International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Solids and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

Improved reverse analysis for material characterization with dual sharp indenters
Minh-Quy Le ⇑
Department of Mechanics of Materials, School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, 1 Dai Co Viet Road, Hanoi, Vietnam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It was illustrated by the author in the previous work that combinations between material properties and
Received 15 July 2010 indentation parameters can be used as mixed parameters in dimensionless functions to capture the
Received in revised form 17 November 2010 indentation response of materials to single and dual sharp indenters. These issues are further extended
Available online 13 February 2011
in the present study. A parametric finite element analysis was performed to investigate the conical inden-
tation response of elasto-plastic solids. Frictional effects are studied. Conical indenters of half-included
Keywords: angles from 50° to 88° are considered to examine several fundamental features of instrumented sharp
Elastic plastic solids
indentation within the frame work of limit analysis. Regarding dimensional analysis, it is found that a
Finite element analysis
Instrumented indentation
Taylor series expansion according to the elastic indentation work-total indentation work ratio We/Wt
Mechanical properties can be used to improve dimensionless functions. Within this context, a new set of dimensionless func-
tions is explicitly constructed for hardness and indentation parameters of single and dual indenters.
Based on formulated functions, a reverse analysis with dual sharp indenters, which was previously pro-
posed by the author, is improved to extract mechanical properties of materials.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Instrumented indentation tests are an important tool to mea-
sure mechanical properties of materials on small scales, where it
is difficult to use other conventional testing techniques. Dual
sharp indenter methods have been investigated in a number
of studies to extract material properties (Bucaille et al., 2003;
Chollacoop et al., 2003; DiCarlo et al., 2004; Cao et al., 2005;
Ogasawara et al., 2005; Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2005; Ogasawara
et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2007; Luo and Lin, 2007; Yan et al., 2007;
Harsono et al., 2008; Le, 2008; Heinrich et al., 2009; Le, 2009).
Dimensional analysis with the aid of finite element analysis
(FEA) is widely used to explore various aspects of indentation,
see the review by Cheng and Cheng (2004). Fig. 1(b) illustrates
the typical indentation load-depth response of an elasto-plastic
material to sharp indentation. Considering dimensional analysis
and geometrical similarity of a conical/pyramid indenter, Cheng
and Cheng (2004) have demonstrated that the indentation force
P during loading is proportional to the square of the indentation
depth h:
P ¼ Ch2 :
Despite a number of parameters involving in an indentation test
as shown in Fig. 1, indentation parameters are interdependent to
each others as follows (Le, 2008):
⇑ Tel./fax: +84 4 38680047.
E-mail address: quylm@mail.hut.edu.vn
W t m þ 1 hm
¼ ; ð2aÞ
We 3 he
S hm
¼ m1 ; ð2bÞ
Chm he
S 3m1 W t
¼ ; ð2cÞ
Chm m þ 1 W e
where m and m1 are constants.
Establishment of dimensionless functions, which capture the
indentation response of materials, is a key issue to develop a sys-
tematic method for material characterization by instrumented
indentation. Most of previous work used the concept of represen-
tative strain to construct dimensionless relationships in instru-
mented sharp indentation (Dao et al., 2001; Bucaille et al., 2003;
Chollacoop et al., 2003; DiCarlo et al., 2004; Cao et al., 2005;
Ogasawara et al., 2005, 2006; Chen et al., 2007; Ruan et al.,
2010). The reduced elastic modulus-yield strength ratio E⁄/Y (or
the elastic modulus-yield strength ratio E/Y) and the strain harden-
ing exponent n were also investigated as two key parameters to
govern indentation parameters (Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2005;
Luo and Lin, 2007; Harsono et al., 2008; Heinrich et al., 2009).
ð1Þ Recently, Le (2008, 2009) proposed a new approach to consider
instrumented sharp indentation response. Regarding dimensional
analysis and based on extensive FEA, the author illustrated a meth-
od where mixed parameters (i.e., combinations between material
properties and indentation response parameters) may be used in
dimensionless functions to capture the indentation response of
materials. Some dimensionless functions suggested in (Le, 2008,
2009) are summarized here:

0020-7683/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.02.008
 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609 1601

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a conical indentation: (a) axisymmetric model of the indenter and specimen, (b) typical indentation load-depth curve.

  
Wt E sharp frictional indentation within the frame work of limit and
¼ f1 ;n ; ð3aÞ
We C dimensional analysis and with the aid of a Taylor series expansion.
  
Wt E C Dual indenter method, which was proposed previously by the
¼ f2 ; ; ð3bÞ author Le (2009), is improved to extract material properties.
We Y Y

where E⁄ is reduced elastic modulus, which is determined by the 2. Material and finite element models
elastic modulus E and Ei, and Poisson’s ratios m and mi of the in-
dented material and the indenter, respectively, as below: Elastic–plastic behavior of many engineering solid materials
 1 can be modeled by a power law description. A simple elasto-
1  m2 1  m2i
E ¼ þ : ð4Þ plastic, true stress–true strain behavior is assumed to be:
E Ei
r ¼ Ee; ðr 6 YÞ;
Moreover, based on extensive FEA, the following equations have   ð6Þ
been derived in (Le, 2008, 2009): r ¼ Y EYe n ; ðr P YÞ;

Wt E where E is the Young’s modulus, Y the initial compressive uniaxial

¼ K w1 ðnÞ þ K w2 ðnÞ;
W C
 e   
Wt Wt
¼ Dw1 ðnÞ þ Dw2 ðnÞ;
W e 60 W e 70:3
  1:031  Gw
C E Wt
¼ kw ; ð5cÞ
Y Y We
 
E E
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ K H1 ðnÞ þ K H2 ðnÞ:
CH C
Hardness H is here defined as the ratio of the maximum indentation
force to the contact area under load or the mean pressure supported
by the material under load. The coefficients in Eq. (5) are available
for frictionless indentation in (Le, 2008, 2009).
Based on formulated dimensionless functions, Le (2009) sug-
gested a reverse procedure to determine E, Y, n and H from inden-
tation force-depth curves of dual indenters with half-included
angles of 60° and 70.3°. Correspondence between the sensitivity
of reverse results and the features of mystical materials (Chen
et al., 2007) was also discussed in Le (2008, 2009).
However, several fundamental issues remain that require fur-
ther examination. The first issue refers to a question: do several
functional forms suggested in Le (2008, 2009) hold true for a more
general condition or what are their general forms? The fundamen-
tal basis for such an approach should be also made clear. Secondly,
friction were excluded in his work (Le, 2008, 2009) while it has a
significant influence on indentation response and reverse results
(DiCarlo et al., 2004; Mata and Alcalá, 2004; Harsono et al.,
2008). Harsono et al. (2008) also demonstrated that reverse results
can be adversely inaccurate if the reverse analysis bases on formu-
lations ignoring frictional effects and uses input data from fric-
tional indentation tests.
The purpose of the present study is to extend Le’s approach (Le,
2008, 2009) to formulate dimensionless functions in instrumented
ð5aÞ; yield stress, and n the strain hardening exponent.
Since the indentation problem of a rigid cone into half-space is
ð5bÞ axisymmetric (Fig. 1(a)) only one-half of the system is used in the
modeling. Therefore, elastic–plastic indentation was simulated
using the axisymmetric capacities of the MARC/MSC finite element
code. The conical indenters of half-included angles of 50°, 60°,
70.3°, 80°, 85° and 88° were modeled as rigid bodies. The 70.3° in-
ð5dÞ denter corresponds to commonly used Berkovich and Vickers
indenters.
The specimen was modeled as a large cylinder. The radius and
the height of the sample are equal or sixty times larger than the
contact radius at maximum indentation depth. These dimensions
were found to be large enough to approximate a semi-infinite
half-space for indentations. This was evidenced by an insensitivity
of calculated results to further increase in specimen size. Com-
bined meshes with large strain four-node and eight-node axisym-
metric elements are used. A typical mesh comprises about
approximately 7500 elements and 22000 nodes.
Elements were finest in the central contact area and became
gradually coarser outwards. Smallest element sizes were taken as
follows: 400 nm for 50° indenter; 150 nm for 60°, 70.3° and 80°
indenters; 400 nm for 85° indenter; and 800 nm for 88° indenter.
The maximum indentation depth hm is fixed at 5 lm. Frictionless
roller boundary conditions were applied along the centerline and
bottom. Outside surfaces were taken as free surfaces. Residual
stresses were not taken into account in the analysis. Displace-
ment-controlled procedure was used in this work.
The Coulomb’s friction law is used between contact surfaces.
Since typical friction coefficient between well polished metallic
surfaces and diamond lies within 0.1 and 0.15 (Tabor, 1951), the
friction coefficient k is taken as 0.15. This value is also consistent
with most literature in the area of indentation simulation. Never-
theless, friction coefficient is also varied in Section 3.2 to explore
1602 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609

its effects. The finite element models were well tested for conver-
gence and accuracy, and then validated with independent finite
element meshes, which were previously used in Le (2008).
A large number of different combinations of elasto-plastic prop-
erties with n ranging from 0 to 0.6 and Y/E ranging from 5.0E5 to
6.0E2 were used for 60° and 70.3° indenters. Additional FEA were
also carried out for 50°, 80°, 85° and 88° indenters to explore ef-
fects of cone angles to the indentation response. The Poisson’s ratio
is fixed at 0.3. The wide range of model materials covers most of
metals and engineering alloys. Model materials are assumed to
obey Von Mises criterion. The material properties used in the com-
putations are given in detail in Le (2009).
3. Dimensionless relationships for P–h curve
3.1. Limit analysis
Linear functional forms between Wt/We and E⁄/C, Eq. (5a), and
for Wt/We with respect to dual indenters, Eq. (5b), proposed in
(Le, 2008) are here examined using elastic and plastic limits.
two indenters are close to 90°. Fig. 2(b) shows plastic limits for
70.3° indenter, Wt/We and E⁄/C become large when Y/E tends to
zero, since the indenter is quite sharp.
It is also found that linear forms between Wt/We and E⁄/C exhi-
bit good approximation for relatively low cone angles. For large
cone angles or for extremely high values of Y/E with low cone an-
gles (the indentation response tends to elastic behavior), linear fits
can not assume good accuracy. This phenomenon is also clearly ob-
served for relation of Wt/We with respect to dual indenters as
shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3(a) shows elastic limit when (Wt/We)88 ? 1,
while Fig. 3(b) indicates plastic limit when Wt/We becomes large
with very low values of Y/E for relatively sharp indenters of half-in-
cluded angles of 60 and 70.3°. Linear forms between (Wt/We)h1 and
(Wt/We)h2 can not be used if one of two indenters has a large cone
angle.
Therefore, limit analysis shows that functional forms of Eq. (5a)
and (5b) formulated previously in (Le, 2008) are only first-order
approximations. Moreover, it is found that the accuracy of dimen-
sionless formulations based on these first-order functional forms
decreases when increasing the apex angle of indenter.

(a) For elastic limit, we have Wt/We ? 1, E⁄/C ? ce, where ce is E⁄/C
ratio in elastic contact and determined as below (Johnson,
1985):
E p
ce ¼ ¼ cotðhÞ:
C 2
(b) For rigid-perfectly-plastic materials, we have Wt/We ? 1, E⁄/
C ? 1.
Fig. 2 shows variations of Wt/We versus E⁄/C for 70.3°, 85° and
88° indenters. Elastic limit (Wt/We ? 1) is clearly seen in Fig. 2(a)
for 85° and 88° indenters, since the half-included angles of these
3.2. Frictional effects
Frictional effects in instrumented sharp indentation have been
previously investigated by several authors (Bucaille et al., 2003;
ð7Þ DiCarlo et al., 2004; Harsono et al., 2008). In general, frictional
effects decrease with increasing cone angles, the yield strength–
elastic modulus ratio Y/E, or the strain hardening exponent n. Such
effects are clearly seen in Fig. 4 for 22 representative materials,
which were investigated in Le (2009). Their mechanical properties
are listed in Table 1. Fig. 4 plots the differences in the total inden-
tation work–elastic indentation work ratio Wt/We and the loading
curvature C for 22 representative materials between k = 0.15 and

(a) 4.5
(a) 17
Y/E=0.001 88 degree
4 n=0.4
85 degree
13
3.5 n=0.4
Y/E=5e-4
(W t /W e)60

3 Y/E =0.007
W t /W e

9
2.5 Y/E=0.016 50 degree
2 Y/E=0.03
5 60 degree
ce=0.1374 70.3 degree
degree
1.5
ce=0.0549 80 degree
1 1
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
E*/C (W t /W e)88

(b) 175 (b) 160

Y/E=3.5e-4
150
Y/E=7.5e-4
120
125 Y/E=5e-4 Y/E=5e-4
Y/E=0.001
(W t /W e)60

100 Y/E=7.5e-4
W t /W e

Y/E=2.5e-4 80
Y/E=0.0014
75 Y/E=0.001 Y/E=0.002
70.3 degree
50 n=0 40 n=0
n=0.2 n=0.2
25
n=0.5 n=0.5
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
E*/C (W t /W e)70.3
⁄
Fig. 2. Relationship between Wt/We and E /C: (a) 85° and 88° indenters, (b) 70.3° Fig. 3. Relationships for Wt/We with respect to dual indenters: (a) (Wt/We)h and (Wt/
indenter. We)88, (b) (Wt/We)60 and (Wt/We)70.3.
 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609 1603

Cu Al1 Au Pb Ag W Fe Ti1 S1 Ni S2 Ti2 Al2 Ti3 Zn Si M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22
2

Difference in C & W t /W e, %
0
-2
-4
-6
-8 Wt/We-60 degree
-10 Wt/We-70 degree
-12 C-70 degree
-14

Fig. 4. Frictional effects on the total indentation work–elastic indentation work ratio Wt/We and the loading curvature C for 22 representative materials.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the representative materials.
4
k=0.1; % in C
Materials Notations E Y (MPa) n Y/E 3 k=0.2; % in C

Difference in C & W t /We, %

(GPa)
k=0.1; % in Wt/We
2
Copper Cu 128 10 0.5 7.813E05 k=0.2; % in Wt/We
Aluminum Al1 70 20 0.15 2.857E04
Gold Au 79 38 0.22 4.810E04
1
Lead Pb 16 10 0.05 6.250E04
Silver Ag 83 60 0.27 7.229E04 0
Tungsten W 411 550 0.005 1.338E03
Iron Fe 180 300 0.25 1.667E03 -1
Titanium 1 Ti1 120 230 0.12 1.917E03
Steel 1 S1 210 500 0.1 2.381E03 -2 60 degree
Nickel Ni 207 800 0.4 3.865E03
Steel 2 S2 210 900 0.3 4.286E03 -3
Titanium 2 Ti2 110 600 0.1 5.455E03 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Aluminum alloy Al2 70 500 0.122 7.143E03 Y/E
Ti–6Al–4 V Ti3 110 830 0.15 7.545E03
Zinc Zn 9 300 0.05 3.333E02 Fig. 5. Frictional effects on the loading curvature C and on the total indentation
Silicon Si 107 6000 0.025 5.607E02 work–elastic indentation work ratio Wt/We of elastic-perfectly-plastic materials for
Material 17 M17 103.75 715.61 0.10663 6.897E03 60° indenter.
Material 18 M18 100 872.47 0 8.725E03
Material 19 M19 116.9 659.4 0.2038 5.641E03
(m = 0.35)
Material 20 M20 120 691.8 0.1913 5.765E03 70.3° indenter can rise to ±7% for materials exhibiting high values
(m = 0.3) of Y/E.
Material 21 M21 122.2 725.5 0.1784 5.937E03
(m = 0.25)
Material 22 M22 123.9 762.8 0.1653 6.157E03 3.3. Improved functional forms at given strain hardening n
(m = 0.2)
It is shown from limit analysis and frictional effects that linear
forms between Wt/We and E⁄/C in Eq. (5a) is a first-order approxi-
k = 0. Frictional effects are high for materials with low strain hard- mation. Hence, if f is noted as deviations between initial values
ening or low yield strength-elastic modulus ratio Y/E such as alu- and regressed values of Wt/We and regarding Eq. (3a), f can be ex-
minum (Al1), lead, tungsten, titanium 1, steel 1, titanium 2, and pressed as a function of We/Wt and n. Therefore, Eq. (5a) can be
material 18. Therefore, to explore frictional effects with various rewritten as follows:
 
friction coefficients, it is sufficient to take elastic-perfectly-plastic Wt E We
materials into consideration.
¼ K w1 ðnÞ þ K w2 ðnÞ þ f ;n : ð8Þ
We C Wt
Fig. 5 shows relative differences in the loading curvature C and
the total indentation work–elastic indentation work ratio Wt/We Noting x = We/Wt, it should be emphasized that x falls between 0
between k = 0.1 and k = 0.15 and between k = 0.15 and k = 0.2 for and 1. x = 0 and 1 for rigid-perfectly-plastic and elastic materials,
elastic-perfectly-plastic materials indented by a 60° indenter. respectively. It is supposed that f is a continuous and smooth func-
Frictional effects decrease rapidly with increasing the yield tion of x and n. If x is now considered as a variable and n plays the
strength–elastic modulus ratio Y/E. It is found that if typical friction role of a parameter, f can be expanded as a Taylor series of x as be-
coefficient of 0.15 is taken in the analysis, deviations in the loading low (Polyanin and Manzhirov, 2007):
curvature C and on the total indentation work–elastic indentation f 0 ðx0 ; nÞ f 00 ðx0 ; nÞ
work ratio Wt/We caused by the uncertainties of the friction f ðx; nÞ ¼ f ðx0 ; nÞ þ ðx  x0 Þ þ ðx  x0 Þ2 þ   
1! 2!
coefficient, 0:1 6 k 6 0:2, rise from 3% to 4% for 60° indenter. f ðmÞðx0 ;nÞ
For 70.3° indenter, these deviations are expected to be lower. þ ðx  x0 Þm þ Rem ðx; nÞ; ð9Þ
m!
It is seen that friction has different degrees of influences on
indentation parameters depending on material properties and cone where x0 is a certain value between 0 and 1, and Rem ðx; nÞ is the
angle. Therefore, functional forms for frictionless indentation as remainder term in the Taylor formula. Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq.
indicated in Eq. (5a), (5b) and (5d) may not assume a reasonable (8) and using different notations for coefficients yield:
accuracy when friction is involved. If linear relationships between Wt E Xm

Wt/We and E⁄/C at a given strain hardening n are assumed, devia- ¼ Ae ðnÞ þ A0 ðnÞ þ Ai ðnÞðx  x0 Þi þ Rem ðx; nÞ: ð10Þ
We C i¼1
tions between initial values and regressed values of Wt/We for
1604 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609

Since jx  x0 j < 1 due to x and x0 e (0, 1), higher order terms in Eq. 4. Hardness
(10) will vanish. Therefore, taking only the zero and first order
terms in Taylor series in Eq. (9) yields: Eq. (5d) has been derived in (Le, 2009) for frictionless indenta-
tion. However, in practice true hardness H without frictional effect
Wt E We is expected to be evaluated from frictional indentation experi-
¼ Ae ðnÞ þ A0 ðnÞ þ A1 ðnÞ : ð11Þ
We C Wt ments. Hence, hardness obtained from FEA of frictionless indenta-
tion should be functionally related to indentation parameters
By using a least square fitting procedure, coefficients of Eq. (11)
generated from FEA
ffi of frictional indentation. Fig. 7(a) depicts vari-
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
are established as parabolic polynomial functions of n and given in
ations of E = CH versus E⁄/C for 70.3° indenter. In all formulated
the appendix for 60° and 70.3° indenters.
functions in the present work, hardness and other indentation
Conducting a similar analysis, Eq. (5b) expressing relationship
parameters are referred to frictionless and frictional indentation,
between (Wt/We)60 and (Wt/We)70.3 can be rewritten as below:
respectively. It is found that significant errors rise if the functional
    form of Eq. (5d) is taken for frictional indentation. Conducting a
Wt Wt X
m
¼ F w ðnÞ þ F 0 ðnÞ þ F i ðnÞðx  x0 Þi similar analysis as Section 3, Eq. (5d) is modified by adding a term
We 60 We 70:3 i¼1 fh:
þ Rw
m ðx; nÞ: ð12Þ E E
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ K H1 ðnÞ þ K H2 ðnÞ þ fh : ð15Þ
Here Rw CH C
m ðx; nÞ
is the remainder term in the Taylor formula. It is
noted that the second order term in Taylor series in Eq. (12) is used The term fh is a priori a function of E⁄/C and n. However, regard-
to assume a high accuracy in reverse analysis: ing Eq. (3a), fh can be considered as a function of We/Wt and n. Con-
      ducting a similar analysis as Section 3.3, Eq. (15) can be expressed
Wt Wt We as below:
¼ F w ðnÞ þ F 0 ðnÞ þ F 1 ðnÞ
We W e 70:3 W t 70:3 Xm
60
 2 E E
We pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ K e ðnÞ þ K 0 ðnÞ þ K i ðnÞðx  x0 Þi þ RHm ðx; nÞ: ð16Þ
þ F 2 ðnÞ : ð13Þ CH C i¼1
W t 70:3
Here RHm ðx; nÞ is the remainder term in the Taylor formula. It is
By using a least square fitting procedure, coefficients of Eq. (13) noted that the second order term in Taylor series in Eq. (16) is used
are established as cubic polynomial functions of n and given in the to assume a high accuracy in reverse analysis:
Appendix A. It is remarked here that functional forms of Eq. (11)
and (13) are well according to two extreme conditions of elastic
and rigid plastic response as mentioned in Section 3.1.
(a) 200

3.4. Dimensionless relationships at given Y/E

150
For a convenient in reverse analysis, Eq. (5c) is rewritten under
another form as below:
1/2
E */(CH )

  Bw2 100
Wt E 70.3 degree
¼ Bw1 : ð14Þ
We C n=0
50
Fig. 6 plots the evolution of Wt/We versus E⁄/C at different values n=0.2
of Y/E for 70.3° indenter. It is found that the functional form of Eq. n=0.5
(14) gives a good accuracy when friction is taken into account. By
0
using a least square fitting procedure, coefficients Bw1 and Bw2 are
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
determined as functions of E⁄/Y and given in the appendix for 70.3° E*/C
indenter.

(b) 1250
120

1000
100

750
80
E */H
W t/W e

60 500 70.3 degree

70.3 degree n=0
40 250
Y/E=5e-5 n=0.2
Y/E=5e-4 n=0.5
20
0
Y/E=0.001 0 25 50 75 100 125
0 W t /W e
0 8 16 24 32
E*/C Fig. 7. Relationship between hardness H, reduced elastic modulus E⁄ and inden-
tation parameters at different strain hardening exponents n for 70.3° indenter: (a)
Fig. 6. Evolution of Wt/We versus E⁄/C at different values of Y/E for 70.3° indenter. E⁄/(CH)1/2 versus E⁄/C, and (b) E⁄/H versus Wt/We.
 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609 1605

 2
E E We We mechanical properties of representative materials. Main indentation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ K e ðnÞ þ K 0 ðnÞ þ K 1 ðnÞ þ K 2 ðnÞ : ð17Þ parameters of these representative materials are shown in Table 2.
CH C Wt Wt
In general, reverse results are very good as shown in Tables 3–6.
The coefficients in Eqs. (17) are established as cubic polynomial Deviations Dn of the strain hardening exponent n vary from 0.02
functions of n and given in the appendix for 70.3° indenter. to 0.01. Errors fall within ±1% and ±8.5% for the reduced elastic
We establish now another relationship for H. Cheng et al. (2002) modulus E⁄ and the yield strength Y, respectively. Using Eq. (17),
have previously established relationships between H/E⁄ and errors appear from 1% to 1.5% for hardness H, excepting that
characteristics parameters of P–h curves for a wide range of the these errors are 2.5% and 4.3% for material 21 (m = 0.25) and
half-included angles of indenters (60° 6 h 6 80°) as follows: 22 (m = 0.2), respectively. Therefore, Poisson’s ratio affects slightly
reverse results on hardness. Eq. (19) also gives a high accuracy
H We
¼k : ð18Þ for estimation of hardness as indicated in Table 6.
E Wt
Reverse results, which use formulations ignoring frictional ef-
While Cheng et al. (2002) proposed that k depends only on cone an- fects suggested by Le (2009) and frictional indentation data in
gles, Alkorta et al. (2006) demonstrated that k depends significantly the present study are also included in Tables 3–6 for comparison.
on strain hardening exponent n. Fig. 7(b) is pertained to the evolu- Overall, frictional effects cause higher errors in reverse results if
tion of E⁄/H versus Wt/We at different strain hardening exponents n. previous formulations ignoring frictional effects (Le, 2009) are
Following a similar analysis as Section 3.3, a new dimensionless used. Deviations of the strain hardening exponent n appear within
relationship for E⁄/H, Wt/We and n are obtained as below: 0.11. Errors in the yield strength Y rise to 29%. However, reverse
 2 results are still acceptable for the reduced elastic modulus E⁄ (er-
E Wt We We rors in the range from 7% to 0.1%) and the hardness H (errors
¼ M w ðnÞ þ M0 ðnÞ þ M 1 ðnÞ þ M 2 ðnÞ : ð19Þ
H We Wt Wt in the range from 2.5% to 10.5%).
It is seen that reverse results can be inaccurate for materials of
By using a least square fitting procedure, coefficients of Eq. (19)
low strain hardening and low yield strength-elastic modulus ratios
are established as cubic polynomial functions of n and given in the
Y/E if the reverse analysis bases on formulations ignoring frictional
appendix for 70.3° indenter.
effects and uses input data from frictional indentation tests. In
such cases, at least yield strength Y can not be accurately esti-
5. Reverse and sensitivity analyses mated. The absolute values of relative errors in yield strength Y
are generally higher than 20% as indicated in Table 5 for 12
5.1. Reverse procedure materials: aluminum, gold, steel 1, titanium 2, aluminum alloy,
Ti–6Al–4 V, and materials 17–22.
Using Eqs. (11), (13), (14), (17), a simple dual indenter method These reverse results are improved and better than those ob-
is here suggested for material characterization. Indentation param- tained in the previous work by Le (2009) even though input data
eters (Wt/We)60, (Wt/We)70.3 and C70.3 are used as input data. Eq. from frictionless indentation were employed. He reported that
(13) is first solved to determined the strain hardening exponent deviations appeared from 0.07 to 0.03 for n, high deviations were
n, then the reduced elastic modulus E⁄, the yield strength Y and observed for some very low strain hardening materials (lead, tung-
hardness H are evaluated from Eq. (11), (14), (17), respectively. It sten, zinc and silicon) and for mystical materials (materials 17, 19,
should be emphasized that the strain hardening exponent is taken 21, and 22). Le (2009) also indicated that errors in Y rose from
as 0 or 0.5 when Eq. (13) gives a solution being negative or higher 13% to 16%.
than 0.5, respectively.
It should be also emphasized that due to linear interdependenc- 5.3. Sensitivity analysis
es between S/(Chm), Wt/We, and hm/he as shown in Eq. (2), similar
functional forms as Eqs. (11), (13), (17), (19) can be formulated Four cases of perturbations of the input data are considered in
for S/(Chm) and hm/he. Further, it is checked that Eq. (11), (13), this work as listed in Table 7. Sensitivity analysis was carried out
(14), (17) and (19) can be also formulated for other cone indenters
with h e [50°, 80°]. Such relationships are not reported here due to Table 2
the length of the paper. Therefore, this reverse procedure is easily Indentation parameters of the representative materials.
generalized for any dual indenters. The yield strength Y is simply Materials (Wt/We)60 (Wt/We)70.3 C70.3 (GPa)
estimated from Eq. (14) when the reduced elastic modulus is a pri-
Copper 32.7422 25.0143 18.2048
ori known. Aluminum 114.3602 72.8752 4.1538
Gold 52.6258 35.0652 9.3150
Lead 95.1368 57.4977 1.2693
5.2. Numerical results
Silver 30.9951 21.2722 15.5505
Tungsten 56.1980 33.2659 56.6832
Twenty-two representative materials, which were investigated Iron 18.5249 12.7448 55.3528
in Le (2009), are also considered here for the reverse analysis; Titanium 1 26.3469 16.9379 29.7156
see Table 1 for their mechanical properties. Poisson’s ratio is taken Steel 1 23.4190 15.0116 58.6868
Nickel 6.8542 5.1447 138.9414
as 0.3 otherwise it is noted. The first 16 materials in Table 1 corre-
Steel 2 8.4327 6.0548 125.8405
spond to usual metals and engineering alloys, which have been Titanium 2 11.8013 7.7776 55.7668
previously investigated as representative materials by several Aluminum alloy 9.0521 6.1126 43.5539
authors (Bucaille et al., 2003; Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2005; Luo Ti–6Al–4 V 8.1778 5.5994 73.3444
and Lin, 2007). The last 6 materials are rare groups of mystical Zinc 3.3171 2.3688 12.0672
Silicon 2.4131 1.7805 173.0039
materials with fixed Poisson’s ratios (material 17 and 18, m = 0.3) Material 17 9.6187 6.4398 61.8991
and with varied Poisson’s ratios (materials 19, 20, 21, and 22) for Material 18 9.9470 6.4194 61.2556
the dual indenters (h1 = 70.3° and h2 = 60°) according to Chen et Material 19 9.0167 6.2678 71.9422
al. (2007). Material 20 9.0739 6.2535 71.9956
Material 21 9.1159 6.2380 71.8303
Indentation data are thus numerically generated by FEA and
Material 22 9.1477 6.2209 71.7012
then used as input for the reverse analysis to extract the
1606 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609

Table 3 Table 5
Reverse results of the strain hardening exponent n for the representative materials. Reverse results of the yield strength Y for the representative materials.

Materials Original data Reverse results Materials Original data Reverse results
n Present study Le (2009) Y (MPa) Present study Le (2009)
n Dn n Dn Y (MPa) % Error Y Y (MPa) % Error Y
Copper 0.5 0.5006 0.001 0.5158 0.016 Copper 10 9.77 2.28 10.10 0.99
Aluminum 0.15 0.1492 0.001 0.1622 0.012 Aluminum 20 19.55 2.26 14.15 29.24
Gold 0.22 0.2200 0.000 0.2291 0.009 Gold 38 39.38 3.63 30.31 20.23
Lead 0.05 0.0553 0.005 0.0818 0.032 Lead 10 9.27 7.25 8.92 10.78
Silver 0.27 0.2673 0.003 0.2748 0.005 Silver 60 64.75 7.92 53.48 10.87
Tungsten 0.005 0.0046 0.000 0.0456 0.041 Tungsten 550 510.83 7.12 494.07 10.17
Iron 0.25 0.2505 0.001 0.2667 0.017 Iron 300 313.86 4.62 253.77 15.41
Titanium 1 0.12 0.1201 0.000 0.1560 0.036 Titanium 1 230 226.45 1.55 188.46 18.06
Steel 1 0.1 0.1056 0.006 0.1475 0.048 Steel 1 500 483.26 3.35 394.12 21.18
Nickel 0.4 0.4014 0.001 0.4100 0.010 Nickel 800 859.16 7.40 702.53 12.18
Steel 2 0.3 0.2984 0.002 0.3167 0.017 Steel 2 900 974.20 8.24 745.44 17.17
Titanium 2 0.1 0.0973 0.003 0.1647 0.065 Titanium 2 600 611.88 1.98 460.35 23.27
Aluminum alloy 0.122 0.1244 0.002 0.1927 0.071 Aluminum alloy 500 514.09 2.82 389.47 22.11
Ti–6Al–4 V 0.15 0.1501 0.000 0.2125 0.063 Ti–6Al–4 V 830 867.57 4.53 662.29 20.21
Zinc 0.05 0.0424 0.008 0.1384 0.088 Zinc 300 278.71 7.10 283.20 5.60
Silicon 0.025 0.0267 0.002 0.1216 0.097 Silicon 6000 6215.78 3.60 5756.69 4.06
Material 17 0.10663 0.1087 0.002 0.1804 0.074 Material 17 715.61 730.98 2.15 552.90 22.74
Material 18 0 0.0000 0.000 0.1098 0.110 Material 18 872.47 860.64 1.36 685.39 21.44
Material 19 0.2038 0.2129 0.009 0.2519 0.048 Material 19 659.4 689.84 4.62 517.23 21.56
Material 20 0.1913 0.1881 0.003 0.2346 0.043 Material 20 691.8 733.54 6.03 549.90 20.51
Material 21 0.1784 0.1672 0.011 0.2203 0.042 Material 21 725.5 768.02 5.86 576.58 20.53
Material 22 0.1653 0.1485 0.017 0.2079 0.043 Material 22 762.8 798.82 4.72 601.18 21.19

Table 6
Table 4 Reverse results of the hardness H for the representative materials.
Reverse results of the reduced elastic modulus E⁄ for the representative materials.
Materials FEA Reverse results
Materials Original Reverse results
data H (GPa) Present study Le (2009)
E⁄ (GPa) Present study Le (2009) H (GPa) % H (GPa) % H (GPa) %
E⁄ % Error E⁄ E⁄ % Error E⁄ Eq. (17) Error Eq. (19) Error Error
(GPa) (GPa) H Eq. H Eq. H
(17) (19)
Copper 140.66 141.70 0.74 136.28 3.11
Aluminum 76.92 76.69 0.30 73.06 5.02 Cu 0.8902 0.8817 0.95 0.8909 0.08 0.9098 2.20
Gold 86.81 86.80 0.01 82.87 4.54 Al1 0.1313 0.1317 0.27 0.1305 0.64 0.1368 4.16
Lead 17.58 17.74 0.89 16.46 6.37 Au 0.3345 0.3357 0.37 0.3329 0.47 0.3368 0.69
Silver 91.21 91.18 0.03 86.99 4.62 Pb 0.0345 0.0346 0.31 0.0345 0.08 0.0366 6.15
Tungsten 451.65 454.99 0.74 420.10 6.98 Ag 0.6077 0.6097 0.32 0.6061 0.26 0.6059 0.29
Iron 197.80 197.33 0.24 188.65 4.63 W 1.452 1.4612 0.63 1.4617 0.66 1.6040 10.47
Titanium 1 131.87 131.36 0.39 124.32 5.72 Fe 2.225 2.2452 0.92 2.2287 0.17 2.2601 1.59
Steel 1 230.77 230.30 0.20 218.27 5.42 Ti1 1.006 1.0074 0.13 0.9949 1.11 1.0399 3.36
Nickel 227.47 227.66 0.08 220.51 3.06 S1 1.978 1.9878 0.50 1.9627 0.77 2.0728 4.80
Steel 2 230.77 230.10 0.29 222.27 3.68 Ni 7.174 7.1812 0.10 7.1826 0.12 7.4826 4.30
Titanium 2 120.88 119.88 0.82 114.85 4.99 S2 5.937 5.9558 0.32 5.9364 0.01 6.1313 3.27
Aluminum 76.92 76.42 0.65 73.47 4.48 Ti2 2.172 2.1542 0.80 2.1292 1.96 2.2686 4.46
alloy Al2 1.84 1.8438 0.23 1.8277 0.64 1.9166 4.19
Ti–6Al–4 V 120.88 120.10 0.65 115.65 4.32 Ti3 3.235 3.2432 0.25 3.2203 0.46 3.3484 3.50
Zinc 9.89 9.95 0.56 9.72 1.68 Zn 0.7262 0.7351 1.24 0.7427 2.28 0.7318 0.77
Silicon 117.58 117.15 0.37 117.42 0.13 Si 12.68 12.5769 0.81 12.4712 1.64 12.3630 2.50
Material 17 114.01 113.18 0.73 108.69 4.67 M17 2.548 2.5492 0.04 2.5248 0.92 2.6636 4.52
Material 18 109.89 109.12 0.70 103.94 5.42 M18 2.295 2.2885 0.28 2.2703 1.07 2.4879 8.41
Material 19 133.22 132.08 0.86 127.36 4.40 M19 3.169 3.2121 1.37 3.1904 0.69 3.3046 4.29
Material 20 131.87 130.99 0.67 126.23 4.28 M20 3.187 3.1653 0.69 3.1414 1.44 3.2620 2.34
Material 21 130.35 129.67 0.52 124.87 4.20 M21 3.197 3.1162 2.53 3.0909 3.32 3.2185 0.67
Material 22 129.06 128.50 0.44 123.66 4.19 M22 3.210 3.0729 4.27 3.0467 5.09 3.1820 0.88

Table 7
for 22 representative materials. Maximum deviations in absolute Case study for sensitive analysis of the representative materials.
values in each case are depicted in Fig. 8–11. Maximum relative er- Case study Changes in the input data
rors in E⁄, H and Y, and deviations Dn of the strain hardening expo-
1 ±2% Error in C70.3, ±1% error in (Wt/We)70.3 and (Wt/We)60
nent n are also summarized in Table 8 in comparison with three 2 ±4% Error in C70.3, ±2% error in (Wt/We)70.3 and (Wt/We)60
dual indenter methods from the literature. 3 ±5% Error in C70.3
First remark should be made for the range of tested materials. 4 ±5% Error in (Wt/We)70.3 or ±5% error in (Wt/We)60
This range is 7.81E5 6 Y/E 6 0.056 in the present study, while it
was 0.001122 < Y/E < 0.1122 (10 6 E⁄/Y 6 1000; m = 0.33) and
0.00143 6 Y/E 6 0.04 in the work by Swaddiwudhipong et al. (2005), Lan and Venkatesh (2007a,b) have excluded many impor-
(2005), Lan and Venkatesh (2007a,b), respectively. Unfortunately, tant pure metals and engineering alloys, which exhibit low yield
sensitivity analyses investigated by Swaddiwudhipong et al. strength-elastic modulus ratio (Y/E < 0.0014) (Ashby, 2005), while
 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609 1607

11
Case 1 Case 2
10 Case 3 Case 4
9

% Error E *
8
7
6
5
4
3
Cu Al1 Au Pb Ag W Fe Ti1 S1 Ni S2 Ti2 Al2 Ti3 Zn Si M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22

Fig. 8. Sensitivity study on the reduced elastic modulus E⁄.

20
Case 1 Case 2
16 Case 3 Case 4
% Error H

12

0
Cu Al1 Au Pb Ag W Fe Ti1 S1 Ni S2 Ti2 Al2 Ti3 Zn Si M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22

Fig. 9. Sensitivity study on the hardness H.

0.28
Case 1 Case 2
0.24
Case 3 Case 4
0.20
0.16
Δn

0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
Cu Al1 Au Pb Ag W Fe Ti1 S1 Ni S2 Ti2 Al2 Ti3 Zn Si M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22

Fig. 10. Sensitivity study on the strain hardening exponent n.

80
Case 1 Case 2

60 Case 3 Case 4
% Error Y

40

20

0
Cu Al1 Au Pb Ag W Fe Ti1 S1 Ni S2 Ti2 Al2 Ti3 Zn Si M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22

Fig. 11. Sensitivity study on the yield strength Y.

they reported that high sensitivities in reverse results appear gen-
erally in materials of low Y/E. At least 5 materials (copper, alumi-
num, gold, lead, and silver) among 22 representative materials
considered in the present work fall well outside the range of tested
materials investigated by Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2005, Lan and
Venkatesh (2007a,b).
Second remark is slight differences in the use of indentation
parameters as input data. Swaddiwudhipong et al. (2005) carried
out the sensitivity analysis based on variations of ±2% errors in
C60 and C70.3, and ±1% errors in (Wp/Wt)60 and (Wp/Wt)70.3. These
conditions are ‘‘weakly equivalent’’ to case 1, see Table 7. Variation
of ±5% errors in Wp/Wt for the method by Chollacoop et al. (2003)
1608 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609

Table 8 Yield strength Y presents high sensitivities as clearly seen in

Results of sensitive analysis and comparison with other methods. Fig. 11 and Table 8. Errors in the yield strength Y appear in the
Case Present study Reference ranges (22%, 36%), (40%, 67%), (12%, 14%), and (46%, 82%)
1 ⁄
±6% in E ; Swaddiwudhipong et al. (2005) for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Errors in the yield strength
0.08 6 Dn 6 0.12; are exceptionally high for copper. This may be explained by the
±11% in H; %E⁄<20%; Dn 6 0.1 boundary effects since the yield strength–elastic modulus ratio of
22% 6 %Y 6 36%; copper (Y/E = 7.81E05) and strain hardening exponent n(n = 0.5)
Exception: %Y  60% %Y rises to 30% for n < 0.4
for Cu %Y rises to 70% for high n
fall in the neighborhood of the lower bound of the range of model
materials used in the simulation to formulate dimensionless func-
2 ±11% in E⁄;
0.14 6 Dn 6 0.22;
tions in the present study.
17% 6 %H 6 19%; It is severe to estimate accurately the yield strength Y and the
40% 6 %Y 6 67% strain hardening exponent n even without any perturbation of
Exception: %Y  150% the input data, especially for extreme materials with high value
for Cu
of Y/E and a very low strain hardening, or with very low value
3 ±6% in E⁄; Lan and Venkatesh (2007a), Method 1 for 50 of Y/E and a high strain hardening. Taking zinc as an example
and 70.3° indenters: ±10% in E⁄;
of extreme material, its strain hardening exponent was estimated
0.02 6 Dn 6 0.01; 0.25 6 Dn 6 0.2; 40% 6 %Y 6 50%
9% 6 %H 6 7%; Lan and Venkatesh (2007b): as 0 for several dual indenter methods (Bucaille et al., 2003;
12% 6 %Y 6 14% Method 1: ±20% in E⁄; 60% 6 %Y 6 80% Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2005). Four indenters were used to ob-
Method 2: ±10% in E⁄; 0.45 6 Dn 6 0.45; tain an acceptable result for zinc (Bucaille et al., 2003). Recently,
90% 6 %Y 6 100% Heinrich et al. (2009) proposed a dual sharp indenter method for
4 ±11% in E⁄; Lan and Venkatesh (2007b), Method 1: ±100% material characterization and showed that without perturbation
0.18 6 Dn 6 0.28; in E⁄; %Y rises to 100% of the input data, errors in Y and deviation of n rose to 17%
16% 6 %H 6 18%;
46% 6 %Y 6 82%;
and 0.135, respectively. They also reported that errors could rise
Exception: %Y  200% to 11% for E⁄, 66% for Y, and 0.27 (absolute error) for n, when the
for Cu indentation force (hence, the loading curvature C) was increased
by 5% (case 3 in the present study).
Method 1 and 2 refer to methods by Chollacoop et al. (2003) and Chen et al. (2007),
respectively.
6. Conclusion

as reported by Lan and Venkatesh (2007b) are ‘‘weakly equivalent’’
to case 4. Variation of ±5% errors in the loading curvatures are used
in case 3 in the present study and were previously investigated by
Lan and Venkatesh (2007a,b) for method 1 (Chollacoop et al., 2003)
and method 2 (Chen et al., 2007).
Overall, it may be seen from Table 8 that sensitivities of
reverse results in the present study are lower than those ob-
tained by three other methods, excepting that deviations of n
are slightly higher than those estimated by Swaddiwudhipong
et al. (2005) in case 1.
Reduced elastic modulus E⁄ exhibits very low sensitivity, within
±6% (in cases 1 and 3) and ±11% (in case 2 and 4) as shown in Fig. 8
and Table 8. Sensitivities of hardness H fall within ±11% in case 1,
from 17% to 19% in case 2, within ±9% in case 3, and from 16% to
18% in case 4, see Fig. 9 and Table 8. It should be emphasized that
errors in Vickers hardness estimated by the contact area can rise to
15% due to the typical friction between the indenter and specimen
(Mata and Alcalá, 2004).
Characteristics of low sensitivities in the reduced elastic modu-
lus E⁄ and hardness H were well discussed in Le (2008, 2009) in
connection with the features of mystical materials, which seem
to share or closely share the same indentation-depth curves as de-
scribed earlier by Chen et al. (2007). Le (2009) demonstrated that
mystical materials exhibit not only fair differences in their elastic
modulus as pointed out by Chen et al. (2007) but also in their hard-
ness. These two features are related to low variations of elastic
modulus and hardness due to uncertainties of input data (Le,
2008, 2009). By considering small deviations in corresponding
indentation parameters of such materials as perturbation, reverse
solution can be obtained in such severe cases without any special
treatment.
The strain hardening exponent n shows low to moderate sensi-
tivities. High sensitivity of n appears for materials of low strain
hardening and high yield strength-elastic modulus ratio Y/E (zinc
and silicon in the present study) as depicted in Fig. 10. This was
also remarked by Lan and Venkatesh (2007a,b) for several dual in-
denter methods considered in their work.
In the present work, several fundamental features in instru-
mented sharp indentation are investigated by conducting an
extensive FEA for a wide range of conical indenters within the
frame work of limit analysis. The main results are summarized as
follows:
 It is demonstrated that several functional forms, which were
previously suggested in Le (2008, 2009) for single and dual ind-
enters, are first-order approximations and only capture good
indentation responses for relatively low cone angles and with-
out friction. Based on these functional forms, a new set of
dimensionless functions is constructed for hardness and inden-
tation parameters within the framework of a Taylor series
expansion and dimensional analysis. Frictional effects are taken
into account.
 Using formulated explicit equations, a reverse analysis proce-
dure with dual sharp indenters of half-included angles of 60°
and 70.3°, which was previously proposed by the author, is
improved in the present work. This reverse procedure is simple,
straightforward and easily generalized for any dual indenters.
Reverse results are very good for 22 representative materials.
Deviations rise from 0.02 to 0.01 for the strain hardening
exponent n. Errors appear within ±1%, ±8.5%, and ±5% for the
reduced elastic modulus E⁄, the yield strength Y and the hard-
ness H, respectively.
 Comprehensive sensitivity analyses are carried out and com-
pared with other dual indenter methods from the literature.
In practice, frictional effects, imperfection of indenter tips, etc.
are inevitable. Further, typical experimental P–h curves have
stress relaxation at the maximum load and the tail of the
unloading curve is not stable. In addition, real materials do
not obey power law strain hardening exactly. Such mentioned
factors cause uncertainties of input data and hence several per-
cent of indentation error is very common in practice. Therefore,
it may be practically difficult to estimate accurately the strain
hardening exponent and yield strength due to their moderate
sensitivity. However, much less sensitivities were found for
 M.-Q. Le / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1600–1609
the elastic modulus and hardness, and their predicted values
remain reasonable for a wide range of materials with certain
perturbations of the input data.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Vietnam National Foundation for
Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED), Ministry of Sci-
ence and Technology, under the basic research program.
Appendix A
The coefficients in Eqs. (11) for h = 60°:
Ae ðnÞ ¼ 0:268266n2  1:5857n þ 2:842;
A0 ðnÞ ¼ 2:5686n2 þ 3:6252n  1:5689;
A1 ðnÞ ¼ 4:6173n2  4:2829n þ 0:6821;
and for h = 70.3°:
Ae ðnÞ ¼ 0:0622n2  2:1367n þ 4:3156;
A0 ðnÞ ¼ 1:691n2 þ 2:763n  1:3185;
A1 ðnÞ ¼ 2:8569n2  2:6672n þ 0:3232:
The coefficients in Eqs. (13):
F w ðnÞ ¼ 0:7927n3 þ 1:1695n2  1:2342n þ 1:7417;
F 0 ðnÞ ¼ 8:23n3  12:41n2 þ 7:057n  1:6765;
F 1 ðnÞ ¼ 24:787n3 þ 34:719n2  17:042n þ 3:1516;
F 2 ðnÞ ¼ 22:436n3  29:549n2 þ 13:613n  2:442:
It is noted that y = ln(E⁄/Y). The coefficients in Eqs. (14) for h = 70.3°:
Bw1 ¼ 0:43693:103 :y6  0:01795794y5 þ 0:3023497y4  2:677y3
þ 13:226y2  34:941y þ 41:7416;
Bw2 ¼ 0:378:104 y6  0:00191489y5 þ 0:0393099y4  0:420496y3
þ 2:49396y2  7:9345y þ 12:1387:
The coefficients in Eqs. (17) for h = 70.3°:
K e ðnÞ ¼ 9:1747n3 þ 11:899n2  7:63n þ 6:6166;
K 0 ðnÞ ¼ 8:445n3  14:834n2 þ 9:9n  2:9648;
K 1 ðnÞ ¼ 3:3248n3 þ 9:0657n2  10:2594n þ 2:82;
K 2 ðnÞ ¼ 13:691n3 þ 6:2355n2 þ 2:759n  1:8514:
The coefficients in Eqs. (19) for h = 70.3°:
Mw ðnÞ ¼ 19:1n3 þ 26:45n2  15:572n þ 10:021;
M0 ðnÞ ¼ 73:887n3  122:558n2 þ 79:782n  21:08;
M1 ðnÞ ¼ 42:203n3 þ 142:148n2  124n þ 34:131;
M2 ðnÞ ¼ 50:41n3  12:245n2 þ 56:249n  20:741:
1609
References
Alkorta, J., Martinez-Esnaola, J.M., Gil Sevillano, J., 2006. Comments on ‘‘Comments
on the determination of mechanical properties from the energy dissipated
during indentation’’ by J. Malzbender [J. Mater. Res. 20 (2005) 1090]. Journal of
Materials Research 21 (1), 302–306.
Ashby, M.F., 2005. Material Selection in Mechanical Design, third ed. Pergamom
Press, London.
Bucaille, J.L., Stauss, S., Felder, E., Michler, J., 2003. Determination of plastic
properties of metals by instrumented indentation using different sharp
indenters. Acta Materialia 51, 1663–1678.
Cao, Y.P., Qian, X.Q., Lu, J., Yao, Z.H., 2005. An energy-based method to extract plastic
properties of metal materials from conical indentation tests. Journal of
Materials Research 20 (5), 1194–1206.
Chen, X., Ogasawara, N., Zhao, M., Chiba, N., 2007. On the uniqueness of measuring
elastoplastic properties from indentation: the indistinguishable mystical
materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 55, 1618–1660.
Cheng, Y.T., Cheng, C.M., 2004. Scaling, dimensional analysis, and indentation
measurements. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 44 (4–5), 91–149.
Cheng, Y.T., Li, Z., Cheng, C.M., 2002. Scaling relationships for indentation
measurements. Philosophical Magazine A 82 (10), 1821–1829.
Chollacoop, N., Dao, M., Suresh, S., 2003. Depth-sensing instrumented indentation
with dual sharp indenters. Acta Materialia 51, 3713–3729.
Dao, M., Chollacoop, N., Van Vliet, K.J., Venkatesh, T.A., Suresh, S., 2001.
Computational modeling of the forward and reverse problems in
instrumented sharp indentation. Acta Materialia 49 (19), 3899–3918.
DiCarlo, A., Yang, H.T.Y., Chandrasekar, S., 2004. Prediction of stress–strain relation
using cone indentation: effect of friction. International Journal for Numerical
Method in Engineering 60, 661–674.
Harsono, E., Swaddiwudhipong, S., Liu, Z.S., 2008. The effect of friction on
indentation test results. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and
Engineering 16, 1–11.
Heinrich, C., Waas, A.M., Wineman, A.S., 2009. Determination of material properties
using nanoindentation and multiple indenter tips. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 46, 364–376.
Johnson, K.L., 1985. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Lan, H., Venkatesh, T.A., 2007a. Determination of the elastic and plastic properties of
materials through instrumented indentation with reduced sensitivity. Acta
Materialia 55, 2025–2041.
Lan, H., Venkatesh, T.A., 2007b. On the uniqueness and sensitivity issues in
determining the elastic and plastic properties of power-law hardening
materials through sharp and spherical indentation. Philosophical Magazine 87
(30), 4671–4729.
Le, M.-Q., 2008. A computational study on the instrumented sharp indentations
with dual indenters. International Journal of Solids and Structures 45 (10),
2818–2835.
Le, M.-Q., 2009. Material characterization by dual sharp indenters. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 46, 2988–2998.
Luo, J., Lin, J., 2007. A study on the determination of plastic properties of metals by
instrumented indentation using two sharp indenters. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 44 (18–19), 5803–5817.
Mata, M., Alcalá, J., 2004. The role of friction on sharp indentation. Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 52 (1), 145–165.
Ogasawara, N., Chiba, N., Chen, X., 2005. Representative strain of indentation
analysis. Journal of Materials Research 20, 2225–2234.
Ogasawara, N., Chiba, N., Chen, X., 2006. Limit analysis-based approach to
determine the material plastic properties with conical indentation. Journal of
Materials Research 21, 947–958.
Polyanin, A.D., Manzhirov, A.V., 2007. Handbook of Mathematics for Engineers and
Scientists. Taylor and Francis Group. p. 257.
Ruan, H.H., Chen, A.Y., Lu, J., 2010. Characterization of plastically graded
nanostructured material: part I. The theories and the inverse algorithm of
nanoindentation. Mechanics of Materials 42, 559–569.
Swaddiwudhipong, S., Tho, K.K., Liu, Z.S., Zeng, K., 2005. Material characterization
based on dual indenters. International Journal of Solids and Structures 42, 69–
83.
Tabor, D., 1951. Hardness of Metals. Clarendon Press, UK.
Yan, J., Karlsson, A.M., Chen, X., 2007. Determining plastic properties of a material
with residual stress by using conical indentation. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 44 (11–12), 3720–3737.