Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 463–483 | Cite as

Direct Observation of Failure in Ice-Templated Ceramics Under Dynamic and Quasistatic Compressive Loading Conditions

  • S. Akurati
  • Dipankar GhoshEmail author
  • M. Banda
  • D. A. Terrones
Research Paper


The current study investigated the effects of porosity, microstructure, and strain rate regime on the damage evolution and failure behavior under uniaxial compressive loading conditions in ice-templated alumina materials. The compressive response was investigated in dynamic and quasistatic loading regimes. Microstructural analysis revealed that in the high porosity regime, morphology was lamellar. In the lower porosity materials processed at higher freezing front velocities (FFVs), morphology was dendritic but transitioned to lamellar structure with the decreasing FFV. Ice-templated materials with higher porosity exhibited progressive crushing type damage evolution, irrespective of the FFV and strain rate regime. The origin of progressive crushing type failure was observed to be the absence of macroscopic crack evolution in the vicinity of peak stress, and subsequent to peak stress damage evolved only in the form of minimal fragmentation that gradually increased with the increasing strain. However, at comparable strain, the extent of dynamic damage was less compared to quasistatic damage, which suggests enhanced resistance to brittle fracture at high-strain rates. With the decreasing porosity damage evolution process changed, particularly under quasistatic loading in the materials processed at higher FFVs. Up to peak stress materials were intact, whereas upon reaching peak stress significant damage evolved causing complete loss of compressive load-bearing capacity. Whereas, damage evolution under dynamic loading in the vicinity of peak stress was significantly limited and damage accumulated progressively with the increasing strain, which strongly suggests greater structural stability in the ice-templated porous ceramic materials at high-strain rates.


Ice-templating Porosity Strain rate High-speed imaging Damage evolution Failure 



D.G. would like to acknowledge National Science Foundation supported S-STEM Grant (#1833896) for scholarship opportunity to D.A.T.


  1. 1.
    Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1999) Cellular solids structure and properties. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashby MF, Evans A, Fleck NA, Gibson LJ, Hutchinson JW, Wadley HN (2000) Metal foams: a design guide. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramirez BJ, Kingstedt OT, Crum R, Gamez C, Gupta V (2017) Tailoring the rate-sensitivity of low density polyurea foams through cell wall aperture size. J Appl Phys 121:225107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deshpande VS, Fleck NA (2000) High strain rate compressive behaviour of aluminum alloy foams. Int J Impact Eng 24:277–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cervantes O, Molitoris JD, Hooper JP, Nam S, Tan YM (2016) Dynamic fragmentation of cellular, ice-templated alumina scaffolds. J Appl Phys 119:024901. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson LJ (2012) The hierarchical structure and mechanics of plant materials. J R Soc Interface 9:2749–2766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fratzl P, Weinkamer R (2007) Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci 52:1263–1334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fratzl P (2007) Biomimetic materials research: what can we really learn from nature’s structural materials? J R Soc Interface 4:637–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Easterling KE, Harrysson R, Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (2006) On the mechanics of balsa and other woods. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 383:31–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang XY, Chen Y, Li Y, Rooke JC, Sanchez C, Su BL (2017) Hierarchically porous materials: synthesis strategies and structure design. Chem Soc Rev 46:481–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deville S, Saiz E, Nalla RK, Tomsia AP (2006) Freezing as a path to build complex composites. Science 311:515–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deville S (2010) Freeze-casting of porous biomaterials: structure, properties and opportunities. Materials 3:1913–1927. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deville S (2013) Ice-templating, freeze casting: beyond materials processing. J Mater Res 28:2202–2219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porter MM, Imperio R, Wen M, Meyers MA, McKittrick J (2014) Bioinspired scaffolds with varying pore architectures and mechanical properties. Adv Funct Mater 24:1978–1987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wegst UGK, Schecter M, Donius AE, Hunger PM (2010) Biomaterials by freeze casting. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 368:2099–2121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waschkies T, Oberacker R, Hoffmann MJ (2011) Investigation of structure formation during freeze-casting from very slow to very fast solidification velocities. Acta Mater 59:5135–5145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Banda M, Ghosh D (2018) Effects of porosity and strain rate on the uniaxial compressive response of ice-templated sintered macroporous alumina. Acta Mater 149:79–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sammis CG, Ashby MF (1986) The failure of brittle porous solids under compressive stress states. Acta Metall 34:511–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meille S, Lombardi M, Chevalier J, Montanaro L (2012) Mechanical properties of porous ceramics in compression: on the transition between elastic, brittle, and cellular behavior. J Eur Ceram Soc 32:3959–3967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghosh D, Banda M, Akurati S, Kang H, Fakharizadeh VO (2017) On the brittle fracture characteristics of lamella walls of ice-templated sintered alumina scaffolds and effects of platelets. Scr Mater 138:139–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghosh D, Dhavale N, Banda M, Kang H (2016) A comparison of microstructure and uniaxial compressive response of ice-templated alumina scaffolds fabricated from two different particle sizes. Ceram Int 42:16138–16147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naglieri V, Bale HA, Gludovatz B, Tomsia AP, Ritchie RO (2013) On the development of ice-templated silicon carbide scaffolds for nature-inspired structural materials. Acta Mater 61:6948–6957. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal MJ (1998) A split Hopkinson bar technique for low-impedance materials. Exp Mech 39:81–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ravichandran G, Subhash G (1994) Critical appraisal of limiting strain rates for compression testing of ceramics in a split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Am Ceram Soc 77:263–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hasssan M, Wille K (2017) Experimental impact analysis on ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) for achieving stress equilibrium (SE) and constant strain rate (CSR) in split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) using pulse shaping technique. Constr Build Mater 144:747–757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Subhash G, Ravichandran G (2000) Split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing of ceramics. In: Kuhn H, Medlin D (eds) ASM handbook, vol 8. Mechanical Testing Evaluation. ASM International, Materials Park, pp 497–504Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gray GT III (2000) Classic split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. In: Kuhn H, Medlin D (eds) ASM handbook, vol 8. Mechanical Testing Evaluation. ASM International, Materials Park, pp 462–476Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghosh D, Banda M, Kang H, Dhavale N (2016) Platelets-induced stiffening and strengthening of ice-templated highly porous alumina scaffolds. Scr Mater 125:29–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghosh D, Kang H, Banda M, Kamaha V (2017) Influence of anisotropic grains (platelets) on the microstructure and uniaxial compressive response of ice-templated sintered alumina scaffolds. Acta Mater 125:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akurati S, Tennant N, Ghosh D (2019) Characterization of dynamic and quasistatic compressive mechanical properties of ice-templated alumina-epoxy composites. J Mater Res 34:959–971. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ghosh D, Wiest A, Conner RD (2015) Uniaxial quasistatic and dynamic compressive response of foams made from hollow glass microspheres. J Eur Ceram Soc 36:781–789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tan PJ, Harrigan JJ, Reid SR (2002) Inertia effects in uniaxial dynamic compression of a closed cell aluminium alloy foam. Mater Sci Technol 18:480–488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tan PJ, Reid SR, Harrigan JJ, Zou Z, Li S (2005) Dynamic compressive strength properties of aluminium foams. Part I—experimental data and observations. J Mech Phys Solids 53:2174–2205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan PJ, Reid SR, Harrigan JJ, Zou Z, Li S (2005) Dynamic compressive strength properties of aluminium foams. Part II—“shock” theory and comparison with experimental data and numerical models. J Mech Phys Solids 53:2206–2230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao H, Elnasri I, Abdennadher S (2005) An experimental study on the behaviour under impact loading of metallic cellular materials. Int J Mech Sci 47:757–774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vural M, Ravichandran G (2003) Dynamic response and energy dissipation characteristics of balsa wood: experiment and analysis. Int J Solids Struct 40:2147–2170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reid SR, Peng C (2002) Dynamic uniaxial crushing of wood. Int J Impact Eng 19:531–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Calladine CR, English RW (1984) Strain-rate and inertia effects in the collapse of two types of energy-absorbing structure. Int J Mech Sci 26:689–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Akurati
    • 1
  • Dipankar Ghosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Banda
    • 1
  • D. A. Terrones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations