ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Metrological Comparison of Available Methods to Correct Edge-Effect Local Plasticity in Instrumented Indentation Test.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Instrumented Indentation Test (IIT) mechanically characterizes materials from the nano to the macro scale, enabling the evaluation of microstructure and ultra-thin coatings. IIT is a non-conventional technique applied in strategic sectors, e.g., automotive, aerospace and physics, to foster the development of innovative materials and manufacturing processes. However, material plasticity at the indentation edge biases the characterization results. Correcting such effects is extremely challenging, and several methods have been proposed in the literature. However, comparisons of these available methods are rare, often limited in scope, and neglect metrological performance of the different methods. After reviewing the main available methods, this work innovatively proposes a performance comparison within a metrological framework currently missing in the literature. The proposed framework for performance comparison is applied to some available methods, i.e., work-based, topographical measurement of the indentation to evaluate the area and the volume of the pile-up, Nix-Gao model and the electrical contact resistance (ECR) approach. The accuracy and measurement uncertainty of the correction methods is compared considering calibrated reference materials to establish traceability of the comparison. Results, also discussed in light of the practical convenience of the methods, show that the most accurate method is the Nix-Gao approach (accuracy of 0.28 GPa, expanded uncertainty of 0.57 GPa), while the most precise is the ECR (accuracy of 0.33 GPa, expanded uncertainty of 0.37 GPa), which also allows for in-line and real-time corrections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.