SI 7013

Bab IV
Advanced Concept Mixed
Mode
Ivindra Pane, PhD
Kantor:
Lab. Rekayasa Struktur
Teknik Sipil, FTSL
 Observation and Your Thoughts?

Cracks do not usually propagate as straight lines, or flat surfaces, or perfect

ellipses.

What controls the shape (sometimes called trajectory when 2D idealization is

reasonable) of a propagating crack?

Why do some cracks in a symmetric structure with symmetric BCs not

propagate symmetrically?

2
Examples of These Observations
Very non-simple crack shapes!

Symmetric structure, BCs:

Unsymmetric crack growth??

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 Recall Continuum Fracture Modes
y,v y,v y,v
x,u x,u
x,u

z,w z,w z,w

Mode I Mode II Mode III

Basic modes of crack loading. Positive sense shown for each:

Mode I = crack opening
Mode II = in-plane sliding
Mode III = anti-plane tearing

15
And, the four shell fracture z
y

modes h 2

r

membrane

KI K II

bending

K1 Reissnertheory K2 , K3 Reissnertheory
k1 Kirchhofftheory k2 Kirchhofftheory

16
 1st Order, LEFM Crack Kinking
Theories
1st Order LEFM theories are based on only the singular terms of
the local asymptotic LEFM crack front fields.

Many such theories have been proposed and tested, and most
of these are variants of these 3:

Maximum Hoop Stress Theory max Erdogan and Sih (1963)

Maximum Energy Release Rate Theory G()max Hussain et al. (1974)

Minimum Strain Energy Density Theory S()min Sih (1974)

We will study only the max theory, here, but will return to the concept
of maximum energy release rate theory later. Why, and why?

17
 1st Order, LEFM, Isotropic Crack Kinking
Theories:
max Theory
Recall equation 16, p.36:
1 3 T
cos K I cos2 K II sin 1 cos 2 (16)
2r 2 2 2 2
This theory asserts that, for an isotropic material, a crack will kink into the direction
normal to the maximum circumferential (hoop) stress. So maximize (16) wrt
ignoring T-stress, set = c, and rearrange,
y
K II sin c

K I 3 cos c 1
max Then solve for c

max 1 1 8(K K )2
c 1 II I
c 2tan (65)
4(K II K I )

18
 Mixed-Mode Interaction According to

max Theory
Rewrite (16), again neglecting T-stress, and recognize that the new left-hand
side represents a measure of fracture toughness that, in the limit of Mode I only,
must be KIc

1 3
cos K I cos2 K II sin
2r 2 2 2

3
rc cos K I cos2 K II sin K Ic (66)
2 2 2

Equations 65 and 66 comprise a parametric set in c, KI, and KII .These can be
solved to produce an interaction diagram that is analogous to a multi-axial
yield interaction diagram, or a biaxial bending yield-crushing diagram.

19
 Mixed-Mode Interaction According to

max and Other Theories

Note that each theory has its

own interaction surface, and
its own Mode II toughness
prediction

20
Another Way To View Effective,
Mixed-Mode Toughness

21
Comparison of 1st Order, Linear Elastic,
Isotropic
Crack Kinking Theories: Kink Angle

Mode II Mode I

2 1 K I
e
Mode mixity parameter: M tan
KII
22
DemonstrationoftheMaximumHoopStressCrack
TurningCriterion
SEN(B)polymethylmethacrylate(PMMA)beams.
Initialcracklocationandlengthwerevariedamongthespecimens.

Note:alldimensions
ininches
2.0 0.5dia. thickness:0.5
typ.
8.0
2.0

2.75
b 4.0

a
9.0 9.0
10.0 10.0 23
Comparisonsbetweenobservationsandpredictions
fortwodifferentinitialcrackconfigurations

This is VG predicting!
How big is process
zone in PMMA?

analysis

experiment
Analysiscrack
incrementlengths:
a=0.3inch
a=0.2inch
a=0.05inch

precutslot precutslot
2.5inches
1.0inch 6.0inches 6.0inches
(frombottom
(fromcenterline) (fromcenterline)
ofplate)

24
 Crack Kinking versus Crack Turning
Crack path problems encountered in most real structural applications are not
really crack kinking problems. In an average macroscopic sense, cracks typically
propagate in a rather smoothly turning fashion as the crack negotiates its way
among the structural features of the part.

Since the first-order isotropic theories predict crack kinking for non-zero KII ,
the only way for a crack to propagate smoothly is for the crack to follow a path
along which KII=0.

Since all the first-order isotropic theories agree exactly for this condition, the
crack path is apparently independent of any first-order theory.

25
 Then Why Do Some Mode I Cracks
Turn?

There appears to be some trajectory instability phenomenon at work.

26
 Then Why Do Some Mode I Cracks
Turn? Crack Turning Theory
Consider a Mode I crack subjected to a small trajectory perturbation at x= 0, i.e.
the crack propagates very slightly out of its self-similar direction and feels some
small, corresponding KII. Also, lets include the first 2nd order field term, the
T-stress. Cotterell and Rice (1980) then asked:

What happens to continuing trajectory if we enforce the

condition that subsequent KII=0?

2 K II T
Strength of the perturbation: 0 Strength of the T-stress: 2 2
KI KI
27
 Cotterell and Rice Crack Turning
Theory
Cotterell and Rice found that subsequent trajectory is

(x) o2

2

exp x erfc x 1 2
x

T Trajectory unstable for

2 2
KI Positive T-stress !

2 K II
0
KI

Normalized Plot of the Perturbed Crack Path of Cotterell and Rice (1980).

28
Many Materials Exhibit More Complicated Behavior Such as Toughness
Orthotropy and Crack Path Sensitivity to Load Level

Objective: develop a theory for crack turning in real materials

based on LEFM concepts
29
Material Orientation Definitions for
Fatigue and Fracture

30
 2nd Order Theories: Role of T-Stress

Cotterell and Rice (1980) crack perturbation theory highlighted the importance
of the T-stress in trajectory predictions.

Their work inspired the creation of 2nd order theories for prediction of crack
shape.

We will investigate one of these 2nd order theories, and extend our thinking
about crack shapes to the more general case of materials with anisotropic
toughness.

31
 Recall T Is Second Term of the Crack-tip Stress Expansion

rr K I 1 sin 2 ( 2) 23 K II sin( ) 2 K II tan( 2) 1 cos(2 )

1 T
cos K I cos2 ( 2) 23 K II sin( ) 1 cos(2 )
2r 2 2
r K I sin( ) K II ( 3 cos( ) 1) sin(2 )

Include the T-term and the maximum hoop stress expression then becomes:

K II 2 sin( 2) 8 T
cos 2rc cos (67)
KI 3cos 1 2 3 KI

r
rcis the distance from the crack tip at which
the stresses are computed. y

rcscales with the plastic zone size.
T
rcfor plastic tearing is theorized to be a

material constant.
x

Kosai,Kobayashi,andRamulu,Tearstrapsinaircraftfuselage,Durabilityofmetalaircraftstructures:Proc.ofInt.Workshop
StructuralIntegrityofAgingAirplanes,Atlanta,GA,443457,1992
32
 2nd Order Linear Elastic,
Crack Turning Theory, Isotropic Case

Normalized Crack Turning Plot for Isotropic Material Based on the Formulation of
Kosai et al. (1992). 33
Crackturning max
criterion

interactiondiagram
tan 1 (K II K I )
80 o
90
60 o
67.5
40 45o

20 22.5o
5o 1o tan 1 (K II K I ) 0o
0
o 1o
5
20
22.5o
40 67.5o 45o

60
tan 1 (K II K I ) 90o
80
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
8T
2rc
3K I

Pettit R, Chen, C-S, Wawrzynek P, Ingraffea A R. Process Zone Size Effects on Naturally Curving Cracks.
Eng. Fract. Mech., 68, 10, 1181-1205, 2001. 34
Conceptual Model of a Crack Propagation
Criterion for a Toughness Orthotropic
Structure
c

Predicteddirectionof
crackpropagation

rc

() evaluatedatr Materialtoughnessfunction
c

( K I , K II , E1 , E 2 , T, rc , )
Maximum (68)
K c ( ) Kc critical

Boone,Wawrzynek,andIngraffea,Analysisoffracturepropagationinorthotropicmaterials,EngngFractureMech,
35
Vol.35(1990)pp.159170
A Simple Representation for
Toughness Anisotropy: The
Toughness Ellipse

Kp is the stress intensity at which the crack

propagates, in the relevant regime of crack
growth. Thus, for fatigue crack growth, Kp
is the stress intensity at which the crack
propagates at a given rate; for stable
tearing, Kp represents the fracture
toughness.

cos 2
n sin 2 K p (90)
K p ( ) n n 1 Km
K p (0) K p (90) K p (0)

36
Typical 2nd Order 100
o
Interaction Diagrams for 75
crack oriented at 0

Orthotropic Toughness 50
25
Kc LT
1.2 1.2 0
Kc T L -25
-50

crack 1.0 -75

-100
ellipseforanisotropic -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
8T 2r
fractureresistance 3K I c

100 100
crack oriented at 45o crack oriented at 90o
75 75
50 50
25 25
0 0
-25 -25
-50 -50
-75 -75
-100 -100
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
8T 8T
3K I 2rc 3K I 2rc 37
 Normalized Crack Turning Plots for an Elastically
Isotropic Material with Fracture Orthotropy =1.6, n =
Km
-1,
Various Crack Orientations.

(a) Crack Oriented at =0, (b) Crack

Oriented at =45, (c) Crack Oriented at
38
=90.
 K I 70 ksi in.
rollingdirection(L)
K II 0
T 50 ksi
(T) rc 0.05 in.
K c (T )
1.1
K c ( L)

NoTStress TStress TStressandOrthotropy

Propagationdirection

c 0
c 23.5
c 45.6
39
Observedandpredictedcrack
pathsfor7050T7451DCB
specimens,StaticLoading
2.5
Vertical Crack Growth (in)

2.0

1.5 rc=0 , Km = 1.3

rc=.05 inches, Km = 1.3
1.0 rc=.1 inches, Km = 1.3
rc-LT-15-5
0.5

0.0

-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Horizontal Crack Growth (in)

2.5
rc-TL-15-5
2.0
Vertical Crack Growth (in)

rc=.05 inches, Km = 1.3

1.5 rc=0, Km = 1.3

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Horizontal Crack Growth (in)
40
 Observedandpredictedcrackpathsfor7050T7451
DCBspecimens,FatigueLoading

2.5
Vertical Crack Growth (in)

2.0

1.5

1.0
FRANC2D, Km=1.1, rc=0

0.5 rc-LT-15-2

0.0 rc-TL-15-2

-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Horizontal Crack Growth (in)

41
 What About These Data?
What is Going on Here?
LEFM Max stress
Pure mode virtual kink, Eq. (5.30)
100 Curve fit to 2024-T3 Test Data [40]
Look only at the test data
SSY CTOD Analyses [40]
80 and the LEFM Max stress,
2024-T3 Arcan Test Data [40] max , information.
60

40
c Mode I
20 Dominated There is an obvious, abrupt
change in trajectory behavior.
0
Why?
-20
Mode II
Dominated
-40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mode mixity, -

42
Predicted Effect of T-Stress on Kink Angle
for
Mode II Crack According to Maximum
Shear Stress Theory, Isotropic Case.

How would you formulate

such a theory?

43
Predicted Effect of T-Stress on Kink Angle
for Mode II Crack According to Maximum
Shear Stress Theory,
KII m =1.6, n=-1

(a) Crack Oriented at = 0 (b) Crack Oriented at = 90

44