English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Different loading protocols have been developed in the past to investigate the creep properties of materials using instrumented indentation testing technique. Recently, a new indentation creep method was presented, in which the contact pressure is kept constant during the creep test segment, similar to the constant stress applied in a uniaxial creep experiment. In this study, the results of constant contact pressure creep tests are compared to uniaxial and constant load hold indentation creep experiments on ultrafine grained Cu and CuAl5. The constant contact pressure method yields similar stress exponents as the uniaxial tests, down to indentation strain rates of 10 –6  s −1 , whereas the constant load hold method results mainly in a relaxation of the material at decreasing applied pressures. Furthermore, a pronounced change in the power law exponent at large stress reductions is found for both uniaxial and constant contact pressure tests, indicating a change in deformation mechanism of ultrafine grained metals. Graphical abstract

Nanoindentation creep testing: Advantages and limitations of the constant contact pressure method