Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formation Fissuration 2
Formation Fissuration 2
Sylvie Pommier,
LMT
(ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay)
Fail Safe
Damage Tolerant Design
unknown
Causes of fracture:
• Welded Structure rather than bolted,
offering a substantial assembly time gain
but with a continuous path offered for
cracks to propagate through the
structure.
• Low quality of the welds (presence of
cracks and internal stresses)
• Low quality steel, ductile/brittle
transition around 0°C
Liberty Ships, WWII, 1941, Brittle fracture
4
LEFM - Linear elastic fracture mechanics
Georges Rankine Irwin “the godfather of fracture mechanics »
Previous authors
Griffith A. A. - 1920 –"The phenomenon of rupture and flow in
solids", 1920, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol.
A221 pp.163-98
3 accidents
26/10/1952, departing from Rome
Ciampino
March 1953, departing from Karachi
Pakistan
10/01/1954, Crash on the Rome-London
flight (with passengers)
8
Development of rules for the EASA certification
Aloha April, 28th 1988,
9
Rotor Integrity Sub-Committee (RISC)
Elaboration of AC 33.70-2
Why ?
• To prevent fatalities and disaster
Where ?
• Public transportation (trains, aircraft,
ships…)
13
Classes of material behaviour : relevant variables
14
Classes of fracture mechanisms : criteria
• Brittle fracture
• Ductile fracture
• Dynamic fracture
• Fatigue crack growth
• Creep crack growth
• Crack growth by corrosion, oxydation, ageing
• Coupling between damage mechanisms
15
Mechanisms acting at very different scales of time and
space, an assumption of scales separation
• Atomic scale (surface oxydation, ageing, …)
• Microstructural scale (grain boundary corrosion, creep,
oxydation, persistent slip band in fatigue etc… )
• Plastic zone scale or damaged zone (material
hardening or softening, continuum damage, ductile
damage...)
• Scale of the structure (wave propagation …)
Atomic cohesion
energy Brittle fracture
10 J/m2 energy
10 000 J/m2
16
Classes of relevant assumptions : application of
criteria
Short cracks (3D problem, influence of free surfaces, scale and gradients
effects)
17
Griffith’ theory
Threshold for unsteady crack growth
(brittle or ductile)
G 2
where
Criteria :
DU elastic Wext
G
da 19
Evolution by Bui, Erlacher & Son
G
DFvolume Wext
da
23
• The crack faces must be free surfaces
(no friction, no fluid pressure)
2a
loc a
K t 1 2
r r
2a
loc a
r 0 2 loc
r
Singularity
26
Remarks: existence of a singularity
r 0
2a
r , f r g
r* r
r
f (r * ) q f (r )
r : distance to the discontinuity
Warning: implicit choice of scale
27
Order of this singularity
For a crack : =-0.5
Linear elasticity:
r Br
r 0
r Cr
r 0
r rmax
Eelast A
r r rd dr 0
r 0
r 0
r rmax
2 2
2 1
Eelast 2A r dr Eelast 2 A
rmax
r 0
r 0 r 0 2 2
2 2
rmax
Eelast 2A
r 0 2 2 2 2 0 1
1 280
2 2 0 1
Non linear material behaviour ?
n
o n 1 elastic n=4
o
r Ar
r 0
r Br n
r 0
r rmax
Eelast C
n
r r rd dr
r 0
r 0
r rmax
1n 1
Eelast 2C r dr
r 0
r 0 1 n 2 0
1n 2
rmax 2
Eelast 2C
r 0 1 n 2
1 n
29
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
30
Fracture modes
31
Fracture modes
32
Fracture modes
33
Fracture modes
34
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
35
Case of mode I
Analysis of Irwin based on Westergaard’s analysis
and Williams expansions
Planar Symmetric
36
Balance equation
Div f v r a
2D problem, quasi-static, no volume force
xx xy xz
0
x y z
xy yy yz
0
x y z
xz yz zz
0
x y z 37
Linear isotropic elasticity : E, n
xx
E
xx n yy
1 n 2
1 n n
Tr 1 yy
E
yy n xx
E E 1 n 2
E
xy xy
1 n
38
Compatibility equations
u x 2 xx 3u x
xx
x y x y
2 2
u y 2 yy 3u y
yy
y x
2
y x
2
1 u x u y 2 xy 3u y
3u x
xy 2
2 y x xy y x x y
2 2
xy
2
yy
2
2 xx
2 2 2
xy x y
39
Combination
Compatibility + Linear elasticity
2 xy 2 yy
2 xx
2 2 2 xx
E
xx n yy
xy x y 1 n 2
2 xy 2 yy
2 xx
yy
E
yy n xx
1 n 2
2 2 2
xy x y xy
E
xy
1 n
Balance equations
+
xx xy
0
x y
= 3 Equations, 3 unknowns
xy yy
0
x y 40
Airy function F(x,y) -1862-
Balance equation Compatibility
xx xy xy yy 2 xy 2 yy
2 xx
0 2 2 2
x y x y xy x y
Assuming
2F
xx 2
y
2F 4F 4F 4F
yy 2 2 2 2 4 0
x x
4
x y y
2F
xy 1 equation, 1 unknow
xy
F(x,y)
41
Z(z) , z complex,
4F 4F 4F
2 2 2 4 0 F=F(x,y)
x
4
x y y
4Z 4Z
4
x z
4
Z (z) always fulfill all the
4Z 4Z equations of the problem
4
x y
2 2
z Z(z) must verify the symmetry
4Z 4Z and the boundary conditions
4
y z
4
42
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
43
Irwin’s or Westergaard’s analyses
S
Away from the crack (x & y >> a) : sxx= S syy= S & sxy= 0
F
2
S 2 2
y x a4 S 2
Z z a4
2
Relation
Z Z
F Re Z yRe Re Z yI m
y z
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
48
Exact solution for a crack
Singularities
in y=0 x=+a
2Z 3Z & y=0 x=-a
xx Re 2 yI m 3
z z S 2
Z z a4
2Z 3Z
yy Re 2 yI m 3 + 1 1
+ 2
z z Z
3Z za za Sz
xy yRe 3 z
z
Z
z
S z a2 2
1
2
Exact solution 49
Asymptotic solution - Irwin-
2Z Sz 2Z Sa S a i 2
e
z 2
z2 a2 1
2 z 2
2arei
1
2 2r
3Z Sa 2 3Z Sa 2 1 S a i 2
3
e
z
3 3
z a
2 2 2
z 3
2arei 2
3
r 2r
50
Asymptotic solution - Irwin-
2Z S a i 2
2Z 3Z
xx Re 2 yI m 3
e
z 2
2r
z z
2Z 3Z
yy Re 2 yI m 3
z z 3Z 1 S a i 2
3
3Z e
xy yRe 3 z 3
r 2r
z
Westergaard’s stress function :
y S a 3
xx cos 1 sin sin
2 r 2 2 2
r S a 3
x
yy cos 1 sin sin
2 r 2 2 2
S a 3
xy cos sin cos
2 r 2 2 2 51
Error associated to this Taylor development along =0
𝑆𝑦𝑦 𝑎 + 𝑟 𝐾𝐼 𝑎 + 𝑟
Exact solution 𝜎𝑦𝑦 𝑟, 𝜃 = 0 = =
𝑟 2𝑎 + 𝑟 𝜋𝑎𝑟 2𝑎 + 𝑟
Asymptotic solution
3𝑟
𝜎𝑦𝑦 𝑟, 𝜃 = 0 = 1+
3 𝑟 𝐾𝐼
+
5 𝑟 2
+𝑂
5
𝑟2 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟~
2𝜋𝑟 4 𝑎 32 𝑎 4𝑎
Error 1 term
0.1
Erreur = 1%
2 terms 1 term 𝑟
0.01
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟑
𝑎
0.001
2 terms 𝑟
= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟗
𝑎
10 4
3 terms 𝑟
= 𝟎. 𝟔𝟗
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
𝑎
r/a 52
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
53
Mode I, non equi-biaxial conditions
T S xx S yy
Equibiaxial Biaxial (Superposition)
K I S yy a 54
Stress intensity factors
KI 3
Similitude principle xx cos 1 sin sin T
2 r 2 2 2
(geometry locally planar, with a
straigth crack front, self-similar, KI 3
yy cos 1 sin sin
singularity) 2 r 2 2 2
KI 3
Same KI & T → Same local field xy cos sin cos
2 r 2 2 2
KI &T
Spatial distribution, given
Crack geometry and
once for all, in the crack
boundary conditions
front region
gij() f(r)=r
55
von Mises stress field
Tr r ,
eq r , r , : D r ,
3 D
r , r ,
D
1
3 2
56
von Mises stress field
Mechanisms controlled by shear
Plasticity,
Visco-plasticity
Fatigue
T S xx S yy
58
Hydrostatic pressure
Tr r ,
Fluid diffusion (Navier Stokes),
Diffusion creep (Nabarro-Herring)
Chemical diffusion
T S xx S yy
T / K = -10 m-1/2 T / K = -5 m-1/2 T / K = 0 m-1/2 T / K = 5 m-1/2 T / K = 10 m-1/2
60
Full solutions KI, KII, KIII, T, Tz & G
Mode I Mode II Mode III
KI 3 K II 3 K III
xx cos 1 sin sin T xx sin 2 cos cos xz sin G
2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2
KI 3 3 K III
yy cos 1 sin sin
K
yy II sin cos cos yz cos
2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2
KI 3 K 3 4 K III r
xy cos sin cos xy II cos 1 sin sin uz sin
2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 2 2 2 2
cos cos
KI r
sin 2 cos
ux K II r
ux
2 2 2 2 2 2
sin cos
KI r
cos 2 cos
uy K II r
uy
2 2 2 2 2 2
zz n xx yy Tz (3 n )
(3 4n ) 1 n
61
von Mises stress field
Tr r , eq r , r , : D r ,
3 D
r , r ,
D
1 2
3
Mode I Mode II
62
Summary
- Exact solutions for the 3 modes, determined for one specific geometry
- Taylor development, 1st order → asymptotic solution generalized to any other cracks
- First order
- Solution expressed with separate variables f (r) g () and f (r) self-similar
- Solution : f (r) a power function, r, with = - 1/2
- Higher Orders
- A unique stress intensity factor for all terms
- The exponent of (r/a) increasing with the order of the Taylor’s development
- Boundary conditions
- Singularity along the crack front, symmetries, planar crack and straight front
- no prescribed BCs along the crack faces,
- Boundary conditions defined at infinity
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
64
Williams expansion
4F 4F 4F A self-similar solution in
2 4
F 0 the form is sought directly
x
4
x y y
2 2 4
as follows :
y F r , r 2 g
r
x
1 F 1 2 F g
2
2 2 2 r g r
2
F
2
r
r r r r 2
4 F 2 2 r 2 g 2 r 2
2 2
g 2 2
r 2 2
g r 2 4
g
2 2 4
F r 2 g 2
4 2 2 2
2 2
2
g
4
g
4
2
65
Williams expansion
y A self-similar solution in
the form is sought directly
as follows :
r
x F r , r 2 g
2 g 4 g
2
F r
4 2
2 g 2
2 2 2
4
0
2
d 4 g g 2
2
2
2 2 d
2 2
g 0
d 4
d 2
66
Williams expansion
y
r
x
d 4 g 2 g 2
2
2 2 d
2 2
g 0
d 4
d 2
2
2
p 4 2 2 p 2 2 2 0 p 2 2 p 2 2
2
p
p 2
67
Williams expansion
y
r
x
F r , Re r 2 Aei Be i Ce i 2 De i 2
Boundary conditions are defined along the crack faces which are defined as
free surface (fluid pressure & friction between faces are excluded)
2F
r , 2 r , 0
r
F
r r , r , 0
r r
68
Williams expansion
y
r
x
F r , Re r 2 Aei Be i Ce i 2 De i 2
r , 0
Re Aei Be i Ce i 2 De i 2 0
Re Ae i
Bei Ce i 2 Dei 2
0
Re Ae i
Bei 2Ce i 2 2Dei 2 0
r r , 0
Re Ae i
Be i 2Ce i 2 2De i 2
0
69
Williams expansion
y
r
x
70
Williams versus Westergaard
- The boundary conditions are free surface conditions along the crack faces
(apply on 3 components of the stress tensor), no boundary condition at
infinity → absence of T, Tz, and G
- The first singular term of the Williams expansion is identical to the first term
of the Taylor expansion of the exact solution of Westergaard
- The stress intensity factors of the higher order terms are not forced to be the
same as the one of the first term,
- advantage, leaves some flexibility to ensure the compatibility of the
solution with a distant, non-uniform field
- drawbacks, it replaces the absence of boundary conditions at infinity by
condition of free surface on the crack, and it lacks 3 BCs, it is obliged to
add constraints T, Tz, and G arbitraitement
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
72
J contour integral
The J integral is shown to be
independent of the choice of the
selected integration contour y
𝜕𝑢
𝐺 = 𝐽= Γ
𝜑𝑑𝑦 − 𝜎𝑛.
𝜕𝑥
1 − 𝜈2 2
𝐺𝑐 = 𝐾𝐼𝑐 Fracture toughness
𝐸
73
A. Modes
C. Westergaard’s solution
D. Irwin’s asymptotic
LEFM
development
74
Mode I, LEFM, T=0
Syy
Syy
Syy
Syy
75
LEFM stress field (Mode I)
76
Irwin’s plastic zones size, step 1: rY
Along the crack plane, =0
xx r , 0 yy r , 0 , zz r , 0 2n , xy r , 0 0
KI KI
2 r 2 r
K I 1 2n
pH r , 0 1 n eq r , 0
KI 2
2 r 3 2 r
rY
1 2n
2
K I2
2 Y2
77
Irwin’s plastic zones size, step 2: balance
Hypothesis: when plastic deformation occurs, the stress tensor
remains proportionnal to the LEFM one
yy(r,=0)
Y
Elastic field
rY rp r
78
Limitations
rpm 2rY
1 2n
2
K I2
Y2
Y
Elastic field
rY rp r
r r rpm r
K max
Y K Imax
r 0
I
2 r
dr 1 2n dr
r 0 r rpm 2 r rY
dr
80
Irwin’s plastic zone versus FE computations
Ideally elastic-plastic material Y=600 MPa, E=200 GPa, n=0.3
plane strain, along the plane =0
81
Irwin’s plastic zone versus FE computations
82
Irwin’s plastic zone versus FE computations
Ideally elastic-plastic material Y=600 MPa, E=200 GPa, n=0.3
plane strain, along the plane =0
83
Mode I, Monotonic and cyclic plastic zones
Stress (MPa)
rmpz
1 2n
2
K I2 max
Y2
rcpz
1 2n
2
DK I
2
4 2
Y
85
T-Stress effect
T S xx S yy
K I S yy a
86
T-Stress effect
87
T-Stress effect
K I S yy a
T S yy
88
Ductile fracture
Measurement
of the crack tip
opening angle
at the onset of
fracture
89
Example of the effect of a T-Stress for long cracks
90
Example of the effect of a T-Stress for long cracks
COD
J.Petit
93
a
da/dN = f(a)
a
N
Load cycle N
Fmax
R=Fmin/Fmax
Fop DF
DFeff
Fmin
94
Paris’ law
K Imax K IC
A - threshold regime
B – Paris’ regime
C - unstable fracture
DK eff DK th
Subcritical crack
growth if DK is over
the non propagation
DK eff MPa m threshold
95
Fatigue – Threshold regime
[Neumann,1969]
96
Fatigue – Threshold regime
Titanium alloy TA6V [Le Biavant, N18 nickel based superalloy at room
2000]. The fatigue crack grows temperature, [Pommier,1992]. The
along slip planes. crack grows at the intersection
between slip planes
97
Fatigue – Threshold regime – fracture surface
98
Fatigue – Threshold regime – fracture surface
INCO 718
99
Paris’ law
K Imax K IC
A - threshold regime
B – Paris’ regime
C - unstable fracture
DK eff DK th
Subcritical crack
growth if DK is over
the non propagation
DK eff MPa m threshold
100
Paris’ regime : crack growth by the striation process
TA6V [Laird,1967], [Pelloux, 1965]
316L
INCO 718
OFHC
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Crack growth is governed by crack tip plasticity
112
Consequences
113
• Introduction
Number of cycles
CCT, 0.48% carbon steel, [Hamam et al. 2005]
115
Long distance effect (residual stresses)
K opening
116
• Introduction
Number of cycles
1
99
100 9900
119
• If the plastic zone is well
constrained inside the K-
dominance area
122
A simplified approach is needed: the elastic-plastic behaviour
of the plastic zone is condensed a non-local elastic-plastic
model tailored for cracks
elastic
plastic
FE +
POD
Linear elastic
FE analyses
for 3D cracks
Method
d
f ,...
dt
Constitutive model
LOCAL
dr
Tensile Push g dK I , K I ...
pull test dt
da dr
Expérimental input n°1
dt dt
Crack growth model,
Fatigue crack growth including history effects,
experiment
da/dt : rate of production of cracked area per unit length
of the crack front
da da dr
DCTOD
dN dt dt
125
Single overload : long range retardation
126
Block loading : short range retardation
127
Stress ratio (mean stress) effect (R>0)
128
Stress ratio (mean stress) effect (R<0)
X2
129
Random loading simulations
number of blocks
130
• Introduction
𝑑𝑎 𝑚
= 𝐶∆𝐾𝑒𝑞
𝑑𝑁
𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 1𝑛
𝛥𝐾𝑒𝑞 = ∆𝐾𝐼 + 𝛽∆𝐾𝐼𝐼 + 𝛾∆𝐾𝐼𝐼𝐼
Crack path
132
Load paths in mixed mode I+II
133
Load paths in mixed mode I+II+III
134
𝐾𝐼∞ 𝑓𝐼 (2𝑎) 𝑓𝐼 (2𝑎) 0 𝐹𝑋
𝐾𝐼𝐼∞ = 𝑓𝐼𝐼 (2𝑎) −𝑓𝐼𝐼 (2𝑎) 0 𝐹𝑌
∞
𝐾𝐼𝐼𝐼 0 0 𝑓𝐼𝐼𝐼 (2𝑎) 𝐹𝑍
135
Experimental protocol
137
Crack path – mode I+II+III
138
Mode III contribution
139
Mode III contribution
140
Mode III contribution
141
FE model and boundary conditions
142
Crack : locally self similar geometry → locally self similar
solution 𝒇 𝜶𝒓 =𝒌 𝜶 𝒇 𝒓
𝒓
Small scale yielding 𝒇 𝒓 𝟎 −
𝒓→∞ 𝒇𝒊 𝒓 = 𝒇𝒊 𝟎 𝒆 𝒑
144
radial distribution
𝑷𝑶𝑫𝟐 → 𝒖𝒄𝒊 (𝑷) ≈ 𝐟 𝒓 𝒈𝒄𝒊 (𝜽)
𝒓
−𝒑
𝒇𝒊 𝒓 = 𝒇𝒊 𝟎 𝒆
145
POD based post treatment
𝑬𝑭_𝒊 𝑷, 𝒕 . 𝒖𝒆 (𝑷)
𝑷𝝐𝑫 𝒗 𝒊
𝝂𝒆𝒊 𝑷, 𝒕 = 𝑲𝒊 𝒕 𝒖𝒆𝒊 (𝑷) 𝑲𝒊 𝒕 = 𝒆 𝒆
𝑷𝝐𝑫 𝒊𝒖 (𝑷). 𝒖𝒊 (𝑷)
146
POD based post treatment
𝑐 𝑐
1
𝑔𝐼𝑦 𝜃=𝜋 = −𝑔𝐼𝑦 𝜃 = −𝜋 =
2
lim 𝑓 𝑟 =1
𝑟→0
147
POD based post treatment
𝟑
𝑲𝒊 𝒕
Intensity factors, non-local variables
𝝆𝒊 𝒕
𝒖𝒆𝒊 (𝑷)
Field basis / weigthing functions tailored for
𝒖𝒄𝒊 (𝑷) cracks in elastic plastic materials
148
FE Simulations and results
149
150
Crack propagation law
𝒂𝒏∗ = 𝜶 𝒕 ⋀𝝆
In mode I+II+III, it
derives from the Li’s
model
151
FE Simulations and results
152
153
Intensity factor evolutions
154
Mode III contribution ?
𝜀 = 𝑓 𝜎, 𝑒𝑡𝑐.
𝑋 2 𝑋 2
𝐾𝐼∞− 𝐾𝐼 𝐾𝐼𝐼∞− 𝐾𝐼𝐼
𝑓𝑌 = + −1
𝐾𝐼𝑌 𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑌
𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝐼𝐼
𝑓𝑌 = 𝑌 + 𝑌 − 1
𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝐼𝐼
𝑋 2
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐾𝑖∞ − 𝐾𝑖𝑋 𝐾𝑖∞ − 𝐾𝑖
𝐺𝑖 =
𝐸∗
158
Model
Yield criterion
𝟐 𝟐 𝟐
𝑲∞ 𝑿
𝑰 − 𝑲𝑰 𝑲∞ 𝑿
𝑰𝑰 − 𝑲𝑰𝑰 𝑲∞ 𝑿
𝑰𝑰𝑰 − 𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰
𝒇= 𝟐
+ 𝟐
+ 𝟐
−𝟏
𝑲𝒀𝑰 𝑲𝒀𝑰𝑰 𝑲𝒀𝑰𝑰𝑰
𝑮𝑰 𝑮𝑰𝑰 𝑮𝑰𝑰𝑰
𝒇 𝑮𝑰 , 𝑮𝑰𝑰 , 𝑮𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝒀 + 𝒀 + 𝒀 −𝟏
𝑮𝑰 𝑮𝑰𝑰 𝑮𝑰𝑰𝑰
Flow rule
𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒆 𝑮𝒊
𝝆𝒊 = 𝝀
𝑮𝒀𝒊
Evolution equation
𝚪 𝑲𝑴−𝟏
𝑿𝒆𝒒 𝑲𝑿
𝑲𝑿 = 𝑪 𝝆 − 𝒅𝝆 𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒅 = 𝑿
𝟏+𝚪 𝑲𝑴−𝟏
𝑿𝒆𝒒 𝑲𝒆𝒒
159
Conclusions
• Fatigue crack growth experiments in Mixed mode I+II+III non
proportionnal loading conditions