Ahsanullah University of Science & Technology

ME - 3201
Machine Design

Maruf Md. Ikram

Lecturer
Ahsanullah University of Science & Technology
Department of Mechanical & Production Engineering.
Introduction

• Linearly elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

Fracture usually refers to shattering/brittle mode failure of m/c parts. When cracks reach the
catastrophic size, even ductile materials can fracture. To avoid fracture m/c parts should be tough.
This property is expressed in terms of fracture toughness.
Quasi-Static fracture

A static crack will be stable and will not propagate. However, some level of loading can make it
unstable to propagate leading to fracture. An elliptic flaw in an infinite plate which is loaded
uniaxially by sy. The maximum stresses occur at (±a,0) and is given by
Max s y = (1 + 2 a/b) σ nominal = Kt σ nominal
Here, theoretical stress concentration factor = Kt = 1 + 2 a/b
Quasi-Static fracture

Note, if a=b, Kt =3 (See Table A 15-1). But, if b tends to zero, the flaw/notch approaches a line
which is a crack with zero tip radius leading Kt and Max s y to infinity. This implies stress increases
significantly at sharp corners/very small holes of m/c parts due to stress concentration effect. So,
fillets and rounds are provided to minimize Kt . However, Kt is important in fatigue strength failure
analysis. On the other hand, Quasi-static fracture is analyzed in
terms of stress intensity factor and fracture toughness.
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

Cracks in m/c parts can propagate in three distinct modes

Mode I : Tensile/opening,
Mode II: Sliding/In plane shear &
Mode III: Out of plane shear/tearing.
We shall consider Mode I which is the
most common one.
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

• For plane stresses (in xy plane) only non-zero stresses are σ x , σy and τxy
• For plane strains (in xy plane) only non-zero strains are εx , εy and γyx
Consider a mode I crack of length 2a in the infinite plate of Fig. 5–24. By using complex stress
functions, it has been shown that the stress field on a dx dy element in the vicinity of the crack tip is
given by
 Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

The stress σy near the tip, with θ = 0, is σy|θ=0 = σ (a/2r). We see that σy|θ=0 → ∞ as r → 0, and again

the concept of an infinite stress concentration at the crack tip is inappropriate. The quantity σy|

θ=0 √2r = σ√a, however, does remain constant as r → 0. It is common practice to define a factor K

called the stress intensity factor given by KI = σ (πa).

1 0
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

The stress intensity factor is a function of geometry, size and shape of the crack, and the type of
loading. For various load and geometric configurations, it can be written as KI = βσ√(πa), where β is
the stress intensity modification factor

To avoid fracture the material of m/c parts must have sufficient fracture toughness (KIC).
KIC is also called critical stress intensity factor. This material property is given in Table 5-1.
Fracture starts as crack propagates if KI = KIC
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

To avoid fracture the material of m/c parts must have sufficient fracture toughness (KIC).
KIC is also called critical stress intensity factor. This material property is given in Table 5-1.
Fracture starts as crack propagates if KI = KIC
Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor

Fracture toughness and Yield strength

Analogy: Yielding is imminent at σ = Sy

Quasi-static Fracture is imminent at KI = KIC
Class problem

Problem: A thick walled

cylindrical pressure vessel (ID =
400mm , OD = 600mm, Material
Aluminum 2024) is subjected to
internal pressure of 50MPa while
the external pressure is zero. NDT
detects a 35 mm long edge crack
at outer surface (Fig. 5-30). Is
quasi-static fracture likely? Also
check the chance of yielding by
DE Theory.
Class problem

Solution: From Table 5-1, Sy = 455 MPa, Fracture toughness, KIC = 26 MPa √m
Nominal tangential stress at outer surface, σnominal = 2pi/[(ro/ri)2 -1] = 80 Mpa.
Using Fig. 5-30, with a/(ro-ri ) =0.35 and ro/ri = 0.67, β = 1.45
So, KI = βσ√(πa) = 38.46 MPa √m > KIC
Therefore, the pressure vessel will fracture. Now check the chance of yielding by DE
Theory.
At the inner surface (r = ri ) the principal stresses,
σ1 = hoop stress = 2pi [(ro/ri)2 +1] /[(ro/ri)2 -1] = 130 MPa, and radial stress, σ3 = -50MPa.
On plane stress assumptions (σ2 = 0), von-Mises stress σ’= 161 MPa.
But, Sy = 455MPa. Therefore, no chance of yielding however, the vessel will fracture.
Class problem

Problem: A steel ship deck plate is 30 mm thick and 12 m wide. It is loaded with a nominal
uniaxial tensile stress of 50 MPa. It is operated below its ductile-to-brittle transition temperature
with KIc equal to 28.3 Mpa. If a 65-mm-long central transverse crack is present, estimate the tensile
stress at which catastrophic failure will occur. Compare this stress with the yield strength of 240
MPa for this steel.
Class problem

Solution: For Fig. 5–25, with d = b, 2a = 65

mm and 2b = 12 m, so that d/b = 1 and
a/d = (32.5×10-3)/6 = 0.00542. Since a/d is
so small, β = 1, so that KI = σ √πa
= 50π(32.5 × 10−3) = 16.0 MPa √m
Safety factor, n = KIC/KI = 28.3/16.0 = 1.77

For catastrophic failure , KIC= KI = σcat√πa

28.3 = σcat π(32.5 × 10−3)

σcat = 88.4 MPa.

Class problem

The yield strength is 240 MPa, and catastrophic failure occurs at 88.4/240 = 0.37, or at 37 percent
of yield. The factor of safety in this circumstance is KIC/KI = 28.3/16 = 1.77 and not 240/50 = 4.8.
Class problem

Problem: A plate of width 1.4 m and length 2.8 m is required to support a tensile force in the 2.8-
m direction of 4.0 MN. Inspection procedures will detect only through-thickness edge cracks
larger than 2.7 mm. The two Ti-6AL-4V alloys in Table 5 –1 are being considered for this
application, for which the safety factor must be 1.3 and minimum weight is important. Which
alloy should be used?
Class problem

Solution: (a) We elect first to estimate the

thickness required to resist yielding. Since
σ = P/wt, we have t = P/wσ.

P
1.4

2.8
Class problem

For the weaker alloy, we have, from Table 5–1,

Sy = 910 MPa. Thus, σall = Sy/n = 910/1.3 = 700

MPa Thus, t = P/wσall = 4.0(10)3/(1.4 x 700) =

4.08 mm or greater.
For the stronger alloy, we have, from Table 5–1,
Sy = 1035 MPa. σall = 1035/1.3 = 796 MPa and so

the thickness is Answer t = P/wσall = 4.0(10)3/

(1.4 x 796) = 3.59 mm or greater
 Class problem

1.4 = b

2.8 = 2h
Class problem

(b) Now let us find the thickness required to prevent crack growth. Using Fig. 5–26, we have
h/b = 2.8/(2 x 1.4) = 1, a/b = 2.7/(1.4 x 103) = 0.00193.
Corresponding to these ratios we find from Fig. 5–26 that β = 1.1, and
KI = 1.1σ√πa

n = KIC/KI

σ = KIC/(1.1n√πa)

From Table 5–1, KIC = 115 MPa√m for the weaker alloy.
Solving for σ with n = 1 gives the fracture stress σ = 1135 MPa which is greater than the yield
strength of 910 MPa, and so yield strength is the basis for the geometry decision.
For the stronger alloy Sy = 1035 MPa, and KIC = 55 MPa√m.
For n = 1 the fracture stress is σ = 542.9 MPa which is less than the yield strength of 1035 MPa.
Class problem

This example shows that the fracture toughness KIC limits the geometry when the stronger alloy
is used, and so a thickness of 6.84 mm or larger is required. When the weaker alloy is used the
geometry is limited by the yield strength, giving a thickness of only 4.08 mm or greater. Thus the
weaker alloy leads to a thinner and lighter weight choice since the failure modes differ.