Fischer Horst, Marx Rudolf
Department of Dental Prosthetics, Section of Dental Materials, University of Technology, Aachen, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2002 Jan;18(1):12-9. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00005-7.
The aim of this study was to compare two fracture toughness methods, the bending method on notched specimens as reference and the indentation method as comparison. Potentialities and limitations of the indentation method were analyzed.
Fracture toughness values were determined for seven dental ceramic materials on 'single-edge-v-notched beams' (bending method) as our standard method. Additionally indentation tests were done on the identical samples from the bending tests. The results were determined before and after annealing of the samples. With the reference fracture toughness results from the bending tests, the prefactor in the indentation test formula was individually adapted for each tested material.
The individual prefactors varied between 0.0122 and 0.0253 for the specimens before annealing and between 0.0150 and 0.0267 for the annealed specimens. Subsequently the differences between the K Ic-values calculated by the ISO draft (TC 206) direction and calculated by the modified formulae with the material specific prefactors were up to 48% for unannealed and up to 33% for annealed specimens, respectively.
The indentation method is not an adequate tool to exactly determine the fracture toughness of an unknown ceramic material. This method can only be used for a first rough K Ic estimation.
本研究旨在比较两种断裂韧性测试方法,即以带缺口试样的弯曲法作为参考方法,压痕法作为对比方法。分析了压痕法的潜力和局限性。
采用“单边V型缺口梁”弯曲法(作为标准方法)测定了七种牙科陶瓷材料的断裂韧性值。此外,对弯曲试验中相同的试样进行了压痕试验。在试样退火前后测定结果。根据弯曲试验得出的参考断裂韧性结果,针对每种测试材料分别调整了压痕试验公式中的预因子。
未退火试样的单个预因子在0.0122至0.0253之间,退火试样的单个预因子在0.0150至0.0267之间。随后,按照ISO草案(TC 206)方向计算的K Ic值与使用材料特定预因子的修正公式计算的K Ic值之间的差异,未退火试样高达48%,退火试样高达33%。
压痕法并非精确测定未知陶瓷材料断裂韧性的合适工具。该方法仅可用于初步粗略估计K Ic。