Sean Bruegman 09/28/2015

MMAE 419-01
Prof. Murat Vural

Fracture Toughness Testing

Abstract:
The objective of this lab was to use fracture mechanics to determine the
suitability of service for structural steel and aluminum, after the onset of a crack, notch,
or stress concentration due to geometry. The steel shows a constant increase in load
required to fracture completely while the aluminum shows that after a certain peak load
is reached, the load required to continuously deform the specimen decreases. The
results suggest that after a fracture, steel will continue to hold higher amounts of
loading, whereas aluminum is subject to fracture after a certain load has been reached.

Introduction:
In basic engineering design, the most common question is whether or not a part
will be able to support the load it is designed for. The typical answer to this question is
to use stress vs strain curves to determine the maximum stress the material can take
before reaching what would be considered failure for that part. However, in those
situations, the material is ideally unscathed. When a part has already suffered from the
development of a small fracture, loading can cause crack propagation to occur. Then
the functionality of the part comes into question, and the engineer must defer to
Fracture Toughness Testing.
In fracture toughness testing, an increasing displacement is applied to an already
cracked specimen until it fractures. There are three types of fracture toughness testing,
but this lab shall mainly consist of type I fractures, where the load vs displacement
curve represents the behavior of ductile metals in which the crack propagates by tearing
mode with increasing load.
Crack propagation is shown by measuring the crack length, a, after fracture. The
following equation determines the stress intensity factor:

KQ 2
If a∧B >2.5[ ] (6-1)
❑ ys

Then KQ = KIC

Where KQ is the conditional stress intensity factor [psi*in1/2], a is crack length [in],
B is the specimen thickness [in], and ys is the yield strength of the material [psi]. The
stress intensity factor is given by:

a P
K Q =f ( ) Q (6-2)
W B √W

1
 Where KQ is the conditional stress intensity factor [psi*in1/2], a is crack length [in],
B is the specimen thickness [in], PQ is the load [lb], and W is the dimension from the end
of the specimen to the center of the loading holes [in]. The stress intensity factor is not
necessarily the same as the fracture toughness value, KIC. They may differ when the
toughness level is lowered via a thicker specimen. The value of f(a/W) is given by:

a a 2 a 3 a 4
a a
(0.886+ 4.64 ( )
W
−13.32
W ( )
+14.72
W ( )
−5.6
W
) ( )
f ( )
W
=(2+ )
W a 3
(1− ) 2
(6-3)

W
Most importantly, KIC is obtained by the expression:

K √a (6-4)

Where K is KIC, a is aC, the crack length where catastrophic failure occurs, and 
is the design stress, Design = 50 [ksi] (for this lab). Also, the ratio to test for validity when
looking at the loads is described by:

P MAX
<1.1 (6-5)
PQ

Where PMAX is determined by the maximum load force being applied to the
specimen and PQ is determined by the intersection of the 5% Offset Secant Line and the
load vs deformation curve. The 5% Offset Secant Line is formed by taking the slope of
the linear portion of the load vs deformation curve of the material, multiplying it by 0.95
to reduce it by 5%, and then the new slope is applied. If the loads satisfy the above
question, then the results are valid. Another determination of validity is to make certain
that the crack length measurements do not differ from the average crack length by more
than 15%. If they do, then the crack length measurements render the results invalid.

Procedure:
The specimens tested were aluminum alloys 2024, 6061, and 7075 and steel
1018CD. The specimens had been fatigue pre-cracked to a particular crack location
given by the ratio of the crack length to the specimen width (a/W). The specimens were
loaded one at a time into an Instron 4507 testing machine. The specimens were then
stressed until catastrophic failure. The specimens were then removed and measured.
Analysis:

2
3
Fig. 1 – Data on Aluminum Alloy 2024.
 Al 2024
Load vs Displacement
4500

4000

3500

3000

2500
Load
[lbf] Load vs Disp.
2000
5% Offset Secant Line

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Displacement [in]

Fig. 2 – Load vs Displacement curve for Aluminum Alloy 2024.

1
Fig. 3 – Data on the second sample of Aluminum Alloy 2024.

2
 Al 2024 (2)
Load vs Displacement
5000

4500

4000

3500

3000
Load vs. Disp.
Load 2500 5% Offset Secant Line
[lbf]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Displacement [in]

Fig. 4 – Load vs Displacement curve for the second sample of Aluminum Alloy 2024.

3
Fig. 5 – Data on Aluminum Alloy 6061 T6.

4
 Al 6061
Load vs Displacement
5000

4500

4000

3500

3000
Load vs. Disp
Load 2500 5% Offset Secant Line
[lbf]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement [in]

Fig. 6 – Load vs Displacement curve for Aluminum Alloy 6061.

5
Fig. 7 – Data on Aluminum Alloy 7075.

6
 Al 7075
Load vs. Displacement
7000

6000

5000

4000
Load vs. Disp.
Load 5% Offset Secant Line
[lbf]
3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Displacement [in]

Fig. 8 – Load vs Displacement curve for Aluminum Alloy 7075.

7
Fig. 9 – Data on Steel 1018 CD.

8
 Steel 1018 CD
Load vs Displacement
14000

f(x) = 26.8 x − 810.72

12000 R² = 1

10000

8000
Load vs. Disp.
Load 5% Offset Secant Line
[lbf] 6000

4000

2000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

01
01

01
01

01
01

02
02

02
02
02
01
01

01
01

01
01

02
02

02
02

02
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
Displacement [in]

Fig. 10 – Load vs Displacement curve for Steel 1018 CD.

9
 Al 2024
a1 a1/av
B 1 in a1 measured 1.5021 in actual 0.9646 in g 0.961696 m 158950  
a2 a2/av
W 2.0025 in a2 measured 1.5622 in actual 1.0247 in g 1.021615 m95 151002.5  
a3 a3/av
L 2.54 in a3 measured 1.5783 in actual 1.0408 in g 1.037666 PQ 4.140489 ksi
a4 a4/av
D 0.513 in a4 measured 1.5527 in actual 1.0152 in g 1.012143 Pmax 4.267872 ksi
a5 a5/av
L1 1.746 in a5 measured 1.5073 in actual 0.9698 in g 0.96688 Pmax/Pq 1.030765 Valid
sigma ks measured a 2.5(Kq/Sy
yield 47 i from     average 1.00302     Valid ) 1.485314 Valid
0.50088389
      front edge of     (a/W) 5       f(a/W) 9.543569  
9.54356867 ksi
      specimen       1       Kq 27.92391 sqrt(in)

Al 2024 (2)
a1 a1/av
B 1.005 in a1 measured 1.45 in actual 0.958 in g 0.935492 m 172624.7  
a2 a2/av
W 2.013 in a2 measured 1.5563 in actual 1.0643 in g 1.039295 m95 163993.5  
a3 a3/av
L 2.505 in a3 measured 1.58 in actual 1.088 in g 1.062438 PQ 4.431104 ksi
a4 a4/av
D 0.494 in a4 measured 1.5618 in actual 1.0698 in g 1.044665 Pmax 4.459359 ksi
a5 a5/av
L1 1.766 in a5 measured 1.4322 in actual 0.9402 in g 0.91811 Pmax/Pq 1.006376 Valid
sigma ks measured a 2.5(Kq/Sy
yield 47 i from     average 1.02406     Valid ) 1.616383 Valid
0.50872329
      front edge of     (a/W) 9       f(a/W) 9.778629  
9.77862918 ksi
      specimen       6       Kq 30.38799 sqrt(in)

10
 Table 1 – The data collected for Aluminum Alloy 2024 (both specimens).

Al 6061
a1 a1/av
B 1.004 in a1 measured 1.4511 in actual 0.9446 in g 0.968245 m 169988.9  
a2 a2/av
W 2.0035 in a2 measured 1.5009 in actual 0.9944 in g 1.019291 m95 161489.5  
a3 a3/av
L 2.51 in a3 measured 1.51 in actual 1.0035 in g 1.028619 PQ 4.017859 ksi
a4 a4/av
D 0.503 in a4 measured 1.4993 in actual 0.9928 in g 1.017651 Pmax 4.599103 ksi
a5 a5/av
L1 1.752 in a5 measured 1.4491 in actual 0.9426 in g 0.966194 Pmax/Pq 1.144665 Invalid
sigma ks measured a 2.5(Kq/Sy
yield 40 i from     average 0.97558     Valid ) 1.616475 Valid
0.48693785
      front edge of     (a/W) 9       f(a/W) 9.147926  
9.14792646 ksi
      specimen       8       Kq 25.8636 sqrt(in)

Al 7075
a1 a1/av
B 1.506 in a1 measured 2.1461 in actual 1.3981 in g 0.963635 m 284434.7  
a2 a2/av
W 3.004 in a2 measured 2.2266 in actual 1.4786 in g 1.01912 m95 270212.9  
a3 a3/av
L 3.752 in a3 measured 2.2452 in actual 1.4972 in g 1.03194 PQ 6.197976 ksi
a4 a4/av
D 0.75 in a4 measured 2.2237 in actual 1.4757 in g 1.017121 Pmax 6.197976 ksi
a5 a5/av
L1 2.629 in a5 measured 2.1527 in actual 1.4047 in g 0.968184 Pmax/Pq 1 Valid
sigma ks measured a 2.5(Kq/Sy
yield 73 i from     average 1.45086     Valid ) 0.73516 Valid
0.48297603
      front edge of     (a/W) 2       f(a/W) 9.040438  

11
 9.04043842 ksi
      specimen       3       Kq 21.46666 sqrt(in)
Table 2 – The data collected for Aluminum Alloys 6061-T6 and 7075.

Steel 1018 CD
1.432 i a1 i a1/av 0.97810 500628.
B 1.005 in a1 measured 7 n actual 0.9462 n g 6 m 4  
2.018 i a2 i a2/av 1.00942 475596.
W 5 in a2 measured 1.463 n actual 0.9765 n g 8 m95 9  
i a3 i a3/av 1.00942
L 2.505 in a3 measured 1.463 n actual 0.9765 n g 8 PQ 9.53 ksi
1.469 i a4 i a4/av
D 0.503 in a4 measured 6 n actual 0.9831 n g 1.01625 Pmax 12.8378 ksi
1.441 i a5 i a5/av 0.98678 1.34709
L1 1.767 in a5 measured 1 n actual 0.9546 n g 9 Pmax/Pq 4 Invalid
a
sigma ks measured averag 2.5(Kq/S 2.13137
yield 70 i from     e 0.96738     Valid y) 5 Valid
0.4792568 8.94139
      front edge of     (a/W) 74       f(a/W) 8  
8.9413982 ksi
      specimen       29       Kq 59.6785 sqrt(in)
Table 3 – The data collected for Steel 1018 CD.

Tables 1,2, and 3 are to show specifically what values were calculated using the equations discussed in the introduction.

12
Discussion:
The data for the first three specimens, Aluminum 2024 (sample 1&2) and
Aluminum 7075, were all analyzed to show that their results were valid for use of
fracture mechanics analysis. The last two samples, Aluminum 6061-T6 and Steel 1018
CD, did not pass the validity tests. The Aluminum 6061-T6 failed the validity test at the
ratio of Pmax/PQ, as did the Steel 1018 CD. All the specimens, however, passed the
crack length validity test, as they all were within 15% of the average crack length.
If an inference were to be drawn from these results, despite the validity of the
samples, it would suggest that the general trend of Aluminum Alloys are to reach a
maximum load, and then the load necessary to cause the same rate of deformation
decreases greatly until catastrophic failure. The steel sample suggests that the load
required to deform the steel at the same deformation rate continually increases until
catastrophic failure. Granted, these are only 5 specimens, when in actual fatigue
loading, thousands of each specimen would be tested and analyzed.
As always, the possible causes of deviations from industry standards could come
from human error in measurements, possible constant error in measuring tools, and
even from noise in the sensor in the Instron testing machine. Other possible causes
could be that each specimen is going to have different deformations from the cyclic
loading that prescribed the crack in the specimen. There could possibly be error in the
data analysis, as the sampling of the curve to find the slope could alter the 5% Offset
Secant Line, which would alter the offset load. Since that load is used in the
determination of validity, it is easy to see why it is important to pick the slope of the
linear regime at two points that most accurately depict the curve, so as to most
accurately determine what is valid data.

Conclusion:
The lab shows that the aluminum seems to bear a fairly high amount of loading
before it starts to deform. Once it reaches that peak, however, it loses its ability to hold
even a fraction of that same load. The steel on the other hand can bear far more
loading, and does not have the same trait of peaking and then decreasing. The steel
held an increasing load with increasing deformation, meaning it would be a great
material to use for construction. The results in this lab suggest that if a part made of
aluminum alloy were to fracture slightly, the part should be replaced so as to not risk
catastrophic failure. If that same part were made of steel, it could bear a considerable
load before catastrophic failure, and the engineer might consider (depending on the
loading of the part) keeping the part as is if other factors deem it acceptable.