Fracture Toughness (K_IC) of Lithography Based Manufactured Alumina Ceramic

Abstract

). This is supported by a homogeneous microstructure showing no hint of the layers used during production.

3D‐printed alumina‐based ceramics with spatially resolved porosity

“…The individual values are reported in Table 3. The fracture toughness of the relatively dense pure alumina (AP0‐No1) was 2.86 ± 0.07 MPa m 1/2 , similar to the K Ic of 3D‐printed alumina reported in literature 62 . The K Ic of alumina samples AP0‐No1 to AP25‐No7, with the same PMMA particle types, sintering temperature, and layer thickness (i.e., PMMA‐1/1650°C/50 μm) follows a decreasing trend with increasing PMMA‐content and corresponding porosity.…”

“…The fracture toughness of the relatively dense pure alumina (AP0-No1) was 2.86 ± 0.07 MPa m 1/2 , similar to the K Ic of 3D-printed alumina reported in literature. 62 The K Ic of alumina samples AP0-No1 to AP25-No7, with the same PMMA particle types, sintering temperature, and layer thickness (i.e., PMMA-1/1650 • C/50 μm) follows a decreasing trend with increasing PMMA-content and corresponding porosity. These experimental results are in good agreement with the fracture toughness of porous ceramics fabricated with conventional methods, as reported in literature, where the fracture toughness of alumina may decrease by approximately 40% and 55% for 20% and 28% porosity, respectively.…”

A Comprehensive Study of Al2O3 Mechanical Behavior Using Density Functional Theory and Molecular Dynamics

“…According to the MD simulation results, the maximum stress value reached 29.79 GPa, which is critical stress for crack growth. The MD simulation reveals a fracture toughness of 2.8 MPa• √ m for Al 2 O 3 , showing acceptable proximity to the fracture toughness determined in our DFT calculations (an approximate average of 3.0 MPa √ m) and experimentally available data (ranging between 3.0 and 5.0 MPa √ m) [38][39][40]. This consistency is illustrated in Table 4.…”

“…The complex interplay between surface energy, Young's modulus, and the specific characteristics of each vacancy type contributes to the observed differences in fracture toughness values. The close agreement between the fracture toughness values obtained through our DFT computational method (approximately averaging 3.0 MPa √ m) and the range of experimental results (between 3.0 and 5.0 MPa √ m) [37][38][39] is encouraging. This convergence suggests that our computational approach provides accurate and reliable predictions of the material's resistance to crack propagation.…”