Second Edition _ _ __

FRACTURE
MECHANICS
Fundamentals and Applications
V
(2. .
:J
f V'j{ O)
/

~.;: 20 SOr/b46'r 200(

T.L. Anderson, Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A&M University
CoJlege Station, Texas

eRe Press
80ea Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
 '*"'
Con. Art: N""li ...ar 3-di"",,, •..,.... analysis of. COIlIpICt lensioft. C(T).<p<ci""'.' Mi ... cquiVlknt was
shown <)II • defom,.,j rno<I<I. Cowtay of AnI< Oullcr'\Od """ I'rof~1$Or Robe" Dodd .. ~mrnt of Civil
EIoPncerin& lhoi ........ y of Ill ....... CIwnpai&a.UrbMa.

Library o t Congress Catliloging-in -Publication Data

Anderson. T. L
Fra<:lull' rnechanicI ; fund.m~rllals lind appIicalions I T. L
Anderson. - 2nd ed.
p. c m.
lrocludc, bibliographical referel1Cei 800 in!IeX.
ISBN 0-849)-426(}.(l (acid.free paper)
I. Frw:t~ mc:chaniQ. I. TItle.
TA409.A491994
620. 1'126--dc20 94-4287 1
CW

This book conlains informalion obtained from aulhe:ntic and h.iihly regarded IOlIfCeS. Reprinted material il
qUOled wilh permission. and SOUn:el are indicated. A wide variety o f refereJlCt'S are lisled Rearonable efronl
have been made 10 publi$h reliable data and informali.,... btn the: author and lhe publis/w:r cannot asSUIlle
responsibil ily for !be .-a)idity of all maleriab or for lhe conxquellUl of lhcir UM:.

Neither Ihi, bQ(>k nor any pan may Ix. reproducl:d Of lransmined in any fonn 00" by any 1lle1lRS. electronic or
mechanical. irocluding photocopying. mlcmfilmilli. and recording. or by any information 5lorage 00" TClrievai
system. without prior pcrmissioo in wrililli from the publisher.

The conscnI ofCRC PYns UC doe$ not extend 10 OOpying for gtntraI distribution. for promoIion. for clUling
new works. or for resale. Specific pomnission mu,," be Qblained in writing from CRC Pre$, u.c
for such
copying.

Direct al l inquiries to CRC I"re$$ u.c. 2000 N.W. Corpotate Blvd... 80ca R_on. Florida 33431.
Tradrmllrk Nou"", Product Of corporaIe names may be uademarks or regisle~ tradcmart.l. and ~ U$e<l
only for idenli ficatioo and explanation. without imcm to infringe.

Visit tbe C RC Press Web site a' www.cn.press.rom

C I99S by CRC Press LLC

No claim to original U.S . Govemlllenl works

International Standard Book Number 0-8493..426Q.O
Library of Congress Card Number 94-42871
Printed in tK Unilal Stat,.. or America 8 9 0
PriMed on acid-free paper
 PREFACE
lllc field of fracture mechanics vinually nonc~i~lenl prior to World Wu II, but ha!l
W85
since matured into an established disci pline. Most universities wilh an engineering
program offer al least one fracture mechanics course on the graduate level, Bnd an
increasing number of undergraduates have been exposed to this subject Applications of
fracture mechanics in industry an: relatively common, as knowledge Ihal was once
confined to a few specialists is bcroming IflOI't: widespread.
While there are a number of books on frncturc mechanics, mos( are geared to a
spcdfic audience. Some tn:atmen!$ of Ihis subject emphasize material testing. while
Olhers concentrale on detailed mathematical derivations. A few books address the
microscopic aspecl5 of fracture. but most consider only continuum models. Many books
are restricted to a panieular malerial system, such as melals or polymers. Cutrent
offerings include advanced, highly specialized books, as well as introductory texts.
While the fonner are valuable to researchers in this field, they are unsuitable for students
with no prior background. On the other hand, introductOl)' treatments of the subject arc
sometimes simplistic and misleading.
This book provides a comprehensive treatment of fracture mechanics that should
appcaIlO a relatively wide audience. lbcon:tical background and practical applications are
both covered in detail. This book is suitable as a graduate text. as well as a reference for
engineers and researchers. Selected portions of this book would also be appropriate for an
undergraduate OOW"SC in frlIictw"c mechanics.
This is the second edition of this text. The first edition was published in 199 1.
While tbe overwhelming response 10 the first edition was positive. I received a few
constructive crilicisnu from $Cveral colleagues whose opinions I respect I have tried to
incorporate their comments in this revision, and I hope the final product meets with the
approval of readers who are acquainted with the first edition. as well as those who are
seeing this text for the first time.
Many sections have been revised and expanded in the second edition. In a few eases,
material from the first edition was dropped because it had become obsolete or did not fit
within the context of the revised material. Chapter 2, which covers linear elastic fracture,
has been expanded to include weight functions and mixed-mode fracture. (Weight
functions were previously covered in Chapl:er II, but the subject is too important to place
at the back of the hook.) A new section on crack tip constraint h.as been added to Chapter
3, and Chapter 6 now includes a section on fracture in concrete and rock. Chapter 7 was
updated 10 account for recent developments in fracture toughness testing standards.
Additional stress intensity solutions for pan-through cracks have been added to Chapter
12. A number of problems have been added to Chapter \3, and $Cveral problems from the
first edition have been modiflCd or deleted.
TIle basic organiution and underlying phi losophy are unchanged in the second
edition. TIle book is intended to be readable without being superficial. TIle fundamental
concepts are finl described qualitatively, with a minimum of higher level mathematici.

'"
This enables a siudeni wilh I reasonable grasp of unde'1raduale calculus 10 IIlin physical
insi&ln inlo!he subjeci. For !he more advanced ruder. appendices at IIx end of cenain
chaplen live the detailed mathemalial background.
In oullining IIx basic principles and applicalions of fraclure me<;hanics, I have
auempu:d 10 inlegra~ malerialsscience and wlid mechanics 10 a much grealer utenllhan
previous IUts. Althoullh conlinuum theory Ilas pro~ed 10 be a ~ery powerful tool in
fr3CluR! mechanics. one cannot ignore microstruclullli 115pects. Conlinuum theory can
predict the SI/'e5SeS and itlll;ns ncar a crack tip. but it is lhe malerial' s microstructure thai
dc:tcnnillCli the aitical conditions for fracture.
The fint cllapter introduces IDe subject of fractuR! mechanics and proyide. an
o~erview; this chapter includes I review of dimellSional lII\alysis, whkh proves to be a
U$Cful tool in later chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 describe IDe fundamental concepl$ of
linnr elastic and elaslk-plastic fracture mechanicl, resp«tivcly. One of the most
imponanl and most often mi sunderstood concepts in fracture mechanics is lhe single
parameter anumplion, which cnable! the prediction of struclural behavior from small
sc ale laboratory tCStS, When a single parameter uniquely desc ri hcs Ihe crack tip
conditions, fracture tooghncn, which is a critical ~alue of this parameler. is independent
of specimen $i~. When the singl~pamnetcr assumption bruks down. fraclure toughness
bec:omcs siu dependenl, and. smal l 5C3le fnclLn lOU&Jmes$ ~I may DOl be indicative of
structural Ixhavior. Chapters 2 and 3 dC$Cribe the basis of the single-parameter
assumption in detail, and outline tlx requirements for its validity. Chapter 3 includes the
results of ra:ent research that ulends fraclUre mechanics beyond the limits of sinll~
parameter lheory. The main bodies of Chapters 2 and 3 are wnucn in such a way as to be
accessible 10 the beginning studenl. Appendices 2 and 3. which follow Chapters 2 and 3.
respectiYely, gi~e mathematical derivations of several imponant rel ationships in linear
elaSlic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. Most of the m~terial in theliC appendices
~ui~5 a graduat~lcvel backaroond in solid mechanics.
Chapter4 introduca dynamic and time-dcpendent fraclure mechanics. The section on
dynamic fracture includes I brief discussion of rapid Ioadi", of a 5wionary rnlCk. &Ii w~1I
as rapid cnlCk propagation and arrest. The C·, C(I), and CI parameters for tharacteriling
tKep crack growth are introducd, together with analo,oos quantities thai characteri~
fracture in yis.;oclastic materials.
ChaptCl'S outlines micro mechanisms of fraclure in melals and alloys. while Chapler
6 describes fraclure mechanisms in polymers. ceramics. composit~li. and conc~te. These
chapters emphasize lbe imponlnce of micros\I'\lclUre and material propcnies on the
fraclure behavior.
The applications portion of this book begins with Chapter 7. which givCli practical
advice on fracture tou,hnc:ss testing in metals, This chapter describes standard lest
m<:thods, such as K/I;.J/e. and CTOD. as well U rc<:ent research results. Chapter 7
includes a section 00 wddment lestinl, which has yet 10 be standardized in the U.S.
Chapter 8 describes fracture tcsting of nonmetallic materials. Mosl of!hese teSI methods
are still nperimental in nature, since this is a relatively new field. Currently, a number
of rescan:hcrs an: chanu:terizinll fracture behavior of plastics with lest methods that were
ori,inally deyeloped for metals: Chapter 8 discusses the ~alidi ty of sueh tU tS for
polymers. and suggests improvements in current methodology. Chapter 9 outlines the

I.
available melhodll for applying tn.:u,lre mechanic. 10 IlnIClures. including linear elastic
approacbes. lbe EPRI J estimation 5Cbeme.lhe R~ method. and !he Brilish Standards PO
6493 approEh. A brief description of probabi lulic fIXture mechanics is also included, IS
well IS a discus.sion of !he sbortcominp of existin, analyse5. ~er 10 dacribcs lbe
fraclure mechanics approach 10 faligue el'lKk propII,ltion. and di$Cusses some of the
cri lical i$5ues in this an:a. including CflIC k closure and the behavior of short cracks.
Chaplcr ] I oullines some of lhe mosl recenl developments in compuUltional frac:lUre
mechanic •. Procedures for detennining 5U'CSS intensilY and lbe J inlegral in structures are
deS<.:ribed. wilh particuJarcmphasis on !he cncraY domain inteJrnI approach.
Chapler ]2 provides refcrence maleriallhal is usually found in fraclure mechanics
handbooks. This malerial includes su'css inlensily faclors for common configuralions. IS
well lIS limil load. elaslic compliance. and fully plaslic J solulions. Chapler ] 3 conlains
a series ofpraclice problems lhal correspond 10 malerial in Chapters] 10 II.
If lhis book is usW as a coliege lelll, il is unlikely lhal all of lbe malerial cln be
covered in a single seTnCSler. Thus the inslnlClor should select the portions of the book
thaI suit lhe needs and background of the Sludents. 1lle firsl lhree chaplers, excluding
aPIXndices. should form the foundation of any COtlf$C. [n addition. I strongly rec:ommc:nd
the inclUSion of II Icasl one of the malCrials chapcen (5 or 6). reaardless of " 'hetheT or not
maleri.ls 5C~ne<= is the smdenu ' major field of sludy. A cou.rse UUIl is orienled loward
applications cl)tJld include O\IpIers 7 to 10. in addition to the earlier chapters. A JTlIduale
level course in a wlid mechanics cll1Ticulum might include Appendices 2 and 3. Chapler
4, Appendix 4. and Chapcer II.
As with the first edition. I produced this book in camera·ready form on a MllCinlosh
pe rsonal computer. The appearance of thi s edition is. J believe, superior 10 the firsl
edilion. Thi s cosmetic enhancement can be auributed to a combination ofbeller software •
• higher resolution printer. and an incremental improvement in the de~k· top publishing
ski ll s of lhe allthot'.
I am pleased to acknowledge III those individuals who Ilelpcd make this book
possible. I am araleflll 10 Bob Stem and Jod Claypool al CRe Press for their ~onti nual
support. A number of ooIlea,ues and friends reviewed portions of the draft manuscripl
andlor provided photographs IOd homework problems. in~ludin, W.l. Bradley. M.
Cayard, R Chona, M.G. Dawes. R.H. Dodds Jr" A.G. Evans, SJ. Garwood, J.P. Gudas,
E.G . Guynn, A.L. Highsmith. R.E. Jones Jr., Y.W. Kwon . J.D. Landes, E.J. Lavemia.
A, Lenon, R,C. McClung. D.l. McDowell . J.G . Merk le. M.T . Miglin. D.M . Parks,
P.T. J>unscller, R.A, Schapery. and C .F, Shih. I apologi~e 10 anyone whose name I have
inadvenently omi tted from this list. All of these individuals contributed to lhe firsl
edition. and some offcred more recenl commcnts wh ich I incorporated into lhe currenl
cdili'on, I received valuable edi lorial a5sislan~e from Victo ria Stolarski. who complelely
refonnalled lhe lcxt for this edition. Mr. Sun Yongqi produced a number of SEM
fraclograp hs especiaJly for this book. I would like to e~ pre5S my appreciation to Bud
Pelerson. the: Head of the Mechanical Enginccrin, Departmenl at TcxlS A&M Univenity.
and his predecessor. WaJter Bradley, for providing In environment conducive 10 the
prep .... tion of this book. Last btu certainly neM least. Russ Hall, formerly wilh CRC
Pre" IllId now with IEEE Press. deserves ~ciaJ mention. In 1989. Russ used various
methods (k,itimllte and ocherwise) 10 oonvine<= me 10 write thili book. When I ~ 10

•
embark on this project at that time, I must have either been temporarily insane or was
being blackmailed (or both). When Russ' first novel is made into a movie, I hope he
invites me to the premier.

T.L. Anderson
October 1994

To
Molly and Tom
 CONTENTS

PREFACE .............••..••...........••....•.•..................................iii

PART I:
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1

t . HISTO RY AND OVERViEW................................................................. 3

1. 1 WHY STRUCTURES FAIL.. ...........................................................3
1.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .........................................................1
1.2.1 Early Fractwe Research ................................................... 10
1.2.2 TIle Libeny Ships ............................ ... ..... ...................... 10
1.2.3 Post-War Fracture Mechanic. Research ............ ", ................ II
] .2.4 Fracture: Mechanics from ] 960 to ] 980 ............................... ] 2
] .2.!l Recent Trends in Fr-..::l\IJ"e Re$ean:h .................................... ] 4
1.3 THE FRACTURE MECHANICS APPROACH TO DESIGN .............. 14
1.3. 1 nw EMI1Y Criterion ...................................................... IS
1.3.2 The Suus IntcDSity Approach ................. ......................... 17
1.3.3 Time-Dependent Crack Growth and Damlge Tokranee ........... 18
1.4 EFFECT OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON FRACTURE ................ 19
1.5 A BRIEF REVIEW OF DIMENSIONAL ANALYS I5... ...................... 21
1.5. ] nw Buckingham n -Theorem ............................................ 21
!'s .2 Dimcnsional An alysis in Fracture Mechan ics ....................... 22
REFERENCES ........................ ....... ......................... ......................... 25

PART II :
FUNDAMENTA.L CONCEPTS ............................................. 29

2. LINEAR ELASTI C .. .. ... .. .. I

2. 1 .. .. ... .. .. I
2.2 .. .. ..
2.3 11-1E GR IFFITH ENERGY BALANCE ....................... ..................... 36
2.3. ] Comparison with the Critical Suus Criterion ..................... 38
2 3.2 Modiroed Griffith Equation ............................................... 39
2.411-1E ENERGY RELEASE RATE ................................................... 4]
2.5 INSTABILITY AND THE R CURVE .............................................. 46
2.5. ] Reasons for !be R Curve Shape ......................................... 48
2.5.2 Load Conln)l Versus Displacement ControL. ...................... 48
2.5.3 Structuru with FinilC Compliance ........... ......................... 50
2.6 STRESS ANALYSIS OF CRACKS ................................................ S]
2.6. 1 The Stress Intensity Factor ...................... ......................... S2
2.6.2 Relltionship between K and Global Behavior ....................... SS
2.6.3 Effect of Finite Size ........................................................ S8

,.
 2.6.4 Principle of Supe..-position .....•........................................ 64
2.6.5 Weigh.t Func tion~ ........................................................... 67
2.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND y........................................... 69
2.8 CRACK TI P PLASTiCiTY ............................................................ 72
2.g. 1 The Irwin Approach. •..... .................................................. 72
2.8.2 The Strip Yield ModeL .................................................. 75
2.8.3 Comparison of Plastic Zone Corrections.•.............••............ 78
2.8.4 Plastic Zone Shape .. ....................................................... 78
2.9 PLANE STRESS VERSUS PLANE STRAlN ................................... 82
2. 10 K AS A FAILURE CRITERlON ................................................... 84
2.10.1 Effect of Loading Mode .................................................. 87
2.10.2 Effect of Specimen Dimensions ....................................... 87
2.10.3 Limirs to the Validity of LEFM .................................... .. 89
2. 11 MIXED.MODE FRACfU RE ........................................................ 9 1
2.11. 1 Propagation of an Angled Crack ...................................... 9 1
2.11.2 Equivalent Mode 1 Crack ................................................ 93
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 96

APPENDIX 2: MATHEMATI CAL FOUNDATIONS OF LINEAR

EL AST IC FRACTURE MECHANiCS ..................................................... 101
A2.1 PLANE ELASTICITY ................................................................ 101
A2.1 .1 CarteSian Coordinates ................................................... 101
A2.1.2 Polar Coordinates ......................................................... 103
A2 .2 CRACK GROWTH INSTABILITY ANALYSIS .............................. 104
A2.3 CRACK TIP STRESS ANAL YSIS ............................................... I05
A2.3 .1 Generalized In· Plane Loading .......................................... 105
A2.3.2 The Westergaard Stress Function ..................................... 109
A2.4 ELLWnCAL INTEGRAL OF TIfE SECOND KlND ....................... 115

3. ELASTlC·PLASTIC FRACT URE MECHANICS ............................... 117

3.1 CRAC K TIP OPENING DISPLACEMENT ...................................... 117
3.2 THE J CONTOUR INTEGRAL ...................................................... 122
3.2.1 Nonlinear Energy Release Rate ......................................... 123
3.2.2 1 as a Path- Independent Line Integral .................................. 126
3.2.31 as a Stress Inten sity Parameter ........................................ 127
3.2.4 The Largc Strain Zone ..................................................... 129
Measurement of 1............................................ 131
J AND croD ................................... 138
GROWTH RESISTANCE CURVES ................................... 142
3.4.1 Stable and Unstable Crack Growth ..................................... 143
3.4.2 Computing J for a Growing Crack ..................................... 146

3.5 J.CO]Nj':R
3.5.1:~O~L~LE~D~F~RA[
C~'~U:RE~~j..~...;.;·f·,~...~..~.·,i··...................
·,·....~~
...~..~...;. .••.. . •. .•. •. . . . •.•.•. •. . . .•. •.•. •. 149
148
...... 152

......................................... .............................................. 155

3.6.1 The Elastic T Strcss ........................................................ 160
3.6.2 J-Q Theory .................................................................... 163

•
 3.6.3 Sc.Iin, Moo:\I:l for Cleavl&C Fraerure .•..•.... ......................... 169
3.6." Umiwioru orTwo-PlnmcIeT FnIe1~ Mechaniel. _............. I73
REFERENCES ................................................................... ....... ....... 178

SCALE y IELDING ............................................................................ 194

A3.S.1 The R~Or\Ipn-Sham Analysis .................................... 194
A3.5.2 Sleady StatC Cnd Growth ............................................ 198
A3.6 NOTES ON 'THE APPLICABIUTY OF DEFO RMATION
PLASTICITY TO CRAC K PROBLEMS .............................................. ,201

... DYNAMIC AND TIME-DEPENDENT F RAC TURE .......................... ,20S

" .1 DYNAMIC FRAcnJRE AND CRACK ARREST ............... ,............ lOS
" .1. 1 Rapid l .oadina or a Stationary Crack .................................. 206
" .1.2 Rapid Crack Propagation and Anut ................................... 2 11
4.1.3 Dyll&lTlic Contour Inle~ ., ........ ,.. ,................................ 222
".2 CREEP C RACK GROWTH ........................................................... 22S
4.2 .1 Thc C · Intc'ral .............................................................. 226
4.2 .2 Soon Time Versus Lon, Time Bcll.vior............................. 229
4.3 VISCOELASTIC FRACfURE MECHANICS .................................. 233
4,3.1 Linellf Vi,eoclasticity .................................................... .. 234
4.3.2 The Viscodaslic J InteJf8l ............................................... 238
4.3.3 Transition from Linear to Nonlinear Behavior ...................... 242
A4.1 ELASTODYNAMIC C RACK T IP FIELDS .................................... 2$1
A4.2 DERIVATION OF THE
GENERALIZED .................................................................... 2$$

PA.RT III :
MATERIAL BEHAVIOR ........................................................ 26 1

5. FRA C T U RE ME C HAN ISMS IN M E TALS ......................................... 26S

$. 1 DUCTI LE FRACTURE................................................................. 26$
$. 1.1 Void Nuc\eatioa ...................... ,...................................... 267
S. I.2 Void Growth ................. ,.. ,............................................ 268
$. 1.3 Ductile Crack Growth ..................................................... 279
$.2 Cl.EAVAGE ................................................................................ 282
S.2.1 Fractoanphy ................ ......................................... ... ..... 283
S.2.2 Mechanisms OrOcavlJc [nitialion ............................... ..... 28S
S.2.3 Mathematical Models ofOuvagc Fracture Toughncss .......... 289
$.3 TIiE DUCTILE-BRITn.E TRANSmON ....... ,........... .............. .... .... 297
S.4 INTE RGRANUl.AR FRACTURE ................................................... 299

,I
 REFERENCES ...... ,.... , ..................................................................... 302

AP P ENDIX 5: STATISTICAL MODELING OF CLEAVAGE

FRACTU R E •.••.••••••. . ... . .... . .. .. •••••••..••..••.•••.••.•••.••..•••.••.••.•••• 307
As.1 WEAKEST UNK FRACIURE .................................................... 307
As.2 INCORPORATING A CONOmONAL PROBABILITY OF
PROPAGATION .............................................................................. 309

6. FRACTURE MECHAN I SMS IN NONMETALS ••.••••••••••...•.••••••• 313

6.1 ENGINEERING PLA STI CS ........................... ................................ 3 14
6.1.1 Struct ure and Properties of PolymeJs .................................. 314
6.1.2 Yielding and Fracture in Polymcrs ..... .............................. .. 322
6.1.3 Fibcr·Reinforccd Plastics ................................................. 329
6.2 CERAMICS AND CERAMIC COMPOSlTES .................................. 343
6.2.1 Microcrack Toughening ...................................... .......... ... 347
6.2.2 Transformation Toughening ......................... .................... 348
6 .2.3 Ducti le Pba$C Toughening .................... ................. ...... 3SO
6.2.4 Fiber and Whisker Tooghening ......................................... 350
6.3 CONCRETE AND ROCK ............................................................. 354
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 357

PART IV:
APPLI CA T IONS ..................................................................... 363

'1. FRACTURE TOUG H NESS TESTING OF METALS ......................... 365

7. I GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................. , ..................... 365
7,1.1 Specimen Co nfigurations ................................................ 366
7. 1.2 Specimen Orientation ........................................... 368
7.1.3 Fatigue Precracking .... .......... .......................................... 370
7.1.4 Ins tru men tali on ............................................................. 372
7.1.5 Side Grooving ........... ............................................. , ...... 373
7.2 K/" TESTING .............................................................................. 375
7.3 K-R CURVE TESTING .................................................. ............. ,3 80
7.3.1 Specimen Design .................................................. , ........ 381
7.3.2 Experime n\.lll Measurement of K-R CurveS .......................... 382
7.4} TES TI NG OF METALS ...................................................... ........ 385
7.4.1 } Ie Measurements ................................................ .... ....... 385
1.4.2 }.R Curve Testing .......................................................... 389
7.4,3 Critical} Values for Cleavage ........................................... 392
705 CTOD TESTING .......................................................................... 392
7.6 DYNAMIC AND CRACK ARREST TOUGHNESS .......................... 396
1,6. 1 Rapid Loadi ng ..................................... ............ .............. 396
7 .6.2 K'a Measun:menls ...... , .......................................... ...... ,.. 397
7.7 FRACTURE TESTING OFWELDMENTS " .................................... 402
7.7. I Specimen Design and Fabrication ... ,.................................. 403
7.7,2 Notch Location and Orientation...... _.................... ..... 403

.11
 7.7.3 Fatigue Pm:rocking ...............•..•. .. .................................. 406
7.7.4 Post-Test Analysis ............ .................................... ..... .... 406
7.8 TESTIN G AND ANALYSIS OF SlEELS IN THE DUcnLE-
BRrrn..E TRAN s m ON REGION ...... ..•...•. .................... ..................... 407
7.9 QUALITATIVE TOUGHNESS TESTS ............................................ 409
7.9. 1 Charpy a nd IzOO Impact Test ............................................. 409
7.9.2 Drop Weight Test ...................•..•.................................... 4 11
7.9.3 Drop Weight Tear and Dynamic Tear Tests .......................... 412
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 413

APPENDIX 1: EXPER IMENTAL ESTIMAT ES OF

DEFORMATION J .................................................. .................................. 41 9

8. FRA CTURE TESTING OF NONMETALS ......................................... 423

8.1 FRAClURE TOUGHN ESS MEASUREMENTS IN
ENGINEERING PLASTICS ....•........................................................... 423
8. 1.1 The Suitability of K and J for Polymers ......•.. .•.. ......•...••.... 423
8. 1.2 Precrocking and Other Practical Maners •.... ..•..................... .432
8.1.3 K/c Testing ........... ......................................... ............... 434
8.1.4 J Testing .............. ........................................................ 439
8.1.5 E~ pcrimental Estim ates of Ti me-~pcnde n t Fracture
Parameters .................... ........................................................ 440
8.1.6 QuaHtati ~e Fracture Tests on Plastics ................................. 444
8.2 INTERLAMINA R TOUGHNESS OF COMPOSITES .....•.......•....•..... 445
8.3 CERAMiCS ........................ ...................................................•.... 451
8.3.1 Chevron-Notched Specimens .. .......................................... 451
g.3.2 Bend Specimens Precnw; ked by Bridge Indentation ................. 454
REFERENCES .......................... ....................................................... 456

and Pitfal1s ....................... ..... .... 469

x iii
 9.7 COMPARISON OF DRIVING FORCE EQUATIONS ....................... .496
9.8 THE PO 6493 METHOD .............................................................. .498
9.8.1 Leve l I ..................•....•.•............................................... 500
9.8.2 Leve l 2 ........•.........•....•.........•....................................... 501
9.8.3 Level 3......................................................................... 504
9.9 THE R6 METHOD ....•.............................. ............... .................•... 50~
9.10 PROBABIUSTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS ...........•.....•.............. 506
9. 11 UMITATIONS OF EXISTING APPROACHES ................. ............. 507
9.1 1.1 Driving Force in Weldments ............................... ............ 508
9.11.2 Residual Sltesscs .................................................. ........ 508
9. 11 .3 Three-Dimensional Effects .............................................. S09
9.11.4 Crack Tip Conmaint..................................................... 509
REFERENCES ................................•................................................ 509

10. FATIG UE C RACK PROPAGATION .....................•.•.•....................... 513

10.1 SIMILITUD E IN FATIG UE ........................•......••......•.................. ~13
10.2 EMPIRICAL FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH EQUATIONS ............... ~17
10.3 CRACK C LOSURE .................................................................... ~20
10.3. 1 A Simplistic View of Closure and dK1h ........................... 525
10.3.2 Effccts of Loading Variables On Clos ure ............................ 526
10.3.3 The Fatigue Threshold ........... ............................•..•..... ... ~28
10.3.4 Pitfalls and Limitations of dK.U........•.......•........... ......... 530
10.4 VARlABLE AMPLInJDE LOADING AND
RETARDATION ................................................................... 531
10.4.1 Rcvene Plasticity at the Crack Tip ................................. .531
10.4.2 The Effect of Overloads .....•............................................ 534
10.4.3 Analysi~ of Variable Amplitude Fatigue ............................ 537
10.~ GROWTH OF SHORT CRACKS ............. ......... ......... .................. 539
10.~.1 Microstructurally Slwn CTacks ........................................ 540
10.5.2 Mechanically Soon Cracks .............................. ...•......•..•. 541
10.6 MICROMECHANJSMS OF FATIGUE ........ ........ ..•.......... .•........... 543
10.6.1 Fatigue in Region II ........ ............................•....•......•..... 543
10.6.2 Micromechanisms Near the Threshold ............................... 546
10.6.3 Fatigue at High OK Values ............................................ 546
10.7 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT OF FATIGUE CRACK
GROWlli ..................................................••.........................•......... 547
10.7.1 ASTM Standard E 647 ....... .................................... ........ 547
10.7.2 Closure Measurements ................................................... 549
10.8 DAMAG E TOLERANC E............................................................. 552
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 555

APPENDIX 10: APPLICATION OF THE J CONTOUR

INTEGRAL TO CYCLIC LOADING ....................................................... 559
AIO.1 DEFINITION OF M ......•..•....•..•.......•..•.............•..•..•........•..•..•. 559
A10.2 PATH INDEPENDENCE OF M ........•.................•...................... S61
AIO.3 SMALL SCALE Y[£LDING LIMIT ............................................ 562

,,;v
11. COM P UTATIONAL FRACTURE MECHANICS .............................. S6S
11 .1 OVERVIEW OF NUMERICAL METI-IODS ................................... .56$
11.1 .1 The Finite Ekmcnl Method .•..••..••.••..•..••. '" .............. '.' ". S66
I L t.2 The Boundary Integral Equation Method ......... ', ................. 569
11.2 TRAomONAL MFIl-IODS IN COMPlfrATlONAL
FRAcnJRE MECHANICS ..................................... ............... ......•...•. 571
11 .2.1 511ft1 and Displacement Malchina .., ................................ 572
11 .2.2 Ekmcntal Cradl. Advano;c ...••. '" .••. ", ........... ............. '., .... 572
11 .2.3 Contour Inlcgralion .............................. ........ ................. 573
] 1.2.4 Vinual Crack Extension: Sti ffness Derivative
Formulation .................................•........................................ 573
11 .2.5 Virtual Crack Extension: Continuum Approac:h .............••... 575
I U TIlE ENERGY OOMAlN u-rrEGRAL .......................................••.. 5n
11.3. 1 "TheoretieaJ Backg:rot.md ...........•...•.........................••......• 578
11 .3.2 Gc:nc..liuUQn \Q Three DimensiQn• .•......... ........••...........• ~81

11.3.3 Finite Element '::~:'::cii0~~,;~~i.~;i; .•..•. •.•.•. • 1

" ii
REfERENCES ..•...•....•.•..•..••..•....•...•..•......•......•...•.................••...•.... 592

A.P PENDIX II
PROPERTIES OF SINGULARITY ELEMENTS ............•.......•...••..••...••. 595
A 11 .1 QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT .•..•...•..•..•...••........ ..................... 596
AII .2 TRIANG ULAR ELEMENT..............•.......•...•......................•....•. ~98

PART V:
REFERENCE MATERIAL ................................................... ..599

11. COM PILATION OF K. J, COMPLIANCE AND LIMIT

LOAD SOLUTIONS •.••.•..•......•..................•....•.••.•.••.•......................••••..•.•. 601
12.1 THROUGH -THICKNESS CRACKS-f1.AT PLATES .••..••...•....•....•. 601
12. 1.1 Stn:ss Intensity and Elastic (;Qmpliance ............................ 60 I
12.1 .2 Limit Loed ..........................•....................................... 609
12.1.3 Fully Plastic J and Displacement ..•............ ........... .. : ........ 610
12.2 PART-llfRQUGH CRACKS- FLAT PLATES .. ....... ................ ..... .. 627
12.3 f1.AWEO C YLINDERS ............................•.....•...•...... ....•...•....•... 633
12.3.1 Stn:ss Intensily Faclll1" .....•...•..••..•......•..••..•...•..•....•....•..• 634
12.3.2 Limit Loed .........................•..•..................................... 641
12.3.3 Fully Plastic J and Displacement .•..••..........•..•......•••...•...• 641
REfERENCES .•..••..••..••.••..•..••.•..•..••..••..•..•...•..••..•..••. ........•..•••..••..•. 655

13. PRACTICE PROBLEMS •........ ... ............•...•..•..•...•.........••..•...••...•...•. 657

13. 1 C HAPTER I ...............................•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•...•.. .•.•. ....•..... .•...•.•. 657
13. 2 C HAPTER 2 •.•.•.•...... ..........................•.............. ......................•. 658
13.3 CHAPTER 3..•.•.•.•..•................. ..................•.............................. 662
13.4 CHAPTER 4 ...............................•.•.....•...................•.•...•.•..•.•...•. 664
13.5 C HAPTER S..•.•..•.•.•.•.•.............................................................. 666

..
 13.6 CHAPTER 6 ................................. ......... .................................... 667
13.7 CHAPTER 7 ....................... .......... . ............................................ 667
13.8 CHAPTER 8........................... ... ....... ... ......................... .. ....... .... 67 1
13.9 CHAPTER 9 ......................................... .. ................................... 673
13.10 CHAPTER 10 .. ...... ................................................ ......... ......... 676
13.1 1 CHAPTER 11 .............................................................. ... . ........ 679

INDEX ................................................... .. .... ..................... ............... ......... 681

PART I: INTRODUCTION
 1. HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

Fracture is a problem thaI society has faced for as long as the re have been man -made
structures. The problem may actually be worse today man in previous centuries, beo;ause
more can go wro ng in OUT compl ex technological socie ty. Major airline crashes. for in-
Slance, would nOI be possible without modem acrospal:e tec hnology.
Fonunalely. advances in the field of fracture mechanics have helped to o ffset some
of the potential dangers posed by increasing technological complelti ly. Our understanding
of how materials fail and our abilily to prevent such fai lures has inl:rca.scd considerably
since World War II. Much remains to be learned, however, lind existing knowledge of
fracture mechanics is nOl always applied when appropriate.
While catastroph ic failures provide income for anomeys and cons ulting e ngineers,
such events are detrimental 10 the economy as a whole. An economic study [I I estimated
the cost of fracture in the United States in 1978 at S 119 billion (in 1982 do ll ars), about
4% of the gross national product. Furthermore, this study estimated that the annual cost
co uld be reduced by S3S billion if current technology were applied, and that further frac.
lure mechanics research could reduce this figure by an additional S28 billion.

1. 1 WHY STRU CTU RES FAIL

The cause of moS! structural failures generally falls into one of the following categories:

(I) Negligence during design, construction or operation of the structure.

(2) Application of a new design or material, which produces an unexpected

(and undesirable) result.

In the first instance, existing procedures are su fficient to avoid failure, but are not
followed by one 01" more of the parties involved, due to human error, ignorance, or willful
misconduct. Poor workmanship, inappropriate or substandard materials, e rrors in stress
analysis, and operator elTOl" an: examples of where the appropriate technology and experi·
e nce are available. but nOi applied.
The second type of failure is much more difficuJ[ to prevent. When an "improved "
design is introd uced. there are invariably factors that the designer docs not antic!pate.
New matcria ls can offer tremendous advantages, but abo poten t ial problems.
Consequen tly , a new design or material should be placed into service only after extensive
testing and analysis. Such an approach will red uce the frequency of failures, but not elim-
inate them e ntirely; there may be impot1ant factors that are overlooked during testing and
analysis.
One of the most famous Type 2 failures is the brittle fract ure of the World War II
Libet1y ships (sec Section 1.2.2). These ships, which were the first to have an all-welded
hull, could be fabricated much faster and cheaper than earlier riveted designs, but a signif·

3
4 Chapttr I

kant number of these vessels sustained serious fractures as a result of the design change.
Today. virtually all steel ships are welded, but sufficient knowledge was gained from the
Ubeny ship failures to avoid similar problems in present structures.
Knowledge must be applied in order to be useful, however. Figure 1.1 shows an
example of a Type I failure:, where poor workmanship in a seemingly inconsequential
stroclUral detail caused a more recenl fracture in a welded ship. Tn 1979, the Kurdislan oil
tanker broke completely in two whj]e sailing in the north Atlantic [2}. The combination
of wann oil in the tanker with co ld water in contacl with the outer hull produced substan-
tial thermal stresses. The fracture initiated from a bilge keellhlll was improperly welded.
lbe weld failed to penetrate the strocturni detail, resulting in a severe stress concenlralion .
Although the hull sleel had adequate toughness to prevent fracture initiation. il failed to
stop the propagating crack.
Polymers. which are becoming more common in struclUral applications, provide a
number of advantages over metals, but also have the potential for causing Type 2 failures.
For example, polyethyle ne (PE) is c urrently the material of choice in natural gas trans-
portation syslems in the United States. One advantage of PE piping is that maintenance
can be performed on a small branch of the line without shutting down the en tire system;
a local area is shut down by applying a clamping tool 10 the PE pipe and stopping the
flow of gas. 1bc practice of pillCh clamping has undoubtedly saved vast sums of money,
but has also led to an unexpected problem.
In 1983 a ~tion of 4 in diameter FE pipe developed a major leak. The gas col-
lected beneath a residence where it ignited, resulting in severe damage to the house.
Maintenance records and a visual inspection of the pipe indicated that it had been pinch
clamped 6 years earlier in the region where the leak developed. A failure investigation [3}
concluded that the pinch clamping operatio n was responsible for the failure. Microscopic
exami nation of the pipe revealed that a small flaw apparently iniliated on the inner sur-
face of the pipe and grew through the wall. Figure 1.2 shows a low mag nification pho-
tograph of the fracture surface. Laboratory tests simulated the pinch clamping ope ration
on sections of FE pipe; small thumbnail -shaped flaws (Fig. 1.3) formed on the inner
wall of the pipes, as a result of the severe strains that were applied. Fracture mechanics
tests and analyses [3, 4} indicated that stresses in the press urized pipe were sufficient to
cause the observed time-dependent crack growlh; i.e., growth from a small thumbnail flaw
to a through-thlckness c rack over a period of 6 years.
The introduction of flaws in FE pipe by pinch clamping represents a Type 2 failure.
The pinch clamping process was presumably tested thoroughly before it was applied in
service, but no o ne anticipated that the procedure would in troduce damage in the malerial
that could lead to failure afte r several years in service. Although specific data are not
available, pi nch clamping has undoubtedly led 10 a significant number of gas leaks. The
practice of pinch clamping is still widespread in the nalUral gas industry, but many com-
panies and some states now require that a sleeve be fitted to the affected region in order to
rel ieve the stresses locally. In addition, newer grades of PE pipe material have lower den-
sity and are less susceptible to damage by pinch clampi ng.
 s

(b) 11111" k~1 rrom ,.hkb Ih. rr.ctUrt Inlll.ted.

FIGURE 1.1 TM MSV Kurdi>tan oIll.onk .., .·hl<h . ... taln<d. brltUo r,..,lurt .. hll • ..,ul... In 1M lI(Ir1b
AUomk In 1m. l'tIOIOC ....... pro.lclod by5.J. (;.rwood
6 Chapler I

nGURr. 1.1 rrw<,ur •• u,, "'" 0' . PE p ip< 'ht .u.t.loetI tI", •. drp"ndrn' rnck .rn.. ,h . . . reo,n <Jt
pinch d.m pl"l(]~ (PhoI ......... ph pro.1ok<! "flU:' J...... Jr.)
Introduction and (h·trview 7

Some catastrophic events include elemen ts both of Types I and 2 failures. On

January 28, 1986, the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded because an O-ring seal in one of
the main boosters did not respond well to cold weather. The Shuttle represents relatively
new technology, where service experie nce is limited (Type 2), but engineers from the
booster manufacturer suspected a potential problem with the O-ring seals and recom-
mended that the launch be dclayed (Type I). Unfonunately, these: engineers had little or
no data to support their position and were unable to convince their managers or NASA of-
ficials. The tragic results of the decision to launch are wen known.
Over the past few decades, the field of fracture mechani cs has undoubtedly prevented
a substantial number of struc tural failures. We will never know how many lives have
been saved or how much prapeny damage has been avoided by applying this technology.
because it is impossible to quantify disasters that do,,',happen. When applied COlTCCtiy,
fractu re mechanics nOi only helps to prevent Type I failures but also reduces the fre -
que ncy of failures of the second type, because designers can rely on rational analysis rather
than trial and error.

1.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Designing structures 10 avoid fracture is not a ne.,... idea. The fact that many structures
commissioned by the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt and the Caesars of Rome are still stand-
ing is a testi mony to the ability of early architects and engineers. In Europe, numerous
buildings and bridges constructed during the Renaissance Period are still used for thei r in-
tended purpose.
The ancient structures that are still standing today obviously represent successful de-
signs. There were undoubted ly many more unsuccessful designs that endured a much
shaner life span. Since mankind 's knowledge of mechanics was limited prior to the lime
of Isaac Newton, workable designs were probably achieved largely by trial and error. The
Romans supposedly tested each new bridge by requiring the design engineer to stand un-
derneath while chariots drove over it. Such a practice would not only provide an incentive
for developing good designs, but would also result in a Darwinian natural selection. where
the worst engineers are ''removed'' from the profession.
The durabilily of ancient structures is punicularly amazing when one considers that
the choice of building materials prior 10 the Industrial Revolut ion was rather limited.
Metals could nOi be produced in sufficient quantity to be fanned in to load-bearing mem-
bers for buildings and bridges. The primary construction materials prior to the 19th cen-
tury were timber, brick, and monar; only the latter two materials were usually practical
for large structures such as cathedrals, because trees of sufficie nt size for support beams
were rare.
Brick and mortar are relat ively brittle and are unreliable for carrying tensi le loads.
Consequently, pre-Industrial Revolution structures were usually designed to be loaded in
compression. Figure 1.4 schematically illustrates a Roman bridge design. The arch
shape causes compressive rather than tensile stresses to be transmitted through the struc-
ture.
•

YlGt/1tt: 104 Schftulk lloauIa brid,. dalp. ~ Irdl JI>apIr tf III~ b rid,................ bo In_II·
.... 110....'" IH IlnIeIlin • ~p...ln .!'URI.
The arch is the predominate shape in pre-Industrial Revolution arch itectu re .
Windows and roof spans were arched in order 10 maintain compressive loading. For e;l-
ample, Fig. 1.5 shows two windows and I ponion o f !he ceiling in Kings College
OIapel in Cambridae, England. Although these shapes are aesu.ctical ly plcasing. their
primary purpose is more pragmatic.
Compressively load 5tructUI"CS arc obviously stable. since some have lasted for
many centuries. 111c pyramids in Egypt an: the epitome of a stable design .
With the Industrial Revol ution came mass production of iron and stce l. (Or, con-
versel)'. onc might argue th.1 mass production of iron and Sled fueled the Industrial
Revolution.) The Ivailability of relatively ductile constnlCtion materials removed the ear-
lier restrictions on design . It was finally feasible 10 build structures that carried tensile
!treMes. NlMe the difference bet.....een the design of the Tower Bridge in London (Fig. 1.6)
and the earlier bridge design (Fig. 1.4).
llIe change from brict and mOl1ar s.truetures loaded in compression to steel struc-
lUres in tension brought problems, nowe\'er. Occasionally, a stul struc ture would fail
unexpectedly at stresses well below the antieiplued tensile strength . O~ of the most fa-
mous of these failures was the rupture ofa molasses !1Ulk in Boston in January 1919 [Sl.
Over 2 million gallons of molasses wen: spilled, resulting in 12 deaths, 40 injuries, mas-
sive property damage, and several drowned horses.
llIe cause of failures as the molasses WIt was largely a mystery at the time. In the
first edition of his elasticity tut published in Ig92 , Love (6) remarked that "the condi-
tions or Nplure are but v.gue ly understood.~ Designers typically applied safety rKtDn of
10 Of' more (based on the te nsile strength) in an effort to ....oid these seemingly random
railurcs.
Inrroduction and o...etvjew
•

FIGURE 1.6 T be Tower Bridle In London, com pleted In 1894. NoU 1M modem btam doMin, made
possible by the .""II.blllt,. <II 51.. I ... pport I lrden.
 10 CMpter I

Eli:periments performed by Leonardo da Vinci several centuries earlier provided.some clues

as to the root cause o f fracture. He measured the strength of iron wires and found tlult the
stre ngth vllfied inversely with wire length. These results implied that flaws in the mate-
rial controlled the strength; a longer wire corresponded to a IlIfger sam ple volume and a
higher probability of sampling a region contai ning I flaw. These results were only quali-
tative, however.
A quantitative connection between fracture strCu and fl aw size came from the work
of Griffith , wh ich was published in 1920 [7]. He appl ied a stress analysis of an elliptical
hole (performed by Inglis [8] seven yean ellflier) to the unstable propa8ation of a crack.
Griffith in voked the FlfSt Law of 1bermodynamics to fonnulate a fracture theory based on
a si mple energy balance. According to this theory, a flaw becomes unstab le, and thus
fracture occ urs, when the strain energy chan ge that results from an increme nt o f crac k
growth is sufficient to overcome the su rface energy of the materi al (See Section 2.3).
Griffith's model cOITe<:tly predicted the relati onship between strength and flaw s ize in
glass spec imens. Subseq uent efforts to apply the Griffith model to metals were
unsucccs.sfui. Since this model assumes that the work of fracture comes uclusively from
the surrace em: rgy of the materi al. the Griffith approach only applies to ideally brittle
solids. A modi fication to Griffith's model that made it applicabl e to metal s d id not come
until 1948.

1.2.2 The Libt:rty Ships

The mechanics o f fracture progressed from being a scientifi c c uriosity to an engineering

discipline, primarily because of what happened to the Libeny ships during World War II
(9).
In the early days o f World WlIf 11. the United States W85 s upplying ships and planes
to Great Brilai n under the Lend-Lease Act. Britain', greatest need at the time W85 for
cargo ships to carry supplies. The German Navy was s inking cargo ships al three times
the rate at which tlley could be replaced with existi ng shifJ-ooilding procedures.
Under the guidance of Henry Kaiser. a famous constroction engineer whose previous
projeclS inc luded the Hoover Dam. the Uniled Stales developed a revolutionary procedure
for fabricaling ships quickly . These new vessels. which became kn own 85 the Libeny
ships. had an all- welded hull , as opposed to the ri veted constructio n of traditional ship de-
signs.
The Liberty ship program W85 a resounding success, unlil one day in 1943. when
one of the vesse ls broke com pletely in two while sailing between Siberia and Alaska.
Subseque nt fractures occurred in other Libeny ships. Of the roughly 2700 liberty ships
build during World Wflf II, approximately 400 suslaincd fraclures, of which 90 were con-
sidered serious. In 20 ships the failure was essentially total , and aboul half of these broke
com pletely in IWO.
InvC$tigat ions revealed that the Libeny ship failures were caused by a combination
of three fac:ton:
Introduction and ~rview 11

• The welds, which were produced by a semi-skilled wort: force, contai ned «lICk-
like flaws .

• Most of the fractures initiated on tne deck at square hatch corners, where there
was a loeaJ streu concentnltion.

• 1lle steel from which the Liberty ships were made had poor toughness. as mea-
sured by Clwpy impact tests.

TIle steel in queslion had Ilways been adeqUltc for riveted ships because fracture
could not propaglle ICroU panels that were joined by rivets. A welded structure, how-
ever, is essentially a single piece of metal; propagJling cracks in the Liberty ships en-
COUntered no significant barriers, and were sometimes able to traverse the entire hull.
Once the causes of failure were identified, the remaining Liberty ships were retro-fit-
led with rounded reinfon:ements al the balch comen. In addition, high toughness steel
crack IIITCStcr plates were riveted to the deck at strategic localions. 1bese corrections pre-
vented further serious fractures.
In the longer tenn, 51fUClurai steels were developed with vastly improved toughness,
and weld quality control standards were developed. Also, a group of researchers at the
Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C. studied the fracture proble m in detail.
The field we now know as fracture mechanics was born in this lab during the decade fol-
lowing the War.

1.1.3 Post-War Fracture Mechanics Researc b l

1lle fracture mechanics research group at the Naval Research Labontory was led by Or.
G.R. Irwin. After studyi ng the early wort: of Inglis, Griffith, and others, Irwin concluded
that the basic tools needed to analyzed fracture were already available. Irwin's first major
contribution was to extend the Griffith approach to metals by including the energy dissi-
paled by local plaslic now [10]. Orowan independently proposed a lim ilar modification
to the Griffith theory [II]. During this same period. Matt (12J extended the Griffith the-
ory to a rapidly propagating crack.
In 1956, Irwin [13J developed the enagy release nile ooncept. which is related to the
Griffith theory but is in I form that is mOfe uuful for wiving engineering problems.
Shortly afterward, several of Irwin ' s colleagues brought 10 his attention a paper by
Westergaard [14J that was published in 1938. Westergaard had developed a semi-inverse
technique for analyzinll stre.sses and displacements ahead of a sharp crack. Irwin [IS] used
the Westerllaard approach to show that the streSscs and displacements near the crack tip
could be described by a single constant that was related to the energy release rale. This
crack tip characterizing panuneter later became known as the $treSi intensity flClOf.

, For alluceUeal lummary of CIlIy fract~ _"*,,i(l fClCucb . .. fer 10 F'.clw'~ M.c",,;u
R."o~liw." £Ju11 eMus/(" I'~" /19IJ_I96$) . .IoIm M. 8anom. cd .. America Society 01 T..u., Md
Materials (RE'S I), 1'IIi,*lpMa, 19". Thit volume COIUMns .. prima of t7 dwic: pllpI'n. u well as I
complc!e bibllovapby of fractu .. mechanics papers publi,hed up 10 ]96!1.
 " Clwpttr I

During this same period of time, Williams [16J applied a .KIfficwhat different technique \0
derive crack tip solutions that were essentially identical 10 Irwin's results.
A number of successful early applications of fracture mechanics bols\ered the stand-
ing of this new field in the engineering community. In 1956, Wells ( 17) used fracture
mechanics to show lhallhe fuselage failures in several Comel jet aircraft resulted from f.·
tiglle cracks reaching I critical size. TIicsc cracks initilled al windows and wen: caused by
insufficient reinforcement locally, combined with sqU1l!'e comers which produced a severe
stress concentration. (Recall the unfortunate hatch design in the Uberty ships.) A second
carty application of fracture mechanics OC(:urrcd at General Electric in 1957. Winne and
Wundtl18 ] applied Irwin's energy release rate approach to the failure o f large rotors from
steam turbines. 'They were able to predict the bursting behavior o f large disks CJltnlCted
from rotor forgings, and applied this kllOwledgc to the pre"cntion of fracture in actual ro-
tOI'$,
It seems that all great ideas encounter stiff opposilion initially, and fracture mechan-
ics is no exception. Although the: U.S. mililary and the electric power generating indus-
try were very supportive of the early work in thi s field, such was nOt the case in all
provinces of government and industry. Several government agencies openly discouraged
research in this area.
In 1960, Pari s and his co-workers [19] failed to find a receptive audience fo.- their
ideas on applying fracture mechanics principles 10 fatigue crack grnwth. Although Paris
et ai. provided convincing experimental and theoretical arguments for their approach, it
seems that design enginccrs were not yet ready to abandon their SoN curves in favor of a
more rigorous approach to fatigue design . 1be resistance to this work was 50 intense that
Paris and his collea(Ues were unable to find a poer-reviewed technical journal that was
willing to publish their manuscript , They finally opted to publish their work in a
University of Washington periodical entitled The Trend in Enginttring .

1.2.4 Frcad ure M« ba n lts from 1%0 to 1980

1l\c Second World War obviously 5epanttes two distinct eras in the history of fracture mc·
chan ics , TIlere is, however, some disagreement as to how the period between the end of
the War and the prne nt should be di vided. One possi ble historical boundary occun
around 1960, when the fundamentals o f linear elastic fracture mechanics were fairly well
established, and researchers turned their attention 10 crac k tip plasticity.
Linear clastic fracture mechanic5 (LEFM) ceases to be valid when significant plastic
deformation precedes failure. During a relatively short time period (196().6 1) several re-
searchers developed analyses to C()ITe(:t for yielding at the crack tip. including Irwin (20).
Dugdale [21 j, Barenblatt [22J. and Wells [23J. TIle Irwin plastic zone conection [20] was
a relatively simple extcnsion of LEFM, while Dugdale [2 1] and Barenblatt (22] each de·
veloped somewhat more elaborate models based on a narrow strip of yielded material at
!he crack tip.
Wells [23] proposed the displacement of the c.-.ck faces as an alternative fracture cri·
terion when sianifieant plasticity precedes failure. Previously, Wells had worked willi
Irwin while on sabbatical at the Naval Research Laboratory. When Wells returned to his
post at the British Welding Research Association, he attempted to apply LEFM to low-
Jnt~c,jon and Ov~I"\I;~ 13

and medium-strength str\!ctural steets. "These materials were too ductile for LEFM to ap-
ply, but Welts noticed that the crac k faces moved apan with plastic defonnation. Thi s
observation led to the development of the parameter now known as the crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD).
In 1968, Rice 124] developed another parameter to characterize nonlinear material
behavior ahead of a crack. By idealizing plastic deformation as nonlinear clastic, Rice was
ablc to generalize the energy release rate to nonlinear material s. He showed that this non-
linearencrgy release rate can be expressed as a line integral, which he called the} integral.
evaluated along an arbitrary contour around the crack. At the time his work was being
published, Rice discovered that Eshelby !2S] had previously published several so-called
conservation integrals, one of which was equivalent to Rice's} integral. Eshelby, how-
ever, did not apply his integrals 10 crack problems.
That same year, Hutchinson [26] and Rice and Rosengren [27] related the} integral
to crack tip stress fie lds in nonlinear materials. These analy ses showed thai} can be
viewed as a nonlinear stress intensity parameter as well as an energy release rate.
Rice's work might have been relegated 10 obscuri ty had it nOI been for the aclive re-
seareh effort by nuclear power industry in the United States in the early 19705. Because
of legitimate concerns for safety , as well as poli tical and public relations considerations,
the nuclear power industry endeavored to apply state-of-the-an technology, including frac-
ture mechanics, to the design and construction of nuclear power plants. The difficulty
with applying fracture mechanics in this instance was that mOSt nuclear pressure vessel
steels were too tough to be characterized with LEFM without resorting 10 enonnous labo-
ratory specimens. In 1971, Begley and Landes [28]. who were research e ng ineers at
Westinghouse. came across Rice's article and decided, despite s kepticism fro m their co-
workers. to characterize fracture toughness of these stee ls with the} integral. Their exper-
iments were very successful and led to the publication of a standard pnx:edure for} testing
of metals ten years later [29].
Material toughness characterization is on ly one aspecl of fracture mechanics. In Of-
der to apply fracture mechanics concepts 10 design, one must have a mathematical rela-
ti onship between toughness, stress and flaw size. Although these relationships were well
established for linear elastic problems, a frll(:tl,lre design analysis based on the} integral
was not available until Shih and Hutchinson [30] provided the theoretical framework for
such an approach in 1976. A few years later. the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) published a fracture design handbook [31] hased on the Shih and Hutchinson
methodology.
In the United Kingdom, Well's crOD parameter was applied extensively to fraclure
analysis of welded structures, beginning in the lale 19605. While fracture research in the
U.S. was driven primarily by the nuclear power industry during the 19705, fracture re-
seareh in Lhc: UK was motivated largely by the development of oil resources in Lhc: North
Sea In 1971, Burdekin and Dawes 132) applied several ideas proposed by Wells [33] sev-
eral years earlier and developed the crOD design curve. a semiempirical fracture mechan-
ics methodology for welded sleel Str\!ctures. The nuclear power industry in the UK devel-
oped their own fraclure design analysis [34J, based on the strip yield model of Dugdale
[21 J and Barenblau [22].
14 Chapt~r J

Shih (35) demonstrated I relationship between the J integral and CTOD, implying
thai both parameters an: equally valid {or charactcril.ing fracture. The J-based material
testing and structural design approaches developed in the U.S. and the British CTOD
methodology IwIve begun to merge in recent years, with positive aspects of each approach
combined \0 yield improved analyses. Both parameters an: currently applied throughout
the world \0 a range of materials.
Much of the theoretical foundation of dynamic fracture fYlC(:hanics was developed in
the period between 1960 and 1980. Signi ficant contributio ns were made by a number of
researchers, as discussed in Chapter 4.

1.2.5 Rece nt Trends in Fnlcturc Ruurc h

It is difficult to discuss fniclure mechanics research performed since 1980 in a historical

I;on lelil. Identifying major breakthroughs usually requires the: pasSllge of time; what
seems importanlloday may be obsolete later, while a major discovery may be overlooked
when it is first published. It is possible, however, to identify a few tre nds in recent work.
1bc field of fracture mechanics has matured in re<:ent years. Current research tends
to result in incremental advances rather than major gains.
More sophisticated models for material behavior are being illCOl'pOlllttd into fracture
mechanics analyses. While plasticity was the imponant concern in 1960. more re<:ent
work has gone a step further, incorporating time-dependent non linear material behavior
such as viscoplasticity and viscoelasticity. The fonner is motivated by the need for
tough. creep-resistant high temperarure materials, while the latter reflects the increasing
proponion of plastics in structural app lications. Fracture mechanics has also been used
(and sometimes abused) in the characterization of composite matcrials.
Another trend in re<:ent research is the development of microstuctural models for
fracture and models to relate local and global fracture behavior of materials. A related
topic is the efforts to characteriu and predict geometry dependenee of fracture toughness.
Such approaches are neccsslll')' when traditi onal. so-called single-parameter fracture me-
chanics break down.

1.3 THE FRACTURE MECHANICS APPROACH TO DESIGN

Figure 1.7 con trasts the fracture mechanics approach with the traditional approach to
stn.lctural design and material selection. In the latter case, the anticipated design stress is
compared to the flow properties of candidate materials; a material is assumed to be ade-
quate if its strength is greater than the expected applied stress. Such an approac h may al-
tempt to guard against brittle fracture by imposing a safety factor on streSS, com bined
with minimum tens ile elongation requirements on the material. 1bc fracture mechanics
approach (Fig. 1.7(b» has three importan t variables, rather than two as in Fill. 1.7(a).
lbe addi tional structural variable is flaw size, and fracture toughness replaces strength as
the relevant material propeny. Fracture mechanics quantirtes the critical combinations of
these three variables.
imroliuction and OvelView 15

l__~A~'~'U~'~D:"'_J.""-"""~il
STRESS . YIELD OR TENSILE
STRENGTH

APPLIED
L---: STRESS::----,

HAW FRACTURE
S IZE TOUGHNESS

FIGURE 1.7 C_pariMn <lithe r...ctu.., rnodoank:s _ppn:tada 10 d~1P' ... Ith tht tndltloaal .t..,ngth or
.. aterlals . ppro..:h.

1bere are two alternative approaches to fracture analysis: the energy crite rion and
the stress intensity approach. 1bese two approaches are equivalent in cenain circum-
stances. Both are diSl;:ussed briefly below.

1.3.1 The E nergy C rit erion

The energy approach Slates that crack extension (i.e. fracture) occurs when the energy
available for crack growth is sufficient to overcome the resistance of the material. The
material resistance may include the surface energy, plastic work. or other type of energy
dissipation associated with a propagating crack.
Griffith [7J was the first to propose the energy criterion for fracture, but Irwin [13]
is primarily responsible for developing the present version of this approach: the energy
release rate, g. which is defined as the rate of change in potential energy with crack area
for a linear elastic material. AI the moment of fracture, (j= !Ie. the critical energy release
rale, which is a measure offracfUre toughness.
For a crac k of le ngth 2a in an infinite plate subject to a rcmote lensile stress (Fig.
1.8), the energy release TatC is given by

(1.1)
16 Chapter I

(J

u V
/\
.7'
.. ..

? ~

~2'~

+
FIG URE 1.8 Tbrougll· .... kkDosll ~ .... k In u Infinite pille ... bjm to. RIMI. I_lie ~I""'" In prsctlc:.J
terms, "inr;nit~ m.."" th • • tbt wldtll of Ihe plate .. » 2/1.

where E is Young's modulus. (1 is the remotely applied stress, and a is the hIi.lf crack
length. At fracture, q= ~. IlIld Eq. ( 1.1) describes the critical combinations of stress and
crack size for failure:

( 1.2)

Note that for a constant <X value, failure stress, af varies with ,r!;., The energy release
rate, g, is the driving force for fracture, while Yc is the material's resistance In fracture.
To draw an analogy tn the strength of material s approach of Fig. 1.7(a), the applied stress
can be viewed as the driving force for plastic deformation, while the yield strength is a
measure of the material's resistance In defonnation.
The tensile stress analogy is also useful for iIlusl!ating the concept of similitude. A
yield strength value measured with a laboratory specimen shou ld be applicable to a large
structure; yield strength does nOi depend on specimen size. provided !he material is rea-
sonably homogeneous. One of the fundamental assumptions of fracltlre mechani cs is that
fracture toughness ({ic in lhis case) is independent ohlle size and geometry of the cracked
 17

body; a fracnm: toughness measurement on a laboratory speci men should be applicable 10

11 structure. As long as thi s assumption is valid, all configuration effects are taken inlO
account by the driving force, g. The similitude assumption is valid as long as the mate·
rial behavior is predominantly linear elastic.

1.3.2 The Stress Intensity Approach

Fi gure ].9 sc::he matically shows an element near the lip of a crack in an elastic material,
together with the in-plane stresses on this element. Note thai each stress component is
proportional to a single constant, K/. If Ihi s constant is known, the entire stress disuibu-
lion 11.1 the crack tip can be computed with the equations in Fig. 1.9. Thi s conSlant,
which is called the stress intensity factor, com pletely characterizes the crac k lip conditions
in II. linear elastic material. (The meaning of the subscri pt on K is explained in Chapter
2.) If one assumes that the material fails locally at some critical combination or stress
and strain. then it follows that fracture must occur at a critical stress in te nsi ty. Klc. Thus
Klc is an alternate measure of fracture toughness.
FOI' the plale illustrated in Fig. 1.8. the stress intensity factor is given by

(1.3)

Failure cxx: urs when KI = Klc . In this case. K/ is the driving force for fracture and K/c is
a measure of material resistance. As with 9(:. the propeny of si militude should apply 10
K/c. lbat is. K/c is assumed 10 be a size·i ndependent malerial propen y.
Comparing Eqs. ( 1.1) and ( 1.3) results in a relationshi p between Kr and q.

2
q=!'L (1.4)
E

CRACK

nGURE 1.9 SlnSUInnr lhe lip of l CTlldI: Ill ... d.1k mlltriIL
18 ChtJp":~ J

This same re lationshi p obv;o" ,1)' hQlds for tJc and K!c. Thus the energy and stress in-
tensity approaches to fracture mechanics are essentially equivalent for linear clastic mate-
rials.

1.3.3 Time· Dependent Crack G rowth and Da ma ge Tol erance

Fncture meo::hanies often play•• role: in life ~iction or components that are subject to
time-depcndcnt crack growth ma:haniSlllll such as fatigue or stn:SS oorrosion eracking. The
rolt' of cracking can be C(lfT'elate(! with fracl~ mechanics parameters such as the $tre$S in-
tensity faclor. and tile critical crllCk size for failure can be computed if !he fracture loogh-
neSI is k.nown. For example. the fatigue crack growth rate in melals can usually be de-
scribed by the following empi rical re lationship:

do : C(tJ<)" ( 1.5)
dN

where daldN is the cnK;k growth per cycle. IlK is the Jtreu intensity nmge, and C and '"
are material constanl.'i.
Damage tolerance, IL'I its name suggests, entails allowing subcritical naws 10 remain
in a SlJ'UCto.u'e. Repairin, nawed material or scrappinll' flawed strocturc is eKpensivc aMI
il onen unneccSSill')' . Fracture mechanics provides a rational basis for establishin, naw
tolenmcc limits.
Consider a flaw in a ltruc1ure that groWl with time (c., . • fatigue cnck or. stress
COI'fOSion cnd) as illUSlnlted schematically in Fill. l.l O. The iIIitial cra::k 5i~ is inferred
from nondestructive euminlllion (NDE), and !be criri(al crI(:k Jive is computed from !be
applied stress and fraclUR: louihncss. NOImal ly. an ollOlO'Clblc flaw sive would be defined
by dividing the critical site by a safety fllCtOl'. The predicted scrvice life of the structure
can then be infcrred by caJculatinll: the time requirrd for the n aw 10 grow from its initial
si~e to tile mlUimum allowable li~.

FLAW
SIZE
V-..ful Mrv\o;" Ufc

TIME
nGURJ:I: 1.10 ".. _ ... ............ . ~ . . ....p.
Imroducrion tIIId DIIl!Tvuw 19

1.4 EFFECT OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON FRACTURE

Figure 1.11 soows a simpli fied family tree for the field of fracture mechanics. Most early
work was appl icable on ly to linear elastic materials under quasistatic conditions. while
subsequen t advances in fracture researcb incorporated othe r types of material behavior.
Elastic- plastic fracture mec hanics considers plastic deformation under quasistatic "ondi.
tions, wbile d ynamic, viscoelastic, and viscoplastic fracture mechanics include time as a
variable. A dashed line is drawn between linear elastic and dy namic fracture mecbanics
because some early researcb considered dynamic linear elastic behavior. 1be chapters that
describe the VariOllS types of fracture behavior are sbown in Fig. 1.11. Elastic-pl astic,
viscoelastic, and viscoplastic fracture behavior are sometimes included in the more general
heading of fIOIIlin~arfrac,.. r~ muhnnics. Tbc brnnch o( fracture mechanics one should ap-
ply to a particular problem obviously depends on material behavior.
Consider a cracked plate (Fi g. I. g) that is loaded to failure . Figure 1. 12 is a
schematic plot of failure Itres.s versus fracture toughness (KId. For low toughness ma-
terials, brittle fracture is the governing failure mechanism, aBd cri tical stress varies lin-
ellfly with Kit, as predicted by Eq. (1.3). At very high toughness values, LEFM is no
longer valid, and failure is governed by the flow properties of the material. At intermedi-
ate toughness levels, there is a transition between brittle fracture under li near elastic con-
ditions and ductile overload. Nonlinear fracmre mechanics bridges the gap betwee n LEFM
and collapse. If toughness is low, LEFM is applicable 10 the problem, but if loughness
is sufficiently high, frocture mechanics ceases to be relevant to the problem because fail-
ure stress is insens itive to toughness; a simple Jim il load analysis is all that is required to
predict failure stress in II material with very hi gh fracture toughnes.s.
Table 1.1 lists various m aterials, together with the typical fracture regime for each
material.

UNEAit ELASn c
Linear
FItACI"I.IRIi lime-Independent
MECHANICS Ma tmals
(Chapter 2)

I
N"""-
I ELASTIC·PLA5nC ~Ind~ent
FllAcruRE Materials
I MECHANICS (Chapter 3)

j~
FRACI"I.IRI!
VlSCOELA5nC
FltAcruRE
~~, FltAcruRE
Ttme-Dependent
Materials
MECHANlCS MECHANICS MECHAN ICS (O\apter 4)

FIGURE 1.11 Slmpltftcd fam Uy Irft ollnduro ..a.nIa.

 zo Clwpter I

I 1°1 I I
FAILURE
STRESS

/ c•• ,,.. 11111

I

I
I
Nonlinear Fractun! UmltLoad
M~dlankll
I Analylu

FRACTURE TOUGHNESS {~cl

TASL£U
Typlcal fractul"t beblylor <II odected ",.terials. T.ID~"lu", II amIN..." unlcsl otb.nrtse lpedfIcd.

Material Tvnical Fl1lCIure Behavior

High strength steel Linear elastic

Low- and medium-strcngth stccl EJastic-plaslic/Fully plastic
Austenitic stainless steel Fully plastic
Precipitation-harden«! aluminum Linear elastic
Metals at high temperatures Viscoplastic
Metals at high strain rates Dynamic-viscoplastic

Polymers (below T g)- Linear elastic/Viscoelastic

Polymers (above Tg)- Viscoelastic

Monolithic ceramics Lint::ar elastic

Ceramic composites Linear elastic
Ceramics at high temperatures Viscoplastic
..
'"T, . Glass tTaru;lUon temperatuTC.
/mroduction and o.·erview
"
1.5 A BRIEF REVIEW OF DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

At first glance. a se<;tion on dimensional analysis may seem out of place in the introduc-
tory chapler of a book on frac ture mechanics. However. dimensional analysis is an im-
ponant 1001 for deve loping mathematical models of physical phenomena, and it can help
us understand existing moods. Many diffiCult conceptS in fracture mechanics become rel-
atively transparent when one considers the relevant dimensions of the proble m. For ex-
ample, dimensional analysis gives us Dc lue as to when a particular modd. such as linear
dastic fracture mechanics. is no longer valid.
Let us review the fundamental theorem of dimensional analysis and then look at a
few simple applications to fracture mechanics.

1.5.1 The Bueklngham n·Tb e orem

The first step in building a mathcmatical model of a pllysical pllenomenon is to identify

all of the parameters that may influcnce the phenomcnon. Assume that a problem. or at
least an idealized version of it. can be descri bed by the following!;Ct of scal ar quantities:
I u. WI . W2 ... .. Wn ). The dimensions of all quantities in this set is denoted by ([ul.
IWII , [W21....• [ Wnll . Now suppose that we wish to express the first variable. u. as a
function of the remaining parameters:

( 1.6)

Thus the process of modeling the problem is reduced 10 finding a mathematical relation-
ship that repre!;Cnts f as best as possible. We might accomplish this by performing a set
of experime nts in which we measure u while varying each Wi independently. The num-
ber of e ~pe riments can be greatly reduced, and the modeling processes simplified, through
dimensional analysi s. The first step is to identify all of the funckJ.mtn tal dimensional
units (fdu's) in the problem : ILl. L2 . ... Lml. For example. a typical met:hanics prob-
lem may have ILl'" length. L2 '" mass, [.3 = time). We can express the dimensions of
each quantity in our problem as the product of powers of the fdu's; i.e. for any quantity
X. we have

0.7)

The quantity X is dimensionless if [X] '" I.

In the set of W' s. we can identify m primary quantities that contain all of the fdu's
in the problem. 1l1e remaining variables are secondary quantities, and their dimens ions
can be e~pressc:d in tenru of the primary quantities:

(j=1,2, ... ,n-m ) (1. 8)

Thus we can define a set of new quantities, tri. that are dimensionless:
22 Chopttr I

( 1.9)

Similarly. the dimensions of u can be expressed in (emu of the dimensions of the pri-
mary quantities:

(1.10)

and we can form the following dimensionless quantity;

( 1.11)

According to the Bud.ingham n -theorem, Tr depends only on the other dime nsionless
groups:

( 1.12)

This new function, F, is independent of the system of measurement units. Note that the
number of quantities in F h.as been reduced from the old function by m, the number of
(du's. Thus dimensional analysis has reduced the degrees of freedom in our model. and we
need only vary nom q uantities in our experiments or computer s imulations.
The Buckingham n ·theorem gives guidance on how to scale a problem to differe nt
sites or to other systems of measurement units. Each dimensionless group, (lI'"j) must be
scaled in order [0 obtain equivalent conditions at Iwo different scales. Suppose. for exam-
ple. thai we wish to perfonn wind ILInnel tests on a model of a new airplane design.
Dimensional analysis tells us that we should reduce all length dimensions in the same
proponion; thus we would build a "scale" model of the airplane. The length dimensions
of lhe plane are not the only imponant quantiti es in the problem, however. In order to
model the aerodynamic behavior accurately, we would need to scale the wind velocity and
the viscosity of the air in ft(;cordance with the reduced silt of the airplane model.
(Modifying lhe viscosi ly of the air is not practical in most cases. In real wind tunnel
tests, the size of the model is usually close enough to full scale that the errors introduced
by not scaling viscosity are minor.)

1.5 .2 Dimensional Analysis In Fracture Mechanics

Dimensional analysis proves to be a very useful tool in fracture mec hanics. Later chap-
te rs describe how dimens ional arguments playa key role in developing mathematical de-
scriptions for imponant phenomena. For now. let us e xpl ore a few simple examples.
Ifltroducn'(}fI and ~rview 13

Consider a series or cracked plates under a remote lensile stress, (1"", as illustrated in
Fig. 1.13. Assume that each is a two-dimensional problem; thaI is, the thickness dimen-
sion does not enter into the pro blem. The first case, Fig. 1.13(a), is an edge crack of
length a in an elastic, semi-infinite plate. In this case infinite means that the plate width
is mIlCh larger than the cl1lCk site. Suppose that we wish to Imow how one of the stress
components, (lij, varies with position. We will adopt a polar coordinate system with the
origin at the crack tip, as illustrated in Fig. 1.9. A genera lized funct ional relati onship can
be written as

( 1.\3)

where v is Poisson's ratio, <1kJ represents the other stress components, and €JcI represents
all nonuto components o f the strain te nsor. We can eliminate C1/c/ and EkJ rrom/J by
noting that for a li near elastic problem, strain is uniquely defined by stn:ss through
Hooke's law and the stn:ss components at a point increase in proponion to o ne another.
Let tr and a be the primary quantities. Invoking the Buckingham n • theorem gives

C1.. (E'
:::JL=FI -,-. V,S ) (1.14)
C1 C1 a
When the plate width is finite (Fig. 1.1 3(b), an additional dimension is required 10 de-
scribe the problem:

( US )

Thus, one might expect Eq. (1 .14) to give erroneous results when the crack exte nds across
a significant fntctio n o f the plate width. Consider a large plate and a small plale made or
the same material (same E and v), with the same aIW ratio, loaded to the same remote
stress. TIle local stress at an angle 9 from the crack plane in eac h plate would depend
only on the ria ratio, as long as both plates remained clastic.
When a plastic ZOfte rorm s ahead or the crack tip (Fig. I.I3(c», the prob lem is
complicated (unher. If we assume that the material does nOt strain harden, the yield
strength is sufficient to define lhe flow propenics. TIle SIfeSS field is Biven by

aij=F(E~ ~ w 2. ,v.11~)
3 • • •• (1.16)
a aaaaa
llte fi rst two functions. FI and F2 . correspond to linear elastic rracture mec hanics
(LEFM). while Fj is an elastic- plastic relationship. Thus, dimensional analysis tells us
 CilDpler /

lIIat LEFM is only valid ~n ry« Q and a-« GYS. In OIapter 2, the same concha.
sion is ~ached tIvough. somewhat more complkaled argumenl.

0- 0-

~.~ '-1

~ t ~ t

n GUIlE J.n Edat cncked plot.. oubJt<:t ao •

..... okle.. lk .......

...
(d t:.dp...- wlUo • plMlk . _ .1 tH . . . -
 "
REFERENCES

I. Duga. U ., Fi,her. W.H., Buxbaum. R.W.. ROM'nfield, A.R" 8urh, A ,R.. Honton, E.J ..
• nd McMillan. S.C .• "'The Economic Effe<:11 of Fm:ture in the United Slate.," NBS
Special Publication 647 -2. United Stales Department of Commerce, Wa,hlnaton , DC.
March 1983.

3. l onel, R.E. &lid Bradley. W.L. . "Failure Analysil of. PolyC1hylenc Nltun.l Gas
Pipeline.~ FOrtllSiI: En,inurilll. Vol. I, 1987. pp. 47·59,

4. Jone" R.E. and Bradley. W.L., "Frte!ure TouahneSl T eSlin, of Polyethylene Pipe
Materials:- ASTM ·STP 99S, Vol. I, 1989. American Society for Telling arid Materials,
Pllilalklphia, pp. 447.456.

S. Shank, M,E.. -A Critical Review of Brillie Failure in Carbon PIaIc Su~el SU'UCturcs Other
Ulan Ships.M Ship SlnI(tu/"C Committcc Repon SSC-65, Nation.al ACaOc:l1\y of ScierKe-
National Resun:h Council. Washington, DC, Deo:c:mbc:r, 1953.

6. Lov" A.B.H. .4 TnmislI "" 1M MOIMmaticai TMo" uf EUuricity. Dover PubliClllions,

New yort. 1944.

7. Griffith. A.A. 'The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solidi." Philosophical

T,..J1Isoctiofl'. Series A. Vol. 221. 1920. pp. 163·198.

8. Inllil. c.E.. ·'Slreslel in I PIlle Due 10 the Pre$ence of Cracks and Sharp Comcn. ••
Tronsac,ioIt, o/'~ hVlillde 0{ NavDl An:lti,tcu. Vol. 55. 19\3. pp. 219.241 .

9. Bannerman. O.B. and YOIInl. R.T., ~Some ImprovemenlS Resulti n, from Siudies of
Welded Ship Failures.'· W~ldin& Jo ..",aI. Vol. 25. 1946.

10. Irwin. G.R.. "Fracture Dynamicl.'· Froclw';flB of Mtlois. American Society for Metall.
Cleveland. 1948. pp. 147-166.

I I. 0r0 ....1O. E., HFl"Idure and Stret1gti1 of Solidl. M

Reporll Of! Pro,'UI ;'1 PItYI/CI. Vol
XII . 1948. p. 185-232.

£fI,ifl~~rifl'.
H
12 . Motl, N.F•• - Fracture of Metab: Theom.lcal ConlidcBtions. Vol. 165.
1945. pp. 16-18.

13. Irwin. G.R. , ·'Onset of Fast Crack Propagation In HISh Strength Steel and Aluminum
AlIoyl.M s..,amon Ruton:h COfl/~m":~ P,oc~edifl". Vol. 2. 1 9~6. pp. 2S9-30~.

14 . Weslergaard. H.M .. "Bcarin, Prt::slure~ and Crackl.'· Journal 01 Applitd Mtclrmrics,

Vol. 6. 1939. pp. 49·5).

U. Irwin, G.R., HAnalYlil of Streues and SIn.inl neat the End of a Crack Tn.~nin, I
Plate. J....mal 0{ Applied Mtcltanicl. Vol. 24, 1957. pp. 361-364.
H

16. Williams, M .L . -on the Stress Distribution at the Bue of. Suuionary Cnck.H J""1'1l(J1
01 Applied Mtcluuriu. Vol. 24. 19~7. pp. 109-114.
26 Clwpur J

11 . Well s, A.A. , "The Condition of Fast Fracture in Aluminum Alloys with Panicular
Reference to Comet Failures." British Wclding Research Association Report. April
19H.

18. WilUl<l. D.H. and Wundt, B.M., "Applicatinn of the Griffith- Irwin Theory of Crack
Propagation to thc Bunning Behavior of Disb, Including Analytical and Experimental
Studics."· TransactiollS of Ihe Amen'can Socitty of Mech(mical Enginurl. Vol. 80,
1958, pp. 1643-1 65 5.

19 . Paris. P.C .• Gomcz. M.P.• and Anderson. W.P., "A Rationa l Analytic Thcory of
Fatigue." The Trend in Engwtring. Vol. 13. L% l, pp. 9_1 4.

20. Irwin, O.R., "Plastic Zone Near a Crack and Fracture Toughocss." S6g(Jltlore Re~e .. rch
Conjutnu Procudings. Vol. 4. 1961.

21. Dugdale. D.S., " Yie lding in Steel Sheets Containing SliIs.M Journal of Iht Mechanics
<lIId Physics of Solids, Vol 8, pp. 100-1 04.

22. Barcnblan . 0.1 .. ''The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brinle Fracture."'
Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol VII. Aeademic Press, 1962, pp. 55-129.

23. Wells. A.A.• "Unstable Crack Propagation in Met als: Cleavage and Fa5t Fracture."'
Procudings of Iht Crad: Propogalion Symposium. Va! 1. Paper 84. Cranfield, UK,
1961.

24 . Rice, l .R. "A Path Independe nt Integral and the Approximate Analysi s of Sirain
Com-cntlation by Notches and Cracks." Journal of Applied Mechanics. Vol. 3S, 1968,
pp. 379-386.

25. Eshelby. J.D.. "The Continuum Thwry of Lattice IXfecl$." S6IM Slate Physics. Vol. 3.
1956.

26. Hutchinson, I _W ., "Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening
Material. MJournal of the Mechonics Ilnd Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968. pp. 13-3 1.

21. Rice. 1.R. and Rosengren, O.F., "Plane: Strain Deformation near a Crack Tip in a Power-
Law Hardening Material." Joumlll of 1M Mechanjc~ and PhyJics of SoIUh. Vol. 16.
1968, pp. 1-1 2.

28. Ikglcy, 1. A. and Landes, J.D.. ''The i-lntegral as a Fracture Criterion.'" ASTM S1l' .514,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1972, pp. 1-20.

29. E 813-81. "Standard Test Method for J/c. a Measure of Fracture Toughness." American
Society for Testi ng and Mate rials, Philadelphia, 1981.

30. Shi h, C.F. and Hutchinson, J.W., '" Fully Plastic Solution5 and Large-Scale Yielding
Estimate5 for Plane Stress Crack Problems." Journal of Enginuring Materials ond
Technology, Vol. 98, 1916, pp. 289-295.

31. Kumar, V., Oerman, M.D., and Shih, C. P., "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-
Plastic Fracture Analysis."' EPRI Report NP-1931. El ectric Power Research Institute.
Palo Alto, CA, 1981.
PART II: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
 2. LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS

The concepts of fracture mechanic s that were ck:rived prior 10 1960 are applicable only 10
materials thaI obey Hooke's law. Although corrections for small scale plrullicity were
proposed as early as 1948. these analyses are restricted 10 structures whose global behav-
ior is linear elastic.
Since 1960, fracture mechanics theorits have been developed to 1ICC000nt (or various
types of nonlinear material beham ( i.e . plasticity, viscoplaslicilY, and viscoe lasticity) as
well as dynamic effecu. All of thcsc mO£e recent results, however, are extensions of lin-
ear clastic fraclure mechanics (LEFM). Thus a solid background in the fundamenl.als of
LEFM is esscnliallo an understanding of more advanced concepts in fraclUre mechanics.
This chapter describes both the energy and streH inlcnsity approaches 10 linelU" frac-
ture mechanics. 111c early work of Inglis and Griffi th is summarited, followed by an in-
troduction 10 the energy re lease nue and stress intensity parameters. The appendix at the
end of th is c hapter incl udes mathematical derivatiOIlll of several importa nt results in
LEFM.
Subsequent chapters also address linear clastic fracture mechanics. Chapter! 7 and 8
discuss laboratory testing o f linear elastic materials. Chapter 9 addrcs5el application o f
LEFM to structures, Chapter 10 applies LEFM to fatigue crac k propagation. and Chapter
II outlines numerica l methods for compu ting stress intensity factor and energy release
rate.

2.1 AN ATOM.IC VIEW OF FRA CTURE

A material fractures when sufficient stress and work arc applied on the atomic leve l to
break the bonds that hold atoms together. The bond strength is supplied by the attractive
forces between atoms .
Figure 2.1 shows schematic plOlS ohhe pote ntial energy and force versus separation
distance between atoms. The equi librium spacing occurs where the potentia l energy is at
a mi nim um . A tensi le force is required to increase the separalion distance from the equi-
librium value; this force must exceed the cohesive force to seve r the bond completely.
1lIe bond energy is given by

(2. 1)

where X<J is tbe equ ilibrium spacing and p is the appl ied force.
II is possible to estimate lhe cohesive strength at the atomic level by idealizi ng !he
inlel1Uomic force-displacement relationship as one half the period of a sine wave:

'1
31

(2 .210)

where the dilc-nee.1. is defined in Fi g. 2. 1. For the sake of li mpi icily. the origin is de·
fined 11;1;.,. For small displac:e~n lS, the fm:e-displacc:menl relationship is linear.

--
I'OlVrnAL DISTANCE
ENEltGY
t--r------:;:::::

I
I

AmJrn
fORCE f-----, f;:=~,==;t~OISTANCE
~,
,
c ....

• n GUll£ 1.1 hMMlaI

,--_.
ftMf'IJ'" f.n • •
flo· ... ., ...... ..,.... ...... /l.tlM q " ....
_ wpoo ....-. ... 1M poteatlal -rv 10
.. Ialool.ocd, ""'" tIM .ttnocd.., aBd ....,..w..
UnNlr Eklslic Fracture Mechanics 33

(2.2b)

and the bond stiffness (i.e., the spri ng constant) is given by

k=P 1C (2.3)
'.<
Multiplying both sides of this equation by !he number of bonds per unit area and the gage
length, "'0' converts k to Young's modulus, E. and P c to the cohesive stress, <1c.
Solving for <1c gives

(2.4)

" .-E
, K
(2.5)

if). is WlSUmro 10 he approximately equal to the atomic spacing.

1be surface energy can be estimarN as follows:

(2. 6)

1be surface energy per unit area, Ys' is equal to one half the fracture energy because two
surfaces are created when a material fractures. Substituting Eq . (2.4) into Eq. (2.6) and
solving for U c gives

(1.7)

2.2 STRESS CONCENTRATION EFFECT OF FLAWS

1be derivation in the previous section showed that the theoretical cohes ive strength of a
material is approximately E/1C, but experimental fracture strengths for briule materials are
typically three or four orders of magnitude below thi s value. AI; discussed in Chapter I.
experiments by Leonardo da Vinci, Griffith, and others indicated that !he discrepancy be·
tween the actual strengths of brittle materials and theoretical estimateS was due to naill's in
thesc materials. FraclllIl: cannot OC(:ur unless the stress at the atomic level exceeds the
cohesive strengtb of the material. Thus the naill's must lower the global stre ngth by
magnifying the stress locally.
34

The first quantillllive evidence for the was con«ntration effect of naws was pr0-
vided by Inglis (I J. who analytc:d cil ipl;<;al holes in nill plates. His analyses included an
elliptical hole 2a Ions by 2b wide with an appl ied stress perpendi cular to the major axil
of !he ellipse <-=
Fi •. 2.2), He usurMd tha. the hole is not influenced by the plate
boundary: i.e .• the pllte width» 2D and the pllte height» 2b. The IIJe$I at !he tip of
tbe m.p- nis (Point A) is given by

(2.1)

TIle 1111;0 is defined lIS the stress concentration factor. k,. When t:I • h, the hole i.
(7)/(J
"ireut. and Ir, = 3.0 .• well-kllO""n I'Cliuh thaI can he found in most 'tnngth of materials
leIt boob.
A$ the major uis, .. , increases relative 10 b. the elliptical hole be,ins 10 lake on
!he appeanmcc of. sharp crack. For this case:, [Ollis fOl,ln<! i\ more oonvenienllo u~
Eq. (2.8) in lennS orille nodiu, of curvatuI'C, fT.

(2.9)

(J

2b P

-'

nGUR.E U D r, 'h wi 10M 110 • ""' .....

linear Elastic Frocfll.re Mechanics 35

p~- .', (2.10)

When a »b, Eq. (2.9) b«:omes

(2. 1l )

Inglis showed that Eq. (2. 11) gives a good approximation for the stress concentration due
to a notch that is nOI elliptical except al tile lip.
Equation (2.11) predicts 8.(1 infinite stress at the lip of an infinitely sharp crack,
where p=Q. This result caused concern when it was ficst discovered, because no material
is capilble of withstanding infinite s~ss. A material that contains a sharp crack theoreti-
cally should fail upon the application of an infinitesimal load. The paradox of a sharp
crack motivated Griffith \2J to develop a fraclUrC thwry based o n energy rather than local
stresS (Section 2.3).
An infinitely sharp crac k in a continuum is a mathematical abstraction that is not
relevant to real materials, which arc made of atontS. Metals. for instance, defonn plasti-
cally, whic h causes an initially sharp crack to blunt. In the absence of plastic deforma-
tion. the minimum radius a crac k lip can have is o n the order of the atomic radius. By
substituting p=xo inlO Eq. J2. 111 we obtain 8.(1 estimate of the local SIreSS concentration
al the lip of an atomically sharp crack:

(2 .12)

If it is assumed that fracture occurs when I1A = l1c. Eq. (2.12) c8.(l be sci equal 10 Eq. (2.7),
resulting in the following cx~ssion for lhe remote stress al failure:

(2.13)

Equalion (2. 13) must be viewed u a rough estimate of fail ure SlreSS, because the contin-
uum assumption upon which the Inglis analysis is based is nOI valid at the alomic level.
However, Gehlcn and Kanninen [3] obtained similar resul ts from a numerical simulation
of a crack in alwo-dimcnsionallBttice, where discrete ~aloms·' were connected by nonlin-
ear springs:

(2.14)
" Clltlpur 2

where Q is. CORStanl, on W order of unity . ""I\kh depends sliJ.htly on the auumed
MOI1Iic: r~iJpIao;cnxnl Jaw CEq. (2.2».

2.3 THE GR IFFITH ENERGY BALANCE

According to the First Law of 'Thermodynamic I. ""MII a system goes from a nonequilib-
rium SUile 10 equilibrium, there will be: a net decrea$e in energy. In 1920 Griffith applied
!his idea 10 the fonnation of a<.:ra<:k [2]:

It be supposed, for the pracnl PUIJlOH, IMI the .:net ., (.".",..;I by tbc wdckD
liii0)'
UIIIlbllallon of d'" IIXlioru Klina on ilt MI'C-=o:. AI tbc iMWll folio,",", !hls
opc:ntion. Ilw: wains, aDd Lbe",rore ,he poItnlill cnertY under COIISide'flltion, bne
thaI oriJinal vaI\Ia; to.al in ~. the new J/MC II _ one of equilibrium. !( il b
110( • liMe of cquilibriu .... tbtIl, by <he tbeocnm 01 minimum poIemi· 1 coerI)'. the
poICnIial .... '1)' i. """..""j by Ihc IIllllinm...u of """;'ibrio,,,; if it il • IlMC of
equiijbri\lm tbc """'1Y docs DOt cbanp.

A crack can form (or an existing....,1; can pow) only if such I pmceu causes the
1011.1 eller&>' 10 decrease or remain constant ThIl5 the critical coodiliOlU for fl'llo;turc can
be defined as the point where crack lrowth occurs under equilibrium conditions, with 1M)
net chanae in 10bJ energy.
Consider . plate subj«ted to . conslant strus, (1", whiCh contains a crack 2D long
(Fig. 2.3). Assume lhatlhe plate width» 2D and that plane stress <.:t)nditioll5 preVlil.
(No«: thai tbe plaLe$ in Figs. 2.2 and 2 .3 are i~ntical when a »b). In order (or thili
cn.ck 10 increase in size, liufficient poICnliai ellellY must be avai lable in the plaLe 10 over·
come the surface eMIlY of the material. The Griffith energy balance for an in.cmncntal
incrusc in Ihe crack an:&, dA . WIder equilibrium C(lndiliOlU can be ellprcssed in the (al·
1owin, ..... y:

dE d[] dW
_ =- + .::..:..:.L "" 0 (2. IS.)
dA dA dA

(2.1Sb)

where E is the local energy, n is the polentia l energy supplied by the inlCrnal 511'1in en·

..
ergy and u lemal forccs, and W, islhe work required to create new surfaces. For the
cracked plale ilIu.lraled in Fig. 2.3, Griffith used the IIfUS Malysis of Inglis [ II to Ihow

(2. 16)

when: n...
u Ihe potential energy of an uncracked plrolC and B is the plate thickness. Sinc:e
the formation oil crack la:iuins the creation of tW\)lurfllCa, W6 is Jiven by
LiMar Elastic Fractun MechoJlics J7

"
B

.c ... . . '7

(2.17)

where r. is the surface energy of the material. Thus:

dIl
- -=
lrrra (2.1Sa)
d:;O E

dWs -2 (2.ISb)
dJt - Ys

Equating (2. 18a) and (2.1Sb) and solvins for fracture strcs.s gives

(2. 19)

II is important to notc the distinction between crackarta and surface ana. 111e crnck
area is defined as the projected area of the crack (2aB in the present cxample), but since a
crack includes two IJUItchins surfaces, the surface area =2.R.
"

'IGUIlE ) .4 "r.;,,01..,-......
(d..,.' ...l end< _ba
d
100 ....Id
..~...... ~u.ue_

The Griffith approach can be applied to other crack shapes. For uample, the frae-
I~ SlrCSS foc a penny_shaped naw embedded in the material (fig. 2.4) is liven by
,
a _( KEy. )'
r 2( 1 v')a
(2.20)

where a islhecrac:kradiusaOO vis Poisson's nlio.

2.3. 1 Co mparison with the Critical Siren Criterion

lbe Griffith model is based on a global energy balance: for fracture 10 occur, the cntTl),
stored in the structure must be sufficienllO overeome the surface energy of the malmaL
Since fraclutt invol~, breakin, bonds, the stteu on the atomic level must be 2: the co-
hesive SIfUS. This local suus intensification can be provided by flaws in the material, as
discussed in Section 2.2.
The similarity between Eqs. (2. 13), (2. 14), and (2. 19) is obviolls. Predictions of
the global fracll,U'C SlrC" from the Griffith approach and the local siren criterion differ by
less than 40 percent. Thu, these two approaches are consistent wilh one 'nOlher, at leasl
in the case of. sharp crack in an ideally brittle solid .
An apparent contradiction emerges when !he crac;k tip radius is signiflCaJltl), greater
!han the a\Qmic spacing. "The ehange in slOl"ed ener&)' with crack formation CEq. (2. 16» is
in$eDsitive 10 the IW)Ich radius as long as a»b ; thus the Griffith model impliel that the
fracture suess is insensitive 10 p. Acconling 10 the Inglis SIKS5 analysis, however, in or-
der fOf O"c 10 be attained al the tip of the notch, 0"/ mUlt vary with1/..fP.
Linwr Elastic FracTUre Meclwlks
"
Cons ider a crack with p =.s x 10- 6 m. Such a crack would appear sharp under a
light microscope, hut p would be four orders of magnitude larger than the alOmic spacing
in a typical crystalline solid . Thus the local stress approach would predict a global frac-
ture strength 100 times larger than the Griffith equation. Actual material behavior is
somewhere betwccn these extremes; fracture stress docs depend on nOlch root radius. but
not to the extent implied by the Inglis stress analysis.
The apparent discrepancy between the critical stress criterion and the energy criterion
based on thermodynamics can be resolved by viewing fracture as a nucleation and growth
process. When the global stress and crack size satisfy the Griffith energy criterion, there
is sufficient thermodynamic driving force 10 grow the crack. but fracture must first be nu-
cleated. ntis situation is analogous to the sol idification of liquids. Water, for example.
is io equil ibrium with icc at O"C, bUllhe liquid-solid reaction requires icc crystals 10 be
nucleated, usually on the surface of another solid (e .g., your car windshiel d on a January
moming). When nucleation is suppressed, liquid water can be supercooled (at least mo-
mentari ly) to as much as 3O"C below the equilibrium freezing point.
Nucleation of fracture can come from a number of sources. For example. micro-
scopic surface roughness at the tip of the flaw could produce sufficient local stress concen-
tration to nucleate fai lure . Another possibility, illustrated in Fig. 2.5, involves a sharp
microerack ncar the tip of a macl"05(:opic flaw with a finite notch radius. lhc macroscopic
crack magnifies the stress in the vicinity of the microcrack, Which propagates when it sat-
isfies the Griffith equation. The mierocrack links with the large flaw, which then propa_
gates if the Griffith criterion is satisfied globally. This type of mechanism controls
cleavage fraclure in femtic steels, as discussed in Chapter 5.

2.3.2 Modified Griffith Equatio n

Equation (2.19) is valid only for ideally brittle solids. Griffith obtained good agree-
ment betwccn Eq. (2.19) and experimenlal fracture strength of glass. hul the Griffith equa-
lion severely underestimates the fracture strength of metals.
Irwin 14) and Orowan [5) independently modified the Griffith expression 10 ateount
for materials that are capable of plastic flow. lbe revised expression is given by

(2.21)

where lP is the plastic work per unit area of surfate created, and is typically much larger
than r,o
In an ideally brinle solid, a crack can be formed merely by breaking atomic bonds;
Ys reneets the total energy of broken bonds in a unit area. When a crack propagates
through a metal, however, dislocation motion occurs in the vicinity of the crack tip. re-
sulting in additional energy dissipation.
Although, Irwin and Orowan originally derived Eq. (2.21) for metals, it is possible
to generalize the Griffith model to account for any type of energy dissiJllltion:
40

alai =20V'f
ttttt

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
---'''---~·I

EXAM PLE 2.1

A flat pbt.e made from I brittle maecrill Corllaillt • mKn>ScOpic: Ihmu,h. thictJlel.s
crack "";!h half le~h Q I and IIQ(Cb lip ndiUI p. A .harp penD),_lluopcd miCl'OCBCk
"';Ih ndill5 "1 is lIX"accd ncar the lip of !he larger flaw, as illwtratcd in Fil. 2.' . Esti-
mate the minimum li~c of the micnxrao:;k 10 nuse failure in 1M pl ate when the
Griffith equation il ulisfied by the &Iobal Itn:U ,lid 11/.

SoI~ liOfl'1be nominal 1Irt'S1 II failure i. obtained by lUbstilutiog "1 iom Eq. (2.19).
Tk suu. in the vicinity of the miaocrxk ean he c:l1;nwcd from Eq. (2.11 ), ..hi(:h il
5eI equal 10 Lbe Griffith .;ri1l:riOO for me penDy_lhIpc!d mic:rocrxk ceq. 2.20);

Solvillj for " 2IiYCI

For y. 0.1, "2 • 0.68 p. 1'1Iu51he lIudutillj microcl'Kk musl be appro.timalely Ihe
liu: of the ntaCfOIOOIlic crack lip nodiU\l.
l.in«Jr Elastic Fracru" M«honia 41

EXAMPLE 2.1 (coni.)

This derivation (ontains a number of simpl;fyini "".umptions. The notch tip

SI/'e$S computed from Eq. (2. 11 ) is assumed 10 act uniformly ahead of the notch, in the
Il'gion of the microcnck; the actual sires< would decay away from the notch tip.
Also. this derivation neilect. free boundary effecu from tbe tip of the: macroscopic
notch .

(2.22)

where WI is the fracture energy, which could include plastic. viscoelastic, or viscoplastic
e[fects. depending on the material. The fracture energy can also be influenced by crac k.
meandering and branching, which increase the surface area. Figure 2.6 illustrates various
types of material behavior and the corresponding fracture energy.
A word of caution is Decc:ssary when applying Eq. (2.22) to materials that exhibit
nonlinear deformation. The Griffith model. in particular Eq. (2.16), applies only 10 IillCar
elastic material behavior. Thus the global behavior of the struCture must be elastic. Any
nonlinear effects, such as plasticity, must be confined to a small region ncar the crack. tip.
In addition. Eq. (2.22) assumes thaI WI is constant; in many ductile materials, the frac-
ture energy i~s with crack. growth. as discussed in Section 2.'.

2.4 THE ENERGY RELEASE RATE

In 19!16, Irwin [6] proposed an energy approach for fracture that is essentially equivalent
to the Griffith model, except that trw in's approach iii in a fonn that iii more convenient
for solving engineering problems. Irwin defined an tnergy rtltase ralt, (i. which is a
measure of the energy available for an increment of cnw.:k extension;

dTI
q:.- (2.23)
d~

"The tenn rale, as ;t is used in this context, does not refer to a derivative with respco;t to
time; gis the rate of change in potential energy with crack area. Since g is obtained
from the derivative of a potential, it is also called the crack exlt llsiQII/orct or the cracl:
driving /orct. According \0 Eq. (2.18a), the energy release rate for a wide plate in plane
stress with a crack of length 2a (Fig. 2.3) is given by

(2.24)
42 CIwpI~r 2

t t t t t

Wf .. Y.

P1asP;lc

Wr • y. + 'YP

w f -- yS (Projected
rn..AreaArea
)
 43

Referring (0 the prt:viOlis section, crack extension 00.;1;"," when (i reache5 a critical value;
I.e .•

(2.2$)

where !k is a measure of the fracture I014glu!us of the material.

'The potential energy of an elastic body, n, is !kilned as follows:
(2.26)

where U is the strain energy stored in the body and F is the worll:done by external forces.
Cons.Kkr a CTaCked piale thai is dead loaded, as lllustraled in Fig. 2.1. Since the load
is fixw at P, the slnlClure is said tn be !Dad conlroll~d. For this case.

F=Pll

U= •JPdll = ptJ.
o 2
1berefore,

.., n =-u
q= -'B-(dU)
da
_~(d.)
da
p 28 p
(2.27)

When displllCemcnl is fixed (Fig. 2.8), the plale is displacement controlled; F = 0 and
n =u. Thus

q= _-'B-(dU)
do. tr.
= _~(dP)
28 da A
(2.28)

II is conve nient at this point In intmduce the compliance. which is the inverse Df the
plate stiffness:

c =-P • (2.29)

By substituting Eq. (2.29) into Eqs. (2.27) and (2.28) it can be shown thaI

(2.30)
44

(. J ~J

p
LOAD

J•
----------

t '.
DISPLACEMEfIIT
~J
"J
ilMt2f Elastic Frocturt M«Irimicf
"
for both load control and displacement control. Therefore, the energy release mte, as de-
fined in Eq. (2.23), is the same for load control and displacement ooHlfol. Also,

(2.31)

Equation (2.31) is demonslnl\ed graphically in Figs. 2.7b and 2.8b, In load control,
a crack extension da results in a nel incrcQu in stmin energy becaLl$e of the contribution
of the external force P;

Pd6 Pd6
(dU)p""PdlJ.--=-
2 2

When displacement is fixed, dF=Oand the strain energy durta.JCS:

(dU)t,. "" l!.dP

2
where dP is negative. As can be seen in Figs 2.Th and 2.8b. the absolute values of these
energies differ by the amount dPdtl/2. which is negligible. Thus

(dU)p = -(dU)t,.

for an incremenl of crack growth al a given P and..:1.

EXAMPLE 2.2
Determine the CI>CfIY release rate for a double cantilever beam (OCR) . pedmcn (Fil.
2.9)

Solulion: From beam theory.

A PaJ
Z-JEf wilen:

The elastic compliance is given by

.. Chapter2

EXAMPLE 2.2 (cont)

Substituting C into Eq. 2.30 gives

... Thic:knao _ 8

h
l>J2
- - - -

+
•

FIGURE 1., o....bIo .. ntlle .... boam (DCB) .podm....

2.5 INSTABILITY AND THE R CURVE

Crack extension oe<:lIl'S when §C'lwfi but crack growth may be stable or unstable, depend-
ing on bow yand wf. vary wilh crack size. To illustrate stable and unstable behavior, it
is convenient 10 replace 2wf. with R, the material resistance to crack extension. A plot
of R versus crack extension is called a rnis/ance curvt or R curve. 1be cOITeSponding
plot of y versus crack extens;on is the driving/OfT;C CllrvC.
Consider a wide plale with a through crack of initial length :Wo (Fig. 2.3). At a
filled remote stress, 11, the energy release rate varies linearly with cIlICk size (Eq. (2.24).
Figure 2.10 shows schematic driving forcelR cII/"Yes for (WO types of material behavior.
The first case, Fig. 2.10a, shows a nat R curve, where the material resistance is
constant with crack growth. When the SlrC$S = (11. the crack is stable. Fracture occurs
when the stress reaches (12 • the crack propagation is unstable h«ausc the driving force
increases with crack growth. but the material resistance remains constant
Unwr Ekuric Fracture MechLlnics 47

Figure 2.IOb illustrates a material with a rising R curve. lhe crack grows a small
amount when the stress reaches aZ ' but cannot grow funber unless the stress increases.
When stress is fixed at aZ ' the driving force increases at a slower rate than R. Stable
crack growth continues as the stress increases to a3. Finally, when the stress reaches a4 ,
the driving fon;e curve is tangent to the R cunte. The plate is unstable with funher crack
growth be<:ause the rate of change in driving fon;e exceeds the slope of the R curve.
'The conditions for stable crack growth can be upres.sed as follows:

q=R (2.32a)

d(j dR
-<- (2.32b)
do do

UnsUlble crack growth occurs when

dq dR
->- (2.33)
do do
When the resistance cunte is flat, as in Fig 2.1011, one can define a critical val ue of
energy release rate, YC' unambiguously. A material with a rising R curve, however, can-
n(lt be uniquely characterized with 11 single toughness value. According to Eq. (2.33) a
flawed structure fails when the driving fon;e curve is tangent with the R curve, but this
point of tangency depends on the shape of the driving force curve, which depends on COIl-
figuration of the structure. The driving force curve for the through crack configuration is
linear, but !lin the DCB specimen (Example 2.2) varies with a 2 ; these two confi gura-
tions would have different ycvalues for a given R cunte .

• R

U""table

St<lble

ao ac
CRACK SIZE CRACKslZE

(II) F1.oI R CII'""" (b) RIM, R w,"""

..
Materials with rising R cu~ can be clwacteriz.cd by the vall.lC of yal initiation of
crack ,rowth. Although the initiation toughne" is usually IlOl 5Cnsjli~ to SlnIC:turallC-
omerry, the~ ~ other problems with this measurement. 11 is vinuaJly impossible 10 de-
lcrmi~ the precise moment of crack initiation in mOSI materials; an cngincerina: defini-
lion of initiation. analoioul \0 the 0.2 percent offsct yield strength ;n lell$ilc (U(S, is
usual ly ~uirtd. Another timiuotion of initiation tOUihMSI is lliat it characlcriul only
the onset of crack arowth; it pI'Ovilks no information on the 5hape of the R curve.

2.S.1 RcuolU for tile R Carve Sup.-

Some materials uhibit • ri,ina: R curve, while the R curve for otber materiab is nal.
The shape of the R curve depends on material behavior and. \0 a I(ssern!,.nl. on the <;on·
figurBtion of !he cracked SlruClure.
The R curve for an iduJly brittle material is flat because the surf.",c energy is an in-
vaianl material propeny. WlKn DOrtlinear material bel\avjor accompanies fracture, how-
ever, the R C\II'Yt: can take on. variel)' of$hapes. For example. dllCtile fnoc;t~ in metall
ulUaily faults in I rising R curve;. pWti~ zone.l ~ Lip of the crack increases in size
as ~ crack grows. 1be drivin, force must incruse in luch rN.I6iah 10 mainllin crack
,rowth. If the mw;ked body is infinile (i.e. if the plastic:woe is smal l compan:d 10 rele-
vanl dimensions of the body) the plastic wnc lize.,..;l R evenlually reach steady-m\e val-
!lei, Ind the R curve becomes flit with further growth (see Se<:lion 3.5.2).
Some materials can display. falling R CUnlO. When. metal fails by cleavage. (Of
example, the material resistance is provided by the surfJICC energy and local plaslic dissipa-
lion, as illustrated in Fig. 2.6b. 1be R curve would be rel.tively nat if the crack growth
were Jlable. However, clc.vlle propazaUoo isllOllll8.lly unslable; the material nut the
lip of the growin, crack is lubject 10 ¥cry high slnin mes, which suppress plaslic de-
formation. Thus the n:siItanoe of I rapidly groWini clelovaae crack is leu than ~ initial
n:sisanoe • the oruel of f!"¥ture.
TIle li;u: and geometry of IhcmICkcd s1l1lCture can um some innllC'nce on the Jhape
o(the R CUnlO. A crack in I thin sheet \ends 10 prodllCe. stuper R curve lhan. crack in
• thick plale because the Ihin Sheel is loaded predominantly in plane strcu. while materi.1
ncar the lip of ~ crack in the thick plale may be in pl.ne strain. 1be Ii curve can 11$0
be aff«ted if the growing crack approaches a free boundary in the IU\II;tun:; Thus. wide
plale may CJhibil. somewhat different mlCk growth resi$tance behavior than • narrow
plate of the same: material .
Ideal ly, the R curve, _ weU .. other measures of f!"¥ture tooghocSii. should be.
property only of the material and IKlI. depend on the si;u: or sh.ape of ~ cracked body.
Much of fraclure moch.anics il predicated on the assumplion that fract~ loui/lness i, .
mlterial property. ConfigUratiOllllI effects can occur. however; I pnctitionc:r of fracture
moclwlics should be , ware of thc5e effects and their potenlial influence on the accuracy of
an analys is. This issue: is e~plored in detail in Sections 2.10. 3.S. and 3.6.

2.S.2 Load C .... trol V,nu. Ditpl ac' IIIt111 Control

According to Eqo. (2.32) and (2.33), the litabili,y of crw;k arowth depends on the TIlle or
chanp in tj. i.e .• the 5e(:ond derivati¥c of potential enelJY. Although the drivinl rorce
«(iJ il ~ Ioame for both load conlrOl and displacement oontrol, the roll' of cluurll' of the
driving rQI"CI: curve depends on how the 5truC1un: is loaded.
 ..
Displacement control tends 10 be _ Wble than lo-d control. With some c:onfi,-
1.Il'1Iti<)lls, the driv;na: fOl'« I(tually decreases with axil: JTOwth in displ:ll%ment conlrol.
A typical example is illustrated in MS_ 2. 11 .
Referring to Fig_ 2.11, coruitier a cracked structure sUbjected \0 I. load P3 and I dis-
plac~menl .13. If the structure is load controlled. il i. 81 the point of instability, where
the driving for«: curve il tanlcnllo the R curve:. In displacement control, how<:vcr, the
lIII'\IICture is stable beaouse the driving force decrea$es with axil: growth; the displacement
mU5\ be increaseo;l for further cncll: JfOWlh.
When an R curve is determined experimentally. the specimen is ll$Ually ksted in
displacement control (or u near to pure displacement control as is possible in the tell
machine). Since most of the common !eli! spccimcn geometries exhibit faJlina drivin,
fon:e curves in displacement control, it is possible \0 obtain . significant amount of sta·
ble crack growth. If an in~tabi]jty occurs during the teSt, the R curve cannot be defined
beyond the point of ultimate (allure.

.
Ins tability in
l.cNId Control
--• •• . 5

CRACK SIZE
n GlIllE L1 1 !ltd""",", , .............. ......- ......... panoo _ _ _ .11,10 ._at
- ,nO.
5 , ..

EXAM PLF. 1.3

EvaluaU: !he relatiye Ilabitity of. DCB apecimen (fi • . 2.9) in load control IIld dil-
ptlCemcm control.

Sol.. ,;",,: From !he mult deriwd in Example 2.2. !he Il~ of m.. drivin. foroe o;urve
in Io.Id control illiven by
 Chapur2

EXAMPLE 1.3 (conI.).

ffi ,,,. l2
( d;) p" BEI - "

In order 10 evaluatt displllCtll"Oent control, il i. nccaiary 10 uprcIS ~in temu of d

and " . From beam Lheory.load II related to disploccmc:nl as follow. :

p. - ,,,,
''''
-

.uMLituting the above equation into upreuion for tnerlJ release rate slvn

n..

lberdore, the driving force incrcuc:s with cno:k ""wth in load conlrol and decreases
in displ8CCmcnt control. For. flu R curve. Cl'"lCk ""wth in load control i. always UIl-
liable. while displacement control i. always Sl.able.

2.S.3 Strud ures wltb Finite Co mplian ce

Most real structures arc subject to conditioJl$ between pure load c(Mltrol and pure d is-
placement control. This intennediate situation can be schematically represented by a
spring in series with the fl awed structure (Fig. 2.(2). TIle structure is filled at 1 constant
remOle displacement. liT. the spri ng represents the .ystem compliance. CM" Pure dis-
placement control corresponds to an infinitely sti lT spring, where CM. ,,0. Load control
(dead loading) impl~5 an infinitely 10ft spring; i.e .• C",.,. ""'.
When the syste m compliance is finite. the point of fracture instabi lity obviously
lies somewhere between the extreme. ofpure load conltol llJld pure displacement control.
However. delcnni ning the precise point of instabili ty require. 1 rather complex analysis .
At the moment of instability. the following conditions arc: satisfied:

... Ii= R (2341)

Linwr EIoJtic Fracture MechoIIks
"
(2.34b)

The left side of Eq. (2.34b) is given by [7):

(2.3S)

Equation (2.3S) i~ derived in Appendix 2.2.

2.6 STRESS ANALYSIS OF CRACKS

For certain cr1lCked configuralions subjected to extemal forces, il is possible 10 derive

clO$ed-form expressions fOR !HE SlnSSe$ in !he body, assuming i$OltOpic linear elastic ma-
terial behavior. WeslerglUll"d [8), Irwin [9), Sr.cddon [10) and Willianu {II] were among
!he firsllo publiu. soch solutions. If we define a polar coordinale uis with !he origin al
!he crack tip (Fig. 2.13), it can be shown WIthe stress field in any linear claslic cr1lC ked
body is given by

(2,36)

nGUII.Z Lil A erod,e<! ",.,.elure

.llII ftnll. eMIIplla""., npr.....ld
_tlaoIljr '" • .,n.,. 1m _ _
 CMpur2
"
WhoeK CFIj is !he suus ICnsor. ,.nd
6 are as defined in Fi,. 2. 13, 11. is a consanl, IltId fij is
• dimensionless function of 6. 1llc higller order terms depend on geometry, but the $OIu-
lion for any given con figuration contai ns a leadins term that is proportional to J/W. As
, ..... 0, the leading tenn approaches infinity. but the other terms remain fini te or approach
~m. Thus stress ncar the crack ti p varies with 1/.[;. fCgwle55 of the configuration of
tile cracked body. II can .Jso be shown thaI displacement ncar the CI1II:k tip varies wilh
.fi. Equation (2.36) describes. Itrus singwlnrity. since stress is asympiOlic 10 , . O.
The ba$is ohms rclationdtip is uploml in more dewl in Appendix 2.3.

FJGUIlE LU DdIIaItloa 01 1100 cwnll-

ul. &ail ....... 01 . . . .. tip. 11K { ",.
...... II _ _ at Ie IM __

'There are t/tn)e types ofloadiog thaI I crack can npcrience, as Fig. 2.14 illustrates..
Mode I loading. where !he principal load is applied normal to the elKl;: plane. lends 10
open the crack.. Mode II ~ 10 in-plane shear loading and teOOs 10 slide one Cl1ICk
flCe with m;pect to the other. Mode III refers 10 out-of-plane shear. A cracked body can
be loaded in anyone ofihese modes, or a combination of two or tItree modes.

2." .1 The Stren Intensity F.ctor

Each mode ofloadillJ produces !he t/.Jr

singularity It the crxt tip. but the proportion-
I lity conSWlI, .t, and rij depend on mode. It is convenient II this point to repllCe.t by
!he stress illteruiry factor. K. where K -.t.J21l . lbe 5tfeu inleDlily rao:lor is U5 .... lIy
liven. sub:!criJM 10 den(l(e !he mode of loading: i.e .. Kt . Kt t, or KfIf . ThI.lS!he Itresl
flClda ahead of a crack tip in an isouopic linear elastic material can be written as

(2.378)

(2.37b)

lim af flf ) "" Kf(I 11/,/)(9) (2.37c)

r-+O i) ..J2trr IJ
Linmr Elastic Fracturt Mechanics
"
Mode I Mode II Modem
(Openinll) (In_Plane Shear )

nCURE1.14 TlteIJtn.o mood .. oI.~ ... Iho'''''' b< oq>pIIftI to .enId<.

for Modes I, II, and III. respectively. In a mixed-mode problem (i.e., wben more than one
loading mode is present). the individual contributions to a given stress component are ad-
ditive:

(2.38)

Equation (2.38) stems from the principle of linear superposition.

Dew.iled expressions for the singular 5!Jess fields for Modes I and " are given in
Table 2.1. Displacement relationsrups rnr Modes I and II are listed in Table 2.2. Table
2.3 lists the nnnum stress and displacement cnmponents for Mode Ul
Consider the Mode I singular field on the crack plane. where 9= O. According 10
Table 2.1, the stresses in the ~ and y direclion are equal:

(2.39)

When 9 = 0, the shear stress is uro, which means that the crack plane is a principal
plane for pure Mode ( loading. Figure 2.1S is a schematic plot of Uyy, tbe stress normal
10 the clllCk plane, versus distance from the crack lip. Equation (2.39) is only valid near
the crack lip, where the 1/.[; singularity dominates the stress field. Stresses rar from
the crack lip are governed by the remote boundary conditions. ror example. if the cracked
structure is subjected to a unifonn remote tensile stress, 0yy, approaches a constant
value. d"". We can define a singu/Qriry domiMUd lOlIt as the region where the equations
in Tables 2.1 to 2.3 describe the crack tip fields.
"
TABLE1.J.
Sm. nn. ....... fit ........ lip fir M_I _ M_II ................. _"""_I<NI.
Mok ' Mok.

~",~X' -"'(~)"'(,:)l -~·',(a2+"'~H3:)1

Ou

Oyy
~",~X'''i'( ~H':)l ?,i; ",(:loe.(:loe.( 'n
'., ~"'~}i"(~H':) *",a,-,,"( ~},,(3:)1

o~ o (Plane Suess) o (Plane Stress)

v (an + Oyy) (Plane Straln) v (au + Oyy) (Pl ane Strain)

,
'[XZ: 0 0

11 II PoI.son •I rado.

Cnck IIp d' , ' ••• '_,....101_TA-ILEU

1_101_ 0 ~oIMtit, 1Iotnpk ....rWj.

"oo" "ok.
'. :~ ~2r~ oo{~l ~-I +2~n2(~)] ~2 ~;~ sin( ~l Hl+2COS2( : ) ]

'Y
t,;~;K "'(~X K+ ' - 2~'(~)1 -~~",'X
2p 21r 2 ,-,-",,'(')
2

" II :be Ihur moduiul

" • J - 4" (plane Rrain)
1:- (3 - v}/( I + v) (plane 1lrUl)
linwr Elastic Fractun Mulwtics
"

'n = -:if,!;';'(:)

',. = :if,!;ro{:)
TABLE 1.3 Non· .... 01. _ aod dbpla<ftll. nl

= ~H,; ,;,(!)
""",_au In Mod. III (II ...., .laIlle, _ .ople
lII aw,iJlj.
" Jl 211" 2

0"

FIG URE lo iS Sirao ""mlol 10

r tho <n<:k ....... 1m Mod. I.

The stress intensity (lICtor defines lhe amplitllde of the crack lip si ngularity. That
is. stresses !}Car the crack tip increase in proportion to K. Moreover. the stress intensity
faclor completely defines the crack lip condilions; if K is known. it is possible 10 solve
for all components of stress. strain, and displllCCmcnt as a function of rand 9. This sin·
gle·parameter description of crack lip conditions turns out to be one of the mOSI impor·
tant concepts in fractunl mechanics.

2.6.2 Relatio nship between K and Globa l Behavior

In order for the litress intensily factor to be useful, one mU5t be able 10 determine K. from
remote loads and the geometry. Closed·form solutions for K have been derived for a
number of simple configurations. For more complex situations the Slress intensity factor
can be estimaled by uperiment or numerical analysis (sec Chapter II).
One configuration for which a closed·form solution exislii is a through crack in an
infinite plate subje(:ted to a remote tensile stress (Fig. 2.3). Since the nlmote stress. (1. is
perpendicular to the crack plane, !be loading is pure Mode I. Linear elaslic bodies must
"
uOOcrao jlioponional stfe!,Sj n,; i.e., all stress components at anlocalions incn:ast in pro-
ponion 10 !he remotely applied forces. Thus the end lip Stn:sses must be proponional
to the remote $~SS, and K/ a cr. Ae<:ord ing 10 Eq . (2.31 ), stress inlen si,y has un its of
suuso,hcngth. Since the only relevant length 5Cale in Fig. 2.3 is the crac k. size, the re·
lationship between K/ and the global conditions must have: In.: followin, fonn :

(2.40)

~ actual w llllion, which is deriV«! in Appendix 2.3, is giw;n by

(2.41)

Thus the amplitude of the crac k tip si ngularity for Ihis cOI'Ifigur1Ition is proponional to
the remote streSS and the sqUIUl: root of crack size. 1lle streSS inlensity factor for Mode 11
loadin, of the plate in Fi,. 2.3 can be obtained by repladn, a in Eq. (2.4 1) by the re-
mOlel)' applied shear strUI (see Fig 2.18 and Eq. (2.43) below),
A rclau:d Solulion is Ihal for a semi-infinite plale with an edge crac k (Fig. 2. 16).
Note thaI this con figuralion can be obtained by slicing the plate in Fig_ 2.3 through the
middle of the CIlICk. "The SIJe$$ intensity factor for the edge crac k: is gh'en by

(2.42)

(J

n GUIlEl.t6 Ed&ot.,... ... ~p ..It_j<d ... . - . . _ _

 "

,--
I Throuah Cnd< I

which is similar 10 Eq. (2.41), The 12% iocreasc: in Kf for the edge crac:k is caused by
different boundary conditions l I the free o:d~e. AI Fi,. 2.11 illustrates, the edge crac k
opens more because it is less restrained than IIIe lhrou ah crac k, which forms an ellipti cal
shape: when loaded.
Consider a through crack ;n an infinite pille where the norm.llo the crack pl_ is
oriented at an angle fJ wilh \be Slrus u is (Fig. 2.18&). If {J .. 0, the crack experiences
combined Mode I and Mode Il loadin,; KffI= 0 as lon& as the SU"e3S u.s and the crack
normal both lie in the plane of the pllte. If we reckfine the coordi nate uis 10 ~lKide
with the CI'lIICk orientation (Fig. 2. 19b). we see thai the applied s~s Can be resolved into
normal and shear componcnl.l. The stress normal 10 the cllICk plane. (1yy . prod...cel
pure Mode I loading, while tK Y applies MOlle II loading 10 the crack. The stress inten-
a,y
sily factors for the pl ate in Fill. 2.18 can be iaferred by rc:lating and t.y to aand
fJ through Mohr's circle :

(2.43a)

K It:: f , .•. ·J,rQ

=- CTsin(jJ)coS(Ph'.Ira (2.0b)

NOie thaI Eq. (2.0 ) reduces 10 the pure Mock I solution when fJ = O. The maximum KII
occurs It fJ = 4:S~. where the s.hcar Itres.s is l.lso III I maximum. Seo:tlon 2.11 addreucs
fr.cture under mixed mode conditioru.
1bc: penny-shaped cOltk in an infinite medium (Fla. 2.4) is another configuration for
wh ich I closed-fonn K/ 5OIution uislS [111:
58

(0) ( b)

nGUll! 1..1 n ....p ...-111 ... ~ pia••

r.. 1M .....raJ ... wllue .11< prlndpal .U- II
.........." ....II... l.o .. .. . 11< cnct pi .....

(2.44)

where <l is CllICk radius. Note that Eq. (2.44) has \he same form as the previous relation-
s.hips for a through c.-..:t , uupt thai the cnlCk nMlius b the clw1lctcristic ]enath in the
above: equaliOl1. The lTlOfe genetal case 0( an elliptical or semi-clliptical flaw is iIIusU'llte<i
in Fig. 2.19, In this insUiocc, IW() length dimeMion s are Meded 10 ctuIllICleriu tbe C11IICk
l ite: 2c and 2.:1, the major and minor Uti of the ellipse, respectively (see Fig. 2.19).

mum K/ at,.
Also, when fl < c, the litress intensity factor varies aJong the crac k front. with the maxi-
9()0. The naw shape parameter, Q, il obIaincd from In elliptic integral.
as discussed in Appendix 2.4 Fi~ 2.1 9 gives an approximlte solution for Q.

1.6.3 Effect of Finite Sin

Most configurations for which there is a closed-fOl'Tll K solution consist of a crack with a
simpl e shape (e,g_. rectangle or ellipse) in an infinite plale. Slated another way, the
cr.:k dimensions are small compared to the size of !he plale; the crack tip conditio ns are
no! infl""""",d by " x",ma1 boundari ..... N the c:raet u:uo 'ncre...., •. 01' as doe plale dimen _
, iOD$ decrease. !he OUIel boundaries begin to exert an innuence on the crack tip. In such
cases. a closed-fonn SU'eSiI inknsi'YllOlution is usLII.Ily ftOt pc:I$$ible.
 "
Em bedded Flaw: Surface Flaw:
cr

(")""
Q - l+l,464 ;

,
".,+., '+W' ,~'.Y
.. Clwpfu2

Consider I cncked pille subjected 10 I remote tClUile stress. Figure 2.20 $Cbcmati-
ca ll y ill ustrates the effect of fin ite wid th 011 the crack ti p su'e$s distribution. which is rep-
resented by lilies of fon;:e; the local stress is proportional 10 the spacinl between lines of
force. Since a tensile SITeSJ cannot be ITallSmined through a cnu;k. !he lines of fortc are
divened around the crack. resu lti ng in a local Stress concentration. In the infinite plale.
the line of force al a distance W from the crack cente r line has force componenls in the it
and y directions. If the pl.le width is restricted to 2W, the it (on;!; must be: leTO on the
free edge; this boundary tonditioa causes tile iiDCS of force to be compressed. which re-
sults in a higher stress intensification al the crack tip.
O ne tcchniqllC 10 approximate the finite width boundary condition is to assume a pe-
riodic sm.y of collinear cracks in an infinite plate (Fig. 2.2 1), l1\e Mode I SlreSS inteD-
sity factor for this situation is given by

(2.45)

1lIc stress inlensity approaches the infinitc platc valuc as aIW approaches :tero; K, is
asymplOlk: to oIW" I.
More accurate solutions for a through crack in a finite plate have becn obtained from
fi nite clement analysis; solutions of this type aTe usually fit to a polynomial c~ prcssion .
One such sol ution [ 12) is given by

(2.46)

F ig ure 2.22 compares the finite width corrections in 6qs. (2.4.5) and (2.46). 'The secant
lenn (without the polynomial term) in Eq. (2.46) is also plotted. Equatioo (2.45) agrees
with the finitc element 5Olution to within 7' for oIW < 0.6. 1lIc secant cOl'I"ection is
much closer to the finite element solution; the error is lcsl than 2% fOl' aIW < 0.9. Thus
the polynomialtenn in Eq. 12.46] contributes little and can be negie(:ted in most cases.
Table 2.4 lisl.$ $Ue$$ intensity J(llutions for $Cvcral common configurations. llJesc
KJ solutions are plotted in Fig. 2.23. Chapter 12 contains a more CJ:lensivc colle(:tion of
K solutions. Sevel'lll handbooks devoted solely to SIreSS Intcnsity solutions have also
been published ( 12·14).
Although SITeSS inleMity solutiocl$ arc given in a variC(y of fOl'1ll5. K can always be
related to the through crack (Fig. 2.4) Ihrough the appropriale correction factor.

(2.47)

where (1 is a characlensuc stress. a Is a characlerlslic (:nu.;k llilllC II:sioH, and Y is a dimcn-

sionless consllntlhat depends 00 geometry and mode of loading.
 61

(J

j" zw "I
1
1

nGlIKEl.l 1 CoIIDtar.N<bbl .. 1odIai1< pIoU.~JotI .. __

EXAMPLE 2.4

Sbow thlllhe K/ ,olution for the tinale edge notched [ensUe palle] reduces 10 Eq.
(2.42) wben a« W.

K, . -'-
B-fW
/(~)
W
"
EXAMPLE 2.4 (ron!.)

",ben: P it \he _pplled force. B is pm thicklllW. andJfAIW} ill dimensionless func:-

tion. 1be above equation can be upressed In the form of Eq. (2.47):

s..fW 1('-) ' L 1('-) - /w,[;,. y.,[;,

.... - p
W BW W , , ;;

oIW
lim
~O
1( ; ) • "-Ii {O.7J2 • D.n}
Ii". If J • 1.12
oIW ~ O

o
o 02 0.6 I
. tw
 "
TABLE 1.4
K, Mlu""", ror _ _ ,,.._. [Ill-

O
.7!iZ +2.m(; )
4L-......l_'_l!---,f-

I-0002s(;

• K/ - sSW I (a I W ) where B is the specim~n Ihicknus.

..
Z5

20

- 10

,
o
o 02 0. 0.6 0.' 1
• I W

1.6.4 Prine" '" of SU)H' rpOli llo n

For linear clastic materials, individual components of stress, strain. and displacement!ll'l:
additive. For exampLe, two normal SIte""S in the I direction imposed by different cxter-
nal fOf"Ces can be added \0 obtain the 10111 CJu • but • normal stress cannO! be summed
with a shear S~. Simi larly. SIn$S intensity factors are additive as 10011 as the mode of
loading is consisten\. lhat i$,

~lOlaI) = K~A.) + RiB) + AiC>+...

"'1
In many inSlan<:u, the principle of IUpc:rposilion ,lIowl sttess intensity solutions
for complex c:onfigl.ll1lliom; 10 be built from simple eases fOf which the solutions are well
established. Consider. for example. an ed~ cracked panel (Table 2.4) subject 10 combined
membrane (axial) loading, Pm. and three-point bending. P". Since both tyJ'« of loading
impose pure Mode I conditions, the K/ vlllues can be added:
 "
(2.48 )

whcrc/m andfb are the geomc:uy cornction (acton for membnlllc and bendin, loading. re-
spc<:tivc:ly, lisled in Table 2.4 and plot!ed in Fil. 2.23.

EXAMPLE 1.5

~rmine (lie SIren intensily flClor for • seml·dliptH:a1 ,ulfate rn>ek subje<:lw 10 an
lmerna! pressure. p (fig. 2.24(.» .

Soll<,i(m: The poinciple of superposition enables us 10 conslnlCl the $OtuliOQ from

known cases. One relevant ('$<1: il the semi-eUiplital wrfac:e flaw ullder uniform "'.

crack surface (Fla. 2.l4(c)). K,.

mote lensi(lll, p (Fl • • 2.24Cb» , If we impose I uniform comprcs.ive Ilre$$, 'p. on the
0 bc:I;1Il15e!he rnlCt f.lCeS clos.e and the plale behaves
u If !he cnct were flO! prescm. The loadillJ conrtgunllion of i~eruI i. Qbtainal by
lubll'Ktilli the S\R$Sd in FI, _ 2.24{c) from those of Fi,. 2.l4(b):

_..1.
s
p~1r6f(')_O_A
Q
P~lflIf(')
Q
J

p -p

1m-
:

-tttr
(0) (,)
 ..
fJlampJe 2.5 is. simple illu.str1ltion of I more IClICraI concept: namely. 5tn:S5e$ act-
iO Il on the boundary (i.e. , tractions) can be replaced with tractiol'l$ that 8(1 on the crack
face, SIKh that the two loading conriBurations (boundary tractions versus crack face Lrac-
lions) result in the same stress intensity factor. Consider an uncracked body subject to a
boundary traction P(~ ). 115 illustrated in Figure 2. 25. This boundary traction result.1 in a
rmrmal stress dislribution P(I) on Plane A-B . In order to confine the problem to Mode I.
let us ass ume that no shear stresseS act on Plane A-B. (TIIis USU/Tlption is made only for
the 5akc of simplici ty; the basic principle can be applied to all three modes of loading.)
Now &$$ume thai a crack that fonru on Plane A-B and the boundary tnlClion, p(x ). re-
mains fixed. as Fig. 2.26(1) illustrates. If we remove the boundary traction and apply I
traction p(x) on the crac k face (Fig 2.26(b»), the principle of superposition indicates that
the applied KI will be unchanged. That is,

K/tJ j .. K/bl + Klc) '" Kjbl (since Klc) '" 0)

~~

,
•
FIGURE 1.15 U..,......... lied, IlUbJ«t '" ..
• rWlrary ..........,. Ir.,doa P(.J. _Iddo .....ttl
h. . . . . ..! ...... "lItrllloatioo P(d ..cl", ...
"-A·"

PIx)

•
,
(.J
ncuu Ll6 Applkatloo oIlUpe~lI... 10 repIIft. _ • .,. ,....,. .... P(s) wtth. ~ tIoC'e trw-
tIoo P(>;) ,"'t _"III In .... _* K ••
 Linmr ElasIic FrucfUn Mechonics 67

2.ti.5 Weight Functions

wtlen one perfonns an analysis to infer a stress inte nsity factor for a cracked body, the K
value that is com puted applies only to one particular set of boundary conditions: different
loading conditions result in a different stress intensity factors for that geometry. Il tums
OUI, however, that the solutio n to one set of boundary conditions contains sufficient in-
formation to infer K for any Olher boundary conditions on that same geometry.
Consider two arbitntry loading conditions on an isotropic elastic crac ked body in
plane S\TCSS or plane strai n. For now, we assume thai both loadings are symme tric with
respect to the crack plane, suc h that pure Mode I loading is achieved in each casco
SUPJiSC thai we know the stress intensity factor for loading ( I) and we wish to $()Ive for
K/ ), the stress inte nsity factor for the second sel of boundary conditi ons. Rice (1 51
showed that KII ) and K/2) are related as follows:

2) _ [auf)
E
Ai - 2Kl" rIT, aa dr+IF, aufl )
aa M 1 (2.49)
A.

where r and A are the perimeter and area of the body, respectively, and " i are the dis-
placements in the II. and y dire<:tions. Since loading systems ( 1) and (2) are arbitrary, it
follows that K/2) cannO( depend OIl K/ /) and u/l). Therefore, the function

(2.50)

where Xi represents the x and y coordinates, must be independent of the nature of loading
system (I). Bueckner (16] derived a simi lar res ult to Eq. (2. 50) two years before Rice,
and referred to h as a weigJujullcliofl.
Weight functions are firs t order tensors that depend only on the gcometry of the
cracked body. Given the we ight function for a particular configuration , it is possible to
compute KI from Sq. (2.49) for any boundary conditions. Moreover, the previous scction
invoked the principle of superposition to show that any loading configuration can be rep-
rescnted by appropriate tractions applied directly to the crack face. Thus K[ fOl" a two-di -
mensional crac~ body can be inferred from the followi ng expression.

K, = I p(x)h(x)dx (2.5 1)
'.
where p{x) is the crack face traction (cqualto the nonnal stress acting on the crack plane
wlKln the body is uncracked) and rc is the perimeter of the crac k. The weight function,
h(x ), can be interpTCted as the stress intensity resulting from a unit force applied to the
crack face aLt.
.. CIwp'~r 2

EXAMPLE U

Derive an expression for Kf for an arbitl1ll)' traction 011 the f.ce of. through CllICt in
an infinite plate.

SolwliOfl: We lllready know K/ for this confiauBliOl1 when a uniform tensile stress is
ap~Jied:

where <I is the half crack length. From Eq. (A2.4J), the opening displacement of the
cnck faces in thi. ease ;. given by

"Y • 1:. ~ .Jx (la-x)

where tile )(-r coordinate uis is defined in AS 2.27(.). The since lhoe cnck length is
2.. we must di fferentiate Uy with respect to 201 rather than a:

=.. . ---2. ~
~2"J
--
E 201-"

Thu the weight furK'lion for this aack geometry is ,iven by

I(x) • %-,-;) ,
~ 2a_x

If we apply I surface tnction of I p(x) on the crack faces, !he Mode I It lUI intensity
fac:or for the two cnck tip$ is lIS foUows:
,.
Kt:r-2a) .. . ~ J pr x )....} 2:. . dx
~ ~ O

,.
Kfx-OJ .. _~
~~O
f P(XJ ....j 2:-..- dx
liMar Elastic Fracture Mechonics ..
y

(11) AtbI'tarJ .....100 applk<110 ondc t_

The weight function concept is not restricted to two-dimensional bodies. Mode I

loading. or isotropic elastic materials. In their early wor!< on weight functions. Rice [151
extended the theory to three dimensions. Bucckncr 1161 considered combined Mode VII
loading. and both allowed for anisotropy in the elastic propenics. Subsequent researchers
[11-22J have shown lhatthc IhcOI')I applies to all linear elastic bodies that contai n an arbi-
trary number of cracks.
For mi~ed-mode problems. separate weight functions are required for each mode: "/.
"II. and hilI. Since the stress intensity factors can vary along a three-dimensional CIl\Ck
front. the weight functions also vary along the crack front. That is.

(2.52)

where a (= 1.2.3) indicates the mode of loading and 11 is the crack front ponition.
Given that any loading configuration in a cracked body can be represented by equiva-
lent crack fa«: tractions, the gencral mi~ed-modc three-dimensional formulati on of the
weight function approach can be e~pressed in the following form:

f
K,,(r]) = T;h,,(x,Tj)dS (2.53)

"
where Ti are the tractions assumed to act on the crack surface. Sc·

1.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND q

Two parameters that describe the behavior of cracks have been introduced so far: the en-
ergy release rate and the stress intensity factor. The former pararrtetcr quantifics the net
change in potential energy that accompanies an increment of crack e~tension; the laller
quantity charactcrizcs the Stresse5, strain), and displacements near the crack tip. The en-
70 Choptu 2

crl)' release we de5cribe$ alobal behavior, while K is. local paramcu:r. For linear elastic
materials, K and r; are uniquely related.
For a through crac k in an infini te plate subject to I uniform tensile StreSS (Fig. 2.3).
r; and K/ are given by Eq,. (2.24) and (2.41 ). respecti vely . Combining these IWO equa-
tions leads to the follo winll relationship between (jlnd K/ for plane stress:

For plane strain conditions, E must be replaced by £1' /.v2). To avoid writina: sc p8l'1ne
npren ions for plane Slrc" and plane sirai n, the following nOlal;on will be adopted
throughout this book:

E's E for plane Sln:" (2.j5a)

£': E for plane Anin (2.55b)

1- v'

Thus the lj. KJ relationship for both plane SI1e$5 and plane strain become5

(256)

SiDCe £qs. (2.24) and (2.4 1) apply only 10 a through crack in an infinite plate. we
lulve yet to prove that Eq. (2 ..56) is . general relationship Ibat applies to . 11 configura-
tions.. 1rwi1l19] performed. aac: 1r. closure analysis that provides wch . proof.
Consider. crack of initial length a +.6a wbject to Mode Iloadinll . as ilIuslnucd in
Fia. 2.28(.). It is convenient in this ease: to plaee the ori gin I distll1ee &I behind the
erack tip. Assume thltlhe plate has unit Ihiekneu. Let us no w apply a eom pressive
stress field to the erack faces between Jl '" 0 and • '" M of sufficient maa:ni tlide 10 close
the crack in this region . TIie work required to close the crack It the lip is reillted to the
cncl1Y release raIC:

(2.!i7)

where I1U is the work of crack cl05l1Jl:. whieh is equal to the sum of contributions 10
workfrom. ",O to Jl _ dol :

x - Oo
6U- J
dU(x) (2.58)
x-o
and the incremental work I t . is equal to the area under the fon:e-displaeemcnt eurvc:
LinMr Ekmie Fracture Meehonicl 71

",

,oj

a~~
SIl !15et<

I'IG tJR£ 1.18 .4-ppUcalion or .I.... r.

, ' - ... bld! , bon", • tnck by 4a.

~)

(2.59)

lhc factor of 2 on work is n::quired because both crack faces are displacc:d an absolute dis-
tance uy(.:c}. TIle crack opening displacement, UY' for Mode I is obtained from T able 2.2
by setting 6 =.If:

__ ( K+l )K /(a+&l ) ~ &l x

U - (2.60)
1 ~ 2n

where Kl.ll -+ &7) denotes the stress intensity faclor atlhc original crack tip. lhc normal
stress required 10 close the crack is related to K/ for the shonencd crack:

a :::: ~, (a) (2.6 1)

yy 2",

Combining Eqs. (2.57) 10 (2.61) gives

 Chapru 2
"
(2.62)

Thus Eq. (2.56) is l general ~1aUonship for Mode I. The above: analysis ean be repealed
for other modes of loading; the relevant c lClSure SIreSS and displacement for Mode II is tyJ
and Ill' and the corresponding quantities for Mode III are tyz and " :" When all three
modes of loading ~ present, the energy release rale is given by

(2.63)

Contributions to (j from the three modes are additive betausc energy release rate, like eo-
ergy. is a scalar quantity. Equation (2.63). however, assumes self similar crack growth;
Le., a planar crack is assumed to remain planar and maintain a constant shape: as it grows.
Such is usually not the case for mixed-mode fracture. See Section 2.1 1 for further discus-
sion of energy release rate in milled-mode problems

2.8 CRACK TIP PLASTICITY

Linear clastic stress analysis of sharp cracks predicts infinite stresscs Dt the crack lip. In
real materials, however, streSSes at the ~k tip are finite: because the Cf'a(:l lip radius
must be finite (Section 2.2). lnelude material defonnation, such as plasticity in metals
and crazing in polymc:n, kads to further rdualion of cno::k tip $U'esses.
The elastic 5tn:SS analysis becomes mcreasin gly inaccurate as the inelastic region al
the cmek tip grows. Simple corre<:tions to linear elas tic fracture mechanics (LEFM) are
ava ilable when moderate craek tip yielding occurs. For more exten sive yielding, one
must apply alternative erac:k ti p pararJletCf"S that take nonlinear material behavior into ac·
count (see Cbapu:r J).
lbe size of the: crack tip yieidinS zone can be esti matw by two methods: the lrwin
approach, where the el astic Stres.$ analysis is used to estimate the elastic-plastic boundary,
and the strip yield model. Both approaches lead to simple corrections for crack tip yield·
ing. TIle term plastic w ne usually applies to metals, but will be adopted here to describe
ine lastic crack tip behavior in a more seneral sc:nsc:. Differences in the yielding behavior
between metals and polymers are discussed in Chapter 6.

2.8.1 Tbc Irwin Approac b

On the crack plane (9 = 0) the normal suess, (1yy, in a linear elastic material is given by
Eq . (2.39). AI I first approximation, we ean assume that the boundary between elaslic
and plastic behavior occurs when the stresses given by Eq. (2.39) ~tisfy a yie ld ai terion.
For plane stress conditions, yielding occurs when (In- ars, the unillJlial yield stn:nsth
of the material. Sub$liluting yield strength inlO the left side of Eq. (2.39) and solving for
r Sives a first order estimate o f plastic zooe sin::
Linear E/cJstic Frocture Mechanics 73

, =-=
Y2Jr
(K
I )' O'YS
(2.64)

If we neglect strain hartlc: ning. lbe stress distribution for r:S: 'y can be repnlsented by a
horirontalline at O'yy = O"yS. as Fig. 2.29 illustrates; the stress singularity is truncated
by yieldi ng at the crack tip.
The simple analysis in the preceding paragraph is not strictly correct because it was
based on an elastic crack tip 5Olution. When yielding occurs, stresses must redistribute in
order to satisfy equilibrium. The cross· hatched region in Fig. 2.29 represents forces that
would be pnlsent in an elastic material but cannot be carried in the clastic-plastic material
because the stress cannot exceed yield. lhe plastic zone must increase in size in order to
a<Xommodate these forces. A simple force balance leads to a second ordeT esti mate of the
plastic zone size, 'p:

(2.65)

Integrating and solving for rp givt:s

(2.66)

which is twice as large as 'y, the first order estimate.

cr" '.0

,
 RefelTing to Fi,.2.29, IIOIC th.at !he ret!;strib\l\ed It"'" in !he ehlillt;~ re,;011 is
hi~r than Eq . (2.39) predicts. implyin, & hi,her fJlec/iVt wen intensity factor. Irw in
123 J accounted for this increase in K by defi ning an df«ti ve crack length that is 'li,htl)'
1000.er than !be. acuw crack ,ilt;. He found that B good approximation of KQf can be 0b-
tai ned by placing !he tip o f the eff«live crack In the ~enttr of the plastic lOlIC. as Fi,.
2.30 ilh.llltrl.tcs. Thlls!he effective ~rack length il defined as the sum of the actual crac k
l i>:e and. pIaWc woe QOmII;tiOll:

(2.67)

.... he"' ry for plane: SIJeU is ,,~n by Eq. (2.64), In p1anelll'1lin. yicldin, is IUppresRd by
!.he triuial stresl SlIIte. and the approximate plastic lOne correclion il smalier by a factor
of thtce:

,- -1 (K
.=
)' - 6Jf 015
J' (2.68)

TIle effecti ve weu intensily is obIIIined by i"SCmlll ",.6;nlO tbI: K upreuion fQr
the: ccomcll}' o f intere$!:

(2.69)

Si,," the effeelive crack l i>:e il taken into acoount in 1M ,comeII}' ~ion fll(:lOI'. r,
an iterali~ solution is lI$ually ""Iuircd 10 solve for K(jf That is. K is first dettnniMd in
!he amcnce o f • plutieity cornction; & rust on:Icr estimate of "'11 is !hen obtained from
Eq. (2.64) or (2.6&), whkh in 111m used 10 estimate: K,I/. A IleW PQfis comPUled from
the K,I/e$!imatc, and 1M protcu is repeated untillucceuivc K,/f eSlimalC$ ~OIIver&e.
Typically. no more than thtce or four ilcratiOflll lire required for reasonable convc1JCncc.

1\ [ •• 0 [
<J"
I\
\ 0,,=
<JyS

- - - -
- - -- ,
nctIU 1.Je n.. lrwIIII . . - _ ... i
............. b1_ ·,.............. ~b1 rr
C..... n.c Ioccc<_ ... t ... _ " - _ .... _M, • I I....
 7S

In certain cases, lrus iterative procedure is unnecessary because a closed-form solu-

tion is possible. For eumple, the effective Mode Tstress intensity fa.clor for a through
crack in an infinite plate in plane suess is given by

(Z.70)

Elliptical and semi-elliptical flaws (Fig. 2.20) also have an approximate closed form plas-
tic zone c~tion. provided the flaw is small compared \0 plale dimensions. In the case
oflhe embedded elliptical flaw, KejJ. is given by

(2.71)

wbcre QqJis the effective flaw shape parameleJ', defined lIS

(2.72)

Equation (2.72) must be multiplied by surface correction factO!" for a semi-elliptical sur-
face flaw (see Fig. 2.20).

2.8.2 The Strip Yield Modd

The stri p yield model, which is illustrated in Fig 2.31. was first proposed by Dugdale
[24) and Barenblatt [2~J. They assumed a long, slender plastic zone lithe crack tip in a
nonhardcning material in pLane SU'C5S. These early analyse.s considered only a through
crack in an infinite plale. The strip yield plasti<: zone is IIIOIkled by assuming a crack of
length 2a .. 2p, where P is the Icngth of the plastic lOIlC, with a closure stress equal to
O)'S applied at each CIlICk tip (Fig. 2.3 1(b» .

Plastic Zone

(. J OJ
"GUREDI TIooMrlpy\eld""""
0' """"..- tip (b).
no pIucIc_" P1,',1otI by)'loW .....-......... praom._
76 Cltapltr 2

This model approximates clastic-plastic behavior by superimposin& two elastic ro-

l ulions: • through crack under~lIIOIe \elISion and. through crack with closure suuses at
the lip. Thus the strip yield model is a classical application of the principle of superposi-
tion.
Since the SIre$5eS an: finile in the strip yield zone, there cannot be a StreSS singular-
ity at the end; tip . 'Thercforc. tbe leadi nl lenn in the crack tip rleld Ihal varies with
I/..fi (Eq. 2.36) mliSI be ~ero. 'The plastic zone length, p, mU51 be chosen suc h thaI the
stress intensi ty factors from the remote tension and closure StrtSS cance l one anotber.
'The stress inlCll$ily due 10 the closure SU'e$S can be estimated by considering a nor-
mal force P applied 10 the crack at • disanee 11 from the center line of the crack (Fia_
2.32), The SImiS intcnsities for the two crack lips are given by

K/(+fl)
P ~a+x
=-,-
'ora a - x

(2.13)

assuming the plale is of unit thickness. The clO$urc force al a point williin the stri p yield
roDe is equal 10

p=- u YSdx (2.74)

Thus the 10lII1 SlreSS inlensily al each crack lip resulting from the closure stresses is ob·
tained by replacing. with" + pin Eq . (2.73 ) .nd summin, the contribulion from both
crack lips:

K _ a+rl a+p+x + O+P-X}dx

U YS
Ckn .. rt--~1f(a+p)! a+p-x a+p+x

(2.75)

~------:h ____~~
, ~P
:
I
-
F1GUR! 1.J1 C..ck o""nlal tone
.,pllod ••• dlolu>« ~ h'om Ill. "alo.
 77

Solving this integral lives

KcIoIMr'f! = -2ays
f¥ -I(
+p cos
1r
a )
a+p
(2.76)

The Slress intensity from the remote lenlile stress. KQ _ t1~1I:(a + pl. mUSI balance
with Kcuw.r... TIlcrefore,

a
(1..n)
a+p

NOle tlial approaches infinity as CT -+ CT)'S . LeI us uplore!he strip yield model further
P
by perfonning a Taylor series expansion on Eq. (2.77):

a+p
a 1_2-
()'()'()'
2! 2ayS
Ira + +_1 Ira
4! 2ars
I
__ ICC!
6! 2ars ...
(2.7&)

Ncslecling all bUI the first two terms alld solving for the plutic zo ne siu givel

"'' 'a =8"(!!.L)'

p- 8ays~ UYS
(2.79)

for CT« O)'S. Note the similarity between E.qs. (2.79) aMI (2.66); since JIlt .. 0.318 and
1fI8 .. 0.392, the Irwin and suip yield approaches predict similar plastic zone sizel.
One way 10 estimate the effoctive Siren intensity wilh the strip yield model is to set
ll...,equallO Q+/T.

KeJf = u trasec( 2ayS

<G ) (2.80)

Ho wever, Eq. (2.80) lends 10 overestimate K,if the aclual Q,f! is somewhat less than
tI+p because !he W'ip y~ld zone is loaded to O)'S. Burdekin and Stone [26J otMained a
man: realistic e5timate of KtJJ for the strip yield model:

(1.BI)

Refu to AJlP(ndi.l 3. 1 for a derivation of Eq. (.l .BI).

78 Cllapter 2

1.8.3 Co mp a risoa ot PtuUe Zone Cor n<>ti on'

Filure 2.33 shows. comparison between a pure LEFM anaiysis CEq. (2.41», !he Irwin
correction for plane stress (Eq. (2.70», and !he smp yield correction on stress Intensity
(Eq. (2.S J».'The effective stress Intensity, nondimensionaHzcd by Clrs..J1fa. is ploued
..sinst!he normalized stress. 'The LEfM analysis prcdicu a linear relationlihip between
K and s\tess. 80th the Irwin Ind limp yield corrections devilte from LEFM theory at
suesses areater than O.S O}'s. lbt two plasticity COllectiON agree with each other up to
approximately O.IS O}'s. ~illJ 10 the lilrip yield model. K'lIis infinite at yield ; the
lilrip yield ZODe extends completely.cross!he plate. which lias reached ilS lILl.limum 10fld
capacity.
The plastic zooe shape ~dicled by the smp yield model bears little re$Cmblance to
IICtual plastic 'lones in metal s (see below). but many polymers produce crack tip c""ze
tones which 1001: very much like Fig. 2.3\. Thus although Dusdale oriJinally proposed
the strip yield mode l to accounl for yieldinl in thin SICCI sheets, this model il better
suited \0 polymus (see ChapIu 6).

'The estimates of plasti<: 'lone liu that have been presented so far consider only !he crICk
plane 9:<0. It is possible to estimate the UleDI of plasticity at ail angles by apply!nl an
appropriale yield criterion to the equations in Tables 2.1 and 2.3. Consider the von Misel
equation:

1.'
O"ysYrta
1.'

,.•

,,
I ~~
_ _ irwin Coo.octIoo

........ 5cr1p YIokI :"""''':

I
,., ,.• ,.• 1
 "
(2.82)

when: a~ il the effective stress, and ai, (12. and uJ are the three principII nonnal
struses. According 10 the von Mises critmon, yielding OfXUf'I when O'c"'ayS, the .:niH.-
ial yield 5tnnglh. FQr plane stress or plane strain cODdilions, the principalstreues can be
computed from the two-dimensional Mohr's cin:lc relationship:

(2.83)

For plane stn:ss, OJ '" 0, and 0') '" Y(U1 + (12) for plane slnIin. Substiuuins the Mode
I stress fields into Eq. (2.83) gives

u,:: .J~:rr cOS(~I'+Sin(~)] p-84.)

U, = .J~~ 'OS(~ll-'in(~)l (2.84b'

2vK (8)
"2
'" :j2IDo cos (pilUle strain) (2.84c)

By substituting Eq. (2.84) ;nlO Eq. (l.82), seninS Ut=ayS. and solving for r. we obtain
estimates of the Mode: I plastic zone radius as I function of 8:

r (8) =
1
_1_(.&)'
41r at'S
[1 +cos8+ ~sinl
2
8] (2.85 a)

for plane stress, and

for planc suain. Equations (2.8S.) and (2.8Sb), which are plotted in Fig. 2.34(.). define
!he approximate boundary between elastic and plastic behavior. The corrcspondingcqua-
lions for Modes II and III are plotted in Figs 2.34(b) and 2.34{c), respectively.
80 Cltapur2

,
I MODE II I

.;.z,.': ~;~
ii.i!J O.S Plane St.-in

•
..., "-"- 1"
u
,
(h) M"'U

,
fr ,
IMODE 111 1
1.

.r'••, I FIGUJlE LJ4 Cnd< lip pbdk _

..... rr- I'" oIo..,a Md·
"'-tIt !IOIu_ (T.t.IeI l.t .....
13) ..... ' " ... M ... JioW niI_

•,
••
,
"
,
, (~) Mooklll

Note the significant diffcrenee in the size and shape of the Mode I plastic tones for
plane stress and plane strain. The latter condi tion suppresses yielding. resultin g in a
smaller plastic zone for a given KJ value.
Equations (2.85a) and (2.85b) are not strictly correct because they are based o n a
purely elastic analysis. Reclll Fig. 2.29, which schematically illustnltes how crack lip
plasticity causes SlCeSS redistribution, which is not taken inlO IICCOUn l in Fig. 2.34. l1le
Irwin plasticity coneo::tion, which lIIXounts for ,~ redistrib\ltion by means of an effec::·
live crac k kngth, is also 'implistic and not totally CUi .tel
Fillure 2.)5 compares the plane strain pla5lic ~one shape predicted from Eq. (2.85b)
with a detailed clastic·plastic crw:k tip stress solution obraincd from finite element analy-
sil. The laller, which was p... blished by D<xIdl, el al. [27[. assumed a material with the
following ... niaxial stress-sUllin relationship:

(2.86)

where £0, 0"0 ' (.t, and n ~ material f;onstanU. We will eumine the above re lationship
in more detail in Chapter 3: for flOW it is sufficient to noee that the exponent, /I, eh~-
linear Ewtic FroctJIu Mechanics 8I

terizcs the strain hardening rate of a material. Dodds, ct al , analyzed materials with n = 5,
10, and SO, which corresponds to high, medium, and low slI'ain hardening, respectively,
Figun: 2.35 show s contours of constant u~ for n = SO. The definition of the clastic-plas-
tic boundary is somewhat arbitrary. since materials that can be described by Eq. (2.86) do
not have a definite yield point. When the plastic zone boundary is defined at u t = <1ys
(the 0.2% offset yield strength), the plane strain plastic :tone is considerably smaller than
predicted by Eq. (2.85b). Defining !he boundary at a slightly lower effective stn:u results
in a much larger plastic zone. Given the difficulties of defining !he plastic zone unam-
biguously with a detailed analysis, the estimates of pl astic zone size and shape from the
clastic analysis (Fig. 2.34) appear to be reasonable.
Figure 2.33 illustrates the e ffect of strain hardening on the plastic zone. A high
strain hardening rate results in a smaller plastic zone because the material inside of the
plastic zone is capable of carrying hi gher stresses, and less sU'es! redistribution is neces_
"'Y.

0.'
~[,=O.'

M~~2 0.2
flGURElJ5 COOt ...... oIo:ons1antd.
O~= r«:tlY. 01..- in M ..... 1, oblailltd from
nnll •• t~"''''1 IlI:Ullp;Is (171. llto otas-
!lo,p' uU. bounda.,. ..11111.led (rom
0.2 Eq. (l.I5a) Is fbOWQ rD. wmparison.

0.'
0.' '---_ _ _-"--_ _ _-'

1f.&I'
itLOYS
Ia.
FIGURE 1.36 Etl"0ft 01. . tro.J.m b ..... n-
Od 1.11. Mod. I pl.tlc: ......; n. 5
co ....porwls to • ~J.b ftrmn blrd,lIi ...
",a lerlal, wbile ... 50 co....,.~ to
"ff11o .. _ t ... (d. Eq. (1.16)).
 2.9 PLANE STRESS VERSUS PLANE STRAIN

Most of the classical $Olutions in fracture mechanics reduce the problem 10 IWO dimen·
sions. That is. at least one of tbe principal strelscs or strains is assumed to equal ~ero
(plane SIJUS 01" pl ane strai n, respectively).
In genernl, the conditiolll ahead of a cnck are neither plane S\reS5 IM)I" plane strai n,
but are Ihrec-dimen.sional. ll1ere are. howevu, limiting c&scs where a two-dimensional
assumption is valid. or at least provides a good approximation.
Consider a crac ked plate with thickness B subjcctlO in-plane loadin g. as illustrated
in Fig. 2.37. For the moment, assume Wt !he plastic zone is small ; the effcct of crack
tip plastici ty is considered later. If there were no crack. !he plate would be in a state of
plane siren. Thus., regions of the plate that are sufficie ntly far from the crack tip must
also be loaded in plane stress. Material nue the crack tip is loaded to hi gber stresses than
the SUlTOUI1ding material. Because of the large stress normal to !he cn.ck plane, the crac k
tip malerial tries 10 contract in the J: and ~ directions.. but is prevented from doing $0 by
the surrou nding material (Fig. 2.37 (b». "This constrain t caU$CS a triaJr.ial state of stress
near tbe crack tip. For r« B. plane strain conditions uist in the interior of the plate.
Material on the plate surface is in a state of plane stress. hoowever. because there are no
stresses normal to !he free surface.
Figure 2.38 schematically illustrates the throogh-thickness variation of stress and
strain in the ~ direction for, « B. At the plate surface. au ,,0 and t u is al ilS mui-
mum (absolute ) value . At the midplane (~). plane strai n conditions exist and au •
"O( a.u+ (I») (assuming'» ',.). 1bere is a region near tbe plate surface wbere lbe
stress Slate is neither plane SImS IlOl" pl ane wain.

n ell" l.37 n.... II II 1M up "'. (ftdL n.. 'jp . . . . . _

• •, ' . " . ,. . ._ II 1M . . -
tip _ _ _ _ 1M..t_ .. "I...c, ""I _ _ III 1M W .. 10.-.......... rauIIl8c 100 •
lriulalll .... .talc.
Linwr Elastic FTQCtw~ Mechonia
"
au
Figure 2.39 is a plOi of as a function of ~B and riB. These mults were obtained
from a three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite elemcnt analysis performed by Narasimhan
and Rosakis [28). NOte the tnlnsition from plane strain (at mid thickness) to plane stress
as r increases relatiyc 10 thickness.

Plant Strain
...
-
o zIB
0_5

nGUU ;US Setta.allt

lite crKIt tip.
.at\a_ or 1nnI_ .tn. aDd IInID I~""'p th~ t.h.kk_ It a point ...e

o '-'
z/B
.3 •• os
.. ChtJpter 2

llIe stress state allhe elastic-plastic boundary de~n.ds on the plastic lone si!c re la-
tive to the plate thickness. Plane slrain conditions e~ i st al the boundary if tile plastic
lOne is small compared 10 the tbiclme$$, but the stress S101C is predo minantly plane $tress
if the plastic roBe is of the same oWer as Inc thickness. Figure 2.40 shows Mode I plas-
tic IOnes al mid-thicknt'SS computed from a lIv"cc-dimcnsional c1astic-plastk finite elc-
ment analysis pcrf!ll'Tned by Nakamun and Parks [29]. The clastic-plastic bounda!)' is de-
fined al q~ = O'Y$ in this case. As ( KI I aysj2 increases relati ve 10 thickness, the plastic
zone grows, as one miglu expect. II is interesting. however. 10 nOle the c hange in slLnpe:
of lhe clastic- plastic boundary: al low K/ values, the plasti c zone has a typical plane
strain shape, bUlla!:es on a plane stress shape IU Kr increases (d. Fig. 2.31(a»). If the
StreSS SlalC remained constant. the plastic zone siu would increase in proponion to
(K,taysY and would O:lain a conSlanl shape: the plastic ZOIlC actually inc:o:ues at a
faster rate bec.use tnc sto:ss SUite chlnges from plane strain to plane suess as K/ in-
CTtues. Although the Ito:SS state .t the clastic· plastic boundary is predominately plane
stress when the plastic ~one size is of the order of half the plate thickness (or larg..,r), &
t'ia~ial 51....,SS sUite may exiJl deep inside the:: plaslic ZOIlC .

2, 10 K AS A FAIL URE CRI TE RI ON

Seclion 2.6.1 introduced the concept of the singularity oominat«l zone and alluded to si n-
IIle-paramete r characteriution o f crack ti p conditions. TIle St....,sscs ncar the crack lip in a
linear clastic malerial vary as ]* the stress intensity fac tor defines the ampl itude o f the
sinllularity. Given Ihe equations in Tables 2.1 102.3, one can comple tely define the
strts.KS. strains, and displacements in the singularity dominated roue if the suen inlen-
sily factor is k nown. Ir we aSJiume a malerial fails locally at some combination of
streS5e5 and strains, then crack e ~lension must occur at a c ri tical K v.luc. This Kr
value:. which is a mCilSUrt offroclrl~ toug''''cJS, is a malerial con sUlntlhal is independenl
or l11<;: size and geometry o f the cracked body . Since cne'iY release rate is un ique ly rtlaled
to stTtSS inlensity (S«:tion 2.7). !l al so provides a sinilie- parameter description of crac k
lip conditions. and ~ is an alternative measure of toughllCS5.
The forzoinll discussion does nOi consider plilSlicity or OIf1c,r Iypes of nonlif"ICar ma-
teri.1 behavior at the ef1lol,:k tip. Recall thai lhe IN, sinllularity applies only 10 linear
elilSlic materials. The equatio ns in Tabl es 2. 1 to 2.3 do nOi describe lhe suess di stribu-
tion inside the plast ic zone. As discussed in Chapl..,rs!5 Dnd 6, lhe microscopic e,·..,nlS
tha t lead 10 fracture in various male rials generally occur well within the pl astic zone (or
damage zone, to usc a more generic term). Thus even if the plastic ~one Is very small,
fraclUrt may not nucleate in the singulari ty dominat«l zone. This fact raises an imponanl
question: is Sire" intensi ty a useful failurt ..,rilerion in materials that exhibit inelastic de-
fonnation at the crac k tip?
Under 'erla in condition5.,K still uniquely characterites crae k tip "'ondilions when a
plastic ~one is presen t. In such cues. Kc is a geometry-i ndependent material cons tant. as
discussed below.
Consider a test specimen and slruoclure looded to the same K/ level. as illustrated in
Fia.2.41. A$.ume that the plastic zone il small compll"'" tn All length d imensions in
the SlruoclUrt and test specimen. Let us construct a free·bod y diagram with a small rtllion
rtmoved from the crack tip of each material. If this rellion is S!,lfliciently small 10 be
within lhe singularity dominated zone. the stresses and d isplD(:cmcnl5 allhe boundary arc
Unwr E/osric Froctun M~chanics 8S

defined by the relationships in Tables 2. 1 and 2.2. The disk-shaped region in Fig. 2.41
can be viewed as an independent problem. Imposition of the I,..{; singularity at the
boundary resull5 in a plastic rone a1 the crack. tip. The site of the plastic zone and the
stress distribution within the disc-shaped region arc a function only of the boundary condi-
tions and material propcnies. l1icrefon:, even though we do not k.now the actual stress
distribution in the plastic zone. we can argue that it is uniquely characterized by thc
boundary conditions; i.e .. KJ charactcri~es crack. tip conditions even though the I,..{; sin-
gularity docs not apply to the plastic zone. Since the structure and test specimen in Fig.
1.41 arc loaded to the same Kf value. the crack. tip conditions must be identical in the
two configurations. Fwthcrmore. as load is increased. both configurations will fai l at the
same critical stress intensity. provided the plastic rone remains small in each case.
Similarly. if both structures arc loaded in fatigue at the same M<. the crack. growth rates
will be similar as long as the cyclic plastic zone is embedded within the singularity dom-
inated zone in each case (see Chapter 10).
Figure 2.42 schematically illustrates the stress distributions in the structure and test
specimen from the previous figure. In the singularity dominated zone. a log-log plot of
the stress distribution is linear with a slope of - 1'2. Inside of the plastic zone. the
Stresses arc lower than predicted by the elastic solution, bUI are identical for the two con-
figurations. Outs ide of the singularity dominated zone. higher order terms become signif-
ica nt (Eq. 2.36) and the stress fields are different for the structure and test specimen; K
docs not uniquely characterize the magnitude of the higher order tenns.

0.5
d B _O
J!&... = 1.0
0.4 "',

0.'
"'
0.2

0.1

o
-".1 o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 06
xlB
..
- --
- r- _
)
-
/
/
L 1 1 Y
/ /
/ /
/
/ /
/ /

;;fj/ /

"'''''''''''
J J

,,
~
s,.. ' n ® · I'\attk.z.oov
® .sm,u&arity dominated z_
®
Los '
ncUUUlo..t. •• ot.-lIoIdof.... tM" .... _M ...... n .. ,....L4I .
LiMar E/asn'c Froc"'"" Mechanics 87

2.10.1 Effect of Lo.ding Mode

A brief word of caution is necessary wi!h respttt to the mode of loading. Although the
critical &tl"e!;s incensily factor for a given mode is a material constan! (when crack tip plas·
ticity is limited). Kc general ly varies with loading mode. That is.

Most materials are more $usceptible to fracture by nonnal te nsile stresses !han by
shear stresses. Consequently. Mode I loading lias the most practical importanu. Mode II
and Mode III loading usually do not lead to fracture. Stated another way. KTlc and KIT/c
are generally greater than KIc-
The vast majority of practical applications of fracture mechanics consider only the
Mode I component of loading. (The reader may have noticed that most of the examples in
this chapter are pure Mode I prohlems.) Other modes of loading become important when
!hey are applied to a weak in terface in the material. For e~ample. Mode II fiberlmatri~
debonding and Mode II delamination can occur in composite malerials (see Chapter 6).
Refer to Seclion 2.11 for further diSCU5Sion offrocture under mi xed·mode C(lnditions.

2. 10.2 Effect of Specim en Dim ens ions

The critical stress intensity factor i& only a material constant wilen certain conditions are
met. Otllerwise. Kc values can be geometry dependent.
As stated in Section 2.9, the plastic zone must be small compared to the specimen
thicbtess in order to achieve plane strain conditions at the elastic·plastic interface. When
the plastic wne reaches a significant fraction of the plate thicbtess, the stress stale at the
edge of the plastic tOne is plane stress. but plane &train conditions may persist at the
crack tip. deep inside the plastic ~one. With funher plastic defonnation. however. the
le vel of stress. triaxiality at the crack tip relaxes. A lower degree of stress triuiality u.u·
aUy resuhs in higher toughness. Figure 2.43 illustrates the effecl of thickness on the
critical Mode I streu intensity factor. Small thickness (relath'e 10 tbe plastic zone size)
COTTCSpondS to nominally plane SIre!;S fracture. Fracture toughness decreases with thick·
ness until a plaleau is reached; funher i""reases in thickness have little or no effect on
toughness (see Appendix 5.2 for an elception to chis rule). The critical KI value at the
plateau is defined as KIe. the plant strain Jrocturt /QughtltJS. (Critical K I value, corre-
sponding co less than plane strain constraint are not called Klc values. These are some·
ti mes designated as Kc values. but Ihis convention is avoided here because it can lead to
con fusion when other modes of loading are present.)
The through·thickness constraint can influence the shape of the R curve. particularly
for ductile materials. Sect;on 2.5.1 alluded to this effect. 1lIe R curve for a material in
plane stress is often much steeper !han the plane strain R curve for tbe same material.
Some materials have a relatively flat plane strain R curve. resulting in toughness that is
smgle valued. whi le the plane stren R curve rises with crack growth. Refer to Fig. 2.10
for an illustration of flat and ri sing R curves.
The in· plane dimensions of a spec imen or structure arc as imponant as the thick·
ness. In order for the stress intensity factor to have any meaning. there must be a singu·
lalllY dominated zone near the crack tip. When !he plastic zone becomes tOO large , the
..
singularity dominated ~one is destroyed. and K no longer characterizes crllCk lip condi-
tions. Thus the plastic zone mUSI be em~ded within the singularity dominated zone. In
general, the singularit}' zone is small re lative 10 in_pLane length scales in the structure
(see Example 2.6).

CRITICAL

'"

Plan e Stres5 Plane Slr"in

THICKNESS

FIGURE 1A3 £lJKt" 0fI0d-a _ _ ... 101_ I IncIUR .oup-

EXAM PLE 1.1

&timIIc !lie ",LaI"" Ii1e of the oiqIIlority ...,.,....... ..., aIacI of. Ibnlup ....... i.o on mr......
pIooe o.bjeoI lO ~_ ..i ";o! " " " , (F". 2.l~ The foaII 001. . . for the _ 011 Il10 .......
pbooe ( laO) b-1hiI ..... ..,~, ... . rolkrws (_ ApsndI. 1.3.2):

a(,.,)
"'. ..J2ar.~

••
..,.,"" (1 it tho ",....,.et, oppli«! lnSile . _ . Alto, ttll ...... \be yO] ... of X, .....'" ,"" pl_
strain pluIlc: z.- enCUU..... lIlIJularil, _cd ~
Unt(J.r Elasric Fmc"," M~chanics
"
EXAMPLE 1.7 (com. )

Filllre 2." is a pIOI of Ihc ... io of the t<UI ...... to the .i",uw II,.,.. ai.-eo by the """'" eqUllio •.
Note thai the Itra. in the J dim:tion i. <1_ to the ".JUlM limil to r<l...h.ly I..,. disWl<n Irom
lhe <!'OCt lip ..... lhe ....... oti'."'" con.iderably f.."" Ill< ...... Iip limil. When da _ 0.02. lhe
. i.",lant1 ""pro,illlOlion ","uhl in fOIIJhly • 2,., undeteSli .... ,. 01 a,,- and I 2<l'!Io o"' .... imot. 01
au' Let .. IJ!>ilrOrily define: thi, poi .. .. the limil of the oi""'larily ...... :

'. - JQ
•

By ....;"""" plan< """" p,-"k __ <OI'tt'<1;on (Eq. 2.63) equollo a1X1. "'" _ . an ..Ii·
mOl< of the K/ val ..... ~b the . inJlllarity . . - is ....ul/«1 by cr><k ~p pIuIicity:

" (!L)
a • 6>r <'l'S , • 2.65 (~)
<'l'S ,

•
Therefore. when !be nomilLll ilIUo ....aocda appnrumately 1'''' of yield in Ilri, case. Ihc loCal.....,.
of K/ .. a cno::k lip .iwa<:teri';n. ~., i. IIIis l*1;oular ...".......,. is , .. pea .. J

1. 10.3 Llmltl t o tbe Validity 0' LEFM

According 10 !he American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for KIc
testing [30[. !he following specimen size require menu must be met to obtain a valid Kit;
Il'suh in metals:

a,B,(W - a);;?: 2..1"'lays

..!5.Ll' (2.87)

Note the si milarity between the crack length requirement and the result derived in
E~ample 2.7. Thus Eq. (2.82) implies that 'y must be S -1/50 times specimen dimen-
sions in order to obtain a size-independent critical K/ value. Equation (2,82) was based
on e~perimental observations of !he size dependence of fractUJ"(: toughness in steel and
 .. Clwpltrl

aluminum [311. TIle Ihiekneu requirement ensl,L!'Cs plane .uain condilions 2, while the Ill-
ql,lin:menl on in-plane dimensions CR5Ures that the nominal behavior is linear clastic and
that KI clwac1cri7.es enlCk tip ~ilions.
Equation (2.87) gives the requirements for plane Slmi,,_ IiMor r/(J$I;C fracture . A
valid Kl c resuh is a material propeny that does OO[ depend on the size: or BCOme(1)' of the
cracked body . While plane strain c(Mldilions are ........... ary 10 measure a valid Klc. the lack
of plane W'ain docs IIOl ne«ssarily invalidate LEFM. As long as the in-plane dimensions
are sufficiently large to confine the plastic ZOIIC to the singularity dominated l:onc, the
stress inlensity factor is a valid crack tip charac:teridng paramete r. A fracture lOughness
value obtai ned from a laboratory specimen in plane uress or milled conditions is
applicable 10' structure made of the same material. as long IS the specimen and structure
are the same thickncs.s and the in-plane dimensions of both are large compand 10 the
plll5lic zone . An rumple application of non-plane: ~uain LEFM is fraclure loughncs.s
\esting of thin aluminum iheel used in aerospace siructures.
Plasticity corrections sucb IS those described in Section 2.g can ut~nd LEFM be-
yond its nonnal validity limits. One m\lSt r~member. ho ....ever, that the Irwin .nd Strip
yield oorrections are only rough Ippn.uimations of clastic-pl astic behavior. When non-
li near material bellaviOf becomes significant, one shoulo discard $l/'CSS intensity and adopt
• cnck tip ~lCr!hlt takes the IIIIItnial hch,nior into account. Two luch paramctCT'S.
the crack lip ~nin8 displact'mcnt (CTOD) and the J inlCgraJ , are tbe subje<:l of Olapter
3.

... r---~------~---~---,

-" 1.05 a
"
-,."
N
• - - -- --

-
~- f\
-.--
0.95

THIOU(;]i·THI/XKESS CKACIC
••• a INFtNJT1 PLAn
•
t:>
•••
0.15

•••
• ." 0.1)4 0.06 0." ,.
r I •

2Reenl ..... -<Ii. io..! fiaite dtlDttll taIIIu from 1Ie_

elM .. ieclinte ilia Ilir; "IC doick .... ,....ftlllOU ore o_ly
i ....aoiJMOl*. 4M!,~ · ..d willi upen-Illal
.... ¥c . .. _ \COt &pecim<u.
""""lUIr, ~ ltIaia c:ooodmoos ..u.. 01 ... aao:t lip 10 ft!l/IIiftly bip drtOl"lllllioooi liMb. Tho ;". pIaio<
""",itt"", ... (i.c . • ODd W) oppear 10 be.. . _.
 91

l. lI MIXED.M O DE FRACTU RE

When lWO Of m~ modes of l<'.Nlding are present, Eq. (2.63) indicates thaI energy release
rate contributions from each mode are additive. This C(jualion assumes self-similar crack
growth, however. Consider the angled crack problem depicted in Fig. 2.18. Equation
(2.63) gives the energy release rate for planarerack growth at an angle 90· fJde~ from
the applied mess. Figure 2.45 illustrates a more typical scenario for an angled crac k.
When fracture occurs, the crack tends 10 propagate o"hogonll 10 the applied normal
s~ss; i.e., the mi Kcd-rnode c,.;k becomes a Mode I crack.
A propagalin&: crack $eeks the path of least resistance (or the path ofmuimum driv.
ing force) and llCed not be confined 10;1S initial plane. If the material is iSOlropic and h0-
mogeneous, the crack will propagate in such a way as to maximize the energy release
raIl'. What follows is an evaluation of the energy re lease rale as a function of propagation
direction in mi~ed·mode problems. Only Mode!> I and II are considered here, but the basic
methodology can, in principle, be appl ied to a more general case where all three modes are
prescnt. This analysis is based on similar work in Refs . [32·34).

2.11 .1 PropagaU on or an Angled C rack

We can gencraliu the angled thJough·thickneSii cmck of Fig. 2.18 to any planar crack ori-
ented 'Xl. {Jdegrees from the applied normal SUen. For uniuialloading, the stren inten·
sity f.IICtOl"S for Modes I and II are given by

(2.88a)

(2.88b)

where K I(O) is the Mode I stress intensiLy when {J = O. ~ crack tip suess fields (in p0-
lar coordinates) for the Mode I portion ofthc loadins are given by

a = --!5.... [~,o,(9)_ ~,oJ39)l (2.89a)

" ..J2 1tr 4 2 4 \. 2

(2.S9b)

(2.89c)

As stated earlier. these singular fieldS only apply 115 r -t O. 1lIe singular stress fields for
Mode D are given by

(2.9Oa)
" C/tapttr2

-!L[ 3. (8)2" - 3. (38

17,.- ..J2trr - 4 sm "2)J 4 sm
(2.9Ob)

Slippose mat the cl'1IC:k in qlKstion fOl'Tlls an infinitesimal link at an anile a from the
plane of the CI1II,:k.. as Fi • • 2.46 ilIuSlnltcS. The local suess inle nsity factors" the tip of
litis kink differ from the nominal K vall1n of the main crack. If we define _Ioeal x-y co-
ordinale ,ystem at the lip of the kink and anumc lila! Eqs. (2.89) uo (2.90) define the 10-
cal Sire" fields, the local Mode I and Mode II sire" inleMily factors at the tip are oil-
I.lino:d by summi", the normal and WaT SU'eUC1., n:1.pOCti~ly. al a:

k,(a):: uY1 .J2trr :: C.1K, + C12 KII (2.911)

kn(a) '" 'r., ..J21fT 0: c,.,K, + CnKu (2.9 1b)

Fndun! Path

nGun 1.4i<...a..
p , _
...n... '.... 01
"
klnk., '" tip <li_
/.iJJw.r E/(JIric Fractur~ Mechanics
"
where kI and kil are the local stress intensity factors at the tip of !be kink and KI and KII
are the stress intensity factors for the main crack, which are given by Eq. (2.88) for the
tilled crack. Thc coefficients Cij are given by

II 4
3 {a)
2
I
C =-Co - +-CO
4
-
2
{3a) (2.92a)

c" = - !['i'(~) Hi,e;)] (2.92b)

C" = ![,i,( ~) Hio(';)] (2.92c)

(2.92d)

The energy release rate for the kinked crack is given by

!f{a)= k/(a)+k/(a) (2.93)

E
Figure 2.41 is a plot of Q(a) normalized by ~rr-O). The peak in ~a) at each fJ cor-
responds to the point where kl exhibits a muimum and kll '" O. Thus the maximum en-
ergy release rate is given by

(2.94)

where a· is the angle al which both (j and kI e xhibit a muimum and kll '" O. Crack
growth in a homogeneous matcrial should initiate along D" .
Figure 2.4g shows the effect of ~ on the optimum propagation angle. The dashed
line corresponds 10 propagation perpendicular to the remote principal stress. Note that the
Ymu criterion implies an initial propagation plane that differs slightly from the nonnal
to the remote stress.

2.U.l li:qulvalenl Mode I Crack

Let us now introduce an effective Mode I crack that results in the !i.IIIlle stress in ten si ty
and energy release rate as a crack oriented at an angle ~ and propagating III an angle DO:

K,(a.. , )= k,(a· ,p,a) (2.95)

.. CIoopur2

:-- 1.5
o

o.s

o
- ISO - 120 o ISO
KINK ANGLE (a), DEGREES '" 120

n C~ lM o,u.•• po " ••u. .... ror • ...-_cdot_ ..... I1 _ ... _ 0d0..

linUJr EiaJlic Froctun MechonicJ
"
For the special case of a through-thickness crack in an infinite plate (Fig 2.1g), Eq. (2.95)
"""~,

Solvi ng for otq gives

(2.97)

Figure 2.49 ill ustrates a crac ked plate subject to principal stresses U} and <12, whoere uJ is
the g~ater of the two StreSSCS; fJ is defined as the angle bclween the crack lind (he uf
plane. Applying superposition leads 10 the following expressions for Kl and KII :

(2.98a)

(2.98b)

when: B is the biaxiality ratio. defined as

B =!!l. (2.99)
0,

1l>c l<XlIl Mode I stress intensity for a kinked crack is obtained by substituting &j.
(2.98) into Eq. (2.9Ia):

0,

4-

0,

~
.A c.

nGUREM9 ended.,a- oubjed to. bI-

u t . t _ ... to.
" Chopt~r2

lbe maxim"m lex.1 stress inlensily raclor and energy release rale: occlJn III the optimum
propagaLion angle, a·, which depends on w hiarialily ratio. Figure 2.SO illLlStrales the
dre:d of B and fJ on the propagation .ngle. NOle thai when B:> 0 and fJ: 90", propaga·
tion occurs in the crac k: plane (a· • 0), since the crack: lies on a principal plane and is
subject to purc Mode: I load ing.

'"ww '"
""w 75
8 .0.75

"•
~

~
•+
-~
.
' .,
"~ "
Z
0
'"
~
~ 15 ~ 1\.

.
0
I:: 0.0
0
" 30
"
~. DEGREES " 90

FIGURE 2.50 Optimum IIfOI'ICIllor. ...,x ... fwIcOoa "'II Mel biuwly.

REFERENC ES

I. Inglis, C.B., wSlrenel in • Pllte Due to the Presente of Cracks and Sharp Comen.~
TransaclitHU oj Ih~ '1Un'lw~ oj Nuvgl ArclliltclS, Vol. 55, 1913, pp. 219·241.

2. Gri ffilh, A.A. 'The PhenoIDeIll of Rupture and flow in Solids. w Ploilosophicg'
T"'ltSnrti",u • .o;M"" A . Vol . 22 1. 1920. pp. 163.19&.

3. Gehkn, p.e. and Kanninen, M.F., MAn " ,OlDie MOIk[ for ClQvlgC Crack Propagltion
in a iron. w I""wlie B~IoavW. oj Solidi, McGraw· HIlI, New York. ]970. pp. S87-603.
 97

4. Irwin. O.R.. 1'rxtu~ Dynamic:s.~ FrtJCl~ri", of Mtl/JIs, American S«iely for Metals,
Clevcl.oo, 1948. pp. 147. 166.

~. Orowan, E., "f.-.ell,l<e and Suertglh of SoUds." Rrporu <HI P"'IrUS ill Plty.b. Vol.
XII. 19.(8, p. lIS .

6. Irwin. O.R.. "OnKt of Fut Crack Propallilion in Hlah Strength Steel and Aluminum
Alloys," s..,~ RU«uc1l CfHf/t,ellCt Pr"Ut4i11,., Vol. 2. 19S6. 1'1'. 289.305.

1. HUlChilUOn. J.W. and ......., P.C .• "Stabil ity Analysis of J·Controlled Crack GrowtlL"
ASTM STl' 668, AmcrK&n Society for TQlin. tnd Maleriall, l'1Iil.sc:lphia. 1979. 1'1'.
)7·64.

8. Weslera:aard, H.M.. "Bearina: Preswres and Crac:kC Jo~rllal of Applitd Mtclr(JI,ic •.

Vol. 6, 1939, pp. 49.S3.

9. Irwin. OR. "Analr.il of Stresses and Sirains nut lbe End of. C.-..:t T .... vcning I
Plale." Imlmal of Appliu MtdlMlics, Vol. 24, 1957, 1'1'. 361·364.

10. S,wIc!o-.,I.N" '1lIe Oblribution of Strus in lhe NdJhbOurhood 01. Crad, in an Elastic
Solid." Pr«udi,.,., Ruyal SocUry tJ/ tondoto. Vol. A.I87, 1946. 1'1'. 229·260.

II . Williams, M.L, "'()q Ihc Suns DiWibution at lbe Base of. Slalionat)' Crack." Jo",",,1
"I Applll!d M~cloturi", Vol. 24, t9~7, pp. t09-t 14.

12. Tada. H., Paris, P.C.. and Irwin, G. R. Th~ Smss lllUJlysu 01 Crocks H(JJ1dbook. (2nd
Ed.) Paris Prod~iOM. [III: " St. Louis, [9U,

1l. MUJakami. V. Slnlllt 1",nISi" Ftx:'on H~. ~amon Pras. New York, [917,

14. RooII.e, D.P. and Cm.. ri&!lI. OJ .• C_JHndi"", '" Suus J"'~"'ily Foc""s. He.-
M~'s Sulionlfy Office. London, 1916.

[S . Rice, J.R., "SoIlH: RcmarQ on E1Ulic Crack.Tlp St~, Fields." J,,/trnQ/IOIIOI Joumlll
"I Solidi (Uld SII'I>CI"'tS. Vol. 8, 1972, pp. 7SI ·7S 8.
[6 . Buccknl:r, H.F .• "A Nove[ Prilll:iple for 1M Compulation of Slress Intensity FJ,co ... M

L:ifschrifl flIr A".-l&1Idtc M,.,/tc"",.lIilt WId M«""",k, Vol. SO. 1970, pp. '29·S4~.

17. Rice. J.R., MWci,bt Function 1Mory for Th!ft.Oimensionai Elwie Crack AMI)'$is."
ASTM Sl1' 102(1, A~ Sociely for Te$lina: aDd Maccrials, PbiI_lphi.. 1989, pp.
29-S1 .

18 . Pam, D.M . and Karncnlti:y. E.M., "WeiaJIt functions from Vinual Crack IlIo;lCnlion. M

J1II......'iototJl JOl<mtJl/or Nl<ltlt,u,,,1 Mt/hods ill &,ill«,ill,. Vol. 14, 1979, pp. 1693-
1706.

19. Vainshcok, V.A., "A Modified Vin ual Crack Eatension Mccbod of chc Wei,hc Functions
CalcuJation for Mi~ed Mock fno;ture Problems." JNtT1lllliDNll J _ I of Fnsc'u,.... Vol.
19, 1982. pp. R9-RIS .

20. Sh.. G.T. and Van" C.-T" "Weiabl function Calculations for Mixed-Mode fl""ktUre
Problems wilb the Vinual Crack E~cenlion Technique." LI,i"uri", FrtJc,u,...
Mcc"""ic,. Vol. 21, 1985, pp. 1119_1149.
98 Chaplu2

21, Atluri, S.N. and Ni$hoika, T .• "On Some Recent Advances in Computational Method. in
the Meehan;';. of Fracture."' Advancu in FmC/un RneDrc/t: Seven/h Inlt(1UJliOllal
C""lerence Oft Fn.crwn. Pergamon Pres.. <bfold. 1989 pp. 1923·1969.

22. Sham. T.·L.• '"A Unified Finite Element Method for Deteonining Weight Functions in
Two and Three Dimension.:' {nurtllUirmal JOI<mD/ 0/ Solid. DnIl S"..,c/wns. Vol. 23,
1987, pp , 13~7-l)72.

23. l""'in. G.R" "PlaMi", Zone Near I Crack and Fracture Toughness." SD8"""'T~ Res~arch
Conftrtt!c( Proc(tdinas. Vol. 4. 1961.

24 . Dugdale. OS., '"Yielding in Steel ShedS Containing Slits."' Juumlll of rM Mtchonks

""d Physics "I Solids. Vol 8, pp. 100-104.

25 . Barenblan. OJ .. -rho Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brinle Fracture."

Advanas in Applied Meehania, Vol VII. AcBdc:mic ~ss, 1962. pp. ~S-l29.

26 . Burdekin. F.M. and Stone. O.E.W., "11H: Crack Opening Displacement Approach to
Fracture Mechanic. in Yielding Material,." Journal 0/ Slrain Analysis. Vol. 1. 1966,
pp. 14~_IS3.

27. Dodds, R.H . Jr" Anderson T,L and Kin. M.T.• '"A Frameworit to Correlate aJW Effecu
on Ela .. ic-Plastic FllICrure TO\Ighneu (ld." {nlernario",,/ Jowrnal 01 FrOl."r"u. Vol. 48,
1991. pp. 1_22.

28. Narasimhan. R. and Rowis A.J .• "Three Dimensional Effeets Near a Crack TIp in a
Ductile Three Point Bend Specimen _ Part I: A Numerical lnveltigation ,'" Califomia
Inltitute of TechnolOJl.Y. Division of Enginemng and Applied Science. Report SM 88-
6, Pnadena. CA. January 1988,

29. Nakamura, T and Paritl, O.M. "Conditioru of J-Dominance in Threc_Dimeruional1ltin

Cracked Pl ates."' A"alylic,,{. Numerical. and &ptrjm~nrQI A.pUIS 0/ Three-
Dime,..io",,1 Fraauu Proctues. ASME AMO-91. Ameriun Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New Yorit. 1988, pp. 227·23B .

30. E 399-90. '"Standard Tesl Method for Plane-Suain fracture Toughness of Metallic
Materials .'" American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia. 1990.

31 . Brown W.F. Jr. and Srawley. J,E., Plane SIn.in Crad Toughness Ttl/ing 0/ High
Srrengrh M. ral/ic Mar~.ial$. ASTM STP 410, American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphi a, PA, 1966.

32. Erdogan. F. and Sih, a.c., "On the Crack Extensioo in Platel uooer Plane lolIding and
Transverse Shear." JOI<rnal 0/ Basi<: Enginuring. Vol . 85. 1963. pp. 519-S27.

33. WiIlialIU. J.G. and Ewing. P.D .. "Fracture under Colltjllex Stress-The Angled Crack
Problem." {nternalirmal Ja",."al of Fracl"rt Muhanies. Vol. 8. 1972. pp. 441-446.

34. Cottrell. B. and Rice. J.R.. "SliaJItly Curved or Kinked CrackJ: InltT1llllioool Journal
.4 Fr<JC,ur•• Vol.16. 1980. pp. 1~5-169.

3S . Williams. M.L.• "Stren SingularitiC$ ResultinlL from V. rious Boundary Conditions in

Angulnr Comers of PI.les in Exlension." Jo",."al 0/ Applied Meclumi<:s. Vol. 74.
1932. pp. 326-328.

36. Ir1IIin, G.R .. disculiSion of Ref. 29. !9~8.

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics 99

37. Sih. G,C .• "On the Westergaard Method of Crack Analysis ," International Journal of
Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 2, 1966, pp. 628-631.

38. Eftis, J. and Liebowitz, H .• "On the Modified Westergaard Equations for Certain Pl ane
Crack Problems," International Journal of Fracture Mechanics , Vol. 8, p. 383.

39, Sanford, R.I., "A Critical Re-Examination of the Westergaard Method for Solving
Opening Mode Crack Problems." Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 6, 1979,
pp. 289-294.

40. Wells , A.A. and Post , D., "The Dynamic Stress Distribution Surrounding a Running
Crack--A Photoelastic Analysis ," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Stress
Analysis, Vol. 16, 1958, pp. 69-92.

41. Mu skheli shvili . N.L, Some Basic Problems in the Theory of Elasticity. Noordhoff,
Ltd., Netherlands, 1953.

42. Green, A.E, and Sneddon. LN., ''The Distribution of Stress in the Neighbourhood of a
Flat Elliptical Crack in an Elastic Solid." Proceedings. Cambridge Philosophical
Society. Vol. 46. 1950. pp. 159· 163.
 APPENDIX 2: MATHEMATICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF LINEAR ELASTIC
FRACTURE MECHANICS
(~fu:/ro Results)

Al.l PLANE ELASTICITY

nus section catalogs the governing equations from which linear fracture mechanics is de-
n'<cd. 1lJe reader is encouraged 10 review the basis of these relationships by consulting
OllIe of the many tc.u books 011 elasticity theory)
The equations thai follow arc simplifications of more general relalionships in elas-
belly and are SubjecllOthe followi ng restrictions:

• Two-dimensional stress Slale (plane stress or plane strai n).

• Isotropic material.

• Quasislatic, isothermal deformation.

• Body forces arc absent from the problem. (In problems where body forces are
present. a solution can first be obtained in the absence of body forces. and then
modified by superimposing the body forcq.)

Imposing these restrictions sim plifie5 crack problcIIl$ considerably, and permits closed-
form solutions in many cases.
The governing eq uations of plane elasticity are siven below for rectangu lar Canesian
coordinates. Section A2.1.2 lists the same re lationships in ICnns of polar coordinates.

A2.1. 1 Cartesian Coo rdinates

Strajn-tliurlgywcot a/qtiw hiru:

'u -_aux _au, _.!.(au au,)

ax ',y- ay '", - 2 a'Yx+ ax (A2.1)

where jl and y are the horizontal and vertical coordinate5, ~speetively, £,u. £yy, etc. are
the strain components. and IIx and lIy are the displacement components.

3 Appcn;Ii;o 2 il i~ only for _ ..t.......:ed ~1IdO:n, . 'IID hi"" 01 leu! uta... padllllllc-Ic¥el counc
ia tbi: cheooy ot tWtirity.
101
101

Strw"-,fUl:lbl rrlqtiqrubiru '

I. Plane Itnlin.

E
a - (I -v)£... +II£" J
.. (1+ \I)(1-2v)

E
1 =2#£ =-£ (A2.2)
~ Z1 1+ II q

where 0 and f arc the nannal and shear Stru5 f;ornponenlS, r~pectively, E il Young's
modulus, II is the shear modulus, and 1J is Poisson's nllia.

2. Plane SUelS.

a •
" 1

(AU)

aa =£n. =E)'t" 1.1:1: = f )'t =0

FquiUbrjum (ilwnimy '

(A2.4)
Mathematical Foundations of LEFM 103

Compatibility e(Juatiou·

(A2.5)
where

Airy stress function:

For a two-dimensional continuous elastic medium, there exists a function CP(x,y)
from which the stresses can be derived:

d2 q,
T = - -- (A2.6)
xy dXdy

where cP is the Airy stress function. The equilibrium and compatibility equations are au-
tomatically satisfied if C/> has the following property:

or
(A2.7)

A2.1.2 Polar Coordinates

Strain· displacement relationships:

U
r +-- 1 dUIJ
EIJIJ =- .-
r r de

where u,and un are the radial and tangential displacement components, respectively.
Streu- rrroill relatiomhipr·
The stress-strain relationships in polar coordinates can be obtained by substituting r
and e for x and y in Eqs. (A2.2) and (A2.3). For example, the radial stress is given by

E
(J" = (I + v)(I- 2 v) [(1- V)E" + VE •• ] (A2.9a)

for plane strain, and

104

E
CJ,. = 1 y2 [e,. + ve .. J (,o\2.9b)

for plllr>l: streSS.

aCTa +.!.~+ au - (198 -0

aT ,d9 r
(ALIO)

-loaeg + ~ + ~-o
-
,ae ar r

cqmpqtjkj/jry rewlljgp;

(A2. 11)

Airy n,w Iknctjon ·

(A2.1 2)

where 41 = 4>(r, 8) and

(A2.B)

1\2.2 CRACK GROWTH INST .... BILITY ANALYSIS

Figure 2.12 schematically illustrates the geDenl case of a CllIClted Struclure with finite
system compliance, CU. 11M: Structure;1 held Ill. fUed ~moIe displ-=ement. dT alV(:R
by

(,0\2.14)

where A is the loxalload line displacement and P is the Ipplied load. Diffc~ntialinl Eq.
(A2.14) give.

(ALIS)
M{JI~malica1 Foundtltions ofLEFM J05

assuming to depends only on load and crack length. We can make this same assumption
about the energy release rate:

dtj=(22-J
Clap
do+(22-J
ClP
dP Q
(A2.16)

Dividing both sides of Eq. (A2.16) by da and fi xing odT yields

(A2.17)

which, upon substitution of Eq. (A2.IS). leads 10

(A2. l g)

A virtually identical expression for the J integral CEq. 3.52) can be dc:rived by assuming J
depends only on P and CI, and expanding dJ into its partial derivative!!.
Under dead-loading conditions, eM = _, and all but the first term in Eq. (A2.IS)
vanish. Conversely, eM = 0 corresponds to an infinitely stiff system, and Eq. (A2.1I)
reduces to the pure displacement control case .

.40 2.3 C RAC K TIP STRESS ANA LYS IS

A variety of techniques are available for analyzing stresses in cracked bodies. This section
focuses on two early approaches developed by Williams {11,3SJ and Westergaard [8J.
llIese two analyses are complementary; the Williams approach considers the local crack
tip fie lds under generalized in-plane loading, while Westergaard provided 11 means for con-
ne<:ling the local fields 10 global boundary conditions in cenain configurations.
Space limit.alions preclude listing every minute step in each derivation. Moreover.
stress. strain, and displacement distributions are not derived for all modes of loading. llIe
derivations that follow serve as illustrative examples. "The:: reader who is interested in fur-
ther details should consult the original references .

.402.3, 1 Generalized Io-P lane Loa ding

Williams [11,3SJ was the first to demonstrate the universal nature of the l/-fi singular-
ity for elastic crack problems, allhough Ingli. [11. Wc~l<:rglUU" [81 ""d SUeddOIl [10] had
earlier obtained this result in specific configurations. Williams actually began by con-
sidering stresses at the comer of a plate with various boundary conditions and included an-
gles; a crack is a special case where the included angle of the plate comer is 21't and the
surfaces are traction me (Fig. A2.1).
106 Appendix 2

For the configuratio n shown in FiS_ A2 . I(b), Will iams postu lated the following
Stte5S function :

¢l = ,.l+I[C] sin(.t + 1)6· +c2 cos(.t + 1) 9·

+c3 sin(l - 1)6· +c4 COS(A -1)8-J

where C/.q. C]. and r., are COllJilan~, and 8- is defined in Fig. A2 .1{b). Invoking Eq .
(A2 . 13) gives the followin, CllptUSlonS for the wcsscs:

(A2. 2O)

where the primes denote derivatives with rcspe<:1 to e·, Williams also showed lhal Eq.
(A2. 19) impl ies that the displaccmenu vary wllb,.l, In order for displacemenl.$ tn be fi-
nite in all regions of t he body. ). must be > O. If the (nICk faces are IllIClion free,
0'96(0 ) '" 019,, (2 .1£)" 1",,(0) '" r ,, (2 If) '" 0, which impl ies the following boundary con-
ditions:

F(O);; F(21t' ) .. F' (0) ,. F' (2x) "" 0 (A2.21 )

(b) Spodal.- 01 ...... , <1'Id<.

Mathematical Foundations of LEFM 107

Assuming the constants in Eq. (A2.19) are nonzero in the most genc:ral case, the bound-
ary conditions can only he s.atisfied when sill (2.d)=O. Thus

). .. !!., where n" I, 2, 3, ...

2

There arc an infinite number of ). values that satisfy the boundary conditions; the most
genc:ral solution 10 a crack problem, thcref.:n, is a polynomial of the form

(Al.22)

and the stresses are given by

(A2.n )

where r is a function that depends on F and its derivatives. The order of the stress func-
tion polynomial, N, must be sufficient to model the stresses in all regions of the body.
When r-+O, the firsllerm in Eq. (A2.23) approaches infinity, while the higher order
terms remain finite (when," " 0) or approach zero (fOT '" > 0). Thus the higher order
terms are negligible close to the crack tip, and stress exhibits an l/-Jr singularity. Note
that thi s result was obtained without assuming a speci fic configuration; thus it can be
concluded that the inverse square-root singularity is universal forcracks in isotropic elas-
tic media.
Funher evaluation of Eqs. (Al.19) and (Al.20) with the appropriate boundary condi.
tions reveals the precise nature of the function r . Recall that Eq. (Al. 19) contains four,
as yet unspecified, constants; by applying Eq. (A2.21), it is possible to eliminate two of
these constants, resulting in

(A2.24)

for a given value of n. For crack problems it is more convenient to ex~$S the stress
e,
fuoction in terms of, the angle from the symmeli)' plane (Fig. A2.1). S... bstituting 9:
0-· It into Eq. (A2.24) yields, after some algebra, the following stress function for the
first few values of n:
 108 ApfNMix 2

(AU.'!)

where Ii and Ii are C()115t.ants 10 be defined. 'The SU'e$$e.5 are given by

+4s2 cOS '8 +,\r

'" I" h
J'"

.too = 4~;{.f{-3COS~ -COS3:]+t{-3Sin~ _3Sin 3: ]} (A2.26)

.. ., 8 rI III '-'-
T"fS2 S1n +,\T ,'"

Note thai the constants Ji in the stren function (Eq. (A2.2.'1» an: multiplied by cosine
lcnns while the I; arc multiplied by sine terms. Thus the Sltess function conlains sym-
rmuic and antisymmctric components, with respect 10 9= O. When the loading is sym-
metric abool 9. O,'i" 0, while 'i:: 0 for the special case of pure antisynuneuic loading.
Examples of symmetric loading include ~ bending and pure tension; in both cases the
principal stress is normal 10 the crack plane. Therefore. symmetric loading cornsponds 10
Mode 1 (Fig. 2. 14); antisymmctric loading is produced by in-plane shcaT on the crack
fac:e$ and corresponds to Mode II.
l! is convenient in most taSCS 10 treat the symmetric and anti symmetric stresses
separately. The constants 'I and 1/ can be replaced by the Mode I and Mode II stress in-
tensity factors, respectively :

Sl ::-....!l.
-/2.
(A2.27)

lllc crac k tip 5!feU flCllds for symmetric (Mode I) loading (LS5uming the higher order
lenns ~ negligible) are Jiven by
MalMmlllical Foundoliolt.J of LEFM '09

u.. = K[
.J2rrr4
[l.<O"(9)+.!.,o.l39)]
\ 2 4 \2
(A2.28)

'The singular stress fields for Mook II = given by

(A2.29)

The relationships in Table 2. 1 can be obtained by converting Eqs (A2.28) and (A2.29) to
Canesian ClXlIdinates.
The stress intensity foctol defines the amplitude of the crac k tip singularity; all
stress and strai n components at points ncar the crack lip increase in proportion to K, pro-
vided the crack is stationary, The precise definition of !be stress intensity factor is arbi -
trIIry, however; the constants SI and 1/ would serve equally well for characterizing the sin·
gularity. The acc.:pted definition of stress intensity stems from tile early work of Irwin
{9], who quantified the amplitude of the Mode I singularity wilh ..J(jE.where fis the
energy release rate. II turns OUt that the -Ii in the denominators of Eqs. (A2.28) and
(A2 .29) is superfluous (sec Eqs . (A2. 34) 10 (A2 .36), below), but convention established
over Ihe last 35 yeaJ1; precludes redefining K in a more convenient form.
Williams also derived relationships for nulial and langential displa(:emenlS near the
crack tip. We wi ll postpone evaluation of displacements until !he next section. however.
because the Westergaard approach for deriving displacements is somewhat more oompacl.

A2.J.2 The Wutergaard Strtsl Function

Weslergaard showed that I lim ited class of problems could be $(lIved by introducing a
eomple~ stress function ZlZ}, where z=x+iy and i = H. 'The Westergaard stress func-
tion is related to Airy SIreSS funclion IIlI follows:

IP =ReZ+ylmZ (ABO)
110 AppnuJix 2

where Rt and I", denote real and imaginary partS of the function, respectively, and the
bars over Z rep~nt integrations with resp«lto z; Le.,

- dZ
z=-
d,
- z= -dZ
<k
Applying Eq. (A2.6) gives

u.. = ReZ- y lm 2'

"",=ReZ+yImZ' (A2.31)

T..,. =-y ReZ'

NOle WI the im. ginary part of the SIUS$elI vanishes when y=O. In addition. the shear
stress vanishes when y . 0, implying lhal the crack plane is a principal plane. Thus the
stres~ are symmetric about 9: 0 and Eq. (A2 .31) implies Mode 11oadinl.
The Westergaard l lress function, in its orig inal form, is suitable for solving a lim-
ited range of Mode I crack problems. Subsequent modifications [36-39] generalized lhc
WcslCllaard approach to be applicable to. wider range of cracked configurations.
Consider _ through end: in an infinite plate wbjed to biaxial remote tension (Fig.
Al.2). Iftbe origin is defined at the center of the crack, the Westergaard SlJeS:S function is
l ivcn by

P'lGUIlE.'.'.":...T
:-
;••,;,.......'. I<k.._
_ I I I bID·
 '"
Z(l. ) :~ 2
, -, 2 (A2.32)

where a is the rt:motc stlllSS and is the half ~nck lenglh, as defined in Fig. A2.2.
Q

Consider the c~ 1r. plane where y=O. For >(l < JC < a. Z is pure imaginary. while Z is real
for Lt1 > !al. The IIOf1I'IIJ weues on theaaclr. plane an: Civen by

(11.2,)3)

lei us now consider the horizontal distance from ne t. cra<.:k lip. }CO ,. x-a; Sq. (11.2.33)

""""'"
(Al.34)

for x·« Q. ThUll the WCAerJaard awro-;h lew 10 the expected invene sqllal':' l'001 sin-
gularity. One advlnlq:c of this analpis u thaI il relates tile local stresses 10 the ,loINIl
SIIUS and crack size. From Eq. (A2.281, the sttesscs on the crack plane (9=(J} are ,iven
by

(A2.35)

Comparing Eqs. (A234) and (A2.Jj) gives

(A2.l6)

for the configuration in Fig. 11.2.2. N~ thaI .fii J.ppeaJS in Eq. (11.2.36) because: K wu
ori,inally defined in tmnS of the energy release raIe; an alternative defirtitlon of SII«S in-
tensity might he

K'
G ( 8 :: 0) ",...;.L.. where K;
yy V2x·
=u.Ja for lbe plale in Fig. 11.2.2,

Substituting Eq. (11.3.36) inlo Eq. (A2.32) re sults in an express ion of the
Westergaard SIre$S function in terms of K(.

where z°,. l>(l. II is poIlible 10 wive for tho l inaular stre5_ U otb:r &DIles by makin,
the followin, substitution in Eq . (A2.31):
112 APfNndix 2

...hid! leads 10

"n =~'O{~li-'in(~H3:)l

"" =~'O{~li"i"(~J.i"(':)l (Al.)!)

assu ming r»a. Equation (A2.38) is equivalent to &I. (A2.28). except that the latter is
ex pressed In IC nns of polar ooon1inales.
WeslCrglllll'li publ ished the following llress function fOl" an array of collinear cracks
in I plate in btui.l tension (Fig 2.21):

Z(z) ;;; " , 'n (A2.39)

i-
'"'
"n 2W
'"
"" --
2W,

where a is the half cnct length aDd 2W is the $paCing between !be crack centers. The
stress intell$il), for this C8$e is gi~n in Eq. (2..4') ; early investiJ.llorli used this solution
10 apptoll.ima1e the behavior ofunter cnckcd Il::nsile panel with finite width.
Irwin [9J published stress functions for 5C~ra1 additional (:oofilun.'ions. inch.odin,,
pa.ir of crack opening forces located a distance X from the crack eenlcr (fia:. 2.30):

Pa i -(Xlaj'
Z( z) = --;-'-'C~ .,/'--"'=<,- (A2.40)
p(z-X)z I-(nld

where P is the applied force. When !here II/'e matching forces a' ±X, the appropriate
SlnSS function e.n be obcainod by superposition:
 113

2P. I- (X /a)2
Z(t): 2 2 (A2.41)
n'(<: -x )
In each case. the stress function can be expres§ed in !he fonn of Eq. (A2.17) and the ncar
lip wesses are givcn by Eq. (A2.38). This is not 5urpri$ina. since all of the above casel
are pu~ Mode I and the Willianu analysis sbowed thai the invene square mot singu larily
is univel'$&l.
For plane strain conditi0n5, the in-plane displacements are related to the WCSlefJaard
,~ss function as folloW$:

1 -
" : - (( 1-2v) ReZ- y l mZ]
• 2"
(Al.42)
1
u ::o:-(2(1-v)lmZ-yReZj
, '"
For the plale in Fig. A2.2, the Cl1ICk ~ning displacement is given by

(A2.43a)

assuming plane wain, and

(A2.43b)

for plane Slress. Eq. (A2,43) predicts thai a through crack forms an dliplica' opening pr0-
file when subjel;lCd \0 lensile loadi ng.
TIle near.tip displa.::emcnls can be obtained by in serting Eq. (A2 .37) inlo Eq.
(A2 .42):

" : 'iL
2# ~2K i. 2A
,J;
",.i
8 ,/" <_1+2,i.,(8)]
2
(A2.44)

us.&.J
y
' Sin(82A
2p. 2x
"'{ J(+1-2cos2(~)]
2

..
forr«Q , where
K;;3 -4v

k: ;..:3-:..!:v
for pllIM $tn.in

for plane ItreD

(A2.45)

1+ V
 114 App~ndjx 2

Although the original Westergaard approach cOITeCtly describes the singular Mode I
stresses in cenain configurations, it is not sufficienlly general to apply 10 all Mode I
prQblerns; this shortcoming has prompted various modifications 10 the Westergaard stress
function. Irwin [36) noted that photoel astic fringe pallems observed by Wells and Post
[401 on center crac ked panels did not match tbe shear slf1lin COntours predicted by the
W estergaard sol ution. Irwin "ducvoc! good agrumc:nt between theory and nperimenl by
subtracting a uniform horizontal stress:

(Ju =ReZ - y IrnZ -<Jou (A2.46)

where depends on the remote SIrC$S. The other two SlreSS components remain the
u()U
same as in Eq. (A2.)I). Subsequent analyses have revealed that when a center crad:ed
pand is loaded in uniuial tension, a transverse compressive stress develops in the plale.
Thus Irwin's modification to the Westergaard solution lias a physical basis in the case of
a cenler cracked pancl 4 . Equation (A2.46) lias b«n used 10 interpret pootoelastic fringe
pallems in a variet), of configuflllions.
Sih [37] provided, theoretical basis for the Irwin modification. A stress function
for Mode I must lead 10 uro shear stress on the crac k plane. Sih showed that the
Westergaard function was more restrictive than it needed to be. and was thus unable 10 ac-
count for aU situations. Sih generalized the Westergaard approach by applying a comple~
potenlial formulation for the Airy stress fUlICtion [41] . He imposed the condition f.q= 0
at r-O. and showed Withe stresses could be uprcssed in telmS of a new functionJfd:

U;u = 2Re~' (z)-2y Im~"{z)- A

U yy = 2Re~' (z)+2y Im~ "{z) + A (A2A7)

rxy =2yRet/l"{z)
where It is a real constant. Equation ( A2A7) is equivalenltO the Irwin modification o f
the Wcstergaan.lllppR)3l:h if

2t/l' (z) = Z(z) - A (A2.48)

Substituliag Eq. (A2.48) inlo Eq. (A2.47) gives

U;u = ReZ - ylmZ -2A

ayy= ReZ+yImZ (A1A9)

4 RocaI ! """ ,he ....... f""";oru i.o EIp. (2.J2)...d (2. :\9) ..., wi<tly valid ""Iy foe bi.. ~ I.,..,; .... "1,hou&tI
,hi. <estri",ion ...... _ impoo<d ;" We .. erpard·, ofili." wod.. 1nIdY<I"X tctI,ile UK .. io D«:eOIal)" ;"
ordet '0 O&DOI:I ... ith ·"'ou. Ho"",Y<r. ,he transverse otreua, ... he ...... """""""i~ or tensile. do DO! aff~
,he 'i.opl..-!enD; th ... !he ,!fell ;ruenlily factor iI ,he ....... r.. un ...... ond biuial ..,...il< 10I0du.. ond U
Jivm by !Sq. ("2.36).
Mallumalical Foundolioru of LEFM lIS

T:", =-y ReZ

Comparing Eq. (A2.49) with Eqs. (A2.31) and (A2.46), il is obvious Ihal ~ Sih and
Irwin modifications are equivalenl and 2A:CI'o.u.
Sanford [39] showed thai the Irwin-Sih approac h is still 100 restrictive, and Ile pro-
posed replacing A with a eom ple~ fuoclion f1{~:

2~' (z) = Z(d - 11(d (A2.5O)

The modified stresses are given by

(1:0 ; '" ReZ - yImZ +y Im 7f -2 Re T/

U yy ;;; ReZ + y 1m Z' +y 1m 7f (A2.51)

1"X)' = -y ReZ +y Re 7f + 1m T/

Equation (A2.51) represents the most general fonn of Westergaard-type stress functions.
When /1fz):a real constant for allz, Eq. (A2.51) reduces to the Irwin-Sih approach, while
Eq. (A2.S I ) reduces 10 ~ onl'linal We.tersaard solution when 1J(l) = 0 for &lIz.
The function 7J can be represented as a polynomial of the form

(A2.52)

Combining Eqs. (A2.37), (A2.50), and (A2.52) and defi ning the origin at the crack tip
gives

(A2.S3)

which is consistent with the Williams [II,J5] asymplotic expansion.

A1.4 ELLIPTICAL INTEGRAL OF THE SECOND KIND

The solution of stresses in !he vici nity of elliptical and scmiel1iptical cracks in clastic
solids [ IO,42J involves an elliptic integra! of the second kind:

",
'I' = I (A2.54)
o
116 Appendix 2

where 2c and 2a are the major and minor axes of the elliptical flaw, respectively. Series
expansion of Eq. (A2.54) gives

Most stress intensity solutions for elliptical and semi·ellipical cracks in the published lit-
erature are written in terms of a flaw shape parameter, Q. which can be approximated by

(A2.56)
 3. ELASTIC-PLASTIC FRACTURE
MECHANICS

Linear clastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is valid only as long as nonlinear material
deformation is confined to a small region surrounding the cJ1Ick tip. Tn many materials, it
is virtual ly impossible to characterize the fracture behavior with LEFM , and an alternati ve
fracture mechanics model is required.
Elastic-plasticfracture IMchanics applies to materials that e:thibit time-independent,
nonlinear behavior (Le .. plastic deformation ). Two elastic-plastic parameters are
introduced in this c:;haptet: the crac k tip opening displacement (CTOD) and the J contour
integral. Both parameters describe crac:k tip condi tions in clastic-plastic malerials, and
each can be used as a fracture crilrrion. Critical values of aOD or J give nearly size-
independent measures of fracture IOUghness. even for relatively laJge amounts of crack tip
plftS(kity. lltcre are limits to the applicability of J and CTOD(Sections 3.5 & 3.6), but
these limits are much less restricti ve than the validity rtq~men ts of LEFM.

3.1 CRACK TIP OPENING DISPLACEMENT

When Wells [I] attemptcd to measure K/r; valucs in a number of slructullIl stecls, he
found that these materials were too tough to be chanictcrized by LEFM. This discovery
brought both good ncws and bad news: high toughness is obviously dcsi rable to
des i.ners and fabricators, but Wells' Cll perimenl5 indicated that ellistin. fracture
me<:hanics theory was not applicable to an important class of materials. While ell·
aminin. fractured lest specimens, Wel ls noticed that the crac k faces had moved apart prior
to fracture; plastic defonnation blunted an initially sharp enck, as illustrated in Fl •. 3. 1.
The degree: of crack bl untin. inrn:ased in proponioo to the toughness o f the material.
This observation led Wells to propose the openin8 al the crack tip as a measure of fracture
tOll.hness. Today. Ibis parameter is kn own as the crac k tip opening displacement
( CTOD).
In hi s original paper, Wclls (I ] perfonned an approximate analysis that related
crOD to the stre!)l;; intensity factor in the limit of small scale yieldlnJ. Consider a crack
with a small plas tic zonc, as illustrated in Fig. 3.2. Irwin [2] showed that cmck tip
plasticity makes the crack behave JS if it were slightly longer. Thus, we can estimatc
CTOD by solving for tnc displacement at the physical crack tip. assumi na an effective
crack length of a+fy . From Table 2.2, the diJplacemcn( 'y behind lhe effccli ve crack lip
is give n by

(3. 1)

and the Irwin plastic zone correction for plane stress is

117
118 Chapl~r 3

.....,
Sharpnack
- - - - - -
- - - - - -, FIGURE 3.1
dilpL.cem~" 1
Cnck Up op~nl"l
(eTQD). An I"IIIIIIJ

BluI\ted crack
./ . harp cnek blunl . with pl •• Uc
ddo ..... llion, ..... Itl". In I naile dll-
placement (6').t tb~.nod< tip.

"
flG URE 3.1 Eslbll .Ii,,", ot CTQD
from 1M dlspla«mtnl 01 the efT~tln
enek In th. irwin p ll.lle ~on.
to""ctlOD.

2
, =...!... [ ~) (3.2)
y 21r O'YS

Substituting Eq. (3.2) into Eq. (3.1 ) gives

(3.3)

where 0 is the CTOD. Alternatively, aOD can be related 10 the energy re lease rate by
applying Eq. (2.51):
 "'
(3.4)

Thus in the limit of smal l $Cale yielding. CfOD is rdated to q and K, . Wells postulated
that erOD is an appropriMc crack tip ChanlCtcrizin8 parameter wilen LEFM is no longer
valid. This assumption was shown to be correct several years later when a unique
relationsltip between erOD and the J integnU was c$Ulblished (Seclion 3.3).
TIle strip yield model provides an alternate means for analyzing erGDI3]. Recall
Section 2.8.2. where the plastic lone was modeled by yield magnitude d osure stresses.
The size of the strip yield zone was defined by the requirement of finite stresses 11 the
crack tip. 1bc erOD can be defined as the Cl'1ICk opening displacement lllhe end of the
strip yield zone, as Fig. 3.3 illustrates. Aocon:Iing to this dcfinilion, erOD in I through
crack in an infinite plate subject 10 I remote tensile SIrCSS (Fig. 2.3 ) is given by 13]

Equation (3.5) is derived in Appendix 3. 1. Series expansion Ortlle In JeC term gives

6=8uysa..!.. 1t~ +_1 1t~ +

ToE [ 2 [ 2 UyS ) 2 12 [ 2 UYS )' ... 1
= xl
uysE
[1+![!:.~)'.1
6 2 UYS ...
(3.6)

....

ncURE 3.3 EoU •• u.oa el CTO D

_ tM , Irip ,Idol -.ocIcI(3).
120 Chaptul

(J.7)

wh ich differs slightly from Eq. (3.3).

TIle strip yield model assumes plane stresS conditions and a non hardening material.
The actual rt:lationship ~[wcen erOD and K/ and lj depends on slKn state and strain
hardening_ The more general form of this rclalionship can be expressed as follows:

__9,--
(3.8)
muyS

where m is I dimension less CO(15Ianl that is approximately 1.0 for plane StreSS and 2.0 for
plane strain.
1licrc an: a number of alternative definitions of crDD. 11Ic two mo5l common
definitions. which are ilJusu"ated in Fig. 3.4, an: the displacement I! the original crac: k tip
and the 9(JO intercept. 'The latter definition was $Uggnled by Rice (4) and is commonly
used to infer aOD in finite element mCll5urements. Note that these two definitions are
equivalent if the crack blunts in a semicircle.
Most labol'1ltory measurements of crOD have been made on edge-crncked spec imens
loaded in three-point bending (see Table 2.4). Early experiments utilized a flat paddle-
shaped lage thaI was inscncd into the crac k: as the: crack opened, the: paddle laiC TOtated,
and an electronic signal was scotto an l -y plott<:\'. 'This method was inaccurate, hoW() ver,
beuuse it was difficult to reach the crack tip with the paddle ,qe. Today. the
displacement, v, at the crack mO\lth is measured, and the CTOD is inferred by usuming
the specimen halves are rigid and rotate about a hinge poin t. as illustrated in Fig. 3.5.
ReferrillJ 10 this figure, W() can estimate CTOD from a similar trian lles conslfUCtion:

- -- --
- -- = •"-'

(.) OIop l. ,., ...... ~ ... encII. lip- (II) ow,. ., ...... 101 •. . . - _ Oil. _ . - . .
In . .III .... . . . - IIaaIIL
 12I

6 V
-:;;;;-""""
r(W-a) - -:=-''::c-:--::
r(W-a)+Q

5= r(W-a)V (3.9)
r(W a)+a

wherer is the rotational faclor,. dimcnsionlcu 1:0nsWlI belween 0 and 1.

1lIe hinge model is inaceunllle when displacemenl$ are primarily elaslie.
Consequently, SWldard methods for Cl'OD testing (:5,611),pically adopt fI modified IUngc
model, in which displacements are separated inlO clastic and pl astic components; the
lIingc assu mption is applied only to plastic displacements. Figure 3.6 ill ustrates a
typical load (P) versus displacement ( V) curve from a ClOD test. TIle shape of tile load-
displacement curve is similar to a stress-strain curve: it is initiall y lilKlar but devilles
from linearity with plaslic deformation. At a given point o n the curve, the displacement
if ~panlted inlO clastic and plastic componc nu by consuucting a line parallel 10 the
daslie loading line. TIle dashed line represenu the path of unloading for this specimen,
assuming the crack d~1 not grow during the ttst. TIle ClOD in this specimen is
estimated by

(3.10)

The subscripts "~r and "p" ckllOIC clastic and plastic components, re$pectively. "The
elastic 5(fe$$ inlCnsily flClor is computed by insertinJIhe load and specimen dimensions
into the appropriate: expression in Table 2.4. The plastic rotational factor, rp' is
approximately 0.44 for typical malerials and test specimens. NolC that Equation (3.10)
III Clwpftr J

reduces kI the small scale yielding re$ult CEq. 3.8) for linear clastic condition" but the
hinge medel dominates when V _ Vp.
Further details of CTOD lesting are Jivt:n in Chapter 7. Chapler 9 ouI11M S how
erOD is used in design.

(V, P)
LOAD
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,, flGUJlE1.6 o-r.lM1looo~"'pa.tk
C<NB_," 0# .......... k __ ......1...
.~

I""~--v .-~•.,:'
dllpl _ _1It.
, ,
MOl!rH OPENING DlSPLACMENT

3.2 THE J CONTOUR INTEGRAL

1lIe J co.lour integral has enjoyed &JUt sweSt as a fractuf'C chatacterbJng parlmCter for
nonlinear materials. By idealizing elastic-plastil: deformation as non linear elastic, Rice
[4J provided the basis for CJtendins fracture mechanics melhodoloJ)' well beyond the
validity limil!i of LEFM.
Figure 3.7 illustrates the uniaxial Itress-strain behavior of clastic-plu tic and
nonlinear clastic materials. The loadins bcllavior for the two malenaiS IS ideNtCal. but
the materia! responses differ when each is unloaded. 'The elastic-plastic malerial follows a
linear unload ing path with the slope equal 10 Young's modulus , while the l onlinear
elastic material unloads along the same path II!I it was loaded. 'There is a unique relation-
ship bet ....een stress and strain in an elastic ma~rial, but a given strain in an clastic-plastic
material can correspond to more than one smss value if the material is unlGaded or
cycl ically loaded. Consequently, il is much easier to analyze an elastic malerialthan a
material !hal exhibits irreversible plastidty.
As long as the sU'CSses in both materials in Fig. 3.7 increase monotonkally, the
mechanical response oflhe two maleriab is ic:\entical. When !he problem is generalized 10
three dimensions, il does not III'Cesuril)' follow that !he loading behavior of the IIOnlin.ear
elastic ar.d clastic-plastic materials is identia.l, but there are many inslllnCeS whn"e this is
a good D>sumption (see Appendi~ 3.6). Thu. an malysis that usumes nonlinear elastk
behavior may be valid for an elastic_plastie lII.&krial. provided no un 10000inll <lCO.'!"!I . "...,
Elastic-Plastic Frocturt Mechanics

deformation theory of pIllsticity, which ",late. total .tr.lins to Ilreuel in a material, il

equivalent to roonlinear elasticity.
Rice [4] applied deformation plasticity (I.e., nonlinear elasticity) to the analysis of a
crack in & nonlineaT material. He showed that the nonlinear energy release rate, J, could
be written as a path_independent line integral. Hutchinson [71 and Rice and Rosengren [81
also showed thaI J uniquely characterizes crack tip s~sses and strains in nonlinear
materials. Thus the J integ.rnl can be viewed as both an energy parameter and a stress
intensity parameter.

Nonlinear FlUlij
STRESS Materia!

Fl.. Ue-Plulio:
Molula!
nGURE U Scb~....lk toJIIparilon of I h~
IlcaI"'lniio bdlnlor at elulk'p!aslk aDd
__ ""'en~""'" .... ' .rIolo.

3.2.1 No nlinea r Energy Relell5e Ril l e

Rice [41 presented a path-independent contour integral for analysis of cracks. He tben
showed that the value of this integral. which he called J, is equal to the energy release rate
in a nonlinear elastie body that contains a crack. In thi l section, however, the energy
release rate interpretation is discussed fIrSt because it is closely related 10 concepts intro-
duced in Chapter 2. The J contour integral is outlined il Sectinn 3.2.2. Appendix. 3.2
gives a mathematical proof, simi lar to what Rice [4] presented, \hat shows that this line
integral is equivalent to the energy release rate in nonlinear elastic materials.
Equation [2.23) defiDes the energy release rate fDr linear materials. The same
definition holds for DQnJinear elastic materials, except that (jis replaced by J:

dO
J=-- (3.1 1)
dJ!.
where flis the potential ene' 8Y and.!l is crack area. The potential energy is given by

n =U- F (3.12)
124

where U is the strain energy $lored in the body and F is the wort done by external forces.
Consider I cracked plate which exhibits. DOnlineaT load-dsplacemenl curve, as ilhssl!W;e<i
in Fig. 3.1. If the plate has unil thicknt.$$, Jl '" a. 1 For load control,

n=u - pll. ",,-u·

where U· is the complimentary slI1Iin energy. defined as

p
U' = &fPJ (3.13)
o
Thus if the plate in Fig. 3.8 is in load COIIlrOl, J is given by

(3.1 4)

If lhe crac k advlUlee5 al. fixed displacement. F.o 0, and J IS given by

l=-(dUda ) 0
(3. 15)

According 10 Fig. 3.8, dUo for load control differs from ·dU for displacement control by
the amount f dPd4, which is vanidUngly small oompartd to dUo 'J'hcrefore, J for load
tonuol is cqualloJ for displacement control. Recall that we obuined this 5&IDC rcsull for
(j in Scc;tion 2.4.
By invoki ng the definitions for U and U·, we can express J in terms of load and
displacement:

P
= J(OO) dP (3.16)
o Oa P
Ekuric-Plasric Fracrurr M« honic$
'"
p

WAD

DISPLACEMENT

n GUltE lJI N .....lour OdO...,. .......... te•

=-
•flap) d6 (3 .17)
o oa .11

inlegnll.ing Eq. (3. 17) by parts leads to a rigorous proof ofwhal we have already inferred
from Fig. 3.8. ThaI is, Eqs. (3. l6) and (3. 17) an: equal, and J is the same for fixed load
and fixed grip conditions.
Thus, J is a more general version of the energy release rale. For the special case of
• li near elastic material , J = q. Also,

(3.18)

for linearelastie Mode I loading. (For mixed mode loading. refer 10 Eq. (2.S8).)
A word of caution is necess.ry when applying J to elastic-plastic materials. The
energy re lease nlte is nonnally defined as the potential energy that is rtlClUCd from a
structure when the crack grows in an elastic material. However, much of the strain
IlO

cnerl)' absorbed by.n clastic-plastic material is not recoveml when !he mlCk growl or the
specimen is unloaded; a vowing crack in an clastic-plastic matcrial lcavcl a plastic wake
(Fi,.2.6(b». Thus the energy release rate con«pl has Bsomewhat different interpretation
fOf dastic-plastic materials. Rather than ~fini ng the energy released from the body whcn
the crack grows, Eq. (3. 15) relaleli J 10 the diffcren« in energy ab5(lrbel;i by specimens
with neighborin& crack .izel. 'This diitinc:tion is important on ly when the e ...d: arows
(Section 3.4.2). See Appendix 4.2 aDd ChapleT I I for further discussion of the el\eTgy
release rate COO:IlCepl.
n.c energy release ...Ie defin ition of J is lI~flll for clastic-plastic materials when
applied in an appropriate manner. For clample, Seclion J.2.j describes how Eqs. (3.1S)
10 (3. 17) can be C.lploiled 10 measure J uperimentally.

3.2.2 J as a P.th -Indc~ndcnl Line Inl clMI!

Consider an arbitnry counlcr-c lockwise path (I) around the lip of. crack. u il_
h.tStratcd in Fig. 3.9. The J integnl is gi~n by:

J = f(WdY-
r
T.•~d')
ax (3.19)

where w is the strain enerlY density, Tj are eomponenl$ of the InICtion vcetor, IIi are the
displac:ement vector eomponents, and tis is a length increment aloog the eonlour r. The
strain energy densily is defi~ as

(3.20)

where fIjj and Ejj are the stress and strain lenson:, respeetively. 1lIe InICtion b I stress
vector normal 10 the eonlOUr. nw is, if we WCR 10 eonWVCI a free body diqram on the
malerial inside o f the eonlour, Tj wou ld define the normll stresses IoCling It the
boundaries. TIle components of the traction vector ~ Jiven by
EJastic-Plastic FrocfUrt! M «honics ll7

(3.21)

..-here 71] are the components of the unit vector normal to r.

Rice [4) showed that the value of the J integral is independent of the path of in-
IClP'ltion around the crw.::k. Thus J is called a pOlh-indl!pl!ndl!nt integral. Appendix. 3.2
demonstrates this path independence, and shows that Eq. (3.19) is equal to the energy
n:lcase rate.

l_1.3 J 85 a Siren Inl enslty Parameter

Hutchinson 17) and Rice and Rosengren [8) independently showed that J characterizes
crac k tip conditions in a nonlinear elastic material. They each assumed a power law
relations hip between plastic Slrain and stress. If elastic strains are included, this
relationship for uniaxial defonnation is given by

(3.22)

. "here Uo is a reference stress value thai is usually equal to the yield strength. £0 = uoiE.
a is a dimensionless constant, and n is the strain hardening expo nent 2 . Eq. (3.22) is
It:nown as the Ramberg-Osgood equation, and is widely used for curve-fitting stress-strain
d:al.a. Hutchinson. Rice, and Rosengre n showed that in order to remain path independent.
stress· strain must vary as Ilr near the crack tip. At distances very close to the crack tip.
" 'ell within the plastic zone. clastic strains are small in comparison to the tOlai strain.
aad the stress-s train behavior reduces to a simple power law. lbcse two conditions imply
!be following variation of stress and strain ahead of the crw.::k tip:

(3.23 a)

(3.23b)

. ·here *1 and *2 are proponionality constants. wbich are defined more precisely below.
For a linear elastic material , 71=1 . and Eq. (3.23) predicts a IrJr singularity. which is
ronsistent with LEFM theory.

1 A.ltbou", Eq . (3 .2'2) COfIWns rOW" malerirJ con~al\l'. then: ..., only !W(> fini.., puame1ero. TIle cboioo of
Go- "' l\icb iJ arbitrary. <ltfmes to:. liDe'" "'gression is then perl'onnod (HI • 101-10, plOl o f ....,.s vaoll.
,...... ""./U" W <,Idc"'~110< a ""'" 8 .
III Chopltr3

TIle actual stress and strain disuibutions are obtained by applying the appropriate
boundary conditions (sec Appendix 3.4):

.. (3.24a)

(J.24b)

where In is an integration constant that deper.ds on II, and Ctij and 'iij are dimen.li onless
fUlIClions of /I and 8. 1bes.e parameters also depend on the stress state (Le. plane scress or
plane .train), Equntions (3.2<1a) and (3.24b) are eal]~ the HR R singulari ty, named after
Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren [7.11). Figure 3. 10 is a plot of In versUS /I for plane
suus and plane stnU n. Figures 3. 11 shows !he angular variation of ai/n,B) (71. The
strcS$ components in Fig. 3.11 are defined in lenns of polar cOOf'dinatcs rather than land
y.

,
•••
In • P11nt Stnin

t .•

3.'
PlmtStrae
,
2.'
2 4
• •
n
10 12
"
Elmric·Plastic Froclllr~ Mu hanics

"'=- cr,
•

,
a ii I
... ",
..,
• •
. , ~o--~--,,,,
:n--~---!lt -o·'"o--~--~",
"--~--~
, ,
(bj Pt.....t ......

The J integral defines the amplilUde of the HRR si ngularity, j ust as the stress in-
tensity fac tor c haracterizes the amplitude of the linear elastic singularity. Thus J
completely describes the conditions within the plastic zone. A s\rUclUre in small-scale
yidding has two singularity-domi nated zones: one in the elastic region, where stress
varies as /r[;, and one in the plastic zone where SU1: SS varies as ,- J'(11+/ J. The latter
often persists long after the linear elastic singularity zone has been destroyed by crack tip
plasticity.

3.2.4 Tbe LarKe Strain Zone

The HRR singularity contains the same apparent anomaly as the LEFM singularity;
namel y, both predict infinite stresses as r -+ O. The singular field does nOI persist all the
way to the crack tip, however. TIle large strains at the crack tip cause the crack to blunl,
which reduces the stress triaxiality locally. The blunted crack tip is a free surface; thus
O;u must vanish at r = O.
130 CluJptu 3

The analysis that leads to the HRR singularity docs not consider the effect of the
blunted crack lip on the stress fields, nor does it take account of the large strains that are
present near the crack tip. This analysis is based on small strain theory, which is the
multi-axial equivalent of engineering strain in a tensile lest. Small strai n theory Im:aks
down when SlTlIi ns are greaterlhan - 0.10 (IO%).
McMeeking and Parks [9J performed crac k tip finite element analyses that incor-
porated large strain theory and finite geometry changes. Some of their results are shown
in Fig. 3.12, which is a pl ot of stress normal to the crack plane versus distance. The
HRR singularity (Eq. (3.24a» is also shown on Ihis plot. Note thai both axes are
nondimensionalized in such a way that both c urves are invari ant, as long as the plastic
lone is small compared to specimen dimensions.
!be solid c urve in Fig. 3. 12 reaches a peak when the ratio xuolJ is approximately
unity, and decreases as x -+ O. This distance com:sponds approximately to twice the
CTOD. The HRR si ngularity is invalid within this reg ion, whe re the stresses are in-
Ouenced by large strains and crack blunting.

5
•
•
• n:10
•
•
'.5 ·•• - Larg.. Strain Analysis
• --- _. HRR Singularily
•
••
• . ..
.-.
-- --
-- - - --- - -- - - - . --
3.5

3
( -1 Stress field influenced
-
-

by crack blunting

2.5

2
r"
o 2 3 4
X 0'0
J
FIGURE 3.11 Uo'"l~ .. trllln traCk lip nnil~ olemonl .... ul .. or McMftkln, and Pnkl [91. 8luoll",
aoll5al 1M 51 ......... 10 d."lM. h"om 1II. HRR iOIutlQ<l dose 10 Ibt c:nd< tip
EJastic-Pkutic Frocrurt M«hanics 131

The break-down of the HRR !i.Olution at the (;ra(;k tip leads to a similar question 10
ODe that was posed in Se<:tion 2. 10: is the J integral a useful fracture criterion when a
bivnling Wile forms at the crac k tip? 'The answer is also similar to the argument olTered
m Section 2.10. That is. as long as there is a region surrounding the crack tip that can be
described by Sq. (3.24), the J integral uniquely dllll1lCterizes crack tip (;onditions. and a
UllK:al value of J is a size-independe nt measure of fracture toughness. 'The question of J
axurolled fracture is explored further in Section 3.5.

1..2.S Laboratol')' Measurement of J

. 'ben the material behav ior is linear elastic, calc ul ation of the J integral in a test
specimen or structure is relatively straightforward because J '" q, and (jis uniquely related
10 the stress intensity factor. The latter quantity can he computed from the load and cl'Kk
fUC. assuming a K solution for that particular geometry is available. Table 2.4 and
OIiIpter 12 give several examplcs of stress intensity solutions.
Computing the J integral is somcwhat more diffic ... h when the material is nonlincill'.
]be principlc of superposi tion no longer applies. and J is not proportional to the applied
"-d. Thus a simp le relationship between J. load, and crlll:k length is usually nOI
~la.ble.
One option for detennining J is 10 apply the line integral definition Sq. (3.19) to the
«mfi guration of interest. Read ( IOJ has measured the J integral in lest panels by
IIUoChing an array of strain gages in a contour around the crack tip. Since J is path
. xpendent and the choice of contour is arbitrary, he selected a contour in sucb a way as
10 Sl.mplify the calculation of J as much as possible. 1ltis method can also be applied to
fiane element analysis; i.e. stresses. strains and displacements can he detcnnined along a
QIIItour and J ean then calculated according to Sq. (3. 19). TIle contour method for
~nnining J is impractical in most cases. however. The instrumcntation required for
~ri me ntal measurements of the contour integral is highly c ... mbersome. and tbe con-
lOUr method is also nOi very 8t1l'!1(;tivc in numerical analysis (see Chapter II). A much
Ruer method for dclennining J numerically is outlined in Chapter I L More practical
aperimental approaches an: developed below and an: exploral further in Olapter 7.
Landes and Begley [ 11.12[, who were among the flJ'Stto measure J experimentally •
.-roted the energy release rate definition of J (Sq. 3.11). Figure 3.13 Sl:hematically iI·
lmuates lheir approach. TIley obtained a series of test spec imens of lhe same size,
aeometry, and material and introduced cracks of various lengths 3. 'They defonned each
ItIptClffien and plotted load versus displacement (Fig. 3. 13 (a». The area under a give a
CW\"e is equal to U, the energy absorbed by the specimen. Landes and Begley ploned U
-.emlS crack length at various fixed displacements (Fig. 3.13 (b». For an edge cracked
tpCClffien of thickness B, the J integral is given by

1= _-,(aU)
B da .1
(3.25)
132 C/uJpltr j

al < a2< a3<

p U 8,
82
I
UI !lll
I d.
8, a
!'l. (b)
(.)
P
J
t

(d

FIGURE J.13 SctI~ ....llc 01 urly Up"rlm~laI m~"'rmmltI 0I'), performed by Lutda _lid Sql.,.
(1I,I2 J

Thus J can be computed by determining the slope of the tangent to the curves in Fig.
3.i3 (b). Applying Eq. (3. 25) leads to Fig. 3.13 (e), a plot of J versus displacement at
various crack lengths. The Jailer is a calibration curve, which only applies 10 the
material, specimen siu, specimen geometry. and temperature for which it was obtained.
The Landes and Begley approach has obvio us disadvantages, since multiple specimens
must be tested and analyud to determine J in a particular set of circull1'ltances.
Rice, ct. al. [I3l showed that it was possible, in certain cases, 10 determine J
directly from the load displacement curve of a single specimen. Their derivations of J
 133

relationships for several specimen configurations demonstrate the usefulness of di-

IMnsionai analysis 4.
Consider a double edge n(){ched tension panel of unit thickness (Fig. 3.14). Cracks
of length a on opposite sides of the panel are separated by a ligament of length 2 b. For
lhis configuration, dJl: 2 do = -2 db (see Footnote I); Eq. (3.16) mUSI be modified
~ngly:

p p
1=-'I(06)
2 0ap
dP=--'I(06)
2 0b p
dP (3 .26)
0 0
III order \0 compute J from the above expression, it is necessary \0 determine the re-
Iwonship between load, displacement, and panel dimensions. Assuming an isOU"opic
III.ttcriallhat obeys a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain law (Eq. 3.22) dimensional analysis
ll''C:5 the following functional relationship for displacement:

(3 .21)

FIGURE 3.1. Dou.b l ~ edt< DOl""",,

_Ion (DENT) I*'d-
13. Chapt~r 3

where 41 is a dimensionless (unction. For fi,;ed material properties, we need only

consider load and specimen dimensions. For reasons described below, we can simplify the
functional relationship for displacement by separating Il into elastic and plastic
components:

(3.28)

Substituting Eq. (3.28) inlO Eq. (3.26) leads to a relationship for elastic and plastic
components of J:

(3.29)

where E'::: E for plane stress and E' '" Elf I - VlJ for plane strain, all defined in Chapter 2.
Thus we need only be conce rned about plastic di splacements because a solution for the
elast ic compo nent o f J is already available (Table 2.4). If plastic dcfonnation is confined
to the ligament between the crack tips (Fig. 3.14 (b» , we can assume !hat b is the o nl y
length dimension that influences lAp. This is a reasonable ll>Sumption, provided the panel
is tSeeply no tched so that !he average SlIl:n in the ligament is substantially higher than
the remo te stress in the gross cross 5el;:lion. We can define a new fum:;tion for 4p:

(3.30)

Note thallhe net-sectio n yielding ass umption has eliminated the depe nde nce on the alb
ratio. Taking a partial derivative with respec1to the ligament length gives

where H ' denOies the first derivative of the function H. We can solve for H ' by laking a
panial derivative o f Eq. (3.30) with resp« t to load;
Elastie-Pklstic Fmc"'", MuhanjCJ 135

Tberefore,

(~) =-'-[.p - J~) 1

dbpb'laPb
(3.3 1)

Substituting Eq. (3.31) into Eq. (3.29) and integrating by parts gives

(3.32)

Ra:a11 that we assumed a unit thickness at the be ginning of this derivation. In general,
the plastic term must be divided by the plate thickness; the term in square brackets, which
depends on the load displacement curve, is normalized by the net cross-sectional area of
the panel. The J integral has units of energy/area.
Another example from the Rice, et al. article [13] is an edge cracked plate in bending
(Fig. 3. 15). In this case they chose to separate displacements along somewhat different
lines from the previous problem. If the plate is subject to 11 bending moment M, it
would displace hy an angle One if no = k were present, and an additional amount, 0..-,
when the plate is cracked. Thus the total angular displacement can be wriuen as

(3.33)

If the eraek is deep, Oc» One. The energy absorbed by the plate is given by

n
u= JMdO (3.34)
o
When we differe ntiate U with respect to crack area in order to determillC J, only Oc
contributes to the energy release rate because One is not a function of crack size, hy
definition. By analogy with Eq. (3.16), J for the cracked plate in bending can he written
u

(3.35)
13. Cltapt~r J

.,
-;, f112 M-
•
b

\.. '/

If material properties an: filled, dimensional analysis leads 10

(3.3<1)

assuming the ]igament length i5 the only relcvanlicngth dimension, which is reasonable
if the crack is deep. When Eq. (3.36) is differentiated with respecllo b and inserted into
Eq. (3.35), the resulting upresskm for J is as follows:

(3.37)

The decision 10 separate n into ~crack~ and "no-crack" components was s.omcwhat
arbitrary. lne anBular displacement could nave been divided into clastic and plastic
components as in the previous uampic. Jr the I:ra:k is relatively docp, nne should be
entirely clastic. while Dc may cool.l.in both clastic and plastic contributions. Therdore.
Eq. (3.37) can be written as

..
K' 2
J=~+-
"J.MdO. (3,]8)
E b P
o
EJastic-Plasric Frac/ll.T? M«honics 137

Coo'·crseJy, the prior analysis on the double edged cracked plate in tcnsion COIJld have
been written in terms of.1c and /J.nc . Recall, howcvcr. that the dimcnsional analysis was
simplified in cach case (Eqs. (3.30) and (3.36» by assuming a ncgligiblc dependence on
Q/b. 1l:t.is turns out to be a reasonablc assumption for plastic displacements in deeply-
notched DENT panels, but less so for elastic displacements. Thus while elastic and
plastic displacements due to the crack can be combined to compute J in bending (Eq.
(3.37)), it is not advisablc to do so for tensile loading. The relative accuracy and the
limitations of Eqs. (3.32) and (3.37) are evaluated in Section 9.5.
In general, the J integral for a variety of configurations can be wriuen in the fol-
lowing form:

J = TfUc (3.39)
Bb

..... here T) is a dimensionless constant. Note that Eq. (3.39) contains the actual thickness.
while the above derivations assumed unit thickness for convenience. Equation (3.39)
e xpresses J as the energy absorbed, divided by the cross-~ctional area, times a
dimensionless constant. For a deeply cracked plate in pure bending, T) = 2. Equation
(3.39) can be separated into clastic IlDd plastic components:

(3.40)

EXAMPLE J.I

Determine the plastic r] factOr for the DENT configuration, assumiDtl the load-plastic
di,pl_mcnt O;U~ follow, a power law:
P. CApN
S(JI~riOll: The plastic energy abSOrbed by the specimen is gi~en by

.,
Up = C J;1pN dd p = !:.-""-
= N+I
o
COmparinl Eqs. (3.32) and (3. 40) and sol~ing for r]p gi~es
"8 ChopIU 3

£XA~lPLE 3.1 (1::onl.)

PIlp(N:J I)
'p . ---'-':"'-----" • '·N
P Jjp
N. I

For a nonhardcnina materi al. N. 0 and J/p • I.

3.3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN J AND CTOD

For linear elastic cond itions, the relationship between erOD and (j is given by &t. (3.8).
Since J = q for linear elastic material behavior, these equations also describe the
relationship between erOD and J in the li mit of s mall scale yielding. Thai is,

(3.4 1)

where m is a dimensionless conSI&nllhal depends o n streSS Slate and material properties.

It can be shown thai Eq. (3.4 1) applies well beyond the validity limits of LEFM.
Consider, for example, a stri p yield zone ahead of a crock lip. as illustrated in Fig.
3. 16. Recall (from Chapter 2) thaI the strip yie ld zone is modeled by surface tracti ons
along the crack face . LeI us define a contour, r, along the boundary of this tone. If the
damage lone is long and slender, i.e., if p » J, the first Icnn in the J contour integral
(Eq. 3. 19) vanishes because dy z O. Sioce the o nly surface tractions within p are in the y
direction. ny"" 1 and nx "" n~ = O. Thus the J integral is given by

(3.42)

Let us define a new coordinate system with the origi n at the tip of the strip yield zone: X
= P - x. For a fixed &, Oyy and II)' depend only o n X. provided p is small compared to the
in -plane dimensions of the cncked body. The J integral becomes
EUlSlic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics '39

~
X

I -

~,
!" - -
t ,-
~~

r p
"I
F1GURE l.16 Comou. oJonl tk boundar]' or th~ "trip yield ~ ..... abud ot. erack tip.

(3.43)

when: ~ = 2"y (X = p). Since the strip yield model assumes "yy = "ys within the
plastic zone, the J-CTOD relationship is given by

J = C1YSa 0.44)

Note the similarity between Eqs. (3.44) and (3. 7). The laner was derived from the strip
yie ld model by neglecting the higher order terms in a series e~pansion; no such
assumption was necessary to derive Eq. (3.44). Thus the strip yie ld model, which as-
sumes plane stress conditions and a non hardening material, predicts that m = I rOl" both
linear elastic and elastic-plastic conditions.
Shih (14J provided further evidence that a unique J-CTOD relationship applies well
beyond the validity limits of LEFM. He evaluated the displllCements at the crack tip
implied by the HRR solution and related the displacement at the crack tip to J and flow
properties. According to the HRR solution, the displacements near the crack tip are as
follows:

(3.4S)
"0 ChopIerJ

ncUllE 117 r..1l ...1loa 01 CTOD rr-.

...,.p.
H ' 11It •
dItpIIoc_" .
uM lr1Ktioa ud HRR

where iii is dimcD.'lionl ess function of 8 and n. anal ogou5 10 aj) and 'iij (Eq. 3.24).
I
Shih [14J invoked the 90" intercept defini tion of CTOD, as illustrated in Fig. 3.4(b).
This 90" intercept construction is exami ned further in Fig. 3. 17. 1lIe crOD is obtained
by evaluating !Ix and Uy at' . ,. and 8 = ~

(3.46)

Substituting Eq. (3.46) into Eq. (3.4S) and solving for ,* gives

(3.4 7)

Selting 8. 2 "1'''.- It) leads 10

8 = d,' (3.48)
a,
where dn is . dimensionlc!;S constant, given by

(3.49)
 ElaJtic-PlaJtic Frocturt Mtchanics 141

Figure 3.18 shows plots of dll for a = 1.0, which exhibits a strong dependence on the
strain hardening exponenl and a mild dependence on aar/E. A comparison of Eqs. (3.4 1)
and (3.43) indicates thai dll = 11m, assuminJi: 0"0 = O"YS (see Footnote 2). Accocding to
Fig. 3.18(a). d ll = 1.0 for a nonharde ning material (II = ...) in plane smss, which agr=s
with the strip yield model (Eq. (3.44».
The Shih analysis shows that there is a unique relationship between J and erOD for
a given materiaL Thus these two quantities are equally valid crack tip characterizing
parameters for e lasti c-plastic materials. 1lte fracture toughness of a material can be
quantified either by a critical value of J or erOD.

Plane Sire..

OojE:

o
lin

Ptane Strain I

0.4

o
lin
flGURE l.18 PndlcUd J-CTOD "taU-hlpI tor
For a .. I, ~ 11)0.., ...... e..hould lit multlplkd by rJ
rUle
.
at"" l ad plano .Inln, .......1... a. I 114~
142 CMpr~r3

1lIe above aMllysis an appare nt inconsistency. Equalion (3.48) is based on

conlai n~
the HRR singularity, which does not account for large geometry changes althe crack lip.
Figure 3. 12 indicates that the SlTesses predicted by the HRR theory are inaccurate for r <
26. but the Shi h analysis uses the HRR solution 10 evaluate displacements well within
the large strain region. Crack tip finite element analyses (l4J. however. are in general
agreement with Eq. (3.48). Thus the di splacement fie lds predicted from the HRR theory
are reasonably lICCuralC, despite the large plastic strains 1.1 the cnlCk tip.

3.4 C RA C K GRO W T H RESIST ANCE CUR V ES

Many materials with high toughness do not fail catastrophically at a particular vllue of J
or erOD. Rather, these materials di splay a risi ng R curve. where J and crOD increase
with crack growth. In melals, a rising R curve is nannally associaled with growth and
coalescence o f microvoids. Sec Chapter 5 for .. discuss ion o f microscopic fracture
mechani$1IU in ductilc mctal$.
Filure 3.19 schematically illustratcs a typical J resistancc c urve for a ductilc ma-
terial. In !he: initial sllIges of dcfonnation, !he: R curve is ncarly vcnical: there is a small
amount of apparent crack growth due 10 bluntinl. M J incrca5Cs, the material at the
crack tip fai ls locally and the cr1Ick advances further. Because the R curve is risinl, the
initial crack growth is us ually stable, but an in$tabilily can be cncountcred laler, as
discussed below.

Initiation

Crack

CRACK EXTENSIO N
FIGURE 3.19 SCht ....... ' ... si ..• ...... twYC for. dIIctile mal(>'iaI.
·"'k-,"'."" Frocturt Mechanics 143

OK tnCasure of fracture toughness, lIe is de rined ncar the initiation of stable crack

:
:~.~Th<~ precise point al which crac!:. growth begins is usually ill-defined.
the definition of lIe is somewhat arbitrary, much like a 0.2% offset yield
The corresponding CTOD ncar the ini tiation of stable crack growth is denoted
5 . and British testing standards. Chapler 7 describes experimental measurements
4Jk.d 6j in more'detail.
.1Iile initiation toughness provides some information about the fracture behavior o f
.' material, the entire R curve gives a more complete description. The slope of the
,Ie
ac.we at. given amoun t of crack ex tension is indicative of the re lative stability of the
~ 1JO'I'o'th; a material with a sleep R curve is less likely to experience unstable crack
: : : : : ;_ For J resistance curves, the slope is usually quantified by a dimensio nless
: C aoth4fus:

(3.49)

p ,the subscript R indicates a value of J on the resistance curve.

I Stable a nd Unstable Crack Growth

. . cc.ditions that govern the stability of crack growth in elastic-plastic materials are
idcntica1 to the elastic case presented in Section 2.5. Instability o«:urs when the
force curve is tangent to the R curve. As Fig. 3.20 indicates, load control is
kss stable than displacement control. The conditions in most structures are
ahere between the extremes of load control and displacement control. The
ax:d.Jate case can be represented by a spring in series with the structure, where remote
• : hc~ me n t is fixed (Fig. 2. 12). Since the R curve slope has been represented by a
7 .'lODless tearing modulus (Eq. 3.49), it is convenient to express the dri vi ng force in
_ of an applied learing modulus:

T.pp =~( dJ ) (3.50)

ao da AT

I ' ~T is the lota1 remote displacement defined as

144 OlOpurl

J, JR Insbbility in
I,.c)ad Control

CRACK SIZE

flG tJRE J.lt !kftm_1k I UlriD. r__ ""...R dt........ ~k.lo c_p_ I..... COOl... .....
•' ;"'.'.""traI.

(3.$1 )

and em is the SY51crn compliance. 1bc 510pe of the driving fora: curve for a fixed iJ.T is
identical to the linear clastk: case (Eq. 2.35), t.X.CCpl that (j is replaced by J:

For load conlroi, em ~ <>0, and the second term in Eq. (3.52) vanishes:

For displacement control, em = 0, and tq= D.. Equation (3.52) is derived in Appendix
2. 1 forthc linear cLastic ease.
The conditions durin,stablc crack JI'O""lh can be expressed as follows:
Elostic·Plostic Fracture M«hanics
'"
(3.53b)

Unstable crack propagation occurs when

(3.54)

Chapter 9 gives practical guidance on assessing structural stability with Eqs. (3.50) to
(3.54). A simple example is presented below.

EXAMPLE 3.2

~rive an expre$Sion for the applied t~aring modulus in the double cantilever bcllDl
(DeB) specimen with a spring in series (Fig. 3.21). assuming linear clastic
conditions.

SOIUlion: From uample 2.1, we have the followilll relaliolUhips:

P',,2
J" (j"BEI and

Therefore. the relevant partial derivatives are given by

iiJ) -_ B2Po.2
(iif' • £ I
'") .2Po.2
( ao.p £1

:~)~ 20.
(Ot"y=3EI
3

Substituting the above relationships inln Eqs. (3 .50) and (3.52) gives

2P'. { ,.3 [ 2. 3 ] } ./
T"" - - ,- I· FJ eM + JEI
0"0 BI
"6 ChapltT 3

TltidmHs_ B

FIGURE ).21 Doubl~ amtii£ftr ilamspuimtn .. illl.,prlng In ... rico.

As d iscussed in Section 2.5, the point of instabi li t)' in II. material wi th II. rising R
curve depends on the siu and geometry of the cracked structure; II. critical value of J 11.1
instability is nOI II. material propeny if J increases with crack growth . It is usually
assumed thai the R curve, including the 'Ie value, is II. material properly, indepe ndent of
configuration. This is II. reasonable assumption, within cemin limitations.

3.4.2 Computing J for II. Growing Crack

The geometry dependence of II. J res istance curve is influenced by the way in which J is
calculated. The equations derived in Seclion 3.2.5 are based On the pse udo energy release
rate definition of J and are valid only for II. stationary crack. There are various ways to
compute J for II. growing crac k, including lhe defonnation J and the far-field J, which are
described below. 1be fanner method is typically used to obtai n experimental J resistance
curves.
Figure 3.22 illustrates the load-displacement behavior in a specimen with a growing
crack. Recall that the J integral is based on a defonnation plasticity (Of nonlinear elastic)
assumption for material behaviof. Consider point A on the load-displacement curve in
Fig. 3.22. The crack has grown to a length QI from an initial length QQ. The cross-
hatched area represen ts energy thai would be re leased if tnc material were elastic. In an
elastic-plastic material, only the elastic panion or this e nergy is released; the remainder is
dissipated in a plastic wake that fonns behind the growing c rack (see Figs 2.6(b) a nd
3.25).
£lmrie-Plasfic Fracturt M« hattics 147

In an elastic material, all quantities, including strai n energy, are independent of the
loading history. The e nergy absorbed during crack growth in an elastic-plastic material ,
however, exhibi ts a history dependence. The dashed curve in Fig. 3.22 represents the
load-displacement behavior when the crack size is fixed at aJ. lbe area under this curve is
the strain energy in an elastic material: this energy depe nds only on the current load and
crack length:

UD=uD(p,a)=(iPd,,) (3.SS)
o ••• ,

where the su bscript D refers 10 deformation theory. Thus the J integral for a nonlinear
elastic body with a growi ng erack is given by

J D=_.!(au D)
B da 4

=fJ UD (3.56a)
Bb

(3.56b)

IC~GlOwth

FIGURE 3.ll ScM",,,tIc: Jud-diJpbct..ml

aJ ....,tor _ I p«imeo with. crllck tb.1
VO ... 1e.1 fro., .n lolttal ImJlh . 0. Vo
"p"""" ,he l inIn mcrv to .......11......
UD '.>"1.'.
eI..,1e ", ..
 14' CNJptl!r J

where b iJ the cwrnnt Jigamenl1ength. When thc J inlcgml for an cl astic-plastic material
is defiDed by Sq. (3.56). the history dependence is removed and the e nergy nlease ralll
inlcrprClation of J is restored. 1lIe dl!formalion J is l15ually computed from Eq. (3 .56b)
because no Cl)fl'ection is required on the elastic term as long as K/ is determined from the
CUrfC'nl load and crlld; length. The calculation of UD(pJ is us uall y pe rformed
incremclltally. since thc deformation thc«y load.d.isplacement curve (Fig. 3.22 and Eq.
(3."» depends on crack si~. Specirtc procedures for computing the deformation J ace
outlined in Chapter 7.
One can determine a far_field J from the contou r integral definition of Sq. (3.19).
which may differ from if> For a deeply crac ked bend specimen, Rice. CL aI. (LSI showed
that the far-field J oontour integral in . rigid. perfectly plastic material is given by

n
' ,= O.73u o f bdO (l.S7)
o
where the variati on in b during the load in g hislOf)' is taken in10 Dccount Deformat ion
ihcOry leads 10 the following "'l"tio,,~hip for J in thillpc<:imc:n:

i D =O.73a obll (3.58)

'The two ex~ssions are obviously identical when the crac k is stationary.
Finite element calculations of Dodds, et. aI. [16. 17] for a tJvcc..point bend ipecimen
made from a .uain hardeninl material ind k:ale that JIIJId JD are approximately equal for
moderate amounts of crack arowth. 'The J integral obtained from a contour integration is
path·dependent in an elastic·plastic material. however. and tends to zero as the contoor
shrinks 10 the: enck ti p. See Append ix 4.2 for a theoretical explanation of the path
dependcoce of} for a growinl Cf'Kk in an inelastil: IJllteriai.
There is no gllllnlnicc that either lhe deformation}D 0( }fwi ll uniquely characteri~
crac k tip condit ions for I arowi ng crack. Without this single parameter characteri zation.
the }·R curve becomes leOmetry dependent. The iuue of} validity and geometry
dependence is upklred in detail in Sections 3.5 and).6.

3.5 J.CONTROLLED FRACTURE

The lenn }·COtllrolledjrocflll? corresponds to situations where J completcty characterizes

crack tip conditions. In such cases, there is a uniqle relationship betwccn} IDd erOD
(Section 3.3); thus J..conuulled fracture implies C7'0D--controlled fracture. and vice versa.
Ju st IS there are limi ts to LEFM, fracture mechanics analysts based on} and CTOD
become suspect when there is excessive plasticity Of signillcant crack growth. In sU(:h
cases. fracture IOIIghness and the}·C1'OD rel.tionsh:p depeDd 011 the size and gcomctry o f
the struc:ture or test specimen.
'The required conditions for }..controlled fracture are discussed be low. Both fl'llCture
initiation from a $IlIliooary Cf'Kk and stable crack growth are considered.
Elastic· Plastic Frocrurt M«hanics .. 9

3.5.1 Slalionary C r acks

Figure 3.23 schematically illustrates the effect of plasticity on the crack tip stresses; log
nonna.l i~«i distllJ\co from the crack tip. The characteri,tic length
(ayy) i5 plotted o.glli nst
scale L. corresponds to the size of the structure; for example, L could re present the
uncracked ligamen t le ngth. Figure 3.23(a) shows the small scale yielding case, where
both K and J characteri ze crack tip conditions. At a short di stance from the crack ti p.
re lative to L, the stress is proportional to I,.r;, this area is called the K.tJomino.ttd rtgwl/.
Assuming monotoni c. quasistatic loading, a l-dominated region occurs in the plastic
zone. where the elastic singularity no longer applies. Well inside of the plasLic zone, the
HRR solution is approJ. imateiy valid and the stresses vary as /'/n+1. 1be fi nite strain
region occurs within approJ.imateiy 26 from the crack tip. where large deformation
invalidates the HRR theory. In small scale yielding, K unique ly characterizes crack tip
conditions, despite the fact that the ,rr;
singularity does not exisl all the way to the
crack tip. Similarly, J un iquely characterizcs crack tip condi tions even though the
deformation plasticity and small strain assumptions are invalid withi n the fi nite strain re-
gIOn .
Figure 3.23(b) ill ustrates elastic. plastic conditions, where J is still approJ.i mately
valid. but there is no longer a K field . As the plastic zone increases in size (rel ative to
L ), the K dominated zone di sappear,. bu t the J dominated zone pe rsi5\$ in some
geometries. Thus although K has no meaning in this case, the J integral is still an
appropriate fracture criterion. Since J dominance implies ClOD dominance, the latter
parameter can also be applied in the clastic-plastic regime:.
With large scale yielding (Fig. 3.23(c», the size of the fin ite strain zone becomes
significant relative to L, and there is no longer II region uniquely characterized by J.
Single-parameter fracture mechanics is invalid in large scale yieldina. and critical J values
eJ.hibi t a size and geometry dependence.
In ce rtai n configu rations, the K and J zones are van ishingly smail, and a single-
parameter description is nO( possible eJlcept at ycry low loads. For example, a plate loaded
in tens ion wi th a through -thick ness crack is not amenab le to a single-parameter
description, either by K or J. Example 2.4 and Figure 2.44 indicate that the stress in the
Jl direction in this geometry deviates significantly from the elastic singularity solution as
small distances from the crack lip because o f a compressive transverse (7) stress.
Consequent ly the K-dominated zone is virtua1ly nonu istent. The T stress inf1uenc~
stresses iDside the plastic zone, so a highly negative T stress also invalidates II single-
parameter description in tenns of J. See Section 3.61 for further detai ls about the T stress.
IS. ChopUr j

(<II) SmAl l sc.til! yltldi ng

LOG a"
- •

• 1.
''-':--
\

LOG rIL

(b) Elutk-plulk o:ondlti_

LOG a"

\
"iL \
LOG rlL

LOG a" - - _1fIl..-\ \ - •

~
\
\
\
LOG rll

Lu~ lOin region

,-domiNIe<! ~
~.;..JK-domiNtedlOne nGlIU l.l3 Elfeet eI plailidty o. lite
awdI It, It..- tItJok.
L_J No singlt pantmetIH ~tion
 Elostic-P/nslic FroclUn M«hanici '51

Recall Fig. 2.38. in whil:h a free-body diagram was constructed from a disk-shaped
region removed from the I:rnck tip of a structure loaded in small scale yielding. Sin.:e the
stresses on the boundary of this disk exhibit a /,.{; singularity. KJ uniquely defines the
stresses and strains within the disk. For a given material~. dimensional analysis leads to
the following functional relationship for the stress distribution within this region:

0",O"~ =Fv[K:
~r
,e) (for OSrSrs (8» (3.59)

where 's is the radi us of the elastic singularity dominated zone. whil:h may depend on O.
NO(e that the I,.{; singu larity is a special case of F. which exhibits a different dependence
on , within the plastic zone. In voking the relationship between J and KI for small sc:a1e
yielding (Eq. 3.18) gives

!!iL=F..
0" W
(FJ,8)
(]l,
(forOS ,S'J(8» (3.60)
• •
where r J is the radius of the J-dominated lOne. The HRR singularity (Eq. (3.24a) is a
-1/
special case of Eq. (3.60). but stress e~hibilS a r n+ / dependence only over a limited
range of r.
For small scale yielding. rs '" rJ. but rs vanishes when the plastic zone engulfs the
elastic singularity dominated zone. The J dominated zone usually pcrsislS longer than the
elastic singularity zone. as Fig. 3.23 illustrates.
[t is important to emphasize that J dominan.:e at the crac k tip does not requiTe the
existence of an HRR singularity. In fact. J dominance requires only that Eq. (3.60) is
valid in the process lJ)M. near the I:rack tip. where the micl"QS(;opil: evenlS that lead to frac-
ture ocl:ur. The HRR singularity is merely one possible solution to the more general
requirement that J un iquely define crnck tip stresses and strai ns. The now properties of
most materials do nO( conform to the idealiution of a Ramberg-Osgood power law. upon
whidl the HRR analysis is based. Even in a Ramberg-Osgood material. the HRR
s ingularity is valid over a limited range; large strain effects invalidate the HRR singu-
larity close to the crnck tip, and the computed stress lies below the HRR solution at
grcater distanl:cs. Thc lalter effe<;t I:an be undcrstood by considering the analytical
technique employed by Hutchinson (71. who represented the stress solution as an infinite
series and showed \hat the leading term in the series was pmponionalto ,-Iln ./ (see
Appendix 3.4). This singular term domi nates as r....., 0; higher order terms are significant
fOf moderate values of r. When the computed stress field deviates from HRR, it still

~ A romplete ,~menl of !lie fur,cti0lll.ll telaliooship of Oij sboWd inctude aU maIeriaI fl"'" propeniel (e.l. CI
OJ><! n for .. Rambo,...o.good nwctW). These qlWllil;e. were omilled from Eql. (3.65) and (3.66) for II..
....e of ct.ority. I i""" material properties 1Ke ..... n>ed 10 be rued in Ibi< problem.
." Ch4purl

scales with l/(ao r). as required by Eq. (3.60). Thus I dominance does not necessarily
imply Ipttmcnl with the HRR ftclds.
Equatiola (3 .59) nnd (3.60) gndually becom. invalid as specimen boundariu in-
teracl with the crack tip . We can apply dimensional arguments to infer when a si ngle-
parameter description of crack lip conditions is suspe<:t. As discussed in Chapter 2, the
LEFM solution breaks down whe n the plastic l.one size is a significant fraction of in-
plane dimensions. Moreover, the crack lip conditions evolve from plane Slrain to plane
stress as the plastic zone size growl 10 a siga iriean! fraction of the thickness. The J
integral becomes invalid as a crack tip characterizing paramelCT when the large strain
regi on reaches a finite size relative to in-plane dimens ions. Section 3.6 pr(lvides
quantitative in(onnalion on size effects.

3.5.1 J· Controlled Cnck Gro .... tb

According 10 the dimensional argument In the previous section, J controlled conditions

ui.~t It the ti p of a stationary mlCk (loaded monotonically and quasistaticllly). provided
the large strain region is small compared to i~· plane dimensions of the cracked body.
Stable cract growth. however, introduces another length dimension; i.e., the change in
crack length from its original Yalue. Thus J may nOi characterize crack tip conditions
when the crack growth is significant compared 10 in· plane dim ensions. Prior crack
growth sh()f,1ld nOI have any adYerse effccts in a purely elastic material, because Ih~ local
crack tip fields depend only on cUlTcnt condi tions. Prior history does innueoce the
stresses and strains in an clastic.plastic material, however. lbcreforc. we might expect J
integral theory to break down when there is I combination of significant plasticity and
crICk growth. This heuristic argument based on dimensional analysis agrees with
experiment and with more complex analyses.
Figure 3.24 iIlustnlles crack growth under J-controlled conditions. Malcrial behind
the growina: crack tip has unlf*kd elastically. Recall Fig. 3 .7. which compaICS the
unloading behavior of nonlinear clastic and elastic· plastic material.5; the material in the
unloading region of Fig. 3.24 obYiously yiolates the assumptions of deformation
plasticity. The material directly in fronl of the crack also yiolates the single.parameter
assumpt ion because the loading is highly nonproponional; i.e .• the various stress
components increase at different rates and somc components actually decrease. In orucr for
the crack growth to be J co ntrolled, the elastic unloading and nonproponi onal plastic
loading regions must be embedded within a WfIC of J dominance. When the crack grows
out of the :wne of J dominance, the measured R curve is no longer uniquely clwaclerizcd
by J .
In small scale yielding, there is a1wlyS a rone of J domi nance because the crack tip
conditions are defined by the elastic stress intensity, which depends only on cumnt valllCS
of load and crack size. TIle crack never grows out of the J-dominated z.one as long as all
specimen boundaries arc remote (rom !be crack tip and !be plastic z.one.
Fisure 3.25 i11l15trates three distinct stagu of crack growth resistance behavior in
~ rnll.lI sc"" yiell.linK. DurinK the: iniulli MilKe: the Cnte); i~ ~".,nually ~ta!iQnary ; the finite:
slope of the R curve is caused by blunting. The crack tip fie lds for Stage I arc given by
E/QSlic-P/QStic Fracture M«/umics 153

FIGUR E 3.24 J.co nl ro ll t d tn tk

lrowtb.

(]) Crack blunting

JR "

JIC
(2) Fracture initb.tion..

,; 1
01
(3) Steady state cTack growth
FIGURE 3.2' Tllree II. . . of crack p"'wlb In lUI hlllllltt
""y.
." Chapler J

~=I111(E' J . (J) (3.61)

(1. rr.r
which is. restatement of Eq. (3.60). The crack begins to grow in Stage 2 . 1lle crack tip
stresses and strains are probably influenced by the original blun t crack tip during the early
Stages of crack growlh.. Dimcnsionalanalysis implies the follow ing relationship:

(3.62)

where 6j is the erOD al initiation of stable tearing. When the crac k grows well beyond
the initial blunted lip, a steady-state condition is reached, where the local stresses and
straill$ are independent of the extent of crack growth:

(3.63)

Although Eqs. (3.6 1) and (3.63) would predict identical conditions in the elastic
singularity woe, material in the plastic :woe at the tip of a growing crack is likely to
experience a dirrerent loading history from material in the plastic Wile of a blunting
stationary crack; thus Fil ) 01 ,.0) as , ~ O. During steady-slate crack growth. a plastic
:tone of constant siu sweeps through the material, leaving a plastic wake, as illustrated in
Fig, 3.15. The R curve is n at: J does not increase wi th crack extens ion, provided the
material propcnies do nOi vary wi th positio n. Appendix 3.5.2 presen ts a formal
mathematical argument for a flat R curve during steady-state growth ; a heuristic
u planati on is given below.
If Eq. (3.63 ) applies, J uniquely describes crac k tip conditions, independeM of crack
extension. If the material fails at $OfI1C critical combi nation o f stresses and strains. then
it follo ws that local failure at the crac k lip must occur at a c ritical J value, as in the
stationary crack case. This critical J value must remain constanl with cmck growth. A
risinS or falling R curve would impl y that the local material properties varied with
posi ti on.
The second stage in Fig. 3 .15 corresponds 10 the transition betwccn blunting of a
stationary crack and crack growth under steady Slate conditions. A rising R curve is
possible in Stage 2. For small scale yielding cond itions the R c urve depends only on
crack extension:

(3.64)

That is, the J·R curve is a malerial propeny.

 Elasric-Plastic Frocture Mechanics "5

TIle steady-sulle limit is us ually not observed in laboralOry tests o n ductile mate-
rials. In typical test specimens, the ligament is fully plastic during crack growth, thereby
violatin g the small scale yielding ass umption. Moreove r, the c rac k approaches a finite
boundary while still in Stage 2 growlh. En ormous specimens wo uld be requited 10
observe steady state crack growth in tough materials.

3.6 CRACK-TIP CONSTRAINT UNDER LARGE-SCALE YIELDING

Under small scale yielding condition s, a si ngle parameter (e.g. K, J or crOD) cbarac-
terizes crac k tip conditio ns and can be used as a geometry-independent fracture criterion.
Single-parameter fracture mechanics breaks down in the prese nce of excessive plasti city,
and fracture toughness depends on the size and geometry of the test specimen.
McCli ntock [18] applied slip line tbeory to estimate the stresses in a variety of con-
figurations under plane strain. fully plastic conditions. Figure 3.26 summarizes some of
these results. For small scale yielding (Fig. 3.26(a», the maximum stress at the crack tip
is approximately Jao in a nonhardening materi al. According to the slip line analysis. a
deeply no tched double-edged notched tension (DENT) panel, ill ustrated in Fig. 3.26(b),
mai ntains a high level of triax iality under fully plastic conditi ons, s uch that the crack tip
conditiol1$ are si milar to the small scale yielding case. An edge cracked plate in bending
(Fig. 3.26(c» cx hibits slightly Jess stress elevation, wilh the maximum principal stress
approll.i mately 2.5ao . A center-cracked panel in pure tens ion (Fig. 3.26(d» is incapable
of maintaining significan t tr18.l1.iality under fully plastic conditio ns.
The results in Fig. 3.26 indicate thaI, for a nonhardening material under full y yielded
cond itions, the stresses near the crac k tip are not unique, but depend on geometry.
Traditional fracture mechanics approaches .-.:cognize that the stress and strain fields remote
from the crack tip may depend on geometry, but it is assumed that the near·tip fields have
a similar form in all configuratio ns that can be scaled by a single parameter. The single-
parameter assumption is obviously no t valid fo r no nhardening materials under fully
plastic conditions. because the near tip fields depend on the configuration. Frac ture
toughness, whether quantified by J, K, or crOD, must also depend on the configuration.
The prospects (or applying fraaure mechanics in the presence of large scale yielding
are not qu ite as bleak as the McCli ntoc k analysis indi cates. The configuratio nal effects
on the near-tip fields are much less severe when the material e xhibits strain hardening.
Moreover, single-parameter fract ure mec hani cs may be approximate ly valid in the
presence of sig nifi cant plasticity, provided the specimen maintains a relatively high le vel
oftriaxiality. Both the DENT specimen and the edge cracked plate in bending apparently
satisfy this requireme nt. Most laboratory measurements of frac ture toughness are
performed wilh l>t:",j-lypc: ~pc:<.:i lU t: n s, su<.: h "s tlK: <': UlTl p"<.:t lind three· puinl bend
geometries, because these specimens present the fewest experimental difficulties.
Figure 3.27 com pares the cleavage fract ure tough ne ss for bending and tensile
loadi ng. Although the scatte r bands overlap, the average toughness for the single edge
notched bend (SENB ) specime ns is considerably lower than that of the cente r c racked
tension (Ccn panels or the surface cracked panels.
IS. Chapter 3

(I) Small tale yleld lns (til DENT~d

•~
(d) Cmkr cracked !WItl

PlGUU.ut C-parIIooI "1M pIaodtcld_ _ poa_ ........ ocaIe,,"' t! a (11.ntloollp pee' , ..

t'OOIf\p.......
....... IIIu,. pWtic ..... u.- ill thrtt 1'be au....... local 11..- 11ft b..aI _ 1M oIip
IIDc .....,.. "MI.'CIJUdE II IL ODd appIJ....,. 10 - - . ....... ..ucrlaII.

Crack depth and specimen size can also have an effect on fracture toughnes.s, as Fig.
3.28 illuslrlIlCS. Note thai the SENB ~pccimens wilh shallow cracks tend 10 have higher
toughness than deep cracked specimens, and the specimens with SOmm 1 SOmm cross
sections have lo.....er average toughness than smaller specimens with the same aIW ratio.
 Elastic-Plastic Frocfllrt Mechanics
'"
2

BS oU6O 50D STEEL

: t
Ei ..-c
E 1.5 B_52"""

c, •
0
ti
...< 1 0

--
U
....
a:: 0.5
87.5 P,,"""tiJ. §
0

U
Median (74 values)
12.5 P,,"""tilo!
0 •
0
"'"
SPEOMENS
CCTPANEU SURFACE
CRACKED PANltLS

FIGURE l.l7 Critical CTOD ........ t .... deII ... SO

..... _ .... ,tod (19}.
rr-urc In bendhtt ODd ttmllolooodl ... to • • _.&110,.
500
ASlSG.!de70SIH] r
,
Spechnm Thlclm._
(Kirk,. tI .I~ 1991]
and Width,
400 -0- ,,~

. ""
Ei
• Ii -. '25 mm.

. . .. ..•.. + ,,~

- •
"
200 ~
•
•
... . . .
...
0

•• -+0 ____ . ~ -
•• ... . +
~o
· ..
100
•
0
+
• p• -

o
, , 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 OA 0.5 0.6

./W
nGURE J.l!I Critkal J ...... fo ........e • • rw.ctIoa 01. <ndt dq>tIo .... opom...a olx 01. oIo&k .....
IWIIdIed ....... (SEMI) .pedmolll (101
." Chopur 3

Figu~s 3.27 and 3.28 illustrate the effe(;\ of specimen size and geometry on
cleavage fracture toughness. Specimen conligul1l.lion can also innuence the R curve of
ductile materials. Figure 3.29 shows the effect of crack depth on crack growth resistance
behavior. NOIe thal the trend is the same as in Fig. 3.28. Joyce aoo l.ink {21J measured
l -R curves for several geOTnl'tries and found thai the initiation toughness, 'Ie. is relatively
insensitive to geometry (Fig. 3.30), but the learing modulus. as defined in Eq. 0.49), is a
strong function of geometry (Fig. 3.3 1). Configurations thaI have a high level of
constraint under full plastic cond itions, such as the compact and deep-notched SENB
,,,edmens. have low TR values relative 10 low constraint geQmetries, such as single edg<:
notched tension (SENn panels.
Note that the DEtIT specimens have the higl>cst luring modulus in Fig. 3.31. but
McClintock's slip line analysis indicates that this configuration should have a high level
of constraint under fully plastic conditions. Joyce and Link presented clastic-plastic finite
clement r<:su]ts for the DENT specimen that indicated significant constraint loss in this
geometry6, which is consistent with the observed elevated tearing modulus. Thus !he slip
line analysis apparently does not reneet me actual crack tip conditions of this geometry.
A numher of ~scan:hers have a\tempted to e~tend fracture mechanics theory heyond
the limits of the single_parameter assumption. Most of theSC!leW approaches involve the
introduction of a second parameter to characterize crack tip conditions. Several such
methodologies arc described below.

-
Rangc III aIW:
om -0.11

o ~----::-J.:--~:::!J
o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
CRACK EXTENS ION, mm
n c. l .l9 mod 01.....,.. .....lMped..........."tb rotle "" I-If ... . - rOt Hv no ",..t single edge
notched bend (SENBh p" t" ... [12~

6Jo )'CC lIId Lillk quanrili<-d ."",k lip COIlWainl wilh tho T lIId Q ~ which..., described in S«tiotu
3.6.\"" 3.6~ rcopa:li.-dJ.
Elastic- Plastic Fracture M« hanics IS'

600
IAS33 Grad", B St.!",1 I
500
Sholto.. Nolched
SENB Sped .......
e
..-"-
~
400 Deeply NOlched
SENB Spec:I .......
SENT Sped _ ...

300 ,,..-
Co,",pxl

I
•• ••
•
•
•
DENT Spec:lmcn.

•
200
t
100 k-___ J_ _ _ _- L____ ~ •
____L __ __ J_ _ _ __ '

SPECIMEN TYPE
FIGURE 3.30 En""'1 "'tpedmen ae-nry oa <rltal J ••Iu.. for hllll.llon '" dlJdll. I_Sill}.

100
SPECIMEN TYPE
FIGURE 3.31 Effod "'~n pmct..,. oa leari"ll .. adul. . .14&.1 .... I12J.
160 Clwpru J

3.6.1 The Elastie T Slress

Williams (23] showed that the crack tip stress fields in an isotropic elastic material can be
expressed as an infinite power series, where the leading lenn exhibits a}rr; singularity,
the second term is conStall with r, the third term is proportional to ..r;,and so on.
Classical fracture TTK:chanic$ theory normally rwglccts all but the singular term, which
results in a single-paramete<" description of the near-tip fields (see Chapter 2). Although
the third and higher terms in lhe Williams solution, which have positive uponents on r,
vanish at the crack tip. the second (uniform) term remains finite. It turns OUI that this
second term can have a profound effect on the plastic zone shape and the stresses deep
inside the plastic ~one [24,25].
For a crack in an isotropic elastic material subject to plane strain Mode I loading.
the firsllwo terms of the Williams solution an: as follows:

TOO
j
aiJ =K flj(8)+ 0 0 0 (3.65)
-J2m-
o 0 vT
where T is a uniform stress in the)l direction (which induces a stress vr in the z direction
in plane strain).
We can assess the influence of the T Slress by constructing a cin;:ular model Ihal
contains a crack, as illustraled in Fig. 3.32. On the boundary of this model, let us apply
in-plane tractions thai correspond \0 Eq . (3.65). A plastic zone develops al the crack tip,
but;1$ size must be small ~Ialive to the size of the model in order to ensure the validity
of the boundary conditions, which are inferred from an clastic solution. This
configumtion, often referred to as a modified boundnry layer al1(1/ysiJ, simulates the ~ar­
lip conditions in an arbitrary geometry, provided the plasticity is well contained wilhin
the body. It is equivalent to ~moving a core region from the crack tip and constructing a
free body diagram, as in Fig. 2.41.
Ela.!tic-Pkutic FmctJjrtl Mtchania 161

Figure 3.33 is a plot of fini te elemeot results from a modified boun dary l ayer
analysis 1261 !hal sho ... !he effect of !he T stress on SItCS$C:$ ~ ilUide the pll.$tie zone_
n.c sp«ia1 case of T _ 0 conuponds 10 the smal l-scale yiddioglimit, where the pll.$lic
zone is a negligible fraction of the crack length and size of the body7, and the singular
term uniquely defines the near-tip fiellb. The sin gle-parameter description is rigorously
comlCl on ly for T .. O. NOle that negative T values cause a significant downward sh ift in
the strcu fields. Positive T values shift the Slre5!iCS \0 above the smaJl-.scale yielding
limit, but the effcct is much less pronounced than it is for negative T JIfcU.
N()(e that Ihe HRR soll,luon docs not match the T~ 0 case. n.c Slre5SCS deep inside
the pll.$lic l:one can be represented by a power seriel. where the HRR sol ution is the
leading term. Figure l .B indicates ttult the higher order plastic lerms are nOI negligib le
whe n T .. O. A single -parameter description in terms of J is still valid. however, 1.$
discussed in Section 3.$. 1.
In I cracked body subjcct 10 Mode I loading, the T 5tte$S, like KJ. lCales with the
appl ied load. TIle biaxia/ity ratio relates T 10 S\feU intensity:

(3.66)

' .----------r~~~~~~
Modified Boundary Loye. Anal)"l.
n_ l 0
• • HRR SoM ion
•
,L" "

I , , • , ,
rcr,
J
I'!GVRE 3.lJ1 SIAa ndell obtOllDtCl,....., lIIodll1cd .... , ..... '1 ..,... ....,.. (16).

7 1• !his ~ '1Iody" ",rc... IOIho &laM! ~ _ tIIe ....1Ied _od'C)' 11,1«'-'" A IIIOdir,..
N-od'C)' ..,.... ........ willi T . 0 $i"",t... _ j.n.ile - , . .... -1atIaiodr ....,....u.
162 Chapltr3

For a throu\lh- lhic kness crack in an infinite plate subject to a remote normal Siress (Fill:.
2.3). f1 = - I. Thus a remote stress u induces a T stress of ·a in the x direction. Recall
Exam ple 2.7, where a rough estimate of the elastic si ngularity zone and plastic zone size
led 10 the conclus ion that K breaks down in this configuration when the applied stress
exceeds 35% of yield, which corresponds to Tloo = -0.35. From Fig. 3.33, we see that
such II. T stress leads 10 a significant relaxation in crack tip stresses, relative to the small-
$Calc yielding case.
For laboratory speci mens with K{ solutions of the form in Table 2.4. the T stress is
given by

T
= B..JltaW
pp j
J\
a)
w (3.67)

Figure 3.34 is a plot of f1 for seve ral geometri es. Note that {J is posi tive for deep ly
notc hed SENT and SENB specimens, where the untracked ligament is subjec t
predominately 10 bending stresses. As discussed above, sueh configurations maintai n a
high level of constraint under fully plastic condi tions. Thus a positive T stress in the
clastic case gene rally leads to high constraint unde r fu lly plastic condi tions, whi le
geometries with negati ve Tstress loose constraint rapidly wi th de formation.

T..,j Ira
p= ./'"
-
"'- O.S
0
~
<
~ 0 -
K,

SEN/
...<~ SENT

--
x -0.5
<
DE

=
-1 f - - - - ccr
o 0. 1 0.2 0.' 0.' 05 0.6 0.7 0.8
. /W
flGURE l.Jof Blada UI, nliG ror . Inlle N I O _ .bN bend, IlnRIe Nle DOI<bN
......,bed I. BOlon, and emlo . . .... kN "_loa &eo_"rios.
'.noI...., d ....ble ...8O
Elastic-Plastic Frucrurr Mtchanicl 163

The biaxiality ratio can be used as a qualitative index of the relative crack tip
constraint of various geometries. The T stress. combined with the modified boundary
layer soluti on (Fig. 3.33) can also be used qUllnlitativtly to estimate the crac k tip stress
field in a particular geometry (26-28j. FOI" a given load level, the T stress can be inferred
from Sq. (3.66) or (3.67), and the corresponding crack tip stress field for the ~me T stress
can be estimated from the modified boundary layer solution with the same applied T. lbis
methodology has limitations. however. because T is an tlastic parameter. A T stress
estimated from load through Eq. (3.67) has no physical meaning under fu lly plastic
conditions. Errors in stress fields inferred from T stresS and the modified boundary laye r
solution increase with plastic defonnation. This approximate procedure works fairly well
for III :> 0.9 but breaks down when III < 0.4 [26J.

3.6.2 J -Q Tbeory

Assuming small-strain theory, the crack tip fields deep inside the plas tic zone can be
represented by a power series. where the HRR solution is the leadi ng teno. The higher
on:Ier tenns can be grouped together into a difftrtnct jitld:

(3.68a)

Alternatively. tbe difference field can be defined as the deviation from the T= 0 refere nce
solution;

u· = (uVT_O
~
. ) + (uVOid
.) (3.68b)

Note from Figure 3.33 that non-zero T stresses cause the near-tip field at 8= 0 to shift up
or down uniformly; i.e., the magnitude of the shift is constant with distance from the
crack tip. O'Dowd and Shih [29,30) observed that the difference field is relatively constant
with both distance and angular position in the forward sector of the crack tip region (I Q S
tr/2). Moreover, they noted that

Thus the difference fi eld corresponds approximately to a un iform hydrostatic shift of the
stress field in front of the crack tip. O'Oowd and Shih designated the amplitude of thi s
approximate ditlerenee fjeld by the Jetter Q. Equation (3.6Kb) then becomes

Uv -(u)
vrooO +QUO.. ~v
(3.69)
164 Chapftr 1

where /iii is the Kronec ker della. The Q parameter can be inferred by subtracting the stress
field for the T = 0 reference state from the stress fi eld of interest O'Dowd and Shih and
most subsequent rescan::bers defined Q as follows:

a - (a) m
Q iI'" » T_ Q at 8 = 0 and .:...=.L =2 (3. 70)
a. J

Referring to Fig. 3.33, we s« that Q is negative when T is negative. For the modified
boundary layer solution, Tand Q are uniquely related. Figure 3.35 is a plot of Q versus T
for a wide range of hardening e~ponc n LS,
In a given crac ked body. Q = 0 in the limil of small scale yiel ding, but Q generally
becomes increasingly negative with deformation. Figure 3.36 shows the evolution of Q
for a deeply Cl'llCk bend (SENB) specimen and a center cracked panel. NOie that the SEND
speci men stays close \0 the Q '" 0 limit to fai rly high deformation levels, but Q for the
center cracked panel becomes hi ghly negative at relatively small J values.

0.' r':=====~~::::~~
Modified Boundary Layer Analysis
_________
_ - - __
.
o
. ----- -- -
-0.' "/-f:'P'
Q
-1 "• .,1J
V"'-:-· 0_3
-n _5

V~</ - - - na tO
-·-·- n_20
-1.5 • •j --- n_ ...
t/
-2
- 1 -'l.s 0 05 1
T /0
•
Elastic·Plaslic Froctu" M~hDnjcl 165

Q ----, ,
-o.S
\
,,
,
\
,,
·1 In _10 ,,
,
"'---::--:--::--:-:::--,---::::-::-:---,' --
. Center Cracked Panel, a/W - 0. 1 - __

-1.5 ;
~=:;::Ed~g~';:C:'::;':;'k<d?~Ben=:d:S~f"'O"'=·=~~_='~/~W~-=O:::.~~~~..}
OJ)OOI O.IX)! J 0.01 0.1

aao
FIGURE 3-" £ ...1uI1od oItbeQ paruteler wil.b dd_ _ III two ~ritlllt~

The }· O Touglwu Incur

Classical s ingle-parameter fracture mechanics assumes that rnlCture toughness is a
material constant. With J·a theory, howe"er, an additional degree of freedom as been
introduced. which implies that the critical J value rO( a given material depends on Q:

(3.71)

Thus fracture toughness is no longer viewed as a si ngl e value; rather, it is a eliI'Ve that
defines a eriticallocus of J and Q values.
Figure 3.37 is a plot of critical J val\JC5 ( fot cleavage fracture) as a function of a
[29]. Although there is some $Caller. the trend in Fig. 3.37 is clear. The cri ti cal J
a
increases as. becomes m~ negative. Th.is !Tend is consistent with Figs. 3.27 to 3.31.
That is. rractw"c toughness tends to increase u constrai nt decreases. 'The Q parameter is a
direct measure oftbc relative streSS uiuialily (constraint) at the crack lip.
Since the T stress is also an indication of the level of crack ti p c:orutrainl, a J.T
failure locus can be constructed 127,28]. Such plots have similar trends 10 J-Q plOl5, but
the ordering of data points sometimes differs. That is. the relative Rnk.inl of scomctrics
can be inflllClICed by whether conslfaint is quantirled by Tor Q. Under well-contained
yielding. T and Q are uniquely related (Fig. 3.35), but the T stress loses its meaninl for
16' Chapter 3

large-scale yielding. Thus a J-T toughness loc us is unreliable when sig nificant yieldi ng
ptttedes fracture.
Single- parameter fracture mechanics theory assumes that toughness values obtained
from laboratory specimens can be transferred to structural applications. Two-parameter
approaches such as I-Q theory imply that the laboratory specimen must match the
constraint of the structure; i.e:" the two geome tries must have the same Q at fail ure in
order for the respectivc: Ie values 10 be equal. Figure 3.38 illustrates the application of
the I -Q approach 10 structures. The applied J versus Q curve for the config uration of
interesl is obtained from finite element analysis and ploned with the l·Q toughness locus.
Failure is predicted when the driving force curve passes through the toughness locus.
Since toughness data are often scallered, however, there is not a sing le unambig uous
cross-over point. Rather, there is a range of possible Je values for the struclure.

Efft:el o( fqi/u re Mtchqnjsm 011 the l _a locUl

The J-Q approach is descriptive but nOi predictive. Thai is, Q quantifies the crac k tip
consuai nt, but il gives no indicalion as the 10 effecl of constraint on fraclure toughness.
A J-Q fai lure locus, such as Fig. 3.37, can be inferred from a series of e){periments on a
range of geometries. Allematively, a micromechankal failure cri terion can be in voked .

.. ,,-------------,
\\ A515 GTlIde 10 Stul

\
\
•
\
\
\ •
. :
\
+ \
\
\
" .
+
~

.
".., '...
-.--
......................

Q
nGUO 3.37 J-Q 1Ou~ IocuI forSENB lpubaml or A51S Gnodt 7t Ilttl (ll~
 16 '

J,

Consider. for example. the Ritchie-Knou-Rice (RKR) (32] model for cleavage
rracture, which S1a1e5 thaI fractLlllllXcurs when a critical fracture stress. Uf. is exceeded
o~cr MctulTllclerislic distance, rc- As an approximation, lei us replace the 1' . 0 rdclllncc
solution with the HRR field in Eq. (3.651):

U• -(u-)
• NU +Qa• C, (3.72)

Setting the stress normal 10 the crack plane equal \0 at aM r. re. and relating the
resulting equation to the Q = 0 limit leads 10

(l,n)

where J() is the <:riticw J value for the Q '" 0 smal l-5(:ale yielding limit. Rearranging gives

0 .74)

whil;h is II pn::dic\iun or !he: J.Q loughnc:S5 locus. EquaLio n (3 .74) predicts thaI loughl\C:SS
is highly sensitive 10 Q, since the quantity is bnactel5 is raised to the n+1 power.
The shape of the I -Q locus depends on the failure mechanism. Equation (3.74) refers
to stress-controlled fracture. such as cleavage in melals. but strain-controlled fracture is
 16. Chapter J

less se nsitive to crack tip constraint. A ,imple parametric study ilIustnllCS the inflllCnce
of the local failure criterion.
Suppose that fracture occurs when a damage parameter, Q), reaches a critical value Tc
allcad orille crac k lip. where Q) is given by

(O<r< l) (3.75)

where am is the mean (hydrostatic) stress and £,1 is the equivale nt plastic strai n. When r
'" I. Eq. (3.15) corresponds 10 stress controlled fracture, similar to the RKR model. The
other limit, Y= 0, COITCSpond5 \0 strai n-<:onlrolLed failure. By varyin, y and applyin g Eq.
(3.75) to the finite element results ofO'Dowd and Shih [29.301. we obtain a family of J-
Q toughness locH, which are plotted in FiS_ 3.39. Tbe i-Q locus for stress...::ontrolkd
fracttlf'e is highly sensitive to constraint, as npectcd. For strai n-controlled f.-.clure. the
locus has a slight negative slope, indicatioSlhallOllgimess durttuts as constrai nt relaxes.
As Q decreases (i.e., becomes more nelative). crack tip streSses relllJl., but the plastic
Slruin fields al a given J value increase with cOf1slIlli nl 1055. Thus as constraint relaxt:5, a
smaller Ie is ~quirt:d for faill1l'e for a pu~ly slrain-con trollcd mechanism. TIie p~djcted
I e is nearly conSlan t for r'" 0.5. Microvoid growth in metals 15 governed by a
combilUltion of plastic slain and hydrostatic &treSS (see Chapter 6). Consequently, critical
1 values for initiation of ductile crack s rowth are ~ lative1y inse nsitive to geometry, as
Fig. 3.30 indicates.

2.' ~ ·(::re . L"

,
J eril 2
J.
15

,
,.,
, -1.5 ., -,,., ,
Q
n GVRE J.Jt Etl'td 01 noU .. R mur!on 011 tile J.Q IonIf I)J ~ FncI .. R 10 . ... med to _ w~ ... <II
R..,b... mtlal val .... '. 'pedfk
dillIIlIft fnllll tile cnet tip.
Elllstic-Pinslic FmclUrr: Mn:hooia '69

According 10 Fig. 3.3 1, the slope of the J resistance curve is influenced by specimen
configuration. Howcver, the SiTeSS and strain fields ahead of a growing crac k an: different
from the Slationary crack casc [16.17] , and I-Q theory is nOI applicable 10 a growing
~,

3.'.3 SCllliog Model ror C leavllge Fracture

8 0th the J.Q and TSiTeSS methodologies an: based on continuum theory. As staled above.
these approaches charnctcrize the crnck lip fields but they cannot predict the effect of these
fields on a materia]" s fraclure resistan.ce. A mieromcchanical failure eriterion must be
introduced 10 relate crack tip fields to fracture toughness. The RKR model provi des a
simple means for such predictions. Anderson and Dodds [34-36] have developed a
somewhat more sophisticated model for cleavage, whieh is described below.

Failure Crirajon
Cleavage initiation usually involves a local Griffi th instability of a microcrack
which forms from a microstructural fealure soch as a carbide or inclusion. The Griffith
energy balance is satisfied when a critical stress is reached in the vici nity of the
mieroerack. The size and location of the eritieal mierostructural feature dictate the fracture
toughness; thus cleavage toughness is subjcctto considerable scalter. See Chapter 5 for a
more detailed description of the rnicromechanisms of cleavage fracture.
The Griffith instability eriterion implies fracture al a eritieal nannal stress ncar the
tip of the crack; Ihe statistical sampling nature of cleavage initiation (i.e., the probabilily
of finding a critical microstructural feature near the crack tip) suggests that the volume of
the process zone is also important. Thus lhe probability of cleavage fracture in a cracked
specimen can be expressed in the following general fann:

0.16)

where F is the fai lure probabili ty. (IJ is lhe maximum principle stress at a point. and
V(rlJ) is the cum ulative volume sampled where the principal stress is:!: (I/. For a
specimen subjected to plane strain conditions, V = BA, where B is the specimen Lhickncss
and A is cumulative area on the ~-y plane.

Tht l.o Pammr1rr

For small scale yielding, dimensional analysis shows that the principal stress ahead
of the crack lip can be written as

(3.11)

Equalion (3.11) implies that the crac k lip stress fields depend only on I. When I domi-
nance is lost, there is a relaxation in triaxiality; the principal .trc511 at II. fixed r and a i.
less than the small scale yielding value.
 170

Squalion (3.77) can be inverted 10 solve ror the radius correspond,ne to a , iven
stress and Mgle:

(3.18)

Solvi ng for the ~a inside a spe!;ilic principal Sire" contour gives

(1.79)

(3.80)

Thus for. given sU"Css, the area Kales with J2 in the case d small scale yielding. Under
large scale yieldi n, CQIIditiolU, the test specimen or strue,,", n:pcriences a loss in con-
Slrainl, and the area inside a given principal stress C(lnlour (~I a givcn J value) is less than
predicted rrom 5malltcale yieLd,ns,

(3.8 1)

wllere tP is a constrai nt factor that is S I. LeI us denne an cffeclive J in large scale

yidding that relates the area inside the pri ncipal s\rc.ss contour to the iIIlall scale yieldin,
~,

(3.82)

where J o is the effecti ve small scale yielding J; i.e., the value of J thai would result in the
area A(U/1uo) if the structure were large relative 10 the plastic zone, and T = Q = O.
llIerefore, the ratio of the applied J 10 the dYective J is ,ive~ by

(3.83)

1lle small 5(:ale yielding J Vlluc (lo) can be viewed as lie qfcctive d,Mng force fo,
cltaWlgt. wtlile J is the appclffntdriving rorce.
Ekutic-PlDstic Fracture Mechanics 171

The J/Je ratio Quantifies the size dependence of cleavage fracture toughness.
Consider. for example. a finite size test specimen that fails at Jc '" 200 kPa m. If the lIJe
ratio were 2.0 in this case, a very large specimen made from the same material would fail
at lc '" 100 kPa m. An equivalent tOughness ratio in terms of crack tip opening dis-
placement (CI'OD) can also be defined.

Tbu,-Dimen.rjongJ FJ!«u
The constraint model described above considers only stressed areas in front of the
crack tip. This model is incomplete, because it is the volume of material sampled ahead
o f the crack tip that controls cleavage fracture. The stressed volume obviously scales
with s pec imen thickness (or crack front length in the more general case). Moreover, the
stressed volume is a function of the constraint parallel 10 the crack front; higher constraint
results in a larger volume, as is the case for in-plane constraint.
One way to !Jeal three-dimensional c.onstraint effects is to define an effective
thi ckness based on an equivalent two-dimensional case. Consider a three-dimensional
specimen that is loaded to a given J value. If we choose a principal stress value and
construct contours at two-dimensional slices on the x-y plane. the area inside of these
contours will vary along the crack front because the center of the specimen is more highly
constrained than the free surface. as Fig. 3.40 ill ustrates 1be vol ume can be obtained by
summing the areas in these two-dimensional contours. This volume can then be related
to an equivalent 2-D specimen loaded to the same J value:

812
V=2 jA(GI.,)d,=B'ffA,,(G,) (3.84)
o
where A. c is the area inside the C1J contour on the center plane of the 3-D specimen and
Beffis the effective thickness.
1he effective thickness influences the cleavage driving foree through a sample vol-
ume effect: longer crack fronts have a higher probability of cleavage fracture because more
vo lume is sampled along the crack fronl. This effect can be characterized by a three-
parameter Weibull distribution (See Ch. S) :

(3.gS)

Where 8 is the thickness (or crack front length), Bo is a reference thickness, Kinin is the
threshold toughness, and 8K is the 63rd percentile toughness when B = 8 0 ,
Cons ider two samples with effective crack front lengths 8 J and 82. If a value of
KJC(I) is measured for Specimen 1. the expected toughness for Specimen 2 can be in-
ferred from Eq. (10) by equating failure probabilities:
 172 Chapter J

i----'Bd/ 2 - - -+l"'1
I
FIGURE 3AO sm-.tk lI.IooI...... tJooo.,
o 812 1M dflOCllYC ~ 1Jt/!.
z

(3.86)

Equation (3.86) is a statistical thickness adjustment that can be used \0 relate two sets of
data with different thicknesses.

Applicaliqo q(!'" MOOd

As with !he i-Q appro.ch, implemcnlation of the scaling model requires detai led
clastic-plastic finite element analysis of !he configuntion of ;nlere", Prin<:i~J stress
C(lnIOUfli must be constructed and the areas compared with the T = 0 reference ",Jution
otMained from. modified boundary llyer analysis. 'The effective driving force, 1(10 is then
plotted against the applied J, as Figure 3.4 1 schematical ly illustrates. Allow deformation
levels, the 1 0 .1 curves follow the 1: 1 line, but deviate from the line wilh further
defonnation. When J - ' 0' the crack lip SITeSS fields are close to the Q. 0 limit, and
fractu re toughness is nOI significantly innucnccd by specimen boundllTics. AI high
deformat ion leve ls, J> 10 , and fracture toughness is anificially elevated by oonstraint
loss. Constraint loss occurs more rapidl)' in specimens with shallow crac ks, as Fig. 3.28
illustrates. A specimen with a/W = 0.15 would lend to fai l al a higher lc value than a
specimen with a/W = OS. Given the 10-1 curve, however, the lc values for both
Fia:.
spec imens eaR be: COITC(:tcd to 100 as 3.41 illustrales.
Figure 3.42 is a nondimcnsional plot of 10 at the midplane versus the Ivetlile 1
lhl'Ough the thickness of SENB specimens with various W/B ratios (36) . 1llese curves
were inferred fcom a 3-D elastic-plastic anal),sis. 1be correspondi1\8 curve from I 2-D
plane strai n anal)'sis is shown for comparison. Note that for WIB .. I and 2. 10 It the
midplane lies well above the plane strain curve. For WIB = 4. 10 al the midplane follows
the plane strain curve initially, but falls below the plane strain results at high deformation
levels. The three-dimensional nature of the plastic defonnalion apparentl)' results in a
 173

hiah level of constraint a' the midplane when the uncracted ligamenl length is :s: the
specimen thicwu.
Figure 3.43 is a plot of effective thickness, Bell. as a function of deformation. The
trends in this plO( are consiSlent with Fig. 3.42: namely. the constraint inc re~s with
decreasing W18. Noee thaI all three curves reach a plateau. Recall that Beffis defined in
such a way as 10 be • measure of the through-thickness relaxation of constra.inl, relative
10 the in-plane constraint at the midplane. Allow deformation levels there is negligible
relation al the midplane and J ... In. but through-thickness conslraint retation occurs,
resulting in a fallina BellS ratio. At high deformation Icyels, the BeflB ratio is
essentially conSlant, indi"ling that the constraint relaxation is proportional in three
dimensions. Filurcs 3.44 and 3.4S show data thai has been corrected willi the scaling
model.

J.

F1Gl]REJAI ScJM. ••1r illuoc .... tloa.l

tIoo ........ modeL " .,..,..... wlll• .tIt'
_ '.15 will fall.l. ~"",r J ........hlIIo
I • opcctm.., wlllllllW. o.s, bul botb J.
y"~" c oo be <on oe.<d do .. a '0 U••
1.1.(1) ..... n'l1Ico1 J .... Iue.

3.6.4 Llmllalions of Two·Panamtltr FnClure MrcbanlCl

'The T stress approach. J.Q ih«Jry. and the clea ... age scal in g model are examples of two-
parameter fracture theories. where a sc:oond quantity (e.,., T. Q or 10 ) has been introduced
to characterize the crack tip en ... ironmenl. Thus lhesc approlChes assume that the crack
tip fields contain two degJft$ of freedom. When lingle-parameter fracture mechanics is
..... id. the a-ack tip fields have only ODe decree of freedom. In such cases. any ODe of
several parameten (e., ., J, K, or croO) will suffice to charac terize the crac:k tip
conditiom , provided the parameter can be defined unambisuously; K is a suit.able
characterizing only when an clastic singularity lone exislS ahead o f the crack ti p8.
Similarly, the choice of I second parameter in the cue of two-parameter theory is mostly
arbitrary, bul the T stress has no physical meaning under large-scale yieldin, conditions.
Just as plastic now invalidates single-parameter fracture mechlnics in many
a;eometries. two-parameter theories eventually break down with extensive deformalion. If
we look .1 the slruclu.., nr ,he cnoo::k lip fields in tnc plastic wne, we can ev.luate the
range of validity of both single- and two-parameter methodologies.
174 Clwpltr 3

SEND SPECIMENS
n . 10
a!W . 0.5 W/B .. 1
0.025 /
/

0.02 WIB .. 2

o·
.e 0.01.5
~
• 2·0 Pbn. Stralll

0.01
Wf8 .. 4

0.005

o
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 o.os
J AVGIb a•

,
SENB SPECIMENS
n . l0
aIW _ O.S
0.8

., 0.'
WIB .. 1

.,
-~•
0.'
W/B .. 2

0.2
\..." W/8 .. 4

o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 o.os

J AVCIb a,
ncURE lAJ EIIt<tI.. Iblcknao ror ckeply -.,I>ed SENB . pedao ....
Elmtic-Plastic Frocturt M« hanic$ 175

0.'
A 36 STEEL
B = W. 31.8 rrun •
• E>:.pmmtnlol Dolo ••
+ COlT«I~ for Corululnl
•
•
1·16'el I' '' 'el_
l
0.1
I~
o
t*
•* .+ •..
a/W . O.S IfW.O.S
a/W = US a/W .0.15

nGURE JA4 haduR I"""' ..... dati ror • mUd 01 ..1, COI'TOdN ror collOlnint 1005134,371.

500

A 515 Grade 70 StHI Sp.dm.n Thiel",,",

(Kirk. tt al~ 19911 and Width:
400
-0- 50 mm
6
• - . · lS mm
:., 300
+ 10 DIm

~
t
200

-
0
0
100
+
+
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.' 0.' 0.'
./W
 '76

A number of invcstigalDrl (39-43] have perfonned asymptotic analyses of the crack

lip field.'! for dUlie-plastic materials. These analyses utiliu deformation plaslicity and
small-strain (heOf)' . In the case of plane Itrain, these analyses assume incompussible
strain. Consequently, asymptotic analyses are not valid close to the crack tip (in the larllc
strai n zone) nor re mote from the crac k ti p. where elastic stn.i os are a signilicant frael ion
of the total strai n. Despite these li mitalions, asymptotic analys is provides ins igbts inlo
the r.mgc of validity ofboth sinale- and Iwo-panIDeter fracl~ theories.
In the case of. plane strain crack in I power-law hardenioS material, asympl()()c
analysis Icads to the following power series:

(3.87)

The CltponenlS. 't.

and the angular functions for each term in the series can be determ ined
from the asymptotic analysis. The amplitudes for the flTSl five tenns are as follows:
,
(/.) .~ I
A,
(urupecifi~d)
A,
A, = ~
A,
A, ( lUU~cifitd)

A, ~
A, '
The two unspecified coefficients. A2 and A4. are governed by the far-field boundary
conditions. The first five terms of the series have three degrees of freedom. where J, A:z
and A4 are independen t paramcters. For low and modernte s!rain harde ning male rials,
Crane [431 showed that a fourth independent parameter does nOi appear in the series fot
many terms. Fot uample. when n = 10. the fourth independent coefficient appears in
approximately the 1000h term. Thus for all practical purposes. the crack tip stress field
inside the plastic lOne has three degrees of freedom.
Since two-paramete r theories assume two degrees of freedom. they cannot be
rigo rously correct in general. There are. however, situations where two- parameter
approaches provide a good engineering approximation.
Consider the modified boundary layer model in Fig. 3.32. Since the boundary
condi tions have only two dcgrceJ of freedom (K and n.
the rc:sulti ng stresses and strains
inside the plastic tone must be two-parameter fields. Thul there must be a umque
rc:lalionship between A2 and A4 in this ca.sc:. Thai is.

A, = A,(A,) (3.88)
Elastic-Plastic Fractun M~hanit:s 177

Two-parameter theory is approximately valid for other geometries to the extent that
the crack tip fields obey Eq. (3.88). Figure 3.46 schematically illustrates the A 2-A4
re lationship. This relationship can be established by vary ing the boundary conditions on
the modified boundary layer model. When a given cracked geometry is loaded, Az and A4
in itially will evolve in accordance with Eq. (3.88) be<:ause the crack tip conditi olls in the
geometry of interest can be represented by the modified boundary layer model when the
plastic zone is re latively small. Under large-scale yielding conditions, however, the A2-
A4 relationship may deviate from the modifi ed boundary layer solution, in which case
two-parameter thcory is no longer valid.

r.o
nnltt CeoOH:try
F1GlJIlE 3.46 Scllemltk nlallonshlp
between the two Independent ImpU_
tud.,. ... 'M lIymptotk j>OWfl' ... rI.,..

Llyef Mocitl

A,

Figure 3.47 is a sc hematic three-dimensional plot of J, A2 and A4. Single-parameter

fracture m«:hanics can be represented by a venicalline, since Az and A4 must be constant
in this case. Two-parameter theory, where Eq. (3.88) applies, can be represen ted by a
surface in th is three-dimensional space. 1be loading path for a cracked body in itially
follows the venical single- parameter line. When it deviates from thi s line, it may remain
in the two-parameter surface for a time before diverging from the surface.
The loading path in J-A2-A4 space depends on gwmetry [43J. Low constrai nt
confi gurations like the center cracked panel and shallow notched bend specimens diverge
from single-parameter theory almost immediately, but follow Eq. (3.88) to fairly high
deform ation levels. Deeply notched bend specimens maintain high constraint to rel atively
high J values, but they do not follow Eq. (3.88) when constraint loss eventually occurs.
Thus low--constraint geometries should be treated with two-parameter theory, and high
constraint geometries can be treated with single-parameter theory in many cases. When
high constrai nt geometries violate the single- parameter assumption, however, two-
parame ter theory is of little value.
17. Chapttr 3

I
I
/
FIGURE 3 •• ' Sla,le - ."d 'wo-
parameter _ _ plio.. In ler.... 01 the
Ibrff h' dcpendeD' nfl.bla I.. tbe
LoodIoo .... elutk-plutk c u~ .. Up ntld. Th
1000iD, path InJtlilly IIQ In lite , ......
parameter au rfllCe .Dd tIICD d1n~
_ IDdIcooIed by Uw daIItd ....

REJo'EREN C ES
I. Wells, A.A.. "Unstable Crack Propagation in Metals: Cleavage and Fast Fract ure."
PrO<:eedi"~1 of , It, c....cI: Pr'(}p<llalion Sympoliwn. Vol . 1. Paper 84. Cranfield. UK.
1961 .
2. Irwin, O.R.. ~Plutic Zone: Near I Crack and Fm:nm: Tooghneu.~ Sa,amon Rueard
COIIftnnct Procudi"'lJ, Vol. 4, 1961.

). Burdekin. F.M. and SIOIlc, D.E.W" 'i1Ie Crack Opening Disph,,;cmenl Approach to
Fracture Mechanics in Yieldina Malmals.~ Joarrwl of Strain Ana/Jlil, Vol. I, 1966,
pp. 145-153.

4. Rice, J .R... A Path Indepe ndent Integral and the Ap prm:i rn atc Analys is of Strain
Conce ntrat io n by Notches and Cracks." Journal 0/ Applied Mechan ics. Vol. 35. 1968,
pp. 379-386.

S. BS S762: 1979, "Methods for Crack Openi ns Displaecmem (COD) Tesli nS." Britbh
Standards Institution, London, 1979.

6. E 1290-S9 "Standard Tcst Method for Crack Tip Openinl Displacement Tesling.~
American Society for Te$ting and Maltria!$, Philadelphia. 1989.

7. HulChiD$OII., J. W.• "Singul ar Behavior aI !he End of a Tensile Crack TIp in I Hardening
Mal. rial. Je .......! of 1M M.ehtMic. _J Ploy.ie. ef SDJith, Vol. 16. 1968. 1'1' Il.J I .
H

B, Rice, J.R. and Rosengren, O.F.. "Plane Su.in Deformation near I Crack Ti p in I Power·
Law Hardening Male na! . JOU'fllI/ of /111 Mtchmricl o nd PhysiCl of Solids, Vol. 16.
I%S. pp. 1. 12.
£laJtic-P/astic Fractun Mechanics 17'
II. McMct:kinll;, R.M. and Parks. D.M .. "00 Criceria for J_Dominance Qf Cra<:k Tip Fields
in Large-Scale Yieldilli ." ASTM STP 668, American Society fllf Testing and Macerials.
Philadelphia. 1979. PI'. 175-194.

10. Read. D.T .. "Applied Hntegral in HYl lO Tensile Panels and ImplicatiQRS fQr Fieneil
for Service Assessrnen!. ~ Rep<:>rt NBSIR 82- 1670. National Buru.u of Standards,
Boolder, CO. 1982.

II. Begley. J. A. and Landes. J.D .. "'The J·lntegrallJ a Fraccure Cri!Crion .~ ASTh![ STP SI4,
American Society for Testing and MaterialS. Philadelphia, 1972, pp. 1·20.

12. Landes. J.D. and Begley. I.A .• "The: Effea of Specimen Geornecry on lie ." ASTM STP
51 4. American Sociccy for Testing and Malerials. Philadelphia. 1972. pp. 24-29.

13. Rice. J.R., Paris. P.C.. and Menle. J.G., "Some Funhcr Results Qf J-Imegral Analysis
M
and Eslimate• . ASTM STP S36. American Sociely of Tesling and Malerials,
Philadelphia, 1973, pp. 231-245.

14. Shih. C.F. "Rel ation.hlp belween the J_Integral and the Cnd Opening Displa<:ernent
fllf Stationary and Extending CrackS.M Jourtl(Jl of lhe Mtcloonicl oM Physic. of Solids.
Vol. 29. 1981. pp. 3OS-326.

15. R ice, J.R., Drull;an. W.J ., and Sllam. T. · L.. "EIUlic.Plutic Analysis of Growing
Cracks." ASTM STP 700, American SIlC;ccy of Testing and Material •• Philadelphi •.
J980. pp. 189-221.

16. Dodds. R.H. Jr. and Tang. M.• "Numerical Techniques to Model Ductile Crack Growth in
Fracture Test Specimcns. M Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 46, 1993. pp. 253-
246 .

17. Dodds. R.H. Jr .. Tan8. M.. and Anderson. T.L. "Effeccs of Prior Ductile Tearing on
Cleavage F.acture TQughnen in Ihe Transition Region ." Second SJmpo.j~m on
COIlSlroil1l Effecrs in FrrxtUft. Amf:rkan Sociay of Testiug iUld Matc:riaJ.s, Philadc:lpma,
(in presl).

18. McClinlock, F.A., ~PlaslicilJ Aspoets of Fracture:' Froct~n: An t4.dw:utctd T,tatiu,

Vol. 3, Academic Press. New York. 1971. PI'. 47-22S.

I II. A nderson. T.L., "Ou"ile and Briule Fracture Analysis of Surface Flaws Uling creD."
Expe,jmenral Mccloonics. lune 1988. pp. 18g·1113.

20. Kirk , M.T .. Koppcnhoefer, K.C. . and Sbih, C.F. , ~Effect of ConnnUnl on Specimen
DimeM;ons Needed 10 Obtain Struclurally Relevlnl Tooghneu Measures." Consrrai~t
E/ltCIS in FI"(JC1~'t, ASTM STP 117l , American Society fQ. Teslin g and Materials,
Philadelphia. 1993. pp. 79-103.

21 Joyce. I.A. and Link, R.E., Effect of Conslmnt on Upper Shelf Frac:mre Tooghness.~
Frocl~U Mcchania: 26th Vol....... ASTM STP IlS6, American Sodccy for Teslilli and
Materials. Phillidelphia, (i n preu).

n . Towen, O. L. and Garwood, S.1.. " Influence of Crack Depth on Resistance CUrves for
Three·Poin! Bend Specimens in HY 130." AS'IM STP 90S American Society for Testing
and Materia!$, Phi ladelphia, 1986. pp. 4S4-484.
 180 Chapter3

23 . Williams. M.L, ''On !be Streu Distribution It the Base of I Stationary Crack.~ Jo"rfUll
01 AppUfil MedlDllicl, Vol. 24. 19S7. pp. 109-114.

24. Bilby. B.A .• Cardcw. G.E ., Goldthorpe, M.R .• and Howard. I.C.• ~A Finite Element
Investigation of the Effecu of Specimen Geomtlry on the F"~lds of Stress and Stlll;n at
tile TIps of Stationary C ractl." Sill fJftCII ill Frac/ure, Insti tute of McchaniCii
EnJincers, London. 1986, pp. 37-46.
2!i . Betegon. C. and Hancock. J.W.• '"Two Parameter Characteriution of Elastic· P\ulie
Crack TIp Fields.~ JOIOmol of Applied Mtclkulicl. Vol. !iI. 1991. pp. 104-110.

26 . Kirk. M.T., Dodds, R.H ., Jr., Ind Anderson, T .l .• "Approxlmate Techniques for
Predi cting Size Effects o n CIClvlgC FraclU~ Tooghncn." Frac/ure M«honie.: 24/h
Volume • ....STM STP 1207. American Society fOf TCSlinz and Materials. Philadelphia.
(In press).

27. Hancock. J.W., Reuler. W.G., and Pa/tl. D.M.• ~Constlllint and Toughneu
Parameterized by T." Cmulmim EJ!rc/s in Fmc/14ft. ASTM STP 1171, American Society
fOf Testing and Materials. Philadelphia. 1993. pp. 21-40.

28 . Sumpter. J.D.G .. HAn Experimental inVtSli,ltion of the T StreSS ApprOlc h."

COlIS/min/ Effu /. in Frot:/"rc, ASTM S1l' 117 1. American Society for Testin, and
Materials. Philadelphia, 1993. pp. 492-!i02.

29 . O'Oo wd. N.P. and Shih. C. P., " Family of Crw:k-T ip Fiel ds Characterized by a
Trlu.iality Parameter-I. Structure of Fields." Jo"rnaJ of /M Mu /to"ic. and Phy,ic. of
Solids. Vol . 39. 1991. pp. 898-IOU.

30. ''O' Oowd, N.P. and Shih, C.F .• " Family of Crw:k-Ti p Fields Characterized by •
Tnu.tality Parameter- II. Frlol;tu~ Applications." Joufnt;>.1 01 1M MuMnic. tJltd Physic.
of Solids. Vol . 40, 1992. pp. 939-963.

31 . Shih. C.F.. O' Oowd , N.P •• and Kirk , M.T .• "A Frameworic for Quantifying Crack TIp
Con$lraint." COIIS/roill/ £1Iu/s ill FN1IC/Url , ASTM sn> 1l7!. American SOciety for
TeWng and MaterialS. Philadclphil, 1993, pp. 2-20.

32. Ritchie. R.O .. KnOlt, J.F. , and Rice, I.R. ''On tile RelationShip bet ween Critkal Tensile
Stress and Fractu~ Touahntu in Mild Steel." J04lrntJI of r~ Mu /taJtics wtd Phy/in 01
Solid" VoL 2 1, 1973. pp. 39S-4 10.

33 . Anderson. T .L. , V.... parthy, N.M.R .. and Dodds. R.H. Jr .. "Pmlictions of Specimen
Si" Dependence on Fracture Too,bness for Cluvaae and Ducti le Te;oring." Cons/rt;>.iI,r
egeclI ill Fr(lClurc. ASTM S1l' 1171. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 4 73 -491.

34 . Anderwn. T .t . and Dodds. R.H .• Jr .• ~Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture

Toughneu Tel tin, in the Ductile- Brinle Tranli tion Rcgion.~ Jo"rrwJ of Tes/i" , t;>.nd
EV(l/ualioll, VoL 19. 1991. pp. 123· 134.

n . Dodds, R.H. Jr .• ~rson T.L and Kirk. M.T .. MA Framework to Correlate aIW Effeas
on Elastlc·Plastlc Frac:tun!: T(JO.I,Imcs.s (l cl.-III/UM/io1UlJ JOIOrntJI of Frac/Mrt, Vol. 48.
1991. pp. 1-22.
 £imric-Plaslic Frocllln M«hOllics lSI

3 6. Anderson. T.L. and Dodds. R.H.• Jr .• ~An E.lpcri~ntal and Numerical Investigation of
Specimen Size Requ irements for OeaYage Fracture TOIIgllne5l. NUREGlCR-6272.
R

Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion, Wasllillllon DC, (i n prell).

37. Sorem, W.A .. "'The Effect of Specimen Size and Crack l>ep!h on the Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Toughness of a Low-Strength High-Strain Hardening Steel." Ph.D.
Dissertation. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, May 1989.

38. Andel1Ol1, T.L., Stien-Ura, D.I.A .. and Dodds. R.H. Ir .• ~A Theoretical Framework for
Addressilll Fracture in the Ductile-Briule TrlMilion Region." Frac',,~ M«lIanicl: 24,h
Vollu"e, ASTM STP 1207. American Society for TeMilll and Materials. Philldelphia.
(in press).

)9 . Li, W.C. and Wang, T.C .• "Higller-Order Asymptotic Field of Tensile Pl ane Strain
Nnnlinear Crack Problems." Seien/ill. SinicD (Serin A. ). Vnl. 29. 1986. pp. 941 ·9.5S .

..to. Sharma, S.M. and Aravas, N., - Determinatiun uf Higher-Order Terms in Asymptutic
Elastuplastic Crack Tip Solutiuns." JOlirnal of ttle Mechanics and Physics nf Solid"
Vol. 39, 1991. pp. 1043·1072.

4\ . YanS, S., Ch!lQ, Y.I, and Suttnn, M.A., "Hlgller Order Asympl()(ic Craek Tip Fields In I
Power Law Hardening Material." Engineen'ng FracfUre MechMlcl, Vnl. 4S. 1993. pp. 1-
20 .

..t2 . Xia. L., Wang. T.C .• and Shi h. C.F.. "Higher Order Analysis uf Crack-Tip Field$ in
Elastic·Plastic Power·Law Hardening Materills." J,,,,"uJ of Ihe M«lIanic:s and Pltysics
of SolidJ. Vol. 41 . 1993. pp. 66S·687 .

..t3 . Crane , D.L. , "Defnrmatlnn Limits nn Two- Parameter Fracture Mechanics in Terms of
Higher Order Aiymplnticl." Ph.D . Dinertalinn, Teus AolM Universi lY. CoUeie
Slllion, TX, December 1994.

~" . WCSleTgaard. H.M., "Bearing Pressures and Cracks." Journal of Applied MtdIDn ;cl.
Vol. 6. 1939. pp. 49-33.

4S . Bilby. B.A .• Cnurell, A. H., and Swindon, K. H.• '"'The Spread uf Plastic Yield from a
Notch: ' PrtXudingJ. Royol Socitry 0/ London, Vol. A·272. 196]. pp. 104-314.

",6. Smilh. E.. "'Tht: Spread of Plasticily from a Crw:k: an Appnw:ll Based. on the Solulion of
• Pai r nf Dual Integral Equalions." CEG B RC5earch Laboratories. Lab. Nute Nu.
RD1UM31/62, July 1962.

~ 7. Rice. J.R. and Traeey, D.M.• Journal of Iht Medwnic, and PhYJicJ of Solid,. Vol. 17.
1969. pp. 201-217.

"8. Budiansty. B. '<A Reaucumc:nt of Deformllion Theoriel nf Pllstici ty." )o"rnal of

A.pplied Mecltanicl. Vul. 81. 19.59. pp. 2.59-264.
 APPENDIX 3: MATHEMATICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF ELASTiC-PLASTIC
FRACTURE MECHANICS
(&Ittrtd RtJ"IUJ

"3.1 DETERMINING CTOD FROM THE STRlP YIELD MODEL

Burdekin and Slone [3) applied the Westergaard [44] compte" stress function approach \0
the strip yield model. They derived an upression for crOD by superimposing a stress
funetion for closure forees on the crac k faces in the strip yield zone. ~ ir result was
similar to previous analyses based on the strip yield model performed by Bilby. CI al. [45J
and Smith [46).
Recall from Appendix 2.3 !blithe WeSlt'1aard approach expresses the i n-plane
stresses <i n a limited number of cases) in lennI orl:

a",=ReZ -y Irn Z' (AJ. la)

u"= ReZ+ylmZ' (A3.tb)

T., =-yReZ' (Alle)

where Z is an analytic function of thc complex. variable l = ) l + iy. a nd the prime dellOle5
• first derivative with respect to %. By invoking the equations of clastici ly for thc plane
problem. it can be shown that the displacement in the y directioo is as follows :

I -
", - -[2 1m 2 - y(1 + v)ReZ) for plane stress (A3.2a)
E

I ,-
Uy = -[2(1- V"") 1m Z - y(J + v)Re Z] for plane strain (AJ.2b)
E

where Z is tnc
integral or Z with respcctto~. as discussed in Appendi~ 2. For a through
crack of length 20} in an infini te plale under biniallcnsilc s~ss a, tbe Wcstergaard
function is given by

(AU)

183
18' Ap~ndi:x J

w~ the origin is defined at the crack center.

TIle SU'e$$ function for. pair of 5plitting fortes, P, at xx within a crack of length 2
61 ($ee Fig. 2.29) is liven by

(AlA)

For a uniform compressive stress '" ars along the tIE l!: swface between a and OJ (Fig.
A3.1), the Westergaard stress functiOll is obtained by substituting P = - ars tit into Eq .
(Al.4) and inlegratinl:

., 2 2 2
Z:::-J C1YS za l-X dx
2 2 2 2
a 1C Z -al (X -01)

(AB)

llIe suess functions of Eqs. (AJ.3) and (M.5) can be superimposed, I't'sultin& in the strip
yield solution for lhe Ihrough crack. Recall from Section 2.8.2 thaI the sitt of the strip
yield zone was chosen so thai the stresses al the tip would be finite . Thus

aJ
•
k __ =co {~a
- )
O'YS
(AU)

When Eq. (Al.6) is SUMtituted inlO Eq. (AJ.5) and Eq. (AJ.3) is superimposed, the first
tenn in Eq. (AB) cancel wim Eq. (Al.3). which leads to

I· h,

I "'"
Y u,
, r - -
h ~I
Milthematicill Foundatio>lS of EPFM 185

(Al.7)

Integrating Eq. (A3.7) gives

- 20"yS
Z= [ ZCO] -aW:21 (Al.8)

"
1-(;-)'
_I -I
k'

W2=eot
-1
f§f' Z -al
I-k
2

On the crack plan e, y '" 0 and the displacement in the y direction (Eq. (Al.2))
milX'es 10

(A3.9)

fDr plane stress. Solving for the imaginary pan of Eq. (A3.8) gives

Uy = 4ars [aeo th- I[-1

x£ al
fgl-"]
J-k
2 -zeot "]l
._I[k-z fgl-
l-k
2

for WS OJ . Setting ~ '" Il leads to

6= 2u = 80"YSa
Y TeE
In(~)
k
(AJ. IO)

...·ruch is idenlical 10 Eq. (3.5).

Recall the J-CTOD relationship (Eq. (3.44» derived from the strip yield model. Let
liS define an effecti ve stress intensity for elasti(:-plastic conditions in terms of the J
IlIlegnU:
18, Ap~ruJi.x J

(A). I I)

Combining Eqs. (3.44) (Al. IO) and (AJ. II) ,ives

Kef! = C1ys..J1rll[~lnsec( 20'YS

Ir
K" )]'" (AJ.12)

which is the strip yield plastic zone correction given in Eq. (2.76) and ploued in Fig.
2.3!. Thus the stri p yield correction to K/ is equivalent (0 II i-based approach for II
nonhankning malCrial in plane streu.

A3.1 THE J CONTOUR INTEGRAL

Rice [4] pruen~ II mathematical proof ofthc path independence of the J contour inlcgntl.
He began by evaluating J along I closed conl()llr. ,.. (Fig Al.2);

J. = f (WdY - T j au; dS) (Al. IJ)

r. ax
where the various lenns in this expression are defined in Section 3.2.2. Rice then
invoked the divergence theorem to convert Eq. (Al.ll) into an area integral:

A" FlGUIlE Al.l CIotMI toDt""r, ro,

ia.~1OIW.
MaThematical Foundalions of EPFM 187

(A3.14)

where A * is Ihe area enclosed by r-, By invoking the definition of strain energy density
given by Eq. (120), we can evaluate the first term in square brackets in Eq. (A3.14):

(A3.IS)

Note that Eq. (A3.IS) applies only when w exhibits the properties of an elastic potential.
Applying the strain-displacement relationship (for small strains) to Eq. (AJ.IS) gives

(A3.16)

since Gij = OJ'j. Invoking the equilibrium condition:

(AJ.17)

leads to

(AJ.IS)

which is identical to the second term in square bracket in Eq. (A3.l4). Thus the integrand
in Eq. (AJ.14) vanishes and J "" 0 for any closed contour.
Consider now two arbitrary contours, rJ and r2 around a crack ti p. as illustrated in
Fig. A3.3. If rj and r2 are con~cted by segments along the crack face (r3 and r4 ), a
closed contoUI is formed. 1be total J along the closed contoUI is equal to the sum of
contributions from each segment:

(A3.l9)
'88 A.ppmduJ

FlCURE Al.) T .. o .. bh ••• ,

tt<l1OUr&, rJ .... rl ......"" III< lip '"
• ct'Kk. W .... UofM ~""n an
....lICt1ed ., rJ _ r4 • • ~_
.... _. II r....... WIlle I"" J" ..

On the crack f.ce, Ti" dy,. O. ThuI,1J" J4 " 0 and J J •• 12. 1'IIe~fore. IllY arbitrary
(counter-clockwiu) path arollnd I crack will yield the same value of J ; J iJ pDfh-
indL~Nknt.

A3.3 J AS A NONLINEAR ELASTIC ENERGY RELEASE RATE

Consider I two-dimensional cracked body bwnded by the curve r (Fi,. A3.4). lei A'
denote the lIRl of the body. 1lIc coordinate axil il attached to the crac k tip. Under
quasiltatic conditioos and in the absence of body forces. the potential cnerlY II given by

n= 1 wdA - 1 T;U;ds (AJ.20)

" r
where I is the portion of the contour on which trlCtions are clefined. LeI uS now
consider the chan&e in po!ential enuay resulting from • virtual cxtcnJ.ion ofthecnlCk:

(A3.21)

The line intcifition in Eq. (A3.2 1) can be performed o~r the entire con tour, r,
because:
d.. jldtJ _ 0 o~r the region where displaumu.ts arc: specified; ai$(), dT;/dD,. 0 over the
regloa the uactioll5 arc: speciricd. When the crack &rows, the coon1illlle axil moves. Thll5
• deriYUive with rapcct w crack length CIIII be written 15
}.fa/hematical FaundatWns of EPFM '89

doClxooo
-=-
da oa +- - =---
CIa ax oa ax
(A3.22)

§ince ihliJu '" _I. Applying this result to Sq. (A3 .21) gives

dTI = I (aw_aw I .. _I TI(<l'''-- a'i lA,

da A' oa axr r oa oxf'
(A3.23)

By applying the same assumptions as in Eqs. (A3.J5) and (A3.16), we obtain:

(A3.24)

inyoking the principle of vinual work gives

(A3 .25)

•
x
190 Appendix 3

which cancels with one of the terms in the line integral in Eq. (A3.23), re sulting in the
following:

<ill' "
- au· - J-dA
JT ·:::.=Lds Ow (A3.26)
da r lax A,ax

Applying the divergence theorem and mUltiplying bolh sides by -I leads 10

--::: au.}s
<ill J( wnx - Tj:::.=L
da r ax

= au. )
J(wdy - T ::..::l..ds
j (A3.26)
r ax
since fiX ds = dy. 'Therefore, the J contour integral is equal to the energy re lease rate for a
linear or nonlinear elastic material undec quasistatic conditions.

A3.4 THE HRR SINGULARITY

Hutchill50n 17] and Rice and Rosengren [8] independently evaluated the character of crack
tip stress fields in the case of power-law hardening materials. Hutchin son evaluated both
plane stress and plane strain. while Rite and Rosen gren considered only plane strain
conditions. Both anicles, which were published in the same issue of the JounuJl of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, argued that stress times strain vanes as Ilr near the
crack tip, although only Hutchinson was able to provide a mathematical proof o f this
relationship.
The Hutchinson analysis is o utlined be low. Some of the details arc omitted for
brevity. We focus instead on his overall approach and the ramifications of this analysis.
Hutchinson began by defining a stress fum;:tion, ,p, for the problem. The governing
differential equation for defonnation plasticity theory for II plane problem in a Ramberg-
Osgood material is more complicated than the linear elastic case:

4
(A3.27)
.6. $ + r($.O"•• r.n.a) '" 0
where the function r differs for plan e stress and plane stnlin. For the Mode I crack
problem, Hutchinson cho~ to repre~nt ¢I in terms of an asymptotic expansion in the
following form:
 Mathematical Foundations of £PFM 191

(A3.28)

where CJ and C z are cnnstants that depend on 9, the an81e from the crack plane.
Equation (A 3.28) is anal ogous to the W illiams ex pansion for the linear clastic case
(Appe ndix 2.3). If s < /, and t is less than all subseq uent exponents on r, then the first
term dominates as r ~ o. If the analysis is restricted to the region ncar the crac k tip, then
the stress function can be expressed as follows:

(A3.29)

9Ihere 1( is the ampli tude of the SlteSS function and lIP is a dimensionless function of 9.
Although Eq. (A3.27) is different from the linear clastic case, the stresses can still he
derived from d) through Eqs. (A2.6) or (A2.13). Thus the stresses, in polar coordinates,
are given by

(A3.30)

]be boundary conditions for the crack problem are as follows:

cP(±n") = cP'(±n") =0
In the region close tn the crack tip where Eq. (A3.29) applies, elastic slrains are
IICgligible compared to plastic strains; only the second term in Eq. (A3.27) is relevant in
dIls case. Hutchinson substi tuted the boundary conditi ons and Eq. (A3.29) into Eq.
tAl.27) and obtained a nonlinear eigenvalue equati on for s. He then solved this equation
IUmerical ly for a range of n values. The numerical analysis indicated that s could be
«scribed quite accurately (for both plane stress and plane strain) by a simple fonnula:

,= 2n+l
n+1
(A3.3l)
19'

which implies that the sU'ai n energy density varies as Jlr near the crack tip. This
numerical analysis also yielded relative values for the angular functions aij. The
amplitude. howeve r, taf1 nOl be obtained without con llecting the nW-lip analysis with the
remote boundary conditions. 1l1c J oontour integral provides a sim ple means for making
th is cooneclion in lhe case of small Kale yielding. Moreover, by in VOking the path·
independe nt property of J, Hutchinson was able 10 obtain a direct proof of !he validity o f
Eq. (Al.3!),
Consider two circular contours of radius 'I and rz around the tip of a crack in small
scale yielding, as illustrated in Fig. AJ.5. Assume that 'I is in the region described by
the elastic singularity, while '1 is well inside of the plastic l one, where the stresses an:
described by Eq. (AJ.30). When the stresses and displacements in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are
inserted inlo Eq. (A3.26), lind the J integral is evaluated along' / ' one finds thai J '"
KItE', as expected from the previous section. Sinte me conncction between Kr and
&lobaI boundary tonditions is well established for a wide range of ronfigUl'IIItiom, and J is
path-independe nt, the near-ti p problem for small seale yie ldins tan be solved by
evaluati nS J al '2 and relating J to the amplitude (K).
Solving for the inteJlllfld in the: J inteJl'al at '7lcads w

(A3.32a)

+cos8(n(s- 2) + IIa,r1r + uooue]} (A3.32b)

FlC\Jll£ A3.5 T ... cUaila.

......... Ih. ~ _k lip. 'I"in~_
oon""'..
d ..... i ... ted by II••• lutle dn,uluUy,
_bU. ' 1 Is fa lbo p\Mlle _ .. h ....
II•• 1.... Ia' I..... 01 !.be Hulclll .... n
..,..,pkItk u .............1nMrL
MathemalictJl FoundatiCIIS ofEPFM 193

. 'here ii, and ;0 arc dimensioolas displaccmcnlS, defined by

(A3.33)

II, and "9 can be deri ved from the $uain-displacement relatinnships. Evaluating the J
Integral at '2 gives

.'here In is an integration constant. given by

In = +r{~a:+1 cos 6- [sin 6{u"(iio - ii;) - url}(ii, '1- ii9)}

-If n '1- I

'1-cos 6(n(s - 2 ) '1- 1)(0',,,;;, + aO~O)) }d6 (AJ.35)

In order for J to be path independent. it cannot depend on '2, which was defined arbiu.ily.
The radius vanishes in Eq. (A3 .34) only when (n+JX, -2}+ 1 = 0, or

, • ,,'no.+,-;-'
n+'
which is identical to the result obtained numerical ly (Eq. (A3.3 1». Thus the amplitude of
the stress function is given by

(A3.36)

Sub5lituting Eq. (AJ.36) into Eq. (A3.30) yields the familiar form of the HRR sinSular-
ity:

(A3.m
 19. ApJnndu j

since Eo = ao/E. The integration constant is plotled in Fig. 3.10 for both plane slress
and plane strain, while Fig. 3.1 1 ShoWI the angu lar variation of 'O"ij for n" 3 and" = 13.
Rice and Rosengren [8) obtained essentially identical results to Hutchinson (for
plane sirain), although they approached the problem in a somewhat different manner.
Rice and Rosengren began with a heuristic argument for the lIr variation of strain cmergy
den si ty, and then introduced an Airy stress function of the form of Eq. (Al.29) with the
exponent on r given by Eq. (A3.3 1). They computed stresses, strains and displacements
in the vicinity of the crack tip by applying the appropriate boundary conditions.
The HRR singularity was an important result because it established J as a stress
amplitude parameter within the plastic zone, where the linear elastic solution is invalid.
The analyses of Hutchinson , Rice and Rosengren demonstrated that the stresses in the
plastic zonc are much higher in plane sU1lin than in plane suess: recall that the elastic
solution predicts identical in-plane stresses for both caus. 1bese results provided a
theoretical explanation for empirically observed thicmcss effects in rracture toughness
tests.
One must bear in mind the limitations or the HRR solution. Since the singularity
is merely the leading tcnn in an asymptotic upansion, and elastic stta.ins were assumed
to be: negligible, this solution domi nates only valid near the crack tip, well within the
plastic zone. For very small r values, however, the HRR solution is inva lid because it
neglects finite geometry changes at the crack tip. When the HRR singularity dominates,
the loadi ng is proportional, which implies a single parameter description of erack tip
fields. When the higher order tenns in the series are significant, the loading is orten
non proportional and a single-parameter description may no longer be possible (See
Section 3.6).

A3.S ANALYSIS OF STA.BLE C RACK GROWTH IN SMA.LL SCA.LE

YIELDING

AJ.S.I Tbe Rice·DruII.·Shlm Anllysls

Rice, OnIgan and Sham (RDS) (]S] perfonned an asymptotic analys is of a grow ing crack
in an elastic-plastic solid in small-scale yielding. They assumed crack extension at a
constant crack opening angle, and predicted the shape or j resistance curves. They also
specul ated about the effect orJarge scale yielding on the crack growth resistance behavior.

SmqU KQk )'it/ding

Rice c:t al. analyzed the local suessc:s and displacements at a growing Cf1II::k by modi-
fying the classical Prandtl slip line fiekito account for elastic unloading behind the crack
tip. They assumed small scale yielding condi tions and a nonhardening material; the
detai ls orthc derivation are omitted ror brevity. 1be RDS crack growth analysis resulted
in the rollowing expression:
 of EPFM
Mathematical FourrdilrionJ
'"
. j
li=a-+,82:2.aln - U (R) fou -+ 0 (A3.3S)
ao E r

1Wbere 8is the rale of crack opening displacement at DdisUUlCe R behind the crack tip, J is
lhc rate of thange in the J integral, a is the crac k growth rate, and a, (j, and R are
C(lnstanIS 9. The asymptotic analysis indicated that {j = 5.083 for v = 0.3 and {j = 4.385
for v:: 0.5. The other constants, a and R, could not be inferred from the asymptotic
analysis. Rice, el. a!. [IS] performed clastic·p lastic finite element analysis of a growing
~k and found that R. which has units of length, scales approJlimately with plastic zone
siu . and can be estimated by

when:). • 0.2 (AJ.39)

'The dimensionless constant a can be estimated by considering a stationary crock (a = 0):

J
6=a- (AJ.40)
U.
Referring to Eq. (3,48), a obviously equals d n when 8 is defined by the 90" intercept
method. The finite element analysis performed by Rice , ct a!. indicated that a for a
crowing crack is nearly equal to the stationary crack case.
Rice el aI. performed an asymptotic integration of (Eq. A3.38) for the case when:
crack length incn:ases continuously with I . which led to

ar dJ
li=--+,8r.:::..!Z.
aa da
(J ]n -
E r
('R) (A3.4 I)

" 'hen: 0. in this case. is the crack openinlil: displacement at a r from the crac k tip. and t (=
2.718) is the natura1logwithm base. Equation (A3.41) can be n:arranged to solve for the
noooimensionaltearing modulus:

(A3.42)

Rice. el al. proposed a failure criterion that corresponds approJlimately to crack

eJllension at a constant crack tip opening angle (croA). Since dlJldr = 00 al the crack

9n.. <OOISUI<I1 0 iD tho RDS onol)'Sis sIIooILd DOl be conrused with tho <;t;...........1eu COIl<UIII In "'" Rombc,..
Do,DOd ,.,IMioooshi, (Sq. l.ll), f.,.- ... bich ""' ....... ymboI is used.
... ApfNndix 3

lip, CTOA is undefined. but an approximate CTOA can be inferred a fini te disl4nce from
the tip. Figure A3.6 illustrates the RDS crack growth criterion. TIley poilulated thai
crack growth occur.; at a critical cnlCk opening displacement, ~. at a distance 'm behind
the crack lip. That is,

o a
==--+.8~l
(J n dJ ('R
- )=constant (A3.43)
rm (10 da E rm

Rice , et aI. found thai it was possible 10 define the micromechanicai fai lure parame ters,
'm.
<\: and in tcnns of global paramelen that are easy to obtain experimentally. Seuing
Jz "e and combining Eqs. (Al.39), (AlA2). and (AJ.43) gives

(AJ.44)

where To is the: ini tial tearing modu lus. Thus for, J;. l/c, the tearing modulus is given
by

(A3.45)

fiGURe AlA The ROS cnck p-owtb

ailtn..... The erKk II UlU.,rd 10
u lt n d ",lt h II UDl I.,1I o pt 11111,
dkpl ..........l, &. " ' dlttaace r. bdlbod
th e cr.,," Up. TlllI " r Uffla "
c,o ..... pootdI; a pp l"Od ... ltiJ' Ie cndt
utelll'." "' • c_,. "t crao:k li p
.... '.... <croA).
lI~tical FolUldtuioru of £PFM 197

he. et al. computed nonnalize:d R curves (J1}le 1'. &/IR) for a range of To values and
found that T", To in the early s!.ages of crack growth. but the R curve slope decrease unti l
Andy state plateau il reached. llJe steady state} can easily be inferred from Sq. (A3.45)
by setting T", 0;

(A3.46)

tom scale yic/djng

Although the RDS analysis was derived for sm all scale yielding co!lditions, Rice:, et
aI. speculated chat the form of Eq. (A3.38) might also be valid for fully plastic condi-
tions. llJe numerical VaJue5 of some of the constants. howcver, probably differ for the
1arre scale yielding case.
11Ie most important difference: between small scale yie lding and fully plastic
conditions is the value of R . Rice, el. al . argued that R would no longer scale with
plastic zone size:, but shou ld be proportional to the ligamc:ntlength. 11Iey m.de a rough
estimate of R - b/4 for the fully plastic case.
11Ie constant a depends on crack tip lJiaJIiality and thus may differ for small scale
yiddina and fully yielded conditions. For highly constrained configurations, such as be!ld
specimens, a for the twO cases should be si milar.
In small scale yielding. the definition of} is unambiguous, since it is related to the
elastic stress intensity factor. The} integl'lll for a growing erack under fully plastic
~itions can be c:ompuled in a number of way'. however, and not all definitions of J are
appiopi iate in the larle tcale yieldi ng version of Eq. (A3.38).
Assume that the crxk growch resisrancc: behavior is to be characterized by a J-like
parameter, }x. Assuming }x depends on crack length and di splacement, the rate of
•
change in};I should be linearly Idated to displacement rate and a:

(A3.47)

..... here ~ and X are functions of displacement and crack length. Substituting Eq. (A3.47)
into Eq. (A3.38) gives

Uo
a 1a
. a . [a (R)+-x
8::: - ~d+ p.:::..Q.l n -
E r Uo
(A3.48)

In the limit of a rigid· ideally pl astic material, aol£. O. Also, the local crack opening
I'IIte must be proportional to the global displacement rale for a rigid-ideally plastic
matcrial:

(A3.49)
 '98 A-PfUndu J

Therefore, the Icnn in square brackets in Eq. (A3.48) must vanish, which implies that X=
0, al least in the limit of a rigid-ideally plastic material. Thus in order for the RDS
modo:! to apply to large scale yielding. the rate of change in the I-like parameter must nOI
depend on the crack growth rate:

(A3.50)

Rice, el al. showed thaI neither the defonnation theory J o r the far-field J satisfy Eq .
(Al.50) for all C(Infigurations.
Satisfying Eq. (Al.50) docs not necessarily imply thaI a l;rN curve is geometry
independent. The RDS model suggests that a resistance curve obtained from a fully
yielded specimen will not. in general. agree with the small scale yielding R curve for the
same material. Assuming R = bl4 for the fully plastic case:, the RDS model predicts the
following tearing modulus:

(A3.S I )

where the subscripts ss)' andfy deno\C small Sl:alc yielding and fully yielded conditions,
respecti ve ly. Accordi ng to Eq. (Al.5 1). the crack growth resistance curve under fully
yielded conditions has a cons tant initial slope, but this slope is nOl equal to To (the
initial tearing modulus in small scale yield ing) unless afy = a.ISY and b '" 4~ E JlclC702.
Equation (A3.~ I) docs nOi predict a steady state limit where T", 0; rather this relationship
prediclIi that T actually increases as the ligament becomes smaller.
The forgo ing analysis implies that crack growth resistance curves obtained from
specimens with fully yielded ligaments are suspect. One should exercise extreme caution
when applying experimental resullli from small specimens to predict the behavior of large
structures.

Al.S.l Study State C ... ~k Growtb

1be RDS analysis, which assumed a local failure criterion based o n crack opening angle,
indicated crack growth in small scale yielding reaches a steady state, where dildo -+ O.
llIc derivation that foll ows shows that the steady Slate limit is a general result for small
scale yielding; the R curve mUSI eventually reach a plateau in an infinite body. regardless
of the failt= mechanism.

Grnrmliwl Dqma« l!!IwP!

Consider a material clement a small dis1.8.Ilce from a crack tip, as illustrated in Fig.
A). 7. This ITUIlcrial clement will fail when il is deformed beyond illi capacity. The crack
will grow as consecutive material elements al the tip fail. Let us defi ne a generalized
damage integral, 9 , which chanlctcriz.cs the severity of loading allbc crack tip:
"'mh~1'Itltit:DI Foundatioru of £PFM 19'

e:::
.
'f O ( aij;eij)detq (A3.S2)
o
_'here Ctq is the equivalent (von Mists) plastic strain and G is a function of the st ress and
.wain tensors (aij and £ij' respectively). TIle above integral is sufficiently general that it
all depend on the current values of all stress and strain components, as well as the entire
defonnation history. Referrina to Fia. Al.7. the: material element will fail at a critical
,.... uc of B. At the moment of crack initiation 01" during crack extension, material near the
<nek tip will be close 10 the point of failure. At a distance r- from the crack tip, where
,... IS arbitrarily small, we can assume lIut B", Be.
ne precise form of the damage inICgraI depends on the micromechanism of fracture.
For exam ple, a modified Rice and Tracey (47) model for ductile hole growth (sec Chapter
!i) can be used to char2cteriu ductile fra:ture in metals:

R) '.. J 1.50' t
e::: In (flo ::: 0.283 ~ e)(~ at mr£tq (Al.51)

where R is the void radius, Ro is the initial radius, am is the mean (hydrostatic) Slress,
and Ot iS the effective (von Mises) stress, Failure, in this case, is assumed when the void
radius ~ache.s a critical value:.

.
• •• FIGURE Al.7 Mllirial POIDI •
oliatanno ,. t.- 1M tft<to: tip.
'00 A.p~ndi.r J

Stable 'rack ergwrh

Consider an infinite bodylO thai contains I crack that is growing in a stahle, self-
similar. quasistalic mann:r. If !he end. bas grown well beyond the initial blunted tip.
dimensiOllaJ analysis indicates that the local stresses and StrailS II«i uniquely characterized
by the far-field J integral, as staled in Eq. (3.69). In light of this single-parameter
condItIon, the integrand of Eq. (AJ.'2l bccUll"'~

(A3.s4)

We can resuict this analysis to 9"" 0 by asSLIming !hal the material on the crack plane
fails during Mode I crack growth. For. given material point on the crack plane. r
decreases as the crKk yows, and the plastic strain increases. If strain increases
monotonically IS thi s material point approaches the craek lip. Eq. (Al.54) permits
writing n as a function of the von MiK5 strain:

(Al." )

'Therefore the local fail~ criterion is given by

"J
Be "" O (ecq)decq (AJ.56)
o
where c"' is the critical slrain (i.e .. the von Mis« strain al , = ,0). Since the integrand is
• function only of t'.tq. liz integration path is the same: for aD malerial poinl$ ahead of the
crack tip, and c· is COlistant durillg a.:k growth. 1lw is, the eqllivalcm plastic strain al
,. Will always equal r ",hell the crack is growiliS. Bued on Eqs. (3.69) and (.0.5-4), c·
is I fUlictioli on ly of r· &ad the applied J :

E* "" E * (J , r*) (A).S7)

Solvin, for the diffcrentill of £" gives

dE* dE*
dE*=-d)+-dr* (A).S8)
dJ dr*

~ .R ,. "...., r... fr<Na the end lip 10 WI

Malhml(jlical FounOOI;OIIS of EPFM 201

Thus the J integral remains constant during cra&k e~tension (dJ/ikl = 0) when Eq.
(J.69) is satisfied. Steady state crac k growth is usually not observed experimentally
because large scale yielding in finite sized specimens precludes chamcteril.i ng a growing
crack wi th J. Also. a significant amount of crack growth may be required before a steady
state is reached (Fig. J.25): the crack tip in a typical laboratory specimen approaches a
free boundary well before tbe crack growth is sufficient to be unaffected by the initial
blunted ti p.

AJ.6 NOTES ON TH E APPLICA BILITY OF DEFORMAT ION

PLASTICITY TO CRA CK PROBLEMS

SillCC clastic-plastic fracture mechanics is based on deformation plasticity theory. it may

be instructive to lake a closer look at Ihis theory and assess its validity for crack
problems.
Let us begin with the plastic portion of the Ramberg-Osgood eq uation for uniaxial
deformation. which can be e~pn:sscd in the following form:

(A3.59)

Differentiating Eq. (AJ.59) gives

(AJ.60)

for an increment of plastic strain. For the remainder of this section. the subscript on
strain is suppressed for brevity: only plastic strains arc (:onsider<:d, unless stated
otherwise.
Equations (AJ.59) and (AJ.60) represent the deformation and incremental flow
theories. r<:spectively. for uniaxial deformation in a Ramberg-Osgood material. In this
simple case. there is no difference between the incremental and de formation theories.
provided no un loading OCCU/"$. Equation (AJ.60) can obviously be integrated to obtain
Eq. (AJ.59). Stress is uniquely related to strain when both increase monotonical ly. II
does not necessarily follow thaI deformation and illC!"ementai theories are equivalent in the
case of three-dimensional monotonic loading, but there are many (:ascs wber<: this is a
good assumption.
Equation (A3.59) can be generalized to three dimensions by assuming deformation
plasticity and isotropic hardening:

'-':!L
E·· =
IJ
3
-a
2 (a")
a
.::.L
Sj"
E
(A3.6I)
202 ApJHndix 3

where at is the effective (von Mise!) StreSS and Sij is the dc:vialoric component of the
stress tensor, defined by

(A3 .62)

where 6ij is the Kronecker delta. Equation (Al.61) is the deformation theory fluw nllt: frw
• Ramberg-Osgood material. The com:spondins: fl ow rule for incremental plasticity
theory is given by

(A3.63)

By comparing Eqs. (AJ.6 1) and (A3.6J), one 5«5 thai the dcfonnalion and incremental
theories of plasticity coincide only if the laller equation can be intcarated 10 oblain the
former. If the devialone stress components are proponlonallO the effective stress:

(AJ.64)

where Wij is • constant tensor that does not dc~nd o n strain. then integration of Eq .
(AJ.63) resuhs in Eq. (AJ.61). Thus dcfonnation and incremental theories o f plasticity
are identical when the loading is proportional in !be dcviatoric stresses. Note thai the
fOwl SIteSS components need not be p:oportional in order for !he two theories to coincide;
the flow rule is not influenced by the hydrostatic ponioo of the stress tensor.
Proportional loading of thoe devialoric components docs not nel::essarily mean that
deformation plasticity theory is rigoroU$ly correct; it merely implies that ddormation
theory is no more objectionable than ineremenlal theory. Classical plasticity theory,
whether based on incremental strain or tOlal deformation, contains simplifying assump-
lions aboul material behavior. Both Eqs. (A3.61) and (A3.63 ) assume that the yield
lurface expands symmetrically and that il$ radiuli docs not depend on hydroSiatK: stress.
For mon()(onic load in. ahead of a crac k in a metal, these assumptions are probably
reasonable; the assumed hatdc:ning law il of lillIe consequence fOl" mOlK)(onic la.ding, and
hydrostatic stress effects on the yield surface are ndatively small for most metals.
Budiansky [4S[ showed tllat deformation theory is still acceptable when there are
modest deviations from proportionalilY. Low work hardenins materials are the least
sensitive 10 nonproportional loading.
Since most of classical fracture mechanics assumes either plane stress or plane
strain , it is useful 10 examine plastic ddormallon in the two-dimen~iun.J ......., IUJ..J
delennine under wh.at conditions the requirement of proportional devialoric stresses is al
least appro~imately satisfied. Consider. for example, plane strain. When elastic strains
arc negligible, the in -plane deviatoric normal stresSes arc given by
Mathematical Foundations of EPFM

(A3.65)
'"'
assuming incompressible: plastic deformation, where Uu '" (uu -t Uyy)/2. The e:s;-
pression for von Mises StreSS in plane strain reduces to

(A3.66)

where Sxy = t"xy. Alternatively, Ut can be written in terms of principal normal stresses:

,fj
at "'2[0"1-0'21 where (JJ > r12

'" .J3s1 (A3.67)

There fore. the principal de~iatoric stresses an: proportional to Ut in the case of plal}C
strain. It can easily be shown that the same is \roC for plane slress. If the pnnl::ipalues
are fi:s;ed. Su. Syy. and Sxy must also be proportional to Ut. If. however, the principal
;u:es rotate during deformalion, the deviatoric &\reSS componenl$ defined by a fi:s;ed
coordin.te system will not increase in proportion 10 OI}C another.
In the case of Mode I loadin g of a crack. l"xy is always zero on the crack plane,
implying that the principal dim:tions on the (:flIck plane are always parallel to the :s;-y-z
coordinate ues. Thus, deformation and incremental plasticity theories should be equally
valid on the crack plane. well inside the plastic zone (where ela;tic strains an: negligible).
At finite angles from the crac k plane. the principalues may rotale with deformation.
which will produl::e non proportional deviatoric stresse s. If this effect is small ,
deformation plasticity theory should be adequate to analyze stresses and strains near the
I::rack tip in either plane stress or plal}C strain.
The validity of deformation plasticity theory does not automatil::a1ly guarantee thaI
the crack tip conditions can be characterized by a single parameter, such as} or K.
Single-parameter fracture mechanics requi res that the roral Slress componeots be
proportional near the: crac k lip II, a much more severe restriclion. Proportion.1 tot.l
Stresses imply that the deviatoril:: stresses are proportional. but the re~erse is nO! nec-
essari ly true. In both the linear elastic case (Appendix 2.3) and tm: nonlinear case
(Appendix 3.4) the stresses near the (:flOCk tip were derived from a stress function of Ihe
,~

ClJ= Kr'f(9) (Al.68)

liThe proputiOl>llIoold.:t:Jioa.......t "'" u~nd.n Ibo way 1<t the aack tp. bvI the _p<OPOl1io,1AI 10...
II the li~ mu" be .m d wilhi~ lbe pt"IlpOJtiOl>ll 10'" in order for a .in&Je 10.1'0& ponmtler to
. twaru ..... o:rw;k ~p condilions.
204 Appe.ndix 3

where" is a constant. The form of Eq. (A3.68) guarantees that all stress components are
proportional to 1(', and thus proportional to one another. Therefore any monotonic
function of I( uniquely characterizes the stress fields in the region where Eq. (A3.68) is
valid. Nonproportionalloading aUiomalicaily invalidates Eq. (A3.68) and the single pa-
rameter description that il implies.
As stated earlier, the devialoric stresses are proportional on the crack. plane, well
within the plastic zone. The hydrostatic stress may not be proportional 10 C1e • however.
For example, the loading is highly nonproportionai in the large strain region, as Fig.
3.12 indicates. Consider a material point at a distance x from the crack tip, where x is in
the current large strain region. AI earlier stages of deformation the loading on this point
was proponional, but ayy reached a peak when the ratio x atl' was approximately unity,
and the normal stress decreased with subsequent deformation. Thus the most recent
loading on this point was nonproportional, but the deviatoric stresses are still
proporuonal to at.
When the crack grows, material behind the crack tip unloads elastically and de-
formation plasticity thcory is no longcr valid. Deformation theory is also suspec t near
the elastic-plastic boundary. Equations (A3.65) to (A3.67) were derived assuming the
elastic strains were negligible, which implies azz = O.5(axx + ayy) in plane strain. At
the onset of yielding, however, azz = v(Gu + Gyy), and the proponionality constants
between at and the deviatoric stress components are different than for the fully plastic
case. Thus when elastic and plastic strains are of comparable magnitude, the deviatoric
stresses are nonproportional, as OJij (Eq. (A3.64» varies from its elastic value to the fully
plastic limit. The errors in deformation theory that may arise from the transition from
elastic to plastic behavior should not be appreciable in crack problems, because the strain
gradient ahead of the crack tip is relatively steep, and the transition zone is small.
 4. DYNAMIC AND TIME-DEPENDENT
FRACTURE

In unain fracture problems. time is an important variable. At high load;na rates. for ex-
ample, inertia effocu and material rate dependence can be signirlcanL Metals and ceramics
abo elhibil nuc-dcpendent deformation (cncp) .1 lempenllUut'su.al are close to the mell-
ina point of the material. llIe mechanical behavior of polymers is highly sensitive 10
strain rate, particularly abo~ the glass transition tcmpenlture . In each of these cases.. lin-
ear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mecllanics, whiCh usumc quasist'lie, rate-indepen-
dent deformation. are iNldequate.
Early fracture mec:hanics researchers COI'Isidercd dynamic effects. but only for the spe-
cial case of linear elastic materi.1 behavior. More recently, fracture mechanics has been
extended 10 include tiJne..Oependc:nt maleri.aI behavior Sl.K:h as visoopJasticiry and vi5CQelas-
licity. Most of these nc_r ~ are based on &enelllliUUions oftbe I coruour iDle-
,<>I.
This chapter gives an overview of time-dependenl fracture mechanic.. llle Ifeal-
menl of this subject is far from exhaust;"" but should serve as an iDtrodUCti(MI to a com-
plcx and rapidly developin, rleld. 'The reader is encouraged to consult the published litera-
ture for further background.

4.1 DYNAMIC FRACTURE AND CRACK ARREST

AI any underg:nduate engineering student knows. dynamics is more difftcult than statics.
Problems become more complicated when the equations of equilibrium are replaced by the
equations of motion.
In the most general cue, dynamic fracture mechanic. contains three complicating
features that are not present in LEFM and elastic-plutic fracture mechanics: inertia
fOll;:u. rate-dependcnt material behavior, and reflected stress wave$. Inertia effccli are im-
portant wncn the load changes abruplly or the crack grows rapidly: a ponion of the work
that is applied 10 the specimen is convened to kinetk energy. Most metals are noc sensi-
tive to modenne varialions in JtnUn note near ambient tempenllure, but the flow II1'eSI can
i~ase appreciably when wai n rate increases by several orden of magnitude. TIle effeel
of rapid loading is even more pronounced in rate sensitive materials such as polymeTS.
When the load changu Ibruptly or the crack grow, rapidly, stress wavu propagate
through the material and reneet off of free surfaces. ,uch as !he specimen boundaries and
the crack plane. Reflecting stress waves innucnce the local crack tip stress and strain
fields which. in tum , affect the fracture behavior.
In ~enain problems, one or m~ of the above effecll can be ignored. Ir aU three ef-
fcca are neglected, the problem IWlX:eS 10 the quasistatic case.
TIle dynamic vcn;ion ofLEFM is termed rlasfody_ic frocfll.~ III«lwIics, where
nonlinear material behavior il ncgleeted, but inertia forces and reflected SIreSS Wives are
incOipotated when necessary. The theoretical framework of elutodynamic fracture me·

105
20' Chapter4

chanies is fairly well established, and practical applications of this approach are becoming
more common. Extensive reviews of this subject have been published by Freund (I·SJ.
Kannincn and Poplar [6J. Rose [7J. and others. Elastodynamic fracture mechanics has
limilations, but is approximately valid in many cases. When the plastic zone is restricted
to a small region near the crack tip in a dynamic problem, the suess intcnsily approach,
with some modifications, is still applicable.
Dynamic fracture analyses that incorporate nonlinear, time-dcpcndent material behav-
ior are a relatively recent innovation. A number of researchers have generalized the J in~
tegralto account for inertia and viscoplasticity 18-131.
1bere are two major classes of dynamic fracture problems: (I) fracture initiation as
• result of rap id loading, and (2) rapid propagation of a crack. In the latter case, the crack
propagation may initiate either by quasistatic or rapid application of a load; the C'f"aCk may
arrest afler some amount of unslable propagation. Dynamic initiation, propagation, and
cmck arrest are discussed below.

4.1.1 Rapid Loadin& or a Stationary Cnck

Rapid loading of a slructure can come from a number of sources, but most oflen occurs as
the re sult of impact with a second o bject (e.g. a ship colliding with an offshore platform
or a missil e striking its target). Impact loading is often applied in laboratory te sts when a
high strain rate is desired. The Charpy te51(14J, where a pendulum dropped from a fixed
height fractures a notched specimen, is probably the most common dynamic mechanical
test. Dynamic loading of a fracHuc mechanics specimen can be achieved through impact
loading (IS, 16], a controlled explosion near the specimen (1 7], or servohydraulic testing
machines that are specially designed to impart high displacement rates. Chapter 7 de·
scribes some of the practical aspects of high rate fracture testing.
Figure 4.1 schematically illustraIes a typical load-time response for dynamic load-
ing. The load tends to increase with time, but oscillates at a partic ular frequency that de-
pends on specimen geometry and material properties. Note that the loading rate is finite;
i.e., a finite time is required to reach a particular load. The amplitude of the oscillations
decreases with time, as kinetic energy is dissipated by the specimen. Thus inertia effects
are most significant at short times, and are minimal after sufficiently 10ng times, where
the behavior is essentially quasistatic.
Delmnining a fracture characterizing parameter, such as the stress intensity factor or
the J integ:ra.l, for rapid loading can be very dirrlCult. Consider the case where the plastic
wne is confined to a small region surrounding the crack tip. 1be near-ti p S\leSS fields for
high rate Mode I loading are given by

u .. =
'J
3,(1)
2m-
(4. 1)
DynMlic and Ti~-lNpm(hnl F racrurr 2.7

LOAD

FlGURE 4.1 Sctwm.tk 1ooId."_",-

eL ...pkIIr loaded otru<tu ....

..... he:re (r) denotes a function of time. The angular (unctionS,!i} arc idenLicalto the qua-
sistatic case and arc given in Table 2.1. 1be SIrC!lS intensity factor, which characterizes
the amplitude of the elastic singularity, varies erratically in the: early stages of loading.
Renecting stress waves that pass through the specimen constructively and destructively
interfere with one another, resulting in a highly complex time-dependent slress distribu-
lion. The instantaneous Kr depends on tnc magnitude of the: discrete stress waves that
pass through the crack tip region at that panicuJar moment in lime. When Inc discrete
wavel arc significant, it is nOi possible 10 infer K/ from the remote load$.
Recent work by Nakamul3 et al.(lg,19) quantified inertia effecl$ in laboI3tory speci-
mens and showed that these effecu can be neglected in many cases. They observed that
the behavior of a dynamically loaded specimen can be characterized by a shon-time re-
sponse, dominated by discrete wavC$, and a long-time response thai is essenlially qua-
sistatic. At intermediate times, global im:nia effects arc signirK:ant Out local oscillations
at the crack arc small, because lr:inetic energy is absorbed by the plastic lOfle. To di sti n-
guish short-time response from long-time response, Nakamura et al. defined a transition
time. tr, when the kinetic energy and the deformation energy (the energy absorbed by the
specimen) arc equnL Inertia effccu dominate prior 10 the transition time, but the defonna-
tion enerlY dominates at times significantly greater than tr. In the latter case. a J_domi_
nated field should exist near the cl1lClr: tip and quasistatic rclationships can be used 10 infer
J from global load and displacement.
Since it is not possible 10 measu~ kinetic and deformation enersies separately dur-
nl, I f'racturc mechanics experiment, Nlkamul3 et al. developed a si mple.model to esti-
1IU\.e lr:inetic energy and U'anliition time in a three-point bend specimen (Fig. 4.2). This
model WI! based on the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory and assumed that the kinetic eDCTgr
II early times was dominated by the ellSlic response of the specimen . IncOipolllling the
known ~lationship between load line displacement and strain energy in I thrte-point bend
speci men leads to an approximate relationship for the OItio of kinetic to defonnnti on en-
ergy:
208 Chapur4

E!.=(A
U
W.d(t»)'
co.d(t)
(4.2)

.
where Eft. is the kinetic energy. U is the defonnation energy, W is the specimen width,.:1
is the load line displacement, i!. is the displacement rale, Co is the longitudinal wave speed
(Le. the speed of sound) in a one-dimensional bar, and A is a geometry factor, which for
the bend specimen is given by

(4.3)

where S is the span of the specimen. 'The advantage of Eq. (4.2) is Ihallhc displacement
and displacement rate can be measured e~perimenlaJJy. The transition time is defined at
the moment in !he test when the ralio Ef/U = I. In order to obtain an explicit cJtpression
for 't, it is convenient to introduce a dimensionless displacement coefficient, D:

D = f.d(t) (4.4)
.d(t)
"
If, for example, the displacement varies with time lIS a power law: .:1 = PtY. then D = y.
Combining Eqs. (4.2) and (4.4) and selting EJIU= I leads 10

p
 209

(4.5)

Nakamura cl 81. [18,19] performed dynami c fin ite el ement analys is on II. three point
bend specimen in order 10 e valuate the accuracy of Eqs. (4.2 ) and (4.5). Figure 4.3 com·
pares the E1!U fatio computed from finite element analysis with that determined from Cll-
periment and Eq. (4.2). The horizontal axis is II. dimensionless time scale, and c / is the
longitudinal wave speed in an unbounded solid. The ratio WIc I is an estimate of the time
required for II. stress wave to traverse the width of the specimcn . Based on Eq. (4.2) and
experimen t, It CJ/W .. 28 (or If cr/H .. 24). while the finite element analysis estimated
t'[" CJIW .. 27. Thus the simple model agrees quite well with more detailed analysis.
II.

The simple model WIIS based on the global kinetic energy and did not consider dis -
crete stress waves. Thus the model is only valid after stress waves have traversed the
width of the specimen several times. This limitation does nOI afrecllhe analysis o f U'an-
si ti on time, since stress waves have made appro1timately 27 passes when If' is reached.
Note, in Fig. 4.3, that the simple model agrees very well with the finite element a na lysis
when I ellW > 20 .
Wben f » fT' inenia effec lS are negligible and quasistalic models should apply to
the problem. Conseq uently, the J integral for a d eeply crac ked bend specimen at long
times can be estimated by

2.0ro.---

Time
::>
;Jj 1.0 Eq. (4.2)
Finite element
analysis

0.5

o ~~J::::::t
o 20 40 60 80
tcJW
FIGURE 4.3 a.uo of kionic: 10 _ work (1"11'1"1)" 10. dylWllltl.tty loaded Ibne-poilll be-lld. lpedmm
11'1.
210 Clwptt r 4

(4.6)

where B ;s the plate !hid.nMs, b is the uncr""hd ligament lenith. M is the applied mG-
men t o n the ligament, n is the angle of rotation, and /- is !he c urrent time. Equation
(4 .6), which was originally p!Jblished by Rice, el al. [20J, is derived in Section 3.2.5.
Nakamura, et aI. [19] performed a three-dimensional dynamic elastic-plastic finite d-
ement an aly~is on a three·poin! bend ~~imtn in order to determine lhc range of appticll-
bilily of Eq. (4.6). They evaluated a dynamic I integral (sec Section 4.1.3) at variou~
thickness positions and observed a through-thic kness varilUion of J that is similar to Fig.
3.36. They compu ted a nom inal J thaI averaged the through-thickness variations and
compared this value with Ide- The results of Ihis exen:ise are plotted in Fig. 4.4. At
sho n times, the ave rage dynamic J is lignificanlly lower than the J computed from !he
quasi static relationship. For 1 ;> 21 f' Ih~ I dr/JUlIe reaches a constant vatue that is slightly
greater than I. The modest discrepancy between Ide and lave allong times is probably
due 10 three-dimensional effects rather than dynamic effects (Eq. (4.6) is essentially a twO-
dimensional formula).
According to Fig. 4.4, Eq. (4.6) provides a good estimate of 1 in a high rale ten al
limes grealer th an approx imately twice the transition time. It follows thaI if fracture in i-
tiation occurs after 21f' the critical value of 1 obtained from Eq. (4.6) is a measure of frac-
ture toughness for high rate loading. If small-scale yielding assumptions apply, the criti-
cal 1 can be conven ed 10 an equivalent K1c through Eq. (118).

1.' I I I I I I

1.2 -
•>
•
-
~
'i:: 1.0 - -

"" O.S - ~T~~on l

-
-
0.6 I I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 SO 100 120 140
tcJ W
FIGURE 4.4 k.ll. '" J M III..,ud from Eq. (4.6) to the IhrouJb.lblckllCA .v...... J computed '"""
th lft-dlmel1llonal d,....,., k: noll . .. anent ....Iri"-
Dynamic andTI~-lkp.mtknt Froclurt! 2"

Ginn the difficulties associated with defining a fracture parameter in the presence of
inenia fOf'(:es and reflected su ess waves, it is obviously preferable to apply Eq. (4.6)
whenever possib te. For" three [IOint ~n<l ~fMI" i men wi th W = .~ mm, t~ trn n~i tinn
time is approx imately 300 jl.S [191. Thus the: quasisuuic formu la can be applied as long
lIS fracture oc<:urs after - 600 )..Is. This requirement is relatively easy to meet in impact
tests nn ductile materials [15,16]. For more brittle materials, the transition time require-
ment can be met by decreasing the displacement rate Of the width orthe specimen.
The transition time concept can be applied to other configurations by adju5ting the:
geometry factor in Eq. (4.2), Duffy and Shih [11J have applied this approach to dynamic
fracture toughness measurement in notched round ban, Small round bars have proved to
be suitable for dynam ie testing of brittle materials sueh as ceramics, where the tmnsition
time must be small.
If the effects of inertia and reflected stress waves ean be elim inated, one is len with
the rate-dependent material response. 11le tmr.sition time approach allows material mte ef-
fects to be quantified independent of inertia effects. High strain rates tend to elevate the
flow SITeSS of the material. The effect of flow s~ss on fracture toughness depends on the
failu~ mechanism. lIigh strain ral~ I"nd 10 d«:~M<: clCllvag" =i.tWlc". which i. 'IK~
controlled. Materials whose fracture mech3.11.isms are strain controlled often see an in-
erease in toughness at high loading rates because more energy is required to reach a given
strain val~e.
Figure 4.5 shows fracture toughness data for a structural steel at three loading rates
[21]. 11le critieal Kr values were determined from q~asistatie relationships. For a given
loading ra:e, fracture loughness i/\Creases rapidly wi th temperature at the onset of the duc-
tile-brittle transition. Note that increasing the loading rate has the effect of shifting the
transition to higher temperatures. Thus at a constant temperature, fracture toughness is
highly sell'litive to strain mte.
11le dfe<:t of loading rate on fracture behavior of a strucrural steel on the upper shelf
of toughness is ill ustrated in Fig. 4.6. In this instance, strain rate has the oppos ite effect
from Fig. 4.5, because ductile fracture of metals is primarily strain controlled. The J in-
tegra! at a give n amount of crack extension is elevated by high strain rales.

4.1.2 Rl pld Crack. Propl Batton I nd Ar nst

When the driving force for erack extension exceeds the material res istance, the structure is
unstable. uad rapid crack propagation occurs. Figure 4.1 ill ustrates a simple case, where
the (quasistati~) energy release rate increases linearly with crack length and the material re-
sistanee is eonstant Since the rust law of thermodynamics must be obeyed even by an
unstab le system, the exeess energy, denoted by the shaded area in Fig. 4.1, does not si m-
ply disappear, but is converted inlo kinetic ellergy. 11le magn itude of the kinetic energy
dictates the crack speed.
In the quas istatic case, a erack is stable if the dri ving force is less than or equal to
the material resistance, Simi larly, if the cnergy avail able for an incremen tal cXlelSion of
a rapidly propagating crac k falls below the material resistance, the crac k arrests. Figure
4.8 ill ustrates a simplified scenario for crack arrest. SuJ)pO$C that cluvalle fractlK initi-
ates when Kr= Kr~. 11le resistance encountered by a rapidly propagating cleavage crack
'" CluJptu4

A S72 Grade 50 Steel

100
Nominill Strain Rale (8K 1 ):
80 • 10../1
1
• 10.
• 10
• •
•
• • •
zo • •
OL-~ __ ~ __ ~__ L-~~-L __~__~
-300 -200 -tOO 0
TEMPERATURE. OF

800

600
"e
.§
:i' 400
""
200

O~ __~__~____~__- L__~__~
0123456
CRACK EXTENSION, mm

FtGURE 4.6 Etl"ett ollM<llDl .. tc DB Ih .. J-R "" ..., ~"'oior..r "ViOAHI (l51.
 2"
is less than for cleavage initiation, be<:ause plastic deformation al the moving crack tip is
s up~ssed by the high local strain niles. If the Struclurt: has a falling driving force curve,
it eventually crosses the resistance curve. Arrest docs not occur at Ihis point, however,
because the structure contains kinetic energ)' thaI can be converted \0 fracture energy.
Arrest occurs be low the resistance C UJ"YC , af'tcr most of the: available energy has been dis-
sipated. 1be apparent arrest toughness, K'a. is less than the true material !'e$istance, KIA .
The difference between Kia and KIA is 80vcmcd by the kinetic energy created during crack
propagation; KIA is. material propeny. bul Klo depend!; on gcomet!)'.

flGURE 4.7 Unllablte end propap

!1oD, whlcll raul .. I.. Ole IJftICntioa '"
kiDdk~ ... rv·

CRACK SIZE

14. KIR

IAnn. I
nCUKE 4" V"'lablt fn<k propap-
lloa and anut wltb • ralUDI drhla,
K,,- force corn. T~~ .ppartnt I ..!"tll
1011&11_ K,. II sll&btly bftow Ibe U-

..
CRACK SIZE
......rIal _laRDf'll, X, A. d ut Ie
~ etIO''"KT•
QUa
214 Clwpt~r4

Figures 4.7 and 4.8 compare material resistance with qUQsi£tatic driving force
curves. That is, these curves represent KJ and fjvalucs computed with the procedures de-
scri bed in Chaptcr2. Early researchers (22-26J realized thai the crack driving force should
incorporate the effe.;:t of kineti c e nergy. TIle Griffith-Irwin energy balance (Sections 2.3
and 2.4) can be modified to include kinetic energy . resulting in a dyn amic definitioo of
energy ",1eM<> nue:

(4.7)

where F is the work done by external forces and;t is the crack area. Equation (4.7) is
consistent with the original Griffith approach, which is based on the firsl law of thermo-
dynamics. 'The kinetic energy must be included in a general statement of the first law:
Griffith implicitl y assumed thai Ek = O.

eme.!: SD«d
Mott [22] applied dimensional analysis \0 a propagating crack in order 10 estimate
the relationship between kinetic energy and crack speed. For a through crack of length 20
in an infinite plate in te nsion , the displa::emenlS must be proportio nal to crack: size, since
a is the only relevant length dimension. Assuming the plate: is clastic, displacements
must also be proportional to the no minal. applied slrllin ; thus

,"" (4.8)

where (Ix and (I)' are d imensio nless constants. (Note that quantitative estimates for ax
and 0)' near tbe crack tip in the q uasi static case can be o btained by applyina the relation-
ships in Table 2.2.) 1be kinetic e ne rgy is equal to one half the mass times the ve locity
.«j",...,d. n.enor~ , £* for \he """,,);0<1 plat .. (assuming unit thie);n,,") is give n by

(4.9)

•
where p islhe mass density of the material and V r..
a) is the crack speed . Assuming the
integrand depends only o n position I, Ek. can be written in the fo llo wing form:

(4.) 0)

where k. is a constant. Applying the modified Griffith enere>, balance (Eq. (4.1» gives
D)7UVllic and TirM-fhpmd~nl Fracture '15

I d
g(t)=--
2da
[Ha'Ea' --pa
k "(")']
2 E
V - =2Wf (4. 11 )

..... here wf is the work of fracture, defined in Chapter 2; in the limit of an ideally brittle
materi al, wI'''' Ys' the surface energy. Note that Eq. (4. 11) II$sumes a flat R curve
{constan t w/!. At in itiation, the kinetic energy tenn is nOi present, and the initial cruck
length, 00, can be inferred from Eq. (2.22):

(4.12)

Substituting Eq. (4.12) into Eq. (4.11) and solving for V leads to

..... here Co =..J Elp ,the speed of sound for one-dimensional wave propagation. MOil [22]
actual ly obtain.ed a Klmewhat different relationdlip from Eq. (4.13). becau~ he wIved Eq.
(4. 11) by making the erroneous assumption thai dVlda = O. Dulaney and Brace [27] and
Berry [2Sjlater corm::ted the Molt analysis and derived Eq. (4.13).
Roberts and Wells (29] obtain ed an estimate for It: by applying the Westergaard
stress function (Appendix 2.3) for this configuration. After making a few assumptions.
mey showed that ..J 2 rrIk .. 0.38.
According to Eq. (4.13) and !be Roberts and Wells analysis , the crack speed reaches
a limiti ng value of 0.38 Co when a »ao. This estimate compares favorably with mea-
sured crack speeds in metals, which typically range from 0.2 10 0.4 Co [30].
Freund [2-4] performed a more detailed numerical analysis of a dynamical1y propa-
,aling crack in an infinite body and obtained the followil\i relation!hip

(4.14)

where Cr is the Raleigh (surface) wave speed. For Poisson's rutio = 0.3, the crlco ratio =
0 .57. Thus the Freund analysis predicts a larger limiting crack speed than the Roberts and
Wel1s analysis. The limiting crack speed in Eq. (4. 14) can be argued on physical grounds
(26]. For the special case where wf= 0, a propagating crack is merely a disturbance on a
free surface, which must move at the Raleigh wave velocity. In both Eq. (4.13) and
(4. 14), the limiting veloci ty is independent o f fracture energy: thus the maximum crack
speed should be c, for all w/-
'16 ChDpItr4

ExpcrimenlaJly observed crack speeds do nOI usually reach Cr_ Both the si mpl e
analysis thai resulted in Eq. (4.13) and Frcumfs more detailed dynamic: analysis &$5umed
that the fracture energy does nO' depend on crack length or crack speed. 1lle material re-
sistance actually increases with crack speed, as discussed below. The aood agreemtnt be-
tween experimental crack velocities and the: Roberts and We ll s estimate o f 0.38 Co is
largely coilK:Klcntal.

EIa.uodwlWnic crgck rip I!tIlW7!rtca

The governing equation for Mode I crack propagation under claslodynamic condi-
tions can be written as

(4. 15)

where KI is the instantaneous s(ress intensity and KID is the material resistancc to cract
propagation, which depends on crack ve locity. In general, Klfr) is not equal 10 the static
stress intcnsity factor, as defined in Chapter 2. A number of rcsean:hcrs (8-10,31-331
have obtained a relationship fOf the dynamic SIrc$$ intensity of the fonn

(4.16)

where .tis a univenal function of crack speed and KrfO) is the SLatic stress intensity factor.
1bc function ((V) = 1.0 when V:a O. and decreases to zero as V approaches the Raleigh
wave velocity. An approJ[imate cJ[pression r~ (was obtained by Rose (34):

(4.17)

where h is a function of the elastic wave speeds and can be approJ[imated by

(4.18)

where c/ and C2 arc the longitudinal and shear wave speeds. respectively.
Equation (4. 16) is valid only at short times or in infinite bodies. This relationship
neglects reflected stress waves. which can have a significant effect on the local crack tip
fields. Since the crack speed is proportional to the wave speed. Eq. (4.16) is valid as long
as the length of cnlCk propagation (a - 110) is smal l compared to specimen dimcnsiOll$. be-
cause reflecting stress wavcs will not have had time to reach the crac::k tip (Example 4. 1).
In finite specimens where stress waves reflect bacJc to the propagalina cracJc tip. the dy.
namic stress intensity mUSI be determined experimentally or numerically on a case-by-
case basis.
Vynomic and TirM-Dtptn<knt FrucfUrt 117

EXAM PLE 4.1

Rapid crack propagation initiates in a dceply-nOlched specimen with initial ligammt

b o (Fig. 4.9). Assuming the avmge crack speed" 0.2 c /. estimllte how far the crack
will propagate bcfon: it encounters a reflected longitudinal wave.

So/II/ion: At the moment the cOick encounters the first reflected wave, the crack has
traveled a distance .da. while the wave hIlS traveled 2 bo _.da. Equating travel limes
gives

2 bp -
'"
Q.2 c/
•
'I
,1"

11".
",.""3
,
Equation (4.16) is valid in this case as long as the crack ntcnsion is less than boll
and the pla'Jtic zone is small compared 10 boo

"\I
V ,

!T bo
..fl.-, FIGURE 4 .' Propqatl",.,....,t tMOWIler ·
S.... I", a rdltdtd _ ...e.
Wave

For an infinite body or shan times, Freund [10] showed thaI the dynam ic energy re-
lease rate could be expressed in the following fonn:

q(J ) = g(V)q(O) (4. 19)

where His a universal function of crack speed thai can be approximated by

liB

· V
g(V). '- - (4 .20)
c,

Combining Eqs. (4.16) to (4.20) with Eq. (2 ..51) gives

q(l) "" A(V} KI (1)

,
(4.21)
E'

(4.22)

llUI$lhc relationship between K, and q depends on crw;k; sp«d. A maR: accurate (and
more complicated) re lationship reM" A(V), is given in Appendix 4.1.
When !he plastic zone ahead of the propagating crack is small, KI(tJ uniquely defines
the ctlCk tip streSS, linin. and displacement fields. but the angular dependence of lhc$e
quantities is different from the quasistatic CA$e. For example, !he 511'Uses in the elllSlic
,ingularily zone are given by (32,33.3.51

(4.23)

n.e functio n Iii reduces \0 the quasislaUc ca.se (Table 2. 1) when V", O. A~ndiJ[ 4. '
outlil'es the derivation of Eq. (4.23) and ,iyes specifIC relationships for Ii} in the case of
rapid crxk propagation. 1bc displllCCmcnt functiOllS also display an angular dependence
that varies with V. Consequently, Ox and o.y in Eq. (4.9) must depelld on crack velocity
., well as position. and the Mon analysis is nOI rigorously C{)I'nct for dynamic crack
propI.ption.

D.ynamic tnIIt/wu
1.5 Eq. (4.15) indicates. the dynamie stress intensity is cqu.alto KID. the dynlmk;
mauriaJ resistance. whieh dc:~nds Oil c!""IICk speed. This eql.Lality ~rmilS upcrimcntal
measurements of KID.
Dynamic propagation toughness can be measured as a function of crack s~cd by
means of high speed photography and optical methods, such 51 photoclasticity 136.37J
and the method of causlia (38). Figure 4. 10 Showl phOIoclastic fringe patterns for dy·
namic cnck propagation in Homalite 100 137). Each fringe corresponds to a contour of
maximum sneu stress. Sanford and Dal ly {36J describe procedures for inferring stress in-
tensity from pOoxoclutic patterns.
 219

fRAME: I ," 120 .... .....

FIGURE 4.10 PItoI..l..1lc fn"l" p."...... for ... pldly P ~tlDI uw;:k In " om_lite 100 (31].
(Pllotop'apII P"""""" by R. CIoona)

Figure 4.11 illustrates the typ ical vanauon of KID with crack speed. AI low
speeds, KJD is relatively insensitive 10 V, but KID increases asymploticaUy as Vap-
proaches a limiting value. Figure 4.12 sbows KID dam for 4340 Slccl published by
Rosati! and Freund [39].
In the limit of V = 0, KID = KIA., the arTeSI toughness of the material. In general,
KIA. < K/c. the quasistatic initiation loughness. When a sUllionary crack in an elastic-
plastic material is loaded monotonically, the crack tip blunts and a plastic Wile forms. A
propagating crack, however, tends 10 be sharper and has a smaller plastic zon<: than a sta-
tionary crack. Conscquenlly. more energy is required to initiate fracture from a stationary
ctlICk than is required 10 maintain propagation of a sharp crack.
The crack speed dependence of KID can be represented by an empirical equation of
the f(ll'1Il

KID = (Ke )m (4.24)

1- -
V,
where V( is the limiting crack speed in the material and m is an e~perimentally detennined
constant. As Fig. 4.II(b) iIlustrntes, KIA increases lind V{decreases with increasi ng ma-
terial toughncss. TIle trends in Figs. 4.1 1(a) and 4.11(b) have nOi only been observed e~­
perimcntally, but have also been ohlained by numerical simulation [40,41]. 11u: upturn
in propagation toughness al high crack speeds is apparently caused by local inertia forces
in the plastic zone.
12. Chapl~r4

K~I---~
v, Increasing Toughneu

CRACK SPEED CRACK SPEED

fl GURE 4.'1 s.~1ic: Klo..:nd. "'""....."....

2'" ,
4.)4OSIeel

•,
" 1SO

•
~100
e •
"'SO

•• , , F1GUllE 4.11 £s.,..n-.lltiOl /f1D v,

rndI .,..... diU , .... 4J.tO lICe! IJtJ

400 800 1200

CRACK SPEED, mJ sec

CnriQD'fst
Equation (4. 15) defines !he conditions for rapid mll;;k advance. If. however, K/UJ
falls below the minimum KID value for • finite length of lime. propagation cannot
continllC. and the cnck am'SU. 1l1oere are a numb« of liluations that mighl lead 10 cnck
am:st. Fipre 4.8 iltUltnteS one possibi lity: if the driving foru decreases with m.d:
extension, il may evenlually be lc"than the material resistance . Am'S( is also possible
when maleri.l resistance illCreases with crack eJltension. For uamplc, a crad; that
inilialci in a brittle re,ion of I structure, such 115 I weld, may IIITCSt wnen il n:.:bcs •
Dynomic and Time·Dependent Fracture 221

material with higher to\lghness. A tcmpcnnu[c ~[..uie"t in a material that .. "hibit¥ a

ductile· brittle transition is another case where the toughness can increase with position: a
crack may initiate in a cold region of the structure and arrest when it encounters warmer
material with a higher toughness. An example of thi s latter scenario is a pressurized
thermal shock event in a nuclear pressure vessel [42].
In many instances, it is not possible to guarantee with absolute certainly that an un·
stable fracture will nol initiate in a structure. Transient loads, for example, may oceur
unexpectedly. In such instances crack arrest can be the second line of defense. Thus the
crack arrest toughness, KIA. , is an important material propeny.
Based on Eq. (4. 16), one can argue that Klft) at am:st is equivalent to the quasistatic
value, since V = O. Thus it shou ld be possible to infer KIA from a quasistatic calculation
based on the load arK! crack length at arrest. This quasistatic approach to arrest is actually
quite common, and it is acceptable in many practical situations. Chapter 7 describes a
standardized test method for measuring crack arrest toughness that is based on quasistatic
assumptions.
1m quasistatic arrest approach must be used with caution, however. Recall that Eq.
(4.16) is on ly valid for infinite structures or short crack jumps, where reflected stress
waves do not have sufficient time to return to the crack tip. When reflected stress wave
clTeets an: significant, Eq. (4.16) is nO longer valid, and a quasistalic analysis tends to
give mi sleading estimates of the arrest toughness. Quasistatic estimates of arrest tough-
ness are sometimes given the designation KIa; for shon crack jumps, KIa = KIA .
The effect of stress waves On the apparent arrest toughness (KIa) was demonstrated
dramatically by Kalthoff. el al. [43], who performed dynamic propagation and arrest expe r·
iments on wedge loaded double cantilever beam (DCB) specime ns. Recall from Example
2.3 thai the DCB specimen ellhibit.s a falling driving force curve in displacemenl conuol.
Kalthoff, et al. varied the KI at inilialion by varying the nOlch root radius. When the
crack was sharp, fracrure initiated slightly above KIA and arrested after a shon crack jump;
the length of crack jump increased with nOlch tip radius.
Figure 4.1 3 is a plol of the Kalthoff, et al. resulls. For the shortest crack jump, the
true arrest toughness and the apparent quasistatic value coincide, It.s expected , As the
length of crack jump increases, the discrepancy between the true acreSI and the quasistatic
eSlimate increases, with KIA > KICI' Note that KIA appears!O be a material constant but
KIa varies with the length of crack propagation. Also note that the dynamic stress inten-
sity during crack growth is considerably differen t fro m the quasistatic estimate of KI.
Kobayashi, et at. [44] obtained similar result.s.
A shon time after arrest, the applied stren intensity reaches K,CI' the quasistatic
value. Figure 4.14 shows the variation of KI after arrest in one of the Kalthoff, et al. e~­
periments. When the crack arrests, KI = K,A, which is grealer than K,CI ' Figure 4.\4
shows that the spec imen "rings down" to KICI after -2000 I1s. The quasistatic value,
however, is not indicative of the true material arrest propcnies,
Recal l the schematic in Fig. 4.8, where it was argued that arrest, when quantified by
the quasistatic stress intensity, would occur below the true arrest toughness, KIA , because
o f kinetic energy in the specimen. This argument is a slight oversimplification. but it
leads to the correct qualitative conclusion,
 Chllpur.f
'"
2.5,----,---,---,------,

Ko.

PO o 195
o 272
7J17
"v lOS

o
80 100 140 180 220
CRACK LENGTH, mm
FIGURE "'3 encl, UTaI aport_nu oa .....t1.. 1M<I~ DOl Araldlle B opcdIDt ... [001- n.. IUlU_
cooll, 1......,....u'llll'TUl ....... _ u_ralimata III~ trw KIA"" 1M ""erlal; lb. dfoct II
_ott _ _ ,""'" r...... end< jumpl.

The DCB specimen provides lUI ulremc exampleofrcfkcted stress wave effects: the
5pecimcn dc$ign is suc h Lb. suus waves can travene the width of the spec imen and rc-
tum to the crack tip in II very short lime . In many structures, the quasi static approach is
approx imately valid. even for relatively lo ng cnlCkjUIllp$. In any case:, K/a gives a lo wer
bound estimate of Kilt . and thus is conservative in most instances.

4.1.3 Dynamic Contour Integrals

1lIe original flnllulation of the J CODtour integral il equivalent 10 the no nlinear clastic
cneTlY release ra/.e for quasisUitic deformation. By inyoonll more IIcneral definition of
energy release mit, ;1 is pos.$ible to incorporate dynamic effects and time-dependenl male-
rial behavior inlo the J integral.
Dytlmnic (Jnd Ti~-CHperuknt Frocture
'"
2.0
ARREST

1.5
X
K,.
1.0

0.5

~~·~----CO----~~~----~I000~----~I~~----·2000~
TIME, ~s

FIGURE 4..14 Comparison <JI. dytWDk: mnsurtmt .... or .tress Inttlll.lly wJtb s"'tk: aJeulaU_ tor a
WflIlt 1000decl OCB AnkiUt B . peclmtD l43\-

The energy release rale is usually defined as the energy released from the body per
un it cn«;k advance. A more pn:cisc: definition II I I involves the work input inlO the crac k
lip. Consider a vanishingly small contour", r , around the lip of a crac k in a two-dimen-
sional solid (Fig. 4.15). The energy release rate is equal to the energy flux into the crac k
lip, divided by the crack speed:

(4 .25)

when: 7 is the energy flux inlo the area bounded by r. The generalized energy re lease
rale, including inertia effects, is given by

(4.26)

where w and T are the stress work and kinetic energy densities defined as
214

v •
n GUM 4.15 Eftrl'l)' IIw:.lDlo . . . .U __
_ • M til< "oh ~ "I rp" ... ...-.

(4 .21)

au, au-
T:: _1 p:=.L::=L. (4.28)
2 at at
Equation (4.26) has been published in a variety of fOl'Yru; by several researchers [8·121.
Appendix 4.2 gives. derivation of this relationship.
Equalioo (4.26) i5 valid (01" time-depeodcol as _11 as histOl'y-depeodcnt material be-
havior. When evaluating J for. time-Oependenl maaerial, il may be convenient 10 u.~
VI in the followins form :

,
w = J (JijEijdt

•
.
'
(4 .29)

where 4) is the strain rate.

Unlike the eon~ nti onal J inteifal. the contour in Sq. (4.26) cannQl be chosen arm-
Itllrily. Consider, for txlllDple, I dynamically loaded Cl"IKkcd body wilh stress waves re-
flecting off of free sutfaecs. If the inlcgnl in Sq. (4 .26) were eompuled It two arbitrary
coatoun a finite disWICc from !he cnck tip. and. 5tres5 wave pas.sed through 0IlC contour
but not the other. !Ml vll~ of rhese intcilnlls would normall y be dilTercnt for the two
contours. Thus the gcncrali.wl J integral is not paLh independent, excep! in the immediate
vicinity of the CI1ICk tip. If, however, T = 0 It , II points in the body. the integrand in Sq.
(4.26) reduces to the form of the oriJinal J integral. 10 the latter case, the patb·indcpen-
 '25

dent property or J is restored if w displays the property of an ell.5tic palcnlial (see

Appendix 4.2).
TIle fonn of Eq. (4.26) is not very convenient for numerical calculations, si n(;c il is
eKtrcmeiy difficult to obtain adequate numerical precision from a COfltOUT inlegllllion very
close 10 the crack tip. Fonunately. Eq. (4.26) can be e..prcSsed in a variety of other fOl'lTls
that arc more conducive to numerical analysis. TIle energy release rate can also be gener.
alized 10 three dimensions. 1be results in Fig5. 4.3 and 4.4 are obtained from finite ele-
ment analysis that utilized .lternate fonns of Eq. (4.26). Otapltr I I discusses numerical
calculations of J for both quasi.static and dynamic loading.

4.2 C REEP CRAC K GROWTH

Components thai operate at high temperatures relative to the mfilins point of the mate·
rial may fail by slow, stable extension o f I macroscopic crack. Trad itional approaches 10
design in !he cr«p regime apply only when creep and material damage atC uniformly dis·
trlbllled. TIme-depcndem fncturo:: mechanic. "I'V'QIlCbes are rcquRd when c""P fai lt.= is
controlled by a dominant crack in the structure.
Figure 4 .16 ill ustrates the typical creep response of a mat~rial subject to conSUlnt
stress. Deformation at high temperatures can be divided into four regimes; instantaneous
(elastic) strain, primary creep, seCQlldary (s teady state) creep. and tertiary creep. The elas-
tic strain occurs immediately upon application of the load, As discussed in the previous
section on dynamic ffllClure, the clastic sl/'ess-strain respol\5C of a material ill not instanta-
neow (i.e., it is limited by the speed of sound in the material), but it can be viewed as
such in creep problems. where the time scale is usually measured in hours. Primary creep
dominates at short times after application of the load: the strain rate decreases with time.
III the material strain harde ns. In the secondary crccp stage, the deformation reaches a
steady state, where strain lulrdcning and strain softening are balanced; the creep rate is con-
stant in the secondary stage. In the tertiary stage, the creep rate Keelerotes, as the mate_
rial approao;hc:.o ulUma,c failure. Microscopie flli lun! mechanism., £uch as grain boundary
cavitation, nocleate in this final S!.Dge of creep.
During growth of a macroscopic crack at high temperature" all four Iypes of creep
response can occur simultaneously in the most general case (fig. 4. 17). "The material at
the tip of growing crack is in the tertiary stage of creep, since the material is obviously
failing b:M:ally. 1bc: material may be elastic remote from the crack tip, and in the primary
and secondary stagn of creep at moderate diStancC5 from the tip.
Most analytical treatments of creep crack growth assume limiting cases, where one
or more of!bese regimes are not present or are confined to a small portion of the compo-
nent. If, for example, the component is predominantly elastic. aad the creep .tOne is con-
fined 10 a small re,ion near the crack tip, the crack arowtb can be chllflloClerizcd by the
Sl/'eSS intensily fac :or. In the other extreme, when the compocenl defanns ,Iobally in
steady Sllie crup, ~ Iastie strains and tertiary crup can be disregarded. A parameter thai
applil!l to the latter c:ase is described below. followed hy a brief discussion of approaches
that consider the transition from elastic 10 sleady state creep behavior.
". Chapu:r4

Fallure ,
Primary
STRAlN C""" I
I
t
): Study-Sta",
c"""
I
II T~=:; I
'" I
I
I
I
TIME

FIG URE 4.16 khan.de CI'ftP beh.vlo. "'. ",.cnial . ubJt<;! 10 • .--tanl l traa.

Elutie

F1GUR£ '.11 c ........ _ .. lb. tip or. <rock.

4.2.1 The C· Integral

A fonnal fracture mechanics approach 10 creep crack growlh was developed soon after the
J integral was cstablished as an clastil::·plastic fracture parameter. Landes and Begley [45J.
Ohji, ( I al. [461. and Nikbin. (I al. [47] independently proposed what became known as
the C · integral to characterize crack growth in a maleria! undergoing steady state creep.
~y applied Hoffs analogy [4tlJ. whj",h stales thai jftbere exists a nonlinear elastic bod)'
•
Ihal obeyS the rdationship Eij '" lfUijJ arK! a viscous body that is charac terized by e'j '"
j( C1jj}, where the functio n of stress is the same for both, tllen both bodies develop idem;·
 227

cal stress distributions wilen the same load is applied. Hoff's analogy can be applied 10
steady state creep. since the ~roc:p mle i5. function only of the applied IItreSS.
The C' integral is de6ncd by replacing strains with strain rates. and displacemenlS
with displacement rates in the: J contour integral:

(4.30)

•
where w is the StreSS wOft nte (power) density. defined as

w=
'uJ <Iijd£jj (4.31)
o
Hoff' s analogy implies that the C· integral is palh-independent, because J is pa(h·ind~
pendent. Also, if KeoDdarycroc:p follows a power law:

(4.32)

where '" and n an: material wnstants, then it is possible to define an HRR-Iype Ii;ogular-
ity for stresses and slnlin I1Ilcs ncar the crack tip:

cr··
'I
C')'+I.O'··(n
=(-A/n' I) '
(}) (4.33a)

,
. (C')<+I_
£ '"
I)AI,,'
e ..(n 8)
= --
IJ'
(4.33b)

where the constants 'II' iJij. and 'tij are identical to the correspond ing parameters in the
HRR relationship (Eq. (3.24». NOIe that in the present case, n is a creep exponent rather
than .. strain hardening uJXMIcnl.
JU5t as Ihe J integral cllaracterite$ the crack tip fields in an elastic or elastic-plastic
material. the C· integral uniquely defines crack tip conditions in a ViSCOU5 material.
Thus the: time-dependent crack growth rate in a viscous material should depend only On
the val"" of C*. E:.perimenla/ studies 145.49J have shoWll that creep crac!:: growth rates
com:late very well with C·, provided steady state creep is the domin ant defonnatio n
mechanism in the specimen. Figure 4. 18 shows typical creep crack growlh data. Note
that the crack growth rate follows a power law:
21.

10-5
Cr-Mo 51«1

.
• 4S(!°C
.. + S35"C
. 600"C

.
10-10 L.:'--'-,----L_..L_L-lLJ
10-2 10- 1 1 10 102 16'

FlGUR!!"" Oft, a-.dI v-tlIda.. Ia. Q-.Mo SCM al tII._ U.. .nllI .... (ott}.

(4.34)

when: rand m are material consWlts. In many mlleriah, m .. nl(n. I}. • result thai il
predictod by grain boundary cavitation models (49).
Experimental measurements of C. take advantage of analogies with the J integral.
Recall that J is usually measured by invoking the energy release rate definition:

B aGo
(a • )
1 - / PdIJ.
1---
1:1
(4.35)

where P is the applied load and.d is the load line displacement Similarly, C· can be de.-
fined in terms of. power rc:~ rale:
 ".
(4.36)

"The J integral can be related 10 !he c.neriY absorbed by a laboratory spe.;:imen, divided by
the ligament areal;

j
•
",...!1.... J Pda (4.37)
Bb O

wllcte 'l is. dimensionless cons~1lI that depends on geomcuy. 'Therefore. C· is given
by

For a material that creeps according 10 a power law (Eq. (4.32». Inc displacement rate is
proportional \0 pn. assuming global crtcp in the specimen. In this case Eq. (4.38) re-
d=~

C'=n - "- P/l. (4.3S1)

n+l Bb

The lleomcuy factor '1 bas bttn dclennined for a variely of tes.I &peeimens. For example
".2.0 for a deeply notehcd bmd speo:imc:n (Eq5. (3.37) and (4.6» .

4.2.2 Short T ime VenUli Lonl Time Be havior

'The C· panrmter only applies 10 cl'ICk growth in ihe presence of global sleady slate
creep. Slated another way, c- applies to long time behavior, as diseuued below.
Consider a stationary crac k in a material that b susceptible to creep deformation. If
a remote load is applied 10 the crac ked body. the material responds . Imosl imm«lialc ly
wilh the ~spondi nl clastic strain di$tribulion. Assuming the 1oadi na: is pure Mode I.
the stre$$CI and strains ellhlbit • IN; singularity ncar the crack tip and ~ uniquely de-
fi ned by K/. Large Kale Cf"CqI deformation does nOl occur immediately. however. Soon

2n.. '* Ii. tIisp...,.....,,~ 4, III Eqo. ('.17) 10 (09) ........p

d 10 the ~ of the tlispllcc'DtIll choe \0
the ........ of the <d<:k. .. diocaucd;' s...:.;o. ) .l.!I. Thd di .. jDC ,a is DIll - "Y ill Ecp. (OS)-.I
(• . 36), ..,._ the dupl.aoe_ <:OIIIpOMGI anributc<l 10 .......,....w cooolipntioa wuioba ......
ditremuillOd with ~ 10 ..
230 Chapter4

after the load is applied, 11 small creep zone, analogous \0 a plastic zone. forms al the
crack tip. 1bc crack tip conditions can be characterized by K/ as long as the creep wne is
embedded within the singularity dominated zone. The creep lORe gl'(lws with lirrn:, even-
tually invalidating K/ as a crack tip parameter. At long tirrn:s, the creep lone spreads
throughout the entire struClUre.
When the crack grows with time. the behavior of the s!ruelUI': depends on lhe crack
growth rale relative 10 the creep rale. In brittle materials. the crack growth rate is so fast
that it overtakes the creep zone; crack growth can be cl=aclcrizod by Kf ba:ausc the creep
zone al the tip of the growing crllCk: remains small. AI the other extreme, if the crack
growth is sufficiently slow thai the creep zone spreads Ihroughout the structure, C· is
the appropriate charao::terizing parameter.
Riedel and Rice [50J analyzed !he transition from shon time clastic behavior \0 long
time viscous behavior. TItey assumed a simplified stress-strain rate law that neglects
primary creep:

(4.40)

for uniaxial tension. If a load is suddenly applied and then held conSLant, a creep zone
gradually develops in an elastic singularity zone. as discussed above. Riedel and Rice ar-
gued that the stresses we ll within the creep zone can be described by

(4.41)

where Crt) is a parameter that characterizes the amplitude of the local srress singularity in
the creep wne; crt) varies with time and is equal to C· in the limit of long time behav-
ior. If the remote load is fixed, the strt:sscs in the creep zone relax with time, as creep
strain accumulates in the crack tip region. For small scale creep conditions, crt) decays
as 111 according to the following relationship:

(4.42)

And the approximate: size oflhe creep zone is given by

2
r( 9,1) = _1 (~)'[(n +1
)A1f j"-1 r (9,n) t
(4.43)
c 2 Jr E 2Jr(l-) C
Dynamic and Time-[k/Xnden' Frac,urt 231

At 9 = 900, T-c is a maximl,lm and ranges from 0.2 to 0.5, depending on n. As ~c in-
creases in size. C(l) approaches the steady state value Co. Riedel and Rice defined a char-
acteristic time for the transition from short time to long time hehavior:

(4.44a)

J
t - .,---'c-=c=
l-(n+ l )C·
(4.44b)

When significant cl"II(:k growth occl,lrs over time scales much less than tl, the behavior
can be characterized by KI, while C· is the appropriate parameter ""hen sign ificant crack
growth requires times» '1. Based on finite element analysis, Riedel [51] suggested
the following simple formula to interpolate between small scale creep and extensive creep
(short and long time behavior, respectively):

C(t)-C.(~+ I) (4.45)

Note the similarity to the transition time concept in dynamic fraclUro (Section 4.1.1 ). In
both instances. a transiti on time characterizes the interaction between twO competing
phenomena.

1M '1 jX!rqmm~
Unlike KJ and Co. direct experimental measurement of CO) under transient condi-
tions is usually not possible. Consequently Saxena [521 defined an alternate parameter.
C,. which was originally intended as an approximation of C(t). The advantage o f C, is
that it can be measured relatively easily.
Suena began by separating global displacement into instantaneous elastic and time-
dependent creep components:

(4.46)

lbe creep displacement, lit, increases with time as the creep lOne grows. Also, if load is
• •
fixed, lit = li. ll1e C, parameter is defined as the creep component of the power release
rate:

(4.47)
 Chtlpur4

Note 1M similarity between Ecp. (4.36) anO (4.4"1).

For small sca le creep (sse) conditions. Suena defined an effective crack. length .
analogous w the Irwin plastic wne correction described in O.aptcr 2:

where fJ .. 1/3 and rc is dc:fiDed at (I = goo. The displacement dUoC to the creep zone is
giveD by

6, ;;:!J.. -Ill;;: P-
de pre (4.49)
da
wlltn: cis the d ude compllaoce . defined in Ch!Opt<:, 2. Sue"a .howod!hal the .mall
scalI creep limit for C, can be uprusod as follows

whereft"/W) is the geometry correction factor for Mode I stress intensity (see Table 2.4):

andf i5 the first derivative off. Equation (4.$0) pn:diclS that (C')m: is proportional to
K(#; thus C, does not coincide with Cft) in the limit of small scale creep (Eq. (4.42».
Saxena propo$e(l the following Interpotallon Iltlween smalt scale creep and eJtlCnsive

"'"''
(H I )

when: C· is determined from Eq. (4.38) using the 10l.:.{ displacement rate. In the limit of
lo ng time belu.vior, C -JC, .. 1.0, but this ratio is less thl.ll unity for sml ll seale creep
and transient behavior.
BlI5SIlIi. et al . [!i31 applied the C, parameter 10 experimental data with various
C-IC, ratios and found that C, characleri:eed crao::k. growth rales mU(:h better tNn C· or
Kr. They state tNt C,. when dc:fined by EQs. (4.SO) and (4.51), charao::terizes experimental
data better than 01). as defined by Riedel's approrimalioo (&!. (4.45».
Although C, was originally intended as an approxilN'tion of C(,). it has become
clear IDat t.heIc tWO panmcters an: di ..... nct frum III'" lU.uthet. The C(I) param.. lc:< .. han<;.
 '"
terius the: stresses ahead of a stationary crack, while Ct is related 10 the rate of c~pansion
of the creep ~onc. 'The lauer quantity appears to be belter suited to materials thaI c~peri­
cnce relatively rapid creep crack growth. Both parameters approa<:h C· in the limit of
steady-state creep.

Primary rrfflJ
'The analyses introduced so far do not consider primary creep. Referring \0 Fig.
4.17, which depicts the most general case, the outer ring of the creep zone is in the pri-
mary stage of creep. Primary creep may have an appreci able effect on the crac k growth
behavior jfthe size of the primary rone is significant.
Recently, researchers llave begun \0 develop crack growth analyses that include the
effects of primary creep. One such approach [541 considers a slmin hardening mood for
the primary creep deformation, resulting in the following cllpressioo for lotal strain rate:

(4.5 I)

Riedel [54] introduced a new parameter, Ch·, which is the primary creep analog 10 C·.
The characteristic lime thai defines the transilion from primary 10 secondary crup is de-
fined as

(452)

The stresses within lhe sleady Siale cl't'ep loOne arc sliIl defined by Eq. (4.41), bUI Ihe in-
1crpOlation scheme for crt) is modified when primary cl't'ep strains arc pl't'scnt [54]:

(4.5J)

Equation (4.5J) has been applied 10 experimental data in a limiled number of cases. This
relationship appears 10 give a beller description of e~perimental data than Eq. (4.45).
where the primary tenn is omined.
Chun-Pok and McDowell [55]lIave ~entJy incorporated the effects of primary creep
into the estimation of the Ct parameter.

4.3 VISCOELASTIC FRACTU RE MEC HAN ICS

Polymeric materials have secn increasing 5Crvice in struclural applications in recent years.
Consequently, the fracture I't'sistano:;e of these materials has become an importanl consider-
234 Chapter4

ation. Much of the fracture m«:hanics methodo logy that was deve loped for metals is not
direc tly transferable to polyme~, however, because the latter behave in a viscoelastic
manner.
Theoreti cal fracture mec hanics analyses that incorporate viscoelastic material re-
sponse are relatively new, and practical applications ofviSl;:ooisstic fracture mechanics are
rare, as of this writing. Most current applications to polymers utilize conventio nal, time-
inde pendent fract ure mechanics methodology (see Chapters 6 and 8). Approaches thai in-
corporate time dependence should become more widespread, however, as the methodology
is developed further and is validated experimentally.
This sec tio n introduces viscoelastic fracture mechanics and outline s a number of re-
cent advances in this area. The work of Sc hapery [56-61 J is e mphasized. because he has
formulated the most complete theoretical framework. and hi s approach is re lated to the J
and C. integrals, which were introduced earlier in this text.

4.3.1 Linea r Viscoelasticity

Vis<:oelasticity is perhaps the most general (and compl eJO) type of time -dependent matcrial
response. From a continuum mechanics viewpoint, viscoplastic creep in metals is actu-
ally a special case of viscoelastic material behavior. While creep in metals is generally
considered permanent deformation, the strains can recove r with time in vis<:oclastic ma te-
rials. In the case of polymers, time·dependent deformation and recovery is a di rect result
of their mo lecular SU'\Lcture, as d is<:us.secl in Chapter 6.
Let us introduce tOe subject by considering linear viscoelastic material behavior. In
thi s case, linear implies that the malerial meets two conditions: superpoSition and pro·
portionality. TIle first conditi on requires that stresses and strain s al time f be addi tive.
For example, consider two uniaJlial strains. £.J and £'2, at time t, and the correspo nding
stresses, 0(£./) and 0(£.2). Superposition implies

(4.54)

If each stress is multiplied by a constant, the proportio nality cond ition gives

(4.55 )

If a uniaJlial constant stress creep test is performed o n a linear viscoelastic material.

suc h that a = 0 for f < 0 and a= (10 for I > 0, the strai n increases with time according to

£(t ) = D(t )(!o (4.56)

where D (t) is the creep compliance. The loading in this case can be represented more
com pactly as ao H (t), where H(I) is the Heaviside step function, defined as
 '"
Ofort<O
H ( / ) ' { 1 fior t> 0

In the case of II con$tani uniaxial sttain, i.c .. £ = Eo 11(,), the stn:ss is given by

aCt) = £(t)f:o (4.57)

wtterc EO) is the rela:ution modulus. When Eo is positive, the stress rc llUes with time.
Figure 4.19 schematically illustrates creep al II constant st«:ss, and stress relaxation at II
fixed strain.

cr. 1-------- E(I)

TIME TIME

E.~------------- ,,(t)

TIME TIME
". Chapur4

When SU'e!i5 and strain both vary. the e ntire deformalion history must be taken into
account. The strai n al time I is obtained by su mming strai n incremcnl5 from earlier
limes. 1be incremental strain allime t , where 0 < T< t, thai results fmm an Incremc n-
(.ai stre» da H(I - r) is given by

de( 1') = D(t - f')da ( T) (4.58)

Integrating this uprc55ion wilh respect 10 lime I gi ~$

I dcr( f )
1o
e(t) = D(I- T)
dT
dT (4.59)

where il il aswllled WI £ = (1= 0 al t = O. In order to allow for a discontinuous change

in stress al f = 0, 1m: lower integration limit is assumed to ~ 0-, an infinitesimal lime
before t ,. O. Relationships such as Eq. (4.59) arc called hcrcd ltcH) ' Imcgr(J1$ bc"uu$C the:
conditions al time t depend on prior history. TIle corresponding hereditary integral for
iU'eSS in ,iven by the inverse of Eq. (4.$9):

I de( 1")
<1(/ ) =I£(/-T) dT (4 .60)
o dT

By perfonning i Laplace transform on Eqs. (4.59) and (4.60), il can be shown thai the
attp compliana: and the few.dOll modulus arc: re~ as follOW$:

Jr £('-1') dDCr - Tq ) d-r=H(t--ro ) (4.61 )

,
T dT

For deformation in thn:e dimensions, the generalized hereditary integral for suai n is
give n by

(4.62)

but symmetry considerations reduce the number o f indcpcnd: nt cnep compliance con-
stants. In the (85e oCa linear yiscoelaslic isotropic malerial , lhere ~ tWO independent
constants, and the mechanical behavior can be described by E(t) or D(t}, .... hich are
uniquely n latcd, plus 'IIeft), the Poisson', ratio for creep.
fulluw;"g au approach developed by Sc:hDpcry 1591, it is pouiblc to define I. ps,eodo
elastic suain, v.trich ror uniaxial conditions is given by
D)'nmnic and Time-~pendtnt Fracture 237

(4.63)

where ER is a reference modulus. Substituting Eq. (4.63) inlO Eq. (4.59) gives

(4.64)

The pseudo strains in throe dimensions are related to the stress te nsor through Hooke's
law, assuming isotrOpic material behavior:

(4.65)

where O;j is the Kronecker delta, and the standard convention of summation on repeated
indices is followed. If vc " v '" constant with time, it can be shown thaI the three-dimen·
sional generaliz.ation ofEq. (4.64) is given by

(4.66)

and the inverse of Eq. (4.66) is as follows.

(4.67)

The advantage of intlOducing pseudo strains is that they can be related to stresses
through Hooke's law. Thus if a linear elastic solution is known for a particular geome-
try, it is possible to detennine the corresponding linear viscoelastic solution through a
hereditary integral. Given two identical configurations, one made from a linear elasti\;
material and the other made from a linear viscoelastic material, the stresses in both bodies
must be identical. and the strains are related through Eqs. (4.66) or (4.67), provided both
configurations are subject to the same applied loads. This is a special ease of a corre-
spondence principle, which is discussed in more detai l below: note the similarity to
Hoffs analogy for elastic and viscous materials (Section 4.2).
13 8 Chapter 4

4.3.2 T be Vllcot lu li.: J Inte,rll

Con.ujhlljrc EumJjgry
Schapery [59] developed. flenerali«d J inlCgrnI that is applicable to I ...ide range of vis_
coelastic materials. He began by assuming I nonlinear viscoewtic constitutive equation
in the form of. hcredi\.ary inlCgral:

(4.68)

... here the 10...« integration limit is llIken as 0-. The pseudo elastic strain, til is related
to stress throu,h a linear 01' non line. elulic constitutive la... The similari ty bet ... een
Eqs. (4.66) and (4 .68) ill obvioul, but the latter relationship abo applies to cemin types
of nonlinear vi~lastic behaviOl'. The creep compl iance. D(fJ, has. some ... hat different
interpretation for the nonlinear case.
The pseudo IlJ"ain tensor and reference modulus in Eq. (4.68) are analogous to the
linear case. In the previous section. these quantities were introO:iced to relate • linear vis-
coelastic problem to a refercn<:e clastic problem. This i<:ka is generalized in the present
case .... here the nonlinear viKoclutic belulvi« is related to I 'eferen<:e nonlinear elastic
probkm through. WilesPOildence principle. 11$ discvsscd belo....
The invme of Eq. (4.68) is l iven by

f Qe"( T)
Eij(l) : ERIJ£(t - 1',1) IJ dT (4.69)
o ih

Since hn-edital}' inlegnls of the form of Eqs. (4.68) and (4.69) are used cxtcfUiivd y in the
rem';_r o r tbis discussion. i, i~ convenienl to inlIOduce III abbreviued IIOI.Ilion:

IDdf).ERJD(I-T,I)~ d T (4.7Qa)

... o uT

(Edf). ER' i
o
£(t - T,t ) iJj dT
dT
(4.7Ob)

where I it a fw>ction of time. In each case, il is usumed that inlegration be,ins al 0-.
Thus Eqs. (4.M) and (4.69) become, ~vely:
 '"
Consider two bodies with the same instantaneous geometry, where one malerial is
elastic and the other is vi$C(lClastic and is described by Eq. (4.68). Assume that at time /,
a surface traction Tj" (Ii] "} is applied \0 both configurations along the ouler boundaries.
If the stresses and stnins in !he dastic body IR (JiJ~ and £;/.
respeo::dvely, while the cor-
responding Quantities in !he vliKOC lastic body Ire C1ij and C;]. the StTe$SCS. strains. and
displacements IR relalCd as follows [59):

"i = lDe/ufJ (4.71)

&juation (4.7 1) defines a corresponde nce pOociplc. introduced by Schapcry [59]. which al-
lows the 5Oluti on to a viscoelastic problem 10 be inferred from a reference elastic solu-
lion. This correspondelltC principle sIems from the facl WI !he stresses in both bodies
mllSl Hlisfy equilibrium. and !he strains must wisfy compatibility reqll;n:mcnu in both
cases. Also, the SIJe$$e$ an:: equal on the boundaries by definition:

Schapel)' [59] givn. rigorous proof of Eq. (4.7 1) for viscocllllilic materials that satisfy
Eq. (4.6&).
Applications of correspondence principles in viscoelasticity, where !he viscoelastic
solution is re l.ted to • cOlTesponding elutic solution, usually involve performing a
Laplace uansfonn on a hc~iwy integral in the rorm ofEq. (4.62). .... hich cOOtains actual
stresses and stnins. TIle introduction ofpscudo quantities makes the connection bel_cn
vi$COClastic and elastic solutions more straightforward.

Wncrg/jud J jnlmnt
TIle cOfTespondence principle in Eq. (4.71) makes il possible 10 define a generalized
limc:-dependenl J intearal by forming an analol)' with the nonlinear elastic case:

(4.72)

where..,e is the pKudo strain energy density:

we -1 Gijdeij (4.73)

TIle Slre5ses in Eq. (4.72) are the actual values In the body, but the strai ns and displace-
ments arc: pseudo clastic valuC$. TIle actual Sllluns and displacemc:nts arc: given by Eq.
240 Clwptu4

(4.7 1). Conversely, if Eij and Wi arc known , J v can be determ ined by computing pseudo
values. which are inserted into Eq. (4.73), The pseudo SlCains and displacemenrs are given
by

,,' uf :: I Edui} (4.74)

Consider a si mple example, where the material exhibits steady state creep at t :> to. The
hereditary intcgruls for stnI.in and displacement reduce to

By insening the above resulls into Eq. (4.73). we IS« thaI J~ = C·. Thus C· is a special
case of 'v. The lalter parameter is capable of taking account of a wide range of time-de·
pendent material behavior. and includes viscous creep as a special case.
Near the lip of the crack, the stresses and pseudo strains are characterized by Jv
through an HRR-Iypc relationship in the form of Eq. (4.33). The vi!>Coeiaslic J can also
be determined through a pseudo energy release rate:

1. = -![~ j' PdA') (4 ,75)

B aa 0
.'
where <it is the pseudo displacement in the loading direction. which is related to the ac-
tual displacement by

6 = {Ddtt} (4. 76)

Finally, for Mode 1 loading of a linear viscoelastic material in plane sl.nlin, J v is related to
the slIl:ss intensity factor as follows:

(4.77)

The stress inte nsity factor is related

10 spec imen geometry, applied toads, and crack di-
mensions through the standanl equations out lined in Chapter 2.

Crack jaia·alion and growth

When characterizing crack initiati on and growth. it is useful to relate J v to physical
parameters such as CTOD and fracture work, which can be used as local failure criteria.
Schaper)' [59] derived simplified re lati onships between these parameters by ass uming a
slrip yield-type failure zone ahead of the crack tip. where a closure stress am acts over p.
 241

as illustrated in Fig. 4.20. While material in the failure zone may be severely damaged
and contain voids and other discontinuities. it is assumed that the SUlTOunding material
can be treated as a continuum. If am does not vary with.t, applying Eq. (3.44) gives

(4.78)

where l' is the p:5Cudo CI1ICk tip opening displacement, which is related 10 the actual
eroo through a hereditary integral of the form of Eq. (4.n). Thus the ClOD is give n
b,

(4.79)

Although am was assumed to be iDdependen\ of .r at time I , Eq. (4.79) permilS am to

vary with time. 1be erOD can be utilized as • local failure criterion: if cnek initiation
occurs at Sj, the ' " at initiation can be inferred from Eq. (4.79). If 6j is assumed to be
constant, the critical ,,, would, in genen.1. depend on the strain rate. A more general ver-
sion of Eq. (4.79) can be derived by al lowin. O'm \0 vary with x.
An alternati ve local failure criterion is the fracture work, wf Equating the work
input 10 the crack lip 10 the energy re!luired to advance the crack tip by da resu lts in the
following energy balance at initiation:

(4 .80)

0 ...1
'. ,,_I
1-+

f4 , ·1
0
1f4:
~ II 1 t
, ·1

nCURE 4.20 Fallure 10M II 1M m,,:11 Up 1111 ~1Kot1ll1k "'llniaL ThIll 10M IIl110dtkd by surflCe
I...won. wltllin 0 < ., < Po
:z 4:Z ChIlpll!r 4

assuming unit thickness and Mode I loading. This energy balance can also be written in
terms of a time integral:

Insening Eq. (4.79) into Eq. (4.8 1) gives

(4.82)

If (1m is independent of time, it cancels OUI of Eq. (4.82), which then simplifies 10

(4.83)

For an elastic material, D '" ER· 1, and iv = 2 wI- If the failure zone is viscoehllitic and
the surrounding continuum is elaslic, iv may vary with time. If the surrounding contin-
=
uum is viscous, D (tv ERr J (I' . ), where tv is a constant with units of time.
Inserting this latter result into Eq. (4.83) and integrating by parts gives

(4.84)

4.3.3 Transition from Linear to Nonlinear Behavior

Typical polymers are linear viscoelastic al low stresses and nonlinear at high stresses. A
specimen that contains a crack may have a lone of nonlinearity at the crack tip. analogous
to a plastic lone. Ihat is surrounded by linear viscoelastic material. The approach de-
scribed in the previous section applies only when one type of behavior (li near or nonlin·
ear) domi nates.
Schapery 161] has recently modified the iv concept to cove r the transi tion from
small stress 10 large stress behavior. He introduced a modified constitutive equation,
where strain is give n by the sum of two hereditary integrals: one corresponding to linear
viscoelastic strains and the other describing nonlinear strains. for the lalter term, he as·
sumed power·law viscoelasticity. For the case of uniaxial constant tensile stress. 0"0. the
creep strain in this modified model is given by
Dyrf(Jtllic and Time-Inpentknt Froctun 243

(4.8.5)

where D and DL are the nonl inear and linear creep compliance. respectively. and are/is a
reference stress.
At low stresses and shon times. the se<:ond term in Eq. (4.83) dominates, while the
nonlinear term dominalll s at high stresses or long times. In the case of a viscoelastic
body with a stationary crack at a fi;l;ed load, the nonlinear zone is ini tially small but nor-
mally increases with time. until the behavior is predominantly nonl inear. Thus there is a
direct analogy between the present case and the transition from clastic to viscous behavior
described in Section 4.2.
C lose to the crack tip, but outside of the failure zone, the stresses are related to a
pseudo strain through a power law:

(4.86)

In the region dominallld by Eq. (4.86), the stresses are characlllrized by lv. regardless of
whether the global behavior is linear or nonlinear:

(4.87)

If the global behavior is linear, there is a second singularity further away from the crack
tip:

Oij = ~
.r.- f",OJ
'J (4.88)
'2m

Let us define a pseudo strain tensor that, when inserted in to the path-independent in-
tegral of Eq. (4.72). yie lds a value 11.. Also suppose that this pseudo strain tensor is re-
lated to the stress IIlnsor by means of linear and power law pseudo complemenlary slrain
energy density functions (Mic/ and Mien. respectively):

(4.89)
..,
whereJ(IJ is an as yet unspecified aging function, and the complementary strain energ),
density is de li ned by

For uniaxial deformation, Eq. (4.89) reduces 10

(4.90)

Comparing Eq$ (4.8~) and (4.90), it can be seen that

;, for constant SIfeS5 crttp.

The laller relationship for pseudo strain agrees with the conventional defini tion in the
limit of linear behavior.
Let us ~w consideI the case where the inl'C:f and outer singularities, Eqs. (4.87) and
(4.88), exist simuhancomly. For the outer singularity, second tenn in Eq . (4.90) dami-
naleS, the StleS5CS are given by Eq. (4.88), and II. is related 10 Kr as (ollows:

(4.91)

Closer to the crack tip, the stresses arc chanlclCrized by I." through Eq. (4.87), bul it is
not neceuatily equal 10 lv, beeallK/appears in the fim tenn of the modified constitutive
relationship (Eq. (4.90». but not in Eq. (4.86). These two definitions of J coincide if
uurin Eq. (4.90) is n:pJaced with ure/,I/n . Thus. the near-tip ,insularity in terms of
IL IS given by

(4.92)

J=!J..
> f (4.93)
 '"
Schapery showed that f = I in the limi t of purdy linear behavior; thus iL is the limit -
ins value o f iv when the nonlinear wne is negligible. 1be function/is indicative of the
e:uenl of nonlinearity. In most cascs./increases with lime. until)" reaches I n• the Lim-
iti ng value when the specimen is dominated by non linear viscoelasticity. Schapery also
confinned that

(4.94)

for smaJl scale nonlinearity. Equations (4.93) and (4.94) provide a reasonable description
of the lBn!ition to nonlinear behavior. Schapc:ry defined a tnmsilion lime by settinS I" =
1n in Eq. (4.93):

(4.95.)

(4.95b)

For the special case oflinear behavior followed by viscous creep, Eq. (4.95b) becomes

t- h (4.96)
r- (n+l )C.

which is identical to the uansilion time defined by Riedel and Rice [5OJ.

REFERENCES

I. Freund, L.B. , "Dynamic Crack Propaillion." The MUMn!cl of F1Qt:I"~, American

Society of MochBniCliI Enginecn. New York. 1976. pp. IOS- I34.

2. Fmlnd.. L.B., "Crack Propaption in an Elastic Solid SUbjected to Cien.elllll...oadina:·· I.

Constant Rate of Extension. Jt;JflmDl uf'~ Mn;/tania <JNJ PhJ~"c~ of Solids, Vol . 20,
H

1972. pp. 129-140.

3. Freund, L.S., "'Crack PropaJal1 on in an ElQlic Solid Subjcr;tcd 10 ~ I...oadin,-II.

Non-Uni form Ibte of Extension. J""mQ} uf ,/w Mrcltunicl (UII/ PhyJicJ of Solids. Vol.
H

20, 15172. pp. 141 . 1$2.

4. Freund. LS .• "Crack Propaption in an EllUlit Solid Subjected to Generall...oadina:·· m .

Stress Wave: Loadillf.w JounllJl uf '~ Mecltunicl (J1II/ Phy~ia of Solidi, Vol. 2\, 1973.
pp. 47-61.
". Chopttr 4

Freund. LR.. DYnL1m;" 1"...",,,,., M~lrmtin. CJlml>ridge IIniv"",i,y Pr6', Oomhri.1V'~

UK, 1990.

6. Kanninen. M.F. and Poplar C.H., Adw",c~d F."c,uu Mulul1IicI, Oxford Univ,"llity
Press, New York, Oxford, 19i5.
M
7. Rose. L. R.F.• "Ream Theoretical and Experimental Reiuhs on Fast Brinle Fraclure.
InltmaROfIll/ }o"mill of FrDC'"rt. Vol. 12, 1976. pp. 799-813 .

8. Atkinson, C. and Eshlby. J.D., ''The Flo w of EntTn into the Tip of. Moving Crack."
InlCmllliOMI JOimUll of Froc/un Mechanics. Vol. 4, 1968, pp. 3-8.

9. Sih. a.c., " Dynamic Aspects of Crack Propagat ion." lncia.uic BCMvior of Solith.
McGraw- Hill, New Yorl, 1970, pp. 607-633.
10. Freund. L.B .• "Energy Flux into the Tip of an EluerKIi.g Crack in an Elastic Solid,"
Journal of Elmliei,.,.. Vol. 2, 1972, pp. 34)-)49.

I I. Moran, B. and Shih. C. F.• "A General Treatment of Crack T ip Contour Integrals."
fnltmllnorwl Jou"",1 of FroC'UTC, Vo l. 35, 1987, pp. 29'-310.

12. Atluri, S.N., "Plth_ lndependent Integrals in Finite Eluticity and Inelasticity. with
Body Forces, Ineni., and Albitr8J}' Cnck hee Condir.ons.M E"Il,',,~~~inll Fracture
MI!(:hanics. Vol. 16. 1982. pp. 341-369.

13 . Ki s himoto, K., Aoki. S .. and Sakata. M., "On the Path-Independent J Imegral . M
En8inurin, FrtI(:ruu Meclumics, Vol. 13. t98O, pp. &41-850.

14. E 23-88. HStandard Test Method$ for NOIclIcd Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials."
American Society for Testin, and Materials.. Philadelphia. 1988.

IS. Joyce J.A. and Hacket, E.M., HOynamie J-R Curve Testing of . High Strength Steel
Using the Mul\bpecimen and Key Curve Techniques." ASTM STP 90S, American
SociC1y of Tesling and Malerials. Philadelphia. 1984. pp. 741·774.

16 . Joyce lA. and HackC1, E.M., "An Advaneed Procedure for l-R Curve Tesling USing a
Drop Tower." ASTM Sll' 995. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1989, 298·317.

17 . Duffy, 1 and Shih, C.F.• ~OynllIIlie Fracture T(lUgltne» Measurement Methods for Brink
.nd Ductile Maleriall. M AdvtJnce. in F~tJCIUU Restarch: Seven.h 1>••ertlalio"o/
CCHt/uence "" FI'tJCI~re, Pergamon Press, O~ford, 1989, pp. 633·642.

18. Nakamura, T .• Shih, C.F. and Freund, L. B., "Analysis ofa Oynamkally Loaded Three-
Poi nt-Bend Ductile Fracture Specimen." Enginuring FrtJc ... r~ Mec/ta"ics, Vol. 25,
1986, pp. 323-339.

19. Nakamura, T., Shih, C.F. and Freund, L.B., 'llIn:c-Dimcll5ionai Transient Analysis of a
Dynamically Lulllk:tl Th,,;e-Puinl-Beml Ductile I'ntcture Specimen." ASTM STl' 99j,
Vol. I, American Society o f Tesling and Materials, Philadclprua, 1989, pp. 217_241.

20. Ri ce, l .R" Paris. P.C., and Merkle. lO .• ~Some Funher Results of J-Intcgral Analysis
Ind Estim lles. " ASTM STP 536. American Societ)' of T esling and Materials.
Philadelphia. 1973. pp. 231-245.
 24'

2 1. Banom. J.M .• "Development of the AAS HTO FractuRl ToughneSf Requirements for
Bridge Sleel,.H &,jnuri", I'rat:/un Mec!wrles. Vol. 7. 1 97~. pp. 6O~·618.

22. MOil. N.F .. "Fracture: of Melah; Throrclical ConJidcnuions," En,inee,j",. Vol. 165.
1948, pp. 16-18.

23 . Yaffe. E.H .• 1be Moving Griffith Crack. ~ Pltilosoplticol MogatiM, Vol. 42, IIISI. pp.
139-750.

24 . Broberg. K. B.• ''1'he Propagation o f a Brinle Crack..· Amil fo, F'Ili,t, Vol 18, 1960.
pp. 15\1· 192

H. Craggs. I,W.• "On the Propqation of . Cl'III:k in 1Il Elastic-Brinle Material." Journal oJ
Ihe M ecloonies IJIId Physic, of !kJlidl. Vol . 8, 1960, pp. 66· 7S.

26. Stroh ..... N•• " ... Simple Model of I Propqllin, CrKk.." J"",.,..,/ of 1M Med'lUIie, and
Physics of Solids .. Vol. 8, 1960. pp. 119-122.

27 . Dulaney, E.N . .nd 8 /'Ke, W.F.• "Velocity Ik:hlYkw of • aro..inl C....,t. -

Applied Ph,I,'cl. Vol. 11. 1960. pp. 2233·2236.
'_mal of
28 . Berry. J.P .• "Some Klnetl e ConsideratiOns o f the Grirfilh Crilerion for Fraclure. M

J"""""I of 1M MU MllicI ond Phylic" of Solidi .• Vol. 8. 1960. pp. 194-216.

29 . RobertS. O.K. and Wells. A.A .• "1lIe Velocily of 8 riule Froctu ll'." Elllilluri",. Vol.
178. 19S4. pp. 820-821.

10. Bluhm. J.I .• MFracture ArTCOl. M FmctJtu: All At/vtutud Trn>tiR. Vol. V. Academic fuJ.5.
New YorI<. 1969.

3 1. Rice. J.R.• MMllh.em.l.licai Analysis in !he M«hanics of Fraclure." "'""cl"r~: All

Adwvlud TrnJliu. Vol . II. Academic Pms. New Yort. 1%11. p. 19 1.

12. Freund. L.B . and Clifton. R.J., ''On t he UnlqueocSi of Plane: Elulox!ynlmi" Solut ions
for Running CrJCt s." Jo"rnal of Elas,i,ity. VOl. 4. 1974. pp. 293-299.

ll . NillloOn, F. Mil. Nocc 011 the Stress Singularity at a Non-Ulliformly Moving Cr"",t TIp.M
J""mn/ of ElaslicifJ. Vol. 4. 1974. pp. 291-299.

14 . Rose: . LR.F.• MAn ApprGKiltUlle (Wiener·HopO KertXl for Dynamic Crack Problems in
Linear Eluticily and Viscoelasticily." Praceedillll. Royal SodefJ of iAmdon, Vol . 14.-
349. 1976, pp. 497·'21.

J'. Sih. G.c.. "Some Elastodynamic Probl ems of Crach." Imemo,i01lal Journal of Fracl"r~
Mu halli". Vol 4 .• 1968. p. '1-68.

16 . Sanford. R.J. and Dally. I.W.• "A Gcntral Method for Determining Mlxed· Mode Stteu
InlCmily Factors from i$OChromatic Fri n~ Pallern$." &,illurill, Fmcl"" Mulwnics.
Vol. II . 1979. pp. 62 1-633.

37 . Chona. R.. Irwin. G.R.• and Shukla. A.• 1\010 and Thra: Parameter Repruenlalion of
Crack Tip SUUI Fieldt." Journal of S,roilllh",lyJu. Vol. 17. 1982. pp. 79·86.
248 Cho¢tr4

38. Kallhoff. J.F .• Beinan. J .. Winkler. S .• and Klemm. W.. "Experimental Analysis of
Dynamic Effecu in Different Crack Arrest Te$t Specimelll." ASTM STP 71 L American
Society for Testing and MBteria4. Philadelphia. 1980. pp. 109- 127.

39. R<»akis, AJ . and Freund LB., '"Opcical Measun:ment of Ihc Plane SlImn Conc:cntnlion
.. a Crack Tip in I Ductile Steel PIlle.. JOIlrJUll of lingi"un.., M(lltrials TtdllltXo,y,
M

Vol . 104, 1982. pp. 115-120.

40. Fn:und. L.B. and Dou&lu. A.S .. '-n-.e Innuenc:e of In.eniB on EI.stic·Pla~tic Antiplane
Shelf Cruk Growth:' JOUI'JllJ/ of t.'Ie Mtclumi" muJ Physb of SoUds. Vol. 30, 1982,
pp. 59-74.

41 . freund, L.B., ~Re$ults on !he Innuenee of Crack-Tip Plasticity Duri", Dynamic Crkk
M
Growth. ASTM STP lOW, Amai;::an Society for TeJting and Materials. Philadelphia.
1989, pp. 84-97.

~2. Corwin, W.R .. MHe • .,y Secl;on SI .... t TechnnlnlY PmJVllm Semiannual ProRress Repon
for April.September 1987". U.S. Nlclear Re8ulatory Commission Repon NUREG'CR.
4219, Vol. 4, No.2. October. 1987.

43. Kallhoff, J.F., Bein&M. J. and Winller, S. ~Measurement of Dynamic Stress Intenlity
M
Facton for FUl Runnin, and Arres.ting Cracks in Double-Cantilever Beam Specimens.
ASTM STP 627. American Society for Testing and Materials, i'tliladc:lphia, 1977, pp.
161-176.

44. Kobayashi. A.S.• Sco. K.K.• lou. J. Y, and UllIbe. Y. "A Dynamic Analysis of Moc!ificd
CompKt Tension Specimens Using Homoli te- IOO and Polycarbonlte Plat es. M
Uperilfltll/(l/ M«M1Iks. Vol. 20. 1980, pp. 73-79.

45 . Landes, J.D. and Begley, I .A., ~., Fracture Mechanics Approach 10 Creep Crack
Growth. ASTM STP, '90, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pbiladclphia,
M

1976. pp. 128- t48.

46. Ohji, K., Ogura, K., alld Kubo. S.. T"""I(lCli(llll. J(lpilMlt SOCitly of M«M.1ic(l/
fn, illUrJ, Vol. 42, 1916. pp. 3~3~&.

47. Nikbin, K.M.. Web$ter. G.A., and Tumc-r, C.E-, ASTM STP 601. American Society for
Testinl and Materials, Philldelphia. 1976, pp. 47·62.

48. Hoff, N.I .. "Approximate Analy~is of Structures in the Presence of Moderately Large
Cn:ep Deformations." QW(lNilr/y (If /tpp/illd MmMrMlicl. Vol. 12. 1954. pp. 49_5S.

49 . Riedel , H.• •~ Crack Growth." ASTM STP 1020. American Society for Testi", and
Mau:rialli, Philadelpbia. 1989, pp. 101-126.

SO. Riedel. H. and Rice, I .R., -rensile Cracks in Creeping Solids." ASTM STP 700.
American Society (or Teslinll , lid MatCTiab, Philadelphia. 1980, pp. 112-130.

S I. Ehlen. R. and Ricdc:I , H. "A Finite Elemenl AnatYlis of Crel!p Deformation in a

Specimen Containing. MICroscopic Crick." Pr(lClllld,"", .'ilh /lIItrn(llioll(l/
COIIit"".ct OIl Fmcr..",. ~ Press, Oxford, 1981 . pp. 691-698.

S2 . Saxena, A•• ''Creep Crack Growth ulder NOII-Steady-Sulle COnditiom.~ ASTM STP 905,
American Society for Testinll and Materiail. Philadelphia, 1986, pp. ISS-201.
 '"
'3. Busani, J. L., Hawk , D.E.. and Suen.. A., ~Evalualion of tile C1 Pl.!'lmCICr for
Characterizinl Cm:p Cl'kk Growth Rale in the Transient Rcgime.- ASTht Sll' 995.
Vol. I. American 5«i,=,y for Testina and Materials. PhiJlIdclphil, 1990. pp. 112. 130.

54. Riedel , H.. "Cr«p Deformation I' Cne k Tips in El astic-Vhcoplastic Solids.- Jowmol
of 1M M~luvIicl clIId Physics 0/ So1i4. Vol 29, 1981. pp. 3'-49.

5S . Chun-Pok, L. and MeDowell, D.L., -IDClution of Pri IlW)l Creep in the Estimat;on of tile
C1 Pllrametc:r,- /II,c"",,i()ItQ/ Journal of Fro(:tJlu. Vol.. 46, 1990, pp. 81-104.

56 . Sch.per)'. R.A. - Ao Theory of Crack Init iation and OroWlh in Vi5COCiutie Media .. !'
Theoretical Development.- /IIICmDfiO'la/ }""mol 0/ Frot;IIIU, Vol II. ]9'7S, pp. ]41·
159.

51 . Schlpery, R.A. MAo Theory of Crack Initiation and Growth in Viscoelutie Medil--I1.
ApproIimau~ Methods of Analysi,," Jllltmaliotwl )""nuJl of Fracl",.", Vol 11. 1975,
pp. 369- 388.

58. Sehapery. R.A. "A Theory of Crack Initialion and Growth in VilCoelaslic Medil--TII .
AlIllysis of Continuous Growth. ~ /lIlemariolUil Journal of Fr«llIr~, Vol II , 1975, Pr,
$49-$62.

$9. Scllapery. R.A.• "Co~ipondence Principlel and • Generaliud J Inlegral for Large
Defo rmation and F/"JCtuJl: Analysis of Vik'OClulic Media." /nlef7IlJtiOllll/ }(nmuJ/ of
FnJCfIlrt!. Vol. 2.5, 19&4, pp. 19$-223.

60 . Schapery, R.A.. ''lime-Dependent Fnelu~: Continuum A$pects of Cnet Growth."

Ellcyc/oJHdiQ of MQurio/~ Scjmc~ 0IId &gilluriJlg, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1986. p'p .
,04J·'OH.
61. Scllapery, R.A., "On Some Pro!.h IlKIependcnl Integrall Ind Their Use in FI"kN~ of
Nonlinear VilCOelastic Media. - /"'U1'il/iottDJ JoIU1UJl. of Fruclure, Vol . 42, 1990. 1"11.
189-20 1.

62. Irwin. C .R.• "CoMlant Speed Semi_Infi nite Temile Cract Opened by • Line Force.~
Lclli811 University MCTllQrandum. 1967.
 APPENDIX 4: DYNAMIC FRACTURE
ANALYSIS
(Seluted R~sI4IU)

A4.1 ELASTODYNAMIC CRACK TIP F IELDS

Rice [311. Sih [35]. and Irwin [621 each derived expressions for the stresses ahead of a
crack propagating at a constant speed. They found that the moving crack retained the /,.r;
singularity, but thai the angular dependence of the SII-esses, strains and displacements de-
pends on crack speed. Freund and Clifton [321 and Nilsson 133]la1er showed that the s0-
lution for a consUlnt speed crack was val id in general: the near-tip quantities depe nd only
on instantaneous crack speed. The following derivation presents the more gcneral case:,
where the CTIICk speed is allowed to VIIl)'.
For dynamic problems, the equations of equilibrium are replaced by the equations of
motion, which. in the absence of body fon:es, are given by

(A4.1)

where ~j denotes the orthogonal coordinates and each dot indicates a time derivative. For
quw;istlltie problems, the: "nn 011 the; right ~ide of Eq, (A4, 1) vllni~hes, Foc II linear e:liu-
tic material, it is possible to write the equations of motion in terms of displacements and
elastic constants by invoking the strain-displacement and stress-strain relationships:

(A4.2)

where Jl and..t arc the Lame' constants; Jl is the shear moduluo and

.t "" 2J1V
1-2 v
Consider rapid crack propagation in a body subjecllo plane strain loading. Let us
define a fixed coordinate axis, X-Y, with an origin on the crack plane al art) = 0, as illus-
trated in Fig. A4. 1. It is convenient at this point 10 introduce two displacement poten-
tials, defined by

25 .
'51 "p~ndu4

y
f

X
(ij .~ . f1GUIIE .U .l o.tIDlI"'vI~'t ....
Bpldl}' propepU", UKk.. nc x·y
t.....
........ lind I" ..,... ..... tile .·f .......
• ~ .. Ihl ....n. tip.

u - aIVI _aIV, (M .l)

Y- Or ax
Substituting Eq. (A4.3) into Eq. (M .2) leads to

(A4.4)

since the WlIYe speeds are given by

2 A +,u
<1 -
p
for plane strain. ThUS"1 and 11'2 are the longitudinal and 5hear wave potentials, respec-
tively. 1llc stresses can be written in terms of '1'1 and '1'2 by invoking Eqs. (A2.1) and
(A2.2):

uxx+Uyy=2("+~ ~+~ {a'aX a')

ar
Dyrwmic F radll,e Analysu
'"
(A4.!5)

Let us now introduce a moving coordinate system, x·y, allached to the crac k tip,
where:r _ X . 12(1) and"j '" Y. The nlte of change of each wave lXMenlilll can be wriuen as

dytj = a"'j _ V a",; (i '" 1,2) (A4.6)

dr ar ax
where V (_ . dxldt) is the crack speed. Differentiating Eq. (A4.6) with respect to time
gives

(A4.7)

Accordina 10 Eq. (A4,!5) the first letm on the right-hand side or Eq. (A4.7) is propor.
tional to the smss tensor. This tetm should dominate close 10 the crac k tip, assuming
there is a stress singularity. Substiluling the firsllerm of Eq. (A4.1) into Eq. (A4.4)
leads to

(A4.8)

NOIe WIthe: governing equations depend only 00 inSl.MtlUlCQUS crack speed; the lenn that
contains crack acceleration in Eq. (A4.1) is negligible near the crack tip.
". A.p~ndix4

If we scale)' by defining new coordinates, YI • PI Y and Y2 '" fJz y. Eq. (A4.8) be·
comes the Laplace equation. t'reund and Clifton Il21applied I compleJl variable mclho<l
10 solve Sq. ('\4.8). 1be general solutions 10 the wave potentials are 115 follows:

V'1 = Re[F(zj)]
(A4.9)
'1'2"" Im{G(zZ»)
where F and G are as yet unspecified complex functions, II "'.f'" ;;11. and t 2:::11 + iyz.
1be boundary conditions are the same 11$ for I stationary Cf1ICk: a.,,:, fxy '" 0 on
the crack 5Urfact5. Freund and Clifton showed that these boundary conditions can be ex-
pressed in terms of second derivatives for F and G at y = 0 and JI < 0:

(I + M)(P'(x)+ + F'(xLJ+ 2fJ.J.rG~(x) .. + G"(x)_l;;: 0

(A4. 10)
2fJ,[F"'(x)+ - F"'(x)_ l +(1 + fJrXG"(x). - G"(x)_l = 0
where the subsaiplS ... and • com:spond \0 the upper and low~r crac k surfaces, respec-
tivel y. 1bc following functions nlisfy the boundary conditions Illld lead 10 integrable
strain energy de.sity and finite displacement at the crack lip:

(A4.1I)

where C i,. CO:l.stanl. Making the wb5tilUlion 1/:IE '1 ei 9 / and 12.rzei82 leads to the
foUOWtlll expressions for the Mode I crack tip IlrCSS fields:
Dynamic Fractun Analysis 2SS

< : ~l(t) 2/l,(1 +fli)[Sin(~) ~ -Sin(!Il.) ~] (A4.12)

xy 2trr D{t) 2 JV~ 2 lV--;:;

D(t):4/ldJ., -(I+fli)'
Equation (A4. 12) reduces to the quasistatic relationship (Table 2. 1) when V ::: O.
Craggs [2SJ and Freund [IOJ obtai ned the following relati onship between Kr(t) and
e nergy release rate for crack propagation at a constant speed;

(A4.13)

for plane strain, where

It can be s hown that

li mv~o A:: I

and Eq. (A4. 13) reduces to the qU1l5istatic resull. Equation (A4.13) can be derived by suo.
s tituting the dynamic c rack tip sol ution (Eq. (A4.12) and the corresponding relationships
for strain and displacement) into the generalized contour integral given by Eq. (4.26).
1be derivati on thai led to Eq. (A4.12) implies thai Eq. (A4.13) is a general relation-
ship that applies to accele rating cracks 115 well 115 constant speed cracks.

A4,2 DERIVATION OF THE GENERALIZED ENERGY RELEASE

RATE

Equati on (4.26) will now be derived. The approach closely follows that of Moran and
Shih [ II ), who applied a general balance law to deri ve a vari ety o f contour integrals. in-
cluding the energy release rate. Other authors 18· 10) have derived equivalent expressions
using slightly different approaches.
Begi nning with the equatio n of motion , Eq. (A4.1 ), taking an inner product of both
sides with displacement rate, ~i' and rearranging gives
". A.p/Hndix 4

(A4. 14)

where T and w are the kinetic crterg}' and SU'CSS work densities, respectively, as defined in
Eqs. (4.27) [0 (4.29). Equati on (A4.14) is. general balllIK:C law that applies \0 all male-
rial behavior. lnleglllling this relationship over an arbilTar)' volume. and applying the di-
vergenoe and uansport the«erns Jives

/ a }"}
..u.m .dS = !!..../(W+T)d'JI
dt
- /Cw+T)V ·m ·dS
JJ
(A4. IS)
a'll 11 (IV

where '\I is vol ume, mj is the outward oonnallo the surface iJr. and Vi is !be instanta-
neous velocity of tJ-v.
Consider DOW !he special case of a crack in a two-<limclUional body, where the crack
is prop.,ating aloD, the x ui. and the origin is attao:hed to the crack tip. (Fig. A4.2),
Let us define a contour, Co. fixed in space, that contains the propagating crack and
bound.\; the area Jl The crack tip is surrounded by. small contour, r , that i. fixed in size
and moves with the crack. 'The balance law in Eq. (A4. IS) becomes

(A4 .16)

• nj

,
r

Jl
 ",
where V is the crack speed. Tb!: inlegnl on the lefl side of Eq. (A4 . 16) is the rale al
which energy is input into the body. 1lle firsl term on the right side of this rehuionship
is the rate ofi ncrease in internal energy in the body. Consequently, the se<:ond integral
on the right side of Eq. (A4.16) CQl'TeSpon.dS10 the rate al whi c h energy is lost from the
body due to flUll through r . By defining ftj" .mj on r . we obtain the foll owing expres-
sion for the energy flux into r :

F(r)= J[<W+T)VbJj+ O'jiUj r jdT" (A4.17)

r
In the limit or D vanishingly smal l contour, the flux is independent of the shape of r.
Thus the energy flUll to the crack tip is given by

7 =limr-+o J[cw+ T)VcS 1j + Gji"; )njdI" (A4. IS)

r
In an inert:mcnt of time dl, the crack ex.tends by tkJ .. V dt and the e nergy expended is .rdt.
Thus the energy re lease rate is given by

J: -:r (A4.19)
V

Substituting Eq. (A4. IS) inlo Eq. (A4. 19) wilt yield a generaliw;! expression for the J in-
tegral. fimt, however, we must ClIipress displacement rale in terms of crack speed. By
analogy with Eq. (A4.6), displacement rate can be written as

(A4.20)

Under steady s~te condi tions, the second Icnn in Eq. (A4.20) vanishes; the displacemenl
at I fixed distance from !be propagaling cnck tip remains constanL Close 10 the crack
tip, displacement changes rapidly with position (al a fixed time) and the fi rst lerm in Eq.
(A4.20) dominates in all Casc5. Thus the J integral is given by

(A4.21)
 '58 A.ppendix 4

Equation (A4. 1 1) applies to all types of material response (e.g. elastic, plastic, viscoplas-
tic, and viscoelastic behavior), because il was derived from. generalized energy balance.3
In the $lJC('ial case of an elastic material (linear or non linear), w is the sll'ain energy den-
sity, which displays the properties of an elastic poIential:

(A4.22)

Recall from Appendi ~ 3 that Eq . (A4.22) is nea:ssary \0 dcmonsD1Ue path independencc of

J in the quasistalic case. In general, Eq. (A4. 2 1) is not path independent ucept in a local
region ncar the crack tip. For an e lastic material, however. J is path independent in the
dynamic case when the crack propagation is steady stale (cmjlat 0: 0) [8J.
Allhaugh Eq. (A4 .22) is, in principle, applicable to all types of malerial response,
spec ial care must be taken when J is evaluated for a growing crack. Figure A4.3(a) ilIus-
Il'ales a growing crac k under small scale yielding conditions. A small pl astic zone (or
process lOne) is embedded within an elastic singularity lOne. 'The plastic zone leaves be-
hind a wake as it sweeps through the material . Umecoverabk work is performed on mate-
rial inside the plastic wake, as Fig. A4.3(b) iIlustnltes. The work neusury to form the
plastic wake comes from the energy flu~ into the contour r . In an ideally clastic body.
the energy flux is released from the body through the crack tip. but in an elastic-plastic
material, the majority of this energy is dissipated in the wake.
Recall the modified Griffith model (Section 2.3. 2 ), where the work =!uired to in-
crease the crack area a unit amount is equal to 2(1s + Yp), whcre 15 is the surface energy
and Yp is the pl astic work. 'The laner term corresponds to the energy dissipated in the
plastic wake (Fig. 2.6(b)).

cr,

E,
(I)) Sdo.matlc Itrawlraln (UrU ror .... teNlla
tlH: plaotlc .... ~.

FIGURE AU Crack ""..-tb '" ...au teak IIo1din&- Tho pI_tl......, whldo To .... _ th. ""'""'_
....d" dbolpata tnc'"l1

3Si """ !be diYCfP'DOO II>d tnuI'pod _mo wue ..,oted. lhe...... iJlbtn-~ assumption tbM lhe nweriol
behl._ 1$ • OOfIlinuum ... lIb IlIIOOIbIy voryi.,. di.ploccmeaI r.. Id •.
 Dynamic Fracture AntJlysis 259

The energy release rate computed from Eq. (A4.2I) must therefore be interpreted as
the energy flow to the plastic zone and plastic wake, rather than to the crack tip. That is,
r cannot shrink to zero; rather, the contour must have a smaH, but finite radius. The J
integral is path-independent as long as r is defined within the elastic singularity zone, but
J becomes path-dependent when the contour is taken inside the plastic zone. In the limit
as r shrinks to the crack tip, the computed energy release rate would approach zero (in a
continuum analysis), since the calculation would exclude the work dissipated by the plas-
tic wake. The actual energy flow to the crack tip is not zero, since a portion of the en-
ergy is required to break bonds at the tip. In all but the most brittle materials, however,
the bond energy (Ys) is a small fraction of the total fracture energy .
As long as the plastic zone or process zone is embedded within an elastic singular-
ity, the energy release rate can be defined unambiguously for a growing crack. In large
scale yielding conditions, however, J is path dependent. Consequently, an unambiguous
definition of energy release rate does not exist for a crack growing in an elastic-plastic or
fully plastic body. Recall from Chapter 3 that there are several definitions of J for grow-
ing cracks. The so-called deformation J, which is based on a pseudo energy release rate
concept, is the most common methodology. The deformation J is not, in general, equal
to the J integral inferred from a contour integration.

PART III: MATERIAL BEHAVIOR

I II
Chap(crs 5 and 6 givc an overview of the micro~hanisms offracturc in various material
systems. This sub;ecl il of obvious imponancc to materials l>CicntisU, because an under-
standi ng of microslNclural events that lead 10 fracture is es.semial 10 the development of

_,.
materials wilh optimum toughness. Tho$e who Dpproach fracture from a solid m«hanics
vicwpoint, however, often sidestep miel'05\nIClu ...1 ;Huel and consider only continuum

In certain eases. classical fractwe mechanics provides some justifICation for disre-
gan;ling mic:roscopic failwe mechanisms. Just as il is not necessary to undersIand disloca-
tion theory to apply lenlile dala 10 design. illtill)' not be neo.::essary to consider the micro-
scopic details of fraclure when applying fracture mechanics on a global scalc. When a
singlc ~Ier (i.e., K, J. or CTOD) uniquely characterizes crack lip conditions, a crili·
cal value of this par:ameter is a material constanlillat is transferable from aieSI specimen
to a structure made from the same malerial (see Seclions 2.10 and 3.5). A laboralory
specimen and a flawed J\1\IClure experience identieal crack tip condilionslt failure when
the single parameter assumption is valid, and il is nor nec::essary 10 delve inlO the details
of mk:roscopic failwe 10 chatxterin: global fracture.
"The siruation becomes conoidcnbly more complicated when the single ~ler IS-
sumption ceases 10 be Vllid. A fracture loughneu test 01\ a small seale laboratory speci·
men is no longer a reliable indicator of bow a large StNCtUrt: will behave:. "The fracture
toughnC5S of the stroelUrt: and test specimen are likcly 10 be differt:nl. and the two config.
urations llUIy even fail by different mechanisms. A number ofrt:searehers are currently at·
tempting to develop alternatives to single parameter fraclurt: mechanics (see Section 3.6).
Such .ppro.d.9 cannoc .. ««<I with continuum thcOl)' "ooe, but must .lso consider mi·
croscopic fracture mechanilmJ. Thus the ne:tl two chapters mould be of equal valuc to
materi.ts scientists aDd solid meo;:lwtic:ians.

26 '
 5. FRACT URE MECHANISMS IN
METALS
Figure 5.1 schematically illustrates three of the mos! common fracture mechanisms in
metals and alloys. (A founh mechanism. fatigue, is discussed in Chapter 10.) Ductile
materials (Fig. 5.l(a)) usually fail as the result of nucleation, growth alKi coalescence of
microscopic voids that initiale at inclusions and seo;ond phase particles. Cleavage fracture
(Fig. 5,](b» involves separation along specific "ystallographic planes. Note that the
fracture path is transgranular. Allhough cleavage is oflen called briule fracture, il can be
preceded by large scale plasticity and ductile crack growth . i nlergranular fracture (Fig.
S.l{c)), as ils name implies, occurs when the gmin boundaries are the preferred fracture
path in the malerial.

5. 1 DUCT IL E FRACT URE

Figure 5.2 schematically illustrates the uniaxiallcnsile behavior in a ductile melal. The
material eventually reaches an instability point, when: strain h.ardening cannot keep pace
with loss in cross sectional area, and a neded region forms beyond the maximum load.
In very high purity materials. !he tensile specimen may neck down to a sharp point, re-
sulting in extremely large local plastic strains and nearly 100% reduction in arU.
Materials that contain impurities. however. fail at much lower sUllins. Microvoids nUl:Ie-
ate at inclusions and second phase particles; the voids grow together to form a macro-
scopic nail'. which leads to fracture.
TIle commonly observed stages in ductile fracrure are II-S]:

(I) Formation of a free surface at an inclusion or second phase particle by either

interface decohesion or particle cracking.

(2) Growth of the void around the panicle. by means of plMtic Slrain and hydro-
sUllic SltCss.

(3) Coalescence of the growing void with adjacent voids .

In materials where the second phase particles and inclusions are well bonded to the matrix,
void nucleation is often !he critical step; fracture OCCI1I"5 soon after the voids form. When
void nucleation occurs with litlle difficulty, the fracture properties are controlled by the
growth and coalescence of voids; the growing voids reach a critical siu, relative!O their
spac ing, and a local plMtic insubility develops between voids, resulting in failure.

'"
26. ChnplU 5

(b) a.. •.,.

FIGURE 5.1 Thno mlcr<>m-.,,101D1 01 rta<,un

lamttalo.

(el 1""'l"U'ular fractu ....

Necking

o
ENGINEERING
STRESS

Engineering
Material

P\I~
o
Engineering
M~teri~1
Mlterial

ENGINEERING STRAIN
FIGUllE 5.2 U.. Lulto. ImIJlt d.ro ....IIo.... r durtU. ,... ,.rIaII.
Fracturt Mtchanisnu in Mt/a/s 267

5.1.1 Void NucieatioD

A void fonns around a stcond phase particle or inclusion when s ufficient stress is applied
to break the interfacial bonds betwetn the panicle and tbe matrix. A number of models
for estimating void nucleation stress have been puhlished. some of which are based on
conti nuum theory [6,7 ) while others incorporate dislocation-panicle interactio ns [8,9J.
1'Ile latter models arc required for particles < I Jll1l in diameter.
The most widely used continuum model for void nucleation is due 10 Argon. et a1.
[6\. They argued that the interfacial stress at a cylindrical particle is apprOJi::imately equal
to the sum of the mean (hydrostatic) stress and the effective (von Miscs) stress. The de-
cohesion stress is dcfined as a critical combination of these two stresses:

(5.1)

where Ut: is the effective stress, given by

(5.2)

Um is the mean stress, defined as

(1 = (11 + (12 + (13 (5.3)

m 3
and uJ. U2, and U3 arc the princ ipal nonnal stresses. According to the Argon , et al
model, the nucleation strai n decreases as the hydrostatic stress increases. That is, void
nucleation occurs more readily in a tri axial tensile stress field, a result that is cons istent
with experimental observations.
The Beremin rcscan:h group in France [7J applied the Argon et al. criterion to exper-
imental data for a carbon manganese steel, but found that the following semi-cmpirical re-
lationship gave belle r predictio ns o f void nUclealion al MnS inclusions that were e lon-
gated in the roUi ng direction:

(SA)

where uYS is the yield strength and C is a fitting paramele r that is approximately 1.6 for
longi tudinal loading and 0.6 for loading transverse to the rolling direction.
Goods and Brown [9] have developed a dislocation model for void nucleation at
submicron particles. They estimated that dislocations near the particle elevate the stress
at the interface by the following amount:
'"~ ChclpItr 5

(5.5)

where a is a constant thai ranges from 0.1" 10 0.33, Jl is the shear modulus. £/ is the
maximum remote normal strain, b is the magnitude of the Burger's vector, and r is the
particle radius. The total maximum interface streu is equal to the maximum principal
Stress plus dad. Void ollCication occurs when the sum of these stresses n:achcs I .. ritieal
value:

(.5.6)

An ahemalive but equivalent c:lpression can be obtained by separating eI} inlo devi'lone
and hydrostatic componcnlS:

(5.7)

where SI is the maximum dcvialoric stress.

TIM: Goods and Brown dislocation model indicates that the local SlrC$$ concentration
;l'ICreases with decreas ing particle size: void nucleation is morc difficuh with larger parti-
cles. The continuum models (Eqs. (.5.1) and G5.4», which apply 10 panicles with r> I
/lm, imply thaI ac is independent of particle liu.
Experimental observations Il$ually differ from both continuum and dislocation mod·
els, in thaI void nucleation tends to occur !lore readily at large panicles (10]. Recall.
however, that th~ models only considered nucleation by particle-matrix debonding.
Voids C1UI also be nucleated when particles cncL Larger particles are InOfe likely to crack
in the presence o f plastic strain. because they are more likely to contain small defeclS
which can Kt like Griffith cracks ($« Scctioo 5.2). In addition, llIfle nonmetallic inclll-
sions. such as oxides and sulfides. are often damaged during fabrication ; some of these
panicles may be cracked Of debonded prior to plastic defonnation. mak.ing void nucleation
relatively easy. Further resean:h is obviously needed to develop void nucleation model$
that are more in line with experiment.

S.1.2 Void Growth and Coalesctnct

Once voids form, funher plastic slIlin and hydrostatic stress cause the voids 10 rrow and
eventually coalesce. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 arc scanning electron microscope (SE.\1 ) (nil:-
10graphs which show dimpled fracture AUfaceslhat are typical of microvoid coaJescence.
Figure 5.4 shows an inclusion that nucleated I void.
FigWl: 5.5 schematically illustntes the growth and coalescence of microvoids. tr
the initial volume fraction of voids is low « 10%), each void can be l.Humed 10 JrDw in-
depender.tly; upon further growth, Mipbonnl voids ;nlcrac!. Plastic strain is conce n-
tnuC<! .IUllg. sheet uf vuit1s, ",Ill lucal necking iruil ... bilitie~ develop. The orientation of
the fractlR path depends on the stress Slale [II).
Fracfure Muiumin,J,S in Mewls '69

t1GURY. 5.3 S.aanlna .,""Iron m"'. OI<OpO (SF-\I) frarlOV.ph whl.h . ho... du<illIO rraclu~ In a 10_
........... Ied. (PboI ...... pII pno-_ II)' MT. Sud V ...... )

FIGUJt£ SA l up ~ rr.ctouapIo of lilt , ltd ducdlt r.....~ $Urf_. Not. lilt splocrinl
IIIduobo ""'kb autltalOd • _.".oId..
(noI....... ,...._..,. M,. Sua ViiDfqI.)
17. ChapterS

•
t t -i-.....
•
• •
• •
• • •

{IO} hod ' I III • dudIk ..1OtrtL

t _to-_ "0 t t
o
"""0
00
00 J S
... 0°- ./ .[ / 0
0 0
• i
(e) Nedlat 1Mc .... . - . (I) veW M.l •
....... &.mire.

nGVRE So! voW _ _ If'D"'Ib, MOI('W'I'wce III dIoctlIo _ _

Fracture MechanismJ ill MelOls 171

Many malerials contain a bimodal or Irimodal distribution of panicles. FOI" exam-

ple, a precipitation-hardened aluminum alloy may contain re latively large intennelailic
panicles, together wilb a line dispersion of lubmicron second phase pre<:ipitates_ 1bc:se
alloys also !:ontain micron-size dispersoid panicles for grain refinement. Voids form
much more read ily in the inclusions, but the smaller particles can contribute in certain
cases. Bimodal panicle distributions can lead to so-c:alled "shear" fracture surfKes, as de-
scri bed below.
Figure 5.6 ill ustrates the formation of the "c up and cone" fract ure surface that is
commonly observed in uniaxial tensile tests. llIe neck prod uces a triu ial StreSS Stale in
the center of the specimen, whieh promotes void nucleation and growth in !he larger paT-
ticlel. Upon funbcr strain, the voids coalesce. resulting in a penny-shaped naw. llIe
OUler ring of the specimen contai ns relatively few voids, because the hydraslatic stress is
lower than in the center. llIe pc:nny-s.haped naw produces deformation bands at 45· from
the tensile axis. This concentration of strain provides s ufficient plasticity to nucleate
voids in the smaller more numerous panicles. Since the small panicles are closely
spaced, an instability occurs 500n after these smaller voids form, resulting in tolai frac-
ture of the specimen and the cup and cone appc:arance of the matehing surfaces. The cen-
tral Tellion of the fracture surface has a fibrous appc:lflI,oce at low magnifications. but the
outer region is relatively smooth. Because !he latter surface is oriented 45° from the ten-
sile axis and there is little ev idcnce (at low magnifications) of microvoid coalcscence,
many refer to Ibis type of surface as shear fracture. TIle 45° angle between the fracture
plane and the applied stress TeStJllS in a combined Mode UMode II loadi ng.
Figure 5.7 is • photograph of the cross .section of a fractured tensile specimen: note
!he hiSh concentration of micro voids in !he center of !he necked resion, compared with
Ihe edges of Ihe necked region.
Figure 5.8 shows SEM ti-at:tographs of a cup and cone fracture surface, The central
portion of !he specimen uhibilS a typic.1 dimpled ~a.ranee, but the outer region ap-
pears to be relative ly smooth, panicularly at low magnification (Fig. 5.8(a». AI some-
what higher magnification (Fig. 5.8(b», a few widely spaced voids are evident in the: outer
region . Figure 5.9 shows a representative fractograph at higher magnification of the
Hshear" surface. Note the dimpled appelfll,nce, that is characteristic of microvoid coales·
cence. The average void siu: and spacing, howeve r, are much smaller thQn in the central
region of the specime n.
There are a number of mathematical models for void growth and coalescence. lltc:
two most widely referenced model s were published by Rice and Tracey ( 12J arK! Gurson
[13]. llIe laller approach was actually based on the work of Berg 114J, but il is com·
monly known as the Gurson model. Both the Gurwo and Rice and Tracey mode ls have
been modified in more recent inve$tigatiOlU (]5, 16J.
Rice and Tracey considered. single void in an infinite solid, as ilIU$tTated in Fig.
5.10. llIe void is subje<:t to remote nonnalstresses (1/ , (12, (1J, and remote nonnal
Iltain rates £/, £2, £J. The ini lial void is assumed to be spherical. but it becomes
ellipsoidal as il deforms. Rice and Tracey analyzed both rigid plastic material behavior
and linear strain hardening. They showed that the rate of change of radius in each
princ ipal direction has the form:
 ChaplU 5
'"

HH
: 0000000 :

HH

(b) Crodo: and dd'o.....uon balK!

r.......I1.....

t t

(t) Nud •• u.oo at JmoJJ.r partld •••1001 Ibe d._ (d) Cup.nd.,.,... fracture.
fona.lIon .......

k; = [(1 + G)E:; + ~~ eii DJRo (i,j '" I, 2, 3) (5.8)

where D and G are constants thai depend on stress stale and strain lW'dening, and Ro is the
radius of the initial spl>cncal void. The standard notation, wl>crc repealed indices implies
• • •
summation, is followed here. Inyoking the incompressibility condition (el + + £) '" ez
0) reduces the number of independent principal strain rates 10 IWO. Ri~ and Tracey
chose to express Q and £3 in terms of e} and a second panuneter:
 273

,••..
i

•
'1.,
• •

FIGURE 5.7 M_........1lk ..... ~ j .. -.Iot<I) <II. ruptu....! _kllltl< J\al ..... Jled ~Ic
.p«:tm.... TIt< ....11 IIf'ftI III lito .......... ~ .... an .1....... Iob. (ft" .......... pre",," by P.T.
PurtKHt-.)

GI.9)
. • -3 .
E)=-E,
3+.
 Chapl~rj
2"

nGURE 5.1 Cup _ . . . ",...... ill _ ..._ WIn_ 1IH1 [17). 0'It0I............ rlcltd !),.".T.
""IO<:Mr. )
Fracrun Mechnnisms in Mew/s 275

FlGURE 5.9 Hiall ... ltIIllkatlon tract.,.npb <II the ~'Mar" rqtOd "'_ (IlP ...., 110M fntcIun: IUrf..,. In
stot. [17].. (PIo<>tognoph pnnid'" by P.T. PurtscM" )
M1$t ... ltk,<taln .....

FlGURE 5.10 Spheric:.ol.oIoI In • ootid, ...bJed 10. II"IulalllreU ltat..

'76 ChtJpt~rj

Substituting Eq. (5.9) into Eq. (5.8) and makin, a few simplifying assumptions leads 10
the following expressions for the radial displacements of !he ellipsoidal void:

(5.10)

B= (I+FJ<A- I)
D
and cJ is Ihe 100al strain, intesrate(! from the unde(ormed configllfalion 10 tnc currenl
stale.
Rice and TnI(:cy solved Eq. (5. 10) for a variety of 5trCU 5tales and found that the
void growth in all cases could be approltimaled by the following semi-empirical relation-
ship:

'. {ISU}
(RR" )=O.283fcx
In - .... £ .. (5, [ I )
0 (Jrs

where R = (RJ + Rl + RJ)/J .nd Ceq is the equivalent (von Mises) plastic strai n.
Subsequent in~stigators found that Eq. (5.11 ) could be approximately modified for strain
hardening by replacing the yif:ld strength wilh at. the effective suess [18].
Since Ihe Rice and Tracey model is based on a single void, it does nOI take account
of interactions betwccn voids, IKJI' docs it predict ultimate failure . A separate failure cril~
rion must be applied to charocterize microvoid coalescencc. For cxample, one mi&hl as-
sume that fracture occurs when the nominal void radius reaches a critical value .
 277

The Gurson model 113) analyzes plastic flaw in a porous medium by assuming that
lhe malerial behaves as a continuum. Voids appear in the model indirectly through their
influence on the global flow behavior. 1be effect of the voids is .veraged through the
material, which is assumed to be continuous and homogeneous (A,. ' . 11). TIle main
difference belwoen the Gunon model and classical plasticity is thaI the yield surface in the
(OI1JI(:C uhibil$ a weak bydrQIlltic stress dcpcndcn<;;c, while classical plasticity aUIlIDe!
that yieldin8 is independent of hydmsllltic stress. This modification \0 conventional plas·
ticity theory has the effect of introducing a strahl softening term.
Unlike !he Ril:c and Tracey model, the OursoR model contains a failure criterion.
Ductile fracture is assumed \0 occur as the resu lt of a plastic instabil ity that pnxIuces a
band of localized deformation. Such an instability OCCUIS more readily in a Gurson mile·
rial because of the strain softe ning induced by hydrostatic stress. However, b«ause the
model docs not eoru;ider diso::rete voids, il is unable to predict necking instabililYbetween
voids.

t t t_

(10) c. ...,....

The original Gw-son model describes the yield surface as follows:

(1)=-
20'rs2
(3" )
1)1)+2jcosh _.:::m.... -(1+12 )=0
3S"S"
2 O'YS
(' .12)

where/is the void volume fnlcuon, $jj is the devialoric stress, defined as

('.13)
278 Chilpttr 5

and &j is the Kronecker delta:

I i=j
8 ={ (5.14)
Ii 0 i ~j

When!: 0, Eq. (5.12) reduces to the classical von Mises yield surface with isotropic
hardening. Equation (5.12) greatly overp~dicts failure strains in real materials. Tvergaard
[15J attempted 10 correct the Ourson model by adding two adjuslablc parameters, q I and
q2:

(5.15)

Tvergaard cali brated the revised equation with experimental data and found that reasonable
predictions of fallure could be obtained when q} = 2 and qZ = I. This modification has
the e lIect of amplifying the influence of hydrostatic stress al all strain levels. In real rna·
terials, the behavior deviates only slighdy from classical plasticity theory through most
of the deformation; at incipient fai lure. the deviation is rather abrupl.
Tvcrgaard and Needleman (1 6] have modified the Gurson model further by replacing!
with an effective void volume fraction,r:

(5.\ 6)

wllJl:,";/e,/u.· ;•.nu!" we fiu.i"g p.... wllel<;<'. 11lis "'~l [ccc:m modification inuoducc5 ""
abrupt failure point, which more closely matches experimental observation. The effC(;t of
hydrostatic stress is amplified whenf > fc. which accelerates the onsct or a plastic insta-
bility. A major disadvantage of the revised Ourson model is that it contains numerous
adjustable parameters.
Although the Ourson model (and its subsequent modifications) may adequately char-
acterize plastic now in the early stages of the ducti le fract ure process, it does nO( provide a
good description of the events that lead to fi nal fai lure. Ductile failure results from local
neckina: instabilities between voids. Since the Ourson model does not contain discrete
voids. it is incapable of predictina: void interactions that lead to failure .
Thomason [ Ill devel(lled a simple limit load model for internal necking between
microvoids. This model slates that failure occurs when the nel section stress between
voids reaches a critical value, an(c). Figure 5.12 illustrates a two-dimensional case,
where cylindrical voids are ifOwini in a material subjC(;t to plane strain loading (El =: 0).
If the in-plane dimensions of the voids are Za and Zb. and the spaci ng between voids is 2d,
the row of voids illustrated in Fig. 5. 12 is stable if
Frocturt Mtdtanisms in Mtlals '79

d
O'n (c) > 0'1 (5.17.)
d+b

d
O'n(c) d +b 0'1
(5.17b)

whe", uJ is the muimum remOle principal 51",ss. Thomason applied lhe Rice and
Tracey void &rowth model to predict the silt and shape of growin, voids. and utilized Sq.
(5. 17b) as a failu", criterion. H e predicted failure slnlins that we", relatively close to ex-
perimental observations and were an order of magnitude lower than e51imalcd by Eq.
(5.12).

ncullE S.1l n.. llmll 10-.1 ntOcId for Yoid Ia·

'tabLUly. Follu", iii ...""'0<11.0 ...... . .." ... Ih
I>d tenIon rlrcA kt ...... n yoido ",.. b. . . nill_
... y ......

5. 1.3 Ductil e Cnck G rowtb

Figure 5.13 schemalically illus trates microvoid ini lialion. &rowth. and coalescence al the
tip of a prc-cxisling crack. As the cracked IlnICture is loaded, local slnlins and stresses at
the crack tip bceomc sufficient to nucleate voids. 1l1e5C voids grow as the cnck blunts,
and they eventually link with the mai n crack. As this process conti nues. the crac k &rows.
Figure 5. 14 is a plot of stress and strain ncar the lip of a blunted cnck (19J. 1lIc
strai n exhi bits I singularity ncar the crack tip. bUl Inc stress reaches I puk al approxi-
,..
matel), two times the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)I, In most materials. the
triui.lit)' ahead of the crack tip provides sufficient itresS elevation for void nucleation;
thus JI'Owtb and coalcsecrw;e of microvoids are w.ually me critical steps in ductile ctlICk
growth. Nl.IClealion typically occurs when a partiele is - 2B from the cr.lC1r. tip. while
most of the void pwth occurs moch closer 10 the crack tip. rel'live to croD. (No,,:
WI a1thouah a void remU"! approximalcly filled in absolute space. ilS distance from the
crack lip. relative to crOD, decreases as the crack blunts; the absolute distance from the
crack tip abo decreases as the cnck grows)
Ductile crack growdl is usually stable because il produces . rising resistanCe curve ,
at IcUl durin, the early IiIaJeS of crack growth. Stable: crack growth and R curves are dis-
cussed in detail in Cbap(m 3 and 7.

• • • • .,...-_->(i) Ii i •

~OQ i
.- - _.
I'IGtlKE 5,13 MK~.nJ"" r,.. du <. II. . . . . .

(~) C ' ... _ t t . ..... _Ilor...-1Ip.

Fr«tun Mtchoni.sms in Metals 281

5 ,
,
,
,
n_10

Cl yy
.,' C ",
,
,
SnuU Seal.. Yi ..ldinS
- 0,'
,
,
CI. , C- eeq
,
,
, ~tnH(9 . 00) 0.1.5
,
3,' C- ,
,
'. PIutIc sn_1A 0,1
3
~ '. /
,,
,
(9 _ "51

2,'
,
,
, ,
,
- 0.05
,
, ,
"
, ,
-" " - -. -.'C'---------
2
o 1 2 , •°
rO'O
J
I"lGURES. t4 SC.- aadltnla aIIead til blumcd aadt Up, d .. ennlacd by n..Iu: deaoml MIl,... Ilfl.

When an edge cnck in l plate VOWs by microvoid coa.ICSCCllU, the axk exhibits a
Iwnn~ling erfect. .... here il grows fasler in the center of the plate, due 10 the higher stress
triaxiality. TIle through-lhickness variation oftriuiality also produces shtar lips• .... here
the crack growth near the free surface oc<:un at a 4.5° angle from the maximum principal
s~ss, as illllstrate(l in Fig . .5.1.5. TIle shear lips are very similar to the cup and cone fea-
nlres in fraclured tensile specimens. The iI'Owing crack in the center o f the plate produces
(leformation bands which nucleate voids in small paniclcs (Fig . .5.6). Th us the so-called
shear lips are caused hy a tensile (Mode I) fracture. despite the fact that the preferred frac-
ture path is nOl perpendicular to the tensile uis.
Plane suain crack growth in the center of a plate appears to be relatively flat, but
closer examination reveals a more complex struc1ure. fo£ a C111Ck subjcctto plane strain
Mode ( loading, the muimum plastic strain OCCUl'5 al 45° from the crack plane, as illus-
trated in Fig . .5. I6(I). On 1 local level, this angle is !he preferred pa1h for void coales-
cence. but global constraints require that the crack propagltion remai n in il$ original
plane. One WI)' to reconcile the5e competing requiremenlS is foc the CJ1ICk 10 grow in 1
zig-zag pattern (fig . .5. 16(b», such thallhe crack appcaT$ flal on 1 global scale. 001 ori-
ented ± 45° rrom !be crack propagation dirtCtion wben viewed at higher magnification.
Thil zig-zag pattern is often observed in ductile materials (20.21). Figure 5.17 shows a
melallographic CTO!iS seclion of a gro .... ing crack that exhib ilS this behavior.
 Chopll!T 5
'"
Shu. Up.

end<
Defonmllion
Ban<b
T""""""

nGUilE 5.IS. Ductll. I"'wtb '" an od,_ uac~. Tho t<>-<:al1t4 .b ••• 1I",.~ procluctd by lhe..,..
rntd\afIkm _!be ... p _ """" 1n,1Q1.. 1 . 1 _ (fI&.!'7).

S.2 CLEAVAGE

Cleavage fracture can be de£i:>ed as rapid propagation o f a crack along I particular crystal-
lographic plane. Cleavage may be brittle, but il can be preceded by large scale plastic
now and ductile crack growlh (see Section ~U) 1be preferred cleavage planes are those
with the lowesl packing density. since fewer bond$ must be broken and the spacing be·
tween planes is gn:ater. In the case of body ct:ntered cubic (BCC) materials, cleavage oc-
curs on (1001 planes. l1Ie fracture path is transgranular in polycrystalline materials, as
Fig. S. I(b) illustrates. The propagating crack changes direction each lime il crosses a
grain boundary; the crack seeks the most favorably oriented cleavage plane in each grain.
The nominal orientation of the cleavage crack is perpendicular to the muimum principal
stress.
Fracru~ M~clwnisms M~/(Ils
in
'"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "10 ....

FIGURE U 7 Opt ........ kn>p'ap~ (u _ _) 01 dUCIO .......k p-owth la on A 710 blSh 11tenfI1h...........,.
ldod..,.
.Iocl (U\. (I'bolop"apb p .... J.P. G .......)

Cleavage is most likely when plll!ltic flow is restricted. Face ccntered cubic (FCC)
metals are usualLy not susceptible to cleavage because there are ample slip system! for
ductile behavior at all temperatures. At low temperatures, BCC metals fail by clea~age
because there are a limited number of active slip systems. PolycryslaUine hexagonal
close packed (HCP) metals, which ha~~ only three slip systems per gmn, are also suscep-
tible to cleavage fracture.
This section and Section 5.3 fOClls on ferritic steel , because it is the most techno-
logically important (and the most exte[l$ively studied) material that is subject to cleavage
fracture. This class of materials has a BCC crystal stnLcture, which undergoes a ductile·
brinle transition with decreasing temperature. Many of the mechanisms described below
also operate in other material systems that fail by cleavage.

5,1,1 Fraetognpby

Figure 5.18 shows SEM fractograpbs of c leavage fracture in a low alloy steel. The
multifaceted surface is typical of clea"age in a polycrystalline malerial; each facet corre·
sponds to a single grain. llIc "rivcr patterns" on eac h facet are also typical of cleavage
fracture. llIcse markings are so named because multiple lines converge to a single line,
much like tributaries to a rivcr.
,.. CJroplt~ 5

c.,

f"
FIGURE 5.11 SEM "....,...pM 01 dea ... ,.IIII .. A 501 ClaM 3 alloy. (PI>ototlrJopbr pro.-Idfd by Mr.
""'-
 '"
Figure j.19 illustrates how river paltem~ we funned. A propaaating dc.vage.;rao;k
encounters II grain boundary. where the nearest cleavage plane In the adjoining grain is
oriented at II finite twist angle from the current cleavage plane. Initially, the crack ac-
commodates the twi st mismatch by fonning on several parallel planes. AJ the multiple
cracks propagate, !hey are joined by learing belw~n planes. Since this process consumes
more energy than crack propq:ation on. single plane. there is II ~ndency for the multiple
cracks to C()nverge into a sio&le crack. Thus the direction of cradc propagation can be in-
fcm:d from river patterns. Figure .5.20 shows II frKlograph o f river patterns in II low al-
loy steel, where tearing betwee n parallel cleavage pl anes is evide nt

5.2.1 Mu hR nlom .• or C lea vage l o lliation

Since cleava,e in volves breaking bonds, the local stress must be ,ufflCicn! to Ovcr-
come the cohesive strength of the material. In Chapter 2. we leaned thai the theoretical
fracture 5lreOgth of a crystalline solid is appn)J:imately EJtr.. Figure 5. 14, however, indio
cates that the max imum stress ac hieved ahead of the crack tip is J 10 4 times the yield
Slrength. For a steel with on = 400 MPa and E., 210.000 MPa, the cohesive strength
would be -SO times higher than the maximum strtsli achieved ahead of the crnc k tip.
Thus a macroscopic crack provides insu fficie nt stress concentration to exceed the bond
strength.
In order for cleavagc 10 initiale, thcre must be a local diS(;on tinuity ahead of the
macroscopic crack thai is sufficient 10 exceed the bond slrength. A sharp ml crocrack IS
one way 10 provide sufficien t local SIreSS concentration. Cot1re1l 122] ~ulated that mi-
crocracks form at in te~ti ng slip planes by means of dislocation intclllClion. A far more:
common mechanism for microcrack formation in sleels, howc\'cr, involves inclusions
and second phase particles 11,23,24j.
Figure 5.21 illustrates the mec hanism of cleavage nucleation in ferritic steels. 1be
macroscopic crac k provides a local stress and strai n concentration. A seco nd phase parti-
cle, such as a carb~de or incl usion. cracks because of the plastic strai n in the surrounding
matrix. At this poi nt the microcl'1lck can be treated as a Griffith crack (Section 2.3). If
the stress wad of the macroscopic crack is wfficient, the microcrack propaj:ates in to the
ferrite mam ... "'Ulioa failure by cleavage. For uamplc, if the pwcle is spherical and it
produces a penny-shaped crack. the fracture stres5 is given by

"2
(1 _ 1rE Yp
(S. IS)
r- ( (l-V')C, )
where ~ is the plastic work required to crute a unit arca of fracrure surface in the fernie
and Co is the particle diameter. It is assumed that Yp » Y.r. where YI is the surface
energy (c. r. Eq. (2.21». Note that the SlreSS ahead of ttle macrocnck is treated as a remote
Sire» in this "'_.
".

FIGURE 5.19 F_ _ tloa '" river ... n ........ ...,..,It <II_ d ......1t <1'Kk cnooslng _ I_lot bound.ry bo·
h ..... • rol ....

nGUJut 5.10 Rl~t p.tt ..... In.1I A S08 Cluo J IIH I. Not ••11. lOring (l1.bl ..... ) betw_ 1"'....1101
d .... ~ploo ..... o-ow........ po o,ld,d '" Mr.s.m Y_Lj
 2"

0"

DISTANCE
FIGURE 5.11 ' ... U.lloa ~ cIa.....I. _k,oc ..d. ibal f .... 1II • .......cI .... _ pArtIdo .. _ "' •
..... o_.~k .neIl.

Consider the hypothetical material described earlier. where O)'S = 400 MP, and E.
2]0,000 Mh. Knou [I] has estimated 1P = 14 11m2 for ferrile. Sening Gf'" 3 OVS and
solvi ng for erilical particle diameter yields Co = 7.0j j.lm. Thus the Griffith criterion can
be $3tidicd with relatively small partides.
The nallR of the micro5tructunaJ feature tha nucleates cleavase depends on the Illloy
and heal UUIITICnI. In mild steels, cleavage usually initiatcs at gnin boundary carbides
[ 1,23,24]. In quenched and tempered alloy sleds, the critical feature is usually either a
spherical carbide or an inclusion [1,25]. VariOUI models have been developed 10 explain
me relationship between cleavage fracture stress and microstructure: ITI()SI of these mooels
resulted in expressions simi lar to Eq. (S.18). Smith [24[ proposed a model for clea\age
fl1lCture thatconsidcrs stress concentration due: toa dislocation pile_up at .. grain boundary
carbide. The resulting failure mleriOn is as follows:

c '"
o /
+,,[-,-+ 2<,&]'
y 2 Trky
= 4Er~
Tr(l-)
(.5.19)

where Co. il this case, is the carbide thic kness. and fj and ky are the friClion SITesS and
pile-up constanl. respectively, as defined in the tbIl-Petch equation:

where fy is lhe yield strength in $hear. The serond tcnn on the left side of EQ. (.5.19)
conlains the dislocation contribution 10 cleavage iniliation. U this tcnn is removed. Eq.
(5. 19) reduca to the Griffith relationship foe . grain boundary microcrnck.
a. Chuplt!r 5

(0) Inlllalloa al • ,rain bound • ..,. carbide.

FIGURE 5.l1 SEM rraclOllnopho or d .....,. InllLoIlon 1ft "" A ~ CI ... 3 allGr. (1'Itot......pha pI'OYldod
by M.T. MI,u ...)
 '"
Figure 5.22 shows SEM fractographs wh ich ,lve examples of cleavljc initiation
from a grain boundary carbide (a) and an inclusion at the interiO£ of a grain (b), In both
cases, the fracture origin was located by following river patterns on the fracture turf.ee.
Susceptibility \0 cleavage fraclw-e is enhanced by almost any factor that incre~s
the yield slrength, 5uch liS low temperature, p triaxial stress state. radiation damage, high
strain rate, and strain aging. Grain size rdinement increases the yield strength but also
increases Of 1lIere are a number of reasons for the grain size effecl. In mild steels. a de·
crease in grain size implies an incll'a5C in grain boundary area, which leadS to smaller
grain boundary carbides and an increase in Of In fine grained steels, the critical event
may be propagation of the micnxrack across the first grain boundary it encounters. In
such cases the Oriffith model impliell the following Clpression for mewre stress.:

(5.20)

where YSb is the plastic work per unit area required to propagate into the adjoining grains.
Since there tends to be a high degree of mismatch between grains in a polycrystalline rna.
terial, Yah> J1J. Equation (5.20) assumes an C<juilUled grain structure. For manensitic
and bainilic mieroslrucrurcs. Dolby and Knott 126J derived a modified upression for Of
based on the packet diameter.
In some case5 cleavage nucleates. but total fracture of the specimen or structure does
not occur. Figure 5.23 illustrates three uamp~1 of un5uccessfu\ cleavage ev~nts. Pan
(a) shows a microcrack that has arrested at the paniclcJmatrix interface. 1he panicle
~ks d\IC to strain in the mauix. but the cnw;;k is unablc to propagate because the applied
stress is less than the required fracture Stress. This microaack docs not re-initiate be-
cause SlIbsequent deformation and dislocation motion in the matrix causes the crack to
blunt. Microcracks must remain sharp in order for the stress on the atomic level to cx-
ceed the cohe$iv~ $ll"ength of the material. If. mieJ"l)(:"..;:k in a panicle propagale$ into
the fernie matrix. il may arrest atlhe grain boundary. as illustrated in Fig. S.23(b). This
corresponds to a case where Sq. (5.20) governs cl~ avage. Even if a crack successfully
propagales into the surroundi ng grains. it may stillarresl if there is a steep stress grad ien t
ahead of the macroscopic crack (Fig. S.23(c». This lends to occur at low appli~d K} val·
ues. Locally. the stress is suffiCienl lO satisfy Eql. (.5. 18) and (.5.20) but there is insuffi·
cient global driving fOtte 10 continue crac k propagation. Figure 5.24 shows an example
of arrested c leavage cracks in front of a macroscopic crack in a spherodi!ed 1008 liteel
[27].

5.2.3 Mathematical Model., of Cleavace Fracture Toughness

A difficulty emer~5 when trying to predict fracture toughness from Eqs. (5.18) 10 (5 .20).
The maximum SIreSS ahead of a macroscopic crack occurs al approximately 26 from the
crack tip, but the absolute value or this stres~ is constant in small scale yielding (Fig.
5. 14); the distance from the crack. lip at which this stress occurs increases with increasing
290 Chapler 5

K, J, and o. Thus if allainillg II cri tical fracture stress were II sufficient condi tion for
cleavage fracture, lile material might fail upon application of an infinitesimal load. be-
cause the stresses would be high near the crack tip. Since ferrilie materials have finite
toughness, attainment of II critical stress ahead of the crack tip is ap~ntly necessary but
not sufficie nt.
Ritchie, Knon and Rice (R KR ) [28] introduced II simple model to relate fracture
stress to fracture toughness, and 10 explain why steels did not spontaneously fracture upon
application of minimal load. They postulated that cleavage failure occurs when the stress
ahead of the crack tip exceeds G/over II characteristic distance, as illustrated in Fig. 5.25.
They inferred cr/in II mild steel from blunt notched four-point bend specimens and mea-
sured Klc with conventional fracture to ughness specimens. They infeITed the crack tip
stress field from a finite element solution published by Rice and Tracey [29). They found
that the characteristic distance was equal to two grain diameters for the material they
tested. Ritchie, et al. argued that if fracture initiates in a grain boundary carbide and prop-
agates into a ferrite grain. the stress must be sufficient to propagate the cleavage crack
across the opposite grain boundary and into the next grain; thus a/must be e)[cee<ied over
I or 2 grain diameters. Subsequent investigations (25,30,3IJ, however, revealed no con-
sistent relationship between the critical distance and grain size.
Curry and KnOll [32] provided a statistical ellplanation for the RKR cri tical dis-
tance. A finite volume of material muSI be sampled ahead of the crack tip in order to find
a particle thai is sufficiently large to nucleate cleavage. Thus a cri ti cal sample volume,
over which ayy 2 0" is required for failure. The critical volume, which can be related
10 a critical distance, depends on the average spacing of cleavage nucleation sites.
The statistical argument also e)[plains why cleavage fracture toughness data lend to
be widely scattered. Two nominally identical specimens made from the same material
may display vastly different toughness values because the location of the critical fracture-
triggering particle is random. If one specimen samples a large fracture-triggering particle
near the crac k tip, while the fracture trigger in the othcr specimen is further from the crack
tip, the laller specimen will display a higher fracture toughness, because a higher load is
required to elevate the stress at the particle 10 a critical value. The statistical nature of
fracture also leads to an apparent thickness effect on toughness. A thicker specimen is
more likely to sample a large fracture trigger along the crack front and therefore, will have
a lower toughness than a thin specimen. on average [33-35].
The Curry and KnOll approach was followed by more fonnal stati stical models for
cleavage (27.35-38 ). These models all treated cleavage as a weakest link phenomenon,
where the probability of failure is equal to the probability of sampling at least one cri tical
fracture-triggering panicle. For a volume of material V, with p critical particles per unit
volume, the probability of failure can be inferred from the Poisson distribution:

F=I-exp(-pV) (5.2Ia)
Froclu~ Mechanisms jll Mt/(J/s
'"

(b) A ....... "'. p-alD bound • .,..

STRESS

DISTANCE

(e) "mo. due.o .....,. ••.-- ......... n L

FlGURF. ~.1l ElIIm p .... tot " ............................. __ to.

'"

..I
1

DISTANCE

The second term is the probability of finding zero critical partic les in V, so F is the prob-
ability of sampling one or more critical part icles. 'The PQisson distribution can be derived
from the binomial distribution by assuming Ihal p is small and V is large, an assumption
thaI is easily satisfied in the present problcm. 2 SirK:e the critical panicle size depends on
ltreQ, which vws ahead of the crack tip, p must vary with posi tion. Therefore. for
crack problems. !he failure probability must be integrated over individual volume tlc-
menu ahead of the crack tip:

F=l-ex~ - Jpdv j (S.2 Ib)

V

Assuming p depends only on the locally applied stress. and !he crack tip conditions are
uniquely defined by K or J, il can be shown (Appendix ') that critical values of K and J
follow a cliaraclCrislic distribution whe n fail~ is controlled by a weakesl link mecha-
nism 3:

(5.22.1.)

2Fa-.dctaikd~of~~""""""_k"1""bo<>t""'pnDbi~(yond.wislict.
3~,,!!ionl (5.111) IIId U .l2b) oppIy o.lIy ",hu tho IlIickaai (i.e. Iho cnct ffOllt lenpbl i, flied. The
"0 link model pn!4ic:u • thiclmca ./Jed, ...... ich io ducribed ;" AppeodiK Sol bul " omltted ...... rOO"
brevity.
 ",

G5 .22b)

where 8K and 9} arc material propenies that depend on microstructure and temperat ure .
Equations (5.22a) and (5.22b) have the form of a two-parameter Weibull di stribution {39].
The We ibu ll shape parameter, which is sometimes called the Weibull s lope, is equal to
4.0 for K1c data and (because of the relationship between K and I) 2.0 for J c values for
cleavage. 1lIe Weibul1 scale par1UnCten, 6K and 9J, are the 63rd percentile values of
Kle and J e, respectively. If 9K or 9J are k.nown, the entire fl1lCture touihMss distribu-
tion can be inferred from Eq. (S.22a) or (5.22b).
1lIe prediction of. fracture toughness distribution that follows. two pll'"lll"lW:ter
Weibull function with a known slope is an important resu lt. lbe Weibull slope is a
measure of the relative scatter: a prior knowledge of the Weibull slope e nables the relative
scalier to be predicted a priori, as Example 5.1 iIIUSlnltcs.

EXAMPLE 5 . 1

Determine the ":!ative size of the 9O'iII. confidence bounds of Kle and Ie d ata, Inumin&
Eqs. (5 .221) and (5.22b) describe the respective distributions.

SoI"r;<HI: The median. 5 .. lower bound and 95" upper bound VllIues are otui~ by
$ellin& F. O.S. O.OS and 0.95, ~ .. tly. in Eqs. (5.221) and (S.22b). 80lh equa-
tions have the form:

F - I - ap(.l)

Solving for .l. lit each probability level gives

AD.sO .. 0.693 .to.Os • 0.0513 .to.9s '"' 2.996

The width of the 9O'iII. confidence band in Kit data, normalized by the median. is given
by

KO ,95 - KO ,O' ."'"....'fo'!;.~ ,"",,'" • 0.'20

KO.50

and the relative wMiIh of the J c SCalIer band il

'"
EXAMPL E 5. 1 (~ont. )

1095 -100' ..}2.996."0.051]

.. • 1.81
JO,50 "0.69)

Note Illat 6K and 6J..ancc1 0\11 of !he obo..., rauhs and the ull1;..., Jeaner depends
only 01\ the W~b\l1J flope.

There are two major problems with the weakest link model that leads to Eq5. (5.228) and
(5.22b). First, these equations predicl zefo as the minimum toughness in the distribu-
tion. lntuition Sli/litslS that such. prediction is i~t, and more formal arsumenlll
can be made for I nonzero threshold \ooghnes,. A crack cannot propagate in I. material
unless there b suffICient CDe'1Y available 10 break bonds and perf0l1Il plastic work. If the
material is I. poi)'1."ryIW, additional wort must be performed when the crack CI"O$Se.S rED-
domly oriented grains. Thus one can make an estimate oflhreshold IQUghneu in !enniof
energy release ralc:

Yc(rnin) - 2 r prp (S.23)

where, is a grain misorientation factor. If the global driving fom: is Ie" than !iqmilf).
the cnck canllOl propqate. The threshold 1(lUJMe$s can also be viewed as. cnck arrest
value: • cnck canJ!Ol ~gate if K/ < KIA .
A second problem with Eqs. (S.lla) and (S.22b) is thatlhey lend 10 overprediet t'le
experimenlal seauer. Thu ii, seatter in experimental cleavage fractltl"e toughness dala is
usually less seveK than predicted by the we&kesl link model.
According to the weakest link model, failuK is controlled by the initiation of clcav-
ace in the ferrite 11$ the mull of cracking of a critical particle: i.e. , a particle that satisfies
Eq . (5 .1 8) or (5.19). Whik weakest link initiuion Is necessary, it is apparently nOl suf-
ficient for total failuK . A cleavage crack, once initiated, mll5t have sufficient drivilg
force to propagate. Recall FiS. 5.22. which Sives eumples of unsuccusful cluvale
events.
Both problems. threshold tough/ICSI and selner, can be addrnscd by il"lCQl"j)OrTltill8.
cond it ion.al probability of propagation into the slatiSlical model (40.41] . Figure 5.26 is a
probability tree for cleavage initiation and propagation. When a flawed structure is sub-
ject to an applied K. a mierocrack mayor may not initiate, Ikpending on the tempcral1lI"e
as well as the I!x:ation of the eligible cleavage triggers. Initiation of c leavlJe crach
should be governed by a weakest link IIKChanism. because the proce$$ lnvolvel searchins
for a large enough triner to propagate a microcrad: into the first ferrite grain. Once
cleavage in itiates. the crac k may eilbe. propagate in lUI unstable fashion Of" WRst (as in
Fig. 5.23(b) and (c». Ini liatKln is govemtd by the local Stress at the critical partic:k.
while propasation il controlled by the orientation of the: neighboring grai ns and the
 2"

global cirivio, fon:e. The ovcrall probability of faiklre is equal 10 the probability of initi-
ation times the conditional probability of propagation.
This model assumes thai if a microcrack arreslS, it does nOI contribute 10 subsequent
{.ihne. lltis is a reasonable assumption, s;lICe only. rapidly propag.ting crack is suffi-
ciently sharp \0 give tnc IlresS intcnsi fication rle(:cnary to break bonds. Once a microc-
rw:k arrests, it is blunted by local plastic now.
Considu the C8$e wncre the rondi tional probability of propagation i•• Jlep fIInc-
lion:

ThaI is, assume !hal all aack$ arrest when KJ < ~ and that. crack propagatcs if KJ 2
Ko I' the ti~ of initiation. This assumption implies chat the material has • CT1III:k arrest
wughncss that is liingle v.I~. It can be shown (see Appendi. '.2) that ,och. material
uhibits the following fracture louglull:'ss distribution on K values:

(:5.24<1)

for KJSKo (5.24b)

SIreII AppUtd
10 Structure

CnckDon Not
Illitb.\c

CnckA...-
 Chapta5
'"
Equation (5.24) is a tnmc(Jud Weibull distribution; BK can no longer be interpreted as the
63rd percentile Klc value. Note thai a threshold has been introduced, which removes one
of the shortcomings of the weakest link model. Equation (5.24) also cJthibits less scaner
than the two parameter distribution (Eq. J.22a). thereby removing the other objection 10
the weakest link modeL
'(be threshold is obvious in Eq. (5.24), but the reduction in relative scatter is less
so. The latter effect can be understood by considering the limiting cases ofEq. (5.24). If
KoleK» I, there are ample ini tiation sites for cleavage, bul the microcracks caMO!
propagate unless KJ> KQ . Once K/ exceeds K o• the nex.t microcrack to initiate will
cause: total failure. Since initiation events are frequent in Ihis case, K/c values will be
clustered near Ko • and the scalier will be minimaL On the other hand, if KoIeK« I,
Eq. (5.24) reduces to the weako:st link case. Thus the relative scaner decreases as KoleK
Increases.
Equation (5.24) is an oversimplification, because it assumes a single-valued crllCk
arrest toughness. In reality, there is undoubtedly some degree of randomness associated
with microscopic crack arrest. When a cleavage crack initiates in a single ferrite grain,
the probability of propagation into the SUIT(lunding grai ns depends in pan on their relative
orientation; a high degree of mismatc h increases the likelihood of arrest at the gl"llin
bourKlary. Anderson, et. al. [41] performed a probabilistic simulation of microcrack prop-
agation and arrest in a polycrystallinc solid. Initialioo in a single grain abead of the crack
tip was assumed, and the tilt and twist angles al surrourKIing grains were allowed to vIII)'
randomly (within the gcometric constrainlS imposed by assuming {IOO) cleavage planes).
An energy-based propagation criterion, suggested by the work of Gcll and Smith [42J,
was appl ied. The conditional probability of propagation was estimated over a range of
applied K/ values. Thc resullS fit an offset power law expressioo:

(5.25)

where a and f3 arc material constanlS. Incorporating Eq. (5.25) into the overall probabil-
ity analysis leads to a complicated distribution function that is very difficult to apply to
e~perimentaJ data (see Appendix 5.2). Stienstra and Anderson found, however, that this
new function could be approximated by a thrce-panuneter WeibuU distribution:

{5.26)

where K,"ill is the Weibull location parameter. StienslTa [40] showed that when
experimental data are fit to Eq. (.t26), K,"ill gives a conservative cstimate of K o , the true
threshold toughness of the material.
Figure 5.27 shows experimental cleavage fracture toughness data for a low alloy
steel. Critica l J values measured uperimentally were convened to equivalent Klc data.
The data were corrected for constraint loss through an analysis developed by Anderson and
 FrocJure M«hanums in Met(J/s 29 '

Dodds 143] (see Seclion 3.6. 1). Equations (.5.228). (.5.24), and (.5.26) were !iIIO the
experimental dala. 1be three parameter WeibulJ distribution obviously gives the best fit.
The weakest link model (Eq. (.5.22a)) overesti mates the s<:atter, while the truncated
Wcibull d istribution docs not follow the datil in the lo"'cr tail, presumably because the
assumption of a single valued lIITeSt toughness is incorrect.

1
-
J
A 508 C_ 3 StHI
j
~<
D.' - 7SoC
j
~
0 0.' 1
f 1

D.'
".Ill. I'-..:
I

0.2 ~ •
•

o
SO ISO
" "K> 123

KJC
175 200

YlGtJRE 5.17 CIo.vo.. h"KI.. " ""'&h_

bH1I nllo .arloulltaU.tlca! dIolri buliono.
dati for an A 501 C-lllftI.t ·75"C [4 1 ~ TIle dala bI«

5.3 THE DUCTI.LE_BRITTLE TRANSITION

1lle fntClure toughness of ferritic steels can chanse drutically over a lImall Ic mperature
1lllI~, 11$Fig S.28 illustrates. At low lempenuures. stcel is brittle and fails by cleavage.
AI hip temperatures, the material is ductile and fails by microvoid coales<:encc. Ductile
fraclure initiates al a particular toughness value, as indicated by the dashed line in Fig .
.5.2S. TIle crack grows 11$ load is increased. EvcnlUally, the specimen fai ls by plastic col-
lapse Of tearing instability. In the transition region between ductile and brittle behavior,
both micromechanisms of fracture can occur in the s.ame specimen. In the lower transi-
tion region, the fracture mechanism is pure cleavage, but the toughness increases rapidly
with temperature 11$ cleavage becomes more difficult. In !he upper uansitioo region. a
crack initiates by microyoid coalescence but ultimate failure occurs by cleayage. On ini-
tial loading in the upper transition region, cleavage doe, nOl occur because there are no
critical particles near the crack lip. As the crack grows by ductile (earins. however. more
29. ChtJpur 5

material is sampled. Eventu.ally, tM vow;n& crack samples a critical particle and ckav-
age occun. Because fracture looghness in the transi tion region is aovcmed by these sta-
tistical mrlpling e ffects. the data tend to be highly SCalteml. Wallin (44) has developed.
stati stical model for the transition region thaI incorporates lhe effect of prior ductile
!Carina on the cleavage probabil ity.
Rece nt work by Hccrens and Read [~l demonstrates the statistical s.amplin, nature
of cleavage fracture in the transition region. They performed a large number of fracture
toughness tests on a quenched and tempered alloy steel at several temperatures in the tran-
sition region. As expected, the data al a given temperature were highly scattered. Some
spedmens failed withoul significant stable crack growth wh ile other specimens sustained
hiah levels of ductile tearing prior 10 cleavage. Heerens and RelIC! examined the (melUre
surface of each spec;:imc:n 10 detenninc the sile of cleavage initiation. 1bc measured dis-
tanee from the initiation site to the original crack tip COIttlated very well with the mea-
sured fracture toughness. In specimens tnat ex hibited low toughnen, this distance was
small; a critH:a1 nucleus was available near the aack tip. In the specimens thai exhibited
high toughness, there were no c ritical particlu near the crack tip; the crack had to grow
and sam ple additional material berore a crili<:al deavagc nucleus was found. Figure 5.29
is a plot o f fracture toughnes.s versu! the critical di stance, re , whi ch Heeren! and Read
measured from the fracture surface; re is defined as the distance from the faligue CTlICk tip
to the cleavage in itiation site. The resistance curve for ductile crack growth is also shown
on this plot. In every case, cleavage initiated near the location of the maximum tensile
s~ss (c. f. Fig. 5. 14). Simil Dl" rractographic studies by Wantanabe et al. I3IJ and
Rose nfield and She«y [45] also revealed a correlation between·le..dol, and re.

"""",
FRACTURE
TOUCHNESS

Inltl.allon of o...tIllt

TEMPERATlJRE
FlCURE 5.l1 ~ d ..diIo:-brittJc l......tlloa Ia fcniC .. It""- TIle fHd .......tdI ........ ~ ...., .. rr-
cit •••• to ........W ..... ' .. , ........ _por.I ..... lmcnaa.
 ,,,
I
Bt..,..!"S LIne

600
~"".
T....",

6
• 400
!l2
~
"-
DIN 20 MnMoNI 55 5'"'
200 ....C
o Ouv..tlnltlatlon Illel

0
0 OS 1.0 IS ' .0
DISTANCE FROM lliE ORIGINAL CR..... cx: TIP, mm
n(lURE 5'» IldaIloaPIp bctw_ da •• p tr.ctun
and lilt ~. . . 'rl~r 1i5~
_.~_.nd!be ........ bot ........ !be end< lip

Cleavage propa,ation in the upper ll'aIUition rcgiOil often displays bolated islands of
duetilc fno;lure (21.46] . When specimens with lIfft5ted macroscopic cleavage crack.s are
studied mclallOJraphicaJly. unbroken Iigamenl$ are sometimes discovered behind the ar-
rested crack tip. 1lIese two observations imply thai • propaglllm& cleavage crao.::k in the
upper tnlnsition Kgion encounters barrien. sur::h u highly misoriented grains or particles,
through Which the crw:k cannot propagate. The crack is divened around these obstacle$,
leaving isolated unbroken 1',amenU in itS wake. As the crack propagation continues and
the Cl'llCk faces open, the ligaments that are well behind the crack tip rupture . Figure 5.30
schematically illustrates this postulated mechanism. The cner,y required \0 rupture the
ductile ligamenl.5 may provide the majority orthe propaption resiSWKe I cleavage CllICk
upericnccs. 1b: cOIII;entnllioo of ductile iilamenl$ on a fno::tun: 1urface increases with
temperature (461, which ffily explain why cnck arrest touglmess (K ia> exhibil$ a steep
britUe-ductile trauition, much like Kic and Je-

5.4 INTERG RAN ULA R FRA

, CT URE
In most cases mttal s do nO! fail along grain boundaries. Ductile metal. u5ually fail by
coalescence of voids formed at inclusionsll!ld 5e(:ond phase particles, while brittle metals
typically fail by uans&JlllluJarcleava~. Under special circumst.ax:es, bowe\·er, cncks can
form aDd p!"I:lpq~ &Ion, gain bowxlaries.
"There is no sinlle meehanism for intergranular frw:tu.re. Rather, there arc: a variety
o f ,ilIWiollS thai ~an lead to c:no::kinll on grain boundaries, inclodin,:
300 Chap/er'

nI""'. .
ncURE ~ ~Ik 1IIu:I1nI"- 01 dH..... end! po " I pl_ Ia ~ d.w.tlrllllo u..11... reo
po... """".. II.' tn ' 1 MIl.... 1M end! lip, .-.I... iIIIlnu ... ...-odGoI """'*-

(l) Precipitation of a brinle phase on the grain boundary.

(2) Hydrogen embrinlemenl and liquid mew embrinlcment.

(3) Environmental assimd crac king.

(4) IntergranuJar cormsiOl1.

(5) Grain boundary uviwion and cno;king a. high temperatures.

Space limitations preclude: discus.sing tach of these mechanisms in detail. A brief ckscrip-
lion of the: inlcrgranular crackinl mechani snu is given below.
Briu]c phases can be deposi ted on grain bourxlarics of steel through improper tem-
pering [47]. Tempered martensite embriulemcnt, which results from tempering near
35(}°C, and temper cmbrilucmcnt, which oceul'S when an alloy steel is tempered at -
5.5O"C, both apparently iovolv!; segregation of impurities, such as phosphorous and sul-
phur, 10 prior austenite grain boundariC5. 'These thin layers of impurity atoms are nOi re-
solvable on the fractuJ"e surfac:c, but can be detected with SurfllCC analYliltechniques such
as Auger electron Spedl'"O$l;0py. Segrc:gatiOft of aluminum nitride panicles OIl pin
boundarie5 during solidificalion is a common embrittlement meciwlism in CUt steels
147]. Aluminum nitride, if present in suffICient quantity. can also contribute to degrada-
tion or t(ltlghne$s rc:su1tin8 fl'l)1ll tempeT embrilllement in wrought alloys.
Hydroaen can severely degrade ttle toughness oran alloy. and much has been written
on thilsubject in the last SO years (48.49]. Although the precise mechanism of hydrogen
embrinlement is not completely understood. atomic hydrogen apparently bonds with ttle
Fractun M~chonisml in M~tals J01

melaJ aloms and reduces the cohesive sttength at grain boundaries. Hydrogen can come
from a numbe r of sources. including mois ture. hydrogen contai ning compounds such as
H2S. and hydrogen gas. A common problem in steel weldments is moisture adsorption
during welding, which leads to cracking in the heat affec ted zone. Liquid metals, when
slightly above their melting temperature. can em brittle a second metal wilh a higbe r melt-
ing point. Steel, for ell:ample, can be embrittled when placed in contact with molten met-
als with low melting points. such as lilhi um and sodium. The mechanism for liquid
mewl embrittlement is believed to be similar to hydrogen embriulement.
Environmental assisted cracking is related to hydrogen embrilliement, in that hydro-
gen plays a role in the cracking process. High strength alloys are mOst susceptible to en-
vironmental assisted cracking, and delete rious environments include H20-NaCI solutions,
H2S, ammonia, and gaseous hydrogen. The cracking is time-dependent and usually fol -
lows grain boundaries. Figure 5.31 shows the fracture surface o f an ammonia tanker thaI
experienced environmentaJ assisted cracking. Note the smooth "roek candy" appearance of
the intergranular fracture. The chemicaJ and transport processes that lead to environmental
assisted cracking are as follows [S I ]:

(I) Transport ofthe deleterious environment to the crack lip.

(2) Reactions of the environment with the crack surfaces, resulting in localized
dissolution and production of hydrogen.

(3) Hydrogen absorption into the aJloy.

(4) Diffusion of the hydrogen to an embrittlement site ahead of the crack tip.

(5) Hydrogen-metal interactions leooing 10 embriltlement and crack propagation.

Intergranular corrosion involves preferential attack of the grain boundaries, as op-

posed to general COlTOSion, where the material is diS!;olved relatively unifonnly across the
surface. Intergranular attack is different from environmental assisted cracking. in that
there is no embrilliement mechanism associated with the grain boundary corrosion.
At high tempenttures, grain boundaries are weak relative to the matrill:, and a signifi-
cant portion of creep deformation is accommodated by grain boundary sliding. In such
cases void nucleation and growth (a\ second phase particles) is concentrated at the crack
boundaries, and cracks fann as grain boundary cavities grow and coalesce. Grain boundary
cavitation is the dominant mechanism of creep crack growth in metals (51], and il can be
characterized with time dependent parameters such as the C· integral (Chapler 4).
302 Chapter 5

REFEREN CES
1, Knoll. J.P.. "MioolJlel,:hanbm, of fraau~ and Ihe Fraclu~ TOII,h~" of Ensi~rin8
Allo)'I." f"raclwre 19n. Vol l. 1CF4. Waterloo Canada, June 1977. pp. 61-91.

2. Knoll. J.F. MEffecu of Microstrucfllfe and SlfCI.lI, Slale on Ductlle Fractu~ in Metallic
Allo)'5. ~ In; /tJVQJfCes u. F_" Runurlo. Pror:udinlS of w ~l1ll1ll1lenuuw.wu
C<H!/ennn"" Fmc'.. ,.., (leF7J, K. Salama, ce. aI .. Eds.., Papmon Preu. Oxford. UK.
1989. pp. [23·138.

3. Wlllforf, H.G. F .. ''The Ouelile fracture of Metal.: I Microllruelur.l Viewp<!int."

MfJlt.u.ls Science aM &,i"urinl. Vol '9. 1983. pp. 1. 19.

4. OanilOll, W.M. Jr. and Moody. N.R., "Duc1lle frJelll!e. - JOflnuJI '" 1M Physics aNI
Clte",isrry "I So/WIs. Vol. 48. 1987. pp. IOJS-1074.

S. Knoll. J.F., " Micromechanl.ms of Fib!'OU$ CIlICir. Extension in Engineering Alloy',-

Me/o/ Science, Vol. 14, 1980. pp. 327-336.

6. Argon, A.S .. 1m. J .• S.rOIlu. R.• "Clvily Formalion from Indulions in Ductile
f racrure. - M tflJ1lu,.,iaJI Trwu«tiotu, Vol. 6A , 1973. pp. 815-83'.

,. Bercmin, P.M., "Cavity Fomwion from lnellilions;a Ductile FrxtII~ ar A S08 St«l.~
Mtlalll."ical TratUDCliaIu, Vol IlA, 1981. pp. 72J.7JI.
Fruclure Mer:honisms in Metals 303

8. Brown. L.M. and SIQbb•. W.M .• ·1"bc Work·Hardening of Copper-SiIi~a v. Equilibrium

M
Plastic Relaxation by Secondary Dislocations. Philosophical Magazine. 1976. Yol.
34, pp. 351-372.

9. Goods, S.H. and Brown. L.M .• '11le Nucleation of Cayities by Plastic Deformalion."
Ar:II.1 M"lll/wrgir:ll. Vol. 27, 1979, pp. ]-]5.

10. Van Stone, R.H .• Cox. T.B ., Low, J.R. Jr., and Plioda, P.A.• UMicnntrotlural Aspects
of Fracture by Di mpled Ruprore. " Intemari""al Metallurgical Reviews. VoL 30, 1985.
pp. 157-179.

II. Thoma5Ol\, P.F" Due/ii.! Frac'uu of Me/als. Pergamon Press, O~ford, UK . 1990.

12. Rice. J.R. and Tncey. D.M., ''On tile Ductile Enlargement of Voids in Triuial Stress
Fie1ds. Journal of lhe Mechanics (u rd Physics of Salias, V<.>l. 17. 1969, pp. 201·217.
M

13. Gurson. A.L .• ''Continuum Tbeory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth:
M
Pan I- Yield Crileria and Row Rules for P<.>rO}us Ductile Medi a. J ou,.,.al of
Engineering Malerials OJId Technology, V<.>I . 99,1977. pp. 2-15.

14. Bcrg. C.A .• "Planic Dilation and Void Imeracti<.>n:· Indas/ir: Bellaviar of Solids.
McGnw.Hill. New York. 1970. pp. 171_210.

15. Tve rgaard. V .. ''On Localizat ion in Ductile Materials Containing Spherical Voids."
1"'eTTr(Jl;onal Journal of Frac/I<u. Vol. 18. 19S2. pp. 237-252.

16. Tvergaard, V and Needleman. A .. "Analysis of the CUp.Cone F.-.lUre in a Round Te ruile
Bar." ACla Me/allurgica, Vol 32, 1984, pp. 157_169.

17. Punscher. P.T " "Mkromechani.ms <.>f Ductile Fracture and Fracture TOllshness in a HiSh
Strength Austenitic Stainless SI«I.~ Ph .D. Dissertll.tion, Colorndo School of MillC!l ,
Golden. CO. April. 1m.

18 . d·E.sI;ata, Y. and Deyaux. J.c.. "Numerical Study O}f lniliation, Stable Crac~ Growth. and
Muimum Load with a Ductile Fractun: Criterion Based on the Growth of Holes." ASTM
S11' 668, American Society of Testing and Material. , Philadelphi., 1979. pp. 229-248.

19. McMeekin,. R.M. and Parb, D.M .• "On Criteria for I_Dominance of Crack_Tip Fields
in Large·Scale Yielding.~ ASTM STP 668. American Society of Testing and Material s.
Philadelphia, 1979, pp. l7S·JIM.

20 . Beachem. C.D. and Yooer, G.R. "Elastic-Plastic Fracture by Homogeneous Microvoid

H
Coalescence Tearins Alons Alternatins Shear Planes. Melallurgical Transactions,
Vol. 4A. 1973, pp. 1145-1l~3.

21. Gud"", J.P. "Mlcromechanisms of Fracture and Crack Arrest in TwO) High Strength
Steels," Ph .D. Di ssertatio n. J<.>hns Hopkins University, B.llimore. MD. 1985.

22. Comell. A. H..• 'Theory of Brinle Fracture in Steel and Similar Metab." Trwuac/ions of
/he ASME, Vol 212, 1955. pp. 192-203.

23. McMahon. C.J. Jr and Cohen, M .. "Initiation of Oeavage in PolycryJlalline Iron."

Act.. M~laliurgica. Vol 13. 1965, pp . 591-604.
3 04 Chapter j

24. Smith. E.. '"TIle Nuclcuion and Growth of CluYalic Micn)Cr»(b in Mi ld Sleel. ~
Proct'edingl "J IItt CO<!/C, crlCt <m fht Phys/c(l/ &UII oj F'OCI~'t. Institute of Physics
and Ph ysicl Society. 1966. pp. 36-46.

2'. Hccrens. J. and Read., D.T .• "Fnocrurc Bc:Iuovior of a Prcnurc Vessel Sltel in the Duclik:-
to- Brittle Tnnsltion RcJion.~ NISllR 88-J.099. Nalional Inwlule for SllndardS and
TccbnoioaY. Boulder. CO. Dettmber. 198&.

26 . Dolby. R.E. and Knott. I .F.• .....""8hnc:u of ManclLSitic and Martensitic- Bilinitic
MiClO$tl\lO";turt$ witll PN"licWar Reference 10 Heal-Affected Zoncl.- JOf<ntill of lilt Iron
WId S,ul l fIJlifll/t. Vol 210. 1972. p. 851·86S.

27 . Un, T ., Evans. A.G. and Ritchie. R.O., "SClIilliuJ Modcl of Brinle Fnc:ture by
Transsranula, Clca vIse.- Joumal oj Ihe Mecha" ics wrJ Physics oj Solith. Vol 34.
1986. pp. 477.496.

28 . Ritchie. R.O .• Knott, 1.F., and. Ria:, 1.R. '"On 1he Relllionship bct"'/:IM Critical Tensile
Stress and maurc Tou&fuleu in Mild Sleel.~ JOf<ntJ;J/ QJ lilt MecMllicJ lIItd PIIYlia of
SQlith. Vol. 21, 1973. pp. 39S-410.

29 . Rice, 1.R. ....:l Trxey, D.M. "Computational Frxnore McchanK:s.- N,urwi(aI Ct;>mpllte,
Met/rods ill SlTWturol Mechanics. Academic Prcu, Ncw York, 1973, pp. !l85-623.

30 . Curry, D.A. lAd Knotl, I. F., "Effects of Mic ...... lructurc on ClcavlJIe Fnc:turc Suess in
Slcel." Metal Sd," ct. 1978. pp. 5 11·!l14.

31 . Watanabe, 1.,lwlidate, T ., Tanaka. Y.• Yoitoboro, T . and Ando, K., "FrE!urc Tou&Jmas
in the Tranliti(lrl RciPon. - &Ogi"u,,", Fr"tI(:t"Fe Mecha"ics, Vol 28, 1987, pp. 589-
600.

32 . Curry D.A. IIf.d Knoll, 1.F., "t;ffect of MiclO$lructurt 011 Cleavage FtaClute Touahncu in
Mild Sted.- Mtllli Scle" u. Vol. 13. 1979. pp. 341·34!1

33. Landes J. D. and SlLaffer, D.H., "StatiMicf.i CharkleriUlion of Fractlrc in the Tnmsition
Region:' ASTM S11' 700, American Society of Testin8 tmd Mal:-ri.lJ, l'IIil adelphi. ,
1980, pp. 368·372.

3 4. Andenon, T.L. and WiIIillllS, S .• ~Auessi", the Domirtallt Mcclwlism for Size Effects
in the Ductil¢-to- Briule Transition Region.-, ASTM STP 90S. American Society o f
Testilll IDIi Mlterif.is, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 11 S. 740.

35 . AndeI$On, T.L. ItId SlienJlTl. D.• -A Model 10 Predict lbe Sourcel and Mignilude of
Scallcr in Toua hncs1 0.11 in the TrllItli lion Reliion.~ Jo"m~1 of Ttl/;nl and
E""/Ual;O~, Vol. 17, 1989, pp. 46-~3.

36. EVins, A.G .. "Statistical Aspects of Cle.vlac f racture in Stul:", M tfollu"ica/

Tra~sacti<HIs,Vol . 14A, 1983, pp. 1349·13".

37. Wf.ilin, K., Surio, T., ItId T&,l)uc:n. K.. ~SIIIitOcal Model for Carbide Ind",,*, Brittle
fnocture in SIX\.- U £tol Scienct. Vol.. 18, 1984, pp. 13·16.

38. Bercmin, F.M., ~A l«.t Criterion (01 ael", Fractute of I Nuclear Pl-c:uure V_I
Steel.~
MtIQ/Iti" ical Tnuuoctimu. Vol. 14A, 1983. pp. 22n·22&1.
Frocn.lrI~ Mecoonisms in Mt:lais 30'

39. Weibull. W .. "A Stati ~tical Distri bution Funct ion of Wide Applicability:' Journal of
Applied Mt:elumics. Vol. 18. 1953, pp. 293-297.

40. Stienstra. DJ .A .. "Stochastic Micromcchanical Modeling of Cleavage Fracture in the

Ductile_Brittle TranSition Region." Ph.D. Dinerlation. Texas A&M University.
CoUege Station. TX, August. 1990.

41 . Anderson. T.L .. Stienstra. D.I.A.. and Dodds. R.H. Jr .. "A l1Ieoretical Framework for
Addressing Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle Tnmsition Region ." Fracl.. ~ MtcNmicJ: 24111
Volume. ASTM STP 1207. American 5«iety for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia,
(in pren).

42. Gel!' M and Smith. E., "The Propagation of Cracks Through Orain Boundaries in
Polycry~tani Re 3% Silicon_Iron.'" ACla Melallurgica. Vol. 15. 1967. pp. 253-258.

4 3. Anderson. T.t. and Dodds. R.H .• Jr. , "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture
Toughn<:ss Testing in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Regi nn. " Journal of Tesling and
Eva/lUllion, to appear, 1991.

44. Wallin, K.. "Fracture Toughn~s Testing in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region." In:
AdvQnus in Fmclu,." Ruearch. Proct:t:dings ojrht: S~tmll fmernOlWfliJl Co'!!ertnce on
Fraclurt (feF7). K. Salama. e\. al., Eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford. UK, 1989, pp. 267-
276.

45. Rosenfield. A.R. and Shelly. D.K., "Cleange Fracture in the Ductile- Brinle Transition
Region." ASTM STP 856. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia,
1985. pp. 196·209.

46. Hoagland, R.G., Rosen field. A.R .. and Hahn. G.T .. "Mcchanisms of Fast Fracture and
Arrest in Steels:' Me/allurgical Troruac lions. Vol. 3. 1972. pp. 123-136.

47. Krauss. G.. Principl~s of H~as TreatlMnl of Slul. American Society for Metals. Metals
Park. OH, 1980.

48. Thompson. A.W. and Bernstein, I.M. (Eds.), EJlus of Hydrogen 1m B~havjor of
Materials. TMS-AIME. Warrelldale. 1976.

49. Anon, Hydrogt ll D(llfI/lgt. American Society for Mctah. Melals Part, OH, 1977.

50. Wei. R.P. and Gangloff, R.P .. "Environmentally Assisted Crack Growth in Structural
Alloys: Perspectives and New Directions:' ASTM STP lOW. American Society for
Testing and Material s, Philadelphia. 1989. pp. 233-264.

51. Riedel , H.. "Creep Craek Growth.'" ASfM STP 1020, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Ph iladelphia. 1989, pp. 10\ -126.

52. 8ain, LJ., Ssalis/ieal Analysis of Re/iability and Lif~-TeJling Models, Marcel Dek..ker,
Inc. New York. 1978.
APPENDIX 5: STATISTICAL MODELING
OF CLEAVAGE FRACTURE
When one: assumcs that fracture occurs by a weakest link mechanism under J controlled
conditions, il is possible to derive a closed-form upression for the fracture toughness dis-
tribution. When weakest link initiation is necessary but not sufficient (Of cleavage fmc-
lure, the problem becomes somewhat mon: complicated, but it i!I still possible 10 ~be
the cleavage PUXt" mathematically.

AS.1 WEA.KEST LI NK FRACTURE

As discussed in Section !S.2, the weaJcesl li nk model for cleavage assumes that failure oc-
c urs when al least one critical fracture -triggering panicle is sampled by [he crac k tip.
Equation (5.21) describes the failure probabi lity in this case.4 5iIK:c cleavage is stress
conlrOlled, the microcraclr: density (i.e., the number of critical microcracks per uni t vol-
ume) should depend only on the muimum principal suess5:

(AS. I )

This quantity must be integrated over the volume ahead of the crack tip. In order to per-
fonn this integration, il is necessary 10 relale the crack lip SlTesses 10 the volume sampled
al each slTess level.
Recall Section 3.5, where dimensional analysis indicaled that the SlTesses ahead of
the crack tip in the limit of small scale yielding are given by

(A5.2)

usuming Young's modulus is fixed in the material (and Ih~ douc>i nul nec:tllu be incluOed
in the dimensional analysis). Equation (A.5.2) can be inverted 10 solve ror the distance
ahead of the crack tip (II I Jiven angle) wltich corresponds 10 a particular SITeSS value:

(AB)

4 11 IUmi OUI ilia! Sq. (j.ll) is valid CYeII ",heir. ~ PoiI_ UlUmpOoa is _ {40I: the qlWlbl~ P is _the
miu..... Kk c!clUicy ia.1OCh CMCI but P iI ","""wly nl"'n 10 .......... k dcluily . n...s.the dcriYMioa of the
~ IOqI dioailMioo po I • j in t:hio ~ 60. . o.ot ...,., ... Ibo: roo- ~
5AllltauP tbio dcri....oo. -.nco ilia! the muimaat priKipU oaas III a point COIIU'Obt the iaoc:n!.....w
clcav. puboobilily. the _ buk IUUlIca be duiMd "" i-m., lilY 1UaI_~'" Sq. (1.5.1). Foo
~ '* mi.p _SlIme tbIt \he 1IIJ#IIIiaI-. <J8&, a o - clca....

307
308 ApfMndix j

By fixing (1/ and varying 6 from -K 10 +Jr, we can COnstruell contour of conSllnl prioci-
pal stress, as illustrated in Fig. A5 . 1. TIle uca inside this contour is given by

( AS.4)

where II is a dimens ionless integration constant:

( AS..5)

For plane slnIin conditions in an edge crlld;ed test specimen, the volume wnpJed at a
,iven stress value is simply B A. where B is the spedmen thickness. lbcrcforc. the in-
cremental volume at. fixed J and 0'0 is ,iven by

(AS.6)

Inscrtin8 Eqs. (AS.I) and (AS.6) inlO Eq. ('.21) lives

(AS.7)

ncull£ A5.1 DdIaltllwl '" r, " u6 _ for •

'.b'd.... _ cant ......
Statistical Modeling o/Cleavage Fracture 3. 9

where Gmax is the peak value o f stress that occurs ahead of the crac k tip and au is the
threshold fracture stress, which corresponds to the largest fracture-triggering particle the
material is likely to contain.
Note that J appears outside of the integral in Eq. (AS.7). By setting J = J c in Eq.
(AS.7), we obtain an ellpression for the statisti cal distribution of critical 1 values, which
can be written in the following fonn:

(AS.S)

where Bo is a reference thickness. When B :: Bo , BJ is the 63rd percentile 1c value.

Equation (AS.S) has the form of a two-parameter Weibull distribution. lIS discussed in
Section 5.2.3. Invoking the relationship between K and 1 for small scale yie lding gives

(AS.9)

Equations (AS.S) and (AS.9) both predict a thickness effect on toughness. The aver-
age toughness is proportional to lifo for critical 1 values and B-0.25 for Kfc data. The
average toughness does not increase indefinitely with thickness, however. There are lim-
its to the validity of the weakest link model , as discussed in the nellt section.
All o f the above relationships are valid only when weakest li nk failure occurs under
J conlrolled conditions; i.e., the sin gle parameter assumption must apply. When con-
straint reialles. critical J values no longer follow a Weibull dislribution with a speciuc
slope, but the effective small scale yielding 1 values, 10 (see Section 3.6.3), foll ow Eq.
(AS.S) if a weaKest link me<:hanism contro ls failure. Actual J c values would be more
scattered than 10 values, however, because the I1l.tio JIJo iTlCreases with 1.

AS.2 INCORPORATING A CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF

PROPAGATION

In many materials, weakest link initiatio n of cleavage appears to be necessary but not suf-
ficient. Figure 5.26 schematically iIIuslrates a prohability tree for cleavage initiation and
propagation. This diagram is a slight oversimplification, because the cumulative failure
probability must be compu ted incrementally.
Modifying the statistical cleavage model to account for propagation requires thaI the
probability be ellpressed in terms of II halllrd {Imcrion (521, which defines the instanta-
neous risk of fracture. For a random variable T, the hazard funclion, H(T), and the cumu-
lative probability are related as follows:
310 Apptndu 5

T
F=l-ex -jH(T)dT (M . IO)

To
where To is lbe minimum value of T. By comparing Sq •. (A$.17) and (AS .18), it can
easily be shown that the hazard function (or weakest link initiation, in lenns of stress in-
tensity, is given by

3
H(K)=~ (AS.II)
OK

assuming B = So- 1be haurd function fa r toIol/oi/un is equal 10 Eq. (AS.l l) times the
conditional probability of failure :

(AS.12)

Thus the overall probability of failure is Biven by

(AS. ll)

Consider the case where Ppr is. constant; i.e .. it does nOi depend on the applied K.
Suppose, for clUUJIplc, that half of the clU"bi~ of a critical size have a favorable oricnla-
lion with respect to a cleavage plane in a ferrite grain. 1lIc failure probability becomes:

(AS.l4)

In this instance, the finite propqation probability merely shifts the 63rd percentile
toughness to I higher value:
SlUtistit:,,1 Modeling ,,/Cltawlgt F~turt
'"
1llc shape o f the distribution is unchanged, and the fracture process still follows a weakest
link model. In this case, the weak link is defined as a particle that is greater than the crit-
ical size tlrol is " Iso orit nleri/m;orobly.
Deviations from the wea kest li nk distribution occur when Ppr depends on the ap-
plied K. If the conditional probabili ty of propagation is a step function:

p
~
={OJ
the fracture toughness distribution Ix<:omes a truncated Weibull (Eq. ~.24); failure can
occur only when K > Ko. 1be intnxl uction o f a threshold toughness also reduces the rela-
tive scatter, as discussed in Section 5.2.3.
Equation (5.24) implies that the arrest tough ness is single valued; a m icrocrac k al-
ways propagates above Ko , but always arre,1S at or below Ko. Eltperimental data, how-
ever, indicate that arrest can occur over a range of K values. 1be data in Fig. S.27 uhibit
a sigmoidal shape, while the tru ncated We ibull is nearly linear near the threshold.
A computer simulation of cleavage propagation in a polycrystalline material [40,41 J
resulted in a prediction of Ppr as a function of the IIpplied K; these re s ults fit an offset
power law upressio n (Eq. (5.25». The absolute val ues o btained from the si mulation are
questionable, but the predicted trend is reasonable. Inserting Eq. (S.2S) into Eq. (AS.13)
pves

F=I-exp - K
J a(K-Kof4K' )
-4 dK (AS.!5)
( K
o
(h
1be integral in Eq. (AS. 15) h as a closed-form wl ution, but it is rather lengthy. 1be
above distribution uhibits a sigmoidal shape , much like the eltperim enta! data in Fig.
5.27. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to fit upcri mentai data to Eq. (M.22). Note that
there arc four fitling parameters in this distribution: a, p, K", and 9K. Even with fewer
unknown parameters, the form of Eq. (AS.IS) is not conduc ive to c urve fitting because it
cannot be linearized.
EqlJ"ation (AS. IS) can be approximated with I conventional three parameter Weibull
distributio n with the slope filted at 4 (Eq. 5.26). 1be latter Cltpress ion also gives a rea-
sonably good fit o f experimental data (Fig. 5.27). The three parameter Wei bull distribu·
tio n is suffi ciently flCltible to model a wide range of behavior. The advantage of Eq.
(5.26) is that there are o nly two parameters 10 fit (the Weibul1 shape panmeter is filted al
4.0) and it ean be linearized. 1be apparent threshold, K m ;", o btained by c urve fitting
tends to be a eonservative estimate of the true threshold toughness.
 6. FRACTURE MECHANISMS IN
NONMETALS

Traditional struc tural metals such as steel and aluminum are being replaced with plastics,
ceramics. and composites in a number of applications. Engineeri ng plastics have a
number of advantages, including low COOl, ease of fabrication, and corrosion resiSlan<:c.
Ceramics provide superior wear resisWlCc and creep sU'ength. Composites offer high
strengthfweight ratios, and enable cngineeD to desiln materials wilh specifK: clastic and
thermal properues. Traditional nonmetallic material5 such as co. crete conti nue to see
widespread use.
Nonmetals, like metal s, are not immune to fracture. Recall from Chapte r I the ex-
am ple of pinch clamping of polyethylene pi pe thai led 10 lime-dependenl fracture. The
$O-caUed high toughness ceramics that h.ave been developed in recent yean (Section 6.2),
have Iowa- 10uShMSS !han even the most brittle steels. Relatively mi nor impllCl (e.g. an
airplane mechanic accidentally droppina his wrench on. wing) can cause nUcrosea1c dam-
age in .. composite lIUIterial, whkh CM advcncly affect subsequent performance. TIle lack
of ductility of concrete (relative to steel) limits its range of application.
Compared with fracture of metals, researc h into the fracture benavior of nonm~t..b is
in ilS infancy. Mucb of the necessary theoretical framework is not yet fu lly developed for
nonmell.ll, and lhere an: many inatancer; where r...... '''"' mcr;:hG.nies ~onccpt.l that apply 10
metals have been nsapplied 10 other materials.
This chaptet" gives a brief overview of the current sate of understanding of frocture
and failure mechanISms in selected nonmetallic structunl materials. Allhough the cover-
age of the subject i. far from complete. this chapter should enable the reader to gain an
appreciation of the diverse fraclure hebaviOl" that various materials Clll e:a:hibit. The refer-
ences listed at the ead of the chapter provide a wealth of infomwion 10 those who desire ..
m<n in~pth understanding of I. panicular material system. 1be reader should also re fer
to Chapter 8, whicb describes cumnt methods for fracture tougbr.ess measuremenUi in
nonmetallic materials.
Section 6.1 oUllines the molecular structure and mechanical properties of polymeric
lllilteriab, amI OC:;clibes how lhe5C properties influence the fracture behavior. This section
also includes a disc union o f the fracture mechMisnu in polymer matrix composites.
Section 6.2 considers frocture in cenmic materials, including the newesl generation o f ce-
ramic composites. Section 6.3 Uiresscs fracture in concrete and rock.
This chapter does not specirKl1ly address metal matrix composites, but these mate-
rials have man y fealures in common with polymer and ceramic matrix composites II].
Also, the metal matrix in lnese ma terial s should exhi bitlhe fracture mechanisms de-
scribed in Chapler 5.

3"
314 Chap/u6

6.1 ENGINEER.ING PLASTICS

The fracture behavior of polymeric materials has only recently become a major concern,
as engi neeri ng plastics have begun to appear in critical structural applications. In most
consumer products made from polymers (e.g .. toys, garlJage bags, ice chests. lawn furni-
ture, etc.), fracture may be an annoyance, but it is not a s.ignificMt safety issue. Fracture
in plastic natural gas piping systems or aircraft wings, however, can have dire conse-
q~=
Several books devoted solely to fracture and fatigue of plastics have been published
in recent years [2-5]. These references proved inval uable to the author in preparing
Chapters 6 and 8.
Let us begin the discussion of fracture in plastics by reviewi ng some of the basic
principles of polymeric materials.

6.1. 1 Structure and Properties of Polymers

A polymer is defined as the uni on of two or more compctlnds called mers. 1be degru of
polymerization is a measure of the number of these units in a given molecule. Typical
e ngineering ptasli~s consist of very long chains, with the degree of polymerization on the
order of several thousand.
Consider polyethylene, II. polymer with a relatively simple molecular structure. The
building block in this case is ethylene (C2 H4 ). which consists of two carbon atoms
joi ned by a double bond, with two hydrogen atoms attached to each carbon atom. If suffi-
cient energy is applied to this compound. the double bond can be broken, resulting in two
free radicals which can react with other ethylene groups:

H H H H
I I I I
C=C + Energy --> -c-c-
I I I I
H H H H

The degree of polymerization (i.e., the le ngth of the chain) can be controlled by the heat
input, catalyst. as well as reagents that may be added [Q aid the polymerization process.

Molecular W(irht
1be molecul ar weight is a measure of the length of a polymer chain. Since there is
typically a distribution o f moleeule sizes in a polymer sample, it is convenient to quan -
tif'y an average molecular weight, which can be defined in one of twO ways. The number
average molecular weight is the tOlal weight divided by !be number or molecules:
Fmctwre Mechanisms in Nonmeul/s 3 15

(6.1)

where Ni is the number of molecules with molecular weight Mi. The number average
molecular weight attaches equal imponancc to all molecu les, while the ",~igh t average
molecular weight reflects the actual average weight of molecules by placing additional
emphasis on the larger molecules:

(6.2)

These two mellSures of molecular weight are obv iously identical if all molecules in the
sample are the same sizc, but the number average is usually lower that the weight average
molecular weight. The potydispersiry is defined as the ratio of these two quantities:

PD=Mw (6.3)
M,

A narrow distribution of molecular weigbts implies a PD close to I, while PD can be

greater than 20 in materials with broadly distributed molecule sizcs. Both measures of
molecular weight. as well as the PO, influence the mechanical propenies of a polymer.

Ma/rcular Stn!CllIo:
The strucrure of polymer chains also has a significant effect on the mechanical prop-
enies. Figure 6.1 illustrates three general classifications of polymer chai ns: linear,
branched, and cross-linked. Linear po/ymeC$ are not actWlI slraightlines; rather, the (:8f-
bon atoms in a linear molecule fonn a single continuous path from one e nd of the chain
to the other. A brancMd polymer molecule, as the name suggests, contains a serious of
smaller chains that branch off from a main "backbone". A croJs-/inJud polymer (:onsists
o f a network struct1,ll"C rather than linear chains. A highly cross-linked structure is typical
of thernwse/ polymers, while thermoplastics consist of linear and branched chai ns.
Elastomers typical ly have lightly (:TOss-Jinked SUUct1,ll"CS and are alpable o f large e lastic
strains.
Epoxies are the most common example of thennoset polymers. Typically, two
compounds that are in the liquid state at ambient temperature are mi~ed together to form
31'
an epoxy resin, which solidifies into a crou-linkcd lauice upon cunni. This process is
irn::versible; alhcnnoscl cannot be formed into another shape once it solidifies.
1bennomechanical procCS5e$ in thermoplastics an: reversible, because these materi-
als do not form cross-linked networks. 1bennoplastiC5 become viscous upon heating (see
below), where they can be formed into the desired shape.

(11) B~ po/JIItcr.

COI/al/ja( and Amo!J!haus Po/mcu

Polymer chains can be packed tiah11y tOlcthcr in a regular pauem, or they can form
random entanglements. Materials thai di splay the former configuration an: called crys-
talline polymen;, while the disordered stale COfTesponds (0 amorphous (alassy) polymers.
Figure 6.2 sche matically illustrates crystalline and amorphous arrangements of polymer
molecules.
1be lerm crysUlllioe docs not have the same meaning for polymers lIS {O£ metals and
anmies. A tt)'$tal structure in a metal or ceramic is a regular array of atoms with three-
dimensional symmcuy; all atoms in a 1;1)'5181 have identical surroundings (except atoms
that an: adjacent to a defect, such as a dislocation or vacancy). The degree of symmetry in
a crystalline polymer, however, is much lower. as Fig. 6.2 illustrates.
Fig ure 6.3 illustrates the volume·temperature relationships in cryslall ine and amor·
phous thermoplasti cs. As a crystalline polymer cools from the liquid state, an abrupt de·
crease in volume occurs at the me lting tcmpcnllure. Tm. and the mole<:uJar chains pack
efficiently in response to the thcl'lllQ(\ynamic arive to order into I crystalline State. The
volume discontinuity at Tm resembles the behavior of crystalline metals and ceramics.
An amorphoos polymer bypasses Tm upon coolinj. and remains in I viscous state until
it reaches the glass transition temperature. T,. 1\ which time: the relative motion of the
molCCIIlu becomes restricted. An amorphous polymer contains more free volume than
the same material in the crystalline uate. and th us has a lower density. The glass transj·
lion temperature is sensitive to coolin. rate: rapid heating or cooling tends to increaseT,.
as Fig. 6.3 indicates.
Semicryllalline polymers contain both crystalline: and glassy regions. The reiati ve
fmelion of each state depends on a number of faclOrs. incl uding molecular structure and
 317

cooling rale. Slo .... cooling provides more: lime for the molc:cvles to arrange themselves
in an cqllilibrium cryn aJ ilroctute.

(10) AlII itI I "'r-r. (II) er,.taIIlDI: 1"'Il'_.

TEM PERATURE
.......
" GUIlE U VoIume-ltBlptnoh.R rriIItJoo.
0101.. for .......... _ 11"") ""'" <rJdaIlid ~

VUcoc/asUc B,hayior
Polymen exhibit rate-dependent viscoelastic deformation, which is a d irect rt:sWt of
their molecular structure. Figure 6.4 gives a simplified view of viscoell1:!;!ic be havior on
the molec ular level. Two neighboring mo lecules, Of different segments of I single
molecule thaI is folded bal::k upon itself, cx.perience weak alU'llCtivc fo«:u calLed V/Itl ckr
W_lr Ixwb. These JeeOndary bonds fUjst any nlemal force that attempts 10 pulllbe
molecules span. TIle elastic modulus of • typical polymer is signiflCantly lower Ihan
Young 's modulus for metals and cc:rami~, be<:alJse the Van <let Waals bonds are much
weaker than primary bonds. Deforming. polymer requires cooperative motion among
mQlecules. 'The malerial is relatively compliant if the imposed sllllin rate i, Jufficiently
 JI'
low 10 provide molecu les suffiCient time 10 move . AI fasler strain niles, however, the
forced molecular motion produces friction. and I hiahcr stress is required 10 deform the
material. If the load is removed. the material attemptS 10 return In ils origi nal shape, bul
molecular entangle men ts prevent insIlIntaneOU5 elastic recovery. If the strai n is suffi-
cie ntly large, yielding mechanisms occur. such as ernina and shear defonnation (see
Section 6.6.2 below), and rnUoCh of the induced slnlin is essentially pennanent.
Section 4.3 inLrOduced the relaxation modulus. £(.). and the creep compliance, D(,j,
which describe Inc lime-dependcnt resporue of viscoelastic materials. 1'he rellJ1liion
modulus and CIWp compliance can be obtaincd experimentally by fixing strail! and Slre$$,
respectively:

£( t ). G(t ) D(t) = e(t) (6. 4)

E. G.

See Fig. 4.19 for. schematic ilIuuation of SI1'e$S relaxation and crocp experiments. For
liocu viscoelastic materials l , Eft) and D(l) ~ related Ihrough a hereditary integral CEq.
(4 .61) ,

.....
V.... duWub

I u_ riscoelaslic -w. cIo - . Ie ...-.a. ... ~ ~ Irma-llnia f\IfVU (""" Iloc: ....1... is Ii"..
der.;
de ...0..... oIliaear
). 1M; display oilier o;b.,lCtisIQ of r-. elMticily IUdl • ouperpositioL See ScetioIo • .1.1 rOO".
YiocoelDrieio;y.
Fracture Mechanisms in NOlU1ltrtl/s 319

figure 6.'(a) Is a plOi or relaxauon modulus versus Icmpcralure al a fiJicd timc for a
thermoplastic. Below Tg • thc modulus is relatively high. as molecular motion is re-
strictcd. At around Tg • the modulus (at a fixed time) decreases rapidly. and the polymer
uhibits a "leathery" behavior. At higher temperatures, the modulus reaches a lower
plateau. and the polymer is in a rubbery state, Nat\lral and synthetic rubbers are merely
materials whose glass transition temperature is below room temperature 2. If the tempera-
turc is surficicntly bigb. linear polymers loose virtually allload-carrying capac ily and be-
have like a viscous fluid. Highly cross-linked polymers. bowever, maintain a modulus
plateau.
Figure 6.5(b) shows a curve with the same cbaracteristic shape as Fig. 6.5(a), but
with fixed temperature and varying timc. At short limcs, the polymer is glassy. but c~­
hibits leathery, rubbery . and liquid behavior at surficiently long times. Of course, short
lime and long lime are relative terms that depend on temperature. A polymer signifi-
cantly below Tg might remain in a glassy state during the time frame of a s~ss relu-
ation test. whilc a polymer well above Tg may pass through this state so rapidly that tile
glassy behaviorcannOi be detected.
The equivalence between high temperature and long times (i,e., the timc-tempera-
ture superposition principle) led Williams. Landel. and FelT}' [6110 develop a semiempiri-
cal equation that collapses data at differcnt timCll ontO a single modulus-temperature mas-
ter curve. lhey defined a time shift factor, oT, as follows:

log aT = log-L. =
'T C 1(T-T )
0 (6.5)
tTo C2 +T To

wbere 'T and rrl> are the times to reach a spec ifi c modulus at temperatures T and To. re-
spective ly, To is a reference ICmperature (usually defined at Tg), and CJ and C2 are filling
parameters that depend on material properties, Equation (6.5), which is known as the
WLF relationsbip. typically is val id in the range Tg < T < Tg + lOO"C. Readers familiar
with creep in metals may recognize an analogy with the Larson-Miller parameter [7).
which assumes a time-tcmperature equivalence for creep rupture.

&kchanjca/ dnaloy
Simple mechanical models are useful for understanding the viscoelastic response of
polymers. Three liuch modelli are illustrated in Fig. 6.6. The Maxwell model (Fig.
6.6(a» consists of a spring and a dashpot in series. where a dashpot is a moving piston in
a cylinder of viscous fluid. lhe Voigt model (Fig. 6.6(b» contains a spring and a dashpot
in parallel. Figure 6.6(c) shows a combined Muwell-Voigl model. In each case. the
stress-strain response in the spring is instantaneous:

E =-
a (6.6)
E

2To 6e1llOlUtl1Ole tho lempenUl~ 6ep<ndeD<:e or ~ioooctostic ho,,"Yior. If")' blo,.. .... up a 1>aI""'" aha i. h.u
been in _ 1'=..... for .., hoIIe.
310 Chnpur6

LOG(E)

polym\'l"

, - --
'T, I Uquid I
TEMPERATURE

LOG(E)

,- - -
Unnr polymu---

LOG (TIME)

(b) Modulul ........ tloM.II. fbed ..... puMIU'e.

ncUllEU UfecI eI_peratur. ..... 1.... _ th. mocIu ... "'aDd ~ polymer.

whi le the dashpot response is ti me-dcpcndenl:

.
£:-
~
" (6.7)

where Eis the strain rate and r, isthe nuid viscosity in the dashpol. The IcmperalUrc
dependence of Jf caJI be described by an Alrbenius nil: cqualion:

(6.8)
Fracture M~chani5ms in N()nm~Ulls

where Q is the lICtivation eru::rgy for viscous now (which may depend on temperature), T
is the absolute temperature, and R is the gas oonSlant (:= 8.314 J/(mole OK».
In Ihe MaKwell model. the 51"""'" in Ihe sl'riug and dashpol arc equal, and the
strains \IJe additive. 1berefore,

. a Ida
e=-+-- (6.9)
1] E dt

For a stress rel aution experiment (Fig. 4.19(b», the Slrain is filled at £C' and €= O.
Integrating stuss with respect to lime for this case leads to

(6.10)

where 0 0 is the streSS at f = 0, and IR . fJIE is the relaxation time.

When 'M "mng and dashpot are in parallel (Ihe Voia:t model) the strains are equal
and the stresses ~ additive:

cr(t) = Ee + 1]£ (6.11)

For a constant stress creep test, Eq. (6.11) can be integrated to give:

E.

(b) V"'lmocle\
 Jll CMpler6

E(t) = i'(I-eXp-IIIR) (6.12)

Note that the limiting value of creep stOlin in this model is uolE, which cOITCsponds to
zero stress on the dash pot. If !he stress is removed. the slrain recovers wjth time:

(6.13)

whe re Eo is the strain at t'" 0, and :tern lime is defined al the moment the load is re-
moved.
Neither model describes all typo:s of viscoelastic response. For example, the
Maxwell model does not account for viscoelastic recovery, because strain in the dashpot is
nOi reversed when the stress is removed. The Voigt model canDOI be applied to the stress
re\u8tivn case, because when strain is fixed in Eq. (6. 1 I). all of the stress is carried by
the spring; the problem reduces 10 simple static loading, where both Slress and strain re-
main constant.
If we combine the two models, h(lwever, we obtain a more realistic and versatile
model of viscoelastic behavior. Figure 6.6(c) illustrates the combined Maxwell-Voigt
model. In this case, the s\tllins in the Maxwell and Voigt conlributions are additive. and
the stress carried by the Maxwell spring and dashpot is divided between the Voigt spring
and dashpot. For a constant stress creep test. combini ng Eqs. (6.9) and (6.13) gives

u " ( 1-
E(t) = ::.IL+::.IL exp -tIt",,) + aot (6.14)
EI ~ '11

All three models are over.;;implifications of actual polymer behavior. but are useful for
approximating differentlypcs of viscoelastic response.

6.1.2 Y ielding and F~du rc in Pol ymen

In metals. fl1lCture and yielding are competing failure mechanisms. Brittle fracture occurs
in materials in which yielding is difficu lt. Ductile metals, by definition. experience ex'
tens ive plastic deformation before they eventually fracture. UJw lemperalUres. high sttllin
rates, and lriaxial tensile stresses tend to suppress yielding and favor brinle fracture.
From a global point of view, Ihe forgoing also applies 10 polymers. but the micro-
scopic details of yie lding and fracture in plastics are different from metals. Polymers do
not contai n crystallographic planes, dislocations, and grain boundaries: rather, they con-
sist of long molecular chains. S«tion 2. 1 Slates that fraclure on the atomic level in-
volves breaking bonds. and polymer.;; are no exception. A complicating feature for poly_
mers, however, is that IWO types of bond govern the mechanical response: the covalen t
bonds betwee n carbon atoms and the secondary van der Waals forces between molec ule
segments. Ultimate fracture normally req uires breaking the lantr, but the secondary
bonds often playa major role in the deformation mechanisms that lead to fracrure.
Fractu.u: Mu/ranfsms in No~tai.J 323

The factors thm govern !he toughne&. and ductility of polymers indude slrIlin rate,
temperature, and molecular struclure. Al high rates or low temperatures (relative 10 Tgl
polyme~ tend to be brittle, because lhere is insufficient time for the material to respond
to stress with large-scale viscoelastic deformation or yidding. Highly cro&S- linkcd poly-
me~ are also incapable of large scale viscoelastic deformation. TIle mechanism illustrated
in Fig. 6.4, where molecular chains ovefCClme van der Waals forces. does not apply 10
cross-linked polymc~; prinuJr")' bonds belween chain segments must be broken for these
materials to defonn.

Chain ScjuiQ!] and DiS(l!f4ngkmrrrl

Fracture, by definition. involvcli matmal separation, which normally implies sever-
ing bonds. In the case of polymers, fracture on the atomic level is called choin scission.
Recall from Chapter 2 that the theoretical bond strength in most materials is several
orders of magnitude larger than measured fracture Stresses, but crack-like flaws can produce
significant local stress concentrali ons. ADother factor that aids chain scission in poly-
mers is that molecules are not stressed unitonnl)'. When a stress is applied to a polymer
sample, ceruin chain segments carry a disproportionate amount of load, which can be suf-
ficient to e~ceed the bond strength . TIle degree of non uniformity in stress is more pro-
nounced in amorphous polymers, while Ihe limited degree of symmetry in crystalline
polymers lends 10 distribute SIfCSS moo: evenly.
Free radicals form when eovalenl bends in polymers are severed. Consequently,
chain scission can be detected experimenlllily by means of "I«\ron spin resonance (ESR)
and infrared spectroscopy [8,9).
In rome cases, fracture occurs by ("hoin diun/(lnglemenl. where molecules separate
from one another inlacl_ The likelihood of chain disentanglement depends on the length
of molecules and the degree to which lhey lR interwoven.3
Chain scission can occur at relalively low strains in cross-linked or highly aligned
polymers. but the mechanical response of isotropic polymers with low cross link density
is govcmed by secondary bonds at low strains. At high strains, many polymers yield be-
fore fracture. as discussed below.

$brar Yir/dine and Cmzjne

Most polymers, like metals, yield al sufficiently high SIfCs.seS. While metals yield
by dislocation mO!:ion along slip planes, polymers can e~hibil either shear yielding or
crazing.
Shear yielding in polymers resembles plastic now in metals. at least from a contino
uum mechanics viewpoinl. Molecules sl ide with respect to one another when subjecled
to a critical shear stress. Shear yielding criteria can either be based on lhe maximum
sbear stress or the oclahedral shear stress (lO.II):

3 An anaIon Ibai should be (ami!i., to most Amorica.os i. !be prnc:es. of dioclllant!in, Chrisurw tree lipt.
tbot baY<: boc:ft ,,""'" in. bo~ r",. year. For _ who .... DOl a.c:qoainted with this holiday nnw •• similar
c~&nIple i, • t.arae mau of W1gted IttaDd. or Itri".: putti", on I .in&lc "rand ",ill eitber fm: it (eilloin
d ...... W1glcmrnt) or taUOC it to ""'air. (chain "';..;0.,).
'" Chopter6

(6.1Sa)

(6. l5b)

where O"m is the hydrostatic stress and Ils is a material constant that c/wac:terius the sen-
sitivity of the yield behavior to am_ When /J.J • O. Eq$. (6.15a) and (6. 15b) reduce 10 the
Tresc. and von Mises yield crilena, respectively.
G lass)' polymers subject to tensi le loading o ften yield by eraring, whkh is a highly
localized defOl'TTllltion thaI leads to Clvilalion (void fonnation) and strains on the order of
100.. (12,ll]. On the macroscopic level, crarlng appurs as a sInss·",lIifentd regiOfl, due
to • low rdraetivc index. 'The erue tone usually forms perpelKlicular 10 the maximum
principal normal Sttess.
Figure 6.7 illustrates the m«hanism for crating in bomogcnc:ous glaslY polymers.
AI s ufficie ntly high strains, molecular chains form aligned packets caUed fibrils.
Microvoids form between the fibrils due \0 I n incompatibility of straillli in neia hborins
fibril•. The aligned 5UUClun: enables the libri1 . 10 carry very high 81reo;oeJ. .elalive to the
undcfonncd amorphous state, because covalent bonds are much stronger and stiffer than
the secondary bonds. TIle fibrils elongate by incorporating additional materia] , as Fig.
6.1 illustrates. Figure 6.8 shows an SEM frDctograph of a craze zone,

FIGUR!; 6.7 Crue fo ..... Uon la .I_r

~n. Voi ... fo rm bthoffD nbrlll, ... bld!
.~ bundl. oI.u,n..t molecular ~ ~ ...... The
"nu IGOe ....... by d .....u., .cldltlo.... t ....
I,rial mlo lb, nbrila.

O ..borough and Bowden (14J popt:«d the followinl = aitcrion:

eI '" PCt. T) + "')'(",

---;;;
t.'-!.
T) (6. ]6)
E 30'".
Froctun Mechanisms in Nonmr:ta/J 32S

where £1 is the m~imum principal normal strain, and fJ and r arc paramc1ers that arc
time- and tcmperature-dcpendent. According to this model, the: critical stnlin for crazing
decreases with increasing modulus and hydrostatic stress.
Fracture occurs in a craze zone when individual fibrils rupture. This process can be
unstable if, whe n a fibril fai ls, the redistributed stress is sufficient to ruptu re one or more
neighboring fibrils. Fracture in a cralA 'lone usually initiates from inorgani c dust parti-
cles thai arc entrapped in the polymer ( 151. There are a number of ways to neutralize the
detrimental effeclS of these impurities, induding the addition of soft !>eCond- phase parti-
cles (see below).
Crazing and shear yielding are competing mechanisms: the: dominant yielding behav-
ior depends on molecular structure, stn:ss state and temperature. A large hydrostatic ten-
sile component in the stress tensor is conducive 10 crazing, while shear yielding favors a
large deviator1c Stress component. Each yielding mechanism displays a different tempera-
ture dependence; thus the dominant mechan ism may change with temperature.

nGURE 6.8 Cruc __ In poIyp...,.yIoM. (l'IIocosnph p......-lded by M. C."......)

".
Crpd Tip Btbayinr
As with metals, a yield zone typically (OnN al the tip of a crac k in polymers. In
the case of shear yielding, the dWllagc lOne resembles the plastic lOne in metal s, because
slip in metals and shear in pol ymers are &ovcm ed by similar yield criteria. Craze yield-
ing. however, produce•• Dugdale-type strip )'K!ld zone ahead of the crack tip. or the 11'10
yielding mechan imu in polymers, eruing is somewhat more likely ahead of. crack tip.
bc:eause of the lriuial tensile stress stale. Shear yielding, however, can occur at crack
tips in some materials. depending on the tempenuure and specimen JCO!l'ICtry (16].
Figure 6.9 mustntcs a crue lOne ahead of . crack lip. If the erne zone is small
compared to spec imen dimensiolls 4 , we can estimate ilS le ngth, p. from the Dugdale-
B~nblatt [17,18) strip yield model:

(6.17)

which is I rt'$talemcnl of Eq. (2.14), CK<:pt that we have replaced the yield strength with
a t. the craz.ina stress. Fiaute 6. 10 is • pho(ogmph of. crack tip cruc lOne [16J, which
exhibits a I),picalstll:ss whitening Ippeara!l(:C.
TIle crack IIIdvances when the fibrils at the uailing edge ofthc craze rupture , In other
words, cavities in the craze zone coalC$Ce with the crac k tip. Fiaure 6. I 1 is an SEM frac-
tograph of the surface of a polypropylene fracture lOughne ss spec imen that has upcri-
enced craze crack ll"Owth. Note the similari ty to fracture surfaces for microvoid coales-
cence in metals (Figs.. S.3 and 5.8).
Craze crack lrowlh can either be SlIble or UllStlblc, dcpcndin, 011 the re lative tou8h-
DC$$ of the material. Some polymcn with intermediate toughness exhibi t s poradic, 110-

called stidh/ip crack growth: at a critical crack tip opening displacement, the entire craze
wne ruptures, the crack arrests, and the crue w ne reforms at the new crack tip [3].
Stick/slip crack growth can also occ ur in materiws thai exhibil shear yield zones .

-
.-ICURE '-, S<:h".. tI ~ rrDCk tip ~rue

4 AIIoIber implicit _mplica of Eq. (6.1 7) il iIIII ,he aIobaIllUlleriai behavior iI Ii ..... clutic or linear
vloco<laobc:. Owoptcr' diaallOCIW r<q";"''''''~tI for W validity of the IIraI iftlcllSi(y ftoCCor in poIymert.
FroClII.rt M~chani.Jms i" No"m~/als 327

nCIiRE 6.10 St .....· ..·hlt.n«I ... no .b • .od 01 • c....,k tip. ..·hkh Inell.,.! .. crulns. (l'1Io!.,.nlph pro.id<d
hy M. c.,...rd.)

nCUR£ 6.11 n-...t.......01'_ of.taU ....... k ...... th In pot".... pyltnf. (l'1101..,...ph p ...... kIflI hy Mr.
Sun Y""8<IL)
n' CMpftr6

Rllbbtc TQKrlrtninr
As stated carlier, ruplure of fibrils in I. craze zone: can lead to unstable crack propaga·
lion. Fracture initiates al inorganic dust particles in !he polymer when the StreSS c~ccWs
a critical value. II is possible 10 increase the toughness of a polymer by lowcrin, the
emi l'll Slress 10 well below the critical fracture stress.
The addition of rubbery sa::ond-phasc panicles to a polymer matrix significantly in-
creases toughness by making craze initiation easier [I SJ. TIle low modulus panicles pro-
vide sites for void nucleation, thereby lowenn, the Siress required for cr.~e fonn.!ion.
The dcuimcntal effect of the dusl panicles is largely negaled, because the stress in the fib-
ril s tends to be .... dl below thai required for fracture . Figure 6.12 is an SEM fractograph
thal shows crack: growth in a rubber-toughened polymer. Note \he high con:;cnlration of
voids. compued 10 the fracture SUrflCe in Fig. 6.1 J.
Of course there is a trade-off wilh nlbber IOUghcnins. in thai the i~ue in lough-
ness and dudilily "urnes at lbe expense of yield strenglh. A similar ndc:-off between
loughnen and strenglh often occ:urs ia rnet.als and al loys.

Eruj,W
Time-dc:pcndcnt "rack growth in the presence of cyclil: Stre.'iSCS is a problem in vinu·
all)' all malerial s)'stems. Two mechanisms "onlml fatigue in polymers: cllain sc iss ion
and hysteresis heating IS].

_.Idcd
nCUR~"'U I',....u~ RUf_IIl • ..,bb.. _,lIoaeol po/J.laJI~blot1de (PVC). Note 1110 """ .......
1....1I0Il of IIIk ........... (................. by ~tr. Sua V........ l)
 FroCIIlU: M~chanism.J in NoturU:/als 329

CrACk growth by ~hain o<;iuiOfl oc<:u .... in brittle ,yslCms, where crack lip yidoJing i~
limited. A finite number of bonds are broken during each stress cycle. and measurable
crack advance t.akes place after sufficient cycles.
Tougher materials exhi bit significant viscoelastic deformation and yielding al the
crack tip. Figure 6.13 illustrates the stress-strain behavior of a viscoelastic malerial for a
single load-unload cycle. Unlike clastic malerials. wbere the unloading and loading paths
coincide and the strain energy is recovered, a viscoelastk material displays a hy steresis
loop in the stress_strain curve; the area inside Ihis loop represents energy that remains in
the material after it is unloaded. When a viscoelastic material is subject to multiple stress
cycles, a significant amount of work is performed on the material. Much of this work is
convened to beat, and the temperature in the material rises. The crack lip region in a
polymer subject to cyclic loading may rise to well above Tg, resulting in local melting
and viscous now of the material. The nlle of crack growth depends on the temperature at
the crack tip, which is governed by the loading frequency and the rate of heat conduction
away from the crack tip. Fatigue crack growth data from small laboratory coupons may
not be applicable 10 structural components because beat transfer propenies depend on the
size and geometry oftbe sample.

STRESS

FIGURE 6.13 C,dlo . 1r$-4Ir&1n "" .... In _ vii,

c"....dc "'_lOrIol. "7"10..,. • ..,.ulll jo at>o....-
_...,. ... hid> .. OODHricd 10 " .. ~

STRAIN

6.1.3 Fiber-Reinrorced Plastin

This section focuses on the fracture behavior of con tinuous fiber-reinforced plastics. as
opposed to other types of polymer composites. The latter materials tend to be isotropic
on the macroscopic scale, and their behavior is often similar to homogeneous materials.
Continuous fiber-reinforced plastics. h(lwevet, have orthotropic mechanical properties
which lead to unique failure mechanisms slICh as delamination and microbllCkJing.
The combination of twO or more materials can lead to a third material with highly
desirable propenies. Precipitation·hardened aluminum alloys and rubber-toughened plas-
tics arc examples of materials whose propenics arc superior to those of the parent con-
stituents. While these materials fonn "natural1y" throuCh careful control of chemical
composition and thermal treatmenlS. the manl,lfacture of composile materials normally
involves somewhat more heavy-handed human intervention. The constituents of a com-
330 Chapur6

posile m.terialaTe usuall y combined on a macroscop k: scale through physical rather than
chemical mean s [19]. The distinction between composites and muhiphase malerial s is
somewhat arbitrary. sinee many of !be same SIreD, thening mechanisms opcrste in both
classes ofmatcrial.
Composite materials usually consist of a matrix and • rein fOl'ting constituent. The
matrix is often sofl and ductile compared \0 the rei nforcement. bul this is IIIX al ways the
cue (see Section 6.2). Various types ofrcinforecmcot are possible , including continuous
fibers. chopped fibers. whiskers. nllkes, and paf1icul'les [ 19].
When a polymer matrix is combined with a Sirong, high modulus rei nforcement. the
resulting material can have superior suengtWweight and stiffneulwcight ratios compared
to steel and aluminum. Continuous fibeHc inforeed plastics lerKI lOgive the best overall
performance (compared 10 other types of polymer composites). bul can also exhibit trou -
bl ing fracture and damage behavior. Consequently, Ihcsc materials have been the 5ubjca
of e.llell5ive ~an:h over (he past 20 years.
A variety of fiber-reinfon:ed polymer composi tes are COIllmercially avai labl.:. The
matrill material is usually a the rm oset polymer (i.e .. an epollY), although thermoplastic
COIllposites have become iocreasi ngly popular in recent ye&f$. Two of the IIIO$I common
fiber materials are urbon, in the fonn of graphite, and aramid (also kn own by the l1Wk
name, Ke vlarS), which is a high modulus polymer. Polymers reinforced by continlKlWi
graphite or Kevlar fibers are i ntended for high performance applications such IS fighter
planes, while fiberglass is an eJlample of a polymer composi te that appears in more
down ·to-eanh applications. 1be laner material consists of randomly oriented chopped
glus fibers in a thermoset matrill.
Figure 6. 14 ilIusU1ltc§ the SUUClIU"C of a fiber-reinforced composite. Consider a si n-
gle ply (Fia:. 6. 14(a». The material has high strength and stiffness in the fiber direqion,
but has relatively poor mechanical propenies when loaded transveTiC 10 the fibers. In the
laller case, the strength and stiffncss are controlled by the propenics of the matrill. When
the composi te is Rlbjcet to billli al loading, several pl ies with differing fiber orientations
can be bon(lcd to form a laminated composite (Fig. 6. 14{b» . The individual plies interw;:1
to produce complex elastic propenies in the laminate. The desired clastic respoll$C can be
achieved through the apJlIopriate choice of the fiber and matrill material. the fiber volume,
and the lay_up seque nce of the plies. The fundamentals of onhouvpic elasticity and lami-
nate thcQry are well c§tablished 120].

OI'CO'j(W ofEailflu Mcchoni Imf

Many have attempted 10 apply fracture mechanics to fiber-reinforced COIllposites, and
have met with ~ixed success . Conve ntional fracture mec hanics methodology assumes a
si ngle dominanl crack that grows in _ sel f-similar fashion: i.e. the crack increues in size
(either through stable or unst.able growth), but its shape and orientati on remain the same.
Fracture of _ fiber-reinforced composite, however, is often control led by numerous micro-
cracks distributed throughoul the material, rather than a single macroscopic crack. 1hcre
are situations where fracture mechanics is appropriate for composites. but it is important
to recognize !he limi(.atiOllS of !heoriclthat were intended for homogeneous materials.
Frocruu MtchDnisms in NonrM/a/s 331

Figure 6.15 illustrates various failure me<:hanisms in fiber-reinforced composites.

One advantage of composite materials is that fracltlre seldom occurs catastrophically
without warning, but lends 10 be progressive, with subcritica! damage widely dispersed
through the maleria!. Tensile loading (Fig. 6.15 (a» can produce matri)!. cracking, fiber
bridging, fiber rupture, fiber pullout and fiber/mauill debonding. Ultimale tensUe failure
of a fiber-rein forced composite often involves several of these mechanisms. Out-of-plane
Stresses can lead to delami nation (Fig. 6. 15 (b»), because the fibers do not contribute sig-
nificantly to strength in this direction. Compressive loading can produce microbuckling
o f fibers (Fig. 6.15 (c»; si nce the polymer matri)!. is sofl compared to the fibers, the
fibers are unstable in compression. Compressive loading can also lead to macroscopic
delamination buckling (Fig. 6.15 (d». particu larly if the material contains a pre-ex;isting
delaminated region.

a
E1u1i( «mItinlI exhibit
ortholtopk .ymmriry.

EL » ET
ET

(i) Single ply.

(10) 10I4S..90ll..... ln.ole.

"2 CluJpttr6

1. Fiber Pull.()uL
Z. Abe,8ridglng.
3. Rt..:r/MIolrix Debondlnl
4. Fib~r Falhu~..
Cndd""
S. M,,1rix

(bl D~lamln'lion

" ,
(cJMi~ (ell Bucldinl d .. l"minltion.

F1 GURE6.U £:i_pia 01 d_ ..e MId frMiW'i! .... ~ ......... In nt>o......Lnfol'Ud I<OnIpoo;1d..

Dclamjoqtiort
Out-of-piane tensile stresses can cause failure between plies, as Fig. 6.15 (b) ilhlS+
Innes. Stresses that lead to delamination could result from the suuclural geometry, sucb
as if two composi te panels are joined in a "T' configuration. OUt-or-plane Slres$CS,
however, also arise from an unexpected source. Mismatch in Poisson ratios betwee n
plies results In dlear stresses in the .1.- )' plane near the ply interface. lbese shear messes
produce • bending moment that is balancc:d by. suess in the ~
dinction. For some lay-
up """IU~"CC:S, ,",~lanli.1 oul-of-plane le nsile Ittc.ascl occur a( the edge of the panel ,
 333

..1ucb can lead to the formation of a delami nation crack. Figure 6. 16 show•• computed
a::distribution for a panicul ar lay-up (2 1).
Although the assumption of ~ lf-5imil ar growth of I dominant crac k oflen does nOi
apply to failure of composite materials, such an 8Sllumption is appropria te in the case of
delamination. ConseqtICntly fracture mechanics lias been very successful in characterizing
*' failure mechanism.
20
(-25/25/110) •
.!!L kP. IS
l1e' •
10
,
)..,
S
d+-i

.,
16 12
• , 0
dI,

Del ami nation can occur in both Mode I and Mode II. The iDlcrlam inar fracture
IOUghncSS, which is usually chanlctcrized by. critical eDerBY release rate (~Ch.aptCr 8),
is related \0 the fracture !OII,hlle's of the matrix material. The matrix and composi te
IOUghness aTe seldom equal, however, o:Il.Ie 10 the influence oflhc: fibcn in the latter.
FigllR 6.17 is. compilation of (iJC values for variOU$ mam" materials, compared
..·lth the interlaminar toopness of the cOITeSpondinl composite 122]. For brittle lher-
_IS, the composite has higher toughness than the neat resi n. bul the effCC! is reverxd
for high loughness matrices. Auemp~ 10 inc~ase ttle composite toughness through
rougher ~sins have yielded disappointing ~liul~; only. fraction of !he louihness of a
blah ductil ity matrix is If'allsfcrred to the composite.
Lei us fint consider the ~uons for ttle high ~huive toughness of composit~ wi th
brink matrices. Figu~ 6.18 5hows ttle fractu~ IIII'fIlCe in I composite speciLnen with a
brlnle epoxy resin. The crack followed ttle fibers, implying that fibcclmatrix dcbonding
'Q5 the crack growth mechanism in this case. The ff'lCtW"e surf..: ~ a WCOI'Ngited roof'

JlflPClflRCe; more surfllCe &reI was created in Ihc compo&ite experiment, which ~ntly
~1ted in higher fraetute e!ICr,y. Another contributing factO!" in \be composite tough-
 33 4

nes5 in this case is fiber bridliog. In lOme instances, the crack grows around a fiber,
which then bridges the cncl: fRees ...nd -".b resisWJce 10 further crack growth,
With respecllo fractull: of tough matrices, onc poS$ible explanation for the lower
relative toughness of the composite is that !he latter is limited by the fiber/matrix bond,
which is weaker than the matrix material. Expcrimenllll observations, however, indicate
that fiber constraint is • more likely explanation [23]. In high loughncu polymers, a
shear or crue damage lone forms ahead of the crack tip. If the toughness is sufficient fOl'
the ~ze of the damage wne 10 exceed the fiber spacing, the fibers rutrain the crack tip
yielding, A;sulting in a smaller lOne than in the neat resin. TIle smaller damage zone
leads to • lower fracture energy between plies.
Delamination in Mode II loading is possible, but (ilIC is typically 2 to 10 times
higher than the eonuponding §'Ie [23). The largest disparity between Mode I and Mode:
II inlerlaminar toughness occurs in brill!e matrices.
Tn·situ fracture experiments in an SEM enable OflC 10 vicw the fractllre proces.s dllr-
ing delamination [23·25]. Long, slender datlUlge WDe$ containing nlimeroliS microcr1lCU
form ahead of the crack tip dllring Mode II loading. Figun 6.19 shows a sequence of
SEM flllClograph5 of a Mode II damage wne ahead of a interlaminar crack in a briltle
resin; the same region Wil$ photographed al different damage states. Note that the micro-
cracb are oriented appmximately 45 G from the main crack:, which is slIbject to Mode II
snear. Thlls the mictocrao::lr.s are oriented perpendiclilar 10 the maximllm normal JU'eS$,
and are actllally Mode I craclr.s. M loading progreues, these microcracb coale$Ce with
the main crack tip. The hiSh ",lative toughness in Mode II reSlilts from energy dissipa-
tion in this damage lODe.

RESINS:
... THERMOSETS o ,,
D EXPERlMENTAL
OTOUGHENID
rnERMOSIIT o
... lliERMOPLASTlC
" o
•
:
i r 0
..De(; 0

o 1.0 20 3.0 4.0 S.O ' .0 7.0

RESIN G te (kJlml)

PlG UJlI!: " 17 c-.pIlaUon III .......... t..... f l"lftun lllup.. ..... ~parM ...1.10 IlIc I .... ~_ III IlIc
CM 0 • ",. _ I ..... [111-
Frocrun Muhturisms in Nonm~/DJs '35

..... 1
"I
">=I
nGURE 6.18 "nO!""" ... re.... _u1t1", 'rom Mo><Ie I .w.... In.11on of. 1'''P"Ile-fge-Y co"'pootu .. lib
• britt" _In I13J (PllotocnP/O p...wed by W,L Br1IIIky.)

In more ductile matrices, the appearance of the Mode II damage tone is similar to
the Mode I case. and the diffcrence between @eand (lUC is not as large as for brinle ma-
trices [23).

Compccnjvc fqjlyrr
High modulus fiben provide excellent streni\h and stiffness in tension. huilire of
limited value for compressive loading. According to the Euler buckling equation. a col-
umn of length L with a cross section moment of inertia I . lubject to a compressive force
P becomes unsllble when

(6.18)

assuming the loading is applied on the cenl11ll axis of the column and the ends are ume-
suained. Thus a long, slender fiber has very little load-carrying capacity in compression.
&iuatiOn (6.18) is much too pessimistic for comp05i tes, because the fibel'$ are lUP-
ported by matrix material. Early anemplS (26J to model fiber buckling in composites in·
corporated an elastic foundation into the Euler bucking analysis, I.!I Fig. 6.20 illusu.es.
~ led I.... Lbe following compressive failure criterion for unidirecuonal composites:
'J6

,.) ~)

fiGURE '-"

«)

(6. 19)

where J.lLT 15 the longitudinal-rransvcl$e shear modulus o f the matrix and Elis Youngs
modulus o(the fibers. This model overpredicts the actual compressive strength of com·
posites by • (actor of - 4.
One problem .... ith Eq. (6. 19) is that it IWwtICS that the response of the maltria! re-
mai ns clasti~; matrix yielding is likely for 1l1l'i= literal displacements of fibers. Another
shortcoming of this simple mode l is that it co.siders global fibeT instabi lity. while fiber
buckling is. local phenomenon; microscofllc 1d.nJ.: bands form, usually at a free edge, and
Fracture Mecluutisms in NonmetCIb 33'

propagate ao::ross the panel [27.2S].6 Figure 6.21 is a photograph of local fiber buckling
in a graphil~poxy composite.
An additional complication in real compos ites isfiber wDvinuJ. Fibers arc seldom
perfcctly strllight; rather they tend to havc a sine wave-like profile. as Fig. 6.22 illustrates
[29]. Such a configuration is less stablc in compression than a straight col umn.

-
fIGURE '-lCI Comp.-Ive lo.dlnt or. ooIumn
that \a .upporled launll1 1>1 .... el.. ti< found._

Recent investigators [29-31 J have incorporated the effects of matrix nonlinearity and
fiber waviness into failure models. Mosl failure models are based on continuum theory
and thus do not address the localized natllfC of microbuckling. Guynn [3 1], however, has
m:ently pcrfonncd detailed numerical sim ulations of compression loading of fibers in a
nonlinear matrix.
Microbuckling is nO{ the only mechanism for comprt:Ssivc failure. Figure 6.15 (d)
illustrates buckling delamination. which is a macroscopic instabilily. This type of failure
is common in composi tes that have becn subject to impact damage. which produces mi-
crocracks and delamination flaws in the material. Delamination bucklins induces Mode I
loading, which causes the delami nati on flaw to propagate al sufficiently high loads. TItis
delami nation growth can be characterized with fracture mechanics mcthodology [32]. A
comprrssioll after ;m~1 te$! ;5 a common screening criterion for assessing the ability of
a material to withslalld impact loading without sustaining significant damage.

6lbe Ion,. slender appearance of the 1ci~k bud< led ..,vcnol invesli,aton [27.28110 apply the Du,dole:-
Ban:=nblatt strip yield model to the problem. T1IiJ model has been modem.ly IlKCUSfuJ in q.... lifyinJ the
,i", or the ""IlIplU,i,,, damage lOOCS.
 JJ8 Clwpler 6

G.,..,
~lGURE 6.Zl KInk band r..m .. don in • I"'phlt .... pony rnnIpooll. Ill). (",oIOll"llpb p",vld«l by LG.

FIGURt: 6.11 Flb<r " •• In<ss In a J11Ipblt<",poxl compoolt. jl9). (Photo.n.pb proold«l by A.L.
In,clwnlth.)
Fracture Meclumisms ill NClllmtlals '39

Natch Stre/lgth
The strength of a composite laminate that contains a hole or a nOl:ch is less than the
unnOiched Slnmgth ~ause of the local stress concenll1ltion effect. A circular hole in an
isotropic plate has a stress concentration factor (SCF) of 3.0. and the SCF can be much
higher for a elliptical notch (Section 2.2). If a composite pane l with a circular bole fails
when the maximum S\re£S reaches a critical value. the strength should be independent of
hole size, since SCF does not depend on radius. Actual strength measurements, however,
indicate a bole size effect, where strength deereases with increasing bole size [33].
Figure 6.23 illustrates the elastic stress distributions ahead of a large hole and a
small hole. Although the peak stress is the same for both holes, the stress concentration
effects of the large hole act over a wider distance. Thus the vo/uml'! over which the stress
acts appeiH$ to be impon&nL

STRESS

""~H'"
"\ \ SouoUHoJ.

DISTANCE P1GURf.: Ii.n m oot of bole d1e on kInot

••..- dlotrtbutloCl

Whitney and Nuismer [34] proposed a simple model for notch strength, where fail-
ure is assumed to occur when the stress exceeds !he unnOiched strength over a critical dis-
tance. 7 Th is dilitance iii a filling paramete r thai must he obtained by expe riment.
Subsequent modifications to this model. including the work of Pipes, et al. [35], yielded
additional fitting parameters, but did not result in a belleT understanding of the failure
mechanisms.
Figure 6.24 shows the effect of notc h lenglh on the strength panels that contain el-
liptical center II(ltches [33]. 'These experimental data actually apply 10 a boron-aluminum
composite, but polymer composites exhibit a similar trend. lbe simple Whitney and
Nuismer criterion gives a reasonably good fit orlhe dala in this case.
"0 Chopttr6

1.0

0.' 0
.....-.
Boron-Alwnltl\llll
'W
0
~ 0 ~ ~
~ 0.'
~
0 "
0
"~
0:
0.'
to Whllftley-Nuil mu Eqn.
0.'

OL-__~__~L-__~__~L-__~__-7
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
NOTCH LENGTH (a/W)
fiGURE '.2-4 Slnnltb ofcml •• · .... tcltt<l cOIP,.Jlt Iaml ... ,.,., m.U..., 10 Ibo unnOlebnlllnnKlh 1331.

Some researchers (36J have applied fracture mechanics conccp15 to the fai lure of
composites panels that contain holes and notches. They assume failure at a critical K,
which is usuaUy modified with a plastic zone correction to acCOllnt for subcritical damage.
Some of tncse models arc capable of fining experimental data such as thaI in Fig. 6.24,
b«:ause the plastic zone correction is an adjustable parameter. The physical basis of these
model s is dubious, however. Fracture mechanics fonnalism gives these models the iIlu·
sion of rigor, but they have no more Ihcoretical basis than the simple strength-of.matcri.
a1s approaches sl.lth as the Whitncy-Nuismcr criterion.
That linear elastic fracture mechanics is invalid for circular holes and blunlnolches
in compos ites should be self evident, since LEFM theory assumes sharp cracks. If, how-
ever, a sharp slit is introduced into a composite pane l (Fig. 6.2.5), the vali dity (or lack of
validity) of fractu.rc mechanics is IeIlS obvious. This issue is cKplorcd below.
Recall Chapter 2, which intro<lucc:d the concept or a singularity lOne, where the
stress and strain vary as Jrr;
from the crack lip. Ou15idc o f the sinluhuity :rone, higbe r
order tams, which an: geometry depcrwknt, become signirlCant. For K to define uniquely
tbe crack tip corKIilions and be • valid failu re cri tcrion, all nonlinear material behavior
must be confined 10 B small relion inside tbe sin gularity zone. Thi s theory is based en-
tirely on conli nuum mechanics. While metals, plastics and ceramics an: oflcn heteroge-
neous, the scale of microslllK:lural constituents is normally limall compared tn the siz.e of
the singularity zone: thus the continuum assump(ion is approltimately valid.
For LEFM to be valid {Of • slwp crack in a composite panel. the rollowin& (ondi-
lions must be met:
 FractlU~ Medwllisnu i" NOIImtwls 341

(I) The fiber spacing must be sma ll compared to the sile of the singularity
:rone. Otherwise. the continuu m assumption is invalid.

(2) Nonlinear damage must be confined to a small region within the singularity
""".
Harris and Morris [31J showed thai K cluuactmzes the OI1sef of damage in cracked
specimens, but not ultimate fail ure, because damage spreads throughout the specimen be-
fore fai lure, and K no longer has any meaning. Figure 6.25 iIluslnItes a typical damage
tone in a specimen with a sharp macroscopic notch. 11le damage, whic h incl udes
fiber/matrix debondin, and matrix cracking, actually prvpagates perpend icular \0 the
macrocrack. Thus the crack does not grow in a self-similar fashion.
One of the m<xt significant shoncomings of tesUi on composite specimens with
narrow slits is that defects of this type do not occur naturaJ ly in fiber-reinforced compos-
ites; there fore, the gCOOleuy in Fig. 6.:B is of limited prnctical concern. Holes and blunl
notches may be unavoidable in a design, but a competent design e ngineer would nOl be
foolish enough to irw:ludc a sharp notch in a load-bearing member of a stnlCture.

00'11( Damage
Cyclic loading of COfTIposite panels prodtlCe!l essentially the same type of damage as
lTIOOOIonic loading. Fiber NplUre, matrix cracking, fiber/matrix debonding, and delami na-
tion all 0CCUf in ruponse to fatigue loading. Fatigue damage reduces !he strength and
modulus of a composite laminatc, IlKI eventually leads to total failure.
Figures 6.26 and 6.21 show the effect of cyclic stresses on !he J"ClIidual strength and.
modulus of graphite/epoxy laminates [38]. Both sucngth and modulus decrease rapidly af-
 Chapttr 6
'"
ICr rdativcly few cycles, but remain approximately constant up 10 around 809b of the ra-
tiguc life. Ntar the tIKI. oCme fatigue life, litrength and modulus decrease furtha-.

I::
~ 0.6 I- •
~
Q • • •
eo.• • •
• •

I'.2
~.
':---7::----,t;---7:,---;!;:---7'
~ M ••
NORMALIZED NUMBER OF CYCLES (nIN)
M 1~

•••

•.• Io\..

' .1 •

•.• o
"
0.1
"""
0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.9 1
NORMALIZED CYCLES (nIN)
nGIlRE6.l7 "'It'" ....... ,~. aItH btl........... III ........." .....,.Iuo....1e [11~
Frac,ure Mechonums in Nonme,alJ 343

6.2 CERAMICS AND CERAM IC COMPOSITES

A number of technological in itiati ves have been proposed whose implementation

depend on achieving major advances in materials technology. For ellample, the National
Aerospace Plane will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of up to Mac h 25, creating
ellremes of both temperature an d stress. Also. the Advanced Turbine Techn ology
Applications Program (AlTAP) has the stated goal of deve lopi ng heat engines which
have a service life of 3000 h at 1350 "C. Additional applications are on the horizon that
will require materials that can perfonn at temperatures in excess of 2000 °C. All metal s,
incl uding cobalt-ba$Cd superallQY5, are inadequate at lhc:se temperaturea, Only ceramics
possess adequate creep resistance above ItDl"C.
Ceramic materials include ollides. carbides, sulfides, and intennellilic compounds,
which are joined either by covalent or ionic bonds. Most ceramics are crystalline but, un-
like metals. they do nO( have close-packed planes on which dislocation moti on CIUI occur.
lberdore. ceramic materials It:nd to be very brittle companxl to metals.
Typical ceramics have very high me lting temperatures. which ellplai ns their good
creep properties. Also, man y of these materials have superior wear resistance, and have
been used for beari ngs and machine tools. Most ceramics, however. are too brittle for
critical load-beari ng applicati ons. Consequently, avast amount of research htu been de-
voted to improving the toughness of ceramics.
Most traditional ceramics are monoli thic (single phase) and have very low fmcrure
toughne5 s. Bexause they do not yield, monolithic ceramics behave 115 ideally brittle mate·
rials (Fig. 2.6(a», and a propagating crac k need only overcome the surface energy of the
material. 1be new generation of cenunics. however. includes multiphase materials and cc-
nunic composites that have 'lastly improved toughness. Under certain condi tions, two
bri ttle solids can be combined to produce I material that is Significantly tougher than ei-
ther parent maletial.
1be micromechanisms that lead to improved fractW"e resistance in modern cenunics
include microcrack toughening, lrans(onnation toughening, ductile phase toughening,
fiber toughening, and whisker toughening. Table 6.1 lists the dominant toughening
mechanism in several materials, along with the typical fl'lK:ture toughness values 139].
Fiber toughening, the most effective mechanism, produces toughness vllues around 20
MParm, which is below the lowe r shelf toughness of steels but is sig nifi cantl y higher
than most ceramics.
Evans (39] divides toughening mechanisms (or ceramics into two categories: pr0-
cess zone formati on and bridging. Bom meehanisms involve energy dias ipation at the
crack tip. A third IIlC(:hanism. crack denection, elevates toughness by inaeuing the area
of the fnlCture surface (Fig. 2.6(c».
The procc.ss zone ma;hanism for toughening is illustrated in Fig. 6.28. Consider a
material thlt fonns a process zone at the crack tip (Fig. 6.28(1». When this crack propa-
gates, it leaves a wake behind the crack tip. 1be c;:rilical energy release rate for propaga-
tion is equal 10 the work required to propagate the crack from a to a + ckJ, divided by 00:
,.. Chapfer6

(6.20)

where h is the half width ofme process zone and Ys is the surface energy. The integral in
the square brackets is the strain eneriY density, which is simply the area under the stress-
strai n curvc in the case of unilU.ial loading. Figure 6.28(b) compares the stress-strain
clirve of brittle and toughened ceramics. 'The Jailer materill is f;:apable of higher slrains.
and absorbs more energy prior to failure.
Many toughened ceramics contain second-phase partklcs thaI are capable of nonlin-
ear defonnalioD. and are primarily responsible for !he elcvud toughness. Figure 6.28(c)
illustrates the proc:e5$ zone for soch a malerial. Assuming the particles provide all of the
energy dissipation in the process zone, and the stain Cnefgy density in this TeaioD does
nO( depend on y. the fracture loughlleSS is given by

"
(jR =2hfJ C1ijdEij+2rs (6.21)
o

Muimum
Mechanism Malerial

Fiber reinforced LASfSiC -20

G1""" -20

Whiskerreinforoed 10
1

Ductile nelwrut AI20YAl{O.2) 12

B4 CJAJ (O.2) 14

Transfmnation toughened PSZ 18

TZP 16

Microcraclc toughened ZTA 7

Frocrure Mechonisms ill Nonmdais 3 45

nGUllE 6.lI 'Ill< p _ _ _ _ _

for tt"",k touab<Dbl&-

(0) N, P' T def_........ ___ pII_ pIInlda

when:fis the voilime frKtion of second-phase panicles. ThIlS the tooghness is controlled
by the width ofdie process zone, the concentration of second-phase panicles, and the area
IInder the stress-slr3.in CII/"YC. Rccall the delamination of compositcs with tough n:sins
(Section 6 .1.3), whcr<! the fractllre toughness of the composite wn not III great as tile
neal resin because tile fibers restricted the size of the process zone (h).
The process zone me<:hanism oftcn results in a rising R ClIl""e, 115 Fig. 6.29 i1IlIs-
IJ'atel. The m.aJ.erial resistance incn:ases with crack growth, as the width of the processes
tone grows. Evenuaally, II and ~ reach stcady-Slate ValllCS.
Figure 6.30 ililistrates the crac k bridging mechanism, where the propagating crack
leaves fibers or second-pha.se pmiclcs inlK:L 'The IInbroken fibers or panicles exen a trac_
lion force on the crack fIlCH, much like the Du.a:dale-Barenblan strip yield moc:k:l II "', til] .
"6 Chopter6

'The fi bcB eventually rupture when the stress reaches a critical value. According to Eqs.
(3.42) and (3. 43l, the critical energy release nile for crack propagation is given by

8,
tj, =J, =tJ uyydB (6,22)
o
'The sections thaI follow outl ine several specific loughening mechanisms in modem
""""".

Brittle Ce r.. mi c

CRACK EXTENSION (,u )

FlGURE6.D ",.........- ...... toupml". m«hanlom ...... 11)' l'eIulr. In -""Ina R ",,",c.

flGURE 6.lO Tk f\bn" brid&lD& ...... t.*..

for - - . k tou(btDl ....
 Froctwrt Mtclu:llrisMS ill NOIIIMtois 347

6.2. 1 Microc: u t k T ou , btnhl,

Although the fonnation of cracks in a material is ceneraUy considered deleterious, microc-

rac king can st)mellmes lead tQ improved IOUlllll1~bs. Co,,~ider 11 ulillerial nmplc o f vol-
ume V that forms N microcracks whe n subject to a panicu lar stress. If these cracks are
penny shaped with an average radius Il, the IOtalll'ork required 10 form these microcracks
i5 equal 10 the surface energy times the totallJel. autcd:

(6.23)

The formatiOft of microcracks releases strain energy from the MlIIlple, which res ults in an
increase in compliance. If th is change in compliance is gradual . as existi ng m icrocnK:ks
grow and new cracks fonn. a nonl inear stress-strain curve resul ts . The change in strain
energy densiry due to the miCJ"OCrW;k fonnation is given by

(6.24)

w~re p • /'IN is t~ miCTOCt1ICk density. For I m~ic cnck. that produces a pro-
cesl zone of microcracks, the increment of toughening due to microcrack formatioa can
be inferred by inserti ng Eq. (6.24) into Eq. (6.21).
A major problem with the above scenario it that srllhle microcrack growth does not
usually occur in a brittle solid. Prc-cxistina na .... ' in the material remain Itationary until
they satisfy the Griffith criterion. II which time they become unslable . Slable crack ad-
vance nonnally requireJ either a rising R curve, wncre the rr.cture wort. (wf- see Fig. 2 .6)
increases with crack extension, or physical barriers in tbe material that inhibit uack
ifUwth. Stable microcrackini occurs in concrete because aggregates aetlS crack arresters
(see Section 6.3).
Certain multiphll$C ceramics have the potential for microcrack toughening . Figure
6.31 $Chematically illustrates this tougbening mechanism [39). Second-phase particles
often are subject to residual stress due 10 thennal expansion mismatch or transformation.
If the residual stress in the particle is tensile and !he local stress in the matrix is compres-
siveS• the panic le cracks. If the signs on the stresses are reversed. the matrix material
C11ICU at the interface. In both cases there is a residual opening o f the microcracks, "'hich
leads to an increase in volume in the sample. Figure 6 .31 (b) illustrates the stress-strain
response of such a material. 1be material beginl to uack at a critical stress, at, and the
SIlCss-strain curve becomes nonlinear, due to a combination of compliance increase In(! di-
latational strai n. If the material is unloaded prior to total fail ure. the relative contribu-
tions of dilata:ionaJ effects (residual microcrack openin,) and modulus effects (due to the
release of stra:n energy) are readily apparent.
A number of multiphase ceramic materials exhibit trends in tOUghncll with particle
siu and temperature that are consistenl with the microc.-.c:k:ing mechanism. bul this phe-
348 Chap/tr6

nomcnOll has been directly only observed in aluminum oxide toughened with monoclinic
zirconi um d ioxide [40].
This mechanism is relatively ineffective, as Table 6. 1 indicates. Moreover. the de-
gree of microcrack toughening is temperature dependent. Thermal mismatch and the re-
sulti ng residual stresses tend 10 be lower al elevated temperatures, which implies less di-
latational st rain. Also, lower residual stresses may nOI prevent the microcracks from be-
coming unstable and propagating through the particle/matrix interface.

+ cr.......
9 /
I

+a. ..... ~
STRAIN

FIGURE U.I Th o IIIlcroc...t "",p m ln. onec ....."III [.)9). TII~ fOI'1ll.tlOD or ",kro(:ndu: ID or .... r
_ d .pb_ partlc\ool raul .. In I't'InoH or llrala ennv ("'.... uJ ....ork) and noIdual mlaocndl opm-
Ina (dIlIol.OUonaI _ ).

6.2.2 TrandormatioD TO\lghening

Some ceramic materials cxpcrienl:c a stress-induced manensitic trnnsfonnation thal results

in shear deformation and a volume change (i.e., a dilatational slTain). Ceramics thai con-
tain second-phase panicles that transform often ha.ve improved toughness. Zin;onium
dioxide (ZrOz) is the most widely studied material that exhibits a stress-induced marten-
sitic transformation [41).
Figure 6.32 illustrates the typical stress-sU'ain behavior for a martensitic transforma-
tion [4 11. At a critical stress, the material transforms. resulti ng in both dilatational and
shear sU'ains. Figun:: 6.33(a) shows a crack tip process wne, where s«ond-phase panicles
have transfonned.
The toughening mechanism for such a material can be ex pl ained in terms of the
work argument: energy dissipation in the process zone results in higher toughness. An
alternative explanation is that of crack rip shielding, where the transformation lowers the
local crw:;k driving fOK e (41). Figure 6.33(b) show s ~ stress distribution ahead of the
crack with a U"IInsfonncd process wne. Outside of this wne. the stress field is defined by
the global stress intensity. but the stress field in the process zone is lower, due 10 dil ata-
 Frocrwrr Muhonisms in N~lab 34.

ti onal effects. 11K crac k tip work and shiel di ng explanations are cons istent with one an·
othe r; more work is required for crack extension whe n the local stresses are reduced.
Crack ti p shieldi ng due to the manensitic tIllIn sfonnat ion is analogous to the stress redis-
tributio n that llCCompanies plastic zone fonnation in metals (Chapter 2).
The transformation stress and the dilatational strain are temperature depende nt.
1bese quantities influence the size of the process zone, h, and the stillii n energy density
within this zone. Conseq uently. the erfectivene$S of the transfonnation toughening
mechanism also depe nds on lemperaturt. Be low M s , the martensi te Slart lempernture, the
tIllInsfonnation occ urs spo ntan eously, and the tIllInsformation stress is esse ntially zero.
Thermally transformed martensite does no t cause crack tip shielding, however (4 1].
Above Ms. the tran sformation siress increases with temperat ure. Whe n this stress be-
comes sufficiently large. the UlUISformatio n toughening mechanism is no longer effective.

I OII,taIlOMl
FIGURE 6.32 & h_.I!c It..-... lraia l"alponH
I.. SIr. in .. I 01 ••• I~rt .. llui ubtblll ....r1cDlIIk InDl_
,_.IlooI.I. <rltkIIJI..-.

,"",ISS

DISTANCE

(b) Cndtllp _ nrl..

fiGURE '-3J TH ml rto,.11k I....' bo ...... mccb ......... T......,_.1Ioa 01 plrtM::M. Mil' the ~...,Ir. tip
.....du .... ......un.•• procaIlOl\4' (-.) lAd usd. lip . bld...... (b).
J5 0 Chapl~r 6

6.1.3 Du ct ile Pb ase Toalhe ni nl

Ceramics alloyed with dUcti le particles exhibit both bridling and proceiS ~one toughen-
ing, as Fig. 6.34 illustrates. Plastic !kfonnation nf the panicles in the process ~one con-
tributes toughness, as does the ductile rupture of the particles that intersect the crack
plane. Figure 6.3.5 is an SEM faclOgraph of bridgingl.OOCS in AI203 reinforced with
aluminum (39 ). Residual stresses in the particles can also add to the m ..erial', tough-
ness. The magnitude of the bridging and process zone IO\Ighcning dcperKb on !he volume
fraction and flow properties of the particles. The ptOCCS$ ZOIIC tougheninl also depends
on the particle lize, with small particles giving !he highest toughness (39j.
This toughen ing mechanISm is temperature dependent. since the now properties of
the metal particles vary with temperature. Ductile phase ceramics arc obviously inappro-
priate for applications above the melting temperature of the metal particles.

6.1.4 Fiber a Dd Wh lsll:cr To ugbe nin g

One of the most inlereUin& (_ ures of ~""mie com['IIHitel is thai: the combination of a
brittle ceramic matrix with brink CCl1lmK: fibers or whiskers can res.ult in a material with
relatively high toughness (Table 6. 1). 1he secret to the high toughnc$5 of ccnunic com-
posite lies in the bond between the matrix and the fibers or whiskers. Havin, a brinle in-
terface leads to higher toughness than a strong interface. Thus ceramic composi tes defy in-
!Uilion: D briltle mDtrili bonded to D briltle fiber by a brittle interface results in a tough
material.
A weak interface between the matrix and reinforcing material aids the bridging
mechanism. When a matrix crack encounten a fiberlmatrix interface, this interface upe-
riences Mode 1I1a.ding; dcbonding occurs if the fracture energy of the interface is low
( Fig. 6.36(a». If the uteDI of debondin, is sufficient, the matrix crack bypasses the
fiber, leaving it intact. Mathematical moc.leb 142] of fiberlmatrix. debonding predict crack
bridging when the interfacial fracture energy is an order of magnitude smaller than the ma-
trix toughness. If the interfacial bond is stronll, matri x cracks propagale through the
nbcr, and !he composlle tougbnen ubey~ II. rule U{ 111;,,(0.""'5; bo,,, bridging increases the
composite toughness (Fig. 6.36(c).
FraClwr? M~haniJnu in Nonm~/a& 351

An alternate model [42-44] for bridging in fiber-rcinfon:ed ceramics as~ume~ that the
fibers arc not bonded. but that friction between the fibers and the matriK restrict the cnck
opening (Fig. 6.36(b)). The model that considen Modc II debonding [42J neglects fric-
tion effects. and ptl'dicts!hat the length of !he debond controls the crack opening.
Both models predict steady-state cracking, where the matriK crad,s at a conSllnt
stress that deoes not depend on the ini tial flaw di.tribution in the matri~. E~perimental
data support the steady -state cracking theory. Because the cracking stress is indepcrKIcnt
of flaw size, fracture toughness measurements (e.g .. K/c and !.it-) have liule or no mean_
mg.
Figure 6,37 illustrates the stress-strain behavior nf a fiber-reinforced ceramic. The
bc,havior i. li""OI" ~la<ti~ up to ~c. the ~teady_<t~te crocking slress in the m~lri". 0""" the
'52 ChapttrO

maui;..: has crac ked , the load is earned by the fibers. n.c fibers do not fail sirnuilaDe-
ou5ly, because the fiber strength is subjecllo statistical variabili ty 145]. Consequently,
the material exhibi l$ quasiductility, where damage accumu lates gradual ly unti l final fail-
~.

Not o nl y is fiber bridging the most effective toughening mechanism for ceramics
(Table 6.1), it is also effective al high tempe ratures [46,47]. Consequentl y applications
that require lOad-bearing capability at temperatures above lOOOOC will undoubtedly Uliliu
fiber·reinforced ceramics.

(II) FritdooIallJlclln. aIonalnltrf-.

I
WiohFib"
Bridging

/ ncURE 6J6 Flbfto brid&lnl In c.r ....k tom"",-

[!Uic Of MbL1\f ] Ius. ,....1II1t111.1ka1 moddli 1I'. al brl4iJ1'" dllofr
In le...u ~ n~rIm.tru okbondlll' II) or tr1c:.
I1Ma1I1IdJaa (b). nil _Ita ..... prorid~ ro_
palil. 1. .,,"_ wdl Ia ~ " ....1 pndkkd
by tM ruk '" oaI><turft (t).

RBER VOLUME FRACTION

 Fracture Mechonbms in Non~(ah 35'

Whisker-reinforced ccnunies possess reasonably high IOUghnclS. although whisker

rdnforcemenl is nOI as effective as continuous fibers. 1lIe primary fai lure mechanism in
whisker composiles appears 10 be bridjina [48J: erack denection also adds an inerement of
toughness. Figure 6.38 is I micrograph thaI illustntes crac k bridging in an AI203 te-
ramic reinfon:ed by SiC whiskers.

1. Study-Stlte Cucklns 2.. fjbo!r f.llu,,"

FlCUIl£ UI CrKk brill"".1a Al:Ol r-tI..rorm wftlI SiC .. ~lIken r.J!IJ. (nocOlTlpll pT"O"ffded &r
A.G. E .....)
 ' 54 Chap/tr6

6.1 CONCRETE AND ROCK

Although concrete and rock are often considered briule, they are IK:luaUy quasibritllt
materials thaI are toughe r Ihan most of the SCH:alled advanced ceramics. In fact, much of
the resean:h On loughenins mechanisms in ceramics is aimed al uying 10 make ceramic
composites behave more like concrete.
Concrete and rock derive their toughness from subcritical cmelting that precedes ul·
timate failure. This sliocritical damage results in non- linear stress-strain response and R·
curve behavior.
A trlIditional strensth-of-materials approach (0 designing with concrete has proved
inadequate because fracture strength is often size dependent [49]. This size dependence is
due 10 the fact thaI nonlinear deformati on in these materials is caused by subcrilicaJ
crac king rather than plast icity. [nilia] attempts to apply fracture mc(;hanics 10 concrete
were unsuccessful because these early approaches were based on linear clastic fracture
mechanics (LEFM) and failed 10 we lJCCoun! of the process rones that fonn in front of
macroscopic cracu.
This section gives a brief overview of the mechanisms and models of fracture in
concrete and rock . Although most of the experimental alld analytical work has been di-
rected at concrete as oppc:t$ed to rock. due to the obvious technol ogical importance of the
former, rock and concrete behave in a similar manner. The remainder of this section will
refer primarily to concrete, with Ihe implicit understanding that most observations and
models also apply to geologic materials.
Figure 6.]9 schematically il lustrates the formation of a fracture process woe in con-
crete. tQj'elbcr with two idealizations o(the proceS5 zone, Microcracb {onn MleM of'
macroscopic crack, which consisl5 of a bridged zone direclly behind the lip and a trac/ioll-
free zone further behind the tip. The bridgina is a result of the weak interface between tho
aggregates and the matrix. (Recall Section 6.2.4, where it wu lillted that fiber bridging,
which occurs when the fibe r-matrix bonds are weak , is the most effective toughening
mechanism in ceramic composites.) 'The process ~one can he modeled as a region of strain
softe ning (Fig. 6,4O(b» or as a longer crac k that is subjec t to closure tractions (Fig.
6.4O(c» . 'The latter is a slight modification to the Dugdale-Barcnblan strip yield model.
Fi.gure .6.40 illustrates .the typical lensilc response of concrete. After a small degree
of nonlmeanty cau.sc:d by mtcrocmcking, the material readles ilS tensile strength, a" and
then stmin softens. Once 0'( is reached , subsequent damage is concentrated in a local frac-
ture zone. Vinually all of the displacement following the maximum 51IeSS is due 10 the
damage rone. NOIe that Fig. 6.40 shows I schcDlllic ~isplactmtllt curve ratl1cr !han
a streu-strain curve. TIle Jatler is inappropriate because nomillaistrain measured over the
entire specimen is a function of gage length.
There an: I number of models for fracture in concrete, but the one that is most
wickly n:fcnnc~ is the so-calledfictitiolU crock. modtl orHilIerbors (50,51). nul model,
which hu also been eilled I c:oht$i~t tOlli!' modt!, is merely an application of the
Dugdale- Barenblau approach. 'The Hillerborg modclassumes Ulatthe stress displacement
hehavior (o-l!) observed in the damage woe of a tensile specimen ill material property.
Figure 6.4l{a) showl I schematic stress-displacement curve , and 6.41(b) illustrates the
idealization of the damage zone: ahead of a growing crack.
 355

Tractlon-F'rff end!

PeE

./

(tl po.- _ Id IIrM b7 _ R ~

AI the tip of a the tfa(:tion-free crack:, the damage zone reache5 • critical displace-
ment, 4::. 11M: tractions arc zero at this point, but are equal to the tensile strength, U" al
the tip of the damage zone (Fig_ 6.39(c», Assuming that the closure stress, (1, and open-
ing displacemenl,a. are uniquely rel.ted, the criti ca' cncl1Y release rate (or crack growth
il given by

(6.25)

which is virtually identical to Eqs. (3.43) and (6.22),

'" Chopter 6

_ '"
STRESS

........
I
I

DlSPLACEMENT (6 )
FtGUJU:: 6AO. TypIcal 1........ _ <II ...... 10.

"o
... J<>i'

DISPLACEMENT (O)

".= rit
- (~So .. pti.. :=mlmp • •

II ·

- (1)) !!oem _ _ . . . . . <JI ........ 0 - .

FIGURE lU I 1k '1kII1'- cnock" .. odd for c..... rt1.\50,51 1-

 '"
'The key U$LImption of the Hillerbora model that the ('J-~ relationship is a unique
..mal propC'l1)' is nOl strictly correct in m05l cases because process zones produced dur-
IDJ li-lcture of C~le are often quile large. and intcndion between the process zone and
free boundaries can innuence the behavior. Consequently, !k is not a material propeny in
p Mral , but can depend on ~pecimen liize. Fracture loUthne&S ..,sulls from cmoJl - SC41o~,
tcSU lend to be lower than vall,le$ obtained from IDr8er samples.
The phenomena of sile effects in concrete fracture has boen the subject of consider-
~c study in rectnt yean 149,52-55]. Some of the apparent size effects can be attributed
ao mappropriate data reduction methods. For example, if fracture toughness il computed
by 5ubstitutina the load al fntclure into a lilltar elutic K or qrclationship. the resulting
~"&Iue will be size dependent. because the nonlinearity due 10 !he process zone has been
_ ,'« led. Such an approach is analogous 10 applying linear clastic K equations 10 metal
specllncns that uhibit significant plasticity prior 10 failure. Even approaches thaI aecou nt
for the process zone exhibit size dependence, however [jJ]. A fncture panmeter !hat
-.iqvtly clwllclerizes Ihese materials would be or sreat benc:fiL

REFERENCES
I Jo hnson, W.S .. ed .. Metal Matrix Composites: Tu/illl, A.MlJsis, ond Fall",. Madel.
ASTM STP 1032, American Society for Testlna and Materiall, Philadelphia, 1989.

~ WllIIanu, J.O. FrtJClu.re Mec /tuJrics 0/ Po/ymus, , Halsted Pres.s, John Wiley .l Sons.
New York, 1984. .

J Kinloch, AJ . and YOWIII . JU .. Froclu.n Belr.avior of PoIymeTl, Elsevier Applied

Science Publishers, London, 1983.

.. 8rouow, W. and Comciiuuen, R.D., cds., Foilu.t"C 0/ P!mlies, HanlCf Pubiishe:l"5,

Munich. 1986.

.5 IIcnzbe,.., R.W. and Maruon. J.A., FOli,u.e of Engillttrillg Pku,;a. Academic ""'",
New York. 1980.

6. PcfT)', J.D., Lande]. R.P., and Williams. M.L., "Extensionl of the Roose Theory of
Viscoelastic PropenieJ to Undiluted Line" Polymer"5." Jou.nt41 0/ A.pplied PltysiCl, Vol
26, pp. 359·362. 1955.

1. Lanan. F.R. and Miller. J .. "A Time-Tempemure Relationship for Rupcure and Creep
of 1M American Soc~ry lor Mecluut;co/ En,IMtn, Vol 14, pp.
Stres5eJ", TrallJQC/ioIU
16.5·TIS . 19.52.

I Kausdl, H.H., Pory-r FTfJClNre, Sprin&er, Hcidelberi·New York, 1978.

9 Zhur\:ov. S.N. and Korsukoy. V.E.. "Atomic M«lIanilm of Frxture of Solid PoIymen.-
JOI<nW of PoIytfttr Sci~; P~r PJ.yS/CI Edil/MI. Vol. 12. JIP. 385· )98 , ]974.
10. Ward, I.M., MtcNmicol. PTUfH'm'tl 0/ Solid Polymen. John Wiley .l Sons LId .. New
York. 1911.
35 8 Chopttr6

I I. Stemstein, 5.5. and Ongchin. 1... MYieid Criteria fQ( Plastic Deformation of Glassy High
Polymers 10 GcDeral Stress Fielw. M A", ..rican CM",ical Soci,ty, Po/Y"'" P",pri"ts.
Vol. 10, pp. 1117-1124. 1969.

12. BucbWl. C.B., To><,Ite",d p/tulia, Applied Science PublishC'rl. London. 1977.

D. Donald, A.M. and Knuner. E.J .. MEffeet of MolOC\llu Ent&ll,lementl on Craze

Microwucture in Glassy Polymcrs.~ 10_1 of Po/ymer Sde~u: Po/y1Mr Physics
EditiOll, Vnl. 27, pp. 899·9(19, 1982.

14. OJ:borough , R.J. and Bowden. P.B., MA Genenl Critical-Strain Criterion for Crazing in
AmorphOU f Gla$fy PoI1mers.~. Philosophical Ma,oli"e. Vol. 11. 1913, pp. 547-5'9.

] S. ArIon. A.S .. ''The Role of Hetcrogeneitie$ in Fracture." ASTM STP 1020, American
Society for Testing and MaImali. Phl]adelphi a. 1989, pp. 127. ]48.

16. c.yatd. M., MFractUIl: Toughncu Tutin, of PoIymerie Materiall." Ph.D. Dissert.atioo.
TUBS A<lM UniYt:nily. CoUege SUltlon. TIC, Scpteuobl;:o, 1990.

17. Dugda]e. D.S.. MYielding in Steel Sbcctl Containing Slill." lounwl of lite M,cllatoic,
twI Physicl of Solids. Vol 8. pp. lQO.J04.

II . Barenblau. G.l., ''The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Crackl In Brillie Fracture."

Ad",,"c,s ill Applied Meclwnics. Vol VII . Academic Preu. 1%2. pp. S5-129.

19. En,illttrtd MlJltrW.l, HOItdbook. Vol ....... I : Compositts. ASM International, Mccals
Partr., OH. 1917.

10. Vinson, J.R . • nd Sierakowlki. R.1... 710 .. B,Nlvior of StnM:tYUS CompoJtd of

Composite Mg"ri4Is. Marinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. The Netherlands, 1987.

2]. Wang. A.S .D .. MAn Overview of the Del amination Problem in StNctuni Composites."
Kty En,illurl", Materig/s. Vol. 37. 1989. pp. 1-20.

22. Hunston, D. and Dehl, R.• 'The Role of Polymer Toughn"' in Matrix Dominated
Composite Fracture." P.per EM87·3", Socidy of Manllfacturin& Enainecn.. Oecrbom.
MI, 1987.

B . Bradley. W.1..• MUnderstandilll the Tranll'lion of Nelt Resin TouJhrw=u into

Del. min.lion Toughnc&S in CompmitCl.M K~y &t,iMtrin, MateriDU, Vol. 37, 1989,
pp. 161 ·]91.

24. Jordan. W.M. and Bradley. W.L .. "Mlcromechanisms of Fracture in Toughened

Graphile-Epo_y l.aminatCl." ASTM STP 937. Americ.n S~iely (or Testing and
MaLeri.li, Philadelphi •• 1987, pp. 95. 114.

25 . Hibbs, M.F.. Tie. M. K., and Bradley. W.L . Hlnterbminar Fractun Tooghneu and Real-
Ti_ Fracture Mechanisms of SOme Toughc:ncd OraphitelEpox1 Composite.." ASTM
!ITt> 9]7. American Society for Testl", and Materi .... Phil....,lpbi.. 1987. PI' II~\JO.

26. R05C1L. B.W.. "Mechanics or Composite Strengthenini.H Fibe, Composit.. MlJltrilJu,

American S<xiety for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 196.5, pp. 37-75.
Fraclure MecMnlsmJ In Nonmetals 35.

27, Guynn, E.G., Brad ley. W.L. and Elber. W., "Micromechani« of ComPfCuion Failures
in Open Hole Composite Laminates." ASTh{ STI' 1012. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Phi]~elphia, 1989, pp 118·]36.

28. Souti5, c., Fleck. N.A .• and SIIliIh. P...... l'ailure Prediction Technique for Compression
Loaded Carbon fibre·Epoxy Laminate with Open Holes." Submi"ed to Journal of
Composilt MaIUW/S. 1990.
29. Highsmith. A.L. and DlYis. J .. '1lte Effects of Fiber Waviness on the Compressive
Responle of fiber·Re;nfo r~ed Composite Millerials." Progress Repon for NASA
Resean:h Grant NAG·]·659. N... SA Langley Research Center, Hampton. VA, January
1990.

30. Wang. A.S.D., "A Non·Unear Microb\l.ckling Model Predicting the Compressive
Strengtb of Unidirectional Composites." ASME Paper 78· WAlAero.1, American
Society for Mecllanical Engineers. New York. 1978.

3 1. Guynn, E.G., "Experimental Observations and Finite Element Analysis of the Initiation
of Fiber Microbuclr;]ing in Not.hed CompoSite Laminates." Ph.D. Dissertatioo. Texas
A&eM University. College Station. TX. December 1990.

32. Whitcom b. J.O.. "Finite Element Analysis of Instability Related Ddamination

Growth." Journal ofCompo~i'e Malerials. Vol. 15. 1981. pp. 4D3.42S.

33. Awerbu.h, J, and Madhukar. M.S" "Notched Strength of Composite Laminates:

Predictions and Experiments-A Review." Journal of R~i~forctd Plas/ics a~d
Composilts, Vol. 4, 1985, pp. 3·159.

34. Whitney. J.M. and Nuismer. RJ .. "Stress Fracture Criteria for Lamlnatc4 Composites
Containing Siren Concentrations." Journal of Compas;/t Ma/trials, Vol. 8. 1974. pp.
253·265.

35. Pi pes. R.B ., Weth erhold. R.C., and Gillespie. J.W .• Jr .. "Notched Strength of
Compoiiite Materials." JourtUlI ofCott/posiu Ma/trials, Vol. 12. 1979. pp. 148-160.

36, Waddoups, M.E., Ei senmann. J. R., and Kaminski, B.E., "Macroscopic Fracture
Mechanics of Advanced. Composite Materials." Journal of Cott/posilt Mattrio/s. Vol .
5, 1971. pp. 446-454.

37. Harri •• C.E. and Marris, D.H. , "A Comparison o( th e Fracture Behavior of Thick
Laminated Composites Utilizing Compact Tension. Thlu-Point Bend. and Center-
Cracked Tension Specimens," ASTM STP 90S. American Society (or Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia, 1986. pp. 124·135.

38. Charewin, A. and Dani el. I. M.. "Damage Mec hani sms and Accumulation in
GraphitelEpoxy Laminates." ASTM S11' 907. American Society fQr Tc.sting 8nd
Material s. Philadelphia. 1986, pp, 274·297 ,

39. Evans. A.G .. ·1l!e New High Toughness Ceramics," ASTh{ S11' 907, American Society
fQr Testing and Malerials. Philadelphia. 1989. pp. 267. 291.

40. Hutchinson. J.W., ''Crack Tip Shieldi ng by Micro Cracking in Brittle Solids", Ac/a
MtlaUUTaica. Vol. 35. 1987. p. 1605-1619.
360 Chopter6

4] . A.G. Evans. cd .• FroclUTe in Ceramic MDttritJ1s: TOUSM"i"S Mtdwnis.ms. MIJChi"i",

DamtlSt. Shod. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge. NJ, 1984.

42 . Budiansky. B.. Hutchinson. J.W.. Ind EVins. A.G .• UMatri. Fractl,lrc in Fiber-
Rcinforced Ceramic•." Joumol 0/ fM Mec:"-ics and Physics 0/ Solids. Vol.. 34. 1986.
pp. 167. 189_

43 . Avcston. J., Cooptt G.A.. and Kelly. A .• TM PrO/Hrtiu 0/ Fibe,. Compos;lel. 1971.
pp U-26.

44 . Manllall. 0.8 .• COli.. B.N. and EVinS. A,G.. '1lIe Mcchanics of Matn,; Cra<:king in
Briule-Matrix Fiber Composites." ACfa Mt taflursiclJ. Vol 33. 1985, pp. 2013-2021.

45. Manhall, D.B. and Riner. J.E .. "Reliability of Advanced Struc tural Ceramics and
Ceramic Matrix Compositcs-A Review. CUtvrl;C Blllielin. VOl. 68. 1987. pp. 309·
M

317 .

46. Mab, T .. Mcndinua, M.G .. Katz, A.P.. Rllh. R., Ind Musiyasni. K.S.. "Room
Temperature Meo::han;cal Behavior of Fiber-Rrinfon:cd Ceramic Composites." JournlJl
o/IM Alntrican Ceramic Socitry. Vol. 68, 1985, pp. C27-C30.

47 . Mah. T .. MendiraUa. M.G .. Katz, A.P.. Ruh. R .. and Maulyuni. K.S., "High-
Temperature Mechanical Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Glan·Ceramic·Mat';!
Composites:' JOllr7llll O/IM AlNtricQII Ceramic Socitry.. Vol. 68. 1985. pp. C248-
C251 .

48. Ruhle. M.• Dalalrish. BJ .• and Evans, A.G.. "On !be Touahenina of Cenm;c. by
Whiskers." ScripllJ MtIlJU,.,,;ca. Vol. 21. pp. 681-686.

49. Buant, Z.P.. "Size Effect in Blllnt Fracture: Concrtte. Rock. Metal." Jaurnal 0/
Ensinuring Mechanics. Vol. 110. 1984, pp. 518-535.

50. Hillerborg, A. , Modeer. M.• and Pctersloon. P.E.. "Analysis of end Formation and
Cnek Growth In Concrete by Means of Fracture MechaniCI and Finite Elements."
CtlNtnl and ConcTele Renarch. Vol. 6. 1976. pp. nJ..782.

51 . Hillerborg, A. MApplication of 1M Fictitious Cnck Model to Different Materials. R

0/ Fracture. Vol. 51 . 1991, pp. 95· 102.

Iflfer7lllriOflDI Journal

'2. Bazanl, Z.P. and Kazcmi, M.T., "Delermin.tion of FnelUrc Energy. Process Zone
Length and Brinleness Number from Size Effect. with Application to Rock and
Concrete." 1,,'er7lllr;o....1 JouT7lllI 0/ FrOCIIlTe. Vol. 44. 1990. pp. 111·1 31.

53 . Baunt, Z.P. and Kuemi. M.T., Size Dependence of Concrete Fncturc Energy
Determined by RILEM Work-of-Frxture Method." /nlUJIlJliotw! JOfIr7Illl of FrocruTe.
Vol. 51. 1991. pp. 121·138 .

.14 . Planas. J. alXl Elices. M.. "Nonlintar FraClllre of Cohesive Materials." /nrcrnalionol
Jour7llll of Fmc/UTe. Vol. 51. 1991. pp. 139· 157.
Fracture Mechanisms in Nonmetals 361

55. Mazars, J. Pijaudier-Cabol, G .• and Saourdis. C, "Size Effect and Continuous Damage
t

in Cementitious Materials." International Journal oj Fracture, VoL 51, 1991, pp.

159·173.

I PART IV: APPLICATIONS

I
 7. FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING
OF METALS
A frtlClure toughness test measures the relilila~c of . material to crack extension. Such II
lest may yield either a single value of fracture toughne ss or II resistance eurve, where a
lOughncss parameter such as K, J. Of" crOD iii plOiled agai nst crack extension. A single
toughness value is usually sufficient to describe. Icst that fai ls by cleavage, because this
fracture mechanism is typically unstable. 'The l i!uation is similar 10 the schematic in Fig
2. 10(1). which ilIustnte. a material with a f1.aI R curve. Cleavage fnctun:: actually has a
falling re$istance curve, as Fig_ 4.8 iIIuslr.ite$. Crack growth by micmvoid coalescence.
however, usually yields. risin, R curve, luch as thai shown in Fig. 2. IO(b); ductile
crack growth can be stable, alleast initially. ~n ducti le crack growth initiates in a test
spedmcn, that specimen seldom fails immediately. Therefore, one can quantify ductile
fracture resistance either by the initiation value or by the entire R curve .
A variety of organ iutions throughout the world publish standardized procedures for
fract ure toughness measuremelts. including the American Society for Testi ng and
Materials (ASTM), the British Standards Institu tion (BS I), the International Insti tute of
Standards (ISO) and the Japan Society of Mechanical l!nglJ>cel""$ (JSME). The fIrSt stan-
dards for K and 1 teSting were developed by ASTM in 1970 and 198 1. respectively, while
aS I pu bl ished the first eroo telt method in ]979.
Elli sting fracture toughness standatds incl ude procedures for Klc- K-R curve, lie, l ·R
curve. eroo, and KIa testi ng. Thi s chapter focuses primarily on ASTM standards, since
they arc the most widely used throughout the world. Standards produced by other organi-
u tions, however, arc gel\Crally QOnsistent with the ASTM procedures, and usually d iffer
only in minute details. A few of the more substantive differences betwee n alternative
procedures arc discussed brieny il this chapler.
'The ongoing work of the various sWldardiring bodics is also disctl$SCd.. 'The ellist-
ing standards arc continuously e'o'Oiving, as the technology improves and more nperience
is gained. Also, there arc still some important applications, such as weldment testing.
that present standards do not address. TIIC fracture testing community has, however, ob-
taiMd subctantial nperi. n« in wme of Ihcoe areas . and drnft standMlb are currently heing
ptCpaied.
'The reader should nOl rely on this chapter alone for guidance on condocti ng fracture
toughl\Css tests, but should consult the relevant slandards. Also, the reader is strongly
enc:oul1llgcd to review ChapterS 2 and 3 in order to gain an understanding of the fundamen-
tal basis of K. l , and eroo, as ..ell as the: limitation, of thc:sc: panunc:ters.

7.1 GENE RAL CONSIDERATIONS

Virtu.ally aU fracture toughne" !e51S have several common features. TIie design of lest
5pecimens is sim ilar in each of !he IitaJw.lan.k, and the orientation of the specime n relati ve
to symmetry directions in the material is always an important considcl1lltioll. The crack!
in tCSt specimens arc in\rOdoccd by fatigue in e3(h case, although the requirements for fa-

'"
J ••

ligue loads varies from Olle standard to the IlCllt The basic instrumentation requi~ 10
measure load and displacement is common to virtually all fracll,lre mechanics \ests. but
some tesU req\li~ lIdditional ill5INmenUUion \0 monitor Cl'Kk growth.

7. 1. 1 Spulmea Co nti, u r.tlo DI

There are five types ofspecimens thai an: permined in ASTM standards that ctlaracterize
frncture initiation and crack growth, although no si ngle standard allows al l five configura-
tions, and the design of a panicular specimen type may vat)' between standards. 1be con-
figunllions thai an: cwttntly standardized include the compact 5peCimcn, the single edge
IIOlChcd belld (SEND ) geometry. the arc-shaped specimen, the dislr:: specimen, and the mid-
dle telUion (MT) panel. Fisure 7. 1 dJoW5 a drawing of each specimen type.
An additional configuralioo , the compact cntk lITeS! specimen, is used fOl" KIa mea-
surements and is dC5Cribed in Section 1.6. Specimen. for qualitative toughness measure-
ments, such 11$ Charpy and drop weight tests, an: discussed in Seclion 7.9. Chevron
notched specimens. which are applied. (0 brittle malCrials, are discussed in OIaptcr 8.
Each specimen configuraion hu wee: important characteristic dimensions: tlMo
crack lenp (l). the thickness (B) and the width (W). In most cases. W :II 2 B and aIW
.. 0.5, but there are exceptions which are discussed laler in this chapter.
There IIIlI number of specimen configurations that are used in research, but have yet
to be standardi zed. Some of the more com mon nonstandard configumtions include the
single edge nOlch tensi le panel. !he double edge notched tensile pane l, the a:tisymmelric
DOttbcd bar, and the double eantilev<:r beam specimen.
The vast najority of fl'llClure toughness tests are performed on either compact or
SEN B specimens. Figure 7.2 illll$U1Ites the proriles of these two specimen typc$, assum-
in g the same c llanlcteristic dimensions (8, W, Il). 1lle compact geometry obviously con·
sumes less material, but this specimen requires extn material in ttle width direction, due
to the holes. I( one is testing plate material or a forging, the compac t spec ime n is more
economical, bul the SENB configuration may be pRferable for weldmcnttesting, because
less weld metal is consull'lcd in 500IC orientatiOll$ (Section 7.7).
The compact specimen is pi n-loaded by Special Clevl5CS. as illusU1lICd In FIg. 7.J.
Compact specimens are usually IlUIChincd in a limited number or sizes, becall$C: a separate
test fixture must be fabricated for eacb specimen size. Specimen size is usually scaled
geometrically: standard size. include: 1'2T, IT, 2T and 4T, wtlere the nomenc lature refers
to the thickness in inctles 1. For example, a standard IT compact spedmen has the di-
mensions 8 :11 I in (2.5.4 mm) and W = 2 in (SO.8 mm). Although ASTM has converted
10 SI units, the above nomenclMure for wmpact specimen l.izes persists.
]be SENB specime n is more nexibIe with respect to size. The standard loadin g
span for SENB specimens is 4W. If the fixture is <le$igncd properly, the span can be ad-
justed continuously 10 any vallie that is within ils c.pacily. Thus SENB specimens with
• wide range of thicknesses can be tested with . sin gle fillure. An appar.tus ror three-
poi nl bend testing is shown in Fig. 7.4.
 Fractun ToughneS! Tesling of Merals 367

(b) ObI< Ib.aped compact Iptdmm.

,/+---o'W --~

I" < "

(d) An: llI.ped Ipccimm (~) Mldd .. I..... lon (MY) sptdm~n.
'68 CItopttr 7

• sca..tardl ..... r - ......... u.t • •• I , ....

f1.GURt: 7.1 Com,. .... a "',b,

.......tk ..Im • . . - CW...... ).
.""'100 "<OIIl~ &Dol SENB lped_ or\lb Ib ......,la·pIaa< ........

flC111l£ 103 ",panl'" r.. IISIJn&"'pece

. p,dow ...

7.1.2 Sptdmen Orlent.licm

Engineering materials are seldom homogeneous and isotropic. M icl'Olitructu~, and thu5
mcehanic:al propeniel. Ire often se"i;I;"'!; to direction. ille sensitivi ty 10 oricnt.atiOl1 is
particularly pronounced in fractJi'e toughness measurements. because a micl'05UUClUre
with a preferred orientation may contai n planes of weakness, where crack propagation ;1
relative ly u sy. Since specimen orientation is 5uch an imponanl variabl e in fracture
toughness measurements. III ASlM fracture testi ng standards require lhallhe orientation
be reponed along wilb the melUUmi tou,liMn; ASTht has adopted. notation for Ihi.
purpose [ I ].
 369

Filure 7.$ illustrates the ASTM notation for fracture specimens extracted from.
rolJcd plate or forging. When the 5peCimcn is aligned ",jib !he ues of symmetry in the
pl.te, there arc Sill possible orientations. The lettel'S l., T, and S denote the longitudinal,
UVlSVer$e, and short transverse directions, re5peCtivel)'. reLatiy,: to the roIlinl direetion or
forgin, axis. NOlC Ihat two letten are required to identify !he cl'icnwXln of I frrlure me-
chanics specimen: the fInl letter indicates the direction of the principallcnsilc SlrCilS
(which is always pcrpcndicular to the crack plane in Mode I tests) and the second leuer de-
notes the direction of crack propagation, for uampJe, the L- T orientation corresponds 10
loading in the longitudinal direction and CTKk propagation in !he Iran.verse direction.
A similar notation applies to round bars and bollow cylinders, as Fia:_ 7.6 illus-
trates. 1be symmcuy directions in this cue are circumferential, radial, and longitudinal
(C, R, and L, respectively).
Ideally. one should measure the tou.hnen of. material in 5evc:n1 orientations, but
this is often no! practical. When choosina In appropriate specimen orientation, one
should bear in mind the purpose orthe test, as well as gc:omeuir;al OOII5trainu impo$Cd by
the material. A. low toughness orienwion, where the c:rac:1r. propagates in the rolling di ·
rection (T·L or S·L). sbould be ldopIed for general material charxteriz.ation or screen;ng.
When the purpose of the te51 is to simulate conditions in a nav.'e(! $lnJ(:1W"e, however, the
cnclr. orientation should match that or the Stnlctum flaw. Geometrical constraints may
pm:lude testinlSOmt conlilllrations: the S·L and S·T orientations, for uample, arc only
practical in thiclr. sections. The: T-S and L-S orientations may limit the size of compact
specimen that can be exuacted from I rolled plate.
370 Ch.:/pfer 7

ROLUNG
DlREcnON
ORfQRGlNG

I"'.o----TRANSVERSE- - --__o-l"
n cURE 7.5 ASTM aot_ r. . .... C...... Uln<tftI from .... 1001 pII~ mol fOf1laal ( I ~

ncuRI: 7.6 ASrM noWlooo f• • peclm... a'ncwd rn.n dilb _ _ .,.lhMIen (I ~

7. 1.3 Fallgue Pncu(kip&

Fracture mechanics theory appl ies \0 cl'lK'ks that lICe infinitely sharp prior to loadi n,.
While laboratory specimens invariably fall short of this ideal, it il possible \0 introduce
cncb that are su ffieiently sharp for pnctical purposes. "The mO$I cff.cient Wl) to pr0-
duce such. crack is through cyclic loading.
Fractun Tough"tss Ttsring of Metals 3"

Figure 7.7 iJl USU'ates the precracking procedure in a typical specime n. where a fa-
tig ue crac k: initiates at the tip of a machi ned notch and grow; to the desired size through
careful control of the cyclic loads. Modem servohydraulie test machines can be pro-
grammed to produce sinusoidal loadi ng. as well as a variety of Olher wave fonns.
Dedicated fatigue prc:crackiog mac:hine5 that cyclc at a high frequency arc also available.
1lte fatigue crack: must be introduced in such a way as not 10 adversely influence the
toughness value that is to be measured. Cyclic loading produces a crac k of finite radius
with a small plastic zone al the tip. which contains slClIi n hardened material and a compli-
cated residual stress distri bution (see Chapter 10). In order for a fracture toughness 10 re-
flect true material propenies, the fatigue crack: must satisfy the following conditions:

• 11K: crack ti p radius at failure must be much larger than the initial radius of the fa-
tigue crack.

• TIle plastic lOne produced during fatigue cracking must be small compared 10 the
plastic lOne at fractUll.

Each of the various fracture testing standards contains restrictions on fatigue loads, which
are designed to satisfy the above requirements. The precise guidel ines dcpend on the na-
ture of the test In Klc tests, for eltample, the muimum K during fatigue loadi ng must
be no greater than a particular fraction of KJc. In J and erOD tests, where the test spec-
imen is typically fully plastic al failure, the maximum fatigue load is defined as a fraction
of the load at ligament yielding. Of course one can always pcrfonn fatigue precrack:i ng
well below the allowable loads in order to gain additional assurance of the validity of the
results. but the time required to produce the crack (i.e., the number of cycles) increases
rapidly with decreasing fatigue loads.

WAD
MACHlN6D
NOTCH

> fATIGUE
CIlAO<

TIME

Y1Gl1JlE 7.1 FIItJ.... prccnocldDi. rrlOdure JDe<l.ania .pedlMll. A r.u",. cnck II Inlroduood .llbe
lip '" • mllCblntd I>OIdI b, me .... til qdk Jo.d.In"
372 Chapkr7

7 . 1.4 Ins trum entati on

AI a minimum. the applied load and a characteriJik: displacement on the specimen must
be measured durina a fracture toughness test. Additional instrumentation is IIpplial tv
some specimens in order to monitor crack growth or to measure more than one displace-
ment.
Measuri ng load during a conventional fracture toughness lesl il I'd atively straight-
forward, lince nearl)' all test machi~ are equipped with load cells. TIle most common
displacement transducer in fracture ~hanies t~1$ is the dip aaac (2]. which is ilIlJ5-
iTate<! in Fia, 7.S. TIle clip gage, which attaches to the mouth of the crack, consist:!: of
four resistan[c strain gagcs bonded to a pair of cantilever beams. Dencction of the beams
results in a change in voltage aerou the strain gages, which varies Iinearl), with dis-
placement. A dip gage mUSI be attached to sharp knife edges in order 10 ensure thai the
cOOs of Clch beam arc free to 1'OlIlk:. TIle knife edges can either be machined into the.5peC-
imen or attached to the specimen at the crack mOllth.
A /i"ear variablt differt"tiul transformer (LVDn provides an altemative mcaD5 for
inferring diipJacement.~ in fracture touihness tellS. Figure 7.9 schematically ilIustratcs
the underl)'ing principlc of an LVDT. A steel rod is plactd inside a hollow c)'linder that
contains I pUr of lightly wound coils of wire. When a current passes through the first
coil. the core hccomcslT\IilICtizcd and induces a voltage in the socond «IIl:. When the rod
moves, the voltagc drop in the second coil changes; the change in voltagc varies lintarly
with displactment of the rod. l1ie LVDT is usef~l for measuring displacements on a test

TIle polential drop technique utililCS a vol.

specimen at locations other than the crack mouth.
change 10 infer crack growth. as iIlll$--
trated in Fig. 7. 10. If a constanl current pa$SCS through the uncracked ligameot of a tC!it
specimen. lhe voltage must increase as the crack grows, because the electrical resisl:mce
increases and the net cross-sectional area dccrcasts. lhe potential drop method can usc ei-
ther DC or AC current. See Refs. (31 and (4] for examples of this technique.
'The disadvantage of the po(ential drop tcch.,ique is thai. it requires additional iD5l.n1·
mentation. 'The unloading compliatlct technique (.5,6], ho .... ever, allows crack growth to
be in ferred ffOm the load and dIsplacement tmnsdw:ers that arc pan of any standanl fl'llCtule
mechanics test. A specimen can be partially un loaded at various points during the test in
order to measure the elastic compliance, which can be relatcd to the crack kngth. Sc<:tion
7.4 desc:ribes the unloading compliaocc leo::hniQuc in more detail.
In some cases it is necessary to measure more than one displacement on a test l pcc-
imen. For example, one rna)' want to measure both the crack mouth opening displace-
ment (CMOD) and the displa.:ement along the loading I)lis. A compact specimen can be
designed such thai the load line displacement and the CMOD arc identical. but these two
displaceme~ do not coincide in an SENB specimen. Figure 7. 11 illuslnltcs simultane-
ous CMOD and load line displacemenl measurel:lent in an SEND specimen. lhe CMOD
is inferred flom a clip gage attached to knife edges: the knife edge height must be taken
inlO account when computing the relevant toughness parameter (see Section 7.S). The
load line displacement can be inferred b)' I numbCl" of methods. including the comparison
bar lechnique 17.ljthai is illustrated in Fig. 7. 11 . A bar is attached 10 the specimen at
two poinlS which arc aligned with the outer loading points. TIle outer coil of an LVDT
Fracture ToughMSI Ttlting of MtUlIs 373

is attached to the comparison bar, which remains fixed during deformation, while the cen-
tral rod is free to move as the specimen deflects.

7.1.S Side Grooving

In certain cases, grooves are machined into the sides of a fracture toughness specimens
(91, as Fig. 7 .12 illustrates. 1be primat)' purpose of side groovins is to maintain a
straight CJ1lCk front during an R<urve test . A specime n without side srooves is subjcctlO
crack tunnel inS and shear lip fonnalion (Fig. 5. 15) because the material ncar the outer
surfaces is in a state of low strt:ss triuialily. Side grooves remove the fru surfaces,
whert: plane SIre$ll conditions prt:vail and. if done properly. lead 10 relatively slraight crack
fronts. Typical side-grooved fra<:1Urc toughness specimens have a net thickness that is
approximately SO'll> of the gross thickneS5. If the side grooves arc too deep, they produce
lateral sinsularities, which cause the CJ1lCk 10 VOW more rapidly at the OUter edges.

YlGUR£ 7'" M~_romeat <IItbc..- _ t i l ope.... dloplac._ml wIIh. dip pte.

:f= IColll1
"CURE 1.' &Houtk <II a ~r ,ariabk dIf_
rornu.J ItWBt_ ... (LVDT). Dedrk ... m_
ID llie n.. evil iDd_ a .... MIk Ikld, ""1m
produ«, • ..lIale III Ih "cud (oU.
DIopl_nt 01 u.. «ntnl t.n ca..- ........
tlorlla tbc OUlput .Dllate.
374 ChDpur7

CQNSfANTOJRJlENT

v
=v

CRACK LENGTH

c ..... MriIooaI ...... dKn-. III • .rJOdI.., "","t_

JIlGURE 7,10 Potential drop method'..........!lOrlnl (....,1< ,l'Owtb. AI lb. c...,k 1f'I"I'I ..... tb. uti.
1......- . ragltlnll .. an lncrns. In ",Itq. (V).

nCORE 7.11 SlmuJI.o ........... _urelDe ..1 01.

c"""k ... oulll open/DI dlopl.o ........ (CMOD)
COMPAIUSON _owl 10K U... diop"",,",,,m' .....D SEND . p«:!-
OA.
a._oil
me ... Tbe CMOD II infelnd fr<>m. dip PI"
pllONIIItfI. all'"tel,.,.,
10 tn1f. wblk
!be .u..
IMd U...
cItIermlned L'rom. compa ...
i&oa bar ................. ; 1110baraDd OUI ..... U
of 1110 LVD'f rema'" fIlItd. ..... u. lb. In.... rod
........ willi 1M .p.d"'.....
FrtM;rurt Toughnes3 Tesring of Metals
,,,

BN

n GUIlE U1 SI_ 1"'"- ... ttoct\lft 1M'

cUIlk:I leSt spod_

7.1 Klc TESTING

When a material behaves in a linear elastic manner prior to fai lure, such that the plastic
'tone is small compared to spec imen dimensions. a critical value of the StN:SS intensity
factor. K1c. may be an appropriate fracture parameter. Stalldard methods for Klc testing
inc lude ASTM E 399 [21 and BS 5447 (10]. the latter of which was published by the:
British Standards Institution. An ASTM combillCli standard for K, 1. and CTOD tcsting
[II [ is in draA form as of this writing. and should appear in late 1995. This draA ASTM
slarMIard incorporatcs most of the provisions of E 399. but liberalizes the specimen design
provisions. For example. the ASTM combined method permits side grooves, while E 399
docs not.
The AS'Th'I standard E 399 was first published in 1970. and has been revised several
ti mes since the n. The title. "Standard Test Method/or Plmle Strain Fractu re Toughness
0/ Metollic Materials. ~ is somewhat misleading. Although plane strai n is a necessary
condition for a valid Klc test. it is not sufficient; a 5pet:imcn must also behave in a linear
elastic manner. 'The validity requireme nts in this standard are very stringent be<:ause even
a relatively small amount of plastic deformation invalidates the assumptions of K theory
(see Chapter 2).
Four spa;imen configunuions are pennitted by Ihe currenl version of E 399: the
compact, SENB, an:.~aped, and disk·5hapN specimens. Spa;imens for K't tesl$ are usu·
ally fabricated with the width. W, equal 10 twice the thickness, B. 1bey are fatipe pre.
cracked so that the crack length/width ratio (aIW) lies between OA5 and 0.55. Thus the
specimen desigJ1 is such that all the critical dimens ions. D, B, and W.D. are approllimately
equ.1. This design results in efficient use of material. since each of these dime nsions
must be large compared to the plastic zone.
376 CMpltr7

Most standardized me<:hani~al tests (fracture toughness and otherwise), lead 10 valid
results as lo ng as the Icchllic ian follows all of the procedures outlined in the standard.
TIle Klc test, however, often produces invalid results through no fault of the technician.
If the plastic lOne at fracture is too large, it is nOi possi ble \0 obtain a valid K,c. regard-
less of ho w skilled the technician is.
Because of the strict size requirements. ASTM E 399 recommends that the user pcr-
fonn a preliminary validity check to detcnnine the appropriate speci men dimensions. The
size requirements fOf a valid Klc arc as follows:

B.a"22.l Kif)'
lays 0.45:5 a I W:5 0.55 (7. 1)

In order 10 delennine the required specimen dimensions. the use r must make a rough esti-
mate of the anticipated K/c for the materiaL Such an estimate can come from data for
s imilar material s. If such data are nOI available, the ASTM standard provides a table o f
recom me nded thicknesses for various stre ngth levels. Allhough there is a lendency for
toughness to decrease wilh increasing strength, there is nOl a unique relati onship between
Klc and ays in metals. Thu s the strength-thi ckne ss table in E 399 should be used onl y
when bener data an: not available.
During the initial stages of fatigue precrack..ing. the peak value of stress intensity in
a single eyde, K max , should be no larger than 0.8 Klc. according to ASTM E 399. As
the cmek approaches its final size, Knuu; should be less than 0.6 Kfc. If the specimen is
fatigued at o ne temperature (T/ ) and tested at a different temperature (T2). the final Kmax
must be S O.6(ays( 1 y'aYS(2}}Klc. The fatig ue load requirements are less Slringent at
initiation beeausc the final crack tip is remote from any damaged material that is prodoced
in the early part of precracking. The maximum stress intensi ty during fati gue must al -
ways be less than KIc, however, in order to avoid premature failure of the specimen.
Of course, one must know K/c in order to determine the maximum allowable fatigue
loads. The user must specify fatigue loads based on the antic ipated toughness of the ma-
terial. If he or she is conservative and se lects low loads, precracking could take a very
long time. On the other hand, if precracking is conducted at high loads, the user risks an
invalid result. in which case the specimen and the technician 's time art wasted.
When a prccracked test specimen is loaded to failure, load and displacement are mon-
itored. Three types of load-d isplacemen t curves arc shown in Fig. 7. 13. The crilical10OO,
PQ. is defined in one of several ways. depending on the type of curve. One must con-
struCI a 5% secant line (i.e. a line from the origin with a slope e{jual to 95% of the initi al
elastic loading slope) to detennine P5. In the case of Type I be havior. the load·displace-
ment curve is smooth and it dev iates slightly from linearity before ultimate failure at
P max . Thi s non linearity can be caused by plasticity. subcritical crack growth, or both.
For a Type I c urve . PQ = P5. With a Type II curve . II. small amount of unstabl e crack
growth (i.e. a pop-in) occurs before the curve deviates from linearity by 5%. In this case
PQ is defi ned at the pop-in. A specimen that exhibi ts Type III behavior fails comple tel y
befo~ achieving 5% nonlinearity. In such cases. PQ '" Pmw;.
 377

P~
/
Pmax
LOAD
Pm.

The crack 1ensth mUSI be measured from the fnIClul'C surface. Since tncre is a len-
d~ncy for !he crack depth 10 vary through the thkkness, the crar::k lensth is defined as the:
avenge of three evenly 5pKed measuremena. Once PQ and c:radi: length are delennined. a
provisional fracture IOU&imesS, KQ. i$ computed from !he following relationship:

(7.2)

whoereJl'aIW} is a dimensionless function of a1W. This function is given in polynomial

form in the E 399 sandin! for the four specimen Iy~s. Individual values of j(Q/W) are
also tabulated in ASTM E 399. (See Table 2.4 and Cl\aplCr 12 for K solutions for I vari-
ety of configurations.)
TIle KQ value c:ornptued from Eq. (1.2) i$ a valid KJc result only if all validit)' reo
quirements in the standa.rd are met. includinll

O.45 SaI WSO.55 (1.3a)

B,a C!: 2.\J~)2

ayS
(7.3b)

(7.X)
378

Additional validi ty requirements in,]ude the restrictions on fatigue load me ntioned earlier,
as well as limits on fatigue Clacll: CLIf\I.ture. If the test meets all of the requirements of
ASTM E 399, then KQ= Klc.
Section 2. 10 de5Cribcs the limitations of SlrelS intensity raelOf, and o utlines the
theoretical reasons for the striclliu requirements for K,,,.
Rceal l that Eqs. (7.3.) and
(7.3b) ensure thaI the critical lpCCimen dimensions. B. a, and (W-Q). iU"e l,least -SO times
larger than the plane sttain plastic zone. The third requirement, Eq. (7 .3<:), ill necessary to
correct II loophole in the KIt lest procedure, as discussed below.
The deviation from linearity in a load-displaccment curve (.lin be caused by crack
growth. plastic lOne: ecreelS, or both. In the absence of plastic def:lrlllation, S* deviation
from the initial slope o f the Ioad-displacemenl curve corresponds 10 crw:k IfOwth Ihrough
approximately 2% oftbe ligament in test specimens wilb aIW .. O.S; when a plastic zone
forms. I S% deviation from linearity can be viewed as 2* (J.ppor~rr.1 crack growth.
(Recall Section 2.&, where crack tip plasticity was modeled by pretending that the crack
was slightly longer than the llClual size.) If the nonlinearity in the load-displaceme nt
curve is caused only by plastieity. a 5~ deviation from linearity COITCsponds (0 a plastic
zone size that is rouJhly 2'11 (i.e. llSO) of !be uncracked ligament ThIU the plastic lPM
sile at Pj 111 Q T)pt I lest is appro:limDltiy equal to iu ma.t;III_ (l1l<JWabk siu, as de-
fined by Eq. (7.1b).
Consider. fracture toulhneu telit that displays cons iderable plastic deformation
prioc to failure . Figure 7.1 4 schematically illustrates the load--displacement curve for sucb
a test. Since this is a Type I t urve , PQ" Pj. A KQ value cornp~ted from PQ m..ay just
barely ntisfy the size ~uin:menl$ of Eq. (7.3b) foc reasons described in the previOi15
panlgraph. Such a quantity, however, would have !Jolt n:ltv~ to the fracture lough-
ness of the material, since the specimen faib well beyODd PQ: the KQ value in this case
would grossly undere.stim.atc the true loughneu of the material. Consequently the third
validity requirement, Eq. (7.3<:), is necessary 10 ensure that a KJc value is indicative of the
true toughness of the material.

WAD

PS_PQ

nGURE 7.14 LoM ... IlpIMt ..... t ......... tor

all IDntld ~lt tell, .~ert ulu...1e foUu,..,
.......... - bt,--I ' (I-

DISPLACEMENT
Fracture Toughneu Ttl /Utg of MtUlls 37.

Because the size requirements of ASTM E 399 are very stringent. il is very diffieult
and somelimes Impossible 10 mcuun, Il vllli,J Kle in mOSI stnlelural malerials. all
Examples 7.1 and 7.2 illustrate. A material must eilher be relatively briule or the test
specimen mUSI be very Iara:e for linear elastic f'l'acture mechanics 10 be valid. In low· and
medium strength Struc1ura! steels. valid Klc tests are normally possible only on the lower
sbelf of toughness; in the ductile-brittle traD$ition and the upper dlelf. elastic.plastic pa.
IllIlleters such as !he J integra! and eroo
are required 10 characterize rr.cture.
Because of the strict validity requirements. the K1t: lest is of limited value to struc·
lural metals. The toughness and thickness of mOSI materials precludes. valid K1t: resull
If. however. a valid Kle test can be measured on a given material. it 15 probably too brit·
lie for mOSt StruClural applications.

EXAMPLE 1. 1

Consider a stNClural lIecl with O)'S " 350 Mf'a (51 ksi). Eslirnatc tile lpecimen di.
mensionl required for a valid Kle ICliL AssulTlC that tllis material il on the upper s/lelf
of tougllnesl. wllere typical Kle yalues ror initiation of microvoid coalescence in
lhcsc materials are around 200 MPI. ..r,;;
SoI"tiOfl: lMcrtillJ tile yield SU"ength and estimated toughncu illlo Eq. (7.1) Jives

200 MPa ..r,;;'\2

B, a .. 2.S ( no MPa) .. 0.816", (32. 1 ill )

Since aIW .. O.S, W . 1.63 m (64. 2 in)1 Thus a vet)' luge specimen would be required
fot a valid Kle test. Materiall are seldom available in IUch thiCknellC$. Even if. sur·
fidenJ.ly wac seclion tllickness were fabricated. ICJlina lUcll a large lpecimen would
not be practical; maehinilli would be prolIibilivcly el~nsivc. and I ,pedal twing
machine wilh I hiJII k-i caplcity would be needed..

EXAMPLE 7.2

Suppose tbaI the material in EJ.ample 7.1 il flbricated in 25 mm (I in) thick pllte.
Estimate the largest valid KI, that can be nxasuted (III $UCII. specimen.
 38. Chopur 7

EXAMPLE 1 .2 (conI.)

SoiuliOfl: For the L-T or T·L orientalioa. I lW specimen "';tb a staIIcbtd dcsigll could
be no weer Iban B,. /I" 2S mm and W• .50 mm. Inserting these dimensions Md the
yield lI~nath into Eq. (7.1) and solv;n, for KIe ,ives

Klc· ]J() MPa ...,j0.025

1.S '" . _~
J$ MPIl"'lm

FiIU~ 4.5 lIiowl fl1lCtllR: IOU&Me» da:a for an A 572 Grade SO 1lCC1. Note thai 1M
IOUghneH level c:omputcd abo~ c:orruponds to the ~ o.bclf in thia material. Thul
valid KIc 1e5l5 on this lIIlIeriai would be possible only allow tCmpuMUres., ...1Im: the
material II 100 brittle for _ atnoctunl lJIPIicatiolU.

7.3 K·R CURVE TESTING

Some materials whose: fracture behavior it ~ominantly linear clastic exhibit a rising R
curve. The ASTM Standard E 561 (12] outlines a procedure for detcrminin, K vcrs~ s
crack ,rowth curves in such materials. Unlike ASTM B 399, the K·R standard does not
contain I minimum thickne$$ requiremnl, and thus can be applied to thin sheets. Thil
5W\dard, however, is appoptialc only wben the plastic zone is smal l compared 10 the in -
plane dimensions of the leSt specime n. This test method is often applied 10 hiJh sucn,1h
sheet maaerials. whue the fracture behavior is plane stres5linear clastic.
There i. a commoo misconception about plane stress, plane strain, and R curves .
A number of published articles and textbooks imply that a material in plane strai n ex·
hibiu. aingl., yah... m f ...cturc tough"". (Kfd, ... hile the: same mllterilll in plana Itta"
displays I rising R curve. While this may occur in lOme C1l$e$, il is nOI a uni ...enal phe-
nomenon. The shape of an R curve depends on the fraclure mechanism as well as the:
stress state at the crack tip. Cleavage lends to uhibil • flat or falling R curve, while mi-
crovoid coalescence can produce a risinS R curve. 1hc slope of an R curve tends 10 de-
crease with increasi ng stress maxi.lity , and the fracture mechani$lll (in Sleels) can chan ac
frQlll ducti le learing to c1ea....ge &Ii the ' tins litate ranges from plane StreSS 10 plane slnli ••
This leads 10 the imprusion lhat plane SIR" condilions (J/wuys produce a rising resi ..
ranee curve while plane strain fraclure can be dc5Clibed by a single loughness ... a1ue (KfcJ.
II i. possible, howe ... er, (or c1ea ... age. and !hilS a railing R curve, to occur in thin sheeu.
Similarly. risi ng R curves under plane l inin conditions are common in ductile material,.
as discussed in Section 1.4.
Fi,U", 7.15 iUllStnotcS .. Iyp>cal K -R C"",a in .. predominantly line ... elastic m~'­
ri. 1. llle R curve is initially ... ery l teep, .. little or no crack growth occurs with inaeat-
in ll KJ. As the crack begins 10 grow, K illCTeases wi!h crack growth until a slcady Stile is
reached, where the R curve becomes nat (lee Section 3.:5 and Appendix 3.:5). It is poIsi-
Fmclute Toughness Te.Jtillg ofMe/ah 3 ..

hie to define a critical stress inu:nsity, Kc. where lhe driving force i$ tangenllO the R
curve. Thi$ inslabi lity poin t is not a material property, however, because the point of
wgeney dcpend$ on the shape of the drivina force CUfV1:, whicb is governed by the geom-
etry of the cracked body. Thus Kc values oblained from laborntOl)' speci mel1ll are nOi
usually tnlnsfernble 10 structures.

CRACK SIZE

7.3. 1 Specimen Design

1lIe ASTM standard fO£ K-R curve u:sting (12] permits thtec configW1ltions of test spec·
imen: the middle tension (MT) geomelry, the eonventional compact specimen, and •
wedge loaded compact specimen. 1be lattn' configuration, whicb is similar to the com·
pact crack arre5t specimen di5ClWcd in Section 7.6, is the most slable of the three speci·
men types, and thll$ is suitable fO£ materials with relatively flat R curves.
Since this test method is often applied to thin sheets, specimens do not usually haVi!
the conventional geometry, with the width equal to twice the thickness. 1be specimen
thickness is nannally fixed by the sheet thickness, and the width is governed by the antic·
ipated toughness ofthe mau:rial, as well as the available test fixtures.
A modiried nomenclature is applied to thin sheet compact specimens. For example,
a specimen with W = 50 mm (2 in) is designated as It IT plan specimen , since lhe in·
plane dimensions COITeSpond 10 the conventional IT compact geometry. Siandard fixture$
can be used 10 tesllhin.sheet compact specimeDli, provided tbe specimens are fitted with
spacers, as illustrated in FiB. 7.16.
One problem with thin sheet fracture toughneu lestinB is that lhe specime ns are
subje<:tlO out-of-plane bockiinB, which leads 10 combined Mode I-Mode ill loading oflhe
crack. Coruequently, an antibuelding device should be fitted to the specimen. Fleun:
7.16 i11U$trale. a typical antibuckling fixture for thi n sheet compact specimens. Plales
on either side of the specimen prevent out-of-plane displacements. 1bese plates should
not be holted too lightly together, because loads applied by the lest machine should be
carried by lhe specime n rather than the antibuckling plates. Some type of lubricant (e.g.
382 Clwprer 7

Tenon sheet) is usually required to allow the specimen to slide f("« ly through the two
plaits during the lesL

7.3.2 Espcrimcntal Measurement 01 K·R Curves

lbc ASThf Slandard E 56 1 outlines a number of al ternative methods for computing both
K/ and the crack extension in an R curve test: the most appropriate approach depends on
the relative size of the plastic w ne. lei 1,15 first f;:onsider the special case of negligible
plastici ty. whi ch CJlhibits II load-displaccmcn t behavior that is illustratC(l in Figure 7.17.
As the crack grows, the load-dispJacemenl curve deviates from its initial li near shape be-
c.use the compliance continuously changes. If the specimen were unloaded prior to frac-
lure, the curve would return to the origin, as the dashed lines indicate. lbc compliance al
any point d uring the test is equal to the displacement divided by the load. 1be instanta-
neous crack length can be inferred from the complianc.::c through relationshi ps that are
given in the ASlM sundard. (See Chapter t2 for compliance-c.:nlCk length equations for a
variety or configurations.) The crack length can a1S() be measured optically during tests
o n thin sheets, where there is negligible through-thic kness variation of crack length. The
instantaneous slress intensity is related to the cum nt values ofload and crac k length:

P
K, = B'!W f(a f lV) (7.4)

ANTIBUCKUNG
PLATES

SPACE RS

SPEOMEN

flCURE 7.16 Aallbudd.al nxtu",," for teiU", tbl.a c:omf'A"t _pedlne ..

 J83

Consider now the cue where a plutic: ~one foml$ alIead of the growing craelt. 'The
oQnHnearity in the load-displacemenl curve is caused by a combination of crack growth
and plasticity. as Fig. 7. 18 iIIuslnites. If the specimen is Ullioaded prior to fracture, the
load-displacement curve docs mx return to the ocigin; crack tip pla5ticil)' prod~$ a (il.ile
amount of pennanent deformation in tm specimen. 'TlE physical Cfklr. Icn,1h can be de-
termined optically or from unloading compli ance, where the specimen is partially un·
loaded. the clastic compliance is measured, the crack length is inferred from compliaocc.
'The suess inlensity should be cOITeCted for plastici ty effects by detenni ning an effective
crack length. 'The ASTM sUindard 5UGGCSU two a1temative approaches for computing
acif the Irwin plastic zone COliectiOO and the KeaOI melbod. AecordinllO the Irwin.p-
proath (Section 2.8.1), the effective cra::k length for plane stress is given by

Qcl! "'" a + ~(~l2

21f "'YS
(7.5)

TIle secant method consists of delCmlining an effective crack size from the effective C(JIlI-
pliancc, which is equal 10 the total diiplao::cment divided by the 1(WId (Fia, 7. 18). The er-
feetive stress inlensily fKlor for both methods is computed from the load and the effective
crack length:

p
KeJf = RJW f(0tjf I W) n·6)

TIle Irwin cOI'Teclion requires an i1enuiw: calculation, where a first order utimatc of utffiS
used 10 esti mate Ktffi which is inserted into Eq. (7.5) to obtain a new UtJf the prOCUl is
repeated unlil the Ktff cstimales converge:.

LOAD

DISPLACEMENT
3.. Chaptu 7

LOAD

EffKtive
Compl~

Plulic
InfOllNtion
DISPLACEMENT
F(CUII.E 1.1' LMd-4Iq1.... n' a1~'. (nodI.."wtlo .,-I •• plMtIdfy.

'The ~hoiceof plasticity correct;OfI is left largely up 10 the UJer. When the plastic
zone is small, ASTM E.561 suageslS that the Irwin torrection is KCcplablc, but re<:om·
mends applying me secanl approach when the end: lip plasticity is more: extensive.
Experimental data typically display less size dependellCe when the streSS inte nsity is deter-
mined by the secant method [IJ].
The AS'Th1 K-R curve standard requires thai lhe SITeSS intensity be plotted Igainst
the effut;". crw::k ulCnsion (dueJP. This practice is inconsistent with the lie and J·R
curve approaches (Section 1.4). where J is plotted qainM the phYlical cra::t extension.
'The eSlimate of the instability point (Ke> shou ld not be sensitive to the way in which
crack growth is quantified, panicularly when both the driving force and resistance curves
are computed with a COnSiSlent definition of Lia.
The ASTM E 561 sWldard does not contain requin:mcnts on Ipttimcn size or lhe
mwmum allowable cnek utension: thllS!he", is no &uarantee that I K-R curve produced
aoxordinsto this sWldard will be I &cometry-independent malt:rial ptope,l)'_ As disc:ussed
in Section 2,10, application or LEFM to thin sections is ICceptable lIS long as the spe<: i-
men thickness matches the section thickness of the structure. l1le in_plane dimensions,
however, must be large compared to the plasdc ~one in order for LEFM to be valid.
Also, the growing cnck must be "'mote from all external boundaries.
Unrortunately, the size dependence of R curves in hiSh strength sheet materials has
yet to be quantified, so it ii nOI possible to recommen.d spe<:ific si~e and crack arowth
limits ror this type of testina. 1be user must be aware of the potential fO£ siu depen-
dence in K·R CIlrYCS. Application of the secant approac:h reduces but docs nOi climinate
the siu dependence. 1be user ilhould test wide specimens wbcncvCf possible in order to
ens~ that tbe I.abonlory test is indicative or tbe struct~ uncIer consideration.
Frru;rur~ Toughness Testing of M~tals 385

7.4 J TESTING OF METALS

Two ellisting ASTM stlllldards addren} testing. The}/c standard. E 813 (5J. which was
first published in 1981 and revised in 1987. outlines a test method for estimating the crit-
ical} ncar initiation of ductile crack growth. A }-R curve testing standard. E 1152 [6J.
was first published in 1987. An ASTht standard that combines E 813 and E 1152 is in
the final stages of balloting at Ihis writing [I4J. and should appear in 1995. This
!;:ombincd 1 standard not only !;:overs JIe and J-R !;:urve measurement, but also addresses J
testing of materials thaI expcrien!;:e unstable fTal:ture (e.g .• cleavage in (erritic steels). The
draft ASTM common method [11] mentioned earlier illCludes provisions for llesting that
are nearly identical to the draft ASTM combined J standard (14J. On!;:e Refs. [I I J and [14J
are offidally adopted, E 813 and E 1152 will be!;:ome obsolete and will eventually
disappear from the ASTM Book of Standards.
Bmh the International Standard s Orllan;211.t;on (ISO) and the British Standards
Institution (BSI) are !;:urrently drafting fracture toughness testing standards that are compa-
rabl e in KOpe (though not in detail) 10 Refs. [I I] and [14].
The ASTM standards E 813-87 and E 1152-87 both produce a }-R !;:urve, a plot of}
versus !;:rack elltension. The E 11 52 stilndard applies to the entire J-R curve, while E 813
is concerned only with Jle, a sing le point on the R curve. The same lest can be reponed
in terms of both standards. This is analogous to a tensile test, where one can repon either
the yield strength or the entire slfess-nrai n !;:urve. Both standards apply to eompacl and
SENB specimens. The overlap betwee~ these two standards motivated the development of
the combined 1 testing standard [14].

7.4.1 Jlc Mcuurcmenu

The R curve for J/c measurements !;:an be generated by either multiple spec imen or single
spedmen te!;:hniques. With the multiple spec imen tC!;:hnique, a Kries of nmninally iden-
tical specimens are loaded 10 various levels and then unloaded. Some slable crack growth
occurs in most specimens. This !;:rack growth is marked by heat tinting or fatigue !;:rack-
ing after the teSI. Each specimen is then broken open and the !;:rlK:k extension is mea-
=<I.
The most !;:ommon single specimen test te!;:hnique is the unloading compliance
method. which is illustrated in Fig. 7.19. The !;:nu::k length is computed at regular inter-
vals during the le st by partially unloadi ng the specimen and measuring the compliance.
As the !;:nlCk grows, the specime n becomes more compliant (less stim. The various J
testing standards provide polynomial expressions thai relate aIW to complian!;:C. Table
12Aiists these oompliance equations for bend and !;:ompact specimens. The ASTM stan-
dards require relatively deep cracks (0.50 ~ aIW" < 0 .70) because the unloading !;:ompliance
technique is nOI sufficien tly sensitive for aIW < 0.5. An alternative single spedmen test
method is the potential drop proceduJe (Fig. 7.10) in whk h !;:rack growth is monitored
through the !;:hange in ele!;:lrkal resiSlance whkh accompanies a loss in !;:ross sectional
are<I. Both single specimen procedures are practical only in !;:onjun<:lion with a !;:ompuler
data acquisition and analysis system.
386 Chaptu7

WAD

WAD LINE DISPLACEMENT

Regardless oftbe method for monitoring crack growth. a COITeSponding J value must
N computed for each point on the R curve. For estimation purposes. it is convenient \0
divide J inlo clastic and plastic components:

(7.7)

The elastic J is computed from the clastic stress intensity:

(7.8)

where K. is inferred from load and crack size through Eq. (7.4). If, however, side grooved
specimens are used. the expression for K is modified:

P
K= ~ f(alW) (7.9)
BBNW

whco: B is the grou Ihickness IlIld BN is the nel thickness (Fig 7.12). The ASTM lJe
standard outlines a simplified method for computing Jpl from the plastic area under the
load-dispJacemenl curve: 2

2Since J is ""lifted ;" terms of lilt ellefJY -'>oorbed divided by the Del .""" HCtiOlla! ItQ. BN ___ in Ibt
.x-n;o.ator. For 1OI>IIOOde.,."..,...s .p«:imenI BN • 8.
 387

(7.10)

where 11 is. dimensionless conSUnt, ApI is the plastic arca under the load-displacemenl
curve (see Fig. 1.20). and ho is the initial ligament length. For an SEND specimen,

1] = 2.0 (7.1 1.)

and for • compact specimen,

1J= 2+0.S22hoI W (1. lI b)

Recall from Section 3.1.5 thaI Eq. (7.10) was deri ved from the energy re lease rate defini-
tion of J.

LOAD

n CURE 7.10 P1ank ....'V.boorbed by •

.... •.-.-. duriaa: • Jr~ lOlL

DISPLACEMENT

Note thaI Eqs. (7.10) and (7. 1lb) do nOi COITCCI J for crack growth, bul arc based on
the initial crack length. A more complicated procedure, in which J is computed incremen-
tal ly with updated values of crack length and ligament Icnglh, can also be .applied <ICe
Scctioo 7.4.2). This more elaborate procedure U U$uaI ly not Dece$sary for l ie lI1U$ure-
menlS, however, bcea\I$C crack growth is insignifICant M the poi nt on the R c:urve where
Jlc is measured .. In the limit of a stationary crack, both fOlll1ulas give identical results.
Thus the measured ini tiation toughness is insensitive 10 the choice of J equatio n. The
simplified method based on original ligamenl Icngth is u.sually applied when the R curve
is inferred from the multi ple .pecimen technique, bul the tnOf"e comple,; procedure that
updalCS the ligamenl le ngth is onen used in conjunction with single-specime n lechoiqUCI
such as unloading compliance and poccntial drop.
The ASTM procedure for computing Ja,' provisional Jle. from the R cW"Ve is il·
lustrated in Fig. 7.2 1. ElIclusion lines arc dnwn .1 crack eXlension (M) values of 0.\5
 ChtJptu7
'"
and 1.5 mm. These lines have Dslope of 2ay, where ay is the now Slress, defined as
the average of the yield and icn&ile strengths. The slope of the e ~clusion lioes corre-
sponds approximalely to the component of crack extension that is due to crack blunting,
as opposed \0 dUCllle Icaring. A horiltontat exclusion line is defined at a maximum value
of/:

J = h,ur (7. 12)

- 15
All data that fall within the exclusion li mits are fil to a power law expression:

J=q(.1a)~ (7.13)

The JQ is defined IS the intersection betwee n Eq. (7.13) and a 0.2 mm offset li ne. If all
other validity criteria are met. JQ : l/e as longthc following size require ments are satis-
f\Cd:

~2.5~J..
, (1. J4)
B,b. 2:-
<1,

BOO
- - - - - - - -

~
, ..,.,
'00 • - PolntlllHd In ~ion illIalYfIs

O.l SmmEdusion
LIM

" ..
..J
<
~" ..
--
Z

'00
....-..
Power-Law
1.5 mm ExI...wn
Lm.

O.lmm <>ffHt 20'{

LiM
'00

o Cl.25 O.SO 0.75 LO l.25 LSO 1.75 l.O 2.25

CRACK EXTENSION, m m
FlGlJJlE 7.11 Dot<n>InIllon of JO Inn _/-[( ... ~ (5).
Fractl4f? Toughnen Testing of Metals 38.

EXAMPLE 7.3

ESTimaTe The specimen site requiremenl$ (or a valid J Ie TesT on The maTerial in
Eumple 7,). Assume: ors
a 4SO MPa and £. 207,000 Mfa.

Solution : Fint we mUST convcn the Klc value in Example 7. 1 TO an equivalelll Jle:

" 0.176MPam

SubstituTing the above result into Eq . (7.1 4) gives,

(25J{O.176 MPam )
" 0.0110 m '" 11.0 mm (0,4JJ in)
B. '" 2 400 MPa

which is nearly TWO orders of magnitude lower than the specimen dimension thaT
ASTM E 399 requires for this material. Thus the Jfe 5i~ re<juin:ments are much mon:
lenient Than the Kfc requiremenTS .

7.4.2 J.R Curve Testing

When the entire J·R curve is of illlen:sl. single specimen techniques should be used. and
the J should be corre<:ted for crack growth. Test specimens should be side grooved in or·
der to avoid tunneling and maintain a straight crack front.
There are a number of way s to compute J for a growing crack, as outlined in &:CtiOIl
3.4.2. The ASTM procedure for l ·R curve testing utilizes the dtformation tht ory defini·
lion of J, whi ch corresponds 10 the rate of energy di ssi pation by !he growing crack (i.e.,
the energy release rate). Recall Fig. 3.22, which contrasts the act ual loading path with
the "deformation" path. The deformation J is relaTed to the area under the load·di splace-
ment curve for a stalionary crack, rather than the area under the actual load-displacement
curve. where the crack length varies (see Eqs. (3.55) and (3.56».
Since the crack length changes continuously during a l -R curve test, the J integral
must be calcu lated incrementally, For unloadi ng compliance tests. the most logical time
to update the J value is at each unloading point. when: the crack length is also updated.
Consider an J test w ith n measuring points. For a g iven measuring point i, where
390 Chopltr7

l:!ii:!>n, the elastic and plastic components of J can be estimated from the following ex-
pressions (see Fig. 7.22P:

(7.15a)

(7.ISb)

where .di(pl) is !he plastic load line displacement, }i = 1.0 for SENB specimens and r; c
I T O.76/);IW for compact specimens; 11i is as defi ned in Eq. (7.11), except thai bo is re-
placed by hi. the instantaneous ligament length. 1be instantaneous K is related 10 Pi and
a/Wthrough Eq. (1.9).
Equation (7.ISb) gives an approximation of the plastic component of the deforma-
tion J. Appendix 7 explores the basis of this rdationship, as well as its accuracy.

Actu.l
LOAD Lo.tdinSCPC·,,"';i._--_ ____

P i-}

p,
a'

I
" Oefomution" I
P... .6;-11 A;

LOAD LINE DISPLACEMENT

31lqultiOll (7.l5b) 00ftIailu diffexlll SIIbscripts <HI b - 1 from !he C(II'lUp<lll(liq eqllllioo> in E 1152. bII, ~ ;,
<OIIo. i...", ";,b tho ASTM combined I !ell mndonI (I.]. E 1152 ~tly ~" ' .... I c~ <1'I'Ot.
"Tho diffe="", in die tompul<d J val .... btl", .... !he lWOeqllJliooll I. mi nimal.~,
Fm<:f~r~ To~ghn~ss Testing of Mt/als
'"
Both ASTM E ! !:'i2 and the J telling standard [14] ha~e the following limits on J
and cllICk ulension reLative 10 spc:ctmen si:ee:

...
B b 2: 20J..,
• •

.:lamu SO,lObo
" . (7.16)

(7. 17)

FiiUre 7.23 shows a Iypital J.R curve with llIe ASTM validity limi!$. The pOrtion o f
\he J·R curve lIIal falb OUl!lidc the"" limi'" i. oonsidcrro in~alid.
The ASTM draft common me!bod [II) currently allows crack growth 10 30 I"'"",nl
of the initial lill:arnent, as OppOSed to 10 I"'reeDt in Sq. (7. 17). This more relaxed require-
ment may not survi~e!he ballotillJl process in ASTM, however.

2500 , , , ,
0
0
0
2000 f- 0
--
,• 0
0
0

~ "00 f- 0
0
..r }max 0
~
A 110 STEEL

~1~ f- 0
• 2T Compact Specimens

- •
0
•
0
V.lid 0111.
Innlid Dall. 1
0
500

0
f-o
••
, aamn
, , j
0 2
• 6
CRACK GROWI"H, mm
• "
.,GUIlE 7.13 J-......... , ... A 710 _ I (15). I. 11110 - . tIoc ""III . . - tIoc _ _ J (",. ' .It) N-
",.. III«nc:k ""'''' u... (I!q. ' .In.
392 ~r7

7.4.3 Critical J Values for CI,avall' Fr.ctu r e

Although E 8 13·87 and E 1152·87 apply only 10 ductile fracture, more recent standards
[11,14] permit J tesling of materials that fail by cleavage, In the ductile·brittle mnsitian
region of struetural steels, cleavage is often prtteded by significanl plastk flow, and linear
elastic parameters are not wilable to characterize loughness.
Many researd10tB and pnctitiooen !"'Cfer to eonven critical I values to equivalenl K
ValL1C5 through the following re lationship:

K -QL
k-V0-7l (7,18)

The Klc values can be applied to Slr\IClUIell that are elastically loaded, as discUS5ed in
Chapter 9. Thi5 approach is val id if only if the crilical I value is independent of speci·
men size. 1be test specimen must be sufficiently large thal funher increases in Jize have
00 effect on h .
Size requirements for J·controlled cleavaac can be expressed in tnc form of Eqs.
(7.14) and (7. 16):

(1. 19)

where M is a dimensionks5 oonstanlln 1991, AndersoD and Dodds ( 16) recommended M

• 200, based on their fracture toughness Kalina: model (Section 3.6.3) and plane strain
elastic. plastic finite clement analysis. More recent work based o n 3·0 fin ite element
analysis [11J indicates that this requirement can be relued to M ",.so. Both tnc ASTM
combined J and common methods require M. 200, based on the earlier recommendation
of A nderson and Doddl. This requirement is conservative, and may be reined in
subsequent revisions of these standards.
lbe rec:ommcnded liu limits of Eq. (1. 19) only apply to ckavagc without signifi-
Cln t prior stablc crack growth. In the uppu tnllI5ition region of steels, c leavage is usu-
ally preceded by ductile leafing. Further resean:h is necessary 10 understand upper transi-
tion fraclure better in order 10 develop suitable J testing procedures for this region.

7.5 CTOD TESTING

Because of the sttictlimits on plastic deformation , the KJc lest can be applied only on the
lower shelf of loughnQS in structural steeb and weld5. The older AS'Tht JJc and J·R
curve test mclhods al low considenlbly more plastk deformation, oollhese lau are only
valid on the upper shelr. Until the newer standards ( 11, 14J are published, the Cl'DD Ic5t
is the only standardized method to measure fracture toughness in the ductile-britlle transi ·
lion region.
Froctur~ Toughn~sJ T~sting ofMl!tals ,OJ

The first erOD test standard Wa.\ publisbc:d in Great Britain in 1979118]. ASTM
l"C(;ently published E 1290 [19], an American version of the CTOD standard. The British
eroo standard allows only th~ SENB specimen. while the ASTM standard prov ide, for
CTOO measurements on both the compact and SENB specimens. Both standards allow
two confiaurations of SENB spccimem; I) a rcctaniu!ilJ cross section with W", 2B. the
standard geometry for Klc and Jlc tests; and 2) a square cross section with W '" B. The
rcclangular specimen is most useful with L-Tor T-L orientations (Fig. 7.5 ); the square
SC(:tion is gcncrally applied to the 1.-5 or T-S orientations.
Experimental eroo estimates arc made by separating the CTOO into clastic and
plastic components, similar to the JIc and J-R tests. The clastic erOD is obtained from
the clastic K:

(7.20)

The elastic K is related to applied load through Eq. (1.4). The above relationship assumes
that d n '" 0.5 for linear elastic conditions CEq. (3.48». The plastic component of eroo
is obtained by assuming that the test specimen rotates about a plastic hinge. This con-
cept is illustrated in Fig. 7.24 for an SEND specimen. The plastic displacement at the
crack mouth. Vp, is rel ated to the plastic ClOD through a similar triangles construction;

(7.21)

where 'p is the plastic rotational factor. a constant between 0 and I that defines the rela-
tive position of the apparent hinge poi~t. The mouth opening displacement is measured
with a clip gage. In the case of an SEND specimen, knife edges must ofte n be attached in
order to hold the elip gage. Thus Eq. (7.21 ) must take account of the knife edge height.
l. The compact specimen can be designed so that z '" O. The plastic component of V is
obtained from the load-displacement curve by constructing a line parallel 10 the elastic
loading line. as illustrated in Fig. 3.6. According to ASTM E 1290. the plastic rota-
tional factor is given by

(7.22a)

ror the SENB speci men and

(7.22b)
 394 Chapter 7

for the cornpact lipecimcn . TIle original British standard for CfOD tests. BS $762: ]979
applied only to SENB specimens and specified 'p = 0.40,
The crac k mouth openinll displacement, V, on an SENB specime n is nOl the same
as the load liDe displacement, .1. 'The lalter disploccment measurement is req ui red for J
estimation because ApI in Fig. 7.20 represents the plastic energy absorbed by the speci-
men. 'The aOD standard utiJ i~ Vp because Ihis displacement is easier 10 measure in
SENB spcc imen~. If 'p is known, however, it is pos~ible to infer J from a p. V curve Ill"
erOD from a p.d, curve [7,8J. The compact specimen simplifies maue rs somewhat be-
cause V = ~ as long as l = O.

'The British ASTM crOD standard test methods can be applied 10 ductile and brittle
materials, as well as steels in the ductile-brittle transition. The$e standards includes a no-
tation for critical aOD values thai describes the fracture behavior of the specimen:

0.: - Critical crOD at the: onset of unstable: frnclUre

with less than 0.2 mm of sta-
ble crack growth. This ~om:sponds to the lower shelf and lower transition region of
steels where the fracture mechanism is pure cleavage.

0., - Critical crOD at

the onset of unstable fracture which has been preceded by
more than 0.2 mm of stable crack growth. In the case of femtie steels, this cOlTCSponds
10 the "ductile thOOlbnail" observed in the upper transilion region.

Ii;. - crOD ncar the initiation of stab le crack growth.4 This measure of toughness
is analogous to lie.

4n.: _ RCCn, ",vis;"" of ASTM E 1190 dropped & os • '<Hllru.... paramo ... . bvt ,~drotl rommon
..... _ II II ""';"'1"
Frocrurt! ToughMSS T~srjng of M~UJIs 395

s". . crOD 01 the firnl auainmcnl of a mwcimum IQQd plaleau. This oc<:urn on or
near the upper shelf of steels.

Figure 7.25 is a series of schematic load-displacemenl curves thai manifesl each of

the above failul't' sccoarios. Curve (a) illustrates a lesl thai results in a 4: value; cleavage
fracture occurs at Pc. Figure 7.25(b) cOlTesponds to a auresult, where ductile tearing pre-
cedes cleavage. The dll(:tile crack growth initiates at Pi. A test on 01" near the upper shelf
produces a load--displacement curve like Fig. 7.25(c); a muimum load plateau occurs at
Pm. The specimen is still stable after maximum load because the mBierial has a rising R
curve and the test is performed in displacement control. Three types of CTOD result, 4:,
Ou and Om, are mutually exclusive; i.e, they cannot occur in the same test. It is possi-
ble, however. to measure a OJ value in the same test as either a 8m (II" 6u result .
As Fig. 7.25 illustrates, there is usually no detectable change in the load--displace-
ment curve at Pj. The only deviation in the load-di splacement behavi(ll" is the reduced
rate of increase in load as the crack grows. The muimum load plateau (Fig. 7.25{c)) oc-
curs when the rate o f strain hardening is exactly balanced by the rate of decrease in the
cross section. However, the initiation of crack growth cannot be detected from the load-
displacement curve because the loss of cross section is gradual. Thus 6; must be deter·
mined from an R curve.
The only specimen size requil't'menl of the British and ASTM aOD standards is a
recomn ..",dalion 10 Icst ful1seclion thicknesses. For example. if a structurc ;~ to Ix: mw,k:
of 25 nun ( I in ) thick plale, then B in the tesl specimens should be nominally 25 mm.
If the specimen is notched from the surface (L-S or T-S orientations), a square section
spe<:imen is requil't'd for B to equal the plate thickness. The British aOD standard al-
lows aIW ratios ranging from 0.15 to 0.70, while the ASTM sI8ndard restricts tbe per-
missible aIW values to the range of 0.45 to 0.55. Sballow cracked specimens have cer-
lain advantages, panicularly for weJdment tests (see Section 7.7), but cri lical aOD val-
ues from such tests are usually geometry dependent [16.20].

'" '"
(cl

MOUTH OPENING DISPLACEMENT

nGuitE 7.l!1 Varloua ,,,... fllloMI..tIsplaotmont curva rn... CTOD 10$4.
7.6 DYNAM.lC AND CRA CK ARREST TOUGHNESS

When a material is subjeet to a rapidly applied load or a rapidly propagating crack, the re-
sponse of that material may be drastically dirrerent from the quasistatic case. When rapid
loading or unstable clllCk propagation are likely to occur in PlllCtice, it is important to du-
plicate these conditions wheD 1IlC1I5uring material properties in the laboratory.
1be dynamic fncture toughness and !he crack ~t toughness are two important
material properties for many applications. lbe dynamic fracture toughness i$ a IIlClI5IIJ"e
of the resistance of a material to crack propagation under rapid loading, while the crack ar-
rest toughness quantifies the abil ity of a material to stop a rapidly propagating crack. In
!he latter case, the cnck may iniriart under either dynamic or qUll5iSlatic conditions, but
unstablepropagatiOfl is generally a dynamic phenomenon.
Dynamic fTacture problemi are often complicated by inertia effccl$, material rate de-
pendence. and reflected stress waves. One or m~ of these dfccl$ can be neglected in
some cases, howe~r. Refer to Chapter 4 for additional discussion 011 this subject.

7.6.1 Rapid Loadinl in Fra(lure Teslio,

Aside from an Annex to E 399 [2]. there are currently no ASTM Standards for high rate
fTllCture testi ng. This type of testing is more difficult than conventional fracture tough-
ness mell5uremcn\S, and mjuires considerably more instrumentation.
High loading mes can be aehieved in the laboratory by a number of means. includ-
ing a drop tower, a hi,h rate testing machine. and explosive loading. With I drop tower,
the load is imparted ((I the specimen through the force of gnvily; a ct05S bead of with a
known weight is dropped onto the specimen from a specifIC height. A pendulum device
such as a Charpy testin, machine is a variation of this principle. Some servobydra.ulic
machines are capable of high displacement rates . While conventional testing maehines
are cloud Wop. where the hydnlulic nuid circulates through the systcm. high rate ma-
chines are opm loop, where a $ingle burst ofhydrau lic pressure is released over short time
interval. For moderately hiah displacement mtes. a closed- loop machine may be adequate.
Explosive loading involves 5Clling off a controlled charge wruch sends S\fen waves
through the specimen (21).
TIle dynamic loads resulting from impact are ortcn in fem:d from an instrumented
tup. Alternatively. stnUn glJC$ can be mounted dirKtly on the specime n: the output can
be calibrated for load measurements. provided the gages are placed in a region of the spec-
imen that rcmairu elastic durin, the test. Cross head displ~ments can be measured di-
rec;tly through an optical derice mounted ((I the cross Jt.cad. If this instrumentation is not
avai lable. a load-time curve can be convened to a load·displaeement curve through mo-
mentum transfer relationships.
Certain appl icationl mjuire man: advanced optical tec:hniques, such photoelasticity
(22.23] and the method of caustics [24]. These procedures provide more detailed infonna-
tion about the deformation of the specimen. but are also more complicated than global
measumnclllS of load and displacement.
Be<.:ause hi,h rate fracture tests rypicatly last onl), a few microS! cond$. conventional
data acquisition lools are inadequate. A storage oscilloscope has traditionally been re-
Fracmre Toughnt!ss Testing of Mt!fllU 397

quired to capture data in a high rate test; when a computer data acquisition system was
used, the data were downloaded from the oscilloscope after the test. 1be newest genera-
tion of data acquisition cards for microcomputers re mo ves the need for this two-step pr0-
cess. 1hesc cards are capable of collecti ng data at high rates, and enable the computer to
simu late the functions of an oscilloscope.
Inertia effec ts can severely complicatc measurement of the relevant fracture parame-
ters. The stress intensity factor and J integral cannot be infelTed from global loads and
displacemen ts when there is a significant kinetic energy component. Optical methods
Such as phowelasticity and caustics are necessary to measure J and K in such cases.
The transition time co ncept [25,26J, which was inlrOduced in Chapter 4, removcs
much of the comple)";ity associated with J and K determination in high rate tests. Reeall
lhatthe transition time. 'i' is defined as the time at which the kinetic energy and deforma-
tion energy are approximately equal. At times much less than Ir, inertia effects dominate,
while inertia is negligible at times significantly greater than 'i. The latter case corre-
sponds to essentially quasistatic conditions, where conventional equations for J and K ap.-
ply. According 10 Fig. 4.4, the quasistatic equation for J, based on the global load dis-
placement curve, is accurate at times greater thai 2 Ii' Thus if the critical fraclUre event
otcurs after 2 Ii, the toughness can be inferred from the conventional quasi static relation-
ships. For drop tower tests on ductile materials, the transition time req uirement is rela-
tively easy to meet [27,28]. For brillle materials (which fail sooner) or higher loading
rates. the transition time can be shortened through specimen design.

7.6.2 KIa Measurements

In order to measure arrest toughness in a laboratory specimen. one must create conditions
under which a crack initiates, propagates in an unstable manner, and then arrests.
Unstable propagation followed by arrest can be achieved either through a rising R curve or
a falling driv ing focce curve. In the fonner case, a temperature gradient ac ross a steel
specimen produces the desired result; fracture can be initiated on the cold side of the spec-
ime n. where toughn ess is low, and propagate into wanner material where arrest is likely.
A falling driving force can be obtained by loading the specim en in d isplacement contrOl,
as EJ[8mple 2.3 illustrates.
The Robertson crack arrest test [29} was one of the earliest applications of the tem-
perature gradient approach. lbis test is only qualitative, however, since the arrest temper-
ature, rather than Kia, is determined from this test. The temperature at which a crack at-
rests in the Robertson specimen is only indicative of the relative arrest toughness of the
material; designing above this te mperature does not guarantee crack arrest under all load-
ing conditions. 1be drop weight test developed by Pellini (sec Section 7.9) is anothe r
qualitative arrest test that yields a critical temperature. In this case. however. arrest is ac-
complished through a fal ling driving force.
While most crack arrest tests are performed on small laboratory specimens, a limited
number of experiments have been perfonned on larger confi gunnions in order to validate
the small scale data. An extreme example of large scale testing is the wide plate crnck ar-
 39. Chaptu7

' O=SI " " l"'riUlcm.. t;"'OOUClc:U III \be Nal.i...,nal l nstitutc of Standards and Technology (NIST}!
in Gaithersburg, Maryl and [30]. Figure 1.26 shows a photograph of the NIST tuting
machine and one of the CllICk arrest specimens. This spec imen, which is II single edge
notched tens ile panel. is 10 m long by I m wide. A temperature gradient is applied
across the width, such that Ihe initial crack is at the cold end. The specimen is then
loaded unti l LlllStable cleavage o(CUfS. These specimens au heavily instrumented. so !hat
II variety of information can be in ferred from each test 1lIe crack arreslloughness val ues
measured from these tests is in broad agreement with $J\lall scale specimen data.
In 1988, ASTM published II standard for cracl: am:51 IeSting. E 1221 [30. This
standard outlines II test procedure thai is considerably more modest than the NIST "xperi-
menu. A side grooved compact crack arrest specimen is wedge loaded until unstable frac-
ture OCCUR. Because the specimen is held at a constant crack mouth opening displace-
ment, the running crack experiences a falling X field. 'The crack arrest toughness, K/a , is
detennined from the mouth opening displacement and the arrested crack length.
The test specimen and loading apparatus for X/a testing are ilIustnlted in Figs. 7.27
and 7,28. In most cases, a Slaner notch is placed in a britile weld bead in order to facili-
tate fracture initiation. A wedge is driven through a split pin that imparts a displacement
to the specimen. A clip gage measures the displacement at the crack mouth (Fig. 7.28).
Since the load fIOnnai to the crack plane is nOl measured in these tests, the S~S$ in-
tensity must be infeITCd from the clip gage displacement. The estimation of X is compli-
cated. however. by extraneous displacements. such as seatini of the wedielpin assembly .
Also, local yielding can occur near the starter notch prior to fraclllre initiation. The
ASTM standard outlines a cyclic loading procedure for identifying these displacements;
Fig. 7.29 shows a schematic load-displacement curve that illustrates this method. The
specimen is first loaded to a pmietennined displacement and, assuming the crack has not
initiated, the spec imen is unloaded. The displllCement at zero load is asswned to represent
the effects of fixture scating, and this component is subtracted from the total disp lacement
when stress intensity is compu ted. The specimen is reloaded to a somewhat higher dis-
placement and then un loaded: this process continues until fracJUR: initiates. The zero load
offsct displacements thaI occur after the first cycle can be considered 10 be due to notch tip
plasticity. ll1e correct way to ~at this displacemen t component in X calculations is un-
clear at prescnt. Once the crack propagates through the plastic zone, the plastic displace-
ment is largely recovered (i.e .. convened into an elastic displacement), and thus may con-
tribute to the driving foree. II is not known whether or not there is sufficient time for
this displaccment component to e>;ert an in fluencc on the ru nning crack. The ASTM
standard takes the middle ground on this question, and requites that halfof the plastic off-
set be included in the streSs intensity calculations.

~NtST wu fOl"lllOf!y bc>wD u ~ N..;"...) B...... u of sw.dards (NBS). wbicb uplai ... ,1Ie initials "" eilher
end of,1Ie lpeci..- ill Pi •. 7,27.
Fr(l(/Iln To..tIhness Tu/intI of MetIJls '99
... ChopIer7

Afler the leSt, the specimen should be healtinled al 2S().)so"c for 10 10 90 min 10
mark the crack propagation. When the specimen i. broken open, the limited crack lenglh
can then be measured on the fracture surface. TIle critical stress intensity at initiation.
Ko. il computed from !he initial cnlCk siu and the critical clip gage displ ...emcnt. 1be
provisional &!TeSt loughneu, K". is calculated from the /iIWI crack size. IlSsumina con·
Ilant displacemenl lllese calculations lISumc quasistatic conditions. As discussed in
Chapter 4. this assumption can lead 10 underestimalQ of arresIIOtJghDe$S. lbe ASTM
standard, nowevcr, cites experimental evi(\en<:c (J2.JJ] that impli« thai the crron intro-
duced by. quasislatic assumption are small in Ihis case.
Fraclure Toughn~JJ TUling ofMeUlb 401

,
LOAD

FIGURE 1.19 Sellcm.tlc load·dllpla« ... cnt

tune for a KId tat (311, .. h .... VI ...d Vl.n
•• ro load offset dlspl ........ nt. Wb.n ",""pull,.
V~rlI' oJl of the nrst offset ItncI boJr 01 tbt MIt..
qu ... t on...........lItracled fro ... tb. loW dil_
plac.mmt.

DISPLACEMENT

In ordcr for the lest to be valid, the crack propagation IUld arrest should occur undcr
predominantly plane strain linear elaslic conditions. l1le following validity requirements
in ASTM E 1221-88 are designed to ensure thai the plastic zone is small compared 10
specimen dimensions, and thai the crack jump length is within acceptable limits:

W-aa ~O.15W (7.25a)

(7.25b)

B <': l. j .!ia...J'
1aYd
(7.~)
402 Chopltr7

(7.2.5d)

w here DO is the IIITCSted crack length. DO is the initial crac k length, and Ofd is the wumed
dy namic yield stre ngth, which the ASTM standard specifies at 205 MPa (30 ksi) above
the ql.lA.$istalic value. Since unstable crac k propagation results in vcry high strain rates,
the recommended estimate of ard is probably very conservative.
II the above validity requireme nts are satisfi ed and all other provisions of ASTM E
122 1 arc followed, KQ = Kia.

7.7 . ' RA CT URE TESTING OF WELDMENTS

All of the test methods discussed so far are suitable foc specimens extrac:ted from uniform
sections ofhomogencous material. WcldedjoinlS. however, have decidedly heterogeneous
microstnlClures and. in many cases, irttgular s!\apes. Weldmc nts also contain complex
residual stress distributions. ExiSiing fracture toughness testing standards do no( address
the special problems associated with weld ment testing. 1lIc facton that make weldmcnt
tcsti ng difficu lt (i.e. heterogeneous microstructures. irregular shapes. and n:sidual stresses)
also tend to increase the risk of brittle fracture in welded structures. Thus, one cannot
simply evaluate the re gions of a struct ure where ASTM testing SWIdards apply and ignore
the fracture properties of weldments.
Although there are currently no fracture toughness testing standards for weldrnents, a
number of labonitories and industries have significant experience in this area. !be
Welding Institute in Cambridge, England, which probably has the mO$t expenise, has re-
cently published detailed recommendations for weldment testing 134]. !be International
Institute of Welding (llW) has produ~ a similar document [3.5]. althouih not as detailed.
The American PelrOleum Insti tute (AP I) has published guideli nes for heat affected lOne
(HAZ) testing as part of a wdd procedure qualification approach [36J. Committees within
ASTM and BS! are currently dramng weldment test methods, relying heavily on 20 year1'
of practical experience as well as the aforementioned documents.
Some of the general considerations and current Il:commendations for wddment test-
ing are outlined below, with emphasis on 'The Welding Institute procedure [34] because it
is the most complete document to dale . Early drafts of both the ASTM and BSI guide-
lines incorporate many of the: suggestions in 'The: Weldi ng InstitulII document.
When performing fracrure toughness tests on weldmenl.'l, a number of fact0r5 need
specia l consideration. Specimen design and fabrication are more difficult because of the:
irregular shapc.$ and curved surfaces associated with some: welded joints. The heteroge-
neous microslf\lCtute of typical weldments requiru special attention to the locatioo of the
notch in the test specimen. Residual stresses make: fatigue: precraclci ng of weldment spec-
imens IllOf"C difficull. After the test, a weldment must often be sectioned and uamined
met.allographically to determine whether or not the fatigue crack samp led the intended mi-
croslf\lCtUIl:.
FroctuN!: Toughness Testing of Metals 403

7.7.1 Specimen Design and Fabrication

1lIc underlying philosophy of the Welding Institute [34J guidelines on specimen design
and fabrication is that the spec imen thickness should be as c lose to me section thickness
as poss ible. lbicker specimens tend 10 produce more crack tip constraint, and hence
low.:r toughness (See Chapters 2 and 3). Achieving nearly full thiclrness weldment speci·
mens often requires sacrifices in other ~as. For example if a specimen is to be exU"aCted
from a curved se<;tion such as a pipe, one can either produce a subsiu rectangular speci-
men which meets the tolerances of the existing ASTM standards, or a full thickness spec-
imen that is curved. TIle Welding Institute recommends the latter.
If curvature or distortion of a weldment is excessive, the specimen can be straight-
ened by bending on either side of the notch to produce: a ~gull wing" <;onfiguration, which
is illustrated in Fig. 7.30. The bending must be performed so that the three loading
points (in an SENB specimen) ~ aligned.

FIGURE 7.31) Th<I"U-..tq <ODlIpratlon for ....d.... nt Ipe............ Ith ... ~..., ........Iu... r:WI.

Fabrication of either a compact or SENB weldment spec imen is possible. but the
SENB sp«imen is preferable in nearly every case. Although the compact specimen con-
sumes less material (for a given B and W) in parent rnelaileslS, il requires more weld
mellli in a thtollgh-thiclrness orientation (L-T or T-L) than an SENB specimen (Fig. 7.2).
It is impractical to use a compact geometry for surface notched specimens (T-S or L-S);
such a specimen would be greatly undersized with the standard B X 2B gC(lmeD"y.
The Welding Institute recommendations cover both the n::ctanglllllT and square sec-
tion SENB specimens. The appropriate choice of specimen type depends on the orienta·
tion of the notch.

7.7.2 Note h LocatioD a Dd OrientatiOD

Weldments have a highly heterogeneous microstructure. Fracture toughness can vary

considerably over relative ly short distances. Thus it is imponant to IlIke great can:: in lo-
cating the fatigue cracl:: in the correct region. If the fracture tooghness test is designed to
simulate an actual structural ftaw, then the fatigue crack must sample the same mi-
crostructure as the flaw. For a weld procedure qualificalion or a general IISSC$SmeDt of a
w.:ldmcnt's fracture tooghness, location of the crack in the most brittle region may be de-
si rable, but ;t is difficult to know in advance which region of the weld has the lowest
toughness. 1 is u~ly associated.-With
the c~ HAZ. A microhardness survey can
404 Chapter 7

help identify low toughness IllgiOllS because high hardness is often coincident ",ilb b_rittle
behavior. ~ safest approach is 10 perform fracture tough.ness tests on a variety of re-
gions in a weldmenl.
Once the microstruclUre of interest is identified. a notch orientation must be se·
lected. l11e IWO most common alternatives are a through-thickness nOlch. and a surface
notch, which are illustrated in Fig. 7.31. Sin~e ful11hickness spcx:imens are dcsillrl. the
surface notched specimen should be square section (BXB). while the through thickness
DOlCh will usually be in a rectangular (8 X 28) specimen.
For weld metal testing. the thtough-thiclr::ncs$ orientation is usually preferable be-
cause a variety of regions in the weld are sampled, However, there may be cases where
the surface notched specimen is the most suitable for testing the wc:ld metal. For exam-
ple, a surface nolch can sample a particular region of the weld metal. such. as the nK>I or
cap. or the notch can be located in a particular mierostructun. sueh as unrefined wel d
metal.

n CIJRE 7.J t NotdI orittu.tlollin ,..ldm... t.pHI ...... IMJ.

Notch location in the HAZ often depends on the type of weldment. ]fwelds arc pr0-
duced solely for medlllnical testing, for example as part of a weld procedure qualification
or a resean:h program, the welded joint can be designed to fKilitate HAZ testing. Figure
7.32 illustrates the K and llalf-K preparations. which simu late double- V and single- V
welds. respectively. 11lt: plates should be tilted when these weldmenlS are made, 10 have
the $&JIle angle of anock for the electrode as in an Ktual single- or double-V joint. For
fracture tOlJghness testing. a through-thickness notch is placed in the straight side of the
K or hal f-K HAZ.
In many instances. fracture toughness testing must he performed on an actual pro-
duction weldment, where the joint geometry is governed by the structural design. In such
Fracturr TONghntu TtstinB of MtUJu 405

cases, a surface notch is orten necessary fOf the c rack to sample suffu::icnt HAZ material.
The measured toughness is sensitive to the volume of HAZ material samplcd by the crack
tip because of the weake$t link nature of cleavage fracture (sec Chaplcr 5).
Another application of the surface notched oricntation is the si mul ation of structural
naws . Fiaure 7.33 illustrates HAZ naws in a structural weld and a surface notched frac·
tun: toughness specimen that models one of the flaws.
Fiaure 7.33 demonstrates the advantages of allowing a range of aIW ratios in surface
notched specimens. A shallow notch is often required to locate a crack in the desired re-
gion, but existing ASTM standards do not allow o/W ratios Ius than 0.45. Shallow
notched fracture toughness speci mens terwllo have lower constraint than deeply cracked
specimens, as Figs 3.28. 3.44 and 3.45 illustrate. Thus there is a conni CI between the
need to simulate a suuclurai condition and the traditional fracture mechanic.t approach,
where a toughneS5 value i5 supposed to be a size independent material propcn )'. One wa)'
to resolve this oonnkl is through constnl.int corrections, such 115 that applied to the data
in Figs. 3.44 and 3.45.

(.I) Hdf-K weld

FIGURE 70ll SpecIal •• td Joint dal~ for frat-

lu .... toulll_ IOIlInlof tho h•• ,·.fI'..,11NI l one
(IIAZI l.:w).

(b) K weld

I)) Tal P I ~" ... tlI""uleUdlirudunJn. • .

Y1GUIlE 7.JJ Ta t opedaoa .lIb DMdI orkllUOtioa ..... ckpIb tII.t lII.tdta. n..I" UIN(!1lft (34).
7.7.3 Fatlaue Precuckina

Weldmcnts that have JJ(It been strus relieved typicllIly contain compie" residual sm55 dis-
uibuti~ thai interfere wilh fatigue piccrxking of frxlure tnuglmeu specimeru;. Teru;ik
residual strnses accelerate fatigue crack initiation and growth, tNt i;omPRSSi~ sttnsn ~
lard faligue. Since residualsllUSes vary through the cross .section, fatigue crack fronb ID
as·welded samples are typically very lIOIlunifOfTll,
Towers and Dawes [37) evaluated the various melhods fO£ producing straight fatigue
cracks in welded specimens, including reverse bending, high R ratio, and local compru-
sion.
1be fim method bends the $pecimc:n in the opposite direction to the oonnaJ loadinJ
configuration to prodUi:C residual tcnsilc S\reMCS along the crack front that counterb.lance
the comprc.uive stresses. AlthouJh this technique givel some improvement, it does not
produce acceptable fatigue crack fronts.
The R ratio in fatigue cracking is the ratio or the minimum stress to the muimum.
A high R ratio minimi~ the effect o f residual stresses on fatigue, but also tends to in-
crease the apparentlnuglmesli o f the tipCCimcn. In addition. fatigue precracking at a high
R ratio takes much longer tnan preaacking at R '" 0.1. the recommended R ratio of the
various ASTM fl1lCture testing litandards.
The only method evaluated that produced consistently straight fatigue cracks was lo-
cal compression, where the ligament is compressed to produce nominally I % plastic
strain through the thickness, mechanically relieving the residual stresses. However, locil
compreSlion can reduce the toughness slightly. T owers and Dawes concluded thai the
benefits o fkJcal compression outweigh the dis-dvantages, particularly in Ihe absence of a
viable alternative.

7.7.4 Po!I·Test Analysis

Correct plllCCment of a fatigue crack in weld metal is usually not diffICult because this re-
&ion is relati vely homogeneous. 1be microstrucl ure in the HAZ. however, can change
dnunalically over very small distances. ~ phcemcnl of a fatigue crack in the HAZ
is often IICcompliltJed by trial and error. Beeau~ fatigue cracks are usually slightly
bowed. the precise location of the crack tip in the (:enter of. specimen cannot be inferred
from observations on the surface of the specimen. Thus HAZ fracture toughncss speci-
mens must be examined mctallographically after the tesl to dclemtlne the microstructure
that initiated fracture . In cenain cases, post'Iest e.a:amination mly be required in weld
metal specimc:ns.
Figure 7.34 illustrates I procedure for sectioaing surface notched and through-thick-
ness notched specimens (34]. First, the origin of the fracture must be located by the
chevron markings o n the fracture surface. After marking the origin with a small spot of
paint the specimen is sectioned perpendicular to the fracture surface and examined melli-
lographic.aJly. 1he specimeD should he sectioned sliahtly to one side of the origin and
polished down to the initiation site. 1be spot of paint appears on the polished specimen
when the origin is reac:hed.
Frucrun ToughMu Tuting of Metals 407

The API document RP2Z [36] out linel a po$l-iesl analy,i, o f HAZ specimens
which is more detailed and cumbersome than the procedure outlined above, In addition to
sectioning the specimen, the amount of coarse-grained material It the crack tip must be
quantified. For the test 10 be valid, at least 15% of the cnK:k front must be in the coarse-
gmined HAZ. The purpose of this procedure is to pre qualify steels with respect 10 HAZ
toughness, identifying those that produce low HAZ tOUghnC55 so that they can be rejected
before fabrication.

YIGUJlE 7.34 P.I-I.. I MCUoIolal ., ••• Id .. nl rr.c1U~ IOUlb_ opeel_a Ie kltalIry !be 1IlI·
craltrvdlUal Ib_'
tflused f'rKIu~.

7.8 TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF STEELS IN THE DUCTILE-

BRITTLE TRANSITION REGION

Oiapter 5 described the micromcchanisms of cleavage Cracture, and indicated that cleavage
toughness data tend to be highly scattered, especially in the tnrIsition region. Because of
this $ub$Wltiai $Caller, data shook! be treated statistically rather than detennin istically.
1lw is, a given stee l does nOl have a single value of toughness at a panicular temperature
in the transition region; rather, the material has a toughness distribution . Testing numer-
ous specimens to obtain a statistical distribution can be cI';pensive and time-consuming.
Fortunately, a methodology has been devcloped that greatly simplifi es this process for
structural steels. A drafl ASTM standard 138] for the ductile-brittle Ifatlsition region im-
plements this methodol08Y.
As discussed in Chapter 5. the cleavqe fncture toughness distribution can be repre-
sented by three-parameter Weibull distribution wilh I slope of 4 (Eq. 5.26). The draft
ASTM standard sets the threshold toughness, Kllli" equal to 20 MPa~ resulting in
408 Chllptu7

(7.23)

where F is the cumulative probability, KJc is the fracture toughness (iJlferred by conven-
ing lc to an equivalent K through Eq. (7.18», lind 8K is the 63rd percentile toughness.
Note thaI two of the three parameters in the Wei bull distribution are specified. in Eq.
(7.23) leaving only onc degree of freedom. A distribution !hat contains only one parame-
ler can be fil with II relatively small slUflplc size.
The draft ASTM standard accounlS for temperature dependence of lOughness through
ajrruwrt! (oughnen mllS1U CIlIVe approacb devetoped by Wallin [39]. Wallin observed
thaI II wide range of fcrritic Sleets have II characteristic fracture toughness-temperature
curve, and the only difference between different grades and heats of Sleel was the absolute
position of the curve with respect to temperature. High toughness steels have a low tran-
sition temperature and low toughness steels have II high transition temperature. The tem-
perature dependence of the median fracture toughness in the transition region can be esti-

"""'" from

Kk{ ..... , = 30+ 70oxP(0.019(T - T. )] (7.24)

where To is a reference transition lemperaturc in OC and the units on KJc are MPa,J;;. At
T= To, the medial fracture toughness = 100 MPa{;. Once To is known for a given
material, the fracture toughness distribution can be inferred as a function of temperature
through Eqs. (7.23) and (7.24).
TIle first step in determining To is to perform replicate fracture toughness tests at a
constan t temperature. The draft ASTM standard recommends at least 6 tests. These data
are then fit to Eq. (7.23) to detennine BK at the lest temperature. lbe median toughness
at this temperature can be inferred by selling F = 0.5 and solving for KJc in Eq. (7.23).
Finally, To is computed by reananging Eq. (7.24):

(7.25)

The draft ASTM standard recommends applying this procedure at several test temperatures
in order to obtain more than one estimate of To. Figure 7.35 schematically illustrates the
fracture toughness master curve for D particular sted. By combining Eqs. (7.23) and
(7.24), it is possible 10 infer median, upper-bound and lower-bound toughness as a func-
tion of temperature.
The master curve approach works best the ductile-brittle transition region. It may
not fit data in the lower shelf very well, and it is totally unsuitable for the upper shelf.
Equalion (7.24) increases without hound with increasing temperature, and mus does not
model the upper shelf.
Fmctun TOfighMss Tating ofM~/(;Ils ,..

I
-I-

TRMPERAllJRE

7.9 QUALITATIVE TOUGHNESS TESTS

Before the development of formal fracture mechanici mcthodolosy. en8inccn realized the
importance of matcrial toughness in avoiding brittle fl1lCtw"C. In 1901 a Mellf;h scientist
named G. Charpy developed a pendulum tUI that meuured the ellel"Jy of sc:panttion in
noIChcd metallic specimens. This eDCIgy was believed w be indicative of the re.$i$WlCe of
the lIII1CIial to britUc fl1lClure. An investigation o{the Libuty ship failures during World
War n revealed!hll frKtW"e was mueh more likely in sleeis with C1wpy energy lcss than
20/(15 ft-lb).
During lhe 19SOs. whe n Irwin and hi' colleasues M the N~v~1 R~Al"Ch Ll.hontory
(NRL) were fannulating the pr1l1f;iples of linear elastic fracture mechanicl, I metallurgist
at NRL IUIIIICd W.S. !>ellini developed the drop weight test. a qualitative measure of crack
IIITC5I tOllghncu.
Both the Charpy test and the Pellin; drop weight teslll/"e w ll widely applied today
to structural materials. AS1M has S'udardi:w:l the drop weight testS. as well as I. number
of related approaches, includi ng the Izcd, drop weighl tear and dynamic tear tests [4G-43)
(see below). Although lhese tests lock the mathematical rigor and predictive capabilities
of fracture mechanics methods, these approaches provide a qualitative indication of mate-
rial toughness. The advantage of these qualitative methods is tital they are cheaper and
easier 10 perform than fracture mechanics tests. TIlese tests arc suitable for material
screeoin& and quality COIIuol. btll are DO( reliable indicators of struCtural InteJrity.

7.9.1 Cbarpy and hod Impact Test

The ASTM Standard E 2)-88 (40) covers Clwpy and lzod tcsljnH. The.Ic teSts both in-
volve impacting a small notched bar ¥l'ith. pendulum and mel.$uring the fracture cnergy.
.10

The: Clwpy specimen is I. $ilDple D(M(:hed beam thlat is impacted. in three.point bendina:.
wllile the !zod Ipecimen;1 e&nlileVff bC!am WI ;1 fixed III one e nd and impllClec1 al the
I.
other. Fi~ 7.36 illustrates both type!! of test.
Charpyand lzod specimens are relatively ,mal l. and thus do II()( consume mudl mao
terial. The standard cross settion of both specimens is 10 mm x 10 mm, and the Icnglhli
are.5$ and 7$ mm for Charpy and lux! spec imens, respectively.
The pendllium device pmvide. a simple bUI clelanl method for quantifying fracture
cnerJlY. As Fig. 7.37 illusUl«5, the pcndullim is released from a heiaht YJ and ,wings
through the specimen \0 a height 12. Allum;na: ~glilible frielion and aerodynamic: drag,
the eoerlY absorbed by the specimen is cq\llllO the height difference times the wc;,ht of
the pendulum. A simple mechanical device on !he Charpy machine converts the height
differtna: W I. dirttt read-oo\ of absortled enefl)'.
A numbCT of invcstig.w:n [4+<t91 have Mte~ to correlateCharpy enelJ)' to frac·
lure toughness parameters slEh as KIt_ These empirical COffeI.lions 5eem 10 wort rea-
sonably _II in some I;tiC:S, but are unreliable in general. There are sevenl important dif·
fenmces between the Charpy test and fl'1ll:lurc mechanics tc:sts that preclude lim ple 1111.-
tionships between the qualiwive and quantitative measullis of toughness. "The ChIrpy
test contains a blunt notch. wbile fractulli mechania specimens have 5harp fatigue cracks.
"The Charpy specimen is subsizc, and thus has low ,onsninl. In addition, the Charpy
specimen e~pcriences impact loading, while most fracture toughness teslS IlIli conducted
under quasistalic cOllditiollli.
It is possible 10 obtain quantitative information from fatigue precTacked Charpy
specimens, prov>dcd the tup (i.e. the ~trikeT) i. instrumented [SO,SI). Such an c~periment
is essentially a miniature dynamic fracture toughness test.

nGURE 7..16 CIoarpJ ..... b""_HoI _pod 1..10 I"' ~

FrocfNre T""gwn Testing of Melau 4 11

L
7.9. 2 Drop Weight Tes t

The ASTM standud E 208·81 [41] outlines fhe procedure for performin, the fellini drop
weight leSt. A platc specimen .... tth I starter notch In • brink weld belld Is Impaned in
Ihtec·point bendin,. A cleavage cnck initiates in the weld bead and runs into fhe ~nt
metal. If the materi.1 is sufflciutly tough. the ClllCk arrests: otherwise the specimen frac·
tllres oomplctely.
Figure 7.38 il1uslTates th~ drop weight specimen and thc testing fixture . The
cmsshead drops onto the specimen. causing it to deflect I prcdctennincd amounL lbc fix·
t\lre is (!esiincd wilk! a den.,;tion stop. which lintilS the displacement in fhe specimen. A
cnck initiates at the SIIU'Icr llIXeh and ei!her propai1tes Of arreSIll, dependin, on the tern·
peratun and material propenin. A Mbn:ak l'C$ull is recorded when the running crack
H

reaches at least one specimen edie. A "no-break reSlll! is recorded if the cnck arrests in
H

the parent metal. Figure 1.39 gives uamples of break and no-break resuill.
A nil-ductility transition temperature (NUTI') IS obtamcd by performing drop weight
tests over a ranac of tcmperaturu, in SoC or lOOF iDCremcnlS. When a no-break result is
recorded, the tcmpcnlm>:: is decreased for the Mxttese: Ie$t tempcrat~ i. irw:reased wben a
specimen fai ls. When break and no-brcak l'CS\I[ts are obtained at adjoininl tempcrarures.•
second test is performed at the r.o-bn:ak temperature. If this specimen fails. a test is per-
formed at one temperature incn:mc:nt (SOC or IO"F) hisher. The proceSi is repeated until
IWO no-break results arc obtained II onc temperature. The NDTT is defined as SOC or
1O"F below the lowest tcmpcratlR where IWO no-breaks arc n:cordcd..
TIle nil-ductilily transition temperature gives a qualilative eslimate of the ability of
a matcriallO Drre$1. runlling crac:k. Arrest in SlruCtlll'C$ il more likcly 10 OOXlIr if the ser·
vice tempcrat\lfe is abovc NDlT. bIIt stnlCtures above NDlT Ife not immune 10 brittle
""'"".
412 7

TIle ship building industry in the United States currently uses the
to qualify steels for ship hulls. The nuclear power industry re lies prima ,-"
live fracture mechanics methodology, but uses the NDlT to index fractul
for different heats of steel (see Chapter 9). "

8ti

Anvil

.~.

FIGUJlE 7.39 Eu.mples"'''rak ""d noo-brak bt/la..1or III drop wtlpllelts. A b..,
tbe crsck radteo at Itut ......... 01 tile I pecllDen.

7.'.3 Drop Weight Tear and Dynam!( Tear Tellu

Drop weight tear alld dynamic tear tests are similar to the Charpy leSI, except that the
former are performed on large sped mens. The ASTM standards E 604-83 (43J and E 436-
74 [4Zj cover drop weight tear and dynamic tear tests, res~tivdy. Both test methods
 Fracture Toughness Tesling of Metals 413

util ize three point bend speci mens that are impacted in a drop tower or pendulum ma-
chine.
Drop weight tear specimens are 41 mm ( 1.6 in) wide , 16 mm (0.625 in) thick. and
are loaded o ver a span of 16j mm (6.5 in ). 1llese specimens contain a sharp machined
notch. A 0.13 mm (0.010 in) deep indentation is made at the tip of this notch. 1be frac-
ture energy is measured in this test, much like the Charpy and lrod tests. Since drop
weight speci mens are significantly larger than Charpy specimens. the fracture energy is
much greater, and the capacity o f the testing machine must be scaled accordingly. If a
pendulum machine is used, the energy can be detennined in the nme manner as in the
Cbarpy and bod tests. A drop test must be instrumented, however; because only a por-
tion of the potential e nergy is absorbed by the specime n; the remainder is transmitted
through the foundation of the drop lower.
1be dynamic tear lest quantifies the lOughness of steel through the appearance of tile
fracture surface. In the ductile·brittle transition region, a dynamic test produces a millture
of cleavage fnleture and miCl'Ovoid coalescence; the relative amount of each depends on the
test temperature. The percent ~shear" on the fracture surface is reponed in dynamic tear
tests, where the so-<:alled shear fracture is actually miC£Ovoid coalescell(:e (Chapte r 5).
Dynamic tear specimens an: 76 rom (3 in) wide, 305 rom (12 in) long, and are loaded over
a span of 254 mm (10 in). The specimen thickness is equal 10 the thickness of the plate
under consideration. 1be notch is pressed into the specimen by indentation.

REFERENCES
H
I. E 616-89. "Tmninot08Y Relating to Fn<;ture Testing. American Sodef)' for Tel-linl
and Mlterials. Philadelphil, 1989.

2. E 399·83, "Standard Test Mahod for Plane·Strain Fracture Toujhness of Mellilic

Materials.H American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 19&3.

3. Bater, A., HA DC Potential Drop Procedun: for Crac:k Inilillion and R Curve
Measurementl Durinj Ductile Fncture Teste ASTht S1l' 8.56, American Society of
Testing IOd Materials, Philadelphia, 198.5, pp. 394-410.

4. Schwalbe, K-H, Hellmann, D.• Heerens, J.. Knaack , J., Muller-Roos, J.. HMeuuremcnt
of Slable Crack Growth Including DeICClion of Initiation of Growt.b Using the DC
Potential Drop and the Partial Unto.dina Methods. ASTM STP 8~. American Society
H

of TCsUfII and Materials, Phil.Jclphia, 1985. pp. 338-)62.

H
.5 . E 813-89. "Standard Test Method for lie,. Meuure of Fl'ICIure TOUjlmeu. American
Society for Testing and Mllerials, Philadelphia. 1987.

6. E 11.52·87 HStandard Test Method for Determining J·R Curves." American Society for
Testina Md Material$, Philadelphia, 1987.

7. Dawes. M.G. - El astic·Plutk: Fracture ToupncSi Based on the COD and J-Contour
Integral ConcepU.H ASTM STP 668, American Society of Testing and Mlterials.
Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 306-333.
41 4 Chapter 7

8. ....nder$(ln, T.L., McHenry, H.I. and Dawes, M.G., "Elastic_Pl astic Fracture Toughne..
T<:$Iing with Single Ed~ Notched Bend Spe<:imens. H
STM S1l' 856, Ameriean Society
....

of Testing and Materials, PhilBdelphia, 1985. pp. 210-229.

9. Andrews, W.R. and Shih, c'F.. "'Thickne.s and Side·Groove ECfectl on J. and S·
Resistance Curves for A53J·B Steel at 93°c''' ASTM STP 668, American Society of
Testing and Material., Philadelphia, 1919, pp. 426-4SO.

10. BS 5441:1914 "Methods of Testing for Plane Strain Fracture Toughneu (Kl c) of
Metalli c Materials." British Standards hlStitution. London, 1974.
M
II . "Standard Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughneu . (Draft), American Society of
Tesling and Materials, Pbiladdpltia, 1994,

12. E 561·92a, "Standard Practice for R·Curve Determination." American Society of

Testing and Malerials, Philadelphia, 1986.

13. Stricklin, L.L., ''(kometry Dependence of Crack Growth Resi&lance Curves in Thin
Sheet Aluminum Alloys." Master of Scicnu Thesis. Tuas A&M UnivCfsity, College
Station. TX, December 1988.

14 . "Standard Test Method for j·lntegral Characterization of Fracture Toughne ..," (Dn.ft),
American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994.

IS. l oyce, I.A. and Hackett. E.M .• "Development of an Engineering Definition of the
Elltent of J Singularity Controlled Crack Growth," NUREGfCR·5238, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Washington, D,C.. May 1989.

16. Andenon. T.L. and Dodds, R.H.• Ir .. "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture
Toughn.,.. Te.ting in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region." JoumtA/ of TeJlill8 an4
£vtA/ualioll, VoL 19. 1991. pp. 123-134.

11. Anderson, T.L. and Dodds, R.H.. Jr.. "An fuperimeDtai and Numerical Inve~tigation of
Specimen Siu Requirements for Cleavage Fracture Toughneu." NUREGfCR_6212,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, (in preu).

18. BS 5762: 1979, "Methods for Crack Opening Displacement (COD) Test;ng." British
Standards institution. London. 1919.

19. E 12g.o.93 ~Standard Test Method for Crack Tip Opening Displacement Testing. H

American SOCiety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 1989.

20. Sorem, W.A., 'The Effect of Specimen Size and Crack Depth on the Elastic·Plaslic
M
Fracture Toughneu of a Low Strength High_S train Hardening Steel. Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Kanu.s, Lawrence, KS , May 1989.

21 . Duffy. 1. and Shih, C.F .• "Dynamic Fracture Toughnes. Measurements for Brittle and
DucUle Malerials." Advtmces in Frac,ure R~clUCh: !kvcnrh 'nlCrn4riona/ COIIferclICe
"" FrtAclwTt .• Pergamon Press. Oxford. 1989, pp. 633-642.

22 , Sanford, R.I. and Dally. J.W.. HA Genc:raJ Method for Dctcnnining Mi.lI;l;i·M(l(Ic: Stress
InteMily Facton from ISOChromatic Fringe Patterns." Engilleerin8 Fraclwre Mechan ics.
Vol. II. 1919. pp. 621-633.
FrllClun Toughness Testing of Muau

23. Cbona, R., Irwin, G.R., and Shukla, A .• "Two and Three Parameter R,
Crack Tip Suess Fields.~ JourMl of Slrailt AIIO/yJis. Vol. 17. ]982. pp

24 . Kalthoff. J.F.• Beinan, J .. Winkler. S.• and Klemm. W.. "E.l.perimc~

Dynamic Effe<,:U in Different Crack Arrest Test Specimens." ASTM sn
Society for Testing and Material l. l'Iliiadclpbia. 1980. pp. ]09-127.

25 . Nakamura. 1'.• Shih. C.F. and Freund. L.B.. "Analysis of a Dynamica]])

Point· Bend Ductile Fracture Spc~imcn."· Enginccring Frac/ure Mu i
[986. pp. 323_339.

26. Nakamura. 1'.• Shih. C.F. and Freund. LB .. lbree-Dimcnsional Transie

Dynamically Loaded Three-Point-Bend Ductile Fracture Spccimcn.... A
Vol. I. American Society of Telting and MaterialS, Pltllade]phia, 1989,

27. Joyce J.A. and Hacket. E.M .• "Dynamic J-R Curve Telting of. High
Ulina; tbe Multispecimen and Key Curve TC(hniquel." ASTM S11'
Society of TO:Sling and Materials. Philadelphia, 1984. pp. 74]-774.

28. Joyce J.A. and Hackel. E.M., "An Advanced Procedure for J-R Curve'
Drop Tower.~ ASTM S11' 995. American Society or To:sling and Maleria
1989. 298-317.

29. Robenson. T.S .. "Brittle Fracture of Mild Slccl.~ Engineering. Vol.

445·448.

30. Naus, D.J .. Nanstad, R.K .• Bass. B.R.. Merkle. J.O .. Pugh. C.B .• Cor
Robinson G.C .• ''CraI:k-ArreSl Bebavior in SEN Wide Plates of Quenche<
A 533 Grade B S!eel Tested under Nonisothcrmal Conditions.'" NUREG
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D.C.. AUKU!! 1987.

31. E 1221-88. ~Standard Method for Determining Plane-Strain CTKk-An

Kia, of Ferritic Steel .... American Society of Testing and Materials, Phil

32. Crosley. P.B. , Fourney. W.L. Hahn. 0.1' .. Hoagland. R.O .• Irwin. 0 .1
B.J .. "Final Report on Cooperative Test Program on Crack An
Measurements." NUREOICR-3261 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Washington. D.C .• April 1983.

33. Barker, D.B.. Chona, R .. Fourney, W.L .. and Irwin. O.R .. "A Repo!1
Robin Program Conducted to Evaluate the Proposed ASTM TCSl Method
the C,.ck AJTCJiI Fracture Toughness, Kia, of Ferritic Materials.~ Nl
January 1988.

34. Dawes. M.O .• Pi unki. H.O. and SquirreU. H.O .• "'Fracture M<:ehanici 1
Joints" ASTM STP 99S. Amcrican Society of Testing and Material:
1989, pp. 11_191 - 11-213.

3S. Salok K. and Toyoda, M.. ·'Guidelines for Fracture M<:ehanies Testing
Working Oroup on Fraclure M<:ehanics Telling of Weld MeI8IIHA;
Institute of Welding. Commission X, UW Documcnt X- 1113-86.
 4 16 Chapter 7

36. RP 2Z. "Recommended Practice for Preproduction Qualification of Steel Pl ales for
Offshore StruClures.~ American Petroleum [",I'tute. 1981.

37. Towers 0 .1.. and OIWCI. M.G .• "Wcldingln'lilU(c RCJean:h on tile Fatigue Precrack.ing
of frlct~ TougllDen Specimens.~ ASTM STP 856. American Sodety of Tati", and
Malerials, PbiJr.dclphil, 1995. pp. 2346.

38 . -rQt Pnaice (Method) for Frlcture Toughness in tho: Transition Rana;e. ~ ( Dnoft)
American Societ.y of Testinl and Maleriall, PbilDlphia, 1994-

39. Wallin. K.• "FrIoCflUt Tooghneu TWlJilioo Curve SNpe fIV Fcrritic Strucrural Sleels.~
Proceedingl of the Joint FEFGIICP Intcmational Conference on Frlcture of Enginttring
Material,. Singaporc. August 6-8. 1!I'91. pp. 83-88.

40 . E 23·88. '"SWldatd Test MtIbods {IV NOIclled 8ar Impact Testint of MClIllic MateriaJl.~
Amerif;an Soeil:ly of Tdlina and MIICriaII. Philadelphia, 1988.

4[ . E 2(18.V. "StaDdatd Te~ Metbod for COlldlKtiIll Drop-WciSbl Te~ to Oet.ermlne Nil·
Ductility Tl"Ullition Tem~n: of Fmtic SteelL ~ American Society of Te.RinS and
Material,. PhililC:lclphia, 1981.

42 . 1l436-14. ~S tandard Method for Drop-Weight Tcar Tem of Fmtic Stee:II.~ American
Society of Teltin,and Materials, Pbiladclphla. 1914.

43 . E 604-83. ~Stand"d Test Method for Dynamic Tear Testing of Metallic M .teriall.~
American Society of Te.Ring and Maleria", Philr.dclphia, 1983.

44 . Marandet. B. and Sanzo G.• ~EVlI\Ultion of the Toug.lnlc:n of Thlck Medium Stmlgth
Steeb by LEFM and C~l.uiaos Between Kit and CVN.~ ASn.1 S11' 631, American
Society of Testillj and Materials, Philldelpllla. 1917. pp. 12·9'.

45 . ROlfe. S.T. and Novak. S.T .. "Slow Bend Kt< Testin8 of Medium Slrcnglh Higb
Tough",,11 Sleell." ASTM STP 463. American Society of Telting and Malerials.
Philadelphia. 1910. pp. 124-IS9.

46 . Barson>, J.M. and Rolfe. S.T .• "Correlation Between Klc and Charpy V Notch Tes{
Results in the Transition Tempenture itln&e.~ ASTM STP~, American Society of
Testing and Materiall. Philadelphia. 1970. pp. lI l-30 I.

47 . Sailon. R.H. and Cone-n. H.T .• ~ Rclilionlhip between Material Frlcture TOIIghlltJl
Using Frxtun: Meclwtics and Transition Tempcntun: Tesu.~ AS"Th1 STP ~14. American
Society of Teslina and Materials. Philllkiphia, 1913, pp. 164-191 .

48 . Begley. J.A. and Logsdon. W.A.. ··Correlation of Fracture Toughnell and Charpy
Propenies for ROfor Steels.~ Westinghou$e Re pon, Scientific Paper 71 ·I E7. MSLRF·
P I·1911.

49 . Ito. T .• Tanaka, K. and Silo. M. "Study of Brinle Fnocture lniti.rion from Surface Notch
In Wd<kd Fulion Unc.~ IIW Ootumc:nl X-704-7JO. Sepu:mba 197J.

SO. WuUacn, R.I. .• -Applications of the IMUU""'ntcd Owpy Impact Tes{. ~ ASTM STP 466.
American Society of Tmilll and Materiall, Pbilr.dclphia. 1910, pp. 148·164.
 APPENDIX 7: EXPERIMENTAL
ESTIMATES OF DEFORMATION J

This appendix pre5Cnts. derivation ofEq. (1.15b), which estimates the plastic component
of the deformation theory J for a growing crack. Only the plastic component need be
considered here, beclL15e the elastic J at any point in the teSI cllII be wmpulcd directly
from the w=nl load and crack Itnat/!.
Fig=: A7.1 &bows I schematic load-plastic displllCCmCnt curve for. growing crack.
Consider Iwo ne ighboring points on the curve. where the (;1111;(,:; groWl from (lIIO.:l2. and
the plastic component of the J integral varies from J J 10 JZ. wI! of 1hese J values can
be computed from the atel under the appiopriale "deformation theory" curve. For exam·
pie, J I is liven by

J _ rJ1Apl(OA BE)
(A7. 1)
1- BNq

where "'pl(GA-BE) is the area defined by the corresponding points in Fi,. A7. 1. It i.
convenient 10 separate JZ in10 two components:

Jz ,.. rJ2 A pl(OCDE) + T/2 A pl(EDFG )

BN!>' BN!>'

(A7 ,2)

As.$ume thai/ J is known, and that we wi$h 10 comptJle '2- First, lei U5 detennine the re-
lationship between J I and la. the component of JZ U\II corn:sponds 10 !he displacement
.1J. This rclatioosllip can be approximated by

(AU)

"The partial derivative, for the general case. can be wived as (ollows:

4 18
 ...
WAD

y.--~-p,
0 I
-p,
I
I I
I I

PLASTIC DISPLACEMENT
I'IGUJlI: A1.1 SdtnoI •• 1c _.pIarUc cllop __ mt toano r.,..aopcaiu . .. 1II .~I<~ IlIoo tnd! ....... r. . .
-I "'·1'

(A7.4)

Rccalilhe energy ~Ie_ rate definition of Jpf.

J I = __ '_(OAda pl )

'.
(AU)
P BN

Substituting Eq. (A7.S) into Eq. (A7.4) leo 10

PI)
(oJiia. =: -r!J! (A7.6)
b
•
Y. ('1 - 1+ ..!..~ dtJ )
nW d(blW)
(AU)
42. Apprndu 7

Evaluating !he derivative in Eq. (A7.3) al J J gives

(A7.8)

For a deeply notched SENB specimen. IJ" 2; thus r= 1, and EG. (A7.8) reduces 10

(A1.9)

For a deeply notched compact specimen, 'I is apprOKimalcly given by Eq. (?llb).
Substituting this result inlo Eq. (A7.7) gives

=1+0.S22bJW+ O.522b1W
r 2+0.522bIW

which can be approximated by

r"'1+O.76blW (A7.1O)

for 0.50 s: aIW S 0.70.

The second term in Eq. (A7.2), 1{J. can be estimated in a numilcr of ways, including

(A7.1 I)

which is a good approllmation, provided !he load (on !he deformation theory curve for 12)
docs not vary significantl)' between ..dol and .do2. The ASTM Standard E 1152-81 chose
the following estimate for J{J

(A7.12)

Summing Ja(Eq. (A7.8» and the ASTM estimate for 1{J(Eq. (A7. 12) gives

(A1. 1l)
Expen'mentaf EstinuJtes of fHfonnotion J 421

which is e~ntially identical to Eq, (7, l.Sb). The J-R curve can be computed by applying
Eqs. (7. ISa) and (7. ISb) to successive increments of crack growth.
Figure A7.2 illustnl.tes the numerical error that results from Eq. (A7.13). Note that
this equation causes a slight underestimate of '/J 1bere may also be small errors in the
estimate o f 'a, since a partial deri vative is applied to a finite chan ge in crack size (Eq.
(A7 .3». Equation (A7.9), however, is rigorously correct for a deeply notched bend spec-
imen. This can be readi ly shown by applying the dimensional argument that was invoked
in Section 3.2.5.

WAD

- - p,

PLASTIC DISPLACEMENT

FIGURE A7.l ScM_tk UI..lntloli ofthc tlTO!' IftJp l u..t .....1U from &cr.. (A1.IJ).
 8. FRACTURE TESTING OF
NONMETALS
TIle procedures f or fracture toughness testing of metals, which an: described in Chapter 1,
are fairly well established. Fracture testing of plastics, composites and ceramics is
relatively new, however, and there atll a number of unresolved isslK's.
Although many aspects of fracture toughness testing are similar for metalli and
nonmetals, there are several important differences. In some cases. metals fracture testing
technology is inadequate on theoretical grounds. For example, the mechanical behavior of
plastics can be highly rale dependent, and composi tes often violate continuum as-
sumptions (see Chapler 6). lltere are also more prngmalic differences between fracture
testi ng of melau and nonmetals. Ceramics, for instance, are typically very hard and
brittle, which makes speci men fabrication and testing mou difficult.
This chap ter briefly summarius the current procedures for measuring fracUJre
toughness in plastics, fiber-reinforced composites, and ceramics_ Th e reader should be
fami liar with the material in Chapter 7, since much of the same methodol ogy (e.g.,
spe<:imen design, instrumentation, fracture parameten) is curre ntly be ing applied to non-
mews.

8.1 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MEASUREMENTS IN ENGINEERING

PLASTICS

Engineen and researchen who have attempted 10 measure fraclure toughness of plastics
have reli ed alm ost excl usively on metals testing tec hn ology. Existing experimental
approaches implicitly recognize the potential for time-dependent deformati on, hoi do nOI
specifically addn:ss viscoelastic behavior in most inslances. The recen t work of Schapery
[1.2] , who developed a viscoelastic I integral (Chapter 4). has not seen widespread
application 10 laboralor)' testing.
The Mode I Siren intensity factor, K/, and the (conventional) I integral were
ori ginally developed for time_independent material s. but may also be s uitable for
viscoelastic materials in cenain cases. The restri ctions on these parameten are explored
below. followed by a summary of procedures for K and I testing on plastics. Section
8. 1.5 briefly oUllines possible approaches for taking account of viscoelastic behavior and
time-dcpendent y ie lding in fracllU'e toughness measurements.

11.1 . 1 Thfl' Suiu.bility nr K aDd J for Polymu5

A number of investigaton [3-6J have reported KJc, IJc, and I-R curve data for plastics.
They applied testing and data anal ysis procedures thai are virtually identical to metals
approaches (Chapler 7). 'The val idity of K and I is not guaranteed. however. when a
material exhibits rate dependent mechanical properties. For example. neither I nor K are

.23
424 Chopl~r8

sui table for characterizing creep crack growth in metals (Section 4.2); I a.n alternate
parameter. C·, is required \0 account for lhe lime-dependent material behavior. S<:hapery
[1,2) has proposed an analogous parameter, Iv. to characterize viscoelastic materials
(Section 4.3).
Lei us examine the basis for applying K and J to viscoelastic materials, as well as
the limitaliolls on these parameters.

K.CtmtmUrd fmctua
Tn linear viscoelastic materials, remote loads and local stresses obey the same
relationships as in the linear elastic case. Consequently, the stresses near the crack lip
exhibit a ,rr; singularity:
(S.I)

and KJ is related to remote loads and geometry through the conventional linear elastic
fracture mechanics ( LEFM) equ ati ons inl10duced in Chapler 2. The strains and
displacements depend on the viscoelastic propenies, however. Therefore. the critical
stress intensity factor for a viscoelastic material can be rate dependent; a Klc value from a
laboratory specimen is U1U1sfenible to a structure only if the local crack tip strain histones
of the two configurations are similar. Equation (8. 1) on ly applies when yielding arKI
nonlinear viscoelasticity are confined to a small region surrounding the crack tip.
Under plane strain linear viscoelastic CQnditions. KI is related to the viscoelastic 1
integral, lv, as follow$ [II:

(8.2)

where ER is a reference modulus, which is sometimes defined as the shon·time relaxation

modulus.
Figull' 8.1 illustrates a growing crack at times 10 and 10 + Ipo 2 Linear viscoelastic
material surrounds a Dugdale strip yield zone, which is small compared to spec imen
dimensions. Consider a point A, which is at the leading edge of the yield zone at 10 and
is at the trailing edge at 10 + Ip. The si:tll of the yield zone and the crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD) can be approximated as follows (see Chapters 2 & 3);

• !iK
Pc =8 (Jcr ( )' (8.3)

In.. II ..... ;dl,", ily fOlClO< i( ",itabte fo< hi,*, temporal ..... bobaviO<;lI ~mitcd oj,uOIion$. A' ,hoot bmtl .
......... !he =cp 1.0"" if ""ali""d.a •• maIl .. po..
tip oonditi..... while C" ... app<Opriale ro< ... Kale
2nm deriv"i"", whioh was..:tapted from
<_.
'IlmIW><IiD, !he """"k bp, X uniqucty dw~ct.rius axk

Marl/u.ll. eI oJ. [7].;s ODly heuristic and appro.imaU!. Scbapery

to .....11 tbat oliff... ol;&hIty from Eq. (8 .9).
(81 pa1"",,",, . """" rigaro ... analysis lhalled
Fractur~ T~sting of Nonm~ta/s 425

" ..

FIGURE 8.1 end .n>wlb ala tomllllli CTOD I... u..... ,""""el.. tlc ",alert.l.

(8 .4)

where (Jer is the craling stress. Ass ume mal crack extension occurs at a constant CTOD.
The time intervallp is given by

- fr.
tp- . (8.5)
a
where;' is the crack veloc ity. For many polymers, the time-dependence of the relaxation
modulus can be represented by a si mple power law:
·16 CIlapt~r8

(8.6)

",hc~ EJ and II are material constants thai depend on temperature, If crati ng is assumed
10 occur al a critical strain thai is lime-i ndependent. the crazing stress is given by

(8.7)

SubstilUling Eqs. (8.5) 10 (8.7) into Eq. (8.4) leads 10

(S.8)

Solving fOf Pc and insertins the result in Eq. (8.8) ,ives

(8.9)

• and crack
Therefore, according 10 this anitlysis, fneture lOUgh..eSS is proportional to 0".
velocity varies as Kiln, Several investigll()($ have derived rc lations.hips similar to Eq.
(8.9), including Marshall. et 81.171 and Schapcry 18).
Figure 8.2 is • sche matic plot of crack velocity VCRUS K/ for various n values. In a
time-independent materi.l. n = 0; the crack remains stationary below Klc. and becomes
unstable wilen K/ " Klc_ In such materials, Klc is a unique material property. Most
melab and ceram ics are nearly time independent al ambie nt temperature. When /I > 0,
cnck propagation can occur over a range of K/ values. If, however, lI is small, the crac k
velocity is highly sensitive to stress intensity, and the;' - K/ curve exhibits a sharp kMe,
For example, if 11.0.1, the crack velocity is proponiOl1al 10 KIlO. In typical polymers
be low T g. II < 0 . 1.
Consider a shon-time K1c test on a material with II S 0.1, wheft K/ increases
monotonically until the sp«:imen fails. At low K/ values (i.e., in the early ponil){l of
the test), the crack ,rowlh would be negligible. The cr.u: k velocily wou ld accelerate
rapidly when the spec imen reached the kneel in !he;' - K/ curve. The specimen w ould then
fail at a critical KIe that would be relatively insensitive to rate. Thus if the knee in the
cr.u:k Vl:lociIY-strcss inteMity curve is suffICiently dwp, a short-time Xlc test can provide
a meaningful material properly.
One must be careful in applying a Kle value to a polymer siruciure, /)oy;ever.
While a swically loaded suueture made from. lime-independent nUlleriai will not fail as
long IS X, < X'c, $10101 crack growth below Xle docs oc<:ur in viscoell$lic malerials.
R«all from Chapter I lhe example of the polyethylene pipe that failed by time-dependent
axk IIl'Owth over. period of sevcral yean. The power La .... form of Eq. (8.9) elllbles
Ion,-tirnc behavior 1(1 be intCfTCd from """,·time lem, as Eumplc 8.1 illustnICI.
Eq ......tion (8.9) asaumca Ihlt the critic,1 CTOD for crack utellSio n il rate-
iftlkpeftlknl. which il , reasonable assumption for IlIIterills that are well belo .... T,. For
mlleri,l. near T,. wben: £ il hi,hly ICl1$itive to tempcnuun: and rate. the critical erOD
of\en cmibil.'l I ralC dependc:"", [3} .

•
.".
mme-Indrpe-ndont
Mal<riall

nG1IIlI!. Ll Mod "..,.... x, OM ..... - , . r.. a _ _ , " .............

, _.

(:XAMPLIE 8.1

Sboon-ti_ r....,..." lOO .. b_. _ "" • poly.- .poamm indiclte I orad velooity
0( 10 IDlIII$II Kk'" M.... .r,;;. Ir. pipe modo r.- tIIU .......... t<IIIlai.... flaw....,..
thII Kf" :u MF'II -.r;;;, ali....., Ihc orad ...,Iooity..........'" " " 0.08.

So/Mli"'" Si ..... d•• ~,""k velocity is proportiOllllto Kfns. the J1O..-tII .... II 2.'
MPJ ..r,;;;, p-, by

~ .. JO....n(1.1MPI.r,;Y2.S "O.OOf7....n .. 6.2-""'_

S MP" -r;;

I CqnqpIIaI fll!(lMCr
S<:hapery [1.21 hili inlrOduccd I viscoelastic J intesnt. J~. !hal lib, into ac:counl
various types of linear and _linear viscoelastic beh.vior. For any m.ateri.l!hat obeys
the assumed constitutive Ilw. S<:hlpel)' showed that J. uniquely defines the crlI:k lip
tondilioM (Section . _3.2). Thill J. iI. willble frll:ture criteria for I .... ide flllic of lime-
dependenl material.. 101011 pnctical applications of frll:lUJ"e mechanics to polytMrI,
428
however, have considered on ly the CQnvc nlionai J integral, which d~ nt
lime-depcndcnt deformation.
Conventional J teslS on polymers can provide useful information, bu
to recogni:u the limitations of such an approach. One way 10 assess the J
critical J dati for polymcn is by evaluating the relationship between J
following ellercise considers I constant rate frw:ture test 00 a yisooelastie rna
Re<:aJ l from Chapter 4 that strains and dispt~mcnts in viscoelastic rru
related 10 pseudo clastic quantities through hereditary integrals. For examp
clastic displacement, tJ.e is given by

,
t/ = EN I f E(t - T)~d'r
a"
o aT

where .Ii is the actual load line displacement and f is aD integration varial
(S. IO) SIems from the corresponde nce principle. and applies 10 lincal
mllerials for \I'hieh Poissoo 's ratio is conStant. This approach also appJ
ranlle of nonliMor viscoelastic material behavior, although E(t) and EN hi
different interpretations in the lalter case.
For a con~tanl d isplacement rate fTa(:ture test, Eq. (8.10) simpl ifies to

,
lJ.e = Li£R1 J E(t - -r)d-r
o

•
whereo4 is !he displacement rate and E(r} is a time·average mooulLlS, defined

'.
-I
E(I) =
I ' EO - T)dT

F igure 8,) schematically illLI$lraIC$load-displacement and load·psc:udo

curvu for comtant rate teSlS 011 Yiscoelastic materials. For a linear viscO(
(Fil- 8.3(&)), the p.o4l! curve is linear, wbile !he p.J1 curve is nonline;
dependence. EYaluation of pseudo straill5 and di$placemenu effectively re""' ..... ,,'" ""..,
dependen<:e. When d i$ eYaluated for a nonlinear viscoellillic material (FiS . 8.3{b», the
material nonliaearity can be de coupled from the time--dependeot nonlinearity.
1bc viscoe lastic J in tegral can be defined from the load--pscudo displacement curve;
 42.

(8) u...... "'-IMI1c .... terl ...

Jv--!['r o
Pdtl]
d'
(8.13)

wDcrc P is the applied load in. specimen of unilllliekness. Assl.lffie that the p-tJl! CIJI"VC
obeys a power law:

p 2!. M(t/)N (8.14)

430
where M and N arc lime-independent parameters; N is a material property, while M
depends on both the material and geomeuy. For ,linear viscoelastic materi.al, N. I, and
M is the elastic stiffness. Insenini Eq. (8. 14) inlo Eq. (S.ll) leads to

(8.IS)

Solving for J v in lenns of physical displlM;cmenl (Eq. (8. 11» gives

(8. 16)

Lei us now evaluate J from the same constant rate test:

(8. 17)

The load clln be expressed as I function of physical displacement by combinina Eqs.

(8. 1I) and (8. 14);

(8. 18)

Substituting Eq. (8. IS) into Eq. (8. L7) leads to

(8. 19)

•
since <Ii :z d t. 1hr:refore.

J" :: 1,(1) (8.20)

(8.21 )
Froclun T~sling ofNonm~I(J/s 431
Thus J and J y are related through a dime nsio nless function of time in the case of a
co nstant rate test. For a li near viscoe lasl il: material in plane strain , the rel ationship
between J and Kf is giv~n by

Kl(l- V 2 )
J (8.22)
ER~(t )

The conventional J integral uniquely characteriu:s the crack tip conditi ons in a
viscoel astic material for a 8iy~n limtl. A critical i valuc from a laborator y lest is
transferable to a structure. provided the fa il ure times in the two configurations are the
samc.
A I:Onstant rate i test apparently provides a rational measure of fracture toughness in
polymers, but applying such data to strucrural I:omponenls may be problematic. Many
structures are statically loaded at either a fi~ed load or remote disp lactlmen\. Thus a
constant load creep lest or a load relaxation test on a cracked specimen might be more
indicative of structural conditions than a conSlant displacement rate test. It is unlikely
that the 1 integral would uniquely characterize viscoelastic crack growth behavior under all
loading conditions. For e ~ample, in the case of viscous creep in metals, plots of i versus
daldl fail to exhibit a si ngle trend. but C· (which is a special case of iv) cOl'Telales crack
growth data under diffen:nt loading conditions (see Chapter 4).
Application of fracture mechanics to polymers presents additional problems for
whic h both 1 and ly may be inadequate. At sufficiently high stresses. polymeric
materials typically experience irrcversible d efonnation. suc h as yielding. microcracidng,
and microerazing. This nonlinear material behavior exhibits a different time dependence
than viscoe lastic defonnation; compu ting pseudo strains and displllCements may not
account for rate effects in such I:IISCS.
In certain instances, thei integral may be approximately applicable to polymers that
exhi bit large scale yielding. Suppose thal there exists a quantity l y that lIC(;ou nts (01'
time-dependent yielding in polymers. A conventional i test will reflect material fracture
behavior if i and i, are related through a separable function of time 19):

(8.23)

Section 8.1.5 outl ines a procedure for detelll1ining i, experimentally.

In metals, the J integ131 ceases to provide a single parameter dcs<;ription of <:rack tip
conditio ns when the yielding is excessive. C ritical i values become geometry dependent
when the sing le parameter assumption is no longer valid (see Cltapter 3). A si milar
situation undoubtedly exists in polymers: the sin gle parameter assumption becomes
invalid after sufficient irrcvenible defonnation. Neither i nor i, will give geometry
indepe ndent measureli of fracture toughness in Sl.lCh CISC$. Specimen size requirements for
a single parameter description of fracture behavior in polymers have yet to be established,
although there has been some resean;h in this area (see Sections 8. L3 and 8.1.4).
Cl3c k grow th presents further comp lications when the plastic lone is large.
Material near the crack tip experieoces nonproportionai loadi ng and unloading when the
'"
crack &roWS, and the J inle",] is no longer path· independent. The .pptoptiate definition
of J for a growing crack is unclear in metals (Section 3.4.2), and the problem If
complicated further whcl\ the material is rate sensitive. The rate dependence of unloading
in polymers is often diffcrelt from that of loading.
In summary, the J htcgral can provide. rational measull: of lough.oess for
viscoelastic materials, bullhe applicability of J data to SU'UCfUf3l components is susptCt.
When lhe specimen experiences significant time-dependent yielding prior to fracture. J
may give a reasonable characleriution of fracture initiation from a stationary crack. as
long as the C~ lcnl of yieldi", docs not invalidate tile lingle-parameter assumption. Crack
growth in COIljunction with time-dependcnt yielding is. formidable problem that n:quiru
further study.

8.1.2 Pree ...d u D, a nd Other Prac:tIc.1 Matters

As with metals, fracture lougtmess teslS on polymers rt:quire thaI the ini tial crack be
sharp. Prec racks in plaslic specimcns can be introduced by a number of methods
including f.tiaue and!lll.Of notching.
F.tigue precracking in polymers can be very time consuming. n.e loadin,
frequency muSI be kepI lo w In onIer to minimlu hysleresis heatini. wh;';h ...111 inlrodut c
residual stresses al the crack tip.
Becausc polymcrs au so fl relative to metals, plastk fnocture toughness specimens
can be precracked by pres$ing • razor blade inlO I machined n()1ch. Razor notchin. can
produce I sharp crack in I fraction of the time required 10 grow a faligue crack, and the
measured IOUghness is not advel"5Cly affec:ted if the notching is done properly [4].
Two types of razor notching are common: razor n!)lch "..illotine and !lIl.Of sawing
In the former case, the razor blade is simply pressed inlO the materi.1 by a comprcssh"e
force, while razor sawing cntails a latcral slicing motion in conjunttion with the
compre ssive force. Figures 8.4(1) and 8.4{b) au photograph! of fillures roc the razor
notch guilloti ne and razor sawing procedures. respectively.
In order to minimiu materi.1 damage and residual S\TC.!SCS that result from razor
IIOIching, Cayanl [4J 1n:UII"""',..... Ihra;-~tcp proudure: ( I) f.brie.uion of. conventionlll
machined notch: (2) ex tension of the notch with. narrow slilling saw; and (3) final
sharpening with a razor biB (by eithcrofthc techniques described above). Cayard fO\lnd
that such an appr();K:b pnxluced very sharp cracks with minimal residual stresses. The
notch tip radius is typically much smalle r tban the radius of !be ruor blade, apparently
because a small pop-in propagales ahead of the nu:or notch.
While the relative softness of plastics aids the preeracting process. il can cause
problems during testing. The crack opening fotCC thaI a clip ,age applies \0' specimcn
(Fig. 7.8) is IICgligible for mew specimens. but this load can be si,nificant in plastic
specimen.. The convent io nal canti lever des isn may be 100 Iliff for soft pl as lic
specimens: a rinS- shaped clip sage may be more suitable.
O ne may choose to infer specimen di$phlCemcnt from the cro"head displacement.
In ' lOch caHI it i5 aecusary 10 COITeC\ for utnneous d; ~rl~_n" ,",uti to indentation 01
the specimen by the test fillure . A displacement calibration can be inferred from a load-
displacement curve for III unnOlched specimcn. If the calitntion curve is lioear. 1Ix
correctiOll 10 displacement is relatively simple:
Fror;lur~ T~sli"g of No"m~UJII 4"

(I ) Ih ..... notchtd goUlotl ....

(b) JUw ...... In • .

FIGURE 1.4 Ruo, noC<hln, ot polymer .podnIo".. (P!>o>tot ..... plul p.....1dod by M. c.y.rd.)
·"
(8.24)

where .1101 is the measured displacement and Cj is the compliance due \0 indentation.
Si nce the deform ation of the specimen is ti me-dependent, Inc: cTOss head rale in the
calibration uperimcnt should malch thai in the Il(:luaI fracture 1000ghnUI tests.

8.1.3 Kit Tetllnl

11le American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published. number of
standards for fracture testin. of metals, which Chapter 7 describes. Committee D20
within ASTM recently dcveloped a standard method for KIt testing of plastics [10J.
The ASTM K/r: standard for plastics is vcry similar to £ 399 [ II J. the ASTM K/c
standard for metals. Bo th test methods deflllC an apparent crack initiation load. PQ, by a
5 ... secant conSIl'UClion (Fig_ 7.13). This load must be greater than LI times the
maximum load in the test for the result 10 be valid. 1be provisional flllC1UTe loughneu,
KQ. mll.<l meet the followin, specimen size reQuirements:

B.a~2.J~)2 (8.2.5.)
"\ ayS

0.4.5:SO ; S 0.55 (S.25b)

where B is the speo::imen thickness. a is the crack length, and W is the specimen width. as
defined in Fig. 7.1.
The yield StR:nllth, ars, is defined in a somewhat different manner for plastics.
Figure 8.S $Cbematicall y ill ustrates a typical 1tR:$S-strain curve for engineering plastics.
When a polymer yields, it ofte n experiences slTain softening followed by strai n hardening.
The: yield strensth is defi ned III the peak stress prior to strain softcning, as Fig. II.S illus-
trates. Beeausc the flow properties are rate dc:pcBdcnt, the ASTM Klc standard (0£ plastics
requires that the time to reac:h ars in a tensile test coincide with the time to failure in
the fnlcture test to within 1:~.
The size requircmenl$ f~ metals {Eq. (g.25» have bcc:n incorporated into the ASTM
K,c ~Lan<.ilmJ for pluti,;" IIpp4l'clltly without U$Cssi IlJ the ~uilabitily o f Ihue crilena for
polymers. Recall from Chapters 2 and 7 the reasons for the KJc lite requirements:

tbe plastic zone sho uld be 5mall compared to in-plane dime nsions to ensure
the presence o f an elastic singularity ZOIIe ahead of the crack tip.

• the plastic zone should be Iman compared 10 Inc th ickness to ensure

predominantly p1811e strain oondJtions.
 '"

........
St rain

nCURE U TJpkIll
1'1", pIMtlc:o
. . . .f
I~ .. tnln _po_ 0Jt

L---T='=U~E=S=TRA~~IN~---"

BcuU$e !he yielding behavior of merals and plastiCli are diffen: nL one should nOi expect
both materials 10 uhibil Inc same size: limits for • valid Klc. Even within a given
material system, the sensitivity of toughness 10 specimen size il influenced by the
nUCI'OD1«hanism of fracture (see Appendix 5.1 ).
Cayard 141 has studied the size dependence: of fracture toughness for a range: of
engineering plastics. The resu[u for two lypicallTllllcrials IIR described below.
Figllre 8.6 shows the effect of specimen size on KQ values for. rigid polyvinyl
c hloride (PVC) Ind I polycarbonate (PC). In mosl cases, the specime ns were
geometrically simi lar, wi th W _18 and aIW. 0.5. For specime ll widlhs yealer thaI SO
mm in the PC, the thielr.nes.. Wa.5 fixed at 25 mm, which COI'Tesponds to the plate:
thickness. NOIe!hat in !be small specimens. KQ < Kit:. because PQ was defined from.
S<Jl, secant: in small specimens. Ihis devialion in linearity depends on flow propenies
rather than fracture propenie., as discussed in Sec tion 7.2. The ASTM E 399
require menl.5 for in-plane dimensions appear to be adequate for the PVC, but are
IIOIlCOIISCrvative for !be PC when !he yield strength is defined by !be peak. stress (Fia.
8.5).
11Ie different size dependence for the two polymer systems Cln be partially
attributed to strain softening effects. Figure 8.7 shows the streu-strain curves for the$e
two materials. Note that the PC e;<hibi ts sign ificant strain softe nin., whi le the rigid
PVC stresl.wain curve is relatively nat aftcr yieldin,. Si,nificant strai n safteninl
probably illCreases !be size of the yielded :woe. If one defmcs ars 11$ the lower flow

S~ plateau, the size teqllin:ments arc more n:strietive for materials that unin soften.
Figure g.6(b) shows the E 399 in-plane requirements correspondina to the lowcr yield
strength in the polycarbonate. Although this latter requirement is still nonconscrvativc
for Ihis matcrial, it represe nts a slight improvement ovcr the approach in the ASTM
standard for plastics.
c.yard (4) also examined the effect of thi c lcn ~ at constant in-plane dimcnsions.
Figures 8.8{.) and 8.8{b) arc plots of fracnu-c toughness venus thickncu for the PVC and
the pc, respective ly. Although all of the cxperimental data for the PVC arc below the re-
quired thielr:ncllS (.ccord.ing to Eq. (8.25», these data do not cxhibit a thic~ depen-
43. ChtJpr~r8

dc:nce; Fig. 8.8(a) indicates that the E 399 thickness requirement is too severe for this
material. In the case of the pc, most of the data are above the E 399 th ickncu
requ irement. 1lIe$e dala also do not exhibit a thickness dependence. which implies thai
the E 399 requirement is al least adequate for this malerial. Further tcsting of thinner
sections would be required to delcnnine if the E 399 thic kncn requirement is ove rl y
<:onservau vc for the PC.

, - JOe-
8
-
0
8 0
- -0-
1 0
-

Ihl
0 Rip d FVC
eo T~m ~lure .2.5OC
ilW' W . O.5
• 0 W. 2B
(For W » 50 ....... II ,. 15 DUll)
Ii!
,
• " " SPECIMEN
" WIDTH." .. nun
"' "
.,

, , , ,
~

•-
0
IS!.c _ 0
a.
- os.
- - -" - 8- ~ -
I- 0 0 0
0

" §(
Up~r t.... Polyarbonate
Y1IOJIl V-",Id Tan.penoh.lft_ 25 "C
alW.O.5
-
StnnRth S lrtnRth
W.2 B

• " "
SPECIM EN WIDTH, m m " '" '"
(II) ~IL
Frot:turt Testing ofNonmtt(J/s 43'

'"
n,
•
~

".
'ID"" .,
~ .
1': .
~
Ttmpuil~ 15 "C
., c.....h...d Ilatr.
0.1 mmI min
,
. ,..
"
.,
TRUESTRAJN
,.. ,., '.7

TIle PVC material fails by crazing. Recall from Chapler 6 that a craze zone ahead of
a crack ti p contains a high concentration of v0id5. The material inside of the craze wne is
subject essentially to plane stress loading, regardless of the specimen thickness.
Consequently, the fl'llC1ure toughness of materials that mu.c: may be relatively insensi ti ve
to specimen thickness. Thickness effects are not neccssarily absent from materials that
crau, however. While the material in the crue zone is subject to plane stress, the
surrounding material may be experience plane strain or mixed conditions; the S\reM state
in the surrounding material could influence the toughness by dictating the siu and Ibape
of the cruc zone.
Not all polymeric nwerials fracture by a crazing mechanism. For example, Cayard
found no evidence of cavitation (void formation) on the fracture surfaces of the PC. 1lle
fracture toughness of this material may be more sensitive to specimen thickness than
materi als that cra ze. suc h as the PVc. The deve lopment of rational thi ckne ss re-
quirements for polylIlCB ",,!uires further study_
One final observation regarding the ASTM X,( standard for plastics is that the
procedure for estimating PQ i,nores time effects. Recall from Section 7.2 that
nonl inearity in the load displacement curve from Kif; tests on metals elll come from two
sources: yielding and crac k growth. In the case of polymers, viscoelasticity can also
contribute 10 nonlinearity in the load-displacement curve. Consequently, a\ least a
portion of the 5% deviation from linearity al PQ could re sull from a decrease in the
modulus during the lest. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is valid for li near
Ilisccnl(Jstic defonnation, even wben the load-displacement curve is nonli near. TIle
ASTM standard could be unduly restrictive in defining the critical load by a 5% secant,
irrespective or the source or the nonlinearity.
 438 Chapter8

- \;- 0 """" - .,.. -{l - ~- IS ", - \l

I==~= ~
Rigid PVC
Ttmpn'OlNn! R 25"C
af W . O.S
W.5O.I_

, , "
SPEOMEN nUCKN ESS, mill " " "
CI) Rl&Id PVC
;: '-' , ,
,--,,---,--.---,----,
,
• B
- -
0
.., -A- - --<> -
0

0 0 ~-
0 0 Ii 0

l'olyclrbon.1te
Tclltp"n _ _ 15"<:
WW_O.5
-
W.5O.Imm

, , , ,
", , "
"
SPECIMEN THICKNESS, mm
" "
(b)~t.

ncuuu Elrecl "l ~ rl_ ,_ M fnoc:Wn ' .V elpa.dao [...

For most practical lilullionl, however. viscoelastic erre<U are probably negligible
during KIc tesa. In order to obtain I valid Klc result in most polymcn, the tesl
temperature mUit be well below TI_ where nue cffcell are min.imal I ' sbon timel. The
Fmcl/ll'fl TtJl ing of NOrImttals 43.
duration of. typical KIc test is on the order of several minutes, and the elastic properties
probably will not change significant ly pri or to fracture. The rate sensiti vity should be
quantified. however, to evaluate the assumption Wt £ does DOl change during the te$t.

8.1.4 J Ttltiag

A number of researchers h.ave applied I inlegraile$l method$ to polymers (3-61, but •

standard for measuring Ilc and I-R curves in plastics does not exist, lIS of this wrilin a;. A
committee within ASTM is currently drafting a standard test method for Jlc meuurements
in plastics. TIle methodology Wt is being applied is vel)' similar 10 that in E SI3-"
(Il l, the ASTM standard for Ilc testins o f metals.
1be eunent formulas for estimating) from planie tnt sp«:;men~ lire identical 10
those in E 8 13. for common teSI sp«:ime ns. such as the compact and SEND geometries,
) is related to the area under the load venus load line displacement curve:

J=
•
-'L J Pdt!. (8.26)
Bb o

where IJ is. dimensionless parameter that depends on geometry.

The mO$! common approach for in ferring the ) -R curve for a poly mer is the
multiple Jpccimen method. A set of nominal ly identical specimens are loaded to various
displacements, unloaded. cooled to a low temperature. and then fractured. 'The initial crack
length and stable crack growth are measured optically from each specimen. resulting in I
series o f data points 00 a '-do plot. The IJc can !hen be inferred by filting .. equation.
such as , power law or straight line. to the data. This latter eKercise is described in
Section 7.4. 1 for I,,,testing of metals.
Single specimen techniques, such as unl oading compliance, may al so be appliod 10
the measuremenl of lie and the ' -R curve [6]. Time-depe ndent material behavior can
complicate unloading compliance measuRmen ts, however. Figure g.9 schemaliClllly
ilIustrales the unload-reload behavior of a viscoe lastic material. If olle effects are signi fi -
cant during the time frame of the unload-reload, the: resulting curve can exhi bit I
hySieresil effcct. One possible approach to accounl for viscoelaslicity in such cases is to
relate inSlanUlneous crac k length to puudo elastic displacements (see Section 8. 1.' ).
Critic al I values for polymers exhibii les.s size dependence than KQ values. Figure
8.10 compares KQ values for the polycarbonate with Klc values, which were obtained by
conven i'g crilicil I values I I fracture 10 .., equivalent critical K through the following
relationship:

(8.2 7)

For suffICiently large specime ns . .... here the global behavior is predominantly clastic. Kit:
= KQ • KIt:. Note that !he Kit: values are illdependenl o f specimen size over !be range of
available data.
440 Chopftr8

WAD

Unlo.ad

flCUIlE'" SdMaatk .. d dial "'Nn..- In.

,..,.."_ u,."' ..... 110 tH ..... _~IOOWI ~
.-pIIaot", ........1... ~pIIarIft _1'ftHttU.

DISPLACEMENT

35 r-----r-----r-----r-----r-----,

," .-•• • ••-'-

• ~ • ... • -1- •L -4
E 3.' • 0
8e, •
~ • 0
0 0
0

l1 0 Poly(arbon~le
8
Iia 2.5
Tt mpenture • 25 *C
aJW.O..s
W.11I
~ o KQ

,.• " 20
"
• KJc

"
.,
SPECIMEN WIDTH, nun

Cnck growth resistance curves can be hiply rate dependent. Fii~ 8. 11 shows J.
R curves for a polyethylene pipe material that was tested at three crosshead rates {3].
Increasing the crouhead rate from 0.254 mm/mi n 10 1.27 mm/mi n (O.OI and 0.05
inlm in. respectively) results in nearly a three-fold incTCa5C in ill: in this case.

8.1.5 Experimental Esti mates of Time-Dependent Fnclure Paramcln.

While 'Ie valucs may be indicative of a polymer's relative toupness, the uiSlence of.
unique correlalion between J and (:no;k Vowlh nlte is unl ikely. Panmetel"l such as J v
may be more su itable for $Orne viscoe lastic materials. For polymera that experience large
scale yie lding, neither I nor I" may characterize crack. growth.
Fracture Tuting of NOfllnew/s 441

U
I I , I
Polyethylene Pipe
to t-
.6
...-'-• 8
Crossh ead
rl'
;.i 6 Rate, emlm in

"'"Z • I 6. 0.00254
o
-0-

~
,
I o
0.0254
0.127

0 , , I I
o 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.10
CRACK EXTENSION, em

"Ibis ""ction outlines a few suggcstions for inferring crack tip parametel"$ thai lake
into account the time-dcpendenl deformation of engineering pl astics. Since most of these
approaches have yello be validated experimentally. much of whal follows CQnlains an
clement of conjccture. 1llcse proposed methods. however, are certainly no worse than
conventional J integral approaches, and may be considerably better for many engineering
plastics.
The viscoelastic J integral, Jv, can be inferred by convening physical displacements
to pseudo displacements. For a constant rate test, Eq. (8. 11) gives the relationship
between II and lie. n.e viscoelastic J in tegral is given by Eq. (8.13); J v can also be
evaluated directly from the area under the P-d curve:

J", =:!1.
b 0
.'
J Pdtl (8.28)

for a specimen with uni t thickness. If the load-pseudo displacement is a power-law (Eq.
(8. IS)), Eq. (S.28) becomes

'1M(..a,e)N+I
J 11 = "Cb(27:
N"+':t:-)-
(S.29)

Comparing Eqs. (S.29) and (S.15) leads to

 44' CltGpurB

(8.30)

Since M docs not depend on Lime, the dimensionless IJ factor u the ~ £(11' bothJ and
J •.
Computing pseudo elastic displacement$ might also remove hysteresis effects in
unloadin a: compliance te5u. It the unload-reload behavior is linear viscoclastic, the P·d
Il/I loading curves would be linnr, and crac k length could be corre lated to the pltwdo
elmlle compliDnu.
Determlning pseudo displacements from Eq. (8. 11 ) Of the I1l<n general uprusiorl
CEq. (8.10» requires I. know1edlc of £(I). A separate experiment to infer £(r) would not
be particularly difficult, but 5uch dalll would nOi be relevant if the material upericnced
large scale yielding in a fracture ItSt. An alternative approach to inferring =1: tip PlI-
ramclCrs that takes time effecu into account is outlined below.
Schapery (9] has suggested evaluating I. J -like parameter from isochronous (fixed
time) Io.d-displacemenl CUI'Ve$. Consk\er I. 5er1u of I'tw;ture 1e$lS thai are performed 0VeT
I. range of crosshead mes (Fi,. 8,12(.». If one ICIcas I. rlXed lime and determines the
variOUIi combinations of load and dispiacemenllhat corw;pond 10 this lime, the resulling
locus of poinlS forms an isochronousload-disp l..::ement curve (Fig. 8. 12(b». Since the
vi$coclaslic and yield propertie5 ~ time-dependent, thc: isochronous curve represenlS the
load di~pl.cement Ixhavior for fixed material properties, as if time stood slill wh ile the
tc:st was performed. A fixed-lime J integral can Ix defined as follows:

J, =!l [ dI
b 0
Pdd 1
t-C01U'fJIIl
(S.3I)

Sup]XI5C that the displaccmenu at a given load are related by a sepanlble function of lime,
such that il is possible 10 relote all displacemcnu (at that particular load) 10 a re ference
displaoemenl:

(S.32)

lbc isochronous load-displacemcnt curves could then be collapsed onlo a si ngle m:nd by
multiplying e..::h CU~ by If'), as Fig. S.I2(c) iIIustnles. It would also be possible to
define: a reference J:

JR :::: J,r(t) (S.33)

NOle the similarity between Eqs. (8.23) and (S.33).

1be viscoelastic J is I special case of JR. For a constant I1Ite test, comparing Eqs.
(S.II) and (8.32) gives
Fracture Ttsling of Nonmetals 443

p p

(., .,
p

t'IGURE I.ll PrQl'o..d "'<thod ror .. moving

Um. d"P"ndmce from Ioad-disp~.nl tIIrY...
fint. I H I ~ ItS" I .. pl'o1'o ..... od over ..... R. at
d"pl~m.nt nl. (I). NUl. I16chro ....... IOld
dlsplocement til ..... ..,. Int....... (b). fl .... ly,!he
dlopl.."m.III ..... or each ""...c" .."Itipliod by.
1\I""'lon X'r), multlof: In • slnjle ""rYe (c).

«,

(8.34)

Thus for a linear viscoehlstic material in plane 5lr11i n,

J, (8.35)

Jrochronous load-displacement curves would be linear fOf" a linear viscoelastic material.

since the modulus is constant at a fixed time.
444

The parameter IN is more general than lv; the fanner may account for time
dcpcndcrocc in cases where uicnsivc yielding oceurs in !he specimen, TIle reference J
should characterize crao:k initiation and growth in materials wha"e Eq. (8.31) mnovcs time
dependence of displacement. Filllre 8.13 schematical ly iIlU5UaICJ the postulated rela-
•
tioru.hip between i , . JR, and en."': vclocil}'. Tho ),-G eurvCi lho",Jd be panl~l Oft • 10,-
log plot, while a JR_~ plol should yield. unique curve. EYeD if it is nOi possible to
produce B single JR.; curve for a material, the il parameter should still characterize
fracture at I fixed time.
A1thou&h JR may char8clClize fnIctlm: initiation and the carly stagCl of crack growth
in a materi.l that uhibirs significant timc-dc:ptndent yielding. this parameter would
probably not be capable of cl\anc;lcriting utensive crac k growth. sino;e unloading and
nonproponionalloading occur near the growing CrICk tip. (~Section 8.1.1 above.)

Log ;i Log a

LogJ,

The ASTM standard D 256-88 (13] describes impact testing of notched polymer
specime ns. This test method is currently !be mOSt common tcchnique for characterizing
!be tou&tmcss of engineering plastics. The D 256 standard coven both Chatpy and lzod
tesl5 (Fig. 1 .36), b\J1 the plastiel industry utilizes !be lzod specimen in [he vastllUljorilY
of cases.
The procedure for impact ICStinl of plastics is vcl)' similar to the mctals approach,
which is outlined in ASlM E 23 [1 4] (see Scction 1.9). A pendulum stri kes a nOlelle(!
specimen, and the cnCTllY I'«juiredto fracture the specimen is i~ferred from the initial and
final heighl5 of the pendulum (Fig. 1.31). In !be case of !he lzod test, !he specimen II a
simp\.c canlilevcr beam that il restrained al onc end and suuck by the pendulum at the
other end. One diffcrence between the metals and plastics test methods is that the
Ihsorbcd enclJY is normaliud by the net liglllllcni area in pl astics tests, whilc tests
FT'(J(:tun Ttsting of Nonmttals 445

accon:Iing to ASTM E 23 report only the tOUll energy. 1be normalized fracture energy in
plastics is known as the impact stnng/h.
The impact test for plastics is pervasive throughout Ihe plastics industry b«:ause it
is a simple and incxpensive measurement. It!; most common application is as II. material
screening criterion. lbe value of impact stre ngth measurements is questionable, however.
One problem with this test method is that the spedmens conta in blu nt notches.
Figure 8.14(15) shows lzod impact strength values for several polymcrs as a function of
notch radius. As one might expect, the fracture energy decreases as the notch becomes
sharper. lbe slope of Ihe lines in Fig. 8.14 is a measure of the notch stllSitiviry of the
material. Some materials an:: highly notch sensi tive, while otbers are relatively
insensitive to the radius of the nOlch. Note that the relative ordering of the materials'
impact strengths in Fig. 8.14 changes with notch acuity. Thus a fracture energy for a
panicular nOich radius may not be an appropriate criterion for ranking material toughness.
Moreover, the notch strength is often not a reli able indicator of how the material will
behave when it contains a sharp crack.
Since lzod and Charpy tests an:: performed under impact loading, the resulting
fracture energy values are governed by the short-time material response. Man)' polymer
structures, however, are loaded quasistatically and must be resistant to slow, stable crack
growth. The abi lity of a material to resist crack growth at lo ng times is not necessarily
related to the fracture elK:rgy of a blunt-notched specimen in impact loading.
1lle British Standards Institution (BSI) specification for unplasticized polyvinyl
chloride (PVC-U) pipe. BS 3505:1986116J, contains a procedure for fracture loughness
testing. Although the toughness test in BS 3S06 is primarily a qualitative screening
criterion, it is much more relevant to suuctural performance than the!zod impact test.
Appendices C and D of BS 3506 outline a procedure for inferring toughness of
PVC-U pipe after exposure to an &ggR:ssive environment. A C-shaped section is removed
from !he pipe of interest and is submerged in dich loromethane liquid. After IS min of
exposure, the specimen is removed from the liquid and the surface is inspected for
bleaching or whitening. A sharp notch is placed on the inner s urface of the specimen
which is then dead-loaded for 15 min or until cracking or total fracture is observed.
Figure 8.15 is a schematic drawing of the testing apparatus. lbe loading is such that !he
notch region is subjoct to a bending moment. If the specimen eracu or fails compleccly
during the test, the ff'llCture toughness of the material can be computed from applied load
and notch deplh by means of standard K1 formulae. If no cracking is observed during the
1!5 min test, Ihe toughlK:SS can be quantified by testing additional specimens at higher
loads. 1be BS 3506 sWldard includes a 5emiempirical size correction for small pipes and
high toughness materials that do not behave in an elastic manner.

8,2 JNTERLAMINAR TOVGHNESS OF COMPOSITES

Chapter 6 outlined some of the difficulties in applying fracture mechanics to fiber-

reinforced composites. 1be continuum assumption is often inappropriate, and cracks may
not grow in a self-similar manner. 1lIe lack of a rigorous framework to describe fracture
in composites has led to a number of qualitative approaches to characterize toughness.
'46 ChapterS

. r'r
"
:
O'VC
I
"e "
:-. " t- N"~

~ " t-
~ 24 t-

'/l~,W
~

E 20 t-

O
< " t-

- "ttl
~
~
_Acryl: -
:~ ftGUItE '.14 EtJecc rI Midi _ _
I~~ 11M 1..,_" . IHD,'" rI .. nn.
' iDI ......tIrs[l! ~
..•,. .., , , • •
NOTCH RADIUS, mm" "
'.

I'lGlJIlE US 1 _ ' ... 4F '. rot ....101011. . "'" ...... rlPVC-U pip< _ _ " . . . . lIS l506U l\.
 Fructurr Testing ofN~tals 447
Jlltenamillar ffllClute is one oftbe few instanees where frlIcture mechaniu formalism
is applicable (0 fiber·reinforted composites on a global scale. A zone of delami nation can
be treated as a crack; the resistance of the malerial to the propagation of this crack is the
fracture tough ness. Since the crack typically is confined to the matrix material between
plies. continuum theory is applicable. and the crack growth is self similar.
A standard for interlaminar fracture touJhness docs IlOl exist as of this writing, but
ASTht, the European Group on Fnicture (EGF) and Japanese Industrial Standards (115) arc
currently developing standardized test procedures for carbonJEpoxy and carbonIPEEK
composites. TIle published litenuure contuM I large amount of fie and file dala for
composites. but test methods differ widely betwccn laboratories.
Figure 8. 16 illustrates three common speci men configurations for interlaminar
fracture toughne ss measurements. The double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen is
probably the most com mon configurati on for this type of tes\. One advantage o f this
specimen geometry is that it pennits measurements of Mode I, Mode II or mixed mode
fracture toughneu. The end notched nexure (ENF) specime n has essent ially the same
geomeuy as the DCB spec imen. but the laller is loaded in three-point bending. which
imposes Mode II displacements of the crack facel. TIle edge de lamination specimen
simulates the conditions in an actual suuc:ture. Recall from Chapter 6 that tensile
Stresses llOI1llallo the ply arc highest at the free edge (Fig. 6.16); thus delamination zones
often initiate at the edges of a panel.
Procedures for measuring interlaminar toughness with OCB specimens are outlined
be lo w; analogous methods can be applied to other specimen configuration s. The
approaches that follow are not definitive tut methods. but are representative of current
pr1ICtice (17·20].
The initial naw in a DCB specimen is nonnally introduced by placing a thin film
(e.g. aluminum foil) between plies prior to molding. The film should be coated. with a
release agent so tl\at it can be removed prior 10 testing.
Figure 8.17 illustrates two common fi~ tu res thai facilitale loading the DCB
speci me n. The blocks or hinges are normally adhesively bonded to the specimen. TItese
fi~ tures must allow free rotation of the specimen ends with a minimum of stiffening.
TIle OCB specimen can be tested in Mode 1. Mode 11. or mixed· mode conditions, as
Fig. 8.18 illuslnlles. Recall from Chapter 2 that the energy release rate of thi. spec imen
configuration can be inferred from beam theory.
For pure Mode (load ing (Fig. 8.18(a». clastic beam theory leads to the following
expression for enelJ}' release mte (see Example 2.2 ):

(8.36)

(8.37)

The corresponding relationship for Mode II (FiS 8.18(b» is given by

...

Y10URl:Ll' '"- ,a~t....... h'.I .. IM"-""'fracnant....p_

Fractur~ T~£ting of NonmeMI£ 449

(a) Mod~ I.

(bl Mode II

(c) Mi:red mode.

FIGURE 1.18 Mock I, D _ ",Iud ",ock IooIdlD, '" DCD Jpodmml.

2 2
_ 3Pna
(8.38)
Yo - 48EI

assuming linear beam Iheory. Mixed loading conditions can be achieved by unequal
tensile loading o r the upper and lower porti ons or the specime ns, as Fig. S. 18(c)
illustrates. The applied loads can be resolved into Mode I and Mode II components as
follows:
..0 Chapler8

(8.39a)

(8.39b)

where Pu and PL are the upper and lower loads, respectively. The components of yean
be computed by inserting PI and Pll into Eqs. (8.36) and (8.38). Recall from Chapter 2
that Mode I and Mode n components of energy release rate are additive.
Linear beam theory may result in erroneous estimates of energy release rate.
panicularly wilen the specimen displacements arc large. The area method [19·20] provides
an alternative measure of energy relCII$C rate. Figure 8. 19 schematically illustrates .
typi<:a1load-displacemenl curve, where the specimen is periodically unloaded. The loadin,
portion of the curve is typically non linear, but the unloadin, curve is usually linear and
passes through the origin. The e nergy release rate can be estimated from the incremental
area inside the load displacement curve, divided by the change in crack area:

<lU
Ij= - (8.40)
B&

The Mode I and Mode II components of tj can be inferred from the PJ·f., and P/I·df/
curves. respectively. The cOI'Tesponding loads and displacements for Modes I and II are
defined in Fig. 8. 18 and Eq. (8.39).
Figure 8.20 illustrates. typical delamination resistance curve for Mode 1. After
initiation and a small amount of growth, delamination occurs at a steadY-Slale Glc value,
provided the g lobal behavior or the specimen is clastic.

FIGURE '.n Sd>uulk '-:I-dIJp~1

cu r n fGr I ddllllJII.I I JGII. IGUlblltil
IIIfUurt.llfllL
 Froclun Tesling of NOIImLtat., 451

I'IC URJ:: J.lII Sdo_.Ik. "".... l..rerred r.-

.... Iuo_ttpe~
CRACK EXTENSION

8.3 CERAMICS

Fracture toughness is usual ly the limi ting property in ceramic materials. Ceramics tend
to have excellent creep properties and wear resistance. but are exclOOcd from many load-
bearing applicatiOllll be<:ause they are re lative ly brittle. 1bc latest gcncnnion of ceramics
(see Section 6.2) have enhanced toughnes.s., but brittle fraclure is 5tiU a primary area of
concern in these materials.
Because toughness is a crucial property for ceramic materiais, rati onal fract ure
toughness measurements are absolutely essential. Unfonunately, fraclure toughness tests
on ceramics can be very difficult and expensive. Specimen fabrication, for example,
requires special grinding tools, since ordinary machining tools arc inadequate. Prco;racking
by fatigue is extremely time-eonsuming; wme investigalors have reported precr1ICung
times in excess of one wed: per specimen [211. During testing, it is diffICu lt to achieve
stable crack growth with mOiJt specimen configurations and testing machines.
Several tell melhods have been developed 10 overcome some of the difficulties
associated with fracture tough ness measureme nts in ceramics. The chevron-notched
specimen [22-24] eli minales the need for precracking, while the bridge indentation
approach [2 1,25-29J i•• novel method f'" introduci ng a crack wi thout resonin g to a
lengthy fatigue pi «tICking process.

8.3. 1 Che" ..on-Notched Spedmens

A che vron notch has a V-shaped ligamc nl. suc h thaI the nOich dcplh varies through the
thick ness, with the minimllm notch dcplh at the ce nter. Figure 8.21 showltwo common
configurations of che vron-notched specimens: the short bar and the short rod. In
addition, si ngle edge notched bend (SEND) and compact specimens (Fig. 7. 1) are somc-
limes fabricated with chev ron notches. The chevron notch is often utilized in
conventional fnclure toughness tests on metals because this shape fac:ilitate5 initiation of
the fatigue precrac k. For fracture tQughneu tests on brittle materials, the unique
propenies of the chevron notch can eliminate the need for precrac kinl altogether. as
discussed below.
 '" ChDpttrS

FlGUAE Ul ho ............ cIaIpoltbe ••oa ~~ ... [Ill-

Figure 8.22 schematicall y compares the SU'eU intensity factor VCQUS crack [cnlili
for chevron and strai ght notch configurations. When the craclc length :. .:1o. the stress
inlensity factor in the chevron-notched specimen is very high. because a finite load is
applied over a very small net thickness. When 0 ~QJ. the XI values for the two notch
configurations are identical, sinee the chevron nOieh no longer has an cffecL 1be XI for
the chevron-notched specimen c)(hibits a minimum at a particular crack length, am. which
is belween IZo and Q J.
The XI v. crac;1r. length bellaviOl" of the chevron- notched specimen makes this
specimen particularly suitable for measuring the toughness in brittle materials. Consider
• material in which the R curve reaches a steady-slate plateau soon after the crack initiales
(Fig. 8.23). The aack should initiate al the ti p of the chevron upon application of a
small load, since the loeal X, is high. 1be crack is slable at this point, because the
driving force d«reases rapidly ..... ith crack advance ; thus additional load is requim:lto gro .....
the crack further. The maximum load in the test, PM, is achieved ..... ben the crack aro ..... s
to am, the crack le ngth corresponding 10 the minimum in the KJ-a curve. At this point,
the spc<:i~n .....ill be unSUlble if the lest is cond ucted in load control, but stable crack
gro ..... th may be possible beyond am if the specimen is subj ect to crossbead conlrOL The
point of instabil ity in the laller casc depc:nd$ on the compliance of the testi na machine, as
discussed in Section 2.5.
Since the maximum load occurs It am , and am is know n a priori (from the K/ ...
crack le ngth relationship), it is necessary only to measure the ma~imum load in thi s test.
The fracture !OUghness is gi~n by

(8. 41 )
FtTJCtNn Tati,., ofN_tau '53

.. at

<
KI Chevron Notch

•
5uAiahi Notch

CRACK LENGlH

DIS PLACEMENT
CRACK LENGTH

FIGURE 1.13 ,..,...... IOII~._ .fttldlil ............1111. na. If CUI'YC. TIte ....I.. ulII 10M la ....
.... -...-wlNa ••••.

where KlvM is the thevron-nolcbc:d toughness defined atll1llJl;imum load, andJl'aIW) is the
geometry COI'T«tion factor. Earl~ researchers developed simple models to cstimateft'aIW)
for chevron-notched specimen s, but more reant (and _ accurate) estimatc5 arc based on
three.dimensional finite clement and boundary element anal~sili o f this configur1Ition [23].
The muimum load tethni~ue for inferring toughness docs nO! work as well when
the material e~hibiu • rising R curve, as Fig. S.24 schematically iIIustnotel . The point
of tangency between the drivir.S force: and R curve: may nO! occur at Om in this case,
ruu1tins in an error in the stress intensity cakulation. Moreover. the value of KR at the
point oftangC'ncy iii geometry dependent wben the R curve is rising.
...

..
CRACK LENGTH
nGUREIU4 AppIlcaIMa .... U.UMh. ,,':.bH
.... _ •• to ••au .... _lito. rIoiaI«~ .

If both load and crack length are measured throughol,L! the le5l. it is posiible to
construct the R curve for the material under consideration. Optical observation of the
growinll crack is not usu.ally feasible ror I chevron-notched specimcn, bullhe crack length
can be inferred through an unloading compliance t«:hnique [22]. in which the ipcdmcn ;$
periodically unloaded and the crack lenlth is computed from the elastic compliance.
An ASTM §;Iandard for chcvron-nolChcd specimens, E 1304-90 (22J. 1w recently
been p"blisi1ed. This standard actually applies 10 brillie metals, such as high llrength
aluminum alloys, bUI a cOlTcspondin& standard for ceramics is c UlTcnlly under
consideration. n.c E 1304 standard includes boch the maximum load and compliance
measures of (1111:\"'"' ioughnc u. which are design.ted K/vM and KJv. respeelivcly. A
number of resean:ners luIve measund fracture toughness of chevron-notched ceramic
specimens with testte<:hniques that are vinually identical to the provisions in ASTM E
I "".
1lIe chevron·notched specimen has proved to be very useful in charac:terizina the
toughness of brittle materials. 1lIe advantages of thi s lest specimen include its compact
geome try, the simple instrumentat io n requirements <in the case of the K I~M
measurement). ar>d the fact that no precracking is required. One of the disadvantages of
this specimen is ilS complicated desi,n. which Icads 10 higher machini ng cosu; . Also.
lhil specimen is poorly suited to hilh temperature telti nl, and the KlvM measurement
il in.approprialC for matmal with risinl R CUI"VeIi.

8.3.2 Bend S ~cimens Precncked by Bridge Indenlalion

1\ noveltcchnjquc for- pm:ra::king cerami<: SENB specilJK:M lIM rt:eently been developed
in Japan [25). A number of researchen (2 1,25·29) have adopted this l"Mihod, which has
been incorporated into an upcoming Japanese standard for fracture 1000ahne5S ICsti na of
ceramics. WlUTcn, et at (26). who were Imong the first to apply this precra<:kinl
technique have ienneci it the "bridge indentation" method.
Fracture Testing of Nonm~/au 455
Figure 8.25 is a schematic drawing of !be loading fixtures foc the bridge indentation
method of procraeking. A starter nOich is inlroduced into an SEND specimen by means of
a Vickers hardness iooenmtion. The specimen is compressed between twO anvils, as Fig.
8.25 illustrates. The tOP anvil is flat, while the bottom IIlIvil has a gap in the center.
Thi s arrangement induces a local tensile stress in the specimen, which leads to a pop-in
fracture. TIle fracture arrests because the propagating crack uperiences a fal ling K field.
TIle bridge indentation technique is capable of producing highly uniform crack fronts
in SENB specimens. After precracking, these specimens can be tested in three· or four-
point bending wi th conventional fixtures. Nose and Fujii 121] showed that fracture
toughness values obtained from bridge precracked specimens compared favorably with data
from conventional fatigue pretracked specimens.
Bar·On, et al. [27] ilvestigated the effect of precracking variables on the size of the
crack that is produced by this technique. Figure g,26 shows that the length of the pop-in
in alumina decreases with increasing Vickers indentation load. Also note that the pop-in
load decreases with increasing indentation load. Large Vickers indentation loads produce
signifJCaI1t initial flaws aro te nsile residual stresses, which enable the pop-in to initiate al
a lower load; lhe crack arrests sooner at lower loads because there is less elastic energy
available for crack propagation. Thus it is possible to conuol the length of the precrack
though the Vicurs indentation load.
The bridge indentation tecbnique is obviously much more economical than fatigue
precracking of ceramic spec imens. The SENB configuration is simple, and therefore less
expensive to fabricate. Also, thrcc- and four·point bend fixtures are suitabl e for high
tem perature testing. One problem with lhe SEND spec imen is that it consumes more
material than the chevron notched specimens illustrated in Fig. 8.21; this is a major
shoncomi ng when evaluating new materials, where only small samples are available.
Another disadvantage of the beam configuration is that it tends to be unstable; most test
machines are tOO compliant to achieve $tab!e crack growth in brittle SEND spec imens
[28,29}.

fJGURE t.l5 n~ bridl~ Ind~ DIaIIon _!bod ,.... pncnckiDI Ill).

·56 Chopttr8
0.50 28

0.45 Aluminol
26
SpM: 3.S QUI!

-·i, 0.40

0.35
o
O.w
Popio .....
" ~
~'
0
~

•" 0.30 " 9

-~
~
0.25
20 Z
-.i2
18
020

0.15
"
14
0.10
0 100 ZOO 300 400 500 600
INDENT LOAD, N

REFERENCES

I. Sellapery. R.A .• "COf'I'espondence Principles and • Generalized J Inleanl for Larie

Ddonnalion and f raaurc Analysis of VillCOellUlic MediL 1,,'emD,iotwl Jo,.,,1lll of
M

FrtJCIMN! , Vol. 2.'5. 1984, pp. 195·223.

2. Sell.perr, R.A., ""Time-Dependent FTlClurc: Continuum A.5pecu of Cnck Growlh.M

EncyclofMd;a of M,,'erial~ Sde"':l1 tJNi Eng;"rering. Pergamon Preu. Oxford. 1986, pp.
'043"0'4.
3. Jones, R,E. and Bradley. W.L " " FractuI"C Toughness TeSling of Polyethylene Pipe:
Materials." ASTM STP 99', VI)I. I, 1989, American Society for Tesling and Materials.
Philadelphia. PA. pp. 447-4'6.

.. . c..yard. M. "F1Tocturc Tou&bness Twing of Polymeric Materials." Ph.D. Dissertation,

Tuu AokM Univeniry. College Swion. TX, September, 1990.

,. Willi ....., J.G. FrtJC'"'''' M«loonicl of Poir-n , , Halsted Pres" Jolin Wiley .t. Sonl,
New yon; , 1984.

6. uno... A. , '1bc: UK of Sp«imcn CompUano;c in ~ainl Cno;k Orowth.~ S... bmincd

Polymfr Sci~"Cf <UUJ &,ilruri"" 199 1.
10

1. ManhalI, G.P.• Coons. L. H., aIId WiIlialnS, 1.0., '1'emPftal ... re Eff«u in !he: Fraclure of
PMMA." i01U"flD1 of MlJuriD/s SCit" Cf. Vol. 13. 1974. pp. 14O!1-
Fractul? T~stillg of NOllm~ra& 45'

8. Schapery. R.A. "A Thwry of Crack Initiation and Growth in Viscoelastic Media··!.
Theo«1ical Development." /lft~nttJtion,,/ )Oll"'''/ of F.-actllr~. Vol II. 1975. pp. 141-
159.

9. Schaper)', R. A., Private communication. 1m.

10. 05045-911 "Standard Test Methods for Plane Strain Fracture Tou8hness and Slfain
Energy Release Rate of Pl asti!: Materials:' American Society (or Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia. PA, 1991.

II. E 399_90, "Standard Test Method (or Fracture Tou8hness of Metallic Materi al s:'
American Society (or Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.

12 . E 8\3-89. "Standard Test Method for lie, a Measure of FraclUre Toughness." Amcri;an
Society for Testing and Materials, PttIladelphia. PA. 1987.

13. D 256-88. "Impact Resistance of Pluties and El ectrical Insulating Mate ri als."
American Society for t elling !IIld MatcT1als. t'htJl(ktphia, PA, l'Ititi.

14. E 23·88, "Standard Test Mctb0d5 (or Notched Bar Impact Testing of Mctallic Materials."'
American Society of Testin8 and Materials. Philadelphia. PA. 1988.

15 . Elfgilfur~d MauriIlh HllIUlbook. VoIu_ 2: Elfgilfuring Plastics. ASM Internati onal,

Metals Park. OH. 1988.

16 . BS 3505:1986, "British Standard Specification for Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride

(PVC·U) Pressure Pipes for Cold Potable Water." British Standards Institution, London.
1986.

17. Whiule Y, J.M .. Browning, C.~, and Hoo8S!edc:n. W.• "A Double Cantilever Beam Test
(or Charact erizing Mod e I Delamination o f Composite Materials. ~ JoumDI of
R~i"forc~d Pu...liCJ ""d CompoSilU, Vol. 1. 1982, pp, 297·3\3.

18. Prel. Y.J., Davies. p" Benuggah, M.L., and de Charentenay. F.-X .• "Mode I and Mode
II Delamination of Thcrrno.ctlinll ar.d 1bc:nnopllLltic COmJlO"'IC .... ASTM STP 1012,
American Society for Testinll and Materials. Philadelphia. PA. 1989, pp. 2~1-269.

19. Corleto, C.R. and Bradley. W.L" "Mode II Delamination Fracture ToughllCss o(
Unidirectional GraphitelEpo~y Composites:' ASTM STP 1012. American Society for
Testing and Material s, Philadelphia. PA. 1989, pp. 201-221.

20. Hibbs. M.F" Ts.e, M.K" and Bradley, W.L.• "Interlaminar Fractu~ Toughness and R~al·
Time Fracture Mechani sm of Some Toughened GraphitelEpo~y Composites:' ASTht
S11' 937, American Society (or Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. PA. 1987, pp. 115_
DO.

21. Nos.e. T. and Fujii. T .• " Evaluation of Fracture Toullbnes.s for Ceramic Material . by •
Single·Edge-Precracked-Beam MetlKxl." )DUfIIlJl of the Amm'c(J/I C~romic Society. \'01 .
71 , 1988. pp. 328-333.

22. E 1304-89, "Slandard Tesl Method (,. Plane_Stntin (Chevron Notch) Fracture Toughness
nf Metallic Mareriak American Soci,;ty fnr T".ting and Materials, Philadt:lphi8. PA ,
H

1989.
458 Chapter 8

23 . Newman, J.e. , "A Review of Chevron-Notched Fracture Specimens." ASTM STP 8.5.5,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA , 1984, pp . .5-31.

24. Shannon, J.L., Jr. and Munz, D.G., "Specimen Size Effects on Fracture Toughness of
Aluminum Oxide Measured with Short-Rod and Short Bar Chevron-Notched Specimens."
ASlM STP 8.5.5, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1984,
pp. 270-280.

2.5. Nunomura, S. and Jitsukawa, S. "Fracture Toughness for Bearing Steels by lndentation
Cracking under Multiaxial Stress." On Japanese) Tetsu to Hagane, Vol. 64, 1978.

26. Warren, R. and Johannscn, B. "Creation of Stable Cracks in Hard Metals Using 'Rridge'
Indentation." Powder Metallurgy, Vol. 27, 1984, pp. 2.5-29.

27 . Bar-On, I., Beals, J.T., Leathennan. G.L., and Murray, C.M., "Fracture Toughness of
Ceramic Precracked Bend Bars." Journal of tire American Ceramic Society, Vol. 73.
1990. pp. 2.519-2.522.

28. Bam.tta, F.I. and Dunlay, W.A., "Crack Stability in Simply Supported Four-Point and
Three-Point Loaded Beams of Brittle M alerials.~ Proceedings of the Anny Symposium
on Solid Mechanics, 1989 . Mechanics of Engineered Materials and Applications, U.S.
Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Watertown, MA, 1989, pp. 1-11.

29. Underwood, J .H., Barratta, F.I. , and Zalinka. 1.1 .• "Fracture Toughness Tests and
Displacement and Crack Stability Analyses of Round Bar Bend Specimens of Liquid-
Phase Sintered Tungsten ." Proceedings of the 1990 SEM Spring Co nference on
Experimental Mecho.nics, Albuquerque, NM, 1990, pp . .535-542.
 9. APPLICATION TO STRUCTURES

Figure 9.1 iliustrateJ the so-called fracture mc(hanics triangle. When designing a IilnlClure
against fracture. there are Ihrec critical variables \tLal must be coosidered: Stress, naw size,
and toughness . Fracture mechanics providu. ma1hematieal relationship between these
qu.antities. In 1TI051 cues there are IWO dearus of freedom (i.e" one equation and three
unknowu): a knowledec of two quantities is required 10 compute the third. For example,
if the 1itres5 is $pCCified by the design and the mllcrialloughness is known, rnc~ me-
chanics relationship' can predict the aille.1 flaw lize in the structure.
A number of rcialionsllips are available Ihal auempilO quantify Inc critical relation-
ship betwccn mus, flaw size. and toughness, but uch of these approaches is only suit-
able in limited situations. Linear claslic fracture model s, for cumplc, should not be: ap-
plied w ruuctun:s that uhibil significant plastic now.

MECHANICS

"",,:c----j.
SIZE~
~ ""'.
.........f--:!... TOUGHNESS

"The fracture design methodology ihouJd Ile lelected based on the available data, ma_
terial properties, environment. and the loadioJ on the SlIUClure. If KIf: dara are available
and the design suus is low, linear elastic fIXture medlllllks (LEFM) may be appopiatc.
If !he be3ilvior of !he SlnII:ture islinc:ar ellSlK but the laboratOf)' fracture toughness tests
behave b an elastic-plastic manner. it may be pouiblc 10 COOVer! a critical J value to the
cquivalCllt KIc and analyze the SlnII:tUTC with lincar clll5tic relationships (Section 9. 1.4).
If the structure and lest specimen boIh behave in an clastic-plastic fashion, J- and crOD·
based analyscs arc aVlilable (Section 9.1 to 9.7). Rapid loading may mjuire special con-
sideration, IS will design for cmck arrest. Time-depemlent crack growth, such as fllligue.

.....
envifl)l1IKnlll assisted cncking. and creep cra:k growth may complicate the analysis fur_

...
Most fracture analyses are detenninbUc. T1I8I is, the 5UCS5, flaw size, and loogh-
ncR are assumed 10 be single-valued quantities. In pnctical situations, howt:ver, there is
.60 Cltopftr9

usual ly some dcgn:e of uocenainly associaled with each of these variables. Consequently,
it is usually not possible 10 predict the precise moment of failure. Probabilisti!: analyses
(Seclion 9.9) can quantify the rUk of failure, however.
This chapter focuses on fracture initiation arK! instability in suuctures made from
linear elastic and elastic-plastic materials, A number of engineering approaches are dis-
cussed; the basis o[these approacbes and their limitations arc caplorcd. 'This I:hapu:r only
rovers quasiswic methodologies. bul such approICncs can be applied to rapid loading and
cmck lUTeS! in certain circumstances (see Chapter 4), Tbe analyses presented in this chap-
ter do no( address ]imc-depcndent cra;;ir; growth. Chapter 10 oonsidcrl fauguc crack growth
in detail, and describes life predictions for aJllypes of time-dependent crack growth.

9. 1 LI NEA R ELASTIC FRACT URE MECHAN ICS

Analyses based on LEFM apply 10 SUUClurel where crack tip piaslicity is small. Chapler
2 introduced many of the fundamental conceptS ofl.EFM. TIle fracture behavior of a lin-
ear elastic suucture can be inferred by compannS the applied K (!he driving fon:e) to.
critical K or a K-R curve (the fraclUre toughness). 'The elastic enun release rate. tj. is an
alternative measure of driving force. and a critical value of tj quantifies the material
toughness.
For Mode I loading (Fig. 2.14). the Siren intensity factor can be e~pressed in the
following form:

K ,::: Ya.J1ra (9.1)

where Y is a dimensionleu geometry correction factor. ais a characteriuic stress. and a is

a ch.aracteristic crack dimension. If !he geometry factor is known. !he applied K/ can be
computed for any combi nation of a and II . 11M: applied StreSS intensity can then be com-
pared to the appropriale malerial property. whi ch may be a Klc value. a K-R ~urve. envi-
ronmental assisted cracking data. or. in !he case o f cycl ic loading. fatigue crack growth
data (see Chapter 10).
FracMt analysis of • linear eJastic S\n.ICMt becomes relati~ly straightforwanl. once
a K solution is obtained for !he geometry of interest Stress intensity solutions can come
from a number of sources. inc ludingl1andbooks. the publislled literature. e:w.periments. and
numerical analysis.
A large number of stress intensity solutions have been published ovcr the past 3j
years. Several handbooh [1-3) contain compilat ions of solutiOM for a wide variety of
configurations. The publi shed literatl,lre contains many more solutions. It is usually
possible to find a K 501I,Ition for a geometry that is similar to the structure of interest
When a published K solution is not available. or !he accuracy of such a solution is
in doubt. one can obtain !he sol ution uperimentally or numerically. Deriving a closed-
form solution is probably not a viable alternalive. since this is only possible with simple
geometries. and nearly all such solutions have already been published. Experimental
measurement of K is possible through optical techniques. such as photoelasticity [4,j]
and !he method of caustics [6]. or by determining q from the rate of change in compliance
Applicalion 10 SlruCIUr(;$ ' 61

wi th crac k length CEq. (2.30» and com pUling K from (j (Eq. (2.S8)). Chapter 11 de-
scri bes a number of computationailechniques for deriving stress intensity.
An alternative is to uti li ze the principle of elastic superposition, which enables new
K solutions to be constructed from known cases. S«:tion 2.6.4 outlined this approach,
and app lied the pri nciple of superposition 10 a pressure loaded semicircular surface crack
(Example 2.S). Influence coefficients [1}, described below, are an applicat ion of the su-
perposition principle. Section 2.6.5 introduced the conce pt of weight functions [8,9J,
from which K solutions can be obtained for arbitrary loading.

Laboratory fracture toughness specimens us ually contain idealized cracks, but naturall y
occurring flaws in structurcs are under no obligation to live up to these ideals. Structural
flaws are typicall y irregular in shape and are pan-way through the section thickness.
Moreover, severe stress gradien ts often arise in practical situations, whi le laboratory spec-
imens experience relatively simple looding.
Newman and Raju [ lOj have puhlis!ted a series of K, solu tions for pan-through
cracks. Figure 9.2 ill ustrates the assumed geometries. Newman and Raj u approximate
buried cracks, surface cracks and corne r a-acks as el1ipses, half ellipses, and quarter el-
lipses, respect ively. These solutions apply 10 linear stress distributions, where the stress
normal to the flaw can be resolved in to bendin& and membrane components. respectively
(Fig. 9.3). If the stress distribution is nOl perfect1y linear, equivalent membrane and bend-
ing stresses can be inferred as follows: the equivalent membrane stress is equal to the in-
tegrated average SlreSS Ihrough the thickness. while the equivalent bending stress is in-
ferred by computing a resul tant moment (per unit width) and dividing by 61;2.
The Newman and Raju solutions for pan-through fl aws subjec t to membrane and
bending stresses are expressed in the following form :

(9.2)

where Q is the flaw shape parameter, which is based on the solution of an elliptical inte-
gral of the second kind (see Fig. 2. 19), and F and H are geometry constan ts, which
Newman and Raju obtained from finite clement analysis. The parameters F and H depend
on ale, all, and ~ (see Fig. 2. 19), and plate width. Section 12.2 lists polynomial fits for
F and H that correspond 10 each of the crack shapes in Fig. 9.2.
Equation (9.2) is reasonably flexible, since it ean account for a range of stress gradi-
ents. and includes pure tension and pure bending as special cases. This equation, how-
ever, is actually a special case of the influence coefficient approach, an example of which
is described below.
'62 Chapru 9

,t ~~ f ,I

,.
(a' SnDI.eUlptlclll ... r1~ end.

I ' ;:;;' ---i7h---x--

~

(0' Quamr-eUlptl.,..) ........ nw:k.

FIGURE 9.3 A/?p.OIII ... tl.,.

f _ _ dlItribulloa. IiMlIr, and ~
I DanuDI·
...\'Ina 1M I U - IaIG __ 1InM and
1omdI... . -p ~

Suppose the IIOI'1I1al meg acting 01 the crack plane (in the uncnckedconfiguration)
can be ~ntcd by • cubic equatiOll:

(9.3)
AppiictJ/ion rtJ S''''Clw~1 4 63

Figure 9.4 5Chemalically iliusIlllles this stn:.. distribution. aJ>d defines Ihe coordinate
axeS. 'The Stn:1oS inlensily faclor thai results from the above equalion can be conslIUCled
by obtaining KI solutions for power·law loading. where the exponenl nlnges from 0 10 3.
'The following dimen.ionleloS stn:s.s distributions can be applied 10 !he crack face indepen-
dently in a finite elemenl model of Ihc: cnlCk geometr)' :

forj = 0.1.2.or3 (9.4)

Figure 9.~ illustrates application of a power-law stress distribution 10 the crack fllCcs ..
Recall Figs. 2.15 nd 2.26, which uoe<! \he Superpooilion principle 10 ohow thai any ...1
of boundary c:onditioru; can be represenled by equivalenl crack {Itt lfac1ions.
Raju and Newman ]7] applied power law strcs.s disuibulions 10 a wide nlnge of
.. mi·el1iptical surface flaws in cylinders (Fig. 9.6). 'J'bey considered ~i ,...tios of 0 (flat
plate). 0.10. and 0.2~. '!beir analysis included boIh inl.mal flaws aJ>d external flaws.
For the SIfCS5 distribulioo in Eq. (9.4). the stn:.. intensity factor can be expo:ssed as fol_
low",

(9.5)

for j _ O. 1.2, or 3, .... here OJ is an influence coefficient. Chapler 121i.ts influcnce co-
efficj(,nts for variou., n.w geometries. For a Jiven flaw shape and j val,.,. OJ is relatively
insensitive to the tiN; ral;o, which is ,ndicative of the curvalure at the free Io1Irface. Thus
it is not cril;callO match the curvalure of a structure exactly: the influence coefficj(,nlS for
• surface fla .... in a flll plate (Table 12.:23) should give reasonable estimates of KI in mosl
&UUClures.
46.

n GURE ,., r - .r ·.... tI!'eII cllI.rlbut .....p-

pllod 10 liIr crark r ....

I"ttnul
R,.

WiKn an IIfbitrary stress distribution is appr<)lim ated by Eq. (9 .3), the oontrib\lti on
of each term in the polynomial can be summed loobtam the 10lal K/ for the eraek.
equations {9.4, IlIld (9 •.1), however, m~( be "".k<J 11.1 Ibe: IoCIUaJ ~tru. di.ltibu,;on .
Equation (93) can be ~writtell in the following form:
ApplicDrion ro Srructures 465

(9.6)

By compari ng Eqs. (9.4) and (9.6), we see that the scaling factor for each tenn in the
polynomial is Aj d. 1lIerefore, the stress intensity factor for a cubic polynomial stress
distribution is given by

(9.7)

Let us now consider the example of a pressurized cylinder with an inlernal axial sur·
face flaw, as illustrated in Fig. 9.6. In the absence of the crac k, the hoop stress in a thick
wall pressure vessel is as follows [II]:

(9.8)

whc::n:: p is the internal pressure and the other terms are defined in Fig. 9.6. If we defi ne
the origin at the inner wall (x '" r· Ri) and perform a Taylor series expansion about x = 0,
Eq. (9.g) becomes

(9.9)

where x is in the radial direction with the origin al Rj. The first fOUl tenns of this
expansion give the desired cubic polynomial. An alternate approach would be to curve·fit
a cubic polynomial to the stre ss field. This latter method is necessary when the stress
dislribution docs not have a closed·form solution,
When computing K/ for the internal surface flaw, we must also take account of the
pressure loading on the crack faces. Superimposing p on Eq. (9.9) and substituting the
resulting coefficients (Aj) into Eq. (9.7) gives [71:

K,= (1iQ
fQ RO-Ri
fi/;'[2G"-2(~k+3(~)2G,-4(~)3G,l
R;r R; R;
(9.10)

Applying a similar approach to an eJlternaJ surface flaw leads 10 17]:

 466 Chapter 9

llw:: origi n in this case was defined at the outer surfllCe of thecylinder, and a aeries expan-
,ioo was performed as before. Thus KJ for I surface naw in a ~uriud cylinder can be
obtained by substituting the appropriate innuence coefficients into Sq. (9.10) or Sq.
(9. 11).
Of course one can also infer the stress intensity factor by performing a full finite el-
ement analysis with the IIClUalloadin g conditions. Figure 9.7 compares the KJ for an ex-
ternal crac k estimated from Sq. (9.]]) with a w] ution pu blished by Atlun and Kathiresan
[]2]. llw:: full solution and the estimate from innuence coefficients differ by less than
1~. Raju and Newman 17] state that the discrepancies may be due to differences in nu-
mericalteclmique5, rather than inherent elTOl'S in the innuence coeffidenl lpph_h.
Innuence coeffICients are useful for inferring Kr values for cncQ liIat emanate from
stress concentrations. Figure 9.8 schematical ly illustrates I surface cnck at the loe of a
fillet weld. This geometry produees a localstreS$ gradients that affec:tthe Kr ofthc crack.
Performing a three-dimensional finite element analysis of this slnlCtUIllJ detail with crack
would be costly and lime-consuming. and may be unnecessary. If the stress distribution
in this detail is known for the uncrackcd case, these SITesSCS can be fit 10 • cubic polyno-
mial (Eq. 9.3), and KJ can be estimated by substituting the influence coefficients into Eq.
(9.7). llw:: uncnd:cd stress distribution can be inferred from a two-dimensional elastic fi-
nite element analysis with. relatively COIIJ5C mesh.

,
I!.olomal A>.iol s....to« Flaw
IIc~U

- . . . "."1
", · u "" ....
b,
- - - -- - - --
- - ........ -.. " .... _ •• lit!

n~ :£Si! 20: ~

•• .., ,
-.-2.
nemu: u
Ilaltc damoI """"*
C-pariHB ~II'" ........1tJ _~
01.,,* _ - " " " [In
n-.. ... InIIueo<e <octllel"l .pp.....do (1] _lib
Application to Srnu:lun~ .,
The previous example is only approximate, however. Since tnc influe nce coe ffi-
cients in Chapter 12 were nO! derived from the fillet weld geometry. there may be slight
errors if these Gj values are applied in this case_ 11Ie influence coefficients fOf surface
flaws depend on o/r and ale, but arc insensitive to the radius of curvature in the crossscc-
lion. Thus as long IS the crack shape and depth arc taken into account . the Gj values in
Chapter 12 should be reasonably accurate. One can minimi"U errors by applyi ng the Gj
valucs for an intern al flaw in a cy linder, $ince the concave shape comes closest to match-
ing the profile of the fillet weld.
Since the flaw in Fig. 9.8 is near a weld, the~ is a possibi lity that weld residual
stresses will be present. 'These stresses must be taken into account in order to obtain an
IICCUflIte estimate of "/_ Weld residual SU~) IIR' an CAwuplc o f KCondary ~1rC:uc.s, ""
discussed below.

~-------
F"oIet Wold

FlG URf! 'A Appll<.tlon 01' I.... InII......,. coctIIdonl ' pp""",,, 10 • complu liructural detlll ..
fillet .. tiel.
"'~ ...

9.1.1 Primary I nd Secondary St r HsCS

The loading in II. 5\ructure can be di vided into primary and secondary stresses. Primary
stresses generally arise from u temally applied loads and mome nts. while secondary
suesses are localiled and are self-equilibrating through the cross section. Primary
$ueucs, if sufncientl y large. arc capable of leading to plastic collapse, bul 5CCOndary
SIre$seS cannOl cause coJ1apst of the SUUClure. 1be latter can, however. contribute 1O!tac.
IU~ if large tensile secondary stress occur ncar a crack. Eumple.s of secondary strUStS
include weld residu.al streSSC5 and thermal stres.ses. In some cases. however, thermallQad·
ing can produce primary stresses. A stress shou ld be classified as primary wncn it b nO!
cleat which catcgof! is appopriate.
In linear elastic analySCI, primilC)' IlDIJ ",,"0110;1..,. 5lRUe.s are trealed in an identical
fashion. lbe total stress intensity is simply the sum of the primary and secondary eom·
pone nlS:
". CIwpltr9

K~""Kf+KI (9.12)

where the superscriptS p and s denote primary and IeCOIldary quantities, mipt<:tivcly.
llIc distinction between primary and secondary s.tresse5 is imponanl only in ~ 1&'Itic­
plastic and fu lly pl astic analyses. Stelions 9.3, 9.4, and 9.1 de.scribc the trulmc:nl of
primary and secondary stresses in soch cases.

9.1.3 Plasticity Corrections

Seclion 2.8 dcscribo::s approaches for incorporati ng small amounts of crack lip plasticity
inlo the estimation of the stress intensi ty. The Irwin approach (IJ] defines an effective
crac k. length as the sum of the actual crac k .iu, D, and. plastic rene cOl'l'ClClion, 'yo The
e(f«"live stre$$ intensity factor il liven by

Ktff = Y{Q+r,J C1~tr(a+r, ) (9. 13)

when: rIa + 'yJ denotes that the eeometry correction factor is a/uncrion or ille effective
crac k 5i!c (nOl Yti mes a + ' yJ. The Irwin pl astic zone f;orrt:Clions ~ u follows:

.. , _1...
y - ( )'
Keff
21r O'YS
for plane StreSS (9. 14a)

r _...!...
y - ( )'
X'/f
61[' O'YS
for plane slnlin (9. 14b)

This corre<:lion b«omes signifka/lt a' applied stresses greater than approximately halflhe
yield strength, and is inaccurate above - 0.7 ors
(see Fig. 2.30).
The strip yie ld correction for a Ihrou,h crack in an infinite plate in plane StreSS is
,iven by

(9. 15)

Equation (9. 15) docs IlOl re$ult from -'ding I plastic:wnc e~on to the c:tlICk lize, but
is based on an analysis by B....-dekin IlIld SIO~ [14] (see AppcDdix 3.1). t
Application 10 SuwturtS ."
'The strip yield correction lor a through crack in an infinite plate (loes not appl y to
other configurations. 1lIe strip yield model can be applied to otner geometries, but each
configuraLiOll uquires a separate analysis [ IS ]. ~ is, however, an appro~imate method
of gencra1itina the strip yield model to a single equation that describes all cracked geQll'lC<
tries (sec Section 9.4).
Both the Irwin and stri p yield plastic zone correc tions have the effC(t of incrcasinS
Keffover the linear clastic value. Failure to apply an appropriate plasticity correction
cou ld, therefore, result in an underestimate of the crack drivi ng force. whi ch would lead to
a noocOllSCl'\lative analysis.

For plane stni n, small scale yicldins conditions. K1c and I critical I value (defined at the
same point on !he load-displacemcnt curve) arc re lated as foll ows:

K ::::::~ J... E (9.16)

k 1- yl

whcre I eril can either be a I Ie value, defined ncar the initiation of doctile crack growth. or
A criliCIII I fo r clelvaae. When a test specimen hehaves in a predominantl y linear c lastic
manner. ei ther K,c or lerit can he measured, but K ceases to be vali d when the plastic
zone becomes 100 large.
RC(a11 from Chapler 7 that the size uquirerncnl5 for valid lie tests and l eril values
for c~avage are much ~S5 strict than the requirements for a valid Kle lest. Thus site-in·
dependent fnlCture loughness values in lertru of I can be obtained on mu.ch smaller speci·
mens than arc requ ired for Klc tests. A leril value Ihat meets the necessary size requ ire·
ments can be convened to an tqui ~alllll Klc through Eq. (9. 16). This qualllity can be
\·ie ...·cd as rhe Klc 111m "''Quld be nlCasUrtd, ,i"cII a luffieicnlly /argll~eimln.
1lIe equivalent K/c value, which is usually ,iven the designation Kle, can be ap-
plied to a SlruCtute that bellaves in I linear elastic fashion. Quantifying the toughness in
terms of KJc enables the designer to apply linear elastic relationships betwtlCn Itress, fl ......
size, and toughness. LincarcllSti~ approaches an: ml.lCh simpler and more versatile than a
fmcture desisn methodology based on the I integral (Section 9.5).
A con~ersion to Kle is only appropriate when the ~ritiell I ~a1uc is • sizc- indcpen-
Iknt mcasu.rc of frkt\ll'C toughnC$S r~!he material. A Ilc ~a1ue for ductile cnICk growth
mUSl satisfy Eq. (7.1 4). while l erit for clea~age must satisfy Eq . (7. 19).

9, 1.5 A Wandac About LEFM

Performing I purely linear clastic fracture analysis and assuming thll LEFM is valid is
potential ly danserou.s, because the analysis gi~el no warning when II becomes in~a1I(l.
1lIc user must rely on CJ.perienoc 10 know whether or not plasticity effccu need to be
~onsidcred. A gencrai rule of thumb is thaI phuucily bco:;omcs importanl al around so...
o f yield, but this is by no means a univerul rule.
470 CIwpt~r9

'The safest approach is to adopc an analysis thaI spans !he entire range from linear
clastic to fully plastic behavior. Such an analysis accounts for the two clI.trtmes of briUle
fracture and plastic collapse. Allow stresses. the analysis reduces 10 LEFM, but pmlic:ts
collapse if the stresses an: sufficiently high. At intermediate stresses, the analysis auto-
matically applies a plasticity correction when neceuary; the user does not have \0 decide
whether or flO( such a CCII'TeCtion is needed.
Sections 9.4 to 9.7 give examples of fracture analyses thai span !he range of mate-
rial behavior.

9.1 THE ASME REFERENCE CURVES

'The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Cede
is I comprehensive guide for designers. fabricators, and operalQl'$ of pre$$ure vC$$Cls and
re lated t omponenlS. Section XI o f the code. "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear
Power Plant Components [l6J," contains guidelines for computin, allowable naw si zes
based on fracture mechanics principks.
Sill(:c fracfllrc lOUghnes.s <!ala an: not always available for. particular heat of steel,
Secli on XI of the ASME code includes reference curves that give conservative estimates
of toughness versus temperature. These CUIYCS were generated by compiling KIt;, Kid,
and KIa data fOf several healS of steel over a range of temperatures, and plotting these re-
sults relative to a reference temperature, RTNDT.
As Fig. 9.9 sthematicaUy illustrates, differen t heats of pressure vessel steel typi-
cally display o;Iuctile-brittle traI1 sitiolU at different temperalUres; the refenmce temperature
is an attempt to collapse all data onto a single curve. The indexing temperature. RTNDT,
is ass igned Ihroogh a combination of the drop weight nil-duttility transition temperature
(NDTI) and Charpy properties; RTNDT l$ defined as the bigha- of the followina cases:

(I ) The drop weight NDTI.

(2) 33"C (6O"F) belo w the minimum temperature al which tbe lowest of three
Charpy results is at least 68 J (50 ft-Ib).

The RTNDT in a typical pressure vessel steel occurs ncar lbe lower "knee" of\he fracture
toughness Irnnsition curve.
Two reference toughness curves were originally developed: the KIC curve and the
KIR curve. 1be former curve describes the lower envelope to a large sel of K/c data,
while the latter is a lower envelope 10 a combined set of KIt. Kid. and KIa data. Since
dynamic and crack arrest toughness values are genenIly lower than static initiation (KId
vall,le$, the J(IR curve is the more conservative of the two. The K/C and KIR curves. in
SI unilS, are Jiven by

K rc = 36. 5+ 3.084exp[O.036(T - RTNDT + 56)] (9. I 7a)

AppUootit;m to Stnu:tw~$ 471

KIR = 29.5+ 1 .344e~p[O. 026(T - RTNDT +89)] (9. 17b)

wlw::rt tcmpcrallllCS are in OC, and KIC and KIR are in MPa ...r;, Figure 9. 10 shows.
plOl or Eqs. (9. 17a) and (9.17b). together wllb the expcrimcnt.al cbll that defined !he
~.

K,e K,e

TEMPERATURE T-RTNDT

, 200 0 K/Co.ta

E • K!o D.ta
•
: •
> ". 0 IOAD.to
•
"
~

~ '00 • 0

~
u

"
• .250 ·'00 ·1,. ·100 ·50 • '00
T-RTNOT, · C

ncuu '- II no. K/C_IIIt ....... ..-IIIo Iloc ........ ala ___ .,.M .. - . . , . . _ .. m-,e
CIIfTaI liT}.
 472 C~r9

According 10 the exponential curve fits for Krc and KJR. the toughness increases
without bound: these curves do nOI predict an upper shelf. In the laIC 19605 and early
19705, wilen these curves were defined. there was no WI)' 10 quantify upper shelf tough·
ness with. fracture mc:chanK:S test . A number of very large spe.;:imens. up 10 lOS mm
(12 in) thick, were required to quantify KIc in the transition region 2 : upper sbelf KIt
measurements were simply nOl possible. Because the upper shelf could no! be quanti·
fied, a cut-ofrwas imposed al 220 MPa { ; (200 laj fu ),
Section XI of the ASME Code also gives guidelines for computing the applied K/
in a p«:$S1.U'e ves.sc:l. For a surface flaw, the stresses are linearized and divided inlo bend-
ing and membrane compontnlS (Fig. 9.3), and stress intensity is estimated from Eq.
(9.2),

9.3 THE CTOD DESIGN CURVE

The crOD concept was applied \0 llrUClural sleeis beginning in the latc 1960s. The
British Welding Research Association (now known III 1l1e Welding Institute) and other
labontories perfonned CTOD tesu on wuclural stee ls and welds. At that time there was
no way 10 apply these results to welded strucllUU because CTOD driving forcc equations
did not exist. Burdclcin and Stone [ 14J developed the CTOD equivalent of the strip yield
model in 1966. Although their model provides a basis for a CTOD dri ving focce n:lation-
ship, !hey wen: unable to modify the strip yield model to account for n:sidual stresses and
sm" l:onecnll'1ltions. (1bcse diffiCulties were later overcome when a strip yield approach
became the basis of the R6 design method, as discussed in the next section)
In 1971 , Burdclcin and Dawes [igi developed the CTOD design I:lU'Ve, a scmi-cmpir-
il'al driving force n:lationship, that was based on an idea that Wells 119) ori,inally pr0-
posed. For linear elastil: oonditions, fracture mechanics theory was reasonably well devel-
oped. but the theoretical framework required to estimate the dri ving force under elastic-
plastic and fully plastil: I:onditions did not uist until the late 1970s. Wells. however,
suggested that ,Iobal strain should scale linearly with CTOD under lar,e scale yieldin,
conditions. Burdclcin and Dawes based their elastic-plutil: driving force relationship on
Wells' suggellion and an empirical correlation between small scale CTOD tests and wide
double-edge notched tension panels made from the same material. TIle wide plate speci-
mens were loaded to failure. and the failure strain and crack size of a given large scale
spc<:imc n were I:om:lated with the critical ClOD in the oorresponding small scale test.
1be correlation that resulted in tbe ClOD design curve is illustrated schematically
in Fig. 9.11. 1l1e critical CTOD is nondimcnsionalized by the half crxk length, a. of the
wide plate and i$ shown on the ordinate orthe graph. lhe nondimcnsional CTOD is plot-
led againSt the failure strain in the wide plate. normalized by the elastic yield strain, £y.
Based on a plot similar 10 Fig. 9. I I. Burdekin and Dawes (18,20] proposed !he following
two-part relationship:

2n.. cripIaI KIC ~ is oIUoo rekmd 10 .. the - Milllaa DollAr Cwvc" which..,f1eom the _ ortntm,:
...,. IarJe apecimeIu.
App/icatiQlt 10 Strucfilns 47'

(9. 1111)

(9.l8b)

where 41 il!he nondimcnsional CfOD. Equation (9 .ISa), which was derived from LEFM
theory, includes a safety factor 0(2.0 on cnck size. Equation (9.ISb) re~nlS an upper
envelope of the e:tpcrimcntal dala.

1.5

1.0

'The applied strllllll.lld naw size ill a WUClure, along with !he critkal CTOD for !he
material, can be plotted on Flg. 9.11. If !he point lies above the design curve, the SIt\lC·
ture is considered safe because all observed failures arc below the design line. Equations
(9.181) and (9.llIb) oonfonn to the classical view of a fracture mechanics analysis, in re-
latingllreu (or strnin in this cue) to fracture toughness (Oeril) and naw size (a). The

...............
CTOD wiln curve is conservative, however, and does not relate critictJl combinations of

In 1980, the CfOD design curve approach WIl5 incorporated into the British
SlIIIKIards document PO 6493 (2 1). This document addresses naws of various shapes by
474 Chaptu9

relating !bern back to an equivalent through-thickness dimension, ll. For example, if a

structure C()ntruns a swface flaw of length 2<: and dcpdl (J, \be equivalent through-tlUckness
flaw produces the same SlreSS intensity when loaded to the same stres.s as the structure
wilh the surface flaw. Thus ii i$ a generalized measure of a flaw's severity. TIle erOD
design CUNe can be applied 10 an)' flaw by replacing a with ii in Sq. (9. ]8).
'The original CTOD design c urve was based o n correlations with nat plates loaded in
tension. Real structun:s, howe~r. often include complel\ shapes thai resulL in SITesS con-
centralions. In addition the structure may be subject to bending and residual stresses, as
well as tensile (membrane) stresses. The PD 6493: 1980 approach IICCOllnlS for complex
suess distributions simply and conservatively by estimating !be maximum total strain in
the cross ~tion and assuming thai this strain acts through the entire cross s«lion. 1lle
maximum strain can be estimated from the following equation:

(9.19)

where 1/ is the elastic stress concenttlltion factor. Pm is the primary membrane su"ess, Ph
is the primary bending stre!l$, and S is the secondary stress. which may include !henna! Of
residual stresses. Since the pr«:is<; distribution of residual stresses is usually un known, S
is often assumed to equal the yield strength in an as-welded weldment.
When Burdekin and Dawes developed the aDD design curve. the aOD and wide
plate datil were limited; the curve they conslCUcted lay above all available d ata. In 1979,
Kamath ]22] reassessed the design curve approach with additional wide pl ate and aDD
dau generated between 1971 and 1979. In most cases, there were three aOD lests for a
given condition. Kamath used the lowest meilliured CTDD value to predict failure in the
corresponding wide plate lipecimen. When he plotted the reliults in the form of Fig. 9.1 1.
a few dm points fell above the design curve, indicating Eq. (9.18) Willi nonconservative in
these instances. 11Ic CTDD design curve, however, Willi conservative in most cases.
Kamath estimated the average safety factor on crack siu to be 1.9, although ind ividual
safety factors ranged from less than I to greater than 10. With this much scauer. the con-
cept of a s.afety factor is of little value:. A much mon: meaningfu l quantity is !he confi-
dence level. Kamath estimated tJut the CTDD design curve method corresponds to a
97.5% confidence of survival. That is, the method in PO 6493: 1980 is conservative ap-
pro~imalely 97.5% ofltlC time.

9.4 FAILURE ASS ESSMENT DIAGRAMS

SlCUctures made from materials with sufficient toughness may not be susceptible to brit-
tle fracture, but they can fail by plastic collapse if they are overloaded. The CTOD design
curve d oes not expl icitly address (;ollapse. and can be nnnconservative if a separate col·
lapse che(;k is nol applied.
Dowling and Townley [23J and Harrison, el al. [24J intn".ld uced the (;OOCepl of a IWO-
criteria failure assessment diagram (FAD) 10 describe the intel1lCtion between fracture and
ApplicaliOrl 10 SfrNClllfU 4"
collapse. 1lle firsl FAD .... as derived from a modified version of the strip yield model. as
described below.
Equalion (9. IS) illhe effecti ve Siress inlensily faclor for a throu"h crack in an infi-
nile plale. accordi n" 10 the ~lrip yield model. AS discus!led earlier. this relationship is
asymptOtic 10 the yield stnngth. Equation (9.IS) can be modified for rcalltruclW"C$ by
replacins (1}'s wilh the collapse sWti. O"c. for the Itructure. lbis .... ould ensure that the
Itrip yield model pmlieu failure as the applied streSS approaches the collapse stress. For
a struclure: loaded in tension. collapse occurs wbcn the S!TeSS on the net crou section
reacbes the now stress of the material. Thus (lc depends on the \eMile p!open~ of the
mBterial and the nlw siu relative 10 the total cross section of the struclure. 1lle nut su:p
in derivins a failure: assessment diagnun from the strip yield model entai ls dividing the ef-
fective S!TeSS intensity by the linear clastic K:

(9.20)

'This modification not only expresses the drivi nS fon.:e in • dimensionless fann but .Iso
eliminates the sq uare root tena that contains the half ienSth of tbe through cf1lCk. Thus
Eq . (9 .20) removc.s the geometry dependence of the 5lrip yield model 3. This is analogous
to the PO 6493 approach. where the driving (C)fCC relationship was scncrali~ed by defining
an equivalenl through thickness na ..... ir. AI a final step. we can define the ,treSs ratio.
S,.. and the K ratio. K,. as follows:

K, ""...!L (9.2 1)
K'JI

1lle failure lS'lCSSmcnt diqram is then obtained by lnsenin, the abovc defin itions inlo
Eq. (9.20) and tWn, the reciproo;al:

(9.23)

) Tllil ~ of tho llrip ,...101 ........ is .:II n,o.-ty aomcI for III _fiPtIDOU. .... II Ie • JOOd
~Il_ .
476

K,

i
... \,
,i ,
0.'
!
•
-
0.4 -

0.' f---+---+-+---------- --- +! -+---- . ----.~

o
o 0.' 0.' 0.' 0.8 1 1.'
S,
FIGURE t.ll Tbt:drlp J\dd ~ -.--:nl dbp"am [D.l').

Equation (9.23) is plaued in Fig. 9.12. 1be curvc represents IlK: 10cus of predicted failure
points. Fracture is predicted when Kelf= Klc. If the toughness is very large, the str\Jc-
ture fails by collapse when S, = 1.0. A britlle malerial will fai l when K, '" 1.0. In in-
termediate CaKS, collapse and fractute interact, and both K, and Sf are less than 1.0 at
failure. All points inside of the FAD are considered safe; points outside of the diagram
are unsafe.
In order to assess the significance of a panicular flaw in a structure, one must deter-
mi ne the appl ied values of K, aOO Sr. and plot the point on Fig. 9.12. lhc stress inten-
sity ratio for the suucrure is given by

K -~
'(llrue/uTe) - K1C
(9. 24)

The applied stress ratio can be defined as the ratio of the applied stress \0 the coll apse
stress. Alternatively. the applied Sf can be defined in terms of axial forces or moments.
If the applied conditi ons in the structure place it inside of !be fAD,!be $uucture is safe,
A.pplication ta Strucllln, 477

EXAM PLE 9.1

A middle laUion (Mn panel (fii- 7.l(e)) 1 m wide and. 2.5 mm thiek with a 200 mm
crack must elrry I 7.00 MN load. For the material, Kfe" 200 MPa..r;;;, arS '"' 350
MPI, and OTS = 4~0 MPa. Use !.he strip yield FAD to determine ....het.hcr or not this
\»-nel will fail.

So/uliolt: We ean llke aceounl of wort hardmillj by uwmillj I flow 511es5 that II
the Iverqe of yield and tensile strength. ThUll oj/ow" 400 MPa. 1bc collapse load
il then defined when the Itress on the ~mainina cross Kdion ~aches 400 MPa:

Pe: .. (400 MPal (0.02j I'll (I m . 0. 200 1'1) .. 8.00 MN

The~fore,

7.00 MN
S, '" 8.00 MN .. O.(I7j

The applied Itn:SS inte lUity can be estimated from Eq. (2.46) (without the polynomial
term):

7.00MN "", (" (O. IOOm )) _ 161 MP" 4";;

KI_ (0.02j m j( I .Oml" (0. 100",1 ..,e: 1.00",

16/
K, .. 200 .. O.8tll

1bc point (0.17S. 0.8OS) )1 pl(ltlai in Fi .. 9.12. Since thiJ point falll oul$ide of the
failure weDment diagram. the panel will fail before reac:b.in, 7 MH . N(lte that a eol-
lapse analysis Of briule fracw~ analysis .lone would have predicted a "safe" com;li-
lion . Intcrlll:tioo of fractuo:: and plastic coll.pse causes failu~ in this caloe.

In 1976, the Central Electricity Ge nerating Board (CEG B) in Gre.t Britain

incorporated the strip yield fai lure assessment into a fracture analysis methodology, whiCh
became known as the R6 approach (24] . A revised version of the R6 document, whicb
was publisbed in 1980 [25). offers practical advise on how to apply the strip yie ld FAD
to rell structures. For example. it recommends that secondary stresses be taken into
account through a secondary stress intensit),. The total stress intensilY is obtained by
addin, the primary and secondary CQlIlpontnl$:
478

(9.25)

Only the primary stresses are used to compute S,.. because secondary stresses, by defini-
lion, do nOI contribute 10 collapse. Note thai K/ ilthe LEFM stress intensity; it docs
not include I plastic zone C()(KCuon. Plasticity cffeclS are taken into aa:oont through the
formulation oflhe failwe assessment diagram CEq. (9.23) .
The R6 procedure recommends that the fracture touglmcs.s input be obtained through
testing the material eccording 10 ASTM E 399 or the equivalent British Standan:l (Chapter
7). When it is not possible to obtain a valid K/c value experimentally. one can measure
llc in the material and conven mis toughness 10 an equivalent Klc (or KJd by means of
Eq. (9.16).

9.5 THE EPRI J ESTIMATION SCHEME

1lx: R6 fai hll'c IIS5CSl mcnl diagnm is bued on a strip yiel d model. Si nce it &5-
sumes elastic. perfectly plastic material behavior, it is conservative when applied 10 strain
hardening materials.
In 1916, Sh ih IIlId Hutchinson (26) proposed. mot"C advanced methodology for
comp"'!'ng the fracture driv ing force tilat takes account of sln in harden ing. TIle:i r ap-
proach was deve lo ped funher an d validated at the Ge~e ral Elc<:tric Corpontion in
Schenectady. New York in the late 197Q$ and early 1980s. and was published as an engi-
neering handbook by the EIc<:1ric Power Research [ru;titUie (EPRJ) in 1981 [27J.
llIc EPRI procedure provides a means for computing the applied J integral undu
elastic-plastic and fu lly ph'llic conditions. TIle: elastic and plastic componen ts of J are
computed separately and added w obtain the total J:

(9.26)

Figure 9. 13 schematically illustrates a plOl of J versus applied load . llIc pl astic compo-
nent of J is II(:gligible at low loads, but dominates at high loads. llIc sum of elastic and
plutic J values from the estimation $Cherne agrees well with an elastic-plastic finite cle-
ment analysis.

9.5.1 Theoretical Background

Consider a cracked structure with l fully plastic ligament, where elastic strains are negli_
gible . Assume that the material follows a power-law SU'eS!i-slnin cwve;

(9.27)
Applicmion to Smwuns
".

JINTEGRAL

Elutlc + Plutle
l&limallon sm.. me)

APPUED LOAD {PI

nGURE '-13 no EPRI J ............... '211.

which is the second term in the Rambcrl-Osgood model CEq. (3.22». The parameters a.
n , te, and <10 are defi ned in Section 3.2.3. Close to the crack tip, under J -controlled con-
di tions, the stresses arc give n by the HRR sinlul ari ty:

(9.28)

whic h is a restatement of Eq. (3.243). Solvina (or J in the HRR equalion gives

J-
-
aeoon
U I { Uji)n+1 &..n+1
U
'}
(9.29)
•
For J controlled conditions, the loading musl be proportional. Thai is, the local stresses
must increase in proportion 10 the remote 10M. P. Therefore, Eq. (9.29) can be wrillen in
terms of P:
48. Chapter9

(9.30)

wtlcrc h is a dimensionless function of geomeuy and n. L is a chanlo::teristic length for the

5U\ICIUrc , and Po is a reference toad. Both L and Po can be defined arbitrari ly, and h can
be dete nnined by numerical analysis of the configuration of interest.
It turns out that the assumptions of J domi nance at the crack lip and proponional
loading are not necessary to show thai J $Cales with pn+! for a power-law material, but
these assumptions were useful fot deriving the com:ct fonn of theJ-P relationship.
Equation (9.30) is an estimate of thefully pkutic J. Under linear elastic conditions.,
J muS( $Cale with pl, 1bc EPRI J estimation procedure assumes thai the IOta! J is equal
10 the sum of the elastic and plastic eompooenl$ (Eq. (9.26) and Fig. 9 . 13).

9.5 .2 Estimation Equations

The fully plastit equations for J, crack mouth opening displacement (Vp). and load line
displacement (~) have the following form for most geometries:

(9.3 1)

(9.32)

(9.33)

where b is the uncracked ligamcnl lcngth, a is the crack length, and hI , hZ, and hj life
dimensionless parameters that depend on geometry and hardening exponent. 1lle h factors
for various geometries and n values, for both plane stress and plane strain, are labulated in
several EPRlreports [28-3OJ, as well as Chapter 12.
!be reference load, Po. is usl.latl), defined by alimitlOlid solution for the geometry
of interest; Po normally corresponds to the load at which the net cross section yields.
1lle plastic load line displacement, .lip, defined in Eq. 9.33 is only thaI component
or plastic displacement that is due to the crack. Recall Section 3.2.$, where the dis-
placement was divided into "crack" and "110 crack" components; the latter is the displace-
ment that would be measlRd if there were no crack, and the former is the additiOlUlI dis-
placement thai results from the presence or the crack. 11le Iotal displacement in a struc-
ture is the sum of the e1asdc and plastic "crack" and "1\0 crack" components.
Application to StrUt'lures .81

Several configurations have J expressions that are slightly different from Eq. (9.3 1).
For example. the fully plastic J integral for a cenler cracked panel and a single edge
notched tension panel is given by

(9.34)

where, in the case of the center cracked panel. a is the half crack length and W is the half
width. This modification was made in order 10 reduce the sensitivity of hI to the crack
length/width ratio.
The clastic 1 is equal to {laeJfl. the'energy release rate for an effective crack length.
which is based on II modifieu Irwin plastic zone correction:

(9.35)

where fJ;; 2 for plane SlrCSS and fJ;; 6 for plane strain conditions. Equation (9.35) is a
first·order COfTeCtiOn. where aef/is computed from the elastic KI. rather than KeJf thus it-
eration is not necessary.
The plastic zone correction that is applied to lei docs not have a theoretical basis,
but it was incorporated 10 provide a smooth transition from linear elastic to fully plastic
behavior. Estimated 1 values that include !be plastic zone correction are closer to e1astic-
plaslic finite clement calculations than estimates of J without this correction. Equation
(9.35) has a relativcly small effe<:1 on the computed J value (E:a:ample 9.3); the effect is
negligible at low loads, where the behavior is linear elastic. and at high loads. where the
fully plastic lenn dominates.
The CTOD can be estimated from a canputed J value as follows:

J
Ii=d - (9.36)
"uo
where dn is a dimensionless constant that depends on now propenies [31]. Figure 3. 18
shows plots of dn for both plane stress and plane strain. Equation (9.36) must be regarded
as approJ{ imate in the clastic-plastic and fully plastic regimes. because the l -CTOD rela-
tionship is geometry dependent in large scale yielding [3 1J.
482 Clwptt!r9

EXAMPLE '.2
Consider a single edge notclted tensilc panel with W=] 11'1,8 .. 25 mm, and,,:: 125
mm. Calculate J venus applied load a»uming plane stress oondilioll$, Neglect the
plastic zone correction.
Given: oQ=414MPa; 11::10; (1": 1.0; E .. 207.000MPa e,,-uu'E=O.OO2

So/u,io,,; From Table 12.13, 1he rcfeKl\CC load for this configuration is given by'

Po = J.Q72'f/(JObB
wI<.
II" ..JJ + (alb? . alb .. 0.867 for tJIb '" /25/875 .. 0./43

SOlving for Po gives

Po:: B.42MN

For oIW = 0.]25 and /I = 10, hi .. 4.14 (from Table 12. 13). Thus the fully plastic J is
given by

Jpl = (/.OKO.OO1X414,()()O loP,,)

(O.87.SmKQ. IZ S .. )
1.0 m (4./4)
(P)"
8.42 MN

.. 2.486 x /0,8 pi J

where P is in MN and Jp / is in kJl m 2, The el~ic J is given by

J _!l _ p2 F(oM)
d - E - 82 W E

From the polynomial c~prcnion in Table 2.4,ftaIW} .. 0.170 for oIW .. 0.125. Thus

JOOOp2 (O.770)2 p2
ld" (0. 025 m)l (1.0 m) (207,000 MP,,) = 4.584

wIM:rc P is in MN ilIld Jet is in kJlm 2 . 1k l()I.al 1 is Ihe sum of lei and Jp/:

l . ,084p2 + 2.486.z/{J"8pll

Figure 9. 14 shows a plot of Ihis equalion. An analysis Ihll includes lhe plaslic zone
corm::tion (Eq. (9.3')) is IIlso ploned for comparison.
Application to Structu~s 4"

EXAMPLE 9.3

For tile panel in E.umple 9.2. determine the efreet of the plaMic zone co~on at P
z Po.

So/wlio,,; From tbe previous problem. Po • S.42 MN. TIle clastic J wilbout tbe
Irwin correction II siven by

The plastic J 1$ not influenced by the Irwin com:ction;

The plastic zone correcIiOll is obtained by substituting the appropriate quantities into
Eq. (9.35):

I I (') ( (8.42 MN/(O. nO) )'

oeff- 0. J25m + 2 - Ti _r--
1+(1.0) 21t (0 .025 m)"V I m (4/4 MPol

= 0.J51 m

... , (0.814)
Je/fodP - 325 U'm"'" 0.710
,• 418 Ulm
,
The tOlal J without the plastic WRe correction Is IS follows:

and J ..ith the correetion i$ pYa! by

J(o,,,, .. 418 Ulm 2 ... 375 lJJm2 " 793 u;",l

which is 1391> hiaher than the estimate without the correction. This calculation repre-
senlS a worst-case situation. 11K: relatiYe cfreo;:t of the plastic zone cornetion is sig-
nificantly less It both lower and higher loads. Also. the correction Is smaller in
plane wain than In plane 1Ire5.S.
484 Chnpler9

" . EDGE CRACKED PANEL

W.t.om 8.25 ...... a _ 115mm
n _10 (Jo • •1& MPa £0.0.001 a_l.0
~
0 Without PZ Correction
"
~ oro • With n Correction

.' •
..-
p
~
~
Z
W

'00 p.

• I,__ ~::::::~,~~~::::.::::::::~L.-"__ -'.~'-"--" L-__ __"

APPUED LOAD, MN

9.5.3 Co mp ariso n with EJ:perim tDta l Estimates

Typica! equations for estimating J from a laboratory specimfn have the form

J =-
K2 tj
+:.!.£...
li{Pdt! (9.37)
E b P
o
assuming unit thickness and B stationary CI'lICL Equation (9.37) is convenient for exper-
imental measurements because il relates J 10 the area under the load v. load line displace-
ment curve, provided ~ does not contain a "no crack" component (see Sec:tioo 3.2.5),
Since Sq. (9.33) gives an expression for the p.,jp curve for a stationary craclr::, ;1 is
possible to compare Ipl estim ates from Eqs. (9.31 ) Ind (9.34) with Eq. (9.37).
According to Eq. (9.33), the p .,jp curve follows a POW!'T law, where the el<poncnt is the
same as in II tensile test. The plastic energy absorbed by the specimen is as follows
Application to Strwctwrtl '85

(9.38)

Thus !he plastic J is liven by

"+1
naP
JpI =-~ P ere - "- - (9.39)
n+l pO °b"] [ P )
•
Equating Eqs. (9.3 1) and (9.39) and solving for IJp gives

(9.4Oa)

Alternatively, if Jpl is given by Eq. (9.34),

(9.4Ob)

Cons ider an SENB specimen in plane Stnin. The reference load. an uming unit
thickness and the standard span of 4W, is giV<ln by

(9.41 )

Substituting Eq. (9 .41 ) into Eq. (9.40&) gives

71 '" I n+IW!!l.. (9.42)

p 0.364 n a IIJ

Equation (9.42) is plotted in Fig. 9.1.1 fOf' n • .5 and n = 10. According to the equation
that was derived in Section 3.2 ..5, 1!p = 2. This derivation, however, is only valid for
deep cracks, since it 1l$5Umes that the ligament length. b, is the only relevant length di-
mension . Fig\lRl 9. 15 indicates thai Eq. (9.31) approaches the deep end : limit wilh in_
creasing aIW. For .. . 10, the deep coclr. formula appears to be reasonably accurate be-
yood aIW - 0.3. NO(e that !he 1!p values computed from Eq. (9.42) for deep Cl""IK:ks fluc-
tuate about an average of -1.9, ralbc:r than the theoretical "a1ue of2.0. Thc.se fluctuations
may be indicative of numerical erroR in the II J and II) values. whi le the ave rage IJp
 '86 ClltJplu9

slightly below 2.0 may indicate an aIW dependence that was noc included in the dimen-
sional analysis (Eq . (3.36» in Section 3.2.5.
Equation (3.32) was derived (Of. double edge norched tension panel. but also applies
to • deeply IIOlChcd ce nter cracked panel. A comparison of Eq . (9.34) with tbe lC~ond
ICrm of Eq. 0 .32) lUlU 10 the foll owiog relationship for. center Cl'llCked panel in plane
streu:

(9.43)

where 'EPRI is the plastic J computed &om Eq. (9.34) and Joe il the plastic J from the
6eep Cfkk (o",1\d ... Figun: 9.16 is. plOl: ofEq. (9.43). The deep axk formula underes-
timates J at small aIW ratios, but coincides with J EPRI when aIW is sufficiently large.
NOit thaI the deep crack fonnul. applied to a wider range of aIW for n '" 10. 'The deep
Cl1I(:k formula usumc.s thaI al l plasticity is confined to the ligament. a conditi on lhal is
easier 10 achieve in Iow·h.an:lening materials .

,.•

1'\pl
, DftpCnd<f.qn.

.•
.----' -. --- - • e - -- -./:
•

I.' r . ••

,
•

•
•
•• SEN8snOMEN

" •
•
•
/
l'I&IIe Strain

1.'
••
•
••
•
•
•
I t ~ I
. ... J
o n _ JD

• , , ., ., ., ., .,
,.•
U

'.1 0.. D.5 0.6 '.1

. /W
n GUR£ , •., C-p....... of 1M pllIItk " t.nor 1I>t.............. Ibo URI H.l>dbook wit. t •• 600p
mdt ......, f1I U dermd '" ~ ... J
Application 10 SlrucIUrt!S 487

• •,
3,S ,
,
,
,
,,
CEN'T9. CRACKED PANR
PIaft.s_
• n, ..
JEPRl
Joe
3

2,S
,
,
,
,,
,
,
• ~ 10

.. W
2
••
•
,. • •

,
~ .

..---. -

O,S
0,' 0.2 D> 0.' O.S 0.' 0.1 0.' 0,'
. /W
F1(;URE 9.16 eo ... po.r\ool> <II J ..t1 .... t.. rr- th, EPR] ~""'beoIr. with U.. d«p onck fo.... wla for.
a nter oncked _ L

9.5.4 J - Based Failure Auellrnent Diagrams

llJe elastic- plastic driving force estimated from the EPRJ procedure Cllll MIlO be uprcssed
in terms of. failure assessme nt ciiagnun, an id«. rlf'Si proposed by Bloom (32) and Shih,
e1 at [33J. llJe J ratio and SITe" fltiO arc defined as follows.

(9.44)

P
S,= - (9.4.5)
Po

llJe equivalent K, is equal to the square root of Jr.

FiJUI'C 9. 11 sbows the applied J (or tenter cracked panels with aIW '" 0 ..5 and /I "'.5.
10. and 20, ploned in terms or rallure assessment~ . TIle . lrip yidu uiagram i,
included for comparison. Note that the Wpc of the FAD changeJ when sU'ain hardening
is taken into ilCcoont. lbc strip yield diagram is cOll$Cl'Yative in this CISC because it as-
sumes collapse will occur whe n the net sec:tion stresses equal 0"0; a panel made from a
slTain bard.ening material can withstand somewhat greater Strcs5eS. Figure 9. 18 iIl LIStrates
... a.,.,'
IIw failun: _moen! dia,:rams derived from the £PRJ pnx:edW1: ~ ~try depc:llCknt.
while the strip yield di.vam is grontctry illlkpendenlo The shape o f the EPRI failure as-
sessment diagram depends nOl only I>n the geometry of the cracked body. bUI also on the
stress lilale (plaroe SIlesS Of plane strain). This mak1:5 fnoo:ture analyses wil~ the EPRI ap-
proach /!lOR compliclted, because. diffe""nt FAD muO! be g.De ...iCd for each ronfi,\ll"ll-
ti.... analyzed.

9.5.S Ductile l atCabllily A • • lrlls

S«tion 3.4.1 oollillCd the theory of ,.ability of J eontrolled crack 1J'OWlh. Cnor.:t IJUWlb
is SLable as lona q the ale of clwtgc in the driyinll force (1) is less than or equal (() the
rate of ch.ui~ of the material resista~e (JR). Eq\lalions (3.49) and (3.50) defined tbe
tearing modulus. which is I nandimenlionl] ""presentation of the dcrivlllve$ of both the
drivina:(<Wee and the resisIance:

Topp _ E(dJ
- )
~ da dT
_ E dJ
TR ---" R
ao do
(9.46)

(9.47)

u
K,
•• ICEtflH~~'ANn I
ff.
,. ~
- ---,
, ,
., ~ ,
•
004 ;....

--
f

"' F
,
7.
_.,
, , ..,
,.. ,..
S.
.. ... • ...
nGUIlE'.n
_
r-...
... utUH •
•• '4' . _ r... ......... _ _ -"'_ • • J, J .. _» ,.....
Applicatian ta StructuU$ 4 ••

1.2
K,
1
I CENTER ~~~ED PANEL I
JJ,
0.' , .IW:

0.'

0. '
,
Strip Yield
O.l Model

0
0 0.1 0.' 0.6 0.' 1 1.'
s,
FIGURE '.1' EPRl J."-d taitur'C _ _ nl dlqnms for . cento. cracked ,....t with . .ri.,... a/W
"1101.

where eM is the system compliance (Fig. 2.12). Recall Iilat the valuc of eM infl ucnces
the relative stability of the structure; eM:: - corresponds to dead loading, which tends to
be unstable, while eM:: 0 represents lhe other exlrl:me of displacement control, which is
more stable. Crack growth is unstable when

(9.48)

TIle rate of change in driving force at a fixed remote displacement is given by"

(9.49)

Since the EPRJ J estimation approach provides expressions for J and ~ as a function
of load and crack length, it is possible to evaluate the derivatives in Eq. (9049) numeri-
cally al any P and a in the structure of interest. The EPRI Handbook [27] recommends a
forward differellCe approach for numerical differentiation:

4n.. distincU"" bel",,,,,. Ioc&I and "'mote diJpla<:c""'." «\ and eM P, n:sl"'cU~ly) it Wt...,.. IS 1""1 as
III dil.placemenlS due to tile crack an:: included in (\. The local displacement. 4. CID ""nwn any ponkln of
the: "'Do crack'" elastic displac.me .... without afftCIi"i the: tenn in iq",,", nUtI in Eq. (9.49).
... Owp/tr9

(;~t =
J (a + t1a ,P ) - J(a, P)
(9.XIa)

""
(;~), =
i(a, P +tlP) - 1(0, P)
(9.5011)
tJ>

(~t =
tl(a+ &, P)- il(a,P)
(!Il.SG.:)

""
(~!), =
.d(a. P + ilP) - .1(0, P)
dP

One must exercise CJl1'erne eaution in computing these derintives: J and oS are highly
nonlinear functions of Io.c1 and crack size, parti~ularl)' in the fully plastic ~&ime. 'The
load and crac:klength incremenl$, tJ' and da, should be chosen to minimize numerical eT'
rol'$. One possible approach is 10 chose ~"ively smaller incrcmcnls until the nu-
merical d~rivalives converge. Nonlinear differentiation is aRothcr alternative. For cum-
pIe. taking the logarithm of J, A, <I, and P before differentiation may incruse numerical
""""Y.
'The EPRI Handbook QUtlines two approaches for assening s,",etur.l sllbi1;t)':
er1II:"k driving fon:e diagrunl and sUibility assessment diagrams.. The f(lf1l1ff is. plot of J
and JR versus crack lenath.. while 11 stability assessment diagram is a plot oheann, mod-
ulus venus J. lbese diapnu are merely altemative methods for p10ltinl the 1UIn1C in-
formation.
Figun:: 3.20 Showl a schematic driving ron;<: diaaram for both load control and dis-
placemcl'll cOl'llrol. In thiS example, the ~IrUCIU": i~ u,,~u."lc MI PJ and.dJ in load con-
trol, but the stnlCture is stable in displacement control. Figure 9.19 illuslrates driving
force curves fnr this same slIUCture. bul with fixed remOl:e displacemenl • .dT. and a finile
.ystem compliance, eM. 1be sU"UCIUR: is unstable at .dT(4} in this case.
FiIUR' 9.20 iltusntcltbe load-displaccmenl curve for this h)'llCMlletical suucture. A
maximum load plateau occurs II PJ and .dj, and the load dcaeasc:s with further displace-
ment In load COTItrol, the JllVClUre is unstable at Pj, bc<;ausc the load cannot incn:asc
further. lltc SlIUClurc il alwaYI ltable in pure displacemenl eontrol (eM . 0). bul is un-
stable 11.d4 (and .dT(4}".d4 + eM P4) for the finite compliance case.
Figure 9.2 1 is a S(:hcmatic slIlbi lity assessment diagram. The applied and material
tearing modulus are plnued aglinst J and JR, respectively. Instabi lily OCCUI"5 when the
Tapp-J curve cms~ the TR-JR curve. lltc latter curve is relatively easy In obtain. S;!ICC
IN depends only on the amount ofcr.:k growth;

JR " J R{a. 110) (9•.51)

Application ro ,J,('UcrU I?S '91

Thus Ihere is a unique relationship between TR and JI(, and the TR ·JR curve can be de-
fined unambiguously. Suppose, for example. that the J-R curve is fil lo a power law:

lna u bmty ..........

'0CRACK SIZE
.
FIGURE 9.1, Sclotm.1k 4rh1"1 ro_ dla ..... rOf'. 1b.ec1 ~mok dbpl-.nt1lt. Reft r ID"I- J.lO fo~
u.. OOtrellpo","", dla...... ror ""'" IoQ OODtroI .ad dlsplKtlllt ..1 ...... lroI.

WAD

Displlcemmt
Control

DISPLACEMENT
 '" Chapur9

t.o.ad ing Path

FolloWl
·R Curve
T app, TR

J INTEGRAL

(9,52)

n.e material tearing mOOulus is given by

(9.53)

'The applied tearing modulus eurve is less clearly defined, however. There are a
number of approaches for defining the TtJpp-1 curve, depending on the application. Figwe
9.21 iIIUStnllCS IWO possible approaches, which an discussed below.
Suppose tha i the initial crack: size. QQ. is known, and onc wishes 10 dClcrminc the
loading conditions (P, A and 6r) al failure. In this case, the T QPp should be computed
al various points on the R curve. Since J ., IR during 5table crack ifOwth, the applied J
at. given crack liu CaD be in ferred from the J.R cu:rve (Eq. (9.50), lllc remote displace-
menl. dT. increases as the lo.Img pmgre~s up the J·R curve (lee Figs. 9. 19 and 9.21);
instability occurs at LlaT(4) . The final load, local displacement. crack size. and stable
crack extension can be readi ly com puted, once the critical point on the '·R curve has been
identified.
'The Tapp-.l c urve c:an also be constructed by fixing one of the loading conditions (p.
d. or dT). and det.ermininB the critical crack size at failure. as well as aQ. For example.
if we fix 6TaI6T(4) in LIle 5lrUctufC, we would predict the same failure point u the pre-
vious analysis but the Tapp-I curve would follow. different path (FiB. 9.21). If. how-
ever. we fill the i"!:mOl:e displaa:ment al. dilfel"C'nt value. we would predict f.ilun: al an-
Application to Structuns 493

other point on the TR-JR curve; the critical crac k size. stable crack nte nsion, and Uo
would be diffe~nt from the previous example.

9.5.6 Some Practical Conside ratio ns

If the material is sufficiently tough or if crack- like flaws in the structure IIrC' small. the
structure will not fail unless it is loaded into the fully plastic regime. When performing
fracture lUlalyse:s in this regime, there are a number of important considerations that many
practitionel'$ overlook.
In the fully plastic regime, the J integral varies with pI1+ /; a slight increase in load
leads to a large increase: in the applied J. The] versus crack length driving force c urves
are also very steep in this regime. Consequently, the failure stress and critical crac k size
are insensitive to toughness in the fully plastic regime; rather, failure is governed by the
flow properties of the material. The problem is reduced to a limit load situation. where
the main effect of the crack is to reduce the nel cross section of the structure.
Predicting failure stress or critical crack size under f\llly plastic conditions need not
be complicated. A detailed teari ng instability analysis and a sim ple limit load analysis
should lead to similar estimates of failure conditions.
Problems arise. howevcr. when one tries to complllc the applied J at a given load
and crack size. Since] is very sensi tive to load in the fully plastic regime. a slight error
in P produce s a significant errt)l" in the estimated J. For example. a 10% overestimate in
the yield slren gth. 0"0' will prodl.lCe a corresponding error in Po, which will lead to an un-
derestimate of] by a factor of 3.2 for n = 10. Since fl ow properties typically vary by
several percent in different regions of a steel pl ate. and heat-IO-heat variations can be much
larger. accurate estimates of the applied J at a fixed load are yirtually impossible.
If estimates of the applied J are required in the fully plastic regime , the displace·
menl, not the load, should characterize cond itions in the structure. While the plastic J is
proportional to pn+ J. Jpl scales with 1J./"+I)(,,. according to Eqs. (9.3 1) and (9.33).
Thus a J-Jl plot is nearly linear in the fully plastic regime. and displ acemen t is a much
more sensitive iridicator of the applied J in a structure. Figure 9.22 compares J-P and J-.a.
plots for a center cracked panel with three strain hardening e~ poncnts.
Recall Section 3.3. where the empirical correlation of crOD and wide plate data
that resulted in the crOD design c urve was plotted in terms of strain (I.e., displacement
oyer a fixed gage length) rather than stn:ss [18,20]. A correlation based on stress would
not have worked. because the failure stresses in the wide plate specimens were clustered
around the flow stn:ss of the material.

9.6 THE REFERENCE STRESS APPROACH

The EPRI equations for fully plastic], Eqs. (9.31) and (9.34). assume that the material's
stress-p lastic strain curve follows a simple power law. Many materials. however, have
flow behavior that deviates considerably from a powcr law. For cxample, most low car-
bon stc<:ls exhibit a plateall in the flow ClII'Ve immediately after yielding. Applying Eq.
...
..
,
-- ..
CENT'ERCRACKED PANEL
Plan. 5 - . o/Wo. o..lS
o 11 _' p -
. . . . 10
E • 11.2:0
3i'
t,
.'" ..
.... 600 -

"...... I$Za3'
-

-- ..
;Z
-
;-'////// ~// .1 ,
o
o O.S 1 , .S
LOAD, MN

..
,

!
.. ".... SIreI .. IIW .. IUS
o ... 5
. . . _ 10
. . . . . 20

.'" ,
oJ'"
- --
~400
-_..
;Z

o
o , , ,
LOAD LINE DISPLACEMENT, mm
(Io)J _ _ _ ..... ' .

"GUIlE 'XI c-,...-elJ ....... _ ,.... * ...",1_ _ _ _ le.eradtrd,.a. (W. !I

. . . . . U _ L . _ .......... w..... ", .....l, ... I.L)
Application to Structures 495

(9.31) or (9.34) to such a material. results in signi ficant elTQrs. Ainsworth [34} modified
the EPRI relationships to reflect more closely the flow behavior of real materials. He de-
fined a reference stress as follows;

(9.54)

He further defined the reference strain as the tOUiI axial strain when the material is loaded
to a uniaxial stress of CJn ! Substituting these definitions into Eq. (9.31) gives

(9.55)

For materials that obey a power law, Eq. (9.~5) agrees precisely with Eq. (9.31), bUI the
fonner is more general, in that il is applicable 10 alltypcs of stress-strain behavior.
Equation (9.55) still contains hI, Ihe geometry faclor which depends on the power
law hardening exponent n. Ainsworth proposed redefining Po for a given configuration 10
produce another constant, hI', that is insensitive 10 n. He noticed, however, that even
without the modification of Po, hJ was relatively insensitive to n except at high n values
(low hardening materials). Ainsworth was primarily interested in developing a driving
fOfCC procedure for high hardening materials such as austenitic stainless steels. 1be strip
yield fail ure assessment diagram was considered suitable for low hardening materials. He
proposed the following approximation.

(9.56)

where hj(n} is the geometry constant for a material with a strain hardening exponent of /I
and hl( I} is the corresponding C0ll511nl for a linear materiaL By substituting hJ{ J) into
Sq. (9.31) (or (9.34», Ainsworth was able to re late the plastic J to the linear elastic
stress intensity factor.

(9.57)

where J.l = 0.75 for plane strain and J.I = 1.0 for plane stress.
Ainsworth's work has importllnt flllllifica.tions. When applying the EPR1 approach,
one must obtain a SIress intensity solution to compu te the elaslic J, and a separate solu-
lion for hJ in order to compute the plastic tenn. The h I constant is a plastic geometry
correclion factor. However, Eq. (9.57) makes it possible to estimate J pI from an elastic
geometry correction factor. The original EPRJ Handbook: [27] and subsequent additions
128-30J contain hI solutions for a relatively small number of configurations, but there are
hundreds of stress intell5ity solutions in handbooks and the literature. Thus Eq. (9.57) is
... Chapter9

not only simpler !han Eq. (9.3 ]), but also more widely applicable. The relative accuracy
of AinsWiXth's simplified equation is cxamincd in Section 9.7.
Ainsworth made additional simplifications and modifications 10 the reference stress
model in order \0 express it in tenns of I failure assessment diaaram. This FAD has been
incorporated into a revision of the R6 procedure (see Section 9.4). The new document
also contains more accurate procedures for analynng secondary stresses. llIe revised R6
approach still permits application oflhe strip yield FAD to low hardening material s.
The reference s~ss FAD has also been included in the revised PO 6493 procedure.
which was published in 199 1. Both the revised R6 and PO 6493 approaches are broadly
similar, and are discussed in Section 9.8.

9.7 COMPARISON OF DRIVING FORCE EQUATIONS

lbe primary advaJ1tage of Ainswonh's rc(crence streSS approach is in accounting for the
geometry of a cracked structure through a linear clastic stress intensity solution. The hJ
faclor is replaced by an LEFM acometry factor. 1be other contribution of Ainswonh's
analysis, !he generalization to streSS-strain laws other than power-law, il of sceondary
importance.
In most casu, the EPRI procedure and Ainsworth 's simplified approach produce
nearly identical estimates of critical naw size and fail ure StreS5. This section presents the
resu lts of a parametric study o f the accuracy of Ainsworth's approach relative to that of
the EPRI procedure. 1be relative accuracy of tile: strip yield model was also evaluated. A
power law hardenin. material was assumed for all analyses, since the main purpose of
this exercise was to evaluate the errors associated with the LEFM geometry COlTe(:tion fac-
tor in the elastic-plastic regime.
For a power-law material, the Ainswonh model gives the following upression for
the total J :

(9..58)

if the Irwin plastic zone cOl"TeCtion is nealected. Since 5\feU intensity is proportional to
load. this relationship has the form

TIle fir.>t term dominates under linear elastic conditions; the second term domi nates under
fully plastic conditions. The EPRI approach (Eqs. (9.31) and (9.34) has the same form .
1be only difference between the EPRl equation and Eq. (9 ..58) is the value of the constant
C(J: the equations agree precisely in the linear elastic nlnge. Thus any discrepancies be_
tween the twO approaches are observed only when tile: plastic term is significant.
 ItppliCalionto Structuns '97

Since load in the fully p[auic nnge is insensiti ve to the applied J (Section (9.5.6),
!he predicted fai lure stress is insensitive to the differences between the EPRI approacb and
the Ainsworth mode l. The lalter approach assumCll that the geometry factor. hl("}. is
equal to the linear elastic value. hJ{J}. Errors in J that result from apply in g Eq. (9.57)
are proponiona[ to the ratio hJ{n)/h/(J J. which is plotted against n in Fig. 9.23 for 8 cen-
ler cra<;ked panel in phlllc ~Lnlin wiu, uIW. 0.7'. Nvtc uoat tbe hJ ,..Iio in thi~ configu-
ration is sensitive to the hardening uponent. Thus Eq. (9.57) leads to significant tlTOl"lO
in J. panicularly II high n values. However, when the h J ratio is raised to the [XIwer
['(n+I). it is insens itive 10 n. TItis [auer ratio is indicative orlbe differences in the pre-
dicted failure stress between the Ainsworth and EPRI approaches.
A design engineer often wishes to use a fracture mechanics Inalysis to estimale the
critical flaw siu at a given applied Stress. To determine the scnsitivity of critical flaw
size estimates to the driving force equation. the author (35) performed a series of calcula·
tions with the EPRI, Ainsworth, and $trip yield models on center crac ked panels and edge
cracked bend specimens. The material was assumed to follow perfectly the power la ... u.-
pre.ssion (Eq. (9.27) for stress vefSW plastic slr1Iin. The constanlJ a and to were fixed
1.0 and 0.002. respectively. for all" \·a!ues: thus 0 0 corresponds uKlly to the 0.2'1 off.
set yield strength.
Two scparate strip yield analyses were performed for each case: one assumed that
the collapse stress was equal to the yield strength: the other based collapse on the flow
stress. defined as the average of yield and ten si le strengths. For a material whose tme
stress-true strain curve follows a power Jaw. the now S!TCi15 can be estimated from the fol-
lowing expn:ssion:

, ,
" ~QA~EDr~El. '
, 1:-", aIW.o.75

~ [""'];;'
0.' f-
~ 0.' r
" h l(1)

0.'

0.' """
MI)
-

0
, • , • 10 12 If 16 18 20
HARDENINC EXPONENT W

F1GUII£ '.l3 T1III tfr..., ttl UNoa"" .............. tIoe "'/ t _ t.... • eeooler ~, .. t ... ,.... willi .tW ..
'.75. no. "'I nollo '""'-<01 '" 1M lIMl .....- ilioodlat .... ttlllle nou. ttl prNktecl t.Dun ob a " ' "
1M EPJlI POI ,.tc, COICe ,, __ .pproKIoa.
.98 Chtlpru9

t!!_IN
C1 =!!r£. 1 +~ (9.59)
flow 2 exp(N)

where N . lin. Equation (9.59) was derived by solving [oc the tensile ill5lability point in
Eq. (9.27) and converting true stress and snin 10 engineering values.
Figure 9.24 shows typical results from this analysis. 111c three driving force equa-
I;nn.' are applied 10 • center crac ked panel with /I '" .5 and /I = 10. Critieal crack size.
normalilCd by W, is plotted against critical J, normalized by width and yie ld strenath.
The nominal stress (PIBW) is fi,;ed at 2,) yie ld. At low toughness levels, all predit tions
agree btcause linear elastic condiuons prev,"\. AI h"Sh lOUg'nnCU levels, \he Cl.II"ItS are
relati vely nal, indicating tha, critical CrICk siu is inse nsi ti ve to toughness. In this re-
gion, fai lure is con troll ed primarily by plastic collapse of the remaining cross section.
11l ~nllru.1 rum.wlI\h ellMUQ,M lP W~!!~. all harden;n& rates.
lbc stri p yic:ld model is nODCOnservative for !he higb 'harnenlDl tn9.'tmll\ ~l.
9.24(a)) when il is based o n the now s\tess. For II '" 10, nowcycr. the slrip yield mode l.
with coll apse defined at uj1ow. gives a ,000 approximati on of the other two curves; the
agreement is even beller al high n values. When the ' lrip yield model i. based on coll~
at ars it is always conservati ve.
This analysis indicates that the Ainswonh model can predict either critical CltICk si1;e
or failure stress in the elastic, clastic-plastic, and fully pl astic regimes. The strip yie ld
model gives reasonable 1"C$1,I1ts fc.low hardening materials.

,.g TH.E PO 64'3 METHOD

The on,ina! PO 6493 approach. published in 1980 by the British Standards Institutiou
[2 1), was based on the CTOO design curve. This methodology suffers from a number of
shortcomings. For exam pl e. the drivi ng force equation is mostly empi ri cal and has a
variable level of conservatism. Improved drivin, force equations became available with
the R6 and EPRJ proceduns. but the CTOD design curve had aJready been widely accepted
by the welding fabrication ind ustty in the Un ited Kingdom and elsewhere. Man y
e ngineers were reluctant 10 discard PO 6493:1980 blx:ause structures analyzed with the old
approach mighl have 10 be re-analyzcd if the a method rendered the 1980 vtnion obsolete.
The conflicting goab of improv ing PO 6493 and maintaining continuity with the
past have been largely satisfied in the 1991 edition o f this procedure (361. which utitizes a
three-tier approach. The three tier philosophy asse~ frKt ure problems at a level of
complexity and a"aarKY appropriate for the silUatioo. AU three kvels o f PO 6493 arc
uprelHd lUI failure aUeII"ment di~g"'''"~. Level I is consisten t with the CTOD design

......
curve approach; Level 2 utiUzes a strip yie ld model and Level 3 is based on the reference
.",......
Application to St"'C"'rtS '99

.., CEN'TD. QACKm PANEl,....s I

••• ~
0 / 0. '" 0.67
--
- - -- -
.~.

-
~
......... F10.StrftI .
,
w
, ,
u ~ , -V
,
••• f- ,
,,, .- - ~ ~ Y!!ld.J'~ _ - - - - - - -
f- , /

" ,,
- EI'Rl Equot1on
_ _ AlnoworUI Model
00
___ StrIp Ylold Modo!

•••
• ..., .. W ••
JqIt
0.015 ..,
.,
. .,
w
~.
••
CfNTEJI. aACl(EO PANU. _ID
0 /0. _ 0.67

- - - -
••
~

, /.;;::1- -a....
-- l_onFlowSonoo -

u
,, ,
, - -
.... Yltl<i SInIIIfIh- - - - -
- ---_.
_ EraJEq......
-- -
., _ _ Al _ _ Modo!

- - - StrIp YloId Model

.,
• 0.01
J"iI
0.015 •."
W ••

(b) . .. I.
SOO Chapr~r9

11.8. 1 Level 1

Level I is consistcnt with the CTOD design cur .. e in the 1980 ..ersion of PO 6493. The
main differences are that the equations are e~pres.sed in terms of a fail ure assessment dia-
gnun, and an c:o;piicit collapse analysis is included. Levell , whie h i. conservative. is in-
tended as a screening tool.
If Klc data are used (or equi..alent K valUC5 fromJ data), the K nuio il defined by Eq.
(9.21). Fof crOD data, Kr is replaced by ..[i;. defmed as

(9.60)

where oJ is the applied erOD obtained from a modified fonn of the CTODdcsign curve:

2
61- KJ
- C1rs for C1l l u)'SSO.5 (9.61a)
E

when: (f/IE: !!/, the maximum membmne stmin denned in Eq. (9.19). Recall thai fJ
(and thus a/) take5 residual stresses, bending stresses. and stress concentrations inlo IIC-
counl by a.mJming thai the muimum .. alue of the Iotal Stre5S acts uniformly through the
cross section. Unlike Eq. (9. 18a), the above n.pression does not inc llJde a u.rety factor of
IWO on crack si~e. In the revised approach, this wely faclor is included in the fonnula-
tion of the FAD. which is a horizontal line al .[i,. : 1mfor (1ll ays S 0.5. The
Le..el I failure asscssment diagram is illustrated in Fig. 9.25. For higher stress le ..els.
the assessment line is defined from the empirical portion of the crOD design curve:

6} = KJ
C1ysE
(~)2(..E.L
al ars
-0.25) for all ayS > 0.5 (9.6Ib)

The influence of Eq. (9.6Ib) on the FAD is iIIustraled in Fig. 9.2$. The re .. ised erOD
design curve contains I conservative collap$C check in the form of a muimum stress m-
ti o.S,.. For Le ..el L,Srisdefinedas

(9.62)

wilen: an is the effecti ..e primary net section stress And anow is the flow stress. defined
as (ars + ors}12 or 1.2 ayS. whiche ..er is leu. Iu Fig. (9.2$) indicates, the Level I
approach i$ restricted 10 0.8 Sr becausc Eq. (9 .61 ) can be nooconsc ..... ati .. e near Iimilload
[37].
Application ta Structurel 50'

9.8.2 Le n l 2

Level 2 utilizes a slrip yield failure assessment diagram . 1lIc I155eSSmenl equation is iden-
tical to the original R6 relationship CEq. (9.23)). except !hat it allows crOD based analy_
~,

(9.63)

Figure 9.25 compares the Levcl I and Level 2 failure assessment diaJlW!ls. NOtc !hal the
Level I FAD is always conservative compared to the levcl 2 mcthod.
n.c trea1ment of Strul 1:ooocntnUion cffe<:1$ and w.:ondary S\Te~S is m<n complcx
in the upper two Icvels. lllc procedure recommends that acCur1\lC SU"CSli intensity solu-
tions be obtained for the actual primary and secondary stress distributions. If this is nOl:
feasible, an approximate sol ution can be obtained by 1inearizing the stress distribution and
separating the stresses. into bending and membrane components. as di scussed in Section
9.1 . 1 For cxamplc, ooll$ider a surface crack of depth a. If the primary and secondary
stresses are ruolvcd inlO bendi", and membrane components.. the approximatc S\Te$S in_
tensity factors are computed from thc following expressions;

0.8

0.'

0.'

0.'

o 0.' 0.4 0.' 0.' , I.l

S,
f1GtIllI: US , ........ _ _ _- ........ f...- I.efflo lllld 1 tl tilt PO 6tt3 - . . . .
"2 Chapler 9

(9.64a)

K,' =(s. +HS.)F~; (9.64b)

where Q is the flaw shape parameter, Pm and Pb arc the primary membl1lne and bending
stresses. Sm and Sb are the secondary stresses. and F and H arc constants obtained from
the Newman and Raju stress intensity solutions [10]. which are given in Section 12.2.
If. as in many cases, the actual distribution of sc:condary Stresses is unknown, onc should
assume that S acts uniformly across the section. n.e British Standards document nlCOffi-
mends that S be assumed 10 equal the material's yield strength in the case of as-welded
components. For thoroughly stress relieved weldments, the estimate of S can be redllCed
to 30% of yield paTallc:l to the weld and 15% of yield transvelK 10 the weld.
11Ie total Kf is the sum of the primary and secondary contributions. For assess-
ments based on erOD. 01 is estimated from Kr by assuming plane stress conditions:

KI
' (9.65)

There is a plastic interaction between primary and secondary stresses that must be laken
into account in Level 2. This is achieved with the correction factor, p, based on the work
of Ainsworth [181. The applied toughness ratios for the structure are 8iveo by

(9.66)

(9.67)

The proccdun:: for detennining p is as follows:

.En... < 0.8 (9.68a)

Grs
AppficDtj(Jff w StrNC:h"U ,.3

p::: 4Pl(1.05-~)
<1YS
0.8 < .!!.a... < 1.05
<1YS
(9.68b)

p=o ~ ~ 1.05 (9.68<:)

<1yS

(9.68d)

0<XS5.2 (9.68e)

PI. = 0.25 X>5.2 (9.680

(9.68g)

When • StrucUITC is loaded by primary stresses.. pon.ion of the residual stresses are
relieved by plastic Slfllin. A simple wa,. 10 model this mechanical stress relicf is to 115-
sume thai the sum of the primary and residual stresses cannot exceed the now stress. For
yield magni tude residual suuses in the unloaded state, the revised PD 6493 approac h
pcnnits the user to incorporate the benefits of mechanical Stress relief as foliows;

(9.69)

where C1R Is the rc)illu!li ~ I.reu whieh is y3C(! to comput. KI.

The stress ratio, Sr, is defined as the ratio of the effec:tive net section stress 10 the
flow SITeSS, as in Level I . Refer to Fia:. 9 .24, which shows that the strip yitld model is
nonconservauve for high hardening materials: restricting the assumed flow s~ss in Sr 10
1.2 ars prevents the nonconservatism lttal is Ken in Fig. 9.24(1).
When the point defined by Eqs (9Ji2), (9.66) and (9.67) ralls inside of the Level 2
&SSc5smenl line (Eq. (9.63»), the strocture is considered safe.
.504 Chapter9

9.8.3 Lnel 3

'The Level 3 failure assessment diagram is based on AinsWQfth's reference 5treSli aPJlfClllCh
1J4]'. The FAD is related to the material's stre55·strain behavior:

IT _ Eln(l + E,ej) _, (1_+;::'.cn,-t,-l3--:- )- " 2

_"'"n,:t,,
K,'V J, - +::- 2 (9.70)
[ O',ej(1 + Euj) 20'YSEln(1+ Erej)

'The above qWllltity is ploued against the load ratio. L,. defined as

L,. = (Jrel = ~ (9.71)

(JYS (JYS

Note that the reference stress and the etre<:tive DCI section suess are equivalent. Sin<:e the
10fId ratio il defined in lenns o f the yield strength ratbcr than the flow stress. Lr can be
greater than I . ]be load ratio cannOI elcccd t:1[Io"/C1yS. where rIflo ... is defined as the
average between yield and tensile strengths. For Level 3, the alternate definition of flow
stress (rIjlow . 1.2 O'YS) does not apply . For Lr > O'jlowlC1yS , K r ,. O.
If tbc stress· strain curve for the material is nO( avai lable. such as would be the case
when analyzing a flaw in a weld heat affe<:\ed zone, the following FAD equation can be
applied at Level 3:

K,. ,fJ; = (1-O. '44~o. 3+0. 7ex~-{).65G)) (9.72)

This upression also has a cut·off al L, '" O'jlo"/O'YS . This alternate FAD requires a
itnowledse of on ly the yield and tensile W'enSths of the material, but this relationship can
be excessively conservative. For many materials. Eq. (9.72) is more conservative than
the Level 2 FAD. Figure 9.26 is a plot of Eq. (9.72), Note that the upper cut·off on Lr
depends on the hardening characteristics of the material .
TIle Level 3 analysis of K, (or {6,.) for the SlnJClUre is identical to the Level 2
procedures (Eqs. (9.6.5) to (9.68» , but Level 3 includes guidelines for ductile instabil ity
and tearing analysis.
Application /0 Structures sos

,. ~ -o. IH,2) ~.3 + 0,7rxp (.{I,65 LI)]

Kr , va; 1

0.'
Typical C ..I-Off for
A...lontk 5,,"1111_ 51ft1.
0.'
0.'

0.' 0.8 ,
L,

........
FIGURE ,.16 OpIlO4ll LeYtl3 fall .. re • ....."01 diqraDI. ror ......b~re ••1,,- ",..In t\lf'\'e II 1'01

9.9 THE R6 METHOD

lbe c urrent version of the R6 approach [36J, the fracture analysis of nuclear power
industry in the United Kingdom, bears a slight resemblance to the rev ised PO 6493
method. Both methods utilize fail ure assessmenl diagrams. and both have adopted the
reference stress model as an option. A lso. both approaches contain three levels of
assessmen l, although lhe detai ls at each level differ for the two docume nts. Space
consideratio ns preclude describing the minute details of R6 assessments:. brief overview
is givcn below.
"lbc R6 mcthod contain5 three options, which an: analogous to the three levels in
PO 6493. The appoprialC option depends on the available data and the desired accuracy.
Option J uses the lower-bound FAD defined by Eq. (9.72). This option is appropri-
ate when the rel evant stress-strain data are not available.
The Option 2 FAD is based on the reference stress model. Thus it is necessary 10
have access 10 the stress-strain curve for the material in question. 1bc failure a5SCssment
diagram for Option 2 is given by

for L, S 4(max) (9.73)

so. ChDpr~r9

Note that Eq. (9.73) differs from the refen:~ce stress FAD thai is lIsed in Level 3 of PO
6493 (Eq. (9.70».
Opticn J provides the most lIC(:urate ana1ysis. The Option 3 FAD is inferred from a
J integral solution for the struclUre of in~~t. NormaJly. such • solution would require
an elastic-plastic fltl.ile clement analysis that incorporales the 5tre"-stfain response o f the
material of interest.
Within each option, there are three categories of analysis:

Category 1: Fracture initiation.

Category 2: Limited slab!. crack growth.

Category 3: Tearing instability.

The appropriate category depends on the inlent o f the analysis. Foe example, design
would nonnally be based on avoiding fracture initiation (Calegory I) under mnnal condi-
tions, but tnalyses of potential lCCidcots may consider stable and unstable ClaCk growth
(categories 2 and 3).

9.10 PROBA8lLISTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS

Most fracture mechanics analyses arc deterministic; i.e ... single value of fracture tough-
ness is used 10 estimate failure stress or critical crack size. Much of what happens in the
real world,OOwever. is IlOl prcdiclable. Since fnc;ture toughness data in the dllCtiic-brittle
InI.nsition Itiion are widely scattered, il is nO( appropriate 10 view fracture tO~ihneu as I
~ingle_vAlued mRlerial COMlani. Olher fllClors also introduce uncenlinty into fracture
analyses. A structure may contain a number of flaws of various sizes, orientations and
locaLions. Extraordinary events such as hurricane!, tidal WiveS and accidents ean fCsult in
stresses significantly above the inlCndcd design leveL Because oftbesc complexities. frac-
ture should be viewed probabilistically rather than deltnllinistically.
Figwe 9.27 is a schematic probabilistic fracture analysis for the case of a lineM
e lastic structure. TIle curve on the left represents tile distribution of driving force in the
structwe ..... hile tile curve on the right is the toughness distribution. The fonner distribu-
tion deper.ds on the uncertainties in Sire$.! and flaw size. When tile di stributions of
applied KI and Klc overlap, there i$ a finite probabi lity of failure. indicated b)' the shaded
area. For example. suppose the cumulative distribution of the driving force is F /(K,) and
the cumulative touihness distribution is Fz(KIc). The fai lure probability, PI' is given by

(9.74)

Time-dependent crack: growth, such as fatipe and streSS corrosion crackina. can be taken
into account by apply ing the Ippropriatc irowm law to the flaw distribwon. Aaw
AppliCtlritm 10 Srrvcfiln"
'"
growth would cause the applied K] distribution 10 shift to the right with time, thereby
increasing failure probability.
The: overlap of two proba~ility distributions (Fig. 9 .27) represents a fairly simple
case. In mo" practical sitUalions, \hcre iJ .... ndomneSi or uneen.inty associated with
several variables. and a simple numerical inlegratioo 10 solve for PI (Eq. 9.14» is nO!
possible. MooIC Carlo simulation Can estimate failure probabilily wilen !here are multiJlle
random variables. Such an analysis is relatively easy to perform, since it mere ly involves
iJ>COll)Oratin& a random num ber eenerator into a deterministic model. Moote Carlo
analysis is very inefficient, ho... ever, as numerow ""lrials" are ..,quired for convergence.
First_onIer reliJbility methods [40J arc much more efficient and yield more inforrnalion
that Monte Carlo analysis. but ilvolvc rdatively complicated aumc:rical algorithnu:.
The mathematics nf probabi li stic analysis is well established. Reliability cn-
gineering is currenlly applied in. variety of cin:wru;tanccs, ranging from ql1l.lity conlml
in manufacturing 10 SUUCturai illearity. ProbIIbilistic fractW"e analyses arc rare. oowever.
because !he input data an: usually not available. Seatter in fractW"e toughne$$ data is one
of the largest uDCenainties in a f""' ture onalysi,. A probabilistic analysis traditionally
",quires performina:. larae number of fracture toughness tests tn define the toughness
dislribution. but the fracture touehness maslCr curve described in Scaion 7.g can gn:atly
redpce !he amount of testing reqcired.

FREQUENCY

STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR

, _II LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING APPROACHES

Section 9.7 compared three drivin, force equation.: the EPRI procedure. the ", ferenee
stress model. I.I>d tile strip yield model. Each equation reduces to LEFM in !he limit of
small $Calc yiclding, and cach approoo::bes a o;ollap$C limit under fully plasti' ,onditions .
.0. Clwpttr9

Although the strip yield model and the reference SIreSS mode] contain simplifying as-
sumptions, they predict si milar results 10 the more advanced EPRT approach that incorpo-
rates a fu ll y plastic J analysis. Any errors in tile simpler models, relative to the EPRI
approach, are overshadowed by more serious shortcomings in all cllisting methods.
Although somt of the fra::lwe design analyses discussed in this chapter are compleJ(,
they still do not take into account all aspects of the problem. The5e analyses are two-di-
mensional and assume that lbc material is homogeneous. In addilion, all fracture design
analyses contain an inherent assumption that the computed driving force parameter (K, J,
or crOD) uniquely clwacleri:zes crack tip conditions.
The items discussed below do not constitute an exhaustive lisl of unresolved issues,
but are key areas which need to be understood heller before fracture analysis methods can
be improved.
II should be noted thaI current methods of fracture analyses are generally safe. The
errcclS 41scusscd below teoo 10 ffilt~ f;um:1U JKcdjf;ljQO~ f;onKn'ati>'e. A bellf;r under·
standing of these complelitie5 would merely make analyses of critical conditions more
""""".
9.11.1 Driving Forct in Wtldmtnt.

A steel weld invariably has different flow properties than the parent metal. In most cases,
the yield strength of the weld metal ovennatches that of the parent metal. although un-
dennatching sometimes 1XC1lI"S. Analyses such as tht EPRI approach are unable to handle
structures whose flow propertiC$ are heterogeneous. If a crack IXCUrs in or near a weld, it
is impouible to determine the driving force accurately without perfonning an elastic.plas.
tic finite elementlnalysis of the component.

9.11.2 Residu al Stresses

1be assumplions for secondary stresses have a significant effect on predictions with either
the R6 method or PD 6493. but lIC(:urate infonnation on the distribution of residual
stresses is rlL/"ely available for the weld in question.
CunvenliulUl.l lIIo:;:tJ.......b fur IUO:;:a5uriog tho:: mrough·thio:;:kl!e$$ dutribution of residual
stress are destructive. Material from one lide of the welded plate is typically removed by
a milling machine while strain gage readings on the other side of the plate are recorded.
Such an approach is obviously impractical for a structure in service. The center hole
drilling technique does minimill damage to the strueture, but it provides infonnation only
on the surface SIfeSSCi. 1be (XIly available nondestructive method for through-thickness
residual stress measuremenl is neutron. d.irrraction. a technique that is nOl portable.
A reliable, portable, nODdc:structive method fO£ measuring residual SU"eSSe$ is desper-
ately needed. Accurate finilt element models that preciici the residual stress distribution
from the joint geomeuy and wekling procedure are also desirable.
Applkatiofl to StnlCturt!s
'0'
9.11.3 Three·Dlmenslonal Effects

Existing cllllltic-plastic analyscs do not aC(;ount for the variation of the driving force along
lhe crack ftonl. 90lh J and ClOD vary considerably along the tip of a crack, however.
This effect is panicuJarly pronounced in semielliptical surface flaws, Thus the crack tip
conditions canlK)( be uniquely "harnctcrizcd with a single value of J or CTOD.
'These three-dimens ional effects influern:e both deavage and ductile tearing. Since
cleavage is statistical in nature (Chapter 5), good predictions will come only from sum·
mi ng the iocremcntal fai lure probabilitks along the crack front. Such a calculation must
take accoun l of the variation in the crack driving force with position. Si nce ductile crack
growth occurs fasiesl where the driving force is highest, accurate teari na: predictions are
possible only with a three-dimensional analysis.

9.11 .4 C ra ck Tip Constraint

Constraint is related 10 the three-dimensional issue. Plane strain fracture analyses assume
thai J or crOD uniquely characterizes crac k tip stresses and strains. 1f the entire crack
front is not in plane strain, however. there are regions where a single parameler does not
characterize crac k ti p condi tions. Similarly. the si ngle parameter as:sumption breaks down
under large scale plasticity. which decreases the crack tip constraint. This constraint 10$5
can occ ur at very low J (or CTOD) values in structures wit h shallow flaws loaded
predominantly in tension (see Section 3.6). In such cases, the structure has a higher
apparent toughnen than the s mall -scale fracture toughness lests, which contain deep
cracks and ale loaded predominantly in bending.

REFERENCES
]. Rooke, D.P. and Cartwright. 0.1 .• C(lmp~"di/Ult 0/ Siress /"I~ftsi?, FQClors. Her
MajeSl),'J Stationary Office, London. ]976.

2. Tada, H.• Paris. P.C .• and Irwin. (i.R. TIle Smu Aft,,/ysis 1.1/ Cfacks Htmdboolc. De]
Resean:1I Corporation. HeUcnown, Pa. 1973.
3. MliraUmi. Y. Sifeu Ift/DlSi" Fac,on HtmdbooL Pergamon Press. New York. 1987.

4. Sanford, R.J. and DaLly, 1.W., kA Cicneral Method for Dctelmininl Miled-Modc Strcu
Intensity Factors from Isochromatic Frinae PatlCms.~ Cn,,'nurin, FrQC/ ll rt! Mecltanks.
Vol. I I. 1979, pp. 621-633.

~. Chona. R. , Irwin. (i.R.. and Shukll. A., "Two and Three Parameter Replesentation of
Crack lip Streu fidd$.~ JOIII"MI 0/ S/rtlin AMI),sis, Vol . 17. ]982. pp. 79-86.

6. Kalthoff. J.F.• Beinan. J .• Winkler, S.. and Klemm, W.• wiUperimentai AnaI)'sis of
Dynamic Effecu In Different CnICk AnesI TCIl Specimens. ASTM S1l' 711. American
H

Soo;iely for Testin, and Materials. Plti ]adelph.il, ]980, pp. ]09-127.
.!i 1 0 Clwpter 9

7. Raju , I.S. and Newman J.C., Jr., ··Stress-Intensity Flleto,.. for Internal and External
Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels.~ Joumol of P"ssure VeJJel Technology. Vol.
104. 1982, pp. 29 3-298.

8. Rice. I .R .. ~Some Remarks on Elutit Crack-Tip Stress Fields. H

I"UnrlIliOlUlI Joumol
of Solid, and SIru.clures. Vol. 8. 1972. pp. 751-758.

9. Rice. J.R., "Wei8ht Function 'IlIeory for Three-Dimensional Elastic CBCk Analysis:·
AS'IM STP 1020. American Sociely for Testing and Materials. l'IIiladelphia, 1989. pp.
29-57 .

10. Newman. J.e. and Raju. I.S., ~ Stress-lnleR5ity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-
Dimensional Finite Bodies Subjected to Tension and Bending Loads." NASA Technical
Memorandum 8.5793. NASA Langley Research Center. Hamp/on. VA, April 1984.

II. Timoshenko. S., Slre~gth of Malerials, Adva"ced Thtn.., /lJ1d Probltms. D. Van
Nostrand Company, New York, 19.56.

12. Alluri, S.N. and Kalhin:san. K., "3· D Analyses of Surface flaws in Thick-Walled Reactor
Pressure Vends Usi na Displacement- Hybrid Finite Element Method.~ Nuclear
&lginuri"g and Cksig". Vol. SI, 1979, pp. 16 3· 176.

13 . Irwin, G.R., ··Plastic Zone Near a Crack and Fracture Tooilmess." SaBafMr, Rtuareh
Ccnf'ft"ct Procu dingr, VI)I. 4. 1!Hi!.
14. Burdekin. F.M. and Slone. D.E.W ., ''The Crac k Opening Displacement Approach to
Fracture Mechanics in Yielding Materials:· Jou.mol of SI1"(JiIIltlwlysis. Vol. I. 1966,
pp. 144-1 53.

IS. Hayes. D.l. and Williams. J.G .• ··A Practical Method for Detennining DU8dale Mode l
Solutions for Cracked Bodies of Arbitrary Shape." InlemaliOlltJI Journal of Fract~re
Mechanics, Vol. 8. 1972. pp. 239-2.56.

16. American Socie/)' of M~chanic(;ll EnBin~ers /ASME) Boilu <md Prnsu.re Vessel Co-d~.
SUlion Xl: R~lu fo r Inuniu InspectiOll of N~c1rar Power Plant CompOIIenls.
American Society of Mechanical Engineen. New York.

17. Marsdon. T.U .• eli .• ··Flaw Evaluation PrOCeliURS: Bac kground and Application of
ASME SCI'tion XI, Appcnd.i~ A:· EPRI NP_719_SR. Electric Power Research Institute.
Palo Alto. CA. 1978.

18. Burdekin, F.M . and Dawes, M.G .• ··Practical UK: of Uncar EllUlic and Yielding Fracture
Mechanics with Parlicular Reference to Pressure Vessels." Proce~ding s of the INtit~1t
of Mullanical Engineul Confeunc~, London, May 1971. pp. 28_37.

19 . Well s. A.A .• ~Applkation of Fracture Mechanics.t and Beyond Gener.1 Yielding."

British Weldi" B Joumal, Vol 10, 1963. pp. ~6]·S70.

20. Dawes. M.G .. ··Fracture Conuol in High Yield Stn:nglh Weldmcms." Welding Jo~maI,
Vol. .53. 1974. pp. 369-380.

2 1. PD 6493: 1980, ·'GuidallCC on Some Methods for the Deriv;Ilion of Acceptance ~vels
for De fects in Fusion Welded Joints." British Standards institution, March 1980.
Application to StTWCtUrU , .
22. Kamatb, M.S .. '1M COO [)qi", Curu: An A»enmelll of Validity U.ing Wide Plate
Tesu. H The Welding lmlitule Report 7111978/E, September 1978.

23. Dowli ng, A.R. Ind To wnley, C. H.A.. "'[be Effects of Defects on Structural Failure: A
Two-Criteria Approach.H fMCl'MlioM/ JIHlI'MI of Prusurc VCIICU and P;pmS. Vol 3.
197!!, pp. 17·137.

24. HarrilOll. R.P., I...ooKmore. K.. and Milne. I.. - Assessment of the Integrity of Structures
Contai ning Dcfccu.~ CEQB Rcport RlHlR6, Central Electricity CicMllIti Oi Board,
United Kinldom, 1976.

205 . Harri$On. R.P .. Looscmore, K., MUne, I, and Dowling, A.R .. "A,seument of the
Integrity o f Structure. Containing Defects.· CECB Report RlHIR6·Rev 2. Ccntra'
Electricity (knelllting Board, United Kingdom, 1980.

26. Shib. C.P. and HutchinlOl1, J.W .. " Pully P1 lU1ic Solution. and Large·Sule Yielding
Estimate. for Plane Siress CllICk Problems.- JOIlma/ of u,;IIeerill, "''''erillu and
Ted",%l1' Vol . 91, 1976. pp. 2119.2905.

27 . Kumar. V.. German. M. D.. and Shih. C. P .. HAn ~D«ring Approach for Elastic·
Plastic Fracture Analy.i •. - EPRI Report NP·193 1. Elecuic Power RelCln;h Institute.
Palo AlIO, CA, 1981.

28, Kumar. V.. ()erman, M.D., Wilkenina, W.W., Andrews. W.R.• delorenzi, H.G. , and
H
Mo wbn.y, D.F.. "Advances in Elastic·Flwic Practun: Analysis. EPRI Report NP·3607,
Electric Power Re$Carch Institute. Palo Alto. CA, 19&4.

29. Kumar, V. and German, M.D., HElune.Plu tic """,run: Analysis of 'T'hrough.WaU and
Surface F1a .... in Cylindcn,- EPRI Report NP·o5596, Electric: Power RC$Un;h Institute,
Palo Alto. CA. 1988,

30. Zahoor, A. -Ductile Practure Handbook. Volume I: Cin;umfen:nti.l Through .... a1J
Cracu. H EPRI Report NP·6301·D. Elecnie Power Resean;h In slilute, Palo Allo. CA .
1989.

31. Shih, C.P. "Rdllionlhi p between lhe J·lntegral aoo the Cradr. Openins DiJpla<:e"",nt
for Stationary and E,l Iendilll CIlICU.- JOUI'MI of lite Mecltankl aM PIopU:I of SoIUlt,
Vol 29, 1981. pp. 3OS-326.

32. Bloom. J.M.. - Pt'edktioo of Ductile Tcarina Using. Proposed Suai n Hardeninl Pailun:
Assessment Oiapm. - !llItmotiOlttJl Jo ..ma/ of Fnxlu,.,. Vol. 6 .. 1980. pp. R73-Rn.

33. Shih, C.F., German. M .D.. IIlIi Kumar. V.. "An EnSineerinS Approach for Euminins
C=lr. Gro .... tb and Stability in F1a .... ed Struetun:I.~ /rllema/;onal Jo w.",,1 01 P.-e"u"
Vesst!:u QIId Pip;",. Vol. 9. 198\, pp. IS9·196.

34 . Aimworth, R.A., 1'be Assessment of Defects in Structures of Sl r.in Hardenins

Material •. - Ut,inurin, Frocrw,., MreMllkl. Vol, 19. 19&4, p. 633,

)S. Anderson. T.L , HAppl.ic:ation of EIa$lie· Plu lk FrKlUre Mechanics to Welded

Structures: A Critical Review.- Mechanics and Materials Center Repon MM 616S·119·
I. Te~u A&'M Univen.i ly. CoUele SlIlion, TX . AUJUII 1989.
512 Chapter 9

36 PO 6493:1991, "Guidance on Some Methods for the Derivation of Acceptance Levels

for Defects in Fusion Welded Joints." British Standards Institution, August 1991.

37. Anderson, T.L.• Leggau, R.H .• and Garwood, S.l., "The Use of crOD Methods in
Fitness for Purpose Analysis." The Crack Tip Opening Displacement in Elastic·Plastic
Fracture Mechanics. Springer·Veriag. Berlin, 1986, pp. 281·313.

38. Ainsworth, R.A.. "The Treatment of Thermal and Residual Stresses in Fracture
Assessments," Central Electricity Generating Board Report TPRD/04791N84, 1984.

39. Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A. Dowling, A.R.. and Stewart, A.T., "Assessment of the
t

Integrity of Structures Containing Defects." Central Electricity Generating Board

Report RlHIR6-Rev 3, May 1986.

40. JUlia. T., "Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics and Reliability Analysis: An Overview."
Proceedings of the 30th Canadian Institute of Metallurgists Conference, Ottawa.
Canada, August 18-22. 1991.
 10. FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION

M ost of the material in the preceding chapteTS has dealt with SIalic or monOlonic loading
of cracked bodies. This chapter considers crack growth in the plCliCnce of cyclic stresses.
The focus is on fatigue of metals, but many of the concepts presented in this chapler ap-
pl y 10 other materials as well.
In the early 1960s. Paris. CI al. [1.2] demonstrated !lUll fracture mechanics is a u!iCful
tool for characterizing crack growth by fatigue. Since thaI time, the application of fracture
mechanicllo fatigue problems has become almost routine. TIlere an:, however, a number
of controversial issues and unanswered questions in this field.
The procedures for analyzing (:onstanl amplitude fatigue] under small scale yie lding
conditions are fairly well established, although a number of uncenainlies remain.
Variable amplitude loading. large scale plasticity, and short cracks introduce additional
complications that an: not fully urKIerslood.
'This chapter summarizes the fundamental concepts and practical applications of the
fracture mechanics approach to fatigue crack propagation. Section 10.1 outlines the simil-
itude concept. which provides the theoretical j ustification for apply ing fracture mechanics
to fatigue problems. This is followed by a summary of the more common empirical and
semiempirical equations for characterizing fatigue crack growth. Subsequent sections dis-
cuss crack cl()$ure. variable amplitude loading, retardation, and growth o f short cracks in
terms o f the validity (or lack of validity) of the similitude assumption. The microfllCcha-
nisms of fatigue are also discussed briefly. The final two sections are geared to practical
applications; Section 10.7 oUllines procedun:s for clIperimental measurements of fatigue
crack growth, and Section 10.8 5Ummarius the damage tolerance approach to fatigue safe
design. Appendill lO al the end of this chapter addresses the a pplicability o f the J integral
to cyclic loading.

10.1 SIMILITUDE IN FATIGUE

The concept of simil itude, when it applies, provides !be theoretical basis for fracture me-
chanics. Si militudc implies that the crack tip conditions are uniquely defined by a single
loading parameter such as thc streSS iOlensity factor. In the case of a stationary crack, two
configurations will fail at the same c ritic al K value, provided an elastic singularity zone
cllists at the crack tip (Section 2.10). Under certain conditions, fatiguc crac k growth can
also be characterized by the stress intensity fllCtor. as discussed belo w.
Consider a growing crac k in the presence of a constan t amplitude cyclic stress intc n-
sity (Fig. 10.1). A cyclic plastic zonc forms at the crack tip, and the gro wing crack
leaves behind a plastic wake. If the plastic zone is sufficiently smal! that it is embedded
within an elastic singularity lone, \be conditions at the c rack tip arc uniquely defined by

Itn thi. chapter, ........... &mjlIi1udt l.... i'" is clerlllCd ... 00ftSWU " ,... IAI~,...i., &mplj' ..... ..,hor ,han
comtant ~ss ontpIi'\Idt.

513
514 Clwpltr 10

the current K value2, and the crack growth rate is characterized by Kmin and Kmax. It is
convenient 10 npuss the functional relationship for cnlCk growth in the following form:

da
dN""'/i(6K,R) (10. 1)

wllere Me. (Kmtu • Kmin), R . KmirlKm(U. and do/tiN is the crack growth per cycle.
The innuencc of the plastic lOne and plastic wake on crack growth is implicit in Eq.
(10.1). since the size of the plastic rone depends o nly on Km ;" and KfI16X.
A number of e~preS$ions for fl have b«n proposed. most of which are empirical.
Section 10.2 outlines some of the more common faligue crack growth relalionsltips.
Equation (10.1) Can be integrated 10 estimate fatigut: life. The number o f cycles ~uirro
10 prf.lpagale a cmek from an initial length, "0. 10 a final length. Of is given by

(10.2)

If Kmax or Kmin vary during cyclic loading, the crack growth in a given cycle may
depend on the loading history as well as the curre nt values of Kmin and K1IIdX:

da
dN = h(llK,R,:JI) (10.3)

Kinin

TIME

2n.. j .. tiliCilioll for the limi.litude ... ~ im f~ is essenti.olly icIonticall<> the dimo",ionalllJumau
for Sleody lW~ cnck .J!:Il:"":lb (Secti"" 3.5.2 lJId App:!ldix 3.5.2). If the tip of the lJVWio. crack i,
... fficie.dy far mm its ",il;.) "",itiOll. lJId .... lUrIaI boulldaria ..., .. _ . the plastic "<OlIO Ii". ODd ...-idlll of
the plastic wake will <eoclIlleady IUIIc val .... .
 'IS

where "indicates the history dependence. which results from prior plastic defannation.
Equation ( 10.3) vioilles the similitude assumption; 11"0 configurations cyc lica lly loaded
at the same IlK and R will not e"hibit the ume crack growth nlte unicil both configura-
tions are subjOCl to the same prior history.
FifIU'C 10.2 illustrates several examples where the similitude assumption is invalid.
In each case, prior loadinl hisiOf)' influences the ~m:nl co!lditionl I' the axk tip.
Section 10.4 disc:uucs the reasons for hUlOf)'-depencknl fatigue, and gives an uamplc of
I model that accounts for 10Idi1lJ hisrory.
Fatiguc CBCk Jrowth analyses become l;O!I5idcrably ~ I'Qmplicaled when prior
loading history is taken inlo aa:ount. Consequently. equations of the form of Eq. ( 10. 1)
are applied whenever possible. II mLl.'iI be recogn ized. however, thal such analyses are
only approximate in the case of variable ampli tude loading.
E.leess;"e plasticity do.uing fatigue can violate simi litude, since K no longer dwllC-
u:rizes the cl1lCk tip conditions in sucl! eases. A number ofre!iUl'CbeT!I [3,4J have appl ied
!he J inlegrallo fatigue fICCOmp;!llied by ]arp $ale yieldin!:!bey have usumed a gtIwth
law of!he foml

da
<iN = {,W, R) (10.4)

where DJ is a conlour intep for cyclic ]oadlng, analogous 10 the J integral for mono-
Ionic loading (see Appendix ]0). Equation (10.4) is valid in !he case of constant amp]i-
tude fatigue in small scale yielding, because of the relationship belween J and K under
linear elastic conditiOllll. 1lIe validily of Eq. ( 10.4) ill the presence of li,nillCanl plastic·
ily is Ie$S clear, bmvever.
Reeall from Chapter 3 thatlkfonnation plastidty (i.e., nonlinear elasticity) is an es-
scntial component of J integral theory. When unloading occun in an el.astic·plaslic mate-
rial ,lkfonnalion plasticity theory no longer models the IICIIW material reqlOnsc (see Fig.
3.1). Consequentl y, the ability of the J integral 10 characterize fatigue crack growth in
the presence of lllllle scale cyclic plasticilY is questionable, 10 SlY !he least.
ll>ere iI, however, lOUIe theoretical and nperimenlal eviden.ce in favor of Eq.
(10.4). If certain ~um]Mions are made with respecl to the l\Hldin, and unl\Hlding
bRnehes of I cyclic 'b'UI.strai.n curve, il CID be shown that tJ is Pillh independeD!, and il
uniql.lCly charac:1erilu 1M change ia StresKI and Itrailll in a givcn cycle [S.61. Appendix
10 lummariu. this analysis. Experiment.al data [3.4] indicate that DJ correlates erxk
growth data reasonably well in ern.ai.n cases. Several researchers have found that CTOD
may also be II suitable parameter for fatigue under elastic-plastic conditions [11.

3 AJ • 4X2fF:iIo "'" .-oI ............. jIi·''ti., T1M A J _ bciMa.. ' .. "'" ..... oI...,tied J
values. ThaI Is. 4J • J",u ' J",," iII.-at. See AppnodiI 10 for ~ becq",.d ... Ibo
door",iriooo of AJ.
'" Chopitr JO

K,

TIME

K,
- -
- -
TIME

K,

TIME
«) - -,.
ncURE IO.l. ~pIa of' <yolk _ ...... vi_......iIi.....
 '"
n.e validity of Eq. (10.4) hali not been proven conclusively, btu this approach ap-
pe~ to be useful for many engineering problems. Of course, Eq. (lOA) is subjec.:IIO the
same Il:striclioDS o n prior hilIOf)' as Eq. ( 10.1). The crack growth ralC may exhibit a his_
lOry effea if IJJ or R vary during cyclic loadin,.

10.2 EMPJRICA.L FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH EQUATIONS

Figure 10.3 is. schematic log- ]og plot of da/dN versus M(, which iltLIStnUes typical fa-
tigue crack growth bcl1a.vior in metals. The ligmaidal curve contains three distinct re-
gions. At intermediate: ax vaiuc$, the ClIrvC is linear, but the crack growth rale deviates
from !he linear trend at high and low IlK levels. In the former case, the crack growth ralt
acccleral~ as KmIU approaches Kcri/, the fracture toughness of the material, At theothcr
exlR:me, WdN approaches zero al • threshold JiK: Section 10.3 ex.plores the causes of
this Ihresbold.
1be linear region of the log-log plOl in Fig. 10.3 can be described by I power law:

(10..5)

where C and m arc malerial (;Onslanlli lhal arc delennined uperimenllllly. According 10
Eq. (IO.S), the fal'SUO: (;f'I(;k growth rate depe r.ds only on l1X; doIdN is insensi ti ve (0 the
R ratio in Resion II .
Pari. and Esdogan 12J wen: apparently the tim to discover the power law n:lation·
ship fill' fatigue cl'Kk growth in Region II. They proposed an exponent of four . ... hich
was in line with their uperimental data. Subsequenl sludies over the pa!11hree ci«acies.
however, have shown that m is nOI ncx:essariJy four. but range$ from tWO 10 seven for
various materials. Equalion (lO.S) has become widely known as the Paris Law.
A number of researchers have developed equations that model all or pan of the sig-
moidal ehJIdN • l1X relationship. Many of these equations arc empirical, although some
an: based on pbysical considerations. Forman IS) proposed the: followins relationship for
RegiOllS II and Ill:

da CAX m
-: ) (10.6)
dN (1- R)Kerif - AX

This equation can be rewrinen in the following form:

(10.7)
dN '" Keril
I
Kmu
5 18

LOG ....
dN

LOG 6K

Thul the crack growth rate becomes infini te: as Kmax approachel Ke nt.
above rdatlonship .a:ounts for R ratio effecu, while Eq. ( 10.') assumes I
pcods only o n <iX. Another important point il Iluol ~ malerial conlWl
the Forman equation do nOi have the same numcrK:a1 values or uniu at
I'.rdor:an equation (Eq.(10"».
We<:rtman [9] proposed an alternative semiempirieal equation for Rcgi.

This equation can be made more general with I variable c~poncnt, /71, o n II
filting parameters, C and 171, do nOI neces.&arily have the same value. or un
QUI cnck growth equations.
Both the Forman and Weertman equations are asymptotic to Kmax ·
Ibcr predicu. threshold. Kle$ll..il and Lukas [ IOJ modified Eq. (10.' ) \0.
""""""',
(10.9)

Donahue [ Il l Pluc"od • similar equation, b\Jt .... ilb the expone nt. III , applied 10 the
quantity (AK . o.KttJ. In both uses, the Unshold is. JittinS parameler 10 be dctennined
 '"
experimentally. One problem with these equationl is thilt M,ll ofu:n depends on the R
ratio (see S«tion 10.3).
A num ber of equations attemJll IO de$cribe the enlire crac k growth curve. taking 1Ie-
coun t of boIh the ihreshold and Kerit_ For cumpll', Priddle proposed the foll owing em-
pirKal rdationship:

( IO.iO)

McEvi ly [ 121 developed another equation t/1at can be filln the entire crack arowth cLlJ"Ve:

(10.1 1)

EqIWiOll ( 10. 11 ) i. based on. simple pbysical model rather than. purely empirical fiL
EquatiOlU ( IO.S) 10 (10. 1 I) all have the fonn of Eq. ( 10.1). Each of Ibc.sc: equations
can be inlegnle.;l to infer fatig>.IC life (Eq. (10.2». The ITI05t genenU oftbese exprusioos
contain four malerial constants: 4 C, m, Kerit and ilK/it.. For a given material. the fa-
ti,lue crack arowth rate depends only on the Ioadin, parameters l1K and R. allClillt acconI·
ing 10 the Eqs. ( 10.') 10 (10. 12). Thus all of the p~ing expressions assume elastic
li militOOc of the growinS mlCt; none ofthesc equations incorponlie I hislory dcpendenoe,
and Ihus are strictly valid only for constant (Jtm;1 intensity) amplitude Joadina. Many of
these formula. however. were developed with variable amplitude: loadin& in mind.
Although there are lituatiOll5 wlloeft limilitude iI approKimately satisfied for variable 1lII1~
plitudc: loading. one must always bear in mi nd the potential for hb lory effecu. See
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 for additional discu5$ion of this iuue.
Dowling and Begley [3J applied the J inteval to fatigue crack JI'Owth under large
scale yie ldi ng conditions where K is no longer valid. They fit the vowth rate data to a
power law e~pression in ilJ:

( 10.12)

Appendi~ 10 outline. the theoretical justification and limitations of J·based approacbes.

~ ItIraIIokI .... i-o., ..... 4KtJt. is _ ....... -.w _ "- ~ ....Jly dq>eDdo ... !he It
1IIio(Sccr><.IOJ).
520 ChapttT 10

EXAMPLE 10.1

Derive an expression for the number of stress cycles ~\lin:d 10 grow a semicircular
surface crack from an initial radius "0 \0 a final size (lJ. assuming the Paris-Erdogan
equation describes the growth rale. As",,_ thaI "lis small CQmparcd 10 plate dimen-
sions, and that the stress amplitude, .<111, is constant.

SolUlion: The stress intensity amplitude for II semicircular surface crack in an infinite
plale (Fig. 2.] 9) can be approximated by

LJJ( ",1.04 da~ '" O.663M~

...J 2.464

If we neglect the fI dependence of .t,. Substituting this expression inlo Eq. (lO.S)
gives

which can be integrated \0 dclermi~ fatigue life:

(form .. 2)

Closed-form integralion is poniblc in this ca.., because the K expression is rela-

tively simple. In most instancts. numerical imcgnltion is required.

10.3 C RACK CLOSURE AND TH E FATIG UE THRESHOLD

Soon afttl the so-cal led Paris law (Eq. ( 10.S)) gained wide acceptance as a predictor of fa-
tigue cmc k growth, many researchers came 10 the realization that this simple expression
was not uni versall y applicable. M Fig 10.3 ill uslratl:s. a log- log plot of dnldN v. 11K is
sigmoidal rather than linear when crack growth data are obtained over a sufficie ntly wide
Farig~" CrocI:. Propagation
'"
range. Also. the fati gue crack growth rate exhibits a dependence on the R ratio, particu·
larly at both ellm:mcs of the crock growth curve . As di scuiiSCd in the previous section.
the R ratio effects at the upper end of the curve can be explai ned in lenn. oflhe interac·
tion belween fatigue and ultimate fail ure at or near Kc. lltis section addreiiSCs the behav·
ior at the lower end of the da/dN· tlK curve.
A discovery by Elber [13) provided atieast a partial explanation for both the fatigue
threshold and R ratio effects. He noticed an anomaly in the elastic compliance of several
fatigue specimens. which Fig. 1O.4{a) schematically illustrates. At high loads. the com·
pliance (da/dP ) agreed with slandard fonnulas for fracture mechanics specimens (see
Chapten 7 and 12), but at low loads. the comp liance was close to that of an uncracked
specimen. Elber belie ved that this change in compliance was due to the contact belWCf:n
Cf1}Ck surfaces (i.e., crac k closufC) at loads thai were low but greater than zero.
Elber po5tulated lhat crack closure dec",ased the fatigue crack growth rate by reduc.
ing the effective SIreSS intensity range. Figure IO.4(b) illustrales the closure concept.
When a spex;:imen is cyclically loaded at Kma;r and Kmin . the crack faces are in contact
below Kop. the sire ss intensity 8t which the crac k opens. El ber assumed that the portion
of the cyc le thai is below Kop does nO( contribute to fatigue crac k growth. He defined an
effective SlUSS intensity range as follows:

WAD

I'lGURt: lOA Cnck ~ ..urm, ,.tlgw

•..,...u.. Th. cnck , _ conlM1 .1 • _til ••
cnck

_ (.), ..... tllnC In • reduced .. r1.-1na torce tor

' ..I ..... 6X.g (b).
DISPLACEMENT

Km. -,""'.
J.
K",ln

TIME

(b) Dtnnlclon 0/1 dfecct .. 11.-- InWlltil roa ...

512

He also inlroduc:ed an effective StreSS intenii ty ratio:

u • _1lK~'If,­
IlK

= Kmn - K"p
Kmu. - Kmin

Ebc:r then proposed • modifJOd Paris-Erdopn equation:

da C.vm
dN = ='"
Equation (1 0. 15) has bee n reasonably successful in correlating fatigue crael
various R rati os.
Silce Elw', oripnal study. numerous researchers have coolinned Ih
does in fact occur dulinl fatigue CltlCk propagation. Suresh and RilChie ['.
mechanisms for fatigue cr.ck closure, 'liNch are illustrated in Fig. 10.5
Plasticity-induced closure, Fig. 10..5(.). resull5 from residualslressc
wake . Budiansky and Hutchill!KlD 115}Ipt:liod the Dugdale-Barenblall ftn,
this problem and showed that residual stretch in the plastic wae causes th
close at a positive remote Siress. Althouih quantitati ve pi'Cdictions from
alld HUk:hinson model do nOI agree wilh experimental data [16]. this mOl
demonstrating qualitatively Ihe effect of plasticity on crack closure. Reee:
vestigators [17,18) hive studied plasticity-induced closure with finite clemo
Roughness-induced clost=. which is illustrated in Fig. 10.5(b). is in
microstJUCfUre, Although fatigue cnlCks propagate in pure Mode I conditi
scale, crack deflections due to tnkrmlnx:tlnl betero~neity can lead 10 mil
tions on the microscopic level. When the CI1I(;k path deviatcs from the M,
plllllC, Illc crack is subjcc tto Mode II displ acements, as Fig. IO.S(b) ill!
displ~ments calise mismatch between upper and lower crack faces, whi c
in a positive closure load. Coarse-grained materials usually produce a higlle
face roughne55 in fatigue, and correspondillJly higher closure loads (19J. "gW'C IU.O II'
lustr1lteJ the effcct o f grain size on f.tigue cr.ck propI.gation in 1018 steel. At the lower
R ratio. when! eI(lOIlur8 effecu are most P"*)tInced (see below), the COII~ gnined II'WCrial
has. higher AXtl.. due 10. hipr closure load thaI il caused by greater surface roughness
(Fig. IO.6(b)). Note th.t grain ,ize cffcas disappear wbe n lhe data are characterized by
AX~ff(Fil. (IO.6(c».
 (a) Plauldly_lndUftd cloo;u",_ (d) CIo5urt 1Ddu~ by a o1scoIu nuJd.

Mode II Ditplaremtnt
•
..
(b) Rou8Im_-lndu~ claoure_ (t) T .. ndonnillon_lndu~ dow..,.

FIGURE IOJI Fatigue crack doIu.., mtdlanlslllS

in mdals (1 4J.
,,. C/wJpItcr 10

Oxi~induced closlll\\, Fig. IO.S(c). i. usually U$OCiated with an qJlUSive envi-

ronmenl Oxide debris Of otb:r COI'I'05ion products b«ome wedgul between crack fact'S.
Craek clos ... re can also be introduced by • VifCOU5 nuid. as Fig. JO.S(d) iIIustnllCs.
TIle fluid acts as a wedge between (I'1I(:k fa(:e$, somewhat like the oxide mechanism.
A SIfUS induced IIULI'ICll$itic I/anSformation II the tip of the growing ClXk ean result
in I process rone wakeS, U Fia. IO.S(e) iHUStnlll'l. Residuallitresses in the ""'sformed
:tOIle can lead 10 crack clO$We.
TIle relative importance of the variow; dowre IllC(:haI!UIIllI Oepcnd$ on micl'OStnlC-
t~, yield smngLh.1lnd environmel L

,
," • ..,., \.--.,DflneGnin
E
M S) 1018 StHl
... 6 eo.... Crain
;: , ll.Co.me C rain.

~ •
<
~
c• . .,,- ..,
.0.1

• , AK.MPam
3
• , V2 " .
.z (bl Closure _Muremenll.
U

'll .,

.-
~

~
• 10'" r
V
eZ· t R _o.t
DFlneC noln
l!oC_Graln
4 6 1 10 20 til 60
~ ,,
l1K. MP,- In V l -0::1 10' to
, .
t. kdl, MPa m "'
Ie) CorrWt<i data.

Ss... SotcDc. 6.2.2 fer • ~ l1I_iDduad _ .~ .. - '.. i_'" ill ow~. .

Fatigu~ Crock Propagation 52'

10.3.1 A Simplistk View of Clos ure and AKt h

Crack closure ~uces the fatiguecrac:k growth rate and introduces a threshold. It is possi-
ble to estimate the effects of fatigue crack closure by making two Simplifying assump-
tions:

(1) 1be opening stress intensity, K QP ' is a material constant; i.e. it is independent
of Kmin. Kmax, and prior history.

(2) There is no intrinsic J-K1h for the material: Eq. (i0.15) applies as long as
,jKtfJ> O.

Although neither assumption is valid for real materials (Section 10.3.2 and 10.3.3), the
; nlenl of Ihoc rTC.<;cnl exerc;<;e ;~ merely to ;lIu.~mlte lhoc consequences of closure. iodepen-
dent of other factors.
The Elber crack growth expression (Eq. ( 10.15» can be wrillen in the following
form:

(10. 16)

where U is defined by Eq. (10.14) for Kmilt < Kop. When Km;n Z Kop. U = I. and clo-
sure does not influence the results: the crack growth law reduces \0 the Paris-Erdogan
equation in this latter case.
Rewriting Eq. ( 10.14) in tenos of M( and R gives

u=-'-- Kop (10.17)

l -R l!J(

The threshold can be inferred by setting U = 0:

(10.111)

Equation (10.17) applies to the following range of M( values:

Figure 10.7 is a nondimensional plot of Eq. (10.16) for various R values, with U given
by Eq. (10.17). The curves in this figure exhibit typical Region I and Region II behav.
ior. The threshold stress intensi ty range, M(th. decreases with increasing R ratio, but the
predicted fatigue crack growth ralc in the Paris law regime is insensitive to R.
". Chapter 10

' 00

" •a
m"
..,
a _Ill

II I
d N C K.,.
, •IC R _CU
R _ Q.6

0.'
•
0.01

0.001
•
.,
0.1
"

Figure 10.8 show. ClIperirnental data for 8. mild liCe! [7J, whic:h exhibit the same trends as
FiB. 10.7. Thus this .imple analysis predicts behavior that is qualitatively consistent
with cxperimenL

10.3.2 Ettecu or Loading V. rlabl es on CIOlIuri!

11K: stress intensilY for crack dosurt: is not actually a material constant, but depends on a
number of faclOMI. Elber measured the closure stress imensity in 2023· T3 aluminum al
variQw load levels and R ratios, IUld obtained the following empirical reJation$hip:

U-O.5+0.4R (.{I, I :s: R S 0.7) ( 10. 19)

Subsequent researchcr$ (20-221 infClTlld simi lar empirical e.lpre$$ions for «her alloys.
According 10 Eq. ( 10.19), U depends only on R. Shih and Wei (23,241. however,
argued WIthe Elbcr expression, as well as many of the subsequent eq uations, are ovcr-
si mplified. Shih and Wei observed a dependence on Kmax roc crack closure in a Ti-6Al-
4V tilanillm alloy. 1bcy also showed thaI experimental data of earlier ruearcnen, when
replotted, ahibilS I definite KIIItU dependence.
1kre has been I great deal of confusion and oontroveny about !he Kmax dependence
of U. Hudak and Davidson (16] cited conlTadictOf)" c.umplcs from !he lilcr.lurc where
various researchen reported U to increase, decrease, Of remain constant with increasing
KIIItU . Hudak and Davidson performed dO$ure measurements on. 7091 a1uminwo alloy
FatiglU. Crock Prop6gtllion 527

and 304 stai nless steel over a wide range of loading variables. For both material s, they
inferred a closure relationship of !he fonn:

( 10.20)

,,<

MILD STEEL

10-7 Open Symbols:

Filled Symbols: &Kef{'"
Hill-filled symbols:
Me . Mel/(

~ ". • 0
~
:sz
."" " . R IbUo:
0 0.1

" 03
0 Dos
0

"@
VO.?

(>0.85
9
10 _11 L_--,~-"'"-"-~"--=:!::- __:':-__--,:!.
125102050
6K. 6 K lff (MPa mlll)
fIG URE I e ... f.Upcnod!: VOwtII cLobl for ..lid II..t at "ariouo R ...u.. [7).
'"
where Ko is a material constanL Hud.a.k and Davidson CQncluded that the il!(OlUistenl re-
sults from the lilcnllure cou ld be anribute(! to a number of factors: (I) lhe range of ilK
values in the e ~pcrimcnlS was too narrow; (2) the tJK v.lues were nOi sl.Ifficienlly cl~
to the threshold; and (l) the measurement te<:hniqueJ lacked the required 5ensitivity.
lbc effcct of Jo.ding variables on Kop can be i"ferml. by sub5lianing the rel.tion-
ships for U into Eq. ( 10. 14). For cumple, the ElbeI' equation implies !he fol lowing rela-
tionship for Kop:

KOP "'41~R-O.5-0.4R) (10.21 )

Note thai the ratio Kopl.t1K depends only on the R ratio. Equation (10.20). however.
leads to a different uprcn ion for Kop :

=K (I -R) +ilK"
- (10.22)
o 1_ R

Thus Ko is the openin, streSi intensity for R . O.

Hudak and Davidson [ 16]81tributed the oonflllion and COIIlrOvcrsy o~r the effect of
loading variables on clos~ to experimental facton. More recently. McC1un.I25] coo-
dueled an utensiw: review of experimental and &lll.\ytkal clO$ure re$UilS and concluded
or
that there are three d iwnct reJimes cnck d O$IIn:. Near !he thruhold, closure levels de-
crease with incn:asina ~u in!ens.iry .... tule U is independen! of Kmax II inlCr1J1Cdiate K
levels. A! high M( VlILlC5, the speciIllCn experience, • loss in constrain!, I!Id U decreases
with increasing SIl"CU intensity. McClung f<)IJnd tha! no l ingle equation c<)IJld describe
closure in all three l"eaimes. Most of the sccminaly contradictory data in!he litera!ure can
be nx:oncilcd by comiderina the regimc5 in which the data were collccled.
Microstructural effects can also lead 10 differences in observed closun: beh.vior in
various malerials. Fiaure 10.6. for example. showJ the effect of J1&in $iu on crxk clo-
sure in 1018 lteel. Equation ( 10.20) conlains one fitting panmele1" (Ko) that must be 00.
!aiDed experimcnl..lI),. It remains 10 be seen wbclhu or DOl !hit empirical upreu.ioa is
wfflCien!ly flexible 10 KCOUn! for thc full range of fatiglll: behavior in Vul<)IJ1 a/IO)'I .

10.3.3 The FIU,u, Thrahold

Crack closure influences the fatigue Ihrcshold. but closure is nOi the on ly cause of M(,h.
lbe threshold streu inte nsity range can be ruolved into inninSK: and uninsit compo-
nents:

( 10.2l)
 F(ltigut Crock PropagmUm 52.

where i1Krh(e/f} is the intrinsic fatigue threshold and dKrh(cI) is the contribution from
crack closure. The precise mechanism for the intrinsic threshold has not been established,
bUI several researchers have developed model s for i1K1/t(ef!) based on dislocation emission
from the crack tip [26] or blockage of sl ip bands by grain boundaries (27J (see Section
10.6.2).
Figure 10.8 shows fatigue crack growth data near the threshold for a mi ld steel [7].
The data exhibit the expected R ratio effects when charac terized by i1K. Expressing the
data in tenns of i1Ktif removes the R dependence, but the threshold remains. Thus the
Elber power law relationship (Eq. (10.15» may not apply allow growth rates. The in-
trinsic threshold, however, is very small in this case (- 3 MPa ...r;), and the crack growth
9
rates must be less than 10- mkyc\e for a noticeable deviation from Eq. (10. 15).
TIIerefore. the power law equalion is lICCeptable in most practical circumstances.
Klesnil and Lukas [28] proposed the following empirkal relationship betweeo iU(th
and R:

6K=AKtho (l-R)Y (10.24)

where dKtho is the threshold for R = 0 and yis a fining parnmeter. When y .. 1, Sq.
(10.24) is consistent with Eq. (1O. 18).
TIle effect of loading variables on the threshold can also be inferred from the crack
closure relationships described in Section 10.3.2. Threshold conditions arc obtained by
=
setting i1Ktif= i1Kth(tjJ) and L1K dKth. For example, the Elber equation (Eq. ( 10.19»
leads to the following expression for dK1h:

6K _ tlKth(tif)
(I0.25)
Ih - 0.5 + O.4R

Solving for the threshold stress intensity from the Hudak and Davidson relationship (Eq.
(l0.20» gives

(10.26)

If i1Kt h(tff) is small compared to i1K1h, Eq. (10.26) coincides with Sq. (10.18), as well
as Sq. (IO.24) for Y= I. Recall that Sq. (10.18) was derived by assuming Kop is a mate-
rial constant. ACl::ording to Eq. (10.26), IKlwever, such an assumption is not necessary to
obtain a linear relationship between dK,h and R.
Figure 10.9 shows a compilation of threshold values for a variety of steels (7J.
Aside from a high strength martensitic steel, where dKth is apparently independent of R,
the relationship between JlXth and R is reasonably linear between R = 0 and R = 0.8.
Above R:: 0.8, the data appear to reach a plateau, which may be indicative of the inlrin-
sic threshold.
". ChtJpUr 10

" t> M.krial. aYS,MPa

"
>
~
~
•• 12 C Mild Steel
o SM4lB
".
,,,
~

•~ "
[>S55C
'"
<lS55C
'"
•
• SNCMU9
""
~
c 8
• 31655
'"
.::! '"
"-• •
'2
-E
c

-•
~ (>.

"E•
~ 2
~'
iO
•• . ~
••• •••
Streu HilUn (R)
'~
••• I~

FlGVIl£ I. " mod.,,, .. 1It 011 ' " III~ ,U- _ , ..... {7).

10.3.4 PII'all5 and LimitatioDs of .1Kerf

The effective streu inlensity nnge. ilKrlJ has been fairly successful in chataclerizing fa-
tigue crack growth. Seemingly random trends in data can often be ralionalitcd by taking
.c<:OIlnt of er.clr. c]osute. Thi5 approach contain$ a number of pitfalls., however.
Since closure is influenced by microstructure and loading hislCIt)'. and distinct
regimes of closure operate at various K levels [2:5), the empirical re lationships for U and
Kop described above are nOl reliable for ulimatinl tJ(c!f Empirical fits to a given set
of data only apply 10 a particular loading regime (q:. ncar-threshold behavior) and should
nOi be extrapOlated to other regimes or other materials.
The only reliable method for inferring closure loads is through dircc1 mcasl.Lrcment.
Section 10.7 outline5 several melhods for measurina: Kop- SllICh measuremenl$, however.
tend to be ambiguous. Crack opening and closure are progressive evenu thal do not occur
. t • distinct 10.0:1.. Figure 10.3(.) 5Chemukally illustrates tbc: typical 1000000-d.i$plllOtment
beh8.vior. where the complillllct gradu.aJ.ly chule$ from !he dosed 10 fully open case.
FaJigwt! Cmdc Propagalion 53'

The definition of the clO$U/'e load is somewhat iUbitnuy in such cases . The most appro-
priate definition of Kop is the subject of ongoin8 reselU'f;h.
Even without uncertainties in closure load measurements. the definition of llK~ff is
complicated by h istory effects. All of the equations in Section 10.3 implicitly assume
simi litude:. That is, the fatigue crack growth rate is assumed to be • function only of
Kmill and Kma;r CEq. (10.1» . This assumption is strictly valid only for conSWlt ampli.
tude fatigue; ie.. dKlda '" O.
The fatigue cnck growth rate Ikpends on dKldiJ (29,30J. Consequently. a rising K
field and a falling K rl<:ld result in different fatigue cnck growth ratu for a given Kmill
and Kmll.'C' Most history effects can he explained in terms of crack c losure: loading his-
tory determines Kop. which in turn affects crack growth rate. Hertzberg, et a\. (30]
showed that fatigue tests at a con Slant R ratio but with a decreasing .t1K can resull in
overestimates of ilK,h : Inc negative dKldn prodUCC:$ larac closure loads. which reduce
tJJ(~ Applying soch data to struclures may be nonconservative, panicularly if dKloo >
o in the structure.
One method 10 account for history effects is to measure Kop throughout !.he test to
ensure that .dK~ffrenects the (;um:nt closure behavior. Such an approach complicates fa·
tigue experimenta when Kop is determined intermittently. and a cycle-by-eycle evaluation
of closure loads is totally impractical. Moreover. there is no guarantee that tnc iOSWlta-
neousl1Kejfuniquely characterizes crack growth nte wncn dKldiJ _0. Even if similitude
of l1K~ffwere valid in the general case, it would he of lillIe practical use unless Kop were
known for the loading spectrum in the structure of interesl Hislory effects and variable
amplitude loadinsllfC uplored further below.

10.• VAR IABLE AM PLIT UDE LOA.DING AN D RETA RD ATION

Similitude of crack tip conditions. which implies a unique relationship belween dddN,
ilK. and R. is strictly valid only for constant amplitude loading (i.e .. dK/oo = 0). Real
structures, however. seldom conform to this ideal. A typical structure experiences a spec·
tnml of stresses over its lifetime. In soch cases, the crack growth ntc al any moment in
time depends not Old y on the cumnt loading conditions, bUI also the prior history.
Equation ( 10.3) is • general mathematical represcnuuion of the dependence on past and
JRKnt COnditiOIlS.

10.4.1 Reverse Pl asticity It the Crick Tip

Hislory effects in fatigue are a direcl result of the history dependence of plastic de-
formation. Figure iO. iO scncmatically iI1uStnltes the cyclic stress· strain response of an
clastic ·plastic material which is loaded beyond yield in both tension and compression. If
we desire to kno .... the Itrcsli al a panicular strain, e-. it is not suffICient merely 10 5pC<'ify
the slnlin. For the loadinS path in Fig. 10. 10 . there are three different stresses thai corre·
spond 10 C"; we must 5pC<'ify not only £-, bul also the deformation history that p!eceded
this strain.
53' Chapttr 10

STRESS

•
STRAIN nGURE l UI. SO ....... tk _ .. traln .......-
01 • ".!erial WI II yltldtd I.. Iiootlo ItDekMI ....
<:em¥, liD T'N ...... a. a aI-1Uala, r, ok-
peooiI_ prW ....... hlaGrJ'.

Figu~ 10.11 illustrates the CfllCk lip plastic deformalion that results from a sinalt
stress cycle. A plastic zone forms when the structure is loaded 10 Knuu. Upon unload·
ing. mllerial ncar the crack lip c~hibilS reverse plasticity, which results in a compressive
plastic :wne. The compress ive SIreIiS field ti the crack tip infl ucnces s ubsequen t deforma-
tion and crack growth. Retardation of crack growth after an overload (Section 10.4.2) is
an c18mpie of this effClOL
Following an approach propo5Cd by Rice (311. we can analyze reverse plastici ty by
means of the Dugdale-- Bare nblan strip yield model. The advantage of this model islhat it
permits suptrpo$ition of loadi ng and unloading stress ftelds. Rerer 10 Fig. 10. 11 (.).
where the structun: islaaded 10 KffIlU . Assuming small scale yielding. the size of the
plastic zone is given by

p=!!(Kmu )'
8 CTYS
(lO.21)

lei us now 5uperimpo$C a compres.sive SITeSS inlen$i ty , -M . TIle effective yield stress
for reverse yielding is ·lars, since the material in the compressive plastic lOne must be
stressed 10 -ayS from an initial value of -tars. Figure I O.I I(b) illuSIlllICS the super·
impo$Cd stress (KId, and Fi8. 10.lI(e) shows the net stress field after unloadin8. 1bc es-
timated si7,e of the compressive plastic rol"le is

p* - - ~( M )'
8 2 0"yS
(10.28)
Fatigut! Croci: Propagolion 53'

- 2 alS. !-_--1
(b) Superimposed.,,", fltld.

-O"j,-_J

Ie) StrtM fleld Utn" unlOlOdlna.

nGURE 11.1\. V_11oa <II. Ry .... pt.dc.. lOMd ....... .,ctlc 1oN1,..
'"
Because of tbe redistribution of stresses upon unloading, much of the rna
previously in the monotonic plastic zone is now in compression. AI;'
(1 0.28), the compress.ivc plastic zone is lf4 the size of the monotonic 101
men! analysis, however. predicts a much smaller cyclic plastic zone [32].
A somewtuu more complicated veninn of the above analysis forms I
Budiansk:yand Hutchinson [IS] cnlCk (:Iosure model. They incorporated
into !he strip yield model, and showed that residual s~lCh in the wake n::S1
closure loads.

10.4.2 The Erred or Onrloads

Consider the fatigue loading Ilis\ory illustrated in Fig. 10.12. Constant 81

ing is intcrropted by a single overload. after which the K amplitude resum
value. Prior 10 the: overload, the plastic wne wol,lld have reached a steady
the overload cycle produces a significantly larger plastic wnc. When tm
the origin al Kmill and Km(U. the resid ual stresses Ihal resull fmm the ()'
zone (Fig. 10. 11) are likely to influence subsequent fatigue behavior.
Figu~ 10.13 shows &etual uperimental data [33], where a single 0
posed in an otherwise constant amplitlidc test. immediately after applicatil
load, rkldN drops dramatically. The overload results in compressive resi(
!be crack tip. WIDch retard fatigue crack growth. The growth rate resumes i·
once the crack has grown through !be overlolld plastic zone. Figure 10.13
example where similitude is violated, as the iosUUltaneoLU values of tlJ(
suif.cient to define daMN.
Retardation following an overload is a complicated phenomenon t
eluded rigorous malbematical description. There are a number of empiriCl
pirical models for retardation. wIDch contain one or mou fining paramete,
oblllined experimentally. Some models assume that crack cloiiure effects I
for retardation, while others consider the plastic roDe in front of !be "
Wheeler model 134], which takes the laner approach, is one of the simr
widel), LI$ed retardation analyses. This model relates the crack growth rate I
plastic lone size and Ibe eumnt plasti<: lOne size (Fig. 10.14). 1be fom
givcn by

where Ko is !be suess intensity at the peak. overload, and jJ:: 2 for plane st
for plane slnlin. The plastic tone size that corresponds \0 Ibe current Kmru

r _....!....
y(c) - {he ( )'
K max
O'"YS
(10.30)
 O ... rl oad

TIM E

nGUU I"U " . . . . .' .. 1 ' ........ .,.,..-....

.L ' , , ,
5
"1 Ovtrload I
,
~
~ 1 0" -
E
6 5 -
/ -
-
-
:i
• ,-
~
• -
10-5 - -
, , ,, nClIRE IU3
- " , _ ..., ' '(3J~
IIo'.
_tIoG <tIff'Idt .....
0 1 3 4
Di.tl nct: from OverllNld. mm

Wheeler assumed lhat ~tardation effects peni5t.., Ion,.., ' y(c ) is contained within 'y(o)
(Fig. 10. I4(a) &lid (b)). but the overload effects disappear when the cumnt plastic wne
touches the outer bo\Jndlt)' of 'y(o}, as Fig. 10. 14(,,) illustrates. For I cllICk W I has
grown &I since !he overto.;l, Wheeler defined. retardation factor as follows:

(10.31)
 536 Clwprtr 10

where yis a fitting parameter. The crack growth rate is reduced from a baseline value by
;R:

da) =.Rda
( dN (10.32)
R dN

The baseline crack growth rate is nbtained from a growth law of the form of Eq. (10.1).
Thus for a single overload, the number of cyc les required to grow tllrough the ovmoad
plastic zone can be integrated as follows:

(1O.3J)

where 00 is the crac k size althe application of the overload.!1 is the baseline growth law
»,
(Eq. (lO.1 and o· ., "0 + r)'(o) - ry(c)·

Y1GlI1U;: I CU4 T~. Wb.d.. _ d for f.tl.....

ntardalioa. Th. aacll. ""wtlro .... d."" ..... oa
u..
tbt lIu aod JIoOIIltloIII. of rurnnt pLooIi< ......
rdotl" 10 u.. ....
a1oood pI.tIc: .......

(e) Pnp... tlon tIro . ... I~ tiro ....... _ plalUe:

00 . . .
FDtigu~ Crock. ProptlgQIion
'"
10. 4.3 Ana lYll1 ot Varia bl e Amplitud e Fa ti gu e

Variable amplitude fatigue can involve eitheT a regular pat~m of cyclic stresses Of'. ran-
dom sequence of loads. Figure 10.2 ilIuslntcs several examples of variable amplitude

~ .....
loading. Similitude is noc "lisfied in such cases. and history effects can be quite pro-

In some instances. it may be appropriate to analyze variable amplitude fatigue with

a growth law of the form of Eq. (10.1 ). In a rising or falling K field, for example, simili-
tude may be approximately ..tisficd if dX/da is ""all. SimilillMk mly also be valid when
constant amplirude loading follows a single overload, provided the crack I\8S propqated
oul of the overload plastic lOflC.
Simple fatigue growth lawl that assume limilitude arc usually conservative when
applied to variable amplitude loadina:. Retardation effects, which the simple equations do
not consider, tend to eXlend the fatigue life of a strueturc.
Variable amplitude fatigue analyses that J«OIInt for rdardation can be very compli.
cated and compulltionally intensive. Some models require a cycle·by-cycle integTlltion of
crack arowth. For example. consider the Wheeler model as applied to a variable amplitude
loading case.
The Wheeler retardatinn model is implemented in much the same manner as for
overload cues, except that the overload plastic zone size, ry(o}, and the current plude
size, fy(C}' PlUst be evaluated fOf' each cycle in a variable amplitude problem. Figure
10.15 ilh"slntela typical scenario, where I very high SIl'CS.5 cycle occUlTed earlier in the
histClfy, and. modcrntely high stress occurred in the pavious cycle. The overload plastic
lOflC is chosen such that the retardation factot, 'R, i. minimized. In this case, the more
m::ent overload is conside:~, despite the fact that it produced a smaller plastic zone than
the earlier peak stre5s.
Figure 10.16 shows a now chart for computing fptigue crack growth with the
Wheeler model. Although the algorithm is relatively simple. the analysis cpn he very
tilllCo(:()flsuming, since a cycle·by-cycle summation is required. The 5ttes.s input consists
of two components; the spectrum and the xqucnce. The former ill • slItistical distribu-
tion of SItUS amplitudes, which quantiflCS the relative frequency of low, medium and hia:h
stress cycles. The sequence, which defines the order of the various stress amplitudes. can
be either random ot a regular pattern.
An imponant point about the Wheeler model is that the elponent, 1\ in Eq. (10.31)
depends on material propcnid and stresS spectrum. 1lIerefore. this partmcl£r must be 0b-
tained empirically from an experiment with a stress spectrum that I\8S • similar character
to that of the stnICtUIl:. A variable amplitude loading analysis must fint be performed on
the nperiment to de:lCrmine the yvaJue that givd the best prediction of crack growth.
T1le model can then be applied to strucrural pred ictions. If a $tnI(:ture with a different
stress spectru m is to be analyzed, the Wheeler model must be rc<:alibrated with a neWel'
periment. Empirical retardation models such as the Wheeler method contain adjustable
paramel£rs and must be calibrlled experimentally,
Newman 1351 has developed. cnck closure model that can be applied to variable
amplitude loading. One advanllie of the Newman model is that it is capable of a priori
predictions, while empirical approaches s.uch 15 the Whoeeler model are merely able to cor-
53. o

relate crack growth data after the fact Newman', melhod is based
Barcnblatt strip yield model. and is an upansion of the superposition- ,
concept iIIusll1lted in Fig. 10.1 1.
Fil~ 10. 17 iUustn\tl:s the Newman dOlure model. 1be plastic ZQ o
K&IMnts, and the residual stress in each 5egmcnt is computed for. a:ive
,,.
Al the muimum far-field stress, S"'IU" !he crack is fully open, an
SIreSSe<l IO 00',.. where a= I for plane suus and a = 3 for plane W'ain. ,
stress. SIll;'"~ the cnck is closed. The rqidualltrt:ss distribution In the
termine. the far-fJe ld opening stress. 5/1' lbc: effective stress intensily, ,.>
puted from the effective stress amplitude. Smaz - SO'

,,
TIME

= (iI., r.

nGUIlEI I.'J A...,.....,_ .......-r.upe ........ ....,w-._

- , a . t k _ _"jI(_) . . . . . . . . . '- ."" ...... .
Faligwe Crock Propogozictr
'"
"/
,
Inpllt a llO&J\, a...u./

,
Compute KoniB(I), K _W , r )'lll

.
N· f)(4K,.RJ

~
al + 1)(11 > ao + 1)101?
Yn
,
ao.
.,.., . .,..
II
THo
Compule ,It
j

(:N)R••R~
,
-1.1· ••• (: )R
N"I-Nj+l

10.S GROWTH OF SHORT CRACKS

n... fati,ue behavior of dlon cracu il often very differmt from thlt of lon8~r cncb.
'There is noc I pn:t;ise definition of whal. COIUlitu~ I ~5bonn crack, but mosl experu con·
$}der cracks Ies' than 1 mm Iona 10 be small.
FiIW'C 10. 17 compares short crack data with lona crack dati near !be thruhold (36) .
In this case, the shon cracks were initiated from I blunt notch . Notc that the mort cracks
exhibit finite ,rowth rates well below fiX1h for lona cracks. Also, the trend in daldN is
inconsi$tcnt with cxpected behavior; !be crack ,rowth nile IICtuall), decreases with fiX
when !be IIfeSS I1IDgc is 60 MPa, and the daldN · ilK CUf'lC eithibil5 I minimum at the
odln- Itresl level.
54. ,
'..,

ao,

A number of fact(l"S can contribute 10 the anomalous behavior

crad:s. The fatigue mechanisms depend on whether the crack is microsll1
mechanically short, as descri~ below.

10.5. 1 Microstructurally Short Cracks

A microstructurally shon crack has dimensions thal are on the order (

Cracks less than 100 ~ long are generally considered microstructurally:
rial no longer behaves as a homogeneous continuum at such length seal
strongly influenced by microstructural features in such cases. 'The grow'
(urally shon cracks is often very sporadic; the crack may grow rapidly at
and then vinually arrest when it encou.nters barriers such as grain boundarie s and w::ond-
phase particles [71.
 '"
7
10 . r;:r~;::;:J!::;~;::;-r----,
Low ea.bon S1H1
•••
o 4a ·60MJ'1
I!I, M."MPa
_ Lont; Cnck Dat.

1;r:J ~
o oJ
10 ·U ...,,,-_~_ _...,._ _- ,

351020
4K. MPa m III

10.5.1 M«h."]cIU,. Short Cndt.

A cracI:: t/W Is between 100 11m and I mm in length is mechanH;ally abort. T'IE size it
sufficient 10 apply continuum theory, but the mechan:cal beluivior;. IlOl !he nmc ali in
lonlcr cracki. Mechanically ,hoo1 c.-acta typically &row much faster than long cracu at
the same IlK level. puticuJarly ncar !he thrubold (fill . 10.11).
Two {acton have been identified .. eontriootin, to futer arowth of ihon cncu:
plastic zone site and end: clorure.
When the pig,;': 7.n- ,i7C is .ipirlCllnt tompIRd 10 \be o;nw;:k IcnJth, .., c~
sinaul";ly does DOt exist at !he crack tip. and K is invalid. The effective driving {lIKe
ClLII be infe=d by addilll'" trwi .. ph'Nic::r.one <;On'edi(lll. EI H..:kIId. (I aI. [37] intro-
duced Iln ~intrill$ic crack ienath" which. when lidded 10 !he phylil;al f;fXt ,ize, brinp
!.bon crack dall in line with Ihe cOI'I'e$pOndinalong crack ruulu. The intrinsic crack
length il merely I fininS parameter. howevC'!", a nd rloel nOl correspond 10 • physical
length ~.Ic in tbe mau:rial. Tanaka [1]. among others, proposed adjllslinllhc data for
CllICk lip plasticity by ,,".rw:tcrizinl dDldN with .11 ratber than tiX.
Acwrd.illJ ~o the clOOUTe ArJWIItnl. short cncb txhibi~ differen~ cnck closure be-
havior than Ionl cncb. and dati fOt differenl crw:k sius C&II be raliOllali;ted Ihrougb
tiX~ff Firure 10. 19(_) 1361 sIlows Kop musuremenu for the short and Ionl crack dati
'"
in Fig. 10,18. TIle closure loads at!: significantly higher in the long cno:.:b,
at low tJ( levels. Figure 1O. I9(b) shows the small and large crack data lie 0
curve when dnldN is ploncd against tJXtf/. thereby lending credibility 10 the
ory of short crack behavior .

•
~ -
Low Cuban SIHI
5
•••
•, 040 .. 6OMf'a
6. 40 .. 16MPa -
C LonS Cnd Va ...
-
•
, -
1
y' -
0
/,J ,
o 5 10 15
"
4K,MPam "'
(al Cra<* - . . . ..... tor ohort ud Ioaa Cl"adI$.

10 -7 r-r--,.---""----'

10·

~ 10'
t;
I:
.
i:
~

~
10.1&
...
Low Carbon 5tH!

000" 60MPa
bOO _16MPa.
10.11 0 - Long Cnd< Data

10'
U
, 5 10 20
AKrif, MP. m 111

FlGUR! 10.1' Sbort c:nodr. r.upe ....k IJ'O'I"tIIdatarro.. f1a. 10.17, ...1TOCItd tor ct.un fJ61.
 ."
10.6 MICROM~ CHANISMS OF FATIGUE

Figllre 10.20 summarius the failure mechanisms for mews in the three regions af me fa-
tigue crack growth curve. In Region II. where da/dN follows a power taw, the crack
growth rale is relatively il1$en$itive to .rucfOSUUClure and tensile ptopcl1ies. while diVdN
al either extreme of the eurve is highly £ensitivc to these variables. The ratigue mecha·
n.illJlS in each rqion are described in more detail below.

10.6. 1 Fati,ae In RClinn II

In Region II , the f.tigue crac k growth ralC is not I slrOns: function of microstructure Of
monOionic flow properties. Two al uminum al loy. with vastly different mechanical prop-
erties, for instance, are likely 10 have very si milar {,dIlle crack growth characteristics.
Stul and aluminum, however, exhibit signifICantly different f.tigue behavior. Thus
dQ/dN is 1101 sensitive to microwucture and tensile poperties wi/hilt a ,mil mllt~riDJ ~s­
UIn,
One explanation for the lack of sensitivity to melallurgical variables is thaI cyclic
flow properties, rather than monotQnic tensi le properties, control fatigue crack propaga_
tion. Figwe 10.21 sche matically compares mOllOwnk and cycl ic SU'Il$s-stni.n behavior
for two alloys of a give n material, The low strength alloy tends to strain harden, while
Ihe strong alloy tentb 10 liltai n lo/un with cyclic 1000ding. In both easel. the cyclic
streSs-strain curve tends lowwa steady_state hy5leresisloop. which b relatively insensi-
live to the initial 5trenith \eve\.

, 1
n m
I'''''_ II
FKeted IStrlation MedI&nlsml

1 1
LOG.lIL
dN
......
SeNiti", to
-,........ 1
propertl.. I
1~ltlyt to
m1ao1tnactuN and
flolY propmiH

LOGO!(

nGUUlt.2CI Ml.. -M' t fIlfollpoola-..tL

544 Chapur 10

STRESS

STRAIN

Cyclic
O-(Curve fl GUR£ 18.11 SdI~...llc: "".. parlson of m .......
loolc .nd cyclic i tfClSoillrain cu ... tI.

Propagating fatigue cracks oflen produce stria /ions on the fracture surface.
Striat io ns are small ridges thai are perpendicular 10 the direction of crack propagation.
Figure 10.22 illustrates one proposed mechanism for striati on fonnation during fatigue
crack growth [38]. TIle crac k lip blunts as the load increases, and an increment of growth
occ urs as a result of the formation of a stretch lone. Local slip is co ncentrated a1 ±45"
from the crack plane. 'When the load decreases, the direction of slip reveT3CS, and the crack
tip folds inward. 1be process is repeated with subsequent cycles, and each cycle prod uces
a striation on the upper and lower crac k faces. The slrialion spaci ng, according to this
me<:hanism, is equal to the crack growth per cycle (doIdN).
An alternative view of fatigue is the damage accumulation mec hanism, which states
that a number of cycles are req uired 10 produce a critical amount of damage, at which lime
the crack grows a small incre ment [39J. This mec hanism was supported by Lankford and
Davidson [4OJ, who observed that the striation spaci ng did nO( necessarily correspond the
crack growth after one c ycle. Several cycles may be requ ired to produce one striatio n. de·
pending on the M level; the number of cycles per striation apparently decreases with in·
creasing M , and striali nn spacin g = daldN al high M values.
A number of researchers have attempted to relate the observed crac k growth rate 10
lhe micromechanism of fatigue, with limited success. The blunting met:hanism, where
crac k advance occ urs through th e formation of a stretc h zone, implies that the c rack
growth per cycle is proponional to !JCTOD. This. in turn. implies that daldN should be
proponional lo M2. Actual Paris law exponents. however. are typically between three
and four for metals. One possible explanation for this diK repam:y is that the blunting
mechanism is incorrec t. An alternate explanation for exponents greater than two is that
the shape o f the blunted crack is not geometrically sim ilar al high and low K values [7J.
Figure 10.23 [7J shows the crack opening pro lile for copper at two load levels; note that
the shapes of the blunted cracks are different.
 FllIig,", Crock Propagomn ..,

(.J
.... (dJ

(b) (e)

• FlGUU 10.11 TIle ( r""k b..... tIa .... edtenh ..

tor flrialloa to""IUOO durlol t.dJU~ cr",,1t
...,wt. r38~

..
30
20
•
"
-60 -50 -40 .JO.20 -10 0 10 20 30 to 50
x. ....
•
'"
10.6.2 Mi<: ro mt( hanls ms Nu r t he Thres hold

The fracture surface that results from fatigue ncar the threshold has a f1a~
anet that resembles clcavise [41 1. The crack apparently follows specific
planes, and cllangos directions when it encounters a barriu such as a grain
'The fatigue crack growth rale in this region is sensitive 10 gmin size
coone grained miCl'OlilnlCtureS produce rough surfaces and rougtmess-indu.
10.6), Grain size can also affect the intrifIJic threshold in certain cases.
tJ(th(eff) [21] S\akS that the threshold occun when grain boundaries bloc
prevent them from propasati ng inlo the adjoining grain. This apparent!:
the plastic zone size is approximately equal to the average grain diameter,
the following relationship between ilKth(e/fJ and grain size:

where d is average grain diameter and A is a constant. Thus the intrim

creases with grain size. assuming Cf}'S is constant TIle Hall-Petcb reI
ever. predicts thaI yield strength decreases with grain coan;ening;

Consequently, the grain size dependence of yield s~ngth offsets the telK
lrinslc threshold to illCTt&Se with grain coarsening.

10.6.3 F. tis ue.t HiSh AK V.luu

In Region Ill. da/dN accelerates due to an interaction between fatigue and

nisms. F racture surfaces in this region typically include: a miJlOturc of fa
microvoid coalescence, a.,d (depending on !he material and !he temper
facets. The overal l growth rate can be estimated by summing !he effect
mechanisms;

~I
dNl 'Qlai
<iaJ
::: dNl/atiglo"e
<iaJ da l
+ dNl MVC + dN kavage
The relative contribution of fatirue decreases wi!h increasing Kmax. At J(.
is completely dominated by micTOvoid coalesceoce, cleavage. or both.
10.7 EXP ERIMENTAL MEASU REMENT OF FATIGUE C RA CK
GROWTH

The American Society for Testinl and Material, (ASTM) recently published SUIIIdard E
647·93 (42J. which outlines a [cst method for fatigue ~nlCk growth measurements. The
procedure, whi~h i, lummarized below, doc, not lake crack closure into account. A
commitleC within ASTM , however. il c~ntly srudying crack ~J.osure me&5urement and
analysis. Section 10.7.2 below describe. some of the ~ 105Ure measurementtcchniquct
that are currently available.

10.7, 1 ASTM St..da nl E 647

The SlandiJ rrl TUI M~lluxlfor MtaSrlrtmtnl of Fmigut Crod Growlh Ratt!, ASTM E
647·93 (421. describes how to determine: doIdN as a fuoction of ~ from an upc:riment.
nx. crack is grown by cyclic loading. and Km i1l. KmQ,r, and crack length are monitored
throughout the telt.
The tcst fi~tures and specimen design are essentially identical to those required for
fraclUTC toughness testing, which are described in Olapter 7. 1be E 647 document allows
teslS on o;om~ spc<:imens and middle tension panels (Fi,. 7. 1).
The ASTM standanl for fatigue crack JroWth measurements requires that the behav·
ior of the specimen be predominanLly elastic during the tests. This atandard lpecifies the
followi", requ.imnenl for the uncracked ligament of a compact specimen:

w_a~.~J Kmax )' (10.37)

1rl O'YS
'There are no specific requirements on specimen thickncM; thiJ; standard is often applied 10
thin sheet alloys for aerospace awlicatiOll$. TIle fatigue properties. however. can depend
on thickneu, mlKh like fracture toughness is thickness dependent. Consequently. the
thickneu of the test specimcn lhould match the section thkkness of the structure of in·
""'".All specimens must be fatigue precracked prior 10 the aclUaltest. The Kmox at the
end of fatigue pucrad:ing should nOi u ceed the initial KmfU in the fatigue tCSt.
Otherwise. retardation effects may influence the: growth rate.
During the tcst. the Cl'lICk length mU$t be 1TICI$W'Cd periodically. Crack length mea-
surement techniques include opti~aI. unloading ~ompljancc:, and poo:ntil..l drop (see
O\ap{er 7). Accurate optical cnck length mcuurements requiTe a tRveJing microscope.
One disadvantage of this method is that it can on ly detect growth on the surface; in thick
spec imens, the crack length mcasurements must be corrected for tunneling. which CIIlIIOi
be dooe until the specimeo is broken open after the test. Another disadvanc..ge of the 0p-
tical technique is that the crack length measurements are usually recorded manlllllly6,
5"

while the other lC(;h niques can be automated_ 'The un loading compl iance
quires that the test be inlcfT\Jpled for each crack length measurement. If Ih
statically loaded for a finite length of lime. material in the plastic zone rna)
agressivc environment, long hold times may result in environmentally ass
or the deposition of an oride film on the crack faces. Consequently, the cor
surements should be made as quietly as possible. The: ASTM standard ceql
times be limited \0 Icn minutes; i1 should be possible to perfOflll an unlOi
ance measurement in less than one minute.
The ASTM standard E 647 outlines twO types of fatigue tests: (I)
amplitude tests where K increases, and (2) K..(\o:<;reasing tests. In the latter
amplitude decreases during the le~l to achieve a negative K gradient. 'The
test is suitable for crack growth rates ~atcr thai 10- 8 mlcycle, but is dime
lower rales because of fatigue precmcking considerations (see above). The
procedure is preferable when ncar-threshold data are mjuired. Bo:<:ause of th
history effects when the K amplitude varies, ASTM E 647 requires that the
iflldient be computed and 1qlOrtcd;

G._1 dK =_'_dl!.K = 1 dKmin

K da t:J( da K min da

The K·decreasing test is men likely to prodllCC hi story effects, because pri
duce larger plastic zones. which can retard crack: growth. Retardation in a I
not a significant problem, since the plastic ZODe produced by a given ey'
larger than that in the previous cycle. A K·increasing test is not immune
fects. however; the width of the plastic wake increases with crack: growth. \
suit in differem closure behavior than in a constanl K amplitude teS!.
The ASTM standard recommends that the algebraic value of G be grel
1
mm· in a K-decreasing test. If the test is computer controlled . the loa.
grammed 10 decrease con tinuously 10 give the desired K gradient. Othen
amplitude can be decreased in steps. provided the slep size is less than 10%
.dP. In either cast. the load should be decreased unlil the desired Cnlck: I
actUeved. It is usually not practical to col lect data below doIdN = 10- 10 mle.
The E 647 standard outlines II. procedure for assessing whether or nOli
have occurred in a K-decreasing test. First, the test is performed at II. negaliv
til the crack growth nlte reaches the intended value. Then the K gradient is
the crack is grown until the growth nlte is well oot of the threshold regiol
creasing and K·increasing portions of the test shou ld yield the same doIdJ
This two-step procedure is time consuming, but it need only be perform.
given material and R nltio to ensure that the true threshold be havior is actUe
quent K-decreasing tests.
Figure 10.24 schematical ly illustrates typical crack length versus N Cw V=. '1lCl>C:
curves must be differentiated to infer doIdN. The ASTM standard E 647 suggests two a1.
ternative numerical methods to compute the derivatives. A linear differentiation approach
is the simplest, but it is subject to scalier. The derivative at a given point on the curve
Fcuigut Cruek Propagation 54.

can also be obtained by fining several neighbori ng points to a quadmtic polynomial (I.e ..
a parabola).
The linear method computes the slope from two neighboring data points: (aj, Nj)
and (aj+1. Ni+1). The crack growth mte for a:: ti is givtn by

= o·,+ 1-0., ( 10.39)

N j + 1 -Nj

whereti .. (ai+1 + aiYl.

The iocremental polynomial appI"QllCh involves filting I quadratic equation to a local
region of the crack length versus N curve. and solving fOt the derivative ma!hematically.
A group of (2n ... I) neighboring points are selected, where" is typical ly 1, 2, 3, 01" 4.
and (aj, Ni) is the middle value in the (211 ... I) points. The fol lowing equation is fitted 10
the range aj." Sa S aj ...,,:

(10.40)

where boo b/, and b2 arc the c~ fitting coefficicnts, and ~j is the fitted value of cmek
length at Nj. The coefficients C 1 '" (Nj." + Nj ... "Y2 and Cz " (Nj." • Nj ... ,,)12 scale the
data in order to avoid numerical difficulties. (Nj is often a large number.) The cnll:k
growth rate aI ~i is determined by dirrerentiatin& Eq. (10.40):

( 10.41)

An appendix in ASlM E 647 lists a Fortran program which performs the curve filting
operation and solve, for doIdN.

10.7.1 C los ufiE lI,basurt m cntJ

A number of txperimenlal techniquC5 for measurement of closure loads in fatigue are cur·
rentlyavailable. Allison [0] has reviewed the existing procedures. A brief summary of
!he more common techniques is given be low.
55. Chapter 10

CRACK
SIZE IK Incnasins l
....
dN

CYCLES CYCLES

fl GlJRE 18.l4 Scbana'io r.ll"", cndo: p-o'Oflb nin a. UI~N 10 hdernd ' ...... numtrkal d ltfenatloo·
tIoa <JI. u.- cu ........

Most measurements of closure conditions are inferred from compliance. Figure

10.25 schematical ly ill ustrates !he load-displacement behavior of a specimen thai exhibits
crack closure. 1bc precise: closun: load is ill-defined, because there is oflen a significant
range of loads where the crack is panial1y closed. The closure load can be defined by a de-
viation in linearity in either the fully closed or fully open case (PJ and P3. res!J«=livcly),
or by eXU'apOlating the fully dosed and fully OfM!n load-displacement curve \0 the point of
intersection (P2j.
Figure 10.26 illustrates the required instTU/l1cntation for the three most common
compliance techniques fO£ closure measurements. The closure load can be inferred from
clip gage displacement at the crack mouth, back·face strain measurements. Of laser inler-
ferometry applied to surface indentations. Specimen alignment is critical when inferring
dosun: loads from compliance measun:mcnts.
Crack mouth opening displacement measurements with a clip gage are relatively
simple. but extra care is necessary wilen in attaching the clip gage. Nonlineari ty or hys-
teresis can result from improper gage attachment. Crack tip plasticity can also produce
hysteresis effects in cli p gage measurements. Displacement measurements remote from
the crack tip often lack sensitivity. A signal processing teChnique called diffucmial com-
pliWlU can enhance: sensitivity of global displacement measurements . A baseline com-
pliance is in ferred from the fully open ponion of the load_displacement curve. as Fig.
10.25 ill ustratcs. A differential clip gage displacelllCnt. AV. is defined as follow s:

.6.V=k(V-CP) (10.42)

where C is the compliance when t1le crack is fully open and k is a gain factor. Figure
10.21 shows a sehematic load-diffcrential displacement curve. As the specimen is un-
loaded. the initially vertiealline exhibits a finite slope when the crack closes. Thc sensi-
tivity of this technique can be adjll.'iloo through the gain facto!". k.
A back face strain gage has a relatively high degree of sensitivity. Thi s lIlCasure-
ment is nO! subjcct to hysteresis effects. provided the plastic zone is small.
F(Jtigu~ Crock PropagOlion
'"
LOAD

flilly ClOMd
nCURE 11.25 ,,-...d.......1II1loao 01 lloc do-

~"-
DISPLACEMENT

•
•
LOAD

Po,

"..,......tIIt ........ reTWo....ure...

n CURE 10.21 Sdtnnotioo IoIHI ycn ... dlrra'<1lllal

"",111.111 g( .....
Iedonlq .............. Ihc
D.. fro. dip
.........pll<_...1.

o
tN
 Chapf~r 10
'"
Interferometric techniques provide a local measurement of crack dosure [44].
Monochromatic light from a laser is scattered off of IWO indentations on eicher side of the
CIlICit, The two scattcll:d beams in terfere con$U'UClively and destructivel y. resulting in
fringe patterns. 'The fringes change /Il; the indentatiollJ move apan.
Crack closure is a three-d imensional phenomenon. 1l!e interior of a specimen ClI-
hibics different closure behavior tnan the surface. 1be clip cage and bad::-f.ce slfilin gage
methods provide a Ihklr.neu-average me&$ure of clO$Ufc, while laser interferometry is
striclly a surface mcasurcmcnL
More clabortote eaperimental techniques are available 10 study three<dimensional ef·
fects . For example optical interferometry (45] has been applied to transparent polymers
\0 infer c losure bcllavior through the thi ckness. FIcek [461 has developed. special gage
10 measure crack opening displacements at interior of .. specimen.

10.8 DAMAGE TOLERANCE METHODOLOGY

1lle tirst six sec1ions of this chapter described macroscopic and miCl'O$Copk aspecl$ offa-
tigue, llnd outlined vanoul equations and analyscs for ch.atacteriUng crack growth.
Section 10.7 addressed experimental measurements of fatigue behavior. This section de-
scribes how to apply fatigue daUl and growth models to structures, as part of a damage
tolerance design scheme.
TIle term damDgl roluanct has I variety of mCllllings, but normally refers to a de-
sign methodology in which fracture mechanics analyses predict remaini ng life and quan-
tify inspection intervals. Thill approao::h is usual ly appl ied to stl"llCtures that are suscepti-
ble 10 time-dependcnt flaw amwth (e.g., fatigue, environmenUlI-as.sis~d cracking. creep
crack growth). AS;15 name suggests, the damage tolerance philosophy allows flaws to
remain in the sUUCturc, provided they are well below the critical foize.
Fracture control procedures vary considerably among various ind ustriu; a detailed
description of each available approach is beyond the scope of this book. Thi s section out-
lines a ge neric damage tolerance methodology and discusses some of the practical consid-
erations. Although fatigue is the primary subject of this chapter, the approacncs described
below can, in principle, be applied to all types oftime-dcpcndcnt crack growth.
One of the rUSt tasks of a damage tolcrance analysis is the estimation of the critical
fl aw l i!c, (le. a.apter 9 describes approaches fo r computing critical cfll(:k ,iu.
Depending on material propcnies, ultimatc failure may be governed by fraclure or plastic
coll apse. Consequently, an clastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis that inc::ludcs the
extremes of brillle fracture and collapse as special cases is prefcrable. (The possibility of
geomctric inSlabilities, such as bockling, should also be considered. )
Once the critical crack size has been cstimated, lliafcty factor is normally applied to
de~nninc the tolu(Jble flaw size. (Jr. llle safety factor is often chosen arbitrarily. but a
mote rational definition should be based on unccnain ties in the input parame~n (c.g .. ,
stress and toughneu) in the fracture analysis. AnothCl" consideration in specifying the
tolCfllble flaw size is the crack &mwth ratc; (J, should be chosen such that daldl at this flaw
size is relatively small, and a reasonable lenlth of time is required to amw the flaw from
(Jt to ac-
Fatig/U Crod: Propagatioft '53

Fracture mechanics analysis is closely tied to nondestructive eval uation (NOE) in

fracture control procedures. 1be NOE provides input 10 the fracture analysis, which in
tum helps to define inspection in terval s. A SUUCtun: i'i inspected at the beg inning of its
l ife to determ ine the site of initial flaws. If no significant flaws arc detecced, the initial
flaw size is sctl.! an assumed value, 000 which corresponds 10 the largest flaw rhor might
~ missed by NOE. This flaw size should not be confused with the NOE d ete<:tability
limit. which is the smallest flaw rhat COlI be det«ud by the NOE technique (on a good
day). In most cases, 00 is significantly larger than the delectability limit. due 10 the vari -
abi lity in operating conditions and the skill of the operator.
Figun: 10.2g(. ) illustrales the procedure for determining the first inspection interval
in the suuc ture. 1be lower curve defines the " true" behav ior of the worst flaw in the
structure, while the predicted curve assumes the initial flaw si:te is 0.0. 1be time required
to grow the fl.w from 00 to at (the tolerable f1.w si:te) is computed. "The first inspection
interval, 1/. should be ICS$ than this time:, in order to preclLide flaw growth beyond at be-
fore the next inspection. If no flaws gruler than 110 arc dete<:ted, the second inspection in-
terval, 12, is equal to II, as FiB . IO.28(b) illustrates. Suppose that the next inspection
reveals a flaw of !enSth a / . which is larger than DQ. In this instan.ce, a flaw growth analy-
sis must be performed to estimate the time required to grow from 01 to Of. The nellt in-
spection interval, I), might be shorter than 12, as Fig. 1O.28(c) illustrates. Inspection in-
tervals would then become progressively UIorter as the structure approaches the end of its
life. 1be structure is repaired or taken out ofservicc when the flaw size reaches the mlX -
imum tolerable size. or whe n required inspections become 100 frequc nt to justify contin-
ued operation.
In many appl ications. a variable inspection interval is not pr1IClical; inspect ions
must be often tarried out at n:gular times that can be .!oChcduled well in advance. In such
instanccs a variation of tile abovc approach is required. 1be mai n purpose of any damage
tolerance assenmenl is 10 ensure that flaws will not grow to failure between inspections.
1be precise methods ror achicvin, thisloai depend on practical circumsWlctS.
1be schematic in Fig. iO.28{c) ill ustTItCl I flaw growth analysis that is conserva-
tive. If reW"dation effec15 are not laken into account, the analysis will be considerably
simplcr and will te nd 10 overestimlle growth n tt$. If. ~ detailed analysis i'i applied,
• comparison of actual and predicted flaw sites after each inspection interval can he used
10 calibrate the analysis.
 Chopt~r 10
'"
•, :.. - Q:!.tical Flu. Siq.
- - - - - r-
FLAW
SIZE ..
.....d ...
"
c_ "..
J. c_
Act\lal

•, - --7- ---- - - / Tol ..... ble flaw Stu

h---+

•• - - - - - - - - -
..........ed InitiMl F1a ...

TIME

--- -- -----
FLAW

..
SIZE

1--"--+11/
..=~::::E:~~~
=--.-.,=:....- TIME
Fatigue Cmd: Propagaliotl
'"
REFERENCES
1. Pari l, P.C .• Gome ... M.P .• • 1Id Anderson. W.P .• ~ A Rationll Analytic TheOf)' of
F.tiguc.~ T1w Trtnd'n £ng.nurillg. Vol. iJ. 1961, pp. 9. 14.

2. Paris. P.e. and &dogan. F.• "A Critical Analysi, of C...,k Propllgllion La .... I.~ JOllrnal
of &uic Englflu;riflg, Vol. 8$. ]960, pp. $21--$34.

J. Dowling, N.E. and Begley, J.A.. '1'lIipe CrIck GroYllh During Grou Plasticilyand!be
J 'ntegnl.~ ASTM S11' ~90. American Society for TeMing .nd Materials, Phillddphi ••
1976, pp. 82. 103.

4. Lambert, Y.• Saillard. P.• and Bathlas, C.• ··Application of the J Concept 10 FllilUe
C...,k Growth In ......get-ScIk Yielding. AS1'M S11' 969, Amenan Society for Testing
M

and Materials, Philadelphia. 1988. pp. 31 g·329.

~. Lamba, H.S .. -rhe J·lntegn.! Applied to Cyclic LoadillJ. M En,i"u~iflll Fracrllre

Mecl"''''el, Vol. 7, 197~, pp. 693·703.
6. WOtbricb, C., -rhe EIt en.iOll o f tile J. lntcgl"ll Concept 10 F atigue Cricks. -
f~lemotionoJ 1000nW of FTtIC"IIUY, Vol. 20, 1982, pp. US-RH.

7. Tanat.. K.• ~MecbaniCi and Micrornechani ts of Fatigue Cnd Prop"iation.~ ASTM

STP lOW, Americ." Society for Testing and Material s. Philade]phia, 1989, pp. l SI.
183 .
8. Foreman. R .G., Keary, V.E., .nII En,le, R.M., MNumericai Analysil of Crack
Propagacion ill Cyclic.' oadM StrucNteI.- 1000mIl' of BlU/c £nglfleering. Vol . 89,
19(;7. pp. 4$9-464.

9. Wccnman, J., "Rile of Gro .... th o f Fat igue CriCks Calcul l ted from the Theory of
Infinitesimal DblocatioOi Dill.ributed on I PlIIIC. ~ '''If!mllliona' JournDl of F NlCrllrt
Meclll", icl. Vol. 2, 1\166, pp. 46(1..4()7.

10. Klcsnil. M. and Lukas. P., MlnnllClKe of Strength and Suess Hi$lury on Gro .... th and
Sl.Ibilisation of F. tigue Cracu.~ Enllinurillg F,aclll,e MU NuricI. Vol. 4. 1972. pp.
77.92.

II . Donahue, R.J .• Clark, H.M ., Awuno, P., Kumble, R., aDd M~E";l y, A.J .• "CrKk
Opening DispillCC"mCnt and the RIle of FatiJIIC CrKk Growth. /nlemosioMl JOfjmll' of
M

Fracllue Mecltanicl, VoIg, 1972, pp. 209-219.

12. McEvily. A.J .. "On Closure in FlliJue Crack Gro .... tb." ASTM STP 982, American
Society for Testi", and Matcrillll, Phlladdphia. 1988, pp. 35-43.

13. BIber, W .• MFIliJIIC C...,k OnIYR! Under Cytilc Tension.~ &.,iltttrilfll F, atIWU
Mec/ltlll icl . Vol. 2. 1970, pp. 37-4$.

14. SUR!sIl, S. and Rilchie, RO., "Propllglllion of Short Fallaue CrlM:h." huemolio .... 1
Melalb...,icI21 Revlewl. Vol. 29, pp. 445-476.

15. BudianUY, B. and HulChinsocr., J.W., MAnalysil of C\osIIR! In FlII..iauc Craet aro ....1h.M
JOWI'M' of Applied Mtcltanicl, Vol. 45 , 1978, pp. 267·276.
556 Chapur 10

16. Hudak. SJ .• Jr. and Davidson, D.L . '1"be Dr:~ndence of Cratk ClOSllre 011 Faripe
t.o.dilll Variables." ASTM STP 9.2. Amcritan StXiety fl)r Turin, and ~blerillls.
Philadfl phil. 1988. pp. 121-138 .

17 . Newman. J.e.. "A finite Element Analysis of Fatigue CnKk ClOJ.UfC .- ASTM STP $90.
Ameriean Society fl)r Teslin. and Materi,ls. Philadelphia. 1976. pp. 2'1 ·301.

I'. McClun •• R.C. md Sehito,lu. H .• "On the Finite Element Analysis of Fati,ue Cnw.:k
CIOtI,l!':. I . Basic Modelin. lsSlleS." Eng/nurin, Fmc,u.u M«:luJnic:~. Vol. 33. 1989.
pp. 237-2$2.

19. Gnoy. G.T.• Williams. I .C•• and Thompson. A.W .• - Rooghneu Induced C.-..:k ClQS.l1!'::
An EJ.planarion for Mierosullentratly Sensirive Fatirue Cnet Growth ." Mr/o/lu.r,it:ol
Tnuuge,;OfU. Vol. 14A. 1983. pp. 421 ..33.

20. S<;bijve.J.• "Some Fonnu.las for the Cnek Openi", SIR:5S LeveL" En,inurin, Fruclu.n
Medlllllicl , Vol. 14, 19'1 . pp. 461-465,

2 1. Gomez. M.P.. Ernst, H., and Vuq\IC~. I" ''On the Validity of E'Jber's Res.uIIJ on Fatigue
Crack Closure for 2024-TJ Aluminum," III/tfll(J/iolWl Jou.mol of Fmc/u.n, Vol. 12,
1916. pp. 111·180.

22. CIeri vet. A. and Balhi... C., "Stl,ldy of Cnek Tip Opening under Cyclit Loadin, Tuing
into Account the Environment and R Ratio:' &,;IIUrill, Fmctu.u Mtcllanics. Vol 12.
1919. pp. $99-61 1.

23 . SlIib. T.T . and Wei, R.P .. "A Study of Crw:: .. CJoswe in Fatigue." &,iMerill, Fmctu.n
Med"mies. Vol. 6. 1974, pp. 19·32.

24. Shlb, T.T. and Wei . R.P.• MDi5CUuion." In/tfll(Jl;OtUl/ JourrtlJl of FNlCltiI'C, Vol. 13.
1977. pp. 105-106.

2$. McClung. R.C .. '"The Influence of Applied Strc:u. Crack Lrnllth. and SlIeu Intellsity
FactQ' Qn Cr.ck CIQS.I1re." MrulllMr,ical Transoction,. Vol. 22A. 1991. pp. 1559-
] $7 I .

26. YQI<Qbori, T .. Yokorori. A.T .• Jr., and Kamei . A.. "Dislocation Dynami c Theory (Q,
PltifUc Cn d Growth." Inltmut/ONJ/ Jou.nrul of Fmc/llU. Vol. I I. 1975, pp. 781 -788.

27 . Tanab. K.. Akiniwa, Y .. and YamlShita. M.. "Flligue Growth Thrcshold of Small
Cncb." IfIltmoriOlUll Jou.moJ of Fmc/u.n, Vol . 17. 1981, pp. $ 19·' 33.

28 . Klcs.nU . M. and Lllc:as. p .. "Effect Qf StlCll Cycle Asymmctty 011 Fali811e Crad:
Growth.- Mattriols SdtllCIII tutti En,;IIUrill, . Vol. 9, 1972, pp. 231-240.

29. Scbijve. J .• "FatilJUC Cnl:k CknulC: Observations ~ Technical SiJllifkancc. ASTM

M

STP 982. American Society for Tc.olll and Materials. Philadelphia, 1988. pp. 5034.

30. HeR%btlll. R.W., Newton. C.H.. and Jactard, R.• "Crack Chnure: COrreilliQn and
Con fll sioll.
H ASTM STP 982. American Society for Tutin, and "'bteri.ll,
Philadelphia. 1988. pp. 139-1 48.
FtJliglU Crock PropagtJlion 55 '

31. Rice, J.R., "Mechanics of CrKk_Tip Deformation Ilnd fu tension by Fl1illue." ASTM
STP 41.1 , American Society for Tcstina and Material •. Philadelphia, 1967. pp. 247-
309.
32. McC'Iun&. R.C~ ""Crack Closure aad I'fastic Zone liza in Fatip." FlNiSue 1IIt4 FI"QC"''''
Df &,u.uri"8 Uolerials tutd Sfrucfurts, Vol . 14. 1991 , pp. 4.15-468.

33. von Euw. E.FJ .• HenINI1. R.W., and Roben" R.. "Delay Etrcctl in Fatigue-CrICk
PTopal , lion."· ASTM STP .113. American So.:iety for Testln8 and Material s.
Phi ladelphia. 1972. pp. 230-259.

34 . Wheeler. O.£., "Spectrum I..oIdinl and Crxk Growth." iDf4nuzJ Df Basic &,U.Urill"
Vol 94, 1972, 1'1'. 181-186.

H. Newman. J.e.. "PTedict lon of Fatigue Crack Growth under Vlriable Amplitude and
Spectrum Loading Uling ' Closure Model." ASTM STP 761, A~ric an Society for
Teltin, and Materials, PhU,delphia, 1982. pp . 25.1-277.

36. Tanaka, K. and Nakai , Y., ''PropIoprion and Non·PI'opaption of Shan Fatigue Cncu It
• Sharp Notch." Fali,wt D/ En,illeerill, UauriDls tJNi SlIlICfW'ts, Vol. 6.• 1983, pp.
3"-327.

37 . El Ha.ddad. M. H.• Topper. T.H.. Smith. K.N., "Prediction of Non-Propagating Cracks."

&g/lluring Froclure Mu/ulJlicl, Vol. II. 1979. 1'1'. 573·584.

38. Laird, C , ·'Mcch.ani,,,,, and"O>cori.,. of Flliaue.." FtJti,ue tJNi MkMlIrw;Iure. American

Soctety for Metals, Mdlls PIrII:. OH. 1979, pp. 149-203.

39. SUlfkc, E.A. and WillilJllt, J.C., "Microatruclure and tM FACtUre Mcchanics of Fatigvc
Cn.ck Plopaillion." ASTM STP 1020, American SociC1y for Testing and Malerillll,
Philadelphil, 1989, pp. 184-205.

40 . Lankford, J. and Davidson. D.L , '"Fatigue Cnr.ck Mlcromc:ch.anisrm In IngOi and Powder
Mct.allul"J)' 7XXX Alumi...,m Allo)'1 in Ail and Vacuum." Acla Melal/M,.,ica. Vol 31.
1983, pp. 1273 -1284.

41 . HenlbeI"l. R. W., De/omtlJlw.. tJNi Froc/..re of &,lnurin, MaltrJaU, John Wtley and
Son" New York, 1989.

42 . E 647.93 "'Standard Method for Measurement of Fati8ue Clack Growth Rales."

American SociC1y for Tellinl and Material •. Pl\iladelphia. 1993•
R
• 3. Allison, J.E., "'I""he Melluremeni of Cnr.ck Oos.ure Durina FalillX Crack Growth.
ASTM STI' 94', Americ:an Sociely for Testina and Maleriab, PIIiladelpltil, 19811. pp.
913.933.

44 . Sherpc, W.N .. and Grandt. A.F .. ASTM STP ~90, American SociC1y for T esling and
Malerial • . Philadelphia, 1976, pp. 302·320.

4' . Pilooiali:. F.J.. Grandt. A.F., Jr .• Montulli, L.T .. and Packman, P.F.. "Fatiaue Cnr.ck
Retan1Ilion and Oosure in PoIymctllylmelhlcrylate.. &,werilll Froc/un Mn:ltllltkl.
R

Vol. 6, 1974, pp. 663-670.

APPENDIX 10: APPLICATION OF THE J
CONTOUR lNTEGRAL TO CYCLIC
LOADING

Ale.1 DEFINITION OF 4 J

Material ahead of a growing fatigue crack ex~riences cydic clastic-plastic loading, as

Fig. AlO.! iIlustnltes. 11Ie material de(onnation caR be chanleterized by the stress range ,
.I!.(1ij . and the: strain range. /l£jj. in a given cycle.
Consider the /Qading branch of tile strcu-strain curve, where the stress<:s and strains
have initial values ai/I) and EiJ I ), and increase to (fi/ Z) and Ej/ZJ. II is possible \0 (Ie.
fine a J -like inle&nlas follows [3-6):

t./: ~( ,,(l>£ij)dY- 6T, at; <is) (AIO.I )

where n:lefines the integration path around the crack tip. and tJTj and &Ii are the changes
in traction and di splacement between poinlS (I) and (2). The qLl1ll1lity '" is analogous to
the strain cnerS)' densi ly:

"'u
¥'(Oek/):: J!1uijd (Ae jj )
o

n Gun A10.1 !k~ ....II• .,<li< . traa ..t ....1lI

vow....
........... . - fil l fl U.... uad<.

"0 '
(O'lj em)
Ij

'50
 50.

NOic th.itl ",represents !he 5trQS work po:r u.nil vohllnc: performed durina
than Ihe stress work in • complete cyde. 11Ie latter corresponds 10 the
hysteresis loop (fig. A I 0. 1), For the special cue where lJ • ail
IJ eJ
Thus I1J is merely a aencraliution of the J integral. in which the origin b
at zero $~S and stmin.
Although JjJ Is nannall}, defined f,uIII the loadin, branch of the eye
curve, ;1 is alSQ possible \0 define a tJJ from the unl oading branch. The I
coincide if the "yelic 5U'e5S-stmin curve fonn •• closed loop, and the lo.di
in, branches are Iymmetric.
JUSI as il il possible to estimate J upcrimcnlally from I 1000-dispJ
(Chaplcn 3 and 7), 111 cJln be infcm:d from the cyclic 1000-displaccl
Consider I specimen with lhickne" B and uncracked ligament knilh b, II
loaded between the loads Pm;" and PmQ)l and the load line displaccm
Vm(u. as Fig. A 10.2(.) iIIusltatcs.1 'The J1J can be computed from an I
f~

v=
~2L f (p-p . )dV
Bb mm
V~

l/o'herc the dimensionless constant 1j h.u the same ..alue as for morKltoni
example, 'I '" 2.0 for. deeply notched bend specimen.
Beeause the 41 panmclel ill often applied to cnck growth under ....
conditions. plasticity induced closLll'e often hu I signirIC8I'l1 eff«1 on !he
crack is closed belo .... Pc/and Vc/ (Fi,. IO.2{b». Eq. (AIO.3) can be m
10.... 5: 8

7TM _ _ <>f,......... ~_4.p " ............ ~ ..

__ ~ wi ... Ihc PftaM _ '" dIio lymboI.
8n.. sIoboI dUpIaco_. <1oo.In. Vel. is ... ...,.....;.)y ........ TIle ....d lip .. p::.. 1liiy ~.'-d .... bik
Ihc c:no:t ~ is Opea. Thua. V cl is oftao "",iii",.
 Fatigru Crack. Propagalion SOl

LOAD

DISPLACEMENT

(P_,V...,J

LOAD

(Pd, Vel)
;0"---'

DISPLACEMENT
(b) WI'" <r.u "",""re.

flGUllt: A.I I.l crcu< _ 41 ,. _"I _ "'"' r... fMlpot..- .......... )'I0I4l"1 _ _

(AIO.4)

AIO.2 PATH IND EPENDENCE OF 4J

If "eJlhibits the properties of. poIentiai. lhe stresses can be derived by differentiating"
wilh respect to the stmns:

(A10.5)
"2

1be validity of Eq. (AlO.S) is both necessary and sufficient for path indepe.
1be proof of path independence is essentially iden tical 10 the analysis in A
except Ibal StreSSCS, strains and displacemcnl.!l arc replaced by the changel in
tics from stales (I) 10 (2). Evaluating.:1l along a closed contour, ro. (Fig. ,
Yoking G~n's theorem gives

where ). · is the area enclosed by P . By assuming'll displays the propenic

tial (Eq. AIO.5). the firsllcnn in the integrand can be written as

dlP _ a'l' (}(6£ij ) '" Ji(Jr d(aeij)

ax O(dEij) ax ~ ox
By invoking the strain-displacement relaliClllsllips for smal l strains, ;1 can b
Eq. (A10.7) is equal 10 me absolute value of the second lerm in the inle
(AIO.6). (See Eqs. (A3. 16) to (Al.I S) for the mathematical details.) Thw
any closed contour. Path independence of 4J evaluated along a crack lip inle
be readi ly demonstrated by consideri ng tile contour mUMBled in Fig. Al.:
thaI J J '" -12.
Ti'.c validity of Eq. (A 10.5) is crucial in demonstrating path indepcn
This relationship is automatical ty satisfied when there i. proportional 10,",
branch (If the cydic stress-strain CUrvCIi, That is, tJ.ITrj must increase ( or dec!
portion to t.CTH, and the shapes of the .tJ.CTjj-Mij hysteresis loops must be 5:
another.
Proportional loading also implies a ,ingle-parameter characterization
conditions . Consequently, ill uniquely defines the changes in stress and st
crack tip when there is proportional loading in this region,
In the case of monOlonic loading, theJ integral ceases to provide a sin!
description of crack tip conditions when there is ucessive plastic flow or c
(Seclion 3.6). Similarly, one would not elpeci ilI!O characteri ze fatigue I
beyond a certain level of plastic defonnati(ln. 1be limitations of ill have ye
Hsbed.

AIO.3 SMALL SCALE YIELDING LIMIT

When the cyclic plastic zone is small compared \0 specimen dimensions. ill should char-
aetcri" fatigue crac k growth, since il i~ relatcd co <lK. TI1C prcciK rehllionship IX:lw~"n
tJ.K and ill under small scale yieldi ng conditions can be inferred by ev aluati ng Eq.
I F(l1igue Crock PropagQlU:>n 5 63

i (A IO. I) along a contour in !he elastic singularity dominated zone. For. given MI, the
changes in the stresses. strains and displacements are given by

I
I Au. = M,
I 2J.l
~ 21r
r 11;-(8)
1
(AIO.Sc)

wherelij and hij are ,iven in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, and gij can be inferred from Hooke's law
Of the strain-displaccment relationships.
Inserting Eqs (AJO.8a) 10 (A 10.&:) into Eq. (AlO.l) and evaluating J along a circu-
lar contour of radius r leads 10

(AIM)

where E' '" E for plane 5~ ,"ODdilions and E' '" £.fl · yl) for plane strain. NOIC thai al-
though M( '" (Kmax • Kmi,.). 6J .t(Jrnax· 'min) since
 11. COMPUTATIONAL FRACTURE
MECHANICS

Compurel"li have hid an enormous innllCncc in vi" .....Uy all bnlncha of engineering. and
fnw;tuR: m«hanicl il 110 n~cption, Numerical model;n, lias become an indispensable
tool in fr~ture analysis, sllKe relatively few pract ical problems have dosed-form
analytical solutions.
StrU5 jllleD};I), solutions for literally hundreds of configul1Ition l hive been
published, the majority of which were in ferred from numerical models. Elastk·phwic
analyses 10 «Impute !be J inlegral and crack tip openi"lI di splacement (CTOD ) are also
becoming relatively common. In addition, ~archeTi are apply in, advanced numerical
IOChniquellO special problems. such as frllClure II inlcrfac:es. dynamic fracture, and ductile
crack &rowth.
Rapid advances in compuler technolOJ), are primari ly responsible for the uponential
growth in applications of com putational fracture m«han ics. llIe personal computers thai
most engineers have on the ir desks are man: powerful lhan mainframe computers of 20
years ago. The lateS( 5UPCmxnpu~ roqu.ire only I. few min lltn to solve problems that
WO\ild Ulkc months 01" even yun on older machines.
Hard ware does 11001 destI'YC all of the credit fOl" the slICCess of complltalional fractllre
m«hanic5, however. M~ efficient numericalalgoriliuns have ~ady reduced soilition
limes in fraetu.re problems. For example. \hi:: domain in tegral approach (Section 11.3)
cnabln one to lencmc K and J solllUons from finite clement mode ls with surprisingly
COIUK meshes. Commell:ial nllmeri,al analysis codes haye become re latively IIscr
friendly, and many codes have incorporated fracture mechanics routines.
This chapter will not tum the reader inlO ano ellpcn on complltation al fracl ure
mcchaniC$. but it should 5CI'YC lIS an introOuction to the subject. 1be scctirnu thai. follow
describe some of 1M b1Iditional approaches in numerical anaIylis of fracture problems, lIS
well as some recent innnvations.
1be format ofws chapter differs from urlier chapters, in that the mai n body of thi s
chapter c()ntains $Cyera] relatively complicated mathematical derivations; previous
c/u.ptcl"S confined such material to appendices. This information is unavoidable when
uplainingthe basis of the conunon numerical techniqucs. Readcn who arc intimidated
by the mathemalical detaill Ihould It least skim Ihit- material and altempt to understand
its significance.

11.1 O VE RVI EW O F NUMERI CA L METH O DS

It is often nece5Sal'y to determine the di slribution of st.rcsscs and strai ns in a body that is
subjcct to e.lIemal loads or displacc:mcnts. In limited cases. it il possible 10 obtain a
closed·form analytic;al solulion fOl" 1M stn:sscs and str1.i ns. If. for example, the body is
subject to either planoe stress or plane Itrain loading and it is compo5Cd of an isotropic
linear elastic materi al. it may be possible to find a strcs.l fu.nction that leads to the desired

'"
 56. Chaplu II

solution. Westergaard (11 and Williams 121 used such an 8JlP11)111:h 10 derive solutions for
the stresses and strai ns ncar the lip of a sharp crack in an elastic material (see Appendix
2). In mOSI instances, however, closed-form solutions are not possible, and the stresses
in the body mus! be estimated numerically. I
A variety of n""",';caIlc::hniq"'" h;\vc> boen IIppliod \0 problems in solid mccbwtic ••
including finite difference [3 J. finite clement [4] and boundary integral equation methods
[5]. In recent years, the [aner two numerical methods have been applied almost
exclusively. The vast majority of analyses of cracked bodies utilize finite elements,
althQugh the boundary integral method may be useful in limited circumstances.

11.1.1 Tbe Finite El em~nt Mdhod

In the finile element method, lhe structure of interest is subdivided inln dis(:Tete shapes
called demellls. Element types include one-dimensional beams, two-dimensional plane
stress or planc strain clements, and three-dimensional bricks. 11M: clements arc connected
at node poin ts where con tinuity of the displacement fie lds is enforced. The
dimensionality of the structw-c need not correspond to the e\ement dimension . For
enmple, a three-dimensional truss can be constructed from beam clements.
The s/if/neSJ finire demen/ me/hod [41 is usually appli ed to Slress analysis
problems. This approach is Olliined below for!hc: two-dimensional CIISC.
Figure I I. I shows an iSOfH'romem·c continuum clement for two-dimensional plane
stress Or plane strain problems. togelher with local and global coordinate axes. 11M: local
coordinates, wbich are alS() called paramclric coordinates, vary from -I to +1 over the
clement area; !hc: node atlhe lower left-hand comer has parametric coordinate s (-I, -I)
whi le upper right-hand comer is at (+1, +1) in the local system. Note thatthc parametric
coordinate system is nOt neceisarily onhogonal. Consider a point on tbe clement at (~
1"]). 11M: global coordinates of Ihis point arc given by

.\"= 1." Nj(~.rOxi

i=1
(11.1)

Y= L" Ni ( ~. my;
i=1

where II is tbe number of nodes in the element and N i arc the shape func ti ons
corresponding to Ihe node;, .... hose coordinates arc (Xi. y;) in Ihe global system Dnd (~i,
'7i ) in the parametric system.

l~pcrime ..... ""co. anaI)'Ii~ melbods. 'lOCh. " pbo!<?<llIIiCil)'_. M<>i;n: " i~lCrfClO~. &lid CIUIII", ~
I Yllloble. but eVUI tbo>e tcclunq_ O~" ""I""" ",""""callIIaIyJlS 10 IOterpm open .... OW ob$etv.. ioDl.
 '"
(1, 1 )

,
'-l.-.~n---""'-

•
FlGtJRE 11.1 LDcaI _ pob8I ..... rdlJuota tor • ~_L

The shape functions are polynomials thaI interpolate field quantifies within Ihe
elemenL The degree of the polynomial depends on the numbc-r of nodes in !he element
If, foc- uample, the element contains nodes only al the comers, Hj are linear. Filure I L1
illustrates. four-sided, eight-node element. which requires a quadratic interpolation.
Appendix 11 gives the shape functions for the lauer ease.
The di$placcmenlS wilhin an elC'!Mnl are interpolated as follows:

u=1:" Nj{~,mUi
j=1
0 1.2)

1/= 1:" Ni(~,mVi

i.,l

where (ui. Vj) an: IDe nodal disph..;:emcnl5 in !he ~ and:t di-=tions, respectively . TIle
strain matrix 81 (x, y) is given by

(1 1.3)
56. CMptl!r II

oNi
0
ax
dN;
[BJ= 0 (11.4)
ay
aN; aNi
ay ax

(\ 1.5)

where IJ] is the Jacobian matrix. which is given by

ax aN;
... ox ... OJ
~;
o

[lJ = ... iJNi ... ~i ~i {I 1.6)

ary dy
o 0

The stress matrix is computed as follows:

[<71 = [D](eJ (1I.7a)

where [D] is the stress-slrain constitutive matrix. For problems thaI incorporate
incremental plasticity , stress and strain are computed incremenlally and [D] is updated at
cach load step:

{.ja} - [D(c,a)]{.::ic) (1I.7b)

Thus the stress and strain distribution throughout the body can be inferred from the
nodal displacements and the constitutive law. The stresses and strai ns arc usually
evaluated al se~eral Gauss points or integration points within each ele ment. For 2-D
elements, 2x2 Gaussian integration is typical, where there are four integration points on
each element.
~ disp]..::ements at the nodes depend on the clement stiffness and the nodal fon:es.
The elemental stiffness matrix is given by;
 56.

) )

Ik]= I I IBJ'IDIB]d"IJld~d" ( 11.8)

- I -I

wncre the subscript T denotes the rnnspose of the mamx. Equation ( 11.8) can be derived
from the principle of mi nimum potential energy [4].
n.c elemental stiffness matrices are as~mbled 10 give the global iliffness matrix.
(JC. The global force, displocemcnl. and stiffness malrices an: related as follows :

I,,(Iu]=IF] (11.9)

11 .1.2 The Bounda ry In t~r.J EqVII lioo Me thod

Most problems in nature cannot be solved mathernatinlly without specify in. IpptClpiiale
boundary conditions. In solid mechanics. for CJlWIlple. a well posed problem is one in
which either the uacti005 or the displacements (001 not both) an: specified over the entire
surfao::c. In the general Ca$e, the surface of a body can be divided into two regiOll5: 5".
where displacements an: specified, and Sr. where tractions an: specified. (One cannot
specify both uaction and displlK:cmcnt on the same area, since On<: quantity depends o n the
o ther.) Given these boundary conditions, it is theoretically possible to solve for the
tractions on 511 and the displ!K;emenl$ on ST, as well as the stresses, strains. and dis-
placcmenlll within the body.
The boundary integral equation (DIE) method [5-9] is a very powerful technique for
solvin, for unknown tractions and displacements on the surface. This approach can also
provide solutions for internal field quantities. but finite element analysis is more effK:ient
for this purpose.
The DIE method stems from Belli's reciprocal theorem, which relates work done by
two dirrerentloadings on the same body. In the absence of body foo:es, Betti'. Ihc:orcm
can be stated as follows:

( 11.10)

where Tj and /.Ij are components of the tnction and disp1acement vectors, respectively , and
the superscripts denote loadings (I) and (2). The standard convention is followed in this
chapter, where repeated indices imply lummation. Equation ( 11.10) can be derived from
the principle o f virtual work, together with the rIC! thatCIi/ JhiP} '" CliPJci/ I} for a
linear elastic material.
Let U5 assume that (I) is the loadinl of intcrat and (2) is II reference loading with II
known solution. Figure 11.2 iIIU5tratcs the conventional reference boundary conditions
for BIE problems. A unit force is appl ied at an interior point p in each of the three
coordinate directions, ;C;, resulting in displaccmenlll and trnctions at surface point Q in the
57' Cltopur 1/

Xl direction 2. For example, a IIni! forte in the x I direl;tion may pl'(l(luce displacements
and tractions al Q in all three coordinate directions. Consequently. the resulting
di splacements and tractions al Q. "ij and TI}. are 5econd -order tcnsOT!. The quantities
UiftP,Q}and T;ftP,Q)havedO$ed-formsolution. for several cases, including. point force
on the surf-=e of. semi-infinite clastic body [5[.
Applying the Belti reciprocal theorem to the boundary conditions deJeribed above
leads 10 [SJ:

u,(p) = -) T,(p,Q)ui Q)dS +) " . (p,Q)T,(Q)dS

, , (11.11)

.... here Il,'(p) is the di splacement vector al the interior point p ; ,,/Q) and TjO} are the
reference displacement and traction vectors II the boundary pomt Q. NCMC thaI ,,;(p).
ulQ). and TIO) correspond \0 the loading of inUre'll; i.~, loadin, (I ). AI. liven point
Q on the boo.Indary. either tnIICtiOll Of displacement is known. priori. and il is ne<:cssary
10 solve for the other quantity. If we let P -+ P. where Pis. point on the surface, Eq.
(11.11) becomes ['I:

(11.12)

uMUning the ,W'f_ is llIlood!. (This relationship is modified slightly when P is near a
comer or otheT dilConti nuity.) Equation (11 . 12) represents I sel of i n~111ll conslnli nl
equations thai rela~ surflC<l displacements to surface tnlCtiom. In order to solve for the
unlr.l\Own boundary data, the surface m"," ~ subdivided ;nlo segments (i .e .• elements).
and Eq. 01. 12) Bppro_imated by a sys~m of ai&ebraic equations. If it iSlI5sumed that Uj
and Tj vIII)' linearly 1)ctween discrete nodal po ints o n the surface, Eq. ( 11 . 12) can ~
wriUen itS

(11.13)

wlxre O;j is the Kronecker delta. Equation (11 . 13) represents I set of In equations for I
three-dimensional problem, where n is the number of nodes. Once all of the boundary
quantities are known. d isplacements al inlemlll poi nts ,an be infert"Cd from Eq. (1 1. 11).

2Fot the .......... ot!hit cMpca. we"';l1 odocM lhe ~1 ·~2 ·~J coordiaaIe .,........ rIIh!r ...... a_, _.. TIl<
rormer ooconc. iI _ "",,'mIinf; ",taao _1"'1ai., _~.
 Compurotional Froaun Muhanics
."
T2j{p,Q)
Wj(P,Q)

~Q:~;';Tlj(P'Q1
~ Ulj(p,Q) FlCURE 11.1 Rtfcrmco bounda.,. ""owIld_ tOt
a bounda.,. Inte.tal .1.... nl probt... . Unit
T3j , ) tOI'ffl .~ .ppll" I.....,.. ot the e .... llln.t.
1111'....'11_ at polat,....... IIla. Ia Ir...uo.. and
u3f(p,Q) 'lop' _.IM ...
cnu rfaclr poIJII Q.

~u:dtn-
The boundaJy elements have one less dimension than the body being analyzed. ThaI
is. the boundary of a two-dimensional problem is surrounded by onc-dime ns ional
clements. while 1bc: surface of a three-dimensional wlKi is paved with two-dimensional
elements. Consequentl y. boundary eleme nt analysis can be very e fficient, panicularly
when the boundary quantities are of primary interest. This method tends to be inefficient.
however. when solving foc internal field quanti ties.
The boundary integral equation method is usually applied 10 lineae elastic problelll$,
but this te<:hnique can also be utili«d for clastic-plastic analysis 16,9]. As with the finite
clement technique. nonl inear 8lE analy5e!l are typically perl'ooned incn:mentally, and the
stn:u-strain relationship is assumed to be linear within each increment.

11.2 TRADITIONAL METHODS IN COMPUTATIONAL FRACTURE

MECHANICS

This section describes several of the earlier approaches foc infening fracture mechanics
parameters from numerical analysis_ Most of these methods have been made obsolete by
more recent techniques that are significantly more accurate and efficient (Section 11 .3).
The approaches out lined below can be divided into two categories: point matching
and energy methods. The former techniq ue e nwls infeninJ the stress intensity factor
£rom the SInSS or d ispl acement fields in the body, while enerIY methods compute 1bc:
eDCl'JY release rate in the body and n:late Ii 10 Stre55 intelUlity. One ad vanlaJc of enersy
methods is that they can be applied to no_linear material behavior, a disadvantaJc is that
it is orten vcry difficult to separate e nel'JY release rate into mixed-mode K components.
Most of the tec hn iques described below can be implemented with either finite
element or boundary element meth0d5. TIle stiffness derivative approach (Secti on
11.2.4), bowever, was formulated in terms o f the finite element stiffness mattix. and thus
is nO! compatible with boundary element analysis_
572 CltiJptu 11

11 .1. 1 SITUS .ad Dlfplan.tat Macchia,

Consider a cncked body subjc<:11O pure Mode I loading. 00 the crack plane (9 _ 0). K/ is
related to the stress in the X2 direction I.i follows:

(6=0) ( 11.14)

1be $tress intensily factor can be inferred by ploning the q ... anlilY in sq...arc brackets
against distance from the track tip, and extrapolating to r = O. Allern.tively. K/ can be
estimated from • similar extrapOlation of CfKk opening displacement:

K, = 1("+1
2. ,_ um["'P'l r
( 6= K) (11.1S)

Equation (ILlS) tends to ,ive IllO«: accurate estimates of K than Eq. (11.14) bec....sc
nodal displacements can be inferred with a hiahc:r dcg:rec of lftCision than stresses. 80th
methods, however. arc vastly inferior to c ... m:nt approaches. 1lIe5c extrapolation
approaches rcq ... ire a high delilree of mesh refinement for reasonable accuracy. For
example, with. two-dimensional finite element mesh with 2000 degreu of freedom. the
extrapolation methods typically give errors in KJ of around 5% [10): present-day enerlilY
methods (Seaion 11 .3) provide much better accUJ'lC)' and do not require such fine meshes.
1be boundary collocation method [11.12[ i$ an alternative poinl matching technique
for computilll stre:ss intensity facton. TItis approach entails findinlil stress functlons tnat
satisfy the boundary coDditions It Yarious nodes. and inferring the stress intensity factor
from these functioo5. For plane Itren or plane wain problem.., the Airy Areil fUllClion
<Appcndi~ 2) can be expressed in IemI5 of two complex analytic fullClions. which can be
Il:pruClnted as polynomials in the comple~ variable ~ (= XI + i:.cl) . In. boundary
collocation analysis, the coetrx:ients of the potyllOlllials are inferred from nodal qlWltities.
'The minimum number of nodes utilized in the analysis correspollds 10 the number of
unknown coefficients in the polynomials. The: results can be improved by analylinlil
more than the minimum number of nodes and solving for the unknowns by least squarel.
TItii ap]»'Of.ch can be highly cumbenome; energy methods are preferable in most
inSlances.
Early resean:l1ers in ,ompulational fracture mechanics atttmpud to reduce th.e mesh
s.ize reqL1inl:ment5 for point matching analylel by introducing special elemenllil the crack
tip that exhibit the IN.-singularity 113[. Barsoum [14) later showed that thilll!lle effect
could be achieved by a Slilbl modifICation 10 conventional isoparametrit elements <see
Section I U and AppcodiJl 11).

11.:Z.:Z Elemental Crac:k Adunec

Recal l from Oiapler:Z that the enellY release rate can be inferred from the rate of chanlc
in Ilabal potential energy with crack arowth. If two scpante numerical analyses of.
 51'

given geometry are performed. one with crack length Il, and the other with cr.:1t length a
+.10, the energy Rllease nlte is liven by

g= -(-an)
.1a jiud bo,,/'Idary condilUms
(11.16)

assumina: a two-dimensional bcdy with unitlhickncss.

This technique requires nnnimal post-procelling, since lowl slnli n energy is output
by many commercial analysis codes. This technique is also more efficient than the point
matching methods, since global energy estimates do not require refined meshes.
Onc disadvantage of the elemental crack: advance method is thai multiple solutions
are required in this case, wrulc other methods infer the desired cnck tip'p&ramclCr from I
single analysis. This may nOl be. serious shoncoming if the intention is to compute (j
(or K) as a function of end:; siu. The numerical differentiation in Eq. (11.16). however,
can result in significant CI'I'On Wlless the cnck length intervals (dol) are small.

11.2.3 Conlour Intfl n Uon

The J integral can be evaluated numerically along a contOur surround]nl the crack tip.
The advantages of Ihis method are that it can be applied both to linear and nonlinear
problems, aoo path indepeooenu (in clastic IIUIlC:rials) enlbks the user to e valuate J at a
remote contour, where numerical accUlllC)' is areater. For problems tnal in-clude path-
dependent plastic deformation or thermalsuains, it is still possible to compute J at a re-
mote contour, provided an appropriate eom:etion term (i.e., an area inlelP'l) is applied
[15,161·
For three-dimensional problems, however, the contour integral becomes a surfllCe
integral , whieh is extn:mely diffieul t to eyalllllte numericall),.
More recent formulation. o f J appl)' an area inlegflllion for two-dimensional
problems and a vo lume integnkion for three-dimensional problelJ1$. Area and volume
integrals provide much better accuracy than contour and surface integrals., and are much
easier to implement numerically. 11Ie first such approach was the stiffne$s derivati ve
formulation of the vinual crack exte nsion method, which is described below. This
approach nas since been improved and made more gene nil, as Seetionl 11,2 .4 and t 1.3
di.scuss.

In 1974. Parts 110) and Hellen [ 17] independentl), proposed the following finite element
method for ineenins energ), release rate in elastic bodiel. Several)'ears later Parks (tS]
extended this method to nonlinear behavior and large deformation It the crao:;:k tip.
Al thoush the stiffness derivative method is now outdated, it was the precursor to the
modern approaches described in SeetiOIl$ 11 .2.5 and 11.3.
57'

Consider. two-dimensional crac ked body with unit thicblen. sui

loading. n.e potential energy of the body. in terms of the finite clelT
given by

n =~[U{[KIUJ -[ul[Fl
n
wl'lere is the potential CllI:'rgy, and the other quantities are as defined in
Ra;a11 from Cllaptcr '2 thaI the energy release raIl' ;s the derivative of n
cl'lICk mlll, for both fixed load and fixed displacement conditions. II is cc
instance 10 evaluate tjundeT fued load conditions:

Comparing Eq. (11.9) to the above result. we see thaI the firslterm in E
be zero. In the absence of tractions on the crac k face. the third lenn m
since loads are held COIlSlaOI. Thus the energy rdclIK rale is given by

Thus the energy release raIl' is proportional 10 the derivative of the stiffn
respecl to crack length.
SUpPOiC thaI we have generated a finite clement mesh for. body wit
and we wish \0 ex«:nd the crack by <Sa. II would not be necessary 10 cl
elements in !he mesh; we could accommodate the crack growth by roo"in
the crack tip and leaving the rest of the mesh intact. Figure: 11.3 illustr.
cess. where elements inside the C(lntour rc are shifted by da. and elemenl
contour n an: unaffected. Each ofthc elements hetween ro and r/ is dis
its stiffness changes. llIe energy release rate is related to this change in cl

where [til are the elemental stiffness matrices and N( is !he number of elt
the contours rc and rio Parks [10) demonstrated thaI Eq. (11.20) is equ
ComplltaliOflllI Froclllrr Mu hanics 575

integraL The value of (j (or J) is indepe nde nt of Ihe choice o f the inner and outer
contours.
II is imponant to n()(e that in a virtual crack extension analysi s, it is not nece ssary
10 generate a second mesh with a slightly longee crack. It is sufficient merely to calc ulate
the change in elemental stiffness matrices corresponding 10 shifts in !he nodal coot"dinates.
One problem with the stiffness derivative approach is that it involves cumbersome
numerical differe ncing. Al so, thi s formulation is poorly suited to problems that incllJde
thermal strain . A more recen t form ulati on of the virtual crack ex tens ion method
overcomes these difficulties, as discussed below_

(b) An~r 91r1w11 end< . dvan«.

FIGURE 11.3 Virtual cndt UI~nIIIQn In a nnlle elnncnllllocl .. UO,17j. EleJllmll ~Iwren r/lDd r~
.re distorted 10 _ " ' .....Ie. cndo: ..:1... _

11.Z.S Virtual Crack EItension: Continuum Approach

Parks [10] and Hellen [17] fonn ulated the vinual crack extension approach in terms of
finite element stiffness and displacement matrices. deLorenri [19,2()] improved the virtual
crack extension method by considering !he energy release rale of a continuum. 1lIe main
advantage s of the continuum approach are tw()-fold: fint, the methodology is not
restricted to the finite element method; and second, deLorenzi's approach does not require
numerica.l differenc:ing.
Figure 11.4 illustrates a virtual crac k advllllce in a two-dimensional conti nuum.
Material points inside To experience rigid body Irllllsiation a distance aa in the xJ
directioll, while pointl; outside of TJ remain fixed. In the region between con tou rs,
virtual c rack e xten sio n causes mate rial points to translate by MI . For an el astic
material, or one that obeys deformation plastici ty theory, deLorenzi showed that energy
release rale is given by
'" ClttlpurJI

(11.2 1)

where w islhe strain e~rgy density. Equati on (1 1.21 ) IISSUIMS un it thickne" . crack
growth in the XI direction. no body fore« within rl. and no InIet;ons on the crack facH.
NOle Ihal ihhlliJx j = 0 olllSide of r, and within r o; thus the integralion need only be
performed over the annular region belwec:n ro
and rl .
deLorenti actually deri ved a more general expression thai considcl'$ a lhrec-
dimensional body, tnICIions on the crack surface. and body r()f'QCs:

where dA c is the incruse in crack area gcnerllled by the vinuaJ crack advance, V is the
volume of the body. and Fj arc Ihe body forces . In this instalICC', IWO surfllCeS enclose the
c rack fron!. Material poillts within the inner swface, So' ace displaced by &I I. while the
material outside of the OUler surface, 5,. remains fi.ed. 1bc: displacement veo;:tor between
So and 51 is MI. which ranlcs from 0 10 .wj. Equation (1 1.22) assumes I fixed
coonlinate system ; consequently , the vinual crack advlUlCe, .&.;. is not necessarily in the
XI direction when the ernd: front is curvtd. TIle above e~pn:ss.ion. howevcr. only applies
10 virtual a.:k IIdvance normal III the end; front, in the plane of the crack.

,
n

\ ,,
/

" C URE 11.04 VIrtual tndI ulftldooo III • two _.... ol_tlt ............
 '"
In a three-dimensional problem, fi may vary along the crack front. In computing (j.
one can consider a uniform vinual crack advance over the entire crack front or a crack
advance ovcr a small increment. as Fig. II.S illustrates. In the fonner case, &4 c = &:z L,
and the computed energy release rate would be a weighted average. Ikfining A. c
incrementally along the crack front would result in a local measure of q.
For two-dimensional problems. the virtual crack extension formulation of grequires
an area integration. while three-di.mnsional problems require a volume integration. SLICh
an approach is easier to implement numerically and is more accurate than contour and
surface integrations (or two- and three-<:Iimensional problems, ft'spectively.
Numerical implementation of the virtual crack extension method entails applying a
virtual displacemen t to nodes within a specified contour. Since the domain integral
formulation is very similar to the above method, further discussion on numerical
implementation is deferred 10 Section 11.3.3.

(II) Ad ..oce Oft!" ... 1Dcrmo.1II oh,.,,,,k troat.

11.3 THE ENERGY DOM AIN INTEGRAL

Shih. ct. al. [21.22) have reccnily formulated the cnCTIlY domain integnll methodology,
which is a general fnunework for numerical analysis of the J integral. This approach is
extremely versatile. as it can be applied to both quasistalic and dynamic problems with
clastic, plastic, OJ viscopJastic material response. as well as thermal loading. Moreover,
the domain integral formulation is re latively simple to implement numerically. and it is
vel)' efficient This approach is vel)' similar to the vinual crack nICnsion method.
518 ChofHer II

Appendb. 4.2 pnsents. derivation or. genenl upressi(HI for the J in\egnlllhat includes
the effects of inertia as _11 u inelaslK; material behavjor. The generalized definition of J
requires that the contour surrounding the C!'Kk tip be vanishingly small:

( 11.23)

where T is !be trinetic cnero density. Various material behavior can be taken into
account IhrougJI the definition of w, the stress work.
Consider an elastic·plastic material loaded under quasistatic conditions (T= 0). If
thennal strains arc prescnt, the tOlal wai n is given by

(11.24)

whcre a i. the coefficient of thermal c~pansion and 9 is the temperature, relative to

ambient. The superscriptS e, p, m, and I denote clastic, pllllitic, mechanical, and thennal
strains, respectively. The mechanical.trIIln is OIIuaJ 10 the sum of clastic and pilltic
componenUi. The strcu wort; i. gi~n by

{I 1.2.5)

The (onn of Eq. ( 11 .23) i. not suitable for numeric.l 'n.lysis, si nce it is nO(
fcasible to evaluate IlreSKI and strains along. vanishingly smal l contour. Let IU
construct . closed contour by connectin. inner and outer contoun, lIS Fig. 11.6
iIlUSlTltcl. 'The outer contour, rl , is finite, while ro is vanishingly smalL For • linear
or nonlinear ellllitic material under quasi static conditions, J could be evaluated along either
r, ror o , but only the inner contour gives the COITe<:t value of J in the general case. For
qUllistltic: conditions, where T = 0, Eq. (11 .23) can be written in lemu of !be following
inlegral around lbc closed contour, ,... = rl • r •• r .. ro [2 1,22):

( 11.26)

where r+ and r are the upper and lowC!" cl'1l.Ck faces, respectively, WI, is the outward
normal on ,..., and q is an arbitrary bul smooth function that il OIIuaJ 10 unity on rl) and
 zero on rl . NOIe WI mj = - IIj on ro: &150, ml .. 0 and m2" %1 on r+ and r . In !he
absence of crack face lTICtions, the second integral in Eq. (11.26) vanishes.

It'.r'* ~ NJ'(UDt.".dN.f4! b:Id.l.nr M' ~ ~ ~.J'.iBJ' JJr

divergence theorem to Eq. (J 1.26) glYd

( 11.27)

where A· u!he area enclo5ed by"'. Retenina: \0 Appendix 3.2, we Jee Ilw

(11.28)

when there are no body forces and wexhibilll the properties of an elasnc potential:

ilw
(7" = - - ( 11.29)
l) t}£..
'J
580 Chapter //

II is convenient al this poinllo di vide w into elastic and plastic components:

'G
Gij deij + J (\1.30 )
o
where Sij is the deviatoric stress, defined in Eq. (A3.62). While the elastic components
of wand £ij $3.lisfy Eq. (11.29). plastic defonnation does not, in general, exhibit the
propenies of a potential. (Equation (11.29) may be approJ[imalely valid for plastic
deformation when there is no unloading .) Moreover, thermal strai ns would caUiC the left
side of Eq. ( 11 .28) \0 be nonzero. Thus the second integrand in Eq. (1 1.27) vanishes in
limited circumstances, hUI not in general. Taking account of plastic strai n, thermal
sU'ain, body forces, and crack face tmClio ns leads \0 the following general expression for J
in twO dimensions:

( 11.31)

where the body force contribution is inferred from the equilibrium equalions, and the
contribution from thermal loading is obtained by substituting Eqs. (11.24) and ( 11.30)
into Eq. ( 11.27). Inertia ~ an be taken into account by incorporating T , the kinetic energy
density, into tM: group of tenns that are multiplied by q. For. li ~ear or nonlinear elastic
material under quasi static ~onditions, in the absence of body (OIUS, thermal strai ns, and
crack face tractions, Eq. (11.31) reduces to

(11.32)

Equation (11.32) is equivalent to Rice's path- independent J integral (Chapter 3). When
su m of tM: additional terms in the more general expression (Eq. (1 1.31» is nonzero, J is
path dependent.
Comparing Eqs. (11.2 1) and (11.32) we see that the two expressions are identical if
q = &/1&. Thus q can be interpreted as a normalized virtual displacement, although the
above derivation does not require s uch an interpretation. The q function is merely a
mathemati~al devi~e that enables the generation of an aTea integral, which is beller sui ted
to numerical calculations. Section 11 .3.3 provides guidelines fordefining q.
 ' 81

11 .3.2 Gf lltulill ti OIl to T hree Dimension,

Equation ( 11.23) defines the J integml in both two and three dimensions. but the fonn of
this equation is poorly suited to numerical analysis. In the previous section, J was
upres.sed in terms of an aru integral in order to facilitate numerical evaluation. For
three-dimensional problems. il is necenary to «Invert Eq. 0 1.23) into I. volwne integral.
Fipre 11.7 illustrates I. planar crack in a thrte-4imell$ionaJ body: 11 corresponds to
the position alon, the end: front. Suppose that we wish to evaluate: J al • particular 11
on the crack front . It i. convenient 10 define a local coordinate system II 11. with XI
normal to the crack front. Xl nomuJlo the qacl:; plane. and Xl tangemla the crack fronl.
'The J integral al '1 is defined by Eq. ( 11.23), when: the contour ro lies in the xl-x2
pllUlC.
Let us now consU\lct a lUbe of Icnath AL and radius '0 thai surrounds. segment of
the crack front. a.s Fig. 11.7 ilIusll'ales. Auuming quasistatic cond.itiOIU, we can define a
,,'cighteti aWfUl'" J over the crack fronl lC'smenl AL as follows:

( 11.33)

where J ( ,O is the point-wise valllC of J, So il the surface area of the tube in Fig. 11 .7.
and q is I we iahdna function that was intrOduced i n the previous scetion. Note that the
integmnd in Eq. ( 11 .33) i5 evaluated in tenru of the local coordinate system. where;{J is
tangllntto the end: front at eac h point al on.4L.

PlC(JIlII;t t.7 Surf_,ad ....... Iacrr.COI<tI • .,,~I..-_

'" Cltopler JI

Recall from the prt:vious section thal 'lean be inlc~tod as .. virtual cnck advance.

,,,.... ,,
For cumplc, Fig. II.B itlullntes an illCftmenlal crack advance over tiL, where q is

(11.34)

( 1I.3S)

The q fUlICtion need nOl: be defined in terms of .. vinu.al crICk elltcosioR, but attaching a
physical significance \0 this paramelCT may aid in undcn;tandinll .

If we COIUtrucl .. second lube <.If ndiU$ '1 around the crack front (Fig. 11 .9), it is
possible \0 derine the WCiahled average J in terms of .. closed surface, analo,ou5 to the
two-dimensional case (Fie. J I ,6 and Eq. ( I 1.26)):

(11.36)

where !he closed surface S·. 51 + 5+ + 5. · 51)0 and 5+ and S. arc !he upper and lo~r
CIlICk faces, respectively, thal are enclosed by 51. From this poi nL the derivatio n of the
domain inlc,"] formuluioa is cssc:ntially idcntk.l to the two-dimensional case, cxttpl
thai Eq. (11.34) b«omes .. volumo: integral:

(11.37)
 5"

n GURE I U I.............. a.. surf-. S. and SI •.. bldI todGte yo,

Equation (11 .37) requires that q '" 0 .. either end of M.; otherwise, there may be •
contributio n 10 J from the end surfaces of the cyli nder. The virtual crack advance
interpretation of q (Fig. 11 .8) fulfills this requirement.
If the point-wise valuc of the J integral does not vary appreciably over &., 10 D. fi~1
approximation , I(,, } is given by

(11.38)

Equation (11 .38) ill • rcasonabk= approximation if the q gradient a1on/! the cnck front il
steep relative to the variation in I ( T/},
Recall that Eq. (I 1.22) was defined in lenns of a fixed coonlinalc system, while Eq.
( 11.31) assumes a local coordinate system. The domain imclfl'1Ii (annul'lion can be
expressed in tenns of a fixed coordinate system by repllCinl q with a vCCIOr quantity, qj.
and evaluating the partial derivativC5 in the integrand with respect to Xi rather than x/ .
where the ve<:lors qi and Xj are pantllcl to the direction of crack JTOwth. Several
commercial codes thai incorporate the dom.in integral definition of J require that the q
function be defined with respect to . fixed ori&in.

11.3.3 Finite Element Implementation

SlIih. et al. (21) and Dodds and Vargas [231 give detailed instructions for implementin g
the domain inte",1 approach. llleir recODllnendatiOll$ are 5umnuriud brieny below.
In two-dimensional probleDl$. one mU51 define the area over which the inlegration is
to be performed. TIle inner contour, ro is often taken as the c:nck tip. in which case A·
cOITesponds to the area inside of r/ . The boundary of rl should coincide with element
, . Cltapur/J

boundaries. An analotous situation appHea in tIRe dimensions, whc~ il is n«UUry \0

!kline the volume of intecration. The laun situation is somewhat more complkated,
ho_ver, siDceJ('1J is usually evaluated. I number oflocatiollJ atOllS the c!'IICk front
111<: q function !nilS! be spe<:ified It all nodes wilhin tile lrel or vol ",me o f
intca;ralion. TIle shape of the q function is arbitrary. as long as q has the correct values
o n the domain boun<iarka. In I plane streSS or plane strain problem, for example. q. I a'
rQ (which is usually It.c COIl'''' lip) and q. 0 sllhe outer houndRr}' . Figure II.tO
ilhl$1I1I1es two common eumples of q functions for two-dimensional problems. with the
C(lI'TeSpondiDI vinual nodal displacements. This example shows 4·nodc square elements
and reclangular domaillll for the sUe of l implicity. The pyramid function (Fia:. ] 1. 10(1»
il equal 10 I at the crack tip bill varies linearly \0 uro in all dim::tions. while the plateau
function (Fi,. I LlO(b» equals 1 in aU re,ioas except the outer rin, of clements. Shih,
CI aI. [211 11-"" $100 ...... that the rompulOd value of J;' insensitive 10 the aaumed shape of
the q (unction.
Figure 11.11 illustrates the pyramid. f\lRC1ioll alOlll a lhf1:e-dimcl1$ioaaI cnck front,
whm: the cr1ICk tip node of intc:lUt i. duplaced I unit amount, and all o ther 1KKk. In!
find. If desired, J(1J) can be evaluated II e8Ch node aIoog the crack fronl.

n GUO 11.1'
' I ,1 _
£a-..... -', ,... .', .... ' . . . . .
fl l ~
'.1 . willi tIM _ , . . . . . . " " " " ' ......
 58'

,
i
•
rl cuu 11.11 Deft •• llea eI f ....... eI.
"- ,,1 .lu l .odel ,1I. ,laft_.nl olanl a 1~ rH­

I"""'''''' 1 , ~I.. I ' end; rr-.

.
1be value of q within an element can be interpolated as fol loWl:

q(Xj)" L
• N1q, ( 11.)9)
I-I

wbere .. is !he Dumbtt of nodes per clemen •• 9/ 1R the nodal va]ucs of q. IIId HJ ~ me
ckmc:nl shape func:uons.. which were introduced in Section 11 . 1. 1.
The spatial derivatives of q are Jiven by

2or)
~ ( 11.40)
'-1
where ~ are the ~Iric eoordina1e5 for the elemenL
In the absence ollhennalslnliM, palb-dcpendc:nl pWtic;: strains, and body f()l"Ce$
withiD the iOlcpkln volume or area, the dbaetiz.ed form of the domain iDtearaJls as
folloW$:

( 11.4 1)

where '" i. the numba" of Gaussian painta per element, and ""p and III arc weigbtinl
facton. 1lle quanlltlCl .... Im;n I Jp arc cvalu.lod lit the Gaussian poinr.. Note that the
intepion overcnck flCeS is lM'C"u'ry only when t/v:re an: IIOD7.C:ro tnlCtions.
 5 86 Chopled'

11.4 M ES H DESI G N

The de$ian of_ finite clement mesh is lIS much an an form u il is a science. Althouah
many commercial codes have automatic mesh gene ...... ion capabilities. construction of _
properly designed finite element model invariably requires some human interventio n.
Crack problems, in patticular, require a eenain amount of judgement on the part of the

This section givell brief overvie w o f some ofthc CQll$~S thai should govem
the construction of a mesh for Inalysis of crack problems. It is nOi possible to addrelis in
. -few pal« all 0( the situatiOlLS thai may arise. Rude" with limited experience in this
arta should COIl!ul! the published Literatun, which tOntains numerous exampLes of finite
element meshes for crack problems.
F igure 11. 12 iliuslnUCS several \;OI1lnlOn clement types for crack problems. Shih. et
aI. (21] rooommend 9-nodc biquadnotic Lqnngian elements for two-dimensiooaJ problems
and 27.!IOde uiquadratic Lapangian elements in three dimensionl. The 8- and 2().nodc 2·
o and brick elements are also common in crack problellll.
Atthc mock tip, fouNided clementi (in 2·0 problems) are often degenerated down 10
trian&Jes, .. Fig. ILl 3 iIIuslBkS. Note thai three nodes occupy the I&IlIe poinl in spa«.
Figure: 11. 14 shows the analogous situatio n for three dimensions, where. bric:k clement
is degencralc:d to a wedge.
In elasti\; problems, the nodc$ allile crac k tip are normally tied, and the mid·side:
!lOdes moved 10 the 1'4 points (Fig. 1 1.1 5(1». Such 1 modifiCation results in a ,rr;
strai n sinlularity in the element. which enhances numericalIlCCUt1iCy.3 A similar result
can be achieved by movi ng the mid·side nodes 10 1'4 poinlS in 4·sided cl ements. but the
singul ari ty would o nly exist on the element edge, [ 14.24J; triangular elements are
pn:fcrable in this cue bee''',.. the singularity exists within the elemeot as _lias on the
edges, Appcndi. I I presents a mathematical derivation lIlat uplains why movinl the
mid·s.ide nodes results in the desired singularity for clastic probleml.
When • plastic zone forms, !be ,A; silllularity 110 10tlj:C1 UUIS at the crack tip.
Consequently, el astic lingular element. ate nOi appropriate for elastic·plastic analysel.
Filure 11. 1S(b) ShoWI an element that exhibits the desired strai n singularity under fully
plastic: conditions. lbe element is degenerated to • triangle as before, but the crack tip
nodes are untied and the 10000Iion of tile mid·side nodes is uoehanJed. Thil clement
geometry produces a '" litrain linlul.arity , which ~sponds to the actual cnck tip strain
field for fuUy plastic, no nhardc:ninS malerials.
One side benefit of the plastic singular clement desiJ1l is that it allows the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) to be computed from the deformed 1lM'sh. as Fi,. 11.16
illustrates. 'The untied nodes initially occupy the same point in space, b ut move apan as
lhe elements de form. Tbc CTOD " " be inferred from the deformed crack profile by
means oftbe 90" inlerCcpl method (See Fig. 3.4).

31~ prioclple. Ill< oSco.i...,j ...plarity COlI boo

...r...n- ......Jd bet the!:
""'~...t willi
f<q.o...l1O ct(IIIft m. cnet lip field$.
"rdi..,)' .1=00"". bvI • .,.... ...... of .......
Mfwiaa: tb! miIkifk .,.n roou Ik demmI
10 u/IiIIiI ... .. , ....
ComPUICJJiOfUJ/ Fracture MechOll/cs 58'

•
(b) 9.nod~ 2-D dfllletlt •

•
•
(01) Z7·nocIe brldl eltmetlt.

,........
FIGURE 11.11 bop ....",ttric cl,,,,clKI tht arc <'<>mmonl,. .... 01 ID ,..... aad 1Ilro~1mc ... lonal.,....,1I

2
3
, ,~

.'•
8
3
2 1
1

FIGURE 11.1l Dq....... Uon of. quldrilalen.l el_ent Into. Irlongle ., the cratll tip.
". Choptt r 11

-'-
FIGURE 11.14 o..... atloa Ill. b r i d I _

,,
~L I1 'It ' 12 -+1

YlGURE II.IS Cnd< lip ."_GIII

for ~ _ _ 1.....-1< .....,.... ~ (11) ,.-..1_ •
_........,.. ....... (Iol~IIIr ..... ......,..
Err.

_'t".
FIGURE 11.1' o.r............. II pIMtk o.IapIariIJ de.ea1l tJ'I&. 11.15{b)).
_1t .. ,...... .. ~c:TOD.
TIlt CrIdI Up _ I I
 58.

For most problems, the most efficient mesh de,ign for the crack tip RliDn hu
proven to be the "spider web" configurntion, which consists of concentric rings of four
sided clements that arc focused loward the crack tip. The inner-most ring of clements are
dcecnctDtcd to triangles, .as dC$CTihcd above. Since \he crack tip region containl sleep
SIn:U and strain gradients. the mesh refinement should be ~atesl al the cflICk tip. The
spider web desi," faciliwes a smooth ttansition from a fine mesh al the tip to. coarser
me5h rcmQtc 10 the tip. Figure 11 . 17 shows • half-symmetric model of a .implc Crkked
body , in which a spider-web mesh U'aIIsitions 10 coane I'eCwgular elements.
The appropriate level of mesh rdinement depends on the purpose of analysis.
Elastic llIIalyscs of stress intensily or energy rek&$Cl can be accompl ished wilh relatively
coarse meshes since modem methods. such as the domai n integral approach, el iminate the
need 10 resolve local crack lip fields accurately. The arca and volume integrations in the
newer approaches are relatively insensiti ve to mesh siu for elastic problems. The mesh
shou.ld include singularity elements II the cnck tip, howe~r, when the domain is defined
lIS a small region neaT the crack tip. If the domain is defined over a large porti on of the
mesh, singularity elements are unnecessary. because the cn.ck tip elements contribute
link 10 J. The relative contribution of the cnck tip elements can be adjusted through the
definition of the q function. FOI' example:. in elastic problems, the cnck dp elements do
not contribute 10 J when the plateau function (Fig. 11. 100b)) is adopted, .ince dqlibJ _ 0
at the crack tip.

-. -
FICUB 11. 17 1hlf..., ....rk .....I . , .
59'

f1(;UIlt: 11 .• 1 CndIIIp~..rI_ r...... _....,.... _ _ IMWtIoI..-tJp ......

II n....... IM..-..:I< II, ..... _ .... _ ...............

EIDtK:·plastic problems require _ mu.h rc:filll:mni in region. of the body where

~ldin, OCCIll'1l. When I body experiences net KCtion yie\c!in• • narrow ddommiorl barwU
olien propqate acrosslhe specimen (R,. 3,26). n.: IJigb level ofpJutic strain in these
iMnds will make aligniroeanl coolributioa [0 the J iDtep; the finite clemenl mesh mUSI
be lufrlCie ntly refined in these regions 10 caplUI'C this defomarion kCUrll(1)'.
When the purpose of the Malys;s is w analyu crack tip stre_ and sttairu, a very
hiib Level of mesh rdinemenl is required [2S,26]. As a ge~ral rule, il is desirable 10
have II least 10 clemenll 011 • r-dialline in the ""ion of inlerut In addition, if it i,
...........'Y to infer crw:t tip roelds II disancu Iesi than twice tile CTOD from the crack
tip. the analysis code mil$! incOlpaate Iqc strain theory. McMeekin, and Pvb (26)
were anlOll11he first 10 apply • large strain ana.Iy.illQ the crw:k lip rc:,ion, Figure 3.13
is • plot of.J(lme of their results.
In . l~ slnlin anaIysi., it is advisable 10 be,io willl, finite ndius at the elllCk tip.
as Fi,. 11. 18 ilJustnllU. NOte tIuollhe crack tip clements arc not collapsed to triangles in
Ihil case. Provided the CTOD afteT defonnalion is at leul S times the initial value. the
results should be IKlI: be IffcclCd by the initial blllnt nou:b 126].
We will not ~u boundary conditiQftl in detail, bul it il worth mentioninll
common pitfall. Many problelll$ ~quire forcu 10 be applied II the boundaries o f the
body. For example, I sinllcedlc notched bend specimen illoaded in three poinl bendinl,
with I load Ipplied at mid.span, and approprille restraints at each end. In elastic-pl.l$tic:
problelJl5, the manner in which the load il applied can be very impottanl. Figure 11.19
shows both IeCCptabJe and IIn1CCCptable ways or applying this boundary condition. Irthe
lwd is applied 10 I single node (Pi" 11 .19(1», I t.ocllstre<s and Itrain eoocenuatiOll will
oc:cur, and the clemenl connected to this IIOde will yidd allllQlit immediate ly. 'The
anllysis code will spend I n inordinate &mOlint o r time solvinl I pu.oc h indentation
problem I' this nooe, wrule the evenl$ of interest m.y be remote from the boundary. A
belle. wly o f appl ying Ihis boundary condition might be 10 distribute the load ove r
several nodes, and specifyina: that the elements on wtUch the load am remain clastic (Fil.
11 . I9(b»; the load will then be transfcm:d to the body without wutin, computeT time
soIvin, , local indenl.ll.ion problem. If, however. the local indentation is of inlUell.
 S91

(c.j .• if one wano 10 simulale the effects oftbt loading fixture) !be load can be applied by
a rigid or elastic indenter with I finite radius. as Fir. 11.l9(c) ilJuSlralcs. Nw, however.
that greater mesh refinelI\enl is re.quired to ruolve the p[~ic de rormation st!he indcnlef.

,-.-, FI3

F D Linear Elullc Elemtntl

D E1ulk .. PI..ti~ Eltmentl

nGlJR£ 11.1' t:u.pla ott IlIIp •• • II) , li0ii

~ A.j ...U.odI for ... 1'1, ..... fotft 10.

Ie) nalt • ..adi ... LDd.nior. (Nod .. o.. Uted for

~1.rh1·)

11 .5 LIMITATIONS OF NUM.E:RICAL FRACTURE A.NA.LYS IS

Although computational methods are very u~ful in fracture m«hanic5. they cannot
replace u.pcrimcn15. A numerical fracture simulation of. cracked body can compute
crack tip parameters, but such an analy.U a100e cannot predict when ffllClun:: will occur.
T«hniques such as finite element analysis and boundary integral elements rely on conlin-
uum theory. A continuum Goes DOl contain voids, micfOCl1lCks. se<:ond· phase particles.
grain boundaries, dislocations, Iloms, or any of the other mH:fO$Copic or submicroscopic
features \hal control fracture behavior in engineering materials (sec Chapten 5 and 6).
 '" Chaptu 11

A num«ical anaJ)'I'il of I crw:ked body can provide infQml.ltion 011 kx:aJ SU"eS$e$ and
strains at the crack lip. as well as global fracture parameters. Existing analyses,
howevt:r. model only the deformation of the malerial. Fracture can be modeled, bul a
5epanlte failure criterion is required. For example, one might modoel cleavqc fnlcture by
imposing a stressed -based failure eriterion. in whil::h the analysis would pn:dkl f.illU'e
when I user-specified IlreSI il reached I' • panicular poinl 1lhea4 of the crack lip.
Predictions of fracture could not be mn I priori in such cases, but would require one or
morecxperimcnfS 10 infer malcriaJ-depclXlcnf paramefers in the local fmclllrc model.
,5(:veraJ researchen bave .Hemp/cd /0 combine flow and (rae/we behavior inlo iii
single constifufive roodd, and have incotpOfllled such IIpproache5 iOlO finite clemen!
an alyses. The Gurson model, {or example (Chapter 5). was imended ro modd both
plastic flow and doctile (rlClute in metals. BeclLUe Lhis approach il • conti nuum model
and does ®I incJI.de voids, howevcr, it docs not captUre the impolUnl microIcopic events
thaI lead 10 fractu.rc. and it is unable 10 ~dict failure in real materials. A. number of
Idjll!ilable ~tcn have recenlly been added to this model in order to brinS prediclions
in line with experimental data. bul such Jl&RI!K:Icn are baKd on curve filting rather than
sound physin.
Numerical analy.i. will undoubtedly play a mljor . ole in deve lopins
micromechanical models for frac lure. Computer simulation of proceue.s such as
microcrack nucleation, void growth, and interface fraclure should lead to new insights inlO
fraclUre and damage mechanisms. Such rescuch may then lead 10 ... tional failure criteria
thai can be incorporated into &lobi! continuum models of m.cked bodks.
To reite ... le Lhe Slatemenl al the beginning of this section: computer modeli ns
cannot replace experimentation. Any mathanatical model. regardless of how sopbisticaled
it is, must omit much of the real world in its formulation. Models oflen leave out the
very feature that controls the physical process. Unlike a mathematical model, an
experiment is obliged 10 obey III laws of n&lUre. doWD 10 the quantum level. Thus an
experiment often conveys important information that I simulation overloob.

RE FERENCES

I. Wc:NefJaan1, H.M.• MBearilll Prenures aod CtacU. W }fH<nu>I rJf Applitd "'u"""Ie.,
Vol . 6. 1939, pp. "9-530

2. Williams, M.L, "On !lie Stren Dis.tribution at the Base of I St.atlOlW)' Ctack. w }Df<,.".u
rJf Iopplkd "'u"-ies, Vol. 24. 19S7, pp. 109-lla.
J. J....apidu.J, L. and. Pillder. G.F .• NlUlttrictl/ SoIuti,," of l'a"iDl Diffut"ritJ/ €qIUJIWnS ill
SdDIct tJNJ &zilloU';"'. Jolin Wiley and Sons. New Yert. 1982.

.. . Zlcnkiewlu. O.C. Ind Tlytor. R.L., n.~ Fillil. Eltlfttlll MtllolXl. (f'ounh Edition )
McGra.... Hili. New YO<k, 1989.

s. Rluo. FJ., MA.n Inlepal EqUlltion APPfOKh 10 Bo\Induy Value Prob~1!II of Oank"
E1UI05UticJ. QlUJrterl,. of Applitd MalMfMlies, Vol . 2!l, 1967, pp. 83-9S.
M
CompU/alk>nal F roctur~ M~chanjcs
'"
6. Crusc, T.A., BoumkJry EltfMnI Allalysis in CompU/alWIulI Fracture Mtchollics. KJuwer
Academic Publi shers, Do;mIrecI, Netherlands. 1988.

7. Blaodford. C.B. and In,raffea, A.R., "Two.Dimensional Stren Intensity Factor

Computation. U'ing the Boundary Element Method.~ Inler""lional Journal for
Num,m'cal Melhods in Engineering, Vol \7, 1981. pp. 387·404.

8. Cruse, T.A" "An Improved Boundary · lntegral Equation for Three: Dimensional Elastic
Stress An.alysil.M CDmpUIUS and SIf1lCIUrts. Vol. 4, 1974, pp. 74]·754.

9. Mendelson, A. and Athers, L.U .. "Application of Boundary ]otegral Equations to

Elastoplastic Problems. M RDundD,., 1f/llIg,DI EquDlion Mt<lhod: CDmpulotiDnDI
ApplicDfion, ill Applied Mechanics, AMn·Vol 11. American Society of Me<:hanical
Enginoers, New York. ]975, pp. 47·84.

10. Parks. n.M., '"A Stiffness Derivative Finite Element Technique for Dctenninatioo of
Crack Tip Stresslntensily Factors. "mrn(JIional )OIlrnlJ/ of FMC/ure, VoL 10, ]974.
M

pp. 487·502.

]]. Kobayashi. A.S .. Cherepy. R.B .. and Kinsel. W.C .. '"A Numerical Procedure for
&limating the Stre., Intensity Factor of a Crack in a Finite Plate." JoO/rnal of &.sic
Engineering. Vol. 86. ]964, pp. 681-684.

] 2. Gros.s. B. and Srawley. J.E .. '"Stress Intensity Factors of Three Point Bend Specimens
by Boundary Collocation."' NASA Technical Note 0-2603. 1965.

] 3. Tra~y. n.M .. "Finite Element Methods for Determination of Crack Tip El astic Stress
InlCnsity Factors." Enginurin8 FtllClure Mechanics. Vol. 3, 1971. pp. 255·266.

14. Banoum. R.S. ''On the UK of Iwparn.ml'tric Fini\e Elements in Linear F ....cture
Mechanics." Iniernal,'"",,1 Jowmal for Nwmuic,,1 Methods ill Engineering. Vol. 10,
1976. pp. 25·37.

15. Btldiansky. B. and Rice, l.R .. ''Conservation Laws and Enctgy Release Rates." Journal
of Appli~d Mu/umicl. VoL 41), 1913, pp. 201·203.

16. Carpenter. W.C .. Read . n .T,. and Dodds. R.H. Jr .• ''Compari&on of Several Path
Independent InlCgrn.1J Including P1Qticity Effect5.~ Inl~""'lio ....1 Journal of Fracluu,
Vol. 31, ]986, pp . 303·323.

17. Hellen. T.K .. '-on the Method of Virtual Crack Extc:nsionl." Inltmo/ionol )"""",1 for
Numeric,,1 Mtlhods ill Engilleering. Vol 9, 1975. pp. 187·207.

18. P....h. O.M .. '1lle Virtual Crack ilxlension Method for Nonlinear Material BehaviOl"."·
Compuier MtthDds in Applied Muhanics ""d Engineerin8, Vol. 12. 1977. pp. 353·
364.

19. deLorenzi . H.O. , '"On the Ener8Y Release Rate and the I·Integral of 3·0 Crack
Configurations." 11IIe"""io....1 J""mal of Frocwrt, Vol. 19. ]982, pp. 183·193.

20. delorenzi, H.G .• '"Ener8Y Release Rate Qo.lcu1ations by the finite Element Method."
Engineering Fraclure Mechanics, Vol. 21. ]98S , pp. ]29·143.
594 Chnptu JJ

21 . Shih, C.F., Moran, B., and Nakamura, T., "Energy Release Rate Along a Three-
Dimensional Crack Front in a Thermally Suessed Body." International Journal oj
Fracture, Vol. 30, 1986, pp. 79-)02.

22. Moran, B. and Shih, C.F., "A General Treatment of Crack Tip Contour Integrals."
IntenwtiOflQI Journal 0/ Fracture, Vol. 3'. 1987, pp. 295-310.

23. Dodds, R.H., Jr. and Vargn, P.M., "Numerical Evaluation of Domain and Contour
Integrals for Nonlinear Fracture Mcchanic$." Report UllU-ENG-88-2006, University of
Illinois, Urbana, lL, August 19Ys%.

24. Henshell, R.D. and Shaw, K.G., "Crack Tip Finite Elements arc Unnecessary."
International Journal/or Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 9, 1975, pp. 49.5-
507 .

25. Dodds. R.H. Jr., Anderson T.L., and Kirt., M.T. "A FnuTlcwori" tq CC1«eJatc aIW Efff!CJS
on Elastic· Plastic Fracture Toughness (Jcl." to be published in I"urnalional Journal oj
Fracture.

26. McMeeking, R.M. and Parks, D.M., "On Criteria for J·Oominance of Crack Tip Fields
in Large-Scale Yielding." ASTM STP 668, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 175-194.
 APPENDIX 11: PROPERTIES OF
SINGULARITY ELEMENTS
Certain clcmenllnodc configumtions produce strain singularities. Whi le such behavior is
undesirable for mOSI llflal)'$CS, it is ideal for clastic crack problems, Forcing the elements
al the crack tip to exhibit. 1/"[; strain singularity greatly impro~s accumcy and reduces
the need for 11 high degree of mesh refinement II the crack tip.
1bc dcrivatiol1.5 thaI follow show that the desired singularity can be produced in
quadmtic isoparametric elements by moving the mid-side nodes to the 1/4 points. This
behavior was (IrSt noted by Barsoum [14] and Henshell and Shaw [24].
From Eqs. (11.3) and (11.4), the strain matrix for a two-dimensional element can be
written in the following fonn :

(AILl )

aN;
a<
[ B·} "" 0 (AI 1.2)

aN;
aq
where (' 11) are the parameUic coordinates of a point on the clement. Since the nodal
displacements, {lIj, Vi). are bounded, the strain matrix can only be singular if either (B-J
or [IJ- ] is singul ar.
Consider an 8-noded quadllltic isopararnetric 2-D element (Fig 11. 12(.» . The shape
fUlI(:tions for this element are as follo~ [4J:

where " 'J) are the parametric coordinates of a point in the element IlIId (~;. '1i) are the
coordinates of the ith node.

'"
, . A.ppendu JJ

In gcne:nJ, the shape fUIlCtKms an: polynomial$.. Equation (A I 1.3). for eumple. is
• quadllltic equation. Thus Hi. il'it~ Of ilNtiJrJ arc aU nomingular. and tJJ mIlS! be the
c.u.se of the lingularily.
A sUlIin singularity can ariK if the delenniJ1&lli of the Jacobian matrix vanW!c:s I I
the erac:k tip;

(A I 1.4)

AI1. 1 QUAD RILATERAL ELEMENT

Consider an 8-noded quadrilatenJ elelMn! with the mid-Yde DOdeI at the 1/4 point. as Fig.
AILl illustnlles. For convenie nce:, the origin of the J:-Y global coordinate 'ystem is
pl-=ed.!IOde I. Lei us evaluate the clement bound.y betv.ec~ node:, I and 2. From Sq.
(AI Ll). the ~1"P" fu •..:tions alonl thi.li ... at nodes I. 2. ~M.'i are Jivcn by

I
N, : -W-<) (A I 1..')
2

Insertina: these resulu into Sq. (A ILl ) ,ives

(AII .6)

Settins x I = 0, X2" L. and Xj:E L/4 resuhs in

I "
x"'-;(I-; ) L+(I-~ )-
, L (AII .7)
2 4
where L is the length ortbe clement between nodes I and 2. Salvina for ( ,ives

~::-1+2.Ji (AI 1.8)

The relevant ICl1D. of the JlICObian is given by

Proptniu of Singularity EkrntntJ
'"
1
' f------"O-------..,
,
y " •
•
FIGURE AlI. t Qu_d tU_I ...1 Ioo,. r _mllrl~
,~--~.>--''- __-----<o., eltllltnt wtib .. Id ... ld. aod .. lIIoud 10 lb.
qllatWr poIIIlS.

ax L
2""'
--=-(!+~)=vxL
a~
(AI 1.9)

which vanishes al x '" 0; Ihus the stnin mUSI be singular III this point. Considerina only
the displacements of points I, 2, and S, the displacements a10na the elemenl edge arc as
follows:

(AIl.lO)

Substilutinl Eq. (AI 1.8) inlo Eq. (AII.IO) gives

u=- ~(-1+2HX2-2H}1

{-1+2HX2Hr+ (H<}, 4 (AILlI )

Solving for the strain in the x direction leads 10

£
au apu
=--=----
x ax dXdX
50' A.p~ndix II

(A11.l2)

Tbereforc:, the sltain exhibits a IrTr lingularil), along the clement boulldary.
AII.2 TRIANGULAR ELEMENT

Lei us now Wl\$InICt a triangular clement by collapsing nodes I, 4, and 8 (Fig. AI 1.2).
Nodes 5 and 7 arc moved to the quarter poinu in this case. The Irir strain singularity
exisu along the 1-J.2 and 4-7-3 cdaes, as with the quadrilateral clement. In thb in5WlCe,
however, the singularity also exists within thc clement.
Consider the xuis, where IJ = O. llIe relationship between Jl and ~ is given by

(A11.13)

whc:re LJ is the length of the element in the Jl direction. Solving for (gives

< - -1+2~ ~ (AII.14)

which is ilknlkallo Eq. (AI!.S). Therefore, the 'mUn is 'ing\llar along the Jl uis in
thi. element. By IOlvin, for strain as before (Eqs. (A 11. 10) 10 (A11.ll» it can easily be
shown that the singularity is the desired /rrrtype.

,
1 L,

-
FIGURE AII.1 DoI'D.nIK Itopa....lrIc
....... nl, wll~ _ld ..1 • aH. . . t the qual1er
I PART V: REFERENCE MATERIAL I
 12. COMPILATION OF K, J,
COMPLIANCE AND LIMIT LOAD
SOLUTIONS

This ,hapter HslS stress j1!.tensil),. compliance. limit load, plastic J and plastic
di splacement solutions for ~Iected configurations. Table 12. 1 summarizes the
geometries and solutions ttl! are provided. The leometries arc divided inlO three
categories: (I ) through-thickness crac ks in nat plates, (2) part-through cracks in nat
platts, and (3) flawed cylinders. Note that Kr solutions arc given in all cases but thaI
full), plastic J solutions arc available for only a limited number of oonfi,unltiOIl5.

11.1 T HRQUGH.THICK NESS CRAC K S-FLAT PL ATES

Figure 12.1 illustrates eight fl.1 plale/through thickness crack configurations. Note that
!his geomc:uy Cll.icllur), includes moot of the common 11,,1 .peci~ftS.

12.1. 1 Siress Intens ity a nd E lastic Complia nce

Table 12.2 gives poly nomial Kr expressions for the eight co nfigurations shown in fig.
12. 1. 11Ic load line compliance solutions for some or these geometries are lislCd in Table
12.3. It is important to nOle that !be compliance values in Table 12.3 correspond to the
Iota/load line displacement. Recall from Chapter 3 that the load line displacement can be
divided into crod: and no cmckcomponenl5:

( 12. 1)

where dnc is the displacemeat (Ill a l iven load) that would be mcUUl'ed in !be absence o f
a crack. and .4c i, the lIddiuonal disph.cemenl thaI ia due 10 the crack. TIle no crack
complUmce for each of the configurations in Table 12.3 can be readily inrerred by selli ng
aM - O.

•••
60' ChapteT 12

TAJILE 1l.1
s....ar, 01. ......... 100 C'UpIa" IL

G~om t try Lo.dlnl K, Compl PL 'pI 4 p • Vp

.
(a) Tbrou, b
Cu('ks, Flo!
Pla tt •.
;
&I
.~, Tension

.....T,8....
J Pt. Belld ;
"
"
Center crack Tension ;
Double cd e notch Tension ;
Com . Tension ;
"
OiSk~~ Tension
Arc imen Tension ;
(b) Part-Throug b
C rac ks , Flat
Plat u.
Swfooc cnck T,8 ;
" Pol nom.
Elli . buried cra::k Tension ;
""""'~, T,8
3. Flawed
C ylin dul.
Thr-wal1 circum . Tension ;
"
"
"""",
T,8
;
;
1.0, dreum. Tension
Pan-thr. circum . Tension ;
'The.wall axial 1'" ,,,"
1.0, axial ""u=
Pan-tw. ax ial
-""
"
. 1',1
.
nom .
KJ - Mode I 5ttu.5 intensity.
Compo - Elastic compliance.
PL - Limit load.
J pl • Pl astic J inlciral.
4 p , V p • Plastic displac:cmcnu:.
 '"

•
P, •
tel 8Iop ..... _ ..... "" ... (S I!NB )."~.'_

P, •

'j4---zw - - - I

L
s> 'I

nGuu.:I1.I.,.. .............. II' "n ...-.

...
P,4
w •
+ L
(I) S........... 0Md>c<I _ _ (SEm') pMOI.

P,4
,w

•
(,>

M,n
P,4
•

ro u.,. ............. _ - ......... - ........

nGUIlE 11.1 (c-J
 K, J, Compliance, aIId Umit UxJtJ Solutions ...
TABU: 11.1
NIIIIIlIaI_Im" ~t HlUU- f~ u. ...... p-tbku- ....... Ia fta, pa.t .. (I,l ~ Sec fit. I:U for _ cldlAlde.
el dh,,""""" fO<' t_d, coaf\aunItion.

~ ; ). KI~rw
11-' I,;_pldl

,
(,~} [0'86+'''l~ )-"32( ~)' +'47~ ~)' -,Ol( ~)']

I '" --,
(, ~), [076+'s(~)-'''s(;)' + ".,~)' -4os(~)']
(~ SIn&Io . . . -......beIMI ..... ,.......... bo~. . . . 1N I '..

~
'j'" '''- W('- w~' ''-'''w)+''lw) II
~ w'X W
, wy
S [ II II Q <II 2

1+2- 1- -

'"
~:;_,'; [' -O"';)' +000(;)']
~

'"
('; +19+1.1; X'+0 2l('- ~)'H~J}( ;)
wberc

~~). ('-~" ["'-<,,; )+.,~;)' -><\; )']

 ...
TAilLElll{C-L)

f( ; ). Kl~~

'"
H='''''-:"w [0752+'00(;)+037(1-0',";),1
,w
(Il o..w...,. ~ IeaII. CD£Hn,...t.

i~ [1122 -0'''(; )-0'0>(;), +0471(;)' +01-\ ; J']

.....joOftlO ......
I'·
(M)
~;)- .,.: -ro{F
,w
[0923+0J9''I'-';'(,,,;)} 1
3'2 6 2W1 - •

W Ie ...... IOn.
I -

',- .Tw[Pf.(;)+~f·(;)l
where!, ond f~ ..., IiVCII abo"" III (I) ODd (h). '"'"fI'IO"Ii""IJ.
K, J. Compliance, and Lim'" Lood SoI~ljOlll ."
Il.Ilw._".
~' ., 'eeo' _ .....
!
pI" _
TAIlLII: ILl

,r._..........-.
_ _ lOr ~_t ..-.. not ...- IlJ., s..""
<lII E '
N" , C_,.....,., Zu. _ - ,- ........ <I • "" + """

[:in""., "'(;)-,,~;r-o m>{;)'

."000(;)' _.on';)']

"<:;'~'['M{;r,,·+u(!r[<_;; r[,~-",,(;)
+36.82(; f -3-I·~ ;r +12,

L(ll-'/) +(; X-1.01 1+0,~; )-0.351(; f +O.ll{; -O.6f{ ; r r

~--(; )' ]
~~~- ~--------~
6O' CItop~r 12

; .. 1.00196- 4.063 19Uu +11.242UL. -I06.043 Ult. +464.33!5Utt. -650.6TIUlL

....." ..u

; = 0.999748 -). 9S04Uv 1> 2,9821(13 -3. 21408U~ + !51 . !5I.564U~ -113.031U~

... here

1
UV=~ lind
Zv _!!!.Y...
p
f ,- +'

rO!' ~ rabllioaI,' ce.pIiaDtt nrnaIoIII II ~ fill" tIM: com,.... ~ IS- ASTM E 113
I~)')

+:~­
T

SENIISP'I' I c..,.....p .......

 K. J. Complionce. and Umit Lood So/.. ,ioflS ...
11. 1.1 Limit Lo.d

U",I. _
.u.. .1 r... . - ._ ....... _
TABLE I~
.... u.Io. tor lIlnIu.... . bkk_ ........ la no. pia ... [!Moo See"" 11.1 fo •• dtflDllIoII et

. I.' I,;Hlpart J

PI. - 1. 4SSF/Bbl1y ("'- Smoia)

PI. _ I.012TjBb(Ty ( t ' I I . S -)

-""
,. ("b ), " (,, ) +-;;-+2 - -;;-+1

,.,
PI. _ 1.4SSBb 2 11,r
(Plano Stn.iA)
S
2
PI. _ I.072Bb 11[ (t'II. SUeoa)
S
,
•
PI.-73 Bboy (Plone Suoift)

PL = 2Blx1y Irs-SuN)

I'" o.
001 _ _ Ie ..
•
PI. - 1.4SSF/Bbo"y (.... s.r..J

PI. _1 .072TjBoay ("-Stoat)

.. he"

, +(~)' -~
: '" .-, ,
-!
PI. " ( 0. 72 + 1.82 )sb<:rY (M- SIniQ)

,
PI. -13 Bbl1y (Plane Stoat)

-- • ~m
• ~ .
61. Chop/a 12

TABLE 11.5 (C....)·

.. here
M
A .--
PW

"1110 nO. _ "y. 10...........,. tal.... Ibt .......... 01 "YS."" errs.

12.1.3 Fully Plaulc J and Dilplaccmenl

1bc Electric Power RCI'Can:h Institute (EPRI) J estimation scheme [S] provides II means
for compll\ing the J integral in . variety o f configwalions and materials. A fully plastic
solution is combi ned with the siren intensity solution 10 obtain an eSlimate of the
clastic-plastic J. Section '9.5 describes the theoretical background and applications ofthas
""""h.
1be fully plastic J integral in the EPRI J estimation scheme is normally cXpre55ed
in the following form:

(12.2)

when: b is a ch.aracteristic length dimension, h/ is a geometry factor, P is a characteristic

load. and Po is a If:ference load, whic h is usual ly inferred from the limit load solution for
the geometry of interest. The other parameters in Eq. ( 12.2) are flow properties that are
defined by a Rarnbcrg-Os!Wod fit to the material stress-strain curve:

( 12.3)
K, J, Compliance, and Umir Lood SollltiolU 6"

""'here a and e are uniuial We$$ and strain, respectively. 0"0 is a tderen ce stress (usually
dtfincd at yiekt). Eo :: odE. a is a litting constant. and n is a hardening exponent.
1be geometry factor, hi, has been tabulated for a variety of configurations and
hardening exponents (Tables 12.6-12.2\. 12.34· 12.51) [5-71.
The total J is given by the sum of the fully plastic value and an e ffective elastic J:

(12. 4)

wbere Jd is computed from the elastic stress inlelUity flllClOf of an effective crack size:

(12.5)

wbere E' =E for plane stress I nd E' = EI( J • y2') foc plane strain conditions. The
parentheses in Eq. (12.5) indicates that K J is a function of oeff. rather than a
multiplicat ion product. The effective crack size is inferred from a first order Irwin
carection:

(12.6)

-.bercp = 2 for plane stress and p., 6 for plane itrain conditions.
Elastic.plastic displacements can also be computed from the EPRJ approach by
Dilng the elastic displacemenl. inferred from the compliance IOlution with crack size_
GtfJ. 10 the plastic displacement. 1be fully plastic crack mouth opening displacement,
V,. and plastic load line displacement • .1p are nonnally expressed in the following form:

(12.7)

(12.8)

oatae J/Z and hj are geometry factoR.

'"
T~~
' • • _pod; ' .. ,. ...... _In

0. 615

~ I

'DIdo: .1

.4p • ae"",h) ("

PI> _ 1.4SSJ1BbO"
IW.,,{ ~ r
OK"
 K. J. CompliDllce. and Limit Load SolutiolU 6lJ

TABLE 12..7
FUUr l'l-lk J ud dltpa......... tor • __ ..... opedaIallD ........ _ [5).

0.375

0.500

0.625

0.750

~l 1.59 1.23 1.17 1.03

1.27 0.985 0.933

............
vp - o
a£ ah2(<l1 w.n{~ r
t1 p - Cl£oahJ(<l 1 w.n{~r +L...t:::::W --I
Po - 1. 072IJ BhCTo T
..b.",

' . ) ' +-;+2-

IJ= ( -; 4. ( -;+1
'. )
... CilDpur l 2

TAlILt: 11.'
,.. . . . . ..... _ _ CSuo.) i ' .. Ioo ,...._~

0 . 125 1. 19
1.01

0 . 250

0 .375
 !ill!!

TAl"": 11.t
..... _ .......... (S1tN1) .poct. .... pta. It..- ...bj«t

•• 2 •• ) •• t •• 7 •• If • • U •• 14 • • •

o.

4.01 7. 19

S.09 3.73
5.H ...,
2.93
3. 17 2.41
0.381

. 00 3. 12 1.55 ' .08

2.08 1.44

0.750

1)010' ••
... ChtJpte. 12

TABLE 11.1•
....., ........ J _ dlo.,-OIII for a...w.u. - . . (M'I) 1Ipfdon•• I. ",-.n1n I!~

aJW: .~I •• 1 ._J ... , •. , a_II •• U •• Ii •• 10

•••

0.315

0.500

, ,

dl<~)" .....,dA)«.1 w.•{ :' r

•
"·- 73~·
K, J. COtropIitmct. and Umit Lo«l SoI~tl()ftJI .,
......,.,.......1 ....·,' " . ,ro..' _ _
T"'.l.EIl.1I
(JoI'J}opoctm .. loplMw_ln

.fW: •• 1 •• 2 •• l ••J ... , •• 1. . . . U •• " •• »

0.615

•
·.. TABU: 1l.1l
Chilpf4f 12

_ , ............,. ....... _ _ (SfNl') 4. 10". In pl.....' ...a In

.., ... .., ...

..,
•• 11 •• Il •• Ii

IU 1'._
D .' '"
D2
ILl
Db D2 "2
1$.7

"'
16.'
D.'
.200 0,175 O.H2
'" '"
,q
''''
l.I l
0.6:14
"-

•.
~

.,. o.om
0.0012
0.0261
0.011)

J pi ., aeD<1o !!!!hl (a I
w
w,, {L)""
p.

Vp -aeP2(Q! w.,,{~r
.1p(c)" t:rt:.,Ml(al W'''{~ r
K, J, C(}tflpli(mc" and Lim;' l...oad SolurionJ 61'

TABLt: l l. I3
,III , ............. ....tdoooI1mO ..... (SEl'o"J')..._- .. pa.-_ (!~

.L p

,i:!-'
L

....
"'"
,+(;J' -;
61. ChopUr 12

. /W : .., ..., .., .., .., .. " .·IJ ". 1' ..»
0.'72 0.772 0.922 I.3S
I. I 3 1.86 2.08 2.4 4
O.IlS "b, 0.732 a.lS2 0.96\ l.l4 1.29
1.6 I
UO I. 70 1.94 2. I 7
b, 0.063 0 . 126 0.200 0.372 D.HI 0.91 I 1.30 1.74 2.29
b, LID 1.32 1.38 1.65 1.1, 1.82 1.86 1.89 1.92
0 . 250 b, Uti 1.61 1.70 1.18 l.lIa 1.11 1.79 1.18 1.76
b, 0.267 0.479 0.698 1.1 I 1.47 1.92 2 .25 2. 49 2.73
b, 1.61 1.13 1.92 1.92 1.84 1.68 1.49 1.32 1.12
0 .315 b, 2.S I 2.<" 2.35 2.1, 1.94 1.68 1.44 US l.OS
b, 0.637 1.05 \.40 1.17 2. 11 2.20 2.09 1.92 1.67
b, 2.:2 2 2.43 2. 4 8 2.4 3 2.32 2. 12 1.91 1.60 1..51
0 .5 00 b, 3.73 3.40 3. 1, 2.71 2.3 7 2.0\ \.72 1.40 1.38
b, 1.26 1.92 2.37 2.79 2.115 2.68 2.40 1.99 1.94
b, 1.16 3.38 3. 4S 3.42 3.28 3.00 2.34 2 .36 2.21
1.82
0 .625
"b, U7
2.36
4.76 4.23 3.46 2.97
3.29 3.74 3.90 3.68
2.48
J .n
2.02
2.66 1 .40
1.66
2. 19
b, S.24 6.29 7. 17 S. U 9.46 10.9 11.9 11.3 11.4
0.150 h, 9. 10 7.16 7. 14 6.64 6.83 7.48 7.79 7.1 4 I I. I
b, 4.73 6.26 1.03 1.63 8.1 4 9.04 9. 40 8.S8 Il.S
b, 1~.2 2~ . 8 39.0 78 . ~ 140.0 3~ 1.0 777 .0 IS70 .0 3820.0
0 . 115 b, 20.1 19 . ~ 22.7 36. 1 SS.9 131.0 29~ .0 SSS .O I~OO.O
b, 12.1 18.2 24. 1 40 . ~ 6S.B 149.0 321.0 6S0 .0 1S60.0

JpI - 1U6 u .. - ..
w irJ e..
f W... - {'t
p.
. t.: •
Vp - (JtlQ .. ~( .. f W... { ~r L • _I'

w.,.{ r
i •
dp(c ) = (Jt.... ~( .. f ~ • ,
T
Po _(0.72 + 1.12! )Bb0"6
dp{lIC)
.Jl
- Tat"oL
. .Jlp
'"
'i'
:M
1
t . J. Comp/i<lltct. <lIId U",;r Load So/wriOltS 62'

atw : .. , .., .., ..,

.~ n _ IO D_ 13 •• 16 .. »

"
" 1.0' 1 1.23 :~~ ::~~,
: ~:~: ~::: ~:~; ::~~
.
. '"

" 0.26
, ,,. '"
1.4 / 2.18 3.1 6 4.73

1.82 , ::~: '" 1.7,

'"
:; I:~~ '"
" 1.~2 I. ~I ].8~ 1.80 1.70
1.11 1.49 1.82 1.02 1.11 2 .20

::.; I:: ~9 1 ~:~'~' I ~:~~'~' I ,"~ ;:~; i ',';; I::;:

~ ~ ~::1!
1 '"
1
~:~~

:: .
3.51
1.18
'"
2.82
U8
1 u.
2.34
1.09
1.67
U6
'"].18
1.)2 1.01
0 .762
0.81>9
0.630
0.662
-ffif
0.266
"~ , I !:~:
!:7~ !:~~ , : :~: 1.06 ~:~!~ 0. 6~7 , ~::~:

:;
1 '"
1
5 . 90
] .06
P- tfr ~ ~ ~
3.37
2.67 2.06 1.11 0.747 0.638 0.3 )8

:' i ' " 'A' ,,,. ' ..~

' . IH ~! J!Z.I 1 1 '::'
~ ~~~l1lli.1 ~
. 1 ',,'

.~O
Jpi _ <u~a~_""(.IW.~
.. {'r
-
V, ~ aeo<'~(al W.,,{ ~
W

r '.
OW

I
,j p«J .. a£o<'ItJ(·1
,
r
w.~{ ~
i
•
,- ,
P4 -"JrBb"~

41'10<") = ae~{ 2S:"0 r ~ 1

lin Chapter /2

M
A.-
PW
K. J. Compliance. and Umj l Load SoluliofU 6"

TABU: 11.11
• r..ctwf fer all . . . . crKketI plale In pIaM atnbl ....jecllO ...-bIMd baMIiIII ..... UMIea willi ), •
..",0].

.-, II::! 11=711::10

'. 1l5

'. 150

'. 375

'. 500

'.'25

'.750

'.8 75
·24 ehople,12

T.... u: lUI
'" (-.don for.n fCI~ cndIecI ,.11t III pIaM llrata I.,bj«t to '-blMd bmd.i ... &ad taoAOII wiUo A •
'-0625 [61-

.IW: n _ 5 n_7 n_l0

• - I

1.910 1.781 1.494 1.101

0.12S 2.437

0.250

0.375

0 . 500

0.625

0.750

0 . 875
X. J. Compliance. and Limit Load Solutions 625

TABLE 11.19
" fKton for 1m edge a-acked platt In plane akalP subjeet 10 combbHd bmdlna ancItenskln with ). - -
O.ll!Il6J.

a/W: D =1 D =Z n = 3 D = S D = 7 D = 10

hI 1.490 1.364 !.l80 0.804 0.509 0.241

0.375 h2 2.296 1.646 1.276 0.786 0.472 0.213
h3 0.598 0.565 0.507 0.374 0.260 0. 137
h4 0.928 0.798 0.628 0.327 0.166 0.057
hI 1.723 1.235 0.816 0.346 0.147 0.042
0.500 h2 2.685 1.646 1.001 0.386 0.155 0.043
h3 0.869 0.689 0.469 0.210 0.091 0.029
h4 1.574 0.985 0.547 0.179 0.066 0.016
hI 1.682 0.988 0.594 0.217 0.080 0.019
0.625 h2 2.949 1.491 0.825 0.279 0. 100 0.024
h3 1.111 0.671 0.395 0.136 0.048 0.013
h. 2.178 1.093 0.571 0. 185 0.067 0.015
hI 1.456 0.874 0.553 0.23 1 0.099 0.029
0.750 h2 3.101 1.556 0.899 0.345 0.143 0.042
h3 1.303 0.724 0.412 0.154 0.063 0.019
h4 2.659 1.279 0.740 0.289 0.120 0.035
hI 1.217 0.784 0.532 0.259 0.130 0.065
0.875 h2 3.259 1.694 1.032 0.454 0.219 0.104
h3 1.500 0.794 0.481 0.210 0. 101 0.048
h4 3.08 1 1.585 0.971 0.429 0.201 0.099
6,. Chnpfer 12

TABLEILli
'" f..:torl for ....... nwbd pIaIe III plaDe , ....... fIObjed 10 ~b'DeCI be. " nc ... ~ willi. A ••
G.iS7~ (6).

.JW : n = I " ., • • J .. , . _7 . _ tO

0.500

0 .625

0 . 750

0.875 b, 3. 181 1.645 0.991 0.420 0.196 0 ....

bJ 1.469 0.776 0.464 0. 194 0.D90 0.031
2.671 J.j16 0.926 0.396 O.l8!!

TABU: lUI
AI tKlon for ........ cnoobcI piau Ia plaM 1traiD. wbjed 10 __ bIDed bmdlnr .... t ........ wttb .I. ••
1.2.50 [6].

./W: n '" 2 n '" 3 "=, &=7 D=10

I
0.625 h, 1.52 1 1.014 0.736 0.348 0.168 0.059
bJ 0.659 0.516 0.385 0.201 0.102 0.036

0.750

0.1175
K. I . Complimlctt. ond limit !.Dod Solutions 6"

12.1 PA RT.THROUGH C RACKS-FLAT PLATES

KI" ( O"m
... ~t . e
", ", ,
+""".).J"'~ - .- .-W';

")1."
Q.I+I."\.~
w(

F_[MI +M2(;f ·.'31

MI _ I. I3_0.~~)
M2 .. -o.54 + O.89a
0.2+-,
M) .0.' O.65+.!
1.0 +14(1.0-!)"
, t

I, -[(:f 2
cos 9l+s in2 ,]'"

f·-H;~mr
"OII ' MI:"""'- (1aIIUe) _ _
"II . Bndi"ll -
g .. 1 +[0.1 +0.3\; Y}I-Sin f)2

u.-- M,
21
H .. HI

pa
+ ( H2 - HI Xain f)'
O.2+;+0.{;)
HI . 1 -O.34.! - O. lI!(~)
W,3
1- -
, "
6

H2 . I+OJ(; )+Gz(;
OJ __I.n_O.I{;)
r
75
~ _0.5'_I.os(:t +0.47(:)'"5
628 Chnplt!r 12

Ob .. here

Q= I+1. 464 .; ()
'.
F+, +M2(~)2 +MJ(~)'}.f.,
M, =V'H'+004(;)]
Ml =O.2(;J
M1 =-o.1I(;Y
g= I+[0.1 +O.3~~ X7y}l - sin 1/1)2
,
f. = [(~r sin 2
\II+ cos
2
, r
am' Membrane {Ie .. ilcl
"b' Bendin. 0IJeSI
st=S. f·-H2~~lr
a,--
M,
21

w,J
1=-
6

•
+
K, J, ComplWnce, and limit Lood Solutions ."

FOTalc$l:

Q=l-+l.464 ; ( l'·M
f. :[(~)' '00' '";''']'''
M) =1

FOTalc> I:

( ".M
Q = 1 -+ 1. 464 : )
,
f. : [(:J' ,;,'. +000' . r
Ml=.jf
OJ. ClttJptu 12

K1_(0'.. +Hcr.)F Q

F_[ M, Ml(~r +MJ( ~r}l'd.fw

-+-

H .. H, -+- (H1 - H, X5ill .)f

•••( )W
Q_' +l,"'\.;
At,.I.08-0,O\;)
'" 44+
101 _ ....... \.06Q
1
0.3+ ,
M) .-o.j-O.2s(;)+14.~I- :f
8, = I +[ O.08+0.{ ~ y}l- sin fl l'

81 .1 + [0.08+0. Is(~y}l- cot;)'

Om -
"b , B
MuOlbt_ (.....) _.
I.-[(;r <X11
2
.+liIl
2
·t
'·-H;~mr
1 '.. _

r}1_Jin.J2
."
"0--
21
",heR , .. I+[0.1-+-0.3,7'
WI'
1--- H .. HI + ( H2 - HI )(&in , )P
12
P .O.2+;+O.{~)
HI -1 - O.34~ -0. 1 1!(~)
I , "
H2 . 1+a.(~)+Gz(~r

Gt --1.22-0.1{;)
K, J, Complillnu, aJUJ Limit Loud Solutions .31

F-[M,+M1(;Y+MJ(;r}lld.fw
H - H, + ( H1 - H, Xsin,),'
u( ),.u
Q - l+I. 4"l.~

M, -~[l08'OOl(;;)l
M 1-0.375(;r M=~.2S(:r J

I, - 1+[0.08+0.{ ~ r}l -Sin,)'

81 - [+ [0.08 +0. Is(; r}l- cos ,)'
,
f. -[(:r sin] ,+cos
l, r
'w-l"'{' :vmI''
",--M, pooO.2+: +o.{;)
.... 21
HI .. 1+Gll ( ~)+Gll(~y
w,'
1---
12
Hl I+C1{ ~)+G21(;
z r
G,1-~.04-0.4{;)
C-O.SS-I.9,:r'" +1.3~;r
u

~, n(;)
'" -2. 11- 0.

Cn '" 0.64
63 2 C/l(Jptt!r 12

TABLE lU7
,~~,~,~,",,~~ fo r ... mJ-flllptk:f.l .......ate ."...,11. !rJ & tlal plale, wbe .. lile ....... Ie OpenlDI ......
II... 1<1 & "" bI~ poIJDClml&! onr lile nDJ" 0 S J: S a 19). 8ft SectIon '.1.1 for an Hample of ibis
•- = 0.4 •- • 1.0
-,-t-,;:-;-t-,
Gp

G,

G,

KI -~;(GoAo +~AJa
for O:S;xSu
+G:!A2a 2 + cry A3(3 )f..

Q= J+J.464 ~ (a)I."

Soc Table 12.22 for definilions of c, W, and"

 K, J, Complitlnct, and Umit Load Solutions 633

TABLE IUS
Urall Ioa4 solullon for. lemlt lUplla l SUrfl« crICk ID I !til pilit lubJtcI 10 tomblDtd btndlq and
lellSlon (lO~

wherc

a=, "( ')-' for

I+~ W ~(c+t)

a=- "'
,w for W«c+t)

O"y = CYS + O"TS

2

12.3 FLAWED CYLINDERS

This section contains K1, J, and displacement solutions for flawed cylinders. Pan-through
and through-wall flaw geometries are included, in both axial and circumferential
orientations. Loading cases include unifonn tension, bending, and internal pres.ure.
Influence coefficients for part-through axial cracks are included, which enable the user to
delennine KJ for a wide range of loading.
634 Chapur 12

12.3.1 Stren Iatt ftsity Fattor

TABLZIUli
SIrtM ldlftWl JOiulieno for draJllllftnnlial throu II-.. d fill... In lind.... 7

.---
I
p
21tR1

[
F,=I+II :5.3303 rr (8)1.5 + 18. 77\;
,(8)'."]
(or
,
:5S;!S;10

for 10 S; ~:S: 20
,
-,
K/ =ub ..JrrR9Fb
M
Ub =-::2.
,"II.

Fb-1+11 4.!596.,I~;
[
,)1.5 +2.6422;
(')'."]
wbcn: A il as ""fined olio"" (or the pun: ,ens;Od c....

R • mean nMliUl:

R
..... Um " ' -
pR
2,

Fm = 1+ 0.1S01yLS ,- ,<2
8 -crack half IDJ.Ie in nodians
Fm = 0.8875+ 0.262:>y (or 2S;y:S:5
K. J. Complianct. and Ljmjt Load Solutions .35

TAlILE I:LJO
St.- IaknallJ 1OIIItt- f .... part4111_tb laluul drnua!trNtlal ""105m Q'1inokq IlIb~ 10 Wllf_
Ie ....... (II]

[ s(t0)I.'
Ff =1.I+A 1.94

{ O)'.
, ']
-+0.334 -

A=(O. I25~-O.25r25f(ll" Ss"~s"IO

I

A_(0.4.!f'-_3.0Y·25 for 10 S" !i. $" 20

,
... I'"

Ft - 1+ [0.02 + ~(0.0103 +0.006 1 7~)

-+o.OO3.s(1 +0. 7~( ~ -Sr1]Q2

Q:I+I.\;
...r )'.•
·" Clwpler J2

K, = Uh..r,r;;
. ~r,=.-0.-'-'-, .-..-,-,,c,.--_-O-.07-4-,"

SO.7SO.

A= (O. 125~- 0.25t2'i for S :!i ~:S 10

K, =,', fQ'~,
fM J ~."'-!) 2c I

('n_!'.l'
+(1+0.020:+0.0191;2) ~
I~

«.( ")'."
Q=l+1."'\.~
K. J. Compliance. and Limil Load So/U/iOlU 63'

DO ""',. of • .,.lbNIor"'o ""1_ 0.1'1'1.

I • e.2 • '" e.• •

- _ 1.0

G.

G,

G,

G,

K/ .. ~ ~ (GoA.:. + <1]A.1Q
+~A.2Q2 +G)A.3I1J

0,,1+ 1.464 -; (.)1.65

'"
TABLEI1J3
1Mlrl_ . rad. CHI lb. 1.1de of. C)'llade. wItIo 1I1f,. 0.15 Itl.

Gp

c.

c,

c,

c,

O(x) = A.. + AI""

for OS.lSa

fw-H2~~lr
$eo T..... lUI rOO" ckrlllitiou of c. Riond ..
K. J. ComplwtfCt. ottd Limit LooJ So/uti."., 6 39

.,, « - ~ • "' I'I'~

.. 0.1 _ 0.4

G,

C1(.r)- A., -t-AI%T 042%2 T Ay3

r.:.r OS %S ..
K,,, ~ ~ (G"A., +OtAI"

T~A2 ..1 TGJAJ"3

•••(OJ'."
O -I TI.-,.;
6 40 ChtJpl~r 12

• • 0.1: • • 0.4 ! • 1.0

I---,--,:-h;-;-\-

G.

G,

G,

a(x )· A.,

ret OSxSo

...('J'."
a- 1+ 1"\ - ;
IC. J, Compliance, and Limit Lood SoI.. ,iQflS ..,
12,3.2 Limit Load
TABUI~
Uah 1oM ......a- (or dma-.tft'ftlllaolllllrou&l!-waU ,..". ta qUaclen (7).

ayS + ars
Uy' ,

, 0.59(1- C: )(1 + O.SC:>

<=-
R.
w=
(I <XI-O.'<)

I O .5 IJ(I - C:XI+O.S~) P
~ = flo CO = (1 _ ~ X I-O.S¢) + 4ayRot(I-~)

12.3.3 Fully Plastic: J and Dliplac:em~nt

The pages that follow give fully plastic J and displacement solutions for several
configurations of nawed cylinders. See Sections 9.S and 12.1.3 for th~ appropriate
elastic-plastic estimation formulae .
K, J, Complianct, and Umit Load Solutions 64 1

12.3.2 Limit Load

TABU: 11.36
Umillolld iOIutlOIlll for dn:wnf.rmUaI Ihroulh·"aIJ naWl In eytInckn 17J.

P L '" (l y(2R,,1 _1~ )[2cos-l (0.5sin 9) - 9J

(lYS + (ITS
ay=
2

-, ...... nt.

ML =4aY R;{I- ~+ ~32 } COSW-0.5Sin 9 )

, - ~)( l + 0. 5~)
,=-
R,
w= 0.59(1
(1 ~)(I O.5~ )

~ ~

ML =4a Y R;{ I-~ + ~32 }cOSW- o.5 Sin9 )

t O.5 9(1 -~)(I+O.5$) P

$= Ro w'" (I- ~ )(l O.5~) + 4(1yRot(i-$)

12.3.3 Fully Plastic J and Displacement

The pages that follow give fully plastic J and displacement solu tions for severa l
configurations of flawed cyli nders. See Secti ons 9.5 and 12. 1.3 for the appropriate
elastic-plastic estimation formulae.
"2 Chap'~rl2

T AUI.: 11.37(00)
h ll)' plMtk J .... end< ..oulll ...."" dllpl&u-' ror aa u1aUy crxk'" cylladh' ....r lal~noal
, ......... (5].

vp:: cu:oJlh2 (a I t , 'I,l l R;{ ~ r

TABLE 1l.l7(b)
PWlJ pa.tk J ..... dIIpIaHIHDt (or • cln;mafrHII'...., cncked cyllJldu In lelllkla l!fl.

P,1>I2 ,
bo (a l r, fI,R; l t -
' pl= a£ouo-hJ {p
.r
RI _I
!~_ Lb_1
R.
Vp '" a£oDhz (a l ",.,R; I r{~r
L I Vr
I
~p(c) - a£oDhJ(a / W,II , R; I t{~ r
1 P,1>I2
II I
2 2 2
Po=-:;r trf.Ro-( Rj+ a) lao

.d p(nt) ;;: aeo { II"( R; : RI~)C1o r

/I rldon .... .... ..,~
• .
K. J, Complion ce, and Limit Load Solutions 643

TABLE11.J1
"r.cton for aa uiaU)' erw:Ud q'liIMkr UDder iDta'uaI pi inc WUblllfj_1.lt [5).

al l: .. , .. , .. , •• s • • 7 D _ 10

0 .125 h, 6.32 7.93 9.32 I loS 13 .12 14.94

h, 5.83 7.01 7.96 9.49 10.67 11 .96
0.'50 hi 7.00 8.34 9.03 9.59 9.71 9.45
h, 5.92 8.72 7.07 7.26 7.14 6.7 1
0. 500 h, 9.79 10.37 9.07 5.61 3.52 2. 11
.
h, 7.05 6.97 6.01 3.70 2.28 1.25
0. 750 h, 11 .00 5.54 2.84 1.24 0.83 0.493
h, 7.35 3.86 0.186 0.556 0.26 1 0.129

T .....u:1l.l9
"fKtoni for aD uIalIy erKktd cyllDcll'r uadtr iakmal p~ willi 1IIf/_O.IO. [51

al e: .. , .., .., •• s • • 7 D _ 10

0.125 h, 5.22 6.64 7.59 8.76 9.34 9.55

h, 5.3 1 6.25 6.88 7.65 8.02 8.. 09
O. :U O hi 6.16 7.49 7.% 8.08 7.78 6.98
h, 5.56 6.31 6.52 6.40 6.01 5.27
0.5 00 h, 10.5 1 lo6 10.7 6.47 3.95 2.27
h, 7.48 7.72 7.01 4.29 2.58 1.37
0 . 750 hi 16.1 8. 19 3.87 1.46 1.05 0.787
h 9.57 5.40 2.57 0.706 0.370 0.232
6" Chapter 12

TA.BLEI1AO
"fllcton for aa u1....,. ~ndled cylinder unckr Inlema! p..-ure with IIRf. 0.05 [SJ.

./t: .. , .. , .., • • 5 • • 7 D .. 10

0.125 h, 4.50 5 .79 6.62 7.65 8.07 7.75

h, 4.96 5.71 6.20 6.82 7.02 6.66
0.250 h, 5.57 6.9 1 7.37 7.47 7.21 6.53
h, 5.29 5.98 6. 16 6.01 5.63 4.93
0.500 h, 10.8 12.8 12.8 8.16 4.88 2.62
h, 7.66 8.33 8. 13 D3 3.20 1.65
0.750 h, 23.1 13.1 5.87 1.90 1.23 0.883
h, 12.1 7.88 3.84 1.0 1 0.454 0.240

T,\IIIE 11.A1
" flldGn for. drauafcrmdaUy cncked.,11ndn" 1D ~ with tJR,. 0.20 (5).

a/t: .. , .. , .., •• 5 •• 7 n • 10

hi 3.78 '.00 5.94 7.54 8.99 11.1

O.US h, 4.56 !i.S5 6.37 7.79 9. 10 i l.O
h, 0.369 0.700 1.07 1.96 3.04 4.94
hi 3.88 4.95 5.64 6.49 6.94 7.22
0.250 h, 4.40 5.12 5.57 6.07 6.28 6.30
h, 0.673 1.25 1.79 2.79 3.61 4.52
hi 4.40 4.78 4.59 3.79 3.07 2.34
0 . 500 h, 4.36 4.30 3.91 3.00 2.26 US
h, 1.33 1.93 2.21 2.23 1.94 1.46
hi 4.12 3.03 2.23 1.546 1.30 1.11
0.750 h, 3.46 2.19 1.36 0.638 0.436 0.325
h, 1.54 1.39 1.04 0.686 0.S08 0.366
K, J, Complianct, and Limit Load Solu tions 645

TABL£llAl
"(acton ror . dmlmftrtlltlll" endF:ed cyliDder In RIIAon with IIRI " 0.10 15).

all : D =1 D =2 D =J n =! D '" 7 D '" 10

h, 4.00 5.13 6.09 7 .69 9.09 11.1

0 . 125 h2 4.71 5.63 6.45 7.85 9.09 10.9
b, 0 .548 0.733 1.l 3 2.07 3 .1 6 5 .07
b, 4.17 5.35 6.09 6.93 7.30 7 .4 1
0.250 b2 4.58 5.36 5.84 6.31 6 .44 6.31
h, 0.757 1.35 1.93 2.96 3.78 4.60
h, 5.40 5.90 5.63 4.51 3.49 2.47
0 .500 h2 4.99 5 .0 1 4.59 3.48 2.56 1.67
bJ 1.555 2.26 2.59 2.57 2.18 1.56
b, 5.18 3.78 2 .57 1.59 1.31 1.1 0
0 . 750 b, 4.22 2.79 1.67 0 .725 0 .48 0 .300
h, 1.86 1.73 1.26 0 .775 0.56 1 0 .360

TABL£ Il.4J
" r.tcon tor. d rcumfertllllally cncked cylinder In tmdon "ltlIlIRj", D.1l!! [5J•

a/ t : • • 1 n. , .. , n. , .., n _ 10

h, 4.04 5.23 6.22 7.82 9. 19 11.1

0 . 12S h2 4.1:12 5.69 6.52 7.9U 9. 11 10.1:1
h 0.680 0 .759 1.17 2. 13 3.23 5. 12
h, 4.38 5.68 6 .45 7.29 7.62 7.65
0. 250 b2 4.7 1 5.56 6.05 6.5 1 6 .59 6 .39
h, 0.8 18 1.43 2 .03 3. 10 3.91 4.69
h, 6.55 7.17 6.89 5.46 4.13 2.77
0.5 00 h, 5.67 5.77 5.36 4.08 2 .97 1.88
h, LSO 2.59 2.99 2.98 2.50 1.74
h, 6.64 4.87 3.08 1.68 1.30 1.07
0 .7 50 h, 5. 18 3.57 2.07 0.808 0.472 0.3 16
hJ 2.36 2.18 1.53 0 .772 0.494 0.330
••• ChtJpter 12

TABLEIl.44
hllJ' pIMtk J IIICt(Nll tor drcwllfumUal Ulroulbowall ftaWli III cy~ (7).

(b) BmcUq 1II0me0L

MQ = 40'OR2{ COs( ~) -O.55in 8]

(e) Combillfd lenPon.oo bendl""

M
A·-
PR

111 f8cton ror IhU ltomctrJ an! I!I;ted LD Tables 12.4510 12.36.
K, I, Complimlct, and limil Load Sol..lioru ."
T#.aUIUli

..,
", ,..... .... ~..... f\eooo .. OJ" , ," .. , . r_~M. 5 [71-

0/, •• I •• 3 •• S •• ,
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.063 0. 117 0.230 0,265 0.301 0.326
0. 100 0.280 0.355 0.400 0.433 0. 425
0. 125 0.352 0.431 0.479 0. 500 0.418
0. 150 0. 421 0.520 0.560 0.554 0. 494
0. 115 0.504 ...00 0 ,630 0.580 0.492
0.200 0.518 0.614 0,695 0.595 0.485
0.225 0.652 0.140 0 .742 0.596 0 .417
0.250 0.131 0."" 0.76$ 0.'96 0 ....
0.275 0.793 0.840 0.786 0.595 0 .455
0.300 0.858 0 .850 0.795 0.590 0 ....
0.325 0 .9 18 0.853 0.793 0.580 0 .42 1
0.3SO 0 .916 0 .856 0.786 0.562 0."'"
0.375 1.025 0,859 0.178 0.545 0 .387
0.400 1.015 0 .862 0.760 0.525 0.310
0.425 1.11 7 0,865 0.743 0.506 0 .348
0.450 1.1 54 0 ,868 0.720 0.480 0.330
0.475 1.1 84 0.813 0.696 0.454 0.308
0.500 1.224 0.87!.! 0.609 0.426 0 .288

", ........... 110............ f\eooo 100 OJ" I , • •If". ,_ .... M

TULE I lAIi
• II {7).

0/, •• I •• , •• 3 o· S •• ,
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.063 0 .186 0.248 0.291 0.323 0.382
0. 100 0.330 0.415 0.472 0.5 18 0.595
0,125 0 .403 0.520 0.589 0.645 0.638
O. ISO 0 .530 0.620 0.633 0.730 0 ....
0. 175 0.626 0.720 0.790 0.777 0 ....
0.200 0.723 0.822 0.884 0.800 0.670
0.215 0.824 0.930 0.970 0.808 0.66 1
0.2SO 0.9 19 1.040 1.008 0.810 0.652
0.215 1.005 1.013 1.030 0."" 0.635
0.300 1.084 J.(1'4 1.031 0.794 0.615
0.325 1.163 1.1 00 1.035 0 .718 0.591
o..SO 1.235 1.105 1.021 0 .759 0.573
0.375 1.300 1.101 1.007 0.734 0.5SO
0.<00 I. ... 1.110 0 .982 0.704 0.'24
om 1.420 1. 110 0 .959 0.674 0.496
o.'SO I.... 1.110 0 .925 0 .... 0.465
0.415 I."" 1. 110 0.890 0.603 0.439
0.500 1.546 1. 110 0 .857 0.568 0.408
••• Cho.pltr 12

TABLE 11.41
' / fKlon for u. .............. 0._ III ..,.liDokn ID unil"o ... ItIIIPoII,.t.t • 10 17}.

.,. n : 1 n • , n : 3 n • 5 n : 7

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 .000

0.063 0.204 0.281 0.339 0.426 0.480
0. 100 0.368 0.504 0.584 0.684 0 .710
0. 125 0 .489 0.657 0 .167 0.873 0.801
O.ISO 0 .630 0 .800 0.928 1.000 0.880
0 .175 0 .770 0 .945 1.100 1.050 0.900
0.200 0.920 1.08.5 1.241 1.080 0.907
0 .225 1.065 1.240 1.310 1.099 0 .902
0.273 1.340 1.460 1.370 1.088 0.875
0.300 1.448 1,498 1.375 1.075 0 .855
0.32.5 1.548 1.496 1.364 1.049 0 .824
0.350 1.640 1.488 1.350 1.019 0 .800
0.375 1.728 1.479 1.328 0 .984 0 .160
0.400 1.800 1.470 1.294 0.945 0.720
0 .425 1.868 1.464 1.260 0.904 0.684
0.450 1.930 1.458 1.220 0.8.55 0.650
0.475 1.970 1.452 1. 176 0.804 0.606
0.500 2.020 1.445 1.12 1 0 .758 0 .564

TABLE lUI
' 1 f..:ton for tb ......... waU ""_ In ~ In "-Ilnf.1l/I • S (7).

.,. n: 1 n : , n: 3 n : 5 n : 7 n: 10 n: ,.
0 .000 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0.000
0 .063 0.313 0.369 OA03 0.433 00432 0.43 1 0.431
0. 100 0.520 0.560 0.559 0 .558 0.SS1 0.536 0.496
0. 125 0.664 0.708 0.713 0.675 0.6 11 0.577 0.529
0.150 0.823 0.836 0.848 0.760 0.638 0 .582 0.510
0 . 175 0.983 0.960 0 .960 0.802 0.664 0.586 0.490
0 .200 1.142 1.080 1.056 0.880 0 .691 0.59 1 0.471
0 .250 L461 1.333 1.198 0.941 0.744 0.600 0.432
0 .300 1.760 1.'26 1.328 0.990 0.754 0.604 0.428
0 .350 2.048 l.ilO 1.420 1.016 0.760 Q.608 0.425
0.400 2.320 1.872 1.488 1.036 0.774 0.612 0.421
0.450 2.576 1.990 1.556 1.040 0.780 0.6 16 0.4 18
0.500 2.795 2.059 1.598 1.048 0.794 0.620 0.414
K, J, Complionce, and Umil Load Solulions .40

TA4LEllAt
'" flldOn t. ~ . ....u n.., 1n ryliDdtn In btnctJnc, Il/I • III (7].

./, n= , n = 2 • = 3 n= S • = 7 n = '0 n = 20

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.063 0.333 0.401 0.450 0.508 0.531 0.s49 0.570
0. 100 0.600 0.760 0.770 0 .788 0.750 0.710 0.715
0. 125 0.766 0.855 0.897 0.902 0.857 0.816 0 .777
0. 150 0.987 1.040 L080 1.072 0,930 0.834 0.759
0. 175 1.209 1.202 1.240 1.160 0.988 0.852 0 .742
0.200 1.430 1.400 1.400 1.244 1.020 0.876 0.724
0.250 1.873 1.77 1 1.629 1.323 1.080 0.907 0.688
0.300 2.280 2.003 1.760 1.343 1.100 0.889 0 .640
0.350 2.680 2.260 1.970 1.364 1.100 0.880 0.592
0.400 3.040 2.440 1.880 1.383 1,080 0.840 0.524
0.450 3.360 2.572 1.970 1.400 1.052 0.800 0,472
0.500 3.646 2.682 2. \05 1.424 1.035 0.760 0,392

TABLEI:L50
'" facio .. rot ....l'OlIp.....1n..,1n (J1lncIen In bcncIl"l, Rh • 10 [11·

./, n' , n• 2 n• 3 n' S n= 7 •• '0 n . 20

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0 .063 0365 0.456 0.527 0.631 0.696 0.757 0.864
0. 100 0.650 0.8SG 0.938 0.985 1,025 1.010 1.010
0 .125 0.933 1.091 1.187 1.241 1.208 1.1 77 1.143
0. 150 1.242 1.350 1.4 15 1.463 1.271 1.1 95 1.114
0 .175 1.552 1.600 1.650 1.61 0 1.334 1.213 1.085
0.200 1.86 1 1.863 1.865 1.708 1.397 1.231 1.056
0.250 2.480 2,391 2.224 1.834 1.524 1.267 1.010
0 .300 2.960 2.700 2,435 1.857 1.539 1.277 1.005
0.350 3.450 3.020 2.575 1.886 1.560 1.285 1.003
0 .400 3.950 3.260 2.670 1.904 1.570 1.299 1.002
0.450 ' .400 3.445 2.750 1.925 1.595 1.303 1.001
O.SOD 4.859 3.571 2.821 1.950 1.600 1.320 1.000
650 Chapter J2

TABLE 12.51
"1 (actors (or throu,..· ••U fIa'WI In cyllodc ... 10 (ombiDed ttodoo and btodlnJ, R/I a lO, Wtc. 0.06l.5
17J.

),/(1+),) n= 2 n= 5 n= 7 n = 10

0.00 3.967 5.567 6. 104 6.510

0.05 4.313 6.500 6.500 7.969
0.10 4.736 7.375 7.080 9.721
0.15 5.125 8.250 7.875 11.250
0.20 5.614 9.080 8.787 12.937
0.25 6.000 9.750 9.875 14.250
0.30 6.438 10.50 1 11.078 15.463
0.35 6.789 11 .000 12.125 16.375
0.40 7.140 11 .457 13. 188 17.063
0.45 7.500 11 .875 14.000 17.500
0.50 7.901 12. 150 14.610 17.839
0.55 8.094 12.313 15.000 17.550
0.60 8.287 12.236 15.130 17.241
0.65 8.344 11.938 14.875 16.375
0.70 8.257 11.642 14.408 15.500
0.75 8. 125 11.125 13.625 14.500
0.80 7.811 10.617 12.729 13.366
0.85 7.500 9.875 11.688 12. 125
0.90 7.063 9.190 10.447 10.738
0.95 6.563 8.500 9.250 9.313
1.00 6.018 7.620 8. 160 7.928
K, J, Comp/ianu, and Limit Load Solu tions

TABLEIl.!l
"'1 rKton for lbroup·wall fta.. In cyU ..... 1D «abiDed IeD5Ioa aDd bnJdlai. It/I = 10, 81tr '" 0.115
17J.

n _
>'/(1+>') n= 2 n= 5 n = 7 10

0.00 4. 157 5.163 5. 102 4.750

0.05 4.625 5.750 5.719 5.250
0.10 5.085 6.33 1 6.331 5.982
0.15 5.531 6.875 6.906 6.8 13
0.20 5.956 7.323 7.518 7.688
0.25 6.375 7.875 8.000 8.563
0.30 6.150 8.309 8.500 9.4 16
0.35 7.125 8.688 9.000 10.000
0.40 7.500 9.008 9.381 10.543
0.45 7.7 19 9.313 9.630 10.813
0.50 7.930 9.500 9.875 10.935
0.55 8.000 9.625 10.000 10.844
0.60 8.064 9.566 10.0 11 10.567
0.65 8.063 9.4<l6 9.8 13 10.2 19
0.70 7.926 9. 165 9.495 9.702
0.75 7.750 8.813 9.000 9. 125
0.80 7.435 8.390 8.535 8.578
0.85 7.125 7.938 7.815 7.844
0.90 6.772 7.391 7.3 13 7.158
0.95 6.375 6.875 6.625 6.375
1.00 5.987 6.3 11 5.996 5.688
.52 Chapter /2

T AlU.r: ll.5J
"'I tlldorl ror t!l1'1IU&h-"'U na_ In cylilllkn in CSllKDecllelliioD aJId beDCUna. RIt • 10. fNlr ., O.l5O
(7J.

),/(1+),) n_ 2 n · 5 n· 7 n· 10

0.00 4.159 3.238 2.60S 3.000

0.05 4.522 3.550 3.000 3.225
0.10 4.885 3.988 3.490 3.589
0.15 5.250 4.400 4.0.50 4.000
0.20 5.614 4.882 4.491 4.540
0.25 6.000 S.400 S.2OO S.OSO
0.30 6.347 5.908 5.816 5.700
0.3S 6.6l0 6.3l0 6.3;0 6.400
0.40 '.900 6.800 6.800 7.264
0.45 7. 150 7. 100 7. 150 7.707
0.50 7.363 7.333 7.375 8.150
0.55 7.500 7.4.50 7.l00 8.1.50
0.60 7.508 7.397 7.397 7.900
0.65 7.450 7.250 7.07.5 7.500
0.70 7.307 7.018 6.688 7.018
0.75 7.100 6.619 6.150 6.300
0.80 6.885 6.220 '.641 5.670
0.85 6.519 5.700 S.OOO 4.950
0.90 6. 152 5.108 4.372 4.353
0.95 5.700 4.550 3.800 3.700
1.00 5.312 3.969 3.240 3.125
K, J, Compliance, and Limil Load Solulions 65 3

TABLE 11.54
"1 fllCtOr. fol' iJl rou&h-waJl "... In cyUnde:r. I.rI combined tnPoft and beadl na. RII '" 10, 9111 _ 0.375
(7).

),/(1+ ).) n = 2 n = 5 n= 7 n = 10

0.00 2.892 1.992 1.496 2.000

O.OS 3.31S 2.000 1.700 2.100
0. 10 3.739 2.044 1.894 2.243
0. 15 4.164 2.2 13 2.094 2.342
0.20 4.589 2.44 1 2.294 2.441
0.25 4.957 2.651 2.484 2.558
0.30 5.325 2.862 2.675 2.675
0.35 5.651 3.091 2.79 1 2.708
0.40 5.977 3.233 2.906 2.740
0.45 6.237 3.285 2.945 2.750
0.50 6.497 3.336 2.985 2.739
0.55 6.586 3.300 2.883 2.6S0
0.60 6.674 3.200 2.78 1 2.447
0.65 6.536 3.045 2.629 2.260
0.70 6.399 2.890 2.477 2.064
0.75 6.093 2.646 2.25 1 1.856
0.80 5.786 2.401 2.025 1.649
0.85 5.360 2. 120 1.767 1.444
0.90 4.934 1.838 1.509 1.238
0 .95 4.459 1.603 J.30 1 1.049
1.00 3.984 1.368 1.092 0.860
654 Chapter 12

TABLE 11.55
"I rKtan ror throup-waU n.", iD cyllndtnln oomblDtd ItlWion and bmdJ.n&, RIr '" 10, WI( _ 0.5(10
(7),

k/(l +k) n • 2 •=5 •• 7 .= 10

0.00 2.220 1.137 0.8 16 1.500

0.05 2.300 1.300 0.950 1.525
O. ID 2.525 1.496 1.122 1.570
0.15 2.850 1.700 1.350 1.650
0.20 3.320 1.953 1.6 11 1.757
0.25 3.784 2.200 1.800 1.800
0.30 4 .247 2.475 2.050 1.900
0.35 4.800 2.700 2.300 2.000
DAD 5.230 2.900 2.438 2.050
0.45 5.600 3. 100 2.575 2. 100
0.50 5.830 3. 160 2.550 2.107
0.55 5.900 3.200 2.525 2. 100
0.60 5.850 3. 170 2.447 2.000
0.65 5.700 3.050 2.297 1.900
0.70 5.367 2.890 2.147 1.734
0.75 5.000 2.700 2.000 1.600
0.80 4.542 2.430 1.823 1.446
0.85 4. 100 2.183 1.589 1.200
0.90 3.600 1.935 1.354 1.083
0.95 3. 100 1. 700 1.200 0.900
1.00 2.682 1.424 1.008 0.760
 13. PRACTICE PROBLEMS

This ~hapter conwn. practice problems \hr.t ~tpOnd to m.ateriaI in Chapten I to It.
Some of /he problems fCN Chap/en 110 JO "",uire • computer program Of Spn'~1
macro. This level of complexity was necessary in ordeT 10 make the application-oriented
prcblcms ~istic.
All quantitative cb"" are given in SI units, a1lhougb the corresponding values in
En&lish units aRi also provided in many CISCIi.

IJ.I CHAPTER 1

1.1 Compile I list of live mechanical or strvc:t1.U'al failu.rcs that have C)C(:ulTW within
the last 20 yearl . Describe the facton that led 10 each failure arK! identify the
failures chal resulted from misapplication of clisting knowledge (Type 1) and
!bose that involved nc:w technology or. lignifloCanl design modificaUOQ (Type 2).

I .Z A flat pille with. through-thickness crack (Fi,. I.S) is subject 10 I 100 MPa
( 14.5 ksi) letl$iJe SIJ'eSS and bas. frlcture toughness (KId of SO.O MPa..r; (45.5
hi ..r;;;).Determine the critical crack length for this piRIe, assuming the malerial
is linear elastic.

1. 3 Compute the crilicil cnerlY ..,]ellSO rille (W; ) of the material in the previaui
problem for E ., 201 ,000 MPa (30,000 ksi),

1.4 Suppose th.t you plan to drop a bomb out of an airplane and that you are
interested in the time of fli,," befen it hits !be puund, btn you eMlIOl remember
the lIflPI"'!Hiatc equation from your undergraduate pby5ics course. Your dcc:Kk to
infer a relatiOD$hip for time of flight of I fallins object by ex.lXrimenlahon. You
reason that tlw: time of flishl, t, must depend on the Iw:ight above the around, h,
and the weishl of the object, m8. where m is the mass and g is the gravillliional
acceleration . lnerefOR, ncglectinS aerodynamic drag. the time of niSht i$ ,iven
by the followin, function:

t '" f (h,m,g)

Apply dimensional analy$is to ws

equation and dctemtinc how many ex.pcrimenu
would be required to determine flO a rell50llable approximatillll, UlIumioJ you
bl ow the numerical value of g. Docs the time of fliJht depend on the mUll of the
object?

657
658 ChDpurlJ

13.2 CHAPTER 2

2.1 According to Eq. (2.25), the energy required to increase the crack area a unit
amount is equal to twice the fracture work per unit surface area, wI- Why is the
factoc of 2 in thi s equation necessary?

2:.:Z Deri ve Eq. (2.30) foc both load control and displ acement control by substituting
Eq. (2.29) inlo Eqs. (2.27) and (2.28), respectively.

2.3 Figure 2. 10 illustrates that the driving force is linear for a through-thickness crack
in an infi nite plate when the stress is fixed. Suppose that a remote displacement
(rather than load) were fixed in this configuration. Would the driving fon:e curves
be altered? Explain. (Hint: see Section 2.5.3).

2.4 A plate 2W wide contains a ce ntrall y located crack 20 long and is subject to a
tensile load. P. Beginn ing with Eq. (2.24). derive an express ion for the elastic
compliance, C (= NP) in terms of the plate dimen sions and clastic modulus, E.
TIle stress in Eq. (2.24) is the nominal value; i.e., <1 '" PI2BW in this problem.
(Note: Eq. (2.24) only applies when Q« W; the expression you derive is only
approximate for a finite width plate.)

2.5 A material exhi bi ts the following crack growth resistance behavior:

where Qo is the initial crack size. R has units of kJ/m 2 and crack size is in
millimeters. Altematively,

where R has units of in_lblin 2 and crack size is in inches. TIle elastic modulus of
this material", 207,000 MPa (30.000 ksi). Considcr a wide plate with a through
crack (0« W) that is made from this material.

(a) If this plate fractures at 138 MPa (20.0 ksi), compute the following:
(i) The half crack size at failure (ae).
(ii) The amount of stable crack growth (at each crack tip) that precedes
failure (ae - 00)·
(b) If this plate has an initial craclr. length (200) of 50.8 mm (2.0 in)
and the plate is loaded to failure, comptJ te the following:
(il The SIreSS at failure.
(ii) The half cl"llC k site at failure.
(i ii) The stable crack growth at each crack tip.
 "
:Z.6 Suppose that II. double cantilever beam specimen (Fig. 2.9) is rabriClLted from the
same material considered in Problem 2.5. Calculate tbe load al fai lure and the
amount of ,table crack growth. 'The spocimc n dimensions are as fol lows:

B • 2$.4 mm (1 in) h _ 12.7 mm (0.5 in) ao. 152 mm (6 in)

2.7 Consider I nominally linear elastic material with a rising R curve (c.,., Problems
2.5 and 2.6). Suppose that one test is performed on wide plate with II. through
cract (Fig. 2.3) and a secooo lest on the same material is pc.rfonned on II. DCB
specimen (Fig. 2.9). If both tellS arc conducted in load conuoi, would the YC
valucs It instability be the same? If not, which geometry would result in II. higber
~? E1;plain.

2.8 Example 2.3 showed that the energy release !'ale, (j, of the doo.Iblc cantilever beam
COC8) &pecimen increases w ith crack powth when the specimen is held II II.
constant load. Describe (qualitatively) now you could alter the <lesl,n of the OCB
specimen such that II. growing CfIICk in load corllml would ClIpcriCIltC II. constant g.

2.9 Beginning with Eq. (2.20), derive an expression for the potential energy of a plate
subjecllo. LeMile stress a with. penny-shaped flaw of radius /J . A5sumc that /J
« plate dimelUiolU.

2 . 10 BeginninJ with Eq. (2.20). derive expres.sions fO£ the: ellttJY re1cue me and Mode
I stress intensity factor of a penny-sh.apcd flaw subject 10 a remote tensile stress.
(Your Krupn!ssion should be idenlicalto EQ. (2.44).)

2 . 11 Calculate K, (0£ a rectangular bar containing an edge crack loaded in three point
Andiar

P "" 3:5.0 kN (7870 Ib); W = :50.8 mm (2 .0 in); B = 25 mm ( 1.0 in); aIW '"'
0.2; S'"' 203 mm (8 .0 in).

2.12 Consider a materi.1 where KIC = 3S MPa.J; (31.8 ksi..JTr;"). Each or the five
specimens in T.ble 2.4 and Fig. 2.23 have been fabric.ted from this m.terial. In
each case, B = 25.4 mm (I in), W .. :50.8 nun (2 in), and aIW = 0.:5. Estimate the
failure load for each ipccimen. Which spec imen bas the highest failure load ?
Which bas the lowest?

1.13 A large bloc:k of steel is loaded 10 a stteu of 34:5 MFa (:50 bi). If the frllClurc
toughness (Kid is 44 MFa ~ (40 bi Th), detennine the critical radius o f a
penny-shaped Cl'lCk.
660 Chapter 1)

2 . 14 A semicircular surface crack in a pressure vessel is 10 mm (0.394 in) deep. The

crxk is on the inner wall of the presSI.ll'e YeS5el and is orienled such thaI the hoop
stress is perpendicular 10 the crack plane. Calculate K/ if the local hoop SItUS,.
200 MPa (29.0 ui) and lhe internal pressure,. 2{) MPa (2900 psi). Assume thaI
the wall thickness» 10 mm.

2 . 1 S Calculate K/ for. sc:mieUipckai surface Ilaw al ,= 0". 30", &1', 90".

a _ ISOMPa(21.8kliii); a=8.oomm(0.3 IS in); 2c=40mm (U7 in ).

2 . 16 Consider a plate subject 10 biaxial tension with a through crack of length 2a.
orienled al an angle Pfrom the 02 axili (Fig. Il l). Derive expressions for KJ and
KI/ for this configuralion. Whal happens 10 each K upression when OJ = 021

a,

a,

nGURE !l. 1 n......p.I~..-.dr. lsi.

bIa.NIl1lMded ....e (ProIt_1.16).

2 . 17 A wide nil plate with a through-thickness crack experiences a nonuniform normal

stress which can be represented by the fonowing cracir:: face trlIClion:

= =
where Po = 300 Mra and P 23 mm. 1be origi n (..I" 0) il at the left crac k tip. as
illustrated in Fig. 2.27. U,ing the weighl funcl ion derived in Example 2.6.
calulale KJ at each crack ti p fOf 2D '" 25, 50, and 100 mm. You will need to
integrate Ihe weight functi on numerically.

2. 18 Calculate Keff(lrwi n cornetion) for a through crx k in a plate of width 2W (Fig.

2.20(b». Assume plane stress conditions and the foll owing stress in tensity
relationship:
I'rrrtice Probk ms 66.

K ef! = U vdlWef!l5eC (""</l)]'"

2W

u = 250 MPa (36.3 !::si); OYS = 350 MPa (50.8 ksi); 2W = 203 mm (8.0 in );
2a = 50.8 mm (2.0 in).

1 _19 For an infinilC piau wilh a through cr:lCk 50.8 mm (2.0 ill) 101lg, compute :llId
tabulate Keffl'. stress using Ihc three methods indicated below. Assume OYS =
250 MPa (36.3 ksi).

Ke ' MPa rm or ksi ..JT;;

I- Stress MPa Itsi LEFM Irwin COI"TeCtion Stri Yield Model
25 (3.63)
SO (7.25)
100( 14.5)
150(21.8)
200 (29.0)
225 (32.6)
249 (36.1)
250 36.3

1.20 A material has a yield strength of 345 MPa (SO ksi) and a plane main linear
clastic fraclUre toughness of 110 MPa ..r;; (100 ksi ...[i;). Determine the
minimum specimen dimensions (8, a, W) required to perfonn a valid K Jc tc,st on
this material. Comme nt on the feasibility of testing a specime n of this size.

1.11 Yo u have been given a sct of fracture mechanics test specimens, all of the same
size and geometry. These specimens have been fatigue prceracked to various crack
lengltls. The stress intensity of this specimen co nfiguration can be expressed as
follows:

where P is load, 8 is thicbless, W is width, a is crack length, andJra/W) is a

dimensionless geometry correction factO!.
662 ChaptuJ3

Describe. SCI of expcrimcnt$ you could perform to detennincj(aI'W) for this

specimen co nfiguration, Hint: you may want to lake advantage of the
relationship between KJ and energy release nile for linear elastic materials.

2.22 Derive the Grirfith-Inglis resul t for the potential energy of a wough crack in an
infinite plate subject to a remolc tcnsile stress CEq. (2.16». Hint: solve for the
work required 10 close the crack faces; Eq. (A2.43b) gives the crack opening
di.5pl/ICcmenl for thi! configuration.

2.l3 Usina the Westergaard stress function approach, derive the stress intensity factor
relationship for an infinite array of collinear cr&C" in a plate subject to biaxial
tension (Fig. 2.21),

13.3 CHAPTER 3

3.1 Repeat !he derivation of Eqs. (3.1) 10 (3.3) fOC" the plane 5lrain case.

3.1 A CTOD test is pcrfonned on a three point bend specimen. Fiaure 13.3 shows
the defonned specimen after it has been un loaded. That is, the displacements
shown are the plastic compon~nU.

(a) Derive an expression for plastic crOD (8pJ in tenns of IIp and specimen
dimensions.

(b) Suppose that Vp and tip are mcasu~d on the same specimen, but that the
plastic rotational factor, 'p' is unknown. Derive an expression for 'p in terms of
IIp • Vp and specimen dimensions. assumina the angle of rotation is small.
Practice Probkms .63

3.3 Fill in the missing steps between Eqs. (3.36) and (3.37)

3. 4 Derive an expre5.5ion for the J integral for a deeply lotched three-point be nd

specimen, loaded over a span S, in terms of the area under the load-disp\acement
curve and ligament length, b. Figure 13.2 ill ustrates two di splacement
measurements on a bend specimen: the load line displaro:ement (.<1) and Ibe crack
mouth openi ng dis placement (V). Whic h of these two displaceme nt
measurements is more appropriate for inferring the J integral? Explai n.

3.5 Derive an expression for the J integral for an axisymmemcally notched bar in
tension (fig. 13.3), where the notch depth is sufficien t 10 confine plastic
defonnation to the ligament.

3.6 Derive an expression for the J in tegral in a deeply notclled three-point bend
specimen in terms of the area under the load-<:rack mouth opening displacement
curve. Begin with Ibe corresponding formula for the p . .<1 curve (given below),
and assume rotation about a plastic hinge (Fig. 13.3).

for a specimen with unitlbickncss.

3.' A wide plate with IIlhrough thickness crack fails at 30% of yield. Estimate the
elevation in toughness (Jcril'o) resulting from constraint loss. Anume n '" 10
and Ibe J.Q locus for Ibis material is given by Fia. 3.39 with r = I. The
biaxiality ralio, p, ,., I for this geometry. What do your results say aboul the
validity of single-parameter fracture m«hanics for this geometry?

Io--n _-oj

FIGURE 13.3 AIIo"","'drkall, """'bed bar

IofIdecIID tftIIIoo (Probltm 3.5).
664 Chapur I~

13.4 CHAPT ER 4

4.1 A nigh I1Ite frao;ture toughness lest is to be performed on a high strength steel
with Kid = 110 MPa Vm (100 ksi (in). A three-point be nd specimen will be
used. with W = 50.8 mm (2.0 in), aIW = 0.5, B = WI2, and span = 4W. Also, (I
_ 5?40 mise<: ( 1?500 ftlscc:) for steel. Esti mate the maximum loading ",te at
which the quasi static formula for estimating K,d is approximately valid.

4.2 Unstable frw::turc initiates in a steel specimen and am:sls after the crack propagares
8.0 mm (0.32 in). The tQ{al propagation time was 7.51 x 10- 6 see. The initial
ligament length in the specimen was 30.0 mm ( I. [8 in) and (J for Slee! = 5940
mis« (19.500 ftlsee). Delermine whether or nOl renected strcs.s waves innuenced
the propagating crock.

4 .3 Fracture initiates at an edge crack in a 2.0 m (78.7 in) wide stee l plate and rapidly
propagates through !he material. The stres.s in the plate is fixed at 300 MPa (43.5
]u;i). Plot the crack speed versus crock si~e for crack le ngths ranging from 10 to
60 mm (or 0.4 to 2.4 in ). The dynamic fracture toughness of the matena] is
given by

where KIA = 55 MPa Vm (50 ksi (in) and V t= 1500 mlsec (4920 ftlsee) Use
the Rose approximation (Eqs. (4.17) and (4.18» for the driving force. The elastic
wave speeds for steel are gi ven below.

19.500 ftlsec
" 5940 mfsee

10 600 ftls«
'" 3220 mlsec

2980 mls« 9780 ftlsee

'"
4.4 Derive an expression for C· in a douhle edge notched tension panel in terms of
sP'C''''men dimensions. creep exponent. iOlld, an4 disp)w:<:ment rD.le. See Section
3.2.5 for the cOl"l"esponding J expression.
 ."
4.5 A three-point bend specimen i! tuted in displacement conU'O! al an elevated
temperature. The displacement rale is increased in Stcps as the test proaresses.
The load, load line displacement rale, aIW, and crack vdocily are labulQled be low.
Compute C·. and construct a log- log plot of crack velocity versus C. , The
specimen Ihickneu and width an: 25 mm and 50 nun. respectively. 1be creep
uponent:: 5.0 for !be malcrial .

•
4, mJs

1.0 x 10- 7
..... '" oIW ."",
•

3.67 ill 10-9

10.8 0.52
5.0 J: 10, 7 13.8 1.79 ill 10,8
0."
1.0 x 10- 6 14.9 0.56 3.49 .. 10-8
5.0.11: 10-6 1.71 J 10,7
19.0 0.58
1.0 x 10-5 3.37 11 10- 7
5.0 ill 10-5
20A 0.60 1.65 x 10-6
24.0 0.65

4 •6 In a linear vi5(:oclastic material, the pseudo elutic displacement and Ibc physi cal
dispJaccment are related through a Iw:rediu.ry intcSJ1ll;

tl "" (EdAl
Simplify thit expression for the case of. COIIMaDI displacement nile.

4 .7 Consider. Cracilire toughnesl telt on I nonlinear viscoelastic material al a

constant displacement rate. Assume that the load is related to the pseudo clastic
displactment by a power law:

where M and N arc: conllalll5 that do lIot vary with time . Show that the
viscoelastic J intcJ1ll and the OOII~ntional J inteJ1ll arc related as follows:

where ,is a function of timc. Derive an CKprf:ssion for f(t). Hint: begin with
Eqs. (3 . 17) and (4.75). Also, the result from the previous problcm mly be
useful.

4.1 A fracture IOUlhneu tcst on a linear viscoelastic material resull5 in a nonlinear

load·displacement curvc in a COiDlilant ntc test. Yielding il restricted to a vcry
small region near the crw::k tip. Why is the curve nonlinear? Does the sire n
·.. Chopltr lJ

intensity factor chanlctcrit.e the crao::k tip conditionl in this c ..~7 Explain. What
is the relationship between J and K/ for a linear viscoelastic material? Hint: refer
10 the second equalion in the previous problem.

13.5 C HAPTER 5

5.1 A body-«ntcred cubic (Bec) material contains second phase particles. The size
of tl'lese particles can be controlled through thermal treatment. DiSCU5S the
anticipJled effe<:1 of panicle size on the: material', resistance to both cleavase
fraclW't and microvoid ooalescenee, aJSumingthe volwne frl,ction of the second
phase remains consWIl.

5 .1 An aluminum alloy faib by microvoid coalescence when the Ivcrnle void size
reacbCI ten limes the Initial value. If Ihe voi.b grow ao;o;Qrdini 10 Eq. (S.ll). wilh
ays replaced by eTc. plot the: c<jl,livalcnl plastic .tHin (Eti) I' failure versus
u",tat for o",tac ranging from 0 to 2.5. Anume the tria.l Illity ratio remaiu
constaT.! during defonnation of a liven sample; i.e.,

j I.Sq
R ) = O.283 ex~
In ( Ro at m 0deeq )'f"
5.3 The critical microstructural feature for cleavage initialion in I steel wnple i. a
6.61 ~m diameter spherical carbide; failure occurs when this particle forms a
micl'OCTlllCk that satisfies the Griffith criterion (Eq. (5. 18», wbere l'p = 14 J/m 2 , E
• 201,000 MPa, and II '* 0.30 for the materia1. Auuming FiB. 5. 14 describes the
stre5s dislribulion abc:ad ol'the macl'OlOOpic crack, where "0 = 350 MP.., "liUlIlatc
the critical J value o f the wnple if !he ~cle is located 0.1 mm abc:ad of tbe
crac k tip. on the crack plane. Repeat this calcul ation for the ease wherc lIIc
critical particlc is 0.4 mm ahead of the enid: tip.

5." Cleavagc initiates in a fcrrioc sttel at 3.0 Ilm diameter spherical panic\cs. nc
fracture cncrlY on a sin,le g.io, l):!, is 14 Jlm2 and the fi'III:,ure cnergy required
for prqllgation across grain boundaries. rgb. is 50 J/m 2. At wlull grain l ite does
propagation across grain boundaries bccIXM the controlling Slep for cleavage fra:-
~,

5.5 Compute the relativc siu nfthe 9O'lt confidcroce band of Klc data (as in Examplc
5. 1), assuming Eq. (5.24) describe s the toughness di stribution. Compute the
confidonce band width (Of KoIBK. O. O.~. 1.0.2.0. and S.O. What is the cffect
of the threshold toughness. K(), on the ITlativc scatter? wnat is the physiClil
significance of 6K in this case?
Practice Prob~ms 66'

5.6 Compute Ihc relative size of the 9O'l> conrklence band of Klc data (as in Eumple
5. 1), ass..runl Eq . (~. 26) describes the tou,hlK:5S distribution. Compute the
confidence band width for Kql8K '" 0, O.~, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0. What i$ the effea
of !he threshold toughness, KQ , on the relative scatter?

13.6 CHA.PTER 6

6.1 For the MoweD spring and dashpot model (Fig. 6.6) derive an eJ:preuion for the
reluation modulus.

6.2 Fill in the minin, steps in the derivation o f Eq. (6. 14).

6.3 At room lemperature, tensile specime ns of polycarbonate show 60'.\ elongation

and no stress whitening, while thic k COmpat t specimens used in fracture
tough nen te sting show stress whitening at tOe crac k tip. EJ:plain th ese
obsc rvatil)ns. Polycarbo natc Is an amorphous glassy polymer at room
temperature.

6.4 A wide and thin specimen of PMMA has a l~ nun (0.59 in) long through crac k
with a 1.5 m.m (0.059 in) long craze at each crack tip. If the applied stress is 3.~
MPa (508 psi), calculate the crazing $lreSS in this materiaL

6.5 When a macroscopi<: crack grow. in a cer.mk: speo;:imen. a proces. WIK: 0 .2 nun
wide forms. lbis proce$$ ZOIK: Conta.IDS 10.000 penn}" ~ micrOcracblmm 3
with an avcrage radius of 1O~. Estimatc!he increase in toughness due to the
release of strain energy by these m.icrQCral:k$.. The surflCC elK:rgy of the tnIlCrial .,
2511m 2 .

13.7 CHAPTER 7

7.1 A rracture toughncss test is perfonned on a compact specimen. Calculate KQ and

dc:taminc: whether or not KQ" Klc.

B .. 25.• mm (1.0 in); W "" .so.8 nun (2.0 in); ., '" 27.7 nun (1.09 in)
PQ ... 42.3 kN (9.52 kip); Pmax • 46.3 kN (10.4 kip) ; ays • 759 MPa
(1 IOksi)

7.2 You have becn asked 10 perform a KIt test on a material with ars'" 690 MPa
( 100 ksi). 1bc toughness of this matcrial is upected 10 lie between 40 MPa -.rr;;
and 60 MPa Vm (I ksi fu '" 1.1 0 MPa -{;). Design an experiment to
measure KJc in this matcrial using a compact specimen. Speciry thc following
... Clwpkr J

quanuues: (a) spec imen dimensions, (b) precracking loads, and (c) required load
capacily of !be test machine.

7.3 A titanium alloy is s upplied in 15.9 nun (0.625 in) thick plate. If uYS = 807
MPa (117 ksi), calculate the maxim um valid Klc that caD be measured in this
materiaL

7.4 Recall Problem 2.20, where a material with Klc = 110 MPa ..r;
(100 ks i .,fi';;)
required II 254 mm (10.0 in) thic k specimen for a valid Klc test. Suppose that a
compacf specimen of the appropriate dimensions has been fabricated. Estimate
the required load capacity of the test machine for such a tesl.

7.5 A 25.4 nun (I in) thick sleel plate has malerial ptopenies which are tabu lated
below. Determine the highest te mperat ure at which it is possible to perform a
valid KIC test.

·c Yield , MPa

7.6 A fracture toughness test is perfonned on a compact specimen fabricated from a 5

mm thick sheel alumi num alloy. The specimen width (W) = 50.0 mm and B = 5
mm (the sheet thickness). The initial crack length is 26.0 mm. Young's
modulus = 70,000 MPa. Compute the K-R curve from the load-displacement data
tabulated below. Assume that all nonlineari ty in the P-iJ curve is due to crack
growth. (See Chapter 12 for the appropriate compliance and stress in tensity
relationships.)
 ...
Load Line
Lood kN mm

0 0 2.85\ 0 .3698
0.5433 0.0635 2.913 0 .3860
1.081 0.1270 2.903 0.397\
1.630 0.1906 2.850 OAI \3
2.161 0.25'2 2.749 0 .4191
2.361 0.2817 2.652 0.4214
2.541 0._ 2.SS3 0.4355
2.07 0.4443

I kN '" 224.8 tb ~.4mm _ l in IMP. • 0.145 bi

7.7 A Dumber of rr.clure toughness specimens have been loaded 10 various points and
then unloaded. Values of J and ClW:Ii: growth were measured in each 5pe(:imen and
are tabulated below. P10l1he R curve for this malcrial and dclenn.ine 'Q and, i f
possible, lie.

ays'"' 350 MPa; errs = 4SO MPa: B '" ~ mm: bo = 22 mm;

Crack Extension.
SpeCimen J kJlm2 mm

I 100 0.30
2 I7S 0.40
3 I" 0.80
,
4
'" 1.20
1.60
• ""
300 1.10
lS.4 mm = I in I MPa .., 0. 145 ksi I kJlm2 s S.7I in_lb1in 2

7.8 Recall Problem 2.20, whc~ a material with KI, • 110 MPa ..r;:;; (100 bi vin")
and ayS = 345 MPa (~ksi) required l specirncm 254 mm ( 10 in) thick for.
valid KJc 1CSt. Estimate the thickness Rquired ror . valid IJc ~ OR this material.

<1TS '"' 48) MPal.70 ui); E '" 'lIrl,OOO M?a O(),OOO 'o,\)" ,, _ 0 .'30.

7. ' An unloadinl compliance IeSI has been performed on a 3-poinl bend specimen.
The data obtained at each ~g poim is tabulated below.

(a) Compute and pial the J resistance curve accordinJ to ASTM E I L52.
670 Chaprtr 13

(b) DctcmUncJ/c according to ASTM E 813.

B = 25.0 mm: W" 50.0 mm; lIQ = 26.1 mm; E '" 210,000 MPa, v = 0.3

UYS = 345 MPa (SO hi); UTS = 483 MPa (70 hi)

(e) PIO( and compare the J·R curves obtained from the simplified ClIOprcssion (Eq.
(7.10» and the incremental approach thai lakes account of CllIclt growth (Eq.
(7.1 S». AI what point docs the crack growth correction become signi ficant?

Plasti c
LOAD. kN Disp lacement, Crack EJuension.
mm mm

20.8 0 0.013
3 1.2 0.0032 0.020
35.4 0.011 0.023
37.4 0.020 0.Q25
41.6 0.056 0.031
43.7 0.092 0.036
45.7 0.\46 0.0«
47.6 0.228 0.055
49.9 0.349 0.071
51.6 0.525 0.091
53.5 0.777 0.128
55.3 1.13 0.183
56.6 1.63 0.321
56.7 2.32 0.123
56.5 2.66 0.928
55.8 3.25 1.29
54.7 3.96 1.74
53.7 4.'] 2.08
52.S s.n 2.48
50.1 6.20 3.17
44.4 8.43 4.67
4<).0 10.09 H I
36.6 11.37 6.70
30.9 13.54 8.23
26.8 1:5. 19 9.41

1 kN = 224.8 lb 25.4 mrn = I in I MPa = 0.145 hi

7.9 A CTOO lest was pcrfonned on a three point bend specimen with B = W = 2'.4
mm (1.0 in). The crack depth, a, was 12.3 mm (0.484 in). Examination of !he
Proctiu Probkms
'"
frw::I\ITe surfau revealed thai the apecimen failed by cleavage with 110 prior stable
ctSc:k &rOwth. Compute the critical CTOD in this tc.5l Be sure 10 use the appro-
priltc notation (i .e., 6c. 6u. 8;, or 6".).

Vp '" 1.0' mm (0.0413 in); Pcriticai'" 24.6 kN ('.'3 kip) ; E. 207,000 MPa
(30,000 oil; UYS. 400 MPa ('8.0 ksi); v. 0 ,3.

7.10 A cnek arrest tc.5t hu been performed in accordance with ASTM E 1221. The
side-grooved compact (:Iad lIITeSI Ipe(:imcn hu the following dimensions: W .
100 mm (3.94 in), 8 :: 2'.4 mm ( 1.0 in). and 8N = 19.1 mm (0.7' in). The
initial crack length. 46.0 mm (1.81 in) and the clllCk length at am:st:: 63.0 mm
(2.48 in). 1bc c:om:ctcd dip gage displacemc:nu II initiation and &rre$I: are Vo"
0.582 mm (0.0229 in) and Va .. 0 ..547 (0.02" in), respectively. E = 207.000
MPa (30.000 ui) and uYS(stotic} '" 483 MPa (70 oil. Calculate the stress
intensity al inilillion, Ko. and the lIITeSI loughness. Kg. Delenninc whether or
not this test . Itidies the validity criteria in Eq. (7.2'). The siren intensity
solution for the compact CJ1ICk arrest specimen is given below.

x=alW

/(x):: 2.24(l.72-0.9x+x2~
9.85 -0. l7x+ llx2

13.8 CHAPTER 8

8.1 A 2!i.4 mm (1 .0 in) thic k plate of PVC has • yield stre ngth of 60 MPa (8.70
ksi). The anticiplltcd ft.ctun:: loua:hness (Kid of this material is' MPa {;;; (4.'
ksi .JT;;) Design an uperimcnt to measure KIc of I compact specimen machined
from this material. Detennine the appropriate specime n dimensions (8, W, g) and
estimate the required load capacity of the IC$t machine.

8,2 A " .9 nun (0.62!i in) thick plasti(: plate hu a yield ~ngth of!iO MPa (7.2'
bi). Determine the largest valid Klc value that can be mcaSUTcd on this materiaL

8.3 A Klc 1es1 i. tv be pcrfonnw on a polymer with II time ·dependent relaxation

modulus which hu been fil to the following equation:

E(I):: [0.417 + 0.OO37r°.3S rl

'"
,= 1
P W-a
(!".e. -oj
tJ. p

assuming. small I "ale of I'OU.lion. 8~iinni ni with Eqs (9.32) and (9,H ) $Ol\'c
for rp in temlS of 112, "J.
~ spe<:imcn dimensiON. Use !he ~sulting e~pressiOll
t l) compute 'p foc " • 10 and aIW '" 0.250, 0.315. 0.500, 0.625 • ..w.
0.750.
Repel' for " _ 3 and the JanIe alW val~,. Assume plane slnin for . n
calculations. How do the ,p values estimated from the EPRI Handbook oompan
with the usumed val"" of 0 44 in AS'TM I'! 1290-891

9 . 11 A welded pnel 5 m wide and SO mm thick contains a semic ll iptK:al surface cnor;.k.
(in the weld megl) with a '" 10 mm and 2, • 54 mm. 1be primary rKmbrane
strut is 260 MP. and Ihe primary beDdingllreil is 60 MPa. The panel is In thc
as-welded cond ition ; the ruidual stress dimibutioo is unknown . Perform I PD
6493 Level 2 IIS5C.Ssmcnl on the weld fla ... \0 determine whether or not it is
~ptabk. Tho: -n.J propen;c. are as follows:

O)'S - 4110MPa; OTS: 61 0 MPIo : E= 207,000 MPa: Dcrit · O.1Smm

9 . 11 SUPIM* Lhallbe panel in Problem 9. 11 is !hermally 5tres5 ~Iieved. Repeal tbe

Level 2 assessment. usumioa the residual SI/a5eS after the heat lteatmcnl are
equ.alIO 30% oflho yield strcnSth.

' . 1J EvalUlle the SUUClure from Problem 9.S .... ilb Level 2 of the ]99] verJ.ion of PO
649). &timaIe the. limiting 0 ..... dimensi.,... auuming a , urfacc cndr. .... ilb aI2c
'" O.2S. ars = SOO MPa; plate Ibickness = 2!1 mm.

1). 10 CHAPTER 10

I O. 1 Ulinl!he Piri.. EnIolan equaliOli for fali llie crack propagalion, calculate the.
nllffiber of bli p cycles cOITUponding 10 tile combiulloM of initial and final
craek ndills for . se micircular surface fl ..... Ilbu la1ed below. Assume thaI lhe
crack radiw; ill $Illall eompamllo the cross section of the Struclwe.

; " 6.87 Jl 10'. 12 (tr.K)3 , where da/dN is in mlcycle and 4K is in t.1Pa -.r;;;.
AlJO, 4(1 . 200 MP • .
 '"

Initial Cl'1ICk Radius Final Crnck Radius

I mm IOmm
I mm 20mm
2mm IOmm
2 mm 20mm
I .1 MPa {i; .. I Itsi {;;; ~.4mm .. lin IMP . .. 0.145

Di5CUS5!he relative w nsitivity of NlDr to:

initial cnck siu.
• rmal cnck size.

10 .2 A structural component made from. high 5trength sleel is subject to cyclic

loadinl. with O"m(l.r = 210 MPa and O"min = 70 MPD. This componen t
experiences 100 stress eycles per day. Prior to going inlo service. the component
was inspected by nondcstructive evaluation (NOE). and no nalV$ were found. 1llc
material has the following propertiU! ars .. 1000 MPa.. Krc .. 25 MP. & .
'The fatigue cnck growth nile in this materi.al is the u.rne 11$ in Problem 10 .1.

(a) 1llc NOE te<:hnique can find flaws O!: 2 mm deep. Estimate !he maximum we
design life of this component. assuming that subsequent in-scnlce inspections
will not be performed. Assume that any fl aws that may be present are
semicin;ular surface cracks and that they an: smal l relative to the cross section of
the component .

(b) Repeat pan (a). assuming an NDE dctcctability limit of 10 mm.

I 0 _3 Fatigue tests an: performed on lWO samples of an alloy for aerospace applications.
In the first experiment. R = O. while R "" 0.8 in the second experiment. Sketch
!he expc<:ted trends in the data for the two uperimc:nll on a schematic Iog(daldN)
~. 10g(<1A') plot. Assume that the experiments cover a wide nlnle of J1K values.
Briefly explain the trends in the curves.

10 . 4 Write a program or sJnl\dsneet macro to compute fatigue crack growth behavior

in a compact spc<:imen. assuming !he fatigue cnck growth is JOvcmed by Ihc
Paris-&dop equation.

Consider a IT compact specimen (see Section 7. 1.1) that is loaded cyclically at a

constant load amplitude with P mIJJl "" 18 kN and Pmin =.5 kN. Usinlthc fatiaue
crnck growth dalll in Problem 10.1. calculate the number of cycles required to
678 ~rJJ

pow tile crad: from WW .. 0.35 10 WW. 0.60. Plot aac:k size venus cumulatiw:
c)'Cles for this range of WW.

10.5 Write. program 01 Spreadsllul macro 10 compute the fati,ue: cra<.:k ,.owth
behavior in I flat plate that eonu.ins. Sl:mielliptical surface flaw and is IUbjllCt lO
I cyclic membrane (tensile) stress. Msume Wtthe flaw remains semielliptical,
b\;t take account of the difference In K at , .. 0" ilrId; = 90". Also. usume that c
« W, but that (l/r is finite:. Use the Paris·Erdopo equation 10 comp"te the eraek
growth rate.

Considc:r I 25.4 mm (1 .0 in) thick pille: that is loaded cyclically at I COIIllant

Ilren amplitude of 200 MPri (29 bi). Given In initial fl .... with (l/r • 0.1 aDd
Q/lc .. 0. 1, calculalc: the number of cycles required 10 &row the aac:t 10 01/ .. O.B,
using the fatip axt growth data in Problem 10.1. Construet I COlltOlL' plot
that shoWlthe eraet liu and lIIapl'.t aIf .. 0.1, 0.2. 0.4, 0.6. and O.B. Whal
happens 10 the Q/lc ratio u the aact pows1

10 .6 Estimate U and Kop as. function of R and Me for the data in Fig. 10.8. Does
&t. ( 10.19) fit the data adequately or d0e5 U depend on Kmo,%7 ~ Eq. (10.20)
adc:qul!cly describe thc daI.a? If so. deLcnnine: ihc parametCT K(J.

10. 7 Suppose that the IT com~ specimen in Problem 10.4 Cllpl'riencel a u nale
o\'crload of 36 tN whea aIW .. 0.45. Ourina: all other cycles the load amp!itude
i, constln!, with P mlU .. 18 kN IIId Pm;,," 5 tN. Usioa the Wheeler
retardation model with y_ 1.5, Ulimalc: the number of cycles requirt!d 10 JnlW' the
cf1lCk from aIW = 0.35 to aIW .. 0.60. Plot crw;:k siu venus cumulatiw: cycles.
comparin, the prescnt case 10 the «lIIIWl1 kIIId lOIIIplin>de cue of Problem 10.4.
"",,me: plane: wain conditions til tile aack tip ilrId ars" 250 MPa.

10 . 8 You have been asked 10 perform K-dClcrusina tests on_ material 10 de!ermiH: the
nur-threshold behavior It R . 0.1 . Your labortiory has I computer-conllDlied
les! rnachioe that can be proararnmed to v., Pm(}J; and Pmin on a cycl .... by-cycle
buis.

(I) Compu!e: and plot Pf/UlX and Pmb. vel'$U' crack length ror the ranae 0.' S
Q/W S 0.75 com:spondinalo I nonnaliud K gradiCDt of - 0.07 mm- I in I IT
COIIIpiCI specimen.

(b) SUppDK tNt the nwc:rial uhibits the followioa: cract JTOwth ~havior ncar
w threshold;
680 Chopftr 13

11.3 Displaccnw:nts atllOdes along tile upper crack face (112 at (}. If) in the p!l'vious
problem are IIbulated below. The elastie ConlWlts are as folloW1l: 11 '" 80.000
M r A And " .. 1.10. Ecim.o.le KJ by roeJIn~ of the displacement matching approach
(Eq . II.IS) and C()IlIpaFe your estimate to the elk! solution for this geometry. Is
the mesh refinenw:nt suffic ient to obtain an accurate 5()lution in this case?

, (6 z,;) !!4
, (6 .. It) !!4
• • • •
0.005 9.99 l IO- s 0.080 3.92 l 10-4
0.0 10 1.41 l I~ 0.100 4.36 l 10-4
0.020 1.99 l 1~ O. ISO 05.27l 10.. 4
0.040 2. 80 l 10-4 0.200 6 . 00
l 10-4
3 . 41 l 10-4 6.61 l 10-4
0.060 0.2.50

I 1. 4 Figure 13.6 illustrates a one-dlracnl-ionlli clemen! with thru nodes. Considar two
cases; ( I) Node 2 &Il = O..5OL Imd (2) Node 2 at ~ co O. 2.5L

<I) Determine the relalions.hip between the global and parametric c:oordin.aR5.
X(~. in each case.

(b) Compute lhe axial sinun . £((J for each case in ICnns o r the nodal
dUplaocmcnts and parametric coordinate.

(c) Show that ~2" O.2.5t IclIIb 10 I lNx singularity in the axial strain.
1 2 , 1 2 ,
•
1;-·1
•
1;.0
•
1;. 1 ~.o
• •
lQ '" 112
•
X)aL
(I) I'..-.-tric: ~1Mla.

1 2 ,
• •
lQ" O u.U4 •
"soo t " GlIllE 1306 OModl _ _ lout ok mtnl ... ltII 3
...... (Pr ,t! • 11.4).