Quantitative Fractography

Introduction

THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE of quantitative fractography is to express the characteristics of the

features in the fracture surface in quantitative terms, such as the true area, length, size, spacing,
orientation, and location, as well as distributions of these, as required. As will be discussed in this
article, the more prominent techniques for studying the fracture surface are based on the
projected images (the picture obtained with the scanning electron microscope), stereoscopic
viewing

(using stereophotogrammetry), and sectioning (to generate profiles). The use of an automatic
image analysis system with a digitizing tablet is extremely helpful, although manual methods offer
efficient alternatives in some cases.

Instrumentation, principles, and applications associated with image analysis systems are discussed
in the article "Image Analysis" in Volume 10 of ASM Handbook, formerly 9th Edition of Metals
Handbook.

Treatment of the basic data includes the choice of triangulation methods, stereophotogrammetry,
or the angular distribution of elements along the fracture profile. Although these procedures allow
the fracture surface area to be estimated, they are essentially only approximations of the complex
and irregular fracture surfaces found in metals.

Another approach to this problem invokes the statistically exact assumption-free relationships of
stereology, which yield a linear equation between the surface, RS, and profile, RL, roughness
parameters. The parameter RS is defined as the true surface area divided by its projected area,
and RL is the true profile length divided by its projected length. Because RL is experimentally
available, calculation of RS gives the quantity sought, the fracture surface area, with an accuracy
determined by the accuracy with which RL was determined. The mathematical relationships
developed in quantitative stereology are described in the article "Quantitative Metallography" in
Volume 9 of ASM Handbook, formerly 9th Edition of Metals Handbook.

Knowing the roughness parameters enables simple relationships to be set up for features in the
fracture surface (see the section "Analytical Procedures" in this article for a discussion of
roughness parameters). Errors of over 100% are found when values of dimple size or facet size are
calculated directly from the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) fractographs without corrections
(see Example 5). Other examples of the application of these new quantitative methods are given in
this article for striation spacings (Example 1), precision matching (Example 2), crack path tortuosity
(Example 4), and the use of statistical methods as opposed to individual measurements on
features in the fracture surface (Example 7).

Development of Quantitative Fractography

There has been an increased effort recently toward developing more quantitative geometrical
methods for characterizing the nonplanar surfaces encountered in fractures (Ref 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8). A concerted effort has produced gratifying advances in the capabilities to quantify the
fracture surface and its features (Ref 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24).
Although experimental methods are still being explored and efficient analytical procedures are
being developed, the results achieved to this point have significantly advanced the progress
toward a general treatment of the problem.

The earliest attempts at a quantitative approach to fractography were concerned with individual
features. Simple measurements of height, depth, or separation could be performed by shadowing,
stereoscopy, or interferometry (Ref 25, 26, 27). Clearly, these methods were applicable only to the
simplest geometric configurations, such as a hillock raised above a flat background. Carl Zapffe's
early optical examinations of fracture surfaces contributed significantly to the qualitative
knowledge of fracture geometry (Ref 28). However, low magnifications and an unsatisfactory
depth of field limited the usefulness of this technique. With the advent of fracture replicas and the
transmission electron microscope, great strides were achieved in the resolution of fine detail and
in higher magnifications (Ref 29, 30, 31). Quantification techniques were still limited to the more
primitive measurements and were applied mostly to the projected image (or photograph) of the
replica (Ref 32). The general availability of the scanning electron microscope opened new avenues
toward the understanding of fracture structures in three dimensions. Researchers increasingly
used quantitative measurements on SEM photomicrographs. Although direct measurements on
these projected images do not yield correct spatial information, a large step forward was being
taken toward quantification. A detailed review of Zapffe's contributions to modern fractography
and the development of the transmission and scanning electron microscopes and

their application to fracture studies is presented in the article "History of Fractography" in this
Volume.

The basic problem in quantifying a fracture surface is a very general one. Briefly put, the area of a
fracture surface must be known in order to apply numbers to the components that constitute the
nonplanar surface. Once the area has been determined, preferably by a fairly simple and direct
procedure, the other quantities of interest in the fracture surface can be determined.

As stated above, the current, more prominent techniques for studying the fracture surface are
based on projected images (the SEM picture), stereoscopic methods (including photogrammetry),
and profile generation (obtained from the fracture surface). Each method has its advantages and
disadvantages. The metallurgist needs a procedure that will accommodate the complex and
irregular fracture surfaces found in metals and alloys. This overriding requirement immediately
narrows down the selection of suitable experimental techniques.

It would also be beneficial to use the basic equations of stereology to the utmost (Ref 33). These
statistically exact assumption-free relationships apply equally well to the flat features in the plane
of polished specimens as they do to the spatial objects in three-dimensional sample space. If a
planar cut is made through the fracture surface, a profile is obtained. Its length, angular
distribution of its segments, orientation characteristics, and so on, can be measured as if it were a
line in a plane.

On the other hand, it may also be necessary to determine the area of the fracture surface.
Unfortunately, the facets of a fracture surface are usually preferentially, rather than randomly,
oriented. This presents a difficult sampling problem if the stereological relationships based on
random sampling and measurements are to be used. For example, to determine the spatial
angular distribution of facets, a prohibitive number of sampling planes at many angles and
locations are theoretically required (Ref 34). However, alternatives to random testing are
available, such as those that express the surface area in terms of roughness parameters, the
degree of orientation, and so on. Fortunately, an investigation of sampling requirements (Ref 17)
on a computer-simulated fracture surface (CSFS) (Ref 35) indicates that relatively simple serial
sectioning may be adequate for determining the fracture surface area.