Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
When does one need to use LEFM and EPFM?
What is the concept of small-scale and large-scale yielding?
Background Knowledge
Theory of Plasticity (Yield criteria, Hardening rules)
Concept of K, G and K-dominated regions
Plastic zone size due to Irwin and Dugdal
We noted that when a far field stress acts on an edge crack of width a then
for mode I, plane strain case
L
M
3 O
2 P
1 sin( ) sin( )
R
| U
| M 2
P
M 3 P
xx
S
|
V
|
K
2r
I
cos
2 M
1 sin( ) sin(
2 P
)
M P
yy
2
T xy W M 3 P
M
N 2
sin( ) sin(
2
)
P
Q
zz 0 for plane stress; zz ( xx yy ) for plane strain
L O
R
u UK r M2 2 P
cos ( k 1 2 sin ( )) 2
S V
x I
M
2 M P
P
T W2
u
M
N 2 P Q
y
sin ( k 1 2 cos ( )) 2
2
LEFM cont.
For =0
R
| U
| L
1O
S
xx
V
K I M
M
1 P
P
|
T
yy
xy
|
W
2r
M
0P
N Q
Singularity dominated region
For = , all ij 0
2
LEFM concepts are valid if the plastic zone is much smaller than the singularity zones.
1 KI 2
Irwin estimates rp ( )
2 ys
1 KI 2
Dugdale strip yield model: rp ( )
8 ys
K 1
ASTM: a,B, W-a 2.5 ( I ) 2 , i.e. rp 50 of specimen dimension.
ys
EPFM
In EPFM, the crack tip undergoes significant plasticity as seen in the following diagram.
s h a rp tip
1.0
Fracture
Blunt tip
1.0
Fracture
x
Sharp crack
ds
Blunting crack
EPFM cont.
Wells discovered that Kic measurements in structural steels required very large thicknesses for
LEFM condition.
--- Crack face moved away prior to fracture.
--- Plastic deformation blunted the sharp crack.
K I2
4
2u y
2ys E
3
Note: k and E 2 (1 )
Sharp crack 1
CTOD
4 G K I2
Blunting crack since G
ys E
Irwin showed that crack tip plasticity makes the crack behave as if it were longer, say from size a to a + r p
1 KI
rp ( )2 -----plane stress
2 ys
KI r
From Table 2.2, uy sin( )[ k 1 2 cos 2 ( )]
2 2 2 2
k 1 ry a ry
Set = , uy KI
2 2
CTOD and strain-energy release rate
4 G
Equation CTOD relates CTOD ( ) to G for small-scale yielding. Wells proved that
ys
Can valid even for large scale yielding, and is later shown to be related to J.
can also be analyzed using Dugdales strip yield model. If is the opening at the end of the strip.
K 2I K I2 1 2
and
G
If ys
0 ( ys ), then =
ys E
ys
, can be given as: [1 ( ) ]
ys E 6 2 ys
Blunting crack
Sharp crack
Blunting crack
Displacement at the original crack tip Displacement at 900 line intersection, suggested by Rice
CTOD measurement using three-point bend specimen displacement
Vp
z
p
expanding
'
P
'
rp (W a)Vp
pl
rp (W a ) a z '
Elastic-plastic analysis of three-point bend specimen
K I2 rp (W a)Vp V,P
el pl
m ys E rp (W a) a z
K I2 (1 2 ) rp (W a)Vp
el
2 ys E
pl
rp (W a) a z
P a
KI is given by KI f( )
B W W
CTOD analysis using ASTM standards
Pc Pu Pm
Pi
Pi
fracture fracture
Mouthopening
Figure (a). Fracture mechanism is purely cleavage, and critical CTOD c <0.2mm, stable crack growth,
(lower transition).
Figure (b). i --- CTOD corresponding to initiation of stable crack growth.
u --- Stable crack growth prior to fracture.(upper transition of fracture steels).
Figure (c) i and then m---CTOD at the maximum load plateau (case of raising R-curve).
More on CTOD
K I2 J
COD or
yE y
The derivative is based on Dugdales strip yield model. For
Strain hardening materials, based on HRR singular field.
n
J n 1 1
ui y r ui , n
n 1
y y I n
By setting =0 and n the strain hardening index based on
n 1
y 3 e ij
y 2 y y
*Definition of COD is arbitrary since u y x,0 u y x,0
1
A function x
n 1 as the tip is approached
*Based on another definition, COD is the distance between upper
and lower crack faces between two 45o lines from the tip. With this
Definition J
COD d n
y
Where d n d n , y , n ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 as n is varied from
3 to 13 (Shih, 1981)
By idealizing elastic-plastic deformation as non-linear elastic, Rice proposed J-integral, for regions
beyond LEFM.
In loading path elastic-plastic can be modeled as non-linear elastic but not in unloading part.
Also J-integral uses deformation plasticity. It states that the stress state can be determined knowing
the initial and final configuration. The plastic strain is loading-path independent. True in proportional
load, i.e. d 1 d 2 d 3 d 4 d 5 d 6 k
1 2 3 4 5 6
under the above conditions, J-integral characterizes the crack tip stress and crack tip strain and
energy release rate uniquely.
J-integral is numerically equivalent to G for linear elastic material. It is a path-independent integral.
When the above conditions are not satisfied, J becomes path dependent and does not relates to any
physical quantities
3.2 J-contour Integral, cont.
ds
z u
J ( wdy Ti i ds),
x i
w z0
ij
ij d ij
*
z
Proof: Consider a closed contour: J * ( wdy Ti
ui
x i
ds )
A *
ui
ij ( )
x j x
ij
Recall 0 (equilibrium)
(equilibrium) leads to
leads to
x j
ui ui
ij ( ) ( ij )
x j x x j x
Evaluation of J Integral ---2
Hence, J * 0. Thus for any closed contour J * 0.
Now consider 2
4
1
3
J J1 J2 J 3 J4 0
z
1 2 3 4
w
Recall J* ( wdy t ii ds )
x
y ti
a
x
2D body bounded by '
'
z z
In the absence of body force, potential energy
wdA t i i ui ds
A' ''
w w i j ui
ij ( )
a ij a x j a
d
Using principle of virtual work, 0 for equilibrium, then from
da
eq.(1), we have
z z ij
(
x j a
ui
) dA t ii
ui
a
ds
zt z
A' '
d dui dw
Thus, i ds dA
da dx dx
' A'
z z
Using divergence theorem and multiplying by -1
d dui w
( wn x t ii )ds wdy t ii ds
da '
dx x
'
Evaluation of J Integral ---5
d
Therefore, J is energy release rate da
, for linear or non-linear
elastic material
In general U F and J
A
Potential energy; U=strain energy stored; F=work done by
external force and A is the crack area.
p dU * dU
u d
-dP
Displacement
p
U P U * Complementary strain energy = dP
0
Evaluation of J-Integral
dU *
For Load Control J
da p
dU
For Displacement Control J
da
Note that near tip strain distribution for a growing crack has a
logarithmic singularity which is weaker then 1/r singularity for a
Williams solution to fracture problem
Note will have singularity at the crack tip but is single valued
r 2 p r , q r ,
Note that both p and q satisfy Laplace equations such that
2 p 2q 0
Now, for the present problem.
Since the problem is linear, any linear combination of the above two will also be
acceptable.
Thus Z2 with Z= ... 3, 2, 1,0,1, 2,3...
Though all values are mathematically fine, from the physics point of view, since
ij r and ij r
Williams Singularity4
U 12 ij ij r 2
2 R
= 1
ij ij rdrd
0 r0 2
2A R
; r 2 1 drd
0 r0
U as r0 0, 1 ( 1 makes ij 0)
Also, ui r r 1 needs > 1. Thus
=- 12 ,0, 12 ,1, 32 , 2... with = Z2 where Z=-1,0,
positive number.
+ r 2 ...
r ...
5
2
and ij A1r %
1
2
I
ij ij r
0
ij r
1
2
Note the second term in ij ij r 0 is a non-singular
and non-vanishing term. However, higher order vanish as r 0
KI
with A1
2
KI
ij T ix jx
I
ij % (no sum on x)
2 r
Williams Singularity5
Now
3
r A1 cos 2 13 cos 32
2
r 2 ...
r ...
5
2
ij ij r
12 I
r
1
and ij A1r % 0
ij
2
Note the second term in ij ij r 0 is a non-singular
and non-vanishing term. However, higher order vanish as r 0
KI
with A1
2
KI
ij T ix jx
I
ij % (no sum on x)
2 r
Williams Singularity6
I
yx yy 2 r %yx %yy
I
0 0
z
T= yy xx
HRR Singularity1
Hutchinson, Rice and Rosenbren have evaluated the character of crack tip
in power-law hardening materials.
Suppose the material is represented by Ramberg-Osgood model,
n
0 0 0
0 Reference value of stress=yield strength
0 0 , strain at yield
E
dimensionless constant
n strain-hardening exponent
Note if elastic strains are negligible, then
n
y
y
n 1
ij 3 eq ij 3
; eq ij
y 2 ij y 2
HRR Singularity2
Then
4 f , 0 , r , n,
C1 r s 2 r t (similar to Williams expression)
k 0 r s %