Plastic Zone near the Crack Tip and Nonlinear

Fracture Mechanics

1
 5.1 Iwrin’s model
Elastic-perfectly plastic material
First estimation for plastic zone
Plastic zone for first approximation: rp*
The force is not balanced
σ KI σ πa
σ ys = =
2π rp* 2π rp*
2
σ a 1  KI
2 
r =
*
=   (5.1)
2σ ys 2π  σ y 
p 2

σy

r
rp*
2
Second estimation for plastic KI σ π (a + δ )
σy = =
zone 2πλ 2πλ
σ 2 (a + δ ) *
The crack a is replaced by a
longer crack a + δ λ = ≈ rp (5.2)
For stress near the tip of the 2σ ys
2

effective crack a + δ is limited r a +δ

*

area A =  σ dr − rp*σ ys
p
by yield strength
Area A = Area B
0 2r
σ = area B = δσ ys (5.3)
Using (5.1)
rp* a +δ
 σ dr = σ 2rp* ( a + δ )
δ 0 2r
B σ 2

σ ys ≈ σ 2rp* a = a = 2rp*σ ys
σ ys
A λ Sub (5.4) into (5.3):
(5.4)
2
1  KI 
δ =r = *
 
2π
p
 σ ys 
  (5.5)
r
rp
3
 Irwin argued that the presence of plastic zone at the crack
tip makes the crack behaves as if it was longer than its
physical size.
The effective crack size, aeff, is equal to a + δ = a + rp*, in
which the quantity rp* is known as Irwin’s plastic zone
correction. 2
1  KI  σ πa
KI = σ π ( a + δ ) = σ π ( a + δ ) = σ π a +    KI =
2  σ ys 

2
1 σ 
1−   (5.6)
2  σ ys 
COD (crack tip opening displacement) and CTOD (crack
tip opening displacement)
4σ
COD: COD = 2v = a2 − x2
By using the correction COD = 2v = 4σ
E
(a + r )
2
*
p − x2
CTOD: E
4σ 4σ
(a + r )
2
CTOD = COD x = a = *
p −a =
2
2arp* (5.7)
E E
By using (5.1):
4aσ 2 4 K I
CTOD = = (5.8)
Eσ ys π Eσ ys
4
σ

σy
rp*

r
CTOD

rp = 2rp*

5
 5.2 Dugdale model
Dugdale also considers an effective crack which is
longer than the physical crack
The stress intensity factor K for the tip of Dugdale
crack should be zero
σ

σy σy

ρ 2a ρ

6
K is affected by remote stress σ and the yielding stress
σ y: Kσ = − K ρ (5.9)

Kσ = σ π ( a + ρ ) (5.10a)
σy a a + x a−x  a −1 s
f ( a, s ) =   +  dx = 2σ cos
s  π
πa  a − x a+x
y
 a
a+ρ a
K ρ = − f (a → a + ρ , s → a) = −2σ y cos −1 (5.10b)
π a+ρ
Using (5.8) and (5.9):
a πσ
= cos (5.11)
a+ρ 2σ ys
Then r is solved from (5.11)  πσ 
ρ = a  sec − 1 (5.12)
 2σ ys 
 
The stress intensity factor for Dugdale model is
  πσ  πσ
K I = σ π ( a + ρ ) = σ π  a + a  sec − 1  = σ π a sec
  2σ ys  2σ ys (5.13)
   
7
For small σ/σy:
2
πσ 1  πσ  π 2σ 2 a π 2σ 2 a π K I2
cos ≈ 1−   ρ= 2 ≈ =
2σ ys 2  2σ ys  8σ ys − π σ 8σ ys 8σ ys2
2 2 2


KI = σ π ( a + ρ ) σ πa
KI =
π 2 K I2 π 2σ 2
= σ π (a + ρ ) = σ π a + 1−
8σ ys2 8σ ys2

8
5.3 Comparisons KI for LEFM, Irwin model
and Dugdale model

πσ
K I = σ π a sec
2σ ys
1.6
1.4
KI (LEFM) σ πa
KI =
KI / σy / (πa)1 / 2

1.2 2
KI (Irwin) 1 σ 
1 1−  
KI (Dugdale) 2  σ ys 
0.8
0.6 KI = σ π a
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σ / σy

9
5.4 The shape of the plastic zone for mode I
Stresses near crack tip for mode I
KI θ θ 3θ  θ θ 3θ 
σx = cos 1 − sin sin σy =
KI
cos 1 + sin sin 
2π r 2  2 2  2π r 2 2 2 
KI θ 3θ θ
τ xy = cos sin cos
2π r 2 2 2
Principal stresses near crack tip for mode I:
KI θ θ
σ1 = cos  1 + sin 
2π r 2 2
(5.14)
 KI θ
KI θ θ  2ν cos , for plane strain
σ2 = cos  1 − sin  σ3 =  2π r 2
2π r 2 2 0, for plane stress


10
The von Mises criterion:
( 1 2 ) ( 2 3 ) ( 3 1 ) = 2σ ys2
σ σ σ σ σ σ
2 2 2
− + − + − (5.15)

Sub (5.14) into (5.15)

K I2 θ θ
cos 2 (1 − 2ν ) + 3sin 2  = 2σ ys2 , for plane strain
2

πr 2 2
K I2 θ θ (5.16)
cos 2 1 + 3sin 2  = 2σ ys2 , for plane stress
πr 2 2
Solve r in (5.16):
K I2 θ θ
rp (θ ) = (1 − 2ν )
2
cos 2 + 3sin 2  , for plane strain
2πσ 2
ys 2 2
K I2 θ θ (5.17)
rp (θ ) = cos 2
 1 + 3sin  , for plane stress
2

2πσ 2
ys 2 2

11
 Tresca criterion
1
τ max = σ ys (5.18)
2

For plane stress

1 1 
τ max = max  σ 1, σ 2 
2 2 
K I2  2θ θ
2
θ2 θ 
2

rp (θ ) = max  cos  1 + sin  , cos 1 − sin   (5.19a)

2πσ ys2  2 2 2  2  

For plane strain

1
( σ 1 − σ 3 ) , ( σ 1 − σ 2 ) , ( σ 2 − σ 3 )
1 1
τ max = max 
2 2 2 
K I2  2θ θ
2
θ  θ 
2

rp (θ ) = max  cos  1 − 2ν + sin  , cos  1 − 2ν − sin  , sin θ 
2 2

2πσ y 2
 2 2 2 2 
(5.19b)

12
 2πσ ys2 2πσ ys2
y y
K I2 K I2
2 2
y (p-stress) y (p-stress)
1.5 y (p-strain-0.1) 1.5 y (p-strain-0.1)
y (p-strain-0.3) y (p-strain-0.3)
1 1
y (p-strain-0.5) y (p-strain-0.5)

0.5 0.5

0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
2πσ ys2 2πσ ys2
-0.5 x -0.5
K I2 x
K I2
-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5

-2 -2

von Mises criterion Tresca criterion

13
 5.5 Plane stress versus plane strain
Interior of the plate: plane
strain
On the surface: plane stress

Tri-axial
stress state
Bi-axial
(plane strain)
stress state
(plane stress)

Crack front
Plastic zone

14
 σz

εz

z
Plane strain

15
 Plane stress
plastic zone

Plane strain
plastic zone

16
For θ close to 0:
y
τmax

σ3 = 0 σ1
x

z σ2
Plane stress
y
τmax
σ2 σ1
x

z
σ3
Plane strain
17
 5.6 Thickness effects

Plane stress
KI

Plane strain
thin

Kc
thick

KIc

Thickness B

18
 5.6 Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren (HRR)
singularity
Nonlinear elastic material: Ramberg-Osgood equation
ε0: flow strain
n
ε σ σ 
= +α  
ε0 σ 0  σ0  σ0: flow stress
n: strain hardening index

Linear strain is small as compared with nonlinear

strain:
n n
σ  ε σ 
  ≈0 =α 
 σ0  ε0  σ0 

19
 Γ
J-integral:
r
 ∂u 
J =   Wdy − Tk k dS  θ
Γ ∂x 

Consider a circular path with radius r

y = r sin θ  dy = r cos θ dθ π  ∂u 
J =   W cos − Tk k rdθ
dS = rdθ −π
 ∂x 

Since the J-integral is independent of r (path

independent), we have
1
∂u 1 W ∝ σ ij ε ij ∝
W cos − Tk k ∝ r
∂x r

By using Ramberg-Osgood equation:

n
ε σ  1
=α  W ∝ε ε =ε 1/ n
ij ij ij ∝  ε ij ∝ r −1/ (1+1/ n ) = r − n / ( n +1)
1+1/ n

ε0 r
 σ0  1
W ∝ σ ijσ ijn = σ ijn +1 ∝  σ ij ∝ r −1/ ( n +1)
r 20