Measurement 27 (2000) 43–51

www.elsevier.com / locate / measurement

Requirement of a robust method for the precise determination

of the contact point in the depth sensing hardness test
Christian Ullner*
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing ( BAM), Head of Laboratory S.11, 12200 Berlin, Germany
Received 28 July 1998; received in revised form 10 August 1999; accepted 31 August 1999

Abstract

The fundamental quantities in the depth sensing hardness test are force and displacement. The penetration depth used for
the calculation of a certain hardness parameter (for instance HU, Eq. (1)) makes it necessary to determine the contact point.
As shown in the paper, fitting of the force–displacement curve, F(h), by a second order polynomial and extrapolating to
F 5 0 is not always the right way to achieve a sufficiently small uncertainty of depth. The feature of that procedure is
analysed by a simple mathematical model. In dependence of the testing force, the scatter of the experimental data, and the
required limit of depth uncertainty, a profound selection of the fitting range, the fitting function, and the extrapolation
function should be done.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Instrumented hardness; Uncertainty; Contact point

1. Introduction pyramid and to name the quotient of indentation

force by the contact area of the indenter
The depth sensing hardness test or continuous
indentation test concerns the measurement of force F
HU 5 ]]]]2 (1)
and displacement during the penetration of a pyrami- 26.43(h 2 h 0 )
dal indenter (diamond pyramid) into the material. In
this way the hardness can be determined advantage- as Universal Hardness HU. The divisor is the contact
ously without a human observer. Therefore, this area between indenter and specimen assuming the
method is also named recording or instrumented indenter is a Vickers pyramid with ideal geometry
hardness. (without tip rounding, for instance). The displace-
There are some different definitions for the in- ment difference (h 2 h 0 ) is the actual penetration
strumented hardness. According to the definition by depth into the specimen.
Martens [1] (hardness is the resistance of a solid If HU is constant (homogenous material, no
material against the penetration of a harder material), surface effect, ideal indenter geometry) the universal
Weiler [2] proposed to use a diamond Vickers hardness can be calculated from the slope of the plot
of square-root force against displacement
]
*Tel.: 149-308-104-1914; fax: 149-308-104-1917.
E-mail address: christian.ullner@bam.de (C. Ullner)
]]S D
dŒF 2
dh
HU s 5 ]]]. (2)
26.43
0263-2241 / 00 / $ – see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0263-2241( 99 )00054-8
44 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51

The determination of the contact point (zero point of

the penetration depth), h 0 , is not needed.
Hardness definitions (1) and (2) given in the
German standard [3] concern both the plastic and
elastic penetration of the indenter. For the determi-
nation of the plastic hardness from the depth sensing
hardness test a model is needed for the actual
penetration depth or for the elastic deformation
around the indentation, respectively. According to
such a model the plastic hardness (in approach to the
conventional Vickers hardness) can be calculated by
the use of the Young’s modulus E [4] or by the use
of the initial unloading slope (dF / dh) F max [5]. Fig. 1. The square root of indentation force plotted against
This paper investigates the uncertainty of in- indenter displacement (Vickers pyramid) for silicon nitride
strumented hardness caused by the determination of ceramics with 3% fine pores (left) and almost free of pores (right,
the contact point, h 0 , in Eq. (1). The precise de- R a 5 0.005 mm). A Fischerscope H 100 with force generating
tection of the contact point is not at all common- system (minimal increment of force 0.02 mN, maximal force 1 N),
depth sensing measurement for the indenter displacement (accura-
place. Additionally, because of the square in the term cy 3 nm), and stepwise incremental force was used. Tests were
(h 2 h 0 )2 , the relative uncertainty of the universal conducted at a data acquisition rate lower than 10 s 21 and a force
hardness is the double value of the relative uncertain- rate, at contact, of 50 mN s 21 .
ty concerning h 0 .

2. Effect of materials and influence of machine

Before the determination of the contact point h 0 is

studied in detail the fluctuations of the force–dis-
placement dependence near the contact point should
be discussed. Typical patterns of the indentation
curves measured repeatedly are shown by silicon
nitride ceramics (HU1512 000 N mm 22 ), optical
glass (HU1054000 N mm 22 ), and steel (HU105
6500 N mm 22 ) in Figs. 1–3. To indicate more
clearly the points of importance for the calculations
done in this paper, the square root of force is plotted
against the displacement and the contact points of the Fig. 2. The square root of indentation force plotted against
curves are selected in such a way that the displace- indenter displacement (Vickers pyramid) for optical glass BK 7
ments of all repeated indentation curves are identical with the roughness R a 5 0.28 mm (left) and R a 5 2.6 mm (right).
A home-made machine with 100 N force transducer (resolution
at maximal force. According to Eq. (2) the slope in
0.5 mN-digits, repeatability 5 mN) and piezotranslator, depth
Figs. 1–3 gives the hardness HU s . Regions of sensing measurement related to the specimen surface (glass scale
straight lines demonstrate the ideal condition of the displacement system, resolution 10 nm-digits, repeatability 50 nm)
constant hardness (the rule of geometric similarity is was used. The tests were conducted at data acquisition rate 10 s 21 ,
valid for homogeneous materials, no surface effects, and penetration rate, at contact, of 50 mN s 21 .
and ideal indenter geometry).
Concluding from Figs. 1–3 which are examples of
the more general investigations on different materials 1. The existence of constant hardness becomes more
at different maximal forces using different machines probable with increasing force. Deviations from
the following points are true. the geometric similarity (blunt indenter tip [6]),
 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51
Fig. 3. The square root of indentation force plotted against
indenter displacement (Vickers pyramid) for steel with the
roughness R a 5 0.01 mm (left) and R a 5 0.2 mm (right). A HMO
100R with 100 N force transducer (resolution 5 mN-digits), depth
sensing measurement related to the specimen surface (LVDT,
resolution 5 nm-digit), and continuous force increase was used.
The tests were conducted at data acquisition rate 6 s 21 , and
penetration rate, at contact, of 0.15 mN s 21 .
from the homogeneity of the material (indentation
size effect [7]), and from the well-prepared plan
surface (effect of roughness [8] and porosity [9])
become more substantial at smaller forces or
smaller penetration depth, respectively.
2. The scatter of the shape of indentation curves
near the contact point is higher than the scatter at
maximal force. It is also higher than the error of
the measuring instrument. For this reason, the
distinct scatter of indentation curves near the
contact point is nearly independent of the ma-
chine. It is caused by the material (effect of
microstructure such as porosity or of preparation
such as roughness).
3. There is no information on the actual type of
indentation function near the contact point (for
the use of extrapolation). The force–displacement
dependence is so different that even out of the
common range of constant hardness (at higher
forces in Fig. 1) linear sections can also occur (at
smaller forces in Fig. 3).
To take these points into account, two methods
can be chosen. One alternative is to leave aside all
problems concerning the unknown, highly scattered
indentation response near the contact point by the
45
specified hardness definition (Rockwell hardness,
differential hardness, or hardness HU s ). This is not
the objective of this paper. The other alternative is to
accept the significantly high uncertainty contribution
due to the indentation response of the material near
the contact point. Of course, any reduction of the
measuring error gives a more precise determination
of the contact point for an individual indentation test
but the enhanced scatter of repeated indentation tests
caused by various materials response remains, as
indicated by the trumpet shapes in Figs. 1–3.
The objective of this paper is to indicate the
problems occurring with the extrapolation to F 5 0
for improving the accuracy of the contact point h 0 .
Because the study is done on the individual indenta-
tion response and the accuracy of the machine allows
measuring the certain force–displacement depen-
dence near the contact point, the study can be limited
to a deterministic model. Only the scatter of force
before contact has to be involved.
3. Problems of the extrapolation to F 5 0
To determine the contact point h 0 there is an
obvious way by curve fitting and extrapolation to
remove the indentation force F. As proposed by
Grau et al. [10] the indentation curve is fitted by a
polynomial of second order,
Fshd 5 a 0 1 a 1 h 1 a 2 h 2 (3)
in the range of force immediately after force increase
at contact. Using Eq. (3) the extrapolation to F 5 0
gives the contact point, h 0 ,
2 a1 ] a 12 a0
h 0 5 ]] 1ŒR; R 5 ]2 2 ]. (4)
2a 2 4a 2 a 2
The parameters a 0 , a 1 , a 2 including their variances
V(a 0 ), V(a 1 ), and V(a 2 ) as well as the covariance
Cov(a 0 , a 1 ), Cov(a 0 , a 2 ), and Cov(a 1 , a 2 ) are
estimated by the Gauß method. The uncertainty of
the contact point, u 2 (h 0 ), caused by the scatter of the
force origin u F2 , can be calculated from the variances
and covariances [10],
46 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51

Vsa 0d 1 u 2F Results on float glass up to 10 N are demonstrated in

2 2 2 22
u (h 0 ) 5 ]]] 2 1 H 1V(a 1 ) 1 H 2V(a 2 ) Fig. 4 (HU53600 N mm ). The contact point h 0
4a 2 R and its range of uncertainty according to Eq. (5) are
H1 H2 plotted against the upper limit of the fitting range
1 ]] ] Cov(a 0 ,a 1 ) 1 ]] ] Cov(a 0 ,a 2 ) used for the extrapolation to F 5 0. As can be seen
Œ
a2 R a 2ŒR
there is no real solution for h 0 up to about 1.2 N
1 2H1 H2 Cov(a 1 ,a 2 ) (5) (grey region). The determination of the contact point
is not possible according to Ref. [10] in this range.
1 a1 a1 a 21 2 2a 2 a 0 The experimental indentation curve fits the ideal
H1 5 ] 2 ]] ; H 5 ] 2 ]]]
2a 2 4a 22Œ]
R 2
2a 22
]
4a 32ŒR function of the depth sensing hardness,
F 5 HU ssh 2 h 0d 2 (6)
As is indicated by Eq. (4) there is no real solution of
h 0 for R , 0. Additionally, the uncertainty of h 0 after so good that regions of imaging solutions also occur
Eq. (5) increases very strongly if R approaches zero. at higher forces (near 2.5, 5, and 8 N).
This is the main point which the study focuses on. The second problem of extrapolation is the certain
The case R 5 0 occurs exactly for the ideal fitting range of the extrapolating function. The
condition of the constant hardness (homogenous contact point determined by extrapolating the func-
material, no surface effects, ideal indenter geometry). tion F(h), Eq. (3), can be strongly dependent on the
Whereas the uncertainty of the contact point in the selected fitting range. To demonstrate this, some
nanometre range is sufficiently small because the different extrapolating curves fitted in the slightly
deviations from the ideal conditions are substantial modified fitting range are plotted in Fig. 5. The
(Fig. 1 and model in Ref. [6]), the uncertainty can fitting ranges differ only by addition of the previous
become too high in the micrometre range because of data point at the lower limit of the fitting range. The
the ideal force–displacement dependence (Fig. 2). upper limit is constant. The same experimental data
have been used in Figs. 4 and 5. As can be seen from
Fig. 5 the shape of the fitting functions in the region

Fig. 4. Extrapolated contact points according to Eq. (4) after
fitting the experimental data of float glass (tin side, R a 5 0.02 mm)
in the range 0.05 N,F , F2 . The range of uncertainty according
to Eq. (5) is shown by the two dashed lines. Note the missing real
solution in the four grey regions. The specifications of the
hardness machine are given in the caption of Fig. 2.
Fig. 5. Indentation data record of float glass measured by a
hardness machine with an enhanced scatter of force before
contact. If the fitting range, F1 , F ,1 N, is extended to the four
indicated data points (open squares) the shape of the curve for
extrapolating to F 5 0 becomes very different while differences of
the curves within the fitting range are not visible.
 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51
of extrapolation is very different whereas the func-
tions cover within the fitting range above 1 mm well.
The different fitting ranges result not only in differ-
ent contact points but also in cases of missing real
solutions (curves 1 and 2 in Fig. 5).
Certainly, the test up to 10 N selected for the
demonstration of the extrapolation problems in Figs.
4 and 5 is extreme. However, fitting ranges which do
not result in real solutions of contact point h 0 after
extrapolation can also exist in certain indentation
tests up to 1 N. Two indentation curves of the test
plotted in Fig. 1 are selected to demonstrate the
indentation tests up to 1 N. Two indentation curves
of the test plotted in Fig. 1 are selected to demon-
strate the results of h 0 after extrapolation (Fig. 6).
The test 06 leads to a slightly variable contact point
if the upper limit of the fitting range is increased up
to 0.1Fmax according to the standard [3]. In contrast,
the test 02 does not give real solutions for the fitting
ranges among 0.00004 N,F ,0.009 N and 0.00004
N,F ,0.028 N. However, there are additional real
solutions of the contact point for the fitting ranges
among 0.003 N,F ,0.028 N and 0.003 N,F ,
0.028 N if only the fitting range near the contact
point is reduced.
The practice involving further hardness machines
Fig. 6. Extrapolated contact points according to Eq. (4) after
fitting the experimental data of silicon nitride ceramics (syalon) in
the range F1 , F , F2 . The two curves 02 and 06 of the test in
Fig. 1 are selected. The region of missing real solutions becomes
smaller if the fitting range is started at F1 5 0.003 N instead of
F1 5 0.00004 N. The uncertainty in force measurement is u F 5
0.0004 N.
47
and further materials has shown that a more detailed
analysis of the applied extrapolation is necessary.
4. Analysis of extrapolation
The determination of the contact point by ex-
trapolating the function F(h) fitted in F1 # F # F2 is
demonstrated in Fig. 7. The indentation force is
normalized to the lower limit of the fitting range, F1
(equals the standard deviation of the force, u F , for
instance). Random fluctuations of the data points
within the fitting range are not taken into account
because the extrapolation problem arises from the
certain shape of the extrapolation function. Instead of
fitting within F1 # F # F2 the parameters a 0 , a 1 , a 2
of the second order polynomial, Eq. (3), are de-
termined from the three data points (h 0 , 0), (h 1 , F1 ),
(h 2 , F2 ) which give a linear inhomogenous equation
system
Fi 5 a 0 1 a 1 h i 1 a 2 h 2i ; i 5 0, 1, 2; F0 5 0. (7)
The zero point (0, 0) is defined by the condition
F F
]21 5 ]22 . (8)
h1 h2
In this way the data points (0, 0), (h 1 , F1 ), (h 2 , F2 )
represent the ideal dependence, Eq. (6), according to
Fig. 7. The determination of the contact point by fitting the
function F(h) in mF , F , 2mF and extrapolating to F 5 0 using
the function F(h), Fex1 (h), or Fex2 (h) with the same slope at
F 5 mF .
48 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51
the rule of similarity. The real indentation curve in
F1 # F # F2 can diverge from Eq. (6). In this
analysis, it is defined by the given contact point (h 0 ,
0). The contact point, h 0 , must range in 0 # h 0 # h lin
with
h 1 F2 2 h 2 F1
h lin 5 ]]]]. (9)
F2 2 F 1
Although such a deterministic analysis cannot give
the variances and covariance of the parameters a 0 ,
a 1 , a 2 the uncertainty of the extrapolated contact
point can be roughly estimated according to Eq. (5)
because the first term is dominant
uF
ush 0d . ]]] 5 U. (10)
2a 2 R 0.5
The uncertainty in force measurement is u F . We are
going to calculate the portion U of the uncertainty. U
is the uncertainty for the approach of F(h) to the
ideal case, Eq. (6), that means h 0 → 0 or R → 0. For
this, U is normalized to the additional uncertainty of
the contact-point determination due to the use of the
fitting function for the extrapolation to F 5 0 instead
of the use of a real physical function F(h). It can be
assumed that the force–depth dependence closed to
contact, Fex (h), equals the indentation response in the
fitting range F1 # F # F2 . To estimate this type of
extrapolation uncertainty it is assumed that the
unknown force dependence Fex (h) in 0 # F # F1 is
accomplished between the two functions as follows:
on the one hand the simplest function is the linear
dependence with the same slope, A, like the fitting
function at (h 1 , F1 ). On the other hand the function is
based on the rule of similarity (ideal case). The two
functions can be written:
Fexshd 5 A msh 2 h 0md m ; m 5 1, 2 (11)
with the condition of the same slope A m 5 A of the
fitting function, Eq. (3), at F 5 F1 . The extrapolated
contact points h 01 and h 02 are
mF1
h 0m 5 h 1 2 ]]]2 ; m 5 1, 2 (12)
a 1 1 2a 2 h 1
with h 1 as the displacement at F 5 F1 and a 1 , a 2 as
the limits of Eq. (3) calculated by Eq. (7).
The three extrapolating functions, F(h) after Eq.
(3), Fex (h) after Eq. (11) with m 5 1 and m 5 2 are
plotted in Fig. 7. Comparing with experimental data
sets demonstrated in Figs. 1–3 the shapes of the
curves in Fig. 7 make clear that there is not a
favoured extrapolating function. The uncertainty due
to the artificial extrapolating function can be esti-
mated by the difference of the calculated contact
points after Eq. (12). Taking into account the
uncertainty of the force origin, u F , the maximal
contact point, h 0max , is h 01 with F1 ⇒ F1 2 u F and
the minimal contact point, h 0min is h 02 with
F1 ⇒ F1 1 u F . The difference reads after Eq. (12)
F1 1 3u F
Dh 0 5 h 0max 2 h 0min 5 ]]]. (13)
a1 1 a2h1
Finally this difference is used for normalization of
the main part of the uncertainty according to Grau et
al. [10], Eq. (10),
U a1 1 a2h1
]] 5 ]]]]]]]]]]]]
Dh 0 F1
]13
uF S DœS D
]
a1 2 a0
2a 2
2]
a2
S D F1 F2
5 f h 0, ], ] .
uF uF
(14)
Using Eqs. (7), (9), and (14) the normalized
uncertainty, U /Dh 0 , is plotted in Fig. 8 as a function
of h 0 /h 0lin for three different ‘fitting ranges’ normal-
ized to the uncertainty of the force origin, F1 /u F #
Fig. 8. Normalized uncertainty of the contact point as a function
of the portion of the linear dependence of F(h) within the fitting
range. U /Dh 0 . 1 means the uncertainty due to the use of the
second order polynomial is greater than the uncertainty of the
unknown extrapolating function.
 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51
F /u F # F2 /u F . In this way the curves in Fig. 8 are
independent of the uncertainty in force measurement,
u F . The portion of linearity concerning the ‘fitting
function’, F(h), is given by the value h 0 /h 0lin rang-
ing from h 0 /h 0lin 5 0 (ideal case according to the
rule of geometric similarity), to h 0 /h 0lin 5 1 (linear
dependence).
5. Discussion
As is demonstrated by the deterministic model on
the property of contact-point extrapolation there are
three critical points of the obvious way to use a
second order polynomial for both fitting and ex-
trapolating. It can be concluded from Fig. 8:
1. the normalized uncertainty becomes unlimited for
the ideal case according to the rule of geometric
similarity (the procedure needs a fitting function
with a portion of linearity);
2. the normalized uncertainty drops substantially
below one for increasing the portion of linearity
(the uncertainty caused by the unknown ex-
trapolating function in the contact range, Fex (h) ,
F1 , becomes dominant);
3. the normalized uncertainty is higher if the fitting
range is closer to F 5 0 (the disadvantage of point
1 cannot be weakened by a closer fitting range).
In practice, a laboratory using one type of a
hardness machine can obtain results of HU with very
small uncertainty caused by the contact-point ex-
trapolation, if the fitting range has been optimized
regarding the certain character of data sets (sampling
rate, scatter of force and displacement, portion of
linearity). However, the uncertainty caused by the
unknown function, Fex (h) , F1 , near the contact
point can be much larger than the uncertainty caused
by the statistical scatter (U /Dh 0 < 1 for h 0 /h 0lin .
0.3 in Fig. 8). For that reason, the scatter between
results of HU which were measured by several
hardness machines of different types (in different
laboratories with different procedures for determin-
ing the contact point) can become much higher than
the scatter of results within one laboratory.
There are several ways to avoid the critical points
which have been indicated by the analysis.
49
• The tests with problems in extrapolation could be
removed. A procedure for the selection of accept-
able tests must be found. However, the result is
artificial regarding the stochastic materials re-
sponse.
• The fitting range is varied unless the extrapolation
gives a real solution with minimal uncertainty.
However, the indefinite limits of the fitting range
can result in reduced reproducibility between
different machines.
• The need for determination of the contact point is
avoided with the depth sensing hardness accord-
ing to Eq. (2). However, the current depth
dependence of the hardness cannot be detected.
• A more robust determination of contact point can
be performed by the use of the inverse indentation
dependence,
h 5 b0 1 b1F 1 b2F 2 (15)
or
]
h 5 b 0 1 b 1ŒF 1 b 2 F (16)
with the contact point h 0 5 b 0 . The results accord-
ing to the two functions are plotted in Fig. 9 using
the extreme example of Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 9
the contact points for small fitting ranges below
F2 51 N are very realistic but the model error
increases at higher F2 related to that of the second
order polynomial, F(h).
In every case the estimation of the uncertainty is
fundamental for the examination of the hardness
machine including the procedure of extrapolation.
Taking into account the results of the analysis it is
proposed to improve the comparability as follows.
Twice the uncertainty of the contact point is de-
termined from the sum of the uncertainty, Dh 0 ,
caused by the unknown extrapolating function,
Fex (h) , F1 , and the standard deviations of the two
types of contact points according to Eq. (12), u h 01 or
m 5 1, and u h 02 for m 5 2,
Dh 0 1 u h 01 1 u h 02
Uh 0 5 ]]]]] (17)
2
50 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51

every fitting range. The high fluctuations below 1 N

in Fig. 9 are caused by the certain extreme example
of the used data record which is not optimal near the
contact point.

6. Conclusion

The use of the depth sensing hardness HU accord-

ing to Eq. (1) makes it necessary to determine the
contact point. Analysing the procedure for determin-
ing the contact point (problems of fitting and ex-
trapolating) a polynomial of second order is appro-
priate for use only in selected cases of the test
reality. There are no real solutions or results with
Fig. 9. Additional to the contact points (full rhombs) and their enhanced uncertainty for specified fitting ranges of
uncertainties (dashed line) in Fig. 4 the contact points h 01 (2) and some tests. The uncertainty contribution of the type
h 02 (1) according to Eq. (12) as well as the uncertainties of the extrapolation function should be involved. For
according to Eq. (15) after fitting the experimental data in the the estimation of the current uncertainty of the
range 0.05 N,F , F2 are plotted (solid line). Note there are real
contact point it is advantageous to use the contact-
solutions for every fitting range. The contact points extrapolated to
Eq. (17) (hole spheres) and Eq. (18) (hole triangle) could be used point procedure according to Eq. (17) and (18)
for the simplification. because a real solution is obtained in every case and
the uncertainty of the unknown extrapolating func-
tion is taken into account. For simplification of the
u 2(h 0m ) 5 H 02 (V(a 0 ) 1 u F2 ) 1 H 21 V(a 1 ) 1 H 22 V(a 2 ) contact-point procedure, it is recommended that the
inverse dependence according to Eq. (15) is used.
1 2H0 H1 Cov(a 0 ,a 1 ) 1 2H0 H2 Cov(a 0 ,a 2 )
The estimation of the uncertainty involving the
1 2H1 H2 Cov(a 1 ,a 2 ) m 5 1,2 (18) contribution of extrapolation according to Eqs. (17)
and (18) is important to the reliability inspection of
mF1 1 the hardness machine.
H0 5 ]]]2Œ]
1 ]] ];
4a 2 R
3
2a 2ŒR
mF1 a 1 1 a1
H1 5 ]]] ] 2 ] 1 ]] ; Acknowledgements
8a 2ŒR
3 3 2a 2 4a 22Œ]
R
The author gratefully acknowledges the ‘Deutsche
mF1 a 12 mF1 (F1 2 a 0 ) (1 2 m)F1 Forschungsgemeinschaft’ for the financial support of
H2 5 ]]]4Œ]
1 ]]]] 3 ]
1 ]]] ]
4a 2ŒR 2a 22ŒR the project ‘Depth sensing hardness on ceramics’.
3 3
8a 2 R
2
a1 a 1 2 2a 2 a 0
2 ]2 2 ]]] ] .
2a 2 4a 32ŒR References

The two determinations of the contact point accord-
ing to Eqs. (4), (5), (17), and (18) are compared in
Fig. 9. It can be seen that the upper limit of
uncertainties is nearly equal and the difference
between the contact points h 0 and h 02 is smaller
related to the size of ranges. However, the method
according to Eq. (17), (18) yields real solutions for
[1] A. Martens, in: Handbuch der Materialkunde fur ¨ den Mas-
chinenbau (Handbook of Materials Science for Structural
Engineering), Springer, Berlin, 1898, p. 234.
[2] W. Weiler, Hardness testing — a new method for economical
and physically meaningful microhardness testing, Br. J. Non-
destructive Test. 31 (1989) 253–258.
[3] DIN 50359 Universal Hardness Testing, Part 1: Test Method,
October, 1997.
 C. Ullner / Measurement 27 (2000) 43 – 51 51

[4] H.-J. Weiss, On deriving Vickers hardness from penetration
depth, Phys. Stat. Sol. 99 (1987) 491–501.
[5] W.C. Oliver, G.M. Pharr, An improved technique for de-
termining hardness and elastic modulus using load and
displacement sensing indentation experiments, J. Mater. Res.
7 (1992) 1564–1583.
[6] Ch. Ullner, Different hardness parameter from continuous
force–depth indentation tests — modelling of their un-
[10] P. Grau, G. Berg, W. Franzel,
certainties, in: B. Michel, T. Winkler (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Micro Mat ’97, Berlin, 1997, pp. 1166–1168.
[7] P.M. Sargent, Use of the indentation size effect on mi-
crohardness of material characterisation. In: P.J. Blau, B.R.
Lawn (Eds.), ASTM STP No. 889, 1984, pp. 160–174.
[8] P. Grau, Ch. Ullner, H.-H. Behncke, Uncertainty of depth
¨
sensing hardness, Materialprufung 39 (9) (1997) 362–367.
[9] Ch. Ullner, J. Beckmann, Effect of microstructure of
ceramics on the instrumented indentation test, in preparation.
¨
H. Meinhard, Recording
hardness testing. Problems of measurement at small indenta-
tion depth, Phys. Stat. Sol. 146 (1994) 537–548.