Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:55:58.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconciliation of nanoscratch hardness with nanoindentation hardness including the effects of interface shear stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2004

Noureddine Tayebi ,
Thomas F. Conry  and
Andreas A. Polycarpou
Noureddine Tayebi
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, and Department of General Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Thomas F. Conry*
Affiliation:
Department of General Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Andreas A. Polycarpou
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The definitions of hardness from nanoscratch and nanoindentation analyses with a spherical indenter were compared and shown to be mathematically equivalent for the case of zero interface shear stress (surface traction). The definition of nanoindentation hardness was taken as the ratio of the resultant force to the area of contact projected on a plane normal to the line of action of the resultant force, whereas in the case of the nanoscratch technique, the hardness and interfacial shear stress were related to the measured normal and lateral forces in a nanoscratch experiment, as well as to the cross-sectional area of the groove. The two definitions of hardness were then applied to nanoscratch experimental data from material systems covering a wide range of hardness values. The calculated values of hardness from the two definitions were based on the contact area, determined from the scratch residual profile and the elastic recovery of the plastically deformed surface, and yielded the same values of hardness within experimental error. The contact angle, and thus the contact area, was shown experimentally to be sensitive to interface shear stress: a positive increase in interface shear stress led to a reduction in contact area as compared to the case of a frictionless contact. For a material with given hardness, normal indenter force, and contact area, a positive or negative interface shear stress is balanced by a positive or negative change, respectively, in the lateral force about the value needed to maintain a static balance for a frictionless nanoscratch contact. A comparison of these effects with experimental data indicates that very hard materials tend to have negative to zero interface shear stress, which correlates to a sink-in effect, whereas the soft materials tend to have positive interface shear stress, which correlates to a pileup effect.

Keywords

HardnessNanoindentationTribology
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 19 , Issue 11 , November 2004 , pp. 3316 - 3323
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Tabor, D.: The Hardness of Metals, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1951Google Scholar
2Tabor, D.: Indentation hardness: Fifty years on. A personal view. Philos. Mag. A. 74, 1207 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Shaw, M.C.: The Science of Hardness Testing and its Research Applications, edited by Westbrook, J.H. and Conrad, H. (American Society of Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1973), p. 3Google Scholar
4Pethica, J.B., Hutchings, R. and Oliver, W.C.: Hardness measurement at penetration depths as small as 20 nm. Philos. Mag. A. 48, 593 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M.: An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
6Bückle, H.: The Science of Hardness Testing and its Research Applications, edited by Westbrook, J.H. and Conrad, H. (American Society of Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1973), p. 472Google Scholar
7Bhattacharya, A.K. and Nix, W.D.: Analysis of elastic and plastic deformation associated with indentation testing of thin films on substrates. Int. J. Solids Structures 24, 1287 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Gao, H., Chui, S-H. and Lee, J.: Elastic contact versus indentation modeling of multi-layered materials. Int. J. Solids Structures 29, 2471 (1992).Google Scholar
9Tsui, T.Y. and Pharr, G.M.: Substrate effects on nanoindentation mechanical property measurement of soft films on hard substrates. J. Mater. Res. 14, 292 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Tsui, T.Y., Vlassak, J.J. and Nix, W.D.: Indentation plastic displacement field: Part I. The case of soft films on hard substrates. J. Mater. Res. 14, 2196 (1999).Google Scholar
11Tsui, T.Y., Vlassak, J.J. and Nix, W.D.: Indentation plastic displacement field: Part II. The case of hard films on soft substrates. J. Mater. Res. 14, 2204 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Mohs, F.: Grundriss der Mineralogie (1824), English translation by W. Haidinger, Treatise of Mineralogy, Constable, Edinburgh, Scotland (1825)Google Scholar
13Tayebi, N., Conry, T.F. and Polycarpou, A.A.: Determination of hardness from nanoscratch experiments: Corrections for interfacial shear stress and elastic recovery. J. Mater. Res. 18, 2150 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Tayebi, N., Polycarpou, A.A. and Conry, T.F.: Effects of the substrate on the determination of hardness of thin films by the nanoscratch and nanoindentation techniques. J. Mater. Res. 19, 1791 (2004).Google Scholar
15Tabor, D.: The physical meaning of indentation and scratch hardness. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 7, 159 (1956).Google Scholar
16Subhash, G. and Zhang, W.: Investigation of the overall friction coefficient in single-pass scratch test. Wear 252, 123 (2002).Google Scholar
17Williams, J.A.: Analytical models of scratch hardness. Tribol. Intl. 29, 675 (1996).Google Scholar