Contents:

Chapter 1.

Introduction

Chapter 2.

Literature Survey

Page
3

2.1

Fracture Toughness and Fracture Design

2.2

Mechanical Properties of Ceramics

2.3

Biomedical Engineering Society Newsletter

Volume 20, No.2 1996

Chapter 3.

Fracture Theory

10

3.1 Introduction

10

3.2 Fracture Toughness

10

3.3 Griffiths Theory

12

Chapter 4.

Testing Methods

15

4.1

Introduction

15

4.2

Double Torsion Test

16

4.3

The Hounsfield and Instron Testers

19

4.4

The Rig and Testing Procedure

20

4.5

Rig Assembly

22

4.6

Application of Testing Device-PMMA Testing

23

Chapter 5.

Design of The Rig

25

5.1

Introduction

25

5.2

Engineering Drawings

26

5.2.1 Top Plate

26

5.2.2

27

Bottom Plate

5.2.3 Base Plate

28

5.2.4

Rig Assembly

29

5.2.5 Guide plate/pins/rods

30

5.2.6

Test Specimen

31

Experimental Results

32

Chapter 6.
6.1

Introduction

32

6.2

Perspex in Air

33

6.3

Perspex in Water

34

6.4

Perspex in Heated Water

35

6.5

Discussion of Results

36

6.6

Sources of Error

37

Theoretical Results

Chapter 7.

38

7.1

Finite Element Analysis

38

7.2

Discussion of Results

39

7.3

Further Work

40

7.4

Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Results

40

Chapter 8.

Conclusion

41

Bibliography

42

Appendices

43

1.

Introduction:

The aim of this project is to design and manufacture a testing device to measure the
fracture toughness of brittle materials. Brittle materials are those that can only withstand
very small extensions in the plastic range before fracture occurs. Fracture toughness is the
ability of a material to prevent propagation of cracks across its section that would thus
cause fracture.

The purpose of this project was to decide on a testing method to accurately determine a
value of fracture toughness for brittle materials, and once the tester had been designed
and manufactured, to carry out a number of experiments to determine values for fracture
toughness of Perspex under different conditions. These values would then be compared to
theoretical values calculated using Finite Element Analysis.

The report deals with the theory of fracture and details the different behaviour of
materials under different conditions. The ideas proposed by Griffith in the 1920s are dealt
with, and the manner in which they are used to achieve accurate results in this test are
explained. Some common testing methods available for determining fracture toughness
are documented, and the reason why the particular testing method applied was chosen is
explained.

The project aims to develop a good design for a rig that will accurately allow values for
fracture toughness of brittle materials to be calculated, and will also show the effect
various conditions have on the materials, allowing a good deal of understanding to be
obtained.

2.

Literature Survey:

This project is concerned with the fracture toughness of brittle materials. Fracture
toughness is a generic term used to the ability of a material to withstand cracks, i.e. to
prevent the transfer or propagation of cracks across its section hence causing failure.

2.1.

Fracture Toughness and Fracture Design

VA Tech Lab (Laboratory for Scientific Visual Analysis) Homepage

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/exper/gordon/www/fractoug.html

One of the most important properties of any material for virtually all design applications
is fracture toughness. Given the units of MPa(m1/2), fracture toughness is a quantitative
way of expressing "a material's resistance to brittle fracture when a crack is present." [5].
If a material has a large value of fracture toughness it will probably undergo ductile
fracture. Brittle fracture is very characteristic of materials with a low fracture toughness
value.
Differences between Fracture Toughness:
There are actually four different types of fracture toughness, KC, KIC, KIIC, and KIIIC. KC
is used to measure a material's fracture toughness in a sample that has a thickness that is
less than some critical value, B. When the material's thickness is less than B, and stress is
applied, the material is in a state called plane stress. The value of B is given in equation
Te-1. A material's thickness is related to its fracture toughness graphically in figure Tf-1.
Equation Te-2 shows a material's KC value in relation to the material's width.

Eq. Te-1 [1]. The minimum thickness of material before plane strain behavior occurs.
B = minimum thickness to distinguish between KC and K1C
KC = fracture toughness, when the sample has a thickness less than B
sy = yield stress of material

Figure Tf-1 [1]. Fracture Toughness as a function of material thickness

Eq. Te-2 [1]. The fracture toughness of a material with a thickness less than B.

KC = fracture toughness, when the sample has a thickness less than B

Y = constant related to the sample's geometry
a = crack length (surface crack), one half crack length (internal crack)
s = stress applied to the material

KIC, KIIC, and KIIIC all represent a material's fracture toughness when a sample of material
has a thickness greater than B. If a stress is applied to a sample with a thickness greater
than B, it is in a state called plane strain. The differences between KIC, KIIC, and KIIIC,
however, do not depend on the thickness of the material. Instead, KIC, KIIC, and KIIIC are
the fracture toughness of a material under the three different modes of fracture, mode I,
mode II, and mode III, respectively. The different modes of fracture I, II, and III are all
graphically expressed in figures Tf-2, Tf-3, and Tf-4. Equation, Te-3 shows how KIC can
be calculated knowing the material's parameters.

Figure Tf-2 [1]. Mode I Fracture

Figure Tf-3 [1]. Mode II Fracture

Figure Tf-4 [1]. Mode III Fracture

Eq. Te-3 [1]. The fracture toughness of a material with a thickness equal to or greater than B; when it fractures in mode I.
KIC = fracture toughness, when the sample has a thickness greater than B
Y = constant related to the sample's geometry
a = crack length (surface crack), one half crack length (internal crack)
s = stress applied to the material

KIC values can be used to help determine critical lengths given an applied stress; or a
critical stress values can be calculated given a crack length already in the material with
equations Te-4 and Te-5.

Eq. Te-4 [1]. Critical applied stress required to cause failure in a material.
sC = critical applied stress that causes the material to fail
KIC = fracture toughness, when the sample has a thickness less than B
Y = constant related to the sample's geometry
a = crack length (surface crack), one half crack length (internal crack)

Eq. Te-5 [1]. Critical crack length required to cause failure in a material.
a = critical crack length (surface crack), one half crack length (internal crack)
s = stress applied to the material

KIC = fracture toughness, when the sample has a thickness less than B
Y = constant related to the sample's geometry

Callister provides a table, Table Tt-1, of fracture toughness of common engineering

materials.
KIC values for Engineering Materials
K1C MPa (m)1/2

Material
Metals
Aluminum alloy

36

Steel alloy

50

Titanium alloy

44-66

Aluminum oxide

14-28

Ceramic
Aluminum oxide

3-5.3

Soda-lime-glass

0.7-0.8

Concrete

0.2-1.4
Polymers

Polymethyl methacrylate

Polystyene

0.8-1.1
Table Tt-1 [1].

It is noted that the ceramic materials have a much lower KIC value than the metals. The
low KIC value reflects the fact that ceramic materials are very susceptible to cracks and
undergo brittle fracture, whereas the metals undergo ductile fracture.
K1C values are determined experimentally.

The testing method used to determine the value for KIC was the Double Torsion Test.

2.2

Mechanical Properties of Ceramics

John B. Wachtman

An important property of the Double Torsion Test is that the applied stress intensity
factor is independent of the crack length. This makes the double torsion test particularly
appropriate for slow crack growth studies. The double torsion test can be regarded as a
four-point bend test with the loads and supports at the edge of the specimen and having a
thickness that is large compared to the depth. The specimen is notched and careful
alignment is important for accurate results.

The principal use for the tester would be testing bone cement for use in replacement
surgery. Loosening and eventual fracture of the cement in implants is recognized as a
primary cause for their failure and so knowledge of how various parameters affect bone
cement is important, as is an accurate testing device to predict the effects these will have.
2.3

Biomedical Engineering Society Newsletter Volume 20, No.2 1996

Research Directions in Acrylic Bone Cement Studies
Gladius Lewis
http://www.mecca.org/BME/BMES/bme20-2a.html

Acrylic bone cement is one of the most widely used materials in contemporary
orthopaedics. It is currently the only material used for fixation of endoprostheses to the
contiguous bones in cemented arthroplasties. In this application, the primary functions of
the cement are to transfer body weight and service loads from the prosthesis to the bone
and/or increase the load-carrying capacity of the prosthesis-bone cement-bone system.
Bone cement has many attractive features. It allows fixation of the implant, usually
within 30 minutes. It intrudes extensively into the interstices of the bone, allowing

excellent initial anchorage of the prosthesis. It is surgically forgiving and can easily be
removed prior to revision arthroplasty.
On the other hand, bone cement has a number of drawbacks. It contributes to thermal
and/or chemical necrosis of the bone. It predisposes to membrane formation at the
cement-bone interface. It shrinks during polymerization. There is a large stiffness
mismatch between the cement and the contiguous bone. The cement mantle, the implantcement interface and the cement-bone interface are three "weak-line zones" in the
construct (1). It is not firmly established at this time whether any of these features
contributes to the initiation or is the consequence of aseptic loosening. The current
consensus is that mechanical failure of the cement at any or all of the weak-link zones is
the cause.
The survival probabilities of recently-implanted cemented arthroplasties in patients aged
over 50 years, especially those of the hip and knee, have been very high. They average at
least 90% after 15 years. Improvements in cementing techniques and implantation
methods have contributed to this success. In spite of this record, the use of bone cement
has always been viewed with a certain amount of ambivalence. There have been and
continue to be attempts to dispense with its use altogether. To date, however, the clinical
outcomes of cementless total hip and knee arthroplasties have been well below
expectation. A new set of problems has been spawned by their use. For example, in hip
implants, perioprosthetic osteolysis, high thigh pain and failure of the bone-implant
interface have been widely reported.
Interest in the use of bone cement continues, with three main areas of focus: development
of methods of preparation of the current commercial formulations of cement which can
easily be used in the operating room setting and which lead to improvements in physical,
chemical and mechanical properties; improvement of techniques for delivering the
cement dough to the intramedullary canal just prior to prosthesis placement; and
synthesis of new formulations, based on polymers other than poly(methyl methacrylate),
PMMA, the most commonly used polymer.

3.

Fracture Theory:

3.1

Introduction

Fracture is concerned with the initiation and propagation of a crack or cracks in a

material. Fracture occurs when the applied loading can no longer be sustained by the
structure and thus catastrophic failure occurs.

All solids have an elastic limit beyond which something happens. A totally brittle solid
will fracture, either suddenly like glass or progressively like cement or concrete. Most
engineering materials deform plastically, that is change their shape in a permanent way
without fracturing. [1]

Ductile materials are those which exhibit large extensions in the plastic range. Here the
extension of a material in its plastic range is greatly in excess of the extension in the
elastic range. The ability of a material to allow these extensions is termed its ductility. [2]

Materials with very low ductility are termed brittle materials. Brittle materials can
withstand little or no extensions in the plastic range and will usually fracture close to the
elastic limit, and well below the ideal fracture stress.

3.2

Fracture Toughness

Fracture toughness is defined as the ability of a material to withstand cracks, i.e. to

prevent the transfer or propagation of cracks across its section hence causing failure. The
value of fracture toughness defines the onset of brittle fracture, which is also known as
the critical stress intensity factor, KIC. The units of this are MN/m3/2.
Most ceramics have very high yield stresses. In a tensile test, at room temperature
ceramics almost all fracture long before they yield: this is because their fracture
toughness is very low. Pure metals on the other hand are quite soft, and have high
ductility. They are very malleable, and can be rolled and flattened and worked in to
different shapes. Polymers in general have lower yield strength than metals. The very

10

strongest barely reach the strength of alluminium alloys, however they can be
strengthened by making composites out of them. The composite GFRP has strength only
slightly inferior to alluminium and CFRP is considerably stronger.

Materials with the highest fracture toughness are the most ductile metals. Ceramics have
very low fracture toughness, as do polymers. Polymers however can be reinforced to
create composites which have good fracture toughness. Although most metals exhibit
high fracture toughness at or above room temperature it is worth noting that when many
are cooled sufficiently they become quite brittle. [1]

The testing method used to determine the fracture toughness in this project used
Griffiths theory of failure for brittle materials.

11

3.3

Griffiths Theory:

Brittle fracture occurs very suddenly at a stress well below the ideal fracture stress and is
preceded by very little, if any, plastic deformation. Modern brittle fracture theory has
grown largely out of the ideas proposed by Griffith around 1920. Griffith was the first to
offer an explanation for the low fracture strength of brittle materials. Griffith suggested
that the reason brittle materials fell short of theoretical expectations was because the
materials were not truly homogenous. [4] He suggested that in a brittle material there are
small cracks and flaws that act to concentrate the stress at their tips and reduce the
strength of a material. Griffith argued that there were two energies to be taken into
account when a crack propagated-a release of elastic strain energy and an increase in
surface energy [4]. During the propagation of a crack there is the release of what is
termed elastic strain energy, some of the energy that is stored in the material as it is
elastically deformed. This is released when the material relaxes as the crack spreads.
Furthermore during the crack extension process new free surfaces are created at the faces
of a crack which gives rise to an increase in surface energy of the system [5]. Griffith
suggested that a flaw becomes unstable, and thus fracture occurs when the strain energy
change that results from an increment of crack growth is sufficient to overcome the
surface energy of the material. This method only applies to ideally brittle solids as it
presumes that the work of fracture comes exclusively from the surface energy of the
material.

12

Fig 1 Model for Griffith Crack Theory [4]

A through-thickness crack in an infinitely wide plate (Fig 1) is subjected to a remote
tensile stress. Assuming that the plate width was greater than 2 and that conditions of
plane stress exist, the Griffith energy balance for an incremental increase in crack area,
dA, under equilibrium can be written as follows:

dE
dP
dWs
=
+
dA
dA
dA
or

dP
dWs
=
dA
dA
Where E was total energy change, P was the potential energy supplied to the system by
the internal strain energy and external forces. The term Ws is the work required to create
the new surface.

13

Now assuming

dP
= 2a / E
dA
And that

dWs
= 2s
dA
Hence the fracture stress, f was given by the following equation:

2 Es 1/2
f =
a
Where

E = Youngs modulus for the material

a = flaw size
s = surface energy

14

4.

Testing Methods:

4.1

Introduction

There are a number of testing methods used to determine fracture toughness of brittle
materials. Many of these involve deliberately placing holes or notches in the materials. In
many circumstances a deliberately introduced crack in a glassy polymer propagates by
the formation of a craze which runs ahead of the crack tip. Crazes are fine networks of
voids in a material. The craze leads to rupture followed by initiation of the crack. Where
deliberate notches have not been used fracture can still be initiated by crazing occurring
at microscopic inhomogeneous areas in the material. [3] The presence of a notch can
strongly affect the behaviour of a polymer under impact, to the extent of an unnotched
specimen which behaves in a ductile fashion, failing by brittle fracture when notched.

One of the most common tests for fracture toughness is the Impact test method, or
Cahrpy/ Izod method. In both these tests a bar of polymer is struck by a weighted
pendulum. The test specimen and the weight is is released from a known height so as to
to strike the specimen on the side opposite the notch. After breaking the specimen the
pendulum then swings on and the height to which it swings on the other side is measured.
The energy absorbed in breaking the bar can thus be measured.[4] The loss in energy of
the pendulum is a measure of the impact strength of the material.

The method chosen for this project was the Double Torsion Test. This test is useful for
testing brittle materials, as the applied stress intensity factor is independent of crack
length. In a brittle material such as Perspex sub-critical crack growth may occur, which
means that the crack length at the onset of cracking is difficult to measure. This problem
is overcome using the double torsion method. The double torsion test is particularly
appropriate for slow crack growth investigation. [6]

15

4.2

The Double Torsion Test:

The test specimen is placed in a jig and then loaded into one of the tensile testers. Two
point loads are applied on either side of a vee notch machined in the sample. The notch
acts as an artificially induced crack that is much greater in size than the critical, inherent
crack in the material. Failure in the sample will occur due to propagation of the induced
crack. The sample rests on two roller bearings on either side of the point loads. The
applied load causes the crack to propagate along the line of the notch. The test is used to
determine the critical crack length and fracture toughness KIC of the Perspex samples.
The setup is shown in fig. 2.

Fig2 The Double Torsion Test [7]

The notched Perspex samples were placed in the testing rig, resting on two rollers at each
edge. Point loads were applied on either side of the notch causing the samples to fracture.
The sample is 65mm x 40mm x 3mm with a 60o vee notch machined at the top, and a 60o
groove running the length of the sample. The force is applied on either side of the notch
thus causing the piece to crack along the path of the groove. The sample may be seen in
Fig 3.

16

Fig 3 Perspex sample

The testing device may be used with either the Instron or Hounsfield tensile testers.
These are run in compression for the purpose of these tests. Both these testers create load
vs. deformation data. In the case of the Hounsfield tester the load vs. displacement data
was automatically outputted to a hyperterm file and from here copied to excel where
graphs were constructed of the data. From these graphs values of KIC were found using
the following formula
( 3(1 + v) )

m
Wt 4

K IC = PW
where

1/ 2

KIC is the Stress Intensity Factor,

P = Applied load
Wm = Moment Arm
W = Specimen Width
t = Specimen Thickness
v = Poissons Ratio

17

The flaw size calculation is given by this equation:

a =

Where

K IC
f

a = Critical Flaw Size

KIC = Stress Intensity Factor
= Geometrical Calibration Factor
f = Un-notched Fracture Toughness

In the above formulae the value P, the applied load is taken from the graphs of the results.
This is the plateau load where the force value is level to cause extension. The value Wm,
the moment arm is taken as the width between the tops of the two rollers divided by 2.
Poissons ratio for Perspex was not actually known for the Perspex samples used,
however it was taken as 0.3 as this is a typical value. This was also the value used for the
FEA simulation so the results would correlate. The value for was taken as 1 as the crack
length was small in comparison to the width if the plate. [1] The value f for the material
was taken from existing values for the value of fracture toughness of perspex. It would be
better however to carry out other testing to determine an exact value for the material
being used.

18

4.3

The Hounsfield and Instron Testers:

The rig was designed to be used with either the Hounsfield or the Instron tensile testers.
For the purpose of the experiment both these testers were run in compression. The
Hounsfield tester is a horizontal tester with a 20KN load-cell. The Instron tester is
vertical with a 50KN load-cell. There is also a 500N load-cell for the Instron tester
available, however at this time that load-cell cannot be connected to the tester. With the
500N load-cell in place the results obtained would be a good deal more accurate. The
results showed the Perspex fracturing at around 30-40N. On a 20KN load-cell this
represents only a 2% error, and so it is clear that far more accurate results could be
obtained using a smaller load-cell. On the whole though the results obtained were quite
accurate.

The rig needs very little adapting to be used in either tester. For use in the Instron tester it
lies flat with the force applied to the top plate of the tester vertically. For use on the
Hounsfield tester a base plate is attached using screws. This then allows the tester to sit
upright while the force is applied horizontally. The position of the Perspex sample
remains constant in both setups. This is essential to achieving accurate results.

Fig 3. Instron 4204 Tensile Tester [8]

Hounsfield H20K-W [9]

19

4.4

The Rig and Testing Procedure:

The designed rig followed a standard design, with modifications to suit the equipment
available. It consisted of a bottom plate, with two grooves cut out. Two roller bearings
rested on these grooves. The roller bearings were positioned so that the when the Perspex
sample was placed on them the rollers would be at its outer edges. There were two holes
drilled through the bottom plate. Pins would go into each of these holes and rise out of
them. These were used to position and guide the motion of the top plate. The top plate
had two drilled holes. Linear bearings were placed in these, allowing free and easy
motion of the top plate along the two pins. Force was applied to the top plate through a
ball bearing located on the outside face of the plate, in the center. This was then
transmitted to the Perspex sample through two smaller ball bearings that were placed an
equal distance on either side of the center of the top plate, and more towards its front.
They were positioned so that the load would be applied on either side of the notch on the
Perspex samples. A guide plate was also attached to the bottom plate to allow the Perspex
sample to be more accurately located. Small changes in the position of the loads acting on
the Perspex would lead to inaccurate results and so it was necessary to have them
correctly positioned. For use in the horizontal position a base plate was added. This
consisted of an alluminium block with a step cut out. The block was screwed in to the
back of the bottom plate, giving it the correct position for use in the horizontal tester. The
Perspex was able to rest on the alluminium block. This again made it possible to keep the
position of the Perspex constant for the experiments.

The testing procedure itself was relatively simple. All tests were carried out on the
Hounsfield tester as this had the more accurate load-cell and so gave better results. The
speed of the lead screw was set at 10mm per minute for all tests. This speed was
recommended as being suitable for the testing. As all testing was done on the Hounsfield
tester the base plate was always attached. The tests were run in compression and so
compression anvils had to be attached. This was quite simple to do, and simply involved
removing a pin that held the tensile testing jaws in place and inserting the compression
anvils, and again inserting the pins to fasten them safely. Preparing the rig began by

20

attaching the bottom plate to the base plate. The rollers were then placed in the grooves
on the bottom plate, and rested on the step in the base plate. The Perspex was placed on
the rollers also resting with its back face sitting on the base plate. This ensured that the
Perspex was always level and in the same position. A line was drawn at the top of the
plate, in the center. The notch in the Perspex sample was aligned with this so that it was
positioned in the center of the plate. Again this was important for achieving accurate
results. The top plate was then placed on the pins. The linear bearings allowed smooth,
unhindered movement along the pins. The top plate was attached so that the two ball
bearings that transmitted the load to the Perspex were at the outer side of the plate. The
rig was then placed into the Hounsfield tester. The back of the base plate rested against
the fixed anvil in the tester. The safety guard was lowered. The tester was then started,
moving the anvil in to the point where it just touched the large ball bearing on the top
plate. Here the tester was stopped moving and the force and displacement values were
zeroed. The test button on the tester was then pressed, the left arrow on the tester was
selected signifying a compression test and the test was begun.

When observing the test through the guard the Perspex sample is seen to bend somewhat
before a first audible crack is heard. This signifies the initial propagation of the crack in
the material, and may be seen on the graphs as the peak at which force is at a maximum.
After this it takes a good deal less force in order for the crack to propagate. This follows
Griffiths Theory which states that once a crack is initiated it takes a good deal less force
to cause it to propagate. This can be seen on the graphs as the point where there is a
sharp drop in the force, while extension is still taking place. The same level of force
causes the crack to propagate further along the sample until there is another crack. This
signifies complete fracture of the sample and may be seen on the graphs as the final drop
where the force goes to zero Newtons. At this point the tester is stopped.

The Hyperterm program on the computer is then opened following the instruction sheet
in the lab. After the test on the Hounsfield is finished the user is prompted to print the
data. Selecting this option transfers the test data to the Hyperterm file. Here the data
appears in two columns, showing force against displacement. The data is selected here

21

and copied to an excel file. From here graphs of Load vs. Displacement were created.
These graphs were used to calculate the values of fracture toughness using the formulae
described earlier.

4.5

Rig Assembly for Test:

22

4.6

Applications of the Testing Device: PMMA Testing:

While the rig may be used to test brittle materials such as Perspex its principal
application would be testing materials such as PMMA. It is more necessary to have
knowledge of the fracture toughness of PMMA as it is used as bone cement in hip
replacement surgery.

Each year over 200,000 patients worldwide undergo total hip replacement surgery. Long
term there is a 10% failure rate of the prostheses, while at 17 years the failure rate can
from between 14% to 19% [10]. Loosening, and eventual fracture of the acrylic bone
cement has been identified as one of the primary causes of failure in total hip replacement
surgery. It is necessary to investigate the performance of acrylic bone cement to
determine how its behaviour can be improved to avoid to avoid the necessity for painful
revision surgery, which is generally 10% less successful that original surgery.

PMMA is one of a family of acrylic polymers, a group of thermoplastics that was

synthesized early in the 20th century by Dr. Otto Rohm and introduced into commercial
application in the 1930s. During World War II, based on its transparency and resistance
to weather conditions, PMMA (under the trade names Lucite and Plexiglas) was used
extensively in the production of aircraft windshields and canopies. [11] It was while
investigating an airplane crash that the possibility of using PMMA in human operations
was discovered when it was seen that despite the presence of PMMA embedded in
humans there were no toxic reactions around the PMMA in the body and the body was
not allergic to it. PMMA was then used in the body in such applications as dentistry
without adverse reactions and was eventually used in orthopedics. Around the 1950s
PMMA began to be widely used in hip replacement surgery. A major pioneer of this was
Dr. John Charnley.

Charnley felt that one of the big problems with artificial hip joints, especially if they were
metal, was the fixation of them. He felt this was partly due to the high coefficient of

23

friction. This led Charnley to experiment using polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), or Teflon,

with very low coefficients of friction.

Although Charnley was not the first to use bone cement, he was perhaps the first person
to effectively use acrylic cement in orthopedic applications. His work followed in the
footsteps of Danish surgeons in the 1950s, who reported results using acrylic cement to
attach cups to the femoral head at a European orthopedic meeting, and of Edward J.
Haboush, MD, of New York, who experimented with bone cement in 1953.
Later that same decade, Charnley followed the suggestion of a friend to use PMMA, or
acrylic cement, to fix the femoral side of the prosthesis firmly into the bone as PMMA
had been well tolerated by the body in other applications. [12] PMMA is now the
standard fixation material used in replacement surgery.

As the tester would be used primarily to test PMMA the testing conditions used for
Perspex in the tests carried out mirrored the important tests that need to be carried when
testing PMMA. Therefore the fracture toughness tests were carried out in air at room
temperature, in water at room temperature and in water at 37o. The test in water at 37o
mimics the in vivo conditions, i.e. the conditions the PMMA will be under in the body.
This then allows an investigation into the effect of various storing and mixing conditions
to be carried out on the PMMA, and thus leads to greater understanding of its properties
and eventually greater reliability and comfort in replacement prostheses. In the tests
carried out Perspex was used as it is cheap, readily available and has quite similar
properties to PMMA.

A very useful advantage of carrying out the test with PMMA is that it must be moulded.
PMMA consists of a liquid monomer and polymer powder. These are mixed and injected
into the body or left to set in a mould for testing. Therefore the PMMA samples from the
mould will always be the same dimensions and so will give very accurate results.

24

5.

The Design of the Rig:

5.1

Introduction:

The design of this rig followed on from a previous design that had been developed. The
previous tester followed British and American standards and so the critical dimensions of
the tester designed for this project did not change from this. The principal difference
between the original tester and the one developed here was that the tester for use here was
to be used in a horizontal tensile tester as well as the vertical one. This involved
designing an extra part that would allow the rig to be easily adapted for use in the
horizontal tester.

The design of the top plate consisted of a stainless steel plate with two 8mm drilled holes.
These holes held linear bearings, (dimensions O.D. 8mm, shaft 4mm) which allowed
free movement of the top plate on pins. A hole in the center of the top plate held the
10mm ball bearing through which the load was applied. The ball bearing was glued
into this hole. Two 4mm ball holes were glued into small notches that had been created
on the working side of the plate. These notches were used simply to correctly position the
ball bearings. The ball bearings needed to have a constant position so that the force was
always applied to the same points on either side of the notch. The bottom plate was a
10mm stainless steel plate with two grooves running the length of it to hold the rollers.
There were also a number of drilled holes for holding the screws for the guide plate, the
screws for the base plate and the pins on which the top plate traveled. The base plate was
made from alluminium and designed to safely hold the bottom plate and test sample
while giving the necessary height for the tests to be carried out properly. It was designed
to easily attach to the base plate, adapting the tester for use in the horizontal position
involves inserting two screws through the base plate and into the bottom plate.
The design proved efficient and gave the desired results when used in testing.

25

5.2

Engineering Drawings:

5.2.1 Top Plate:

Material: Stainless Steel Plate
General Tolerance +/- 0.1mm

26

5.2.2

Bottom Plate:

Material: Stainless Steel Plate

General Tolerance +/- 0.1mm

27

5.2.3

Base Plate

Material: Stainless Steel Plate

General Tolerance +/- 0.1mm

28

5.2.4 Rig Assembly:

Setup for use in Horizontal Tester

29

5.2.5

Guide Plate/Pins/Rod/Bearings:

Material: Stainless Steel Plate

General Tolerance +/- 0.1mm

30

5.2.6 Test Specimen:

Material: Perspex

31

6.

Experimental Results:

6.1

Introduction

The Perspex samples were tested under three different conditions. The first tests involved
testing the Perspex at room temperature and in air. The second set of tests was carried out
on samples that had been left to soak for 24 hours in water at room temperature. This test
would show what effect, if any, the presence of water would have on the results. Finally
the samples were tested having been heated in water for 2 hours at 37o C. The final test
would show how the body conditions would affect the fracture toughness of the
specimen. This test was very important for testing PMMA as it is necessary to know
whether the bone cement will keep its expected properties when inserted into the body for
use in prostheses.

The following is a typical graph of results taken from the testing.

Perspex in Water 1st Test

80

70

60

50

40

Series1

30

20

10

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

De f or ma t i on ( mm)

There are two distinct stages on the graph. The rise up to the peak shows crack initiation.
Here the force constantly increases until a crack is initiated. After crack initiation there is
a sudden drop and no extra loading is required to cause the force to propagate. The force

32

in this region is termed the plateau force and this is used in the formula defined earlier to
calculate fracture toughness.

6.2

Perspex in Air:

The following results were obtained from testing Perspex in air at room temperature. The
following is an example of the results obtained:

Perspex in Air
80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

Series1

30.000

20.000

10.000

0.000
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

D ef o r mat io n ( mm)

Test No.

Plateau Load
(N)

KIC

(MN/m3/2)

(mm)

56.8

1.24

0.83

47.28

1.03

0.69

39.0

0.86

0.57

40.3

0.88

0.59

Mean

45.6

1.01

0.67

33

Perspex in Water at 19oC:

6.3

For this test the Perspex samples were left to soak for 24 hours in water at room
temperature. This test would determine what effect the presence of water would have on
the value of fracture toughness, and how the behaviour of the specimen might change in
wet conditions. The following is an example of the results obtained in this test.
Perspex in Water 2nd Test
120

100

Load (N)

80

60

Series1

40

20

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

Deform ation (m m )

Test No.

Plateau Load
(N)

KIC

(MN/m3/2)

(mm)

32.6

0.72

0.48

29

0.64

0.42

33.7

0.74

0.49

Mean

31.7

0.70

0.46

34

6.4

Perspex in Water at 37oC:

The specimens were left to soak for 2 hours in water that had been heated to 37oC. This
test was extremely important in terms of testing bone cement, as these conditions are
highly similar to those the material would encounter in the body when used in
replacement surgery. The following is an example of the results obtained from these tests.

Perspex in Heated Wate 2nd Test

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

Series1

40.000

20.000

0.000
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

D e f or m a t i on ( m m )

Test No.

Plateau Load
(N)

KIC

a (mm)

(MN/m3/2)

37.18

0.82

0.54

39.61

0.87

0.58

40.00

0.88

0.59

Mean

38.9

0.85

0.57

35

6.5

Discussion of Results:

The average value of fracture toughness for Perspex tested in air was 1.01MN/m3/2. This
compared to an average of value of 0.7 for Perspex tested in air at room temperature and,
a value of 0.85 for Perspex tested in heated water. It is clear from the results that the
conditions the Perspex is in will have a marked effect on its behaviour. It is very
important then to consider this when, when using other similar materials, e.g. PMMA in
replacement surgery, as in new conditions they will not behave as previous tests may
have shown. If PMMA is used in replacement surgery, with a theoretical knowledge of its
fracture toughness based on testing in air, then it will fracture at well below the expected
conditions. It is therefore very important to consider the effect that water at room
temperature, and heated water will have.

There is also quite a difference between the values obtained for testing in water at room
temperature and testing in heated water. The material has a fracture toughness of
0.7MN/m3/2 when tested in water at room temperature, compared to a value a good deal
higher when tested in heated water. It is known that when a material is heated it will
behave in a more ductile manner, and this may explain higher fracture toughness in this
case. The heated water value is still a good deal lower than the value for testing in air at
room temperature however.

The lower values for both water tests indicate that the presence of water does
significantly affect the properties of the material and acts to reduce the fracture
toughness. The difference between the results in both tests may also be explained by the
fact that the test in room temperature involved leaving the samples in water for 24 hours
while the test in heated water involved leaving the samples in water for just 2 hours.

36

6.6

Sources of Error:

While the results of the tests do seem quite accurate it is noted that there were a number
of sources for error in the results. The load-cell used in testing was a 20KN load-cell.
This is standard on the Hounsfield tester. In its specifications it is noted that the load-cell
may have 1% error. This equates to an error of up to 20N, and as the loads being dealt
with in this project were between just 30N and 60N this could contribute to error in the
results obtained. The Instron tester uses a 50KN load-cell, and so would be less accurate
in these tests than the 20KN Hounsfield tester. There is however a 500N load cell
available for the Instron tester. This would give far more accurate results, however it is
not yet possible to fit this to the tester as it is the wrong size. Future testing on the Instron
will be a good deal more accurate when this load-cell is correctly fitted. There is no
alternative load-cell available for the Hounsfield tester at present.
Another factor contributing to error was the fact that the Perspex samples being tested
were not of uniform size. Their sides were also not straight meaning that did not sit
exactly as they were meant to on the tester. Thus the accuracy of the results could not be
guaranteed as the force was acting on a different part of the sample each time. The
samples used were the most uniform and straight possible so the effect of the inaccuracies
is not too noticeable. This problem would not be encountered when using PMMA
samples, as these are created in a mould and so each sample would have identical
dimensions.

The final source of error was found in preparing the samples for the test in heated water.
The heat plate used caused the heat of the water to rise very quickly and it was very
difficult to keep the temperature at 37o. The temperature rose as high as 60o very quickly
and it would then take quite a while for it to drop back to 37o. The water required
constant monitoring and adjustment of the heat plate. As a result of this it was only
possible to test the samples for approximately two hours. This may have lead to errors in
the comparison of the water tests, as the test in water at room temperature involved
leaving the samples in water for 24 hours.

37

7.

Theoretical Results:

7.1

Finite Element Analysis:

Along with the experimental results Finite Element Analysis was carried out using Ansys
to try to predict the behaviour of the samples. The analysis involved applying a force of
40N to the samples. The following material properties were used:

Youngs Modulus

3.0 GPa

Poissons Ratio

0.3

Density

1.119e-6

This gave the following Von Mises Stress plot. The Von Mises plot is a combination of
all the stresses acting in the plate.

38

A close up of the area around the notch may be seen below.

7.2

Discussion of Results

The force is applied on either side of the notch as was carried out in the experiments. The
stress is seen to be centred at the notch where the maximum stress value is. This matches
the experimental results, where it was seen that the crack initiates and propagates from
this point.
The maximum stress is in the plate is 6.92MN/m3/2, centred at the notch while the
average stress around the plate is approximately 0.7MN/m3/2. This compares to the
experimental result for fracture toughness, i.e. critical stress when testing the specimen in
air of 1.01MN/m3/2.

39

7.3

Further Work

In order to carry out a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the sample it would also be
necessary to carry out the Ansys analysis on the samples after they had been heated as
was carried out in the experimental results.

This type of analysis was too difficult to carry out in terms of this project, however the
basic procedure for carrying out this heat and structural is as follows.

Firstly a Thermal analysis is defined using Thermal solid elements and the analysis is
performed. The thermal results are then evaluated using the postprocessor. The
pre-processor is then entered again and the thermal elements are converted to structural
analysis elements. The solution is then entered to solve the structural problem. Once this
has solved the thermal results are read in from the previous analysis and the analysis is
restarted to combine the thermal and mechanical results.

Carrying out this analysis would allow the effect of changing the conditions the Perspex
was in to be seen, however as it is the only results available are those for analyzing
Perspex in air.

7.4

Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results:

The results obtained for the stress in the sample are similar those obtained in the
experiments and also show the stresses to act at the same point in the sample as found in
the experiments. Thus close correlation is seen between the experimental and theoretical
results showing the testing apparatus and results to be accurate.

40

8.

Conclusion:

The aim of this project was to design and manufacture a rig for testing brittle materials.
This was successfully achieved and the rig has been manufactured and gives accurate
results.

The effect of altering the conditions the samples are in is seen to have a major effect on
the properties of the material. Samples left in water for 24 hours are seen to have a
fracture toughness 70% of those stored in air. Storing the samples in heated water gives a
fracture toughness 85% of those stored in air, however with a more accurate heat plate
the samples could be left longer and the value might be different again.

It is noted that the conditions brittle materials are in have a major effect on their
behaviour. This is particularly important to consider when using materials such as
PMMA. PMMA has similar properties to Perspex and it is seen that when used in the
body it will behave in a different manner to what tests in air may have shown. Thus the
effect of the conditions it will be in must be considered when using PMMA for use in
replacement surgery.

41

Bibliography:
1.

Engineering Materials 1: An introduction to their Properties & Applications

Michael F Ashbey, David R H Jones

2.

Mechanics of Materials 1
EJ Hearn

3.

Polymer Materials
Christopher Hall

4.

Materials Science
Anderson, Leaver, Rawlings, Alexander

5.

Materials Science and Engineering

William D. Callister Jr.

6.

Mechanical Properties of Ceramics

John B. Wachtman

7.

JCM-92

The Application of Double Torsion Testing to Unidirectionally

Reinforced Composite Materials

http://pcsiwa.rett.polimi.it/%7Eciic/peg/jcm92.htm

8.

Prognosis of Total Hip Replacement Revision and Re-Revision 1998

Henrik Malchau, Peter Herberts

9.

Howmedica Osteonics - History

http://how-ost.com/nursing/pages/history.html

10.

Orthopedics Today
http://www.lenfunk.btinternet.co.uk/THR/Charnley.htm

42

Appendices:
Perspex in Air Tests:
Perspex in Air 1st Test

60
50

Load (N)

40
30
Series1
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

-10
Deform ation (m m )

Per spe x in Air 2nd Test

80
70
60

Load (N)

50
40
Series1
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

-10
Deform ation (m m )

43

Perspex in Air 3rd Test

90
80
70

Load (N)

60
50
Series1
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Deform ation (m m )

Perspex in Air 4th Test

80
70
60

Load (N)

50
40
Series1
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

-10
Deform ation (m m )

44

Perspex in Air 5th Test

70
60

Load (N)

50
40
Series1
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Deform ation (m m )

Perspex in Air

90
80
70

Load (N)

60
Test 1

50

Test 2

40

Test 3

30

Test 4

20
10
0
-10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Deform ation (m m )

45

Perspex in Water at Room Temperature

Perspex in Water 1st Test

80
70
60

Load (N)

50
Series1

40
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Deform ation (m m )

Perspex in Water 2nd Test

120

100

Load (N)

80

Series1

60

40

20

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Deform ation (m m )

46

Perspex in Water 3rd Test

120

100

Load (N)

80

60

Series1

40

20

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Deform ation (m m )

Perspex in Water at Room Tem perature

120

Deformation (mm)

100

80
Test 1
60

Test 2
Test 3

40

20

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Load (N)

47

Perspex in Water at 37oC

Perspex in Heated Water 1st Test

90
80
70

Load (N)

60
50
Series1
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Def or m ation (m m )

Perspex in Heated Water 2nd Test

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0.000
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

D e f or m a t i on ( m m )

48

Perspex in Heated Water 3rd Test

100
90
80

Load (N)

70
60
Series1

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Deform ation (m m )

Perspex In Heated Water

120

100

Load (N)

80
Series1
60

Series2
Series3

40

20

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Defo r m ation (m m )

49