Highlighting the Dilemma between Physics and ISO Elastic Indentation Modulus

This chapter questions the ISO standard 14577, which calculates the elastic indentation modulus by breaking the first energy law and ignoring easily detectable phase change onsets and initial surface effects under load. It is necessary to cancel and stop the double iteration for incorrectly fitting the indentation modulus to a standard with up to 11 free parameters. The iterative evaluation of the elastic modulus Er-ISO can by far not be reproduced by iteration-free direct calculation of Er, when using the underlying formulas for S, hc, Ahc, and . For cubic aluminium the errors amount to a factor of 3.5 or 3.1, respectively. Every interpretation of indentation moduli as single unidirectional "Young’s moduli" is false. They contain shear moduli and are mixes in all directions. Even in this straightforward but already anisotropic instance, the three separate packing diagrams of body-centered cubic -iron provide as an example of the combination of three independent Young's moduli (and hence also three shear moduli). More linear moduli ensue in lower symmetry crystals as exemplified with -quartz. The first physical indentation modulus is deduced by removal of the physical errors of Er-ISO, or after indenter compliance correction EISO. Only Er-phys does no longer violate the energy law. The conflict between physics and ISO is especially harmful because Eiso is utilised to calculate several mechanical characteristics that are frequently used. Due to serious violations of the fundamental energy law and other physical rules that govern daily life, these spread the inaccuracies into failure risks of incorrectly estimated materials. There are issues that need to be resolved quickly by new ISO standards. The first recommendations for using Ephys, and ultimately measured bulk modulus K are made. This needs to be evaluated and discussed right now.