Calculation of Indentation

Contact Area and Strain

Using Hertz Theory
Brendan Donohue
Advisor: Prof Surya Kalidindi

Graduate Seminar
16 October 2009
 Contributions to the Field
Mesarovic &
Tabor, 1951 Johnson, 1985 Fleck, 1998
Hertz, 1882
Comprehensive work on Collection of Comprehensive FEM studies.
Load-displacement macroindentation, load analytical, experimental Elastic-plastic
relationships of displacement results, theory behavior, friction, hardening,
quadratic surfaces in relationships, hardness mesh quality, numerical
elastic contact errors.

Hill, 1950 Sneddon, 1965 Oliver & Pharr, 1992

Flow line Analytical expressions Nanoindentation, modulus
predictions of of load-displacement from unloading stiffness
plastic using integral
deformation for transforms, theory of
wedge indenter elasticity

** 1980 Myer proposes new

hardness definition to correct
size effect in Brinell Hardness

Load
HB (Myer) 
Projected Area
 Local Properties
Radovic et al., 2004 Modulus from unloading segment
Basis: Hertz theory
Limitations: friction, ansotropy, contact area

Pyrex Glass ALA4 4140 Steel

Aluminum
Displacement 51.20 901.32 52.08 1452.7 53.43 962.36
(nm) 6

Load (mN) 0.35 79.96 0.16 79.94 0.81 9.12

Modulus 62.33 61.208 77.38 74.02 216 187.55

(GPa)

Bell et al., 1992

 Hertz Theory
Hertz Theory (1882): Provides a link between linear elasticity and
deflections of quadratic surfaces in contact

Linear
Quadratic
Elastic
Surfaces
Solids
•Each body regarded as
elastic half space with
elliptical contact shape
Load Separation of
•Frictionless contact, only
normal pressures transmitted
Surfaces
Modulus
•Dimensions of contact small Curvature of
Poisson’s Ratio compared to size of body and
Surface
curvature of surfaces

Displacement
Contact Area
 Quadratic Surfaces
R1 Each body traced out by
y1 R1 quadratic surfaces
1 2 1 2
z1  x1 + y1
2R1 2R1
x1 z -1 2 1 2
z1 z2 

x2 -

y2
X 2R2 2R 2
Separation between bodies
1 1 1 1
( ) (
X+
)
2 2

z2 z1 - z2  + + Y
2R1 2R2
  
Y 2R1 2R2

R2
Axisymmetric Bodies, Circular Contact
R2 y2 1 2 1 1 1
z1 - z2  * r *  +
2R R R1 R2
x2
 Linear Elastic Solids
d R1 +
ds z z1
Y a 
+r u ht
  X
 
X
 a z2
 
Pressure Distribution and Displacement: + R2
p(r )  po 2 2 1/ 2
a (a - r )
*
po  2E h t po  2aE*
*
po 
3P
2p
2pa
2

( )
uz r 
po
* ∫( a
2
- r
2
+ r
2
cos
2
)d  pa  pR
4aE 0 *
33PR
Displacement Boundary Condition:
ppo ( 2 2 ) 1 2
a  *
* 2a - r + *
r  ht 4E
4aE 2R
 Elastic Contact
• Assumptions: linear elastic, isotropic material, frictionless contact

1
2 hc  he 2
hc << Ri hC
a 2Ri hc - h c 2
4 * 1/ 2 3/ 2
P  E Ri he
a  Ri he 3
For Purely Elastic Contact, Spherical
Ri + Indenter and Flat Surface
a Ri  R
*

hc ht  he


 Complete Load/Unload
Fully
Indenter Fully Loaded Preloaded
Unloaded
Surface Surface Surface
Surface

1 (1- n ) (1- n )
2 2
s i
Rs *  +
a hp E Es Ei
ht hc
Ri
he 1 1 1
*  +
* R Ri Rs
4 * 3PR
P  E hea  
a
3
*
i  indenter
3  4E s  sample
4 * *1/ 2 3/ 2 * Displacement Must Be Purely
P  E R he a  R he Elastic
3
 Unloading segment is assumed
purely elastic
 Inelastic Contact

Assume unloading segment is purely elastic

he  ht - hp
4 * *1/ 2 3/ 2
P  E R ( ht - hp )
3
Rs  finite
1 1 1
*  +
R Ri -Rs ht

Load, P
hp Lo
ad
ing
he

g
Ri  R
*

in
ad


lo
Un
Displacement, h
a  Ri he The assumption is valid for the case of a
spherical indenter on
 a flat surface, 1/R s ≈ 0
 State of the Field
Most analyses use Hertz theory as foundation

Characterize local mechanical properties: Yield point, modulus

Characterize local anisotropy

Challenges
Surface preparation
Friction
Valid Definition of Indentation Stress and Strain

Suggestions
Make use of finite elements
Impose magnitude of friction, hardening, flow stress, elastic modulus
Requires a sound definition of Indentation Stress and Strain
 Strain Definition

Pathak, et al. 2008

Physically unrealizable modulus determined

Completely Elastic Post-Elastic

ht a a ht a a
  *   *
a Ri R a Ri R
 Indentation Stress-Strain
• How to construct an indentation stress-stain curve?
• For each point (Pi , hti ) on the unloading curve, compute the regression
to get effective radius and plastic displacement
-1
 1   N  2 3 2 N   N i 2 
3   i   Pi   ht Pi 3 
2
 2 P  3
4 * 
  E R*   i1N i1  i1 
 3      N
i 
   t 
2
P 3
N  h

 h pi  
  i1
i
  i1 
• Compute the contact depth and contact radius

(ht + hp )
*
1 3 PR
hc 
 a  2hc Ri - hc2 a3 
2 4E *
• Compute the indentation stress and strain using Hooke’s law

P  4 a 4 he
 2 e  *  
pa E 3p Ri 3p a
 Indentation Maps
Mesarovic & Fleck, 2000

Park & Pharr, 2004

 Stress-Strain Behavior Using Finite Elements:
t  4 ht
*
3PR
a 
3 Modulus and Yield
* 3p a Versus P Strength are imposed
4E
pa 2
Meyer Raw data is load and

t  4 a
Stress displacement
2
a 2Ri hc - h How do SS curve differ
c
3p Ri with definitions of ‘a’
1.40 and strain??
Meyer
Stress 1.20
(GPa)
1.00 E *  560 GPa
E *  370 GPa
0.80 a  2hc Ri - hc2
a  2hc Ri - hc2 4a
0.60
E *  179 GPa
t 
4ht 3pRi
t 
( )
0.40 1/ 3

3pa
*
a  3PR
4E*
0.20 4ht
t 
3pa
0.00
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060

Indentation Strain
 Stress Contours
ht (nm) aFEM (um) aQ (um) aE (um) Q (GPa) E (GPa)
0.63 0.089 0.10 0.088 0.426 0.552

0.73 0.108 0.111 0.093 0.429 0.608

ht  0.63nm ht  0.73nm

0.479
a 0.425
a
 
2.4a
2.4a



 Conclusions

Significant difficulties exist in determining local

behavior with nanoindentation

Not all definitions of strain are equal

Finite element modeling of indetation

useful in critically examining Hertz’
theory and generating indentation Stress
Strain curves
 Draft Slide
Spherical Geometry
n  12

R1 he  2(ht - hc )
Pure Elastic Behavior
XY z1 ht  he, hp  0
c  z1 - z2 z2 1
hc  2 he
 R2

