Quantitative evaluation of nanoindents: Do we need more reliable mechanical parameters for the characterization of materials?

Abstract

Abstract Various sources of errors in the standard procedure according to the ISO 14577 draft for the iteration of elastic modulus and hardness of solid materials, with reference to fused quartz with its particular and unique indentation response, are pointed out on the basis of practical examples. Similar objections exist towards the use of the S 2 F N – 1 parameter, where S is the stiffness and F N is the normal force. It is suggested to use unambiguous mechanic characterization (at least additionally) by quantitative analysis of the loading curves in nanoindentations. These exhibit a general dependence between normal force and (displacement)3/2, the proportionality constant k being a non-iterated nanoindentation coefficient with dimension [force/length3/2] and unit [μN/nm3/2] that depends on the indenter tip geometry (pyramidal or conospherical) and is a characteristic material’s property. The validity has been demonstrated for virtually all types of materials (metals, semimetals, oxides, salts, organic molecular crystals, polymers) independent of their different bonding states. Pressure-induced phase transitions are detected by kinks in the linear plots for the loading curves well in the nanoindentation region. Crystalline materials, such as strontium titanate, exhibit far-reaching anisotropic effects along lattice axes that would strongly forbid the reference to an amorphous standard. The nanoindentation coefficient characterizes the different polymorphs and the face anisotropies. Another unambiguous mechanical characterization is given by the full work of indentation (as differentiated from the less secure plastic work of indentation). It also characterizes the face anisotropies with high precision for a given indenter as it is found proportional to (normal force)3/2, which allows for useful extrapolations.