Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:22:26.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fracture Toughness Study on Zr-based Bulk Metallic Glasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Jin-yoo Suh ,
Mary Laura Lind ,
C. Paul Kim ,
R. Dale Conner  and
William L Johnson
Jin-yoo Suh
Affiliation:
jinyoo@caltech.edu, California Institute of Technology, Materials Science, W.M.Keck Laboratory of Engineering Materials, Mail code 138-78, Pasadena, CA, 91125, United States, 626-395-4774, 626-795-6132
Mary Laura Lind
Affiliation:
mll@caltech.edu, California Institute of Technology, Materials Science, W.M.Keck Laboratory of Engineering Materials, Mail code 138-78, Pasadena, CA, 91125, United States
C. Paul Kim
Affiliation:
paul.kim@liquidmetal.com, California Institute of Technology, Materials Science, W.M.Keck Laboratory of Engineering Materials, Mail code 138-78, Pasadena, CA, 91125, United States
R. Dale Conner
Affiliation:
rdconner@csun.edu, California State University Northridge, Department of Manufacturing Systems Engineering and Management, Northridge, CA, 91330, United States
William L Johnson
Affiliation:
wlj@caltech.edu, California Institute of Technology, Materials Science, W.M.Keck Laboratory of Engineering Materials, Mail code 138-78, Pasadena, CA, 91125, United States
Get access

Abstract

The fracture toughness of Zr-based bulk metallic glasses of various compositions was studied in the as-cast and annealed condition. Properties were characterized using x-ray and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and fracture surfaces were examined using electron microscopy (SEM). Quaternary Zr-Ti-Cu-Be alloys consistently had linear elastic fracture toughness values greater than 80 MPa·m1/2, while Vitreloy 1, a Zr-Ti-Cu-Ni-Be alloy, had an average fracture toughness of 48.5 MPa·m1/2 with a large amount of scatter. The addition of iron to Vitreloy 1 reduced the fracture toughness to 25 MPa·m1/2. Fracture surfaces were carefully analyzed using electron microscopy. Some samples had highly jagged patterns at the beginning stage of crack propagation, and the roughness of this jagged pattern correlated well with the measured fracture toughness values. These jagged patterns, the main source of energy dissipation in the sample, were attributed to the formation of shear bands inside the sample. The Zr-Ti-Cu-Be alloy, having KQ=85 MPa·m1/2 as cast, was annealed at various time/temperature combinations. When the alloy was annealed 50°C below Tg, the fracture toughness dropped to 6 MPa·m1/2, while DSC and X-ray showed the alloy to still be amorphous. The roughness of the fracture surfaces on relaxed samples also compared well with the relative fracture toughness.

Keywords

fracturetoughnessamorphous
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1048: Symposium Z – Bulk Metallic Glasses–2007 , 2007 , 1048-Z10-04
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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

1. Lowhaphandu, P. and Lewandowski, J.J., Scr. Mater. 38, 1811 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Gilbert, C.J., Schroeder, V. and Ritchie, R.O., Met. Mat. Trans. 30A, 1739 (1999)Google Scholar
3. Suh, D. and Dauskardt, R.H., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 317, 181 (2003); Ann. Chim. Sci. Mat. 27,25 (2002)Google Scholar
4. Conner, R.D., Rosakis, A.J., Johnson, W.L. and Owen, D.M., Scr. Mater. 37, 1373 (1997)Google Scholar
5. Wesseling, P., Nieh, T.G., Wang, W.H. and Lewandowski, J.J., Scr. Mater. 51, 151 (2004)Google Scholar
6. Xi, X.K., Zhao, D.Q., Pan, M.X., Wang, W.H., Wu, Y. and Lweandowski, J.J., Phy. Rev. Lett. 94, 125510 (2005)Google Scholar
7. Keryvin, V., Bernard, C., Sangleboeuf, J.-C., Yokoyama, Y. and Rouxel, T., J.|Non-Cryst. Solids 352, 2863 (2006)Google Scholar
8. Schroers, J. and Johnson, W.L., Phy. Rev. Lett. 93, 255506 (2004)Google Scholar
9. Lewandowski, J.J., Wang, W.H. and Greer, A.L., Phil. Mag. Lett. 85, 77 (2005)Google Scholar
10. Conner, R.D. and Johnson, W.L., Scr. Mater. 55, 645 (2006)Google Scholar
11. Hahn, G.T. and Rosenfield, A.R., Acta Metall. 13, 293 (1965)Google Scholar
12. Anderson, T.L., Fracture Mechanics: fundamentals and applications, 1st ed. (CRC Press, 1991) p.66.Google Scholar