Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:53:01.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fracture toughness of PMMA as measured with indentation cracks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

S.R. Choi  and
J.A. Salem
S.R. Choi
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
J.A. Salem
Affiliation:
NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Get access

Abstract

Fracture toughness of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) was evaluated with indentation cracks. The cracks were developed by indenting in a liquid acetone environment, as suggested by previous researchers. Due to the inconsistency in crack configurations with varying indentation loads and to the negligible residual stress from indentation, the application of the indentation strength method was limited in evaluating fracture toughness of PMMA. The semielliptical crack approximation, however, particularly at a low indentation load of 9.8 N, resulted in reasonable agreement with the value determined by three conventional fracture toughness testings using the compact tension (CT), double cantilever beam (DCB), and single edge notched beam (SENB) specimens. Measurements at other indentation load typically were in poor agreement with conventional methods due to poorly developed crack configurations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 1993 , pp. 3210 - 3217
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Lawn, B. R., Evans, A. G., and Marshall, D. B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 63 (9–10), 574–578 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Marshall, D. B., Lawn, B. R., and Chantikul, P., J. Mater. Sci. 14 (9), 2001–2012 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Anstis, G. R., Chantikul, P., Lawn, B. R., and Marshall, D. B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 64 (9), 533–538 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Chantikul, P., Anstis, G. R., Lawn, B. R., and Marshall, D. B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 64 (9), 539–543 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Choi, S. R., Salem, J. A., and Hebsur, M. G., J. Mater. Sci. 28, 155–160 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Ritter, J. E., Lin, M. R., and Lardner, T. J., J. Mater. Sci. 23, 2370–2378 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Ritter, J. E., Lin, M. R., and Lardner, T. J., J. Mater. Sci. 24, 339–342 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8“Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials,” ASTM Designation: E 399 (1983).Google Scholar
9Srawley, J. E., Int. J. Frac. Mech. 12, 475–476 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Kanninen, M. F., Int. J. Frac. Mech. 9, 83–91 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Murakami, Y., Stress Intensity Factors Handbook (Pergamon Press, New York, 1987), Vol. 1, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
12Krause, R. F., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 71, 338–343 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Marshall, G. P., Courts, L. H., and Williams, J. G., J. Mater. Sci. 9, 1409–1419 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Goree, J. G., Richardson, D. E., and Rousseau, C. Q. (unpublished research).Google Scholar
15Newman, J. C. and Raju, I. S., Eng. Frac. Mech. 9, 185–192 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar