A Bar Impact Tester for Dynamic Fracture Testing of
Ceramics and Ceramic Composites
by L.R. Deobald and A.S. Kobayashi
ABSTRACT--A bar impact test was developed to study the
dynamic fracture responses of precracked ceramic bars,
AI208 and 15/29-percent volume SiCw/AI208. Crack-opening
displacement was measured with a laser-interferometric dis-
placement gage and was used to determine the crack velocity
and the dynamic stress-intensity factor, K~y". The crack
velocity and Ktay" increased with increasing impact velocity
while the dynamic-initiation fracture toughness, Kx.,, did not
vary consistently with increasing impact velocities.
Introduction
Available configurations of new ceramics and ceramic
composites are often restricted to bar geometries of about
10 x 10 mm in cross section due to the historical pre-
cedence of using modulus of rupture (MOR) tests for
determining the mechanical properties of early experimental
materials. These MOR specimens are ideally suited for
single-edge notched, three-point-bend tests in determining
fracture toughness despite the inherent experimental
difficulties associated with the small dimensions. These
small three-point-bend fracture specimens are also
extremely sensitive to the interactions of reflected stress
waves with the propagating crack tip as evidenced by the
copious fluctuations in the dynamic stress-intensity factor
during the dynamic fracture process. 1.2 Moderate fluctua-
tions in dynamic stress-intensity factor in relatively large
three-point-bend specimens of 75-mm height x 10-mm
thickness and 89-mm height x 9.5-mm thick are docu-
mented in Refs. 3 and 4 respectively, but not to the
extent shown in Refs. 1 and 2. Such superfluous reflected
stress waves do not exist in the one-dimensional split-
Hopkinson tensile-bar test of Duffy and his colleagues. 5.6
However, this clean test configuration uses explosives for
loading which requires special training and laboratory
facilities. Thus a need exists for a similarly clean test
which can be executed without the special facilities. The
L.R. Deobald is Sen&r Specialist Engineer, The Boeing Company,
Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA 98124. A.S. Kobayashi (SEM
Fellow) is Professor, University of Washington, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, FU-IO, Seattle, WA 91895.
Paper was presented at the 1992 SEM Spring Conference on Experimental
Mechanics held in Las Vegas on June 8-11.
Original manuscript submitted." August 1, 1991. Final manuscript received:
February 26, 1992.
objective of this paper is to describe such a dynamic
fracture-test procedure involving a bar-impact test.
Experimental Procedure
The bar-impact experiment consists of a 50.8-mm long,
rectangular bar specimen which is impacted on its end by
a 25.4-mm-long bar impactor of the same material. Ideally
the reflected tension wave from the free end of the speci-
men bar interacts with the incoming compressive wave and
generates a tensile stress pulse of 5.2-#s duration in the
middle of the bar specimen with the transit of approxi-
mately 3/4 of the compressive pulse as shown by the
Lagrangian diagram of Fig. 1. In practice, the impact
typically produces a compressive stress wave of 1.6-#s
rise time propagating in both the impactor and the
specimen. The superposition of the incoming ramping
portion of the compressive stress waves causes a tension
pulse, which rises in about 0.8 #s and is sustained for
another 3.6/~s, at the crack plane.
The schematic of the experimental apparatus is shown
in Fig. 2. The specimen and impactor bars are held by
molded urethane holders which are mounted in two
carriages. Both the specimen and the impactor carriage
Vo ~ Midplane Stress History
$Feeimen J -EV.._.~o +EVo
25.4 0 75.4 50.8~ 2CI b I 0 2C
: b
J
. iI 1.6 p,s
t=8. i
o y 1
N
Fig. 1--kagrangian diagram for impact experiment, C6 =
9.8 mm/~s
Experimental Mechanics 9109
 run on guide rails. An air gun propels the impactor LIDG signal. The measured impact velocity was used to
carriage down the guide rails towards the stationary determine the level of sustained tension stress after the
specimen carriage. The ceramic bars impact well before initial stress rise had been measured.
the collision of the urethane holders. The resultant com-
pressive stress is proportional to the impact velocity
which is determined by a laser-velocity measurement Data-reduction Procedure
system.
The specimen geometry is shown in Fig. 3. The ceramic
Theoretical Preliminaries
materials tested and the corresponding nominal mechanical
properties are shown in Table 1. A sharp precrack with
an approximate initial length of 3 mm was generated by SEMI4NFINITE CRACK IN ANINFINITE DOMAIN
the single-edge-precracked-beam (SEPB) method 7 from a The dynamic-initiation fracture toughness, K~,, was
shallow 6hevron notch. This sharp crack is transparent to determined by using the solution to a stress wave impinging
the incoming compressive wave but reflects the tensile on a stationary crack. 9 The dynamic-initiation stress-
wave which will initiate dynamic crack propagation. The intensity factor, K , , , of a stationary semi-infinite crack in
crack-opening displacement (COD) at the location X was an infinite body and subjected to a square tension pulse
measured using the laser-interferometric displacement is given as 1~
gage (LIDG) system. 8 LIDG targets were mounted at the
precrack tip such that the reflective indentations, 0.4-mm Kz~(t,O)- _o C,(1-2v)),/2tt,,
_( . 2 O 2
(1)
apart, straddled the precrack as shown in Fig. 3. Also a
short strain gage of 1.6-mm gage length was mounted at
the midlength of the bar on the surface opposite to the where tj = time of fracture. For ramp type of tension
precrack. This strain gage was used to determine the pulse as shown in Fig. l, K~, can be determined by a
initial rise in the stress history and its relation to the simple superposition of the discrete stress values as 9

GuideR a i l ~ TopView ~-lmpa~or Carriage

AirGun
~ SpedmenCarriage

Z
~ ~ Absorber

I ~ ~ / - Ram Specimen Fig. 2 - - I m p a c t apparatus and

/ Impactor~ / air gun

ill \
CrossSectionProfileView

PhotornudtiplierTube , .
w/MagneticShield Filter,x632.8nm / L i g h t ProofCov~

LaserIntefferen~_~N.~ / J ./~r B/~deSli ~-----~W =7.24mm

...... \\1 I V ' x "~=~'§ q.~o= 6.38~ l ~ - -

Fig. 3 - - S p e c i m e n geometry
J I ---vo and LIDG technique

9 , ~ J [Opening
Crack ~ Precutin Foil Impact~/
Drawm8 Isnot toscale! .... ~ MicroHardnessIndents
///" ReflectiveFoil

50.8mm P" I-- 25Amm

110 9 June 1992

 CI(1 - 2 v ) ) , n
/2 The bar configuration with a rectangular cross section
2 ]~ Ao, At, m (2) used in this study does accordingly violate the plane-strain
K " - v(1- - ~ ) ( ~- i=l
condition postulated in eqs (1)-(6). Fortunately the small
Poisson's ratio of the ceramic matrix, i.e., v = 0.22,
Ah is the difference from the fracture initiation time and introduced deviations of the order of five percent at the
the arrival of the stress pulse, Aa~, as shown in Fig. 4. most between the C~, the bar-wave velocity, C~, and the
The dynamic stress-intensity factor, K~~", for a semi- plate-wave velocity, C,. For consistency, the dilatational-
infinite crack propagating at a constant velocity is related wave velocity is treated as the bar-wave velocity, C~, in
to the dynamic energy-release rate as 9 this study.
Ki"(t) = rc2~
Cv~(~l
lD(V) G,]m (3)
DERIVATION OF CALIBRATIONPARAMETERS,xit AND

where A nondimensional parameter, ~/, was derived by the

simple inversion of the dynamic displacement equation
(1 - ~) ,, I-E_ where the crack-opening displacement (COD) can be
C2 = x]~ C~ - ( 1 - 2 v ) ( l + v ) VQ (4) represented as ~2
COD - 4(1 + v)K/y" ~ = ~ - , ~ 1 ( - ~ 21) 2 ^
for plane strain. E ~/,~r/Tr ~ D ( V ) )f(K~,r)
D(V) = 4/~1/~2 - (1 + ~)2 (5) (7)

~, = 1- vvc~ /3~ = 1- V*/C~ (6) where r = a - X. f ( K , r) is defined in Ref. 12, a is the

crack length, and X is the distance along the crack at
E
which the COD is determined. The nondimensional
/~ - 2(1 + v)
parameter, 't,, was then defined from eq (7) above as
V is the crack velocity, C1 and (72 are the dilatational and Kay'L, f d z - X - f ( V )
, = (4f")-l,,/r~
shear-wave velocities, respectively, E and # are the = E ' COD (8)
modulus of elasticity and the shear modulus, respectively,
and ~ is the mass density. Equation (3) has been used where
extensively in finite-element analysis of dynamic fracture
/3, (1 -/322)
and its use has been validated in a previous paper." f(v) -
(1 - v)D(V)
and
TABLE 1--MECHANICAL PROPERTIES E
ii ii
1 -v 2
E 0 Cb
Materials (GPa) ~ (g/cc) (mm//~s) For the near-field asymptotic solution of a semi-infinite
crack propagating at constant velocity in an infinite
AhO3* 99.5 percent 372 .22 3.89 9.78 plate, ~ = 1 and the theoretical value of ~I' becomes
AhOat 99.9 percent--HPt 387 .22 3.97 9.87 xvth,o = x / ~ 3 2 . As will be shown later through dynamic
15,percent v SiC,,/AhOat--HP 398 .23 3.85 10.17 finite-element analysis, ~I, remains essentially constant
during the short crack-propagation time in this small
29-percent v SiC,/AhOat--HP 408 .23 3.73 10.46 specimen.
A second nondimensional parameter, fl, was also
Cb is the bar-wave velocity derived based on an empirical relationship between the
energy consumed at the crack tip and the strain energy
flux into the crack-tip region as follows. 12
*Coors Ceramic Company, 600 9th Street, Golden, CO 80401, USA
tAdvanced Composite Materials Corporation, 1525 S. Buncombe a2(t) C1
Road, Greer, SC 29651, USA G, = k ( a - x ) ~ W V (9)
r pressed processing
where W is the specimen width and ~ is a proportionality
constant. The COD then can be rewritten as '2

COD
=
~
4 ~ / 2 ( a - X ) / w ( (1~ ,-( 1 -v~ )) D ( V ) ) .

f~K1,r) [g(V) ~ / ~ ( a - X ) W ] a ( t ) (10)

Rearranging eq (10), the nondimensional parameter,

ft, is defined as
X E t COD
fl = 4 x f 2 ~ f f X,~f~/ W =
(a - X ) We( t) f ( V)g( V)
[~ At, = b- (t~+ t 0 / 2
(11)
Fig. 4--K~d determination by stress-pulse
superposition where

Experimental Mechanics . 111

 (C,C~D(V) ),,2 (12)
produced a sudden net tension stress. This tension pulse
g(V) = x,2(l -1- /))V3~i was modeled by the tension wave which reflected off the
rigid boundary along the crack plane as a tension wave in
the one-half finite-element model. This reflected tension
wave in the finite-element-method (FEM) model repre-
sented the tension wave passing from the back half of the
Dynamic Finite-element Analysis bar in a real test. The crack was then allowed to open at
the time the crack plane was in tension as predicted by
IMPACTED SEPB SPECIMEN Fig. 1. After a delay of about 0.6 /zs, which was deter-
mined from the COD measurement as will be described
A commercial finite-element code, ABAQUS*, was
later, a constant crack velocity was then prescribed and
used to simulate the dynamic fracture of the impacted
the energy release rate, G,, was calculated from the
ceramic bar. The purpose of this study was to determine
change in the total energy 1' in the model as the crack
the calibration parameters, ~I, and r , for the specimen
propagated.
configuration considered. Although the impact phen-
The FEM analysis justified the above use of the
omenon was not symmetric, the stress state and the stress-
theoretical solution for a semi-infinite crack which is
wave propagation becomes completely symmetric after the
either stationary or moving at a constant velocity and
stress wave has propagated about the length of the bar
impacted by a one-dimensional wave, in an infinite
and thus only half of the bar was modeled. Stress-wave
domain despite the finite geometry of the specimen. This
propagation was simulated in the finite-element model by
analysis consisted of prescribing the impulse (O,om~,,~ =
ramping the initial static compressive stress at the impact
100 MPa) of Fig. 1 on the impacted end of a FEM of the
end to zero over a 1.6-/~s duration. This loading created
a tension pulse which propagated towards the center of
whole specimen bar, without a precrack, and computing
the dynamic state of stress at the crack plane. Figure 5
the bar. As shown in Fig. 1, the two tension pulses, which
shows the wave front of the reflected tensile pulse, a,,
met at the crack plane at a post impact time of 8.6 t~s,
through the width of the specimen prior to impacting the
crack surface. Also shown is the secondary stress, a,,
*Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Providence, R t 02906-4402 USA.
which is perpendicular to the tensile pulse, at this instant.
The negligible distribution of the secondary stress, a,,
shows that a one-dimensional wave front is maintained at
this instant. Figure 6 shows the computed two stress
components at the strain gage (see Fig. 3), which is at the
140
midpoint of the specimen edge in front of the crack tip.
120 J The width-wise stress, a,, which should be zero, is
negligible in the plane-strain FEM analysis and again
100
justifies the use of the semi-infinite crack solution in this
80: o, data-reduction procedure.
9--II- .-D- t=9.0 bts
Gx
60 "4- ---O- t=9.5 + ]
DETERMINATION O F xl/c A N D ~ C
40 ~ ,.../x- t = 1o.o ] Gy
--o-- ---O-- t = 10.5 The parameter, t , listed as eq (10), was calculated in a
20~ series of dynamic finite-element analyses for the W =
-a~ ---V-- t = 11.0
8.89-mm specimen. The crack velocities varied from 1201
v v to 2222 m/s. Two different initial crack lengths, ao, and
-20 four different crack velocities were simulated. The results
o "021 d2" o::;" o'.,/" o.';' o16 o'.:;" oi;" o29' of the analyses are shown in Fig. 7. Immediately after the
Fractional Distance Across Crack Plane crack began to propagate, the nondimensional parameter,
Fig. 5--Computed stresses at the crack plane

2
150 13 V=1201 m/s, ao=2.667mm
0 V=1502 m/s, ao=3.1115 mm
100 + V=1821 m/s, ao=3AllSmm
1"5 1

50 /0e~ # V=2222 m/s, ao=3.1115 mm

1 oooo_OO
L~ i:ii~
0
-50 0.5- [][]

-I00-
0 . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . J . . . . i . . . . i . . . .

-150 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0,7 0.8 0.9

' ' ' i , , , i ' ' ' i . , ' L . . . . . . . . .
2 4 6 S 1; ll2 14 (~ = a / W
Post Impact Time (Its) Fig. 7--Finite-element values of ft as influenced by
Fig. 6--Computed stresses at strain-gage location crack-tip location, W = 8.89 mm

112 9 June 1992

t , oscillated down, and assumed a constant value. From
Fig. 7, a constant fl = 0.95 was defined as the calibration
constant, tic. This fl will not model correctly the dynamic-
fracture phenomenon at crack initiation where the crack
velocity jumps from zero to a high constant velocity used
in the simulation. A similar finite-element analysis of the
specimen geometry with W = 7.24 mm yielded a calibra-
tion constant of f~c = 1.37.
The calibration constant, 'I'c, was determined from a
plot of the nondimensional parameter, ,t,, shown in Fig.
8. The parameter, ,I,, was calculated from the finite-
element analyses for four different crack velocities. As
before with t , the parameter ,t, oscillated immediately
after the crack velocity jumped from zero to the constant
velocity. 9 remained constant before dropping off slightly
as the cracks passed c~ = a / W = 0.85. A constant value
line was fitted to the data yielding the calibration constant,
,I% = 0.34. This value compares well with ~I, derived from
the theoretical solution for a constant velocity crack in an
infinite medium where ~Itheo = x~-/32 9 A speculation is
made that the coarse mesh causes the FEM model to be
overly stiff and underestimates the COD, thus resulting in
a numerically determined ,I% which is slightly higher than
~Z,heo. A single finite-element solution was used to deter-
mine ,I% for the FEM model with W = 7.24 mm. The
result for the 7.24-mm wide model was ,I% = 0.35 which
is within three percent of ,1% for the 8.89-mm wide model.
Although many FEM analyses were conducted to verify
the data-reduction procedure, only one analysis was re-
quired per specimen geometry. The resulting calibration
constants, t c and ~I'c, are given in Table 2 for the two
geometries used here. The solution basically behaves as a
constant velocity crack in an infinite medium. The stress
wave reflection from the lateral surfaces apparently had
little effect on the solution until the crack tip approached
the specimen boundary.
The crack-length history, a(t), using the experimental
midplane stress, a(t), was computed by the crack-opening
displacement, COD (t). K,ay"(t) computation requires the
use of a(t) and COD (t). These relations are shown in the
following as functions of the two nondimensional parameters.
E 'COD(t)
a(t) = X (1 + flcWa(t)f(V)g(
The crack-length history, determined by eq (13), is a
function of two functions, f ( V ) and g(V). Hence, the
crack-length history, a(t), must be determined 'in an
iterative fashion. An initial guess was made of the crack
velocity, F, to calculate f ( V ) and g(V). a(t) was then
calculated with eq (13) and least-square fitted with a
straight line. The slope (crack velocity) was used to deter-
mine new estimates of f ( V ) and g(V). The process was
repeated until the crack velocity converged to the correct
value, which is the measured crack velocity in this case.
The final value o f f ( V ) was used with a(t) in eq (14) to
calculate K f y" (t), explicitly.
The calibration constant, t o , was then used to deter-
mine the crack length, a(t), from the measured stress
history and COD history. Before using the numerically
determined t o , the procedure was verified by comparing
the actual finite-element crack history with a(t) deter-
mined by the procedure presented above for t c = 0.95.
This verification is shown in Fig. 9 for four different
crack velocities. Surprisingly, the large initial oscillations
in the data caused little error in the predicted crack
length. The error increased for two of the crack histories
as the crack approached the specimen boundary.
The rate of convergence of this iterative procedure was
tested by using the COD and stress histories from the
dynamic FEM simulation (V = 1502 m / s ) with t c =
0.95 to predict the crack history, f ( V ) and g ( V ) were
calculated with an initial value of V = 600 m/s. Only
four iterations were required to obtain the crack velocity
of 1520 m / s which is within 1.2 percent of the true value.
Again the numerically determined calibration constant,
'I'c, was used with the FEM results to verify the method.
The K~ay" predicted using the above procedure was com-
pared with the K~ayn from the FEM model in Fig. 10. The
large initial oscillations had only a slight effect on K,dy"
immediately following crack initiation. The new procedure
TABLE 2--CALIBRATION CONSTANTS f~c AND ~Zc,
CALCULATED BY FEM
V) ) (13)
W (mm) X (mm) ftc ,t,c

K,aY"(t) = ~c E'COD(t) (14) 8.89 2.5 0.95 0.34

f(V) ~/a~ - X 7.24 1.37 0.35

1 9 oO
[] V=1201m/s, ao=2.667mm
0.9- []
O V=1502 m / s , ao=3.1115 m m
8i :../.. d+ d ~176_
0.8- 7 .~'4 .,-'+* o~#~
+ V=1821m/s, ao=3.1115 m m ,, ~C_ o~O~-
"~ 0.7-
[] ~. V=2222m/s, ao=3.1115 m m 6 eN:
~0.6-
rq - - Theoretical Value
" 0.5-
~O -- Nominal Numerical Value E
"~4-
~. 0.4-
3- 0.95 FEM V (m/s)
0.3- - ~ ~ O b 8 - [] 1201
2- 0 . . . . 1502
0.2-
+ . . . . 1821
0.1- 1- t 2222

0 . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . 0 .... i .... i .... i .... ~ .... i .... i .... i .... i'''

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
o~ = a / W F E M t i m e (}as)

Fig. 8--Finite-element values of ~I, as influenced by Fig. 0--Finite-element verification of a ( t ) , W =

crack-tip locations, W = 8.89 mm 8.89 mm

E x p e r i m e n t a l M e c h a n i c s ~ 113
 overestimated K/y" beyond ot = 0.85 due to the drop off
shown in Fig. 8. Hence, the solution would be considered
valid to about c~ = 0.85.
Experimental Results
As mentioned previously, an accurate measurement of
the impact velocity is important since it is used to calculate
the stress level. Simple bar-wave theory predicts a square
stress pulse of magnitude a, = E Iio/2 Cb while the actual
stress wave ramps up and oscillates around the stress level
predicted by the bar-wave theory as shown in Fig. 6. A
typical stress pulse, which is the first compressive pulse,
measured with a single strain gage is shown in Fig. 11.
Other than the magnitude of the stress level, which ob-
viously will depend on the impact velocity, remarkable
agreement between the measured stress of Fig. 11 and the
computed stress of Fig. 6 is noted. Such agreement shows
again that the specimen bar is essentially in a uniaxial
state of stress and that the stress wave dispersions at the
specimen edges are minimal. The reflected tension pulse
was of the same shape except that the higher frequency
oscillations diminished. The initial ramping at the beginning
of the measured wave was combined with the maximum
stress based on the measure impact velocity. This com-
bined stress history is shown as a shaded area in Fig. 11
and was used to calculate the experimental a(t).
A typical photomultiplier-tube (PMT) output repre-
senting the COD variation with crack propagation in a
specimen (15-percent volume SiC,/AI203) impacted at
8 m / s is shown in Fig. 12. The crack began to run shortly
after the arrival of the tension stress wave.
The fringe-motion history shown in Fig. 12 was com-
bined with the other PMT output to obtain the COD
history for this test shown in Fig. 13. The COD data were
curve fitted with a higher order polynomial which was
used to analyze the data at the same time increments as
the stress history.
Crack-length H/story
The procedure presented previously was used to obtain
the crack-length histories of the ceramic specimens im-
pacted at velocities of approximately Vo = 5.8, 8, and
10 m / s for each of the four materials. Figure 14 shows
the crack length history for 15-percent volume SiCJA1203
where the average crack velocity, V, increased with in-
creasing impact velocity, 1Io. The average crack velocities
for hot-pressed alumina and the two composite materials
showed similar behavior, but were 11-31 percent higher
for the lower density alumina.

30 Onsetof crack
propagation

o
25 epo~176176

~E20

~J
15-
t
5~ -- K I from FEM analysis

o K!determinedwith~e = 0.34
I r I I I I I I
0 .... i .... i .... i .... i .... ~ .... i ....
6 7 8 9 I0 1t " 12 13 14
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Post ImpactTime(ps)
c~= a/W
Fig. 10-- Finite-element verification of Kzdy"(t), Fig. 12--Typical PMT signal representing LIDG fringe
W = 8.89 mm motion

30
250-
- - - ay(t) Calculated from Vo 25
with 1.6 ~ rise time
~y(t) Measured 2o

U
10-

\"A & D 5

0 , . . . . . . .
9 10 11 12 13
-2504
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Post Impact Time (~ls)

Post ImpactTime (~s) Fig. 13--Typical COD history, Vo = 8 m/s, 15-percent

Fig. 11--Typical measured stress and ideal stress volume Si Cw/AI2 03

114 ~ June 1992

 The initial crack lengths, ao, for 10 of the 12 specimens the crack plane since ~,'c and tic are based on the infinite
were determined by observing the fracture surface with a medium solution for a constant crack velocity. Both plots
binocular microscope. All materials exhibited a distinct of tic and 'I'c, which were obtained through dynamic
fracture initiation site with the exception of the 99.5-
percent dense alumina. For the last test of the 99.5-
percent dense alumina, dye penetrant was baked onto the
precrack area prior to ao determination. The initial crack TABLE 3 - - S U M M A R Y OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
front was generally curved as shown in Fig. 3. The
measured initial crack length was thus taken as the average Vo V VlC~ K~c K,a Kzs
distance of ao measured at the side surfaces and in the Material m/s m/s MPa~/Cm MPa~/-mMPa~/-m
middle of the crack periphery.
5.8 1975 0.32 5.3 --
Am2O3 7.9 2317 0.37 3- 4 5.9 --
K, D e t e r m i n a t i o n 10.3 2605 0.42 5.2 12.4
The dynamic stress-intensity-factor, K/y", variation for Hot Pressed 5.7 1546 0.24 5.9 --
15-percent volume SiC,/A1203 bars impacted at three Ah Os 8.1 1830 0.20 4 6.8 14.9
velocities each is shown in Fig. 15. The fracture toughness 10.1 2465 0.39 5.8 13.6
increased with increasing impact velocities within each
15-percent vol. 5.8 1457 0.22 9.0 --
material group. The K/y" data were plotted as a function
Si Cw/AI= O3 8.0 1872 0.29 6 6.5 --
of the nondimensional crack length, ~ = a/W. K~y" 10.0 2210 0.34 6.7 14.2
increased rapidly to begin with, then increased more
slowly as the crack approached the boundary. 29-percent vol. 5.8 1536 0.23 6.5 --
Figure 16 is a plot of K/y~ versus the average crack Si Cw/Ah Oa 8.0 2383 0.36 7 5.7 --

10.1 2383 0.36 9.8 14.2

velocity, V, for all the materials in this study. The data-
reduction procedure probably masks detailed crack-
velocity fluctuations which is noted in Fig. 15.
The dynamic-initiation fracture toughness, K~d, was
calculated by eq (2). All results are summarized in Table
3. All specimens impacted at 10 m / s showed macroscopic 25

crack branching. Also, the hot-pressed alumina impacted t

at 8 m / s showed crack branching. The crack-branching
toughness, K ~ , is listed in Table 3. 2 0 ~t o D []
The crack-branching stress-intensity factor, K ~ , was t_ DD ODD O O O
determined by measuring the crack-branch length, a~, 15 ,r,,--Kib, V o = 1 0 m / s 9 D [] O o O
then choosing K ~ = K~ay" ( a = aJW) from the dynamic ~ 9 []o 0 0o~
stress-intensity-factor curves, e.g., Fig. 15. K,~ was 1 9 [] oo
( 1 0 q C]oOOO
typically 2 to 2.5 times the magnitude of K,~ which is
in accordance with previously reported results. ~a Sur- ~ "o~~176 o Vo=5.8m/s
1 oo
passing Kz~ was a necessary, but not a sufficient condition 5-[ 9 [] Vo=8.0m/s
for the crack to branch and is in agreement with some 1
9 Vo=10.0m/s
tests where K dr" exceeded K ~ without crack branching.
0 t .... i .... t .... t ........ t .... i ....
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Discussions = a/W

The basic postulate for the procedure described above is Fig. 1 5 - - D y n a m i c stress-intensity factor for 15-
to neglect the effects of the boundaries perpendicular to percent volume, Si C J A h O3

9 9 i m i immi
OD 2,5"
@@ODe[] O
_ 0 @ [ ] [] 0 O0
,, l , , l , , . | . | | . . . | . | t . . ,
~@uoou OO o v voq ,of 9 ~ o o o o o o o o o o
5-
oOZeD[] O OOO
e~O 0o 1.5- OOCO0000000000000
,~-~4- ~ Du 000 o~ p,
3- 0 m ~ ~176176 Impact Ave. Crack > 1- Impact Velocities ( m / s )
5.8 8 10
Vel.(m/s) Vel.(m/s)
[] [] 9 A1203
o 5.8 1~2 0,5- A 9 9 A]203- HF
[] 8.0 18~ O O 9 15% SiCw/A1203
9 10.0 2~5 Jr ,~ X 29% $iCw/A[203
. . . . ~ , ~ , o:~ . . . . , . . . . , . . . .
.... * .... n .... i .... i .... i .... i .... i .... 5 10 15 20 25
9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
Post Impact Time (ps) K1dyn (MPa ~ m )

Fig. 14--Typical crack-length histories, 15- Fig. 16--Influence of K,"y" on the crack velocity for
percent volume Si Cw/Ah 03 all materials

Experimental Mechanics 9 115

 finite-element analysis, displayed an initial oscillation
immediately after the crack began to propagate. It is not
known if these oscillations are noise associated with the
numerical solution or if they indicate a real physical
phenomenon.
Before proceeding to the analysis of experimental data,
it was important to verify that the numerically deter-
mined calibration constants, flc and XI,c, would determine
the correct crack-length history, a ( t ) , and K dvn a s deter-
mined by the finite-element model. A verification, which
used [~c and ,1% and the known stress history and COD
from the FEM analysis to calculate a ( t ) and K a y", was
thus conducted. In regard to KaY" , the initial oscillation
in ~I, did introduce a discrepancy of about ten percent
immediately after the crack began to propagate. However,
K ay" matched closely in the range of 0.5 < o~ = a ~ W <
0.85. The difference between ~theo = xf~-/32 and XI,c may
be due to an overly stiff finite-element mesh.
The LIDG technique has a sensitivity of 0.911 vm for
this particular setup. The experiment was such that the
COD was less than 1 #m at the time the crack began to
propagate. This caused uncertainty at the initial stages of
the crack propagation and would have made it impossible
to accurately determine ao or K,d. Instead, ao was measured
directly from the fracture surface and Kid was calculated
from the procedure presented. The crack-opening dis-
placement varied nearly linear with time. The variation
from a straight line matched the time the stress wave took
to propagate from the crack to the free boundary and
back again.
The crack velocities were nearly the same for the hot-
pressed alumina and the two composites. This indicates
that the toughening mechanisms in the composite were
ineffective under dynamic fracture. The higher crack
velocity in the lower density alumina was in accord with
other published data.l, 2
Crack propagation initiated at the respective values of
KI~ for each material and reached values of K / y " as high
as four times K,d. A unique relationship between V and
K a y" was not apparent from the results of this experiment.
Other researchers have reported similar results for ceramic
materials. '. 2
A great advantage of this technique was that the crack
was loaded by a relatively 'clean' tension stress which
happens to be uniform across the crack plane and loads
the crack in mode I opening only. The duration of the
experiment was less than the time for the primary release
waves to return to the crack. The advantage of this
experimental procedure is the lack of an expensive dynamic
finite-element analysis. The crack behaved as a crack in
an infinite solid for the limited duration of the experiment.
Conclusions
(1) A new type of experiment was designed to study the
dynamic fracture behavior of ceramic materials. The new
test method provided several distinct advantages over
current experimental methods.
- - A predictable unidirectional stress pulse was suddenly
applied at the crack plane.
- - A sharp precrack provided a better estimate of Kxd.
--Once set up, this experiment was relatively easy to
perform and was comparable to the popular instru-
mented Charpy impact test.
- - T h e method gave consistent results for a (t) and Kay".
116 9 June 1992
(2) A new method of analysis was developed for con-
verting the measured COD and stress to useful Ka y"
data. The technique provided the following.
- - T w o nondimensional invariant parameters, f~ and ~I,,
were derived. The constants defined as f~c and ~c were
used to analyze any number of experiments of similar
materials in a variety of impact velocities.
- - O n l y one dynamic finite-element analysis was needed
per specimen geometry to analyze a series of tests. This
makes dynamic fracture study of ceramic materials
more economical.
(3) The toughening mechanisms for SiCw/A1203 com-
posites were ineffective when the material was subjected
to severe dynamic fracture conditions.
(4) A unique relationship between average crack velocity
and KaY" was not apparent for the crack velocities in the
range of 1400 to 2600 m/s.
(5) This study reaffirmed that K,b is 2 to 2.5 times K,d
and that the crack velocity at which branching occurred
was roughly 0.4 C2.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Office of Naval
Research Contract No. 0004-87-K032. The authors express
their sincere gratitude to Drs. Yapa Rajapakse and Steve
Fishman for their patience and encouragement during the
course of this investigation.
References
1. Yang, K.H., Kobayashi, A.S. and Emery, A.F., "Dynamic Tough-
ness of Ceramic Composites," Car. Eng. ScL Proc., 9 (7-8), 795-802
(1988).
2. Takagi, Y. and Kobayashi, A.S., "'Further Studies on Dynamic
Fracture Response of Alumina and SiCw/AI20a Composite," Proc. of
Symp. on Elevated Temperature Crack Growth, ads. S. Mall and 7".
Nicholas, ASME MD-Vol. 18, 145-148 (1990).
3. Kalthoff, J.F., Winkler, S. and Beinert, J., "The Influence of
Dynamic Effects in Impact Testing, "Int. J. Fract., 13, 528-531 (1977).
4. Mall, S., Kobayashi, A.S. and Urabe, Y., "Dynamic Photoelastie
and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Dynamic Tear Test Specimens,"
EXPERIMENTALMECHANICS, 16, 449-458 (1978).
5. Marehand, A., Duffy, J.F., Christman, T.A. and Suresh, S., "An
Experimental Study of the Dynamic Mechanical Properties of an Al-Si Cw
Composite, "Eng. Fract. Mech., 30 (3), 295-315 (1988).
6. Suresh, S., Nakamura, T., Yeshurun, Y., Yang, K.-H. and Duffy,
J.F., "'Tensile Fracture Toughness of Ceramics Materials: Effects of
Dynamic Loadings and Elevated Temperature," J. Amer. Car. Soc.,
73 (8), 2457-2466 (1990).
Z Nose, T. and Fujii, T., "Evaluation of Fracture Toughness for
Ceramic Materials by a Single-Edge-Precracked-Beam Method," J. Amer.
Car. Soc., 71 (5), 328-333 (1988).
8. Sharpe, W.N., Jr., ''A New Optical Technique for Rapid Deter-
mination of Creep and Fatigue Thresholds at High Temperatures,"
AFWAL TR 84-4028, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Lab., WPAFB
(1984).
9. Freund, L.B., "Crack Propagation in an Elastic Solid Subjected to
General Loading-IlL Stress Wave Loading, "" J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 21,
47-61 (1973).
10. Ravichandran, G. and Clifton, R.J., "'Dynamic Fracture Under
Plane Wave Loading, "Brown University Report No. AD-A178 594. U.S.
Army Research Office, Rapt. No. ARO 223067EG (Dee. 1986).
11. Hodulak, L., Kobayashi, ,A.S. and Emery, A.F., "'A Critical
Examination of a Numerical Fracture Dynamic Crack," Fracture
Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, 174-188 (1980).
12. Deobald, L.R., "Experimental~Numerical Characterization of the
Dynamic Fracture Behavior of Ceramic Materials," PhD thesis submitted
to Univ. of Washington (June 1991).
13. Ramulu, R. and Kobayashi, A.S., "Mechanics of Crack Curving
and Branching, ""Int. J. Fract., 27, 187-201 (1985).