WEAR

ELSEVIER

Wear199 (1996) 9-23

Subsurface crack mechanisms under indentation loading

K.

Komvopoulos

Departmentof MechanicalEngineering. Universityof California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Received 21 November1995; accepted 8 February 1996

Abstract

A linear elastic fracture mechanics analysis of plane-strain indentation of a homogeneous half-space with a subsurface horizontal crack was
performed using the finite element method. Stress intensity factor results obtained for an infinite plate with a central crack subjected to farfield tension and a half-space with a frictionless subsurface horizontal crack under a moving surface point load are shown to be in good
agreement with corresponding analytical results. Crack mechanism maps illustrating the occurrence of separation, forward and backward slip,
stick, and separation at the crack interface are presented for different indentation load positions and crack face friction coefficients. Results
for the stresses in the vicinity of the crack tips and the mode I and mode II stress intensity factors are given for different indentation positions,
crack face friction coefficients, and both concentrated and distributed surface normal tractions. Although indentation produces a predominantly
shear and compressive stress field, mode I loading conditions are shown to occur for certain indentation positions. However, the magnitude
of the mode I stress intensity factor is significantly smaller than that of mode II, suggesting that in-plane shear mode crack gmwth is most
likely to occur in the absence of microstructural defects. The significance of crack face friction and sharpness of the indenter on the subsurface
shear mode crack propagation rate is interpreted in terms of the mode II stress intensity factor range and material behavior.
Keywords: Linearelastic fracturemechanics;Finiteelement method;Stressintensityfactor;Subsurfacecracks;Crack face mechanisms;Friction;Indentation
loading

1. Introduction

The dissipation of external work in solids subjected to

normal traction involves plastic deformation of the near surface material and generation of new surfaces by various
cracking mechanisms. The periods of the contact fatigue life
corresponding to plastic flow and cracking strongly depend
on the material properties and environmental conditions.
Contact loading of relatively brittle materials usually leads to
the formation of surface and subsurface cracks, depending
on the magnitudes of the normal and tangential surface tractions and the presence of microdefects, such as dents and
polishing marks on surfaces and second phases, hard inclusions, and voids in the subsurface material. Thus, the crack
nucleation and crack propagation rates are of critical importance to the fatigue life of contacting machine elements.
Since the study by Fleming and Suh [ 1 ] on the propagation
of a horizontal subsurface crack due to surface traction, several investigators have attempted to study crack growth
behavior under various contact Ioadings. Keer et al. [2]
examined the interaction between a horizontal subsurface
crack and a surface-breaking crack due to a moving Hertzian
surface traction and obtained solutions for the mode I and
mode II stress intensity factors and the directions o f crack
0043-16481961515.00 1996ElsevierScienceS.A. All rights reserved
PII S0043-1648 ( 96 ) 06954-2

growth for frictionless crack interfaces. Bower [3] used the

linear elastic fracture mechanics approach to analyze the
problem of an inclined surface crack subjected to moving
normal and tangential surface tractions, taking into account
the effects of crack face friction and crack pressurization by
the trapped fluid lubricant due to crack closure. It was found
that the occurrence of stick, slip, and separation of the crack
faces depended on the position of the surface traction, and
that fluid trapped in the crack inhibited crack face closure.
Since a larger region at the crack interface remained open,
the magnitude of the shear stress at the crack interface
decreased, thereby reducing the mode I stress intensity factor.
Hanson and Keer [ 4 ] examined the effect of the fluid pressure
distribution at the crack interface and the significance of compressive residual stresses on the fatigue life. However, since
it was assumed that the frictionless crack was either completely open or closed, the predicted fatigue lives are considered to be approximate.
In ~omparison to surface cracking, relatively few studies
have been devoted to the investigation of subsurface cracking
under contact loading. Hearle and Johnson [S ] obtained analytical solutions for the mode II stress intensity factor o f a
horizontal subsurface crack subjected to a moving surface
point load for different crack face friction coefficients. Chang

lO

K. Komvopoalos/ Wear199 (1996)9--23

et al. [6] represented the subsurface crack by a dislocation

distribution and showed that the arrangement of stick and slip
regions due to friction at the crack interface depends on the
magnitude and position of the compressive point load at the
surface. When slip occurred at the crack interface, the shear
traction distribution along the crack plane exhibited a singularity at the crack tip. However, since this analysis is for a
closed crack, it does not account for the effect of crack face
separation on the magnitude of the stress intensity factor.
Assuming an elliptical subsurface crack and a moving Hertzian load distribution, Kaneta et al. [7] devised a method
for studying the mechanisms of crack opening and closure in
terms of the load position, length and depth of the crack, and
coefficient of friction at the contact surface and crack interface. Both the rate and the directio~i~ of crack propagation
were found to depend on the magnitudes of the surface traction and crack face friction. Since the possibility of slip and
stick during crack closure was not considered in this analysis,
the predicted crack growth directions may not be accurate.
Miller [ 8 ] developed an approximate analysis for the branching behavior of a subsurface horizontal crack under a compressive surface load and concluded that, for a closed crack
and zero friction between the crack faces (i.e. no interracial
stick), mode II growth is the most likely dominant mechanism, although branching mode I cannot be definitely
excluded. Salehizadeh and Saka [9] used the finite element
method to study the propagation of short subsurface cracks
(both straight and branched) in rolling contact considering
the effects of crack face friction and plastic flow at the crack
tips. It was interpreted that straight cracks are subjected to
pure mode II loading and that the stress intensity factors and
crack tip sliding displacement decrease with increasing friction at the crack interface.
Although the previous studies have yielded important
insight into the contact mechanics aspects of both surface and
subsurface cracks, a detailed analysis of the subsurface crack
mechanisms has not been obtained. The main objectives of
the present finite element analysis, therefore, were to provide
additional results elucidating the behavior of subsurface
cracks in homogeneous half-spaces subjected to indentation
loading, and to illustrate the significance of crack face friction
and load position on the stress and deformation fields in the
vicinity of the crack tips, the magnitudes of the stress intensity
factors, the occurrence of slip, stick, and separation at the
crack interface, and the rate and direction of crack propagation.

2. Modeling procedures
2.1. Statement of the problem

Based on the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM),

the plane-strain indentation problem cf a homogeneous elastic half-space with a subsurface horizontal crack of length 2c
at a depth I was analyzed by the finite element method. The

xp

E=O

J
Fig. I. Schematic diagnun of a subsurface horizontal crack in a half-space
subjected to concentrated and distributed indentation loads.
Crock Mechonisrns
Forwotd Slip
Bockword Slip
Seporolion
,',',;;',',',',',;"

Stick

Fig. 2. Schematicrepresentationof interfacialcrack mechanisms.

motivation for considering this problem stems from the relatively limited information about the dependence of crack
face mechanisms and crack tip stresses on the position and
distribution of the normal (indentation) traction and the interfacial friction conditions. According to experimental observations, subsurfact: cracks in half-spaces sul:jected to rolling
and sliding contact tend to propagate approximately parallel
to the free surface for a significant fraction of the fatigue life.
To examine the effect of the normal traction distribution on
subsurface cracking, indentations by either a concentrated
normal force or a cylindrical asperity of radius R were modeled. Since the present analysis is on the indentation of an
undeformed elastic half-space, the effect of the loading history is not considered and the indentation is treated as a quasistatic problem. The distance between the indentation load, P
( i.e. either the concentrated ( point ) load or the resultant force
of the normal traction at the indenter/half-space contact
region) and the crack center point is represented by Xe. Fig. 1
shows a schematic of the problem under consideration and
the pertinen, nomenclature. The left and right tips of the
subsurface crack are denoted by L and R, respectively. The
shear (friction) stresses between the crack faces and the
contact region were assumed to follow the classical Coulomb
fiir~;_ionlaw. The stress intensity factors and associated crack
mechanisms are analyzed in terms of the indentation position
relatively to the crack center point, represented by the nondimensional parameter xe/c. It will be shown later that,
depending on the indentation position and the crack face
friction coefficient, more than one cra,;k mechanism may be
encountered during indentation. Thus, the mechanisms of
forward and backward slip, separation, and stick may occur
at the crack interface concomitantly. A schematic representation of the different crack mechanisms is shown in Fig. 2.
The dominance of each mechanism will be analyzed in terms

K. Komw~poulos / Wear 199 (1996) 9-23

7
A

V'lllllllllLIll
lllllllIlll

I/d POintS

II

Crock TiD

I ] I
87 . . / . /

II

''

(o)

I lilllll

Ill lill

II

Crock Tip
Fig. 3. Crack tip isoparamotric quarter-point elements: ( a ) quadratic element
and (b) triangul~ element formed by collapsing one side of the quadratic
element shown in (a).

of the indentation load position and the magnitude of the

coefficient of friction at the crack interface.
2.2. Crack tip elements
To determine the stress intensity factors of various elastic
crack problems, special crack tip elements that account for
the r-t/2 stress singularity in LEFM, where r is the radial
distance from the crack tip, have been developed. Henshell
and Shaw [ 10] obtained good agreement between analytical
and finite element results using distorted eight-node isoparametric elements with the two adjacent mid-side nodes
shifted to the quarter-point distance from the element comer
representing the crack tip (Fig. 3(a)). However, Barsoum
[ 11 ] reported that triangular quarter-point elements yield
better results than quadrilateral elements. Tills may be due to
the fact that quadrilateral elements exhibit the r-~/2 singularity only at the boundaries and possess a singular stiffness,
if integrated exactly. It has been shown that triangular elements generated by collapsing two adjacent sides ofaquarterpoint quadrilateral element (Fig. 3(b)) exhibit the same
singularity in the interior and at the boundaries and yield an
improvement in the estimation of the crack tip stresses
[ 12,13 ]. Thus, the degenerated eight-node quadrilateral isoparametric element shown in Fig. 3(b) was used in the present finite element mesh to model the vicinities of the left and
right crack tips.
2.3. The finite element model
Fig. 4 shows the finite element mesh of the half-space and
the refined mesh in the domain of the subsurface crack JKMN.
The crack is shown in Fig. 4(a) as a heavy bold horizontal
line. It is considered that deformation perpendicular to the x-y
plane is uniform, and thus the plane strain condition is dominant. The crack length-to-depth ratio 2ell is equal to 3. The
x and y dimensions of the mesh shown in Fig. 4(b) are equal

(b)
Fig. 4. Finite element mesh for modeling subsurface cracking in an indented
half-space: (a) detail of mesh showing elements around the crack and (b)

meshof the half-spaceshowingthe positionand relativesize of the mesh

aroundthe crackdomainshownin (a).
to 30c and about 30.7c, respectively. The mesh consists of
440 elements ( 1495 nodes), of which 418 are quadrilateral
isoparametric eight-node elements used to model the halfspace, and 22 are three-node interface elements allocated to
the crack interface in order to identify the regions of stick,
slip, and separation and to determine the magnitudes of the
transmitted normal and shear stresses. To simulate indentation by a rigid indenter, the finite element model was modified
to incorporate an arc of radius approximately equal to 9.4c,
initially tangent to the contact surface BC at a desired node
(indenlation point), and to incorporate 6 to 15 interface elements (depending on the anticipated size of the contact zone
and the spacing of surface nodes) arranged symmetrically
with respect to the indentation point on the contact surface.
The modified finite element mesh consisted of 446 to 454
elements (with 1508 to 1524 nodes, respectively), A 3 3
integration scheme was adopted for the isoparametrie elements. The half-space is assumed to be homogeneous and
elastic with a Young's modulus E equal to ! 10It N m -:~
and Poisson's ratio p equal to 0.3. Since both the length and
depth of the crack are significantly smaller than the mesh
dimensions, the half-space assumption is justified. Fig. 4(a)
shows that the mesh in the vicinity of the crack comprises
collapsed eight-nede isoparametric elements similar to that
shown in Fig, 3 (b). To account for the r - II'*- stress singular-

12

K. Komvopoulos/ Wear199 (1996)9-23

ity, the nodes of collapsed elements in the vicinity of the

crack tips were distributed parabolically in the radial direction. The smallest side of the finest collapsed elements, not
visible in Fig. 4(a), is approximately equal to 0.02c. The side
of the fine square elements between the contact surface and
the crack is about 0.167c. The x and y dimensions of the
rectangular elements above and below the crack faces are
about 0.083c and 0.33c, respectively.
Contact at both the crack interface and contact surface was
modeled using interface elements. Localized stick, slip, and
separation of the crack faces depends on the magnitudes of
the normal and shear stresses, N(x) and S(x), respectively,
which are functions of the coefficient of friction at the crack
interface, f; an input parameter of the interface elements.
When the normal stress is positive, localized separation of
the crack faces occurs. Hence, the subsurface crack mechanisms can be related to the interfacial stresses and coefficient
of friction through the following expressions:
S(x) <feN(x)sgn(dx/dt) (stick)

-c<_x<_c; y = l
( I a)

S(x) = f ~ / ( x ) s g n ( d x / d t ) (slip)

-c<x<c;

y=l
(lb)

N(x) > 0 (separation)

-c~x<c;

y=l

(Ic)

where the function sgn(dx/dt) in Eqs. 1 and 1 indicates that

the shear stress at the crack interface always opposes displacements in the x direction. To investigate the effect of crack
face friction, the coefficient of friction f was set equal to 0,
0.3, and 0.5. In view of the secondary effect of friction on the
deformation and stress fields resulting from pure normal loading [ 14,15 ], the coefficient of friction at the contact surface,
fs, was fixed at 0.1.
In addition to the coefficient of friction, a stiffness in stick
was assigned to the interface elements at the crack interface
and contact surface, kc and ks, respectively, to allow shear
stresses less than the friction limit to be transmitted across
contacting surfaces. While theoretically an infinite stiffness
in stick is desirable for simulating the actual contact behavior,
i.e. zero relative displacement in the x direction between the
surfaces until the occurrence of slip, a finite high value of the
stiffness in stick was selected in order to enhance the convergence rate. In all the cases involving a concentrated indentation load, k~ was set equal to 1 1017 N m -I. In the
simulations involving a rigid indenter, ks was fixed at
1.5 1017 N m - i, but because of convergence difficulties at
certain indentation positions, k, was varied in the range of
0 . 6 x 1017 to 2.3 101~N m-1. However, in most simulations convergence was achieved for k = 2 x 1017 N m - I .
To enhance the convergence rate, a negative pressure, p*,
and a clearance tolerance, c", were specified to the interface
elements at the contact surface. Ba,,:ically, c* represents the
minimum distance between the rigid surface and the surface

nodes of the deformable medium at which the contact pressure is zero, andp* is the pressure at zero clearance. Thus, if
the selected value of p* is of the order of the expected contact
pressure, e.g. the maximum Hertzian pressure, the computational time is reduced significantly. Throughout the present
analysis, the parameters c* and p* were fixed at 50 nm and
5 GN m - 1, respectively.
2.4. Solution method
The finite element code ABAQUS and an updated Lagrangian formulation were used to model subsurface cracking in
an indented elastic half-space. Since the objective was to
study subsurface cracking under indentation loading without
considering the deformation effect from previous indentations, the unloaded finite element mesh configuration was
used in all the simulations. Indentation by a concentrated
force was modeled by applying incrementally a load of
i N m - ~ at different nodal points of the contact surface BC,
while constraining the x and y displacements of the nodes of
boundary AD. The nodes of the left and right boundaries of
the mesh, AB and CD, respectively, were not constraint. A
force convergence tolerance equal to a very small fraction of
the load ( 10 -7 N for f~ = 0, and 10- s - 1 0 - 3 N for fc = 0.3
and 0.5) was used to solve the equilibrium equations at each
increment. The modeling of indentation by a rigid indenter
was based on a displacement-controlled procedure similar to
that used in previous normal contact mechanics analyses
[ 14,15 ]. Thus, indentation was simulated by applying a small
incremental vertical displacement of 50 nm to all the nodes
of boundary AD, while at the same time constraining their
horizontal displacements and fixing the rigid indenter to the
desirable position. The advantage of using this method is that
the contact pressure is determined during the solution process,
thus eliminating the need to assume a certain contact pressure
profile. The force convergence tolerance for modeling indentation by a rigid indenter was significantly smaller than the
anticipated nodal forces at the contact interface, in the range
of 0.01-10 N. The maximum number of load or displacement
increments was 30, and in each increment a maximum of 6
to 15 iterations was allowed.

2.5. Calculation of stress intensity factors

Once a numerical solution of a fracture mechanics problem
has been obtained, the stress intensity factors can be estimated
by using either direct methods, based on the nodal displacements and stresses of crack tip elements, or indirect methods
such as the elastic strain energy release rate and the J-integral.
The mode I stress intensity factor, Kt, can be expressed in
terms of the displacements at the nodes of quadratic isoparametric crack tip elements as [ 16]
/~, 2G 2V~ [ 4 u ~ - u~C~

k+l I_ v ~ J

(2a)

K. Komvopoulos I Wear 199 (I 996) 9-23

Crock
,ll

[.~
a

it, i

Fig. 5. Triangularcrackzipelementand peninemnomenclature.

where G is the shear modulus, k = 3 - 4v for plane strain, and
u>.denotes displacements in the y direction at nodes B and C
of the crack tip element shown in Fig. 5, where re=a~4.
Similarly, the mode II stress intensity factor, Kn, is given by

Kn-- 2 G 2 ~ [-4u~ - uc ]

k+ I L----~--~J

(2b)

where ux denotes displacements in the x direction.Alternatively,the values of Km and Kn can be calculated from the
displacements of near crack tip nodes using a linearextrapolation technique [ 17 ]. Thus, from the calculateddisplacements u* and u* at severalnodes (r,0) close to the crack tip,
the corresponding apparent stress intensityfactors~ and
can be obtained from the following expressions [ 18]
G
2"~
LLL--U) v r -

K* = ~.-77-----~.
~/~-u * (r,O)
=~V'~u*(r,O)

(3a )
(3b)

From a plot of the calculated K* and ~ data, the actual

values of Kz and KH can be obtained at the intercept of the
constant-slope tangent to the data with the axis at r = 0. The
most accurate estimates are obtained from the displacements
orJ the crack plane ( 0 = ~ ). A different method for calculating
mode I and mode II stress intensity factors is to use the relative
opening and sliding displacements of the crack face node
closest to the crack tip [ 19,20]. Hence, referring to Fig. 5 for
notation, the stress intensity factors can be written as

27~
,=~V"~Btu,,(rn,~r)--u,(rB,
--'rr) l
KH-4(--('G ~_v)V"~n[Ux(rn,'tr)-u~(rn,
-~)1
K

(4a)
(4b)

In classicalLEFM, the mode I and mode IIstressintensity

factorsare defined as,
KI = lira2~'~r o'...(r,0)

(5a)

r~O

K. = lira2V/2-'~r
~'~y(r,0)

(5b)

r~0

Thus, the o-:..,,

and ~'~.stressesat differentnodal pointson the
crack plane in the vicinityof the tip (r*, 0=0) can be calculated based on Eq. (5a) and Eq. (5b), and from a leastsquare linefitto the K* and ~ data points,the values of K~
and Kn can be obtained by a linear extrapolationto r = 0
[181.

13

The J-integral can also be used to characterize the near

crack tip stress field in an analogous way to the stress intensity
factor. Rice [ 21 ] has shown that the J-integral, defined along
a closed contour around the crack tip, represents the change
in potential energy, V, for a virtual infinitesimal crack extension, de, i.e. J = -OV/ac. For a linear elastic material, the
elastic strain energy release rate, ~ ' = -aV/Oc, and hence,
J---~'. From energy balance considerations and for linear
elastic behavior, the J-integral can be related to gl and Ku as
[22]
1 --

P 2

J=.~=T[Kf +Kf,]

(6)

The present finite element code yields estimates of the 3integral for closed paths around the crack tip. Thus, for the
simple case of mode I loading, the finite element results for
the J-integral can be substituted into Eq. (6) to determine the
stress intensity factor, i.e. KI = [JE/( 1 - u 2) ] i/2. While the
above displacement and stress methods may be used for either
constrained or unconstrained crack tip nodes, in the J-integral
method it is required that the crack tip nodes are free to move
independently. From the computational standpoint, the methods based on Eqs. (2a), (2b), (4a), (4b) and (6) have the
advantage that calculation of stress intensity factors does not
depend on an extrapolation technique.

2.6. Verification of the finite element model

To examine the adequacy of the crack tip elements, the
classical plane strain problem of a theoretically infinite plate
of unit thickness and width w having a central crack and
subjected to a far-field uniform tensile stress, or, was analyzed
using the finite element method, and the value of K~ was
compared with that obtained from the analytical solution
given by [22]

Ki=o'~cg(clw)

(7)

where the functiong(clw) accounts for the effectof the plate

geometry. To model an infinitemedium, the finiteelement
mesh shown in Fig. 4 was modified to include severalrows
of elements above BC. To prevent rigidbody translationand
rotation,the center node of the bottom boundary A D of the
mesh was constrainedagainstboth the x and y displacements,
whereas the other nodes were constrainedonly in they direction.The tensilestresswas applied to the top boundary of the
modified mesh. The cases of a crack with and without constrainedtip nodes were analyzed.For thisproblem, the function g(c/w) in Eq. (7) is unity and the exact value of the
dimensionless stress intensity factor is one, i.e. K t l c r ~ c =
1.
The error in'the dimensionless mode I stress intensity factor, calculated based on the different methods described
above, is given in Table 1. The data show that Kt depends
primarily on the calculation method and secondarily on the
displacement constraint of the crack tip nodes. The stress
intensity factor obtained based on the stress method, espe-

K. Komvopoulos/Wear199 (1996) 9-23

14

Table I
Error between finite element and analytical results of mode I stress intensity
factor

Approach

ErrorlK,/cr~c }
Constrained nodes

Free nodes

Displacementmethod
Eq. (2a)
Eq. (3a)
Eq. (4a)

0.038
0.022
0.016

0.049
0.026
0.017

Stressmethod(Eq. (5a))
Energymethod(Eq. (6))

0.005
-

0.000
0.029

cially for unconstrained crack tip nodes, is in excellent agreement with the exact solution. The largest error of about 4.9%
is obtained with unconstrained nodes using Eq. (2). The
generally small effect of the multipoint constraint on the stress
intensity factor is probably because the differences in the
displacements of the crack tip nodes are very small in the
elastic range when the nodes are free to move independently.
Hence, it may be concluded that the chosen crack tip elements
predict fairly accurately the local stress field and that the
predictions of all methods are reasonably close to the exact
result.
To further examine the suitability of the finite element
mesh and the appropriateness of the invoked modeling
assumptions under loading conditions similar to those of the
present study, the problem of an elastic half-space with a
frictionless horizontal crack under a compressive concentrated load was analyzed using the present finite element
model .--'t the analytical method of Hearle and Johnson [ 5 ].
Finite element and analytical results showing the variation of
the mode II stress intensity factor, Kul (2P/,rrv/~), at the left
crack tip with the load position are compared in Fig. 6, The
finite element data were obtained using Eq. (2b). The figure
shows that the agreement between the solutions of the two
approaches is very good. The stress field at the left crack tip
0.6

Concentrated Load

A
~

0.4
0.2

{~

-0.2

-04-3

2c/l=5
f~ =o

Hearle 8~ ~
Johnson (~g~,'3i-"~a~
I

-2

-1

o
Xp/C

.I.

Fig. 6. Analyticaland finiteelementresultsof the dimensionlessmodeII

stressintensityfactorat ~Mleft tip of a frictionlesssubsurfacecrackunder
a concentratedindentati,i load.

is mostly intensified when the indentation occurs at position

XpIc= -1.33. The maximum stress intensity factor range,
AKu=Kn.m~,-Kn. min, is produced from indentations at
positionsxe/c= - 1.33 (Ktt.~x) and 0.0 (Ktx,,~u,). In view
of the results presented in Table 1 and Fig. 6, it may be coneluded that the developed finite element model is appropriate
for analyzing subsurface cracking under combined mode I
and mode 11 Ioadings.

3. Results and discussion

Results for subsurface cracking under both concentrated

and distributed indentation loading are presented in this section. Particular emphasis is given on the interpretation of
results that mostly reveal the effects of crack face friction,
indentation load position, and contact traction distribution on
the deformation and stresses in the vicinity of the crack, the
prevailing crack mechanisms, and the associated crack
growth characteristics.
3.1. Subsurface cracking under a concentrated indentation
load

The significance of friction on the interracial crack mechanisms can be interpreted qualitatively based on the deformed
mesh around the crack. Fig. 7 shows magnified deformed
meshes of the crack domain produced from indentation by a
concentraPed load over the left crack tip (xelc= - 1) for
different crack face friction coefficients. Fig. 7 ( a ) shows that
forward slip of the crack faces increases toward the left crack
tip whenf( = 0. However, Fig. 7(b) and (c) demonstrate that
the tendency for forward slip near the left tip diminishes as
the coefficient of friction increases. As a matter of fact, the
deformed elements above and below the crack interface
shown in Fig. 7(c) indicate that sticking near the left tip
occurs whenf~=0.5. Crack face interaction at the right tip
appears to be less sensitive to frictional variations when the
indentation occurs over the left tip.
The occurrence of the various crack mechanisms for different indentation load positions can be elucidated in light of
the stress results obtained from the interface elements at the
crack interface. Fig. 8 shows that for(c=0.5, two or three
different crack mechanisms may arise concomitantly,
depending on the position of the indentation load and the
stress condition satisfied at the crack interface (Eqs. ( l a ) ( l c ) ) . Thus, for indentation position xelc = - 1, stick and
separation occur at the left and right crack tips, respectively,
whereas forward slip commences at the central region of the
crack interface (Fig. 8(a) ). This result reveals the existence
of the mode I (tensile) crack mechanism in a predominantly
shear and compressive stress field. However, only two mechanisms are encountered when the indentation occurs at
xelc = 0; ba~:kward and forward slip at the left and right crack
tips, respectively, and stick at the center of the crack
(Fig. 8(b)). Hence, separation of the crack faces does not

K. Komvopo.los / Wear 199 (1995) 9-23

(a)

- -

Deformed

.....

Original

~:lesh
Mesh

l[[iiii :
t: t::]:::t::t _It:t:::t:--I:
.

15

In contrast to the normal stress, Fig. 10 demonstrates that

the effect of the crack on the shear stress distribution is much
more pronounced. A comparison between Fig. 9(b) and
Fig. 10 shows that the shear stress near the right crack tip is
larger than the tensile normal stress by an order of magnitude.
The sigmoidal stress distribution corresponding to an uncracked half-space is influenced by large stress concentra06-

Is,,:~.,.

:i-f(o,
I

ro,..0s:,.

_,~o,,o.

..,::.,.

l~xlc/Pl --o--

7,,
.['~ck.o,a s,~),_

/
o~

........

r--r- ~ - - r

. . . . . . .{---'i
.

I"-

~T

stick

(b)

p'o'q

~. F~.ora slip I

x,,/c=0

---~

V,,,V.,,
-05

0-I

Fig. 8. Dimensionless

G5

st~ss distributions and associated crack mechanisms

ferry=0.5 and concentratedload position: (a) xpIc= - I and (b) xpIc=

O.

=!

(a)

(c)
Fig. 7. Deformedfiniteelementmeshesof the crackdomainforconcentrated
lead positionxp/e= - I: (a) f~=O (mag. 12x 10~), (b) fc=0.3 (mag.
12 10;), and (c) fc=0.5 (mag. 13x 10"~).
occur, and the crack is subjected to pure mode II (shear)
loading.
Dimensionless stress distributions on the crack plane
(y/l= 1) are presented in Figs.9 and 10 for f=0.5 and
different indentation load positions. Schematics of associated
crack mechanisms are also shown to facilitate the interpretation of the results. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the effect of the
crack on the normal stress distribution is small. The stress
profile is fairly similar to that of an indented homogeneous
half-space, except at the right tip where, as a result of crack
face separation, the continuity of the stress distribution is
disturbed, thus giving rise to a stress singularity. The variation
of the tensile normal stress at the right crack tip for indentations at xpIc = - 2 and - I is shown in Fig. 9(b). When the
indentation load is closer to the left tip, larger tensile stresses
arise in the vicinity of the right tip. The profiles shown in
Fig. 9(b) exhibit a stress singularity at the root of the right
tip.

0
X/

'..Z...~,~_2'

i
i
i

i
,
i

xp/ =-2

,,

~3

(b)
001

-2

-i

xp~

-I

---o---

-OO]
"0020

/
02

04

O~~

O~I

LO

Pig. 9. Variation of dimensionless normal stress on the crack plane l'oL/~

0.5 and concentrated load position: (a) xplc = - 2 and (b) xp/c = - 2 and
-I.

If. Komvopoulos l Wear 199 (1996) 9-23

16

~"

(O) ~

tip which is smaller than that shown in Fig. 10(a). However,

in the case of indentation o~er the crack center (xe/c=O),
stick occurs over a larger region at the center of the crack
interface, whereas backward and forward slip dominate at the
left and right tips, respectively. Fig. 10(c) reveals the
dependence of the slip direction on the sign of the local shear
stress. A comparison oftbe results shown in Fig. 10(a), (b),
and (c) shows that, depending on the position of the indentation load, two or three different crack mechanisms may
arise simultaneously.
The predominance of various crack mechanisms can be
interpreted in terms of the indentation load position and crack
face friction in light of the results shown in Fig. i 1. For the
ideal case of zero friction, either one or two different crack
mechanisms, i.e. slip and separation of the crack faces, are
possible (Fig. 11 (a)).Dependingontheioadposition, either
pure mode II loading or a combination of mode I and mode
II loadings may be encountered. However, nonzero friction
promotes the occurrence of stick at the crack interface. Thus,
as shown in Fig. 11 (b), two or three crack mechanisms may
prevail, depending on the indentation load position. Comparison of Fig. 11 (a) and Fig. 11 (b) shows that higher friction
enhances the occurrence of stick and inhibits the separation
of the crack faces near the tips. This suggests that crack face

xp/ =-2

O~
o. O)

.02
-03
-04
@~

oz

)
I

(b)

x,/c:-t

Q;

~o

~:~%
-O4~

o~

ii,
I

(c)

x,/c=O

~m

-z / (o)

'

-2.0

-1.5[-

fc=O \'~

'

-Ul

'

-o.,~

'1

.~

-2

!
-1

I
O

x/

Fig. I0. Variationof dimensionlessshearstresson the crack planefor f, =

0.5 and concentratedloadposition:(a) xplc = - 2, (b) xplc = - I, and (c)
xelc=O.
tions at the crack tips. The variation of the shear stress and
the prevailing crack mechanisms greatly depend on the indentation load position. Fig. 10(a) shows that for XpIC = - 2, a
sigmoidal shear stress distribution is produced in the region
left of the crack; however, the presence of the crack significantly aggravates the stress profile in the remaining region.
First, the shear stress increases rapidly with decreasing radial
distance from the left tip, and then decreases gradually to zero
in the region - 1 <xpIc<O where forward slip occurs. The
shear stress diminishes in the region 0 < xelc < I due to crack
face separation, and reaches appreciably high values in the
vicinity of the right tip. Fig. 10(b) and (c) show that for
indentations over the left tip and the crack center, respectively, different stress distributions and crack mechanisms
occur. While separation at the crack interface diminishes with
indentations closer to the crack, the mechanism ofinterfaeial
stick is enhanced. The indentation at position xtdc= - 1
causes stick to occur near the left tip, forward slip at the
central crack region, and a region of separation at the right

"

L[ (b)
-1.5 V

-0.5 -

fc

-----0.3

t I s-

,x\\

'~'~"~

1.O
1.5
201
-LO

I
-0.5

|~
0

I
0.5

t.O

x/c
Fig. I 1. Regions of stick, slip, and separation at the crack interface vs.
concentratadload position: (a)fc = 0 and (b)f~ = 0.3 and 0.5.

17

K. Komvopoulos/ Wear 199 (1996) 9-23

Left Crack Tip

Right Crack Tip

1.6

2.4
3.2

4.0

0.8

I .Z
1.6

Crack

<..8
5.6

iio ..o

~'.0

I".
(a
,

1'6
::o

II- -G ~

"

c,nckl

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

2
3
4

0.4
0.6
0.8

6
7
8
9
I0

1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0

Crock

1.5

(b)
o.a
L2

1.6
2.0

Crock

2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
10 4.0

1.0

(c)
Fig. 12. Contoursof the yon Misesequivalentstressat the left and rightcracktips for concentratedloadpositionxp/c ffi - I: (a)f~ = 0o (b)f~ffi0.3, and (c)
fc = 0.5. ( Stressunitsare MPa.)
friction reduces the contribution of the tensile mode, thereby
promoting the dominance of shear mode crack growth. The
results presented in Fig. 11 demonstrate the significance of
the indentation load position and magnitude of inteffacial
friction coefficient on the crack growth rate during indentation loading.
Isostress contours of the van Mises equivalent stress in the
vicinity of the crack tips are presented in Fig. 12 for different
crack face friction coefficients and indentations over the left
crack tip. The magnitudes and gradients of the stresses at the
left tip are greater than those at the right tip, especially for
f~=O (Fig. 12(a)). A comparison of the stress data shown
in Fig. 12(a) and (c) shows that increasing the friction coefficient from 0 to 0.5 reduces the maximum stress at the crack
tips by approximately 50%.
The dimensionless mode II stress intensity factor at the left
and right crack tips vs. indentation load position is shown in
Fig. 13 forf~ = 0 and 0.5. The Kn data were calculated based
on Eq. (2b). For f~=O, Ku at the left crack tip increases
rapidly as the load approaches the crack, reaching a maximum
value of 0.51 at xp/c = - 1.33. Alternatively, Ku at the right
tip increases at a lower rate because crack fac,.~separation at
the right tip diminishes gradually (Fig. 11 (a)). For "~nden-

rations closer to the crack, Ku at the left tip decreases rapidly

to negative values reaching a minimum of - 0 . 3 0 at xp/c =
O. The negative values of the stress intensity factor are due
to the transition from fi~rward to backward slip commencing
as the load approaches the region over the center of the crack
(Fig. 11 (a)), which is associated with the change from positive to negative shear stress at the crack interface. At
x~,/c=O, backward slip occurs at the left half-crack length,
whereas separation at the right half-crack length diminishes
and forward slip becomes the dominant mechanism. At this
condition, the values of Ku at the crack tips are of equal
magnitude but opposite sign. When the indentations are performed to the right of the crack center, Ku at the left crack tip
approaches zero a:;ymptotically due to the increasing effect
of crack face sepm~ation in this region of the crack interfacc,
whereas Ku at the right crack tip increases due to the enhancement of backward slip (Fig. 11 (a)).
In the presence of frictional traction at the crack interface,
the distribution of Ku is affected significantly. Crack face
friction inhibits the development of slip and promotes the
occurrence of stick, which decreases the mode II stress intensity factor. Fig. 13 shows that forf~ = 0.5, Kn increases as the
distance of the indentation load from the crack decreases
because forward slip prevails at the left tip (Fig. I I ( b ) ) ;

18

K. Komvopoulos I Wear 199 (I 996) 9-23

0.6

,ro~. t

0.4

Table2
DimensionlessmodeI and mode11stressintensityfactorsat the rightcrack
tip vs. indemationloadposit~onandfrictioncoefficientat thecrackinterface

Coneentrated2c//=3Lo0d

f~

:'~-0.2

Crack Tip
Left Right
--.o--.---~

-o,

""=a'"

.
f

o
o.5

~.~=.o.o,o.-~.~t"
~
. . ~ / "

I
-1

-~

0.0
0.3
0.5

z~"

~ ~'
~,
1
/
V

o
xp~

Fig. 13. Variationof dimensionlessmodeii stressintensityfactorat the left

and right crack tips as a functionof concentratedload positionand crack
face fiictioncoefficient.
however, the rate at which g n increases is lower compared
with the frictionless crack case. The maximum value of Kit
at the left crack tip is 0.26 and occurs a t x e l c = - 1.5. However, in the range - 1.5 < x p I c < - 0.5, the crack faces at the
left tip stick strongly to each other and can no longer undergo
forward slip. Since Kn depends only on the relative tangential
displacement, it decreases rapidly to a minimum negative
value of - 0.19 at x e l c = - 0.5 due to the continuous increase
of the region where the crack faces stick to each other
(Fig. ! 1(b)). In the range - 0.5 <xe/c <- 0.5, Ktt assumes
negative values due to the dominance of backward slip at the
left crack tip, whereas in the range x e l c > 0.5, Kn gradually
approaches zero because separation occurs at the left tip
(Fig. 11 (b)). An opposite trend is encountered at the right
crack tip after the indentation load passes over the crack.
Thus, it may be interpreted that the variations in the stress
intensity factors shown in Fig. 13 are due to changes in both
the magnitude and the sign of the normal and shear stresses
on the crack plane, which control the predominance of the
stick, slip, and separation crack mechanisms, as shown in
Fig. 9(b), Fig. 10, and Fig. 11 (b) for various load positions.
Fig, 14 shows the effects of the coefficient of friction and
]"~=

-I ~..~,,~

Posilive Shear

0,5
0.5
Negative Shear
1.0

~Io

-o~
I

I
0.5

lo

X/C

Fig. 14. Regionsof positiveand negativeshearstressat the crack interface

fer differentfrictioncoefficientsand concentratedIoa~lpositions.

K11(2PI1ryr~)

KnI(2PI~V~)

xplc= - 2

xj,Ic= - I

xelc = - 2

xelc = - 1

0.0112
0.0093
0.008 !

0.0380
0.0180
0.0085

0.0517

0.2057

a.00,55

0.1262

load position on the size of the crack face regions subjected

to positive and negative shear stresses. As shown in Fig. 14,
the transition from positive to negative shear stress at the left
crack tip commences when the indentation occurs at x p l c =
-0.67 for f c = 0 and at x p l c = - 0 . 9 0 for A=0.5. Fig. 13
shows that indentation at x e l c = - 0 . 9 0 causes a transition
from positive to negative Kn values at the left crack tip.
Crack face separation occurs due to the development of a
tensile stress perpendicular to the crack plane which introduces a mode I loading. In view of the crack mechanism maps
shown in Fig. 11, separation becomes more pronounced for
indentations either close to the left tip or remote from the
right tip. Dimensionless K, values at the fight crack tip (calculated based on Eq. (5a)) for different friction coefficients
and load positions are listed in Table 2. For comparison,
corresponding Ku values are also given in Table 2. The results
demonstrate that the effect of friction is similar for both stress
intensity factors, i.e. the intensity of shear and tensile loading
at the crack tip diminishes with increasing crack face friction.
However, the fact that the values of K~ are significantly
smaller than those of Ku by approximately an order of magnitude, suggests that subsurface crack propagation is most
likely to occur in shear mode.
3.2. Subsurface cracking u n d e r a distributed indentation
load

Indentations by the rigid indenter revealed that the maximum pressure at the center of the contact region is in the
range of 1.28-1.30 GN m -z and the contact width is equal
to about 0.5c, independent of the indenter position relative to
the crack. The relatively small size of the contact width may
be considered to be representative of a semi-infinite halfspace having a relatively long subsurface crack.
Fig. 15 shows deformed mesbes of the crackdomain resulting from indentations approximately above the left crack tip
forf= = 0.5. From the crack face elements shown in Fig. 15(a)
and (b) it can be observed that indentations closer to the
crack promote the occurrence of stick at the left tip over a
larger region compared with forward slip at the fight tip. The
intensification and relaxation of the crack tip stresses as a
function of indentation position can be interpreted in light of
the stress distributions shown in Fig. 16. Similar to the crack
behavior observed in the indentation simulations involving a
point load (Fig. 9(a)), Fig. 16(a) shows that the normal

K. Komvopoulos/ Wear 199 (1996) 9-23

Deformed
....

Originol

0.1

Mesh

'

'

'

Mesh

-01
O" -02

-Q7
-O8

Q2

(a

~o
T
I
I

m4~

I
I
I

i
I

I
I

n~
. . . .

(c)

. . . . . . . . . . .

Fig. 15. Deformed finite d e m e n t meshes o f the crack domain forf~ = 0 . 1 .

fc= 0.5, and indentationposition:(a) xpIc= -0.333 (mag. 18 ) and (b)

xt,lc= -0.833 (mag. 15x ).

(11

~
I
I

~421

stress distribution is not appreciably affected by the presence

of the crack. A stress singularity arises again at the right tip,
but the increase in stress concentration appears to be less than
that shown in Fig. 9(a). Comparison of Fig. 16 with Fig. 10
indicates that the crack mechanisms are the same; however,
in the case of distributed normal traction the shear stress
profiles are slightly different and, more importantly, the magnitudes of the stresses are smaller compared with the concentrated load case, especially in the vicinity of the crack tips.
Moreover, Fig. 16(c) reveals relatively less crack face separation at the right tip for a distributed indentation load compared with a point load (Fig. 10(b)). These results suggest
that increasing the indenter sharpness increases the magnitudes of the stress intensity factors, and consequently
enhances the crack propagation rate.
Fig. 17 shows the dependence of the slip, stick, and separation crack mechanisms on the indentation position. When
the indenter is over the crack, two or three crack mechanisms
may occur concomitantly at the crack interface. Similar to
the indentation by a concentrated load, the mechanisms of
stick, slip, and separation are encountered either when the
indentatkn occurs closer to the left tip or remote from the
right tip. In all the other circumstances, only two crack mechanisms occur. Although the regimes of dominance of the
various mechanisms are similar to those shown in Fig. 11 (b)
for fc=0.5, in the case of distributed normal traction the
interracial regions exhibiting stick and slip are larger and the
regions of crack face separation are smaller relative to those
obtained with a point load. This indicates that the magnitudes

02

-0:

I
I

(dl

-2

-1

0
x/

Fig. 16. V a r i a t i o n o f dimensionless n o r m a l and shear stresses o n the crack

plane for f~=O.5,~=0.t, and indentation position: (a) xr/e= - 2 , (b)

xp/c = - 2 , (c) xp/c = - I. and (d) xp/c = O.
o f the stress intensity factors, and thus the corresponding
crack growth rates, are smaller in the case o f relatively blunt

indenters.
The intensification of the crack tip stresses occurring with
indentations closer to the crack neighborhood is demonstrated
by the isostress contours of the yon Mises equivalent stress
shown in Fig. 18. For an indentation at xp/c= -0.833, the
stresses at the right tip are higher than those at the left tip
(Fig. IS(a) ). However, when the indentation occurs closer
to the crack center (Xp/C = - 0.333), higher stresses arise at
theleft tip (Fig. I8(b)). From Fig. 18(a) and (b) it follows
that indentations in the range - 1 <xp/c<O have a signifi-

20

K. KomvopoulosI Wear 199 (1~6) 9-23

-zo:

-Ls~

rao.5
f,=o.I

,\

the center of the crack. The maximum and minimum values

of the dimensionless Kn at the left tip are equal to 0.21 and
- 0 . 1 5 and the corresponding indentation positions are
x e l c = 1.5 and 0.167. The transition from positive to negative
values and the concomitant gradual increase of K . at the right
and left tips commence for indentations performed over the
right tip. The variation of the stress intensity as a function of
indentation position shown in Fig. 19 is in agreement with
the interpretations of the results presented in Figs. 15-18.
Comparison of the results shown in Fig. 13 ( forf~ = 0.5) and
Fig. 19 confirms that higher mode II stress intensity factors,
and thus higher crack propagation rates, occur in the case of
point loads obtained wit',; relatively sharp indenters (e.g.
Knoop vs. Brinell indenters).

._~

-0.5 -

22V
-1.0

",,
-0.5

0
X/C

03

1.0

3.3. Crack propagation

Fig. 17. Regionsof stick, slip, and separationat the crack interface vs.
indentationpositionforfc=0.5 andf,=0.1.

For crock growth in mode II, it may be considered that the

crack propagates in the direction of the maximum shear stress
at the crack tip. The shear stress in the vicinity of the crack
tip, ,o, is expressed in terms of Kz and K , and the polar
coordinates rand 0as [23]

cant effect on the stresses at the left tip, while the effect on
the stresses at the right tip is relatively secondary. This is
further illustrated by the variation of the mode II stress intensity factor shown below. Evidently, the opposite situation
arises for indentations in the range 0 < x e l c < I.
Fig. 19 shows the variation of the dimensionless mode II
stress intensity factor at both crack tips with the indentation
position. The Kn values were calculated from the crack tip
stresses based on Eq. (5b). The rapid increase of Kn at the
left crack tip is again observed for indentations at the lefthand side of the crack ( x e l c < - 1), followed by a decrease
to lower negative Kn values for indentations over the crack
domain ( - 1 < x e l c < 1). For the same range of indentation
distances, n at the right tip increases gradually reaching
higher values when the indenter is between the left tip and

1
0
'= ~/2'rrr2
~
cos:[Ktz sin 0 + / ( . ( 3 cos 0 - 1 ) ]

Since KI assumes small values close to zero, it follows from

Eq. (8) that the angle corresponding to the plane of maximum
shear stress is equal to zero. This s Jggests that propagation
of horizontal subsurface cracks undue a surface compressive
load is expected to commence on the crack plane, in agreement with the predictions of other studies [ 8,9]. The in-plane
crack propagation rate can be calculated from a Paris-type

Left Crock Tip

lio.
2.1
2.8

3.5

,-,

5.6
6.3
10 7.0

3 2.O
3.0
4.0
5.0

6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
I ,o I0.0

(8)

Right Crock Tip

,,.o

ck

L.%.%-

3
4

2.8

8
9
I0

7.3
8.2
9.1

3.7
5 4.6

Crock
-

eI
1.9

2.8

3.7
4.6
5.5

6.4
7.3
82

9:,

Fig. 18. Contoursof the yon Misesequivalentstressat the leftand fightcracktips forfc= 0.5,f, = 0.1, and indentationposition: (a) xp/c = - 0.833 and (b)
xe/c = - 0.333. (Stressunitsare GPa.)

K. Komvopoulos/ Wear 199 (1996) 9-23

0.6

0.4

i
i
Distributed Lood
2c/1=3

fc=0.5

fs=O,I
0.2

~o
ff-o.2
-OA

-0.6
-3

t
-2

I
-1

I
0
Xp/C

I
1

I
2

21

In the above interpretations of the crack growth rate it is

presumed that the assumptions invoked in LEFM still hold,
i.e. the size of the plastic zone is significantly smaller compared with relevant dimensions (e.g. crack length) and the
near surface material is linear elastic. Thus, the present analysis is valid for relatively long cracks and brittle materials
such as ceramics, or plastically deformed ductile materials
that have reached an elastic steady-statecycle (elastic shakedown ). The effect of the loading history on subsurface crack
propagation is especially pronounced in the case of sliding
contacts. Results demonstrating the significance of friction
traction at both the contact surface and crack interface in
conjunction with the loading history on the subsurface crack
behavior will be presented in future publications.

Fig. 19. Variation o f dimensionless mode !! stress intensity factor at the left

and right crack tips as a functionof indentationpositionforfcffi0.5and

A=o.I.
power-law relationship of the crack growth increment per
cycle, dc/dN, and the effective stress intensity factor range,
AKcrr. Since AKt<<AKtt, it is reasonable to assume that
AKet'f= AKu. Thus,
dc

--=A[ AKrr]'=A[ AKn]"

dN

(9)

where A and n are material constants. While for metals the

exponent n is typically between 2 and 4, for ceramic materials
it assumes significantly higher values, in the range of 10-50
[24]. This suggests that relatively small variations in the
magnitude of A Kn may exhibit a profound effect on the crack
propagation rate. For example, the results shown in Fig. 13
reveal that the dimensionless AKtt decreases from 0.81 to
0.45 as the crack face friction coefficient increases from 0 to
0.5. This represents a 44% decrease in the magnitude of the
driving force for crack propagation. According to Eq. (9),
this change in the magnitude ofA KHdue to the effect of crack
face friction may affect the crack propagation rate in a metallic (ductile) component by a factor in the range of 3-10 (for
2 < n < 4), while for a ceramic (brittle) component the effect
can be dramatic; the crack growth rate (and thus the fatigue
life) changes by approximately 2 (n= 10) to 12 (n=50)
orders of magnitude! The distribution of the normal traction
exhibits also a significant effect on the crack propagation rate.
Comparison of stress intensity curves forf~=0.5 shown in
Fig. 13 and Fig. 19 shows that for distributed normal traction
the dimensionless value of AKn is equal to 0.36, i.e. smaller
than that obtained with a point load by 20%. For 1 0 < n <
50, this decrease in the magnitude of A Kit represents achange
in the propagation rate by about 1 to 4 orders of magnitude.
The markedly higher crack propagation rates predicted for
the higher values of the exponent n indicate that propagation
of long subsurface cracks is not likely to be the rate determining process in fatigue failure of indented brittle materials,
i.e. most of the contact fatigue life of such materials is presumably spent in nucleating short cracks.

4. Conclusions

Based on linear elastic fracture mechanics, the plane strain

indentation problem of a subsurface horizontal crack in a
homogeneous half-space was analyzed by the finite element
method. From the presented results and discussions, the following main conclusions can be drawn.
1. Indentation of a half-space containing a relatively long
subsurface horizontal crack produces both mode I and
mode II crack tip loadings. However, the magnitude of
the mode II stress intensity factor is significantly greater
than that of mode I, by approximately an order of magnitude, suggesting that in-plane shear mode crack growth
is prevalent.
2. The stresses in the vicinities of the crack tips intensify as
the crack face friction decreases and the sharpness of the
indenter increases.
3. Crack mechanism maps were developed to elucidate the
crack behavior during indentation. Depending on the
indentation load position and the coefficient of friction
between the crack faces, the mechanisms of forward and
backward slip, stick, and separation may occur concomitantly at the crack interface. The occurrence of these mechanisms affects the distribution and range of the stress
intensity factors.
4. The mode II stress intensity factor depends on the crack
face friction coefficient, the indentation load position, and
the distribution of the load over the surface contact region.
Higher crack face friction reduces the magnitudes of the
mode I and lI stress intensity factors and, in turn, the crack
propagation rate due to the enhancement of the interfacial
stick mechanism which reduces the magnitude of the driving force for crack extension.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Surface Engineering
and Tribology Program of the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. MSS-8996309.

K. Komvopoulos / Wear 199(1996)9-23

22
A p p e n d i x A, N o m e n c l a t u r e
a
A
c
c*
E
f
g
G
~'
k
Kt, Kn
l
n
N
P
p*
r
R
S
u~,, Uy
V
w
x, y
x~,
AKetf
AK~, A K n
0
v

asperity contact width or size of crack tip

element
material constant in Eq. ( 9 )
half-crack length
clearance tolerance
elastic modulus
coefficient o f friction
geometric function in Eq. ( 7 )
shear modulus
elastic strain energy release rate
stiffness in stick or material parameter in
Eqs. ( 2 a ) and (2b)
m o d e I and m o d e II stress intensity factors
crack depth
material constant in Eq. (9)
normal stress on the crack plane or number
o f loading cycles
concentrated or equivalent indentation load
pressure at zero clearance
crack tip radial polar coordinate
asperity radius
shear stress on the crack plane
displacements in the x and y directions
potential energy
thickness o f infinite plate
Cartesian coordinates
indentation load position
effective stress intensity factor range
m o d e I and m o d e II stress intensity factor
ranges
crack tip angular polar coordinate
P o i s s o n ' s ratio
normal stress
shear stress

[7i M. Kanete, Y. Murakami and T. Ohazaki, Mechanism of opening/

closing of subsurface cracks due to a moving Henzian loading. Prec.
Leeds-Lyon Syrup. Tribol., Lyon, France. 1985. pp. 29-38.
[8] G.R. Miller, A preliminary analysis of subsurface crack branching
under a surface compressiveload. J. TriboL. 1IO ( 1988) 292-297.
[9] H. Salehizadehand N. Saka, Crack propagationin rolling line contacts,
J. Tribol., 114 (1992) 690-697.
[10] R.D. Henshell and K.G. Shaw, Crack tip finite elements are
unnecessary,lut. J. Num. Meth. Eng.. 9 (1975) 495-507.
[ 11] R.S. Barsoum. Application of quadratic isoparan~tfic finite elements
in linear fracture mechanics,Int. J. Fract., I0 (1974) 603-605.
[12] R.S. Barsoum, Triangular quarter-point elements as elastic and
perfectly-plasticcrack fip elements,Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., I I ( 1977)
85-98.
[ 13] L.P. Harrop, Linear elastic stress intensity factors using a distorted
isoparametric finite element, in A.R. Luxmoore and D.R.J. Owan
(eds.), Proc. Ist lnt. Conf. Num. Meth. Fraet. Mech., Swansea, 1978,
pp. 302-314.
[ 14] K. K'~mvopoulos,Finite element analysis of a layered elastic solid in
normal contact with a rigid surface, J. Tribol., I I0 (1988) 477--485.
[ 15] K. Komvopoulos. Elastic-plastic finite element analysis of indented
layered media, J. TriboL. 111 (1989) 430--439.
[16] C.F. Shih, H.G. deLorenzi and M.D. German, Crack extension
modelingwith singularquedraticisoparametricelements,Int. J. Fract.,
12 (1976) 647-651.
[ 17] Y.Z. ltoh, T. Murakamiand H. Kashiwaya, Proportionalextrapolation
techniques for determining stress intensity factors, Eng. Fract. Mech.,
31 (1988) 297-308.
[ 18] S.K. Chart, I.S. Tuba and W.K. Wilson, On the finite element method
in linear fracture mechanics,Eng. Fract. Mech., 2 (1970) 1-17.
[19] S.L. Pu, M.A. Hassain and W.E. Lorensen, The collapsed cubic
isoparan~tric element as a singular element for crack problems,Int. J.
Num. Me&. Eng., 12 ([978) 1727-1742.
[20] S. Zhang and C.M. Leech, FEM analysis on mixed-mode fracture of
CSM-GRP,Eng. Fract. Mech., 23 (1986) 521-535.
[ 21] J.R. Rice, A path independent integral and the approximate analysis
of strain concentration by notches and cracks, J. AppL Mech., 35
(1968) 379-386.
[22] D. Brock, Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, 3rd edn.,
Martinus Nijhnff, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983.
[23] F. Erdogan and G.C. Sih, On the crack extension in plates under plane
loading and transverse shear, J. Basic Eng., 85 (1963) 519-527.
[24] R.H. Dauskardt, M.R. James, J.R. Porter and R.O. Ritchie, Cyclic
fatigue.crack growth in a SiC-whisker-reinfurced alumina ceramic
composite: Long- and small-crack behavior, J. Am. Cermn. Son., 75
(1992) 759-771.

References
[ 1] LR. Fleming and N.P. Suh, Mechanics of crack propagation in
delamination wear, Wear, 44 (1977) 39-56.
[2] L.M. Keer, M.D. Bryant and G.K. Haritos, Subsurface cracking and
delamination, in H.S. Chang and L.M. Kcer (eds.), Solid Contact and
Lubrication, AMD-Vol. 39, ASME, New York, 1980, pp. 79-95.
[3l A.F. Bower, The influence of crack face friction and trapped fluid on
surface initiated rolling contact fatigue cracks, J. Tribol.. I10 (1988)
704-71 I.
[4[ M.T. Hanson and L.M. Kent, An analytical life prediction model for
the crack propagation occurring in contact fatigue failure. TriboL
Trans., 35 (1992) 451--461.
[5] A.D. Hearle and K.L. Johnson, Mode II stress intensity factors for a
crack parallel to the surface of an elastic half-space subjected to a
moving point load, J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 33 (1985) 61-81.
[6] F.-K. Chang, M. Comninou, S. Sheppard and J.R. Barber, The
subsurface crack under conditions of slip and stick caused by a surface
normal fo~rce,J. Appl. Mech., 51 (1984) 311-316.

Biography
Dr. Komvopoulos is an Associate Professor in the Department o f Mechanical Engineering, University o f California at
Berkeley. He received a P h D degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1986 and MS degrees in Aeronautics a n d Astronautics and Civil Engineering in 1981, all from
Massachussetts Institute o f Technology, and a BS in Civil
Engineering from the National Technical University o f Athens in 1979. His current research activity is in tribology,
contact mechanics, tool wear, finite element modeling o f contact problems, ion beam and laser-aided surface modification
techniques, sputtering o f thin films, tribology o f magnetic
storage media, and surface engineering for reducing stiction
in microeleetromechanical systems ( M E M S ) . Dr. Komvo-

K. Komvopoulos/ Wear199 (1996) 9-23

po ulos has authored or co-authored more than 60 publications

in peer-reviewed archival journals and holds four patents on
CVD growth of smooth and thin diamond films, application
of self-assetubled monolayer for reducing stiction in MEMS,
and vacuum-arc plasma treatment of magnetic recording
heads. He is the recipient of several prestigious awards
including a 1990 IBM Faculty Deve!optuent Award, a 1989
NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award, the i 988 ASME
B.L. Newkirk Award, and a 1987 NSF Engineering Initiation
Award. At Berkeley, Dr. Komvopoulos teaches courses in
tribology, mechanical behavior ~f materials, fracture
mechanics, fatigue, and machine elment design. He has pre-

23

sented numerous seminars on tribology and contact mechanics in industry and at various universities and has delivered
key notes at the Gordon Research Conferences on Tribology.
Dr. Kotuvopoulos is an active member of the Research Comtuittee on Tribolngy of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), past Associate Editor of the ASME
Journal ofTribology, and is listed in Who's Who in the World,
Who's Who in Engineering, Who' s Who in Science and Engineering, and Who's Who in American Education. His most

recent experience includes consulting with IBM, HewlettPackard, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co., Lucas NovaSensor, and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.