Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T08:06:22.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A critical examination of the Berkovich vs. conical indentation based on 3D finite element calculation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Sanghoon Shim
The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Materials Science & Eng., Knoxville, TN 37996
Warren C. Oliver
MTS Systems Corporation, Nanoinstruments Innovation Center, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
George M. Pharr
The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Materials Science & Eng., Knoxville, TN 37996 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Metals & Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Get access


Much of our understanding of the elastic-plastic contact mechanics needed to interpret nanoindentation data comes from two-dimensional, axisymmetric finite element simulations of conical indentation. In many instances, conical results adequately describe real experimental results obtained with the Berkovich triangular pyramidal indenter, particularly if the angle of the cone is chosen to give the same area-to-depth ratio as the pyramid. For example, conical finite element simulations with a cone angle of 70.3° have been found to accurately simulate experimental load-displacement curves obtained with the Berkovich indenter. There are instances, however, where conical simulations fail to capture important behavior. Here, 3D finite element simulations of Berkovich indentation of fused silica are compared to similar simulations with a 70.3° cone. It is shown that a potentially significant difference between the two indenters exists for the contact areas and contact stiffnesses. Implications for the interpretation of nanoindentation data are discussed.

Research Article
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

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.)



1. Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Bhattacharya, A.K. and Nix, W.D., Int. J. Solids Structures 24, 881 (1988).Google Scholar
3. Laursen, T.A. and Simo, J.C., J. Mater. Res. 7, 618 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Sun, Y., Bell, T., and Zheng, S., Thin Sol. Films 258, 198 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Bolshakov, A., Oliver, W.C., and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res. 11, 760 (1996).Google Scholar
6. Min, Li, Wei-min, Chen, Nai-gang, Liang, and Ling-Dong, Wang, J. Mater. Res. 19, 73 (2004).Google Scholar
7. Larsson, P.-L. and Vestergaard, R., Int. J. Solids Structures 31, 2679 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Larsson, P.-L., Giannakopoulos, A.E., Söderlund, E., Rowcliffe, D.J., and Vestergaard, R., Int. J. Solids Structures 33, 221 (1996).Google Scholar
9. Cheng, Y.-T. and Cheng, C.-M., Int. J. Solids Structures 36, 1231 (1999).Google Scholar
10. Hay, J.C. and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res. 14, 2296 (1999).Google Scholar
11. Sneddon, I. N., Int. J. Eng. Science 3, 47 (1965).Google Scholar
12. Strader, J.H., Oliver, W.C., and Pharr, G.M., submitted, these Proceedings. Google Scholar