Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Mechanics analysis and simulation of material Brinell

hardness measurement
Ge Leyi a, Zhao Wei a, Zhou Jing b, Huang Songling a,⇑
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Center for Information Science, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Material Brinell hardness values are usually measured by force loading Brinell hardness
Received 31 August 2010 testers. In this paper, firstly, based on experiment data and theoretical analysis, not only
Received in revised form 15 July 2011 the relationship between Brinell hardness and mechanical properties of the measured
Accepted 29 July 2011
material is discussed, but also all measurement uncertainty sources are precisely cali-
Available online 11 August 2011
brated. Secondly, force loading characteristics of the Brinell hardness measurement are
described and a finite element analysis for the whole Brinell hardness measurement
Keywords:
process is introduced. Thirdly, to acquire theoretical measurement uncertainties and the
Measurement uncertainty
Displacement error
reliable Brinell hardness values of the material under analysis, Monte Carlo method is
Finite element analysis applied to simulate Brinell hardness experiments. At last, several sets of experiments are
Monte Carlo method carried out on HB-3000C, the Brinell hardness results acquired by this proposed novel
Indentation mechanics analysis method and practical experiments shown to be consistent, and the
validity of the proposed method is attained.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The relationship between material Brinell hardness and

Mechanical hardness testing is fundamental in the eval-
uation of the mechanical properties of metallic materials
[1]. In recent years, the related researches of Brinell hard-
ness measurement have been extensively made, and some
new measurement methods are presented, such as ultra-
sonic Brinell hardness measurement and electromagnetic
Brinell hardness measurement. However, because of its
high precision, the force loading Brinell hardness measure-
ment is still currently the most authoritative measurement
method in the measurement community. Using different
force loading modes such as weight loading, hydraulic
loading, lever loading or linear motor loading, Brinell hard-
ness tester applies a rated stress to the surface of the mea-
sured material, and then survey crew measure the
diameter of corresponding indentation and calculate the
material Brinell hardness based on mechanical equations.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Huangsling@tsinghua.edu.cn (H. Songling).
material stress–strain behaviors has been extensively
studied. Both ISO/TR 10108 and GB/T 1172-1999 (Chinese
national standard) have elaborated a conversion of hard-
ness values and tensile strength values for steel [1,2]. In
2007, Janosec used the same strip steel as the measured
material both in a tensile test and a Brinell hardness test.
He gained the results of Brinell hardness, yield stress, ten-
sile strength and their ratio at the room temperature,
respectively [3]. In 2008, Tien discovered that the relation-
ship between the tensile strength and Brinell hardness va-
lue of a material is very intensive [4].
Uncertainty evaluation of material Brinell hardness
measurement is usually a difficult problem. A probability
and statistics methodology (type A method of ‘‘Guide to
the expression of uncertainty in measurement’’ [5]) is
often used to evaluate the measurement uncertainty, for
example, in 2005, Herrmanzinn synthesized the uncer-
tainty of hardness measurements according to the error
propagation law [6]. Different from the conventional meth-
od above, some new uncertainty evaluation methods have
been developed: Roberts applied Neural Network theory to

0263-2241/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2011.07.024
2130 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137
analyze Brinell hardness measurement results [7], Xia ap-
plied Fuzzy theory to evaluating the material Brinell hard-
ness measurement uncertainty [8], Ge applied Grey System
theory to uncertainty evaluation for a general hardness
measurement [9]. Leire carried out a complete study of
the uncertainty components in direct emissivity determi-
nation [10]. Monti addressed the evaluation of dynamic
uncertainty in dynamic measurements via polynomial
chaos theory (PCT) [11].
Many recent studies have focused on material Brinell
hardness measurement process. Fazil established an ana-
lytical relation between hardness and effective strain in-
duced in a metal during cold working. He hold that for
each of the two most commonly used measures of indenta-
tion hardness, Vickers’ and Brinell’s, a separate analytical
relation was proposed relying on the previous empirical
and numerical studies, the results of the analytical models
compared well with the data obtained from the practical
experiments [12]. Rosenberger developed a finite element
model to quantify the effect of the depth and diameter of
the reinforcement in the hardness number of metal matrix
composite [13]. Filho et al. have shown that the semi-auto-
matic measurement of Brinell hardness by computational
approach is easier, faster, and less dependent on the oper-
ator’s subjectivity [14].
In this paper, the whole Brinell hardness measurement
process was discussed from viewpoint of theoretical
mechanics. At first, a universal material testing machine
was employed to acquire material stress–strain character-
istics, then, indentation depth and diameter by finite ele-
ment analysis were calculated; in order to get the most
reliable Brinell hardness results and evaluate the practical
measurement uncertainty, the main measurement influ-
encing factors such as all error sources and external condi-
tions were calibrated by other high precision instruments,
and the practical Brinell hardness measurement process
was simulated by Monte Carlo method. This novel method
consists of the following seven steps, as described in Fig. 1:
(1) Acquire the stress–strain characteristics of the mea-
sured material. We should use authoritative mate-
rial properties data directly or experimentize in a
material testing machine.
(2) Make some quantitative analysis for the main Brinell
hardness measurement conditions such as tempera-
ture, force holding time, force value.
(3) Use the results of step 1 and step 2 to make a finite
element analysis for the whole measurement pro-
cess. The analysis should base on material Brinell
hardness measurement principle. In this step, maxi-
mum stress, minimum stress, indentation diameter
and indentation depth can be calculated by
computer.
(4) Calibrate all the types and distribution intervals of
measurement error sources.
(5) Generate random numbers to simulate all measure-
ment error sources according to Monte Carlo
method, we set initial values for practical measure-
ment environmental variables, and then carry out
simulation calculations for the whole Brinell hard-
ness measurement process many times.
(6) Get material Brinell hardness and measurement
uncertainty by a statistical analysis for the results
of step 5.
(7) Verify the stress got in the step 3 and Brinell hard-
ness measurement results got in the step 6 by prac-
tical Brinell hardness measurements, and validate
this mechanics analysis method.
In Section 2 of this paper, we discussed several factors:
Brinell hardness measurement principle, Brinell hardness
measurement uncertainty components, stress–strain char-
acteristics of the measured material, relationship between
stress–strain characteristics and Brinell hardness, force
load characteristics of Brinell hardness measurement.
These factors should be considered in the process of finite
element analysis of Brinell hardness measurement. In Sec-
tion 3, a specific example was used to prove the novel
mechanics analysis and simulation method proposed. In
Section 4, principle of this Brinell hardness measurement
mechanics analysis and simulation method was
summarized.
2. Mechanics analysis and simulation of Brinell
hardness measurement
2.1. Brinell hardness measurement principle
The hardness of forged steel, cast steel, cast iron, non-
ferrous and nonmetallic materials is usually measured by
force loading Brinell hardness testers. Namely, under some
experimental conditions, engineers and technicians apply
a normal force load F on the surface of measured material,
after a force holding time, unloading the material, they use
the average stress of the indentation spherical surface area
as the Brinell hardness value of the measured material. The
ideal Brinell hardness measurement principle can be de-
scribed in Fig. 2.
HB expresses the Brinell hardness measured value:
  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
HB ¼ 0:102  2F pD D  D2  d2 ð1Þ
where units of the F, the D and the d are N, mm and mm,
respectively. Let us define HB0 to be the true Brinell hard-
ness value, then the error of Brinell hardness measurement
result is
DHB ¼ HB  HB0 ð2Þ
2.2. Brinell hardness measurement uncertainty analysis
The sources affecting the final Brinell hardness mea-
surement uncertainty include measurement error of the
indentation diameter, force load error, measurement er-
ror of the indenter diameter, hardness measurement
long term stability error, the surface quality of the
sample. All these sources should be calibrated by
experiments.
(1) Measurement uncertainty U1 resulted from the mea-
surement error of the indentation diameter.
 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137 2131

Stress-strain
characteristics of the
measured material
Quantitative analysises
of the measurement
conditions
Maximum stress
Finite element analysis Minimum stress
for the whole
measurement process
Indentation diameter
Indentation depth

Material
Brinell hardness Statistical Monte Carlo Stress
analysis simulation verification
Measurement
uncertainty
Calibrate all
measurement error sources

Measurement Practical Brinell

result verification hardness measurement

Fig. 1. Mechanics analysis principle of material Brinell hardness measurement.

Fig. 2. Ideal Brinell hardness measurement principle. F is the force load, d Fig. 3. Indentation of Brinell hardness measurement.
is the indentation diameter, / is the indentation angle, and D is the
indenter diameter.

Usually, there are some convexes in the indentation

edges of the measured material surface after force unload- Initial Position
ing [15,16], as described in the yellow area1 of Figs. 3 and 4. Indenter
These convexes often result in actual indentation diam- Force holding Position
eter slightly larger than the ideal one, and lead to a nega- Surface of the measured material
tive deviation of Brinell hardness. The convexity of
different measured material is different significantly. Convex
R
The measurement error of the indentation diameter R1
usually includes displacement error of microscope workta-
ble and eye’s error in aiming at measuring indentation. Fig. 4. Indentation generation. R is ideal indentation radius, R = d/2, R1 is
the actual indentation radius.

1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 3, 4, 7–10, the reader is referred to
(1) Measurement uncertainty u2 resulted from the error
the web version of this article. of the force load.
2132 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137

This error of the force load is mainly reflected in three

aspects: the practical force is not meet measurement
requirements, force direction is not perpendicular to the
sample surface, positive or negative deviation of the force
load velocity.

(1) Measurement uncertainty u3 resulted from diame-

ter, hardness, surface roughness and surface round-
ness of the indenter (steel ball or carbide ball) do
not meet measurement standard.
(2) Measurement uncertainty u4 resulted from these
error sources such as surface roughness error and
shape error of the measured sample, distance error
between two adjacent indentation, sample tempera-
ture error. Fig. 5. Stress–strain characteristics of the measured material. r is the
(3) Measurement uncertainty u5 resulted from mea- stress, e is the strain, rp is the elastic limit, rs is the yield limit, rb is the
strength limit.
surement long term stability.
  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Before make mechanical analysis and simulation for the 2
HB ¼ 0:102  d0 r 2D D  D2  d
2
ð4Þ
whole Brinell hardness measurement process, we should
calibrate these uncertainties. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2
D D
2.3. Stress–strain characteristics of the measured material d¼2  h ð5Þ
2 2

In this section, the elasto-plastic dynamic response of
shock on the measured material surface is studied and
the corresponding diagram of the stress–strain state is
presented.
On the standard measurement conditions, a universal
material testing machine was used to apply a continuously
changing force on the measured material surface, and
some experiment data of the amount of compression can
be acquired. A stress which equals to the force divided by
cross sectional area of the measured material was used
as ordinate, and a strain which equals to the amount of
elongation divided by original length of the measured
material is used as abscissa, and then a stress–strain curve
as can be depicted in Fig. 5.
In elastic stage, the variance of stress and strain, not the
stress and strain themselves, satisfies the Hooke Law,
namely, the strain increases linearly in proportion with
the increase of stress [17]. However, in plastic stage the
strain changes irregularly with the stress increase and in
yield stage the strain changes nonlinearly [18].
The stress of the measured material can be calculated
by the following equations:
r ¼ f ðF; d0 Þ ¼ F=S ¼ 4F=pd20
2
ð3Þ
F ¼ pd0 r=4
where h is the ideal indentation depth, and h, D and d are in
mm.
2.5. Force load characteristics of Brinell hardness
measurement
In the process of Brinell hardness measurement, force
load increases from F0 at moment T0 until its value reaches
to F1 at moment T1, then the force load F1 is hold for time
T2. Finally, it is unloaded completely at moment
T1 + T2 + T3, as described in Table 1.
If the indentation force F1 is small, the material elasti-
cally deforms and upon unloading the surface recovers to
its original shape, therefore, in order to acquire an indenta-
tion, F1 should increase gradually to a certain value so that
an indentation can be generated on the measured material
surface:
pd20 rs =4 6 F 1 6 pd20 rb =4 ð6Þ
In plastic domain, because the relationship between
stress and strain is usually nonlinear and nonunqiue, the fi-
nal hardness measurement results may be different if one
uses different levels of force load and indenter.
2.6. Finite element analysis of Brinell hardness measurement
process

where F is the force, S is cross sectional area of the mea- Finite element analysis of Brinell hardness measure-
sured sample, d0 is diameter of the measured material ment process, namely, firstly we set the measurement con-
upper surface. dition variables in Ansys 10.0. Then establish an entity
model, which is built according to simplifying appropri-
2.4. Relationship between stress–strain characteristics and
Brinell hardness
Table 1
Force loading characteristics.
If one substitute the stress got by Eq. (3) for that in Eq.
Moment (s) T0  T1 T1  T1 + T2 T1 + T2  T1 + T2 + T3
(1), will obtain the Brinell hardness of the measured
Force (Kgf) F0 ? F1 F1 F1 ? 0
material.
 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137 2133

Fig. 6. Finite element analysis results of Brinell hardness measurement.

Fig. 7. Stress–strain characteristics.

ately the original model, selecting the element type, mesh-
ing and defining the boundary conditions. Furthermore, we
should add many random numbers to the force load when
define many force loading steps and surface contacting
type during the force loading course, and these random
numbers are generated by Monte Carlo method in terms
of all measurement uncertainty information. Finally, we
solve it with the multi-step load solution method of finite
element analysis. According to this finite element analysis,
we can calculate maximum stress, minimum stress, inden-
tation depth and indentation diameter. The interface of fi-
nal results is depicted in Fig. 6.
Analyzing a large sample of the maximum stress, mini-
mum stress, indentation depth and indentation diameter,
using Eqs. (1), (3)–(5), we get the most reliable Brinell
hardness value.
2134 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137

Fig. 8. Force loading characteristics.

Table 2
Calibrating the uncertainty U1.

Hardness Reference Indenter Force Indentation Diameter measurement deviation (%)

(HB) block diameter (Kgf) diameter
NIM- SCIM- SCIM- HB- I304 SDHY NXIM GDIM NIM-
(mm) (mm)
01 01 02 3000C 02
250 7991/ 2.5 187.5 0.951 0.26 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.04 0.46 0.34 0.27
25AW
7992/ 5 750 1.891 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.38
25AW
350 7996/ 2.5 187.5 0.837 0.41 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.40 0.38 0.37
35AW
7997/ 5 750 1.664 0.23 0.13 0.09 0.49 0.19 0.38 0.13 0.42 0.05
35AW
7998/ 10 3000 3.316 0.22 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.13
35AW
450 8015/ 2.5 187.5 0.714 0.54 0.17 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.52
45AW
8016/ 5 750 1.412 0.29 0.07 0.02 0.33 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.37 0.44
45AW
8017/ 10 3000 2.820 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.21 0.03 0.06 0.22 0.13 0.02
45AW

3. Validation of the proposed method

HB-3000C is a high precision force loading Brinell hard- Table 3

Calibrating the uncertainty u5.
ness tester made in Laizhou China. HB-3000C was used to
measure some experimental blocks with different inden- Hardness Indenter Force Long term stability
ters, different force levels and different load holding time. (HB) diameter (mm) (Kgf) deviation (%)
The cylinder blocks were produced by Danqin Corporation 250 2.5 187.5 0.10
China, and their height and diameter are 50 mm and 5 750 0.17
100 mm respectively. 350 2.5 187.5 0.15
At first, we got stress–strain characteristics of the mea- 5 750 0.19
10 3000 0.12
sured blocks by a hydraulic-universal material testing ma-
chine, as the brown curve depicted in Fig. 7. Moreover, we 450 2.5 187.5 0.03
5 750 0.13
described the force loading characteristics of this measure-
10 3000 0.08
ment, as the blue dashed curve depicted in Fig. 8.
 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137 2135

Table 4
Measurement uncertainty components of HB-3000C.

Uncertainties (HB) 0–250 HB 250–450 HB 450–600 HB

Distribution interval Distribution type Distribution interval Distribution type Distribution interval Distribution type
U1 (HB) (0.017, 0.018) Uniform (0.021, 0.021) Uniform (0.023, 0.023) Uniform
U2 (HB) (0.004, 0.003) Uniform (0.007, 0.007) Uniform (0.009, 0.008) Uniform
U3 (HB) (0.015, 0.015) Uniform (0.010, 0.010) Uniform (0.024, 0.023) Uniform
U4 (HB) (0.001, 0.001) Uniform (0.003, 0.003) Uniform (0.004, 0.002) Uniform
U5 (%) (0.135, 0.033) Normal (0.152, 0.073) Normal (0.114, 0.013) Normal

Fig. 9. Brinell hardness comparison.

In order to calibrate the measurement uncertainty U1 of
HB-3000C, we used other eight Brinell hardness testers
(NIM-01, NIM-02, SCIM-01, SCIM-02, I304, SDHY, NXIM
and GDIM) to compare the diameter results measured by
HB-3000C, as depicted in Table 2.
Calibrate the uncertainty u5 resulted from measure-
ment long term stability of HB-3000C in Table 3.
Therefore, under the actual measurement conditions
that force is 3000 Kgf, indenter diameter is 10 mm, load
holding time is 15 s and temperature is 20 °C, we calibrate
all the measurement uncertainty components of HB-3000C
in Table 4.
After compiling and running APDL program in Ansys
10.0 in terms of the analysis steps introduced in this paper,
we made a finite element analysis for the whole Brinell
hardness measurement process.
As can be seen from the data in Table 4, the computer
can generate a great deal of random numbers based on
Monte Carlo method, simulate the Brinell hardness mea-
surement process in a large sample size, get many calcula-
tion results and finally several Brinell hardness values
were got by Eqs. (1), (3)–(5), as indicated in Figs. 9 and 10.
In Fig. 9, the blue curve expresses the average of four
practical Brinell hardness measurement results and the
red curve expresses the results got by Monte Carlo method.
In Fig. 10, the green curve expresses actual Brinell hardness
measurement uncertainty and the red curve expresses the
measurement uncertainty evaluated by Monte Carlo meth-
od. Obviously, with the sample size increasing, the devia-
tion of Brinell hardness and measurement uncertainty
between Monte Carlo simulation method and practical
measurement decreases gradually.
Under other measurement conditions, we use the same
HB-3000C to measure the Brinell hardness of the same
experimental blocks. Moreover, we make some mechanical
analysis and simulation for these measurements, and listed
the results in Table 5.
In Table 5, H1 expresses the Brinell hardness acquired
by mechanical analysis and simulation, H2 expresses the
Brinell hardness acquired by four repeated measurements,
U1 expresses the measurement uncertainty acquired by
mechanical analysis and simulation, and U2 expresses the
measurement uncertainty acquired by four repeated mea-
surements. Under the same measurement conditions
2136 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137

Fig. 10. Measurement uncertainty comparison.

Table 5
Result comparison of mechanical analysis and actual measurements.

Force (Kgf) 187.5 750 3000

Indenter diameter (mm) 2.5 5 10
Temperature (°C) 20 20 20
Result (HB) H1 H2 U1 U2 H1 H2 U1 U2 H1 H2 U1 U2
Load holding time (s) 10 88.046 88.045 0.217 0.216 88.237 88.241 0.193 0.184 88.762 88.781 0.205 0.212
15 88.021 88.014 0.203 0.207 88.127 88.201 0.183 0.189 88.520 88.522 0.195 0.198
20 88.002 88.009 0.188 0.193 88.032 88.102 0.175 0.179 88.327 88.332 0.179 0.184

(force, indenter diameter, temperature and load holding References

time), it can be found that the values of H1 and U1 in Table
5 are consistent with the values of H2 and U2 respectively.
As important evidence, we can judge from the above com-
parison that the proposed mechanical analysis and simula-
tion method is practicable.
4. Conclusion
The mechanics basis of Brinell hardness measurement
was discussed in detail. In analyzing the relationship be-
tween stress–strain characteristics and Brinell hardness,
Brinell hardness measurement uncertainty components
and force loading characteristics, a finite element analysis
for the whole Brinell hardness measurement process and
Monte Carlo computer simulation method were employed.
Finally, the most reliable Brinell hardness value and mea-
surement combined uncertainty were acquired. The
mechanics analysis put forward in this paper reveals the
essence of material Brinell hardness measurement that
can be verified by practical Brinell hardness experiments
using standard test instruments.
[1] ISO/TR 10108, Steel-conversion of hardness values to tensile
strength values, 1989.
[2] GB/T 1172, Black steel hardness and tensile strength, 1999.
[3] M. Janošec, I. Schindler, Microstructure and mechanical properties of
cold rolled, annealed HSLA strip steels, Archit. Civil. Mech. Eng. 7 (2)
(2007) 29–38.
[4] Tzu-Li Tien, The indirect measurement of tensile strength for a
higher temperature by the new model IGDMC (1, n), Measurement
41 (6) (2008) 662–675.
[5] ISO, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1993.
[6] K. Herrmanzinn, T. Polzin, New guidelines to the determination of
the uncertainty of hardness measurements, Tm-Tech. Mess. 72 (5)
(2005) 325–333.
[7] S.M. Roberts, J. Kusiak, P.J. Withers, Numerical prediction of the
development of particle stress in the forging of aluminium metal
matrix composites, J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 60 (4) (1996) 711–718.
[8] Xia Xintao, Wang Zhongyu, Estimation of non-statistical uncertainty
using fuzzy-set theory, Meas. Sci. Tech. 11 (4) (2000) 430–435.
[9] Ge Leyi, Novel method of evaluating dynamic repeated
measurement uncertainty, J. Test. Eval. 36 (5) (2008) 101742–
101747.
[10] Del Campo Leire, B. Perez-Saez Raul, Gonzalez-Fernandez Luis,
Combined standard uncertainty in direct emissivity measurements,
J. Appl. Phys. 107 (11) (2010) 0–9.
[11] A. Monti, F. Ponci, Uncertainty evaluation under dynamic conditions
using polynomial chaos theory, IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas. 59 (11)
(2010) 2825–2833.
 G. Leyi et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 2129–2137
[12] Fazil O. Sonmez, Analytical relations between hardness and strain
for cold formed parts, J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 186 (3) (2007) 163–173.
[13] M.R. Rosenberger, Modeling the micro-indentation of metal matrix
composites, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A. 463 (2) (2007) 275–283.
[14] Pedro Pedrosa Rebouças Filho, Tarique da Silveira Cavalcante, Victor
Hugo C. de Albuquerque, João Manuel R.S. Tavares, Brinell and
vickers hardness measurement using image processing and analysis
techniques, J. Test. Eval. 38 (1) (2010) 88–94.
[15] M.R. Burcher, A system for simultaneously measuring contact force,
ultrasound, and position information for use in force-based
correction of freehand scanning, IEEE Trans. Ultr., Ferr. Freq. Cont.
52 (8) (2005) 1330–1342.
2137
[16] J. Otero, A. Saiz, J. Brufau, J. Colomer, Dimensions autonomous AFM
system for working in microbiorobotics, in: IEEE/RAS-EMBS, 2006,
pp. 1200–1205.
[17] Tie Hu, Jaydev P. Desai, Soft-tissue material properties under large
deformation: strain rate effect. in: The 26th AIC/EMBS, 2004, pp.
2758–2761.
[18] H.-J. Albrecht, A. Juritza, K. Muller, Interface reactions in
microelectronic solder joints and associated intermetallic
compounds: an investigation of their mechanical properties using
nanoindentation, in: The 5th Conf. on EPT, 2003, pp. 726–731.