You are on page 1of 124

Elastic-Plastic

Fracture Mechanics

Dr. K. R. Jayadevan
Professor
GEC Thrissur

Cold water sinks Titanic


Outline

Introduction

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics

Ref: Fracture Mechanics


T.L. Anderson
Introduction

Fracture mechanics is the science


of why things fail

Fracture is old as man-made structures

Why structures fail ?

Negligence during its design, construction


or operation
Application of a new design or material
Definition

Fracture mechanics is the science which relates the


maximum permissible applied loads acting upon
a structural component to the size and location of
a crack either real or hypothetical, in the component.


FM can also be used to predict the rate at which
a crack can approach a critical size in fatigue or by
environmental influences.


Or to determine the conditions in which a
rapidly propagating crack can be arrested.
Historical Perspective

Designing structures to avoid fracture


is not a new idea

Bridges after
industrial revolution

Early Roman bridge design

Changes in design, led to


unexpected failures
Catatstrophic Failures

During World War II, over 30% of the


5000 new US Liberty Ships failed.

Fracture Mechanics as an
engineering discipline
was evolved
Comet jetliner -1952

Alaska airlines 2000

American airlines - 2001

Venezuelan Natural gas


pipeline rupture - 1993
Milestones in Fracture Research

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Strength of Iron wires

Strength varies inversely with wire length


Inglis, C. E. (1913)

Stress concentration at the tip 2a


max = nom 12 a/

as --> 0 ,
infinite stress at the crack tip
Griffith, A. A. (1920)
Size effect on Glass fibers
(Griffith's expt)
Actual strength of materials
is much less than theoretical
strength ?

Presence of defects

dE d d
Griffith's law: = =0
dA dA dA

A crack begins to grow when the decrease in PE becomes


equal to the work required to create new surfaces.
Irwin, G. R. (1948)
Modified Griffiths theory

Energy release rate criterion ; Cracks grows, G = Gc


Gc a measure of fracture toughness

G is related to Stress Intensity Factor, K


Crack tip fields scales with K ;
Cracks grows, K = Kc , Fracture toughness

Rice, J. (1968)
J-integral ; Non-linear fracture mechanics
MPa m1/2
Fracture Toughness

Ref: Kanninen & Popelar


1.1

6.9 MPa

4340 steel
LEFM:

SIF, K(,a) = Kc

Kc fracture foughness,
a material property
Scope of Fracture Mechanics
KIc vs Failure Mechanism

2a
FAILURE
STRESS
Collapse

Limit load
Analyses
e
tur

Nonlinear
ac

Fracture
Fr

Mechanics
e
ittl
Br

LEFM
Ductile Fracture

FRACTURE TOUGHNESS, KIc


Applications

Applied Stress
Fracture based
design
Strength of Materials
approach
Yield Strength

Applied Stress

Fracture Mechanics
approach

Flaw Size Fracture Toughness


Engineering Structural Integrity Assessment

1
LEFM EPFM

K
K Ic
1 / FS
Engg
design SM
regime

0 1 / FS max 1

y
Applications
Fatigue :
da
=C K n Paris Law Threshold SIF
dN
(K)th
da Environmental
=D Kn assisted cracking
dt

ac
Crack length

Damage Tolerance
ad
approach :
ao
Aircrafts, Railways,
t t
offshore structures ...

td tc
Time
Broad areas in FM

Static fracture mechanics


Loading Dynamic fracture mechanics
Fatigue

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics, LEFM


Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechnics, EPFM
Material response Visco-elastic Fracture Mechanics
Visco-plastic Fracture Mechanics

Stress corrosion cracking


Environment Hydrogen assisted cracked
Creep
Current Research

Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics

Two Parameter Fracture Mechanics

Computational Fracture Mechanics

Fracture Mechanics of Composites & Polymers

Micro-mechanics of Fracture

Mixed-mode Fracture

Nano Fracture
Reference books
Fracture Mechanics T.L. Anderson

Advanced Fracture Mechanics


M.F. Kanninen & C.H. Popelar

Introduction to Fracture Mechanics Kary Helen

Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics D. Broek

Deformation & Fracture Mechanics R.W. Hertzberg

Fracture Mechanics for Modern Engineering Design -


K.R.Y. Simha

Elements of Fracture mechanics - Prasanth Kumar


Related journals

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

International Journal of Fracture

Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures

Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics

International Journal of Fatigue

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

Engineering Failure Analysis


Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics
Atomic view of Fracture
A material fractures when sufficient
stress and work applied at the
atomic level to break the bond
that holds the atoms together.

E E s
c =
xo

But actual strength is much smaller


than the theoretical one !!!

Discrepancy is due to Flaws in the material

Flaws must lower the global strength


by magnifying the stress locally
Stress concentration effect of flaws
(Inglis, 1913)

2a
A = 1 +
b

a
A = 1 + 2 ,
=
b2
a

a
When a >> b A = 2

For a sharp crack, =0 A =

for metals, =xo E


1/ 2

f = s
4a
Griffiths energy balance
(Griffith, 1924)
Based on First law of Thermodynamics :

dE d dWs d dWs
= + = 0 =
dA dA dA dA dA
ie., for fracture to occur, the energy stored in the structure must be
sufficient to overcome the surface energy of the material.

2 a 2 B
1/ 2 = o
2 E s E
f =
a d 2 a
=
dA E

Griffiths criterion is Ws = 4aB s = 2 s


insensitive to

dWs
valid only for brittle matls = 2 s
dA
Modified Griffiths equation

Limitations of Griffith's law:



Insensitive to


Apply only for brittle matls

Extention to metals (Irwin & Orowan, 1948)

1/ 2
2 E ( s + p )
f =
a
s - Surface energy per unit area

p - Plastic work per unit area


Energy Release Rate, G
(Irwin, 1956)
An energy approach - equivalent to Griffiths model

Energy d G Crack Extension Force

release rate
G = or Crack Driving Force
dA G is a measure of the energy available
for an increment of crack extension

Crack extension occurs when


G reaches a critical value, Gc ie., G = Gc
Gc is a measure of Fracture Toughness
of the material

dWs 2 a
Gc = = 2w f G=
dA E
wf = s + p
Expression for G
The potential energy
of an elastic body, = U Wext U SE stored in the body
Wext W.D. by external forces

Load controlled Displacement controlled

1 dU P d 1 dU dP
G= = G= =
B da P 2 B da P B da 2 B da
2
P dC
for both cases : G= , C=
2B da P
dU dU
ie., G is same for both Load & Disp control : Also =
da P da
Instability & R-curve
Stable crack growth:
dG dR
G=R &
da da

Unstable dG dR
>
da da

Ga for CCP
2 (for brittle matls)
Ga for DCB

Shape of the R-curve depends on -


Material behaviour


Crack & loading confgn

(ductile matls)
Load Vs Displacement Control

Rate of change of G depends


on how the structure is loaded

Most specimens shows falling


G-a in disp control

Disp. Control is more stable


than load control

During R-curve test, specimen


is loaded in Disp. control
Stress Analysis of Cracks
(Westergaard, 1939; Sneddon,1946;
Williams, 1957; Irwin, 1957)

Stress field in any Linear Elastic cracked body is:


ij =

k
r
f ij A m r m/2 g m
m=0 ij

k a constant
fij a dimensionless funtion of

Higher order terms depends on geometry

1
As r 0,
r
; u r
(Stress singularity)
Fracture Modes
A crack can experience three types of loading

A cracked body can be loaded in any one/combination of these modes


Fracture Modes


Load is normal to the crack plane

Tends to open the crack


In-plane shear loading

Tends to slide one crack face
with respect to the other


Out-of-plane shear loading


Each mode causes stress singularity
k, fij depends on mode of loading
Stress Intensity Factor
(Irwin, 1957)

Stress Intensity Factor, K = k 2


to denote mode of loading : KI, KII, KIII

ie., crack tip stress field in a


isotropic liear elastic solid : K -- defines amplitude of crack-tip
singularity.
lim ( I ) = K I f ij( I ) ( )
r0
ij
2r K completely defines crack-tip
conditions.
KI
lim ij( II ) = f ij( II ) ( )
r0 2r
For a mixed-mode problem :
(I )
lim ( III ) = KI
f ij( III ) ( )
( total )
ij = ij + ij( II ) + ij( III )
ij
r0 2r
Mode-I crack-tip field

KI 3
xx = cos 1 sin sin
2r 2 2 2

KI 3
yy = cos 1 + sin sin
2r 2 2 2

KI 3
xy = cos sin cos
2r 2 2 2

[ ]
KI r
ux = cos 1sin2
2 2 2 2 = 3 4 for plane strain

(3 4 )

[ ]
KI r = for plane stress
uy = sin 1cos 2 (1 + )
2 2 2 2
Relation between SERR & SIF
(Irwin, 1957)
G Net change in energy release rate for a (global)
K Characterises the crack-tip field (local)

U
for Linear Elastic case: G= lim
a 0 a fixed load

x = a
1
U = dU ( x)
x =0
; dU ( x) = 2 Fy ( x) u y ( x) = yy ( x) u y ( x) dx
2

( + 1) K I (a + a ) a x K I (a)
uy = ; yy =
2 2x

a
lim ( + 1) K I (a ) K I (a + a ) a x
G= a 0
4 a 0
x
dx

2 2 2
K 2I E' = E Plane stress KI K II
K III
G= ' E : G= ' '
E E' =
1 2
Plane strain
E E 2
Singularity dominated zone
Region where Williams eqns describe the crack-tip fields.
KI
for =0, xx = yy =
2r
xy = 0

Singularity dominates only


near the crack-tip.

Away from the crack-tip, stress


field deviates from singular soln.

K proportional to load

K has a unit of stress length

K =O a ( ) MPa m
SIF - solutions
Closed form K solns are derived for simple geometries:

Through crack Edge crack Penny crack

2
K I = a K I = 1 . 12 a K I = a

Replace by for pure mode-II loading

K for any specimen is related to the through crack : K I = Y a


Y dimensionless constant depends on geometry & mode of loading
Embedded Surface flaw
flaw
Mixed-mode loading
Use coordinate transformation

y ' y ' = cos 2 ( ) ; y ' x ' = sin( ) cos( )

K I = y ' y ' a

K II = y ' x ' a
Effect of finite size

Approx. solns. for ccp to account boundary:

2W a
1/ 2

K I = a tan
a 2W

Based on FEM:

a 1 / 2 a
2
a
4

K I = a sec 1 0.025 + 0.06


2W W W
(Ref:
Anderson)
(Ref:
Anderson)
Principle of superposition
SIFs are additive as long as the mode of loading is consistent

K I( total ) = K IA + K IB + K IC ; but, K (total ) K I + K II + K III

For example, K I(total ) = K I( membrane ) + K I(bending )

Semi-elliptical crack
Internal pressure

K I( a ) = K I( b ) K I( c )

= K I( b ) 0

K (a)
I =K (b)
I
Arbitrary loading

Boundary tractions can be


replaced with crack face
tractions, if two configurations
results in the same SIF

KI(a) = KI(b) + KI(c) = KI(b) since KI(c)=0


Design Example

6PL
max = 2 F M approach:
BH
S M approach:

y 2 K =1.12 max a (edge


max BH crack)
P y
FS 6F S L K Ic
K =K Ic or K=
FS
Take:
BH 2 K Ic
K Ic =30 MPa m , y =225 MPa , F S =3, P
B=10 cm , H =20 cm , L=1m , a=2 cm 6F S L 1.12 a

P < 50 kN P < 23.8 kN


Applications

Pd
Pressure vessel : h=
2t
S M approach: F M approach:
y 2t
max P y K =1.12 max a
FS FS d
K Ic
K =K Ic or K=
Take: FS
2t K Ic
K Ic =30 MPa m , y =450 MPa , F S =3, P
d=1m , t =2 cm , a=1 cm F S d 1.12 a

P < 6 MPa P < 2 MPa


Tutorial - I

1. Name the parameters which govern the design based on Strength of


Material and Fracture Mechanics approaches ?

SM : = y FM : K (, a) = Kc

2. Write relation between SERR and SIF ? 2


KI
G=
E'
3. Write SIF expressions for following configurations ?

a) CCP (through crack) K I = a

b) CT (edge crack) K I = 1 . 12 a
2
c) Penny shaped crack K I = a

Tutorial - I

4.What is the order of the elastic crack tip field near the tip?
1
Stress : (singular)
r
Displacement: r (non-singular)

5. What is the approximate value of fracture toughness for steel ?

K Ic =50~150 MPa m

6. Plot the near tip stress variation



ahead of a crack tip?

KI
xx = yy =
2r
r
Tutorial - I
7. A large plate with a small central hole is loaded as shown ? Is design safe for
= 10 Mpa, if a = 1 mm, Kc = 50 Mpa m1/2, y = 300 Mpa.

SM approach

max = 3 = 30 Mpa << y = 300 Mpa

design is safe
a

FM approach
for an edge crack: K I = 1 . 12 a

KI = 59.54 Mpa m1/2 > Kc = 30 Mpa m1/2

design is unsafe !!
Nonlinear Effects
Plasticity corrections
(Irwin, 1958)
2

First-order : r y=
1 KI
2 ys (Plane stress)

ry ry
KI
Second order : YS rp = yy dr = dr
0 0 2r
2

r y=
1 KI

ys
(Plane stress)

r y=

1 KI
6 ys
(Plane strain)

Effective crack depth & SIF :

a eff = a + ry
K eff = a eff a eff
Strip Yield Model
(Dugdale ; Baranblatt, 1962)
A long slender crack-tip plastic zone
in a non-hardening material
in plane stress.

Through crack in an infinite plate:


modelled with a crack length 2a+2, with
a closure stress (= YS ) applied at the crack-tip.

Superimpose: soln for remote tension + soln for closure stress.

find , such that SIF is zero.

r y=
KI

8 ys
&

K eff = a sec

2 YS
Comparison of Plastic Zone Corrections
Plastic zone shape

Applying Von-Mises
yield criterion:

e = y on
Elastic soln
Mode-I plastic zones from FEM

Elastic-plastic boundary
from LEFM

(Dodds et. al., 1994)


Plane strain vs plane stress

Plane Strain, near the tip, except


close to the free surface.

Away from the tip (r >> t), Plane


Stress prevails.
(Narasimhan &
Rosakis, 1981)
Plastic zone shape Vs thickness
Stress state at the Elastic-Plastic boundary depends on rp / t :

rp << t Plane strain ; rp ~ t Plane stress

Plastic zone increases at a

faster rate, and changes its


2
K
shape with I /B

ys

ie. Stress state changes


from plane strain to
plane stress.

(Nakamura & Parks, 1987)


Small-Scale Yielding


K( , a) Stress Intensity Factor


K dominant region
R

Inelastic region
boundary of D
inelastic region
SSY condition
outer boundary of
K-dominant
region
R < D, or B
2

Fracture Criterion
R
1 KI

2 ys

K( , a) = Kc
K as a failure criterion
K defines the crack tip field

Matl locally fails at a critical &

A critical K value
Kc Fracture Toughness
( Material constant)

Or Gc, since G & K are related

Under certain conditions K is valid


with non-linear matl behaviour.
Effect of specimen dimensions

As rp > t, the crack-tip triaxiality


relaxes

Lower Triaxiality Higher


Fracture toughness

The lowest critical value of K


Plane strain fracture toughess (KIc)

Plane stress R-curve is steeper


than plane strain R-curve

Large in-plane dimensions to confine the K Ic K IIc K IIIc


plastic zone to the singularity
dominated zone. Usually, K Ic > K IIc , K IIIc
Limits to the validity of LEFM
(a + r ) (a + r )
yy = ; xx =
2ar + r 2
2ar + r 2

a KI
As r 0, yy = xx = =
2r 2r

a
2a Assuming singularity zone, rs = ,
50
2
1 K I
set ry=rs in p , ry =
6 ys
2 2
50 K I* K I*
= 2.65


a=
6 ys


ys


ASTM standard for KIc :
2 the limit of LEFM is:
K
*
a, B, (W a) 2.5 I K I* = 0.35 YS a

ys
ensure P Ensure nominal LE
behaviour
Applications
Pressure vessel :

Minimum Flaw size, given the max pressure

a=
y
K Ic
- geometry dependent
parameter


Importance of Location 4340 steel air frame
K Ic =50 MPa m , y =1680 MPa , F S =4

Through wall crack : 2 ac =


2 K Ic

2 ac =9 mm

Edge crack : ac=


1

K Ic
1.25
ac =3.6 mm

Edge crack is more critical !


Applications

Pressure vessel :
Edge crack :

Influence of Material 2

ac=
1

K Ic
1.25

4340 steel air frame


ac =3.6 mm
K Ic =50 MPa m , y =1680 MPa , F S =4

Lower grade steel


K Ic =60 MPa m , y =1200 MPa , F S =4 ac =10.2 mm

Selection of material is very important!


Applications

2c
Pressure vessel /
t
Pipelines : a

Part-through-wall
surface crack

Type A
Type B
Type B is more
2ac critical !
Type C

2cc


Leak-before-brake condition (Type A)
Introduction to EPFM

LEFM Valid when plasticity is confined to the near-tip.


In many materials, LEFM fails to apply.

EPFM Applies to matls that exhibit time independent non-linear


behaviour (ie., plastic deformation).

Elastic-Plastic crack-tip parameters:


- Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
- J-integral

CTOD & J describe crack-tip conditions Fracture criterions

Limitations of EPFM
Crack tip opening Displacement, CTOD ()

Wells (1961) expts :

Crack tip blunting increases with fracture toughness


Proposed CTOD as a measure of fracture toughness

Aprrox. Analyses for CTOD :


Wells (1961)

Based on Irwins plastic zone correction,


2
4 KI
=2u y = (for p)
ys E

In general,
Based on Strip yield model: 2
Burdeking & Stone (1966) KI G
= =
2 m ys E m ys
[ ]
2
KI 1
= 1
ys E 6 2 ys m ~1-2 (p p)
(for Griffith's problem)
CTOD definition

Rice, 1968

FE measurements

Laboratory measurement of CTOD (BS & ASTM):


Modified Hinge model (V, P)
Load

Vp

Mouth opening displacement

Rotates about a hinge point 2


Inaccurate, when is primarily elastic KI r p W a V p
= e p =

'

r : Plastic rotational factor 0.44
p m ys E r p W a a
J Contour Integral
Rice (JAM, 1968) Rices J-integral

J -- Path independent integral for nonlinear


elastic material

Rice applied Deformation theory of plasticity to


show J as a Nonlinear energy release rate

Uniaxial loading behaviour


Hutchinson (JMPS, 1968); in nonlinear elastic and
Rice & Rosengren (JMPS, 1968); elastic-plastic matls are identical.
J uniquely characterises crack tip field in For 3D, it is a good assumption
under monotonic loading.
nonlinear materials.
In 3D deformation theory of
J-integral Energy parameter and plasticity is eqvt to non-linear
elasticity.
Stress intensity parameter.
No unloading
J Path independent line integral


J = w dy T i

u i
x
ds
ij

w= ij d ij ; T i= ij n j
0
Assumptions :
Homogenious hyper-elastic matl
Rice showed that : Small strains
Time independent processes
Plane stress & disp fields
J is path-independent &
Crack face parallel to X
No body force
J = Energy release rate. Traction free crack surfaces
Nonlinear energy release rate
(Rice 1968)
d
J = = U W ext
dA
for unit thickness,
A=a


*
dU dU
J= = or
da P da

P
J=
0


a P
dP =
0
P
a
d
For a linear elastic matl :
2
KI
J = G and J= '
E
HRR Solution
J Stress intensity parameter ( Hutchinson; Rice & Rosengren, JMPS, 1968)

Deformation theory of plasticity n


Power law hardening (Ramberg-Osgood eqn)
Elastic strains are small
Stress x Strain varies as 1/r near the crack tip

=
0 0

0
1


ij= 0 2
EJ
0 I n r
n1
ij n , In Integration constant,
depends on n and p/p
n
0
ij=
EJ

E 02 I n r
n1
ij n ,
, -- Dimensionless fns of n and
depends on p/p

Known as HRR singularity (first term in an asymptotic soln)

Reduces to LEFM 1/ r singularity as n1 (linear elastic)


Varation of In with hardening
Shih et. al. 1981
Angular stress distribution

(Hutchinson, 1968)
HRR - significance
Importance of HRR soln:
LEFM
singularity
J-integral defines the amplitude HRR
of HRR singularity singularity

J-completely defines the conditions


within the plastic zone

Demonstrates much higher stresses Fracture


in plane strain than in plane stress Process zone

Limitations of HRR soln:

First term in asymptotic series & neglect elastic strain


Dominates only near the crack tip, well within the plastic zone

Neglects crack blunting invalid for very small r

Proportional loading Invalid in the fracture process zone

Small strains Invalid where finite strains are important


Effect of large strain

(McMeeking and parks, 1979)


Exptl. measurement of J
Multiple specimen test : (Landes and Begely, 1972)

Uses Energy release


rate definition of J

J =
1 U
B a

Needs multiple specimens

Curves depends on matl,


specimen geometry, temp. etc.
Single specimen test : (Rice et. al., 1973)

=nc c
For deep crack, nc << c

U = M d
0

M c
J =
0

c
a M
2
dM M d c
b 0

In general: Uc
J= is a dimensionless constant
Bb
J CTOD relationship
For LEFM : J =G=m YS
This applies beyond validity of LEFM.

Strip yield model using defn of J-integral

J = YS

Shih (1981) : using HRR soln

=d n J / o - dn is dimensionless constant

Unique relationship between J & CTOD

Fracture toughness can be quantified by a


critical value of J or CTOD
Varation of dn with hardening

=1

Strong dependence on n and


mild dependence on o/E

=1

For a non-hardening matl in


plane stress, dn=1.0
Agrees with strip yield model
Crack growth resistance curve

Tearing modulus: slope of the J-R curve, is


an indication of relative stability

E dJ R
T R= 2
0 da

Stable crack growth:

J=J R and T app T R


Load control is less stable than
displacement control
J for a growing crack

Virtual SERR defn of J is not valid for


a growing crack

Deformation J : U D=U D P , a

J D=
1 U D
B a

Far-field J : from numerical analyses

for modearate crack growth Jf and JD are approx. equal.

The issue of J-validity is questionable


J controlled fracture

If R << D

J completely characterizes the


R
crack tip conditions

J( , a) = Jc boundary of D
process zone

Unique relationship between J and CTOD outer boundary of


J-dominant
region

Questionable when there is excessive plasticity or


significant crack growth

Fracture toughness and J-CTOD relationship depend


on the size and geometry of the structure or specimen
Extent of crack tip characterization
K-dominated zone
Stationary crack:
K - dominance
ij
0
K 2I
=F ij 2 ,
0r
: 0r r s

K or J chracterizes J dominated zone


the crack tip field
J - dominance
ij

'
E J
=F ij 2
, : 0r r J
0 0r

J or CTOD uniquely No single parameter


charactersizes the characterization

crack tip field

Single parameter fracture


mechanics fails
Large strain region
J-controlled crack growth

Crack growth introduces


elastic unloading
non-proprtional loading

Voilates J-integral theory

When crack growth is contained in the J-dominated zone,


R-curve is uniquely characterised by J
Crack growth under SSY

J
ij

'
1 E J
=F ij 2 ,
0 0r

ij

'
E J a
=F 3ij , ,
0 20 r i

ij
0
=F 3ij
E' J
2
0r
,
Stage 2 : Rising R-curve, under SSY

J R =J R a
J-R curve is a material property
Crack-tip Constraint under Large-scale Plasticity

Under SSY K, J or CTOD characterises


the crack-tip field : Single Parameter FM

With excessive plasticity SPFM breaks down


Fracture toughness depends on the size
and geometry of the test specimen

McClintock(1971)
Plane strain,
Non-hardening matl
Slip-line analyses

Geometry effects are less severe in


strain hardening matls, particularly
in bend specimens, so that SPFM
is approx. valid
Effect of specimen & loading

Critical CTOD values for cleavage


Fracture for a low alloy steel (Anderson 1988)

Effect of crack depth and


specimen thickness on
cleavage fracture
Effect of a/W on J-R curves
Towers and Garwood, 1986

Effect of specimen geometry for


initiation of ductile tearing
Joyce and Link, 1993

a = 1 mm

Effect of specimen geometry


on tearing modulus
Towers and Garwood, 1986
Current Reseach Topics
Two-Parameter
Fracture Mechanics
Elastic T-stress

K, J along with T-stress as the second parameter Hancock & coworkers, 1990

Elastic T-tress : Second term in Williams crack tip field.


Non-singular stress, parallel to the crack plane.

ij=
KI
2r [ T 0 0
f ij 0 0 0
0 0 T ]
Fracture toughness strongly increases with negative T

T-stress strongly affects shape and size of crack tip plastic zone
KI
ij= f ij T 1i 1j
2r

Effect of T-stress on opening stress

Kirk et al. 1991


T- stress depends on geometry

T=
P

f
B aW W
a
, where =
T a
KI
is the biaxiality parameter
J Q Theory (ODowd and Shih, 1991)

ij= ij HRR ij Diff or ij= ij T=0 ij Diff

yy Diff xx Diff >> xy Diff for



2

ij= ij T=0 Q 0 ij for



2

yy yy T=0 r 0
Q at =0 and =2
0 J
Q & T are related under SSY

Evolution of Q
depends on crack depth
J-Q theory

J c =J c Q

Shih et al., 1993

Application of
J-Q toughness locus
Micro-mechanics of Fracture
Fracture mechanisms in metals

2
1

1. Ductile fracture

2. Cleavage fracture

3. Intergranular fracture

3 4. Fatigue
Ductile fracture

Microvoids nucleate at inclusions


and second phase particles; the voids
grow together to form a macroscopic
flaw, which leads to fracture.

Stages in ductile fracture:

Void nucleation: Formation of a free surface at an inclusion or second


phase particle by either interface decohesion or
particle cracking.
Void growth: Growth of the void around the particle, by means of
plastic strain and hydrostatic stress.
Void coalescence: Coalescence of the growing void with adjacent voids.
Schematics of various stages in ductile fracture:

1 Inclusions in a
ductile matrix
2 Void nucleation 3 Void growth

4 Strain localisation
between voids
5 Necking between voids 6 Void coalescence
and fracture
Void Growth and Coalescence

Once voids form, further plastic strain and hydrostatic stress cause the
voids to grow and eventually coalesce.

SEM fractograph of steel ductile fracture surface


Cleavage Fracture
-- Rapid propagation of a crack along a
particular crystallographic plane

-- Brittle, but can be preceded by large scale


plastic deformation and ductile crack growth

-- Preferred cleavage planes are those with


the lowest packing density

-- Fracture path is transgranular in Cleavage in A508 steel


polycrystalline materials

-- Propagating crack changes direction


in each grains. Nominal cleavage orientation
is perpendicular to the max principal stress

-- Cleavage is likely when plastic flow is


restricted. FCC metals usually no cleavge.
At low temp. BCC metals fail by cleavage.
Multifaceted surface and river
HCP metals also susceptible to cleavage.
pattern is typical in cleavage
Dynamic Fracture Mechanics
Dynamic Fracture

Fracture phenomena in which the role of


material inertia and strain rate sensitivity
becomes important.

Impact loading of stationary cracks.

Rapidly propagating cracks.


Rapid loading of a a stationary crack
Inertia effects are important for
short time response
Load
Long time response is essentially quasi-static

EDFM theory well established :

KIt
ij t = f ij
2r
Time dependent Same quasi.static fns Time
Independent of time

Fracture initiation :
D
K I t =K Ic Dynamic fracture toughness
Rate sensitivity effect on Fracture toughness

Barsom, 1975 Dynamic fracture toughness depends on


Loading rate and
Failure mechanism

Joyce & Hacket, 1984


Decrease in cleavage fracture HY80 steel
(stress controlled) toughness
at high strain rates

Ductile fracture (strain controlled)


toughness is gets enhanced
Impact loading loading
H(t)

(Chen et al., 1974) a

p
H(t)

t
!!! Maximum K d 2.5 K stat !!!
Schematic illustration of explosive damage in Pan Am
Aircraft from the Lockerbie tragedy:

Fracture occurs not only at primary blast site (region A)


but also at other regions (loaded by traveling stress waves).
Dynamic J-integral

Energy release rate the energy flux into the


crack tip devided by the crack speed

F
J=
V

[
J =lim 0 W T dy ij n j

ui
x
ds ]
ij
1 ui ui
t
where, W = ij d ij = ij ij dt ; T=
0 0
2 t t

Dynamic J is path dependent


Computational
Fracture Mechanics
Fracture specimens

P(t) = t +
t2

a / W = 0.2, 0.5 & 0.7

Schematic of (a) SEN(T) specimen and (b) TPB specimen


Finite element model of a typical
TPB specimen (a/W = 0.5) and
details of near-tip mesh.

P(t)

Crack tip
element size
5 10 m
E = 200 GPa
= 0.3
= 7,800 kg/m3
.
Kdc K variations

Sharp increase
in
. Kdc around
K = 106 MPa m1/2/s

Proposed dynamic
crack initiation
model is verified
.
Experimental data from
Owen et al., 1998

Numerical
Owen results
qualitatively
agree with
experimental
results.

.
Reeling
Pipe Geometry

D = 400 mm

D / t = 20 t = 20 mm

L = 1200 mm

a / t = 0.1 - 0.5
c / R = 0.04 - 0.3
a = 2 and 10 mm

2c = 25 - 378 mm
Finite Element Model

Crack

Loading
end
1/4th of the pipe model
Mid-
section 20 noded brick elements

30 40,000 d.o.f
Crack front radius :
0.025 mm Abaqus FE package

Large strain analysis

User MPCs for bending


Results : Expts & FEA
Tutorial-II

1. What is the effective stress intensity factor?


2
To account for plasticity correction : r y=
1 KI
2 ys (Plane stress)

a eff =ar y K eff = a eff a eff

2. Plot the effect of specimen thickness Plane


with fracture toughness ? Kc stress

Plane
KIc strain

t
Tutorial-II

3. What is the limit of LEFM?

Plastic zone size be small compared to a or B

Approx. = 0.35 ~ 0.5 y

4. Name two elastic-plastic crack tip parameters?

Crack Tip Opening Displacement

J-integral

5. Definition of CTOD?

Y-disp at the original crack tip

Y-disp at the 90o intercept


Tutorial-II

6. Name the variables in J =



w dyT
u
i x
i
ds
contour from bottom to crack face
W strain energy density
Ti - traction
Ui - displacement
1

7. HRR field
Name the variables?
What is the order of singularity?
ij= 0 2

EJ
0 I n r
n1
ij n ,

In Integrationconstant,
, n, o matl constants
depends on n and p/p

Singulaiity: O 1/(n+1) , -- Dimensionless fns of n and


depends on p/p
Tutorial-II

8. List the properties of J-integral?

A path independent contour integral

Energy release rate

Amplitude of HRR singularity

Crack tip parameter for EPFM

Ramberg-Osgood relationship

Deformation plasticity

Proportional loading

Small strain