Prakt. Met. Sonderband 38 (2006) 131 
“ micro- 
‚urfaces 
, if the 
or misfit 
1 a map 
‘e-crack 
regions 
ne of all 
chanics Figure 2: Object 1: SEM images of both halves of the broken specimen. The circle marks 
VIC with corresponding regions. The line marks the profile path used in Fig. 4 
>ntioned um 
material 
les and 40- 
en is a 0. 
ecimen 20 
fracture 10 
7 
as of the 40 
images, 20 
ns near 
odels of > 
n easier 
models SO 
ack front 
on in the i: bh 
bceecurred 
pm 
tered to — 
as been He 
ts of the 30- 
) models 2 
spect to 10 
ferences 0 
, no gap 10 
/ values -20 
regions 30 
e border 40 
30 
Fig. 2, a a0 
vertical 
map the 
rlap has Figure 3: Object 1: Top: 3D model of the surface S1 of the first half of the broken 
us being specimen. Bottom: Rotated 3D model of the second surface S2. The lower regions (fatigue 
fracture) show good correspondence, the upper regions show large deformations.