Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 679–684 | Cite as

Fracture toughness of superplastic formed/diffusion bonded interfaces

  • Y. Xiang
  • S. Wu
  • D. Chen


The present paper is concerned with the interfacial fracture problem of bi-material interfaces of superplastic forming/diffusion bonding (SPF/DB) components. It has been known that the interfacial fracture toughness is a strong function of the mode mixture of crack tip, which is the most important characteristic of interfacial problems. Micromechanical models have been proposed to understand this trend of interfacial toughness curves, based on which a modified criterion for fracture under mixed-mode loading is advanced in this paper to predict phenomenological functional forms of toughness curves. On the ground of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), mode I and mode II interfacial fracture toughnesses of SPF/DB components formed under different processing conditions have been measured in this paper using the double cantilever beam (DCB) and end-notched flexure (ENF) specimens, respectively. It is found that, just as is the general trend of interfacial fracture toughness curves, the experimental results of mode II toughness values are much greater than those of mode I toughness values, and the fluctuation of mode II toughness values under different processing conditions is much greater than that of mode I toughness values. On the basis of the experimental results, the four basic parameters in the modified criterion are obtained and the interfacial toughness curve of Ti-50A/Ti-6Al-4V SPF/DB components is determined using the modified criterion for fracture under mixed-mode loading. Comparison between the results shows that the agreement between experiment and theory is excellent.


diffusion bonding fracture toughness interfacial fracture superplastic forming Ti-50A Ti-6Al-4V 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Z. Suo and J.W. Hutchinson: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1989, vol. 107, pp. 135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.G. Evans, M. Ruhle, B.J. Dalgleish, and P.G. Charalambides: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1990, vol. 126, pp. 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.G. Evans and J.W. Hutchinson: Acta Met., 1989, vol. 37, p. 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Charalambides, A.J. Kinloch, Y. Wang, and J.G. Williams: Int. J. Fracture, 1992, vol. 54, pp. 269–91.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu Shichun: Superplastic Deformation Theory of Metals, National Defense Industry Press, Beijing, 1997 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Dundurs: J. Appl. Mech., 1969, vol. 36, pp. 650–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.G. Williams: Fracture Mechanics of Polymers, Ellls Horwood, Wiley, Chichester, 1984, p. 55.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.L. Williams: Bull. Seismological Soc. America, 1959, vol. 49, pp. 199–204.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Atkinson: Acta Mech., 1977, vol. 26, pp. 103–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Yang and C.F. Shih: Int. J. Solids Structures, 1994, vol. 31, pp. 985–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.R. Rice: J. Appl. Mech., 1988, vol. 55, p. 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.G. Evans and J.W. Hutchinson: Acta Metall., 1989, vol. 37, pp. 909–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Broek: Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th ed., 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.J. Russell and K.N. Street: Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP 876, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1985, p. 349.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Xiang
    • 1
  • S. Wu
    • 1
  • D. Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Materials Science and EngineeringNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations