J Am. Ceram. Soc.
, 78 I81 2187-92 (1995)
Fracture Toughness of TiB, and B,C Using the Single-Edge
Precracked Beam, Indentation Strength, Chevron Notched Beam, and
Indentation Strength Methods
Samuel D. Conzone,',+William R. Blumenthal,*,*
New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University, Alfred, New York
Materials Science and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
The mode I fracture toughness ( K J of boron carbide (B,C)
and titanium diboride (TiB,) was determined using four
competing techniques. The indentation strength (IS), chev-
ron notched beam (CNB), and indentation fracture (IF)
methods are common techniques that were compared to the
recently standardized single-edge precrack beam (SEPB)
method. The SEPB method was more difficult to apply, but
it represents the most rigorous method for K,, determina-
tion, because it uses few assumptions and requires a direct
measurement of crack length. The IS method was an
expeditious and economical alternative when low indenta-
tion loads were used. CNB K,, values were virtually rate-
independent when displacement rates less than or equal
to 0.5 mm/min were used. The IF method was the least
satisfactory technique, because of high variability in K ,
values and because of the low differentiation between the
two materials studied.
I. Introduction
DEALLY, mode I fracture toughness (KIC)is an inherent mate-
I rial property which characterizes resistance to propagating a
sharp crack through a material by tensile opening. K,, is an
important selection criterion for brittle materials (e.g., ceram-
ics) used in engineering applications. Values of fracture tough-
ness obtained using different techniques can vary greatly,
because of difficulties involved in creating and accurately mea-
suring cracks and because assumptions used in the analysis of a
particular method may not be valid for all testing conditions. In
addition, some techniques produce a large scatter of values
which limits the ability to measure subtle differences between
similar materials. In spite of these difficulties, there is currently
no recognized or recommended United States standard for
determining the fracture toughness of ceramics, although exten-
sive prestandardization work has been performed.'4
One important candidate for standardization is the single-
edge precracked beam (SEPB) method, which was adopted in
1990 as a Japanese industrial standard for fine ceramics (JIS R
1607).' The SEPB method is considered a rigorous method
because it utilizes a long, sharp, through-width precrack which
is directly measured in each test. The mechanics of this simple
crack geometry have been well modeled and are used in ASTM-
E399-Annex 3 for fracture toughness testing of metals in a
single-edge fatigue-cracked beam configuration.'
Previous work has shown that for typical ceramic materials
the SEPB K,, method is insensitive to loading rate and precrack
J. J. Petrovic-contributing editor
Manuscript No. 193334. Received August 8, 1994 approved March 11,1995.
'Member, American Ceramic Society.
+AlfredUniversity.
'Los Alamos National Laboratom.
2187
and James R. Vamer'.'
14802
length within the guidelines of JIS R 1607.'.5.xIn the present
study, the standardized test procedures for the SEPB method
were used to obtain K,, data for the two materials. The SEPB
results were then used as a basis to compare the other toughness
techniques. Difficulties in producing and measuring SEPB pre-
cracks were encountered, and these problems will be addressed
in this paper.
The indentation strength (IS): the indentation fracture (IF):
and the chevron notched beam (CNB)49 methods are three
alternate techniques commonly used to determine the K,, of
ceramic materials. Each of these methods uses assumptions
which simplify the determination of K , L .The range of testing
conditions within which these assumptions are valid are often
not well documented.
The IS method uses an empirically derived constant to esti-
mate the shape and size of an indentation-initiated crack at the
point where spontaneous failure occurs. This constant depends
on the residual surface stresses resulting from the indentation.
A major advantage of the IS method is that crack length mea-
surements are not necessary. However, IS K,, values have been
observed to depend on the indentation load used to initiate
cracking.' In this paper, the indentation load was also varied
to determine its effect on the IS K,, for the two materials
under study.
In the CNB K,, method, a transition from stable to unstable
crack growth is assumed to occur at a particular crack length
which should be dependent only on the specimen and the chev-
ron notch geometry. As with the IS technique, the CNB method
is advantageous because crack lengths do not need to be mea-
sured to determine K,, . However, difficulties in initiating stable
crack growth during CNB testing have been observed." Dis-
placement rate was chosen as the most important variable for
this technique, since it likely influences stable cracking and the
presumably invariant transition point to unstable crack growth.
In the case of the IF method, the cracks propagating from the
comers of a surface indent are assumed to be directly related to
the fracture toughness of the material. Analytical and empirical
studies have produced general equations and calibration con-
stants for K , which are supposed to be indentation load and
material independent (where K , is defined as an approximation
of K,, for IF method).' The major advantages of the IF method
are that it can be performed on very small amounts of material
and it does not require mechanical testing beyond the indenta-
tion test. However, K , determination is complicated by the
diversity of IF K , equations reported in the literature" and the
high degree of subjectivity involved in accurately measuring
relatively short crack lengths. Variation in IF K , values with
indentation load has been documented and attributed to the
ambiguity involved in measuring surface crack lengths.' There-
fore, indentation load was also chosen as a variable in this
study.
11. Materials
Titanium diboride (TiB,) and boron carbide (B,C) were cho-
sen as polycrystalline, armor-grade ceramics with relatively
2188 Journal of the American Ceramic Society-Conzone et al. Vol. 78, No. 8

high and low toughness, respectively. Hot-pressed billets with Camera

densities >98% of theoretical were obtained commercially
between 1986 and 1989 (Cercom, Vista, CA). All specimens J 4h h Fast Fracture

-
/Region
were precision machined into beams with dimensions of Notch
3 mm X 4 mm X 22.5 mm (Bomas Machine Specialties, +-Low
Sommerville, MA).” The average grain size of TiB, and B,C Precrack ...
.... Incldent
Front Angle
was determined to be 13 and 15 pm, respectively, using the Lighting
linear intercept method. The average projected area hardness
( H ) of TiB, and B,C was found to be 18.2 and 20.9 GPa,
respectively, using indentation loads of 9.8, 29.4, and 49 N.
Young’s modulus ( E ) of TiB, and B,C was determined to be
526 and 464 GPa, respectively, using the ultrasonic pulse-echo
technique. The authors have no knowledge that either of the
ceramics exhibit slow crack growth or R-curve behavior. Slow
crack growth is often observed in materials containing a glassy
grain boundary phase which is not present in either of the
materials under study. However, because TiB, fractures inter- Fig. 2. SEPB precrack length measurement method.
granularly, R-curve behavior may be a factor, due to the varying
effects of crack bridging.
achieved for valid testing as specified in JIS R 1607.’ First, the
111. Experimental Procedures precrack had to propagate from the starter notch and remain
within 10” of the loading plane. Second, the average precrack
length had to be in the range of 40% to 60% of the specimen
( I ) Single-Edge Precracked Beam Method height (1.2 to 2.4 mm). A minimum of five valid tests were
Procedures for the SEPB method are given in several refer- performed on each material to obtain an average value of Kic.
ence~.’.~’’Clarifications and modifications are described below. The mode I fracture toughness of each sample was deter-
All SEPB specimens were notched to a depth of 0.5 mm using mined using Srawley’s equation:6
a 0.2 mm thick diamond saw blade. Notched samples were
carefully aligned and centered on a steel bridge-anvil, as shown
in Fig. 1. The samples were compressed at a displacement rate
of 0.51 mm/min until a precrack formed (Model 1125, Instron,
Canton, MA). A distinct acoustic emission (or “pop in”) was where
generated from the release of strain energy when a crack
1.99 - (c/W)(l - c/W)[2.15 - 3.93(c/W) + 2.7(c/W)’]
advanced suddenly from the notch. A stetho~cope’~ attached to
the load cell was used to determine when precrack “pop-in” [l + 2(e/W)][1 - (C/W)3”]
occurred. “Pop in” loads ranged from 9 to 13 kN and 29 to (2)
36 kN for B,C and TiB,, respectively. Samples were unloaded
immediately after “pop in” to avoid additional slow crack and S = the lower span of the three-point bend fixture, P = the
extension which could change the characteristics of the “sharp” three-point flexural load at failure, c = the average precrack
crack front. length, B = the specimen width, and W = the specimen height.
The precracked specimens were then loaded to failure in a (2) Chevron Notched Beam Method
three-point flexure apparatus with a loading span of 19.05 mm, Details of the experimental procedures for the CNB method
satisfying Srawley’s requirement that the ratio of lower span to are given in the literat~re.~.”
Chevron notches were precision
specimen height (S/W) be greater than four.6 Each specimen machined into each of the CNB beams as shown in Fig. 3. The
was visually aligned in the three-point fixture so that the pre- dimensions a, and (I, were 0.3W and W, respectively. All CNB
crack starter notch was located directly below the top loading samples were fractured in a four-point flexure configuration
pin prior to testing. A displacement rate of 0.51 mm/min was with a major span of 19.05 mm and a minor span of 9.53 mm.
used during flexure testing. Specimens were fractured using a loading apparatus which
Optical microscopy with low-incident-angle lighting,I4 situ- exhibited the following compliance equation:
ated approximately 15” from the fracture surface plane, was
used to observe the initial precrack front. The light source was P = -2.9674 + 1.4307-0 + 8.044 X 10-3-D2
always located on the fast-fracture side of the specimen as - 3.4809 X 10-5.D3
shown in Fig. 2. The average precrack length was calculated
using three measurements taken at equal intervals across the where P = load (N) and D = crosshead displacement (pm).
width of one fracture surface. The difference between any two
of the three measurements did not exceed 10% of the average,
or the test was rejected. Additional crack criteria had to be

Tungsten
Carbide \r
Platen
Load

Load
r Notched

Fig. 1. Schematic of the bridge-anvil apparatus used for precracking

specimens during SEPB testing.
W

I
Fig. 3. Chevron notch beam cross-section view. Note that the crack
length at maximum load, a, does not need to be measured.
August 1995 Fracture Toughness of TiB, and B,C
No fewer than four samples of each material were tested at
displacement rates of 0.0051, 0.051, 0.51, 2.54, and 10.16
mrn/min. The flexure load was digitally recorded using a vari-
able sampling rate to ensure the failure event was captured with
sufficient accuracy. A maximum sampling rate of 1000 points/s
was used at the fastest displacement rate.
The mode I CNB fracture toughness was calculated using
the
P Young’s modulus of the material, L = the indentation load, c =
K,, = -
where
Y: = (3.08 + . 5 . 0 0 ~+~ ,8.33~:)
~
L”’ is21
~
{ 1 f [ 0 . 0 0 7 ( 9 ) 7 } [ = 0 ]1 - ( Y o
and P = the four-point flexure load at failure, Y: = the mini-
mum value of the stress intensity factor coefficient obtained
using the STCA model,I6 B = the specimen width, W = the
specimen height, a, = a,/W (x = O,l), Sl = the major span,
and S2 = the minor span.
(3) Indentation Strength Method
Details of the experimental procedures for the IS method are
given in the literature.’.’ Beam surfaces were diamond g r o ~ n d ’ ~
but not polished, since fractographic analysis was not required.
Ten samples each of TiB, and B,C were prepared for IS testing.
Beams were indented with a Vickers diamond using a dwell
time of 12 s. Five samples of each material were indented using
a load of 98 N, while the other five were indented at 490 N. IS
beams were fractured using a three-point flexure apparatus with
a span of 19.05mm. The location of the indentation was marked
on the side surface of each specimen to aid in visual alignment
within the three-point fixture. A displacement rate of 0.5 1 mm/
min was used for the flexure testing.
The mode I IS fracture toughness was calculated using the
equation:2
where
and q = an empirically derived equal to 0.59, E =
Young’s modulus of the material, L = the indentation load,
H = the projected area hardness, a = half of the average
Vickers indentation length, P = the three-point flexure load at
failure, S = the lower span of the three-point bend fixture, B =
the specimen width, and W = the specimen height.
(4) Indentation Fracture Method
Detailed experimental procedures for the IF method are
given in the 1iterat~re.I.~
The TiB, samples were indented with a
Vickers diamond, using loads of 98 and 196 N, while the B,C
samples were indented using loads of 49 and 98 N. The total
lengths of the two cracks emanating from five valid indentations
were averaged and used to obtain IF K , for each material. Crack
length data were rejected when the ratio of the crack length to
the indentation size (c/u) was less than 2.3 or when crack
branching was observed.
The IF fracture toughness was calculated for each valid
indentation using the e q ~ a t i o n : ~
2189
where
(9)
and ,$ = an empirically derived equal to 0.016, E =
(3) one-half of the average radial crack length, H = the projected
area hardness, and a = one-half of the average Vickers indenta-
tion length.
IV. Results and Discussion
Table I summarizes the fracture toughness data obtained for
B,C and TiB,, using the four competing methods. Averaged
(4)
toughness values are presented, along with corresponding stan-
dard deviations.
(1) Single-Edge Precracked Beam (SEPB) Method
Two areas of difficulty encountered during SEPB testing
were (1) detecting the precrack “pop in” and (2) accurately
measuring the precrack length.
(A) Precrack “Pop-in”: The low-toughness B,C samples
emitted definite “pop in” precrack sounds at loads ranging from
9 to 13 kN in the bridge-anvil apparatus. Precracks were easily
distinguishable on the B,C fracture surfaces after flexure test-
ing. However, many faint cracking sounds were detected when
attempting to precrack the high-toughness TiB, at loads ranging
from 8 to 14 kN. Precracks were not observed on the fracture
surfaces of these TiB, samples and they could not be used for
fracture toughness determination. These noises were apparently
caused by sources other than precracking. During further test-
ing of the TiB,, faint cracking noises were again detected at
loads ranging from 29 to 36 kN. Clear precrack fronts could
now be seen on the fracture surfaces of these samples after
three-point flexure.
( B ) Precrack Length Meusurement: Precrack length mea-
surements obtained from the fracture surface were found to be
necessary for fracture toughness determination. These pre-
cracks were also visible on the specimen side surface prior to
failure, but were too difficult to accurately measure and fre-
quently did not correlate with the average fracture surface pre-
crack length. JIS R 16075suggests that colored dyes be allowed
to permeate into the precrack prior to fracture to aid detection
of the precrack front on the fracture surfaces. This technique
was attempted without success.
An alternate technique to aid crack length measurement from
the fracture surfaces was developed using optical microscopy
and low-incident angle lighting.I4 A schematic of this regular
(7) procedure is shown in Fig. 2. The fast-fracture region of the
fracture surface was positioned parallel to the focal plane of the
microscope to avoid any foreshortening effect. A restricted
depth of focus was critical to differentiate the fast-fracture
region from the precrack front. A focused light source was then
rotated around the beam axis to obtain the best contrast between
the precracked and fast-fractured areas of the fracture surface.
A low-magnification (lox) photograph was taken with the fast
fracture region in focus. Precrack lengths were measured by
alternately examining the fast-fractured region on the photo-
graph and viewing the sample through a stereographic micro-
scope. Using this technique, it was possible to obtain K,, results
with relatively low standard deviations (8.0% and 3.6% of the
average SEPB toughness value for B,C and TiB,, respectively).
(2) Chevron Notched Beam Method
Figure 4 shows CNB K,, as a function of displacement rate
for B,C and TiB,. The average K,, values for B,C and TiB,
were virtually rate-independent when displacement rates
50.5 mm/min were used. However, at displacement rates
>0.5 mm/min a steady decrease in the apparent fracture tough-
ness was calculated with increasing rate for both materials.
2190 Journal of the American Ceramic Society-Conzone et al. Vol. 78, No. 8

Table I. Summary of K , , Results

K,' Std. dev. No of
Method Matenal Comments (MPa.m'") (MPa.m"2) specimens
IS TiB, 98 N 5.99 0.38 5
IS TiB, 490 N 6.75 0.64 5
IS B4C 98 N 3.76 0.11 5
IS B4C 490 N 4.09 0.50 5
IF TiB, 98 N 5.54 0.99 5
IF TiB, 196 N 4.93 0.49 5
IF B'tC 49 N 4.95 0.94 5
IF B$C 98 N 3.39 0.33 5
SEPB TiB, 6.98 0.25 5
SEPB B4C 2.99 0.24 6
CNB TiB, 10.16 mm/min 3.92 0.43 5
CNB TiB, 2.54 mm/min 4.25 0.04 4
CNB TiB, 0.51 mm/min 5.64 0.25 4
CNB TiB, 0.051 mm/min 5.50 0.38 4
CNB TiB, 0.0051 mm/min 5.62 0.47 5
CNB B4C 10.16 mm/min 2.42 0.22 5
CNB B'tC 2.54 mm/min 3.23 0.06 6
CNB B4C 0.51 mm/min 3.59 0.16 5
CNB B4C 0.051 mm/min 3.48 0.06 5
CNB BX 0.0051 mm/min 3.25 0.09 5

Several explanations for this rate dependence are possible.
The most obvious explanation is that the CNB test is measuring
an inherent fracture toughness rate dependence which could be
related, for example, to a change in fracture mode. The fact that
both materials display the same rate-dependent behavior at
virtually the same onset rate is suspect. In addition, no evidence
for a fracture mode change was observed on the fracture sur-
faces. A more likely explanation for the rate-dependent behav-
ior is that one or more of the assumptions used to derive the
CNB equation were violated, resulting in the calculation of
erroneous K,, values.
For the CNB test to be valid, stable crack growth must
precede spontaneous failure during flexural loading. As a stable
crack initiates and grows from the apex of the chevron notch,
the dimensionless stress intensity factor coefficient (Y*)
decreases and finally reaches a minimum value (Y;) at the
predetermined critical crack length a. Stable crack growth
through the chevron notch results in a specimen compliance
change, which is observed as nonlinearity (yielding) in the
load-versus-displacement data. If nonlinearity is exhibited and
sufficient stable crack growth occurs during a CNB test,
Eqs. (3) and (4) are valid for K,, determination.
Fractography and load-displacement data from the CNB
specimens tested in this study indicate that all specimens exhib-
ited some stable crack growth prior to failure, regardless of the
displacement rate used. These data are presented in a separate
7,-- -
1 "
.h
paper.I9 Specimens tested at rates 50.5 mm/min exhibited criti-
cal crack lengths equivalent to the predicted length, a. How-
ever, for displacement rates >O.S mm/min, much smaller
critical crack lengths were observed, corresponding to insuffi-
cient stable crack growth prior to catastrophic failure." When
spontaneous failure occurs at a crack length less than a,the
value of Y* at failure is larger than the value of Y ; calculated
from Eq. (4). Hence, using the assumed value of Y ; to calculate
fracture toughness is invalid under these conditions and tends
to underestimate the value of K,, .
A valid range of displacement rates which can be used during
CNB testing has not been previously reported. Munz et a1.$
used a displacement rate of 0.05 mm/min during four-point
flexural loading of similar CNB specimens. Sung and Nichol-
son" suggest that displacement rates as low as 0.003 mm/min
be used to initiate stable crack growth. Our CNB K,, data
suggest that Eqs. (3) and (4) are valid for displacement rates
<0.5 mm/min and down to at least 0.005 mm/min.
CNB K,, data for B4C in this range compare relatively well
wih the SEPB-generated data. The CNB method also exhibited
a very low average standard deviation for B,C (2.2% of the
average toughness). However, the low-displacement-rate CNB
results for TiB, yielded an average K,, value which was 20%
lower than the average SEPB value. In addition, the average
standard deviation (7.6% of the average toughness) was over
twice that of the SEPB method. Since longer precracks are
utilized during SEPB testing, R-curve behavior may be a factor
in the observed differences for TiB, which fractures intergranu-
larly, but not for B,C which fractures transgranularly. Higher
scatter in the TiB, results could also be related to intergranular
fracture which causes variability in the transition from stable-

to-unstable crack growth."

-2a (3) Indentation Strength Method
z 3
Figure 5 shows that the average IS K,, increases with indenta-
tion load for both TiB, and B4C. Increasing the indentation load
should have no effect on the IS toughness, since this parameter
is incorporated into Eq. (5).This behavior has been previously
linked to rising "R-curve" behavior and to deviations from the
ideal constant, q = 0.59, used to calculate K,, . I
The derivation of Eq. ( 5 ) assumes that the far-field stress
c.l ((T)acts uniformly on the region containing the indentation-
0.001 0.01 0.1 I 10 100 generated surface crack and that the constant (q) is uniform and
Displacement Rate (mmlmin) constant as the crack extends during flexural loading.' These
assumptions are generally valid only when the indentation
Fig. 4. CNB K,, versus crosshead displacement rate for TiB, and B4C. crack is much smaller than the sample dimensions. Hence,
August 1995 Fractuw Toughness of TiB,and B,C
I-' ' ' '7-'----
7
-
1
- ' I
r
7l TiB
II
3 " " " " ~ " ' ~ ' ' ' ~ " ' i
490
9 8 Indentation Load (N)
Fig. 5. IS K,, versus indentation load for TiB, and B,C.
Eq. ( 5 ) becomes inaccurate as the indentation load and the
crack length become large.
Newman and RajuZ0show that the variation in the shape
factor of a surface crack as a function of crack depth can be
quite large. This variability causes the calculated IS K,, to be
overeftimated at high indentation loads when assuming -q =
0.59 in Eq. (5).
Figure 6 shows the fracture surface of an IS sample of B,C
which was indented using the highest load of 490 N. The initial
crack in the B,C was nearly circular around the indentation.
However, as the crack propagated during loading, the shape of
the crack changed from nearly circular to semielliptical. Analy-
sis of the B,C sample in Fig. 6 showed that the change in crack
shape results in -q and K,, being overestimated by about 9.5%.
Thus, the increase in the IS toughness for TiB, and B,C as a
function of indentation load can be attributed to variations in -q
and (T which are not properly accounted for in Eq. (5).
When using a load of 98 N, the IS method yielded an average
K,, value for B,C which was 26% higher than that obtained
using the SEPB method. This suggests that indentation loads
even lower than 98 N may be appropriate when testing brittle
materials such as B,C. In contrast, the average K,, value
obtained for TiB, using an indentation load of 98 N was 14%
lower than the average SEPB value. As with the CNB method,
this again suggests that R-curve effects may be a factor in the
toughness of TiB,. The standard deviations of IS data for a load
of 98 N were relatively low (2.9% and 6.3% of the average
Fig. 6. SEM photomicrograph of an IS B,C specimen indented with
a load of 490 N. Notice the transition from a nearlv full-uennv crack to
2 I
a half-penny (semielliptical) crack, which develops during loading of
the specimen to failure.
2191
' '
toughness for B,C and TiB,, respectively). However, for a load
1J of 490 N, the standard deviations were unacceptably high (9.5%
and 12.2% of the IS toughness for TiB, and B,C, respectively).
The combination of high standard deviations and higher aver-
age K,, values with increasing indentation load argue for the
use of lower indentation loads with the IS method.
(4) Indentation Fracture Method
Figure 7 shows the IF K , as a function of indentation load for
TiB, and B,C. The apparent decrease in K , with increasing
indentation load may be attributed to higher crack visibility
associated with high indentation loads (i.e., cracks produced
using high indentation loads are more distinguishable than
cracks produced using low indentation loads).
Likewise, the IF K , data obtained using low indentation loads
yielded very high standard deviations (17.9% and 19.0% of the
toughness of TiB, and B,C, respectively) and data obtained
using high indentation loads rendered more acceptable standard
deviations (9.9% and 9.7% of the toughness of TiB, and B,C,
respectively). Although the IF method is cited as an alternate to
the SEPB method in JIS R 1607,5the K , values did not compare
at all well with the SEPB data and exhibited the largest variabil-
ity of all the methods evaluated. Residual surface stresses, grain
pullout, and surface imperfections made accurate, reproducible
crack length measurement extremely difficult.
V. Conclusions
A number of popular fracture techniques were compared to
the recently standardized single-edge precrack beam (SEPB)
method. The SEPB technique is considered to be the most valid
method for K,, determination because it uses few assumptions
and requires a direct measurement of crack length, although it
is more time consuming. K,, values obtained using the SEPB
method were found to exhibit reasonably low variability. Since
"long" precracks are utilized, a drawback of the SEPB method
is the possible sensitivity to R-curve behavior.
The IS method was a very viable method for K,, determina-
tion when low indentation loads were used to generate rela-
tively small indentation cracks. This method was the least time
consuming and was more economical than the SEPB and CNB
methods.
The CNB method yields relatively rate-independent tough-
ness data between displacement rates of 0.5 mm/min and
0.005 mm/min for the materials tested. Displacement rates
>0.5 mm/min appear to invalidate the CNB method and
resulted in fictitiously low K,, values because of the underesti-
mation of Y:. Low-rate CNB data were virtually identical to
low-load IS data; however, precision machining associated with
the CNB method was roughly twice as expensive.
The IF method was the least satisfactory method for K ,
determination. K , data exhibited the highest variability and the
pr------ ' I " ' " ' 1
T
I'
m i '1 1
I
,
Indentation Load (N)
Fig. 7. IF K,, versus indentation load for TiB, and B,C.
2192 Journal of the American Ceramic Society-Conzone et al.
least differentiation between the fracture toughness of the two
materials studied.
References
‘G. D. Quinn, J. Salem, I. Bar-On, K. Cho, M. Foley, and H. Fang, “Fracture
Toughness of Advanced Ceramics At Room Temperature,” J. Res. Nutl. lnst.
Stand. Technol., 97 [S] 579407 (1992).
’P. Chantikul, G. R. Anstis, B. R. Lawn, and D. B. Marshall, “A Critical
Evaluation of Indentation Techniques for Measuring Fracture Toughness: 11,
Strength Method,”J. Am. Cerum. Soc., 64 [9] 53943 (1981).
’G. R. Anstis, P. Chantikul, B. R. Lawn, and D. B. Marshall, “A Critical
Evaluation of Indentation Techniques for Measuring Fracture Toughness: I,
Direct Crack Measurements,”J. Am. Cerum. Soc., 64 [9] 533-38 (1981).
4D.Munz, R. T. Bubsey, and J. L. Shannon Jr., “Fracture Toughness Determi-
nation of Al,O, Using Four-Point-Bend Specimens with Straight-Through and
Chevron Notches,”J. Am. Cerum. Soc., 63 [S-61 300-305 (1980).
5JIS R 1607, “Testing Methods for Fracture Toughness of High Performance
Ceramics, Japanese Industrial Standard.” Japanese Standards Association,
Tokyo, Japan, 1990.
‘J. E. Srawley, “Wide Range Stress Intensity Factor Expressions for
ASTM E 399 Standard Fracture Toughness Specimens,” Int. J. Fruct., 12,
475-76 (1976).
’ASTM E 399, “Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of
Metallic Materials.” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA, 1990.
‘T. Nose and T. Fuji, “Evaluation of Fracture Toughness for Ceramic Materials
by a Single-Edge-Precracked-Beam Method,” J . Am. Cerum. SOC.,71 [ S ]
328-33 (1988).
9L. M. Barker, “A Simplified Method For Measuring Plane Strain Fracture
Toughness,” Eng. Fruct. Mech., 9 [2] 36149 (1977).
Vol. 78, No. 8
“J. Sung and P. S. Nicholson, “Valid K , , Determination via In-Test Subcriticdl
Precracking of Chevron-Notched Bend Bars,”J. Am. Cerum. Soc., 72 [6] 1033-
36 (1989).
“C. B. Ponton and R. D. Rawlings, “Vickers Indentation Fracture Toughness
Test Part 1 Review of Literature and Formulation of Standardized Indentation
Toughness Equations,” Muter. Sci. Technol., 5 [9] 865-72 (1989).
”C. B. Ponton and R. D. Rawlings, “Vickers Indentation Fracture Toughness
Test Part 2 Application and Critical Evaluation of Standardized Indentation
Toughness Equations,” Muter. Sci. Technol., 5 [9] 961-76 (1989).
”U.S. Army MIL-STD-1942 (MR), “Flexural Strength of High Performance
Ceramics at Ambient Temperature.”
‘“G. D. Quinn, private communication, 1992.
”A. A. Wereszczak and A. Parvizi-Majidi, “Effect of Fracture Temperature
and Relative Crack Propagation Rate on the Fracture Behavior of Whisker-
Reinforced Ceramic Matrix Composites,” Cerum. Eng. Sci. Proc., 11 [7-8]
721-33 (1990).
16D. G. Munz and J. L. Shannon Jr., “Fracture Toughness Calculation from
Maximum Load in Four Point Bend Tests of Chevron Notch Specimens,” Int. J .
Fruct., 16, R1374141 (1980).
”T. B. Troczynski and P. S. Nicholson, “Theory for the Load Relaxation
Technique in Fracture Studies Using Four-Point-Bend Chevron-Notched Speci-
mens,”J. Am. Cerum. Soc., 68 [8] 43943 (1985).
“C. L. Fuller, E. R. Fuller Jr., and S. W. Freiman, “Chevron-Notch Bend
Testing in Glass: Some Experimental Problems”; pp. 167-75 in Chevron-
Notched Specimens: Testing and Stress Analysis, ASTM STP 855. Edited by
J. H. Underwood, S. W. Freiman, and F. I. Baratta. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1984.
19S. D. Conzone, W. R. Blumenthal, and J. R. Vamer, “Variation in Y: with
Loading Rate during Chevron Notch Testing,” submitted to J. Am. Cerum. Soc.
’“J. C. Newman Jr. and I. S. Raju, “An Empirical Stress-Intensity Factor
Equation for the Surface Crack,” Eng. Fruct. Mech., 15 [1-2] 185-92 (1981). 0