This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Professor S. Suresh

**Elastic Plastic Fracture
**

Previously, we have analyzed problems in which the plastic zone was small compared to the specimen dimensions (small scale yielding). In today’s lecture we present techniques for analyzing situations in which there can be large scale yielding, and determine expressions for the stress components inside the plastic zone. We will begin with a discussion of the

J integral.

SMA c 2000 MIT

�

Fatigue and Fracture

1

R. Cherepanov.J Derivation Integral The integral is a line integral (path-independent) around the crack tip. Journal of Applied Mechanics. Sanders. J International Journal of Solids and Structures. It has enormous signiﬁcance in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. 1960. (Related works: Eshelby. Key Reference: J. 1968. 1969) SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 2 . Journal of Applied Mechanics. Rice. Progress in Solid State Physics 1956.

J Derivation Integral Continued Consider the path around the crack tip shown below: SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 3 .

i.J Derivation Integral Continued We will use the following variables: T = traction vector on this curve deﬁned in relation to an outward normal unit vector. SMA c 2000 MIT a = crack length. u = corresponding displacement vector. ds = an element of arc on this curve. We consider a small strain analysis. S = a curve linking the lower and upper crack surfaces. we neglect any deformation-induced blunting of crack tip. � Fatigue and Fracture 4 . T � n � � .e.

J Derivation Integral Continued We use the J2 deformation theory of plasticity (equivalent to non-linear elasticity). The (reversible) stress-strain response is depicted schematically below: SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 5 .

e. stationary cracks). for monotonic loading. SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 6 . The total mechanical potential energy of the cracked body is J J uM � ue + uapp This represents the sum of the stored strain potential energy and the potential energy of the applied loading.J Derivation Integral Continued For proportional loading 2 deformation theory and 2 ﬂow theory (incremental theory of plasticity) give results that are comparable (i. Not appropriate for situations where signiﬁcant unloading occurs.

ij We now evaluate the derivative of the mechanical potential energy. SMA c 2000 MIT � uM. with respect to crack length. recall that @w : �ij � @� dA an element of cross section A within S . T � uds S Z w � strain energy density (per unit volume). Fatigue and Fracture 7 .J Derivation Integral Continued uM � In the previous integral: Z A wdA .

T � @x �J � J also can be thought of as the energy ﬂow into the crack tip. J is a measure of the singularity strength at the crack tip for the case of elastic-plastic material response. @ u ds wdy . duM da � Z � S J represents the rate of change of net potential energy with respect to crack advance (per unit thickness of crack front) for a non-linear elastic solid. Thus.J Derivation Integral Continued . SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 8 .

dUM J �G�. da K 2 .J Derivation Integral Continued For the special case of a linear elastic solid. from SMA c 2000 MIT This relationship can be used to infer an equivalent KIc value � Fatigue and Fracture 9 . ductile solids in which valid KIc testing will require unreasonably large test specimens. � � � . � 2� �E d PE da JIc measurements in high toughness.1 .

J Derivation Integral Continued Consider two different paths around the crack tip: SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 10 .

J Integral is independent of the path around the crack tip.J Derivation Integral Continued The If S2 is in elastic material. � 2 � JS2 � E Jalong S1 � Jalong S2 SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 11 . K 2 .1 .

�0 � reference yield strain � �0�E . Rice. For linear elastic material n � 1. n = strain hardening exponent. �0 = reference yield strength. for perfectly plastic response n � 1. Assume: Pure power law material response: � = material constant. Rosengren (HRR) singular crack tip ﬁelds for elastoplastic material response.HRR ﬁeld We now consider the Hutchinson. SMA c 2000 MIT � �� � �0 �0 � �n � Fatigue and Fracture 12 . (Recall Williams solution assumes linear elastic material behavior).

� n n n n 1 � n+1 SMA c 2000 MIT � n Fatigue and Fracture 13 .W.R. (Ref: J. JMPS. 1968 and J.) J ~ �ij � �0 �� � I r �ij ��.Continued HRR ﬁeld With these assumptions. JMPS. 1968. Rosengren. n� 0 0 n � � +1 J �ij � ��0 �� � I r �ij ��. Hutchinson.F. Rice and G. n� ~ 0 0 n � � +1 J 1 +1 ui ��. the crack tip ﬁelds (HRR ﬁeld) can be derived. n� ui � ��0 �� � I r r ~ 0 0 n The function In has a weak dependence on n.

CTOD The variation in crack tip opening displacement different material response is depicted below: �t or (CTOD) for The crack tip opening displacement depends on distance from the crack tip. SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 14 . We need an operational deﬁnition for CTOD.

F.CTOD The deﬁnition of �t is somewhat arbitrary since the opening displacement varies as the crack tip is approached. A commonly used operational deﬁnition is based on the 45� construction depicted below (see C. 1982). JMPS. Shih. SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 15 .

CTOD dn is a strong function of n. and a weak function of �0�E . 0:65 �0:65 for n ! 1� dn � 0:5 . 1:07 �1:07 for n ! 1� Fatigue and Fracture 16 Plane Stress: SMA c 2000 MIT � . Plane Strain: J �t � dn � 0 dn � 0:3 .

� 2 1 .CTOD Presuming dominance of HRR ﬁelds J�J �t � dn � � 0 0 For Small Scale Yielding (SSY) KI2 .1 . � 2� J� E . �2 KI �t � dn E � 0 SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 17 .

� Specimen size requirements for KIc and JIc testing. � Exp. � Multiaxial fracture characterization. measure of driving force.CTOD Importance/Applications of CTOD: � Critical CTOD as a measure of toughness. SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 18 .

there is a domain of validity for the HRR SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 19 .J-Dominance Just as for the ( -based) ﬁelds. J K ﬁeld.

it has been found that: For J dominance the uncracked ligament size b must be greater than 25 times the CTOD or � 25 � J��0.J-Dominance Under plane strain and small scale yielding conditions. The variation in stress 1rp 0 � 4 ahead of the crack is depicted on the following page: SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 20 .

J-Dominance SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 21 .

MPa m and GPa.K and J-Dominance Consider a low strength steel with 0 MPa. What are the Minimum Ic specimen size requirements for valid Ic and Ic measurements? K � 250 p � � 350 E � 210 K J SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 22 .

b. t � 1:28 m! �� 50 inches� � SMA c 2000 MIT Fatigue and Fracture 23 . b. t � 2:5 � 0 Substitute the known values for �0 and KIc. Find that a.K-Dominance ASTM standard E399 (1974) for KIc testing: � �2 KIc a.

SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 24 . 2 � b � 0:02 m Specimen size requirements for J testing are much less severe than for K testing. � b � 25 � E �0 0 . the condition requires that for a deeply cracked compact tension or bend specimen: J JIc � 25KIc 1 .J-Dominance For Ic testing.

JIc value may be converted to equivalent KIc value. The validity of this approach has been veriﬁed by extensive SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 24 .J-Dominance The measured testing.

J-Dominance Example: notched bar loaded axially (induces bending and stretching) SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 25 .

J-Dominance SMA c 2000 MIT � Fatigue and Fracture 26 .

Paper Presentation

Paper Presentation

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd