Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bsms20

Hardness as an indicator of material strength: a

critical review

Giuseppe Pintaude

To cite this article: Giuseppe Pintaude (2022): Hardness as an indicator of material

strength: a critical review, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/10408436.2022.2085659

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408436.2022.2085659

Published online: 07 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bsms20
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408436.2022.2085659

REVIEW

Hardness as an indicator of material strength: a critical review

Giuseppe Pintaude
Academic Department of Mechanics, Universidade Tecnol
ogica Federal do Paran
a, Curitiba, Brazil

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Hardness is a powerful property to evaluate the deformation behavior of materials. It serves as Hardness; indentation; yield
confident quality control for several processes, especially in the heat treatment of metals. With strength; hardening
the advent of depth-sensing indentation, this technique embraces the determination of other
mechanical properties. As proof, recognized standards are available to guide the evaluation of
Young’s modulus using instrumented indentation. However, there are continuous efforts to
describe the strength using hardness apparatus. This critical review aims to compile all ways of
correlation between hardness and uniaxial strength. This relationship is usually addressed by a
single value, called constraint factor, vastly recognized in metals as approximately 3. From a the-
oretical point of view, this value works well for materials with rigid-plastic behavior, where hard-
ening effects can be discharged. Divergent variations presented herein show difficulties in
incorporating the effect of plastic properties on the constraint factor determination. In the same
way, the empirical determinations did not consider the differences in hardening exponents, put-
ting in the same statistical analysis diverse microstructures. A specific section discusses the con-
straint factor for nonmetallic materials. There are critical doubts for determining strength from
hardness values in this case. The existence of several approaches to estimate the constraint fac-
tor in brittle materials did not assure yet a unique value for the same material, which put in evi-
dence the lack of a robust physical basis to understand the plastic deformation under
indentation. Future trends are indicated along with these observations to become practical the
recent developments that have allied hardness and strength. The most important aspect is to
combine adequately the experimental and simulation approaches, which can be supported by
an analysis of residual imprints of hardness and finite element model.

Nomenclature: a: contact radius; A: constant of proportionality in Meyer hardness; b: geo-

metrical factor defining indentation morphology; B: bulk modulus; c: radius of plastic zone;
C: constraint factor; d: size of indentation; E: Young’s modulus; ECM: expanding cavity
model; G: shear modulus; hf: residual depth; hmax: maximum indentation depth; H: hardness;
K: strength coefficient; L: applied load; M: Meyer index; n: strain hardening coefficient; pM:
indentation pressure; R2: coefficient of determination; S: stiffness; UTS: ultimate tensile
strength; Y: yield strength; eP: true strain; eR: representative strain; eY: yield strain; rR: repre-
sentative stress; rP: true stress; h: semi included cone angle

Table of contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
2. The full plasticity regime: a necessary definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
3. Empirical relationships between hardness and strength in metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4. Constraint factor of nonmetals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
5. Future trends and concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Declaration of interest statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1. Introduction
limit to be avoided, meaning that the yielding is
Yield strength (Y) is a relevant property for engineer- equivalent to a failure. Otherwise, from a manufactur-
ing purposes and probably the most used to design ing point of view, the yielding point should be sur-
materials.1 For a structural engineer, this property is a passed to obtain a specific product shape. For that,

CONTACT Giuseppe Pintaude [email protected]

ß 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 G. PINTAUDE

of Figure 1. The instrumentation of the hardness system

has started in 1977,10 gained support in the 80 s,11 and
finally was consolidated in the 90 s.12 Even before the
seminal papers of Doerner & Nix13 and Oliver & Pharr,14
the determination of elastic modulus through observing
the Knoop indentations had been proposed by Marshal
et al.15 Nowadays, ISO16 and ASTM17 standards consoli-
date the elastic modulus determination employing depth-
sensing indentation tests. Franco et al.18 presented for a
broad range of materials the possible differences between
two methodologies described in standards for the elastic
Figure 1. Schematic illustration positioning service conditions, modulus determination through Vickers indenter – the
uniaxial and hardness tests within coverage of properties and linear extrapolation and power-law methods. Recently,
complexity of their determination. Adapted from.9 Phani et al.19 summarized the various factors affecting the
determination of elastic contact stiffness. A review on the
the stress state is reduced to a uniaxial case (equiva- uncertainties in determining the elastic properties is due
lent stress), turning it possible to compare with the to D
ıaz.20 He pointed out that the theoretical uncertainties
yield strength determined through uniaxial tests.2 are more critical to soft metals than hard ones.
Yielding criteria are valuable tools to predict yielding Although we can recognize a consolidation of elas-
considering various loadings in all cases. tic modulus determination, the same is not valid for
Performing uniaxial tests is an expensive task for plastic properties, remains a challenge. Besides the
some situations. Some components are manufactured yield strength, the strain hardening exponent is
using micro/nano feedstock materials, and their final another property relevant to forming processes, and
shape is restricted enough to build a sample. In these its effect should be considered fundamental to under-
cases, the hardness test is suitable for estimating the stand the indentation as a whole. For sharp indenters,
strength. Two examples are within the most common proposals from MIT in the 2000s21–24 have received
to illustrate these situations. First, the broad utilization attention to surpass this challenge, using the reverse
of the Rockwell C hardness scale3 for quenched and and forward algorithms to reproduce the stress-strain
tempered steels shows that the heat treatment processes curves and then obtaining the plastic properties. Even
need to use a quality control different from the tensile some deviations were noted for quenched and tem-
test.4 The strict relationship between heat treatment of pered steels25 and polymers26 using the MIT pro-
steel and hardness is that the same person – Adolf posals, these investigations have opened the way to
Martens – received an honor due to the micro-constitu- better solutions, including for thin films.27 The appli-
ent (martensite)5 and a hardness scale (Martens cation of algorithms to find the plastic properties
Hardness6) The other is the specific standard for hard- from the hardness test is out of the review’s scope. An
metals through the Rockwell A scale.7 Tool components evaluation of possible differences between applying
are manufactured using powder metallurgy, and their these protocols and the determined values from tensile
final dimensions are too small compared to those neces- tests were described by Mohan et al.28
sary to perform a tensile test. Besides, the fracture This review aims to organize the concepts regarding
toughness of hardmetals can be determined using hard- the relationship between hardness and strength in this
ness apparatus. Recently, Chychko et al.8 have published context. The empirical and semi-empirical relationships
a series of charts for cemented carbides regarding hard- are revisited, and finally, the application of this relation
ness and toughness based on this possibility. for nonmetals is discussed in light of the elastoplastic
Nonetheless, a universal equation does not achieve regime of indentation. The deformation regimes during
a relationship between the yield strength and the an indentation process should be described, allowing a
hardness. Hardness could be considered a restricted didactic vision of the constraint factor.
system compared to service conditions, as illustrated
in Figure 19.
2. The full plasticity regime: a
When the advent of nanoindentation could be recog-
necessary definition
nized as a powerful technique for materials characteriza-
tion, the range of application of hardness system has Tabor29 has perceived an asymptotic curve for stress-
reached a similar status of tensile test, changing the plots strain during spherical indentation. It means that the
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 3

Figure 4. The physical model for a wedge indentation from

Hill et al.36 Point C is a free surface and the pressure at AB
face is converted in hardness.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration indicating the representative

strain (eP ) for a metal. Adapted from.30 1. What is the effect of indenter geometry on the
constraint factors?
2. What effect does work hardening, expressed by
the strain-hardening exponent, have on the con-
straint factors?
3. What does express the representative strain dur-
ing the indentation process?

From a didactic point of view, all questions can be

addressed separately, but we already know that they
are intimated correlated. Herein the attempt is to
organize the concepts chronologically. Figure 3 shows
the evolution of dependent parameters in defining
stress constraint factors.
The first approach for the constraint factor is to
take it as constant (concept I). Following Hutchings,31
Brinell found a relationship between his scale and the
ultimate tensile strength (UTS). If the material is
Figure 3. Evolution of concepts to define the stress constraint
factor in an indentation process. assumed to be rigid-perfectly plastic, the yield strength
in the analysis can be interpreted as the UTS.
Wahlberg32,33 confirmed a relationship using a coeffi-
strain hardening effects could be neglected, where a
cient of 2.89 for a wide range of steels. Herein, we
perfectly plastic material (strain-hardening exponent
will have a specific section for empirical relationships
n ¼ 0) behaves. The stress constraint factor (C) is
between hardness and strength for diverse materials.
defined as the relationship between the hardness (H)
After, the approach of constant value for stress con-
and the yield strength (Y) (Equation 1). Therefore,
straint factor was experimentally summarized by Tabor.29
the hardness can be described as “the expression of
material strength during the indentation at the full It was also determined by plasticity theories in which a
plasticity regime.” rigid-plastic material is a necessary assumption, such as
the slip-line fields34 and the upper-bound theorem.35
C ¼ H=Y (1) Using slip-line fields, Hill et al.36 verified the effect
Figure 2 presents the stress-strain during indenta- of indenter geometry on the stress constraint factor.
tion and uniaxial tests. The strain representing this Considering a frictionless indentation, they built a
occurrence is an initial problem in defining the begin- field of stresses based on a wedge with a semi-angle h
ning of the full plasticity regime. For that purpose, (Figure 4). In this case, the contact pressure varies
Tabor has defined the strain constraint factor for from 1.5Y to 3.0Y when b lies between 30 and 90
spherical contact as 0.2a/R, where a is the contact (flat punch case).
radius and R is the ball radius. Besides this question, A more recent investigation performed by37 con-
other issues should be described to get a complete firmed the decrease in the constraint factor for a small
solution between an indentation stress-strain and uni- included semi-angle. In that study, Ghosh et al.37 cal-
axial stress-strain: culated for cube-corner indenter (cone equivalent
4 G. PINTAUDE

The exponent M, known as the Meyer index, was

found to depend on the state of work hardening of
the metal. Tabor29 verified, only for the spherical
indentation, a relationship between Meyer index and
strain-hardening exponent (Equation 3):
M ¼nþ2 (3)
The exclusive relation between Meyer hardness and
plasticity was discussed by Sakai.41 He concluded that
the meaning of Meyer’s concept is intimately related
to the work of indentation. In this sense, elastic and
plastic portions should be present in the Meyer con-
cept. Further, Yu et al.42 confirmed Sakai’s proposal,
Figure 5. Constraint factor as a function of semi-angle under formulating a linear relation (Equation 4) where
conical indentation for a different level of work-hardening. Meyer’s index is a function of the yield strain (eY )
Adapted from.39 and the strain-hardening exponent simultaneously.
M ¼ ð70:436eY þ 2:1866Þn þ ð49:355eY þ 1:8547Þ
angle of 42.28) a theoretical C ¼ 1.81. This value is
closer to verified experimentally by them for tested (4)
AA7075-T6 aluminum alloy under cube-corner inden- The Meyer hardness is derived from the projected
tation, which resulted in C ¼ 1.86 ± 0.10. area of indentation, meaning that a similarity between
The third approach includes the effect of work indenter geometry and indentation mark could exist.
hardening on the constraint factor. This dependence This regime was verified by Hill et al.43 in which a
was recognized in a classical investigation about rigid-plastic indentation finds an overall solution. This
indentation. For example, Bishop et al.38 quoted in solution claims by a geometrical factor, b2, defined in
1945 that “Various empirical rules have been given Equation 5:
from time to time in order to estimate the tensile yield b2 ¼ a2 =2hR (5)
stress from a hardness test. It is clear that no general
conversion factor can be laid down, even for the same where, a ¼ indentation radius, h ¼ total indentation
material, since the factor will depend largely on the depth, R ¼ ball radius.
This factor c2 can be used to define the indentation
amount of pre-working”. Their hypothesis was further
morphologies created around the indenter, pilling-up,
confirmed by Atkins and Tabor.39
or sinking-in. Several equations43–46 were developed to
These authors paid attention to the effect of
predict the effect of strain-hardening exponent on this
indenter geometry on constraint factors. However, a
factor. Pintaude et al.47 verified their reliability by
unique curve is not enough to describe it. Figure 5
measuring the residual indentation marks directly after
shows three possible curves for constraint factor as a
spherical contact. They verified that the prediction of
function of semi-angle in conical indentation. indentation morphologies is not so simple. Further,
Atkins and Tabor39 were able to show that annealed applying a refined model proposed by Hernot et al.48
materials present a continually decreasing hardness materials with n < 0.4 were much better well described
with the increase of cone angle. On the other hand, in terms of contact radius during spherical indenta-
fully work-hardened materials show an initial decrease tion.49 The comparison between experimental values of
of hardness followed by a subsequent increase of hard- n determined from residual marks and those predicted
ness with increasing cone angle. In this way, an inter- by the Hernot et al. model is verified in Figure 6.
mediate behavior is possible (verified in38) depending The effect of indentation morphology on the rela-
on the level of work-hardening imposed previously. tion between hardness and yield strength was already
Probably, the origin for modeling the work-harden- proposed by Serban et al.50 These researchers
ing effect on hardness is the work due to Meyer.40 He described a correlation for brittle materials (Equation
deduced an empirical relation (Equation 2) between 6), and they tested it for amorphous nickel–silicon-
the load, L, and the size of the indentation, d: based alloy. The ratio between the residual depth, hf ,
and the maximum depth penetration, hmax , is an indi-
L ¼ AdM (2) cator that characterizes the occurrence of pilling-up or
where A is a constant of proportionality. sinking-in.
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 5

Figure 6. Fitting of predicted and experimentally indentation morphologies after spherical indentation49 (imi: indentation morph-
ology index).

Table 1. Summary of equations relating strain hardening Remember that the model proposed by Matthews44 is
exponent and stress constraint factor. empirical, derived from experimental points obtained
Equation Indenter References by Norbury and Samuels.57 The same is possible to
UTS ¼ ðH=2:9Þð1  nÞð12:5n=1  nÞn (7) Vickers 51 point out on the simple relation proposed by N’Jock
Y ¼ ðH=3Þð0:1Þn (8) Vickers 52
UTS ¼ ðH=2:9Þðn=0:217Þn (9) Vickers 53 et al.54 i.e., it was derived from FEM curves described
C ¼ ð6=2 þ nÞð40=9pÞn
(10) Spherical 44 in reference,43 for values of kð¼ aE=RY Þ (Equation
C ¼3n (11) Spherical 54
12) higher than 27.3.
It is fascinating that the experimental points adhere
better to the N’Jock et al. model.54 Sundararajan and
Tirupataiah56 proposed another fitting based on
Matthews’ proposal separating the effect of strength
coefficient, K. In their analysis, only materials with
K  900 MPa obey the Matthews’ model, even the
complete adherence to the model is weak. Further, we
will see that this approach based only on the strain-
hardening exponent is limited from the physical point
of view. For instance, the increase in strain-hardening
exponent results in higher values of constraint factor,
as shown in Figure 8, based on results for copper
alloys presented by Zhang et al.58
The inclusion of hardening effects on the constraint
Figure 7. Variation of constraint factor as a function of strain
hardening exponent, considering two models of spherical con- factors makes sense with a complete vision of the
tact.44,54 Points represent the experimental values determined deformation process occurring in indentation. The
by Sundararajan and Tirupataiah.56 elastic deformation is present during the hardness
test, even when some part reaches full plasticity. The
C ¼ 2:8ðhmax =hf Þ (6) experimental work performed by Samuels and
Mulhearn59 was disruptive to show the strain bounda-
Besides the well-known effect of strain hardening ries along with the subsurface of indented hot rolled
exponent on indentation morphologies, we would like brass plate.
to analyze its effect on the constraint factor. For that This work can be considered a significant evolution
purpose, five equations (Equations 7-11) that model of descriptions made by Bishop et al.38 These authors
the stress constraint factor based on the strain-hard- may have demonstrated that the boundaries are hemi-
ening exponent are presented in Table 1. spherical, and this pattern is observed after Vickers-
Figure 7 shows plots of Matthews’44 and N’Jock pyramidal and Brinell-ball hardness impressions
et al. models,54 together with the experimental points (Figure 9). It is imposing that Bishop et al.38 described
described by Sundararajan and Tirupataiah.55,56 and modeled the strain boundaries without more
6 G. PINTAUDE

Figure 8. Constraint factor of Cu and Cu-32%Zn alloys under different hardening conditions. Data from.58

Figure 9. Strain boundaries after Brinell and Vickers hardness indentations performed on brass plate determined by Samuels
and Mulhearn.59

metals, including the experimental observation made

by Samuels and Mulhearn.59 The space of deformation
called spherical cavity is modeled using the E/Y ratio,
similarly proposed by Bishop et al.38
Johnson60 proposed the concept of hydrostatic core
(rigid) for elastic-perfectly plastic materials, with
radius, a, equal to the contact circle. Surrounding this
core is a plastic zone (incompressible), with dimen-
Figure 10. Representation of expanding cavity model. c is the sions determined by the elastic-plastic boundary. Any
radius of plastic zone. Adapted from.60 hydrostatic core boundary increment implies enough
stresses to cause plastic deformation in the plastic
detailed drawings even though they presented an zone (Figure 10). This association is why the theory is
equation for the c/a ratio in terms of Young’s modu- called the expanding cavity model (ECM).
lus, yield strength, and Poisson ratio. The pressure calculated at the interface between the
Fortunately, Johnson60 gave us a systematic treat- hydrostatic core and the plastic zone can be used to
ment of the elastic-plastic behavior during indenta- measure hardness. Therefore, the strain associated with
tion. His work was preceded by the observation made this boundary can be considered a representative strain,
by Marsh61 for glass surfaces. He was impressed with a concept elaborated by Tabor previously. The represen-
the plastic scratches and plastic indentation on the tative strain was summarized by Lan and Venkatesh62
glass. However, he knows that the same theory in three types, attributed to different references:
applied to metals does not explain the plastic flow in
an amorphous material. Then, he described a lower I. Total strain29
constraint factor for glass than that observed for II. Nonlinear part of strain,23,63 and
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 7

III. Plastic part of strain64

Applying a methodology proposed by Wang et al.65

Lan and Venkatesh62 demonstrated relevant differen-
ces when different representative strains were consid-
ered to determine the constraint factor. The most
significant effect of n values on H/Y for a specific
semi cone angle occurred when the types II and III
were claimed to calculate them.
The work of Cheng and Li66 summarized the com-
plete concept for constraint factor (type IV in Figure 3),
in which it depends simultaneously on the indenter
geometry, E/Y ratio, strain-hardening exponent, and
Poisson ratio. They presented three cases varying the
values of n from 0 to 0.5. For a perfectly-plastic mater-
ial, the maximum value of C is 3.0, independent of the
geometry and E/Y variations. More than that, the
dependence on E/Y is weak, meaning that the slip-line
field approach can fit well for this case. For materials
with n ¼ 0.1, the dependence on E/Y is more robust,
especially for a high semi cone angle. Finally, for
n ¼ 0.5, H/Y strongly depends on both E/Y and
indenter geometry. In this case, the constraint factor
could reach a value of 40 or more, specifically for a
semi cone angle at about 60 and smaller values of E/Y.
The effect of strain-hardening exponent on the
Figure 11. Variation of constraint factor as a function of strain
expanding cavity was modeled by Gao et al.67 and Kang hardening exponent: a) Gao et al. model,67 and b) Kang
et al.68 They presented the following equations (Equations et al. model.68
13 and 14) for spherical indentation to predict the con-
straint factor considering a power-law hardening: observation allows concluding that the Gao et al.
&


n ’ model corroborates the findings from Cheng and Li.66
2 1 3 1 k Another critical view is possible comparing Figures 7
C¼ 1 þ þ (13)
3 n 4 n 4 and 11. In the first case, an increase in the strain-hard-
&

n
’ ening exponent leads to a decay in the constraint factor,
2 1 k 3k 1 while an opposite behavior is noted in Figure 11.
C¼ 1 þ þ , k
3 n 4 2 n The decrease or increase caused by the hardening

 effect on C values was mapped by Alcal
a and De Los
n
¼ 0:5098 þ 0:0048exp (14) Ojos.69 These authors demonstrated that the transition
0:0598
from elasto-plasticity to full-plasticity under spherical
A comparison of two models is made for two val- indentation depends on the E/Y and a/R simultan-
ues of k (Figure 11). eously, as included in proposals by Gao et al.67 and
It is worthwhile the differences between the two Kang et al.68 Alcal
a and De Los Ojos69 concluded that
models. While in the model proposed by Gao et al.67 an increase in n promotes the fully-plastic domain but
a relatively constant increase in the constraint factor only at a/R 6 0.1 and n < 0.15 (weak strain hardening
occurs, in the model of Kang et al.68 an abrupt solids). On the opposite, under stronger strain harden-
increase happens from n  0.35. Besides, there is a ing n > 0.20 and larger penetrations of a/R > 0.05, an
slight decay in C values considering Kang et al.67 increase in n favors the elasto-plastic contact regime. It
which changes the trend from n  0.2. Another not- seems that the Kang et al.68 trends corroborate the
able difference is that curves calculated following assertions made by Alcal
a and De Los Ojos.69
Kang et al. are almost insensitive to the variation of k The equations relating the UTS and Vickers hard-
factor in one order of magnitude while applying Gao ness (equations 7 and 9) proposed by Tabor51 and
et al. the results depend a lot on this factor. This Cahoon53 (Table 1) follow the same trend observed in
8 G. PINTAUDE

Table 2. Constraint factors determined for different steel

microstructures using Vickers microhardness83.
Microstructure Constraint factor (with HV0.25)
Ferrite 5.79
Pearlite 4.90
Bainite 4.27
Martensite 3.51
Tempered martensite 3.17

empirical relationships based on the applied scale of

hardness and the material kind.
Theoretical conversions of different hardness scales
Figure 12. Relationship between Vickers hardness and UTS for are considered by ASTM E14077 and ISO 18265.78
metals, following FEM simulation and data from ISO 18265. ISO standard also contains formulations to express
Adapted from.79 the ultimate tensile strength of metals. Chen and
Cai79 revisited these correlations using finite element
the Kang et al. model. However, the decay in C value methods. They have found a linear relation between
happened until n  0.1, and then it increases continu- hardness and UTS values of metals for Brinell and
ously from this number. Vickers scales (Figure 12). Varying the strain-harden-
The role of hardening should be elucidated for ing exponent from 0.1 to 0.3, the effect of this plastic
describing the stress constraint factor and, conse- property is more significant for harder materials.
quently, the full plastic regime. This discussion will be Besides, the curve based on ISO 1826578 data fitted
needed in the next section. better for a theoretical material with n ¼ 0.2.
Figure 12 raises a question about the validity of
data summarized by ISO standard: are metals with a
3. Empirical relationships between hardness strain hardening exponent equal to 0.2 more abun-
and strength in metals dant? Additionally, if a transition in mechanical
Empirical relationships can be a powerful tool for behavior can happen at this value, what would be the
practical problems in engineering. To obtain metals’ meaning of this conversion? We will analyze a series
yield or ultimate strength, one can follow standard of empirical relationships. It will be easy to check that
ASTM E870 to perform a uniaxial tensile test. This the correlation of hardness and strength for metals is
standard defines three ways to determine the yield always dependent on the strain hardening exponent,
strength: a) the offset method, determined at 0.2% even though this property was not described.
strain, b) the extension-under-load method using Walley,80 in his historical review, found 16 referen-
ces regarding the conversion of hardness to other
0.5% total strain, and c) the autographic diagram
mechanical properties from 1901 to 1950. Most works
method for materials with discontinuous yielding.
performed the Brinell hardness to correlate with some
Nonetheless, there is a diversity of scales to deter-
strength property of metals. Before the 50s’ the search
mine the hardness of materials. Broitman,71 in his
was practically restricted to metals with some varia-
review, grouped scales in terms of the range of loads:
tions in its manufacturing. Surprisingly, Walley80 for-
macro- (Brinell, Meyer, Vickers, Rockwell, Shore, and
got the reference used in the Metals Handbook81 to
IRHD), micro- (micro-Vickers, Knoop, Buchholz, and establish empirical values of regression coefficients for
micro-IRHD), and nanoindentation. Consequently, the hardness-UTS relationship. This work is due to
ten scales regarding macro- and microindentation are Taylor,82 which presented relations using Vickers
easily identified for a broad range of materials. hardness besides the Brinell scale for several metals.
This variety of scales is the first obstacle to surpass There has been a wide use of the Vickers scale in
when someone desires to estimate the strength from most recent years to establish a relationship with
an indentation test. Probably the second more import- strength. The first remarkable finding is the investiga-
ant issue is the deformation mechanism, which varies tion performed by Umemoto et al.83 Using micro-
from material to material. Work-hardening is present hardness Vickers, they compiled the constraint factor
during the indentation of metals,72,73 but this mechan- for steels, varying their microstructures. The coeffi-
ism is very restricted in ceramics, for example.74,75 cient regression (equivalent to constraint factor for
The hydrostatic component is crucial in defining the empirical investigations) varied significantly depend-
yielding for polymers.76 Then, we should organize the ing on the microstructure, as shown in Table 2.
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 9

Figure 13. Variation of yield strength- and UTS-to-hardness ratio as a function of strain hardening exponent. Data from.83

Table 3. Summary of empirical determinations of constraint

Analyzing Table 3, the similar value described for
factor values for different metals. steels and copper alloys is remarkable. Their coeffi-
Metal Coefficient of regression Reference R2 cient of determination is high, but the statistical
Steel 2.876 90 0.9212 meaning is not necessarily equivalent to phys-
Alloyed aluminum 2.61 91 0.958 ical meaning.
Alloyed aluminum 2.61 92 0.927
Copper 2.874 97 0.916 This discussion should involve the hardening expo-
Magnesium 2.3-2.6 98 n.a. nents. Copper is susceptible to work hardening. For
Gold 3.02 99 0.95
Titanium 3.6 100 0.77 instance, Kleemola and Nieminen101 determined n
n.a.: Not available. values for annealed and cold-worked conditions. They
observed a difference of three orders of magnitude.
Another relevant result described by Umemoto Krishna et al.97 did not present a complete character-
et al.83 is the variation of constraint factor with the ization of reported alloys. It is reasonable to infer that
strain hardening exponent. They verified a discrepant they may not differ too much from cold work.
behavior when yield or ultimate strength are plotted Additionally, we have previously seen in Figure 8 the
against n values, as observed in Figure 13. variation described by Zhang et al.58 in the constraint
The constraint factor increased with n values, as factors, being all values higher than this average cor-
described previously in Figure 11. Otherwise, they relation found by Krishna et al.97
indicated a trend for the H/UTS ratio that is apparent. Similarly, the hardening exponents in steels have a
The variation of values for pearlitic and bainitic struc- considerable variation,102 not as broad as observed for
tures is practically nil. Even for martensitic ones, there copper but still relevant. A peculiar aspect is the hard-
is a considerable concentration of values in terms of ness range (192-632 HV), in which Pavlina and Van
UTS property. For ferritic steels, the variation on Tyne90 summarized data. There is a high concentra-
strain hardening exponent is broad, even though it tion of points around 250 HV. Besides, from 450 HV,
does not mean a significant variation in the UTS. It is only approximately 10% of points belong to this cat-
also remarkable that the concentration of data in egory. A similar concentration of points for a specific
terms of strain hardening exponent is around 0.1. hardness range is also observed in the compilation
This information does not match with the best fit made by Krishna et al.97 Despite the merit of compil-
found by Chen and Cai for ISO 18265 data. ing essential data, both investigations concluded the
Although there are many papers concerning the same C value for different metals, which can be a
relationship between hardness and strength for coincidence caused by a high concentration of avail-
steels,84–89 we focus on the regression performed by able points and insufficient data discrimination in
Pavlina and Van Tyne.90 They compiled 165 points to strain hardening exponents.
calculate a coefficient. Another metal that deserves Different considerations can be addressed in the
attention is aluminum alloys, which can find several case of alloyed aluminum alloys. Besides two referen-
investigations91–96 regarding the constraint factor ces found the exact value of the regression coefficient,
determination. Table 3 presents two of these studies the variation in strain hardening exponent is much
on aluminum coincidently; they found the same more restricted than those observed for steels and
C value. copper.103 Another issue is that both investigations
10 G. PINTAUDE

copper and steel, for instance, find a possible explan-

ation for fine and ultra-fine conditions, but not yet to
coarse-grained ones.
The grain size is a determinant variable of mechan-
ical properties. The Hall-Petch relationship is the most
used concept to predict the strength and, consequently,
the hardness of materials as a function of grain size.105
Brooks et al.106 studied 198 electrodeposited nanocrys-
talline Ni- and Co-based specimens. They aimed to
correlate hardness and strength, including the grain
size effect. When they applied the first approach
described here, i.e., the hardness-to-yield strength cor-
related by a constant value (Equation 1), the calculated
yield strength is not fit the experimental values.
However, by changing the approach, including the
hardening exponent, either applying Equation 852 or
even using an equation proposed by Gao107 (equivalent
to equation 13), they find an excellent adjustment
between the predicted and experimental values for
nanocrystalline materials. It reinforces the importance
of the microstructure effect on the hardening, which
affects the relation between hardness and strength.
Figure 14. Fitted curves for brittle materials data correlating
hardness and strength: a) Zeng et al.109 and b) Galanov et al.110
4. Constraint factor of nonmetals
reached an excellent dispersion in experimental
points, avoiding the concentration observed in refer- The possibility to calculate an immense value of con-
ences90 and.97 straint factor, such as described in Cheng and Li,64
To end this section, the findings of Khodabakhshi raises a question: What material presents this behav-
et al.104 deserve attention. They studied various metals ior? Looking for this answer in an indentation map as
(pure commercial aluminum, copper, titanium, nickel, a function of mechanical properties (Ashby-like),108
plus aluminum alloy and low carbon steel), applying only tin alloys could be reaches the E/Y ratio to pro-
constrained groove pressing to obtain fine and ultra- mote high values of C. Other materials that approxi-
fine grained conditions. mates this value are cement concrete and plaster.
They attempted to apply the equations proposed by Cheng and Li64 modeled the C values with a specific
Tabor51 and Cahoon53 relating UTS and Y to Vickers strain hardening exponent, which is not the case for
hardness. The equations did not fit well using the brittle materials.
strain hardening exponent derived from the tensile Another question is fundamental for discussing the
tests. To surpass this difficulty, they proposed a new behavior of nonmetals: what is the mechanical test
way to calculate n, calculated by measuring the slope able to evaluate the strength of brittle materials?
of true stress evolutions curve versus equivalent plastic Ceramics have a massive difference if the uniaxial test
strain through different SPD passes. In this way, the is conducted under tension or compression. Putting
new exponent is based on the work hardening rate tensile strength values in evidence, Zhang et al.58
developed during the deformation route. found enormous values of constraint factors for cer-
The range of n values within tested materials con- amics (H/Y » 3), typically higher than 28, reaching an
sidered the conventional way to calculate them is incredible value of 183 for boron carbide.
0.11-0.44. This range drops to 0.092-0.152, employing Comparing two different data sets regarding the
the new form to obtain n values. Therefore, the hard- hardness-strength relationship for brittle materials is
ening during a specific process results in a different exciting. Figure 14 shows the data described by Zeng
plastic property. Maybe a proper strain exponent et al.109 and Galanov et al.110 The linear curves are
should exist during indentation, which could explain not the same; slopes are 2.074 and 1.013, respectively.
discrepancies between Figures 7 and 11, for example. The common material analyzed in both investigations
Besides, the closer values of constraint factors for – alumina – is indicated. The coefficient of
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 11

Figure 15. Indentation pressure-strain curve utilized to deter- Figure 16. S3/P as a function of the displacement of an
mine the yielding point for a brittle material. Adapted from.120 indenter. The onset of yielding is found at the divergence
between two approaches.123
determination is high, especially for Zeng et al. data.109
Alternatives have been discussed to determine a
One could associate a high level of reliability with these
yielding strength for brittle materials. For example,
models. However, it is complicated to believe that
Rosenberg119 proposed calculating the compressive
when there is a relevant difference for the same mater-
yield strength from measurements of Hugoniot elastic
ial: what is the constraint factor of alumina?
limit (HEL). He correlated hardness and dynamic
The values determined in Figure 14 are extracted
compressive strengths for a series of ceramics from
directly from the indentation process without defining
this relation.
if tensile or compression is the strength. Even though,
However, most probably closer to the indentation
looking for the yielding inception definition from process is the called apparent yield strength.120 It is
Hertz theory, the relation between average pressure defined using different spherical indenters or loads to
(pm , equivalent to an elastic hardness) and yield build a strain curve of indentation. Knowing the ana-
strength depends basically on the Poisson’s ratio.111 lytical solution given by Hertz, the apparent yield
For a typical value observed for metals, v ¼ 0.3, this point is where the strain indentation escapes from the
relation can be written as pm ¼ 1:07Y 112 for a spher- Hertzian curve (Figure 15). Using this concept, Swab
ical contact. Then, if the hardening and ductility of et al.121 found the range of 0.8 < H/Y < 1.8 for the
ceramics are limited, relations between hardness and glasses and ceramics after determining their
strength should not differ from 1. On the opposite, Knoop hardness.
brittle materials would be subject to cracking, com- Swain and Hagan120 did not use depth-sensing
pletely changing the meaning of hardness.113,114 indentation, which turned the plotting of indentation
The physical basis for Zhang et al.’s58 work is the strain into a tedious task. However, if depth-sensing
concept of a unified tensile fracture criterion. They indentation is available, determining indentation strains
used the definition made by Zhang and Eckert,115 a becomes easier - two methodologies derived from this
parameter correspondent to the ratio between the idea. The first is to use the scratch test to determine
shear fracture and normal fracture stresses. the indentation strains.122 The other was proposed by
Including a shear component to define hardness Hackett et al.123 based on the stiffness curves under
was also done by Chen et al.116 They were able to loading and unloading, as shown in Figure 16.
demonstrate a relationship between Vickers hardness Although Hackett et al.123 described a significant
and the Pugh’s modulus ratio for polycrystalline mate- experimental error applying indentation stress versus
rials, which is defined as the ratio between the shear indentation strain (± 1 GPa), they found similar values
modulus, G, and bulk modulus, B. Following their for stress constraint factors to those reported by
reasoning, G/B can be closely correlated to the brittle- Swain and Hang.120 On the other hand, Swain and
ness of materials: the higher the value of G/B is, the Hang120 took indentation strain plotting as robustness
more brittle the materials would be. In other words, due to the coincidence of their findings with those
harder materials are more brittle, as expected. Further, reported by Marsh.61
references117 and118 expressed the hardness only as a Hackett et al.’s methodology123 is not so far from
function of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, that presented by Hay et al.124 work. These researches
based on the Chen et al.116 model. proposed to find the constraint factor as a function of
12 G. PINTAUDE

Table 4. Equations for stress constraint factor as a function of E/Y ratio, obtained from FEM under conical indentation.
Equation for elastic-plastic deformation E/Y range References
H=Y ¼ 1:440 þ 0:264lnðE=Y Þ (15) 30 to 90 127
lnðH=E Þ ¼ 0:8503lnðY=E Þ þ 0:2456 (16) 10 to 800 129
H=Y ¼ 0:0023½lnðE=YÞ4 þ 0:0647½lnðE=YÞ3 0:6817½lnðE=YÞ2 þ 3:1968½lnðE=YÞ  2:9261 (17) 20 to 3000 128
lnðH=E Þ ¼ 0:9153lnðY=E Þ þ 0:6201 (18) 75 to 800 130
H=Y ¼ 4:05ð1  34:6Y=EÞ (19) 83 to 1000 131
H=Y ¼ 0:35 þ 0:58lnðE=Y Þ (20) 10 to 83 132
within elastic-plastic region

Table 5. Estimated values of constraint factors for brittle

solids through different approaches.
Constraint
Approach factor Reference
Indentation morphology index (Figure 14a) 2 109
Plasticity index applied to ECM (Figure 14b) 1 110
Indentation morphology index (Equation 6) 4 50
Relation between HEL and dynamic yield strength >4 119
Hertzian & indentation strain curves (Figure 15) 1-2 120,121
Spherical scratch >3 122
Stiffness curves (Figure 16) 1-2 123
Stiffness ratio (loading-unloading) 1.5 124
Elastic-plastic model 1-2 61
Elastic-plastic equations (Figure 17) 2-3 132
Empirical determination in NaCl crystals 2.5 141
Figure 17. Predictions of constraint factor values as a function
of E/Y ratio from models of Mata and Alcal
a,128 He et al.131
and Rodr
ıguez et al.132 the relation H/Y ¼ f(E/Y). We prefer to omit them
from the comparison without loss in these cases. We
the loading-to-unloading stiffness ratio. In this way, verified a superposition between Mata et al.127 and
they found a C ¼ 1.5 for fused silica. Mata and Alcal
a128 models, as the second is broader in
Strain boundaries were verified in brittle materi- the E/Y range, it is preferable to use it to compare
als,125 and the expanding cavity is the basis to model with others.
the fracture toughness determined by indentation.126 It is impressive that up to a low value of E/Y (
In this sense, it is reasonable to apply this concept to 30), the proposals of Rodr
ıguez et al. and132 Mata and
determine the yield strength. Alcal
a128 resulted in similar values of constraint factor.
What would be a practical equation for determin- Mata and Alcal
a128 simulated power-law hardening
ing the yield strength? Considering that the elastic materials, with n values ranging from 0.1 to 0.4.
modulus is determined simultaneously with hardness Otherwise, Rodr
ıguez et al.132 focus on amorphous
in depth-sensing techniques, if yield strength could materials with cohesive-frictional behavior. The shape
depend only on two properties, in practice, it would of curves is similar; the main difference is the value of
be easy to determine it. Poisson’s ratio can be asymptote: 2.9 following Rodr
ıguez et al.132 and 2.7 in
included in this analysis once it composes the defin- the Mata and Alcal
a model.129
ition of indentation modulus, following ISO 14577.16 The range of validity of the He et al.131 model did
Reaching brittle materials using simulations will not consider the elastic-plastic limit around E/Y ¼ 83
depend on the range of the E/Y ratio selected. We can as described by others. The asymptote assumes
find several models127–132 (Equation 16 to 20) for sharp another value, higher than the previous models.
indenters with a diverse range of E/Y values (Table 4). Table 5 summarizes the typical values found for
There are other models based on the spherical con- brittle materials using different approaches and tech-
tact133–135 but considering a direct application for non- niques described herein.
metals, we have preferred to discuss only sharp contacts. Unfortunately, Table 5 shows more doubts than
The spherical contact is primarily used to simulate mul- certainties about defining yielding behavior for non-
tiple contacts in rough surfaces136–138 and describe the metallic materials. The constraint factor varies from 1
flattening.139,140 All repeat a pattern described by to 4 for the same material (alumina), which is
Johnson,60 using the expanding cavity model. irrational. An empirical approach for NaCl crystals141
Figure 17 present the variation of the three models found an intermediate value, which is a coincidence
presented in Table 4. The models proposed by Xu and in the middle of several possibilities. In the same
Rowcliffe129 and Xu and Agren130 do not precisely use way that perceived for metals, the profusion of
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 13

techniques is unquestionable proof that the scientific of loading (tensile/compression), they found a con-
basis remains weak at this time. straint factor between 2 and 3. However, this is not
the more critical. In the case of dominating shear
deformation, the constraint factors are comparable to
5. Future trends and concluding remarks
often used for metals. On the opposite, polymers with
The descriptions made in this critical review allow different deformation behavior correlations are only
concluding some facts. Most relevant is that the diver- helpful for compressive cases. In conclusion, checking
gences among values of constraint factors for metals the deformation mechanism is the more vital in corre-
and ceramics, despite several approaches, evidence of lating hardness and strength.
the lack of a fundamental physical basis, could lead to Quoting the conclusion reached by Tomlinson and
forbidden hardness conversion into strength. One rea- Talbot145 in 1968 is powerful: “A strong anisotropic
son is that most empirical approaches for metals for- deformation behavior, whether from the crystal struc-
got to consider the hardening characteristics to ture or the metallurgical condition, is sufficient to cause
validate a regression. the breakdown of Tabor’s correlation.” As deformation
The situation does not differ regarding modeling. depends on the texture of materials, and this issue is
Unfortunately, we have a profusion of models to too extensive to be adequately described here, we rec-
extract the stress-strain curve from indentation. The ommend the authoritative review of Armstrong
exercise promoted by Huang et al.142 is proof that the et al.146 There the anisotropy and crystallographic
scientific community involved in modeling mechanical effects were deeply explored.
behavior could be more attentive. These authors The worry with anisotropic deformation is the basis
mixed five definitions of representative strain indenta- for investigations conducted at the Georgia Institute
tion with four of stress indentation, analyzing 20 com- of Technology. They used the concept of Oriented
binations through the root mean square (RMS) Imaging Microscopy (OIM),147 which is a technique
compared to the tensile stress-strain curve of a spe- of scanning electron microscopy prepared to index
cific material. The smallest RMS was 16.17%, and the back-scattered electron diffraction patterns. Together
most significant incredible 77.97%. More unbelievable with a two-step procedure in nanoindentation ana-
is that values were obtained using the exact definition lysis,148 they verified for polycrystalline Fe–3% Si sam-
of strain indentation! This attempt seems to be play- ples a correlation between the indentation yield
ing puzzles and hitting a target randomly. strength and the slip resistance at the indentation site
However, some comparisons shed light on the 30% and 80% plastically deformed samples.149
future. Observing an actual hardening during a spe- Another example checking the strains produced by
cific process was the clue in determining better rela- indentations in-situ is Zhang et al.150 Their incremen-
tionships for fine and ultra-fine grained materials by tal model demands both cyclic loading and unloading
Khodabakhshi et al.104 Then, it is reasonable to deter- with the digital image correlation (DIC), which is a
mine the residual imprints for this task. This task is technique that measures plastic strains through
the first step to discriminate the most significant dif- speckle patterns. Further, they compare this approach
ference between an indentation and uniaxial test: their with three others – empirical, numerical, and analyt-
strains are not the same at the same stress level. This ical - under spherical indentation.151 For 14 metals,
conclusion was given in the work of Patel and they concluded that the most demanding incremental
Kalidindi:143 they described that a 0.2% strain offset model provides the most reliable uniaxial mechanical
for the uniaxial test corresponds approximately to a property evaluations among models, resulting in a
0.15% offset indentation strain. With this definition, maximum error of about 15%.
the scaling factor is 2.0 for a range of hardening Then, can we use a less demanding technique to
behavior, including non-hardening, varying hardening manufacture samples – hardness system – and obtain
rates, and power-law hardening behavior. plastic properties simultaneously? The answer will be
Another investigation that deserves attention for the future from a practice point of view, and it is an
the deformation mode was Koch and Seidler.144 These already reality. A research group introduced this con-
authors studied 12 thermoplastic polymers under uni- cept at Cambridge University. They used a convergence
axial and indentation tests. They verified that the val- procedure based on the goodness-of-fit quantifica-
idity of a general correlation between hardness and tion.152 It means identifying the superimposition on
strength is strongly connected with the deformation experimental load-displacement load of FEM simula-
process. Depending on hardness definition and type tion through iterations.153 After some improvements,
14 G. PINTAUDE

they introduced the concept of Profilometry-based Stress Constraints Considering Various Failure
Indentation Plastometry (PIP).154 The indentation pro- Criteria: Von Mises, Drucker–Prager, Tresca,
file is more sensitive to plasticity parameter values than Mohr–Coulomb, Bresler–Pister and Willam–Warnke.
Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2020, 476, 20190861. doi:
the load-displacement plot, resulting in a more rapid 10.1098/rspa.2019.0861
convergence and more accurate inferred stress-strain 3. ASTM E18 - 16. Standard Test Methods for Rockwell
curves. The PIP methodology can be summarized in Hardness of Metallic Materials. ASTM International:
three steps: (i) applying a force to an indenter ball to West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
reach a pre-selected depth; (ii) measuring the residual 4. Song, J. F.; Low, S.; Pitchure, D.; Germak, A.;
DeSogus, S.; Polzin, T.; Yang, H. Q.; Ishida, H.
profile of the indent; and (iii) running the FEM model
Establishing a Worldwide Unified Rockwell
to get the true stress–strain curve. Hardness Scale Using Standard Diamond Indenters.
Based on some ideas in future trends, we can con- Measurement 1998, 24, 197–205. doi:10.1016/S0263-
clude this critical review with some remarks, as follows: 2241(98)00052-9
5. Czichos, H. In Memoriam Adolf Martens. Mater.
1. To convert a hardness value in the strength of Test. 1989, 31, 215–219. doi:10.1515/mt-1989-317-
807
metals is obligatory to specify a narrow range of 6. Wilde, H. R.; Wehrstedt, A. Introduction of Martens
strain hardening exponent. This conversion Hardness HM. Mater. Test. 2000, 42, 468–470. doi:
should be considered as a rough approximation, 10.1515/mt-2000-4211-1212
only for practice purposes; 7. ASTM HRA ASTM B294 - 17. Standard Test
2. There is no physical meaning yet to convert the Method for Hardness Testing of Cemented Carbides.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
hardness into strength for brittle materials; and
8. Chychko, A.; Garc
ıa, J.; Cipr
es, V. C.; Holmstr€ om,
3. It is possible to use residual imprints, FEM ana- E.; Blomqvist, A. HV-KIC Property Charts of
lysis, and converge method to determine the Cemented Carbides: A Comprehensive Data
stress-strain curves under indentation apparatus. Collection. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2022,
The sensitivity of this technique can be more 103, 105763. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2021.105763
explored, in terms of the diversity of properties, 9. Morais, A. W. Forming Processes Analysis: Volume 1 –
Mathematical-Mechanical Fundamentals (in Portuguese).
although it is already verified for modern material WILLY ANK - Soluç~oes para o Setor Metal-Mec^anico,
processing.154 S~ao Vicente, 2018.
10. Fr€ohlich, F.; Grau, P.; Grellmann, W. Performance
and Analysis of Recording Microhardness Tests.
Acknowledgment Phys. Stat. Solidi (a) 1977, 42, 79–89. doi:10.1002/
The author acknowledges CNPq through process 310523/ pssa.2210420106
2020-6. 11. Newey, D.; Wilkins, M. A.; Pollock, H. M. An Ultra-
Low-Load Penetration Hardness Tester. J. Phys. E:
Sci. Instrum. 1982, 15, 119–122. doi:10.1088/0022-
Declaration of interest statement 3735/15/1/023
12. Pharr, G. M. Measurement of Mechanical Properties
The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone by Ultra-Low Load Indentation. Mater. Sci. Eng. A
is responsible for the content and writing of the paper. 1998, 253, 151–159. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00724-2
13. Doerner, M. F.; Nix, W. D. A Method for
Interpreting the Data from Depth-Sensing
Funding Indentation Instruments. J. Mater. Res. 1986, 1,
The author acknowledges CNPq through process 310523/ 601–609. doi:10.1557/JMR.1986.0601
2020-6. 14. Oliver, W. C.; Pharr, G. M. An Improved Technique
for Determining Hardness and Elastic Modulus
Using Load and Displacement Sensing Indentation
ORCID Experiments. J. Mater. Res. 1992, 7, 1564–1583. doi:
10.1557/JMR.1992.1564
Giuseppe Pintaude http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8215-4481
15. Marshall, D. B.; Noma, T.; Evans, A. G. A Simple
Method for Determining Elastic-Modulus–to-
References Hardness Ratios Using Knoop Indentation
Measurements. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1982, 65,
1. Ashby, M. F. Overview No. 80: On the Engineering c175–c176. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1982.tb10357.x
Properties of Materials. Acta Metall. 1989, 37, 16. ISO 14577. Metallic Materials—Instrumented
1273–1293. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(89)90158-2 Indentation Test for Hardness and Materials Parameters.
2. Giraldo-Londo~
no, O.; Paulino, G. H. A Unified International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Approach for Topology Optimization with Local 2002.
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 15

17. ASTM E2546. Standard Practice for Instrumented Strain for the Prediction of Indentation Hardness.
Indentation Testing. ASTM International: West Acta Mater. 2010, 58, 6487–6494. doi:10.1016/j.acta-
Conshohocken, PA, 2015. mat.2010.08.010
18. Franco, A. R.; Jr, Pinta

ude, G.; Sinatora, A.; Pinedo, 31. Hutchings, I. M. The Contributions of David Tabor
C. E.; Tschiptschin, A. P. The Use of a Vickers to the Science of Indentation Hardness. J. Mater.
Indenter in Depth Sensing Indentation for Res. 2009, 24, 581–589. doi:10.1557/jmr.2009.0085
Measuring Elastic Modulus and Vickers Hardness. 32. Wahlberg, A. Brinell’s Method of Determining
Mat. Res. 2004, 7, 483–491. doi:10.1590/S1516- Hardness and Other Properties of Iron and Steel. J.
14392004000300018 Iron Steel Inst. 1901, 59, 243.
19. Phani, P. S.; Oliver, W. C.; Pharr, G. M. 33. Wahlberg, A. Brinell’s Method of Determining
Measurement of Hardness and Elastic Modulus by Hardness and Other Properties of Iron and Steel. J.
Load and Depth Sensing Indentation: Improvements Iron Steel Inst. 1901, 60, 234. 2
to the Technique Based on Continuous Stiffness 34. Ishlinskii, A. J. The Problem of Plasticity with Axial
Measurement. J. Mater. Res. 2021, 36, 2173. Symmetry and Brinell’s Test. J. Appl. Math. Mech.
20. D
ıaz, S. R. On the Propagation of Methodological (U.S.S.R) 1944, 8, 233.
Uncertainties in Depth Sensing Indentation Data 35. Ashby, M. F.; Jones, D. R. Engineering Materials: An
Analysis: A Brief and Critical Review. Mech. Res. Introduction to Properties, Applications and Design.
Commun. 2020, 105, 103516. doi:10.1016/j.mechres- Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2012; Vol. 1.
com.2020.103516 36. Hill, R.; Lee, E. H.; Tupper, S. J. The Theory of
21. Giannakopoulos, A. E.; Suresh, S. Determination of Wedge Indentation of Ductile Materials. Proc. R.
Elastoplastic Properties by Instrumented Sharp Soc. A 1947, 188, 273.
Indentation. Scr. Mater. 1999, 40, 1191–1198. doi:10. 37. Ghosh, A.; Arreguin-Zavala, J.; Aydin, H.;
1016/S1359-6462(99)00011-1 Goldbaum, D.; Chromik, R.; Brochu, M.
22. Venkatesh, T. A.; Van Vliet, K. J.; Giannakopoulos, Investigating Cube-Corner Indentation Hardness and
A. E.; Suresh, S. Determination of Elasto-Plastic Strength Relationship under Quasi-Static and
Properties by Instrumented Sharp Indentation: Dynamic Testing Regimes. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016,
Guidelines for Property Extraction. Scr. Mater. 2000,
677, 534–539. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2016.08.067
42, 833–839. doi:10.1016/S1359-6462(00)00311-0
38. Bishop, R. F.; Hill, R.; Mott, N. F. The Theory of
23. Dao, M.; Chollacoop, N. V.; Van Vliet, K. J.;
Indentation and Hardness Tests. Proc. Phys. Soc.
Venkatesh, T. A.; Suresh, S. Computational
1945, 57, 147–159. doi:10.1088/0959-5309/57/3/301
Modeling of the Forward and Reverse Problems in
39. Atkins, A. G.; Tabor, D. Plastic Indentation in
Instrumented Sharp Indentation. Acta Mater. 2001,
Metals with Cones. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1965, 13,
49, 3899–3918. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00295-6
149–164. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(65)90018-9
24. Chollacoop, N. V.; Dao, M.; Suresh, S. Depth-
40. Meyer, E. Untersuchungen uber Harteprufung und
Sensing Instrumented Indentation with Dual Sharp
Harte Brinell Methoden. Z. Ver. Deutsch. Ing. 1908,
Indenters. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 3713–3729. doi:10.
1016/S1359-6454(03)00186-1 52, 645.
25. Pintaude, G.; Cuppari, M. D. V.; Sch€ on, C. G.; 41. Sakai, M. The Meyer Hardness: A Measure for
Sinatora, A.; Souza, R. M. A Review on the Reverse Plasticity? J. Mater. Res. 1999, 14, 3630–3639. doi:10.
Analysis for the Extraction of Mechanical Properties 1557/JMR.1999.0490
Using Instrumented Vickers Indentation. Z. Metallkd 42. Yu, C.; Feng, Y.; Yang, R.; Peng, G.; Lu, Z.; Zhang,
2005, 96, 11. T. An Integrated Method to Determine
26. Santos, A. F.; Wiebeck, H.; Souza, R. M.; Sch€on, Elastic–Plastic Parameters by Instrumented Spherical
C. G. Instrumented Indentation Testing of an Epoxy Indentation. J. Mater. Res. 2014, 29, 1095–1103. doi:
Adhesive Used in Automobile Body Assembling. 10.1557/jmr.2014.78
Polym. Test. 2008, 27, 632–637. doi:10.1016/j.poly- 43. Hill, R.; Storåkers, B.; Zdunek, A. B. A Theoretical
mertesting.2008.04.002 Study of the Brinell Hardness Test. Proc. R. Soc. A
27. Pulecio, S. A. R.; Farias, M. C. M.; Souza, R. M. 1989, 423, 301.
Finite Element and Dimensional Analysis Algorithm 44. Matthews, J. R. Indentation Hardness and Hot
for the Prediction of Mechanical Properties of Bulk Pressing. Acta Metall. 1980, 28, 311–318. doi:10.
Materials and Thin Films. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2010, 1016/0001-6160(80)90166-2
205, 1386–1392. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2010.07.039 45. Taljat, B.; Zacharia, T.; Kosel, F. New Analytical
28. Mohan, S.; Millan-Espitia, N.; Yao, M.; Steenberge, Procedure to Determine Stress-Strain Curve from
N. V.; Kalidindi, S. R. Critical Evaluation of Spherical Indentation Data. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1998,
Spherical Indentation Stress-Strain Protocols for the 35, 4411–4426. doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(97)00249-7
Estimation of the Yield Strengths of Steels. Exp. 46. Alcala, J.; Barone, A. C.; Anglada, M. The Influence of
Mech. 2021, 61, 641–652. doi:10.1007/s11340-021- Plastic Hardening on Surface Deformation Modes
00689-7 around Vickers and Spherical Indents. Acta Mater.
29. Tabor, D. A Simple Theory of Static and Dynamic 2000, 48, 3451–3464. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00140-3
Hardness. Proc. Royal Soc. A 1948, 192, 247. 47. Pintaude, G.; Hoechele, A. R.; Cipriano, G. L.
30. Branch, N. A.; Subhash, G.; Arakere, N. K.; Klecka, Relation between Strain Hardening Exponent of
M. A. Material-Dependent Representative Plastic Metals and Residual Profiles of Deep Spherical
16 G. PINTAUDE

Indentation. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2012, 28, 63. Bucaille, J. L.; Stauss, S.; Felder, E.; Michler, J.
1051–1054. doi:10.1179/1743284711Y.0000000107 Determination of Plastic Properties of Metals by
48. Hernot, X.; Bartier, O.; Bekouche, Y.; Abdi, R. E.; Instrumented Indentation Using Different Sharp
Mauvoisin, G. Influence of Penetration Depth and Indenters. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 1663–1678. doi:10.
Mechanical Properties on Contact Radius 1016/S1359-6454(02)00568-2
Determination for Spherical Indentation. Int. J. 64. Chen, X.; Ogasawara, N.; Zhao, M.; Chiba, N. On
Solids Struct. 2006, 43, 4136–4153. doi:10.1016/j. the Uniqueness of Measuring Elastoplastic Properties
ijsolstr.2005.06.007 from Indentation: The Indistinguishable Mystical
49. Pintaude, G.; Hoechele, A. R. Experimental Analysis Materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2007, 55, 1618–1660.
of Indentation Morphologies after Spherical doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2007.01.010
Indentation. Mater. Res. 2013, 17, 56–60. doi:10. 65. Wang, L.; Ganor, M.; Rokhlin, S. I. Inverse Scaling
1590/S1516-14392013005000154 Functions in Nanoindentation with Sharp Indenters:
50. Şerban, V. A.; Codrean, C.; Voda, M.; Chicot, D.; Determination of Material Properties. J. Mater. Res.
Decoopman, X. Correlation between Yield Stress and 2005, 20, 987–1001. doi:10.1557/JMR.2005.0124
Hardness of Nickel–Silicon–Boron-Based Alloys by 66. Cheng, Y. T.; Li, Z. Hardness Obtained from Conical
Nanoindentation. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 605, Indentations with Various Cone Angles. J. Mater.
294–300. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2014.03.056 Res. 2000, 15, 2830–2835. doi:10.1557/JMR.2000.0404
51. Tabor, D. The Hardness and Strength of Metals. J. 67. Gao, X. L.; Jing, X. N.; Subhash, G. Two New
Inst. Met. 1951, 79, 1. Expanding Cavity Models for Indentation
52. Cahoon, J. R.; Broughton, W. H.; Kutzak, A. R. The Deformations of Elastic Strain-Hardening Materials.
Determination of Yield Strength from Hardness Int. J. Solids Struct. 2006, 43, 2193–2208. doi:10.
Measurements. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 1971, 2, 1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.03.062
1979–1983. doi:10.1007/BF02913433 68. Kang, S. K.; Kim, Y. C.; Kim, K. H.; Kim, J. Y.;
53. Cahoon, J. R. An Improved Equation Relating Kwon, D. Extended Expanding Cavity Model for
Hardness to Ultimate Strength. Metall. Mater. Trans. Measurement of Flow Properties Using
B 1972, 3, 3040–3040. doi:10.1007/BF02652880 Instrumented Spherical Indentation. Int. J. Plast.
54. N’Jock, M. Y.; Chicot, D.; Decoopman, X.; Lesage, J.; 2013, 49, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2013.02.014
Ndjaka, J. M.; Pertuz, A. Mechanical Tensile 69. Alcal
a, J.; Esqu
e-de los Ojos, D. Reassessing Spherical
Properties by Spherical Macroindentation Using an Indentation: Contact Regimes and Mechanical
Indentation Strain-Hardening Exponent. Int. J. Property Extractions. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2010, 47,
Mech. Sci. 2013, 75, 257–264. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci. 2714–2732. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.025
2013.07.008 70. ASTM E8/E8M  21. Standard Test Methods for
55. Tirupataiah, Y.; Sundararajan, G. On the Constraint Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM
Factor Associated with the Indentation of Work- International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
Hardening Materials with a Spherical Ball. Metall. 71. Broitman, E. Indentation Hardness Measurements at
Trans. A 1991, 22, 2375–2384. doi:10.1007/BF02665003 Macro-, Micro-, and Nanoscale: A Critical Overview.
56. Sundararajan, G.; Tirupataiah, Y. The Hardness-Flow Tribol. Lett. 2017, 65, 1.
Stress Correlation in Metallic Materials. Bull. Mater. 72. Ruestes, C. J.; Stukowski, A.; Tang, Y.; Tramontina,
Sci. 1994, 17, 747–770. doi:10.1007/BF02757555 D. R.; Erhart, P.; Remington, B. A.; Urbassek, H. M.;
57. Norbury, A.; Samuel, T. The Recovery and Sinking- Meyers, M. A.; Bringa, E. M. Atomistic Simulation
in or Piling-up of Material in the Brinell Test, and of Tantalum Nanoindentation: Effects of Indenter
the Effects of These Factors on the Correlation of Diameter, Penetration Velocity, and Interatomic
the Brinell with Certain Other Hardness Tests. J. Potentials on Defect Mechanisms and Evolution.
Iron Steel Inst. 1928, 117, 673. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 613, 390–403. doi:10.1016/j.
58. Zhang, P.; Li, S. X.; Zhang, Z. F. General msea.2014.07.001
Relationship between Strength and Hardness. Mater. 73. Remington, T. P.; Ruestes, C. J.; Bringa, E. M.;
Sci. Eng. A 2011, 529, 62–73. doi:10.1016/j.msea. Remington, B. A.; Lu, C. H.; Kad, B.; Meyers, M. A.
2011.08.061 Plastic Deformation in Nanoindentation of
59. Samuels, L. E.; Mulhearn, T. O. An Experimental Tantalum: A New Mechanism for Prismatic Loop
Investigation of the Deformed Zone Associated with Formation. Acta Mater. 2014, 78, 378–393. doi:10.
Indentation Hardness Impressions. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1016/j.actamat.2014.06.058
1957, 5, 125–134. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(57)90056-X 74. Pletka, B. J.; Heuer, A. H.; Mitchell, T. E. Work-
60. Johnson, K. L. The Correlation of Indentation Hardening in Sapphire (a-Al2O3). Acta Metall. 1977,
Experiments. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1970, 18, 115–126. 25, 25–33. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(77)90242-5
doi:10.1016/0022-5096(70)90029-3 75. Armstrong, R. W.; Ferranti, L.; Jr.; Thadhani, N. N.
61. Marsh, D. Plastic Flow in Glass. Proc. Royal Soc. A Elastic/Plastic/Cracking Indentation Behavior of
1964, 279, 420. Hard Materials. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater.
62. Lan, H.; Venkatesh, T. A. On the Relationships 2006, 24, 11–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2005.03.004
between Hardness and the Elastic and Plastic 76. Rabinowitz, S.; Ward, I. M.; Parry, J. S. C. The Effect
Properties of Isotropic Power-Law Hardening of Hydrostatic Pressure on the Shear Yield
Materials. Philosoph. Mag. 2014, 94, 35–55. doi:10. Behaviour of Polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 1970, 5, 29–39.
1080/14786435.2013.839889 doi:10.1007/PL00020253
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 17

77. ASTM E140-12B - 19e1. Standard Hardness 91. Tiryakioglu, M.; Robinson, J. S.; Salazar-Guapuriche,
Conversion Tables for Metals (Relationship among M. A.; Zhao, Y. Y.; Eason, P. D. Hardness–Strength
Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Relationships in the Aluminum Alloy 7010. Mater.
Hardness, Rockwell Superficial Hardness, Knoop Sci. Eng. A 2015, 631, 196–200. doi:10.1016/j.msea.
Hardness, and Scleroscope Hardness). ASTM 2015.02.049
International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2019. 92. Sekhar, A. P.; Nandy, S.; Ray, K. K.; Das, D.
78. ISO 18265. Metallic Materials: Conversion of Hardness-Yield Strength Relation of Al-Mg-Si
Hardness Values. International Organization for Alloys. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 338,
Standardization: Geneva, 2013. 012011. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/338/1/012011
79. Chen, H.; Cai, L. X. Theoretical Conversions of 93. Tiryakioglu, M.; Campbell, J.; Staley, J. T. On
Different Hardness and Tensile Strength for Ductile Macrohardness Testing of Al–7 wt.% Si–Mg Alloys:
Materials Based on Stress–Strain Curves. Metall. II. An Evaluation of Models for Hardness–Yield
Mater. Trans. A 2018, 49, 1090–1101. doi:10.1007/ Strength Relationships. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2003, 361,
s11661-018-4468-8 240–248. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00514-8
80. Walley, S. M. Historical Origins of Indentation 94. Tiryakioglu, M. On the Relationship between
Hardness Testing. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2012, 28, Vickers Hardness and Yield Stress in Al–Zn–Mg–Cu
1028–1044. doi:10.1179/1743284711Y.0000000127 Alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2015, 633, 17–19. doi:10.
81. ASM HANDBOOK Vol. 8: Mechanical Testing. ASM 1016/j.msea.2015.02.073
International: Materials Park, OH, 2000. 95. Khodabakhshi, F.; Gerlich, A. P. On the Correlation
82. Taylor, W. J. The Hardness Test as a Means of between Indentation Hardness and Tensile Strength
Estimating the Tensile Strength of Metals. J. R. in Friction Stir Processed Materials. Mater. Sci. Eng.
Aeronaut. Soc. 1942, 46, 198–209. doi:10.1017/ A 2020, 789, 139682. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2020.139682
S0001924000100636 96. Asgharzadeh, A.; Tiji, S. A. N.; Esmaeilpour, R.;
83. Umemoto, M.; Liu, Z. G.; Tsuchiya, K.; Sugimoto, S.; Park, T.; Pourboghrat, F. Determination of
Bepari, M. M. A. Relationship between Hardness Hardness-Strength and-Flow Behavior Relationships
and Tensile Properties in Various Single Structured
in Bulged Aluminum Alloys and Verification by FE
Steels. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2001, 17, 505–511. doi:10.
Analysis on Rockwell Hardness Test. Int. J. Adv.
1179/026708301101510339
Manuf. Technol. 2020, 106, 315–331. doi:10.1007/
84. Rice, P. M.; Stoller, R. E. Correlation of
s00170-019-04565-6
Nanoindentation and Conventional Mechanical
97. Krishna, S. C.; Gangwar, N. K.; Jha, A. K.; Pant, B.
Property Measurements. MRS Online Proc. Lib. 2000,
On the Prediction of Strength from Hardness for
649, 711.
Copper Alloys. J. Mater. 2013, 2013, 352578.
85. Busby, J. T.; Hash, M. C.; Was, G. S. The
98. C
aceres, C. H.; Griffiths, J. R.; Pakdel, A. R.;
Relationship between Hardness and Yield Stress in
Davidson, C. J. Microhardness Mapping and the
Irradiated Austenitic and Ferritic Steels. J. Nucl.
Mater. 2005, 336, 267–278. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat. Hardness-Yield Strength Relationship in High-
2004.09.024 Pressure Diecast Magnesium Alloy AZ91. Mater. Sci.
86. Hashemi, S. H. Strength–Hardness Statistical Eng. A 2005, 402, 258–268. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2005.
Correlation in API X65 Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 04.042
2011, 528, 1648–1655. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2010.10.089 99. Espevik, S. Correlation between Strength and
87. Taylor, M. D.; Choi, K. S.; Sun, X.; Matlock, D. K.; Hardness of Dental Casting Gold Alloys. Scand. J.
Packard, C. E.; Xu, L.; Barlat, F. Correlations Dent. Res. 1977, 85, 496–499. doi:10.1111/j.1600-
between Nanoindentation Hardness and 0722.1977.tb00584.x
Macroscopic Mechanical Properties in DP980 Steels. 100. Keist, J. S.; Palmer, T. A. Development of Strength-
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 597, 431–439. doi:10.1016/j. Hardness Relationships in Additively Manufactured
msea.2013.12.084 Titanium Alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 693,
88. Nagaraju, S.; GaneshKumar, J.; Vasantharaja, P.; 214–224. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.03.102
Vasudevan, M.; Laha, K. Evaluation of Strength 101. Kleemola, H. J.; Nieminen, M. A. On the Strain-
Property Variations across 9Cr-1Mo Steel Weld Hardening Parameters of Metals. Metall. Trans.
Joints Using Automated Ball Indentation (ABI) 1974, 5, 1863–1866. doi:10.1007/BF02644152
Technique. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 695, 199–210. 102. Fan, Z.; Mingzhi, H.; Deke, S. The Relationship
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.04.021 between the Strain-Hardening Exponent n and the
89. Zhang, S.; Kalashami, A. G.; Midawi, A.; Zhou, Y. N. Microstructure of Metals. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1989,
A Comparison between Hardness-Scaling and Ball 122, 211–213. doi:10.1016/0921-5093(89)90632-1
Indentation Techniques on Predicting Stress/Strain 103. Tajally, M.; Emadoddin, E. Mechanical and
Distribution and Failure Behavior of Resistance Spot Anisotropic Behaviors of 7075 Aluminum Alloy
Welded Advanced High Strength Steel. J. Manuf. Sci. Sheets. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1594–1599. doi:10.1016/
Eng. 2022, 144, 081006. j.matdes.2010.09.001
90. Pavlina, E. J.; Van Tyne, C. J. Correlation of Yield 104. Khodabakhshi, F.; Haghshenas, M.; Eskandari, H.;
Strength and Tensile Strength with Hardness for Koohbor, B. Hardness  Strength Relationships in
Steels. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2008, 17, 888–893. Fine and Ultra-Fine Grained Metals Processed
doi:10.1007/s11665-008-9225-5 through Constrained Groove Pressing. Mater. Sci.
18 G. PINTAUDE

Eng. A 2015, 636, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2015. 120. Swain, M. V.; Hagan, J. T. Indentation Plasticity and
03.122 the Ensuing Fracture of Glass. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
105. Hughes, G. D.; Smith, S. D.; Pande, C. S.; Johnson, 1976, 9, 2201–2214. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/9/15/011
H. R.; Armstrong, R. W. Hall-Petch Strengthening 121. Swab, J. J.; Wereszczak, A. A.; Strong, K. T.; Jr,
for the Microhardness of Twelve Nanometer Grain Danna, D.; LaSalvia, J. C.; Ragan, M. E.; Ritt, P. J.
Diameter Electrodeposited Nickel. Scr. Metall. 1986, Knoop Hardness–Apparent Yield Stress Relationship
20, 93–97. doi:10.1016/0036-9748(86)90219-X in Ceramics. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2012, 9,
106. Brooks, I.; Lin, P.; Palumbo, G.; Hibbard, G. D.; Erb, 650–655. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7402.2011.02686.x
U. Analysis of Hardness-Tensile Strength 122. Xie, Y.; Hawthorne, H. M. A Controlled Scratch Test
Relationships for Electroformed Nanocrystalline for Measuring the Elastic Property, Yield Stress and
Materials. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2008, 491, 412–419. Contact Stress–Strain Relationship of a Surface. Surf.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2008.02.015 Coat. Technol. 2000, 127, 130–137. doi:10.1016/
107. Gao, X. L. An Expanding Cavity Model S0257-8972(00)00561-2
Incorporating Strain-Hardening and Indentation Size 123. Hackett, B. L.; Wereszczak, A. A.; Pharr, G. M.
Effects. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2006, 43, 6615–6629. doi: Evaluation of New Technique to Estimate Yield
10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.01.008 Stress in Brittle Materials via Spherical Indentation
108. Sharp, S. J.; Ashby, M. F.; Fleck, N. A. Material Testing. In Proceeding of the 42nd International
Response under Static and Sliding Indentation Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites:
Loads. Acta Metall. Mater. 1993, 41, 685–692. doi:10. Ceramic Engineering and Science; Salem, J., Koch,
1016/0956-7151(93)90002-A D., Mechnich, P., Kusnezoff, M., Bansal, N.,
109. Zeng, K.; S€ oderlund, E.; Giannakopoulos, A. E.; LaSalvia, J., Balaya, P., Fu, Z., and Ohji, T. Eds.;
Rowcliffe, D. J. Controlled Indentation: A General John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, 2019, pp
Approach to Determine Mechanical Properties of 61–71.
Brittle Materials. Acta Mater. 1996, 44, 1127–1141. 124. Hay, J. L.; Oliver, W. C.; Bolshakov, A.; Pharr, G. M.
doi:10.1016/1359-6454(95)00196-4 Using the Ratio of Loading Slope and Elastic
110. Galanov, B. A.; Milman, Y. V.; Chugunova, S. I.; Stiffness to Predict Pile-up and Constraint Factor
during Indentation. MRS Online Proc. Lib. 1998, 522,
Goncharova, I. V.; Voskoboinik, I. V. Application of
101.
the Improved Inclusion Core Model of the
125. Lawn, B. R.; Swain, M. V. Microfracture beneath
Indentation Process for the Determination of
Point Indentations in Brittle Solids. J. Mater. Sci.
Mechanical Properties of Materials. Crystals 2017, 7,
1975, 10, 113–122. doi:10.1007/BF00541038
87. doi:10.3390/cryst7030087
126. Lawn, B. R.; Evans, A. G.; Marshall, D. B. Elastic/
111. Pintaude, G. Analysis of Spherical Contact Models
Plastic Indentation Damage in Ceramics: The
for Differential Hardness as a Function of Poisson’s
Median/Radial Crack System. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.
Ratio. J. Tribol. 2015, 137, 044502. 1980, 63, 574–581. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1980.
112. Green, I. Poisson Ratio Effects and Critical Values in tb10768.x
Spherical and Cylindrical Hertzian Contacts. Appl. 127. Mata, M.; Anglada, M.; Alcal
a, J. A Hardness
Mech. Eng. 2005, 10, 451. Equation for Sharp Indentation of Elastic-Power-Law
113. McColm, I. J. Ceramic Hardness; Springer Strain-Hardening Materials. Philosoph. Mag. A 2002,
Science þ Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2013. 82, 1831–1839. doi:10.1080/01418610208235694
114. Cook, R. F.; Pharr, G. M. Direct Observation and 128. Mata, M.; Alcal
a, J. Mechanical Property Evaluation
Analysis of Indentation Cracking in Glasses and through Sharp Indentations in Elastoplastic and
Ceramics. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1990, 73, 787–817. doi: Fully Plastic Contact Regimes. J. Mater. Res. 2003,
10.1111/j.1151-2916.1990.tb05119.x 18, 1705–1709. doi:10.1557/JMR.2003.0234
115. Zhang, Z. F.; Eckert, J. Unified Tensile Fracture 129. Xu, Z. H.; Rowcliffe, D. Method to Determine the
Criterion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 094301. doi:10. Plastic Properties of Bulk Materials by
1103/PhysRevLett.94.094301 Nanoindentation. Philosoph. Mag. A 2002, 82,
116. Chen, X. Q.; Niu, H.; Li, D.; Li, Y. Modeling 1893–1901. doi:10.1080/01418610208235701
Hardness of Polycrystalline Materials and Bulk 130. Xu, Z. H.; Ågren, J. An Analysis of Piling-up or
Metallic Glasses. Intermetallics 2011, 19, 1275–1281. Sinking-in Behaviour of Elastic–Plastic Materials
doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2011.03.026 under a Sharp Indentation. Philosoph. Mag. 2004, 84,
117. Zorzi, J. E.; Perottoni, C. A. Estimating Young’s 2367–2380. doi:10.1080/14786430410001690015
Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio by Instrumented 131. He, M. Y.; Odette, G. R.; Yamamoto, T.;
Indentation Test. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2013, 574, Klingensmith, D. A Universal Relationship between
25–30. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2013.03.008 Indentation Hardness and Flow Stress. J. Nucl.
118. Mazhnik, E.; Oganov, A. R. A Model of Hardness Mater. 2007, 367–370, 556–560. doi:10.1016/j.jnuc-
and Fracture Toughness of Solids. J. Appl. Phys. mat.2007.03.044
2019, 126, 125109. doi:10.1063/1.5113622 132. Rodr
ıguez, M.; Molina-Aldaregu
ıa, J. M.; Gonz
alez,
119. Rosenberg, Z. On the Correlation between Dynamic C.; LLorca, J. Determination of the Mechanical
Compressive Strengths of Strong Ceramics and Their Properties of Amorphous Materials through
Indentation Hardness. AIP Conf. Proc. 1996, 370, Instrumented Nanoindentation. Acta Mater. 2012,
543. 60, 3953–3964. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2012.03.027
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN SOLID STATE AND MATERIALS SCIENCES 19

133. Ye, N.; Komvopoulos, K. Indentation Analysis of Thermoplastic Polymers. Strain 2009, 45, 26–33. doi:
Elastic-Plastic Homogeneous and Layered Media: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2008.00468.x
Criteria for Determining the Real Material Hardness. 145. Tomlinson, W. J.; Talbot, K. On the Relation between
J. Tribol. 2003, 125, 685–691. doi:10.1115/1.1572515 Hardness and the Flow Curve of Metals. J. Mater. Sci.
134. Song, Z.; Komvopoulos, K. Elastic–Plastic Spherical 1968, 3, 655–657. doi:10.1007/BF00757914
Indentation: Deformation Regimes, Evolution of 146. Armstrong, R. W.; Elban, W. L.; Walley, S. M.
Plasticity, and Hardening Effect. Mech. Mater. 2013, Elastic, Plastic, Cracking Aspects of the Hardness of
61, 91–100. doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2013.01.003 Materials. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 2013, 27, 1330004.
135. Megalingam, A.; Mayuram, M. M. A Comprehensive doi:10.1142/S0217979213300041
Elastic-Plastic Single-Asperity Contact Model. Tribol. 147. Adams, B. L. Orientation Imaging Microscopy:
Trans. 2014, 57, 324–335. doi:10.1080/10402004. Emerging and Future Applications. Ultramicroscopy
2013.877179 1997, 67, 11–17. doi:10.1016/S0304-3991(96)00103-9
136. Yu, W.; Blanchard, J. P. An Elastic-Plastic 148. Kalidindi, S. R.; Pathak, S. Determination of the
Indentation Model and Its Solutions. J. Mater. Res. Effective Zero-Point and the Extraction of Spherical
1996, 11, 2358–2367. doi:10.1557/JMR.1996.0299 Nanoindentation Stress–Strain Curves. Acta Mater.
137. Kogut, L.; Komvopoulos, K. Analysis of the Spherical 2008, 56, 3523–3532. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2008.03.036
Indentation Cycle for Elastic–Perfectly Plastic Solids. 149. Pathak, S.; Stojakovic, D.; Kalidindi, S. R. Measurement
J. Mater. Res. 2004, 19, 3641–3653. doi:10.1557/JMR. of the Local Mechanical Properties in Polycrystalline
2004.0468 Samples Using Spherical Nanoindentation and
138. Olsson, E.; Larsson, P. L. A Unified Model for the Orientation Imaging Microscopy. Acta Mater. 2009, 57,
Contact Behaviour between Equal and Dissimilar 3020–3028. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2009.03.008
Elastic–Plastic Spherical Bodies. Int. J. Solids Struct. 150. Zhang, T.; Wang, S.; Wang, W. A Constitutive
2016, 81, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.10.004 Model Independent Analytical Method in
139. Jackson, R. L.; Kogut, L. A Comparison of Flattening Determining the Tensile Properties from
and Indentation Approaches for Contact Mechanics Incremental Spherical Indentation Tests (ISITs). Int.
Modeling of Single Asperity Contacts. J. Tribol. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 148, 9–19. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.
2006, 128, 209–212. doi:10.1115/1.2114948 2018.08.010
140. Ghaednia, H.; Wang, X.; Saha, S.; Xu, Y.; Sharma, 151. Zhang, T.; Wang, S.; Wang, W. A Comparative
A.; Jackson, R. L. A Review of Elastic–Plastic Study on Uniaxial Tensile Property Calculation
Contact Mechanics. Appl. Mech. Rev. 2017, 69, Models in Spherical Indentation Tests (SITs). Int. J.
060804. Mech. Sci. 2019, 155, 159–169. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.
141. Suszy
nska, M.; Grau, P.; Szmida, M.; Nowak-Wo
zny, 2019.02.044
D. Correlated Studies of Vickers Hardness and the 152. Dean, J.; Clyne, T. W. Extraction of Plasticity
Yield Stress of NaCl Crystals Doped with Ni2þ, Parameters from a Single Test Using a Spherical
Ca2þ and Eu2þ. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1997, 234-236, Indenter and FEM Modelling. Mech. Mater. 2017,
747–750. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00232-3 105, 112–122. doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.11.014
142. Huang, F. Y.; Liu, Y. W.; Kuo, J. C. Uncertainties in 153. Campbell, J. E.; Thompson, R. P.; Dean, J.; Clyne,
the Representative Indentation Stress and Strain T. W. Comparison between Stress-Strain Plots
Using Spherical Nanoindentation. Appl Nanosci. Obtained from Indentation Plastometry, Based on
2021, 11, 895–909. doi:10.1007/s13204-020-01646-x Residual Indent Profiles, and from Uniaxial Testing.
143. Patel, D. K.; Kalidindi, S. R. Correlation of Spherical Acta Mater. 2019, 168, 87–99. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.
Nanoindentation Stress-Strain Curves to Simple 2019.02.006
Compression Stress-Strain Curves for Elastic-Plastic 154. Tang, Y. T.; Campbell, J. E.; Burley, M.; Dean, J.;
Isotropic Materials Using Finite Element Models. Reed, R. C.; Clyne, T. W. Profilometry-Based
Acta Mater. 2016, 112, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.acta- Indentation Plastometry to Obtain Stress-Strain
mat.2016.04.034 Curves from Anisotropic Superalloy Components
144. Koch, T.; Seidler, S. Correlations between Made by Additive Manufacturing. Materialia 2021,
Indentation Hardness and Yield Stress in 15, 101017. doi:10.1016/j.mtla.2021.101017