Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:40:48.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Analysis of Brittle Fracture in Amorphous and Polycrystalline Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

A. Calomino ,
D. Brewer ,
A. Kim  and
A. Chudnovsky
D. Brewer
Affiliation:
NASA Lewis Research Center, Structures Division, Cleveland, OH 44135
A. Chudnovsky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, CEMM Department, Chicago, IL 60601
Get access

Abstract

The fracture results of an amorphous epoxy resin and polycrystalline silicon nitride tested under monotonically increasing crack mouth opening displacements were compared. A conventional compact tension specimen was used for the epoxy. A new loading system and specimen was designed for the ceramic to permit stable crack growth. Tests conducted on both materials revealed multiple events of subcritical crack growth, dynamic initiation, dynamic growth, and subsequent arrest. The elastic energy release rate at initiation, G11, and arrest, G1a, was evaluated for each event. The value of G11 was found to be higher than G1a for both materials.

Also common was the systematic existence of slow growth prior to dynamic initiation. Additionally, both materials showed differences between the fracture surface morphology for slow, 10-6 m/s, and fast, 103 m/s, growth. Although a constant G1a was recorded for the epoxy, large scatter and a possible trend was recorded for G1a in the ceramic.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 278: Symposium W – Computational Methods in Materials Science , 1992 , 165
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

(1) Freiman, S.K., McKinney, K.R., and Smith, H.L., in Fracture Mechanics of CeramcisV2, edited by Hasselman, Bradt, and Lange, , Plenum Publishers, New York, 1978, pp. 659–676Google Scholar
(2) Weiderhorn, S.M., in Fracture Mechanics of CeramicsV4, edited by Hasselman, Bradt, and Lange, , Plenum Publishers, New York, 1978, pp. 549–580 Google Scholar
(3) Quinn, G.D., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 3(1-2), 77,1982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) MoKinney, R.K., Bender, B.A., Rice, R.W., and Wu, C.C.M.,J. Mater. Sci., 266467,(1991)Google Scholar
(5) Calomino, A., and Brewer, D., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 75, 1 (1992)Google Scholar
(6) Calomino, A., Brewer, D., and Ghosn, L., NASA TM1 05565, 1992 Google Scholar
(7) Chudnovsky, A., Kim, A., Bosnyak, C.P., to appear in the Int, J. of Frac., 1992 Google Scholar
(8) Amer. Stand. of Test. and Meth., ASTM, 03.01, E399, 485 (1991)Google Scholar
(9) Gledhill, R.A., and Kinloch, A.J., J. Mater. Sci. 10, 1261 (1975)Google Scholar
(10) Jenkins, M.G., Kobayashi, A.S., White, K.W., and Bradt, R.C., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 70 (6), 393 (1987)Google Scholar
(11) Ghosn, L., Calomino, A., and Brewer, D., NASA TM1 05609, 1992 Google Scholar