39. Evaluation of Four Different Experimental Techniques for Determination of Elastic Properties of Solids

  1. Edgar Lara-Curzio and
  2. Michael J. Readey
  1. Miladin Radovic,
  2. Edgar Lara-Curzio and
  3. Laura Riester

Published Online: 26 MAR 2008

DOI: 10.1002/9780470291191.ch39

28th International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites B: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 25, Issue 4

28th International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites B: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 25, Issue 4

How to Cite

Radovic, M., Lara-Curzio, E. and Riester, L. (2004) Evaluation of Four Different Experimental Techniques for Determination of Elastic Properties of Solids, in 28th International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites B: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 25, Issue 4 (eds E. Lara-Curzio and M. J. Readey), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. doi: 10.1002/9780470291191.ch39

Author Information

  1. Metals and Ceramics, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1 Bethel Valley Rd. Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6069

Publication History

  1. Published Online: 26 MAR 2008
  2. Published Print: 1 JAN 2004

ISBN Information

Print ISBN: 9780470051528

Online ISBN: 9780470291191

SEARCH

Keywords:

  • resonant ultrasound spectroscopy;
  • nanoindentation;
  • young's moduli;
  • aluminum;
  • impulse excitation

Summary

Two dynamic and two static techniques for determining Young's and shear moduli of solids at room temperature were evaluated using, 7075 aluminum, 4140 steel, Pyrex glass and 99.9% pure Al2O3 (porosity 1.58-4.22 vol%) samples. The dynamic techniques included Impulse Excitation (IE) and Resonant Ultrasound Spectroscopy (RUS) while static techniques included Four Point Bending (4PB) and Nanoindentation (NI). The results obtained from the different tests were compared and statistically analyzed to determine the precision of each test method and to estimate the significance of the differences among the four techniques. It was found that dynamic techniques had higher precision and while there was no statistically significant difference among the values of Young's moduli determined by NI, RUS and IE for Pyrex glass and steel, results obtained by NI are significantly different than those obtained by RUS and IE for the case of aluminum and Al2O3. In the case of porous Al2O3 it was found that the magnitude of Young's modulus obtained by NI is higher and that the results have higher variability than those obtained by RUS and IE. This was attributed to the structural inhomogeneity of porous Al2O3 samples at the scale at which indentation takes place. In all cases, it was found that the results obtained from 4PB are significantly different from those determined through RUS, IE and NI and that they have the lowest precision and repeatability among the four test methods.