Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

The Essential Work of Fracture (EWF) method – Analyzing

the Post-Yielding Fracture Mechanics of polymers
A.B. Martinez *, J. Gamez-Perez, M. Sanchez-Soto, J.I. Velasco, O.O. Santana, M. Ll Maspoch
Departament de Ciencia dels Materials i Eng., Met ETSEIB (UPC) Avda. Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Post-Yielding Fracture Mechanics describe the fracture behaviour of pre-cracked films
Received 23 February 2009 and thin sheets that show yielding phenomenon at the crack tip during fracture. The Essen-
Accepted 10 April 2009 tial Work of Fracture method (EWF) has been used for this type of fracture characterization,
Available online 10 May 2009
determining two parameters: the specific work of fracture, we related with the real fracture
process area, and the specific non-essential work of fracture, wp that corresponds with the
Keywords: work done in the outer region of the crack tip.
EWF method
The EWF technique has been successfully employed especially with polymers, allowing
Energy partition
Testing conditions
the study of the influence of many variables in fracture properties, unavailable using other
EWF applications techniques such us KIC or JIC determination. In this work, the fundamentals of the technique
and examples of application are reviewed, presenting a brief summary of the most relevant
contributions of our group to the EWF method.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

To analyze the relationship among stresses, cracks, and fracture toughness, Fracture Mechanics was introduced by Grif-
fith in 1921 [1], relating for the first time the flaw size to the fracture stresses. However, this approach was limited only
to brittle materials and it was not until the 1950s that Irwin extended this theory to materials with some ductile behav-
iour through the concept of strain energy release rate [2]. Later, he would use the Westergaard approach [3] to show that
the local stresses and displacements near the crack tip had a general closed form solution that could be described by a
single constant [4]. This parameter would be known afterwards as the stress intensity factor, K, which completely char-
acterizes the crack tip conditions for a linear elastic material, relating the global applied stress and the local stress near
the crack tip.
After the fundamentals of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) were established around 1960, scientists began to
concentrate on the plasticity of the crack tips. Wells introduced the CTOD concept to model fracture under conditions of
large-scale plastic deformations in 1961 [5]. In 1968, Rice [6] extended the method of energy release rate to ductile mate-
rials, by considering the plastic deformation as nonlinear elastic behaviour, showing that the energy release rate can be ex-
pressed as a path-independent line integral, called the J integral. This concept led to Elastoplastic Fracture Mechanics, (EPFM),
which involves an extensive plastic deformation ahead of the crack tip. Later, K.B. Broberg questioned the use of a single
parameter referred to the description of the fracture process when stable crack growth occurs [7,8], developing the Post-
Yielding Fracture Mechanics (PYFM) concept, where the fracture grows through a previously yielded material. However, it
was not until 1977 that Cotterel and Reddel [9] developed the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF) method, providing a tech-
nique for obtaining parameters for ductile fracture toughness process.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 934016710; fax: +34 934016706.

E-mail address: antonio.martinez@upc.edu (A.B. Martinez).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.027
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2605

Although the references in the literature show the usefulness of EWF in materials that show ductile fracture, like metal
and polymer sheets, the influence of some experimental variables (e.g. strain rate, thickness of the specimen, etc.) is not fully
understood and the EWF applicability may still be limited for such a reason.

2. The Essential Work of Fracture method

As pointed previously, Cotterell and Reddel [9] developed Broberg’s idea [8] of separating the fracture energy of a notched
specimen into two terms into an experimental procedure, the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF). This method is based in the
partition of the energy consumed during the post-yielding fracture of a pre-cracked specimen, Wf, where two distinct (inner
and outer) zones can be observed (as depicted in Fig. 1). The inner zone, also called the process zone, is where the real frac-
ture process takes place with the formation of two new surfaces. The energy associated with it, the essential work of fracture
(We) is proportional to the ligament section, ‘  t. In the outer zone, called also the plastic zone, the energy involved is the
non-essential work of fracture or plastic work (Wp), which is employed basically in plastic deformation and other dissipative
process. The work consumed in this zone is proportional to the volume of the deformed region.
This concepts lead us to the following expressions:

W f ¼ W e þ W p ¼ we  ‘t þ b  wp ‘2  t ð1Þ
where we is the specific essential work of fracture (per unit ligament area), wp specific non-essential work of fracture (per
unit volume), ‘ ligament length, t specimen thickness and b is the plastic zone shape factor.
Dividing both terms of the Eq. (1) by the ligament section, ‘  t, we obtain that the specific work of fracture, wf is then:
wf ¼ W f =ð‘  tÞ ¼ we þ bwp  ‘ ð2Þ
According to this equation, we and bwp can be obtained from linear regression of a set of values represented in a diagram of
specific total fracture energy versus ligament length (wf vs. ‘), as schematized in Fig. 2.
The specific essential work, we is in theory a material constant dependent only on thickness and equivalent to JIC [11],
which has also been supported experimentally by different authors [12–17] and compared with the CTOD values [18,19].
However, the EWF method compared to the J-integral procedure presents experimental advantages as its simplicity and
applicability to thinner specimens; in addition, the bwp term provides a highly morphology-sensitive parameter, which is
very useful for evaluation of toughness in thin specimens.
The EWF method has gained significance in laboratories, as evidenced by the growing number of publications dealing
with this technique. Despite of the fact that data is useful for the evaluation of many variables, the application of this data
remain constricted as long as there are no models that can use it to predict the final properties of a piece. In this sense, it can
be pointed out the works of Knockaert [20], Pardoen [19], Chen [21] and Cotterell [22] for their contribution to the numerical
simulation of DENT fracture, as well as the molecular approach done recently by Chen et al. [23].
It is also remarkable that the EWF method has been extended to the stress modes other than the tensile one: shear (mode
II) [24] and tear (mode III) [25]. Furthermore, the same technique has been used to evaluate the adhesive toughness of joints
and adhesives [26,27]

3. Experimental considerations on the EWF method

The first attempt to standardize the EWF method was lead by Gray at the ESIS TC-4 committee on 1993 [28] and there, the
following recommendations were established:

Fig. 1. DDENT specimen showing the typical dimensions, where the process and plastic zone are schematized.
2606 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

Fig. 2. Determination of EWF parameters for ethylene-propylene block copolymer injected plaques: L–d curves (a) and wf vs. ‘ plots (b) [10].

(a) The ligament must be fully yielded prior to crack propagation.

(b) In order to apply Eq. (3) the specimens must be under truly plane stress state of tension. The Hill’s criterion [29] should
be applied to verify this argument.
(c) Load–displacement (L–d) diagrams should be self-similar among all specimens tested in a series of different ligament
lengths, certifying a common geometry of fracture.
(d) The ligament lengths should be within the range:

maxð3t  5 mmÞ < ‘ < minðW=3; 2r p Þ ð3Þ

being W the width of the DDENT specimen and rp the plastic radius defined as:

2r p ¼ ðp=8ÞðEwe =r2y Þ ð4Þ

where E and ry are, respectively, the elastic modulus and yield stress (obtained for the same material in tensile test and sim-
ilar testing conditions).
It also recommended the measurement of the height of the plastic zone for the determination of b parameter, proposing
three different geometrical shapes: diamond, circle or ellipse.
This protocol was revised in 1997 [30] and later on 2001 [31] remarking that the Hill criterion could be complemented
with a condition of similar state of stress, verified by a common maximum tensile stress of all tested specimens (rmax).
Despite of all revision and work done by the TC-4 committee [32,33], there are still some issues that cause controversy
and they present still a research challenge. Many works dealing with experimental aspects of the EWF method can be found
in the literature. Some others are driven to better analyze the data or to provide relationships with other intrinsic material
parameters. In table 1 are listed some of these themes, as well as some indicative references.
The presented topics listed in Table 1 are not exhaustive, nor their references. However, it points some of the issues that
have cared to the different laboratories and how they have been faced. Below is presented a brief summary of the work per-
formed by our group in the last decade, dealing with experimental aspects of the EWF method.

3.1. Specimen geometry and testing conditions [40]

According to the theory, the we value that represents the toughness is a material parameter, independent on the specimen
geometry. However, as some aspects of this theory remain controversial, investigation on the dependence of the fracture
parameters on different variables, has being done to verify if we represents an intrinsic material property. In this case, the
variables studied on isotactic polypropylene were:

Table 1
Topics dealing with the technique and evaluation of the EWF method.

Topic References
Valid ligament lengths range [34–36]
Influence of testing rate [12,37–47]
Influence of testing temperature [42,47–54]
EWF at impact rates [55–62]
Beta determination [63]
Statistical distribution of ‘ [64,65]
Energy partition in EWF [57,66–70]
Influence of notching [71,72]
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2607

Test crosshead speed (v): 2–100 mm/min

DDENT width (W): 30–60 mm
DDENT crosshead length (Z): 20–150 mm
DDENT ligament lengths (‘) range
DDENT thickness (t): 38–2500 lm

This study concluded that the width and the test speed had no sensitive influence neither on the we nor the bwp values in
the ranges studied, indicating that as long as the fracture mechanism remains the same, the EWF parameters are intrinsic
material properties. With respect to the gauge length (Z), no influence appears either varying the gage length in a range from
40 to 100 mm. Thus, values of 49 kJ/m2 and 9.6 MJ/m3 for the specific essential and non-essential works of fracture, respec-
tively, can be accepted for the iPP studied with a thickness of 100 lm. The lower limit for the ligament length (‘) seemed not
to be subjected to the ‘ > ð3  5Þ  t criterion, being rather above the predicted value. A constant value of about 5–6 mm was
found, independent of the thickness in the range studied.
On the other hand, the thickness had a high effect on the fracture values of this material. Thus, an increase of t produced a
clear drop in we, a result that could be related with different morphologies and fracture mechanisms, observed by SEM (see
Fig. 3).

3.2. b Determination [63]

The value of b (shape factor) is a material dependent factor, which in combination with wp (specific energy absorption per
unit volume) yields the total energy consumed out of the process zone. However, as the calculation of wp may be interesting
in some cases, it is justified the interest in measuring b with the most accuracy.
In the first EWF protocol [28] b is determined by using the relation between h (plastic zone height) and ‘, suggesting three
different possibilities for the plastic zone shape (circular, diamond and elliptical), as depicted in Fig. 4. However, this zone
has usually intermediate shape between elliptical and diamond, as reported in several works (e.g. [37,39]). For such a reason,
a new plastic zone shape that gives a better representation of the deformed region was proposed, resulting from the inter-
section between two parabolas, giving an ‘eye’-shaped region.
This proposed parabolic region is defined by the equation:
h¼kb‘ ð5Þ
with k = 1.5 (h is the height of the plastic zone, k is a constant that takes the values 2 and 1.27 for the diamond and ellipse
cases, respectively). Thus, b can be determined as the slope of the h vs. ‘ plot regression line divided by a factor of 1.5.

3.3. EWF in mode III [25]

Even though the EWF technique has been well established and accepted for the fracture characterization of ductile poly-
mer films under in-plane (mode I) loading, the technique has been further developed for the characterization of out-of-plane
(mode III) tearing fracture of some ductile polymer films.

Fig. 3. Effect of thickness on deformation mechanisms during fracture of PP DDENT specimens: left, ductile behaviour and right brittle behaviour.
2608 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

Fig. 4. OPZ geometries and relationship with the b parameter.

In the tearing fracture of ductile polymeric films using the 2-leg trousers geometry, two zones can be identified (Fig. 2). In
the first zone that adjoins the starting crack tip, the height of the outer plastic zone (h) is evolving. This is referred to as zone
A in Fig. 5. After tearing has extended for a certain torn ligament length (‘A ), the height of the OPZ is saturated and remains at
a constant value hB with further tearing. This is referred to as zone B.
Taking these phenomena into consideration, a two-zone model was proposed to describe the deformation and fracture
behaviour of the tearing ligament

3.3.1. Zone A model

In zone A, the size of the outer plastic zone increased with torn ligament length squared. Hence, the essential work of
fracture (EWF) method was applicable to zone A to partition the total tearing fracture work into the essential and non-essen-
tial work components.

W f ¼ wIIIe  ‘A  t þ wIIIp  SA  t ¼ wIIIe  ‘A  t þ wIIIp  a  ‘2A  t ð6Þ

wf ¼ wIIIe  þwIIIp  a  ‘A ð7Þ

Fig. 5. The 2-leg trousers specimen for mode III out-of-plane tearing test.
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2609

where SA is the plastic deformed area, which is proportional to ‘A  ð‘A aÞ. If the torn ligament length (‘a ) in the trousers spec-
imen is less than ‘A , the specific essential fracture work (wIIIe) can be determined from the y-axis intercept of the wIIIf vs. ‘a
plot.

3.3.2. Zone B model

In the zone B model the height of the OPZ hB has already saturated (see Fig. 5). Then, the total tearing work in zone B is
W f ¼ wIIIe  ‘B  t þ wIIIp  SB  t ¼ wIIIe  ‘B  t þ wIIIp  h  ‘B  t ð8Þ
wf ¼ wIIIe  þwIIIp  h ð9Þ
where ‘B is the length of zone B ligament (see Fig. 5), and SB ¼ h‘B is the area of the plastic zone in zone B. Thus, if we can
prepare 2-leg trousers with different constrained plastic zone height h, the specific tearing work wIIIe can be obtained from a
plot of wIIIf vs. h.
However, as for some polymers, h at saturation may be too small to be varied, and then an alternative evaluation of wIIIe
can be calculated as:
2  PB
wIIIf ¼ ð10Þ
t
where PB is steady or saturated tearing force in zone B. Since hB at saturation can be directly measured from the out-of-plane torn
samples and wIIIp from the slope of the straight line in the zone A model, the value of wIIIe in Zone B can also be determined.

3.4. Energy partition [57,67]

Usually, all the energy dissipated during the test (the area under the curve) is taken globally as Wf, divided by the section
(‘  t) and represented against ‘. However, observing the specimens during the tests, and relating the fracture process with
the curve shape, more information can be obtained by partitioning the total work in spite of taking all the energy globally. It
was even proposed that by splitting this energy of fracture is possible to obtain a critical plane-strain EWF value representing
the toughness of the material [70]. The related energy partitioning separates the total work of fracture in two components,
viz. yielding- and necking-related terms and adopts for them the EWF data reduction. However, different criteria on how to
perform the energy partition can be considered:

(a) ‘‘Yielding Work”: Energy partitioning at the maximum load [66] (see Fig. 6a). The total work of fracture Wf is separated in
two components: Wy (work for yielding of the ligament area) and Wn (work of fracture for subsequent necking and
tearing).

wf ¼ wf ;y þ wf ;n ¼ ðwe;y þ bwp;y  ‘Þ þ ðwe;n þ bwp;n  ‘Þ ð11Þ

(b) ‘‘Initiation Work”: [67]. The energy partition criterion is taken after necking of the ligament area (see Fig. 6b). The total
work of fracture Wf is separated in two components: WI (irreversible initiation process involving yielding, necking and
crack-tip blunting) and WII (crack propagation and extended necking in the plastic zone). In this method the absorbed
elastic energy in the necked specimen is supposed to be released during the WII process, and it is not included in the ini-
tiation work.

wf ¼ wf ;I þ wf ;II ¼ ðwe;I þ bwp;I  ‘Þ þ ðwe;II þ bwp;II  ‘Þ ð12Þ

Fig. 6. Load–displacement curve obtained with a DDENT specimen [57]. The process involves elastic deformation and yielding of ligament area until point
(1) which corresponds to maximum load where ligament necking starts and it is completed in point (2). Finally, there is steady crack propagation and
extensive necking in plastic zone until final rupture of the specimen. The work partition methods that have been used are: (a) Yielding Work (Wy, Wn) [66].
(b) Initiation Work (WI, WII). [67].
2610 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

Comparing both methods in u-PVC sheets, it was concluded that the ‘‘Yielding Work” energy partition method [66] provided
a value in static loading, we,y, which was in good agreement with the we value obtained at dynamic rates. However, the ‘‘Ini-
tiation Work” method [67] worked very well on iPP, films, suggesting that this method could still be developed for a better
understanding in order to adapt it to other materials.

3.5. Ductility level [10,73–75]

In different works we have noticed that when PP and EPBC specimens were tested, different types of fracture could be
observed. We found a wide spectrum of ductility of the crack tip during the fracture process, being the limit cases the brittle
behavior with observation of crazing and extreme necking of the ligament section without crack propagation [10,48]. Such
differences are revealed on the load vs. displacement curves and their evaluation allowed a classification of the different frac-
ture behaviors on basis of applicability of the EWF method as:

(a) Brittle: fast crack propagation before yielding of the ligament area. Fractured DDENT specimens show small cracks
against the light above the fractured section.
(b) Ductile Instability: the crack starts to deform plastically, when at a certain point the elastic energy stored concentrated
in the tips, reaches a critical value causing an unstable crack propagation and sudden rupture. The post-mortem spec-
imens show whiteness at the extremities of the ligament indicating the occurrence of plastic deformation.
(c) Blunting: characterized by an extensive plastic deformation of the crack tip, which avoids steady crack propagation.
(d) Necking: DDENT specimens shows no crack propagation in the yielded ligament area, which continues to deform plas-
tically, behaving almost like a tensile specimen and resulting in a neck formation.
(e) Post-yielding: all the statements postulated to apply the EWF are observed and only in this case the EWF method is
fully applicable.

As an attempt to rationalize such different fracture behaviours, it is proposed to define a ‘‘ductility level” (DL) for DDENT
specimens [75] as
dr
DL ¼ ð13Þ
‘

Fig. 7. Fracture types, typical L–d curves and their respective ductility levels (DL) [75].
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2611

where dr is the displacement at rupture. When the average ductility levels are compared with the different fracture types it
can be appreciated a correspondence, shown in Fig. 7.
It can be said that in order to fulfil the EWF requirements, DL must be in the range of 0.15 < DL < 1.

3.6. Deformation measurement [76]

In the EWF theory it is implicitly stated that all the energy involved during the fracture is absorbed in either the FZ or the
OPZ. However, it can be argued that some recoverable viscoelastic energy could be stored beyond the OPZ, being released
slowly after the fracture test [48,77,78]. Since this viscoelastic energy is not included in the EWF initial hypothesis, it can
be a source of error in the measure of the fracture parameters.
For such a reason it has been proposed to measure the deformation during EWF tests with the aid of a videoextensometer.
The procedure [76] suggested the placement of two extensometer marks as shown in Fig. 8, separated by a distance equal to
the ligament length of each specimen (‘).
After comparing the procedure with and without videoextensometer, it was concluded that the use of the extensometer
did not affect significantly to the we values, nor it does to their precision, finding similar deviations. On the other hand, it
supposed a significant reduction (of about 10%) of the bwp values, thus indicating that the elastic energy stored out of the
extensometer marks was introducing a systematic error in the plastic work determination.

3.7. Crack tip quality [79]

One of the challenges of the EWF tests is their standardization. One of the key points identified in several Round Robin
series has been the notch sharpness and quality [32,33].
In a recent work, a new procedure for the sharpening of the DDENT specimens based on the cutting technique of high
energy femtosecond pulsed laser radiation has been used and compared with the razor sharpening methods [79].
The results show that the size of the notch tip radius seems not to be critical under 10 lm. However, the EWF test is very
sensitive to the plastic deformation produced during the notching procedure, affecting considerably the we values. It is con-
cluded, finally, that in order to obtain intrinsic parameters is necessary to follow the deformation with a video extensometer
and to sharpen the notches with a method that does not introduce plastic deformation, such as the femtosecond pulsed laser
ablation.

4. EWF applications

Since the publication of the first works using the EWF method [9,80,81], it has been applied successfully to ductile metal
thin sheets [16,17,20,22,38,82,83] (and references therein). However, it took some time to be applied to polymer films, in
1986 [84] and after that, this technique has been used mainly in polymer films and sheets, finding also applications in other
materials, such as asphalts [85], paper [86] or concrete [87].

Fig. 8. DDENT specimen showing the extensometer marks placed at a distance equal to the ligament length (‘).
2612 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

Table 2
References in which the EWF method is applied to polymers.

Polymer type References

Polyethylene (LDPE, HDPE, LLDPE. . .) [12,23,24,54,69,84,88–94]
Polypropylene (PP, EPBC. . .) [10,25,33,40,43,48,50,65,67,73,74,95–105]
Polyesters (PET, PBT, PETG. . .) [34,39,42,44,45,51,66,71,89,106–114]
Polyamides (PA6, PA66. . .) [12,52,53,58,59,61,62,68,72,84,89,115–118]
Polycarbonate PC [13,34,47,55,76,119–122]
Polystyrenics (PS, ABS, HIPS. . .) [41,52,65,120,123,124]
Poly(propylene-carbonate) [78,125]
Poli(oxi-methylene) POM [126]
Halogenated polymers (PVC, PVDF. . .) [57,127–130]
Thermoplastic elastomers [131,132]
Cellulose-acetate [34]
Polyetherimide PEI [34]
Polyimide PI [34,89,133]
Poly(ether-ether ketone) PEEK [34,49,134]
Poli(ethylene-naftalate) PEN [34,135,136]
Poly(phenylene-ether) PPE [62]
Epoxy resins [137]
Polyurethane [138]
Byopolymers [139,140]

In Table 2 is shown a selected list of references in which the EWF method is applied with different polymers.
On the other hand, the EWF has been very useful to characterize or to optimize the composition of blends
[15,35,46,52,61,62,98,108,122,124,132,133,141–145] and reinforced polymers [94,96,97,99,116,125,146,147] and nanocom-
posites [43,53,58,91,103,113,116–118,148], as well as to evaluate the effect of coupling agents [26,56,96,146]. The EWF
method has been proved to work also even with multilayered systems [100,149,150]
As the fracture processes are related with several microstructural parameters, these can be investigated indirectly from
EWF tests [151], finding some applications in which complex phenomena, such as ageing or degradation [54,95,107,110] and
ductile to brittle transition [40,115] have been followed using the EWF method. It is this sensitivity that makes this tech-
nique of particular relevance for studying the process–property relationships [13,73,100,104,112,152], optimizing process-
ing parameters [72,105] or evaluating the influence of annealing on different systems [54,63,104,127,130].
The EWF method has been successfully used to study the influence of many morphological parameters on the fracture
toughness of films and thin sheets, such as the average molecular weight [11,54,114,153] [101], molecular anisotropy
[23,114], entanglement density [45,92,154] and crystalline structure or morphology [101,102,106,112].
In our case, during the last decade the EWF method has proved us to be a valuable tool to characterize films and thin
sheets of different materials, as well as to evaluate the relationships between the fracture behaviour and some parameters
like testing temperature or the processing induced morphology. Most of this work has been done with polyolefins, more ex-
actly ethylene–propylene block copolymers (EPBC) with different ethylene content (EC) in weight compositions (0%, 5.5%,
7.4% and 12%).

4.1. Influence of ethylene content in (EPBC) ant temperature [10,48,73,74,77].

In these works it has been stated that, at room temperature, an increase in ethylene content (EC), decreases the we param-
eter, whereas it increases the bwp term at low EC, reaching a maximum at an ethylene content of 5% in weight. However, the
same relationship is not held at different temperatures. This work was useful to asses the influence of different deformation
mechanisms in the fracture behaviour of EPBC films, at 40, 20, 0, 23, 50 and 70 °C. The results show that, as expected, the
homopolymer is found to be much more temperature sensitive than the EPBC. Two different ranges delimited by the glass-
transition of PP, which is located around room temperature (RT) were found. At temperatures above RT, the H0 has greater
energy dissipation than the EPBC. In contrast, at low T, the homopolymer presented a ductile–brittle transition, which was
suppressed in the range studied by the presence of the ethylene copolymer. This work showed also that the main effect of the
ethylene copolymerisation is the dramatic increase of the plastic zone size. The variations of the EWF fracture parameters
can be explained in terms of molecular relaxation mechanisms, ethylene phase content, and changes in the yield and fracture
stresses.

4.2. Influence of thickness and processing induced morphology [10,40,63,73,74,100]

In these works are shown the close relationships between the fracture behaviour and the different processing induced
morphologies, produced as a result of changing the thickness or using different transformation processes. As it can be appre-
ciated in Fig. 9, the we values for the same material vary depending on the thickness, the transformation process and the test
orientation.
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2613

Fig. 9. Influence of thickness, processing method (IM – injection moulding, EC – extrusion calendering [48], EC’ – extrusion calendering [74]) and testing
orientation (MD/TD) on EWF parameters of two EPBC with different ethylene content (EC).

Such variations were related with different structural and morphological parameters, such as crystalline fraction, crystal-
line morphologies, skin-core ratio or crystalline orientation indexes, assessed by Differential Scanning Calorimetry, Polariz-
ing Light Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Spectroscopy.
It can be highlighted that in these works is also pointed out the influence that an annealing step may have on the fracture
behaviour of PP and EPBC films. Usually, the fast cooling of the PP-based materials during the processing, produces a smectic
phase that is metastable. An annealing step produces the transformation of such a phase (sm-PP) into the more stable a-PP,
producing a change in the fracture behaviour [63].

5. Conclusions

The fracture mechanics, other than determine the fracture toughness of the materials, constitutes a way to follow up
material variations at molecular level, which may be very difficult to detect otherwise. In this sense, the EWF method allows
the study of PYFM, extending the application of fracture mechanics on polymers.
Since the first time the EWF was applied to polymer, this technique has been proved to be a very useful tool to evaluate
the influence of several parameters on the fracture behaviour of film and thin sheets. The high sensitivity of the EWF param-
eters to many variables and the fact that it is a two parameter descriptor of the fracture toughness have, somehow, prevented
it to be a standardized technique. On the other hand, all that makes also the EWF technique evolve in two directions:
improvement of the methodology and deeper interpretation of the results. In our experience, the possibilities of the EWF
method are optimistic, taking also into account the growing trend of publications showing the usefulness of this technique.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to those who have contributed to the results presented in this work: Dr D. Ferrer-Balas, who did
his PhD in our group and worked on many of the issues presented; to Prof. J. Karger-Kocsis, Prof. Y.W. Mai and Dr. E. Gimenez
and their collaborators, with whom we had the opportunity to work during these years. The authors wish to thank also to
Basell S.A. and Repsol S.A. for their aid providing us the raw materials and the Spanish MCYT for the financial support
through the Projects MAT2000-1112, MAT2003-08480 and MAT2006-13354.
2614 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

References

[1] Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond, Ser A 1921;221:163–98.
[2] Irwin GR. Fracture dynamics. In: Fracturing of metals (Proc. 1947 ASM symposium, Cleveland). Am Society for Metals: Cleveland, Ohio; 1949. p. 147–
66.
[3] Westergaard HM. Bearing pressures and cracks. J Appl Mech 1939;6:49–53.
[4] Irwin GR. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate. J Appl Mech 1957;24(3):361–4.
[5] Wells AA. Application of fracture mechanics at and beyond general yielding. Br Weld J 1961;11:563–70.
[6] Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentrations by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 1968;35:379–89.
[7] Broberg KB. Crack-growth criteria and non-linear fracture mechanics. J Mech Phys Solids 1971;19(6):407.
[8] Broberg KB. On stable crack growth. J Mech Phys Solids 1975;23:215.
[9] Cotterell B, Reddel JK. The essential work of plane stress ductile fracture. Int J Fract 1977;13:267–77.
[10] Maspoch ML, Gamez-Perez J, Gordillo A, Sánchez-Soto M, Velasco JI. Characterisation of injected EPBC plaques using the essential work of fracture
(EWF) method. Polymer 2002;43:4177–83.
[11] Mai Y-W, Cotterell B, Horlyck R, Vigna G. The essential work of plane stress ductile fracture of linear polyethylenes. Polym Eng Sci 1987;27:804.
[12] Saleemi AS, Nairn JA. The plane-strain essential work of fracture as a measure of the fracture toughness of ductile polymers. J Appl Pol Sci
1990;30:211.
[13] Paton CA, Hashemi S. Plane-stress essential work of ductile fracture for polycarbonate. J Mater Sci 1992;27:2279–90.
[14] Levita G, Parisi L, Marchetti A. The work of fracture in semiductile polymers. J Mater Sci 1994;29(17):4545–53.
[15] Sanchez JJ, Santana OO, Gordillo A, Maspoch ML, Martinez AB. Essential work of fracture of injection moulded samples of PET and PET/PC blends. In:
Blackman B, Pavan A, Williams JG, editors. Fracture of polymers. Composites and adhesives II. Elsevier Ltd. and ESIS; 2004. p. 77–84.
[16] Pardoen T, Marchal Y, Delannay F. Essential work of fracture compared to fracture mechanics – towards a thickness independent plane stress
toughness. Eng Fract Mech 2002;69(5):617–31.
[17] Marchal Y, Delannay F. Comparison of methods for fracture toughness testing of thin low carbon steel plates. Mater Sci Tech Ser 1998;14(11):1163–8.
[18] Levita G, Parisi L, Mcloghlin S. Essential work of fracture in polymer films. J Mater Sci 1996;31:1545–53.
[19] Pardoen T, Marchal Y, Delannay F. Thickness dependence of cracking resistance in thin aluminium plates. J Mech Phys Solids 1999;47(10):2093–123.
[20] Knockaert R, Doghri I, Marchal Y, Pardoen T, Delannay F. Experimental and numerical investigation of fracture in double-edge notched steel plates. Int
J Fract 1996;81(4):383–99.
[21] Chen YH, Mai YW, Tong P, Zhang LC. Numerical simulation of the essential fracture work method. In: Williams JG, Pavan A, editors. Fracture of
polymers. Composites and adhesion. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000. p. 175.
[22] Cotterell B, Pardoen T, Atkins AG. Measuring toughness and the cohesive stress–displacement relationship by the essential work of fracture concept.
Eng Fract Mech 2005;72(6):827–48.
[23] Chen HB, Wu JS. Understanding the underlying physics of the essential work of fracture on the molecular level. Macromolecules 2007;40(12):4322–6.
[24] Kwon HJ, Jar PYB. Fracture toughness of polymers in shear mode. Polymer 2005;46(26):12480–92.
[25] Wong JSS, Ferrer-Balas D, Li RKY, Mai YW, Maspoch ML, Sue HJ. On tearing of ductile polymer films using the essential work of fracture (EWF) method.
Acta Mater 2003;51(16):4929–38.
[26] Lauke B, Schuller T. Essential work of interfacial fracture: a method to characterise adhesion at polymer–polymer interfaces. J Int Adhes Adhes
2001;21(1):55–8.
[27] Duan K, Hu XZ, Mai YW. Substrate constraint and adhesive thickness effects on fracture toughness of adhesive joints. J Adhes Sci Technol
2004;18(1):39–53.
[28] Gray A. Testing protocol for essential work of fracture, ESIS, editor. 1993, European Structural Integrity Society (ESIS) – TC4.
[29] Hill R. On discontinuous plastic states with special reference to localized necking in thin sheets. J Mech Phys Solids 1952;1:19.
[30] Clutton E, Testing protocol for essential work of fracture, ESIS, editor. 1997, European Structural Integrity Society (ESIS) – TC4.
[31] Clutton E. Essential work of fracture. In: Moore DR, Pavan A, Williams JG, editors. Fracture mechanics testing methods for polymers, adhesives and
composites. Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd.; 2001. p. 177–95.
[32] Clutton E. ESIS TC4 experience with the essential work of fracture method. In: Williams JG, Pavan A, editors. Fracture of polymers, composites and
adhesives. Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd.; 2000. p. 187–99.
[33] Williams JG, Rink M. The standardisation of the EWF test. Eng Fract Mech 2007;74(7):1009–17.
[34] Hashemi S. Fracture toughness evaluation of ductile polymeric films. J Mater Sci 1997;32:1563–73.
[35] Lach R, Schneider K, Weidisch R, Janke A, Knoll K. Application of the essential work of fracture concept to nanostructured polymer materials. Eur
Polym J 2005;41(2):383–92.
[36] Duan K, Hu XZ, Stachowiak G. Modified essential work of fracture model for polymer fracture. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(16):3172–8.
[37] Hashemi S. Work of fracture of PBT/PC blend: effect of specimen size, geometry, and rate of testing. Polym Eng Sci 1997;37(5):912–21.
[38] Marchal Y, Delannay F. Influence of test parameters on the measurement of the essential work of fracture of zinc sheets. Int Fract J 1996;80:295–310.
[39] Karger-Kocsis J, Czigány T, Moskala EJ. Deformation rate dependence of the essential and non-essential work of fracture parameters in an amorphous
copolyester. Polymer 1998;39:3939.
[40] Maspoch ML, Ferrer D, Gordillo A, Santana OO. Effect of the specimen dimensions and the test speed on the fracture toughness of iPP by the Essential
Work of Fracture (EWF) method. J Appl Polym Sci 1999;73:177–87.
[41] Ching ECY, Poon WKY, Li RKY, Mai YW. Effect of strain rate on fracture toughness of some ductile polymers using the essential work of fracture (EWF)
approach. Polym Eng Sci 2000;40(12):2558–68.
[42] Light ME, Lesser AJ. Effect of test conditions on the essential work of fracture in polyethylene terephthalate film. J Mater Sci 2005;40(11):2861–6.
[43] Saminathan K, Selvakumar P, Bhatnagar N. Fracture studies of polypropylene/nanoclay composite. Part 1: effect of loading rates on essential work of
fracture. Polym Test 2008;27(3):296–307.
[44] Ching ECY, Li RKY, Mai Y-W. Effect of gauge length and strain rate on fracture toughness of polyethylene terephtalate glycol (PETG) film using the
essential work of fracture analysis. Polym Eng Sci 2000;40(2):310–9.
[45] Chen HB, Karger-Kocsis J, Wu JS. Effects of molecular structure on the essential work of fracture of amorphous copolyesters at various deformation
rates. Polymer 2004;45(18):6375–82.
[46] Santana OO, Maspoch ML, Martinez AB. Plane strain essential work of fracture in SENB geometry at low and high strain rates of PC/ABS blends. Polym
Bull 1997;39(4):511–8.
[47] Hashemi S. Temperature and deformation rate dependence of the work of fracture in polycarbonate (PC) film. J Mater Sci 2000;35(23):5851–6.
[48] Ferrer-Balas D, Maspoch ML, Martínez AB, Ching E, Li RKY, Mai Y-W. Fracture Behaviour of Polypropylene films at different temperatures: assessment
of the EWF parameters. Polymer 2001;42(6):2665–74.
[49] Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S. Effect of temperature on work of fracture parameters in poly(ether-ether ketone) (PEEK) film. Eng Fract Mech 2004;71(4–
6):789–804.
[50] Fayolle B, Tcharkhtchi A, Verdu J. Temperature and molecular weight dependence of fracture behaviour of polypropylene films. Polym Test
2004;23(8):939–47.
[51] Hashemi S, Xu Y. Thermal effects on fracture of biaxial-oriented poly(ethylene terephthalate) (BOPET) film. J Mater Sci 2007;42(15):6197–204.
[52] Pressly TG, Keskkula H, Paul DR. Temperature dependence of the fracture behavior of nylon 6/ABS blends. Polymer 2001;42(7):3043–55.
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2615

[53] Zhang H, Zhang Z, Yang JL, Friedrich K. Temperature dependence of crack initiation fracture toughness of various nanoparticles filled polyamide 66.
Polymer 2006;47(2):679–89.
[54] Casellas JJ, Frontini PM, Carella JM. Fracture characterization of low-density polyethylenes by the essential work of fracture: changes induced by
thermal treatments and testing temperature. J Appl Polym Sci 1999;74(4):781–96.
[55] Wu J, Mai YW. Cotterell, fracture toughness and fracture mechanisms of PBT/PC/IM blend (Part I: fracture properties). J Mater Sci 1993;28:3373–84.
[56] Tjong SC, Xu SA, Mai YW. Impact-specific essential work of fracture of maleic anhydride-compatibilized polypropylene/elastomer blends and their
composites. J Polym Sci (B) Pol Phys 2002;40(17):1881–92.
[57] Maspoch ML, Gamez-Perez J, Karger-Kocsis J. Effects of thickness, deformation rate and energy partitioning on the work of fracture parameters of
uPVC films. Polym Bull 2003;50(4):279–86.
[58] Tjong SC, Bao SP. Impact fracture toughness of polyamide-6/montmorillonite nanocomposites toughened with a maleated styrene/ethylene butylene/
styrene elastomer. J Polym Sci (B) Pol Phys 2005;43(5):585–95.
[59] Ozkoc G, Bayram G, Bayramli E. Impact essential work of fracture toughness of ABS/polyamide-6 blends compatibilized with olefin based copolymers.
J Mater Sci 2008;43(8):2642–52.
[60] Fasce L, Bernal C, Frontini P. On the impact essential work of fracture of ductile polymers. Polym Eng Sci 2001;41(1):1–14.
[61] Lievana E, Bernal C, Frontini P. Essential work of fracture of rubber-modified polyamide 6 in impact. Polym Eng Sci 2004;44(9):1707–15.
[62] Chiou KC, Chang FC, Mai YW. Impact specific essential work of fracture of compatibilized polyamide-6 (PA6)/poly(phenylene ether) (PPE) blends.
Polym Eng Sci 2001;41(6):1007–18.
[63] Ferrer-Balas D, Maspoch ML, Martínez AB, Santana OO. Influence of annealing on the microstructural, tensile and fracture properties of polypropylene
films. Polymer 2001;42(4):1697–705.
[64] Marchal Y, Walhin JF, Delannay F. Statistical procedure for improving the precision of the measurement of the essential work of fracture of thin
sheets. Int J Fract 1997;87(2):189–99.
[65] Pettarin V, Frontini PM, Elicabe GE. Optimal ligament lengths in impact fracture toughness estimation by the essential work of fracture method.
Polym Test 2005;24(2):189–96.
[66] Karger-Kocsis J, Czigány T, Moskala EJ. Thickness dependence of work of fracture parameters of an amorphous copolyester. Polymer 1997;38:4587.
[67] Ferrer-Balas D, Maspoch AB, Martínez AB, Santana OO. On the essential work of fracture method: energy partitioning of the fracture process in iPP
films. Polym Bull 1999;42:101–8.
[68] Pegoretti A, Ricco T. On the essential work of fracture of neat and rubber toughened polyamide-66. Eng Fract Mech 2006;73(16):2486–502.
[69] Kwon HJ, Jar PYB. New energy partitioning approach to the measurement of plane-strain fracture toughness of high-density polyethylene based on
the concept of essential work of fracture. Eng Fract Mech 2007;74(16):2471–80.
[70] Karger-Kocsis J, Ferrer-Balas D. On the plane-strain essential work of fracture of polymer sheets. Polym Bull 2001;46(6):507–12.
[71] Poon WKY, Ching ECY, Cheng CY, Li RKY. Measurement of plane stress essential work of fracture (EWF) for polymer films: effects of gripping and
notching methodology. Polym Test 2001;20(4):395–401.
[72] Yamakawa RS, Razzinoa CA, Correab CA, Hage Jr E. Influence of notching and molding conditions on determination of EWF parameters in polyamide 6.
Polym Test 2004;23(2):195–202.
[73] Gamez-Perez J, Muñoz P, Santana OO, Gordillo A, Maspoch ML. Influence of processing on ethylene-propylene block copolymers(II): fracture
behaviour. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;101:2714–24.
[74] Gamez-Perez J, Muñoz P, Velasco JI, Martínez AB, Maspoch ML. Determination of essential work of frtacture in EPBC sheets opbtained by different
transformation process. J Mater Sci 2005;40:1967–74.
[75] Gamez-Perez J. Structure–properties relationships in PP and EPBC films and plaques obtained by different transformation process., in Ciencia de los
Materiales e Ingeniería Metalúrgica. UPC: Terrassa; 2006. p. 237.
[76] Gamez-Perez J, Santana O, Martinez AB, Maspoch ML. Use of extensometers on essential work of fracture (EWF) tests. Polym Test 2008;27(4):491–7.
[77] Ferrer-Balas D, Maspoch ML, Mai Y-W. Fracture behaviour of polyproylene films at different temperatures: fractography and deformation
mechanisms studied by SEM. Polymer 2002;43:3083–91.
[78] Fung KL, Zhao HX, Wang JT, Meng YZ, Tjong SC, Li RKY. Essential work of fracture (EWF) analysis for compression molded alternating poly(propylene
carbonate). Polym Eng Sci 2004;44(3):580–7.
[79] Martinez AB, Segovia A, Gamez-Perez J, Maspoch ML. Influence of femtolaser notch sharpening technique in the determination of essential work of
fracture parameters. Eng Fract Mech 2009;76:1247–54.
[80] Mai YW, Pilko KM. The Essential work of plane stress ductile fracture of a strain-aged steel. J Mater Sci 1979;14:386–94.
[81] Mai YW, Cotterell B. Effects of pre-strain on plane stress ductile fracture in a-brass. J Mater Sci 1980;15:2296–306.
[82] Wnuk MP, Read DT. Essential work of fracture (We) versus energy-dissipation rate (Jc) in plane-stress ductile fracture. Int J Fract 1986;31(3):161–71.
[83] Chehab B, Brechet Y, Glez JC, Jacques PJ, Mithieux JD, Veron M, et al. Characterization of the high temperature tearing resistance using the essential
work of fracture – Application to dual phase ferritic stainless steels. Scripta Mater 2006;55(11):999–1002.
[84] Mai YW, Cotterell B. On the essential work of ductile fracture in polymers. Int J Fract 1986;32:105–25.
[85] Kodrat I,Sohn D, Hesp SAM. Comparison of polyphosphoric acid-modified asphalt binders with straight and polymer-modified materials. Transp Res
Rec;2007(1998):47-55.
[86] Seth RS, Robertson AG, Mai YW, Hoffmann JD. Plane-stress fracture-toughness of paper. Tappi J 1993;76(2):109–16.
[87] Hu XZ, Duan K. Influence of fracture process zone height on fracture energy of concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(8):1321–30.
[88] Mai YW, Powell P. Essential work of fracture and J-Integral measurements for ductile polymers. J Polym Sci: Part B 1991;29:785–93.
[89] Chan WYF, Willams JG. Determination of fracture toughness of polymeric films by the essential work of fracture. Polymer 1994;35:1666.
[90] Fayolle B, Verdu J. EWF method to study long term fracture properties of cross-linked polyethylene. Polym Eng Sci 2005;45(3):424–31.
[91] Costa FR, Satapathy BK, Wagenknecht U, Weidisch R, Heinrich G. Morphology and fracture behaviour of polyethylene/Mg–Al layered double
hydroxide (LDH) nanocomposites. Eur Polym J 2006;42(9):2140–52.
[92] Na B, Lv RH, Zhang Q, Fu Q. Macroscopic deformation and failure of ductile polyethylene: the dominant role of entangled amorphous network. Polym J
2007;39(8):834–40.
[93] Peres FM, Schon CG. Application of the essential work of fracture method in ranking the performance in service of high-density polyethylene resins
employed in pressure pipes. J Mater Sci 2008;43(6):1844–50.
[94] Yang W, Xie BH, Shi W, Li ZM, Liu ZY, Chen J, et al. Essential work of fracture evaluation of fracture behavior of glass bead filled linear low-density
polyethylene. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;99(4):1781–7.
[95] Barany T, Foldes E, Czigany T, Karger-Kocsis J. Effect of UV aging on the tensile and fracture mechanical response of syndiotactic polypropylenes of
various crystallinity. J Appl Polym Sci 2004;91(6):3462–9.
[96] Gong G, Xie BH, Yang W, Li ZM, Lai SM, Yang MB. Plastic deformation behavior of polypropylene/calcium carbonate composites with and without
maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene incorporated using the essential work of fracture method. Polym Test 2006;25(1):98–106.
[97] Wang K, Wu JS, Zeng HM. Microstructure and fracture behavior of polypropylene/barium sulfate composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;99(3):1207–13.
[98] Xie BH, Shen YX, Li ZM, Yang W, Feng JM, Yang MB. Fracture behavior of polypropylene/POE blends with different mixed ratios. Acta Polym Sin
2006;2:335–9.
[99] Arencon D, Velasco JI, Realinho V, Antunes M, Maspoch ML. Essential work of fracture analysis of glass micro sphere-filled polypropylene and
polypropylene/poly (ethylene terephthalateco-isophthalate) blend-matrix composites. Polym Test 2007;26(6):761–9.
[100] Gamez-Perez J, Santana O, Gordillo A, Maspoch ML. Evaluation of the fracture behavior of multilayered polypropylene sheets obtained by coextrusion.
Polym Eng Sci 2007;47(9):1365–72.
2616 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617

[101] Sheng BR, Li B, Xie BH, Yang W, Feng HM, Yang MB. Influences of molecular weight and crystalline structure on fracture behavior of controlled-
rheology-polypropylene prepared by reactive extrusion. Polym Degrad Stabil 2008;93(1):225–32.
[102] Wang SW, Yang W, Gong G, Xie BH, Liu ZY, Yang MB. Effect of alpha- and beta-nucleating agents on the fracture behavior of polypropylene-co-
ethylene. J Appl Polym Sci 2008;108(1):591–7.
[103] Cotterell B, Chia JYH, Hbaieb K. Fracture mechanisms and fracture toughness in semicrystalline polymer nanocomposites. Eng Fract Mech
2007;74(7):1054–78.
[104] Li QG, Xie BH, Yang W, Li ZM, Zhang WQ, Yang MB. Effect of annealing on fracture behavior of poly(propylene-block-ethylene) using essential work of
fracture analysis. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;103(5):3438–46.
[105] Karger-Kocsis J, Mouzakis DE. Effects of injection molding-induced morphology on the work of fracture parameters in rubber-toughened
polypropylenes. Polym Eng Sci 1999;39(8):1365–74.
[106] Maspoch ML, Hénault V, Ferrer-Balas D, Velasco JI, Santana OO. Essential work of fracture on PET films: influence of the thickness and the orientation.
Polym Test 2000;19:559–68.
[107] Liu C-H, Nairn JA. Using the essential work of fracture method for studying physical aging in thin, ductile, polymeric films. Polym Eng Sci
1998;38(1):186–93.
[108] Mouzakis DE, Papke N, Wu JS, Karger-Kocsis J. Fracture toughness assessment of poly(ethylene terephthalate) blends with glycidyl methacrylate
modified polyolefin elastomer using essential work of fracture method. J Appl Polym Sci 2001;79(5):842–52.
[109] Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S. Determination of fracture toughness of poly(ethylene terephthalate) film by essential work of fracture and J integral
measurements. Plast Rubber Compos 2001;30(7):337–50.
[110] Barany T, Ronkay F, Karger-Kocsis J, Czigany T. In-plane and out-of-plane fracture toughness of physically aged polyesters as assessed by the essential
work of fracture (EWF) method. Int J Fract 2005;135(1–4):251–65.
[111] Vincent L, Connolly SN, Dolan F, Willcocks PH, Jayaweera SAA, Pendlebury R. Determination and comparison of the plane stress essential work of
fracture of three polyesters PET, PPT and PBT. J Therm Anal Calorim 2006;86(1):147–54.
[112] Rao YQ, Greener J, Avila-Orta CA, Hsiao BS, Blanton TN. The relationship between microstructure and toughness of biaxially oriented semicrystalline
polyester films. Polymer 2008;49(10):2507–14.
[113] Kobayashi H, Shioya M, Tanaka T, Irisawa T, Sakurai S, Yamamoto K. Comparative study of fracture behavior between carbon black/poly(ethylene
terephthalate) and multiwalled carbon nanotube/poly(ethylene terephthalate) composite films. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;106(1):152–60.
[114] Karger-Kocsis J, Moskala EJ. Relationships between molecular and plane-stress essential work of fracture parameters in amorphous copolyesters.
Polym Bull 1997;39:503–10.
[115] Kayano Y, Keskkula H, Paul DR. Fracture behaviour of some rubber-toughened nylon 6 blends. Polymer 1998;39(13):2835–45.
[116] Qiao Y, Avlar S, Chakravarthula SS. Essential fracture work of nylon 6-silicate nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 2005;95(4):815–9.
[117] Yang JL, Zhang Z, Zhang H. The essential work of fracture of polyamide 66 filled with TiO2 nanoparticles. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65(15–
16):2374–9.
[118] Baldi F, Bignotti F, Tieghi G, Ricco T. Rubber toughening of polyamide 6/organoclay nanocomposites obtained by melt blending. J Appl Polym Sci
2006;99(6):3406–16.
[119] Kayano Y, Keskkula H, Paul DR. Fracture behaviour of polycarbonate blends with core-shell impact modifier. Polymer 1998;39(4):821–34.
[120] Wu J, Mai Y-W. The essential fracture work concept for toughness measurement of ductile polymers. Polym Eng Sci 1996;36(18):2275.
[121] Yuan YL, Wu CML, Li RKY. On the tearing fracture of polycarbonate films. Polym Test 2007;26(1):102–7.
[122] Inberg JPF, Gaymans RJ. Polycarbonate and co-continuous polycarbonate/ABS blends: influence of specimen thickness. Polymer
2002;43(13):3767–77.
[123] Luna P, Bernal C, Cisilino A, Frontini P, Cotterell B, Mai YW. The application of the essential work of fracture methodology to the plane strain fracture
of ABS 3-point bend specimens. Polymer 2003;44(4):1145–50.
[124] Staudinger U, Satapathy BK, Thunga M, Lach R, Weidisch R, Knoll K. Influence of phase miscibility and morphology on crack resistance behaviour and
kinetics of crack propagation of nanostructured binary styrene–(styrene/butadiene)–styrene triblock copolymer blends. Acta Mater
2007;55(17):5844–58.
[125] Wang XL, Li RY, Cao YX, Meng YZ. Essential work of fracture analysis for starch filled poly(propylene carbonate) composites. Mater Des
2007;28(6):1934–9.
[126] Plummer CJG, Scaramuzzino P, Steinberger R, Lang RW, Kausch H-H. Application of the essential work of fracture concept to high temperature
deformation in polyoxymethylene. Polym Eng Sci 2000;40(4):985–91.
[127] Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S, O’Brien M. Factors affecting work of fracture of uPVC film. J Mater Sci 1999;34:5961–74.
[128] Whittle AJ, Burford RP, Hoffman MJ. Assessment of strength and toughness of modified PVC pipes. Plast Rubber Compos 2001;30(9):434–40.
[129] Lau SW, Truss RW. The essential work of fracture through the wall of a uPVC pipe. J Mater Sci 2002;37(6):1115–9.
[130] Wallner GM, Major Z, Maier GA, Lang RW. Fracture analysis of annealed PVDF films. Polym Test 2008;27(3):392–402.
[131] Maspoch ML, Santana OO, Grando J, Ferrer-Balas D, Martínez AB. The essential work of fracture of a thermoplastic elastomer. Polym Bull
1997;39:249–55.
[132] Lesser AJ, Jones NA. Fracture behavior of dynamically vulcanized thermoplastic elastomers. J Appl Polym Sci 2000;76(6):763–70.
[133] Musto P, Ragosta G, Scarinzi G, Mascia L. Toughness enhancement of polyimides by in situ generation of silica particles. Polymer
2004;45(12):4265–74.
[134] Zhao HX, Li RKY. Fracture behaviour of poly(ether ether ketone) films with different thicknesses. Mech Mater 2006;38(1-2):100–10.
[135] Karger-Kocsis J, Moskala EJ, Shang PP. Work of Fracture and Strain-Induced cold crystallization behavior of amorphous copolyester sheets. J Therm
Anal Calorim 2001;63:671–8.
[136] Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S. Fracture behaviour of polyethylene naphthalate (PEN). Polymer 2002;43:289–300.
[137] Pfaff FA. Growing more ductile epoxies: an essential work of fracture study. J Coat Technol Res 2007;4(2):151–9.
[138] Chen HB, Wu JS. Specific essential work of fracture of polyurethane thin films with different molecular structures. J Polym Sci Part B – Polym Phys
2007;45(12):1418–24.
[139] Plucknett KP, Normand V. Plane stress essential work of fracture of ’pseudo-ductile’ gelatin/maltodextrin biopolymer gel composites. Polymer
2000;41(18):6833–41.
[140] Chaleat CM, Halley PJ, Truss RW. Properties of a plasticised starch blend .Part 1: influence of moisture content on fracture properties. Carbohydr
Polym 2008;71(4):535–43.
[141] Li ZM, Yang W, Huang R, Fang XP, Yang MB. Essential work of fracture parameters of in-situ microfibrillar poly(ethylene terephthalate)/polyethylene
blend: influences of blend composition. Macromol Mater Eng 2004;289(5):426–33.
[142] Lach R, Weidisch R, Janke A, Knoll K. Influence of domain size on toughness of poly(styrene-block-butadiene) star block copolymer/polystyrene
blends. Macromol Rapid Commun 2004;25(24):2019–24.
[143] Liu Y, Xie BH, Yang W, Zhang WQ, Feng JM, Yang MB. Morphology and fracture behaviour of poly(vinyl chloride)/ethylene–vinyl acetate copolymer
blends. Polym Test 2007;26(3):388–95.
[144] Na B, Lv RH, Zhao ZX. Dispersed microfibril-dominated deformation and fracture behaviors of linear low density polyethylene/isotactic polypropylene
blends. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;104(2):1291–8.
[145] Okada O, Keskkula H, Paul DR. Fracture toughness of nylon-6 blends with maleated rubbers. J Polym Sci Part B – Polym Phys 2004;42(9):1739–58.
[146] Arencon D, Velasco JI, Realinho V, Sanchez-Soto M, Gordillo A. Fracture toughness of glass microsphere-filled polypropylene and polypropylene/poly
(ethylene terephthalate-co-isophthalate) blend-matrix composites. J Mater Sci 2007;42(1):19–29.
 A.B. Martinez et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2604–2617 2617

[147] Gong G, Xie BH, Yang MB, Yang W, Zhang WQ, Zhao M. Mechanical properties and fracture behavior of injection and compression molded
polypropylene/coal gangue powder composites with and without a polymeric coupling agent. Compos Pt A – Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38(7):1683–93.
[148] Bureau MN, Ton-That MT, Perrin-Sarazin F. Essential work of fracture and failure mechanisms of polypropylene–clay nanocomposites. Eng Fract
Mech 2006;73(16):2360–74.
[149] Kim HS, Karger-Kocsis J. Tearing resistance of some co-polyester sheets. Acta Mater 2004;52(10):3123–33.
[150] Poisson C, Fournier JE, Lacrampe MF, Krawczak P. Essential work of fracture (EWF) of multilayer films. Polym Polym Compos 2006;14(7):671–89.
[151] Karger-Kocsis J. Fracture and fatigue behaviour of semicristalline polymers as a function of microstructural and molecular parameters. In: Cunha AM,
Fakirov S, editors. Structure development during polymer processing. Dordrechet: Kluwer Academic; 1999. p. 163–79.
[152] Na B, Lv RH. Relationship between fracture toughness and intrinsic deformation parameters in isotropic and flow-oriented linear low-density
polyethylene. J Polym Sci Part B – Polym Phys 2006;44(19):2880–7.
[153] Wang XL, Li RKY, Cao YX, Meng YZ. Essential work of fracture analysis of poly(propylene carbonate) with varying molecular weight. Polym Test
2005;24(6):699–703.
[154] Karger-Kocsis J. Microstructural and molecular dependence of the work of fracture parameters in semicrystalline and amorphous polymer systems.
Fract Polym, Compos Adhes 2000;27:213–30.