Effective Size Analysis of the Diametral Compression (Brazil) Test Specimen

This study considers the finite element analysis (FEA) simulation and Weibull effective size analysis for the diametral compression (DC) or Brazil specimen loaded with three different push-rod geometries. Those geometries are a flat push-rod, a push-rod whose radius of curvature is larger than that for the DC specimen, and a push-rod whose radius of curvature matches that of the DC specimen. Such established effective size analysis recognizes that the tensile strength of structural ceramics is typically one to two orders of magnitude less than its compressive strength. Therefore, because fracture is much more apt to result from a tensile stress than a compressive one, this traditional analysis only considers the first principal tensile stress field in the mechanically loaded ceramic component for the effective size analysis. The effective areas and effective volumes were computed as function of Weibull modulus using the CARES/Life code. Particular attention was devoted to the effect of mesh sensitivity and localized stress concentration. The effect of specimen width on the stress state was also investigated. The effects of push-rod geometry, the use of steel versus WC push-rods, and considering a frictionless versus no-slip interface between push-rod and specimen on the maximum stresses, where those stresses are located, and the effective area and effective volume results are described. Of the three push-rod geometries, it is concluded that the push-rod (made from WC rather than steel) whose radius of curvature matches that of the DC specimen is the most apt to cause fracture initiation within the specimen's bulk rather than at the loading interface. Therefore, its geometry is the most likely to produce a valid diametral compression strength test. However, the DC specimen remains inefficient in terms of its area and volume efficiencies; namely, the tensile strength of only a few percent of the specimen's entire area or volume is sampled. Given the high probability that a valid (or invalid) test can be proven by ceramic fractographic practices suggests that this test method and specimen is questionable for use with relatively strong structural ceramics