Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics

Fracture Mechanics Lecture Notes: 2
Majid Mirzaei, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Eng., TMU mmirzaei@modares.ac.ir http://www.modares.ac.ir/eng/mmirzaei/FM.htm

Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics
Fracture is the separation of a component into, at least, two parts. This separation can also occur locally due to formation and growth of cracks. Let us investigate the force required for such a separation in a very basic way. A material fractures when sufficient stress and work are applied on the atomic level to break the bonds that hold atoms together. Figure 1 shows a schematic plot of the potential energy and force versus separation distance between atoms.

Potential Energy


Bond Energy Equilibrium Spacing Tension - X0 -


Bond Energy

Cohesive Force

Applied Force



Figure 1


M. Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics The bond energy is given by,
Eb = ∫ Pdx
x0 ∞


where x0 is the equilibrium spacing and P is the applied force. A reasonable estimate of the cohesive strength at the atomic level can be obtained by idealizing the interatomic force-displacement relationship as one half the period of a sine wave, so we may write:
⎛πx ⎞ P = Pc sin ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ λ ⎠


where λ is defined in Fig.1. For small displacements, we may consider further simplification by assuming:
⎛πx ⎞ P = Pc ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ λ ⎠


Hence, the bond stiffness (i.e., the spring constant) can be defined by:
k= Pcπ



If both sides of this equation are multiplied by the number of bonds per unit area and the equilibrium spacing x0 (gage length), then k can be converted to Young’s modulus E and P to the cohesive stress σ c . Solving for σ c gives:

σc =

Eλ π x0


Assuming λ ≈ x0 , we may write Eqn (2-5) as:

σc ≈




For steels with the Young’s modulus of 210 GPa, the above equation estimates a fracture stress of 70000MPa, which is almost 25 times the strength of the most strong steels!! The reason behind the above huge discrepancy is the existence of numerous defects in ordinary materials. These defects can be quite diverse by nature. Starting from the atomic scale, they may include point defects (for example vacancies: atoms missing), line defects, extra atomic planes (dislocations). On the microstructural level we may consider defects due to grain boundaries, porosity, etc. Some of these defects may also evolve


M. Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics
during the processes of deformation and fracture. For instance, plastic deformation involves various movements of dislocations which may interact and eventually result in local damages. Plastic deformation may also lead to the formation of microvoids which may coalesce and evolve to microcracks. On the other hand, the term fracture mechanics has a special meaning: description of fractures which occur by propagation of an existing sharp crack. Hence, the assumption of a preexisting crack is essential in fracture mechanics. As shown above, it is evident that numerous microscopic defects and/or microcracks naturally exist in ordinary materials. However, the scope of Engineering Fracture Mechanics is almost entirely concerned with macrocracks which are either present in the components, as a result of manufacturing processes like welding, or develop during the service by various failure mechanisms such as fatigue or creep. The crack propagation can occur in many ways. For instance we may have fast-unstable and slow-stable crack growth under monotonic loading, or a cycle by cycle growth under alternating loads. In general, the resistance to crack growth can be defined by a special term called the toughness of the material.

Ductile Versus Brittle
By definition, ductile fracture is always accompanied by a significant amount of plastic deformation, while brittle fracture is characterized by very little plastic deformation (see Fig.2). Both types of fracture have distinctive features on macro and micro levels.

Figure 2


To a large extent, ductility and brittleness depend on the intrinsic characteristics of materials such as chemical composition and microstructure. Nevertheless, extrinsic parameters like temperature, state of stress, and loading rate may have substantial influences on the fracture properties of materials. In general, materials show brittleness at low temperatures, high strain rates, and triaxial state of tensile stress. Let us consider the deformation and fracture mechanisms of a ductile material subject to a simple tension test during which several strength levels can be defined (see Fig.3). The first one is the proportional limit below which there is a linear relationship between the stress and strain (point A). The second one is the elastic limit which defines the stress level below which the deformation is totally reversible (point B). 3

as depicted in Figure 4(B). the plastic deformation is uniform along the gage length of the specimen.5. Mirzaei. A B Figure 4 C D The occurrence of necking results in a triaxial state of stress. The inflection point in the σ-ε curve is due to the onset of localized plastic flow or necking as depicted in the Figure 4(A). Beyond this point and up to the next level. Accordingly the plastic deformation becomes more difficult and small particles within the microstructure start to fracture or separate from the matrix causing microvoids. in practice. it is defined as the intersection of the σ-ε curve and a line parallel to the elastic portion of the curve but offset from the origin by 0. which is the ultimate tensile strength (point E). Finally. Some materials show a clear yield point and also a lower yield point like point D. the point F represents the final fracture. The microscopic appearance of microvoid formation is depicted in Fig. Fracture Mechanics E C F D B A Stress Test Specimen Gauge length Strain Figure 3 The third level is the yield strength which marks the beginning of irreversible plastic deformation (point C). For others the yield strength is a point that is difficult to define and. 4 .M.2% strain.

The final fracture occurs by a shearing-off process of the internal crack towards the specimen surface.M. Mirzaei. The result is a very shiny and flat fracture surface. 5 . brittle fracture is characterized by very little plastic deformation which usually results in flat fracture surfaces as depicted in Figure 6b. called intergranular. Creep fracture is a typical example. In this type of fracture. cracking occurs through separation of certain crystalloghraphic planes within grains. Figure 6 As mentioned before. Fracture Mechanics Figure 5 The resulting microvoids will eventually coalesce and form an internal disk-shaped crack. The most important type of brittle fracture is called Cleavage. which is also called transgranular. The result is a typical cup-cone fracture depicted in Figures (4D) and (6a). occurs through separation of grains from each other and can be attributed to those mechanisms which weaken the grain boundaries. Another type of fracture.

known as the variation operator. the virtual work may be defined by: δ Wvirt = ∫ T. Energy Approach The aim of this section is to present the fundamental aspects of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) using an Energy approach. The virtual displacements are represented by the symbol “δ”. by all the forces acting on it. Now we may invoke the stress boundary relations and implement the divergence theorem to obtain: 6 . Mirzaei. as the body is given a small hypothetical displacement which is consistent with the constraints present”.δ u S V (2-7) = ∫ Tiδ ui dS + ∫ f iδ ui dV S V in which T and f are the surface-traction and body-force vectors. Fracture Mechanics Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics. T S Su Su f Figure 7 Accordingly. Let us start with a brief review of some of the relevant material from the theory of elasticity. Consider a deformable body in an equilibrium state under the influence of surface tractions and body forces as depicted in Fig. the displacement field u is prescribed. designated by Su .δ u + ∫ f .7. The later are prescribed over a part of the boundary designated by Sσ . However. the loadings consist of body forces and surface tractions. In general. respectively.M. The virtual work can be defined as “the work done on a deformable body. Over the remaining boundary. it must be ensured that δ u = 0 on Su to avoid violating the constraints.

M. Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics

∫ T δ u dS + ∫ f δ u dV = ∫ σ
i i i i S V S


n jδ ui dS + ∫ fiδ ui dV

= ∫ ⎡(σ ijδ ui ) + f iδ ui ⎤dV ,j ⎣ ⎦ V
=0 ⎡ ⎤ = ∫ ⎢(σ ij , j + f i ) δ ui + σ ij (δ ui , j ) ⎥dV ⎦ V ⎣


In the above, σ ij are the components of the Cauchy stress tensor and n j are the components of the outward unit normal to the surface. The first grouping of terms within the last integral equals zero because of the equilibrium. The product of the symmetric stress tensor with the skew-symmetric part of δ ui , j is also zero. Since the symmetric part of δ ui , j is nothing but a variation in the strain tensor, we may write the following expression known as the principle of virtual work, PVW:

∫ T δ u dS + ∫ f δ u dV = ∫ σ δε
i i i i ij S V V




The general form of the constitutive expressions for an elastic continuum can be written as:

σ ij = ρ

∂ψ ∂ε ij


in which ρ is the density, andψ is the strain energy density. If we substitute the above expression for stresses in Eq. (2-9), we will have:

∫ T δ u dS + ∫ f δ u dV = ∫ ρ ∂ε
i i i i S V V i i i i S V V


δε ij dV


∫ T δ u dS + ∫ f δ u dV = ∫ ρδψ dV = δ ∫ ρψ dV = δ U

where U is the total strain energy stored in the body. The left side of Eq. (2-11) may be defined as a variation in the potential energy, −V , so we may write:

−δ V = δ U , δ (U + V ) = 0, δΠ = 0 in which Π is the total potential energy of the body.


The above expression states that during the elastic deformation the external work is converted to stored elastic strain energy, and vice versa, so that the variation of the total potential energy is zero.


M. Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics
In Fracture Mechanics, however, the total potential energy is the only source for crack growth. Accordingly, an energy criterion for the onset of crack growth can be defined in the following general form:
G=− dΠ ≥R dA


in which G is called the energy release rate (also known as the crack driving force), A is the cracked area, and R is the resistance of the material to crack growth. The energy release rate, G, can be considered as the energy source for the crack growth and may be obtained from the stress analysis of the cracked geometry. On the other hand, the resistance to crack growth, R, can be considered as the energy sink and depends on the operating fracture mechanism. It should be mentioned that the latter depends on many factors including: the chemical composition and microstructure of the material, temperature, environment, loading rate, and the state of stress.

Fixed Displacement Condition
In continuation of our discussions concerning the energy approach, we will investigate the behavior of cracked components under two distinct loading conditions. First, suppose that we have stretched a cracked component by the amount ∆ and fixed it as depicted in Figure 8.




Figure 8



M. Mirzaei, Fracture Mechanics The amount of elastic strain energy stored in the component is equal to the triangle ABD and the slope of the load-displacement curve represents the stiffness of the component. Let us initially assume that the stored energy is sufficient to maintain an incremental crack growth, da, under the fixed displacement condition. Since the component with a longer crack has a lower stiffness, the stored elastic energy decreases to a new level equal to the triangle ACD. Since there is no externally applied load in the system, the total potential energy is equal to the strain energy, the only source to provide the required energy for the crack growth. Hence, we may write: (V = 0), (Π = U ),U = ∫ Pd Δ =

PΔ 2

1 ⎛ dU ⎞ Δ ⎛ dP ⎞ G=− ⎜ ⎟ =− ⎜ ⎟ B ⎝ da ⎠ Δ 2 B ⎝ da ⎠ Δ where B is the thickness of the component.


Constant Load Condition:
Here we consider a cracked component under a constant external load P as depicted in Fig. 9.





Figure 9 The amount of elastic strain energy stored in the component is equal to the triangle ABE. Now we assume that the available energy is sufficient to maintain an incremental crack growth, da, under the constant load condition. The component with a longer crack has a lower stiffness but, in this case, the stored elastic energy increases to a new level equal to 9



M. (2-17) Assignment 1: Find the critical load for the Component Shown in the figure in terms of the resistance R. various analytical. The reason is that an excess amount of energy provided by moving the constant load P through the distance d∆ (equal to rectangle BCDE) has now been added to the system. Fracture Mechanics the triangle ACD. we may write: V = PΔ U = ∫ Pd Δ = 0 Δ PΔ 2 PΔ − PΔ 2 (2-15) Π = U −V = ⇒Π=− PΔ = −U 2 P ⎛ dΔ ⎞ 1 ⎛ dU ⎞ G= ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ B ⎝ da ⎠ P 2 B ⎝ da ⎠ P Note that in both cases the energy release rate is provided by the stored energy U and is equal to: 1 ⎛ dU ⎞ G= ⎜ ⎟ (2-16) B ⎝ da ⎠ Moreover. In practice. and experimental techniques are available for this purpose. for both cases we may write: Δ P P 2 ⎛ ∂C ⎞ G= ⎜ ⎟ 2 B ⎝ ∂a ⎠ C= ⎛ dU ⎞ ⎛ dU ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ = −⎜ ⎟ ⎝ da ⎠ P ⎝ da ⎠ Δ in which C is the compliance of the component. Mirzaei. 10 . Assume a >> b . numerical. Hence. a >> h. The above equation can be used to obtain G provided that the variation of compliance with the crack length is available.

The latter is equal in magnitude to the work required to close the crack by the stresses acting in its position. this expression is: v= 2σ E a2 − x2 (2-19) which shows that the crack-opening is maximum at the center of the crack and zero at its tip. The plate has a central through-thickness crack of the length 2a. plus the strain energy required to introduce the crack.M. as depicted in Fig 10. Mirzaei. Substituting for v in Eq.(2-18) we have: U = π a 2σ 2 B + U0 E (2-20) which in combination with Eq. As will be shown later. σ v a X σ Figure 10 The strain energy of the above system consists of two parts: the elastic energy of the plate without crack. U = UC + U0 = 4B∫ a 0 1 σ v( x) dx + U 0 2 (2-18) The expression for v can be obtained from a complete stress analysis of this cracked geometry.(2-15) results in: 11 . Fracture Mechanics Example Consider a large plate under remote uniaxial tensile stress.

represents a material property called fracture toughness. Now suppose that we have an experimental specimen. and crack length (see Fig 11). We may generalize the above equation for different components by writing it as: G=β πσ 2 a E (2-23) in which. made of the same material.M. We may perform a fracture toughness test on the experimental specimen by gradually increasing the stress and noting the critical stress level σc at which the crack starts to grow. Also assume that we have managed to obtain the β parameter for both components and call them β1 and β2 respectively. Mirzaei. On the other hand. in fact. we may obtain the critical energy release rate as: Gc = R = β1 πσ c2 a1 E (2-24) which. size. Also consider a real component. Accordingly. but quite different with respect to geometry. Accordingly. Since the two components are made of the same material. similar to the one shown in Fig 10 but with finite dimensions. made of a specific alloy. Fracture Mechanics G= 1 ⎛ dU ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ B ⎝ da ⎠σ 2π aσ 2 = E (2-21) The above equation was derived for two crack tips. β is a parameter that depends on the geometry and loading condition. the G expression for each crack tip is: G= πσ 2 a E (2-22) The above equation is remarkable as it shows how the energy release rate increases with increasing the far-field stress and the crack length. loading. we may calculate the fracture stress for the real component as follows: Gc = R = β 2 πσ 2 a2 f E (2-25) EGc ⇒σ f = πβ 2 a2 12 . if the applied loading on the real component creates a far-field tensile stress around the crack tip. there exists a similitude condition between the two components.

(c) Mode III. and GIII respectively. Fracture Mechanics Finally. GII. 13 . the obtained σ f can be used to calculate the amount of the external load and/or moment associated with the onset of crack growth.M. the crack faces slide relative to each other symmetrically about the x1-x2 plane but anti-symmetrically with respect to the x1-x3 plane. the sliding or inplane shearing mode. opening mode. In mixed mode problems we simply add the energy release rates of different contributing modes to obtain the total energy release rate. I II III mode I mode II mode III Figure 12: Three basic loading modes for a cracked body: (a) Mode I. Mode I is the opening or tensile mode where the crack faces separate symmetrically with respect to the x1-x2 and x1-x3 planes. the crack faces also slide relative to each other but antisymmetrically with respect to the x1-x2 and x1-x3 planes. crack growth may occur in very complicated stress fields. sliding mode. In the tearing or antiplane mode. In general. Mirzaei. however. σ P σ M a1 a2 σ σ Figure 11 P In practice. (b) Mode II. tearing mode. although mixed-mode growth is also possible. In Mode II. we consider three basic modes for crack growth. Mode III. The energy release rates related to these modes are termed GI.

dynamic crack growth. Crack Growth Instability Analysis In the previous section we used the energy approach to define a criterion for the onset of crack growth. and crack arrest. a yield strength of 2450 MPa. The energy approach can also be used for the analysis of different aspects of further crack growth such as stability. Mirzaei.M. a) Show that failure would not have been expected if the Von Mises yield criterion had served for design purposes. Fracture Mechanics Assignment 2: A cylindrical pressure vessel. The steel of the pressure vessel had E = 210 GPa. In general. For this purpose we use the energy diagrams as depicted in Fig 13. G. a value of GC = 131 kJ/m2. GC or R. G3 G2 R G1 σ2 σ1 σ1 σ1 a1 a3 a2 Δa1 Δa2 Figure 13 In these diagrams. underwent catastrophic fracture when the internal pressure reached 17. this 14 . The intersections of these lines with the vertical axis represent the energy release rate. with a diameter of 6. The vertical axis also represents the crack growth resistance. the left horizontal axis is used to define the original crack lengths from which we may draw different lines whose slopes are related to the far-field stress.5 MPa. b) Using the energy approach determine the size of crack that might have caused this failure.4 mm.1 m and a wall thickness of 25.

because G1 < R . ∂G ∂R ≥ ∂a ∂a (2-26) 15 . under plane strain condition. In the above figure. Fracture Mechanics resistance may vary as the crack grows because of different reasons such as the formation of shear lips in the plane stress condition or non-homogeneities in material. the excess energy may accelerate the crack and the resulting unstable growth might cause a catastrophic failure. In practice the crack arrest may occur at some further distance like ∆a2 since the crack has some stored energy which may provide the crack driving force even if the apparent G is less than R. In order to make it grow. However. which in turn results from plastic deformations at the crack tip. In this case the crack may stop after a stable growth equal to ∆a1. G3 G2 R G1 σ1 σ1 σ1 a1 Δa1 Δa2 a3 a2 Figure 14 The increase in resistance can be attributed to the formation of shear lips. Figure 13 shows that the crack with the length a1 under the far field stress σ1 and the corresponding energy release rate G1 can not grow. Nevertheless. As depicted in Fig.M. the R-Curve may be represented by a horizontal line.14. with no thermal gradient. for a component made of homogenous isotropic material. a2 represents a crack under constant load condition whose energy release rate increases with further growth. the criteria for unstable crack growth under constant load for plane stress can be defined as: G≥R . longer cracks like a2 or a3 can grow even under σ1. Figure 14 shows the energy diagram with a rising R curve which usually occurs in plane stress conditions. On the other hand. Mirzaei. In this case. We will elaborate on this issue later when we discuss the crack tip plasticity. a3 represents a crack under fixed displacement condition whose energy release rate decreases with further growth. we have to increase the stress level to σ2.

15. Mirzaei. As will be shown later. can be converted to the kinetic energy of the material elements in the crack path as they move apart from each other. The idea is that the surplus of energy. we may assume r ∝ a and combine different constants to form C1 and C2 and write: σa σa ⎧ ⎪u = C1 E ⇒ u = C1 E ⎪ ⎨ ⎪v = C σ a ⇒ v = C σ a 2 1 ⎪ E E ⎩ (2-28) 16 . As the crack grows. Fracture Mechanics Crack Speed In this section we will obtain an estimation of the crack speed in an unstable growth condition. The modeling is considered for an idealized situation of an infinite sheet with a central crack of length 2a under remote tensile stress σ. the horizontal and vertical displacements of these elements can be written as: 2σ ⎧ u= ar fu (θ ) ⎪ ⎪ E ⎨ ⎪v = 2σ ar f (θ ) v ⎪ E ⎩ (2-27) A B C R σ Y v ac r r θ u X a Figure 15 in which fu (θ ) and f v (θ ) are geometric parameters.M. represented by triangle ABC in Fig. Hence. its tip would be further from the considered elements.

which can be converted to kinetic energy for two crack tips. The second term on the right is the speed of propagation of longitudinal waves in the material. Nevertheless. so we have: ⎛ a ⎞ a = 0. Moreover. This means that an unstable growth of an initial crack with a few millimeters length may destroy several kilometers of a pipeline in a few minutes! 17 . On the other hand the surplus of energy.M. as “a” is the only characteristic length in the infinite plate. Mirzaei. the value of the integral was considered proportional to a 2 . Accordingly. Fracture Mechanics in which the dot means differentiation with respect to time.38 for the first term on the right hand side of the above equation. the kinetic energy for the plate can be defined and calculated as follows: EK = 1 ρ ∫∫ ( u 2 + v 2 )dxdy 2 1 σ2 2 = ρ a 2 2 ∫∫ ( C12 + C2 )dxdy 2 E 1 σ2 = k ρ a2a2 2 2 E (2-29) In the above equations ρ is the density and we have combined all the constants in a single term k. it is clear that there is a limit to the crack speed in every material. the speed of unstable crack growth is comparable with the speed of propagation of sound waves in the material.38 VS ⎜ 1 − c ⎟ (2-32) a⎠ ⎝ Based on the above expression. can be defined and calculated as follows: ES = 2 ∫ ( G − R )da ac a = −2 R(a − ac ) + 2 ∫ ac a πσ 2 a E da (2-30) = πσ 2 E (a − ac ) 2 in which ac is the initial crack length and a is the crack length at every instant. Equating the two energies we may find the crack growth rate as: a= 2π k E ⎛ ac ⎞ 1− ρ⎜ a⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2-31) A more detailed analysis of the crack tip stress field has given an estimation of 0.

there might be a point where the available energy becomes twice the energy required to grow a single crack. 17 by considering the area CDE roughly equal to ABC. As depicted in Fig. 18 . the patch may decrease the energy down to the point C where the crack is expected to stop after a growth equal to ∆a2. when we observe that a component has been shattered into numerous pieces. As mentioned before. As depicted in Fig. 16. The location of the arrester must be chosen properly by considering the kinetic energy of the crack. In practice. The examples may include the fracture caused by an explosion and/or a glass of water slipping from your hand! R σ1 a1 Δa1 R Figure 16 Crack Arrest As mentioned before. unstable crack growth may lead to catastrophic failure and must be prevented at all cost. where the energy release rate increases with further crack growth. Fracture Mechanics Crack Branching Another interesting aspect of a growing crack is branching. This point has been specified in Fig. In general. however. this surplus of energy usually accelerates the crack. we may think of too much energy available and/or too little energy required for crack to grow.M. the crack may grow further until its kinetic energy is consumed. under constant load. but if the material permits. One practical remedy is to use riveted patches or other types of stiffeners to simulate a fixed-displacement condition and arrest the crack. Mirzaei. the situation may change in favor of crack branching. 17.

the Greek subscripts have the range 1.M. we may only consider the following nonzero strain components: ε 3α = u3. Mirzaei. In subsequent sections the stress analyses of the three major modes of crack growth will be presented. Stress Approach Investigation of crack-tip stress and displacement fields is important because these fields govern the fracture process occurring at the crack tip. Fracture Mechanics A G1 B C D R σ1 a1 Δa1 Δa2 E Δa3 Figure 17 LEFM. Therefore. Accordingly. the only nontrivial stress components are: σ 3α = 2 με 3α (2-34) 19 . The Mode III Problem The analysis of Mode III is relatively simple because we may assume that u1 = u2 = 0 and u3 = u3(x1 . x2). 2.α 1 2 (2-33) where.

we have: ∇ 2u = ∇ 2 v = 0 (2-39) Thus. z = x1 − ix2. Therefore. Accordingly. ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x1 ∂x2 (2-38) Differentiating the Cauchy-Riemann equations twice and combining them. Mirzaei. The overbar denotes the complex conjugate. (2-36) can be written as.M. (2-40) into Eq. x1 = ℜe( z ) = ( z + z ) / 2 x2 = ℑm( z ) = ( z − z ) / 2i (2-37) where ℜe and ℑm denote the real and imaginary parts respectively. the solution of Eq.αα = ∇ 2u3 = 0 (2-36) In order to solve the above equation we use the complex variable method which provides a powerful technique for establishing the solutions of plane elasticity problems. A complex function is holomorphic in a region if it is single valued and its complex derivative exists in the region. the only relevant equation of equilibrium in the absence of body forces is: σ 3α . Let f(z) be a holomorphic (analytic) function of the complex variable z. equivalently. The complex variable z is defined by z = x1 + ix2 or. u3 = μ⎣ 1 ⎡ f ( z) + f ( z)⎤ ⎦ (2-40) Introducing Eq.α = 0 (2-35) The above three sets of equations can be combined to yield Laplace's equation in terms of displacements: u3. in polar coordinates z = reiθ. (2-33) we may write: ε 31 = 1 ⎡ f ′( z ) + f ′( z ) ⎤ ⎦ 2μ ⎣ i ⎡ f ′( z ) − f ′( z ) ⎤ ε 32 = ⎦ 2μ ⎣ (2-41) Combining Eqns (2-34) and (2-41) we have: 20 . It can be shown that. the real and imaginary parts of any holomorphic function are solutions to Laplace's equation. Fracture Mechanics where μ is the shear modulus. For such a function the Cauchy-Riemann equations can be written as: ∂u ∂v ∂v ∂u = =− .

This requires that sin 2λπ = 0 . Mirzaei. The substitution of Eq. (2-43) into Eq. and λ are real undetermined constants. (2-44) σ 31 = 2(λ + 1)r λ ( A cos λθ − B sin λθ ) σ 32 = −2(λ + 1)r λ ( A sin λθ + B cos λθ ) (2-45) The boundary condition that the crack surfaces remain traction free requires that σ 32 = 0 on θ = ±π . (2-42) yields: σ 31 − iσ 32 = 2(λ + 1)Cz λ = 2(λ + 1)r λ ( A + iB)(cos λθ + i sin λθ ) whence. which for λ> −1 has the following roots: 21 . the determinant of the coefficients of the above equations must vanish. C = A + iB (2-43) where A. λ −1 ). let the origin of the coordinate system be located at the tip of a crack lying along the negative x1 axis as shown in Figure 18. we have: A sin λπ + B cos λπ = 0 A sin λπ − B cos λπ = 0 (2-46) To avoid the trivial solution. Y σy r θ τxy σx X Figure 18 Crack-tip region and coordinate system Next. For finite displacements at the crack tip we must have: ( z = r = 0). Fracture Mechanics σ 31 − iσ 32 = 2 f ′( z ) (2-42) Now. Consequently.M. we will focus our attention upon a small region D containing the crack tip and consider the following holomorphic function: f ( z ) = Cz λ +1 . B.

n / 2. u2 = u2(x1. modification is that K was originally considered as a way to calculate G. For this case Eq. ε αβ = σ 3α 1 +ν ⎡σ αβ −νδαβ σ γγ ⎤ ⎦ E ⎣ = 0. (2-45) becomes. so the π term was artificially added to the denominator to facilitate the calculations. provides the most significant contribution to the crack-tip fields. Mirzaei. we assume the displacement field as u1 = u1(x1. 1 2 (2-47) Of the infinite set of functions of the form of Eq.1. Accordingly we may write: ε 3i = 0. It is clear that the latter components will dominate as the crack tip is approached. ⎧σ 31 ⎫ K III ⎨ ⎬= 1/ 2 ⎩σ 32 ⎭ (2r ) ⎧ − sin(θ / 2) ⎫ ⎨ ⎬ ⎩cos(θ / 2) ⎭ (2-48) which is usually written as: ⎧σ 31 ⎫ K III ⎨ ⎬= 1/ 2 ⎩σ 32 ⎭ (2π r ) ⎧− sin(θ / 2) ⎫ ⎨ ⎬ ⎩cos(θ / 2) ⎭ (2-49) It should be noted that the origin of the above. σ 33 = νσ αα (2-52) 22 . x2). (2-43) that yield traction-free crack surfaces within D. (2-49) have an inverse square root singularity at the crack tip.M. the function with λ = –1/2 for which A = 0.. Also note that B has been chosen such that: K III = lim {(2π r )1/ 2 σ 32 r →0 θ =0 } (2-50) We will also have: 2 K III ⎛ r ⎞ 2 u3 = sin(θ / 2) μ ⎜ 2π ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2-51) The quantity KIII is referred to as the Mode III stress intensity factor. n = 0. x2). In this sense. Eqs (2-49) and (2-51) represent the asymptotic forms of the elastic stress and displacement fields. which is established by the far field boundary conditions and is a function of the applied loading and the geometry of the cracked body. Fracture Mechanics λ = − . The Mode I and Mode II Problems For the Mode I problem. Whereas the stresses associated with the other values of λ are finite at the crack tip. 2. and u3 = 0. the stress components of Eq. rather unfortunate...

such that σ αβ = −Ψ .αβ − ε αα . Ω = Az λ +1 . ω = Bz λ +1 (2-58) (2-59) where A. http://www. (2-54) into Eq.αβ +Ψ .M.α = 0 . x2 ) .htm (3.ααββ = ∇ 2 (∇ 2 Ψ ) = 0 (2-55) Noting that ∇ 2 Ψ satisfies Laplace's equation. (2-54) to write: σ 11 + σ 22 = 2 ⎡Ω′( z ) + Ω′( z ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ σ 22 − σ 11 − 2iσ 12 = 2 ⎡ z Ω′′( z ) + ω ′′( z ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ Due to symmetry with respect to the crack plane we choose a solution of the form. (2-59) into Eq. (2-58) yields: 23 . ββ = 0 (2-53) The equilibrium equations will be identically satisfied if the stress components are expressed in terms of the Airy stress function. we should set λ > –1. Ψ= 1 ⎡ z Ω( z ) + z Ω( z ) + ω ( z ) + ω ( z ) ⎤ ⎦ 2⎣ (2-57) where Ω( z ) and ω ( z ) are holomorphic functions. The introduction of Eq.ir/eng/mmirzaei/elasticity. To avoid singular displacements at the crack tip. Ψ = Ψ ( x1 . B.modares.ac. [More details can be found in my lecture notes on the theory of elasticity. we may substitute the above expression into Eq. the compatibility equation requires that the Airy function satisfy the biharmonic equation: Ψ . we can write the following expression (analogous to the antiplane problem): ∇2Ψ = f ( z) + f ( z) (2-56) where f(z) is a holomorphic function. Now.γγ δαβ (2-54) After the introduction of Eq. and λ are real constants. (2-52). and the nontrivial compatibility equation becomes: ε αβ . 2D Static Boundary Value Problems: Plane Elasticity)]. Equation (2-56) can be integrated to yield the following real function. Fracture Mechanics In the absence of body forces the equilibrium equations reduce to σ αβ . Mirzaei.

the following equations can be obtained for the Mode II problem: 24 .1. n / 2.M. an inverse square root singularity in the stress field exists at the crack tip. Again. which for λ> −1 gives the following roots: λ = − ... we find that: ⎧σ 11 ⎫ ⎧1 − sin(θ / 2) sin(3θ / 2) ⎫ KI ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ cos(θ / 2) ⎨sin(θ / 2) cos(3θ / 2) ⎬ ⎨σ 12 ⎬ = 1/ 2 ⎪σ ⎪ (2r ) ⎪1 + sin(θ / 2) sin(3θ / 2) ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 22 ⎭ 1 2 (2-62) which is usually written as: ⎧σ 11 ⎫ ⎧1 − sin(θ / 2) sin(3θ / 2) ⎫ KI ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ cos(θ / 2) ⎨sin(θ / 2) cos(3θ / 2) ⎬ ⎨σ 12 ⎬ = 1/ 2 ⎪σ ⎪ (2π r ) ⎪1 + sin(θ / 2) sin(3θ / 2) ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 22 ⎭ (2-63) Accordingly. Mirzaei. the dominant contribution to the crack-tip stress and displacement fields occurs with λ = –1/2. 2. the Mode I stress intensity factor K. is defined as: K I = lim {(2π r )1/ 2 σ 22 r →0 θ =0 } (2-64) The displacements can be written as: 1 2 ⎡ ⎤⎫ ⎧u1 ⎫ K I ⎛ r ⎞ 2 ⎧cos(θ / 2) ⎣κ − 1 + 2sin (θ / 2) ⎦⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎬= ⎬ ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 2 ⎡ ⎤ ⎩u2 ⎭ 2μ ⎝ 2π ⎠ ⎪sin(θ / 2) ⎣κ + 1 − 2 cos (θ / 2) ⎦ ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ (2-65) When the foregoing is repeated with A and B being pure imaginary. Consequently. for which A = 2B. Similar to the antiplane problem.. Fracture Mechanics σ 22 − iσ 12 = (λ + 1)r λ { A [ 2 cos λθ + λ cos(λ − 2)θ ] + B cos λθ − i [ Aλ sin(λ − 2)θ + B sin λθ ]} which must vanish for θ = ± π. into Eqs (2-58) and (2-60). with A = 2B and λ = –1/2. Substituting Eq. n = 0. (2-59). we may write: A(2 + λ ) cos λπ + B cos λπ = 0 Aλ sin λπ + B sin λπ = 0 (2-60) (2-61) The existence of a nontrivial solution for the above set of equations requires that sin 2λπ = 0 .

equal stress intensity factors for two different cracks. ensure similar crack tip stress fields. can be interpreted as a mechanical property named fracture toughness. As we move further from the crack tip the singular term weakens and the additional terms become significant. As depicted in Figure 19. obtained at the onset of crack growth for a specific material and geometry. Figure 19 25 .M. the critical stress intensity factor Kc. we may summarize the expressions derived for different modes by considering the following general expression for the stresses in a cracked body: σ ij = K fij (θ ) + 2π r (2-69) It is clear that the first term is dominant very near to the crack tip. in different geometries. Mirzaei. Hence. under different loadings. with different lengths. Fracture Mechanics ⎧σ 11 ⎫ K II ⎪ ⎪ ⎨σ 12 ⎬ = 1/ 2 ⎪σ ⎪ (2π r ) ⎩ 22 ⎭ ⎧− sin(θ / 2) [ 2 + cos(θ / 2) cos(3θ / 2]⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨cos(θ / 2) [1 − sin(θ / 2) sin(3θ / 2) ] ⎬ ⎪sin(θ / 2) cos(θ / 2) cos(3θ / 2) ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ (2-66) 1 2 ⎡ ⎤ ⎫ ⎧u1 ⎫ K II ⎛ r ⎞ 2 ⎧sin(θ / 2) ⎣κ + 1 + 2 cos (θ / 2) ⎦ ⎪ ⎪ = ⎨ ⎬ ⎬ ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 2 ⎩u2 ⎭ 2μ ⎝ 2π ⎠ ⎩− cos(θ / 2) ⎡κ − 1 − 2sin (θ / 2) ⎤ ⎭ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦⎪ (2-67) K II = lim {(2π r )1/ 2 σ 12 r →0 θ =0 } (2-68) Finally.

Here. Fracture Mechanics Williams General Solution The most general solution for cracks under generalized in-plane loading was provided by Williams. c3 . Thus. primes denote derivatives with respect to θ.M. a crack is treated as a special case where the angle of the plate corner is 2π and the surfaces are traction free.rr = r λ −1 ⎡ λ ( λ + 1) F ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 1 r 1 Φ .20. Using the relevant expressions in polar coordinates. the crack faces are traction free.θθ + Φ . which implies the following equalities: F (0) = F (2π ) = F ′(0) = F ′(2π ) = 0 (2-72) To ensure a nontrivial solution we must set sin 2λπ = 0 . as depicted in Fig. The general stress function proposed by Williams is: Φ = r λ +1 ⎡c1 sin ( λ + 1) θ * + c2 cos ( λ + 1)θ * + c3 sin ( λ − 1) θ * +c4 cos ( λ − 1) θ *⎤ ⎣ ⎦ = r λ +1 F (θ *. the following expressions can be obtained for the stresses: σ rr = σ θθ 1 1 Φ . r ψ θ θ* Figure 20 It can be shown that the displacements vary with r λ . in order to have finite displacements everywhere.r = r λ −1 ⎡ F ′′ + ( λ + 1) F ⎤ 2 ⎣ ⎦ r r = Φ .rθ + In the above expressions. Mirzaei. and c4 are constants. Also. we must have λ > 0. which for λ> 0 has the roots: 26 . λ ) (2-70) where c1 .θ = r λ −1 ( −λ F ′ ) 2 r (2-71) σ rθ = − Φ . c2 . The solution starts by considering stresses at the corner of a plate under different boundary conditions and corner angles ψ.

or potentially cracked. structure we have to decide what design variables can be selected. 3. m ) ⎥ σ ij = ⎝ r m=0 ⎣ ⎦ N (2-74) where f is a function of F and its derivatives. Mirzaei. Calculation of the stress intensity factors for the cracks in the structure or component for the anticipated loading conditions. so KC is fixed. Again. 2... Design Philosophy Based on LEFM So far we have learned that cracks may start growing when the stress intensity factor (SIF) reaches a critical value Kc. Fracture Mechanics λ = n / 2. the above expressions result in general expressions in the form of (2-69) for the Mode I and the Mode II crack problems. Determination of the size and location of cracks in the structure or component. As we move further from the crack tip the singular term weakens and the additional terms become significant. In this case we may calculate the maximum size of tolerable cracks using Eq. 2. Thus for the design of a cracked. called fracture toughness. Based on the above arguments it is clear that the application of LEFM in design procedures usually involves the following activities: 1. as only two of these variables can be fixed and the third must be determined. − ⎟ M m ⎡ ⎤ 2⎠ + ∑ ⎢ r 2 fij (θ *. 26). Eventually. the most general form for the stress function and the resulting stresses can be written as: ⎡ n +1 ⎛ n ⎞⎤ Φ = ∑ ⎢ r 2 F ⎜ θ *. it is clear that the first term is dominant very near to the crack tip. and the design stress level may also be fixed due to weight considerations. ⎟ ⎥ 2 ⎠⎦ ⎝ n =1 ⎣ 1⎞ ⎛ fij ⎜ θ *. (2-73) Accordingly. n = 1..M. For example we may select a special steel to resist a corrosive liquid. Measurement of the critical stress intensity factors that cause fracture for the material. 27 . Later we will show that the SIF can be related to the far-field stress and crack length by the following general expression: K = Yσ π a ≥ KC (2-75) in which Y is a geometric factor (see Fig. (2-75).

Figure 22 depicts a crack of initial length a subject to Mode I loading with the origin located at a distance ∆ behind the crack tip. Fracture Mechanics Figure 21 The first item will be discussed after the concept of crack tip plasticity is introduced. Naturally. If the crack is detected. Using numerical methods such as boundary integral and finite element methods. If not.M. 2. there should be a relationship between the two. calculation of stress intensity factors. for the onset of crack growth. Using experimental techniques 4. Deducing the stress intensity factors from energy methods (In the next section we will discuss the related relationship). 3. i. In this section we will discuss this relationship. and deducing stress intensities from the asymptotic behavior of the stress field near the crack tips. including: 1. Examples of such techniques are ultrasound and x-ray techniques. The second task can be performed using some kind of non-destructive test techniques. most of these techniques will provide an estimation of the crack length. Finding the analytic solution to the full linear elastic boundary value problem. Mirzaei. one should assume for design purposes that the structure contains cracks that are just too short to be detected. based on energy considerations and crack tip stress field.e. 28 . and inspection with optical microscopy. can be performed using various techniques. K-G Relationship So far we have discussed two different criteria. The third activity.

the energy release rate G can be written as: G = lim Δ→ 0 W Δ 2 Δσ v = lim ∫ y dr Δ→ 0 Δ 0 2 (2-77) We may define the stresses and displacements in terms of the stress intensity factor as: σy = 2σ v= E KI 2π r 2KI a −x = E 2 2 a2 − x2 πa (2-78) Noting that x = r + a − Δ and neglecting the second order terms in our calculations. we may rewrite the above as: 29 . Fracture Mechanics Y V X Δ Figure 22 Now assume that we may partially close the crack through application of a compressive stress field to the crack faces between x = 0 and x = ∆. In the above σ y is the compressive stress distribution and v is the crack opening displacement.M. As this work will be released as energy. The required work would be: W = 2∫ Δ σ yv 2 0 dr (2-76) The factor of 2 on work is required because both crack faces are displaced. Mirzaei.

When all three modes of loading are present.005m. we have: G = lim 2 K I2 Δ Δ − r dr Δ→ 0 π E Δ ∫0 r (2-80) The result of integration is: K I2 G= E which can be modified for plane strain as follows: G = (1 −ν 2 ) K I2 E (2-82) (2-81) The above expressions are general relationships between K and G for Mode I. This is usually not the case for mixed-mode fractures. the energy release rate is given by: G = GI + GII + GIII = (1 − v 2 ) K I2 K2 K2 + (1 − v 2 ) II + (1 + v) III E E E (2-83) As mentioned before. However. fracture toughness KC = 50 MPa m . Assignment 3: A thin-walled cylinder contains a crack forming an angle 30 degree to the longitudinal axis. the three modes are additive with respect to energy release rate because it is a scalar quantity. Fracture Mechanics v= 2K I E π 2K I = E π 2Δ − 2r + 2(Δ − r ) 2r Δ r 2 − a a (2-79) Substituting the above into Eq. crack half-length a and wall thickness t are a = t = 0.. Mirzaei.e. i.M. (2-77). However. it should be noted that the above equation assumes self similar crack growth. 30 . Determine at which torque T crack may start to grow.2 m. a planar crack is assumed to remain planar and maintain a constant shape as it grows. Numerical data: radius R = 0. the analysis procedure can be repeated for other modes of loading.

Fracture Mechanics Mixed Mode Fracture When we are dealing with an angled crack (similar to that depicted in Fig 23). 31 . the first question is naturally about the magnitude of the far-field stress σ at which the crack starts to grow. The second approach considers crack growth in the direction for which the strain energy density is minimal. σ Y r θ β X Figure 23 The first question can be answered by the methods described in the previous section. In the first approach. The strain energy density in the vicinity of the crack tip may be written as: 1 ( a11K I2 + 2a12 K I K II + a22 K II2 ) = S (rθ ) r 1 a11 = [ (1 + cos θ )(k − cos θ )] 16 μ 1 a12 = sin θ (2 cos θ − k + 1) 16 μ 1 a22 = [ (k + 1)(1 − cos θ ) + (1 + cos θ )(3cos θ − 1)] 16 μ σ ψ= (2-84) where k = (3 − 4ν ) for plane strain.M. it is assumed that the crack growth occurs in the direction perpendicular to the maximum tangential stress at (or near) the crack tip. Mirzaei. while there are two general approaches for predicting the direction of crack growth. and k = (3 −ν ) /(1 +ν ) for plane stress. on the basis that this corresponds to a maximum in energy release rate. The second question is how to determine the direction of further crack growth.

M. K II = σ π a sin β cos β σ t = σ sin β 2 (2-88) 32 . for pure mode I we have: ⎡ S I (θ ) ⎤ min = S I (θ = 0 ) = a11 K c2 ⎣ ⎦ 2(k − 1) 2 ⇒ Sc = Kc 16 μ (2-86) For the angled crack shown in Fig 23. the strain energy density can be obtained based on the following expressions for the stresses: σ rr = ⎜ σ θθ σ rθ θ 3 3θ ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ K II ⎞ ⎛ 5 2 ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎜ − 4 sin 2 + 4 sin 2 ⎟ + σ t cos θ ⎠ ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ θ 1 3θ ⎞ ⎛ K II ⎞ ⎛ 3 θ 3 3θ ⎞ ⎛ KI ⎞ ⎛ 3 2 =⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 4 cos 2 + 4 cos 2 ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ − 4 sin 2 − 4 sin 2 ⎟ + σ t sin θ ⎠ ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ θ 1 3θ ⎞ ⎛ K II ⎞ ⎛ 1 θ 3 3θ ⎞ ⎛ KI ⎞ ⎛ 1 =⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 4 cos 2 + 4 cos 2 ⎟ − σ t sin θ cos θ ⎟ ⎜ 4 sin 2 + 4 sin 2 ⎟ + ⎜ ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ θ 1 3θ ⎛ KI ⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎟ ⎜ 4 cos 2 − 4 cos 2 ⎝ 2π r ⎠ ⎝ (2-87) where we have. dθ d 2S >0 dθ 2 (2-85) For example. K I = σ π a sin 2 β . Fracture Mechanics According to this criterion the crack starts to grow when S reaches a critical value Sc. and the direction of crack growth is given when S is a minimum: dS = 0. Mirzaei.

and numerical methods. (2-89) for which we can define the integration and differentiation operations with respect to z as: Φ = ∫ Φdz Φ = ∫ Φdz Φ = ∫ Φ′dz dΦ =Φ dz dΦ =Φ dz dΦ = Φ′ dz (2-90) 33 .M. Mirzaei. experimental. σ0 Y σy r θ τxy σ0 a σ0 σx X σ0 Φ = ℜe Φ + y ℑm Φ Figure 24 We use the general form of the Westergard stress function. under remote stress σ0. Analytical Determination of SIF In this section we drive the stress intensity factor expression for an infinite plate with a central crack of length 2a. Fracture Mechanics Stress Intensity Factor A major activity in the design process based on fracture mechanics is the determination of the stress intensity factor for the particular problem. In the following sections we will discuss some of the pertinent analytical.

C. ⇒ Φ = ∞ ⇒ σ xx = σ yy = ∞ B.2 y = 0.C. − a < x < a. (2-91).1 x. 34 . Now we translate the origin to the crack tip. y = − ℑm Φ + ℑm Φ + y ℜe Φ ≡ y ℜe Φ (2-92) Accordingly.M.C. we can differentiate Eq. (2-97) as. we can calculate the stresses using the following Equations: σ xx = Φ. Mirzaei. ⇒ ℜe Φ = 0 ⇒ σ xx = σ yy = 0 Note that the proposed stress function satisfies these conditions. we should choose a stress function which satisfies the local and global boundary conditions of this problem. a . yy = ℜe Φ − y ℑm Φ′ σ yy = Φ. we neglect the z2 term (2-97) 1 − a Φ= σ0z 2 2 Next we switch to polar coordinates with z = reiθ and write Eq. (2-89) with respect to “y” and write: Φ. x = ± a. xx = ℜe Φ + y ℑm Φ′ (2-93) Now. Φ= (2-95) σ 0 ( z + a) ( z + a) − a 2 2 (2-96) Since we are interested in very near field stresses where z and write. Fracture Mechanics Writing the Cauchy-Riemann equations we have: dΦ ∂ℑm Φ ∂ℜe Φ = ≡ ℜe dz ∂y ∂x dΦ ∂ℜe Φ ∂ℑm Φ − = ≡ ℑm dz ∂y ∂x (2-91) Using Eq. y → ∞ ⇒ z → ∞ ⇒ σ xx = σ yy = σ 0 B.3 y = 0. Let us check the following stress function: Φ= σ0z z2 − a2 (2-94) The global and local boundary conditions are: B.

It is possible to obtain the K-expression using the principle of superposition. Thus. we may write: K I = lim {(2π r )1/ 2 σ 22 r →0 θ =0 } (2-100) ⎧ a ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ σ0 ⎬ K I = lim ⎨(2π r )1/ 2 r →0 2r ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ KI = σ 0 π a In practice. the far field stress in the x direction does not have any effect on the crack tip stress field. Mirzaei.M. Fracture Mechanics Φ= a σ 0 [cos(θ / 2) − i sin(θ / 2)] 2r (2-98) Hence. for the geometries shown in Figure 25 we may write: K Ia + K Ib = σ π a K Ia + 0 = σ π a K Ia = σ π a (2-101) Figure 25 35 . Hence. using the original definition of KI for the Mode I problem. the above expression for K is also applicable when the sheet is under uniaxial far-field stress in the Y direction. σ 22 θ =0 = ℜe Φ θ =0 = a σ0 2r (2-99) Finally. for the normal stress component on the crack line near the tip we have.

Mirzaei. Fracture Mechanics Figure 26 36 .M.

We may also use the general expression K I = Y σ π b and find the Y factor from the following diagrams. These cracks often have semielliptical or quarter-elliptical shapes. θ is measured counterclockwise from the point B. There may also be elliptical cracks embedded in components. A solution for an embedded elliptical crack for an infinite domain derived by Irwin is: KI = σ πa ⎛ Φ ⎞4 a2 sin 2 θ + 2 cos 2 θ ⎟ ⎜ b ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2-102) in which a and b are defined in Fig 27.12 is usually considered for the part-through semi-elliptical cracks.M. For the quarter-elliptical corner crack the factor is 1. σ πa KI = 3π π a 2 8 + 8b 2 ⎛ 2 ⎞4 a2 sin θ + 2 cos 2 θ ⎟ ⎜ b ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2-104) From the above expression it is obvious that K I varies along the crack front. Because of their importance. It is also possible to find an approximation to the above integral using a series expansion and write the K expression as. Mirzaei. Φ=∫ π /2 0 ⎛ b2 − a 2 ⎞2 1− sin 2 θ ⎟ dθ ⎜ b2 ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2-103) Values for Φ are reported in the form of tables and graphs. and Φ is an elliptical integral of the second kind defined by.2. 37 . significant research has been done on modeling and quantification of the effect of elliptical cracks in different structures under various types of loadings. Fracture Mechanics Elliptical Cracks For many real components cracking starts at free surfaces. Its magnitude is largest at the end of the minor axis and lowest at the end of the major axis as follows: K I (max) = σ πa Φ K I (min) = σ π a2 b Φ (2-105) A correction factor of 1.

M. Fracture Mechanics Figure 27 38 . Mirzaei.

Here. Strain Gage Method The stress intensity factor can be determined experimentally by placing one ore more strain gages near the crack tip. The threeterm representation of the strain field is: Eε xx = A0 r − 1 2 θ⎡ θ 3θ ⎤ cos ⎢(1 −ν ) − (1 + ν ) sin sin ⎥ + 2 B0 2⎣ 2 2⎦ θ⎡ 2θ ⎤ ⎢(1 −ν ) − (1 +ν ) sin 2 ⎥ 2⎣ ⎦ + A1r cos Eε yy = A0 r − 1 2 1 2 θ⎡ θ 3θ ⎤ cos ⎢(1 −ν ) − (1 + ν ) sin sin ⎥ − 2ν B0 2⎣ 2 2⎦ θ⎡ 2 μγ xy 2θ ⎤ ⎢(1 −ν ) − (1 +ν ) sin 2 ⎥ 2⎣ ⎦ 1 1 − ⎡ 3θ ⎤ θ⎤ ⎡ = A0 r 2 ⎢sin θ cos ⎥ − A1r 2 ⎢sin θ cos ⎥ 2⎦ 2⎦ ⎣ ⎣ (2-106) + A1r cos 1 2 where A0 . we need three strain gages to be able to determine the above three unknowns. is: Dally. However. and A1 are unknown coefficients which depend on loading and the geometry of the specimen. Mirzaei. provided by James W. B0 . to avoid sever strain gradients. the gages should not be placed at very near field. W. For instance we have: A0 = KI 2π (2-107) In general. 3rd edition. W.. Phillips. as shown in Fig. 1991. J. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 39 . Experimental Stress Analysis. it can be shown that it is possible to use only one gage oriented at angle α and positioned along the Px′ axis. However. such as laser interferometry and the method of Caustics. F. An excellent source for detailed study of these and other methods. 28.. Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. we briefly review the usage of electrical resistance strain gages and the method of photoelasticity. we need more terms to be able to express the field parameters correctly. Also are the lecture notes on experimental stress analysis.M. as we move further from the crack tip. Riley. Fracture Mechanics Experimental Determination of SIF The different methods used for experimental determination of stress intensity factors belong to a broader domain called experimental stress analysis. On the other hand.

k= 1 −ν 1 +ν (2-109) KI 2π r θ 1 3θ 1 3θ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ k cos 2 − 2 sin θ sin 2 cos 2α + 2 sin θ cos 2 sin 2α ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2-108) The choice of the angles α and θ depend on the Poisson’s ratio and can be determined from the table below. Table 1 For the choice α = θ = 60 . Mirzaei. the required expression is very simple: KI = E 8 π rε x′x′ 3 (2-110) 40 . Fracture Mechanics Figure 28 Accordingly. the stress intensity factor can be determined from: 2μ Eε x′x′ = where.M.

Two types of pattern can be obtained: isochromatics and isoclinics. the principal stresses are obtained from the stresses defined in Eq. Mirzaei. A polariscope is needed for viewing the fringes induced by the stresses (see Fig. and illuminated with an ordinary light source exhibits fringe patterns that are related to the difference between the principal stresses in a plane normal to the light propagation direction. Fracture Mechanics Photoelasticity Method Photoelasticity is a whole-field stress analysis technique based on an optical-mechanical property called birefringence. possessed by many transparent polymers. combined with other optical elements. Figure 29 The sensitivity of a photoelastic material is characterized by its fringe constant fσ . (2-111) to give: 41 . This constant relates the value “N” associated with a given fringe to the thickness h of the specimen in the light-propagation direction and the difference between the principal stresses in the plane normal to the light-propagation direction as follows: σ1 − σ 2 = Nfσ h (2-111) In practice. A loaded photoelastic specimen.M. 29). The former is related to the principal-stress differences and the latter to the principal stress directions. (2-63) and combined with Eqn.

2 ksi in 0.23)(43)(5) = = 1. Mirzaei. the material fringe value is 43.213 (2-113) 42 . Fracture Mechanics ⎛ σ −σ ⎞ 2 σ 1 − σ 2 = 2 ⎜ 11 22 ⎟ + σ 12 2 ⎝ ⎠ KI = sin θ 2π r ⇒ KI = 2π r fσ N h 2 (2-112) For example. from the crack tip. and the specimen thickness is 0. let us calculate the value of the stress intensity factor for the specimen shown in Fig 30.M.213 in.23 in. The magnitude of the stress intensity factor can be calculated as: KI = 2π r fσ N h 2π (0. Figure 30 Suppose that the fringe designated with number 5 is located at the distance 0.

Boundary Element Methods. but finite element analysis is more efficient for this purpose. Numerical methods for fracture mechanics can be categorized in many different ways. and displacements within the body. The initial crack geometry is represented by level set functions. For structural problems. Different Element types can be used to cover the problem domain. Once all of the boundary quantities are known. This is an ideal code for education and research. using the notion of partition of unity. can be inferred from the nodal displacements. numerical techniques play a very important role in determination of SIFs for real components. which is developed in Cornell University. the solution of the problem consists of nodal displacements. This enables the domain to be modeled by finite elements with no explicit meshing of the crack surfaces. It can be downloaded at http://www. Given these boundary conditions. the structure of interest is subdivided into discrete shapes called elements.M. Despite all of its capabilities. The problems in science and engineering are usually solved mathematically through specifying appropriate boundary conditions. A number of commercial FEM packages have the ability for crack modeling and fracture mechanics calculations. In the finite element method (FEM). either there is no analytical solution. and the boundary integrals are approximated by a system of algebraic equations. There is also a very useful noncommercial code. Hence. We will explore some aspects of the so called “computational fracture mechanics” as we proceed in this course. In order to solve for the unknown boundary data. called FRANC2D. it is theoretically possible to solve for the tractions and the displacements on the boundary.htm. and subsequently signed distance functions are used to compute the enrichment functions that appear in the displacement-based finite element approximation. The boundary integral equation method (BIE) is a very powerful technique for solving for unknown tractions and displacements on the surface. or the available solutions are only crude approximations. The method has basically been developed in Northwestern University.cfg. strains. The BIE formulation leads to a set of integral equations that relate surface displacements to surface tractions. A brief explanation of different approaches to numerical determination of SIF follows: Ordinary and Extended Finite Element Methods.cornell. The elements are connected at node points where continuity of the displacement fields is enforced. a discontinuous function and the twodimensional asymptotic crack-tip displacement fields are added to the finite element approximation to account for the crack.e. Fracture Mechanics Numerical Determination of SIF For most practical problems. In the Extended Finite Element Methods (X-FEM).edu/software/software. the surface must be subdivided into segments (i. elements). The stress and strain distribution throughout the body. This approach can also provide solutions for internal field quantities. the code is surprisingly easy to learn and work with. Mirzaei. as well as crack parameters such as SIF. 43 . as well as the stresses. The displacements at the nodes depend on the element stiffness and the nodal forces..

The former technique is based on inferring the stress intensity factor from the stress or displacement fields in the body. the mode-I displacement equations are: ui = KI G r fi (θ . In these methods the problem domain is represented by a set of arbitrarily distributed nodes. For example. when solving for internal field quantities. Displacement Extrapolation Following a liner elastic analysis.. The noncommercial FRANC3D code.htm. however. These methods are relatively new and still in the stage of development. This method is inefficient. particularly when the boundary quantities are of primary interest. the boundary of a two-dimensional problem is surrounded by one-dimensional elements. Consequently. the stress intensity factors can be determined by equating the numerically obtained displacements with their analytical expression in terms of the SIF. i. These codes are developed in Cornell University can be downloaded at http://www. These are: point matching and energy methods. 44 .cfg. while the surface of a three-dimensional solid is paved with two-dimensional elements. there is no need for conformation of mesh with cracks and this makes the modeling of evolving cracks easier. The boundary elements have one less dimension than the body being analyzed. In the latter the energy release rate is first computed and the stress intensity is obtained using Eqs (2-81) and (2-82). along with OSM (solid modeler) and BES (3D BIM solver) codes provide a powerful set for analyzing fracture mechanics problems. Fracture Mechanics displacements at internal points can be computed.e.edu/software/software. In contrast to FEM. θ ) close to the crack tip. Mirzaei. Mesh Free Methods. but they possess some interesting features that make them strong candidates for computational fracture mechanics in the future. we may consider two different approaches for determination of SIF using FEM. boundary element analysis can be very efficient. There is no need to use meshes or elements for field variable interpolation.ν ) 2π (2-114) Using the above expression we may obtain a quantity K I∗ using the nodal point displacement ui∗ at some point (r .cornell. Determination of SIF using FEM In general.M. The density of nodes can be chosen high near discontinuities like cracks.

the energy release rate is given by. Figure 31 Energy Approach. It has been shown that ordinary quadratic isoparametric elements can be degenerated to give desired singularity by moving the mid-side nodes to the l/4 points. Elemental Crack Advance We have already shown that the energy release rate can be obtained from the rate of change in total potential energy with crack growth. it was recognized that unless singular elements could be used. Mirzaei. ⎛ ΔΠ ⎞ G = −⎜ ⎟ ⎝ Δa ⎠ 45 (2-116) . Forcing the elements at the crack tip to exhibit a strain singularity greatly improves accuracy and reduces the need for a high degree of mesh refinement at the crack tip. Singular Elements Certain element/node configurations produce strain singularities. Fracture Mechanics K I∗ = 2π G [ f i (θ .M. and extrapolating to r = 0. one with the crack length a.ν ) ] ui∗ r (2-115) The stress intensity factor can be inferred by plotting the quantity K I∗ against distance from the crack tip. it would be necessary to have a very fine mesh at the crack tip to approximate the stress singularity with non-singular elements. In early finite element studies of LEFM. and the other with the crack length a + ∆a. This technique was the predominant one prior to the discovery of the quarter point singular element. If two separate numerical analyses are performed. Assume a two-dimensional body with unit thickness.

as follows: width 2W = 76 mm. It is subjected to a tension loading of P = 240 kN. G=− 1 T ∂[K ] dΠ = − [u ] [u ] 2 da ∂a (2-118) The implementation of the above expression does not require changing all of the elements in the mesh. Consider a two-dimensional cracked body with unit thickness. we may accommodate the crack growth by moving only the elements near the crack tip as illustrated in Fig.3). since global energy estimates do not require refined meshes. it can be shown that the energy release rate is proportional to the derivative of the stiffness matrix with respect to crack length. The plate contains an initial crack of length (half) a = 1 mm. Mirzaei. One disadvantage of this method is that it requires multiple solutions. The potential energy of the body. subject to Mode I loading. Instead. This technique is also more efficient than the point matching methods. Stiffness Derivative Formulation In this section we will briefly explain the method developed by Parks and Hellen. and thickness B = 6 mm. in terms of the finite element solution. which has dimensions. ν = 0. Fracture Mechanics This technique is easy to implement. Compare the results. while other methods infer the desired crack tip parameter from a single analysis. since the total strain energy is a natural output by many commercial analysis codes. Assignment 4: Consider a center-cracked plate of the AISI 4340 steel (E = 210 GPa.M. 32. length-to-width ratio 2H/2W = 5. Virtual Crack Extension. 46 . is given by Π= 1 T T [u] [ K ][u ] − [u ] [ F ] 2 (2-117) Accordingly. Compute the SIF using the available closed form solutions and FEM. Energy Method.

while points outside of Γ1 remain fixed. The integration need only be performed over the annular region between Γ0 and Γ1. Mirzaei. it is sufficient merely to calculate the change in elemental stiffness matrices corresponding to shifts in the nodal coordinates and there is no need to generate a second mesh with a longer crack. It should be noted that in this analysis. Figure 33 illustrates a virtual crack advance in a two-dimensional continuum. Fracture Mechanics Figure 32 Each of the elements between Γ0 and Γ1 is distorted. One problem with the stiffness derivative approach is that it involves cumbersome numerical differentiation. virtual crack extension causes material points to translate by ∆x1. A more recent formulation of the virtual crack extension method overcomes these difficulties.M. Material points inside Γ0 experience rigid body translation a distance ∆a in the x1 direction. Continuum Approach In this section we will briefly explain the method developed by deLorenzi. as discussed below. For an elastic material. such that its stiffness changes. G= ⎞ ∂Δ x 1 ⎛ ∂u j ∫ ⎜ σ ij ∂x1 − wδ i1 ⎟ ∂xi 1 dA Δa A ⎝ ⎠ (2-120) where w is the strain energy density and the crack growth is assumed in the x1 direction. deLorenzi showed that energy release rate is given by. Virtual Crack Extension. The energy release rate is related to this change in element stiffness as follows: G=− 1 T ⎧ NC ∂ [ K i ] ⎫ [u ] ⎨∑ ⎬ [u ] 2 ⎩ i =1 ∂a ⎭ (2-119) where [ Ki ] are the elemental stiffness matrices and NC is the number of elements between Γ0 and Γ1. Energy Method. In the region between contours. 47 .

On the other hand. The question is how the use of LEFM parameters like G and K can be justified under these circumstances. If the size of the damaged zone is small enough that it is contained within the K-dominant region. if this zone is larger than the K-dominant region. there will always be a small damaged zone around the crack tip. For materials like ceramics and concrete it is often called fracture process zone. i. and displacement are determined by the singular term (first term) of Eq. this damaged zone is referred to as the crack tip plastic zone. LEFM is not applicable. the magnitude of stress at the crack tip is theoretically infinite. Mirzaei. (2-69). then our linear elastic assumptions are not correct. Crack Tip Plasticity As it was shown before.M. and a nonlinear model must be used. Fracture Mechanics Figure 33 *Calculation of SIF using the concept of Energy-Domain Integral will be discussed in Lecture Note 3. Hence. it is obvious that every material has a finite strength and. For metals. different cracks with equal stress intensity factors will have equal damaged zones and will behave similar to each other. 48 . we may conclude that the similitude condition exists. strain. The answer relies on the spread of the damage zone compared to the size of what we may call the K-dominant region.e. under LEFM assumptions. However. By the latter we mean the small region around the crack tip for which the states of stress. as a result.

Mirzaei. as depicted in Fig. (2-63). 49 . Fracture Mechanics Size of the plastic zone Based on the above arguments. (2-63). it seems necessary to have a reliable estimate of the size of the crack-tip plastic-zone. On the crack plane we have θ = 0 and the normal stress σ 22 in a linear elastic material is given by Eq. (2-63) and solving for r gives a first order estimate of the plastic zone size: σ 22 = KI 2π r KI σ ys = 2π ry ⇒ ry = 2 2πσ ys (2-121) = K I2 σ 2a 2 2σ ys However. we assume that yielding occurs when σ 22 equals the uniaxial yield strength of the material ( σ ys ). given by Eq. We start by considering the plane stress condition and assume that the boundary between plastic and elastic regions is the locus of the stresses. It can be expected that due to this extra load the actual plastic zone size should be larger than ry . we have actually ignored the load represented by the hatched area in our derivation. σ22 σys r ry Figure 34 Substituting the yield strength into the left side of Eq. However.M. as a first approximation. 34. which satisfy a yield criterion.

However. The next step is to repeat the previous procedure for plastic zone size estimation for the effective crack. we have: ρσ ys = ⎜ ∫ σ ⎜ 0 ⎝ ⎛ Δ a+ρ ⎞ dr ⎟ − Δσ ys ⎟ 2r ⎠ (2-123) Since ρ is small. Mirzaei. Fracture Mechanics Irwin Plastic zone correction In order to give a better estimation of the plastic-zone size. σ22 σys a ρ aeff Figure 35 Hence. Hence. we may define an effective crack length whose length is equal to the size of the actual crack plus a correction ρ. we may write: Δ r σ ys = KI a+ρ ≡σ 2Δ 2π Δ (2-122) σ 2 (a + ρ ) ⇒Δ= ≈ ry 2 2σ ys Equating the two hatched areas. it can be neglected compared to the crack length in the above integration and we may write using (2-122): ( ρ + r )σ y ys 2 = σ 2ary 2σ 2 a 2 σ ys ⇒ ( ρ + ry ) = ⇒ ρ = ry (2-124) 2 y ry ≡ 4r 50 . This can be readily seen from the last expression of Eqs (2-121).M. Irwin argued that consideration of a larger plastic zone may be taken equivalent to the assumption of a larger crack. we consider the extra length ρ large enough to carry the extra load ignored by truncating the asymptotic stress distribution.

51 . It is clear that CTOD. calculating the plastic zone dimension through Eq. 2σ a2 − x2 E 4σ a2 − x2 ⇒ δ δ= E v= (2-127) x =a =0 However. The effect of the plastic zone on the stress intensity factor might then be approximated by adding half the plastic zone length to the real crack before calculating K as follows. and recalculating the stress intensity through Eq. if we introduce the effects of crack tip plasticity. Mirzaei. we will have: 4σ E aeff = a + ry ⇒ δ t = ry → 0 ⇒ δ t = a 2 + 2ary + ry 2 − a 2 4σ 2ary E 4 K I2 CTOD ≡ δ t = π Eσ ys (2-128) We will use the concept of CTOD in relation with the crack tip plastic deformation in our discussions on elasto-plastic fracture mechanics. (2-121). is zero. Thus. Fracture Mechanics It turns out that the new plastic zone size is twice as large as our first estimate: 1⎛K rp = Δ + ρ = 2ry = ⎜ I π ⎜ σ ys ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 (2-125) The main effect of plasticity is that the stresses close to the crack tip are relaxed by yielding at the expense of increased stresses outside the plastic zone. Crack Tip Opening Displacement One key advantage of plastic-zone correction is that it gives a meaning to the crack-tipopening displacement (CTOD).M. obtained from a linear elastic analysis. (2-126). adding it to the real crack length. the calculation procedure for Of course this procedure should be limited to ry plastic zone size adjustment consists of calculating the elastic stress intensity based on the real crack length. K I = σ π ( a + ry ) (2-126) a .

Mirzaei. The first is for an infinite plate. The formulation of the model starts by considering a virtual crack which is larger than the real crack by the amount 2∆.M. Fracture Mechanics Dugdale Approach An alternative approach for estimation of the plastic-zone size was proposed by Dugdale and Barenblatt. This stress function can be obtained by integration of the solution for the same crack under a point load located at a distance b from the centerline. σys 2a σys 2a + 2Δ Figure 36 The next step is to find the stress function required for the solution of this problem by superimposing two stress functions. for which we have: Φ1 = σz z2 − (a + Δ) 2 (2-129) The second stress function is required for the same crack under a distributed load σ ys over the distance ∆. for which we have: ( a + Δ ) − b2 Φb = 2 π z 2 − ( a + Δ ) ( z 2 − b2 ) 2σ ys z 2 for this problem b = a ⇒ Φ2 = ∫ a +Δ a ( a + Δ ) − a2 dz 2 π z2 − ( a + Δ ) ( z 2 − a2 ) 2σ ys z 2 2 z 2 − ( a + Δ ) ⎞⎤ ⎟⎥ 2 2 ⎟⎥ ( a + Δ ) − a ⎠⎦ (2-130) ⎛ 2σ ys ⎡ z a ⎞ −1 ⎛ −1 ⎜ a ⎢ ⇒ Φ2 = cos ⎜ ⎟ − cot ⎜ π ⎢ z 2 − ( a + Δ )2 z ⎝a+Δ⎠ ⎝ ⎣ 52 . It is assumed that the virtual crack is closed by the amount ∆ at every tip by the use of compressive stresses equal to the yield stress. In this approach it is assumed that the plastic deformation is confined to a localized strip in front of the crack. under the far-field stress σ. containing a central crack with the length 2a + 2∆.

because we know that in reality the stresses at the location of the tip of the virtual crack are finite. Fracture Mechanics Now we may obtain the required stress function for the Dugdale model by superposition of the two functions as follows: Φ 3 = Φ1 − Φ 2 (2-131) However. the actual state of stress at the crack tip region is triaxial. In order to see how this 3D state of stress can develop we assume a roll of material in the interior of the specimen at the crack tip. Accordingly. except for a slight difference in the coefficient. (2-125). Crack-Tip 3D State of Stress Both Irwin and Dugdale estimations of the crack-tip-plastic-zone size assume uniaxial plastic deformation. σ22 σ33 Plastic Zone σ33 σ22 σ11 Elastic Figure 37 53 . we do not need to go through the complete solution. Nevertheless. as depicted in Fig. All we need is to set the sum of the singular terms of the two functions equal to zero. the plastic-zone size ∆ can be determined as: σz z2 − (a + Δ) ⎛ πσ ⇒ cos ⎜ ⎜ 2σ ⎝ ys 2 − 2σ ys z π z2 − (a + Δ) ⇒ 1− 2 ⎛ a ⎞ cos −1 ⎜ ⎟=0 ⎝a+Δ⎠ ⎞ a ⎟= ⎟ a+Δ ⎠ 2 π 2σ 2 a − Δ = 2 8σ ys a (2-132) π⎛K ⎞ ⇒Δ= ⎜ I ⎟ 8 ⎜ σ ys ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ which is quite similar to Eq. Mirzaei.M. 37.

As a result. which was obtained from Eq. in the interior of the specimen. Fracture Mechanics Due to very high stresses in this region.M. ⎟ ⎠ 2 54 . which are the locus of the above expressions 1 normalized through a division by ry = 2π ⎛ KI ⎜ ⎜σ ⎝ ys ⎞ ⎟ . Nevertheless. 37. Thus. The von Mises yield condition written in terms of principal stresses is: (σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + (σ 3 − σ 1 ) 2 2 2 2 = 2σ ys (2-133) Using Eqns (2-63) we may write the crack-tip principal stresses as: ⎧σ 1 ⎫ ⎧1 + sin(θ / 2) ⎫ KI cos(θ / 2) ⎨ ⎨ ⎬= ⎬ 1/ 2 ⎩1 − sin(θ / 2) ⎭ ⎩σ 2 ⎭ (2π r ) 0 plane stress ⎧ σ3 = ⎨ ⎩ν (σ 1 + σ 2 ) plane strain Substituting the above stresses into Eq. which is at a low stress and has no tendency to contract. at the surfaces of the specimen there can be no stress in the x3 direction and a state of plane stress exists. and the von Mises yield criterion to obtain a better estimation of the shape and size of the plastic zone. as shown in Fig. the material undergoes a large extension in the x2 direction and also tends to contract in the x1 and x3 directions to maintain the condition of constant volume required by plastic deformation (ε11 + ε22 + ε33 = 0). we may go one step further by first ignoring the stress redistribution due to plastic deformation. Due to the above arguments. However. the material in this zone is continuously attached to a larger mass of surrounding material. the material in the crack tip region experiences a state of plane strain due to the constraints imposed by the surrounding material. tensile stresses develop in other two directions. (2-121). it is clear that a very precise determination of the shape and size of the plastic zone is not an easy task. Next we may combine our knowledge of plane strain/plane stress transition. However. Mirzaei. (2-133) and solving for rp(θ) results in: 2 (2-134) 1 rp (θ ) = 2π 1 rp (θ ) = 2π ⎛ KI ⎜ ⎜σ ⎝ ys ⎛K ⎜ I ⎜σ ⎝ ys ⎞ ⎛1 3 2 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ + sin θ + cos θ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝2 2 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 plane stress (2-135) 2 ⎛3 2 ⎞ (1 − 2ν ) 1 + cos θ ⎟ ⎜ sin θ + ( )⎟ ⎜4 2 ⎝ ⎠ plane strain Figure 38 shows the plastic zone shapes. the elastic solution for the crack tip stresses.

the plastic zone is large compared to the thickness. i. Mirzaei. This phenomenon has very important implications for toughness evaluation.e.. whereas in thick components it is very small. fractures of thick specimens are more brittle in appearance. Plane Strain | | | | | | | 1. This effect can be attributed to the size of the crack tip plastic zone relative to the thickness. In thin components.0 Plane Stress | | | Plane Strain Figure 38 Plane Stress/Plane Strain Transition Figure 39 shows how the plastic zone size gradually decreases from the plane stress size at the surface to the plane strain size in the interior of the component. 55 . different toughness values may be measured depending on the dimensions of the specimens.0 Plane Stress Figure 39 It has long been observed that thicker components have a greater tendency to fracture.M. Fracture Mechanics | 1. In general. while the fractures of thin specimen often show 45° shear lips over parts of the fracture surface. being flat with no evidence of ductility.

The third and higher terms in the Williams solution have positive exponents on r and vanish at the crack tip. As the requirement for constant volume dictates ν = ½ for plastic deformation. but the third principal stress equals ν(σ1 + σ2). 56 .M. the maximum shear stress will be much lower and occurs on planes rotated 45° from the directions of σ1 and σ2. as depicted below. Mirzaei. The influence of the T stress can be investigated by constructing a circular model that contains a crack. Fracture Mechanics toughness τ σ1 σ2 x z Plane Stress thickness Figure 40 Moreover. Although in the plane strain condition σ1 and σ2 have the same magnitude as in plane stress. results in the stress ν T in the z direction in plane strain. in the case of plane stress. It has been shown that this second term can affect the plastic zone shape and the stresses deep inside the plastic zone. the planes of maximum shear stress are located at angles 45° from the directions of σ1 and σ3. whose leading term exhibits a 1/ r singularity. 40. the second term remains finite. The two-term expansion is: ⎡T 0 0 ⎤ KI fij (θ ) + ⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥ + σ ij = ⎢ ⎥ 2π r ⎢0 0 νT ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2-136) where T is a uniform stress in the x direction. However. as depicted in Fig. which in turn. τ σ3 y y σ1 σ3 x z Plane Strain σ2 The effect of Elastic T Stress We have already shown that the Williams solution for the crack tip stress field in an isotropic elastic material can be expressed as an infinite power series.

the size of the plastic zone which develops at the crack tip must be small relative to the size of the model. The single-edge-notch bend specimen. are the most common designs and have been standardized by ASTM.93 ( a / W ) + 2. and the compact-tension.6W SENB W B a a S=4W W 1.25W B Figure 42 The stress intensity calibration for the SENB specimen is: KI = PS f (a / W ) BW 3/ 2 3( a / W ) 1/ 2 (2-137) f (a / W ) = {1. A variety of specimens have been proposed for fracture toughness testing. Mirzaei. SENB. This configuration simulates the near-tip conditions in an arbitrary geometry and is often referred to as the modified boundary layer analysis. Fracture Mechanics On the boundary of this model.7 ( a / W ) ⎤⎦} 2 2 ⎡1 + 2 ( a / W ) ⎤ ⎡1 − ( a / W ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ 57 3/ 2 . σ ij = KI fij (θ ) + T δ1iδ1 j 2π r Figure 41 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING Fracture toughness tests are carried out to determine the resistance of materials to crack growth.M. To ensure the validity of the boundary conditions. we may apply in-plane tractions that correspond to a twoterm expansion of the Williams series.15 − 3.99 − ( a / W )(1 − a / W ) ⎡⎣2. C(T). C(T) 0.

Figure 43 Assignment 5: Using FRANC2D. obtain a K-calibration for the standard C(T) specimen and compare it with the above expressions. 58 .64 a / W − 13. The obtained expression is: P ( 6. we will show how a simple analytic K-expression can be derived for the C(T) specimen using an energy approach. Fracture Mechanics in which P is the applied load and the dimensional parameters are shown in Fig. Mirzaei.32 a / W 2 + 14.886 + 4. For the C(T) specimen the K calibration is: KI = P (2-138) f (a / W ) BW 1/ 2 ( 2 + a / W ) ⎡0.75 a / W + 8.72 a / W 3 − 5.6 a / W 4 ⎤ f (a / W ) = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )⎦ 3/ 2 (1 − a / W ) ⎣ At the end of this notes. 42.25 ) KI = 3/ 2 BW 1/ 2 (1 − a / W ) 1/ 2 (2-139) Figure 43 shows the comparison between the above expressions.M.

fracture toughness varies with the specimen thickness. and corrosive media. Figure 44 In practice. Mirzaei. This effect can be attributed to limited stable crack extension or the plastic zone growth prior to instability. In this situation. etc. loading rate. The usual practice is to machine a notch with certain geometry and size in the specimen and then produce a fatigue crack in the root of the notch by cycle-loading the specimen. Thus. 40. The specimens should contain the sharpest possible crack to represent the most sever situation. however. the load/displacement behavior shows some degree of non-linearity as depicted in Fig. which in normal specimen types would result in a deviation from a linear 59 . The experiments are usually performed using servo-hydraulic mechanical testing machines equipped with autographic instrumentation to record load and displacement. The direction of the initiating crack relative to any metallurgical orientation is also important. The test environment should simulate the real situation particularly with respect to temperature. the specimen should be thick enough to ensure the minimum toughness corresponding to the plateau shown in Fig. Fracture Mechanics Plane Strain Fracture Toughness The details of the procedure for determining plane strain fracture toughness of materials are described by the ASTM Standard E 399.M. Displacement is usually measured using a clip-gauge which is mounted at the mouth of the machined notch. 45. As mentioned before. 44. If the specimen fails in a linear brittle manner. the failure load Pcrit is used to calculate KIc using the appropriate K calibration expression. It should be noted that the successful usage of the experimentally determined KIc values in real applications requires that the test materials be identical to those used in real situations in terms of metallurgy and manufacturing procedure like heat treatment. failure is defined as 2% crack growth. The measured critical SIF is then called the plane-strain fracture toughness for mode I (designated as KIc) and is a true material property. as shown in Fig.

should be further checked to meet a criterion with regard to size and constraint. which simultaneously satisfies the equilibrium equations and the specified boundary conditions. M. Thus. the most accurate expressions found in the literature have been derived using numerical techniques." Modarres Technical and Engineering Journal. the analytical solution for such problems starts with the definition of a stress function. However. Accordingly. the intersection of a line with a 5% smaller slope than the elastic line with the load-displacement curve is considered as the critical load. Mirzaei.. we will derive a simple and accurate analytic expression for the stress intensity calibration for the C(T) specimen using an energy approach. Accordingly.5 ⎜ Iq ⎜ σ ys ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 (2-140) then KIq is considered as KIc. Figure 45 The obtained critical K.M. influences the accuracy of the final expression. The plastic zone size is calculated using the KIq and compared with the crack length and thickness. "Analytic Compliance and Stress Intensity Factor Expressions for C(T) Specimen. 44-49. the simplifying assumptions required to find the solution for a finite geometry. Based on the theory of elasticity. 1996. Fracture Mechanics trace of about 5%. No. Load-COD Analysis of the C(T) Specimen In this section we present the derivation and experimental verification of a compliance expression for the standard C(T) specimen. The expression proposed by Newman (also reported in the ASTM proposed recommended practice for R-Curve determination) 60 . 2. If the following criterion is met: ⎛K a or B ≥ 2. designated as KIq. such as a C(T) specimen. More detailed information about the procedure can be found in: Mirzaei.

accompanied by an extrapolation technique. is in the original form of: EBv 2 3 4 = 120. Figure 46 61 . This.5 ( a / W ) P (2-141) where E is the modulus of elasticity.4943 ( a / W ) ⎤ ⎦ (2-142) Notwithstanding the above approaches. i. Saxena and Hudak proposed elastic compliance expressions for a wider range of crack lengths. Mirzaei.e. They used Newman's results to calculate the location of the axis of rotation of the crack surfaces at various crack lengths.2 < a/W < 0..61369 + 12.0499 ( a / W ) − 14.2311( a / W ) P ⎝ a / W ⎠⎝ 1 − a / W ⎠ 3 4 5 −16. The above expression can be solved for either compliance or stiffness of the specimen and has an accuracy of ±0.35 < a/W < 0. resulted in the initial form of the compliance expression. B is the specimen thickness.975.6.7 − 1065. the expression dramatically deviates from experimental data outside the specified range.25 ⎞⎛ 1 + a / W ⎞ ⎡ 2 = ⎜1 + ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎣1.M. However. particularly at low a/W ratios. and W is the width of the specimen. a is the crack length. Based on the Newman's results and by the use of Wilson's deep crack analysis.4 percent within the range of 0. Figure 46 is a schematic presentation of one-half of the specimen in both its undeformed and deformed configurations.3 ( a / W ) + 4098 ( a / W ) − 6688 ( a / W ) + 4450.6778 ( a / W ) − 14. the elastic deformation of a C(T) specimen can be quantified through a simple analysis of the deformation components. v is the CMOD (crack mouth opening displacement). 0. Fracture Mechanics derived from a combination of the complex variable method of Muskhelishvili with an improved boundary-collocation method. Because of its symmetry only half of the specimen is considered.6102 ( a / W ) + 35. P is the applied load. The obtained expression was then transformed into a polynomial form using curve fitting to give: 2 EBν ⎛ 0.

may be written as: U sh = ∫ τ2 2G B dx dy (2-143) Here. 40 the application of the load P forces the block AA'CD to deform in shear and the block DCEF to deform in bending. Q is the cross-section shear force. A is the area of the shaded region of the cross section. Starting with the first component. Fracture Mechanics The analysis starts by assuming that each half of the specimen consists of two major segments separated by an imaginary boundary. and the rotation induced by the deformation of the block DCEF. and I is the second moment of area. τ can be defined as: τ= QA y IB (2-144) in which. the vertical displacement of the point C due to the deformation of the block DCEF. the vertical displacement of the point B due to the deformation of the block AA'CD. i. the above expression must be integrated along the length of the block which is equal to a. CD. The next assumption is that the line OO' suffers no deformation so that the vertical displacements of the points O and O' are identical.. According to Fig. y is the distance of its centroid from the neutral axis.e. In this case Q is considered to be constant and equal to P so we may write: t U sh = ∫ a 0 BP 2 H 5 dx 240GI 2 (2-147) which upon integration gives: 62 . for the element of length dx the strain energy due to shear. Ush . Mirzaei. Thus. (2-143) results in: ⎞⎤ Bdx H / 2 ⎡ Q ⎛ H 2 U sh = − y 2 ⎟ ⎥ dy ⎢ ⎜ 2G ∫− H / 2 ⎣ 2 I ⎝ 4 ⎠⎦ where H equals the height of the block AA'CD. Substituting for τ in Eq. U sh . The integration results in: U sh = BQ 2 H 5 dx 240GI 2 (2-146) 2 (2-145) t To obtain the total strain energy due to shear.M. the overall vertical displacement of the point O' can be considered to consist of three different components.

6W. Fracture Mechanics 3P 2 a 5HBG t U sh = (2-148) Here. Thus.2 PW ( a + W ) EB (W − a ) 2 (2-152) The third component of the vertical displacement of the point O' is caused by the rotation angel θ.4W can be rearranged into the following form: δC = 1. the vertical displacement of point A' can be calculated as: δB = t ∂U sh 6 Pa = 5 HBG ∂P (2-149) For a standard C(T) specimen H is equal to 0.3W ) 2a ⎤ + ⎢ ⎥ 2 B⎢ WG ⎥ E (W − a ) ⎣ ⎦ (2-154) 63 .5P ( a + W )( a + 1. using Castigiliano's second theorem. the above expression can be written as: δB = 2 Pa WBG (2-150) Based on a similar approach the vertical displacement of point C due to the deformation of block DCEF can be obtained by integration of the resultant strain along the distance h and may be written as: δC = 6 Ph ( a + r / 2 ) EBr 2 (2-151) in which r is the unbroken part or the remainder of the specimen and h is the distance of the location of M. the applied moment. The obtained expression. is in the following form: δR = 1.5W ) EB (W − a ) 2 (2-153) The total vertical displacement of the point O' is the sum of the three individual components and can be written as: δT = P ⎡1. Mirzaei.M. from the line of symmetry.5 ( a + W )( a + 2. when rearranged for a standard C(T) specimen. The above expression upon substitution of r by (W-a) and h by 0.

35 Newman's expression deviates from the other two equations. a logarithmic scale is used for the normalized compliance. Figure 47 As shown before. Fracture Mechanics The above expression was derived for half of the specimen. Mirzaei. is two times δ T .3) = + 8a (1 + ν )( a / W ) 2 P ( a / W − 1) (2-156) (2-155) Figure 47 is a comparison between Eq.M. the stress intensity factor can be related to compliance through the following expression: 64 . the final expression for compliance can be written as: EBv 3 ( a + W )( a + 2. the CMOD for the whole specimen. In practice. with Eq.(2-141) proposed by Newman.(2-156). v. In order to simplify the obtained expression.(2-142) proposed by Saxena and Hudak. Above a/W = 0. Accordingly. In order to present the entire a/W range. and Eq.3W ) 8a (1 +ν ) = + 2 P W (W − a ) which can be rearranged in terms of the a/W ratio to give: EBv 3 ( a / W + 1)( a / W + 2. G can be substituted by E/2(1 +ν). It is evident that there is an excellent agreement between the three expressions within the middle range of a/W.6 and below a/W = 0.

as depicted in Fig. compliance should be defined for the point of application of load. the thickness of the laboratory specimen is normally fixed to match the thickness of the real component. E K I2 . Also in our previous discussions on energy approach we saw that some materials. However. Fracture Mechanics K 2 = EG ≡ EP 2 ∂C 2 B ∂a (2-157) in which G is the energy release rate and C is the compliance. can be used to calculate the critical energy release rate. is governed by the geometry of the cracked body. 40).M. exhibit a rising R curve. R. the required expression for K can be obtained from Eqs (2-157) and (2-158) as: P ( 6. because it depends on the shape of the R curve. E plane strain plane stress Hence. Thus the usage of such Kc values in design should be carried out with some precaution. In our previous discussion on K-G relationship we showed that: G = (1 −ν 2 ) K I2 G= . this instability point does not represent a material property. the critical stress intensity factor.(2-156) can be modified for the load line to give: 3 ( a / W + 1)( a / W + 1. which in turn. Finally. 48 (Note that in general G can be a nonlinear function). and vice versa. For this purpose Eq. regarding the similitude between the size and geometry of laboratory specimens and real components. In these situations.25 ) KI = 3/ 2 BW 1/ 2 (1 − a / W ) 1/ 2 (2-159) Plane Stress Fracture Toughness Design based on KIc can be considered quite conservative for relatively thin sections in the structures because materials usually show much higher fracture toughness in the state of plane stress (see Fig. it is possible to define the critical stress intensity at the point where G is tangent to the R curve. Kc. particularly in the state of plane stress. 65 . however.75 a / W + 8. In this equation. For instance.5 ) EBv LL = EBC = 2 P ( a / W − 1) (2-158) In the above vLL is the displacement at the load line. Mirzaei.

which makes the test more difficult. Mirzaei. measuring the compliance (see Fig.M. Fracture Mechanics R Kc /E 2 a0 Figure 48 One problem with thin sheet fracture toughness testing is that the specimens are subject to out-of-plane buckling. Consequently. Instantaneous crack length can be obtained by partial unloading. Load Partial unloadings 1/C Displacement Figure 49 66 . The ASTM Standard E 561 describes alternative methods for computing both the stress intensity and the crack extension in an R curve test. 49). In general as the crack grows. an anti-buckling device should be fitted to the specimen. and using the compliance expressions like (2-142) and (2-156). the load-displacement curve deviates from its initial linear shape because of the continuous change in compliance. The test can be carried out under displacement-control condition to ensure stable crack growth.

Mirzaei. The following references have been used for preparation of the lecture notes and are recommended for further study in this course. Usually. “Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics” Dowling. organization.M. “Engineering Fracture mechanics” Kanninen. by Prof. and presentation of the material. "Mechanical Behavior of Materials" “Structural Integrity Lecture Notes”. “Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications. These notes have been prepared as a student aid and should not be considered as a book. References: Anderson. Fracture Mechanics The instantaneous stress intensity is related to the current values of load and crack length. Little originality is claimed for these notes other than selection. "Advanced Fracture Mechanics" Broek. the stress intensity should be corrected for plasticity effects by determining an effective crack length.” Meguid. Some authors use “1” as the subscript to designate the planestress fracture-toughness for mode I as K1c. Gray 67 .