Advertisement

Cycles of sub-critical tensile and shear alternating fracturing in diminishing dimensions, under tensile loading

  • Dov Bahat
  • Avinoam Rabinovich
  • Vladimir Frid
  • Franz J. Brosch
Original Paper

Abstract

A microscopic study reveals that when the curvature of striae that mark the fracture surface of PMMA glass with a chevron pattern increase beyond the critical angle, μc = 3° ± 2°, a breakdown into alternating tensile dark zones, and bright, ragged shear zones occurs. This breakdown was repeated in primary, secondary and tertiary cycles in diminishing scales. The secondary and tertiary breakdowns occurred exclusively in the shear zones. Similar breakdowns were found in chevron patterns on the fractured surface of a silicate glass ceramics. Due however to their different properties, certain differences were identified between the two materials in their breakdown characteristics, e. g. in the glass ceramic μc = 20° ± 2°. A similar primary breakdown was also identified on tensile fractures cutting rocks in geological outcrops. In the glass ceramic the interface angle \({\phi}\), which the striae form with the fracture boundary, decreased from 32° ± 2°in the early stage of the striae growth at relatively low velocity, to 13° ± 2° during their advanced growth, at greater velocity, demonstrating that \({\phi}\) is a good tool for monitoring the change in fracture velocity in a given material. It was found that four interconnected factors determine the geometries and breakdown styles of the chevron pattern: (1) the curvatures of the fracture front and that of the striae which intersect each other orthogonally, (2) the influence of the fracture boundaries, (3) the material properties, such as stiffness, and (4) the fracture velocity in the material.

Keywords

Fractography Chevron PMMA Glass ceramic Tensile and shear zones 

References

  1. Bahat D (1979) Theoretical considerations on mechanical parameters of joint surfaces based on studies on ceramics. Geol Mag 116: 81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahat D, Engelder T (1984) Surface morphology on cross fold joints of the Appalachian Plateau, New York and Pennsylvania. Tectonophysics 104: 299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahat D (1991) Tectonofractography. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahat D, Rabinovitch A, Frid V (2001) Fracture characterization of chalk in uniaxial and triaxial tests by rock mechanics, fractographic and electromagnetic radiation methods. J Struct Geol 23: 1531–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahat D, Frid V, Rabinovitch A, Palchik V (2002) Exploration via electromagnetic radiation and fractographic methods of fracture properties induced by compression in glass-ceramic. Int J Fracture 116: 179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonamy D, Ravi-Chandar K (2005) Dynamic crack response to a localized shear pulse perturbation in brittle amorphous materials: on crack surface roughening. Int J Fracture 134: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke ML, Pollard DD (1996) Fracture propagation paths under mixed mode loading within rectangular blocks of polymethyl metha-crylate. J Geophys Res 101: 3387–3400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freminville MCh (1914) Recherches sur la fragilité–l’éclatement. Rev Metall-Paris 11: 971–1056Google Scholar
  9. Hertzberg RW (1975) Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials. Wiley, New York, pp 605Google Scholar
  10. Hull D (1999) Fractography: observing, measuring, and interpreting fracture surface topology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Morrell R (1995) Standardized guidelines for fractography of advanced ceramics-a view from Europe. Fractography of glasses and ceramicsIII Varner JR Frechette, VD Quinn, GD Ceramic Transactions 64:71–89. The American Ceramic Society.Google Scholar
  12. Murgatroyd JB (1942) The significance of surface marks on fractured glass. J Soc Glass Technol 26: 155–171Google Scholar
  13. Nicholson R, Ejiofor IB (1987) The three dimensional morphology of echelon and sigmoidal mineral-filled fractures: data from North Cornwall.. J Geol Soc Lond 144: 79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orr L (1972) Practical analysis of fractures in glass windows, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 21–23, 47.Google Scholar
  15. Pollard DD, Segall P, Delaney PT (1982) Formation and interpretation of dilatant echelon cracks. Geol Soc Am Bull 93: 1291–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Preston FW (1931) The propagation of fissures in glass and other bodies with special reference to the split-wave front. J Am Ceram Soc 14: 419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roberts JC (1961) Feather-fracture and the mechanics of rock jointing. Am J Sci 259: 481–492Google Scholar
  18. Savalli L, Engelder T (2005) Mechanism controlling rupture shape during subcritical growth of joints in layered rocks. Bull Am Geol Soc Am 117: 436–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharon E, Fineberg J (1999) Confirming the continuum theory of dynamic brittle fracture for fast cracks. Nature 397: 333–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sommer E (1969) Formation of fracture “lances” in glass. Eng Fract Mech 1: 539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Syme Gash PJ (1971) Surface features relating to brittle fracture. Tectonophysics 12: 349–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tipper CF (1957) The study of fracture surface markings. J Iron St Inst 185: 4–9Google Scholar
  23. Weinberger R (2001) Joint nucleations in layered rocks with non-uniform distribution of cavities. J Struct Geol 23: 1241–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dov Bahat
    • 1
    • 2
  • Avinoam Rabinovich
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vladimir Frid
    • 1
    • 2
  • Franz J. Brosch
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Geological and Environmental SciencesBen Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.The Deichmann Rock Mechanics Laboratory of the NegevNegevIsrael
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsBen Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael
  4. 4.Institute of Engineering Geology and Applied MineralogyTechnical University GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations