The general use of aluminium as an indentation standard for the iteration of contact heights for the determination of ISO-14577 hardness and elastic modulus is challenged because of as yet not appreciated phase-change...The general use of aluminium as an indentation standard for the iteration of contact heights for the determination of ISO-14577 hardness and elastic modulus is challenged because of as yet not appreciated phase-changes in the physical force-depth standard curve that seemed to be secured by claims from 1992. The physical and mathematical analyses with closed formulas avoid the still world-wide standardized energy-law violation by not reserving 33.33% (h2 belief) (or 20% h3/2 physical law) of the loading force and thus energy for all not depth producing events but using 100% for the depth formation is a severe violation of the energy law. The not depth producing part of the indentation work cannot be done with zero energy! Both twinning and structural phase-transition onsets and normalized phase-transition energies are now calculated without iterations but with physically correct closed arithmetic equations. These are reported for Berkovich and cubecorner indentations, including their comparison on geometric grounds and an indentation standard without mechanical twinning is proposed. Characteristic data are reported. This is the first detection of the indentation twinning of aluminium at room temperature and the mechanical twinning of fused quartz is also new. Their disqualification as indentation standards is established. Also, the again found higher load phase-transitions disqualify aluminium and fused quartz as ISO-ASTM 14577 (International Standardization Organization and American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for the contact depth “hc” iterations. The incorrect and still world-wide used black-box values for H- and Er-values (the latter are still falsely called “Young’s moduli” even though they are not directional) and all mechanical properties that depend on them. They lack relation to bulk moduli from compression experiments. Experimentally obtained and so published force vs depth parabolas always follow the linear FN = kh3/2 + Fa equation, where Fa is the axis-cut before and after the phase-transition branches (never “h2” as falsely enforced and used for H, Er and giving incorrectly calculated parameters). The regression slopes k are the precise physical hardness values, which for the first time allow for precise calculation of the mechanical qualities by indentation in relation to the geometry of the indenter tip. Exactly 20% of the applied force and thus energy is not available for the indentation depth. Only these scientific k-values must be used for AI-advises at the expense of falsely iterated indentation hardness H-values. Any incorrect H-ISO-ASTM and also the iterated Er-ISO-ASTM modulus values of technical materials in artificial intelligence will be a disaster for the daily safety. The AI must be told that these are unscientific and must therefore be replaced by physical data. Iterated data (3 and 8 free parameters!) cannot be transformed into physical data. One has to start with real experimental loading curves and an absolute ZerodurR standard that must be calibrated with standard force and standard length to create absolute indentation results. .展开更多
文摘The general use of aluminium as an indentation standard for the iteration of contact heights for the determination of ISO-14577 hardness and elastic modulus is challenged because of as yet not appreciated phase-changes in the physical force-depth standard curve that seemed to be secured by claims from 1992. The physical and mathematical analyses with closed formulas avoid the still world-wide standardized energy-law violation by not reserving 33.33% (h2 belief) (or 20% h3/2 physical law) of the loading force and thus energy for all not depth producing events but using 100% for the depth formation is a severe violation of the energy law. The not depth producing part of the indentation work cannot be done with zero energy! Both twinning and structural phase-transition onsets and normalized phase-transition energies are now calculated without iterations but with physically correct closed arithmetic equations. These are reported for Berkovich and cubecorner indentations, including their comparison on geometric grounds and an indentation standard without mechanical twinning is proposed. Characteristic data are reported. This is the first detection of the indentation twinning of aluminium at room temperature and the mechanical twinning of fused quartz is also new. Their disqualification as indentation standards is established. Also, the again found higher load phase-transitions disqualify aluminium and fused quartz as ISO-ASTM 14577 (International Standardization Organization and American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for the contact depth “hc” iterations. The incorrect and still world-wide used black-box values for H- and Er-values (the latter are still falsely called “Young’s moduli” even though they are not directional) and all mechanical properties that depend on them. They lack relation to bulk moduli from compression experiments. Experimentally obtained and so published force vs depth parabolas always follow the linear FN = kh3/2 + Fa equation, where Fa is the axis-cut before and after the phase-transition branches (never “h2” as falsely enforced and used for H, Er and giving incorrectly calculated parameters). The regression slopes k are the precise physical hardness values, which for the first time allow for precise calculation of the mechanical qualities by indentation in relation to the geometry of the indenter tip. Exactly 20% of the applied force and thus energy is not available for the indentation depth. Only these scientific k-values must be used for AI-advises at the expense of falsely iterated indentation hardness H-values. Any incorrect H-ISO-ASTM and also the iterated Er-ISO-ASTM modulus values of technical materials in artificial intelligence will be a disaster for the daily safety. The AI must be told that these are unscientific and must therefore be replaced by physical data. Iterated data (3 and 8 free parameters!) cannot be transformed into physical data. One has to start with real experimental loading curves and an absolute ZerodurR standard that must be calibrated with standard force and standard length to create absolute indentation results. .
