Why Do Ceramic Materials Exhibit Different Brittle Fracture Points?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ali297
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Materials
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Ceramic materials exhibit varying brittle fracture points due to the presence of numerous microcracks, which are randomly distributed in terms of length and orientation. Unlike ductile metals, where failure is influenced by plasticity, ceramics are primarily governed by fracture mechanics and statistical variations. The compressive strength of ceramics can be significantly higher than their tensile strength, often up to 15 times greater, due to the nature of crack propagation under different stress conditions. Manufacturing variability further complicates the consistency of ceramic strength, as controlling small cracks remains a challenge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fracture mechanics
  • Familiarity with compressive and tensile stress concepts
  • Knowledge of material properties of ceramics versus metals
  • Basic graph interpretation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of fracture toughness in ceramics
  • Study the effects of microcracks on material strength
  • Explore the differences in failure mechanisms between tension and compression in materials
  • Investigate manufacturing processes that minimize crack formation in ceramics
USEFUL FOR

Material scientists, ceramic engineers, and anyone involved in the study or application of brittle materials in engineering contexts.

ali297
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi

I have 5 different experimental data of a ceramic undergoing compressive stress, and I've graphed them. There are some significant differences among these graphs compared to other materials I've compared (aluminium, pvc etc). Each has multiple fracture points etc...my question is what could be the reason for these discrepancies?

Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I've already been to that page, but didn't understand it. I'd appreciate if you can very briefly explain the reasons.
 
Well your initial post was a tad short and I didn't fully understand what you are trying to show.

What do you mean by "I've graphed them" ?

The strength of ceramics is quite different from that of ductile metals. Ceramics genrally contain many flaws (microcracks) so failure is generally controlled by fracture mechanics and statistical considerations, not plasticity considerations as with metals.

In particular the failure mechanism for compression is different from that of tension or bending. Why are you doing compression and what other measurements did you do or do you have to compare with?
 
It was an experiment we had where we put a piece of ceramic in a machine which slowly crushed it while it recorded data. The graph is the compressive stress vs strain.

But I think I get your point that the microcracks in ceramics differ from one another, which is primary cause for the differences in the graphs produced? (each have different fracture points etc)
 
Do you know what fracture toughness is?
 
No, does it matter?

Here is the graph.
 

Attachments

  • sample_ceramic.jpg
    sample_ceramic.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 511
Only that I will avoid using fracture toughness in the explanation.

All ceramic materials contain many small random cracks.

These cracks are randomly distributed
They are of random length
They are of random orientation.

So when we stress a ceramic sample all three of these random elements come into play.

For tension and compression the stress is distributed evenly across the sample so it does not matter where the crack is, all locations will be equally affected.

Cracks propagate when they are pulled apart (obvious really). The larger the crack and the more the crack is oriented perpendicular to the stress the easier it is to propagate.

So wherever it is in the sample the larges crack at right angles to the tension will propagate if the tension is large enough.
For different samples it the starting point in relation to length and orientation will vary randomly so the failure tension will vary randomly.

For bending the stress varies across the sample so the tension is maximum at the edges and zero somewhere in the middle.
So the largest crack is less likely to appear at thee dges so the failure tension in bending will be larger (up to 5 times larger).

For compression, cracks at right angles to the stress will be closed up not pulled apart so will not fail.
Cracks parallel to the stress will elongate slowly due to poisson (bursting) effects. So a failure crushing zone of small cracks will gradually extend in compression until the whole zone fails.
So the compressive strength is dependent on the average of a large number of cracks.
It can be 15 times greater than the tensile failure strength.

Sorry this was rather rushed
 

Attachments

  • brittle1.jpg
    brittle1.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 480
I've got nothing to add to the thread really but I've got to say. Studiot, that is a damn fine explanation of fracture mechanics without jargon.
 
  • #10
Thanks for the info, appreciate it
 
  • #11
Superb Info... thanks much..

Regards..
 
  • #12
Nice to know it was useful, thanks for the feedback.

:wink:
 
  • #13
While studiot's description is reasonable, it really comes back to manufacturing variability its harder to control production of ceramics to ensure the same strength.
It needs ceramic's total crack characteristics
(number, length etc.) are the same- long cracks are eliminated by general control but the important small ones are hard to control. Metals only need the general processing to be the same to get close strength properties- short cracks have little effect as they aren't critical.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
896
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K