4.7 Article

The Ball-on-Three-Balls strength test: Effective volumes and surfaces for Weibull strength scaling

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 173-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.09.018

关键词

Effective volume; Weibull theory; Strength testing; Biaxial testing; B3B-test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article mainly introduces the importance of knowing the effective volume (Veff) or surface (Seff) under different loading scenarios when comparing the strength results of brittle materials from different testing methods or using the data for design purposes. The effective volume and surface of the B3B test are provided as tabulated data for various specimen geometries and materials, along with tools for data utilization. A fitting model for the dependency of Veff and Seff on the Weibull modulus is provided, and the influence of load-dependent non-linear effects on Veff and Seff is discussed. Finally, the necessity of Veff and Seff for statistical strength analysis is demonstrated through a practical example.
In order to compare the strength results of brittle materials from various testing methods or use the data for design purposes, it is essential to know the effective volume (Veff) or surface (Seff) for every loading scenario. For the Ball-on-Three-Balls-test (B3B), Veff and Seff have to be determined and investigated through Finite-ElementAnalysis due to the lack of an accurate analytical description of the stress field. Through this work, the effective volume and surface of the B3B-test are made available as tabulated data for a wide range of specimen geometries and materials, along with the tools to utilize the data. A fitting model for the dependency of Veff and Seff on the Weibull-modulus for any given specimen geometry is provided. The influence of load-dependent non-linear effects on Veff and Seff is discussed. Finally, the necessity of Veff and Seff for statistical strength analysis is demonstrated through a practical example.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据