Engineering Fracl~re Mechanics Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 45-60, 1991 0013-7944/91 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press pk.

EFFECT OF THERMAL EXPANSION ANISOTROPY ON

MICROCRACKING IN CERAMIC COMPOSITES
F. DELALE? and H. BODUROGLUj
tDept. of M~hanical Engineering, The City College of New York, N.Y. 10031, U.S.A.
$Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

Ahatract-In this paper the effect of thermal expansion anisotropy on microcracking in ceramic
matrix composites is studied. It is well known that thermal expansion mismatch and thermal
expansion anisotropy in ceramic composites may induce residual stresses which in turn may cause
microcracking, thus reducing the toughness of such materials. In this study it is assumed that the
fiber and matrix materials are both thermally anisotropic, i.e. the coetiicients of thermal expansion
vary with direction. First an exact elasticity solution of the residual stress field generated due to
thermal expansion anisotropy in and around a fiber embedded in an infinite matrix is presented.
Next radial and interfacial microcrack propagation under the residual stress field is studied.
A critical fiber size for microcrack suppression is also determined. Numerical results are obtained
for various material combinations and thermal expansion anisotropy may have a significant effect
on microcracking and toughness of ceramic composites.

ALTHOUGH ceramic materials have, in general, very low toughness, in recent years they have
received a great deal of attention due to their very high resistance to high temperature oxidation.
To increase their use in engineering applications in space and advanced engine technologies,
tougher and at the same time heat resistant materials are being developed. To increase the
toughness of such materials, researchers are giving special attention to the microcracking and the
associated failure mechanisms. Microcracking gives rise to the low toughness of ceramics and in
most cases has a detrimental effect on the toughness and strength of ceramics and ceramic
composites. There have been investigations showing that porosity has a deleterious effect on the
strength and fracture toughness[l-111, although a controlled amount of microcracking may lead
to the toughening of some materials[ 121.
In general, microcra~king may develop due to applied external loads or localized stress fields,
i.e. residual stresses. In the former case, regions with a toughness lower than the surrounding
material may fail before the bulk of the material inducing microcracks in the structure. In the latter
case, during the manufacturing of material, i.e. during the cooling process, residual stresses are
induced due to thermal expansion mismatch, thermal expansion anisotropy or phase transform-
ation. The components of ceramic composites, in general, (the matrix and the fibers in fiber
reinforced composites), (or particles in particulate composites) have different thermal expansion
coefficients inducing residual stresses during the cooling phase of the manufacturing process. These
residual stresses may be tensile or compressive inducing microcracks in the material. For
microstructural design purposes the prevention of microcracking and the determination of the
factors influencing it are very important.
The previous work on microcracking mechanisms is related to ceramics and particulate
ceramic composites yielding the info~ation for a minimum grain or inclusion size below which
microcracking will not occur. Davidge and Green[ 131using an energy balance approach of fracture
mechanics with the assumption that the interface crack reaches the critical size when it encompasses
half of the spherical surface, estimated a critical particle size. Lange[lrt] gave the critical radius
(for the same geometry) below which microcra~king can not occur. Similar studies on the critical
particle size were also carried out by other researchers[lS-201.
The microcracking mechanism in a ceramic-fiber/ceramic-matrix composite due to thermal
expansion mismatch was studied by Delale[21]. After determining the residual stresses due to
thermal expansion mismatch, a critical fiber radius for the suppression of radial and interface
microcracking was presented.
45
46 F. DELALE and H. BODUROGLU

The onset of the mode of microfracture associated with thermal expansion anisotropy was
calculated for single polycrystals by Evans[22], where critical grain facet size for microfracture
initiation was predicted. Tvergaard and Hutchinson[23] studied the effect of both elastic anisotropy
and thermal expansion anisotropy of the grains.
The purpose of this paper is to study the effect of thermal expansion anisotropy in ceramic
matrix composites. First a closed form solution is obtained for the residual stresses due to thermal
expansion anisotropy. Next the relevant radial and interfacial crack problems are solved and the
results are presented.

2. SOLUTION OF THE PLANE ELASTICITY PROBLEM

In this section, a closed form solution is obtained for a ceramic fiber of radius R embedded
in an infinite ceramic matrix as shown in Fig. 1. Both the ceramic fiber and the ceramic matrix
have different thermal expansion coefficients in the x and y directions. Due to thermal anisotropy,
the problem will no longer be axi-symmetric. Thus, the stress distribution will be 8 dependent.
Assume the following stress functions for the plane strain problem under consideration:

Qm(r, 0) = bOIn r + 6, cos 28 + > cos 28 when r 3 R (1)

for the matrix, and

@Jr, 0) = c,r2 + c, r2 cos 28 + qr4 cos 28 when r 6 R (2)
for the fiber. Here, b,,, b,, b,, c,, cl, and c, are unknown constants to be determined from the
continuity conditions at the interface.
Using the stress function @,, the stresses in the ceramic matrix can be written as:

6;(r,O)=>-- F+F cos28

( >

ag(r,O)= -$+7cos28

rz(r,@)= -
$+F sin28.
( >
At the microscopic level, the effect of elastic anisotropy on thermal stresses is negligible
compared to the effect of thermal expansion anisotropy[22]. Therefore, in studying microcracking
in ceramic matrix composites only the thermal expansion anisotropy is taken into account, and

Fig. I. Geometry of a single fiber embedded in infinite matrix.

 Microcracking in ceramic composites 41

elastic anisotropy is neglected. Thus, the strain-stress relationships for the ceramic matrix in polar
coordinates are:

1
c::=,[fJ::- ~,(a% + a;)] + a,AT cosz 8 + a,AT sin28 05)
m

1
~~=E[cr~-v,(a~+a~)]+aXATsin2B+aYATcos2B (7)
m

rz= Xl Cl
+ %>~~~+ 2AT(cr, - cc,)sin 8 cos 8. (9)

For the plane strain case (czz= 0), a:, can be determined from eq. (8). Substituting the resulting
a: and eqs (3), (4), and (5) into eqs (6), (7), and (8), we obtain:

6:=-j-
.{
(l+v Is--
-r*[
(l-~:)f$+(l+~,)~
1 Icos2e

+ y(ax - ~r,)cos 28 + ?(a,+ay + 2v,a,) (10)

~(1 +v,)>+6(1 +v,$

r41 cos2e I
+a,ATsin*e +a,ATcos*e +v,a,AT (11)

an 28 + AT(or, - a,)sin 28. (12)

The straindisplacement relationships are given as:

Cm- au,:
V (13)
ar

u’: +--i au?

“$y (14)
r ae

Making use of eqs (10) and (1 l), eqs (13) and (14) can be integrated to give the radial and
transverse displacements as:

1 I
1
p=- -(l+v,)$+ (l-vi)~+(l+~,)~ cos2e
r Em

+y(ax-a,)rcos28 +~(ax+ay+2v,a,)r (16a)

ul;=- $ (1 +V,)(2v,- 1)?+2(1 +v,)> sin28 +?(a,-a,)r sin2e. (16b)

m1 I
48 F. DELALE and H. BODUROGLU

After going through a similar procedure for the fiber, the stresses and the displacements are
found to be:
C;r = 2c, - 2c, cos 28 (17)
= 2c, + (2c, + 12c,r*)~~~ 28
aA;O (18)
T$ = 2(c, + 3c2r2)sin 20 (19)

u{= -!_ {2(1 - vr- 2vj)c,r - [2(1 + v,)c,r + v,(l + v,)4c2r3]cos 2e}
Ff

uh=~,[2(l+v,)c,r+[2(3+v,-2v:)c2r3]sin28+~(~~-P,)rsin28. (21)

In eqs (6)-(21) u,, aY,a, are thermal expansion coefficients of the matrix, and p,, /I,,, /I, are the
thermal expansion coefficients of the fiber in x, y and z directions respectively.
Having determined the stress and displacement fields for the infinite ceramic matrix and the
ceramic fiber, one can then write the continuity conditions at the interface (at r = R):
fJm=.f
,, I7 (22)
m-- =#
z,e / (23)
um
r = Ufr (24)
u;;=ui. (25)
Equations (22-25) are utilized to determine the unknown constants b,, 6, , b2, co, c, and c2. It should
be noted that the continuity conditions (22) and (24) yield four equations while eqs (23) and (25)
yield two equations resulting in total of six equations for the unknowns. After some length algebra,
we obtain:

b = R*(a - P + a,)AT
0 (26)
A

b = R*AT(Aa -A/I)
I (27)
2Y
b = _R4AT(Aa -AP)
2 (28)
4Y

2b, 3b2
c,=-+-
R2 R4
b, 2b,
c*=---- (31)
R4 R6

a =%%+a,,); p =@x+&>; A/3 =&-flX; Aa =ay-a, (32)

+l+v, I l-9-24
&l E/
(l+v,)(3-4v,)+l+v1
Y=
& Rf
a, = v,a, - v&.
 Microcracking in ceramic composites 49

‘Fiber

Fig. 2. Microcracking configurations in ceramic-fiber/ceramic-matrix composite

Thus, the stress and displacement fields in the ceramic matrix and the fiber are fully described.
Let us consider the stresses in the matrix:

gn, 88 (r 9 e) = _(a -B + alWR2 -- Wa - AB>AT~cos 2e

1 r2 2Y r4

?$(r, fj) = JAa - Afi)AT($-i$)sin28 (334

Y

and the fiber:

a/n (r
9
0) = (’ - B+ ‘ljAT + (Aa- AB) AT cos 20
A 2Y

o.$,(r, 0) = (a- B+ a1)AT

+ (Aa- AB) AT cos 20

A 2Y

tfre(r 90) = (” - “) AT sin 28. Wb)

3

Depending on the values of the thermal expansion coefficients and AT, 0% may be tensile
inducing radial cracks, or a; may be tensile causing debonding along the fiber-matrix interface.
Therefore, the two crack geometries to be studied are, a radial crack in the matrix and an interface
crack along the fiber-matrix boundary as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b) respectively.

3. RADIAL CRACKING IN THE MATRIX

The radial crack geometry shown in Fig. 2(a) is formulated in ref. [24] for uniaxial loading.
In this paper, instead of applying external loads, the crack surfaces will be loaded with the negative
of the residual stress a; obtained in the previous section as:

(34)

with

d =(a -P +a,)AT
2 .
50 F. DELALEand H. BODUROGLU

Referring to ref. [24], the formulation of the problem in terms of the crack surface displacement
derivative f(t) can be written as,
RfC
‘+‘j$ dt + [k,,,(x, t) + k,,,(x, t)]f(t) dt = “(7P+ ‘)p(x) R <x < R + C (35a)
sR sR m

with the condition

R+C

Wb)
sR S(t)df =’

where

(/I,+&)$+$(~s’-R’)
(
1 -;
)I

l-m tcf - mic, R2

A, =p A, = s =-) m=!Y
1 +mrc,’ q+m ’ X Pm

m(K, + 1) & -?I

M=(rcf+m)(ic,- 1+2m)’ ‘“=2(1 +vm)’ “=2(1 +vs)

l&=3-4v,, u/= 3 - 49. (36)
For the problem under consideration, the crack surfaces will be loaded with the negative of
the residual stress 07~ given in eq. (34):

(37)

The following normalization is used to solve the singular integral equation (35a):

x=;p+R+;, R<t, x<c+R

L L

t=fr+R+;, -l<r, p<l

f(t) = g(r), kn,(x, t) = K,S(PY r) (38)

kll,(X, r) = K,,,(P, r), P(X) = 4(P)*
Then eqs (35a, b) become:

s’ g(r)
-
-15 -P
dr + T
c

s
’
_
I
K,,h 7) + 4& r)lg(r) dr =
~o&i + 1)
2p

m
4(P)- 1<P < 1 (394

s 1
-I

g(r) dr = 0.

The normalized crack surface displacement g(z) is singular at z = + 1 and may be written as
Wb)

ref. [25]:

(40)

where G(r) is a bounded function and - 1 < 6 < 0 is given by ref. [24]:
2 cos xs + (A, + A*) - 4A,(6 + l)* = 0. (41)
 Microcracking in ceramic composites 51

At the crack tip embedded in the matrix the stress intensity factor can be defined as:

k(c) = xhF+ c J(2[x - (R + c)])ay”‘“(x, 0). (42)

Using eq. (35a) and the relations (38) and (40), after some lengthy algebra we obtain:

k(c) = 2 $26G(l). (43)

m

Noting that K, = &k(c), then the strain energy release rate is found to be:

I
= G(l -v%>
=C(l -v;)k*(c) w
Em m

or

(45)

Defining c/R = 6 and defining k(c)/,/c = Ck’(c) eq. (45) becomes:

G, = ; (1 - v;)Rc[k’(c)]%?. (46)
m

The radial matrix crack will propagate when the strain energy release rate reaches the critical
strain energy release rate of the matrix, i.e. when G, > (G,,),. Equating eq. (46) with (G,,), we
obtain the critical fiber size as:

(GA&n
R, = (47)
rc(l - v;)c[k’(e)]%* ’

Since, the crack size (or c) is not known a priori, then we can determine only a minimum critical
fiber size which will occur when

g(c) = ([k’(E)]* = Max.

Thus,

Rmin = (Gd,J,
C (48)
n(1 - 4Jk(~kllax~*
Formula (48) can be used to determine the critical fiber size for radial matrix crack suppression
on the conservative side.

4. INTERFACE CRACKING ALONG THE FIBER/MATRIX BOUNDARY

The crack geometry for this case is shown in Fig. 2(b). The previous studies show that at the
interface crack tip, the stresses and strains have an oscillatory singularity[25-301 and the stress
intensity factors can not be defined by using their classical definition. Instead, the strain energy
release rate at the crack tip which is not affected by this peculiar behavior will be determined. The
problem does not appear to have been solved for thermal stresses. Using the solution given by
Toya[31] and the superposition principle a solution is presented here for the residual stress loading
expressed by eqs (33a) and (33b). For the plane loading shown in Fig. 6, the strain energy release
rate at the interface crack tip is given by ref. [31]:

G = $kR4,(1 + 4li)niViVsin o! e*b(*-@ (49)

EFM
3911-D
52 F. DELALE and H. BODUR~LU

where

_k -1+&l -1+-K, In v.
A

O-4 ( & >

+ /1/ ’
n
---
O- 211

Co=Go+iHo

Go = [i(Nm + T,){l - (cosa + 23, sin LZ)~~&(~-~)}

- f(1 - k)(l + 4/2:)

X (N, - T&An2 a cos 2+]/(2 - k - k(cos c1+ 21, sin a) e~(z-a)f

4Pm~m
Ho = f(1 -k)(l + 4J.;)(N, - T,)sin2 a sin 24 + -
1 + K,

x (1 +(cosa +2&sina)e~tn-af
iii kfl +(cosct +2&sincr)e2~f*-‘)~

Here SZ*is the rotation at infinity, Iii is the complex conjugate of N and T, , iV, , R, u, r#~are shown
in Fig. 6. To obtain the solution for a constant crack surface pressure ci given in eq. (34) and
expressed by eqs (33a) and (33b), consider the stress distribution for a cylindrical inclusion
embedded in an infinite matrix under biaxial tension o. and cl (Fig. 7). The radial stress along the
fiber matrix interface may be expressed as[32]:

,+ -cos28)+2cr* ~-A(~)l-8[3($)L-d(~)l]cosZBj+~(I +cos2@)

+2+A(;)‘+B[3(;~-4(f)i]cos28} (so)

where

Equating the radial stress a; to 6, at the interface r = R yields two equations for determining
co and ol. Thus, we obtain:

bo 4
a’ = R2(1 - 4A) + R2(t - 4B)

bo 4
” = R2(1 - 4.4) - R2(1 - 4B) ’
(51)
 Microcracking in ceramic composites 53

Now, taking 9 = 0, T, = o, , N, = q, and noting that L, = 0 (rotation at infinity is zero), we

obtain:

H,,=O, NN=L2+M2

L=c,-$+ !-$ (a0 - a,) ezi(ax-“)

cos a

M=- !-$ (a0 - aI) e2’@-n)sin a

cO=[+(a,+a,){l -(cosa +2&sina)eh(“-“)}-$1 -k)(l+41;)

x (co - a,)sin2 a]/{2 - k - Qcos a + 21 sin a) eU(“-“)}

d_, =$,+a,). (52)

Defining,

&!!5
P (53)
B2R

where

d = (a - B + UI W
A

the critical fiber size for the suppression of interface cracking can be obtained by equating G, to
(the total critical strain energy release rate of the interface). Again noting that the crack
(Gc)interracc
length is not known a priori, we obtain the minimum critical fiber size (&)min when G, is maximum.
Thus:

(54)

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results for the radial matrix crack and the circumferential crack are given in Tables l-6
and displayed in Figs 3-5 and 8-10.

Table I. Variation of g(t) with c/R for a radial crack (I&/E,= 5)

aX=ay=9 x 10m6 fl = i(& + /I,) = 5 x 10m6= constant

AT = 1000
E, = 500 GPa
&= 100 GPa v,=vr=0.2
p, = 5.5 /I, = 4.5 S,= 6 By=4 By= 3.5
/I, = 4.5 j, = 5.5 & = 6.5
CIR
AB=+l A/3=-1 AS-2
8x=4
&“2 AD=-3
0.1 0.028 0.052 0.019 0.067 0.012 0.084 0.039
0.2 0.045 0.077 0.032 0.097 0.021 0.119 0.06
0.3 0.054 0.089 0.04 0.109 0.028 0.131 0.07
0.4 0.059 0.092 0.045 0.112 0.033 0.133 0.075
0.5 0.061 0.092 0.048 0.11 0.036 0.13 0.076
0.6 0.061 0.09 0.049 0.106 0.038 0.123 0.075
0.75 0.059 0.084 0.049 0.098 0.039 0.113 0.071
1 0.054 0.074 0.046 0.084 0.038 0.096 0.064
1.5 0.043 0.055 0.038 0.062 0.032 0.069 0.049
2 0.034 0.042 0.03 0.047 0.027 0.051 0.038
3 0.022 0.027 0.02 0.029 0.018 0.031 0.024
5 0.011 0.013 0.01 0.014 0.009 0.015 0.012
54 F. DELALE and H. BODUROGLU

Table 2. Variation of g(E) with c/R for a radial crack (E,,,/E,= I)

CC,= av = 9 x 10-b /I = i&. + &) = 5 x 10m6= constant

A.T = 1000
E,,,= 1OOGPa
E,= IOOGPa v,=v,=O,2
j?, = 5.5 /4, = 4.5 By=6 By = 6.5 & = 3.5 I$ = 5
CIR 8, = 4.5 /I, = 5.5 8.X= 4 /9, = 6.5 &=5
A#?=+1 Afi=-1 A@=2 Aj? = -3 A/S=0
0.1 0.028 0.048 0.02 0.061 0.013 0.074 0.038
0‘2 0.045 0.073 0.033 0.089 0.024 0.107 0.058
0.3 0.054 0.084 0.042 O.lOi 0.031 0.119 0.068
0.4 0.06 0.088 0.047 0.104 0.037 0.122 0.073
0.5 0.062 0.088 0.05 0.103 0.04 0.119 0.074
0.6 0.062 0.086 0.051 0.099 0.042 0.114 0.073
0.75 0.06 0.081 0.051 0.092 0.043 0.105 0.07
1 0.055 0.071 0.048 0.079 0.041 0.089 0.063
1.5 0.043 0.053 0.039 0.058 0.035 0.064 0.048
2 0.034 0.04 0.031 0.044 0.028 0.047 0.037
3 0.022 0.025 0.02 0.027 0.019 0.029 0.023
5 0.011 0.012 0.01 0.013 0.1 0.014 0.012

For the radial crack case, results are obtained for AT = lOOO”C,and various values of c/R
(ratio of crack length to fiber radius). To ascertain the effect of thermal expansion anisotropy, the
coefficients for matrix are assumed to be thermally isotropic, whereas those of the fiber are varied
in such a way that the average coefficient /? remains constant. Thus, values of g(c) are obtained
for 01,= cly= 9 x 1O-6/“C and p = OS(fi, + &) = 5 x 10-6/“C. In the calculations the Possion’s
ratios for matrix and fiber are assumed to be v, = /_+= 0.2. Table 1 shows the variation of g(c)
with c/R for E,,,/Ef= 5.The same results for Em/Ef=1 and E,,,/Ef= 0.2are shown in Table 2 and
Table 3. The same results are also displayed in Figs 3-5. First it is seen that for each set of thermal
expansion coefficients, g(c) passes through a maximum. The value of g(c) is found to be higher
when & < &, meaning that cracks will propagate more easily in such materials. It can also be
observed that g(E) does not vary significantly with Em/Ef, meaning that for all practical material
combinations, it is sufficient to generate only one set of such curves. However the results vary
significantly with thermal expansion anisotropy. For the interfacial crack case, similar results are
obtained for G, (the normalized interfacial strain energy release rate) vs the half crack angle do.
These results are given in Tables 4-6 and displayed in Figs 8-10. Again the value of Gp passes
through a maximum and has higher values for materials having fiY< fi, . As is clearly seen the results

Table 3. Variation of g(c) with c/R for a radial crack (E,,,/Ef= 0.2)

a, = ay = 9 x 10e6 j = f@, + &) = 5 x 10m6= constant

A?-= 1000
E,,, = 100 GPa
E,=5OOGPa v,=v,=O.Z
& = 5.5 p, = 4.5 By=6 B.”= 4 @,=3.5 By=5
C/R 8, = 4.5 8, = 5.5 8, =4 &=6 8, = 6.5 8x=5
A.B=+l Aj3=-1 68~2 AB=-2 AJ¶= -3 AB=O
0.03 0.049 0.022 0.061 0.015 0.074 0.039
8.; 0.047 0.074 0.036 0.089 0.027 0.106 0.06
0:3 0.057 0.085 0.046 0.101 0.035 0.119 0.071
0.4 0.063 0.09 0.051 0.105 0.041 0.121 0.076
0.5 0.065 0.09 0.054 0.104 0.044 0.119 0.077
0.065 0.088 0.055 0.1 0.046 0.114 0.076
8% 0,064 0.083 0.055 0.093 0.047 0.105 0.073
1 0,058 0.073 0.05 1 0.081 0.045 0.089 0.065
1.5 0.046 0.055 0.042 0.059 0.038 0.064 0.05
2 0,036 0.042 0.033 0.045 0.031 0.048 0.039
0.023 0.026 0.022 0.027 0.02 0.029 0.024
: 0.011 0.013 0.011 0.013 0.01 0.014 0.012
 Microcracking in ceramic composites 55

Table 4. Variation of G, with a for an interface crack

E,,JE/= 5 v,=v,=o.2 a, = ay = 5 x 10m6l/C

Crack 8, = 7.5 x lo-6 fix = 8.5 x lO-6 &=7x 10-e
Angle a /!I,= 8.5 x lO-6 & = 7.5 x 10-e &=9x 10-e
5 0.038 1 0.06818 0.02832 0.09124
10 0.7596 0.13487 0.05677 0.17998
15 0.11212 0.19708 0.08439 0.26205
20 0.14524 0.2522 0.11029 0.3339
25 0.17428 0.29828 0.13372 0.39294
30 0.19853 0.33417 0.15414 0.43768
35 0.21764 0.35949 0.17124 0.4678
40 0.23161 0.3746 0.18493 0.48393
45 0.24072 0.38037 0.19531 0.48764
50 0.24543 0.37807 0.20258 0.48026
55 0.24634 0.36912 0.20706 0.46441
60 0.24405 0.355 0.20907 0.44199
65 0.23919 0.33707 0.20897 0.41494
70 0.23231 0.31659 0.20706 0.38498
75 0.2239 0.29458 0.20364 0.35352
80 0.21439 0.2719 0.19894 0.32169
85 0.20409 0.24921 0.19316 0.29037
90 0.19328 0.22702 0.18647 0.26018
95 0.18215 0.20567 0.179 0.23156
100 0.17087 0.1854 0.17086 0.2048
105 0.15954 0.16635 0.16216 0.18005
110 0.14823 0.1486 0.15296 0.15736
115 0.13701 0.13216 0.14333 0.13675
120 0.1259 0.11699 0.13335 0.11814
125 0.11492 0.10305 0.12306 0.10145
130 0.10408 0.09025 0.11252 0.08656
135 0.09338 0.0785 0.10178 0.07332
140 0.08281 0.06769 0.09087 0.0616
145 0.07235 0.0577 0.07983 0.05121
150 0.06199 0.04841 0.06869 0.04198
155 0.0517 0.0397 0.05746 0.03374
160 0.04145 0.03144 0.04615 0.02627
165 0.0321 0.02348 0.03477 0.01938
170 0.02092 0.01569 0.0233 0.01286
175 0.01054 0.00791 0.01173 0.00648
180 0.00001 0 0.00001 0

AT- 1000.
E,/E,'S

v,-v,-a2

fi-ilp, l~~~-Sxl(r61/C~-con~tont
a,-.+-6 x 10-61/c*

0.06

=-3~10-61~~
O(r)
1-2 x10-61/c*
Ox)6
=-I x10-61/c*

= I x10-61/~*

1 2 3 4 5

C/R
Fig. 3. Variation of g(c) with c/R for a radial crack (E,,,/E,= 5).
56 F. DELALE and H. BODUROGLU

Table 5. Variation of Gp with u for an interface crack

.E,/Ef = I v,=v,=o.2 a, = ay = 5 x 10m6l/C’

Crack flX= 7.5 x 10-e & = 8.5 x to-6 /?*=9 x 10-G
Angle a j$ = 8.5 x 1O-6 &=7.5x10-6 $?,= 7 x 10-G
s 0.08266 0.14404 0.06264 0.1907
IO 0.16313 0.28336 0.12358 0.37474
15 0.23938 0.41357 0.18208 0.54598
20 0.30966 0.53095 0.23687 0.6992
25 0.37258 0.63264 0.28709 0.83044
30 0.4212 0.716’76 0.3321 0.93715
0.473 0.78243 0.37153 0.0182
: 0.50987 0.82968 0.40524 1.07379
45 0.53803 0.85932 0.43328 I.10521
50 0.55797 0.87216 0.45586 1.11457
55 0.57036 0.87181 0.47326 1.10455
0.57598 0.85849 0.48584 1.07814
z 0.57563 0.83493 0.49398 1.03839
70 0.57014 0.80317 0.49803 0.98827
0.5602s 0.76515 0.49834 0.93052
;I; 0.54666 0.7226 0.49521 0.8676
85 0.52998 0.67704 0.48892 0.80166
90 O.SlO73 0.62978 0.4791 0.7345
9s 0.48931 0.58186 0.46775 0.66758
100 0.46626 0.53416 0.45325 0.6021
10s 0.44171 0.48735 0.43637 0.53896
110 0.41597 0.44193 0.41726 0.47885
115 0.38924 0.39827 0.39606 0.42225
I20 0.3617 0.3566 0.37294 0.36947
125 0.33346 0.31708 0.34803 0.32069
130 0.30465 0.27974 0.32149 0.27593
13s 0.27536 0.24458 0.29346 0.23514
140 0.24566 0.2115 0.26411 0.19816
145 0.21562 0.18038 0.2336 0.16477
IS0 0.1853 0.15103 0.20207 0.13468
155 0.15475 0.12334 0.16968 0.10751
160 0.12402 0.09698 0.13659 0.08286
165 0.093 14 0.07174 0.10293 0.06029
170 0.06216 0.04735 0.06886 0.0393
175 0.0311 0.02354 0.0345 1 0.01939
180 o.mO2 0.00001 0.~~2 0.~1

0.12

0.10

0.08

Qfd u 1-3 x 10~6lK

A@ = -2 x IO+ l/C”
OM A$ --I x 10-6 VC”
aa- 0 l/C’
A#- 1 x 10-s t/c*
a04
AF- 2 x lo”, I/C’
A@- 3 x 10-e 1/C’

OM

, / L /

0 1 2 3 4
C/f?
Fig. 4. Variation of g(c) with c/R for a radial crack (E,,,/Ef= 1).
 Microcracking in ceramic composites 57

Table 6. Variation of G, with a for an interface crack

E,.JE/= 0.2 v,=v,=o.2 01,= ay = 5 x lo+ l/Co

Crack j?, = 7.5 x 10-6 /I, = a.5 x IO-6 /!I,=7 x 10-e /3,=9x lo-6
Angle a /3, = 8.5 x lO-6 /!I,= 7.5 x 10-h by=9 x lo-6 /?, = 7 x lo-6
5 0.0972 0.16658 0.07399 0.2192
10 0.18976 0.32603 0.14471 0.42923
15 0.27725 0.47568 0.21176 0.62616
20 0.35873 0.61328 0.27487 0.80656
25 0.43357 0.73695 0.33382 0.96765
30 0.50135 0.84532 0.38849 1.10733
35 0.56178 0.93747 0.43882 1.22418
40 0.61473 1.01295 0.48484 1.31753
45 0.66019 1.07172 0.5264 1.38733
50 0.69827 1.11414 0.56366 1.43414
55 0.72912 1.1409 0.59657 1.45901
60 0.75301 1.15295 0.62512 1.46343
65 0.77018 1.15145 0.6493 1.44921
70 0.78096 1.1377 0.66904 1.41839
75 0.78565 1.1131 0.68429 1.37315
80 0.78456 1.07909 0.69496 1.31573
85 0.77801 1.03711 0.70096 1.24839
90 0.76629 0.98856 0.70219 1.1733
9s 0.7497 0.93478 0.69858 1.09256
100 0.72851 0.87701 0.69006 1.00809
105 0.703 0.81641 0.67659 0.92169
110 0.67343 0.75401 0.65816 0.83493
115 0.64008 0.69074 0.63482 0.7492
120 0.60322 0.62739 0.60666 0.6657
12s 0.56311 0.56462 0.57382 0.58539
130 0.52005 0.50301 0.5365 0.50904
135 0.47433 0.44299 0.49496 0.43722
140 0.42626 0.38489 0.44951 0.37029
145 0.37618 0.32894 0.40053 0.30844
150 0.32442 0.27529 0.34844 0.25168
155 0.27135 0.22398 0.29372 0.19984
160 0.21734 0.17501 0.23688 0.15263
165 0.1628 0.12828 0.17849 0.10962
170 0.10812 0.08366 0.11913 0.07027
175 0.05372 0.04098 0.05944 0.03396
180 0.00003 0.0002 0.00004 o.oOoO2

A/3--3
Ag--2
Ag=-1
AB- 0
A@- 1
A/3- 2
A/¶- 3

1 2 3 4
C/R
Fig. S. Variation of g(c) with c/R for a radial crack (Em/E,= 0.2).
 F. DELALE and H. BODUROGLU

i ;

K zL.....q /
Fig. 6. Interface crack under plane loading.

Fig. 7. Biaxial loading of a fiber/matrix system.

 Microcracking in ceramic composites 59

Frn 1.20 -
FT’ 5
ON- p,=9xlo-6
= I x10-6
a, -oy- 5 x 10-61/C*

1.00 -

0.40 -

GP

0.60 -

0.10

0 20 40 60 00 100 120 140 160 160

a

Fig. 8. Variation of G, with a for an interface crack

or,/& = 5). 0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 160
a
Fig. 9. Variation of G, with a for an interface crack
01,/p,= 1).

1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
cl90
0.60
GP
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
a20
0.10

0 20 40 60 a0 100 120 140 160 160

a

Fig. 10. Variation of G, with a for an interface crack @,,,/p,= : 0.2).

are affected significantly by thermal expansion anisotropy. Here G, varies also significantly with
~,,,/p~, meaning that results have to be obtained separately for each p,,,/cfi ratio. -

Acknowledgemenrs-This work was partially supported by a grant from NATO Scientific Affairs Division (Grant
# 0073/88) and by PSC-CUNY under Grant # 6-67321.

REFERENCES
01 R. W. Rice, Fractographic identification of strength controlling flows and microcracking, in Fracture Mechanics of
Ceramics (Edited by R. C. Bradt, D. P. H. Hasselman and F. F. Lange), Vol. 1, pp. 323-345. Plenum Press, New York
(1974).
PI R. W. Rice, S. W. Frieman, R. C. Pohanka, J. J. Mecholsky and C. C. Wu, Microstructural dependence of fracture
mechanics parameters in ceramics, in Fracture Mechanics of Cerumcis (Edited by R. C. Bradt, D. P. H. Hasselman
and F. F. Lange), Vol. 4, pp. 840-876. Plenum Press, New York (1978).
[31R. W. Rice, Microstructural dependence of mechanical behavior of ceramics, in Treatise on Materials Science and
Technology, Vol. II, Properties and Microsrrucrure (Edited by R. K. McCrone), pp. 199-381. Academic Press,
New York (1977).
60 F. DELALE and H. BODUR~LU

[4] R. W. Rice, R. C. Pohanka and W. J. McDonough, Effect of stresses from thermal expansion anisotropy.
Phase transformations and second phases on the strength of ceramics. J. Am. Cerum. Sot. 63, 703-710 (1980).
[S] R. W. Rice, Processing induced sources of mechanical failure in ceramics, in Processing of Crysralline Ceramics (Edited
by H. Palmour III, R. F. Davis and T. M. Hare), pp. 303-319. Plenum Press, New York (1978).
[6] F. I. Baratta, Stress intensity factor estimates for a peripherically cracked spherical void and a hemispherical surface
pit. J. Am. Ceram. Sue. 61, 490-493 (1978).
[7] A. G. Evans, D. R. Biswas and R. M, Fulrath, Some effects of cavities on the fracture of ceramics--I, cylindrical
cavities. f. Am. Gram. Sot. 62, 95-100 (1979).
[8] A. G. Evans, D. R. Biswas and R. M. Fulrath, Some effects of cavities on the fracture of ceramics-II, spherical
cavities. J. Am. Ceram. Sot. 62, 101-106 (1979).
[9] D. J. Green, Stress intensity factor estimates for annular cracks at spherical voids. J. Am. Gram. Sot. 63, 342-344
(1980).
[lo] F. 1. Baratta and A. P. Parker, Stress intensity factor estimates for various configuration involving cracked spherical
voids, in Fracture ~echa~ies ofceramics (Edited by R. C. Bradt, A. G. Evans, D. P. H. Ha&man and F. F. Lange),
Vol. 5. pp. 543-567. Plenum Press, New York (1983).
[l I] R. W. Rice, Test-microstructural dependence of fracture energy measurements in ceramics, in Fracture Mechanics
Methods,for Cerumics. ASTM Symp. Fracture Mech. Meth. Ceramics, Rocks and Concrete. Chicago (1980).
[12] A. G. Evans and K. T. Faber, Crack-growth resistance of microcracking in brittle materials. J. Am. Ceram. Sot. 67,
255-260 (1984).
[I31 R. W. Davidge and D. J. Green, The strength of two-phase ceramic-glass material. J. Muter. Sci. 3, 629-634 (1968).
[14] F. F. Lange, Criteria for crack extension and arrest in residual localized stress fields associated with second phase
particles, in Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, Vol. 2 (Edited by R. C. Brad& D. P. H. Has&man and F. F. Lange).
Plenum Press, New York (1974).
[IS] A. G. Evans, The role of inclusions in the fracture of ceramic materials. J. Muter. Sci. 9, 1145-I152 (1974).
[16] D. J. Green, Stress-induced microcracking at second phase inclusions. J. Am. Gram. Sot. 64, 138-141 (1981).
[17] Y. M. Ito and R. B. Nelson, Numerical modeling of microcracking in two-phase ceramics, in Fracture Mechanics of
Ceramics, Vol. 5 (Edited by R. C. Bradt, A. G. Evans, D. P. H. Hasselman and F. F. Lange), pp. 479-493. Plenum
Press, New York (1983).
1181Y. M. Ito, M. Rosenbiatt, L. Y. Cheng, F. F. Lange and A. G. Evans, Cracking in particulate composites due to
the~omechanical stress. Int. .I. Fracfure 27, 483-491 (1981).
1191 M. L. Wiikens. Calculation of elastic-plastic flow. Lawrence Livermore, UCRL-7322 (1969).
[ZO] Y. M. Ito, M. Rosenblatt. F. W. Perry and G. E. Eggum, Analysis of water drop erosion mechanics. Air force materials
laboratory, AFML 77-219 (1977).
[21] F. Delale, Critical fiber size for microcrack suppression in ceramic-fiber/ceramic-matrix composites. Engng Fracfure
Mech. 31, 145-155 (1988).
[2?] A. G. Evans. Microfracture from thermal expansion anisotropy--I. Single phase systems, Acta Metall. 26, 1845-53
(1978).
[23] V. Tvergaard and J. W. Hutchinson, Microcracking in ceramics induced by thermal expansion or elastic anisotropy.
J. Am. Cerum. Sot. 71, 157-66 (1988).
[24] F. Erdogan and G. D. Gupta, The inclusion problem with a crack crossing the boundary. Int. J. Fracfure 11, 13-27
(1975).
[25] F. Erdogan, Mixed boundary value problems, in Mechanics Today (Edited by S. Nemat-Nasser), Vol. 4, pp. 1-86.
Pergamon Press, Oxford (1978).
[26] A. H. England. A crack between dissimilar media. 3. appl. Mech. 32, 400-402 (1965).
1271 F. Erdogan, Stress distribution in bonded dissimilar materials with cracks. J. appt. Mech. 32, 403-410 (1965).
[28] F. Erdogan and G. D. Gupta, The stress analysis of multilayered composites with a flaw. Inr. J. Solids Structures 7,
39961 (1971).
[29] M. L. Williams, The stresses around a fault or crack in dissimilar media. Bull. Seismot. Sot. Am. 49, 199-204 (1959).
[30] G. P. Cherepanov. Mechanics of Brittle Fracture. McGraw-Hill, New York (1979).
[31] M. Toya, A crack along the interface of a circular inclusion embedded in an infinite solid. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 22,
325-348 (1974).
[32] J. N. Goodier, J. appi. Mech. 1, 39 (1933).

(Received 16 April 1990)