Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:15:17.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hardness obtained from conical indentations with various cone angles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Yang-Tse Cheng  and
Zhiyong Li
Yang-Tse Cheng
Affiliation:
Materials and Processes Laboratory, General Motors Research and Development Center, Warren, Michigan 48090
Zhiyong Li
Affiliation:
Materials and Processes Laboratory, General Motors Research and Development Center, Warren, Michigan 48090
Get access

Abstract

The relationship between hardness and cone angle of conical indenters was studied using finite element analysis for elastic–plastic solids with work-hardening. Comparisons were made between the present simulation results, slip line theory, and experimental results. Tabor's concept of representative strain based on indentation experiments in metals (The Hardness of Metals, Oxford, 1951) was shown to be applicable to a wide range of materials. The relative size of plastic zone with respect to the contact radius was found to influence the variation of hardness with indenter cone angle. The method proposed by Atkins and Tabor [J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 13, 149 (1965)] for constructing stress-strain curves using representative strains was also examined, and the conditions under which the method is valid were obtained.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 15 , Issue 12 , December 2000 , pp. 2830 - 2835
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

1.Tabor, D., The Hardness of Metals (Oxford, London, United Kingdom, 1951).Google Scholar
2.Doerner, M.F. and Nix, W.D., J. Mater. Res. 1, 601 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cheng, Y.T. and Cheng, C.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 614 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Sakai, M., Acta Metall. Mater. 41, 1751 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Meyer, E., Zeits. D. Vereines Deutsch. Ingenieure 52, 645 (1908).Google Scholar
7.Shaw, M.C., in The Science of Hardness Testing and Its Research Applications, edited by Westbrook, J.H. and Conrad, H. (ASM, Metals Park, Ohio, 1973), p. 1.Google Scholar
8.Marsh, D.M., Proc. Royal Soc. A279, 420 (1964).Google Scholar
9.Sakai, M., J. Mater. Res. 14, 3630 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Atkins, A.G. and Tabor, D., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13, 149 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lockett, F.J., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 11, 345 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Sneddon, I.N., Int. J. Eng. Sci. 3, 47 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Laursen, T.A. and Simo, J.C., J. Mater. Res. 7, 618 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Cheng, Y.T. and Cheng, C.M., J. Appl. Phys. 84, 1284 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Cheng, Y.T. and Cheng, C.M., Phil. Mag. Lett. 78, 115 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Hay, J.C., Bolshakov, A., and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 14, 2296 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Hibbitt, , Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., ABAQUS, version 5.6 (HKS Inc., Pawtuckett, RI, 1996).Google Scholar
18.Dugdale, D.S., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2, 265 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Johnson, K.L., Contact Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar