Issue 72

M. K. Qate’a et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 72 (2025) 102-120; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.72.08

Figure 7: The regions of voids versus the material matrix regions in the cracked surfaces of the specimens of aluminum 1100.

Fracture depth 21 mm 16.4 mm 33.7 mm 19.6 mm 30.8 mm

Maximum wall angle

Void volume fraction

Average void size 1.23 μ m 0.44 μ m 1.69 μ m 0.51 μ m 1.37 μ m

Specimen

1

58.88° 52.13° 75.92° 56.84° 72.20°

13.82 % 9.83 % 23.89 % 12.30 % 23.51 %

2 3 4 5

Table 5: The analysis results of ImageJ software for the percentage of void volume fraction and the average void size of the brass CuZn37 specimens. Specimen Fracture depth Maximum wall angle Void volume fraction Average void size

6 7 8 9

36.3 mm 30.8 mm 32.2 mm 37.1 mm 28 mm

79.21° 72.20° 80.21° 68.53° 74°

25.15 % 19.03 % 21.80 % 25.62 % 10.61%

2.08 μ m 1.25 μ m 1.33 μ m 2.39 μ m

10 0.69 μ m Table 6: The analysis results of ImageJ software for the percentage of void volume fraction and the average void size of aluminum 1100 specimens.

void volume fraction with fracture depth void volume fraction with wall angle

void volume fraction with fracture depth void volume fraction with wall angle

39

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81

39

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

37

34

35

29

Wall Angle, °

Wall Angle, ° 31 33

24

19

29

Fracture Depth, mm

Fracture Depth, mm

27

14

6

10

14

18

22

26

6

10

14

18

22

26

Void Volume Fraction, %

Void Volume Fraction, %

(a) (b) Figure 8: The relationship between the percentage of the void volume fraction and the formability of the specimens of (a) CuZn37 (b) Al 1100.

112