Advertisement

Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 58, Issue 8, pp 1237–1247 | Cite as

Introducing Heterogeneity into the Micro-Scratch Test Fracture Toughness Relation for Brittle Particle Composites

  • S. Al Wakeel
  • M. H. Hubler
Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Existing analysis methods of scratch test data are limited in their application to composite materials since they are built on the assumption of homogeneous material. In this study, the heterogeneity of the composite material is considered for analysis of scratch data on a resin and glass bead particle composite. Experiments are conducted using two approaches: macroscale three-point single edge notch and micro-scratch. An analysis method is presented which introduces a region in front of the crack tip to calculate the energy release rate during the fracture process which accounts for the heterogeneity of this region. By comparing with the experimental results, it is observed that this analysis method reduces the difference in fracture toughness derived from macroscale and microscale tests, and matches the trend of fracture toughness values as a function of particle volume fraction. This observation provides the insight that the local microstructure of the material needs to be considered in the scratch test analysis of particle composites.

Keywords

Fracture toughness Composite material Micro-scratch test Three-point bending test 

References

  1. 1.
    Lemaitre J (1992) A course on damage mechanics. Springer-Verlag New York, New York, pp 11–37CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torquato S (2002) Random heterogeneous materials: microstructure and macroscopic properties. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, pp 59–70zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bažant ZP, Planas J (1998) Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 7–22Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akono AT, Randall NX, Ulm FJE (2012) Experimental determination of fracture toughness via micro scratch tests: application to polymers, ceramics and metals. J Mater Res 27(2):485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anstis GR, Chantikul P, Lawn BR, Marshall DB (1981) A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: I, direct crack measurements. J Am Ceram Soc 64(9):533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lach R, Gyurova LA, Grellmann W (2007) Application of indentation fracture mechanics approach for determination of fracture toughness of brittle polymer systems. Polym Test 26(1):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Randall NX, Favaro G, Frankel CH (2001) The effect of intrinsic parameters on the critical load as measured with the scratch test method. Surf Coat Technol 137(2–3):146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Zahraa FI, Abdel-Jaber GT, Khashaba MI, Ali WY (2015) Friction coefficient displayed by the scratch of epoxy composites filled by metallic particles under the influence of magnetic field. Mater Sci Appl 6:200–208Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richard T, Detournary E, Drescher A, Fourmaintraux D (1998) Scratch test as a means to measure strength of sedimentary rocks. In: Proceedings of the SPE/ISRM rock mechanics in petroleum engineering conference. SPE 2:15–22Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schei G, Fjaer E, Detournay E, Kenter CJ, Fuh GF, Zausa F (2000) The scratch test: an attractive technique for determining strength and elastic properties of sedimentary rocks. SPE.  https://doi.org/10.2118/63255-MS
  11. 11.
    Lin JS, Zhou Y (2013) Can scratch tests give fracture toughness? Eng Fract Mech 109:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al Wakeel S, Hubler M (2016) Experimental and theoretical investigation of the fracture behavior of glass beads/epoxy composites using microscratching. 9th International Conference of Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structure pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gouda PSS, Kudari SK, Prabhuswamy S (2011) Fracture toughness of glass carbon (0/90) s fiber reinforced polymer composite-An experimental and numerical study. J Miner Mater Charact Eng 10(8):671–682Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akono AT, Ulm FJE (2014) An improved technique for characterizing the fracture toughness via scratch test experiments. Wear 313:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawn BR (1966) Partial cone crack formation in a brittle material loaded with a sliding spherical indenter. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series a, mathematical and physical Sciences 299:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bowden FP, Tabor D (2001) The friction and lubrication of solids. Oxford University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hubler MH, Ulm FJ (2016) Size-effect law for scratch tests of axisymmetric shape. J Eng Mech 142(12):04016094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Advances in applied mechanics. Vol. VII. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 55–129Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans AG, Faber KT (1984) Crack-growth resistance of microcracking brittle materials. J Am Ceram Soc 67(4):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akono AT, Ulm FJ, Bažant ZP (2014) Discussion: strength-to-fracture scaling in scratching. Eng Fract Mech 119:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson TL (2005) Fracture mechanics fundamentals and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 103–168zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshelby JD (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc R Soc Lond 241:376–396MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li Z, Chen Q (2003) Some simple formulas to predict the variation of stress intensity factors for mode I crack induced by near crack-tip inclusion. Eng Fract Mech 70:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang R, Li P (2015) Elastic behavior and failure mechanism in epoxy syntactic foams: the effect of glass microballoon volume fractions. Compos Part B 78(1):401–408MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Hadek MA, Tippur HV (2002) Simulation of porosity by microballoon dispersion in epoxy and urethane - mechanical measurements and models. J Mater Sci 3(7):1649–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erwin MW, Freddy YCB, Xiao H, Shing-Chung W (2005) Specific properties and fracture toughness of syntactic foam: effect of foam microstructures. Compos Sci Technol 65:1840–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gupta N, Woldesenbet E (2002) Compressive fracture features of syntactic foams microscopic examinations. J Mater Sci 37:3199–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Akono TA, Ulm FJ (2011) Scratch test model for the determination of fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech 78:334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akono AT (2013) Assessment of fracture properties and rate effects on fracture of materials by micro scratching application to gas shale. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology pp 23–50Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Budiansky B, Hutchinson JW, Lambropoulos JC (1983) Continuum theory of dilatant transformation toughening in ceramics. Int J Solids Struct 19(4):337–355CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen WH, Huang YH (1979) On the J-integral for cracked structure with inclusions. Int J Fract 15(2):R73–R76Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Atluri SN, Nakagaki M, Chen WH (1977) Flaw growth and fracture. STP 631. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia pp 376–96Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li H, Yang J, Li Z (2014) An approximation solution for the plane stress mode I crack interacting with an inclusion of arbitrary shape. Eng Fract Mech 116:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Westergaard HM (1939) Bearing pressure and cracks. J Appl Mech 6:A49–A53Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bard R (2010) Analysis of the scratch test for cohesive-frictional materials. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Qian X, Yang W (2010) A hybrid approach to determine fracture resistance for mode I and mixed-mode I and II fracture specimens. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 34:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kachanov M (1993) Elastic solids with many cracks and related problems. Adv Appl Mech 30:259–445CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee J, Yee AF (2000) Fracture of glass bead/epoxy composites: on micro- mechanical deformations. Polymer 41:8363–8373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sanchez-Soto M, Pages P, Lacort T, Briceno K (2007) Curing FTIR study and mechanical characterization of glass filled trifunctional epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 67:1974–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ASTM (2013) Standard test method for Linear-Elastic Plain-Strain Fracture Toughness KIC of Met Mater. ASTM E399–12. New York: Published January 2013Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    ASTM (2003) Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM International, ASTM D638-14 West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Choi SR, Salem JA (1993) Fracture toughness of PMMA as measured with indentation cracks. J Mater Res 8(12):3210–3217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnsen BB, Kinloch AJ, Taylor AC (2005) Toughness of syndiotactic polystyrene/epoxy polymer blends: microstructure and toughening mechanisms. Polymer 46:7352–7369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wouterson EM, Boey FYC, Wong SC (2005) Specific properties and fracture toughness of syntactic foam: effect of foam microstructures. Compos Sci Technol 65:1840–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vecchio KS, Jiang F (2016) Fracture toughness of ceramic-Fiber-reinforced metallic-intermetallic-laminate (CFR-MIL) composites. Mater Sci Eng A 649:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh D, Shetty DK (1989) Fracture toughness of polycrystalline ceramics in combined mode I and mode II loading. J Am Ceram Soc 72:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hahn GT, Rosenfield AR (1975) Metallurgical factors affecting fracture toughness of aluminum alloys. Metall Trans A 6A:653–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Deshpande NU, Gokhale AM, Denzer DK, John L (1998) Relationship between fracture toughness, fracture path, and microstructure of 7050 aluminum alloy: part I quantitative characterization. Metall Mater Trans A 29A(4):1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barker LM (1977) A simplified method for measuring plane strain fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech, Pergamon Press Printed in Great Britain 9:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Visser HA, Caimmi F, Pavan A (2013) Characterizing the fracture toughness of polymers at moderately high rates of loading with the use of instrumented tensile impact testing. Eng Fract Mech 101:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee JH, Gao YF, Johanns KE, Pharr GM (2012) 2012. Cohesive interface simulations of indentation cracking as a fracture toughness measurement method for brittle materials. Acta Mater 60:5448–5467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Crosse CU, Finck F (2006) Quantitative evaluation of fracture processes in concrete using signal-based acoustic emission techniques. Cem Concr Compos 28:330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tang Y, Yonezu A, Ogasawara N, Chiba N, Chen X (2008) On radial crack and half-penny crack induced by vickers indentation. Proc R Soc A 464:2967–2984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Paimas RJ, Gstrein R (1997) ESIS TC 6 round robin on fracture toughness. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 20(4):513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations