Use of hardness, PIP and tensile testing to obtain stress-strain relationships for metals

Abstract

Both hardness testing and Profilometry-based Indentation Plastometry (PIP) can be used to obtain features of (tensile) stress-strain curves. The two tests are superficially similar, involving penetration (under a known load) of an indenter into the flat surface of a sample, followed by measurement of dimensional characteristics of the residual indent. The associated data handling procedures, however, are very different in the two types of test. Hardness numbers, which are commonly based on measurement of the lateral extent or depth of the indent, essentially give a semi-quantitative indication of the resistance to plastic deformation: going beyond this to infer features of the (nominal) stress-strain curve – notably the yield stress (YS) and Ultimate Tensile Stress (UTS) – can only be done via empirical correlations (often restricted to certain types of alloy). PIP testing, on the other hand, involves measurement of the complete indent profile, followed by (automated) iterative FEM modelling of the indentation, allowing the complete (true) stress-strain curve to be obtained. This paper covers application of both approaches to 12 different alloys, with inferred stress-strain characteristics being compared with those from tensile testing. Insights are provided relating to the very different levels of detail and reliability offered by the two procedures.