Estimation of Fracture Toughness using Ball Indentation: Literature Review

Ball indentation as constant speed and progressive multiple loading/ partial unloading
at a single location generates a plot of indentation load (N) verses depth (mm) curve,
which is linear in nature. Analysis of these data results in evaluation of True stress
True strain curve of the material. So available data from Ball indentation tests are as
follows:
A.) Load (P) vs Depth (h)
B.) True Stress True Strain Curve
C.) y , uts , K & n
These data can also be used for evaluation of fracture toughness of the material.
Various estimation schemes available for fracture toughness are illustrated below.
1.0 Indentation Energy to Fracture (IEF) [1]
Indentation Energy to Fracture (IEF) allows the nondestructive determination of
fracture energy from ABI- measured true stress-strain curves up to the controlling
micromechanical fracture mechanism of the critical fracture stress or the critical
fracture strain. Evaluation of IEF is based on following premise.
-

Interpretation of fracture toughness as deformation capability of the material

under a concentrated stress field. This generates concentrated stress fields near
and ahead of the contact of the indenter and the test surface, similar to
concentrated stress fields ahead of a crack albeit the indentation stress fields
are compressive.

Monotonic tensile and compressive stress strain curves are similar.

IEF energy due to the ball indentation upto limit stress (critical fracture stress)
is related to fracture toughness.

It is given as the integration of ABI flow stress to the predicted depth to fracture.
hf

IEF

P (h)dh
m

where, Pm 4 P d 2

1.1

Here, Pm is the mean contact pressure, P is the indentation load, h is the indentation
depth, hf is the indentation depth up to cleavage fracture stress and d is the chordal
diameter of the indentation. Since indentation load versus depth curve is linear. The
slope (S) of he curves can be used to calculate IEF,

and

P=Sh

1.2

d 2( Dh h 2 )0.5

1.3

S
D
ln

D h f

1.4

D is the indentation diameter.

So that

IEF

In absence of critical fracture stress for our material, we assume reference stress is
equal to uts & 1.5 uts and plotting the reference stress on a True Stress- Strain plot,
indentation depth at fracture (hf) can be obtained. Substituting hf in equation for IEF.
IEF can be obtained.
From fracture mechanics models, the critical crack length 2a is related to the fracture
toughness KJC
K JC f a

0.5

1.5

According to generalized Griffith theory

f (2 EW f / a )0.5

1.6

where E is the elastic modulus, so

K JC 2 EW f

0.5

1.7

2.0 Critical Fracture Strain Model: [2]

This technique involve estimating the fracture toughness by coupling the ABIderived flow properties with a modified but empirically critical fracture strain model.
This technique is limited to ductile fracture applications.
The critical fracture strain model for ductile fracture prediction can be expressed in
the form
K JIc cons tan t ( *f .l0* .E. y ) 0.5

2.1

*
*
Where f is the critical fracture strain, lo is the characteristic distance ahead of the
*
crack tip over which the strain must exceed f , E is the elastic modulus and y is the

yield strength. This model requires strain hardening exponent (n) from ABI test and
*
empirically calibrated value lo of for a given material.

The modified critical strain model can now be written as

K JIc cons tan t ( n.l0* .E. y ) 0.5

2.2

*
The characteristic distance, lo for ductile fracture is usually a multiple of the

interparticle spacing and should be regarded as essentially as empirically obtained

quantity.
Since the critical fracture strain is not available. Strain hardening exponent value can
be used for calculations. Although such a substitution has no theoretical basis, it was
considered reasonable since the critical fracture strain is often proportional to the
uniform strain for a smooth tensile specimen. The value of constant, which is
reasonably good for steel, can be taken as 3.00 for irradiated or deformed condition of
*
material. lo based on grain size of material can be used which lies in the range of

50 m to 250 m .
A new empirical model, used successfully in this work for estimating the fracture
toughness in A508 class 4 forging,
K JIc cons tan t ( K .d .n. y ) 0.5

2.3

where d is the grain size of the test material, K is the strength proportionality constant,
n is the strain hardening exponent. This model eliminates the need for the
characteristic distance and uses three parameters measures from ABI tests. For
estimating fracture toughness using equation 2.3 the constant can be taken as 97 and
grain size 45 m and 30 m is used for SS-304 and CS-333 respectively.
3.0 Continuum Damage Mechanics Approach [3]
For critical indentation energy model as given in section I.
K JC 2 EW f

0.5

To estimate KJC, through indentation technique, wf must be determined using only

indention parameters. Indentation energy per unit contact area can be related to w f if
there exists a characteristic fracture initiation point during the indentation process.
This energy called the critical indentation energy is calculated from the indentation
load-depth curve as follows:
lim h 4 L
2w f
dh
h h* o d 2

3.1

where L is the applied indentation load, h the indentation depth, d the hardness
impression diameter, and h* the critical indentation depth corresponding to the
characteristic fracture initiatin point. The term on the left (2w f) is the energy for the
formation of two crack surfaces.
Determination of h*
Since there is no distinguishable mark to identify fracture during indentation, h * in
equation 3.1 cannot be measured by direct methods such as optical microscopy or
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Thus, to determine h* indirectly, concepts of
CDM, which has been widely used to predict failure in structures loaded statically and
dynamically. Damage variable D, in equation 3.2 is relate the surface density of micro
defects in the material:
D

sD

3.2

where S and SD are, respectively, the cross sectional area of the loaded region and the
reduced area due to micro defects. D can be also represented by an elastic modulus
change using Lemaitres strain-equivalence principle
D 1

ED
or E D E (1 D)
E

3.3

where ED and E are the elastic modulus of the damaged and undamaged material,
respectively. Thus, ED decreases as the degree of damage in the material increases.
If we assume that possible damage (such as voids nucleated in ductile material)
beneath the indenter increases with increasing indentation depth, E D can also decrease
during indentation. It is represented with indentation parameters.
ED

1 2
1 2

1 1 i2 2 Ac 1 i2

Ei
E
Er
i

3.4

where v and vi are the Poissons ratios of the material and indenter. E r is the reduced
modulus, Ei is the elastic modulus of the indenter, Ac is the contact area between
indenter and material and S is the unloading slope. The value of E D at various
indentation depths can be calculated at each unloading.
The material beneath the indenter experiences localized shear stress due to
compressive indentation force in the loading axis. If the shear stresses induce void
nucleation, the void volume fraction (f) may increase with increasing spherical
indentation load.

*
The void volume fraction increases, SD and thus D increases. The value of ED can be

determined from the critical damage value (D*) through equation 3.3. By assuming
that voids are uniformly distributed with nearest neighbor spacing l, f and D can be
calculate using the void radius (r). For a cross sectional area of one void r 2 per total
area (l2), D can be described as r 2 / l 2 , while for void volume (4 r 3 / 3) per total
volume (l3), f can be given as (4 r 3 / 3) / l 3 . By combining these equations, D can be
represented in terms of f as
D

4

3

2/3

f 2/3

3.5

Thus the critical damage value D* can be determined if we know the critical void
volume fraction (f*), which means the value of f at the fracture initiation point is
known.
Numerical analysis by Anderson shows f*=0.25 at the initiation of stable crack growth
in ductile materials and this described the process of stable crack growth from a
modified Gurson model using this criterion. Thus the value of f*=0.25 may be
employed to determine the critical value of the damaged material elastic modulus of a
ductile material and thus its fracture initiation point during indentation. The elastic
modulus corresponding to D* becomes E*D using equation 3.3. Thus h* required for
equation 3.1 can be evaluated as depth corresponding to the critical damaged material
elastic modulus E*D. Now, 2wf can be obtained using equation 3.1. Putting value of
2wf in equation K JC 2 EW f

0.5

, fracture toughness can be evaluated.

Reference
1. Haggag, F. M., Byun, T. S., "Indentation-Energy-To-Fracture (IEF) Parameter for
Characterization of DBTT in Carbon Steels Using Nondestructive Automated Ball
Indentation (ABI) Technique." Scripta Materialia, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 645-651,1998.
2. Haggag, F. M., In-Situ Measurements of Mechanical Properties Using Novel
Automated Ball Indentation System, ASTM STP 1204, Phildelphia, pp. 27-44, 1993.
3. Lee, J. S., Jang, J. I. and Lee, B. W., An Instrumented Indentation Technique for
Estimating Fracture Toughness of Ductile Material: A Critical Indentation Energy

Model Based on Continuum Damage Mechanics, Acta Materialia, Vol. 54, pp. 11011109, 2006.