3.

The Crack Tip Plastic Zone

3.1 The Irwin Plastic Zone Correction

For  = 0 then
2
KI  1  KI 
y    ys  rp 
 2    ys 
2rp  

 2a
or rp 
2 ys2

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-1

3.1 The Irwin Plastic Zone Correction (cont’)

• Irwin argued that plasticity makes the

crack behave as if it we longer

K a
•  ys   
2 2
2 a   
   rp
2 ys2

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-2

3.1 The Irwin Plastic Zone Correction (cont’)

 
 

•   ys   
a
dr    ys 
 2r 
 0 

•   r 
 
p   2ar
ys p

  r    r  4r
2
2 a
2  2
p p p
ys
•   r  and rp  2rp
p

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-2 & 4-3

3.2 The Dugdale Approach

• Dugdale also considers an

effective crack which is longer
than the physical crack
• Part  in front of physical crack
carry the yield stress (ys)
tending to close the crack

• The size  is chosen so that stress singularity disappears  K = 0 :

K = -K

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-4

3.2 The Dugdale Approach (cont’)

• K due to wedge force P

p ax and p ax
KA  KB 
a ax a ax

• K for wedge force distributed from s to a :

a
 ax a  x

p
K     dx
a  ax a  x
s
a 1 s
K  2p cos
 a Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-4b
3.2 The Dugdale Approach (cont’)

• For the Dugdale crack the integral has to be taken from s = a to

a + :
a 1 a
K   2 ys cos
 a
• K should be equal to K     a  

a 
•  cos
a 2 ys

• Firs term of series development of cosines

2
2 2
  a   K 
    
8 ys2 8   ys 
 
3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone

• The shape of the plastic zone can be obtained by examining the

yield criterion for angle  different from zero
• Von Mises criterion of the Tresca criterion can be used
3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• The Von Mises criterion :

1  2 2  2  3 2  3  12  2 ys2

• Principal stresses at the crack tip

K  
1  cos 1  sin 
2r 2 2
K  
2  cos 1  sin 
2r 2 2

 1  2   2
K plane strain
3  cos
2r 2
3  0
plane stress
3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• The boundary of the plastic zone

K2 3 
Plane strain = 2 sin2
  1  2  2
1  cos    2 ys
2
2r  
2
Plane stress =
K  3 2  2
1  sin   cos    2 ys
2r  2 
• The extent of the plastic zone

K2 3 
Plane strain = rp      
2 2
sin   1  2  1  cos 
2  2 

4ys

Plane stress= r   K2  3 2 

1  sin   cos 
p 2  

4ys 2
3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• The boundary of rp is plotted as 

rp KI y 2 
• rp in plane strain is appreciably smaller than plane stress

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig 4-5a

3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• Using the Tresca yield criterion :

yielding occurs when max   ys 2
• from the Mohr’s circle
1 plane stress
max  1
2
max 
1
1  3 
2
plane strain

or max 
1
1  2  2 2
2    
rp  
• Plane stress
K
cos  1  sin 
2  2 2 
2ys 
2
K2   
• Plane strain rp   cos2  1  2   sin 
2ys2 2  2 

K2 
rp   cos 2
2
2ys 2
3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• The plastic zone according to the Tresca criterion and the von Mises
criterion

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-5

3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• Plastic zone shapes for mode II and mode III

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-6

3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• Results of more accurate analysis of plastic zone shapes in mode I

according to Tuba and McClintock

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-7

3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• Comparison of measured and predicted plastic zone size

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-8

3.3 The Shape of The Plastic Zone (cont’)

• Theoritical results give satisfactory description of the plastic zone

shape also the fartherst boundary
• However, at  = 0 theoritical model do not give accurate prediction

• The shape is close to the mode of Tuba

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-9 & 4-7b
3.4 Plane Stress versus Plane Strain
• At the surface of a plate plane stress condition always occur due to
z = 3 = 0
• If plane strain prevails in the interior 3 increases gradually from
zero
• Plastic zone gradually decrease to the interior

Anderson; Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals & Application; fig. 2-35

Liu; Structural Life Assessment Methods; fig. 2-1
3.4 Plane Stress versus Plane Strain (cont’)

• The state of stress influences the size of plastic zone

• The plastic zone size influences the state of stress

rp/B  1 plane stress

rp/B  0.025 plane strain

• Since rp is proportional to (K/ys)2 then a material with low ys and

high KIc  larger thickness to maintain plane strain

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-11

3.4 Plane Stress versus Plane Strain (cont’)

• Deformation behaviour in plane stress condition and plane strain

condition can be examined by considering the Mohr’s circles for
Mode I loading with  close to zero

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-12 & 4-13

3.5 Plastic Constraint Factor

• rp in plane strain is smaller than in plane stress due to effective ys

in plane strain is higher
• Thus, maximum stress in plane strain is higher (can be three
times) than in plane stress
• Plastic contraint factor (p.c.f) is defined as:
max
p.c.f 
 ys
• The quantity p.c.f x ys can be considered as an effective yield
strength
3.5 Plastic Constraint Factor (cont’)

• To estimate p.c.f take 2 = n 1 and 3 = m 1, von Mises yield

criterion gives

1  n
2

 n  m2  1  m2 12  2 ys2

p.c.f 
1
 ys
 2 2
 1  n  m  n  m  mn 1 2

• For plane strain condition

n  1  sin  2 1  sin  2
m  2 1  sin  2

for plane  = 0; and m = 2

taking  = 1/3  p.c.f = 3
• For plane stress condition n = 1 and m = 0  p.c.f = 1
3.5 Plastic Constraint Factor (cont’)

• In plane strain condition y on  = 0 can be 3 times ys

• A the very crack tip x must tend to zero due to crack blunting 
plane stress condition. Stress rises quickly from ys to 3 ys

Broek; elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-14

3.5 Plastic Constraint Factor (cont’)

• Plastic zone correction for plane strain

2 2
 1  KI  1  KI 
rp      
2  3 ys  18   ys 
   
• In practical case

2 2
 1  K  1  KI 
rp   I    
2  1.68  ys  6   ys 
   
3.5 Plastic Constraint Factor (cont’)

• Experimental determination of p.c.f :

COD 
4
E

a  rp 
  
2
4  1 KI 
COD    
E 
a
2 
 p.c.f x  ys 



 
3.6 Thickness Effect

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-15

3.6 Thickness Effect (cont’)

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-16

3.6 Thickness Effect (cont’)

Broek; Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics; fig. 4-17 & 4-18