Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Investigation on crack behaviours by closing its surface using

impact treatment
Zhiyuan YuanZhou, Bohai Ji ⁎, Qiudong Wang, Zhongqiu Fu
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The approach for fatigue crack retrofitting by closing the crack surface has received much attention. Experimental
Received 21 March 2018 work on crack-closure treatment by repeated impact was carried out, and the deformation of the crack surface
Received in revised form 22 December 2018 was analysed, as well as the distribution of internal residual stresses. Simulations using the finite-element
Accepted 14 January 2019
method were undertaken, and the crack surface closure behaviour with, and without, loading were compared.
Available online xxxx
It is found that the relative plastic deformation of the crack surface is the main cause of crack surface closure. In-
Keywords:
ternal residual stress field, i.e., the contact stress, is distributed along the closed surface, as mainly caused by elas-
Crack surface behaviour tic compression of the crack surface. The crack, after treatment, remains closed, improving the local bearing
Crack closure effect capacity, until the applied stress becomes larger.
Contact stress © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Material hardness
Stress range

1. Introduction projects show it to be an economical and environmentally friendly way

Welded components are vulnerable to fatigue cracking under re-
peated load because of high stress concentration [1], caused by poor
welding profiles, residual tensile stress, etc. The fatigue cracks will
cause severe damage to structures if left untreated when it propagates
longer. Therefore, the approaches to fatigue crack repairing and
retrofitting are becoming a focus for engineers working on structural
projects relying on welding techniques [2].
In recent years, the crack-closure treatment technique has been de-
veloped for [3], and applied to, the cracked surface to improve its load-
carrying capacity or extend the service life of structurally deficient
members with less damage. The devices used for crack-closure treat-
ment are a portable air compressor, an impact air tool, and a chisel, as
shown in Fig. 1. With the help of repeated chisel impacts, a closed
crack surface, i.e., the contact of crack surface, can be formed. Some ex-
perimental and analytical studies on the crack-closure treatment have
been carried out: Yamada et al. [4] and Ishikawa et al. [5] investigated
the fatigue life extension of various welded joints by carrying out fatigue
tests, and found improvements in fatigue life thereof. The authors also
evaluated this technique based on fatigue tests [6,7], and the results
supported the conclusion obtained by Yamada et al. [4]. Moreover, a de-
tailed investigation on local stress variation [8] indicated that the intro-
duced compressive stress is the main reason for crack retrofitting. These
in which to satisfy maintenance requirements for cracked members.
The main technical feature in the crack-closure treatment is the
crack closure effect, however, the type of crack closure effect described
differs from the common crack closure phenomenon as pointed out by
Elber [9]. For a review of fatigue crack closure [10], the common crack
closure phenomenon is nowadays usually called plasticity-induced
crack closure where it appears in a small region near the crack tip,
while the crack closure effect discussed here is manifest on the crack
surface. When closing the crack surface, crack behaviours upon loading
and unloading may differ from that without closure: this is worthy of
discussion. Since the development of crack-closure treatment is a recent
event, previous investigations [4–8] are mainly conducted to evaluate
the fatigue crack retrofitting effect, however, as for the behaviour in
crack surface closure, further investigations are necessary to achieve
this purpose.
In this work, experimental and numerical approaches were used.
The phenomenon of crack surface closure under repeated chisel impact
was analysed, as well as the residual stress field distributed along the
contact surface. The model describing the crack surface closure behav-
iours was presented according to the aforementioned simulations.
Crack behaviours, upon both loading and unloading were discussed.
2. Experimental investigation

2.1. Experimental details

⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, No.1 Xikang
Road, Nanjing, China. Rectangular test blocks measuring 300 mm × 30 mm × 12 mm were
E-mail address: bhji@hhu.edu.cn (B. Ji). fabricated with the material of Q345qD steel according to Chinese

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.01.009
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8

The samples were cut out from the bottom of the test blocks, verti-
cally through the artificial crack part, for further inspection, as shown
in Fig. 3. The surface was processed by polishing and nital-etching
with 4% V/v. Then micro-hardness testing, with the machine type of
AHVD-1000, was carried out on the surface, because the material hard-
ness is deemed to be the comprehensive index best able to reflect mate-
rial strength, deformation, internal residual stress field, etc. In the
experiment, the indentation load was set to approximately 0.2 kgf
(1.96 N), and the loading time was 15 s. The Vickers hardness was iden-
tified by measuring the indentation size using software allied with the
microhardness tester. Two measurement paths were examined:
Path-1 was located in the middle of the cut surface, with the space of
0.2 mm between each indentation and total length of 6 mm, so the
hardness through the sample thickness can be investigated; Path-2
was set horizontally along the contact surface, with a spacing of
Fig. 1. Crack-closure treatment.
0.5 mm between indentations and a total length of 12 mm.

2.2. Observation of crack surface closure

Test blocks The crack surface deformations under each impact procedure are ob-
30 30 served by microscope, and the deformation contours of the crack sur-
I face are also presented in Fig. 4. Crack surface closure phenomenon is
found after the first impact procedure, and a certain contact depth of
crack surface is obtained. Most of the surface deformation occurs within
the side of the impact area, and the original surface is compressed owing
I+II to repeated impact. It is also found that the contact depth of the crack
surface increases after subsequent impacts and the deformed surface
Artificial Crack becomes smoother, which may decrease the possibility of new stress
concentrations arising. In case of larger crack widths, crack surface clo-
12

I+II+III
sure may not be observed in the first impact procedure, therefore
three impact procedures may be sufficient for crack closure and
(a) Part of a test block (unit: mm) (b) Impact procedures retrofitting purposes.
Fig. 5 shows the relationship between closure depth and the impact
Fig. 2. Testing details.
procedures, based on the mean value of measured data. It is found that
the closure depth increased after each impact treatment.
Table 1
Parameters for impact treatment.
2.3. Hardness distribution on the crack surface

Air compressor Impact air tool Chisel Fig. 6 shows the material hardness changes along Paths-1 and -2. A
Tank capacity Stable pressure Frequency Pin stroke size sharp increase of material hardness is obtained near the impact surface,
6 Liter 0.7 MPa 90 Hz 16 mm 5 mm × 5 mm gradually decreasing through the sample thickness and approaching the
original material hardness (about 120 MPa). The depth of the zone af-
fected by crack-closure treatment is about 2.2 mm, i.e., the material is
Standards [11]. Artificial cracks, manufactured by the wire electrical dis- hardened up to this depth. Although the material hardness may be af-
charge machining, were pre-formed in the blocks, as shown in Fig. 2a. fected by various factors, the compressive plastic deformation, due to
The cracks were 0.2 mm wide and 6 mm deep. The space between impact treatment, exerts the dominant influence in this case, and the
each crack was 30 mm, so the treatment process applied to each crack range of compressive plastic deformation distribution can be deter-
would not affect neighbouring cracks. The crack-closure treatment mined based on the depth of the affected zone. The depth of crack
was applied near the edge of the crack surface, with the bottom of test surface closure, before cutting out, is measured by a device with the
blocks fixed. The device parameters are listed in Table 1. Three impact type of ZBL-F800, and a closure-depth of about 1.5 mm is obtained, a lit-
procedures, denoted by I to III, were used to realise the phenomenon tle shallower than that affected. This difference may indicate that the
of crack surface closure [8], as shown in Fig. 2b. material on the closed surface is further compressed because of the

Fig. 3. Samples cut from test blocks.

 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8 3

Fig. 4. Crack surface deformation under different impact procedures.

2.4. Internal residual stress field

2.5
It has been demonstrated by experiments as well as finite element
simulations for various alloys that the internal residual stress field will
2.0
also influence the material hardness. Therefore, the internal residual
stress can be estimated based on the relationship between residual
Mean closure depth (mm)

stress and indentation size, which is deduced from [12,13]:

1.5  
σ res ¼ 3σ Y 1−C 2 ð1Þ

1.0 where σres is the residual stress, σY is the material yield stress, C2 is the
area ratio defined between the real projected contact area A and the
nominal projected contact area Anom (Fig. 7a), i.e.,
0.5
A
C2 ¼ ð2Þ
Anom

0.0
Since it was difficult to measure the coefficient h in Fig. 7a, an ap-
proximate alternative approach was used [14], based on the indentation
Impact procedures shape:

Fig. 5. Relationship between closure depth and impact procedures. A ¼ pa1 a2

ð3Þ
Anom ¼ d1 d2 =2

crack surface closure behaviour. Fig. 6b shows the material hardness as where a1, and a2 are the effective width of the indentation (equivalent
measured on the contact surface. It turns out that all such material is to a rectangle), d1, and d2 are the diagonal lengths of the indentation
hardened on the contact surface, and the average hardness is about (Fig. 7b), and p is a shape correction factor (about 0.96). The values of
137.7 MPa, higher than that of the original specimen surface. coefficients, in Eq. (3), were measured under the magnification of 200

Vicker-hardness (MPa) Position on closed surface (mm)

100 110 120 130 140 150 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 180
Left Right
1.5mm 170
1 Middle
2.2mm
160
Vicker-hardness (MPa)

Closure depth Average value of contact surface

2 Hardened up
150
Depth (mm)

Closure depth
3 140

Deformation depth 130

4
120

5
Crack
ck Data 110 Original material hardness
Tendency
6 100

( a) Pa th- 1 (b ) Pat h- 2

Fig. 6. Hardness distribution.

4 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8

Y X
Material surface

h
Indentation
Anom

(a) Description of real and nominal projected area (b) Measurement of areas A and Anom

Fig. 7. Residual stress field estimation approach.

disappears through the crack depth. The compressive residual stress,

perpendicular to the crack surface, will be released after cutting the
Residual stress (MPa) sample, while in other directions it will remain. The effect caused by
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 impact treatment still can be determined. Moreover, the residual stress
0 on the closed surface is greater than elsewhere, suggesting that the
contact surface may be further compressed due to crack surface closure.
1 It should be emphasised, that the method based on Eq. (1) remains sen-
Closure depth sitive to the indentation shape and measured coefficients, large devia-
tions may still occur even with precise measurement. Since the
2 Deformation depth residual stress will be affected by many factors, the value, shown in
Depth (mm)

Fig. 8, is used to provide a possible distribution after closing the crack

Approximate estimation surface, especially on the contact surface.
3

3. Simulation of crack surface closure

4
3.1. Finite-element model (FEM)

5
6 dimensional shell model was established, with the target material size
Fig. 8. Residual stress distribution.
times, using the metallurgical microscope with type of Olympus
BX51M.
The results are plotted in Fig. 8, presenting an estimation of the re-
sidual stress distribution through the crack depth. A large residual com-
pressive stress field is found near the impact surface, while it nearly
The process of crack-closure treatment was, approximately, simu-
lated using the commercial software ABAQUS (Version 6.16). A two-
being 50 mm × 12 mm, as shown in Fig. 9. The left-hand boundary of
the model was fixed with all freedoms, while the bottom was fixed in
the y-direction but allowed to deform in the x-direction, i.e., Uy = 0.
The chisel was modelled as a rigid body, of 5 mm width, and with the
bottom corner being rounded to a radius of 0.5 mm to avoid element
distortion. The crack was simulated by a gap, with a depth of 6 mm.
The crack width is set to 0.3 mm in the model, a little larger than that
manufactured, because the whole process of crack surface deformation
can be analysed in more detail under the aforementioned modelling

Fig. 9. Finite-element model.

 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8 5

Table 2 value of T is zero. Other values used in material modelling are listed in
Values for Johnson-Cook model of material Q345qD [16]. Table 2.
Young's Poisson Density A B n C ε* Three impact procedures (Fig. 2b) were simulated by providing a
modulus ratio certain plastic deformation instead of using an actual repeated impact,
206 GPa 0.3 7.9 374 795.7 0.4545 0.01586 1.0 according to the conclusions provided elsewhere [6]. The impact
t/m3 MPa MPa depth is controlled to 0.3 mm, which is obtained from the previous ex-
periment. Five simulation steps were considered, including three im-
pact steps, and two reset steps, for chisel translocation. Each step time
parameters. A minimum mesh size with 0.2 mm was applied across the was 10 ms.
impact region to achieve a smooth stress distribution therein, with
acceptable accuracy of output data. Linear element type CPS4R was
used in the simulation, because it can deal with grid distortion and sur- 3.2. Crack surface deformation
face displacement during impact, and can improve calculation effi-
ciency. The surface-to-surface contact type, with frictionless property, The crack surface deformation is plotted in relation to a reference
was used on the chisel-to-material impact surfaces and crack fracture point (RP) located 2 mm from the surface, as shown in Fig. 10. The
surfaces. deformations in the X- and Y-direction are denoted by Ux and Uy, respec-
An elasto-plastic analysis was carried out. The Johnson-Cook model tively, based on the coordinates presented in Fig. 9.
[15] was applied to model the dynamic yield strength, under such As is seen in Fig. 10a, an increase in Ux on the left-hand crack surface
high strain rates, when the material entered plasticity. The Johnson- is obtained during the first impact (I), and elastic recovery follows the
Cook model can be illustrated as lifting of the chisel, while the stabilised value represents the plastic de-

formation (about 150 μm). The second impact (II) is then processed
σ dy ¼ A þ Bε pl n ð1 þ Clnε Þð1−T Þ ð4Þ after resetting the chisel, and the crack surface contact is observed,
resulting in a small reduction of left-hand crack surface deformation
where σdy is the dynamic yield strength, A, B, and C are material coeffi- Ux, due to the extrusion of the right-hand crack surface. When the con-
cients, εpl is the equivalent plastic strain, ε⁎ is the plastic strain rate, n is tact occurs, the absolute values of Ux become almost equal and remain
the strain hardening parameter, and T is the dimensionless tempera- stable even after the third impact (III). This means that the deformations
ture. Since the experiment was carried out at room temperature, the of left-hand and right-hand surface are equal, thus, it is clear that the

200
Reset Reset Reset Reset
0
150 Impact Impact
Elastic recovery -50
Deformation size / m
Deformation size / m

100

50 Impact -100
Crack surface contact
0
-150
L R
-50
-200 Impact
-100 RP
L Impact L
-250
-150 R R Elastic recovery

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Time history (ms) Time history (ms)

(a) Ux (b) Uy

Fig. 10. Crack surface deformation of the RPs in horizontal and vertical directions.

(a) 0.2 mm (b) 0.3 mm (c) 0.5 mm

Fig. 11. Contact behaviours under different crack widths.

6 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8

w w w
r
l r l r l

w>l+r w=l+r w<l+r

(a) Unable to close (b) Critical closing (c) Able to close

Fig. 12. Illustration of crack surface closure behaviour.

horizontal deformation of crack surface is the main cause of crack sur-
face closure. The history of Uy is also plotted in Fig. 10b, and found
that the values of Uy are different during previous impact treatment,
while becomes similar after the final impact. This indicates that the
behaviour of crack surfaces is symmetrical throughout.
The other two cases considering the crack widths of 0.2 mm and
0.5 mm, respectively, are provided for comparison. Crack surface
contact can be seen in Fig. 11. It is found that, when the crack width is
small, the contact will occur after first impact, while it will not appear
when the crack width is larger.
As a result, the phenomenon of crack surface closure subjected to
plastic deformation is determined by two factors, i.e., the relative plastic
deformation of the crack surface and the crack width. The relationship
describing crack surface closure behaviour based on these two factors
can be presented as follows:
w≤l þ r
where w is the crack width, and l and r are the maximum amount of
plastic deformation on the left and right-hand fracture surfaces, respec-
tively. Contact between crack surfaces will only appear when the rela-
tive plastic deformation exceeds the crack width, otherwise, it will no
longer appear, as shown in Fig. 12. In these three cases, a critical closing
case will arise when the relative plastic deformation of the crack surface
is equal to the crack width, however, in the critical closing case, there is
no further compression between crack surfaces.
3.3. Contact stress distribution
The contact stress usually refers to the stress close to the area of con-
tact between two surfaces. The distribution of contact stress is worthy of
investigation, because it indicates the behaviour when closing the crack
50
Reset
0
surface. The history of the contact stress on the closed surface is
analysed on the basis of the same RPs (Fig. 10a), and the results are pre-
sented in Fig. 13. There is no contact stress, i.e. internal compressive
stress, generated during the first impact, while it appears to increase
after initial contact. Elastic recovery occurs when the chisel leaves the
impact surface. The contact stress increases again, during the third im-
pact procedure, due to the further extrusion of the contact surface,
then becomes stable. The final result of contact stress indicates that in-
ternal compressive stress has been introduced on the closed crack
surface.
Fig. 14 shows the distribution of contact stress through the crack sur-
face. It is found that the compressive stress is distributed within a depth
of 2.7 mm from the crack surface. The closure depth can be predicted as
corresponding to the distribution of compressive stress, because the
compressive stress can only be transferred through the contact surface.
It is also found that, a small range of compressive stress is obtained near
ð5Þ the crack tip, which may be caused by deformation of the crack surface,
as occurs in the bending of a cantilever beam component. However,
considering the crack tip size, crack tip closure may occur, due to this
small range of compressive stress [17]. This crack tip closure effect is
worthy of further investigation in subsequent research.
It should be emphasised, that the internal compressive stress distrib-
uted on the closed surface is a little different from the residual stress as
provided in Fig. 8. The internal compressive stress will disappear when
the closed surface opens, while the residual stress remains. The distribu-
tion of compressive stress will be affected by various factors, however,
the evidence of contact surface extrusion is clear.
Since the contact stress is generated by compressive deformation, its
value can be given by:
σ ¼ εel ∙E ð6Þ
Contact stress (MPa)
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
Reset 0
Contact stress
Closure depth

Initial contact by Eq.(6)

-50
1
Contact stress (MPa)

-100

-150 2
Further extrusion
Depth (mm)

-200 RP
3
-250 Ux

-300 4
Elastic recovery
-350 Compressed
5
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time history (ms) 6

Fig. 13. Contact stress history. Fig. 14. Distribution of contact stress.
 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8 7

Fig. 15. Restarted FEM.

100 120
With closure
50 Zero-stress stage Without closure
100
0
80
Contact stress (MPa)

-50
(MPa)
-100 60

-150 40

-200
20
-250

0
-300
100MPa 50MPa
-350 -20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time history (ms) Time history (ms)

(a) Contact stress (b) Surface stress

Fig. 16. Stress variation under fatigue load.

where σ is the contact stress, E is the material's Young's modulus, and εel
is the elastic strain on the fracture surface, given by:
εel ¼ eϵ −εpl −1
where εpl is the plastic strain on the fracture surface, and ϵ is the loga-
rithmic plastic strain. These two parameters can be both obtained
from FEM solutions. The comparison is also provided in Fig. 13, and
the distribution of data based on Eq. (6) on the contact surface matches
the FEM results. Calculation errors still occurred close to the surface due
to complex contact and deformation behaviours being modelled poorly,
nevertheless the general trend in the behaviour of the system is
modelled to an acceptable accuracy.
4. Crack surface behaviour under loading and unloading
Crack surface closure occurs due to the impact treatment, and it will
affect the closure surface behaviour under loading and unloading. To in-
vestigate this, further analysis (see Fig. 15) was conducted on the basis
of the previous FEM results, via the restarted function of ABAQUS. The
stress was applied to the right-hand surface, and other details were
the same as those used in the previous model, as shown in Fig. 9. Two
stress ranges were taken into account for the sake of comparison, with
maximum stress range 100 MPa and 50 MPa, respectively, and a stress
ratio R = 0. One cycle of the fatigue stress history was analysed.
Fig. 16a shows the contact stress variation under one cycle of the fa-
tigue stress history. It is found that the contact stress decreases with in-
ð7Þ
creasing stress range, indicating that the contact stress is the source of
the crack surface opening resistance. In addition, when applying larger
stress ranges, e.g. 100 MPa in this case, a zero-stress stage can be
found during the stress history, while there is no such behaviour ob-
served under lower-stress conditions. The appearance of this zero-
stress stage means that the crack surface has already opened. When
unloading, the contact stress reappears and increases nearly to its orig-
inal value owing to the reclosure of the crack surface. The symmetrical
nature of the contact stress distributions also indicates that the contact
stress is mainly caused by the elastic deformation, as illustrated by
Eq. (6).
With the help of contact stress, the bearing capacity of crack surface
can be thus improved obviously, as shown in Fig. 16b. Despite the initial
stress value, comparisons between equivalent stress history on the
crack surface, with and without crack surface closure, are carried out.
A sizable surface stress increase is observed for the model of crack sur-
face closure, while it remains zero when the crack surface opens. This
difference suggests that the crack surface can bear load once more
after closing crack surface, which supports the conclusions obtained ex-
perimentally [7,8].
8 Z. YuanZhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156 (2019) 1–8
5. Conclusions
Experimental and numerical investigations were conducted to in-
vestigate the behaviours of crack surface closure under impact treat-
ment. The crack surface deformation and its contact phenomenon
were both discussed. The following conclusions can be drawn from
this work:
(1) The phenomenon of crack surface closure is observed. A residual
compressive stress, i.e., the contact stress, is found to be distrib-
uted on the closed surface.
(2) The material on the crack surface is hardened after repeated im-
pacts, and large plastic deformation of the crack surface can be
verified according to the material hardness behaviour.
(3) A model describing the crack surface closure phenomenon is pre-
sented. The relative plastic deformation of the crack surfaces is
the main cause for the realisation of this phenomenon, and a re-
lationship describing the behaviour is provided.
(4) The crack surface, after impact, will remain closed, until the ap-
plied load becomes larger. With the help of the crack surface clo-
sure, the bearing capacity of the cracked surface will be improved
to a certain extent.
Acknowledgement
The research reported herein has been conducted as part of the re-
search projects granted by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (51678216, 51478163), and the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities (2018B41614). The assistances are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Y. Samol, K. Yamada, T. Shikawa, Fatigue Evaluation of rib-to-deck welded joints of
orthotropic steel bridge deck, J. Bridg. Eng. 18 (5) (2013) 492–499.
[2] R.J. Dexter, J.M. Ocel, Manual for Repair and Retrofit of Fatigue Cracks in Steel Brid-
ges, Federal Highway Administration Publication, USA, 2013 No. FHWA-IF-13-020.
[3] K. Yamada, T. Kakiichi, T. Ishikawa, Extending Fatigue Life of Cracked Welded Joint
by Impact Crack Closure Retrofit Treatment, IIW Document XIII-2289 r1–09, Inter-
national Institute of Welding, Singapore, 2009.
[4] K. Yamada, T. Ishikawa, T. Kakiichi, Rehabilitation and improvement of fatigue life of
welded joints by ICR treatment, Adv. Steel Constr. 11 (3) (2015) 294–304.
[5] T. Ishikawa, K. Yamada, T. Kakiichi, et al., Extending fatigue life of cracked out-of-
plane gusset by ICR treatment, Struct. Eng. Earthq. Eng. 28 (1) (2011) 21–28.
[6] Z.Y. YuanZhou, B.H. Ji, Z.Q. Fu, et al., Local stress variation in welded joints by ICR
treatment, J. Constr. Steel Res. 120 (2016) 45–51.
[7] Z.Y. YuanZhou, B.H. Ji, Z.Q. Fu, et al., Fatigue performance of cracked rib-deck welded
joint retrofitted by ICR technique, Int. J. Steel Struct. 16 (3) (2016) 735–742.
[8] Z.Y. YuanZhou, B.H. Ji, Z.Q. Fu, et al., Retarding effects on crack propagation by clos-
ing crack surface using ICR treatment, J. Constr. Steel Res. 143 (2018) 11–17.
[9] W. Elber, The Significance of Fatigue Crack Closure, vol. 486, ASTM STP, 1971
230–242.
[10] R. Pippan, A. Hohenwarter, Fatigue crack closure: a review of the physical phenom-
ena, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 40 (4) (2017) 471–495.
[11] JTG-D64, Specifications for Design of Highway Steel Bridge, China Communications
Press, 2015 (Chinese standard).
[12] S. Carlsson, P.L. Larsson, On the determination of residual stress and strain fields by
sharp indentation testing. Part I: theoretical and numerical analysis, Acta Mater. 49
(12) (2001) 2179–2191.
[13] S. Carlsson, P.L. Larsson, On the determination of residual stress and strain fields by
sharp indentation testing. Part II: experimental investigation, Acta Mater. 49 (12)
(2001) 2193–2203.
[14] C. Chen, C.X. Pan, F.U. Qiang, Micro-residual stress measurement using Vickers
micro-indentation, Mater. Mech. Eng. 31 (1) (2007) 8–11.
[15] G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook, A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high temperatures, Proceedings of the Seventh Interna-
tional Symposium on Ballistics, Netherlands: The Hague, vol. 21, 1983, pp. 541–548.
[16] W.J. Yu, J.Y. Shi, J.C. Zhao, Research of dynamic mechanical behavior of Q345 steel,
Build. Struct. 41 (3) (2011) 28–106 (in Chinese).
[17] K. Honnda, T. Torii, N. Toi, et al., Effect of residual stress field on fatigue crack growth
in cracked plates, J. Soc. Mater. Sci., Japan. 31 (348) (1987) 908–914.