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.