Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:02:56.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weibull analysis of fracture strength for Zr55Ti2Co28Al15 bulk metallic glass: Tension–compression asymmetry and porosity effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2011

Hui-Li Gao ,
Yong Shen  and
Jian Xu
Hui-Li Gao
Affiliation:
Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, 110016, China
Yong Shen
Affiliation:
Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, 110016, China
Jian Xu*
Affiliation:
Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, 110016, China
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: jianxu@imr.ac.cn
Get access

Abstract

In this work, two- and three-parameter Weibull statistics were used for analyzing the variability of fracture strength for Zr55Ti2Co28Al15 bulk metallic glass (BMG), both in compression and in tension testing. In contrast to the compression in which the specimens fail via the massive shear-off, however, failure mode in tension for the as-cast BMG is flaw-controlled crack opening (mode I or mixed mode) due to the presence of cast defects such as porosity. As a result, dispersion of compressive fracture strength is rather uniform. For the BMG rods of 6 mm in diameter, the three-parameter Weibull modulus m3p and threshold stress σμ (below which no failure occurs) are 3.4 and 1780 MPa, respectively. However, tensile fracture strength of the BMGs manifests a large variability, in a range of 310–1690 MPa. In terms of fracture surface morphology, the specimen failure at different stress is associated with two types of defects: large pores on/near the surface of specimens and small internal pores. Using bimodal and three-parameter Weibull analysis, the Weibull modulus m1 and threshold σμ1 at lower strength level are 1.8 and 250 MPa, respectively, suggesting a modest reliability. One should exercise caution, therefore, in interpreting the reliability of as-cast BMG materials only simply in terms of the compression tests, small-sized samples, and tow-parameter Weibull analysis. Like the conventional metal castings, controlling the processing conditions to minimize the cast defects is critical issue to ensure the reliability of BMG materials.

Keywords

AmorphousFractureMetal
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 26 , Issue 16 , 28 August 2011 , pp. 2087 - 2097
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Weibull, W.: A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J. Appl. Mech. 18, 293 (1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Trustrum, K., De, A., and Jayatilaka, S.: On estimating the Weibull modulus for a brittle material. J. Mater. Sci. 14, 1080 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Shih, T.T.: An evaluation of the probabilistic approach to brittle design. Eng. Fract. Mech. 13, 257 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Petrovic, J.J.: Weibull statistical fracture theory for the fracture of ceramics. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 18, 1829 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Danzer, R., Supancic, P., Pascual, J., and Lube, T.: Fracture statistics of ceramics—Weibull statistics and deviations from Weibull statistics. Eng. Fract. Mech. 74, 2919 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Fok, S.L., Mitchell, B.C., Smart, J., and Marsden, B.J.: A numerical study on the application of the Weibull theory to brittle materials. Eng. Fract. Mech. 68, 1171 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Biery, N., Graef, M.D., Beuth, J., Raban, R., Elliott, A., and Austin, C.: Use of Weibull statistics to quantify property variability in TiAl alloys. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33, 3127 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Zahedi, H., Emamy, M., Razaghian, A., Mahta, M., Campbell, J., and Tiryakioğlu, M.: The effect of Fe-rich intermetallics on the Weibull distribution of tensile properties in a cast Al-5 pct Si-3 pct Cu-1 pct Fe-0.3 pct Mg alloy. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 38, 659 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Tiryakioglu, M. and Campbell, J.: Weibull analysis of mechanical data for castings: A guide to the interpretation of probability plots. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41, 3121 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Khalili, A. and Kromp, K.: Statistical properties of Weibull estimators. J. Mater. Sci. 26, 6741 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Milella, P.P. and Bonora, N.: On the dependence of the Weibull exponent on geometry and loading conditions and its implications on the fracture toughness probability curve using a local approach criterion. Int. J. Fract. 104, 71 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Afferrante, L., Ciavarellia, M., and Valenza, E.: Is Weibull’s modulus really a material constant? Example case with interacting collinear cracks. Int. J. Solids Struct. 43, 5147 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Johnson, W.L.: Bulk glass-forming metallic alloys: Science and technology. MRS Bull. 24, 42 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Inoue, A.: Stabilization of metallic supercooled liquid and bulk amorphous alloys. Acta Mater. 48, 279 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Ashby, M.F. and Greer, A.L.: Metallic glasses as structural materials. Scr. Mater. 54, 321 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Schuh, C.A., Hufnagel, T.C., and Ramamurty, U.: Mechanical behavior of amorphous alloys. Acta Mater. 55, 4067 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Wu, W.F., Li, Y., and Schuh, C.A.: Strength, plasticity and brittleness of bulk metallic glasses under compression: Statistical and geometric effects. Philos. Mag. 88, 71 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Zhao, Y.Y., Ma, E., and Xu, J.: Reliability of compressive fracture strength of Mg–Zn–Ca bulk metallic glasses: Flaw sensitivity and Weibull statistics. Scr. Mater. 58, 496 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Yao, J.H., Wang, J.Q., Lu, L., and Li, Y.: High tensile strength reliability in a bulk metallic glass. Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 041905 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Shamimi Nouri, A., Gu, X.J., Poon, S.J., Shiflet, G.J., and Lewandowski, J.J.: Chemistry (intrinsic) and inclusion (extrinsic) effects on the toughness and Weibull modulus of Fe-based bulk metallic glasses. Philos. Mag. Lett. 88, 853 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Zberg, B., Arata, E.R., Uggowitzer, P.J., and Loffler, J.F.: Tensile properties of glassy MgZnCa wires and reliability analysis using Weibull statistics. Acta Mater. 57, 3223 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Lee, C.J., Lai, Y.H., Huang, J.C., Du, X.H., Wang, L., and Nieh, T.G.: Strength variation and cast defect distribution in metallic glasses. Scr. Mater. 63, 105 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Han, Z., Tang, L.C., Xu, J., and Li, Y.: A three-parameter Weibull statistical analysis of the strength variation of bulk metallic glasses. Scr. Mater. 61, 923 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Yokoyama, Y., Harlow, D.G., Liaw, P.K., and Inoue, A.: Comparison of fatigue strengths of bulk metallic glasses produced by tilt casting and high-pressure casting. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41, 1780 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Yokoyama, Y., Shinohara, T., Fukaura, K., and Inoue, A.: Characterization of crystalline inclusions in cast bulk Zr-Cu-Ni-Al glassy alloy. Mater. Trans. 45, 1819 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Kawashima, A., Kurishita, H., Kimura, H., Zhang, T., and Inoue, A.: Fracture toughness of Zr55Al10Ni5Cu30 bulk metallic glass by 3-point bend testing. Mater. Trans. 46, 1725 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Wada, T., Qin, F., Wang, X., Yoshimura, M., Inoue, A., and Sugiyama, N.: Formation and bioactivation of Zr-Al-Co bulk metallic glasses. J. Mater. Res. 24, 2941 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Zhang, Z.F., Eckert, J., and Shultz, L.: Difference in compressive and tensile fracture mechanisms of Zr59Cu20Al10Ni8Ti3 bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater. 51, 1167 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Song, S.X., Bei, H., Wadsworth, J., and Nieh, T.G.: Flow serration in a Zr-based bulk metallic glass in compression at low strain rates. Intermetallics 16, 813 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Xie, S. and George, E.P.: Size-dependent plasticity and fracture of a metallic galss in compression. Intermetallics 16, 485 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Bei, H., Lu, Z.P., Shim, S., Chen, G., and George, E.P.: Specimen size effects on Zr-based bulk metallic glasses investigated by uniaxial compression and spherical nanoindentation. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41, 1735 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Han, Z. and Li, Y.: Cooperative shear and catastrophic fracture of bulk metallic glasses from a shear-band instability perspective. J. Mater. Res. 24, 3620 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Cheng, Y.Q., Han, Z., Li, Y., and Ma, E.: Cold versus hot shear banding in bulk metallic glass. Phys. Rev. B 80, 134115 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Suh, J.Y., Corner, R.D., Kim, C.P., Demetriou, M.D., and Johnson, W.L.: Correlation between fracture surface morphology and toughness in Zr-based bulk metallic glasses. J. Mater. Res. 25, 982 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Lowhaphandu, P. and Lewandowski, J.J.: Fracture toughness and notched toughness of bulk amorphous alloy: Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be. Scr. Mater. 38, 1811 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Peterlik, H. and Loidl, D.: Bimodal strength distributions and flaw populations of ceramics and fibres. Eng. Fract. Mech. 68, 253 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Bruck, H.A., Christman, T., Rosakis, J., and Johnson, W.L.: Quasi-static constitutive behavior of Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5Be22.5 bulk amorphous alloys. Scr. Metall. Mater. 30, 429 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Mukai, T., Nieh, T.G., Kawamura, Y., Inoue, A., and Higashi, K.: Dynamic response of a Pd40Ni40P20 bulk metallic glass in tension. Scr. Mater. 46, 43 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Lewandowski, J.J. and Lowhaphandu, P.: Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the flow and fracture of a bulk amorphous metal. Philos. Mag. A 82, 3427 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Sergueeva, A.V., Mara, N.A., Kuntz, J.D., Lavernia, E.J., and Mukherjee, A.K.: Shear band formation and ductility in bulk metallic glass. Philos. Mag. 85, 2671 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Yokoyama, Y., Fujita, K., Yavari, A.R., and Inoue, A.: Malleable hypoeutectic Zr-Ni-Cu-Al bulk glassy alloys with tensile plastic elongation at room temperature. Philos. Mag. Lett. 89, 322 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Caris, J. and Lewandowski, J.J.: Pressure effects on metallic glasses. Acta Mater. 58, 1026 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Delahay, T. and Palin-Luc, T.: Estimation of the fatigue strength distribution in high-cycle multiaxial fatigue taking into account the stress–strain gradient effect. Int. J. Fatigue 28, 474 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar