Paper Uji Tarik

Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 37, No.
3
Paper ID JTE101649
Available online at: www.astm.org
George D. Quinn,1 Brian T. Sparenberg,2 Philip Koshy,3 Lewis K. Ives,1 Said Jahanmir,4 and
Dwayne D. Arola2
Flexural Strength of Ceramic and Glass Rods
ABSTRACT: Flexural testing is the most common method used to measure the uniaxial tensile strength of ceramics and glasses. Although
standard test methods have been developed for rectangular specimens, cylindrical rod specimens may be preferred in many cases. This paper summarizes how rods have been tested in the past, identifies key experimental errors and remedies, and serves as the foundation for a new standard test
method for ceramics and glasses.
KEYWORDS: ASTM C-1684, ceramics, cradles, glass, flexural strength, three-point loading, four-point loading, brittle materials, standard,
rods, cylindrical specimens, errors, silicon nitride, strain gage, Weibull statistics, wedging error, concentrated load error, friction error, large
deflection, contact cracks, initial curvature error, eccentric loading error, wrong span error, poor articulation, contact point tangency shift
error
Introduction
Flexural strength testing has long been a staple technique for measuring the uniaxial tensile strength of brittle materials such as ceramics and glasses. Direct tension tests are less commonly used due
to the large test piece size, the high costs of specimen fabrication
and testing, and the difficulties of gripping without misalignments.
Both three- and four-point flexure configurations are used as shown
in Fig. 1. Four-point is preferred for most applications and it is
often qualified by an additional descriptor relating the fractional
size of the moment arm, a, to the outer span length, Lo. For ex1
ample, 4 -point four-point is the case of a = Lo / 4. The flexural
strength test generates data for many purposes including material
characterization, materials development, and design. Results from
one size and testing configuration can be scaled to alternative configurations and sizes by Weibull statistical analysis, provided that
key assumptions are fulfilled. Done improperly, flexural strength
testing can give faulty data with excessive variability and errors
that can reach the order of tens of percent. The errors can be either
systematic or random.
It is widely recognized that brittle material strengths are statistical in nature. Specimen-to-specimen strength differences arise
from variations in the flaws and the microstructure. Hence, it is necessary to use sample sets of ten or more specimens for even the
simplest of goals such as determining an average strength for material ranking, material development, or materials specification purposes. Random and systematic testing errors can generate faulty
data that obscure or spoil even these simple tasks. Such errors can
also contaminate data for other tests such as fracture toughness experiments that use precracked beams in bending. If the goal of the
testing is to estimate the intrinsic strength scatter of a material, any
superimposed testing variability will render estimates incorrect.
The use of statistics to account for variability from an assigned
Manuscript received January 3, 2008; accepted for publication February 19,
2009; published online March 2009.
1
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
2
University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21250.
3
Now with McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L7 Canada.
4
Now with MITI Heart, Albany, NY 12205.
cause, i.e., the materials intrinsic flaw and microstructural variations, is different from the normal usage of statistics in experimental work. This creates a requirement that the experimental error of
ceramic strength test data must be negligible compared to the intrinsic material variability.
Galileo Galilei analyzed the bending configuration in some detail in his book Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences and concluded in Proposition 4 on day 3: In cylinders of equal length
the resistance to fracture increases in the same ratio as the cube of
the diameter [1]. Flexure testing has traditionally emphasized
rectangular specimens which could be sliced and diamond wheel
ground quite easily. At one time a myriad of testing and specimen
configurations abounded and experimental errors were severe or
unknown. Duckworths seminal paper in 1951 [2] was the first to
identify many of the errors in flexural strength testing of ceramics.
He and his colleagues expanded the work in 1976 [3]. Jayatilaka
had a section on flexure in his 1979 book [4] that identified five
errors. Baratta and colleagues [5,6], in the 1980s refined and added
to these error analyses and paved the way for the adoption of standard procedures for advanced or technical ceramics [712]. Today
the most common testing configuration is a 3 mm by 4 mm cross
section rectangular specimen on 20 mm by 40 mm span four-point
flexure fixtures, but 10 mm by 30 mm spans are sometimes used in
Asia. Three-point testing is still an option, but four-point is preferred since more material is exposed to high stress. An in-depth
review of flexure strength testing was presented by Quinn and Morrell [13]. We estimated that over 90 % of flexure testing on ceramics
is done with rectangular specimens. Rod specimens are preferred in
some cases particularly if the material is made or utilized in a round
shape.
Glass rods have commonly been tested in flexure often due to
their low cost and convenience. ASTM International has a standard
for flexure strength of glass rods, C158 [14], that was originally
prepared in 1940. Fixed loading points of approximately 3 mm radius are prescribed, but a cautionary note about high contact
stresses is included. The support edges may have a curvature of
approximately 76 mm in the plane of the bearing edge to aid alignment of the specimens, as shown in Fig. 2. The specimen size is
optional although the minimum diameter must be 4.76 mm
3 / 16 in.. The length to diameter ratio has to be 10 or greater. El-
Copyright 2009 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 14:51:24 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Stephanie MacGilfrey (Mohawk Innovative Technology Inc.) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
FIG. 1Flexure testing is commonly done in three-point (a) or four-point configurations (b). The fractional location of the inner loading points relative to the
overall span is used to specify the configuration. For example, with a = Lo / 4, the
1
configuration is deemed 4 -point four-point flexure.
liptical cross section and slightly bowed specimens are allowed.

The moment arm has to be at least four times the diameter. A serious shortcoming is there is no provision for friction relief. In addition, the curved knife edges alleviate but do not eliminate the contact stresses of the crossed cylindrical surfaces.
The strength of electrical porcelains or insulating whitewares
also is often measured with cylindrical rods in flexure. Even
Weibull [15] cited porcelain rod strengths to support his statistical

model. Porcelain specimens of length 155 178 mm 6 in. 7 in.
with 25 mm 1 in. diameter were common and were usually
loaded in three-point mode on a 127 mm 5 in. outer span. This
configuration was listed as one of many tentative test methods in
a fascinating 1928 topical issue of the Journal of the American Ceramic Society [16]. Very few details of the fixturing were given in
the early papers, but fixed knife edges were the norm. An ASTM
International standard for whitewares, C674 [17], has large specimens suitable for whitewares and was originally prepared in 1971
to replace two earlier standards. It includes an option for testing
153 mm 13 mm 6 in. 0.5 in. long cylindrical rods of diameters
6.4 mm 1 / 4 in. to 28.6 mm 1.125 in.. Fixtures with fixed knife
edges located 127 mm 5 in. apart or 76 mm 3 in. for the
6.4 mm diameter rods are specified.
Many advanced or technical ceramics have been tested in rod
flexure form. Often the ceramic is in the form of extruded rods that
are broken in their as-fabricated state. The flexure configuration is
ideal for measuring the effects of surface condition on strength of
structural ceramics. Strengths of transversely and longitudinally
ground rods with a variety of grinding steps and annealing treatments are commonly compared. The present study was part of a
NIST project to characterize grinding and machining damage in
ground advanced ceramics and glasses [1820]. Thermal shock investigations on advanced ceramics frequently utilized cylindrical
flexure specimens in order to create symmetric thermal gradients
and to eliminate edge effects.
A few studies compared flexure strengths of cylindrical and
rectangular specimens for the same material. Sometimes the data
were comparable and in other cases they were not. One study on
porcelain [21] suggested round rod test data were superior, but this
was probably due to the warpage of the rectangular specimens and
the use of nonarticulating fixtures or due to intrinsic strength differences between the two specimen types. Cylindrical and square asfired reaction bonded silicon nitride specimens were tested for
comparison by Newnham [22]. Four-point flexure was applied to
50 mm long specimens with either 4 mm by 4 mm square or 4 mm
diameter cross sections. The strengths were quite similar and differed by no more than 5 %. The cylindrical specimens should have
been 8 % stronger on the basis of the Weibull effective volumes.
Newnham recognized the importance of frictional constraint and
showed that results from fixtures with fixed knife edges produced
712 % overestimates of the true flexural strength from fixtures
with rollers. Stanley and associates at Nottingham [23] also evaluated a silicon nitride with 4 mm square and 4 mm round specimens
1
with as-fired surfaces in 4 -point four-point flexure with 50 mm
spans. The strengths of square and circular specimens were indistinguishable, a direct consequence of the large Weibull modulus
20. They used fixtures with fixed knife edges and estimated that
FIG. 2Schematic of a test fixture for glass rods from ASTM Method C158.
QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS
FIG. 3Four-point fixture with cradles to distribute load onto a glass rod
specimen. The fixture spans are 40 mm by 80 mm wide and the loading roller
diameter is 6 mm.
frictional errors were 14 % and 10 % for their square and cylindrical specimens, respectively. A design project for ceramic diesel
valves compared transversely ground rectangular flexure, cylindrical flexure, and valve tension strengths [24]. Weibull size scaling of
strength could not account for the observed strength differences,
suggesting that there were different flaws in the different specimen
types.
Tungsten carbides are commonly tested in flexure. Roebuck
[25] conducted an international Versailles Advanced Materials and
Standards (VAMAS) round robin on the flexure strength of 1000
round and rectangular hard metal (carbide) specimens. Eleven different specimen-fixture combinations were used including both
three-point and four-point fixtures on six tungsten carbides and one
Ti(C,N) cermet. For a given material, strengths differed by as much
as a factor of 2 depending upon the geometry of the specimen and
fixture. Results from cylindrical rod specimens were comparable to
results from rectangular specimens provided that the rods and bars
had similar fixture span to specimen thickness ratios. Fixture friction and wedging stresses were identified as major sources of ex-
perimental error and were estimated to be as large as 16 % and 14

%, respectively.
With the exception of a few cases, one is struck by how little
attention has been paid to experimental errors. Most investigators
were circumspect in describing their apparatus and most specimens
were broken in fixtures designed for rectangular specimens. In the
vast majority of cases the cylindrical specimens were broken in fixtures with fixed loading points, which created friction errors. This
paper characterizes the experimental errors in testing rods, makes
recommendations for when ordinary fixtures may be adequate, and
presents a new simple, practical fixture suitable for routine characterization or design data purposes. This work was instrumental in
the development of a new test method C1684 by ASTM, International Committee C-28, Advanced Ceramics [26].
Experimental Procedures
Several fixture types were utilized including conventional fixtures
designed to be used with rectangular specimens. A new fixture,
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, designed specifically for rod specimens was
also constructed and evaluated. It featured four cradles to evenly
distribute load at the contact points. This fixture was used both with
and without the cradles. Without the cradles, the loading rollers
apply force directly to the round test piece on a small spot. The
cradle V-groove accommodates specimens with a broad range of
diameters and applies load along two contact lines on either side of
the groove. Since the cradle is free to tilt, has the same width as the
loading roller diameter, and is rigid and straight, the concentrated
force P / 2 applied on one side (where the loading roller contacts the
cradle) is balanced by a uniform force distribution on the other side
(where the cradle supports the rod specimen). Our first cradle design had an extension tab, shown in Fig. 4, to register the cradle in
an exact location within the slot in the roller support plates. The
back of the cradle had a shoulder to hold the cradle up against the
loading roller in order to ensure proper positioning of the load. The
FIG. 4Cradle design.
FIG. 6The moment distribution for a three-point loading with three 6 mm

cradles. This configuration is inadvisable since the maximum stress in the
middle depends upon the cradle size. Cradles on the outer rollers would be
satisfactory.
ing to a nominal peak rod stress of 400 MPa, but sometimes with
loads as great as 3000 N and peak stresses of 1200 MPa. A handbook value of 214 GPa is listed for the elastic modulus of this material. We measured dynamic elastic moduli of 228 GPa by flexural
resonance and 236 GPa by ultrasonic time of flight measurements.
On the basis of our extensive static flexure testing with this rod, we
FIG. 5Forces and moment distribution for a four-point fixture with cradles.
(a) The cradles convert the concentrated load P / 2 to a distributed load. (b) The
moment changes slightly where the cradles are located (vertical dashed lines),
but elsewhere the distribution is identical to that for a concentrated force distribution (short dashed lines).
cradles were made of a 17-4 PH stainless steel with a Rockwell

hardness of RC52. Figure 5 illustrates the force and moment diagrams. Although force is no longer concentrated at one location,
the stress state in the central gage portion of the specimen is unchanged. The only difference is a slight change in the moment distribution at the loading and support points, as shown in Fig. 5.
The cradles are not recommended for the middle point in threepoint loading. Assuming the forces are uniformly distributed over
the cradle, the nominal maximum stress in the beam is decreased by
1 w / 2Lo as shown in Fig. 6, where w is the cradle width. Thus,
the peak stress depends upon the cradle size. Cradles on the outer
rollers have no effect on the peak stress in the middle.
Figure 7 shows an alternate simple cradle that may be used with
ordinary four-point bend fixtures for rectangular specimens. This
fixture was used to test specimens with and without the cradles.
Strain-gaged steel rods as shown in Fig. 8 were used to investigate the experimental errors. A tool steel rod (CPM Rex T15, Crucible Materials Corp., Syracuse, NY)5 was used for the bulk of the
work. Many of our experiments were done at 1000 N in four-point
loading with the 40 mm by 80 mm fixture (Fig. 8(a)), correspond5
Certain commercial materials or equipment are identified in this paper to

specify adequately the experimental procedure. Such identification does not
imply endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor
does it imply that these materials or equipment are necessarily the best for the
purpose.
FIG. 7A simple adaptor cradle for use with common rectangular fixtures (a)
and (b). The cradle base tab allows the cradle to sit on the roller, but to rest on
the fixture base prior to loading a test piece. The cradle base should not contact
the fixture support once a specimen is placed in the fixtures. (b) Four cradles
mounted on a 20 mm by 40 mm fixture. The cradle width w matches the loading
roller diameter.
FIG. 8Strain-gaged steel rods were used to verify the analytical error analyses. (a) A 6.35 mm diameter rod in a four-point bend fixture with cradles at the
loading points and 40 mm by 80 mm spans under 3000 N load for a peak stress
of 1200 MPa. (b) Three strain gages mounted on the underside.
estimated the quasi-static elastic modulus was 222 GPa and this
value was used for all our subsequent stress-strain correlation
work. A small 30 mm long and 0.7 mm deep flat was precision
ground into the middle of the rod and three miniature (5 mm long)
strain gages6 were attached as shown in Fig. 8(b). The gages had
preattached leads and were in a three wire circuit connected with a
quarter bridge configuration. The strain-gage factor uncertainty
was 1 %. Gages 1 and 2 were positioned to detect side-to-side
strain variations and ensure the rod was in correct rotational alignment, and gage 3 was positioned to detect any longitudinal variations relative to the other two. The flat and cross-section sizes were
carefully measured with a microscope. The neutral axis and moment of inertia of the reduced section size were taken into account
in the stress and strain analyses.
A variety of glass and ceramic materials were tested including
fused silica rods, pressureless sintered alumina, single crystal sapphire, hot pressed tungsten carbide, several grades of silicon nitride, and one pressureless sintered silicon carbide. Stereoptical
fractographic analysis was conducted on every specimen and selected pieces were examined with a scanning electron microscope.
The inspection procedures are discussed in detail in ASTM Practice
C1322 [27] and a new Guide to Practice for Fractography [28]. The
majority of our experimental findings were on the effects of grinding on strength and are described in detail elsewhere [1820].
Stress State and Experimental Errors

The Stress State and the Maximum Stress
For a beam in flexure, the maximum outer fiber stress from simple
beam theory is:
6
Type KFG-2N-120-C1-11L3M3R, Omega Engineering, Stamford, CT.
FIG. 9Maximum strain distributions for fixtures with and without cradles for
the strain-gaged 6.35 mm diameter rod loaded to 500 N for a four-point fixture
with 40 mm by 80 mm spans. Experimental data confirms the predicted distributions for a fixture both with and without cradles.
max =
Mc
I
(1)
where M is the applied moment, c is the distance of the outer fibers

from the neutral axis, and I is the moment of inertia of the cross
section about the neutral axis. It is assumed that the material behavior is consistent with Hookes law. For a beam of circular cross section, I = D4 / 64 and c = R = D / 2, where R and D are the radius and
diameter, respectively. With reference to Fig. 1, the bending moment is M = Pa / 2, where P is the total applied force and a is the
moment arm. The moment arm a is Lo / 2 in three-point and Lo
Li / 2 for four-point loading. Hence:
max =
16Pa
D3
(2)
The maximum stress occurs only at a point directly under the

middle loading point in three-point flexure and on a line on the bottom of the specimen within the inner two loading points in fourpoint loading. The stresses diminish with distance from the bottom
of the specimen to the neutral axis, which is coincident with the
centroid of the rod cross section. The stresses also diminish linearly
with distance to either side of the middle loading point in threepoint loading and between the inner and outer loading points in
four-point flexure. The convention is to use the maximum outer
fiber stress max as the strength of the rod b for most data interpretation including Weibull statistical analysis, irrespective of the actual location of the fracture origin. The only times that the stress
should be adjusted for the failure location, either into the depth of
the rod cross section or to the sides of the gage section, are for
fracture mechanics analysis of flaws or fracture mirror size analyses [27,28].
Figure 9 shows that the predicted and actual strain measurements for the strain-gaged steel rod are in excellent agreement,
both with and without cradles. Figure 10 shows the fracture origin
sites for silicon nitride rods tested in four-point bending with a
40 mm by 80 mm fixture with 6 mm wide cradles. The Weibull
FIG. 10Distribution of fracture initiation site locations in a test set of 6 mm

diameter silicon nitride rods on a four-point fixture with 6 mm wide cradles and
40 mm by 80 mm spans.
modulus of this set was 12.5. The origin locations are well distributed in the gage section and there was no propensity to break at the
cradles.
Common Errors
Common errors in flexural strength testing are shown schematically in Fig. 11. Extrinsic errors are those associated with fixture or
specimen misalignments, errors in load measurements, or erroneous specimen size and shape measurements. In addition to these
extrinsic errors, the assumptions of simple beam theory must also
be kept in mind. They usually are fulfilled for most ceramics and
glasses, but may not be met for ceramic matrix composites or microcracked monolithic bodies. Simple beam theory assumes the
material is homogeneous and linearly elastic to fracture. The elastic
moduli in tension and compression must be the same. Duckworth
[2] and Baratta et al. [6] analyzed the stress state of beams with
unequal moduli in tension and compression and showed the neutral
axis shifts location. Any nonlinearity in the stress-strain relationship considerably complicates the stress analysis, especially for rod
cross-section beams. Care should be exercised when testing ceramics and glasses at elevated temperature since nonlinear stress-strain
behavior and time-dependent effects can occur. Simple beam
theory also assumes that transverse planes remain plane once the
rods are deflected. Forces and bending couples must be applied to
the beam in its longitudinal plane of symmetry [29]. Caution must
be exercised when deflections become large relative to the beam
cross-section size.
Shear stresses usually play a negligible role in bend testing of
monolithic ceramics and glasses. In four-point loading, they are
zero in the middle gage section but average P / 2A, where A is the
cross section between the inner and outer loading points. The shear
stresses vary vertically through the beam cross section, however,
and are zero at top and bottom surfaces of the beam. Most brittle
specimens fracture from flaws near the tensile surface where the
shear stresses are negligible. Ceramic matrix composites or tape
cast and layered ceramics are exceptions and fracture may be initiated in the middle of the cross section or near loading points due to
the shear stresses.
Errors may either be systematic or random and, since the total
uncertainty is the cumulative effect of many errors, it is prudent to
control or manage the individual errors as best as possible. Ceramists and designers are concerned with not only the average strength,
but the spread of the strengths and the Weibull statistical distribution parameters. Therefore, the overall experimental uncertainty
must be controlled in order to obtain good estimates of the materials intrinsic variability. A total experimental uncertainty for a
single strength measurement of 5 % is therefore unacceptable
since (depending upon the material and its Weibull modulus) such
an uncertainty may be commensurate with the intrinsic material
variability one may be trying to assess. This 5 % level is quickly
reached if individual errors are of the order of 1 % to 2 %. A total
uncertainty of 2 % to 3 % is better and thus individual uncertainties
should be held to 0.5 % to 1 %. The same uncertainty levels were
used in the preparation of several rectangular beam flexural
strength standards for ceramics [7,8,11].
Initial Curvature
An initial beam curvature can give rise to two possible errors. One
is an intrinsic error associated with a disturbance to the assumed
linear stress distribution through the cross section. This topic has
been treated by Timoshenko [29], Baratta et al. [5,6], Duckworth
[2], and Roark [30] for rectangular beams. Roark [30] also included
rods. The details of the analyses differ slightly, but in all cases the
neutral axis of a curved beam that is bowed upwards in the fixture is
displaced slightly from the centroid toward the center of curvature,
giving rise to a nonlinear stress distribution through the beam thickness. For small values of the beam thickness or rod diameter, the
displacement of the neutral axis is very small and the disturbance to
the assumed linear stress distribution is negligible. Roark [30] and
Timoshenko [29] say that for a / D ratio of 10 or more, the error
may be ignored, where is the radius of curvature of the specimen
as measured to the centroid. Roark showed that for / D 5, the
errors for rectangular beams and rods are about the same [30]. A
quantitative error estimate can be made from Table VII in his book
which includes an expression for ki, the ratio of the true maximum
outer fiber stress T to the value obtained with the simple beam
formula b assuming no curvature. When the moment of inertia
of a circular cross section is inserted, the expression for ki becomes:
T
1
1
+
= ki = 1 . + 0.206D
b
D/2
FIG. 11Some common errors in flexure testing of rods.
Hereafter in this paper we define the stress error in percent as:
(3)
b T
100
T
(4)
where b is the simple beam stress estimate ignoring the error or

complication. Thus, the initial curvature error is:
=
1
1 100
ki
(5)
The errors are negative, meaning the true stress is greater than
the calculation assuming the rod is straight. For a 1 % error, the
ratio of / D should be 40 or greater. For a 0.5 % error, the ratio
should be greater than 83. These estimates are similar to those of
Duckworth [2], who concluded that a ratio greater than 25 is required for a 1 % or less error. Nevertheless, if ceramic or glass rods
do have slight bows, it is recommended that they be tested with a
consistent orientation in the fixtures. An additional extrinsic error
for initially curved beams due to the shift of the loading point locations is covered in the Contact Point Tangency Shift section
below.
Wrong Spans
If the inner Li or outer Lo fixture spans are not their correct values, the moment arm dimension, a, is altered even if the spans are
properly centered with respect to each other as shown in Fig. 11.
Assuming the inner span is actually Li + es and the outer span is Lo
es, then it can be shown that the stress error in percent is:
=
2es
100
Lo Li 2es
(6)
A similar error of opposite sign exists if the inner span is too small
1
and the outer span is too large for eS 0.01. For 4 -point four-point
loading,
=
4es
100
Lo 4es
(7)
For three-point loading with a shortened outer span, the error is:
=
es
100
Lo es
(8)
The four-point configuration amplifies the span error es / Lo

whereas the error in three-point is nearly the same as the span error.
1
For a 4 -point four-point configuration, a 1 % stress error arises
from spans that are in error by es / Lo = 0.0025 and for a 0.5 % error,
by es / Lo = 0.0012. As a practical example, if a four point fixture has
20 mm by 40 mm spans, then es should be less than 0.1 mm or
0.05 mm for 1 % and 0.5 % errors, respectively. This is a systematic
error that is either positive or negative. All specimens in a set will
have the same error.
FIG. 12Eccentric loading error. The top articulates in (a) and the bottom in
(b). (c) The moment distribution for case (a).
whether the inner span or the outer span articulates. The reaction
forces F1 and F4 in Fig. 5(a) or F2 and F3 in Fig. 5(b) can be solved
by balancing the forces and moments.
If the upper pair articulates, and each applies a force of P / 2 at a
location shifted by e, then the error in stress at point 2 is:
=
Point 2
(9)
The error at point 3 is:

=
Eccentric Loading
The spans may be of the correct size, but if they are misaligned with
respect to each other, the moment distribution is skewed as shown
in Fig. 12. Most bend fixtures allow either the top or bottom pair of
contact points or rollers to articulate or pivot to evenly apply the
loads P / 2 to the specimen surface. The reaction forces on the opposing pair of loading points and the moment arm lengths are altered if the fixtures are misaligned. The stress error depends upon
2e/Lo + e/a + 2e/ae/Lo

100
1 + 2e/Lo e/a 2e/ae/Lo
+ 2e/Lo e/a + 2e/ae/Lo

100
1 2e/Lo + e/a 2e/ae/Lo
Point 3 (10)
For 4 -point four-point loading, these simplify to:

=
+ 2e/Lo + 8e/Lo2
1 2e/Lo 8e/Lo2
and
Point 2
(11)

=
2e/Lo + 8e/Lo2
1 + 2e/Lo 8e/Lo2
Point 3
(12)
The greater error occurs directly at point 2, but the greatest stress,
which is more likely to cause fracture, occurs at point 3. For small
e, a 1 % error in position e / Lo = 0.01 is amplified to a 2 % stress
error. If, on the other hand, the bottom pair of rollers articulate and
each apply P / 2, the errors at points 2 and 3 are:
=
e
100
ae
Point 2
(13)
e
100
a+e
Point 3
(14)
and
which, for the case of 4 -point four-point loading, are:

=
4e/Lo
100
1 4e/Lo
Point 2
(15)
4e/Lo
100
1 + 4e/Lo
Point 3
(16)
and
A 1 % misalignment e / Lo = 0.01 is amplified to 4 % stress

error. As noted above, the errors are worst at the loading points and
diminish linearly within the inner gage section. The errors for a set
of specimens are random and either positive or negative since the
actual fracture location can be anywhere within the gage section or
possibly even just outside if there is a large flaw located there. As an
example, for a fixture with 20 mm by 40 mm spans, a misalignment of 0.1 mm e / Lo = 0.0025 creates peak errors of 1 % if the
bottom articulates and 0.5 % if the top articulates. If the fixtures
do not provide any articulation the loads will become unbalanced
as soon as the specimen begins to deflect under load even if the
testing machine platens are perfectly flat and parallel. Such fixtures
should not be used since very severe errors can arise [5,6].
The eccentric loading error was verified by experimental testing
with the strain gaged steel rod. Figure 13 shows that the actual
strains matched the predicted values extremely well.
The errors in three-point loading for a misaligned center point
are not as great. The location of maximum stress follows the middle
loading roller, and the moment arms are altered from the assumed
Lo / 2 to Lo / 2 e, but the magnitude of the maximum moment
changes slightly from PLo / 4 to PLo / 41 4e / Lo2. The stress
error is thus:
=
4e/Lo2
100
1 4e/Lo2
(17)
The error depends upon the square of the positional misalignment

in the numerator, and thus three-point loading is surprisingly insensitive to misalignment of the middle loading point.
Poor Articulation
A four-point fixture should be designed so that equal P / 2 forces are
applied at each load point. A faulty articulation scheme in fourpoint loading can lead to unequal loads even if the fixtures are
aligned. Fixtures with upper and lower spans that are rigidly bolted
to the crosshead and platens should not be used since one cannot
count on the universal testing machine having perfectly flat and par-
FIG. 13The strain-gaged rod verified the magnitude of the eccentric fixture
errors. The fixture spans were 40 mm and 80 mm. (a) The case for a fixture with
the bottom span displaced 1 mm to the right and a load of 1000 N. The dashed
vertical lines show the position of the inner span contact points. The circles are
individual strain readings from the strain-gaged rod which was moved laterally
in a series of experiments to collect the strain distribution in the gage section.
The plus and minus values shown are the strains compared to the nominal calculated strain (horizontal dashed line) had there been no misalignment. The
stresses are magnified on the right and hence, the error in stress if one were to
use the nominal stress would be negative. (b) Comparable results for the fixture
with cradles at the loading points but shifted the other way at a load of 500 N.
The vertical dashed lines show the positions of the 6 mm wide cradles.
allel platens. The error depends upon the details of the fixture and
test frame misalignments. In the worst case for four-point flexure,
one inner loading roller may not even contact the specimen and the
test is an asymmetric three-point test as shown in Fig. 11.
Fixture Friction
Constraint from fixed loading pins can create very large errors.
With reference to Fig. 14, the upper portion of the specimen contracts and the bottom in tension expands during loading. If these
elongations are restricted by fixed-loading points, a frictional con-
FIG. 14Friction errors occur at the loading pins as shown in (a). (b) A schematic of a test configuration used to intentionally prevent the rollers from
rolling.
straint of magnitude P / 2 occurs at each loading point where is

the coefficient of friction. This creates a moment of magnitude
PD / 2 that counteracts the moment from the vertical forces. The
true moment, M, acting upon the inner gage section of a four-point
loaded specimen then is:
Pa PD P
= a D
M=
2
2
2
The stress error is:
=
100
a/D
(18)
(19)
This is a systematic positive error. Every specimen in a batch will

appear to be stronger than it actually is. A Weibull strength distribution will be shifted a fixed amount to the right in the usual
graphical representation of probability of fracture versus stress at
fracture [31]. If a 20 mm by 40 mm fixture is used with a 3 mm
diameter rod and is a modest 0.3, then the error is +10 %. Errors
of this magnitude and even greater have been reported many times
in the literature. For example, Stanley et al. [23] observed errors of
10 % to 14 % in silicon nitride bar and rod strengths. They even
measured the static coefficient of friction of specimens against their
knife edges and obtained s from 0.3 to 0.8. The lower value was
with lubricated knife edges, but the efficiency of the lubrication
diminished as load was increased. Lubrication is not effective in
eliminating friction errors. Coefficients of friction are quite variable, and there are no clear trends with mating part shapes, contact
loads, or materials. Values from 0.3 to almost 1 are common, so
friction errors in bend fixtures are appreciable in most circumstances.
The simplest remedy is to use rollers. They may be mounted in
roller bearing assemblies, or, more simply, be allowed to roll on a
plate parallel to the specimens longitudinal axis as shown in Figs.
1, 3, 4, and 7. The outer rollers must be free to roll outwards and the
inner rollers inwards. These motions slightly increase the moment
arm. We measured roller movements of only approximately
0.05 mm for the outer rollers and half this for the inner rollers for
our 40 mm by 80 mm fixture with the 6.35 mm strain gaged rod
loaded to 1000 N 412 MPa. The gap between the roller and its
stop was checked by trying to insert shims of various sizes. This
tendency to change the moment arm was counteracted by a slight
change (in the opposite direction) of the contact tangency points
FIG. 15Wedging stress errors in the vicinity of the loading points (a). (b) The
distribution of which quantifies the axial wedging stresses x on the bottom
side of the rod opposite the contact points. They are compressive right under the
loading point, but shift to tensile on either side.
where the specimen touches the rollers. The rollers may be held in
their initial starting places by ordinary elastic bands or magnets.
We checked the friction error experimentally with our straingaged steel rod in our 40 mm by 80 mm fixture. Four 6 mm diameter dowel pins with small flats ground on the rim were substituted
for the normal 6 mm rollers as shown in Fig. 14(b). The steel rod
was loaded incrementally up to 2000 N (3500 microstrain) and the
strains compared to those when normal rollers were in place and
free to roll. The strain with the flattened rollers was systematically
4.2 % less, corresponding to a of 0.13. This is a low value, but the
dowel loading pins had polished surfaces and the tool steel rod
specimen had a fine-ground finish.
Wedging Stresses
The concentrated load where the loading point applies force to the
rod creates not only high contact stresses where the fixture touches
the specimen, but also wedging stresses that disturb the tensile
stress field on the opposite side as shown in Fig. 15. This case is
also known as the concentrated load problem. The wedging stress
distribution is related to classic contact stress analyses that are primarily concerned with the stress distribution in the immediate vicinity of the contact points. The wedging stress analysis carries the
problem further and considers the disturbances through the entire
beam cross section and for short distances to either side of the contact points. Secondary tensile and compression stresses are superimposed on the bottom side of the bend bar in the vicinity of the
loading point.
Duckworth called attention to the matter as early as 1951 [2] and
used an early 1941 analysis by Timoshenko [32] to estimate the
errors. Timoshenko and Goodier [33] analyzed the problem in more
detail in 1951 for rectangular beam specimens using a solution by
Von Karman and Seewald [34]. They showed that for a load at a
contact point Pi and a beam cross section area, A, the wedging
stresses are Pi / A, where is a dimensionless numerical factor.
varies with position through the beam height and laterally on either
side of contact point as shown qualitatively in Fig. 15(b). The wedging stress on the tensile surface directly opposite the inner loading
FIG. 16Wedging stress errors directly under the middle loading point for rods
loaded in three-point or at an inner loading point in four-point bending. On the
tensile surface, the peak positive error of +10 % occurs for a Lo / D ratio of 3,
meaning the simple beam theory solution overestimates the true stress. With
shorter span to diameter ratios, the error is negative and much more severe. The
error reaches a plateau of about +5 % for large Lo / D ratios. Also shown is the
net effect on estimates of the Weibull characteristic strength, , if simple beam
theory stress solutions are used. The error is less for since it integrates the
effect of all the stresses in the rod on the overall risk of rupture.
roller is compressive and reduces the stress assumed by simple

beam theory. This wedging stress diminishes to zero slightly to either side of the contact point, but then becomes tensile. This can
lead to excessive breakages just to either side of the load points.
The magnitudes of the wedging stresses depend upon the ratio of
the beam thickness to the span length and the intensity of the concentrated load. Short, thick specimens are susceptible and the error
can be several percent in four-point bending or ten or more percent
in three-point loading [5,6]. It is a primary error source for threepoint loaded beams and only diminishes to less than 1 % for span
length to thickness ratios of 20 or more. Timoshenko and Goodier
[33] showed splendid photoelastic images by Frocht [35] that illustrate the contact and wedging stress perturbations. Several groups
have confirmed the magnitude of the wedging stress error in rectangular beams [e.g., [36,37]] and Fett and Munz [37] extended it to
four-point flexure. Only one analogous solution for circular beams
is available [38].
Fok and Smart [38] analyzed the wedging stress error for threepoint loaded rods using finite element modeling for span length to
diameter Lo / D ratios between 1 and 10. They confirmed that the
stress trends predicted by Von Karman and Seewald for rectangular
beams also occurred for rods. The errors for the rods were greater
than those for rectangular beams, which is not surprising considering the very concentrated load located in the top middle of the
three-point loaded rod. They even showed that in the case of very
short stubby rods (Lo / D ratios of 1 to 3) that the greatest tensile
stresses occurred near the rod ends, and not under the middle! Short
stubby rod-fixture combinations with such small Lo / D ratios
should not be used. Figure 16 shows some of the results of their
work. The stress errors on the tensile surface and just below it are
shown. Kittl and Diaz [39] also examined the effect of wedging
stresses on the Weibull integrals and adapted the Von Karman and
Seewald contact stresses solutions for rectangular beams to approximate the effects on rods.
Fok and Smarts work for three-point flexure [38] is readily
adaptable to four-point loading. Although the Timoshenko and
Goodier analysis [33] was for rectangular beams, it is reasonable to
assume the same trends occur for rods but with different values.
Imagine two test pieces of identical size, with one loaded in three1
point and the other in 4 -point four-point with identical outer spans,
Lo. Assuming both have the same strength, let the total force necessary to break the beam in three-point be P3. The moment arm is
Lo / 2. The wedging stresses are proportional to P3 / A. In the case
of the four-point configuration with the shorter moment arm a
= Lo / 4, twice as much total force is needed to break the beam, or
P4 = 2P3. On the other hand, each contact roller carries half the total
load P4 / 2, and hence at each loading point, the wedging stresses
are P4 / 2A = 2P3 / 2A = P3 / A. In other words, the wedging
1
stresses are identical for the three- and 4 -point four-point configurations for a given Lo / D.
From Fig. 16, it is evident the error in the maximum stress at the
tensile surface is +5.8 % for a Lo / D ratio of 5, which means that the
peak stress from simple beam theory is larger than the actual peak
stress. Errors of this magnitude 5 % persist out to Lo / D ratios
of 10. This is a worrisome error, but it is mitigated by the fact that
nearby regions carry greater true stresses than simple beam theory
predicts. Fok and Smart [38] showed that the net effect on the
Weibull risk of rupture is small so that the error in the Weibull characteristic strength, , is also small as shown in Fig. 16. The error in
the characteristic stress is only +2.4 % for a Lo / D ratio of 5 for a
material with volume flaws and a Weibull modulus of 20. The error
diminishes to +0.3 % for Lo / D of 10. Furthermore, since wedging
stresses are localized to the region near the loading points, most of
the gage section in four-point loading is undisturbed. The error is
even less for materials with lower Weibull moduli. The error is
about the same if the flaws are surface distributed.
In summary, Lo / D ratios of 3 or less should never be used for
three- or four-point bend strength experiments. Ratios Lo / D of 5 or
greater are preferred and 10 or greater are optimum. If the true
stress at a fracture origin in a three-point loaded rod is required for
some analysis (e.g., fracture mechanics analysis of a flaw or a fracture mirror size), then rod stresses may be corrected using Fig. 16.
This is problematic, however, since these curves are for the location
directly under the middle loading point. If the origin is located to
either side, the wedging stresses will be different in magnitude and
possibly sign. Corrections are not necessary for four-point configurations if the origins are located away from the loading points.
Contact Stresses
Intense contact stresses where a loading roller contacts a round test
specimen can cause two problems: Hertzian contact cracks in the
test specimen and permanent deformation in the loading rollers.
Contact cracks form where the specimen touches the loading rollers due to the crossed cylinder geometry. Figures 17 and 18 show
examples in glass. They are circular or elliptical on the outer surface and flare to a conical shape beneath the surface. At low loads,
they often are only an arc. The contact footprint is elliptical and its
size and shape depend upon the load, the elastic properties and the
diameters of the specimen and the loading rollers. The smaller
these diameters are the smaller the contact footprint and the greater
11
FIG. 17(a) Three-point loading of a 9 mm diameter short glass specimen with

4.5 mm steel rollers and a 30 mm span Lo / D = 3.3. The bottom of the fixture
does not need to articulate in three-point bending. (b) Close-up of a Hertzian
contact crack in the surface of the glass rod. The black elliptical ring is the crack
which flares out underneath the surface, causing light to reflect.
are the contact pressures and stresses. The force necessary to pop in
the crack depends upon the preexisting surface flaw density and the
fracture toughness. Hence, it is difficult to make a general prediction in advance as to when contact cracks form. The cracks often
are harmless if they are small and they do not disturb the overall
stress distribution in the specimen or cause premature fracture. In
our work, the strength of specimens with and without such top contact cracks in three-point loading were indistinguishable. On the
other hand, contact cracks can cause premature fracture and invalidate the test if they get too large or reach a tensile-stressed portion
of the rod, as shown in Fig. 19. As discussed in the previous section,
very short, stubby test point configurations are also susceptible to
severe wedging stress errors. In summary, to minimize wedging
stress errors and also to minimize the risk of deleterious contact
cracks, short stubby test configurations should be avoided. Lo / D
ratios should not be less than 3 for three-point loading. For Lo / D
ratios of 3 to 5, the test specimens should be inspected to verify that
the correct fracture patterns were obtained.
Short four-point configurations may be even more susceptible to
the problem since the moment arm is shorter and greater loads are
needed to cause fracture. Small contact cracks on the compression
side may be harmless. Figures 2022 show valid test fracture patterns. ASTM Practice C1322 [27] and Ref. [28] provide guidance
on interpretation of fracture patterns. Ceramic test fixtures should
be used with caution if Lo / D 10 ratios are used. Ceramic fixtures
for use at elevated temperatures are often made of silicon carbide
which has a very high elastic modulus and hence will have a very
small Hertzian contact footprint and very large contact stresses.
Loading pins should be inspected for damage frequently and
should be easily replaceable.
The other concern is avoiding plastic deformation in the fixtures
and the loading rollers. Our metal fixtures were sometimes overloaded causing plastic deformation in the form of small depres-
FIG. 18Fracture surfaces of glass rods. The maximum tensile stress was on
the bottom dead center in each case. In (a), the fracture origin is slightly to the
left (arrow). A harmless contact crack (circled) on the compression half of the
rod is exposed by the primary fracture. (b) Close-up of a harmless contact crack
on the top of another specimen. The final fracture came from the bottom and
cleaved through the contact ring crack.
sions at loading points or at support platforms. The rollers were

replaced or the fixture reground or resurfaced when this occurred,
since depressions would impair proper load application to new
specimens and possibly prevent the proper rolling action of the
loading rollers. In principle, fixtures can be designed to resist plastic deformation. Contact pressures can be converted to compression and shear stresses and one can obtain estimates of the necessary yield strengths for the rollers and fixture. Stresses increase
with smaller roller and specimen diameter sizes, with greater roller
and specimen elastic moduli, and greater applied forces. Calculations like these are specimen size, material, and fixture design specific. Hence, it is difficult to make general recommendations as to
roller sizes, hardnesses, or support structure sizes or shapes. Over
30 years of our experience with bend fixtures for rectangular and
round specimens has produced mediocre correlations of predictions to observed behavior. Small overloads caused very slight permanent deformations that were almost unnoticeable either on the
fixtures or on the recorded load-displacement traces, even when we
intentionally overload the fixtures. Evidently deformations were
confined to a tiny area just beneath the surface and stress redistribution alleviated the problem. Severe overloading did create depressions. We surmise that many of the observed deformations
were from dynamic impulse loading that occurred at the instant that
a test specimen broke. Depressions typically started at a side surface on the fixture or cradle where there was less constraint. In
FIG. 19Contact cracks can cause premature fracture. (a) Four fractured glass
rods that were tested in three-point bending as shown in Fig. 17(a). The marks
show the location of the loading points. The arrows show the origins of primary
fracture. The top specimen broke properly from an origin on the tensile side
(bottom) in the middle and was a valid test. The other three fractured from contact cracks at the outer support points and are invalid. The bottom two also have
secondary fractures. (b) The fracture surface of one of the invalid tests. Primary
fracture started at a contact crack formed at the outer load point (white arrow).
The bending tensile stresses are very small at this location, but the large contact
crack reached them and was pulled into the bulk of the specimen. It then ran up
to and intersected the even larger cone crack under the middle loading point on
the top right (black arrow).
practice, we found it simplest to select low cost steel dowel rods or

pins. Hardnesses of the off-the-shelf dowels or pins are commonly
RC58-62, which is usually more than adequate if the roller size is
comparable to the specimen diameter. We also observed surface
scuffing and nicking of loading rollers. At the instant of fracture,
the hard ceramic broken fragments slide over and abrade the loading rollers. Pieces typically fly out of the fixtures unless they were
buffered by tissue, cotton, or gentle tape. We discard and replace
any loading rollers if they receive surface damage greater than a
few simple cosmetic scratches.
The rollers should be supported by a fixture base that is five to
ten times wider than the specimen diameter, so that the forces on
the loading rollers are distributed over a long line contact. In this
manner, fixture parts can be used with off the shelf moderate hardness (RC 30) steels that do not require hardening treatments or surface grinding.
FIG. 20Fracture patterns in four-point tested rods. (a) Schematic side views
with the tension side on the bottom. The arrows show the initial fracture locations. (b) Silicon carbide test rods. Low strength specimens break into only two
pieces with a small compression or cantilever curl on the compression side. The
primary crack always starts perpendicular to the rod axis, but may split or fork
if there is sufficient stored elastic energy in the rod. Secondary breaks may occur
elsewhere, often at loading points due to reverberations of elastic energy waves.
The secondary breaks are often inclined at a slight angle to the rod axis.
Cradles are not necessary for many loading conditions with reasonably large Lo / D ratios and rods can be tested directly resting on
loading rollers. There was no unusual incidence of fracture at the
loading points for many of the materials that we tested. If contact
cracking occurs that invalidates results or fixture deformations are a
problem, then cradles may be used to eliminate the problem. Contact cracking probably will be a problem for glasses and some
brittle materials if Lo / D ratios are 5 or less.
Contact Point Tangency Shift

A change in the moment arm length can occur as a specimen deflects due to a change in the contact points on the loading rollers, as
shown in Fig. 23. The shifts in the contact points h1 and h2 change
the moment arm. They depend upon the specimen and roller sizes,
and the ratio of the strength (and the force necessary to break the
beam) to the elastic modulus. The error can be minimized by use of
small diameter loading rollers, but they should not be too small lest
they create excessive contact stresses as described in the previous
section. The following analysis ignores horizontal forces arising
13
FIG. 21Fractured glass rod showing the side as well as the fracture surface.
The origin is on the bottom side of the specimen. The fracture initially ran perpendicular to the rod axis, but branched (bifurcated) shortly beyond the semicircular fracture mirror surrounding the origin. The telltale compression curl
can be used to deduce the loading axis direction. The fracture origin is slightly
up the side of the rod and is not at the very bottom where the stresses are a
maximum. This was a valid test.
FIG. 23Contact point tangency shift can shorten the moment arm. (a) The
overall geometry and (b) and (c) close-ups of the left outer and left inner loading
rollers with optional cradle inserts.
FIG. 22Fracture surfaces in glass rods. (a) Primary fracture surfaces. The
starting flaws are apparent as small white spots surrounded by the semicircular
fracture mirrors. Maximum tension was at bottom center. Some origins were not
at bottom center but partway up the sides. These are valid tests. The fracture
mirrors are elongated into the stress gradient in weaker specimens. (b) Secondary fracture surface from a reverberation. It does not have a fracture mirror but
does have many reverberation Wallner lines.
because of the tangency shift, but for beams of small deflection the
effect is negligible. Other analyses which do take into account the
horizontal force components have been presented by Vrooman and
Ritter [40] and West [41], but the horizontal forces only become
significant at larger deflections.
The specimen slopes at the contact points determine h1 and h2.
From simple beam theory:
dy Pa
=
a Lo,
dx 4EI
x=0
(20)

dy Pa
=
2a Lo,
dx 4EI
x=a
(21)
Attention is now turned to the specific geometries where the specimen meets the loading rollers. This analysis also takes into account
possible load-distributing cradle inserts between the roller and
specimen as shown in Figs. 23(b) and 23(c). If there are no cradle
inserts, then q = 0. From the similar triangles:
tan1 =
h1
y h1
= =
x k1
r + q2 h21
(22)
tan2 =
y h2
h2
= =
x k2 r + q2 h22
(23)
For small deflections, the h21 and h22 terms are insignificant, and
thus:
y
h1
=
,
x r + q
y
h2
=
,
x r + q
x = h1
(24)
x = a h2
(25)
Combining Eqs 1, 20, and 24 and then 21 and 25:
r + q
Lo a
D
h2 =
E
r + q
Lo 2a
D
h1 =
(26)
than the specimen, respectively. On the other hand, some ceramics

(e.g., toughened zirconias) are strong but compliant and, if / E ratios are as large as 0.0067, errors of 0.5 % and 1.0 % arise from
roller diameters that are 0.3 and 0.6 times the specimen diameter,
respectively. Anyone who has ever tested high strength zirconia
specimens is usually surprised the first time he or she observes the
deflections. In summary, loading rollers and any cradles should be
large enough that they do not experience severe contact stresses
that cause permanent deformation in the fixtures or contact cracking in the ceramic specimens, but they should not be so large as to
be susceptible to the contact point tangency shift error. It is suggested that loading roller diameters be comparable in size with the
specimen diameters.
Initial Rod Curvature

An extrinsic stress error arises when initially curved rods are tested
in ordinary bend fixtures with rollers or rounded knife edges since
the load application points are displaced laterally as shown in Fig.
24. The moment arm, a, is decreased and the common formula for
the maximum stress overestimates the true stress creating a positive
stress error. If the rod is flipped and inserted so that it is arched
upwards, the moment arm increases leading to a negative stress
error. Horizontal forces applied at the contact points are ignored in
the simple geometrical analysis below. If a rod of diameter D and
constant initial radius of curvature c to the compression side of the
rod is placed on fixtures with roller radii r, then:
sin 1 =
(27)
Using a true moment MT = P / 2 a h1 h2 and T = MTc / I as well

as Eq 2 for b, then:
=
which for
1
4 -point
h1 + h2
100
a h1 h2
(28)
sin 2 =
r + q
D
100
=
r + q
15
E
D
a1 =
r + q
D
100
=
r + q
12
E
D
inner roller
(31)
(32)
rL o
2c + D + r
(33)
rL i
2c r
(34)
a2 =
(29)
where a1 and a2 are the lateral shifts in the outer and inner contact points, respectively, and 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 24. For
c r and D these simplify to:
and for three-point flexure is:

2
a2
Li/2
=
r
c r
outer roller
and therefore:
four-point flexure is:

5
a1
Lo/2
=
r
c + D + r
a1 =
r Lo
c 2
(35)
a2 =
r Li
c 2
(36)
(30)
The error depends upon how much the specimen deflects, which
is proportional to / E and also the ratio of the loading roller sizes
(plus the size of cradles if used) to the specimen diameter. The error
is always positive, meaning that a stress calculation that ignores the
change in contact points overestimates the actual stress in the beam
at fracture. If / E = 0.001, as is the case for some glasses and ce1
ramics, then 4 -point four-point errors of 0.5 % and 1.0 % correspond to a ratio of the sum of the roller radius and the cradle height
to the specimen diameter, r + q / D, of 1.0 and 2.0 respectively. If
no cradles are used, q = 0, and the 0.5 % and 1.0 % errors correspond to the use of loading roller diameters two or four times larger
The true moment arm aT is a a1 a2, and thus the error in the
maximum stress from ignoring shifts in the contact point is:
rL o
rL i
+
c + D + r
c r
100
=
rL o
rL i
2a
c + D + r
c r
(37)
For c r and D, and taking into account that a = Lo Li / 2

1
= Lo / 4 for 4 -point four-point, this simplifies to:
r
c
=
100
r
13
c
3
15
(38)
The error is positive for a rod that is arched downward as shown

in Fig. 24 meaning that the simple formula ignoring the curvature is
1
larger than the true stress. For 4 -point four-point flexure, the error
is 1 % for r / c = 0.0033 c / r = 300 and is 0.5 % for r / c
= 0.0017 c / r = 600. The analysis for a rod that is arched upwards
is similar, but the error is negative and of slightly less magnitude.
The error is independent of the rod or fixture properties. For
small curvatures it simply depends upon the ratio of the roller or
knife edge size to the initial rod curvature. The larger the rollers, the
greater is the error. The error could be eliminated by using very
sharp contact points, but that would incur wedging stress errors and
excessive contact stresses. If some specimens are bowed, then the
degree of bow or curvature should be measured and the experimental errors estimated with Eq 38. There are several options if the
error is significant. One option is to test all specimens with the
same orientation in the bend fixture and the stresses corrected or at
least an estimate of error reported. Alternately, the specimens may
be rejected. A 1 % error occurs for a four-point bend fixture with
20 mm by 40 mm spans, a roller diameter of 4.5 mm r
= 2.25 mm, and a 3 mm diameter rod specimen that has a radius of
curvature of 675 mm. The apparent bow of the middle of the specimen, , relative to the rod ends is related to the radius of curvature
by:
= c 2c LT/221/2
(39)
where LT is the overall rod length. For the example given above, and
assuming a 50 mm long specimen, the bow in the middle is
0.46 mm, an easily detected and measured amount.
The error for three-point loading with a rod specimen bowed
downwards is less than that for four-point bending since there is no
lateral contact point shift for the middle loading point. For a beam
arched downward:
=
r
100
c + D
(40)
which for large radius of curvature, c D, is:

=
r
100
c
(41)
This is quite simply the ratio of the roller radius to the specimen
radius of curvature. So a 1 % error arises from a radius of curvature
100 times the contact roller radius, or 50 times the roller diameter.
A 0.5 % error arises from a specimen radius of curvature 100 times
the roller diameter. The error for an upwardly arched rod has the
same magnitude but is negative.
Large Deflection
FIG. 24A specimen with an initial curvature. (a) The overall configuration
and the shift of the loading points P / 2. (b) and (c) Details of the loading rollers.
In several instances above, it was assumed that deflections were

small in order to simplify the analysis. Many ceramics have high
elastic moduli, have low to moderate strengths, and the specimen
and fixture geometries are such that small deflection assumption is
valid. There are exceptions. For initially straight beams in bending,
the radius of curvature, R, of a deflected beam is related to the applied moment, M, by [29]:
dy
3
= tan =
dx
4 E
Lo
D
(44)
for three-point and 4 -point four-point, respectively. Note that the

slope for the latter is 50 % greater than for the former. Setting Eqs
43 and 44 equal to 0.1 and rearranging gives:
Lo
E
= 0.200
D
(45)
E
Lo
= 0.133
D
(46)
FIG. 25Large deflections can lead to the development of horizontal force

components shown in (a) that can create either a positive or negative moment
P / 2 tan 1 D / 2 depending upon the overall deflection as shown in the free
body diagrams in (b) and (c).
d 2y
1 M
dx2
=
=
R EI
dy
1+
dx
2 3/2
(42)
For small deflections, the second term in the denominator is

negligible compared to unity and can be ignored. For modest or
large deflections, this term must be included and the nonlinear
equation solved. The primary complication is that significant horizontal forces develop at the loading points as the beam deflects.
Figure 25 shows the inward forces acting on the specimen at the
outer contact points and outwards acting forces acting at the inner
loading points. The magnitude of the forces are P / 2 tan , where
is the angle between the beams slope at the contact point and the
x axis. These force pairs add a moment to the beam in addition to
that applied by the vertical forces. A simple estimate of the limits of
the applicability of simple beam theory can be made by evaluating
the significance of the dy / dx2 term in the denominator of Eq 42.
If the dy / dx2 term is 0.01 (1 %), then dy / dx = tan = 0.1, or
= 5.7. The slopes of three- and four-point loaded beams are greatest at the outer loading points. From simple beam theory (ignoring
the very small nonlinearity), the slopes are:
dy
1
= tan =
dx
2 E
Lo
D
for three-point and 4 -point four-point, respectively. In other words,

meaningful departures from the small deflection assumptions of
simple beam theory occur once the beam deflects enough that the
beam ends are sloped greater than about 5.7. The slopes are functions of the / E and Lo / D ratios.
A more rigorous approach is to solve the nonlinear relationship
Eq 42. West [41] used a numerical analysis to solve for the deflections and stresses for three-point loading. Vrooman and Ritter [40]
and Schile and Sierakowski [42] analyzed four-point loading. Their
approaches were similar and differ slightly in detail. They started
with loading diagrams similar to Fig. 25 but with the exception that
they showed forces acting on the beams neutral axis. These studies
(and other earlier analyses they cited) were concerned with very
large deflection problems and this assumption was made to simplify the analysis. A primary finding of the three studies [4042]
was that deviations from simple beam theory depend upon Lo / D.
The longer the span, the greater the deflections, and the greater the
horizontal force components and errors from large deflections. The
deviations were a direct function of the slope dy / dx at the outer
support point and for small angles, the results matched simple
beam theory. Vrooman and Ritter [40] considered a thin beam as
one such that the Lo / D ratio is greater than 10.
They also concluded the error is related to the ratio of the material strength to the elastic modulus, / E. Lower moduli materials
deflect more and will develop greater horizontal forces. The
strength of the material determines how much force is needed to
break the test piece and hence how much it deflects prior to fracture. Large / E ratios are of concern for plastics with their low
elastic moduli and nonlinear deflection behavior is observed at
Lo / D ratios as small as 6.2 in three-point loading [43].
Wests final results [41] for three-point loading are correction
factors 2 to the simple beam theory stress solution, T
= 2b for the maximum stress. Hence the error in stress in percent is 1001 / 2 1. Figure 26 shows the correction factors
and the error are simply a function of the midspan deflection relative to the total span7. The materials elastic modulus and the moment of inertia affect the error through the deflection. Significant
stress error 5 % occurs for a normalized midspan deflection
/ Lo of 0.088. This corresponds to an outer contact point angle of
15, which is a large and easily observed angle. Curve fitting his
numerical analysis results with a third order polynomial allows us
to estimate that a 1 % stress error arises from normalized midspan
deflections / Lo of 0.0373 or 1 / 26.8 where Lo is the total span in
three-point loading. A 0.5 % error arises from a normalized deflection of 0.0245 or 1 / 40.8. So for a 40 mm total span, the deflections
are 1.5 mm and 1.0 mm, respectively. These deflections are of the
7
(43)
West expressed the deflection ratio as the midspan deflection normalized by the
half span in his paper. The errors are reported in this paper relative to the deflection normalized by the full span, Lo.
FIG. 26Stress correction factor 2 and stress error for large deflection for
three-point bending versus normalized midspan deflection. The stress errors are
negative. After West [41].
same order as some typical specimen heights. The errors are systematic and negative meaning that simple beam theory underestimates the true stress in all specimens tested in a group. Although
Wests analysis was intended for rectangular cross-section beams,
the same approach applies to rod specimens. The influence of the
shape is through the moment of inertia, I, that is factored into the
deflection.
The midspan deflection 3 for three-point loading from simple
beam theory (for very small deflections and the small deviations
from linearity that we are concerned with) is:
3 =
PL3o
48EI
(47)
and since = PLoD / 8I for three-point loading:
3
Lo
1
6 E
Lo
D
(48)
From Fig. 26 and using the polynomial fit through Wests results,
3 / Lo is 0.0373 for a 1 % stress error and rearranging Eq 48 gives
for three-point:
E
Lo
= 0.224
D
(49)
For a 0.5 % stress error, 3 / Lo is 0.0245 and:

E
Lo
= 0.147
D
(50)
In other words, Eqs 49 and 50 give the Lo / D ratios that give rise to
stress errors of 1 % and 0.5 %, respectively, for a material with a
particular E / ratio. Figure 27 shows these limits for three-point
loading for several classes of materials. The outcome for a 1 %
error is almost identical to that in Eq 45 arrived at by the much
simpler approach. Smaller Lo / D ratios give smaller errors, and
greater Lo / D ratios give greater errors.
A simple approximation may be used to convert these recom1
mendations to 4 -point four-point loading. The stress error arises
17
FIG. 27Recommended limits for the fixture span to specimen diameter

Lo / D ratio as a function of the elastic modulus to average strength E /
ratio. The span length and specimen diameter should be chosen so that the Lo / D
ratio is less than the limits shown in order to keep the stress error from large
deflections within the limits shown. The limit lines overlap for three-point for a
0.5 % stress error and for four-point for a 1.0 % stress error.
from horizontal forces due to beam deflection and the resultant moments. At the outer loading (support) points, the horizontal forces
1
are P / 2 tan 1. From Eqs 43 and 44, the slope for a 4 -point fourpoint loaded beam is 50 % greater than the slope of a three-point
loaded beam. Hence the stress error is of the order of 50 % greater
1
for four-point than for three-point loading. Thus, for 4 -point fourpoint loading:
Lo
E
= 0.149
D
(51)
Lo
E
= 0.098
D
(52)
for 1 % and 0.5 % errors, respectively. Once again, these outcomes

from the modified West analysis match those from the simple
analysis that led to Eq 46. Figure 27 also shows the Lo / D limits for
1
4 -point four-point loading. It is apparent that some care must be
exercised in the choice of fixture spans and specimen diameters
with low E / materials such as yttria-stabilized zirconia polycrystal and magnesia-doped partially stabilized zirconia, glass ceramics, and strong tungsten carbides. Equations 4952 may be used as
guidance for the selection of fixture spans and specimen diameters.
These Lo / D limits are approximations only since they are based
on the assumption that forces act on the beam neutral axis. The
horizontal forces actually act on the top and bottom surfaces of the
beam. This affects the moment created by the horizontal forces particularly for small deflections. The sign of the moment changes depending upon whether the axis of the horizontal force goes below
(Fig. 25(b)) or above (Fig. 25(c)) the centroid of the beam on the
right side in the free body diagram. When the inner loading point
has deflected by one half the beam height, then the moment vanishes. The matter is even more complex for the inner span in four-

point loading since the horizontal forces at the inner and outer loading points act at different distances above or below the centroid at
the end of the free body section.
Figure 8(a) shows moderate deflection in the tool steel rod in the
fixtures when loaded to a peak stress of 1200 MPa and peak strain
of 0.6 % for the nominal 40 mm by 80 mm spans and 6.35 mm rod
diameter. The Lo / D ratio is 12.6. The E / ratio is about 170. The
deflection looks dramatic, but in reality it is not very severe. The
load-strain graph was almost perfectly linear from zero to peak load
with a correlation coefficient of 0.999999. The midspan deflection
to diameter ratio / D was only 0.21.
Although we have been primarily concerned with small deviations that cause stress errors of the order of 0.5 % to 1 %, very large
deflections lead to large horizontal forces and moment arm lengths.
Moments are created that are commensurate with those from the
vertical forces. Significant nonlinearities in load-deflection response arise and an instability point is reached whereby the specimen slips through the outer support points and bottoms out on the
fixtures. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has
tested thin glass fibers in bending. West [41] showed the instability
point occurs in three-point loading once the midspan deflection is
about 0.2 to 0.25 times the full span, corresponding to a specimen
rotation at the outer contact point of about 35 to 40. These deflections and angles far exceed those recommended for normal practice. This instability estimate is about the same as Schile and Sierakowskis [42] analytical estimate of 35 for four-point loading.
Vrooman and Ritter [40] experimentally observed instability at
40 degrees for one particular four-point configuration when very
high strength, acid etched glass rods were tested with a Lo / D ratio
of 21. They cited another study when instability occurred for fourpoint tested very high strength glass rods with Lo / D ratios as low as
10.
FIG. 28Elliptical specimen cross sections. The axis of loading is vertical in

each case. The specimen is tested flat in (a) and standing up in (b).
terms, a hand micrometer with flat anvil faces or a caliper that has a
resolution of 0.01 mm is adequate provided that the instrument is
accurate. This error can be practically eliminated ( 0.10 to 0.15
%) by the use of a Vernier or digital hand micrometer with a resolution of 0.002 mm. Small diameter rods 3 mm should be measured with such a hand micrometer. The diameter should be measured in the specimen gage section region or in the vicinity of the
fracture origin area. If the measurements are made before specimen
fracture, care should be taken not to damage the specimen by
scratching or creating contact damage. Ball or radius tip micrometers should not be used.
As-fired or extruded rods may be noncircular. Some ground rods
may have lobes as a result of machining or polishing. It would be
difficult to analyze all possible variations, so an elliptical cross section shape as shown in Fig. 28 is assumed as an approximation. The
maximum stress formula must be adjusted for the revised moment
of inertia and also for the changed distance of the outer fibers from
the neutral axis. The moment of inertia of an ellipse about the neutral axis is I = ab3 / 4. The maximum stress then is:
Wrong Specimen Size or Cross-Section Shape

Correct measurement of the rod diameter is important since, as Eq
2 shows, stress is proportional to the inverse cube of the diameter. If
the ratio of an incorrect diameter measurement to the true diameter
is eD = Dincor/Dtrue, then the error in stress expressed as a percentage
is:
= 1/eD3 1 100
(53)
To keep the stress error at a 1 % level, then the diameter should be

measured to within 0.33 %. For a 0.5 % stress error, the diameter
should be measured to within 0.17 %. So, for example, for a rod of
6 mm diameter the measurement should be accurate to within
0.02 mm for a 1 % error, or 0.01 mm for a 0.5 % error. In practical
4M
Mb
=
I
ab2
It is important to know whether the major axis is aligned parallel

or perpendicular to the loading axis. Ideally, the ellipticity should
be evaluated and marked on the specimen beforehand and the
specimen inserted into the test fixtures with a consistent orientation
and Eq 54 used with the correct dimensions. If the ellipticity is
overlooked or ignored and only a single measurement of the rod
thickness made, then bounds on the range of stress errors can be
made by assuming that either dimension 2a or 2b was measured,
and the resulting diameter inserted into the simple stress formula
Eq 2. Another possibility is that both 2a and 2b are measured and
an average used as an effective diameter of an assumed circular
rod. Table 1 shows the resulting errors. They may be either positive
TABLE 1Stress errors for elliptical cross-section shaped rods.
Case
1
(54)
Procedure used
Cross section is assumed to be circular.
Only dimension 2b is measured and it is
aligned parallel to the loading axis.
Only dimension 2a is measured and it is
aligned perpendicular to the loading axis.
Dimensions 2a and 2b are measured and
an average used.
Stress error
(%)
a
1 100
b
b 2
1 100
a
8ab2
1 100
a + b3
or negative depending upon the a / b ratio and the specimen orientation. The least error occurs for case 3, wherein an average size is
used. The next worse case, which has twice as much error, is case 1,
where only the height 2b is measured. The worst error, twice as bad
again, is for case 2, where only the width 2a is measured. If an
average diameter is used (case 3) and the a / b ratio is between
0.98 and 1.02, the stress error is 1 % or less. Similarly, if the a / b
ratio is between 0.99 and 1.01, the error is less than 0.5 %. In summary, greater errors occur if the ellipticity is not detected and a
single 2a or 2b dimension used as the diameter of an assumed circular cross section (cases 1 and 2). If the ellipticity is detected, an
average diameter should suffice (case 3). There is no error if the
ellipticity is detected, the specimen orientation is noted, and the
correct dimensions used in Eq 54. The direction of the loading axis
may easily be deduced after fracture from the compression curl on
the fracture surface (Fig. 21).
Testing Machine Requirements and Loading Rates

The fracture load uncertainty should be 1 % or 0.5 % as required.
Load readout resolution should not be confused with load accuracy
and precision. A machine that displays a break load to 1 % or better
resolution may not necessarily be accurate at that level. Many ceramics and nearly all glasses are sensitive to loading rates, usually
due to the presence of environmentally assisted slow crack growth.
Water either in the form of a liquid or as humidity in ambient air
can cause crack growth in stressed specimens. Small surface cracks
can grow meaningful amounts in the short times necessary to break
a specimen. There are two remedies: either test at fast stressing
rates or surround the fixture and specimen in an inert environment
such as dry nitrogen gas during testing.
Table 2 summarizes the findings of the previous subsections in
this section.
Other Factors
Specimen Preparation
The flexural strength of a ceramic or glass depends on its inherent
resistance to fracture (e.g., fracture toughness) and the size and severity of flaws. Sometimes fired ceramic or drawn glass rods are
tested in their as-processed condition, but often rods are machined
to final size. Grinding can introduce microcracks or residual
stresses which may have a pronounced effect on flexural strength.
Machining damage imposed during specimen preparation can be
either a random interfering factor, or an inherent part of the strength
characteristic to be measured. With good machining practice, it is
possible to obtain fractures from the materials natural flaws.
A common misunderstanding is that strength depends upon surface finish or surface roughness. Sometimes there is a correlation,
but often there is not. The reason is that strength is controlled by the
size and depth of cracks penetrating deep below the surface,
whereas the surface roughness only characterizes the outer surface.
Multiple steps are almost always used with diamond abrasive grit
grinding. Coarse grinding wheels and fast initial grinding conditions are used to efficiently remove material. Final machining steps
with fine grit wheels, lapping, or even polishing bring the part to
final dimensions, but may not necessarily eliminate prior damage.
The goal is for the final finishing grinding to remove deep cracks
from the earlier grinding stages and to minimize the introduction of
19
new damage. Grinding cracks are asymmetric as shown in Fig. 29.

The severest cracks are parallel to the direction of abrasive motion.
Centerless or transverse grinding aligns the severest machining
cracks perpendicular to the rod tension stress axis. The specimen
may fracture from these cracks when loaded in flexure. Longitudinal grinding, which is commonly used to orient grinding damage
cracks in rectangular bend bars, is less commonly used for rod
specimens but is feasible.
It is difficult to specify a universal grinding procedure for all
ceramics and glasses. Nevertheless, some general guidelines for ceramics are included in ASTM Standard C1684 [26]. The guidelines
include grinding wheel specifications and material removal conditions for coarse, intermediate, and finish grinding. The guidelines
were effective in minimizing or eliminating grinding cracks as
strength-limiting flaws in several grades of silicon nitrides, aluminas, and silicon carbides, and it is expected they are suitable for
many ceramics. Nevertheless, materials with low fracture toughness and a greater susceptibility to grinding damage may require
finer grinding wheels at lower removal rates. References [1820]
may be consulted for additional information including grinding
damage maps and many illustrations of grinding cracks in ceramics.
Statistics
The same general issues of statistical sampling apply to cylindrical
specimens as to rectangular specimens or even to tension specimens. For purposes of estimating the mean, ten or more specimens
should be tested. For more detailed statistical analyses such as
Weibull parameters estimation [15,44], thirty or more specimens
should be tested to minimize the uncertainties of the parameter estimates. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into statistical
analysis of brittle material strength data, but consensus has been
reached at an international level and there now are formal documentary standards for Weibull analyses of ceramic strength
[4547]. They all use the maximum likelihood analysis and have
the same confidence bounds on the Weibull parameter estimates
from small sample sizes. The uncertainties from statistical analysis
do not take into account uncertainties from experimental errors,
which are the focus of the present paper. A National Advisory Materials Board report [48] on ceramic reliability analysis stated that:
Statistical fracture theory is based on the premise that specimento-specimen variability of strength is an intrinsic property of the
ceramic, reflecting its flaw population and not measurement errors.
Use of statistics to account for a variability having an assigned
cause, of course, is quite different from usage of statistics in experimental work and it introduces a peculiar problemnamely, that the
ceramic strength data must be essentially free of experimental
error. If the data reflects experimental error as well as flaw variability, the resulting statistical description of the strength of the ceramic will be incorrect. Error free data is a goal, but the total
elimination of experimental error may be impractical or expensive.
As we stated in the beginning of this paper (first subsection of
Stress State and Experimental Errors), our goal is to limit experimental errors to an acceptably low level so that materials actual
variability can be properly evaluated.
The Weibull distribution is appropriate for analysis of the
strength distributions in ceramics and glasses. The primary exception is for small sample sizes when one is only interested in an average strength and standard deviation for simple comparative purposes. There is a sound technical basis for the use of the Weibull

TABLE 2Testing Recommendations.
1
Error Source
Initial rod curvatureintrinsic neutral axis shift
Wrong fixture span(s)
Eccentric fixture spans
(four-point)
or
misaligned middle point (threepoint)
Poor articulation
Fixture friction
Section
Initial Curve
Wrong Spans
Eccentric Loading
Poor articulation
Fixture friction
Wedging stresses
Wedging Stresses
Contact stresses
Contact Stresses
Contact point tangency shift
Initial rod curvatureextrinsic error
Large deflection
Wrong specimen diameter

Irregular cross section-elliptical
Test machine break force

readout
Number of specimens
Contact Point Tangency

Shift
Initial Rod Curvature
Large Deflection
Wrong Specimen Size or

Cross-Section Shape
Wrong Specimen Size or
Cross-Section Shape
Testing Machine
Requirements and Loading
Rates
Common Errors
Three-Point
4 -Point Four-Point
Recommendations
Recommendations
Same as four-point
Limit / D 40 for 1%
1
Limit / D 83 for 2 %
Use es / Lo 0.01 for 1%
Use es / Lo 0.0025 for 1%
1
1
Use es / Lo 0.0012 for 2 %
Use es / Lo 0.005 for 2 %
Use e / Lo 0.05 for 1%
Error varies with location. Use
1
e / Lo 0.005 if the top pivots
Use e / Lo 0.035 for 2
for 1%
1
Use e / Lo 0.0025 for 2 %
Use half these limits if the
bottom
pivots instead.
Design fixture to ensure easy
No articulation needed.
pivoting of top or bottom pair of
contact points.
Use rollers or bearings for all
Use rollers or bearings for two outer points.
four loading points.
Middle roller need not roll.
Error varies with location. It can be as much as 5.8% directly under a roller for Lo / D = 5,
but is negligible away from the loading points. The effect on the Weibull
characteristic strength is much less. Use Lo / D 5, but Lo / D 10 is preferred
Use Lo / D 3, but for 3 Lo / D 5, inspect fracture patterns to ensure valid
fractures. Use hardened dowel rods as loading rollers. Use cradles if necessary.
Error depends upon specimen
Error depends upon specimen properties and
properties and diameter and
diameter and fixture roller sizes. Use roller sizes
fixture roller sizes. Use roller
comparable to the specimen diameter.
sizes comparable to the
See Eq 30 for error estimate.
specimen diameter.
See Eq 29 for error estimate.
Use c / r 100 or c / D 50
Use c / r 300 or c / D 150
for 1%
for 1%
Use c / r 600 or c / D 300
Use c / r 200 or c / D 100
1
1
for 2 %
for 2 %
Error depends upon specimen properties. Use a
Error depends upon specimen
fixture with
properties. Use a fixture with
Lo / D 0.224E / for %
Lo / D 0.149E / for 1%
1
1
Lo / D 0.098E / for 2 %
Lo / D 0.147E / for 2 %
See Fig. 27
See Fig. 27
Measure D within 0.33% for 1%
1
Measure D within 0.17% for 2 %
Measure multiple diameters. Use an average diameter if
0.98 2a / 2b 1.02 for 1%
1
0.99 2a / 2b 1.01 for 2 %
Measure P to 1% for 1%
1
Measure P to 1% for 2 %
Break 10 or more for purposes of estimating the mean.
Break 30 or more for Weibull analyses. See ASTM Practice C 1239 [45], ISO
20501 [46], or CEN ENV 843-5 [47] for confidence intervals.
distribution and experience has shown it is applicable in most

cases. Additional information on the Weibull model and its correlation to flaw size distributions may be found in Refs. [4952].
Fractography is strongly recommended to confirm whether one or
more flaw populations are active and whether the origins are inherently volume- or surface-distributed. ASTM Practice C 1322 [27]
and Ref. [28] may be consulted to aid in fractographic analysis.
diameter and outer span lengths. The Weibull weakest link model
[15] predicts a strength dependency upon component size that has
been verified by a number of studies [13]. Weibull effective volumes and surfaces are used to scale ceramic strengths from one
component size or testing configuration to another. Closed form
mathematical solutions for scaling the strengths of ceramic or glass
rods to other sizes and configurations may be found in Ref. [52].
Strength Scaling
Larger specimens or components are apt to be weaker due to the
greater chance of their having a larger severer flaw. Three-point
strengths are greater than four-point strengths for rods of the same
Break Locations
A common misunderstanding about flexure testing of brittle materials is that all fractures should occur directly under the middle
21
FIG. 29Surface grinding may introduce cracks that extend well below the surface. The severest cracks are parallel cracks aligned with the direction of abrasive
motion. The axis of grinding is often chosen to align these cracks with the specimen long axis as shown on the bottom right.
loading point in three-point loading, or within the gage section in

four-point loading. In this respect, Fig. 10 is misleading since it
shows all fractures as being within the inner gage section. Origin
locations can be almost anywhere in the tensile stressed portions of
the test piece. Fracture originates at the single flaw with the worst
combination of size, shape, and local stress. A very large flaw located just outside the inner gage section in four-point flexure will
cause fracture. Large flaws to either side of the middle loading
point in three-point bending can trigger fracture. The propensity for
such fractures depends upon the Weibull modulus. The greater the
Weibull modulus, the tighter the scatter in strengths and the more
consistent are the flaws. Most fractures occur where tensile stresses
are greatest and cluster near the middle load point in three-point or
within a four-point inner gage section. On the other hand, a material
with a large scatter in flaw size, and hence a low Weibull modulus,
has a greater dispersion of fracture locations. Examples have been
shown previously [5355]. An unusual concentration of primary
fracture origins near an inner loading point in four-point bending
may indicate a fixture misalignment. High strength specimens
often have secondary fractures at loading points as a result of reverberations of stored elastic energy in the specimen and fixtures.
Such secondary fractures are not a cause for concern.
Examples
Figure 30 shows a typical Weibull strength distribution graph for a
sintered reaction bonded silicon nitride [1820]. Five test data sets
with different specimen preparation procedures are shown. A maxi-
FIG. 30Strengths of sintered reaction bonded silicon nitride rods with different grinding treatments. m is the Weibull modulus and is the characteristic
strength in MPa. The baseline specimen set and most of the 600 grit transverse
ground rods broke from material flaws. The specimens for the other sets broke
from grinding cracks.
FIG. 31Strengths of fused silica rods ground either transversely or longitudinally with a 320 grit wheel.
mum likelihood analysis in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice C1239 [45] was used to obtain the Weibull parameters shown
in the plot. Rods ground longitudinally with a 320 grit wheel revealed the intrinsic strength of the material whereby strength was
controlled by the materials inherent volume-distributed flaws.
These usually were compositional inhomogeneities and inclusions.
Longitudinal grinding aligned the largest grinding cracks so that
they were not strength limiting. The baseline strength was matched
with a second set of rods that were centerless transverse-ground
with a fine 600 grit wheel. Despite their unfavorable alignment
relative to the stress field, the grinding cracks were very small and
usually not strength controlling. Transverse grinding with coarser
grit wheels caused severe grinding cracks that weakened the material as shown in Fig. 30. Every grinding crack fracture origin was
identified and measured in the study [1820]. Figure 31 shows data
for a fused silica. Glasses are particularly sensitive to surface condition and the strength distributions are dramatically different due
to the different grinding cracks that controlled strength for the two
procedures. Each specimen in the two sets broke from a grinding
crack.
Conclusions
The sources of experimental error in flexure testing of brittle rods
have been identified, quantified, and verified experimentally. Fixture requirements and recommendations for round brittle material
specimens are presented. A new fixture design with load distributing cradles eliminates problems with contact cracking at loading
points. This work and complementary empirical experience on a
wide range of ceramics and glasses serves as the foundation for the
development of ASTM International Test Method C-1684 in 2008.
Acknowledgments
Partial support for this project came from the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Systems Materials Program under contract DE-AC05840R21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. The authors
also thank the members of the NIST Ceramic Machining Consortium in the 1990s for their support of this project.
References
[1] Galilei, G., Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences,
Elsevier Publishers, The Netherlands, 1638.
[2] Duckworth, W. H., Precise Tensile Properties of Ceramic
Bodies, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 34, No. 1, 1951, pp. 19.
[3] Hoagland, R. G., Marschall, C. W., and Duckworth, W. H.,
Reduction of Errors in Ceramic Bend Tests, J. Am. Ceram.
Soc., Vol. 59, No. 56, 1976, pp. 189192.
[4] Jayatilaka, A. De S., Fracture of Engineering Brittle Materials, Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London, 1979.
[5] Baratta, F. I., Requirements for Flexure Testing of Brittle
Materials, U.S. Army Report TR 82-20, U.S. Army Materials
Technology Laboratory, Watertown, MA, April 1982.
[6] Baratta, F. I., Quinn, G. D., and Matthews, W. T., Errors Associated with Flexure Testing of Brittle Materials, U.S. Army
Technical Report MTL TR 87-35, U.S. Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Watertown, MA, July 1987.
[7] MIL STD 1942 (MR), Flexural Strength of High Performance Ceramics at Ambient Temperature, U.S. Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center, Watertown, MA 02172,
21 Nov. 1983. (This standard was canceled and replaced by
ASTM C1161 in 1998).
[8] ASTM, Standard C1161-90, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient Temperature, Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.01, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990.
[9] JIS R 1601, Testing Method for Flexural Strength (Modulus
of Rupture) of High Performance Ceramics, Japanese Standards Association, Tokyo, 1981.
[10] CEN EN 843-1, Advanced Technical CeramicsMonolithic
CeramicsMechanical Properties at Room Temperature,
Part 1: Determination of Flexural Strength, European Committee for Standards, Brussels, 1995.
[11] ISO 14704, Fine Ceramics (Advanced Ceramics, Advanced
Technical Ceramics)Test Method for Flexural Strength of
Monolithic Ceramics at Room Temperature, International
Organization for Standards, Geneva, 1999.
[12] DIN 51110, Part 1, Testing of High Performance Materials,
Four-Point Flexure Testing, German Standards Institute, Berlin, 1989.
[13] Quinn, G. D., and Morrell, R., Design Data for Engineering
Ceramics: A Review of the Flexure Test, J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
Vol. 74, No. 9, 1991, pp. 20372066.
[14] ASTM, Standard C158-95, Standard Test Methods of Flexure Testing of Glass (Determination of the Modulus of Rupture), Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.02, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 1998.
[15] Weibull, W., A Statistical Distribution Function of Wide Applicability, Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Institute for
Engineering Research, Stockholm, Sweden, No. 151, 1939,
pp. 545.
[16] Anonymous, Methods of Testing Electrical Porcelain, Transverse Strength, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 11, No. 6, 1928, pp.
472473.
[17] ASTM, Standard C674-88, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Ceramic Whiteware Materials, Annual
Book of Standards, Vol. 15.02, ASTM International, West
Conshohoken, PA, 1998.
[18] Quinn, G. D., Ives, L. K., and Jahanmir, S., On the Nature of
Machining Cracks in Ground Ceramics: Part I: SRBSN
Strengths and Fractographic Analysis, Mach. Sci. Technol.,
Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 169210.
[19] Quinn, G. D., Ives, L. K., and Jahanmir, S., On the Nature of
Machining Cracks in Ground Ceramics: Part II: Comparison
to Other Silicon Nitrides and Damage Maps, Mach. Sci.
Technol., Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 211237.
[20] Quinn, G. D., Ives, L. K., and Jahanmir, S., On the Fractographic Analysis of Machining Cracks in Ground Ceramics:
A Case Study on Silicon Nitride, Special Publication SP 996,
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, May, 2003.
[21] Kraner, H. M., and Snyder, R. A., Mechanical and Thermal
Shock Tests on Ceramic Insulating Materials, J. Am. Ceram.
Soc., Vol. 14, 1931, pp. 617623.
[22] Newnham, R. C., Strength Tests for Brittle Materials, Proc.
Br. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 25, 1973, pp. 281293.
[23] Stanley, P., Fessler, H., and Sivill, A. D., The Unit Strength
Concept in the Interpretation of Beam Test Results for Brittle
Materials, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Vol. 190, No. 49, 1976,
pp. 585595.
[24] Licht, R. H., Ramanath, S., Simpson, M., and Lilly, E., Innovative Grinding Wheel Design for Cost-Effective Machining
of Advanced Ceramics, Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Final Report, ORNL/sub/93-SM037-1, 1996.
[25] Roebuck, B., Bend Strength Measurements for Hardmetals:
International Prestandardisation Collaborative Activity,
VAMAS Report #31, National Physical Laboratory, United
Kingdom, September, 1997.
[26] ASTM, Standard C-1684-08, Flexural Strength of Advanced
Ceramics at Ambient TemperatureCylindrical Rod
Strength, Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.01, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2008.
[27] ASTM, Standard C1322-96, Standard Practice for Fractography and Characterization of Fracture Origins in Advanced
Ceramics, Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.01, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 1998.
[28] Quinn, G. D., Guide to Practice for Fractography of Ceramics and Glasses, NIST Special Publication SP 960-16, May
2007.
[29] Timoshenko, S., Strength of Materials, Part I, 3rd ed., Van
Nostrand Inc, Princeton, NJ, 1958, pp. 362371.
[30] Roark, R. J., Formulas for Stress and Strain, 4th ed., McGraw
Hill, New York, 1965, pp. 161162.
[31] Quinn, G. D., Twisting and Friction Errors in Flexure Testing, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., Vol. 13, No. 78, 1992, pp. 319
330.
[32] Timoshenko, S., Strength of Materials: Part II, Advanced
Theory and Problems, 2nd ed., D. Van Nostrand Co., New
York, 1941, pp. 352355.
[33] Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J., Theory of Elasticity, 2nd ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1951, pp. 158159. See also the
third edition, dated 1970, which has the information on pp.
113122, 158, and 159.
[34] Von Karman, T., and Seewald, F., Abhandlung Aerodynamik
Institute, Technical Hochschule, Aachen, Aachen, Germany,
1927, Vol. 7, p. 3.
[35] Frocht, M. M., Photoelasticity, Wiley, New York, 1948, Vol.
II, pp. 104117.
[36] Smart, J., The Determination of the Weibull Parameters for
Brittle Materials from Three-Point Bend Tests, Res. Mech.,
Vol. 31, 1990, pp. 329341.
[37] Munz, D., and Fett, T., Ceramics, Mechanical Properties,
Failure Behavior, Materials Selection, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
23
[38] Fok, S. L., and Smart, J., Length Effects of Rods Under
Three-Point Bending for Determining the Weibull Parameters
of Brittle Materials, Probab. Eng. Mech., Vol. 8, 1993, pp.
6773.
[39] Kittl, P., and Diaz, G., On the Seewald-Karman Correction in
Fracture Statistics of Round Brittle Beams Under Flexure,
Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 32, No. 2, 1989, pp. 259264.
[40] Vrooman, D. L., and Ritter, J. E., Jr., Nonlinear Behavior of
Thin Beams in Four-Point Bending, Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
Vol. 49, No. 9, 1970, pp. 789793.
[41] West, D. C., Flexure Testing of Plastics, Exp. Mech., Vol.
21, No. 2, 1964, pp. 185190.
[42] Schile, R. D., and Sierakowski, R. L., Large Deflections of a
Beam Loaded and Supported at Two Points, Int. J. NonLinear Mech., Vol. 2, 1967, pp. 6168.
[43] Kendall, K., The Anomalous Bending Strength of Long
Brittle Beams, J. Mater. Sci. Lett., Vol. 3, 1984, pp. 1052
1054.
[44] Quinn, G. D., Fractography and the Army Flexure Standard,
Fractography of Glasses and Ceramics, Varner, J., and Frechette, V., Eds., American Ceramic Society, Westerville Ohio,
1988, pp. 319334.
[45] ASTM, Standard C1239-93, Standard Practice for Reporting
Uniaxial Strength Data and Estimating Weibull Distribution
Parameters for Advanced Ceramics, Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.01, ASTM International, West Conshohoken,
PA, 1998.
[46] ISO 20501, Fine Ceramics (Advanced Ceramics, Advanced
Technical Ceramics)Weibull Statistics for Strength Data,
International Organization for Standards, Geneva, 2003.
[47] ENV 843-5:2006, Advanced Monolithic Ceramics
Mechanical Properties at Room Temperature Part 5: Statistical Analysis, European Committee for Standards, Brussels,
2006.
[48] Reliability of Ceramics for Heat Engine Applications, National Materials Advisory Board Report NMAB-357, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1980.
[49] Jayatilaka, A. de S., and Trustrum, K., Statistical Approach
to Brittle Fracture, J. Mater. Sci., Vol. 12, 1977, pp. 1426
1430.
[50] Danzer, R. J., General Strength Distribution Function for
Brittle Materials, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 10, 1992, pp.
461492.
[51] Van der Zwaag, S., The Concept of Filament Strength and
the Weibull Modulus, J. Test. Eval., Vol. 17, No. 5, 1989, pp.
292298.
[52] Quinn, G. D., Weibull Effective Volumes and Surfaces for
Cylindrical Rods Loaded in Flexure, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., Vol.
86, No. 3, 2003, pp. 475479.
[53] Diaz, G., Kittl, P., Martinez, V. H., and Henriquez, R., Probabalistic Strength of Glass Cylinders Subjected to Flexure:
Total and Local Probabilities of Fracture, J. Mater. Sci. Vol.
37, 2002, pp. 14371441.
[54] Johnson, C., and Tucker, W. T., Advanced Statistical Concepts of Fracture in Brittle Materials, in Proceedings of the
23rd Automotive Technology Contractors Coordination Meeting, October 2124, 1985, P-165, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrandale, PA, 1986, pp. 265269.
[55] Schultrich, B., and Fahrmann, M., Relation Between Defect
Position in Bending and Strength Variance, J. Mater. Sci.,
Vol. 3, 1984, pp. 597599.

Paper Uji Tarik

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Paper Uji Tarik

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 37, No.

Flexural Strength of Ceramic and Glass Rods

2 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

liptical cross section and slightly bowed specimens are allowed.

Weibull [15] cited porcelain rod strengths to support his statistical

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

perimental error and were estimated to be as large as 16 % and 14

FIG. 4Cradle design.

4 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 6The moment distribution for a three-point loading with three 6 mm

cradles were made of a 17-4 PH stainless steel with a Rockwell

Certain commercial materials or equipment are identified in this paper to

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

Stress State and Experimental Errors

Type KFG-2N-120-C1-11L3M3R, Omega Engineering, Stamford, CT.

where M is the applied moment, c is the distance of the outer fibers

The maximum stress occurs only at a point directly under the

6 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 10Distribution of fracture initiation site locations in a test set of 6 mm

Hereafter in this paper we define the stress error in percent as:

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

where b is the simple beam stress estimate ignoring the error or

The four-point configuration amplifies the span error es / Lo

The error at point 3 is:

2e/Lo + e/a + 2e/ae/Lo

+ 2e/Lo e/a + 2e/ae/Lo

For 4 -point four-point loading, these simplify to:

8 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

which, for the case of 4 -point four-point loading, are:

A 1 % misalignment e / Lo = 0.01 is amplified to 4 % stress

The error depends upon the square of the positional misalignment

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

straint of magnitude P / 2 occurs at each loading point where is

This is a systematic positive error. Every specimen in a batch will

10 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

roller is compressive and reduces the stress assumed by simple

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

FIG. 17(a) Three-point loading of a 9 mm diameter short glass specimen with

sions at loading points or at support platforms. The rollers were

12 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

practice, we found it simplest to select low cost steel dowel rods or

Contact Point Tangency Shift

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

14 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

Combining Eqs 1, 20, and 24 and then 21 and 25:

than the specimen, respectively. On the other hand, some ceramics

Initial Rod Curvature

Using a true moment MT = P / 2 a h1 h2 and T = MTc / I as well

and for three-point flexure is:

four-point flexure is:

For c r and D, and taking into account that a = Lo Li / 2

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

The error is positive for a rod that is arched downward as shown

which for large radius of curvature, c D, is:

In several instances above, it was assumed that deflections were

16 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

for three-point and 4 -point four-point, respectively. Note that the

FIG. 25Large deflections can lead to the development of horizontal force

For small deflections, the second term in the denominator is

for three-point and 4 -point four-point, respectively. In other words,

QUINN ET AL. ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CERAMIC AND GLASS RODS

and since = PLoD / 8I for three-point loading:

For a 0.5 % stress error, 3 / Lo is 0.0245 and:

FIG. 27Recommended limits for the fixture span to specimen diameter