You are on page 1of 231

Fracture mechanics

Nguyen Vinh Phu, PhD


nvinhphu@gmail.com

Researcher at Division of Computational Mechanics


Ton Duc Thang University

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

- stress/strain curves of metals, concrete

• Introduction

• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)

- Energy approach (Griffith, 1921, Orowan and Irwin 1948)


- Stress intensity factors (Irwin, 1960s)

• LEFM with small crack tip plasticity

- Irwin’s model (1960) and strip yield model


- Plastic zone size and shape

• Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics


- Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), Wells 1963
- J-integral (Rice, 1958)

• Mixed-mode crack propagation


3
Sunday, September 30, 3
Outline (cont.)

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)

strain softening=increasing strain while stress decrease


8
Sunday, September 30, 8
Concrete
fracture in concrete

ITZ

aggregates

cement paste
9
Sunday, September 30, 9
Some common material
models
no hardening
ys

✏ ✏
Linear elastic Elastic perfectly plastic

Will be used extensively in Fracture Mechanics


10
Sunday, September 30, 10
Strain energy density
Consider a linear elastic bar of stiffness k, length L, area A, subjected to a force F,
the work is
Z Z
u u
1 2 1 F
W = F du = kudu = ku = F u
0 0 2 2 W

This work will be completely stored in the structure u


in the form of strain energy. Therefore, the external work and strain
energy are equal to one another
x
1 x
U = W = Fu
2
In terms of stress/strain
1 1F u ✏x
U = Fu = AL ✏x
2 2AL
Z
Strain energy density u=
1
x ✏x
u= x d✏x
3 2
[J/m ] 11
Sunday, September 30, 11
Strain energy density
1 ⌫ Poisson’s ratio
2 2 2
u= ( x + y + z) ( x y + y z
2E E
1 2 2 2
+ z x ) + (⌧ xy + ⌧ yz + ⌧ zx )

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

xx ✏xx + xy ✏xy + yx ✏yx + yy ✏yy ij ✏ij

@ x @⌧xy @ y @⌧xy ij,j =0


+ = 0, + =0
@x @y @y @x
i: free index (appears precisely once
xx nx + xy ny = tx in each side of an equation)
ij nj = ti
yx nx + yy ny = ty
:✏ tensor notation
13
Sunday, September 30, 13
Engineering/matrix notation
2 3
x1
x = 4x2 5
x3 T
p
||x|| = x x ||x|| = xi xi
Voigt notation
2 3 2 3
xx ✏xx ij ✏ij
=4 yy 5 ✏ = 4 ✏yy 5
xy 2✏xy
T
✏= ij ✏ij
 
xx xy ✏xx ✏xy
= ✏=
xy yy ✏xy ✏yy

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.

Residual stresses always appear to some extent during


fabrication operations such as casting, rolling or welding.

Causes

• Heat treatment: welding, casting processes, cooling,


some parts contract more than others -> residual
stresses

16
Sunday, September 30, 16
Residual stresses
TOTAL STRESS = APPLIED STRESS + RESIDUAL STRESS

Welding: produces tensile residual stresses -> potential sites for cracks.

Knowledge of residual stresses is indispensable.


Measurement of residual stresses: FEM packages
17
Sunday, September 30, 17
Introduction

Cracks: ubiquitous !!!

18
Sunday, September 30, 18
Conventional failure analysis
before 1960s
Failure criterion
Stresses
f( , c) =0

Solid mechanics, Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb…


numerical methods critical stress: c
(FEM,BEM) experimentally determined

• Structures: no flaws!!! Liberty ship

• : depends on the testing samples !!!


cc

• Many catastrophic failures occurred during


WWII: f ( , c ) = 0 19
Sunday, September 30, 19
New Failure analysis
Stresses f ( , a, Kc ) = 0

Fracture
1970s Flaw size a toughness

Fracture Mechanics (FM)


- FM plays a vital role in the design of every critical structural or machine
component in which durability and reliability are important issues (aircraft
components, nuclear pressure vessels, microelectronic devices).

- 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

The component is considered to be free of defects after


fabrication and is designed to remain defect-free during
service and withstand the maximum static or dynamic
working stresses for a certain period of time. If flaws, cracks,
or similar damages are visited during service, the component
should be discarded immediately.

• Damage tolerance

The component is designed to withstand the maximum static


or dynamic working stresses for a certain period of time
even in presence of flaws, cracks, or similar damages of
certain geometry and size.

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.

• Fracture mechanics is the field of


mechanics concerned with the study of
the propagation of cracks in materials. It
uses methods of analytical solid mechanics
to calculate the driving force on a crack
and those of experimental solid mechanics
to characterize the material's resistance to
fracture (Wiki). 22
Sunday, September 30, 22
Objectives of FM

• What is the residual strength as a function of crack size?


• What is the critical crack size?
• How long does it take for a crack to grow from a certain
initial size to the critical size?
23
Sunday, September 30, 23
Brittle vs Ductile fracture
• In brittle fracture, no apparent plastic deformation takes place
before fracture, crack grows very fast!!!, usually strain is smaller
than 5%.

• In ductile fracture, extensive plastic deformation takes place


before fracture, crack propagates slowly (stable crack growth).
rough surfaces

Ductile fracture is preferable than brittle


24
failure!!!
Sunday, September 30, 24
Classification
Fracture mechanics:

• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)


- brittle-elastic materials: glass, concrete,
ice, ceramic etc.
• Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM)
- ductile materials: metals, polymer etc.
• Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (NLFM)
25
Sunday, September 30, 25
Approaches to fracture

• Stress analysis covered in

• Energy methods the course

• Computational fracture mechanics


• Micromechanisms of fracture (eg. atomic level)
• Experiments
• Applications of Fracture Mechanics
26
Sunday, September 30, 26
Stress concentration

load lines

Geometry discontinuities: holes, corners, notches, cracks


etc: stress concentrators/risers

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:

• The stress needed to fracture bulk glass is around 100 MPa

• The theoretical stress needed for breaking atomic bonds is


approximately 10,000 MPa

• experiments on glass fibers that Griffith himself conducted: the


fracture stress increases as the fiber diameter decreases =>
Hence the uniaxial tensile strength, which had been used
extensively to predict material failure before Griffith, could
not be a specimen-independent material property.

Griffith suggested that the low fracture strength observed in


experiments, as well as the size-dependence of strength, was due
to the presence of microscopic flaws in the bulk material.

30
Sunday, September 30, 30
Griffith’s size effect experiment
Size effect: ảnh hưởng kích thước

“the weakness of isotropic solids... is due to the presence of discontinuities or


flaws... The effective strength of technical materials could be increased 10 or
20 times at least if these flaws could be eliminated.''
31
Sunday, September 30, 31
Griffith’s experiment
• Glass fibers with artificial cracks (much larger
than natural crack-like flaws), tension tests

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 plastic work per unit area of surface created

p s Griffith’s work was ignored for almost 20 years

p ⇡ 103 s (metals) 36
Sunday, September 30, 36
Energy release rate
d⇧
Irwin 1956 G⌘
dA

G: energy released during fracture per unit of newly


created fracture surface area
the resistance of the material
G=2 + p
| {z } that must be overcome for
crack growth

energy available for crack growth (crack driving force)

Energy release rate failure criterion G Gc


fracture energy, considered to be a material property (independent of the
Gc applied loads and the geometry of the body).
37
Sunday, September 30, 37
Energy release rate
d⇧
Irwin 1956 G⌘ Griffith
dA

G: energy released during fracture per unit of newly


created fracture surface area
the resistance of the material
G=2 + p
| {z } that must be overcome for
crack growth

energy available for crack growth (crack driving force)

Energy release rate failure criterion G Gc


fracture energy, considered to be a material property (independent of the
Gc applied loads and the geometry of the body).
37
Sunday, September 30, 37
G from experiment
a1: OA, triangle OAC=U d⇧
G⌘
a2: OB, triangle OBC=U dA
Fixed grips Dead loads
1 (OAB)
G= B: thickness
B a

⇧ = Ue W

OAB=ABCD-(OBD-OAC)
1 (OAB)
G=
B a

elastic strain energy stored in the body is decreasing—is


W =0 ! Ue < 0 being released38
Sunday, September 30, 38
G from experiments

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

Strain energy release rate is identical for fixed grips and


fixed loads.
Strain energy release rate is proportional to the
differentiation of the compliance with respect to the crack
length.

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

On the crack plane


✓ = 0, r = x
crack plane is a principal plane
= =p
KI with the following principal
xx yy
2⇡x stresses
⌧xy = 0
1 = 2 = xx = yy
55
Sunday, September 30, 55
Stress Intensity Factor (SIF)
✓ ◆ p
KI ✓ ✓ 3✓ K I = ⇡a
xx =p cos 1 sin cos
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
axa i= 1 Z̄(z) = i( a2 x2 )
+1 p 2
v= a x2

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

(mode I) (mode II)

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.

Cracks in finite plate: influence of external boundaries


cannot be neglected -> generally, no exact solution

71
Sunday, September 30, 71
SIF for finite size samples
KI < KI

force lines are compressed->>


higher stress concentration
dimensional
analysis

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

Non-uniform stress distribution

for which reference stress!!!

76
Sunday, September 30, 76
Reference stressp
KI = ⇡a
p
KI = max max ⇡a
p
KI = xa xa ⇡a

chosen max max


xa = max =
xa 1 2a/W

Non-uniform stress distribution

for which reference stress!!!

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

Is superposition of SIFs of different crack modes


possible?
77
Sunday, September 30, 77
Determine the stress intensity factor for an edge cracked
plate subjected to a combined tension and bending.

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

This result is useful for surface flaws along the


internal wall of pressure vessels.
79
Sunday, September 30, 79
p
KI = ⇡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

3 edge crack hole as a part of the crack

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.

K: local behavior (tip stresses)


G: global behavior (energy)

Irwin: for linear elastic materials, these two params are


uniquely related

Crack closure analysis: work


to open the crack = work to close
the crack
84
Sunday, September 30, 84
Irwin
K-G relationship
✓ ◆
B=1 (unit thickness) U
G = lim
a!0 a fixed load
Z a
work of crack closure U= dU (x)
0
1
dU (x) = 2 yy (x)uy (x)dx
2
r
( + 1)KI (a + a) a✓ =x⇡
uy =
2µ 2⇡
KI (a)
yy = p ✓=0
KI (a) 2⇡x
Z a
r
( + 1)KI2 a x ( + 1)KI2
G = lim dx G=
a!0 4⇡µ a 0 85x 8µ
Sunday, September 30, 85
K-G relationship (cont.)
Mode I 8 2
> K
< I plane stress
GI = E 2
:(1 v 2 ) KI
>
plane strain
E
Mixed mode
KI2 2
KII 2
KIII
G= 0 + 0 +
E E 2µ

• Equivalence of the strain energy release rate and SIF approach

• Mixed mode: G is scalar => mode contributions are additive

• Assumption: self-similar crack growth!!!

Self-similar crack growth: planar crack remains planar ( da same


direction as a ) 86
Sunday, September 30, 86
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

A series of specimens with different crack lengths: measure the


compliance C for each specimen -> dC/da -> 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

A series of specimens with different crack lengths: measure the


compliance C for each specimen -> dC/da -> K and G

87
Sunday, September 30, 87
Units

88
Sunday, September 30, 88
Example

89
Sunday, September 30, 89
1 OAi Aj
G=
2B aj ai

Gc for different crack lengths are almost the same: flat R-


curve. 90
Sunday, September 30, 90
91
Sunday, September 30, 91
92
Sunday, September 30, 92
Examples
a increases -> G increase
load control 1 2 dC
G= P load control
2B da
1 u2 dC
G= disp. control
2B C 2 da
2 3
3u Eh
G=
16a4
a increases -> G decreases!!!

Double cantilever beam (DCB)


93
Sunday, September 30, 93
Compliance-SIF
r
⇡a p
K = sec ⇡a
W
2 2
H
P dC P dC
G= =
2 dA 4B da
Z a
K2 4 ⇡a
G= C= ⇡a sec da + C 0
E 0 EBW 2 W
2 ⇡a 2 H
P dC sec ⇡a W C0 = =
= P EBW
4B da E
2 ⇡a
dC sec ⇡a4B
W
=
da P 2E
4 ⇣ ⇡a ⌘ H
dC 4 ⇡a
= ⇡a sec C= ln cos +
da EBW 2 W 94 EB⇡ W EBW
Sunday, September 30, 94
4W ⇣ ⇡a ⌘
C/C0 = ln cos +1
⇡H W

compliance rapidly increases

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

• Problem 2: for a specific applied stress, compute the


maximum permissible crack length (critical crack
p
length) ac f (ac /W ) ⇡ac = Kc ! ac

• Problem 3: compute K c provided crack length and


p
stress at fracture Kc = f (ac /W ) ⇡ac
96
Sunday, September 30, 96
Example

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

KII = KIIc KIc < KIIc , KIIIc

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

Data points do not fall exactly on the circle.


✓ ◆2 ✓ ◆2
KI KII
+ =1 ( + 1)KI2
KIc KIIc self-similar
101
growth G=

Sunday, September 30, 101
G: crack driving force -> crack will grow in the
direction that G is maximum

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.

crack tip (SSY)


Small-scale yielding:
LEFM still applies with
minor modifications done
by G. R. Irwin

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.

is SIF a valid failure criterion for materials that


exhibit inelastic deformation at the tip
105
?
Sunday, September 30, 105
Validity of K in presence of
a plastic zone
[Anderson]
same K->same stresses applied on the disk
stress fields in the plastic zone: the same

K still uniquely characterizes the crack tip


conditions in the presence of a small
plastic zone.
LEFM solution

106
Sunday, September 30, 106
Paradox of a sharp crack
At crack tip:
r=0! ij =1

An infinitely sharp crack is merely a mathematical


abstraction.
Crack tip stresses are finite because (i) crack tip
radius is finite (materials are made of atoms) and (ii)
plastic deformation makes the crack blunt.
107
Sunday, September 30, 107
Plastic correction
• A cracked body in a plane stress condition ys

• Material: elastic perfectly plastic with yield stress


stress singularity is truncated by
On the crack plane ✓=0 yielding at crack tip
KI
yy = p
2⇡r
yy = ys (yield occurs)

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

stress redistribution: yellow


area=hatched area
Z r1
ys r1 = yy dr
0

KI2
rp = 2r1 = 2
⇡ ys

plastic zone: a CIRCLE !!!


1 KI2
rp =
3⇡ 2 Plane strain
ys 110
Sunday, September 30, 110
Plane stress Plane strain
1 = 2 = yy , 3 =0 1 = 2 = yy

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

ys is big and KIc is small

LEFM is better applicable to materials of high yield


strength and low fracture toughness
112
Sunday, September 30, 112
Plastic zone shape
von-Mises criterion e = ys
1 2 2 2 1/2
e =p ( 1 2) +( 1 3) +( 2 3)
2

Mode I, principal stresses


✓ ◆
KI ✓ ✓
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
2⇡r 2
✓ ◆2 
1 KI 3 plane stress
ry (✓) = 1 + cos ✓ + sin2 ✓
4⇡ ys 2
✓ ◆2 
1 KI 2 3 2
ry (✓) = (1 2µ) (1 + cos ✓) + sin ✓
4⇡ ys 113 2
Sunday, September 30, 113
Plastic zone shape
plastic zone shape (mode I, von-Mises criterion)
✓ ◆2 
1 KI 3 2
ry (✓) = 1 + cos ✓ + sin ✓
4⇡ ys 2

0.6 plane stress


plane strain
0.4
2
))

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))

Sunday, September 30, 114 114


Plane stress/plane strain

constrained by the
surrounding material

dog-bone shape

• Plane stress failure: in general, ductile


• Plane strain failure: in general, brittle
115
Sunday, September 30, 115
Plane stress/plane strain
toughness depends on thickness

Plane strain fracture toughnessKIc


lowest K (safe)  !1/2
4
1.4 KIc
Kc = KIc 1+ 2 (Irwin)
B ys
116
Sunday, September 30, 116
Fracture toughness tests
• Prediction of failure in real-world applications: need
the value of fracture toughness
•Compact
Tests on cracked samples: PLANE STRAIN condition!!!
Tension Test ⇣ ⌘  ⇣ a ⌘2 ⇣ a ⌘3 ⇣ a ⌘4
a a
2+ 0.886 + 4.64 13.32 + 14.72( 5.6
P W W W W W
KI = p ⇣
B W a ⌘3/2
1
W

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

Linear fracture mechanics is only useful when the plastic


zone size is much smaller than the crack size

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

short crack: fracture by plastic collapse!!! W


high toughness materials:yielding P
before fracture

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

short crack: fracture by plastic collapse!!! W


high toughness materials:yielding P
before fracture

LEFM applies when c  0.66 ys

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?

2. Using the result of problem 1, calculate the residual strength of a


plate with an edge crack W=5 inch, a=2inch.

3. In a toughness test on a center cracked plate one obtains the


following result: W=6in, B=0.2in, 2a=2in, Pmax=41kips, σys = 50 ksi.
Calculate the toughness. How large is the plastic zone at fracture? Is
the calculated toughness indeed the true toughness?
126
Sunday, September 30, 126
Solution to problem 1

Stress at failure = 300/(20 ⇥ 0.75) = 20 ksi


f
p p
Toughness Kc = 1 ⇥ 20 ⇥ ⇡ ⇥ 1 = 35.4 ksi in
⇣ a ⌘
Nominal stress at collapse = ys 1
W
20 2
col = 70 ⇥ = 63 ksi
20
f < col

Fracture occurs before collapse.


✓ ◆2
KIc
B 2.5 = 0.64in plane strain by ASTM
Y

Sunday, September 30, 127


Solution to problem 2

Kc
fr = p
⇡a

35.4
fr = p = 6.73 ksi
2.1 ⇥ ⇡ ⇥ 2

5 2
col = 70 ⇥ = 42 ksi
5

Residual strength 6.73 ksi

Sunday, September 30, 128


Solution to problem 3
Stress at failure f = 41/(6 ⇥ 0.2) = 34.2 ksi
p p
Toughness Kc = 1.07 ⇥ 34.2 ⇥ ⇡ ⇥ 1 = 64.9 ksi in
⇣ a ⌘
Nominal stress at collapse = ys 1
W
6 2
col = 50 ⇥ = 33.3 ksi
6
f > col = 1.067 = 1.07
Collapse occurs before
fracture

The above Kc is not the


toughness!!!
Sunday, September 30, 129 129
Solution to problem 3
Stress at failure f = 41/(6 ⇥ 0.2) = 34.2 ksi
p p
Toughness Kc = 1.07 ⇥ 34.2 ⇥ ⇡ ⇥ 1 = 64.9 ksi in
⇣ a ⌘
Nominal stress at collapse = ys 1
W
6 2
col = 50 ⇥ = 33.3 ksi
6
f > col = 1.067 = 1.07
Collapse occurs before
fracture

The above Kc is not the


toughness!!! whole section is yielding
Sunday, September 30, 129 129
Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Mechanics

• J-integral (Rice,1958)
• Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD), (Wells,
1963)

130
Sunday, September 30, 130
Introduction
No unloading

Monotonic loading: an elastic-plastic mater


is equivalent to a nonlinear elastic material

deformation theory of plasticity


can be utilized

- 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

(2) is path-independent 132


notch:traction-free

Sunday, September 30, 132


Path independence of
J-integral
J is zero over a closed path
0 = JABCDA = JAB + JBC + JCD + JDA
Z ✓ ◆
@ui
J= W dx2 ti ds
@x1

AB, CD: traction-free crack faces


ti = 0, dx2 = 0 (crack faces: parallel to x-axis)
JAB = JCD = 0 which path BC or AD should be used to
compute J?
JBC + JDA = 0 JBC = JAD
133
Sunday, September 30, 133
J-integral crack grows, coord. axis move
Z Z d @ @
=
⇧= W dA ti ui ds da @a @x
A0
Z Z
d⇧ dW dui
= dA ti ds
da A0 da da
Self-similar crack growth
Z ✓ ◆ Z ✓ ◆
d⇧ @W @W @ui @ui
= dA ti ds
da A0 @a @x @a @x

@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

J-integral: very useful in numerical computation of SIFs

136

Sunday, September 30, 136


Crack Tip Opening
Displacement

+1 p 2 see slide 59


v= a x2

COD is zero at the crack tips.


Sunday, September 30, 137
Crack Tip Opening
Displacement
Wells 1961

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

4 KI2 material property


= independent of specimen
⇡ ys E
⇡ and crack length
GI = ys (confirmed by
KI2 4
GI = experiments)
E

Under conditions of SSY, the fracture


criteria based on the stress intensity factor,
the strain energy release rate and the
crack tip opening displacement are
equivalent. 139
Sunday, September 30, 139
CTOD in design
4 KI2
= 2uy =
⇡ ys E
has no practical application

140
Sunday, September 30, 140
CTOD experimental
determination
Plastic hinge

rigid

similarity of triangles

r rotational factor [-], between 0 and 1


141
Sunday, September 30, 141
Governing fracture mechanism
and fracture toughness

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

a = 0.5( max min )

m = 0.5( max + min )

min
R= load ratio 147

max

Sunday, September 30, 147


Cyclic vs. static loadings
• Static: Until K reaches Kc, crack will not grow
• Cyclic: K applied can be well below Kc, crack grows
still!!!

1961, Paris et al used the theory of LEFM to explain


fatigue cracking successfully.
Methodology: experiments first, then empirical equations
are proposed.

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.

✴Stress->Nf S-N curve


✴Nf->allowable S

scatter!!!

endurance limit (g.han keo dai)


150
Sunday, September 30, 150
Constant variable cyclic load
K = Kmax Kmin

R = Kmin /Kmax
da
crack grow per cycle = f1 ( K, R)
K = Kmax Kmin dN

K = Kmax Kmin = Kmax (1 R)


151
Sunday, September 30, 151
Paris’ law (fatigue)
2m7
Paris’ law
da
da m
==C( K)m,
C( K) =K
K= Kmax Kmin
max K min
dN
dN
II (Power law relationship for fatigue
crack growth in region II)

Fatigue crack growth behavior N: number of load cycles


in metals
Paris’ law is the most popular fatigue crack growth model
I Paris' law can be used to quantify the residual life
(in terms of load cycles) of a specimen given a particular crack size.

K Kth : no crack growth 8


10 mm/cycle
(dormant period) 152
Sunday, September 30, 152
Paris’ law
not depends on load ratio R
da m
= C( K) , 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

As R increases, the crack growth rate increases.

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

After unloading: point A


and B has more or less the
same strain ->
point A : compressive stress.
161
Sunday, September 30, 161
Crack retardation

a large plastic zone at overload has


left behind

residual compressive plastic zone

close the crack->crack retards


162
Sunday, September 30, 162
Nondestructive testing
Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE), nondestructive Inspection
(NDI)

NDT is a wide group of analysis techniques used in science


and industry to evaluate the properties of a material,
component or system without causing damage

NDT: provides input (e.g. crack size) to fracture analysis


safety factor s
K(a, ) = Kc ! ac > at ⇤ s

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

Sunday, September 30,


164 164
Examples for Fatigue

log(xy) = log(x) + log(y)


da p
log = log C + m log K log(x ) = p log(x)
dN
p [Gdoutos]
p 5.6 MPa m
K= ⇡a
p
17.72 MPa m
da af a0
=
dN N 165
Sunday, September 30, 165
Example

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.

If a lifetime of 106 cycles is required, discuss the option


that the designer has for an improved lifetime.
167
Sunday, September 30, 167
p
200 ⇡af = 60 af = 28.65 mm

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

Plot the crack growth curve--a versus N up to the point


of fracture at which the critical crack length 2ac = 5.6 in.
For 2a₀=1 in, do the same and plot the two curves on
the same figure to see the influence of a₀.
169
Sunday, September 30, 169
Summary

Kc
res = p
f (a/W ) ⇡a

• What is the residual strength as a function of pcrack size?


• What is the critical crack size? f (a /W ) c⇡a = K c c

• How long does it take for a crack to grow Z


from a certain
initial size to the critical size? N = N + ac
da
p
0
170 a0 C( ⇡a)m
Sunday, September 30, 170
Mixed-mode crack growth
Combination of mode-I, mode-II and mode-III loadings:
mixed-mode loading.

Cracks will generally propagate along a curved


surface as the crack seeks out its path of least
resistance.
Only a 2D mixed-mode loading (mode-I and mode-II) is
discussed.
171
Sunday, September 30, 171
Maximum circumferential
stress criterion
Erdogan and Sih

(from M. Jirasek) principal stress ⌧r✓ = 0


172
Sunday, September 30, 172
Maximum circumferential
stress criterion

✓ ◆ ✓ ◆
✓ 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

Sunday, September 30, 174


Experiment

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.

At low temperatures some metals that would be ductile at room


temperature become brittle. This is known as a ductile to brittle
transition.

As a result, some steel structures are every

likely to fail in winter.

176
Sunday, September 30, 176
Stress corrosion cracking corrosive environments
• Metals are subject to corrosion

• Stress corrosion cracking (SCC): interaction of corrosion and


mechanical loadings to produce a cracking failure

• Fracture type: brittle!!!

• Stress corrosion cracking is generally considered to be the most


complex of all corrosion type

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.

• Fracture mechanics was used successfully in


design for metallic and brittle materials early
on; however comparatively few applications
were found for concrete.
• This trend continued up until the middle ‘70s
when finally major advances were made.
• Experimentally observed size-effect can only
be explained using fracture mechanics
180
Sunday, September 30, 180
Tensile response of concrete
• Tensile behavior of concrete is usually ignored: tensile strength is small
L
• This prevented the efficient use of concrete

• Tensile behavior plays a key role in understanding fracture of concrete

L w
✏m = = ✏0 +
L L

✏m

quasi-brittle

L
181
Sunday, September 30, 181
Fictitious crack model

Fracture Process Zone (FPZ)

concrete=quasi-brittle material
182
Sunday, September 30, 182
Hilleborg’s fictitious
1976 crack model
Cohesive crack/zone model

Similar to the strip yield model of Dugdale-Barenblatt


183
Sunday, September 30, 183
Cohesive crack model
Fracture criterion
1 max ft when

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

• Size effect is less pronounced in mechanical and


aerospace engineering the structures or structural
components can usually be tested at full size.

geometrically similar structures


of different sizes
cN P
N =
bD b is thickness

188
Sunday, September 30, 188
Structures and tests
[Dufour]

189
Sunday, September 30, 189
Size effect (cont.)

1. Large structures are softer than small structures.


2. A large structure is more brittle and has a lower
strength than a small structure.

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)

Numerical solution with


CDM

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 (Boundary Element Method)


• MMs (Meshless/Meshfree methods)
FEM

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 ...

Bouchard et al. CMAME 2003


Show crack growth movies
201
Sunday, September 30, 201
202
Sunday, September 30, 202
Extended Finite Element
Method (XFEM)
Belytschko et al 1999 S set of enriched nodes
c

X X
h
u (x) = NI (x)uI + NJ (x) (x)aJ
I2S J2S c

standard part enrichment part


Partition of Unity (PUM) enrichment function
X X
NJ (x) = 1 NJ (x) (x) = (x)
J J
(x)
known characteristics of the problem (crack tip singularity,
displacement jump etc.) into the203approximate space.
Sunday, September 30, 203
XFEM: enriched nodes

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, ✓)

x+ displacement: discontinuous across


crack edge crack edge
x

+
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

Crack tip enrichment functions: v=


KI
r
r
sin


 + 1 2 cos2

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

No crack tip solution is known, no tip


enrichment!!!

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!!!

[VP Nguyen Msc. thesis]

Results

Matlab code: free 209


Sunday, September 30, 209
XFEM: examples

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.

Elastic-plastic fracture 212 Shaofan Li 2012


Sunday, September 30, 212
Interface elements and
cohesive crack model
fracture of polycrystalline material

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

You might also like