Advertisement

Effects of Testing Methods and Surface Grinding Conditions on Strength Values of Ceramics

  • Jan M. Lindemann
  • Arne Nissen
Chapter

Abstract

In order to evaluate precision grinding of ceramic components test specimens of ZrO2 (3 mol.% Y2O3), Al2O3-30 vol.% ZrO2 and siliconized SiC were slip cast, sintered, and ground using the same grinding tools and grinding conditions as chosen for a given set of manufacturing processes. Reference specimens were lapped for comparison to grinding. Specimens were tested in four-point bending as well as biaxial flexure (using the concentric-ring method). Equibiaxial flexure strengths were calculated from uniaxial strength, effective surface area and Weibull modulus. The effect of grinding conditions on strength of the three materials tested is discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nordisk Industrifond, Prosjekt P 89178 — Fremstilling av TiB2, for andvendelse i lettrnetallindustrien, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nordisk Industrifond, Prosjekt P 89179 — Kerambearbetning, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Radford, K.C and Lange, F.F, Loading (L) Factors for the Biaxial Flexure Test. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1978, 61, 211–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shetty, D.K, Rosenfield, A.R, McGuire, P, Bansal, G.K and Duckworth, W.H, Biaxial Flexure Tests for Ceramics. Am. Ceram. Bull., 1980, 59, 1193–97.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fessler, H, Fricker, D.C and Godfrey, D.J, A Comparative Study of the Mechanical Strength of Reaction-Bonded Silicon Nitride. In Proc. 6th. Army Matr. Techn. Conf., Ceramics for High-Performance Applications. III. Reliability, ed. Lenoe, E.M, Katz, R.N and Burke, J.J, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, pp. 705–36.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, A.G., A General Approach for the Statistical Analysis of Multiaxial Fracture. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1978, 61, 302–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batdorf, S.B and Heinisch, Jr., H.L, Weakest-Link Therory Reformulated for Arbitrary Fracture Criterion. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1978, 61, 355–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giovan, M.N and Sines, G, Biaxial and Uniaxial Data for Statistical Comparisons of a Ceramic’s Strength. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1979, 62, 510–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breder, K, Andersson, T and Schölin, K, Fracture Strength of α-and β-SiAION Measured by Biaxial and Four-Point Bending. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1990,73, 2128–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamon, J, Statistical Approaches to Failure for Ceramic Reliability Assessment. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1988, 71, 106–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    UlvensØen, J.R, Relations Between Abrasive Wear and Mechanical Properties for Ceramics., to be published.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anstis, G.R, Chantikul, P, Lawn, B.R and Marshall, D.B, A Critical Evaluation of Indentation Techniques for Measuring Fracture Toughness: I, Direct Crack Measurements. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1981, 64, 533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.G. Evans and R.W. Davidge, A Biaxial Stress Method for the Determination of the Strength of Sections Cut From Glass Containers and the Size of the Critical Griffith Flaws. Glass Tech., 1971, 12, 148–54.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ingel, R.P and Lewis III, D, Lattice Parameters and Density for Y2O3-Stabilized ZrO2. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1986, 69, 325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lange, F.F, Transformation toughening. Part 4: Fabrication, Fracture Toughness and Strength of A12O3 — ZrO2 composites. J. Mater. Sci., 1982, 17, 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F.F. Lange, Transformation Toughening. Part 3: Experimental Observations in the ZrO2 — Y2O3 System. J. Mater. Sci., 1982, 17, 240–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfeiffer, W, Hollstein, T, Berweiler, W and Prümmer, R, Residual Stresses Due to Machining of Ceramic Materials and their Effect on Strength. In Proc.Third Int.Symp., Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines, ed. Tennery, V.J., Am.Ceram.Soc, Inc., 1989, pp. 1170–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    König, W and Wemhöner, J, Grinding of SiSiC Ceramics: Achieving High Performance and Minimum Damage. In Proc.Third Int.Symp., Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines, ed. Tennery, V.J., Am.Ceram.Soc, Inc., 1989, pp. 1225–Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weil, N.A and Daniel, I.M, Analysis of Failure Probabilities in Nonuniformly Stressed Brittle Materials. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1964, 47, 268–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Service, T.R and Ritter, J.E, Uniaxial and Equibiaxial Strength of a Vitreous-Bonded Abrasive. J. Vib. Acoust. Stress. Relia. Des., 1989, 3, 194–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Batdorf, S.B, Some Approximate Treatments of Fracture Statistics for Polyaxial Tension. Int. J. Fract., 1977, 13, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soltesz, U, Richter, H and Kienzler, R, The Concentric-Ring-Test and its Application for Determining the Surface Strength of Ceramics. In Proc. 6th CIMTEC, High Tech Ceramics, ed. Vincenzini, P., Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V., Amsterdam, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd and MPA Stuttgart 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan M. Lindemann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arne Nissen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Elkem a/s KeramerNorwayUSA
  2. 2.IVF — Swedish Institute of Production Engineering ResearchSwedenUSA

Personalised recommendations