Quantifying uncertainty in load–hardness relationships
- 140 Downloads
This article presents methodology for constructing a probability space that quantifies the load–hardness relationship in ceramics. Aspects of this space are indicative of uncertainties introduced by variations in material microstructure, instrument repeatability, and technician skill. The developed method is general in nature, and can be made specific to particular types of hardness measurements or equations used to describe the load–hardness relationship such as Meyer’s law, the modified proportional specimen resistance model, and others. Construction of the probability space is accomplished by applying Bayesian hypothesis testing to determine the likelihood function of critical parameters of the chosen load–hardness equation. A demonstration of this methodology is presented for Vickers hardness measurements made at four applied loads on tungsten carbide. The utility of the technique in quantifying microstructural uncertainty is shown using Knoop hardness datasets for aluminum oxynitride and two types of silicon carbide. Analysis of the normality of hardness values was shown to provide an objective criterion for determining when enough measurements have been made to adequately describe material behavior. The probability spaces constructed for each material were used to quantify uncertainty in the load–hardness curve that would extend to predictions regarding microstructural features or performance based on this relationship.
KeywordsApplied Load Hardness Measurement Indentation Size Effect Knoop Hardness Hardness Curve
This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Postgraduate Research Participation Program at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and USARL.
- 1.Ryge GR, Poley DE, Fairhurst CW (1960) J Dent Res 40:1116Google Scholar
- 6.McCauley J, Wilantewicz T (2008) In: Proceedings of the 26th army science conferenceGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wilantewicz T, McCauley J (2008) In: Advances in ceramic armor IV: ceramic engineering and science proceedings, Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 15.Meyer E (1908) Phys Z 9:66Google Scholar
- 17.Thibault N, Nyquist H (1947) Trans Am Soc Met 38:271Google Scholar
- 18.ASTM Standard C1326–03 (2003) Standard test method for Knoop indentation hardness of advanced ceramics. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
- 19.ASTM Standard C1327–03 (2003) Standard test method for Vickers indentation hardness of advanced ceramics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
- 20.Vander Voort GF (1989) Results of an ASTM E-4 round robin on the precision and bias of measurements of microindentation hardness impressions, in factors that affect the precision of mechanical tests. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, p 3Google Scholar
- 21.Tobolski EL (1989) Factors that affect the accuracy of indentation hardness tests, in factors that affect the precision of mechanical tests. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, p 46Google Scholar
- 22.Wilantewicz T, Cannon R, Quinn G (2007) The indentation size effect (ISE) for Knoop hardness in five ceramic materials. Advances in Ceramic Armor II, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
- 24.McColm IJ (1990) Ceramic hardness. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar