A hysteretic cohesive-law model of

fatigue-crack nucleation
S. Serebrinsky and M. Ortiz
Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Abstract
We assess the ability of a hysteretic cohesive-law model to predict the number of cycles to fatigue-crack initiation. Comparisons with experimental data for a 2048-T851
aluminum alloy, 300M steel and AISI 4340 steel suggest that the approach captures
salient aspects of the observed behavior.
Key words: fatigue, fracture, nucleation, cohesive, modelling

Introduction

Fatigue-crack growth can be modelled by means of irreversible cohesive laws

with loading-unloading hysteresis such as proposed by Nguyen et al. [1]. These
laws assume the existence of a monotonic envelop in the traction-opening displacement relation which is traced by the material under conditions of monotonically increasing opening displacement; and an irreversible and hysteretic
loading-unloading law resulting in the accumulation of damage when the tractions are cycled at amplitudes smaller than the cohesive strength of the material. The appeal of this type of model of fatigue-crack growth is that it applies
with great generality to arbitrary crack lengths and geometries (e. g., short
vs. long cracks), specimen or component geometries (e. g., two-dimensional
vs. three-dimensional geometries), loading conditions (e. g., mode I vs. mixed
mode), loading histories (including random load cycling, load spikes) and bulk
material behavior (e. g., elastic vs. plastic). The predictive ability of cohesive
models of fatigue-crack growth has been demonstrated in [1, 2] and others
following them [3, 4].
Tel.: +1 (626) 395-3282, Fax: +1 (626) 449-2677
Email address: serebrin@caltech.edu (S. Serebrinsky).

Preprint submitted to Scripta Materialia

28 March 2005

While the micromechanics of fatigue-crack nucleation, e. g., as mediated by

persistent slip bands, has received considerable attention in the past (cf., e. g.,
[5], and references therein), there has been a chronic paucity of models capable
of predicting as opposed to merely fitting experimental data of fatigue-crack
nucleation. In this paper we show that cohesive laws with loading-unloading
hysteresis can also be applied to the prediction of fatigue-crack nucleation.
To this end, we consider a material element subjected to a uniaxial traction
cycle and containing an incipient cohesive surface. After the application of a
predictable number of cycles, the traction-opening displacement curve meets
the monotonic envelop, at which point the material loses its ability to sustain
additional loading cycles and fails. If this local material failure is identified
with the fatigue-crack nucleation event, then the model supplies a relation
between loading conditions, material properties and the number of cycles to
fatigue-crack nucleation.
In this note we report a brief assessment of the ability of hysteretic cohesivelaw models to predict the number of cylces to fatigue-crack nucleation. In
Section 2 we begin by defining the class of cohesive fatigue under consideration;
in Section 3 the calculated fatigue diagrams are compared with experiment;
and a discussion of the main results is put forth in Section 4 by way of closure.

Hysteretic cohesive models of mechanical fatigue

We start by describing briefly the cohesive model under consideration (cf. [1])
and describing the precise sense in which it can be applied to the prediction
fatigue-crack nucleation. For simplicity, we confine our attention to uniaxial
tension loading. Extensions to general mixed-mode loading can be obtained
by the simple device of introducing an effective opening displacement (e. g.,
[6, 7]), but this enhancement of the model will not be considered here.
The structure of the cohesive law is shown in Fig. 1(a). For a monotonically
increasing opening displacement, the traction across the cohesive surface is
governed by a monotonic envelop. For present purposes, three types of envelops
may be differentiated, Fig. 1(b). The first type of envelop is exemplified by
the UBER relation [8]

= ec e/c
(1)
c
and is characterized by a finite slope at the origin. We note that the UBER
relation contains two parameters, namely, a cohesive strength c and a characteristic opening displacement c . The second type of envelop is characterized
by having an infinite slope at the origin, as results from applying the correction by Rice [9] to envelops of the first type. This correction introduces no
additional material constants. The third type of envelop that will be consid2

1.2

= /c

0.8

Cyclic loading:
unloading
loading

max
4

nucleation
cohesive
envelop

0.6
th
0.4

min

0.2

Type 1 - Regular (e.g., UBER)

Type 2 - Slanted (Elast. corrected)
Type 3 - Overslanted (th = 0.50)

= /c

+
1

= /c

(a)

= /c

(b)

Fig. 1. a) Schematic of hysteretic cohesive law and corresponding definition of fatigue-crack initiation. b) The three types of cohesive envelop considered.

ered differs from the second in the existence of a threshold stress th . In this
type of envelop = 0 for the entire interval 0 th .
For fatigue applications, specification of the monotonic cohesive envelop is
not enough and the cohesive behavior of the material under cyclic loading
is of primary concern. Suppose, in particular, that the cohesive surface is
cycled at an amplitude smaller than the cohesive envelop. A class of simple
phenomenological models which embody these assumptions is obtained by
assuming different incremental stiffnesses depending on whether the cohesive
surface opens or closes (cf. [1], and Fig. 1(a)),

K ,

if
= +

K , if

< 0
,
> 0

(2)

where K + and K are the loading and unloading incremental stiffnesses, respectively. We regard these stiffnesses as internal variables in the spirit of
damage theories, with an evolution governed by suitable kinetic equations.
For simplicity, we assume that unloading always takes place towards the origin, i. e., K remains constant during unloading and is determined by the
initial unloading point. By contrast, the reloading stiffness K + is assumed to
evolve in accordance with the kinetic relation

K + = K +
a

(3)

where the fatigue endurance length a is a characteristic opening displacement.

By simple time integration, the preceding equations suffice to determine the
evolution (t) of the opening displacement for an arbitrary loading history
(t). Evidently, when the slope of the monotonic cohesive envelop at (t) is
3

negative load control can be maintained only if the point ((t), (t)) is below the monotonic envelop. When the curve ((t), (t)) meets the descending
branch of the monotonic cohesive envelop, the material interface loses stability,
Fig. 1(a). We take this event, which signals the failure of the material interface, to coincide with the nucleation of a fatigue-crack. Thus, the problem of
predicting fatigue-crack nucleation for an arbitrary loading history (t) is reduced to the determination of the point of first contact of the curve ((t), (t))
with the descending branch of the monotonic cohesive envelop.
If, by way of example, the material is subjected to constant amplitude cycles
with tractions ranging from min 0 to max c , then a straightforward
asymptotic analysis shows that the number of cycles required for the opening
displacement at max to increase from to + is
2
Ni N c
(1 R)2

c
c

(4)

where the load ratio R = min /max and Nc = a /c . The values of and
+ are determined by the ascending and descending branches of the cohesive
envelop at = max , Fig. 1(a).
Since /c and + /c depend on max /c (cf. Fig. 1(a)), the model predicts
the number of cycles to nucleation to be a function of three ratios: max /c ,
R, and Nc . It is interesting to note that relation (4) can predict threshold
behavior. Thus, suppose that the monotonic envelop () exhibits a threshold
traction th , i. e., = 0 for th . Then, it follows from Eq. (4) that Ni =
for max th , i. e., nucleation requires that max exceed the threshold value
th . An additional feature of the model that results from Eq. (4) is that at
fixed max the effect of increasing R is to shift the log N log max curve to
the right of the diagram. The model also predicts that the threshold stress for
fatigue-crack initiation is equal to th and independent of R. These and other
predictions of the model provide a basis for its experimental validation.

Comparison with experiment

Common total fatigue life experimental plots are [5, 1012]: Wohler plots of
stress amplitude = max min vs. cycles to failure Nf , at constant mean
stress
= (max + min )/2, also called S-N plots; and Haigh plots of vs.
,
at constant Nf . Two other variants of Wohler plots are also found in the
literature, namely vs. Nf at constant R, and max vs. Nf at constant R.
When smooth samples are used, the number of cycles Ni at initiation represent
a considerable fraction of the total life Nf of the sample. The experimental
data considered here correspond to smooth samples and thus we assume that
4

max=max/c

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

R=0.5
R=0.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Solid line: Calc, th=0.4c, Nc=2000
Symbols: Exp, Al. alloy 2048-T851
0.1 2
10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Fig. 2. Comparison bewteen experiments (symbols: aluminum alloy 2048-T851

[13], c = uniaxial tensile strength; open symbols: long transverse, uniaxial tensile strength = 465 MPa; closed symbols: longitudinal, uniaxial tensile strength
= 457 MPa) and calculations (lines: Eq. (4) with cohesive envelop type 3,
th = 0.4c , Nc = 2000).

Nf Ni = N to a first approximation.
By way of validation we compare experimental results, in the form max vs. N
at constant R, with the predictions of our model, as given by Eq. (4) and a
monotonic cohesive envelop with an initial threshold stress th . In all comparisons the monotonic cohesive strength c is taken to coincide with uniaxialtension strength of the material, whereas the parameters Nc and th are fitted
for best agreement with experiment.
In Fig. 2 we compare calculated and experimental results for 2048-T851 aluminum alloy [13]. As is evident from this figure, the predicted log N log max
and its dependence on R are in the ballpark of experimental observation. In
particular, the maximum and threshold values of max , the overall shape of
the log N log max curve and the shift to the right induced by an increase in
R are within experimental scatter. Figs. 3 and 4 show additional comparisons
with experimental data for high strength steels 300M [14] and AISI 4340 [12].
Again, the general trends of the experimental datawith allowances made for
its considerable scatterare captured by the model. These include the maximum and threshold values of max , the overall shape of the log N log max
and the effect of R.

Discussion and summary

We have reported an assessment of the ability of hysteretic cohesive-law models to predict fatigue-crack initiation. The great appeal of these models is
that: they can be applied to general geometries, e. g., two-dimensional and
three-dimensional; they can be applied under general loading conditions, e. g.,
5

max=max/c

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

R=0.05

+
+
++
+

+
+++ +
+ ++ +
+ +
+++
+
+ +

R=0.2
+

++ +
++

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Solid lines: Calc, th=0.5c, Nc=333
Symbols: Exp, steel 300M, UTS=1930MPa
0.1 2
10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Fig. 3. Comparison bewteen experiments (symbols: steel 300M [14], c = uniaxial

tensile strength = 1930 MPa) and calculations (lines: Eq. (4) with cohesive envelop
type 3, th = 0.5c , Nc = 333).

max=max/c

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

R=0.54
R=0.2

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Dashed lines: Calc, equivalent stress model
Solid lines: Calc, th=0.53c, Nc=167
Symbols: Exp, AISI 4340 steel, UTS=1920MPa
0.1 2
10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Fig. 4. Comparison bewteen experiments (symbols: AISI 4340 steel, c = uniaxial

tensile strength = 1920 MPa [12]) and calculations (solid lines: Eq. (4) with cohesive
envelop type 3, th = 0.53, Nc = 167; dashed lines: equivalent stress model [12]).

irregular or random cyclic loading, overloads, static or dynamic loading; and

that they can be applied in conjunction with arbitrary material models of
bulk behavior, e. g., elastic or plastic. In other approaches to fatigue-life prediction, the consideration of each of the features just alluded to requires a
certain amount of tweaking of the fatigue model and the introduction of additional adjustable parameters, which detracts fromand calls into questionthe
predictive ability of the models. An additional appeal of the approach is that it
can conveniently be implemented as a post-processing step to a finite-element
stress analysis. In this latter framework, the detection of a fatigue-crack nucleation event can be done locally at the quadrature-point level based on the
calculated stress history.
The particular model presented in this note depends on three adjustable parameters only. Despite the small number of constants, the model does capture
salient features of the experimental data such as the maximum and threshold
stresses, the overall shape of the log N log max and the effect of R. By way
6

of contrast, the phenomenological equivalent stress model [12], which has four
adjustable parameters, fits experimental dataat bestmarginally better than
the model, and it does not account for saturation under conditions of low-cycle
fatigue, Fig. 4.
Some of the limitations of the present model should also be carefully noted.
For instance, in the case of high-strength steels the right-shift with increasing
R appears to be somewhat under-predicted by the model. In addition, the
data may be interpreted as being suggestive of a dependence of the threshold
stress on R, a dependence which is not accounted for in the present model.
It is conceivable that more complex damage laws than the simple relation
(3) assumed in this work might resolve some of the limitations of the present
model and result in better agreement with experiment, albeit at the expense
of additional complexity and adjustable parameters.

References
[1] O. Nguyen, E. A. Repetto, M. Ortiz, R. Radovitzky, A cohesive model of
fatigue crack growth, Int. J. Fract. 110 (4) (2001) 351369.
[2] A. de-Andres, J. L. Perez, M. Ortiz, Elastoplastic finite element analysis
of three-dimensional fatigue crack growth in aluminum shafts subjected
to axial loading, Int. J. Sol. Struct. 36 (15) (1999) 22312258.
[3] K. Roe, T. Siegmund, Simulation of interface fatigue crack growth via a
fracture process zone model, in: K. J. Bathe (Ed.), First M.I.T. conference
on computational fluids and solid mechanics, Elsevier, New York, NY,
2001, pp. 435437.
[4] K. L. Roe, T. Siegmund, An irreversible cohesive zone model for interface
fatigue crack growth simulation, Eng. Fract. Mech. 70 (2) (2003) 209232.
[5] S. Suresh, Fatigue of materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1991.
[6] G. T. Camacho, M. Ortiz, Computational modelling of impact damage
in brittle materials, Int. J. Sol. Struct. 33 (20-22) (1996) 28992938.
[7] M. Ortiz, A. Pandolfi, Finite deformation irreversible cohesive elements
for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis, Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Eng. 44 (9) (1999) 12671282.
[8] J. H. Rose, J. R. Smith, F. Guinea, J. Ferrante, Universal features of the
equation of state of metals, Phys. Rev. B 29 (6) (1984) 29632969.
[9] J. R. Rice, Dislocation nucleation from a crack tip: an analysis based on
the Peierls concept, J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 40 (2) (1992) 239271.
[10] O. H. Basquin, The exponential law of endurance tests, Proc. ASTM 10
(1910) 625630.
[11] D. W. Cameron, Fatigue properties in engineering, in: ASM metals hand7

book Vol. 19, Fatigue and fracture, ASM International, Materials Park,
OH, 1996, pp. 1526.
[12] Military standardization handbook - Metallic materials and elements for
aerospace vehicle structures, MIL-HDBK-5H, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., 1998.
[13] Properties of wrought aluminum and aluminum alloys, in: ASM metals
handbook Vol. 2, Properties and selection: nonferrous alloys and specialpurpose materials, 10th Edition, ASM International, Materials Park, OH,
1990, pp. 62122.
[14] B. Boardman, Fatigue resistance of steels, in: ASM metals handbook
Vol. 1, Properties and selection: irons, steels, and high-performance alloys,
10th Edition, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1990, pp. 673688.