Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Search Results for
material toughness
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Topics
Book Series
Date
Availability
1-20 of 1497
Search Results for material toughness
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
1
Sort by
Image
Published: 31 December 2017
Fig. 14 (a) Effect of material toughness on wear resistance. Source: Ref 16 . (b) The area under a stress-strain curve represents the deformation energy absorbed up to failure, which is a measure of toughness. A brittle material (m3) with high hardness (or yield strength) but low ductility
More
Image
Published: 01 January 2000
Fig. 3 Relationship among stress, flaw size, and material toughness. CTOD, crack tip opening displacement
More
Image
Published: 15 June 2019
Fig. 2 Material toughness. Alloy 6156 clad T62 typical curves from various thicknesses. R-curve test specimens according to ASTM E561. W = 760 mm (30 in.). Transverse-longitudinal direction. Source: Ref 1
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1996
Fig. 28 Toughness/tensile strength relationships for x 2080/SiC/ xxp DRA materials demonstrating the effect of particle size. Source: Ref 53
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1990
Fig. 4 Low-temperature toughness of 4340 steel. Determined for material heat treated to room-temperature hardnesses of 28 and 35 HRC
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1990
Fig. 10 Low-temperature toughness of 8640 steel. Determined for material oil quenched and tempered to room-temperature hardness of 401 to 415 HB
More
Image
Published: 01 January 2000
Fig. 1 Example of a distribution of fracture toughness values for a material. 1.0 MPa m = 0.91 ksi in
More
Book Chapter
Series: ASM Handbook
Volume: 2B
Publisher: ASM International
Published: 15 June 2019
DOI: 10.31399/asm.hb.v02b.a0006722
EISBN: 978-1-62708-210-5
... and material toughness for various thicknesses of alloy 6156 clad T62 are illustrated. aluminum alloy 6156 aluminum-silicon-magnesium-copper-manganese weldable alloys damage tolerance fatigue crack growth fuselage sheet material toughness Alloy 6156 ( Table 1 ) is an Al-Si-Mg-Cu-Mn weldable...
Abstract
Alloy 6156 is an Al-Si-Mg-Cu-Mn weldable alloy, developed for the lower portion of the fuselage, which required a T6 temper strength level and high damage tolerance properties. This datasheet provides information on key alloy metallurgy of this 6xxx series alloy. Fatigue crack growth and material toughness for various thicknesses of alloy 6156 clad T62 are illustrated.
Image
Published: 01 January 1996
Fig. 24 Compilation of fracture toughness data for monolithic materials vs. yield strength. Reference 44 contains data sources. Ref and Material: ○ Ref 31 , MB78-short rod; □ Ref 45 , 7178-250F; ■ Ref 45 , 7178-290F; Δ Ref 45 , 7178-340F; ▲ Ref 45 , 7075-163C; ● Ref 45 , 7075-120C
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1996
Fig. 25 Compilation of fracture toughness data for DRA materials vs. yield strength. Reference 44 contains data sources. ○ 2014/Al 2 O 3 /16.2%; ● 6061/Al 2 O 3 /14.5%; □ 7050/SiC/11%; ■ 7050/SiC/17%; Δ 2080/SiC/15%; ▲ MB78/SiC; ◊ 8090/20SiC
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1996
Fig. 26 Compilation of fracture toughness data for DRA materials vs. tensile strength. Reference 44 contains data sources. ○ 2014/Al 2 O 3 /16.2%; ● 6061/Al 2 O 3 /14.5%; Δ 7050/SiC; ▲ 2080/SiC/15%; □ MB78/SiC/20%; ■ 2080-T6/SiC
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1996
Fig. 27 Toughness/yield strength relationships for x 2080/SiC/ xxp DRA materials in which both particle volume percent ( p ) and particle size are varied. Source: Ref 53
More
Image
Published: 01 January 1990
Fig. 18 Increasing section toughness of bearing materials used for jet engine applications. (a) Trend in aircraft engine main bearing in units of DN , the bearing bore diameter in millimeters multiplied by the rotation of the shaft in revolutions per minute. (b) Estimated inner race
More
Image
Published: 01 December 1998
Fig. 3 Fracture toughness versus strength for various engineered materials. Strength is yield strength for metals/alloys and polymers, compressive strength for ceramics (note the broken property envelope lines), tear strength for elastomers, and tensile strength for composites. It should
More
Image
Published: 01 December 1998
Fig. 3 Comparison of toughness and wear resistance for various cutting tool materials. Source: Metcut Research Associates, Inc.
More
Image
Published: 01 January 2001
Image
Published: 31 August 2017
Fig. 28 Hardness and toughness of cutting tool materials. PCD, polycrystalline diamond; DLC, diamond-like carbon; PCBN, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride; PM HSS, powder metallurgy high-speed steel. Source: Ref 29
More
Series: ASM Handbook
Volume: 11A
Publisher: ASM International
Published: 30 August 2021
DOI: 10.31399/asm.hb.v11A.a0006809
EISBN: 978-1-62708-329-4
... a brief summary of historical failures that were found to be a result of brittle fracture, and describes key components that drive susceptibility to a brittle fracture failure, namely stress, material toughness, and cracklike defect. It also presents industry codes and standards that assess susceptibility...
Abstract
A detailed fracture mechanics evaluation is the most accurate and reliable prediction of process equipment susceptibility to brittle fracture. This article provides an overview and discussion on brittle fracture. The discussion covers the reasons to evaluate brittle fracture, provides a brief summary of historical failures that were found to be a result of brittle fracture, and describes key components that drive susceptibility to a brittle fracture failure, namely stress, material toughness, and cracklike defect. It also presents industry codes and standards that assess susceptibility to brittle fracture. Additionally, a series of case study examples are presented that demonstrate assessment procedures used to mitigate the risk of brittle fracture in process equipment.
Image
in Failure Analysis and Life Assessment of Structural Components and Equipment
> Failure Analysis and Prevention
Published: 01 January 2002
on or above the R6 curve is considered failure. (b) The failure assessment diagram from API 579 for steel ( Ref 35 ). K f is the fracture ratio, which is the ratio of the crack driving force (including residual stress) to the material toughness. L r is the collapse ratio, which is the ratio
More
Image
in Failure Prevention through Life Assessment of Structural Components and Equipment
> Analysis and Prevention of Component and Equipment Failures
Published: 30 August 2021
is considered safe. A point falling on or above the R6 curve is considered failure. (b) The failure assessment diagram from API 579 for steel ( Ref 41 ). K f is the fracture ratio, which is the ratio of the crack driving force (including residual stress) to the material toughness. L r is the collapse
More
1
