1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7944(97)00124-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of specimen geometry on strength in engineering ceramics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
5
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The former was basically greater than the later. The mean strengths and its standard deviations were 23.7±2.70 and 22.3±2.12 MPa, which was consistent with the variation of the mean strength of sintered silicon nitride and alumina as well as the decrease of standard deviation with the specimen size [22][23][24] . The probability of existence a critical flaw in a large sample was higher than the small one 25 , so the smaller samples presented higher strength.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The former was basically greater than the later. The mean strengths and its standard deviations were 23.7±2.70 and 22.3±2.12 MPa, which was consistent with the variation of the mean strength of sintered silicon nitride and alumina as well as the decrease of standard deviation with the specimen size [22][23][24] . The probability of existence a critical flaw in a large sample was higher than the small one 25 , so the smaller samples presented higher strength.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The figure shows the decrease in the strength with increasing the effective volume in the materials with respective porosities. This trend coincides with the results observed in dense ceramic materials 5–7,12–16 …”
Section: Correlation Of Strength With Effective Volume Parameterssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…On the other hand, the stress distribution in a notched specimen is usually unknown, so the volume integral is replaced with a summation. In this study, the effective volume of a notched specimen is evaluated by using the stress distribution given in a finite element analysis 14 and is formulated as…”
Section: Statistical Analysis Of Strength In Porous Ceramicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The displayed variability in the value of m and k (for glass panels obtained from the same source and manufacturing processes) contradicts with the notion of taking a single m value to represent ''average conditions" as reported in the literature (ASTM-E1300, 2007Hoshide et al, 1998). This observation reaffirms previous findings (Afferante et al, 2006;Kotrechko, 2003;Zwaag, 1989) that the Weibull parameter m is not a material constant.…”
Section: Strength Distribution Of Annealed Glass Panels From Physicalsupporting
confidence: 51%