Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nguyen Vinh Phu Program “Master of Science, Civil Engineering, 2012, Ton Duc Thang University”
1
Sunday, September 30, 1
Textbooks
• Anderson, T.L. (1995) Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals
and Applications, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, USA.
• Gdoutos E.E (2005) Fracture Mechanics: an introduction,
2nd Edition, Springer.
• Zehnder, T.A. (2007) Lecture Notes on Fracture
Mechanics, Cornel University, Ithaca, New York
• imechanica.org
• wikipedia 2
Sunday, September 30, 2
Outline
• Brief recall on mechanics of materials
• Introduction
Fatigue
- Paris law
- Overload and crack retardation
- cohesive crack model (Hillerborg, 1976)
Fracture of concrete - Continuum Damage Mechanics
- size effect (Bazant)
Computational fracture mechanics
- FEM, BEM, MMs
- XFEM
4
Sunday, September 30, 4
Stress-strain curves
P
Engineering stress and strain e = , ✏e =
A0 L0
ductile metals
Tension test
elastic unloading
E Young’s modulus e = E✏e
5 strain hardening (tai ben)
Sunday, September 30, 5
Stress/strain curve
fracture
necking=decrease of cross-sectional
Wikipedia area due to plastic deformation
1: ultimate tensile strength
6
Sunday, September 30, 6
Stress-strain curves
True stress and true (logarithmic) strain:
P dL
t = , d✏t =
A L
L
Z L
1 L
⌘ (extension ratio)
L0
! ✏t = dL = ln
L0 L L0
Plastic deformation:volume does not change
L A
dV = 0 ! AL = A0 L0 ! =
L0 A0
Relationship between engineering and true stress/strain
t = e (1 + ✏e ) = e
✏t = ln(1 + ✏e ) = ln 7
Sunday, September 30, 7
Stress-strain curve
concrete
pre-peak post-peak(strain softening)
ITZ
aggregates
cement paste
9
Sunday, September 30, 9
Some common material
models
no hardening
ys
✏ ✏
Linear elastic Elastic perfectly plastic
E
Plane problems µ=
2(1 + ⌫)
shear modulus
1 +1 2 2 2
u= ( x + y) 2( x y ⌧xy )
4µ 4
8
<3 4⌫ plane strain
Kolosov coefficient
= 3 ⌫
: plane stress
1+⌫
12
Sunday, September 30, 12
Indicial notation
a 3D vector i = 1, 2, 3
x = {x1 , x2 , x3 }
q p
||x|| = xi xi
||x|| = x21 + x22 + x23
two times repeated index=sum, p
summation/dummy index ||x|| = xk xk
14
Sunday, September 30, 14
Principal stresses
Principal direction
2⌧xy
tan 2✓p =
xx yy
Principal stresses are those stresses that act on principal surface. Principal
surface here means the surface where components of shear-stress is zero.
s✓ ◆2
xx + yy xx yy 2
1, 2 = ± + ⌧xy
2 15
2
Sunday, September 30, 15
Residual stresses
Residual stresses are stresses that remain
after the original cause of the stresses Wikipedia
(external forces, heat gradient) has been removed.
Causes
16
Sunday, September 30, 16
Residual stresses
TOTAL STRESS = APPLIED STRESS + RESIDUAL STRESS
Welding: produces tensile residual stresses -> potential sites for cracks.
18
Sunday, September 30, 18
Conventional failure analysis
before 1960s
Failure criterion
Stresses
f( , c) =0
Fracture
1970s Flaw size a toughness
- has also become a valuable tool for material scientists and engineers to guide
their efforts in developing materials with20improved mechanical properties.
Sunday, September 30, 20
Design philosophies
• Safe life
• Damage tolerance
21
Sunday, September 30, 21
Definitions
• Crack, Crack growth/propagation
• A fracture is the (local) separation of an
object or material into two, or more, pieces
under the action of stress.
load lines
27
Sunday, September 30, 27
Stress concentration (cont.)
uniaxial
biaxial
28
Sunday, September 30, 28
Elliptic hole
Inglis, 1913, theory of elasticity ✓ ◆
2b
3 = 1+ 1
a
b2
radius of curvature ⇢=
s !a
b
3 = 1+2 1
⇢
s
!!! 1 b
⇢ 3 =2
⇢
1
0 crack
stress concentration factor [-]
3 2b
KT ⌘ =1+
29
1 a
Sunday, September 30, 29
Griffith’s work (brittle materials)
FM was developed during WWI by English aeronautical engineer A. A. Griffith to
explain the following observations:
30
Sunday, September 30, 30
Griffith’s size effect experiment
Size effect: ảnh hưởng kích thước
const
s c = p p
b a c a = const
3 =2
⇢
1 Energy approach
32
Sunday, September 30, 32
Energy balance during
crack growth
kinetic energy
external work
Ẇ = U̇e + U̇p + U̇k + U̇ surface energy
internal strain energy
All changes with respect to time are caused by changes in
crack size: @(·) @(·) @a
=
@t @a @t
Energy equation is rewritten:
@W @Ue @Up @U
@a
=
@a
+
@a
+
@a
slow process
It indicates that the work rate supplied to the continuum by the applied loads is equal
to the rate of the elastic strain energy and plastic strain work plus the energy
dissipated in crack propagation 33
Sunday, September 30, 33
Potential energy ⇧ = Ue W
@⇧ @Up @U
= +
@a @a @a
Brittle materials: no plastic deformation
@⇧ @U
= Griffith’s through-thickness crack
@a @a
γs is energy required to form a unit of new surface
@⇧
[J/m2=N/m] =2 s (two new material surfaces)
@a ✓ ◆1/2
p 2E s
Inglis’ solution c a=
⇡
r
2
@⇧ ⇡ a 2 ⇡ a 2E s
= =2 s ! c =
@a E E ⇡a
(plane stress, constant load) 34
Sunday, September 30, 34
r
2 [N/m2]
⇡ a 2E s
=2 s ! c =
E ⇡a
[N/m2]
E : MPa=N/m2
check dimension
s : N/m
Dimensional r
Analysis
2
a: m ⇡ a 2E s
=2 s! c=
E ⇡a
App. of B=1
dimensional analysis
35
1 1 2 2
u= ✏= U= a 2
2 2E E
Sunday, September 30, 35
r
2 [N/m2]
⇡ a 2E s
=2 s ! c =
E ⇡a
[N/m2]
E : MPa=N/m2
check dimension
s : N/m
Dimensional r
Analysis
2
a: m ⇡ a 2E s
=2 s! c=
E ⇡a
App. of =⇡
B=1
dimensional analysis
35
1 1 2 2
u= ✏= U= a 2
2 2E E
Sunday, September 30, 35
Energy equation for
Plane stress
ductile materials
r
r
2E
2E ss
cc =
= Griffith (1921), ideally brittle solids
⇡a
⇡a
r
2E( + p)
c =
s
Irwin, Orowan (1948), metals
⇡a
p ⇡ 103 s (metals) 36
Sunday, September 30, 36
Energy release rate
d⇧
Irwin 1956 G⌘
dA
⇧ = Ue W
OAB=ABCD-(OBD-OAC)
1 (OAB)
G=
B a
1 shaded area
G=
B a4 a3 39
Sunday, September 30, 39
Crack extension resistance
Irwin
d⇧ dU
curve
dU
(R-curve) crack driving
force curve
p
G= = +
dA dA dA R-curve
dU dUp G=R
R⌘ +
dA dA
Resistance to fracture increases with growing
crack size in elastic-plastic materials.
R = R(a) Irwin
Stable crack growth: fracture
resistance of thin specimens
is represented by a curve not SLOW
a single parameter.
40
Sunday, September 30, 40
R-curve shapes
flat R-curve G=
a ⇡ 2
rising R-curve
(ideally brittle materials) E (ductile metals)
slope
crack grows then stops,
dG dR only grows further if
G = R, stable crack growth there is an increase of
da da 41
applied load
Sunday, September 30, 41
G in terms of compliance
P C
u
C= inverse of stiffness
P
K u
Fixed grips
dUe = Ue (a + da) Ue (a) P a
dP
1 1 a + da
= (P + dP )u Pu
2 2
1
= dP u
2 u
1 dP
G= u dA = Bda
2B da
2
1 u dC 1 2 dC
G= 2
= P dW dUe
2B C da 2B da G=
42 dA
Sunday, September 30, 42
G in terms of compliance
P C
u
C= inverse of stiffness
P
K
Fixed load u
1 1
dUe = P (u + du) Pu
2 2
P a + da
1
= P du
2 a
dW = P du
du
1 du
G= P u
2B da
1 2 dC
G= P dW dUe
2B da G=
43 dA
Sunday, September 30, 43
G in terms of compliance
Fixed grips Fixed loads
1 u2 dC 1 2 dC 1 2 dC
G= = P G= P
2B C 2 da 2B da 2B da
44
Sunday, September 30, 44
Stress analysis of
isotropic linear elastic
cracked solids
45
Sunday, September 30, 45
Airy stress function for
solving 2D linear elasticity problems
@ x @⌧xy @ y @⌧xy
Equilibrium: + = 0, + =0
@x @y @y @x
2 2 2
Airy stress @ @ @
x = 2
, y = 2
, ⌧xy =
function : @y @x @x@y
Compatibility 4 @ 4
@ @4 4
r = +2 2 2 + =0 (*)
condition: @x 4 @x @y @y 4
Bi-harmonic equation
For a given problem, choose an appropriate that
satisfies (*) and the boundary conditions.
! ij ! ✏ij ! ui
46
Sunday, September 30, 46
Crack modes
ar
47
Sunday, September 30, 47
Crack modes
48
Sunday, September 30, 48
Westergaard’s complex
1937
stress function for mode I
2
Z(z), z = x + iy, i = 1 = ReZ yImZ 0
xx
0
= ReZ̄¯ + yImZ̄ yy = ReZ + yImZ
Z Z ⌧xy = yReZ 0
Z̄ = Z(z)dz, Z̄¯ = Z̄(z)dz
✏ij ! ui
Kolosov
8 coef.
<3 4⌫ plane strain
= 3 ⌫ 1
: plane stress 2µu = ReZ̄ yImZ
1+⌫ 2
+1
E 2µv = ImZ̄ yReZ
µ=
2(1 + ⌫) shear modulus 2
49
Sunday, September 30, 49
Griffith’s crack (mode I)
(x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = , ⌧xy = 0
z
Z(z) = p
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0 z2 a2
boundary conditions
xx = ReZ yImZ 0
0
yy = ReZ + yImZ
1I ⌧xy = yReZ 0
y = 0, |x| < a
infinite plate x
Z(z) = p ⇠= is imaginary
i✓
x2 z a2a, ⇠ = re
p (⇠ + a)
I ⇡a Z(z) = p 2
Z(z) = p Z= p 0 ⇠(⇠ + a
2a)
2 2⇡⇠ Z (z) = ! 0
1 (a/z) (z 2 a2 )3/2
(x, y) ! 1 : z ! 1 Z ! 50
Sunday, September 30, 50
Griffith’s crack (mode I)
(x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = , ⌧xy = 0 z
Z(z) = p
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0 z2 a2
boundary conditions y
i✓
⇠=z a, ⇠ = re
p (⇠ + a)
⇡a Z(z) = p
Z= p ⇠(⇠ + 2a)
2⇡⇠
infinite plate 51
Sunday, September 30, 51
Griffith’s crack (mode I)
(x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = , ⌧xy = 0
(⇠ + a) (⇠ + a)
Z(z) = p
|x| < a, y ⇠(⇠
= 0+: 2a) = p
yy = ⌧xy2a⇠(1
= 0 + ⇠/(2a)))
p 1/2 y
1 + ⇠/(2a)) = (1 + ⇠/(2a))
1 ⇠
=1 + H.O.T
2 2a x
=1 ⇠ small
⇠ small ⇠+a=a
p
p p ⇡a
Z= ⇡a
Z= p 2⇡⇠
2⇡⇠ ⇠ small
52
Sunday, September 30, 52
KI p Recall
Z(z) = p , KI = ⇡a 0
2⇡⇠ xx = ReZ yImZ
KI i✓/2 i✓ = ReZ + yImZ 0
Z(z) = p e ⇠ = re yy
2⇡r ⌧xy = yReZ 0
0 1 KI 3/2 KI i3✓/2
Z (z) = p ⇠ = p e e ix
= cos x i sin x
2 2⇡ 2r 2⇡r
Crack tip stress field y = r sin ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ◆ sin ✓ = 2 sin cos
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ 2 2
xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2 2 2
◆ inverse square root
2⇡r
✓
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧xy = p sin cos sin
2⇡r 2 2 2
53 r ! 0 : ij ! 1
Sunday, September 30, 53
KI p Recall
Z(z) = p , KI = ⇡a 0
2⇡⇠ xx = ReZ yImZ
KI i✓/2 i✓ = ReZ + yImZ 0
Z(z) = p e ⇠ = re yy
2⇡r ⌧xy = yReZ 0
0 1 KI 3/2 KI i3✓/2
Z (z) = p ⇠ = p e e ix
= cos x i sin x
2 2⇡ 2r 2⇡r
Crack tip stress field y = r sin ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ◆ sin ✓ = 2 sin cos
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ 2 2
xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2 2 2
◆ inverse square root
2⇡r
✓
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p
2⇡r
cos
2
1 + sin cos
2 2 1
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
p
singularity
⌧xy = p
2⇡r
sin cos sin
2 2 2
r
53 r ! 0 : ij ! 1
Sunday, September 30, 53
Plane strain problems
Hooke’s law KI ✓
✓
✓ 3✓
◆
1 xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
✏zz = ( ⌫ xx ⌫ yy + zz ) ✓ ◆
E KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
Plane strain ✏zz = 0 ⌧xy = p
KI ✓ ✓
sin cos sin
3✓
2⇡r 2 2 2
z = ⌫( x + y)
KI ✓
z = 2⌫ cos
2⇡r 2
54
Sunday, September 30, 54
Stresses on the crack plane
✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧xy = p sin cos sin
2⇡r 2 2 2
yy =p
KI
2⇡r
cos
✓
2
✓
✓
1 + sin cos
2
3✓
2
◆
KI
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ p
⌧xy =p sin cos sin [MPa m]
2⇡r 2 2 2
SIMILITUDE
• Stresses-K: linearly proportional
• K uniquely defines the crack tip stress field
• modes I, II and III: K , K , K
I II III
• LEFM: single-parameter 56
Sunday, September 30, 56
Singular dominated zone
KI ✓
✓
✓ 3✓
◆
yy =p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
(crack plane) 1
crack tip
1
✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2⇡r 2
✓
2 2
◆
K-dominated zone
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧xy = p sin cos sin
2⇡r 2 2 2 57
Sunday, September 30, 57
Mode I: displacement field
✓ ◆ Recall
KI ✓ ✓
Z(z) = p cos i sin 1
2⇡r 2 2 2µu = ReZ̄ yImZ
Z 2
KI + 1
Z(z) = p Z̄ = Z(z)dz 2µv = ImZ̄ yReZ
2⇡⇠ 2
r ✓ ◆
KI 1/2 r ✓ ✓
Z̄(z) = 2 p ⇠ = 2KI cos + i sin z =⇠+a
2⇡ 2⇡ 2 2 i✓
⇠ = re
Displacement field e ix
= cos x i sin x
r ✓ ◆
KI r ✓ 2 ✓
u= cos 1 + 2 sin
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
r ✓ ◆
KI r ✓ 2 ✓
v= sin + 1 2 cos
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
58
Sunday, September 30, 58
Crack face displacement
y = 0, a x a
+1 +1
2µv = ImZ̄ yReZ v= ImZ̄
2 4µ
x p
Z(z) = p Z̄(z) = x2 a2
x2 a2
p p
axa i= 1 Z̄(z) = i( a2 x2 )
+1 p 2
v= a x2
4µ
ellipse
Crack Opening Displacement
+1 p 2
COD = 2v = a x2
2µ 59
Sunday, September 30, 59
Crack tip stress field in
polar coordinates-mode I
KI
ij = p fij (✓)
⇡a
✓ ◆
KI 5 ✓ 1 3✓
rr =p cos cos
2⇡r 4 2 4 2
✓ ◆
KI 3 ✓ 1 3✓ stress transformation
✓✓ = p cos + cos
2⇡r 4 2 4 2
✓ ◆
KI 1 ✓ 1 3✓
⌧r✓ = p sin + sin
2⇡r 4 2 4 2
60
Sunday, September 30, 60
Principal crack
s
tip stresses
✓ ◆2
xx + yy xx yy 2
1, 2 = ± + ⌧xy
2 2
✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
xx = p cos 1 sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓
✓ ◆ ⌧xy = p sin cos sin
2 2 2
KI ✓ ✓ 2⇡r
1 = p cos 1 + sin
2⇡r 2✓ 2◆
KI ✓ ✓
2 = p cos 1 sin
82⇡r 2 2
<0 plane stress
3 = 2⌫KI ✓
:p cos plane strain 3 = ⌫( 1 + 2)
2⇡r 2 61
Sunday, September 30, 61
Mode II problem
Boundary conditions (x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = 0, ⌧xy = ⌧
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0
Stress function i⌧ z
Z= p
z 2 a2
Check BCs
xx = ReZ yImZ 0
0
yy = ReZ + yImZ
⌧xy = yReZ 0
62
Sunday, September 30, 62
Mode II problem
Boundary conditions (x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = 0, ⌧xy = ⌧
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0
Stress function i⌧ z
Z= p
z 2 a2
✓ ◆
KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
xx = p sin 2 + cos cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
yy =p sin cos cos
2⇡r 2 2 2
✓ ◆
KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧xy =p cos 1 sin sin
2⇡r 2 2 2
p
mode II SIF K
63 II
= ⌧ ⇡a
Sunday, September 30, 63
Mode II problem (cont.)
(x, y) ! 1 :i⌧ zxx = yy = 0, ⌧xy = ⌧
Stress function Z= p
2 2
z a
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0
(x, y) ! 1 : xx = yy = 0, ⌧xy = ⌧
i⌧ z
|x| < a, y = 0 : yy = ⌧xy = 0 Z= p
z 2 a2
r ✓ ◆
KII r ✓ 2 ✓
u= sin
+ 1 + 2 cos
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
r ✓ ◆
KII r ✓ 2 ✓
v= cos 1 2 sin
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
p
mode II SIF KII = ⌧ ⇡a
64
Sunday, September 30, 64
Mode III problem
65
Sunday, September 30, 65
Universal nature of the
asymptotic stress field
Westergaards, Sneddon etc.
✓ ◆ ✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
xx = p cos 1 sin cos xx = p sin 2 + cos cos
2⇡r 2 2 2 2⇡r 2 2 2
✓ ◆ KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ yy = p sin cos cos
yy = p cos 1 + sin cos 2⇡r 2 2 2
2⇡r 2 2 2 ✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ KII ✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧xy = p sin cos sin ⌧xy = p cos 1 sin sin
2⇡r 2 2 2 2⇡r 2 2 2
K
Irwin ij =p fij (✓) + H.O.T
2⇡r
66
Sunday, September 30, 66
Inclined crack in tension
2 2
1 = x cos ✓ + 2 sin ✓ cos ✓⌧xy + sin ✓ y
2 2
2 = y cos ✓ 2 sin ✓ cos ✓⌧ xy + sin ✓ x
⌧12 = x cos ✓ sin ✓ + cos 2✓⌧xy + 0.5 sin 2✓ y
Final result
1 = (sin2 ) Recall p
p
KI = ⇡a cos2
2
= (cos ) KI = y ⇡a p
2
+ p
KII = ⌧xy ⇡a KII = ⇡a sin cos
⌧12 = (sin cos )
67
Sunday, September 30, 67
Inclined crack in tension
2 1
2 2
1 = x cos ✓ + 2 sin ✓ cos ✓⌧xy + sin ✓ y
2 2
2 = y cos ✓ 2 sin ✓ cos ✓⌧ xy + sin ✓ x
⌧12 = x cos ✓ sin ✓ + cos 2✓⌧xy + 0.5 sin 2✓ y
Final result
1 = (sin2 ) Recall p
p
KI = ⇡a cos2
2
= (cos ) KI = y ⇡a p
2
+ p
KII = ⌧xy ⇡a KII = ⇡a sin cos
⌧12 = (sin cos )
67
Sunday, September 30, 67
Cylindrical pressure vessel with an inclined
through-thickness crack
R
closed-ends 10 thin-walled pressure
t 2
(⇡R )p = (2⇡Rt) z
( l2R)p = (2 lt) ✓
pR pR p 2
z = KI = ⇡a(1 + sin )
2t 2t
pR pR p
✓ = KII = ⇡a sin cos
t 68 2t
Sunday, September 30, 68
Cylindrical pressure vessel with an inclined
through-thickness crack
✓ =2 z
This is why an overcooked hotdog usually
cracks along the longitudinal direction first
(i.e. its skin fails from hoop stress, generated
by internal steam pressure).
Equilibrium
pR pR p 2
z = KI = ⇡a(1 + sin )
2t
pR
2t
pR p ?
✓ = KII = ⇡a sin cos
t 69 2t
Sunday, September 30, 69
Computation of SIFs
• Analytical methods (limitation: simple geometry)
- superposition methods
- weight/Green functions
• Numerical methods (FEM, BEM, XFEM)
numerical solutions -> data fit -> SIF
handbooks
• Experimental methods
- photoelasticity
70
Sunday, September 30, 70
SIF for finite size samples
Exact (closed-form) solution for SIFs: simple crack
geometries in an infinite plate.
71
Sunday, September 30, 71
SIF for finite size samples
KI < KI
geometry/correction p
K = f (a/W ) ⇡a a ⌧ W : f (a/W ) ⇡ 1
factor [-] I
72
Sunday, September 30, 72
SIFs handbook
73
Sunday, September 30, 73
SIFs handbook
74
Sunday, September 30, 74
SIFs handbook
75
Sunday, September 30, 75
Reference stressp
KI = ⇡a
p
KI = max max ⇡a
p
KI = xa xa ⇡a
max max
xa = max =
xa 1 2a/W
76
Sunday, September 30, 76
Reference stressp
KI = ⇡a
p
KI = max max ⇡a
p
KI = xa xa ⇡a
76
Sunday, September 30, 76
Superposition method
A sample in mode I subjected to tension and bending:
bending
KItension KI
ij = p fij (✓) + p fij (✓)
2⇡r 2⇡r
bending
KItension + KI
ij = p fij (✓)
2⇡r
tension bending
KI = KI + KI
a/W = 0.2
B thickness
Solution
bend 6M p ten P p
KI = fM (a/W ) 2
⇡a KI = fP (a/W ) ⇡a
BW BW
1.055 1.12
✓ ◆
6M P p
KI = 1.055 + 1.12 ⇡a
BW 2 BW
78
Sunday, September 30, 78
Superposition method
Centered crack under internal pressure
p
KId + KIe = KIb = 0 ! KIe = KId = ⇡a
80
Sunday, September 30, 80
SIFs: asymmetric loadings
Procedure: build up the case from symmetric
cases and then to subtract the superfluous
loadings.
KA = KB + KC KD
KA = (KB + KC )/2
81
Sunday, September 30, 81
Two small cracks at a hole
82
Sunday, September 30, 82
Photoelasticity
Wikipedia
Photoelasticity is an experimental method to determine the stress distribution in a material.
The method is mostly used in cases where mathematical methods become quite cumbersome.
Unlike the analytical methods of stress determination, photoelasticity gives a fairly accurate
picture of stress distribution, even around abrupt discontinuities in a material. The method is an
important tool for determining critical stress points in a material, and is used for determining
stress concentration in irregular geometries.
83
Sunday, September 30, 83
K-G relationship
So far, two parameters that describe the
behavior of cracks: K and G.
87
Sunday, September 30, 87
SIF in terms of compliance
1 2 dC
G= P B: thickness
2B da
0 2
2 E P dC
KI2 KI =
GI = 0 2B da
E
87
Sunday, September 30, 87
Units
88
Sunday, September 30, 88
Example
89
Sunday, September 30, 89
1 OAi Aj
G=
2B aj ai
95
Sunday, September 30, 95
K as a failure criterion
p
Failure criterion K = Kc f (a/W ) ⇡a = Kc
W, Kc fracture toughness
• Problem 1: given crack length a, compute the
maximum allowable applied stress
Kc
max = p
f (a/W ) ⇡a
97
Sunday, September 30, 97
Example solution
p pR
KI = 1.12 ✓ ⇡a z =
2t
a pR
KI = KIc /S ✓ =
t
problem 1 problem 2
p = 12MPa a = 1mm
98
Sunday, September 30, 98
Example
Griffith Irwin
r
2E s KIc
c = =5.8 Mpa c =p =479 Mpa
⇡a ⇡a
99
Sunday, September 30, 99
Mixed-mode fracture
KI = KIc
KIII = KIIIc
lowest Kc: safe
Superposition cannot be applied to SIF.
However, energy can.
KI2 2
KII 2
KIc
G= 0 + 0 Gc = 0
E E E
Fracture occurs when
G = Gc 2
KI + 2
KII = 2
KIc
100
Sunday, September 30, 100
Experiment verification of the
mixed-mode failure criterion
2
KI + 2
KII = 2
KIc
a circle in
KI, KII plane
102
Sunday, September 30, 102
Crack tip plasticity
• Irwin’s model
• Strip Yield model
• Plane stress vs plane strain
• Plastic zone shape
103
Sunday, September 30, 103
Introduction
• Griffith's theory provides excellent agreement with experimental data for
brittle materials such as glass. For ductile materials such as steel, the surface
energy (γ) predicted by Griffith's theory is usually unrealistically high. A
group working under G. R. Irwin at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
(NRL) during World War II realized that plasticity must play a significant role
in the fracture of ductile materials.
R⌧D
104
Sunday, September 30, 104
Validity of K in presence of a
plastic zone
crack tip Fracture process usually occurs in
the inelastic region not the K-
dominant zone.
106
Sunday, September 30, 106
Paradox of a sharp crack
At crack tip:
r=0! ij =1
ys
KI2
r1 = 2
2⇡ ys
first order approximation of plastic zone size: equilibrium
is not satisfied 108
Sunday, September 30, 108
Irwin’s plastic correction
109
Sunday, September 30, 109
Irwin’s plastic correction
plate behaves as with a longer crack
KI2
rp = 2r1 = 2
⇡ ys
3 = ⌫( xx + yy ) = 2⌫ yy
3 = 0.66 yy ⌫ = 0.33
=
Tresca’s criterion = ys
1 ys 1 3
y = ys y = 3 ys
111
Sunday, September 30, 111
Irwin’s plastic correction
crack tip LEFM:
R⌧D
Z r1 rp is small
ys r1 = yy dr
2
0 1 KI
rp = 2
3⇡ ys
0.2
y
0
rp/(KI/(
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.6−0.4−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 2 0.6 0.8
rp/(KI/( y))
constrained by the
surrounding material
dog-bone shape
ASTM (based on
Irwin’s model)
Constraint
conditions
117
Sunday, September 30, 117
Compact tension test
Cyclic loading: introduce a crack ahead of the notch
Stop cyclic load, apply forces P
Monitor maximum load and CMOD until failure (can sustain no
further increase of load)
P Q ! KQ
check constraint
conditions
KIc = KQ
118
Sunday, September 30, 118
Fracture toughness test
ASTM E399
plane strain ✓ ◆2
25 KI
B > 25rp =
3⇡ ys
a > 25rp
Text 119
Sunday, September 30, 119
Strip Yield Model
proposed by Dugdale and Barrenblatt
• Infinite plate with though thickness crack 2a
• Plane stress condition
• Elastic perfectly plastic material
Hypotheses:
• All plastic deformation concentrates in a line in front of
the crack.
• The crack has an effective length which exceeds that of
the physical crack by the length of the plastic zone.
• ⇢ : chosen such that stress singularity at the tip
disappears. 120
Sunday, September 30, 120
Strip Yield Model (cont.)
Superposition principle
ys
KI = KI + KI
ys ys p
KI = ⇡(a + c)
r ✓ ◆
ys a+c 1 a
KI = 2 ys cos
⇡ a+c
(derivation follows) ⌧ ys
K
ij =p fij (✓) + H.O.T 1 2
2⇡r ✓ ◆ cos x = 1 x + ···
a ⇡ 2!
KI = 0 = cos
a+c 2 ys Irwin’s result 0.318
✓ ◆ 2 ✓ ◆2
c=
⇡ 2 2
a
=
⇡ KI close to 1 KI
2 rp =
8 ys 8 ys 0.392 121
⇡ ys
Sunday, September 30, 121
SIF for plate with
normal force at crack
P = ys dx
r
P a+x Z c ✓r r ◆
KA = p ys ys c x c+x
⇡a a x KI = p + dx
r ⇡c a c+x c x
P a x
KB = p r ✓ ◆
⇡a a+x a+c a
ys 1
KI = 2 ys cos
⇡ a+c
Gdoutos, chapter 2, p40 122
Sunday, September 30, 122
Effective crack length
✓ ◆2 ✓ ◆2
1 KI ⇡ KI
r1 = rp =
2⇡ ys 8 ys
123
Sunday, September 30, 123
Fracture vs. Plastic collapse
P
P W
net = = P
W a W a =
W unit thickness
(cracked section)
⇣ ⌘ a
W a
Yield: = ys = ys 1
W a W
124
Sunday, September 30, 124
Fracture vs. Plastic collapse
P
P W
net = = P
W a W a =
W unit thickness
(cracked section)
⇣ ⌘ a
W a
Yield: = ys = ys 1
W a W
124
Sunday, September 30, 124
Example
Consider an infinite plate with a central crack of length 2a
subjected to a uniaxial stress perpendicular to the crack
plane. Using the Irwin’s model for a plane stress case, show
that the effective SIF is given as follows
p
⇡a
Ke↵ =
⇣ ⌘2 1/2
1 0.5 ys
Solution:
The effective crack length is a + r1
p
The effective SIF is thus Ke↵ = ⇡ (a + r1 )
2
Ke↵
with r1 = 2
2⇡ ys
125
Sunday, September 30, 125
Example
1. Calculate the fracture toughness of a material for which a plate
test with a central crack gives the following information: W=20in,
B=0.75in, 2a=2in, failure load P=300kip. The yield strength is 70ksi. Is
this plane strain? Check for collapse. How large is the plastic zone
at the time of fracture?
Kc
fr = p
⇡a
35.4
fr = p = 6.73 ksi
2.1 ⇥ ⇡ ⇥ 2
5 2
col = 70 ⇥ = 42 ksi
5
• J-integral (Rice,1958)
• Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD), (Wells,
1963)
130
Sunday, September 30, 130
Introduction
No unloading
- deformation theory
plasticity models:
131 - flow theory
Sunday, September 30, 131
J-integral Wikipedia
Eshelby, Cherepanov, 1967, Rice, 1968
Z ✓ ◆
@ui
J= W n1 ti d
@x1
Z ✓Z ✓ ◆ ◆
@ui @ui N
J =J = W dxW 2 dxt2i ti ds ds
@x1 @x1 m
Z ✏
W = ij d✏ij strain energy density
0
ti = ij nj surface traction
J integral
(1) J=0 for a closed path
@W @W @✏ij @W
= = ij
@a @✏ij @a @✏ij
✓ ◆ d @ @ @x
@✏ij 1 @ @ui @uj = +
= + da @a @x @a
@a 2 @a @xj @xi @x
nonlinear elastic = 1
134 @a
Sunday, September 30, 134
✓
J-integral
◆
A:B=0
symmetric skew-symmetric
@W 1 @ @ui @uj
= ij +
@a 2 @a @xj @xi
@W @ @ui @ @ui Z Z
= ij = ij @W @ui
@a @a @xj @xj @a dA = ti ds
Z Z A0 @a @a
@ @ui @ui
ij dA = ij nj ds
A0 @xj @a @a
Gauss theorem
Z Z
d⇧ @W @ui nx ds = dy
= dA + ti ds
da A0 @x @x
J
Z ✓ ◆
d⇧ @ui
= W dy ti ds
da @x
135
Sunday, September 30, 135
✓
J-integral
◆
A:B=0
symmetric skew-symmetric
@W 1 @ @ui @uj
= ij +
@a 2 @a @xj @xi
@W @ @ui @ @ui Z Z
= ij = ij @W @ui
@a @a @xj @xj @a dA = ti ds
Z Z A0 @a @a
@ @ui @ui
ij dA = ij nj ds
A0 @xj @a @a
Gauss theorem
Z Z
d⇧ @W @ui Gauss theorem, nnxxds
ds =
= dy
dy
= dA + ti ds
da A0 @x @x
J
Z ✓ ◆
d⇧ @ui
= W dy ti ds
da @x
135
Sunday, September 30, 135
✓
J-integral
◆
A:B=0
symmetric skew-symmetric
@W 1 @ @ui @uj
= ij +
@a 2 @a @xj @xi
@W @ @ui @ @ui Z Z
= ij = ij @W @ui
@a @a @xj @xj @a dA = ti ds
Z Z A0 @a @a
@ @ui @ui
ij dA = ij nj ds
A0 @xj @a @a
Gauss theorem
Z Z
d⇧ @W @ui Gauss theorem, nnxxds ds =
= dy
dy
= dA + ti ds
da A0 @x @x
J J-integral is equivalent to the
Z ✓ ◆ energy release rate for a
d⇧ @ui
= W dy ti ds nonlinear elastic material under
da @x quasi-static condition.
135
Sunday, September 30, 135
J-K relationship
KI2 2
KII 2
KIII
G= 0 + 0 +
E E 2µ
Z ✓ ◆
d⇧ @ui
da
= W dy ti
@x
ds (previous slide)
KI2 2
KII 2
KIII
J= 0 + 0 +
E E 2µ
136
see slide 43
COD is taken as the separation of the faces of the effective crack at the tip of the physical crack
r
+1 ry =
3 ⌫ CTOD
uy = KI 1+⌫
2µ 2⇡ 4 KI2
✓ ◆2 = 2uy =
1 KI ⇡ ys E
ry = E
2⇡ ys 2µ =
1+⌫
(Irwin’s plastic correction, plane stress) 138
Sunday, September 30, 138
CTOD-G-K relation
Wells observed:
The degree of crack blunting increases
in proportion to the toughness Fracture occurs = c
of the material
140
Sunday, September 30, 140
CTOD experimental
determination
Plastic hinge
rigid
similarity of triangles
142
Sunday, September 30, 142
Example
143
Sunday, September 30, 143
Example
2a = 25.2cm
144
Sunday, September 30, 144
Fatigue crack growth
• S-N curve
• Constant amplitude cyclic load
- Paris’ law
• Variable amplitude cyclic load
- Crack retardation due to overload
145
Sunday, September 30, 145
Fatigue
• Fatigue occurs when a material is subjected to repeated loading and unloading (cyclic loading).
• Under cyclic loadings, materials can fail (due to fatigue) at stress levels well below their
strength -> fatigue failure.
• ASTM defines fatigue life, Nf, as the number of stress cycles of a specified character that a
specimen sustains before failure of a specified nature occurs.
blunting
resharpening
146
Sunday, September 30, 146
Cyclic loadings
max = min
= max min
min
R= load ratio 147
max
148
Sunday, September 30, 148
1. Initially, crack growth rate is small
2. Crack growth rate increases rapidly when a is large
3. Crack growth rate increases as the applied stress
increases
149
Sunday, September 30, 149
Fatigue
• Fatigue occurs when a material is subjected to repeated loading and unloading (cyclic loading).
• Under cyclic loadings, materials can fail (due to fatigue) at stress levels well below their
strength.
• ASTM defines fatigue life, Nf, as the number of stress cycles of a specified character that a
specimen sustains before failure of a specified nature occurs.
scatter!!!
R = Kmin /Kmax
da
crack grow per cycle = f1 ( K, R)
K = Kmax Kmin dN
C, m
are material properties that must be
determined experimentally.
153
Sunday, September 30, 153
Other fatigue models
Forman’s model (stage III) Paris’ model
da m
= C( K)
dN
R = Kmin /Kmax
Kmax Kmin da
Kc (Kmax Kmin ) Kmax = Kc : =1
Kmax dN
154
Sunday, September 30, 154
Fatigue life calculation
• Given: Griffith crack, 2a , 0 , C, m, KIc , N0
• Question: compute N f K=
p
⇡a
da da
dN = m
= p
C( K) C( ⇡a)m
Z af
da
N = N0 + p m
a0 C( ⇡a)
m=4
Z af ✓ ◆
1 da 1 1 1
N = N0 + = N 0 +
C( )4 ⇡ 2 a0 a2 C( )4 ⇡ 2 a0 af
155
Sunday, September 30, 155
Fatigue life calculation
• Given: Griffith crack, 2a , 0 , C, m, KIc , N0
• Question: compute N f K=
p
⇡a
da da
dN = m
= p
C( K) C( ⇡a)m
Z af
da
N = N0 + p m
a0 C( ⇡a)
m=4
Z af ✓ ◆
1 da 1 1 1
N = N0 + = N 0 +
C( )4 ⇡ 2 a0 a2 C( )4 ⇡ 2 a0 af
p
Kmax = max ⇡af = KIc
155
Sunday, September 30, 155
Numerical integration
Z
of fatigue law
af
da
N = N0 +
C(
p
f (a/W ) ⇡a)m tedious to compute
a0
156
Sunday, September 30, 156
Importance of
initial crack length
157
Sunday, September 30, 157
Miner’s rule for variable
1945 load amplitudes
Shortcomings:
1 1. sequence effect not considered
2. damage accumulation is
2 independent of stress level
N1 a 1
N1f Nᵢ/Nif : damage
Xn
Ni
Ni number of cycles a0 to ai
=1
i=1
N if
i
Nif number of cycles a0 to ac
158
Sunday, September 30, 158
Variable amplitude cyclic loadings
⇤
da ✏ three stress values
= f2 ( K, R, H)
dN
plasticity: history dependent
history variables
plastic wake
159
Sunday, September 30, 159
Overload and crack retardation
It was recognized empirically that the application of a tensile overload in a constant
amplitude cyclic load leads to crack retardation following the overload; that is, the crack
growth rate is smaller than it would have been under constant amplitude loading.
160
Sunday, September 30, 160
Crack retardation
Point A: plastic
point B: elastic
NDT ! ao
t : ao ! at (Paris)
inspection time
163
Sunday, September 30, 163
Damage tolerance design
(stress concentration: possible crack sites)
1. Determine the size of initial defects a0 , NDI
2. Calculate the critical crack size ac at which failure
p
would occur ⇡ac = KIc
3. Integrate the fatigue crack growth equations to
compute the number of load cycles for the crack to
grow from initial size to the critical size
Z ac
da
N = N0 + p
a0 C( ⇡a)m
4. Set inspection intervals
166
Sunday, September 30, 166
Example (Gdoutos p.287)
A large thick plate contains a crack of length 2a₀=10 mm
and is subjected to a constant-amplitude tensile cyclic
stress normal to the crack of which σmin = 100 MPa and
σmax= 200 MPa. The critical SIF is KIc = 60 MPa√m. Fatigue
is governed by the following equation
da 11 3
= 0.42 ⇥ 10 ( K) (m/cycle)
dN
Plot the crack growth curve--a versus N up to the point
of fracture.
da 11
p 3
= 0.42 ⇥ 10 ( ⇡a)
dN
168
Sunday, September 30, 168
Example (Matlab)
A plate of width W=6 in contains a crack of length
2a₀=0.2 in and is subjected to a constant-amplitude tensile
cyclic stress normal to the crack with Δσ=12 ksi. Fatigue
is governed by the following equation
da 9 3.5
= 4 ⇥ 10 ( K)
dN
Given
Kc
res = p
f (a/W ) ⇡a
✓ ◆ ✓ ◆
✓ 3✓ ✓ 3✓
⌧r✓ = 0 KI sin + sin
2 2
+ KII cos + 3 cos
2 2
=0
1 ⇣ p ⌘
✓c = 2 arctan KI /KII ± (KI /KI I)2 + 8
4 173
Sunday, September 30, 173
Maximum circumferential
stress criterion
Fracture criterion Keq KIc
XFEM
1⇣ p ⌘
✓c = 2 arctan KI /KII ± (KI /KI I)2 + 8
4
175
Sunday, September 30, 175
Ductile to Brittle transition
Fractures occurred in “well- Titanic in the icy water of
designed” steel structures in severe Atlantic
weather.
176
Sunday, September 30, 176
Stress corrosion cracking corrosive environments
• Metals are subject to corrosion
177
Sunday, September 30, 177
Alternatives to LEFM
• Bodies with at least one existing crack
• Nonlinear zone ahead of the crack tip is
negligible crack growth
Alternatives: discussed
• Continuum damage mechanics crack
• Cohesive zone models initiation/
• Peridynamics formation
• Lattice models
178
Sunday, September 30, 178
Fracture mechanics for
concrete
179
Sunday, September 30, 179
Introduction
• LEFM theory was developed in 1920, but not until
1961 was the first experimental research in concrete
performed.
L w
✏m = = ✏0 +
L L
✏m
quasi-brittle
L
181
Sunday, September 30, 181
Fictitious crack model
concrete=quasi-brittle material
182
Sunday, September 30, 182
Hilleborg’s fictitious
1976 crack model
Cohesive crack/zone model
2 where (direction)
Z
G= ([[u]])d[[u]]
Rankine criterion
Sunday, September 30, 184
Cohesive crack model
Governing equations
(strong form)
Constitutive equations
deformation
separation
185
Sunday, September 30, 185
Cohesive crack model
Weak form
where
186
Sunday, September 30, 186
Cohesive crack model
Weak form
new term
where
186
Sunday, September 30, 186
Cohesive crack model
Weak form
new term
where
(1) XFEM
Implementation:
(2) Interface
elements
(to be discussed later)
186
Sunday, September 30, 186
Size effect
• Experiment tests: scaled versions of real structures
• The result, however, depends on the size of the
specimen that was tested
• From experiment result to engineering design:
knowledge of size effect required
• The size effect is defined by comparing the nominal
strength (nominal stress at failure) N of geometrically
similar structures of different sizes.
• Classical theories (elastic analysis with allowable
stress): cannot take size effect into account
p
187 a
Sunday, September 30, 187
• Size effect is crucial in concrete structures (dam,
bridges), geomechanics (tunnels): laboratory tests
are small
188
Sunday, September 30, 188
Structures and tests
[Dufour]
189
Sunday, September 30, 189
Size effect (cont.)
190
Sunday, September 30, 190
Bazant’s size effect law
0
N = ft = ft (D)
KIc KIc
N =p =p
⇡a ⇡cN D
For very small structures the curve approaches the horizontal line and, therefore, the
failure of these structures can be predicted by a strength theory. On the other hand,
for large structures the curve approaches the inclined line and, therefore, the failure
of these structures can be predicted by LEFM.
191
Sunday, September 30, 191
Bazant’s size effect law
192
Sunday, September 30, 192
Continuum damage mechanics
Milan Jirasek
nominal stress A
¯ effective stress Ā
Equilibrium: A = ¯ Ā
Ā Ā
= ¯ = (1 !)¯ , !=1
A A
damage variable
Hook’s law: ¯ = E"
= (1 !)E"
193
Sunday, September 30, 193
Four point bending test
194
Sunday, September 30, 194
Single Edged Notch Beam
(SEN beam)
Experiment
195
Sunday, September 30, 195
Computational
fracture mechanics
196
Sunday, September 30, 196
Numerical methods to
solve PDEs
• FEM (Finite Element Method) MMs
BEM
197
Sunday, September 30, 197
Fracture models
• Discrete crack models (discontinuous
models)
- LEFM (FEM,BEM,MMs)
- EPFM (FEM,MMs)
- Cohesive zone models (FEM,XFEM,MMs)
• Continuous models
- Continuum damage models (FEM,XFEM)
- Phase field models (FEM)
• Lattice models (FEM)
• Peridynamic models (FEM,MMs)
198
Sunday, September 30, 198
FEM for elastic cracks
(1) double nodes
• Developed in 1976 (Barsoum)
• double nodes: crack edge
• singular elements: crack tip
• remeshing as crack grows
(2) singular
(3) remeshing elements
1
p behavior
r
199
Sunday, September 30, 199
What’s wrong with FEM for
crack problems
• Element edges must conform to the crack geometry:
make such a mesh is time-consuming, especially for 3D
problems.
• Remeshing as crack advances: difficult
200
Sunday, September 30, 200
However ...
X X
h
u (x) = NI (x)uI + NJ (x) (x)aJ
I2S J2S c
nodal support
NI (x) 6= 0
I X
NJ (x) (x) = (x)
J
enriched nodes = nodes whose support is cut by the item
to be enriched
enriched node I: standard degrees ofuIfreedoms
(dofs) and additional
aI dofs 204
Sunday, September 30, 204
XFEM for LEFM
crack tip with known
displacement
r ✓ ◆
KI r ✓ ✓
u= cos 1 + 2 sin2
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
r ✓ ◆
KI r ✓ ✓
v= sin + 1 2 cos2
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
p
1 = f ( r, ✓)
+
2 : 2 (x ) 6= 2 (x )
205
Sunday, September 30, 205
XFEM for LEFM (cont.) u=
KI
r
2µ 2⇡
r
cos
✓
2
✓
1 + 2 sin2
✓
2
◆
2µ 2⇡ 2 2
p ✓ p ✓ p ✓ p ✓
[B↵ ] = r sin , r cos , r sin sin ✓, r cos sin ✓
2 2 2 2
Crack edge enrichment functions:
⇢
+1 ⇤
if (x x ) · n 0 S c
blue nodes
H(x) =
1 otherwise
S t red nodes
X
uh (x) = NI (x)uI
I2S
X
+ NJ (x)H(x)aJ
J2S c
4
!
X X
+ NK (x) B↵ b↵
K
206
K2S t ↵=1
Sunday, September 30, 206
Domain form of J-integral
FE mesh
J-integral is a contour integral that is not well suitable
to FE computations.
Z
@uj @q
J= ij W 1i dA
A⇤ @x1 207
@xi
Sunday, September 30, 207
XFEM for cohesive cracks
Wells, Sluys, 2001
X X
h
u (x) = NI (x)uI + NJ (x)H(x)aJ
I2S J2S c
c
S not enriched to ensure zero
crack tip opening!!!
⇢
+1 if (x x⇤ ) · n 0
H(x) =
1 otherwise
208
Sunday, September 30, 208
XFEM: SIFs computation
Mesh
One single mesh for all angles!!!
Results
CENAERO, M. Duflot
Northwestern Univ.
210
Sunday, September 30, 210
XFEM-Crack propagation
Samtech, Belgium
fracture of underwater
211 gas-filled pipeline
Sunday, September 30, 211
Meshfree methods
Bordas et al.
delamination of composites
213
Sunday, September 30, 213
Dynamic fracture
• Dynamics is much more difficult than static
• Dynamic fracture mechanics
- inertia forces (kinetic energy)
- rate-dependent material behavior
- reflected stress waves
• Classification
- LEFM -> Elastodynamic fracture mechanics
214
Sunday, September 30, 214
Crack speed of
215
Sunday, September 30, 215
Interfacial fracture mechanics
• Thin films
•
216
Sunday, September 30, 216
Fracture of composite
materials
217
Sunday, September 30, 217
Fiber reinforced
composites
218
Sunday, September 30, 218