Chapter 10

Fracture Control

10.1 Jack-Knifed Failure of Liberty Ships

During the World War II, USA was obliged to construct a large number of vessels
urgently and the first all-welded ships, Liberty ships and T-2 Tankers, were pro-
duced according to an emergency ship building program. Some of these ships later
broke completely in two, like a jack knife. Most of the failure occurred during the
winter months. Failures occurred both when the ships were in rough sea condition
and when they were anchored at dock as shown in Figs. 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 [34].
The failure of these vessels gave a driving force to the study of brittle fracture and
fracture mechanics. Brittle fracture is the phenomena where normally ductile mild
steel becomes brittle in low temperature and the crack propagates very rapidly. The
study of brittle fracture resulted in both improvement of assessing steel strength,
and development of the design method. Hereafter, the failure of Liberty ships due to
brittle fracture is explained and the fracture managing technology based on fracture
mechanics is addressed.
At 11 pm on 16 January 1943, a few days after completing sea trials, the 152 m
long T2 tanker the “Schenectady” broke in two amidships while lying at the out-
fitting dock in the construction yard in Portland, Oregon, USA. The temperature of
the harbor water was about 4◦ C and the conditions were still. The air temperature
was approximately −3◦ C and the winds were light.
The failure was sudden and accompanied by a report that it was heard a mile
away. The fracture extended through the deck, the sides of the hull, the longitudinal
bulkheads and the bottom girders. The vessel jack-knifed, hinging on the bottom
plate which had remained intact. The central part of the ship rose clear of the water,
so no flooding of the hull through the fracture occurred.
The “Schenectady” was built by the Kaiser Company as part of the huge World
War II emergency shipbuilding program. This program produced 2580 Liberty
ships, 414 Victory ships and 530 T2 tankers over the years 1941–1946.
The failure of the “Schenectady” initiated on the deck between two bulkheads. A
defective weld existed in a region of stress concentration arising at a design detail.
The nominal tensile stress in the deck was calculated to be 68 N/mm2 . Poor welding
procedures caused the catastrophe also.

M. Mano et al., Design of Ship Hull Structures, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-88445-3 17, 319

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
320 10 Fracture Control

Fig. 10.1.1 Jack-knifed failure of Liberty Ship

A broad research program was undertaken to find the causes of these failures
and to prescribe the remedies for their future prevention. In addition to the above re-
search, other research was aimed at gaining a better understanding of the mechanism
of brittle fracture and fracture in general.

Fig. 10.1.2 Collapse of Liberty Ship T2 tanker “Schenectady”

10.2 Fracture Mechanics 321

Fig. 10.1.3 Photograph of typical brittle-fracture surface

Brittle fracture is quite dangerous, because normally ductile mild steel becomes
brittle in low temperature and the crack propagates very rapidly at the rate of 1500–
2000 m/s causing sudden fracture of the vessel as shown in Fig. 10.1.3 [35].
In order to avoid failure due to brittle fracture, the following measures are taken
on the basis of much research;
(1) The absorbed energy in the Charpy V notch test correlates well with the ob-
served crack initiation, propagation and arrest behavior of the ship’ steel. Hence
the Charpy V notch test is standardized in such a way that the absorbed energy
of the ship’s steel is required according to the specified temperature.
(2) High quality steels, more ductile steels, are developed by modifying alloy ele-
ments, grain size, deoxidation methods and normalizing heat treatments.
(3) More proper ship design and welding methods are implemented to avoid sharp
defect in welded part, because these defects often initiate the crack.

10.2 Fracture Mechanics

10.2.1 Principles

Although the traditional design criteria of hull structures are generally based on the
tensile strength, yield strength, and buckling strength, they are insufficient when
there is the likelihood of cracks; especially in the case of the wide application of
high strength steels, weight savings by detail stress analysis using Finite Element
Method, and the development of refrigerated cargo ships such as LPG and LNG
carriers which are exposed to low temperatures.
322 10 Fracture Control

Fig. 10.2.1 Broad fields of fracture mechanics

If preexisting flaws or high stress concentrations are present, especially in the

vicinity of welding beads, the structures have a low crack resistance, that is, low
fracture toughness, and the residual strength will be low. In such cases, the frac-
ture may be brittle, and the application of fracture mechanics has been used for the
evaluation of hull strength recently.
Figure 10.2.1 [36] shows the overall disciplines of fracture mechanics from the
transgranular/intergranular fractures to engineering applications. Recently, “fail-
safe design” has been widely applied. The criteria allow for the occurrence of small
cracks and crack growth, if they are under the allowable values, subject to manage
the residual strength so as to keep the structural safety. Hence, the occurrence, prop-
agation, and transition to the brittle fractures of fatigue cracks be well investigated,
and the allowable stress, residual strength, allowable flaws, and material selection
must be considered during the structural design.

10.2.2 Linear Fracture Mechanics

A crack in a solid is categorized in three modes as shown in Fig. 10.2.2. In these,

mode, opening mode, in which the displacement of the cracked surfaces are perpen-

Fig. 10.2.2 Three modes of loading

10.2 Fracture Mechanics 323

Fig. 10.2.3 Crack in arbitrary

body

dicular to the plane of crack, is the most fundamental and important. In mode II,
sliding mode, the displacement of the cracked surfaces is in the plane of the crack
and perpendicular to the leading edge of the crack. Mode III, tearing mode, is caused
by out-of-plane shear.
In model, in-plane crack tip stress is expressed as follows for an infinite plate
subject to uniform tension (Fig. 10.2.3).
K1
σi j = √ fi j (θ ) (10.2.1)
2π r

σi j : stress acting on a plate element dxdy at a distance r from crack tip and at θ
from the crack plane.
K1 : stress intensity factor for model

The stresses for an area close to the crack tip as shown in Fig. 10.2.4 are shown
in these equations:

Fig. 10.2.4 Crack in infinite

plate
324 10 Fracture Control
 
a θ θ 3θ
σx = σ cos 1 − sin sin
2π r 2 2 2
 
a θ θ 3θ
σy = σ cos 1 + sin sin (10.2.2)
2π r 2 2 2

a θ θ 3θ
τx = σ sin cos cos
2π r 2 2 2
√
σ aπ K1
When θ = 0, σy = √ ≡√
2π r 2π r
Hence, √
Kl = σ aπ (10.2.3)
Kl is called the “stress intensity factor”, which has the dimension of stress times the
square root of the length, and is defined only by the remote stress σ and the crack
length.
For mode I and II, stress intensity factors are defined similarly. These values are
applied for fractures under lower stress conditions such that the plastic zone is small
compared to the size of the crack.
On the other hand, crack growth per unit thickness is written as:
πσ 2 a K 2
G= =  (10.2.4)
E E
U: elastic energy
E = E for plane stress condition
E
E = for plane strain condition
1 − ν2
E: Young’s modulus
ν: Poesson’s ratio

G is called “elastic energy release rate” per crack tip, or crack driving force. When
G exceeds a certain critical value Gc , crack growth occurs.

G ≥ Gc (10.2.5)

Gc is called “critical energy released rate”, and is generally determined by measure-

ments.
Correspondingly, brittle fracture will occur when the K value exceeds a certain
critical value Kc , which is called critical fracture toughness.

K ≥ Kc (10.2.6)

10.2.3 Non-Linear Fracture Mechanics

When the plastic zone in the vicinity of a crack tip is not small, the crack opening
displacement or crack-tip opening displacement (COD, CTOD) concept is applied;
10.2 Fracture Mechanics 325

Fig. 10.2.5 COD δ in a thin

plate

when the material at the crack tip reaches a maximum permissible plastic strain,
crack extension takes place. The crack tip strain is related to COD, hence, crack
extension or fracture is assumed to occur when COD exceeds a critical value. COD
is δ as shown in Fig. 10.2.5. This criterion is equivalent to Kc and Gc in the case of
a small plastic arrangement.
In the case of Fig. 10.2.4, COD is written as
)  *
8σy a πσ∞ −1
δ= ln cos (10.2.7)
πE 2σy

With decreasing σ∞ /σy (and hence c/a) this will asymptotically approach.

K12
δ= (10.2.8)
E σy

10.2.4 Fracture Toughness

For fractures involving small-scale yielding, the Charpy test is usually applied to
evaluate fracture toughness. The notched test piece is hit by a hummer at each tem-
perature, and the energy loss is measured by the differences in hummer elevation
force and after breakthrough. The test piece has usually V-notch in the center and
is supported at both ends. Results of the V-notch Charpy impact tests are shown in
Fig. 10.2.6. Fracture surface of V-notch Charpy impact tests is shown in Fig. 10.2.7.
The temperature at a half of maximum energy is called mean energy transition
temperature and also such the temperature that the brittle fracture appearance occu-
pies a half is called 50% fracture transition temperature v TrE , while such tempera-
ture that the areas of fibrous fracture and crystal fracture are same is called fracture
appearance transition temperature v TrS . v TrE and v TrS is approximately same. Fur-
thermore, such temperature that the absorbed energy becomes 15 ft-lb (2.1 kgf-m) is
called to be related to the occurrence of brittle fracture due to experience of Liberty
ships during world war II in USA.

10.2.5 Grade of Steel

Grades of steel materials are regulated by IACS unified rules. Here, the background
of the application is introduced based on the NK rules [37, 38]. The principle is
326 10 Fracture Control

Fig. 10.2.6 Temperature curve of absorbed energy

Fig. 10.2.7 Fracture of V

notch Charpy

Eq. (10.2.6); the toughness K is taken to be less than the critical fracture toughness.
The model is shown in Fig. 10.2.8, in which a crack crosses at right angle to a weld
bead. The length of the crack is estimated to be 240 mm at important places and
200 mm at others. The applied stresses are categorized as shown in Table 10.2.1. In
addition the residual stress is taken as being half the yield stress, then applied stress
and K value are

Fig. 10.2.8 Model with crack

10.2 Fracture Mechanics 327

Table 10.2.1 Applied stresses and K

σ = σd + 0.5σy (10.2.9)
√
K = (σd + 0.5σy ) π a (10.2.10)
σd : applied stress (Table 10.2.1)
σy : yield stress
a: crack length

On the other hand, Kc is derived using the master curve of WES3003 using the
V-notch Charpy impact test. The absorbed energy is expressed as follows as shown
in Fig. 10.2.9.
 T −vTrE
   
1 1 T − vTrE 2
vET = √ exp − dT (10.2.11)
2π −∞ 2 20

T: temperature of impact test (◦ C)

vET : absorbed energy (kgf· m)
vTrE : fracture transition temperature (◦ C)
The brittle fracture temperature is determined from deep notch impact tests, for
applied stresses of σyo /2 and crack lengths of 80 mm as follows:
√
I Tk = (0.00321σy0 + 0.391) vTrS + 2.74 t − 5.44 (10.2.12)

Fig. 10.2.9 Master curve of absorbed energy

328 10 Fracture Control

I TK : Temperature of brittle fracture (◦ K)

vTrS : transition temperature of 50% brittle fracture
σy0 : nominal yield stress (kgf/mm2 )
t: plate thickness (mm)
Since vTrS is almost same as vTrE , I TK can be calculated from the above equation
using vTrE instead of vTrS , and Kc is obtained from the following equation for a
given temperature TK (◦ K).
 

1 1
Kc = 3.81σy0 exp 562 − (10.2.13)
I TK TK

As a result, Table 10.2.2 is gained by Charpy impact test at 0◦ C. Comparing the

K value of Table 10.2.1 and Kc , steel grades are applied for each plate thickness and
each stress class. Table 10.2.3 shows the IACS unified rules.

Table 10.2.2 KC value

10.3 Fatigue Strength Design

10.3.1 Crack Propagation Calculation by Paris’s Equation

In general, crack growth rate is considered to be governed by the K-value (stress in-
tensity factor) range at the crack tip. The simplest application of fracture mechanics
to fatigue strength design is the Paris’s equation, expressed as follows:

da
= C(ΔK)m (10.3.1)
dN
da/dN: crack growth rate, or crack growth per cycle
C, m: material constant
ΔK: stress intensity factor range
This equation is valid only within the region where crack growth is stable, and
bounded at lower and upper extremes by ΔKth and Kc . ΔKth is the threshold stress
10.3 Fatigue Strength Design 329

Table 10.2.3 IACS unified rule

intensity factor range, and the crack growth rate can be combined with Paris’s
equation as follows:

da
= C(ΔK)m ΔK > ΔKth
dN (10.3.2)
= 0 (no crack) ΔK ≤ ΔKth

Schematically, the crack growth rate curve is illustrated in Fig. 10.3.1.

Regarding the application of crack propagation analysis to a ship’s structure, the
IGC code for liquefied gas carriers requires this analysis for the independent Type
B tanks, and there are many actual applications. However, recently such applica-
tions are spreading into conventional ships such as container ships, bulk carriers,
and tankers. This makes it possible to evaluate the tolerance limit of undercut of the
welding and the allowable values of initial crack defects or initial scratches. This
330 10 Fracture Control

Fig. 10.3.1 Schematic crack

growth rate curve

improves the quality of hull structures rationally by integrating the design, work-
manship, and inspection.

10.3.2 Fatigue Strength Design Taking into Account Construction

Tolerances [39]

Fatigue cracks are caused by variation in stresses at local points, and are influenced
by structural stress concentration, construction tolerances, alignment, welding bead
shape, as well as the exerted stress range and residual stress. In actual ship struc-
ture, some construction deviation such as thin horse distortion and misalignment to
some extent is inevitable. Such construction deviations are controlled under con-
struction standards such as JSQS, and it is considered that strength is warranted by
the feedback from actual structural damage of ships in service.
Although a long history of shipbuilding proves that this system has functioned,
simple standards such as JSQS do not accurately take into account the influence of
design variations such as a wider application of higher tensile strength steel leading
to increased nominal stress, or different structural configurations. By quantitatively
evaluating the influence of construction tolerances, the quality in terms of fatigue
strength can be enhanced.
(1) Influence of construction tolerances to local stress
10.3 Fatigue Strength Design 331

Table 10.3.1 shows equations of local stress at the weld toe of several types of weld-
ing joints, and the stress concentration factor to be taken into account. In the case
of wrap-around welding and cruciform joints (non load transmitted), only the stress
concentration factor at the weld toe (Kt ) suffices, but in the case of butt joints and
cruciform joints (load transmitted), the stress concentration factor due to misalign-
ment (Km ) is also to be considered. In the case of fillet welding of skin plate or butt
welding of skin plates, the stress range is to be divided into membrane stress and
bending stress, and the stress concentration factor due to thin horse distortion (Kd )
and due to misalignment (Km ) is applied only to the membrane stress portion.
Table 10.3.2 shows the equations to derive each stress concentration factor. By
applying such factors, the construction department can rationally control construc-
tion tolerances quantitatively depending on the location and exerted stresses.
(2) Welding bead shape and Kt control
As shown in the equation of Kt in Table 10.3.2, Kt is affected by the flank angle
(θ) and the toe radius (ρ). It is readily understood that wide variation in the welding

Table 10.3.1 Local stress at weld toe

332 10 Fracture Control

Table 10.3.2 Stress concentration factor and construction tolerances

bead shape, or of such parameters as the flank angle and the toe radius, leads to a
large probability of non conformity. That is, if the variation in bead shape is large,
the capability distribution as shown in Fig. 1.6.2 in Part I becomes lower and more
spread out, and the probability of fracture increases.
From this point of view, we adopt the idea of the Kt control method to control
the stress concentration factor of weld toes. This means carrying out special con-
trol on bead shape for important places of high stress, and inspect and record them
quantitatively. Figure 10.3.2 [40] shows the probability distribution of the Kt values
of the beads of wrap-around weld portions extracted at random. It is known that the
welding quality is considerably enhanced through such special control.
10.3 Fatigue Strength Design 333

Fig. 10.3.2 Probability distribution of stress concentration factor Kt

One important aspect of Kt control is the rational agreement between design

conditions and fabrication deviations. To warrant fatigue strength, actual bead shape
(flank angle and toe radius) is to be measured and the resulting Kt is to be assessed
such that it’s within the allowable limits given by the design conditions.