 6%.
4.3 Yield Strength
The transition from the linear elastic portion to plastic bend-
ing portion of the load–displacement response is used for
estimating the yield strength (σy) of the material. To ensure
consistency and repeatability in the measured yield strength
two methods namely offset method and two-tangent method
are used (Fig. 6).
In the offset method, the load at which the line drawn
parallel to the initial linear portion of load–displacement
response, offset at a specified distance say t­ o/10 or t­ o/100,
is considered as yield load, ­Py. This is analogous to “proof
13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
Fig. 6  Schematic of yield load estimation a Offset method b Two-
tangent method
stress method” employed in tensile test for estimating
the yield strength On the other hand, in the two-tangent
method, the load corresponding to the point of intersec-
tion of the tangents to the initial linear portion and plastic
bending portion of load–displacement curve is used. This
is akin to a sharp transition point (from elastic to plastic
deformation) exhibited by an ideal material.
The yield load estimated from either of these methods is
then empirically correlated to the yield strength the mate-
rial. The constants of this empirical relation are obtained
by using the yield stress determined from tensile test. A
number of such relations have been proposed by various
researchers (Table 2). A good agreement was seen between
the yield strength estimated from SPT with conventional
tensile test, but only for the materials used in the testing.
The applicability of these relations for all materials is ques-
tionable as the values of constants may vary from material
to material and testing conditions. It may be observed from
Table 2 that different offset distances have been employed
by different researchers like 0.5 μm, ­to/100, ­to/20, ­to/15, and
­to/10 in determining the yield load. Thus, the magnitude of
offset distance of the line is not defined yet. These offset
distances are chosen such that the yield strength determined
from SPT lies close that of tensile yield strength. This might
result in a large scatter in the estimated yield strength. In
an attempt to draw parallel between the load–displacement
curve of SPT and the tensile stress–strain curve to determine
the yield load, the differences in the stress situation in either
of these methods are overlooked. In case of tensile test, the
entire volume of material in gage section experiences elastic
or plastic deformation. Hence, a clear cut transition may be
observed in the stress–strain curve as the material departs
from elastic to plastic deformation. While in SPT, the stress
situations are different from that of tensile test. As the sam-
ple is stretched during testing, the variation in the stress
distribution is quite complex since some portion of sample
undergoes yielding while the rest could be in elastic state.
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 729
Fig. 7  Typical SPT load–displacement response showing point of
instability at ­(vi, ­Fi) maximum force, ­Fm [54]
Therefore, it is difficult to find that point in the load–dis-
placement curve where the entire thickness of the sample
is subjected to yielding. Although the offset or two-tangent
method ensures repeatability, the accuracy of the data is
debatable. With a view to alleviate these problems, energy
approach was proposed where the elastic deformation energy
(area under the load–displacement curve of SPT up to yield
load) is related to yield strength of the material. Satisfactory
agreement was found between the yield strengths estimated
from energetic approach and tensile test for a set of selected
steels in comparison to offset and two-tangent methods. This
finding is again limited to the materials used for testing. Its
validity for other materials needs to be verified.
4.4 Ultimate Tensile Strength
The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is estimated from the
maximum load (­ Fm) obtained from the load–displacement
response (Fig. 7). It is assumed that the specimen necks and
fractures exactly at the maximum load point similar to that
occurs in a conventional tension test. However, the speci-
men may also thin and crack well before the maximum load
is reached during SPT. Researchers have used endoscopes,
acoustic emission instruments to find out the onset of crack
initiation [53]. Despite the success in capturing the exact
crack initiation point with such sophisticated facilities, a
careful investigation on relating small punch test response
with conventional tension test is necessary in reducing the
observed uncertainties and large scatter in the quantified
properties. Several empirical and semi-analytical correla-
tions have been proposed for calculating the UTS as given
in Table 3. The error in the estimated UTS from SPT is sig-
nificantly large when compared with the tension test results.
This might be due to the tendency to draw parallel between
the conventional tension test and SPT. One of the plausible
solution to this problem is reported by Altstadt et al. [54].
Rather than using maximum load, the load corresponding to
a punch displacement of 1.29 times the specimen thickness
­(Fi) or 1.1 times the specimen thickness, if the deflection is
measured from the bottom surface the specimen, is used to
estimate the UTS (Fig. 7). The force F ­ i is chosen since at
this force, the onset of plastic-instability is found to occur.
This was corroborated from experiments and simulation by
monitoring thickness reduction versus punch displacement.
Later, the UTS was estimated from SPT using the correlation
[54] given in Table 3. It was found that, it is better to cor-
relate the force, ­Fi to UTS, than the maximum force ­(Fm), as
the use of ­Fm leads to the overestimation of UTS.
5 Fracture Toughness
The fracture toughness (ductile fracture toughness, ­JIC and
brittle fracture toughness, ­KIC) is estimated using fracture
strain, ϵf as these two are related inherently (Fig. 8a). From
Fig. 8b it may be observed that; the fracture strain is inde-
pendent of the specimen thickness [1]. With increase in frac-
ture strain, the fracture toughness increases. In the existing
methods, the ductile fracture toughness is empirically related
to equivalent fracture stain and brittle fracture toughness to
fracture stress (Table 4). These correlations again are mate-
rial dependent as the constants in these relations vary from
material to material. It can be seen from Table 4 that, the
constants in the expressions of equivalent fracture strain and
fracture toughness are not the same. While estimating these
constants from experiments it is assumed the specimen frac-
tures at the peak load, which in reality, it is not so. For purely
ductile or brittle materials, the correlations mentioned in the
Table 4 can be used to determine the fracture toughness. To
ascertain the ductility or brittleness of a material from SPT,
Mao et al. [55], proposed to consider the δnon/δ* ratio, where
δnon is the non-linear deflection including plastic bending
and membrane stretching zones and δ* is the fracture deflec-
tion (Fig. 9). If the ratio δnon/δ* is greater than 0.6 the mate-
rial is ductile, while if δnon/δ* is less than 0.2, it is brittle.
It is uncertain about the ductile or brittle nature, if the ratio
δnon/δ* is between 0.2 and 0.6.
Attempts have been made to determine the fracture
properties from SPT using pre-cracked specimens, owing
to the uncertainties raised by using specimens without the
pre-crack and the empirical correlations [56]. A fracture
mechanics approach based toughness evaluation from SPT
was conducted by Ju et al. [57]. In this approach, a sharp
central notch was introduced in the SPT specimen. By using
acoustic emission, the crack initiation point was determined.
The load corresponding to crack initiation was obtained
from SPT load–displacement curve. The toughness was
then evaluated using plate bending theory. A good correla-
tion was observed between the fracture toughness evaluated
from SPT and ASTM E1921 for SA 508-3 material in the
13

730 Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738

Fig. 8  a Variation of ductile fracture toughness with fracture strain [28], b effect of specimen thickness on fracture toughness [26]

Table 4  List of correlations between fracture toughness and equivalent fracture strain

Reference Fracture strain Fracture toughness

Bayoumi and Bassim [28] – JIC = 49ϵ2f  − 8.6 for linear elastic behavior and
JIC = 310ϵf for elastic plastic behavior
2
Mao and Takahashi [16] ϵf = 0.09(δf/t0) , for 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm thick specimen JIC = 345ϵf -113
Mao et al. [88, 104] ϵf = 0.15 (δf/t0)3/2 JIC = 280ϵf − 50,
KIC = 0.07(σf(sp))2/3, fracture stress, σf(sp) = 130Pmax/t2o-320
1.72
Kameda and Mao [23] ϵf = 0.12 (δf/t0) , ϵf > 0.05 for both circular and square JIC = 345ϵf -113, ϵf > 0.4
specimens
Finarelli et al. [96] ϵf = β(δf/t0)2, –
β = 0.254 for the materials tested
Budzakoska et al. [53] ϵf = β(δf/t0)n, JIC = 82ϵf − 23
β = 0.2 ± 0.1 and n = 1±0.6 for the materials tested
Garcia et al. [102] – JIC = 1695ϵf − 1320, ­R2 = 0.8932
Ju et al. [57] –
� �√
P (1+𝜐) b2
Kc = 32 i𝜋h2 ln bc + 4c a
2
  , ­Pi is load at crack initia-
tion, h is plate thickness, b and c are contact radius and
lower die radius respectively, and a is half crack length

lower shelf region (77 K). Similar works [58, 55, 59, 60]
reported that the use of pre-cracked specimens in SPT gives
toughness values consistent with the ASTM standard results.
Recently Cuesta et al. [61] have analyzed the effect of con-
finement on the fracture behavior of pre-cracked dog-bone
SPT specimen for the same thickness. The results provided
an idea of variation of fracture properties with respect to the
confinement level.
6 Creep Properties
The structural integrity and reliability of components serv-
ing at high temperatures depends on their creep properties.
Creep is the time-dependent plastic deformation of mate-
rials under constant load above homologous temperature
[62]. An important creep property is the time to rupture.
The dependence of this parameter with stress and tempera-
ture differs with creep mechanisms. There are two types of
creep mechanism: Diffusion creep and Dislocation creep.
Since diffusion creep occurs at low stresses and tempera-
tures close to melting point, it is of less significance from
the engineering point of view. The dislocation creep occurs
at intermediary and high stresses and around homologous

13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 731
Fig. 9  a Relation between
fracture stress and fracture
toughness, b Illustration of non-
linear deflection and fracture
deflection [88]
temperature. The deformation is due to dislocation motion
or slip. In this mechanism the time to rupture varies non-
linearly with stress, which sets up power law creep (Arrhe-
nius law and Norton law). Since the laboratory creep tests
lasts for shorter durations (around 1000 h) in comparison
to the duration of in-service components subjected to creep
(more than 100,000 h), extrapolation techniques are used
to estimate the creep property. The most commonly used
extrapolation methods are Larson–Miller, Manson–Haferd,
Orr–Sherby–Dorn, Monkman–Grant.
A number of researchers have attempted to obtain infor-
mation about creep deformation of different materials from
Small Punch Creep (SPC) tests. To begin with Ule et al.
[30], compared the small punch creep results with conven-
tional creep test for 14 MoV 6 3 and X20 CrMoV 12 1 steels.
By developing an equation similar to Dorn type, where the
stress term was substituted by small punch load, the time to
fracture was estimated. The activation energies calculated
using the same equation was lower (nearly up to 25%) in
comparison to that determined from conventional creep test.
In addition, the round robin exercise of these experiments
illustrated the repeatability of results (namely, time to frac-
ture and deflection vs time characteristics) obtained from
SPT. A similar work was performed by Dobes et al. [63],
for mechanically alloyed Al–C–O alloys. The difference in
this work is that, the load was divided by a constant, which
was determined statistically, to find the stress. The ratio of
force in SPT and stress in conventional creep test was found
to be proportional for the same duration and depended on the
ductility of the material. In order to reduce the dispersion in
the results, a modified ratio was proposed. However, further
work is needed to validate the same. The comparison of time
to fracture versus stress obtained from uniaxial creep and
SPC tests agreed well with each other (Fig. 10).
Another method to convert SPC load to an equivalent stress
was proposed by Izaki et al. [31]. By plotting uniaxial creep
stress and SPC load versus Larson–Miller Parameter (LMP)
separately, the SPC load can be converted to equivalent uni-
axial stress for a given LMP. By such conversion (Materials:
2.25Cr–1Mo steel boiler pipe—virgin, pre-crept and aged
samples), a good correlation was observed between uniaxial
creep and SPT creep test results, as shown in Fig. 11.
By modifying the Chakrabarty’s membrane stretch model,
the European Code of Practice related SP load and equivalent
stress of uniaxial creep test through a constant known as ‘small
punch creep correction factor, ksp.
F r1.2 h0
= 3.33ksp (6)
𝜎 (0.5D)0.2
where ­h0 is the initial specimen thickness, r is the radius of
punch and D is the receiving hole diameter. This correc-
tion factor is dependent on material (particularly on yield
strength) and temperature, thus limiting its utility [64–67].
Starting the experiments with ksp = 1, a better value of the
ksp is found through subsequent SPC test by comparing
with uniaxial creep results. A number of SPC experiments
employing European Code of Practice demonstrated the
capability of SPT in extracting creep properties [68–71]. In
addition, the creep life was estimated using Monkman–Grant
relationship and Larson–Miller parameter. The results indi-
cated that, the small punch creep test has the potential for
13

732
Fig. 10  Time to fracture versus stress and force a in AlC1 (1 wt% carbon), b in AlC2 (2 wt% carbon) [63]
Fig. 11  Comparison between the small punch creep and uniaxial data
[31]
evaluating creep properties and life prediction through the
use of this constant [72–75].
A further attempt by Yang et al. [76], lead to the devel-
opment of a relation between deflection and creep strain
through which creep strain rate can be evaluated (A similar
finding was made by Dymacek et al. [73]). From the finite
element simulation, it was found that, the deflection and
creep strain relation was nearly independent of temperature,
13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
applied load and material deformation behavior. A good cor-
relation between the creep stress–strain rate data estimated
from SPT and conventional tests was obtained. However, the
validity of this correlation needs to be verified for different
testing conditions.
Hou et al. [77], noticed that the central deflection ver-
sus rupture time was akin to conventional creep curves dis-
playing three stages, viz., primary (decreasing creep rate),
secondary (constant rate) and tertiary (increasing rate) as
shown in Fig. 12. Upon proceeding to estimate the creep
properties of 1.25Cr0.5Mo pearlitic steel from SPC test,
the results were consistent with the conventional one. Thus,
claimed that, SPC test has the potential to be used as non-
destructive test to evaluate the creep properties of in-service
components.
The observed differences in the creep properties estimated
between uniaxial creep and SPC tests could be attributed to
two reasons. First, due to the complex nature of small punch
deformation, interpretation of SPT creep results in compari-
son to uniaxial creep test is difficult. In case of SPT, the
specimen undergoes local deformation whereas in conven-
tional test, the specimen is subjected to overall deformation.
Despite the fact that, the displacement–time record of SPT
looks similar to conventional creep curve, it may not portray
directly the primary, secondary and tertiary characteristics
as claimed by Hou et al. [77]. Hence, Hyde et al. [78], pro-
posed a new reference based stress approach to interpret the
SPT creep data through finite element simulation.
Second, the influence of SPT parameters on the creep
response the specimen. Zhou et al. [79], investigated the
effect of small punch parameters on the rupture time, central
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 733
Fig. 12  Deflection versus time of SPC test a influence of Load on SPC, b influence of temperature on SPC [77]
deflection, ball diameter, creep damage, specimen thickness,
temperature etc. through numerical simulation on SUS304
and Cr5Mo materials. It was observed that, specimen thick-
ness, load level, ball diameter, temperature and ambience
influence the damage rate and rupture time of SPC specimen
very strongly. Specimen diameter had little effect on the cen-
tre stress and damage, since there was extraordinarily severe
damage localization phenomenon in the SPC specimen and
the severest damage was always in the centre part of speci-
men. Since many factors influence significantly on the SPC
test results, experimental devices with high precision are
needed to ensure repeatability and accuracy.
SPC test can also be extended to anisotropic materials to
extract the creep properties. Blagoeva et al. [80] and Zhao
et al. [81], respectively evaluated the creep properties of
different segments of P91 and P92 steel weldment by SPC
test. The creep properties of base metal (BM), weldment
(WM), fine grain heat affected zone (FGHAZ), adjacent to
base metal and coarse grain heat affected zone (CGHAZ) are
estimated through experiments and simulation. In the case of
anisotropic materials, the correlation between the SPC load
and the stress (either by experiments or simulation), varies
for different segments of the weldment. It was found from
the experiments that, the correlation between the SPC load
and stress depended on the yield strength of the material.
As a consequence, the corresponding relationships between
the applied load and stress needs to be determined for BM,
WM, CGHAZ and FGHAZ separately. A close relationship
was observed between conventional creep and SPC results
of different segments of weldment.
From the above discussion, it is clear about the poten-
tial of SPC in obtaining the creep properties. Despite the
benefits of SPC test over conventional creep ones, it suffers
from few limitations. With respect to the type of loading
experienced by the specimen, it is bending and membrane
stretching as opposed to tensile loading in conventional
creep tests. Also, due to short duration of the test, it is dif-
ficult to capture the information of microstructural changes
occurring in the service components. Most importantly, the
interpretation of the SPC creep data is not so easy due to
complex nature of loading [82].
7 Fatigue Data
Designing components subjected to fluctuating stresses
and inspection of the same during its service life to ensure
safety and reliability is very important, since fatigue fail-
ure occur at stress levels much less than ultimate tensile
strength, sometimes, without warning. Structural integrity
assessment of such in-service components to estimate the
remaining life using conventional tests require bulk speci-
men and takes longer time. Extraction of such bulk speci-
mens from in-service components may impair its integrity.
Hence, non-destructive evaluation techniques, which are
simple and easy to conduct, becoming attractive in the pre-
sent days. Of all the small specimen test techniques SPT
is one the reliable test method to assess the fatigue data.
Research in the direction of determining fatigue data using
SPT is very much limited. To begin with, Villarga et al. [45],
investigated the fatigue behavior of virgin and aged Ultra-
High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHWMPE) using the
hysteresis energy. The monotonic response of SPT of virgin
and aged specimens showed significant difference in terms
of load–displacement indicating the sensitivity of SPT. The
same set of specimens were subjected to cyclic SPT. The
peak load and the hysteresis energy versus cycles to failure
respectively was monitored (Fig. 13). A unique relation was
seen and on fitting the power law for the data the fatigue
information can be obtained.
13

734
Fig. 13  Fatigue response in terms of a peak load and cycles to failure, b hysteresis energy and cycles to failure [45]
The same idea was then extended to metallic materials by
Prakash et al. [32, 33]. The difference in this work is that,
the fatigue damage was quantified using a damage param-
eter. The remaining life of virgin and damaged SS304 mate-
rial using SPT was investigated by Tasdighi et al. [83]. The
monotonic SPT results showed that, with increased fatigue
damage, the maximum punch load reduced. With this max-
imum punch load, the change in ultimate tensile strength
could be estimated for damaged specimens using available
relations in literature. In order to predict the remaining
life of the damaged specimens, Palmgren–Miner rule was
invoked. The remaining fatigue life was thus determined and
on verification through SPT confirmed a good agreement
(with maximum deviation being 18%) with actual loading.
Lewis et al. [84] and Lancaster et al. [85, 86], carried out
series of small punch fatigue tests on Ti-6Al-4 V variants
(cast, forged and Hot-Isostatic-Pressed) material to charac-
terize the fatigue behavior. Each of these variants were then
subjected to cyclic SPT and the response of maximum force
versus number of cycles was recorded. The SPT response of
maximum force versus number cycles were distinct for the
tested variants, indicating the capability of SPT in assessing
the fatigue behavior.
8 General Issues and Challenges
It is demonstrated by various researchers in the above sec-
tions that SPT is capable of measuring various mechanical
properties and can sense the property change or degradation
in a material. However, the reported results and findings
comes with several caveats. To begin with, the selected sam-
ple size may not represent the bulk material. This could be
due to the variation in defect densities in the bulk material
and the secondary manufacturing process employed could
13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
leave residual stresses, despite using advanced machining
processes. This could motivate to extract a number of sam-
ples from different locations. In the process, a large amount
of data is accumulated. Since the results of SPT are not
direct and its interpretation is difficult, it is necessary to
relate the conventional and SPT results by empirical and
analytical relations. When such correlations are used, the
values of the ‘constant(s)’ vary from material to material.
This was evident from the various correlations proposed by
a number of authors for determining the mechanical proper-
ties. Also, different correlations were proposed for extracting
the same mechanical property through SPT. In addition, SPT
response is sensitive to various test parameters as discussed
in Sect. 3. This necessitates the optimization of test param-
eters to obtain nearly unique SPT response at least for a class
of materials.
The two grounds on which the present SPT research
community working on is: i) improve or develop new cor-
relations by analyzing the deformation regimes of specimen
in conventional test and SPT and ii) develop an optimized
testing conditions or testing standard for SPT to ensure that
the results are repeatable and reliable. The next question is,
“which of the above two problems to be addressed first?”
Merely by improving or proposing new correlations based
on the understanding of mechanics of problem may not yield
results consistent with conventional one. It is first necessary
to obtain unique SPT response i.e. unique load–displace-
ment curve for one material or a class of materials. This is
achieved by thoroughly investigating the sensitivity of SPT
to various test parameters. Thus, without standardizing the
SPT procedure in terms of specimen size and shape, meth-
ods of specimen preparation, test fixture, rate of loading,
and method of data collection and analysis, a large scatter
in the estimated properties is bound occur. Also, the validity
of the correlations developed and the estimated properties
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 735
remain questionable. Hence, a consensus among the devel-
oped correlations need to be arrived. These are the few chal-
lenges that needs to be addressed rigorously to fully exploit
the potential of SPT. It is good to see that few standards
for SPT is available. For example, ASTM standard (ASTM
F2183-02, ASTM F2977-13 for tensile SP particularly for
polymeric materials), Japanese standard (for SPC) and the
recent one, European code of Practice, which is evolving.
9 Summary
At the outset, SPT is a potential technique for measuring the
mechanical properties from small volume samples extracted
from in-service components. Various correlations have been
developed between SPT and conventional test results to
determine a range of mechanical properties. However, the
suitability of these correlations beyond the materials tested
and testing conditions needs to be verified. In addition, the
state of stress in SPT is different from the conventional tests.
This makes the development of improved correlations more
challenging. It is also found that the SPT is more sensitive
to geometry of test set up. Hence, there is a need to arrive
at the optimum geometry of test set up for which the SPT
response remains nearly unique. This is to ensure consist-
ency and reliability of estimated properties from SPT. Finite
element technique plays an important role in this process.
Using this tool, one can gain an insight into the test method
and deformation of specimen. Thus, minute details captured
from numerical methods helps to develop a reliable SPT
technique. Presently, no international standards have been
fully developed for SPT. In order for exchanging material
property data across different professional societies, stand-
ardization of SPT is essential. There are few standards for
SPT like ASTM, Japanese standards and the evolving one,
European standardization on SP testing, which is used by the
groups that have agreed upon the same.
References
1. M.P. Manahan, A.S. Argon, O.K. Harling, The development
of miniaturized disk bend test for the determination of post-
irradiation mechanical properties. J. Nucl. Mater. 103 & 104,
1545–1550 (1981)
2. Y. Peng, L. Cai, H. Chen, C. Bao, A new method based on energy
principle to predict uniaxial stress–strain relations of ductile
materials by small punch testing. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 138–139,
244–249 (2018)
3. D. Andrés, T. García, S. Cicero, R. Lacalle, J.A. Álvarez, A.
Martín-Meizoso, J. Aldazabal, A. Bannister, A. Klimpel, Char-
acterization of heat affected zones produced by thermal cutting
processes by means of Small Punch tests. Mater. Charact. 119,
55–64 (2016)
4. X. Yang, X. Wang, X. Ling, D. Wang, Enhanced mechanical
behaviors of gradient nano-grained austenite stainless steel by
means of ultrasonic impact treatment. Results Phys. 7, 1412–
1421 (2017)
5. S.-H. Chi, J.-H. Hong, I.-S. Kim, Evaluation of irradiation effects
of 16 MeV proton-irradiated 12Cr–1MoV steel by small punch
(SP) tests. Scr. Metall. Mater. 30(12), 1521–1525 (2000)
6. C. Rodríguez, E. Cárdenas, F.J. Belzunce, C. Betegón, Fracture
characterization of steels by means of the small punch test. Exp.
Mech. 53(3), 385–392 (2013)
7. M. Abendroth, M. Kuna, Determination of deformation and fail-
ure properties of ductile materials by means of the small punch
test and neural networks. Comput. Mater. Sci. 28(3–4), 633–644
(2003)
8. E. Altstadt, H.E. Ge, V. Kuksenko, M. Serrano, M. Houska, M.
Lasan, M. Bruchhausen, J.-M. Lapetite, Y. Dai, Critical evalua-
tion of the small punch test as a screening procedure for mechani-
cal properties. J. Nucl. Mater. 472, 186–195 (2016)
9. M. Abendroth, S. Soltysiak, Assessment of Material Properties
by means of Small Punch Test, in Recent Trends in Fracture and
Damage Mechanics, ed. by G. Hütter, L. Zybell (Springer, New
York, 2016), pp. 127–157
10. K. Li, J. Peng, C. Zhou, Construction of whole stress-strain curve
by small punch test and inverse finite element. Results Phys. 11,
440–448 (2018)
11. C.S. Catherine, J. Messier, P. Christophe, S. Rosinski, J.
Foulds, EPRI-CEA Finite Element Simulation Benchmark and
Inverse Method for the Estimation of Elastic Plastic Behav-
ior Small Specimen Test Techniques, ASTM STP 1418, vol. 4
(ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2002), pp. 350–370
12. S. Arunkumar, R.V. Prakash, Estimation of tensile properties
of pressure vessel steel through automated ball indentation
and small punch test. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 69, 1245–1256
(2016)
13. Small Punch Test Method for Metallic Materials, CEN work-
shop agreement, CWA 15627:2007 E
14. I. Cuesta, C. Rodríguez, T. García, J. Alegre, Effect of confine-
ment level on mechanical behaviour using the small punch test.
Eng. Fail. Anal. 58, 206–211 (2015)
15. K. Turba, R.C. Hurst, P. Hähner, Anisotropic mechanical
properties of the MA956 ODS steel characterized by the
small punch testing technique. J. Nucl. Mater. 428(1–3), 76–81
(2012)
16. S. Rasche, S. Strobl, M. Kuna, R. Bermejo, T. Lube, Determina-
tion of strength and fracture toughness of small ceramic discs
using the small punch test and the ball-on-three-balls test. Proc.
Mater. Sci. 3, 961–966 (2014)
17. M. Bruchhausen, S. Holmström, I. Simonovski, T. Austin, J.-M.
Lapetite, S. Ripplinger, R. de Haan, Recent developments in
small punch testing: tensile properties and DBTT. Theor. Appl.
Fract. Mech. 86, Part A, 2–10 (2016)
18. Y. Ruan, P. Spätig, M. Victoria, Assessment of mechanical prop-
erties of the martensitic steel EUROFER97 by means of punch
tests. J. Nucl. Mater. 307, Part 1, 236–239 (2002)
19. G.E. Lucas, The development of small specimen mechanical test
techniques. J. Nucl. Mater. 117(C), 327–339 (1983)
20. S. Haroush, E. Priel, D. Moreno, A. Busiba, I. Silverman, A.
Turgeman, R. Shneck, Y. Gelbstein, Evaluation of the mechanical
properties of SS-316L thin foils by small punch testing and finite
element analysis. Mater. Des. 83, 75–84 (2015)
21. M.F. Moreno, G. Bertolino, A. Yawny, The significance of
specimen displacement definition on the mechanical properties
derived from small punch test. Mater. Des. 95, 623–631 (2016)
22. S. Rasche, M. Kuna, Improved small punch testing and parameter
identification of ductile to brittle materials. Int. J. Press. Vessels
Pip. 125, 23–34 (2015)
13

736
23. J. Kameda, X. Mao, Small-Punch and TEM-disc testing tech-
niques and their application to characterization of radiation dam-
age. J. Mater. Sci. 27, 983–989 (1992)
24. X. Mao, H. Takahashi, Development of a further-miniaturized
specimen of 3 mm diameter for tem disk (Ф 3 mm) small punch
tests. J. Nucl. Mater. 150, 42–52 (1987)
25. M. Eto, H. Takahashi, T. Misawa, M. Suzuki, Y. Nishiyama,
K. Fukaya, S. Jitsukawa, Development of a miniaturized bulge
test (small punch test) for post-irradiation mechanical property
evaluation. ASTM STP 1204, 241–255 (1993)
26. E. Fleury, J.S. Ha, Small punch tests on steels for steam power
plant (II). KSME Int. J. 12(5), 827–835 (1998)
27. S. Jitsukawa, Development of a miniaturized bulge test (small
punch test) for post-irradiation mechanical property evaluation.
ASTM STP 1204, 241–255 (1993)
28. M.R. Bayoumi, M.N. Bassim, Study of the relationship between
fracture toughness ­(JIc) and bulge ductility. Int. J. Fract. 23,
71–79 (1983)
29. J.M. Baik, J. Kameda, O. Buck, Development of small punch
tests for ductile–brittle transition temperature measurement of
temper embrittled Ni–Cr steels. ASTM STP 888, 92–111 (1986)
30. B. Ule, T. Sustar, F. Dobes, K. Milicka, V. Bicego, S. Tettamanti,
K. Maile, C. Schwarzkopf, M.P. Whelan, R.H. Kozlowski, J.
Klaput, Small punch test method assessment for the determina-
tion of the residual creep life of service exposed components:
outcomes from an interlaboratory exercise. Nucl. Eng. Des. 192,
1–11 (1999)
31. T. Izaki, T. Kobayashi, J. Kusumoto, A. Kanaya, A creep life
assessment method for boiler pipes using small punch creep
test. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 86, 637–642 (2009)
32. R.V. Prakash, S. Arunkumar, Evaluation of damage in mate-
rials due to fatigue cycling through static and cyclic small
punch testing, in Small Specimen Test Techniques, ed. by M.A.
Sokolov, E. Lucon (West Conshohocken, ASTM International,
2014), pp. 168–186
33. Prakash R V, Arunkumar S. Evaluation of fatigue data through
miniature specimen test techniques, in ASME Pressure Ves-
sels and Piping Conference, Volume 1A: Codes and Standards:
V01AT01A059 (2015)
34. R.V. Prakash, S. Arunkumar, Influence of friction on the
response of small punch test. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 69(2),
617–622 (2016)
35. CEN. CWA 15627: small punch test method for metallic mate-
rials. Technical reports (CEN, Brussels, 2006)
36. European Committee for Standardization, Small punch test
method for metallic materials, CEN workshop agreement,
CWA 15627:2007 E (2007)
37. K.K. Dwivedi, K.K. Pathak, M. Panday, A.H. Yegneshwaran,
E. Ramadasan, Influence of material properties on small punch
test using curved specimens. Arch. Appl. Sci. Res. 2(6), 211–
218 (2010)
38. I. Simonovski, S. Holmström, M. Bruchhausen, Small punch
tensile testing of curved specimens: finite element analysis and
experiment. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 120, 204–213 (2017)
39. I.I. Cuesta, C. Rodríguez, T.E. García, J.M. Alegre, Effect of
confinement level on mechanical behaviour using the small
punch test. Eng. Fail. Anal. 58(1), 206–211 (2015)
40. K.K. Pathak, K.K. Dwivedi, M. Shukla, E. Ramadasan, Influ-
ence of key test parameters on SPT results. Indian J. Eng.
Mater. Sci. 16, 385–389 (2009)
41. C. Kannan, S. Bhattacharya, D.K. Sehgal, R.K. Pandey, Effect
of specimen thickness and punch diameter in evaluation of small
punch test parameters toward characterization of mechanical
properties of Cr–Mo steels. J. Test. Eval. 42(6), 1–9 (2014). https​
://doi.org/10.1520/jte20​13029​9. ISSN 0090-3973
13
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738
42. S.M. Kurtz, M. Herr, A.A. Edidin, The effect of specimen thick-
ness on the mechanical behavior of UHMWPE characterized
by the small punch test, in Crosslinked and Thermally Treated
Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene for Joint Replace-
ments, ASTM STP 1445, ed. by S. M. Kurtz, R. Gsell, and J.
Martell (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003)
pp. 192–205
43. R. Lacalle, J. Álvarez, F. Guitérrez-Solana, Analysis of key fac-
tors for the interpretation of small punch test results. Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 31, 841–849 (2008)
44. P. Dymáček, Recent developments in small punch testing: appli-
cations at elevated temperatures. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech.
86(1), 25–33 (2016)
45. M.L. Villarraga, A.A. Edidin, M. Herr, S.M. Kurtz, Multiaxial
fatigue behavior of oxidized and unoxidized UHMWPE during
cyclic small punch testing at body temperature. J. ASTM Int.
1(1), Paper ID 11218 (2004)
46. M. Abendroth, M. Kuna, Identification of ductile damage and
fracture parameters from the small punch test using neural net-
works. Eng. Fract. Mech. 73(6), 710–725 (2006)
47. J. Siegl, P. Haušild, A. Janča, R. Kopřiva, Fractographic aspects
of small punch test results. Proc. Mater. Sci. 3, 912–917 (2014)
48. J. Siegl, P. Hausild, A. Janca, R. Kopriva, M. Kytka, Characteri-
zation of mechanical properties by small punch test. Key Eng.
Mater. 606, 15–18 (2014)
49. M. Dooley, G.E. Lucas, J.W. Sheckherd, Small scale ductility
tests. J. Nucl. Mater. 103 & 104, 1533–1538 (1981)
50. M.L. Hamilton, F.H. Huang, Use of the disk bend test to assess
the irradiation performance of structural alloys, in The Use of
Small-Scale Specimens for Testing Irradiated Material, ASTM
STP 888, ed. by W.R. Corwin, G.E. Lucas (American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1986), pp. 5–16
51. V.L. Giddings, S.M. Kurtz, C.W. Jewett, J.R. Foulds, A.A. Edi-
din, A small punch test technique for characterizing the elastic
modulus and fracture behavior of PMMA bone used in total
joint replacement. Biomaterials 22, 1875–1881 (2001)
52. J.F. Chica, P.M.B. Díez, M.P. Calzada, Improved correlation
for elastic modulus prediction of metallic materials in the small
punch test. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 134, 112–122 (2017)
53. E. Budzakoska, D.G. Carr, P.A. Stathers, H. Li, R.P. Harrison,
A.K. Hellier, W.Y. Yeung, Predicting the J integral fracture
toughness of Al 6061 using the small punch test. Fatigue Fract.
Eng. Mater. Struct. 30, 796–807 (2007)
54. E. Altstadt, M. Houska, I. Simonovski, M. Bruchhausen, S.
Holmstrom, R. Lacalle, On the estimation of ultimate tensile
stress from small punch testing. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 136, 1–19
(2017)
55. J.M. Alegre, R. Lacalle, I.I. Cuesta, J.A. Alvarez, Different
methodologies to obtain the fracture properties of metallic
materials using pre-notched small punch test specimens. Theor.
Appl. Fract. Mech. 86, 11–18 (2016)
56. T.D. Shikalgar, B.K. Dutta, J. Chattopadhyay, Assessment of
fracture resistance data using p-SPT specimens. Theoret. Appl.
Fract. Mech. 98, 167–177 (2018)
57. J.B. Ju, J. Jang, D. Kwon, Evaluation of Fracture toughness by
small-punch testing techniques using sharp notched specimens.
Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 80, 221–228 (2003)
58. E. Cardenas, F.J. Belzunce, D. Rodriguez, I. Penuelas, C. Bet-
egon, Application of the small punch test to determine the
fracture toughness of metallic materials. Fatigue Fract. Eng.
Mater. Struct. 00, 1–10 (2011)
59. T.E. Garcia, C. Rodriguez, F.J. Belzunce, I.I. Cuesta, Devel-
opment of a new methodology for estimating the CTOD of
structural steels using the small punch test. Eng. Failure Anal.
50, 88–99 (2015)
Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738 737
60. J.M. Alegre, I.I. Cuesta, H.L. Barbachano, Determination of
the fracture properties of metallic materials using pre-cracked
small punch tests. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct. 38,
104–112 (2014)
61. I.I. Cuesta, A. Willig, A. Díaz, E. Martínez-Pañeda, J.M.
Alegre, Pre-notched dog bone small punch specimens for the
estimation of fracture properties. Eng. Fail. Anal. 96, 236–240
(2019)
62. F. Abe, Development of creep-resistant steels and alloys for use
in power plants, in Structural Alloys for Power Plants, ed. by S.
Shirzadi, S. Jackson (Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy,
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, 2014), pp. 250–293
63. F. Dobeš, K. Milička, Comparison of conventional and small
punch creep tests of mechanically alloyed Al–C–O alloys.
Mater. Charact. 59(7), 961–964 (2008)
64. M. Bruchhausen, E. Altstadt, T. Austin, P. Dymacek, S. Holm-
ström, S. Jeffs, R. Lacalle, R. Lancaster, K. Matocha, J. Pet-
zova, European standard on small punch testing of metallic
materials. Ubiquity Proc. 1(S1), 11 (2018)
65. T.H. Hyde, W. Sun, J.A. Williams, Requirements for and use
of miniature test specimens to provide mechanical and creep
properties of materials: a review. Int. Mater. Rev. 52(4), 213–
255 (2007)
66. J.P. Rouse, F. Cortellino, W. Sun, T.H. Hyde, J. Shingledecker,
Small punch creep testing: review on modelling and data inter-
pretation. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29(11), 1328–1345 (2013)
67. K. Matocha, R. Hurst, Small punch testing—the transition from
a code of practice to a European testing standard. Key Eng.
Mater. 734, 3–22 (2017)
68. Y. Li, R. Sturm, Determination of creep properties from small
punch test, in Proceedings of PVP2008,2008 ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 27–31, 2008, Chi-
cago, IL, USA
69. R.J. Lancaster, W.J. Harrison, G. Norton, An analysis of small
punch creep behavior in the γ titanium aluminide Ti–45Al–2Mn–
2Nb. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 626, 263–274 (2015)
70. S.P. Jeffs, R.J. Lancaster, Elevated temperature creep deforma-
tion of a single crystal superalloy through the small punch creep
method. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 626, 330–337 (2015)
71. S. Holmström, Y. Li, P. Dymacek, E. Vacchieri, S.P. Jeffs, R.J.
Lancaster, D. Omacht, Z. Kubon, E. Anelli, J. Rantala, A. Tonti,
S. Komazaki, Naveena, M. Bruchhausen, R.C. Hurst, P. Hähner,
M. Richardson, D. Andres, Creep strength and minimum strain
rate estimation from small punch creep tests. Mater. Sci. Eng.:
A 731, 161–172 (2018)
72. D. Andrés, R. Lacalle, J.A. Álvarez, Creep property evaluation
of light alloys by means of the small punch test: creep master
curves. Mater. Des. 96, 122–130 (2016)
73. P. Dymáček, F. Dobeš, Y. Jirásková, N. Pizúrová, M. Friák, Ten-
sile, creep and fracture testing of prospective Fe–Al-based alloys
using miniature specimens. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 99, 18–26
(2019)
74. C. Wen, T. Xu, K. Guan, Correlation factor study of small punch
creep test and its life prediction. Materials 9(10), 796 (2016)
75. S. Yang, Y. Zheng, Y. Duan, X. Ling, Creep characteristics and
deformation analysis of service-exposed material using small
punch creep test. Eng. Fract. Mech. 195, 242–252 (2018)
76. Z. Yang, Z. Wang, Relationship between strain and central deflec-
tion in small punch creep specimens. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.
80, 397–404 (2003)
77. F. Hou, H. Xu, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Determination of creep prop-
erty of 1.25Cr0.5Mo pearlitic steels by small punch test. Eng.
Fail. Anal. 28, 215–221 (2013)
78. T.H. Hyde, M. Stoyanov, W. Sun, C.J. Hyde, On the interpreta-
tion of results from small punch creep tests. J. Strain Anal. Eng.
Des. 45(3), 141–164 (2010)
79. Z. Zhou, Y. Zheng, X. Ling, R. Hu, J. Zhou, A study on influ-
ence factors of small punch creep test by experimental investiga-
tion and finite element analysis. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 527(10–11),
2784–2789 (2010)
80. D.T. Blagoeva, R.C. Hurst, Application of the CEN (European
Committee for Standardization) small punch creep testing code
of practice to a representative repair welded P91 pipe. Mater. Sci.
Eng., A 510–511, 219–223 (2009)
81. L. Zhao, H. Jing, L. Xu, Y. Han, J. Xiu, Y. Qiao, Evaluating of
creep property of distinct zones in P92 steel welded joint by
small punch creep test. Mater. Des. 47, 677–686 (2013)
82. M.D. Mathew, J. Ganesh Kumar, V. Ganesan, small punch creep
studies for optimization of nitrogen content in 316LN SS for
enhanced creep resistance. Met. & Mat. Trans. A 45A, 731–737
(2014)
83. E. Tasdighi, H. Nobakhti, N. Soltani, Application of small punch
test in predicting the axial fatigue life of 304 stainless steel
sheets. Exp. Tech., 1–9 (2015)
84. D.T.S. Lewis, R.J. Lancaster, S.P. Jeffs, H.W. Illsley, S.J. Davies,
G.J. Baxter, Characterising the fatigue performance of additive
materials using the small punch test. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 754,
719–727 (2019)
85. R.J. Lancaster, S.P. Jeffs, H.W. Illsley, C. Argyrakis, R.C. Hurst,
G.J. Baxter, Development of a novel methodology to study
fatigue properties using the small punch test. Mater. Sci. Eng.,
A 748, 21–29 (2019)
86. R.J. Lancaster, H. Illsley, R.C. Hurst, S.P. Jeffs, G.J. Baxter, A
novel approach to small punch fatigue testing. Key Eng. Mater.
734, 61–69 (2017)
87. R.J. Lancaster, S.P. Jeffs, Small Punch Creep (INTECH Open
Science, London, 2018), pp. 151–172
88. X. Mao, M. Saito, H. Takahashi, Small punch test to predict
ductile fracture toughness JIC, and brittle fracture toughness,
KIC. Scr. Metall. Mater. 25, 2481–2485 (1991)
89. Y. Xu, Z. Zhao, A Modified miniature disk test for determin-
ing material mechanical properties. J. Test. Eval. JTEVA 23(4),
300–306 (1995)
90. J. Cheon, I. Kim, Initial deformation during small punch testing.
J. Test. Eval. 24(4), 255–262 (1996)
91. E. Fleury, J.S. Ha, Small punch test to estimate the mechanical
properties of steel for steam power plant I: mechanical strength.
Int. J. Pres. Vessels. Piping 75, 699–706 (1998)
92. W.K. Lee, D.R. Metzger, A. Donner, O.E. Lepik, The use of a
small punch test procedure to determine mechanical properties,
in Small Specimen Test Techniques, ASTM STP 1329, ed. by W.R.
Corwin, S.T. Rosinski, E. van Walle (American Society for Test-
ing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1998)
93. A. Husain, D.K. Sehgal, R.K. Pandey, Design of a simple, ver-
satile, small-specimen punch test setup for determination of the
mechanical behavior of materials. Exp. Tech. 26, 33–38 (2002)
94. J.S. Lee, I.S. Kim, Evaluation of mechanical properties of RPV
clad by small punch tests. J. Korean Nucl. Soc. 34, 574–585
(2002)
95. M. Eskner, R. Sandstrom, Mechanical property evaluation using
the small punch test. J. Test. Eval. 31(4), 1–8 (2004)
96. D. Finarelli, M. Roedig, M. Carsughi, Small punch tests on auste-
nitic and martensitic steels irradiated in a spallation environment
with 530 MeV protons. J. Nucl. Mater. 328(2–3), 146–150 (2004)
97. M.A. Contreras, C. Rodriguez, F.J. Belzunce, C. Betegon, Use of
small punch test to determine the ductile-to-brittle transition tem-
perature of structural steels. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct.
31, 727–737 (2008)
98. I. Peñuelas, I.I. Cuesta, C. Betegón, C. Rodríguez, F.J. Belzunce,
Inverse determination of the elastoplastic and damage param-
eters on small punch tests. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 32,
872–885 (2009)
13

738 Metals and Materials International (2020) 26:719–738

99. J. Isselin, T. Shoji, Yield strength evaluation by small-punch test. 104. X. Mao, H. Takahashi, T. Kodaira, Estimation of mechanical
J. Test. Eval. 37(6), Paper ID 101657 (2009) properties of irradiated nuclear pressure vessel steel by use of
100. I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre, R. Lacalle, Determination of the Gur- subsized CT specimen and small punch specimen. Scr. Metall.
son–Tvergaard damage model parameters for simulating small 25, 2487–2490 (1991)
punch tests. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 33, 703–713
(2010) Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
101. X. Zhao, J. Zhang, Small punch test of U-shaped notch of TC4 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
titanium alloy and its numerical simulation. J. Mater. Eng. Per-
form. 22, 3182 (2013)
102. T.E. García, C. Rodríguez, F.J. Belzunce, C. Suárez, Estimation
of the mechanical properties of metallic materials by means of
the small punch test. J. Alloy. Compd. 582, 708–717 (2014)
103. S.H. Hong, M.-G. Seo, C.H. Jang, K.-S. Lee, Evaluation of the
effects of thermal aging of austenitic stainless steel welds using
small punch test. Proc. Eng. 130, 1010–1018 (2015)

13