STP1207 Eb.1415051 1 PDF

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Jan 28 18:45:46 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
(PDVSA Los Teques) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
STP 1207
Fracture Mechanics"
Twenty-Fourth Volume
John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Editors
ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN):

04-012070-30
AsTM
1916 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Printed in the U.S.A.
ISBN: 0-8031-1990-9
ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN): 04-012070-30
ISSN: 1040-3094
Copyright 9 1994 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, Philadelphia, PA. All
rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed,
mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of the
publisher.
Photocopy Rights
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of
specific clients, is granted by the AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS for users
registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that
the base fee of $2.50 per copy, plus $0.50 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr.,
Danvers, MA 01923; phone: (508) 750-8400; fax: (508) 750-4744. For those organizations that have
been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. The
fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is 0-8031-1990-9-94 $2.50 + .50.
Peer Review Policy
Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by three peer reviewers. The authors
addressed all of the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the
ASTM Committee on Publications.
The quality of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors and
the technical editor(s), but also the work of these peer reviewers. The ASTM Committee on
Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution to time and effort on
behalf of ASTM.
Printed in Ann Arbor, MI

December 1994
Foreword
The 24th National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics was presented at Gatlinburg, Ten-
nessee on 30 June-2 July 1992. ASTM Committee on E-8 on Fatigue and Fracture (formerly
E-24 on Fracture Mechanics) sponsored the symposium in cooperation with the University of
Tennessee and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. John D. Landes, University of Tennessee,
and Donald E. McCabe, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, served as chairmen of the symposium
and editors of the resulting publication. J. A. M. Boulet, University of Tennessee, also served
as an editor of the publication.
Contents
Overview 1
THIRD ANNUAL JERRY L. SWEDLOW MEMORIAL LECTURE
Reflections o n P r o g r e s s in F r a c t u r e M e c h a n i c s Research--PAUL c. PARIS 5
CONSTRAINT ISSUES
T w o - P a r a m e t e r F r a c t u r e Mechanics: T h e o r y a n d Applications---NOEL e. O'DOWD

AND C. FONG SHIH 21
T w o - P a r a m e t e r C r a c k - T i p Field Associated with Stable C r a c k G r o w t h in a T h i n

Plate: A n E x p e r i m e n t a l Study--MAHYAR S. DADKHAH AND
ALBERT S. KOBAYASHI 48
A n A p p r o x i m a t e T e c h n i q u e for P r e d i c t i n g Size Effects o n Cleavage F r a c t u r e

T o u g h n e s s (Je) Using the Elastic T StresS--MARK T. KIRK, ROBERT H. DODDS, JR.,
AND TED L. ANDERSON 62
A Void G r o w t h Model Relating F r a c t u r e Toughness a n d C o n s t r a i n t - -

TIMOTHY C. MILLER AND TED L. ANDERSON 87
C r a c k D e p t h Effects M e a s u r e d by D y n a m i c F r a c t u r e T o u g h n e s s Tests---
MARKKU NEVALAINEN, KIM WALLIN, AND RAUNO RINTAMAA 108
Discussion 130
I n t e r i m Results f r o m the H e a v y Section Steel Technology (HSST) S h a l l o w - C r a c k

F r a c t u r e T o u g h n e s s Program--TIMOTHY J. THEISS, DAVID K. M. SHUM, AND
STAN T. ROLFE 131
Discussion 151
Application of J-Q F r a c t u r e Methodology to the Analysis of Pressurized T h e r m a l

Shock in R e a c t o r P r e s s u r e Vessels---DAVID K. M. SHUM, TIMOTHY J. THEISS,
AND STAN T. ROLFE 152
DUCTILE TO BR1TrLE TRANSITION
Single-Specimen Test Analysis to D e t e r m i n e L o w e r - B o u n d Toughness in the

Transition--JOHN D. LANDES, UWE ZERBST, JURGENHEERENS,
BLAGOI PETROVSK], AND KARL-HEINZ SCHWALBE 171
A Theoretical F r a m e w o r k for Addressing F r a c t u r e in the Ductile-Brittle T r a n s i t i o n
Region--TED L. ANDERSON, DAVID STIENSTRA, AND ROBERT H. /)ODDS, JR. 186
A Perspective on T r a n s i t i o n T e m p e r a t u r e a n d Kjc D a t a C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o t r - -
DONALD E. MCCABE, J. G. MERKLE, AND R. K. NANSTAD 215
E v a l u a t i o n of Elastic-Plastic F r a c t u r e T o u c h n e s s Testing in the T r a n s i t i o n Region

T h r o u g h J a p a n e s e I n t e r l a b o r a t o r y Tests--TADAO IWADATEAND
TAKEO YOKOBORI 233
A Statistical Study o n the Effect of Local Brittle Zones (LBZs) o n the F r a c t u r e

Toughness ( C r a c k T i p O p e n i n g Displacement) of M u l t i p a s s W e l d e d
J o i n t s - - s u s u M u MACHIDA, HITOSHI YOSHINARI, AND YASUHIRO SUZUKI 264
C r a c k Tip O p e n i n g Displacement (CTOD) Testing M e t h o d for Heat-Affected Zone

(HAZ) T o u g h n e s s of Steel Welds with P a r t i c u l a r Reference to Local
Inhomogeneity--MASAO TOYODA 291
Results of M P C / J S P S C o o p e r a t i v e Testing P r o g r a m in the Brittle-to-Ductile

T r a n s i t i o n Region--WILLIAM A. VAN DER SLURS AND MARIE T. MIGLIN 308
Effect of S t r a i n Rate o n Small Specimen F r a c t u r e Toughness in the T r a n s i t i o n

Region--TADAO IWADATE, MIKIO KUSUHASHI, AND YASUHIKO TANAKA 325
Analysis of Results f r o m the M P C / J S P S R o u n d R o b i n Testing P r o g r a m in the

Ductile-to-Brittle T r a n s i t i o n Region--MARIE T. MIGUN, LILLIAN A. OBERJOHN,
AND WILLIAMA. VAN DER SLUYS 342
D e t e r m i n a t i o n of L o w e r - B o u n d F r a c t u r e T o u g h n e s s for Heavy-Section Ductile Cast

I r o n (DCI) a n d E s t i m a t i o n by Small S p e c i m e n Tests---TAKU ARAI,
TOSHIARI SAEGUSA, GENKI YAGAWA, NAMIO URABE, AND ROBERT E. NICKELL 355
A n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the S c a t t e r in Brittle-Ductile T r a n s i t i o n Region as a Statistical

E v e n t as a Result of the Two Different PopulationS~TAKEO YOKOBORI AND
MASAHIRO ICHIKAWA 369
Ductile-Brittle F r a c t u r e T r a n s i t i o n as a Result of I n c r e a s i n g I n - P l a n e C o n s t r a i n t in
a M e d i u m C a r b o n Steel---SHANG-XIAN WU, YIU-WINGMAI, AND
BRIANCOTTERELL 376
ELASTIC-PLASTIC FRACTURE
Resistance C u r v e Analysis of Surface Cracks----HUGO A. ERNST, P. J. RUSH, AND

DONALD E. MCCABE 389
S i m p l e r Jic Test a n d D a t a Analysis P r o c e d u r e s f o r H i g h - S t r e n g t h Steels---

J. H. UNDERWOOD, E. J. TROIANO, AND R. T. ABBOTT 410
A New Application of Normalization: Developing J-R Curves from Displacement
Versus Crack Length and from Displacement AIone---I<ANGLEE AND
JOHN D. LANDES 422
R-Curve, Energy Dissipation Rate, and Crack Opening Angle Models for Large
Amounts of Ductile Crack Growth in Bending----CEDRiCE. TURNER 447
Dislocation Emission and Dynamics Under the Stress Singularity at the Crack Tip
and Its Application to the Dynamic Loading Effect on Fracture
Toughness---A. TOSHIMITSU YOKOBORI, JR., TADAO IWADATE, AND
TAKESHI ISOGAI 464
H I G H TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
Crack Growth Under Small Scale and Transition Creep Conditions in Creep-
Ductile Materials---aSHOK SAXENA, KOICHI YAGI, AND MASAKI TABUCHI 481
Effects of Mean Load on Creep and Fatigue Crack Growth at Elevated

Temperature---KAi-YOUARNHOURANDJAMESF. STUBBINS 498
Evaluation of the Relationship Between C*, ~h, and ~h during Creep Crack
Growth--ASHOK SAXENA,B. DOGAN,AND KARL-HEINZSCHWALBE 510
K ANALYSIS
Crack-Face Interaction: Protrusion Interference in Brittle Materials---

J. A. M. BOULET 529
Elastic-Plastic Mode II Fracture in an Aluminum Beam--JENNIFERCORDESAND

RAHMI YAZICI 547
Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Surface Cracks in Flat Plates Subjected to
Nonuniform S t r e s s e s - - - I V A T U R Y S. RAJU, SAMBI R. METTU, AND V. SHIVAKUMAR 560
Weight Functions for Eccentric Cracks---XIAOGUANGCHENANDPEDROALBRECHT 581
APPLICATIONS
Fracture Criteria for Surface Cracks in Brittle Materials---WALTER G. REtrrEa,

JAMES C. NEWMAN, JR., BRUCE D. MACDONALD, AND STEVE R. POWELL 617
The Crack Tip Opening Displacement and J Integral Under Strain Control and
Fully Plastic Conditions Estimated by the Engineering Treatment Model for
Plane Stress Tension--KARL-HEINZSCHWALBE 636
Fracture Mode Evaluation of Flawed Piping Under Dynamic Loading--
ROBERTE. NICKELL AND DAVID F. QUIIZlONES 652
Fracture Capacity of High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) Vessel with Random
Crack Size and Toughness---SHIH-JUNG CHANG 672
FATIGUE
Simulation of Fatigue Crack G r o w t h of an Inclined Elliptically S h a p e d S u b s u r f a c e

Crack in Residual Stress Fields---K. MAYRHO~R, F. D. FISCHER, AND
E. PARTEDER 691
Surface Crack Growth in Inconel 718 During Large Unload-Reload Cycles---

R. CRAIG MCCLUNG AND STEPHEN J. HUDAK, JR. 706
Effects of Cyclic Loading on the Deformation and Elastic-Plastic Fracture Behavior

of a Cast Stainless Steel--JAMES A. JOYCE, EDWIN M. HACKETT, AND
CHARLES ROE 722
NONMETALLIC MATERIALS
T h e Application of a Ductile Fracture M e t h o d to P o l y m e r Materials---ZnEN ZHOU

AND JOHN D. LANDES 745
Methodology for Predicting Canopy Fracturing Patterns During Ejection--

ROCKY R. ARNOLD, PATRICK S. COLLINS, PETER S. AYOUB, AND R. TUNG 766
Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors for Interface Cracks Under Mixed-Mode

L o a d i n g - - R A J I V A. NAIK AND JOHN H. CREWS, JR. 778
I m p a c t Testing of AI203 and SiCw/AI203 Ceramics---LYLE R. DEOBALDAND

ALBERT S. KOBAYASHI 793
Index 803
STP1207-EB/Dec.1994
Overview
The 24th National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics was held 30 June to 2 July, 1992, in
Gatlinburg, Tennessee, on the doorstep of the Greater Smoky Mountains National Park. In
addition to the fine technical program and the evening social activities, the park bears gave
unusual entertainment to the symposium attendees with their apparent free access to the hotel
garbage facilities. The Symposium was sponsored by ASTM Committee E 24 (now E 08), with
support from the University of Tennessee and the Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The Symposium had an international flavor. Nine different countries were represented on
the technical program with nearly one third of the presentations coming from authors outside
of the United States. There was a very large participation from Japan; eight papers were pre-
sented by Japanese authors. This international participation added an important dimension to
the symposium allowing the attendees to gain insight on the fracture work that has been going
on around the world.
The book has been divided into nine topical sections; Jerry L. Swedlow Memorial Lecture,
Constraint Issues, Ductile to Brittle Transition, Elastic-Plastic Fracture, High Temperature
Effects, K Analysis, Applications, Fatigue, and Nonmetallic Materials. The Swedlow Memorial
Lecture, presented by Professor Paul C. Paris of Washington University, St. Louis, looked at
the impact that this symposium series has had on the progress in fracture mechanics research.
As originator of this important series, Professor Paris is uniquely qualified to judge its merit.
It is now more than a quarter of a century since the first symposium was held at Lehigh
University in June of 1967. The hundreds of authors from past symposia form a Who's Who
of fracture mechanics. Many of the important new advances in the subject were first published
in the STPs that resulted from these symposia. Some of these papers have been cited hundreds
of times in the literature.
The central themes of this symposium were constraint issues and nonlinear fracture mechan-
ics. These are covered in the next four sections. The number of papers dealing with the two-
parameter fracture mechanics approach to constraint and its impact on transition fracture tough-
ness show that it is currently the most active topic of study. Much of the work on transition
fracture toughness came from a round robin program sponsored by the Materials Properties
Council (MPC) and the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS). Dr. Martin Prager of
MPC assisted with the organization and review of these sessions. The sections on elastic-plastic
fracture and high-temperature effects mark a continuing interest in the nonlinear fracture
mechanics areas.
The topics on K analysis, applications, and fatigue come from a more traditional interest area
in fracture. The K analysis forms the very core of the fracture mechanics approach. Applications
are the ultimate goal of the fracture mechanics research. The renewed interest in fatigue at the
National Symposium is perhaps in anticipation of the cooperation between these two areas with
the recent merger of the ASTM Committees E 09 on fatigue and E 24 on fracture into E 08
on fracture and fatigue. Finally, the section on nonmetallic materials indicates that this area is
one for which much of the future work on fracture and fatigue will be directed. Interest in
1
Copyright9 by ASTM International www.astm.org
2 FRACTUREMECHANICS: TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
fracture of nonmetallic materials is broadly based including work on polymers, ceramics and
composite materials.
A high point in the symposium was the Awards Banquet at which the Irwin metal was
presented to Professor Ashok Saxena of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the ASTM
Award of Merit was presented to Professor James A. Joyce of the Naval Academy. These were
presented by Mike Hudson, then Chairman of ASTM Committee E 24. The members of the
organizing committee should be acknowledged. These include John Landes and Don McCabe,
Cochairmen, Toby Boulet, Rick Link, Janis Keeney, Karl-Heinz Schwalbe, Ed Wessel, Ashok
Saxena, Ted Anderson, and A1 Van Der Sluys. Finally, the staff of ASTM helped with the
conduct of the symposium and the development of this STP. These include Dorothy Savini,
Pat Barr, Kathy Dernoga, Lynn Hanson, Therese Pravitz and Kathleen Peters.
John D. Landes
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN; symposium cochairman and
coeditor.
Third Annual Jerry L. Swedlow Memorial
Lecture
P a u l C. P a r i s 1
Reflections on Progress in Fracture

Mechanics Research*
REFERENCE: Paris, P. C., "Reflections on Progress in Fracture Mechanics Research,"
Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E.
McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1994, pp. 5-17.
KEYWORDS: fracture mechanics, fracture mechanics research, historical background,
symposia
Professor Jerold L. Swedlow was an outstanding student, educator, and researcher in the
field of fracture mechanics, and he was a genuine friend to all. Indeed, his special assistance
to his colleagues in transmitting their work in the field, which included his enormous and
effective efforts in editorial work for the International Journal o f Fracture Mechanics and his
guidance as Chairman of the National Symposium Organizing Committee for many years,
leaves us with a great debt of gratitude to him. It is a distinct pleasure and honor to present the
"Third Annual Jerry L. Swedlow Memorial Lecture" as a tribute not only to "Jerry" but to
his special friends, such as the late Dr. John Srawley, and many others.
When Symposium Cochairmen Landes and McCabe suggested a theme for this discussion,
they clearly indicated an inclination toward "stories" from "the good old days," thut is, a
view of fracture mechanics history in the 1950s. This was agreed upon as background to the
main topic of discussing the history of the symposium itself and its contributions as a forum
for fracture mechanics research as documented by the series of Special Technical Publications
(STPs) books published by the ASTM. The picture is most complete with the sister symposia
on elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, and its STPs, included in the discussion, as well as the
retrospective volume, RPS-1, compiled by Dr. John Barson (last year's Swedlow Lecturer) for
ASTM. Moreover, the initial departure point of this series of ASTM STPs was really STP 381
(1965) resulting from a conference in 1964 in Chicago which chronicled the state of the art for
the then infant ASTM Committee on Fracture Testing E 24. This series of books is listed as
references (1 through 27) herein. Currently ASTM Committee E 24 has produced more than
twice this number of STPs (76 of the over 1000 now in print from ASTM), but in this author's
opinion, the 27 included here are restricted to those of the greatest relevance and relationship
to the National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics.
The progress in fracture mechanics research, as represented by these books [1-27], can be
viewed in terms of gross numbers. There are 852 separate research papers covering 16,708
pages of print. That sounds enormous, but actually it is about one average shelf of books (see
Fig. 1). These figures show bulk, but quality, that more illusive characteristic, is still to be
demonstrated here. However, first the historical background shall be developed.
* Third Annual Jerry L: Swedlow Memorial Lecture.

Professor of Mechanics, Washington University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Campus
Box 1185, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63130.
5
FIG. l--The Symposium related STPs.
History has a strong tendancy to be one man's personal recollection of important events and
is often presented by an elder in a fashion to make the youthful in awe of exciting past times.
With that warning, the following "history" is presented.
Recollections of a Graduate Student--the "Good Old Days"

Some time during the 1953-1954 academic year, Professor E. Orowan of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) presented a lecture at Lehigh University. As a part of that
discussion, an energy analysis of progressive crack propagation was discussed. It was presented
as a topic obviously needing further study (see the Introduction in RPS 1 [22]). During the
same year, a Symposium on Plasticity Theory convened at Brown University. At that sympo-
sium, Wendel P. Roop, a representative of the Ship Structure Committee spoke of the Navy's
ship fracture problems. Professor Roop indicated that progressive fracturing probably has some-
thing to do with structural stored energy fed into the process, and readily admitted he did not
understand any details. There was not a bit of further fracture discussion at that most elegant
Symposium on Plasticity with all the leading researchers there! The impression was left to
students of mechanics that the subject was not well understood. So-called "brittle fracture"
was left for metallurgical discussions of Charpy test transition temperatures and the like.
So, when this graduate student arrived at the Boeing Company in Seattle for a summer
position in 1955, it was a great shock to be assigned to study the British Comet airliner fracture
failures and to work on assuring that the Boeing 707 did not have such a problem. Lacking the
courage to request an alternate assignment, the approach was to read everything which seemed
vaguely related. After plowing through over 100 papers and so forth in a few weeks, the clear
impression began to emerge that no one really understood the problem with the single exception
that the papers of G. R. Irwin and coworkers did make some sense. One of the test engineers
at the Boeing Company, E. Zapel, responded to ideas based on Irwin's analyses by working
PARIS ON SWEDLOW MEMORIAL LECTURE 7
overtime to do some crude tests on candidate pressure cabin skin materials, 2024 and 7075
aluminum alloy. The thickness tested ranged from about 0.050 to about 0.200 in. (1.3 to 5 mm)
for each with interesting results. The Irwin (plastic) energy dissipation rate per unit new crack
area (or Gc) was about constant for a given thickness of a given material. 2024 clearly was
much tougher than 7075 (the British Comet had an alloy very similar to 7075). That was good
news since Boeing had already selected 2024 for the 707 pressure cabin by fatigue criteria (but
they also hoped to use 7075 in the KC-135 Air Force tanker version but with a much shorter
design life and less complicated windows). The othernews with those test results was that the
toughness (Go) varied with thickness. For the gages tested, 2024 had toughness increasing
slightly with thickness where, with 7075, it significantly decreased. There was then no expla-
nation of these trends. The Chief of Structural Research at Boeing, A. Sorenson, took these
results and presented them at the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences National Meeting in New
York in January of 1956. The presentation was well attended, but no one had an explanation
of the thickness effect.
Now for the benefit of the younger readers, it must be admitted that without discussion,
Sorenson had taken " m y data" and written a paper without acknowledgement, which was
perplexing. A few days before the presentation he did call and invited me to dinner after the
presentation. Then at dinner he asked if I would be willing to act as a consultant to Boeing 10
to 20 hours per week while continuing studies at Lehigh and spending summers at Boeing. The
perplexity disappeared instantly!
In the early spring of 1956, as a consultant to Boeing and a Lehigh student, a call to G. Irwin
elicited an invitation to visit him for most of a day, without an inkling that he was a busy
Superintendent of a Division of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). He supplied copies
of NRL reports, gladly discussed work in progress, and welcomed any questions or thoughts
on the subject. The discussion resolved many issues but raised just as many unanswered ques-
tions. This hospitality and endless willingness to discuss the issue has been Irwin's hallmark
over the 36 years to date. Mrs. Irwin once related that it was about this time that Dr. Irwin
made the conscious decision that "The Message" needed to be actively spread. About this
same time he gave the field its formal name, "fracture mechanics."
The unresolved issues at this point, 1956, were formidable. The Griffith-Irwin-Orowan
energy rate analysis, that is, the Gc approach, was not popular. It depended on the plastic
dissipation rate of work with crack growth to be constant with crack extension, but why should
it be constant for different crack sizes and crack configurations? What about the thickness
effects? Professor D. C. Drucker of Brown about this time was saying that an energy balance
for fracturing was a necessary condition but not sufficient conditions to form an analysis. E.
Orowan wrote a note saying the second derivation of energy was more important in ductile
failures. Kuhn of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Professor Sachs of
Syracuse, and Professor Neuber of Munich all held strongly that their own individual analysis
were more proper approaches. Indeed, it was certainly not clear that the "Fracture Mechanics"
approach of Irwin would prevail. The more the experts talked about it, the muddier the waters
became. In fact, at this same time, the Superintendent of the neighboring Metallurgy Division
of the NRL, W. Pellini, paid scant attention to Irwin's approach and promoted his own views.
So who was convinced that Irwin's approach would prevail?
Well, to a graduate student in applied mechanics, Irwin's approach was the only one that
was comprehensible, giving a context for some clear thinking on the subject. It was also sig-
nificant consolation the Dr. A. A. Wells of the British Welding Research Institute wrote a
perceptive discussion of the Comet aircraft failures (1955, see Ref 22) following Irwin's
approach and also began in late 1954 some extended visits to work within Irwin's division at
NRL. Dr. Wells wrote a report at NRL analyzing a wedge-force initiation from a notch in
uniformly stressed plates in which he without explanation added the energy rates for each
loading by "squaring the sum of the square roots," that is,
GtotaI = (G]/2 + G~/2)2
It took some weeks to see that this was correct and gave the impression Wells was a very clever
man and that his visits with Irwin were producing synergistic progress.
The ultimate example of this synergism developed to fruition in 1956. In 1954, D. Post,
working with Irwin at NRL, examined photo-elastic fringes near a crack tip and came upon a
paper by Westergaard [28], which could be used to assist in the analysis. With admitted assis:
tance from Wells, Irwin used Westergaard's methods to develop the elastic crack-tip stress
field equations that he first presented at the International Congress on Applied Mechanics in
Brussels in 1956, to be published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) in
1957 (see Ref 22). This paper immediately related the Griffith-Irwin energy rate, G, to the
intensity of the crack-tip stress field, K, and showed that the stress field always had the same
distribution.
Although Professor I. Sneddon of Glasgow had in 1946 [29] obtained the elastic stress
solution for an embedded circular (disk) crack and had expanded its crack tip stress field to
obtain the singular, 1/~rr, term, as well as determining the Griffith energy rate, he did not
recognize the generality or physical significance of his results. Also in 1957, M. L. Williams
published (see Ref 22) with ASME an alternate derivation and version of the crack-tip stress
field equations, but he omitted discussion of the key physical significance of the Griffith-Irwin
approach. At least for the novice, Irwin's 1957 paper contained significantly clearer applicable
results. Although Williams paper appeared first, March 1957 instead of June 1957 for Irwin's,
it is of some historical interest to note that Irwin's manuscript was the first of the two received
by ASME (see footnote on first page of each).
From the point of view of immediate usefulness, it was Irwin's 1957 paper that cleared the
muddy waters. Having identical crack-tip stress fields for different sizes of cracks and differing
load application methods explained why the plastic dissipation G.. of the Griffith-Irwin analysis
should be roughly constant. It also immediately became clear that the thickness effects were
due to lateral constraint, in particular the tendency toward plane stress or plane strain within
the crack-tip plasticity. Many burning issues on static fracture phenomena were rapidly
resolved. By 1958, when a U.S. Naval Symposium On Structural Mechanics [30] was held at
Stanford, the large audience and stirring response to Irwin's presentation demonstrated that his
"message" was being well received. Some real "progress" was being made in fracture
mechanics research.
Also, with the recognition of the generality of the crack-tip stress field equations, other vistas
expanded. In 1955, at the Boeing Company, the question was raised whether the Griffith-Irwin
energy analysis could be used to analyze fatigue crack growth. The initial reaction was negative
considering the fact that fatigue implied cyclic plasticity at a crack tip, which was seemingly
unrelatable to the static Griffith elastic energy rate. However, even before Irwin's 1957 paper
was formally in print, a memo was sent within the Boeing Company saying the crack-tip stress
field intensity parameter, K, should be able to correlate fatigue crack growth rates (see also the
discussion to Irwin's paper in Ref 30). Various internal difficulties at Boeing prevented suffi-
cient data being available until 1959 to demonstrate fatigue crack growth rate correlations, so
my own first paper on that subject did not appear until 1961 (see Ref 22). Moreover, in 1958,
Professor A. J. McEvily published a report at National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA) [31] correlating fatigue crack growth rates using a somewhat more obscure parameter
based on stress concentration theory, which is relatable to K, but it seems he has never been
given sufficient credit for that discovery within the fracture mechanics community. Note that
Professor G. Sinclair and his student D. Martin [32] at the University of Illinois attempted
before 1958 to use G as a correlating parameter but without real success. Therefore, it was
Irwin's 1957 paper that was the key to direct progress on fatigue crack growth.
Consequently, by the late 1950s there existed a great deal of interest in Irwin's "fracture
mechanics." The studies of others began to relate closely to his on topics of application,
analysis, and reinforcement of the theory. Prime examples of such efforts are the late 1950s
work of Wundt of General Electric, Bueckner of General Electric, McClintock of MIT, and
Sanders (for example, see RPS 1 [22]). If one wished to follow the latest developments, biannual
visits with Irwin with occasional visits with others were completely sufficient, as compared to
today with hundreds of centers of activity just in the United States.
In the summer of 1957 at the Boeing Company, Bill Gray, as technical advisor within the
headquarters offices, requested weekly briefings and educational discussions, which he and W.
E. Anderson attended, to assure that they developed a full familiarity with the field. By late
1959, the head engineering people of the Transport Division of Boeing had requested that
formal courses be taught internally with at least one person from each structural and materials
unit attending. Dr. Irwin was enticed to visit and teach one of the classes to the first group,
while surely similar intensive interest was occurring within other organizations in both industry
and government.
This intensification of interest caused the need for better communication between the expand-
ing group of leading researchers to accelerate the progress in fracture mechanics. The formation
of the ASTM Special Committee to resolve the Polaris Missle engine case fracture problem at
the time was exactly the stimulus needed. That group, in performing its primary task, was
periodically bringing together most of the leading researchers in the country, and it was quickly
recognized in the group that it was advantageous to keep everyone up to date on the latest
progress in the area. Not only did the meetings discuss the primary business related to Polaris,
but extra time was scheduled for people to present their other research in progress.
The formal committee opened its doors to other individuals who could contribute and benefit
from the research in progress sessions. For example, Dr. Irwin contacted Wessel of Westing-
house at a national American Society for Metals (ASM) meeting in 1960 and recognizing his
interest and potential contribution brought him into the group. The group grew to 20 then 30
and perhaps 40 people attending these meetings. Sometimes the meetings were held at NASA
headquarters in Washington. Frequently, Dr. Irwin would invite the whole group to his home
in the evening (surely without his wife's knowledge of the number who would arrive), and the
technical discussions would last far into the night. Perhaps that was the real birth of our national
symposium, since my dictionary [33] gives a definition of symposium as "(among the ancients)
a convivial meeting, usually following dinner, for drinking, conversation and intellectual enter-
tainment." Indeed, "convivial" was a perfect description of that group.
It was about this time that Jerry Swedlow first came upon the fracture mechanics scene. Dr.
Irwin 2 recalls that in late 1959 or 1960, Jerry visited Irwin at NRL to inquire for his employer,
Hercules Powder, about the potential use of fracture mechanics in analyzing explosive frac-
turing of rock. As a result of that visit, Jerry was referred to Professor J. Lubahn of the Colorado
School of Mines. Perhaps these events were key to Jerry later going to Cal Tech for his
doctorate.
It was also in 1960 that this student decided to return to Lehigh to finish doctoral work. W.
E. Anderson at that time convinced his superiors at Boeing to allow me to take a modest amount
of research funding along to begin some effort there. That enticed two younger Assistant
Professors, F. Erdogan and G. Sih, to become involved in fracture mechanics, which in my
opinion triggered some significant research progress. The first known university courses in
fracture mechanics started then, with early attendees like J. R, Rice, J. D. Landes, J. A. Begley,
2 G. R. Irwin, private communication.
R. W. Hertzberg, and more (too numerous to continue), names well known to all in the field
now. It is not an unbiased view that this contributed to fracture mechanics progress, but at least
it is undeniable as leading toward the first national symposia.
The early 1960s initiated a great expansion in fracture mechanics activity with many centers
of activity developing throughout the country, instead of perhaps 5 places in the 1950s, it rapidly
became at least 50 centers by the mid to late 1960s, as compared to hundreds now. The end of
the "good old days" was rapidly approaching with this acceleration in progress.
The expansion of activity was such that by 1962 at least a one-day-long research meeting,
after a ASTM Special Committee meeting the day before, was held at NRL in which the topic
was restricted to only a subtopic within fracture mechanics. It was about this time that ASTM
headquarters recognized that its special committee had quite successfully discharged its original
special task yet wished to go on and did so with headquarters blessings.
However, fracture mechanics was only popular within a relatively small circle of engineers
and researchers. An inquiry to a leading textbook publisher at that time brought back a response
that "fracture mechanics was never going to amount to any wide interest." In many quarters,
there was active opposition to fracture mechanics from competing approaches. Many of the
leading metallurgy/materials scientists often openly stated the view that if fracture mechanics
could not be directly related to dislocation theory, it was certainly doomed. Others asked "do
you believe in fracture mechanics?" as if it were a blind faith.
Approaching the middle 1960s, ASTM headquarters communicated to the Special Committee
that it wished it to become a regular E committee and to get on with the task of developing
testing standards. At least one other E committee had some members opposed to a new fracture
mechanics oriented committee. Their ultimate argument was that "fracture is just the final
cycle in a fatigue test," implying a new committee was unnecessary. Happily, ASTM Com-
mittee E 24 was formed, and the initial peaceful coexistence between committees quickly led
to active cooperation, and after 25 + years, an appropriate merger is taking place. In the mean-
time, allowing fracture mechanics to have its own forum obviously permitted more rapid prog-
ress in both groups!
Just before, but during the process of forming the ASTM E 24 Committee from the Special
Committee, it was decided to hold a Symposium on Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Appli-
cations at the ASTM National Meeting in Chicago in June of 1964. With the cooperation of
Professor J. Low of Carnegie-Mellon, who ably chaired the Special Committee as well as the
new ASTM E 24 Committee, the Symposium Chairman W. F. Brown, Jr. of NASA elicited
NASA support. Dr. Brown intensely sought to present fully the state of the art at that time and
put together a quite comprehensive program. His frequent phone calls to committed authors
made it clear he wanted the best that each could produce! The results are recorded in the
landmark volume, A S T M STP 381 [1], which recorded much of the progress through the early
1960s. Well before 1970, it had become ASTM's all time best-selling book. It represented a
departure point for the ASTM E 24 Committee to begin its efforts as a regular ASTM com-
mittee. It was a definitive statement of progress up to that time.
There was, of course, other key early 1960s work not mentioned here, for example, the initial
application of fracture mechanics to subcritical environmental cracking by Professor H. H.
Johnson of Cornell [34], with apologies to the many others whose fine work is also omitted
here. However, one other special development occurred that greatly assisted progress in fracture
mechanics research. It was the development of the first reliable servocontrolled electrohydraulic
test equipment by Research Inc., now known as MTS Systems Corporation. It had just the right
capabilities to assist in the testing requirements of fracture mechanics, but it required a new
level of electronic control knowledge of many of us. At least throughout the eastern United
States, Mr. H. R. Hartmann was our frequent mentor on how to do the type of testing required.
In 1964 at the suggestion of W. F. Payne of the U.S. Air Force, we initiated two-week
summer short courses on Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics at the University of Denver

with the sponsorship of Universal Technology Corp. of Dayton, Ohio. At that time, almost no
university courses existed. These courses were held annually throughout the remainder of the
1960s, and in later additional one-week courses special advanced topics were discussed. The
courses not only served to initiate many into this field but also served as a place in which
instructors, who were established people such as Irwin, Srawley, Wessel, and so on, met for
extended periods each year and exchanged research ideas. Also, many relatively unitiated in
the field who attended have gone on to devote their careers to the field, for example, John
Barsom, Don McCabe, Howard Wood of the U.S. Air Force, and so on. These courses assisted
progress in the field and later spread into courses at many places.
With the advent of the new ASTM E 24 Committee came the responsibility to develop
standard testing specifications. The group by the end of 1965 quickly shifted to the objective
of first developing a standard for plane strain fracture toughness testing, resulting in the ASTM
Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399). Between reg-
ular committee week meeting s smaller, more intensive, task group meetings were held that
were most often led by Brown and Srawley adhering to the topic of the plane strain standard.
Moreover, the ASTM E 24 Committee grew enormously over the original Special Committee
group, and one could no longer keep up with all of the research going on by simply attending
a one-day meeting a couple of times each year. Were the "good old days" over?
The National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics

The ASTM E 24 Committee established a Task Group on Research with John Srawley as
the initial Chairman, a function he served well until called upon to become Chairman of the
main committee. The meetings provided a research forum, but they did not draw the latest
work in the field by some of the leading researchers. It certainly did not produce the intensity
of the 1964 meeting in Chicago resulting in STP 381 [1].
Consequently, at the National ASTM meeting in Atlantic City in June of 19661 asked Irwin,
an attendee, if we would run a research symposium on fracture mechanics at Lehigh University,
would he support the idea and lend his name as cosponsor? He seemed enthusiastic, which was
crucial to beginning the planning for the first National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics at
Lehigh i n June of 1967. NRL and ONR lent their names as cosponsors. The published pro-
ceedings initiated the Journal of Engineering Fracture Mechanics [35]. So began the National
Symposium with repeat performances in June of 1968 and 1969.
By 1970, for the fourth symposium, it appeared that a new location would be advantageous,
so the chairmanship was entrusted to E. T. Wessel, who with assistance from Jerry Swedlow,
held the meetings at Carnegie-Mellon University.
It was during that fourth symposium in Pittsburgh, after initial discussions with Srawley as
the representative of the ASTM E 24 Committee administration, that a meeting of about five
of us was held suggesting that the symposium become an ASTM Committee E 24 sponsored
event. We adopted a written set of ground rules most of which are now lost and forgotten, but
adequately followed in spirit. They included:
1. The National Symposium would remain a research symposium with some emphasis on
only advanced applications.
2. The symposium was to be most often held in an academic environment with occasional
meetings held at ASTM headquarters if facilities permitted.
3. The selected chairman along with the permanent organizing committee would select the
papers for presentation.
12 FRACTUREMECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
4. Papers accepted for presentation were to be judged on their full manuscripts except for
special invited lectures.
5. ASTM agreed to publish the papers in the STP format subject to ASTM review
requirements.
6. The symposium was to have its own special ASTM account with. a perpetual carryover of
surplus funds entrusted to the next chairman (the first three symposia generated a small
surplus and the fourth was also anticipated to do so at that time.)
7, All costs except for the STP publication were to be borne by the symposium funds.
8. The current chairman would be allowed to set the registration fee (with the approval only
of the permanent organizing committee) and was encouraged to solicit outside funds as
he felt appropriate.
9. Others of lesser importance.
For the large part, at least the spirit of these rules was followed to ensure that the symposium
remain a real research forum. Its longevity is one measure of its success.
Along with accepting the rules, the group invited Professor H. Corten to hold the fifth
symposium at the University of Illinois in 1971 and tentatively set the sixth for ASTM head-
quarters in 1972 which eventually occurred. Sometime in the mid 1970s, Jerry Swedlow became
the Chairman of the Permanent Organizing Committee.
The symposia occurred annually until 1977, a year in which the less frequently held Inter-
national Congress of Fracture occurred with Canada as host country. It was thought tactful to
skip a year with the national symposium; Jerry Swedlow was involved with both organizing
committees. However, the fast pace of progress in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
research led to the organization of a special ASTM symposium on that subject at the Atlanta
meeting in November 1977 with Landes, Begley, and Clarke as Chairmen. It was an outstanding
meeting, as shall be proven later herein. It led to the second and third such special EPFM
symposia in 1981 and 1986, as well as a closely related (and STP documented) conference/
workshop on EPFM testing which occurred at the Spring 1982 ASTM E 24 Committee meetingl
Meanwhile, the National Symposium itself has occurred annually since the interruption in 1977,
except for a similar interruption in 1989.
A summary of all of these related symposia, including their location, dates, and hosts (Chair-
men) are given in Table 1, as well as the ASTM STP numbers for the proceedings of each.
Measurement of Progress in Fracture Mechanics

The National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics series was originally motivated and con-
tinues to be a forum for progress in the field. However, "progress" is a nice sounding word
meaning different things to different people. The series has been self-perpetuating and self-
sustaining financially for 25 years, and it has produced STPs whose sales assist ASTM, so it
is surely a "success" (at the least a long succession). However, "progress in research" here
shall be viewed as the development of good ideas and approaches technically which lead to
further discovery and developments. The immediate reaction of those who know the Content
of the National Symposium series is positive of course, this series has been outstanding in this
regard, but how can we measure it and demonstrate the progress?
In recent years, there has been considerable concern about the perpetuation of research and
its funding that has not often enough produced results of future usefulness. See, for example,
N e w s w e e k [36] of January 1991 and Science of December 1990 and January 1991 for reaction
in both layman and scientific sources. These articles sensationalize the negative aspects of this
concern by considering the large number of research papers published which seem to be of no
further worth. Their shocking conclusion is that substantially more than 50% have no worth!
TABLE 1--ASTM E-24 National symposia and related symposia.
Resulting
ASTM
Symposium Location Time Hosts-Chairman STP
Special Chicago/ASTM June 1964 W.F. Brown, Jr. 381

Nat. Symp. I Lehigh Univ. June 1967 P. Pads and G. Irwin ...
N.S. II Lehigh Univ. June 1968 P. Pads and G. Irwin ...
N.S. III Lehigh Univ. June 1969 P. Pads and G. Irwin ...
N.S. IV Carnegie-Mellon 1970 E. Wessel and J. Swedlow ...
N.S. V U. of Illinois Aug. 1971 H. Corten 513, 514
N.S. VI ASTM Hdqrtrs. Aug. 1972 G. Kaufman 536
N.S. VII U. Maryland Aug. 1973 G. Irwin 559, 560
N.S. VIII Brown Univ. Aug. 1974 J. Rice and P. Paris 590
N.S. IX U. Pittsburgh Aug. 1975 J. Swedlow and M. Williams 601
N.S. X ASTM Hdqrtrs. Aug. 1976 J. Barsom 631
E.P.F.M.-I Atlanta/ASTM Nov. 1977 J. Landes, J. Begley, and G. 668
Clarke
N.S. XI V.P.I. June 1978 C.W. Smith 677, 678
N.S. XII Washington Univ. May 1979 P. Paris 700
N.S. XIII ASTM Hdqrtrs. June 1980 R. Roberts 743
N.S. XIV U.C.L.A. June 1981 J. Lewis and G. Sines 791 I and II
EPFM-II ASTM Hdqrtrs. Oct. 1981 C. Shih and J. Gudas 803 I and II
N.S. XV U. Maryland July 1982 R. Sanford 833
EPFM Special Spring E-24 Spring 1983 J. Newman and F. Loss 896
N.S. XVI Battelle/Columbus, OH Aug. 1983 M. Kanninen and A. Hopper 868
N.S. XVII Albany, NY Aug. 1984 J. Underwood et al. 905
N.S. XVIII Boulder, CO June 1985 R.P. Reed 945
N.S. XIX S.W.R.I./San Antonio, June 1986 T. Cruse 969
TX
E.P.F.M. Ili Knoxville, TN Oct. 1986 J. Landes, J. Merkle, A. 995 I and II
Saxena and J. Bassani
N.S. XX Lehigh Univ. June 1987 R. Wei and R. Gangloff 1020
N.S. XXI Annapolis, MD June 1988 J. Gudas, J. Joyce, and E. 1074
Hackett
N.S. XXII Georgia Tech. U. June 1990 H. Ernst 1131
N.S..XXIII Texas A&M June 1991 R. Chona 1189
N.S. XXIV Gatlinburg, TN June 1992 J. Landes and D. McCabe 1207
N.S. XXV Lehigh Univ. June 1993 F. Erdogan 1220
These articles are subject to the criticism that they look at " t h e hole not the donut" with their
negative view. They use as their measure of usefulness " c i t a t i o n s " of papers, that is, whether
a paper has been " c i t e d " as a reference in a future paper. Their criteria of no worth is no
citations within five years of publication.
The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is, like A S T M , an organization located in Phil-
adelphia, which since before 1965 has compiled " c i t a t i o n s " of scientific research papers [39].
They currently compile the cited references of the papers in over 5000 scientific journals.
However, disappointingly ISI compiles the reference citations in books such as A S T M STPs
in a separate less well-known index, the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (IST).
(The confusion caused by using two separate indexes and resulting disregard of these most
significant works has been pointed out to them.) H o w unfair! You all know that recent papers
in our STPs frequently reference key earlier work in the E 24 symposium proceeding series.
To begin remedying ISI's slight, a search through the references to all 852 papers was made.
14 FRACTURE MECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
TABLE 2--Data on symposia proceedings/subsequent internal citations.
Average
Subsequent Citations
Publication InternM Per Maximum Citationsfor
Year STP Pages Papers Citations Paper a Paper(AuthoO
1965 381 409 13 82 6.31 40

1972 513, 514 498 27 254 9.41 {1}a 87, 49 (Begley, Landes)
1973 536 491 28 138 4.93 {2} 76 (Rice)
1974 559, 560 566 34 125 3.68 {4} 45 (Landes)
1976 590 495 28 172 6.14 {6} 42 (Clarke)
1976 601 579 31 63 2.03 16
1977 631 519 30 58 1.93 12
1979 668 771 33 332 10.1 {3} 63 (Hutchinson)
1979 677, 678 1012 61 81 1.33 13
1980 700 577 30 148 4.93 21
1981 743 649 34 91 2.68 {5} 43 (Ernst)
1983 7911&II 1250 63 69 1.10 8
1983 803 I&II 1578 74 106 1.43 {7} 18 (Ernst)
1984 833 758 37 33 0.89 4

1985 868 674 36 24 0.67 5
1985 896 178 5 8 1.60 2
1986 905 833 44 32 0.73 5
1987 945 1117 62 15 0.24 2
1988 969 939 47 (4) . . . . . .
1989 995 I&II 1112 53 (9) . . . . . .
1989 1020 701 34 (1) . . . . . .
1990 1074 618 31 (0) . . . . . .
1987 RPS 1 384 17 56 3.14 6
Totals 16 708 852
a { 1} through {7} indicate papers leading in subsequent citations within the series in terms of total
citations, respectively.
Table 2 shows some of the data developed for each symposium. Some have two STPs or
two volumes under one STP number. RPS-1, the retrospective volume compiled by Barsom,
is also included for prospective. In addition to the bulk quantities, the numbers of pages and
papers in each, the number of subsequent "citations," and references in later papers within
this symposium series show the relevance of earlier work to future progress. This resulted in
the column labeled "subsequent internal citations." Of course, the numbers dwindle with the
years, since later volumes have less subsequent time in which to be cited. Indeed, the columns
from the fourth National Symposium, STP 513 and 514 from 1972 and the first Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Mechanics Symposium, STP 668 from 1979 have quite astounding records. The papers
in these symposia received 254 and 332 later citations, an average of about 10 per paper just
within this series (without counting in I S I ' s base of 5000 plus other journals). For comparison,
a column was added to Table 2 indicating the average number of citations per paper within the
volumes. It is observed that symposia with about 30 papers do the best over the period 1965
through 1983. (A dashed line has been added to the table after 1983, since subsequent volumes
may not have had enough time to accumulate a significant number of citations.)
A final column in Table 2 gives the maximum number of internal subsequent citations in
this series received by an individual paper at that symposium. Some of these papers seem to
be landmark papers receiving sometimes more citations than other whole books. An outstanding
TABLE 3--The sequence of highly cited papers.
ISI
Internal Series Citations
Publication Citations 1986-
Year STP (Author) 1990 Topic
1972 513, 514 {1} 87 + 49 = 136 126 the J integral as

(Begley, Landes) fracture
parameter
1973 536 {2} 76 (Rice) 101 proportionality of J
to work in
bending
1974 559, 560 {4} 45 (Landes) 38 Jt~ test procedure
and the J-R curve
1976 590 {6} 42 (Clarke) 22 single specimen Jic
and R-curve
testing
1979 668 {3} 63 (Hutchinson) 60 limitations on use of
J-R curve for
crack stability
1981 743 {5} 43 (Ernst) 18 determining J from
single test records
1983 803 I&II {7} 18 (Ernst) 23 crack stability
beyond J-
controlled growth
example is a pair of back-to-back papers in STP 513-514 from 1972 by Begley and Landes,
alternating first authorship. Considering the pair to be a single work leads to a citation total of
87 plus 49 or 136 total citations within the series, that is more than half the citations for that
symposium. The next symposium in S T P 536 from 1973 contains a paper by J. R. Rice that
has by itself 76 citations within the series. Those contributions are annotated { 1 } and {2},
respectively, in Table 2 along with other similarly meritorious papers, {3 } to {7 } in the order
of total citations. The first author's last name is added in parentheses in Table 2.
Those landmark papers, ignoring some others of possible equal quality with apologies to
their authors, will help to demonstrate the point of this discussion. Table 3 shows some further
information on those special papers, labeled { 1 } to {7 } in Table 3. As noted (chronologically)
in Table 3, those papers { 1 } to {7} are a series on a single subtopic, that is, monotonic slow
loading elastic-plastic fracture analysis: distinct steps in the progress of elastic-plastic fracture
mechanics research. Of course, many other papers within this series also made significant
contributions. Finally, to add perspective to the observed internal citations, for these seven
papers their total ISI external citations [39] are noted just for the period 1986 through 1990.
The obvious similarities in the two citation rate columns in Table 3 reinforce the numbers as
a measure of interest and progress. Again with apologies to other authors, it was quite impos-
sible to tabulate all of the ISI data for the 852 papers in this ASTM series.
The building of the research progress in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics within this series
has been clarified. Other subtopics such as subcritical crack growth, dynamic fracture tough-
ness, time-dependent (slow) effects, and so on have also been documented and developed in
this series (sometimes also in other ASTM STPs as well). Perhaps including here the elastic-
plastic fracture symposia created an unfair bias toward other subtopics. Nevertheless, the ulti-
mate objective is accomplished of showing that the research within this ASTM symposium
series is extremely relevant and progressive step by step in developing advanced understanding.
16 FRACTURE MECHANICS: TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
Some Comments about the Authors Contributing to These Symposia

Over the 25 years of these ASTM fracture mechanics symposia, more than 500 individual
first authors contributed and most often presented their papers at the meetings. In the "good
old days," if you knew what less than 20 people were doing, your knowledge was compre-
hensive. Of the 500 authors, many authored or coauthored other papers in the series. Indeed,
there are 55 who authored or coauthored 5 papers or more in the series. The group narrows
quickly to 25 authors with 8 or more papers.
Looking over that list of the 25 most prolific authors, it is surprising to find 2 from England
(both with 10 or more) who regularly contribute. At least 7 were or are associated with Lehigh
University, and 6 all simultaneously worked at one time within E. T. Wessel's group at West-
inghouse Research, including both of your Cochairman at this sypoisium. It is further observed
that Table 3 had a distinctive Westinghouse, Harvard, and Lehigh flavor with most names
associated with two of these organizations. Not far behind is the U.S. Navy with 4 of these
prolific authors. Of course the regularity of this group adds greatly to the continuity of the
series, and they are to be especially lauded for their extended contributions.
With a closing bit of levity, the unofficial champion author of this symposium series is John
Landes. He wins both on quantity, see Table 3, and on quality, 31 papers, but only if the 10
papers he has contributed in the symposia proceedings of 1990 through 1992 are counted. In
this context, John Landes is recognized as truly "outstanding in his field."
Finally, this discussion has attempted to draw your attention to the value of this ASTM
symposium series and its proceedings. Certainly, Jerry Swedlow and John Srawley, among
others, who would be with us if they could, would be equally concerned with quality and
progress in fracture mechanics research at these meetings and beyond.
Acknowledgments
A modest fund was set aside by Washington University to enable the computerization of
information on the contents of the books [1-27] resulting from this symposium series. That
task was entirely performed by undergraduate assistants, J. Kistler and T. Wilson, whose
lengthy and timely efforts are gratefully acknowledged. The typing of the manuscript, and
essential reminders to produce it, are the key contributions of my wife Tina, with our thanks.
Finally, Dency Kahn of the Washington University Libraries provided key information on the
Science Citation Index searches.
References
[1] Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Applications, ASTM STP 381, 1955.
[2] Stress Analysis and Growth of Cracks, Proc. of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics
(NSFM)--Part I, ASTM STP 513, 1972.
[3] Fracture Toughness, Proc. of 1971 NSFM~Part II, ASTMSTP 514, 1972.
[4] Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, Proc. of 1972 NSFM, ASTM STP 536,
1973.
[5] Fracture Toughness and Stow Stable Cracking, Proc. of 1973 NSFM--Part I, ASTM STP 559, 1974.
[6] Fracture Analysis, Proc. of 1973 NSFM--Part II, ASTM STP 560, 1974.
[7] Mechanics of Crack Growth, Proc. of the 8th (1974) NSFM, ASTM STP 590, 1976.
[8] Cracks and Fracture, Proc. of 9th (1975) NSFM, ASTM STP 601, 1976.
[9] Flaw Growth and Fracture, Proc. of 10th (1976) NSFM, ASTM STP 631, 1977.
[10] Elastic-Plastic Fracture, Proc. of the Elasto-Plastic Fracture Symposium (1977), ASTM STP 668, J.
Landes, J. Begley, and G. Clarke, Eds., 1979.
[11] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 1lth (1978) NSFM--Part I, ASTM STP 677, C. W. Smith, Ed., 1979.
[12] Fracture Mechanics Applied to Brittle Materials, Proc. of 1lth (1978) NSFM--Part II, ASTM STP
678, S. W. Friedman, Ed., 1979.
[13] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 12th (1979) NSFM, ASTM STP 700, 1980.
[14] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 13th (1980) NSFM, ASTM STP 743, R. Roberts, Ed., 1981.
[15] Fracture Mechanics Theory and Analysis, Proc. of 14th (1981) NSFM, ASTM STP 791, Vol. I, J.
Lewis and G. Sines, Eds., 1983.
[16] Fracture Mechanics Testing and Applications, Proc. of 14th (1981) NSFM, A STM STP 791, Vol. II,
J. Lewis and G. Sines, Eds., 1983.
[17] Elastic-Plastic Fracture, Proc. of 2nd (1981) EPFM Symp., Vols. I and II, ASTM STP 803, F. Shih
and J. Gudas, Eds., 1983.
[18] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 15th (1982) NSFM, ASTM STP 833, R. Sanford, Ed., 1984.
[19] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 16th (1983) NSFM, ASTM STP 868, M. Kanninen and A. Hopper,
Eds., 1985.
[20] Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology, Workshop on EPFM Technology (1983), ASTM
STP 896, J. Newman and F. Loss, Eds., 1985.
[21] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. 17th (1984) NSFM, ASTM STP 905, Underwood, Chait, Smith, Wilhem,
Andrews and Newman; Eds., 1986.
[22] Fracture Mechanics Retrospective, Early Classic Papers, ASTM RPS 1, J. Barsom, Ed., 1987.
[23] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. 18th (1985) NSFM, ASTM STP 945, D. Reed and R. Reed, Eds., 1988.
[24] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 19th (1986) NSFM, ASTM STP 969, T. Cruise, Ed., 1988.
[25] Non-Linear Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 3rd (1986) Syrup. on EPFM--Vols. I and II, ASTM STP
995, Landes, Saxena, Bassani and Merkle, Eds., 1988.
[26] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. of 20th (1987) NSFM, ASTM STP 1020, R. Wei and R. Gangloff, Eds.,
1989.
[27] Fracture Mechanics, Proc. 21st (1988) NSFM, ASTM STP 1074, J. Gudas, J. Joyce and E. Hackett,
Eds., 1990.
[28] Westergaard, H. M., "Bearing Pressures and Cracks," Transactions of the A.S.M.E., Vol. 61, 1939,
pp. A49-53.
[29] Sneddon, I, "The Distribution of Stress in the Neighborhood of a Crack in an Elastic Solid," Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol. A-187, 1946.
[30] Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Symposium on Structural Mechanics, Pergamon Press, New York,
1960.
[31] McEvily, A. J., Jr. and Illg, W., "The Rate of Fatigue Crack Propagation in two Aluminum Alloys,"
NACA TN 4394, Sept. 1958.
[32] Martin, D. E. and Sinclair, G. M., "Crack Propagation Under Repeated Loading," in Proceedings
of the Third U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics, June 1958, pp. 595-604.
[33] The American College Dictionary, Random House, New York, 1967.
[34] Johnson, H. H. and Willmer, A. M., in Applied Materials Research, Vol. 4, 1965, p. 34.
[35] Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1968.
[36] Begley, S., "Gridlock in the Labs," Newsweek, 14 Jan. 1991, p. 44.
[37] Hamilton, D., "Publishing by and for the Numbers," Science, 7 Dec. 1990, pp. 1331-1332.
[38] Hamilton, D., "Research Papers: Who's Uncited Now," Science, 4 Jan. 1991, p. 25.
[39] The Science Citations Index, The Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, published annually
(for data herein) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990.
Constraint Issues
Noel P. O ' D o w d 1 and C. Fong Shih 2
Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics" Theory

and Applications
REFERENCE: O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., "Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics: The-
ory and Applications," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John
D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 21-47.
ABSTRACT: A family of self-similar fields provides the two parameters required to characterize
the full range of high- and low-triaxiality crack tip states. The two parameters, J and Q, have
distinct roles: J sets the size scale of the process zone over which large stresses and strains
develop, whereas Q scales the near-tip stress distribution relative to a high-triaxiality reference
stress state. An immediate consequence of the theory is this: it is the toughness values over a
range of crack-tip constraint that fully characterize the material's fracture resistance. It is shown
that Q provides a common scale for interpreting cleavage fracture and ductile tearing data, thus
allowing both failure modes to be incorporated in a single toughness locus.
The evolution of Q, as plasticity progresses from small-scale yielding to fully yielded condi-
tions, has been quantified for several crack geometries and for a wide range of material strain
hardening properties. An indicator of the robustness of the J-Q fields is introduced; Q as a field
parameter and as a pointwise measure of stress level is discussed.
KEYWORDS: constraint, stress triaxiality, elastic-plastic fracture, fracture toughness, crack

initiation, cleavage, ductile tearing, J integral, finite element method
A two-parameter fracture theory can be motivated by considering the progression of plastic

states as loading on a cracked body is increased. At low loads, the near-tip stresses and defor-
mations evolve according to a self-similar field, scaled by Rice's J integral [1]. This field,
characterized by a high level of stress triaxiality, also describes the evolution of the near-tip
stresses and deformations in certain crack geometries as plastic flow progresses from well-
contained yielding to large-scale yielding. Although this high-triaxiality field is one of many
possible states that can exist under fully yielded conditions, it is the only field that has received
careful study until recently. When the high-triaxiality field [2-5] prevails over distances com-
parable to several crack-tip openings, J alone sets the near-tip stress level and the size scale of
the zone of high stresses and deformations. Considerable efforts have been directed at estab-
lishing, for different crack geometries, the remote deformation levels that ensure that the near-
tip behavior is uniquely measured by J [6,7]. The end result is a framework, based on J and
the high-triaxiality crack-tip field, for correlating crack growth over a range of plane strain
yielding conditions (see review articles by Hutchinson [8], Parks [9]) and for relating critical
values of the macroscopic parameter J~c to fracture mechanisms operative on the microscale
(see review article by Ritchie and Thompson [10]).
Arguments that a single parameter might not suffice to characterize the near-tip states of
fully yielded crack geometries have been raised by McClintock [I1]. He noted that nonhard-
1 Lecturer in mechanical engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Sci-

ence, Technology & Medicine, London SW7 2BX, United Kingdom.
2 P~ofessor of engineering, Division of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.
21
ening plane strain crack-tip fields of fully yielded bodies are not unique but exhibit levels of
stress triaxiality that depend on crack geometry. Although high stress triaxiality is maintained
in geometries involving predominantly bending over the uncracked ligament, the level of crack-
tip stress triaxiality in geometries dominated by tensile loads generally decreases as yielding
progresses into the fully plastic state (see Refs 6 and 7). Indeed, experimentally measured J-
resistance curves for center-cracked panels exhibit significantly higher slopes than those for
compact specimens [12].
Undoubtedly, there is merit to the point of view advocated by McClintock [11], and it is the
purpose of this paper to show that this viewpoint can be properly reconciled by a two-parameter
J-Q theory proposed by O'Dowd and Shih [13,14] and Shih et al. [15,16]. They showed,
through full-field finite element calculations, that the J-Q fields dominate over physically sig-
nificant size scales, that is, they represent the environment in which the ductile and brittle
failure mechanisms are operative. An approach based on higher-order asymptotics has been
suggested by Li and Wang [17] and pursued by Sharma and Aravas [18] and Chao et al. [19].
Extending the analysis in Refs 17 and 18, Xia et al. [20] have obtained up to five terms in the
asymptotic series and showed that the collective behavior of the series is consistent with the
J-Q field.
An alternative two-parameter approach based on J and the elastic T stress has been advocated
by Beteg6n and Hancock [21], A1-Ani and Hancock [22], Du and Hancock [23], Parks [24],
Hancock et al. [25], and Wang [26,27]. Under circumstances where it is applicable, the J-T
theory can be shown to be equivalent to the J-Q theory. This is discussed in the section on
small-scale yielding. The toughness scaling approach of Dodds et al. [28] can also be shown
to be consistent with the J-Q theory (see Kirk et al. [29]). Cleavage toughness data interpreted
by J-Q theory are presented in Refs 29 and 30.
The J-Q Theory

Consider a cracked body of characteristic dimension L loaded remotely by a stress denoted
be ~=. The scale of crack-tip deformation is measured by J/% where ~o is the material's tensile
yield stress. It can be shown from dimensional grounds that, when L >>JhYo, all near-tip fields
are members of a single family of crack-tip fields. Each member field is characterized by its
level of deformation as measured by J/~o and its level of crack-tip stress triaxiality, as measured
by Q, which also identifies that field as a particular member of the family. For example, the
self-similar solution of Rice and Johnson [4] and McMeeking [5] or the Hutchinson, Rice, and
Rosengren (HRR) field (Refs 2 and 3) can be taken as the Q = 0 member field. In short, the
Q family of fields provides the proper characterizing parameters for the full range of near-tip
fracture states.
The weak coupling between deformation and stress triaxiality in a plastically deforming
material provides another argument in favor of a two-parameter description of near-tip states.
Because plastic flow is incompressible, the superposition of a purely hydrostatic stress state
induces only an elastic volume change. Consider a plastically deforming material element in
the forward sector of a crack as depicted in Fig. 1. We can superpose a hydrostatic stress Q~o
with little or no effect on the deformation state. It follows that near-tip deformation and stress
triaxiality cannot be scaled by a single parameter such as J. A second parameter is required to
quantify the level of crack-tip stress triaxiality. Clearly this argument does not apply to the
back sector because traction-free conditions must be satisfied on the crack faces. However, this
is of no physical consequence because the fracture processes occur in the forward sector, which
is therefore the region of interest.
A size scale must enter into the fracture description. In this paper, we focus on fields ahead
of the crack that are relevant on the scale of the crack opening displacement ~,, or J/%, rep-
resenting the environment in which the failure mechanisms are operative.
O'DOWD AND SHIH ON TWO-PARAMETER FRACTURE MECHANICS 23
Back Sector Forward Sector

Qa'o
/•0 0
x
FIG. 1--Schematic illustrating the necessity for a hydrostatic stress parameter and a deformation
parameter to characterize the full range of near-tip states in the forward sector.
Q Family o f Fields M B L Formulation

It proves convenient to construct the Q family of fields using a modified boundary layer
(MBL) formulation in which the remote tractions are given by the first two terms of the small-
displacement-gradient linear elastic solution [31],
~,i ~ ~ (0) + TS,Fr u (1)
Here 8,~ is the Kronecker delta; r and 0 are polar coordinates centered at the crack tip with 0
= 0 corresponding to a line ahead of the crack as shown in the insert to Fig. 2.
Fields of different crack-tip stress triaxialities can be induced by applying different levels of
T/~ro. From dimensional considerations, these fields can be organized into a family of crack-tip
fields of the form:
.= ,oo) (2)
where J is Rice's J integral [1]. That is, the load parameter T/tro provides a convenient means
to investigate and parameterize specimen geometry effects on near-tip stress triaxiality under
conditions of well-contained yielding. Indeed, such studies have been carded out by Beteg6n
and Hancock [21], Bilby et al. [32], and Harlin and Willis [33]. Nevertheless, the result in Eq
2 cannot have general applicability under large-scale yielding because the elastic solution (Eq
1) upon which the T-stress is defined is an asymptotic condition that is increasingly violated
as plastic flow progresses beyond well-contained yielding.
Recognizing the above limitation, O'Dowd and Shih [13,14], henceforth referred to as OS,
identified members of the plane strain family of fields by the parameter Q, which arises naturally
in the plasticity analysis. OS write:
trlj=tr~j ,0;Q,%= eoga ,0;Q,ui=--hi ,0;Q (3)

O"o
(a) \ Y r
5.0 ~X
4.0
n=?n=~ [
2.0 .... l,..--,,. ' .... ' . . . .
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

r/O/Oo)
6.0
(b)
5.0 /""'"'",,,,,, n=3
0 ; .
4.0 "'"'-.. 5
3.0 ......]
-/
2.0 s_/., .... , .... , .... , ....
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
r / ( J / ~ 0)
FIG. 2--Plane strain reference fields for n = 3, 5, 10, 20, and oo (E/d o = 500, v = 0.3). Hoop
stress reference fields." (a) small strain (b)finite strain.
The additional dependence o f f j , glj, and hi on dimensionless combinations of material param-

eters is understood. The form in Eq 3 constitutes a one-parameter family of self-similar solu-
tions, or, in short, a Q family of solutions. The annular zone over which Eq 3 accurately
quantifies the actual field is called the J-Q annulus. Representative distributions of the Q family
of fields are presented in Fig. 4 of Ref 13 and Fig. 1 of Ref 14.
Difference Field and Near-Tip Stress Triaxiality

Using the modified boundary layer formulation, and considering a piecewise power law
hardening material, OS generated the full range of small-scale yielding plane strain solutions,
6.0
(c)
4.0
0
3.0
E
b
2.0
1,0
o.o ~.o zo 3.0 4.0 5.0
r/(J/a 0)
/'"",,
6.0
(d)
4.0 n= 3
0
3.0
b
2.0
//"/,."- " n=o,
K / / , .... , .... , .... ,

1.0 . . . .
o.o ~.o 2.0 3.0 ~.o s.o

r/(J/,ro)
FIG. 2 (cont.)--Mean stress reference fields: (c) small strain (d)finite strain.
designated by (~ij)ssv. OS considered the difference field defined by
(O'ij)diff = ([~ij)SSY -- ([fij)HRR (4)
where (O'Ij)HRRis the HRR field. They systematically investigated the difference field within the
forward sector, [01 < 7r/2, of the annulus J/tr o < r < 5J/%, because this zone encompasses the
microstmcturally significant length scales for both brittle and ductile fracture (see Ref 10).
Remarkably, the difference field in the forward sector displayed minimal dependence on r.
Noting this behavior, OS expressed the difference field within the forward sector as
(O'ij)diff = Qtrod',j(O) (5)
where the angular functions 6ij are normalized by requiring 6"0o(0 = 0) to equal unity. More-
over, the angular functions within the foward sector exhibit these features: ~rr ~ (~00 ~ constant
and lot01 < Ioool (see Figs. 3, 4 , a n d 5 in Ref 13).
Thus the difference field within the sector, 101 < and J/tr o < r < 5J/~o, correspond
effectively to a spatially uniform hydrostatic stress state of adjustable magnitude (i.e., ((rlj)d~fr
= Q(ro~j). Therefore, Q defined by
O-co - - (O'0o)HRR
Q - at 0 = 0, r = 2Jlcro (6)
(3"o
is a natural measure of near-tip stress triaxiality, or crack-tip constraint, relative to a high-

triaxiality reference stress state. In words, Q is the difference between the actual hoop stress
and the corresponding HRR stress component, the difference being normalized by (to. For
definiteness OS have evaluated Q at r = 2J/Cro; however, OS point out that Q is effectively
independent of distance. The distance chosen for the definition of Q lies just outside the finite
strain blunting zone so that Q from a small and finite strain analysis should be nearly the same.
OS also considered the difference field whereby the standard plane strain small-scale yielding
solution (crlj)SSV;T=o, which is driven by K alone, serves as the reference solution, that is,
(O'ij)dif f = (O'ij)SSY -- (O'/j)SSY;T_ O (7)
In this case, the difference field in the forward sector matches a spatially uniform hydrostatic
stress state even more closely. Thus, an alternative definition of Q is
Q ~- croo - (troo)ssv;T=o
at 0 = 0, r = 2J/~ro (8)
(3"o
A definition of Q consistent with its interpretation as a triaxiality parameter is
O"m - - (O'm)SSY;T= O
Q,, ~ at 0 = 0, r = 2J/(r o (9)
(3"o
where tr,, is the hydrostatic stress. OS have calculated Q based on the hoop stress (Eq 8) and
the mean stress (Eq 9) for the full range of T stresses and several finite width geometries. OS
have found that the difference between Q and Qm is always less than 0.1. Although the values
of Q presented in this paper are calculated from the hoop stress by way of Eq 8, it is clear from
the above that these Q values can be used to" calculate the corresponding hydrostatic stress
levels.
Difference Field and Higher-Order Terms of the Asymptotic Series

The connection between the difference field and higher-order terms of the asymptotic series
can be understood in the context of the MBL formulation. Here the stress field obeys the
functional form
which also should apply to finite-width crack geometries as long as the characteristic crack
dimension L is sufficiently large compared to J/{ro. Now, if one assumes a product dependence
on the first argument in Eq 10 and works within deformation plasticity theory and an elastic
power-law hardening material, then one obtains a series in r/(J/tro):
/__\.<.+i) second order t e r m + h i g h e r order terms
(~0 = ~o / ~ ) 6"0(0;. n) + ~" .r J (11)
Difference Field
where
% = a reference strain,
r = a material constant (for a piecewise power-law material r = 1), and
In = an integration constant.
By definition, the asymptotic series beyond the first term is equivalent to the difference field
because (see previous section)
[~ij = (O'/j)HRR + D i f f e r e n c e Field (12)
The HRR field and the second-order term provides only a two-term approximation to the
solution for the MBL problem, and this point appears not always to be understood.
The higher-order asymptotic analysis of Refs 17 and 18 has been extended by Xia et al. [20].
They have obtained a five-term expansion for the series in Eq 11 for n = 3 and four-term
expansions for n = 5, 7, and 10. Furthermore, they have successfully matched the four-term
series to the radial and angular variations of the difference field given in Figs. 3 and 5 in Ref
13 for an n = 10 material. Indeed, in the forward sector 101 < the collective behavior of
the second-, third-, and fourth-order terms is effectively equivalent to a spatially uniform hydro-
static stress state. This observation together with the discussion of the previous section supports
the following approximate form for the near-tip fields:
a o = (tr~)HRR + Q % 80, 101 -< ~r/2 (13)
Furthermore, note that an admissible range of stress states for an elastic-perfectly plastic
material can be written as
O'lj = (O'ij)Prandtl + Q%aij, 101 --< ax/4 (14)

Difference Field
where (~rij)pr~nd,~designated the Prandtl slip-line solution and again the difference field corre-
sponds simply to a uniform hydrostatic stress state scaled by Q (see Refs 14 and 23).
Variation of Q with Distance

Because Q scales the difference field relative to a reference stress state, it provides a sensitive
measure of the evolution of near-tip stress triaxiality in finite width cracked bodies. It also can
be used to detect changes in the stress triaxiality that deviates from the pattern that develops
under MBL loadings. For this purpose, we consider Q(i:) defined by
Q(?) = cro0(~) - [troo(?)]ssY:T=O,at 0 = 0 (15)

O"o
where ? ~- r/(J/ffo). Note that (a0o)ssY;T=Ois chosen as the reference field.

The m e a n gradient o f Q over 1 < J: < 5,
Q, = Qff= 5)- QO:= 1)

(16)
can b e used to monitor changes in the spatial pattern of the stress triaxiality ahead of the crack
that do not c o n f o r m to a spatially uniform hydrostatic stress field. In other words, Q ' provides
a measure of the robustness o f the J-Q fields for the application of interest. If [Q'I
< 0.1, then
the difference field is effectively constant over 1 < ? < 5. If IQ'I is m u c h larger than 0.1, then
the variation of the difference field over the interval 1 < ? < 5 can be comparable to cro. In
the latter case, Q provides only a pointwise measure of the stress l e v e l - - a t the distance
2 J h r o - - a h e a d o f the crack tip.
Reference Field Distributions

Table 1 provides the reference field distributions for a broad range of n values. For com-
pleteness, we h a v e included the hoop stress distributions according to the H R R singularity and
the small-scale yielding solutions for small strain a n d finite strain (piecewise power-law hard-
ening material; E/tr o = 500, v = 0.3). Figure 2 presents the hoop stress and m e a n stress
reference fields established by the M B L formulation with T = 0. T h e original studies of OS
were based on a finite strain formulation to ensure a full description of the near-tip states. Our
subsequent studies have s h o w n that small and finite strain analyses provide essentially identical
TABLE 1--Reference stress distributions, o-oo/o-o,from HRR field

and small and finite strain boundary layer solutions.
Small Finite
r/(J/tro) HRR Strain Strain
n = 3 1 5.99 5.46 5.95

2 5.04 4.53 4.72
3 4.55 .4.06 4.19
4 4.24 3.76 3.85
5 4.01 3.53 3.61
n = 5 1 4.77 4.42 4.83
2 4.25 3.90 4.06
3 3.97 3.63 3.73
4 3.79 3.44 3.52
5 3.65 3.29 3.36
n = 10 1 3.83 3.57 3.79
2 3.59 3.35 3.52
3 3.46 3.22 3.33
4 3.38 3.12 3.20
5 3.31 3.03 3.11
n = 20 1 3.37 3.21 3.06
2 3.26 3.09 3.22
3 3.20 3.01 3.10
4 3.15 2.95 3.02
5 3.12 2.89 2.96
n = co 1 ... 2.83 2.49
2 ... 2.80 2.97
3 ... 2.77 2.91
4 ... 2.74 2.86
5 ... 2.71 2.82
Q results over the region of interest 1 < ? < 5. This can also be seen by comparing the finite
strain and small strain distributions in Fig. 2.
Two reference fields have been proposed, (~00)HRR and (Cr0O)SSV;T=o. Our numerical investi-
gations of different crack geometries show that, when the small-scale yielding solution is chosen
as the reference state, the difference fields correspond more closely to a uniform hydrostatic
stress state over a greater range of plastic deformation. However, the choice of reference dis-
tribution used in the definition of Q remains a matter of convenience. We emphasize that once
a choise is made, it must be applied consistently throughout the analysis. We recommend that
Eq 8 be used as the standard definition for Q with the small strain solution as the reference
field. Having a standard definition facilitates the comparison of solutions obtained by different
investigators and the tabulation of a handbook of Q solutions.
Although we have limited our discussion to a piecewise power-law hardening material, the
J-Q theory is independent of the form of the material's constitutive relation. For example,
(cr00)ssv;T=0 can be evaluated for an actual stress-strain relation. Of course, for consistency, the
analyses in the fracture application should also use the same stress-strain relation.
Engineering Applications of the J-Q Theory

For engineering applications, two forms of the near-tip plastic states are proposed:
% = (%)H.. + Q~o~ij (17)
and
or0 = (%)ssY; r-o + QcroS,j (18)
where Q in Eqs 17 and 18 are defined by Eqs 6 and 8, respectively.

The values of the hoop stress of the HRR field for 1 < F < 5 is given in Table 1. The other
stress components can be found in Symington et al. [34]. The hoop and mean stress distributions
of the small-scale yielding field with T = 0 are given in Table 1 and Fig. 2. More details are
found in Refs 13 and 14.
The physical interpretation of Eqs 17 and 18 is this: negative (positive) Q values mean that
the hydrostatic stress ahead of the crack is reduced (increased) by Qo"o from the J-dominant
stress state, or the standard small-scale yielding stress state. This interpretation is precise when
IO'l < 1.
As stated previously, we recommend the use of Eq 18 in the J-Q fracture methodology.
However, the explicit representation in Eq 17 can facilitate approximate analyses leading to
predictions of constraint effects on toughness as outlined in the section on a cleavage toughness
locus. The Q values presented in this paper are based on the definition in Eq 8.
Small-Scale Yielding
Q-T Relation
Within the modified boundary layer formulation, a strict one-to-one correspondence exists
between Q and T (see Refs 13 and 14). For a piecewise power-law hardening material, the
relationship takes the form
Q = F(TRro; n) (19)
with an additional weak dependence on E/(r o and v, where E is Young's modulus and v is
Poisson's ratio. Curves of Q versus T/(ro for n = 3, 5, 10, 20, and oo are displayed in Fig. 3.
These Q values, based on the definition in Eq 8, were determined by small strain analyses,
using El(ro = 500 and v = 0.3; essentially identical results were obtained from finite strain
analyses. It can be seen that Q increases monotonically with T/go. Also note that crack-tip stress
triaxiality can be significantly lower than the reference state (the Q = 0 state) but cannot be
elevated much above it. The values Q and Q ' are given in Table 2 retaining only two places
beyond the decimal point. Note that the largest value of Q ' is less than 0.04. Thus Q is effec-
tively constant over the distance 1 < ? < 5 for all MBL loadings. The behavior of Q ' for
finite width geometries is discussed later.
The curves in Fig. 3 can be closely approximated by
Q = a] + a2 + a3 (20)
The values of a ], a 2, and a3, obtained by least squares fitting, are listed in Table 3 for several
n values. We have explored several other values of E/(r o and v and found that the effect on the
value of Q is negligible. The relations of Beteg6n and Hancock [21] and Wang [26], correlating
T with near-tip hoop stress, also can be rearranged into the form of Eq 20.
To facilitate the use of Eq 20 in the analysis of finite width geometries we have provided
normalized values of the stress intensity factor K, F(atW), and the T stress, hr(alW) and E(a/
W), for a number of crack specimens in Table 4. These are taken from Sham 3 [35] and Leevers
and Radon [36]. The tabulated values allow us to calculate Q in these geometries under con-
tained yielding.
J-T and J-Q A p p r o a c h e s

Two approaches to specifying families of Mode I plane strain elastic-plastic crack-tip fields
have been proposed. The first approach, suggested by Hancock et al. [25], uses the elastic T
3 T. L. Sham, private communication, manuscript in preparation.
0.5
0.0
-0.5
q
/..:'/ ~ n=3
-1.0
:......)/ ......... n = 1 0
.................. n = 2 0
-1.5 ~ / __.__ n=oo
/
-2.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
T/oo
FIG. 3--Variation of Q with T/o'ofor n = 3, 5, 10, 20 and ~.
TABLE 2--Values of Q and Q 'for several values ofT/o" o.
Tfiro - 1.0 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0.0 0.5 1.0
n = 3, Q -0.78 -0.57 -0.37 -0.16 0.0 0.27 0.41

Q' -0.02 -0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.01 -0.04
n = 5, Q -0.98 -0.74 -0.46 -0.20 0.0 0.27 0.36
Q' -0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.02
n = 10, Q -1.23 -0.92 -0.54 -0.23 0.0 0.21 0.24
Q' -0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n = 20, Q -1.48 -1.06 -0.55 -0.19 0.0 0.17 0.20
Q' -0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n = ~, Q -1.84 -1.17 -0.60 -0.21 0.0 0.12 0.12
Q' 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
stress associated with the second term of Williams' expansion (Eq 1) to correlate the elastic-
plastic crack-tip fields of varying stress triaxiality. The essence of their proposal is t h i s - - t h e
near-tip stress triaxiality Q can be estimated by T using Eq 20 for loadings up to fully yielded
conditions. OS propose to quantify near-tip constraint using the J-Q theory, which has a strong
theoretical basis as discussed earlier.
Within the M B L formulation a description of near-tip states by J and Q is equivalent to that
phrased in terms of K and T because Q and T are related by Eq 19 and J and K are related
through
1 -- 112
J - ~ K~ (21)
under plane strain conditions. However, the equivalence of the two approaches does not hold
under fully yielded conditions. The J-Q fields can exist over the entire range of plastic yielding
and do not depend on the existence of the elastic field (Eq 1). By contrast, T is undefined under
fully yielded conditions. Furthermore, our numerical investigations, to be presented in the
section on finite width geometries, show that the J-T approach overestimates the actual stress
triaxiality for some geometries and underestimates it in other cases so that there is not a con-
sistent trend. Stated in another way, a T-stress fracture methodology could be conservative for
some geometries and nonconservative in others--this suggests that such an approach may be
impractical.
TABLE 3--Polynomial expression for Q in terms of T-stress.
Q = as + a2 + a3
n a~ a2 a3
3 0.6438 -0.1864 -0.0448

5 0.7639 -0.3219 -0.0906
10 0.7594 -0.5221 0.0
20 0.7438 -0.6673 0.1078
0.6567 -0.8820 0.3275
T A B L E 4--Values of K, T and X for CCP, DECP, and TPBB.
F(a/W) = K/~r=
~W CCP a DECP" TPBB b
0.05 1.001 1.122 1.020

0.10 1.006 1.121 1.023
0.20 1.025 1.118 1.027
0.30 1.058 1.120 1,094
0.40 1.109 1.132 1.229
0.50 1.186 1.163 1.465
0.60 1.303 1.226 1,879
0.70 1.488 1.343 2.688
0.80 1.816 1.568 4.627
0.90 2.581 2.117 12.358
h~(a/W) ~ T/cr ~
0.05 - 1.001 -0,526 -0.438
0.10 - 1.006 -0.526 -0.369
0.20 - 1.028 -0.529 -0.239
0.30 - 1.071 -0.536 -0.099
0.40 - 1.142 - 0.548 0,075
0.50 - 1.257 - 0.558 0.318
0.60 - 1.450 -0.568 0.712
0.70 - 1.807 -0.580 1,487
0.80 -2.559 -0.590 3.636
0.90 -4.889 -0.599 15.167
~,(a/W) = T X / ~ / K
0.05 - 1.000 -0.469 -0.430
0.10 - 1.000 -0.469 -0.361
0.20 - 1.004 -0.473 -0.233
0.30 - 1.012 -0.479 -0.090
0.40 - 1.029 -0.484 0.061
0.50 - 1.059 - 0.480 0.217
0,60 - 1.113 -0.463 0.379
0.70 - 1.214 -0.432 0,553
0,80 - 1.409 -0.376 0,786
0.90 - 1.894 - 0.283 1.227
From footnote 3.
b From R e f 35.
Evolution of Q in Finite Width Geometries

Q - s o l u t i o n s h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d b y finite e l e m e n t c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h e c r a c k g e o m e t r i e s s h o w n
in Fig. 4. T h e s o l u t i o n s r e p o r t e d h e r e w e r e o b t a i n e d b y a n a l y s e s b a s e d o n a s m a l l strain J2
flow theory. A typical mesh for the finite-width crack geometry has about 1000 four-node
i s o p a r a m e t r i c e l e m e n t s . R e a d e r s are r e f e r r e d to R e f s 13 a n d 14 f o r details o n finite e l e m e n t
m e s h e s , p l a s t i c i t y f o r m u l a t i o n , a n d s o l u t i o n p r o c e d u r e . T h e Q v a l u e s p r e s e n t e d in t h e s u b s e -
q u e n t s e c t i o n s are e v a l u a t e d at r/(J/cro) = 2 u n l e s s s t a t e d o t h e r w i s e . J is e v a l u a t e d u s i n g t h e
d o m a i n i n t e g r a l t e c h n i q u e as d i s c u s s e d in R e f 37.
Center-Cracked Panel (CCP )

T h e e v o l u t i o n o f Q for n = 3 a n d 5 a n d n = 10 a n d 2 0 is s h o w n in F i g s . 5 a n d 6, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
S o l u t i o n s are p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e full r a n g e o f c r a c k l e n g t h to w i d t h ratios: 0.05 -< a / W <-- 0,8,
0-OO
0 -oo
0) b)
L_L_L
2W
~UT-
c)
2H
ip
l 21-t
= ~--~P
I I
I to I
t 2H 1
FIG. 4--Fracture specimen geometries: (a) center-cracked panel, (b) double-edge cracked panel,
and (c) three-point bend bar.
0.0 0.0
(a) (b)
-0.5
Q -Lo Q -1.o
-1.5 -1.5
rim5
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
-2.0 " ' .... ' -2.0
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
log(J/(~,)) ]ogO/(~o))
0.0 0.0
(c) (a)
-0.5 ~ =0.8 -0.5
Q -1.o Q -1.0
-1.5
-2.0
I.._., .... , .... , . . . . -2.0
n=5
. . . . I . . . . I i i , , I . . . .
-3.0 -2~ -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
tog0/(b~,,)) ]og0/0~%))
FIG. 5---Center-cracked panel--evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
and 0.5 (a) n = 3, (b) n = 5; J normalized by crack length, a/W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, (c) n =
3, (d) n = 5; J normalized by remaining ligament.
0.0 o.o
(b)
-0.5 -0.5
Q -1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
n-lO n-,20
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
-2.0 -2.0
-3.0 -2.5 -2`0 -1.5 -I.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
]ogO/(a,,o))
0.0 0.0
(c) (d)
-0.5 -0.5
Q -1.0 Q -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
n:lO n = 20
-2,.0 ... i .... , .... , .... -2.0 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
-3.0 -2.5 -2`0 -L5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2`0 -1.5 -1.0
logO/O o)) logO/O ,o))
FIG. 6---Center-cracked panel----evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
and 0.5, (a) n = 10, (b) n = 20; J normalized by crack length, a/W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, (c) n
= 10, (d) n = 20; J normalized by remaining ligament.
In the figures, J is normalized by the crack length a when a/W < 0.5 and by the remaining
ligament b when a/W --> 0.5. Observe that the stress triaxiality decreases steadily with increasing
J and approaches a steady-state slope at fully yielded conditions.
Figure 7a and 7c show the effect of strain hardening on Q for a short crack and a deep crack,
respectively. For both geometries, the loss of stress triaxiality is greater in the lower hardening
materials.
The variation of Q with distance is shown in Fig. 7b and 7d. Here, Q is evaluated at r/(J/
(to) = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. It can be seen that Q has only a slight dependence on r under fully
yielded conditions. For the range of loading shown in Fig. 7, IQ'I < 0.03 indicating that the J
and Q are accurate descriptors of the field over distance 1 < r/(J/(ro) < 5.
In Fig. 7b and 7d OS also provide a comparison between the actual stress triaxiality and the
prediction by the T-stress by way of Eq 20. The open circles in Fig. 7b and 7d are the T-stress
predictions, and the solid lines are the actual near-tip triaxiality already noted above. At low
loads, Eq 20 predicts the evolution of near-tip stress triaxiality accurately. However, at fully
yielded conditions, the stress triaxiality is incorrectly predicted. In the case of alW = O. 1, T
underestimates the stress triaxiality by about 0.5(to. For a deep crack a/W = 0.8, T overestimates
the stress triaxiality by a similar amount.
O ' D O W D A N D S H I H ON T W O - P A R A M E T E R F R A C T U R E M E C H A N I C S 35
0.0 0.0
(a) i a / W = 0.1 (b) n --- 10 a,/W' -- 0.1
-0.5 9......~:. -0.5

....
Q
-1.0 Q -1.0
-1.5 .......... n=5 -1.5 o
~ n=10 o T-Stre~ o
.................. n = 2 0
-2.0 ' . . . . | 9 9 9 i | . . . . I i i i i
-2.0 .... i .... , .... I ....
-3.0 -~ -2.0 -i~ -1.0 -3.0 -,.s -2.0 -1.5 -~.0
log(J/(aao)) log(J/(aao))
o.o 0.0
(c) ~ a/w = o.8 (d) n - 1o a / ~ = o.s
-0,5
""'"....... -0.5
o 0
Q -1.o Q -i.o
-1.5 -1.5
o T-Str-~m
-2.0
I ...... -2.0 . . . . ~ . . . . ' . . . . ~ . . . .
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
log(J/(bao))
FIG. 7 ~ e n t e r - c r a c k e d panel. Effect of n on the evolution of Q; (a) short crack, (c) deep crack.
Q evaluated at r/O/o'o) = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for n = 10; (b) short crack, (d) deep crack. The open
circles are predictions based on the T stress.
Three-Point B e n d B a r ( T P B B )
Solutions for Q for the three-point bend bar are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 for 0.05 -< a / W <--
0.8. The behavior of Q in shallow cracked specimens, a / W < 0.3, is similar to that seen for
the center-cracked panel, that is, the loss of stress triaxiality occurs gradually. When the crack
is sufficiently deep, a / W >-- 0.3, high stress triaxiality is maintained for deformations charac-
terized by J/(a(ro), or J/(b(~o), less than about 0.01. At higher J levels, the global bending stress
field impinges on the near-tip region, r -~ 2J/(ro, causing a rapid loss of stress triaxiality. This
occurs at about J/(b(ro) = 0.02 corresponding to a deformation level that is less than the ASTM
limit for a valid J~c test (Jl(b(ro) = 0.04).
Strain-hardening effects on the evolution of Q are displayed in Fig. 10a, 10c, and 10e. It
can be seen that the effect of strain hardening on Q is weak for deeply cracked bend bars, a / W
> 0.4.
The actual Q values and the T-stress predictions are compared in Fig. 10b, 10d, and 10f. It
can be seen that T correctly estimates the stress triaxiality for the short crack geometry (a/W
= 0.1) but fails to predict the stress triaxiality under large-scale yielding in the long crack
geometries.
0.5 O.5
(a) (b)
o.o - a/W m o~_ 0.0
Qo,I Q -0.5
wII0 -1.0
n = 3 n=5
-1.5 t .... ' .... * .... ''''' -1.5 .... ' .... ' .... ' ....
--3.0 -2~ -~0 --1.5 -1.0 -3o -~ -zo -t5 -~o
log(J/(~Oo~ log(J//(aO'o))
(c)
O.5
(d) 0.5
0.0 = 0.4 - 0.4

0.0
Q -0.5 Q -o~
-1.0 -1.0
11=3 n=5
. . . . I . . . . [ . . . . [ i B i i
-1.5 -1.5
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I 9 9 9 !
-3.0 -8.5 -8.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -~ -~o -i,5 -1o

log(J/(aOro)) logO/(O~o))
0.,5 0.5
(e) e~/W = 0 . 8 (f) a,/W = 0 . 8
o.o o.o
Q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
n=3 ~ n=5
-1.5 .... ' .... ' .... ' " " " ' -1,5 .... ' .... ' .... ' ....
-3.0 -8.5 -8.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -~5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
log(J/(b,:,o)) log(J/(b,~o))
FIG. 8--Three-point bend bar-- evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2, (a)
0.3 and 0.4, (c) n = 3, (d) n = 5 . a / W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, (e) n =
n = 3 , (b) n = 5. a / W =
3, (f) n = 5 .
0.5 O.5
(a) (b)
0.0 9 ~V'V = 02 0.0
Q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.0 -I.0
n-- 10 n ,,= 2 0
. . . . i . . . . i . . . . I . . . . I , 9 9 | . . . . | . . . . ! . . . .
-1.5 -1.5
-3.o -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
loe(J/(aao)) log(J/(aCro))
0.5 0.5
(c) (d)
0.0
a / W = 0.4
0.0
a/'W'!0.4
q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
n=lO rim20
-1.5 .... ' .... ~ .... ~ .... --1.5 . . . . n . . . . n . . . . I . . . .
-3.0 -25 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
lor o))
0.5 0.5
(e) ~--0.8 (f) o,/W ! 0 . 0
0.0 0.0
q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.0
.=1o
-1.0
[, ! ! i
-1.,5 .... ' .... ' .... ~. . . . . 1.5 '
-3.0 -2..5 -2..0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -$.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
logJ/ o))
FIG. 9--Three-point bend bar--evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2, (a) n
= 10, (b) n = 20. a/W = 0.3 and 0.4, (c) n = 10, (d) n = 20. a/W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 (e) n
= 10, (f) n = 20.
0.5 o.oo
9 n-lO
(a) a/W= 0.1
(b)
0.0 -0.25
-0.5 Q -0.50
"'~176
-1,0 .........
--.-- n=lO
n=5 [
[
-0,?5
~TS
-ate's~
os
................ n = 2 0 I
. . . . i . , , J I , o . . I . . , J [ . . . . i . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
-1.5 -1.00
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -lJO -3.0 -~ -2.o -,~ -~.o
log(J/(aoo)) loe(.V(-ao))
0.5 0:5
(c) (d) . = xo , , / w = 0.4
,,0.4
0.0 0.0
Q -0.5 Q -0.5
" , ; . %,:,
-1.0 .........
--.--
n,,5
n,.lO
I
I
-1.0
o T - ~
................. n - Z O ]
ij i i J 9 9 -- I } . . . . . . . . I , , , , I . . . . I . . . .
-1.5 . . . . |
-1:5
-3.0 -2,5 -2.0 -1.5 -1,0 -3.0 -~ -e.o -1:5 -i.o
]og(J/("~,o)) loeO/a~o))
O.5
(e) (f)
a 0 Q 0 0 0
o.o 0.0
n = 10
a / ~ = 0.8
Q -0.5 Q -o~
-,o -1.0
o T-Stress
~ . ~ n=lO
.................. n - - ~ O
_1.~ , , . . ! . . . . | . . . . i . . . .
-11.5 . . . . . * .... ~ .... J ....
-3.0 -2~ -2.0 -1.5 -LO -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -X.5 -l.O
log(J/O~o)) 1ogJ/'OOo))
FIG. lO--Three-point bend bar. Effect of n on the evolution of Q; (a) short crack, (c) intermediate
crack, (e) deep crack. Comparison of Q values with predictions based on the T stress: (b) short
crack, (d) intermediate crack, (f) deep crack.
The behavior of Q(?) over distances 1 -< r/(J/%) -< 5 is shown in Fig. 11 for several
deformation levels as measured by J/a% or J/b%. For the short crack geometry, Q is effectively
independent of r over the range of loading considered. In the case of a/W = 0.4, Q exhibits a
dependence on r when Jla% >--0.03 (IQ'[ -> 0.06); for the deepest crack geometry, this behavior
occurs when J/b~o >-- 0.017 ([Q'[ -> 0.07). In both cases, the variation of Q with r is linear
reflecting the spatial variation of the global bending stress field.
Double-Edge Cracked Panel (DECP)

Q-solutions for the double-edge cracked panel are shown in Figs. 12 and 13 for 0.1 ~ aAV
--< 0.9. Surprisingly, high stress triaxiality under fully yielded conditions is observed only in
the most deeply cracked geometry, a/W = 0.9. Also note that for a/W = 0.9 the constraint falls
slightly and then rises again when the ligament is fully yielded. For shallow flaws, a/W --< 0.5,
Q is almost independent of relative crack size a/W.
Strain-hardening effects on the evolution of Q are presented in Fig. 14a and 14c--strain-
hardening effects are almost nonexistent for a/W = 0.9. The comparison between the stress
triaxiality and the T-stress prediction for the double-edged cracked panel is shown in Fig. 14b
and 14d. The T-stress approach correctly predicts the stress triaxiality for the deepest cracked
geometry a/W = 0.9 (see Fig. 14d) but overestimates the stress triaxiality for a/W = 0.5 (see
Fig. 14b). Figure 15 shows the behavior of Q(?) over distances l -< r/(JRro) -< 5 for several
deformation levels as measured by J/b%. It can be seen that Q exhibits only slight dependence
o n r.
Use of J-Q Solutions

The J-Q solutions provided in this and the previous section are determined from a plane
strain analysis. Therefore, they are applicable to crack geometries that are sufficiently thick
relative to the crack size or uncracked ligament. In a typical fracture experiment J is evaluated
from the load displacement record and represents a thickness-average value. The corresponding
value of Q can then be obtained from the figures presented or, in the case of well-contained
yielding, from Eq 20 in conjunction with Table 4. If the specimen conditions at fracture do not
correspond closely enough to plane strain conditions, the Q solutions presented here are not
strictly valid. The procedure may still be applied if we are comparing specimens of similar
thicknesses. However, if test data from specimens of widely different thicknesses are compared,
then three-dimensional solutions for Q should be used. This aspect is discussed in Refs 15 and
38 where a pointwise value of Q is used to quantify stress triaxiality near a three-dimensional
crack front.
Cleavage ToughnessLocus
Kirk et al. [29] have measured cleavage fracture toughness for A515 steels at room temper-
ature over a broad range of crack-tip constraints. They tested edge-cracked bend bars with
thicknesses B = 10, 25.4, and 50.8 mm and various crack-length-to-width ratios. The measured
toughness data are plotted against Q in Fig. 16.
Constraint effects on fracture toughness can be predicted by using the J-Q fields in con-
junction with a fracture criterion based on the attainment of a critical stress, ~22 = try, at a
characteristic microstructural distance, r = rc (Ritchie et al. [39]). Within the J-Q annulus the
normal stress ahead of the crack is given by Eq 12 or more accurately by Eq 13. In the interest
O~
(~) n=lO
a/W = 0.1
0.0 J/(-Uo) = o.ooI
9 . . . . . . "0 ...... "0 . . . . . . "0 . . . . . . ,.Q
9 ...... -* ...... -. ...... -. ...... - 8 . 0 0 4

.............................. 01
Q -0.5=
,,...... .. ...... .. ...... -. ...... -,, . 0 2
~ ...... "* ...... "* ...... "* ...... "* .05

...... " ..... " ..... " 9 ..... -9
-LO
J/(a~o) = o.13
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
o.o ~.o zo 3.0 ,.o ~o ,.o

r/(J/ao)
0.5
(b) n= I0
,/W = 0.4 J/(au,) = 0.001
0.0
2:::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::.006
!:::---~
. . . . . . . . .....
-.
. . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . .
"'" ... "~ . ..... .
"* . 0 1 5
-0.5 .... ~ .... ~-. "....... 9 .03

.04
-1.0
,I/(auo) = 0.07""'".
, , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
-1.5
o.o ,.o zo 3.0 4.o 5.0 6.0
r/O/a,)
0.5
(c) u162o) o.ool =
|:-'!.~:-'st:." . . . . ~ . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 4 . 0 0 6
o.o
".o "e... "''1~. '''# ....
-.~,. " - , , . ~ . " . . . . , , . . . . " - - . . 0 1 7
n ffi I 0 "'"'~t ...... *. ""~.022
Q -0.5
a/W = 0.8 ....... .,." ..... " .03
-I.0
9 u,,,,)= o o;i'--..
-1.6 .... ' .... ~ .... ' .... ' .... ' ....
0.0 LO 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
r/(J/~o)
FIG. 11--Three-point bend bar. Q evaluated at different positions ahead of crack tip for several
deformation levels as measured by J / L o - o. ( a ) Short crack, L = a. ( b ) Intermediate crack, L = a. ( c )
Deep crack, L = b.
0,6 0.15
(a) (b)
0,0 O.O
Q -o~ q --o.5
-1.0 -1.0
n=3 n=5
-I.6 .... ' ~ " " " ' . . . . ' . . . . - ! . 6 . . . . ' . . . . ' . . . . ' ....
-3.o -U -2.0 -I.8 -LO -:l.O "P.8 -LO -I.8 01.0
io.-O/(a, ,)) loe(~(ao,) )
0.6 O~
(c) (d)
er 0.9
0.0 o.o
Q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.o -I.0
n=3 n=5
. . . i . . . . i . . . . I . . . .
-1.5 .... ' ' " " " ' .... ' .... -1.5
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.6 -2.0 - I J5 -1,0
loe(a/O
o))
FIG. 12--Double-edge cracked panel---evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
and 0.5, (a) n = 3, (b) n = 5, J normalized by crack length, a/W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9, (c)
n = 3, (d) n = 5; J normalized by remaining ligament.
of simplicity, we work with the approximate form in Eq 12. Suppose that G is within the J-Q
annulus. Now impose the RKR fracture criterion to get
l/(n+ 1}
% \c~%~o//d cr22 (22)
Therefore, we can solve for Jc as a function of Q for selected values of % and r C. Now designate
the toughness value at Q = 0 as Jo and use Eq 22 to arrive at
(, )n,l (23)
Observe that the ratio, Jc/Jo, does not depend on re. The predicted variation of J~ with Q, for
~rc = 3.5~ro, Jo = 40 kPa.m and n = 5, is indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 16. It can be
seen that the predicted toughness curve correctly captures the trend of the experimental data.
42 FRACTURE MECHANICS: "RNENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
0.6 os
(b)
0.0 0,0
Q -o+ Q -o,,,
-I.0 -I.0
n = 10 n -'- 2 0
.... i .... | .... , ....
-I.6 -IJ$ . . . . | . . . . | . . . . i . . . .
-8.0 -t.6 -2.0 -1.15 -1.0 -8.0 -8.0 -1.6 -I.0

ioe(.V(a~,,,)) Joe(J/(-+,))
0.5 0.5
(c) (d)
0.0 9 ev'W = 0 . 9
0.0 n l ~ = 0.9
Q -0.5 Q -0.5
-I.O -1.o
~ .... , .... , ....

-1.5 -1.5
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
toe(J/(b
o)) lo J/O o))
FIG. 13--Double-edge cracked panel----evolution of Q with increasing J. a/W = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
and 0.5, (a) n = 10, (b) n = 20; J normalized by crack length, a/W = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9,
(c) n = 10, (d) n = 20; J normalized by remaining ligament.
Sumpter and Forbes [30] have conducted extensive testing on mild steel at - 5 0 ~ where
fracture occurs by cleavage with no prior stable crack growth. Their test program includes
shallow and deeply cracked bend specimens and moderate to deeply cracked center-cracked
panels. Their results show that the data from fully yielded center-cracked specimens are not
consistent with a J-T toughness locus constructed from the bend specimens; this is not unex-
pected in light of our observations that the T stress does not always correctly predict crack-tip
constraint under fully yielded conditions. In contrast, with allowance for experimental scatter,
the data from both center-cracked and bend specimens form a single J-Q toughness locus.
The experimental data of Sumpter and Forbes is shown in Fig. 17--they are indicated by
the symbols. Jc is evaluated from the experimental load-displacement record while the value
of Q at the fracture load, that is, Jr is determined by using the Q solutions for the test geometry
reported in the previous section. It can be seen that the data form a toughness locus in the J-
Q space. The dashed line is the predicted variation of Jc with Q using Eq 23 and for ~rc =
4.5~ro, Jo = 0.035 kPa.m (Mn/m), and n = 5.
0.5 0.5
=0~ (b) n = 10 a/W = 0.5
o.0 0.o
q -0.5 Q -0.5
-1.0 9 n " 5 -1.0
--.ran = 10
.................. n==~0
-1.5 .... ~ .... ~ .... ~ .... -1.5
-&O -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -z5 -zo -,.o
log(J/(auo)) lo J/(a, ro))
0.5 0.5
(c) =0.9 (d) n = 10 a/W = 0.9
0.0 0.o L~.
q -0.5 Q -0.5
~ n = 3
-1.0 ......... n=5 -1.0
~ . ~ n=10 * '1'-~'~
.................. n - - ~ 0
I
-1.5 . . . , I . . . . . . . . I , . . ,
-1.5 .... ' .... ' .... ~ ....
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
iog(JlO
o))
FIG. 14--Double-edge cracked panel. Effect of n on the evolution of Q," (a) intermediate crack,
(c) deep crack. Comparison of Q values with predictions based on the T stress; (b) intermediate
crack, (d) deep crack.
J-Q M e t h o d o l o g y
The competition between fracture by cleavage and ductile tearing controls the fracture resis-
tance of fern'tic steels in the ductile-to-brittle transition region. It is well accepted that cleavage
fracture is controlled by a critical hoop stress (opening stress) at a microstmcturally significant
distance [29,38,39]. There is also general agreement that the mean stress drives cavity growth
in ductile tearing [11,24]. Because Q quantifies both the hoop and the mean stress relative to
a reference stress state it can provide a common scale to interpret brittle and ductile fracture,
therefore allowing both failure modes to be incorporated in a single toughness locus.
Suppose test conditions are such that ductile and brittle mechanisms are operative. Fracture
by cleavage generally occurs at high crack-tip constraint, whereas ductile tearing develops at
low constraint; this is illustrated by the two distinct segments to the toughness loci shown in
Fig. 18a. Because measured values generally exhibit scatter, both the lower and higher tough-
ness loci are indicated, which define bounds for brittle and ductile failure. Toughness values
over the full range of crack-tip constraints can be measured by using the test geometries depicted
0.5
(a) n:lO
a/W = 0 5
0.0 J/(aoo) = 0.001
O ..... I~- .... '0' ..... 9 .... -0
9. . . . . . A ..... -~0 0 0 4
-~, . . . . . 9 ....
q -0.5 + ..... + ..... +0007
..,. . . . . . + ....
x . . . . . x . . . . . '~, . . . . . x . . . . -xO.Ol
9 ..... 9 ..... "~ ..... 9 .... -G
-I.0
J/(ao,) - 0.07
.... ! .... I .... I .... I .... I ....

-1.5
oo 1o 20 30 40 50 60
r/(J/oo)
0.5
(b)
J / ( b o , ) - 0.001
0.0 9 ..... l~. .... '0 ..... e ..... 0
::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0.1
Q -0.5 ~/0~o,) = 0.o4
n-tO
-1.0
= 0.9
...I .... I .... I .... I .... I ....
-1.5
oo 1o zo 30 4o 5.o 6.o
r/(J/ao)
FIG. 15~Double-edge cracked panel. Q evaluated at different positions ahead of crack tip for
several deformation levels as measured by J / b o o. (a) Intermediate crack. (b) Deep crack.
300.0
a9
Cleavage Data ,,
250.0 Kirk et al. (1993) o ,'
e9
-~- 200.0 O IS
0 9 +
0 "
e*
150.0 o
&8
s SS
o"
& & 9o ,
~'~ I00.0 & 0 .4"
0 ~ §
0 .~176 §
....... ,l-q Theory
50.0
..... i ...... with RKR m o d e l
J ~ a l l s l . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I , . . I
0.0
0.25 0.00 - 0 . 2 5 - 0 . 5 0 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50
Q
FIG. 16---Cleavage toughness data for ASTM A515 grade 70 steels tested at 20~ using edge-
cracked bend bar for three thicknesses; +for B = 10 mm, Q for B = 25.4 ram, A for B = 50.8
mm (Kirk et al. [29]). Toughness curve predicted by J - Q theory is indicated by the dashed line.
0.25
+ TPB 0.05 < a/W < 0.78
0.20 A CCP a/W = 0.63 + .

m CCP a/W = 0.77 ."
0.15 . . . . . . . . . J-Q Theory +a .'"

§
+ ~.},,t~
olo + ++r ~
+ 4" . ' ' ~
4" + ~ o.* 4"+ A
+ + ~i,i. ~ +
0.05 4" . .+.--4"'~ +

......... ~ ~ + ' ~ ' ~ $.~"+ Cleavage Data
...... 4"
Sumpter and Forbes (1992)
0.00 , , , + i . . . . i . . . . J . . . .
0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

q
FIG. 17---Data of Sumpter and Forbes [30] for mild steel tested at -50~ Failure occurred by
cleavage with no prior crack growth. Dashed line is toughness predicted by J-Q theory in conjunction
with the RKR model using n = 5 and ~rc/~o = 4.5.
in Fig. 18a. As an example, deeply cracked bend specimens generate high crack-tip stress
triaxiality (that is, Q ~ 0). They produce driving force curves that rise steeply and therefore
intersect the toughness loci within a well-defined, narrow zone of the J-Q diagram. In contrast,
center-cracked panels and single-edge cracked panels loaded in tension are low constraint crack
geometries. They produce driving force curves that rise with shallower slopes and thus intersect
the toughness loci over a broad zone i n the J-Q diagram. The shallow driving force curves of
FIG. 18--1llustration of J-Q methodology. (a) Laboratory testing of specimens of varying con-
straints to measure the material's fracture resistance. Circles indicate anticipated scatter in the
measured cleavage toughness data, which define the upper and lower bounds. (b) Evaluation of
structures using measured toughness locus and predicted J-Q load path for two structural
geometries.
low constraint crack geometry can explain the considerable scatter in cleavage values, Jc,
observed in testing shallow crack specimens loaded in tension.
Use of the toughness locus in fracture assessments is illustrated in Fig. 18b. Suppose that
the material's fracture resistance under service conditions is characterized by the indicated
cleavage-ductile failure band. The driving force curve for a structure with high crack-tip con-
straint, structure A, rises rapidly in the J-Q space so that cleavage fracture occurs when the
driving force curve intersects the failure locus. In contrast, a low-constraint geometry, structure
B, generates a gradually rising driving force curve so that ductile tearing is the likely event at
accidental overload.
Acknowledgments
This investigation is supported by a grant from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded
through the David Taylor Research and Development Center.
References
[1 ] Rice, J. R., "A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by
Notches and Cracks," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 35, 1968, pp. 379-386.
[2] Hutchinson, J. W., "Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack in a Hardening Material,"
Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 13-31.
[3] Rice, J. R. and Rosengren, G. F., "Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a Power-Law
Hardening Material," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
[4] Rice, J. R. and Johnson, M. A., "The Role of Large Crack Tip Geometry Changes in Plane Strain
Fracture," in Inelastic Behavior of Solids, M.. F. Kanninen et al., Eds., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1970, pp. 641-671.
[5] McMeeking, R. M., "Finite Deformation Analysis of Crack-Tip Openingin Elastic-PlasticMaterials
and Implications for Fracture," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 25, 1977, pp. 357-
381.
[6] McMeeking, R. M. and Parks, D. M., "On Criteria for J-Dominance of Crack-Tip Fields in Large-
Scale Yielding," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture ,Mechanics, ASTM STP 668, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 175-194.
[7] Shih, C. F. and German, M. D., "Requirements for a One Parameter Characterization of Crack-Tip
Fields by the HRR Singularity," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 27--43.
[8] Hutchinson, J. W., "Fundamentals of the PhenomenologicalTheory of Non-Linear Fracture Mechan-
ics," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 50, 1983, pp. 1042-1051.
[9] Parks, D. M., "Three-Dimensional Aspects of HRR-Dominance," in Defect Assessment in Com-
ponents Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS/EGF9 Mechanical Engineering Publications, Lon-
don, 1991, pp. 205-231.
[10] Ritchie, R. O. and Thompson, A. W., "On Macroscopic and Microscopic Analyses for Crack Ini-
tiation and Crack Growth Toughness in Ductile Alloys," Metallurgical Transactions A, Vol. 16A,
1985, pp. 233-248.
[11] McClintock, F. A., "Plasticity Aspects of Fracture," in Fracture: An Advanced Treatise, Vol. I11,
H. Liebowitz, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1971, pp. 47-225.
[12] Begley, J. A. and Landes, J. D., "Serendipity and the J-Integral," International Journal of Fracture,
Vol. 12, 1981, pp. 764-766.
[13] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., "Family of Crack-Tip Fields Characterized by a Triaxiality Param-
eter--I. Structure of Fields," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, pp. 989-
1015.
eter--lI. Fracture Applications," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 40, 1992, pp.
939-963.
[15] Shih, C. F., O'Dowd, N. P., and Kirk, M. T., "A Framework for Quantifying Crack Tip Constraint,"
in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 2-20.
[16] Shih, C. F. and O'Dowd, N. P., "A Fracture Mechanics Approach Based on a Toughness Locus,"
in Proceedings of TWI/EWI/ISInternational Conference on Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics Tests
and Applications, Cambridge, UK, 1992.
[17] Li, Y. C. and Wang, T. C., "High-Order Asymptotic Field of Tensile Plane Strain Nonlinear Crack
Problems," Scientia Sinica (Series A), Vol. 29, 1986, pp. 941-955.
[18] Sharma, S. M. and Aravas, N., "Determination of Higher-Order Terms in Asymptotic Elastoplastic
Crack Tip Solutions," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, pp. 1043-1072.
[19] Chat, Y. J., Yang, S., and Sutton, M. A., "Asymptotic Analysis of the Crack Tip Fields to Determine
the Region of Dominance of the HRR Solutions," presented at the 28th Annual Technical Meeting
of the Society of Engineering Science, Nov. 1991.
[20] Xia, L., Wang, T. C., and Shih, C. F., "Higher-Order Analysis of Crack-Tip Fields in Elastic Power-
Law Hardening Materials," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 41, 1993, pp. 665-
687.
[21] Beteg6n, C. and Hancock, J. W., "Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack-Tip
Fields," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 58, 1991, pp. 104-110.
[22] A1-Ani, A. M. and Hancock, J. W., "J-Dominance in Short Cracks in Tension and Bending," Journal
of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, pp. 23-43.
[23] Du, Z.-Z. and Hancock, J. W., "The Effect of Non-Singular Stresses on Crack-Tip Constraint,"
[24] Parks, D. M., "Advances in Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack-Tip Fields," in Topics in
Fracture and Fatigue, A. S. Argon, Ed., Springer Verlag, 1992, pp. 59-98.
[25] Hancock, J. W., Reuter, W. G., and Parks, D. M., "Constraint and Toughness Parameterized by T,"
in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American Society for Testing and Materials,
[26] Wang, Y.-Y., "On the Two-Parameters Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack-Front Fields in
Surface-Cracked Plates," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American Society for
[27] Wang, Y.-Y., " A Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack Tip Fields and Appli-
cations to Cleavage Fracture," Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cam-
bridge, MA, 1991.
[28] Dodds, R. H.~ Jr., Anderson, T. L., and Kirk, M. T., " A Framework to Correlate a/W Effects on
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness (Jc)," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, 1991, pp. 1-
22.
[29] Kirk, M. T., Koppenhoefer, K. C., and Shih, C. F., "Effect of Constraint on Specimen Dimensions
Needed to Obtain Structurally Relevant Toughness Measures," in Constraint Effects in Fracture,
ASTM STP 1171, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 79-103.
[30] Sumpter, J. D. G. and Forbes, A. T., "Constraint Based Analysis of Shallow Cracks in Mild Steel,"
Proceedings of TWI/EWI/IS International Conference on Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics Test
and Applications, Cambridge, UK, 1992.
[31] Williams, M. L., "On the Stress Distribution at the Base of a Stationary Crack," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 24, 1957, pp. 109-114.
[32] Bilby, B. A., Cardew, G. E., Goldthorpe, M. R., and Howard, I. C., " A Finite Element Investigation
of the Effect of Specimen Geometry on the Fields of Stress and Strain at the Tips of Stationary
Cracks," in Size Effects in Fracture, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1986, pp. 37-
46.
[33] Harlin, G. and Willis, J. R., "The Influence of Crack Size on the Ductle-Brittle Transition," Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. A 415, 1988, pp. 197-226.
[34] Symington, M., Shih, C. F., and Oritz, M., "Tables of Plane Strain Mixed-Mode Plastic Crack Tip
Fields," Brown University Report, MRG/DMR-8714665/1, 1988.
[35] Sham, T. L., "The Determination of the Elastic T-Term Using Higher Order Weight Functions,"
International Journal of Fracture, VoL 48, 1991, pp. 81-102.
[36] Leevers, P. S. and Radon, J. C., "Inherent Stress Biaxiality in Various Fracture Specimen Geome-
tries," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, 1982, pp. 311-325.
[37] Shih, C. F., Moran, B., and Nakamura, T., "Energy Release Rate Along a Three-Dimensional Crack
Front in a Thermally Stressed Body," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 30, 1986, pp. 79-102.
[38] Dodds, R. H., Jr., Shih, C. F., and Anderson, T. L., "Continuum and Micro-Mechanics Treatment
of Constraint in Fracture," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 64, 1993, pp. 101-133.
[39] Ritchie, R. O., Knott, J. F., and Rice, J. R., "On the Relationship Between Critical Fracture Stress
and Fracture Toughness in Mild Steel," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 21, 1973,
pp. 395-410.
Mahyar S. Dadkhah ~ and Albert S. Kobayashi 2
Two-Parameter Crack-Tip Field Associated

with Stable Crack Growth in a Thin Plate: An
Experimental Study
REFERENCE: Dadkhah, M. S. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Two-Parameter Crack-Tip Field
Associated with Stable Crack Growth in a Thin Plate: An Experimental Study," Fracture
Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and
J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 48-
61.
ABSTRACT: J-integral values were determined directly from the measured orthogonal displace-
ment fields surrounding a stably growing crack in 2024-0 and 5052-H32 aluminum alloy single-
edge notched (SEN) and cruciform specimens of 0.8-mm thickness. These J values were then
used to compute the crack-tip displacements associated with the Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren
(HRR) field. The displacement component as a result of the difference field in the simplified
two-parameter J-Q or J-T ductile fracture theories was obtained by subtracting the HRR dis-
placement from the measured crack-tip displacement. The slope of the log-log plots of the two
orthogonal, difference-field displacement components varied irregularily with radial distance
with no consistent second-order strain singularity. The results suggest that further analysis is
necessary before the simplified J-Q theory can be used to analyze stable crack growth in thin
plates.
KEYWORDS: elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, J integral, J-Q theory, J-T theory, HRR field,
moire interferometry, crack-tip displacements
With the development of an experimental procedure to record simultaneously two orthogonal

surface displacements in a fracture specimen [1], it became possible to measure, for the first
time, the J integral directly without resorting to theoretical and numerical solutions, some of
which are based on simplifying assumptions. One intriguing consequence was that the J-integral
values thus determined [2] differed substantially with previously published solutions [3,4] in
the presence of large-scale yielding and stable crack growth. Since stable crack growth is
inevitable in the fracture testing of ductile materials such as A533B steels, this discrepancy
casts doubt on the applicability of the published J-integral solutions to such materials. Another
conclusion derived from the experimental study was that the J integral is not path-independent
after a relatively short stable crack growth of about 1 mm [5,6] and differs by as much as 40%
in the presence of a 6-mm crack extension [7]. While the latter conclusion was not unexpected
from the definition of the J integral, previous finite-element analysis (FEM) analysis [8] showed
that such difference could be about 10% which is approximately one third of that measured in
Ref 7. From the practical view point, the extensive practices of using far-field J-integral values
to correlate fatigue crack extension and stable crack growth are therefore inherently flawed
1 Member of technical staff, Mechanics of Materials, Rockwell Science Center, Thousand Oaks, CA
91360.
2 Boeing Pennell Professor in Structure Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
48
DADKHAH AND KOBAYASHI ON A THIN PLATE 49
since the J integral is not path-independent even under moderate crack extension of about 3 to
5 mm.
The experimental results of thin aluminum fracture specimens [2,5,6] also showed that the
Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren (HRR) displacement fields [9], which were computed by using the
measured J-integral values and the numerically determined system coefficient [10], did not
agree with the measured crack-tip displacement field for submillimeter stable crack growth.
This finding triggered numerical [11,12] and experimental [13,14] studies "in search of an
HRR field" in which the indications are that the HRR field could exist in the very vicinity of
the crack tip, say within 1 mm. This severe geometric restriction placed on the HRR field
negates its role in continuum theory of fracture mechanics, which is ineffective in the micro-
mechanics regime governed by crystalline anisotropy and inhomogeneity. Because the J inte-
gral is physically interpreted as the strength of the HRR field, the lack of the HRR field at the
crack tip could render the J integral without a physical foundation.
Although the above experimental investigation [2,5,6] was confined to thin aluminum spec-
imens of 0.8-mm thickness, the single-edge notched (SEN) cruciform specimen used in part of
the studies represented a highly constrained geometry in which the one-parameter character-
ization by the J integral was deemed valid. For a low-constrained specimen geometry, the two-
parameter characterizations by the J-T theory [15] or the more generalized J-Q theory [16-18]
have been promoted to resolve the associated difficulties. The Tand Q in these characterizations
are the second-order term in the plane-strain asymptotic crack-tip stress state, where T is a
parametere that is determined from the elastic field and Q is a triaxiality parameter that is
governed by the elastic-plastic crack-tip stress field. While numerical analysis based on the J-
Tand the J-Q theories has been made and an ASTM symposium on this subject4 has been held,
no direct experimental validation of the crack-tip state associated with the J-T and J-Q theories
have been made to date.
The purpose of this paper is to report on our preliminary experimental findings regarding
the applicability of the J-T and J-Q theories in thin sheets with stable crack growth.
T w o - P a r a m e t e r Crack-Tip Field
The two J-T parameter, crack-tip field Betegon and Hancock [15] is a special case of those
of Li and Wang [19], Sharma and Aravas [20], or Yang, Cho, and Sutton [21]. The latter three
references considered a two-dimensional, plane-strain, hardening material which can be
described by the J2 deformation theory and the following Ramberg-Osgood stress-swain
relation.
1 + v 1 - 2v cra3,J + 3 o"e S/~
e/j - E so + 3----E- ~ aeo \ %
- -/ % (1)
where i, j = 1 or 2 correspond to a Cartesian coordinate system with axes~parallel or perpen-

dicular to the crack, respectively; E and v are the modulus of elasticity and Poisson s ratio,
respectively; o o and eo are the yield stress and strain, respectively; t~ and n are material con-
stants; and o e and sij are the equivalent and deviatoric stresses, respectively. The existence of
the following asymptotic expansion of the crack-tip solution was then postulated and repre-
sented in terms of the equivalent stress as
tYe(r,O)
= r~tr~~ + rttr~')(0) + . . . as r----> 0 (2)
O"o
3 T was designated as the remote stress component by Irwin in 1958 [22].

4 ASTM Symposium on Constraint Effects in Fracture, 8-9 May 1991.
A J integral is then used to determine the leading order exponent of s = - 1/(n + 1), and
to no surprise, the HRR crack-tip field [9] is recovered from the first term in Eq 2. The order
of magnitude of the second term in Eq 2 depends on second exponent t. In particular, when t
= 0 for the second and all higher order terms, the simplified Q stress component of [16,18] is
recovered.
Based on extensive numerical analysis, O'Dowd and Shih [16] have suggested the following
two-term approximation to Eq 2 in terms of a polar coordinate at the crack tip as
_ _ _ (r)~(#rr ?rO~
trO \r troo] \Oteotrolnr/ \(r~o Croo] ~ \r ~oo]
where J is Rice's J integral, Q is a dimensionless constant that controls the magnitude of the
second stress term, and In = In (0), which is tabulated in Ref 10.
Equation 3 is specifically restricted to the forward sector of the crack tip. O'Dowd and Shih
further reasoned that since Or, = ~r00 and Io~1 < < Io001, Q is essentially a plane-strain, stress
triaxiality parameter which could include the influence of all higher order terms in Eq 2 [16].
The strain and displacement components corresponding to this plane-strain Q component are
a hydrostatic strain and a linearly varying homogeneous displacement, respectively.
As mentioned previously, the J-Ttheory is a special case of the above. Tis the remote stress
component [15] for elastic crack tip stress field. For small-scale yielding, O'Dowd and Shih
[18] have related Q with T
Q = al + a2 + a3 (4)
Reference 22 provides numerical solutions for t in terms of n, o <~ u <~ o <~), and u ~1)for the
plane-strain state. For the state of plane stress, Ref 20 shows that the second-order stress
component of in tr', in Eq 2 approaches infinity as 0 ---> 160~ and thus, the second-order solution
probably is not separable. In the region of 0 < 140~ however, OCe~>variation is normal, and
thus one can speculate that the two-parameter stress expression holds within this restriction, or
specifically in the forward section, as noted in Ref 16. This hypothesis is important if the two-
parameter J-Q and J-T theories are to be used in characterizing ductile fracture of thin plates
in which a 100% shear lips with no cleavage fracture is anticipated.
The strain and the displacement components corresponding to the above two-term represen-
tation of Eq 3 can be represented in a nondimensional form as [16]
(JI rd(n+l) rt(j~ '~-~,/Cn+',
eu - - - ~,~~ ) - - ~J(0) (5)
aeo \aeocrol~r/ ~ \Oteocrol~r/
u=uO ( J y re'+') ( r )'( J ~ ~-~)/'~+')
Cteo \ ~ / r'"+')) fi<~ + O ~ \ ~ / r2/<,+,) fi<l)(0)
(6)
where u ~ is the rigid body displacement.
In the following, the possibility of extending this plane-strain, two-par~neter characterization
of a stationary ductile crack to stable crack growth problems in thin plates is investigated by
comparing the experimentally determined crack tip displacement fields in thin plate specimens
with that predicted by the J-Q theory. Only a qualitative comparison is possible since the
second-order term in Eq 6 could not be computed as fi~ (0) is not known for the state of plane
stress.
D A D K H A H A N D K O B A Y A S H I ON A THIN PLATE 51
Experimental Procedure
Details of the experimental procedure are given in Ref 5, and thus only a brief summary is
provided in the following.
Simultaneous vertical and horizontal displacements in uniaxially and biaxially loaded 2024-
0, 2024-T3, 2091-T3, arid 5052-H32 aluminum, cruciform, and single-edge notched plates were
determined by moire interferometry. Only the results of 2024-0 and 5052-H32 specimens are
discussed in this paper. Figure 1 shows the uniaxial and biaxial specimens that were loaded in
a special testing machine. The specimen thickness of 0.8 mm obviously does not satisfy the
plane-strain requirement on which Eqs 3 through 6 are founded. Uniaxial stress-strain relations
in the vertical and horizontal directions of the aluminum alloy sheets were also determined,
and the average of the vertical and horizontal relations, which at the most differed by 5%, were
used to fit the Ramberg-Osgood relation of Eq 1.
A scanning and digitizing routine was then used to compute the three strain components
from the recorded moire fringes. Using the inverted form of Eq 1 to compute the stresses and
hence the strain energy density and the resultant surface tractions along integration contour,
the J-integral values along given rectangular contours, which encircle the crack tip, were com-
puted. The J-integral value was then substituted back into Eq 6 to recompute the HRR dis-
placement component or the first term in Eq 6. The difference term, or the Q-displacement
component, was obtained by subtracting the HRR displacement component from the measured
152
i
19.1
0
28.6
0
o 0
T47.6
12.i
T
0 0
+
Slot Width =1.6
2
~lachined J Vl JHI 6.35"~
Notch
~_~__3.8 Fatigue
.IPrecrack i:-;::::7-1
L--J !JV,
L.---.I~. ..... J 0
Slot Width = 1.6 JH2
Thickness = 0.8
o
28.6 •
12.7
.3(" o All Dimensions
19.1
in Millimeters
85.7 85.7 ,T
LI
I~ 342.9 -I
FIG. 1--Cruciform and SEN aluminum alloy specimen.
crack-tip displacement or from the difference between the left-hand side and the first term in
the right-hand side of Eq 6. In many cases involving the horizontal displacement, u, this first
term, that is, the HRR displacement, was larger than the corresponding measured displacement.
For such cases, the absolute value of the resultant Q-displacement component, IQI, versus radial
distance, r, was plotted on a log-log scale to verify the existence of the r '§ [16,20] com-
ponent in the two orthogonal displacement components of the J-Q theory. If this second-order
term follows the same trend of that of the state of plane strain, then the component perpendicular
to the crack should be approximately equal to that parallel to the crack in the forward sector
of the crack tip, that is, 0 < 45 ~ [20].
For the J-T theory, the second-order horizontal displacement component should vary with r,
and the perpendicular component should be approximately one half the parallel component.
Results
Figure 2 shows typical moire interferometry fringe patterns corresponding to the displace-
ments parallel, u ( = ul), and perpendicular, v ( = u2), to the crack, respectively, of a 2024-0
aluminum, single-edged notch specimen. Also shown in Fig. 2 are the rectangular contours
used for J-integral calculation. Table 1 shows the expected power (n + 3)/(n + 1) for r of the
second component of the ul displacements of Eq 10.
Figures 3a and 3b show the variations of J values with crack extension or the J-resistance
(JR) curves for all 2024-0 and 2024-T3 cruciform specimens, respectively, which were subjected
to uniaxial and biaxial loadings of B = o 11/o22 = 0 and 2, respectively. The theoretical JR value
for this series of tests was computed by assuming that the cruciform specimens can be modeled
by the corresponding SEN specimen, which is also shown in Fig. 1, and then by following the
estimation procedure as outlined in [3,4] using the numerical constants of [10]. This SEN
modeling is justified since influence on the measured JR curves of the 2024-0 cruciform spec-
imens and the corresponding SEN specimens of Fig. 1 were essentially identical [2]. The
difference between the theoretical and experimental JR curves underscores the inadequacy of
the theoretical estimation procedure in the presence of small stable crack growth.
Figure 4a shows the increase in the measured and the computed v displacement component,
which is the first term in Eq 6, with crack extension. This v-displacement component was
computed by back substituting the measured J values into the first term of Eq 7 as described
previously. Also shown is the elastic v-displacement computed by setting J = G = K2/E and
then the crack-tip displacement based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). The good
agreement between the measured and computed v indicates that the HRR field is a reasonable
representation for the displacement component perpendicular to the crack, despite the presence
of small crack growth.
Figure 4b shows the increase in the measured and the computed HRR u-displacement com-
ponent, which again corresponds to the first term in E q 6, with crack extension. Contrary to
the results in Fig. 4a, the difference in the computed HRR and the measured u progressively
increases with crack extension. In this case, the HRR displacement does not agree with the
measured u displacement for uniaxial loading (B = O) but is in better agreement with that of
biaxial loading (B = 2) for a short crack extension of Aa < 0.5 mm. Thus, the HRR component
of the u-displacement field is not a valid representation of the measured crack-tip u-displace-
ment field associated with stable crack growth.
Figure 5a shows log-log plots of the measured v displacement and the computed HRR and
the IQ[ components of the v displacements along the radial lines of 0 = 15 and 45 ~ in terms
of the radial distance from the crack tip, r, in a 2024-0 SEN specimen for a stable crack growth
of Aa = 0.7 mm. Since the measured v displacements and the HRR components of the v
P~
53
TABLE 1 - - n and exponents of r.
e~ n t n/(n + 1) t + 2/(n + 1) oo/E
2024-0 1.0 4 0.033 0.8 0.433 7.5-

8"10 4
209 l-T3 0.5 8 0.071 0.889 0.293 4* 10 -3
2024-T3 0.4 11 0.068 0.917 0.250 4"10 3
5052-H32 1.0 15 0.061 0.938 0.194 2.6"10 3
120 I I I I
9 B = 0 contour1
9 B = 0 contour2
100 E]
O B - 2 contour1 /
IZ.
80
60
+
o B - 2 contour2
Shih et al.
/
40
20
0~ I I l I
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Crack extension, Aa (mm)
FIG. 3 a - - J R curve f o r all 2024-0 aluminum cruciform specimens. B is the biaxiality ratio.
150 i i i i i i
100 6w
E)
& A
&
P i []
a.
9 B=O
B~I
50
o B~2
r de Koning
m Ernst
Shih et al.
0 I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Crack extension, Aa ( m m )
FIG. 3 b - - J R curve f o r all 2024-T3 aluminum cruciform specimens. B is the biaxiality ratio.
54
t oil.
I
I- [-@ Exp. ~ O
~ 0.04
0.02
n
0.00 ' ' ' ' '

O.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
C r a c k E x t e n s i o n , Aa ( r a m )
FIG. 4 a - - v displacement in 2024-0 aluminum, SEN, and cruciform specimens. Data points rep-
resent measured v displacement. Solid curve represents the HRR component of v displacement.
0.08 a
B = 0 HRR O
"LEFM
0.06 "B ~ 2 HRR ~ , , ,[:.~

LEFM th~t
~@ Exp.- ir O
B=o a HRR A~)
0.04 . t_o LEFM
0 = 45 ~ A
DO
r = 1.2 mm / A ~ A
/
0.02
Q/A
r n /
0.00 , I t , f I
u.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 .5
C r a c k E x t e n s i o n , Aa ( n u n )
Fig. 4 b - - u displacement in 2024-0 aluminum. SEN and cruciform specimens. Data points rep-
resent measured u displacement. Solid curves represent the HRR component of the u displacement.
5 10
r Oo/J 100 200
0.1 . . . . . I . . . . . . . I
o Moir6 Exp.
-- HRR
E 0.001
>
Strain Hardening Expo. = 4

0 = 15 ~
J = 18.4 (kPadm)
Load = 3290 (N)
I I , , , , , , I ~ A , , , , , , ,
0.00001
10 00
r (mm)
5 10
r Oo/J 1 O0 200
0.1 . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . i
Moir6Exp.
9~"
0.01
.•.o HRR
IQI = IExp. - HRRI
0.001
\ 0 =45~
~ p J = 18.4 (kPa,/m)
Load = 3290 (N)
0.0001 ' I I I I I ~ . . . . . . . .
10 100
r (mm)
FIG. 5 a - - v d i s p l a c e m e n t in a 2024-0 a l u m i n u m S E N specimen, Aa = O. 7 ram.
displacements nearly coincide, the ]Q[ component of the v displacements is an order of mag-
nitude smaller and possibly within the error band of measurement.
Figure 5b shows the corresponding log-log plot of the measured u displacement and the
computed HRR and the Ial components of the u displacement. The [a[ components is the same
order of magnitude as the measured u displacement and the corresponding HRR component
and varies approximately as r ~ for r > 1 mm with the slope approaching zero as r ~ 0. This
exponent is about the same as the predicted exponent of r from the J-Q theory as given in
Table 1.
5 10 r~/J lOO 200

0.1 . . . . . I . . . . . . . I
iii
o Moir~ Exp.
J
- - HRR
,--o--IQI = IExp. HRRI

A
E
0.01 ooooo~176176
0
0
0
0
Strain Hardening Expo, = 4
0=15 ~
J = 18.4 (kPa,/m)
Lead = 3290 (N)
0.001 . . . . 10
oo
r (mm)
r ao/J
5 10 100 200
0.1 . . . . . I
o Moir~ Exp.
HRR
-.-.o~ IQI = IExp, - HRRI

A
E i
0.01
Strain Hardening Exp. = 4

0 = 45 ~
J = 18.4 (kPa-,/m)
Load = 3290 (N)
0.001
10 oo
r (mm)
FIG. 5b--u displacement in a 2024-0 SEN specimen, Aa = O.7 mm.
Figures 6a and 6b show similar log-log plots of the o and the u displacements in a 2024-0
cruciform specimen for a small stable crack growth of Aa = 0.6 rnm. While the measured v
displacement and the HRR component of the v displacements are in reasonable agreement with
each other, the differences in the measured u displacement and the comparable HRR component
is substantial. The negative exponent of r when r > 1.2 mm and 0 - 15 and 45 ~ in the Q
component of the u displacement contradicts the positive exponent predicted by the J-Q theory.
Figures 7a and 7b show log-log plots of the u and v displacements at 0 = 45 ~ of a 5052-
H32 aluminum SEN specimen. The tQI component of the v displacement is an order of mag-
nitude smaller with a positive exponent of r. On the other hand, the Q component of the u
r %/J
0.1 5 10 4O
. . . . i
Strain Hardening Expo.= 4

0= 15 ~
J = 10.75 (kPaVm)
Load, Fy=2896 (N), Fx=5489 (N)
0.01
g
>
0.001 0
o M0. Ex0 II
IQI = IExp. - HRRI|
0.0001 i
r (mm)
r Oo/J
5 10
0.1 , , , , , 1
0 0 0 0
o o o
0
0.01
g
>
0.001
o Moir6 Exp.
0 =45 ~ -- HRR
J = 10.75 (kpa,/m)
Load, Fy=2896 (N), Fx=5489 (N) -o- IQI = IExp. - HRRI
0.0001 i i i i i i i
r (rnm) 0
FIG. 6a--v displacement in a 2024-0 aluminum SEN specimen, Aa = 0.6 mm.
displacement is the same order of magnitude with a positive exponent of r~ which is much
larger than that predicted by the J-Q theory.
Discussion
The ill, ~1, and O' functions are yet to be determined for the state of plane stress, assuming
that the stresses are separable into functions of r and 0. Nevertheless, the results of Figs. 5b,
6b, and 7b suggests that the two-parameter characterization of ductile fracture by the J-Q theory
may not be a valid criterion for evaluating stable crack growth in thin plates. The slope of the
IQI component approached zero as the r --->0 and suggests that the true functional form of the
second-order term may be that of the simpler J-T theory.
ro/J
5 10 o 40
0.1
oooOo c ~ o ~ ~~176176
o_o_~_o_o__~0 000
0.01
E
~ n i n g Expo. = 4
E .j~ 0=15 ~
,.~ J = 10.75(kPa~/m)
0.001
\/ I
O" --o- IQI = IExp.HRRI
0.0001 I I I I I I I I
r (ram)
r Oo/J
0.1 10 40
. . . . . I
o-o.-o-oO-O~o 0 o o o o o o o o O ~ 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 7 6
0.01
g ~ 0 =45 ~
J = 10.75(kPadm)
= 0.001 ~k / L~
'~ [ o Moir~Exp. I
\/ .RR I
0.0001 H ~ a ~ ~ , , , ,
0
r (mm)
FIG. 6b--u displacement in a 2024-0 aluminum SEN specimen, Aa = 0.6 mm.
Conclusions
A comparison of experimentally determined crack-tip displacement fields in thin-plate spec-
imens with predictions by the J-Q theory has been carried out. The comparison is qualitative
because the form of the J-Q displacement fields is not known for plane stress.
Limited experimental results involving the crack-tip displacement fields in thin aluminum
SEN and cruciform specimens with stable crack growth showed that neither the J-Q, based on
the plane-strain form, nor the J - T crack-tip field, were present.
Also, the use of the present J-integral computation procedure for elastic-plastic fracture
r ~o/J
1 10 100
. . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . I ' .9 . .' . . . . I
(b)
o Moir~ Exp i
I
HRR
-o- IQI = IExp - HRRI
0.1
0.01

0 = 45 ~
J = 66 (kPa,/m)
Load = 7455 (N)
0,001 ........ i . , i i f l l l l i i i , . . ,
0.1 1 10 100
r (mm)
r ~/J
1 10 100
1 . . . . . . I ' ' . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I
(a)
o Moir6 Exp
I
-- HRR
-o-.- IQI = IExp - HRRI

0.1
E
g
0.01 6 ~
Strain Hardening Expo = 1
0 = 45 ~
J = 66 (kPa~/m)
Load = 7455 (N)
0.001 ........ t ........ t .......
0.1 1 10 00
r (ram)
FIG. 7--u a n d v displacements in a 5 0 5 2 - H 3 2 a l u m i n u m S E N specimen, a = 1.9 mm.
analysis of thin plates in the presence of small stable crack growth must be reinvestigated in
view of the observed large discrepancies.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under ONR Contract N00014-
89-J-1276 and the Rockwell Science Center. The authors are indebted to Dr. Yapa D. S. Raja-
pakse for his support during the course of this investigation.
References
[1] Dadkhah, M. S., Wang, F. X., and Kobayashi, A. S., "Simultaneous On-Line Measurement of
Orthogonal Displacement Fields by Moire Interferometry," Experimental Techniques, Vol. 12, 1988,
pp. 28-30.
[2] Dadkhah, M. S., Kobayashi, A. S., and Morris, W. L., "Crack Tip Displacement Fields and J-R
Curves of Four Aluminum Alloys," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium Vol. I1,
ASTM STP 1131, S. N. Atluri, J. C. Newman, Jr., I. S. Raju, and J. S. Epstein, Eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 135-153.
[3] Kumar, V., German, M. D., and Shih, C. F., "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Analysis," Electric Power Research Institute Topical Research, NP-1931, Research Project 1237-1,
July 1981.
[4] Shih, C. F., German, M. D., and Kumar, V., "An Engineering Approach for Examining Crack Growth
and Stability in Flawed Structures," International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 9,
1981, pp. 159-196.
[5] Dadkhah, M. S. and Kobayashi, A. S., "HRR Field of a Moving Crack, An Experimental Analysis,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 34, No, 1, 1989, pp. 253-262.
[6] Dadkhah, M. S. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Further Studies in the HRR Field of a Moving Crack, An
Experimental Analysis," International Journal of Plasticity, Vol. 6, 1990, pp. 635-650.
[7] Drinnon, R. H. and Kobayashi, A. S., "J-integral and HRR Field Associated with Large Crack
Extension," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1992, pp. 685-694.
[8] Shih, C. F., DeLorenzi, R. G. and Andrews, W. R., "Studies on Crack Initiation and Stable Crack
Growth," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 669, J. D. Landes, J. A. Begley, and G. A. Clarke,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 65-120.
Journal of Physics and Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 13-31.
[10] Shih, C. F., "Tables of Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren Singular Field Quantities," MRL E-147, Mate-
rials Research Laboratory, Brown University, June 1983.
[11] Zhang, Y. and Ravi-Chandar, K., " A Finite Element Investigation into the Foundation of Elastic-
Plastic Fracture Mechanics," Science Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Houston, Houston, TX 1990.
[12] Goan, J. M., Sutton, M. A., and Chao, Y. J., " A Study of J-Controlled Crack Tip Deformation
Fields," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 45, 1990, pp. R17-22.
[13] Han, G., Sutton, M. A., and Chao, Y. J., " A Study of Crack Tip Deformation Fields in Thin Sheets
by Computer Vision," Mechanical Report 92-6, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 1992.
[14] Kang, B. S. -J. and Liu, Q. K., "Crack Tip Blunting and Growth Analysis of Aluminum SEN
Specimen by Moire Interferometry," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium, ASTM STP
1131, Vol. I, 1992.
[15] Beteg6n, C. and Hancock, J. W., "Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack Tip
Fields," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics. Vol. 58, 1991, pp. 104-110.
eter: Part I--Structure of Fields," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, No. 8, 1991,
pp. 989-1015.
eter: Part II--Fracture Applications," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 40, No.
5, 1992, pp. 939-963.
[18] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., "Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics: Theory and Applications,"
in this volume, pp. 21-47.
[19] Li, Y. and Wang, Z., "Higher Order Asymptotic Field of Tensile Plant Strain Nonlinear Crack
Problems," Scientia Sinica (Series A), Vol. 29, 1986, pp. 942-955.
[20] Sharma, S. M. and Aravas, N., "Determination of Higher-Order Terms in Asymptotic Crack Tip
Solutions," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, No. 8, 1991, pp. 1043-1072.
[21] Yang, S., Chao, Y. J., and Sutton, M. A., 'Higher Order Asymptotic Crack Tip Fields in a Power
Hardening Material," to be published in Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1993, pp.
1-20.
[22] Irwin, G. R., "Discussion and Author's Closure of the Paper, "The Dynamic Stress Distribution
Surrounding a Running Crack A Photoelastic Analysis," Proceedings of the Society for Experi-
mental Stress Analysis, Vol. XVI, No. 1, 1958, pp. 92-96.
M a r k T. Kirk, t R o b e r t H. Dodds, Jr., 2 and Ted L. A n d e r s o n 3
An Approximate Technique for Predicting Size

Effects on Cleavage Fracture Toughness (Jc)
Using the Elastic TStress
REFERENCE: Kirk, M. T., Dodds, R. H., Jr., and Anderson, T. L., " A n Approximate Tech-
nique for Predicting Size Effects on Cleavage Fracture Toughness (J~) Using the Elastic T
Stress," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald
E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1994, pp. 62-86.
ABSTRACT: This investigation examines the ability of an elastic T-stress analysis coupled with
a modified boundary layer (MBL) solution to predict stresses ahead of a crack tip in a variety of
planar geometries. The approximate stresses are used as input to estimate the effective driving
force for cleavage fracture (Jo) using the micromechanically based approach introduced by Dodds
and Anderson. Finite-element analyses for a wide variety of planar-cracked geometries are con-
ducted that have elastic biaxiality parameters ([~) ranging from -0.99 (very low constraint) to
+2.96 (very high constraint). The magnitude and sign of 13 indicate the rate at which crack-tip
constraint changes with increasing applied load. All results pertain to a moderately strain-hard-
ening material (strain-hardeningexponent (n) of 10). These analyses suggest that 13is an effective
indicator of both the accuracy of T-MBL estimates of Jo and of applicability limits on evolving
fracture analysis methods (that is, T-MBL, J-Q, and J/Jo). Specifically, when I~1 >0.4 these
analyses show that the T-MBL approximation of Jo is accurate to within 25% of a detailed finite-
element analysis. As "structural-type" configurations, that is, shallow cracks in tension, gen-
erally have 1131>04, it appears that only an elastic analysis may be needed to determine reason-
ably accurate Jo values for structural conditions.
KEYWORDS: elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, size effects, finite-element analysis, modified

boundary layer, T stress, JssY, Jo, Q, structural integrity assessment
Numerous experimental studies report an increase of the cleavage fracture toughness, Jc, for
steels (for example, A36, A515, HY-80, A533B) as the crack depth is reduced in single-edge
bend, SE(B), specimens [1-4]. Cleavage fracture toughness also increases with the transition
from bending to tensile load [5]. These increases of Jc develop when the in-plane plastic flow
produced by gross deformation of the specimen impinges on the local crack-tip fields. This
relaxes the kinematic constraint against further plastic flow. Once the global and local plastic
fields interact, the crack-tip stresses and strains no longer increase in proportion to one another
with amplitude governed by J alone. At these high deformation levels, equivalence of J (or
crack-tip opening displacement [CTOD]) between different cracked geometries does not ensure
identical crack-tip stress and strain fields. Because the micromechanisms of fracture require
attainment of critical conditions described in terms of stress or strain or both, different values
of applied J may be required to cause fracture in different structures. These interrelated effects
1 Manager, Numerical Analysis Section, Edison Welding Institute, 1100 Kinnear Rd., Columbus, OH
43017.
2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.
3 Associate professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77943.
62
KIRK ET AL. ON PREDICTING SIZE EFFECTS 63
of geometry and loading mode on near-tip stresses, near-tip strains, and fracture toughness are
referred to collectively as "size effects." The routinely observed size effects on Jr are actually
a size effect on the relation between macroscopic fracture parameters (for example, J) and
microscale crack driving force (for example, opening mode stress). These size effects can be
quantified for cleavage fracture by coupling a description of the stress field surrounding the
crack tip with appropriate micromechanical failure models. The following sections discuss
recent developments in these areas.
Recent Developments
Crack-Tip Stress Fields
Small-scale yielding (SSY) conditions exist when the crack-tip plastic zone is infinitesimally
small compared to all other characteristic lengths and is embedded within a linear-elastic field.
Elastic-plastic crack-tip fields in SSY are generated by applying displacements consistent with
the first two terms of the linear elastic crack-tip fields to a circular region containing an edge
crack (Fig. 1)
u(r,O) = K I ~ cos (3- 4v- cos0) + T -~ rcos0

(1)
d r , 0) = KI sin (3 - 4v - cos 0) - T ~ r sin 0
where
u = X-direction displacement,
v = Y-direction displacement,
K~ = stress intensity factor,
T = constant stress term,
r = radial distance from the crack tip,
0 = circumferential crack tip coordinate (see Fig. 1),
v = Poisson's ratio, and
E = Young's modulus.
K~ and T are the first two coefficients of an asymptotic expansion for stresses surrounding
the crack tip in a two-dimensional linear-elastic body
K~
(rx = _ _,=---f~(o) + r + o (VTr)
V2avr
KI
O-y - ~ - - ~ fy(O) ~- 0 (~/'~) (2)
KI 0
Here, r is the radial distance from the crack tip, K / is the stress intensity factor, and T is the
stress parallel to the crack over vanishingl~ small r. All remaining terms are defined in Fig. 1.
The truncated terms in Eq 2 are of order V r or higher and consequently approach zero as r--->0.
Thus, K and T alone control the stress state in the near vicinity of the crack tip under SSY
conditions.
Rice and Tracy [6] and McMeeking [7] originally proposed the model depicted in Fig. 1,
with T = 0, as a boundary layer solution of the infinite body, single-ended crack problem. For
this special case, the single parameter J both sets the size scale over which large deformations
develop and describes the magnitude of stresses near the crack tip but outside of the finite
deformation zone. The Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren (HRR) field equations quantify the
relation between J and crack-tip stresses and strains in an infinite body made of incompressible,
fully plastic power-law-hardening material [8,9].
Larsson and Carlsson [10] modified the boundary layer (MBL) solution by applying nonzero
T stresses to approximate the effects of finite size on crack-tip region deformation and plastic
flow. The T = 0 (infinite body) solution is one of a family of SSY solutions generated by
changing the magnitude of the T stress applied to the MBL model. Larsson and Carlsson found
a marked influence of the the sign and magnitude of the T stress on the size and shape of the
crack-tip plastic zone. More recent investigations by both Hancock and Parks (and coworkers)
[11-17] demonstrate a strong influence of T stress on opening mode stresses near the crack tip.
Positive T stresses slightly elevate the opening mode stresses relative to the T = 0 condition
while negative T-stresses reduce significantly the opening mode stress. Despite this influence
on near-tip stresses, the T stress has no effect on J because T is nonsingular. These findings
demonstrate the inadequacy of J as the sole descriptor of deformation near a crack tip in finite
geometries, which generally have nonzero T.
O'Dowd and Shih [18,19] propose a two-parameter theory that describes crack-tip fields in
finite geometries (T :~ 0). They describe stresses surrounding a crack tip in terms of J plus an
additional parameter Q
= 5"u(0; n) + Q 6"ij(0; n) (3)

O"o
where
Oo = reference stress,
eo = reference strain, eo = oo/E,
c~ = Ramberg-Osgood constant,
n = Ramberg-Osgood strain-hardening exponent, and
I. = an integration constant.
Here, J sets the size scale over which large deformations develop while Q quantifies the opening
stress magnitude. O'Dowd and Shih found by analysis of the MBL model that (1) the power
on the radial coefficient in the second term (q) is approximately zero for n ~>4, (2) for 101 --<
90 ~ the second-order normal s t r e s s e s ( 0 . . r and too) are approximately equal, and (3) the second-
order shear stress (Oft) is approximately zero. Thus, Q is the amplitude of a hydrostatic, or
triaxiality term. Based on these observations, Eq 3 simplifies to
~ij=( j~l/(n+,)
Cro \ ~ / 6"0(0; n) + Q~ofor 101 -< 90 ~ (4)
where 80 = Kronecker delta.

Equation 4 expresses normal stresses in finite bodies as the infinite body HRR solution [8,9]
plus an additive constant (Q), which is independent of radial distance from the crack tip.
Numerical studies reveal that this model is adequate for deformation up to some geometry-
dependent limit, beyond which Q becomes radially dependent. Dependence of Q on distance
from the crack tip introduces ambiguity into the selection of a Q value to parameterize constraint
effects on fracture toughness (see the next section). Selection of an arbitrary location at which
to calculate Q implies knowledge of the critical distance for cleavage fracture which a pure
mechanics approach, such as the J-Q theory, seeks to avoid. However, use of an alternative
infinite body reference solution improves the radial independence of Q and, thereby, the robust-
ness of the J-Q theory. Figure 2 shows that Q values referenced to a full-field infinite body
solution (that is, SSY T = 0) remain radially independent to much larger deformations than
those referenced to an infinite body solution, which includes only the singular term (that is,
HRR). Equation 4 is altered to reflect this change of reference solution
crlj = %lssr;r=o + QcroS,j (5)
Under SSY conditions, T relates uniquely to Q. Analysis of cracks in finite bodies [19] reveals
that Eq 5 accurately describes the departure of stresses near the crack tip from the SSY family
of solutions well into large-scale yielding (LSY). Thus, Q remains a descriptor of crack-tip
stresses at deformation levels beyond those for which T can be defined. However, Fig. 2 dem-
onstrates that the crack-tip fields in finite bodies lose self-similarity with the SSY T = 0 reference
o.o I I I I ' i - - i ' i ' I ' I '
Q referenced to HRR Q rof_e~_enced

to SSY T=O
-0.25
-0.50 i ~:~2 2 212 2 z _- s _~ .- ~ .
Q -o, 75
Increasing
-1.oo
Deformation / Load
a/CTOD = 1041,814, 322, 251,195,152,
- 1.25
Deformation I Load
, i . |
(bothgraphs)
117, 66, 51, 38, 28, and 20
, I , I , I ,
I = I , I i I !
-1,50
0 1 2 3 4 5 60 1 2 3 4 5 6
r/(J/Oo) r/(J/oo)
FIG. 2--Effec~ of infinite body reference solution on radial independence of Q for an a/W -= 0.15
SE(B) specimen having a Ramberg-Ossood strain-hardening exponent (n) of 10.
FIG. 3--Schematic-illustration of fracture toughness locus constructed in mid transition using

various planar specimen geometries to obtain Jc,, over a range of constraint conditions.
solution at high load levels. Once self-similarity with the infinite body reference solution is
lost, the conditions for fracture in a finite body depend on characteristics unique to that body.
These conditions cannot be parameterized currently within the context of any two-parameter
theory.
T and Q as Constraint Parameters

The linkage of T (in SSY) and of Q (in SSY and LSY) with crack-tip stress state motivates
the use of Q and T to parameterize constraint effects on fracture toughness data. Several inves-
tigators have generated fracture toughness loci [2,3,13], J,~t versus Q or Jcn, versus T, as
depicted schematically in Fig. 3. However, this approach greatly complicates the determination
of fracture toughness; it necessitates conducting difficult experiments with low constraint geom-
etries (for example, shallow cracks in bending, cracks in tension) to define the fracture tough-
ness locus fully.
Considerable debate surrounds the application of T as a constraint parameter under LSY
conditions rather than Q. The Tapproach has the advantage of simplicity relative to Q, requiring
only a linear-elastic analysis rather than an elastic-plastic analysis of the cracked structure.
Under moderate- to large-scale yielding, the relations between T and the opening mode stresses
become geometry dependent. At these deformation levels, opening mode stresses predicted by
T only approximate the full elastic-plastic solution quantified by Q. However, several numerical
studies show that the T-MBL approximation predicts stresses to within 10% of finite body
calculations even for very large deformations [12,14,16,17]. The section on estimation
addresses the accuracy of stress estimation needed for calculation of constraint effects on cleav-
age fracture toughness.
Micromechanical Models f o r Cleavage Fracture

Dodds and Anderson [20-22] combine the computation of stresses near the crack tip with
the micromechanical conditions for cleavage fracture (achievement of a critical stress over a
critical volume [23]) to predict the conditions for cleavage fracture in one geometry based on
toughness data from another. Experimental data for several steels including mild steel, A36,
and A515 in low to mid transition demonstrate the validity of this approach [1-3]. For stress-
controlled cleavage fracture, this micromechanical approach greatly reduces the experimenta-
tion needed to define the toughness locus; a considerable simplification over parameterizing
constraint effects by either Q or T. The micromechanical approach requires detailed resolution
of crack-tip fields that, until now, have been obtained by very detailed elastic-plastic finite-
element analysis. The determination of Q requires computations of equivalent detail. This
complication makes such approaches unattractive for routine application to structural fracture
safety analysis at this time. In this investigation, the possibility of using the elastic T-stress
approximations of crack-tip stress distributions as input to the micromechanics analysis is inves-
tigated to determine if predictions of size effects having engineering accuracy can be obtained
without a detailed elastic-plastic analysis of each configuration considered.
T-MBL Approximation
Two analyses are needed to couple remotely applied load to opening mode stresses near the
crack tip:
1. An elastic analysis of the cracked structure that relates applied load to T stress.
2. An elastic-plastic analysis of the MBL model that relates T stress to opening mode stresses
near the crack tip.
The synthesis of these two analyses to approximate opening mode stresses in finite bodies is
referred to as the T-MBL approximation.
The Elastic T Stress

The T stress (Eq 2) is the nonsingular elastic stress acting parallel to the crack over vanish-
ingly small r. T-stress values for various geometries are frequently reported in the literature,
usually as a nondimensional ratio with K
rx/-~
[3 - - - (6)
K
where [3 is referred to as a biaxiality parameter, which is a constant for a given geometry and
loading mode. The various techniques used to compute T, and thereby [3, include boundary
collocation, second-order weight functions, and domain interaction integrals [24-27].
Modified Boundary Layer Model

Details of the MBL model were presented earlier. Displacements are applied to the MBL
model consistent with the first two terms (that is, K and T) of the linear solution. Elastic-plastic
finite-element analysis of the model provides a family of full-field SSY solutions parametric in
TIoo. Conditions are achieved wherein stresses and strains at all angles scale with r/[J/(aoeoOO],
as do the HRR fields. The fields remain self-similar until the plastic zone size becomes a
significant portion of the modeled domain radius, ~ 10%, at which point it senses the finite
boundary. Figure 4 schematically depicts the results of such an analysis. The C~ coefficients
are determined by curve fitting the finite-element results at various normalized distances ahead
of the crack tip.
~ = %
Oo "~ J I o o
r=o
T<0
r/(J/oo)
Finite Element Results ~o =
i=O
T/oo
FIG. 4---Relationship between opening mode stress a, r~asticT stress quantified by a modified
boundary layer model. Similar curves can be constructea at any constant normalized distance, fit,
ahead of the crack ":, from finite-element results.
Approximation o f Opening Mode Stresses

The effect of finite size on opening mode stress near the crack tip is computed by combining
the information discussed in the preceding sections. First, an elastic analysis of the cracked
geometry is performed to determined K, T, and [3. The variation of T with load is determined
from Eq 6 as follows
T [3K
Oo - O.o~-- d (7)
These elastic T-stress and K values are inserted into the MBL solution (Fig. 4) to determine the
variation of opening mode stress near the crack tip with applied loading
[3" Y (8~
Here, the Ci are fitting coefficients for a particular set of finite-element results. Equation 8
couples the far-field elastic solution with near-tip stresses. The applied load enters this approx-
imation through K, while 13characterizes geometry. Moreover, 13controls the direction and rate
at which increasing load causes deviation of near-tip stresses from the T = 0 limit. Three
examples indicate potential limitations on the applicability of this approximation.
fl > 0 (High Constraint)--Equation 8 predicts a continuous increase of normalized

opening mode stress with increasing load. This can lead to unrealistic predictions--con-
sider the rectangular double cantilever beam specimen (a/W = 0.5, H / W = 2.5, 13 = 2.96
[24]). At some load, a plastic hinge must form on the uncracked ligament which reduces
opening mode stress significantly below the T-MBL prediction.
fl = 0 (T -~ 0)---Equation 8 predicts that normalized opening mode stresses remain
constant independent of the applied load, that is, the constraint remains constant at the T
= 0 level. Consider a SE(B) with a / W = 0.39, which has [3 = 0 [24]. A plastic hinge
must form at some load. After hinge formation, plastic flow is no longer contz'qed, and
opening mode stresses must fall as a consequence.
fl < 0 (Low Constraint)--Equafion 8 predicts the continuous decrease of normalized

opening mode stress with increasing load. This behavior is observed in analyses of finite
bodies. Two-dimensional cracked geometries having [3 < 0 include tension-loaded central
cracks, tension-loaded edge cracks (a/W < 0.60), edge cracks loaded in bending (a/W <
0.39), and double-edge cracks. This class of problems also includes the particularly impor-
tant case of semi-elliptical surface cracks loaded in tension.
Micromechanical Predictions of Size Effects on Jc

For steels operating at temperatures in which cleavage occurs after significant plastic defor-
mation but before the initiation of ductile growth (lower to mid-transition), attainment of a
critical stress over a microstructurally relevant volume is an appropriate micromechanical fail-
ure criteria [23]. Important classes of engineering structures can fail by this mechanism, includ-
ing high strength rails, offshore oil platforms, ships, pipelines storage tanks, and nuclear pres-
sure vessels after years of neutron irradiation embrittlement. Dodds and Anderson [20-22]
show that, by quantifying the effects of finite size on microscale/macroscale crack-driving force
relations, the apparent effect of size on fracture toughness can be rigorously predicted without
resort to empirical arguments. These size effects become steadily more pronounced as load
increases as a result of the deviation of crack-tip region deformations from the SSY (T = O)
conditions essential for single-parameter fracture mechanics (SPFM) to apply. Once SPFM
becomes invalid, a micromechanics failure criteria is required to establish the geometry invar-
iant conditions at fracture. Finite-element analysis provides a means to quantify the geometry
dependent relations between these conditions and macroscale crack driving force. This permits
(in principle) prediction of fracture in any body from toughness values measured using standard
specimens.
Although cleavage is driven by stress and stressed volume, the difficulty of measuring critical
values of these parameters dictates that fracture driving force, and thereby critical fracture
conditions, be expressed in terms of more easily measured macroscopic parameters (for exam-
ple, J). Thus, an effective macroscopic driving force for cleavage fracture (Jo) can be defined
as follows.
Jo is the J to which the infinite body (T = 0, MBL model) must be loaded to achieve the same stressed
volume, and thereby the same driving force for cleavage fracture, as in a finite body.
Early papers on this topic used the notation J s s Y instead of Jo. The notation is changed here to
emphasize that the infinite body reference configuration is T = 0.
The variation of Jo with J is depicted schematically for two finite bodies in Fig. 5. Upon
initial loading of a finite body, crack-tip plasticity is well contained within a surrounding elastic
field. Crack-tip conditions are well approximated by T = 0 and, up to some geometry dependent
deformation level, Jo ~ JFiniteBody"Subsequent interaction of plasticity at the crack tip with
plasticity resulting from overall deformation of the structure relaxes the kinematic constraint
against plastic flow at the crack tip, thus reducing the stresses in the crack-tip region below
what they are for T = 0 at the same J. This reduces the microscale driving force for cleavage.
Consequently, the finite body requires more applied-J to achieve the same conditions for cleav-
age (same stressed volume) as in the infinite body. This finite size effect on crack-tip stress
fields differs for different geometries constructed from the same material; it is indicated by
deviation from the l:l slope in Fig. 5. Information of this type is useful for both analysis of
fracture test data and for assessing the defect integrity of structures. Path A-B-C in Fig. 5
illustrates the procedure to remove geometric dependencies from experimental cleavage fracture
toughness (Jc) data by determining the geometry independent cleavage fracture toughness (Jo)
Jo T=0 DeeplyCracked
l ~Solution~TestSpecimen
/J,:,J
V ~A EI ~JFinite
Body
dc JApplied
FIG. 5--Conceptual variation of Jo with J for two finite bodies. Horizontal lines (Jo = constant)
denote equivalent driving force for cleavage fracture (equivalent stressed volumes) in both bodies.
corresponding to a measured J~ value. Alternatively, Fig. 5 permits determination of the effec-

tive driving force for cleavage fracture produced by structural loading to a certain JApp~o value
(Path E-D-C).
Jo is estimated from opening mode stresses acting on the plane directly ahead of the crack
tip [20]. The variation of these stresses with distance from the crack tip is illustrated schemat-
ically in Fig. 6. Here, finite body stresses are normalized by the stress that occurs in the T =
O, MBL solution at the same normalized distance ahead of the crack tip {same r/[J/(etOoeo)] }
when loaded to the same J as the finite body, that is, Jo =- J- Previous studies show that finite
body stresses remain self-similar to the T = 0 MBL solution, as indicated by the radial inde-
pendence of the normalized stresses in Fig. 6, to deformation levels greatly exceeding those at
which SPFM breaks down [20]. Jo is calculated for each line on this graph as the J value
required in the T = 0 MBL solution to achieve the same opening mode stress as in the finite
body. In practice, equivalence of stresses is forced at a single location ahead of the crack tip.
1.0 m
O yy] Finite Body

(~YYlT = O
Increasing
Deformation/ Load
r/[d/(OoEoa)]
FIG. 6---Effect of applied load on opening mode stresses ahead of a crack in a finite body (after
Ref 22).
FIG. 7--Opening mode stresses on the crack plane in SSY for Ramberg-Osgood materials [22].
This corresponds to selecting the critical microstructural distance (l*) in the Richie-Knott-Rice
model [23]. However, self-similarity between the SSY and finite body stress distributions makes
the specific location selected unimportant over a wide range of deformation. Jo values are
independent of the critical distance selected over a range of distances that encompasses frac-
tographically determined (l*) values [28]. This ability to determine Jo irrespective of the actual
(l*) value relies on self-similar stress distributions around the crack in finite and infinite bodies.
Previous investigations [20-22] used very detailed elastic-plastic finite-element analysis to
quantify the effects of finite geometry and load level on opening mode stresses. The cost and
time required to implement this approach make it unattractive for routine application. Con-
versely, opening mode stresses determined by the T-MBL approximation require only an elastic
analysis of the cracked structure. However, this approximation is not exact for LSY. Previous
investigators report differences of ~ 10% between the T-MBL approximation and opening mode
stresses from full finite body calculations [12,14,16-17]. These small errors are misleading
because of the considerable influence they exert on Jo. The effect of stress errors on Jo is
quantified by assuming that the stress distribution ahead of the crack tip in a finite body is self-
similar to that characteristic of T = 0 over some range of loading, an assumption justified by
Ref 20. Kirk and Dodds [22] report T = 0 solutions for a wide range of strain-hardening
exponents, some of which are reproduced in Fig. 7. The effect of errors in the opening mode
stress at cleavage fracture on Jo can be calculated from these results using the following equa-
tion; which is derived from the Jo estimation strategy proposed by Dodds et al. [20]
~ rT--MBL[~ : (1 -- ~j), n (9)

Jo O'o ' ',, %
where
= r/(J/(o:oC0),
o~ = cleavage fracture stress, and
= percentage by which opening mode stress estimated by Eq 8 and actual opening mode
stress differ.
72 FRACTUREMECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
2.01 / / " '/ "/

I n=50 n=18 n=lO n=5~
n =
1.5
JOIT-MBL
Jo 1.1
1.0
--i 0.9 .
~ a
oo
0.5 ' ' '
0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
O'~/y-MBL/O'yy
FIG. 8--Effect of stress errors m estimated opening mode stress on predicted toughness values.
These results depend on o*, however, the relative effect of strain hardening (n) is independent of
o*.
In this example, o~ is the value of cleavage fracture stress used to calculate Jo while o~(1
- 6) is the value estimated by the T-MBL approximation. The construction lines in Fig. 7
illustrate these values and the effects of small stress errors (~) on the ~ values used to calculate
Jo. Figure 8 presents the result of this calculation (Eq 9) for a range of strain-hardening expo-
nents. Small errors in the estimated opening mode stress have proportionately greater effects
on Jo, particularly for materials that do not strain harden appreciably. This example demon-
strates that the seemingly small stress errors typically attributed to T-MBL approximations
produce unacceptably large variations in Jo. As toughness, not stress, is the quantity used when
assessing structural fracture integrity, the ability of the T-MBL approximation to correctly pre-
dict the effect of constraint on the effective driving force for cleavage fracture (Jo) is quantified
in this study.
Numerical Procedures
Two-dimensional, plane-strain finite element analyses of the MBL model and of numerous
finite cracked geometries are performed to obtain detailed resolution of stresses in the crack-
tip region and to determine how they change with loading. Table 1 lists the planar geometries
studied along with their [3 values, which range from -0.99 (very low constraint) to +2.96
(very high constraint). These analyses permit assessment of the range of conditions over which
the T-MBL approximation provides Jo estimates of acceptable accuracy. Conventional small
strain theory is used throughout. These analyses are conducted using the POLO-FINITE anal-
ysis software [29] on an engineering workstation.
Constitutive Model
Uniaxial stress-strain behavior is described using a linear/power law model (see Fig. 9)
proposed by Wang [16,17]
T A B L E 1 - - f l values for planar-cracked geometries modeled, a
Loaded
Specimen alW HIW by 13
0.05 N/A Tractions - 0.415

0.15 ... -0.296
0.25 ... -0.178
SE(B) 0.391 ... -0.006
0.50 ... +0.137
0.70 ... + 0.410
0.90 ... + I. 180
DE(T) 0.70 2.25 Tractions -0.423
0.90 2.25 -0.273
DB(T) 0.25 0.40 Tractions + 1.578
0.50 0.40 + 2.956
0.50 1.00 +0.899
SE(T) 0.025 2.50 Displacement - 0.460
0.20 5.00 Displacement - 0.415
0.391 2.25 Tractions -0.283
0.50 2.25 Tractions -0.148
0.70 2.25 Tractions + 0.218
M(T) 0.025 2.50 Displacement - 0.994
0.20 5.00 -0.975
a The 13 calculation is described in the section on post-processing.
Linear Region: /3 - or f o r or < L~

/30 (To (To
Transition Region: -
e
- = eNc _ r 2Nc _ or orNc f o r L 1 --< -tr- --< L 2 (10)
/30 (To
/3 or
Power-Law Region: - - = f o r - - > L2
SO O"o
1.5 J
L2
- . _ _ ~ Power-Law
1
0 L1 /~1 rNc
Oo / "~ (~N~, %J
0.5 Linear
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
FIG. 9--Uniaxial stress-strain curve defined by Eq 10.
where Oo is the reference stress (0.2% offset yield), e o = oo/E is the reference strain, and n is
the strain-hardening exponent for the power-law region. The remaining parameters are defined
in Fig. 9. Values representing a moderately strain-hardening material are used: n = 10, o o =
413.7 MPa, E = 206.85 GPa, eo = 0.002, and L 1 = 0.95. This constitutive model is adopted
rather than the conventional Ramberg-Osgood description to ensure that SSY conditions are
maintained in the MBL model even for applied T stresses near the yield stress. A transition
region consisting of a circular arc between the linear and power-law regions makes the tangent
modulus a smooth, continuous function of equivalent strain.
J2 deformation plasticity theory (that is, nonlinear elasticity) describes the multiaxial material
behavior. By using an effective stress defined from the von Mises yield function and an effective
strain defined from the Prandlt-Reuss relations, the total stress components are expressed in
terms of total strain components:
tro _ 1 ekk gO + 2 tre/Cro e o (11)

tro 3(1 2v) e o 3 eateo eo
where ekk is the trace of the stress tensor, go is the Kronecker delta, and the effective stress and
strain are defined by
l[
0 -2 ~__. 2 (0"11 - - 0"22) 2 "~ (0"22 - - 0"33) 2 "]- (0"33 - - 0"11) 2 "1- 6(~r22 + o-23 + 0"~3)] (12)
eo2 = ~ 21 3
(e,1 - e22)2 + ( e 2 2 - e33)2 + (e33 - e,,) 2 + ~(3'22 + ~/~3 + 2/23) ] (13)
Finite Elements and Crack-Tip Modeling

Eight-noded, plane-strain isoparametric quadrilateral elements are used throughout. Reduced
(2 by 2) Gaussian integration eliminates locking of the elements under incompressible plastic
deformation. The crack-tip elements are collapsed into wedges with the initially coincident
nodes left unconstrained to permit development of crack-tip blunting deformations. The side
nodes of these elements are retained at the mid-point position. This modeling technique pro-
duces a 1/r strain singularity, appropriate in the limit of perfect plasticity.
Modified Boundary Layer (MBL) Model

A circular domain of outer radius R that contains a sharp crack tip at r = 0 is modeled using
finite elements (see Fig. 1). Symmetrical boundary conditions are enforced on the crack plane.
The mesh contains 3109 nodes and 986 elements divided into 17 equally sized wedges of
elements in the 0 direction. Each wedge contains 58 elements whose radial dimension decreases
geometrically with decreasing distance to the crack tip. Elements incident on the crack tip have
a side length of R/530000. Displacement increments of the 2-term elastic field, Eq 2, are
imposed on the outer circular boundary
= - - cos (3 - 4 v - cos0) + T rcos 0

E E
(14)
Av(r, 0) = AKx ---E--- sin (3 - 4v - cos 0) - T ~ r sin 0
Load
DBs S0e(; men

alW = 0.25
H/W = 0.4
396 Elements
1232 Nodes ~L
Load
FIG. lO---Finite-element mesh for double cantilever beam specimen.
Displacements generating the full magnitude of the T-stress are applied first. Thereafter,
loading occurs by displacements corresponding to increments of applied K until the plastic
zone radius is 10% of R. At this point, J calculated by the domain integral technique over rings
embedded within the plastic zone differ from the applied J (= KZ(1 - v2)lE) by less than 0.1%,
indicating that SSY conditions prevail. The deformation plasticity constitutive model ensures
that load sequence does not influence the computed results. Application of the full T stress first
followed by K leads to more rapid convergence of the nonlinear solution and enables verifi-
cation of the self-similarity of the stresses at all K levels.
Models of Finite Geometries

Finite-element models are constructed for each cracked geometry listed in Table 1. A semi-
circular core of elements surrounds the crack tip in all models. This core consists of eight
equally sized wedges of elements in the 0 direction. Each wedge contains 30 quadrilateral
elements whose radial dimension decreases geometrically with decreasing distance to the crack
tip. Crack-tip element size ranges from 0.003 to 0.22% of the crack depth depending on the
crack depth modeled. All models exploit symmetry conditions where possible. Model size
ranges from 343 elements/1150 nodes for the 0.5 a/W DB(T) to 1735 elements/5482 nodes for
the 0.2 a/W SE(T) and M(T). Figure 10 illustrates a typical model.
Tensile geometries are loaded by either uniform tractions or by uniform displacements
applied normal to the crack plane on the remote end of the specimen. Loading by applied
displacements maintains better control of the solution near the limit state for shallow cracks.
SE(B) specimens are loaded by distributing uniform tractions over two small elements at the
center of the compressive face to eliminate the local singularity effects caused by a concentrated
nodal load. DB(T) specimens are loaded by a uniform shear force applied normal to the crack
plane along the centerline of the pin location in a mechanical test specimen.
Post-Processing to Obtain J, CTOD, Jo, and 13

The J integral is computed at each load step using a domain integral method [30,31]. J values
calculated over domains adjacent to and remote from the crack tip are within 0.003% of each
other, as expected for deformation plasticity combined with these detailed meshes. CTOD is
defined by the blunted shape of the crack flanks using the ---45~ intercept procedure. Jo is
estimated by iteratively solving the following equation using a nonlinear root finder [32]
]|CryYIF81 : Go + GI~'~ "F G2fft 2 + G3~3 q- G4~t4 for 0.000 85 --< fit --< 0.1073
log [- (15)
L ~oJ
where
oyylw = finite body stress at r = 2JAppaJo o,
fit = log{ rcJ[(Jol(ooeo)l },
rc~t = 2JAppliCd/O0,
JApplied = J applied to the finite body as computed by the domain integral technique,
Go = - 1.03137,
G1 = -2.14688,
G2 = - 1.21929,
G 3 = -0.33021, and
G4 = -0.03401.
This functional form is adopted solely for convenience, that is, a simple closed-form fit to the
T = 0 MBL solution. The fit applies to a linear power law material, Eq 10, with a strain-
hardening exponent of 10.
The biaxiality parameter [3 is determined by using nodal displacements from a linear analysis
of each model as input to a least-squares solution for the first 12 terms of a Westergaard series
expansion. Barker used the least-squares procedure to extract the stress intensity factor from
experimental Mori6 or speckle interferometry data [33]. For computation of [3, nodal displace-
ments are extracted from an annular region surrounding (but excluding) the crack tip having
an outer radius <-- 0.9a. [3 is calculated by Eq 6 as the normalized ratio of the first two series
coefficients (K and T). Generally, estimates of [3 stabilize once the number of nodal displace-
ment conditions exceeds 40 times the number of terms in the Westergaard series. [3 values
calculated by this technique compare favorably with those reported elsewhere [24-26]. All [3
values reported in Table 1 are calculated in this manner.
Results and Discussion

Modified Boundary Layer Solutions
Figure 11 shows the variation of opening mode stress in the MBL solution with distance
ahead of the crack tip for different applied T stresses. Negative T values decrease significantly
the opening mode stresses below those for T = 0, while positive T values elevate slightly
opening mode stresses. Approximations for crack plane stresses in finite bodies are constructed
from these stress distributions by taking vertical cuts at different r/(J/Oo) values to obtain a
relation between elastic T stress and opening mode stress (Fig. 12). The curve fit to these results
for r/(J/Oo) = 2 facilitates comparison of this T-MBL approximation to finite body stresses.
Comparison at other normalized distances produces similar conclusions.
Opening Mode Stresses in Finite Bodies

Figure 13 compares opening mode stresses in various finite bodies to those predicted by the
T-MBL approximation at rl(J/Oo) = 2. On these figures, the zero-load condition for all finite
body results occurs at T = 0, Oyy/Oo = 3.43 (that is, the infinite body result). As the applied
load increases, the symbols representing each finite geometry depart from this initial point.
Mesh refinement limits the ability to accurately resolve near-tip stresses below a certain load,
thus some geometries have no results near this initial point. The T-MBL approximation accounts
for only those finite geometry effects contained in the second tenr~ (T) of the series expansion
5 9 , 9 , 9 , . , 9 | 9
I Oo = 0.002 ]
Oyy
(7 0 3
2
T = 0.O,-0.2,-0.4,-0.6,-0.8
n=10
Linear Power Law
i I i i l i I I ,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
r/(J/oo)
FIG. 11-yOpening mode stresses on the crack plane from modified boundary layer analysis.
for stresses near the crack tip in a linear elastic body. Under SSY this is the only geometry
effect so the T-MBL approximation is always accurate over some initial loading range. As load
increases, plastic flow breaks, to a free surface in some geometries. UncontaJned yielding, not
accounted for by the T-MBL approximation, relieves stresses at the crack tip causing them to
drop below the MBL solution. In Fig. 13, finite body results are plotted until the applied defor-
mation becomes so extensive that the stress distribution loses self-similarity with the reference
T = 0 distribution. This loss of self-similarity causes ambiguity in computed Jo values, indi-
cating that toughness values can no longer be scaled between geometries without regard of the
location of cleavage fracture initiation. An operational definition for the breakdown of self-
similarity is made as the deformation beyond which Jo values calculated at r/(J/Cro) = 1.5 and
at r/(J/Oo) = 4 differ by more than ---10% of their average value. Deformation limits on different
fracture mechanics methods are discussed below.
,o • (T), ~
= Ci ~oo Linear Power Law
i=O
3. 5 forrl(Jloo)=2,
Co = 3.426 / " /
C1 = 0.609 J j ~ / ~
c2 =-0.567 / ,,~ .,,.~/_.....-----,--'--,
(10 3.0 ////.~/~'//"~/"~/~"'~ J=-~~
25 .I//.// :
o_9o= 0.002
E
2.0 , I , I , i
-1.0 -0.5 (9.0 0.5 1.0
T/oo
FIG. 12--Variation of opening mode stress on the crack plane with applied T stress and distance
ahead of the crack tip determihe I by modified boundary layer analysis.
3. 75 - i - . - = - , - w - , -
MBL Approximation
3.50
SE(B)
9 alW = 0 . 0 5
x a/w = 0.15
Oyy 3.25 9~ alW = 0.25
V 9a / W = 0.391
Oo D alW = 0.50
3.OO 0 a/W = 0.70
+ alW = 0.90
, f ",,, ,, 9 ~ MBL Approximation
2.75
2"5o-0.6 -;~.4"-;~.2' 010 " 012 " 0'.4 " 016 0.a
T/oo
3. 75 . . . . " . . . . . " " "
3.50
SE(T)
Oyy 3.25 + alW = 0.025
9 alW = 0 . 2 0
9 a/W = 0.391
Oo 9 a/W = 0.50
3.00
9 alW = 0 . 7 0
/.. " MBL Approximation
2. 75
.A/"
25~ " 0 . 4 '

-0.2 i ,
0.0 | 9
0.2 * -
0.4 , -
0.5 9 -
0.8
T/oo
3. 7 5 . i . = . , . i . = . , .
MBL Approximation
X alW = 0 . 7 0
r a/W = 0 . 9 0
......... DB(T)
,," MBL Approximation o alW = 0 . 0 2 5

Lx alW = 0 . 2 0
2.75 ,,"
s
2"5~ -0.2 010 012" 0'.4" d6" 08

T/oo
FIG. 13--Comparison of modified boundary layer approximation with opening mode stresses in
various planar crack geometries for an n = 10, ooE/O.O02 material.
The results in Fig. 13 show that the T-MBL approximation generally differs by less than 10%
from the results of a full elastic-plastic analysis of the finite body. However, in certain geom-
etries differences between the T-MBL approximation and finite body results caused by LSY do
not appear significant until near or after self-similarity breaks down. The T-MBL approximation
for these specimens is much more accurate than it is for the totality of cases considered. Figure
14 regroups the data presented in Fig. 13 by 13 value rather than by specimen type. Three
categories emerge:
(1) 1131>0.9, T-MBL stress approximation within 1.5% of finite body results,
<2) 1131> 0.4, T-MBL stress approximation within 3.0% of finite body results; and
(3) 1131< 0.4 T-MBL stress approximation within 17.5% of finite body results.
3. 75
MBL Approximation
at rl(J/a=)=2 ~ .........
3.50
SE(B)
9 alW = 0.90
15yy 3.25 _.E 1.5% Below
\ DB(T)
9 a l W = 0 . 5 0 , HIW = 0.4
o alW = 0.50, HIW = 1.0
O0 F MBL ApprOximation I ;< a/W = 0.25, HtW = 0.4
3.00 M('F)
o a/W = 0.025
A alW = 0.20
I CategoryI
2.75
I/~1 > 0.9 I
i
. J . 9 . . . = . = . i .
25" 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

T/15o
3.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . SE(B)
MBL Approximation ~mm,.,i~B'~'~'g 9 9 a/W = 0.05
o alW = 0.70
3.50 a t ~ ......... 9 a/W = 0.90
SE(T)
+ a/W = 0.025
O y y 3.25 9 alW = 0.20
DE(T)
_ ~ ~/ 3% Below X alW = 0.70
O0 DB(T)
3.00 .,ff~l;~
1;~ x MBL Approximation
9 alW = 0 . 5 0 , H/W = 0.4
D alW = 0.50, HIW = 1.0
x alW = 0.25, HIW = 0.4
2.75 Category 2
I~1 > 0.4
I M('T)
0 a/W = 0.025
A a/W = 0.20
25Oo6_;4_b2 olo o12 o14 o16 oa
T/oo
3. 75 - , . . . . . . . , - , -
MBL Approximation
3.50 atr/(J/oo)=2 SE(B)
x a/W = 0.15
~P='~ ~; I Categ~ I zx a/W =
v a/W =
0.25
0.391
15yy 3.25 [] a/W = 0.50
SElf)
150 9 a/W = 0.391
3.00 9 alW = 0.50
9 ahY = 0.70
DE(T)
2. 75 """"""" - "- o a/W = 0.90
9 MBL Approximation
. . = . 9 . = . 0 . 9 .
2"500
- 6 -"0" . 4 - 0 . 2 oo 02 04 05 oa
T/oo
FIG. 14---Comparison of modified boundary layer approximation with opening mode stresses in
various planar crack geometries grouped by[r[ values for an n = 10, OolE = 0.002 material.
Errors associated with very deep cracks (a/W > 0.7) are ignored in establishing these limits.
These cases are unimportant in engineering practice. While Category 3 errors do not seem
unreasonably large, the analysis of the section on micromechanical predictions demonstrates
that small stress errors become magnified when calculating Jo. It is encouraging that"structural-
type" configurations, that is, shallow cracks in tension, fall mostly in Categories 1 and 2. This
suggests the possibility of estimating, with acceptable accuracy, the effective driving force for
cleavage fracture, Jo, based only on elastic analysis. However, "test specimen" configurations
fall mostly in Category 3 in which the T-MBL approximation displays limited accuracy. For-
tunately, many detailed analyses of test specimen geometries have been reported in the literature
[2,12,20,21], making the availability of accurate approximate techniques less important.
0.0006
O E l a s U c - P l a s t i c FEA
+ MBLA p p r o x i m a t i o n at rl(J/~o)=2 ~
0.0004
Jo
aOt~ow
0.0002
MBL~,
0.0000 , I , I , I ,
0.0000 0.ooo5 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020
J/(aO.ow)
0.003
O E l a s t i c - P l a s t i c FEA
0.0020.001 + A p p r o x i m a t i o n at r/(J/~o)= 2
Jo
aOflow
/~'- I Category2 ] _,S,E(T),
f > . t
I 1'81;d4 alW = U.Z
0.000
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
J/(a%ow) f
0.020
O E l a s t i c - P l a s t i c FEA
+ MBL A p p r o x i m a t i o n at r/(Jl~o)=2.
0.015
Go
0.010 ./.*~176
a(Jflow
o.oo5 SE(B),
alW = 0.5
fl=+0.14
o.ooo -~ 0.005 0.010 0.015
I =
O.020
0.000
d/(a%ow)
FIG. 15--Comparison of constraintvorrection curves for cleavage fracture determined by elastic-
plastic finite-element analysis with those determined by the T-MBL approximation for an n = 10
oolE = 0.002 material.
Jo Estimation
Figure 15 shows the variation of 3o with J estimated by the T-MBL approximation for one
geometry in each category established in the previous section. The reference curves shown on
each figure are determined by elastic-plastic finite-element analysis. Because J is proportional
to crack plane stresses raised to a power, the T-MBL estimates are quite accurate if stress errors
are small (l[~l > 0.9). However, the stress errors for 1131 < 0.4 produce large errors in the
predicted Jo. These effects are illustrated in Fig. 16. Use of T-MBL estimates of stress to
calculate Jo by Eq 15 magnifies stress errors by seven- to twelve-fold. These results permit
development of limits that must be imposed on T-MBL errors in stress to keep estimates of Jo
Category I 12:
1.50
I I~1 >0.9 /"
/" _.i" / 4/ sE(ml
9 a/w=0.90
/" /'~7: J DB('I')
dol MBL 1.25
" . ,t.t"
/7.,3~ 1 9 a/W = 0.50,HIW = 0.4
[] a / W = 0 . 5 0 , H I W = 1.0
a/W = 0.25,H/W = 0.4
dol FEA A~'..j / M~
.-- , o.,w=0.025
1.00 zx a/W = 0.20
0. 75 i
0.975 1.000 1.025 1.050 1.075
MBL/Oyy I FEA
1.75
[- .
Category
.
- .
2
]. .
12:1
i,__~/" I SE(B)
.o,w=o.o5
o alW = 0.70
1.50 L I#1 >0.4 j /

"/'Y j/
t 9 alW = 0.90
s+E~w=o025
, ~ •/ /-~: 1
I DE(T)
,~/w=o2o
J01MBL 1.25 z alW = 0.70
9 a l W = 0.50,H/W = 0.4
Jol FEA ~" ~i ' ' ~l ; l " , DR(I)
[] a/W = 0.50,H/W = 1.0
1.00 ~ a/W = 0.25,H/W = 0.4
M('r)
,. o a/W = 0.025
zx a/W = 0.20
0. 75
0.975 1.000 1.025 1.050 1.075
MBL/(~ I FEA
3.5 " , " , " , " , " y 9
3.0 SE(B)
1 zx a/W = 0.25
2.5 ~ ~7: "4 a l W = 0.391
Go MBL o
~.~" 1
r~ alW= 0.5o
SE('I')
J 2,0 .~.- 9 a/W 0.391
Jol FEA , , ~ f ~ II a/W = 0.50
1.5 9 alW = 0.70
DE(T)
o alW = 0.90
1.0
0.5 / ' " I , I , I , I

0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
~ MSL/(~YY JFEA
FIG. 16--Effect o f modified boundary layer stress estimation accuracy on Jssy estimation accuracy
f o r an n = 100, ao/E -- 0.002 material.
sufficiently accurate. For example, stress errors must be below 1.5% to ensure Jo values accurate
to within ___10%. Only geometries having 1131> 0.9 satisfy this requirement. Alternatively,
stress errors below 3% (that is, specimens with 1131> 0.4) produce Jo estimates accurate to
within --_20%. These error limits on Jo are defined here only to illustrate that the T - M B L
approximation is much more accurate for certain geometries (high 1131)than for others (low
1131).Acceptable limits on Jo error need to take account of the relation between Jo and J for the
particular structure being assessed. As the Jo versus J curve (Fig. 15) becomes flat, small errors
in Jo produce much larger errors in J and, consequently, in load at fracture. In this situation,
tighter limits on Jo error may be required.
These results suggest that a diagram of the type illustrated in Fig. 17 can be constructed.
This investigation only quantifies the point for one strain-hardening exponent, n = 10. The
82 FRACTURE MECHANICS: "I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
T-MBLJo
estimates accurate ..--~
to within 20% . J "
~,,~ i Based
n onthe
,Fgiuretrends
8 shown
j,~ T-MBL,1oestimates have

0.4(, more than 20% error
" Quantified by this study
I
10
Strain Hardening Exponent, n
FIG. 17--Postulated effect of material strain hardening on the range of biaxiality parameter (f3)
over which T-MBL Jo estimates have acceptable accuracy.
trend shown is conjectural based on information presented in the section on opening mode
stresses, which suggests that increased material strain hardening (that is, n < 10) reduces the
sensitivity to stress errors of the Jo values predicted using T-MBL. While further analysis is
needed to quantify the actual variation, it is encouraging that the low-to-moderate strength
steels (yield stress below 580 MPa or 84 ksi) used extensively in civil and offshore construction
typically have strain-hardening exponents below ten [34]. Thus, for a broad class of engineering
structures, the T-MBL approximation should produce acceptably accurate estimates of Jo for a
wider range of cracked geometries than reported here for n = 10.
Deformation Limits on the Applicability of these Fracture Analysis Methods

The applicability limits of SPFM are typically expressed as a maximum permissible defor-
mation level relative to specimen size. So long as deformation of the structure remains below
this level, the crack-tip fields in the finite body are accurately described by J alone, and critical
J values are geometry independent
C
Dm. • -- - - (16)
JcrJO'flow
Here Jc,, represents the value of J at some critical event (arcfor cleavage fracture initiation, J~c
for ductile fracture initiation), and c is the smallest characteristic structural dimension (crack
length, ligament length, or thickness). The smallest characteristic dimension (c) must be large
compared to the CTOD (proportional to JcriJCrnow)for J alone to characterize crack-tip defor-
mations. Previous investigators have used different criteria to quantify D m a ~. Shih and German
[35] establish O m a x based on excessive deviation (~> 10%) of crack plane stresses in finite bodies
from the HRR solution. This criteria was established without regard to the fracture mechanism,
although the intent was to set limits on Jic (ductile fracture) validity. Conversely, Dodds, et al.
[20] establish Omax for cleavage fracture as the deformation level above which JJJo > 1.1. This
criteria requires assumption of a failure mode to establish the geometry independent conditions
at fracture. While deformation limits constructed on a purely mechanical basis (for example,
deviation from HRR) are more simply determined, they are of less practical utility than micro-
mechanically based limits, for these establish the maximum error in the quantity used to assess
structural fracture integrity: toughness.
The evolving methods for fracture analysis discussed here extend significantly, relative to
SPFM, the range of deformation over which the crack-tip stress state can be accurately
described. However, these techniques also have deformation limits beyond which the crack-tip
fields are not uniquely and completely characterized by the parameters used. Use of any method
beyond its applicability limit will produce apparent size dependencies in fracture toughness
data. Criteria that define these limits are established as follows.
Limit on the T-MBL Approximation for Jo--Jo cannot be estimated accurately using
opening mode stresses from the T-MBL approximation when J/Jo calculated by the T-MBL
approximation at r/(J/Oo) = 2 differs by more than 10% from J/Jo determined by elastic-
plastic finite-element analysis of the finite geometry.
Limit on Jo from Elastic-Plastic Finite-Element Analysis--The effective driving force
for cleavage fracture, Jo, cannot be unambiguously calculated when Jo values calculated
at r = 1.5J/oo and at r = 4J/o o differ by more than 10% of their average value.
As shown in Fig. 18, it appears that 13 parameterizes these deformation limits, effectively
accounting for the combined effects of geometry and loading mode. While this relationship
lacks a rigorous basis, it is not completely unforeseen that 13 should account for geometry and
loading mode effects as 13 depends on both. However, as 13is only an elastic quantity, the effect
of material strain hardening remains unquantified.
Summary and Conclusions

This investigation examines the ability of an elastic T-stress analysis coupled with a modified
boundary layer (MBL) solution to predict stresses ahead of a crack tip in a variety of planar
geometries. The approximate stresses are used as input to estimate the effective driving force
for cleavage fracture (Jo) using the micromechanically based approach introduced by Dodds
and Anderson. Finite-element analyses for a wide variety of planar-cracked geometries are
conducted, that have elastic biaxiality parameters (13) ranging from -0.99 (very low constraint)
to +2.96 (very high constraint). The magnitude and sign of 13 indicate the rate at which crack-
tip constraint changes with increasing applied load. All results pertain to a moderately strain-
hardening material (strain-hardening exponent (n) of 10). The following specific conclusions
may be drawn from these analyses.
1. The accuracy of the T-MBL approximation for opening mode stresses strongly correlates
With the elastic biaxiality parameter 13 for planar geometries. The following limits are
established for materials of work-hardening exponent n = 10 by comparing T-MBL esti-
mates to finite body calculations:
[131 > 0.9, T-MBL stress approximation within 1% of finite body results;
0.4 < 113[ < 0.9, T-MBL stress approximation within 2.5% of finite body results; and
[13] < 0.4, ToMBL stress approximation within 17.5% of finite body results.
2. These errors in the estimated stress become magnified by a factor of seven to twelve when
used to calculate the effective driving force for cleavage fracture (Jo) because J scales
with stress raised to a power. However, for a restricted range of geometries, reasonable
accuracy is available:
' - - i - - - , - 9 - , - - 9
T - M B L Jo approximation
0 error exceeds 10%
c-
O
"~ 200
E .~1%)
9
~, 400
...J
SE(B)
[] alW = 0.90
I 0 alW = 0.70
[] alW = 0.50
600 rl a/W = 0.391
"4--" ,aPl~:~~l;, in .~. *,2.6%)... 1~
X
9
alW
a/W
alW
=
=
=
0.25
0.15
0.05
DEO')
X alW = 0.70
8O0 ,3 a/W = 0.90
0 1 2 DB('r)
Biaxiality Paramet~.r/~ 9 alW
9 alW
= 0.50, H/W = 0.4
= 0.50, H/W = 1.0
0
" '~11~. . . . ] L " Jo c"efinition X a/W = 0.25, HIW = 0.4
,,<, critical
a('r)
U. I~ a/W = 0.025
~" alW = 0.20
sEo3
-~ 200 a/W = 0.025
8 9 alW
T a/W
alW
=0.391
= 0.20
= 0.50
9 a/W = 0.70
Jo definition independent
"~ 400 of critical radius
(D (10% uncertainty permissible)
a
~o
~ 6oo
8OO
~ 0 " ' ' 1' " " " 2' " " "
Biaxiality Parameter/~
FIG. 18---Deformation limits on the T-MBL approximation for Jo (top graph) and on elastic-
plastic finite-element calculations of Jo (bottom graph)for an n = 10, (rolE = 0.002 material.
Symbols representing specimens of the same types are connected by lines. Symbols on the top graph
marked with asterisks denote deformation when TIo o = 0.8. At this deformation, the T-MBL approx-
imation has the error given in parenthesis.
[~[ > 0.9, T-MBL approximation of Jo within 10% of finite body results and
0.4 < 1131< 0.9 T-MBL approximation of Jo within 25% of finite body
results.
As structural-type configurations, that is, shallow cracks in tension, generally have 1131>
0.4, it appears that only an elastic analysis is needed to determine reasonably accurate Jo
values for structural conditions.
3. 13parameterizes, deformation limits on the applicability of evolving fracture methods (that
is, T-MBL, J-Q, and J/Jo), effectively accounting for the combined effects of geometry
and loading mode.
KIRK ET A L ON PREDICTING SIZE EFFECTS 85
Available evidence suggests that increased material strain hardening (that is, n < 10) will
increase the range of cracked geometries for which the T-MBL approximation is sufficiently
accurate. The low-to-moderate strength steels (yield stress below 580 MPa or 84 ksi) used
extensively in civil and off-shore construction typically have strain-hardening exponents below
ten. Thus, for a broad class of engineering structures, the T-MBL approximation should produce
acceptably accurate estimates of Jo for a wider range of cracked geometries than reported here
f o r n = 10.
Acknowledgments
The authors are pleased to acknowledge many helpful discussions and correspondence with
Drs. C. F. Shih, J. D. G. Sumpter, and J. Hancock on these matters. Further, Mr. R. E. Link is
particularly recognized for providing FORTRAN subroutines to calculate [3. This report was
prepared while the first author was employed by the Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center (CDNSWC) as part of the Surface Ship and Submarine Materials Block under the
sponsorship of I. L. Caplan (CDNSWC Code 011.5). The work supports CDNSWC Program
Element 62234N, Task Area RS345S50. Support for R. H. Dodds and computational support
was provided by CDNSWC under Contract N61533-90-K-0059.
References
[1] Sorem, W. A., Dodds, R. H., and Rolfe, S. T., "Effects of Crack Depth on Elastic Plastic Fracture
Toughness," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 105-126.
ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for
[3] Sumpter, J. D. G., "An Experimental Investigation of the T Stress Approach," in Constraint Effects
in Fracture, ASTMSTP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 492-502.
[4] Theiss, T. J. and Bryson, J. R., "Influence of Crack Depth on the Fracture Toughness of Reactor
Pressure Vessel Steel," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H.
Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1993, pp. 104-119.
[5] Keeney-Walker, J., Bass, B. R., and Landes, J. D., in "An Investigation of Crack Tip Stress-Field
Criteria for Predicting Cleavage Crack Initiation," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Sympo-
sium, ASTM STP I131, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
[6] Rice, J. R. and Tracey, D. M., in Numerical and Computer Methods in Structural Mechanics, S. J.
Fenves, et al., Eds., Academic Press, New York, 1968, pp. 585-623.
[7] McMeeking, R. M., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 25, 1977, pp. 357-381.
Hardening Material," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
[10] Larsson, S. G. and Carlsson, A. J., "Influence of Non-Singular Stress Terms and Specimen Geometry
on Small-Scale Yielding at Crack Tips in Elastic-Plastic Materials," Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, Vol. 21, 1973, pp. 263-277.
[ll] A1-Ani,A. M. and Hancock, J. W., "J-Dominance of Short Cracks in Tension and Bending," Journal
of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, pp. 23-43.
[12] Bertegon, C. and Hancock, J. W., "Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack Tip
Fields," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 58, March 1991, pp. 104-113.
[13] Sumpter, J. D. G. and Hancock, J. W., "Shallow Crack Toughness of HY-80 Welds: An Analysis
Based on T Stresses," International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1990.
[14] Parks, D. M., "Engineering Methodologies for Assessing Crack Front Constraint," paper presented
at the 1991 Spring Meeting of the Society for Experimental Mechanics, 1991.
[15] Du, Z. Z. and Hancock, J. W., "The Effect on Non-Singular Stresses on Crack Tip Constraint,"
University of Glasgow, Scotland.
[16] Wang, Y. Y., "On the Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack-Front Fields in Sur-
face-Cracked Plates," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H.
Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1993, pp. 126-138.
[17] Wang, Y. Y., " A Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack Tip Fields and Applica-
tions to Cleavage Fracture," Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, 1991.
eter: Part I--Structure of Fields," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991.
eter: Part II--Fracture Applications," Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991.
[20] Dodds, R. H., Anderson, T. L., and Kirk, M. T., " A Framework to Correlate a/W Ratio Effects on
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness (Jc)," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, 1991, pp. 1-
22.
[21] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, R. H., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 19, 1991, pp.
123-134.
[22] Kirk, M. T. and Dodds, R. H., "The Influence of Weld Strength Mismatch on Crack-Tip Constraint
in Single-Edge Notch Bend Specimens," International Journal of Fracture, in press.
[23] Ritchie, R. O., Knott, J. F., and Rice, J. R., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol.
21, 1973, pp. 395-410.
[24] Leevers, P. C. and Radon, J. C., "Inherent Stress Biaxiality in Various Specimen Geometries,"
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, 1982, pp. 311-325.
[25] Kfouri, A. P., "Some Evaluations of the Elastic T-Term Using Eshelby's Method," International
Journal of Fracture, Vol. 30, 1986, pp. 301-315.
[26] Sham, T. L., "The Determination of the Elastic T-term using Higher Order Weight Functions,"
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, 1991, pp. 81-102.
[27] Nakamura, T., and Parks, D., "Determination of Elastic T-Stress Along 3-D Crack Fronts Using an
Elastic Interaction Integral," submitted for publication.
[28] Miglin, M. T., Wade, C. S., and Van Der Sluys, W. A., "Analysis of Fracture Toughness Data for
Modified SA508 C12 in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Region," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-
First Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J. P. Gudas, J. A. Joyce, and E. M. Hackett, Eds., American
[29] Dodds, R. H. and Lopez, L. A., "Software Virtual Machines for Development of Finite Element
Systems," International Journal for Engineering with Computers, Vol. 13, 1985, pp. 18-26.
[30] Li, F. Z., Shih, C. F., and Needleman, A., " A Comparison of Methods for Calculating Energy Release
Rates," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 21, 1985, pp. 405-421.
[31] Shih, C. F., Moran, B., and Nakamura, T., "Energy Release Rate Along a Three-Dimensional Crack
Front in a Thermally Stressed Body," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 30, 1986, pp. 79-102.
[32] Johnson, L. W. and Riess, R. D., Numerical Analysis, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading,
MA, 1982, p. 145.
[33] Barker, D. B., Sanford, R. J., and Chona, R., "Determining K and Related Stress Field Parameters
from Displacement Fields," in Proceedings of the 1983 Spring Meeting of the SESA.
[34] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures--Applications of Fracture
Mechanics, 1987, p. 265.
[35] Shih, C. F. and German, M. D., "Requirements for a One Parameter Characterization of Crack Tip
Fields by the HRR Singularity," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1981, pp. 27-
43.
Timothy C. Miller t and Ted L. Anderson I
A Void Growth Model Relating Fracture

Toughness and Constraint
REFERENCE: Miller, T. C. and Anderson, T. L., "A Void Growth Model Relating Fracture
Toughness and Constraint," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207,
John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 87-107. "
ABSTRACT: Loading of a metal results in the nucleation of voids around particles. Further
deformation results in void growth and coalescence. This work combines mathematical models
for void nucleation, growth, and coalescence into a simulation of a ductile fracture to examine
the effects of stress triaxiality and constraint loss on ductile fracture.
Nucleation of voids from the particles is assumed to depend on the particle-matrix interface
strength; subsequent void growth occurs according to equations developed by Rice and Tracey.
The coalescence criterion involves a consideration of microstructural geometry.
Two types of loading are considered: proportional loading and near crack tip loading. In the
latter case, a near crack tip region with a relatively large plastic zone and with significant con-
straint loss is considered. Results include a two-parameter failure locus for initiation of ductile
fracture, which predicts the effect of constraint on ductile initiation.
KEYWORDS: void nucleation, void growth, void coalescence, intervoid necking, cohesive
strength, proportional loading, near crack tip loading, stress triaxiality, constraint loss
In metals, propagation of a crack occurs in one of three fundamental ways: cleavage fracture,
intergranular fracture, or void coalescence. Cleavage fracture is an unstable manner of crack
propagation that occurs in more brittle metals, and intergranular fracture occurs when a crack
propagates along grain boundaries. Void coalescence (or ductile fracture) occurs in more ductile
materials and on the upper shelf of ferritic steels and involves stable Crack growth caused by
the merging of voids in the material to form or add to a crack in the material.
The first step in ductile fracture of a material is the formation of voids at inclusions or defects
in the matrix. Void nucleation may arise from either particle cracking or interracial decohesion.
In the first instance, the particle cracks and thereby separates itself from the matrix, leaving a
void. In the latter situation, the particle and matrix separate at their interface without any
cracking of the particle [1-3].
Once formed, the voids grow under the applied loads. In general, the voids elongate most
in the direction of the m a x i m u m principal stress and least in the direction of the smallest
principal stress. In some cases, however, this may not be the case, because local stress and
strain fields may be affected by the proximity of other defects [1,4-7].
The rate at which any particular void grows depends on the proximity of other defects, the
applied loads, and the size and shape of the void. While void growth proceeds, ligaments
between voids, or between a void and a crack tip, are shrinking, and so the stresses in ligaments
are increasing. Within a typical ligament there are a large number of smaller particles that act
Graduate assistant and associate professor, respectively, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
87
FIG. 1--Void phenomena and ductile fracture of a metal (adapted from Ref 13).
as nucleating sites for microvoids (these are much smaller voids, typically less than 1 p~m in
diameter). At some point, stresses in the ligament become elevated to the point where an
unstable necking (intervoid necking) of the ligament takes place. The result is the merging of
the two voids (or of a void with an existing crack). This final void phenomenon, coalescence,
is synonymous with stable crack growth. Figures 1 and 2 summarize these events. Figure 1
FIG. 2--Void growth and subsequent coalescence with a crack tip (adapted from Ref 13).
MILLER AND ANDERSON ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND CONSTRAINT 89
shows the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of voids with each other, and Fig. 2 shows voids
coalescing with a preexisting crack tip.
To make analysis feasible, a reasonably simple problem was formulated. However, several
complicating features are involved in the ductile fracture process, which is briefly considered
next.
One complicating aspect of ductile fracture is the statistical nature of the particle-matrix
interface strengths. Often the distribution of interface strengths will be bimodal; here one set
of particles has very weak bonding and another set of particles is more firmly bonded. This
can be explained by the presence of damage to some of the interfaces or to the particles during
processing. During the hot rolling of an alloy steel, for example, the more brittle particles can
crack, resulting in interfaces that are already damaged. During the deformation of a metal with
a bimodal distribution of interfacial cohesive strengths, the nucleation of voids (and hence their
subsequent growth and coalescence) occurs at different times for each of these two sets of
particles (that is, predamaged or strongly bonded).
Processing (such as hot rolling) of the metal also affects the shape of the voids. The more
ductile particles tend to elongate in the rolling direction, resulting in slender ellipsoidal (or
nearly cylindrical) voids. Because of less constraint from the surrounding material, the cylin-
drical voids grow faster than spheroidal voids.
The shape of the particles plays an important part in void phenomena and is determined not
only by processing but by thermodynamics. In the simplest case, a spherical particle may form
because of the low surface energy of this particle shape. However, thermodynamic consider-
ations are often more complex than this and may result in other shapes, such as needlelike or
platelike particles [8].
Another important item to be considered is the effects of interaction between voids. Not only
do void-void or crack-void interactions accelerate ligament shrinkage and void growth rates,
but they also perturb the shape of the voids. The tendency is for the voids to "bulge" in the
direction of each other or to be " p u l l e d " toward the crack tip [4-6].
Finally, the stress state is an important factor in determining when fracture occurs. In par-
ticular, stress triaxiality plays an important part in governing the tendency for ductile fracture.
Stress triaxiality is a term used to describe the portion of the stress tensor that is hydrostatic.
A stress state with a high triaxiality approaches the completely hydrostatic state; with lower
triaxiality stress states, the deviatoric components are a more significant portion of the stress
tensor. Near the center of a necking tension specimen there is a high triaxiality because of the
constraint of the surrounding material [9]. ~ The high stress triaxiality promotes void growth
near the center of the specimen, and, with continued deformation, they grow and link together
to form a macroscopic penny-shaped crack with a fibrous, flat fracture surface [1]. 3
Stress triaxiality is related to another concept, constraint. In the situation shown in Fig. 2,
voids near the crack tip experience a high stress triaxiality. However, at higher loads the material
near the crack tip yields, resulting in a loss of constraint of the material surrounding the voids.
This loss of constraint results in a lower stress triaxiality. Unfortunately, ductile fracture can
only be predicted when there is no significant loss of constraint at the crack tip.
The effects of stress triaxiality and constraint on the ductile fracture process are not yet
understood. The object of this work is to give insights into the relationship between stress
triaxiality, constraint loss, and ductile fracture. In the case of proportional loading (such as is
found in the loading of tension specimens), the relationship between work done during fracture
This has been described as a Poisson effect. The material adjacent to the necked material resists
contraction and induces radial stresses in the necked material, resulting in a higher stress triaxiality [9].
3 During the last phase of the ductile fracture process, after the formation of the central crack discussed
here, a catastrophic fracture follows and leads to a "shear lip" formation, so that the final fracture surface
has a "cup and cone" appearance [1].
and stress triaxiality is explored. In the case of crack tip loading, the result is a two-parameter
failure locus that predicts failure when constraint loss is significant.
The Ductile Fracture Model

The ductile fracture model combines mathematical models for void nucleation, growth, and
coalescence into a single unified model. Loads are imposed on a pair of voids, which nucleate,
grow, and coalesce according to these mathematical models; when the void geometry and
imposed loads are varied, conclusions can be drawn about stress triaxiality and constraint. To
understand the ductile fracture model, each of its components must be understood. Therefore,
an explanation of each of the mathematical models and the associated assumptions for void
nucleation, growth, and coalescence is given next.
Void Nucleation
Several researchers have found that nucleation of the voids from particles depends on a
critical interfacial stress criterion [2]. This means that decohesion occurs when the maximum
normal stress at the interface (in the case of a spherical particle, the maximum radial stress)
overcomes the strength of the particle-matrix interface. Because this maximum normal stress
is approximately the sum of the remote mean and effective stresses, a stress-based criterion for
nucleation of spherical voids is given by
(Crrr)max = (Tm -Jr- "~ = r (1)
where
Orr ~-- the normal stress (radial stress) at the interface
(O'rr)max = its maximum value around the periphery of the particle,
[~m = the remote mean stress

= the remote effective stress (von Mises stress), and
or = the critical interfacial cohesive strength (which reflects the strength of the particle-
matrix interface).
Figure 3 shows the geometry for the two voids at some arbitrary time. These voids are
assumed to initiate from spherical particles with radii RL and R R (for the left and right particles,
respectively). Both particles are well bonded to the matrix with a critical interfacial cohesive
strength o C. Voids nucleate from the particles when the combination of mean and effective
stresses exceeds oc; in other words, the voids nucleate when the conditions of Eq 1 are met. A
number of critical interfacial stresses were used during the simulation; these critical interfacial
stresses ranged from 0 to 3.33 times the material's yield stress.
For simplicity, our analysis assumes a single value for oc, although within any material the
critical interfacial cohesive strength varies from void to void and is a statistical phenomenon.
In a study by Hancock and Thomson [3], for example, the peak for a statistical distribution of
oc occurs at about seven times the material yield stress.
Void G r o w t h
Nucleation of a void from a particle results in a traction-free void surface, causing a redis-
tribution of stresses and strains in the region around the void. The resulting stress and strain
concentrations near the void affect its growth.
In a typical metal, the voids are spaced far enough apart so that these redistributed stress and
strain fields are separate from each other; in other words, for most of the growth of a typical
RRI
RR2
do
~ Ol r
~ o 3 r
> o 2 "22
FIG. 3--Void geometry used in the analysis.
void, interaction effects on void growth can be considered negligible [1]. This makes the con-
sideration of an isolated void in a remotely uniform field relevant to practical situations,
although in some cases (or at later stages of growth) interaction effects may be significant (in
particular the effect of a crack tip may contribute significantly to void growth rates) [4,6].
Figure 4 shows the geometry of an isolated ellipsoidal void, along with the accompanying
principal coordinate axes. According to a model for void growth developed by Rice and Tracey
[7], the void grows under an applied remote mean stress, o= and remote strain rate field, e~ as
an ellipsoid with its major axes aligned with the principal stresses. The rates at which the three
axes grow is given in terms of a rate of change of ellipsoid radii.
/)k = {(1 + E)k k + D~IR k = 1, 2, 3 (2)
where
Rk = the rate of growth of one of the radii shown in Fig. 4 and
= the current mean radius of the void (that is, R = 1/3[R1 + R2 + R3]
The dimensionless constants D and E come from the analysis; (1 + E) is a material constant 4
ranging from 5/3 to 2; D is given by
3 O"m
D-
4 errs
4 Note that E in Eq 2 does not represent Young's modulus.

R
1
R2
a 1 ell
l
~ ts 3 e33
) ts 2 e22
FIG. 4---Ellipsoidal void growth of an isolated void.
For a three-dimensional stress state, the effective strain is given by
= X/2/3(~,~ + 8~ + ~ )
The effective strain rate, denoted by ~, is the rate of change of this effective strain, and ek
is a principal strain rate.
To make it easier to see how the mean stress affects the size and shape of this ellipsoidal
void, this expression can be separated into two terms, giving an equivalent expression.
/~k= (1 + E ) k ~ + O e - R k= 1,2,3 (3)
The change in shape or aspect ratios (the ratios of each of the three void radii to each other)
is caused by the first term on the right-hand side of the equation; the radius with the highest
corresponding principal strain rate grows the fastest. The second term prescribes equal amounts
of growth for each of the three radii and hence describes a change in size, but no change in
shape or aspect ratios. It is this second term that is affected by stress triaxiality, because of the
dependence of D on the mean stress (recall that D = 3/4 o,,/ays). Equations 2 and 3 predict
that at low mean stresses the first term dominates, growth is relatively slow, and aspect ratios
are relatively large. On the other hand, with high mean stresses, both terms are significant,
resulting in accelerated growth and aspect ratios closer to 1 (that is, more equiaxed voids). The
fact that the growth rates have deviatoric and dilatational components is important when con-
sidering the effects of stress triaxiality, because at lower levels of triaxiality the first term in
Eq 3 dominates growth rates, whereas at higher levels of triaxiality the second term also
becomes important.
Void Coalescence
As void growth continues, the ligament between adjacent voids (or between a void and a
crack tip) decreases in size. This ligament continues to support the applied loads and sustains
increasing stresses and strains. At some point, the configuration becomes unstable and void
coalescence takes place.
Often there are two types of voids. The larger voids form from inclusions and experience
nucleation and growth in the manner previously described. However, a population of smaller
particles often exists in the matrix; at these sites microvoids within the ligament nucleate spon-
taneously at some point and this causes the unstable necking that takes place between the larger
voids.
Eventually, enough of the larger voids coalesce so that they act as a macroscopic crack
instead of as a large irregularly shaped void [3]; in the case of a preexisting crack, void coales-
cence with the crack tip results in stable crack growth. In either case, the coalescence of voids
is indicative of failure by the initiation of ductile tearing.
A criterion for void coalescence was derived by Thomason, [1], who looked at the net section
stress and used this concept to devise a coalescence criterion. Figure 5a shows two voids
t t t~
a)
Uniaxial limit load criterion:
Ol > On(c)d d+ b ~ coalescence
t t t~
b) 02
( 03 not shown )
Multiaxial loading criterion:
-> On(c)d _~ coalescence

do
FIG. 5--Limit load coalescence criteria.
arranged side by side and subjected to a uniaxial stress o r Equilibrium of the shaded portion
requires that
r + 2b)B] = cr.[(2d)B] (4)
where the bracketed terms represent areas of the gross section and the net section for a specimen
of thickness B, respectively. It is assumed that coalescence follows as a result of necking when
some critical necking stress, o,~o, is reache& Considering the above equilibrium condition at
incipient necking of the voids and rearranging gives
(5)
This approach takes into account the void spacing and void dimensions as well as a material
parameter (that is, the critical necking stress, o,~c~).
A similar but more general configuration is shown in Fig. 5b. Applied stresses are three
dimensional, and the voids are oriented at some arbitrary angle with respect to each other instead
of being side by side. In this more general case, the driving force for coalescence must also be
more general, so the effective stress, ~, is used (instead of crI for the driving force in the
uniaxial case of Fig. 5a). Also, the ratio d/do is used instead of the ratio d/(d + b) used in the
uniaxial case. By analogy to Eq 5, a new coalescence criterion can be deduced for the more
general case of Fig. 5b.
(6)
During plastic deformation, the yield strength for a strain-hardening material equals the
effective stress. This means that, if the critical necking stress for a material is some multiple
of the yield stress, then it is also a multiple of the effective stress at incipient coalescence
cr.~) = Ctrrs = C ~ (7)
Combining Eqs 6 and 7 gives the criterion used in the simulation to determine when the two
voids will coalesce. C is the ratio of the critical necking stress to the yield stress of the material
at incipient coalescence.
d.
" = C (8)
d
Simply stated, this criterion for coalescence says that when the ligament size, d, reaches
some critical fraction of the planar spacing, do (that is, when d = [1/C]do) then any further
void growth will result in immediate coalescence. The value used for C in this work is either
4.0 or 2.5 (for proportional loading or near crack tip loading, respectively). Note that similar
geometric criteria for intervoid necking have been suggested as a result of both experimental
work and finite element analysis (FEA) [1,3,8,10-12].
350.00 T I I I ' ' I
~
300.00 00000000 0 0 0 9 ~1
250.00 00000000000 0 0 0 0 (Y2
200.00 ~>0~,4>0,41. 0 0 9 9 (Y3

r~
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 , I ~ , , I , , , I , , , I , , , I ~ , ,
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

equivalent strain
FIG. 6--Proportional monotonically increasing loading of a specimen.
Describing the Stress and Strain Fields

Two types of loading are considered. The first type of loading is proportional loading, in
which the principal stresses are increasing and proportional to each other throughout defor-
mation. This type of loading represents the situation near the center of a tension test specimen.
The second type of loading, near crack tip loading, considers a region near a crack tip; during
loading, this region experiences constraint loss and changes in stress triaxiality. Stress triaxiality
effects are important in both of these situations. In explaining the stress and strain field concepts
used here, more attention will be given to the latter case because of its greater complexity.
Proportional Loading--Figure 6 shows the proportional loading of the specimen; the
stresses are ordered so a~ --> ~2 -> tr3. The loading is m o n o t o n i c a l l y increasing, and the
principal stresses r e m a i n proportional to each other throughout the deformation.
0" 2 0" 3
- - = p and - - = q (p and q are constants throughout the loading) (9)
0" 1 0" 1
From this and an expression for ~ (effective or von Mises stress) in terms of the principal
stresses we can obtain a third constant ratio, c.
= ~v/l/2[(o-, _ o-2)z + (o-, _ %)2 + (o-2 - 0"3)21
= N/o-2 [(p2 + q2 + 1) - (p + q + pq)]
giving
o-, = ( ~ ) - ~ , c = ~/[(p2 + q2 + 1) - (p + q + pq)] (10)
During any loading situation, these three proportionality constants (p, q, and c) remain con-
stant. A series of loading situations were considered, and these ratios were systematically varied
to represent different stress triaxialities. For example, when p and q are both close to 1, a high
stress triaxiality is represented; smaller values of p and q were used to represent lower states
of stress triaxiatity. By varying the ratios in Eqs 9 and 10, the effects of stress triaxiality can
be observed.
The effective (von Mises) stress and effective strain are related to each other through the
Ramberg-Osgood constitutive relationship.
~ + c~ (11)
/3 0 O"o
This is a type of power law curve fit in which the parameters/30, Oo, and a are used to
describe the specific shape of the curve. The exponent n is the strain-hardening exponent, and
indicates the level of strain hardening of the material? In a typical situation,/30 is taken to be
0.002 and cro is taken to be the 0.2% offset yield stress (so that o o = E/3o), and ct is close to
unity. For the proportional loading case, a steel with a medium level of strain hardening is
described for the proportional loading situation, with/30 = 0.002, Oo = 414 MPa (60 ksi), ct
= 1.0, and n = 10.
An incremental plasticity flow rule follows this constitutive relationship [13]. This is the
relationship between the strain and the stress tensors for small increments.
(12a)
Because we are considering principal stresses and strains, we can use an equivalent single
index notation.
(12b)
where
k = 1,2,3 represents each of the three principal directions,
dek = a principal strain increment, and
S k = the deviatoric component of a principal stress.
Another assumption involving the loading is that plane strain conditions dominate the region
around the two voids.
1
e2 = 0 and hence (r2 = ~ (~l + cr3) (13)
Using the assumptions of (1) monotonically increasing proportional loading, (2) the use of
flow theory for metals (in this study, we have chosen to characterize the flow curve with a
Ramberg-Osgood constitutive relationship), and (3) plane strain conditions, the complete stress
and strain history at any point in the deformation can be determined.
5 Higher values of n indicate weaker strain-hardening effects, so a material with an exponent of n =

10 hardens more than an n = 50 material.
Void nucleation, growth, and coalescence depend on these stress and strain histories (as well
as the local geometry). With the remote stress and strain histories completely prescribed, the
conditions at which void coalescence takes place (that is, the failure conditions) for any par-
ticular void geometry (see Fig. 3) can be determined from the simulation.
Near Crack Tip Loading--Although the material in front o f a crack tip with plane strain
Mode I loading experiences a relatively high triaxiality stress field, it also experiences a
loss o f constraint as the specimen is loaded. This loss of constraint is closely related to
stress triaxiality and has been described quantitatively by O ' D o w d and Shih [14,15].
The stresses and strains for the near crack tip fields are related through the Ramberg-Osgood
curve fit equations. This concept has already been presented (see Eq 11).
When the in-plane dimensions in a specimen (for example, crack length a) are much larger
than the size of the plastic zone at the crack tip, the plastic zone size is said to be relatively
small. In this case, a conventional elastic-plastic fracture mechanics approach gives expressions
for the stresses and strains as a function of the contour integral J [16,17].
= ( E J ' ] 'h'+~
Cru ~o \~l (ru (n,O) (14a)
aCro ( EJ ~ '"+~
%= -T \~---g~:/ ~. (.,o) (14b)
where or, Oo, and n are constants from Eq 11, I n depends on n and the stress condition (plane
stress or plane strain), and r is the radial distance from the crack tip. The tensor functions O0
and ~ij are dimensionless functions of n and 0, giving stress and strain fields that vary with the
angle 0, which is measured counterclockwise from the crack tip axis.
The stress and strain fields in front of the crack tip vary with J/r. This type of field charac-
terization is called a single-parameter approach because the amplitude of the stress and strain
fields is given by one parameter (J). When the size of the plastic zone in front of the crack tip
is relatively small, this type of expression adequately describes the stress and strain fields. This
particular set of expressions is known as the HRR singularity, after Hutchinson, Rice, and
Rosengren [16,17].
Often a single-parameter approach cannot be used. If there is extensive yielding, the single-
parameter approximation is invalid. At this point, a second term is needed to account for the
loss of constraint.
To quantify the effects of constraint on the crack tip fields, O'Dowd and Shih used FEA,
resulting in the use of two parameters to characterize the crack tip stress and strain fields [14,15].
With the new term added, the new expression is
J ,71"
cru = (cr,j)..s + Qcro8o for r > - - , IO] < (15)
go
The region in which this two-parameter stress field approximation is valid can be described
as a section of an annulus or ring centered in front of the crack tip (Fig. 7); Eq 15 can be
applied to phenomena occurring in this region.
The first term in Eq 15 is the HRR singularity given by Eq 14a. The second term in Eq 15
contributes to the hydrostatic portion of the stresses only (note that the Kronecker delta, 8u, is
0 except when i = j, in which case it is 1). The parameter Q may be interpreted as the amplitude
of this second term and is basically a stress triaxiality parameter [15]. A large negative value
of Q indicates that a relatively small portion of the stress tensor is hydrostatic stress. On the
FIG. 7--Region of validity of the two-parameter field characterization.
other hand, when Q = 0, there is no significant loss of constraint, and the approximation
simplifies to the single-parameter description of Eq 14. In finite geometries, Q is generally
negative, indicating that the effect o f finite specimen boundaries on the stress fields near a crack
tip is that o f a loss o f constraint and a corresponding reduction in the hydrostatic component
o f the stress.
With significant constraint loss, both of these terms are needed to approximate the stresses
and strains near the crack tip. To describe the stress and strain history, we need to know how
Q changes during the deformation process.
The relationship between the loading, the constraint loss, and the stresses and strains depends
on the specimen geometry. Although O'Dowd and Shih [14,15] studied several different spec-
imen geometries, 6 in this program we studied a three-point bend specimen with a crack-to-
width ratio of a/W = 0.3. O'Dowd and Shih used a two-dimensional FEA that accounts for
finite deformations (as opposed to a small-strain analysis). The results are given for plane strain
conditions and provide information on the loading, the constraint loss, and the stresses and
strains. The relationships between these parameters were used in this paper to determine a two-
parameter failure locus according to the procedure outlined below.
Figure 8 shows how Q varies during deformation for a bend specimen with a crack-to-width
ratio of a/W = 0.3. The horizontal axis shows the normalized value of J. The figure shows that
as the applied load on the bend specimen increases (that is, as J/aGo increases) Q decreases
from zero, becoming more negative.
Figure 9 shows the effects of loading on the hydrostatic stress (mean stress) at an angle of
0 = 45 ~ with the crack tip axis (see Fig. 7). Here the horizontal axis of the graph shows
6 Specimens studied were biaxially loaded center-cracked panels (with a/W = 0.1 and 0.7) and three-
point bend specimens (with a/W = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5).
0.25
0.00
Q -0.25
-0.50
-1.00
1 0 -4 1 0 .3 J 1 0 "2 1 0 "1
aoo
FIG. 8--Variance o f Q with normalized J for a cracked bend bar (a/W --- 0.3) (adapted from Ref
15).
normalized radial distance (roJJ). For a fixed material point near the crack tip, as the loading
increases, J increases and hence rOo/J decreases. At the same time, Q becomes more negative,
resulting in an actual stress history that moves from right to left on the graph and at the same
time crosses the various curves (which represent different values of Q). A typical stress history
is shown by the set of circles in Fig. 9, where the stresses for a specimen with a crack size of
a = 9 mm are plotted. For an infinite body there will be no boundary effects and the stresses
will follow the Q = 0 curve; hence, the effect of the finite boundaries is to reduce the hydrostatic
stress from what it would be in the small-scale yielding case.
A similar constraint effect on the effective strain is shown in Fig. 10. Once again the stresses
for a specimen with a crack size of 9 mm are shown as a set of circles. The effect of constraint
3.0
2.5
Q = 0.22
2.0 Q= 0.00
a._m Q . -.35
ao
1.5 Q = -.70
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
r a__..~O
J
FIG. 9--Hydrostatic stress variance near a crack tip (adapted from Ref 15).
0.20
0,15
0.10
0.05 Q = -1.40
Q = -1.07
Q = -0.70
0.00
Q = 0.00
Q= 0.22
0 1 2 ra_~o 3 4 5
1
HG. lO--Effective strain variance near a crack tip (adapted from R e f 15).
loss is to facilitate the flow of the material, so the effective strain at any given value of rOo/J
is slightly higher than for the Q = 0 case.
In this same manner, for a specified geometry, the hydrostatic stress and the effective strain
near the crack tip are determined at any point in the deformation. If the stresses are sufficiently
large, a pair of voids near the crack tip coalesce. Figure 11 shows the variation of Q with
increasing loading (that is, increasing J) for the a = 9-mm specimen. The endpoint of this
curve shows the values of J and Q when coalescence has just taken place. Figure 11 also shows
several other loading curves; here the different curves have been generated by considering
different crack sizes, which results in different amounts of constraint loss. These curves are
truncated at their failure points (that is, the point at which void coalescence occurs). By con-
HG. 11--Loading curves and failure locus for a bend specimen geometry (alW = 0.3).
necting the failure points with a smooth curve, the J-Q failure locus for stable crack growth
initiation of an a/W = 0.3 cracked bend specimen is determined. 7
The parameter Q is important and useful when constraint loss is significant and single-
parameter fracture mechanics cannot be used. In these instances, the critical conditions for the
initiation of ductile fracture may be given as a function of two parameters (J and Q) [18].
Jcnt : Jcnt(Q) (16)
The stresses and strains for the proportional loading and the near crack tip loading are found
by using the concepts given above along with the mathematical models for nucleation, growth,
and coalescence. The resulting simulation was used to produce the results that follow.

Results are given separately for the two different types of loading: proportional loading and
near crack tip loading. For each type of loading, the results and possible interpretations of these
results are presented.
Proportional Loading
In the results shown for proportional loading, work density is the work per unit volume
required for the voids to coalesce with each other. 8 The stress triaxiality parameter is an indi-
cator of how large a proportion of the stress tensor is hydrostatic. The work densities are
normalized by their values at Om/O0 = 2.5 (this is an upper limit for (~ml(~O) to give normalized
work density, W/Wo.
Cohesive Strength Effects~Several dimensionless parameters have been varied to assess
their effects on stress triaxiality sensitivity. Differences in the void geometry, reflected by
changes in these dimensionless parameters, affect the work density versus stress triaxiality
curves. The first dimensionless parameter that was varied was the normalized cohesive
strength, oJcr o, where the cohesive strength is varied from 0 (indicating no bonding of the
particles) to 3.33 (indicating a well-bonded particle). Figure 12 shows how varying the
cohesive strength affects the stress triaxiality sensitivity.9
At low cohesive strengths, the nucleation of the voids from the particles is almost immediate,
and nucleation plays a minor part in determining when ductile fracture occurs; the ductile
fracture phenomenon is growth controlled. The normalized work density is relatively insensitive
to stress triaxiality because only the second term in Eq 3 is affected by Om/O0 (that is, because
the nucleation is almost immediate, the mean stress in Eq 1 has no effect on the ductile fracture
process). With higher cohesive strengths, the ductile fracture phenomenon is nucleation con-
trolled, and the fracture work is more sensitive to triaxiality; this is because the nucleation
7 To determine the stress and strain histories for the region around the voids, it must again be assumed
that a strain-hardening Ramberg-Osgood constitutive relationship holds and that plane strain conditions
prevail.
8 Work density is similar to strain energy density in concept and is calculated as the integral of stress
and strain; the term strain energy density strictly applies only to elastic situations rather than the fully
plastic phenoma described here.
9 The complete results are not given here, but instead the figures have been chosen to show the general
trends of the results.
102 FRACTUREMECHANICS: -I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
15.00
10.00
Wf
5.00
0.00 t I I I I ~ I I 1 ~ 1 1 I I 1 I I I t I t I I I I I I
0 0.5 1 am 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIG. 12--Effect of cohesive strength on stress triaxiality sensitivity.
criterion introduces an additional dependence on the mean stress (see Eq 1). This is supported
by the results shown in Fig. 12. As the cohesive strength is increased, there is a shift from
growth-controlled fracture to nucleation-controlled fracture, as reflected by the substantial
increase in the triaxiality sensitivity of the work density as the cohesive strength is increased.
Particle-Spacing Effects--Particle spacing is reflected by the particle-spacing ratio, Rff
do, where RL is the radius o f one of the particles and do is the planar separating distance
of the voids. A low value of RJdo means the voids are widely spaced, whereas a high
value of RJdo means the voids are closely spaced. Figure 13 shows the effects of particle
spacing on the normalized work density.
Figure 13a shows the situation for weakly bonded particles in which the ductile fracture
process is growth controlled ( o J o o = 0). As the particle spacing decreases, the work density
becomes less sensitive to triaxiality. However, for the strongly bonded particles in which the
ductile fracture process is nucleation controlled ( o J o o = 3.33) as shown in Fig. 13b, the work
density becomes more sensitive to triaxiality as the particle spacing decreases. This means
that weakly bonded and strongly bonded particles react in fundamentally different ways to
changes in mean stress, with the more strongly bonded particles being the more sensitive
ones.
Orientation Effects--In studying the effects o f orientation on the voids, several different
values of 13 were considered. As shown in Fig. 3, 13 is the angle the voids make with the
principal axes; a value of 13 = 0 ~ indicates two voids in a side-by-side arrange-
ment, whereas a value of 13 = 90 ~ indicates a stacked arrangement, as shown in Fig.
14. This figure also shows the lines of force for a uniaxial case. From this figure, one
would expect that the voids would coalesce sooner when 13 = 0 ~ than when 13 = 90 ~
because in the 13 = 0 ~ case the ligament stresses are enhanced b y the positioning of the
voids, whereas in the [3 = 90 ~ case the ligament stresses are lessened by a shielding
effect.
However, the results of the simulation cannot be used to form any useful conclusions regard-
ing orientation because the simulation does not account for interaction effects when predicting
void growth. Stated another way, for a certain void, the same growth rates are predicted by Eq
2 regardless of the location or orientation of other nearby voids. Because accounting for inter-
a) 3.50 . . . . I ' ' ' I . . . . . . . . . . . ' I ' ' ' '
w__s
w0
3.00
2.50
2.00
!
i
i
!
i
i
i
........................}.................}..........................".........................i
i
1,~176 9
9
,
0.20
0.28
0.36
.............
i i i do~
1.50
1.00 ........................i. ~ .
I I I i L I i i i ~ i I
0.50 . . . . . . . . . . . i
0 0.5 1 t~rn 1.5 2 2.5 3
50.00
b)
40.00
30.00
Wf
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 0.5 1 Orn 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIG. 13--Effect of particle spacing on stress triaxiality sensitivity.
action effects in growth rate predictions was beyond the scope of this project, other results are
given only for the case of [3 = 45 ~
Near Crack Tip Loading

Many of the assumptions and constants used for proportional loading are the same for near
crack tip loading. The stresses and strains vary during loading according to the FEA results
already discussed. Figure 15 summarizes the stress and strain assumptions. The models for
nucleation, growth, and coalescence are essentially the same (see Eqs 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13),
except that they are for a material with a higher yield strength (690 MPa). The microstructural
details are summarized in Fig. 16.
Using these assumptions, the simulation produced the two-parameter failure locus shown in
Fig. 17 for three different critical interfacial cohesive strengths. The values of Jcrit a r e normal-
FIG. 14--Lines of force as affected by void orientation.
ized by Jo, the value for Jc,t with no constraint loss (that is, the value of J at Q = 0). Here, Jcrit
determines failure of the specimen by the initiation of ductile tearing, not total failure of the
specimen.
From the plot, the values of Jcrit can be determined for specimens that experience constraint
loss. The results show information on only one specimen geometry, an a/W = 0.3 bend spec-
imen, but failure loci can be constructed for other geometries if information similar to that in
Fig. 15 is available. The plot shows that for lower cohesive strengths, as constraint loss increases
(that is, as Q becomes more negative), Jcrit decreases. However, this effect is reversed for the
higher cohesive strengths, and with higher cohesive strengths, Jcn, increases as constraint loss
increases.

The phenomenon of ductile fracture involves three different stages: void nucleation, growth,
and coalescence. This type of fracture may occur in a tensile specimen experiencing propor-
FIG. 15--Summary of stress and strain assumptions for near crack tip loading.
tional loading or in a specimen with a preexisting crack. The triaxiality of the stress state plays
an important part in determining when ductile fracture takes place. This is true for both pro-
portional loading and near crack tip loading. In the case of near crack tip loading, stress tri-
axiality is closely related to the constraint loss experienced by the region near the crack tip
during loading.
Mathematical models for void nucleation, growth, and coalescence can be incorporated into
a simulation that predicts the effects of stress triaxiality and constraint loss on the ductile
fracture process. By varying the applied loads or the specimen geometry, the effects of stress
triaxiality can be determined.
For proportional loading situations, the cohesive strength of the particle-matrix interface and
the particle spacing are important parameters in the ductile fracture process. The cohesive
strength determines which void phenomenon controls the ductile fracture process. With low
cohesive strengths, the ductile fracture process is growth controlled, whereas with higher cohe-
sive strengths the ductile fracture process is nucleation controlled. Both the cohesive strength
and the particle spacing have an effect on the stress triaxiality sensitivity. With high cohesive
strengths, the work density at coalescence is much more sensitive to triaxiality effects when
the particles are more closely spaced.
With near crack tip loading, information on constraint can be used in conjunction with the
mathematical models for the void phenomena to determine a two-parameter failure locus for a
particular specimen geometry. In particular, the failure locus for a three-point bend specimen
with a/W = 0.3 has been determined. This curve also depends on the cohesive strength of the
particle-matrix interface. The two-parameter failure locus can be used to predict failure for
situations in which the plastic zone is relatively large and constraint loss is a significant factor.
do=
RTRR2 ~ 1 (during deformation)
(prior to deformation) --~RL2
nucleation according to am + a = oc
growth for each void according to
l~k = {( l+E~k + I~} R, k = 1,2,3
(I+E) = 5/3, D = "~5:_~_,Oys = oo = 690 MPa (100 ksi)
4VV~4.
YS
coalescence according to ~ = C, C = 2.5
Q
FIG. 16--Summary of microstructural geometry described for near crack tip loading.
1.03
.... i .... i .... i .... i .............
1.02
!.01 I , 3.94 1 .......................................i.............................i.........................

Jcrit 1
Jo
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96 . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ - a ~ 0.~,
0.95 ' ' ' ' : , , , i i i i i i J i I i i i i i i i i i i i i
-0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05

Q
FIG. 17--Failure locus plot for three different cohesive strengths.
References
[1] Thomason, P. F., Ductile Fracture of Metals, Pergamon Press, New York, 1990.
[2] Argon, A. S. and Ira, J., "Separation of Second Phase Particles in Spheroidized 1045 Steel, Cu-
0.6pct Cr Alloy, and Maraging Steel in Plastic Straining," Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 6A,
1975, pp. 839-851.
[3] Hancock, J. W. and Thomson, R. D., "Strain and Stress Concentrations in Ductile Fracture by Void
Nucleation Growth and Coalescence," Materials Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1985, pp.
684-690.
[4] Aravas, N. and McMeeking, R. M., "Finite Element Analysis of Void Growth Near a Blunting Crack
Tip," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1985, pp. 25-49.
[5] Hom, C. L and McMeeking, R. M., "Void Growth in Elastic-Plastic Materials," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 56, No. 2, 1989, pp. 309-317.
[6] Horn, C. L. and McMeeking, R. M., "Three-Dimensional Void Growth Before a Blunting Crack
Tip," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1989, pp. 395-415.
[7] Rice, J. R. and Tracey, D. M., "On the Ductile Enlargement of Voids in Triaxial Stress Fields,"
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1969, pp. 201-217.
[8] Ashby, M. F. and Jones, D. R. H., Engineering Materials 2: An Introduction to Microstructures,
Processing, and Design, Pergamon Press, New York, 1986.
[9] Hertzberg, R. W., Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983.
[10] Shioya, T. and Machida, T., "An Experimental Study of Void Nucleation and Growth in Ductile
Fracture," Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Vol. 29, 1986,
pp. 163-170.
[11] Rice, J. R. and Johnson, M. A., "The Role of Large Crack Tip Geometry Changes in Plane Strain
Fracture," Inelastic Behavior of Solids, M. F. Kanninen et al., Eds., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.
[12] LeRoy, G., et al., " A Model of Ductile Fracture Based on the Nucleation and Growth of Voids,"
Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 29, 1985, pp. 1509-1521.
[13] Anderson, T. L., Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, Chicago, 1991.
eter: Part I--Structure of Fields," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1990.
eter: Part II--Fracture Applications," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991.
[16] Hutchinson, J. W., "Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening Material,"
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 13-31.
[17] Rice, J. R. and Rosengren, G. F., "Plane Strain Deformation near a Crack Tip in a Power-Law
Hardening Material," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
[18] Anderson, T. L., "Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics: A Comparison of Continuum and Micro-
mechanics Approaches," in Joint FEGF/ICF International Conference on Fracture of Engineering
Materials and Structures, Singapore, Japan, 1991.
M a r k k u N e v a l a i n e n , t K i m Wallin, 1 a n d R a u n o R i n t a m a a t
Crack Depth Effects Measured by Dynamic

Fracture Toughness Tests
REFERENCE: Nevalainen, M., Wallin, K., and Rintamaa, R., "Crack Depth Effects Mea-
sured by Dynamic Fracture Toughness Tests," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume,
ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American
ABSTRACT: Dynamic fracture toughness tests with an instrumented inverse geometry impact
hammer have been made on small, side-grooved, prefatigued Charpy-type specimens (10 by 10
by 55 mm) with varying crack depth. The a/W was approximately 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5. Pre-
fatiguing was performed with wider specimens after which the specimens were machined to
achieve identical sharp cracks of specified length.
Impact tests were performed at a temperature corresponding to the transition region of the
material's ductile to brittle transition curve. Load and energy were measured as a function of
specimen displacement. Fracture toughness, Jc, at cleavage crack initiation was calculated as a
result of the test.
The test results were used for determining the applicability of parameters like T stress, Q
parameter, and small-scale yielding correction (SSYC) for in-plane constraint correction. It was
concluded that the small-scale yielding procedure corrects the effect of constraint effectively. T
stress and Q as indexing parameters were not suitable for a quantitative constraint correction.
The SSYC was also applied to some results from the literature. The effect of SSYC improved
as the width of the specimen decreased from 200 to 50 mm. The results imply that although
SSYC is highly promising, more FEM-analysis is needed before it can be used as a standard
procedure.
KEYWORDS: dynamic fracture toughness, a/W ratio, crack depth, constraint, small-scale yield-
ing'correction, Q parameter, T stress
Nomenclature
HRR Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren stress field

O"d Asymptotic stress field
O Angle
F Distance from the crack tip
T T stress
f,~ Not specified function
B Biaxiality parameter (or specimen thickness)
a Crack length (or half crack length)
K Stress intensity factor [ = ~v/(JE)]
J J integral
E Young's modulus, 210 GPa
Q Q parameter
O'o,O'y Yield strength
1 Research scientist, research professor, and senior adviser, respectively, VTT Manufacturing Technol-
ogy, P.O. Box 1704 (Kemistintie 3, Espoo), FIN-02044 VTT, Finland.
108
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.0F~
NEVALAINEN ET AL. ON CRACK DEPTH EFFECTS 109
n Strain-hardening exponent
SSYC Small-scale yielding correction
ai Constant
B Crack tip opening
W Specimen width
.q Coefficient
Aa Ductile crack growth
P Applied load
S Specimen span
P Fracture probability = (i - 0.3)/(N + 0.4)
i Rank of K value when put in ascending order from 1 to N
N Total of K values
TT Transition temperature
FATT Fracture appearance transition temperature
NDTT Nil-ductility transition temperature
Introduction
Standardized fracture toughness test specimens contain a deep crack, a/W = 0.5. This type
of geometry is considered to have a larger constraint effect and thus a smaller fracture toughness
than a specimen with a more shallow crack, a/W --< 0.3 in three-point bending. Shallow cracks
are more typical in structures than deep cracks and so fracture toughness values obtained by
standardized tests may be excessively conservative for fracture toughness calculations for real
structures. Multiplicative economical waste and material loss may result from the use of too
conservative fracture toughness values.
Testing of small specimens is an economical and fast way to measure material's fracture
toughness. A constraint correction for small specimens and different a/W values would have a
comprehensive effect for the use of fracture mechanics in the design of structures. One example
of a small specimen is the Charpy-type specimen for which a lot of experimental data exist.
Theory
It has been proposed that size limitations for single-parameter characterization should be
given on the basis that the stress ahead of the crack is within 10% of the HRR field at distances
of 2J/or o [1 ].
If this requirement is not met, some kind of correction is to be applied to single-parameter
J values. In this research, three methods that take into account the constraint effect were exam-
ined; T-stress approach, Q-indexing approach, and small-scale yielding correction (SSYC).
T Stress
T stress [1, 2] is the second term in William's stress series (Eq 1) [3].
tr u = Ao(O)r-V: + Bo(O) + Co(O)r'/2 + . . . (1)
which can be written as Eq 2 when terms of order r 1~ are neglected [2].
[o.,, o-,1 ,,
or=, a:~j = 2 x / ~ LL,(O) f22(o)J +
[: o] (2)
The T stress is regarded as a stress parallel to crack flanks, and its magnitude is defined
through a biaxiality parameter, B, introduced by Leevers and Radon (Eq 3) [4 ].
X/~a
B = T - - (3)
K
J dominance is a feature of geometries that show positive biaxiality parameters. The loss of
J dominance is attributed to the compressive T stress, where geometries that exhibit tensile
T stresses retain J dominance in accord with modified boundary layer formulations. In
pure bending, the biaxiality parameter B is positive for a/W > 0.35. Geometries that have
negative biaxialities are predicted to lose J dominance at a deformation level that depends
on T [1].
Q Parameter [5]
Geometries that have lost their J dominance are thought to be controlled by a J-Q annulus
in which J sets the size scale over which large stresses and strains develop whereas Q governs
the near-tip stress distribution and the maximum stress achieved ahead of the crack. Thus Q is
a stress triaxiality parameter; from the reference state Q = 0, negative Q values mean that the
hydrostatic stress is reduced by Qcr o and positive values mean that the hydrostatic stress is
increased by Qtro. This can be written as [5 ]
"IT
a,~ = (a~/)HRR + Qcro~j, for Iol < (4)
where the plane-strain HRR distribution serves as the reference state. This relationship is not
valid for distances close to the crack tip (r/(J/cro) < 1) where finite strain effects dominate.
From dimensional arguments Shih et al. [5] have presented for the small-scale yielding case
a one-to-one correspondence between Q and T (Eq 5) in which Qssv is a function of T/tro and
strain-hardening exponent n. Subscript SSY emphasizes that Eq 5 is a small-scale yielding
result.
QssY = F (5)
Q has a weak dependence of the strain-hardening exponent. Shih et al. [5 ] have presented a
close approximation (Eq 6) by using a least square fit to results of a modified boundary layer
formation in which the remote tractions are given by the first two terms of the small-displace-
ment-gradient linear elastic solution.
Qssv = ao + al + a2 (6)
A J-Q annulus exists in a finite-width specimen if Eq 5 adequately represents the full-field

stresses over a significant fraction of the characteristic crack dimension. In deeply cracked bend
geometries, the J-Q annulus is not much larger than the J annulus. For short-crack geometries
in bending, the J-Q approach, in principle, should considerably extend the range of applicability
of fracture mechanics.
Small-Scale Yielding Correction (SSYC) [6,7]

Dodds et al. [8] performed a very detailed plane strain elastic-plastic finite element analysis
on single-edge notch bend (SENB) specimens. The meshes were sufficiently refined to infer
the stress and strain distributions near the crack tip, although information at distances less than
28 from the crack tip were disregarded because the solution did not account for large strain
effects. Solutions were generated for various strain-hardening exponents and crack depths.
For a specific Ramberg-Osgood material model, the microscopic failure criterion, which is
controlled exclusively by the maximum principal stress such as cleavage, is related to applied
J-values in SENB specimens. J values for SENB specimens (Js~NB)are plotted against J values
for the SSY model (Jssv) that impose the identical opening mode stress at the same distance
from the crack tip, on the crack plane. Thus, when JSENB = Jssv the crack-tip stresses match
those for an infinite body and fracture toughness values are geometry independent. Large-scale
plasticity and size effects require significant increase in Js~NB relative to Jssv to maintain iden-
tical crack-tip stresses (see, for example, Ref 7).
When generated for specific material properties and specimen sizes, JSENBversus Jssv curves
may be used to scale fracture toughness data to account for the a/W ratio by indexing a given
Jc for one a/W through the Jssv to obtain Jc for a different a/W. Thus, the geometry dependence
of fracture toughness data for different a/W ratios may be eliminated through correlations to a
single a/W ratio or SSY model, and commonly available test results for deep-notch specimens
may be appropriately scaled for fracture assessments of shallow-notched structures.
Dynamic fracture toughness tests by an instrumented impact hammer were conducted on
small specimens fabricated of a reactor pressure vessel steel. The aim of the tests was to measure
the constraint effect by testing specimens with varying crack depth. Approximately 20 speci-
mens of each geometry were tested to achieve a statistically significant description.
Test Material
Specimens were cut from an ASTM A 533 B Class 1 steel plate with code designation JRQ.
The steel was produced by the basic oxygen furnace-ladle refining furnace (BOF-LRF) process
in Japan. After rolling, the plate was heat treated under the following conditions; normalizing
at 900~ quenching at 880~ tempering at 665~ for 12 h, stress relieving at 620~ for 40 h.
The chemical composition and mechanical properties vary between values given in Tables 1
and 2 [9 ].
TABLE 1--Chemical composition (wt-%)[9].

Element Wt-% (Min-Max)
C 0.16-0.20
Si 0.24-0.26
Mn 1.35-1.43
P 0.017-0.019
S 0.003-0.004
Cu 0.13-0.14
Ni 0.80-0.85
Cr 0.12
Mo 0.49-0.51
V 0.002-0.003
Sol. A1 0.012-0.014
TABLE 2--Mechanical properties [9].
In room temperature:
Yield strength, MPa 467-487
Tensile strength, MPa 624-635
Elongation, % 25-27
Reduction of area, % 76-77
Charpy impact test results:
41 J TT, ~ -23--28
68 J TT, ~ -13--21
50% FATT, ~ +2-+4
Drop weight test result:
NDTT, ~ - 15
Test Specimens
The 10- by 20- by 55-mm SENB specimens were cut in the L-T orientation from the plate.
The cracks were prepared so that 10-mm-deep fatigue cracks were introduced into the 20-ram-
wide specimens after which the specimens were machined from top and bottom to achieve
Charpy-size (10- by 10- by 55-mm) specimens containing sharp cracks with the specified a~
W. Finally, 1-mm-deep sidegrooves were introduced to the specimens. A total of 17 to 20
specimens of each geometry with nominal a/W values of 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 were
manufactured.
Test Method
The specimens were tested at -30~ which is in the transition region of the brittle to ductile
transition curve of the material (Fig. 1, [9]), by an inverse geometry impact hammer (Fig. 2,
3000
\E= ,32s [, .TAN. (r~}] 9
_ x
CN
2000 - 2O
E x x>k
~< x J Z
2~
0
/ X
U-
ILl /~i x JRQ CVN

1000 - -- 10
9 ETOT IA
/.~ 9 z~ x FBRITTLE INITIATION
z~ FBRITTLE ARREST
0 -~~P_/ ,- ~- z ~ z~ l l l l
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
T (~
FIG. 1--Total impact energy and brittle fracture initiation and arrest loads of V-notched Charpy
specimens [9].
NEVALAINEN ET AL. ON CRACK DEPTH EFFECTS 1 13
FIG. 2--Schematic of the impact hammer used for testing [10].
[10]). Load and energy were estimated as a function of the specimen displacement. The dis-
placement was calculated by using initial impact energy and velocity and load versus time
curve. Load was measured 2000 times during impact. Displacement increments were also cal-
culated 2000 times on the basis of each load measurement. Thus the total displacement was
achieved by integration of these displacement increments.
A typical graph of a test is shown in Fig. 3 in which load and energy curves are shown when
brittle fracture is preceded by plastic deformation and ductile tearing.
Fracture toughness parameter Jc at brittle crack initiation was calculated by Eq 7:
El
J~ = "q B ( W - a) (7)
Oisplacement [ram]
o I"5 Il I1 . 5 2
l ENERGY
15
f| / / I,Es,sE. E: . . i0
]~ / ISPECIMEN : mn2-tt
x, L ] / IOATE : 26.:tl.i990
| N/V / ITEMP. [C] :-so
5 leo tJ] :2.2
o L-/ I I L..,~ ^ .~ --
0 .5 't ~ 1.5
D~splacement [mm]
FIG. 3--A typical test result presented in graphical form.
where El is energy value at brittle crack initiation and "q is obtained by
= 1.9 - 25.124 • (0.275 - a

when 0 < ~ -< 0.274
(8)
0.03 a
= 1.859 + - - when 0.274 < - - -< 0.9
a W
1 - --
W
The expression for "q is based on a numerical fit to a number of different FEM solutions.
Results and Their Interpretation

The test results in form of cleavage function toughness, Jc, for different geometries are
presented in Table 3 and Fig. 4. In Table 3 is also included the amount of ductile crack growth
preceding cleavage fracture, which occurred in specimens of shallowest crack depth.
In the following, the test results are interpreted by the use of different constraint descriptions.
First, the results are examined, qualitatively, after which the T stress, Q parameter, and SSYC
are applied to the data.
Constraint Effect
In Fig. 4, the effect of constraint is clearly visible. The fracture toughness values (arc) for a~
W of 0.3 and 0.5 are basically on the same scale, but part of the Jc values for a/W of 0.1 and
TABLE 3--Test results.
a/W Jc, N/mm Aa, mm alW Jc, N/mm
0.019 314.81 0.41 0.06 >338.5

0.023 637.22 1.37 0.07 48.95
0.027 710.07 1.67 0.08 21.56
0.029 345.17 0.21 0.08 23.40
0.029 786.53 0.80 0.08 61.41
0.030 873.76 1.1a 0.08 80.10
0.031 305.06 0.13 0.08 180.34
0.032 856.44 0.9 a 0.08 206.39
0.033 415.59 0.19 0.08 272.50
0.033 680.08 0.47 0.08 274.44
0.034 732.33 0.96 0.08 282.51
0.036 785.96 0.75 0.08 297.84
0.036 885.74 1.1a 0.09 51.54
0.038 536.81 0.30 0.09 61.60
0.038 908.84 1.00 0.09 181.71
0.040 227.38 0.09 237.14
0.044 1110.28 b134 0.10 13.18
0.047 823.75 0.50 0.10 24.86
0.10 335.99
0.11 37.83
0.27 17.96 0.46 11.67
0.27 20.82 0.46 40.00
0.27 22.64 0.47 13.40
0.27 78.08 0.47 28.98
0.28 18.74 0.47 30.00
0.28 18.74 0.48 11.82
0.28 29.03 0.48 15.51
0.28 49.35 0.48 33.00
0.28 79.96 0.49 12.42
0.28 87.61 0.49 30.11
0.29 20.07 0.49 88.00
0.29 26.76 0.49 110.68
0.29 64.49 0.50 ~ 14.21
0.30 23.07 0.50 21.50
0.30 46.14 0.50 22.66
0.30 78.71 0.50 23.42
0.31 61.13 0.50 26.88
0.31 77.65
0.32 14.53
0.32 55.32
a Initial fatigue precrack and ductile crack growth difficult to measure because of the large amount of
plastic deformation.
all of the Jc values for a/W of 0.05 show a clear loss of constraint. The Jc values for a/W of
0.05 are at maximum over 100 times higher than Jc for a/W of 0.5. The relative difference
between highest and lowest Jc values for a single a/W is maximum (25.5) for a/W = 0.1. For
a/W = 0.05, the relative difference is 4.9, and, for a/W of 0.3 and 0.5, the relative difference
is 6.0 and 9.5, respectively. With a 75% confidence, the relative difference should, theoretically
in the case of small-scale yielding, be in the range of 6 to 17 [11].
One can draw the conclusion that the change in scatter is related to changes in constraint
behavior. The results corresponding to the two deepest crack depths a/W = 0.3 and 0.5 appear
to be roughly unaffected by constraint changes, whereas the results corresponding to a/W =
xlO 3
1200
1000
~ o
8OO oo
z 600
400
ol & A
&
200
o I , ~ ', ', ', ~ ' R:i=l ?TFl FI
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
a/W
FIG. 4---In-plane fracture toughness (Jc) versus a/Vq.
0.1 are strongly affected by constraint effects. Here the minimum toughness values are so low
that loss of constraint effects are not active. For higher toughness values, the loss of in-plane
constraint begins to play an active role, resulting in an apparent increase in fracture toughness.
This causes the relative difference between the highest and lowest value to be very large. In
the case of the shortest crack depth a/W = 0.05, the loss of in-plane constraint is so large that
all test results are strongly affected by it.
The reason for the small relative scatter in the case of the shortest crack depth is likely to
be connected to the fact that all specimens except one experienced ductile tearing before cleav-
age fracture initiation. Ductile tearing in this case increases the probability of cleavage fracture
initiation in two ways. First, ductile tearing leads to a statistical sampling effect, which increases
the cleavage fracture initiation probability. Second, ductile tearing makes the crack longer, thus
increasing in-plane constraint and increasing fracture probability. Both of these effects reduces
the apparent fracture toughness, thus decreasing the relative difference between the highest and
lowest values. Only the lowest result without ductile crack growth is purely the result of con-
straint effects.
In Fig. 5, the Jc as a function of ductile crack growth is presented. Figure 5 can be used for
rough estimates on the effects of either loss of constraint or ductile crack growth on the level
of Jc. As ductile crack growth increases crack length, the constraint increases. In Fig. 5 is also
added a curve representing fracture toughness versus ductile tearing curve determined in Ref
9 for deeply cracked Charpy-type specimens (a/W = 0.5) in dynamic loading for the same
material in same temperature region. The function of the curve is
J = 697 • Aa ~ (N/m) (9)
At small ductile crack growth, shallow-crack fracture toughness values are generally higher
than fracture toughness measured for a deep-crack geometry. But, as the crack grows, the
constraint increases, and, finally, shallow-crack fracture toughness coincides with the fracture
toughness for deep cracks.
NEVALAINEN ET AL. ON CRACK DEPTH EFFECTS 1 17
xlO 3
1200
1000
9 m ~
800 m m ~
z
v
600 1
/
t
9 /
400
9 j 9
J
200
/
0 I I I I I f I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Ductile crack growth (mm)
FIG. 5--J c versus Aa for alW of O.05. Also included dashed line J versus Aa for a/W of O.5 [9].
T Stress
From the test results, the T stress was calculated according to an equation presented by Kirk
et al. [12].
T=
where
1.5 • 2 1 5
es
I1.99 -
a( 1 - o)( 2.15 -
w
. . . . . . . . . . . .
a
3.93 ~ + 2.7
,7
2/1 (10)
(a/W) = - 0 . 4 6 2 + 0.461 + 2.47 , for 0.025 --< ~ --< 0.90 (11)
The results as a function of T are given in Fig. 6 for a/W >-- O.1, where no ductile crack
growth has occurred, T stress behaves more or less as expected; low a/W produces a negative
T stress and the lowest T values in the a/W = 0.1 group correspond to the highest Jc values.
Jc starts to rise when the compressive T stress is about 0.8 times the yield strength. Between
- 0 . 7 % --< T -- 0.6%, T stress seems to have little effect on fracture toughness.
In the a/W = 0.05 group, ductile crack growth affects fracture toughness. None of the results
except the lowest one in the a/W = 0.05 group are applicable for T stress correction as a result
of the ductile crack growth. In Fig. 7, the T stress is calculated using final crack length as a
(fatigue precrack + ductile crack growth) in Eq 10, and initially low a/W specimens show
positive T values.
It can be seen that the T stress is not able to describe the constraint effect when ductile crack
growth has occurred. Based on Figs. 6 and 7, it seems that T stress can be used qualitatively
but not quantitatively for constraint description. One can argue whether T stress in this case
can be expected to function for constraint correction at all because plastic deformation has
occurred practically in all specimens at least in some magnitude.
x 10 3
1200
1000
800 9 9 a/w
00 s
9 0.05
z 600 aO.1
9
toO.3
400 9 o 0.5
A A
2OO
~ ,,,#a ool~t~ ~ ~ n
o
-I .5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
T-stress/yield strength
FIG. 6--Jc versus T/O'y. T stress calculated by using initial fatigue precrack as a in Eq 9. In a/W
of 0.05 group (black spheres), all specimens except the specimen of the lowest Jc value have expe-
rienced ductile crack growth.
Q Parameter
The Q parameter was inter- and extrapolated according to methodspresented by Kirk et al.
[12] and O'Dowd and Shih [13]. The curves of O'Dowd and Shih were taken from Ref 12
because Ref 13 was not accessible at the time of this analysis.
In Figs. 8 and 9, results of the same a/W values form separate lines. Figures 8 and 9 on their
own cannot be used to describe constraint.
x 103
1200
1000
9 9 9
80O
9 9 a/W
z~ 600 9 9 0.05
9 aO.1
40o 9 ==0.3
;9 A o0.5
9
2oo
~,,, e
0 1 , ' I 1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
T-stms~yleld strength
FIG. 7--Jc versus T/O'y. T stress calculated by using the final crack length (fatigue precrack -t-
ductile crack growth) as a in Eq 10 [12].
x 103
200
180
a/w
~0.1
160
toO.3
140
o0.5
~120
9 0
80 /Fro
60 m
,5 Z~ m
40 ,,,, 0
20
A %
0 I I I 1 I I I
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
FIG. 8--Jc versus Q. Q determined according to Kirk et al. [12]. All a/W = 0.05 and some alW
= 0.1 points are missing as a result o f the reason that results lay outside the normalized J range
according to which the Q term was determined.
Based on order statistics, each data point corresponds to a specific cumulative probability.
When the data are ordered by rank, it is possible to determine which values correspond to equal
fracture probability.
In Figs. 10 and 11, straight lines are drawn between data points corresponding to equal
fracture probability P to find out if Q establishes a relationship between Jc-values for different
specimen geometries. The general trend seems to be that the slope of the lines increase as the
x 103
120
[] a/w
lOO ~0.1
9 [] 9 0.3
8O i'm [] 0 . 5
40
20
0 I I I I I I I I I
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0,5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Q
FIG. 9--Jc versus Q. Q determined according to O'Dowd and Shih [13]. All a/W = 0.05 and
almost all a/W = 0.1 points are missing as a result o f the same reason as in Fig. 8.
200
180
160
140
120
E 9
80 x ,
6O
40
o f ~ J I I I I
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
O
FIG. 10---JCversus Q. Q determined according to Kirk et al. [12]. Lines are drawn between points
of equal fracture probability P (=[i - 0.31/[N + 0.41).
Jc level increases. In other words, the correction between different geometries is not a function
of Q only but also a function of the J level.
J = A (Q, Jo) • Jo (12)
This relationship is more visible in Figs. 12 and 13 where the lines have been normalized to
go through a point ( - 0 . 3 , 1). The normalization was performed by dividing all J values by the
J value at Q = - 0 . 3 .
Thus it seems that Q alone is unapplicable as a quantitative constraint correction.
xl03
120
100
~176
8O
vz 60
40
O-,=~
20
&
0 I I I I I I I I
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

O
FIG. 1t--Jc versus Q. Q determined according to O'Dowd and Shih [ 13]. Lines are drawn between
points of equal fracture probability.
4.5
3.5
3
4 ~ "~x
"~ 2.5
1.5
0.5
0 I I I I r I P
-1.4 -1,2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Q
FIG. 12 Normalized J versus Q. Q determined as in Fig. 8. Lines are drawn as in Fig. lO.
Small-Scale Yielding Correction

Jssy was calculated based on the FEM results by Anderson and Dodds [6] by fitting an
equation like
_J = 1 + (A • (13)
Jssy
where A and m are functions of a/W and n.

In FEM analysis, yield stress was 414 MPa and the strain-hardening exponent had three
values--5, 10, and 50 [6]. The parameters used in analysis correspond quite well with param-
eters of the test material, which has a yield stress of 467 to 487 MPa (477 MPa was used in
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
~ o,s
0.6
0.4
0,2
0 I I I I I I I I I
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 9
Q
FIG. 13~Normalized J versus Q. Q determined as in Fig. 9. Lines are drawn as in Fig. 11.
calculations) and a strain-hardening exponent of approximately 10. The loading geometry was
the same in both analysis and tests. The dynamic nature of the tests is not believed to inhibit
the use of results of static FEA. Thus, it seems that an FEM model can be used for describing
the behavior of test specimens.
The small-scale yielding corrected results are presented in Fig. 14. SSYC seems to remove
effectively the constraint effect. Kssv values for different a/W are on the same level, but nat-
urally the scatter has remained.
The correction is surprisingly good when one considers that the FEM analysis on which the
correction is based are not made using the exact material parameters of the specimen material.
Also the dimensions of the FEM model are about five times larger than the dimensions of the
specimen used here. This fact seems to have no apparent effect on the correction.
Fracture Probability
Based on a statistical cleavage fracture model [11], the scatter of brittle fracture toughness
results can be described with
PI= 1 - exp-
( min)4
K~-
Ko Km,.
(14)
where Ps is the cumulative failure probability at a stress intensity factor level K~. Ko is a
specimen thickness and temperature-dependent normalization parameter and K,.i. is the lower-
bound fracture toughness, which for steels is close to 20 MPa-m "2. Equation 14 can be modified
to Eq 15 [111.
In = a 3 X KIc - a4 (15)
The results can now be presented in a failure probability diagram, where the cumulative failure
probability is normalized according to Eq 15 [11]. When plotted in this way, the cleavage
120
9 []
100 #9 E
~a ,m , ,
80 9o 9 mm
E 9 9 ~ DD
~e A
9 ~
v 60 ~ mm
an, n ~
~ 9 DDDD
40
20
0 F I I I I I I I I I
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
a/W
FIG. 14--Small-scale yielding corrected fracture toughness Kss Y versus alW.
N E V A L A I N E N E T AL. O N C R A C K D E P T H E F F E C T S 123
1.4
9 [] 4
4 9
1.2 o 9 4 9
[] 9 4 9
[]
1 ~4
~="
'~ 0.8
-12 .. 0.5 rn~

4
a/w
9 0.05
40.1
0.4
9 0.3
0.2 o 0.5
0 I I I I I I I I I I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Kc (MPa~'m)
FIG. 15---Fracture toughness presented as Kc versus Eq 15.
fracture toughness should theoretically follow a more or less straight line. Diagrams for K c and
Kssv are presented in Figs. 15 and 16.
The effectiveness of the SSY correction can be seen by comparing Fig. 16 to Fig. 15. Data
points of the different geometries are quite well mixed together with exception of the lower
portion of data points of the shallowest crack depth. If these points were excluded, it would be
possible to draw a straight line from Kmin = 20 MPa'm ]/2 and to obtain a very good description
of the data. An evident reason for the deviating behavior of the shallowest crack depth geometry
is the effect of ductile crack growth on fracture toughness. Another reason might be the "q
factor, which was calculated by Eq 8. The deviation can also be due to a too small SSY
correction for the shallowest crack geometry. This is actually quite possible, because the tough-
ness values lie outside the range of the Anderson and Dodds analysis.
1.4
a/w 9 4 gin
9 AO D
1.2 9 0.05 [] _m ~m
40.1 o ~ 9 9" e~ R
1
9 o. 3
o
J o4 ~ 9 ,~;~
. -
p-i
4 9 9
~. 0.6 4 9 9
4 9 9
4 9 9
0.4
0.2
0 I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Kssy (MPa~m)
FIG. 16--Small-scale yielding corrected fracture toughness Kss r versus Eq 15.
TABLE 4--Specimen dimensions (mm).
Specimen Code Specimen Type Width Thickness Length
BFDT 3PB 200 52 920

C/BFT and BFT 3PB 100 50 >-460
BFHT 3PB 100 25 >-460
CFT CT 125 50 120
SSY Correction to Some Additional Results

The small-scale yielding correction was applied to some results of Ref 14. In Ref 14, fracture
toughness values from static tests of both three-point bending and compact-tension (CT) spec-
imens of various laboratories are presented. The dimensions of the specimens have varied
according to Table 4. The material in Ref 14 is Grade 50D to BS 4360. Minimum yield strength
and strain-hardening exponent for the material are 340 MPa and approximately 7, respectively.
The values are close to values of parameters used in the FEM analysis.
Fracture toughness values expressed as Kj of some SENB and CT specimens of same width
were SSY corrected. All corrections were made separately to each laboratory, and no compar-
ison between laboratories was made. The correction was applied to cases according to Table
5. The specimen codes in Table 5 are explained in Table 4. The normalized fracture probability
(Eq 15) as a function of Kj and KssY is plotted for each laboratory in Figs. 17 through 21.
In Fig. 17a, the a/W values are between 0.3 and 0.7. The data points are not too scattered,
and two shallowest cracked specimens yield the highest Kj values. SSYC moves most of the
points of lower constraint closer to the average of other data points of same fracture probability
(Fig. 17b).
Figures 18a and 18b are interesting in that they contain two sets of data corresponding to a~
W = 0.5. For some reason the shallow (a/W = 0.3) bend specimen results are in good agreement
with deep crack CT specimens, but not with deep-crack bend specimens. Comparing to Fig.
17b, the difference does not, however, seem to be too significant.
In Figs. 19a and 19b, the SSYC again moves the data points of the shallowest cracked
geometries to lower fracture toughness values. It also decreases the fracture toughness of other
data points and so makes the upper end of the diagram better, but the scatter in the median
range increases somewhat.
TABLE 5--Laboratories and specimens for which SSYC was

applied.
Specimen
Laboratory" C/BFT BFF BFHT BFDT CFT
IEHK/RWTH x
MPI x x
IRSID x x
DNV x x
Institute de x x X X
Soudure
aMPI = Max Planck Institut, IRSID = Institute de Recherches

de la Siderurgie Frangaise, DNV = Del Norgke Veritas, and IEHK/
RWTH = Institut ftir Eisenhtittenkunde der Rheinisch-Westf~il-
ischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen.
1.4
1.2 •
1 9 •
~'~ 0,8 o& 9

o~ • a/W
~. 0.6 cft 9 O. 3
BO A
c/bft x 0.5
0.4
cft 9 O. 5
0.2 cft 9 O. 7
a)
0 I I I I I I I I
a 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Kj (MPacm)
1.4
9 9
1.2 •
9 IA A
1
"~,~ 0.8
qB &
•
~ 0.6 O&
0.4
0.2
bl
0 I I I I I I I I
b 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
K s s y (MPa Jm)
FIG. 17--(a) Kj for C/BFT and CFT of IEHK/IRWTH. (b) KssYfor C/BFT and CFT of IEHK/
IRWTH.
In previous cases the specimen width has been 100 mm. In Figs. 20a and 20b, the specimen
width is 50 mm. SSYC practically removes the scatter from the median range region, as well
as it seems to remove the a/W effect.
In Figs. 21a and 21b, the specimen width is 200 mm, and here SSYC overpredicts the a/W
effect.
It seems that the specimen width may have an additional effect on the SSYC. According to
these few diagrams, the effect of SSYC increases as W decreases from 200 to 50 mm. Specimen
thickness has been practically the same in all cases. A closer evaluation of the specimen width
effect requires more FEM analysis with specimens of different width.
1.4
1.2
)K
1
no
0.8 9 )K
-12 9
>Ke
a/W
~. 0.6
9 bft 9 0.3
c/bft ~ 0.5
0.4
cft 9 O. 5
0.2
a)
0 I I I I I I
a 50 100 150 200 250 300
Kj (MPaem)
1.4
1.2
1
9 9
?~ 0.8
v )KO
,.~ 0.6
0.4
0.2
bl
0 I I I I I I
b 50 1O0 150 200 250 300
Kssy (MP&/m)
FIG. 18--(a) K~for C/BFT, BFT and CFT of MPI. (b) Kssr for C/BFT, BFT and CFT of MPI.

Different in-plane constraint corrections have been examined experimentally with small spec-
imens tested dynamically. Based on the results, the following conclusions can be made.
Crack depth has an evident effect on cleavage fracture toughness of a small SENB specimen.
Fracture toughness increases as crack depth decreases. The increase in fracture toughness
becomes significant when a/W <-- O. 1.
The T stress and the Q parameter seem to be useful only for qualitative constraint correction.
T stress seems to have little effect when -0.7(ry --< T -- 0.6(ry. T stress cannot be used when
ductile crack growth has occurred. A great number of test results could not be used for deter-
1.4
1.2
;K
1
9 9
~-" 0.8 o~
-12
~ 0.6 a/W
bft 9 O. 3
0.4
c/bft 9 0.5
0.2 bft ~ O. 7
a)
0 I I I I I I I I
a
50 lOO 150 200 250 300 350 4O0
Kj (MPacm)
1.4
1.2
"~ 0.8 no
x
~, 0.6
0.4
0.2
bl
0 I I I I t I I I
b 50 1O0 150 200 250 300 350 400
Kssy (MPacm)
FIG. 19--(a) Kjfor C/BFT and BFT of DNV. (b) Kssrfor C/BFT and BFT of DNV.
mination of the effect of Q for constraint correction, because part of the test results exceeded
the normalized J range according to which the Q parameter was determined. Anyhow, accord-
ing to the results, Q cannot be used alone for constraint correction, but the actual level of
fracture toughness must be accounted for as well.
SSYC removes the constraint effect well, although the material parameters and dimensions
of the FEM model were not equal to those of the specimens.
Application of SSYC to some additional results revealed that specimen width may have an
effect on SSYC. As the specimen width decreases from 200 to 50 mm, the effectiveness of
1.4
1.2
9 9
0.8
9 ~9
0.6
a/W
bfht 9 0.2
0.4
bfht 9 0.3
0.2 bfht 9 0.5
a)
0 ( I I I I I
a 50 100 150 200 250 300
Kj (aPav~n)
1.4
1.2
1 9 9
--F~P mm~
m~
~. 0.6
0.4
0.2
bJ
0 I I I I I I
b 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Kssy (MPav'm)
FIG. 2ff--(a) Kj for BFHT of Institute de Soudure. (b) Kssyfor BFHT of lnstitute de Soudure.
SSYC improves. Additional FEM analysis for different materials and geometries is needed
before SSYC can be used as a standard procedure.
Acknowledgments
This work is a part of the Structural Materials in Nuclear Power Plant program performed
at the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) and financed by the Ministry of Trade and
Industry in Finland.
1.4
1.2
1
9 o~
"-" 0.8 9 9
~.. 0.6 a/W

bfdt 9 0.1
0.4
bfdt 9 0.25
0.2 bfdt 0.5
a)
0 I I I I I I
a 50 100 150 200 250 30O
Kj (MPaV'm)
1.4
~K
1.2
1
~K
9 9
~__, 0.6
0.4
0.2
b)
0 I I I I I I
b 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Kssy (MPar m)
FIG. 21--(a) Kj for BFDT of lnstitute de Soudure. (b) Kssr for BFDT of Institute de Soudure.
References
[1 ] A1-Ani, A. M. and Hancock, J. W., "J-Dominance of Short Cracks in Tension and Bending," Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1991, pp. 22-43.
[2] Du, Z. Z. and Hancock, J. W., "The Effect of Non-Singular Stresses on Crack-tip Constraint,"
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1991, pp. 555-567.
[3 ] Williams, M. L., "On the Stress Distribution at the Base of a Stationary Crack," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 24, 1957, pp. 109-114.
[4] Leevers, P. S. and Radon, J. C., "Inherent Stress Biaxiality in Various Fracture Specimen Geome-
tries," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, 1983, pp. 311-325.
[5] Shih, C. F., O'Dowd, N. P., and Kirk, M. T., " A Framework for Quantifying Crack Tip Constraint,"
in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, R.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993, pp. 2-20.
[6] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, Jr., R. H., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
in the Transition Region," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 123-
134.
[7] Anderson, T. L., Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, 1991.
[8] Dodds, Jr., R. H., Anderson, T. L., and Kirk, M. T., "A Framework to Correlate a/W Ratio Effects
on Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness (Jc)," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, 1991, pp.
1-22.
[9] Wallin, K., Valo, M., Rintamaa, R., T~rrrnen, K., and Ahlstrand, R., "Characteristics of the IAEA
Correlation Materials for Surveillance Programmes," Research Report 639, Technical Research Cen-
tre of Finland, Espoo, 1989.
[10] Rintamaa, R., Rahka, K., Wallin, K., Ikonen, K., Talja, H., et al. "Instrumented Impact Testing
Machine with Reduced Specimen Oscillation Effects," Research No. 290, Espoo, 1984. Technical
Research Centre of Finland, Metals Laboratory,
[11] Wallin, K., "Statistical Modelling of Fracture in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Region," in Defect
Assessment in Components-Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS/EGF9, J. G. Blauel and K.-H.
Schwalbe, Eds., Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, 1991, pp. 415-445.
ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, R.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1993, pp. 79-103.
eter: Part II-Fracture Applications," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 40, No~
5, 1992, pp. 939-963.
[14] Towers, O. L., Williams, S., and Harrison, J. D., ECSC Collaborative Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Toughness Testing and Assessment Methods, Final Contract Report 3571/10M/84, The Welding
Institute, Cambridge.
DISCUSSION
John G. Merkle I (written discussion)---It might improve the data interpretation to consider
the time to fracture, as suggested by Professor Shih. Dynamic toughness varies with K or J
and, therefore, with time to fracture.
M. Nevalainen, K. Wallin, and R. Rintamaa (authors' closure)--In the discussion it was
suggested that considering the time to fracture might improve the data interpretation.
The dynamic J has been measured directly according to Eq 7. Thus, the time of fracture is
not relevant in this point of view. Time to fracture is important in the point of view of ensuring
that the measured load is described correctly. For this purpose, the 37 criterion is used. In these
tests, this criterion was not violated.
ORNL, P.O. Box 2009, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8049.
Timothy J. Theiss, t David K. M. Shum, 2 and Stan T. Rolfe 3
Interim Results from the Heavy Section Steel

Technology (HSST) Shallow-Crack Fracture
Toughness Program
REFERENCE: Theiss, T. J., Shum, D. K. M., and Rolfe, S. T., " I n t e r i m Results from the
Heavy Section Steel Technology (HSST) Shallow-Crack Fracture Toughness Program,"
1994, pp. 131-151.
ABSTRACT: The Heavy Section Steel Technology Program (HSST) is investigating the influ-
ence of flaw depth on the fracture toughness of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steel. Recently, it
has been shown that shallow cracks tend to exhibit an elevated toughness as a result of a loss of
constraint at the crack tip. The HSST investigation is a joint analytical/experimental study com-
bining the use of shallow-cracked laboratory specimens with finite element analysis. All tests
have been performed on beam specimens loaded in three-point bending using specimens about
100 mm deep. Primarily two crack depths have been considered: a = 50 and 10 mm (a/W =
0.5 and 0.1). Test results indicate a significant increase in the fracture toughness associated with
the shallow-flaw specimens in the lower transition region compared to the conventional fracture
toughness. Little or no toughness increase is present on the lower shelf where linear elastic
behavior takes place. In addition, the test data indicate that specimen thickness had little influence
on fracture toughness for either the deep- or shallow-crack specimens.
Posttest analyses were performed for the deep- and shallow-crack specimens to compare the
experimental and analytical toughness values and to quantify the constraint in terms of the Q-
stress parameter. The Q stress at initiation was found to be about 0 for the deep-crack beam and
about - 0 . 7 for the shallow-crack beams. These results indicate no loss of constraint in the deep-
crack specimens but a significant constraint loss in the shallow-crack specimens, which is con-
sistent with observed behavior. The posttest analysis has been used to construct a Jc(Q) locus of
toughness data.
KEYWORDS: elastic-plastic fracture, shallow-crack toughness, constraint, CTOD testing, J

integral, Q-stress parameter
Research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion under Interagency Agreement 1886-8011-9B with the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract
DE-AC05-84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. government under Contract
DE-AC05-84OR21400. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to
publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for U.S. government
purposes.
1 Development engineer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2009, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8056.
2 Senior research engineer, Saint-Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramics Corp., Technical Services/
Mechanical Properties, Goddard Rd., Northboro, MA 01532-1545.
3 Professor and head, Civil Engineering Department, University of Kansas, Learned Hall, Lawrence,
KS 66045-2235.
131
Nomenclature
a Crack depth
B Specimen thickness
CMOD Crack-mouth opening displacement
CTOD Crack-tip opening displacement
DOF Degree of freedom
E Elastic modulus
IPTS Integrated pressurized thermal shock
Jc J-integral fracture toughness at unstable fracture
Jel Elastic component of J integral
Jpl Plastic component of J integral
K,c Critical stress-intensity factor, plane-strain fracture toughness
Ko Fracture toughness not meeting plane-strain requirements
LLD Total load-line displacement
m Constraint parameter
r Distance ahead of crack tip
RF Rotation factor
RPV Reactor pressure vessel
P Load '
Q stress Higher order term in the elastic-plastic series expansion for Mode I stress
PWR Pressurized water reactor
PTS Pressurized-thermal-shock
RTNI)T Reference nil-ductility transition temperature
S Effective beam span
SENB Single-edge-notch bend
SSY Small-scale yielding
T Temperature
Up1 Plastic area under load versus load-line displacement curve
W Specimen depth
go Yield strain
O-o Yield strength
% Flow stress
1) Poisson's ratio
8c Critical cleavage CTOD toughness
lqpl Geometry-dependent constant linking plastic J to plastic energy
Introduction
The Heavy Section Steel Technology (HSST) program sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is investigating the influence of crack depth on the fracture toughness of
A533B material under conditions prototypic of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) vessel. Spe-
cifically, HSST is investigating the significance of the increase in fracture toughness associated
with decreasing flaw depth. The elevated toughness associated with shallow flaws (that is,
shallow-flaw effect) is the result of a loss of constraint at the crack tip because of the proximity
of the crack tip to the specimen surface. This paper presents the final toughness data from the
HSST shallow-crack fracture toughness testing program, posttest analysis, and interpretation
of the results using the J-Q analytical technique. More detailed information on the motivation
and objectives of the program, experimental setup, and verification of the test techniques used
can be found in previously published reports [1-4].
The primary application of the HSST shallow-crack fracture toughness program is the pres-
THEISS ET AL. ON HSST PROGRAM 133
surized-thermal-shock (PTS) accident scenario, which, in some cases, limits the operating life
of a PWR reactor pressure vessel (RPV). Probabilistic fracture-mechanics analyses of an RPV
have shown that shallow rather than deep flaws dominate the conditional probability of vessel
failure in a PTS evaluation [5-7]. In fact, up to 95% of all initial crack initiations originated
from flaws with depths of 25 mm or less. Thus, PTS analyses require that the behavior of
shallow flaws be understood. In addition to investigating the shallow-flaw effect for PTS anal-
yses, the shallow-flaw investigation is studying the general influence of constraint on fracture
toughness. The HSST shallow-crack program is investigating the influence of both a loss of
in-plane constraint (that is, shallow-flaw effect) and a loss of out-of-plane constraint (that is,
thickness effect). The understanding of constraint is vital to the transferability of small-speci-
men toughness data to various structural applications (including RPVs). Furthermore, ASTM
validity requirements in standard fracture toughness determinations may be appropriately
relaxed based on a better understanding of the influence of constraint on fracture toughness.
The HSST shallow-flaw program is a joint experimental/analytical program that has produced
a limited database of shallow-flaw fracture toughness values and analysis to aid in the trans-
ferability of the specimen data to an RPV. The experimental portion of the program was divided
into two phases: a development phase and a production phase. The development phase estab-
lished the techniques appropriate for shallow-crack testing, verified the existence of a shallow-
flaw effect in A533B beams, and compared beams of three thicknesses to choose the thickness
for the production phase of the program. Broken ends of the development-phase beams were
subsequently remachined and tested, yielding six additional deep-crack beam tests. The pro-
duction phase involved developing a limited database of shallow-crack toughness values at
various temperatures. The analytical portion of the shallow-flaw program consisted of both
pretest and posttest analyses of the test specimens. The pretest analysis was used to size the
instrumentation for the tests and to select an appropriate shallow-crack depth. Posttest analysis
verified the techniques developed to estimate the toughness for the shallow-crack specimens
and ,quantified the level of constraint in the deep- and shallow-crack test specimens in terms of
the Q-stress parameter.
ExperimentalProgram
The specimen configuration chosen for all testing in the shallow-crack program is the single-
edge-notch-bend (SENB) specimen with a through-thickness crack (as opposed to the three-
dimensional (3D) surface crack). A beam approximately 100 mm deep (4 in.) was selected for
use in the HSST shallow-crack project. To maintain consistency with ASTM standards, the
beams were tested in three-point bending. All testing was conducted on unirradiated reactor
material (A533 grade B, class 1 steel) with the cracks oriented in the thickness (S) direction to
simulate the material conditions of an axial flaw in an RPV. Specimens were taken from the
center, homogeneous region of the source plate to minimize metallurgical differences between
the material surrounding a shallow and deep flaw.
The specimen thickness was varied in the development phase tests to examine the influence
of thickness on toughness. Three beam thicknesses were used: B = 50, 100, and 150 mm (2,
4, and 6 in.). The span for the 50-mm-thick beam was 4W or 406 mm (16 in.). The spans for
the 100- and 150-mm beams were increased to ensure failure without exceeding the load
capacity of the beam loading fixture. Figure 1 shows three of the beam sizes used in the shallow-
crack testing. Both shallow- and deep-crack specimens were tested at each thickness. Beams
100 mm thick (4 in.) were used for the production phase tests.
The development and production phases of the HSST shallow-crack testing program resulted
in 14 and 18 data points, respectively, and an additional 6 deep-crack beams of varying thick-
ness were tested providing a total of 38 data.points. All but one of the development-phase tests
were conducted at -60~ and the six additional deep-crack beams were tested at -45~ The
FIG. 1 Three specimen thicknesses used in the shallow-crack program to investigate size effects.
production-phase tests used one-beam geometry (100 by 100 mm) but were conducted at var-
ious temperatures. Two crack depths (one shallow and one deep) were used for the shallow-
crack fracture toughness testing program. The nominal shallow crack depth chosen was ~ 10
mm (a ~ 0.4 in.), which is representative of the flaw depths that resulted in a majority of the
initiations in the IPTS studies [5-7] and yields a normalized crack depth (a/W) of 0.10. All
deep-crack specimens were cracked to an a/W value of approximately 0.5. The total test matrix
for the HSST shallow-crack fracture toughness program is shown in Table 1.
Instrumentation was attached to the specimens to permit independent determination of both
J-integral and crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD). The J integral was determined from
the load-line-displacement (LLD) versus load diagram. The LLD was determined using a ref-
erence bar attached to the beam fixture and a micrometer attached to the neutral axis of the
TABLE 1--Test matrix for the HSST shallow-crack program.
Temperature, Crack Depth, Thickness, No. Tested

Phase ~ mm mm Beams Tot~
Development - 60 -50 50 3
-60 -50 100 1
-60 --50 150 1
-60 -50 50 3
-60 --10 100 2
-60 -10 150 2
-60 ~14 50 1
-35 -10 50 1 14
6 add. beams -45 -50 50 2
-45 -50 100 2
-45 -50 150 2 6
Production -105 --10 100 3
-40 -50 100 3
-40 --10 100 3
-23 -10 100 3
-6 --50 100 3
-6 -I0 100 3 18
38
beam. CTOD was determined from crack-mouth-opening-displacement (CMOD) gages

mounted directly on the crack mouth of the specimen. Toughness data are expressed in terms
of CTOD according to the ASTM Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD)
Fracture Toughness Measurement (E 1290). The ASTM Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture
Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399) was used to analyze the deep-crack specimens to
determine if the test results could be considered "valid" plane-strain (Kit) data. The ASTM
Test Method for Jic, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813) is not applicable to these tests
because typically the failures were cleavage events; however, critical J-integral cleavage values
(Jc) were determined for each test. The shallow-crack toughness formulations are as similar as
possible to the deep-crack ASTM standard toughness formulations.
Material Properties
Two heats of unirradiated A533B material were tested in this program. The development-
phase and six additional deep-crack beams were taken from the HSST-CE plate and were tested
in the T-S orientation. The production-phase beams were taken from HSST plate 13B, were
given a final heat treatment (620~ for 40 h) before machining, and were tested in the L-S
orientation. Material properties used in the analysis of the shallow-crack test results for both
the development and production phases are included in Table 2. Additional information on the
shallow-crack production-phase material characterization and source material properties can be
found in Refs 8, 9, and 10.
Crack-Tip Opening Displacement ( CTOD), 8c, Determination

The plastic component of CTOD is determined experimentally from the plastic component
of CMOD and the rotation factor (RF), according to ASTM Test Method E 1290. The plastic
displacement of the crack flanks is assumed to vary linearly with distance from the plastic
center of rotation. In this way, the plastic CMOD can be related to the plastic CTOD. The
plastic center of rotation is located ahead of the crack tip a distance equal to the rotation factor
multiplied by the remaining ligament (W - a). The rotation factor in ASTM Test Method E
1290 is 0.44 but is a function of specimen geometry and material. RF values determined for
deep-crack beams are not necessarily applicable for otherwise identical shallow-crack beams.
An experimental technique was used in this program to locate the neutral axis of the beam
ahead of the crack tip, using strain gages on each face of the beam. Assuming the plastic center
of rotation is located at the neutral axis of the beam, the RF can be determined. Because the
rotation factor relates the plastic component of CMOD to the plastic component of CTOD,
only plastic strains were used to determine the rotation factor. The rotation factors determined
TABLE 2--Material properties for A533B steels used in HSST shallow-crack program.
Development Phase and Six Deep-Crack Beams Production Phase
HSST CE-WP HSST Plate 13B after postweld heat treatment

E = 202 - 0.0626 T, GPa E = 202 - 0.0626 T, GPa
v = 0.3 v = 0.3
cro = 211 + 55 O00/(T + 273), MPa~ o'o = 430 - 0.223 T + 0.014 T2, MPa
o', = 371 + 55 O00/(T + 273), MPa o', = 609 + 0.618 T + 0.009 27/'2, MPa
o"s = K(o'o + o'u) o's = 89 + o'.)
RTNoT = -35~ RTNr,r = - 15~ (center material)
a T = temperature, ~
using this technique were relatively insensitive to load once plastic strains became nontrivial
and were consistent on each face of the beam. The RF for a beam was taken as the average
calculated RF from each face. Four deep-crack beams were strain gaged yielding an average
RF of 0.44. Eight shallow-crack beams were gaged to yield an average RF of 0.49. The rotation
factor used for the CTOD toughness calculation is the average of the values from this technique
for the two crack depths.
A parametric evaluation was performed to assess the sensitivity of the calculated CTOD
toughness on the RF. This evaluation indicated that the plastic component of CTOD is not
sensitive to the value of the rotation factor. Shallow-crack beams are less sensitive to the rotation
factor than deep-crack beams. A 25% increase in rotation factor increases the plastic CTOD
by about 5 and 17% for the shallow and deep-crack geometries, respectively. The rotation
factor is insensitive to beam thickness and absolute beam dimensions, varying only with a/W
ratios for a given material and specimen depth. Based on the comparison of deep and shallow
RF and the insensitivity of CTOD to RF, the ASTM Test Method E 1290 value of the RF of
0.44 would appear to be appropriate for deep- and shallow-cracl~ed A533B specimens.
Critical CTOD (~c) values calculated using the RF values just described and ASTM Test
Method E 1290 are included in Table 3. The ratios of the shallow-to-deep-crack lower-bound
~ at T-RTND T --- 2 5 and - 1 0 ~ are 3.3 and 4.9, respectively, which is consistent with the
A36 and A517 results [11,12 ]. Further examination of these data indicates little variation of gc
as a function of beam thickness for either the deep-crack or shallow-crack beams.
J Integral, Jc Determination
The critical J-integral value (Jc) was determined for each beam using LLD data. Little or
no crack growth took place in these tests, so ASTM Test Method E 813 was not applicable.
The J integral was calculated by dividing the elastic and plastic components of J and using
only the plastic area under the load versus LLD curve and a plastic "q factor as proposed by
Sumpter [13]. The equations used to determine the shallow-crack J-integral toughness are as
follows [13]:
Jc = J~l + Jpl (1)
where
Jel = K~(1 - C)/E (2)
and
Jp~ = .qplUJ(B(W - a)) (3)
where Upl is plastic area under load versus LLD curve.

The J-integral toughness values for each beam are given in Table 3. J-integral results are
consistent with the CTOD results. The ratios of the shallow-to-deep lower bound Jc at T-
RTNr~r = - 2 5 and - 10~ and 2.4 and 2.9, respectively, which is consistent with the bc results.
Comparison of ~ and J~ Values

CTOD toughness values can be converted into J-integral values [14] according to Jc =
m'%'~c, where tIs is the average of the yield and tensile strengths, and m is the constraint
parameter. Because Jc and ~c are known for each specimen, comparison of Jc and 8c allows m
TABLE 3 HSST shallow-crack test data.
Failure CTOD J Kc from Kc from

HSST Tempera- S, B, W, a, Load, Total, Integral, CTOD, J,
Beam ture,~ mm mm mm mm kN mm MPa-mm MPa.m 1/2 MPa.m "2
DEVELOPMENT PHASE
3 -36 406 51 100 10.0 600.0 0.586 261 265 243
4 -61 406 51 100 51.8 128.1 0.048 42 96 97
5 -55 406 51 99 5t.2 139.7 0.049 48 97 105
6 -59 406 51 100 51.9 184.6 0.117 102 149 152
7 -59 406 51 94 10.2 483.5 0.137 92 132 144
8 -60 406 51 94 9.6 657.4 0.476 284 245 254
9 -62 406 51 94 9.5 552.4 0.352 173 212 198
10 -60 406 51 94 14.0 489.3 0.235 143 180 180
11 -57 864 102 94 8.4 472.4 0.196 101 157 152
12 -57 864 102 95 49.8 116.5 0.061 50 108 106
13 -60 864 102 94 8.8 501.7 0.357 208 213 217
14 -60 864 152 93 8.7 723.2 0.346 225 209 226
15 -59 864 153 94 8.7 684.1 0.146 85 136 139
16 -58 864 153 94 50.0 170.4 0.060 46 107 102
SIX DEEP-CRACK BEAMS PHASE
12A -44 406 102 94 51.0 251.8 0.077 60 120 117
13A -46 406 102 94 50.8 293.1 0.111 86 144 140
14A1 -44 406 51 93 50.2 135.2 0.121 93 150 145
14A2 -44 406 51 93 50.8 102.7 0.043 39 90 94
15A -47 406 153 94 50.7 435.0 0.096 79 133 134
16A -43 406 153 94 5t.9 348.3 0.062 51 107 108
PRODUCTION PHASE
17 -6 610 102 102 52.6 245.1 0.116 98 144 147
18 -24 610 101 102 10.6 777.1 0.468 238 239 231
20 -4 610 101 101 10.8 823.3 1.733 987 453 469
21 -23 610 101 102 10.7 724.1 0.306 152 194 185
22 -7 610 101 102 10.9 793.5 0.942 566 334 355
24 -7 610 102 102 52.0 269.1 0.367 270 255 245
25 -39 610 102 102 52.0 238.4 0.110 85 145 138
26 -40 610 102 102 11.0 740.1 0.355 175 213 199
27 -22 610 101 102 10.7 787.3 0.559 242 261 233
28 -6 610 101 102 10.3 832.7 1.242 788 384 419
31 -40 610 102 102 51.5 205.5 0.063 51 110 108
32 -103 610 102 102 11.1 417.7 0.016 20 69 68
33 -103 610 102 102 10.7 339.8 0.009 13 53 54
34 -106 610 101 102 10.4 431.0 0.017 21 72 70
35 -7 610 102 102 51.7 244.2 0.121 97 147 147
36 -38 610 t02 102 51.6 176.1 0.042 35 89 89
37 -39 610 102 102 10.8 746.5 0.263 135 183 175
38 -39 610 102 102 10.8 755.3 0.206 106 162 155
to b e determined as a function o f crack depth. Plots of J versus C T O D show a linear relationship

b e t w e e n the two toughness expressions. The constraint parameter, m, for each test was deter-
m i n e d using the critical toughness (Jo and 8c) values, The constraint parameter as a function
of crack depth yields repeatable results as s h o w n in Fig. 2. The average deep-crack constraint
p a r a m e t e r is 1.5. The average shallow-crack constraint parameter is 1.0 except for three beams
that exhibited a significantly elevated m value. These three shallow-crack b e a m s were tested
ORNL-DWG 92M-3121 ETD

2.0 io , i I i
rn = 1.9 - ~ Lower-Shelf
Tests , o
o
E 1.6
m=1.5 o-~o~176
~ 1.2
n=l.~ ~ o.~-- m = 1.1
ft.
c
-~ 0.8
t-
O
J = m*Flow*CTOD
~ 0.4
0 I I
o o.1 o12 o13 o., o15 0.6
Crack Depth,
FIG. 2--Constraint parameter (m) values as a function of crack depth (a/W).
on the lower shelf where linear-elastic behavior takes place regardless of the crack depth. An
average constraint parameter of 1.9 was found for these beams. This value is anticipated on
the lower shelf because the elastic CTOD equation is based on conversion from J of 2~ro and
the plastic component of CTOD is negligible. The constraint parameter values found experi-
mentally are consistent with published analytical results [15]. Critical CTOD was converted
into J-integral expressions using the average values of m shown in Fig. 2. J-integral values
converted from CTOD will be referred to as Jc (CTOD); Jc (LLD) refers to J-integral values
determined directly from LLD records.
Stress-Intensity Factor, Ko, Determination

Typically, RPV fracture toughness values are expressed in terms of the critical stress-intensity
factor, Kjc. The two J-integral toughness expressions were converted into elastic-plastic Kjc
values according to Kj~ = %/(JE') [14]. The plane-strain value of E', El(1 - vZ), is justified
because thickness had little influence on the resulting toughness values. Figure 3 and Table 3
contain comparisons of Kjc from the two J estimation techniques used (CTOD and LLD). As
shown in Fig. 3, the two J estimation techniques give similar values of Kjc. The maximum
difference between the two techniques is about 10%. The average difference is less than 1%.
The toughness data expressed in terms of Kj~ (CTOD) versus normalized temperature (T-
RTNDT) are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 4. The data show a significant increase in the fracture
toughness for shallow-crack specimens in the transition region of the A533B toughness curve.
All but one of the specimens failed in cleavage (the data point indicated in Fig. 4 with the
arrow). As expected, the shallow-crack specimens on the lower shelf, where linear-elastic
behavior occurs, showed little to no toughness increase. The specimens had crack depths that
were deep (a - 50 mm) or shallow (a -- 10 mm) except for one beam with a crack depth of
14 mm. This intermediate crack-depth specimen also appears to show the shallow-crack-tough-
ness elevation.
The shallow-crack toughness increase can be quantified in terms of a ratio of toughness
values at one temperature or as a temperature shift. In terms of Kjc, the shallow-crack toughness
increase is approximately 60% at T-RTNDT = -25~ Figure 4 shows the shallow-crack and
deep-crack test data with approximate lower envelope curves. The shallow-crack lower enve-
ORNL-DWG 92M-.3122 ETD

500 . . . .
400 o ~ o ~ o o
E
300
o..
"~200
ro
Y
100
0 I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500
KcfromCTOD(MPa-m1/2)
FIG. 3--Comparison of K c (LLD) and Kc (CTOD) toughness values.
lope curve was formed using the deep-crack lower envelope curve shifted by 35~ (63~ The
shifted deep-crack lower envelope curve fits the shallow-crack data well at all test temperatures.
Toughness data in terms of Kjo (CTOD) are plotted as a function of beam thickness for all
of the tests conducted at T-RTNDT= - 2 5 and - 1 1 ~ ( - 4 5 and -20~ in Fig. 5. As indicated
in Figs. 4 and 5, the toughness values for the shallow- and deep-crack specimens from the 100-
and 150-mm-thick (4- and 6-in.) beams generally are consistent with the 50-ram-thick (2-in.)
data. However, there appears to be slightly more data scatter associated with the 50-mm-thick
(2-in.) beams that with the 100- and 150-mm-thick (4- and 6-in.) beams. None of the deep-
ORNL-DWG92M-2877RETD
500 ' ( )' ' ~ /' , ,
a W B mm Shallow-Crack
o 50 100 50 9 J Lower Envelope
9 10 100 50 ~' Curve
400 9 14 100 50 / / o"
o 50 100 100 9 /~Tshift=35C
9 10 100 100 / /
A 50 100 150 =/ /
9 10 100 150 7 /
1~ 300
200
~
."/~ ACurve
9 9
B/
o
/
eepCrack
Lower Envelope
IO0
, I i f , I i I ,
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

T-RTNDT (~
FIG. 4~Toughness (Kc) data versus normalized temperature for the shallow- and deep-crack
specimens with lower-bound curves.

400 I I I I I
o Deep-Crack @ T-RTNoT = -25~

350 & Deep-Crack @ T-RTNDT = -10~
9 Shallow-Crack @ T-RTNDT = -25~
300 9 Shallow-Crack @ T-RTNDT = - 10~
250
9 t
o. 200
150
g~
100
50
9,~ M e e t s t h e L i n e a r i t y a n d T h i c k n e s s Requirements of ASTM E399 .
i I = I = I i I i I
0
4O 60 80 100 120 140 160
B (turn)
FIG. 5--Toughness (Kc) data versus beam thickness for the shallow- and deep-crack specimens
at T-RTNor = - 2 5 and -10~
crack tests strictly meets the requirements of ASTM Test Method E 399 for a valid plane-strain
K~c result because of insufficient crack depth. The beams that had otherwise linear-elastic test
records and were sufficiently thick for valid results are marked in Fig. 5.
Posttest Specimen Analysis

This section presents detailed posttest two-dimensional (2D) plane-strain analysis results for
a select number of specimens from the production phase of the shallow-flaw fracture toughness
testing program. Specifically, detailed finite-strain, finite element analyses were performed for
six specimens that were tested at -40~ Three of the specimens (Beams 36, 31, and 25) are
deep-flaw specimens with nominal a/W = 0.5; the remaining three are shallow-flaw specimens
(Beams 38, 37, and 21) with nominal a/W = 0.1. As shown in Table 3, the three shallow-flaw
specimens exhibited higher toughness levels than the three specimens with deep flaws. The
primary objectives of these analyses are (1) to evaluate the J estimation techniques developed
to determine shallow-crack toughness and (2) to evaluate the recently proposed two-parameter
J-Q concept [16,17] to provide a framework for interpreting and ordering the observed tough-
ness differences between the deep- and shallow-flaw geometries.
Material Models
Two material models have been adopted in the analysis of the test specimens. The first
material model simulates the unirradiated tensile properties of A533B (HSST Plate 13B) at
- 4 0 ~ (-40~ as determined from material characterization. The linear-elastic portion of the
true stress-true strain curve is characterized by a yield strain of magnitude eo = ~o/E = 0.0022,
where the Young's modulus E = 207.2 GPa (30 • 106 psi), the uniaxial yield stress in tension
% = 454 MPa (65.8 ksi), and Poisson's ratio v = 0.3. The uniaxial true-stress true-plastic-
ORNL-DWG92-2878 E'I'D
800
o
700
600 f ~ f
rl - - ~ unadjusted
=_. 5OO ------- adjusted
400
r
300 i
I.--
20O
100
0 , , , , I * i * . I I I I I I I I I I
0.000 O.O50 o,loo o.,5o 0.200

True Plastic Strain
FIG. 6--Uniaxial true stress-true plastic strain curve in tension for unadjusted and adjusted
material models.
strain curve in tension is modeled in a multilinear fashion as indicated in Fig. 6. In subsequent

discussions, this material model is referred to as the unadjusted model.
Posttest analysis results to be presented indicate that finite element models based in part on
the unadjusted material model underestimate the displacements of the specimens as compared
to experimentally measured values. Various reasonable analysis options to reduce the stiffness
of the finite element models have been attempted. One option that, in conjunction with other
analysis techniques to be described later, results in good agreement between calculated and
measured mechanical responses of the specimens is to reduce both the Young's modulus and
the uniaxial yield stress in tension from their pretest characterization values. The magnitudes
of the reduction are consistent with anticipated variability in tensile material properties. In
subsequent discussions, this material model is referred to as the adjusted model.
The adjusted material model incorporates adjustments to the unirradiated tensile character-
istics of A533B (HSST Plate 13B) in the following manner. Within the linear-elastic region,
the Young's modulus is reduced by 5% such that E = 196.5 GPa (28 500 ksi). The yield stress
was reduced by 9% such that % = 413 MPa (59.9 ksi). A 9% variation in yield and a 5%
variation in E are reasonable based on the scatter of material properties. The adjusted yield
strain is thus eo = 0.0021, and Poisson's ratio remains v = 0.3. The uniaxial engineering-stress
engineering-strain curve in tension beyond yield is the same as the unadjusted model. The
uniaxial true-stress true-plastic-strain curve in tension for the adjusted model is also indicated
in Fig. 6.
Minimal differences are observed between the stress-strain curves of these two material
models when they are presented in the form indicated in Fig. 6. However, an indication of the
relative plastic response of these two material models can be obtained with the stress-strain
curves presented in the form indicated in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7, the instantaneous yield stress tr is
normalized by the initial yield stress ~ro. The effects of the differences between the two material
models on analysis results are expected to become significant as the loading conditions in a
specimen approach elastic-plastic behavior.
ORNL-DWG 92-2879 E T D
2.00
1.75 _. . c ~ ~ r 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 7 6
150
13
125
1.00
--~ unadjusted
-o ~ adjusted
.N 0.75
t~
0 O.5O
z
0.25
0.00 , , , , I ~ , , , I = = = = I . . . . I
0,000 0.050 0,100 0,150 0.200
True Plastic Strain
FIG. 7--Normalized stress-strain curves for unadjusted and adjusted material models.
Finite Element Models and Analysis Assumptions

The finite-strain, elastic-plastic posttest analyses are performed using the finite element code
ABAQUS [18]. The analyses assume a rate-independent, J2 (isotropic-hardening) incremental
plasticity theory as implemented in ABAQUS. The planform for both the shallow- and deep-
flaw specimen is 102 by 610 mm (4 by 24 in). The initial flaw-depth is 10.2 mm (0.4 in.) for
the shallow-flaw specimen and 50.8 mm (2 in.) for the deep-flaw specimen. The shallow-flaw
specimen geometry is modeled with the finite element mesh indicated in Fig. 8, which is made
up of 914 10-node generalized-plane-strain isoparametric elements with a total of 2883 nodes.
The deep-flaw specimen geometry is modeled with the finite element similarly refined mesh
made up of 922 10-node generalized-plane-strain isoparametric elements with a total of 2903
nodes. These 10-node elements behave as conventional 8-node isoparametric elements except
for an extra degree of freedom (DOF) that allows for uniform straining in a direction perpen-
dicular to the plane of the mesh [18]. In a plane strain analysis, the out-of-plane DOF is not
active. The integration order of the elements is 2 x 2.
A unique feature of the finite element meshes is the highly refined crack-up region. The
rectangular crack-tip region is made up of 29 (shallow-flaw) or 31 (deep-flaw) "rings" of
elements as indicated in Fig. 8b for the shallow-crack geometry. The mathematically sharp
crack-tip profile associated with small-strain fracture analysis is replaced, in the present finite-
strain context, with an initial root radius before the imposition of external loading as indicated
in Fig. 8c. The assumption of a finite value of the initial root radius is necessary to facilitate
numerical convergence of the finite element results. The magnitude of the initial root radius is
r o = 0.6 ~m (2.36 • 10 5 in.) for the shallow-flaw mesh, whereas for the deep-flaw mesh ro
= 1.3 txm (5.03 • 10 -5 in.). The high degree of mesh refinement is necessary to obtain an
accurate determination of the crack-tip stress and strain fields ahead of the blunting notch tip.
The proposed Q-stress parameter is determined based on crack-tip fields over such a region.
J-integral values are determined from up to 29 (shallow-flaw) or 31 (deep-flaw) paths sur-
rounding the crack tip to verify path independence. A measure of the mesh refinement is that
the elastically determined K value using these meshes is within 99.5% of the reported value in
ORNL-DWG 92-2880 ETD
I (b)
J
J
(a) ~(c)
FIG 8--FEA mesh for alW = O.1.
the literature [19]. Convergence requirements of the elastic-plastic finite element results to be
presented are specified by means of limiting the maximum value of the residual nodal force
per unit thickness at any node. Specifically, the maximum value is required to be less than
O. 1% of the product between the yield stress and the smallest element dimension in the finite
element mesh.
Comparison o f Calculated and Measured Mechanical Responses

Experimental measurements for the load (P), LLD, and CMOD are available for the six
specimens considered in these analyses. Comparison of the calculated and measured mechanical
responses provides a means to gage the general accuracy of the analysis results and provide an
additional basis for establishing confidence in the calculated fracture mechanics parameters.
Results of the comparison can be found in Ref 4. As an example, Fig. 9 indicates the extent
of the agreement between the calculated and measured P-LLD response for the shallow-flaw
specimens.
Figure 9 presents two sets of calculated responses along with the measured responses for the
three shallow-flaw specimens (Beams 38, 37, and 26). The measured responses of these spec-
imens appear to indicate the presence of general-yielding conditions at the onset of crack
initiation. The two sets of calculated curves correspond to two cases of analysis conditions
labeled asCase A and B. The calculated P-LLD curve corresponding to Case A was determined
based on a/W = 0.1 and the unadjusted material model. The finite element analysis was carded
out under "load-control" in that reaction forces were specified along the back-side of the
specimen ahead of the crack tip.
From Fig. 9 it is observed that, at a given value of applied load, the calculated LLD response
is below the measured values both in the elastic and plastic regimes. Analysis options that have
been attempted to reduce the stiffness of the finite element models include reasonable adjust-
ORNL-DWG 92M-2882ETD
800 9 I ' I ' I 9 I ' I ' I ' I
700
600
500
-~ 400
o
~/jr o Beam #37
30O /j . B e ~ #2e
A Case A (unadjusted)
200 9 Case B (adjusted)
100
0 , I , I ~ I , I , I , t , I ,
0.0 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
LLD (mm)
FIG. 9--P-LLD for a/W = 0.1.
ment of the material model or refinement of the flaw depth or both. Posttest examination of
the fracture surfaces for the three shallow-flaw specimens, along nine locations on the crack
front, indicate that the actual flaw depth is 10.8 mm (a/W = 0.106) rather than the assumed
value of 10.2 mm (a/W = 0.10).
Analysis results for Case B were determined based on a flaw depth of a = 10.8 nun and the
adjusted material model described previously. The finite element analysis was carried out under
"displacement-control" as displacements were specified along the back-side of the specimen
ahead of the crack tip. As evident from Fig. 9, analysis conditions for Case B appear to result
in better agreement between the calculated and measured mechanical responses both in the
elastic and plastic regimes.
Comparison for the a/W = 0.5 geometry has been carried out in a similar fashion with details
presented in Ref 4. Discrepancies are observed among results based on the unadjusted material
model, a/W = 0.5, and the measured responses. Posttest examination of the fracture surfaces
for the three deep-flaw specimens indicates that the actual flaw depth is 51.6 mm (a/W = 0.502)
rather than the assumed value of 51 mm (a/W = 0.50) or an increase of only 1%. Analysis
results determined based on the nominal flaw depth of a/W = 0.50 and the adjusted material
model appear to result in better agreement between the calculated and measured mechanical
responses both in the elastic and plastic regimes. In subsequent discussions, these are referred
to as Case D conditions.
Comparison of J-Integral Values From Finite Element Analysis and J-Estimation

Schemes
Fracture toughness is often expressed as the magnitude of the J integral or the stress intensity
factor (K) at the onset of crack initiation. The J-integral values have been determined as a part
of the posttest analysis of the specimens. The magnitude of critical values of P and LLD (Pc,
LLDc) for the three shallow-flaw specimens at crack initiation are indicated in Table 4. The
magnitude of the analytical J integral based on attaining LLDc are denoted as JLLDc" Because
the calculated P-LLD curve for the shallow-flaw specimen underestimates the measured value
TABLE 4--Experimental and analytical results of fracture toughness for the shallow-flaw (a/W = 0.1)
specimen based on Case B conditions.
JEW (LLD), JExP (CTOD),

Beam Pc, kN LLDc, mm JLL~,kN/m Jp,kN/m kN/m kN/m
38 756 2.71 115 112 106 116

37 746 3.08 142 108 135 148
26 740 3.45 169 105 175 201
of LLD at a given value of P, JLLDc Can be regarded as an upper bound to the actual value of
the J integral at the onset of crack initiation. On the other hand, the magnitude of the J integral
based on attaining Pc can be regarded as a lower bound to the actual value of the J integral.
These J-integral values are denoted as JPc- In terms of the stress intensity factor, magnitudes
of KLLD~and Kpc are also listed in Table 4. Analogous results for the deep-flaw geometry based
on Case D conditions are listed in Table 5.
J-estimation schemes based on the magnitude of the experimentally determined LLD and
CMOD for both the shallow- and deep-flaw geometry have been presented. The J-integral
values based on these estimation schemes, denoted here as JEXP (LLD) and JEXP (CMOD) are
listed in Tables 4 and 5 for the shallow- and deep-crack beams. In terms of the stress intensity
factor, magnitudes of KExP (LLD) and KEXP (CMOD) are also listed in Tables 4 and 5.
Results in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that both values of JExP calculated from measured values
of LLD compare favorably with the finite element results. The general accuracy of the LLD-
based J-estimation scheme for the deep-flaw geometry is verified by the observation that all of
the deep-flaw JExp (LLD) values are between JLLDcand ./Pc. A similar degree of accuracy is
observed for the case of the shallow-flaw geometry, although one of the JExp (LLD) values is
slightly higher than the upper-bound JLLDo value. The J-integral estimation scheme based on
CMOD appears to overestimate the fracture toughness for these shallow-flaw specimens
because all three values of JExP (CMOD) were above the upper-bound value of JLLDr
Small-Scale Yielding Reference Crack-Tip Stress Fields

The two-parameter J-Q approach appears to provide a rigorous theoretical framework both
to characterize the crack-tip fields and to provide a basis for interpreting and ordering experi-
mentally determined fracture toughness values. The basis for this approach is a rather precise
definition of crack-tip constraint based on the Q-stress parameter. A brief discussion on the
definition of the Q-stress parameter, along with its LEFM counterpart, the T-stress parameter,
is presented in Appendix B of Ref 4. In the case of the deep- and shallow-flaw specimens, the
Q-stress parameter is defined as the difference between the "opening-mode" stress component
obtained from a large-strain, plane-strain finite element analysis of the specimen and the cor-
TABLE 5--Experimental and analytical results for the fracture toughness for deep-flow (a/W = 0.5)
specimens based on Case D conditions.
JExP (LLD), Jzxp (CTOD),

Beam Pc, kN LLDc, m m JLLDc , kN/m "/Pc,kN/m kN/m kN/m
36 176 1.24 44 35 35 34
31 206 1.41 57 49 51 53
25 238 1.82 91 71 85 93
responding stress component determined from the associated reference small-scale yielding
(SSY) conditions. A brief discussion on the conditions of SSY and the related concept of
boundary-layer analysis is presented in Appendix C of Ref 4.
The "opening-mode" stress component for the reference SSY problem, along the crack
plane directly ahead of the blunting notch tip, is indicated in Fig. 10 for both the unadjusted
and the adjusted material model. The stress component is normalized by the initial yield stress
tro, and distance ahead of the blunting notch tip is expressed in terms of the normalized distance
parameter r/(J/tro). With reference to Figs. 6 and 7, it is observed that the differences in the
relative plastic response of these two material models are manifested in the observed differences
in their respective SSY crack-tip fields. In Fig. 10 and subsequent figures, the "opening-mode"
stress component is determined from averaged nodal values based on extrapolation from inte-
gration points of surrounding elements. The magnitude of the J integral can be obtained using
the standard plane strain conversion between J and K based on the applied value of K in the
SSY analysis. Alternately, the J integral can be obtained using the J-integral option provided
by ABAQUS. Excellent agreement is found between these two methods of evaluating the J
integral, thus providing an avenue for verifying the numerical accuracy of the finite element
results.
Shallow- and Deep-Flaw Specimen Crack-Tip Stress Fields

Distributions of the "opening-mode" stress component for the shallow-flaw geometry, along
the crack plane directly ahead of the blunting notch tip, are indicated in Fig. 11 for various
stages of loading based on Case B conditions. The loading stages are expressed in terms of the
magnitude of the applied load as deduced from the finite element results (recall the analysis
was performed under displacement control). From Table 4, the experimentally determined
critical values of the applied load (Pc) for the three specimens are 740, 746, and 756 kN. Also
indicated in Fig. 11 is the SSY distribution for the specimen material based on the adjusted
material model. The stress component is normalized by the initial yield stress tr o, and distance
ahead of the blunting notch tip is expressed in terms of the normalized distance parameter r~
ORNLoDWG92-2888 ETD
4.o ~ unadjusted
J- ~ ~ \ ~ adjusted
"~ 3.5 L/f\\
Z 2.o
2.5 5.0 7.5 lo.o
N o r m a l i z e d D i s t a n c e , r / (J/~o)
FIG. IO---SSYdistributions for unadjusted and adjusted material models.

ORNL-DWG 92-2889 ETD

o 4.5
--'0--- SSY
u) 4.0 ~ 391 kN
703 kN
3.s ~ 787 kN
8
r
"E 3.o -~-.~.._......q=...~~_,,~_
e~
O
"O
N 2.5
O
Z 2.0
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Normalized Distance, r/(J/a0)
FIG. l 1--Opening-mode stress f o r alW = 0.1 as a function o f load up to crack initiation.
(J/(ro), where J is the value of the J integral associated with the specified loading conditions.
Analysis results in Fig. 11 indicate that the crack-tip fields in the shallow-flaw specimen pro-
gressively deviate from the SSY distributions as the specimens are loaded toward the onset of
crack initiation. Crack initiation for the three shallow-flaw specimens occurred under substan-
tially non-SSY conditions. The deviation from SSY distribution of the crack-tip stress field is
essentially the same for each specimen at the failure load.
Analogous results for the "opening-mode" stress distributions for the deep-flaw geometry
are indicated in Fig. 12. From Table 5, the magnitudes of Pc for the three specimens are 176,
ORNL-DWG 92-28g0 ETD
4.0~,~ ~ --'-E3--116kN
"~ 3.0
8
~ 2.5
Z 2.0
2.5 5.0 75 10.0
Normalized Distance, r / ( J / a 0 )
FIG. 12--Opening-mode stress f o r alW = 0.5 as a function o f load up to crack initiation.
206, and 238 kN. Analysis results in Fig. 12 indicate that crack initiation for the three deep-
flaw specimens occurred under essentially SSY conditions.
Correlation of Deep- and Shallow-Flaw Toughness in Terms o f Jc(Q) Locus

The primary objectives of these analyses are to evauate the utility of the recently proposed
two-parameter J-Q concept to characterize the crack-tip fields up to the onset of crack initiation,
and to provide a framework for interpreting and ordering the observed toughness differences
between the deep- and shallow-flaw geometries. Analysis results for the shallow- and deep-
flaw specimens appear to support the J-Q concept and interpretation method in the following
sense. First, results from Figs. 11 and 12 indicate that the Q-stress parameter can be defined
for the six specimens up to the onset of crack initiation. Crack initiation for the deep-flaw
specimens occurred under conditions of Q ~ 0; for the three shallow-flaw specimens, crack
initiation occurred under conditions of Q ~- -0.7. Second, the observed toughness variation
between the shallow- and deep-flaw specimens can be ordered via the Q-stress parameter.
Correlation of toughness for the shallow- and deep-flaw specimens in terms of critical values
of JLLI~c(Jc) and the Q-stress is indicated in Fig. 13. The absence of toughness elevation for
the deep-flaw specimens (Qc ~ 0) relative to pretest characterization data is consistent with
the adoption of the Q-stress parameter as a measure of deviation from small-scale yielding
conditions (Q -~ 0). Increase in toughness for the shallow-flaw specimens relative to the deep-
flaw specimens is associated with a nontrivial, negative value of the Q-stress parameter. The
results in Fig. 13 are consistent with reported trends on the effects of Q-stress on the Jc(Q)
toughness locus for other types of steels [13,20]. Recent reanalysis, however, of the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) wide-plate series using 2D, J-Q techniques resulted in a different
set of Jc(Q) toughness data than that for the shallow-crack tests.
200 . . . .
13 a/W = 0.5
9 a/W = 0.1
E" 150
0
-t
0
:~ 50
o
0 , f , I i I , I ,
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2

Applied Value of Q-Stress
FIG. 13--Correlation of Jc with Q for the six specimens.
Interpretation and application of the Jc(Q) toughness locus indicated in Fig. 13 needs also
to take into account the following observations concerning the current definition of the Q stress.
In view of the Q-stress parameter's role as a crack-tip field-intensity parameter, determination
of the magnitude of the Q-stress parameter based on differences of stress distributions at a
single location ahead of the crack tip is perhaps unnecessarily restrictive both from a numerical
and physical standpoint. Indeed, although the Q stress is defined and evaluated at r/(J/%) = 2
in this study, the differences between the reference SSY distribution and the distribution for
the three specimens at various stages of loading are essentially uniform over a distance of 2 --<
r/(J/tro) <-- 10. Numerically, it needs to be emphasized that finite element results for stress
components at a given mesh location, although accurate within the analysis context, are often
averaged or extrapolated values and are thus mildly mesh-dependent. In this study, these stress
values are averaged nodal values extrapolated from integration locations. The results in Figs.
11 and 12 appear amenable to a more relaxed definition of the Q stress, based on averaged
differences of stress distributions over a limited range of distances ahead of the crack tip, say
in the range of 2 -< r/(J/~o) <- 5.
Regardless of whether the Q stress is determined at a single location or over a region, an
important consideration in determining the utility of the Q-stress parameter is the range of
physical distances over which the Q-stress parameter is determined. In the case of the adjusted
material model, the magnitude of the parameter J/% at the onset of crack initiation for the
deep- and shallow-flaw specimens based on JLLDc falls in the range 87 mm --< JLLDJ~ro --< 407
mm, which is small. The average grain size for HSST Plate 13A, a companion plate to HSST
Plate 13B, is on the order of 20 to 30 mm [10]. It thus appears that the Q-stress parameter at
the onset of crack initiation for these specimens is evaluated over physically meaningful dis-
tances that are consistent with the underlying continuum analysis assumptions.
Summary
Results from the HSST shallow-crack fracture toughness program can be summarized as
follows:
1. Thirty-eight relatively large laboratory beam specimens were tested to compare the behav-
ior of specimens with shallow flaws to that of specimens with deep flaws.
2. The results showed conclusively that A533B shallow-flaw beam specimens have a sig-
nificant increase in CTOD or Jc toughness and Kjc toughness in the transition region. All
specimens were approximately 100 mm deep (W). Shallow-crack beams had crack depths
ranging from 9 to 14 mm (a/W - 0.1 to 0.14), whereas deep-crack beams had 50-mm-
deep cracks (a/W -- 0.5).
3. There is little or no difference in toughness on the lower shelf where linear-elastic con-
ditions exist for specimens with either deep or shallow flaws.
4. Varying the beam thickness from 50 to 150 nun had little or no influence on the toughness
in both the shallow- and deep-crack specimens despite the fact that the ASTM Test
Method E 399 requirement for valid plane-strain results were not met.
5. In the transition region, the increase in shallow-flaw toughness compared with deep-flaw
results appears to be well characterized by a temperature shift of 35~ (63~
6. Posttest 2D plane-strain analyses were performed on both shallow-flaw and deep-flaw
specimens. The analytical J-integral results were consistent with experimental J-integral
results confirming the validity of the J-estimation schemes used and the effect of flaw
depth on fracture toughness.
7. The two-parameter J-Q analysis methodology was used as a means of quantifying the
effect of flaw depth on constraint and fracture toughness. Analysis results appear to sup-
port the utility of the J-Q concept and interpretation method to characterize the crack-tip
fields up to the onset of crack initiation in specimens with either deep or shallow flaws.
At J critical (onset of cleavage initiation) for the deep-flawed specimens, the Q stress was
about zero, indicating small-scale yielding conditions. At J critical for the shallow-flawed
specimens, the Q stress was about - 0 . 7 . This negative Q stress indicates a significant
loss of constraint.
8. The observation that the two-parameter J-Q approach correlated with the loss of constraint
with decreasing crack depth indicates that a J-Q analysis of actual reactor vessels may
give a more accurate assessment of reactor vessel reliability than current analyses.
References
[1 ] Theiss, T. J., "Recommendations for the Shallow-Crack Fracture Toughness Testing Task Within
the HSST Program," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-5554 (ORNL/TM-11509), Aug. 1990.
[2] Theiss, T. J., Robinson, G. C., and Rolfe, S. T., "Preliminary Test Results from the Heavy-Section
Steel Technology Shallow-Crack Toughness Program," in Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel
& Piping Conference, Pressure Vessel Integrity, PVP Vol. 213/MPC-Vol. 32, ASME, Houston, 1991,
pp. 125-129.
[3 ] Theiss, T. J. and Bryson, J. W., "Influence of Crack Depth on Fracture Toughness of Reactor Pressure
Vessel Steel," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe,
and R. H. Dodds, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 104-
119.
[4] Theiss, T. J., Shum, D. K. M., and Rolfe, S. T., "Experimental and Analytical Investigation of the
Shallow-Flaw Effect in Reactor Pressure Vessels," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-5886 (ORNL/TM-
12115), July 1992.
[5] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "Pressurized-Thermal-Shock Evaluation of the H. B. Robinson
Nuclear Power Plant," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4183 (ORNL/TM-9567/V1), Sept. 1985, pp.
263-306.
[6] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "Pressurized-Thermal-Shock Evaluation of the Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4022 (ORNL/TM-9408), Sept. 1985, pp. 201-
244.
[7] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "Preliminary Development of an Integrated Approach to the
Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock as Applied to the Oconee 1 Nuclear Power Plant," USNRC
Report NUREG/CR-3770 (ORNL/TM-9176), May 1986, pp. 5.1-5.51.
[8] Nanstad, R. K. and Iskander, S. K., "Material Characterization and Properties," in HSST Program
Semiannual Progress ReportApril-September 1991, USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4219, Vol. 9, No.
1 (ORNL/TM-9593/V9&N1), Nov. 1992.
[9] Naus, D. J. et al., "SEN Wide-Plate Crack-Arrest Tests Using A 533 Grade B Class 1 Material: WP-
CE Series," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-5408 (ORNL/TM-11269), Nov. 1989.
[10] Naus, D. J. et al., "Crack Arrest Behavior in SEN Wide Plates of Quenched and Tempered A 533
Grade B Steel Tested Under Nonisothermal Conditions," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4930
(ORNL-6388), Aug. 1987.
[11] Sorem, W. A. Dodds, Jr., R. H., and Rolfe, S. T., "An Analytical Comparison of Short Crack and
Deep Crack CTOD Fracture Specimens of an A36 Steel," WRC Bulletin 351, Welding Research
Council, New York, Feb. 1990.
[12] Smith, J. A. and Rolfe, S. T., "The Effect of Crack Depth to Width Ratio on the Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Toughness of a High-Strength Low-Strain Hardening Steel," WRC Bulletin 358, Welding
Research Council, New York, Nov. 1990.
[13] Sumpter, J. D. G. and Hancock, J. W., "Shallow Crack Toughness of HY80 Welds: An Analysis
Based on T Stresses," International Journal of Pressure Vessel & Piping, Vol, 45, 1991, pp. 207-
221.
[14] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
[15] Kirk, M. T. and Dodds, Jr., R. H., "J and CTOD Estimation Equations for Shallow Cracks in Single
Edge Notch Bend Specimens," Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series 565, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, UILI-ENG-91-2013, Jan. 1991.
eter: Part I--Structure of Fields," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991,
pp. 989-1015.
[17] A1-Ani,A. M. and Hancock, J. W., "J-Dominance of Short Cracks in Tension and Bending," Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, pp. 2343.
[18] ABAQUS Theory Manual Version 4-8, Hibbitt, Karlson and Sorensen, Providence, RI, 1989.
[19] Tada, H., Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G. R., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Del Research
Corp., Hellertown, PA, 1973.
[20] Shih, C. F., O'Dowd, N. P., and Kirk, M. T., "A Framework for Quantifying Crack Tip Constraint,"
in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds,
Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 2-20.
DISCUSSION
C. E. Turner' (written discussion)--The author had shown data for cleavage failures pre-
sented in terms of J while using the accepted criterion for cleavage of a maximum stress at
some point just ahead of the crack tip. Such a stress criterion seems more dependent on load
than on work done and, therefore, might be better characterized by G rather than J. In fact, a
macro criterion for postyield cleavage might prove to be the elastic-plastic energy release rate,
L It so happens that for three-point bending pieces with S/W = 4, I is approximately equal
to G.
Does the author have G values available for these data, and, if so, has he examined them in
relation to his fractures?
T. J. Theiss, D. K. M. Shum, and S. T. Rolfe (authors' closure)--Elastic values of K (Kel)
are available. The authors had not examined the data in the manner suggested but have included
Ke] values with this discussion so that this information is available for others to use.
HSST Beam Ke, (MPa'm ~a) HSST Beam Ke~(MPa.m "2)
3 130 17 128
4 93 18 124
5 101 20 134
6 135 21 116
7 117 22 129
8 156 24 138
9 130 25 122
10 137 26 120
11 112 27 126
12 98 28 132
13 122 31 104
14 120 32 68
15 109 33 54
16 99 34 68
12A 107 35 123
13A 123 36 89
I4A1 117 37 120
14A2 91 38 121
15A 121
16A 102
Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College, Exhibition Rd., London SW7 2BX, United
Kingdom.
David K. M. Shum, 1 Tim J. Theiss, 2 and Stan T. Rolfe 3
Application of J-Q Fracture Methodology to

the Analysis of Pressurized Thermal Shock in
Reactor Pressure Vessels
REFERENCE: Shum, D. K, M., Theiss, T. J., and Rolfe, S. T., "Application of J-Q Fracture
Methodology to the Analysis of Pressurized Thermal Shock in Reactor Pressure Vessels,"
Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, J. D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe,
and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp,
152-168.
ABSTRACT: Detailed two-dimensional plane strain analysis results for a reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) with a shallow inner-surface axial flaw subject to a postulated pressurized thermal shock
(PTS) transient are presented. The PTS transient simulates the pressure-fluid temperature history
of an RPV in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) under postulated "small break loss of coolant
accident" (SBLOCA) conditions. Analysis results appear to support the utility of the J-Q
approach and interpretation method to characterize the crack-tip fields in an RPV under PTS
conditions. Specifically, the Q-stress parameter can be defined, for the assumed RPV and flaw
geometries and transient conditions, up to maximum loading as characterized by the value of the
J-integral during the transient. A method that incorporates small-specimen Jc(Q, T) toughness
locus data in the safety-margin assessment of an RPV is presented. Analysis results suggest that
the predicted margin of safety in RPVs under PTS conditions is greater based on the J-Q approach
than that based on the conventional single-parameter J approach.
KEYWORDS: pressurized thermal shock, J-Q theory, fracture mechanics, crack-tip fields, shal-
low flaw
The Heavy-Section Steel Technology (HSST) program, sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission (USNRC), is investigating the influence of crack depth on the fracture
toughness of reactor pressure vessel grade steels such as A533 Grade B under conditions
prototypic of a pressurized water reactor (PWR). One element of the HSST investigation con-
cerns the significance of the increase in fracture toughness associated with shallow, rather than
deep flaw, specimens [1]. The experimentally observed shallow flaw fracture toughness
increase (the so-called shallow flaw effect) is evidently due to a loss of "constraint" at the
crack tip because of the proximity of the crack tip to the specimen surface.
The primary application of the HSST shallow flaw fracture toughness program is the pres-
surized thermal shock (PTS) accident scenario, which in some cases limits the operating life
of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) in a PWR. Probabilistic fracture mechanics analyses of an
RPV have shown that shallow rather than deep surface flaws dominate the conditional proba-
bility of vessel failure in a PTS evaluation [2-4 ]. Shallow surface flaws contribute heavily to
the conditional probability of failure for three main reasons. First, PTS life assessments are
t Senior research engineer, Saint-Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramics Corp., Goddard Rd., Northboro,
MA 01532-1545.
2 Development engineers, Heavy-Section Steel Technology Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
P.O. Box 2009, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8056.
3 Professor and head, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045.
152
SHUM ET AL. ON PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK 153
patterned after Regulatory Guide 1.154 [5]. All flaws with depths --<40 mm (1.57 in.) are
considered surface flaws. The flaw density distribution function adopted for PTS life assess-
ments is based on the Marshall distribution, which assumes more short flaws than long flaws
[6]. Consequently, the flaw density distribution function adopted for PTS analysis assumes
more shallow than deep surface flaws. Second, in the beltline region of an RPV, irradiation
damage is greatest at the inner surface of the vessel wall. At the same time, the through-wall
temperature is lowest at the inner surface during a PTS transient. Consequently, the fracture
toughness (based on ASTM lower-bound values) of the material along the inner surface in
which shallow flaws reside is greatly reduced as compared to deep flaw values. Third, PTS
loading is most severe on the inner wall of the vessel so that shallow surface flaws are subjected
to greater stresses than deeper flaws.
This paper presents detailed two-dimensional (2D) plane-strain analysis results for an RPV
with a shallow inner surface axial flaw subject to a postulated PTS transient. The PTS transient
simulates the pressure-fluid temperature history of an RPV in a PWR during a "small break
loss of coolant accident" (SBLOCA). The primary objectives of these analyses are (1) to
evaluate the utility of the two-parameter J-Q approach to characterize the crack-tip fields in an
RPV throughout a PTS transient and (2) to present a methodology that incorporates small
specimen Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data in the safety margin assessment of an RPV.
Material Models
Three material models that simulate a wide range in the tensile properties of RPV-grade
materials have been considered. The first material model simulates the unirradiated tensile
properties of A533B steel plate HSST-13B at - 4 0 ~ (-40~ and can be considered as a
lower-shelf material model [1 ]. The linear elastic portion of the true stress true strain curve is
characterized by a yield strain of magnitude e o = %/E = 0.0022, where the Young's modulus
E = 207.2 GPa (30 000 ksi), the uniaxial yield stress in tension tyo = 454 MPa (65.8 ksi), the
uniaxial ultimate stress in tension ty, = 738 MPa (107 ksi), and Poisson's ratio v = 0.3. The
uniaxial true-stress, true-plastic-strain curve in tension is indicated in Fig. 1. In subsequent
discussions this material model is referred to as Case 1.
The second material model simulates the unirradiated tensile properties of A533B steel plate
HSST-13A at 180~ (356~ and can be considered an upper shelf material model [7]. Steel
plate HSST-13A is a companion plate to HSST-13B. The linear elastic portion of the true-
stress, true-strain curve is characterized by a yield strain of magnitude e o = ~o/E = 0.002,
where the Young's modulus E = 196.9 GPa (28 564 ksi), the uniaxial yield stress in tension
% = 390 MPa (56.6 ksi), the uniaxial ultimate stress in tension cr = 613 MPa (88.9 ksi), and
Poisson's ratio v -- 0.3. The uniaxial true-stress true-plastic-strain curve in tension is also
modeled in a multilinear fashion as indicated in Fig. 1. In subsequent discussions this material
model is referred to as Case 2.
The third material model simulates the irradiation-embrittled tensile properties of A533B
steel [8,9]. The linear elastic portion of the true-stress true-strain curve is characterized by a
yield strain of magnitude eo = ~o/E = 0.0032, where the Young's modulus E = 193.1 GPa
(28 000 ksi), the uniaxial yield stress in tension ~o = 621 MPa (90 ksi), the uniaxial ultimate
stress in tension or, = 814 MPa (118 ksi), and Poisson's ratio v = 0.3. The uniaxial true-stress
true-plastic-strain curve in tension is modeled in a bilinear fashion as indicated in Fig. 1. In
subsequent discussions this material model is referred to as Case 3.
An indication of the relative plastic response of these three material models can be obtained
with the stress-strain curves presented in the form indicated in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, the instantaneous
yield stress is normalized by the initial yield stress cro. Analysis results to be presented indicate
that the fracture response of the RPV under Case 3 conditions is significantly different than
either Case 1 or 2.
1 54 FRACTURE MECHANICS: TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
900[
so0
6o01 o
500 ~- f /
~'/ ~ Case 1
co 400~," ~ Ca
o se 2
1.
2
1--
3oo1:- ~ Case3
2 0 0 ~ -
1 0 0 ~
Or , , ~ I , , , , I , , , , I , , 9 , l
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200
True Plastic Strain
FIG. 1--Uniaxial true stress-true plastic strain curve in tension f o r Cases 1, 2, and 3.
Finite Element Model and Analysis Assumptions

The RPV being considered in this study has an inner radius of 1384 mm (54.5 in.) and a
wall thickness of 200 mm (7.875 in.). The effects on the thermal-mechanical response of the
vessel as a result of a thin layer of stainless steel cladding deposited on the inner-surface of
the RPV are not considered. A 2D inner surface axial flaw with a depth of 10.2 mm (0.4 in.)
2.00 I
1.75
1.50
1.25
if) 1.00,
Case 1
"O
O.)
~N 0.75
Case 2
Case 3
s
O 0.50
z
0.25
I I I . . . . I . . . . I I I
0.00 i . I
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200

True P l a s t i c S t r a i n
FIG. 2~Normalized stress-strain curves for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
is assumed to exist in this vessel before the onset of the PTS transient to be described shortly.
In the terminology of small specimen testing, the axial flaw is characterized by a flaw-depth-
to-wall-thickness ratio a/W = 0.05.
The present model of an RPV with a "shallow" 2D inner surface axial flaw is motivated
by current probabilistic analysis method assumptions. Specifically, all flaws included in the
probabilistic fracture mechanics portion of the integrated pressurized thermal shock (IPTS)
methodology are surface flaws oriented in either an axial or circumferential direction, and all
flaws with depths less than ~40 mm (~ 1.57 in.) are assumed to be effectively infinitely long
(2D) insofar as the calculation of the stress intensity factor (K~) is concerned (three-dimensional
effects are included for deeper flaws) [2-4 ]. It is further emphasized that available analysis
results suggest that, for SBLOCA transients, the majority of surface flaws causing nonarresting
fractures have depths less than 25.4 mm (1 in.).
The finite-strain, elastic-plastic analyses of the RPV are performed using the finite element
code ABAQUS [10]. The analyses assume a rate-independent, J2 (isotropic-hardening) incre-
mental plasticity theory as implemented in ABAQUS. The RPV geometry is modeled with the
finite-element mesh indicated in Fig. 3, which is made up of 1112 ten-node generalized plane-
strain isoparametric elements with a total of 3511 nodes. These ten-node elements behave as
conventional eight-node isoparametric elements except for an extra degree of freedom (DOF)
that allows for uniform straining in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the mesh [10]. In
a plane-strain analysis the out-of-plane DOF is not active. The integration order of the elements
i s 2 X 2.
A unique feature of the finite element mesh for the RPV is the highly refined crack-tip region.
The rectangular crack-tip region is made up of 31 "rings" of elements. The mathematically
sharp crack-tip profile associated with small strain fracture analysis is replaced, in the present
finite strain context, with an initial root radius before the imposition of external loading as
indicated in Fig. 3c. The assumption of a finite value of the initial root radius is necessary to
facilitate numerical convergence of the finite element results. The magnitude of the initial root
radius is ro = 0.26 Ixm (1 x 10 -5 in.). The high degree of mesh refinement is necessary to
obtain an accurate determination of the crack-tip fields ahead of the blunting notch tip. The
proposed Q-stress parameter is determined based on crack-tip fields over such a region.
Values of the J integral as a function of the PTS transient are determined from up to 31
paths surrounding the crack tip to verify path independence. Convergence requirements of the
elastic-plastic finite element results to be presented are specified by means of limiting the
maximum value of the residual nodal force per unit thickness at any node. Specifically,
the maximum value is required to be <0.1% of the product between the yield stress and the
smallest element dimension in the finite element mesh.
f FIG. 3(a)--Finite-element mesh of RPV.
I
FIG. 3(b)--Crack-tip mesh of RPV.
The PTS transient being considered is indicated in Fig. 4. The PTS transient simulates the
pressure coolant temperature history inside a PWR-RPV during an SBLOCA. The operating
pressure and temperature of the RPV before the onset of the transient are 14.1 MPa (2050 psi)
and 268~ (515~ respectively.
Analysis of the fracture response of the RPV, in which the temperature dependence of mate-
rial properties was neglected, has been performed based on the three material models described
previously. Recall that these material models simulate the tensile properties of RPV-grade
materials in the unirradiated lower transition, unirradiated upper-shelf and irradiation-embrittled
conditions. The range of material properties represented by the three material models are
believed to be sufficiently broad to simulate material responses in operating vessels.
Effects of Pressurized Thermal Shock Loading on Reactor Pressure Vessel in Terms of

J-Integral Values
Effects of PTS loading on the RPV, in terms of the value of the applied J-integral as a
function of transient time up to --1200 s, is indicated in Fig. 5 for the three material models.
f I
FIG. 3(c) Initial root radius of crack tip mesh.
SHUM ETAL. ON PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK 157
15,0 9~ 300
12.5 t 250
pressure
V temperature o
13 10.0 200 t-
O.
~ .5 150
E
o
~ 5.0 100 l-
Id_
2.5 50
0.0 I I ' ' I 9 . i | i I i I i I . . . . I . . . , I , 9 . .
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Transient Time, t [seconds]
FIG. 4--SBLOCA pressure and bulk coolant temperature (P-T) history.
20,
I ~ -~
15
E
z /,.~f,f q'~
//
/"1"
10 ,. . . . . Case 1
~S ..... Case 2
e.-
"~ Case 3
-5
5
0 i , , , I , , , , I ,
500 1000
Transient Time, t [seconds]
FIG. 5--J-integral values as a function of time for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
TABLE 1--Magnitude of the J integral at operating conditions

(Jop) and its maximum value at ~1200 s into the transient ( J ~ )
for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
Jm~ at -1200 s,
Model Jop, kN/m kN/m
Case 1 2.05 20.3
Case 2 2.14 19.5
Case 3 2.2 17.9
The magnitude of the J-integral increases monotonically with transient time up to ~ 1200 s;
unloading of the crack tip as characterized by the decrease in the magnitude of the J integral
occurs after that time. Note that the time at which unloading occurs is, of course, independent
of the material model adopted in the analysis. The magnitude of the J integral at operating
conditions (Jop), and its maximum value at --1200 s into the transient (Jm,x), is listed in Table
1 for the three material models.
From Fig. 5 and Table 1, it is observed that the effects of PTS loading on the RPV, when
expressed solely in terms of the value of the J integral, is relatively insensitive to the material
model adopted in the analysis. Recall that each of the analyses was performed assuming tem-
perature-independence of tensile material properties during the transient. Consequently, this
relative insensitivity suggests that the analysis results, in terms of the value of the J integral as
a function of transient time, would not be significantly different if detailed accounting of the
temperature dependence of tensile material properties has been taken into consideration.
Small Scale Yielding Reference Crack.Tip Stress Fields

The two-parameter J-Q approach appears to provide a rigorous theoretical framework both
to characterize the crack-tip fields and to provide a basis for interpreting and ordering experi-
mentally determined fracture toughness values. The basis for this approach is a rather precise
definition of crack-tip constraint based on the Q-stress parameter. A brief discussion on the
definition of the Q-stress parameter, along with its linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
counterpart--the T-stress parameter, is presented in Ref 1. In the context of the present RPV
analysis, the Q-stress parameter is defined as the difference between the opening mode stress
component obtained from a large-strain, plane-strain finite element analysis of the RPV and
the corresponding stress component from the associated reference small-scale yielding (SSY)
problem. A brief discussion on the conditions of SSY and the related concept of boundary layer
analysis is also presented in Ref 1. A boundary layer approach using the finite element code
ABAQUS, assuming a rate-independent, Jz (isotropic-hardening) incremental plasticity theory,
is again adopted in evaluating the reference SSY crack-tip fields.
The opening mode stress component for the reference SSY problem, along the crack plane
directly ahead of the blunting notch tip, is indicated in Fig. 6 for Cases 1, 2, and 3. The stress
component is normalized by the initial yield stress tr0, and distance ahead of the blunting notch
tip is expressed in terms of the normalized distance parameter r/(J/ao). With reference to Figs.
1 and 2, it is observed that the differences in the relative plastic response of these three material
models are manifested in the observed differences in their respective SSY crack-tip fields. In
Fig. 6 and subsequent figures, the opening mode stress component is determined from averaged
nodal values based on extrapolation from integration points of surrounding elements. The mag-
nitude of the J integral can be obtained using the standard plane-strain conversion between J
~ Case 1
3.s~-~ \~ ~Case2
-o
o
3.0
6,
.E
r-
o
~ 2.5
.--
g
o
Z 2.0
0.0 2.s s0 7s 100
Normalized Distance, r / ( J / ~ 0 )
FIG. 6~SSY distributions of opening-mode stress component for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
and K based on the applied value of K in the SSY analysis. Alternately, the J integral can be
obtained using the J-integral option provided by ABAQUS. Excellent agreement is found
between these two methods of evaluating the J integral, thus providing an avenue for verifying
the numerical accuracy of the finite-element results.
Reactor Pressure Vessel Crack-Tip Stress Fields under Pressurized Thermal Shock
Conditions
Distributions of the opening mode stress component for the RPV based on the Case 1 material
model; along the crack plane directly ahead of the blunting notch tip, are indicated in Fig. 7
for various times during the transient up to - 1 2 0 0 s. The stress distribution associated with
the RPV's operating pressure and temperature is labeled as t = 0 s. Also indicated in Fig. 7 is
the SSY distribution for the Case 1 material model. The stress component is normalized by the
initial yield stress (%, and distance ahead of the blunting notch tip is expressed in terms of the
normalized distance parameter r/(J/(%), where J is the value of the J integral associated with
the specified transient time.
Analysis results in Fig. 7 indicate that the crack-tip fields in the RPV have deviated from
the SSY distribution even under operating conditions. The extent of the deviation from SSY
conditions increases as the transient progresses through time. These results indicate that should
crack initiation occur in the neighborhood of 1200 s into the transient, it would do so under
substantially non-SSY conditions. The effects of unloading on the crack-tip fields, which occurs
for transient times greater than 1200 s, will be discussed shortly in conjunction with the Case
3 material model.
Analogous results for the "opening mode" stress distributions based on the Case 2 material
model are indicated in Fig. 8. Analysis results in Fig. 8 also indicate that the crack-tip fields
in the RPV have deviated from the SSY distribution under operating conditions. By 1200 s
into the transient, the crack-tip fields are also substantially non-SSY in nature.
4.0~" ----0--- SSY
~" ~ I - ~ t:72S
35 F ~ ~ ~ t=S'8s
~0 L~/ " ~ ~ t:617S
,~
.,,..
~ 2.0 2"5 5 I0 7.5 10 i0

Normalized Distance, r/(J/~o)
FIG. 7--Distributions of opening-mode stress component for Case 1 material model." SSY and
PTS loading up to maximum loading at -1200 s into the transient.
o 4.0F ---0-- SSY

oEs
I" %~,%~'~ ~ t =1078s
Z 2.0
O.0 215 5 '0 7"5 10.0
Normalized Distance, r/ (J/~o)
FIG. 8---Distributions of opening-mode stress component for Case 2 material model." SSY and
PTS loading up to maximum loading at -1200 s into the transient.
SHUM ETAL. ON PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK 161
Analysis results for the "opening mode" stress distributions for the Case 3 material model
are indicated in Fig. 9. Analysis results in Fig. 9 also indicate that the crack-tip fields in the
RPV have deviated from the SSY distribution under operating conditions. However, it is
observed that up to 1200 s into the transient, the additional deviation of the crack-tip fields
from the SSY distribution is not as significant as either Case 1 or 2.
Beyond 1200 s into the transient, the net effects of the decreasing pressure and temperature
associated with PTS loading on the RPV result in monotonic unloading of the crack tip. The
effects of unloading on the crack-tip fields are qualitatively similar for the three material models,
and the results for Case 3 are used to illustrate the unloading effects. The stress distribution for
Case 3 up to 1800 s into the transient is indicated in Fig. 10. With the onset of unloading that
occurs subsequent to the attainment of a maximum value of the J integral at --1200 s, reverse
yielding results in the formation of a compressive region ahead of the crack tip. At the same
time, the magnitude of the stresses, such as the opening-mode stress component indicated in
Fig. 10, decreases in the remaining tensile region ahead of the crack tip. The extent of the
reverse yielding increases with transient time since the value of the J integral monotonically
decreases with time after attaining its maximum value. Interpretation of the crack-tip fields up
to maximum loading and beyond, in the context of safety-margin assessment of an RPV in
terms of a J-Q approach, is discussed in the following section.
Effects of Pressurized Thermal Shock Loading on Reactor Pressure Vessel in Terms of

J-Q Values
The primary objectives of these analyses are (1) to evaluate the utility of the two-parameter
J-Q approach to characterize the crack-tip fields in an RPV throughout a PTS transient and (2)
to present a method that incorporates small-specimen Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data in the
3 so F
"~ 3.25~-I" ~ --E3-~

0 s - - ~ tSSY
=
300[- ~/ ~,~"~'~. ~--t= 743s

==
:.~ 2.25
Z 2.oo
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Normalized Distance, r / (J/ao)
FIG. 9--Distributions of opening-mode stress component for Case 3 material model: SSY and
PTS loading up to maximum loading at ~1200 s into the transient.
4.0
i•
3.0
"10 2.0
0
6~
'-
"~
~/
1.0 h ( -
~ t=0s
,-~
CL
O
-o ~ / ~ t = 743S
.N
a~ -o.o ~.~ ~ t = 1191s
Z -1.o
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Normalized Distance, r / (J/Go)
FIG. lO--Distributions of opening-mode stress component for Case 3 material model: SSY and
PTS loading up to maximum loading at --1800 s into the transient. Unloading of the crack tip
beyond ~1200 s results in a region of reverse yielding that extends from the crack tip.
safety-margin assessment of an RPV. Analysis results appear to support the applicability of the
J-Q approach and interpretation method under PTS conditions in the following sense. Results
from Figs. 7 to 9 indicate that the Q-stress parameter can be defined, for the assumed RPV and
flaw geometries and transient conditions, up to maximum loading (t -< 1200 s) as characterized
by the value of the J integral during the transient. Potential problems associated with the
determination of the Q-stress parameter under unloading conditions (t > 1200 s) will be
addressed shortly. Following the discussion in Ref 1, the Q-stress parameter (as a function of
transient time) is defined as the difference between the opening mode stress component (as a
function of time) and the associated SSY distribution in Figs. 7 to 9 at location 2Jkro. The
effects of PTS loading on the RPV in terms of pairs of J-Q values are indicated in Fig. 11 for
all three material models up to ~ 1200 s into the transient.
Neither transient time (t) nor crack-tip temperature (T) is explicitly indicated in Fig. 11.
However, by referencing the values listed in Table 1 and the results in Figs. 7 to 9, it is evident
that increase in transient time corresponds to increase in the value of the J integral and decrease
in the value of the Q-stress parameter. That is, transient time is a parametric variable along the
three J-Q trajectories indicated in Fig. 11. Recall that the fracture response of the RPV, as
indicated in Fig. 5 solely in terms of values of the J integral, is only slightly different for the
three material models throughout the transient up to maximum loading. On the other hand, the
differences in the assumed tensile response associated with the three material models result in
greater differences in terms of Q-stress values. Specifically, the absolute value of the Q stress
for Case 3 conditions (simulated irradiation embrittlement) is much lower than either Case 1
or 2 (unirradiated). Implications of the observed differences in magnitude of the Q stress, as a
function of the material model assumed in the analyses, toward the safety-margin assessment
of an RPV based on a two-parameter J-Q approach will be addressed in the next section.
25
Case 1
-------a--- Case2
Case 3
[..
20
7,
15
Z
10
e~
~u 5
0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0. ! 0.0
Q-Stress, Q = Q ( T )
FIG. 11--Applied J-Q locus for RPV for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
Incorporating Small Specimen Jc(Q, T) Toughness Locus Data in Reactor Pressure

Vessel Safety Margin Assessment
A method to incorporate small-specimen Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data in the safety-margin
assessment of an RPV is presented in this section. For simplicity of illustration, it is assumed
that Type I warm prestress (WPS) is operative during the unloading phase of this transient,
such that attention is focused on the PTS transient only up to ~ 1200 s [11 ]. It will be shown
that the predicted margin of safety in RPVs under PTS conditions is then greater based on the
two-parameter approach than that based on the conventional one-parameter approach. A sche-
matic that illustrates the differences between the one- and two-parameter safety margin assess-
ment method is indicated in Fig. 12. In Fig. 12, the applied J-Q trajectory for Cases 1 to 3 are
shown to illustrate possible RPV response as a function of (simulated) irradiation embrittlement
of the vessel.
Current RPV safety margin assessment methods characterize the severity of a given loading
condition solely in terms of the magnitude of the J integral or the stress intensity factor K [2-
4,12 ]. Prediction of crack initiation, crack arrest, and reinitiation using this single-parameter
approach is based on comparison of the applied value of the J integral (or K) with the relevant
irradiated material toughness parameter. 3 During a PTS transient, the crack-tip temperature,
and hence fracture toughness, decreases monotonically with transient time. A curve that sche-
3In an analysis, representation of loading conditions in terms of either J or K is equivalent in the context
of characterizing the crack-tip field intensity parameter. However, the determination of fracture toughness
as defined in the ASTM codes involve an additional consideration on the micromechanics of fracture.
Cleavage fracture is associated with K~cand ductile fracture is associated with J~c.In subsequent discussion,
this distinction between use of J or K in analysis and toughness determination is ignored, and J will be
used throughout the discussion. In addition, scatter in fracture toughness is also ignored for illustration
purposes.
40 I I I I j
35
E~-~ 30
~
l ~ , o
[] CASE 1
z~ CASE 2
CASE 3 /
Ms J / Jccrl
-:- 20 ) to;,,
ul
0 I I I I m
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Q-STRESS, Q = Q(T)
FIG. 12--Schematic illustrating the margin of safety based on J-only or J-Q toughness data.
matically illustrates the locus of one-parameter irradiated fracture toughness, denoted as Jc (T),
is shown in Fig. 12. It is emphasized that the one-parameter Jc(T) toughness locus does not
depend on the Q-stress parameter but that its indicated variation with Q stress is strictly an
indication of the dependence Jc(T) on crack-tip temperature. The margin of safety (MS) can
then be established based on comparison of the value of the applied J integral to Jc(T) as
indicated in Fig. 12. The transient may thus be said to be most severe, and the margin of safety
at a minimum, at the transient time associated with the maximum value of the applied J integral.
Also schematically indicated in Fig. 12 is a curve denoted as Jc(Q, T) that, based on available
small-specimen unirradiated toughness data such as those from the HSST shallow-flaw testing
program [1 ], is believed to illustrate qualitatively the anticipated Jc (Q, T) toughness locus trend
for irradiated RPV-grade materials. Available (isothermal) unirradiated results suggest that the
Jc(Q, T) toughness locus depends weakly on the Q stress for the approximate range of Q >
- 0 . 2 [13,14]. This weak dependence is reflected in the near coincidence of the Jc(Q, T) and
Jc locus in that Q-stress regime. For the purpose of illustration, it is further assumed that
"shallow flaw" toughness enhancement dominates over the toughness degradation associated
with decreasing crack-tip temperature. For values of the Q stress in the range Q < -0.2, the
experimentally observed "shallow flaw" or Q-stress effects on toughness are reflected in the
elevation of the Jc(Q, T) locus above the J~(T) locus.
It is emphasized that the indicated J~(Q, T) toughness locus is qualitative in nature because
of the absence of irradiated experimental data. However, the point to be made is that the margin
of safety, say at the transient time when the applied J integral is maximum, is predicted to be
larger based on the two-parameter Jc(Q, T) approach as compared to the conventional one-
parameter J~(T) approach. Furthermore, depending on the actual shape of J~(T), Jr T) and
the applied J-Q trajectory, the time at which the PTS transient is most severe in a J-Q approach,
defined as the minimum margin of safety, might differ with that determined using the one-
parameter J-only approach. Most important, a flaw that is predicted to initiate in a PTS scenario
based on the Jc(T) approach might be predicted to be stable based on the Jc(Q, T) approach,
the latter approach being more rigorous in the sense that the crack-tip fields are more accurately
represented by the J-Q method.
A potentially significant aspect of the results in Fig. 12 is that the calculated J-Q trajectory
for Case 3 conditions (simulated irradiation embrittlement) involves absolute values of the Q-
stress parameter that are smaller than either Case 1 or 2 (unirradiated). From Fig. 12, the relative
increase in the margin of safety between a one- and two-parameter approach is sensitive to the
actual value of the Q-stress parameter. The results in Fig. 12 suggest that the effects of irra-
diation embrittlement is to reduce the potential "shallow flaw" toughness enhancement relative
to unirradiated material conditions. However, it is emphasized that a more definitive interpre-
tation awaits the generation of irradiated Jc (T) and Jc (Q, T) data.
Figure 12 suggests that the margin of safety in RPVs under PTS conditions is greater based
on the J-Q approach than that predicted based on a J-only approach. However, it is emphasized
that the requisite Jc (Q, T) toughness locus is not yet available for either unirradiated or irradiated
RPV-grade materials. Further development and application of the J-Q method to RPV analysis
involve, at a minimum, resolution of the following issues.
Jc(Q, T) Fracture Toughness Data

Use of Jc(Q, T) toughness data in a PTS safety margin assessment of an RPV requires that
Jc (Q, T) toughness data be available over the temperature range of the PTS transient. Available
Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data are very limited with respect to test temperature. Additional
analysis of the HSST shallow flaw data at a range of test temperatures [1 ] would greatly expand
the available Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data base for unirradiated RPV-grade materials.
Available Jc(Q, T) toughness locus data, including the HSST shallow flaw data, are limited
to unirradiated material properties and simple laboratory specimen geometries? A quantitatively
correct Jc(Q, T) toughness locus needs to reflect the effects of irradiation embritdement on
fracture toughness. Currently, the effects of crack-tip temperature and irradiation embrittlement
on fracture toughness are assumed to be indexed by, or dependent on, T - RTNDr [19]. This
temperature shift method provides the basis for a convenient, engineering approach to incor-
porate temperature and irradiation effects on toughness. Results from the HSST shallow flaw
testing program appear to indicate that the "shallow flaw" or Q-stress effects on unirradiated
toughness might be amendable to some form of RTNDT shift [1]. It remains to be determined
if an appropriate temperature shift method could be established for irradiated Jc (Q, T) toughness
data.
Definition of the Q-Stress Parameter Under Unloading Conditions

The current definition of the Q-stress parameter, as a difference quantity between the ref-
erence SSY and current stress fields at a single location, appears to be implicitly limited to
monotonic loading conditions only. A trivial example in which use of the Q-stress parameter
is not meaningful is the case of an unloaded body without residual stresses. The Q-stress
parameter should reflect this absence of loading on the body. However, Q = 0 does not denote
the absence of loading, but merely that the crack-tip fields correspond to the SSY distributions.
In the case of an unloaded body without residual stresses, a strict interpretation of the current
definition of the Q-stress parameter as a difference quantity would imply the magnitude of the
Q-stress parameter is identically the magnitude of the "opening-mode" stress component of
the reference SSY distribution.
4 A possible exception is the series of thermal shock experiments performed by the HSST program,
which involved cylindrical vessels with shallow inner surface axial flaws. The vessel material was of A508
chemistry, and various heat treatments were used to control the associated fracture toughness. Coinci-
dently, the tensile properties were sufficiently elevated with respect to unirradiated values to simulate
irradiated material properties [15-18]. Published analyses on the thermal-shock tests results are available
only in the context of linear elastic one-parameter approaches in terms of K and J. Detailed elastic-plastic
J-Q analysis of the thermal shock tests is in progress.
An example of this limitation in the context of RPV analysis is the evaluation of the Q-stress
parameter during the unloading phase of a PTS transient. As indicated in Fig. 10, by 1800 s
into the PTS transient, reverse yielding has resulted in the formation of a compressive region
ahead of the crack tip and in a distribution of the "opening-mode" stress component that is
substantially below the various distributions under monotonic loading conditions. Indeed, the
magnitude of the "opening-mode" stress field associated with the unloading crack tip, over
the range of distances currently associated with the determination of the Q-stress parameter,
would eventually be negative at a much later time in the transient.
The illustration in Fig. 12 is constructed to avoid the problematic issue of determining the
Jc (Q, T) locus under unloading conditions by invoking Type-I WPS. Current regulatory guide-
lines do not permit the inclusion of WPS effects in the prediction of crack initiation [5 ]. Without
recourse to WPS effects, available one-parameter RPV analysis results often predict crack
initiation to occur during the unloading phase of a PTS transient. Without recourse to WPS
effects, safety margin assessment based on a two-parameter Jc(Q, T) fracture locus approach
would require resolution of the problem associated with determining the Q-stress parameter
under unloading conditions as discussed in the previous section. A related example of this
limitation is the evaluation of the Q-stress parameter during the reloading phase of a PTS
transient that involves repressurization. Consequently, additional considerations and develop-
ment work are necessary toward an expanded definition of the Q-stress parameter under non-
monotonic loading conditions.
Alternate Definition of Q-Stress Parameter

The results from Figs. 7 to 9 indicate that a calculated value of the Q stress, when based on
a single location somewhere in the range of 2 --< r/(J/cro) <- 10, is somewhat sensitive to the
exact location. This sensitivity decreases with increase in loading time and essentially disap-
pears by 1200 s into the transient. This sensitivity is in contrast with the results obtained in the
posttest analysis of three-point-bend shallow- and deep-flaw specimens discussed in Ref 1.
Factors that may contribute to the observed sensitivity during a PTS transient is that a PTS
transient involves thermal-mechanical loads. Available analyses on the evaluation of the Q
stress thus far only involve mechanical loads. However, it is emphasized that the utility of the
Q-stress approach is not per se dependent on the nature of the applied loading (for example,
mechanical versus thermal mechanical). Instead, the utility of the Q-stress approach is only
dependent on the existence of crack-tip fields of the J-Q type as discussed in Ref 1.
In view of the Q-stress parameter's role as a crack-tip field intensity parameter, determination
of the magnitude of the Q-stress parameter based on differences of stress distributions at a
single location ahead of the crack tip is perhaps unnecessarily restrictive both from a numerical
and physical standpoint. The Q-stress parameter is defined and evaluated at r/(J/go) = 2 in this
study. By 1200 s into the transient, the results in Figs. 7 to 9 appear amendable to a more
relaxed definition of the Q stress based on averaged differences of stress distributions over a
limited range of distances ahead of the crack tip, for example, in the range of 2 -< rl(J/cro) <--5.
Physical Significance of J-Q Annulus

Care must be taken to ensure that the physical distances associated with the evaluation of
the Q-stress parameter in RPV applications are meaningful and consistent with the underlying
continuum analysis assumptions. From Table 1, the value of the J integral under operating
conditions, Jop, is - 2 kN/m for the present analysis conditions. The magnitude of the parameter
J/cro at operating conditions for Cases 1 to 3 thus corresponds to --4 to 6 t~m. Taking the
averages grain size of 20 to 30 Ixm for steel plate A533B-13A as representative of RPV-grade
materials [7], it is observed that at operating conditions the Q-stress parameter is evaluated
over distances that are substantially smaller than that necessary for the calculated Q stress to
be both physically meaningful and relevant in the context of continuum mechanics.
On the other hand, the maximum value of the J integral, which occurs at ~ 1200 s into the
transient with a value of Jmax ~ 20 kN/m, results in magnitude of the parameter J/% on the
order of 40 to 60 Ixm. If one further adopts a more relaxed definition of the Q stress, namely
over a limited range of distances ahead of the crack tip in the range of 2 -< r/(J/tro) -< 5, then
evaluation of the Q-stress parameter at ~ 1200 s is physically meaningful and relevant in the
context of continuum mechanics.
Conclusions
Detailed 2D plane strain analysis results for an RPV with a shallow inner-surface axial flaw
subject to a postulated PTS transient are presented. The PTS transient simulates the pressure-
fluid temperature history of an RPV in a PWR under postulated SBLOCA conditions. Analysis
results appear to support the utility of the J-Q approach and interpretation method to charac-
terize the crack-tip fields in an RPV under PTS conditions. Specifically, the Q-stress parameter
can be defined, for the assumed RPV and flaw geometries and transient conditions, up to
maximum loading as characterized by the value of the J integral during the transient. A method
that incorporates small-specimenJc (Q, T) toughness locus data in the safety-margin assessment
of an RPV is presented. Analysis results suggest that the predicted margin of safety in RPVs
under PTS conditions is greater based on the J-Q approach than that based on the conventional
single-parameter J approach.
Acknowledgment
Research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission under Interagency Agreement 1886-8011-9B with the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems.
References
[1 ] Theiss, T. J., Shum, D. K. M., and Rolfe, S. T., "Interim Report on the HSST Shallow-CrackProgram
and Implications for Reactor Pressure Vessel Analyses," NUREG/CR-5886 (ORNL/TM-12115),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, May 1992.
[2] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "Pressurized-Thermal-Shock Evaluation of the H. B. Robinson
Nuclear Power Plant," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4183 (ORNL/TM-9567/V1), U.S. Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Sept. 1985, pp. 263-306.
[3] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "Pressurized-Thermal-Shock Evaluation of the Clavert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant," USNRS Report NUREG/CR-4022 (ORNL/TM-9408), U.S. Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission, Washington, DC, Sept. 1985, pp. 201-244.
[4] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "preliminary Development of an Integrated Approach to the
Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock as Applied to the Oconee 1 Nuclear Power Plant," USNRC
Report NUREG/CR-3770 (ORNL/TM-9176), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, May 1986, pp. 5.1-5.51.
[5] "Format and Content of Plant-Specific Pressurized Thermal Shock Safety Analysis Reports for
Pressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.154, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-
ington, DC, Jan. 1987.
[6] Marshall, W., "An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels," Second Report, United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, March 1982.
[7] Naus, D. J., Walker, J. K., Bass, B. R., Iskander, S. K., et al., "Crack-Arrest Behavior in SEN Wide
Plates of Quenched and Tempered A533 Grade B Steel Tested under Nonisothermal Conditions,"
USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4930 (ORNL-6388), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
Aug. 1987.
[8] Glasstone, S. and Sesonske, A., Nuclear Reactor Engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
York, 1981, p. 458.
[9] McGowan, J. J., "Tensile Properties of Irradiated Nuclear Grade Pressure Vessel Plate and Welds
for the Fourth HSST Irradiation Series," NUREG/CR-3978 (ORNL/TM-9516), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Jan. 1985.
[10] ABAQUS Theory Manual, Version 4-8, Hibbitt, Karlson and Sorensen, Providence, RI, 1989.
[1/] Shum, D. K. M., "Implications of Warm Prestress on Safety-Margin Assessment of Reactor Pressure
Vessels," ORNL/NRC/LTR-92/9, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, March 1992.
[12] Shum, D. K. M., "Potential Change in Flaw Geometry of an Initially Shallow, Axially Oriented,
Inner-Surface Finite-Length Flaw During a Pressurized-Thermal-Shock Transient," ORNL/NRC/
LTR-92-1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Jan. 1992.
[13 ] Shih, C. F., O'Dowd, N. P., and Kirk, M. T., " A Framework for Quantifying Crack Tip Constraint,"
in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds,
[14] Sumpter, J. D. G. and Hancock, J. W., "Shallow Crack Toughness of HYS0 Welds: An Analysis
Based on T Stresses," International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 45, 1991, pp.
207-221.
[15] Cheverton, R. D., "Pressure Vessel Fracture Studies Pertaining to a PWR LOCA-ECC Thermal
Shock: Experiments TSE-1 and TSE-2," ORNL/NUREGFFM-31, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN, Sept. 1976.
[16] Cheverton, R. D. and Bolt, S. E., "Pressure Vessel Fracture Studies Pertaining to a PWR-LOCA-
ECC Thermal Shock: Experiments TSE-3 and TSE-4 and Update of TSE-1 and TSE-2 Analysis,"
ORNL/NUREG-22, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Dec. 1977.
[17] Cheverton, R. D., Iskander, S. K., and Bolt, S. E., "Applicability of LEFM to the Analysis of PWR
Vessels under LOCA-ECC Thermal Shock Conditions," NUREG/CR-0107, ORNL/NUREG-40,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Oct. 1978.
[18] Cheverton, R. D., Ball, D. G., Bolt, S. E., Iskander, S. K., and Nanstad, R. K., "Pressure Vessel
Fracture Studies Pertaining to the PWR Thermal-Shock Issue: Experiment TSE-7, NUREG/CR-4304
(ORNL-6177), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Aug. 1985.
[19] "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, May 1988.
Ductile to Brittle Transition
John D. Landes, t Uwe Zerbst, 2 Jiirgen Heerens, 2
Blagoi Petrovski, z and Karl-Heinz Schwalbe 2
Single-Specimen Test Analysis to Determine

Lower-Bound Toughness in the Transition
REFERENCE: Landes, J. D., Zerbst, U., Heerens, J., Petrovski, B., and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Sin-
gle-Specimen Test Analysis to Determine Lower-Bound Toughness in the Transition,"
1994, pp. 171-185.
ABSTRACT: A method is proposed for determining a lower-bound fracture toughness value

from the result of a single test in the transition region for steels. The method is based on the size
criterion of Iwadate et al. for determining the number of tests needed to characterize toughness
adequately at a given condition and a Weibull statistical distribution. The method was evaluated
by determining a lower-bound toughness value for 68 sets of data, which include over 700
fracture toughness values in the transition. The lower-bound estimate was judged to be conser-
vative if all of the lower-bound estimates were lower than the lowest toughness value in the set.
The method was conservative for more than 60% of the data sets and for more than 95% of the
individual toughness values. In addition, the method was evaluated by comparing it with 4
methods that used multiple specimens for determining a lower-bound toughness. The single-
specimen method gave essentially the same lower-bound estimates as the other multiple-speci-
men methods.
KEYWORDS: fracture, cleavage, transition, toughness, lower bound, steel, single specimen
Fracture toughness in the transition for steels exhibits extensive scatter, as well as size,
geometry, and constraint effects [1-12 ]. As a result, individual toughness values appear to have
little meaning. Because of this scatter, the determination of an appropriate toughness value for
structural analysis is often difficult. It is best to design structures to operate at temperatures
above the transition; however, this cannot always be done. For design of structures to operate
in the transition, an estimate of the lower bound to the fracture toughness scatter may be desired.
The transition toughness scatter has been analyzed with statistical models, traditionally ones
based on Weibull statistics [4-12 ]. To develop a lower bound to the scatter, an analysis based
on these Weibull statistics was usually done. To make a statistical analysis significant, a large
number of data at a single test condition are needed. Developing such a large database is costly
and time consuming. It would be helpful to be able to make use of an individual toughness
value or small number of data.
Often the lower-bound toughness is not well defined. In some cases, it means a theoretical
low value that would not be measured in a test and would only be approached with a large
number of toughness tests [5,8]. In other cases, it means the lowest result from among a finite
number of test results [6]. Generally, it is neither but rather a level of statistical confidence
from a group of tests at a given temperature. In most cases, the number of tests in a group is
1 Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2030.
2 Visiting scientist, Supervisor of Size Effects, and Brittle Fracture Group, visiting scientist, and director
of fracture mechanics research, respectively, GKSS, Institut fiir Werkstofforschung, Max Planck Strasse,
D-2054 Geesthacht, Germany.
171
inadequate from a statistical standpoint and the confidence level used for the statistical lower
bound is not high. Again, the ability to use individual toughness values or a small number of
data would be desirable.
In this paper, a method for predicting a lower-bound cleavage transition toughness value
from a single-specimen fracture toughness test result is proposed. It is based on the combined
input of a specimen size criterion and a statistical distribution. The ability of the model to
predict the lower-bound toughness to a distribution of data is empirically based; there is no
model to confirm its usefulness. Results from the literature [13-17] 3,4 in which transition frac-
ture toughness is measured on a number of specimens at a single temperature are used to verify
the model. The analysis is based on a J for cleavage toughness value, although other measures
of cleavage toughness such as Kjc or 8c could be used.
Description of Method
The method does not require any new technique for testing. A standard ASTM specimen
like the compact can be used. It is tested until a cleavage failure results and a J for cleavage
is determined. No adjustment is made for constraint, and no data are eliminated by size or other
criteria. The method uses both a size criterion and a statistical model. First, the size criterion
is applied to the value of the J for cleavage toughness, labeled here as Jfc. This is based on the
model of Iwadate et al. [6] for determining the number of specimens that should comprise an
adequate sample for determining a lower-bound toughness.
N = const (JecRrO/B (1)
where N is the number of tests in a data set needed for an adequate sampling and const is a
constant to be specified later. An effective yield stress or flow stress, ~y is used and the size is
based on the thickness, B. In this case, the specimens are all proportionally dimensioned so
that thickness is half the component width (W = 2B); hence, the uncracked ligament is nearly
square and the through-thickness constraint is fairly high.
From the number of specimens, N, needed for an adequate sample, a statistical analysis is
made with the test result, Jfc, representing the top of a scatterband and the lower-bound tough-
ness, JLB, representing the bottom of a scatterband. The scatterband is represented by a Weibull
plot distributed as i/(N + 1) where i takes the values of 1 through N for determining the
probability of fracture for each test result taken in increasing order of toughness. In this case,
the specimen test result, Jfc, occupies the probability position N/(N + 1) and the JLB occupies
the position 1/(N + 1). The statistical part of the analysis is illustrated in Fig. 1. The Weibull
model is a two-parameter distribution with an arbitrary slope of m [4]. This is given by
1 - Prob = exp {-(J/O) m} (2)
Putting the probability position into Eq 2 gives the relationship for Jet of
Jfc -- 0 {-In[N/(N + 1)1}''m (3)
and JLB of
JLB = 0 { - l n [ 1 / ( N + 1)]},/m (4)
3 j. Heerens and B. Petrovski, unpublished 20MnMoNi55 data, 1991.

4 Unpublished CrMoV data, 1991. (The data stem from a cooperation between GKSS Forschungszen-
trum and CISE Technologie Innovative. The cooperation was partly sponsored by ENEL Italy.)
LANDES ET AL. ON DETERMINING LOWER-BOUND TOUGHNESS 173
I PositionN
J for Cleavage Value
Weibull Prot
m
Position 1
J Lower Bound
In d
FIG. 1---Schematic of J lower-bound estimate from single-specimen test.
Solving Eqs 3 and 4 gives
JLn = Jfr [{ln[N/(N + 1)]}/{ln[1/(N + 1)]}] l/m (5)

This could be further reduced by putting Eq 1 into Eq 5; however, the value of N from Eq 1
was always taken as an integer in this analysis where the condition N >- 1 was imposed. This
condition is not easy to incorporate into Eq 5. Also, a separate evaluation of N gives some
information about the region of the transition into which the test result falls. Therefore, it is
better to calculate N separately from Eq 1.
The single-specimen method can be applied to a set of specimen test results, and a lower
bound can be determined for each specimen. The lower-bound estimates, JLB, from a set of
specimen tests with scatter order in the same way as the actual fracture toughness data. There-
fore, only the top and bottom points in a group were used to calculate "/LB"This would give the
entire range of the lower-bound estimates for the set of specimens. Two unknowns in the
distribution are the const of Eq 1 and the slope, m, of Eq 2. With a proper choice of these
unknowns, every fracture toughness value in a set of specimens can be used to calculate a
lower bound that is lower than the lowest toughness value of the entire set. One method for
determining the unknowns would be to choose the maximum toughness value in a data set and
determine the unknowns so the lowest toughness value of the set is predicted by the JLB cal-
culation. However, in the case where only one toughness result is available, this cannot be used
as a method to determine the unknowns; an arbitrary choice of the unknowns must be made.
174 FRACTURE MECHANICS: I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
TABLE l ~ u m m a r y of data sets from seven sources.
Test No. of
Steel Source Temperature, ~ Specimens
20MnMoNi55 GKS Sa - 90, - 60 113

CrMoV GKSS/CISEb 20, 80, 100 52
A533B UKAEA Risley [13] -85, -75, - 6 5 76
A533B UKAEA Risley [14 ] - 90, - 70, - 50, - 30, - 10 153
A533B ORNL [15] - 150, - 7 5 122
A533B JSPS/MPC [16] - 100, -75, - 5 0 55
A508 UKAEA Risley [17] -90, -70, -50, - 3 0 , - 10, 10, 20 134
"See footnote 3,
b See footnote 4.
For the examples calculated here, the first choice of the unknowns was const = 1000 and m
= 2. The first is consistent with the Iwadate et al. analysis in the middle transition [6] and the
second fits with the observation of many investigators that the Weibull slope is tending toward
2 as the sample size is increased [7-9].
Analysis of Lower-Bound Toughness

To evaluate the usefulness of the proposed single-specimen lower-bound toughness estimate
method, data from the literature were analyzed. Transition toughness tests from seven sources
[13-17] 3.4 were used including a C r M o V steel, a 20MnMoNi55 steel, four heats of A533B
steel, and an A508 steel. The sources of the data are given in Table 1 along with the test
temperatures and numbers of specimens. The chemical compositions are given in Table 2, and
the room temperature mechanical properties are given in Table 3. Examples were usually taken
from data sets that had ten or more toughness values at a given temperature and f o r a given
specimen size. For each set of data, a lower bound was determined from the maximum and
minimum toughness value in that group. Because the JL8 order in the same way as the toughness
values, all of the intermediate toughess values would give intermediate JLa estimates. The
unknowns were chosen as stated previously, const -- 1000 and m = 2. To calculate N, the
effective yield strength, trr, was used, which was an average of the yield strength and the
ultimate tensile strength. At some of the test temperatures at which the JLB was determined,
this value was not measured and a linear interpolation of tr r from values at other temperatures
TABLE 2--Chemical compositions of steels.
Steel C Mn Mo Ni Si Cr S P Other
20MnMo Ni55" 0.19 1.29 0.53 0.8 0.20 0.12 0.008 0.007 0.11 (Cu)
CrMoV b
A533B [131 0.'19 i.25 d.~*9 b~68 0.2"1 oldi3 oldi3 oldi7 0.07'iCu)
A533B [14] 0.21 1.40 0.48 0.67 0.28 0.18 0.005 0.006 0.05 (Cu)
A533B [15] 0.25 1.34 0.52 0.55 0.29 ..- 0.040 0.35
A508 [16] 0.19 1.42 0.48 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.003 0.003 0.017'(V)---
A533B [17] 0.21 1.44 0.48 0.67 0.78 0.18 0.005 0.006 0.021 (A1)
0.05 (Cu)
"See footnote 3.
b See footnote 4.
TABLE 3--Room temperature mechanical properties of steels.
Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, % Reduction of

Steel MPa MPa % Elongation Area
20MnMoNi55" 450 610 66

CrMoV~ 660 803 21" 64
A533B [13] 445-505
A533B [14] 470 689 '25" '66
A533B [15] 444 600
A508 [16] 456 599 '25 '76
533B [17] 470 620 25 66
"See footnote 3.
b See footnote 4.
was used. A fractional value of N from Eq 1 was rounded to the next highest integer before it
was used in Eq 5.
The maximum and minimum JLB values were compared with all of the other toughness values
in the group. Examples of the calculations are given in Figs. 2 through 9. An example for the
CrMoV 4 steel is given in Fig. 2. This shows that all of the JLB values are near or below the
lowest fracture toughness values in the scatterbands. A similar calculation was done for a
20MnMoNi55 steel (labeled PVS) 3 in Fig. 3. Here also, most of the points are higher than the
JLB; however, there are a few of the actual toughness values below the upper JLB estimates. To
get a better view of the bottom of the lower bound, the minimum toughness in a data set was
400
o B=IO, W = 2 0
u B=IO, W = 2 0
9 B=IO, W = 2 0
300
9 B=25, W = 5 0
9 B=25, W = 5 0
0,1 9 B=25, W = 5 0
<
Max JLB g
~. 200
--- Min JLB 0
100
B 0
Ull o
1
!
s'o 1 oo
Temp, ~
FIG. 2--J for cleavage with J ~ CrMoV steel [14].
12oo
[] B=50, W = l O 0
o B=20, W = 5 0
1000 9 Max JLB
--- Min J L B
o j B=20, W = 5 0
800 9 J B=20, W = I O 0
9 J B=20, W = 2 0 0
o4
<
o B=20, W = I O 0 0
600 9 B=25W=50 0
8
0
0
400 Q 8
O 9 O
B o
Oe ,1o
200
8o ell:
Igi i. ~
0
u L'_..'_ ......................
i | i
: !
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50
Temp, ~
FIG. 3--J for cleavage with J ~ f o r PVS steel [13].
120
" Min Jfc
100,
9 Max JLB
9 Min JLB
80,
60,
<
E
-3
40'
9 9
20.
! I ! m !
tO 0 tO Q
II II II II
I:liI m IX) OCI m
CO CO 0 0 ~I
II II ~-- ~ II
Downloaded/printed FIG.
by 4~Min J for cleavage each min and max J~, CrMoV steel. 4
LANDES ET AL. ON DETERMININGLOWER-BOUND TOUGHNESS 177
200
9 Max JLB
9 Min JLB
150 '
" Min Jfc
04
<
100
"3
0 []
50
ii 9 9
9 ,,,
i I i | i I
t$3 O O O O O
OJ U'~ 0 0 ~ OJ
n u ckl u IN
II ~ U II
k- I---
FIG. 5--Min J for cleavage with max and mitt JLs, A533B steel. ~
plotted with the minimum and maximum JLB for the CrMoV in Fig. 4 and for the PVS in Fig.
5. For the CrMoV, five data sets all have JLB estimates below the minimum toughness. Also,
if the values in each set at a given temperature are compared with the lowest toughness at that
temperature, all of the JLB estimates are conservative. For the PVS this is not the case. For the
set tested at -90~ B = 20 mm and W = 50 mm, the minimum toughness in that set is well
below the highest JLB estimate. In another set, -60~ B = 50 mm and W = 100 mm, the
highest JLB is just above the lowest fracture toughness estimate. Also, the comparison of all
groups at the same temperature does not show that all JLB are conservative at a given
temperature.
The analysis could be made conservative by choosing a different value of m. The case of
the PVS at - 9 0 ~ was one for which the scatter in fracture toughness was more than 21 to 1
and the Weibull slope was about 1.4, which is well below the value of m = 2 used in the JLB
estimate. However, the conservatism of the estimate can be maintained if a slope of m = 1.5
is assumed rather than 2. For this, the maximum JLB is estimated to be 16.2 kJ/m 2 as compared
to the previous estimate of 34.9 kJ/m 2 obtained from the slope of 2. This is slightly lower than
the actual minimum toughness value of 16.9 kJ/m 2.
The ability of the method to estimate the lower bound throughout a large portion of the
transition is illustrated in Fig. 6 for another heat of A533B steel [17]. The same prediction is
3"
o Jmin
9 Jmax
.... JLBmin
JLBmax
2'
O4
<
E
9 9
9 !
O
0
9 9 9 O
. . 9
. . . . O
. . o ) ~ ' ~o " " ~"*~~' '' '~7 ~ ~ ",
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
Temp, ~
FIG. 6---J and J~ for A533B steel.
shown in Fig. 7 in which the vertical axis is expanded to get a better view of the JLB trends.
This picture of the transition illustrates the typical transition behavior for these types of steels.
The top of the scatterband increases markedly, whereas the bottom, in the lower-bound region,
changes very little. The single-specimen method for the lower-bound prediction produces this
trend very well. As can be seen in Fig. 7, only a few toughness values fall below the upper JLB
estimate. For this steel, 5 points of 134 total tests evaluated fell below the maximum lower
bound.
An additional interesting case is for an A533B steel [13] (Fig. 8). Here, many of the lower
toughness values were valid Kic results. The JLB estimate does not fall below the lowest fracture
toughness value in the group. Rather, the method predicts that the lowest fracture toughness
and the JLB have the same value. This happens because the evaluation of the number of spec-
imens needed from Eq 1 gives N = 1. For a steel with CryJE = 0.0025 and using const = 1000
and N = 1 leads to a criterion identical to the Kic validity size criterion. This ratio of strength
to modulus is approximately correct for pressure vessel steels. For a valid Kic result, the JLB
estimate then gives the results N = 1, which implies that a single valid Kic is itself the lower
bound. For the A533B steel, the valid Kt~ values have a good amount of scatter, often as much
as five to one, and no single Kic could be taken as a lower bound. This type of data then is a
problem for the JLB method. One way to deal with data in the valid Kic range is to change the
value of the unknown const. Iwadate et al. [6] have noted that this is a difficult area for scatter
and suggested that const = 3000 is more appropriate than the value of 1000, which has been
used. Using const = 3000 for this steel, JLB estimates were recalculated and five of the seven
original cases gave the lower-bound estimate as falling below the minimum toughness. The
other two cases missed by values that were only of the order of 5%.
LANDESETAL.ONDETERMINING
LOWER-BOUND
TOUGHNESS 179
0.5"
I ! Jmin
Jmax
- -' JLBmin
0.4
JLBmax
<
0.3 '
E
,--j
-.j
0.2.
I r--.
0.1 o ~J
0.0 ! !
-100
-;0 i
-~o -;o .~o o ~ 40
Temp, ~
FIG. 7--J and J~ versus temperature for A533B steel [19].
50
Q Min Jfc
o M a x JLB
40
9 Min JLB
30
04
<
[]
O
~'~ 20 O
..-3 O []
[]
[]
10 [] []
[]
m m m m m m "7
~, t9 c9 t9
Copyright by ASTM Int'lFIG.
(all rights
8--Min reserved); Sat Jan 28 18:45:46
J for cleavage with max EST 2012
and rain JLB,A533B steel [13].
180 FRACTURE MECHANICS: T W E N T Y - F O U R T H V O L U M E
A second example of an A533B steel [14] shows that the JLB analysis works well in the
middle transition region. Here, the toughness values were far away from the valid Kic region
and were at a temperature where the data had high upward scatter in the maximum toughness
values. The maximum toughness values in a group were often of the order of 20 times the
minimum values. The JLB estimate used here worked very well (Fig. 9). For example, the group
of B = 12.5 and 0% side grooving had very high Jec values; the range went from 1106 to 860
kJ/mL The JLB estimated from these were 40.3 and 36.3 kJ/mL These JLB estimates were both
in the range of the lowest toughness measured at that temperature of 54 kJ/m 2 and on the
conservative side. This shows that small specimens with high toughness are able to make a
more conservative estimate of the lower-bound toughness and are more useful than the large
specimens. Also, the estimate is often not overly conservative. The second A533B steel at
- 30~ is used to illustrate this. The JLB estimates range from 18.6 to 52.6 kJ/m 2 with the lowest
measured toughness being 54 kJ/m 2. The lowest J estimate is one third of the lowest measured
toughness.
To evaluate the JLB method, individual sets of test results from the seven sources were
evaluated to see how often the JLB estimate was conservative. A total of 68 sets with more than
700 toughness values were evaluated. The criterion for conservatism was that all JLB estimates
were below the minimum measured value of toughness in that set. Of the 68 sets evaluated,
42 sets fit this criterion for being conservative and 26 did not. Of the 26 that did not, 17 were
in the region of valid K~c toughness. This is by far the most difficult region for the single-
1200
[] Max Jfc
9 Min Jfc
1000
Max JLB
--- Min J L B
800
O4
600
i a
400
200
/ i f '
0 0 0 0 0
tn c~ m m
r it ~
~ II II
m
FIG. 9--Max and min J for cleavage with max and min Jz~ A533B steel [14].
specimen JLB estimate. For the remaining 9 sets that were not in the Kic region and had toughness
results that were not conservative by the JLB estimate, 8 of the 9 had only one point that fell
in the nonconservative region. The ninth set was the PVS at - 9 0 ~ that was illustrated in Figs.
3 and 5 a s b e i n g a difficult set of data that needed a different value of slope m. The 17 that
were near the valid Kxc region were reevaluated using the const = 3000 assumption. This made
the toughness values conservative in only 9 more of the 17 cases; 5 of these were from the
A533B steel as discussed previously. Another heat of A533B steel had 6 cases that were near
or at the valid K~c region for the bottom of the scatterband. For all 6 cases, using const = 3000
did not make all of the predictions conservative.
Comparison with Multiple-Specimen Lower Bounds

The usefulness of the single-specimen JLB estimate can be assessed by comparing the JLB
with other multiple-specimen methods for estimating a lower bound to a set of transition tough-
ness data. This analysis was conducted by Zerbst [18] and is summarized here for information
purposes. A full description of these results will be reported by Zerbst. His multiple-specimen
lower-bound estimates included four approaches:
9 an ASTM approach from McCabe [19] in which the [3ic and Weibull plot were used to
get a lower bound at 5% probability,
40
9 PVS-90~ I
[] PVS-90~ max
I
30
O,,I
<
_.E
20
~
to
J
10
~-
09 ~
~
-o
.o
"E)
E
13_ O~
0 C
HG. ! O--J~ estimates from Zerbst with single-specimen Jz~f o r P VS3 at -90~
182 FRACTURE MECHANICS: -I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
9 a proposal of Stienstra et al. [11 ], which could predict a 5% lower bound with three or
more specimens,
9 a proposal from Iwadate et al. [6] in which the lowest toughness value was taken as the
lower bound when the data set met a criterion for a minimum number of tests, and
9 a simple two-parameter Weibull model with the lower bound taken at 5% probability.
The lower-bound estimates from these four multiple-specimen methods were compared with
the proposed single-specimen model in Figs. 10 through 12. The difficult group for the PVS
at - 9 0 ~ is presented first in Fig. 10. Here, the single-specimen method bounds all of the other
methods; unfortunately, this includes the actual minimum toughness in the group. Note that
the Iwadate method uses the minimum toughness to set the JLB" When enough specimens are
available, it always corresponds to the minimum toughness in a set of specimens. In Fig. 11,
the other difficult case of the PVS at - 6 0 ~ is presented. Here, the result is nearly the same
except that the two-parameter Weibull model gave a higher estimate than the others. The final
example is for a second PVS set at - 9 0 ~ (B = 25 mm, W = 50 mm; Fig. 12). Here, the
single-specimen method is conservative relative to the minimum measured toughness in the set
as are all of the multiple-specimen methods except for Iwadates, which corresponds to the
minimum toughness in the set. The single-specimen method again bounds the others.
One important feature illustrated in these examples is that the single-specimen method is not
8~
6C
t'Xl
<
4t]
m
-J
20
tat) ~ "O E
m
t~
0. --~
0 r-
I- (I)
FIG. 11--JLB estimates from Zerbst with single-specimen J~ for PVS3 at -60~
Minimum 9 PVS -90 -2 min

Toughness [] PVS -90-2 max
in G r n u n
5C
4C
<
ai
._J
..-j
10
m
r-
"5
r
CO ~ "Io ID E
<
B
m
13..
o .=_
tl)
F I G . 12--JLB estimates from Zerbst with single-specimen method, PVS 3 -90~
out of line with the multiple-specimen methods. Usually the minimum and maximum JLB from
the single-specimen method bound the other methods. In eight example groups from PVS
analyzed by Zerbst, the single-specimen method always bounded the ASTM estimate [18].
None of the multiple-specimen methods could get a JLB for every data set. They sometimes
failed because a requirement important for the method could not be met. The single-specimen
JLa always worked because it requires only one cleavage toughness result and eliminates no
data due to validity requirements. More of the specimen sets are being evaluated by Zerbst
who is also conducting a statistical confidence study on the single-specimen JLB method [20].
These will be reported separately.
Discussion
The single-specimen JLa estimate gives a good method for assessing the lower bound to a
large scatterband of data from one or a few toughness test results. With it, an assessment of
the transition lower bound could be made from the test of only one specimen at each temperature
of interest. The method seems to give the best estimate for small specimens, which have high
scatter. It performs worst for large specimens and toughness values in the Kic range. As a rough
guideline, any test that results in a value of N = 1 Eq 1 is in the Kic range. Any result that is
N = 3 or less is in the low-toughness area in which the estimate may not be good.
Compared with other multiple-specimen methods for lower-bound toughness, this method
seems to give about the same estimate of a lower-bound toughness. However, the single-
specimen method can always be applied because it requires only one value, whereas the mul-
tiple-specimen methods may not have enough data to work. It is never certain from a finite set
of data what the lowest toughness value could be at a given temperature. Even the multiple-
specimen lower-bound estimates cannot guarantee that an additional test would be above the
lower-bound estimate. These estimates merely give a reasonable method for finding a lower
bound. Although the JLB has no sound technical basis and is always empirically evaluated, the
fact that it compares well with the multiple-specimen estimates lends confidence to its use.
One question that can be addressed is whether the method may predict JLB values that are
too low to be useful, thus exerting a penalty for using them. An examination of all 68 sets was
not made for this; however, the general trend showed that the JLB gave estimates from 25 to
100% of the lowest toughness at a given temperature. Where the JLB estimate was always
conservative with respect to the minimum toughness, the chance for its being undesirably low
was greatest. The example of the CrMoV is the best; here the estimate Of JLB from the minimum
toughness in a group tended to give values that were 25 to 50% of the actual minimum tough-
ness. For the PVS, the minimum JLB was about 60% of the minimum measured toughness. On
the other hand, for the first A533B steel [13 ] the minimum JLB and measured toughness always
coincided.
One practice that should be reconsidered based on these results is that of eliminating high
toughness results as a result of size or other validity criteria. By using the method discussed
here, a reasonable estimate of the lower-bound toughness can be made from any fracture tough-
ness test that fails in cleavage. The high scattered results give better estimates than some of
the lower toughness data, which meet validity criteria. In particular, having a valid K~o result
does not appear to guarantee any confidence in the attainment of a lower bound. These valid
Kxc results have a fairly large scatter. The highest to lowest toughness values sometimes differ
by a factor of five, and the Weibull slope is of the same order as it would be for toughness
values higher in the transition. Therefore, individual Kxc toughness values must be treated with
care.
Summary
The single-specimen lower-bound toughness estimate proposed in this paper can be used
with a fair degree of confidence to estimate a lower bound to the transition toughness data. It
gave a conservative estimate of the lower-bound toughness for more than 95% of the transition
toughness data evaluated and more than 60% of the data sets analyzed. It is consistent with
other multiple-specimen lower-bound estimates and predicts correctly the relatively fiat vari-
ation of the lower bound to the toughness transition with temperature for the steels studied even
while the upper bound was showing high upward scatter. This method for estimating a lower
bound can make use of all transition toughness values that result from a cleavage fracture even
though the value did not meet a size or other validity criterion. It is simple to apply and is
therefore recommended to the reader to apply to his or her own transition toughness data to
get further evaluation of its usefulness.
References
[1 ] Milne, I. and Chell, G. G., "Effect of Size on the J Fracture Criterion," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture,
ASTM STP 668, J. D. Landes, J. A. Begley, and G. A. Clarke, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 358-377.
[2 ] Milne, I. and Curry, D. A., "The Effect of Triaxiality on Ductile Cleavage Transitions in a Pressure
Vessel Steel," in Fracture and Fatigue, Proceedings of the Third European Colloquium on Fracture,
ECF-3, J. C. Radon, Ed., London, 1980.
[3] Pisarski, H. G., "Influence of Thickness on Critical Crack Opening Displacement (COD) and J
Values," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 17, No. 4, Aug. 1981, pp. 427-440.
[4 ] Landes, J. D. and Shaffer, D. H., "Statistical Characterization of Fracture in the Transition Region,"
in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing and
[5] Landes, J. D. and McCabe, D. E., "Effect of Section Size on Transition Temperature Behavior of
Steels," in Fracture Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 883, R. J. Sanford, Ed., American
[6] Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Ono, S., and Watanabe, J., '~An Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Tough-
ness Behavior of J~c Measurement in the Transition' Region," in Elastic-Plastic, Fracture: Second
Symposium, Volume 11 Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803,
C. F. Shih and J. P. Gudas, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983,
pp. II-531-II-561.
[7] Wallin, K., Saario, T., and T6rrOnen, K., " A Statistical Model for Carbide Induced Brittle Fracture
in Steels," Metal Science, Vol. 18, 1984, pp. 13-16.
[8] Wallin, K., "Statistical Modeling of Fracture in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region," in Defect
Assessment in Components--Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS]EGF9, J. G. Blauel and K. H.
Schwalbe, Eds., Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., London, 1991, pp, 1-31.
[9] Anderson, T. L. and Stienstra, D., " A Model to Predict the Sources and Magnitude of Scatter in
Toughness Data in the Transition Region," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol, 17, 1989, pp.
46--53.
[10] Lin, T., Evans, E. G., and Ritchie, R. O., " A Statistical Model of Brittle Fracture by Transgranular
Cleavage," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. ~4, 1986, pp. 477-497.
[11] Stienstra, D., Anderson, T. L., and Ringer, L. J., "Statistical Inferences on Cleavage Fracture Tough-
ness Data," Journal of Engineering Material Technology, Vol. 112, 1990, pp. 31-37.
[12 ] Miyata, T., Otsuka, A., and Katayama, T., "Probabilistic Analysis of Cleavage Fracture and Fracture
Toughness of Steels," Journal of the Society of Material Science in Japan, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 1191-
1196.
[13] Morland, E., Ingham, T., and Swan, D., "The Effect of Specimen Geometry on Fracture Toughness
(K~c) in the Lower Shelf Regime," NRL-R-1002(R), NRL Risley, United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority, Warrington, Jan. 1989.
[14] Modand, E., "The Effect of Side-Grooving on the Fracture Tou.ghness of A533B-1 Steel in the
Transition Regime," NRL-R-10068(R), NRL Risley, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority,
Warrington, Nov. 1988.
[15] McCabe, D. E., " A Comparison of Weibull and ~3tcAnalysis of Transition Range Data," in Fracture
Mechanics: Twenty-ThirdSymposium, ASTM STP 1189, R. Chona, Ed., American Society for Testing
[16] JSPS/MPC Round Robin on Fracture Toughness in the Transition Region, presented to the Japan
Society for Promotion of Science and Materials Properties Council Task Group Meeting, Indianap-
olis, IN, May 1991.
[17] Ingham, T., Knee, N., Milne, I., and Morland, E., "Fracture Toughness in the Transition Regime
for A533B-1 Steel: Prediction of Large Specimen Results from Specimen Tests," ND-R-1354(R),
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Risley, July 1987.
[18] Zerbst, U., Heerens, J., and Petrovski, B., "Estimation of Lower Bound Fracture Resistance of a
Pressure Vessel Steel Based on Different Proposals," in Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Mate-
rials, Vol. 11, No. 11, Nov. 1993, pp. 1147-1160.
[19] McCabe, D. E. and Merkle, J. G., "Proposed Test Practice (Method) for Fracture Toughness in the
Transition Range," presented to the ASTM Task Group E24.08.08, Nov. 1991.
[20] Zerbst, U., "Modification of the Single Specimen Model for Lower Bound Fracture Analysis,"
(submitted for publication, 1992).
Ted L. Anderson, 1 David Stienstra, 2 and Robert H. Dodds, Jr. 3
A Theoretical Framework for Addressing

Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle Transition
Region
REFERENCE: Anderson, T. L., Stienstra, D., and Dodds, R. H., Jr., " A Theoretical Frame-
work for Addressing Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region," Fracture Mechan-
ics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M.
Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 186-214.
ABSTRACT: Fracture in the ductile-brittle transition region of ferritic steels is complicated by

scatter, produced by local sampling effects, and specimen geometry dependence, which results
from relaxation in crack tip constraint. Scatter and constraint are interrelated in that each influ-
ences the magnitude of the other. This article summarizes recent research on fracture in the
transition region and presents 'a unified framework for addressing size effects and scatter.
A stress volume model for quantifying constraint effects is described briefly, and a comparison
between theory and experiment is presented. This model has been applied only to stationary
cracks in plane strain, but methods to account for ductile crack growth and three-dimensional
effects are described.
The inadequacies of the weakest link model for cleavage fracture are discussed, and an
improved statistical model is introduced. This new model considers the probability of propagation
and arrest of cleavage microcracks.
A number of recommendations for analyzing cleavage fracture toughness data are presented.
Transition region data for a given material should be viewed as a statistical distribution rather
than a single value. However, these data should be corrected for constraint effects and ductile
crack growth before applying statistical analysis. One of several statistical distributions may be
applied to cleavage data; each of the proposed distribution functions has advantages and disad-
vantages. One of the unknowns in transition region fracture is the threshold toughness of the
material, that is, the absolute lower bound.
KEYWORDS: ductile-brittle transition, elastic-plastic fracture, constraint, scatter, size effects

on toughness, cleavage
Many ferritic steel structures operate in or near the ductile-brittle transition region, in which
unstable cleavage fracture is a possibility. Consequently, it is necessary to quantify the fracture
toughness of steels in this region. Obtaining meaningful data in the transition region is
extremely difficult, however, because cleavage fracture toughness values are often highly scat-
tered and are sensitive to the size and geometry of the test specimen. Thus the transferability
of laboratory toughness measurements to structures is dubious at best.
The scatter in transition region data is a direct result of the micromechanism of fracture.
Cleavage in ferritic steels initiates from microstructural features such as inclusions and grain
1 Associate professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77843.
2 Assistant professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rose-Hullman Institute of Technology,
5500 Wabash Ave., Terre Haute, IN 47803.
3 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, 3140 Newmark Lab., Champaign,
IL 61801.
186
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.0F~
ANDERSON ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRITTLE TRANSITION REGION 187
FIG. 1---Relationship between cleavage fracture toughness and the distance between the crack tip
and the cleavage trigger [1].
boundary carbides. The largest or most favorably oriented particle ahead of the crack tip often
controls overall failure of the sample. The location of this cleavage trigger relative to the crack
tip dictates toughness. If the critical particle is near the crack tip, the toughness is low, whereas
a significantly higher toughness can be measured if the cleavage trigger is relatively remote
from the crack tip; in some cases, a crack will grow by ductile tearing until it reaches a
microstructural feature that is capable of triggering cleavage. Figure 1 illustrates this effect
with data obtained by Hereens and Read [1]. The scatter in this data set is significant, with the
highest and lowest toughness value differing by an order of magnitude. Note, however, that
toughness correlates very well with the distance from the original crack tip to the cleavage
trigger.
Size and geometry effects on transition region toughness often stem from a relaxation in
stress triaxiality at the crack tip. Although cleavage is often referred to as "brittle" fracture, it
can be preceded by large-scale yielding and ductile crack growth. This plastic flow relaxes the
constraint at the crack tip, particularly in specimens with shallow notches and in geometries
loaded in tension. Constraint loss can result in a significant (factor of 3 to 6) elevation of the
apparent fracture toughness of the material.
Both problems associated with the transition region (that is, size effects and scatter) are
interrelated in that each influences the magnitude of the other. For example, loss of crack tip
constraint in finite specimens magnifies data scatter that originates from material variability.
Moreover, the crack tip sampling effects that produce scatter can lead to a statistical thickness
effect in which a large specimen tends to exhibit lower toughness than a small specimen because
the crack tip in the large specimen is more likely to sample a critical microstmctural feature.
In previous studies [2-6], the authors have addressed constraint effects and scatter separately.
The present article reviews this recent work and outlines a unified framework for treating
transition region fracture.
Analysis of Constraint Effects

Anderson and Dodds [2-4] have developed a method for quantifying the effect of specimen
size and geometry on cleavage fracture toughness. This approach involves detailed elastic-
plastic finite element analysis, which resolves crack tip stress fields, combined with a local
failure criterion. The Anderson-Dodds model, which is summarized below, can predict the
toughness of a particular specimen or structural geometry, given the toughness of a reference
configuration.
Cleavage Fracture Criterion

~o quantify size and geometry effects on fracture toughness, one must assume a local failure
criterion. In the case of cleavage fracture, a number of micromechanical models have been
proposed [6-11], most based on weakest link statistics. The weakest link models assume that
cleavage failure is controlled by the largest or most favorably oriented fracture-triggering par-
ticle. The actual trigger event involves a local Griffith instability of a microcrack, which forms
from a microstructural feature such as a carbide or inclusion; the Griffith energy balance is
satisfied when a critical stress is reached in the vicinity of the microcrack. The size and location
of the critical microstructural feature dictate the fracture toughness; thus cleavage toughness is
subject to considerable scatter (see Fig. 1).
The Griffith instability criterion implies fracture at a critical normal stress near the tip of the
crack; the statistical sampling nature of cleavage initiation (that is, the probability of finding a
critical microstructural feature near the crack tip) suggests that the volume of the process zone
is also important. The probability of cleavage fracture in a cracked specimen can be expressed
in the following general form:
F = F[V(crO] (1)
where
F = the failure probability
a, = the maximum principal stress at a point, and
V(o0 = the cumulative volume sampled in which the principal stress is ~ o , .
Equation 1 is sufficiently general to apply to any fracture process controlled by maximum

principal stress, not just weakest link failure. This observation is important because the authors
argue (below) that the weakest link model is severely flawed. For a specimen subjected to plane
strain conditions, V = BA, where B is the specimen thickness and A is cumulative area on the
x-y plane3
The JssyParameter
For small-scale yielding, dimensional analysis shows that the principal stress ahead of the
crack tip can be written as
where
Oo = a reference stress (usually the yield strength)
r = the radial distance from the crack plane, and
0 = the angle from the crack plane.
4 The standard fracture mechanics convention is used here, where x is the direction of crack propagation
and the y axis is normal to the crack plane.
Equation 2 implies that the crack tip stress fields depend only on J. It can be shown that the
Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren (HRR) singularity [12,13] is a special case of Eq 2. When J dom-
inance is lost, there is a relaxation in triaxiality; the principal stress at a fixed r and 0 is less
than the small-scale yielding value.
Equation 2 can be inverted to solve for the radius corresponding to a given stress and angle.
J
r ( ~ l ~ o, 0) = ~ g ( ~ , / ~ o , 0) (3)
~o
Solving for the area inside a specific principal stress contour gives
j2
A(~r,/%) = 3cr---;h(cr'/cr~ (4)
where
,rr
h(tril%) = ~ g2(~1/%, 0) dO (5)

-Tr
Thus, for a given stress, the area scales with jz in the case of small-scale yielding. Under large-
scale yielding conditions, the test specimen or structure experiences a loss in constraint, and
the area inside a given principal stress contour (at a given J value) is less than predicted from
small-scale yielding.
j2 h(trll%)
a(cr,/cro) = qb cr--~o (6)
where ~b is a constraint factor that is --<1. Let us define an effective J in large-scale yielding
that relates the area inside the principal stress contour to the small-scale yielding case.
A(cr~/Cro) = (j~y).._...~2h(o',/O'o) (7)

Cro
~
where J, sr is the effective small-scale yielding J, that is, the value of J that would result in the
area A(ol/Oo) if the structure were large relative to the plastic zone. Therefore, the ratio of the
applied J to the effective J is given by
(8)
J~sy
The small-scale yielding J value (Jssy) can be viewed as the effective driving force for cleavage,
whereas J is the apparent driving force.
The J/J, sy ratio quantifies the size dependence of cleavage fracture toughness. Consider, for
example, a finite size test specimen that falls at Jc = 200 kPa.m. If the J/Jssr ratio were 2.0 in
this case, a very large specimen made from the same material would fall at Jc = 100 kPa.m.
An equivalent toughness ratio in terms of crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) can also be
defined.
Numerical Analysis
Implementation of the scaling model for cleavage fracture requires numerical analyses that
provide detailed descriptions of the crack tip stress fields. In the previous studies [2-4], plane
strain elastic-plastic finite element analysis was performed on a number of configurations. The
principal stress distribution in small-scale yielding was compared to the corresponding stress
fields in specimens with finite dimensions to determine the J/Jssy and 8/Sssy ratios for the finite
specimens.
The material stress-strain behavior was modeled with a Raml~erg-Osgood power law
expression
s _ cr + ot (9)
t3o O"o
where
s = strain,
o = stress,
oo = a reference stress,
So = Oo/E, and
c~ and n = dimensionless constants.
For these studies, cx = 1.0, So = 0.002, and Oo = 414 MPa (60 ksi); in this case, Oo corresponds
to the 0.2% offset yield strength, Oys. The strain-hardening exponent, n, was assigned values
of 5, 10, and 50, which correspond to high, medium, and low work hardening, respectively.
Small-scale yielding conditions were modeled by means of a modified boundary layer anal-
ysis, in which the boundary of a circular domain containing a crack is subject to the Mode I
elastic singular fields. This configuration models a crack in an infinite body, that is, a body in
which the plastic zone is small compared to the crack size and other length dimensions.
Finite element meshes of single-edge-notched bend (SENB) specimens were generated with
a/W = 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.50. Each of these meshes contained approximately 350 elements
and 1200 nodes, with most of the elements and nodes concentrated near the crack tip.
All analyses were performed on stationary cracks. Consequently, the model in its current
form is only applicable to cleavage fracture without significant prior stable crack growth. Exten-
sion of this model to the upper transition region, where cleavage is preceded by ductile crack
growth is discussed in a subsequent section.
Effect of Specimen Dimensions on Fracture Toughness

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the effect of crack lengthl a/W, and hardening exponent on the J/
Jssy ratio. Because a critical value of J~sy represents a size-independent cleavage toughness, the
J/J~sy ratio quantifies the geometry dependence of Jc, the measured fracture toughness. For the
deep-notched specimens (a/W = 0.5), Jc approaches the small-scale yielding value when
the ratio aOo/J is greater than - 2 0 0 , but the shallow-notched specimens do not produce small-
scale yielding behavior unless the specimen is very large relative to J/Oo. The relative crack
tip constraint increases as strain hardening rate increases, that is, as n decreases.
Based in part on the curves in Figs. 2 and 3, the authors have previously recommended the
following size requirements for cleavage fracture in deeply notched (a/W >-- 0.5) bend and
compact specimens [2]: 5
5 Figures 2 and 3 are based on plane strain finite element analysis and thus provide information only
on in-plane dimensions. The justification for applying Eq 10 to the thickness dimension comes from
recently published finite element results, which are plotted in Fig. 12 and discussed in a subsequent section.
ANDERSON ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRffTLE TRANSITION REGION 191
FIG. 2--Effect of specimen size and a/W on the J/Jssy ratio for n = 10 [2].
200Jc
B, b, a -> - - (10)
O'y
where
B = the s p e c i m e n t h i c k n e s s ,
b = the r e m a i n i n g l i g a m e n t , a n d
o r = the flow stress.
FIG. 3--Effect of specimen size and strain-hardening exponent on the J[Jssy ratio for alW = 0.5
[21.
If a given test satisfies the above criteria, the resulting fracture toughness value can be viewed
as size independent. That is, specimens that satisfy Eq 10 are sufficiently large so as not to be
influenced by crack tip constraint effects. Note that Eq 10 is eight times as severe as the Jic
size requirements in ASTM Test Method for J~c, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813).
The reason for the stricter limits is that cleavage fracture is more sensitive to specimen size
than is ductile fracture; the former mechanism is stress controlled, whereas the latter is pre-
dominantly strain controlled.
It must be emphasized that the above size criteria only apply to deeply notched bend and
compact specimens. As Fig. 2 implies, it is virtually impossible to obtain a size-independent
result in a shallow-notched specimen. Size requirements for such specimens would be so restric-
tive as to render them useless for most practical applications.
When performing tests on shallow-notched specimens or on deep-notched specimens that
do not meet the above size requirements, it is possible to correct the resulting fracture toughness
data for constraint loss. A given Jc or ~c value can be corrected down to the equivalent small-
scale yielding value by dividing by the J/Jssy or ~/~ssy ratio, respectively. The authors have
developed parametric equations that express these ratios as a function of specimen dimensions,
flow properties, and strain-hardening exponent [14].
Comparison with Experiment

Figure 4 shows CTOD data obtained by Sorem [15] for A 36 steel at two temperatures in
the transition region. The solid diamonds represent the experimental data, whereas the crosses
indicate predicted small-scale yielding ( ~ y ) values. Every specimen but one (the highest CTOD
value for a/W = 0.15 at - 4 3 ~ failed by cleavage without significant prior stable crack growth.
At both temperatures, the shallow-notched specimens have a higher apparent toughness than
the deep-notched specimens, but the corrected values agree very well. Relatively small correc-
tions are needed for specimens with a/W = 0.50, but the small-scale yielding correction has a
major effect when a/W = 0.15. Note that the small-scale yielding CTOD values appear to, be
0.4 I I I
A 36 STEEL
B = W = 31.8 m m
0.3
9
-~-
Experimental Data
Corrected for C o n s t r a i n t
t
E
E
0.2
O
0.1
e, $* 9 r
I I I I
a/W = 0.5 a/W = 0.5
a/W = 0.15 a/W = 0.15
FIG. 4---Comparison of experimental CTOD values for A 36 steel with CTOD corrected for
constraint loss. Data were obtained from Sorem [15].
140 O,,,i,,,,i,,, ,i,,,,i,,,,1~,,,i,, ,,

Mild Steel SENB Specimens
120 (Sumpter, 1991)
100
80 o o
o 6~
b 6O ~ o
40
2O
o - - - y = 69.256 + -51.977x R= 0.48057 O~
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
I!
a/W
140 , ,, ,i, ,,,i ,,, ,i , , ,i i,i ,, i ,, ,,1, ,

I Mild Steel SENB Specimens
120 - (Sumpter, 1991)
lO0
~ 80
9
~, 60
o 9
20 0
O ~ y = 34.973 + -1.9715x R= 0.038065
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
b a/W
FIG. 5---Fracture toughness data for a mild steel at room temperature. Data were obtained from
Sumpter [16]. The lines are least squares fits through the data. (a) ExperimentaI Jc values. (b) Critical
J values corrected for constraint loss.
less scattered than the uncorrected data; the interaction between constraint and scatter is
addressed below.
Sumpter [16] performed fracture toughness tests on mild steel SENB specimens with a range
of a l W values. The material was sufficiently brittle to fail by cleavage at room temperature.
Figure 5a is a plot of Jc values versus a/W. These data exhibit considerable scatter, which is
typical of cleavage fracture in ferritic steel. A least squares fit6 through the data indicates an
upward trend in toughness with decreasing a/W, as expected. Figure 5b is a plot of corrected
6 By using a least squares fit, the authors do not mean to imply that the toughness should vary linearly
with a/W. The linear curve fit is merely a crude statistical tool for identifying a trend in the data.
500 .... I . . . . I i , J , , i , , ,
A 515 Grade 70 S t e e l Specimen T h i c k n e s s
(Kirk, et al., 1991) and Width:
400 --C)-- 5 0 m m
- 9
300 q- 10 m m
200
_ 9 ~-7~ +
100
9
0 I
a 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/W
500 i i i ~ [ i i i i ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' '
A 515 Grade 70 S t e e l Specimen Thickness

(Kirk, et al., 1991) and Width:
400
---C)-- 50 mm
- 9
~'~ 300
q- 10 m m
20O
9
9 ,~ 9 I
100 _~-@- ...... I--~-@ -q~ . . . . . . . . . @ - ~l~qI
- +
O
0 ~ ~ ~ , I ~ q ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ , ~ f I ~ ~ ~ ~
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
b a/W
FIG. 6--Fracture toughness data for an A 515 Grade 70 steel plate at room temperature. Data
were obtained from Kirk et al. [17]. The lines are least squares fits through the data. (a) Experimental
Jc values. (b) Critical J values corrected for constraint loss.
toughness values (J,,y), which does not exhibit any significant trend with a/W; the least squares
fit is nearly horizontal and the correlation coefficient is nearly zero, which implies that the
critical Jssy does not depend on a/W.
Kirk et al. [17] varied both specimen size and a /W in fracture toughness tests on a plate of
A 515 grade 70 steel. The uncorrected and corrected data for this material are shown in Fig.
6a and b, respectively. The uncorrected data exhibit the expected increase in toughness with
decreasing a/W. The least squares fits of the 25- and 50-mm thick data indicate that the smaller
specimens are more sensitive to the a/W ratio, and the toughness at a given a/W tends to be
higher in the smaller specimens. (Insufficient data were available for the 10-mm specimens to
make any inferences on trends.) All size and geometry effects are removed, however, in the
corrected toughness values (see Fig. 6b).
ANDERSON ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRI'I-FLE TRANSITION REGION 195
Statistical Modeling of Cleavage

A number of models for cleavage fracture toughness have been proposed in the past 20 years
[7-11]. The Ritchie-Knott-Rice model [7] relates fracture toughness to cleavage fracture stress
by assuming that this stress must be exceeded over a characteristic distance ahead of the crack
tip. Most subsequent models [8-11] have attributed the characteristic distance to a statistical
effect, whereby the fracture stress must be exceeded over a critical volume to sample a cleavage
trigger. Most of these statistical models treat cleavage as a weakest link phenomenon; failure
is assumed when a cleavage microcrack nucleates at a microstructural feature, such as an
inclusion or carbide, and propagates into the surrounding ferrite matrix. Stienstra [5], however,
argues that weakest link initiation is necessary but not sufficient for cleavage fracture.
The weakest link model is derived below. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations
of the weakest link approach. A new statistical model for cleavage is then introduced that is
more in line with experimental observation.
Weakest Link Model

The various models that treat cleavage as a weakest link phenomenon differ from one another
in minor respects, but all lead to the same final result. The derivation that follows takes the
most direct path to this result.
Consider a volume of material V, with p critical particles per unit volume. Assuming a
weakest link mechanism, the probability of failure can be inferred from the Poisson distribution:
F = 1 - exp(-pV) (11)
The exponential term is the probability of finding zero critical particles in V, so F is the
probability of sampling one or more critical particles. The Poisson distribution can be derived
from the binomial distribution by assuming that 13 is small and V is large, an assumption that
is easily satisfied in the present problem. Because cleavage is stress controlled, p for a given
material and temperature should depend only on the maximum principal stress:
P = p(cr,) (12)
That is, P increases with stress because more particles in a given volume are capable of nucle-
ating cleavage. For crack problems, the stress varies with position, and the failure probability
must be integrated over individual volume elements ahead of the crack tip:
(13)
To perform this integration, it is necessary to relate the crack tip stresses to the volume sampled
at each stress level. Assuming the crack tip stress field depends only on the applied J, Eq 4
leads to
BJ 2 Oh
dV(cr O - dcrl (14)
for a cracked specimen in plane strain. Inserting Eqs 12 and 14 into Eq 13 gives
F= 1 - exp ---~- p(a00crl

cru
where Om,x is the peak value of stress that occurs ahead of the crack tip and o , is the threshold
fracture stress, which corresponds to the largest fracture-triggering particle the material is likely
to contain.
Note that J appears outside of the integral in Eq 15. By setting J = Jc in Eq 15, we obtain
an expression for the statistical distribution of critical J values, which can be written in the
following form:
F= 1 - exp - Bo \ O f f J
where Bo is a reference thickness, which is added to nondimensionalize B. When B = Bo, 0j is

the 63rd percentile Jc value. Equation 16 has the form of a two-parameter Weibull distribution;
the shape parameter (also known as the Weibull slope or modulus) is fixed at two in this case.
Invoking the relationship between K and J for small-scale yielding gives
F= 1 - exp - Bo \OK,] J
Thus the Weibull slope for Kic data is four, according to this model.
The invariant Weibull slope in Eqs 16 and 17 is an important result, because it implies that
all cleavage fracture toughness data have the same amount of relative scatter (assuming the
weakest link model is correct, which, as the next section indicates, is not a good assumption).
It can be shown that the Weibull slope is inversely related to the coefficient of variation [5]; a
low Weibull slope implies a high degree of scatter and vice-versa.
Equations 16 and 17 both predict a thickness effect on toughness. The average toughness is
proportional to B -~ for critical J values and B -~ for Ktc data. The average toughness does
not decrease indefinitely with thickness, however. There are limits to the validity of the weakest
link model, as discussed in the next section.
All of the above relationships are only valid when weakest link failure occurs under J con-
trolled conditions. When constraint relaxes, critical J values no longer follow a Weibull distri-
bution with a specific slope, but the effective small-scale yielding J values, Js,y, (see above)
follow Eq 16 if a weakest link mechanism controls failure. Actual Jc values are more scattered
than J,~y values, however, because the ratio J[Jssy increases with J, as Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate.
Limitations o f the Weakest Link Model

There are two major problems with the weakest link model that leads to Eqs 16 and 17.
First, these equations predict zero as the minimum toughness in the distribution. Intuition
suggests that such a prediction is incorrect, and more formal arguments can be made for a
nonzero threshold toughness. A crack cannot propagate in a material unless there is sufficient
energy available to break bonds and perform plastic work. If the material is a polycrystal,
additional work must be performed when the crack crosses randomly oriented grains. Thus one
can make an estimate of threshold toughness in terms of energy release rate:
(~c(mln) ~ 2~/p~b (18)
2 i t i i I i
I A508Class1 Steel I 9 / 9
1
[ I
0 9
A
-1
Z Slop~4 / 9
| -2
Z
~d -3
J .-o~
-4
@O
-5 I I I I I I
50 100 200 300

KIc, M P a , ] m
FIG. 7--Weibull plot of fracture toughness data for an A 508 Class 1 steel at -75~ Note that
the Weibull slope is considerably greater than 4, the value predicted by the weakest link model.
where ~/p is the effective surface energy that includes the effect of plastic work, and 4) is a grain
misorientation factor. If the global driving force is less than ~3c<mi,),the crack cannot propagate.
The threshold toughness can also be viewed as a crack arrest value: a crack cannot propagate
if/s < Kin.
A second problem with Eqs 16 and 17 is that they tend to overpredict the experimental
scatter. That is, scatter in experimental cleavage fracture toughness data is usually less severe
than predicted by the weakest link model, particularly when the data are corrected for constraint
loss, as described above. According to Eqs 16 and 17, We 9 slopes on J and K data should
be two and four, respectively. Figure 7 is a We 9 plot of a large set of fracture toughness
data for an A 508 steel forging, obtained from a recent round-robin testing program [18]. Note
that the We 9 slope increases when the data are corrected for constraint loss, and that the
We 9 slope is significantly greater than four in both cases.
Other materials show results consistent with the A 508 data, although such large samples
are usually not available. Figure 8a is a plot of computed We 9 slope versus sample size for
several KIc and Kjc data sets [5]. The curves represent predicted median, 97.5% upper-bound,
and 2.5% lower-bound slopes obtained through Monte Carlo simulation, where We 9 slopes
were fitted to random samples taken from a population that follows Eq 17. We 9 slopes
obtained from small data sets may vary significantly, but the median value should be close to
the theoretical value (4.0) if the weakest link model is correct. Note, however, that the data are
biased to higher We 9 slopes, and that several points lie outside of the predicted 95% bounds
(on average, only 1 out of 20 values are expected to lie outside of these bounds). This effect
is even more pronounced when the data are corrected for constraint loss, as Fig. 8b illustrates.
Based on Figs. 7 and 8, one must conclude that the We 9 slope on K~c and Kjc values for
cleavage is not four, and that the weakest link model does not describe actual data for ferritic
steels.
Modified Statistical Model

According to the weakest link model, failure is controlled by the initiation of cleavage in
the ferrite as the result of cracking of a critical particle, that is, failure occurs when a microcrack
100 . . . . . . . f . . . . . .
- MeGowan, 1978
O - Morland, 1988
cZ~ A 9 - Bryan, 1987
o - W a t a a a b e . 1987
r~ A~ 9 A - S e r v e r , 1978
o 9 - S t r n a d e i , 1986
~ o - P u s h , 1985
= I0 ~ 9 B r y a n . 1988
Median v
95Z Bounds
, , i i i , i h , h , i , , ,
1
10 lO0
a
Size of Data Set, n
100
~'- MeGowan, 1978
O- Morland. 1988
x7 9 B r y a n , 1987
- W a t a n a b e , 1987
~- Server, 1978
@
9 - S t r n a d e l , 1988
~ _ Q o - P u g h , 1988
10 v ~ 9 B r y a n , 1985
M e d i a n --~ z~ o 14
95g Bounds
, , , , , , i L , i i , i i i
1
10 100
b
Size of Data Set, n
FIG. 8--Effect of sample size on Weibull slope for cleavage fracture toughness data [5]. The
curves were predicted from Monte Carlo simulation, assuming the weakest link model (Eq 17)
describes the true toughness population. (a) Computed slopes based on unadjusted experimental
data. (b) Computed slopes for data corrected for constraint loss.
satisfies the Griffith criterion locally. Although weakest link initiation is necessary, it is appar-
ently not sufficient for total failure. A cleavage crack, once initiated, must have sufficient
driving force to propagate.
Both problems, threshold toughness and scatter, can be addressed by incorporating a con-
ditional probability of propagation into the statistical model [5]. Figure 9 is a probability tree
for cleavage initiation and propagation. When a flawed structure is subject to an applied K, a
microcrack may or may not initiate, depending on the temperature as well as the location of
the eligible cleavage triggers. Initiation of cleavage cracks should be govemed by a weakest
link mechanism, because the process involves searching for a large enough trigger to propagate
a microcrack into the first ferrite grain. Once cleavage initiates, the crack may either propagate
in an unstable fashion or arrest. Initiation is governed by the local stress at the critical particle,
whereas propagation is controlled by the orientation of the neighboring grains and the global
driving force. The overall probability of failure is equal to the probability of initiation times
the conditional probability of propagation.
I Stress Applied
to Structure i m l B
Weakest Link Mechanism

.1f
Crack DoesNot I CrackInitiates I~ -- -- --
Initiate
F = P2P4 = P2 (1 -P3)
Crack Arrests I Crack Propagates

I (Failure)
FIG. 9--Probability tree for initiation and propagation of cleavage fracture.
Modifying the statistical cleavage model to account for propagation requires that the prob-
ability be expressed in terms of a hazard function, which defines the instantaneous risk of
fracture. For a random variable T, the hazard function, H(T), and the cumulative probability
are related as follows:
T
(19)
where To is the minimum value of T. By comparing Eqs 17 and 19, it can easily be shown that
the hazard function for weakest link initiation, in terms of stress intensity, is given by
B 4K
H(K) - (20)
Bo O I
The hazard function for total failure is equal to Eq 20 times the conditional probability of
failure:
B 4K 3
H(K) = Ppr Bo 0 4 (21)
Thus the overall probability of failure is given by
K
F= 1 - exp --~o Ppr 0---~dK (22)
Consider the case where Ppr is a constant, that is, it does not depend on the applied K.
Suppose, for example, that half of the carbides of a critical size have a favorable orientation
with respect to a cleavage plane in a ferrite grain. The failure probability becomes
F= 1 - exp -0.5~ (23)
In this instance, the finite propagation probability merely shifts the 63rd percentile toughness
to a higher value:
O* = 2~ = 1.190 x
The shape of the distribution is unchanged, and the fracture process still follows a weakest link
model. In this case, the weak link is defined as a particle that is greater than the critical size
that is also oriented favorably.
Deviations from the weakest link distribution occur when Ppr depends on the applied K.
Consider the case where the conditional probability of propagation is a step function.
( o1 ri < ro (24)
PPr = r~ >- ro
That is, assume that all cracks arrest when K~ < Ko and that a crack propagates if KI --> Ko at
the time of initiation. This assumption implies that the material has a crack arrest toughness
that is single valued. Substituting Eq 24 into Eq 23 leads to the following fracture toughness
distribution on K values:
F= 1 - exp -Bo \Ox} ~ forKi>Ko (25a)
F = 0 for K~ --< Ko (25b)
Equation 25 is a truncated Weibull distribution; OK can no longer be interpreted as the 63rd

percentile Kic value. Note that a threshold has been introduced, which removes one of the
shortcomings of the weakest link model. Equation 25 also exhibits less scatter than the two-
parameter distribution (Eq 17), thereby removing the other objection to the weakest link model.
The threshold is obvious in Eq 25, but the reduction in relative scatter is less so. The latter
effect can be understood by considering the limiting cases of Eq 25. If Ko/O K > > 1, there are
ample initiation sites for cleavage, but the microcracks cannot propagate unless/s > Ko. Once
K~ exceeds Ko, the next microcrack to initiate will cause total failure. Because initiation events
are frequent in this case, Kic values will be clustered near K o, and the scatter will be minimal.
On the other hand, if Ko/OK < < 1, Eq 25 reduces to the weakest link case. Thus the relative
scatter decreases as K J O r increases.
Equation 25 implies that the arrest toughness is single valued; a microcrack always propa-
gates above Ko, but always arrests at or below Ko. Experimental data, however, indicate that
arrest can occur over a range of K values. Figure 10 is a cumulative probability plot (on a linear
scale) of the constraint-corrected A 508 steel data from Fig. 7. The data exhibit a sigmoidal
shape, whereas the truncated Weibull is nearly linear at the lower tall. Thus the truncated
Weibull distribution fits the data better than Eq 17, but it does not adequately model the lower
tall.
The Appendix at the end of this paper describes a micromechanical model for cleavage
propagation and arrest. This model assumes that a cleavage microcrack initiates on a single
grain, and then evaluates the probability of propagation into the surrounding grains, which are
randomly oriented. This probabilistic simulation resulted in a prediction Ppr as a function of
the applied K; these results fit an offset power law expression. The absolute values obtained
from the simulation are questionable, but the predicted trend is reasonable. The resulting failure
probability is given by
ANDERSON ET AL, ON DUCTILE-BRI-I-fLE TRANSITION REGION 201
A 508 Class 3 Steel ,.#~/
o., ! -,5~ f
~ 0.6
0.4 Three-Parameter [
50 75 100 125
i
150 175 200
Kjc
FIG. l O--Comparison of experimentalfracture toughness data with various statistical distribution
functions.
F = 1 - exp - o t ( K - Ko)t~ O"~KdK (26)
The integral in Eq 26 has a closed-form solution, but it is rather lengthy. The above distribution
exhibits a sigmoidal shape, much like the experimental data in Fig. 10. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to fit experimental data to Eq 26. Note that there are four fitting parameters in this
distribution: or, 13, Ko, and Or. Even with fewer unknown parameters, the form of Eq 26 is not
conducive to curve fitting because it cannot be linearized.
Equation 26 can be approximated with a conventional three-parameter Weibull distribution
with the slope fixed at 4:
F= 1-exp --Bo\OK (27)
This latter expression also gives a reasonably good fit of experimental data in Fig. 10. The
three-parameter Weibull distribution is sufficiently flexible to model a wide range of behavior.
The advantage of Eq 27 is that there are only two parameters to fit (the Weibull shape parameter
is fixed at 4.0) and it can be linearized. The apparent threshold, Km~,, obtained by curve fitting
tends to be a conservative estimate of the true threshold toughness [5]. One drawback of the
three-parameter Weibull distribution is that it does not have a theoretical basis for the current
problem; this distribution function is merely a phenomenological description of the data.
Because there has been some confusion in recent years regarding two- and three-parameter
Weibull expressions, we feel it is necessary to emphasize a few important points. A three-
parameter Weibull distribution with a slope (that is, shape parameter) of 4.0 on Kj~ data does
not imply a weakest link mechanism; the previous derivation (Eqs 11 to 17) shows that a
weakest link assumption leads to a two-parameter Weibull expression with a fixed slope. The
three-parameter distribution has no theoretical basis in this case, nor does the choice of 4.0 for
the shape parameter. Equation 27 merely provides a good fit of most fracture toughness data
sets. The shape parameter has been fixed to reduce the fitting parameters in the distribution.
Earlier, we stated that the Weibull slope of most fracture toughness data sets is greater than
four, particularly when the data are corrected for constraint loss (see Fig. 8). This statement,
however, applies only when the data are fit to the two-parameter Weibull expression (Eq 17).
Fracture toughness data can be fit well to a three-parameterexpression with the shape parameter
fixed at four, as Fig. 10 illustrates.
Recommendations for Treating Transition Region Fracture

A unified approach that considers both constraint and statistical effects is necessary to address
fracture in the ductile-brittle transition region. Such an approach is needed because the factors
that govern the fracture behavior in the transition region are interrelated. The statistical nature
of cleavage fracture leads to the dependence of the failure probability on the volume of material
ahead of the crack tip subject to high normal stresses. This stressed volume, in turn, depends
on a number of factors, including constraint, specimen thickness, and ductile crack growth.
The discussion below summarizes the tools needed to analyze fracture toughness data in the
transition region and to transfer these data to structures. Some of these tools are not fully
developed, but the framework for addressing the problem exists, and practical engineering
methodologies should be available within the next few years.
Crack Tip Constraint (In-Plane Correction)

Plots such as Figs. 2 and 3 can be used to correct fracture toughness down to their small-
scale yielding limit. The authors have recently expressed these constraint corrections in terms
of parametric equations that depend on specimen geometry and strain hardening [14].
The constraint corrections represented by Figs. 2 and 3 are based on plane strain elastic-
plastic finite element analysis of specimens with stationary cracks. Thus these corrections con-
sider only in-plane effects. Moreover, the original model cannot be applied to specimens that
fail by cleavage after significant ductile crack growth. In principle, however, this method can
be applied in three dimensions, as well as to fracture in the upper transition region, where
ductile tearing precedes cleavage.
Accounting for Ductile Crack Growth

In the upper transition region, cleavage is difficult because there are few microstructural
features that are capable of triggering unstable fracture. Often a crack must grow through the
material to " s e e k " a cleavage nuclei. Such was the case for the data points in Fig. 1 with the
highest toughness.
The effect of prior ductile crack growth can be taken into account through a cumulative
stress volume argument. Consider a crack that has a grown a distance Aa, as Fig. 11 illustrates.
Area A1 represents the current area inside a principle stress (at) contour; area A2 corresponds
to material in the wake of the growing crack that previously experienced a stress of ~1 or
higher. The failure probability should be a function of the cumulative stressed area (A1 + A2).
Thus one can define an effective J (Js,y) from Eqs 4 through 8 by relating this total area to the
area inside a ol contour for a stationary crack in small-scale yielding.
Wallin [19] has developed a crack growth correction based on a cumulative stressed area
concept. He assumed, however, that the crack tip stress fields in front of a growing crack are
identical to those ahead of a stationary crack. The present authors are currently performing
detailed elastic-plastic finite element analyses of growing cracks, from which the near-tip stress
fields are being inferred. The results obtained so far indicate that the shape of the principal
FIG. 11--Schematic illustration of principal stress (o~) contours for a growing crack. A1 is the
area inside the current ol contour, and A2 corresponds to the material where the stress reached or
exceeded Ol during the loading history.
stress contours in front of a growing crack differ somewhat from the stationary crack case. A
modified crack growth correction is being developed from these results.
Three-Dimensional Effects
As stated above, a constraint model that considers only stressed areas in front of the crack
tip is incomplete, because it is the volume of material sampled ahead of the crack tip that
controls cleavage fracture. The stressed volume obviously scales with specimen thickness (or
crack front length in the more general case). Moreover, the stressed volume is a function of
the constraint parallel to the crack front; higher constraint results in a larger volume, as is the
case for in-plane constraint.
Figure 12 shows three-dimensional finite element results [20] that illustrate loss in through-
FIG. 12--Variation of stress along the crack front in a single edge notched bend specimen [20].
FIG. 13--Schematic illustration of the effective crack front length, B,~
thickness constraint. At the lowest load level (that is, the highest BoflJ value) the stress is
nearly constant through 80% of the thickness, indicating a high level of constraint in this region.
The constraint relaxes with increasing load, and the size of the constant stress region decreases
and eventually disappears altogether.
One way to treat three-dimensional constraint effects is to define an effective thickness based
on an equivalent plane strain case. Consider a three-dimensional specimen that is loaded to a
given J value. If we choose a principal stress value and construct contours at two-dimensional
slices on the x-y plane, the area inside of these contours will vary along the crack front, as Fig.
13 illustrates. The volume can be obtained by summing the areas in these two-dimensional
contours. This volume can then be related to an equivalent plane strain specimen loaded to the
same J value:
BI2
V = 2 f A(trt, z)dz = BeffAe(Orl) (28)

o
where
A~ = the area inside the ol contour in a plane strain analysis and
Beef = the effective thickness.
Three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analyses are underway in an effort to infer Befe
for a number of specimen and structural configurations.
The treatment of three-dimensional effects is not as simple as evaluating the stressed volume.
Suppose that one measures a median toughness of gjc(x ) in a specimen with effective thickness
B~, and that it is necessary to relate this to a specimen of thickness B2. The weakest link model
(Eq 17) predicts the following relationship based on stressed volume:
(29)
where Kj~2) is the median toughness for a crack front length of B2. Consider, for example, a
10-mm-thick steel specimen that fails at K~ = 50 MPa.m 1/2. Suppose that a large structure of
the same material contains a 100-m-long surface crack. Equation 29 predicts that the structure
would fail at KI = 5 MPa.m '/2. Both configurations would have the same stressed volume in
this case, but the cleavage probability would not be equal in the two geometries. An applied
K of 5 MPa.m 1/2 in the structure would not be sufficient to propagate a cleavage crack; the
global driving force must exceed the arrest toughness for cleavage fracture to propagate. This
example illustrates a fallacy of the weakest link model, which predicts a direct trade-off between
in-plane stresses (that is, K or J) and crack front length.
The modified statistical model described earlier provides a more rational method for treating
crack front length effects. The truncated Weibull distribution, which introduces a threshold
toughness, (Eq 25) leads to the following relationship:
= (Kjc(l) Kg) + Kg (30)
which is derived by equating failure probabilities for B~ and B z. Alternatively, a crack front
length expression can be derived from the three-parameter Weibull distribution (Eq 27):
_- (.,),,4
Kjc~2~ \B2,1 (Kjr -- Kmin) + Kmi n (31)
Both Eq 30 and Eq 31 would predict that the structure loaded to 5 MPa.m ~/2 would not fail,
irrespective of the crack front length. Either relationship can be used to predict the effect of
crack front length on toughness. Equation 30 can be applied to Jc toughness values by replacing
K 4 with jz. The K-J equivalence does not apply to Eq 31, however.
This method for relating toughness values to crack front length applies to structural config-
urations (for example, semi-elliptical surface flaws) as well as laboratory specimens. The effec-
tive crack front length, Berf, should be used in all cases.
Statistical Analysis
Some amount of scatter in cleavage fracture toughness data is inevitable, regardless of the
material cleanliness or laboratory practice. Thus, transition region toughness should be viewed
statistically rather than deterministically.
The most appropriate distribution function for cleavage fracture toughness data has not been
firmly established. Ideally, such a function should have a theoretical basis, should be easy to
apply, and should fit the data. The truncated Weibull distribution (Eq 25) has a theoretical basis,
but does not fit data in the lower tail. A more elaborate model results in a distribution function
(Eq 26) that is impractical for experimental data. The three-parameter Weibull provides a
reasonable description of transition region toughness and is reasonably easy to apply, but this
function does not result from a theoretical model. Another disadvantage of the three-parameter
Weibull distribution is that the fitting parameters cannot be converted to equivalent values in
terms of the J integral.
If the three-parameter Weibull distribution is used, at least one of the parameters should be
fixed. In Eq 27, the slope or shape parameter is fixed at 4. In addition to fixing the slope, Wallin
[21] fixes g m i n a t 20 MPazrn 1/2, leaving only one parameter to be fit. Although it is true that a
function with more parameters is more flexible and thus is better able to describe a given set
of data, such curve fits are as meaningless as a straight line fit through two data points. An
"accurate" description of a small sample usually bears little resemblance to the true distribution
of the whole population. For this reason, it is not appropriate to fit all three Weibull parameters
to a cleavage fracture toughness data set. Even when the slope is fixed at 4, Wallin [21] argues
that thousands of data points are required to obtain accurate estimates of Kmi,. Thus other means
should be used to infer the threshold toughness, as discussed below.
An important point to emphasize is that transition region data should first be corrected for
constraint loss and ductile crack growth before applying any type of statistical analysis. As
the data in Fig. 4 illustrate, constraint loss magnifies scatter in fracture toughness. This effect
can also be seen in Fig. 8a and b, where the Weibull slope increases after a constraint correction
is applied. Thus, the constraint effects should be removed so that the statistical analysis con-
siders only the variation as a result of local material inhomogeneity.
Threshold Toughness
As stated above, inferring the threshold toughness by statistical means (that is, computing
Ko or Kmln by fitting Eqs 26 or 27 to fracture toughness data) is not practical. Consequently,
other means are necessary to estimate the threshold fracture toughness of a material. A number
of attempts have been made to measure or predict the threshold toughness, but a consensus
approach has yet to emerge.
Wallin has set Kmi n in the three-parameter Weibull equation to 20 MPa.m "z. This estimate
was originally based on a warm prestress argument. That is, the plastic zone formed during
fatigue precracking produces compressive residual stresses at the crack tip, which must be
overcome before fracture can occur. Wallin argued that the minimum Kic for a material must
be greater than the maximum stress intensity that the crack tip experienced during fatigue
precracking. Although warm prestress may have some influence on the lower shelf, it is unlikely
that this is a significant factor in the transition region. Such effects disappear once the plastic
zone size exceeds that produced during precracking. Large-scale plasticity usually precedes
cleavage fracture in the ductile-brittle transition region.
Wallin assumes that Kml, does not depend on temperature. However, the crack arrest model
proposed in this article implies a temperature dependence of the threshold toughness. The KIR
curve in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code defines a lower envelope for both crack
initiation and arrest in reactor pressure vessel steels. Thus one could use this curve to define
the threshold fracture toughness. One problem with this approach, however, is that there is no
way to know whether the Km curve, which is based on a few hundred data points, represents
an absolute lower bound. Stienstra [5] proposes % Kir~ as the threshold, which gives a Kmin
value of 20 MPa-m l/z on the lower shelf, and higher values in the transition region.
An experimental procedure proposed by Iwadate et al. [22,23] could, in principle, be used
to measure threshold toughness, but there are a number of practical difficulties. They measure
the distance from the original crack tip to the cleavage trigger site and extrapolate to find the
toughness corresponding to zero distance between the crack tip and the cleavage trigger. Recall
Fig. 1, which illustrates that scatter arises from the variable location of the trigger site. The
lowest toughness corresponds to the case in which the microstructural feature that triggers
cleavage is very close to the crack tip. Thus extrapolating a toughness versus distance plot to
zero distance should yield the lowest possible toughness for the material. In practice, however,
such an approach often will not produce the desired results. Note that linear extrapolation of
the data in Fig. 1 would result in a Jc value near zero. Another problem with this approach is
that finding the trigger site on a fracture toughness specimen is difficult and time-consuming,
and the proper identification of the trigger site is subject to differing interpretation of fracto-
graphic evidence.
ANDERSON ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRITTLETRANSITION REGION 207

9 Fracture in the ductile-brittle transition region is complicated by data scatter and specimen
size effects. These two factors are interrelated; therefore, a unified method is required to
analyze fracture toughness data and transfer it to structures. Fracture toughness data should
be corrected for specimen geometry (constraint) effects before applying statistical analysis
to quantify scatter.
9 A stress volume model for cleavage fracture leads to a method for predicting the effect
of crack tip constraint on fracture toughness. This approach can be applied throughout the
transition region, provided ductile crack growth and three-dimensional effects are taken
into account.
9 The weakest link model for cleavage fracture overestimates scatter and predicts zero as
the minimum toughness. Incorporating a conditional probability of propagation into a
statistical model for cleavage results in predictions that are consistent with experimental
observation.
9 Further work is necessary to define the most appropriate statistical distribution for cleavage
data and to develop methods to estimate threshold toughness.
APPENDIX
Micromodeling of Cleavage Propagation

According to Eq 22, the cleavage failure probability depends on both the probability of
initiation and the conditional probability of propagation. We assume that initiation is controlled
by a weakest link mechanism. In this section, we develop a simple micromechanical model to
determine an appropriate description for the conditional probability of cleavage crack propa-
gation, given initiation.
The model assumes that a single grain-sized microcrack forms in the most likely location
ahead of the tip of a macroscopic crack (Fig. 14a). The microcrack is subject to the stress field
that results from the macrocrack. This microcrack either arrests or continues to propagate,
depending on the local stress field and the orientation of surrounding grains. Given an appro-
priate propagation criterion between grains and a description of the stress field, the conditional
probability of propagation can be inferred through Monte Carlo simulation in which the grain
orientation is randomly varied. Because of the number of factors involved and the number of
approximations required, this estimate cannot be used to determine actual arrest values for
particular materials. Rather, it is intended as a first-order approximation of the form of a sta-
tistical distribution of toughness that is jointly controlled by initiation and propagation.
To estimate the effect of a polycrystalline structure, some assumption is needed for the shape
and distribution of the grains. The metal's grains within the plane of fracture are modeled as
uniform hexagons ahead of the precrack tip (see Fig. 14). Fracture is. assumed to occur entirely
within the plane extending from the precrack and perpendicular to the applied load.
Crack Tip Stress Field

The stress field on this fracture plane ahead of the precrack is assumed to be described by
Eq 32, which is based on elastic-plastic finite element analysis [2,3] assuming a Ramberg-
Osgood exponent (n) of ten.
--0.1169
( rg2rs exp ( -5"169r%~
[~yy = 1.801Cry \KZ( 1 _ ba) \K2( 1 _ ha),/ (32)
CRACK FRONT
CRACK FRONT
b
FIG. 14~Initiation and propagation of a cleavage microcrack. In this example, the microcrack
initiates in Grain 0 (a) and propagates into Grain 2 (b). The microcrack arrests at the boundaries
between Grain O, 1, and 3. However, the microcrack may propagate into Grains 1 and 3from Grain
2. (a) Crack initiation in Grain O. (b) Propagation into Grain 2.
This stress distribution is valid from about 2 to 10 times the CTOD. For distances ahead of the
precrack tip less than twice the CTOD, Eq 32 was truncated. The stress actually decreases for
locations closer to the precrack tip, but that is not relevant to the present analysis.
Criterion f o r Crack Extension

Knowledge of the stress over a " l o c a l " area allows the calculation of crack driving forces
at the microscopic level. The criterion for crack extension at the local level is based on the
Griffith model. For the crack to extend into the new grain, the driving force, G, must exceed
the resistance, R. The cleavage microcrack was assumed to propagate rapidly, such that there
was insufficient time for a significant plastic zone to form at the tip. Consequently, the local
driving force was quantified with linear elastic fracture mechanics.
Single-grain microcracks were approximated as circular cracks, whereas cracks encompass-
FIG. 15--Tilt and twist angles encountered by a propagating crack at a grain boundary. (a) Tilt
angle. (b) Twist angle.
ing multiple grains were idealized as elliptical cracks. The stress field (Eq 32), was linearized
over the area of the microcrack. We applied the solution of Shah and Kobayashi [24] to infer
the stress intensity factor for an elliptical crack subject to a linear stress field; K was determined
at various points along the crack front and converted to energy release rate.
The resistance, R, is equal to twice the effective surface energy, % of the crack. The effective
surface energy is altered by the degree of misorientation. The misorientation is taken into
account through a criterion proposed by Gell and Smith [25], who studied the propagation of
single cracks through grain boundaries in a low-carbon 3% silicon iron. They found the twist
angle (Fig. 15b) to be more important than the tilt angle (Fig. 15a) in arresting crack growth
and developed a relationship that can be stated as
G -> 2~/qb2 (33)
where
(34)
The angles qbI and I~)2 a r e the tilt and twist angles, as Fig. 15 illustrates.
Cleavage in a body-centered cubic material Occurs on { 100} planes, which implies that the
maximum values for both qb1 and qb2 is 45 ~ Given the geometrical constraints of three orthog-
onal cleavage planes in a grain, we performed a Monte Carlo simulation on randomly oriented
grains and found that the variation of the overall misorientation factor, qb, was well approxi-
mated by an exponential distribution:
F(~) = 1 - e x p [ _ ( ~ ) ]-q b 1 (35)
Therefore, if G can be calculated for a particular stress and flaw size, and if',/can be reasonably
estimated, then the criterion for crack initiation into the next grain can be written as
2%/ -- sec2 secZ(qb2) (36)
Calculating the Conditional Probability of Propagation

The cleavage microcrack is assumed to propagate forward, that is, away from the macro-
scopic crack. All microcracks are assumed to be orientated perpendicular to the applied load.
In reality this cannot occur, but the cleavage planes of the failed grains will probably be shallow
relative to the plane of propagation in situations where there is a reasonable chance of mis-
orientation arrest.
The probability of arrest then becomes a rather involved sum of various probabilities. For
example, Fig. 14a shows the grain-sized microcrack in the grain labeled 0 with potential growth
into Grains 1, 2, and 3. Certainly, if all three of those grains are sufficiently misoriented to
prevent crack extension, arrest occurs. There are a number of other ways for arrest to occur,
however. The crack could initially extend into only one or two of the immediately adjacent
grains and arrest. Or, after initial extension into Grains 1, 2, or 3, further extension from this
new, larger crack into the new adjacent grains could occur before arrest.
To simplify the analysis, the events were viewed as occurring incrementally. First, at a
particular K, the probability of crack extension into Grains 1, 2, and 3 (see Fig. 14a) was
determined. The probability of certain arrest in this first increment, that is, no propagation into
any of the three grains, was considered the first term in the total arrest probability sum. Because
there are several possible combinations of growth into the adjacent trio of grains, the conditional
probability of arrest for each must be considered and factored into the total. This can become
somewhat complicated, so the initial extension of the crack from Grain 0 into Grain 2 is
discussed as an example.
The elliptical crack consisting of the fractured Grains 0 and 2 (Flaw 02) has Grains 1, 3, 5,
6, and 7 as neighbors (see Fig. 14b). Extension can occur into any of these during the second
increment. The K at the intersections of those grains can again be calculated using Shah and
Kobayashi's equations, then converted to a G and the probability of fracture of each can be
determined. The probabilities of extension into Grains 5, 6, and 7 tend to be low because of
the stress gradient and because K is lower at the major axis of the ellipse. The probability of
extension into Grains 1 or 3 is more complicated than for the others, because they are known
to have survived the initial extension from Grain 0. Thus, they are known to have a relatively
high degree of misorientation. Although the remotely applied K has not changed, extension
can still occur because the " n e w " flaw is larger and the local K is higher. This does not violate
the previous assumption that a blunted crack stays blunted, because growth into Grains 1 and
3 can come from Grain 2 instead of 0.
To account for the known misorientation of Grains 1 and 3 on the probability of extension,
consider a probability density function (PDF) of misorientation, qb, as shown in Fig. 16. From
this first increment of this analysis, the minimum 9 is known to be some constant, A. Suppose
that the second increment applies a G level that results in a minimum qb for survival, B. Then
Z
t~
u. %
v
A B
MISORIENTATION
FIG. 16--Blustration of conditional probability of crack extension for a grain that has a known
degree of misorientation.
the probability of failure is the area under the curve from A to B, divided by the area from A
to infinity. This can be written
F = - -
f
A
~d~
f
A
B
~d~
A (37)
[F(B) - F(A)]
[1 - F(A)]
Therefore, the conditional probability of failure of Grains 1 or 3 at the second increment, given
survival through the first increment is defined.
To infer the probability of arrest of the elliptical Flaw 02, the probability of all of Grains 1,
3, 5, 6, and 7 arresting, given that Flaw 02 forms, is calculated and multiplied by the probability
of Flaw 02 forming. This procedure is repeated for each of the possibilities.
As can be seen, the number of increments that can be considered is infinite, but the pro-
gressive contributions to the total arrest probability become insignificant as the flaw becomes
larger and encounters more neighbors. As might be expected, the most likely arrest event as a
result of misorientation is at the single grain, next is the two-grain pair, and so forth. The
numerical simulations indicated the odds that a group of more than about four cleaved grains
will arrest are very small. Still, because of the number of grains in a sample, some of these
larger groups may form. The total probability of arrest is not significantly affected by ignoring
the arrest of such large flaws.
N u m e r i c a l Estimates o f Ppr
Some assumptions about material properties were needed to make numerical estimates. Yield
strength was assumed to be 350 MPa, and Young's modulus, 206 GPa. Effective surface energy
was assumed to be 50 J/m 2 from Lin et al. [11]. A grain size of 0.025 mm was chosen. Using
those numbers, propagation below 25 MPa-m 1/2 was found to be impossible because of
the stress gradient. The probability of propagation rose quickly and leveled off at about
50 MPa.m le, as Fig. 17 illustrates. The dashed line represents an offset power law fit of the
form
Per = ot(K -- Ko) ~ (38)
where Ko is the threshold toughness and et and 13 are fitting parameters. 7 Equation 26 shows
the resulting statistical distribution when Eq 38 is incorporated.
7 This relationship should not be extrapolated to high K values, because it could lead to probabilities
greater than unity, which is physically impossible.
0,6
"- 0.5
0
.~ = 04
0.3
//
/
13
I
I
0.1 J
r.j o
I
0.0 9 o:/ i f i
20 40 60 80 100
Toughness, K
FIG. 17--Conditional probability of propagation calculated from the micromechanical model.
The dashed curve is an offset power law fit to the numerical results.
Discussion
That the conditional probability of propagation of a given crack is relatively constant at
higher K levels is not surprising if cleavage fracture is viewed as a stress-controlled event. The
maximum stress attained ahead of the crack does not change appreciably as the level of K
increases. The stress gradient relative to the grain does change significantly over a certain range
of K, but becomes relatively fiat at higher K values. Thus the local stress field at length scales
on the order of several grains does not change appreciably with increasing load at high K
values.
Examination of several of the assumptions indicate that this analysis probably underestimates
the likelihood of arrest. For example, the initial microcrack was assumed to be at the point of
highest stress, which is also the point of least likely arrest. Some cracks will initiate at distances
greater than twice the CTOD ahead of the precrack, and those are more likely to arrest.
The uniform size and regular distribution of the grains also lead toward more likely propa-
gation. A more distributed grain size and irregularity in sectioning of the grains would lead
toward a higher grain boundary density and more opportunity for a local arrest. Restricting the
crack to a single plane and ignoring crack branching also makes arrest less likely. The multi-
planar nature of fracture introduces ductile tearing between the planes of cleavage. Such an
effect will be proportional to the extent of the grain boundary encountered by the crack tip.
One way of accounting for this is to include a grain boundary term in the total crack resistance
as
G~ = 2%(I)2 + 2f"/~b
d (39)
where
d = grain boundary diameter,
~/p = the regular effective plastic surface energy,
"yg~ = the effective surface energy as a result of the grain boundary, and
f = the proportion of the boundary contacted
Therefore, crack arrest is more likely than estimated.
Still, the goal of this section was not to determine the precise numerical value for arrest
probability, but to approximate the functional form of the conditional probability of propaga-
tion. Further work is necessary to refine this model and produce more quantitative predictions.
ANDERSON ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRITTLETRANSITION REGION 213
References
[1] Hereens, ~ and Read, D. T., "Fracture Behavior of a Pressure Vessel Steel in the Ductile-to-Brittle
Transition Region," NISTIR 88-3099, National Institute for Standards and Technology, Boulder,
CO, Dec. 1988.
[2] Anderson, T. L. and Doods, R. H., Jr., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 19, 1991, pp.
123-134.
[3] Doods, R. H. Jr., Anderson T. L., and Kirk, M. T., " A Framework of Correlate a/W Effects on
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness (Jr)," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 88, 1991, pp. 1-
22.
[4] Anderson, T. L., Vanaparthy, N. M. R., and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "Predictions of Specimen Size Depen-
dence on Fracture Toughness for Cleavage and Ductile Tearing," Constraint Effects in Fracture,
ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for
[5] Stienstra, D. I. A., "Stochastic Micromechanical Modeling of Cleavage Fracture in the Ductile-
Brittle Transition Region," Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, Aug.
1990.
[6] Anderson, T. L. and Stienstra, D., " A Model to Predict the Sources and Magnitude of Scatter in
Toughness Data in the Transition Region," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 17, 1989, pp.
46-53.
[7] Ritchie, R. O., Knott, J. F., and Rice, J. R. "On the Relationship between Critical Tensile Stress and
Fracture Toughness in Mild Steel," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 21, 1973,
pp. 395-410.
[8] Curry D. A. and Knott, J. F., "Effect of Microstmcture on Cleavage Fracture Toughness in Mild
Steel," Metal Science, Vol. 13, 1979, pp. 341-345.
[9] Wallin, K., Saario, T., and TrrrOnen, K., "Statistical Model for Carbide Induced Brittle Fracture in
Steel," Metal Science, Vol. 18, 1984, pp. 13-16.
[10] Beremin, F. M., " A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel,"
Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 14A, 1983, pp. 2277-2287.
[11] Lin, T., Evans, A. G., and Ritchie, R. O., "Statistical Model of Brittle Fracture by Transgranular
Cleavage," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 34, 1986, pp. 477-496.
[12] Hutchinson, J. W., "Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening Material,"
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vot. 16, 1968, pp. 13-31.
Hardening Material," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
[14] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "Simple Constraint Corrections for Subsize Fracture Tough-
ness Specimens," in Small Specimen Test Technique Applied to Nuclear Reactor Vessel Thermal
Annealing and Plant Life Extension, ASTM STP 1204, W. R. Couvin, F. M. Haggag, and W. L.
Server, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 93-105.
[15] Sorem, W. A., "The Effect of Specimen Size and Crack Depth on the Elastic-Plastic Fracture Tough-
ness of a Low-Strength High-Strain Hardening Steel," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS, May 1989.
[16] Sumpter, J. D. G., "An Experimental Investigation of the T Stress Approach," Constraint Effects in
Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., American Society
[17] Kirk, M. T., Koppenhoeffer, K. C., and Shih, C. F., "Effect of Constraint on Specimen Dimensions
Needed to Obtain Structurally Relevant Toughness Measures," Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM
STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., American Society for Testing and
[18] Miglin, M. T., Oberjohn, L. A., and Van Der Sluys, W. A., "Analysis of Results from the MPC/
JSPS Round Robin Testing Program in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Region," in this volume,
pp. 342-354.
[19] Wallin, K., "The Effect of Ductile Tearing on Cleavage Fracture Probability in Fracture Toughness
Testing," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, 1989, pp. 523-531.
[20] Narasimhan, R. and Rosakis A. J., "Three Dimensional Effects Near a Crack Tip in a Ductile Three
Point Bend Specimen--Part I: A Numerical Investigation," Report SM 88-6, California Institute of
Technology, Division of Engineering and Applied Science, Pasadena, CA, Jan. 1988.
[21] Wallin, K., "Statistical Aspects of Constraint with Emphasis on Testing and Analysis of Laboratory
Specimens in the Transition Region," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M.
Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
[22] Iwadate, T. and Yokobori, T., "Evaluation of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness Testing in the
Transition Region Through Japanese Inteflaboratory Tests," in this volume, pp. 233-263.
[23] Watanabe, J., Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Yokobori, T., and Ando, K., "Fracture T6ughness in the
Transition Region," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28, 1987, pp. 589-600.
[24] Shah, R. C. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Stress Intensity Factor for an Elliptical Crack Under Arbitrary
Normal Loading," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 3, 1971, pp. 71-96.
[25] Gell, M. and Smith, E., "The Propagation of Cracks Through Grain Boundaries in Polycrystalline
3% Silicon Iron," Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 15, 1967, pp. 253-258.
D o n a l d E. M c C a b e , 1 J. G. Merkle, 2 a n d R. K. N a n s t a d 1
A Perspective on Transition Temperature and

Koc Data Characterization*
REFERENCE: McCabe, D. E., Merkle, J. G., and Nanstad, R. K., " A Perspeetive on Tran-
sition Temperature and K I c Data Characterization," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth
Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D: Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 215-232.
ABSTRACT: Proper identification of the transition temperature and the shape of the lower-
bound (K~c) fracture toughness curve in the transition range has been a long-term objective of
work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A past practice has been to test a large number of
specimens of varying sizes, from 1/2 to 8T compacts, in expectation that size effects and statistical
variability of Kjr could be resolved empirically. Recently, statistical and constraint-based models
have been developed that purport to explain much of what has been seen. Weakest-link theory
has been successfully used to predict specimen size effects for the lower part of the transition
curve. Constraint-based models of 13c - ~ l e and Jssy(small-scale yield) also can model size effects,
but these tend to conflict among themselves with regard to the prediction of full constraint KIn.
All lack potential for defining the absolute lower bound of fracture toughness. Statistically based
models have the benefit of quantifying data scatter characteristics and provide a basis for making
lower-bound toughness estimates with assigned error estimates. The appropriate characterization
of transition temperature is of value in industrial problems and is of particular importance to the
nuclear industry where safety issues are involved. Here the Kjc data are obtained from small
specimens, the size of which is dictated by volume limitations of surveillance capsule size. A
basis has been explored for establishing a lower-envelope curve from such data.
KEYWORDS: transition temperature, Weibull, weakest link, size effects, statistics, constraint,
fracture mechanics
The procedures for measuring the plane-strain fracture toughness, K~c, of metals were orig-
inally developed for relatively high-yield-strength materials, which generally are not strain-rate
sensitive. Values of fracture toughness measured with geometrically similar specimens were
consistently observed to decrease with increasing specimen thickness, approaching an asymp-
totic minimum value. This behavior was attributed to the development of through-thickness
tensile stresses, and the consequent elevation of the hydrostatic stress in the crack tip plastic
zone, caused by the restraint against transverse contraction created by enforced compatibility
with the surrounding elastic material. For fracture in the linear elastic range of the load-dis-
' Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 4500S MS6151, PO Box 2008, Oak
Ridge, TN 37831-6151.
2 Engineering Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, 9200-1, MS8009,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6151.
* Research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission, under Interagency Agreement DOE 1886-8011-9B with the U.S. Department of Energy under
Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. "The submitted manuscript
has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under Contract DE-AC05-84OR214000.
Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the
published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes."
215
placement curve, this behavior was controlled to obtain toughness values close to the lower
asymptote by specifying specimen dimensions sufficiently large with respect to the plastic zone
size at fracture. However, in the case of structural and pressure vessel steels, it is not always
possible to test specimens large enough for fracture to occur under dominant linear-elastic
conditions. Therefore, in these cases, the effects of large-scale yielding before fracture cannot
be avoided, and because there is no analytical explanation, they are being treated empirically.
The empirical treatments of size effects on fracture toughness are of two types, statistical
and phenomenological. The statistical treatments are based on the assumed existence of small-
scale inhomogeneities that control the initiation of cleavage fracture. The resulting parameters
are not entirely independent of temperature, and, for accuracy, the procedures may require
more than the available number of specimens. Phenomenological approaches are based on the
knowledge that yielding precedes the occurrence of cleavage microcracks and that the tensile
ductility increases with decreasing hydrostatic stress. In addition, it is assumed that the hydro-
static stress decreases as the crack-tip plastic zone size increases with respect to the distance
to a free surface.
Early observations of size effects were made with center-cracked and edge-cracked plates,
center-notched spin disks, notched beams, and circumferentially notched round bars. Using
circumferentially notched round bar data to estimate Kic, Irwin [1 ] developed the following
empirical equation based on the parameter 13~cto estimate size effects in planar specimen data:
13c = 13io + 1.4133 (1)
where
[3 = (1/B)(K/cry,):,
B = specimen thickness, and
(~ys = material 0.2% yield strength.
The notched round specimen was not adopted for general use because of problems concern-
ing precracking, eccentricity, machine load capacity, and analysis. Instead, planar specimens
loaded primarily in bending were found most practical, and size effects were avoided, at least
for high yield strength low toughness materials, by applying conservative specimen size
requirements.
The early approach taken in the testing of structural steels was to use only valid Kic values
and to define the rising part of the transition curve so as to characterize the lower envelope of
the fracture toughness data scatter. Specimen size requirements were difficult to satisfy, and
data scatter among replicate tests was found to be about two to three times greater than that
for ultrahigh strength materials. As a consequence, numerous tests were required in the critical
temperature range of rising toughness where transition temperature is defined. Also, prohibi-
tively large specimens were required. The ASME Kic design curve [2] shown in Fig. 1 serves
as the primary example for such an approach. Note that the critical rising toughness part of the
transition range is defined with very few test results. Most of the data shown are considerably
above the lower-envelope Kzr curve. Despite its tentative basis, the lower-bound curve shape,
once hand-drawn and now mathematically approximated, is used in design and operation of
nuclear reactors. In application, this curve is assumed to be of fixed shape for all pressure vessel
steels and their weldments and is translated on the temperature axis for irradiation damage
effects using a reference temperature shift measurement, z~tRTNDT,based on the ASTM Standard
Practice for Conducting Surveillance Tests for Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor
Vessles (E 185).
A more recent approach to dealing with materials that display transition behavior is focused
on the application of statistical modeling of data, such that specimen size effects and data
McCABE ET AL. ON TRANSITION TEMPERATURE 217
200
'1 ' ' ' ' I''' '1''''1'''' I''''1''''
9 HSST-O2
'f75
-- 9 A508 CLASS 2 / --
o HSST-O4 SUBARC WELD /

450 -- n A5558 CLASS 4 SUBARC WELD 9 / --
9 A5338 CLASS 4 WELD | /

Z~ A5358 WELD HAZ / __
t25 i
0 " O: 0 // __
] 400
o
75 ~" 9 ~1
i.'/ " --
, , ;Y
o _
50
25 _ 9 Kic = :55.2 + 2 . 8 0 6 exp [0.02 ( T - RTND r + 4OOOF)] __
0 ,l,,,,li,,,l,,,,l,,,,l,,,,l, I I
- 450 - 400 -50 0 50 400 45O
T - RTNDT(~
FIG. 1--K~c data and lower-bound K~c curve fit to data.
scatter characteristics can be quantified. On the other hand, the practice of data censoring in
the spirit of the valid Kit tradition is continuing, but Kic is being set aside in favor of more
relaxed specimen size requirements. These new approaches are explored here.
Constraint Adjustments
Constraint models suggest that the phenomenon of high data scatter and specimen size effects
observed in the transition range comes from an entirely different mechanism than the previously
mentioned statistical models. The working hypothesis is that departure from the classical behav-
ior of low data scatter and clear definition of lower-bound toughness observed with ultrahigh
strength materials stems from loss of constraint. These models, therefore, collapse data scatter
and predict that there will be lowered toughness with large specimens.
Three closed-form equations have been proposed for adjusting small specimen fracture
toughness data to estimate constraint effects. Irwin's 13~cadjustment [1 ],
K~--KI~%/1 + 1.413~z~ (2)
and a similar equation proposed by Hagiwara [3 ],
K~
K~o i
(3)
/1 + a.3v~
x/
are empirically based adjustments for thickness effects. Hagiwara's model was based on data
from a structural steel whereas Irwin's was based on data from ultrahigh strength materials.
An equation for the toughness versus constraint relationship that was developed by Wallin [4],
based on finite-element analyses of Anderson and Dodds [5] for a steel of Ramberg-Osgood
work hardening exponent n = 10, is given as follows:
J/Jssy = 1 + 176(J/BOrys)l'37 (4)
Unlike the models of Eqs 2 and 3, Eq 4 is an elastic-plastic type of adjustment for loss of
in-plane constraint, based on two-dimensional plane-strain finite-element calculations. Figure
2, adapted from a plot by Wallin [6], shows a comparison of the three-constraint adjustment
methods mentioned above. The Dodds-Anderson-based curve of Eq 4 was calculated for Cry,
= 517 MPa. A fourth curve is added by changing the coefficient in Eq 2 from 1.4 to 0.224.
This corresponds to changing the linear elastic fracture mechanics validity criterion from [31c
= 0.4 to [3~c = 1.0 [7]. For a range of 13c up to [gJ~ys~v/B) ~ 8], the two original thickness-
based adjustments of Irwin and Hagiwara reduce the toughness considerably more than the
Dodds-Anderson in-plane adjustment. The modified Irwin adjustment curve lies close to the
Dodds-Anderson curve until the latter curve passes through a maximum, with probably no
physical significance, just beyond a recommended limit of J[Js~y = 4. Figure 2 implies that as
material toughness increases, constraint loss as a result of through-thickness contraction adds
significantly to that caused by in-plane effects. Figure 3 compares the predicted fracture tough-
ness versus specimen size trend for the three models. All were applied to a baseline Kc toughness
of 124.8 MPa.m 1/2 determined using a 1/2T compact specimen. The lack of agreement is
evident.
4p-Ij/" / ~HAGIWARAK,.=K,, /.A+2-~3 (K__~
,-
O ~
0 5 t0 t5 20
KC/~y ,,,/~
FIG. 2~Relationship between partial constraint and full constraint toughness values for four
proposed models.
McCABE ET AL. ON TRANSITION TEMPERATURE 21 9
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I

460 t '
BASELINE : 4/2TCT
Kjc = t 24.8 M Po
dssy
t00
MOD.~-Bxc -
Kc (M PoV"m)
8O
, HAGIWARA
60 - ~c-/3xc
40
20 -
0 i l , I I I I I J I I I
0 2T
4T 6T 8T tOT q2T
SPECIMEN SIZE
FIG. 3--Predicted fracture tou~
ghness trends as a function of specimen thickness (size).
Two- and Three-Dimensional Analyses
The development of practical procedures for quantifying constraint effects in the transition
range is hampered by the lack of a proven general criterion for cleavage microcrack instability
under multiaxial stress in the plastic zone just ahead of a crack tip. The problem is compounded
by the difficulty of performing accurate three-dimensional (3-D) elastic-plastic stress analyses
near crack tips, especially considering the need to include finite strains and crack tip blunting
to avoid calculating unrealistically high stresses. The mechanism by which constraint near a
crack tip develops or relaxes has never been precisely described, but it is closely related to the
fact that the sum of the principal plastic strains at a point must be zero and that not much plastic
strain occurs in the direction of the intermediate principal stress unless it is equal to the minor
principal stress. Near the surface of a through-cracked specimen the through-thickness stress
is the minor principal stress, and dimples in the surface within the plastic zone just ahead of
the crack tip provide sure evidence of the negative plastic strains required to accommodate
crack opening. However, in the mid-plane of the specimen, if the through-thickness stress is
the intermediate principal stress, most of the negative plastic strain required to accommodate
crack opening occurs in the forward direction, but this time accompanied by an elevation of
the hydrostatic stress, especially if a neutral axis instead of a free surface is being approached.
Eventually, as load increases, the through-thickness stress across the mid-plane becomes the
minor principal stress, through-thickness contraction occurs more easily, and constraint is lost.
For conditions under which the through-thickness principal stress across the mid-plane near
the crack tip is the intermediate principal stress, a two-dimensional (2-D) elastic-plastic analysis
may adequately describe the variation of constraint with load. On this basis, Anderson and
Dodds [5] performed plane-strain finite-element analyses of notched beams with a/W ratios of
0.05, 0.15, and 0.50 and using a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation. Small-scale yielding
analyses of a circular domain containing an edge crack, loaded on its outer boundary by the
displacements corresponding to linear elastic fracture mechanics Mode I loading were also
performed. In-plane relief of constraint in the beams were described by curves, for given values
of a/W and n, relating J to Jssy, where J is the value of the J integral for the beam that produces
the same area within a selected principal stress contour near the crack tip as does the smaller
value of Jssy in the small-scale yielding analysis. For aCry/J > 200, where O'y is material flow
stress, it was observed that J/Jssy is close to unity, varying from about 1.05 for n = 5 to 1.25
for n = 50.
A 3-D analysis of a notched beam performed by Narasimhan and Rosakis [8] was used by
Anderson and Dodds to confirm the recommendation of
B, b, a -> 200(JJOry) (5)
as a criterion for specimen dimensions sufficient to ensure relative size independence of cleav-
age fracture toughness.
The beam analyzed by Narasimhan and Rosakis had a thickness of 1 cm, a crack depth of
3 cm, a ligament length of 4.6 cm, and a span of 30.5 cm. The material was a high-strength
4340 steel with a yield stress of 1030 MPa and a strain-hardening exponent of 22. Because the
ligament was thin relative to its length (B/b = 0.217), through-thickness constraint probably
began to decrease at a relatively low fraction of the limit load. Nevertheless, Anderson and
Dodds [5] made use of the calculated in-plane stress distributions on the assumption that
deformation at the mid-plane remained in plane strain. Narasimhan and Rosakis calculated the
three principal stresses versus position from the specimen mid-plane at distances from the crack
tip ranging from 0.005 to 0.565 times the specimen thickness, for loads equal to 0.45, 0.7, and
1.0 times the calculated limit load. Anderson and Dodds selected one curve of opening mode
stress versus lateral distance for each load, choosing distances of 1.56, 2.81, and 4.01 times the
mid-plane crack-tip-opening displacement for the three loads, respectively, and normalizing
the stresses by the mid-plane values. For each load, Anderson and Dodds calculated the param-
eter B Cry/J, where Cry is the flow stress, based on the Narasimhan and Rosakis plane-strain
calculated values of bCryJJ, where b is ligament length and ~y, is yield stress. The successive
values of B%/J were 235, 103, and 26.3 Because the normalized opening mode stress for the
two lower loads was judged to be sufficiently fixed through at least 40% of the thickness of
the specimen, the proposed size criterion of 200 J/cry was judged to be confirmed. Later, recal-
culation of the Bcry/J values based on the Narasimhan and Rosakis 3-D calculations of J pro-
duced lower values, with the highest being lower than 200, thus rendering the proposed criterion
more conservative.
The assumption of plane strain at the mid-plane of the Narasimhan and Rosakis beams was
apparently based on a close comparison between the angular variation of the near-tip in-plane
stresses at all loads with that calculated from the plane-strain Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren
(HRR) solution, plus agreement between 3-D and plane-strain calculated values of opening
mode stress at the mid-plane ahead of the crack tip. However, further examination of the
Narasimhan and Rosakis analysis shows that the through-thickness principal stress at the chosen
reference distance is the intermediate principal stress at only the lowest of the three loads
considered and becomes the minor principal stress for the two higher loads. The through-
thickness strains can also be estimated by using the equations of the deformation theory of
plasticity. The plastic through-thickness strains are always negative, whereas the elastic strains
start out positive. The former generally increase with load, but the latter decrease and eventually
become negative as limit load is approached. Thus, the in-plane stresses at the mid-plane may
be close to plane strain values, but the through-thickness stress and the hydrostatic stress are
not necessarily so. Thus, if ductility and toughness are sensitive to hydrostatic stress, then
constraint in small specimens loaded by necessity to fracture in the elastic-plastic range is likely
to be significantly affected by 3-D effects.
The possibility that the through-thickness principal stress near the crack tip may change from
being the intermediate to the minor principal stress as load increases is not completely proven
by the above observations. This is because the reference distances chosen by Anderson and
Dodds were increasing multiples of the crack-tip-opening displacement as load increased, and
the analyses being examined were small-strain analyses. At fixed distances from the crack
tip, the order of the principal stresses did not change. The through-thickness stress, a=, is always
the intermediate t~2 at r/B = 0.005 and is always tr 3 and r/B = 0.125. Thus, the through-
thickness principal stress is the intermediate principal stress only close to the crack tip, and
how the order of the principal stresses changes with load in this region needs to be more
completely examined with incremental large strain calculations.
Statistical Methods
In the early 1970s, Landes and Shaffer [9] introduced a statistically based discipline for the
evaluation of transition range Jc data that uses all the test information and is not limited by
having to satisfy validity requirements for pure plane-strain constraint. Instead, J integral at the
onset of cleavage crack instability, Jc, is determined and used to define statistical distributions
for replicated data sets of fracture toughness. The Weibull cumulative frequency distribution
function is used to fit these Jc distributions. In addition, the experimentally observed tendency
for large specimens to have lower mean toughness than smaller ones was noted and a weak-
link statistical theory was incorporated to explain the trend. Initially, a two-parameter Weibull
function of the following form was used:
PI = 1 - e x p [ - ( J / 0 ) ~] (6)
where
PI = probability that a sample specimen selected from a population will have Jr toughness
less than or equal to J,
b = Weibull slope, and
0 = toughness scale factor (J at PI = 0.632).
The weak-link size effect was incorporated in the form of the operator on the scale factor,
0, as follows:
Jo = O/(Bx/Bo) b (7)
where
J0 replaces 0 in Eq 6,
Bx = thickness of Jc prediction and
Bo = thickness of test specimens used to determine the Weibull constants.
It was later recognized that the two-parameter Weibull model had no lower bound for tough-
ness prediction as thickness Bx approached infinity. In a follow-up paper by Landes and McCabe
[10], three-parameter Weibull was introduced. Here, the value of J in Eq 6 is replaced with (J
-- Jmin), and 0 with (0 - Jmin), SO that Jo is redefined as:
Jo = (0 - Jmi.)/(BJBo) lib (8)
In this case, J will approach Jm:, as P: approaches zero. All three parameters can be established
from experimental data by ranking data according to increased values of toughness and then
assigning probability values derived from statistical ranking formulas (see the following sec-
tion). These values are then converted into Weibull variables via the following transformations:
Y = l n [ - l n ( 1 - P)] (9a)
X = ln(J~ - Jmin) (9b)
The best linear fit to these data is made through the use of Jr~o as an independent variable.
Example cases were worked [10] with partial success. However, these example determinations
usually had only a few replicate test data and the sensitivity needed to develop accurate Jmin
determinations was not available at that time.
Follow-up work by Wallin [11,12] incorporated many more data sets and far more data
replications. Because of this, the author was able to identify some interesting properties of such
data populations. The toughness parameter of choice was Kjc, which, for elastic-plastic con-
ditions, is a stress intensity factor derived from Jc via "k/JcE. In Eqs 6 through 8 above, K
replaces J and the Weibull constants differ accordingly. It appeared that the Weibull slope
tended to be a constant value near 4, and an apparently constant Kmin value of near 20
MPa.m ~/2 was obtained through a sensitivity study. These constants were found to work
suitably over a range of specimen sizes and test temperatures.
There are two major advantages to having two predetermined constant Weibull parameters.
One is that the scale factor is the only unknown to be determined from test data, and, in this
case, relatively few specimens are required to make an accurate determination. The second
advantage is that single toughness determinations can be transposed from one specimen size
to another because weakest-link theory reduces to the following simple relationship:
Kjcx = 20 + (K,co - 20)(ncnx) TM (10)
where
Kjcx = predicted Kjc for specimen of thickness, Bx, and
Kjco = toughness of specimen of thickness, B o.
Probability Functions
To make a direct estimate of the parameter, P:, for a chosen cumulative probability function
that best describes the variability of a given set of data, it is first necessary to assign an estimated
cumulative probability to each data value. In principle, this step could be avoided by using
nonlinear curve-fitting procedures to fit a probability density function to the histogram of data.
However, it is usually much more convenient to linearize graphically or analytically the rela-
tionship between cumulative probability and the variable, in which case estimated cumulative
probabilities are required. There are two mathematical bases for estimating cumulative prob-
ability for ordered data. The first is an approach based on expected values [13], which leads to
the formula:
P: = i/(N + 1) (11)
where N is the number of values in the data set and i is the order number counting from the
smallest to the largest. The second approach is based on the recognition that any one sample
of N numbers is only one of an infinite number of such samples [14]. To have equal probabilities
of over- or underestimating cumulative probabilities, an equation for determining median prob-
abilities has been derived [14,15]. The equation is somewhat complicated, but can be closely
approximated by the following formula [15,16]:
PI = (i - 0.3)/(N + 0.4) (12)
Other approximate formulas of the same form exist [17]. Equation 12 has been selected for use
in a draft transition range standard submitted to ASTM Task Group E24.08.08.
Weibull Model Fitting

The ideal example of fitting data with the two fixed parameters of slope = 4 and K~. = 20
MPa.m ~/2 is shown in Fig. 4 for 2T compact specimens of A 533 grade B steel tested in the
mid-transition and on the lower shelf. Another example that covers specimen size effects is
shown in Fig. 5. These examples essentially confirm Wallin's observation that fracture tough-
ness data distributions are of fixed shape (that is, fixed Weibull slope). It should be understood,
however, that occasionally some data sets may not fit the prescribed slope well using these two
constants, but such departures seldom develop in a pattern or have consistency of occurrence
such that an alternate or more suitable model can be suggested.
Recently, experiments with large numbers of replicate tests have been run to verify the results
of earlier sensitivity studies. Previously, Monte Carlo techniques had been used to generate
I I I I I I
EL
0
AS,.33B 2TCT Spectmen$
A -75~
[ ] -150~
Slope=4, Kmln=20 HPaV'rn J
I
I
I
c-
-2
-3
-4 I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In ( Kjc- Kmlr,)
FIG. 4--Weibull plots of K~c data for 2T compact specimens of A 533 grade B tested at two
temperatures.
I I I I I
I -
A535B S t e e l , - 7 5 ~
/~ I / 2 T C T
0 4TCT
Slope=4, Kmtn=20 MPa~m
0 m
Q.
I
_= - !
I
c
-2 m
-3 m
Z~
-4 I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I n { K j c - K m l n)
FIG. 5--Weibull plots for Kjc data for 1/2T and 4T compact specimens of A 533 grade B tested
at -75~ Weibull slope = 4 and Kml, = 20 MPA "m1/2.
artificially the data needed to establish the two fixed Weibull parameters. Instead of obtaining
clear experimental confirmation, a puzzling pattern was observed. Data at the low toughness
end of a distribution tended to drop down from the fixed slope of 4 as illustrated in Fig. 6.
These data came from a Materials Properties Council round-robin activity [18] involving 13
laboratories that tested 1T compact specimens of an A 508 steel at three temperatures ( - 100,
- 7 5 , and -50~ Seven laboratories, each of which tested five replicates, contributed to Fig.
6. The dropoff was observed at all three test temperatures to varying degrees. To prove that
the pattern was not due to bias from a single laboratory, the one participant that produced the
lowest ranked toughness Kjc value was singled out and evaluated alone (Fig. 7). The dropoff
was not evident in this data set. The medium K~c for this laboratory's data was 157.7
MPa.ml/% and the grand median over all laboratories was 159.7 MPa-m~/L
The next evaluation tried was to view original data as a histogram. Data at - 5 0 ~ were
selected to compare with the density function curve from the Weibull fit (Fig. 8). The histogram
suggests that the data tend to cluster somewhat in the low-toughness region, displaying less of
a " t a i l " than in the high-toughness region. The conclusion drawn from this was that there is
an influence of real material lower-bound toughness than appears only in large data sets. Current
evidence suggests that the physical lower bound is greater than the mathematical constant K~in
of 20 MPa-m 1/2that works well in Weibull fitting. Therefore, it appears that the three-parameter
Weibull distribution function can be fitted to the dominant portion of Kjc data, but the clustering
observed in the lower tail of a statistically well-defined data distribution cannot be modeled.
I I I I I 1
HPC Round Robin |

[] Kmln=20 MPa*V"
FIT
H o t e r l a l Code=A508 ]
Slze=l T J
Temperature=-75 ~
r Welbul I Slope=4 J
I
uC
-3
[]
-4
[]
-5 I 1 I I I I
l 2 3 4 5 6
In(Kjc-Krnln)
FIG. 6---Weibull plot for data from MPC round robin activity. Seven laboratories tested five 1T
compact specimens each at -75~
2 I I I I I I
LAB A LOWEST DATUM ,

I -- ..[]FITKmIn:20 MP~ 1
0 JHoterl~ Code=ABOB I
J Slze=l T J
I Temperoture=-75 oCI
-! J Welbull Slope=4 ]
_c
Jc . - 2
-,3
-4
-5 I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
t n ( K J c - K m l n)
FIG. 7--Weibull fit to the data from the laboratory that reported the lowest Kjc value, 1T compact
specimens of A 508 tested at -75~
0.08
I I I I I I
MATERIAL CODE = A508
SIZE = t T
TEMPERATURE = -500C
0.06 WEIBULL SLOPE = 4
Kme d = 2 4 6 . 2
0.04
0.02
0
0 t00
I 200 300 4OO
Kj= (MPa '~ ,v/'m")
I
5O0
I
6O0 700
FIG. 8--Weibull probability density function compared to histogram of Kjc data for MPC round
robin data taken at -50~
Crack Growth Correction

Slow-stable crack growth before the onset of cleavage cracking is, for various hypothetical
reasons, reputed to cause a disruption of the local crack-tip stress field. Ostensibly, the pro-
pensity for onset of cleavage fracture is changed from that of a specimen with a nongrowing
crack. One argument has an empirical basis, suggesting that the propensity for cleavage crack-
ing is reduced by loss of crack tip constraint as a result of cross-slip deformation. The result
is a sharp drop in Weibull slope as seen in Fig. 9.
Statistical models, on the other hand, consider the extra volume of material that is introduced
to cleavage activation level stresses by the advancing crack tip. Weakest-link theory suggests
that the key elements are crack advancement distance and the size of the zone at the crack tip
of high stress that is a linear function of plastic zone development. The first model, developed
by Bruckner and Munz [19], incorporate R-curve effects with some complexity. Wallin [20]
has produced a simplified correction factor defined as follows:
Corr. = [1 + (2Aacr~)/('yK~c)]TM (13)
Parameter ~/is a normalized length factor that is related to the distance from the crack tip to
the point of maximum stress ahead of the tip. The correction factor is applied as a multiplying
factor to Eq 10 in an identical manner as the weakest-link theory for specimen thickness.
Kjcx = 20 + [Kjco - 20](Bo/Bx)~/4[1 + (2AacrZy)/('yK2c)]I/4 (14)
2
I I I I I/ I
11 SOREM DATA
A36 STEEL AT-430C
t~"Bxt"W SENB
[]
~C [] Cl
/J
CRACK GROWTH 1
9 NO CRACK GROWTH
(~- --t --
!
C --2 --
--5 --
-4 --
!
-5 I I I I I I
0 t 2 3 4 5 6 7
I n(Kdc-Kmi n)
FIG. 9--Weibull plot of Kjc data for A 36 steel tested at -43 ~ Open data points have slow-
stable crack growth before instability.
Data Adjustment Practice

Physical evidence was presented in Fig. 9 that crack growth has altered the cleavage fracture
behavior of A 36 steel bend bars. Several data sets of other materials that suffered intermediate
onset of stable ductile crack growth have been similarly evaluated, but these did not show a
change of Weibull slope. This apparent contradiction can be explained by combining the two
known Kjc data correction computations (see also Ref 4). Each datum can be adjusted by
applying Eq 4 for in-plane constraint loss and Eq 14 for weakest link effect. To illustrate, data
were taken from the Heavy-Section Steel Irradiation (HSSI) Program Fifth Irradiation Series
[21], which were ideal for this evaluation because there were both variable specimen sizes (1T,
2T, 4T, 6T, and 8T) and test temperatures ( - 7 5 , - 5 0 , - 3 0 , - 15, - 5 , 0, and 5~ The tests
made above - 15~ gave data points for an R-curve based on Kjc data and slow stable growth
to instability (see Table 1 and Fig. 10). Adjustments for constraint and for crack growth were
applied to each datum according to the above-stated order with the results being as shown in
Fig. 11. The net result in this case is that the competing mechanisms of in-plane constraint loss
and increased samplng volume tend to cancel each other out. Therefore, if both adjustment
models are accurate, it would seem that data with crack growth can be accepted as sufficiently
accurate without adjustment, for many cases.
On the other hand, there can be circumstances in which one of the two competing mecha-
nisms is absent. For example, the constraint adjustment can be applied below the J~c toughness
level and there will be no cancellation as a result of crack growth. However, as illustrated in
Fig. 11, when the constraint adjustment is applied in the absence of stable crack growth, the
TABLE 1--Example calculations of combined constraint and crack growth corrections applied to Kjc
data for unirradiated A 533 grade B weld metal.
Kjc, MPa.m ~/2
-30oc - 15oC -5~

Compact
Specimen Before Aa, After Before Aa, After Before Aa, After
Size Correction mm Correction Correction mm Correction Correction mm Correction
1T 128.3 0.09 129.4 153.3 0.10 148.1

173.8 0.17 166.0 246.1 0.55 216.3
2T 118.8 0.08 126.4 143.6 0.15 154.3 147.1 0 140.8
127.4 0 123.6 165.9 0.19 174.7 214.8 0.33 217.2
4T 113.1 0 112.1 105.8 0 105.1 174.9 0.15 184.2
176.6 0.18 187.3 156.6 0.14 167.8 221.4 0.45 241.6
Weibull slope is increased to an artificially high level. Such a slope change is almost never
seen experimentally in tests with large specimens. Alternatively, very large specimens can be
tested at high temperatures, where there will be crack growth under essentially small-scale
deformation, in which case the crack growth adjustment is applied in the absence of counter-
acting constraint loss. Hence, the value of adjustment practices in their current state of devel-
opment is not known.
300 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . . ' . . . . . ~ . . . .
7~V'-UNI]CR.ADIAT]CD i
5TH IRRADIATION SERIES i

250 ........................................................................................
i........................................................................................................................................
i...................
(5 ...........
i~ .,'X
KI zx
i " O ITCT
i00 .........................................................;.............................
.................................................................................................... ~ 2TCT .............................
L~ 4 T C T
i
O 6TCT
i i! i i
00 0.I 0.2 0.3 0,4 0.5 0.6
BAp - m m
FIG. lO---Resistance curve developed from Kjc data over several specimen sizes for HSSI Fifth
Irradiation Series. Unirradiated weld metal 73W at several different temperatures.
McCABEETAL. ONTRANSITIONTEMPERATURE 229
I 1 I 1 I I
A533B WELD M E T A L -15~ I OO~

Data Treatment
[] No Correction
0 Constraint Only
9 Constraint & /Sap Corr. I 0~[]
D. 0
I
-2
-3 I I I I I I
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7
I nfKJc-Kml n)
FIG. 11--Weibull plots for HSSI Fifth Irradiation Series unirradiated weld metal 73W, with no
corrections, a correction for constraint only, and corrections for both constraint and stable crack
growth.
Lower-Bound T o u g h n e s s by Statistical M e t h o d s
The ASME lower-envelope K~ccurve in Fig. 1 has been in use for many years in setting safe
operating limits for reactor vessels and for safety assessments in hypothetical accident scenarios.
This curve has been widely accepted, despite the fact that no precise statistical significance has
been established for the location of the lower bound. A set of data similar to that of Fig. 1 has
been developed under well-controlled conditions in the HSSI Fifth Irradiation Series, such that
a good illustrative demonstration of statistical methods could be made. Specimens of A 533
grade B weld metal covering a wide range of compact specimen sizes and a consistent pattern
of test temperature were used. These data had been shown [21] to be either on or above the
ASME lower-bound curve. Nevertheless, it was of interest to use the data again to see what
the currently available statistically based working theories indicate. The following theories will
be used:
1. Data obtained from various specimen sizes can be transposed to a 1T compact specimen
size equivalence, using Eq 10.
2. The three-parameter Weibull distribution function with fixed slope of 4 and fixed Kmi. of
20 MPa'm '~ is used to fit data populations for each test temperature.
3. A master curve developed by Wallin [22] will be used to model the trend of medium Kjc
values over all test temperatures. The master curve is defined by the following equation:
Km~ = 30 + 70 exp[0.019(T - To)] (15)
where To is the characteristic temperature defined a t gjc(med ) : 100 MPa.m 1/2. The above
positioning of the Kjc median transition curve based on To is much the same as the posi-
tioning of the lower-bound KIc curve based on the RTNDT temperature.
4. The standard deviation of a data population is known to be a function of the Weibull
slope and the median toughness Kjc. When the Weibull slope is 4 and Km,, = 20
MPa.m m, the standard deviation is
= 0.28gjc(med)[1 -- 20/gje(mea)] (16)
The standard normal deviate for one tail of a distribution at 95% confidence is 1.64.
These four relationships, applied to the HSSI Fifth Irradiation Series data, produce the result
shown in Fig. 12. The particular lower-bound curve shown in Fig. 12 seems to have the correct
position and curve shape for a 95% confidence fit. Wallin [22] and Stienstra [16] have shown
equally good results with other data available in the literature. The ASME lower-bound curve,
shown for comparison, tends to be the same up to the mid-transition, but tends to be less
conservative as the upper shelf is approached.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to provide a perspective on the transition range fracture
toughness data evaluation concepts that have been developed in recent years. Data evaluation
for lower-bound toughness determination is no longer restricted by having to meet K~c validity
350
I I t"J I I I I I
0 0
300
(Wallin Equation)
250
0
~: 200
CONFIDENCE
0
n
0
v" 150
,ASME LOWER
~,,,/
BOUND KIc
0
I00 iI
I
s
50
oli I I I I I I I
-150 - I O0 -50 0 50 I O0 150 200 250
Test Temperature (~
FIG. 12---Data from HSSI Fifth Irradiation Series normalized to 1TC(T) equivalent data. Median
curve fit, 95% lower-bound curve, and ASME lower-bound curve for RTNor = -34~
requirements. New elastic-plastic analysis tools are under development, and statistical methods
have been developed that allow more productive use of test data.
Constraint models postulate that Kjc data taken from relatively small test specimens lack the
constraint control of large specimens. All project a trend of toughness versus size mathemati-
cally so that size effects can be eliminated through data adjustment. Three basic constraint-
based models were examined and two observations were made: (1) the available models for
predicting full constraint toughness do not agree with each other and (2) it is uncertain that the
low envelope type of toughness representation can ever be defined by using deterministic type
methods on data of high intrinsic variability.
Dodds and Anderson have used 2-D finite-element analyses and the assumption of plane-
strain constraint to set specimen dimension requirements so as to achieve size independence
of cleavage function. It was concluded that these analyses, although good on a qualitative basis,
lacked critical refinement of crack-tip stress analysis to understand fully all of the constraint
implications. Three-dimensional large-strain analysis is needed to support the claim of small-
scale yielding under dominant plane strain for B --> 200 J/fir"
A three-parameter Weibull model with a fixed slope of 4 and g m i n = 20 MPa'm m seems to
fit most Kjc data distributions. However, data sets with extensive replications tend to cluster at
the low toughness end of the distribution. This phenomenon is associated with the presence of
a material minimum toughness or a true lower bound. These minimums are almost always
greater than the 20 MPa.m '/2 used in three-parameter Weibull fitting. There is no modification
to a Weibull distribution that satisfactorily models clustered data. Until one is developed that
does not require an unreasonably large number of specimens for data fitting, there will not be
a practical way to include this aspect of transition range fracture toughness behavior in standard
procedures.
The adjustment of Kjc data that involve slow-stable crack growth involves both a correction
for constraint loss and a modified weakest-link model to account for the extra volume of
material exposed to cleavage level stresses. These are opposing effects that tend to cancel each
other. The net result is that the Weibull slope should not change in most cases for toughness
values above the value of K corresponding to Jxc.
Data from the HSSI Fifth Irradiation Series were used to demonstrate how statistical methods
can be used for the determination of lower-bound toughness. At high toughness, the ASME
lower-bound Kit curve tends to be less conservative than a statistically based curve. Consid-
erable progress has been made in recent years toward the understanding of transition range
fracture toughness data, and more is expected to be made in the near future.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission through the
Heavy-Section Steel Technology Program. Their continued support for the development of this
technology is greatly appreciated. The manuscript was prepared by J. L. Bishop, and her con-
tribution is appreciated.
References
[1 ] Irwin, G. R., "Fracture Mode Transition for a Crack Traversing a Plate," Journal of Basic Engi-
neering, Vol. 82, No. 2, June 1960, pp. 417-425.
[2 ] "PVRC Recommendations on Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Materials," WRC Bulletin 175,
Welding Research Council, Aug. 1972.
[3] Hagiwara, G., "Evaluation of Thickness Effect on Fracture Toughness in Heavy Section Steels,"
paper presented at the Second Japanese-German Joint Seminar on Nondestructive Evaluation and
Structural Strength on Nuclear Power Plants, Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 1983.
[4] Wallin, K., "Statistical Aspects of Constraint with Emphasis to Testing and Analysis of Laboratory
Specimens in the Transition Region," in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M.
Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
[5] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, Jr., R. H., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
134.
[6] Wallin, K., "The Size Effect on K~r Results," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 22, No. 1,
1985, pp. 149-163.
[7] Merkle, J. G., An Examination of the Size Effects and Data Scatter Observed in Small-Specimen
Cleavage Fracture Toughness Testing, NUREG/CR-3672 (ORNLfrM-9088), U.S. Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission, April 1984.
[8] Narasimhan, R. and Rosakis, A. J., Three-Dimensional Effects Near a Crack Tip in a Ductile Three
Point Bend Specimen--Part I: A Numerical Investigation, SM 88-6, Division of Engineering and
Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Jan. 1988.
[9] Landes, J. D. and Shaffer, D. H., "Statistical Characterization of Fracture in the Transition Region,"
in Fracture Mechanics: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics,
Structural Steels," in Fracture Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 833, American Society
[11] Wallin, K., "The Scatter in K~c Results," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1984,
pp. 1085-1093.
[12] Wallin K., "Statistical Modelling of Fracture in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region," in Defect
Assessment in Components--Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS/EGF9, Mechanical Engineering
Publications, London, 1991.
[13] Mood, A. M., Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
[14] Johnson, L. G., "The Median Ranks of Sample Values in Their Population with an Application to
Certain Fatigue Studies," Industrial Mathematics, Vol. 2, 1951, pp. 1-9.
[15] Johnson, L. G., The Statistical Treatment of Fatigue Experiments, Elsevier, New York, 1964.
[16] Stienstra, D. I. A, Stochastic Micromechanical Modeling of Cleavage Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle
Transition Region, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, Aug. 1990.
[17] Neville, D. J. and Knott, J. F., "Statistical Distributions of Toughness and Fracture Stress for Homo-
geneous and Inhomogeneous Materials," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 34,
No. 3, 1986, pp. 243-291.
[18] Van der Sluys, W. A. and Miglin, M. T., "Results of the MPC/JSPS Cooperative Testing Program
in the Brittle-to-Ductile Transition Region," in this volume, pp 308-324.
[19] Ehl, W., Munz, D., and Bruckner, A., "Scatter of Fracture Toughness in the Ductile-Brittle Transition
Region," in Fracture Control of Engineering Structures, ECF6, Vol. 1, H. C. Elst and A. Bakker,
Eds., Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 577-586.
Testing," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1989, pp. 523-531.
[21] Nanstad, R. K., McCabe, D. E., Menke, B. H., Iskander, S. K., and Haggag, F. M., "Effects of
Radiation on Kic Curves for High-Copper Welds," in Effects of Radiation on Materials: Fourteenth
International Symposium (Volume I1), ASTM STP 1046, American Society for Testing and Materials,
[22] Wallin, K., " A Simple Theoretical Charpy V-KIt Correlation for Irradiation Embrittlement," in
Innovative Approaches to Irradiation Damage and Fracture Analysis, Vol. 170, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1989.
Tadao I w a d a t e I a n d T a k e o Y o k o b o r i 2
Evaluation of Elastic-Plastic Fracture

Toughness Testing in the Transition Region
through Japanese Interlaboratory Tests
REFERENCE: Iwadate, T. and Yokobori, T., "Evaluation of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Tough-
ness Testing in the Transition Region through Japanese Interlaboratory Tests," Fracture
263.
ABSTRACT: International cooperative interlaboratory test programs on elastic-plastic fracture

toughness in the transition region have been conducted under the 129th Committee, Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and the Materials Properties Council (MPC). The objective
of the tests is to obtain basic information regarding the measurement of lower-bound fracture
toughness of steels using small specimens. The test program used ASTM A508 Class 3 steel.
The 19 laboratories participated in these programs. Tests were carried out with 25.4-mm (1-in.)
thick compact tension (1T-CT) specimens at three temperatures, -100~ (Tl), -75~ (T2), and
-50~ (T3). In addition to the interlaboratory tests, the effect of strain rate on small-specimen
fracture toughness behavior was also investigated.
The Japanese test results provided some information to standardize a method for measuring
the lower-bound fracture toughness of steels. Small-specimen fracture toughness Kjc values indi-
cated a wide scatter, especially in the higher temperature or in the lower strain rate or both. The
causes of the scatter of Kjc values typically depend on the stable crack growth, Aao, the distance
from stable crack front to trigger point, X, and the distance from fatigue crack front to trigger
point, Aao + X. No effect of grain size and material cleanliness and slight effect of sampling
location of the specimens and difference of the testing conditions between laboratories were
observed. The Kjc value at Aa~o = 0, X = 0, and Aao + X = 0 was defined as a lower-bound
fracture toughness Kj~, because additional study using A470 Ni-Cr-Mo-V rotor steel showed that
the Kjc~value coincides well with the lower bound of large-specimen fracture toughness Kic per
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E
399). Test results also indicated that the Kjc, value corresponds to 3% fracture probability tough-
ness of the steel.
Based on these test results, the guidelines on the measurement of Aao, X and Aa o + X were
established, and the tentative test procedure for the determination of the lower-bound fracture
toughness using a fractographic data analysis has been developed by the JSPS 129th Committee.
KEYWORDS: fracture toughness, cleavage fracture, elastic-plastic fracture, transition effects,

J integral, testing technique
The 129th Committee (Professor T. Yokobori, Committee Chairman), Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS), and the Materials Properties Council (MPC), have planned an
international interlaboratory test program to evaluate the testing procedure for the determination
General manager, Muroran Research Lab., The Japan Steel Works, Ltd., 4 Chatsu-machi, Muroran,
Japan 051.
2 Professor and dean, School of Science and Engineering, Teikyo University, Toyosatodai 1-1, Utsu-
nomiya, Japan 320.
233
TABLE 1--1nterlaboratory round robin test participants in Japan.
Laboratory Participant Affiliation

1 Takashi Miyata Nagoya University, Nagoya
2 Susumu Machida University of Tokyo, Tokyo
3 Sumio Yoshioka Mitsubishi Electric Co., Amagasaki
4 Namio Urabe NKK, Kawasaki
5 Michihiko Nagumo Waseda University, Tokyo
Yukito Hagiwara Nippon Steel Corporation, Sagamihara
6 Katsuyuki Tokimasa Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Amagasaki
7 Juichi Fukakura Toshiba Corporation, Yokohama
8 Masaaki Matsubara Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo
9 Tadao Iwadate The Japan Steel Works Ltd., Muroran
of the lower-bound fracture toughness gjc i in the transition temperature region using small
specimens. Note that the ASTM Test Method for J~c, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813),
limits the determination of J~c at the upper shelf temperatures in which stable crack extension
occurs and the R-curve technique can be used. The toughness evaluation in the transition
temperature region is as important as in the upper shelf. The principle objective of this coop-
erative test program was to get the basic information regarding the measurement of lower-
bound fracture toughness gjc i and to develop a common test procedure for the determination
of Kit i for metallic materials.
Before the start of JSPS/MPC international cooperative interlaboratory test program, the
Japanese interlaboratory test program began in 1983 using ASTM A470 rotor steel. Testing
was completed in 1985, and the results were analyzed for the modification of the testing pro-
cedure. The second program, that is, the JSPS/MPC interlaboratory test program on elastic-
plastic fracture toughness in the transition region, was started in 1988. The test program used
ASTM A508 Class 3 steel. The 19 laboratories in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany,
and Japan participated in the program in which in Japan 9 laboratories in Table 1 participated.
In this paper, the tentative test procedure for the determination of lower-bound fracture
t o u g h n e s s Kjc i will be reviewed, and the details of interlaboratory test results obtained by
Japanese participants, which were analyzed by the JSPS 129th Committee to develop a standard
test procedure, will be presented.
Tentative Test Procedure

Scope
The method covers the determination of the lower-bound fracture toughness Kjc i values for
metallic materials in the transition region. The testing procedure with compact tension (CT)
specimens is" detailed herein, but that with other specimens will be referred to this document.
Specimen Configuration, Dimensions and Preparation

The recommended 25.4-mm (I-in.) thick CT specimen is shown in Fig. 1. If the validity
criteria are met, the other alternate specimens may be used. The use of side grooves to ensure
more plastic constraint in the specimen is allowed. A 20% side groove to original specimen
thickness is recommended, which should be machined after fatigue precracking.
All specimens shall be precracked in fatigue at a sufficiently low load so that the crack tip
is not overloaded. The fatigue precracking conditions should be referred to the ASTM Standard
Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399). The initial
crack length ao must be between 0.50 and 0.65W for a CT specimen.
IWADATE AND YOKOBORI ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS 235
19.05 19.05
]~ 10.5ilO.5 "
- -
,r
6].0 1._
I 25.~
,.
I
r,
FIG. 1-~onfiguration of a 1-in. thick compact tension (1T-CT) specimen.
Procedure
It is recommended that at least five specimens be tested at the same temperature. The fracture
toughness testing procedures are as follows:
1. Each specimen is fractured using displacement-controlled loading. The unloading com-

pliance technique as described in ASTM Test Method E 813 can be used to measure the
amount of crack extension during a J test.
2. Load versus load-line displacements should be recorded by an X-Y recorder.
3. Calculations of J integral for the CT specimens are made from load versus load-line
displacement curves using the equations in ASTM Test Method E 813.
4. The fracture toughness Kjc value is converted from the Jintegral of the specimen fractured.
Kjo = ( J~E ~in

\1 - v 2)
where:
J~ = J integral at fracture
E = material elastic modulus, and
v = Poisson's ratio.
5. All specimens must adhere to the ASTM Test Method E 813 size requirement, which will
be changed for cleavage fracture in the near future.
BN,bO > 25Jc/crv
where:
BN = net specimen thickness (BN = B if no side grooves are present),
b0 = uncracked ligament, and
(rr = effective yield strength.
6. The stable crack growth Aao and the distance to trigger point X and Aao + X of each
specimen (Fig. 2) are measured in accordance with the guidelines described in the
Appendix.
236 FRACTURE
MECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTH
VOLUME
Stress
\ Magnitudeof stress in front
~ cracktip i " / r.
..If'--.. " - . ~ . 9 "~ point
----
F~'~a Fati ge fracture

tigue crack Triggerpoint cracgUe--~--~Cleava
SZWStablecrack
FIG. 2--Schematic showing the trigger points of fracture.
Fractographic Data Analysis

Onset of fast fracture of the specimen occurs at the one of the weakest trigger points during
loading where some of the specimens may accompany ductile stable crack growth at the crack
tip. The stable crack growth, Aao, the distance from stable crack front to trigger point, X, and
the distance from fatigue crack front to trigger point. Aao + X, cause the scatter of fracture
toughness Kjc (Fig. 3) and the Kjc value at Aao = 0, X = 0, and/or Aao + X = 0 gives the
lower-bound fracture toughness Kjci of the material that coincides with the lower bound of
fracture toughness Kxc of large specimens per the ASTM Test Method E 399 (Fig. 4) [1 ]. The
procedure for a fractographic data analysis is illustrated in Fig. 5.
1. The Kjc versus Aao, X, Aao + X relationships are constructed using the measurements
from all specimens fractured at the same temperature.
500
Nt-Cr-Mo-V Steel
20O
E
U Temp.-20~
~O%o , O 6T-CTKic Test
100
Temp.-50~
D 4T-CTK]c Test
O 2T-CTKlc Test
A 0,5T-CTJc Test
0 I r 0'.6 '
0 0.2 0,4 0.8 1,0
" ao+X,nlm
FIG. 3--Kjc versus Aao 4- X relationshipfor 0.5T, 2T, 4T and 6T-CT specimens.
300
Klc
Ni-Cr-Mo-V Steel
o 1T-CT
o,, 4T-cT2T-CT or o, o. o,
200 0 6T-CT / ""-or

r~
r 9
Kjc] /
'Unloadlno
camp11ance o
101] method ~ /
- S J
0
-:;oo -lbo 6 '
i00 '
200
Temperature, "C
FIG. 4---Comparsion of K~c, values obtained from a fractographic data analysis and valid Klc per
ASTM Test Method E 399.
2. To evaluate the suitability of a range of data points, it is required that at least one data
point be closer than a half of the maximum distance, ~ A a o m a x , ~zXmax and/or 89 + Xm~x,
to the ordinate.
3. A best fit linear line is drawn passing through the measured points.
4. If the outlying point is further away from the best fit line reconstructed by not considering
this point than -+ 15% of Kjc, the outlying point will be removed.
5. The number of points required to develop the relationship is at least four. If not, further
testing is required.
6. The Kjc value at the intersection between the ordinate and a best fit line is defined as the
lower-bound fracture toughness g j c i for each K j c - Aao, K j c - X and K j c - Aao + X
relationship.
Aaomax(OFXmax oF Aao+Xmx)
a
Kj c
~ I n i t i a l Best F i t Line
...... Reconstructed Best F i t Line
Aa0 or X oF ABo+X
FIG. 5--Representation of data qualification procedure for a fractographic data analysis.
238 FRACTUREMECHANICS:-I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
Statistical Data Analysis

Scatter of small specimen fracture toughness Kjc is usually explained in terms of the statistical
model based on a Weibull distribution and in part the loss of constraint [2-4].
1. The Kjc values obtained are plotted on a Weibull graph.

2. A straight line is drawn using a least-squares fit technique.
3. From the linear relationship, 3% fracture probability toughness that corresponds to g j c i
obtained from a fractographic data analysis is determined.
lnterlaboratory Test Program

In November 1988, the international interlaboratory test program was initiated after the
analysis of the results obtained by the first interlaboratory test program.
Material and Test Procedure

The material used in the test program is a 210-mm-thick forged plate of ASTM A 508 Class
3 steel. Tables 2 and 3 show the chemical compositions and the tensile and impact properties
of the material, respectively. The 50% fracture appearance transition temperature, FATT, is
- 15~ Figure 6 shows the microstructure and grain size of the material. The ASTM grain size
number is 7.2. The 1T-CT specimens with no side grooves were machined according to Fig.
1, where the specimens were taken out of one-fourth thickness of the plate, and the specimen
orientation was C-L per ASTM Test Method E 399.
Nine laboratories conducted static fracture toughness tests with five 1T-CT specimens at
each specified temperature. Two laboratories performed dynamic fracture toughness tests, that
is, instrumented Charpy tests per the ASTM Standard Practice for Conducting Supplemental
Surveillance Tests for Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels (E 636) and Jid tests with 1T-CT spec-
imens, where the strain rates in terms of /s are 6.5 • 105 MPa:m'2/s and 1.5 • 104
MPa.m~/2/s, respectively. The test temperatures, T~, T2, and T 3, that is, - 100, - 7 5 , and - 5 0 ~
for static tests and T~, T3, and T4, that is, - 1 0 0 , - 5 0 , and - 2 5 ~ for dynamic tests were
determined after the preliminary tests by the JSPS 129th Committee.
Each participant was required to perform the following steps in accordance with the tentative
test procedure: (1) specimen machining, (2) specimen precracking, (3) specimen measurement,
(4) temperature measurement, (5) fracture toughness test, (6) crack length measurement, (7) X,
Aao, Aao + X measurements, (8) fractographic data analysis, (9) statistical data analysis, and
(10) report of individual measurements.
Experimental Results and Discussion

Fracture Toughness Test
Elastic-plastic fracture toughness tests were performed at the three specified temperatures,
T 1, T 2, and T 3, for static tests and T1, T3, and T 4 for dynamic tests. In Japan, nine participating
TABLE 2--Chemical compositions of the material in wt.%.

C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Mo V
0.19 0.20 1.42 0.003 0.003 0.76 0.15 0.48 0.017
IWADATE AND YOKOBORI ON FRACTURETOUGHNESS 239
TABLE 3--Tensile and impact properties of the material.

0.2% Offset Tensile Reduction
Strength, Strength, Elongation, of Area, FATT, NDTT,
MPa MPa % % ~ ~
456 599 24.8 75.9 - 15 -30
laboratories reported the results of fracture toughness tests. Table 4 shows the results of fracture
toughness test and their data analyses for all specimens tested in each laboratory.
Figure 7 presents the converted fracture toughness Kjc values from each laboratory as a
function of temperature. Test results indicate that when the strain rate increases, the Kjc versus
temperature transition curves shift to a higher temperature region, which leads to the decrease
of lower-bound fracture toughness. Test results also demonstrate a great deal of scatter of Kjc
values, particularly in the higher temperatures. This behavior is usually explained by the sta-
tistical distribution of toughness properties caused by metallurgical inhomogeneity of the mate-
rial and the loss of constraint in the specimen [2-4]. The smaller specimen has less thickness
causing larger scatter of fracture toughness than the larger specimen because in the small
specimens less trigger points or less low toughness region or both are contained, and also less
crack-tip constraint can be developed during loading.
Figures 8 and 9 show the Kjc versus strain rate relationship at -50~ (T3) and -25~ (T4).
Figure 8 indicates that when the strain rate increases the scatter of Kjc values decreases and the
lower-bound fracture toughness Kjci decreases monotonically up to the strain rate of 6.5 x 105
MPa.m~a/s. However, in Fig. 9, that is, in the case of - 2 5 ~ close to the upper shelf, the
scatter of Kjc values increases with increasing strain rate where the Kjc values of the precracked
Charpy specimens obtained at the strain rate of 6.5 x l0 s MPa.ml/2/s were invalid in the
specimen size requirement of ASTM Test Method E 813.

Fractographic data analysis was conducted in each laboratory in accordance with the guide-
lines shown in the Appendix, which was developed by the JSPS 129th Committee. The stable
FIG. 6--Microstructure and grain size of the material.
r ~4D
~4
+~
~::&.
C-,I
::=L
o~
~O
O
',,O
< "~
< ~=
r ==
m
A~rj O
Downloaded/printed by I f
c,,}
t',-
cq
~r3~1o.3~1
I~~
c~
500
Jc(IT-CT) <I>
O~ 400 O Lab.No.1 ~ 9
| Lab. No.2 42 ,~.
zx Lab.No.3 ~ 9
v Lab.No.4 4p 9 9 9
o Lab.No.5 9 F ......
r
300 o Lab,No.6 <I> # 9
r "e" Lab,N0.7 ~ / ~'
- O ~I o `
(D * Lab.No.8 4.,k ~ (b / . !
(-.
@ Lab,No.9
t'-" $. * ~'/ ,'
9 JId(IT-CT) ~ ~/"~/. 9
O= 200
F-- ~" KId(CVN) " :~ I I
* R-CuFve ~ ~ ~P~ 9 i
L. r //. / /
~, 8/ ~
9 9/ " ,~/
/
u I00
C~
L.
LL. . . . . . . . .'
I I I
-200 -150 -1'00 -50 0 50

Tempe ratu re, * C
FIG. 7~Fracture toughness K j,. values as a function of temperature.
400 IS
0
K(Jc) -50"C
o (1T-CT)
300 0
0
0
E
j 200
0 K(Jtd)
\0
(IT-CT) Kid
0
0 (CVN)
I00 Q 0
~0~ 0
0 ,~ I , I I
5 104 105 10 6
K,MPa4-~/sec
FIG. 8--Kjcversus K relationsh~ a s - 5 0 ~ (7"3).
600
-25"C
Kid
400 (CVN)
K(Jc) o
o
(IT-CT, R CuFve) K(Jld) 0
U ~J (IT-CT)
o
200
~ 0 ~
~ "~ .....,.... 0
5 104 105 /0 6
I(, MPa/~/sec
FIG. 9--Kjc versus f( relationship at -25~ (T4).
crack growth, Aao, the stretch zone width, SZW, created before fast fracture, the distance from
stable crack front to trigger point, X, the distance from fatigue crack front to trigger point,
Aao + X, were measured using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The measured values
of all specimens are listed in Tables 4 to 6.
Figure 10 shows examples of the fracture surfaces of the specimens tested at - 1 0 0 and
-50~ On both fracture surfaces, Chevron-patterns were clearly observed. Tracing Chevron-
patterns, the fracture origins, that is, trigger points, were determined, and the distances to trigger
point, X and Aao + X, were measured. Figure 11 shows an example of SEM fractograph for
measuring the stable crack extension Aao and stretch zone width (SZW). Both nine average
stable crack growth A a 9 and local crack growth Aa o near the trigger point were measured.
Figures 12 and 13 present the Kjc values versus stable crack growth Aao and the Ksc values
versus distance to trigger point X and Aao + X relationships. These figures indicate that Kjc
values correlate with the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X. Specimens with the higher measured
Kjc value show larger crack extension or larger distance to trigger points or both. This suggests
that the scatter of Kjc values is caused by the amount of Aa o and the location of X and Aao +
• X in the ligament. Test results also demonstrate that when the temperature decreases and the
strain rate increases, the Aao, X, and Aao + X values decrease significantly, which leads to the
small scatter and lower fracture toughness. Figure 14 shows the relationship between Aao and
X. With increasing X, Aa o increases monotonically and then reaches a plateau around Aao of
0.4 ram.
In each laboratory, the Kjc versus Aao, Kjc versus X, and Kjc versus Aao + X relationships
for each temperature were developed, and the lower-bound fracture toughness Kj~, values at
the intersection with the ordinate of Aao = 0, X = 0, and Aao + X = 0 were determined.
Figure 15 presents the bar charts of lower-bound fracture toughness Ksci in which nine average
stable crack growth Aa 9 w a s also shown as a reference. The Kjc~ values show a comparatively
large difference among the laboratories, especially at the lower temperature of - 100~ From
these results, to increase the accuracy for the measurement of Aa o, X, and Aao + X, the JSPS
129th Committee developed the guidelines after the interlaboratory test of the measurements.
+~
'T
uJ r r~
<
[.-, .~
~=
~,O OO
~o Cq Jan 28 18:45:46 EST 2012

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat
Downloaded/printed by [.-,
tWADATE AND YOKOBORI ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS 245
~+~
+~
O
r
C4
:5.
L~ ",=
,4~
~E
r~
j~
<
j~
~
~ 0 Sat Jan 28 18:45:46 EST 2012 S" o
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved);
[....,
FIG. lO--SEM fractographs for measuring the distance to trigger point, X and Aao 4- X. (Trigger
point is a cross point of two arrows.)
FIG. 11 SEM fractograph for measuring the stable crack growth Aao and stretch zone width
SZW. (Trigger point is a cross point of two arrows.)
FIG. 12--K,~ versus Aao, X and Aao 4- X relationships.
4OO
-50"C
3OO
OooJ~
E 200
L)
I00 O Jc(IT-CT)
.,x J]d(IT-CT)
[] KId(CVN)
0 I I
0 0.5 1 1.5
Aao ,mm
(a)
4OO
-50"C
3OO
,.ooJ "/
tt 0 J 0~
2001
o6O@o o
U
100 0 Jc(IT-CT)
A J]d(1T-CT)
C] KId(CVN)
0 I
0 0.5 1.5
X,mm
(b)
400
-50~
i.~ 500
CO o o~ ~
200
o0o~o~~176
100 o Jc(1T-CT)
J]d(1T-CT)
[] Kld'CCVN)
0 I I I
0 0,5 Z~ao+xlmm 1.5 2

(c)
FIG. 13--Effect of strain rate on Kjc versus Aao, X and Aa o + X relationships.
FIG. 14--Relationship between X and Aao.
Test results suggest that the Kjc versus Aao, X, and Aao + X relationships give the Kjcl value
as a good parameter of the lower-bound fracture toughness of the material, which is also
supported by the additional test results shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
As a technique for the measurement of the lower-bound fracture toughness Kjci, the curve-
fitting procedure was examined. Figure 16 shows the results of curve fitting for Kjo versus
Aa o and Aao + X relationships in which linear function, power law function, and logistic
function were examined. The results indicate that the power law function is the best for curve-
fitting technique.
Statistical Data Analysis

The fracture in the transition region is controlled by a statistical size effect resulting from
the metallugical inhomogeneity of the material. As an another approach for the determination
of lower-bound fracture toughness, the statistical data analysis was performed using the Kjo
values obtained from all 19 laboratories, including MPC members.
Figure 17 shows the plots of the Kjo values measured at T1, T2, and T3 temperatures on a
Weibull graph. The linear distributions of data points indicate that the Weibull model is an
appropriate statistical model for the toughness data. In Fig. 17, the slope m from the dotted line
was determined from the fitting of all data, whereas the slope m from the solid line was deter-
mined from only the data with no stable crack extension in the specimens. The figure dem-
onstrates that the slope m obtained from all data increases with decreasing temperature, but
when the data with crack extension are eliminated, the slope m becomes constant around 7.0.
Figure 18 presents the same Weibull plots of dynamic fracture toughness, that is, instru-
mented Charpy test and aridtest results obtained at - 5 0 ~ (T3), in which static fracture toughness
data is also plotted for comparison. The effect of strain rate on the slope m is clearly observed.
When the strain rate increases, the slope m determined from all data becomes larger: 4.2, 5.7,
and 8.3. However, Fig. 18 also indicates that Weibull slope determined from the fitting of
fracture toughness of the specimens with no stable crack extension seems to be the same, around
7.0.
Fractographlc Analysis
Kjc-zxa. f Kjc-X J Kjc- zxa..x
Aa.9
F~
1 2 9 1 2 9 1 2 9
3 4 5 9 1 3 4 5 9 [ 3 4 5 9
6 7 8 9 ] 6 7 8 9 ] 6 7 8 9 j
FIG. 15---Comparison of Kjrl values obtained from a fractographic data analysis.
In each laboratory, the Kjc values obtained were plotted on a Weibull graph, and the g j c i
values corresponding to 3, 5, and 10% fracture probabilities were determined. Figure 19 illus-
trates the bar charts of the g j c i values determined by each laboratory. The g j c i values show the
large scatter among the laboratories that may be caused by the difference of Weibull scope m.
Figure 20 presents the comparison between the slope m determined from all data as shown in
Fig. 17 and the slope m of each laboratory, including MPC members. The solid line shows
the slope determined from lower Kjo data with no crack extension, and the dotted line shows
the average slope from all data. This figure indicates that most of laboratory data are
400 ......,.., I'I'''''

..,i-'" 9
300
t~
~. 200 m m ~ m' " ~. Power Law(ASTM)
m ~ LogisticFunct|on
].~- Test Temperature
I00 9 : T1---100*C:Lab. 1,2,9
9 : T2=-75*C:Lab.3,4,5,9
9 : T3=-50*C:Lab.6,7,8,9
2b0 ,b0 looo

z~a. mm
(a)Kjc versus zxa.
400
........."'"""
...'"m
300
9 .r
L~
c~
.~ ~."
r~
u 200 ~ ' " : Linear Function

m~..~ "-- -----.:Power
La,(ASTM)
~ ' c Function
.~; 9 Test ]:emperature
100 t : T1-.=-lOO*C:Lab.l,2,9
rl~ 9 : T2-~75*C:Lab.3,4,5,9
9 : T3=-50*C:lab.6,7,8,9
. . . . 5;0 . . . . 10'00 . . . . . 1500 . . . . 2000

Z~ao +X ,lira
(b)KJc versus ~a.+X
FIG, 16---Examination of curve 3~tting functions.
close to average slope m, although some of the data are larger than 7.0, which may be
caused by the small number of specimens used for the J test, that is, five specimens in this
program.
Table 7 and Fig. 21 show the comparison of lower-bound fracture toughness gjc i values
obtained from a fractographic data analysis and a statistical data analysis. The number in
Table 7 is the average of Kjc i values determined by each laboratory and the parentheses mean
standard deviations. When the Kjc i values are compared, the test results indicate that the
Kjoi values obtained from a fractographic data analysis are close to that having 3% fracture
probability.
99
90
50
.l-a
kt.
10
5
3
150 100 500 1000

Fracture Toughness,Kjc,MPa~
FIG. 17--Weibull plots ~ Kjc values measured at - 1 0 0 ~ (T~), - ~ ~ (T2) , and - 5 0 ~ (T3).
99 84 I
/m=7.0 I
9 .=8.3 / /--/L~
/~,.r,z-_-
90 9 -m=5.7
50
' / / i
A
I f
I
9
J
V
u..
I -50"C
[]Jc(1T-CT)"
9 JId(1T-CT)
3 / II 9K]d(CVNI)
. . ,
II
50 100 500 i000
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rightsFracture Toughness,Kjc,MPai'm
reserved); Sat Jan 28 18:45:46 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by 1 8 - - E f f e c t ~ strain rate on Weibull distribution ~ Kjc values.
FIG.
Test Welbull Analysis

Temp. J%Fracture P r o b a b l 11 t 51Fracture Probability 10%FractureProbability
i
15ol
T]
L•IOOJ
i-lO0"c
~501
01
Lat~N9.I 1 2 9 1 2 9 1 2 9
150 I
100p I
T2
II
(-75%) '~
"5
LabNo.I 3 tl 5 9 3 4 5 9 3 4 5 9
i
15OF
F--
,o01
T3 ~_
~-5o'c) 'U, I I
5ot
ol. I
LabNo.I 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9
FIG. 19--Comparison of Kjci values obtained from a Weibull data analysts.
Cause of Scatter o f Kjci

The sources for the scatter of lower-bound fracture toughness Kjr values were examined
from the metallurgical point of view. To investigate the effect of grain size and material clean-
liness on Kjci values, the frequency distribution of ASTM grain size number and the cleanliness
of the material were measured near the crack tip of the specimens, where the highest and lowest
Kjc specimens at each test temperature were selected. Figure 22 shows an example of the
20
I m obtained
. . . . . J from a l l data
15
m i0
.... m_=5,6 _ _
5
1 2 9 A B D F G H I
(a)-lO0*C
20
i m obtained
....... from a l l data
15
E 10
5
___ J ' ~ . . . . . . . . . .
Jill ISl l
3 4 5 9
111_-5.6
m=,.O
A B D E
t]-t
. . . . .
I
(b)-75"C
20
--/ m obtained
from a l l data
15
E 10
m=7.0
5 .... ~-r----] m=th2
0
6 7
III 8 9 A B C D F I
(c)-50"C
FIG. 2 ~ o m p a r i s o n of Weibull slope m of each laboratory. (Solid line shows the slope m
determined from the data with no stable crack extension. Dotted line shows the average slope m
determined from all data.)
TABLE 7--Comparison of Kjc, values obtained from a Weibull data analysis and a fractographic
data analysis."
Weibull Analysis, Kjcl, MPa'ml~z Fractographic Analysis, Kjc~,MPa'm '/2
Temperature 3% F.P.b 5% F.P. 10% F.P. Kjc - Aao Kjc - X Ksc - Aao + X
T, ( - 100~ 64.7 88.0 96.0 56.0 67.7 58.6

(25.6) (24.0) (21.3) (21.0) (53.1) (53.2)
/'2 (-75~ 81.8 91.0 105.8 89.8 75.3 71.8
(26.1) (26.5) (26.7) (12.5) (31.0) (10.3)
T3 (-50~ 107.3 117.3 133.3 140.1 108.5 113.3
(19.0) (15.3) (11.3) (12.2) (24.6) (11.4)
Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

F.P. = fracture probability.
specimens tested at -50~ Frequency distributions of grain size number for both specimens
are the same ranging from 5 to 10. This means there is no effect of grain size on the scatter of
Kjc,. Figure 23 shows the relationship between the Kjc values and the material cleanliness at
each test temperature. The figure also indicates no effect of material cleanliness on Kjc values.
Figure 24 shows an example of the nonmetallic inclusions observed in the specimens. Small
inclusions of sulfides, silicates, alumina, and granular oxide are observed. The fracture origins
of about one half the specimens were examined with high magnified observation using an SEM.
Figure 25 presents examples of the SEM fractographs of fracture origin of the specimens. In
all specimens observed, large nonmetallic inclusions can not be found near the trigger points.
300
oAao o, R Curve Method
~X
o A a0+X KIC Test o o*____
9 3%F, P.
200 9 5%F, P.
9 10%F. P,
0..
100
I /3/
0 i i
-200 -150 -ioo -So b 50

Tempe r a t u r e , ~C
FIG. 2 l--Comparison of Ksci values obtained from a fractographic data analysis and a statistical
data analysis.
FIG. 22--Frequency distribution of ASTM grain size number near the fracture origin of the
specimens tested at -50~
300
250
L~ 200
t~
E
0 O
150
100 o -50oc
zx -75"C []
o -100"C
50
o.ol o:o2 oLo3 o;o~ 0.05 0.06 o.oz
Cleanliness,%
FIG. 23--Relationship between Kjr values and material cleanliness.
.2
.2
cq
FIG. 25--High magnified observation of fracture origin of the specimens.
The effect of the fracture toughness testing conditions, and the sampling location of the
specimens between laboratories were also examined. Results indicate that no significant effect
can be found.

The objective of the JSPS/MPC international cooperative interlaboratory testing was to gain
basic information on the measurement of lower-bound fracture toughness Kjcl in the transition
region and to develop a standard test procedure for the determination of Kjci using small spec-
imens. The interlaboratory test programs were conducted from 1988 to 1991 using ASTM
A508 Class 3 steel. The 19 laboratories participated in these test programs.
In this paper, the details of the results obtained by nine Japanese participants were presented.
1. Small-specimen fracture toughness Kjo values showed a great deal of scatter, especially
in the higher temperature and in the lower strain rate.
2. Sources of scatter of Kjo values significantly depend on the stable crack extension Aao
and the location of trigger point, X and Aao + X, in the ligament.
3. The Kjc values at Aao = 0, X = 0, and Aao + X = 0 were defined as a lower-bound
fracture toughness Kjci, which coincides well with the lower bound of large-specimen
fracture toughness K~c per ASTM Test Method E 399.
4. The Weibull model is an appropriate statistical model for small-specimen fracture tough-
ness in the transition region.
5. In the statistical data analysis, the effect of stable crack extension should be considered.
6. The g j c i value obtained from a fractographic data analysis is close to 3% fracture prob-
ability toughness from a statistical data analysis.
7. No effect of grain size and material cleanliness and slight effect of sampling location and
testing conditions on the scatter of Kj~ values were observed.
The analysis of the cooperative test results showed that the tentative test procedure is an
adequate document to guide the determination of lower-bound fracture toughness in the tran-
sition region, although some of the revisions and additions will be expected as future works.
Based on the results of intedaboratory test program, the guidelines of the JSPS 129th Committee
on the measurement of Aac, X, and Aa o + X were established.
APPENDIX
Guidelines for Measuring Stable Crack Growth Aa o and Distance to Trigger Point X and
Aao+X
Scope
These guidelines describe the measurement of the stable crack growth Aao generated along
the fatigue crack front and the distance to fracture origin, that is, trigger point, X and Aao +
X, in the fracture toughness specimen using a SEM.
Preparation of Test Specimen

The fracture origin, that is, trigger point is found by tracing the Chevron-pattern and observ-
ing carefully the fracture surface of the specimen (refer to Fig. A1). A test specimen for SEM
observation is cut with a fine cutting device as shown in Fig. A2 so that the trigger point is
located in the center of the specimen, where the test specimen dimension has a width of about
15 mm along the fatigue precrack front, a length of about 10 mm in propagating direction and
a height of about 5 mm are recommended.
Measurement of X and Aao + X

After cleaning the test specimen by using an ultrasonic cleaning equipment, SEM micro-
graphs with low magnification of 50 to 100 times are taken as the trigger point is situated at
FIG. A1--An example of the fractured surface of 1T-CT specimen tested in the transition region.
Fatigue Crack ..~
Trigger Point .Ij ~ ' ' ' ~ _ ~ ' ~

I ~'<~; 15 . - "1
s i I
I "r' I~ Specimen
I I
I
I
FIG. A2~utting method of a SEM sample,
FIG. A 3 ~ A n example of SEM fractograph for measuring the distance to trigger point, X and Aao
4- X. (Trigger point is a cross point of two arrows.)
F a t i g u e Crack
. - -
Trlgger Polnt x
.x :fl,ao.;----
9'
~
L~ 3(Aao+X)
FIG. A4--Measurement of the distance to trigger point, X and Aao + X.
262 FRACTUREMECHANICS: TWENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
I
_>Im l _>]m
= :i szw
t~ ,..- - i.C,^~ i
~ i I 1 ' ,'~o :
X ~ao*X
Trigger Point ~c
FIG. A5 Measurement of stable crack growth, Aao (Aao includes stretched zone width, SZW).
the center of the micrograph, and the fatigue precrack front is contained (refer to Fig. A3). The
fatigue precrack front length is desired to be larger than three times Aao + X on the micrograph
as shown in Fig. A4.
The exact trigger point and the fatigue precrack front are determined on the micrograph and
marked with a marking pen. The distance from stable crack front to trigger point, X, and distance
from fatigue precrack front to trigger point, Aao + X, are measured with a rule to be accurate
within ---0.1 mm. The fatigue precrack front is identified by mean of the characteristic differ-
entiation of fracture surface between fatigue crack and stretch zone (refer to Fig. A3). The
fatigue crack plane has irregularity in the propagating direction while the stretch zone has
shadow due to the curvature created during blunting.
Measurement of Aao
To observe the feature near the fatigue precrack front, the SEM micrographs near the trigger
point are taken using the SEM with high magnification such as 100 to 200 times (refer to Fig.
11). The amount of stable crack growth Aao is determined on the micrograph as an average
value measured from the area in which the stable crack generates. The width along the fatigue
precrack front for the measurement of the area generating stable crack must be larger than 1
mm in actual scale as shown in Fig. A5 or 10 to 20 times of stable crack length Aao on the
both sides of the trigger point.
For the measurement of the area generating stable crack, a planimeter or digitizer is com-
monly used, where the stable crack is defined as the value containing stretch zone width (refer
to Fig. A5).
Observation of Trigger Point

To investigate what is the trigger point for fast fracture, the searched area near the trigger
point is observed using the SEM with high magnification such as 500 to 1000 times. When
nonmetallic inclusions are found near the fracture origin, image analysis is required to inves-
tigate the chemical compositions.
References
[1] Watanabe, J., Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Yokobori, T., and Ando, K., "Fracture Toughness in the
Transition Region," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 5/6, 1987, pp. 589-600.
in FractureMechanics: Twelfth Conference,ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing and Mate-
rials, Philadelphia, 1980, pp. 368-382.
[3] McCabe, D. E. and Landes, J. D., "Prediction of Heavy Section Performance of Nuclear Vessel
Steels," Scientific Paper 83-1D7-METEN-P3, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, May 1983.
[4] Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Ono, S., and Watanabe, J., "An Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Tough-
ness Behavior for J~c Measurement in the Transition Region," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second
Symposium, Vol. 11, Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803, Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. 11-531-11-561.
S u s u m u Machida, 1 Hitoshi Yoshinari, 2 a n d Yasuhiro Suzuki ~
A Statistical Study on the Effect of Local

Brittle Zones (LBZs) on the Fracture
Toughness (Crack Tip Opening
Displacement) of Multipass Welded Joints
REFERENCE: Machida, S., Yoshinari, H., and Suzuki, Y., "A Statistical Study on the Effect
of Local Brittle Zones (LBZs) on the Fracture Toughness (Crack Tip Opening Displace-
ment) of Multipass Welded Joints," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP
1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for
ABSTRACT: The paper presents the experimental heat-affected zone (HAZ) crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD) test data in terms of the size and number of local brittle zones (LBZ) hit
by fatigue precrack which were carded out by the Fracture Toughness of Weldments (FTW)
Committee of the Japan Welding Engineering Society OWES). The data plots of the critical
CTOD versus LBZ size lead to the observation that the so-called "LBZs," which include grain-
coarsened HAZ, have fracture toughness values (8c) with large scatter, but the mean value ~c
seems to be represented by a function of LBZ size.
A probabilistic model is proposed thatconsists of ~ , the average value of ~c versus LBZ size,
the Weibull distribution ~c for a given 8~, the experimentally determined size distribution of
individual LBZ, and the distribution of a number of LBZs hit by fatigue precrack in CTOD
specimens. In the model, it is assumed that the smallest ~c for individual LBZ hit by a fatigue
precrack controls the overall CTOD fracture toughness of a HAZ CTOD specimen (weakest link
concept).
Numerical simulations based on this model compared well with the experimental results. The
American Petroleum Institute (API) requirement to HAZ CTOD testing is discussed on the basis
of numerical simulations. The plate thickness effect is predicted by taking mechanical and met-
allurgical effects into account.
KEYWORDS: fracture toughness, crack tip opening displacement, heat-affected zones, local
brittle zones, multipass welded joints
It was found in the early 1980s that crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) testing on
welded joints of steels used for offshore structures occasionally showed very low levels of
fracture toughness in terms of critical CTOD. It was well known that local brittle zones (LBZs)
actually existed in heat-affected zones (HAZ) of the conventional carbon-manganese (C-Mn)
steels. But the above findings forced the fabricators and the users to reconsider the methodology
for selection of materials and welding procedures.
Fortunately, no serious accidents of offshore structures directly caused by LBZ have occurred
yet. Nevertheless, there still prevails an anticipation that some vicious combination of unfa-
1Professor and graduate student, respectively, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering,
The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan.
2 Associate professor, Engineering Research Institute, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan.
264
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.OFg
MACHIDA ET AL. ON MULTIPASS WELDED JOINTS 265
TABLE 1--Chemical composition of treated steel
Chemical Composition, wt.%

Steel Grade Thickness C Si Mn P S V Nb
BS 4360-50E 50 mm 0.08 0.34 1.44 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.024
vorable conditions may lead to a catastrophic failure. CTOD testing, which is considered to be
more sensitive to LBZ than the Charpy V testing, is now becoming one of the routine tests
required by specifications or codes or both for materials selection and qualification of welding
procedures (API RP2Z, 1987 [1] and EEMUA 150, 1987 [2].
On the other hand, the evaluation of significance of LBZs has not been fully established.
Some engineers claim that HAZ CTOD testing required by codes or specifications or both (for
example, API RP2Z, 1987) is unnecessary and meaningless because it leads to unrealistically
stringent toughness requirements.
It is not the intention of this paper to discuss this controversial issue but to propose a prob-
abilistic model of the critical CTOD, which depends on LBZ size and the number of LBZ hit
by a fatigue precrack. The experimental results of HAZ CTOD tests (3PB test) carded out by
the (FTW) Committee (Chairman S. Machida: University of Tokyo) in the Japan Welding
Engineering Society (JWES) were analyzed using the model. The experimental results com-
pared well with the numerical simulations. The influence of LBZ on the CTOD fracture tough-
ness, that is, which of the total size or maximum of the individual size of LBZs controls the
overall CTOD toughness behavior, is discussed. The meaning of the requirement of API RP2Z
(1987) for HAZ CTOD testing is also discussed, and a method to evaluate a conservative
estimation of HAZ CTOD is suggested. The plate thickness effect considering both mechanical
constraint and the probability of existence of LBZs is also discussed.
Experimental P r o c e d u r e
The base metal used for testing is 50-mm-thick 500-MPa-class high-strength steel plate
normally used for offshore structures and is equivalent to BS 4360-50E. Chemical composition
and mechanical properties are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The welded joints, X and K, with
submerged arc weld (SAW) pass sequence are schematically shown in Fig. 1. Every pass was
deposited with almost the same welding conditions as shown in Table 3. In Japan, a welding
heat input of 5 KJ/mm is used. The welding input used in this study may be a little high for
application to locations in which LBZs are a major concern.
The machined notch and fatigue precracking after precompression were made so as to hit
the specified LBZ in each specimen. The test temperature - 6 0 ~ was chosen based on the
results of a series of tests to obtain the transition curve. The temperature of -600C is located
in about the middle of the transition temperature zone. The standard "Methods for Crack
Opening Displacement (COD) Testing" (BS 5762) was followed for testing and analysis of
CTOD.
The variation of critical CTOD values obtained from 14 to 20 specimens tested at - 6 0 ~
for X- and K-weld joints fitted well with the two-parameter Weibull plot as shown in Fig. 2.
TABLE 2--Mechanical properties of steel treated.

Y.P., N/mm2 T.S., N/mm2 Elongation, %
518 586 28
60 o ~ /
>-
~ 55 ~
/-._ ,0o j ,
(a) K - w e l d joint (b) X - w e l d joint
FIG. 1--Configuration of welded joints.
TABLE 3--Welding conditions.
Welding Method Current, A Voltage, V Speed, cm/min Heat Input, kJ/cm
Submerged arc welding 850 31 - 33 26 - 30 56 - 64
99
95
90
80
~ 6O
:=- 40
o
s ~
~ 20
o
>
9p 10
"5
E 5
0 / O K-weld joint
O X-weld Joint
I I I I I I III , I I I 1 I I I 1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0
Critical CTOD, mm
FIG. 2--Weibull plots of critical CTOD of welded joints.
The smaller scatter of X-weld joints (larger shape parameter of Weibull distribution) could be
attributable to the smaller number of LBZ hit by a fatigue precrack in X-weld joints as compared
to K-weld joints which normally have a fairly straight weld fusion line.
Identification of Microstructures in H A Z
Figure 3 shows an example of the results of metallurgical microstructure identification which
was made through two-dimensional heat flow analysis using the following equation [3].
1/(Tm~ - To) = 4.13C 9 p 9 v 9 ylq + ll(Tm - To) (1)
FIG. 3 Identification of microstructures of CTOD specimen (K-joint).

where
max
maximum temperature attained, K;
r m = melting temperature, K;
To = initial temperature, K;
~C : specific heat, J/g.K;
q = heat input per unit plate thickness, J/mm;
U: welding speed, mm/s;
p = density, f]mln3; and
y = distance from fusion line, mm.
Equation 1 was simplified to
1/(Tin,x - To) = A 9 y + 1~(Tin - To) (2)
where A is a constant. The value of A is determined by setting Tm,x = 1173K, T m = 1823K,

and y = HAZ width.
From the above heat flow analysis, eight regions subjected to different heat cycles were
identified as shown in Fig. 4. The microstructures produced by the first and a subsequent pass
are classified into four kinds of coarse grain zones as shown schematically in Fig. 4 [4]. Even-
tually, the following four microstructures were adopted as LBZ, (1) coarse grain HAZ heated
to above 1523K by subsequent pass: CG; (2) subcritically reheated CG HAZ: SRCG; (3)
intercritically reheated CG HAZ: IRCG; and (4) tempered IRCG heated to above 723K: TIRCG.
All of the above four regions could be called grain-coarsened zones.
Relationship Between the Critical CTOD and LBZ Size

Figure 5a shows the critical CTOD (8~) versus the LBZ size that was responsible for the
crack initiation. Definition of LBZ size is shown in Fig. 3. The number of data shown are
limited to those that were clearly identified to be crack initiation sites from observation of the
photomacrographs. As a function of LBZ size, the experimental data shows a general trend
that 8c decreases with increase in LBZ size but with a considerable scatter. This may imply
that the individual CTOD data results from a certain stochastic process. Figure 5b shows CTOD
versus maximum LBZ size. Again, there is considerable scatter. Figure 5c shows CTOD versus
the total of the individual size of LBZ that shows more or less similar tendencies to Figs. 5a
and 5b.
Probabilistic Analysis and Proposed Model

Figure 6 illustrates schematically a proposed probabilistic model for HAZ CTOD which
includes LBZs. It is assumed that there is a relationship between the mean CTOD (8c) and the
individual size of LBZ (~c) as shown in Fig. 6, that is, the mean value of CTOD may be
expressed by an analytical function of LBZ size, and another assumption is made that CTOD
can be approximated by the two-parameter Weibull distribution with a constant shape
parameter.
The relationship between the mean CTOD and the LBZ size is deduced from the weakest
link model assuming the CTOD distribution can be represented by the Weibull distribution
[5] as shown in the Appendix.
For HAZ CTOD specimens having a varied number and size of LBZs, each LBZ has its
own 8c value. It is assumed that among the various 8c values corresponding to individual LBZs,
the smallest value controls the overall behavior for the specimen, that is, experimentally
obtained 8c. The distribution of this ~c is schematically shown on the ordinate of Fig. 6 termed
t~
r5
0.5
O :K-weld joint
9 :X-weld joint
O
O9
D
0 0.1 --
I-
0
o
Oo
.,~ 0.05
~3
0 0
0
0.01
I I I
0 2 3 4
LBZ size at crack i n i t i a t i o n point , mm

FIG. 5a--CTOD versus LBZ size (crack initiation site) (K-joint).
0.5
O :K-weld joint
9 :X-weld joint
a 0 o
0 OI
t-
o 0
0.1
9 0
o
+J 9 9 0 0
L
0 0.05 0
0
O
0
0.01
I I I
0 2 3 4
Maximum LBZ size , mm

FIG. 5b--CTOD versus LBZ (maximum) (K-joint).
0.5
O: K-weld joint
E 9 : X-weld joint
E
d %
o O
I-
o O
0.1
0
0
0 0
,3 0.05 O
O 0
0
0.01
n I 0 o I J u n n I i u n
0 5 10 15
Total LBZ size, mm

FIG. 5c--CTOD versus (total) (K-joint).
"Resultant distribution of critical CTOD for weld HAZ," which happened to be approximated
by a two-parameter Weibull distribution again as shown in Fig. 2, although this distribution
cannot be deduced mathematically. But, apparently, the data imply that the three-parameter
Weibull distribution will better fit the experimental data, which is more rational from a physical
viewpoint.
As mentioned above, when we assume the weakest link Concept taking into account indi-
vidual, maximum, and total LBZ sizes, the resultant marginal distribution of CTOD, F(Sc), may
be represented as shown on the ordinate of Fig. 6. The resultant probability distribution function
of the critical CTOD for weld HAZ can be approximated by
F(Sc) = 1 - exp[1 - (Satl3')~"] (3)
Figures 7 and 8 show the frequency distribution of the number of LBZ and the size of LBZ
hit by fatigue precracking for the K-weld joint. Each figure shows the experimentally obtained
data as well as the idealized relative frequency distribution used for numerical simulations,
respectively. In the above-mentioned simulation model, only CG, SRCG, and IRCG are con-
sidered as LBZs, and discrimination between toughness level of these three regions was hard
to make because of the small number of experimental data. Moreover, the test temperature
of - 6 0 ~ is the transition temperature obtained from a series of conventional 3PB HAZ
CTOD tests, and this temperature is probably so low that LBZ toughness levels are in the
lower shelf toughness region which is almost the same among different types of LBZs. The
TIRCG will be considered later because tempering is considered to improve toughness con-
siderably.
<
N . ac ,Bz.~-, (~c~Bz).
f ( ~ c , LSZ) = ~ [ - - ~ ) exp{- - - }
4.. T
O "a
z_ ['~C, LBZ)aE= C o n s t 9
hS~
r
112 o
CTOD d i s t r i b u t i o n o f LBZ
.&c.a'
exp { - ( , ~ 7 ) }
LBZ size, e
FIG. 6---Proposed model: CTOD versus LBZ.
10 50-
Experiment Simulation
8 (n=15) 40- 8 Experiment
>.
o o ( n=6 )
r- 6 = 30 0
6
C
O" (D
4 20 cr 4
2 10
u_
2 q
I
2 4 6 8
i ~
10
0
2
I I P~
4 6 8
I10
0
I
2
I I
4
I r
6
!
No. of LBZ
No. of LBZ No. of LBZ
(c) X-joint
(a) Experiment (b) Simulation
K-joint K-joint
FIG. 7--Proposed model: histogram of number of LBZ hit by precrack.
I Experi merit
F LBZ L49
o~ F(LBZ):
(LBZ) = 1--exp{-(1,-
~ ) }
~ 20
lO
01.5 I 1 l I I t
0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
LBZ size, mm
FIG. 8--Proposed model: distribution of LBZ size hit by precrack.
Numerical Simulations (Monte Carlo Simulation)

Figure 9 shows the flow diagrams for the procedure of the numerical simulation of HAZ
CTOD based on the proposed probabilistic approach. Figure 10 shows the Weibull plot of 12
experimental results of CTOD testing on the K-weld joint compared with the results of 2000
numerical simulations in which LBZs were defined as grain-coarsened regions, that is, CG,
SRCG, and IRCG. Both plots show almost the same Weibull distribution with ~x = 1.16 (same
for both results) and [3 = 0.0927 and 0.0923 mm for the experiments and numerical simulations,
respectively. The difference between the experiments and the numerical simulations is very
small demonstrating that the proposed model is a good representation to predict HAZ CTOD
versus the size of LBZs (CG, SRCG, and IRCG). In Fig. l l a , b, and c, the first 200 critical
CTOD data out of the 2000 data generated by the Monte Carlo simulations are plotted against
the LBZ size defined in three different ways based on the above-mentioned model, which shows
very wide scatter but a general trend of decreasing CTOD as the LBZ size increases. Figures
12 and 13 show similar results for the X-joints.
Figure 14a shows a result for the K-joints with the LBZ size given as the LBZ size of the
crack-initiating point when the point was clearly identified. The results of 2000 numerical
simulations are shown as mean values of 8c (8c), and 95 and 90% lower confidence limits (8~.5,
8c.~o), together with experimental data. Figure 14b shows a similar result for ~c versus the
maximum LBZ size. Figure 14c shows ~c versus the total size of the LBZ. Figures 15a to c
show similar results for the X-joints.
Any of these numerical simulations show a very big scatter of the critical'CTOD which may
pose a practical difficulty in making a conservative estimation of the CTOD value from a
relatively small number of specimens. Thus 95 and 90% lower confidence limits obtained from
the 2000 numerical simulations may constitute a reference for the conservative estimation of
the lower limit of weld HAZ CTOD from a small number of specimens.
Unfortunately, when the number of experimental data is small (eight to eleven data), it is
difficult to assess the validity of the proposed model. When the LBZ size is small, say less than
ab6ut 1.5 mm, the size of LBZs at crack-initiating points seems to determine the critical CTOD.
When the LBZ size is relatively large, say larger than 1.5 mm, the maximum LBZ size and
Number of LBZ (n) based on

experimental frequency distribution
Size of LBZ (s based on Iteration

experimental frequency distribution for n
Determination of clc for each LBZ

using 8cas = const.
I
Determination of ~o for specimen
as the minimum value out of the
&e values for the all LBZs
(weakest link analysis)
Weibull statistical analysis of ao I
NO
YES
( . L B Z at crack i n i t i a t i o n )
&e vs. ,Maximum LBZ
9Total LBZ
FIG. 9--Flow diagram for numerical simulation.
total LBZ size larger than 5 mm seem to represent a good estimate of the mean CTOD. As far
as lower-bound estimations (90 or 95% confidence limits) are concerned, the LBZ size at crack-
initiating points represent the lowest size. Maximum LBZ size yields higher estimated CTOD
values, particularly when the LBZ size is small, say less than 1 mm. For total LBZ size, the
lower confidence limits estimation may be too conservative when the total LBZ size is less
than say 4 mm. Note that a conservative estimate of CTOD shows a relatively small dependence
on the LBZ size.
Effect of Temper
Even if the TIRCG is included in the LBZs, a similar procedure can be applied, but it was
clarified by Haze and Aihara [6] that tempering above 723K (450~ improves the fracture
toughness considerably although the toughness improvement depends on the chemical com-
M A C H I D A ET AL. O N M U L T I P A S S W E L D E D J O I N T S 275
o .~
oo ~ ~, ~ :~
o
0 "0 0 "--
0 0 ~ '~
oO o ~co ~
00~
C) ~-~C~D~
0 0 ._ "~
oo
0
0 o o~,
o oo oO~
oo~ o~oa.~ ~
o oO~~I -~ .~
co
o
~
d I
mm ' 0013 [eO!~!a3 d
I I I I I I ~ I I I
-c5
\
00~ ~03
v
I I
m
x
x X X
I I
~ 7
U. U_ x~
xk O
X
.--E "~
~
n E c5
~xO
0 •
I II I I li I I I I o
o
% ' k~!l!qeqoJa e^!~.elnwn 0 d

Lo
0
o
00 O0
O0 0
o o ~ 0-
Nq
o o 6b ~Sq .J~
o o ~ oo~o.5~ ~u
oO ~o ~ ~ ' o el
oo ~ o Oo~ ~
~~ ~oO~0 0
0
O0 o Oo ~oe~
O0 O0 ~ O3 ~ _
0 d
1 , I
o o c5 o
wm '(3010 leo!~!JO
LC)
0 e, 0 0_00o"~[~:~
O0 0 ~ o ~ m % ~ ~o
~176176
~176 ~
c;
(33
I
r._o
d
. J. I
~
0
cS
1: N
ww ' g013 [ee!q!J3

0 Experiment" F(6 c)=l-e• c )-~ }

0.1811
X Si mu) a t i on " F( 5 c ) = l - e x p { - ( c )!..}
99
0.1019
.--
80 - ~
t-~
o
40 . < I:: :: ! i
>
~
-1
10 ii!!
. . . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . I i . . . . . . . . . .
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5
Critical CTOD, mm
FIG. 12--Simulated CTOD data (X-joint).
0.6 0
E
0.4
0
%
0 0
O0 0
13.2 0
f._
U ~ ~Ooo ~ Ooo o o o
I~o~ ~ 1 7 6 ~ o ~
I- ,.,o ~ ~3~o'~' ~0~ o o o
lo ~ o ~6 o o o
oo,
er
0 1 2 3 4 5
LBZ s i z e a~, crack init:ia~,ion poing (mm)
FIG. 13--Simulated CTOD versus LBZ size at crack initiation site (X-joint).
0.4
I 10%
0.3 ~c : Mean value of c r i t i c a l CTOD

in simulation analysis
ac,5, &c, 10 : 5%, 10% cumulative

frequency value of c r i t i c a l CTOD
E
E in simulation a n a l y s i s ( 9 5 % , 90%
confidence l i m i t )
d
o
F- 0.2 ~ 0 : Experiment
O
o
L
O 0
0.1
0
0 0
~C,lO ~C, 5
00
I--
1 2 3
I
4
LBZ size at crack i n i t i a t i o n p o i n t , mm

FIG. 14a~Experimental and simulated LBZ size (crack initiation site) (K-joint).
0.4
10%
ac,5 ac,t0 ac
0.3 ~'c : Mean v a l u e of c r i t i c a l CTOD

in s i m u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s
~c,5, ~c, t0 : 5%, 10% c u m u l a t i v e

E frequency v a l u e of c r i t i c a l CTOD
E
in s i m u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s ( 9 5 % , 90%
d
O
F-
o 0.2
O O : Experiment
O
x_
O
o
O
O -ac
0.1
ac,,o O
o -o~
O
I I I I
0 1 2 3 4
M a x i m u m LBZ s i z e , mm
FIG. 14b--Experimental and simulated LBZ size (maximum) (K-joint).
0.4
10%
~c,5 Ocj0 gc
0.3 ~c : Mean value of critical CTOD

in s i m u l a t i o n analysis
~ c . ~ , ~c, a0 : 5%, 1 0 % c u m u l a t i v e
E frequency value of c r i t i c a l CTOD
E
in s i m u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s ( 9 5 % , 90%
a confidence l i m i t )
o
o 0.2
O O : Experiment
O
~3
0.1
~ i
O
~c
0 I I I I I [ r , L I I I I
5 10 15
Total LBZ s i z e , mm
FIG. 14c--Experimental and simulated LBZ size (total) (K-joint).
0.6
I 10%
0.5 '~c,5 o~c,,0 ~-c
~c : Mean value of critical CTOD

0.4 ~c,5, ~c,10 : 5%, 10% cumulative
A
E frequency value of critical CTOD
E
in simulation analysis (95%, 90%
E3 confidence limit)
O
(-3
0.3
% 0 : Experiment
O
E
L)
0.2
"~C
0.1 /
9
0 1 2 3 4 5
LBZ size at crack in tiat on point (mm)
FIG. 15a--Experimental and simulated LBZ size (crack initiation site) (X-joint).
position and the tempering temperature. The third heat cycle above 723K was defined as "tem-
pered." It can be assumed for simplicity that the TIRCG zone is improved by a factor of four
as compared to that without temper when evaluated in terms ofthe mean CTOD with the value
of e~' unchanged [6].
Figure 16 shows the Weibull plots of the experimental data and those of 2000 numerical
simulations taking the TIRCG zone into the model. Both results again fit well with the Weibull
distribution, and the simulations are in good agreement with the experiments. Compared with
Fig. 13, the change in the Weibull parameters is small. These observations imply that the three-
parameter Weibull distribution should be adopted to improve the proposed model. Figure 17
shows similar results for the X-joint.
0.6
I 10%
0.5 ~C,5 ~C,10 ~C
~c : Mean value of c r i t i c a l CTOD

0.4 ~c, 5, 6c, t0 : 5%, 10% cumulative

E
1
E in simulation a n a l y s i s ( 9 5 % , 90%
r confidence l i m i t )
O
I----
L..)
0.3 O : Experiment
r
.-i--)
r
t_J
0.2 O 0
0 1 2 3 4
Maximum LBZ size (mm)
FIG. 15b--ExPerimental and simulated LBZ size (maximum) (X-joint).
Discussion of API Requirement

Figure 18 was made to illustrate the API RP2Z [1] requirement. This requirement states that
specimens sampling a total LBZ size less than 15% of the plate thickness are invalid. The
present results based on simulations show that a 15% sampling of LBZ corresponds to a prob-
ability of about 40% that the 8c value is lower than those experimentally determined from valid
testings. The value of S decreases only to 30% even if the value of X (total LBZ/plate thickness)
is increased up to 20%. Values of X greater than say 20% will lead to great difficulties in
making valid specimens. Hence, it could be suggested from a practical point of view that one
may use a safety factor or "scatter factor" which can be correlated to the value of X as a
convenient solution to this problem.
0.6
I 10%
0.5 ac,5 ac.10 ac
~'c : Mean value of critical CTOD

0.4 ac,5, clc, 10 : 5%, 10% cumulative
E
E
in simulation analysis (95%, 90%
0
I.'---
0,3
% O : Experiment
O
E
(...)
0.2
0.1(
T I r I
0 5 10
Total LBZ s ze (ram)
FIG. 15c--Experimental and simulated LBZ size (total) (X-joint).
Figure 19 shows the relationship between the percent of coarse grain (% CG) region (X)
and ~c normalized by ~c to facilitate comparison with the experimental results of Fairchild [7]
with the results of the present simulation (LBZ = CG, TIRCG, SRCG, IRCG). The results
from the simulation give quite similar results to those by Fairchild, and the presence of the
"void area" may suggest that specimens with % CG region less than about 8% are invalid.
Figure 20 shows the relationship between the probability of low CTOD (0.03 mm in this
case) and the % CG region obtained from the simulation results, in cases in which three spec-
imens are tested. The results reveal that the low CTOD values are obtained in about 80%
confidence for specimens with the minimum 15% CG region and in about 90% confidence for
the case of the minimum 20% CG region. If we take 0.01 mm as the "low CTOD" value,
specimens with the minimum 15% CG regions give the probability of less than 40% for low
CTOD. These results indicate that the required percentage of CG regions is influenced by low
~C 1.31
O Experiment : F(&c) = 1-exp {- ( 0 . - ~ ) }
X Simulation : F(&c) = 1-exp {-(.~c^~ ) ~,31 }

U.U~JD
99
~ 95
90
80
~ 6o
4o
o 20
10
• o
I I t I I I Itl I I I I
0.01 0.02 0.05 0~1 0.2 0.5
Critical CTOD, mm
FIG. 16~Experimental and simulated CTOD (Weibull plot) (K-joint).
CTOD values. The low CTOD value of 0.03 mm may be too small from a practical point of
view, but the present test temperature of - 6 0 ~ is located in about the middle of the transition
temperature range and the CTOD values are very small.
Effect of Plate Thickness
The effect of plate thickness on HAZ CTOD is due to two different factors: one is the
triaxiality of stress state or plane strain condition, which we may designate the "mechanical
effect," and the other is the "metallurgical or statistical effect." This latter effect arises from
the fact that the thicker the plate the greater the number and size of LBZs hit by fatigue precrack
for the K-joint, but not so much for the X-joint. Both effects contribute to the reduction of
toughness when increasing the joint thickness.
As for the mechanical effect, a considerable number of theoretical and empirical expressions
have been proposed. The expression adopted here was derived by Nagai et al. [8]. The mechan-
ical plate thickness effect on CTOD is expressed by
BcJBc, = (2/V~)~1+")/"[0.79 + k(k - 1.3)]~1-n)/2"

(4)
X [0.85 - k/2]10.7"
5c .)ttr}
0 E• 0.0934
~c ),.,~
X Simulation'F(Sc)=l-e• 0.093~ }
99
s
90
80
o 60
4O
O~
.>_
20
E
-1
(3 10
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5

C r i t i c a l CTOD, mm
FIG. 17--Experimental and simulated CTOD (Weibull plot) (X-joint).
9~ o ~ 3 0.0 2 0.4
-~ -~ 35.0 1 7.2
~'= .-~ ,- 3 9.5 1 5.0
\ 4 0.0 1 4.8
4 5.0 1 2.0
2
s% I
X
ZLBZ
x = - - ( t : thickness ),
t
FIG. 18--Percent coarse grain region size relative total LBZ size, and confidence level.
5.0
0 0 0 0 Fairchild's data
8o0o
~
r - "~ ,'o
~ O" _ 0 O0
9 Simulation
O
1.0
9 ~-~i~/i~t. o. o o
- 8~'~_l~---e m_ o__.
0.5
9 v- I ~ 9
o .o *I I,*o ~ o
- - - . ~ .-. r o o. o
9 I9 8 O
0.1 I
i0 9 0
i0 9 9 9 O
0.05 I0 O O 8 0
io
0
I0
I 9
0 0 O 0
I
Fairchild's z
void area t
I I I I I
0.01
10 20 30 40 50
Coarse grain region, %
FIG. 19--Relative CTOD versus percent coarse grain region size.
100 ~ / < o -0"0"~
90
0
I--
//
o so
8O
0
~ 7o
..Q
~ 60,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Coarse grain regions, %
FIG. 20--Probability of low CTOD (<0.03 mm) versus percent coarse grain region size).
where
k = (l-h)/2;
h = 10.2/(B + 5.2);
for B > 10 nun, B = plate thickness, nun;
~ c / = CTOD for plane strain condition;
8cB = CTOD for plate with thickness B, mm; and
n = strain-hardening exponent; eeq/~ = F ( ~ , q / ~ y .
Regarding the metallurgical effect, the frequency of the number of LBZ along the fatigue
precrack front for K-weld joints is considered to be proportional to the plate thickness, but not
in the case with the X-joint.
Figure 21 shows the Weibull plot of numerically simulated 2000 data for HAZ CTOD of K-
joints for 50-, 25-, and 10-mm-thick plates. The shape parameter is almost the same for the
varied thicknesses. For a cumulative probability of 50%, ~ values are 0.07, 0.18, and 0.8 mm,
and ratios are 1 : 2.57 : 11.43 for 50-, 25-, and 10-mm thicknesses, respectively, showing a quite
significant plate thickness effect compared with the fracture toughness of the nonwelded plate.
In the latter case, only the mechanical factor is considered and the ratios are 1 : 1.45 : 3.94. This
reveals that, in the case of HAZ CTOD, the plate thickness effect is controlled primarily by
the metallurgical factor. For the X-joint, a similar result is shown in Fig. 22 showing the above
ratios are 1:2.15:7.00 for 50-, 25-, and 10-mm thicknesses.
Conclusions
The influence of the presence of small local brittle zones (LBZs) along the precrack front
on the HAZ CTOD data were analyzed statistically through numerical simulations. The pro-
posed statistical model to analyze the effect of the LBZ on the CTOD value is based on the
weakest link model. It is assumed that the two-parameter Weibull distribution can represent
95
90
80
~ " Be s s 9
ooo.o-o
9
60
40
o/~ x
o 20
10
t I q P P I I I 1 P I I I q I 11 I I I I
0.01 0,02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0
Critical CTOD, mm
FIG. 21---Plate thickness effect (K-joint).
g5--
90--
80--
6(:1-
40-
c~
..O
o 20-
10-
"5 5--
E
o
1 I 1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.I 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0
Critical "CTOD, mm
FIG. 22--Plate thickness effect (X-joint).
the toughness of the LBZ as well as the distributions of the size of LBZ hit by a fatigue precrack
front. The LBZ size and number were determined from heat flow analysis of the multi-
pass weld for each specimen. The following conclusions may be drawn from the present
study:
1. A probabilistic model for the analysis of the effect of LBZ on the critical CTOD of weld
HAZ is proposed. The relation between the mean CTOD and the LBZ size can be deduced
from the weakest link concept by assuming the two-parameter Weibull distribution for
the critical CTOD of LBZ. The frequency distributions of the number and the size of LBZ
hit by fatigue precracking were also assumed in accordance with the empirical results.
The probabilistic distributions of the experimental CTOD values, which reasonably well
fit the two-parameter Weibull distribution, were well explained by the numerical simu-
lations using the proposed statistical model.
2. The Monte Carlo simulation was carded out using the proposed probabilistic model and
compared with experimental data in terms of critical CTOD versus LBZ size at the crack
initiation point, maximum LBZ size, and total LBZ size along the precrack front. The
results of the numerical simulations show the effect of LBZ size on the CTOD value and
are consistent with the general trend observed in the experimental results. Although there
were a large scatter and lack of systematic experimental data, the proposed statistical
approach seems to be a reasonable model to explain the effect of LBZ on the CTOD of
HAZ.
3. The effect of weld bead tempering was taken into account, and it was revealed that the
above conclusion is also valid in this case.
4. Numerical simulations have been carded out to clarify the meaning of the API recom-
mendation on the ratio of coarse-grained zone sampled by the crack front. The present
analytical results are consistent with the experimental tendency observed by others and
show that the API recommendation of minimum 15% coarse-grained zone microstructure
sampled along the length of the crack front does not always give conservative estimates
of the lower-bound CTOD value.
5. The effect of specimen thickness on the CTOD values of HAZ was also investigated using
the statistical model. The mechanical constraint effect was also included in the analysis.
It was shown that in the case of HAZ CTOD, the plate thickness effect was controlled
primarily by the metallurgical effect.
Acknowledgment
The present work is one attempt to interpret the experimental data generated by the FTW
Committee of the Japan Welding Engineering Society. The main object of the committee is to
draft recommendations for CTOD testing on weldments. The authors wish to express their
sincere appreciation to the Committee members for the valuable discussions as well as their
great assistance in carrying out the tedious experiments. Particularly, the assistance offered by
Dr. Hagiwara of Nippon Steel Corp., Professors Toyoda and Minami of Osaka University, five
leading Japanese Steel manufacturers, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., and other fabricators
are greatly appreciated.
The authors also express their appreciation to Dr. Aihara of Nippon Steel Corp. for his useful
suggestions for drafting this paper.
APPENDIX
Relation Between Mean Critical CTOD and LBZ Size

Consider two LBZs size Ii and lz (12 > ll) and assume that the probability of the occurrence
of fracture below the value 8c for LBZ with size l 2 C a n be expressed by the cumulative distri-
bution function (cdf) for LBZ with size l, on the basis of the weakest link concept as
F2(8c) = 1 -- [1 -- F,(~Jc)] t2/I, (AD

where
F~(~c) = cdf of LBZ with size i, and
F2(8c) = cdf of LBZ with size l2.
Let F,(Sc) be the Weibull distribution expressed by
Fl(Sc) = 1 - exp[--(SJ13,)~,] (A2)

Then substituting Eq A2 into Eq A1, F2(8c) is expressed by
Fz(gc) = 1 - exp[--lJl,(gJ131)~,] = 1 -- exp[(SJ132)~q (A3)
where
% = c q ( = a ) and 132 = fS,l(lJlO v~ (A4)
From Eq A4,
13]'11 = 13~'12= constant (A5)

Because
~c = 13 9 F(1 + l / a ) (A6)
Equation A4 is equivalent to
(~c.LBZ)~ 9 l = constant (A7)

where ~c is the mean critical CTOD as a function of LBZ size l.
References
[1] AP1RP2Z, "Specification for Recommended Practice for Preproduction and Qualification for Steel
Plates for Offshore Structures," American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, TX, March 1987.
[2] EEMUA 150, "Steel Specification for Fixed Offshore Structures," EEMUA Publication 150, Engi-
neering Equipment and Materials User's Association, London, 1987.
[3] Adams, C. M., "Cooling Rates and Peak Temperatures in Fusion Welding," Welding Journal, Vol.
37, No. 5, 1958, p. 210.
[4] Haze, T. and Aihara, S., "Metallurgical Factors Controlling HAZ Toughness in HT50 Steels," IIW
Doc. IX-1423-86, International Institute of Welding, Tokyo, 1986.
[5] Satoh, K., Toyada, M., and Minami, F., "Thickness Effect in Fracture Toughness of Steel Welds,"
IIW Doc. X-II35-87, 1987.
[6] Haze, T. and Aihara, S., "Influence of Toughness and Size of Local Brittle Zone on HAZ Toughness
of HSLA Steels," in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Vol. HI, ASME, Houston, 1989, p. 515.
[7] Fairchild, D. P., "Fracture Toughness Testing of Weld Heat-Affected Zones in Structural Steel," in
Fatigue and Fracture Testing of Weldments, ASTM STP 1058, J. M. Potter and H. I. McHenry, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 117-t41.
[8] Nagai, K., Shimizu, S., Kawano, S., and Hiramoto, H., "The Fracture Mechanics of Brittle Fracture
Considering the Thickness Effects Under the Large Scale Yielding," Journal of Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Vol. 151, 1982, p. 231.
Masao Toyoda 1
Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD)

Testing Method for Heat-Affected Zone (HAZ)
Toughness of Steel Welds with Particular
Reference to Local Inhomogeneity
REFERENCE: Toyoda, M., "Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Testing Method
for Heat-Affected Zone (HAZ) Toughness of Steel Welds with Particular Reference to Local
Inhomogeneity," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, J. D. Landes,
Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
ABSTRACT: In the multi-passed weld heat-affected zone (HAZ), the occurrence of mechanical
and metallurgical heterogeneity is inevitable. For the fracture toughness evaluation of the steel
weld HAZ, the effect of the inhomogeneity shall be considered, particularly in relation to deter-
mination of the appropriate testing procedures such as the extraction of test specimens from
welded joints. In the weld HAZ of the recently developed high strength steels, the occurrence of
the local brittle zones (LBZs) and the local hard/soft zones is often observed. The effect of local
heterogeneity is an important problem to be solved to clarify the testing methods and understand
the significance of toughness obtained by a specific toughness testing method. In this paper, two
kinds of heterogeneity, that is, heterogeneity in toughness and strength mismatch, will be con-
sidered. The toughness value is significantly dependent on the specimen types and the extraction
method of specimen from the multi-passed welded joints, that is, the size of LBZs existing in
the vicinity of the crack tip is one of the dominant controlling factors. The size effect of LBZs
on the scattering of toughness is discussed based on the weakest link model (WLM). Moreover,
the mechanical heterogeneity, such as the distribution of strength in HAZ, is a considerably
important factor controlling the fracture toughness. Mechanical inhomogeneity influences not
only the deformation behaviors in the vicinity of crack tip, that is, the evaluation of toughness
parameter, but also the critical toughness value. In this paper, both effects are proved by the
experimental results, and discussions have been conducted on the appropriate evaluation methods
for CTOD testing of steel weld HAZs with considering the effect of the local mechanical
heterogeneity.
KEYWORDS: crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), fracture toughness testing, weld heat-
affected zone (HAZ), local brittle zones, mechanical inhomogeneity, weakest link model
Fracture toughness evaluation of weldments of steel structures, in particular multi-passed

weld heat affected zones (HAZ)s, is important in the assessment of the structural integrity.
Because welded joints produced by multi-passed welding have a marked variation in micro-
structures as a result of multiple thermal cycles, there still remain various problems to be solved
in selecting an appropriate procedure of H A Z toughness evaluation. Moreover, the proper
understanding of fracture toughness obtained by a specific testing method shall be required
because the significance of fracture toughness is remarkably dependent upon the testing method
l Professor, Department of Welding and Production Engineering, Oasaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka,
Suita, Osaka 565, Japan.
291
adopted. Recently, some activities [1~5] 2 have been conducted for establishing the fracture
toughness testing procedure of welds, and some recommended practices/guidelines for tough-
ness testing such as a CTOD test of weldments, have been published. Especially in the weld
HAZ of some recently developed high strength steels, the occurrence of local heterogeneity,
such as the existence of LBZs and local hard/soft zones, is often observed. Discussions have
been carried out on the effect of the local inhomogeneity [7,8]. To establish the appropriate
fracture toughness evaluation method, the role of the heterogeneity mentioned above must be
clarified outside the standards.
The primary purpose of this document is to discuss the difficulties in fracture toughness
testing for steel weld HAZs based on the procedures in plain material testing standards 3 and to
outline recommendations for fracture toughness testing of weld HAZs and interpreting the test
results. To clarify the appropriate evaluation of HAZ toughness, detailed discussions cover the
effect of both kinds of local heterogeneity, local brittle zones and local hard zones.
Characteristics of HAZs of Multi-Passed Welded Joints

Characteristics of Welded Joints
Welded joints have characteristics that are different from plain material such as as-rolled
steel plate [7,8]. They require the appropriate modifications to suit the fracture toughness testing
of weldments. The typical characteristics in relation to the choice of fracture toughness testing
are given as follows (Fig. 1).
Residual Stresses Their level and distribution are considerably dependent on welding
conditions and plate thickness. The complicated stress distribution in the multi-passed
welded joint especially brings about difficulties in the notching procedure that need to be
solved.
Microstructure Distribution in Both Weld HAZ and Weld Metal This metallurgical
change results in problems such as embrittlement in C G H A Z (so-called bond embrittle-
ment), and embrittlement in SCHAZ (for example, hot straining embrittlement [HSE]).
In particular, the deterioration in toughness occurs in the small-scale region in HAZs, that
is, the occurrence of LBZs. The complicated distribution often leads to the problem of realizing
reproducibility of test results.
Mismatching in Strength--According to the metallurgical change in HAZ mentioned
above and the use of an electrode bringing about a microstructure different from that of a
base metal, a mismatching in strength level in a welded joint often occurs. This inhomo-
geneity affects the deformation behaviors in the vicinity of the crack tip of the toughness
specimen. In this case, the selection of appropriate fracture-controlling parameters is very
important.
Weld Defects--Although they are not directly related to the choice of toughness testing
method, careful attention should be paid to the procedure for making welded joints.
Weld Deformations The control of deformation is often related to the change of weld-
ing residual stresses.
z American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Preproduction Qualification for Steel Plates
for Offshore Structures (API RP 2Z, 1987); ASTM Recommended Practice for Fracture Mechanics Testing
Weldments (E 24 Committee Draft); and Veritas Offshore Standards, Recommended Practice on Unstable
Fracture (D 404, 1987).
3 ASTM Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399);
British Standard on Crack Opening Displacement Testing (BS 5762); ASTM Standard Test Method for
J~, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813); and ASTM Standard Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening
Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness Measurement (E 1290).
TOYODA ON CTOD TESTING 293
Characteristics of Welding
L_
I-- ~Residual stresses] _--1I
_ J M e c h a n i c a l / Metallurgicall~
Heterogeneity ] =
Heat
Super-critical HAZ Weld
~ . Metal
IBond embritttementI Embrittlement I
Hardening, Softening ~ Weld defectsJ
JWeld crackingJ I r-Blow hole
Sub-critical HAZ [__I-Lack of penetration
JHot Straining Embrittlement I -Slag inclusion
Softening -Weld cracking
FIG. 1--Characteristics of welded joint.
LBZs and Their Properties

The existence of local brittle zones (LBZs) is one of the most important fracture-controlling
parameters in the metallurgical change observed in weld HAZ. The typical size of a brittle zone
is submillimetre in the common multi-layered welded joints. The general tendency in the HAZ
of C-Mn steel welds is given as follows (Fig. 2) [cited from reference list of Ref 8].
1. The coarse-grained HAZ (CGHAZ) by the fusion line generally results in a deterioration
in toughness.
2. In the low toughness microstructures, high carbon content microstructure, so-called mar-
tensite-austenite constituent (M-A constituent), or martensite island, generally exists.
3. In recent high strength structural steels, for example, HT500 class steel, the content of
the M-A constituent is large in the intercritically reheated CGHAZ, which is subjected
to thermal cycle between Acl and Ac3 by the succeeding welding pass (Fig. 3 left)
[9,10].
4. The fracture toughness of CGHAZ with the M-A constituent is controlled by the both
parameter of facet size and a fraction of the M-A constituent.
5. Carbon content in the M-A structure is high level around 1% and its hardness becomes
about Hv ~ 700 [11].
6. Microcracks initiate in the M-A structures or the interface between the M-A and the matrix
structures or both [12,13]. Generally, the probability of the latter is higher.
7. The M-A constituent often decomposes into ferrite and cementite when the tempering
thermal cycle above about 450~ is subjected. The toughness of tempering zone in
CGHAZ, sometimes, is recovered (Fig. 3 right) [9,10].
FIG. 2--Schematic illustration of microstructures of HAZ in multi-passed welds of C-Mn steels.
Mismatching of Strength in Welded Joints

The complicated distribution of strength inevitably exists according to the change of micro-
structures mentioned above. With attention paid to the fracture toughness of weld HAZ, the
following mismatching needs to be considered.
Overrnatching/Undermatching of Weld Metal--As overmatching a weld metal whose
tensile strength is 50 to 100 MPa higher than that of base metal is generally common, the
typical abrupt change of strength level sometimes exists along the fusion line. Accordingly,
the deformation behavior occurs in the unsymmetrical manner when the crack/notch exists
in the vicinity of the fusion line.
Lower Yield Stress in Both Weld Metal and HAZ--Even if the tensile strength of weld
metal and CGHAZ is higher than that of the base metal, the proportional limit or even the
proof stress often becomes lower than that of the base metal [14 ]. There is the possibility
that plastic deformation occurs in advance in the lower yield stress zone.
The effect of these mismatches on the fracture-controlling parameter and the choice of tough-
ness testing procedure should be clarified.
Effect of LBZs on Toughness Testing Procedure

Problems as a Result of the Existence of LBZs
As the fracture toughness by HAZ CTOD test is considerably dependent on a variety of
microstructures along and in the vicinity of the fatigue precrack front, in particular on the
proportion of low toughness material sampled, a certain requirement for sampling the micro-
structure of interest along crack front shall be specified. If there is no restriction, sometimes
the confusion of fracture toughness results and the lack of reproducibility cannot be avoided.
T O Y O D A ON C T O D T E S T I N G 295
o
o ~
e~ Z
.< 0 o ~ ~ _L
c~
I-- 44
co
.o~
o
o
o
~2
~
E
l-
o
8 N
t * * --0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
co 0.J
P ' 0.0 ~e,~BJeuepe~osqv

o ~
I~
.g
N ,
88
0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 ~T'~ ~0
P '0.0 ~ ~6Jeu. peqJosqv ~
r~.5
The problems caused by the existence of LBZs on the choice of HAZ CTOD test are given as
follows:
9 which microstructures should be selected as LBZ in the multi-layered weld HAZ,

9 effect of LBZs on fracture initiation behavior and effect of LBZ size along crack front on
toughness obtained, and
9 how the toughness test specimen shall be extracted to sample the microstructures of
interest.
The most important problem is to clarify the significance of the toughness obtained by a certain
method in the evaluation of fracture performance of practical welded structures.
LBZ Size Effect

Although the intercritically reheated CGHAZ often plays an important role in cleavage crack
initiation in the modem C-Mn steels, the entire CGHAZs should be selected as the dominant
region for crack initiation according to the various conditions of materials, welding conditions,
and so on. As already shown by a number of studies [5-8,10-20], fracture toughness values
are influenced by the potential LBZ (CGHAZ) size along crack front. Figure 4 gives typical
examples of the relationship between critical CTOD of the HAZ-notched specimens and the
total CGHAZ size /COHAZalong the crack front [5,21,22]. Considerably large scatter can be
seen in CTOD values, but these seem to decrease with increasing the total size/COHAZ of the
CGHAZ. Though the minimum value of critical CTOD seems to be independent of the total
size, the mean (average) value of critical CTOD in the same range of a certain size apparently
decreases with increasing the total size.
Statistical Characteristics of CGHAZ Size Effect

The weakest link model has been used with the following assumptions to analyze the CGHAZ
size effect on critical CTOD values in the weld HAZ toughness tests.
9 Cleavage toughness of the HAZ-notched specimen is determined by the strength of the

weakest spot in CGHAZ regions distributed along the crack front.
9 Each CGHAZ region along the crack front is statistically independent.
Based on the weakest link model [15-18,21,22], the CGHAZ size effect is given by
Fl(8c) = 1 - [1 -F~(Sc)] ulo
where F/(8c) and Fro(8,) are failure probabilities at critical CTOD 8c for specimens whose total
CGHAZ sizes are l and lo, respectively. Figure 5 gives the critical CTOD distributions for the
specimen with a certain total CGHAZ length l predicted by the above equation from the test
results for the specimens with different total CGHAZ length [2122 ]. The figure gives both the
results given in Fig. 4 and the results obtained by the different specimen geometry. The pre-
dicted results almost coincide with the experimental data.
In practical welded joints, sometimes the more complicated distribution of microstructures
in the vicinity of pre-existing crack tip can be observed. To use the CTOD results in the
structural reliability assessment, the modified local approach considering the effect of the exis-
tence of local heterogeneity should be adopted. And the appropriate choice of the number of
tests is required according to the characteristics of scattering by the existence of LBZs.
A HT50(I) s t e e l w e l d s , -70"c I 6c 6u
E
E 1.0 SMAW o
B=20mm GMAW A A
1:3 [! A T-SAW [] Ol
o SMAW
i-- B=72mm GMAW :#
(J
T-SAW "~"
0.5
U
n~q~
f~
(J
J I Ai i I n I ~r
v
0 5 10 15 20 30
L:Total size of C.G.HAZ a l o n g crack front ( m m )
FIG. 4~Relation between critical CTOD of HAZ-notched specimens and total CGHAZ length
sampled by crack front (obtained by specimens of two kinds of thickness extracted from welded
joints by three type welds).
Effect of Local Mechanical Heterogeneity

Effect of Mechanical Heterogeneity on Evaluation of Fracture Parameters
In the fracture toughness testing of welded joints, usually including mechanical heterogeneity
of strength and deformability of materials, the effect on both the deformation behavior in the
vicinity of crack tip and the fracture initiation behavior shall be considered.
The applicability of the global CTOD value as a stress-strain controlling parameter in the
vicinity of crack tip, that is, the global CTOD (St), apparently becomes large or small without
corresponding to the physical stress-strain behavior according to the inhomogeneity in strength.
The local parameter, the local CTOD (~L) shown in Fig. 6, corresponding to the stress-strain
condition in the vicinity of crack tip, should be adopted [23-25 ].
The effect of the change of triaxiality in the vicinity of crack tip on fracture initiation behav-
ior, that is, when the harder material exists in the vicinity of crack tip, the increase in the crack-
tip constraint brings about, sometimes significantly, the decrease in fracture initiation resistance
(Fig. 7).
The effect of mechanical heterogeneity can be summarized as follows.
1. Inhomogeneous/unsymmetrical crack opening deformation does not always cause the

appropriate use of conventional global CTOD. Unsymmetrical crack opening behavior
occurs as a result of inhomogeneity not only in the vicinity of but also far from crack tip
region [6]. The distinction between the above two cases shall be clarified.
2. The global CTOD estimated according to the conventional method may be applicable for
the HAZ-notched CTOD testing of under/overmatched weld joint with weld metal of a
strength that differs from that of base metal within about _ 15% difference [6]. For the
significantly unmatched weld joint, an appropriate parameter, such as local CTOD (SL)
[23-25 ], shall be adopted.
3. Recently, discussions have been conducted on the advantage of the use of overmatching
weld metal in the wide plate tension testing of steel weldments. This tendency can be
observed when the fracture toughness of weld HAZ is sufficiently high. However, in the
overmatched weld joint, sometimes the critical CTOD might decrease as a result of the
/k Surface notch r ~ 02[~

ICGHAZ=18-22 mm ( I-CGHAZ= 21 m m )
~1' Through-thickness , / ~ i/1]-: 0

notch (Full size) I IF(
ICGHAZ-- 22 -25rnm (TCGHAZ=24 mm)
Through-thickness
[ ~ 2 22
notch (Small size) f/ ~~ 4
ICGHAZ=9~13mm -'~ Converted to
(TCGHAZ=11mm) ~CGHAZ=21mm
HT50(1) steel welds,-70*C] 95

95 C.G.HAZ size 1=18mm I 9O iHT50 s t e e l welds T=-80"CI
A 90 Experimental
~t'- 70
data
-....
~' B9
9 70
u err
o9 g 50
g 50 O"
& 30
~ a9 >
o_
3
3 ~r
E
E
3 ,~o
U
10 9 :Estimated from 1=3.5-4.5mm
9 :Estimated from 1=4.5~5.5mm
9 :Estimated from 1=5.5~6.5mm
& : E s t i m a t e d from 1=?.5~8.5mm
5 i t i I I * , * I I t I II I I I al I I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5
CriticQI CTOD (ram) Critical CTOD (mm)
FIG. 5--Comparison between critical CTOD distributions obtained by experiments and predicted
from test results of specimens having different size 1CCt_laz by using weakest link model. (left) By deep-
through-thickness notched specimens Steel HT50(I), cited from Fig. 4. (right) By three kinds of
specimen types (Steel HT50).
increase in crack-tip constraint. Careful attention should be paid to the triaxiality in the
vicinity of crack tip when using the overmatching weld metal.
Significance of Local Hard Zones

As mentioned above, the fracture toughness deterioration in the CGHAZ of multi-passed
welds is due to the occurrence of the embrittled microstructure. This is the microstructure
designated as the M-A constituent, which is assumed to be so brittle that it is easily cracked at
the beginning of deformation [12,13 ]. As the M-A microstructure is hard [11 ] enough to cause
derivation from uniformity of stress/strain distributions, it can be regarded as a local hard zone
(LHZ) included in the CGHAZ.
TOYODA ON CTODTESTING 299
~ ~ Definition of tocal C T O D
f 1 612
5L= 5 . 8T=(5 § 8')/2
Speclct[ Case 1 Special Cose 2 (d=O)
d-----O~or 5 ~ II
homogeneous ~ I
material
5/2
5 L=5 T 5L=51 and ~11
ST= (6I+ 511)12
FIG. 6---Definition of local CTOD for heterogeneous cracked specimen.
Stress and strain in the vicinity of the local hard zones affect fracture initiation behavior,
and they are influenced mainly by the shape of the LHZ and the difference between the strength
of the LHZ and that of the matrix material. Figure 8 gives an example of distribution of the
aspect ratio of M-A particles observed for the multi-passed weld HAZ of HT500 class steel.
Though the majority of M-A particles have an aspect ratio smaller than 4, it is varied in the
wide range of 1 to 8 under a certain volume fraction of LHZ. According to the numerical
analyses based on elasto-plastic finite element method (FEM) for models (Fig. 9a) of CGHAZ
containing M-A constituents, the following results were clarified [26].
Stress is considerably elevated in the LHZ so that the LHZ begins to yield at a load level
much lower than the yield stress of the LHZ. Stress distribution in the LHZ depends on the
shape of the LHZ. In the slender LHZ, almost the whole LHZ is exposed so the LHZ sustains
elevated stress. By contrast, in the blocky LHZ, only the edge region of the LHZ sustains
elevated stress (Fig. 9).
As the aspect ratio of the LHZ gets larger, the area of highly stressed region in the LHZ as
well as the maximum stress of the LHZ increases. This shows that the heterogeneous material,
including elongated LHZs, has a lower resistance to unstable fracture triggered by the crack
initiation in the LHZ. This tendency was confirmed by the numerical analyses based on the
local approach. Figure 10 gives the relationship between the fracture probability estimated using
the local approach [26] for the materials, including various types of LHZ and the applied global
stress.
It can be concluded from the above analyses that the heterogeneous material, including
elongated LHZs, has lower fracture toughness than that with blocky LHZs. In other words, the
CGHAZ containing elongated M-A constituents gives a considerably lower critical CTOD than
the CGHAZ with massive M-A constituents. And the variety of aspect ratio of local hard and
brittle zone results in the scatter of the critical CTODs obtained as shown in Fig. 11.
The local mechanical heterogeneity brings about problems: how to control the shape of M-
2 H i_.. o
9
-- -- 2 8 0 - - - -
(a) P t y p e
~ l
_ Jti
Detail of notch
' ~//////////////17///////////~
o
, : ..... ~ .... I ~--- ~.In o w... H_~
(Unit:ram)
280
(b) Ltype d = 1.5ram
B
100 100
Test temperature -120"C Test temperature -150"C
OAQ :
Cleavagefracture ~ / (3 A
]Overmatched/
c::0 ......./ / v
A
/'--weld joint
O
/
E
cr r
~gs0 50 ! o~Evenmatched
I / weld joint
5r ~ z~ 0 /Evenmatched >
0 A : Cleavage fracture
"// ~ ~=~, Cleavagefracture
E
o
3
~/'/ Z"4 E
3
A/Vr () ' with fibrot,scrack
t ..hi t)
o....~atcheO ,,,*M.., IJ W.M.
1 i lllllll i 1,1,1111 , 1,1

0 0 T f I ,~l,I ~ ~ ~ I
(201 O.05 O.t 0.5 1.0 5,0 0.05 0.1 0.5
Critical CTOD (ram) Critical CTOD (turn)
FIG. 7 ~ o m p a r i s o n of critical CTODs based on total and local CTODs for both even~over-
matched weld joints." (a) design for CTOD test specimens with P- and L-type heterogeneity; (b)
critical CTODs for P-type specimens; and (c) critical CTODs for L-type specimens.
A particles in the CGHAZ to improve the fracture toughness of steel weld HAZs and how to
evaluate appropriately the scattering characteristics of fracture toughness observed in the test.
The control of the shape of LHZ particles as well as the control of the volume fraction of M-
A constituent in the CGHAZ is the future important problem to be considered from the material
design standpoint.
The State-of-the-Art of CTOD Tests for Weld HAZ

As mentioned already, the fracture mechanics testing standards (see footnote 3) commonly
used, including the CTOD testing standard, assume the use of metals with a high degree of
homogeneity, although that is not explicitly stressed. In reality, welded joints have macroscopic
heterogeneity. The problem to be solved is whether the simple adoption of common methods
Chemicalcomposition,mass% |
I Steel C I Si [ Mn I P I S ] Co J Ni I "l'i I Nb I A I I N
I TMCP(420MPa) 0.07 0.11 1.45 0.010 0.001 0.26 0.73 0.008 0.012 0.035 0.0025 t
CGHAZ ICCGHAZ
Vf (MA)= 4.1% Vf (MA)= 6.5%
35
No. of observations ---300
v 30
>.
II
O Solid : CGHAZ
c- 25
d) Open : ICCGHAZ
ET 20
Aspect ratio : b / o
(1) 15
.+-
c" 10
o
~ 5
13..
0 ....
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Aspect ratio : b/a
FIG. 8--Percentile frequency of aspect ratio of M-A particle in weM CGHAZ of liT500 steel [9].
is appropriate for evaluating the fracture toughness of welds. To establish the fracture toughness
evaluation method, the role of the heterogeneity mentioned above must be clarified.
Based on the discussions in the working group (chaired by the author) of International
Institute of Welding (IIW) Commission X, the following recommendation for the general lower-
bound fracture toughness testing of weld HAZ is given as follows.
For the purposes of the test, it is recommended to distinguish among general lower-bound
fracture toughness testing, assessment of a specific defect, and welding mechanics research.
The purpose of the test shall be specified before the testing, and shall be stated in the test
report.
Regarding the welding, it is recommended that strict controls such as the pass sequence
technique, for example, number of layers and the degree of heat treatment from previous layers;
the heat input, for example, the highest and lowest levels in the required range of heat input;
and the straightness of the fusion line are necessary, and a high quality macrophoto or a sketch
of the weldment is included with the test report.
Aspect rotlo LHZ Matrix

of U-IZ
LI type 1
Serlesl
(Effect of LHZ shape) L2 Iype 2 YP1200
L4 ~pe 4
YP900
YP1200
LI ~ p e 1
Sedes II YPlb00
Effect of LHZstrength) YP1200
L4 type 4
YP1600
O
t tat t tat
t t I : 3
:b=2-N-a4~i
I I'-,-.Ia= 2 [
L1 type L2 type
0
ttt t tat
..,,............-- 8 ~
I
1
/
I
I 8
O
I,
J -.-I-4---a=I
1
L~ type L8 type
FIG. 9--Stress distribution in the vicinity of LHZ and effect of aspect ratio LHZ on maximum
stress imposed on LHZ: (a) mechanical models including LHZ for analysis (unit in tzm).
The recommended specimen geometry is B*2B through thickness and notched with a/W =
0.5 and full-component thickness. Careful attention should be paid in the assessment of a
specific crack when surface notching is applied. The application of the shallow notch type
specimen is a problem yet to be solved.
The recommended specimen preparation is a straight crack front perpendicular to the plate
surface based on a limitation. To obtain the appropriate straight crack front for weld HAZ
notched specimen, a local compressive method is generally recommended.
The microstructure at the fatigue precrack tip needs to be identified. The fracture toughness
result for the multi-passed weld HAZ is remarkably sensitive to the microstructures in the
vicinity of crack tip of test specimen. According to the purpose of the tests, it is recommended
to section near the fatigue precrack and examine the cross section to identify the position in
the HAZ microstructures based on the peak temperature calculation method by the weld thermal
history.
Locate the notch and validate the HAZ fracture toughness specimen. As the relation between
8
/ ".~I ?__u o --~
r~
cO
: . . . . . . . . . . -" -- ,' -o, -s( . b ~~
O
O
:o :o O
co
O
c~
O
~
O
o
~ o~
d
(OdlAI) x~u~(~ ), ZH-I u! sseJ~s IID!XlOLUnLU!XDIAI I~
"- x ~
~
~ o • '-- "a ~
o~
d.~
-~1_~ o 1',4
o,-
I I I I
O 0 o o
O
o3 o S 8
o 0 0 "-- "~
d
(OdlAI) AD' sseJ4.SIo!xv
99.9
99.e
8
9s
7C
~-SG
L1 type
-I--
= go
_Q
0
..Q
o
o_ 10 N N 8
~
-t-- 5 L2type
o
U-
1
L4 t y p e
0.5
9OO 9]0 920 930 940 95O
Gross stress , ~G (MPo)

FIG. lO--Effect of aspect ratio of LHZ on fracture probability of heterogeneous specimen with
LHZ based on local approach theory with m~z = 20 and (tr.)Lnz = 1250 MPa.
microstructures and fracture initiation point is considerably dependent on the extraction method
of specimen, a mutual understanding between the parties concerned on the significance of the
requirement for the length of materials of interest along crack front is required.
For the general assessment for evaluating the lower-bound toughness of the multi-passed
weld HAZ, the total size /COHAZof the entire CGHAZ, which includes the ICCGHAZ,
SCCGHAZ, and UACGHAZ sampled by the fatigue crack front, is an appropriate measure of
LBZs' size. The lower-bound toughness can be generally evaluated when the total length lc~HAz
of CGHAZ is larger than about 7 ~ 8 mm. (This just corresponds to 15% CGHAZ in case of
plate thickness = 50 mm.)
The arrestability of pop-in cracks in the CTOD test of weldments can be evaluated by the
method proposed by the recent researches. However, it is recommended that the acceptance of
pop-ins shall be evaluated by the considerations such as the structure and design philosophy.
It is recommended that the strength level of weld metal should be evaluated to clarify the
strength distribution in the vicinity of crack tip. The effect on both the fracture-controlling
parameter and the fracture initiation behavior shall be considered. When the strength difference
between base metal and weld metal is within ---15%, the effect of strength distribution on a
fracture toughness parameter is not necessarily remarkable. However, careful attention should
be paid to the triaxiality in the vicinity of crack tip when using the overmatching weld metal.
Until more proper statistical procedures have been developed for the prequalification testing
for evaluating the lower-bound toughness, the minimum value of three tests is adopted as a
basis for accepting. If the minimum of three tests does not satisfy a certain requirement, a
second set of three (or five) tests may be performed. When the additional tests meet the required
TMCP steel (YP420MPa) welds

Test temperature = -70 ~
2.0 " " ' 12
[nterpass
te mp.'['o (' C) ~ u
B@ 25 9
A 250 A
@
-'-1.5 @
E :~ o,| .i o
E
'.'" .~ t
@ B
Z~ @ C
o
~- 1.0
(J
;. '.),
~U
i-
9 ,... ::-- - .
~0.5 o@
i
. -;.,24"_." .',-i
C D
0 I I I I
20gin
0.5 t.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Fraction of MA constituent (%)
FIG. 11--Influence of shape of M-A constituent on critical CTOD value of weld CGHAZ.
value, it is equivalent based on the probabilistic approach to the probability that the minimum
of three tests meets the requirement.
It is further recommended that proper statistical procedures should be developed, especially
with respect to the brittle-ductile transition area and inhomogeneous materials such as
weldments.
Concluding Remarks
In this document, the state-of-the-art and the problems of the CTOD test for the steel weld
HAZ were discussed with particular reference to mechanical heterogeneity. The choice of the
most appropriate toughness testing method is required to evaluate toughness for assessing the
structural integrity of welded structures. The most important points to be made clear in tough-
ness testing are those that help to understand what we want to know and what we can get.
In the selection of fracture toughness testing method, the following checkpoints of control
can be provided.
1. Is there sufficient understanding of the purpose of the test, including the kind of toughness
to be evaluated and application field of toughness data?
2. Is there appropriate pretest preparation, including the selection of appropriate welding
procedures and the selection of a specimen consistent with the purpose of the test?
3. Is the effect of the welding on the notching considered appropriately? How is the residual
stress relieving conducted for obtaining the straight crack front?
4. Is the validation of the results of the HAZ CTOD testing appropriate? How is identification
of microstructures at crack tip conducted? How is the sectioning conducted? How long
is the microstructure of interest sampled by fatigue crack? Especially, is the effect of the
LBZs' size on the toughness obtained considered according to the purpose of the test?
5. Is the problem of scatter in toughness handled? How many tests should be conducted?
How is the scatter based on probabilistic approaches handled?
6. How are the results treated, if pop-in occurs? Is the main cause of pop-in the inhomo-
geneity in the weld HAZ or the other mechanical incidence?
7. Is the effect of mechanical heterogeneity considered? Is the estimate method of the tough-
ness parameter (CTOD) appropriate? Does the heterogeneity in strength affect fracture
initiation resistance or not?
Accordingly, the following two points should be required as the future problems in the
practical application of toughness data of weld HAZ:
1. to establish the common understanding on the meaning and importance of the testing
practice and the evaluation method and
2. to establish the proper application of the test results with understanding the significance
of toughness obtained.
References
[1 ] Squirrell, S. J., Pisarski, H. G., and Dawes, M. G., "Recommended Procedures for the Crack Tip
Opening Displacement (CTOD) Testing of Weldments," BSI ISM/4/4, Working Party Report, Brit-
ish Standards Institution, London, England, 1986.
[2] Thaulow, C., "Recommendations on Fracture Mechanics Testing," Nordtest Project Report, 1988.
[3] Satoh, K. and Toyoda, M., Guidelines for Fracture Mechanics Testing of WM/HAZ, IIW Doc. X-
1113-86, 1986, and Appendix.
[4] "Consideration on CTOD Test for Weldments," Intermediate Report (in Japanese), FTW Commit-
tee, Japan Welding Engineering Society, 1987.
[5] Toyoda, M., "Significance of Procedure/Evaluation of CTOD Test of Weldments," IIW Doc. X-
1192-89, International Institute of Welding, 1989.
[6] Toyoda, M., "Recommendation for CTOD Testing of the Heat Affected Zones of Steel Weldments,"
IIW Doc. X-1217-91, International Institute of Welding, 1991.
[7] Toyoda, M., "Fracture Toughness Evaluation of Steel Welds, Review Part I," IIW Doc. X-1191-
89, International Institute of Welding, 1989.
[8] Toyoda, M., "Fracture Toughness Evaluation of Steel Welds," Review Part II, IIW Doc. X-1191-
89, International Institute of Welding, 1989.
[9] Kawabata, F., Amano, K., Toyoda, M., and Minami, F., "Tempering Effect by Succeeding Weld
Passes on Multi-Layered HAZ Toughness,"in Proceedings of the lOth International Conference on
OMAE, Stavanger, OMAE-91-713, 1991.
[10] Haze, T. and Aihara, S., "Influence of Toughness and Size of Local Brittle Zone on HAZ Toughness
of HSLA Steel," in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on OMAE, Vol. III, Houston,
1988, p. 515.
[11 ] Komizo, Y. and Fukada, Y., "CTOD Properties and M-A Constituent in the HAZ of C-Mn Microal-
loyed Steel," Quarterly Journal of the Japan Welding Society (in Japanese), Vol. 6, 1988, p. 41.
[12 ] Aihara, S. and Haze, T., "Influence of High-Carbon Martensitic Island on Crack-Tip Opening Dis-
placement Value of Weld Heat-Affected-Zone in HSLA Steels," in Proceedings of TMS Annual
Meeting, Phoenix, 1988.
[13] Yoneda, M., "Effect of Martensitic Island on Fracture Toughness of HT80 Steels," Ph.D. thesis,
Osaka University, Osaka, Japan, 1985.
[14 ] Denys, R. M. and Dhooge, A., "Mechanical Testing Properties of Weld Simulated HAZ Microstruc-
tures in Normalized, Quenched-Tempered and TMCP Low Carbon Manganese Steels," in Proceed-
ings of the 7th International Conference on OMAE, Vol. III, Houston, 1988, p. 207.
[15] Satoh, K., Toyoda, M., and Minami, F., "A Probabilistic Approach to Thickness Effect in Fracture
Toughness," IIW Doc. X-1111-86, International Institute of Welding, 1986.
[16] Satoh, K. and Toyoda, M., "Fracture Toughness Evaluation of Welds with Mechanical Heteroge-
neity," Transactions of the Japan Welding Society, Vol. 13, 1982, p. 30.
[17] Satoh, K. and Toyoda, M., "The Incidence of Mechanical Heterogeneity on Fracture Toughness
Evaluation of Welds," IIW Doc. X-1031-83, International Institute of Welding, 1983.
[18] Toyoda, M., Oda, I., Tatsukawa, I., and Satoh, K., "Fracture Behaviors of Fracture Toughness
Testing Specimen with Heterogeneity along Crack Front," Journal of the Society of Naval Archi-
tecture, Japan (in Japanese), Vol. 148, 1980, p. 215.
[19] Mutoh, Y., Toyoda, M., Satoh, K., and Doi, S., "Fracture Toughness Evaluation of the Heteroge-
neous Bond Region in HT500 Steel Weldments," Transactions of the American Society for Mechan-
ical Engineers, Journal of Engineering Materials Technology, Vol. 106, 1984, p. 16.
[20] Nakanishi, M., Komizo, Y., and Fukada, Y., "CTOD of Welded Joint," (lst and 2nd report) (in
Japanese) in Preprint of National Meeting of Japan Welding Society, Vol. 36, 1985.
[21 ] Toyoda, M., Minami, F., and Satoh, K., "Probabilistic Analysis of Fracture Toughness of Weld
HAZ with LBZ," IIW Doc. X-1159-88, International Institute of Welding, 1988.
[22 ] Toyoda, M., Minami, F., Yamagudi, Y., and Kaneshima, Y., "Influence of Extraction Method of
CTOD Specimen on HAZ Toughness Measurement," in Proceedings of the lOth International Con-
ference on OMAE, Vol. HI. A, Stavanger, 1991, p. 109,
[23] Satoh, K., Toyoda, M., and Satoh, S., "Stress-Strain Controlling Parameter of Cracked P/ate with
Mechanical Heterogeneity," Transactions of the Japan Welding Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1985.
[24] Satoh, K., Toyoda, M., Minami, F., Nakanishi, M., Arimochi, K., et al., "Effect of Mechanical
Heterogeneity on Fracture Toughness Evaluation of Steel Welds," Transactions of the Japan Weld-
ing Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1985.
[25] Satoh, K., Toyoda, M., Arimochi, K., and Nakanishi, M., "Local CTOD Criterion Applied to Frac-
ture Evaluation of Weldments," in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Storage and
Transport of LPG and LNG, Brugge, 1984.
[26] Minami, F., Toyoda, M., Jing, H. G., Kawabata, F., and Amano, K., "Stress-Strain Behavior of
Material Including Local Hard (High-Strength) Zone," in Proceedings of the llth International
Conference on OMAE, Vol. III-B, 1992, p. 459.
William A. Van Der Sluys ~ and Marie T. Miglin ~
Results of MPC/JSPS Cooperative Testing

Program in the Brittle-to-Ductile Transition
Region
REFERENCE: Van Der Sluys, W. A. and Miglin, M. T., "Results of MPC/JSPS Cooperative
Testing Program in the Brittle-to-Ductile Transition Region," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-
Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet,
ABSTRACT: This paper describes the activities and test results of the Material Properties Coun-
cil (MPC) working group on fracture toughness testing in the brittle-to-ductile transition region,
a cooperative testing program. The MPC working group was organized in 1987 with the objective
to study the problem of data scatter in the transition region and to develop the materials infor-
mation needed to support the development of test procedures and testing philosophies or both.
The MPC group was invited by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) to coor-
dinate a cooperative testing program in the United States and elsewhere.
A total of 18 laboratories participated in the test program with approximately 150 IT compact
fracture toughness specimens being tested. The tests were conducted at three test temperatures
in the ductile-to-brittle transition region. This paper presents an overview of the test program,
details about the material, overall test matrix, test plan, and summary of the results.
The experiments were conducted between the temperature regions where the ASTM Test
Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials and J~c Measure of Fracture
Toughness (E 399 and E 813), respectively, are usually applied. The tests were conducted fol-
lowing the ASTM Test Method E 399 testing procedure except that the fracture toughness was
determined using the equations in ASTM Test Method E 813 for the calculation of J at the point
in the load displacement curve at which the specimen failed. The J values measured by using
this procedure were converted to the units of K. Some of the laboratories used the unloading
compliance procedure during the experiments to monitor the amount of crack extension prior to
the cleavage failure.
A number of different procedures were used in the test program to estimate the lower bound
fracture toughness values. The two and three parameter Weibull fits appear to be the best of the
procedures used. The results from this cooperative test program should be of great value to
researchers in this field as a data set useful for making decisive studies.
KEYWORDS: fracture toughness, transition temperature, low alloy steel, Weibull analysis
The fracture toughness properties of many carbon and low-alloy steels can exhibit an exces-
sive amount of data scatter. These materials exhibit a transition in fracture mode from ductile
to brittle as the temperature is decreased through a transition region. The scatter in the measured
fracture toughness values in the brittle-to-ductile transition region is greatly increased over that
normally observed at test temperatures either above or below this transition. The accurate
measurement of the fracture toughness of a material in this region is important since the tem-
peratures of many service applications are in this region or pass through this region during
Scientist and principal engineer, respectivly, Babcock & Wilcox, Research and Development Division,
Alliance, OH 44601.
308
VAN DER SLUYS AND MIGLIN ON THE MPC/JSPS TESTING PROGRAM 309
system start-up or shut down. The problem is further complicated and perhaps partially caused
by the change in the fracture mode from a cleavage mode to a ductile tearing mode in this
temperature range. At this time, standard fracture toughness testing methods for the measure-
ment of either K~c or J,c can be used to measure the fracture toughness when either the brittle
cleavage mode or the ductile tearing mode occur but mixtures in the fracture mode are difficult
to interpret and result in fracture toughness values that are not valid by the ASTM test methods.
Many specimens tested in this region will exhibit some amount of ductile tearing and then
fracture by cleavage.
In 1987, the Material Properties Council (MPC) held a workshop on this issue. As a result
of this workshop, a working group was formed to investigate ways of either reducing the scatter
or improving the methods of interpreting the results from fracture toughness tests conducted
in the brittle-to-ductile transition temperature region and to develop an optimum test procedure
for this region.
Soon after its formation, the task group learned of a new test program being planned on this
subject by Committee 129 of the Japanese Society for the Preservation of Science (JSPS). The
objective of the JSPS project was to collect a large number of test results in the brittle-to-
ductile temperature region and use the data to develop a test method in the transition region.
TABLE 1--Participants in the cooperative program.
Test
Number of Temperatures,
Participants Specimens ~
Nagoya University 5 - 100

University of Tokyo 5 - 100
Mitsubishi Electric Co. 5 -75
Nippon Kokan K.K. 5 -75
Waseda University and Nippon Steel Co. 5 -75
Sumitomo Metal Ind. Ltd. 5 -50
Toshiba 5 -50
Central Research Institute of the Electric 5 -50
Power Industry
Japan Steel Works Ltd. 5 -50
5 -75
5 - 100
Texas A & M University 15 -75
United States Naval Academy 5 - 100
The Welding Institute 5 - 100
Materials Engineering and Associates 5 -50
5 -75
5 -100
Kernforschungszentrum Karlsmhe Gmbh 5 -50
Oak Ridge National Lab 5 -50
5 -75
5 - 100
United Kingdom Atomic Energy 5 -50
Authority
5 - 100
Babcock & Wilcox 5 -50
5 -75
5 - 100
G. E. Kapl 5 -50
5 -75
5 - 100
TABLE 2--Test matrix.
Number of Number of
Test T e m p e r a ~ , ~ Participants Tests
-50 9 45
-75 10 50
-100 9 45
The test program was developed to evaluate analytical procedures for interpreting the results,
to predict a lower bound fracture toughness value from the test results, and to evaluate statistical
procedures that may be helpful in reducing the number of tests needed at a particular temper-
ature. The MPC task group was invited by the Japanese committee to participate in their
cooperative program. The MPC task group solicited participants from the United States and
Europe, while the JSPS committee arranged for participants from Japan.
Program Description
A total of 18 laboratories participated in the test program with approximately 150 IT compact
fracture toughness specimens being tested. Nine of these laboratories worked with the JSPS
while the other nine worked through the MPC. The test material was ASTM A 508 cl.3. The
tests were conducted at three test temperatures: - 100, - 7 5 , and -50~ in the ductile-to-brittle
transition region. Table 1 presents a list of the participants and the number of specimens and
test temperatures for each participant. Table 2 presents a summary of the test matrix and Table
3 contains information concerning the A 508 cl.3 test material. Figure 1 presents the preliminary
information determined by Japan Steel Works (JSW) on the fracture toughness versus temper-
ature for the test material used in this program.
Specimen Machining and Distribution

The specimen blanks were machined from three blocks of the test material following the
cutting diagram and specimen numbering system shown in Fig. 2 and supplied to the MPC
working group by the JSPS for distribution to the U.S. and European participants. The specimen
blanks that each participant received were randomly selected from the blanks shown in Fig. 2.
TABLE 3--Test material.
ASTM A 508 cl.3 chemical composition (a).

C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Mo A1
0.19 0.20 1.42 0.003 0.003 0.76 0.15 0.48 0.017
Tensile and impact properties (b).
0.2% Offset
Yield Tensile Reduction
Strength, Strength, of Area,
Mpa Mpa Elongation, % % FATT, ~ NDTT, ~
456 599 24.8 75.9 - 15 -30
400 0
0
0 Jc 0
E 9 Jic (R-curve)
0
9 KIc 0
0 0
:E
300 0
r
u~
u~
w
Z
200
O0o /
o 0 0o 0/
w
Oo/,, -
,.j
100
I-,-
0
<
IlC
0 I I I I
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
TEMPERATURE, ~
FIG. i--Preliminary fracture toughness results on the test material.
/ ~ ' : ~.,..~,:
...:'-.<....:2.~.~,-~- ] /
,, ... .....
- ....
- .....
- : ...~2~.a...,'~- .... _i_
~': . . . . . . . . " ....... "" ....... /" ....... 1" /
I o., ~ .-i ~9-1 ~ ~1 1""."~1;1"~"';'~""
." ,"~ - :.'"
/'~
//
,,............
::..,........::..
...........
..:.,...:..-::...Li.;i...
,,I/
~..:.......-..-
.......-:........-:......{.- ...~;. / /
I 25-I : 2~I : ~ - I : 2s-~ .... ." .~-' /370
........ : ........ 4- ........ " ........ I" ..-"
, ,"i" .................................... l, V'/

No. 3 MATERIAL
FIG. 2--Material cutting diagrams.
~,,.,~,-, / ,'!,' /
"~ / . ..-":: --- -:/--. -.:-': :..... -.."::-- -../..."i
/ ~ . ' . ~:::.. ..%- ::: ... : ~ 'i .--:- - -; ._L

I ~ ..... -" ." ." ', .-" f ~ ' .."~," ,/,
I ':-;.;r";:;-..'r-;:;-r";,:;i:...j'~-;,.-.--"
........ ~........ ~ ........ : ........ t" .. . . . . . . " "! -"
JJ
t ..... ;..-:.'.::.:-.::..:.:':::.::.'.'..-..:'.r:rz::~r:.~ ........ " .2 ..f .."
I ..... , , , , ..:~-,...::7.. / /
I| I.""
~". . . . . . . .
-" ""
,'-" . . . . . . . ,'-". . . . . . . .
""
e; . . . . . . .
I " 1"2."
I" " " l - " /
/ 4/ 7 s N U M B E R OF T E S T PIECES: 61
I / I1-1 : 10-1 : 11-1 : 12-1 t .." I'" / /
I ........ " ........ + ........ i ........ t .."
I # ,h -~-~---:--72'
i
: '-s-?---:---~-')---l"
........ i
"1 / / /
It , , I
'I Iv-/ / / . " ' q "j " 42
" 2
"1'
42-3
/~l/
No. 2 MATERIAL ..I.~. [~'-'-'" ....... :;':" ......... ":::'- ............ .i'il"-5d
~o~%,. I 41. i ~s i ~s ...... !...... /2~
1
Tr"
/
~ '
~ -
~
'
:
/ "
. :
.'~--..'f'-%"
.....
I
r;7T;;
~" ~ ~-" : '~"
....
....... ~ Z / . f
. .....
..... 7'
i
T I " ~ , . - - ........ :.: I-" / 44-2 I '4.s 13os
I t ~ : ........ -I-'" _...,U" ..>" ..-': ~
/I ~ ~ - .: -".:- ! . - " ;-- "~ =1
/ I ~ ' - .."-::~.---
. I~ : ..~.--:-7
I- 1~o -I
No, 1 MATFRIAL
FIG. 2--Continued.
The specimens were machined and precracked by the individual participants following the
specimen dimensional requirements of ASTM Test Method E 813.
Test Procedures
The experiments were conducted in the temperature regions between the region where ASTM
Test Methods E 399 and E 813 are usually applied. The tests were conducted following the
usual ASTM E 399 testing procedure, except that the fracture toughness was determined using
the equations in ASTM E 813 for the calculation of J at the point in the load displacement
curve at which the specimen failed. This procedure was used because a method of determining
the fracture toughness from an experiment in which the load displacement curve was nonlinear
was needed. The J values measured by using this procedure were converted t O the units of K
by using the equation K z = EJ/(1- ix2). Some of the laboratories used unloading compliance
during the experiments to monitor the amount of crack extension before the cleavage failure.
The fracture toughness tests were conducted in groups of five tests. Each of the participating
laboratories tested five specimens at each of the test temperatures. Some of the laboratories
conducted tests at only one or two of the test temperatures, while others conducted tests at all
three of the temperatures. A total of 140 fracture toughness tests were conducted with 45 tests
at - 5 0 and - 1 0 0 ~ and 50 tests at -75~
Information Reported
Each of the laboratories were asked to report the following items.
(1) precracking stress intensity factor;

(2) load and loading line displacement record;
(3) table of results (shown in Fig. 3);
(4) specimen report sheet: precrack length, stretched zone width, and crack growth length
across the specimen thickness;
(5) Weibull plots and the determined Kc(J) values having 3, 5, and 10% fracture probabil-
ities;
FRACTURE TQUGHNESS TEST DATA

Lab No.
Test Thickness Crack Length Ligament Kax. ]lu. Arean Kc(J) Crack
$pc. No. Temp. B Avg. a v-e, Load Deflection Growth
('C) (anan) (anm) (urn) (lIPan) (N) (J) (MPa~an) Avg. (anan)
FIG. 3--Fracture toughness test data reporting sheet.
SPECIHF./I REPORT SIIEET
Lab.Ho. Spec.No.
Ha~ined Hot~ Length

(fros center of loadl~ for ~ specimens). m|
Maximum Precracklng Stress Intensity Factor HPa,t~"
Loading Rate (deflectlon/tlae) mm/aln
Location Precrack Length Stretched Zone Width Crack Grovth Length

~Across Thickness) (Froa Notch Tip) (Frol Precraek TIp) (~FromPrecrack Tip)
(i) == ym /~a
(2) m. /,= pm
(3) n yl ~l
(4) u ,urn /~m
(5) ma /~s /~m
C6) ml ~m ~11
(7) aim ,urn yn
(8) mm /am /~m
(9) am /zm /~m
~rotaI u ~m ~m
Average ant /~m ~q
Please attach the photographs used for crack growth measurMents.

FIG. 3--(Cont'd). Specimen reporting sheet.
(6) photographs of the fractured surfaces;

(7) Kc(J) versus Aa R curve;
(8) graphs used for the determination of Kc(J) i and To;
(9) lower bound fracture toughness transition curve; and
(10) return of one half of each fracture specimen.
In addition to these items, each participant was asked to respond to a questionnaire on details
of their test procedures. The results from the survey of test procedures is presented in Table 4.
As can be seen in this table, only nine on the laboratories responded to the questionnaire.
=
~ ~, m +m + + + ~ ,+ + v '+++ + +'
+ +.+ + + + ++ .~ +~
m
,+ ~ , + + i I I I
o 8+m ~, ":.m + ++ ++ +~ ~'~ + ~,_+?:,++

;o + +
L
: + ; , + I I I I I I I I I m I I I
=
+ . . .o
+ ++ ~ ~ ++ ~ e ,++. ~ +
,. + + + I I I I I ~ I I I I I m I I I
mB + o ++o~ '+ '~ o+" +, ++ "+

+0:+++ '+
+~
+ + ,, + ~~0 +
~+ v: ~-
<+ +++'~ +
+ + ++ + + I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I
m: + P' -+
9- +.., + o++ ~ ,:+ + ~ o +
m
+ + + + i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i
o ~ + m
,-+ +.- + +,+ ++ +, .m +,
+ ~ ~ o + + ,
o +
m + '?'0 m ~ + m ~' " " +, + + ~
~ + + + + i i ~ i i ~ i , i i i ~ i ~ i
~ .~.+ m ~<+ , ~ ++ m ++ "+ ' +~: + ~ ~.+ + + ++ +

. p+ o
+ +
, + I I I I I
M I +1 I I I I I I ! i
i ~ .~i
-..; .~ +" o ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~,'++~ -+
; ; ; ; ; ; : : I I I I I I+~ I I l
o. +~ . ~ o .+ + + +~ .+ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ++
i ~ i I f I a I =
o o
-~ .~-j , ~
-~ ~ u+ ~ ~.~ ~ L~ = | ,~ ~.~ .~ ~ ~ | | .~
+J +7,
~ om ~ ~+ +~ ~ +~ .++ +o +~ , ~ ........ +~
..~ ~
F--I i p ~ i m i ~ i [_+u I
Results
All results reported by the participants are reproduced in Tables 5 and 6. Figure 4 presents
the fracture toughness values determined in the cooperative test program versus the test tem-
perature. Figure 4a presents the results obtained by the MPC participants, and Fig. 4b presents
the results from all the participants. The data scatter increases markedly as the test temperature
increased, with little increase in the r~inge of the scatter between the MPC data set and the total
data set. This amount of scatter is typical of past observations in this temperature region. These
are the expected results for this test program.
Figure 5 presents the measured amount of ductile crack extension that occurred in each test
before the cleavage failure of the specimen, as a function of the test temperature. This figure
also presents the results for the MPC program and the total program. This figure shows a similar
pattern, as seen in Fig. 4. The variability in the amount of ductile tearing before cleavage in
tests conducted in this temperature region appears to be related to the scatter in the measured
fracture toughness values. This is partly due to the method of determining the measured fracture
toughness from the calculated J value, since the area under the load displacement curve gen-
erated while the crack is tearing contributes to the J value.
The results can be plotted in the form of an R curve. The three plots in Fig. 6 represent all
of the results from this program at the three test temperatures. These curves have the same
form as more conventional R curves with the exception that they asymptotically approach the
TABLE 5--Results from the cooperative test program.

INITIAl. I
SPEC. # TEST THICKNESS PRE4~;RACK UGAMENT MAX. MAX, Total Final Cr KC(J) DUCTILE MAX LOADING
TEMPI B J LENGTH I w-a I LOADI DEFLECTIONI Area JLen~h IReported CRACKGROWTH PRECRACKK RATE
J (C) J (mm) lavga(mm)J (ram) J (kN) J (ram) J(kNmm) J (mm) J(MPamll2: . . . . . ~ ( m m ) (MPa*~I/2) (mm/mln)
iiT!iii]i!!ii~i~i!iiN!ii~!iil!!i!iM]!iii!i!i!iUil !!i~i~;i~ii~i~N~iIi~i!i~i!i~i~iiii~i!Hiii!i~i~i~ii
2o~ j ~i 2543~l ...............................
Ii~20 I
..................261395. . . . . .
23-2 -50 25.4300 29.2400 21.56~0 54.2705 1.5596 61,4700 29,440G 238.1600 0.2000 25.528 I 0.305
17-3 -~0 25.4000 29.2100 21.48~0 58.2740 3.4366 161.1400 30,1410 386.4900 0.9310 26.000 0.305
21-1 -:SO 25.4300 29.1800 21,6200 543153 1.8720 77.4600 29.5838 267,0300 0.4030 26,000 0.305
20-3 -30 25,4000 29,0800 21.3900 57,8292 2.4460 108.2800 294960 317,6600 0,4160 25.716 0,305
24-4 "75 25,4000 283000 22.1000 56.9395 1.1125 42.7600 28.8300 196.5600 0.1300 25.158 0.305
28-3 -75 25.4000 29,2(~0 21,5100 55,1601 1.40Z~ 56.4400 29.4570 229.9600 0.1670 26.594 0,305
29-2 -75 25.4000 28,7800 22.0100 46,2633 0.4928 11.7700 28,8110 103,3200 0.0310 25.158 0.305
29-4 -75 25.5300 28.9600 21.7800 48.9324 0.5715 18,2900 28.9990 129,0900 0.0390 25.435 0.305
90-5 -75 25.4300 29.3600 21.3900 51.6014 0.7645 22.8500 29.4170 145,7400 0.0570 26.100 0.305
31-3 "100 28.4500 28,9800 21.6200 47.5979 0.5055 12.1700 29.003(3 105,8500 0.0230 25.342 0.305
39-2 "100 25.4500 29,0800 21.6400 48.0427 0.5334 12.8300 29.10~C 108.6000 0.0280 25.342 0.305
31-5 -100 28.4000 29.1100 21,6700 33.1406 0.3150 8.2300 29.122C 87.0000 0.0120 25.716 0,305
39-3 -100 25.4300 29.1300 21.6700 39.7687 0.4064 15.5600 29.162C 119,5500 0.0320 25.811 0.305
29-4 -1(30 25.2700 28.9800 21.70(30 56.0498 0.6883 21.1900 29.035(: 139.6100 0.0550 25.622 0.305
18-4 "50 25.4000 31.2300 19.5100 57.4000 2.7700 119,0000 31.762C 329.7000 0.5320 19.620 1.(300
23-S *50 254000 31.9500 18.8500 45.2300 2.2400, 83.0000 32.368C 280.1000 0,4180 18.910 0.100
26-2 -50 25,4000 31.0500 19.7500 48.9000 3.1300J 128.0000 31.724C 340.6000 0.6740 18.670 0.100
95-5 -50 25.413(30 31.7300 19.0700 41.2C~O 0.9100 I 25.7000 31.856C 155.0000 ! 0.1260 19.620 0,100
40-5 -50 25.5000 31.8400 18.9600 42.9000 1.5800 54.0000 32.161(3 225.3000 i 0.3210 19.340 0,100
18-3 -50 25.3420 30.1560 20.7840 51.9700 2.4760 106.4400 30.581C 321.5900 0.4250 -- --
25-4 -50 25.3420 31.6780 19.2640 41.4600 1.4160 45.0100 31.851C 216.4300 0.1730 -- --
26-5 -50 25.4(300 30.0840 20.7160 49.2400 1.4960 56,9300 30.288C 235.3000 0.2040 -- --
34-I -50 253370 30.2400 20.7250 51.23130 2.7010 116.4100 30.76-4C 336.7600 0.5240 -- --
37-2 -50 25.3420 30.1150 20.8320 47.7400 1.1160 38.3400 30.268E 192.8100 0.1530 . . . . .
19-I -75 25.3440 30,0750 20,8650 49,9600 0.9780 32,9700 30.208C 179,2800 0.1330 -- --
25-3 -75 25.3490 299390 20.9820 49.4500 0.8370 25,8500 30.003C 158.4100 0.0640 . . . . .
23-5 -75 25.34a0 30,0680 20.8950 39,1300 0.4950 10.4800 30,003C 101.0000 0.0250 ......
32-5 -75 25.3340 30,4210 20.5720 46.8800 0.8200 24.2000 30,494C 154,5800 0.0730 . . . . .
34-3 -75 25.3520 30,2380 20.7120 49.6500 1.0900 38,0500 30.345(: 193.20(30 0.1070 . . . . .
17-4 -I00 25.3440 30.0310 20.9090 53.1600 0.8.580 27,8300 30A 17C 165.0900 0,0860 . . . . .
20-5 -I00 25.3160 30.1350 20.8120 34.4400 0.4100 7,3000 30A 35C 84.7800 0,0000 . . . . .
26-3 -I00 25.3440 30.1750 20.7820 43.3100 0.5600 13.2300 30 205C 114.1300 0.0300 . . . .
29-1 -I00 25.3490 3 0.13020 21.0320 43.9900 0.5430 12.9800 30.042C 112.4300 0.0400 -- --
]2-4 -I00 25.3620 30.5660 20.3400 30.9400 0.3740 6.0000 30.566C 77.5600 0.0000 . . . . .
20-2 -75 254000 31.5700 19.3400 42.5000 0.7320 6.9600 31.57(3(: 138,0000 29.000 0.254
20-4 -75 254000 31.9300 18.9900 41.2000 0.8130 8.7800 31.930 145.0G(]0! 30.000 0.254
21-2 -78 25.4100 31:4500 194700 42.5000 0.7920 8.6900 31.450C 143,00C0 29,000 0.254
29-3 -75 25.4100 31.7300 19.1800 40.81300 0.7920 8.6100 31.730C 142.0000 30.000 0.254
90-2 -78 25.4000 31.6500 19.2500 41.1000 0.7520 8.0700 31.650C 140.0000 29.000 0.254
30-3 -75 25.4100 31.4900 19.4200 ,42.0000 0.7820 8.7800 31.490C 143.0000 29.000 0.253
31-I -75 25.410(3 31.2900 19.6300 145.5000 I.C060 17r7400 31.290C 176.0000 29.000 0.254
VAN DER SLUYS AND MIGLIN ON THE MPC/JSPS T E S T I N G PROGRAM 317
TABLE 5--(Cant'd).
SPEC,#
TEMP
(C)t i i
TEST THICKNESS
B
(ram)
PRE-CRACK LIGAMENT
LENGTH
avg a (ram!
w-a
(mm!
31-4 i :7~i ~S.42~i ~i;4~j i ~ 1 4 3 : 3 ~

MAX.
LOAD
,0~
MAX.
(ram)
............. ~
Total
DEFLECTION Area
(kN rnm)
:
~0.77oo
FinolCr
ILen~h
(ram)
31.42oo
KC(J)
]Reported
(MPo mi/2)
182,0000
DUCTILE
avg (ram)
MAX
CRACK GROWTH PRECRACKK
29.ooo
LOADtNG
RATE !
(MPa*mÎ/2) (mm/mln)i
0,2~
I
33-3 -75 25.4300 31,6700 19.2300 43.3000 0,9800 16.5000 31.670[ 172,0000 29.OO0 0,254
33-5 -75 25.3800 31.6700 19.2300 41,40OO 0.8130 9.5100 31.670(: 146.OOOO 29.000 0,2..54
38-3 -75 25.4000 31,4900 19.4100 43.9000 0.9370 12.4300 31.490( 159.OOOO 29.OO0 0.254
37-i -75 25,4000 31.2300 19.6900 41,6000 0,6080 5.3600 31.230( 128,OO00 29.OO0 0.254
38-i -75 25.3500 31.7400 19.1600 43.2000 0.9370 12.4300 31,740( 160.0000 30.000 0.254 i
38-2 -75 25.4000 31.8100 16.0900 42,3000 1.0160 17.6300 31.810( 175.0000 30.OOO 0.254
40-4 -75 25.4100 31.7200 19.1900 44.5000 1.3210 30.4000 31.720( 211.0000 30.000 0,254
21-3 -50 25.5000 31.4800 19.1200 42.8300 2.,]020 75.1100 31.777[ 281.6000 0.2970 30.1300 0.500
24-3 "SO 25,5000 31,58OO 19,0200 36.7400 06350 13,65OO 31,618( 120.4000 0.0380 30.000 0.500
86-1 -SO 25.5000 31.8900 18,7100 41,9600 1.6690 55,7600 32.08601 245.0000 0.1960 30.000 0.500
28-5 -50 25.5000 31.7100 18,8900 40,OOOO 0.9170 25.0800 31.7690[ 163,7OO0 0,0690 30.000 0.500
40-2 -SO 255000 31.70OO 18.9000 43.3700 1.8330 64.3100 31.8840 262.1000 0.1840 30.000 0.500
17-i -100 25.5000 31.7700 18.8300 40.7000 06640 15.7700 31.7910 130.8000 0.0210 30.000 0.500
18-5 -100 25.5000 316400 18.9600 38.6000 0.5910 12.800( 31.6530 117.5000 0.0130 30.OO0 0.500
19-3 -100 25.5000 315600 19.0400 43.8400 08100 21.6900 31.5840 152.6000 0.~2dO 30.000 0.500
21-4 -I00 25.5000 3!.7200 188800 30.04OO 0.4310 6,72OO 31.7400 85.3000 0.0200 30.000 0.500
40-3 -I00 25,5000 31.7100 18.8900 412200 0.6950 164700 31,7410 133.5000 00310 30.000 0.500
28-4 -100 254000 29.6400 21.2000 39.8000 0.4570 97500 29.6481 93,3600 0.0081 27.500 1.000
40-1 -100 254000 29,9800 20.8000 43.2000 0.4900 11,5100 29.9888 I02,07OO 0.0088 27.500 1.000
21 5 -IOO 25.4000 297400 21,1000 50,3OO0 0,6780 19.9800 29.7588 133,7600 0.0188 27,500 1.000
• -100 25.4000 29,6000 21,20OO 45.6000 0.5280 13.0400 29,6125 107.8100 0.0125 27.500 1.000
YT 100 25.4000 29.5000 21,3000 523000 0.6770 20,6400 29.5150 135.3600 0,0150 27,500 1.0OO
32-i -100 I 25.3800 31.4500 19,3100 295000 0.3760 22,1840 31 4513( 78.8000 15.260 0.750
32-2 -]00 253800 31.3600 19.4000 385000 0.5050 38.8850 31.3600 104.4000 15.1110 0,750
35-2 -100 25.3880 31,4800 19,2800 42.5000 0.5990 50,9150 31.4800 117,1OO0 15.010 0750
38-5 -100 25.3800 316500 19,1100 40.2000 0,5600 45.0240 31.6500 112.4000 15.200 0.750
39-i -IOO 25,3800 321600 18.6000 38.6000 05440 41,9968 32,1600 111.6000 15,870 0.750
18-1 -50 256286 30.7315 200685 48.5600 2.2860 91.8518 31.1785 299,5400 0.4470 36,722 0.508
]8-2 -SO 256286 30.1904 20.6096 48,23OO 1.0351 35.4132 30.2590 183.7700 0.0686 27,481 0,5OO
24-1 -SO 25,6286 291109 21.7018 61,1600 1.5161 ! 82.7293 29.3776 276.7400 0.2667 36.714 0.508
28-2 -SO 25.6286 304775 : 20.2971 49.8500 2.4511 ' 10"22731 30.6858 314.4700 0.2083 27.538 0,SO~
36-5 -50 25.6286 30,4368 20,3632 464300 1,4732 53.7644 30.5689 227,6700 0.1321 27.787 0,508
22-3 -75 25.6286 30.4394 20.3606 45.4500 07176 19.6606 30.4851 137,6800 00457 27.928 0.508
22-5 -75 25.6286 30.6807 201193 42.5300 06350 15.5920 30.7315 123,2700 00.5138 27.381 0.508
36-~. -75 25.6286 30.319,9 20,4800 45.5800 0,6731 17.9821 30.3732 131.3300 0.0533 27.067 0.508
36-4 -75 25.6286 30.4698 20,3302 46.9800 0,8001 23.5322 30.5181 150.7300 0.0483 28.202 i 0.508
39-5 -75 25,6286 30.5079 20.3683 48.2300 1.0986 37.9164 30.5943 191.1500 0.0864 28.090 0.508
23-4 -100 25.6286 30.5460 20.2667 34.7500 0.4288 78501 30.5765 87.1800 0.0305 27.583 0.508
24-5 -100 25.6286 30,5054 20.2946 46,7200 0.6574 17.6209 30,5587 130.54OO 0.0533 26,793 0.St~
25-5 -100 25.6286 304724 20.3149 45.9400 0.6302 16.3182 30,5088 125.5600 0.0356 27,653 0.508
27-3 -100 25.6032 30.5613 20.2133 38.1000 0.4796 96442 30,5969 96.8000 0.035r 27.784 0.508
origin of the graph. A minimum toughness value could be estimated from these graphs if a
measuring point were to be picked. Such a measuring point would have to be 0.05 mm or
higher due to difficulties in measuring crack extensions smaller than this.
Figure 7 presents a two-parameter Weibull probability plot of all of the fracture toughness
test results. This type of plot may be used to estimate a low probability toughness value for
this material. The two parameter WeibulI plot does not appear to be a good representation of
the data. Figure 8 shows three parameter Weibull plot, which appears to be a better represen-
tation of the data.
Discussion of Results
The objective of this cooperative program was to develop a set of data that could be used to
evaluate analytical approaches that may be useful in the interpretation of data in the brittle-to-
ductile transition region. Two procedures included in the cooperative program to be evaluated
by the individual participants were the two-parameter Weibull fit to the data and the R-curve
presentation of the results. Figures 7 and 8 represent the results of these studies to determine
methods of predicting a low probability fracture toughness in the transition region from sets of
data. The R-curve approach represents a deterministic approach to determining a lower-bound
value. The R curves presented in Fig. 7 represent the results from all participants. Not all of
the participants reported the amounts of ductile crack growth that occurred during the experi-
TABLE 5--(Cont'd).
SPEC. # TEST THICKNESS PRE-CRACK LIGAMENT MAX, MAX, Total FInol Cr Kc(J) DUCIILE MAX LOADING
I rEMPI B LENGTH w-a LOAD DEFLECTIONI ~ ~ Leo~t, iRepoaed CRACKGf~H PREC~ACKK RATE
(C! !ram! ovg o (mm) (ram) (kN) (ram) I (kN mm) I (mm) I(MPa ml/2) avg (ram) (MPo'mAI/2) I (mm/r'oin)
28:~ i ....... .......... o::~s;i 1 6 ~ I 30:2~i ':~;Y~ o.o,,~os 33,43oI 0.~

6-1 ! -50 25.3900 28.7390 22.111058.0700 1.0500 39,5900 188.7000 0.~9 17.420 0..5~,.
(0.085~
8-2 -50 253900 28,6899 22.2010 .7 0900 0.8500 32.~ 170.80(30 0.0617 19.500 0.500
(0.~19)
8-3 -50 25.39~0 28.7210 22.1690 17.7300 0.9200 36.8900 181.9000 0.0634 19.560 0.500
(0.0936)
8-9 -50 25.3900 28.7270 22.1630 55.8200 07800 27.2900 ~56.5000 0.06~4 19620 0.500
(0.0774]
8-5 -50 253900 28,7940 22,1060 56.4500 0.8400 ~0.9700 1665~O0 0.0576 19.640 0.500
(O.08d~
10-1 -75 I 25.4000 31.3200 19.4800 373000 0.6000 12.7100 113.3000 0,0142 30.000 0500
(0,0429',
I0-2 -75 25.4000 3130C0i )9.5[:O0 432000 1 00(30 30.1000 ~74.30C'0 0,0388 29.900 0500
(0, Ioe6:
i0-3 -75 25.4000 31.0400 19.7600 40.8000 0.5800 16.3900 127.8000 0.0197 29.300 0.500
(0.04~
10-9 -75 25,4000 31.3600 19,4400 42,1000 08300 22.3300 150,3000 0.0'214 30,100 0.500
(0.057~
i0-5 -75 254100 30.9800 19.8200 42.0000 0.7500 191800 138.0000 0.01(jx~ 29.200 0500
(0.0573)
NKK i, -75.8 25.4200 31.9700 18.8700 43.9400 08600 22.4640 151.5000 0.037 29.560 0220
NKK 2 -76 25.4200 31.6100 19.2300 43.5400 0.8300 213140 146.3000 0.O419 28,700 0.260
NKK 3 -76 25.4200 31.6700 19.1700 43.5400 1.0200 291100 171.2000 0.070r 28.770 0.270
~KK 4 -74.8 25.4200 31.6400 19.2000 45. II00 1.3000 42.45~ 206.6000 0.1307 28370 0290
NKK 5 -756 254200 31.5200 19.3200 451100 09900 309610 175.9000 0.0818 28.490 0.260
1 -100 254000 31.0000 19.8000 47.4000 0.7900 23.6000 155.9000 --- 18.6000 05000
2 -I00 25.4000 311000 19.7000 46.(Xs 07300 20.7000 146,3000 *-- 18.6000 0.5000
3 -I00 25.4000 31.0000 19.8000 44.3000 06100 15.6000 126.7000 --- 18.6000 0.5000
4 -I00 25 ,~0O0 31.0000 19.8000 4.4.4000 06800 17.8000 135.2000 --- 18.6000 0.5000
5 -1OO 25.4000 30.8(200 200000 45.7000 06500 173000 132.8000 -- 18.6000 0.5000
9-1 -100 25 d 0 0 0 31,4500 19.2000 41.8000 07170 16,9100 10~.7000 0,0513 24.1600 1.0000
4-2 -]00 25.4000 31.4500 19.2200 22.5d00 0,3200 3,7400 58.7000 0.0220 24,1400 1,0000
4-3 -100 25.4000 31.3100 19,3600 ,8,5200 0.5730 11,7200 99.0000 0.1~75 23.8700 1.0000
4-9 -100 25.4000 31.6000 19.0700 ,8,6900 0.65]0 13.6400 101.8000 0,0340 24,4300 10000
9-5 -t00 254000 33,2600 17.4200 350500 07660 15.7200 105,9000 0,0442 28.0700 1,0000
~5-I -75 254000 303000 20.1000 48.2200 1.0800 40.0000 199.8000 o.oq'27 30.4000 1.8000
45-2 -75 254[;00 30.6000 20.2000 I 48.9500 08300 27,9000 166,5000 0.0639 30.4000 18000
45-3 -75 254000 30.5000 20.3000 41.6500 0.4900 11,7000 107.6000 0.038d 30,4000 1.8000
45-9 -75 25.4000 31.2000 19.600043.0200 0.6600 17,6000 134.1000 0.0556 30.4000 1.8000
45-5 -75 2540(30 3].4000 19.4000 43,9000 0.6700 197000 142.4000 0.0604 30.4000 ]8000
9-1 -50 2540(30 30.1530 20,7570 28.4400 0.3250 4,86d0 58.2000 0.0190 11.6400 1.0000
ments. There are, therefore, significantly fewer points in some of these figures than in Fig. 5.
If the measuring point of 0.05 mm were picked to determine a lower bound K estimate, values
of about 100, 125, and 129 MPa.m 1/z would be determined for - 5 0 , - 7 5 , and -100~
respectively.
These values are presented in Fig. 9 along with the lower-bound predictions from the Weibnll
analyses. The results of the Weibull analysis performed by each of the investigators and the
analysis performed on the complete data set are presented in this figure. The 3, 5, and 10%
probabilities for each of these analysis are presented.
The deterministic R-curve approach is in reasonably good agreement with the Weibull pre-
dictions at -50~ but predicts significantly higher lower-bound numbers at the two lower
temperatures. At - 7 5 and - 100~ the Weibull predictions are below the R-curve predictions.
This appears to be due to the lack of ductile tearing data for many of the tests at these tem-
peratures. The R-curve approach has a major drawback in that it will not work in the lower
transition region were there is no tearing. In regions in which there is tearing in some specimens
and not in others, a toughness value based on the average nontearing value will be predicted.
When the individual data sets of five specimens are considered, it appears that the statistical
treatment of the Weibull analysis is needed in order to obtain reasonable estimates of a lower
bound. At the two lowest test temperatures, the predictions from the individual data sets agree
quite well with the predictions from the whole data set and there is little difference between
the 3, 5, and 10% values. However, atthe highest test temperature of -L50~ there was sig-
TABLE 5~(Cont'd).
INIT1AL I i
rHICKNESS PRE4CRACK UGAMENT MAX. MAX. Total Final Cr Kc(J) DUCTILE MAX LOADING
SPEC.# TEST
TEMP
(C)
B
(mm)
LENGTH
I avg a (mm) I
W-O
(mm) l
LOAD
(kN)
DEFLECTION
(ram)
'
Area
(RN m m )
Length
(mm) (MPa mi/2)I
[
Reported I C R A C K G R O W T H
avg (mm)
PRECRACK K RArE
(MPa'm^l/2) l [mm/mln',
9-3 -50 25.4000 30.6800 20.2300 47.8810 1.9300 72.5890 264.0000 0.3420 11.6800 1.0(300
9-4 -50 254100 30.4530 20.4470 45.7000 1.1770: 3&1440 191,1000 0.1800 11.6800 1,0000
9-5 -50 25.4100 30.6210 20.6790 44.4200 1.1100 33.6710 180.5000 O,1390 11.7200 1,0000
7-i -50 25.4000 31.5100 19.2900 42.4640 1.5690 49,5200 224.4000 0.3123 30.4000 0,9500
7-2 -50 25.4000 31.4gO0 19.3100 40.3070 0.9610 25.1700 159.9000 0.1230 30.4000 0,9500
7-3 -50 25.4000 31,4300 19.3700 39.7180 0.8940 22.4700 151.2000 0.0971 30.4000 0.9500
7-4 -50 25.4000 31.6600 19.1400 40.20<;0 1.2340 36.3900 193.2000 0.1721 30,4000 0.9500
7-5 -50 254000 31.5300 19.2700 39.7180 0.9070 22.9200 152.7000 0,O<;x~6 30.4000 0.9500
I-4 -50 25.4000 30.4900 20.3300 47,5600 1.1300 37.6600 182.8000 0.1016 22.100(3 0.5000
2-5 -50 25.4000 31,0200 19.8700 52.2700 2,7800 121.0300 330.2000 0.5744 22.1000 0.5000
41-1 -50 25,4000 32,0900 18.6100 42.0700 2,0000 68.3100 255,4000 0.3445 24.7000 0.5000
41-2 -50 25,4000 32.0900 18.6400 41.1900 1,9100 62.7600 244,8000 0.2423 22.5000 0.5000
41-3 -50 25.4000 32.0400 18.7200 38.6400 10,7000 28.9300 165,9000 0,0926 25.1000 0.5000
I-i -75 25.4000 30,4600 20.1400 49.1300 1.3200 47,2700 2045~00 0.]161 22.5000 0.5000
1-2 -75 25.4000 306800 20.0200 48.6400 1.]600 397200 188.5000 0.1064 22.5003 0.5000
1.-3 -75 25.4000 30.5100 200800 50.6000 1,6400 55.2100 220,0000 0.1914 22.2000 0,5000
2-2 -75 25,4000 30,5500 20.1200 48.2500 0,8800 27,0700 155,3000 0.0803 22,3000 0.5000
41-4 -75 25,4000 31.8900 18.8300 40.2]00 0.8400 21.3800 t42.2000 0.0582 24.c~00 0,5000
13-1 -100 254000 31.1100 19.69'00 46.7800 ] .0000 30.3900 ]67.5000 0.0917 23.2000 0.5000
13.2 -100 254000 31.2000 19.6100 38.9300 0.5800 12.5300 107.0000 0,0370 23.4000 0.5000
14-5 -100 25.4000 30.9800 19,8000 36,7800 0.5100 10,0000 95.1000 0.0518 23.1000 0.5000
16-4 -]0(3 25.4000 30,8700 19,9100 47.4700 0.8100 23,4400 145,2000 0,0684 22.8000 0.5000
16-5 -100 25.4000 308000 20.0400 45.5000 0.6000 17,880Q 126.4000 0,0538 22.7000 0,5000
23-3 -50 137.2
21-2 -50 221.9
31-2 -50 213.2
33-4 -50 257.7
35-4 -50 257. I
25-2 -75 135.9
27-5 -75 124,4
32-3 -75 124.4
34-2 -75 176
37-3 -75 154.9
26-4 -100 110.7
30-1 -]00 101.8
33-I -I00 112.3
34-5 -I00 136
38-3 -100 60,4
TABLE 6---Results from the stretch cone measurements made on the test specimens after the tests.
SPEC, # TEST STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH AVG STRETCH
TEMP ZONE#1 ZONE#2 ZONE#3 ZONE#4 ZONE#5 ZONE#6 ZONE#7 ZONs#8 ZONE#9 ZONE
(C) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (ram) (mm) (mm) (ram)
20-1 -50 0.1800 0.0330 0.1300 0.1650 0.0900 0.1,450 0.0610 0.1750 0.0350 0,1127
23-2 -50 0.0100 0.0200 0.0170 0,0520 0,0600 0.0380 0.1000 0.0300 0.0040 0.0368
17-3 -50 0.0390 0.0500 0.0500 0.0610 0.0730 0.04~0 0,0650 0.1100 0.0550 0.0625
21-1 -5CI 0,0160 0.0680 0.0370 0.0500 0.0690 0.0500 0.0450! 0.0250 0.0350 0.0440
20-3 -50 0.0130 0.0400 0.0330 0.0800 0.0750 0.0390 0.1100 0.1080 0.0130 0.05~8
24-4 -75 0.0190 0.0350 0.0420 0.0470 0.0640 0.0250 0.0200 0.0200 0,0080 0.0311
28-3 -75 0.0200 0.0500 0.0640 0.0940 0.0450 0.0750 0,0430 0,0280 0.0220 0.0490
29-2 -75 0.0050 0,0160 0.0240 0.0220 0.0120 0.0130 0.0]90 0,0260 0.0030 0.0155
29-4 -75 0.0040 0.0250 0,0160 0,0500 0.0180 0.0200 0.0260 0.0120 0.0060 0.0197
38-5 -75 0,0080 0.0160 0.0230 0.0230 0,0370 0,0340 0.0210 0.0200 0,0200 0,0220
31-3 -100 0,0040 0,0194) 0.0170 0.0120 0.0090 0.0090 0.0140 0.0100 0.0060 0.0110
39-2 -]00 0.0040 0.0170 0.01 lO 0.0080 0.0090 0.0230 0.0100 0.0120 0.0200 0.0127
31-5 -]00 0.0040 0.0240 0,0080 0,0030 0.0050 0.0050 0,0080 0.0080 0.0050 0.0078
39-3 -100 0.0170 0.0210 00190 0,0140 0.0130 0.0380 0.0180 0.0200 0.0040 0.0182
39-4 -100 0.0100 0.0320 0,0160 0.0310 0.0260 0.0180 0.0200 0.0350 0.0110 0.0222
18-4 -50 0.0460 0.0410 0.1350 0.1180 0.0550 0.0550 0.0640 0.1180 0.0820 0.0810
23-5 -50 0.0910 0.0360 O, 1840 0.0360 O.1270 0.0910 O. 1 3 ~ 0.0730 0.0730 0.0960
26-2 -50 0.0750 0.0500 0,1500 0.0830 0.1170 0,0830 0.1910 0.1180 0.0730 0.1080
39-5 -50 0.0360 0,0550 0.0640 0.0730 0.0410 0.0640 0.0550 0.0180 0,0180 0.0420
40-5 -50 0.0460 0.0910 01270 0.0640 0.0550 0.1000 0.1000 0.0550 0.1640 0.0870
18-3 -50 0.0808 0.0404 0.2296 0.3810 0.6223 0,7264 0.1560 0.0980 0.0980 0.2692
25-4 -50 0.0693 0.0866 0.0808 0.1156 0.1501 0.1153 0,1039 0.0693 0.0693 0.0955'
26-5 -50 0.1156 0.1905 0. t384 0,1674 0,08~ 0.0521 0.0635 . . . . . . 0,1163
34-1 -50 0.0577 0.0808 0.1694 0.1384 0.2997 0.0925 0.0691 . . . . . . 0.1295
37-2 -50 0.0483 0.0665 0,0565 0,0726 0.0691 0.0808 0.0749 0.0345 --- 0.0643
19-1 -75 0.0277 0.0330 0.0663 0.0386 0,0531 0.0531 0.0531 0.0472 0.0511 0.0470
25-3 -7E 0.0231 0,0231 0.0577 0.0462 0.0345 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 --- 0,0381
29-5 -75 0,0173 0.0087' 0.0345 0.0116 0.0151 0.0121 0.0151 0.0151 0.0121 0.0151
32-5 -75 0.0277 0,0330 0,0221 0,0386 0.0404 0.0173 0.0290 0.0290 0,0231 0,0'2s
34-3 -75 0.0404 0.0404 0.0635 0.3226 0,1963 0.0462 . . . . . . . . . 0.1184
21-3 -50 0.0490 0,0850 0,0510 0.0570 0.0750 0.0850 0.0850 0,1140 0.0770 0,0760
TABLE 6--(Cont'd).
STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH STRETCH AVG STRETCH
SPEC. # t - -TEST STRETCH
TEMP ZONE#1 ZONE#2 ZONE#3 ZONE#4 ZONE#5 ZONE#6 ZONE#7 ZONE#8 ZONE#9 ZONE
(C) (mm) (ram) (ram) (mm) (mm) (mm) (ram) (ram) (mm) (mm)
24-3 -5[ 0.0280 0.0120 0.0170 0.0280 00280 0,0170 0,0200 0,0180 0,0170 0.0190
26-1 -501 0.0490 0.1200 0 , 0 5 7 0 0 , 0 5 7 0 0 . 0 6 8 0 0 . 0 6 4 0 0,0510 0 . 0 4 2 0 0.0340 0.0620
28-5 -50i 0.0180 0,000(3 0 , 0 6 4 0 0 . 0 1 8 0 0 . 0 3 8 0 0 . 0 2 8 0 0 . 0 3 1 0 0 . 0 1 7 0 0.0160 0.0260
40-2 -80 0.0430 0.0500 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 . 0 6 4 0 0 . 0 6 0 0 0 . 0 8 8 0 0 . 0 1 9 0 0 . 0 3 7 0 0.0240 0.0490
17-1 -100 0.6070 0,0130 0 . 0 2 5 0 0 , 0 1 7 0 0.0140 0.01 I0 0 . 0 1 4 0 0 . 0 1 2 0 0.0090 0.0140
18-5 -IgO 0.0080 0.0060 0 . 0 0 8 0 0 . 0 0 8 0 0 . 0 0 8 0 0 , 0 0 8 0 0 . 8 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 0 0.0180 0.0070
19-3 -I00 0,0170 0.0160 0.0170 0.0000 0.0250 0.0090 0.0170 0,0170 0.0130 0.0140
21-4 - 1O0 0.0250 0.0110 0.0270 0.0100 0 . 0 0 9 0 0,0120 0.0270 0,0210 0.0120 0,0160
qO-3 - 100 0.0240 0.0150 0 , 0 2 3 0 0 . 0 3 7 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 0.0180i 0.0260 0 . 0 2 0 0 0.0130 0.0220
28-4 -100 0.0100 0.0050 0.0050 0.0100 0.0180 0 . 0 1 0 0 0.0000 0.0080 0.0200 0,0081
40-1 -100 0.0000 0,0050 0.0180 00100 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 0.0(300 0 . 0 0 5 0 0.0100 0.0088
21-5 l - 1 0 0 0.00,50 0 . 0 3 0 0 0 . 0 2 5 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 . 0 3 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0.0050 0.0188
~-~_~-~00, _ 0 . ~ 0.0160 0.0180 00180 00200 0,0060 0.0o60 0,0280 0.00~ 0.0125
YT -100 00100 ; 0.0100 0.01800 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 , 0 3 0 0 0 . 0 1 8 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 0.0200 0.0150
MPC Particitants
500
450
E
~. 400
350
~ 300
~ 250
o
I~ 200
:3
~
150
100
1
[3
~
D
14.
50
0 I I I I
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25
Temperature, C
All Participants
500
450
E
a 400
350
~ 300
~ 250
I
o 200 f
#+
~ 150 i'-
t,
100 |
M.
50
0 I ! ! I
-125 - 100 -75 -50 -25
Temperaure, C
FIG. 4---Fracture toughness versus temperature results from the cooperative test program.
MPC Participants
1.6
1.4
E
E 1.2
2
.~
0
0.8
m
0.6 il
|
~ 0.4
Q !
0.2 I
| zi I
0
- 125 -100 -75 -50 -25
Temperature, C
All P a r t i c i p a n t s
1.6
1.4
E
E 1.2
.d
"i 1
2
.~ 0.8
m
o 0.6
0
~ 0.4
0.2
0 ~, '
~. i I
-125 -1 O0 -75 -50 -25
Temperature, C
FIG. 5--Amount of ductile crack growth versus temperature measured in the test specimens.
nificantly greater scatter in the test results and a greater scatter in the Weibull predicted lower
bounds. If the 3% probability values of 103 MPa-m "2 for the whole data set is assumed to be
the correct value, the 3% probability values for the individual data sets vary from a low of 69
MPa.m 1/2 to a high of 142 MPa.m ~/2, with only one value of the total of six values being less
than 103 MPa.m ~2.
It is the intent of this paper to present the results on the cooprative program so that others
can perform more in-depth analyses of the results. More in-depth statictical work is needed
before procedures are developed by ASTM or JSPS. Some of this work is presented in this
6Go
E
13
O.
13
e-
r- o ~o o
I>O
O O D
200-
U. Test Temperature - 5 0 ~
0
II, ,,I,~,llll~,~,,,ll,~l,,l,,l,,,,,I,,,
0.00 0,40 0,80 1.20 1.60
Crack Growth, mm
240
E
-7
O.
2o0.-
t
e"
e-
160-
~0
O %
9 ,o
120- o
3
Test Temperature -75~

I.I.
80
II Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll[lllllllll
0.00 0,04 0,08 e.12 0.16 0.20
Crack Growth, mm
200
E
-'-7
160-
.l
C %
120-
O 4 J' A A 9
80.
B
Test Temperature -I O0~
40
l l ~ l l i l l l l l ~ i l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i i l l l l l J i l 1 1 1 1 8 1
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Crack Growth, rnm
FIG. 6---Fracture toughness versus crack growth at the three test temperatures.
99.9
u.I 99
i 90
o -50~ !
~ 6o z~ -75~
~ ,o o -100~
a.
~. 20
~ lO
[] ,x 0
g 5
1 I I I I I I I I I I
10 100 1000
Kc(J) MPavrm
FIG. 7--Two-parameter Wiebull plot of all of the test results.
o -50~
I.,U
-75~ r /J /i,r
[] -1 O0~
iJJ
o
i.u
ILl
>
'ii I o
o
--I
! }Z o~
&
o
J
10 100 1000
Kc(J) M Pa V-m
FIG. 8--Three-parameter Wiebull plot of all of the test results.
250 Individual Full

Data Sets Data Set
,'-, 3% .,, Zh
E 200 o 5% e.
r
eL A 10 % 9
R Curve o
150
Jr
o ~
O
I-
100
r-I
lL
50
0 I I I I
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25
Temperature, oC
FIG. 9--Comparison of the prediction of the lower-bound fracture toughness.
publication [1-4]. The authors of this paper have made use of the data developed by this
cooperative program to assist in the development of analysis and test methods, or both, for the
brittle-to-ductile transition region. To develop a data set for this purpose was the objective of
the test program.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be reached as a result of this program.
(1) The program was successful in developing a large database to develop test procedures
in the ductile-to-brittle temperature region.
(2) The database has been useful in evaluation of statistical procedures for estimating a
lower-bound fracture toughness.
(3) Both JSPS and ASTM are using the database in the development of standard test methods
for measurement of the fracture toughness in the brittle-to-ductile transition region.
References
[1] Iwadate, T. and Yokobori, T., "Evaluation of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness Testing in the Tran-
sition Region Through Japanese Interlaboratory Tests," in this volume, pp. 233-263.
[2] McCabe, D. E., Merkle, J. G., and Nanstad, R. K., "A Perspective on Transition Temperature and Kjc
Data Characterization," in this volume, pp. 215-232.
[3] Anderson, T. L., Stienstra, D. and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "A Theoretical Framework for Addressing
Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region," in this volume, pp, 186-214.
[4] Iwadate, T., Kusuhaski, M., and Tanaka, Y., "Effect of Strain Rate on Small-Specimen Fracture
Toughness in the Transition Region," in this volume, pp. 325-341.
Tadao Iwadate, 1 Mikio Kusuhashi, 1 and Yasuhiko Tanaka t
Effect of Strain Rate on Small Specimen

Fracture Toughness in the Transition Region
REFERENCE: Iwadate, T., Kusuhashi, M., and Tanaka, Y., "Effect of Strain Rate on Small
Specimen Fracture Toughness in the Transition Region," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-
ABSTRACT: Static and dynamic fracture toughness tests were performed in the transition region
for two ASTM A508 Class 3 steels using 25.4-mm (1-in.) thick compact tension (1T-CT) spec-
imens and precracked instrumented Charpy specimens. The strain rate in terms of K ranged from
1.6 to 6.5 X 105 MPa.mtn/s. The Kjc values converted from Jc of small specimens indicated a
wide scatter. When the strain rate increases, the dynamic fracture toughness transition curves
shift to higher temperature region, and they give the lower-bound fracture toughness of the steels.
Increasing the strain rate reduces the scatter of Kjc values dramatically, especially in the higher
temperature region and decreases the lower-bound fracture toughness. Fractographic examination
of the fractured specimen surfaces indicated that the Kjr versus stable crack growth. Aao, distance
from stable crack front to trigger point, X, and distance from fatigue crack front to trigger point,
Aao + X, relationships construct each single curve even in the case of higher strain rate. The
scatter of Kjc values is caused by the variance in the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X. With
increasing strain rate, the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X decreases significantly, which leads
to the small scatter of Kjc values. The Kjc values at Aao = 0, X = 0, and Aao + X = 0 are
proposed as the lower-bound fracture toughness of a steel, which are labeled Kjr The shape of
g j c i v e r s u s temperature curve is controlled by the critical stretch zone width, SZWc, which was
confirmed by the fact that the Kjc values are proportional to the amount of SZWc. The Weibull
slope m of fracture toughness Kjc values becomes larger with increasing strain rate and decreasing
temperature. Higher toughness data with larger stable crack extension than 100 Ixm violates the
linearity of Weibull plots and makes a bilinear relationship. In the statistical approach to deter-
mine the lower-bound fracture toughness in the transition region, much more analytical devel-
opment is needed. The average of Kjc values with 3% fracture probability coincide with the Kjc~
value in the lower temperature region even in higher strain rate tests.
KEYWORDS: fracture toughness, cleavage fracture, elastic-plastic fracture, ductile-brittle tran-

sition, strain rate effect, J integral
In the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature region of a steel, the elastic-plastic fracture

toughness measured from small specimens exhibits a great deal of scatter, which may give
much higher toughness than the plane-strain fracture toughness K~o from large specimens. This
behavior is usually explained in terms of tile statistical model caused by material inhomogeneity
and loss of constraint [1-3]. To deal with data scatter of small specimen fracture toughness,
various methods have been devised [1-7]. However, no standardized methods for measuring
the lower-bound fracture toughness using small specimens have been developed.
Under these circumstances, the 129th Committee (Professor T. Yokobori, committee chair-
man), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and the Materials Properties Council
1 General manager and managers, respectively, Muroran Research Lab., The Japan Steel Works, Ltd.,
4 Chatsu-machi, Muroran, Japan, 051.
325
(MPC) have been conducting an international cooperative interlaboratory test to develop the
testing procedure for the determination of the lower-bound fracture toughness in the transition
temperature region [8]. This study was performed to support the testing through gathering basic
information regarding the effect of strain rate on small specimen fracture toughness. The results
obtained were mainly analyzed from a viewpoint of fracture behavior with a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) to study the micromechanism of fast fracture in the transition region of a
steel.
Material
The materials used in this study were two ASTM A508 Class 3 steels, typical commercial
forgings for nuclear pressure vessel components. Chemical compositions are presented in Table
1. Steel A is the material used in the JSPS/MPC international interlaboratory test program on
elastic-plastic fracture toughness in the transition region [8]. The test specimens were taken
out of 1/4T location of the forging plates where the plate thickness of Steels A and B were 255
and 200 mm, respectively. The specimen orientations of the steels were T-L per the ASTM
Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399). Table 2 sum-
marizes the tensile properties at room temperature and the impact properties of the steels. The
50% ductile fracture appearance transition temperature (FATT) is - 1 5 ~ for Steel A and
- 2 0 ~ for Steel B.
Experimental Procedures
The fracture toughness Jc tests were conducted at three strain rates with 25.4-mm (1-in.)
thick compact tension (1T-CT) specimens and precracked instrumented Charpy specimens in
the transition temperature region of the steels. The strain rate in terms of g is 1.6 MPa.m'2/s
for static 1T-CT tests, 1.4 • 104 MPa.ml/2/s for dynamic 1T-CT tests and 6.5 • 105
MPa.m'2/s for instrumented Charpy tests. The dynamic 1T-CT tests were performed with a
dropweight-type Jxd testing machine developed by authors et al. [9]. The precracked instru-
mented Charpy impact tests were conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice
for Conducting Supplemental Surveillance Tests for Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels (E 636).
The fatigue crack length to specimen width ratio, a/w, was about 0.6 for 1T-CT specimens and
0.5 for instrumented Charpy specimens. The final precracking stress intensity factor, Km~x, of
the specimens was kept less than 25 MPa.m "2.
The value of Jc at fast fracture was calculated using the equations described in the ASTM
Test Method for Jic, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813) and was converted to the Kjc
value using the following equation.
" . I c E -i/2
where E is material elastic modulus and v is Poisson's ratio.
TABLE 1--Chemical composition of the materials, wt. %.

Steel C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Mo A1
A 0.19 0.20 1.42 0.003 0.003 0.76 0.15 0.48 0.017

B 0.21 0.25 1.40 0.005 0.006 0.72 0.15 0.47 0.021
IWADATE ET A L ON TOUGHNESS IN TRANSITION 327
TABLE 2--Tensile and impact properties of the materials.
0.2% Offset Tensile Elongation, Reduction FATT, NDTT,

Steel Strength, MPa Strength,MPa % of Area, % ~ ~
A 456 599 24.8 75.9 - 15 -30

B 469 603 30.2 70.5 -20 ...
At the upper-shelf temperature in which the stable crack growth was fully developed, ASTM
Test Method E 813 was used.

Fracture Toughness Behavior
The elastic-plastic fracture toughness Kjc values for cleavage fracture measured at three strain
rates for Steels A and B are plotted as a function of temperature in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
Test results indicate that when the strain rate increases, the dynamic fracture toughness versus
temperature curves shift to higher temperatures. This results from an elevation of the flow stress
by the increased strain rate and gives the lower bound of fracture toughness of the steels. The
figures also demonstrate that the fracture toughness Kjc values for cleavage fracture in the
transition region show a great deal of scatter in every strain rate. The data scatter increases
significantly with increasing temperature, particularly in the temperatures close to the upper
shelf.
500
Steel A
Jc(1T-CT)
0 I~ab.No, 1
400 | Lab. No.2
.', I_ab,No.3
v Lab,No.4
+ 9
[] Lab.No,5
<> Lab,No.6
d 300 e Lab.No.7
e.-.
4~ Lab, No.8
kab.No.9
fO'~o.
9 JId(1T-CT) * ~/ ,'
200 9 Kld(CVN) i
* R-Curve
6 i 9 /" /
100
0 ,
-200 -1 o -1;o -;o o 50
Temperature,*C
FIG. t---Fracture toughness Kjc versus temperature relationshipfor Steel A.
500 /" ~ o Steel B
400 [ ; ,
~" o i
~" 300 8 .
o 9 9 ,
o o,-- -~ .
~-- 100~-
/|~"
~,/e_ --t'..'
/~/ 09 J,.,~(XT-cr~
Jc(1T-CT)
0L
/ ,
--""
~~
~ .~'"
, ,
9 KId(CVN)
* R-Curve
t
-I00 -50 0 50 I00
Temperature,*C
FIG. 2--Fracturetoughness K~.versustemperaturerelationsh~forSteelB.
400 Is
0 Steel A
K(Jc) -50"C
o (IT-CT)
300 o
,.; 200
0 K(J1d)
\0
(1T-CT) Kid
0
0 (CVN)
100 0
0
0 ,f~ I , I ,
1 5 104 105 106
K,MPaJ~/sec
FIG. 3~Fracture toughness Ksc versusstrain-rate K relationship at -509Clot SteelA.
IWADATE ET AL. ON TOUGHNESS IN TRANSITION 329
600
Steel A -25"C
Kld
400 (CVN)
I~, K(Jc)
o
(1T-CT R Curve) K(J1d) o
" ~J (1T-CT)
~ o o
200 ~. o
~o~
0 'I~ --~ , I ,,
i 5 104 105 106
K,MPa~/sec
FIG. 4--Fracturetoughness Kscversusstrain-rate K re~tionsh~ at -25~forSteelA.
Figures 3 through 6 present the Kj~ values versus strain rate relationships for Steels A and
B. Figures 3 and 5 indicate that when the strain rate increases, the scatter of Kjc values decreases,
and the lower-bound fracture toughness decreases monotonically up to the strain rate of 6.5 •
105 MPa.m'/2/s. However, in Figs. 4 and 6, where the dynamic fracture toughness was obtained
at the higher temperatures near the upper shelf, the larger scatter of Kjc values is observed at
the higher strain rate of 6.5 • 105 MPa.m'/2/s. This behavior may be caused by a loss of crack
tip constraint as a result of smaller specimen size of the precracked Charpy specimens.
600 - sf
K(Jc) Steel B
o(IT-CT) -30"C
400
0
r 8
8 Kld
o K(Jld)
200 o (IT-CT) (CVN)
~0 0
0
%
0 ' If 1 , t I
1 5 104 105 106

K,MPa~Isec
FIG. 5--Fracture toughness Ksc versus strain-rate K relationship at -30~ for Steel B.
330 FRACTURE MECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
6OO
Steel B 0*C
Kid
K(Jld) (CVN)
400
(1T-CT)
o oO
8
U
200
._.........._. ~ ....._8
0 r I i I t
10 3 10 4 10 5 i0 6
l(,MPaJElsec
FIG. 6--Fracture toughness Kjc versus strain-rate K relationship at O~ for Steel B.
Anderson-Dodds' specimen size requirement [3] to be met for the critical Jc values to be
size independent is given by
200J c
b, B, a > - - (2)
try
where b is ligament length, B is specimen thickness, a is crack length, and try is the flow stress,
defined as the average of the yield and tensile strength. Figures 1 and 2 indicate that most of
both 1T-CT and precracked Charpy specimens do not meet the size requirement expressed by
Eq 2 except for a part of the data near the lower shelf. This results from the fact that the
Anderson-Dodds' specimen size requirement is limited in applicability to the specimens with
no stable crack growth. As described later, the~majority of the specimens tested in this study
have some amount of stable crack extension even near the lower shelf.
On the other hand, according to the ASTM Test Method E 813 specimen size requirement
25L
b, B, a, > - - (3)
try
the Kjc values to meet the requirement must be smaller than about 330 MPa-m '~ for 1T-CT
specimens and about 170 MPa.m ~/2 for precracked Charpy specimens. Figures 1 and 2 show
that most of 1T-CT specimens are valid, and the majority of precracked Charpy specimens
except for near the upper shelf are valid.
This kind of specimen size requirement and constraint correction method considering
ductile crack growth for cleavage fracture in the transition region may require further study
[3,5,7].

Onset of fast fracture of the specimen occurs at the one of the weakest trigger points during
loading, where some of the specimens may accompany with ductile crack growth at the crack
tip. Figure 7 shows examples of the trigger point observed on the fracture surface of each
different strain rate specimen. Figure 8 shows the schematic showing the trigger points of fast
fracture. To investigate the sources for the scatter of Kjc values, the stable crack growth, Aao,
the stretch zone width, SZW, the distance from stable crack front to trigger point, X, and the
distance from fatigue crack front to trigger point, Aao + X, were measured in accordance with
the guidelines developed by JSPS [8] using a SEM. The trigger points were determined by
tracing Chevron-pattern. All specimens tested showed one trigger point on the fractured sur-
FIG. 7--ExamPles of SEM observation of the trigger points for cleavagefracture.
Stress
i ~Magnitude of stress in front
~ crack t l p -~_ !
fracture
I Fatigue crack Trigger Point crack
S~ Stable crack
FIG. 8---Schematic showing the trigger points of fracture.
faces. The uniformly developed stable crack and stretch zone width were measured on the
photographs in which in the measurement of stretch zone width the specimen was inclined at
the angle of 30 ~ to the fatigue crack surface to obtain the accurate width.
Figures 9 and 10 present the Kjc values versus stable crack growth Aao and the Kjo values
versus distance to trigger point X and Aao + X relationships for Steels A and B, respectively.
These figures indicate that the Kjo values correlate with the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X
and construct each single curve even in the case of higher strain rate. And also, with increasing
strain rate, the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X decreases significantly, which leads to the small
scatter of Kk values, where all specimens fractured dynamically show fast fracture during
blunting with no stable crack growth. This suggests that the scatter of Kjc values is mainly
caused by the variance in the amount of Aao and the distance to trigger point X and Aao + X
in the ligament. Note that, according ~to the additional test results conducted in JSPS/MPC
interlaboratory tests, the Kjc values at the intersection with the ordinate of Aa o = 0, X = 0,
and Aao + X = 0 are in good agreement with the valid Kic values per ASTM Test Method E
399 from large specimens [8]. Therefore, it can be proposed that the Kjr values at Aa o = 0, X
= 0, and Aa o + X = 0 are the lower-bound fracture toughness of a steel, which were labeled
Kjci.
Figure 11 shows examples of high magnified observation of trigger points in 1T-CT JJd
specimens of Steel B. In about one half of the specimens tested, large nonmetallic inclusions
can not be found near the trigger points. The metallurgical investigations of both steels found
no large inclusions, only small inclusions less than 50 Ixm, which are sulfides, silicates, alumina,
and granular oxide.
Figure 12 presents the relationship between the measured critical stretch zone width, SZWc,
at fracture and lower-bound fracture toughness, Kjci, determined from a fractographic data
analysis in which the results obtained at different strain rates and at different temperatures are
plotted. This figure demonstrates good correlation between Kjc i and SZWc. The Kjc i values are
proportional to the amount of SZWc. This suggests that the value of lower-bound fracture
toughness Kj~i is controlled by the amount of SZWc created before fast fracture of a specimen.
Figure 13 shows the SZWc versus strain rate R relationship for Steel B. With increasing strain
rate, the SZWc value decreases at each temperature which leads to the decrease of lower-bound
fracture toughness Kjci.
The measured stretch zone widths SZWc for Steels A and B were also shown as a function
tt00
Steel A / -50"c
300 / o
O0 0
~. 200 ,~o/o
t.~ 0 o
100 ~ o Jc(IT-CT)
f
zx JId(IT-C-f)
[] K]d(CVN)
0 J I
0 0.5 1 1.5
z~a. , iiiil
(a)
400
Steel A -50"c
300
o ~~ o
200 eo~O. ~
v 100 o Jc(IT-CT)
o Z~ JId(IT-CT)
0 K]d(CVN)
0 i t
0 0 , 5 X,mm 1 1,5
(b)
400
Steel A -50"c
~
,, o~..~ ~
E 200
,,3 o ~ ~176176
o
0 Jc(IT-CT)
100 ~-.pT....-.,~ A J]d(IT-CT)
[] KId(CVN}
0 I I I
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Aao +X,I1BI
(c)
FIG. Q--Fracture toughness Kj~ versus Aao, X, and Aao + X relationship at -50~ for Steel A.
of the temperature in Fig. 14. The stretch zone width increases with increasing temperature and
then reaches a plateau around the upper shelf temperature at each strain rate. This means that
the increase of lower-bound fracture toughness gjr i with increasing temperature, that is, the
shape of Kjci versus temperature transition curve results from the amount of stretch zone width
created before fast fracture of a specimen.
600
=30"C
500
I~ 400
e~
5" 300
200
O Jc(IT-CT)
A Jld(1T-CT)
100;
[3 Ktd(CVN)
0 I I I
0 2 3 q 5
Aa. ,11111
(a)
600
o
Steel B -30"C
500
t'V
400
300{
-'-i
v 200
0 Jc(lT-CT)
]00 In=-""
A jzd(IT-CT)
[1 Kzd(CVN)
G I , ! I
0 0.5 1 1,5 2
X,mm
(b)
60O
Steel B -5o~
5OO
400
z 300 o - /
200 =.~ o jcuT-cn

~' 3 ] d ( ] l - C l )
100 h--"- tJ K~accvm
0 I I I I
o 12 3 4 5
Aa. +X,nln
(c)
FIG. lO--Fracture toughness Kj,, versus Aao,X, and Aao + X relationship at -30~ for Steel B.
Weibull Data Analysis

The cleavage fracture in the transition region is controlled by a statistical size effect resulting
from the metallurgical inhomogeneity of the steel. For modeling cleavage behavior governed
by a weakest link phenomenon, Weibull statistics are used. Figures 15 and 16 show the exam-
ples of Weibull plots of the Kjc values measured at each strain rate for Steels A and B, where
FIG. 1l--Examples of high magnified observation of trigger points in J,d specimens of Steel B.
the static toughness data at the strain rate of 1.6 MPa-mm/s were obtained from 19 laboratories
in the JSPS/MPC interlaboratory tests [8].
The linear distributions of data points indicate that the Weibull model is a good statistical
model for cleavage fracture. Here, the number in the figures shows the value of ductile crack
extension, Aao, created at the fatigue crack front of each specimen. Higher toughness data
accompany the large crack extension, which violates the linearity and makes the bilinear rela-
tionship as clearly shown in the static toughness data of Steel A. In the figure, solid lines show
i I
300
o 9
200
Ct.
"~,
,i,/ o
100
O
/o
dp~ A B
9/~ o o Jc(1T-CT)
9 W' J Id(IT-CT)
k 9 $ KId(1T-CT)
i I
0 I00 200 500
SZWc,Jam
FIG. 12--Relationship between lower bound fracture toughness Kjcl and critical stretch zone width
SZWc.
300 ' ~, i ' I

Steel B
200 20"C
o--
E
t.)
CO
100 O*C
o
-2;0"C
, I t 0.--
5 104 105 06
I<,MPa~r~/sec
FIG. 13~Relationships between critical stretch zone width S Z W c and strain rate }Cfor Steel B.
IWADATE ET A L ON TOUGHNESS IN TRANSITION 337
300
o Jc(1T-CT) Steel A / :
9 JId(1T-CT)
~20(] 9 K]d(CVN) ' /
{-) o /-
/
0
-aoo -5o o 50 aoo
Temperature,*C
300 . . . . .
0 Jc(IT-CT) Steel B
9 J]d(1T-CT) 9
~ 200 9 KId(CVN) •/ 9
/
oP/ o o
I0( o ~ "
o
o .J
-100 -50 0 50 100
Temperature, *C
FIG. 14--Temperature dependence of criticalstretch zone width SZWc/or Steels A and B.
9.(
9s
5C
8-e
A
LL.
10
5
3
1
5U 100 500 1000
F r a c t u r e Toughness, KJ c,MPa;-m
FIG. 15--Weibull
Downloaded/printed by plots of fracture toughness Ksr values measured at -50 ~ for Steel A.
A
4-1
t.k.
"50 50 i00 500 I000

FFacture Toughnes.s,Kj c,MPa/-~
FIG. 16---Weibull plots of fracture toughness Kjc values measured at -30~ for Steel B.
15
Steel B
10 0" C
_-- -60"C -50"C
5 - -30"C
1.6 1.4• 4 6.5Xi05

0 ,I . . . . { , I,
i 0 - i I00 i01 102 103 104 105 106 107
~,MPaC-~.sec -1
FIG. 17--Relationsh~ between Weibullslope m andstrainrate K f o r S t e e l B .
the fitting of all data, and dotted lines show the fitting for the specimens with crack extensions
smaller than 100 Ixm. The figures demonstrate that the slope m from all data increases with
increasing strain rate K, which is shown in Fig. 17 in relation to m versus ~" of Steel B. However,
note that when the specimens with large ductile crack growth are eliminated, the slope m
becomes larger, and in both steels the slopes of static 1T-CT specimens, dotted lines, are close
to the slopes of dynamic 1T-CT specimens. From this point of view, in the statistical approach
to determine the lower-bound fracture toughness in the transition region, much more analytical
developments are needed [3]. Figure 18 presents the slope m as a function of temperature for
Steel B. The figure indicates that when the temperature increases, the slope m decreases. This
means that data scatter of Kjo values becomes larger with increasing temperature.
In the JSPS tentative test procedure, the fact that the Kjc value with 3% fracture probability
gives the lower-bound fracture toughness of the material is demonstrated [8 ]. Figure 19 shows
the comparison between the average of Kjc values with 3% fracture probability and Kjci value
from fractographic data analysis for Steel A. In the temperatures lower than -60~ good
correlations are observed. However~ at the temperature of -30~ the 3% fracture probability
analysis gives lower Kjc values than Kj~i per fractographic data analysis. This suggests the needs
for more data collection and analysis.

To support the JSPS/MPC international cooperative interlaboratory test on determination of
the lower-bound fracture toughness in the transition region, the effect of strain rate on small-
specimen fracture toughness was studied using ASTM A508 Class 3 steels.
15
Steel B
o Jc(1T-CT)
n J]d(IT-CT)
~" KId(CVN)
~A..
F(KJc) =l-ex0(- I~--clm}
10 \\
%
~E]. \ \
o -16o 6
Temoe ratu re, * r '
FIG. 18~Relationship between Weibull slope m and test temperature for Steel B.
250 I J i
o Jc(1T-CT) Steel A
200 ~ J]d(1T-CT)
o K]d(CMN)
t ~a~x I
I
0 I
9 Jc(1T-CT) / II
1~ 150
9 J]d(1T-CT) 3IF,P, I //?
9 Kld(CVN) / / //
/e
i00 / A ////
J
0 j / /
~, /
11
~lf -I 9 / 1 7
5O .t 9
0 I I I
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Temperature,*C
FIG. 19--ComparisonbetweentheaverageofKjcvalues with3%fractureprobabili~ andlower-
boundfracturetoughnessK~,.
1. When the strain rate increases, the dynamic fracture toughness versus temperature curves
shift to higher temperatures, and they give the lower-bound fracture toughness of the
steels.
2. Small-specimen fracture toughness Kjc values show a wide scatter in every strain rate,
of which the degree increases with increasing temperature.
3. Increasing strain rate reduces the data scatter and decreases the lower-bound fracture
toughness.
4. The Kjc values correlate with the amount of stable crack growth, Aao, distance from the
stable crack front to trigger point, X, and distance from fatigue crack front to trigger
point, Aao + X.
5. This means that the data scatter is caused by the variance in the amount of Aa o, X, and
Aa o + X.
6. With increasing strain rate, the amount of Aao, X, and Aao + X decreases significantly,
which leads to the small scatter of Kjc values.
7. The Kjc values at Aa o = 0, X = 0, and Aao + X = 0 are proposed as the lower-bound
fracture toughness of a steel, which were labeled Kjoi.
8. The decrease of lower-bound fracture toughness Kj~i with increasing strain rate and
decreasing temperature is caused by the decrease of stretch zone width SZWc created
before fast fracture.
9. The shape of Kjoi versus temperature transition curve is controlled by the amount of
SZWc, which was confirmed by the fact that the Kjc values are proportion to the amount
of SZWc.
10. According to Weibull data analysis, the slope m increases with increasing strain rate and
decreases with increasing temperature.
11. Higher toughness data with stable crack extension larger than 100 txm violates the lin-
earity of Weibull plots and makes the bilinear relationship.
12. In the statistical approach to determine the lower-bound fracture toughness in the tran-
sition region, more analytical development is needed.
13. The average of Kjc values with 3% fracture probability coincide with the Kjci value in
the lower temperature region even in higher strain rate tests, which is proposed as a
JSPS tentative test procedure to obtain the lower-bound fracture toughness of the
material.
References
[1 ] Landes, J. D. and Shaffer, D. H., "Statistical Characterization of Fracture in the Transition Region,"
in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing and Mate-
[2] McCabe, D. E. and Landes, J. D., "Prediction of Heavy Section Performance of Nuclear Vessel
Steels," Scientific Paper 83-1D7-METEN-P3, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, May 1983.
[3] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
134.
[4] Rosenfield, A. R. and Shetty, D. K., "Cleavage Fracture of Steel in the Upper Ductile-Brittle Tran-
sition Region," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1983, pp. 461-470.
[5] Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Ono, S., and Watanabe, J., "An Analysis of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Tough-
ness Behavior for J~c Measurement in the Transition Region," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second
Symposium, Volume ll--Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. 11-531-11-561.
[6] Doig, P., "Evaluation of Lower Bound Fracture Toughness Values Using Weibull Analysis of Single
Specimen Data," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1985, pp. 963-967.
[7] Watanabe, J., Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Yokobori, T., and Ando, K., "Fracture Toughness in the
Transition Region," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 5/6, 1987, pp. 589-600.
sition Region Through Japanese Interlaboratory Tests," in this volume, pp. 233-263.
[9] Tsukada, H., Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., and Ono, S., "Static and Dynamic Fracture Toughness Behavior
of Heavy Section Steels for Nuclear Pressure Vessels," in Proceedings of the 4th International Con-
ference of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 369-374.
Marie T. Miglin, 1 Lillian A. Oberjohn, 1
and W. Alan Van Der Sluys I
Analysis of Results from the MPC/JSPS

Round Robin Testing Program in the Ductile-
to-Brittle Transition Region
REFERENCE: Miglin, M. T., Oberjohn, L. A., and Van Der Sluys, W. A., "Analysis of Results
from the MPC/JSPS Round Robin Testing Program in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition
Region," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Don-
ald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1994, pp. 342-354.
ABSTRACT: Excessive scatter in fracture toughness data for ferrous materials tested in the
ductile-to-brittle transition region makes it difficult to develop conservative estimates of fracture
toughness for use in structural analysis and design. Several procedures are developed to predict
fracture toughness from scattered data sets. These procedures either rely solely on statistical
analysis or else combine a correction for excess plasticity with statistical analysis.
A round robin testing program including 150 fracture toughness tests of SA508C13 in the
ductile-to-brittle transition region has been conducted by the Materials Property Council (MPC)
in conjunction with the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). This test program,
which uses 1T compact fracture specimens tested at three transition region temperatures,provides
a large database for comparing procedures designed for dealing with data scatter. In this work,
the Anderson-Dodds constraint correction procedure is compared to the available energy analysis
procedure based upon their suitability for correcting for excess plasticity in scattered transition
region fracture toughness data sets such as the MPC/JSPS round robin results. Various forms of
two- and three-parameter Weibull statistics are reviewed for the ability to fit uncorrected and
plasticity corrected data sets.
KEYWORDS: K~c,Jk, fracture toughness, ductile, brittle, cleavage, steel, A508, SA508, pressure
vessel steel, low alloy steel, Weibull, constraint
In 1987, the Materials Property Council (MPC), in conjunction with the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (JSPS), organized a working group to investigate the excessive scatter
in fracture toughness data for steels tested in the ductile-to-brittle transition region. A round
robin testing program was organized, producing approximately 150 fracture toughness test
results at 3 transition region temperatures for a single heat of SA508C13. A detailed description
of the round robin is provided by Van Der Sluys and Miglin [1].
Data scatter among the round robin specimens is associated with variations in the amount
of ductile crack extension before cleavge fracture [1]. Landes and Shaffer [2] hypothesized
that cleavage initiates at a weak point in the material lying ahead of the fatigue precrack; if the
weak point is distant from the fatigue precrack, the crack advances by ductile tearing until it
is sufficiently near to the weak point to trigger cleavage. Specimen-to-specimen variability in
the distance between the weak point and the fatigue precrack causes scatter in the toughness
Research specialist, senior research mathematician, and scientist, respectively, Babcock & Wilcox,
1562 Beeson St., Alliance, OH 44601.
342
MIGLIN ET AL. ON THE MPC/JSPS ROUND ROBIN PROGRAM 343
measurements. Landes and Shaffer proposed the use of the two-parameter Weibull function,
which describes physical phenomena governed by weakest-link behavior, to describe the dis-
tribution of fracture toughness data in the ductile-to-brittle transition region. The MPC/JSPS
round robin test procedure recommends graphing the test results on a two-parameter Weibull
plot. It is suggested that the minimum toughness can be estimated as the toughness value with
a failure probability of 1, 3, or 5%.
The weakest-link concept of cleavage fracture is based upon extensive studies of slip-initiated
transgranular cleavage in ferritic steels [3-6], which suggest that a critical stress must be
achieved over a critical microstructural distance ahead of the crack tip for cleavage to occur.
For example, the Ritchie-Knott-Rice (RKR) model predicts that cleavage fracture initiates at
particles in the matrix when the average local tensile stress near the crack tip exceeds the
critical fracture stress over some significant microstructural distance. Work with spheroidized
1080 steel, which has heavy grain boundary decoration by coarse carbides, showed this critical
distance to be approximately two-grain diameters [5]. Experimental work with mild- and low-
alloy steels lends support for this theory [4, 7,8]. Critical distances longer than two-grain diam-
eters can be expected in steels with fewer potential cleavage initiation sites, such as the clean
SA508C13 used in the MPC/JSPS round robin.
The weakest-link concept of cleavage fracture led to the choice of the Weibull function to
describe the distribution of cleavage toughness values. The equation of the two-parameter
Weibull distribution function is
F(K) = 1 - exp - (K/b) c
where b i~ a constant depending on material properties and c is the Weibull slope. After fitting
several data sets to the two-parameter Weibull function, Wallin observed that the Weibull slope
for cleavage toughness data sets is typically close to four [9]. Wallin used a Monte Carlo
simulation method to generate a large number of data sets from an assumed distribution of Ktc
with slope equal to 4. Weibull slopes were calculated for each of the data sets, and the curves
representing the 95th percentiles plotted. When a large number of experimental Weibull slopes
were also placed on the graph, the points fell within the expected interval. Agreement was best
when a threshold toughness of about 20 MPa.m m was introduced. Wallin provides theoretical
grounds for a nonzero threshold toughness between 10 and 20 MPa.m m. Anderson, et al. have
demonstrated that weakest link theory predicts a two-parameter Weibull slope equal to 4 [10]
in the absence of a threshold toughness.
The introduction of a threshold toughness, or shift parameter, Kmm, adds a third parameter
to the Weibull function. The form of the three-parameter Weibull function is
F(K) = 1 - exp - [(K -gmin)/b] c
where g m i n = threshold toughness or shift parameter. When g m i n equals zero, the distribution
reduces to the two-parameter Weibull function.
For the MPC/JSPS round robin data set, analytical estimates of the Weibull distribution
parameters were obtained iteratively. In the case of the two-parameter Weibull distribution,
maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters were obtained using the Newton-Raphson
method of iteration. The parameters of the three-parameter Weibull distribution were estimated
using the multivariate secant or false position method to fit nonlinear regression models by
least squares.
The results of the linear (two-parameter) and nonlinear (three-parameter) curve fits are sum-
TABLE 1--Parameters of the Weibull distribution function for Kjc.
Temperature, Scale, Shift,

Distribution ~ Slope MPa'm ~/1 MPa'm u2 R2
2-parameter -50 3.16 258.58 0.00 97.99

-75 5.53 168.52 0.00 95.93
- 100 5.22 123.86 0.00 98.34
3-parameter with slope = 4.0 -50 4.00 248.93 0.00 99.42
-75 4.00 113.29 50.56 99.47
- 100 4.00 93.30 28.81 99.73
and shift = 20.0 -75 4.00 147.01 20.00 98.91
- 100 4.00 102.80 20.00 99.64
marized in T a b l e 1 and Figs. 1 through 3. T h e fracture toughness values are designated Kjc,
which indicates that K was calculated from the J value m e a s u r e d at the onset of cleavage [1].
T h e three-parameter Weibull distribution either c o n v e r g e d to the two-parameter distribution,
or would not c o n v e r g e to a solution. Three different situations are presented in Table 1: a two-
parameter Weibull, a three-parameter with the slope equal to four, a n d a three-parameter with
the slope equal to four and the shift = 20 M P a - m ~/2. Statistical comparisons of the distributions
were p e r f o r m e d using R 2 as a goodness o f fit parameter.
m,gk I [
I
.IOOOC -75~
/-=
I i
+e j
IA
! /-r
m
).1 d
m
4(
ff I/
,r
IK
1
o
t, 9 ,
,,/
/ " I
10
KJe, MPa~rm
FIG. 1--Two-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kjc data.
cum % leilum
9e.ll~ l
".' .1r / .~~ I
f # ,'r I
r~ ,# ~' I
it' # ,r I
t # /_ I
,K ~ I # I
"'K
1 AY ht
ra 11 9
I
,"
1
/r 9
I
/1' I
I: I
10 100 1000
KJc, MPa-~/~
FIG. 2--Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kjc data with the slope equal to four.
Figures 1 and 2 show a poor fit at the low toughness end of the distribution for the - 5 0 ~
data. Because these data were obtained by a round robin test program, it is possible that the
low toughness values differ from the rest of the distribution because of intedaboratory vari-
ability. The reader is referred to the article by Van Der Sluys and Miglin in this volume for
details of the round robin test program [1 ]. Results from prestatistical analysis to determine
whether the data from the various laboratories can validly be collected into a single data set
might explain the poor fit at low toughness values.
Comparison of Figs. 1 through 3 and of the R E values in Table 1 show that the best fit is
produced when the three-parameter Weibull function with the slope equal to four is used. The
fit is improved at the low-toughness end of the distribution, which is the most important portion
for predictions of minimum toughness for engineering applications. The reason for the improve-
ment is that only the three-parameter Weibull function with the slope equal to four allows grnin
to be a variable. Defining gmi n a s zero, as with the two-parameter Weibull or as 20 MPa.m "2
produces a poorer fit.
Unfortunately, there is no theoretical basis for choosing the three-parameter Weibull function
with the slope equal to four to model transition region fracture data. In an effort to expand on
the existing weakest-link theory, which is a cleavage initiation model and provided a basis for
choosing the two-parameter function, Anderson et al. include a hazard function to predict the
likelihood of crack propagation [10]. This leads to an equation for predicting failure probability
with four variables, which is nearly impossible to fit. They found that this equation can be
approximated with a three-parameter Weibull function with the slope fixed at four.
cure % fmlure
.~o'oe I
.10o*c.75.e./:'/
// I
rn V.i #/ r II
9# ~" I I
~' I / I
t 1" . r I
~ /I I t I
I/,
,/
I
r
"! I
I
[
lO too 1o0o
KJc, MPa-~
FIG. 3--Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kjc data with the slope equal to four and
the shift equal to twenty.
Plasticity Corrections
Because transition region data scatter is largely due to specimen-to-specimen variation in the
amount of crack tip deformation and ductile tearing occurring before cleavage initiation, it is
appropriate to correct the data for excess plasticity before fitting it to a distribution function.
The first method discussed below, the available energy method, applies to specimens with and
without ductile crack growth, while the Anderson-Dodds constraint correction is limited in
applicability to specimens with less than 0.20 mm of ductile crack growth.
Available Energy Analysis

The available energy method [8] is based on the assumption that the toughness available to
drive a cleavage crack is the elastic energy stored in the specimen [11]. The available energy
method uses the load and crack length at the onset of cleavage fracture to calculate a K~c value,
rather than the initial crack length and the load, Po, as defined by the ASTM Test Method for
Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399). In this manner, the energy
expended in crack-tip blunting and ductile tearing is not included in the fracture toughness
calculation. Rather, only the elastic energy expended in cleavage fracture contributes to Kit, as
illustrated schematically in Fig. 4.
Figures 5 through 7 are Weibull probability plots of the MPC/JSPS data calculated according
to the available energy method. The Weibull parameter and R 2 values are listed in Table 2.
I
CONVERSIONTO
ONSETOFSTABLETEARING UNSTABLECLEVAGE
\
/ ~,~F.AF/i~iG . . . . . / ENERGYAVAILABLEFOR
/ ~ I CLEAVAGEFRACTURE
/
/
I
DISPLACEMENT
FIG. 4~Schematic load-displacement curve illustrating available energy calculation [8].
~ % ~
I I -50~C
Si
Si
Oi
7i I
IE
Im
5i
4i
8i
I I 'l -ID-~
-100~
10
It" i 1
KAz, MPmf'~
FIG. 5--Twooparameter Weibull probability plot using KAe data.
I
/ .5o-~c
:f
m
t
',
t~
:1
t
o
:if
I
I&ll,
10 100 I
KAE, M P i r ~
FIG. 6---Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kae data with the slope equal to four.
The fracture toughness values are designated KAEto indicate that the calculations were made
according to the available energy method. As with the Kjc data, the best fit is provided by the
three-parameter Weibull function with the slope equal to four.
The difficulty with applying the available energy approach to cleavage initiation is that it is
a global measure of the elastic energy stored in the specimen, whereas the triggering of cleavage
is dependent upon the crack-tip stress distribution, that is, a critical stress must be achieved
over a critical distance for cleavage to occur. Two specimens may have the same amount of
stored elastic energy, with one having a sufficiently steep crack tip stress gradient to initiate
cleavage fracture while the other does not. For example, differences in crack-tip stress gradient
can be produced by differences in the amount of crack-tip blunting.
Anderson-Dodds Constraint Correction

The small-scale yielding method of Anderson and Dodds provides a procedure for correcting
values of Jc, J at cleavage, which deviate from small-scale yielding conditions at the crack tip
[12]. The procedure is applicable where cleavage failure follows a weakest-link model. The
probability of cleavage fracture in a cracked specimen is given by
F -- F[cr~, V(cr~)]
cum % failure
7(
!~S-SO~
IgMI
e~
8~
IttW
4i
I
II
"1
.100~
lO
~ Q
I
I
KAE,MP~ff~
FIG. 7--Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using KAe data with the slope equal to four
and the shift equal to twenty.
where F is the failure probability, tr, is the m a x i m u m principal stress at a point, and V(~rl) is
the cumulative volume sampled in which the principal stress --> cr 1. For a specimen subjected
to plane-strain conditions, V = BA, where A is the cumulative area on the x-y plane. For a
given stress, the area scales with j2 in the case o f small-scale yielding. For large-scale yielding,
TABLE 2--Parameters of the WeibuU distribution for Kay.

Distribution ~ Slope MPa.m ~a MPa.m ~;2 R2
2-parameter - 50 9.25 122.17 0.00 93.98

-75 20.52 114.19 0.00 99.27
- 100 9.16 107.04 0.00 98.23
-75 4.00 25.14 89.01 99.82
- i00 4.00 50.14 57.62 99.50
and shift = 20.0 -75 4.00 99.07 20.00 88.85
- 100 4.00 89.21 20.00 97.17
the area also scales with j2, but the area inside a given principal stress contour is less than that
predicted by small-scale yielding. In this case, an effective J in large-scale yielding can be
defined, which relates the area inside the principal stress contour to the small-scale yielding
case. Jssy is the effective driving force for cleavage. Jssy can be calculated for J measured in
large-scale yielding according to
J/J~y = 1 + 189.2(WO'y/2J) -1"31
where W = specimen width for a standard ASTM Test Method E 399 bend or compact geom-
etry and cry is the yield strength [13].
Table 3 and Figs. 8 through 10 present the results of two- and three-parameter Weibull fits
of the MPC/JSPS round robin data after correction for deviation from small-scale yielding. The
fracture toughness values are designated Kssy to indicate that the small-scale yielding correction
has been applied. As with the Kjo and KAz data, the best fit is provided by the three-parameter
Weibull function with the slope equal to four.
Table 4 is a compilation of the gmin values calculated using the three-parameter Weibull
analysis with the slope equal to four. For comparison, the lowest measured K value at each
temperature is given. Except for the - 5 0 ~ data, which are complicated by a single specimen
with very low toughness, the calculated Kmi n values are conservative estimates of the minimum
toughness at each temperature. The most conservative estimate is achieved when no plasticity
correction is used, while the least conservative estimate is obtained when available energy
analysis is applied. Estimates made with data corrected for small-scale yielding lie in between.
D i s c u s s i o n
Of the three forms of the Weibull function applied to the MPC round robin data, the best fit
is provided by three-parameter Weibull function with slope equal to four. The simple reason
for this is that the other two forms of the Weibull function have one less degree of freedom.
Both the two-parameter Weibull function and the three-parameter Weibull function with slope
equal to four and gmm = 20 have two variables, and hence produce linear fits. The three-
parameter Weibull function with slope equal to four has three variables and produces a cur-
vilinear fit, which can follow the data more closely than a linear fit.
TABLE 3--Parameters of the Weibull distribution for K=y.

Distribution ~ Slope MPa.m 1/2 MPa.rn 1/2 R2
2-parameter -50 10.14 165.45 0.00 94.36

-75 8.60 141.97 0.00 97.64
- 100 6.77 115.13 0.00 99.51
-75 4.00 69.63 70.94 99.68
- 100 4.00 70.89 43.94 99.84
and shift = 20.0 -75 4.00 124.41 20.00 96.85
- 100 4.00 96.12 20.00 99.03
~ m % l~lum
lie
8(
E
tK
$t
10 100 1000
KssY, MPs"~
FIG. 8--Two-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kssy data.
Use of a three-parameter Weibull function with slope equal to four to fit transition region
data has yet to be theoretically justified. It is a useful engineering tool, although the value of
four for the Weibull slope may be limited to pressure vessel steels. It may be necessary to
define specific values of the Weibull slope for different classes of steels. Additional statistical
work is needed to define the number of tests required to provide a minimum toughness estimate
with a given level of confidence. Techniques for doing this are available [14].
Plasticity Corrections
The Anderson-Dodds constraint correction is preferred over available energy analysis
because it is based on the local crack-tip stress distribution rather than the more global measure
of the amount of energy stored in the specimen. Other local approaches to cleavage fracture
have been developed, largely based on weakest-link statistics, and are reviewed elsewhere
[15,16].
Application of the Anderson-Dodds constraint correction, followed by three-parameter Wei-
bull analysis (with slope equal to four for pressure vessel steels), appears to be the best overall
approach of those considered here to predicting fracture toughness behavior in the ductile-
brittle transition region. One shortcoming of the Anderson-Dodds correction is that it is not
M
W,5 I I
.100~ .TS~
/Ji'
irh
i I
I
Bt• I
ISC
4~ I fP' I
I I
t
/l I
Io 1oo
KssY, M p a ~
FIG. 9--Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using Kssy data with the slope equal to four.
applicable to specimens with more than approximately 0.2 mm of ductile crack growth, for
which it overcorrects the toughness values. This may have caused the relatively poor Weibull
fit for the constraint-corrected data at -50~ as compared to the fits for the lower temperature
data. From Fig. 9, it is apparent that the high-toughness portion of the - 5 0 ~ gssy data set has
a Weibull slope greater than four, probably because of overcorrection.
Wallin has developed a procedure to correct toughness data for ductile crack growth before
cleavage [17]. It is based on the simplifying assumption that the crack-tip stress field in front
of a growing crack can be modeled by the stress field in front of a stationary crack. The authors
of Ref 10 are developing three-dimensional finite-element analyses of the stress field in
front of a growing crack, with the objective of developing a more accurate correction for ductile
crack growth.
Conclusions
1. The three-parameter Weibull function with slope defined as four provides the best fit for
plasticity corrected and uncorrected data sets for SA508C13. Different values for the
Weibull slope may be necessary for classes of steel other than pressure vessel steel.
N~JIgC
N,,!
IN
I1(
81
80
8O
g0
KssY, MPa~"
FIG. lO---Three-parameter Weibull probability plot using K~,y data with the slope equal to four
and the shift equal to twenty.
2. Available energy analysis is a more severe plasticity correction than the Anderson-Dodds
constraint correction. It may not be appropriate for use in the transition region, because
K~] is a global measure of the elastic energy in the specimen, while cleavage is controlled
by the local crack-tip stress distribution.
3. Of the methods applied in this work to the round robin data for SA508C13, application
of the Anderson-Dodds constraint correction followed by three-parameter Weibull anal-
ysis with slope equal to four provides the best means for reducing the data scatter and
describing the distribution in fracture toughness.
TABLE 4--Comparison of measured and predicted K,.,. values using a three-parameter Weibull
function with the slope equal to four.
Km~., MPa'm v2
Test
Temperature, No Plasticity KAE Kssy Lowest K
~ Correction Analysis Analysis Measured
-50 0 81 87 68
-75 51 89 71 101
-101 29 58 44 59
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. J. B. Hall with data analysis.
Helpful discussions with Professor T. L. Anderson and Professor R. H. Dodds, Jr. are greatly
appreciated. This work was performed under the sponsorship of Babcock & Wilcox, a
McDermott company.
References
[1 ] Van Der Sluys, W. A. and Miglin, M. T., "Results of MPC/JSPS Cooperative Testing Program in
the Brittle-to-Ductile Transition Region," in this volume, pp. 308-324.
[2] Landes, J. D. and Shaffer, G. H., "Statistical Characterization of Fracture in the Transition Region,"
in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, P. C. Paris, Ed., American Society for
[3] Curry, D. A., "Comparison Between Two Models of Cleavage Fractures," Metal Science, Vol. 14,
No. 2, 1980, pp. 78-80.
[4] Curry, D, A. and Knott, J. F., "Effects of Microstructure on Cleavage Fracture Stress in Steel,"
Metal Science, Nov. 1978, pp. 511-514.
[5] Ritchie, R. O., Knott, J. F., and Rice, J. R., "On the Relationship between Critical Tensile Stress
and Fracture Toughness in Mild Steel," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 21,
1973, pp. 395--410.
[6] Ritchie, R. O., Server, W. L., and Wullaert, R. A., "Critical Fracture Stress and Fracture Strain
Models for the Prediction of Lower and Upper Shelf Toughness in Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steels,"
Metallurgical Transactions A, Vol. 10, 1979, pp. 1557-1570.
[7] Pineau, A., "Review of Fracture Micromechanisms and a Local Approach to Predicting Crack Resis-
tance in Low Strength Steels," in Advances in Fracture Research, Vol. 2, D. Francois, Ed., Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1981, pp. 553-577.
[8] Rosenfield, A. R. and Shetty, D. K., "Cleavage Fracture of Steel in the Upper Ductile-Brittle Tran-
sition Region," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1983, pp. 461--470.
[9] Wallin, K., "The Scatter in K~cResults," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 19, 1984, pp. 1085-
1093.
[10] Anderson, T. L., Stienstra, D., and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "A Theoretical Framework for Addressing
Fracture in the Ductile-Brittle Transition Region," in this volume, pp. 186-214.
[11] Seidl, W., "Specimen Size Effects on the Determination of K~cValues in the Range of Elastic-Plastic
Material Behavior," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 12, 1979, pp. 581-597.
[12] Anderson, T. L. and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing
134.
[13] Stienstra, D. I. A., "Stochastic Micromechanical Modeling of Cleavage Fracture in the Ductile-
Brittle Transition Region," Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, Aug.
1990.
[14] Nelson, W., Applied Life Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982, p. 198.
[15] Beremin, F. M., "A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel,"
Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 14A, 1983, p. 227.
[16] Bowen, P., Dmce, S. G., and Knott, j. G., "Micromechanical Modelling of Fracture Toughness,"
Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1987, pp. 1735-1746.
Testing," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, 1989, pp. 523-531.
Taku Arai, 1 Toshiari Saegusa, 2 Genki Yagawa, 3 Namio Urabe, 4
and Robert E. Nickell 5
Determination of Lower-Bound Fracture

Toughness for Heavy-Section Ductile Cast
Iron (DCI) and Estimation by Small Specimen
Tests
REFERENCE: Arai, T., Saegusa, T., Yagawa, G., Urabe, N., and Nickell, R. E., "Determi-
nation of Lower-Bound Fracture Toughness for Heavy-Section Ductile Cast Iron (DCI) and
Estimation by Small Specimen Tests," Fracture Mechanics." Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM
STP ]207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society
ABSTRACT: Spent nuclear fuel transport and/or storage casks (100-ton class) must maintain
their structural integrity even when subjected to hypothetical transportation or handling accidents
at storage facilities. For ductile cast iron (DCI) to be used as a cask containment boundary
material, adequate fracture toughness and associated ductile behavior must be demonstrated at
service temperatures and impact loading conditions of concern.
Six- and 8-in. (150- and 200-mm) thick compact tension (6TC[T] and 8TC[T]) specimens
were extracted from three prototypic and two model casks and were tested. The results obtained
in this study and the data obtained from another prototypic cask and six other model casks were
analyzed statistically. The lower-bound fracture toughness trend curves for heavy-section DCI
were finally established as a function of temperature.
Small specimens (for example, 1TC[T]), notched round bar tension, and U-notched Charpy
specimens) were machined from the fractured halves of the 6TC(T) and 8TC(T) specimens and
were tested under similar temperature and loading rate conditions. The relationship between the
results from small specimens and those defining the lower-bound trend curves is also discussed.
Fracture toughness prediction methods based on small specimen tests at specified temperature
are proposed.
KEYWORDS: spent nuclear fuel casks, ductile cast iron, lower-bound fracture toughness, frac-
ture toughness tests, small specimens technique
Spent nuclear fuel transport or storage containers or both, henceforth referred to as casks,
fabricated from ductile cast iron (DCI) have a great interest in Japan. The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) standards require that such casks certified for transport must be able
to withstand, for example, a 9-m free drop onto an essentially unyielding target at a lowest
Research engineer, Nuclear Engineering Department, Komae Research Laboratory, Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry, 11-1, Iwato Kita 2-Chome, Komaeshi, Tokyo 201, Japan.
2 Research & Planning Staff, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Department, Abiko Research Laboratory, Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, 1646 Abiko, Abikoshi, Chiba 270/11, Japan.
3 Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku,
Tokyo 113, Japan.
4 Chief research manager, No. 2 Material Department, Steel Research Center, NKK, 1-1 Minamiwatar-
ida, Kawasakai-ku, Kawasakishi, Kanagawa 210, Japan.
5 President, Applied Science and Technology, 16630 Sagewood Lane, Poway, CA 92064.
355
service temperature of - 4 0 ~ without loss of radioactive contents [1 ]. Such loading envelops

severe transportation collision accidents.
Heavy-section DCI casks, with gross weights of the order of 100 tons and wall thickness of
approximately 350 mm, are suspected to undergo a ductile-brittle transition that is a function
of temperature and loading rate. The fracture toughness at low service temperatures and impact
loading rates must be of such a character that the ductile behavior is ensured.
In Japan, the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) and a number
of cask fabricators have undertaken to provide this assurance through a comprehensive study
of the fracture toughness of heavy-section DCI [2-7]. Fracture toughness data from prototypic
(full-scale) and model (semi-scale) casks were obtained in these study. Sufficient data were
measured to develop reference fracture toughness curves for heavy-section DCI. In addition,
data were obtained on small specimens that enabled a fracture toughness prediction method
based on small specimen results to be proposed.
Determination of Lower-Bound Fracture Toughness
Materials and Specimens

Specimens from three prototypic casks (FC1, FC2, and FC3) and two model casks (MC1
and MC2) fabricated of DCI were used. The prototypic casks were about 5000 mm in length,
whereas the model casks ranged from 1800 to 5000 mm in length. The outer diameters of both
types of casks were of the order of 2000 mm, with wall thicknesses ranging from 300 to 400
mm. A schematic drawing of a 100-ton class prototypic cask is shown in Fig. 1. The casting
process and material chemistry were such that the microstructure of the DCI maintained high
ferriticity (94 to 100%) and high nodularity (75 to 96%), even at the center of the thick walls.
The tensile properties of the cask materials at 20~ for specimens taken from the center of the
walls (where the mechanical properties generally have their lowest values), are approximately:
0.2% offset yield strength, 200 to 240 MPa; ultimate tensile strength, 300 to 350 MPa; elon-
gation, 13 to 21%; and elastic modulus, 160 to 165 GPa [2-6]. And the Charpy absorbed
energy is approximately 60 to 160 kN/m 2 at - 4 0 ~ [2-6]. These materials are in conformity
with the ASTM Specification for Ferritic Ductile Iron Castings Suitable for Low-Temperature
5270
Fin =~ 4500
48~ n
..~176
. " ~ ' ~' ~ , ~1 _ Inner lid
I shielding
270 90
ool-o/
180 0
Outer lid .585.! 3960

i J Body (DCI)
5443
FIG. 1--Schematic drawing of a prototypic DCI cask (dimension in mm).
ARAI ET AL. ON LOWER-BOUND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF DCI 357
Service (A 874) and used for making a new Japanese industrial standard (JIS) for heavy-section
DCI [8].
Six- and 8-in. (150- and 200-mm) thick compact tension specimens were obtained from the
walls of these casks. Some of 6-in. (150-mm) (6TC[T]) specimens were side-grooved before
testing to ensure sufficient constraint for the crack tip. In such cases, the net section thickness
was maintained as 6 in. The dimensions of these side-grooved specimens are shown in Fig. 2.
Specimens were obtained from the prototypic casks at the '/4 L, 89 L, and 90 L position along
the cask length (L), and also from the center of the bottom and from the casting prolongation.
Specimens were obtained from the model casks at the 88 L, 89 L, and 90 L position along the
cask length. The specimens were cut in the L-R, L-C, and C-L orientations, in accordance
ASTM Terminology Relating to Fracture Testing (E-616). In total, 47 specimens were extracted
from the 3 prototypic casks, and 79 specimens were extracted from the 2 model casks.
Test Conditions and Test Methods

The testing was performed over a temperature range between - 120 and 20~ with the stress
intensity factor rate, dK/dt, greater than 300 MPa.ml/2/s. This stress intensity factor rate cor-
responds to the strain rate associated with the IAEA 9-m free drop onto an unyielding target
for a 100-ton cask with attached impact limiter [3]. Electrical servohydraulic testing machines
were used. A mixture of alcohol and dry ice was used to maintain the test temperature. Tem-
perature of the specimens was measured by thermocouples attached to the specimen surfaces
near the crack tip.
For cases in which linear elastic fracture mechanics conditions apply, the test methods
described in ASTM Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials
(E-399, Annex 7) were used, because the crack tip loading rate exceeds that defined for static
375
I_ 188 _I I _ 300
B
i"
~', i -
i50 ~
I Fatigue
- _ _ p =0.25 ~ | Pre-Crack
p =0.1
Details of part A Details of part B
FIG. 2--Dimensions of 6-inch net-thick side-grooved CT specimens (dimensions in mm).
loading. Test validity for the side-grooved specimens was based on satisfaction of the equation
[5]
(Bnet,a)min ~ 0.83(Ko/~ya) 2 (1)
where
Bnot = net thickness of the specimen, less the side grooves, mm,
a = crack length, ram,
Cryd = dynamic yield strength, MPa, and
KQ = measured stress intensity factor at crack initiation,
MPa.m 1/z.
Equation 1 was derived so that the plastic zone size at the crack tip should be smaller than
6% of specimen dimensions, because conditions of plane strain are met for the entire length of
the pre-crack front in the side-grooved specimen. The critical size of the plastic zone of 6% is
the same criterion for smooth surface specimen under plane-stress condition described in ASTM
Test Method E 399. A similar expression for side-grooved specimens is given in ASTM Test
Method for Determining the Plane-Strain Crack Arrest Fracture Toughness K~, of Ferritic Steels
(E-1221). In the standard, the coefficient 1 is used based on the specimen thickness B instead
of net thickness Bn~t.
The dynamic yield stress is appropriate for use in Eq 1 [3] and was estimated by
122.5*(loglo9*109*eo - logloko)*Tr
Cryd = CrYs + loglo9*109*eo -- loglok)*T (2)
where
trys = static yield strength at room temperature, MPa,
T= service temperature, ~
Tr = room temperature, ~
eo = static yield strain at room temperature (Co = ~ys/E),
k = dynamic strain rate,/s,
go = static strain rate, go = 0.0001/s, and
E = elastic modulus, MPa.
For tests in which Eq 1 is satisfied, the critical stress intensity factor is denoted as KIt,R, where
the subscript R signifies rapid loading.
For cases where the ductile tearing initiates before cleavage instability, the ductile tearing
initiation was detected by either electrical potential drop or key curve methods [9,10]. If the
measured J-integral value, Ji, corresponding to ductile crack initiation, satisfied all validity
requirements of ASTM Test Method for Jio a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E-813), then Ji
was converted to a critical stress intensity factor and denoted as K[~,R. Temperature gradient
crack arrest fracture touchness tests were applied to measure the crack arrest fracture toughness,
KI,. The details of the test are discussed elsewhere [11].
Results and Statistical Analysis

The results of fracture toughness tests on specimens obtained from the prototypic and model
casks are shown in Fig. 3. The solid symbols in the figure indicate valid Ktc,R data points, open
symbols denote KIJ~,Rdata points converted from ductile crack initiation cases, and doubled
ARAI ET AL. ON LOWER-ROUND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF DCI 359
K Ji
Kic.a ic.R Kla
N M FC1 []
9 X FC2 r
~E 150 - 9 A FC3 ,0 ,0
et
9
9
[]
O |
FC4
MC1 { 1{~
O 9 MC2 x O zx Eq.(5)
+ x Mc3-Mc8 o, % ~,/
o
x. 100 -
tr..
o ~ * ,"_'7/ ,"_
t !2e..
,, 9 r ?l• /-
o 50-
t
o
o
ii
dK/dt > 300 MPaml/2/s

0 I I I
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Test temperature ,T (~
FIG. 3--Results of fracture toughness tests and the reference fracture toughness curves.
symbols denote Kia data points. Fracture toughness data for specimens from another prototypic
cask (FC4) and a number of other model casks (MC3, MC4, MC5, MC6, MCT, MC8) are also
plotted in Fig. 3 [3-7]. All of the casks for which data are shown were fabricated in Japan
from 1986 to 1990. All of the data shown were obtained at a crack tip loading rate, dK/dt,
greater than 300 MPa-ml/e/s. The plotted data show typical brittle-to-ductile transition curves,
although some cask-to-cask differences can be seen. However, for temperatures above 0~ the
fracture appearance in all cases showed a fully ductile mode, denoting upper-shelf behavior.
The temperature region between - 6 0 and 0~ was found to be the transition region, because
the fracture appearance of most of the specimens showed ductile tearing followed by cleavage
instability over this range.
Statistical analyses were performed for the data sets for each cask and for each test temper-
ature, provided that the data sets included at least five data points [7]. The distribution of the
fracture toughness of heavy-section DCI showed good agreement with a two-parameter (shape
and scale parameter) WeibuU distribution function. An example of such a Weibull plot is shown
in Fig. 4 [7]. The results of all of the statistical analyses are given in Table 1, including the
average value of fracture toughness, K I...... and the standard deviation of fracture toughness,
~rsa. The maximum value of standard deviation is only 7.37 MPa'm ~/2, a value that is less than
that for low-alloy ferritic steels [12]. Prototypic cask FC4 material gave the minimum K I.....
and the maximum Crsdat - 4 0 ~ (the lowest service temperature for transport casks). Using the
average fracture toughness, KI...... and standard deviation, trsd, of prototypic cask FC4 material
in Table 1, an estimation of the smallest value of KI..... - 2trsa is 57.5 MPa'm 1/2, and an
estimation of the smallest value of KI..... - 3g,a is 50.4 MPa.m ~ at -40~
(z=25.26 /
90 _13=73.22 /'o o
70
m
v
,-
O
50
L_
.~_ 30
121
10
ex0[
/ I I
65 70 75 80
Kic,R (MPamlr2)
FIG. 4---An example of Weibull plot for fracture toughness, KICR on 6TC(T) tests.
Determination of Lower-Bound Fracture Toughness

Procedure for the lower-bound fracture toughness for DCI cask materials is discussed in the
following paragraphs. For example, Rosenfield [13] proposed a reference fracture toughness
curve KI~, that represents a lower bound to a set of fracture toughness data for heavy-section
DCI.
KIR = 29.45 + 13.79 exp[(T - To)/38] (3)
where
KIR = reference fracture toughness, MPa'm 1/2,
T = service temperature, ~ and
To = transition temperature, ~
Equation 3 is identical to the reference fracture toughness curve provided in Appendix G of
Section III of the ASME Code [14]. The Appendix G Km curve is a function of temperature
difference T - RTNDT, where RTNoT is a code-defined transition temperature formulated so the
curve bounds from below a composite of static (Kxc), dynamic (Kid), and crack arrest (K~,)
fracture toughness data. However, in Eq 3, To is selected tentatively as the fracture appearance
transition temperature, TFATT= -29~ because the Charpy absorbed energy in the upper-shelf
region is less than 41 J. One of the authors of this paper compared, in the previous study, the
fracture toughness data of heavy-section DCI with Eq 3 formulated using TO = TNDT[5]. This
study showed the Appendix G K~R curve did not provide a meaningful lower bound to the
fracture toughness data of heavy-section DCI material. Therefore, a new reference fracture
toughness curve for heavy-section DCI, K ~CZ, is needed.
TABLE 1--Results of the statistical analysis on fracture toughness of 6TC(T).
Weibull Parameters Standard

Average Value Deviation
Temperature, Number 13, K~...... ~sd,
Cask ~ of Data ct MPa.m ~a MPa.m uz MPa.m l~z
FC 1 -60 6 13.08 51.02 49.1 4.35

FC2 -60 6 22.37 103.00 100.6 5.59
FC3 -60 6 10.86 91.09 77.4 8.61
FC4 -40 6 12.30 74.78 71.7 7.09
MC 1 - 100 22 14.46 44.79 43.2 3.66
-40 15 25.26 73.22 71.7 3.54
-20 5 25.10 123.85 121.2 6.02
0 5 33.17 125.79 123.7 4.68
MC2 -70 11 14.07 87.54 84.4 7.37
-40 10 18.38 110.14 107.0 7.19
MC1,MC2
MC3,MC4 -40 22 16.47 80.01 77.48 5.79
MC5,MC6
MC7,MC8
FC 1,FC2 - 100 20 7.02 58.49 54.72 9.17
FC3 ---40
Three possible KIRI~I expressions are proposed in this study. All the expressions are a function
of temperature, T, with K ~ cI given in MPa.mltL The first two expressions consist of two parts,
a constant value of fracture toughness in the upper-shelf region (T --> 0~ and an exponential
variation in the transition region ( T < 0~
K Dr ---- C o + 1.344 exp[0.026(T - To)] (4)
where
K ~ c~ = reference fracture toughness for heavy-section DCI, M P a . m ~/2 and

Co = lower-shelf fracture toughness, M P a . m ~/s.
Initially, the constant upper-shelf value was taken as the minimum of K~..... - 3ssa for the
upper-shelf region (see Table 1). Later, one expression was derived that fit the minimum value
of the fracture toughness at each temperature in the transition region.
K ~ c~ = 24.5 + 1.344 exp[0.026(T + 160)] (T < 0~ (5a)
= 112 (T --> 0~ (5b)
Another expression was found that fit the smallest KI. . . . . - - 3~sd at each temperature in the
transition region (see Table 1).
KDm
c~ = 20.0 + 1.344 exp[0.026(T + 160)] (T < 0~ (6a)
= 108 (T ~ 0~ (6b)
The third curve represents a hyperbolic tangent expression frequently used to fit the Charpy
impact test absorbed energies as a function of temperature. In this case
K~C~(MPa.m'/2)=Co+C, t a n h ( ~ ) (7)
where
Co = (a + B)/2, Ct = (B - a)/2,
A = lower-shelf fracture toughness,
B = upper-shelf fracture toughness,
TO = transition temperature, ~ and,
AT = half width of transition region, ~
Fitting this expression to the lowest values of K~ .... - 3Crsdat each temperature gives
K DcI = 71.5 + 39.5 tanh ( T + 26.3]

22~ / (8)
Equations 5, 6, and 8 are plotted in Fig. 3, along with Eq 3 with To = TNDT = --45~ Figure
3 includes crack arrest fracture toughness data from two model casks [I1]. The three K ~ I
curves can be seen to envelop the crack arrest fracture toughness as well.
The values provided by these curves at a temperature of - 4 0 ~ can be found to be: Eq 5,
55.3 MPa.m~a; Eq 6, 50.8 MPa.m~a; Eq 8, 50.3 MPa.m 1~. The value provided by Eq 5 lies
between the lowest K I..... - 3tr,a value of 50.4 MPa.m u2 and K~..... - 2Grsaof 57.5 MPa-m 1/2.
The values provided by Eq 6 and Eq 8 are almost identical to the lowest K~..... - 3tr,d at -40~
This is expected because the basis for the curve fits was the K I..... - 3~r,d data.
In the previous section, it was shown that the distribution of the fracture toughness in the
transition region could be described by a two-parameter Weibull distribution function. The
probabilities, FFC4(55) and FFCc4(50),that the fracture toughness of prototypic cask FC4 is equal
to or less than 55 or 50 MPa-m ~/2, respectively, at - 4 0 ~ are calculated:
F~:C4(55) = 1 - exp {_ \ ~ j J = 2.4 • 10 -2 (9)
F~C4(50) = 1 - exp
{_ (,0
\ ~ / j = 7.5 • 10 -3 (10)
Although the prototypic cask FC4 shows the smallest average fracture toughness, Kic..... and
the largest standard deviation, ~r,a at -40~ these probabilities seem to be extremely low. So
DCI
the three reference fracture toughness curves, K~r~ , proposed in this study might be adequate
to give lower-bound fracture toughness. Equation 6 seems to give reasonable lower-bound
fracture toughness.
Fracture Toughness Prediction by Small Specimens

Small Specimens and Test Conditions
Five kinds of small specimens were examined to establish the fracture toughness prediction
methods.
1. 1TC(T) (1-in. thick compact tension specimens shaped the same as the side-grooved
6TC(T) in Fig. 2)
2. NRBT (notched round bar tension specimen) [5,15]
3. U-notched Charpy impact (5-mm depth U-notched specimen)
4. ICIT (instrumented Charpy impact specimen with fatigue pre-crack) [16,17]
5. Tensile specimen (ASTM Test Methods of Tension Testing of Metallic Materials (E-8).
These specimens were machined from the fractured halves of 6TC(T) specimens. The specimen
sampling scheme is shown in Fig. 5, and test conditions of these specimens are shown in Table
2.
Correlation Between Small Specimen Test Results and Fracture Toughness of 6TC(T)
Fracture toughness Jc obtained from NRBT and 1TC(T) tests had good correlation with the
fracture toughness of the 6TC(T) test. The fracture toughness Jc is the J integral value at the
onset of the cleavage instability. For the case where ductile tearing grows before cleavage
instability, the ductile crack length was added to the pre-crack length. Absorbed energy, EcuN,
by Charpy test had also good correlation with the fracture toughness of the 6TC(T) test. But
elongation and reduction of area obtained from tensile tests and dynamic fracture toughness
1 ,do .f
6TCT fractured
/ halves
I
Tensile x 4
NRBT x 6
co
I II~-
1TCT x 6
FIG. 5--Cutting scheme of small specimensfrom fractured halves of 6TC(T) specimens (dimen-
sions in mm).
TABLE 2--Test conditions of small specimens.
Test
Specimen Temperature Stress Intensity Factor Rate
NRBT -70~ dK/dt = 3 MPa.mla/s

ITC(T) - 100~ - - 4 0 ~ dK/dt = 300 MPa.m~/2/s
Charpy - 100~ - - 4 0 ~ deldt ~- 103/s (strain rate)
U-notched
ICIT -80~ -- -40~ dKldt = 3 • l0 s MPa.ml/2/s
Tension -100~ -- -40~ Static (loading rate)
obtained by ICIT tests h a d rather poor correlation. So, the results of N R B T , 1TC(T), and U-
n o t c h e d Charpy impact tests are discussed.
T h e relationship b e t w e e n Jc of 1TC(T) tests (at the same conditions as those of 6TC[T]) and
the fracture toughness o f 6TC(T) test (T = transition region, d K / d t = 300 MPa.m'/Z/s) is s h o w n
in Fig. 6. The correlation between these two fracture toughnesses was surveyed using linear,
polynomial, power law function, and so forth. The correlation of these two toughnesses is
derived as Eq 11 and s h o w n in Fig. 6.
Kic,r~ = 12.91 j o.48 (r 2 = 0.88) (11)
where
Jc = I integral value at the onset of the cleavage instability, kN/m, and

r 2 = determination coefficient.
100 o ~ O ~ . ~
"6 30
Kc~=!,2.~IJc TM (r2=0.881
o
10 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ , , , , ,
5 10 30 100
Jc of 1TCT (kN/m)
FIG. 6~Relationship between fracture toughness Kic.~, K~s~.Rof 6TC(T) ( T = - 1 0 0 ~ -40~ dK/
dt > 300 MPa'mm/s) and fracture toughness J, of 1TC(T) (T = - 1 0 0 ~ -40~ dK/dt -----300
MPa.mm/s).
The exponent to Jc is almost ~, and the value of regression coefficient 12.91 is nearly equal to
the square root of elastic modulus of heavy-section DCI (E = 160 to 165 GPa). So, it is assumed
that the theoretical relationship between K and J (under small-scale yielding condition, K =
~v/JE/(1 - v2)) is also observed between Ki~.r~and Jc.
The relationship between J~ of the NRBT test (T = -70~ dK/dt = 3 MPa-m'/2/s) and
fracture toughness of the 6TC(T) test (T = -40~ dK/dt = 300 MPa-ml/2/s) was analyzed by
the same procedures. The correlation of these two toughnesses is given in Eq 12 and shown in
Fig. 7.
K~r = 16.25 jo.44 (r 2 = 0.77) (12)
The relationship between Ecur~ of U-notched Charpy impact tests (T; same temperature of
the 6TC[T] test) and the fracture toughness of 6TC(T) test (T = transition region, dK/dt = 300
MPa.m~/2/s) is shown in Fig. 8, and the correlation is given in Eq 13 and shown in Fig. 8.
glc,R = 2.2lEarN 0 79 (r 2 = 0.62) (13)

where
EcuN = Charpy absorbed energy obtained from U-notched Charpy specimen, kJ/m 2.
There is no theoretical relationship between Charpy absorbed energy and the fracture toughness,
but many empirical equations between Charpy absorbed energy obtained from a V-notched
Charpy specimen and fracture toughness KL~ or Kid were proposed for low-alloy steels [18].
Equation 13 has some similarities to those empirical equations.
200
E
,o0
I-- 0 O- -0 OO
O
'5 50 ~ o 0 o
~J
0.44 2
KiC,R= 16.25Jc (r = 0 . 7 7 )
o
o~ 20
10 I I I I
' '
I I
10 20 40 70 100
Fracture toughness Jc of NRBT (kN/m)
FIG. 7--Relationship between fracture toughness K~c,R,K,J~,~of 6TC(T) (T = -100 ~ -40~ dK/
dt ~ 300 MPa.mm/s) and fracture toughness Jc of NRBT (T = -100 ~ -40~ dK/dt - 300 MPa'ml/2/
s).
200
E
100 - ~ : S
oco~~O ~ o
o ~
50
oo~f o o o
0 0 0
J~
o
Q; K)C,R=2.21EcuN0"79 (r 2=0.62)
10 , , , , , , , I
20 50 100 200
Charpy absorbed energy, E CUN ( k J / m 2)
FIG. 8--Relationship between fracture toughness Ktc.R, KtS~.Rof 6TC(T) (T = -100 ~ -40~ dK/
dt --> 300 MPa'ml/2/s) and Charpy absorbed energy, EcuN (T = -100 ~ -40~
Statistical Analysis and L o w e r - B o u n d Fracture Toughness Prediction by Small

Specimens
Statistical analysis was applied to the NRBT and 1TC(T) test results. The results are shown
in Table 3. The distribution of the fracture toughness, Jr obtained from NRBT and 1TC(T)
tests fit well to a two-parameter Weibull distribution function. Maintaining the correlation
between Jc and KIc.R is Jr = A(KIc,R)B, the cumulative distribution function of Jc, Fjc(y), (the
probability of J~ being equal to or less than y, P[J~ <-- y]), can be transformed as
Fjc(y ) = P[J~ <-- y]

= P [A (Kxc,R)8 --< Ax8]
= P[KIc.R <-- x]
= P[(JJA) lIB <- x] (t5)
f ~ (JclA }I/B
= fK,c,R(X) dx
= FKIo,~(x)at x = {( J J A } lIB
-_,-ex,[-{"c>rlTl
= 1 - exp
[_ (,c :]\AI3B / j
Equation 15 means that the distribution of Jc can be predicted as a Weibull distribution of KIc,R
with shape parameter, a/B, and scale parameter, A 13B. The predicted shape parameter and scale
parameter of Jc are shown in Table 4. The predicted parameters are nearly equal to those
TABLE 3--Results of statistical analysis on NRBT and 1TC(T) tests.
Weibull
Test Parameters Standard
Temperature, Number Average Value Deviation
Specimen Cask ~ of Data ct 13, kN/m Jc..... kN/m (Ld, kN/m
MC 1,MC2
NRBT MC3,MC4 -70 27 7.07 38.42 35.96 5.98
MC5,MC6
MC7,MC8
1TC(T) FC1,FC2 -100 37 2.99 24.85 22.18 8.08
FC3 -- - 40
obtained by experiments (in Table 3). It is possible to predict the distribution of Jc from the
distribution of KIt.R, or vice versa, and the correlation between K~c.R and Jc. And it is also
possible to ensure the fracture toughness, KIt.R, by NRBT and 1TC(T) test.
Conclusions
1. Fracture toughness, KIo.R,of heavy-section DCI was obtained using 6- and 8-in (150- and
200-mm) thick compact tension specimens extracted from three prototypic casks and two
model casks.
2. Three reference fracture toughness curves for heavy-section DCI, K ~cI (lower-bound frac-
ture toughness), were established from fracture toughness data including the fracture
toughness data obtained from another prototypic cask and six more model casks. How-
ever, an engineering judgment is necessary to choose one of the reference fracture tough-
ness curves because these curves have some different probabilistic meanings.
3. Small specimens were machined from fractured halves of 6TC(T) specimens, and fracture
toughness tests were performed. The results of small specimen test were compared with
the fracture toughness of 6TC(T) test. Then it was shown that fracture toughness, Jc,
obtained from 1TC(T) and NRBT tests and absorbed energy, EcuN, obtained from U-
notched Charpy test have good correlation with the fracture toughness of 6TC(T) test.
Based on the statistical analysis, fracture toughness prediction methods by small specimen
tests were also proposed.
TABLE 4--Statistical parameters predicted for NRBT and 1TC(T) tests.
Predicted
Weibult
Test Parameters Standard
Temperature, Average Value Deviation
Specimen Cask ~ oL 13, kN/m Jc..... kN/m tr,d, kN/m
MC1,MC2
NRBT MC3,MC4 -70 7.24 37.46 35.10 5.72
MC5,MC6
MC7,MC8
1TC(T) FCLFC2 -100 3.38 23.17 20.80 6.80
FC3 ---40
References
[1 ] IAEA Safety Standards No. 6 "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials," Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency, 1985.
[2] Kusanagi, H., Hide, K., and Takaku, H., "Properties of Castor Type Cast Iron Model Cask Mate-
rials," Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Report, T86107, Tokyo, July 1986.
[3] "Research on Quality Assurance of Ductile Cast Iron Cask," Quality Assurance Committee on
Ductile Cast Iron Cask, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Report, EL87002,
Tokyo, Nov. 1987.
[4] Hide, K., Arai, T., Shimazaki, K., Kusanagi, H., and Takaku, H., "Evaluation on Fracture Toughness
of Ductile Cast Iron for Casks," Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Report,
T88016, Tokyo, Dec. 1988.
[5] Urabe, N. and Harada, Y., "Fracture Toughness of Heavy Section Ductile Castings and Safety
Assurance Method of DCI Casks," NKK Technical Report 125, NKK Corp., Kawasaki, Japan, 1989,
pp. 77-84 or Urabe, N. and Harada, Y., "Fracture Toughness of Heavy Section Ductile Iron Castings
and Safety Assessment of Cast Casks," in Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials, 1989, pp. 743-752.
[6] Ito, C., Arai, T., Saegusa, T., Onchi, T., and Shiomi, S., "Research on Quality Assurance of Ductile
Cast Iron Cask Part 2," Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Report, EU91001,
Tokyo, 1991.
[7] Arai, T., Onchi, T., Saegusa, T., and Yagawa, G., "Fracture Touchness of DCI Casks," Proceedings
of the 6th Symposium on Fracture and Fracture Mechanics, The Society of Materials Science Japan
(Kyoto, Sept. 1991), pp. 99-104.
[8] Japanese Industrial Standard, "Heavy-Walled Ferritic Spheroidal Graphite Iron Castings for Low
Temperature Service," Designation G 5504-1992, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology,
Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Tokyo.
[9] British Standard Institution, "Crack Opening Displacement (COD) Testing," Appendix B, Desig-
nation BS 5762 (1979).
[10] Ernst, H. A., Paris, P. C., Rossow, M., and Hunchison, J. W., "Analysis of Load Displacement
Relationship to Determine J-R Curve and Tearing Instability Material Properties," Fracture Mechan-
ics, ASTM STP 677, C. W. Smith Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1979, pp. 581-599.
[11 ] Urabe, N. and Furuta, K., "Is Ductile Cast Iron Ductile at -40~ '' in Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium on the Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials, Yokohama,
1992, pp. 1189-1196.
[12] Sakai, Y., Tamanai, K., and Ogura, N., "Application of Tanh Curve Fit Analysis to Fracture Tough-
ness Data of Japanese RPVs," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 115, 1989, 15p.31-39.
[13] Rosenfield, A. R., Ahmad, J., Cialone, H. J., Landow, M. P., and Mincer, P. N., "Crack Arrest
Toughness of Nodular Iron," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 166, 1989, pp. 161-170.
[14] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. III, "Rules for Construction of Nuclear Plant Com-
ponent." Appendix G, "Protection Against Nonductile Failure."
[15] Dally, J. W., Zhang, X. J., and Irwin, R. "Determining Lower Bound Dynamic Initiation Toughness
from Notched Round Bars," in Proceedings ofASTM E-24 Rapid-Load Fracture Testing Symposium,
San Francisco, April 1990.
[16] Yamada, T., Fukuda, Y., and Kishi, T., "Dynamic Fracture Evaluation Procedure of Nodular Graph-
ite Cast Iron by an Impact Response Curve Method," Journal of Japan Institute of Metals, Vol. 54,
No. 3, 1990, pp. 292-300.
[17] Kobayashi, T., "Evaluation of Dynamic Fracture Toughness on Heavy Wall Ductile Cast Iron for
Container," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1988, pp. 397-407.
[18] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., "Correlation Between K~cand Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the
Transition-TemperatureRange," in Impact Testing of Metals, ASTM STP 466, American Society for
Takeo Yokobori t and Masahiro Ichikawa 2
An Interpretation of the Scatter in Brittle-

Ductile Transition Region As a Statistical
Event as a Result of the Two Different
Populations
REFERENCE: Yokobori, T. and Ichikawa, M., "An Interpretation of the Scatter in Brittle-
Ductile Transition Region As a Statistical Event as a Result of the Two Different Popula-
tions," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald
1994, pp. 369-375.
ABSTRACT: The scatter of fracture toughness in the brittle-ductile transition region may contain
cleavage growth-affected (brittle) fracture and ductile growth-affected (ductile) fracture resulting
from the fracture of two different types. The mechanism of the fracture of these two types may
be considered as different. In this article, the data by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science
(JSPS) round robin tests have been analyzed using this concept. The mechanism proposed herein
may be related to the results of round robin tests, which show extremely small stable crack
growth length in the lower portion and considerable stable crack growth length in the upper
portion of the curve plotted using the mean rank.
KEYWORDS: two different populations, mixed Weibull distributions, cleavage growth affected
fracture, ductile growth affected fracture, stable crack growth length
It is well known that the scatter of the fracture toughness is remarkable in the brittle-ductile
transition region in ferritic steel. Therefore many considerations and treatments have been
proposed [1-3]. Most of them treated the phenomenon as statistical one on one in the same
population.
It may be assumed that within the brittle-ductile transition temperature range, at the same
temperature the fracture of two types coexist, that is, the cleavage growth-affected (brittle)
fracture expected as the extension of lower curve towards higher temperature and the ductile
growth-affected (ductile) fracture expected as the extension of upper curve towards lower tem-
perature as shown in Fig. 1.
With this background, a concept is proposed to attempt to assume that the fracture toughness
distribution within the transition range consists of two distributions from the two different
populations for cleavage growth-affected (brittle) fracture and ductile growth-affected (ductile)
fracture, respectively. For convenience Weibull distribution is used for the calculation through-
out this paper.
The mechanism proposed herein may be related to the results of round robin tests that show
extremely small stable crack growth length in the lower portion and considerable stable crack
growth length in the upper portion of the curve plotted using the mean rank.
l Professor and Dean, School of Science and Engineering, Teikyo University, Toyosatodai 1-1, Utsu-
nomiya, 320, Japan.

2 Professor, Department of Mechanical and Control Engineering, University of Electro-Communica-
tions, Chofugaoka 1-5-1, Chofushi, Tokyo, 182, Japan.
369
ductile growth ~
affected fracture ~
0
coexisting J l l r l l
d i s ~
cleavage growth affected fracture
Temperature
FIG. 1--Schematic illustration of the coexistence of cleavage growth-affected (brittle) fracture
and ductile growth-affected (ductile)fracture in the brittle-ductile transition range.
Analysis of Experimental Data

The experimental data of the fracture toughness Kjc to be analyzed in this article are given
in [4 ] as obtained by interlaboratory tests by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS).
The material tested was ASTM A508 class 3 steel. Tests were carried out with 1T-CT speci-
mens. Kjc was obtained as
K,c \1 - v =j (1)
where Jc is J integral at fracture, E is Young's modulus, and v is Poisson's ratio. The Kjc
values were obtained at T = - 1 0 0 , - 7 5 , and - 5 0 ~ by three, four, and four laboratories,
respectively. The total numbers of the Kjc values obtained are 15, 20, and 20 at T = - 100,
- 7 5 , and -50~ respectively. These values are shown in Table 1 in ascending order. Figure
1 shows the Weibull plot of the gje values at the three temperatures. The data are plotted using
the mean rank
i
F = - - (2)
n+l
where F is the cumulative probability, n is the sample size, and i is the ordinal number shown
in Table 1. Also, n = 15, 20, and 20 at T = - 100, - 7 5 , and -50~ respectively.
It is seen from Fig. 1 that the gjc values at - 100 and - 7 5 ~ follow two-parameter Weibull
distributions approximately. The shape parameters are nearly the same at - 1 0 0 and -75~
In contrast, the Kjc values at - 5 0 ~ do not follow a straight line but follow a curve concave
upward as shown schematically in Fig. 2. It seems that the data at - 5 0 ~ are composed of two
groups. The lower portion of the curve has nearly the same slope as the straight lines for - 100
and -75~ This may suggest that the lower portion of the Weibull plot results from the
extension of the lower portion of the Kjc versus T curve toward higher temperatures, and the
upper portion of the Weibull plot results from the extension of the upper portion of the Kjc
versus T curve toward lower temperatures. Thus, we analyze the data at - 5 0 ~ in terms of the
mixed distribution.
YOKOBORI AND ICHIKAWA ON SCATTER 371
TABLE 1--Kjc values obtained."
gje , MPa.m 1/2
i - 100~ - 75~ - 50~
1 58.7 (22.6) 107.6 (28.6) 68.2 (7.4)

2 95.1 (34.5) 113.3 (42.4) 151.2 (104.5)
3 99.0 (37.7) 127.8 (41.8) 152.7 (104.5)
4 101.8(49.6) 134.1 (35.7) 156.5 (37.8)
5 105.9 (57.7) 138.0 (51.2) 159.9 (150.0)
6 107.0 (51.7) 142.2 (77.6) 165.9 (108.6)
7 108.7 (53.3) 142.4 (82.9) 166.9 (61.9)
8 126.4(60.3) 146.3 (82.0) 170.8 (25.3)
9 126.7(42.2) 150.3 (57.1) 171.5 (70.2)
10 132.8 (51.3) 151.5 (74.0) 180.5 (112.0)
11 135.2(46.9) 155.3 (93.1) 181.9 (65.7)
12 145.2 (77.6) 166.5 (98.0) 182.8 (129.3)
13 146.3 (50.0) 171.2 (t25.1) 188.7 (82.1)
14 155.9 (67.2) 174.3 (89.4) 191.1 (163.0)
15 167.5 (60.3) 175.9 (100.7) 193.2 (240.0)
16 188.5 (137.9) 224.4 (388.9)
17 199.8 (283.0) 244.8 (413.0)
18 204.9 (198.3) 255.4 (345.0)
19 206.6 (167.4) 264.0 (315.0)
20 220.0 (139.3) 330.2 (850.0)
"Length of stable crack extension before unstable crack exten-

sion is shown in the parenthesis in micrometres.
99
[] A o
90 o
oo
50 []
[]
[]
[] z~ o
u_" 20 [] A 0
[] A 0
10
-100[ ] ~
0
[] ~
5 0
-go ~
9
2
1 i , I I I I
50 1 O0 200 300 400 500
Fracture Toughness Kjc, M P a . m 1/2

FIG. 2--Weibull plot of Kjc values.
Let F l(Kjc) and F2(Kjc ) be the distribution functions of two-parameter Weibull distributions
given by
F,(Kjc) : 1 -exp [- (KJc]m'] l

\131] (3)
F2(Kj~) = 1 - e x p [- {gJclm21_]
\132] (4)
The distribution functions F 1 and F 2 are supposed to yield the lower and upper portions of the
Weibull plot in Fig. 2, respectively. That is, FI and F2 are considered as corresponding to the
brittle-type fracture and the ductile-type fracture, respectively. The distribution function F of
the mixed Weibull distribution resulting from F 1 and Fz is expressed as
F(Kjc) = p f l(Kjr + pzFz(Kjc)

(5)
Pl + P2 = 1
where p~ and P2 are the ratios of mixture. The right-hand side of Eq 5 contains the six param-
eters, m 1, [31, m2, [32,P 1, and P2. These parameters were determined as follows.
Kjc values at -50~ were classified into the two groups. The first and second groups cor-
respond to stable crack extension shorter than 0.2 mm and longer than 0.2 mm, respectively.
This classification is in accordance with the ASTM Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening Dis-
placement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness Measurement (E 1290). Through plotting Kjc values
belonging to each group separately on Weibull probability paper, ml, 131, m2, and 132 were
estimated; p ~ and P2 were estimated from the ratio of the number of Kje values belonging to
each group in the present data. The estimated parameters are as follows
ml = 12.84, [31 = 177 (MPa.m 1/z)
m 2 : 4.97, 132 = 273 (MPa'm 1/2)
Pl = 0.68, P2 = 0.32
Hence the resulting mixed Weibull distribution is expressed as follows

Kj~ 12.s4] "Kj," 4.977
F(Kjo)=0.68{1-exp[-(1-~) j } +0.32{1-exp [-(2--~)] } (6)
Figure 3 compares Eq 6 with the experimental distribution at -50~ It is seen that the cal-
culation is in good agreement with the experimental results. Figure 4 is a comparison of the
experimental distribution and Eq 6.
Discussion
The graphical behavior of the mixed Weibull distribution on Weibull probability paper is
classified into the three cases. Figure 5 shows the three cases schematically and Fig. 6 shows
the situation of these three cases in terms of the probability density functions fl and f2. The
U_
Kjc
FIG. 3--Schematic illustration of the distribution of K~. at - 5 0 ~
99
0 0
90 -50 ~
50
o~
u_- 20
10 ! .................................. i
5 0
ti
Equation (6)
1 ~ i J ~ I I I J
50 1O0 200 300 400 500
Fracture Toughness Kjc, MPa.m 1/2

FIG. 4---Comparison of the experimental distribution and Eq 6.
LI_
/ I.t-
/ Lt_
/
KJc KJc KJc
(a) (b) (c)
FIG. 5--Graphical behavior of the mixed Weibull distribution on Weibull probability paper.
/Z
^/ft ^7fl ~fl
Kjc Kjc Kjc

(a) (b) (c)
FIG. 6 Interpretation of the three cases shown in Fig. 5 in terms of the probability density
function fl and f2 that correspond to the cleavage facets-type fracture and the ductile facets-type
fracture, respectively. (a), (b), and (c) correspond to those in Fig. 5, respectively.
functions f, and f2 correspond to cleavage growth affected (brittle) fracture and ductile growth
affected (ductile) fracture, respectively.
At first sight, the data at - 5 0 ~ in Fig. 2 may seem to correspond to the case (b) in Fig. 5.
However, it seems that the lowest data point at - 5 0 ~ is too low.
Let us compare Kjc at - 5 0 ~ with Kjc at - 7 5 ~ on the same F-value basis. Since the sample
size n is 20 at both the temperatures, the same F-value basis means the same ordinal number
basis as may be seen in Eq 2. From Fig. 2 we notice that only the lowest Kjc at - 5 0 ~ (=68.2
MPa.m 1~2) is smaller than the corresponding Kjr at - 7 5 ~ ( = 107.6 MPa-m~/2). The other 19
K k values at - 5 0 ~ are larger than those at -75~ It is reasonable to expect that Kjc at - 5 0 ~
is larger than Kjc at - 7 5 ~ when the comparison is made on the same F-value basis. That is,
it is expected that the distribution function F versus the temperature T curves at - 5 0 and - 7 5 ~
do not intersect with each other. From this point of view, the lowest Kjc at - 5 0 ~ is considered
to be too low because of some unusual cause. Thus, in the preceding analysis we made light
of the lowest data point at - 5 0 ~ and regarded the data at - 5 0 ~ as corresponding to Case a
in Fig. 5, not to Case b. Furthermore, if the data at - 5 0 ~ corresponds to Case b, the lowest
data point is considered as resulting from extension of the upper portion of Kj~ versus T curve
to lower temperatures as may be seen in Fig. 6. However, this seems unrealistic.
For the case for -75~ only one data was obtained larger than 0.2 mm within the transition
range. However, the number is one among twenty and it can be considered as not having some
significance to treat the phenomena as having two populations.
The mechanism proposed herein may be related to the results of round robin tests [4] that
show extremely small stable crack growth length in the lower portion and considerable stable
crack growth length in the upper portion of the curve plotted using the mean rank as shown in
Table 1, where fracture type can be classified in terms of types C and U by ASTM Test Method
E 1290.
Note that the concept proposed herein may be correlated to the computer-simulated results
based on the model by Yokobori et al. [5].
Conclusions
It was assumed that the distribution of the fracture toughness within the brittle-ductile tran-
sition region in ferritic steel consists of two distributions from the two different populations
for the cleavage growth-affected (brittle) fracture and the ductile growth-affected (ductile)
fracture, respectively. The calculated result, assuming Weibull distribution for each one, is in
agreement with the experimental data.
The mechanism proposed herein may be related to the results of round robin tests that show
extremely small stable crack growth length in the lower portion and considerable stable crack
growth length in the upper portion of the curve plotted using the mean rank.
It is the next step to treat each distribution function in terms of stochastic process.
References
[1 ] Landes, J. D. and Begley, J. D., in Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing
[2] McCabe, D. E. and Landes, J. D., Scientific Paper 83-1D7-METEN-P3,Westinghouse Electric Corp.,
May 1983.
[3] Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., Ono, S., and Watanabe, J., in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium,
Vol. II, Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. II531-II561.
sition Region Through Japanese Intedaboratory Tests," in this volume, pp. 233-263.
[5] Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Iwadate, T., and Isogal, T., "Dislocation Emission and Dynamics Under the
Stress Singularity at the Crack Tip and Its Application to the Dynamic Loading Effect on Fracture
Toughness, in this volume, pp. 464-477.
Shang-Xian Wu, 1 Yiu-Wing Mai, 1 and Brian Cotterell 2
Ductile-Brittle Fracture Transition as a Result

of Increasing In-Plane Constraint in a Medium
Carbon Steel
REFERENCE: Wu, S.-X., Mai, Y.-W., and Cotterell, B., "Ductile-Brittle Fracture Transition
as a Result of Increasing In-Plane Constraint in a Medium Carbon Steel," Fracture Mechan-
ABSTRACT: Crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) tests and large deformation finite ele-
ment analyses have been carried out for double-edge notched tension [DE(T)] specimens with
a/W = 0.9 [DE(T)9] and 0.5 [DE(T)5], single-edge notched tension [SE(T)] specimens with
a/W = 0.5 [SE(T)5], three-point bend [SE(B)] specimens with a/W = 0.5 [SE(B)5] and 0.1
[SE(B)I], and center-cracked tension [M(T)] specimens with alW = 0.5 [M(T)5]. The results of
the CTOD tests show that the fracture toughness of the material decreases, and a ductile-brittle
fracture transition takes place as the in-plane plastic constraint of the specimens increases. In
M(T)5 and SE(B)I specimens with low constraints, fracture is ductile and no transition occurs.
In DE(T)5, SE(T)5, and SE(B)5 with higher constraints, fracture initiates by ductile tearing and
then changes to cleavage. In the DE(T)9 specimens with the highest constraint, fracture initiates
by brittle cleavage. The results of the finite element analyses show that the maximum achievable
tensile stress outside the finite strain zone ahead of the crack tip increases with increasing plastic
constraint in the order of M(T)5, SE(B)I, DE(T)5, SE(T)5, SE(B)5, and DE(T)9. The ductile-
brittle transition is due to the maximum tensile stress ahead of the crack tip reaching the critical
stress for cleavage fracture as the plastic constraint increases.
KEYWORDS: ductile-brittle fracture transition, ductile fracture, cleavage fracture, crack-tip

opening displacement, in-plane plastic constraint, finite element analysis
The phenomenon of ductile-brittle fracture transition is observed in m a n y engineering mate-

rials [1 ]. In the case of steels such as the low and medium carbon structural steels [2,3 ], the
fracture toughness is found to decrease with decreasing temperature and increasing loading
rate. Thus, changes in test temperature and loading rate may cause a ductile-to-brittle fracture
transition, which can be explained in terms of the elevated yield stress of the material. Another
well-known cause for a ductile-brittle transition is associated with the change of stress-strain
state ahead of a crack tip as a result of a transition from plane stress fracture for a thin plate
in which the toughness is high to plane-strain fracture for a thick plate in which the toughness
is low. In plane strain, the stress triaxiality as a result of the antiplane constraint produces a
high hydrostatic stress and a high elevation of normal tensile stress ahead of the crack tip,
hence promoting brittle fracture. In Ref 4, notched-bend specimens of a medium carbon steel
have a ductile-brittle transition with increasing normalized crack length. Finite element analyses
show that the stress ahead of a shallow crack is less than the critical stress needed to initiate a
ARC research fellow and professor, respectively, Center for Advanced Materials Technology, Depart-
ment of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
2 Professor, Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore,
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511.
376
WU ET AL. ON DUCTILE-BRITTLE TRANSITION 377
cleavage fracture. Hence, this ductile-brittle transition is attributed to increasing in-plane

constraint.
In-plane plastic constraint has been widely discussed. By slip-line analyses for nonhardening
materials, McClintock [5] has shown that the stress and velocity fields around a notch or crack
strongly depend on the specimen geometry and the crack depth. Figure 1 shows the ratios
between maximum hydrostatic stress o"m and the shear yield stress k of the material ahead of
the crack tip for varying specimen configurations and crack lengths given by the slip-line
analyses for perfectly plastic materials [6 ]. Although the introduction of strain hardening creates
a region over which the Hutchison-Rice-Rosengren (HRR) J-singularity dominates [7,8], the
size of the HRR J-dominance region strongly depends on both specimen configuration and
crack length. Only in deeply cracked bend geometries with high in-plane constraint is the size
of the J-dominance region large enough to contain the fracture process zone and the single-
parameter J-based or ~ crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD)-based approach approximately
valid. However, for specimen geometries with low in-plane constraint or shallow cracks, the
size of the J-dominance zone is too small to validate the single-parameter characteristics of the
crack-tip stress-strain field. A single toughness measurement, Jxc or ~i, is not sufficient to
represent the fracture criterion of materials, and it should be combined with a parameter rep-
resenting the in-plane constraint of specimens or structures. Recently, some researchers have
suggested two-parameter characterization of crack-tip stress-strain fields [9-17]. Particularly
O'Dowd and Shih [15-17] have shown that for a full range of plastic constraints the stress
5.0
C(T) SE(T)
4.0
3.0 ~ ..... /DE(T)
2.0
M(T)
1.0
I I I I I I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/W
FIG. 1--Ratio of maximum hydrostatic stress o"m to shear yield stress k of various specimens with
different relative crack lengths a/W. M(T)---center-cracked tension; DE(T)---double-edge-notched
tension; SE(T)--single-edge-notched tension; C(T)--compact tension, SE(PB)--pure bending,
SE(B)--three-point bend.
field of the forward sector of the crack tip can be characterized by the two parameters J and
Q. The J-integral characterizes the intensity of the HRR stress and Q represents the stress
triaxiality or constraint. Therefore, the two parameters Jic-Q or 8i-Q can be used to characterize
the toughness of materials with different constraint conditions.
To understand the effect of the in-plane constraint on fracture, CTOD tests and finite element
analyses of various specimen geometries and crack lengths of a medium carbon steel have been
carried out.
Experiments and Results

Experimental Work
The test material was a CS1030 plain carbon steel bar of diameter 65 mm in the as-received
condition. The chemical composition of the steel is 0.30% carbon, 0.60% manganese, 0.04%
phosphorus, and 0.03% sulfur and its mechanical properties are given in Table I. The critical
fracture stress ~i of the material was determined by slow four-point bend tests with 12.7- by
12.7-mm bars with a 45 ~ V-notch of depth 4.23 mm and root radius of 0.25 mm at a temperature
of - 196~ [18]. The bending moment at the onset of catastrophic failure measured from these
tests was 22.5 kN-m. The yield stress ~y of the material at - 196~ was 884 MPa. Using the
Griffiths and Owen [19] finite element stress analyses for the above specimen geometry, the
critical values of the maximum principal stress at the notch tip (~yaX = crl) were calculated.
The mean size of the ferrite grains and the pearlite colonies were measured by quantitative
metallography [20] and was about 30 t~m.
Three-point bend [SE(B)], double-edge notched tension [DE(T)], and single-edge-notched
tension specimens [SE(T)] shown in Fig. 2 were machined from the steel bar. All specimens
had the same thickness B = 25 mm and width W = 25 mm. On each specimen a single notch
or double notches were cut and then fatigue precracked such that the total length of notch plus
precrack was a. SE(B) specimens with a/W = 0.5 [SE(B)5] and 0.1 [SE(B)I], DE(T) specimens
with a/W = 0.5 [DE(T)5] and 0.9 (DE(T)9], and SE(T) specimens with a/W = 0.5 [SE(T)5]
were prepared. Center-cracked tension specimens with a/W = 0.5 [M(T)5] were made by
putting together two precracked SE(T)5 specimens and loaded with two bolts at the specimen
ends.
CTOD measurements on the SE(B) specimens were performed under three-point bending
with span S = 100 mm in an Instron 1195 testing machine. Tests on DE(T) and SE(T) speci-
mens were carried out on a Shimadzu testing machine. All tests were carried out at room
temperature. The crack mouth displacement V was measured with a clip gauge, and a P-V plot
was recorded on each specimen in which P was the applied load.
The CTOD values were calculated from
K2(1 - r 2)
- 2cr~E + 8p (1)
TABLE 1--Mechanical properties of CS1030 plain carbon steel.
Ultimate Critical
Tensile Elongation to Reduction Fracture
0.2% Proof Strength, Failure over in Area, Stress,
Condition Stress, MPa MPa 50 mm, % % MPa
As-received 325 517 24.8 54.8 1715
a a a
L L
2w w
(a) (b)
FIG. 2--(a) Double-edge-notched tension [DE(T)] specimen, L = 300 ram, (b) single-edge-
notched tension [SE(T)] specimen, L = 300 ram, and three-point bend [SE(B)] specimen, L = 130
mm.
where % was the yield strength, E was the Young's modulus, v was the Poisson's ratio, K was
the nominal stress-intensity factor, and 8p was the plastic component of 8. The K-factor for the
three-point bend geometry was calculated from the formula given in the ASTM Test Method
for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399). For the DE(T) geometry,
the K-factor was given by [21]
P ~ [1 + 0.122 cos 2 ('rra/2W)] /2W tan 2W

~[--~a 7ra (2)
K = 2B----
~
For the SE(T) geometry this was obtained from [22 ]
P
K = ~ ~ [1.12 - 0.231a/W + 10.55(a/W) 2
(3)
-21.72(a/W) 3 + 30.39(a/W) 4
and for the M(T) geometry this is calculated by [23]
P s~ "rra
K = 2ffW ~ [1 - 0.025(a/W) 2 + 0.06(a/W) 4] 2--E (4)
For DE(T)5, SE(T)5, SE(B)1, and M(T)5 specimens, in which fracture was initiated by slow
ductile tearing, the CTOD at fracture initiation, 81, was obtained by the multiple-specimen R-
curve method. For each specimen, a 8 value was calculated using Eq 1 in which the plastic
component Be was obtained by measuring the relative opening displacement between two iden-
tations at the crack tip(s) on both surfaces of the specimen and taking the average. The CTOD
measured in this way is equivalent to the ~5 proposed by Hellmann and Schwalbe [24 ]. The
unloaded specimens were then broken open at liquid nitrogen temperature, and the crack length
and crack extension were measured on the fracture surface by the nine-point average method
from the ASTM Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Tough-
ness Measurement (E 1290). For DE(T)5 and M(T)5 specimens, the measurements on two
cracks were averaged. The value of ~i was taken as the intersection of the linear regression R-
curve with the theoretical blunting line ~ = 2Aa.
For SE(B)5 specimens, in which unstable brittle crack extension occurred, the plastic com-
ponent ~p of CTOD in Eq 1 was calculated from
r p ( W - a)Ve (5)
8p = r ~ ( W - a) + a + z
where Vp was the plastic component of the crack-mouth opening displacement at the unstable
point on the P-V record, z was the distance of knife edge measurement point from the front
face of specimen, the rp was the plastic rotation factor, which was taken as 0.44 according to
ASTM Test Method E 1290. The Bp measured in this way was in agreement with the value
measured by the above indentation method for SE(B)5 specimens. The critical Bc value was
calculated from the maximum applied load P, using Eq 1.
The CTOD values of DE(T)9 specimens were determined from the crack mouth opening
displacement (CMOD), V, measured by clip gauge with the aid of the calibration curve of
CTOD versus CMOD (Fig. 3), which is obtained from finite element analysis for this geometry
0.01
0.0075
0.005
0.0025
I I
0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01
CMOD/W
FIG. 3---Calibration curve of the crack-mouth opening displacement (CMOD) versus the crack-
tip opening displacement (CTOD) for DE(T)9 specimen obtained from finite element analysis.
TABLE 2--Results of CTOD tests.

DE(T)9 SE(B)5 SE(T)5 DE(T)5 SE(B) 1 M(T)5
Bi or Be, mm 0.12" 0.16a 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.36
a ~c"
and material described in the following section. The CTOD values determined in this way were
confirmed with the values measured from the indentations on unloaded specimens.
Experimental Results
Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) fractographic examinations of the fracture surfaces
revealed different micromechanisms of fracture for various specimen geometries. Fracture in
M(T)5 and SE(B)I specimens was microvoid coalescence and no transition to brittle fracture
occurred. In DE(T)5 and SE(T)5 specimens, fracture initiated by microvoid coalescence, and
after some stable ductile crack growth, an unstable cleavage fracture was developed. There was
a very small amount of microvoid coalescence (about 0.2 mm) before the transition to brittle
cleavage fracture occurred in the SE(B)5 specimens. In the DE(T)9 specimens, fracture initiated
by unstable cleavage fracture without any slow tearing.
The results of the CTOD tests on the various specimen geometries are given in Table 2.
Figure 4 shows the R-curves for the SE(T)5, DE(T)5, SE(B)I, and M(T)5 specimens.
Finite Element Analyses

The Finite Element Model
The large deformation plane strain finite element analyses of DE(T)9, DE(T)5, SE(T)5,
SE(B)5, SE(B)I, and M(T)5 specimens have been carried out with the finite element code
ABAQUS Version 4-9 (Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen). Four-noded isoparametric elements
1.0
0.8
f f s
0.6
9 0.4 /~~." o - - - .(~
(.9
0.2 J~ ~" 0 . . . . . SE(T)5
7
[] ~ - - ~ DE(T)5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Aa (mm)
FIG. 4--R-curves of CTOD versus crack extension Aa of M(T)5, DE(T)5, SE(T)5, and SE(B)I
specimens.
FIG. 5---Element mesh for crack tip.
with 2-by 2-gauss (0.2-by 0.2-k Tesla) quadrature were used. The crack tip was modelled as a
semicircular notch with initial root radius r as shown in Fig. 5. McMeeking [25 ] and O'Dowd
and Shih [15] have shown that the stress and strain distributions do not depend on the initial
root radius when the crack tip has been blunted beyond about three to five times the initial root
radius. Details of the finite element meshes of various specimen geometries are given in Table
3. A quarter specimen for DE(T) and M(T) and a half specimen for SE(T) and SE(B) were
analyzed because of symmetry of these specimens. The crack-tip opening displacement, 8, was
calculated from twice the normal displacement u2 of the node where the straight flank of the
notch meets the semicircular tip [25,10].
The material modelled in the analyses was CS1030 plain carbon steel with Poisson's ratio
v = 0.3, Young's modulus E = 206 GPa, and yield stress % = 325 MPa. The true stress-true
strain relationship up to the necking strain in Fig. 6 obtained experimentally was used in the
analyses. This relationship is given by
o" = 904.2e ~ (6)
and is assumed to apply from the necking strain to the true fracture strain eI = ln[1/(1 - RA)]
= 0.794, where RA is the areal reduction of the material. Beyond the true fracture strain,
nonhardening is assumed.
TABLE 3--Details of finite element meshes of various specimen geometries. (L and W are specimen
length and width defined in Fig. 2, and r is the initial radius of the crack tip.)
Specimen Number of Number of Number of

Type L W r Elements Nodes Variables
DE(T)9 1600 400 0.1 614 696 1392

DE(T)5 1600 400 0.1 602 672 1344
SE(T)5 1600 400 0.1 602 672 1344
SE(B)5 1600 400 0.1 602 672 1344
SE(B)I 1600 400 0.1 536 610 1220
M(T)5 1600 400 0.1 602 672 1344
I000
0 , , , , I J i i I i i i i i i i i
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
True Strain
FIG. 6~True stress-true strain relationship for CS1030 steel.
Stress and Strain Fields Ahead of the Crack Tip

The stress and strain fields obtained from the finite element calculations for various specimen
geometries are compared in Figs. 7 and 8, where the normalized tensile stress (~yy/O'y) and the
equivalent plastic strain (Ep) are plotted against the original distance, X, of a point ahead of the
tip normalized by the crack-opening displacement 8. These results are taken at the same crack-
tip opening displacement of about ten times the original notch radius r, which corresponds to
the critical 8c for DE(T)9 specimen. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the maximum achievable
tensile stress outside the finite strain zone ahead of the crack tip increases with increasing
plastic constraint in the order of M(T)5, SE(B)I, DE(T)5, SE(T)5, SE(B)5, and DE(T)9, but
the SE(T)5 and SE(B)5 specimens have about the same values. Figure 8 shows that the distri-
butions of equivalent plastic strain within the finite strain zone of various specimen geometries
are about the same.
Figure 9 shows the normalized stress distribution over the normalized distance for various
specimen geometries at the CTOD values corresponding to fracture initiation given in Table
2. It can be seen that the distributions in Fig. 9 are about the same as those in Fig. 7, but the
normalized stress decreases slightly with increasing amount of plastic deformation or increasing
crack-tip opening displacement. This result is in agreement with other analyses [10,12,15].
Discussion
The results of CTOD tests and finite element analyses on various specimen geometries of a
CS1030 steel show that, as the in-plane plastic constraint increases, the maximum tensile stress
ahead of the crack tip increases and the fracture initiation toughness decreases. The fracture
mechanism changes from ductile tearing to ductile tearing plus transition to brittle cleavage
fracture and then changes to cleavage initiation without slow tearing.
According to the critical stress model for cleavage fracture proposed by Ritchie et al. [26],
it is necessary for brittle cleavage fracture to occur such that the local tensile stress (ryyreaches
the critical stress ~f of the material at a characteristic distance l o. The critical stress o'f of CS 1030
6.0
zX DE(T)9 [] DE(T)5
~z SE(B)5 t> SE(B)I
5.0 O SE(T)5 <> M(T)5
4.0
~ A
I~~ 3.oI ~ A
<> d> c~ a
O t> O
2.0 O t>
1.0
t I I t I i t t i I i i t t
0 5 10 15
x/~
FIG. 7--Variation of normalized tensile stress O'yy/O'y with normalized distance X/6 ahead of the
crack tip for various specimens.
steel is 1715 MPa at - 1 9 6 ~ as given in Table 1. It is expected that the critical stress at room
temperature is slightly lower. Since fracture in DE(T)9 specimens initiates by cleavage, it can
be assumed that maximum stress ahead of the crack tip of DE(T)9 specimens has reached the
critical stress. The finite element analysis in Fig. 7 gives a value of 1420 MPa for the maximum
stress. If we take this value as the critical stress of the material at room temperature, Fig. 7
shows that at the crack initiation CTOD the tensile stress at a distance lo ~ 28c = 0.24 mm
reaches the critical stress. In other specimen geometries, the local tensile stress cannot reach
the critical stress as a result of the lower constraint. Hence, cleavage fracture cannot occur, and
crack growth takes place by ductile tearing. In the DE(T)5, SE(T)5, and SE(B)5 specimens
after ductile tearing, the crack tip sharpness increases, and this will cause an increase in the
local stress as a result of an elasticity effect. The local stress may reach the critical stress, and
the fracture transition to cleavage occurs. Indeed, a numerical investigation of a crack growing
under steady-state by Varias and Shih [27] has shown that the near-tip hoop and hydrostatic
stresses for a growing crack are higher than that for a stationary crack. In the M(T)5 and SE(B)I
specimens, the local stress does not reach the critical stress level and cleavage fracture does
not occur.
Conclusions
Experiments with various specimen geometries of a CS1030 steel show that the fracture
toughness of the material decreases, and a ductile-brittle fracture transition takes place as the
in-plane plastic constraint of the specimens increases. In M(T)5 and SE(B)I specimens with
low constraint, fracture is ductile and no transition occurs. In DE(T)5, SE(T)5, and SE(B)5
3.0
a DE(T)9
v SE(B)5
o SE(T)5
,.1 [] DE(T)5
2.0 - ~ t~ SE(B)I
% O M(T)5
~p %
0
1.0
I:O
O~
8~
?%
1 2
x/~
FIG. 8--Variation of equivalent plastic strain 3 o with normalized distance X/ 6 ahead of the crack
tip for various specimens.
6.0
DE(T)9 ,'I DE(T)5
v SE(B)5 l> SE(B)I
5.0 o SE(T)5 O M(T)5
4~I
3.0
~ <>~o
P o>o
of>
VO ~
v
~
o
Lx
Ov
a
o
A
A
o v
O o
v o
o v
2.0
1.0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 5 10 15
x#6
FIG. 9--Variation of normalized tensile s t r e s s O-yy/O'ywith normalized distance X/ 6 ahead of the
crack tip for various specimens at fracture initiation.
specimens with higher constraints, fracture initiates by ductile tearing and then changes to
cleavage. In the DE(T)9 specimens with the highest constraint, fracture initiates by brittle
cleavage.
The results of the finite element analyses show that the maximum achievable tensile stress
outside the finite strain zone ahead of the crack tip increases with increasing plastic constraint
in the order of M(T)5, SE(B)I, DE(T)5, SE(T)5, SE(B)5, and DE(T)9. The ductile-brittle
transition is due to the maximum tensile stress ahead of the crack tip reaching the critical stress
for cleavage fracture as the plastic constraint increases.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Australian Research Council (ARC) for the continuing support
of this work. SXW acknowledges the financial support of an ARC Research Fellowship tenable
at the University of Sydney. We also wish to thank Hibbitt, Karlson, and Sorensen for access
to ABAQUS.
References
[1 ] Atkins, A. G. and Mai, Y.-W., Elastic and Plastic Fracture, John Wiley/Ellis Horwood, Chichester,
1985.
[2] Knott, J. F., Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics, Butterworths, London, 1973.
[3 ] Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, Applications of Fracture
Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
[4] Wu, S.-X., Mai, Y.-W., Cotterell, B., and Le, C. V., Acta Metallurgica Mater., Vol. 39, 1991, p.
2527.
[5] McClintock, F. A., in Fracture: An Advanced Treatise, Vol. 3, H. Liebowitz, Ed., Academic Press,
New York, 1971, p. 47.
[6] Wu, S.-X., "Fracture Analyses and Toughness Measurement of Specimens with Deep and Shallow
Cracks," Ph.D. thesis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1990.
[7] Hutchinson, J. W., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, p. 13.
[8] Rice, J. R. and Rosengren, G. F., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, p. 1.
[9] Rice, J. R., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 22, 1974, p. 17.
[10] Bilby, B. A., Cardew, G. E., Goldthorpe, M. R., and Howard, I. C., in Size Effect in Fracture,
Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1986, p.
37.
[11 ] A1-Ani,A. M. and Hancock, J. W., Journal Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, p. 23.
[12] Betegon, C. and Hancock, J. W., Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 58, 1991, p. 104.
[13] Du, Z.-Z. and Hancock, J. W., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, p. 555.
[14] Li, Y. C. and Wang, T. C., Scientia Sinica, Series A, Vol. 29, 1986, p. 941.
[15] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, 1991, p. 989.
[16] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 40, 1992, p. 939.
[17] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., in this volume, pp. 21-47.
[18] Ritchie, R. O., Server, W. L., and Wullaert, R. A., Metallurgical Transaction A, Vol. 10A, 1979, p.
1557.
[19] Griffiths, J. R. and Owen, D. R. J., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 19, 1971,
p. 419.
[20] G. A. Moore, in Stereology and Quantitative Metallography, ASTM STP 504, G. E. Pellisiet and S.
M. Purdy, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1972, p. 59.
[21 ] Benthem, J. P. and Koiter, W. T., in Methods of Analysis and Solutions of Crack Problems, Mechan-
ics of Fracture 1, G. C. Sih, Ed., Noordhoff International Publishers, 1972, p. 157.
[22] Brown, W. F. and Srawley, J. E., in Plane-Strain Crack Toughness of High Strength Metallic Mate-
rials, ASTM STP 410, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1966, p. 12.
[23] Tada, H., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 3, 1971, p. 345.
[24] Hellmann, D. and Schwalbe, K.-H., in Fracture Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 833,
[25] McMeeking, R. M., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 25, 1977, p. 375.
[26] Ritchie, R. O., Knott, J. F., and Rice, J. R., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol.
21, 1973, p. 195.
[27] Varias, A. G. and Shih, C. F., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 41, 1993, p. 835.
Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Hugo A. Ernst, I P. J. Rush, 1 and D o n a l d E. M c C a b e 2
Resistance Curve Analysis of Surface Cracks

REFERENCE: Ernst, H. A., Rush, P. J., and McCahe, D. E., "Resistance Curve Analysis of
Surface Cracks," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D.
Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Mate-
ABSTRACT: In this work, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) methods are extended to
study the behavior of surface cracks. The material used is a tungsten inert gas (TIG) welded
2219-aluminum alloy, welded with 2319 weld wire. Calibration and a crack-growth test were
performed. A multiple specimen R-curve technique was used. A group of specimens with the
same initial crack geometry was tested to different deformation values. Several different groups
were considered. Crack extension as a function of position along the crack front was determined
and digitized into data files. A method to estimate values of the J integral as a function of position
is presented. Local resistance curves were obtained. A parameter to characterize constraint is
proposed. It is only based on the elastic solution for G. It is shown that the slopes of the resistance
curves are uniquely related to the constraint parameter for all cases considered.
KEYWORDS: materials, elastic, plastic, fracture, mechanics, surface, cracks, J, resistance,

curves
In recent years, significant effort has been devoted to the development of an elastic-plastic
fracture mechanics (EPFM) method. With the use of the J integral ]1 ], or similar parameter,
and the concept of resistance to crack growth curve, the phenomenon of elastic-plastic crack
growth was characterized. More recently it was acknowledged that under certain circumstances,
a single-parameter description could be insufficient to describe this process. The implication
was that a second parameter was needed. Although it has not been uniquely defined, this second
parameter has generally been associated with constraint [2-4].
These developments focused on the so-called planar geometries or two-dimensional (2D)
deformation fields. In these cases, the crack is a rectangular surface with one constant dimen-
sion, that is, the thickness B and one variable, that is, the crack length a. Thus, only one length
parameter is needed to follow the tip of the crack.
On the other hand, of great practical importance, is the study of the so-called surface cracks
or three-dimensional (3D) cracks of semielliptical shape. In these cases, two parameters are
needed to describe the crack shape, that is, the two semi-axes. When these cracks grow, both
parameters change, and in fact, the growth can be such that the shape is not elliptical any
longer.
Recently, this problem has received significant attention, by many investigators. Finite ele-
men.t analyses (FEA) have been conducted [5,6] to determine the stress fields and J as a function
of position along the elliptical crack front for nonlinear elastic materials. Experimentally, resist-
ance curves have been developed as a function of position measuring crack extension and J
1 Professor and graduate research assistant, respectively, School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332.
2 Senior engineer, Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
37831.
389
[7,8]. The results seem to indicate that these pairs do not fall in a single curve, implying the
need of a second parameter to explain the results. This parameter has been taken as a charac-
teristic of constraint and has been defined in several ways [2-4,9].
To extend the EPFM method to surface cracks, several tasks need to be undertaken. They
are as follows.
Crack Front
9 Determine the shape of the evolving crack front as a function of applied deformation.
9 Develop a criterion to identify pairs of corresponding points along the initial and final
crack fronts to define crack growth as a function of position.
J Integral
9 Determine Jp~ as a function of position along elliptical crack fronts.
9 Determine the connection or a balance equation, linking local Jpt values with experimen-
tally measured global quantities, that is, load, displacement, and crack-length parameters.
Constraint
9 Define a parameter characterizing constraint as a function of position along the crack front.
Resistance Curves
9 Propose a crack growth resistance curve representation of experimental data (in terms of
J-R curves or others).
General
9 In all of the above, include cases in which the grown crack front is nonelliptical.
This Study
The purpose of the present study was to develop an EPFM method to study the behavior of
surface cracks of semielliptical shape embedded in 2219 tungsten inert gas (TIG) weld metal,
as a continuation of the work started by McCabe and Ernst [10-13].
In this work, all of the points mentioned above are addressed and a complete EPFM method
to characterize the growth of 3D semielliptical surface cracks is proposed.
Material and Specimen Geometry

The material used in this study was 2219-T87 two-pass TIG weldment with 2319 filler wire.
Mechanical properties of both weld and base metal are shown in Table 1. The test specimens
used were surface crack panels (SCP) loaded in tension, with different crack depth, a, and
surface length 2c. Figures 1 and 2 show sketches of the specimen and crack geometries.
Key Curves or Calibration Curves

The material-geometry response to deformation was determined by McCabe et al. in an
earlier program [10-13]. Load versus load-plastic displacement (P-t:p0 records were developed
ERNST ET AL. ON SURFACE CRACKS 391
TABLE 1---Mechanical properties for SCT specimen materials.
Yield Tensile Hardening

Material Strength, ksi" Strength, ksi Exponent
Base metal 51.7 66.0 8.2

Weld metal 19.3 41.2 4.0
"ksi = 6.89 MPa.
for constant crack shape (nongrowing cracks) specimens with different initial a and c. The
calibrations curves were normalized in a key curve format [14], given by
Or = (PJWI) = ~o(a/c)P(a/t)m(up,/t) N (1)
where:
Or = applied nominal stress,
P = load,
W = specimen width,
t = specimen thickness,
a = crack depth,
c = half of the crack surface length,
vpl = plastic part of the displacement,
Weld Metal
00' 00j Displacement
Clip Gage Points
\
0.375"
i
p...
FIG. 1--Surface crack specimen (1 in. = 25.4 ram).

..... ~ Crack Front

I z- -'~ Crack/Fr~ ]
2c ~ ~-. . . . . 2c
FIG. 2 Elliptical crack geometry. Each point on crack front is defined in terms of 0, a, and c.
with
13o = 78 534 psi (541 492 kPa)
p = 0.138,
m = - 0 . 2 2 4 , and
N = 1/n = 0.294 = 1/3.401.
Crack Growth Tests

Crack growth tests were conducted using the multiple specimen technique. Several speci-
mens, with the same initial a and c forming a group were tested to different levels of applied
deformation. The characteristics of the different groups considered are shown in Table 2.
Figures 3 and 4 show two typical fracture surfaces in which the initial electric discharge
machine (EDM) notch, the fatigue precrack, and the crack growth area are clearly seen. For
the case of a/c = 0.6, growth occurs in a quasi-elliptical way, whereas for the case of a/c =
2, the crack front evolves into a considerably irregular shape.
To check consistency and material variability, P-v records produced for each group were
compared. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the curves show a single trend.
Crack Front Evaluation

To determine crack growth as a function of position along the initial crack front, photographs
of the individual fracture surfaces were taken. The data were digitized for subsequent analysis.
In this way, the evolution of the crack front in each group can be followed.
Crack extension as a function of position was defined as the distance from the point of
interest to the final front along the normal to the initial front, as shown in Fig. 6.
Using this method, crack growth as a function of elliptical angle ~b was determined for all
TABLE 2--Test matrix of O.375-in. (0.9525-cm) thick surface crack specimens.
Initial Values, in. (cm) Number

of
Group 2c a a/c a/t Specimens Crack Shapes
8 0.24(0.61) 0.12(0.30) 1.02(2.60) 0.33(0.84) 6

9 0.60(1.52) 0.18(0.46) 0.60(1.52) 0.48(1.22) 5
12 0.32(0,81) 0.25(0.63) i.57(3.99) 0.67(1.70 7 (-~
15 0.26(0.66) 0.27(0.68) 2.08(5.28) 0.73(1.85) 4
specimens. As an example, Fig. 7 shows crack growth as a function of angle for all specimens
in Group 15. It can be said that, although this represents a good description of crack front
evolution, there are some problems caused by material variability: (1) the curves are not quite
symmetric with respect to qb = 7r/2, and (2) there are inconsistent amounts of growth in two
slightly different specimens, curves cross.
To remedy this problem, the concept of elliptical equivalent crack fronts (ECF) was intro-
duced: the evolving crack front was modeled as a semielliptical crack with an equivalent a
taken as the depth of the deepest point and an equivalent c obtained from the experimentally
measured unloading compliance for the final point of the test, the compliance calibration equa-
tion (see Appendix), and the value of the equivalent a.
FIG. 4 ~ F r a c t u r e surface (1 in. = 25.4 ram).
60000-
50000-
~+ 9 9 s~++
+
40000-
i
v Specimen
30000-
9 32B
0
,~< + 32
20000- *: 34
ii FJ 34B
x 31B
10000-
9 33
0
0 0.605 0.01 0.615 0.02 0.025
Displacement (in.)
FIG. 5--Load-displacement records, Group 12, alc = 0.6 and a/t = 0.48 (1 in. = 25.4 mm and 1
lbf = 4.45 N).
Two examples are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The first shows the crack front of a specimen
with initial values of a/c = 1.05, a/t = 0.36, and a small amount of crack extension. In the
second case, the initial values are a/c = 1.15, a/t = 0.83, and the amount of crack growth is
large.
Crack extension was then determined as the distance between the initial and final elliptical
ECF, for all cases in each group. Figure 10 shows real and equivalent crack extension values
as a function of angle for a particular specimen.
f
Final Flaw Shape
Initial Crack
FIG. 6--Definition o f crack extension. Crack extension is defined as the distance between the
initial and final crack fronts measured perpendicular to initial front.
E R N S T ET AL. ON S U R F A C E C R A C K S 395
FIG: 7 - - C r a c k extension, Group 15, alc = 2 and a/t = 0.7 (1 in. = 25.4 ram).
0.35-
0.30-
0.25- Actual Front

. m
............... Equivalent Ellipse
0.20-
t-
O
0.15-
t-
I- 0.10-
t-
.o 0.05-
t-
F- 0-
20
-0.3 -0'.2 -6.1 0'.0 0:1 0:2 0.3

Width Dimension (in.)
FIG. 8--Equivalent crack front, alc = 1.05 and aJt = 0.36 (1 in. = 25.4 mm).
FIG. 9--Equivalent crack front, a/c = 1.15 and alt = 0.83 (1 in. = 25.4 mm).
FIG. lO--Real and equivalent crack extension profiles, Specimen 32B, a/c = 0.95 (1 in. = 25.4
mm).
J-Integral Analysis
The J integral can be defined as the difference in potential energy of two cracked bodies
differing only in their crack length by a small amount, per unit cracked area difference [1].
This approach can be also applied to the plastic part of J, Jp~ giving:
,lp~ - 0.4 P dvp~ = - ' ~ dVpl (2)
In the particular case of planar specimens, the crack can be characterized by only one varying
length parameter, a; the other one, thickness B, is constant; then the incremental area in the
above expression is simply dA = B da.
To obtain expressions for Jp~, it is only necessary to have the functional dependence of P
and the nonlinear elastic strain energy Un~, or both, on a and vpl and apply to the previous
definition.
P = P(a. vp~) and f P dvp, = U.~ = U.~(a, Vp,) (3)
Global Jpl f o r 3D Cracks

If, instead, two varying parameters are needed to characterize the crack geometry, that is, a
and c, as in the case of 3D cracks, the value of a global Jpl as given by Eq 2 is linked to the
particular way in which the virtual crack extension is taken, that is, BA. That is, there is no
single global J. Note that this matter has not yet received the needed attention by the technical
community.
As an example, three special cases for the virtual growth step were considered: (1) increasing
c, keeping a constant, (2) increasing a, keeping c constant, and (3) increasing both a and c to
keep a/c constant. Using Eqs 1 and 2, the expressions for the global plastic part of J were
obtained for the three cases, that is, Jplg,a; Jv~g.c; and Jp~g,a/c,respectively. They are of a similar
form, differing only in the coefficient -qp~ [6,7].
The expressions for Jpl, as a function of: (a) crack shape parameters and area under the P
- Vv~ record, (b) crack shape parameters and Vp~, and (c) crack shape parameters and P are
given by the following equations:
Jpl = lqPl
( ~rl2 )ac
fO~1 P dvpl
= ~qp~ WF
('rr/2)ac (N + 1) [5~ (4)
= [30 ('rr/2)ac (N + 1)
r
LW--~oj
It is important to emphasize here that: (1) it is not clear which method of incrementing the
cracked area, that is, constant a, c, or a/c, or other, gives a result for global Jpl that it more
appropriate or significant to this problem, and (2) these are global values and there is still a
need to obtain Jpl as a function of position along the crack front.
398 FRACTUREMECHANICS:I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
TABLE 3--~vtfor the three different cases studied.
Constant Quantity "qp~Expression
a - ( p + m)/2
c p/2
ale - ml2
NOTE The values of "qp~are independent of the a/c and a/+ ratio.
Normalization S c h e m e
Although none of the methods to increment the area and thus to obtain a particular global
Jpl is more correct than the others, there is one that has significant importance for our study.
As shown in the Appendix, Jgp~,o/chas the unique characteristic that is numerically equal to the
average value of Jpl as a function of angle along the front:
2~ ~
g.,~c
'
= -
"IT
J d,t, = Lvo (5)
This result is independent of the material behavior, that is, linear or nonlinear elastic: it
applies to G, Jpt, or total J. It can be used as a normalization requirement or balance equation
linking global quantities and local J values mentioned at the beginning of this paper, "The
linear average, with respect to angle of J, G, o r Jpl along the crack front has to be numerically
equal to the difference in strain energy of two bodies with the same a/c and differentially
different a/t ratio, per unit crack area difference." In what follows, the importance of this result
will become more apparent.
Estimation o f J as a Function o f Position

Several authors [8,9], have demonstrated that the distribution of Jpl along the crack front
follows that of G for moderate amounts of plastic deformation. What sometimes is not so clear
is how to find the coefficient of proportionality between the two distributions as a function of
a/c, a/t, material deformation properties, and applied deformation (load or displacement).
Consider that Jpt and G, as functions of elliptical angle +, are linearly related:
Jr,,(+) = kG(d~) (6)
J= G + Jpl = G(1 + k)
(7)
with k = k(a, c, t, w, P)
Correspondingly, the linear averages along the crack front will be also linearly related:
-
'rr
Jp, dqb = _2 k
'r~
G a + = Jplgo/c
'
(8)
and as a result, the proportionality factor k can be obtained as:
k = Jpl~.~,'~ (9)
G.w
It is convenient to define a coefficient D independent of applied stress as:
D = k (13dE)
((r/[3o)(._,) (10)
where n is the hardening exponent (1 < n < oo). Using Eqs 2, 11, and 12, D is:
(-m)nW
D = (a/c) ~ -(2+ran) (1 1)
~r(n + l)(EGavJo"2)
As a result, the value of Jpl as a function of position is:
Jpl(d~) = O(E/f3o)(tr/f3o)"-lG(d?) (12)
J(~b) = G(~b)(1 + D(E/~3o)(Cr/fSo)"-' ) (13)
Figure 11 shows examples of local J values as a function of position calculated with this
method for different specimen geometries. The value of G was obtained using the Newman
and Raju equations [15] (see Appendix).
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
z 0 . 8 ~ 2
0.6- 3 a/c a/t
1 1.05 0.36
0.4- 2 1.05 0.70
3 1.56 0.73
0.2- 4 0.67 0.63
0
o 2'o 4'o 6'o 8'o 16o i ,o 180
Elliptical Angle (Degrees)
N o r m a l i z e d d = d/d ave
FIG. 11--Local J values for different specimens.
Resistance Curves Results and Discussion

Using the methods described above to determine crack growth (using the concept of equiv-
alent shapes) and J values, resistance curves were developed.
First, resistance curves in terms of global J versus average crack extension for all specimens
considered were produced. They are shown in Fig. 12. The former was calculated using the a/
c = constant increment in area as discussed above. The latter was calculated as the total growth
area (actual) divided by the perimeter of the initial crack front. As can be seen, there is basically
one curve for each group, indicating that there is a strong influence of initial geometry.
Second, resistance curves were developed, using local values of J and crack extension as a
function of position along the crack front for all cases in each group. Figure 13 shows the
results for specimen 81, a/c = 0.6, and a/t = 0.5. Note that the two curves do not follow the
same trend; the maximum crack extension does not occur at the maximum J value and vice
versa. This seems to indicate that all (J, Aa) pairs do not belong to the same R curve.
It is obvious at this point that, as proposed by several authors, there is a need to incorporate
a second parameter to this description. A schematic of its effect is shown in Fig. 14. The slope
of the different R curves decreases with increasing constraint.
This is further emphasized in Fig. 15 in which local J versus Aa pairs along the crack front
for all specimens in Group 15 are shown. The curves do not seem to show the same trend,
indicating the existence of multiple R curves.
To identify the different R curves, there is a need to define a criterion on how to connect
points from the different specimen curves. It was decided here to connect points that correspond
2500-
2000-
1500- x
r x O
~
Q..
v
[] Group a/c a/t

1000- x
• 15 2.1 0.7
9 • Y~ o 12 1.6 0.7
[] 9 0.6 0.5
500- 9 8 1.0 0.3
v0 0,02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0'.1 0.i2 0.14

Average Crack Extension (in.)
FIG. 1 2 - - G l o b a l resistance curves (1 in. = 25.4 m m a n d 1 p s i in. = 0.175 kJ i m 2.
ERNSTETAL. ONSURFACECRACKS 401
0.03 600
0.025~ JIocal -500

C-
e-
0.02 ............................................... ................................................................ -400
._o
"E"
t--
0.015- -300 &
. m
ILl
Crack Extension
o 0.01 - -200
0
0.005- -100
00 2'0 4'0 6'0 8'0 160 1i0 Izl0 160 180

alc= 0.6 Elliptical Angle (Degrees)
a/t = 0.5
FIG. 13--Crack extension and values o f J along the crack front, alc = 0.6 and a/t = 0.5 (1 in. =
25.4 mm).
/ J ~ ~ l ~ a s i n g Constraint
J JiJ(&a,C)
i
2nd Parameter
(constraint)
Aa
FIG. 14--Effect o f constraint on the R curve.
402 FRACTURE
MECHANICTWENTY-FOURTH
S: VOLUME
3000
2500-
Specimen17////
2000-
r
. m
v
Q. 1500-
1000-
500-
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 011 0.i2 0.:14 0.16
Crack Extension (in.)
FIG. 15--Resistance curves, Group 15, ale = 2 and a/t = 0.7 (1 in. = 25.4 mm and 1 psi in. = 0.175
k Jim2).
to the same angle. In this way, (J, Aa) pairs corresponding to a certain ~b were considered and
a straight line was fitted through the data. These slopes, that is, dJ/da values were determined
for all cases considered. Figure 16 shows an example.
Characterization of Constraint
It is commonly accepted that constraint can have an effect on the R curve. Usually, constraint
is understood as a characterization of the 3D state of stress, that is, plane strain versus plane
stress. This constraint is called "out-of-plane constraint."
On the other hand, experimental data seem to show that even if two specimen geometries
have the same "out of plane constraint" they may still exhibit some difference in their R-curve
behavior. It is considered that this difference can be attributed to differences in the so-called
" i n plane constraint." This constraint is associated with higher order terms in the stress expan-
sion series.
That is, the stress-strain displacement fields for the two specimens will be the same for the
same applied J only at the first order approximation level, that is, for distances r very small
compared to crack length or some other significant length dimension. For increasingly larger
r, higher order terms of the series expansion must be considered and, as a consequence, the
fields will not be similar any longer, that is, higher order terms depend on the specimen geom-
etry. Consequently, if a two-term series is considered sufficient, this implies a two-parameter
description of the fields.
Recently, investigators have proposed the use of the coefficient of the second term in the
series expansion for the stresses near the crack tip. In the linear elastic regime, a nondimensional
3000
2500-
2000-
c..
o.. 1500-
1000-
500-
0 0102 0[ 04 0106 0108 0[[1 0[ 12 0114

Crack Extension (in.)
FIG. 16--Linear resistance curves, Group 15, a/c = 2 and a/t = 0.7 (1 in. = 25.4 mm and I psi in.
--- 0.175 kJ/m2).
version of this parameter has been defined as T [2], whereas in the fully plastic regime, the
corresponding parameter is Q [3].
The use of a second term as an independent, additional parameter to characterize the stress-
strain-displacement fields has been considered for many years. Tada et al. [16] showed, using
an ingenious application of Castigliano's theorem, that for a cracked body subject to a load P,
under Mode I loading, the vertical separation of the crack faces, or crack opening displacement
(COD), u2 can be expressed as a function of distance r from the crack tip as:
u2 = A ( K r m - 2 -~a v r3,2)
= AKr,/2 ( 1 2 1 OK r) (14)
3 7a
= A(EGr) 1/2 1 3 G e r
with
A = (4/E')(2/~r) ~
E ' = E plane stress
= E/(1 - v:) plane strain
where G is the energy release rate and E and v are the Young's Modulus and Poisson's ratio,
respectively. This formulation 3 is completely consistent although slightly different from that
proposed in Ref 16. In the analysis of Tada et al. [16], the expansion is taken about the point
where the displacement is sought, the derivative is taken at crack length = a - r, and as a
consequence, the coefficient is (+ V3). In footnote 3, the expansion is taken about the crack tip
position, the derivative is taken at a crack length a and as a result, the coefficient is ( - % ) .
The second term in the bracket of Eq 14 represents the second nonzero term in the displace-
ment series (it is actually the third term of the series, but the second one, linear in r, is identically
zero for 0 = ~r). This term depends uniquely on the particular specimen geometry and loading
conditions. Thus, the pair G and the partial of G with respect to a at constant load, that is,
((1/G)(OG/Oa)Iv), can be used for a two-parameter description of the COD field.
Alternatively, another "second parameter" can be defined by taking the derivative at con-
stant displacement, v, instead of constant load, resulting in:
G Oa v (15)
This parameter is not independent of the pair mentioned above. As a result, the pair G, ((1/
G)(OG/Oa)I v could be considered an alternative two-parameter description of the fields.
It can be considered that an appropriate generalization of the results just mentioned in terms
of a generic Jx and a generic displacement Vx can be made as:
10Jx 10Jx (16)

L ~ = ~x Oa e ~ = ~ Oa ux
where the subscript x stands for elastic, fully plastic or total, and the L parameters have dimen-
sion of length.
Thus, either one of the L parameters can be used as a second parameter in the two-parameter
description or, in other words, as a measure of the in-plane constraint.
Surface Cracks
In this work, it is proposed to characterize constraint as (l/G)(c~GlOa)lp = (l/Lel) following
Tada et al.
For the specific case of the 3D surface cracks, in an attempt to extend the 2D result, the
partial derivative was taken advancing the crack front so that it remains perpendicular to the
direction of virtual extension. The detailed procedure is as follows. (1) at the point of interest,
A, on the elliptical front, characterized by the triplet (a,, cl, qb), the normal was determined.
(2) a second point, B, was determined on that normal and on a second ellipse, characterized
by (a2, c2, qb2). The values of the coordinates in the second triplet are obtained so that the
second ellipse front is parallel to the first one at the point of interest. (3) the variation in G is
G(B)-G(A). (4) Oa is taken as OS = distance from A to B.
Results of Constraint Studies

The constraint parameter proposed was calculated as a function of position for all specimens
considered using the linear elastic solution. Figure 17 shows examples for a/c = 0.5 and variable
a/t.
3 H. A. Ernst and P. J. Rush, work in progress.
20-
18-
"-,..
16-
"--.,.,
14- -...
"'"-.....
,-.,.
(.9 12- -.,...
............................ a/t = 0.25

09
"O 10-
(.9
"o 8-
_ t ~ ~.. ~ ................................... 0.50
................................
0.75
_
01
0 1'0 2'0 3'0 4'0 5'0 6'0 io 8'0 90
FIG. 17--Constraint parameter along crack front, t = 0.037, a/c = 0.5, and W = 4 (1 in. = 25.4
mYn).
As an example, Fig. 18 shows values of constraint and dJ/da as a function of angle for one
case.
With the values of local constraint and dJ/da, a master curve was constructed for all cases.
Figure 19 shows the result for all specimens considered and Fig. 20 shows those using average
values for each group.
It can be said that a remarkably, good, unique relationship is shown between the R-curve
slopes and the proposed constraint value (Lea)-' for all the different specimen geometries con-
sidered, indicating the adequacy of the method.
Conclusions
The highlights of this work can be summarized as follows:
9 The objective of this study was to extend EPFM methods to study surface crack growth
behavior on a 2219-TIG material.
9 Surface crack profiles were photographed and digitized for entry.
9 Crack extension was determined as a function of position along the crack front.
9 Nonelliptical crack fronts were modeled using equivalent elliptical crack fronts.
9 A relationship was developed between global and local energy release rates.
9 A method was proposed to estimate Jp,((b) along the crack front.
9 Local resistance curves were determined along the crack front.
9 A parameter (Lea)-' = (1/G)(OG/OS)Ie was proposed as a means to quantify constraint.
9 The slope of all local resistance curves is uniquely related to (L,,) -1 for all crack geometries
investigated.
20000- -7
16000- ResistanceCurve ~ -6.6

""'.,, ,..
".,., //////////" "" .---
~ ' ' " ' " " " - - 1_6.2
12000-
(3.
O0
13 ///"
13 8000 - "-..
./
......... -5.8
Constraint ""'".-... .....................--"J
(calculated)
4000 - dJ/da (experimental) -5.4
..........(dG/dS)/G (constraint)
0- 5
0 10 2'o 3'o ~0 ~0 60 io 8'o go
FIG. 18--Local resistance curves slopes and constraint, Group 15, alc = 2 and a/t = 0.7 (1 ksi =
6.89 MPa).
40
35-
Group
30- m15
~8
25-
Q9
v
x12
20-
13
13
13
15-
10-
x
5- .~x Higher~ql Constraint Lower
0
0 ~, e 8 1'0 1'2 1'4 16
(dG/dS)/G (in:')
FIG. 19--Constraint curve, all groups, all specimens (1 ksi = 6.89 MPa).
40
35-
Group
30- m15
+ 8
25-
o) + ~ 9
v
t~ 20- A12
"o
"o 15-
10-
Constraint
5- igher ~ I1~ Lower
0
0 ~, 6 8 1'0 1'2 1'4 6
(dG/dS)/G (in: 1 )
FIG. 20--Constraint curves, all groups, average values (1 in. = 25.4 mm and 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Martin Marietta Maned Space Systems, New Orleans through
Grant SC-280468. The authors wish to thank Dr. Norman Elfer, Project Monitor, for his invalu-
able help.
APPENDIX
Normalization Scheme
The incremental energy ~E needed to grow a crack from an initial to a final shape differ-
entially close to the first one, normalized by the difference in crack area ~A, can be expressed
as:
-~ = -~ lfo' J ds dn
where J is a function of the position on the front, ds represents a differential element of arc
along the crack front, dn represents the distance along the normal direction from the initial to
the final crack front, and the integral is taken along the full perimeter of the crack front, I.
At the same time, the quantity ~E is connected to the differential work done by the external
forces, ~W, and the additional strain energy, ~U, absorbed by the body as:
~W/BA = (BE + ~U)/SA
Obviously the incremental quantities BW and ~U can be obtained from global quantities, that
is, the load-displacement characteristics. In the special cases of growth at constant displacement,
BW = 0 and the above equation gives
8E/~A = -BUIBA at constant v
- dA P dv
This is a general result independent of the initial and final shapes. Let us now consider the
special case of a semielliptical crack with aspect ratio a/c growing to a final shape that is also
semielliptical and with the same a/c ratio. For this case, the expression for the element of arc
length, normal and area, respectively dl, dn, and dA [4] are:
dl = [(c cos 2 ~b) + (a sin 2 r ~r2
dn = [(c cos 2 ~b) + (a sin 2 ~b)]u2
BA = "rrc da
where ~b is the elliptical angle, as shown in Fig. 2. Correspondingly, the energy rate BE/BA is
given by,
BEIBA = -2 f o 12 J d,t, = Lvo = J~,~

,IT
where Jaw and Jg.~c represent respectively the linear average along the crack front and the
global value of J, obtained by taking the incremental growth at a/c = constant, as discussed
previously.
References
[1 ] Rice, J. R., "A Path-Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentrations
by Notches and Cracks," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 35, 1968, pp. 379-386.
[2] Berteg6n, C. and Hancock, J. W., "Two Parameter Characterization of Elastic Plastic Crack Tip
Fields," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 58, 1990, pp. 104-t 10.
[3] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F., "Family of Crack Tip Fields Characterized by a Triaxiality Param-
eter: Part I and II," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991.
[4] Brocks, W., Kiinecke, G., Noack, H.-D., and Veith, H., "On the Transferrability of Fracture Mechan-
ics Parameters from Specimens to Structures Using FEM," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
112, 1989, pp. 1-14.
[5] Kordisch, H. and Sommer, E., "Three-Dimensional Effects Affecting the Precision of Lifetime
Predictions," in Fracture Mechanics: Nineteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 969, Thomas A. Cruse,
Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 73-87.
[6] Dodds, R. H. and Kirk, M. T., Civil Engineering Studies, SRS 353, University of Illinois, July 1989.
[7] Bauschke, H.-M., Read, M. T., and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Crack Growth Resistance at Surface Cracks
in Three Aluminium Alloys," in Defect Assessment in Components-Fundamentals and Applications,
J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., ESIS/EGF Publication 9 (Proceedings of the European Sym-
posium on Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics, Freiburg, Germany, Oct. 1989).
[8] Garwood, S. J., "Measurements of Crack Growth Resistance of A533B Wide Plate Tests," in Frac-
ture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society of Testing and Materials,
[9] Sommer, E. and Aurich, D., "On the Effect of Constraint on Ductile Fracture," in Defect Assessment
in Components-Fundamentals and Applications, J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., ESIS/EGF
Publication 9 (Proceedings of the European Symposium on Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics, Frei-
burg, Germany, Oct. 1989).
[10] McCabe, D. E., "Flaw Growth Analysis for 2219-T87 Aluminum Pressure Vessel Welds," Final
Report, Contract A71257, Martin Marietta Aerospace, New Orleans, Nov. 1988.
[11] McCabe, D. E., "Predictive Methodology for Integrity of Tank Welds with Crack-like Defects,"
Interim Report, Contract A71340, Martin Marietta Aerospace, New Orleans, Nov. 1989.
[12] McCabe, D. E., Ernst, H. A., and Newman, J. C., "Applications of Elastic and Elastic Plastic Fracture
Mechanics Methods to Surface Flaws," in Fracture Mechanics, Twenty-Second Symposium, ASTM
STP 1131, Vol. I, H. A. Ernst, A. Saxena, and D. L. McDowell, Eds., American Society for Testing
[13] Ernst, H. A., "Analysis of Surface Cracks," Final Report, SC 273183, Martin Marietta Manned
Space Systems, New Orleans, May 1991.
[14] Ernst, H. A., Paris, P. C., Rossow, M., and Hutchinson, J. W., "Analysis of Load-Displacement
Relationships to Determine J-R Curve and Tearing Instability Material Properties," in Fracture
Mechanics, ASTM STP 677, C. W. Smith, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1979, pp. 581-599.
[15] Newman, J. C. and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three Dimensional
Finite Bodies," in Fracture Mechanics: Fourteenth Symposium--Volume I: Theory and Analysis,
ASTM STP 791, J. C. Lewis and G. Sines, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phil-
adelphia, 1983, pp. 1-238-1-265.
[16] Tada, H., Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G. R., "Appendix B," in The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook,
Del Research Corp., St. Louis, MO, 1976, pp. B.1-B.5.
J. H. U n d e r w o o d , t E. J. Troiano, t a n d R. T. A b b o t t t
Simpler Test and Data Analysis

Procedures for High-Strength Steels
REFERENCE: Underwood, J. H., Troiano, E. J., and Abbott, R. T., "Simpler Jic Test and
Data Analysis Procedures for High-Strength Steels," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth
Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds.,
ABSTRACT: Tests of five medium- and high-strength steels were used to investigate some
prospective simplifications in J~c test and data analysis procedures. Three-point bend specimens
with material strengths of 500 to 1500 MPa and a nominal thickness of 10 mm were tested at
room temperature. The investigation included: (1) J1c tests using measured crack-mouth displace-
ment to calculate load-line displacement based on an expression that relates the two displace-
ments; (2) a simple zero-point adjustment for J versus Aa curves, whereby certain intermediate
Aa values are shifted to the blunting line to correct for errors at low values of Aa; (3) a com-
parison of Aa and J~c results from the load-drop method, which gives a simple measure of crack
growth after maximum load, with results from the usual unloading compliance method.
The various results and comparisons are discussed in relation to their usefulness as a general
J~c test procedure for a variety of materials or a limited use test for certain materials. Two specific
test and data analysis procedures are proposed for general use in J~c testing, as follows:
1. A new expression is described that calculates load-line displacement for the bend specimen
from measured crack-mouth displacement, for a range of a/W values and strain-hardening expo-
nents. The expression makes possible a single-displacement unloading compliance Jic test for
the bend specimen, using a single, standard, crack-mouth clip gage.
2. A simple zero-shift procedure is proposed for general use with Jlc tests and for addition to
ASTM Test Method for Jk, a Measure of Fracture Toughness (E 813). The procedure adjusts
the zero point of Aa so that on average the Aa values lie on the blunting line over the J range
of 20 to 60% of the provisional fracture toughness, JQ. The adjustment calculations can be done
with a calculator or a few lines of computer code.
KEYWORDS: J-integral fracture toughness, fracture mechanics, high-strength steel, crack-

mouth displacement, unloading compliance, three-point bend specimen
J-integral fracture toughness test procedures use two basic specimen configurations, the pin-
loaded compact and the three-point bend. The bend configuration is the simpler, but its use is
complicated by the fact that the load-line displacement measurement that is desired for calcu-
lation of applied J is not easy to obtain in an unadulterated form. The measured load-line
displacement often contains unwanted components, such as displacements as a result of elastic
deflection or brinelling of loading fixtures, which can cause significant errors in unloading
compliance crack growth measurement. A second complication that can occur in J-integral
fracture toughness tests is a Aa zero-point offset of the applied J versus crack growth, Aa,
curve. Proper test equipment and procedures can minimize this zero offset so that it has no
effect on the test result, but until the required test experience is gained by the user, an offset
can occur and cause serious problems for all types of J versus Aa tests.
Research engineer, research engineer, and mechanical engineering technician, respectively, Army
Armament RD&E Center, Bldg. 115, Watervliet, NY 12189-4050.
410
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON Jlo TEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 411
The general goal of this work is to circumvent these two complications in J-integral fracture
toughness tests. The relationship between the difficult-to-measure load-line displacement and
the easier-to-measure crack-mouth displacement is considered, with the objective of calculating
the difficult measurement from the easier one. The zero-point offset problem is addressed by
investigating a zero-point adjustment procedure that shifts the J versus Aa data so that an
intermediate portion of the data lies, on average, on the blunting line. One other simple method
for determining Aa for a J-integral fracture toughness test is considered, the load-drop method,
in which Aa is determined from the drop in load following maximum load in the test. Each of
the above potential simplifications in J-integral fracture toughness test procedure is evaluated
by comparison and analysis of the results of J ~ tests from five medium- and high-strength
steels, described in the following section.
Materials and Specimens

The five steels used and their yield and ultimate tensile strengths are listed in Table 1. The
thickness, B, and width, W, of the bend specimen used for each steel are shown, and the type
of displacement measurement is noted. Two specimens were tested from a single piece of each
of the five materials. The crack-mouth displacement, u, (Fig. 1) measured for three of the steels
was the standard clip gage measurement used in the ASTM Test Method for Jic, a Measure of
Fracture Toughness (E 813). The measurement used with the other two steels was the displace-
ment, 8L, of the lower edge of the specimen, adjacent to the notch. In prior work [1 ], Jic tests
using 8L measurement were successfully performed by accounting for the offset of the dis-
placement measurement point relative to the loading point. Nevertheless, unwanted displace-
ments of the type mentioned previously can be a problem, as shown by upcoming results.
The chemical composition of the steels is listed in Table 2. The significant variation in
chemical composition, combined with the variation in material strengths shown in Table 1, is
expected to provide a wide range of fracture toughness behavior and thus a good check on the
test procedures under consideration.
Results and Analysis

An overview of the J-integral fracture toughness results can be seen from a plot of repre-
sentative J versus Aa results in Fig. 2. Note that for clarity of presentation some of the data
points are omitted and lines have been drawn through the remaining data. One feature of the
data that relates to upcoming discussion is the apparent negative crack growth near the begin-
ning of the curve for the 4335 steel results. This may be the result of spurious displacements
mixing with the lower-edge load-line displacement for the 4335 specimens; the same effect
was noted with the A723 steel specimens, which also used lower-edge displacement. The device
TABLE 1--Material and specimen data.
Yield Tensile
Type of Strength, Strength, Thickness, Width, Type of
Steel MPa MPa B, mrn W, mm Displacement
NiMn 520 710 10.0 20.0 crack mouth

D6AC 1030 1120 7.6 15.2 crack mouth
A723 1120 1210 10.0 20.0 lower edge
4335 1240 1320 10.0 20.0 lower edge
1410 1530 1750 10.0 20.0 crack mouth
~ P
. B
FIG. 1-Bend specimen configuration showing nomenclature and displacements.
TABLE 2--Typical material compositions.

Chemical Composition, Weight Percent
Type of
Steel Cr Mo Mn Ni Co C V P S
NiMn 0.10 0,12 0.68 2.74 9 99 0.41 0.06 0.032 0.033

D6AC 1.09 0.95 0.69 0.44 999 0.50 0.13 0.013 0.004
A723 0.99 0.57 0.62 3.04 999 0.30 0.11 0.010 0.007
4335 0.82 0.44 0.51 1.95 999 0.34 0.08 0.010 0.007
1410 1,94 1.02 0.02 10.2 13.7 0.16 , 99 0.004 0.001
i
~,PPLIED J ; Nlmm
300
200
U .-EY" < 335-1
100
~ -'~- #A723-2
0 #1410-1
0 I I I I I I I t
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
CRACK GROWTH, • ; mm
FIG. 2--Applied J versus Aa for four steels.
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON J,o TEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 413
used to measure the lower-edge displacement accepted a standard clip gage, but it had additional
moving parts that may have introduced unwanted displacements. Of course it is always better
to eliminate the cause of the problem, but because the tests were already performed, an attempt
was made to circumvent the problem, as follows.
Relationship Between Load-Line and Crack-Mouth Displacement

Kirk and Hackett [2 ] considered the relationship between load-line and crack-mouth dis-
placement, for the purpose of improving J-integral test procedures. They obtained consistent
results for the case of large plastic displacements. However, it would be desirable to consider
both the predominantly elastic and predominantly plastic cases. It is straightforward to obtain
the relationship between the elastic load-line and crack-mouth displacements directly from the
expressions summarized in A S T M Test Method E 813. The dimensionless elastic load-line
displacement, 8EB/P, as a function of relative crack length, o~, is [3 ]
~EB/P = [(S/W)/(1 - cr
f , ( a ) = 1.193 - 1.980e~ + 4.478ot 2 - 4.443~ 3 + 1.739ed for 0 --< c~ --< 1 (1)
where E is elastic modulus, et = a/W, and the other parameters are defined in Fig. 1. The
dimensionless elastic crack-mouth displacement, vEB/P, is [4 ]
vEB/P = 6ot(S/W)f2(ot)
f2(er = 0.76 - 2.28oL + 3.87cd - 2.04oL3 + 0.66/(1 - 002 for 0 --< ot --< 1 (2)
Calculating v/8 from Eqs 1 and 2 and fitting a polynomial to the result gives an elastic expres-
sion for the ratio v/8:
v/8 = 1.718et - 1.302ot 2 + 1.039oL3 - - 0.452ot 4 for 0 Ger --< 1 (3)
This expression is shown in Fig. 3 for comparison with the more useful analogous plastic results,
determined as described in the following paragraph. The dimensionless ratio calculated from
Eq 3 fits the values calculated directly from Eqs 1 and 2 within 0.002 for the entire range of
a/W.
W u et al. [5 ] provided plastic rotation factors, re, for three-point bend specimens of various
Ramberg-Osgood power law strain-hardening materials, based on numerical results from the
literature. They also gave the following expression, based on plane geometry, that relates re to
(V/B)CR, the plastic v/B ratio as a result of the presence of the crack:
re = [(v/a)cR - all[1 - a] (4)
However, an expression is needed that relates re to the total v/8 ratio, so that the ratio can be
used to determine 8 from the total measured v in a test. Such an expression can be obtained
by noting that the total load-line displacement is the sum of the displacement of the specimen
as a result of the crack and that with no crack, ~ = 8cR + 8No and defining 8cR and ~NC in
terms of v, as follows. First,
~CR = V/[OL + re(1 -- a)] (5)
v/6 RATIO
1.Or
0.8
e l a s t i c ; Eq. 3
0.6
p l a s t i c ; n - 2 0 ; Eq. 9
0.4
0.2
0.0
~
0.0
i
0.2
0
0.4
,
El
-~
0
/x
z
0.6
n 9 6; ref. 6
n 9 20; ref. 6
n 9 5; ref. 6
n 9 60; ref. 6
i
0.8
I
I
1.0
CRACK DEPTH ; a/W

FIG. 3--Displacement results for three-point bend specimen; elastic and plastic.
obtained directly from Eq 4. And 6Nc for abeam in bending is [3]
5Nc = [P/EB ] [$3/4W 3] (6)
Combining Eqs 6 and 2 to write ~Nc in terms of v gives
~NC = v(S/W)2/24etf2(eO (7)
wheref2(c0 is from Eq 2. Combining Eqs 5 and 7 gives the desired expression for total elastic-
plastic load-line displacement in terms of crack-mouth displacement for the bend specimen
with S/W = 4, including effects of power law strain-hardening materials via the plastic rotation
factor, re. The expression is:
N/v = 1/[~ + re(1 - ct)] + 2/[3txf2(e0] for 0 <- tx -< 1 (8)
Equation 8 was used to calculate u/8 ratios based on rp values from Ref 5; the inverse of
Eq 8 was used to avoid large numbers for small cracks. Recent work by Kirk and Dodds [6]
also addresses the calculation of J for the bend specimen using crack-mouth displacement and
includes plastic rotation factors for power law strain-hardening materials. The rp values from
Refs 5 and 6 discussed here are listed in Table 3.
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON J~oTEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 415
TABLE 3--Plastic rotation factors, rv, from the literature for the three-point bend specimen.
Wu et al. [5] Kirk and Dodds [6]
a/W n =5 n=20 a/W n= 5 n = 10 n=50
0.250 0.367 0.432 0.05 0.053 0.089 0.142

0.375 0.418 0.423 0.15 0.171 0.261 0.404
0.500 0.438 0.435 0.25 0.240 0.352 0.431
0.625 0.457 0.441 0.50 0.343 0.380 0.426
0.750 0.487 0.528 0.70 0.341 0.395 0.398
0.875 0.514 0.556
The comparison of the plastic v/8 ratio for a range of a/W and strain-hardening exponent, n,
with the elastic results discussed earlier is shown in Fig. 3. Note the relative insensitivity of
the results from Refs 5 and 6 to the strain-hardening exponent, n; similar results were found
and noted by Kirk and Dodds. In general, this insensitivity allows the use of the same J-integral
calculation over a range of n. For the approach taken here, it allows the use of a single expres-
sion for the ratio v/~ over the commonly encountered range of n. A proposed expression is
shown in Fig. 3. It was fitted to results from Ref 6 for n = 20, obtained by interpolation of the
n = 10 and 50 results. The expression was also fitted to limits of v/~ for at = 0 and 1, which
are 0 and 1, respectively. The resulting plastic expression for the ratio v/8 is:
vl~ = + 1.384et - 1.497a 2 + 2.339et 3 - 1.226a 4 for 0 --< ot ~ 1 (9)
Equation 9 fits the v/8 values at the limits and those from the Ref 6 re results within 0.003 for
the entire range of cc Equation 9 was used for the tests here in which 8 and the associated J
were determined from measured values of v.
Note in Fig. 3 that Eq 9, although fitted to the Kirk and Dodds results of Ref 6, also gives
a reasonable fit to the results of Wu et al. [5]. The use of the Ref 6 results for the expression
was based on the belief that this work used improved finite element methods compared to the
work of Kumar et al. [7], on which the Wu et al. rp results were based. Recent work of Lee
and Bloom [8] tends to confirm this belief. The J-integral calculations for the bend specimen
from Ref 8 are significantly different from the Kumar et al. [7] results, particularly for relatively
small oL and large n.
Kirk and Dodds [6] give a useful expression for estimating n from the ultimate to yield
strength ratio, are/%, of the material. Their expression is
~ru/trL = [ l[(O.O02n)~/q/exp(l[n) (lo)
Using Eq 10 and the material strength data in Table 1, the values of n for the tests here are
about 8 to 30, in the range of low sensitivity of J to n discussed earlier. So it is appropriate to
use the approach of Eqs 8 and 9 for the tests here. One further comment is offered on the use
of the final expression, Eq 9, in J-integral testing in general. The expression gives a direct
calculation of load-line displacement, 8 (based on the easier measurement, v); this allows the
well-established ASTM methods for calculating J based on 8 to be used with no modification.
Aa Zero Shift for J Versus Aa Curves

As noted and discussed in relation to Fig. 2, some of the results here were in need of a Aa
shift to address the problem of negative crack growth. This problem is not uncommon, partic-
ularly when nonstandard procedures are used, as was the case with the use of lower-edge
APPLIED J ; N/ram
blunting O []
Ilno
r
120
0.2~
80
0
o!OJo
[]
c
%
I' ~" §
o
mm shift
E813; Jo" 88 N/turn

40 (.~
[] shift; Jo=" 79 N/mm
shift calculations
0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
CRACK G R O W T H ,•a ; mm
FIG. 4--J,c by E 813 method and with zero shift; #4335-2, lower edge displacement.
displacement for some tests here. A proposed Aa zero shift procedure to address this or other
problems that cause an incorrect zero point of the J versus Aa curve is the following. Figures
4 and 5 illustrate one type of zero shift problem and the fundamental solution suggested,
respectively. Figure 4 shows J-Aa data obtained with the unloading compliance procedure of
ASTM Test Method E 813, using lower-surface displacements [1 ]; note that much of the data
at lower J is to the left of the blunting line and indicates negative crack growth. Shifted data
APPLIED STRESS
ZERO
MEASURED STRAIN
FIG. 5--Sketch of a stress-strain plot with a zero shift.
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON dlo TEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 417
are shown also and will be discussed later. The basic procedure proposed is to apply a zero
shift to data as shown in Fig. 5, using the accepted zero shift procedure that has been applied
to tensile stress versus strain plots for decades. The lower nonlinear portion of tensile data is
routinely ignored by performing a zero shift, as shown.
A zero shift of the tension test type can be applied to data such as those in Fig. 4 by shifting
all data an amount that places, on average, certain mid-range J-Aa data on the blunting line.
The range of data used to calculate the amount of shift was selected as 20 to 60% of the
provisional, nonshifted J-integral toughness, Jo. The rationale was that, below 0.2JQ, test
startup inaccuracies are more likely and, above 0.6JQ, the J-Aa data are expected to deviate
from the blunting line. If there are no data in the 0.2 to 0.6JQ range, a shift can be attempted
with the available data, but with careful attention to the above rationale. Note that the zero shift
procedure often requires iteration to account for the different set of J-Aa data that can result
from the first shift, but the iteration converges quickly. Five of the ten tests here required
iteration, but only one iteration in each case, as described later.
The zero shift procedure, in equation form, is as follows. The zero-point adjustment, Aaa,
can be calculated as
Aaa = SUM/[Aa i -- (Jil2crr)]li (11)
where i is the number of J-Aa points between 0.2 and 0.6JQ and gF is the flow stress, ~rr =
(tr r + tru)/2. The zero-point adjustment is applied to the data that fall above 0.2JQ, as follows:
Aa = Aa i - Aa a (12)
Using the procedure of Eqs 11 and 12 and repeating the ASTM Test Method E 813 calculation
of JQ gives a shifted provisional toughness, JQs, as shown in Fig. 4. Note that the position of
the early data, once shifted, is more physically believable, that is, generally in agreement with
the blunting line.
The significant shift of the results in Fig. 4 was required because of a problematic test
procedure, as has been discussed. An example o f a zero shift of J-Aa data that is more repre-
sentative of proper test and analysis procedures is shown in Fig. 6. The only significant deviation
from standard ASTM Test Method E 813 procedures in these results is the use of the Eqs 8
and 9 procedure to calculate ~ from measured v. (Some of the J-Aa data were omitted for
clarity.) Note in Fig. 6 that even before the shift the early results were in reasonable agreement
with the blunting line. The shift was smaller than that in Fig. 4, and it improved the agreement
of the data with the blunting line.
A summary of the zero shift results for each of the five steels and ten specimens tested is
shown as Table 4. The JQ from the usual method with no shift is compared with the value
following the shift, JQs, and the corresponding shift amount, Aaa, and number of points used
to calculate the shift are shown. Five of the ten tests required a second application of the shift
procedure of Eqs 11 and 12 to converge to a constant value of JQ,, the second listed value for
these five tests. This second shift corresponded to a different group of data points (between 20
and 60% Of JQ) being used to calculate the shift. Note that the two sets of tests that used lower-
surface displacement, A723 and 4335 steel, required significantly larger shifts, another con-
sequence of the adulterated displacement. The largest shift in the tests was 0.142 mm, which
is about 0.7% of the specimen width. There was no indication that this largest shift caused any
inconsistencies in the determination of JQ.
One other point should be mentioned. The test pair that showed the largest difference in J-
integral toughness, both before and after shift, was the A723 pair. The reason for this difference
APPLIED J ; N/ram
" , a - O . 0 3 0 mm shift
300
200
i/ / ' o
~
E813; JQ- 139 N / m m
100
D s h i f t ; Je~ 146 N/ram
shift caloulations
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

CRACK GROWTH , A a ; mm
FIG. 6~Jlc by E 813 method and with zero shift; #NiMn-2, crack mouth displacement.
is believed to be the use of 20% side grooving on A723-2 and no side grooving on A723-1 (or
any other test). The net thickness of the side-grooved specimen was accounted for, as described
in the A S T M Test Method E 813. Figure 7 shows these test results following the shift; the
steeper slope of the J versus Aa curve of the specimen with no side grooves is apparent, as
well as the higher toughness.
TABLE 4--Summary of Jtc zero shift results.
Jo; E 813 JQs; with Number of

Method, Zero Shift, Amount of Data Used
Test N/mm N/mm Shift, mm for Shift
NiMn-1 149 144 +.014 9

143 +.017 8
NiMn-2 139 146 -.024 7
146 -.030 8
D6AC-1 108 107 +.002 3

D6AC-2 116 119 -.011 4
121 -.018 3
A723-1 281 248 +.046 6

A723-2 230 208 +.109 6
4335-1 88 83 +.034 5
4335-2 88 77 +.142 6
79 +.124 6
1410-1 212 212 -.002 8

213 -.005 9
1410-2 207 205 +.010 9
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON Jlo TEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 419
APPLIED J ; Nlmm
17
J'Qs" 2 4 8 N/mm
400
/ [] []
300
200
/ JQs 9 208 N/ram
100
0 A723-2; B . / B 9 0.8
0 I I I I I I I
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
CRACK GROWTH, A a ; mm
FIG. 7--J~c by E 813 method with zero shift; #A723-1 and #A723-2.
Load-Drop Compared with Unloading Compliance

These five pairs of data provide a good opportunity to check the load-drop method [9], which
was proposed as a simple, approximate method to determine Aa in J-integral fracture testing.
In brief summary, by using the expression for limit moment, ML, for a bend specimen [10],
M L = 0.36B(W - a)2r (13)
the following approximation for Aa can be made:
Aa = J/2(r e + [W - ao][1 - (P,/PMAx) '/2] (14)
where ao is the original crack length before any growth and P1 is the load at any point after
maximum load, PMax. The J/2~p term accounts for the effective "crack growth" associated
with blunting as the load increases to Puax. As can be deduced from Eq 14, it is an approxi-
mation because any crack growth that occurs before PMAX is not accounted for except by the
blunting tenn.
The load-drop procedure of Eq 14 was used to determine Aa for the ten tests, and they were
plotted and evaluated in all other aspects as in ASTM Test Method E 813. One of the results
is plotted in Fig. 8, and, like all the results, the provisional toughness using the load-drop Aa
values, JQL, is above that using unloading compliance. All of the results are summarized in
Table 5. The load-drop result varies from about 10 to 90% higher than the unloading compliance
result. This indicates that for each of the five materials here there is significant crack growth
before maximum load. Another indication that crack growth before maximum load has occurred
is that the maximum load is generally below the limit load (based on Eq 13), as shown in Table
5. The rationale for this is that when there is sufficient plastic deformation so that PMAx/PL ~"
1, then crack growth will be delayed until after maximum load, whereas, for PMAx/PL < 1,
there is less plastic deformation and more chance of crack growth before maximum load.
420 FRACTUREMECHANICS: TWENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
APPLIED J ; N/mm
400 ,' [ /O~." 279 N/mm
300
200
i / .,-m
100 ,[ / [] Load Drop
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CRACK G R O W T H , A a ; mm
FIG. 8--J1c by load drop and E 813 methods; #1410-1.

The relationship between crack-mouth and load-line displacements for the three-point bend
specimen has been described over the full range of a/W and a significant range of Ramberg-
Osgood strain-hardening exponent. A single polynomial expression was developed that applies
to most structural alloys. The expression is suggested for general use in performing J-integral
tests with the three-point bend specimen using only crack-mouth displacement measurements.
Calculation of load-line displacement can be made using the expression and used directly with
the ASTM test procedures for J-integral fracture toughness.
A procedure has been proposed for applying a zero shift of Aa in the plotting and analysis
of applied J versus Aa curves. The procedure places mid-range J-Aa data on the blunting line
TABLE 5---Summary of load drop Jic results.
Jqs; E 813 with JQL,E 813 Using

Zero Shift, N/ Load-Drop Aa,
Specimen mm N/mm P ~t~x/PLIMIT
NiMn-1 143 278 0.89
NiMn-2 146 288 0.88
D6AC-1 107 183 0.82
D6AC-2 121 177 0.77
A723-1 248 277 0.80
A723-2 208 288 0.99
4335-1 83 134 0.67
4335-2 79 108 0.61
1410-1 213 279 0.84
1410-2 205 275 0.85
UNDERWOOD ET AL. ON die TEST AND DATA ANALYSIS 421
and ignores lower data that can cause an aphysical zero point on a J-Aa curve. Shifted curves
for five medium- and high-strength steels were simply accomplished and made physical sense.
The procedure is suggested for addition to ASTM Test Method E 813 for general use. It can
be incorporated into computer-controlled test procedures by addition of a few lines of computer
code, or it can be performed w i ~ a calculator.
The load-drop method for estimating Aa in J-integral fracture toughness tests has been
directly compared with unloading compliance measurements of Aa. The resulting Jo values
were significantly higher using load drop than those from unloading compliance for each of
the five steels. This difference is believed to be caused by crack growth occurring before
maximum load in the tests, which is not accounted for in the load-drop method. Therefore, the
load-drop method should be limited to materials and test conditions for which crack growth
only after maximum load can be ensured.
References
[1 ] Underwood, J. H., Farrara, R. A., O'Hara, G. P., Zalinka, J. J., and Senick, J. R., "Fracture Toughness
and Fatigue Crack Initiation Tests of Welded Precipitation-Hardening Stainless Steels," in Elastic-
Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second Volume), ASTM STP 1114, J. A.
Joyce, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 197-212.
[2] Kirk, M. T. and Hackett, E. M., "An Evaluation of J-R Curve Testing Using Three-Point Bend
Specimens," in Fracture Mechanics: Eighteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 945, D. T. Read and R. P.
Reed, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 347-373.
[3] Underwood, J. H., Kapp, J. A., and Baratta, F. I., "More on,Compliance of theThree-Point Bend
Specimen," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 28, 1985, pp. R41-R45.
[4 ] Tada, H., Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G. R., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Pads Productions,
St. Louis, MO, 1985, pp. 2.16-2.18.
[5] Wu, S.-X., Mai, Y.-W., and Cotterell, B., "Plastic Rotation Factors of Three-Point Bend and Com-
pact Tension Specimens," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 6, Nov. 1988, pp. 555-
557.
[6] Kirk, M. T. and Dodds, R. H., Jr., "J and CTOD Estimation Equations for Shallow Cracks in Single
Edge Notch Bend Specimens," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 4, July 1993, pp.
228-238.
Analysis," EPRI Topical Report NP-1931, Research Project 1237-1, General Electric Co., Sche-
nectady, NY, July 1981.
[8] Lee, D. R. and Bloom, J. M., "Assessment of Fully Plastic J-Integral and C*-Integral Solutions for
Application to Elastic-Plastic Fracture and Creep Crack Growth," in Fatigue, Fracture, and Risk;
PVP Vol. 241, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1992, pp. 47-57.
[9] Kapp, J. A. and Underwood, J. H., "Single Specimen J-Based Fracture Toughness Test for High-
Strength Steels," in Fracture Mechanics: Fourteenth Symposium---Vol. H: Testing and Applications,
adelphia, 1983, pp. 402-414.
[10] Rice, J. R., Paris, P. C., and Merkle, J. G., "Some Further Results of J-Integral Analysis and Esti-
mates," in Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536, American
Kang Lee 1 and John D. Landes 1
A New Application of Normalization"

Developing J-R Curves from Displacement
Versus Crack Length and from Displacement
Alone
REFERENCE: Lee, K. and Landes, J. D., " A New Application of Normalization: Developing
J-R Curves from Displacement Versus Crack Length and from Displacement Alone," Frac-
ture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe,
and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp.
422-446.
ABSTRACT: Two new experimental approaches are presented in this study to develop J-R
curves: (1) from displacement versus crack length without load measurement and (2) from dis-
placement alone without load and crack length measurement. The approaches are new applica-
tions of the method of normalization, which is based on the principle of load separation suggested
by Ernst et al. The latest version of the method of normalization introduced by Landes et al. uses
the three-parameter LMN functional form to relate the three variables, load, displacement, and
crack length. Given any two, the third can be determined. Previously, the method of normalization
has been successfully used to develop J-R curves from load versus displacement without mea-
suring crack length and from load versus crack length without measuring displacement. The new
approaches can be applied to develop J-R curves for the crack-line wedge-loaded specimen,
C(W), for which the load cannot be measured.
This study was conducted in two steps. In the first step, the method of normalization was used
for developing J-R curves from displacement versus crack length without load measurement. A
power law fit was used to determine some calibration points at the initial part of the deformation
curve. They are needed for evaluating the LMN function. In the second step, normalization was
used to develop J-R curves from displacement only, without load and crack length measurements.
Two new equations that relate load, displacement, and crack length were proposed in this study
to use with the method of normalization for predicting the load and crack length from displace-
ment measurements alone.
The approaches developed in both steps have been applied to analyze a number of test results
from compact specimens for which all of three variables, load, displacement, and crack length,
have already been determined. Five different steels were included. For the first approach the test
records were assumed to have only the displacement and crack length measurements, while for
applying the second approach, the test records were assumed to have only a displacement mea-
surement. The results show that both new approaches worked very well. Compared with the test
data, the predicted error for the load measurement was found within 5% for the first approach
and 10% for the second approach. Compared with both the standard compliance method and the
regular normalization method, the difference between J-R curves developed was found within
5% for both new approaches.
KEYWORDS: J-R curve, normalization, load, displacement, crack length, fracture toughness,
power law fit, limit load, LMN function
1 Graduate student and professor, respectively, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of
Engineering Science and Mechanics, 310 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-2030.
422
LEE AND LANDES ON PREPARING J-R CURVES 423
With the development of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methods, the J-R curve has been
widely used to characterize the material resistance to fracture in ductile materials. Using the
ASTM Standard Test Method for Determining J-R Curves (E 1152), three simultaneous mea-
surements, load, load-line displacement, and crack length, are required. They are obtained from
the test of a fatigue precracked fracture toughness specimen.
The objective of this study was to develop new methods to determine the J-R curves from:
(1) displacement versus crack length with no load measurement using the normalization
procedure to predict load and
(2) displacement only measurement with no load and crack length measurements using the
normalization procedure to predict load and crack length.
An important application of the new methods is to provide a convenient way to develop J-

R curves by testing a crack-line wedge-loaded specimen C(W) for which the load cannot be
measured. This could considerably simplify J-R curve test procedures and reduce the need for
sophisticated equipment and advanced testing techniques making it possible for many labora-
tories to conduct J-R curve tests and develop J-R curves.
The methods suggested in this work are new applications of the method of normalization.
The method of normalization has been developed by Landes et al. [1-4] as an alternative way
to determine the J-R curve when crack length measurement or displacement measurement is
difficult to obtain from the test. It uses the principle of load separation originally suggested by
Ernst et al. [5,6] and developed by Sharobeam and Landes [7] to relate functionally three
variables, load, displacement, and crack length. If a suitable functional form is determined, it
can be used to predict any one of the three variables given the other two. The most successful
version of the method of normalization [3,4 ] uses a three-parameter LMN function, where L,
M, and N are the three constants in the function that is presented later, to relate the three
variables. With this function, J-R curves can be successfully developed from load versus dis-
placement without the usual measurement of crack length [3 ] and from load versus crack length
without displacement measurement [4 ].
The study reported in this paper was conducted using results from pin-loaded C(T) test
specimens, but the methods developed could be applied to analyze wedge-loaded C(W) test
specimens. The study was conducted in two steps. First, a method for determining J-R curves
from displacement versus crack length records was developed by predicting load using the
method of normalization. In an actual C(W) test, the crack length could be obtained by using
the electrical potential drop method. A method called the power law fit was used for evaluating
some of the calibration points that are needed for the determination of the three constants in
the LMN function. To demonstrate how well the method works, it was used to analyze some
compact specimen test data. These test data actually have the standard set of measurement:
load, load-line displacement, and crack length; they were obtained from a standard J-R curve
test that used the elastic unloading compliance technique. When the method was applied, the
load was assumed to be missing, and J-R curves were determined from the displacement versus
crack length records in which load was predicted using the new method. Results are given in
both load-versus-displacement format and J-R curve format.
In the second step, a method for developing J-R curves from displacement alone was inves-
tigated. The problem here is that two variables, load and crack length, must be predicted for
this case. Two new equations that describe the functional relationship between the normalized
load, crack length, and displacement were proposed in this study to use along with the other
equations from the method of normalization for predicting the load and crack length. The J-R
curve can then be developed by using the displacement from the test with the predicted load
and crack length. Again, the method developed was applied to analyze the same test data used
in the first part. The results are also given in the same formats.
Background Review--The Method of Normalization

The method of normalization was developed using the principle of load separation as orig-
inally suggested by Ernst et al. [5,6 ]. This principle assumes the load can be separated into two
multip]icative functions, one of crack length, a, and the other of plastic displacement, vp
P = G(a/W)H(vp/W) (1)
The total displacement is represented as a sum of its elastic and plastic components
v = ve + vv (2)
Both variables, a and vp, are normalized by the specimen width dimension, W. The displace-
ments used in this work are load-line displacements, however, the principle of load separation
should work for displacement measured at an alternate location. The elastic component of
displacement is given by load and a compliance function C(a/W)
v e = PC(a/W) (3)
The principle of separation has been experimentally confirmed and demonstrated to work for
all specimen-type geometries by Sharobeam and Landes [7-9]. If both functions, G and H,
from Eq 1 are known, a unique relationship between the load, displacement, and crack length
is determined.
The function G(a/W) is dependent upon the particular specimen geometry. It has been sug-
gested [8,9] that for the specimen geometries used commonly G(a/W) could be expressed as
G (a/W) = WB (b/W)'p , (4)
where
B = specimen thickness;
b = uncracked ligament, W - a;
"qp~ = a constant for a specific specimen configuration;
"qet = 2.15 for compact specimen; and
"qp, = 2 for three-point bend specimen.
When the load is divided by the geometry function G(a/W), a normalized load PN is defined.
PN = P/G(a/W) = H ( v J W ) (5)
H ( v J W ) represents the plastic flow character of the material and specimen geometry. If PN
is plotted versus ( v ~ u a graphical form of H ( v J W ) is defined. The deformation function
H ( v ~ V ) should be material-dependent. It depends on flow strength, hardening character, and
other material features. The method of normalization assumes that a functional form could be
inferred for H ( v ~ W ) that is general for many materials. The functional form would have
unknown constants that could be determined from calibration points for which the load, dis-
placement, and crack length are known simultaneously.
In studying most test records, it was found that the deformation behavior showed a power
law character at the early range of plastic displacement and changed to a straight line character
later [2,3 ]. Figure 1 shows a typical plastic deformation curve for an A508 steel. The latest
300
A508 Steel (1T-CT) t

250 0
0
0
0
0
0
200 0
0
0
0
0
150 0
0
z
0
3
100
50
0 I I I I I
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Vp /W
FIG. I---A typical normalized load versus plastic displacement, A508 steel, compact specimen.
version of the method of normalization uses a three-parameter LMN function modeled after a
functional form originally suggested by Orange [10]. It is given by
PN = H ( v ~ V ) = [L + M ( v J W ) ] ( v J W ) (6)
N + (v~V)
where L, M, and N are the unknown fitting constants. This function resembles a power law (or
polynomial) where ( v J W ) is the order of N and a straight line when ( v J W ) >>N. It gives the
best representation of the material deformation behavior observed from tests for metals.
The determination of three constants L, M, and N, in Eq 6 requires three calibration points.
The previous application of normalization used three types of points as the L M N function fitting
calibration points [3,4 ]. They are illustrated in Fig. 2 and briefly described as follows.
Point A is taken at final load, displacement, and crack length where the final crack length is
measured on the fracture surface of a broken specimen half after the test is completed. When
the J-R curve is developed from P versus Aa, a final plastic displacement can be measured
from the permanent plastic deformation at the end of the test. The corresponding final displace-
ment can be found from
v = P C ( a ~ V ) + vpf (7)
Points B are a set of points taken at the initial part of the test record before the maximum
load is reached or before measurable crack extension occurs.
For the case in which the J-R curve is developed from the P versus v record, a forced blunting
assumption is used for evaluating the crack lengths for Points B [3 ]
Aa = J/2crr (8)
300
250 9
200 'er 0
e
,t
150 '
C
a.
Pn N o r m a l i z e d w i t h aO
o Calibration Points
...... Pn F u n c t i o n Fit
Displacement, mrn
FIG. 2--Normalized load versus displacement showing all calibration points.
where crv is the flow stress. If the J-R curve is developed from the P versus Aa record, a power
law fit worked well for estimating plastic displacements in this range [4 ]
PN = I~(vJW)" (9)
where the exponent K was taken to be a constant equal to 0.13. The factor Ix was related to
flow stress given by
IX = 107.37 - 2.176~y + 0 . 0 1 9 7 ~ (10)
The constants K and ~ were determined empirically as discussed in a previous paper by the
authors [4]. They appear to be independent of material for the limited range of steels studied
here.
Points C are an intermediate set of points taken at
vp = Vp~m,x~+ [V~I- V~<maxd/3 (11)
where the subscript (max) refers to the maximum load point a n d f t o the final point. The values
of PN vary between PN(max) and PNI and are used to optimize the fit of the LMN function.
Each set of Points A, B i and Cj could determine a set of L, M, and N constants. For the first
fitting step, Point Bi (i = 1,2 . . . . Ira,x) is taken with Point A and Point C ~ to determine a set of
L, M, and N fitting constants. The standard deviation for L, M, and N in this sequence is then
computed. In the second step, a new value of C, C2, is chosen. The procedure in the first step
is repeated for Points A, Bi and C2, and L, M, and N are again determined along with their
standard deviations. This process is repeated until the fitting is complete, that is, when the
minimum standard deviation sum of L, M, and N is reached. The optimum fitting constants in
Eq 6 are found from the average values of L, M, and N at Point Ci, which gives the smallest
standard deviation for L, M, N and also satisfies the criterion that the average value of N is
greater than 0.0005. The value N controls where the PN versus v J W curve has a significant
slope change (Fig. 1). Experience with the steels used in this study shows that if N were allowed
to be less than 0.0005, the L and M values determined resulted in a poor fit of the normalized
load and displacement curve.
Once the L, M, and N are determined, Eq 6 can be combined with Eqs 2 through 5 to predict
any one of the three parameters, load, displacement, and crack length, knowing the other two.
These can then be used to determine the J-R curves using the ASTM Test Method E 1152
formula.
Developing J-R Curves from Displacement Versus Crack Length Measurements

An application of the method of normalization that has not yet been investigated is the
development of J-R curves from displacement versus crack length records without the load
measurement. This could be useful, for example, for developing J-R curves by testing the crack-
line wedge-loaded specimens C(W). During a C(W) specimen test, the displacement can be
measured easily, but the load cannot be measured. Also, the crack length cannot be measured
by using the elastic compliance method without load measurement; however, it could be mea-
sured by an electrical potential drop system.
In this new application, the method of normalization is used to determine load given dis-
placement and crack length values measured from a test. The load can be predicted if the
deformation function, expressed in LMN functional form, can be determined. To construct the
I Input Aai, vi I
+
- . - ~ Assume an vp (i) , start I
from VpO) = Vp(i-O
PN(i)= 13"(Vpl/%V)k I Ve(i) = Vi - Vp (i) I

increase
(decrease)
Vp(i)
+ +
n I
+ +
No 9
Pi (1) - Pi (2)
Output CalibrationPoint Bi
(PN(i),Vpl(1), Pi )
FIG. 3--A flow chart for solving calibration point Bi from power law assumption.
TABLE 1--Mechanical properties and fitting constantsfor the five steels.
Material O'ys~MPa crurs, MPa a n L, MPa M, MPa N
A106 324 558 2.234 5.44 188 876 0.000 57

A508 386 545 2.01 7.48 200 1213 0.000 74
A533B 441 600 1.86 7.82 214 607 0.000 53
HSLA-80 483 572 1.76 11.9 252 703 0.001 54
HY80 616 731 1.58 11.2 306 615 0.000 44
35"
A106 Steel (1T-CT)[

30
9 "ii u
25 mllllI
[]
9
8888e
20 []
15 []
[] From Test
10' 9 Predicted
5-
0 i i i . t - | - i i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
v, mm
FIG. 4a--Load versus displacement predicted from v-Aa by new method compared with the test
data, A106 steel.
800
iA106 Steel (1T-CT)I g~a
700 . K
,if B
600 -
N
500 -
.
,r
400-
Jr
300 -
a~
From Compliance [
200 - ~ a By Regular Normal.
By New Normal. from v-Aa
100 -
t
i i i ! i ! 9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
tLa, mm
FIG. 4 b ~ J - R curve for A106 steel developed from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
standard method and the regular normalization method.
LMN function, the same three types of calibration points described in the previous section must
be used. However, when the load is not measured, the final calibration point, Point A, cannot
be easily determined. The new approach used here determined the calibration Point A indirectly
by solving the final load PI from
vel = t / / - vp/= PjC(a//W) (12)
60.
[A508 Steel (1T-cT)]

50,
g.uw g g g
0
40. B
m !!
9
II
II 9
30"
o
D.
[]
: I o 'om'o" I
20"
II Predicted
t0 ~
8
0 9 i I 9 i 9 i 9 i 9 i 9 i
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

V, m m
FIG. 5a--Load versus displacement predicted from v-Aa by new method compared with the test
data, A508 steel.
500
|
1A508 Steel (1T-CT)I 9
%
400
I
All
<~ 300
&ll
All
200
41 By Regular Normal.
I By New Normal. from v-tLa
1O0
1 i i 1 i i l
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Aa, m m
FIG. 5b--J-R curve for A508 steel developed from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
where the final plastic displacement, vps, was obtained from the permanent plastic deformation
measured after the test was completed9 The method also requires the physical measurements
of initial and final crack lengths9 It was found that the power law fit given by Eq 9 works well
for determining calibration Points Bi. In this case, the load Pi is embedded in Eqs 2 through 5
and Eq 9 and cannot be solved explicitly. An iterative method was used for solving the values
of P~. This is illustrated by a flow chart given in Fig. 3. The calibration points C~ were defined
40
I A533B Steel (1T-CT) I

35.
9 igli I
n l I
30' 9 ilPl 9
[] 9
Z
25.
= 88eOn9
[] []l~Aa8 ~
2O 9 I r, From Test •!
[] I 9 Predicted
15
[]
10 , ~
1 ; ; ; 8
v, mm
FIG. 6a~Load versus displacement predicted from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
test data, A533B steel.
8O0
A533B Steel (1T-CT)[
700 -
600.
500 9
400 9
"3
300 9
I I
& a From Compliance I
A By Regular Normal.
20O
100
41
41
9 By New Normal. from v-&a
I
0 I i i i
Aaj ITlm
FIG9 6b--J-R cu~e for A533B steel developed~om v-~a by the new method compared with the
in the same way as before. The three constants were then determined from three types of
calibration points, A, Bi and Cj, by using the same fitting procedure. Once the LMN function
was determined, it was used to predict load P from the displacement versus crack length record
so that the J-R curve could be developed. Note that in this procedure, Eqs 8 and 9 are applied
up to the maximum load in the test record. This is to limit the calibration points labeled B to
the early part of the test record. In the case in which no load is measured, another method, for
example, limiting crack extension, could be used to limit the range of these points.
To evaluate this new approach, it was used to determine J-R curves for five steels, A106,
A508, A533B, HSLA-80, and HY80. Fourteen examples were investigated. These are all com-
...'-"-,,.,,,,
35"
I HSLA-80 Steel (1T-CT)I

30"
25"
20'
~n" 15"
[] From Test
10"
9 Predicted
5"
0 m I i
2 4 6 8 10 1 14
v, am
FIG. 7a~Load versus displacement predicted from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
test data, HSLA-80 steel.
1600
i HSLA-80 Steel (1T-CT)I ill~&m~,~ I1'
1400
..,~.,r
1200
1000
e
.~ 800
600
d [] From Compliance
6 By Regular Normal.
400 ===
9=, 9 By New Normal. from v-Aa
,a
200- I
P
i
0 ~ . m - m 9 I 9 m - m 9 | - I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aa, mm
FIG. 7b--J-R curve for HSLA-80 steel developed from v-Aa by the new method compared with
the standard method and the regular normalization method.
pact specimens with 50.8-ram width and 25.4-mm thickness and 20% side grooves. These data
were obtained from previous tests and had been used to determine J-R curves with the elastic
unloading compliance method and regular normalization method for measuring crack length.
More details about the tests conducted on these materials could be found in Refs 11 through
13. Some of the important material properties, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and the
and n values from a Ramberg-Osgood fit, are given in Table 1. Also included are some
typical values of the fitting constants, L, M, and N from Eq 6 for these five steels. When the
new approach was applied, the test records were assumed to have only displacement and crack
length measurements; the load was predicted by the new approach and J-R curves were then
50
8snn 9
8 "88
B B 8
40
m BB B
g
[]
88Be
30 Rm 8
@
0. @ I HY80 Steel (1T-CT)I
20
@
@ [] From Test
I
I
10 II 9 Predicted
I
0 , i
oo o~ 11o ,is 20 2~
V I mm
FIG. 8a--Load versus displacement predicted from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
test data, HY80 steel.
400
I HY80 Steel (1T-CT) I

350 -
8A~
300 ' L
I
250 ' ,I
i
E II
200"
m
&ll
"~ 150 " &ll
&ll j " FromCompliance
& ByRegularNormal.
1 0 0 " NJ
9 By NewNormal.fromv-Aa
50
0 | | i | | |
1 2 3 4 5
Aa, mm
FIG. 8b---J-R curve for HY80 steel developed from v-Aa by the new method compared with the
developed from measured displacement versus crack length and predicted load. Results are
given in both load versus displacement and J-R curve formats.
Five examples are reported here, one for each steel. In Figs. 4a through 8a, plots of predicted
load versus measured displacement are compared with corresponding test data. All the cases
show that the loads were predicted fairly accurately. The error between the predicted load and
test data is less than 5% for all the cases. Figure 4b through 8b compare the predicted J-R
curves with both corresponding J-R curves developed from the compliance measured crack
length and the crack length predicted from regular normalization. A good agreement was found
for all cases shown. The difference between three corresponding sets of J-R curves is also
within 5%.
A Method for Developing J-R Curves from Only Displacement Without the Load and
Crack Length Measurements
The method introduced in the last section provides a way to develop J-R curves by testing
specimens like the C ( W ) geometry in which the need for measuring the load is eliminated, but
the crack length must be measured. To measure the crack length in a C ( W ) specimen, a sophis-
ticated electrical potential drop system or other advanced system is required. This could be a
problem for some laboratories. A method for eliminating crack length measurement is desirable.
A procedure is developed in this section to determine J-R curves from only displacement
without the load and crack length measurements.
To develop J-R curves from only displacement, two variables, load, P, and crack length, a,
must be predicted. Therefore, more functional relationships between load, displacement, and
crack length must be established. An idea for developing such relationships can be taken from
the normalized load definition in Eq 5 and the elastic component of displacement in Eq 3.
Equations 3 and 5 give both the elastic component of displacement and normalized load as a
function of load and crack length. A certain functional relationship should exist between nor-
malized load and the elastic component of displacement. After conducting a careful study on
the five steels mentioned in the last section, a good linear relationship was found between the
normalized load and the elastic component of front-face displacement. Two examples are given
in Fig. 9 for an A508 steel and Fig. 10 for a HSLA-80 steel; both show this linear relationship.
An additional idea can also be developed from the normalized load definition. The normal-
ized load is defined as load divided by the geometry function G ( a / W ) . tt actually is a combined
function of load and crack length as well as plastic displacement. Since crack extension is a
function of plastic displacement, the normalized load PN versus crack extension, Aa/W, can be
plotted, and it shows a relationship similar to the one for normalized load PN versus plastic
displacement u, AV. This can be seen in Fig. 11 for an A508 steel and in Fig. 12 for an HSLA-
80 steel. It can also be fit best by the L M N type of function form with the constants not
necessarily being related to the ones for normalized load versus plastic displacement. The
analysis to predict load and crack length from only displacement is based on these two rela-
tionships, one in which normalized load is related to the elastic component of front face dis-
placement and the other in which the L M N function is used to relate the normalized load versus
crack extension.
By combining these two relationships with four additional ones, the load and crack length
could be predicted. The six relationships used are given in the following six equations
u = v e + Up (13)
ve = PC(a/W) (14)
434 FRACTURE MECHANICS: T W E N T Y - F O U R T H VOLUME
300
A508 Steel (1T-CT) ]

o
250 - o
o
o
o
o
o
200 - o
o
o
o
O.
0
150 - 0
0
0
I1.
0
100 -
50- 0
0 I I I I I I I I
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018

v /W
eo
FIG. 9--Normalized load versus front face elastic displacement showing a linear relationship,
A508 steel.
450
400
350
-
-
HSLA-80 Steel lti~
300 -
IX
250 -
"z o
IX
200 -
150-
100-
o
5O I i I I I I
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

v /W
eO
FIG. lO~Normalized load versus front face elastic displacement showing a linear relationship,
HSLA-80 steel.
300
I A 5 0 8 Steel (1T-CT) J
250
o
o
o
o
o
200 o
o
IX
150
Z
IX
lOO -
I I I I I I
o 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Aa/W
FIG. 11--Normalized load versus normalized crack length for A508 steel showing an LMN func-
tional relationship.
450
HSLA-80 Steel (1T-CT) o

400 -
~0o~O0000oO0
0
350 -
ooooooooOO
o~176176176176176176
300 -
t~
250-
a.
200
150-
100-
5O I I I I I I
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Aa/W
FIG. 12~Normalized load versus normalized crack length for HSLA-80 steel showing an LMN
functional relationship.
/joe = PCo(a/W) (15)
P [L, + Ml(Up]],V)](/jp[W)
PN -- -- (16)
WB(b/W)'~ ' N, + ( v f i V )
P [L2 + M2(AaAV)](AaAV)
PN - - (17)
WB(b/W)',, N 2 + (AaAV)
PN = K~(voJW) + K2 (18)
where v, G, and/jp are the load-line displacement and its elastic and plastic components; /JOe
is the elastic component of front-face displacement; C and C O are the load-line and front-face
compliance, respectively (the relationships between C, Co and a/W can be found in Ref 14);
and L~, M~, N1, L2, M2, N2, and KI, K2, are fitting constants. Six unknowns, P, Aa,/j,, G, /jOe,
and PN, are contained in six equations, 13 through 18, and therefore could be uniquely deter-
mined. By introducing a relationship between Vo~,the front-face displacement, and PN, a new
relationship can be established to determine these six unknowns that would not be available
from only the load-line displacement relationships.
Equations 13 through 18 constitute the basis of the new method. To use these equations to
predict load and crack length and then to develop J-R curves, some information from the test
is first needed. This includes the load-line displacement measured during the test and the initial
and final crack length measured physically from the fracture surface as well as the final plastic
displacement measured from the permanent plastic deformation after the test is complete. It is
easy to get all this information by testing a C ( W ) specimen. The next step is to determine the
eight fitting constants in Eqs 16, 17, and 18. Because there are not enough calibration points,
the new method uses some material properties, and the information obtained from the test to
determine all the fitting constants. The steps involved are described as follows.
1. A calibration point could be defined at the final crack length. This is done by solving Eqs
13 and 14 for elastic displacement and the load using final displacement and its plastic com-
ponent as well as the final crack length measured from the fracture surface.
2. In studying the relationships between the constants in the equations, it was found the
constant L 1 in Eq 16 and constant L 2 in Eq 17 depend on material flow stress and material
toughness. A study based on the same five steels mentioned in the previous section showed
that the values of L1 and L 2 could be related to the normalized limited load through a factor
determined from a material toughness parameter, TP, defined later. They are given by
PLN for TP > 0.6

(19a)
L1 = 1.08P~v for TP <-- 0.6
and
l
J[1.06 + (TP - 1)/20] PLN for TP > 1.0
Lz (19b)
t 1.06 PLN for TP <-- 1.0
with
P~ P~
PIN =
G(ao/W) WB(bo/W) ~,"
where PL is the limit load normalized by the G ( a / W ) function evaluated at initial crack length
ao. For a compact or C ( W ) specimen, the limit load solution in the G E - E P R I Handbook [15]
can be used. It has the following form
PL = ecqbo':,BN (20)
with
"q = [(2a/b) 2 + 4a/b + 2] 1/z - 2a/b - 1

(21)
~1.455 for plane strain
c~ = L1.017 for plane stress
where
crr = flow stress,
~r = (ars + crurs)/2, and
BN = net thickness of the specimen.
The term TP is a material toughness parameter. It is defined as follows
TP = P N f - PLN
%(aa/W) (22)
where
PNs = normalized final load from the calibration point and
Aaf = final crack length.
The high toughness materials such as HSLA-80 steel have TP >-- 2.0, and the low toughness,
high strength materials such as HY80 steel have TP <-- 0.6. The relationships in Eqs 19 through
22 were all derived empirically from the results of this study.
3. The values of N 1 and N 2 a r e found to be approximately constant for all of the metals
studied. The following, N , N 2, were used in this study
N1 = 0.0006
N 2 = 0.0004
4. The values of MI and M2 are then determined from Eqs 16 and 17, respectively, by using
the final calibration point, PI, Aal, vl, and vpl.
5. The values of K1 and K2 could be determined by taking some points in the initial elastic
range of the deformation and combining these with the final calibration point. The points in
the initial elastic range of the deformation could be assumed to have zero plastic displacement
and zero crack extension. This gives
v~=v
a -~ ao
Then the load, P, and the front-face elastic displacement, roe, can be determined by using Eqs
14 and 15 for these points. Each initial elastic point combined with the final calibration point
can give a set of KI and K 2. An average of Ks and K 2 values gives the fitting constants in Eq
18.
Once all fitting constants are known, Eqs 13 through 18 can be used to predict the load and
crack length from the displacement. The J-R curve is then developed from the predicted load
and crack length measurements with displacement measurement from the test by following the
procedures of ASTM Test Method E 1152. A flow chart is given in Fig. 13 to illustrate the
procedures of applying the new method.
To illustrate how well this method works, it was applied to the same fourteen specimens
from the five steels used in the l~tst section. When the new method was applied, the test records
were assumed to have only the displacement measurement. Five examples, derived from ana-
Assume Aai = Aai-i

I begin with Aao = 0
I
Assume a = ao+ Aa I
I
Assume Vpi= Vpi_l I

begin with VpO--0 I
Eq. ( ~ ~_~. (13)
increase _~ (14), (15)

(decreasel
vp
Aa 081
no
~Yes
PN, Ve, Vp
I (17)
I
no
t a = ao + Aa; a _._9assumed a I
Yes
I Pr~' ve' VP' Aa I
(14)
I OutputPs' Ve' vP' Aa' P I
FIG. 13--The flow chart for developing J-R curves from displacement without load and crack
length measurements.
lyzing the same test specimens used before, are reported here. Figures 14a through 18a show
the predicted load P versus v curves compared with the actual test data. Results show the
predicted values of load, P, are within 10% of the test data. Figures 14b through 18b show the
J-R curves from the new method compared with the ones from the compliance method and
the regular normalized method. A good agreement was found between the three methods. Note
35"
9
mmBlhS=
DIll dll~
IA106 Steel (1T-CT)I
30-
25 [] []~ 9 9
9149
20
[] Ill
15 []
[] From Test
10
9 Pmdieted
0
o ; ~ ; ;, ; d ; 8
v, am
FIG. 14a--Load versus displacement predicted from only v by the new method compared with the
test data, A106 steel.
(aT-CT)] ===~=~==
800
[A106 Steel
700
io
Ale
~130
600
A~
5OO Am
N AM
E I
400
in
a6l
Aig
300 41[]
! From Compliance
4g
J
200 By Regular Normalization
lP By New Method from v
4P
100 d=
0 i i i i i | i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aa, mm
FIG. 14b---J-R curve for A106 steel developed from only v by the new method compared with the
that the errors in this method introduced into the P-u curves are not as great as in the J-R
curves. This is probably due to offsetting errors in predicted load and crack length.
The method just described can be used to develop J-R curves from only a calibration point
defined at the final crack length, because the determination of the eight fitting constants only
involves the final calibration point and some material properties. The displacement can be
60
9 ~a a I A508 Steel (1T-CT) I

50 9 g
9 D
00
i
40 0
0 Ii
z 30
O.
g
D
20
FromTest I
[] l: Predicted
10 g
0 9 i 9 | 9 i 9 - i i - i
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 210 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
v, mm
FIG. 15a~Load versus displacement predicted from only v by the new method compared with the
test data, A508 steel.
500 |
I A508 Steel (1T-CT)I

r,t& 9
400
[] 9
ADO
300
AdD
2 A~
.~ 200
m9 D FromCompliance
= By RegularNormalization
9 By New Method fromv
100
| i | i i i i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aa, mm
FIG. 1 5 b - - J - R curve for A508 steel developed from only v by the new method compared with the
LEE AND LANDES ON PREPARING J-R C U R V E S 441
chosen arbitrarily at increments based on the final displacement. Two examples are given in
Figs. 19a and b for an A508 steel and Figs. 20a and b for an A533 steel to show the results of
the P-v curves and J-R curves developed from only a final calibration point. The displacement
was divided into 50 equal steps between zero and the final point. The result was found to be
as good as the one developed by using the displacement measurement from the test.
40
~g:::_. 9149 As33Bstee' ('TCT)1

35'
A D[] 9
1313130O
30'
= "~
25'
a."
20'
15'
9[]
[]
I: :%51 %"'
10
v, mm
test data, A533B steel.
8O0
I A533B Steel (1T-CT) ~ ~ l n l l
700 -
600 -
500 -
~ "
400 -
e~
qlm
300 '
qm [] From Compliance I
I
rib " By Regular Normalization
200. tl
9 By New Method from v
41
tl
100.
i I I I I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Aa, mm
FIG. 16b---J-R curve for A533B steel developed from only v by the new method compared with
442 FRACTURE
MECHANICS:
TWENTY-FOURTH
VOLUME
Summary
1. The method of normalization can be used to develop J-R curves from the test in which
only displacement and crack length measurements are made and from tests in which the dis-
placement alone is measured.
2. When the method of normalization is used to develop J-R curves from the displacement
versus crack length without the load measurement, a power law fit worked well to give some
135
30
..==ee=~ HSLA-80Steel(1T-CT)
25
2O
:
~ 15
I ] From Test
10 9 Predicted
0 i i
0 2 4 6 13 10 12 14
v, mm
test data, HSLA-80 steel.
1600
1400
I HSLA'8~I~,CT)y ~
1200
1000
800
'-J 600
o From Compliance
400 = By Regular Normalization
" 9 By New Method from v
200
0+
r e i | ! i !
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A a, mm
FIG. 17b--J-R curve for HSLA-80 steel developed from only v by the new method compared with
50
i,~8-.
e gg
9 B
40 U
8O
O
g BOOn,, '
3O Ue mm,
I HY80 Steel (1T-CT) I

20 9
g [] From Test
10 9 Predicted
i
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
V, mm
F I G . 1 8 a - - - L o a d versus displacement predicted from only v by the new method compared with the
test data, HY80 steel.
400
i HY80 Steel (1T-CT) I
350
qR
II=,
300 lit
ill
25O
eRl
E
200
eAl~
150 Ill
8ll
rT
&
FromCompliance I
By Regular Normalization
1O0
9 * By New Method from v
5O
0 i i
0 1 2 4 5
Aa, mm
FIG. 18b--J-R curve for HY80 steel developed from only v by the new method compared with the
calibration points that are needed for the LMN function determination. The detailed procedure
has been developed for this application of the method of normalization. Results are in good
agreement with the test data which had the full measurements of load, displacement, and crack
length.
3. When the J-R curves are determined from only displacement without the load and crack
length measurement by using the method of normalization, some further functional relationships
444 FRACTUREMECHANICS: -I-WENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
60"
9o~ 9 Steel (1T-CT)I

50"
OO~ooe%e
~
40"
~~
==
30"
9 [] P, kN (Test)
20'
n
[]
[] 9 P, kN (New}
J
10
0 e u n i u
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

V, mm
FIG. 19a~Load versus displacement predicted from only final point by the new method compared
with the test data, A508 steel.
600
A508 Steel (1T-CT)I
500
~OOOro0~O
oootOO0oO0~
400
e Aa~oo ~
2 300 ~p~176
200 =,99 [] From Compliance Method

i " By Regular Normalization Method
9 By New Method form Final Point
1O0
i i i i i i i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
t~a, a m
FIG. 19b---J-R curve for A508 steel developed from only final point by the new method compared
with the standard method and the regular normalization method.
between load, displacement, and crack length need to be developed. Two new equations, one
relating the normalized load and front-face elastic displacement and another relating the nor-
malized load and crack length, are used in this study. These two new equations taken together
with the other equations from the method of normalization work well for predicting load and
crack length from only displacement and then for developing J-R curves. The error in all
predictions is within • 10%.
LEE AND LANDES ON PREPARING J R CURVES 445
40
~l~,teeee._ I A533B S t e e l (1T CT)

[] [] d ' _ ~ 9 I I
30
z 20
r []
[] From Test
10 9 Predicted
i | ~ i |
1 2 4 5
V, mm
FIG. 20a~Load versus displacement predicted from only Jinal point by the new method compared
with the test data, A533B steel.
800
I A533BSteel (1TCT) I f = '

6O0
E
"~ 400
200
/'1
.=
"1 From Compliance Method
"
9
By Regular Normalization Method
By New Method from Final Point
1
. . . . . ; ; . . . . . .
0 1 2 5 6 7 8
Aa, mm
FIG. 2 0 b ~ J - R curve for A533 B steel developed from only final point by the new method compared
with the standard method and the regular normalization method.
4. The latter method could be used to determine J-R curves from only a displacement mea-
sured at final crack length. The result is as good as the one developed by using the displacement
measured during the test.
5. The development of the methods to predict J-R curves from displacement and crack length
measurements and from displacement measurements alone was done here for five steels that
are ferritic and generally in the same strength range. The relationships developed to generate
the six basic equations used in the method were shown to work only for this limited range of
steels. It remains to be shown that the same equations can be used for other metals and that
the method applies to a larger range of metals. This is suggested as a topic for future work.
References
[1 ] Herrera, R. and Landes, J. D., "Direct J-R Curve Analysis of Fracture Toughness Test," Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 5, Sept. 1988, pp. 427~-49.
[2] Herrera, R. and Landes, J. D., "Direct J-R Curve Analysis: A Guide to the Methodology," in
Fracture Mechanics." Twenty-first Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J. P. Gudas and E. M. Hackett, Eds.,
[3] Landes, J. D., Zhou, Z., Lee, K., and Herrera, R., "Normalization Method for Developing J-R Curves
with the LMN Function," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. 4, July 1991, pp. 305-
311.
[4] Lee, K. and Landes, J. D., "Developing J-R Curves Without Displacement Measurement Using
Normalization," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Third Symposium, ASTM STP 1189, R. Chona, Ed.,
[5] Ernst, M. A., Paris, P. C., and Landes, J. D., "Estimation on J-Integral and Tearing Modulus T from
Single Specimen Test Record," in Fracture Mechanics, Thirteenth Conference ASTM STP 743,
Richard Roberts, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1981, pp. 476-502.
[6] Ernst, M. A., Paris, P. C., Rossow, M., and Hutchinson, J. W., "Analysis of Load Displacement
Relationship to Determine J-R Curve and Tearing Instability Material Properties," in Fracture
Mechanics, ASTM STP 677, C. W. Smith, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1979, pp. 581-599.
[7] Sharobeam, M. H. and Landes, J. D., "The Separation Criterion and Methodology in Ductile Fracture
Mechanics," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 81- 104.
[8] Sharobeam, M. H. and Landes, J. D., "Eta Factors in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Testing," in Elastic-
Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second Volume), ASTM STP 1119, J. A.
Joyce, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 114-132.
[9] Sharobeam, M. H. and Landes, J. D., "The Load Separation and "qpt Development in Precracked
Specimen Test Records," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 59, 1993, pp. 213-226.
[10] Orange, T. W., "Methods and Models for R-Curve Instability Calculations," in Fracture Mechanics:
Twenty-First Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J. P. Gudas, J. A. Joyce, and E. M. Hackett, Eds.,
[11] Joyce, J. A., Davis, D. A., Hackett, E. M., and Hayes, R. A., "Application of the J-Integral and the
Modified J-Integral to Cases of Large Crack Extension," NUREG CR-5143, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC, Feb. 1989.
[12] Landes, J. D, McCabe, D. E., and Ernst, H. A. "Fracture Testing of Ductile Steels," NP 5041, Final
Report of Research Project 1238-2, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Jan. 1987.
[13] Zhou, Z., Lee, K., Herrera, R., and Landes, J. D., "Normalization: An Experimental Method for
Developing J-R Curves," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second
Volume), ASTM STP 1119, J. A. Joyce, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia, 1991, pp. 42-56.
[14] Hudak, S. J. and Saxena, A., "Review and Extension of Compliance Information for Common Crack
Growth Specimens," International Journal of Fracture, Vol 14, No. 5, Oct. 1978, pp. 453-468.
Analysis," NP 1983, Topical Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, July 1991.
Cedric E. T u r n e r I
R-Curve, Energy Dissipation Rate, and Crack

Opening Angle Models for Large Amounts of
Ductile Crack Growth in Bending
REFERENCE: Turner, C. E., "R-Curve, Energy Dissipation Rate, and Crack Opening
Angle Models for Large Amounts of Ductile Crack Growth in Bending," Fracture Mechan-
ABSTRACT: Stable crack growth taken to large growths in the fully plastic state is characterized
through the true energy dissipation rate, D, for real elastic-plastic (rep) material. The term is
shown to be very closely related to the crack-opening angle (COA) model. A J-type R curve,
Jd~s, can be formed that degenerates exactly to G for linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM).
Unlike conventional J-based models for growth, it satisfies conservation of energy for the rep
case and is not a function of crack growth rate in the rigid plastic limit. The dissipation rate, D,
can be split into areal and volumetric components. These components, and also the COA, are
geometry-dependent thereby offering an explanation for the size-dependent trends seen for R
curves in the literature. The specific intensities of these rates of energy dissipation (SIRED) are
also likely to be functions of constraint, but the known data are too sparse to allow a definite
conclusion. Nevertheless, the use of areal and volumetric components of energy dissipation offers
a new route for the conditional transference of estimates of R-curve data from one configuration
to another.
KEYWORDS: R curves, crack growth, elastic-plastic fracture, energy dissipation rate
Nomenclature
Terms and symbols used with their conventional meanings are not defined here but those
with an unusual or very particular usage are explained briefly. Examples relevant to the loading
diagram are shown on Fig. 2.
A Area under a diagram of load versus load point displacement (treated incrementally after
initiation)
b Ligament, (W - A) in a test piece
C Combined driving force for crack growth with plasticity, defined in Eq 7
D Energy dissipation rate, defined in Eq 7
I Internal energy release rate for real elastic-plastic behavior
Lo Normalized load, increasing from zero to the load constraint factor, L, at the fully plastic
state, defined in Eq 19
Q Load
q Displacement of loading point
R Fracture resistance in the sense of an R curve
Emeritus professor of materials in mechanical engineering, Imperial College, Department of Mechan-

ical Engineering, City and Guilds College, Exhibition Rd., London SW7 2BX, England.
447
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.Org
U Work done by external forces

w Internal energy (not necessarily recoverable)
c~ Crack opening angle (COA)
,/ Areal component of energy dissipation rate, introduced in Eq 16
Crack tip opening displacement
"q Factor relating energy and energy rate, introduced in Eq la
p Volumetric component of energy dissipation rate, introduced in Eq 16
T Shear-lip component of energy dissipation rate, introduced in Eq 16
Suffixes
c Current value as for the ligament size

dis Related to energy dissipation rate
el Elastic component (based on linear elasticity)
i Value at initiation, however so defined
o Original or reference state as for ligament size or yield/proof stress
pl Plastic component
rep Real elastic-plastic behavior (with linear elastic unloading)
sg Side-grooved
ss Steady-state
Introduction
Although J has been a useful parameter for toughness in the elastic-plastic regime, there is
little doubt that it is not fully satisfactory. One aspect that has recently come to the fore is the
effect of constraint on initiation toughness. The T and Q concepts [1,2 ] and related papers
address that question. A second aspect is the geometry dependence of J-R curves, particularly
for fully plastic tests with large amounts of growth in which cleavage does not occur. This
paper pursues that issue, following Refs 3 and 4.
A particular term, the energy dissipation rate per unit area of crack growth evaluated for real
elastic-plastic (rep) material behavior, dwais/Bdao r simply D, will be used. It was defined and
first used in the present context for a 6-2-1-1 titanium alloy [5,6] where a J-type of rising R
curve, denoted Jdls, was formed using ~qDda/bc for each increment. The dissipation rate argu-
ment was placed in a wider context [3] and extended to near its present form [4,7]. In Ref 3,
related data for HY130 from Ref 8 and A533B from Ref 9 were introduced and the suggestion
was made that the dissipation rate could be split into areal and volumetric components, different
combinations of which might provide the key to a fuller understanding of size effects in R
curves. In Ref 4, the energy dissipation rate, D, was related to the well-known crack opening
angle (COA) concept for growth. A three-term model for D was introduced, with an areal
component, an energy per unit area for fracture, ~, and volumetric components, energy per unit
volume, x for shear lips, and p for general plasticity, specifically in the plastic hinge that forms
in fully plastic deep notch bending or compact tensile pieces. These terms are illustrated and
discussed in more detail later, particularly in connection with forming an R curve consistent
with conservation of energy and with a criterion for crack growth.
J-R Curves as a Measure of Crack Growth Toughness

In forming the energy dissipation rate model, some general features of toughness and J-type
R curves arose. The issues may at first seem peculiar to use of energy dissipation rate, but they
are not. The points arise in any treatment of the fully plastic behavior met in testing most small
test pieces of ductile metals, and indeed in any elastic-plastic application. They are therefore
TURNER ON DUCTILE CRACK GROWTH IN BENDING 449
introduced in general terms against which conventional J-R curve and energy dissipation rate
equations are later viewed.
1. How much plasticity should be included in the measure of crack growth resistance?
2. Should the R curve relate to a summation of the energy used or to the rate of use?
3. What criterion of fracture exists for large growth and for carrying over to other sizes or
configurations?
Answers are easily given for simple (LEFM) behavior.
1. All plasticity is included because it occurs close to the crack tip and is the source of the
Irwin-Orowan concept of effective surface energy.
2. It does not matter because the rate, G, is proportional to the work done, U, through the
exact relationship
G = (~lU)eJnb (1)
3. One crack tip state exists (for plane strain) so that energy rate, G, stress field intensity,
K, or crack tip opening displacement, CTOD, can be used interchangeably.
This clarity is lost in contained yield, where plasticity spreads away from the tip, by an
arbitrary small amount, but the problem is not acute. Thus, for example, use of the conventional
plastic zone correction factor gives an effective G such that
Geft = G(1 + rp/a) (2)
which allows either the retention of the " t r u e " term G or use of a larger effective toughness,
which includes the plasticity not now truly local to the crack. This leads to a rising G-R curve,
particularly when plane strain is lost. To the extent that Eqs 1 and 2 can be used in conjunction,
there is still no problem between the G (rate) and the U/Bb (normalized quantity) interpretations
because both increase together; indeed the latter has not, to the writer's knowledge, been used
for an LEFM R curve so a conflict is not even posed. As a criterion for growth, Golf is both
growth- and thickness-dependent; few believe such a Geff-R curve is independent of con-
figuration.
In the fully plastic case where yield is uncontained, the problems are exacerbated. The
conventional use of J evaluated as
Jpt = ('qA )pl /Bb (3)

where A is the area under the load versus load-point displacement diagram, relates J to the
normalized work. However, the definition of "q allows the retention of the d/Bda rate meaning,
at least up to initiation. It is a matter of convenience that in some configurations, notably deep
notch bending, the elastic and plastic values of ~q are so similar that Eq 3 can be used for the
combined elastic plus plastic tenn.
The problem becomes acute for crack growth where a J-type R curve is used, essentially
based on Eq 3 updated in an incremental way to allow for growth. After initiation, the J-R
curve is defined by
JR = Ji + EdJ = J~ + E{'qdA/Bb + Af(d[TI/Bb])} (4)
This bears little relation to the J integral; it is based on the normalized energy term of Eq 3.
The difference in meaning of normalized quantity and d/da rate is seen most clearly for fully
plastic behavior. Examples are shown in Figs. l a and b in terms of work and work rate, for
growth in contained and uncontained yield, respectively. Use of J and dJ from Eqs 3 or 4 does
not alter this difference in trend but identifies the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
crack growth resistance, J~, with the normalized quantity, contrary to the LEFM meaning of
d/da rate.
It is a further source of confusion that, despite the ~q factor being defined to relate the energy
quantity to the d/da rate, it is agreed by all that J is not a measure of the energy release rate in
rep material so that justification for its use hinges on the characteristic meaning of the Hutch-
inson, Rice, and Rosengren (HRR) stress and strain fields, which are functions of J. In early
use of J, a geometry-independent value for initiation was usually accepted for pieces above
certain minimum dimensions, partly because there was no clear evidence against it and partly
0.5
0.4 84
0.3
a G
o D
0.2
a 0.1
0.0 ! I I ! I
a
2 4 6 8 10
~a mm
~ Jo
2
* O
0 1
0 9 9
0 I 2 3
b ~,a m m
FIG. I ~ R and D curves: (a) for contained yield (from data by McCabe and Heyer in Ref 30) and
(b) for uncontained yield (from data in Ref 17).
on a lower-bound argument. As already noted, the initiation toughness has more recently been
seen to be a function of constraint, with the T [1] and Q [2 ] theories offering an explanation
through a modified HRR-type field.
The increment dJ was originally derived from differentiation of Eq 3 with A, b and in some
cases ~q regarded as variables. The function f in the last term of Eq 4 has varied from one
formulation to another. Sometimes it has been omitted by taking b as bo rather than bc and
keeping "q as constant. The current practice is the ASTM Test Method for Determining J-R
Curves (E 1152). At any step, j,
dJj = "qdAp/Bbc + d G - {(Jpl,j--1 + ~qdAp/Bbc)(da/b~)} (5)
Ernst defined a modified term, Jm [10], to satisfy the requirements of Ref 11
JM = Jd -- f { o ( J a - G)/Oa }da (6a)
where the integral is taken at fixed qpt overthe limits of growth, ao to aland Jd is the deformation
theory term. For deep notch bending
dJ m : ~ldU/Bb C - Gdalb c = ~dU/Bb c - (OWel/Oa)lqelda]b c (6b)
The common acceptance of J for fully plastic cases, estimated from the area under the loading
diagram, Eq 3 or its extension to growth, seems to imply an acceptance of the associated general
plasticity. However, that acceptance is not explicit in that the characteristic field argument,
modified or not to allow for constraint, side steps the direct issue. When posed directly, as in
the proposed use of energy dissipation rate, the plasticity component is rightly seen as highly
dependent on degree of deformation and initial geometry. Most users seem to visualize a term
that includes only some local amount of plasticity, perceived as common to all cases, despite
the stress and strain fields and, in particular, the modifications for constraint being generated
by the global behavior.
The energy dissipation rate arguments are therefore presented here as a direct confrontation
to these problems with the intention of helping to resolve or at least throw new light on them.
Energy Dissipation Rate to Describe Stable Growth

Stable growth of a crack is described here for rep materials by a statement of conservation
of energy. There is no agreed meaning to the term p o t e n t i a l energy for a dissipative system.
The meaning used here is the loss of external potential energy, that is, dU, together with any
change in the stored internal energy, that is, the elastic strain energy, dwet. The dissipation
considered includes both plasticity and fracture, but it is noted that the difference in work done
per increment of displacement between plastic deformation with or without crack growth
involves only a second-order small term, at most d Q d q (Fig. 2). The combined loss expressed
per unit crack area is termed the c o m b i n e d driving f o r c e , C. For stable growth it must equal
the combined energy dissipation rate, D. Thus, for stable crack growth
C = -dP/dBda = dU/Bda - dwJBda = dwais]Bda = D (7a,b,c,d)2
2 The subscript dis recognizes that the dissipation is not in plasticity alone or in fracture alone. In
previous papers describing dissipation rate, the writer has used the notation dUdJBda because D was
evaluated as a rather small correction to the increment of work, dU, but the notation dwa~s with connotations
of energy dissipated internally seems more correct than dUd, s, related just to work entering the system.
2 9
CIF
_1
1
$ I
0 -,-----
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I)i.~lacemt~! q
FIG. 2 ~ A load versus load-point-displacement, Q-q, diagram to show the terminology used (sche-
matic). An increment in work, dU = ehmn; the change dwe~ = rhm - sen; the difference between
an increment of work with no crack growth and with crack growth is the second-order term efh. A
drop in load as a result of crack growth in LEFM would be dQe~ = ed; the drop in the fully plastic
case is the change in limit load, dQL = ec; the increase in load as a result of work hardening before
the next increment in growth is jh. The increment in displacement is dq = n m ; the change in elastic
displacement is dqe~ = rm - sn = n m - sr; the change in plastic displacement is dqp~ = n m - (rm
- s n ) = sr.
For rep material, wet is based on linear unloading (see Fig. 2). The energy related to residual
stresses is not separately distinguished. The component dwet may be positive or negative in
value according to circumstances. It will be positive (so that the dissipation is less than the
work done) when the load rises and more strain energy is stored in the body. It may be positive
or negative when the load falls (as in the fully plastic stable tearing discussed here) according
to the balance between the change in load and compliance. The LEFM limit is either dU = 0
for the classical Griffith "fixed grip" case or dU = 2dwe~ for the "fixed load" case so that D
is identical to G for LEFM. Some examples of D versus Aa for fully plastic behavior are shown
in Fig. 3.
The formulation of D can be expressed in another way by writing
dU = Qdq; dqe , = dq - dqe,; dwp, = Qdqp, (8)

dwe, = d(Qqe,/2)/da; Qdp = qel; G = QZd~b/2Bda (9)
where ~ is the compliance. Note dqpt includes the amount sg (Fig. 2) as well as the component
of applied displacement. As an alternative to Eq 7b,c,d
D = dwdis/nda = (dU - d W e t ) / B d a = dwp,/Bda + G (lO)

The term dwpt in Eq 10 is believed to be the same as the term called dUez in Ref9, where the
Up~ was "plastic energy dissipated during crack extension." In Ref 12 it was speculated that
dUpt/Bda in Ref 9 (i.e., dwp~/Bda in Eq 10) was the same as D; it is now seen to differ by the
G term, an amount of about 2 or 3% of the values in Ref 9 but crucial to the correct formulation
of the energy rate balances.
! ~ tr.---- B = 4 mm
"~
It
. ~ ~ _ _ * B = 17 mm
E = B = 35ram
a
o ! ! !
0 2 4 6 8
(Aa/b)(Slb)
FIG. 3--Some examples o[ cumes [or energy dissipation rate, D,[or 6-]-/-1 titanium alloy, plain
sided, W = 35 mm, a/W ~ 0.55; 4 mm thick from f i e f 4 , 17 mm thick from f i e f 7 , and 35 mm thick
f r o m R e f 6.
As marked on Fig. 2, the difference between a load-displacement curve with or without an

increment of crack growth is second order in terms of dU. Clearly, to within this second-order
difference, d U is dissipated in the plasticity with some change in the elastic strain energy as
the load changes at fixed crack length. The plasticity causes "damage," the local part of which
allows voids to grow toward fracture, stable on the macro-scale but unstable on the micro-
scale. In such a picture, crack growth is the connecting of the existing crack to the voids ahead
of it. That occurs as a micro-instability at fixed displacement, that is, driven by the first-order
change in the compliance and hence dw,t without work being done. This crack driving force
is here termed L the change in "recoverable" strain energy at fixed displacement, for rep
material. Clearly, G -< I --< J because the "recoverable" energy cannot be less than the linear
term or more than the total term.
The First Question

The question of how much plasticity should be included in the concept of crack growth
resistance can now be addressed for rep material. If all the plasticity is included in a combined
term, the dissipation rate is D and the equal combined driving force is C. There will be a very
large gain over the initiation toughness value, but it will be highly geometry-dependent because
it is dominated by the plasticity component. It must be implausible that much of that component
could carry over into circumstances of contained yield, let alone simple LEFM.
If crack growth resistance is seen to include only the plasticity local to the fracture surface,
then the required term is the fixed displacement term, C[q, defined some years ago as I [13].
In general, I is but a small fraction of C. It might be thought that just as G = G~c in plane strain
LEFM, so I = I~ for plane strain in full plasticity. That will later be seen not to be so. Following
Ref 13,
I = - OWet/B Oa Iq = - OPint/B Oa Iq = C [q (11 a)
= G + Gp, = G((2"qJ'q~,) - 1) (lib)
is just the internal potential energy, that is, the recoverable strain energy, wet and
w h e r e P,nt
"q~pis the elastic-plastic value of "q, interpolated between the clearly defined elastic and plastic
cases. The increase in toughness due to plasticity, expressed as the increase of I over G (Eq
1 lb) is deformation- and configuration-dependent. The fact that the driving force seems larger
in EPFM than in LEFM has been objected to by a number of workers [14]. The subtlety is that
the strain energy release rate in the EPFM case has two components, G and Gp~ (Eq l l b and
as seen in Fig. 2). The G component of I causes the actual fracture and is identical to G derived
by LEFM for the current load and crack length; it will be less than G~c if the damage done by
the prior plasticity is greater than in the plastic zone that accompanies LEFM. The Gp~ com-
ponent passes directly from elastic energy to plastic dissipation at fixed displacement, as wit-
nessed by qpt = --qel = sg on Fig. 2. The term "q~ is gauge length-dependent; the term "%~ is
not. If the compliance of the testing machine or structure is represented as an extra gauge
length, then '~l]eI and to a lesser extent '~ep will be system-dependent. The relevant equations are
given in Refs 13 and 15. The release rate I is thus also system-dependent.
Because the crack driving force, I, is degree of deformation-, geometry-, and system-depen-
dent, it is implausible that there should be a unique value of 1, in the style of G~, for crack
growth in the plastic regime, although, for the fully plastic case in which "q,p is approaching
~qp~,a constant value of I might hold for large amounts of crack growth in that configuration
and size of piece.
In summary, the combined driving force C and the crack driving force I can be evaluated
and interpreted in terms of the energy dissipation rate. Both are configuration-dependent. The
choice of which to use depends on a somewhat subjective interpretation of the circumstances.
The Second Question

The question of whether energy rate or normalized quantity is the measure of crack growth
resistance is also subjective. Both are relevant, according to circumstance. For example, the
former controls final ductile instability [13,15 ]; the latter is relevant to the energy absorbed by
a cracking and deforming structure, perhaps in an accident. When the energy quantity inter-
pretation is required, the logic is to form a J type of R curve based on D. The crux of the
present argument is that, to maintain conservation of energy, the increment d / must be
expressed as
dJdi ~ = ',qdwdis/Bb r = rl(dU - dwet)/Bbc = .qDda/b C (12a,b,c)
In the limit of full plasticity with negligible elasticity, ~ro/E ~ 0, then dwdj~ ~ dU, the external
work rate, Qdq, where Q is load and q is displacement between the loading points. Thus this
definition of a J-like term satisfies the requirement in Ref 11 that in the rigid-plastic limit dJ,
specifically now dJdis, should be a function of the displacement rate, dq, but not of the crack
increment, da. The term Jdis is not a path-independent integral, but that seems of little practical
importance because in experimental work the integral form is not used and, as noted in Ref
16, path independence is lost for rep material after a small amount of growth. Comparison of
Eq 12b with Eq 5 and Eq 6b shows the broad similarity yet the vital difference in the secondary
terms. In relation to Eq 5, the writer interprets dApt as d U - dw~, that is, exactly the present
term dwa,. As a common yardstick, it is helpful to define the simple term
dJv = xldU/Bb C (13)
For the case of deep notch bending in which "qe~and "qptare practically the same, the relationships
are thus
dJd,s = dJo - ~qdweJBb c (14a)
and neglecting the small term dApfla in Eq 5,
dJj = dJ v + d G - Jp~da/b, = dJdis "Jr- ~ d w J B b , . + d G - Jvlda/b, (14b)
dJ m = d l u - Gda/b c = d l ~ + "qdweJBb c - - Gdalb c (14c)
An example comparing Jdis, Jo, Jj+l, and Jm is given in Fig. 4. Because Eq 12 has been
formulated by conservation of energy (apart from the neglect of residual stress, common to all
the expressions), it follows that the other forms of dJ are not consistent with conservation of
energy for rep material.
A difficulty with all the terms as expressed here is that "q applies to the term dU, which
contributes to a combination of elastic and plastic behavior, whereas the clearly defined-q terms
are -qej and "qpt. Using Eq 10, d/~, can be restated with "q split into its two clearly defined terms
d~dis = "%,dwp}Bb~ + ~%~Gdalbc (15)
This split of qq makes no difference for deep notch bending in which the elastic and plastic
values of Xl are so closely the same, but, in general, it might be appropriate to use this slightly
different definition for d J d i s instead of Eq 12.
If an R curve were required based on only the local component of plasticity, it follows from
Eq 11 that it could be formed as I versus Aa, similar in style to a G - R curve. Before maximum
load it would increase, rather more than in proportion to G because the factor 2~qep/'qelin Eq
1 l b increases. After maximum load, it would tend toward a constant for steady-state growth
in a fully plastic case, but the constant would be geometry- and system-dependent. From Eq
1 lb, its numerical value would be similar to G for the deep notch bend cases but appreciably
more, perhaps several-fold, for cases such as center-cracked tension, where "qpl is known to be
several-fold typical values of "qer
E a---- On
-%
I
I"
. f o
=
Jj+i
J~
1 r 6dis
o I I l I i
0 2 4 6 8 10 2
&a m m
FIG. 4---A comparison o f R curves using f o u r different definitions o f J~ (based on three-point
bend data f o r HY130 steel f r o m R e f 2 2 , a l W ~ 0.52, W = 37 mm, B = 20 mm).
The Third Question

The existence of a criterion of fracture for the fully plastic state has been answered in the
sense that the ligaments separating voids become locally unstable when I equals the local rate
of resistance or dissipation o f that process. Further plastic damage to allow the next stage of
growth is provided by the external work, dU. The question of transferability to other config-
urations, even to other sizes of deep notch bend pieces, is much more complex because it has
already been seen that both I and C are geometry-dependent.
Only large amounts of growth are considered here. Immediately after initiation there is a
regime termed J-controlled growth, usually taken to extend for about 6% of the ligamentl That
regime is not discussed here. It is followed by what is here called steady-state (ss) growth, as
seen in Refs 4, 6, and 8 and perhaps approached in Ref 9. In that regime, the energy dissipation
rate appears to be linear with growth, including constant for some HY130 data in Ref 8. In Ref
3, those data were used to suggest a steady-state model of growth with flat fracture and two
shear lips, each of size s in both the thickness and span directions, that is, a pair of 45 ~ lips. In
Ref 4, a three-term model was proposed and illustrated for fully plastic bending of a titanium
alloy: flat fracture, shear lips, and general (hinge) plasticity. It is now suggested that in general
the steady-state dissipation rate can be written as
dWdi s = D,~Bda = ~l:Bda + ~ls(B - 2s)Bda + Ts2da + p(B - 2s)b,.da (16)
where
~/: = a characteristic work per unit of fiat fracture area,
~/s = a characteristic work per unit of slant fracture area,
r = a characteristic work per unit volume of shear lip, and
p = a characteristic work per unit volume of general plasticity.
A simplified version, used in Ref 17, does not separate out the first two components on
grounds of practicality of treating satisfactorily values that are small in relation to the actual
value of D.
dWdi s = Ds,Bda = "yBda + ~s2da + p(B - 2s)bcda (17)
where ",/ is simply a fracture work per unit projected area of crack growth. The areal and
volumetric terms, "y or its two constituents "y:and "ys,T and p are called the "specific intensities
of the rates of energy dissipation" (SIRED).
The different proportion contributed by each of the several terms is clearly a main source of
the variation of R curves with configuration and size. Use of some modified version of the
energy dissipation rate to form an R curve, such as Eq 5 or 6 rather than Eq 12, will not
eliminate the inherent geometry dependence. It is evident that for small pieces of the common
structural metals, the volume-dependent plasticity terms in ~rand p will dominate over the area-
dependent fracture terms, as argued by Ernst [18]. If the p term dominates, then, after an initial
transient decay, the dissipation rate tends to be linear with be, that is, with growth, as seen in
Ref 4 and just reached in Ref 9, so that an areal component of toughness is barely detectable.
At the other end of the scale, the hinge formation term, p, will disappear as contained yield is
reached in sufficiently wide pieces. At such a size, all the plasticity will be in the contained
yield zone, including its shear lips, and, if LEFM practice is followed, such plastic dissipation
will be termed effective fracture toughness as evaluated by G or K, but with a plastic zone
correction rJb (see Appendix to Ref 19), not rJa, as in Eq 2. More complex patterns emerge
within the intermediate regimes of size.
Thus, with full plasticity but a relatively small thickness, the shear-lip size seems controlled
by the original ligament, bo, [8,17]. In that regime, the dissipation rate may well then be initial
ligament size-dependent, as in Ref 8, and the pattern of R-curve behavior would be "wider
ligaments give higher R curves"; some cases were noted in Ref 3.
At some larger thickness, shear lips will be controlled by the material factor denoted rmm in
Ref 3 so that behavior of the -r term will change from size-dependent to material-dependent.
To answer the third question, it must be ascertained whether the three, or more properly four,
SIRED terms are independent of geometry or vary in a known way. There are so few data
analyzed in this way that no sure answer can be given, but the likelihood seems rather remote.
It has already been noted that I is geometry-dependent and that driving force equates to ~/,.so
the areal term is not unique in value. C is strongly geometry-dependent, but it is not clear
whether the specific intensities r and P are equally so. Several cases were noted in Ref 3 where
"wider (initial) ligaments gave lower R curves." The obvious term for that is the "y component,
when Eq 17 is divided by Bb to form Jdls. Because the ",/term is such a small component of
Jdis it seems unlikely that the "wider-lower" pattern would be observed unless the dominant
p term were reducing with initial width as the proportions change from bo < B toward bo =
B, which seems to give the fullest degree of constraint. It therefore seems likely that the SIRED
will be functions of constraint but the stress and strain fields for growth in rep material in
uncontained yield are not known. It seems plausible that for side-grooved pieces, where 9 is
eliminated, the variation of p with size might be modest if the test piece were adequately thick,
but extrapolation from a test piece size to a structural size may involve an order of magnitude.
Even if p were assumed to be independent of size in bend tests, it may well be a function of
constraint in the remote field that controls the slip line field in other configurations. To apply
it to contained yield would also require the extension of Eq 17 from fully plastic behavior in
bending to elastic-plastic behavior in contained yield. That has not been attempted.
In summary, despite the insight gained by splitting the energy dissipation rate into areal and
volumetric components, there is no assurance that the SIRED terms found in a test piece
configuration apply to other sizes or configurations.
Discussion of the Energy Dissipation Rate Model

As an overall summary of the energy dissipation rate model, it provides a self-consistent
framework for the analysis of stable crack growth, ranging from LEFM through contained yield
[19] to the fully plastic state, with relevance also to final ductile instability [13,15]. However,
it cannot by itself give a criterion of fracture to allow transferability of data from one case to
another because it is based only on conservation of energy, which is satisfied whether or not a
crack grows. Thus a criterion of fracture must either call on further theories, such as minimizing
the energy per unit displacement, or be based on observation or assumption. Data do not exist
to cover the former, and there seem to be reasons against the simple assumption that the specific
areal and volumetric intensities, SIRED, might be independent of geometry.
It was noted earlier that use of J for rep material is supported on grounds of a characterizing
rather than energetic role. The HRR field does not extend into large growth. The best known
model for large growth [11 ] is restricted to contained yield so that no characterizing field is
available for growth in uncontained yield. Also as already noted, the conventional J-R curve
formulations such as Eqs 5 and 6 do not agree with the present formulation, which follows
conservation of energy for rep behavior. The real characterizing stress and strain fields for
growth together with a related J-type R curve must all satisfy conservation of energy. It must
therefore be supposed that because the conventional J-R terms violate conservation of energy
for growth in rep material they cannot be supported on grounds of characterizing fields. Such
fields, when fully formulated, must be consistent with conservation of energy and thus with
Eq 7.
A COA Criterion for Crack Growth?

Not surprisingly, where micro-void coalescence is recognized as the micro-mode of growth,
a value of the COA may be taken as a criterion for growth [20,21 ]. For deep notch bending,
the COA, et, can easily be related [4 ] to the displacement, q, or more strictly the plastic com-
ponent, q,~, by the well-known rigid plastic hinge rotation mechanism
d q J d a = S otJ4rb,, (18)
where r is the constant that defines the position of the center of rotation as a fraction of the
ligament. In conventional crack opening displacement (COD) testing it is often taken as 0.4;
in Ref 11 it is quoted from previous work as 0.37 during rigid plastic growth. It must be noted
that this COA is derived in a global sense from displacement and may not be identical to a
crack tip measurement, for example, by infiltration. An example of such data derived from Ref
22 is shown (see Fig. 3) in the form of both q and qpt versus In be. In that presentation, the
C O M r is proportional to the negative of the slope. It will be noted that t~ < apt, implying a
negative elastic COA, consistent with qe~ reducing with load during the fully plastic growth,
despite the increase of compliance. 2
For three-point bending, span, S, the load, Q, can be expressed as
Q = LocroBb~/S (19)
where the factor, LQ, increases in value from zero to become the classic plastic constraint factor,
L, at the fully plastic state, about (1.36)(2/V3) for nonhardening plane strain deep notch bend-
ing. Either L or the reference stress fro must be allowed to vary to encompass work hardening.
For the "variables separable" model often used in fracture studies, such as Ref 23 and others,
where the load is written, P = G(a/W)H(Op/W), then L = (PJ~)(S/W), where PN =
P/G(a/W). The load, P, is identical to Q, and displacement, Vp~,is identical to qpt in the present
notation.
Where flat and slant fractures (shear lips).occur together, an interpretation of COA in the
two-dimensional model is not clear. With work hardening, limit load is not clearly defined and
there is a change i n wet even at constant compliance. For Clarity, the argument is therefore
restricted to fully plastic flat fracture with no work hardening. With those restrictions, Eq I0
can be rewritten using Eq 19 as
DBda = L~oBb2dqp/S + GBda (20)
Using Eq 18 for dq, t and writing G = m(Yo~elwith m ~ "qepL/4r [13], then
D = dwdiJBda = (Ltrobc/4r)[ctp~ + (91]epSel/bc) (21a)
or seemingly
D = (L~robc/4r)(etp~ + odd) (21b)
Such a definition of aet is inherently positive, whereas, if based on the form of Eq 18, it may,
for the fully plastic case, be negative because as seen in Fig. 5, qet is reducing with growth.
2 Since this paper was written, it has been proposed [31] that in Eq 18 the term r be replaced by r*, a
factor that defines the position of the instantaneous center of rotation. In Ref 31, r* was constant with
growth but with a value appreciably larger than 0.4.
0 "~i~, t,J= 18.265 - 5.8077x 1~2 = 0.993

[
6 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . 1 6 . 9 8 4 - 5.7101x W2 = 0.'986
4 : qpl
|
lIT
2
9 9 n u 9 9 9 9
0 I ! ! !
! .8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
lnb9
FIG. 5--Example of q and qp] versus In be for HY130. The negative of the respective slopes gives
the COA/r for the total or plastic components. The elastic component, qe,, is seen to give a positive
slope implying an elastic COA formed in the same way would be negative. (Based on the same data
as Fig. 4.)
The energy dissipation rate argument and the COA picture are thus seen to be closely related,
although the elastic term seems physically more appropriate in the form of ~et (Eq 21a) rather
than as an elastic COA that is negative (Eq 21b). If Eq 21 is related to dWdis, Eq 17, without
the shear-lip term, then
p = Ltro%~/4r (22a)
"y = (L(ro/4r)('qep~et)(mCro~et = G) (22b)
There is no more reason or no less reason to suppose that the values of global COA, based on
q or qp~, are independent of constraint than the SIRED terms but, as said before, for moderate
changes in size, and restricted to side-grooved pieces, use of a COA criterion of growth to give
(within neglect of the elastic component) constant p, may well be plausible.
A L o w e r - B o u n d R Curve f o r Large Growth?

The arguments for or against a criterion of fracture in terms of the specific components of
rate of energy dissipation, SIRED, or COA cast doubt on whether data for large crack growth
from one size or configuration of test piece can be transferred to another. An alternative
approach, often used in relation to conventional R curves, is to seek a lower bound, despite the
objection that for some purposes it might be too conservative. In the present context, a lower
bound could be formed by using high-constraint plane strain pieces, on the argument that both
low constraint in plane strain, for example, in center-cracked plate, or partial loss of plane
strain, for example, in moderately thin sections, increases the crack growth resistance. Side-
grooved (sg) deep notch bend or compact tension geometries with bo = B are the obvious
candidates, although the absolute thickness B is not clear. A further conservatism can be intro-
duced by assuming the steady-state values of D, Dss start immediately after initiation, thereby
neglecting the high values of D for small growth, the transient regime in Fig. 3. The lower
estimate (le) Jd~s curve is still formed from Eq 12 but with the lower estimate of dJdJda based
on the side-grooved steady-state data, dJdi~.sg.Jda
dJ~is.lJda = ~lDss/bc = ~q('Y/bc + p) ~ "qp (23a,b,c)
"~ rlL~roa/4r (24)
This formulation is illustrated in Fig. 6; a is used rather than %~ because it is the smaller term
as discussed in relation to Fig. 5 and Eq 2lb. An example of the Jd,s-R curve formed from Eq
23b is shown in Fig. 7 together with the original experimental curve based on Eq 12. These
arguments relate to dJois.~Jda. There seems no reason why, when forming a Jdis-R curve for
use with less than full constraint, a value of Ji relevant to that lower constraint should not be
used, if known. A small dependence of R curves on the testing system has been reported
[24]. In so far as only the small ",/component of Jdi, is affected by the system in the present
analysis, the conservatism already introduced should be adequate, provided a separate check
against ductile instability is made if that mode of failure is a risk. Ductile instability is certainly
system-dependent. It has already been treated by the I method for HY130 [13,19] and also in
Ref 5 for 6-2-1-1 titanium. Use of the lower estimate curve for that purpose would clearly give
a conservative prediction.
Although application as a lower bound to other fully plastic configurations of lesser constraint
has been argued, application to contained yield (treated by Eq 2) or even to simple LEFM
(treated by Eq 1) needs a further approximation. In terms of SIRED, the general plasticity term,
p, must reduce and finally vanish as simple LEFM is approached while a flat fracture term, %
remains. As a concept, it is suggested that scaling dJ~isJda, Eq 23, according to load, that is,
by the factor Lo/L, is a reasonable approximation, although there is no formal assurance that
such a curve is truly lower bound other than at limit load or zero load. An alternative, when
the application approaches simple LEFM, is to omit p completely. Because ",/ (or % for the
1.8
1.8
1.4
,%
[ ~ * DSS,Ib
a 0.8
0.6-
0.4 . . . . , . . . . , . . . .
0 5 10 15
A a Ilmmm
FIG. 6---An example of energy dissipation rate, D, versus crack growth with the derived steady-
state component extrapolated back to zero growth as a lower bound. (Based on the same data as
Fig. 4.)
! ddi~
-----*--- 0dis, ]b
1
0 . . . . I . . . . I
0 5 10 15
&a mm
FIG. 7---An example of an experimental Jais-R curve and a lower estimate to it based on the lower
bound shown in Fig. 6.
side-grooved case) has been identified with G, then the value of ~/Ifound in full yield with high
constraint seems appropriate to plane strain LEFM. If ~/were identified with I, then because
the value of I with plasticity is system-dependent, the experimental value of ~/from a fully
plastic test should perhaps be reduced in the ratio of Eq 1 lb used with test piece values of "q/
Eq 1 lb used with system corrected values of "q. Note that in the only known evaluations of
SIRED [17] ~ was not found by equating it to I because the role of the ~ystem dependence of
I on the R curve needs further study; the accuracy of finding -/as a smal[coml~onent of Eq 17
was poor.
An alternative approach is to use the COA arguments (Eq 24). Because LEFM in plane strain
contains a buried Prandtl field, the value of e~ would be retained whereas L is again reduced to
L o. It is recalled that a is smaller than %~ and that, just as for the SIRED bounds, the small
growth regime of high COA is neglected. Thus further conservatism is introduced but again
without formal assurance of being a lower bound in the LEFM regime.
General Discussion
Discussion is restricted to a reminder of the limitations of the modeling, paucity of experi-
mental data available, and the approximations used in moving away from the basic model.
The basic model uses only conservation of energy. Subject to unwitting errors, it must be
correct but, by its nature, can only provide a framework for the analysis of fracture. It cannot
in itself provide a criterion for growth. The framework has been set up for large crack growth
in fully plastic deep notch bending in rep material.
Only two sets of data relevant to some aspects of the model are known in the literature
[8,9 ], other than that produced in house [4,6,7] and now being published [17,25 ]. Clearly other
data need analyzing in the way proposed if the model is to be properly substantiated or repu-
diated. In that context, note that a different, more micro approach to dissipation rate has been
discussed [26-28].
Small growth and initiation have not been discussed, partly because of lack of data and partly
because the modeling was started in the steady-state regime of large growth. An extension of
the arguments to small growth and the possibility of interpreting a J-type R curve, similar to
Eq 12 but with "q omitted from each step, d J, as a lower-bound curve for various different cases
is foreseen in Ref 29. Meanwhile, initiation has been accepted through a conventional use of
Ji formalized as J~c although it is accepted that recent moves to express a dependence on
constraint [1,2 ] are not inconsistent in any way with the present analysis for large growth.
Conclusions
It is argued that, despite or rather because of including both plasticity and fracture, dwd,J
Bda has a physical significance. Thus dJdls has a direct physical meaning that other formulations
of JR do not retain, because they violate conservation of energy for rep material.
It is a separate argument whether the energy dissipation rate, D, is useful in engineering
practice. For the steady-state or large-growth regime (not clearly defined but after some 5 or
10% growth) D has been split into areal and volumetric components. These show the cause
and nature of the geometry dependence of R curves, but there is still the likelihood that the
specific intensities of rates of energy dissipation, SIRED, are configuration-dependentthrough
constraint, so that fully plastic R curves are not directly transferable to other cases.
The SIRED terms have been related to the COA model for side-grooved deep notch bending
from which it appears that use of one rather than the other is a matter of convenience. Thus
COA is as likely to be constraint-dependent as are SIRED so that either can be used as a
criterion of fracture only on a lower-bound basis.
Conditional lower-bound Jdls curves for large growth have been proposed so that fully plastic
data can be used for application in contained yield; the fully plastic high constraint case must
be reduced by the load factor, Lo/L, for use in contained yield.
The problem of small growth, the so-called J-controlled regime, has not been directly
addressed. The steady-state or large-growth data have been extended to cover that regime in a
lower-bound sense, but an improved lower bound for small growth is foreseen.
Acknowledgments
The writer is happy to acknowledge an award by the Leverhulme Trust, London, under which
this work was prepared for publication.
References
[1 ] Hancock, J. W., Reuter, W. G., and Parks, D. M., in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171,
[2] O'Dowd, N. P. and Shih, S. F., "Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics: Theory and Applications,"
in this volume, pp. 21-47.
[3] Turner, C. E., in Fracture Behaviour and Design of Materials and Structures; (ECF 8), D. Firrao,
Ed., EMAS, Warley, U.K., 1990, Vol. II, Pt. i, pp. 933-949 and Pt. ii, pp. 951-968.
[4] Turner, C. E. and Braga, L., in Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American Society
[5 ] John, S. J., "Tearing Tougliness and Unstable Ductile Behaviour of a Titanium Alloy," Ph.D. thesis,
University of London, England, 1986.
[6 ] John, S. J. and Turner, C. E., in Defect Assessment in Components; Fundamentals and Applications,
(ESIS/EGF Pub 9), J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., Mechanical Engineering Publications,
London, 1991, pp. 299-318.
[7] Braga, L. and Turner, C. E., in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium (Volume 1), ASTM
STP 1131, H. A. Ernst, A. Saxena, and D. L. McDowell, Eds., American Society for Testing and
[8] Watson, T. J. and Jolles, M. I., in Fracture Mechanics: Seventeenth Volume, ASTM STP 905, J. H.
Underwood, R. Chait, C. W. Smith, D. P. Wilhem, W. A. Andrews, and J. C. Newman, Eds.,
[9] Mecklenburg, M. F., Joyce, J. A., and Albrecht, P., in Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics: Vol. II
Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 995, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1988, pp. 594-612.
[10] Ernst, H., in Elastic-Plastic Fracture (Second Symposium), ASTM STP 803(1), S. F. Shih and J. P.
Gudas, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. (1)191-(1)213.
[11] Rice, J. R., Druggan, W. J., and Sham, T-L., in Fracture Mechanics (Twelfth Conference), ASTM
STP 700, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1980, pp. 189-221.
[12] Etemad, M. R. and Turner, C. E., in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-First Symposium, ASTM STP
1074, J. P. Gudas, J. A. Joyce, and E. M. Hackett, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
[13] Latzko, D. G. H., Turner, C. E., Landes, J. D., McCabe, D. E., and Hellen, T. K., Post-yieldFracture
Mechanics, 2nd ed., Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1984, Chap. 5.
[14] Guiu, F. and Stevens, R. N., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 52, 1991, pp. 1-18.
[15] Etemad, M. R. and Turner, C. E., in Fracture Mechanics; Seventeenth Volume, ASTM STP 905, J.
H. Underwood, R. Chait, C. W. Smith, D. P. Wilhem, W. A. Andrews, and J. C. Newman, Eds.,
[16] Shih, C. F., Delorenzi, H. G., and Andrews, W. R., in Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668, J.
D. Landes and J. A. Begley, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1979,
pp. 65-120.
[17] Dagbasi, M. and Turner, C. E., "Fully Plastic Ductile Tearing of HY130 Steel," Journal of Strain
Analysis, submitted for publication.
[18] Ernst, H., in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium (Volume 1), ASTM STP 1131, H. A.
Ernst, A. Saxena, and D. L. McDowell, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1992, pp. 136-157.
[19] Turner• C. E.• `À Re•ati•nship Between R-Curves in C•ntained and Unc•ntajned Yie•d••• in Fracture
Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium (Volume 1), ASTM STP 1131, H. A. Ernst, A. Saxena, and
D. L. McDowell, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 71-92.
[20] Hellman, D. and Schwalbe, K.-H., in Fracture Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 833,
R. J. Sanford, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1984, pp. 577~505.
[21 ] Cardinal, J. W. and Kanninen, M. F., in Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics: Vol. ll--Elastic-Plastic
Fracture, ASTM STP 995, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 320-
329.
[22] Dagbasi, M., "An Engineering Analysis of Cracked Bodies Using the J-Integral," Ph.D. thesis,
University of London, England, 1989.
[23] Ernst, H. A., Paris, P. C., and Landes, J. D., in Fracture Mechanics (Thirteenth Conference), ASTM
STP 743, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1981, pp. 476-502.
[24] K••ednik• O.• ``L•ading C•nditi•ns May •n•uence the Shape •f J-Aa Curves••• Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 41, 1992, pp. 251-255.
[25] Li, Z. F. and Turner, C. E., "A Crack Opening Angle and Dissipation Rate Analysis of R-Curves
for Side Grooved Pieces of HY130 Steel," Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 28, 1993, pp. 5922-
5930.
[26] Stfiwe, H. P., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 13, 1980, pp. 231-236.
[27] Saka, M., Shoji, T., Takahashi, H., and Abe, H., in Elastic-Plastic Fracture (Second Symposium),
ASTM STP 803(I), S. F. Shih and J. P. Gudas, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1983, pp. (1)130-(1)158.
[28] Kolednik, O. and Turner, C. E., "A Micro- and Macro-Scale Description of the Crack Growth
Resistance," in Proceedings of the 25th Conference of DVM Working Group on Fracture Mechanics,
Deuscher Verband Fiir Material Forschung Und-PrOfurg E. V., 1993, pp. 395-403.
[29] Turner, C. E., "Energy Dissipation Rate, CTOA and J-Integral Models of R-Curves," Pressure
Vessels and Piping, Vol. 250, 1993, pp. 19-34.
[30] McCabe, D. E. and Heyer, R. H., in Fracture Toughness Evaluation by R-Curve Methods, ASTM
STP 527, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1973.
[31 ] Braga, L. and Turner, C. E., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 65, No. 31, Feb. 1994, pp. R43-
R48.
A. Toshimitsu Yokobori, Jr., 1 Tadao Iwadate, 2 and Takeshi lsogai 3
Dislocation Emission and Dynamics Under the

Stress Singularity at the Crack Tip and Its
Application to the Dynamic Loading Effect on
Fracture Toughness
REFERENCE: Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Iwadate, T., and Isogai, T., "Dislocation Emission and
Dynamics Under the Stress Singularity at the Crack Tip and Its Application to the Dynamic
Loading Effect on Fracture Toughness," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM
STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society
ABSTRACT: In previous work, computer simulation of dislocation emission and motion was
carried out considering the stress singularity near the crack tip. It was found that there is a region
in which no dislocation exists along the slip plane near the stressed source, namely, a dislocation
free zone (DFZ), and that there is an inverse pileup of dislocations against the tip of this DFZ.
A formula was obtained correlating the maximum dislocation density with the DFZ length.
Based on those results, an evaluation has now been attempted for fracture toughness within
the brittle-ductile transition range of steel. The effect of dynamic loading on the fracture tough-
ness and trigger point observed in the experimental results reported in the literature is explained.
KEYWORDS: dislocation dynamics, dislocation free zone, stress rate dependence, stress sin-
gularity at the crack tip, inverse pileup, brittle-ductile transition, dynamic loading effect on frac-
ture toughness
In analyzing the dislocation group dynamics with emission near the crack tip, it has been
necessary to make assumptions to carry out the numerical analysis because of the difficulties
presented by convergence [1--4 ].
In our analysis, the numerical method was programmed to adjust the time increment, At,
automatically [5-9]. That is, When convergence is difficult to realize, the value of At is
decreased automatically and accuracy is maintained; when convergence is easily realized, At
is increased automatically.
Thus, computer program update (CPU) time is shortened. This method can also be used to
analyze other problems near the singularity of the stress field.
In a previous paper [10], we proposed a model in which the source emitting the dislocation
group was located very near the tip of the crack, that is, near the region of the dislocation core
size from the crack tip. Based on those results, we have now attempted to evaluate the fracture
toughness within the brittle-ductile transition range of the steel.
Dynamic loading effects on the fracture toughness and trigger point observed in experiments
reported in the literature are explained.
Associate professor, Department of Mechatronics and Precision Engineering, Tohoku University,

Aoba, Aramaki Aobaku, Sendai, Japan.
2 Japan Steel Works Ltd., Muroran Hokkaido, Japan.
3 Faculty of Science and Engineering, Teikyo University, Toyosatodai 1-1, Utsunomiya, Tochigi, Japan.
464
YOKOBORI ET AL. ON DISLOCATION EMISSION AND DYNAMICS 465
Analysis of the Proposed Model

The model proposed is shown in Fig. 1. In it, a dislocation source, S, is located at some finite
distance of x, from the crack tip. The size of x, is taken as x,/a = 10 -6, where a is half the
crack length and thus xs is on the order of 10 -6 m m for a = 1 mm. In this case, the size ofxs
corresponds to the radius of the core cut off from the dislocation. From the viewpoint of
continuum mechanics, the problem is considered as one dimensional, and the source is regarded
as being located at the crack tip. In this way, we can consider this as a reasonable model of
the dislocation emission from the source.
The stress singularity near the crack tip was considered to be under a constant rate of stress
application as follows:
"ra(x, t) = C t ( X / ~ + 1) (1)
where
~- = the increasing rate of stress application,
t = time, and
x = the distance from the crack tip.
The relation between effective stress %ff.i and dislocation velocity Vi is written for each
individual dislocation in a coplanar array of dislocation groups by the following equation:
V, : MT~f,i (2)
where
%ff,i = the effective stress exerted on each individual dislocation in terms of applied shear
stress,
m = materials constant, and
i = index number of dislocation in order of emission from the source.
M is written as
M = Vo(l]"r*o)m (3)
where
to* = specific shear stress required to move an isolated dislocation at a velocity of 1 crn/s
and
Vo = 1 cm/s.
Thus, the motion of the ith dislocation at a specified time, t, is written as
-~--M 5-t + 1-/z'[' ~x + ~

J: 1
i~j
i+~-~x~j+
Xj
lt])m
-
Xi
(4)
where
A* = ~ptb/2"rr(1 - v) for edge dislocation,

[ Ixbl2"rr for screw dislocation,
T l~ocation Source
Crack 0 ?J'J'.xnXn_
1
....... J"
J'X2 X, I'['a "=
r'i
Xs
FIG. l~Proposed model in which the source emitting the dislocation group is located at the tip
of the crack under the stress singularity.
Ix = shear modulus,
v = Poisson's ratio, and
xi = the position of the ith dislocation.
Let us use the nondimensional variables as follows:
0 = t/to (5)
si = xi/l and S~ = all (6)
where
= ~(m + 1)l~ 1/(re+l)

t~ I A'/~-J (7)
The value to corresponds to the time required for an isolated dislocation to run the distance, l,
under the specific rate, 5-0, of stress application. In the present paper 5-o and l are taken as 9.8
MPa/s and 10 -2 mm, respectively. Using the variables from Eqs 5, 6, and 7, Eq 4 is written as
follows:
{~ ( ~ a ) A* [~S/ ~ ( 1 (8)
dS---!=
0 (m + 5-0 Sa -F1----*oto 1 ~- J = 1 "Si-]- V ~ i S ~-
t~j
The calculation was programmed to adjust the time increment At automatically [5-10] as
follows: when the convergence of a numerical solution is difficult to realize, the value of At is
decreased automatically and accuracy is maintained. On the other hand, when the convergence
is easily realized, At is increased automatically and CPU time is shortened. Thus, this method
can be used to analyze other problems near the singularity of the stress field or in the case of
a larger number of dislocations emitted from the source. Details of this analysis are shown in
our previous papers [5-10].
The materials constants [11-15] used are shown in Table 1.
TABLE I--Mechanical constants usedfor calculations.

Material m %*, MPa I~, MPa
Ge 1.46 835.0 4.903 x 104

Fe..... 2.6 490.0 7.943 x 104
Fe~dg~ 3.0 53.9 7.943 • 104
W23g-2 4.0 548.8 1.549 • 105
W 4.8 307.7 1.549 • 105
Mo 6.4 53.9 1.254 • 105
Results of the Analysis
The Effect of Stress Rate ~"on the Dynamic Behavior of Dislocations Emitted
Typical distributions of dislocations emitted from the source near the crack tip are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3 for pure iron. These are for t / t o = 1.0 and, 102, respectively, and for the emitted
dislocations number, n, of 30. The dislocation free zone (DFZ) in which no dislocations exist
along the slip plane can be seen in both figures.
From Figs. 2 and 3 it can be seen that when the dislocations are emitted dynamically, the
inverse pileup of dislocations occurs against the end of the DFZ as suggested previously [8].
With an increased stress rate, the length of the DFZ SDF (XDF) becomes smaller and the max-
imum dislocation density fa . . . . becomes larger. That is, the length of the DFZ, SDF, and the
behavior of the inverse pileup of dislocations are affected dynamically by the stress application
rate. The relation between SDF and the stress rate r for n = 30 for pure iron is shown in Fig.
4.
The relation between SOF and the maximum dislocation density, f~ ..... is shown in Fig. 5
obtained by performing a computer simulation for various materials and stress rates. This
relation is approximately expressed by the following formula:
1
- 5.8l • S~,v~ (nondimensional) (9a)
fd'max--Sn_l--Sn
--0.694
1
J~dd,rnax ~- -8.0• 105 ( - ~ ) (mm, dimensional) (9b)
Xn - l -- Xn
where S n and X, are nondimensional and dimensional positions of the latest dislocation emitted
that is the nearest one from the source. Note that, althoughfa ..... as the degree of the inverse
pileup of dislocations, is affected by the stress rate as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, yet fd,~x is also
expressed approximately in terms of SoF or XDV as shown by Eq 9.
The Effect of Materials Constants on the Dynamic Behavior of Dislocations Emitted

The relation between SDF and the maximum dislocation density fa .... is shown in Fig. 5 for
various materials. Even though materials constants take various values, f~ .... is also approxi-
mately expressed by Eq 9.
From the results mentioned above, with increased stress rate, or for the case of brittle mate-
rials (that is, materials with a small value of la/'r*), the inverse pileup of dislocations against
the end of the DFZ becomes more considerable, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6a. For these cases,
fracture will occur in the DFZ when the local stress ~t in this region reaches a critical value,
20 I I I i I I I
Fe edge "[" / ~'o = 1.0

15 - Xsla =10 -6 -
10 N =30
fd,max
0 12, I I ----
I I I
0 2.0 S4.0 6.0
FIG. 2--Typical example of the distribution of dislocation density, fd, along the slip plane (for
lower stress rate).
251 i i i
I fd,E]x
~or\ t,to-,O ~-
N - S O _
/ dislocation
I /free zone
01~ i I l
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
S
FIG.3--Typical example of the distribution of dislocation density, fd, along the slip plane (for
higher stress rate).
Y O K O B O R I ET AL. ON DISLOCATION EMISSION A N D D Y N A M I C S 469
10 I I I I I
Fe edge X s / a = 10-6
N=30
I.L
a
u~
10-1
_ 0 ~ ~ _
16 2 I I I I " I
1 10 10 2 103 1 04
t/to
FIG. 4---The effect of stress rate on DFZ length, SD~.
1000 I I I
Xs/a =10 -6 N =30
Symbol Material "~l-iS
]
,'k Ge
100 9 Fe s~r~,
x 9 W.0-z 10
~7 W
E 9 Mo
"O
,.1-,. 9 1
O 10
[] Fe Q~go 10 z
9 1 03
10 - ~0~ m 0 1 04
I t I !
0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100
SoF
FIG. 5--The relation between maximum dislocation density, fd. . . . and the DFZ length, Sop
fd
TI
>
'['t ( t , .... ) = Const. q i = L~,2 ~-t~

FIG. 6(a)--The characteristics of the inverse pileup of dislocations against the tip of the DFZ
showing the effects of stress rate and the materials constant Iffr
and the brittle fracture strength will decrease with an increased stress application rate as a result
of the dynamic effect shown schematically in Fig. 6b. Because local stress around the end of
the DFZ, T1becomes large as a result of the high concentration of dislocation density, fd ..... at
the end of the DFZ [16-18].
Brittle Fracture Trigger Point

The experimental results on the trigger point for the brittle fracture within the brittle-ductile
transition region obtained by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) 129 Committee
FIG. 6(b)--The effect of stress rate r on the brittle fracture strength 7f by this inverse pileup
model when the critical local stress criterion is used. A fracture criterion is the local stress "g =
constant.
,4a~Trigger poim
Fat-igue~ cleavagefracture
crack ~ L
SZW Stablecrack
FIG. 7(a)--Schematic illustration of the trigger point in the brittle fracture of steel [19].
Round Robin Test [19] are shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7a, X denotes the distance of the fracture
trigger point from the crack tip. It was found that the distance X scatters in the range of from
approximately 10 to 200 txm within the brittle-ductile transition region as shown in Fig. 7b. In
the case of a low value of X, say, the order of 10 tzm, brittleness appears to be more significant
[19]. The order of this value of X is almost equal to that of the DFZ length obtained as
mentioned above. Thus, fracture is considered to occur within the DFZ by high stress concen-
tration as a result of the dynamic inverse pileup of dislocations within the DFZ and is controlled
by the mechanism proposed above.
On the other hand, when the distance of the trigger point from the crack tip is great, say, on
the order of 200 vm, X tends to become longer with increased temperature, and fracture
becomes more ductile [20]. In this case, dislocations move easily because resistant stress
decreases. Therefore, another fracture mechanism will be prevalent: fracture is controlled by
(]9)
E 41-
o"
.-} j ~
oj
o o ~ o
Tee! lemperalure, "C
O --130
9 --1OO
e --1OO
I, I
(wilh s|able crack)
O 1OO 200 3OO
•
FIG. 7(b)--The experimental relation between fracture toughness Jc and the distance X of the
trigger point from the tip of the crack (stable crack) by JSPS Round Robin Test [ 19].
stress concentration as a result of a dynamic pileup of emitted dislocations against the grain
boundary or some other obstacle, as calculated previously by computer simulation [7-9]. From
the analysis, the dynamic stress intensity factor Ka(t) has been obtained near the pileup point
as shown in Fig. 8 [8,9]. It was found that Kd(t) can be represented by a function of stress rate,
r grain size, d, time, t, and the materials constants as Eq 10 [8,9].
K.(,) [ ( / -"~
Ks(t-----
~ = 1.0 - L2"35 -- 0.581m T M \~*o*] \'-~--]
X / 1/(m+ 1,]
(0"0458m-- 1"19)•
(b)('+J)/(m+2)]exp[ (5"tirol(m+2)(
\~oo]
wOt
\(m~] _] (10)
where Ks(t) = ~ (5"0 (statical stress intensity factor) [8].

If fracture occurs when Kd(0 reaches a critical value, fracture strength is obtained. It increases
with an increase in stress rate [8]. This characteristic is in accord with the usual data on the
dynamic fracture strength for ductile materials [8]. In this case, the distance of the trigger point
from the crack tip takes the equivalent order to grain size. It may be necessary to analyze the
matter stochastically to get the exact value of X based on this mechanism. Nevertheless, it was
found that the trigger point is located at a distance equal to or greater than the order of grain
size from the crack tip. Thus, the fracture mechanism for a large value of X occurs in the ducdle
fd 2
XS J.i i i • i • I J- •
d X
Kd =,/'2 ]r ( x - d ) ~(x,t)l,.
Kd ( 2-,d ," "")= Kcrit.
-t'f Tf
J
~. dI12
FIG. 8--A model for fracture by dynamic pileup of dislocations against the grain boundary
[8-9].
manner. For this case, dislocation mobility is large and fracture will be controlled by dynamic
pileup against the grain boundary model of dislocation groups as shown in Fig. 8.
Based on the above data concerning the fracture in the brittle-ductile transition region, two
fracture mechanisms, represented by Figs. 6 and 8, are considered to be involved. That is, these
phenomena may result in a large scatter of fracture toughness and the location of the trigger
point in the transition temperature range.
This analysis of the DFZ as well as our previous analysis [8,9] on dynamic behavior of the
dislocation group pileup against the grain boundary may support the theoretical foundation of
the fracture mechanism in brittle-ductile transition. Furthermore, they may contribute to the
estimation of brittleness and ductility of materials, that is, the DFZ and the maximum dislocation
density will be characterizing parameters for brittleness and ductility of materials.
Application to the Dynamic Loading Effect on Fracture Toughness Within the

Transition Region in Steel
The effect of the stress rate in terms of the stress intensity factor, K, on fracture toughness
is shown in Figs. 9 and 10 for the JSPS 129 Committee Round Robin Test [20]. Figure 9 shows
that, under the condition of T 3 (-50~ fracture toughness Kjo decreases with increased stress
rate. These characteristics are similar to the proposed theoretical results shown in Fig. 6b. On
the other hand, under the condition of T4 (-25~ the material becomes more ductile because
the resistant stress for dislocation motion becomes smaller.
In this case, Kjc increases with an increased stress rate as shown in Fig. 10. These charac-
teristics are similar to the proposed theoretical results shown in Fig. 8.
Accordingly, within the transition region, transition of the fracture mechanism was found to
occur from that affected by the DFZ (Fig. 6b) to that of the dislocation pileup against the grain
boundary (Fig. 8) when temperature increases from - 5 0 to -25~
Jlr
(IT<T)
0
300 -500C
cO
n.
200
0
J
~9
0 It,,
I00 0 o
~O~ O
01 ~l)' I , I I
10 4 10 5 10 6
~<, Mpa~-~/ see
FIG. 9--The relation between fracture toughness and stress rate in terms of the stress intensity
factor at - 5 0 ~ (T3).
600
~00 -25~ (CW)

g~
D~ o
JIG
(IT-C;')
G
o o
J
200 o J
J
8 1
0 I I , I I
103 10 4 10 5 i0 6
K, Mpa ~'m/ sec
FIG. lO--The relation between fracture toughness and stress rate in terms of the stress intensity
factor at -25~ (T4).
The stress intensity factor at the tip of the crack or slip band is derived by using the dislocation
distribution function o f f as follows [16-18]:
K = lim "rrAN/~r I f ( x + r)J (11)

r--~O
The maximum density of the dislocation distribution near the tip of the DFZ, fd . . . . is
expressed by Eq 9.
Therefore, fa . . . . is written as
....
Substituting Eq 12 into Eq 11, we get
(13)
where Kd is the apparent dynamic stress intensity factor.

Ka is given by Eq 14 [16-18]
Kd = lim 7rA2N,'2-~r ~ol -- V/~da tr/ (14)

r~O
where or/is fracture stress and A = p,b/27r(1 - v).
Assuming fracture occurs when the stress intensity factor at the tip of the crack, K, by Eq
13 takes some critical value, Kc, we get
/\ ' b ,0.694
-. : "~
If we assume that XDF corresponds to the distance from the trigger point to the crack tip, X,
Eq 15 is written as
+0.694
Kd = Kc ( - ~-2) -~. KcX0"694 (16)
Experimental results, especially those of Iwadate et al. [20], were replotted as the relation
between K~ (Kjo) and the trigger point distance, X, as shown in Fig. 11. From this result, Kd
has the monotonic characteristic of the 0.7 power law of X under low temperatures ( - 5 0 and
- 100~ and various stress rates. This characteristic is in good agreement with the theoretical
equation, Eq 16, based on Eq 9 obtained by this computer simulation of the dislocation motion
for brittle fracture, that is, the DFZ concept.
The range of Xov, contained in Eq 16, in good agreement with the experimental data as
shown in Fig. 11, is rather larger for the straightforward meaning of XoF. The problem will
have to be studied in the future, including detailed development of a model.
1000
Characteritics
of X"' J
o:/
J~ -oJ
,.,
9-~
/,, Q
Ooo
~
O- o/Oj osta0,.oadio - s0"<
[] static LOaOltg
~1~ ~ Q / z~Dynamic Loading -50=C
/ o Impact Loading -50*C
/ [] Static Load!ng -75*0
[] Static Loading 100*C
e Impact Loading -100~
I I
10 0 100 1000
X , jam
FIG. 11--The relation between fracture toughness and the trigger point for low temperature ( - 5 0 ~
and -IO0~ and various stress rates.
Conclusions
A model with stress singularity at the crack tip is proposed in which the source emitting
dislocation group is located near the crack tip. A new fracture criterion for brittle fracture is
derived assuming critical local stress requisite within a DFZ, where high stress concentration
is induced by dynamic inverse pileup of dislocations. Furthermore, the explanation has been
attempted for the brittle-ductile transition range. Detailed results obtained are as follows:
(I) The maximum dislocation density, fa .... caused by the inverse pileup of dislocations
against the tip of the DFZ is approximately correlated with the length of DFZ, SDF, by
the following formula:
fd.... = 8"0 X 105 X (~-~) -0"694
(2) With an increased stress application rate and a decrease in the value of W/'r* (less ductility
materials), the dislocation pileup at the tip of the DFZ becomes more significant. The
DFZ length, XoF, and the maximum dislocation density,fa ..... obtained will be the char-
acterizing parameters for the brittleness of materials.
(3) Based on these results, a new fracture criterion for brittle fracture is proposed assuming
a critical local stress requisite within the DFZ, where high stress concentration is induced
by the dynamic inverse pileup of dislocations.
(4) In the brittle-ductile transition region, the value of the distance, X, of the trigger point
from the crack tip scatters widely in the range of 10 ~ 200 Ixm. For the range of the
small values of X, it is almost equal to the DFZ length obtained by this analysis. Thus,
for this case, fracture may be controlled by the inverse pileup mechanism against the tip
of the DFZ. For the range of the larger value of X, fracture may be controlled by the
dynamic pileup of emitted dislocations against the grain boundary. Scatter of fracture
toughness and the distance of the trigger point from the crack tip may be caused by these
two fracture mechanisms. Both the analysis of the DFZ and the dynamic behavior of
dislocation pileup against the grain boundary may support the theoretical foundation of
the fracture mechanism in the brittle-ductile transition.
(5) The theoretical results obtained by this analysis are applicable to, and in good agreement
with, the experimental results obtained on the dynamic loading effect on fracture tough-
ness in the brittle and brittle-ductile transition region of steel. Furthermore, the theoretical
relation between fracture toughness and the trigger point is in good agreement with the
experimental relation as the law of X ~ The problem requires further study including
detailed development of the model.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by research grants from the Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture of Scientific Research on Priority Areas "Advanced Inorganic Materials Mechanical
Properties."
References
[1] Lin, I. H. and Thomson, R., Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 34, 1986, p. 187.
[2] Zhao, R. H., Dai, S.-H., and Li, J. C. M., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 29, 1983, p. 3.
[3] Hirsch, P. B, Bulletin of the Japan Institute of Metals, Vol. 29, 1990, p. 5.
[4 ] Hirsch, P. B., Roberts, S. G., Samuels, J., and Warren, P. D., Advances in FractureResearch, ICF7,
K. Salama et al., Eds., 1989, p. 139.
[5] Yokobori, T., Yokobori, A. T., Jr., and Kamei, A., Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 39, 1974, p. 367.
[6] Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Yokobori, T., and Kamei, A., Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 46, 1975, p.
3720.
[7] Yokobori, T. and Yokobori, A. T., Jr., "Physical Non Linearities in Structural Analysis," IUTAM
Symposium, J. Hult and J. Lemaitre, Eds., Springer, Berlin, 1981, p. 271.
[8] Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Yokobori, T., and Nishi, H., "Macro- and Micro-Mechanics of High Velocity
Deformation and Fracture," 1UTAM Symposium, Kawata and J. Shioiri, Eds., Springer, Berlin, 1985,
p. 149.
[9] Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Isogai, T., Nishi, H., and Kako, T., Transactions of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Vol. A-56, 1990, p. 1570.
[10] Yokobori, A. T., Jr., Isogai, T., and Yokobori, T., Acts Metallic Materials, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1993, p.
1405.
[11 ] Chaudhuri, A. R., Patel, J. R., and Robin, L. F., Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 33, 1962, p. 2736.
[12] Saka, H., Noda, K., and Imura, T., Crystal Lattice Defects, Vol. 4, 1973, p. 45.
[13] Turner, A. P. L. and Vreeland, T., Jr., Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 18, 1970, p. 1255.
[14] Schadler, H. W., Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 12, 1964, p. 861.
[15] Prekel, H. I., Lawyer, A., and Conrad, H., Acta MetaUurgica, Vol. 16, 1968, p. 337.
[16] Yokobori, T., The Strength of Material (Zairyo Kyodogaku in Japanese), Iwanami Publishers, 1974,
p. 158.
[17] Yokobori, T., Uozumi, M., and Ichikawa, M., Report of the Research Institute of Strength and
Fracture of Materials, Tohoku University, Vol. 7, 1971, pp. 25-47.
[18] Yokobori, T., Ohashi, M., and Ichikawa, M., Report of the Research Institute of Strength and Frac-
ture of Materials, Tohoku University, Vol. 1, 1965, pp. 33-39.
[19] Watanabe, J., Iwadate, T., Tanaka, Y., and Yokobori, T., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28,
1987, p. 589.
[20] Iwadate, T., Kusuhashi, M., and Tanaka, Y., "Effect of Strain Rate on Small Specimen Fracture
Toughness in the Transition Region," in this volume, pp. 325-341.
High Temperature Effects
A s h o k Saxena, 1 Koichi Yagi, 2 a n d M a s a k i Tabuchi 2
Crack Growth Under Small Scale and

Transition Creep Conditions in Creep-Ductile
Materials
REFERENCE: Saxena, A., Yagi, K., and Tabuchi, M., "Crack Growth Under Small Scale
and Transition Creep Conditions in Creep-Ductile Materials," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-
ABSTRACT: The C, parameter has been proposed for characterizing creep crack growth rate
in the small scale to extensive creep regimes. In this paper, creep crack growth data from compact
specimens ranging in widths from 50.8 to 254 mm and in thickness from 63.5 to 6.3 mm are
analyzed to evaluate the C, parameter. A second objective is to use the load-line deflection rate
data obtained during these tests to evaluate the expressions used for estimating C, in components.
These expressions use creep deformation data obtained from uniaxial specimens for estimating
C t9
The analysis of the above data clearly shows that C, may be used to characterize creep crack
growth rate data over a wide range of deformation conditions. For 12.7-mm thick specimens, C,
failed to characterize the creep crack growth rate during the first 1 mm of crack extension. It is
further shown that the expressions used for estimating C, in components are reasonably accurate
in the small scale creep region but are not accurate in the extensive creep region. The measured
values of load-line deflection rates in the extensive creep region lay between the predicted values
based on the assumptions of plane stress and plane strain.
KEYWORDS: creep, crack, Cr-Mo-V steel, C* integral, C, parameter
In several components of power plants such as high pressure steam turbine rotors and steam
headers and pressure vessels and piping in the petrochemical industry, crack growth under
creep conditions is a design as well as an operating concern. Typically, these components are
large, and they are difficult and expensive to inspect during service. This leaves the possibility
of some flaws escaping detection. Therefore, a damage-tolerant approach is being used for
design and for specifying inspection criteria for continued safe operation during service. One
of the steps in damage tolerance analysis of high temperature components is the prediction of
their creep crack growth behavior.
The creep crack growth behavior is typically characterized by using laboratory size compact
type (CT) specimens that are about 50 mm (2 in.) wide or smaller. The creep crack growth in
these specimens occurs under dominantly extensive creep conditions and can be characterized
by the C* integral [1-3]. On the other hand, components can be much larger, and there can be
significant differences between the scale of creep deformation that accompanies small labora-
tory specimens used in creep crack growth studies and relatively large engineering components.
1Professor and director, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332-0245.
2 Director and researcher, respectively, National Research Institute of Metals, Environmental Perfor-
mance Division, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan.
481
In the large components that are designed to resist creep deformation, crack growth can occur
under a combination of small-scale creep, transition creep, and also extensive creep conditions.
During small-scale creep and transition creep conditions (also known as the transient con-
ditions), the crack tip creep zone expands with time, which results in transient crack tip stress
fields [4-6]. The C* integral under these conditions is shown to be path-dependent [6], and its
value taken along a path remote from the crack tip is not uniquely related to the crack tip stress
fields as is the case during extensive creep conditions. Therefore, the applicability of the C*
integral for transferring the creep crack growth behavior measured from laboratory specimens
to predict the behavior of large components is limited. Saxena [7] has introduced the C, param-
eter, which is defined in the small scale and the transition creep regime and becomes equal by
definition to the C* integral in the extensive creep regime. C, also has the added feature that it
is defined for any type of material constitutive law including secondary creep [7], primary
creep [8,9], tertiary creep [10] and their combinations, and it can always be measured at the
load-points in cracked bodies.
Because of the lack of creep crack growth rate data from large specimens, the concept of
the C, has not been subjected to extensive experimental verification for characterizing creep
crack growth in the small-scale creep and the transition creep regime. Recently, the National
Research Institute for Metals (NRIM) of Japan conducted a series of creep crack growth rate
tests on a 1 Cr-lMo-0.25V steel using compact specimens that were 254 mm (10 in.) wide
[11,12 ]. Companion tests were also conducted on specimens which were 50.8 mm (2 in.) wide
for comparison. Also, specimen thickness ranging from 6.25 to 63.5 mm (0.25 to 2.5 in.) were
tested. Creep deformation data from the test material were also obtained. This unique set of
experimental data is analyzed in this paper to address several important issues such as (1) the
usefulness of C, for uniquely characterizing creep crack growth in the small-scale, transition,
and extensive creep regimes, (2) to assess the accuracy of the currently available approaches
for estimating C, in engineering components, and (3) recommendations for future analytical
work.
Description of Experimental Data

The available experimental data and the test parameters are briefly described in this section.
For more details about the experiments, the readers are referred to earlier published work
[11,12].
The specimens were machined from a large cylindrical forging made to ASTM Standard
A470 Class 8 from a 1 Cr-lMo-0.25V steel. The tensile properties of the test material at 538~
or 1000~ (the primary test temperature) are given in Table 1. Creep deformation tests were
conducted at five stress levels ranging from 235 to 392 MPa (34 to 56.8 ksi) at 538~ (1000~
Creep strains were monitored continuously during the tests and are plotted in Fig. 1. The
following equation was fitted to represent the creep data in the primary and secondary creep
regime [13]
= Ale-Pcr '~cl+p) + Act" (1)
TABLE 1--Tensile properties of the test material. ~
Temperature, ~ cry,, MPa D ~, MPa-" m -~ E, MPa
538 447.9 1.05 X 10 -43 15.2 172480
"% = Do m, where % = plastic strain.
S A X E N A ET AL. ON C R A C K G R O W T H 483
0,04
9 343 MPa
9 392 MPa
9 304 MPa
0 03 e 275 MPa
' 9 235 MPa
Predicted 9
._ 9 tt
0,02
03
0,01
0,00
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time, h
FIG. l ~ r e e p strain as a function of time at various stress levels. The lines represent predicted
values from Eq 2.
where tr = stress, e = strain, d = strain rate, A~ = primary creep coefficient, p = primary

creep-hardening exponent, nl = primary creep exponent, A = secondary creep coefficient, and
n = secondary creep exponent. Table 2 gives the values of the creep constants obtained from
the regression analysis of the data. Equation 1 can be integrated in time to represent strain
versus time (t) as follows
= [(1 + p)A~t]'~+P~tr "~ + Atr"t (2)
The predicted values of strain as a function of time from Eq 2 are plotted in Fig. 1 along with
the measured values. The excellent agreement between the data and the predicted trends indi-
cates the ability of Eq 2 to represent the creep deformation behavior. Also, the primary creep
deformation seems significant in this material.
Table 3 lists the conditions of the various creep crack growth tests conducted at 538~
(1000~ including the sizes of the various specimens tested, the amounts of side grooves,
initial crack size, loads, and the initial stress intensity parameter, K, levels. The test duration
of each of these tests is given in Table 4. The crack extension was measured by the electric
potential drop technique, and several of the tested specimens showed considerable creep defor-
TABLE 2--Creep constants at 538~
A1 = 1.49 • 10 -3~ (for or in MPa and time in hours)

nI = 3.54
p = 1.551
A = 9.51 • 10 -41 (for or in MPa and time in hrs)
n = 14.35
TABLE 3 Summary of all test parameters.
Initial K,
Specimens B, mm B~, mm W, mm P, kN MPa.m2
VAH1 64.0 47.5 254.05 308.5 111.3

VAH2 63.5 47.62 254.00 264.23 96.0
VAH5 63.5 63.5 254.00 152.45 55.0
VAH9 12.71 9.30 253.78 56.10 101.9
VAH10 12.7 9.525 254.00 65.5 118.9
VAH2 25.379 19.202 50.786 29.33 54.77
VA6 25.369 19.051 50.864 24.02 50.10
VB3 12.726 9.552 50.839 15.64 63.69
VA4 12.739 9.292 50.834 13.91 57.21
VA1 12.723 9.543 50.76 11.01 45.27
VA7 6.277 4.56 50.786 6.6 56.24
VA9 6.279 4.63 50.805 5.5 47.38
VB2 6.326 6.326 50.853 8.209 55.85
mation along the crack plane. Figure 2 shows the post-test thickness along the crack plane as
a function of crack extension. It is observed that the thickness along the crack plane did not
change significantly for the 63.5-mm (2.5-in.) thick specimens, which were 254 mm (10 in.)
wide. On the other hand, the thickness reduced to as much as 40% of its initial value for the
6.35-mm (0.25-in.) thick specimen without side grooves. For other tests, varying amounts of
thickness changes occurred.
A computer program was developed to analyze the data. The expressions used in the com-
puter program for estimating C* and C, are given elsewhere [9].

In a previous analysis of this data by NRIM researchers [11,12], several conclusions were
reached about the creep crack growth behavior in the extensive creep regime. These are briefly
summarized: (1) in the extensive creep region, the da/dt versus C* relationship is not influenced
by the width of the specimen; (2) the creep crack growth rate for the same value of C* seems
to increase with the specimen thickness as the thickness is varied from 6.35 to 63.5 mm (0.25
to 2.5 in.); and (3) the crack growth rate in the 6.35-mm (0.25-in.) plane-sided specimens (no
side grooves) appears to be comparable to crack growth rates in the side-grooved specimens
of the same nominal thickness. Our analysis of the data confirms the above results; therefore,
this aspect of our analysis will not be repeated here. Instead, we will focus our discussion on
the creep crack growth behavior during small-scale and transition creep, which was not con-
sidered in the NRIM analysis of the data.
Estimation of Transition Time

We begin by discussing a criterion for determining which portion of the test data from the
large specimens lies in the small-scale and transition creep regimes. Transition time (tr) is
defined as per Riedel and Rice [5] and Obji et al. [4] asthe time at which the amplitude of the
crack tip stress field as estimated from the small-scale creep analysis becomes equal to C*. For
t > > tr, extensive creep conditions are expected to prevail, and for t < < tr, small scale creep
conditions are expected to prevail. The following expressions have been derived for estimating
TABLE 4---Estimates of transition times. Refer to Table 3 for sizes of the various specimens and the initial load levels.
trs, h tTe, h
Specimen
Identification t, h phr pie phr pie tre, h maT, m m
VAH1 11 5.24 1.02 • 103 3.12 4.51 96 5.632

189.5 0.010 0.576 0.134 1.53
VAH2 2.5 2.36 x 103 5.52 x 103 66.5 108 3.57
1309 2.33 1.5 2.91 2.52
VAH5 911 2.83 x 106 4.4 x 106 202 2.84 x 103 1822 4.347
VAH 9 2.5 12.5 2.36 X 103 4.61 66.5 1151 5.416
2107 0.04 2.33 0.25 2.91
VAH10 23 1.63 279 1.79 25.5 4:31
887 0.054 4.27 0.317 3.94
VA 2 15 1.04 504 2.11 31.4 145 o:95 r
275 0.012 8 1.01 0.161 2.00 >
VA 6 10 51.0 936 3.14 45.1 125 0:892 x
m
312 0.013 0.759 0.156 1.79 z
>
VB 3 5.0 0.153 25.8 0.569 8.08 i;5 11123
m
196.0 7.8 X 10 -4 0.046 0.0039 .045 "-4
VA4 35 0.515 87.8 0.966 13.8 29o 0:967 >
425 0.004 12 0.26 0.0836 0.986
1:147 0
VA 1 96 12.7 1.99 X 103 4.81 67.7 6oo Z
1087.5 0.024 1.2 0.203 2.25 0
VA 7 2 0.643 105 1.06 15.0 "26 0:737 20
>
51.0 0.012 3 0.87 0.143 1.73 0
VA9 5.0 8.46 1330 3.82 53.7 0:934
0
325.0 0.028 9 1.54 0.215 2.43
VB 2 2.3 10.5 2460 9.50 140 "60.5 1:()11 0
133.5 0.185 115.1 1.19 14.9 -'4
m
.Ix
0o
t.~
=25./.,. -
W= 254.
B -63.5
W=25Z~
o
Z B =12.7
rn ~'~ W=50.8
\ ~ B=6.35
o.6
0.4. w-50.8
B =6.35 NO S.G. 1Cr-Mo-V steel
538"C
I I I
5 10 15 20
Creep crack length, ~a (ram)
FIG. 2--Posttest measures of normalized thickness along the crack plane for various specimens.
the transition times, trs, for elastic-secondary creep materials and trp, for elastic-primary creep
materials [4,5,14].
KZ(1 - C)
trs = (3)
E(n + 1)C*
2(1 - v2)] I+p 1

try= FK
I_" ECTf J 1 +n,
(4)
where C* is obtained by substituting [(1 + p)Al] I/(I+p) in place of A and nl in place of n in the
expressions for estimating the C*-integral [14]. Equations 3 and 4 are derived for plane strain
conditions. If plane stress is assumed, the (1 - v 2) term must be replaced by I, and also the
values of C* or C* must be estimated for plane stress conditions. In Table 4, the values of trs
and trp are estimated for all tests conducted for the conditions at the beginning of the tests, and
at the end of the tests, for both plane-stress and plane-strain conditions. The transition time
varies considerably depending on the assumptions made. For example, in Specimen VAH2 the
highest estimate of transition time is 5.52 x 103 h and the lowest is only 66.5 h. The actual
test time in this specimen was 1312 h during which the crack grew more than 28 mm. Depending
on the estimate we choose, the entire crack extension can be considered to be in the small-
scale and transient creep regimes or most of it can be assumed to have occurred in the extensive
creep regime. Therefore the analytical estimates of transition times are not useful in the eval-
uation in these tests. Because of this difficulty, an experimental scheme for estimating transition
time, tre, is used in the ASTM Standard Test Method for Measurement of Creep Crack Growth
Rates in Metals (E 1457). This scheme is described and evaluated in the following discussion.
Figure 3 shows a plot of load-line deflection rate as a function of time for Specimen VAH2.
The deflection rate decreases as a function of time for approximately the first 400 h and then
begins to rise. This decrease in deflection rate is attributed to (1) small-scale and transition
creep conditions during which the creep zone expands at a rate that decreases with time and
(2) the presence of primary creep deformation in the specimens. Even though it is theoretically
possible to separate the contributions to the load-line deflection rate as a result of small-scale
SAXENA ET AL. ON CRACK GROWTH 487
10-2
VAH2
B Measured
10-3 .... Pred. pl strain
Pred. pl s t r e s s
,,,.,,.
E
10-4
~O
10-5
_o
10-6
10-7 . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 0 . . . . 101 10 2 10 3 1 4
Time, h
FIG. 3~A typical plot of load-line deflection rate as a function of time for specimen VAH2. The
solid and dashed lines represent the predicted values of deflection rates for plane stress and plane
strain conditions, respectively.
creep and primary creep, it is not possible to do that in practice with any confidence. Therefore,
a conservative approach requires that all data up to the time for which the C*(t) value decreases
must be discarded as being in the transient region. This point of minimum C*(t) is approximated
by determining yet another estimate of the transition time, t; given by the following equation
(per ASTM Test Method E 1457):
K2(1 - v 2)
t; - (5)
E(n + 1)C*(t)
where C*(t) is the pseudo C*(t) value determined from the following equation [9]
(2
PI)',. '1 - ' a ] W + 0.522 f(n,nx)
C*(t) = ~-~
) (6)
_ n (t/t~) n
f(n,nO n + 1 ~ (1 - t/t2) (7)
where P = applied load, I/c = load-line deflection rate as a result of creep, B = specimen
thickness, a = crack size, W = specimen width, and t2 = transition time for secondary creep
conditions to develop in the entire specimen [14].
C* f
t2 = [(1 + p ) C ~ ]
] " +v~/p
(8)
C*(t) is called pseudo C*(t) because the value obtained from Eq 6 cannot be identified with a
path-independent integral unless t > tre.
The value of tr from Eq 5 initially increases with time because 17c decreases with time. The
experimental transition time, tre, is defined as the time during the test corresponding to the
maximum value of t;. These values are listed in Table 4 for each of the tests, and the amount
of crack extension corresponding to those times, Aa,, is also listed in Table 4. In the large
specimens, substantial crack extension occurred under these conditions. In Specimen VAH5,
all the crack extension during the over 1800 h of test occurred in the small-scale and transition
(transient) regime. For materials that exhibit large amounts of primary creep, extensive amounts
of crack growth will occur in the transient regime and will be discarded as per the requirements
of the current ASTM standard. This is also a severe limitation in the application of the data for
prddicting the life of components as discussed before. Therefore, an alternate approach where
all data are correlated with a unifying parameter such as C, is needed.
Creep Crack Growth Behavior in the Transient and Extensive Creep Regimes
The crack growth rate in the transient regime is correlated with the (7, parameter. Because
C, is not restricted to any specific deformation condition, all data can be qualified for correlation
with (7,. The following expression is used for estimating C, in the small-scale creep regime,
( C,)ssc [71
e~
(C)ssc - F'/F (9)
BW
where F = (K/P)BW ~/2the K-calibration factor and F ' = dF/d(a/W). The following expression
can be used to determine C, for all conditions ranging from small-scale to extensive creep
eL
C, = - ~ (F'/F)(1 - ~x) + o~C*(t) (10)
where, C*(t) is determined from Eq 6, and ~x is estimated as follows
tgt
,~ = 1 - (11)
(tvlt) + 1 + (tJty '/~ + p)
where tr is the smaller of trs and trp given by Eqs 3 and 4, respectively.
Figure 4 shows a typical load-line deflection versus time and crack size versus time behavior.
The above plot is for Specimen VAH1 (B = 63.5 mm and W = 254 mm). The portion of the
test characterized by a decreasing deflection rate is in the small-scale or transition creep, and
the remainder of the test is in the extensive creep regime. The trends for deflection and crack
size as a function of time were very similar for other specimens. Since the load is constant
during the test, C, is directly proportional to the deflection rate at a given crack size. Thus, the
above similarity in the trends between deflection versus time and crack size versus time data
is an indication of a correlation between da/dt and C,. Figure 5 shows the da/dt versus C,
correlations for Specimens VAH1 and VAH2, which were both 63.5 mm thick and 254 mm
wide but tested at different load levels. Figure 5 also shows how the da/dt versus C, relationship
varies during the Ccdecreasing and C/-increasing portions of the test for both specimens. There
appears to be a unique relationship between da/dt and C, for all the data from both specimens.
S A X E N A ET AL. ON C R A C K G R O W T H 489
20
[]
m
B
t-
o 10 B
m
E []
(b
[]
Q,.
r
o~
a o oOO~176
[] []
B9 9
[] [] B
i
0 100 200
a
Time, h
160
[]
B
150, m
B
N
E
E
="
140 '
,p=,=== B
0 O
m ~
tJ mB OO
[] B
~o O []
130
120 i
0 100 200
Time, h
b
FIG. 4---(a) Load-line deflection as a function of time and (b) crack size as a function of time for
specimen VAH1.
10-2.
W=254 mm, B=63.5 mm
10-3.
,,c
10-4.
"O
"0
10-5, ~' VAHI

---- & VAH2
10-6 . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . .
10 .4 lO a 10 .2 10 -1 1 0
C t , M J / m 2. h
FIG. 5---Creep crack growth rate as a function of Ct for 63.5-mm-thick and 254-mm-wide CT
specimens. The arrows indicate the direction of change in C,.
The amount of crack extension in the transient region was approximately 5.5 mm for Specimen
VAH1 and 3.57 mm for Specimen VAH2 (from Table 4) indicating substantial crack growth
in this regime. These results support the validity of C, for uniquely characterizing the creep
crack growth rates in the small-scale, transition, and extensive creep regions in these specimens.
Figure 6 shows the creep crack growth rate data correlated with C, for Specimens VAH9
and VAH10 which were 12.7 mm thick and 254 mm wide. Again the C,-decreasing and C,-
increasing portions of the test are identified. These results show that the crack growth rates in
the beginning of the test are significantly lower than the remainder of the test. This behavior
is particularly prominent over the first two data points during both tests. The total crack exten-
sion up to the third data point in both tests is approximately 1 mm. It is well established [15-
17], and also recognized in the ASTM Test Method E 1457, that the crack growth rate behavior
in the early part of creep crack growth rate tests can be significantly different from the behavior
during the later part of the test. During the early period of crack growth, a saturated damage
state evolves at the crack tip from an initially undamaged state. Subsequent to the establishment
of a saturated damage state, the damage zone at the crack tip grows in a self-similar manner
with creep deformation. A steady-state relationship between da/dt and C, (or C*) is then estab-
lished. The extent of this transient region most likely varies with the state of stress and appears
to be more prominent in the thinner specimens (12.7 mm thick versus 63.5 mm thick) in which
the crack tip conditions tend toward plane stress conditions. The damage transient discussed
here should be clearly distinguished from the deformation transients as a result of small-scale
and transition creep during which the creep crack growth rate correlates with C,. Beyond the
initial region of crack growth, there appears to be a good correlation between creep crack
growth rate and C, in the C,-decreasing and C,-increasing regions as was observed in the 63.5-
mm-thick specimen data.
From the above discussions, it can be concluded that the use of C, for characterizing creep
10-3
W=254 mm, B=12.7 mm
.i
I&
10-4.
"O
r
"O
10-S.
ljl~ l ~ ~ = m J ~ - In VAHI0
~I~---A- . ~ A .... A VAH9
10-6 . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . | . . . . . . .
10-4 10 "3 10 "2 1 -1

Ct , MJ/m2. h
FIG. 6---Creep crack growth rate as a function of Ct for 12.7-mm-thick and 254-mm-wide CT
specimens. The arrows indicate the direction of change in C t.
crack growth can normalize data developed in the small-scale, the transition, and the extensive
creep regions. This conclusion is particularly significant while using the creep crack growth
rate data for predicting lives of large components in which substantial crack growth can occur
in the small-scale and transition creep regions, as was the case with the large CT specimens
(254 mm wide). The initial stress intensity levels used in Specimens VAH1, 2, 9 and 10 were
in excess of 90 MPa.m 1/2, which is in the extremely high range for service applications. How-
ever, the fracture toughness of these class of materials at 538~ (1000~ is considerably higher,
hence stable crack growth is not likely to occur. Despite the high K levels, a substantial amount
of crack growth occurred in the transient region. The transition time for Specimen VAH5 that
was tested at an initial K level of 55 MPa.m 1/2 was substantially higher, and most of the crack
extension occurred in the small-scale and transition creep regions. However, the crack growth
data for this specimen could not be included in the analysis here because of experimental
difficulties in measurement of crack length. In components, the K levels are expected to be
even lower, more on the range of 20 MPa.m m. Thus, small-scale creep and transition creep
conditions are expected to be far more important in these components than in specimens for
determining the creep crack growth behavior.
Evaluation of the Engineering Methods for Estimating C,

Since a significant duration of the large specimen tests were in the small-scale creep and the
transition creep regions, and the test material also exhibits both primary and secondary creep
behavior, these tests are ideal for evaluating the analytical expressions for estimating C,. These
expressions are used in components for estimating C, [18]. For a constant load, C, is directly
proportional to the measured load-line deflection rate at a fixed crack size. Thus, to estimate
C, analytically, the deflection rate must be predicted. Therefore, we will first analytically cal-
culate the load-line deflection rates under actual test conditions for the various tests and then
compare them with the measured values. Before presenting these comparisons, a brief descrip-
tion of the method for calculating the deflection rate is in order. The deflection rate as a result
of creep, (zc., is given by [8]
f'~ = d/~)~sc + (v&, + d/Ass (12)
where
(f/c)ssc = creep deflection rate as a result of small-scale creep,
(!/c)p = creep deflection rate due to primary creep, and
(f/c)ss = creep deflection rate due to secondary creep.
The measured load-line deflection rate I;" is the sum of Pc and the deflection rate as a result of
crack growth and is given by the following equation [19]
f' = Pc + -~- (13)
where B --- effective thickness, E = elastic modulus, a = crack growth rate, and P = applied
load. Next, we describe expressions for estimating the various components of Pc. Equation 12
is approximate because even though Eqs 1 and 2 are correct in the sense that the various strain
rate components are additive, their associated deflection rates cannot in theory be directly added.
However, in practice, Eq 12 yields reasonably accurate results because the time dependencies
of the various strain rate components are quite different, and an algebraic addition represents
the behavior in the entire time domain reasonably well [8,13]. This is akin to adding elastic
and plastic deflections in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics [20] or the addition of the small-
scale, secondary and primary creep [21] components of C, [21] to compute the overall value.
The following equations were used to estimate (f'c)ssc and (fZc) p and (Vc)ss [9]
(f'c)ssc - 213(1 - C)K2Bi.c(O ) (14)

EP
where
v = Poisson's ratio
13 = ~Afor 0 = ~r/2 [21], and
~c(0) = creep zone expansion rate.
The expressions for creep zone expansion rates for primary and secondary creep can be found
in earlier publications [9,20]
(r + (Vc)p = [(tJt) pro+p) + 1](r (15)
where for plane strain conditions
(f/c)ss = Aah3(P/(1.455(W - a)eq)" (16)
and for plane stress conditions
(f'c)ss = Aah3(Pll.O72(W - a)eq)" (17)
and
a, \I-a/W/ ~ / +2 - I~--/W+ 1 ]
h3 is a function of a/W and n and is also different for plane stress and plane strain conditions.
The values of h3 are listed in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) handbook [20]. A
computer program was developed to estimate the deflection rates according to the above
equations.
Figures 3 and 7 to 9 show a comparison between the predicted load-line deflection rate and
the measured values for Specimens VAH1, VAH2 (B = 63.5 mm, W = 254 ram), and for
Specimens VAH9 and VAH10 (B = 12.7 mm, W = 254 mm). The predicted values were
obtained for plane stress as well as plane strain conditions. There is good agreement between
the general trends of the predicted and observed values and the latter appear generally to lie
between the plane stress and the plane strain predictions, except for Specimen VAHI, for which
better agreement is observed with the plane stress predictions. In Specimens VAH9 and
VAH10, the predicted values are based on the original thickness of the specimens. I n t h e s e
specimens, considerable deformation was observed along the crack planes, and the thickness
is reduced by as much as 20% (Fig. 2). If the reduced thickness is used for estimation, the
predicted displacement rates will be higher, and better agreement will result between the
observed values and the plane strain predictions. The results from other specimens tested show
similar trends and therefore, in the interest of brevity will not be presented here.
The data presented in Figs. 3 and 7 to 9 appeared to point out that for the 63.5-mm-thick
specimens, better agreement was observed between the measured deflection rates and plane
10-2
VAH1
o Measured
- - - Pred. pl strain
10-3.
e.- Pred.plstreSSr.I
10 "4,
[] no ~f
e,,
0
,m
e
10.5
10-6 . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . .
o-1 loo lO 1 lO 2 10 3
Time, h
FIG. 7---A typical plot of load-line deflection rate as a function of time for specimen VAH1. The
10"2.
VAH9
[] Measured
- - - Pred.pl strain
10-3 o
Pred. pl stress
Jr
(ff 10" 4 []
rr
r
.o
'~
_e
O
10-5
j
10-6.
10-7 ........ u . . . . . . . . u ........ ! . . . . . . . .
100 101 10 2 10 3 10 4
Time, h
FIG. 8--A typical plot of load-line deflection rate as a function of time for specimen VAH9. The
10"3
VAHIO
B Measured ~ a
--- Pred.pl strain
,c Pred. pl stress
10.4 '
r
Ir
c- m []
,oi II
B []
Q 10-5.
Q
a 9 . . ..JJ
/
10-6
101 . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . 103
Time, h
FIG. 9--A typical plot of load-line deflection rate as a function of time for specimen VAHIO. The
stress predictions while for 12.7-mm-thick specimens, better agreements were obtained with
plane strain predictions. This result is contrary to common belief and perhaps fortuitous and
may be explained as follows. There are a number of other factors that also contribute to the
differences between the predicted and observed values. These include (1) the validity of a
constitutive equation derived from uniaxial tests for the purposes of describing creep defor-
mation in the multiaxial stress condition in the crack tip region, (2) the validity of the form of
the constitutive equation over a wide range of stress and time regimes, and (3) the varying
constraint with specimen geometry and with the extent of deformation in the specimen. The
three-dimensional finite element analysis to address these issues is beyond the scope of this
paper and must be addressed in future studies.
The differences between the predicted plane stress and plane strain values are from about a
factor of 1.5 in the small-scale creep regime to about a factor of 100 toward the end of the test.
Considering that crack growth rate varies with Ct with an exponent of less than one, the factor
of 1.5 is acceptable for engineering purposes. However, the factor of 100 in the extensive creep
regime is unacceptable. Therefore, an accurate three-dimensional analysis of test specimens of
varying thickness under creep conditions is needed to resolve these issues. Figure 10 shows a
set of experimental data obtained on specimens with different thickness of the type most appro-
priate for such analyses. A detailed finite element analysis of specimens tested in this study is
the next logical step. The other issues with regard to the suitability of the constitutive equation
and the influence of constraint that may change with specimen geometry and also the scale of
deformation can be simultaneously addressed with the help of this analysis.

Creep crack growth rate data from compact specimens of a I Cr-IMo-0.25V steel tested at
the National Research Institute of Metals, Tokyo, Japan, are analyzed extensively in this paper.
10-2.
A&
10-3.
A &
t9
E at
10-4.
m
[] B=12.7mm
10" 5. A B=64mm
O B=25.4rnm
[] 9 B=6.3mm
9 B=6.3mm(no SG)
[]
[] []
10-6 ........ = ........ = ........ | ....... i ........
10 .5 10 .4 10 .3 10 .2 1 0 "1 10
Ct , MJ/m 2 h
FIG. lO---All creep crack growth rate data obtained as a part of this study separated by specimen
thickness. The creep crack growth rates tend to be lowest for the 6.35-mm-thick specimen with no
side groves and highest for 63.5-mm specimens with 20% side groves.
The specimens range from 50.8 to 254 mm in width and 63.5 to 6.35 mm in thickness. The
accompanying creep deformation data were also analyzed. These unique data on large CT
specimens were analyzed to address two main issues important for creep crack growth life
prediction in elevated temperature components. First, the suitability of the C, parameter was
assessed for characterizing creep crack growth rate behavior from small-scale to extensive creep
regimes. Second, the expressions for estimating C, in components which rely on the creep
deformation behavior from uniaxial creep tests were evaluated by comparing the measured and
predicted load-line deflection rate behavior. The following conclusions were reached from this
research.
1. C, parameter was successfully able to characterize the creep crack growth behavior in the
small-scale to extensive creep regime. The data from the large CT specimens clearly showed
a decreasing C, region at the beginning of the test followed by an increasing C, region. However,
the da/dt versus C, correlations were unique regardless of the region in which data were obtained
for the 63.5-mm-thick specimens and during all except the first 1 mm of crack extension in the
12.7-mm-thick specimens.
2. The deviation from the unique da/dt versus C, trend during the first 1 mm of crack
extension in the 12.7-mm-thick specimens is attributed to the evolution of a saturated creep
damage state at the crack tip.
3. The expressions for estimating the load-line deflection rate yielded predictions that were
within a factor of 1.5 of the measured values during small-scale creep conditions. On the other
hand, the predictions in the extensive creep region differed by as much as a factor of 100.
Several reasons for these discrepancies are discussed and recommendations for future work are
outlined.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the help from the management of NRIM for the
permission to make the data available for this analysis. One of the authors (A. Saxena) received
support for his time from the Georgia Tech Foundation Faculty Development Program and
from the GKSS Forschungzentrum in Geesthacht, Germany. This financial support enabling us
to undertake and complete this study is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Landes, J. D. and Begley, J. A., in Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590, American Society
[2 ] Nikbin, K. M., Webster, G. A., and Turner, C. E., in Cracks and Fracture, ASTM STP 601, American
[3] Saxena, A., in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for
[4] Ohji, K., Ogura, K., and Kubo, S., Japan Society for Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 790-13, 1979, pp.
18-20 (in Japanese).
[5] Riedel, H. and Rice, J. R., in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American
[6] Bassani, J. L. and McClintock, F. A., International Journal of Solids, Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 479-492.
[7] Saxena, A., in Fracture Mechanics: Seventeenth Conference, ASTM STP 905, American Society for
[8] Leung, C. P., McDowell, D. L., and Saxena, A., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 36, 1988,
pp. 275-289.
[9] Saxena, A., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 40, No. 415, 1991, pp. 721-736.
[10] Staley, J. T., Jr., and Saxena, A., Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 38, 1990, pp. 897-908.
[11 ] Tabuchi, M., Yagi, K., Kubo, K., and Tanaka, C., in Creep and Fracture of Engineering Materials
and Structures, Proceedings of the International Conference, Institute of Metals, London, 1990, pp.
729-738.
[12] Tabuchi, M., Kubo, K., and Yagi, K., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1991, pp.
311-321.
[13] Riedel, H. and Detampel, V., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 239-262.
[14] Riedel, H., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 3549.
[15] Saxena, AS and Gieseke, B., in High Temperature Fracture Mechanisms and Mechanics, P. Beu-
sussan, Ed., EGF6, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, 1990, pp. 291-309.
[16] Webster, G. A., in Engineering Approaches to High Temperature Design, B. Wilshire and D. R. J.
Owen, Eds., Pineridge Press, Swansen, U.K., 1983, pp. 1-10.
[17] Saxena, A. and Norris, R. H., in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty Second Symposium, ASTM STP 1131,
1992, pp. 297-317.
[18] Liaw, P. K., Saxena, A., and Schaffer, J., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 5, 1989,
pp. 709-722.
[19] Saxena, A., Ernst, H. A., and Landes, J. D., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 23, 1983, pp.
245-257.
[20] Kumar, V., German, M. D., and Shih, C. F., "An Engineering Approach to Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Analysis," EPRI NP 1931, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1981.
[21 ] Bassani, J. L., Hawk, D. E., and Saxena, A., in Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics, Vol. I: Time-Depen-
dent Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 995, 1989, pp. 7-26.
K a i - Y o u a r n H o u r I a n d J a m e s F. Stubbins 2
Effects of Mean Load on Creep and Fatigue

Crack Growth at Elevated Temperature
REFERENCE: Hour, K.-Y. and Stubbins, J. F., "Effects of Mean Load on Creep and Fatigue
Crack Growth at Elevated Temperature,"' Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume,
ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American
ABSTRACT: The effects of mean stress on crack growth behavior have been studied by per-
forming various load ratio experiments at elevated temperature. It was found that at low load
ratios a transgranular crack growth mode dominates whereas at high load ratios an intergranular
crack growth mode was observed. The crack closure phenomenon was observed for experiments
in which the transgranular crack growth mode was significant. In such cases, the crack opening
stress was found to be constant for Stage II crack growth for each individual experiment at fixed
load ratio, but varied with load ratio. Based on this, it was found that the crack growth rate
correlated well with the effective stress intensity factor range, AKeff.At R = 0.6 and above, crack
closure effects were not observed and the linear rate line integral parameter, C*, based on elastic-
plastic fracture mechanics, was found to correlate better crack growth rate because time-depen-
dent processes were significant in those experiments. In the regime where both fatigue and creep
mechanisms might interact, the linear cumulative rule, which combines the two parameters AK~ee
and C*, accounting for fatigue and creep effects, respectively, was found to overestimate crack
growth rates.
KEYWORDS: load ratio, crack growth, crack closure, elevated temperature, linear cumulative
damage role, alloy 800H
Much effort has been directed toward identifying a parameter that can best correlate crack
growth rate under a variety of test conditions at elevated temperature [1--8]. However, a single
parameter has not yet been found due to the complexity of crack growth mechanisms. For
instance, the stress intensity factor K, the J integral, the energy rate line integral C*, O.et, and
o~f, have been proposed to correlate crack growth rates for specific operating conditions. The
stress intensity factor, K, based on linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), is found to be an
appropriate load parameter for correlating crack growth rate under predominantly elastic or
small-scale yielding conditions. However, at high temperature, materials are typically ductile
and creep damage is also important. It is difficult to apply LEFM to describe such time-depen-
dent material behavior. For this reason, other approaches have been proposed. For example,
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) provides an extension of the LEFM approach to
situations of high ductility. The EPFM-based J-integral technique is of particular interest. It is
derived using an energy balance around the crack tip and provides an expression of the energy
for crack advance. The J integral has successfully correlated crack growth rates when plasticity
1 Currently, principal engineer, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg Technology Center, P.O. Box 11165,
Lynchburg, VA 24506; formerly, past doctoral associate, Materials Research Laboratory and Department
of Nuclear Engineering, University of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801.
2 Professor, Materials Research Laboratory and Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Illi-
nois, 103 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801.
498
HOUR AND STUBBINS ON CREEP AND FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH 499
is significant [1-3]. For cases of time dependence, the energy rate line integral, C*, a time
derivative version of the J integral, is able to describe time-dependent crack growth behavior.
C* has successfully correlated creep crack growth rate over a wide range of creep conditions
[4-91.
Before the introduction of C*, researchers correlated crack growth rates with net section
stress, o.et, with reference stress, ~rree,or with crack opening displacement rate, /k. However,
there is no firm theoretical foundation for using the aforementioned parameters to correlate
crack growth rates for various test conditions and specimen geometries. Nevertheless, many
elevated temperature crack growth data have been evaluated using these parameters [1,2,8].
The development of a universal parameter for correlating crack growth rates would seem to
be difficult because crack growth behavior could vary from transgranular (fatigue dominant)
to intergranular (creep dominant) at elevated temperature depending on the loading conditions.
A reasonable approach may be to group correlative parameters according to the crack growth
mechanisms. For example, AKoff would be used in a fatigue-dominant case, and C* would be
used in a creep-dominant case. For test conditions in which fatigue-creep interaction could
occur, a linear cumulative rule has been proposed [10]. Although such an approach is considered
to be an effective method to estimate crack growth rate, the accuracy of the method has not
been studied extensively. Recently, a similar approach has been proposed by Marching et al.
[11]. They use the effective stress intensity factor range, AKeef, to correlate thermal fatigue
crack growth rates for Hastelloy X for temperatures ranging from 425 to 925~ AK~, is able
to correlate crack growth rate according to crack growth mechanisms and separates crack
growth curves into two groups, namely, intergranular and transgranular crack growth groups.
The use of AK~ff to correlate fatigue-dominant crack growth at elevated temperature has been
studied elsewhere with satisfactory results [12]. The use of AK~feis based on the fact that crack
closure has a profound influence on crack growth at room temperature [13-16]. However, only
limited experience is available for using mKeff to correlate crack growth rates for creep-dominant
test conditions at elevated temperature. Care must be used in this regard because materials are
more ductile and crack closure effects may not be as significant at elevated temperature com-
pared to room temperature. It is also technically more difficult to determine crack opening
stress at high temperature because limited techniques are available to measure material deflec-
tion or strain behavior under such conditions.
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of mean load on crack growth at elevated
temperature. The applicability of AKoffas a universal parameter to describe crack growth behav-
ior at elevated temperature is also discussed. The validity of a cumulative rule for prediction
of crack growth rate at elevated temperature is also examined.
ExperimentalTechnique
The material studied in this investigation was alloy 800H. The chemical composition of alloy
800H is listed in Table 1. Test specimens were designed according to the standard center-
cracked tension [M(T)] specimen described in the ASTM Test Method for Measurements of
Fatigue Crack Growth (E 647). The specimen configuration and geometry are shown in Fig.
1. The specimen thickness was reduced in the gage section and a sharp electrodischarge
machined (EDM) .notch was used so that the stresses at the crack tip were larger than the net
stresses elsewhere in the specimen. This ensured that the crack would propagate from the notch
edge. Ermi and James [17] showed that reduced thickness gage section has no effect on the
crack growth rate in this specimen configuration. Before testing, specimens were annealed in
a vacuum at 1100~ and cooled with flowing helium to relieve surface machining stresses.
Two small dimples were placed 6.35 mm above and below the centedine of the specimen for
extensometry purpose.
500 FRACTUREMECHANICS:TWENTY-FOURTH
VOLUME
TABLE 1--Chemical composition of alloy 80OH.
Alloying Element Wt.%
Aluminum (A1) 0.300

Carbon (C) 0.080
Chromium (Cr) 21.29
Copper (Cu) 0.150
Iron (Fe) balance
Manganese (Mn) 0.740
Nickel (Ni) 33.84
Sulfur (S) <0.002
Silicon (Si) 0.550
Titanium (Ti) 0.360
Uniaxial load-controlled tests were carried out on a commercial closed-loop electrohydraulic

test machine equipped with a resistance-type furnace. A temperature controller was used to
maintain the test temperature within •176 K-type thermocouples were spot welded onto the
specimens to monitor temperature. A high temperature extensometer, capable of measuring 10
I~m of displacement, was used to measure the load-line deflection across the notch of the
specimen. The crack length was continuously monitored using a direct current (DC) electrical
potential drop technique [18,19]. The crack length was obtained from potential drop measure-
/ ~ 7.94
<~"~"
9 25.~4 ---~ "--1.27
2.s4
~.~~1.27
FIG. 1--Configuration of the test specimen (ram).
ments using a revised version of Johnson's expression [20,21]. Crack growth rates were deter-
mined by calculating the slope of the crack length versus time record. Test data were acquired
periodically using a computer data acquisition system.
All tests were performed in air at a variety of load ratios (with same maximum applied load)
and frequencies at 650~ Sinusoidal wave loading was used in all fatigue tests; all loads were
tensile. Before elevated temperature testing, specimens were precracked by room temperature
fatigue loading (7 to 245 MPa) to generate sharp initial cracks. The crack lengths (usually 1.3
mm) after precracking were sufficiently long that the crack tip stress fields were not influenced
by the notch stress fields.
Methods for the determination of the crack opening stress level have been diverse among
researchers. In this study, a crack mouth opening displacement technique was chosen because
this technique is commonly used for room temperature application and can be easily converted
to high temperature application. Differential compliance method was also applied to illustrate
better the deflection point in the load-deflection curve. Details of techniques used to determine
crack closure are described in detail by Allison [22].
Fracture surfaces of the failed specimens were examined to establish the micromechanisms
of material failure. After testing, the fracture surfaces were cut from the specimens and ultra-
sonically washed in acetone. Specimens were examined by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM).
Results
Figure 2 shows the results of crack length versus load-line deflection for various load ratio
tests. In low load ratio cases (for example, R = 0.05) in which fatigue damage was dominant,
0.010 +
+ o
++ <> o
O.008
-.F" O []
~ 0.006
4f~+ o~176o A
o A
^,,,8,:8 ~ ,, " []
0.004- [] A.,o, 800H 6,00
rj 0 ~ z~ [] 0 [] [] + R=0.05
o R=0.2
o R=0.4
A R=0.6
[] R=0.8
0.002 -
I I I I I I
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035
Load-line Deflection (m)
FIG. 2--The crack length as a function of the load line deflection for all test conditions.
1 0 "s -
1 0 .6
oy
[]
1 0 .7
t~
E
[] 0
Z D~ o
1 0 .8
[~1 9 Alloy 800H 650C

+ R=0.05
9 O R=0.2
0 R=0.4
1 0 .9 z~ R=0.6, f=0.1Hz
[3 R=0.8
9 R=0.6, f = l H z
10 -lo
' :~ ,i ~ ~ J :~ :~ J,
10
AK (MPa 4m)
FIG. 3--Crack growth rate as a function of the applied stress intensity range for all test conditions.
a typical fatigue profile with limited load-line deflection was observed. For high load ratios
(for example, R = 0.8 and R = 0.6 with a frequency of 0.1 Hz), a typical creep profile with
significant load-line deflection was observed. For intermediate load ratios (for example, R =
0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 with a frequency of 1 Hz) in which the damage mechanism gradually switches
from fatigue dominant to creep dominant, combined profiles were observed. These observations
confirmed that high load ratios and low frequencies result in a time-dependent dominant damage
mechanism at elevated temperature.
Figure 3 shows the results of crack growth rate versus stress intensity factor range, AK. For
load ratios less than or equal to 0.4, the crack growth rate curves fall close together whereas
higher load ratio crack growth rate curves start to deviate.
Figure 4 shows the measured crack opening stress intensity factor (Kop) at various stages for
a variety of load ratios. The values of KoJKm~, were found to remain constant throughout the
experiment. For high load ratios (R --> 0.6), no crack closure effects were observed. The mea-
sured crack opening stress can be used to calculate the effective stress intensity factor range,
AKeff, according the following equation:
AKeff ~ (Sma x - - Sop)//(Smax - - Sml.)AK = U A K (1)
HOUR AND STUBBINSON CREEP AND FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH 503
1.0
.=_ 0.8 OoOO o

E
v
ix
++++.r -H+ ++ ++ +
E
v 0.6
o.
0
u
0.4
E AIIoy800H 650C
v
v
II + R=0.05
0.2 o R=0.2
R=0.4
0.0
i l ! i i I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

2a/W
FIG. 4---The ratio of the opening to maximum stress intensity as a function of the crack length
for load ratios of O.05, 0.2, and 0.4.
The calculated values of AKe, are plotted against crack growth rate in Fig. 5. For experiments
in which time-independent damage was dominant (for example, R = 0.05, 0.2, and 0.4), the
crack growth curves all fall on the same curve. For high load ratios in which time-dependent
processes are important, AKeyf was not able to consolidate various curves onto a single curve.
Figure 6 shows the results using C* as a parameter to correlate crack growth rates for all
test conditions. C* was found to be able to describe crack growth behavior for high load ratio
tests in which time-dependent crack growth is dominant. For low load ratio tests, C* is not an
appropriate parameter. Note that the solid line is the best fit curve for creep crack growth test
results of alloy 800H at 650~
Fractographic examination further confirmed the transition from a transgranular crack growth
mode to an intergranular crack growth mode observed in Fig. 2. Figure 7 illustrates that at R
= 0.05 and 0.2 the crack growth mode are transgranular; for R = 0.4 the crack growth mode
starts to switch from transgranular to intergranular; and for R -- 0.6 and 0.8 the crack growth
mode is intergranular. However, there are small differences in crack growth mode between R
= 0.05 and 0.2 and between R = 0.6 and 0.8. For example, at R -- 0.6 the crack growth mode
is not fully intergranular whereas at R = 0.8 it is. At R = 0.6, ridges on grain boundaries are
still visible and are aligned normal to the direction of crack advance.
Discussion
Despite difficulties in measuring crack opening stress at high temperature, the crack mouth
opening displacement technique was found to be useful when the relationship between stress
and load-line deflection is linear. This yielded a distinct change in slope of the loading line
when the crack opens. However, when significant plasticity was involved, it became difficult
to distinguish the precise deflection point in the loading curve to identify the crack opening
10"5.-:.
-t-
-t-
r
1 0 .6 /
r
r
"E
~ 1 0-7
! <)
O
Alloy 800H 650C
O
10-s + R=0.05
O R=0.2
O R=0.4
109i
' ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~
10
AKeff (MPa4m)
FIG. 5--Crack growth rate as a function of the effective stress intensity range. Values of the
effective stress intensity range were calculated from Eq 1.
stress. A survey of relevant literature shows that research work on crack closure effects has
concentrated on aluminum alloys at room temperature [13,14] and a limited effort on titanium
alloys [22,23] and nickle-based alloys [24,25] at high temperatures. In all aforementioned
references, the relationship between stress and strain (or deflection) is linear and the deflection
point is easy to identify. The study of the crack closure phenomenon for ductile materials is
limited because plasticity in the materials will reduce the level of opening stress and, thus, the
effects of crack closure. In this study, the stress-deflection curves were linear for most cases at
a test frequency of 0.1 Hz. The R = 0.05 case was an exception, and the 1 Hz results were
used for analysis.
The opening stress intensity factor (Kop) was found to remain constant throughout a fatigue
experiment at elevated temperature in all cases examined here. This is consistent with results
reported by Zawada and Nicholas [25]. Their tests were conducted on a nickel-based superalloy
Rene'95 at 650~ They found that the opening stress intensity factor was unchanged during
the tests for both near-threshold and long cracks.
Methods to predict crack growth rates for regimes in which creep and fatigue could interact
have been diverse [26-32]. The method used most often is a linear cumulative rule that sums
the crack growth rates from both fatigue and creep crack growth mechanisms. Usually AK or
10 .6
+
10 -7 + 4 - ~++ ~- + ~ /o
+ + +
o 1
0.6 o O o
E O
~. 10 9 Alloy 800H 650C

+ R=0.05
[] s 13U 0 R=0.2
O R=0.4
zx R=0.6
10 -10 [] R=0.8
Creep
10 -11
I i i i i i i i , I , i J ii1,1 I ~ i ! i |111 I , i , ,1111
10 100
0.01 0.1 C* (Watts/m 2) 1
FIG. ~-Crack growth rate as a function of C* for all test conditions. The solid line is for pure
creep crack growth with no cyclic loading (R = 1).
FIG. 7--Scanning electron micrographs of the fracture surfaces for specimens tested at load ratios
of O.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8. The direction of crack propagation is shown by the arrow.
FIG. 7--Continued.
AK~, is used for the fatigue term whereas C* is suggested for the creep term. The cumulative
equation can then be written as
da/dt = A(C*)" + C ( A K J " • f (2)
w h e r e f i s the test frequency, and A and n and C and m are material constants determined from
the best fit curves for Fig. 5 (daldN versus AK~fr) and Fig. 6 (daldt versus C*). The results for
various load ratio tests are shown in Fig. 8 in which the vertical axis shows the observed crack
growth rate and the horizontal axis shows the crack growth rate determined by Eq 2. In all
cases, the linear cumulative rule (Eq 2) overpredicts the crack growth rates. This is understand-
able because no strong interaction between the fatigue process and the creep process was
observed. The use of AK~ff (for fatigue) plus C* (for creep) includes contributions from both
mechanisms even though one or the other tends to dominate. For the R = 0.05 and R = 0.8
cases in which a single dominant crack growth mechanism was observed and the other con-
tributed in a minor way, the linear cumulative rule provided better results than in most of the
other cases. However, the observed rates are still overpredicted. Based on the observations
here, a linear damage summation rule should provide a conservative estimate for crack growth
because it overpredicts actual crack growth rates for all cases examined.
Conclusions
A careful examinatioia of crack closure effects on crack propagation rates in alloy 800H at
650~ tested under a variety of load ratio loading conditions yields the following conclusions.
1. High mean stresses (high load ratios) can significantly increase the time-dependent crack
advance processes, resulting in an intergranular crack growth mode at elevated
temperature.
10 .6
8
6
Alloy 800H 650C
+ R=0.05
o R=0.2
o R=0.4 -I-+
A R=0.6 ++
107e [] R=0.8 4_+
o
6
r/3
4
/ Az~o o
~, 000
-8
0
10 8
6
/ngAooo
~ v o
10 .9
/o~
j ~ ;;;,,,I ~' ~ I ~ '''= ~ ~ I;;'"
10 .9 10 "s , . m l 0 "7 10 "8
A(C )" +'C(AKeff) x f
FIG. 8--The observed crack growth rate is shown on the vertical axis versus the crack growth
rate calculated from Eq 2 on the horizontal axis. The predicted rates are higher than the observed
rates for all cases.
2. Crack closure effects were observed for load ratios less than 0.4 and were minimal for
load ratios larger than 0.6 for alloy 800H at 650~
3. Where crack closure effects were observed, Kefe provides an effective means to correlate
the crack growth rates.
4. A Kefe is not an appropriate correlative parameter for creep or creep-fatigue interaction
dominant crack growth behavior (high load ratios). In these cases, C* provides reasonable
correlations.
5. When crack closure effects were found, the opening stress was found to be independent
of crack length but dependent on load ratio.
6. Although indications of creep-fatigue interactions were found in load-line deflection
curves and in microstructural examination of fracture surfaces, little indication of a sig-
nificant creep-fatigue interaction was found in the crack advance behavior. Usually one
crack advance mechanism dominated and allowed for either AKeee or C* to correlate the
crack growth result well.
7. A linear cumulative damage rule overpredicts the crack growth rates for the entire regime
of conditions examined here including those in which creep and fatigue processes may
interact. Thus, such a rule would be conservative for design and analysis purposes.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Basic Energy Sciences Division of Department of Energy
through the Materials Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, Contract DEFG02-
91ER45439. Facilities at Advanced Material Testing and Evaluation Laboratory at University
of Illinois were used for this study.
References
[1] Krompholz, K., Boamann, E., Gnirss, G., and Huthmann, H., "Fracture Mechanics on High-Tem-
perature Gas-Cooled Reactor Materials," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 66, 1984, pp. 371-379.
[2] Taira, S., Dhtani, R., and Komatsu, T., "Application of J-Integral to High-Temperature Crack Prop-
agation, Part 1--Creep Crack Propagation and Part II--Fatigue Crack Propagation," Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 101, 1979, pp. 154-167.
[3] Sadananda K. and Shahinian, P., "Creep Crack Growth Behavior of Several Structural Alloys,"
Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 14A, 1983, pp. 1467-1480.
[4] Landes, J. D. and Begley, J. A., " A Fracture Mechanics Approach to Creep Growth," in Mechanics
of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1976,
pp. 128-148.
[5] Riedel H. and Rice, J. R., "Tensile Cracks in Creeping Solids," in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth
Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1980, pp.
112-130.
[6] Nikbin, K. M., Smith D. J., and Webster, G. A., "An Engineering Approach to the Prediction of
Creep Crack Growth," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 108, 1986, pp. 186-
191.
[7] Saxena, A., "Evaluation of C* for the Characterization of Creep Crack-Gruwth Behavior in 304
Stainless Steel," in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Phil,~r~'q ~ 19u0, no 131-151.
[8] Radhakrishnan V. M. and McEvily, A. J., " A Critical Analysis of Crack Growth in Creep," Journal
of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 102, 1980, pp. 200-206.
[9] Hour K. Y. and Stubbins, J. F., "Crack Growth Response in Three Heat Resistant Materials at
Elevated Temperature," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium, ASTM STP 1131, Vol. 1,
H. A. Ernst, A. Saxena, and D. L. McDowell, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
13A, 1982, pp. 1215-1221.
[10] Dimopulous, V., Nikbin, K. M., and Webster, G. A., "Influence of Cyclic to Mean Load Ratio on
Creep/Fatigue Crack Growth" Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 19A, 1988, pp. 873-880.
[11] Marching, N. J., Bellow, R. M., and Listener, B., "Non-Isothermal Fatigue Crack Growth in Has-
telloy-X," Fatigue Fracture Engineering of Materials and Structures, Vol. 10, 1987, pp. 59-74.
[12] Hour K. Y. and Stubbins, J. F., "Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior of Alloy 800H at Elevated Tem-
perature," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 113, 1991, pp. 271-279.
[13] Unangst, K. D., Shih, T. T., and Wei, R. P., "Crack Closure in 2219-185 Aluminum Alloy,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 9, 1977, pp. 725-734.
[14] Elber, W., "Fatigue Crack Closure Under Cyclic Tension," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.
2, 1970, pp. 37-47.
[15] Homma, H. and Nakazawa, H., "Effect of Mechanical Properties of Material on Rate of Fatigue
Crack Propagation," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 10, 1979, pp. 539-552.
[16] Bernard, J. L. and Salama, G. S., "Fatigue Crack Growth Curve in Air Environment at 300~ for
Stainless Steels," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 59, 1982, pp. 136-147.
[17] Ermi, A. M. and James, L. A., "Miniature Center-Crack-Tension Specimen for Fatigue Crack Growth
Testing," in The Use of Small-Scale Specimens for Testing Irradiated Materials, ASTM STP 888,
W. R. Corwin and G. E. Lucas, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1986, pp. 261-275.
[18] Saxena, A., "Electrical Potential Technique for Monitoring Subcritical Crack Growth at Elevated
Temperature," Journal of Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 13, 1980, pp. 741-750.
[19] Schwalbe, K. H. and Hellman, D., "Application of the Electrical Potential Method to Crack Length
Measurements Using Johnson's Formula," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 9, 1981, pp.
218-221.
[20] Johnson, H. H., "Calibrating the Electric Potential Method for Studying Slow Crack Growth,"
Materials Research & Standards, Vol. 5, 1965, pp. 442-445.
[21] Hour, K. Y. and Stubbins, J. F., "Crack Growth Behavior and Failure Micromechanisms in Three
Heat Resistant Materials at Elevated Temperature," Acta Metallurgica Mater., Vol. 38, No. 8, 1990,
pp. 1463-1474.
[22] Allison, J. E., "The Measurement of Crack Closure During Fatigue Crack Growth," in Fracture
Mechanics: Eighteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 945, D. T. Read and R. P. Reed, Eds., American
[23] Jira, J. R., Nicholas, T., and Larsen, J. M., "Crack Closure Development and its Relation to the
Small Crack Effect in Titanium Alloys," in FATIGUE 90, Vol. II, H. Kitagawa and T. Tanaka, Eds.,
Materials and Components Engineering Publications, Ltd., Birmingham, UK, 1990, pp. 1295-1300.
[24] Ashbaugh, N. E. and Nicholas, T., "Threshold Crack Growth Behavior of Nickel-Base Superalloy
at Elevated Temperature," in Fracture Mechanics: Perspectives and Directions (Twentieth Sympo-
sium), ASTM STP 1020, R. P. Wei and R. P. Gangloff, Eds., American Society for Testing and
[25] Zawada, L. P. and Nicholas, T., "The Effect of Closure on the Near-Threshold Fatigue Crack Prop-
agation Rates of a Nickel-Base Superalloy," in Mechanics of Fatigue Crack Closure, ASTM STP
982, J. C. Newman, Jr. and W. Elber, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1988, pp. 548-567.
[26] Majumdar, S. and Maiya, P. S., "A Damage Equation for Creep-Fatigue Interaction," in Symposium
on Creep Fatigue Interaction, R. M. Curran, Ed., ASME-MPC, 1976, pp. 323-336.
[27] Saxena, A., "A Model for Predicting the Effects of Frequency on Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior
at Elevated Temperature," Journal of Fatigue of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 3, 1980,
pp. 247-255.
[28] Plumtree, A. and Lematre, J., "Interaction of Damage Mechanisms during High Temperature
Fatigue," Advances in Fracture Research, Vol. 5, 1982, pp. 2379-2392.
[29] Tien, J. R., Nair, S. V., and Nardone, V. C., "Creep-Fatigue Interaction in Structural Alloys," in
Flow and Fracture at Elevated Temperature, R. Raj, Ed., ASM, 1985, pp. 179-213.
[30] Waring, J., "Creep-Fatigue Interaction in Austenitic Stainless Steel," Metallurgical Transactions,
Vol 8A, 1977, pp. 711-721.
[31] Janson, J., "Damage Model of Creep-Fatigue Interaction," Journal of Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 11, 1979, pp. 397-403.
[32] Baik, S. and Raj, R., "Mechanisms of Creep-Fatigue Interaction," Metallurgical Transactions, Vol.
13A, 1982, pp. 1215-1221.
Ashok Saxena, t Bilal Dogan, 2 a n d K.-H. Schwalbe 2
Evaluation of the Relationship Between C*,

and during Creep Crack Growth
REFERENCE.: Saxena, A., Dogan, B., and Schwalbe K.-H., "Evaluation of the Relationship
Between C*, 85, and 8t during Creep Crack Growth," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth
Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds.,
ABSTRACT: The relationships between C*, ~5 and ~, during creep crack growth are explored
analytically and experimentally in this paper. The experimental part of the program used a Cr-
Mo-V steel that exhibits a creep-ductile behavior, a Ti-6242Si alloy containing an equiaxed
microstructure that is on the borderline of creep-ductile and creep-brittle behavior, and a Ti-
6242Si-alloy containing a lamellar microstructure that exhibits an essentially creep-brittle behav-
ior. It is shown that for creep-ductile materials, the rate of creep component of 85, ~5c, and 8, are
essentially similar for crack extensions smaller than 15% of the initial crack size. Either parameter
is able to correlate creep crack growth rates in the extensive creep regime in these materials. It
is recommended that, for limited amounts of crack extension, 85c be used as an operational
definition of ~t in creep-ductile materials.
For high crack growth rates in the creep-brittle materials, a correlation between da/dt and ~5
is found. However, it is analytically shown that 85 values are dominated by crack growth under
these conditions, therefore, this correlation is not of any significant value and should not be used
for structural life predictions.
KEYWORDS: creep, cracks, C* integral, crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), C, parameter
Nomenclature
a Crack length
ao Initial crack length
gl Crack growth rate, da/dt
A Secondary creep coefficient
B Thickness of the specimen
C* Creep crack tip parameter for extensive creep conditions
C*(t) Creep crack tip parameter for creep ductile materials
C, Creep crack tip parameter for small-scale creep to extensive creep conditions
CTOA Crack tip opening angle
CTOD Crack tip opening displacement
Tabulated function of %/E and n
Load-line deflection
Load-line deflection rate
~Lc Load-line deflection as a result of creep
1Professor and director, School of Materials Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
GA 30332-0245.
2 Group head and institute head, respectively, GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH, Max-
Planck-Str., D-21502 Geesthacht, Germany.
510
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.OI'g
SAXENA ET AL. ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH 511
gLc Load-line deflection rate as a result of creep

w Crack tip opening displacement
8, Crack tip opening displacement rate
8,0 Value of 8, at t = to
w Crack tip opening displacement measured at 5-mm distance
85 Time rate of 85
.85c Creep component of 85
85c Time rate of 85c
850 Value of 85 at t = to
E Young's modulus
e Strain
Strain rate
~ss Steady-state creep rate
h i Function of a/W and n
h3 Function of a/W and n
h 5 Function of a/W and n (Eq 15)
J J integral
K Linear elastic stress intensity factor
n Secondary creep exponent
"q Geometric function
P Applied load
SS Steady-state
SSC Small-scale creep
tr Stress
try Yield stress
% Constant on the order of the yield strength
t Time
to Initial period of time following loading at t = 0
VLL Measured load-line displacement
IYLL Measured load-line displacement rate
~? Measured load-line displacement rate as appeared in literature
1?c Creep component of
W Width of the specimen
Creep crack growth behavior for Cr-Mo-V, Cr-Mo, and stainless steels have been charac-
terized by the C* integral in the extensive creep regime [1-6] and by the C, parameter in the
small-scale creep (SSC) and the extensive creep regimes [1,3]. In the extensive creep regime,
C, and C* are identical parameters [2,3]. However, recent experimental data and analytical
evidence has shown that neither C, or C* is suitable for characterizing creep crack growth
behavior in materials with low creep ductility in which the crack tip can advance at a rate
comparable to the creep zone expansion rate [7-9 ]. Therefore, an alternate crack tip parameter
is needed to address such behavior. In a recent study [8], a good correlation has been shown
between the creep crack growth rate and 65 in a Ti-6242Si alloy with low creep ductility. The
value 85 is defined as the deflection rate across two points that are 5 mm apart (--+2.5 mm from
the crack plane) at the location of the original crack tip [10].
In this report, the concept of 65 as a crack tip parameter is further evaluated and its relation-
ship to other crack tip parameters such as C* and 6t (crack tip opening displacement rate) is
analytically explored. Also, experimental data on a creep-ductile Cr-Mo-V steel and a creep-
brittle Ti-6242Si alloy are examined in light of the analytical results. The Ti-6242Si alloy was
tested under two microstructural conditions, one of which has a lower creep ductility than the
other. The creep ductilities of both microstructures were lower than that of the Cr-Mo-V steel.
Formally, creep-ductile materials are defined in the context of creep crack growth as those
in which the strain rates associated with crack growth are small in comparison with the strain
rates associated with creep deformation throughout the body except in a very small region near
the crack tip. Thus, the crack tip stress fields are not significantly affected by crack growth and
can be-adequately represented by the crack tip parameters such as C*, which are primarily
defined for stationary cracks. Creep-brittle materials are defined as those in which the crack
growth rate is rapid enough that its influence on the crack tip stress field is significant. In other
words, the strain rates associated with crack growth are a significant portion of the total strain
rates in the crack tip region. In a limiting case of creep brittle materials in which the creep
zone expansion rate with respect to a coordinate system fixed at the original crack tip is much
smaller than the crack growth rate, the crack tip stress field becomes independent of time and
is characterized uniquely by the stress intensity parameter, K, or the J integral [9,11 ]. In such
cases, there is good analytical justification for using K (or J) for characterizing creep crack
growth rate [7,8]. However, several brittle materials fall in the category in which neither of
these limiting steady-state conditions can be applied as will be discussed further in a later
section.
In the next section, we present a derivation of the relationships between 85, ~, and C* for
crack growth under creep conditions. In the subsequent sections, the experimental data are
presented and these relationships are further evaluated.
Theoretical Considerations
The Relationship between 65, ~, and C* f o r Steady-State Creep
Let us consider a creep crack growing at a constant velocity/z (or da/dt) where t = time, a
= crack size, and the dot designates the derivative with respect to time as shown in Fig. 1. We
assume that the crack tip opening angle (CTOA) remains constant during crack growth. Since
the crack is assumed to grow at a constant velocity, the magnitude of the crack driving force
is expected to be constant and the constant CTOA assumption appears reasonable from the
point of preserving the self-similar deformation conditions at the crack tip.
The overall history of crack tip deformation and crack growth in the specimen is assumed
to be as follows. At time t = 0, the crack is suddenly loaded and after an initial period, to, it
begins to grow at a constant velocity cL During the period 0 --< t -< to, creep deformation occurs
at the crack tip accompanied by redistribution of stresses which eventually reach steady-state
levels during this period [12 ]. Small but a negligible amount of crack extension may also occur
!~
location of the
original, crack tip
X
9 x+dx ,l
FIG. 1--Crack tip geometry of a crack growing under creep conditions at a constant velocity ~.
The solid line represents the position of the crack tip at time, t and the dotted line represents the
position of the crack tip at time, t 4- dt.
during this period. Since the crack extension is small, it may be assumed that the crack size at
t = to is essentially the initial crack size, ao. The crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), 8,
rises to a value 8,0 during this period, and 85 goes to 850. Since the 85 measurement is referenced
to the unloaded state of the crack at time t = 0, 850 can be considered approximately equal to
8,0 as also shown by Schwalbe [13] for elastic-plastic conditions. Figure 1 shows the crack
profiles at some time, t > to and at t + dt, where dt is an incremental time interval during
which the crack grows to a + da, 8, grows to 8, + dS,, and 85 increases to 8s + d85. Let x be
the distance between the position of the unloaded crack tip and the point of intersection of the
lines extending from the two crack surfaces as shown in Fig. 1. Because of the symmetry of
deformation, this intersection point will also lie on the original crack plane. During the time
dt, x increases to x + dr. We can now write the following relationship
85 + d85 x+ dx + a + d a - ao d85 da + dr
- - - or - (1)
8s x + a- ao 85 x + a- ao
at the initial point
d85 d85 dr + da
(2)
850 8to Xo
We can also see from Fig. 1 that
x + dr 8, + dS,
x 8,
or
dr _ dS,
x 8,
(3)
or
dr dS,
(3a)
Xo 8,0
substituting from Eq 3a into Eq 2 we get
d85 _ dS, + da
8~ 8~ Xo
or
d85 = d S , + 8,o da (4)

Xo
Integrating Eq 4 we obtain,
A~5 = A~, + -~o Aa

Xo
where A represents the change in the respective quantities that are larger than differential
amounts or
850 + A~5 = 8to + ASt + v,0 Aa

Xo
(because ~5o = ~,o) or
85 = 8, + 8,0 Aa (5)
X0
differentiating Eq 5 and recognizing dAa/dt =/1 with time yields
65 = ~, + 8~ Aa + ~o/t (6)
Xo Xo
We also know that [14,15]
~, = ~ (At) ~/" d.C* (7)

n+l
A constant value of CTOD implies that ~,o/Xo = 8,/x. Thus, Eq 6 simplifies to
Equation 8 can also be written as
85 = 1 + ~ (At) TM d,C* + -- gt (9)

X
A reasonable approximation of CTOA can be obtained from the measurement of the load-
line deflection, 8L and 85 (see Fig. 2). It can be shown that
(lOa)
X a
FIG. 2 ~ A simplified relationship between load-line deflection, 6L, crack tip opening displacement,
6t, and the crack size.
recognizing that ~t/~L << 1
~t
x = ~ a (lOb)
substituting Eq 10b into Eq 8,
(1 a _a
or
35 = 3, + Aa 3L + ~ a (11)
a a
Equation 11 can also be expressed in terms of ~z, which is measured during the tests. The
following relationship between 8, and ~z can be derived for CT specimens from the work of
Kumar et al. [16] in elastic-plastic fracture
8S- ah3 \ ~ ] ~ (12)
where h I and h 3 are functions of a/W and n (the creep exponent) and are listed in Ref 16, P is
the applied load, B is the specimen thickness, and "q is given below
(13)
Equations 12 and 13 can be combined to yield the following
3, - P3L(At)~/----~nhs(a/W,n ) (14)
BW
where
(15)
The value of h 5 for CT specimens under plane strain conditions are calculated and given in
Table 1. Substituting Eq 14 into Eq 11 we get
~5 P3L(At)I/" Aa 8L a
= BW hs(a/W'n) + - r- 3L + -a- "
or
(16)
TABLE 1--The function hsfor determining CTOD rate for CT

specimens under plane strain conditions, Eq 15.
h 5 (a/W, n)
a/W n= 5 n=7 n = 10
0.375 0.798 1.245 1.692

0.50 1.1567 1.8655 2.55
0.625 1.5775 2.4045 3.37
0.750 2.2167 3.4895 4.831
In evaluating the significance of Eqs 11 and 16, two types of material behavior are consid-
ered. For creep-ductile materials, it is expected that the third term on the right-hand side of Eq
11 will be negligible compared to the first. In this instance, g3 is related to the CTOD rate and
the amount of crack extension, Aa because ~ot~, is constant for constant CTOA. Although 6 t
is related to C* through Eq 7, the relationship is not unique. This is because, for the same value
of C*, the location at which 6, is measured changes with time. Since the profile of the crack
surface near the tip is not linear in the Hutchinson, Rice, Rosengreen (HRR) [17,18] displace-
ment fields, a small time dependence (t 1/") results in the relationship between 6, and C*. How-
ever, this time dependence is weak and is not likely to be measured in experimental data.
Therefore, for practical purposes, C* can be viewed as essentially being a function of 6,. Since
6, and ~3 are related as pointed out earlier, for limited amounts of crack extension, a good
correlation between 63 and da/dt is expected. However, as the crack extends, the correlation
should deviate. We will evaluate this aspect using data from Cr-Mo-V steel and Ti-6242Si
alloy.
The second type of material behavior is the creep-brittle behavior. In these materials, crack
growth rates are rapid and the strain rates associated with crack growth are comparable to the
accumulation of creep deformation. If the second term on the right-hand side of Eq 11 domi-
nates, the measured values of 63 are merely a measure of crack growth rate,/~. Therefore, any
correlation between/t and 63 will be of little fundamental significance. In fact, the ~ versus
63 correlation must have a slope of one on a log-log plot. This aspect of the relationship between
63 and/~ can be explored using the Ti-6242Si data presented in one of the next sections.
Creep Crack Growth Testing
In this study, creep crack growth rate data from a creep-ductile Cr-Mo-V steel at 538~ and
a creep-brittle Ti-6242Si alloy at 500~ are used to evaluate ~5 as a parameter for characterizing
creep crack growth rate behavior. The Cr-Mo-V steel data were obtained from four tests con-
ducted on 50- and 25-mm-wide compact-type specimens.
The tensile and creep properties of this material were characterized previously [19] and are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, and the chemical composition is given in Table
4. All four tests were performed under constant-load conditions. The load-line deflection, 8L,
and the 85 deflection at the original crack tip were continuously recorded. The crack size was
also continuously recorded using electric potential technique as described in ASTM Standard
Test Method for Measurement of Creep Crack Growth Rates in Metals (E 1457). The test
conditions are summarized in Table 5.
The Ti-6242Si data were obtained on two microstructural conditions consisting of equiaxed
and lamellar microstructures. The chemical composition is given in Table 6. The tensile and
TABLE 2--Tensile properties o f Ti-6242Si and Cr-Mo-V steel [19,21].
Test Yield Tensile

Temperature, Strength, Strength, Elongation, RA, Elastic Modulus,
Material ~ MPa MPa % % MPa
Ti-6242Si lamellar 25 930 987 9.5 19 118 000

microstructure 500 529 674 13.3 33 96 000
Ti-6242Si equiaxed 25 919 975 15.4 33 120 000
microstructure 500 515 667 13.5 35 97 000
Cr-Mo-V steel 538 457.8 491.6 25.2 62.4 184 000
TABLE 3 Steady-state creep constants, E,s = Air n where ess =

steady-state creep rate and A and n are constants.
Test
Temperature,
Materials ~ A (MPa-nh -~) n
Cr-Mo-V steel 538 1.17 X 10 -24 8

Ti-6242Si equiaxed 500 5.51 X 10 ~8 4.9
Ti-6242Si lamellar 500 8.46 • 10 -20 5.5
TABLE 4---Chemical composition o f the Cr-Mo- V steel ( %/wt ).
C 0.31
Mn 0.78
P 0.007
S <0.001
Si 0.23
Ni 0.33
Cr 1.13
Mo 1.15
V 0.23
Sn 0.00
Sb 0.0012
Cu 0.04
A1 0.004
As 0.003
Ti 0.002
B 0.0008
Cb <0.005
Fe balance
TABLE 5--Details o f the creep crack growth tests on the Cr-Mo- V steel at 538 ~ C.
Applied Load,
Specimen kN B, mm B~, mm ao, mm W, mm
CT 253 6.0 12.5 10.0 13.64 25

CT 502 19.7 25.0 20.0 25.55 50
CT 501 19.7 25.0 20.0 25.54 50
CT 254 4.6 12.5 10.0 13.484 25
All tests were performed under constant load conditions.
TABLE 6--Chemical composition of Ti-6242Si alloy ( %/wt).
Lamellar Equiaxed
Element Microstructure Microstructure
Fe 0.05 0.04
C 0.013 <0.02
O 0.080 0.092
N 0.008 0.009
H 0.00514).0062 0.0019-0.0091
A1 6.00 5.98
Mo 1.90 1.88
Sn 2.00 1.99
Zr 4.30 4.21
Si 0.08 0.08
Ti balance balance
creep deformation b e h a v i o r o f the two microstructural conditions are g i v e n in Tables 2 and 3,

respectively. Three 5 0 - m m - w i d e c o m p a c t specimens were tested from each microstructural
condition u n d e r constant load-line deflection rate condition.
In addition, two tests for each microstructural condition were also c o n d u c t e d under constant
load as s h o w n in Table 7.
Data Reduction
During the tests, 85, 8L, and a were monitored as a function of time. T h e i r rates 85, 8L, and
a were then determined using the secant m e t h o d outlined in the A S T M Test M e t h o d E 1457.
The deflection rate as a result of creep, ~5c, at the 85 location was obtained by the following
equation
~5c = ~5 - 8--LL/~ (17)

a
TABLE 7--Details o f the creep crack growth tests performed on

the Ti-6242Si material at 500~ ~
Load-Line
Specimen and Type Deflection Rate,
Microstructure of Test Load, kN mm/s
CT 806-equiaxed 1b variable 2 . 7 8 X 10 -7
CT 801-equiaxed 1 variable 2.78 X 10 -6
CT 137-equiaxed 1 variable 2.78 • 10 -5
CT 804B-equiaxed 2c 5.0 variable
CT 805-equiaxed 2 6.5 variable
CT 541-1amellar 1 variable 2.78 • 10 -7
CT 540-1amellar 1 variable 2.78 X 10 -6
CT 539-1amellar 1 variable 2.78 x 10 -5
CT 212-1amellar 2 5.0 variable
CT 211C-lamellar 2 6.5 variable
a All specimens were 50 mm wide and 5 mm thick.

b Constant load-line deflection rate tests.
c Constant load tests.
The CTOD rate ~, is then given by
~, = ~5c - A.._a_a~L (18)

a
The method of estimating C* is discussed in earlier publication [8,19] and need not be repeated
here.

In this section, the results of the creep crack growth tests are presented for the Ti-6242Si
alloy and the Cr-Mo-V steel. The Ti-6242Si alloy provides a more comprehensive database
including results from several tests, hence, the majority of the discussion pertains to these
results. By comparison, the Cr-Mo-V data are few and they will be presented after the Ti-
6242Si data.
Figure 3 shows the secondary-stage creep rate as function of applied stress at 500~ for the
equiaxed and lamellar microstructures of Ti-6242Si. The lamellar microstructure shows higher
resistance to creep deformation for a given stress level compared to the equiaxed microstructure.
Figure 4 shows the creep crack growth rate, da/dt, versus C*(t) trends for these alloys. In these
figures, only data that satisfy the condition, ~LC/~L >-- 0.8 were plotted, where ~Lc = load-line
deflection rate as a result of creep and ~L = total load-line deflection rate. The above condition
eliminates considerable data from the tests performed on the lamellar microstructure that shows
a creep-brittle character. The data that meet the above requirement appear to correlate well with
C*(t). If all data from these tests are plotted against C*(t), the correlation is not good as shown
in earlier work [2,8]. In the same study, it was shown that the correlations were better when
the data were plotted against the J integral but still contained significant amounts of scatter.
It is now useful to examine the correlation between creep crack growth rate and the ~5
10-7
Ti-6242 at 500~
O Lamellar
[] Equiaxed
.,=..
O 10 - 8
rr
c
m
E
= 1.53 • 10-21a4-9 O~
E
E
.j
10 - 9
/ ~ e = 2.35 x 10-23a5-5
10-10 9 . . .,, . . .
O0 1000
Stress (MPa)
FIG. 3--Steady-state creep deformation behavior for the Ti-6242Si alloy at 500~ for the equiaxed
and lamellar microstructures.
10-4
Ti-6242 data: (Vc/V)_>0.8& Aa~0.5mm
r 1~ a=9"57e-4C*(t)Ô72y
/ ,DV'N Lamellar-Equiaxed
10"6 j/ B j ~ nl 0 9 ~/LL:lOOp,rrVh
j~ ~" N n 9 9LL: lOp.m/h
V mB & 9 ~LL: 1 I.tnYh
9 9 =! 9 P.const:5.0 KN
9 N P.const:6.5 KN
10 .7 ........"t , ........ , ........ , ........
,00001 ,0001 ,001 ,01 1
C*(t) [aPa.m/h]
FIG. 4--Creep crack growth rate, da/dt, as function of the C*(t) integral for the Ti-6242Si alloy
at 500~ for the equiaxed (solid symbols) and lameUar (hollow symbols) microstructures.
parameter. First, it is important to separate the component of 65 that occurs as a result of creep
deformation, 65c, and that caused by crack growth. Equation 17 was used to estimate ~5c. This
is similar to the partitioning of the load-line deflection rates when C* is estimated (ASTM Test
Method E 1457) [7]. In this approach, only ~Lc is used for estimating C*, and only data which
meet the requirement ~LC/6L >-- 0.8 are considered valid. The data that lie in the interval 0.5 --<
6LC/6L <-- 0.8 may qualify, if their trend agree with the data for which the former condition is
met. In Figs. 5a and b the creep crack growth rates are plotted with 65c and 6,, respectively
(derived from Eq 18) for the equiaxed microstructure. In Figs. 6a and b, the same data are
plotted for the lamellar microstructure. Realizing that the limits for qualifying creep crack
growth rate data based on 65 may be different from that used for C*(t), all data that met the
requirement ~5c/~5 >--0.5 were included in the plots. However, data that lay within the interval
0.5 --< ~5c/~5 < 0.8 were identified separately.
As can be seen from Fig. 5a, the correlation between da/dt and ~sc is good for the equiaxed
microstructure. The correlation between da/dt and ~, was also .good, but there appears to be
more scatter in the data as compared to the previous plot. Since ~, is not directly measured, the
somewhat larger scatter can come from the uncertainties in the measurement of Aa, which is
used in estimated ~,. Thus, it appears that both these parameters are able to correlate creep
crack growth rate behavior in the equiaxed microstructure of this alloy. It also appears that
good correlation is found for all data that meet the requirement ~sc/~5 >-- 0.5 in this alloy so
the condition that ~5c/~ > 0.8 may be too restrictive for this material. The maximum crack
extension sustained among the specimens used in the above correlation was 4 mm, which is
approximately 15% of the initial crack size. Thus, ~5c may be used for correlating creep-crack
growth data in creep-ductile materials up to crack extensions equal to 15% of the original crack
size. The actual limits may be even larger, but no data are available to support the use of ~5c
beyond 15% of the original crack size. The lamellar structure exhibited considerable more
creep-brittle behavior when compared to the equiaxed structure. Fewer data points met the
condition of ~5c/~5 >- 0.5 in these tests. Also the scatter in the data correlations with ~5c and
~, were higher as compared to the equiaxed material among the data that did meet the require-
S A X E N A ET AL. ON C R E E P C R A C K G R O W T H 521
10"4.
R
G5c/ G5 20.5
slashed points: G5c/ G5 <0.8
10"5
E
o
oO
10-6. [] OO o
Ja" O
[]
r'l CT 804-B
0 CT 805
A
ol~ o 9 CT 806
9 CT 801
A 9
A 9 CT 137
10-7. - - d
10"8 10-7 10-6 10-5
Gsc (minis)
FIG. 5a---Creep crack growth rate as function of ~5c for the Ti-6242Si alloy at 500~ for the
equiaxed microstructure.
10-4
G5c/ ~5 >~0.5 .e"

slashed points: Gsc/ G5<0.8 9
10-5,
E
E
J3"
o Oo
~
(13 o o
10-6. o oo
I"1 []
[] o
Q CT 804-B
m3FIg []
O CT 805
9 n n
h A CT 806
9j 8o 9 CT 801
A 9 9 CT137
10-7 . .
. . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
e
. . . . ! . . . . . . .
0-8 10-7 10-6 10"5

(ram/e)
FIG. 5~-Same as Fig. 5a, except creep crack growth rates are correlated with ~t.
10-4
~5c/ 55 ;=05 9B" .1~
slashed points: 85c/ 65 <08
10-5
9 & B~"
E .8"
E
t=
"r
10"6.
.k
j ~ t -k [] CT 539
O CT 540
Jr A CT 541
9 CT 211C
9 CT212
10-7 . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . !
10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5
85c (mm/s)
FIG. 6a--Creep crack growth rate as a function of ~scfor the Ti-6242Si alloy at 500~ for the
lamellar microstructure.
10"4
,B"
5 6 c / ~55 9 0.5 .B" ~" B"
slashed points: 55c/ 55 <0.8
J~
10"5
k
E
E
%
.r
lO-6
k
[] CT 539
O CT 540
k A CT 541
9 CT211C
9 CT212
10-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . .
0 -8 10 "7 10 -6 1 -5
8t (mm/s)
FIG. 6b---Same as Fig. 6a, except creep crack growth rates are correlated with ~r
ment. If only data that meet the ~5c/85 >-- 0.8 are retained, the correlation appears to improve,
but then only few points qualify. These observations are in total agreement with the correlations
obtained with C*(t). It also appears that 8t correlation results in more scatter which is the same
as observed for the equiaxed material.
Figure 7 plots all the creep crack growth data as a function 83 obtained for the lamellar
microstructure that did not meet the requirement 83c/83 >-- 0.5. In these data, it can be argued
that crack growth effects dominated the 83 values. Therefore, a correlation between da/dt and
85 is expected to have a slope of 1 as argued previously. A line of slope of 1 is shown on the
plot. It appears that the slope of the data may be somewhat less than one. This may be due to
the small creep component of deflection that is a part of all the 63 values included in this plot.
Ideally, to test this hypothesis, data should be generated in the range 85c < < 83. Since sufficient
data in this regime were not available, no conclusive experimental evidence can be provided.
However, from theory it is concluded that 63 is not suitable as a crack tip parameter for char-
acterizing creep crack growth behavior in creep-brittle materials.
The available creep crack growth rate data for Cr-Mo-V steel at 538~ are plotted in Fig. 8
as a function of 85c. Only few data are available on this material. It was also observed that 63
was initially negative for some tests, which may be because of misplacements of the pins for
measuring ~3. If the pins are even slightly displaced from the original crack tip in the direction
away from the load line, a negative 83 can be expected until the crack passes through the plane
of the pins. This is one of the drawbacks of this technique. However, the limited data obtained
from three tests on specimens with two different sizes do appear to support the validity of the
da/dt-63c correlation strongly.
Figure 9 shows the comparison between the creep crack growth rate behavior of the equiaxed
and lamellar microstructures. The equiaxed microstructure shows more resistance to creep crack
growth rate than the lamellar structure, which was the same as observed in the da/dt versus
C*(t) relationship.
10-3.
85r ~5 <0.5
oo
~ 10" 4
9 CT 540
10 . 5 S . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
10 - 6 10 - 5 1 -4
85 (ram/s)
FIG. 7--Creep crack growth rate as a function of 65 for the Ti-6242Si alloy at 500 ~ for the
lamellar microstructure.. This plot includes only those data in which crack growth effects dominated
the measured values of 65.
10"3.
~isc/ 85 >~0.5
slashed points: 8sc/ 55 <0.8
10"4
J~
E lO-5
"a
[]
10"6.
[] CT 253, W =25mm
10-7
10-10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10-9
9&'O~
=
10-8
~
. . . . . . . .
-0-7
i . . . . . . . . i
10-6
........ |
10-5
I O CT501, W = 5 O m m
A C T 254, W =25mm
........ i
10-4
........
10"3
I
85c (mm/s)
FIG. 8--Creep crack growth rate as a function of ~scfor the Cr-Mo-V steel.
10-4.
~5c/ 65 ;~0.5 m"

slashed points: ~5c/ ~55<0.8
; o~"
10"5 *".6~=' Ar
E
E
,,,,.
m ~o
t. O o ov
"m
O0 O0
10"6 000
R" .~, 00
0 ,o 0
.0'
- o q~ o% O Equiaxed
0 0
0 GO 9 Lamellar
10"7 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
0-8 10"7 10"6 10-5
85c (ram/s)
FIG. 9~Comparison between t.he creep crack growth rates of the Ti-6242Si alloy with equiaxed
and lamellar microstructures on ~5c basis.
From these results several points have emerged. The first observation is that 85c can be used
for correlating creep crack growth behavior for limited crack extensions (up to 15% of the
original crack size) in creep-ductile materials. In this regime, the best physical basis for its
validity is that it represents a measure of the CTOD rate. If crack extension exceeds the above
limits, ~5c may not be an accurate measure of 6, and should therefore not be used unless
evidence has shown that it is possible to go beyond. For creep-brittle materials. 65c appears to
have the same limitations as the C* integral and the C, parameter. Although good correlations
are observed between da/dt and ~5, these correlations are of no fundamental significance. For
these materials, the J integral seems to be the best parameter [20]. The ~sc value can also be
estimated in components, but, only in regions in which it is interpreted as a measure of the 6,.
The procedure for estimating ~5c would be analogous to those outlined by Schwalbe [10] for
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. Since ~, cannot be measured, 65c may serve as an operational
definition for measurement.
The evaluations in this study are limited to extensive creep conditions because the data
available were exclusively in this regime. Further extension of this work can be carried out in
the small-scale regime.

Analytical relationships between 65c and ~t and C* have been derived for creeping materials.
The creep crack growth rates are characterized in a creep-ductile Cr-Mo-V steel, a Ti-6242Si
alloy with an equiaxed microstructure that gives it a character somewhere between a creep-
ductile and creep-brittle behavior, and a Ti-6242Si alloy with a lamellar microstructure which
gives it a creep-brittle character. It is well known that creep crack growth rates are characterized
by C* in Cr-Mo-V steel. It is shown that C* also characterizes the creep crack growth rates in
Ti-6242Si with an equiaxed microstructure but failed to characterize completely the creep crack
growth rates in the Ti-6242Si alloy with lamellar microstructure. The creep part of 65, ~5c, and
~, is shown to characterize the creep crack growth rates in the same regimes as C*. These
parameters also failed to characterize creep crack growth rates in the regimes in which C*
failed.
It is also argued that 65c for limited amounts of crack extension ( < 15% of the original crack
size for creep-ductile materials) is approximately equal to ~,. It is thus proposed that ~5c be
used as a candidate parameter for measuring 6, as an operational convenience since ~, cannot
be directly measured. In the regime in which 65c ~ 6, ~t can be estimated in components in
the same way as C* and C, parameters are calculated for the components.
References
[1 ] Saxena, A., in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1980, pp 131-151.
[2] Saxena, A., in Fracture Mechanics: Seventeenth Conference, ASTM STP 905, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1986, pp 185-201.
[3] Saxena, A. and Liaw, P. K., "Remaining Life Assessment of Boiler Pressure Parts--Crack Growth
Studies," EPRI CS 4688, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1986.
[4] Riedel, H. and Detampel, V., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 36, 1988, pp. 275-289.
[5] Hollstein, T., Djvanroodi, F., Webster, G. A., and Holdsworth, S. R., "Measurement of Crack Growth
at High Temperatures," EGF Report, European Group of Fracture, Freiburg, Germany, 1988.
[6] Tabuchi, M., Yagi, K., Kubo, K., and Tanaka, C., in Creep and Fracture Engineering Materials and
Structures, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, B. Wilshire and R. W. Evans, Eds.,
The Institute of Metals, London, 1990, pp. 729-738.
[7] Saxena, A., Ernst, H. A., and Landes, J. D., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 23, 1983, pp.
245-257.
[8] Dogan, B. and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Creep Crack Growth Behavior in a Ti-6242 Alloy," in Fracture
Mechanics, Twenty-Second Symposium, ASTM STP 1131, Vol. I, American Society for Testing and
[9] Hawk, D. E. and Bassani, J. L., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 34, No. 3,
1986, pp. 191-212.
[10] Schwalbe, K.-H., "A Simple Engineering Treatment of Center Cracked Tension Panels in the Regime
of Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics Under Plane-Stress Conditions," GKSS 84/E/38, GKSS Research
Centre, Geesthacht, 1984.
[11 ] Hui, C. Y., in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Vol. I, Inelastic Crack Analysis, ASTM
STP 803, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. I573-1593.
[12] Riedel, H. and Rice, J. R., in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, American
[13] Schwalbe, K.-H., "The Prediction of Failure Situations Using the CTOD Concept Based on the
Engineering Treatment Model (ETM)," in Crack Tip Opening Displacement in Elastic Plastic Frac-
ture Mechanics Workshop on CTOD Methodology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
[14 ] Riedel, H., in Advances in Fracture Research, Proceedings oflCF7, K. Salama et al., Eds., Pergamon
Press, London, Vol. 1989, pp. 1495-1524.
[15] Shih, C. F., Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 305-326.
Analysis," NP-1931, Research Project 1237-I, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
July 1981.
[17] Hutchinson, J. W., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
[18] Rice, J. R. and Rosengren, G. F., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968,
pp. 13-31.
[19] Saxena, A., "Evaluation of Crack Tip Parameters for Characterizing Creep Crack Growth--Results
from the ASTM Round-Robin Program," Materials at High Temperatures, Vol. 10, No. 2, May
1992, pp. 79-91.
[20] Dogan, B., Saxena, A., and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Creep Crack Growth in Creep Brittle Ti-6242
Alloys," Materials at High Temperatures, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 1992, pp. 138-143.
K Analysis
J. A. M. B o u l e t I
Crack-Face Interaction: Protrusion

Interference in Brittle Materials
REFERENCE: Boulet, J. A. M., "Crack-Face Interaction: Protrusion Interference in Brittle
Materials," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes,
Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
ABSTRACT: In the classical analysis of Griffith (line) cracks, the crack faces do not interact
with each other. But for real cracks, various kinds of mechanical crack face interaction can occur.
In particular, protrusion interference during biaxial loading of a bumpy Griffith crack is discussed.
The influence of this interference on the stress required to produce fast fracture in a brittle material
is analyzed using the Griffith fracture criterion for biaxial stress. The dependence of the fracture
stress on the orientation, magnitude and biaxiality of the remote stress is described quantitatively.
It is shown that the stress required to produce fracture is slightly altered by a single interference
site, but significantly altered when many sites are present. It is also shown that for all cracks
whose length is less than about one-tenth of a millimeter in silicon carbide or 1 mm in silicon
nitride, any interference that exists influences fracture.
KEYWORDS: linear, elastic, two-dimensional, rough, mixed-mode, contact, interference,

ceramics, brittle, fracture
When a Griffith (line) crack is subjected to arbitrarily oriented principal stresses applied at
infinity, both Mode I and Mode I| stress intensity factors at the crack tips (ends) are not zero.
In the classical analysis of this problem [1 ], the crack faces do not interact with each other.
But for real cracks, various kinds of mechanical crack-face interaction can occur. (Under com-
pressive stresses, contact of the faces can produce pressure along the entire crack. Under biaxial
tension with the crack not parallel to either principal direction, relative shear displacement of
the faces can cause the protrusions on rough faces to interfere with each other and so generate
interaction forces. For fibrous composites, fibers that bridge the crack can mediate interaction
between the faces.) A n y crack-face interaction changes the fracture stress (the level of stress
required to produce fast fracture) from what it would be if the interaction were not present.
The amount of change is a direct measure of the importance of any kind of crack-face
interaction.
The problem considered herein is that of predicting the fracture stress for a Griffith crack
subjected to arbitrary biaxial stress at infinity, with crack-free interaction represented by con-
centrated loads. The use of concentrated loads is appropriate when interaction takes place in
regions very small relative to the crack size. Stress intensity factors for this problem have been
investigated [2 ] using a two-dimensional (plane stress and plane strain) analytical and numerical
model. The geometry and loading used therein are depicted on one scale in Fig. 1 and on a
larger scale in Figs. 2 and 3. The angle 13 in Fig. 1 is referred to herein as the stress orientation
angle. The crack is shown opened by the remote principal stresses, tr I and tr 2, and concentrated
l Associate professor, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, University of Tennessee,
310 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-2030.
529
X, U
FIG. 1--Griffith crack subjected simultaneously to arbitrarily oriented biaxial stress at infinity
and concentrated loads representing interaction at x = b.
loads resulting from contact of the crack faces with each other. If unloaded, the crack would
be closed (line crack). The larger (in magnitude) of the principal stresses is ~x. The concentrated
loads at x = b are N = P sin 0 and T = P cos 0, where P is the contact load shown in Fig. 3.
Displacements are u and v in the x and y directions, respectively. Figure 2 is a large-scale view
of the region x = b in Fig. 1. Figure 3 shows the upper crack face of Fig. 2. The ramp length,
R, is assumed to be much smaller than the crack half-length, a, defined in Fig. 1. The concen-
trated force is assumed to act at the middle of the region where the ramps overlap in Fig. 2.
(When the crack is closed, the force is at the middle of the ramps. As the crack opens, the force
moves closer to the convex ramp comers.) The ramp angle is restricted to the range 0 < 0 <
7r/2.
Depending on their signs and orientation, the remote stresses tend either to open or to close
the crack. Also, when the crack is aligned with neither stress, the stresses tend to shear the
crack (slide the opposing faces parallel to themselves, but in opposite directions). Unless the
crack is opened enough so that protrusions on the opposing faces do not overlap, shearing may
cause the protrusions to interfere with each other. The specific kind of interaction discussed
previously [2] is the interference of ramp-shaped bumps during relative shear displacement of
the faces. In that work, it was initially assumed that the crack faces are in contact at only one
place and that the interference site is small compared with the crack size (R/a ~ 1; see Figs.
1 and 3). Far from this region, the effect of the interference is the same as if the bumps were
represented by the concentrated loads shown in Fig. 1.
The contact load in Fig. 1 can be found by the following method [2 ]. Consider the displace-
X, U
FIG. 2 Interference between ramp-shaped bumps on the faces of a Griffith crack.
BOULET ON CRACK-FACE INTERACTION 531
!/, v
FIG. 3 ~ o n c e n t r a t e d normal force, P, applied to a ramp-shaped bump on a half-plane.
ments, as a result of the remote stress, of points G and H in Fig. 2. When the crack is closed,
these points are located (in the coordinate system of Fig. 1) at y = 0 and
xc = b + R c o s 0 (1)
xH = b - R c o s 0 (2)
where R and 0 are the ramp length and angle, respectively (Fig. 3). For points G and H, let the
displacement discontinuities across the crack in the x and y directions be
Au = uG - u~/ (3)
and
Av = vc - vM (4)
respectively. Once the remote stress brings the ramps in Fig. 2 into contact, any further
("excess") Au requires that the ramps deform. The correct value of the contact load is the one
that produces ramp deformation compatible with the excess Au. (The ramp deformation can
be calculated once the position of the contact force on the ramps is assumed. We take this to
be at the middle of the region in which the ramps overlap in Fig. 2.) This compatibility condition
has been used [2] to compute contact loads versus the level of remote stress (gl), biaxiality
ratio (crJ(r~), stress orientation angle (13), Poisson's ratio (v), normalized ramp length (R/a),
and ramp angle (0). Equations used therein to calculate ramp deformation are based on an
original solution not yet published.
In addition to the contact load, both Modes I and II stress intensity factors have been com-
puted by Ref 2. In the present work, these results are combined with the Griffith fracture
criterion to assess the influence of crack-face protrusion interference on fracture stress.
Dimensionless Variables
In what follows, an asterisk denotes a dimensionless variable. All displacements are nor-
malized with respect to the crack half-length, a (Fig. I). Also, the dimensionless remote stress,
contact force, stress intensity factors, and fracture toughness are
cr* = --or' (5)

Ix
P
P* = - - (6)
txa
K,
K* - i.zN/--
~ (7)
K,,
K*, p ~ (8)
KIr (9)
K* ~X/~
where ~ is the shear modulus, 0-~ is the larger (in magnitude) of the two in-plane principal
stresses (Fig. 1), P is the force in Fig. 3, and K t and Kit are the physical stress intensity factors.
Finally, the "biaxiality ratio" is defined as
0-2
p = -- (10)
0" 1
where cr2 is the smaller (in magnitude) of the two in-plane principal stresses.
Fracture Criterion
The Griffith fracture criterion for biaxial stress [3] is
K~ + K2II = / ~ (11)
Expressions for the stress intensity factors at the right-hand (x = a) crack tip can be derived
from published results [4,5]. For a single interaction site at x = b, they are
K* = DAr*(1 + At) (12)
K* t = D.0-*(1 - A.) (13)
where
D1 = cos 213 + p s i n 213 (14)
D . = (1 - p) sin 13 cos 13 (15)
_ sin0/1-SP*
At (16)
/iYs0-*
/
_ cos0 [1 - SP*
A,1 (17)
b
S = - (18)
a
The ramp angle, 0, defined in Fig. 3, appears in Eqs 16 and 17 because the normal and shear
components of the contact load at x = b in Fig. 1 are taken as N = P sin 0 and T = P cos 0,
respectively.
For multiple interference sites, Eqs 6 and 16 through 18 become
e l
P* = - - , i = 1,2 .... n (19)
la,a
A1= 1 k sin 0, ~ +_ S, P* (20)

rrDt i= 1 Si or*
(21)
Si = --bi (22)
a
respectively, where the index i ranges from 1 to the number of interference sites.
Let tr* be the value of remote stress (~r*) that produces fast fracture when interference is
present and tr* be the value that produces fast fracture when interference is absent. Then, from
Eqs 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, we have
tr*f(~r*) = K* c (23)
where
f(cr*) = N/[D,(1 + A,)]z -4- [O**(1 - A.)] z (24)
In the absence of contact, Eqs 23 and 24 reduce to
~*go = K~c (25)
fo = ~ + D~ (26)
Suppose that remote stresses, crack size, ramp geometry, and ramp location are given and that
the fracture criterion is Eq 11. If interference occurs (the ramps in Fig. 2 contact each other),
the fracture toughness that the material must have to prevent fracture is given by Eq 23. But
if interference does not occur, the required fracture toughness is given by Eq 25. The ratio of
these two fracture toughness values is a convenient measure of the significance of the inter-
ference. Let this ratio be called h, and let it be the ratio of the toughness required in the presence
of interference to the toughness required in the absense of interference. Then from Eqs 23 and
25, we have
f(tr*)
h -~ (27)
fo
If k < 1, interference "toughens" the crack in that it reduces the toughness required to prevent
fracture. If k > 1, interference makes the crack less tough. From Eqs 20 and 21, and the fact
that A1 and A , are positive definite, it is apparent that interference increases K~ and decreases
/s But in h, these two effects compete. Hence, without calculating the contact load(s), one
cannot predict whether or not interference toughens the crack. In what follows, k is referred to
as the "fracture toughness ratio."
C o n d i t i o n s for I n t e r f e r e n c e to O c c u r
Kinematical analysis reveals the precise conditions of remote stress and ramp geometry under
which bumps on opposing crack faces interfere with each other. From Figs. 2 and 3, we see
that the ramps contact each other whenever
> 0 (28)
where
8 = Au* - A v * c o t 0 (29)
and Au* and Av* are the displacement discontinuities (defined previously) normalized with
respect to the crack half-length, a. Expressions for the displacement discontinuities can be
constructed by superimposing solutions available from the literature for biaxial stress at infinity
[6] and for concentrated loads on the crack faces [4]. From these solutions, Eqs 1 through 4,
and 29, and careful consideration of the limiting values obtained when approaching the crack
from above or below, we find that
8 = A , - A2P* (30)
where
K+I
A1 - (U - V cot 0)cr* (31)
8
3 - 4v, plane strain

K= 3-v (32)
, plane stress
U = (1 - p)[C sin (213) - 2Q cos (213)1 (33)
V = 2(CD, + 2QD,) (34)
(35)
Q_Xo-xn_Rcos0
(36)
a a
A2 = csc 0 In [-}/f+(xG)f+(xn)/ (37)

Lf - ( x v ) f - ( x . ) j
f+-(x) = 1 - sX--4- ~
a
_ ix) (38)
BOULET ON CRACK-FACE INTERACT/ON 535
TABLE 1--Restrictions on the biaxiality ratio, p. The parameter

dp is given in Eq 40.
Condition for Restrictions on p

Interference
9 Range for 13 to Occur 0"* > 0 tr* < 0
13< - 0 < 0
or (~b - 0)0"* > 0 P< 6 P> 6
13>0
-0<13<0 N , - p)~* < 0 p>~, O<4,
For interference to occur, Eq 28 must hold even when P* = 0. From this, Eqs 1, 2, 14, and 30
through 36, we find that for a single bump pair at b = 0 in Fig. 1, interference occurs only if
tan 13(tan 13 + tan 0)(~b - p)tr*(1 + e) > 0 (39)
where
-1
~b = (40)
tan 13 tan(13 + 0)
and [el ~ 1 whenever R/a < 1. If we neglect e, we find from Eq 39 that for interference to
occur, p must be greater or less than ~b, depending on the values of 13 and tr*. These restrictions
are summarized in Table 1.
As shown in Table 2, four distinct loading cases can be defined based on the algebraic signs
of the two remote principal stresses in Fig. 1. For each loading case defined in Table 2, Eq 40
and Table 1 give a relationship involving 13, 0, and p that must be satisfied if interference is to
occur. Suppose, for example, that we have a single interference site at the origin (b = 0, Fig.
1) and the ramp angle (0) is rr/4. Then the loading conditions required for interference to occur
are summarized in Fig. 4. If both principal stresses are tensile (Case I), interference occurs only
if ~r/4 < [3 < ~r/2, and p lies below the ~b curve. If 13 > ~r/4 and p lies above the ~b curve, then
interference occurs only if both principal stresses a r e compressive. If 13 < 7r/4, interference
occurs for any values of 13 and p, provided one or both of the principal stresses is compressive.
Because the ~b curve depends on the ramp angle, 0, the size of the region in the 13, p plane
corresponding to biaxial tension (Case I) in Fig. 4 varies with 0. This is illustrated in Fig. 5,
where the ~b curve is plotted for various ramp angles in the first quadrant of the 13, p plane.
The sole interference site is at the origin (b = 0, Fig. 1). For points (13, p) below the ~b curve,
TABLE 2--Loading cases defined according to the algebraic

signs of the two remote principal stresses. The principal
stresses are shown in Fig. 1 and the biaxiality ratio, p, is
defined in Eq 10.
Case O" 1 0" 2 p
I >0 ~0 ~0
II >0 ~0 ~0
III <0 ~0 ~0
IV <0 ~0 ~0
W W W IV
o fT",,
:i
-1
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
Stress Orientation Angle (/~/rr

F I G . 4--Loading conditions for interference to occur for ramp angle (0) of 1r/4. The parameter
c~ is given in Eq 40 and [3 is defined in Fig. 1. Asymptotes for c~ are [3 = -7r/4 and [3 = O. Loading
Cases I through IV are defined in Table 2. Areas of the figure corresponding to these cases follow
from Table 1.
only Case I loading produces interference. For points above the qb curve, only Case IV loading
produces interference. The steeper the ramp, the greater the range of conditions for which
biaxial tension produces interference.
Conditions for Interference to Influence Fracture Stress

The level of remote stress required to produce fast fracture is referred to herein as the
"fracture stress." If present, interference will alter the fracture stress. But the level of remote
0.8 o/re
g 0.125
"~ 0.6
0.25
,Ik 0.3
x 0.4
0.4
17 0.45
0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 05

Normalized Stress Orientation Angle (/ff/~)
FIG. 5--Dependence of the parameter qb on ramp angle. The parameter dp is defined in Eq 40
and the ramp angle, O, is defined in Fig. 3. The biaxiality ratio is defined in Eq 10, and the stress
orientation angle is defined in Fig. I.
stress may be so high that interference does not occur. A physical restriction that must be
satisfied if interference is to occur at a potential interference site is that the crack opening
displacement there must be small enough so that the protrusions overlap. This implies that the
opening displacement not exceed the protrusion height, or
0 < Avnx=b < h (41)
where, for the ramp-shaped bump
h =R sin0 (42)
The left-hand inequality precludes interpenetration of the crack faces. To satisfy the right-hand
inequality, the applied stresses must not be too large. (This restriction applies to all protrusions
of height h, regardless of shape.) The normalized stress required to produce Av = h at x = b
is
2h
O'h* (43)
(K + 1)D,V'-d~ - b 2
where K is given by Eq 32. Interference can occur only if tr* < tr*. For a given stress field
and protrusion height, tr* is smallest when the interference site is at the center of the crack (b
= 0). It follows that interference can occur at the center, and therefore everywhere on the crack,
only if
tr* < try* (44)
where
2h
tr* - (45)
(K + 1)Dra
We now consider whether interference is expected to influence fracture. If the protrusions still
overlap (see Eqs 41 and 44) when the stress is raised to tr* = cr* (the fracture stress in the
absence of interference, Eq 25), then any interference will change the fracture stress from tr*
to tr* in Eq 23. Hence, the presence of any interference will influence fracture whenever
or* > ~r* (46)
From Eqs 9, 25, and 26, we have
tr* = K~: (47)

ix'k/,rra(DZl + D2z)
Because or* is proportional to a -1/2 and tr* is proportional to a -1, it follows that for some crack
half-length, say a c
or* = or* (48)
For all smaller cracks, cr* is less than ~*. Hence, for these cracks, the presence of interference
implies a change in the fracture stress. From Eqs 45, 47, and 48, we find the critical crack
length
2ac--- 2~r [ (K + 1)KIll 1 + \D,/ j (49)
The last term depends only on the stress field parameters p and 13 and is strictly nonnegative.
Hence, the crack length below which any interference influences fracture satisfies
2 _h ]2 (50)
2ac < 2~r (K + 1)KicJ
For plane stress, this reduces to
2ac --< ~ LK~j (51)
where E is Young's modulus and we have used Eq 32 and
E
pt - 2(1 + v) (52)
Calculations based on the equality in Eq 51 are presented in Table 3. The values used for
protrusion height, h, are typical grain sizes. All data are taken from the literature [7]. Since
typical room temperature crack lengths for the materials considered are much less than the
values computed for 2a,, we conclude that the presence of interference changes the fracture
stress.
Results
For a single interference site (bump pair), dependence of the contact force (defined in Eq 6
and Fig. 3) and fracture toughness ratio (defined in Eq 27) on several parameters has been
computed. The parameters studied include Poisson's ratio, remote stress orientation angle,
remote stress biaxiality ratio, ramp angle, ramp length, and location of the interference site on
the crack. In all plots for which remote stress is the abscissa, remote stress ranges from near
zero to the level required to bring together the convex ramp comers in Fig. 2.
Dependence of the contact force location on the level of remote stress is illustrated in Fig.
6. For very small remote stress, the crack is nearly closed and the contact force is nearly at the
middle of the ramps (r/R = 0.5). As remote stress increases, the contact force moves from the
TABLE 3--Critical crack lengths for silicon carbide and silicon nitride. For cracks smaller than 2ac
the presence of interference alters the fracture stress. Data in the first three columns are from the
literature [7]. Values of 2ac are computed from Eq 51.
Compound Klc, MPa "m~/2 E, GPa h (p~m) 2ac, mm
SiC 5 43 1.4 0.06

Si3N4 5 200 1.0 0.63
///
~ 0.9
i 0.8
~o 0.7
0.6
0.5 i i
0.01 0.02
Normalized RemoteStress (o~)
FIG. 6---Dependence o f the location o f the contact force on remote stress. The lengths r and R are
defined in Fig. 3. Normalized remote stress is defined in Eq 5. The sole interference site is at the center
o f the crack ( b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, 0 = 45 ~ p = 0 (simple tension), fl =
60 0, and v = 0.3.
middle of the ramps to the convex comers in Fig. 3 (r/R = 1). The contact force's location
exhibits essentially the same dependence on remote stress for all values of all parameters.
Dependence of the magnitude of the contact force on remote stress and Poisson's ratio is
illustrated in Fig. 7. As Poisson's ratio increases, so does the magnitude of the contact force.
As remote stress increases, the magnitude of the contact force at first increases. But, as the
location of the force approaches the convex comers of the ramps and the region of ramp overlap
shrinks, the ramps soften. In the limit, the contact force vanishes when it reaches the convex
comers. The contact force increases as Poisson's ratio increases.
0.001
Poisson's Ratio(v)
0.1
/
0.2
.L 0.3
i 0.0005
0 0.4
Z [3 0.5
0 i i | i i i i i
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
NormalizedRemoteStress (o~)
FIG. 7--Dependence o f the contact force on Poisson 's ratio. Normalized contact force and remote
stress are defined in Eqs 6 and 5, respectively. The sole interference site is at the center o f the crack
(b = 0 in Fig. 1). P a r a m e t e r values are R/a = 0.01, 0 = 4 5 ~ p = 0 (simple tension), a n d fl = 6 0 ~
Poisson's R a t i o (v)
0.998
9" 1 1 - - 0.1
0.2
0.996
0.994
7 i
0.3
0.4
I-q 0.5
0.992
0,~ ' ' ' ' . I I i I i i I i i i i
0 0.006 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Normalized Remote Slress (o*)
FIG. 8--Dependence o f the fracture toughness ratio on Poisson's ratio. Fracture toughness ratio
and normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively. The sole interference site
is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, O = 45 ~, p = 0 (simple
tension), and fl = 60 o.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on remote stress and Poisson's ratio is illustrated
in Fig. 8. When the remote stress opens the crack so far that the contact force vanishes, the
fracture toughness ratio goes to unity. Because the contact force increases with Poisson's ratio,
so does the fracture toughness ratio. The contact force increases the Mode I stress intensity
factor (see Eqs 12 and 16) and decreases the Mode II stress intensity factor (see Eqs 13 and
17). But for the given values of p and 13, it follows from Eqs 14, 15, 24, and 27 that Mode II
dominates Mode I in the fracture toughness ratio. Thus, the net effect of interference in Fig. 8
is to decrease the fracture toughness required to prevent fracture.
Dependence of the contact force on the stress orientation angle is illustrated in Fig. 9. As
0.0015
g Slress Orientation An l e (~)
, , o
0 , , I , , , , , , i | i
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Normalized Remote Stress ( o ~)
FIG. 9--Dependence o f the contact force on the stress orientation angle. Normalized contact force
and remote stress are defined in Eqs 6 and 5, respectively. Stress orientation angle is defined in Fig.
1. The sole interference site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameters values are R/
a = 0.01, 0 = 45 ~ p = 0 (simple tension), and v = 0.3.
1
I
Stress Orientation Angle (fl)
/, --II-- 45"
0.99
f
0.98
/ ---@-- 50"
,A 70"
0.97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Normalized Remote Stress (o*)

FIG. 10--Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on stress orientation angle. Fracture tough-
ness ratio and normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively. Stress orientation
angle is defined in Fig. 1. The sole interference site is at the center of the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1).
Parameter v a l u e s a r e R / a = 0 . 0 1 , 0 = 4 5 o, P = 0 ( s i m p l e t e n s i o n ) , a n d u = 0.3.
the remote stress turns away from the normal to the crack and becomes more nearly parallel
to the crack, the contact force increases.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on the stress orientation angle is illustrated in
Fig. 10. Mode II still dominates Mode I, so that the net effect of interference is to toughen the
crack, that is, to reduce the fracture toughness required to prevent fracture.
Dependence of the contact force on the biaxiality ratio is illustrated in Fig. 11. As tr 2
increases, p increases and ~ in Eq 30 decreases. Because ~ is a measure of the deformation
required of the bumps in Fig. 2, the contact force decreases.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on the biaxiality ratio is illustrated in Fig. 12.
0.001
Biaxiality Ratio (p)
0.0005 - , . 0 - - 0.05
0.1
0 0.01 0.02
Normalized Remote Stress (tr*)

FIG. 11--Dependence of the contact force on the biaxiality ratio. Normalized contact,force and
remote stress are defined in Eqs 6 and 5, respectively. Biaxiality ratio is defined in Eq 10, The sole
interference site is at the center of the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, 0 =
4 5 o, fl = 6 0 o, a n d v = 0.3.
A A A & A &IA A A A A ~ A ~
Biaxiality Ratio (p)
0.998
"ll"- 0
~ 0.996
__,~J
v 0.994
0.992
j/ -41-- 0.05
""it-- 0.1
0.99 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Normalized Remote Stress (o~)

FIG. 1 2 - - D e p e n d e n c e o f the f r a c t u r e toughness ratio on biaxiality ratio. Fracture toughness ratio
a n d normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively. Biaxiality ratio is defined
in E q 10. The sole interference site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values
are R/a = 0.01, 0 = 45 ~ fl = 600, and v = 0.3.
That the fracture toughness ratio approaches unity as the biaxiality ratio increases is consistent
with the behavior of the contact force shown in Fig. 11.
Dependence of the contact force on the ramp angle is illustrated in Fig. 13. As the ramp
angle increases, the ramps become steeper and present more of an obstacle to relative shear
displacement of the crack faces. Consequently, the contact force increases.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on ramp angle is illustrated in Fig. 14. The
behavior follows that of the contact force, as shown in Fig. 13.
0.0025
Ramp Angle (0)

0.002
35"
*~ 0.0015 --0-- 45"
& 55"
0.001
--O--- 65"
Z [] 75"
0.0005
O 85"
n , ,
0.01 0.02 0.03
Normalized Remote Stress (o*)

FIG. 1 3 - - D e p e n d e n c e o f the contact f o r c e on the ramp angle. Normalized contact f o r c e and remote
stress are defined in Eqs 6 and 5, respectively. R a m p angle is defined in Fig. 3. The sole interference
site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, p = 0 (simple
tension), fl = 60 0, and v = 0.3.
R a m p Angle (0)
0.98
---II--- 35"
---0.-- 45"
0.96
a 55 ~
65"
.~ 0.94
[] 75"
0 85 ~
0.92
0.9 rl , , i i , i , , | i i | , , , i , i |
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

FIG. 14--Dependence o f the fracture toughness ratio on ramp angle. Fracture toughness ratio
and normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively. R a m p angle is defined in
Fig. 3. The sole interference site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are
R / a = 0.01, p = 0 (simple tension), fl = 600, and v = 0.3.
Dependence of the contact force on ramp size is illustrated in Fig. 15. The larger the ramps
are relative to the crack size, the greater the interference and the greater the magnitude of the
contact force.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on ramp size is illustrated in Fig. 16. The behavior
follows from that of the contact force as shown in Fig. 15.
Dependence of the contact force on the position (b/a, Fig. 1) of the interference site is
illustrated in Fig. 17. The tendency of the remote stress to shear the crack causes the crack
0.015
R a m p Size (R/a)
0.01
0.01
e~ 0.05
& 0.1
0.005
0.15
1- 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
F I G . 1 5 ~ D e p e n d e n c e o f the contact force on the ramp size. Normalized contact force and remote
stress are defined in Eqs d and 5, respectively. R is defined in Fig. 3 and a is defined in Fig. 1. The
sole interference site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter values are 0 = 45 ~ p =
0 (simple tension), fl = 600, and P = 0.3.
R a m p Size (R/a)
,_t / _._00,
t' _._
--41.--- 0.15
0.985
0.98 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

FIG. t 6 ~ D e p e n d e n c e o f the fracture toughness ratio on ramp size. Fracture toughness ratio and
normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively. R is defined in Fig. 3 and a is
defined in Fig. 1. The sole interference site is at the center o f the crack (b = 0 in Fig. 1). Parameter
values are 8 = 450, p = 0 (simple tension), [3 = 600, and v = 0.3.
faces to displace parallel to each other but in opposite directions. This shear displacement
discontinuity is nearly constant in the central region of the crack. Hence, varying the position
of the ramps within this region produces little change in the contact force.
Dependence of the fracture toughness ratio on the location of the interference site is illus-
trated in Fig. 18. As shown in Fig. 17, the contact force is nearly the same for all three site
locations. However, it follows from Eqs 16, 17, 18, 24, and 27 that site location has a direct
influence on the fracture toughness ratio.
The results depicted in Figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 indicate that a single interference site
0.001
Site Location (b/a)

8
---lI-- 0
"d
e~
/
L~ 0.0005 9" 0 " - - 0.2
0.4
i , . i i . . , i i | |
0.01 0.02 0.03
FIG. 17--Dependence o f the contact force on the location o f the interference site. Normalized
contact force and remote stress are defined in Eqs 6 and 5, respectively. Both b and a are defined in
Fig. 1. Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, 0 = 45 ~ p = 0 (simple tension), [3 = 60 ~ and v = 0.3.
BOULET ON CRACK-FACEINTERACTION 545
Site Location(b/a)
--.11-- 0
o.2
0.99 ~1,41~"
A 0.4
0.98 . i i . . . i i . ~ | I I ~ ~
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02

NormalizedRemote Stress (o*)
FIG. t 8 - - D e p e n d e n c e o f the fracture toughness ratio on the location o f the interference site.
Fracture toughness ratio and normalized remote stress are defined in Eqs 27 and 5, respectively.
Both b and a are defined in Fig. 1. Parameter values are R/a = 0.01, 0 = 45 ~ p = 0 (simple tension),
= 60 0, and v = 0.3.
usually has a small effect on the fracture toughness required to prevent fracture. However, for
steep ramps in uniaxial tension nearly parallel to the crack, interference can significantly reduce
the fracture toughness required to prevent fracture.
For multiple (equally spaced) interference sites the effect of the interference on required
fracture toughness is illustrated in Fig. 19. The effect increases monotonically with the number
of sites. However, increment in the effect decreases with each additional site. This suggests
that while the effect can be significant, it may approach a limit asymptotically. Even if this be
1!
~0.99 ~ 1
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0 1 2 3 4
Number of Interference Sites
FIG. 19--Dependence o f the fracture toughness ratio on number o f interference sites. Fracture
toughness ratio is defined in Eq 27. The interference sites are spaced uniformly along the crack.
Parameter values are R/a - 0.01, 0 = 45 0, p = 0 (simple tension), [3 = 60 0, and v = 0.3. The normalized
remote stress (defined in Eq 5) is o-* = 0.001 004.
546 FRACTUREMECHANICS: 'IqNENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
so, the fracture toughness ratio can be significantly less than unity for some combinations of
bump geometry and remote stress. For instance, for v = 0.3, [3 = 70 ~ p = 0, 0 = 70 ~ R =
O.02a, and b = 0, h = 0.76. In general, steep ramps in uniaxial tension nearly parallel to the
crack produce interference that significantly toughens the crack.
Conclusions
In most cases, the presence of a single interference site would have only slight influence on
the fracture stress. Notable exceptions are a site located near a crack tip or a steep pair of ramps
in uniaxial tension nearly parallel to the crack.
When many interference sites are present, the fracture stress can be significantly altered.
Although the effect increases monotonically with the number of sites, it may have an asymptotic
limit.
Since real cracks may be expected to have numerous interference sites, we conclude that the
existence of an asymptotic limit should be explored. If this limit does not exist, or if it occurs
at significantly reduced fracture toughness, then three-dimensional modeling of crack-face pro-
trusion interference should be pursued. Predictions of the two-dimensional model discussed
herein could serve as a benchmark for three-dimensional models.
Acknowledgment
This research was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for
Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, as part of the
Ceramic Technology Project of the Materials Development Program, under Contract DE-AC05-
84OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
References
[1] Westergaard, H. M., "Bearing Pressures in Cracks," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 2,
(A-49), 1939.
[2] Boulet, J. A. M., "Crack-Face Interaction in Brittle Materials: Two-Dimensional Analysis of Protru-
sion Interference,~' in Developments in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, B. N. Antar, R. Engels,
A. A. Prinaris, and T. H. Moulden, Eds., Proceedings of the Southeastern Conference on Theoretical
and Applied Mechanics, Nashville, TN, 1992.
[3] Kanninen, M. F. and C. H. Popelar, Advanced Fracture Mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
U.K., 1985.
[4] Erdogan, F., "On the Stress Distribution in Plates with Collinear Cuts under Arbitrary Loads," in
Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics, 1962, pp. 547-553.
[5 ] Paris,P. and Sih, G. C., in Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Applications, ASTM STP 381, American
[6] England, A. H., Complex Variable Methods in Elasticity, Wiley-Interscience, London, 1971.
[7] Ceramic Source, American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1985.
Jennifer Cordes I and Rahmi Y a z i c i 1
Elastic-Plastic Mode II Fracture in an

Aluminum Beam
REFERENCE: Cordes, J. and Yazici, R., "Elastic-Plastic Mode lI Fracture in an Aluminum
Beam," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald
1994, pp. 547-559.
ABSTRACT: This paper describes an experimental and analytic study of Mode II fracture in a
ductile aluminum beam. Mode II fracture is characterized by an in-plane sliding of crack surfaces
relative to one another. For ductile materials such as aluminum, failure is preceded by yielding
near the crack tip. In this paper, a Mode II fracture anaylsis technique that includes yielding near
the crack tip is presented. Unlike other methods, the analysis presented in this paper (1) provides
a simple method for modeling stable and unstable crack growth; (2) can be implemented with a
general purpose finite-element package; (3) predicts the maximum load at failure and the nature
of the failure, either unstable crack growth or yield; (4) includes interface elements to prevent
overlap of the crack surfaces; and (5) includes directly the R-curve values. The finite-element
modeling technique provided a reasonable, qualitative approximation of experimental behavior.
KEYWORDS: Mode II fracture, elastic-plastic fracture, finite-element analysis, damage zone

model, stable crack growth
Nomenclature
a Crack length
Aai Stable crack growth increment
COD Crack opening displacement, at the mouth of the crack
CTOD Crack tip opening displacement
CTSDf Critical crack tip sliding displacement, at crack growth increment Aa/
Crack tip sliding displacement
DZM Damage zone model
E Young's modulus, isotropic material
GRc(Aai) Strain energy release rate at stable crack growth Aa/
L Critical J integral, plane stress case, Mode I crack loading
KRo( Aa i) Stress intensity factor at stable crack growth Aal
r Crack tip radius
s Length of damage zone
tyo Cohesive normal stress
Sy Yield strength
Suit Ultimate tensile strength
TO Cohesive sheafing stress
l) Poisson's ratio, isotropic material
W Width of beam sample
1 Assistant professor and research professor, respectively, Stevens Institute of Technology, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Hoboken, NJ 07030.
547
Introduction
The stages of damage in a cracked aluminum beam include development of a damage zone,
crack initiation, stable crack growth, and final failure. Quantifying crack growth for a pure
Mode II loading is difficult because there is no agreed-upon fracture parameter and there is
significant nonlinear behavior. The damage zone is generally larger than for Mode I loading,
the crack surfaces do not remain traction free, and crack growth is characterized by blunting
and branching.
Theoretical Solutions for Pure Mode H Fracture

For Mode II fracture, there is no exact solution that accounts for the observed traction on
the crack surfaces resulting from the sliding motion and surface contact. Pazis et al. [1] incor-
porated higher order terms in a Griffith-type solution in an effort to derive the exact displace-
ments for the Mode II loading. The resulting displacements indicate overlap of the crack sur-
faces, violating the original boundary assumption.
Becker and Gross [2] applied Dugdale's elastic-plastic solution technique to Mode II loading
of the crack surfaces. The derived displacements along the crack surfaces again predict over-
lapping of the crack surfaces, violating the original boundary assumptions. In addition, the
Becker and Gross solution indicates that a weak logarythmic singularity remains for the Mode
II loading condition, even when a damage zone is inserted ahead of the crack tip.
Background: Mode H and Mixed-Mode Crack Tip Loading

Many authors have studied the mixed Mode I and Mode II fracture problem, of which Mode
II is a special case. Several authors developed linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) methods
for separating stress intensity factors Kx and KII [3-7]. For LEFM, these K1 and KH values are
combined to predict crack initiation and the crack growth angle. Crack initiation theories
include minimum strain energy density criteria [8], maximum tangential stress criteria [9,10],
and strain energy release criteria [11,12]. Each theory has proven successful for some brittle
materials when predicting crack initiation [7,13]. For ductile materials, additional correction
factors [14] and other analysis procedures are required.
For ductile materials, J-integral-based criteria and crack tip opening displacements (CTOD)
have been used for predicting crack initiation or stable crack growth or both. Joch and Ptak
[15] discussed methods for separating J~ and Jii for application of crack initiation criteria using
finite-element analysis. Diekman et al. [16] used a J-integral-based parameter to determine the
elastic-plastic stress distribution around a crack in mixed-mode loading. Gouzhong [17] used
a J integral derived from a Dugdale solution to predict accurately the onset of crack branching.
The Gouzhong solution technique can only be applied to a geometry with a known elasticity
solution, and stable crack growth was not included.
The failure criteria for ductile materials is generally assumed to be [18,19]
J~ = Jir + Jxlc (1)
where Jio and Jiic are the critical J-integral values for pure Mode I and Mode II fracture,
respectively.
The implication of Eq 1 is that Jxc = Jnc. Banks-Sills and Sherman found Jiic = 4Jic for 7075-
T7351 aluminum [20]. Cowie and Tuler found K,ic = 1.4 Kic, and by implication, Jiio = 2Jic
for 7075-T6 and 6061-T651 aluminum [21]. The fracture parameter crack-opening angle has
also been shown to be dependent upon the J,/Ji, ratio [22] for an angle-cracked plate.
In contrast, various CTOD criteria have been shown to be independent of the Ji/Jii ratio for
CORDES AND YAZICI ON MODE II FRACTURE 549
an angle-cracked plate [23]. The generalized CTOD criteria proposed by Saka and Tanaka
requires experimental results and finite-element analysis to determine the CTOD parameter at
crack initiation.
Fracture Parameter and Analysis Approach in this Paper

The objectives of this study are: (1) to determine if a Mode I KR curve can be used as a
stable crack growth parameter to predict behavior under Mode II loading; (2) to develop a
simple finite-element method that includes nonlinear behavior, models stable crack growth
without remeshing, and predicts the final failure load; and (3) to validate the method by com-
parison to experimental results in a cracked beam. Because the CTOD was shown to be inde-
pendent of crack tip loading [23 ], a CTOD in the sliding direction, or crack tip sliding dis-
placement (CTSD), was chosen as the critical fracture parameter. The critical CTSD* is derived
as a function of stable crack growth from a modified, Mode I, KR curve.
The finite-element method is a damage zone model (DZM). The DZM assumptions for Mode
II fracture are shown in Fig. 1. In the spirit of Dugdale's model [24], the crack has length a
and the damage zone has length s. Cohesive shear stresses, ~o, resist crack growth and include
the effects of plasticity in the analysis. Unlike the other Dugdale-type finite-element models
for Mode II analysis [2,17], this method does not require an elasticity solution or a known
damage zone length.
The critical fracture parameter is the crack tip sliding displacement (CTSD). The CTSD is
the relative displacement, in the direction of the crack length, between the crack tip nodes
labeled T and T' in Fig. 1. When the CTSD reaches the critical value, stable crack growth is
predicted to occur. The DZM provides an estimate of the crack opening displacement (COD)
at the mouth of the crack, an estimate of the damage zone size, a prediction on the amount of
stable crack growth before failure, and the nature of the failure, either yield or unstable crack
FORCE
H ~ / t -
9~- CD]3
FIG. 1--Damage zone model for Mode H fracture.
growth. Results compared favorably to results for a three-point beam sample with a crack along
the original neutral axis.
Theoretical Background of Damage Zone Model

The DZM is based on the Dugdale [24] and Barenblatt [25] cohesive zone models for Mode
I fracture analysis. At an actual crack tip, plastic deformation and microcracks develop to relieve
the theoretical crack tip singularity. In the Dugdale and Barenblatt models, the damage zone
is represented by fictitious crack surfaces which are held together by cohesive stresses. Rice
[26] presented the governing equations for determining the J integral from the Dugdale model
and demonstrated that the J integral is proportional to the Mode I cohesive stress relationship
~o and the CTOD
fOCTOD
4 = o'o d8 (2)
Other Damage Zone Models

The DZM was introduced as a finite-element analysis method by Hillerborg et al. to study
Mode I fracture in concrete [27]. B~icklund and Arronson [28-30] used the Hillerborg model
to study Mode I fracture in brittle composite materials. In their model, the cohesive stresses
varied linearly from a maximum value to zero at the maximum CTOD. Chang et al. and Cordes
[31,32] provided proof of concept for use of the DZM for analysis of ductile materials. Cordes
et al. [33] developed a DZM that could predict failure when mixed-mode loading of the crack
surfaces occurs in ductile materials. The cohesive stress distribution used for ductile materials
is similar to Dugdale's assumption and differs from previous approaches used for brittle mate-
rials. The cohesive stress distribution for ductile fracture includes isotropic hardening and pro-
vides a means for inserting the KR-curve behavior directly into the finite-element model.
Experimental Work
An experimental and analytic study of Mode II fracture in ductile aluminum was completed.
Beam samples with cracks along the central, longitudinal axis were fabricated from 6061-T6
aluminum. Three-point bend samples were loaded quasistatically to the maximum loading con-
dition. Stable crack growth, partial closure of the free crack surfaces, and significant yielding
occurred before failure. Experimental results were quantified and used to develop a nonlinear
finite element model to predict failure under Mode II loading conditions.
Determination of Material Properties

Stress-Strain Behavior The material chosen for this study was AI-6061 in T6 condition.
The stress-strain behavior was determined from 0.5 - 0.0375-mm-thick sheets purchased
from Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Samples were tested on a Tinius Olsen testing machine.
Strains were measured with a linear variable differential transducer and checked using
strain gages. The yield strength Sy was determined experimentally to be 269 _ 7 MPa, the
ultimate tensile strength Sul, was 317 _ 7 MPa, Y o u n g ' s Modulus E was 66.103 • 7 MPa,
and the strain at ultimate failure was 13 • 0.9%.
Fracture Parameters--Various A S T M standards were used to select the sample geom-
etry and to prepare the test configuration. The principal standards used were the A S T M
Test Method for Sharp-Notch Tension Testing of High-Strength Sheet Materials (E 338),
the A S T M Practice for Plane Strain, Fracture Toughness Testing of A l u m i n u m Alloys (B

645), and the ASTM Practice for R-Curve Determination (E 561).
A modified K R curve for Mode I fracture is shown in Fig. 2. Experiments were conducted
on center-cracked 6061-T6 plates that measured 76.2 by 228.6 by 0.49 mm. The thin plates
used for generating the K R curve were consistent with plane stress samples. Initial crack length
was 25.4 mm. Except as noted below, the K R curve was found as described in ASTM Practice
E 561.
ASTM Practice E 561 requires determination of K R as a function of effective crack length
[ l"
Kr(Aal) - B P
* W * "rr * a * sec (3)
where
Kr(Aai) = point on the K R curve,
P = applied force on center-cracked plate,
a = effective crack length,
B = thickness of center-cracked plate, and
W = half-plate width.
The effective half-crack length a is
a = ao + A a + ap (4)
where
ao = the original half-crack length,
Aa = crack growth, and
ap = Irwin plastic zone correction.
Because the plastic zone size for Mode II loading is significantlylarger than for Mode I (roughly
four times the size for aluminum), the Irwin plastic zone correction was omitted from Eqs 3
and 4 when generating the K R curve shown in Fig. 2. Instead, the DZM inserts a Dugdale-
type, plastic-zone correction into the model. This correction was shown to give good results
for Mode I studies when combined with a Mode I DZM [34].
The plane strain K R curve was estimated from the plane stress curve by multiplying by the
50.0 -
~K
40.0 - ....~
~ 3D.O
f I.-I--
KRK U
iRRVR
CUC
,VC
E:,XT
FS P
ICRM
M IEC
T :N
D,TP
RLB
,ANC
S
ET
:R
RC
AS
IS
N
20.0
~2
I0.0
x
x
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
i
0.8 I~.0 I~.2 I~.4
xx STABLE CRACK GROWTH INCREMENT, MM ~(w
FIG. 2 - - K R curve, 6061-T6 aluminum.
factor (1 - v ' v ) , where v = 0.3, Poisson's ratio. This correction was also used by Banks-Sills
and Sherman [20], who noted little difference in Jnc for different thicknesses of aluminum
samples.
Preparation of Beam Samples with a Sharp Notch

Beam samples of the aluminum were prepared for three-point bend fracture testing under
Mode II conditions. The beam samples were cut from a 12.7-mm-thick 6061-T6 plate purchased
from Kaiser Aluminum Co. Sample preparation procedures were conducted according to those
recommended by Carrison and Pipes [35]. Specimen dimensions are shown in Fig. 3. Samples
were cut with a fine saw and the surfaces were polished before testing. The transverse notch
at the tip of the bar was first cut with a fine saw, then extended for another 2.5 mm with an
electric-arc, spark-cutting blade. The resulting crack tip radius was measured as 0.075 mm.
Description and Implementation of the Finite-Element Model

Model Input Requirements and Software Requirements
Input for the analysis includes component geometry, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength,
Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, and the critical CTSD values as derived from the KR curve.
The DZM is implemented using a general purpose finite-element package that includes:
9 isoparametric plane-strain elements,

9 linear material models,
9 nonlinear interface elements to prevent overlap and provide traction between the free crack
surfaces,
9 nonlinear interface elements such as nonlinear springs to apply the cohesive shear stress
relations in the damage zone, and
9 nonlinear solution techniques.
All the model nonlinearities are imposed by the interface elements. Crack tip singularity ele-
ments are not required. The results described in this paper were obtained using ABAQUS
[36], a general purpose finite-element package.
"l
I-
j
2t_'
W = 1 1 . 2 ram; B = 1 1 . 3 m/n
2L = 6 9 . 2 5 ram; a = 6 . 5 2 5 Kun t o 2 7 . 6 5 rnm
r = radius of crack tip = 0.075 mm
FIG. 3--Three-point bend samplefor Mode H fracture.

2 s e t s of nodal
points on this
axis
FIG. 4~Mode H finite-element mesh.
Description of Numerical Model

Finite-Element Mesh and Material Model The beam is modeled using eight-node, iso-
parametric, plane strain elements. The finite-element mesh is shown in Fig. 4. The mesh
size near the crack tip is unusually small to reflect the stable crack growth increments from
the KR curve. In the experiments, the smallest stable crack increment was 0.0635 mm, the
same as the smallest node-to-node distance. The finite-element mesh includes two sets of
identical nodes along the central, longitudinal axis. The duplicate node pairs are used to
model the free crack surfaces and the damage zone surfaces. Initially, the nodal pairs in
the damage zone are constrained to have the same displacement. Nodal-pair constraints in
the damage zone are subsequently released and replaced with cohesive shear forces as
described below. A linear-elastic material model was used to model material behavior for
the isoparameteric elements.
Nonlinear Components of the Model Model nonlinearities are imposed using two types
of nonlinear interface elements, which are represented in Fig. 5. Along the free crack
surfaces of length a, nonlinear interface elements and an associated slide line prevent
overlap of the free crack surfaces. Using the finite-element package ABAQUS, the top
surfaces of the crack were attached to deforming interface elements, of zero depth, while
Force
= L/2 =!
/-LV77 ,
d
zeroT d/2T 1
" L "
inter?ace e[enen•
shde Hne
cohesive shear s•
s = damage zone Length

FIG. 5---Nonlinear elements in Mode I1 analysis.
the bottom crack surfaces are defined as a slide line. A B A Q U S imposes a displacement
condition on each interface element node. Either the interface node remains separated from
the slide line (a gap), or the interface node is in contact with the slide line. Where contact
occurs, both a normal force N and a friction force laJV act between the interface node and
the slide line. Without the interface elements and slide line, numerical overlap of the free
crack surfaces resulted as predicted by the theoretical solutions.
The cohesive shear stress region labeled s in Fig. 5 is imposed using nonlinear spring ele-
ments between the duplicate nodal points in the damage zone region. The assumed cohesive
stress function is shown in Fig. 6. The cohesive stress increases as a function of the relative
crack tip sliding displacements CTSDI to include material-hardening effects. Since the mesh
spacing in the damage zone corresponds to a crack growth increment A a i on the KR curve,
CTSD* values are calculated at each node from the associated KR curve value using the fol-
lowing assumptions.
1. The critical strain energy release rate can be determined from the experimental KR curve
value from plane stress as
Grc(Aai) = Krc(Aai) * Krr * (1 - u * v)/E (5)

where
Krc(Aa~) = is a point on the experimental KR curve, without a plastic zone correction, and
Grc(Aa) = is a critical strain energy release rate at stable crack increment Aa i.
2. The crack tip is subjected only to Mode II loading, therefore
Grc(Aa~) = Grr + Grcn(Aa,) = Gr~n(Aai)
where Gr(Aa) = modified strain energy release rate without a plastic zone correction.
3. Yielding is limited to small-scale yielding.
4. The calculated J-integral results from the cohesive stress distribution in the damage zone
and tractions along free crack surfaces can be ignored
foors~
Jnc(Aai) : To d~ (6)
where
TO = is the assumed cohesive stress function shown in Fig. 6 and
d8 = CTSD.
Finally, the critical CTSD* value is estimated at each node using Eqs 5 and 6, and the known
KR-curve value
Grc(Aai) = Jit(Aal) =
foCTSD~To d~ (7)
Once the CTSD* value is determined, the cohesive stress function shown in Fig. 6 is inserted
directly into the finite-element model as a nonlinear spring whose force drops to zero when the
crack tip sliding displacement reaches the critical value CTSD*. Therefore, once the critical
fracture parameter CTSD* is reached, the real crack surface increases by one node-to-node
distance. This method provides a means of inserting directly the KR-curve effects into the
9 5Sult
9 5Sy
Cohesive Stress Area -

Parallel
to Crack Length, Grii(~a i )
~o
CTSD i
Crack Tip S l i d i n g Displacement
Suit - ultimate Tensile Strength
Sy - Yield Strength
Grli(dai) - Estimated GR-curve value at crack increment

a+~a
CTSD i - Critical Crack Tip Sliding Displacement
FIG. 6---Assumed cohesive shear stressfunction.
model and thereby provides a means for automatically modeling stable crack growth without
singularity elements.
Analysis Steps---Using ABAQUS, the nonlinear analysis is implemented as a series of
model changes and analysis steps. In the first analysis step, the applied force that results
in a local failure at the tip of the crack is determined. Local failure is assumed to occur
when the stresses at the crack tip meets the Tresca yield criteria.
For the second step, the model is changed. The multipoint displacement constraint between
the crack tip nodal pair is removed, and a nonlinear spring is inserted between the crack-tip
nodes. The nonlinear spring at the crack tip inserts cohesive stress To, shown in Fig. 6, between
the crack tip nodes. For the second analysis step, the crack length is the original crack length
a and the damage zone length s = Aa~ is one node-to-node distance. The applied force resulting
in yielding at the damage zone tip Aa is determined and recorded.
For the third analysis step, the modeled is again changed by replacing the displacement
constraint at the damage zone tip s = Aa2 with a nonlinear spring imposing cohesive stress To.
The applied force is increased until yielding occurs at damage zone tip Aa 3. The modeling
precedes as a series of model changes and calculations to determine the increasing applied
force as a function of the increasing damage zone length. Crack opening displacements and
the displacements at each load are recorded. The analysis is complete when the damage zone
extends through the ligament, when all cohesive stresses go to zero, or when the applied load
does not increase with an increase in the damage zone length. The failure load is the highest
load recorded for any damage zone growth increment. If the critical fracture parameters,
CTSD*, have not been reached when the maximum load occurs, failure by yielding is predicted
to occur.
Validation of Numerical Model

Experimental Results
The maximum applied load reached in the experiment was 7562.0 N. Failure was by stable
crack growth, 0.5 mm, followed by yielding of the beam. The permanent displacement of the
beam is shown in Fig. 7. All measurements were done with a traveling microscope. The per-
manent crack sliding displacement is 1.0 mm at the mouth of the crack. The permanent defor-
mation to the middle of the specimen is 2.794 mm. Along the crack surfaces, approximately
9.5 mm of surface contact was noted.
Crack tip damage is shown in Fig. 8. Crack tip damage included dislocation of the saw-cut
notch tip, shear slip between at the crack tip, crack growth, crack branching, and development
of a plastic zone. Crack growth was consistent with shear-type crack initiation [19] and was
self-similar. Near the mouth of the crack, surface contact was noted.
Predicted Results Using the DZM

The applied displacement versus force curve is shown in Fig. 9. The DZM predicted a
maximum load of 9003 N, +1.19% of the experimental load. The DZM predicts failure by
stable crack growth, followed by yielding. As in the experiments, the DZM predicts sliding
and traction on the crack surfaces near the crack opening.
The stable crack growth prediction was 0.432 mm, 85% of the experimental value. The
relative displacement between the original crack tip points at the maximum load was predicted
to be 0.203 mm, about half of the experimental value. The assumed damage zone size and
shape was consistent with a Dugdale-type, strip-yield model. The damage zone size length was
almost 10.7 mm, and the shape differed substantially from the lobed-shape, experimental dam-
age zone.
Note that the presence of the damage zone does not replace the original crack tip singularity.
Unlike the Dugdale model for Mode I analysis [24], a high stress condition remains near the
original crack tip in the Mode II finite-element studies, as predicted by the Becker and Gross
theoretical model [2].
Comparison of DZM Results to an Elastic-Plastic Finite-Element Model

For comparison, the same mesh as used for the DZM was used with an elastic-plastic material
model. The analysis included isotropic hardening and interface elements along the crack open-
ing to prevent overlap of the crack surfaces. The analysis did not include a singularity condition
or stable crack growth. The maximum load reached before a plastic hinge developed was 5938
N, 78% of the maximum experimental load. Results are shown in Fig. 9.
/
L T L5%
2.79
FIG. 7--Experimental results: permanent deformation.
Crack Branch
[ icracktip, originally
1.98 mm
I
I .762
/ Width laser
Cut Width
k ~r Dislocation of
I Notch Tip
Plastic
Zone
FIG. 8--Experimental results: damage near the crack tip.
Discussion: Evaluation of Assumptions

The primary assumptions made in this analysis include: (1) the crack tip is subjected only
to a Mode II loading condition, (2) the KR curve is a material parameter independent of geom-
etry and loading conditions, (3) the effect of tractions on the free surface of the crack do not
contribute to the critical J determination, and (4) all nonlinear effects can be combined into the
thin region ahead of the advancing crack.
Since the actual angle of crack growth is consistent with shear-type crack initiation [20],
any Mode I loading of the crack tip region as the beam deflects will probably not affect the
overall solution of the problem. The impact of traction on the free crack surfaces to the J-
integral calculation is very small because the calculated frictional forces were only about 1%
of the applied force. Finally, Assumption 4 results in the largest error in the model. In
the actual beam, significant yielding occurred near the crack tip and along the outer fibers
of the beam. Rotations as a result of large-scale yielding are not approximated by the strip
model.
MOOEII STUDY: BIN=~ (BLUMINUM)

+
9000.0- +
1 +
Z 8000.0 §
CD
--~
z
6000.0 O 0 0 O.
7000.03000.0
CD 5000.0
4000.0
/v~- O- EXPERIMENTAL DATA

._.1
Q_ 2000.0
/
/ + - OZN: PLANESTRAIN, MODEII
0 I DZM WITHDEFORMATION PLRSTICITY
n"- I000.0
/
I 0.0
0.0 0'.5 1'.0 1'.5 2.0 2'.S 3.0
LORD, MM xx
xx O I S P L R C E N E N T RT
FIG. 9--Numerical results: applied force versus displacement at the applied load.
Conclusions and Future Work

The Mode II analysis technique presented in this study provides a reasonable prediction of
the overall behavior of the beam. The nonlinear displacement behavior was underrepresented
primarily as a result of shape assumptions used for modeling the plastic zone. The actual
cracked beam had a larger plastic zone and dimpling, which allowed significant rotation near
the crack tip. The method accurately predicted the nature of the failure.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Naval Weapons Support Center in
Crane, Indiana and Castle Point Research Technologies, Inc. for supporting this work.
References
[1 ] Pazis, D., Theocaris, P. S., and Konstantellos, B., "Elastic Overlapping of the Crack Hanks Under
Mixed-mode Loading," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 303-319.
[2] Becker, W. and Gross, D., "About the Mode II Dugdale Crack Solution," International Journal of
Fracture, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 65-70.
[3] Sha, G. T. and Yang, C.-T., "Determination of Mixed Mode Stress-Intensity Factors Using Explicit
Weight Functions," in Fracture Mechanics: Eighteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 945, D. T. Read
and R. P. Reed, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 301-330.
[4] Smith, C. W. and Olaosebikan, O., "Use of Mixed-Mode Stress-IntensityAlgorithms for Photoelastic
Data," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 24, 1984, pp. 300-306.
[5] Krishnamurthy, T. and Raju, I. S., "A Finite-Element Alternating Method for Two-Dimensional
Mixed-Mode Crack Configurations," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 36, 1990, pp. 297-311.
[6] Gdoutos, E. E. and Zacharopoulos, D. A., "Mixed-Mode Crack Growth in Plates Under Three-Point
Bending," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 27, 1987, pp. 366-369.
[7] Richard, H. A. and Kuna, M., "Theoretical and Experimental Study of SuperimposedFracture Modes
I, II, and HI," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 35, 1990, pp. 949-960.
[8] Sih, G. C., "Strain-Energy-Density Factor Applied to Mixed Mode Crack Problems," International
[9] Erdogan, F. and Sih, G. C., "On the Crack Extension in Plates Under Plane Loading and Transverse
Shear," Journal of Basic Engineering, Vol. 85, 1963, pp. 513-518.
[10] Lee, J. D., Du, S., and Liebowitz, H., "Finite Element Analysis of Non-Self-Similar Crack Growth
Process," in Fracture Mechanics Technology Applied to Material Evaluation and Structure Design,
G. C. Sih, N. E. Ryan, and R. Jones, Eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1983, pp. 305-325.
[11 ] Hellan, K., Introduction to Fracture Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1984,
pp. 154-161.
[12] Yishu, Z., "Elliptical Rule Criterion for Mixed Mode Crack Propagation," Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 37, 1990, pp. 283-290.
[13] Maccagno, T. M. and Knott, J. F., "The Fracture Behaviour of PMMA in Mixed Modes I and II,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 34, 1989, pp. 65-86.
[14] Kao, Y. S., "On Mixed Mode Ductile Fracture Cdteria--A Note About the Core Region," in
Fracture Mechanics Technology Applied to Material Evaluation and Structure Design, G. C. Sih,
N. E. Ryan, and R. Jones, Eds., Martinus Nijhiff Publishers, Boston, 1983, pp. 395-400.
[15] Joch, J. and Ptak, S., "On Stress Intensity Factor Computation by Finite Element Method under
Mixed-Mode Loading Conditions," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 34, 1989, pp. 169-177.
[16] Diekmann, P., Pawliska, P., and Richard, H. A., "Elastic-Plastic Crack Analysis under Mixed Mode
Loading Conditions," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 57, 1992, pp. 249-252.
[17] Guozhong, C., "A Mixed Mode Fracture J-Integral Criterion for Elastic Perfectly Plastic Materials
in Small Scale Yielding," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 37, 1990, pp. 667-674.
[18] Mai, Y. M. and Cotterell, B., "Further Observations on Mixed Mode Plane Stress Ductile Fracture,"
in Fracture Mechanics Technology Applied to Material Evaluation and Structure Design, G. C. Sih,
N. E. Ryan, and R. Jones, Eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1983, pp. 401-413.
[19] Tohgo, K. and Ishii, H., "Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness Test Under Mixed Mode I-II Load-
ings," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 41, 1992, pp. 529-540.
[20] Banks, Sills, L. and Sherman, D., "Fracture Testing of a Plastically Deforming Material," Inter-
national Journal of Fracture, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 15-26.
[21 ] Cowie, J. G. and Tuler, F. R., "Comparison of Shear and Tensile Fracture in High Strength Alu-
minum Alloys," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 229-239.
[22] Theocaris, P. S. and Kytopoulos, V., "Fracture Behavior of Cracks in Ductile Plates Under Mono-
tonic Mixed-Mode Loading.," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 39-52.
[23] Saka, M. and Tanaka, S., "Strain and Stress Fields Near the Blunted Tip of a Crack Under Mixed
Mode Loading and the Implications for Fracture," Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 5, 1986, pp. 331-
338.
[24] Dugdale, D. S., "Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits," Journal of Mechanics, Physics, and
Solids, Vol. 8, 1960, pp. 100-104.
[25 ] B arenblatt, G. I.,"The Mathematical Theory of EqmhbnumCracks in Brittle Fracture," in Advances
in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 7, H. L. Dryden and T. von Karman, Eds., Academic, New York, 1962.
[26] Rice, J. R., " A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by
Notches and Cracks," Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1968, pp. 379-386.
[27] Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P.-E., "Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth
in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements," Cement and Concrete, Vol. 6,
1976, pp. 773-782.
[28] B~cklund, J., "Fracture Analysis of Notched Composites," Computers and Structures, Vol. 13, 1981,
pp. 145-204.
[29] Aronsson, C.-G. and Backlund, J., "Tensile Fracture of Laminates with Cracks," Journal of Com-
posite Materials, Vol. 20, 1986, pp. 287-307.
[30] B~icklund, J. and Aronsson, C.-G., "Tensile Fracture of Laminates with Holes," Journal of Com-
posite Materials, Vol. 20, 1986, pp. 259-286.
[31 ] Chang, A. T., Cordes, J., and Ren, X., "Determination of Critical Flaw Size by Finite Element
Analysis," Fracture 87, ASME Publication, 1987, pp. 19-23.
[32] Cordes, J., "Development of a Fracture Analysis Technique for Use with a General-Purpose Finite
Element Program," Dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1989.
[33] Cordes, J., Yazici, R., and Seo, M., " A Finite Element Algorithm for Analysis of Mixed-Mode Crack
Growth," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 115, 1993, pp. 348-352.
[34] Cordes, J. and Yazici, R., " A Fracture-Critical Failure Criteria for Composite Materials," Phase II
Final Report, Castle Point Research Technologies, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. Prepared for Naval Weapon
Support Center, Crane, IN, 1992.
[35] Carrison, D. and Pipes, "Experimental Characterization of Advanced Composite Materials, Plenum
Publishers, 1989.
[36] Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorrenson, Inc., ABAQUS, 35 Angell St., Providence, RI.
Ivatury S. Raju, 1 Sambi R. Mettu, 2 and V. Shivakumar 2
Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Surface

Cracks in Flat Plates Subjected to Nonuniform
Stresses
REFERENCE: Raju, I. S., Mettu, S. R., and Shivakumar, V., "Stress Intensity Factor Solu-
tions for Surface Cracks in Flat Plates Subjected to Nonuniform Stresses," Fracture
580.
ABSTRACT: The case of a surface crack in a flat plate has received a lot of attention from the
fracture mechanics community because of its practical applicability as an idealization of a flaw
in structures. Among all the solutions available, those of Raju and Newman seem to be the most
accepted and cover the widest range of geometric parameters. These solutions are, however,
known only for the cases of tensile and bending loads, and include the effect of finite width using
an empirical equation. Residual stresses and more complex forms of loading lead to nonlinear
stress distributions across the thickness in real structures. Attempts were made by a few research-
ers to provide solutions for arbitrary loading using the weight-function and other methods, but
a comprehensive treatment of these solutions is not available. The objective of the present work
is to provide complete solutions including the effect of finite width using direct tabular inter-
polation of the finite-element results and to demonstrate the accuracy of a weight-function
approach for computing stress intensity factors for a cracked plate subject to arbitrary stresses
across the thickness. The reference solutions used in the weight-function scheme were obtained
using the three-dimensional finite-element method (FEM). The full range of geometric parameters
such as the crack-length-to-width ratio 2c/W, the crack-depth-to-thickness ratio a/t, and the aspect
ratio a/c was covered so that accurate interpolation and extrapolation could be made for any
given geometry. Piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation was used to compute the quantities cor-
responding to intermediate v~ilues of the geometric parameters. The new solution was compared
with the earlier Newman-Raju equation. The new solution in tabular form was then used directly
in the weight-function method. The stress intensity factor solution developed here was incor-
porated into the fatigue crack growth program NASA/FLAGRO, which is widely used by the
aerospace community.
KEYWORDS: surface cracks, weight function, stress intensity factors, nonuniform stress
The case of a semielliptical surface crack in a flat plate has received considerable attention
from the fracture mechanics community [1-9] because of its practical applicability as an ide-
alization of flaws in real structures. A m o n g all the solutions available, those by Raju and
Newman [1-3] seem to be the most accepted. An evaluation of these solutions was given by
Vainshtok and Varfolomeyev [4 ]. In this evaluation, the energy release rate concept was used
to determine the average errors in the stress intensity factor expressions in comparison to the
numerical solutions. The average errors were found to be smaller than pointwise errors for
several part-through crack cases. Recently, Fett [5] extended the solution for the case of tensile
J Senior scientist, Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., Hampton, VA 23666.

2 Advanced systems engineering specialists, Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co., Houston, TX
77058.
560
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.asnlI.01"~
RAJU ET AL. ON STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR SOLUTIONS 561
loading to cover a wide range of a/c (0.25 to 1.0) and a/t (0 to 0.6) and used an energy criterion
to show that his extended solution is more consistent than the Raju-Newman solution [1-3 ].
The above solutions are, however, applicable only to the cases of tensile and bending loads.
Their behavior for finite width plates was approximated by a secant correction whose validity
was not fully verified. Residual stresses and complex forms of loading lead to nonlinear stress
distributions across the thickness in real structures. Fett al al. [6] addressed this problem and
derived the stress intensity correction factors for a polynomial type of loading with integer
powers. They used extrapolation and limit analysis to generate tabular values of the correction
factors at the surface and deepest points of the crack front. For arbitrary stresses, the super-
position method was found to be unsatisfactory by the present authors, as mentioned later in
the Discussion section. Fett [7] attempted also to provide general solutions using weight-func-
tion methods. He developed an approximate expression for the crack-surface-displacement
profile under tensile loading and calculated the weighted averaged stress intensity factors for
bending loading. Malik [8] used a two-dimensional (2-D) version of the Petroski-Achenbach
method [9] for deriving the weight functions from stress intensity factor information alone.
Such approximations are known to produce erroneous results for deep cracks.
A novel approach using the energy release rate method in conjunction with an assumed
functional form for the crack-face displacement was given by Gang and Xing [10]. They
provided closed-form expressions for the stress intensity factors in integral form for several
three-dimensional (3-D) crack cases including the semielliptical surface crack. Crack opening
profiles of 2-D through cracks such as an edge crack and a center crack in a plate were used
to derive the functional form for a surface crack. The maximum value of the crack opening
displacement was related to the applied stress distribution and the form of the crack opening
displacement. Unlike other solutions that only take into account the variation of stress through
the thickness, the applied stress in this case may be completely arbitrary. However, this work
does not address the practically important need of covering the whole range of geometric
parameters.
The work by Vainshtok and Varfolomeyev [11 ] is another variant in extending the weight-
function method to the case of nonuniform stresses across the thickness. They used the energy
release rate at the crack front and the work done by the applied stresses on the crack face,
along with the reciprocal theorem to develop a relation for the stress intensity factor for the
case of nonuniform loading. They also listed the requirements to be met by the crack face
displacement function. Solutions for an edge crack in a half-plane and a surface crack in a half-
space were presented. Vainshtok and Varfolomeyev [12] also addressed the problem of cal-
culating the stress intensity factors along the front of elliptical and semielliptical cracks under
arbitrary unsymmetric loading.
The above solutions are neither comprehensive nor suitable for practical application. Pro-
viding a comprehensive solution that is accurate and versatile is the principal objective of the
present investigation. Direct tabular interpolation of recently generated finite element solutions,
including finite width effects, was adopted. This new solution in tabular form for tensile and
bending loading was then used directly in the weight-function method to deal with the non-
uniform loading. Use was made of a recently published weight-function approach by Shen and
Glinka [13,141. They used the earlier Newman-Raju equation as input to the weight-function
scheme.
In this paper, we went another step forward in using the tabular input directly for the weight-
function method. A superposition approach using least-squares fitting to decompose a given
nonuniform stress distribution into polynomial distributions of fractional power forms was
attempted in the early phase of this work and was found to be unsatisfactory. The component
solutions used in the superposition scheme as well as the tensile and bending solutions used in
the weight-function method were obtained using the 3-D finite-element method (FEM). Stress
intensity factors were computed using nodal forces ahead of the crack tip. In the present study,
the effect of the ratio of crack length to plate width (2c/W) was also included, and comparison
with an existing secant form equation was presented. The current work was motivated by the
need to perform safe-life and fracture control analyses of critical hardware used in the Space
Shuttle, the Space Station, and associated payloads. In particular, accurate values of the stress
intensity factors are essential for such an assessment. The stress intensity solution developed
herein was incorporated into NASA/FLAGRO software [15], which is widely used by the
aerospace community.
The following sections present brief descriptions of the finite-element analysis and the tabular
interpolation, the weight-function method, and a discussion of results.
Finite-Element Analysis and Interpolation

Three-dimensional finite elements were used to model the symmetric quarter of a plate
containing an elliptical surface crack. Figure 1 shows the geometry and the coordinate system
used. The nodal force method [16] was used to extract the stress intensity factors. The stress
d
I~ W I
FIG. l ~ e o m e t r y and coordinate system of surface cracks.
intensity factor is expressed in terms of a nondimensional stress intensity correction factor

(SICF) F by
KI = ~oF X/~?-O (1)
where
~ro = the applied uniform tensile stress or the peak stress in the case of nonuniform loading,
a = crack depth, and
Q = an approximation to the elliptic integral given by
Q = 1 + 0.464(a/c) 165,a/c-< 1 or Q = 1 + 0.464(a/c) -L65,a/c> 1 (2)
The load is applied on the crack face according to the formula
tr(z) =tro zp/2 (3)
where z = x/a is measured from the crack mouth a n d p takes values, 0,1 . . . . . 7 so that with
a peak stress of t r o = 1.0, the resulting nondimensional stress intensity factor may be denoted
Fp in Eq 1. The stresses corresponding to integer powers (p = 0, 2, 4, 6) are shown in Fig. 2.
Poisson's ratio of 0.3 was used in all analyses.
Values of the nondimensional factors Fp for various fractional powers of loading were
obtained from the finite-element analysis and are listed in Ref 16. Values were computed at
four crack-depth levels (a/t = 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, 0.8) and five aspect ratios (a/c = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6,
0.8, 1.0) for each of the fractional-power loadings. All these values are for a relatively large
width compared to the crack length along the free surface (2c/W <- 0.1). To include the effect
of finite width, nondimensional factors for tensile and bending loads were also obtained using
the FEM for various crack-length-to-width ratios (2c/W). These values are listed in Tables 1
and 2 for tensile and bending loads, respectively.
A combination of tensile and bending results were used to obtain those for linearly decreasing
loading for use in the weight-function method. Results for two points along the crack front,
the surface point (c-tip), and the deepest point (a-tip), are listed. In the tables, the values for
the two crack-depth-to-thickness ratios (a/t = 0, 1.0) shown are obtained by smooth extrapo-
lation using a Hermite fit for each alc. Similar extrapolation was done to obtain the SICFs for
the two extreme values of the crack aspect ratio (a/c = 0, 2.0) and the two extreme values of
2clW = 0, 1.0. Using this full set of results, interpolation was done using Hermite fits to obtain
the stress intensity correction factors for any given value of 2c/W, a/c, and a/t. A comparison
of this new tabular interpolation with the earlier Newman-Raju (N-R) equation [2] is shown
in Figs. 3 to 10. Results are shown for two values of a/c = 0.2, 1.0 for tensile and bending
loads for both the a-tip and c-tip. The tensile and bending results were used as reference
solutions for the weight-function method. Some of the remaining results for different p values
were used to verify the weight-function method and are shown later in comparison with the
computed weight-function solutions.
Weight-Function Method
The weight-function (WF) method was conceived by Bueckner [17] and Rice [18] and was
used by several investigators to generalize the stress intensity factor solutions for cracks sub-
jected to arbitrary loading. For one-dimensional variation of stresses acting across the potential
1.2 i I I I
1.0 p=O
0.8-
p=2
,, o . o -
p=4
I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance, x / a
FIG. 2 Power-type stress distributions, p = O, 2, 4, 6.
crack plane, the basic relation between the stress intensity factor and the stress distribution is
given by
K r = f f ffr(X)m(x, a)dx (4)
where
cr,(x) = the stress distribution on the crack face and
re(x, a) = the weight function, which varies with the position coordinate x and the crack
length a.
Once the weight function is known, the stress intensity factor can be obtained by numerical
quadrature. Variations in implementing the weight-function scheme are essentially in how the
function re(x, a) is obtained. It can be shown that
H Ou (x, a)
m(x, a) = (5)
K Oa
TABLE l--Stress intensity correction factors.
2c/W a/c a/t ~ 0.0 0.20 0.50 0.80 1.0
AT THE c-TIP: TENSILE LOADING

0.0 0.20 0.5622 0.6110 0.7802 1.1155 1.4436
0.0 0.40 0.6856 0.7817 0.9402 1.1583 1.3383
0.0 1.00 1.1365 1.1595 1.2328 1.3772 1.5145
0.1 0.20 0.5685 0.6133 0.7900 1.1477 1.5014
0.1 0.40 0.6974 0.7824 0.9456 1.2008 1.4256
0.1 1.00 1.1291 1.1544 1.2389 1.3892 1.5273
0.4 0.20 0.5849 0.6265 0.8438 1.3154 1.7999
0.4 0.40 0.7278 0.8029 1.0127 1.4012 1.7739
0.4 1.00 1.1366 1.1969 1.3475 1.5539 1.7238
0.6 0.20 0.5939 0.6415 0.9045 1.5056 2.1422
0.6 0.40 0.7385 0.8351 1.1106 1.6159 2.1036
0.6 1.00 1.1720 1.2855 1.5215 1.8229 2.0621
0.8 0.20 0.6155 0.6739 1.0240 1.8964 2.8650
0.8 0.40 0.7778 0.9036 1.3151 2.1102 2.9068
0.8 t.00 1.2630 1.4957 1.9284 2.4905 2.9440
1.0 0.20 0.6565 0.7237 1.2056 2.6060 4.2705
1.0 0.40 0.8375 1.0093 1.6395 2.9652 4.3596
1.0 1.00 1.3956 1.8446 2.6292 3.6964 4.5865
AT THE A-TIP: TENSILE LOADING
0.0 0.20 1.1120 1.1445 1.4504 1.7620 1.9729
0.0 0.40 1.0900 1.0945 1.2409 1.3672 1.4404
0.0 1.00 1.0400 1.0400 1.0672 1.0883 1.0800
0.1 0.20 1.1120 1.1452 1.4595 1.7744 1.9847
0.1 0.40 1.0900 1.0950 1.2442 1.3699 1.4409
0.1 1.00 1.0400 1.0260 1.0579 1.0846 1.0820
0.4 0.20 1.1120 1.1577 1.5126 1.8662 2.1012
0.4 0.40 1.0900 1.1140 1.2915 1.4254 1.4912
0.4 1.00 1.0400 1.0525 1.1046 1.1093 1.0863
0.6 0.20 1.1120 1.1764 1.5742 1.9849 2.2659
0.6 0.40 1.0900 1.1442 1.3617 1.5117 1.5761
0.6 1.00 1.0400 1.1023 1.1816 1.1623 1.0955
0.8 0.20 1.1120 1.2047 1.6720 2.2010 2.5895
0.8 0.40 1.0900 1.1885 1.4825 1.6849 1.7727
0.8 1.00 1.0400 1.1685 1.3089 1.2767 1.1638
1.0 0.20 1.1120 1.2426 1.8071 2.5259 3.0993
1.0 0.40 1.0900 1.2500 1.6564 1.9534 2.0947
1.0 1.00 1.0400 1.2613 1.4890 1.4558 1.3010
where the stress intensity factor K and the crack face displacement u(x, a) correspond to the
same applied loading. H is a material constant, and a is the crack length.
In the approach proposed by Shen and Glinka [13,14 ], the weight function is assumed to be
a four-term approximation in the form
m ( x , a ) = V , 2 7 r2( a _ x ) ( 1 + M~ (1 _ x) 1/2 + M2 (1 _ x) + M 3 ( l _ X ) 3/2) (6)
where the crack tip is at x = a. In principle, the three constants M~, M2, M3 can be determined
from three reference solutions for the stress intensity factors, and there would be no need to
566 FRACTURE MECHANICS:-I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
TABLE 2--Stress intensity correction factors.
2c/W alc a/t --> 0.0 0.20 0.50 0.80 1.0
AT THE c-TIP; BENDING LOADING

0.0 0.20 0.5622 0.5772 0.6464 0.7431 0.8230
0.0 0.40 0.6856 0.7301 0.7694 0.7358 0.6729
0.0 1.00 1.1365 1.0778 1.0184 0.9716 0.9474
0.1 0.20 0.5685 0.5809 0.6524 0.7646 0.8624
0.1 0.40 0.6974 0.7315 0.7856 0.8008 0.7895
0.1 1.00 1.1291 1.0740 1.0114 0.9652 0.9435
0.4 0.20 0.5849 0.5981 0.6934 0.8654 1.0249
0.4 0.40 0.7278 0.7519 0.8327 0.9312 1.0068
0.4 1.00 1.1366 1.1079 1.0634 1.0358 1.0268
0.6 0.20 0.5939 0.6158 0.7438 0.9704 1.1802
0.6 0.40 0.7385 0.7816 0.8906 1.0215 1.1211
0.6 1.00 1.1720 1.1769 1.1759 1.1820 1.1900
0.8 0.20 0.6155 0.6446 0.8320 1.1794 1.5113
0.8 0.40 0.7778 0.8386 1.0150 1.2791 1.5073
0.8 1.00 1.2630 1.3633 1.4785 1.5360 1.5431
1.0 0.20 0.6565 0.6848 0.9593 1.5053 2.0518
1.0 0.40 0.8375 0.9232 1.2285 1.7607 2.2637
1.0 1.00 1.3956 1.6821 2.0140 2.1482 2.1446
AT THEA-TIP"BENDING
LOADING
0.0 0.20 1.1120 0.8825 0.6793 0.3063 -0.0497
0.0 0.40 1.0900 0.8292 0.5291 0.1070 -0.2489
0.0 1.00 1.0400 0.7411 0.3348 -0.1149 -0.4396
0.1 0.20 1.1120 0.8727 0.6697 0.3071 -0.0348
0.1 0.40 1.0900 0.8243 0.5170 0.1047 -0.2336
0.1 1.00 1.0400 0.7398 0.3322 -0.1172 - 0.4408
0.4 0.20 1.1120 0.8683 0.6794 0.3439 0.0291
0.4 0.40 1.0900 0.8330 0.5270 0.1257 -0.1989
0.4 1.00 1.0400 0.7602 0.3572 -0.1080 -0.4543
0.6 0.20 1.1120 0.8904 0.7248 0.4033 0.0915
0.6 0.40 1.0900 0.8625 0.5803 0.1678 -0.1874
0.6 1.00 1.0400 0.7982 0.4072 -0.0856 -0.4750
0.8 0.20 1.1120 0.9191 0.7925 0.5102 0.2254
0.8 0.40 1.0900 0.8987 0.6619 0.2524 -0.1300
0.8 1.00 1.0400 0.8556 0.4981 -0.0329 -0.4960
1.0 0.20 1.1120 0.9545 0.8827 0.6666 0.4351
1.0 0.40 1.0900 0.9417 0.7723 0.3810 -0.0250
1.0 1.00 1.0400 0.9323 0.6312 0.0505 -0.5249
obtain the displacement field. In a related paper [19], this approach was extended to the case
of axial part-through cracks in hollow cylinders. T h e weight functions are given by, for the
surface point or c-tip in our notation,
2( (x)1/2 (x) (x)3]'2)

m.(x, a) = ~ 1 + M,n + M2e + M3. (7)
and, for the deepest point or a-tip, b y
2
mA(X, a) -- ~/2"rr (a -- x)
c - t i p , a/c=0.2, Tension. a - t i p , a/e=0.2, TensionJ
4.5 I I I I 3.5 I [ I / I
I / !
I--I air-1.0 i / !
I /
0 / /
// /
A a/t-O.5 I 3.0-- // //
[ alt-0.2 S// // //
X ' alt-O.O / /
/ /
/ /
we~an-BaJ- t2l / / /
2.5- 23
3.0-
c
m
_ >
~.2.0- .t-
"~ 2.5- / O
z
(i)
"~ 2.0- ~/ ~ 1.5- m

co
r~
z
1.5- _-~ ~ ,,, ,, ), ), m
z
1.0- [] alt-l.0 co
-I
.<
1.0- C:) alt-o.8
"11
>
/~ a/t-O.5 C)
-I
.J . . . . . 0.5~ l a/t-O.2 - 0
O. : : : :"~ .... X alt-O.O Go
- We.mm-maju [ 2 ] 0
r-"
C
-t
l I I 0 I I I I 5
0 0.2 0:4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Z
0.6 0.8 1.0 (~
Ze/W 2c/W
FIG. 3 SICF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation FIG. 4 ~ S I C F : N e w F E M and curve-fit versus N - R equation cn
f o r c-tip, alc = 0.2, tension. f o r a-tip, alc = 0.2, tension. (~
01
c-tip, a/e=l, Tension. a - t i p , a / e = l . O , Tension. O~
I I I i1 CO
5.0 I I I I 2.0 I
I i
l-'l alt=l. 0 I i
I /
4.5- 0 ./~o.8 , T- I.B- I/ /I
.A a/t o.s ' /I I I -q
/I /I C
l a/t=0.2 II / L / / /'-
1.6- m
4.0- X ' alt-O.O // I I / /
. . . . . . Nmman-RaJu [2] / #
11 /I // 177
// // // o
1.4- 7-
/ / // z
~'~- zllI /1111III o~
3.o- 1.2--
_ ~ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ - - ~ - - ,. _~_ _ _ _ _-.
rn
Z
2.5- // ~. 1.0- .<
[] alt=1.0 ~n
o
(~ alt=0.8 C
2.0- ~"" / ., " / / O.B-
--I
.A -- alt=O.5 7-
I alt=0.2 0
1.5--t 0.6 - I-"
X , alt=O.O C
w m m a n - a a J u [2] rn
0,4 -
1.0- f 0.2-
I I I I 0 I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
~ 0 0.2 0.4
2e/W
0.6 O.B 1.0
Ze/W
FIG. 5--S1CF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation FIG. 6~S1CF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation
for c-tip, a l c = 1.0, tension. for a-tip, a l c = 1.0, tension.
c-tip, a/c=0.2, Bending.
a - t i p , a / c = 0 . 2 , Bending.
2.1 I I I I !
2.0 f [ I I
! I
[] a/t=x.o , /
[] alt,.1.0
0 ~/t-o.8 , /, 0 alt.=O. 8
1.8-
1.6--
.'~ ./t-o.s , /,' .A~" al'l:,-O. S
I a/t-O.2 / / !'
/ / I "J'
alt:O.
X ./t.o.o , / ,' 1.6-
X alt 0.0
_, . Xew~m-Raju [ 2 ] // /
/ / ,
. . . . . . me~an-~,.a:iu [ 2 ]
1.5- 1.4- ~0
/II /I I r
c
/, // 1.2- m
)l )i )l )~ >
///7/ r--
1.0- O
____,_ . . . . . . . - ~ z
00
--t
o.6- :30
~, 0.9- m
0.6-" ~-~ <~ / /

-t
m
z
0.6- o9
--4
-<
"11
o
.-I
0.3- 0
0 o)
0
r--
c
-I
0 I I I I -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 z
2c/W 2c/W
PIG. 7 SICF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation PIG. 8--SICF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation
O1
for c-tip, a l c = 0.2, bending. for a-tip, alc = 0.2, bending. O~
~O
U1
c-tip, a/c=l.O, Bending. a - t i p , a / c = l . O , Bending. "M
I I I l i I I I 0
2.5 2.0
[] a/t-l.O [] al'l:,- I. 0
ii
0 alt-O. 8 i 0 alt-O. 8 7"1
~0
I I 9-~ alt,,O. S
9--~ alt-O. 5 I / 0
I ,./,:-o.2 1.5- I alt,,O. 2 C
,' J "n
2.0- X a/t,-o, o / r X alt,.o, o m
-- 9 Nmmtan-Ra:Ju [ 2 ] // / / xew~m-~aJ u [2] m
0
I
/1111 /I . ! 6 z
~ 1.5- z/ 7 /
m
z
.-t
..<
~ - 71- ~n
o
C
~" 1.0 ~
--t
I
<
0r "
C
rn
0.5-
\
\
\
\
I I I I -~.v I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0
2c/W 2e/W
FIG. 9 - - S / C F : N e w F E M a n d curve-fit versus N - R equation FIG. IO--SICF: New FEM and curve-fit versus N-R equation
f o r c-tip, a/c = 1.0, bending. for a-tip, alc = 1.0, bending.
To solve for the three constants in each of the above two equations, two reference solutions
and a third condition are used. As explained in Ref 14, the third condition for the c-tip is that
the weight function vanishes at x = a, which gives
1 + M,8 + M28 + M3B = 0 (9)
and the third condition for the a-tip is that the second derivative of the weight function be zero
at x = 0 leading to
M2A = 3 (10)
The two reference solutions used are the case of uniform tension and linearly decreasing
stress as illustrated in Fig. 11, and the correction factors for the stress intensity are taken from
Tables 1 to 2. The solution for linearly decreasing stress is given by F2 = [1 - 1/(2a/t)]F U -
F J ( 2 a / t ) where Fu is for uniform tensile loading and FB is for bending loading.
Figures 12 through 17 show a comparison of the results from the weight-function method
with those obtained using finite elements for various integer-powered distributions of stresses.
These results are for a small value of 2 c / W (--<0.1) and a/c values of 0.2, 0.4, and 1. Both the
c-tip and a-tip values are shown. The symbols denote the FEM results, and the curves indicate
the computed weight-function solutions. The good agreement of finite-element data with the
weight-function results indicates self-consistency and accuracy of numerical integration for
both the c-tip and the a-tip for p = 0, 2.
As an illustration of typical nonuniform stresses occuring in practice, two types of distri-
butions were chosen. The symmetric distributions in Fig. 18 are given by the function
1.0
FIG. 11--Two reference stresses used in the weight-function method.
a-tip, a/c:O.2, p:O, 2, 4, 6. -,4
c - t i p , a/c=0.2, p=O, 2, 4, 6. %3
I I I I 2.0 I I I I
1.5
-m
J 30
1.8- p=O
o
-I
c
A
~ 1.6- m
i l.2- E
o m
el
o
p=O
/ o
1.4-
(3
-r
CO
i0.9- ~1.2- -I
m
z
.--t
I.0-
~ ~n
0C
0.6- 0.8-
~ "- Ir
i u <
0r -
11 0.6-
c
~ E
m
o.8- j o.4-
p=2
0.2-
......
~ = / ~ "" ~ /'#~ 6~v '~r'~
0 j 0 I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FIG. 12 SICF: FEM and WF solutions~or c-tip, edc = 0.2, FIG. 13--SICF: FEM and W F solutions for a-tip, alc = 0.2,
p=0,2,4,6. p=0,2,4,6.
c-Up, a/c=0.4, p=O, 2, 4, 6. a-Up, a/c=0.4, p=O, 2, 4, 6.
1.5 I I I I 1.5 I I I I
A
/ p=O
J
~1.2- p=O- .~ 1.2-
I:0
~ "11
C
m
i0.9- ~0.9-
.r"
.u 0
a) z
m: oo
-i
A
"n
.= m
0.6- 60
0.6-
~ ~ • : • x ~"x"ne-w~P=4C'~x-'x"x"x"x~
m
.a :I v v v v v v v v v .~...~p=6 z
60
.-I
~J ..<
-rl
r~ 0.8- o.s-
r
p=2 j
0
~ 0
l'--
c.-i
0 l. . . . . , . . . . m , l I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 5
z
a/t a/t
FIG. 14--SICF: F E M and W F solutions f o r c-tip, alc = 0.4, FIG. 15--SICF: F E M and W F solutions f o r a-tip, alc = 0.4,
01
p =0,2,4,6. p =0,2,4,6. .,,J
o'1
c-tip, a/c--l.O, p=O, 2, 4, 6. a-tip, a/c=l.O, p=O, 2, 4, 6.
1.6 I I I I 1.2 I I l i
~J
1.4- p= J ~ p=O~,~-- c)
t-
~_, 1.0-
4)
in
& m
o
o -l-
0 0
~ 0.8- z
~ 1.0- (I)
LLLLLLL~L~__ ._,,-p--2~ -4
m
Z
I~ 0 . 8 - ~ 0.6- -(
o
0
o o V V V V V
9V V V V V V
v-p=6 C
,ta ~J
~ 0.6- -r
~0.4-
0
I--
C
.. 0 . 4 - m
0.2-
0.2- -" -" -~ -" -" -" -"- -"' r ~ -~ P = 2 ~
I .................. .... ,, ~ - _ _ p = 4 ~
or i i i i I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0
a/t a/t
FIG. 16---SICF: F E M and W F solutions f o r c-tip, a/c = 1.0, FIG. 17--SICF: F E M and W F solutions f o r a-tip, a/c = 1.0,
p =0,2,4,6. p =0,2,4,6.
S y m m e t r i c d i s t r i b u t i o n s A, B, C, D.
I I I I
1.0 l
A
rd)
0 0:2
Nondimensional
0:4
j/ I
0.8
distance,
I
0.8
x/t
1.0
FIG. 18--Typical symmetric stress distributions.
1 - sin('rrxlt) q where q was assigned values 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25 for distributions designated
A, B, C, and D, respectively. Figure 19 shows two unsymmetric distributions in which E is
defined by e x p ( - 5 x / t ) and F is given by e x p ( - 5 ( 1 - x/t)). The corresponding stress intensity
correction factors for these stress distributions are shown in Figs. 20 through 23. Results for
any other stress distribution or a combination of up to four such distributions may be conven-
iently obtained from NASA/FLAGRO [15].
Discussion
Comparison of the new tabular solution for tension and bending with the earlier Newman-
Raju equation [2] in Figs. 3 through 10 indicates that, for the most part, the old equation was
too conservative near 2c/W = 1.0 (narrow plates). It was unconservative for some cases, such
as in Fig. 3. Note that the old equation was developed based on numerical solutions for mostly
wide plates or small values of 2c/W. Thus, the discrepancy occurs outside the intended range
Unsymmetric distributions E, F.
I I J I
1.0
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0~ -
E F
I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Nondimensional distance, x/t
FIG. 19--Typical unsymmetric stress distributions.
of 2c/W of the Newman-Raju equation. Because the tabular interpolation fits the finite-element
data smoothly, the new tabular solution should be more accurate. Attempts at extrapolating the
data to a/c = 2 were not successful. In future work, it would be helpful to obtain solutions for
a/c > 1.
As a first attempt at obtaining the stress intensity solution for nonuniform loading, a linear
superposition approach was tried. If a given nonuniform stress could be fitted accurately to a
polynomial with terms (x/t)p, in the form ~(x) = ~=lCi(x/t) ~ the corresponding compo-
nent stress intensity solutions when scaled by the coefficients and summed would yield the
resultant stress intensity factor. For the distributions shown earlier, least-squares fitting was not
satisfactory and the coefficients C1 to C8 were very large, resulting in inaccurate values of the
stress intensity factors. Hence, this approach was abandoned in favor of the weight-function
method. The number of integration points required in evaluating the various integrals in the
weight-function method was systematically varied and accuracy was checked. It was found that
about 500 points are necessary in most cases to perform the integration accurately. Simpson's
z-tip, 2c/W=.05, a/c=l.O, Symmetric. a-tip, 2c/W=.05, a/c=l.O, Symmetric.
I i I I 1.2 I I I I
..2
1~
~>
C
= m
o~ 0 . 8 - o -.-I
>
F
0
Z
5O
-H
~ 0.6- m
~ 50
~176
;r.,
--t
m
z
0.4-
--t
.<
-11
0
-I
0
).2- ;10
0
r--
C
-t
6
Z
I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 L.O o ).2 ox 0.6 o.8 1.0
a/t a/t
~G. 2 0 I S 1 C F f o r symmetric stresses: c-tip, alc = 1. ~IG. 2 1 - - S I C F f o r unsymmetric stresses: a-tip, alc = 1. "4
"4
Ol
~q
c-tip, 2c/W=.05, a/c=l.O, Unsymmetric. a-tip, 8c/W=.05, a/c=l.O, Unsymmetric. 00
1.8 I I I I
1.2 / I ] I I
m
>
O
C
1.0- 1.0- m
E
m
C)
-r
>
E-~-- z
0.8-
0,8-
o Go
o
o
o
m
r._ Z
0.6- ~. 0 . 6 -
O
C
-r
<
0.4- O
0.4- r-
C
E
rn
0.2- 0.8- i ~
0 ~ ~ -- = = - = e - = = - = ~ -- ' - ~ -* - - ~ " - ~ F - ~ "

i I I I 0 t t t I
0 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 03 1.0
a/t a/t
FIG. 2 2 - - S I C F f o r s y m m e W i c stresses: c-tip, edc = 1. FIG. 2 3 - - S I C F f o r unsymmetric stresses: a-tip, a/c = 1.
rule was used in the numerical integration. The results for higher values of 2cflV (such as 1.0)
are somewhat suspect because the crack front is very close to the free surfaces. However, these
cases occur relatively infrequently in practice.
Summary and Conclusion

Some recent efforts to improve the stress intensity factor solutions for flat plates under tension
and bending are described. A new solution based on tabular interpolation of finite-element
results was constructed. Numerical finite-element solutions for the stress intensity factor were
obtained for the whole array of geometric parameters for the reference loading cases of constant
and linearly varying stresses. Tabular interpolation and extrapolation using a standard Hermite
fit were developed so that the stress intensity factors can be obtained for arbitrary geometries.
The effect of finite width was incorporated fully. Plates subjected to general loading are also
treated using the weight-function method and the tabular solution. The tabular solution was
directly used in the weight-function method, and the accuracy of the solutions was demonstrated
for various nonlinear loads. Some new results are presented for practically important stress
distributions. The information presented should be helpful in the fracture mechanics evaluation
of fiat platelike structures.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the valuable discussions they had with Royce G. Forman of NASA-
JSC during the course of this work. This work was conducted partly under a subcontract the
first author had with Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company. The last two authors (SRM
and VS) wish to thank the Lockheed Management for their encouragement and the NASA
Johnson Space Center for the contractual support through Contract NAS9-17900.
References
[1 ] Raju, I. S. and Newman, J. C., Jr., "Stress Intensity Factors for a Wide Range of Semi-elliptical
Surface Cracks in Finite Thickness Plates," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 11, 1979, pp.
817-829.
[2] Newman, J. C., Jr., and Raju, I. S., "An Empirical Stress Intensity Factor Equation for the Surface
Crack," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 15, 1981, pp. 185-192.
[3] Newman, J. C., Jr., and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-Dimen-
sional Finite Bodies," Fracture Mechanics: Fourteenth Symposium, Vol. L Theory and Analysis,
adelphia, 1983, pp. 308-326.
[4] Vainshtok, V. A. and Varfolomeyev, I. V., "Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Part-Elliptical
Cracks and their Verification," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 34, 1989, pp. 125-136.
[5] Fett, T., "Stress Intensity Factors for Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks in a Plate Under Tension Based
on the Isida's Solution," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, 1991, pp. 139-151.
[6] Fett, T., Munz, D., and Neumann, J., "Local Stress Intensity Factors for Surface Cracks in Plates
under Power-Shaped Stress Distributions," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 36, 1990, pp.
647~651.
[7] Fett, T., "The Crack Opening Displacement Field of Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks in Tension for
Weight Function Applications," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 36, 1988, pp. 55-69.
[8 ] Malik, S., "Application of Weight Functions Method to Three-Dimensional Cracks Under General
Stress Gradients," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium, ASTM STP 1131, Vol. 2, Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 83-112.
[9] Petroski, H. J. and Achenbach, J. D., "Computation of the Weight Function from a Stress Intensity
Factor," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 10, 1978, pp. 257-266.
[10] Gang, C. Z. and Xing, Z., "A Closed Form Solution of Stress Intensity Factors for Cracks in Three-
Dimensional Finite Bodies by Energy Release Rate Method," Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 32, 1989, pp. 419-441.
[11 ] Vainshtok, V. A. and Varfolomeyev, I. V., "Application of the Weight Function Method for Deter-
mining Stress Intensity Factors of Semi-Elliptical Cracks," International Journal of Fracture, Vol.
35, 1987, pp. 175-186.
[12 ] Vainshtok, V. A. and Varfolomeyev, I. V., "A Complete System of Equations of the Weight Function
Method for Three-Dimensional Crack Problems," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 38, 1988,
pp. R71-R74.
[13] Shen, G. and Glinka, G., "Determination of Weight Functions from Reference Stress Intensity
Factors," Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 15, 1991, pp. 237-245.
[14 ] Shen, G. and Glinka, G,, "Weight Functions for a Surface Semi-elliptical Crack in a Finite Thickness
Plate," Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 15, 1991, pp. 247-255.
[15] "Fatigue Crack Growth Computer Program, NASA/FLAGRO," JSC-22267A, NASA, Lyndon B.
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, April 1992.
[16] Raju, I. S., "Computations of Stress Intensity For Flaws in Flat and Cylindrical Surfaces," Subcon-
tractor Report to Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co., P.O. 02N0140125-1, Analytical Services
and Materials, Inc., Hampton, VA, April 1991.
[17] Bueckner, H. F., "A Novel Principle for the Computation of Stress Intensity Factors," Zeutschrifl
Angewandte MathematikundMechanik, Vol. 50, 1970, pp. 129-146.
[18] Rice, J. R., "Some Remarks on Elastic Crack-Tip Stress Field," International Journal of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 8, 1972, pp. 751-758.
[19] Forman, R. G., Mettu, S. R., and Shivakumar, V., "Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Pressure
Vessels and Pipes in Aerospace Applications," in Fatigue, Fracture and Risk, PVP--Vol. 241, W.
H. Bamford, H. Mehta, B. A. Bishop, J. H. Phillips, and F. W. Brust, Eds., The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 1992, pp. 25-36.
Xiaoguang Chen I and Pedro Albrecht 1
Weight Functions for Eccentric Cracks

REFERENCE: Chen, X. and Albrecht, P., "Weight Functions for Eccentric Cracks," Frac-
ture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe,
and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp.
581-614.
ABSTRACT: The authors have developed weight functions for an eccentric crack in a finite-
width plate based on an assumed crack-opening displacement (COD) expression and Isida's stress
intensity factor solution for a cracked finite-width plate under tension.
The unknown coefficient in the assumed COD expression was obtained from the energy bal-
ance condition. The accuracy of the weight functions was checked with self-consistency and
symmetry conditions. Comparisons with results for special cases with known solutions further
validated the accuracy of the weight functions. After verifying the accuracy, the application of
the weight function method (WFM) was illustrated for three basic loading conditions as well as
residual welding stresses and thermal shock stresses.
The WFM developed in this study is an important step toward solving more complex engi-
neering crack problems such as two-tip eccentric cracks in the web or flange of steel bridge
girders and a three-tip crack extending across flange and into the web.
KEYWORDS: weight function, Green's function, stress intensity factor, crack-opening displace-
ment, eccentric crack, energy-balance condition, self-consistency condition, steel bridges
Many engineering structures and components contain eccentric cracks. As an example of

steel girders for highway bridges, Fig. 1 (top) shows one crack initiating from the toe of the
fillet weld connecting the transverse stiffener to the web and another from the end of the
longitudinal fillet weld connecting the cover plate to the bottom flange. Each crack propagates
first as a part-througla crack in the thickness direction and then as a through crack across the
plate width. The cracks are eccentric because their midpoints do not coincide with the centroids
of the plates. Figure 1 (bottom) shows crack initiation at the interface between the cladding
and the base metal of a nuclear reactor vessel. The crack propagates in radial direction through
the wall thickness. Since the base metal is much thicker than the cladding, the crack is eccentric
with respect to the wall thickness. The stress intensity factor (SIF) for the examples shown in
Fig. 1 can be computed with the weight function method (WFM) developed in this paper. SIFs
for more complicated eccentric crack problems can be computed by combining the WFM with
other techniques.
The WFM is a very efficient tool for calculating SIFs. Its most important advantage over the
finite element method (FEM) is the parametric nature of the method. The weight function for
a specific crack geometry can be derived from the solution for a simple loading case. Since the
weight function is the SIF for a pair of unit point loads, it serves as a Green function with
which SIFs for any other loading case can be obtained by integration. In contrast, FEM cal-
culations must be repeated for each combination of crack size and loading. Finite element
calculations are powerful, but their execution is expensive and time-consuming.
Research associate, Institute for Systems Research, 25590 Prospect Ave., 25D, Loma Linda, CA
92354; and professor, Department of Civil Engineering, respectively, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD 20742.
581
Detail A
FIG. 1 Eccentric cracks in (top) web and flange of steel beam and (bottom)pressure vessel.
The W F M is not without disadvantages. The weight function is obtained from the change
in crack-opening displacement (COD) for a unit change in crack length. Therefore, a COD
expression is needed for one reference loading case. For simple crack geometries, such as the
center-cracked and edge-cracked plates, it is not difficult to assume a reasonable COD profile.
But this is not necessarily so for more complex crack geometries such as asymmetric double-
edge cracks emanating from a hole. An accurate weight function can be combined with the
FEM to solve more complex problems.
Many researchers [1-5] have developed weight functions for different crack problems, such
as the centric, double-edge, and single-edge cracks in a plate. Fett et al. [6] proposed a weight
function for a centric crack subjected to asymmetric loading, a special case of an eccentric
crack with eccentricity approaching zero.
This paper presents weight functions for eccentric cracks subjected to any asymmetric load-
ing. The basic weight function equations for eccentric cracks are given as an extension of
Rice's work [7]. An expression is assumed for the COD, and the corresponding weight func-
tions are derived. Several checks verify the accuracy of the weight functions and identify
possible sources of error. Self-consistency is also checked for the reference SIFs of an eccentric
crack in a finite-width plate. SIFs for eccentric cracks in a finite-width plate subjected to dif-
ferent loading conditions are calculated with the weight functions developed in this paper.
CHEN AND ALBRECHT ON ECCENTRIC CRACKS 583
Weight Functions for Eccentric Crack

Basic Equations
Figure 2 shows an eccentric crack in a finite-width plate for which weight functions are
developed in the present study. The two crack tips, A and B, are located at distances aA and a 8
from the origin of the coordinate system. The eccentricity, e, is defined as the distance from
midwidth of the plate to the center of the crack.
In developing general equations for the weight functions, Rice [7] assumed the crack extends
virtually by 8a and expressed the SIF at the crack tip as
K = fo tr(x)m(a, x) dx (1)
and the weight function m(x, a) as
E Ouo(a, x)
re(a, x) - (2)
Ko aa
where
or(x) = stress acting on crack surface or crack-line stress from superposition,
Uo(a, x) = COD under reference loading,
Ko = reference stress intensity factor,
a = half-crack length, and
E = Young's modulus.
For a crack with two tips, Rice's assumption presumes (1) either equal virtual extensions 8a
at both tips so that the calculated values of re(a, x) and K(a) are equal for both tips or (2)
Y
____%
X
v
a B -~
__%
2W
FIG. 2--Eccentric crack in finite-width plate,

virtual extension at one tip only so that the values of m(a, x) and K(a) apply only to that tip.
Since Eqs 1 and 2 cannot distinguish between two crack tips, they apply only to centric cracks
under symmetric loading.
To calculate SIFs for eccentric cracks under arbitrary loading, separate weight functions are
needed for each tip. Let the crack virtually extend at tip A by ~aa, but not at tip B (Fig. 2).
From Rice's work then [7]
KA = f~ack cr(x)ma(aa, a 8, x) dx (3)

surface
E Ouo(aA, a B, x)
mA(a a, a B, x) = (4)
K~ OaA
where
Koa = SIF for crack tip A under reference loading and

aa, a8 = distances from origin of coordinate system to crack tips A and B.
Now, let the crack virtually extend at tip B by ~a B but not at tip A. The SIF and weight
function for crack tip B are written in forms analogous to Eqs 3 and 4
KB = fcrackt~(x)mB(aa, as, x) dx (5)

surface
E Ouo(aA, a B, x)
rna(aa, aB, x) = - - (6)
Kg 0a 8
where
Kg = SIF for crack tip B under reference loading.
Equations 3 through 6 are the basis for calculating weight functions in this paper. A uniform
pressure acting on the crack surface is chosen as the reference loading.
Energy-Balance Condition
The energy-balance condition states that the energy released as a crack grows from zero
length to full length, 2a, is equal to the work done by the load acting on the crack surfaces. It
can be expressed in three forms depending on whether the crack grows from tip B to tip A,
from tip A to tip B, or from the center of the crack to both crack tips.
First, the integral of the energy release rate as the crack virtually extends at tip A
alone--from zero length (tip A at position x = aB) to full length 2a (tip A at position x =
aa)--must be equal to the external work done by the reference stress cr acting on the crack
surface.
daA = rack cr(x)u(x, aa, aB) dx (7)

B 8aB= 0 surface
Second, the energy-balance condition for virtual crack extension at tip B alone, from x = aA
to x = as, is
A ~tlA=0
(--daB)
= rack O'(X)U(X, aA,
Surface
as) dx (8)
Finally, if the crack virtually extends by equal amounts from the center to both tips A and
B, 8a a = 8aB = ~a, the energy-balance condition is
fo ((~)2 '1- (KE)2) 8e=oda= fo:ackOr(X)U(X,aa, as) dX (9)

surface
The unknown coefficient in the assumed COD expression is determined later with the energy
balance condition.
Self-Consistency Conditions
The self-consistency condition derives from the energy-balance condition. According to Eqs
7 through 9, all three expressions for the total energy released during crack extension are equal
to the closure work. Therefore, they must also be equal to each other, for example
fa~A(KA)2
E 8aB=0 daA~fo((gE)23t-(KE)2) Be=0 d a (10)
faaAB(KB)2
E aaA=o
(--daB)~fo((gE)2..~(gE)2)$e=od
a (11)
In this paper, the self-consistency condition is defined as the energy released during crack
extension from B to A divided by that from the center to both tips
fi~A(KA)2
E s,,~=odaA
(12)
QA=f:((l~ )k2"[- (KB)2~ da
e /18,=o
or the energy released during crack extension from A to B divided by that from the center to
both tips.
filB~---~Saa=od(--aB)
Qn = fo ((t~)2 + (K~)Z) 8e=o2da (13)
A SIF solution is self-consistent when both ratios Qa and QB approach unity. These ratios are
useful for checking the accuracy of weight functions.
Crack-Opening Displacement
Any assumed COD expression must reduce to the same functional form as that of the near-
field COD at tips A and B. According to linear elastic fracture mechanics, the CODs at crack
tips are
.ol . . . . = VZrA
(14)
where ra and rB are distances from the crack tips A and B. In polar coordinates, crack tip A is
given by (r, 0) = (ra, ~r) and tip B by (r, 0) = (rs, 0). It must also satisfy the energy-balance
condition. Equation 9 was chosen in this paper.
The authors assumed the following COD expression for an eccentric crack under uniform
reference loading acting on the crack surfaces
Uo = - i
o[1 1
O~arn+ fgra)(rar")l'~ + -~ (Carn + C.ra)(rarn) ~
] (15)
where a a and as are shown in Fig. 2, and
a = (aA -- a s ) 1 2 rA = aa -- X fa = K,~l(~ra)m
e = (an + a s ) 1 2 rs = x -- a n fg = Kgl(~ra) ~
fa, f~ = correction factors for the SIFs at tips A and B under reference loading.
The first addend inside the brackets of Eq 15 leads to Eq 14 near tips A and B. For example,
at tip A , ra ~ 0 a n d rn ~ 2 a . Neglecting also the higher order term (second addend), Uo near
tip A (x = an) approaches the first of Eqs 14. Furthermore, if e = 0, u o converges to the COD
expression for a centric crack given by Wu and Chen [1]. The second addend in Eq 15 was
assumed to have a pattern similar to that of the first addend.
The assumed COD is a function of two unknown coefficients, CA a n d Cn. Since there is only
one independent energy-balance condition, the expression for the COD can only have one
unknown coefficient. Therefore, the authors assumed that the two coefficients are equal, Ca =
Cn = C / 2 . This simplifies Eq 15 to
Uo = --~
.[1 Oegra + farn)(rArn)'/2 + (rArB) 3/2
] (16)
The meaning of the terms in Eq 16 becomes apparent when the origin of the x - y coordinate
system is shifted to the center of the crack. The transformations from the x - y coordinate system
to the x ' - y ' coordinate system are x ' = x - e and y ' = y. Setting aa = e + a and an = e -
a, expanding Eq 16, and rearranging the terms leads to
uoE - (foa + f ~n) [ a 2 - (x')2l m + ~C [a 2 - (x,)213, 2 + (fa __ fos) x- '- [a 2 _ (x,)2l,/Z (17)
fro a
The first two terms in Eq 17 are symmetric, and the third is antisymmetric. The symmetric
terms have the same form as those of the COD expression for the center crack given by Wu
and Chen [1 ]. The antisymmetric term accounts for the difference between the SIFs for the
two tips, that is, the crack eccentricity. Equation 17 has the same form as the equation Wang
et al. [8] derived with the complex stress function method.
The coefficient C in Eq 16 is determined by satisfying the energy-balance condition. Inserting
Uo from Eq 16 into Eq 9 yields, upon integration
c=~r 2 (18)
where
qb = ~ a [(fA)2 + foB)2] da (19)
Weight Functions
The weight functions for the eccentric crack are derived by substituting Uo from Eq 16 into
Eqs 2 and 4. The resulting weight functions are for crack tip A
EOUo_I{(rA PB~(rB) 1/2

ma(x, aa, aB) - ~:~ OaA ~ fA f~A~ + 2 W / \ r A ]
(20)
FA rB~(rA ['~a(rA
+ ~ + f3~ ~ + ~ w l \ w + ~'~\w
and for crack tip B
mS(x, aa, aB) -- ouo

K~ Oaa -
, { ( , fS~ ~
X/-~d f~ + ~2 W] \-~n]
(21)
rA r )grA ./rA
..~ ~B ..~ ~B ~ ..~ 1"5 w l ~ w Jr 1~6~w
where the coefficients [3a and [3,8 are functions of crack length and eccentricity. The expressions
for [3a,B are given in Appendix A.
Special Cases
The weight functions, Eqs 20 and 21, are next applied to two special cases. First, a centric
crack in an infinite-width plate is subjected to one pair of eccentric point loads. Since the plate
is infinitely wide, the crack eccentricity is e = 0 and the correction factors for the SIFs under
reference loading become f~ = foB = fo = 1. Neglecting the higher order terms in Eqs 20 and
21, one can show that the weight function equations reduce to
ma,B _ _ _ 1 /a • _x (22)
which agrees with the solution reported in Ref 9.

Second, a centric crack in a finite-width plate is subjected to two pairs of symmetric point
loads (Fig. 3). Superposing the weight functions for each pair gives for crack tip A re(x, a) =
ma(x, aa, as) + ma(--X, aa, aB). Since e = 0, it follows t h a t f a = f~ = fo and aa = --an = a.
Using these relations in Eqs 20 and 21 leads to equal weight functions for crack tips A and B
m(x, a) - ~ / ~ d fo LN/(a/W) 2 _ (x/W)"
C + 2 Ofo + 2 Of* ][(alW)2 _ (x/W)Zl,/Z (23)

+ 3 a/W O(a/W) 0(e/W)J
}
(a/W) 20(e/W) [(a/W)2 - (x/w)213~2
where f * = (fa + fg)/2.

Equation 23 becomes identical to Wu and Chen's [1 ] weight function equation for the same
special case if the following partial derivatives o f f * and C are zero at e = 0
=0 =0 (24)
0e e=o e=o
In other words, for centric cracks and symmetric loading,f* and C are symmetric with respect
to e at e = 0. Equation 24 is hereafter called the symmetry condition for SIFs.
Y
___%
P P
,If,
I
x
P P
__%
2W
v
FIG. 3--Centric crack with two pairs of point loads.
Y
a
A x
r_1I ---"
F 2a
2W
o
FIG. 4~Eccentric crack in finite-width plate under remote uniform tension.
Symmetry Conditions
Equations in Eq 24 are indeed satisfactory for symmetrical problems. Since C depends on
foa andfoB according to Eq 18, one can show through the equations in Appendix A that OClOe
depends on Of*JOe at e = 0. Thus, only the condition Of*/Oe le=o = 0 needs to be proved. This
is done as follows. Under uniform tension, the term (fa + fro)~2 for e > 0 is equal to (fa +
fB)/2 for - e < 0. So the symmetry condition, Eqs 24, holds true for symmetric crack problems.
The accuracy of the solution for the reference SIF is checked later with the symmetry
condition.
Reference Stress Intensity Factor

Isida [10] derived the following equations for the SIF at the tips of an eccentric crack in a
finite-width plate under uniform tension (Fig. 4)
K~ = (r~ (25)
Kg = Croh/-~a f g
where the correction factors are
19
f~ = 1 + ~ c,(~)x i
i=2
(26)
19
fg = 1 + ~ (-1)'Ci(e)h i
i=2
He tabulated the values of the coefficients C/for different values of normalized eccentricity, e
= e/W = 0.1 to 0.9, and normalized crack length, h = a / ( W - e).
Isida's solution was chosen as the reference in this study because it is the only one the
authors have found for an eccentric crack. To use it in closed form, the authors fitted Isida's
tabulated values with a tenth order polynomial
1o
Ci(e) = ~] ~/or (27)
j=O
Table 1 lists the 11 coefficients, ~/ij f o r j = 0 to 10, needed to predict each one of Isida's 18
coefficients, Ci for i = 2 to 19, in Eq 26. The prediction error is less than 1% for coefficients
C2 to C~4, and varies from 1.3 to 2.5% for coefficients C~5 t o C i 9 .
Note that Isida tabulated values of his coefficients only for positive eccentricity. Therefore,
Eqs 25 through 27 as well as the weight functions resulting from these equations are valid only
for e --> 0. However, the weight functions for e < 0 can be easily obtained from the weight
functions for e > 0 as described below.
The sign of the crack eccentricity depends only on the direction of the x coordinate. In the
x-y coordinate system of Fig. 5a, point R is at crack tip A, the eccentricity is e > 0, and the
corresponding weight function is ma(x, aa, as) = mm(x, a, e). In the x ' - y ' coordinate system,
point R is at crack tip B ' , e ' < 0, and mS'(x ', aa, as) = mB'(x ', a, e'). Since point R has not
changed, the following two weight functions must be equal
ma(x, a, e) = mS'(x ', a, e') (28)
Noting that e ' = - e (e > 0) and x ' = - x leads to the weight function expressions for negative
eccentricity
ma'(--X, a, - e ) = mS(x, a, e)
(29)
m S ' ( - x , a, - e ) = ma(x, a, e)
Equation 29 expresses the weight functions for negative crack eccentricity in terms of those
for positive eccentricity. This relationship can be further explained with Fig. 5b. For a pair of
unit loads acting at x on the surfaces of a crack with positive eccentricity e > 0, the weight
function for crack tip R is ma(x, a, e). If the same load pair acts at - x on the surface of a crack
with negative eccentricity - e < 0, the weight function for crack tip Q is mB(-x, a, - e ) .
From symmetry, the weight function at R is equal to the weight function at Q. Thus Eq 29
holds.
TABLE I--Coefficient of tenth-order polynomial needed to predict lsida's [ 10] reference S1F.
index Coefficients in Equation 27

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 error(%)
0.594529 -1.16813 3.88722 -5.59885 2.53449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 @ e/W=0.9

2
0.00004019 1,79483 -526474 7.25145 -622664 3,53342 -0,963374 0 0 O O 0.15 @ elW--0.92

3
0.481049 -1.89999 8.57422 -21,4222 32.6606 -33,237 20.3235 -5,34735 O 0 0 0.08 @ e/W=0.9
4
0,00014876 1.71386 -8,01623 22,3811 -41,1269 45,9086 -27.6421 6,85962 0 0 0 0.35 @ e/W=0.02
5
g 0.39619 -2.34888 15,3979 -57.7878 136,808 -2112.35 202,114 -107.173 23.9249 0 0 0.4 @ e/W= 1.0
C~
0.00004296 2,46937 -16.8282 69,3465 -194.01 367.822 -462.935 369,245 -168.367 33.3246 0 0.28 @ elW=O.02 I
7
m
0.34 @ e/W=0.9 Z
8 0,336628 -2.66383 23.3655 - 116.958 375.161 -797.199 1100.03 -940~555 451.39 -92.9219 -0.0018 >
Z
0 2.7473 -24.0351 1 3 3 . 4 3 1 -510.445 1350.131 -2449.766 2976.3436 -2302.4415 1021.2475 -197.1513 0.49 @ e/W=0.9 E~
9
>
0.29748 -2.93919 32.7898 -207,113 844.575 -2314.953 4263.58 -51822.82 3977.55 -1743,69 332,262 0.46 @ e/W=0.9 I-
10
:3]
11 0 3,25227 -33.6902 212.088 -877,44 2426.25 -4498.53 5505.07 -4253.69 1876,16 -359.4115 0.31 @ e/W=0.9 m
0
-r
0.271202 -3.17369 41.4548 -293.802 1300.32 -3768A3 7214.13 -9013.89 7058.12 -3139.611 604.683 0.23 @ e/W=0.6
12
0
13 0 3.61 -42.518 298,14 -133631 3916,85 -7574.576 9558.155 -7554.607 3389.575 -657.9628 0.67 @ e/W=0.7 Z
m
14 0.253294 -3.39499 50.2878 -389.566 1836.02 -5559.55 10984.49 -14051.094 11200.502 -5051249 983.371 0.53 @ elW=O.9 0
0
1.3 @ e/W=O.02 m
15 0 3,99089 -51.9933 392,146 -1845,44 5594.75 -11085.045 14239,904 -11408.209 5172.086 -1012.135 z
-I
0.51 @ e/W=0.02 ~0
16 0.240053 -3.58093 58.2661 -479.611 2351.186 -7306.774 14694.614 -19035 15313.7025 -6953.974 1360.8988
O 4.31509 -60.7034 483.448 -2357.83 7319.58 -14735.24 19134,704 -15443.91 7073.96 -1382.271 2 @ e/W=o.02 0
17 -11
>
0.229503 -3.73202 65.5204 -565,217 2857.76 -9065.31 18496.92 -24217.76 19643.12 -8977A7 1766.0053 0.79 @ e/W=O 02 0
18
2.5 @ e/W=o.02 00
19 O 4.6846 -71.983 613.241 -3138.011 10086.819 -20836.305 27589.408 -22604,706 10423,536 -2066.632
U1
X coordinate
parameters
x' x
B'-"~,~'~'A'
X' coordinate
parameters
2w 2W
(a) (b)
FIG. 5--Relationship between weight functions for positive and negative eccentricities; expla-
nation from coordinate systems and mirror image.
Using Eq 29 and setting -aB, = aA and - a A, aB,, the SIFs at tips A ' and B ' for e ' < 0
:
(e' = - e ) are converted to SIFs at A and B for e > 0 as follows:
K A'~' :
~aaA" ff(x)mA"B'(X, a, --e) dx =
~A" cr(x)m":(-x, a, e) dx
B' B'
(30)
= cr(-x)mS:(x, a, e) dx = cr(-x)mB:(x, a, e) dx
aA ' B
Validation of Weight Functions

The accuracy of the reference SIF is affected by any errors inherent in Isida's own numerical
solution, the polynomial functions the authors have fitted to Isida's coefficients, and the COD
expression the authors have assumed. The error is first checked with the symmetry and self-
consistency conditions. SIFs are then calculated for four special cases to determine how well
the WFM predicts the known solutions.
Symmetry Check
To check the accuracy of the reference SIF, the fitted coefficients from Eq 27 were inserted
in Eqs 26 and the derivatives in Eq 24 were then calculated for the centric crack, e = 0, and
a wide range of crack lengths 0.1 ~ a / W <-- 0.9. The results listed in Table 2 show that the
shorter the crack, the better the symmetry conditions are satisfied. The errors are still quite
small up to a[W <- 0.7, that is, 0ffo/0( --< 0.051 and Ioc/o~l <- 0.007.
TABLE 2~ymrnetry check of reference SIF solution,a
alW bf* lO~ aC/Oe

0.1 4.23E-4 5.49E-8
0.2 1.75E-3 6.25E-7
0.3 4.20E-3 6.04E-7
0.4 8.21E-3 - 1.44E-5
0.5 1.47E-2 - 1.35E-4
0.6 2.62E-2 -9.98E-4
0.7 5.14E-2 -6.79E-3
0.8 1.32E-1 -4.15E-2
0.9 4.76E- 1 - 2.05E- 1
"SIF = stress intensity factors.
Self-Consistency Check
In the second accuracy check, the ratios Qa and QB were calculated with Eqs 12 and 13 for
the reference SIFs K~ and Kg given by Eqs 25. The results are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7 for a
wide range of eccentricities 0.00 --< e/W <-- 0.90. Values of QA and Q8 = 1 mean zero error.
The error becomes larger, the longer the crack and the smaller the eccentricity are. It is less
than 1.5% for QA when a/(W-e) <-- 0.6, and less than 0.5% for Q8 over the full range of crack
lengths 0.0 -< a/(W-e) <- 0.9. QA is less than 1% if e/W > 0.1 for all crack lengths 0 --< a/(W-
e) --< 0.90.
1.02
0.10
0.98
e/W = from 0 to 0.1 in steps of 0.02 and

0 from 0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.1 from bottom to t o p 0.04
0.96
0.02
0.94
0.92 e/W -- 0.00
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

CRACK LENGTH, el(W-e)
FIG. 6--Self-consistency check of reference SIFs ratio QA.
594 FRACTURE
MECHANICS:
TWENTY-FOURTH
VOLUME
1.01
1.005 e/W = 0.90
0
ca
C ^ ~ 0 . 0 0
e/W = from 0 to 0.1 in steps of 0.02 and

from 0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.1 from bottom to top
0.995
0.99 I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CRACK LENGTH, a/(W-e)
FIG. 7--Self-consistency check of reference SIFs ratio QB.
Special Cases
To check the accuracy of the weight functions further, the authors have calculated the SIF
for four cases. First, Eqs 20 and 21 were already shown to reduce to the known solution for a
centric crack in an infinite-width plate subjected to a pair of point loads (Eq 22). In addition,
the authors calculated numerically the SIFs for this case with Eqs 20 and 21, including the
higher order term. The results were found to be very close to those obtained with Eq 22.
Next, the SIFs were calculated for a centric crack in a finite-width plate subjected to uniform
tension, that is, the reference case whose solution the authors used to develop the weight
functions. To this end, the weight functions, Eqs 20 and 21, were inserted in Eq 1, and the
SIFs were~normalized with respect to cr/N/-~-~ so as to yield the correction factors. As Fig. 8
shows, the results are within 0.3% of the correction factorsfoA andfoB that Isida reported for a~
(W-e) <-- 0.7 and within 0.5% for a/(W-e) <-- 0.85 and e/W >-- 0.1.
The increasing lack of accuracy for very long cracks is of little concern. When alW > 0.7,
less than 30% of the net ligament in a cracked plate is left. If the steel had low toughness, a
member or component with such a long crack would fracture at a load lower than the service
load. If the steel had high toughness, a large plastic zone would have formed at the crack tips
meaning that the resistance to crack extension at service load could not be quantified in terms
of the SIF.
In highway bridges, axially loaded members in tension and elements of flexural members in
tension are designed to an allowable stress of 0.6 ory, where Cryis the specified minimum yield
strength of the steel. So if the crack extends to a length a/W > 0.4, the net ligament yields at
service load.
Third, the SIF was calculated for a centric crack in a plate of unit thickness and finite-width
2W subjected to a bending moment M. The results are compared in Fig. 9 with those from
1.02
e/W = from 0.0 to 0.1 in steps of 0.02 and
from 0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.1
epH = 0.00
o fA/f~ : from top to 1.0 o

= 1.01 fa/foB: from bottom to 1.0 ./
"o .Q,-
c
03
<Co .......e.......... ....e-iiii::ili~ili:
%_ 1 o.9o
.g
n-"
~ 0.99
el W = 0.00
0.98 0 0.2
' 0 i4 0 i6 0.8
' 1
CRACK LENGTH, a/(W-e)
FIG. 8 Comparison of SlFs calculated with weight functions and SIF reported by Isida for an
eccentric crack under uniform tension in finite-width plate.
- e - Benthem
0.8
WFM /
0.6
03
->
0.4
0.2
0
0 012 014 0'.6 018
CRACK LENGTH,.a/W
FIG. 9mComparison of present (WFM) and previous (Benthem and Isida) SIF solutions for center-
cracked plate under pure bending.
Benthem and Isida as reported in Tada et al. [9]. All three were normalized by the nominal
stress at the edge of the uncracked plate, cr = 3M/(2W) 2. The authors' WFM solution falls
between those from Benthem (obtained from asymptotic approximation) and Isida (obtained
from stress concentration factor for an elliptical hole). It is much closer to the former than the
latter. Large differences arise only for a/W > 0.7.
The last check is a comparison of the SIF for a center-cracked plate subjected to one pair of
centric point loads. Table 3 shows good agreement with previous solutions.
Having verified the accuracy, the weight functions are now applied to other crack problems.
Applications
It is often convenient to have SIF solutions for some basic loadings from which one can then
readily obtain SIF results by superposition. The following three basic loading conditions and
two complex loading conditions are considered next:
(1) One pair of point loads acting normal to the crack surfaces at an arbitrary location,
(2) Power law pressure acting on the crack surfaces,
(3) Piece-wise linear stress distribution acting on the crack surfaces,
(4) Crack in residual stress field of a groove weld, and
(5) Thermal shock stress.
One Pair o f Point Loads

Expressing the point loads as Dirac delta functions and inserting the load and re(x, aa, as)
in Eqs 3 and 5 gives
P
K A'B = m a ' B ( x , aa, aB) = -x /- ~ ya,B (31)
Examples of the nondimensional SIFs for the two crack tips, fa.B, are plotted in Fig. 10 for
an eccentricity e = 0 and in Fig. 11 for an eccentricity e = 0.8
TABLE 3 ~ I F s for center-cracked plate subjected to one pair of centric point loads.
Correction Factor for SIF~
Present Study Ref I Ref 9
Crack Length, a/W fA fB f f

0.1 1.0120 1.0120 1.0119 1.0113
0.2 1.0493 1.0489 1.0489 1.0476
0.3 1.1158 1.1146 1.1148 1.1137
0.4 1.2191 1.2162 1.2171 1.2173
0.5 1.3731 1.3670 1.3694 1.3707
0.6 1.6036 1.5920 1.5970 1.5969
0.7 1.9629 1.9420 1.9508 1.9427
0.8 2.5801 2.5404 2.5523 2.5280
0.9 3.8699 3.7715 3.7958 3.8217
SIF = stress intensity factor.
e/W = 0, a/(W-e) = from 0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.1 from bottom to t o p

to 7
"10 o.g __~_f A
c- z~ ~, fB f
6
N.- A
m- A
"10 5 A
r
\ A A
< 4 \ & A
(/)
~CL
I-- 3
O m #. ~ z/a A ~
2
o
LL 1
09
I
0 I
-1 -0.5 0 0.5
Point Load Position, (X - e ) / a
FIG, IO--SIFS of center-cracked plate (e = O) subjected to one pair of point loads.
e/W -- 0.8, a/(W-e) = f r o m 0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.1 from bottom t o top
m
"O
r __e_ f A • fB
0~
<~
Nk-
m-
"O
r
0~
,<
u}
CL
. D
I--
o
0.1
O
LL 1
09
I r
0
-0.5 0 0.5
Point Load Position, (X - e ) / a

FIG. 1 l - - S l F S for eccentrically cracked plate (elW = 0.8) subjected to one pair of point loads.
P o w e r L a w Pressure
If the crack is subjected to a power law pressure of the form
~(x) - (x/W) m (32)

Er
the corresponding SIFs for crack tips A and B are obtained by substituting Eq 32 into Eqs 3
and 5, which leads to the following closed-form solution
K A,~ = crW 6
,=~ [3~'sJa'B(m) (33)
UA------------
x/-~ %
where for crack tip A
[ 2 m + 1 (e/W)Jr - 1) + m - 1 ( a a l W ) ( a j W ) j a ( m _ 2)]
Ja(m) = [ m + 2 m +----~ ]
J~(m) = (3 + 2m)Ja(m) + 2 m ( a J W ) J a ( m -- 1)
Ja(m) = Ja(m)
(34)
Ja4(m) = (aa/W)Ja(m) - J~(m + 1)
JA(m) = (aJW)Ja(m) + Jaj(m + 1)
Ja6(m) = (aaIW)(an/W)jA(m) + 2(e/W)Ja(m + 1) - Ja(m + 2)
with
'IT
JA(O) = -~ (a/W) z
(35)
Ja(l) = ~ (elWl(a/W)2
Similarly, for crack tip B
J~(m) = (3 + 2m)J'~(m) - 2m(aA/W)Ja(m -- 1)
J~(m) = JA(m) (36)
J~(m) = Ja(m) for i = 3 to 6
The values o f f A = KA/cr ~ a n d f ~ = KB/tr X/'-~aa are given i n T a b l e 4 for m = 0 to 6.

In many cases, the stress distribution can be fitted with a polynomial of the form
(37)
TABLE 4--Correction factor for power law loading Eq 32.
m= 1 m=2 m=3 m=4 m=5 m=6
e/w k f^ fB f^ fB f^ fB f^ fa f^ fa f^ fm
0,1 0.1 0.1455 0.0555 0.0231 0.0051 0.0039 0.0006 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.2 0.1923 0.0120 0.0446 0.0086 0.0108 0.0010 0.0027 0.0003 0.0007 0,0001 0.0002 0.0000
0.3 0.2409 -0.0305 0.0751 0.0207 0.0238 0.0008 0.0079 0.0009 0.0027 0.0001 0.0009 0.0001
0.4 0,2925 -0.0722 0,1156 0.0422 0.0447 -0.0016 0.0185 0.0029 0.0077 0.0002 0.0033 0.0003
0.5 0.3497 -0.1133 0.1685 0.0741 0.0761 -0.0076 0.0379 0.0080 0.0187 -0.0002 0.0096 0.0011
0.6 0.4178 -0.1546 0.2381 0.1179 0.1220 -0.0186 0.0711 0.0188 0.0404 -0.0019 0.0240 0.0036
0.7 0.5089 -0.1970 0.3342 0.1764 0.1894 -0.0361 0.1265 0.0392 0.0807 -0.0066 0.0548 0.0102 0
'i-
0.8 0.6558 -0.2426 0.4828 0.2542 0.2968 -0.0621 0.2224 0.0746 0.1562 -0.0166 0.1188 0.0256 ra
0.9 0.9498 -0.3023 0.7590 0,3562 0.4970 -0.1024 0.4083 0.1318 0.3099 -0.0376 0.2594 0.0572 z
z
0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 cJ
0.2 0.i 0.2410 0.1609 0.0594 0.0274 0.0150 0.0050 0.0038 0.0010 0.0010
>
0.2 0.2843 0.1236 0.0858 0,0217 0.0271 0.0048 0.0088 0.0012 0.0029 0.0003 0.0010 0.0001 i-
0.3 0.3308 0.0881 0,1198 0.0230 0.0458 0.0064 0.0181 0.0020 0.0073 0.0007 0.0030 0.0002
0.4 0.3820 0.0545 0.1626 0,0320 0.0729 0.0090 0.0338 0.0035 0.0160 0.0014 0.0077 0.0006 m
0.5 0.4410 0.0231 0.2165 0,0493 0.1109 0.0117 0.0591 0.0065 0.0322 0.0027 0.0178 0.0013 -i-
0.6 0.5139 -0.0057 0.2862 0.0759 0.1637 0.0142 0.0985 0.0121 0.0605 0.0050 0.0378 0.0031
0.7 0,6145 -0.0305 0.3823 0,1139 0.2395 0.0162 0.1602 0.0226 0.1090 0.0086 0.0757 0.0068 0
z
0.8 0,7802 -0.0481 0.5329 0.1669 0.3589 0.0189 0.2628 0.0414 0.1949 0.0146 0.1486 0.0148 m
0.9 1.1180 -0.0562 0.8193 0,2394 0.5822 0.0232 0.4591 0.0736 0.3650 0.0242 0.3005 0.0313 c)
0
171
0.3 0.1 0.3365 0.2663 0.1139 0,0719 0.0389 0.0198 0.0134 0.0055 0.0047 0.0016 0.0016 0.0005 Z
--I
0.2 0.3763 0.2352 0.1438 0.0595 0.0564 0.0165 0.0226 0.0049 0.0092 0,0016 0.0038 0.0005
0.3 0.4207 0.2066 0.1805 0.0530 0.0807 0.0165 0.0370 0.0058 0.0173 0.0022 0.0082 0.0009
0.0080 0.0311 0.0035 0.0167 0.0016 0
0.4 0.4714 0.1807 0.2251 0.0529 0.1133 0.0194 0.0588
0.5 0.5320 0.1580 0.2802 0.0598 0.1566 0.0250 0.0905 0.0117 0.0535 0.0058 0.0321 0.0030
0.6 0.6094 0.1396 0.3509 0.0748 0.2150 0.0333 0.1367 0.0176 0.0890 0.0097 0.0588 0.0056
0.7 0.7190 0.1279 0.4483 0.1001 0.2971 0.0452 0.2054 0.0273 0.1456 0.0164 0.1050 0.0104
0.8 0.9019 0.1290 0.6026 0.1402 0.4259 0.0632 0.3162 0.0441 0.2412 0.0283 0.1877 0.0198
0.9 1,2782 0.1532 0.9010 0.2030 0.6681 0.0924 0.5254 0.0738 0.4255 0.0499 0,3527 0.0384 Cn
~0
(D
0";
0
0
T A B L E 4--Continued. -11
-n
>
m= 1 m=2 m=3 m=4 m=5 m= 6 0
C
~o
e/w ~. f^ f8 f^ fl f^ fB f^ fB f^ fe f^ fn m
m
0
0.4 0.1 0.4319 0.3718 0.1866 0.1385 0.0810 0.0520 0.0353 0.0196 0.0154 0.0075 0.0068 0.0029 I
0.2 0.4683 0.3468 0.2186 0.1220 0.1035 0.0444 0.0496 0.0167 0.0240 0.0065 0.0117 0.0026 z
0.3 0.5103 0 3252 0.2569 0.1106 0.1327 0.0409 0.0699 0.0163 0.0373 0.0069 0.0202 0.0031
o9
0.4 0.5602 0 3070 0.3028 0.1048 0.1699 0.0414 0.0978 0.0183 0.0573 0.0087 0.0340 0.0044
0.5 0.6218 0 2930 0.3591 0.1051 0.2177 0.0461 0.1359 0.0227 0.0866 0.0120 0.0560 0.0067
0.6 0.7026 0 2846 0.4312 0.1128 0.2803 0.0554 0.1885 0.0302 0.1297 0.0175 0.0906 0.0106 m
0.7 0.8192 0 2849 0.5308 0.1305 0.3673 0.0708 0.2639 0.0422 0.1943 0.0266 0.1456 0.0175 z
0.8 1.0150 0 3016 0.6898 0.1636 0.5033 0.0961 0.3828 0.0622 0.2992 0.0424 0.2383 0.0301
0.9 1.4187 0 3504 1.0009 0.2231 0.7607 0.1394 0.6055 0.0973 0.4968 0.0712 0.4165 0.0541 0
c
..n
0.5 0.I 0.5273 0.4771 0.2774 0.2273 0.1463 0.1086 0.0773 0.0521 0.0409 0.0250 0.0217 0.0121 --t
0.2 0.5599 0.4583 -i-
0.3100 0.2092 0.1730 0.0968 0.0971 0.0454 0.0549 0.0216 0.0311 0.0104
0.3 0.5991 0.4434 0.3487 0.1957 0.2060 0.0894 0.1231 0.0422 0.0743 0.0206 0.0453 0.0104 0
0.4 0.6473 0.4328 0.3951 0.1873 0.2467 0.0864 0.1568 0.0424 0.1011 0.0219 0.0658 0.0119 r-
c
0.5 0.7086 0.4271 0.4520 0.1845 0.2977 0.0883 0.2007 0.0461 0.1376 0.0257 0.0955 0.0151
0.6 0.7907 0.4281 0.5251 0.1887 0.3635 0.0959 0.2588 0.0540 0.1879 0.0326 0.1384 0.0206 m
0.7 0.9104 0.4393 0.6269 0.2027 0.4540 0.1111 0.3397 0.0677 0.2600 0.0440 0.2022 0.0299
0.8 1.1116 0.4690 0.7900 0.2327 0.5954 0.1387 0.4655 0.0912 0.3732 0.0635 0.3045 0.0461
0.9 1.5248 0.5360 1.1115 0.2920 0.8647 0.1885 0.7006 0.1327 0.5835 0.0984 0.4957 0.0757
0.6 0.I 0.6226 0.5824 0.3864 0.3382 0.2400 0.1967 0.1492 0.1145 0.0929 0.0668 0.0579 0.0390
0.2 0.6510 0.5693 0.4179 0.3208 0.2692 0.1818 0.1740 0.1036 0.1128 0.0594 0.0734 0.0343
0.3 0.6867 0.5607 0.4555 0.3078 0.3044 0.1713 0.2049 0.0967 0.1387 0.0553 0.0944 0.0322
0.4 0.7320 0.5569 0.5010 0.2995 0.3472 0.1653 0.2432 0.0937 0.1719 0.0546 0.1224 0.0326
0.5 0.7910 0.5585 0.5573 0.2966 0.4000 0.1644 0.2913 0.0951 0.2148 0.0573 0.1599 0.0357
0.6 0.8713 0.5674 0.6303 0.3004 0.4675 0.1696 0.3535 0.1016 0.2713 0.0641 0.2107 0.0422
0.7 0.9893 0.5868 0.7326 0.3136 0.5601 0.1829 0.4384 0.1149 0.3495 0.0766 0.2824 0.0533
0.8 1.1873 0.6248 0.8973 0.3425 0.7049 0.2095 0.5695 0.1392 0.4696 0.0983 0.3933 0.0724
0.9 1.5909 0.6992 1.2231 0.4005 0.9830 0.2597 0.8152 0.1833 0.6917 0.1369 0.5971 0.1062
TABLE 4--Continued.
m= 1 m= 2 m= 3 m= 4 m= 5 m= 6
e/w k f^ fB f^ fn f^ fB f^ fB f^ fa f^ fB
0.7 0.I 0.7177 0.6875 0.5134 0.4712 0.3673 0.3231 0.2630 0.2217 0.1883 0.1522 0.1349 0.1045
0.2 0.7415 0.6798 0.5419 0.4567 0.3966 0.3074 0.2908 0.2074 0.2135 0.1403 0.1570 0.0951
0.3 0.7727 0.6767 0.5766 0.4463 0.4318 0.2959 0.3244 0.1972 0.2445 0.1322 0.1847 0.0891
0.4 0.8137 0.6784 0.6194 0.4404 0.4743 0.2887 0.3652 0.1912 0.2826 0.1279 0.2196 0.0865
0.5 0.8684 0.6857 0.6733 0.4396 0.5268 0.2864 0.4155 0.1897 0.3300 0.1278 0.2637 0.0876
0.6 0.9439 0.7000 0.7442 0.4450 0.5942 0.2899 0.4796 0.1936 0.3907 0.1326 0.3208 0.0929
0.7 1.0556 0.7243 0.8446 0.4592 0.6871 0.3014 0.5668 0.2047 0.4730 0.1437 0.3985 0.1038
0.8 1.2426 0.7654 1.0072 0.4879 0.8335 0.3257 0.7015 0.2272 0.5987 0.1648 0.5167 0.1236
0.9 1.6214 0.8386 1.3301 0.5434 1.1177 0 . 3 7 3 0 0.9575 0.2695 0.8333 0.2033 0.7344 0.1589 o
-r
m
0.8 0.i 0.8127 0.7925 0.6583 0.6262 0.5334 0.4949 0.4322 0.3911 0.3503 0.3092 0.2840 0.2445 z
0.2 0.8314 0.7896 0.6819 0.6165 0.5596 0.4817 0.4596 0.3766 0.3776 0.2946 0.3104 0.2307 z
0.3 0.8574 0.7912 0.7118 0.6108 0.5917 0.4723 0.4925 0.3658 0.4104 0.2838 0.3424 0.2206
0.4 0.8930 0.7973 0.7499 0.6092 0.6312 0 4669 0.5324 0 3589 0.4500 0.2768 0.3811 0.2142 r
0.5 0.9418 0.8085 0.7994 0.6122 0.6809 0 4659 0.5818 0 3564 0.4987 0.2740 0.4287 0.2119 ~D
0.6 1.0105 0.8259 0.8660 0.6208 0.7459 0 4702 0.6454 0 3588 0.5607 0.2761 0.4891 0.2141 m
0.7 1.1133 0.8519 0.9623 0.6371 0.8373 0 4816 0.7330 0 3681 0.6452 0
0.2845 0.5707 0.2224 I
0.8 1.2860 0.8916 1.1202 0.6658 0.9840 0 5044 0.8709 0 3879 0.7760 0.3027 0.6957 0.2398
0.9 1.6367 0.9560 1.4366 0.7165 1.2735 0 5472 1.1388 0 4260 1.0264 0.3378 0.9314 0.2727 0
z
m
0.9 0.i 0.9076 0.8974 0.8214 0.8032 0.7434 0.7189 0.6728 0.6435 0.6090 0 . 5 7 6 0 0.5512 0.5156 0
0.2 0.9210 0.8991 0.8381 0.8004 0.7628 0.7126 0.6943 0.6346 0.6320 0.5651 0.5754 0.5033 m
0.3 0.9416 0.9050 0.8615 0.8015 0.7883 0.7100 0.7216 0.6292 0.6607 0.5577 0.6051 0.4945 z
0.4 0.9716 0.9150 0.8934 0.8064 0.8218 0.7110 0.7564 0.6273 0.6965 0.,5537 0.6416 0.4891
0.5 i. 0143 0.9294 0.9371 0.8154 0.8663 0.7159 0.8016 0.6292 0.7421 0.5535 0.6876 0.4874
0.6 1.0763 0.9490 0.9986 0.8292 0.9275 0.7255 0.8623 0.6357 0.8026 0
0.5577 0.7477 0.4900
0.7 1.1709 0.9756 1.0905 0.8497 1.0170 0.7414 0.9499 0.6481 0.8884 0.5677 0.8319 0.4983
0.8 1.3319 1.0133 1.2447 0
0.8806 1.1654 0.7672 1.0931 0.6702 1.0271 0.5870 0.9667 0.5155
0.9 1.6609 1.0703 1.5581 0.9297 1.4649 0.8103 1.3801 0.7087 1.3029 0.6221 1.2324 0.5480
o~
o
._&
The corresponding correction factors are then
fa,B = Z Omfam"" (38)

m
Piece-Wise Linear Stress Distribution

In some engineering problems, stresses cannot be easily fitted with a polynomial function,
or it may not be convenient to fit the stresses with a polynomial function. The alternatives then
are to either integrate Eqs 3 and 5 numerically or to piece-wise linearize the stress distribution.
Both are quite easily implemented.
Piece-wise linearization leads to a closed-form solution for the SIFs. Suppose the stress
distribution is linearized in a small interval
or(x) = tr(xj) + cr(xj+,) - ~r(xj) (x - xj); for xi --< x <- xj+~ (39)
xj+, - xj
The SIFs for such loading are obtained by inserting Eq 39 into Eqs 3 and 5, yielding
KA'B =
n+l
Z
j=l
fxl)+l[O'(Xj) + kj(x -- Xj)]ma'S(X, aa, as) dx (40)
For positive eccentricity, e --> 0, Eq 40 becomes
KA,B W n+l xJ+1

= ~V~a j=~ {[o'(xj) - kjxjlLA'B(x, a, el + kjWSa's(x, a, e)} (41)
x,
and for negative eccentricity, e < 0,

n+l
g A," = ~ ~] {[o.(-x,) -kjx~]L'.~(-x, a,lel)
~/"~ j =l
(42)
+ k~WSa'S(-x, a,[el)[ ii +'
Appendix B lists the expressions for L A~, Sa's and kj.

SIFs for any crack surface loading can be calculated with the above Eqs 39 through 42.
Crack in Residual Stress Field of Groove-Welded Plates

The distributions of residual stresses induced by groove welding two plates are modeled as
~(x)~ = e x p -~ 1 - -exp -~ (43)
where the stress acts parallel to the weld and the crack extends normal to the weld. The param-
eter, c, determines the shape of the stress distribution. The second term in Eq 43 is added to
satisfy internal equilibrium of residual stresses. It approaches zero as W becomes infinite. Some
researchers use only the first term in Eq 43 for a finite-width plate [11]. Residual stress distri-
butions are shown in Fig. 12 for values of the parameter c/W ranging from 0.2 to 0.7.
1.5
eN~
9 0.2 ~ 0.3 ~ 0.4
5 ~ 0.6 -~- 0.7
r
u)
G)
0.5
CO
"o
(9
N
0
o
Z
-0.5
I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
x/w
FIG. 12--Residual stress distribution in butt-welded plate o f finite width.
Substituting the stress from Eq 43 into Eqs 3 and 5 gives the SIF solutions. The equations
are solved numerically with Gaussian integration or a linearization technique. The authors have
used the latter approach. The results are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for c/W = 0.3, and crack
eccentricities e/W = 0.0 to 0.1 (Fig. 13) and e/W = 0.1 to 0.6 (Fig. 14).
1.0
e/W = from 0.0to 0.1 in steps of 0.02 along arrow directions
0.8 f B
0.6 -e- fB
0.4
0.2
fA
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8

a/(W-e)
FIG. I 3 - - S I F s f o r eccentric crack in finite-width plate subjected to residual stress; c/W = 0.3,
and elW = 0 to 0.1.
o.1
0.5
0 ........... ~ 9 ...... 9 ............ =::::i..............

....... ............................... 0.1
v
0.6 : 0.6
-0.5
-O- f B e/W = from 0.1 to 0.6 in steps of 0.1 from top to bottom
9..i .. f A
-1 I r I I I I I I l
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
~(W-e)
FIG. 14--SIFS for eccentric crack in finite-width plate subjected to residual stress; c/W = 0.3,
and elW = 0,1 to 0.6.
Thermal Shock Stress

Cracks initiating at the interface between the cladding and the base metal may lead to fracture
of pressure vessels [12]. The cracks are eccentric. When the cladding and base metal have
equal Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, both materials can be treated alike in the range of
linear elasticity. The coefficients of conductivity and thermal expansion of the two materials
are hereafter assumed to be equal although they are typically different. The curved wall of a
pressure vessel with a large radius may be replaced by a flat plate, giving a reasonably good
approximate solution for the SIFs.
Erdogan and co-workers analyzed cracked plates and cylinders [13-18]. SIF results for a
cracked plate subjected to different cooling rates were obtained in Ref 13 using a singular
integration method. This problem is solved below with weight functions.
The stress distribution along the crack line in a plate subjected to thermal shock is given in
Refs 18 through 21. When a long strip is heated uniformly to a temperature To, insulated on x
= - W , and rapidly cooled on the surface x = W to a temperature Te (Fig. 15), the stress
distribution in a finite-width plate as a result of such thermal shock is given by [19]
or(x) ~, sin a . cos [ot.(x/(2W) + 1/2)]

~2 l.a exp ( - c~I")
"qoLEA To n= 1 (~n + sin an cos c~,
+ 2 ~ [1 + 6(x/(2W))] sin2 c%
(44)
.=1 [a. + sin a . cos a,] ~x. exp (-a.2T)
- 2 4 ~ sin (e%)[1 - cos Ox.)](xl(2W))

.=, : ~.2--~a. ~- s i n ~ 5 ~os ~ exp (-a.2~)
FIG. 15 Eccentric crack in finite-width plate subjected to thermal shock.
where
"q= lwhencr x=0,

"q = 1/(1 - v) when {rx = Cry,
AT=T~ - T o ,
= thermal expansion coefficient,
c~. = parameter representing Biot number, and
"r = normalized time.
To simplify the problem the Biot number, Bi = a , tan (a,), is assumed infinite where the stress
is highest so that a , can be expressed in closed form as
(45)
Figure 16 shows the distribution of normalized thermal stress, cr(x)/(~aEATo). T h e crack

length 2a was divided into n = 1000 segments, and the stress calculation was truncated at n
= 500. The results were obtained with the linearization technique. The corresponding SIFs are
obtained by inserting Eq 44 into Eqs 39 through 42.
Figures 17 and 18 show the effects of time and eccentricity on the SIFs K a and K 8 at a fixed
normalized crack length a / ( W - fel) -- 0.8. As an example, for positive eccentricities e / W =
0.6, 0.8 and 0.85, K m changes from large negative values (crack closed) at a very short time -r
= 0.001 to not so large positive values (crack open) at a longer time -r > 0.05. Correspondingly,
K s changes from nearly zero to small negative values.
XAN
FIG. 16---Thermal stress distribution as a result o f thermal shock in plate. Biot number = oo.
Figures 19 and 20 show the effects of normalized crack length and eccentricity on the SIF
K A at a fixed time T = 0.02. As an example, for large positive eccentricities, crack tip A opens
over a wide range of normalized crack lengths. For small positive eccentricities, tip A is closed
(Fig. 20).

The authors have developed weight functions for an eccentric crack in a finite-width plate
based on an assumed COD expression and Isida's solution for an cracked finite-width plate
under tension.
The unknown coefficient in the assumed COD expression was obtained from the energy
balance condition. Accuracy of the weight functions was checked with the self-consistency and
symmetry conditions. Comparisons with results for special cases with known solutions further
validated the accuracy.
a/(W-lel) = 0.8
0.5
O0 0
->
9. |
[]
LU []
(3 0
e/W
0
-0.5
-"- -0.85 - * - "0.8 ~ -0.6
A ~ - " 0.6 --e- 0.8 ~ 0.85
I I I I I
-1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time, T
FIG. 17--SIF at tip A o f eccentric crack in plate subjected to thermal shock.
a/ON-leD = 0.8
0.5
9 m m
,->
o
O0 13 0013
LU
D O[3
~J
in
e/W
~" -0.5
~- -0.85 - = - "0.8 - * - -0.6
~- 0.6 ~ 0.8 - ~ - 0.85
i I I I I
-1
0.0~01 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time, T
FIG. 18--SIF at tip B o f eccentric crack in plate subjected to thermal shock.
0.5
r = 0.02
0.4
0.3
"->
0.2
e/W = -0.85
LU = = 9 9 9 - 9
0.1 -0.8
-0.6
0
I1~----~-'11---~--11-~-~---~~1_____~.t~_.~t. ~ -
-0.4
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2 I I i I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/ON-tel)
FIG. 19--S1F f o r tip A o f an eccentric crack in finite-width plate subjected to thermal shock at "r =
0.02, e < 0 .
0.5
T = 0.02
e/W = 0.85
0.4
0.3
t~
0.2
UJ
0.1
.r
2"
0 0.4 ~
-0.1
-0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/(W-lel)
FIG. 2 0 - - S I F f o r tip A o f an eccentric crack in finite-width plate subjected to thermal shock at 7 =
0.02, e > 0 .
The WFM was applied to three basic loading conditions as well as residual welding stresses
and thermal shock stresses.
The WFM developed in this study is an important step toward solving more complex engi-
neering crack problems such as two-tip eccentric cracks in the web or flange of steel bridge
girders and a three-tip crack extending across the flange and into the web [22].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. R. J. Sanford, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland at College Park, and Mr. William Wright of Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center, Federal Highway Administration in McLean, VA, for helpful discussions.
This study was supported by two fellowships awarded for the first author, one from the Uni-
versity of Maryland at College Park and the other from the Graduate Research Fellowship
program of the Federal Highway Administration.
APPENDIX A
Summary of Weight Function Equations

The general weight function expression for an eccentric crack is given by
1 [{Ra,. rA + ~A,B r.)(rom) '/z

mAa~(x,am, an) -- ~ f A , n [~ ~'~ W W/\~A,n/
.~ ( ~2~A,B rA
13A,B ..~ 1~4 W ~- 05w)(
A,B _r _B ~r a "B
W W
r
(46)
+ 13A..(% r.] 3'2]

\ww/ j
The coefficients [~i in Eq 46 are, for crack tip A
13~ = fo"
2o..
tst = f ;
2~
Ist = f~
Or.
(47)
1 o;q ro
132 = ~ L0~ + 0 e j 2o~2
13~=~LO~ o ~ / - 2 ~~ 2o~
~
[36a = 2~ 2 + 0e
and for crack tip B
ISf = f~
2eL
2~
IS~ = f~
(48)
, Ion 0:8] n + 3c
~ = ~ L oa Ok J - -'--~
2a 2 --5
a
~= ' [Off el fI
Lo,~ okJ 2a 2
[36B = 20t 2 Ok
where
~ = a/W aA = e + a rA = aA -- X
e = e/W aB= e - a rB= x - a n
k = a/(W-e)
If the eccentricity in the above equations is positive, e > O, then
c=g r
8[1 ")
]
19
fA = 1 + ~] C~(e)M
i=2
19
fg = 1 + ~ C,(el(-ky
i=2
Ofa = 1 ~ C,(k)iM
00/. (~. i = 2
(49)
OffOk - i=~
~ M L[OCi(e)Oe + ~-otiCi(r
Ofg _ 1 ~ C,(k)i(_k) ~
00~ 0/. i = 2
~' (-x)'
~176 = ,_= L[OC'(+e)haOiC/(k)]
k
lO
Ci(k) = E "~iki
j=O
The partial derivatives in Eqs 47 and 48 are
oc
-OOL
8[o. ,(OA
- = - 3_ ~ -
o,'ql
2 \o~ + o ~ / /
OC 8 [0+ l (Of'~ o~o31
O9 3 - 2 kO9 + o e / J
(50)
OdP 1
__
c3oL_ _ot [ ( f a ) = + (fg)2 _ 2@1
O@ 2
- 12
O9 a
where
a, = ~
ly c~
~[(f8)~ + (foB)2]do~
o
19 hi
= 1 + 2~ C,[1 + ( - 1 ) q i + 2
i=2
19 19 hi+j
+E E c,c, i +j + 2 [1 + (-ly §
i=2/=2
(51)
ct
~ l f=l f--a a f Aot "~r + f g ~e] doL

OL o
= ~i = 2 (1 -- 9 + (I1)i] ~
X i+l [Of i i
k-~-e '+ i - 9
Ci]
~ h i§ loci i ]
-~- i = 2 j=2 ( 1 - e ) [ l + (-1)i§ i +j + 2 CJLoe +--Cil- 9
A P P E N D I X B
Expressions for L A~ and S A~ and kj in Eqs 41 and 42
La'B(x,a,e) = ~ i1= lk gA'BLA'SfX

~i i , , a , e)
(52)
1 6
S A'B (x, a, e) = fT.B ~ r.-ifJ~a'BSA'B9, , a, e)
fore-> 0
kj = ~(xj.+,) - ~r(xi)
xj+, - xj
and for e < 0
kj = ~r(-x~+l) - ~r(-x~)
xj+l - x i
Parameters for crack tip A in the above equations
Sa(x, a, e) = --~ + (e/W)LA(x, a, e)
-~x (an + x ~ { r a ~ ) 'rz

S~(x, a, e) = 5Sr a, e) + 2(an/W)L~(x, a, e) - 2 \~ ] \-ffz
S~(x, a, e) = Sa(x, a, e)
Sa4(x, a, e) = (aa/W)Sa(x, a, e) - S(x, a, e)
S'~(x, a, e) = (an/W)S~(x, a, e) + S(x, a, e) (53)

3
S~(x, a, e) = -~ [(aalW)(an/W)Sa(x, a, e) + (e/W)S(x, a, e)]
5
S(x, a, e) -= "7
(aA/W)(an/W) LA(x, a, e)
or [(elW)Sa(x, a, e) + 4
4 \WW]
and
La(x, a, e) = e/W - x/W (ra rs y 12 + (a/W)2 arcsin (aB + x~ '~

2 \w w! \-YZ. /
LA(x, a, e) = La~(x, a, e) - 2
(~V + -~]
X~(FA
\~
~v)li2
L~(x, a, e) = L'~(x, a, e)
L~(x, a, e) = (aA[W)LA(x, a, e) -- Sa(x, a, e) (54)
La(x, a, e) = (an/W)La(x, a, e) + Sa(x, a, e)
La(x, a, e) = (aA/W)(an/W)La~(x, a, e) + (aalW - an~W) S'~(x, a, e)
- S ( x , a, e)
Similarly, for crack tip B
S~(x, a, e) = 5S~(x, a, e) - 2(aa/W)La(x, a, e)
(55)
S~(x, a, e) = S~(x, a, e)
SBi(x, a, e) = SA(x, a, e) for i = 3 to 6
and
~ 112
Lf(x,a,e) = 3La(x,a,e) + 2aA-x rA rB
w
L~(x, a, e) = LA(x, a, e) (56)
L~(x, a, e) = LA(x, a, e) for i = 3 to 6
References
[1 ] Wu, X. R. and Chen, X. G., "Wide-Range Weight Function for Center Cracks," Engineering Frac-
ture Mechanics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1989, pp. 877-886.
[2] Fett, T., "Conditions for the Determination of Approximate COD Fields," Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 39, No. 5, 1991, pp. 905-914.
[3] Fett, T., Mattheck, C., and Munz, D., "On the Calculation of Crack Stress Intensity Factor," Engi-
neering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 27, 1987, pp. 697-715.
[4] Petroski, H. J. and Achenbach, J. D., "Computation of Weight Function from a Stress Intensity
Factor," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 10, 1978, pp. 257-266.
[5] Wu, X. R., "Approximate Weight Functions for Center and Edge Cracks in Finite Bodies," Engi-
neering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 20, 1984, pp. 35-49.
[6] Fett, T., Caspers, M., Munz, J. H., and Stamm, H., "Determination of Approximate Weight Functions
for Straight through Cracks," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 43, 1990, pp. 195-211.
[7] Rice, J. R., "Some Remarks on Elastic Crack-Tip Stress Fields," International Journal of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 8, t972, pp. 751-758.
[8] Wang, Q. Z., Zhang, X., and Liu, Y., " A Closed Form Solution of Stress Intensity Factors for Three-
Dimensional Finite Bodies with Biaxial Unsymmetric Cracks by the Energy Release Rate Method,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1990, pp. 859-888.
[9] Tada, H., Paris, P., and Irwin, G., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Del Research Corp.,
Hellertown, PA, 1973.
[10] Isida, M., "Stress Intensity Factors for the Tension of an Eccentrically Cracked Strip," Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 1966, pp. 674-675.
[11] Wu, X. R. and Carlsson, J., "The Generalized Weight Function Method for Crack Problems with
Mixed Boundary Conditions," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 31, 1983, pp.
485-497.
[12] Pellissier-Tanon, A. and Vagner, J., "Problem on Pressure Vessel Codes: Plasticity Correction in
the Analysis of Buried Defects," in The Assessment of Cracked Components by Fracture Mechanics,
L. H. Larsson, Ed., European Group of Fracture, EGF4, Mechanical Engineering Publications, Lon-
don, 1989, pp. 345-359.
[13] Erdogan, F. and Rizk, A. A., "Fracture of Coated Plates and Shells under Thermal Shock," Inter-
national Journal of Fracture, Vol. 53, 1992, pp. 159-185.
[14] Nied, H. F. and Erdogan, F., "Transient Thermal Stress Problem for a Circumferentially Cracked
Hollow Cylinder," Journal of Thermal Stresses, Vol. 6, 1983, pp. 1-14.
[15] Nied, H. F. and Erdogan, F., "The Elastic Problem for A Thick-Wall Cylinder Containing a Cir-
cumferential Crack," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 22, 1983, pp. 277-301.
[16] Risk, A. A. and Erdogan, F., "CracMng of Coated Materials Under Transient Thermal Stresses,"
Journal of Thermal Stresses, Vol. 12, 1989, pp. 125-168.
[17] Nied, H. F., "Thermal Shock in a Circumferentially Cracked Hollow Cylinder with Cladding,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1984, pp. 113-137.
[18] Nied, H. F., "Thermal Shock Fracture in an Edge-Cracked Plate," Journal of Thermal Stresses, Vol.
6, 1983, pp. 217-229.
[19] Boley, B. A. and Weiner, J. H., Theory of Therrnal Stress, John Wiley, New York, 1960.
[20] Lee, K. Y. and Sim, K. B., "Thermal Shock Stress Intensity Factor By Bueckner's Weight Function
Method," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1990, pp. 799-804.
[21] Fan, X. and Yu, S., "Thermal Shock Fracture in a Surface-Cracked Plate," Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, VoL 41, No. 2, 1992, pp. 223-228.
[22] Chen, X. G., "Application of Fracture Mechanics To Highway Bridges," Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1992.
Applications
Walter G. Reuter, 1 James C. N e w m an, Jr., 2 Bruce D. Macdonald, 3
and Steve R. Powell 4
Fracture Criteria for Surface Cracks in Brittle

Materials
REFERENCE: Reuter, W. G., Newman, J. C., Jr., Macdonald, B. D., and Powell, S. R., "Frac-
ture Criteria for Surface Cracks in Brittle Materials," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth
Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds.,
ABSTRACT: If a structural material behaves in a linearly elastic manner, it is generally assumed

that plane-strain fracture toughness (K~c)and a proven equation for calculating an applied stress-
intensity factor can be used to predict conditions for catastrophic fracture. The adequacy of this
approach has been verified for some specific applications, generally through-cracks in plate mate-
rial. Recent fracture test results and analyses of surface cracks in brittle materials have raised a
concern about the validity of using Kic and the maximum value of the calculated stress-intensity
factors to predict fracture conditions. This paper presents test data and results obtained from
different procedures, all based on Klc, for predicting failure for three-dimensional surface cracks.
KEYWORDS: surface crack, plane-strain fracture toughness, metal, ceramic
Plane strain fracture toughness (Kit), as measured per the ASTM Standard Test Method for
Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials (E 399) is often used to select a material
for a specific application, establish a criterion for purchase of materials, or to evaluate the
effects of a thermal-mechanical history (such as experienced during welding). It is also used
to assess the flaw tolerance of a structure. Comparison of KIo to the applied Mode I crack
driving force, K~, which depends on flaw size and design stresses, can be a basis for accept/
reject criteria for nondestructive inspection and for defining inspection capabilities. In this
paper, test data and analytical approaches are used to identify the adequacy, limitations, and
problems associated with using KIc to assess the three-dimensional surface flaw tolerance of
brittle materials.
For structural materials that exhibit linear-elastic properties, it is generally assumed that KTc
can be used to predict conditions for catastrophic failure since initiation of crack growth is
often synonymous with catastrophic failure. The validity of this approach has been established
for through-thickness cracks [1 ]. However, the type of defect normally leading to structural
failure is the partially penetrating crack (see Fig. 1). The adequacy of using K~c and applicable
equations to predict failure for specimens containing surface cracks, which represent flaws in
structural components, has been shown [2,3]. For 95% of these tests (26 Ti-15-3 specimens
and 27 monolithic SiC specimens), the Newman-Raju [4 ] calculations showed Km,, the max-
imum value of Ki, to be greater than K~c;these data are plotted in Fig. 2. However, this approach
1 Principal engineer, Idaho National Engineering Lab., EG&G Idaho, PO Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID
83415.
2 Senior scientist, NASA-Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
3 Principal engineer, Knolls Atomic Power Lab., Schenectady, NY.
4 Engineering specialist, Bell Helicopter Textron, Fort Worth, TX.
617
618 F R A C T U R E MECHANICS: T W E N T Y - F O U R T H V O L U M E
L = ligament length
= ~ -tan "1 ~tan0)
a = crack depth
c = crack halt length
Back t = plate thickness
surface - ~
A93 0141
FIG. 1---Schematic showing details of the surface crack.
is very conservative for some conditions--KmJKic ranged to 2.0 for Ti-15-3 specimens where
Km~ occurred at the free surface. The plastic zone size for the titanium-base alloy specimens
was on the order of 0.04 to 0.13 mm; the ceramic material had no plastic zone. The existence
of even a small plastic zone appears to be significant in explaining the range in Kmax/Kicfor the
two materials.
These observations suggest that it is necessary to establish the conditions controlling fracture
of an elastic material containing a surface crack. This paper discusses the following parameters
as they relate to K~c:
9 Kmax (maximum value),

9 gaverag e (an integrated average value of K 2 around the crack perimeter),
9 K, ve (an integrated average value of K around the crack perimeter), and
9 K . at a specific location.
Materials and Test Procedures

The test data were developed using three different sets of specimens fabricated from the
following materials.
9 Ti-15-3 is a metastable beta alloy with a chemical composition, in wt%, of 0.023 C, 0.15
Fe, 0.014 N, 3.0 A1, 14.9 V, 3.0 Cr, 0.012 H, 3.1 Sn, 0.13 O, and the balance Ti. The
material was solution-annealed (1060K) and aged at 714K for 16 h to obtain high strength
and low toughness.
9 A tube was fabricated from silicon carbide (SIC) (slip cast Norton CS-101) exposed to
flue gas environment (525 h at temperatures ranging from 977 to 1533K). The surface
porosity was nominally 35%.
9 Three tubes from the same lot of SiC were fabricated by slip casting siliconized-silicon
carbide. The pores ranged from 30 to 90/xm in diameter and covered nominally 3% of
the surface area.
REUTER ET AL. ON SURFACE CRACKS 619
2.0 i f i
1.8
1.6
~'~ 1.4
,rE
1.2
9 Ti-15-3 Tensile tests 0_
1.0 9 Ti-15-3 Bend tests
=' ~b= 0 degrees
0.8 ! I I
1.0 2.0 2.4 2.6

cF 2 (ram)
A93 0142
FIG. 2a--K,,~/Kzc versus cF ~. Ti-15-3.
2.0 i I I
9 Sic - exposed to flue gas
9 SiC - as cast
1.8
1.6
_o
~1.4
E
1.2 9 9
9 mm A 9
9 m m 9
1.0 mm 9 l 9 9 9
0.8 I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cF 2 (rnm)
A93 0143
FIG. 2b--K,,~/Klc versus c F 2. Siliconized SiC.
Standardized procedures do not exist for fracture toughness testing of ceramics, so the proce-
dures in ASTM Test Method E 399 were used to measure Kxc for all three materials. All the
test specimens satisfied the requirements of ASTM Test Method E 399, except the SiC speci-
mens contained electro-discharge machined (EDM) notches as opposed to fatigue precracks.
Because the EDM notches all had the same root radius, it was assumed that comparisons among
notched specimens would be as valid as comparisons among specimens containing fatigue
precracks. It is assumed that no friction effects are associated with a crack in SiC. The surface-
flawed specimen dimensions, test results, and calculated values of Kmax are provided in Table
1.
PO
TABLE 1--Dimensions and K , ~ f o r Ti-15-3 and SiC specimens tested at 295K [ 1 5 , 1 6 ] . O
Sample
Crack Location
2O
Thickness, Width, Depth, K~, of K ~ , >
ID nlln mill a, nun a/t 2c, nun a/2c o', MPa M P A ' m t:2 04 KmJKfr cF2, mm O
--4
C2
2O
PRECRACKED TI-15-3 SPECIMENS, TENSION TESTe m
1 5.11 50.85 0.53 0.10 50.85 0.01 834.9 42.4 90 ~ 1.03 0.576 m
2 5.11 50.83 0.66 0.13 50.83 0.01 801.1 47.0 90~ 1.15 0.696 0
3 5.11 50.85 0.71 0.14 50.85 0.01 969.4 59.8 90~ 1.46 0.740 I
>
5 4.98 50.77 0.64 0.13 50.77 0.01 801.1'* >46.2 + 90~ >1.13 0.676 Z
6 5.16 50.83 4.47 0.87 27.99 0.16 249.8 54.1 90~ 1.32 0.939
7 5.11 50.80 4.45 0.87 27.48 0.16 276.0 59.0 90 ~ 1.44 0.983 6O
9 5.13 50.83 4.42 0.86 27.51 0.16 262.2 55.8 90 ~ 1.36 1.030
10 5.05 63.53 4.72 0.93 34.49 0.14 245.0 60.6 90 ~ 1.48 1.004
m
11 5.08 63.50 4.75 0.94 35.43 0.14 223.6 57.5 90 ~ 1.40 0.687 z
14 5.13 63.50 4.83 0.94 33.91 0.14 272.6 67.3 90 ~ 1.64 0.859 --t
15 5.11 63.50 3.56 0.70 8.13 0.44 422.3 d 41.8 0~ >1.02 2.307
16 5.11 63.53 3.84 0.75 8.20 0.46 460.2 48.0 0~ 1.17 2.488
un
0
B-7 5.16 63.50 3.86 0.75 34.85 0.11 242.2 52.8 90 ~ 1.29 1.908 C
11
PRECRACKED T1-15-3 SPECIMENS, BEND TEST~ "r
<
4 5.11 50.85 0.76 0.15 50.83 0.01 946.7f 50.8 90 ~ 1.24 0.783
0p-
5 4.98 50.77 0.64 0.13 50.77 0.01 1097.1 f 53.9 90 ~ 1.31 0.676
c-
8 5.11 50.85 4.11 0.80 26.77 0.15 708.6e 72.8 0~ 1.78 1.427
12 5.05 63.50 4.78 0.95 34.93 0.14 612.7y 75.2 0~ 1.83 0.688 m
15 5.11 63.50 3.56 0.70 8.13 0.44 1229.6: 84.7 0~ 2.07 2.307
B-2 5.16 50.83 0.28 0.05 50.80 0.05 1499.4~ >49.0" 90~ > 1.20 0.326
B-3 5.13 50.80 0.30 0.08 50.80 0.05 1495+2g >50.6" 90~ > 1.23 0.347
B-5 5.16 50.83 0.48 0.09 29.67 0.02 1028.1 ~ 41.8 90~ 1.02 0.556
B-6 5.16 50.80 0.56 0.11 25.25 0.02 1118.5 h 48.2 0~ 1.18 0.651
B-8 5.16 63.50 3.84 0.74 35.36 0.11 512.0 + 49.4 0~ 1.20 1.871
B-9 5.13 63.55 3.81 0.74 35.10 0.11 585.8 b 56.1 0~ 1.37 1.911
B-10 5.08 50.80 3.71 0.73 8.26 0.45 983.2 x 68.7 0~ 1.68 2.288
B-11 5.18 50.83 3.56 0.69 7.95 0.45 945.3 h 64.9 0~ 1.58 2.127
B-12 5.16 44.40 0.86 0.17 1.83 0.47 157 l.lh >56.2h 0~ > 1.37 0.464
B-13 5.16 44.48 0.89 0.17 2.03 0.44 1571.1 + >55.22 0~ > 1.35 0.484
SILICONIZEDSIC SPECIMENSWITH EDM NOTCH' (PREVIOUSLYEXPOSED TO A FLUEGAS)
H 5.13 10.21 0.38 0.07 3.96 0.10 61.43 2.08 90 ~ 1.02 0.404
I 5.11 10.21 0.50 0.10 3.13 0.16 67.25 2.37 90~ 1.17 0.465
J 5.11 10.21 0.91 0.18 7.29 0.12 46.06 2.20 90~ 1.04 0,757
K 5.11 10.21 0.97 0.19 7.24 0.13 47.38 2,29 90~ 1,08 0,779
L 5.11 10.2I 0.43 0.08 0.86 0.5 77.44 2.00 0~ 0.99 0.225
M 5.11 10.21 1.02 0.20 2.03 0.5 75,00 2.84 0~ 1.41 0,489
SILICONIZEDSIC SPECIMENSWITHEDM NOTCI~
1A-12 4.62 10.14 0,356 0.04 3.68 0.10 112.48 3.66 90~ 1.18 0,379
1A-13 4.80 10.62 0,635 0.06 7.67 0.08 87.78 3.82 90~ 1.19 0.614
1A-14 4.72 9.75 0,889 0.09 1.93 0.46 98.17 3.55 0~ 1.15 0.444
1A-15 4.75 9.93 0,356 0.04 0.81 0.44 131.15 3.12 0~ 1.01 0.189
1B- 14 4.62 10.06 0,838 0.08 1.96 0.43 99.67 3.53 0~ 1.14 0.422
1B-15 4.78 9.93 0.406 0.04 0.81 0.50 123.86 3.08 0~ 1.01 0.208
1B-16 4.62 10.16 0,381 0.04 3.78 0.10 94.24 3.14 90~ 1.02 0.400
1C-10 4.85 9.73 0,889 0.09 1.88 0.47 109.79 3.97 0~ 1.28 0.444
1C-11 4.72 9.78 0,889 0.09 7.92 0.11 130.22 6.34 90~ 1.93 0,728
IC- 12 4.85 9.73 0.381 0.04 3.78 0.10 99.17 3.32 90~ 1.07 0,400
ID-11 4.88 10.41 0,813 0.08 8.00 0.10 69.03 3.27 90~ 1.01 0.718
ID-14 4.88 10,59 0,381 0,04 3.76 0.10 118~77 3.99 90~ 1.39 0.402
2G-7 5.08 9.98 0,356 0.04 0.81 0.44 145.31 3,46 0~ 1.12 0,189
2G-8 5.10 9.93 0.356 0.04 0.84 0.42 148.51 3.54 0~ 1,15 0,189
2G-9 5.08 9.98 0,356 0.04 0.79 0.45 153.82 3.66 0~ 1.18 0.189
2G- 10 5.10 9.94 0.813 0.08 4.01 0.20 86.37 3.44 90~ 1.10 0.636
2G-I 1 5.05 9.98 0,762 0.08 3.96 0.20 95.47 3.77 90~ 1.21 0.617 m
2G-12 5.13 10.01 0,789 0.08 4.04 0.20 90.19 3.60 90~ 1.15 0,632 c
--t
2G- 13 5.05 9.96 0,686 0.07 7.95 0.09 67.21 3.05 90~ 0.94 0,644 m
2G-14 5.13 9.98 0.635 0.06 8.03 0.08 72.55 3.22 90~ 1.00 0.614
2G- 15 5.10 10.01 0.635 0.06 8.51 0.08 78.23 3.51 90~ 1.08 0,613 Ill
.-I
>
a 0 ~ 9 0 ~ at m a x i m u m depth, 0 ~ at free surface.
b K l c = 41.4 M P a - m ]/2 for T i - 1 5 - 3 s p e c i m e n . O
z
c ~rys = 1452 M P a for T i - 1 5 - 3 s p e c i m e n s . ~o
a T e s t s p e c i m e n failed at pinhole; the r e m a i n i n g s p e c i m e n w a s tested to failure in b e n d i n g . C
e M a x i m u m load > trys, used trrs to calculate K~c. 77m
I S p a n = 50.80 m m .
e Span = 115.57 m m . m
h Span = 77.98 m m . r
i For these s p e c i m e n s , Km~x is the m a x i m u m v a l u e o f K at m a x i m u m l o a d a n d KIe = 2.02 M P a . m t~2. >
J All s p e c i m e n s tested in t h r e e - p o i n t b e n d i n g with a span o f 4 0 . 0 0 m m . T h e n o t c h w i d t h w a s 0 . 1 5 2 m m a n d the root r a d i u s w a s 0 . 0 7 6 m m . T h e v a l u e in the (r
c o l u m n is (r~,~, the o u t e r fiber tensile b e n d i n g stress. K l c = 3.12 M P a - m t'z at 2 1 ~ f o r r = 0 , 0 7 6 m m . 6o
O3
bO
...k
Results
The SiC specimens failed entirely by cleavage, whereas the Ti-15-3 specimens failed by a
combination of cleavage and dimple rupture. Cleavage is generally considered to be controlled
by stress [7]. Since K~ varies around the perimeter of the surface crack, it was desired to
ascertain if initiation of failure can be isolated to certain regions of the crack perimeter. If it
was possible to locate a common site for initiation of failure, it would be possible to identify
the appropriate value of KI for comparison with K~c.
Fractography
Members of ASTM Subcommittee E24.02 performed the fractography on Ti- 15-3 Specimens
8, 12, B-5, B-10, and B-11, all tested in bending. Each fracture surface was examined by several
members of the subcommittee, and each person identified possible origins of failure. Figure 3
shows the initiation sites for four of these five specimens. Initiation of failure occurred at several
different locations around the crack perimeter. The predominant and primary mode of fracturing
was dimple rupture, which was believed to have resulted from microvoid coalescence. The
other mode of fracturing on these specimens was cleavage. However, the cleavage fracture was
sparse and appeared to have occurred at hard particles. These specimens, being loaded and
fractured in bending, formed elongated dimples at the crack front. The elongated dimples were
formed from the shear stress component during bending at the crack front. The shape of the
dimple (elongated) was strongly influenced by the stress direction acting on the fracture surface.
It was impossible to determine the exact area in which the shear dimples initiated because
dimples are believed to nucleate at grain boundaries, subgrain boundaries, and second phase
particles. Though it was not possible to identify a common failure location, the initiation sites
were all in the region of maximum crack depth.
The above results are provided to describe the difficulty in locating crack growth initiation
sites when fracture occurs by dimple rupture. It is not intended that these initiation sites be
used to suggest that fracture will occur when K = 89 This is contrary to the test results that
strongly suggest that fracture occurs when K > KIo. Additional testing is required using other
techniques to verify actual crack growth initiation sites.
Two SiC specimens were also examined for the origin of failure, but it was not possible to
locate the fracture initiation sites for this material.
Kaverage and Kaye

Two approaches were used to calculate the average K. In the first approach, an integrated
average stress-intensity factor (K, verago)was calculated using an approach similar to a method
that was developed by Cruse and Besuner [8]. They calculated "local average" values at two
locations (major and minor axes) for surface or comer cracks. Herein, the average stress-
intensity factor was given by
ill
K~o = --~ K~(s) etA (1)
where KI is the local stress-intensity factors along the crack front, s is the arc length along the
crack front, and AA is the virtual crack-extension area swept by a unit extension of the crack
at all locations along the crack front. Equation 1 gives a single average stress-intensity factor
for the surface crack. Basically, KIA represents the root-mean-square of K(s) along the crack
front.
FIG. 3a--Location of fracture initiation site: Specimen 8.
The second approach, Kaye, is based on the average of local K values calculated at all locations
along the crack from. The basis for this approach is provided next.
Three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element (3-D E-P FE) calculations were performed
for selected Ti-15-3 surface-flawed, edge-cracked, and standard fracture toughness specimens
[single-edge notch bend, SE(B) (ASTM Test Method E 399)]. The crack driving force (J) was
calculated, using the method of virtual crack extension [9], at locations along the crack front
corresponding to the edge and center of each element. Crack front elements had mid-side nodes
FIG. 3b--Location of fracture initiation site: Specimen 12.
moved to the one-quarter point location to embed the elastic stress singularity in the crack front
elements [10]. This approach has no noticeable effect on the value of J when compared with
using blunting elements along the crack front [11]. Figure 4 shows a typical finite element
mesh for a surface-cracked specimen. KI was calculated for those crack tip element Gauss
points closest to the crack front and crack plane. K and K(J) values at fracture obtained from
the 3-D E-P FE values of K, published values of K [4], and Eq 2 [12],
~. EJ
K(J) = 1 - v2 (2)
FIG. 3c--Location of fracture initiation site: Specimen B-5.
where E is Young's modulus and v is Poisson's ratio = 0.33, were compared. The three K
distributions were all in agreement for the six surface-cracked specimens analyzed. This verified
the 3-D E-P FE work and confirmed that elastic K values are an appropriate representation of
the crack driving force at fracture. Therefore, plasticity was thought to be insignificant for this
FIG. 3d Location of fracture initiation site: Specimen B-11.
3-D E-P FE evaluation, except, perhaps, for the influence it exerted on the crack tip elements
themselves as discussed later.
Although the 3-D elastic and elastic-plastic solutions agreed well, the 2-D plane strain for-
mulas for the SE(B) fracture toughness specimens (E 399) agreed with the 3-D solutions only
in a weighted average sense as illustrated in Fig. 5. The value of K(J) for the SE(B) specimen
REUTER ET AL. ON S U R F A C E CRACKS 627
A93 0136
FIG. 4~Finite element model of Ti-15-3 Specimen B-7.
begins to decrease slightly from its mid-thickness value (x = 0) at about the specimen one-
quarter thickness (x = 0.5). The through-thickness weighted (by element) average of K(J) for
the SE(B) specimen lies at the top of the scatter band of ASTM E 399 values of K~c for the
three [SE(B)] specimens tested. That the average K(J) value matched the K~c value so well
suggests that the same might be true for the surface-flawed specimens if constraint conditions
at fracture were about the same as those for the SE(B) specimens. The K(J) weighted average
value for Specimen B-7 (see Ti-15-3 in Table 1) lies about 9% above the average KIo,
41.4 MPa-m 1/2, which suggests that constraint conditions were somewhat relaxed because of
the relative close proximity of the back surface in this specimen at fracture compared with the
SE(B) specimens. Therefore, it was concluded that a term for constraint must be used to obtain
50
45
9 .........
40
E 35
~:
13_
30
25
tu 20
~.~ 15 - Legend
IISE(B) 3DE-P FE for K(J) fracture (Eqn 2)
10 - _ _ _ SE (B) Wt Av through thickness weighted average k(J)
_ I-1B-7 K(J) at fracture
B-7 Wt Av
0 I I I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Normalized distance along crack front from center
A93 0140
FIG. 5--K(J) versus normalized distance along the crack front for an SE(B) and a surface-cracked
specimen (B-7) (see Table 1).
good correlation between the average K(J) interpretation of the 3-D solution at fracture and
Kic. The ratio of von Mises stress to hydrostatic stress was found inadequate to this task, perhaps
as a result of the insignificance of plasticity as noted earlier. Instead, a stress-based model was
used in an attempt to compare constraint at fracture in the SE(B) specimens with that of the
various other specimens.
Under conditions of elastic plane strain [13 ]
t
- - - v (3)
n+N
where t is the stress parallel to the crack front, n is the stress in the plane of the crack normal
to the crack front, N is the stress normal to the plane of the crack, and v is Poisson's ratio.
Constraint was expected to vary with t because plasticity was assumed to be insignificant. The
3-D E-P FE solutions at fracture were used to determine v for various specimens. Local yielding
in the crack front elements led to an apparent value of v, different from its elastic value as
defined in Eq 3. For the fracture toughness specimens, v increased from its elastic value of
0.33 at low loads to an elastic-plastic value of 0.45 at fracture. If a relationship exists between
the crack driving force at fracture, J~, for the SE(B) and the other specimens, then
(E)Jr E(Jc)
1 - v 2 I - v z
SE(B) Other
(4)
specimens specimens
Hence, at fracture, Jc for the other specimens should be multiplied by the ratio of the 1 - v 2
quantities to agree with the SE(B) Jc value. Substituting Eq 3 and the 0.45 value just noted in
Eq4
Jc(l - 0-452)
Jc'se~m - t 2 (5)
This adjusted value of Jc was thought to reflect at least some of the effect of constraint. Because
the quantities in Eq 3 vary along the crack front, Eq 5 was evaluated at all node locations along
the crack front and the resulting Jc values were summed in a weighted average for reasons
described earlier. Table 2 lists Kmaxat fracture, K(Jc) through-thickness weighted average value
(Kiwa) , and g l w a including the effect of constraint (K~cwa)as calculated by Eq 5.
K at a Specific Location (K+)

Plotting K as a function of ~b, defined in Fig. 1, is evaluated in Fig. 6, which shows that the
spread of K is least at ~b = 30 ~
Discussion
Km~
AS shown in Fig. 2, use of Kic with the Newman-Raju [4 ] solution results in conservative
predictions of failure since gmax/glc < 1.0 for less than 4% of the data. This approach may be
TABLE 2--Summary of 3-D E-P FE analysis of selected Ti-15-3 specimens.
MPa.m~/2
Specimen Kin,x, Eq 2 K,v~, Eq 2 Kicw~, Eqs 2 and 5 Remarks
SINGLE EDGE NOTCH BEND

1 44.3 42.0 42.0 Valid ASTM E 399 K~c value =
41.9 MPa'm u2. SE(B)s 2 and
3 gave Kit values of 39.8 and
41.4 MPa.m ~/2, respectively.
SURFACE CRACKED SPECIMENS
4 45.8 42.8 42.8 Shallow edge crack in bending.
2 41.6 40.2 40.2 Shallow edge crack in tension.
B-13 63.9 56.5 53.4 Shallow surface crack in
bending.
15 79.2 41.5 42.7 Deep surface crack in bending.
6 52.8 50.4 44.9 Deep surface crack in tension.
B-17 48.2 45.0 44.0 Deep surface crack in tension.
Average 53.3 45.5 44.3
Standard error 26% 13% 10%
acceptable for many predictions, but in some instances it might be necessary to understand
better the conditions controlling fracture. There appears to be a difference in the extent of
scatter in Kmax/Kic for the two materials--as plotted in Fig. 2, the SiC data have less scatter
than the Ti-15-3 data. Because of the difference in c F 2 values, this difference may be an artifact.
I001 Ti-15-3B
= 5mm ' ' I
8O
6O
40
20
90
Angle, (r deg.)
A93 0144
FIG. 6--K~ versus #)for surface cracked specimens fabricated from Ti-15-3 (tension or bending
loads).
The F term is related to the stress-intensity boundary correction factor (M) in Eq 6 developed
by Newman-Raju [4]
K = (o" t "~ Htr b) ~ M (6)
where
tr, = applied tensile load,
trb = applied bending load,
H = correction for bending load,
a = crack depth, and
c = one-half crack length.
F = M ~ c ~ \(1 ~- } "rrac] (7)
where
Q = geometry and plastic zone correction term,
t = wall thickness, and
W = specimen width.
The reduced scatter may occur for cF 2 < 0.8 or may be a function of the material. If the latter,
then the existence of a plastic zone at the crack tip may have significant impact on test results
in that Km,x/K~r is much larger for the Ti-15-3 specimens than for the ceramics.
Fractography
The five Ti-15-3 specimens examined by several investigators did not have a single location,
corresponding to either ~b = 0 ~ or ~b = 90 ~ as the crack growth initiation site leading to failure
(Fig. 3). The apparent random nature of the initiation sites could be an artifact since acoustic
emission monitoring detected evidence of microcracking before catastrophic failure. There does
not appear to be a useful agreement between a plot o f / ( i versus qb, given in Fig. 7, and the
crack growth initiation sites of fracture (Fig. 3) in that very low K1 values are associated with
initiation sites. Table 3 provides a summary of the local K values associated with the estimated
locations of crack initiation. In all of the specimens except for B-5, the K values associated
with crack initiation sites were less than KIJ2. Assuming that the location of crack initiation is
accurate, this suggests that failure can occur when K~ ~ K~. The fractography results, as well
as the substantial scatter in KmJKIr versus cF 2, show that Km,x does not control failure for these
specimens. The length of crack front over which a critical value of K~ must be applied is
unknown.
Kaver.~e and K , at 49 = 30 ~ (K+)

The use of Kave=geor K+ results in a much closer grouping of KI values than if Km,x is used,
see Fig. 8. There appears to be general agreement between K.v~ge and K,. K.v~=gomay be the
controlling parameter. This is supported by lack of a consistent failure initiation region, as
noted previously; the reduced scatter in Figs. 6 and 8; and the need for a critical K~ over some
undefined length of crack front. An obvious question is why ~b = 30 ~ is a significant location.
This may be due to this region providing results very similar to K.ver,go.
53,0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
21..'0 1.0
Normalized parametric angle, 2~/n
A93 0138
FIG. 7--K~ versus qbfor Specimen 8, a/2c = 0.15.
Sommer et al. [14] found that for elastic-plastic conditions, where a/c = 0.89 and a/t = 0.6,
the m a x i m u m crack-driving force (J) does not occur at the free surface as expected for con-
ditions satisfying linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), but instead occurs at + = 30 ~ as
shown in Fig. 9. This suggests that the m a x i m u m crack-tip-opening displacement (CTOD) also
occurs at ~b = 30 ~ Reuter and Lloyd [15] showed that CTOD was not a m a x i m u m at ~b = 30 ~
for surface-cracked specimens fabricated from A710 steel and tested at room temperature.
Instead, the maximum CTOD followed the behavior of K for LEFM conditions for a/2c = 0.1
and, to a lesser degree, for a/2c = 0.5 even though Onet > O'ys. Also, the CTOD measurement
around the crack parameter showed that symmetry did not occur in many of the specimens
investigated. Sommer at al. [14] did suggest that the constraint, Crmhr~, was a maximum at ~b
= 30 ~ see Fig. 10. That the maximum constraint occurs at d~ = 30 ~ could be a basis for this
angle being significant since Reuter et al. [16] and Hancock et al. [17] showed that crack
initiation was controlled more by constraint than by CTOD.
TABLE 3--Summary of K1 values associated with crack

initiation sites.
Estimated Ranges,
degrees
Range of K~,
Specimen 0 qb MPa-m'2
12 70-110 84-96 1.8-2.3

B-5 20--160 84-96 41.7-41.8
8 70--110 83-97 16.5-16.9
B-10 70-110 72-108 1.7-5.7
B-11 50-130 55-125 6-20
100
Kmax _K~(~._--30 deg_) Kaverag e
X
8O X
60
|
~T ! • i o
~
40
20
Tension Bending Tension Bending Tension Bending

A93 0145
FIG. 8--Comparison of K .... K+, and K ..... g, for Ti-15-3.
Kave
All the K~ values at fracture listed in Table 2 were within or above the scatter band of KI~
values from the SE(B) specimens. As noted earlier, Km,x is the most conservative single param-
eter fracture criterion if attainment of Kt~ is considered a sufficient condition for fracture. The
K~ weighted average at fracture (Kavo) compared favorably with K~ except for the shallow
surface flaw in bending (Specimen B-13) and the deep surface crack in tension (Specimen 6),
for which it is conservative by 35 and 20%, respectively. For the rest of the specimens, K,~
was within about 7% of K~. The constraint-adjusted K~ weighted average at fracture (K~w,)
was conservative with respect to K~ by at most 27%, this for the shallow crack in bending
400 I I I I /
SCT - specimen a/c = 0.89 ~ .
f"'J". "'---. f ~--~
4
/
n ""'---...... 1433 kN
,* f * I " ., -........~1405 kN.

~E 200 *
/ I
- /" "f"~"~""~"- ..... ""'"""""'". ~ 1365 kl~
,.,,,.,
I .. ,1,3..2.,5,.k.~
/
---" "~. 1240 kN

0 t q~= 30 J n 278 kN 833 ~NN"
0.00 0.20 0.40 0,60 0.80
Arc length (normalized) S/S o
A93 0139
FIG. 9--J versus normalized arc length for a surface cracked specimen from Sommer and Aurich
[14].
3.00 I I I I
SCT - specimen a/c = 0.89
2.00 !
, ~ . . ~ :::. " ' " ~ ..~ ~
~ " I ~".~_'~.',~, ~ ~ ~ ,
1.0C ." tp = 30 ~
278kN
. . . . 833 kN
- -- -- 1240 kN
......... 1433 kN
0,[ I I I I
)0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Arc length (normalized)S/So
A93 0137
FIG. lO---Constraint (~/~r~) versus normalized arc length for a surface cracked specimen from
Sommer and Aurich [14].
(Specimen B-13). K~cwa compared favorably with Kit for the two specimens that had deep
surface cracks in tension. This suggests that Kzcw. may adequately account for loss of elastic
constraint in the ligament but may not be acceptable for quantifying loss of constraint for the
shallow surface crack. Solutions that could implement either Km.x or Ka~ as a fracture criterion
are readily available [4]. 3-D E-P FE analysis was needed to obtain the K~.. values, making
this approach impractical for design use. Therefore, the K..~ criterion appears to offer ease of
calculation and relief from some of the unwarranted conservatism associated with the K~.x
criterion.

Test data, presented in this paper, have raised a concern about the validity of using K~c and
the maximum stress intensity factor (K.~ax) to predict fracture initiation of a low toughness
material containing a surface crack. The error in this approach is larger for the Ti-15-3, which
exhibited a plastic zone at the crack tip, than for the ceramic materials. Essentially, all of the
errors are conservative since gm~x/KIr > l.O. Comparisons with other methods for calculating
Kc~t are summarized below.
Kma~
Km.x was the most conservative single parameter fracture criterion if attainment of Klc is
considered a sufficient condition for fracture. For SiC specimens tested in bending and Ti-15-
3 specimens tested in tension, the ratio Km.x/Kxc, plotted in Fig. 2, shows an acceptable ability
to predict failure for specimens containing surface cracks. But, considerable conservatism may
occur when Kmax occurs at the free surface, for example, Ti-15-3 tested in bending (see Fig.
2a). An attempt to evaluate K at fracture initiation sites was not helpful in ascertaining if a
critical location around the crack perimeter controls the failure process. It was generally
observed that the initiation sites occurred in the region of maximum crack depth, but these
regions generally experienced K < K J 2 . It is not intended that these initiation sites be used to
suggest that fracture will occur when K = K~J2.
Kaverage and K+
These calculations reduced the amount of scatter relative to Kk. There appears to be general
agreement between K,~orag~ and Kxc. It was not possible to ascertain if K+ is a real location
controlling failure or if it appears to be useful only because of its nominal agreement with
K,verag~. The results of the fractography study suggest that + = 30 ~ is not a critical location.
Kave
The Kt weighted average at fracture (Kavo)compared favorably with Kxcexcept for the shallow
surface flaw in bending and the deep surface crack in tension. K,v~r,geappears to be better than
K,ve because the former, being based on K 2, is closer to a crack tip energy term. Solutions that
would implement Kmax, Ka~e~go,or Kave as a fracture criterion are readily available [4]. These
solutions appear to conservatively predict failure, but their acceptability depends on the degree
of conservatism allowed in the prediction. The fracture criterion K,~ appears to offer ease of
calculation while eliminating some of the unwarranted conservatism associated with the Km,x
= K~c fracture criterion.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, and Office of Industrial Technology under DOE
Idaho Field Office Contract DE-AC07-76ID01570. The authors express their appreciation to
Myrtle M. Taylor for editing this manuscript.
References
[1 ] Winne, D. H. and Wundt, B. M., "Applications of the Griffith-Irwin Theory of Crack Propagation
to the Bursting Behavior of Disks Including Analytical and Experimental Studies," Transactions of
ASME, Vol. 80, November 1958, pp. 1643-1658.
[2 ] Reuter, W. G. and Epstein, J. S., "Experimental Evaluation of an Equation Applicable for Surface
Cracks Under Tensile and Bending Loads," in Fracture Mechanics: Nineteenth Symposium, ASTM
STP 969, T. A. Cruse, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1987, pp.
597-619.
[3 ] Reuter, W. G., Lloyd, W. R., and Graham, S. M., "Evaluation of Capabilities of Fracture Mechanics
to Predict Structural Integrity," Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III, Part B, American Society for Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 1990, pp. 261-268.
[4] Newman, J. C., Jr. and Raju, I. S., "Analysis of Surface Cracks in Finite Plates under Tension and
Bending Loads," NASA Technical Paper I578, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, DC, December 1978.
[5] Reuter, W. G., Epstein, J. S., and Haggag, F. M., "Comparison Between 'Standard' Fracture Tough-
ness Results and Surface Flaw Data for Silicon Carbide," International Journal of Fracture, Vol.
47, 1991, pp. 181-200.
[6] Reuter, W. G., Lloyd, W. R., Knibloe, J. R. K., and Storhok, E., "Assessment of Strength Limiting
Flaws in Ceramic Heat Exchanger Tubes, Phase II," DOE-ID-10249, Department of Energy/CE,
Oct. 1989.
[7] Cottrell, A. H., Transactions of the Metallurgical Society ofAIME, Vol. 212, 1958, p. 192.
[8] Cruse, T. A. and Besuner, P. M., Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1975, pp. 369-375.
[9] deLorenzi, H. G., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, 1982, p. 183.
[10] Barsoum, R. S., "On the Use of Isoparametric Finite Elements in Linear Fracture Mechanics,"
International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1976, pp. 25-37.
[11 ] Hellen, T. K., International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1991, pp. 269-285.
[12 ] Rice, J. R., ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, June 1968, pp. 379-386.
[13] Irwin, G. R., ASMEJournal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 24, 1957, pp. 361-364.
[14] Sommer, A. and Aurich, D., "On the Effect of Constraint on Ductile Fracture," in Defect Assessment
in Components--Fundamentals and Applications, J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., ESIS/EGF
Publication 9, 1991, pp. 141-174.
[15 ] Reuter, W. G. and Lloyd, W. R., "Measurement of CTOD and CTOA Around Surface-Crack Perim-
eters and Relationships Between Elastic and Elastic-Plastic CTOD Values," in Surface-Crack
Growth: Models, Experiments, and Structures, ASTM STP 1060, W. G. Reuter, J. H. Underwood,
and J. C. Newman, Jr., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp.
152-176.
[16] Reuter, W. G., Graham, S. M., Lloyd, W. R., and Williamson, R. L., "Ability of Using Experimental
Measurements of ~ to Predict Crack Initiation for Structural Components," in Defect Assessment in
Components~undamentals and Applications, J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., ESIS/EGF
Publication 9, 1991, pp. 175-188.
[17] Hancock, J., Reuter, W. G., and Parks, D. M., "Constraint and Toughness Parameterized by T," in
Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP 1171, E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R. H. Dodds,
Karl-Heinz Schwalbe 1
The Crack Tip Opening Displacement and J

Integral Under Strain Control and Fully Plastic
Conditions Estimated by the Engineering
Treatment Model for Plane Stress Tension
REFERENCE: Schwalbe, K.-H., "The Crack Tip Opening Displacement and J Integral
Under Strain Control and Fully Plastic Conditions Estimated by the Engineering Treatment
Model for Plane Stress Tension," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP
ABSTRACT: The Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) relates the crack tip opening displace-
ment (CTOD) and the J integral with the applied load or applied strain using a geometry inde-
pendent, master-curve-type, equation. In the present paper, CTOD and J were examined as a
function of the applied strain by means of comparing ETM predictions with earlier experimental
and numerical results. A comparison was also made with a theoretical solution by Shih and
Hutchinson. It was concluded that the ETM provides useful engineering approximations.
KEYWORDS: crack tip opening displacement, J integral, Engineering Treatment Model, failure
under strain control, R curve
Nomenclature
a Crack length
aeff Plasticity corrected a
E Young's modulus
F Applied force
J J integral
K Linear elastic stress intensity factor
Kp~ Plasticity corrected K
n Strain-hardening exponent
Rpo.2 Engineering proof stress
W Specimen or structural width
85 Crack tip opening displacement measured on the side surface over a gage length of 5
mm
e Strain
eo Applied strain
tr Stress
trr Gross section stress at incipient net section yielding
Director of Materials Research Institute, GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht, 2054 Geesthacht,

Germany.
636
Copyright9 by ASTM International Www.astIII.OFg
SCHWALBE ON ENGINEERING TREATMENT MODEL 637
Subscripts
Y Value at beginning of yield
c Critical value
Introduction
The Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) offers formulae for estimating the crack tip open-
ing displacement (CTOD) or the J integral as crack-driving force parameters using a simplified
mechanical model of a cracked body deforming under plane stress conditions. Details of the
model are reported in Refs 1 through 7.
As long as the applied load, F, is no greater than the net section yield load, F r, that is, for
F -- F r, the solution
~5 = K~,, =--J (I)

Ecrr crr
is used. The symbols used in this relationship are as follows:
9 ~s denotes the CTOD as determined experimentally over a gage length of 5 mm [8],

9 crr denotes the material's yield strength, and
9 Kpl is the plasticity corrected stress intensity factor determined with the effective crack
length
1 K2
a~ff = a + - - - (2)
2 'mrS,
Under net section yielding conditions, that is, for F > Fr, the material's strain-hardening
law, which is expressed as a piece-wise power law,
(3)
~y
is transferred to the yielding net section such that
(4)
G LF~J
where ~r is ~5 evaluated with E q 1 at F = F r. Similarly, the J integral can be expressed in the

form
FFI.+.>,- = F q ,+- (5)

= L&J L~_I
where
J~= E Fy (6)
It has been demonstrated in Refs 1 through 6 that these relationships represent reasonable
estimates of the quantities considered in spite of the simplifications on which the ETM is based.
Validation has been performed using experimental results obtained on different types of lab-
oratory specimens [1--4,6] and through-cracked pipes [5] and using finite-element calculations
[4,9].
The ETM thus makes use of a "reference point," ar, ev or Fr, er, up to which linear elastic,
plasticity corrected solutions apply, and beyond which the values--indicated by the subscript
Y--attained at the reference point are extrapolated into the fully plastic range by a magnification
factor that is related to the strain-hardening exponent. This is similar to the formalisms given
in the EPRI Handbook [10], but without the need for determining influence functions. Hence,
in principle, Eq 5 applies to all geometries, and the geometrical effects are in Fy and 8v through
the K function. Equation 5 represents a versatile tool for handling fully plastic situations without
prior finite-element work.
The relationships listed above relate CTOD and J to the applied load, F. In the present paper,
both quantifies will be looked at as a function of the applied strain to derive expressions for
deformation-controlled situations. The relationships derived will then be discussed by com-
parison with experimental evidence and theoretical work from other authors.
C T O D as a F u n c t i o n o f Strain
For simplicity, the following assumptions will be made:
9 the yield strain, ey, will be set
O'y
ev = - - (7)
E
9 a symmetrically cracked plate under tensile loading will be considered (center cracked or
double-edge cracked).
From Eqs 3 and 4 it follows that
85 ~a (8)
8r ~r
where ea refers to the strain applied to the cracked structure. Its meaning will be discussed
below (after Eq 13). This normalized and geometry independent expression will now be con-
verted into an equation for absolute values of 85. The quantity 8y is determined by Eqs 1 and
2atF= Fr
(9)
where
oy= (1
CopyrightbyASTMInt'l(allrightsreserved);SatJan2818:45:46EST2012
Downloaded/printedby
(PDVSALosTeques)pursuanttoLicenseAgreement.Nofurtherreproductionsauthorized.
i I i i i i
2W = 200mm
~v = 250MPa
e = 0.01
0.5
E
E
0 I I I I I I I I I
0 0.5 1
a/W
FIG. 1--65 as a function of alW for a symmetrically cracked tensile plate.
is the gross section stress at F = Fv,
"N'a
r= S • ~-ff (11)
is the K calibration function of a symmetrically cracked tensile plate with width, 2W, and Yoff
is Y with aeff from Eq 2. With this, one obtains
(12)
= f(alW)'rra ~a
where e is the nominal net section strain. In Fig. 1, an example is plotted for ea = 0.01. Unlike
load control (in which there is an everincreasing driving force), a strain-controlled situation
yields a decreasing CTOD after an increase up to a/W ~ 0.45.
If the crack remains small as compared with the width of the structure, that is, for a/W
0, a very simple expression results
Bs = 1.5'rrae,, (13)
since Y = Yoff~ 1.
For a tensile panel with a small crack, the applied strain, e,, is approximately equal to total
elongation divided by gage length. In the case of finite a/W, the piece-wise power law of Eq
3 can be applied to the yielding net section, and e, is determined from
i-_ 1 TM
(3.1)
e:, LFYj
In the derivation of Eqs 12 and 13, the yield strain, er, was set equal to try/E, which is the
basis for the piece-wise power law formulation in Eq 3. To make use of widely used engineering
material properties, the ETM uses the engineering proof stress, Rpo.2, for try in particular for
determining the yield load, Fr, which, for ~r --> Rpo.2, may be designated as Fro.2. This causes
a dilemma, because at tr = Rpo.2,or at F = Fro.2, the strain, ey, is not equal to RpoJE, but it is
substantially greater. During the development of the ETM [6, 7], it has been argued that this
effect can be approximately accounted for by fixing the yield load at 0.9Rpo.2, that is,
Fy ~ 0.9F~o2 (14)
and by keeping the simple conversion
Rpo.2
er = (7.1)
E
Figure 2 shows an example.

From this it follows that Eqs 12 and 13 can be modified:
(1 +040,(, (12.1)
= 0.81f(a/W)arae,
and
$5 = 1-14waea (13.1)
Note that Yeffin Eq 12.1 has to be evaluated at Fv = 0.9Fro.2.

The relationships derived above will now be compared with experimental and finite-element
i , , ,[ , i f , , , , , i i , , , ,[ i
CCT, a,'~N = 0.6 "-FYo.2

2W = 100ram
(5
L L>"
0.5-
9 FE Calculations
o2. ,,,,I ........... 1 . . . . . . . . I
10 100 1000
~5, p.m
FIG. 2--Finite-element calculations of ~ [9] for an austenitic steel compared with ETM predictions
[6].
3 i i i i I i i i i i i i r i I i i i i
AI 2024 - FC ~a = 36mm
CCT, ao/W = 0.2 / /

2W = 200mm
,~ o~o-----
0 n n ~ t I n n n n I t I n n l n t a I
0.005 0.01 0.016 0.02
Applied Strain, ~,
FIG. 3a--~5 of a CCT specimen as a function of the applied strain, experimental, and predicted
values. Experimental data are from Ref 8.
results. The experimental results shown in Fig. 3a were taken from an experiment on a center-
cracked tension specimen with a starting crack length ratio, ao/W, equal to 0.2, which was
regarded by a first approximation as an "infinite width" case. From the measured load-line
displacement, s, the applied strain, ea, was determined by dividing s by the gage length which
was approximately equal to 1.5 times the specimen width. Consequently, these experiments
were compared with Eqs 13 and 13.1. Substantial crack growth took place during the experi-
ment, as indicated in the diagram.
A further example representing a short crack is shown in Fig. 3b. The CTOD, ~5, was
measured on a semi-circular part-through crack. Therefore, the constant factors in Eqs 13 and
13.1 have to be modified according to the K solution for a part-through crack as shown in Fig.
3b. In both cases shown in Fig. 3, Eq 13.1 matches the experiments very well.
The configuration shown in Fig. 4 is no longer characterized by "short crack." Here, the
applied strain, ea, needed for the ETM analysis was calculated using Eq 3.1, and the experi-
mental data and the predictions were plotted versus the measured load-line displacement. The
experimental values in Fig. 4 are located between the two prediction curves. In Fig. 5, showing
finite-element calculations for a stationary crack with a/W = 0.6, Eq 13 gives the better approx-
imation. The analysis was done the same way as for the data of Fig. 4.
J Integral as a Function of Strain

A combination of Eqs 5 and 8 gives
J e,,
(15)
A,
' ' ' ' I v , , , I ' ' , v I i , , ' I ,
o.o
Exo ,,men,
E O.4
E
03 / /- I CRACKED
0.2 ~ PANEL
0.1 ,~-'" ' ' ~ 100mr~ j_
o.; , , , , I , i i I i I i i I i i i I
0 001 002 003 0.04

Applied Strain. EQ
FIG. 3b---~s of a part-through cracked tensile panel Experimental data are from unpublished
work at GKSS.
I i i , I i i 9 i i I , i , i I i i , i I , i
e~""'-a = 29mm
STEEL 35 NiCrao16 / /
CCT, ao/W = 0.4 /o /
2w= 100ram / /
9 Experiments
1
a 2 " 2 2 2
E
E
a=2Omrn_Z/~/~.. I a'=I~'~I=~aYE"EI+~ Y ]E, I
, !~,~~, , , , , "!(~s.-0';1(;1-~)2~a~fli1+~'4(; aw)2y2'~a
0
0 1 2 3 4
Load Line Displacement, mm
FIG. 4--Same as Fig. 3a, but specimen made of a steel [8].
SCHWALBEON ENGINEERINGTREATMENTMODEL 643
:_,.,_., .,./,.
X6 CrNi 1811 ~ "
CCT,aAN = 0.6 / /
E ,~ " ~ l ~s=` l ' - } ) a = a y a " [l+0"5(1-a)2Ya ]Ea I

E
nO .,,~ [(~s= 0.81(I -a )a/I;aY,~[i+0.4(I-.})2ya
~ I , I , I , I , I ,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Load Line Displacement,mm

FIG. 5--Same as Fig. 3e~ but 6s from finite-element calculations [9].
with
~= (16)
E Fr
If these expressions are expanded analogous to Eq 9, one obtains
J= ~-" 1 - E"~ra ~ft 1 + 0.5 1 - I~ ~+-

(17)
= f(a/W)'n'a ~v'-"E" %1+"
for the finite width case and
J = 1.5"era~rr1 - .E. ~a1+. (18)
for the infinitely wide sheet. In analogy to Eqs 12.1 and 13.1, J can be given by
J = 0.81 9 Eq 17 (17.1)
for the finite width case and
J = 1.14-rra o"v~-'E"%1+" (18.1)
for the infinite width case, respectively. The same cases as above (except for the part-through
crack) have been evaluated for J, with the results shown in Figs. 6 through 8. It can be seen
400 i i i i I ' i i i I i i i le i i r
AI 2024, FC ./
CCT, a o/W = 0.2 /
300
2W = 200mm
5B =r n ~ . .// o/
200
-- 1-n n l+nl / I
,J =,.s=a(~y E ? / / ~
100
/ / I , 1-n n 1+nl
E 9 J=1.14?ca(~y E Ea
E
Z
0 i
0 o.~s o.ol o.ols 0.02
Applied Strain. ~a
FIG. 6--J integral of the specimen shown in Fig. 3a.
3000 ' ' | , I | . . . I , . , , i ! . , . I | . , ,
/ CCT, a o / W = 0 . 4 / / ,;
/vv--,oomm / / /
2000
t J///.,
. ~ 9 Experiments
lOOO / ~
I J=oyi~"})2En~ay..[1+0.5(1-W) Y
1-n a 2 n 2 a 2 2 l+n
]Ea I
/:./.~ -Ij =o.,~~;'no_ .})2En=aye 211+0.4(%_~)Ry~,.nJ

, ,ie-'-, , I , i , , I , , , , I , , , , I , , , ,
0 1 2 3 4
Load Line Displacement,mm

FIG. 7--J integral of the specimen shown in Fig. 4.
i I i I i i i I I il i I
1500
CCT, a / W = 0 . 6 / /
lOOm
2w = .// _
1000
9 FE Calculations
5OO I J ='~(q")~ En~a"~[l+O'5('-"$)~Y~]~"+~]

E
E
~.~/"
Z
I J - o.,oof ~ ~)=En_~aY,/t_a+O.5(a-~)~ %~:+~I
9 , , _ i , , ,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Load Line Displacement, mm
FIG. 8--J integral of the specimen shown in Fig. 5.
that Eq 18 gives very good approximations for the two steel specimens. This is not the case
for the aluminum specimen in Fig. 6, as it was expected; here, the short crack length gave rise
to gross section yielding which in turn resulted in a substantial overestimation of the experi-
mental J values, as has been discussed in Ref 8.
Summarizing the results for CTOD and J, it can be concluded that Eqs 13 and 18 provide
reasonable estimates for the driving force as a function of applied strain.
From Eqs 13 and 18 it follows that J can be expressed as a function of 8, that is,
J = 85e,'~E"cr~,-" (19)
and vice versa. Thus, one may imagine the case that experimental 85 values are available, from
which the J integral may be inferred. Figure 9 compares inferred J values with experimental
and finite element data, respectively, of the specimens from Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8.
In Fig. 10, the same exercise was carried out for a polymer material [11]. Both dia-
grams show that the conversion from 85 to J as expressed in Eq 19 can serve as a reasonable
estimate.
Prediction of Failure
Failure can be defined as a critical load or strain for the attainment of a single-valued fracture
parameter expressed as 8c or Jc. Alternatively, the critical load or strain can be obtained via an
R-curve analysis for load- or strain-controlled situations. Both routes can be followed using the
formalisms of the ETM.
L ' '''1 .... I --/
/"
/
/;
1000 /.
E
E
z
100
10 , I , , ,,I .... I
10 lOO lO00
Jexp, J FE, N/mm
FIG. 9--J integral inferred from experimental or finite-element 6 values, Js, versus experimental and
finite element J values.
90
POLYPROPYLENE
E
E CCT
B = 5mm
Z
02W= 50mm, ao/W=0.53
O 2W = lOOmm, ao/W=0.3
50
/
./,
0
.,z
O
./"
O
/ I I I i I i ~ i
90
so J exp , N / mm
FIG. lO---Same as Fig. 9for polypropylene.
646
Attainment of Critical CTOD or J

It follows immediately from Eqs 12, 13, 17, and 18 that the critical strain, eao can be
expressed as a function of ~c or Jc:
~c (20.1)
eac f(a/W)'rra
and
f j: ] ~/o+,,)
(21.1)
for the finite width case, and
8c (20.2)
eac 1.51ra
and
I Jc I 1/(1+n)
e"c = l.51r~-~-"e '~ (21.2)
for the infinite width case.

No experimental results independent of those already shown are available to check the critical
strain predictions.
R-Curve Method
The 85 and J expressions can be used as driving force curves for constructing tangency
conditions with the R curve and, hence, instability conditions under strain control. The sche-
matic in Fig. 11 shows that the condition of instability is difficult to reach, which is in accor-
dance with practical experience and similar considerations under linear elastic conditions [12].
Only in the presence of very short cracks can instability be expected. A worked example is
depicted in Fig. 12. A given R curve was used to determine the longest crack, a*, which may
lead to instability in the overaged aluminum alloy 2024-FC [8]. For all cracks longer than a*
= 3.7 mm, the driving force curve intersects the R curve, thus excluding instability. This
material was tested with crack lengths of 2ao = 40 and 100 mm in 200-mm-wide center-
cracked panels under displacement control without instability. Shorter cracks had not been
examined.
Comparison with a Theoretical Solution
Shih and Hutchinson [13] derived a fully plastic J solution for a crack in an infinitely wide
sheet made of a material with a pure power law
(/TM
-- = et -- (22)
ey \~y/
~I~'- IR-CURVEI
E
~5
ao
Crack Length, a
FIG. 11--R curve and driving force curves under strain-controlled loading, schematically.
2 2024- FC /
E
E
% /
ate/
',ao* / i , ,
0 "-/~/ ~g ~ I I I I I I M I I
0 10 20
r ~ Crack Growth, A a , mm
FIG. 12--Determination o f longest precrack, a*, which may become unstable under strain control;
R curve f o r aluminum 2024-FC [8], 5-ram-thick specimens. In this example, a* is 3.7 ram, and the crack
approximately doubles its length to a* when instability is reached.
SCHWALBEONENGINEERINGTREATMENTMODEL 649
where try and ey are reference values of stress and strain. Using the notation of the present
paper, the J expression is
J = ottryera 3.85 (1 - n) + ~rn -- (23)

, \try/
The expression in the square brackets takes the value of 5.86 for n = 0.3, a hardening exponent
that characterizes the aluminum alloy 2024-FC for which many experimental results have been
obtained. To compare this solution with the ETM expressions, it can be rewritten as follows
(or was set equal to 1)
J = [...]a trr'. . .E. e, (24)
The square bracket has to be compared with the factor 1.57r in Eq 18. The comparison shows
that the ETM expressions are very good approximations. The fully plastic solution in Eq 23 is
adequate for high plastic strains in an elastic-plastic material. In the neighborhood of Fr, how-
ever, the elastic contribution can no longer be neglected. In the same paper, Shih and Hutch-
inson suggest the following estimate of J for elastic-plastic materials (Ramberg-Osgood stress-
strain curve)
J= trwra"rrI[ 1 +0.5 ~ + 1] tr2 +--[3.85~-ln(1-n)+

lj (~) ~
'rr
"l'rn] ( tr/' +"s"l (25)
\tr~l j
At high loads, the first part--which represents the linear elastic, plasticity corrected contri,
bution--becomes negligible.
In the particular case tr --->try, the bracket in Eq 25 takes the value 2.27, again for n = 0.3,
which has to be compared with 1.5 in Eq 18. The difference is similar to that between 5.86
and 1.5~r from above.
A similar formalism has been derived for the CTOD, which has the same parenthetical
expressions as Eqs 23 and 25.
Conclusions
For fully plastic conditions, the Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) provides a master
curve-like equation (Eq 5) which relates
9 the CTOD in the form of ~5 and

9 the J integral
with the quantities
9 applied load, F, or
9 applied strain, ea.
Because of its normalized form, this master curve is independent of the geometry, and it
depends on the material through the strain-hardening exponent, n. Previous work has shown
that critical situations in terms of applied load at crack initiation and of maximum load can be
reasonably well estimated. In the present paper, J and CTOD were examined as functions of
the applied strain.
Expressions were derived for finite width and for the infinitely wide sheet. In the finite width
case, the applied strain is calculated using the material's stress-strain law as expressed in Eq
3.1. The finite width effect on J and CTOD arises from the definition of the applied strain and
the linear elastic calibration function Y(a/W). For a given strain, J or CTOD exhibit a round
house curve when they are plotted versus a/W (see Fig. 1). This demonstrates the well-known
high stability of strain-controlled loading.
Very simple expressions were obtained for the infinitely wide sheet. In this case, experimental
and a few finite-element data were used for validation. Very good results were observed
although the condition of a/W--> 0 was not strictly met in Fig. 3a. The J expression for infinite
width was shown to be close to a theoretical solution by Shih and Hutchinson [13].
All ~5 and J relationships were derived in two versions, one with er --->Rpo.JE and another
with e r --->0.9Rpo.2/E. Comparing the analyses with experimental and finite-element data shows
that the former one is either accurate or slightly conservative. As long as there is no other
information available, it is thus recommended to use.
~5 = 1.5'rrae,, (13)
and
j = 1.5"rrao-r1-,E ne al+, (18)
for cracks for which a/W < 0.2 and to use
(12)
and
(17)
for longer cracks.
References
[1] Schwalbe, K.-H., "A Simple Engineering Treatment of Center Cracked Tension Panels in the Regime
of Non-Linear Fracture Mechanics Under Plane Stress Conditions," GKSS 84/E/38, GKSS-For-
schungszentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany, 1984.
[2] Schwalhe, K.-H., "The Prediction of Failure Situations Using the CTOD Concept Based on the
Engineering Treatment Model (ETM)," in The Crack Tip Opening Displacement in Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Mechanics, K.-H. Schwalbe, Ed., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1986, pp. 315-340.
[3] Schwalbe, K.-H., "Extension of the Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) to Bending Configurations
Under Plane Stress," GKSS 87/E/51, GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany,
1987.
[4] Schwalbe, K.-H., Cornec, A., and Heerens, J., "The Engineering Treatment Model (ETM)--a Simple
Method for Estimating the Driving Force Under Elastic-Plastic and Plane Stress Conditions," in
Defect Assessment in Components--Fundamentals and Applications, Proceedings of the European
Symposium on Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics, J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., Mechan-
ical Engineering Publications Limited, London, 1991.
[5] Schwalbe, K.-H, and G.19'ter, L., "Application of the Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) to the
Behaviour of a Circumferentially Cracked Pipe," in Defect Assessment in Components--Funda-
mentals and Applications, Proceedings of the European Symposium on Elastic Plastic Fracture
Mechanics, J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., Mechanical Engineering Publications Limited,
London, 1991.
[6] Schwalbe, K.-H., Cornec, A., Dietzel, W., and WellenkStter, W., "Final Report on DFG Research
Project Schw 190/13-1" (in German), GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany,
1988.
[7] Schwalbe, K.-H. and Cornec, A., "The Engineering Treatment Model (ETM) and Its Practical Appli-
cation," Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 14, 1991, pp. 405-
412.
[8] Hellmann, D. and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Geometry and Size Effects on J-R and 8-R Curves Under Plane
Stress Conditions," in Fracture Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 833, R. J. Sanford,
Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1984, pp. 577-605.
[9] Amstutz, H. and Seeger, T., "Bruchmechanische Analyse eines austenitischen Stahles (X6CrNil811)
an zwei Standardril3scheibenmit ebenem Spannungszustand," Technical Report F1-2/1984, Tech-
nical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, 1984.
[10] "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis," EPRI NP-1931, RP1237-1, Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1981.
[11] Reese, E., Schwalbe, K.-H., and Friedrich, K., "Characterisation of Polymer Materials by Elastic-
Plastic Crack Growth Resistance Curves," in ECF8 Fracture Behaviour and Design of Materials
and Structures, Conference Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Fracture, D. Firrao,
Ed., Turin, 1990.
[12] McCabe, D. E. and Heyer, R. H., "R-Curve Determination Using a Crack-Line-Wedge-Loaded
(CLWL) Specimen," in Fracture Toughness Evaluation by R-Curve Methods, ASTM STP 527,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1973.
[13] Shih, C. F. and Hutchinson, J. W., "Fully Plastic Solutions and Large Scale Yielding Estimates for
Plane Stress Crack Problems," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 1976, pp. 289-
295.
Robert E. Nickell 1 and David F. Quifiones 2
Fracture Mode Evaluation of Flawed Piping

Under Dynamic Loading
REFERENCE: Nickell, R. E. and Quifiones, D. F., "Fracture Mode Evaluation of Flawed
Piping Under Dynamic Loading," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP
ABSTRACT: A recent series of large-scale, high-energy dynamic degraded piping experiments,

conducted for the International Piping Integrity Research Group (IPIRG), are evaluated to deter-
mine the ability of modem structural and fracture analysis computational tools to predict the
dynamic response and failure mode of prototypical piping systems with degraded sections.
Results are also useful in confirming leak-before-breakprinciples. This paper assesses the IPIRG
1.3 test series failure mode(s) for austenitic and ferritic base and weld metal test sections under
severe dynamic loading conditions. Small-scaletest specimen data are used to perform limit load,
ductile tearing, and low-cycle fatigue calculations at 288~ and calculated results are compared
to data from five large-scale pressurized piping system experiments with circumferential interior
flaws. Experimental behavior and fractographic evidence are also described.
The dominant prepenetration failure mechanism for the IPIRG 1.3 experiments was not low-
cycle flaw growth, but another mechanism such as ductile tearing followed by instability.
KEYWORDS: time-dependent fracture, ductile tearing, aged-cast piping, strain rate effects,
austenitic stainless steels, ferritic steels
Experiments and supporting analysis have shown that severe static or dynamic loading is
necessary to cause failure in undegraded light water reactor (LWR) piping [1,2]. These exper-
iments also demonstrated that the governing failure mode for reversed dynamic loading is not
ductile rupture or plastic collapse of the piping cross section, but, instead, is low-cycle fatigue
and progressive deformation (that is, plastic ratchetting) of the pipe wall. When the piping and
piping system components are potentially flawed, owing either to preservice fabrication defects
that are undetected or to service-induced degradation, the failure modes and margins are less
certain. For this reason, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has dynamically tested
degraded (eroded-corroded) ferritic piping with the finding that the failure mode remains low-
cycle fatigue [3].
A more comprehensive study of degraded (flawed) piping under severe dynamic loading is
the subject here. In this case, nine nations collaborated in a long-term experimental program
on LWR flawed piping, under the auspices of International Piping Integrity Research Group
(IPIRG). IPIRG Phase 1 experiments and analyses [4,5] were conducted by Battelle Columbus
Operations (Battelle), under contract to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPRI, and
organizations from other nations. Independent EPRI-sponsored analyses of the large-scale
IPIRG 1.3 piping system experiments are the focus of this discussion. All experimental and
fractographic data were generated by other organizations as referenced in the text. (Note that
the author's opinions stated in this paper are not necessarily IPIRG opinions.)
1 Senior consultant, Applied Science & Technology, 16630 Sagewood Lane, Poway, CA 92064.
2 Staff engineer, Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc., 2150 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1200, Berkeley, CA
94704.
652
NICKELL AND QUINONES ON FRACTURE MODE EVALUATION 653
One objective of the program was to determine the dominant failure mode for degraded
piping under severe dynamic loading. For sufficiently degraded piping cross sections and suf-
ficiently severe loading, the potential exists for flaw instability and depressurization. The con-
firmation of "leak-before-break" (LBB) principles, interpreted here as a demonstration that
failure of the pressure boundary leads to gradual and controllable, rather than instantaneous,
depressurization of the piping system, is a corollary consideration. In determining the failure
mode, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methods are used to predict incipient failure for cyclic
dynamic loading conditions. A complicating factor in these calculations is the estimation of
any subcritical flaw growth at the degraded cross section. The IPIRG 1.3 experiments were
carried out with increasing amplitude cyclic dynamic loading in an effort to eliminate the
importance of this factor in the failure mode assessments.
A second objective was to determine the potential for continued operation of the degraded
cross sections for all five IPIRG 1.3 experiments under pressurized water reactor (PWR) coolant
system conditions, using American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Section
XI inservice examination and flaw evaluation criteria. In particular, the degraded sections are
shown in this article to have stability limits, in terms of either code-allowable stresses or
permissible flaw depths, below those represented by experimentally determined stresses and
actual flaw depths at wall penetration (failure).
Small-scale quasistatic and dynamic tension and compact specimen data at about 288~
temperature--for similar heats of austenitic stainless base and weld metal, ferritic base and
weld metal, and aged-cast austenitic stainless steels--are used for the net-section plastic col-
lapse and ductile tearing calculations for the five (large-scale) degraded piping system cross
sections. Upper-bound low-cycle fatigue flaw growth rate data at temperature are used to exam-
ine any radial subcritical flaw growth before wall penetration in the five experiments, and effects
of growth on flaw stability are examined.
For all of the experiments except IPIRG 1.3-3 (austenitic base metal), the failure mode is
rationalized as explained later. Relatively small amounts of subcritical flaw growth caused by
the cyclic loading are found, followed by unstable flaw growth and penetration of the pressure
boundary caused by high-amplitude stress. Substantive amounts of subcritical flaw growth,
well in excess of what can be explained based on existing data, would be needed to rationalize
the IPIRG 1.3-3 experiment. Elastic shakedown limits are examined to ensure that plastic
ratchetting effects are not governing.
The failure mode findings of this study are confirmed by fractographic examinations per-
formed by Battelle, Ente Nazionace Energie Alternative (ENEA), and Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt
AG (KKL) which showed limited prepenetration cyclic flaw growth. For the ferritic steel test
section, the strain rate reduced the fracture toughness slightly compared to the static compact
specimen data. For the artificially aged cast austenitic stainless steel test section, stable crack
growth and ductile tearing effects must be considered to account for the observed failure
stresses. For the austenitic and ferritic flux welds, ASME Code provisions for ductile tearing
adequately predict the peak stress state at the degraded section.
The Battelle experiments and test results are described below.
The IPIRG 1.3 System

The IPIRG 1.3 406-mm-diameter water-filled piping is similar to PWR piping except that
the large circumferential flaw is machined and that a higher yield stress steel is used in the
undegraded piping. Basically, the IPIRG 1.3 piping system consists of an expansion loop with
a hydraulic actuator on one side and a degraded section on the other side, five elbows, five
supports, a block mass representing an in-line valve and valve operator on the loop crossleg,
and a total of about 30 m of piping (Fig. 1). The degraded section consists of an interior part-
W N
a)
-Massk,,R.estraint
estrai-1' /
/
\ /
Flaw /
location
L
E \
Re
\
.~..j-Restraint 5
l~ l,300,bl.
lumped . . . . ~ -~l~J/.,,=-~l 37 m (4 5 ft) I
061 m \ / ~274m(9ft)
'
(2ft) 0.61
. . . . .m .,."~//~'~ Z 00.61 m/ . 0 6 1 m 2,
j ,/
' 6 10 m S Actuator
(20") 1 22m / ~ _ Flaw / .(135ti)
4. ) / . % ' ~:"S ~C'__ " I I o.6t m
,./ ~ / ~k""'~m"~E--~ A 1.37 m ~ ~ 2 ft) /
~ '~""0.61 rn(21t~"~=.. ~ (45ft) If"" I I ~
1 22 rn (4 ft) / ~1, ~_~.~, 9 J, ~.. ~ . ~ . _ . _ z _
_ ' ~ . I /" / / I 9 732m ~ & v
0.61 rn
~"/,,.f-I ~'''z'- 0;61m
2 ft
lighten
~ ~
/7"7~ } 06t m
s ft) ,'E'~Y~,, -~ - {2 ft) ~* "J 06t m" (s
"
.>
T ('-0.61 m 0.611m (2ft)
(2 ft) (2 ft) Q
JL/~ Section A-A

x
FIG. 1--Schematic of lPIRG 1.3 piping system. Elbows are numbered I through 5 starting from
left side. (a) Artist's depiction. (b) Dimensions.
NICKELL AND QUII~ONESON FRACTUREMODE EVALUATION 655
through-wall flaw, which is initially about 60% through the wall and 180~ in circumference
(Fig. lb). When the flaw penetrated the wall, depressurization from 15.2 MPa began, and the
hydraulic actuator command signal was shut down.
The replaceable degraded section between Elbows 3 and 4 (see Fig. 1), roughly 1 m in
length, was torch-cut and rewelded after each IPIRG 1.3 test. The flaws were machine-cut and
usually fatigue sharpened for each test. The degraded test section and flaw dimensions are given
in Table 1. Details on the instrumentation are given by Battelle [4,5].
The east-west displacement ux versus time t was represented by a monotonically increasing
sinusoidal actuator function
ux = St + A(1 - e-O9 sin (~o0
where the constants S, A, b, and to varied from test to test as given in Table 2. The IPIRG 1.3
system was pressurized to 15.5 MPa and heated to 288~ with the actuator hookup location
initially restrained in the x direction. A summary of the five degraded tests, test dates, test
section materials, failure times, peak stresses, and failure modes is given in Table 3.
Piping Materials
Except for the degraded test section, high-strength ferritic steel was used with age-hardened
ASTM A710 Gr.A C1.3 test bed piping and MSS SP-75 WPHY65 elbows. The wrought steel
test sections (see Table 2) made of A106B and SA358 Type 304 had no heat treatments,
however, the high-niobium A351 CF8M centrifugally cast test section, artificially aged for 700
h at 400~ had material properties corresponding to about nine years' service in a PWR cold
leg, or about two years' service in a PWR hot leg. The ferritic high-molybdenum submerged
arc weld (SAW) used Linde 44 weld wire and Linde 80 flux and was typical of Babcock &
Wilcox type single-vee girth welds. The Type 308 austenitic stainless steel weld was typical
of General Electric-type single-vee girth welds and used a combination of gas tungsten arc,
shielded metal arc, and submerged arc weld processes.
A summary of the quasistatic material properties at temperature for the various steels and
welds is given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Representative true stress-true strain and J-
TABLE 1--Summary of lPIRG 1.3 degraded section dimensions.
Experiment Equiv. Flaw Maximum Normalized

Number, Outer Diameter, Thickness t, Length, Average Flaw Flaw Depth, Flaw Depth,
Datea Do, mm mm 2c, mm Depth,a, mill am~,mm
1.3-2 404 25.7 549 16.6 18.8 0.647
9/29/89
1.3-4 407 28.1 582 16.1 17.6 0.570
12/14/89 404b 25.1b 0.639b
1.3-3 416 25.9 569 15.9 16.9 0.613
2/21/90
1.3-5c 416 26.2 561 14.7 16.3 0.563
4/13/90 416~ 25.7b 13.4a 15.1a 0.574b
1.3-7 401 26.4 559 13.8 14.1 0.522
7/25/90
"Month/day/year.
bWithout weld crown.
c Geometry complicated by counterbore.
a Without counterbore.
TABLE 2---Actuator displacement function constants, IPIRG 1.3.
Experiment
Number,
Date a Test Section Steel S, mm/s A, mm b, s-1 to, rad/s
1.3-2 ASTM A106B 38.1 63.5 1.39 22.7

9/29/89 Ferritic base
1.3-4 Ferritic high molybdenum 9.53 152 0.0404 24.8
12/14/89 SAW/A106B base
1.3-3 ASME SA385 Type 304 9.53 241 0.0404 24.8
2/21/90 Austenitic base
1.3-5 Type 308 Weld/SA358 9.53 241 0.0404 24.8
4/13/90 Type 304 austenitic base
1.3-7 Thermally aged cast 9.53 241 0.0404 24.8
7/25/90 Austenitic A351 CF8M base
Month/day/year.
TABLE 3--Summary of lPIRG 1.3 failures.
Surface Flaw
Experiment Penetration Total Maximumb
Number, Test Section Time, s Final Time, Bending Stress,
Date" Steel (cycle) s (cycle) Pb, MPa Comments c
1.3-2 ASTM A106B 0.635 3.00 180 mm prepenetration

9/29/89 (3) (11.) 118 circumferential flaw
growth. Full
severance at flaw,
soft shutdown at 1.6
s.
1.3-4 Ferritica SAW/A106B 6.93 11.6 Remaining ligament,
12/14/89 (28) (46) 194 soft shutdown at 7.7
s.
1.3-3 ASME SA358 Type 2.32 7.00 Remaining ligament,
2/21/90 304 (9) (27) 136 soft shutdown at
3.18 s.
1.3-5 Type 308 e weld/ 2.59 7.20 Remaining ligament,
4/13/90 SA358 Type 304 (10) (28) 156 soft shutdown at 3.4
s.
1.3-7 Aged cast ASTM 2.58 5.96r Full severance at flaw,
7/25/90 A351 CF8M (10) (23) 201 pipe whip, followed
by full severance
near Restraint 5,
soft shutdown at
5.84 s.
"Month/day/year.
b Using undegraded section modulus and including the weld crown (if any). The weld crown can change
the bending stress by up to 21 MPa. Static stress is included.
In each test, minimal flaw growth occurred by low-cycle flaw growth. Stable flaw growth at high J
values and progressive deformation dominated up until full severance or the end of the experiment.
a High molybdenum Babcock & Wilcox style weld.
e General Electric style gas tungsten arc, shielded metal arc, and submerged arc combination weld.
SSome transducer data available to 20 s during pipe whip portion of experiment.
TABLE 4--Quasistatic base metal properties for IPIRG 1.3 system at 288~
Ultimate
Young's Yields Tensile Coefficient of
Modulus, Poisson's Stress, Stress ~ Thermal
Material GPa Ratio" MPa MPa Exp., C - 1~ j b kJ/m2
MSS SP-75 178 0.3 379 638.0 1.17 • 10 -5

WPHY65
ASTM A710 GR.A 195c 0.3 463 a 621 1.17 • 10 -5
C1.3
ASTM A106B 206 0.3 237 609 1.17 • 10 -s 129
ASME SA358 Type 176a 0.3 183 453 1.17 • 10 -5 738
304
Thermally Aged Cast 174 0.3 201 e 578 e 1.17 • 10 -5 88 e
ASTM A351
CF8M
"Assumed.
Average values used for multiple specimens.
c 181 GPa used in ABAQUS calculations.
a 489 MPa 3/ield stress used in ABAQUS calculations.
e 300oc.
versus-flaw extension (J-Aa) curves of the IPIRG 1.3 steels at about 288~ are shown in Figs.
2 and 3, respectively.
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Calculations

In this section, the net-section plastic collapse (limit load) methods to determine the ability
of these procedures to explain the observed failures of the IPIRG 1.3 experiments are examined.
The first step is to perform limit load calculations using best estimate values of flaw length and
depth. The second step is to calculate the instability stress using the deformation plasticity
failure assessment diagram (DPFAD) method [6], which uses no ductile tearing correction
factor, relying on work-hardening and fracture toughness information. The third step is to
evaluate the contribution of any cyclic flaw growth before the loading cycle leading to wall
penetration. The purpose of this step is to determine the relative contributions to failure of
cyclic flaw growth and flaw instability.
Limit Load Calculations

T w o cases of modified limit load calculations are examined:
9 baseline case (actual flow stress) and

9 Z factor for cast austenitic stainless steel.
TABLE 5--Quasistatic weld properties for 1PIRG 1.3 system at 288 ~
Yield Stress, Ultimate Tensile

Test Section Weld MPa Stress, MPa Ji, kJ/m2
Ferritic SAW IPIRG 1.3-4 356 556 82.0

Austenitic weld IP1RG 1.3-5 258 469 55
658 FRACTUREMECHANICS:I3NENTY-FOURTHVOLUME
t20 t, 60o
'wPItY6~~
/
o
o.00 o.lo o.'~o 0.30
True S t r a i n ( i n . / i n . ) or ( r a m / r a m )
FIG. 2--Comparison of true-stress vs. true-strain curves for IPIRG 1.3 materials at 288 ~
The baseline case in Table 6 uses the actual flow stress values (for example, the average of the
yield and ultimate tensile stresses) and weld crown dimensions (if any). The average flaw depth
(see Table 1) is used rather than the maximum flaw depth because the average depth is a better
physical representation. The equivalent flaw length (see Table 1) is taken as the flaw area
divided by the average flaw depth. Note that, if the maximum flaw depth is used, the conclusions
and trends found in this paper remain unaltered. Flaw growth is ignored. The axial stress is
computed from the pressure. The static thermal expansion stress Pe is taken as zero; however,
(ram)
5 10
30000
~20000'
V 2
r
o4
0 I I ' I ' I l l ; l U ' ' U U U ; h i I I 1 ' ' r u n r n

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
Flaw E x t e n s i o n (in.)
FIG. 3--Comparison of Jm versus flaw extension curves for IPIRG 1.3 materials at 288~
TABLE 6---Comparison on IPIRG 1.3 peak degraded section stresses and modified fimit load and
DPFAD stresses for severely flawed pipe.
Instability Stress (Pm + PD, MPa

Experiment Test Section Capability
Number Steel (Experiment)a Baseline Case DPFAD Cast Z Factor
1.3-2 ferritic base 166 163 205 ...

1.3-4 ferritic weld 242 198 201 ...
1.3-3 austenitic base 185 239 231 ..,
1.3-5 austenitic weld 205 204 208
1.3-7 austenitic cast base 250 333 227 89189
a Maximum prepenetration stress (Pro + P~) assuming undegraded section modulus and weld crown (if
any). Axial pressure-induced stress Pm is 48 PMa.
Notes:
Baseline Case--Includes weld crown dimensions (if any), flow stress 0.5 (try + a,) based on quasi-
static data, and actual pipe dimensions. The average flaw depth is used. ASME Code Z factor is from
Table H-6310-2 for ferritic steels and C-3320 for austenitic stainless steels. Instability stress formulas for
(Pro + So) based on net-section plastic collapse. Axial pressure-induced stress P,, is 48 MPa. The safety
factor (SF) is unity.
DPFAD~Instability stress based on FLET calculation using fitted stress-strain and Jm versus flaw-
extension curves for each test section steel. Combined tension and bending J estimation scheme solutions
are used with the deformation plasticity failure assessment diagram (DPFAD) method. Flawed weld cal-
culations used base metal stress-strain data and weld metal Jm versus flaw-extension curves.
Cast Z Factor--:Same as baseline case, but flux weld Z factor of 1.46 is used for artificially aged cast
austenitic stainless steel. Normally, Z = 1 is used for ferritic levels up to 20%.
the calculated thermal expansion stress varies from 4 to 9 MPa depending on the degree of
actuator hookup restraint. The effect of including the thermal expansion stress in Table 6 would
be to shift the (Pro + So) values downward by the value Pe" Here, Pm is the axial stress, and S,.
is the allowable pipe bending stress for circumferential flaws.
For the ferritic steels that have known yield stress and initiation Jic values, the ductile tearing
correction Z factors for the baseline case are 1.86 and 1.83 for the IPIRG 1.3-2 and 1.3-4 ferritic
experiments, respectively. For the austenitic steels, the Z factors for the baseline case are 1.0,
1.46, and 1.0 for IPIRG 1.3-3, 1.3-5, and 1.3-7, respectively. Z factors account for partial loss
of toughness and the possibility that some stable crack growth may occur before failure by net-
section plastic collapse.
The case labeled "cast Z factor" is presented for the IPIRG 1.3-7 experiment. This artificially
aged CF8M cast stainless steel has a delta ferrite level (20%) at the upper limit of the allowable
ductile behavior range [7]. For this case, the Z factor corresponding to an austenitic stainless
steel S A W (Z = 1.46) was used to reflect reduced fracture resistance. Results are presented in
Table 6.
D P F A D Method
An entirely different method of calculating the instability stresses (I'm + Pb) is the DPFAD
method [6,8]. Here, Po is the instability bending stress obtained from the instability point on
the DPFAD curve. The plastic collapse equations are not used; instead, an elastic-plastic insta-
bility analysis is performed using a fitted base metal true-stress-versus-true-strain curve and a
fitted Jm-Aa curve. Here, Jm is the modified J parameter [9]. These material characteristics are
used to create a relationship between flaw-driving force and plasticity that, when plotted, pro-
vides an evaluation curve (the DPFAD curve). Regions of flaw stability and instability are
delineated by this curve. The DPFAD method uses no Z or safety factors or tearing modulus,
but does require EPRI/GE J-estimation scheme solutions [8,10,11].
For the DPFAD method, the functional form for the Ramberg-Osgood type [12] true stress-
true strain fit is
(~Ey) = ([~][~y) -}- Ol.(tr/(Ty) n
where Ey is the yield strain corresponding to the yield stress try and a and n are the work-
hardening constants. The fit constants at 288~ are given in Table 7 for the five test sections
using Battelle data [5,13]. The power law form for the fracture resistance data is
J m ~-" c(Aa)"
where the flaw extension is ~Aa and the fit constants c and m at 288~ are also given in Table
7 using Battelle CT data [5,13]. For the weld cases, the base metal stress-strain data and the
weld metal Jm-Aa data are used. Actual pipe and flaw dimensions are used. The FLET pipe
flaw instability program [8] is used for DPFAD analysis of a part-through-wall flaw as shown
in Fig. 4a. The DPFAD method uses applied J solutions for combined axial and bending
stresses.
Use of the DPFAD procedure assumes (1) J-controlled stable flaw growth, (2) deformation
plasticity, (3) power-law-type fits for stress-strain and J-Aa (see Table 7), and (4) ductile tearing
or plastic collapse failure modes.
Summary o f Calculations and Findings

The limit load calculations (without the use of a safety factor) and the DPFAD calculations
are summarized below. All experimental bending moments were obtained from exterior strain
gages straddling the degraded section. For the IPIRG 1.3-2 ferritic base metal, the best estimate
instability stresses are 163 MPa and 205 MPa as shown in Table 6. The experimental instability
stress is 166 MPa. The DPFAD instability stress is about 23% higher than the peak experimental
stress. The limit load approach based on a Z factor, using actual material properties, gives
accurate results.
TABLE 7--Fit constants for DPFAD instability calculations.
Stress-Strain~ J - Aab
Test Yield
Section Specimen Stress, Specimen
Experiment Steel Number MPa et n Number J/, k J ] m 2 c m
1.3-2 Ferriticbase F29-6 234 1.86 4.91 F29-13 91.9 3 190 0.247
1.3-4 Ferritic weld F29-6 234 1.86 4.91 F29W-12 82.2 3 370 0.356
1.3-3 Austenitic base A8-105 200 1.17 12.6 DP2-A8-43 623 31 500 0.451
1.3-5 Austenitic weld A8-105 200 1.17 12.6 A8W-ll0 55.1 6560 0.504
1.3-7 Austenitic cast A40-106 201 1.55 4.67 A40-3 87.7 7 990 0.494
base
a Ramberg-Osgood fit constants et and n determined to about 1% strain using a least-square fit for
--288~ data.
b Power law fit constants determined to CT flaw extension of about 5 mm using a least-square fit for
-280~ data.
NICKELL AND QUINONESON FRACTUREMODE EVALUATION 661
a : b)
FIG. 4---IPIRG 1.3 flaw geometry. (a) Constant depth representation. (b) Actual.
For the IPIRG 1.3-2 experiment, the flow stress of the ferritic steel test section decreases
20% between a strain rate of 2 x 10 -4 s-1 and 10 s-1 accounting for some of the discrepancies
between experiment and the DPFAD calculations because quasistatic (2 x 10 -4 s -~) data are
used. Also, there is a marked decrease in fracture resistance with strain rate (dynamic strain
aging). A DPFAD caiculation using dynamic Jm-Aa data at a rate of 420 kJ/m2/s gave a (P,,
+ Pb) value of 182 MPa, which is closer than the quasistatic DPFAD calculation to the exper-
imental peak stress value of 166 MPa (see Table 6).
For the IPIRG 1.3-4 ferritic weld metal, the best estimate instability stresses are 198 and 201
MPa in Table 6. Both the baseline case and the DPFAD solution give an instability stress value
less than the peak experimental stress 242 MPa.
For the IPIRG 1.3-3 austenitic stainless steel base metal, the best estimate instability stresses
are 239 and 231 MPa in Table 6. The baseline and DPFAD case stresses are 25 to 30% higher
than the peak experimental stress of 185 MPa. Even if the (Pro + So) values are shifted down-
ward by the amount of the peak thermal expansion stress (for example, 27 MPa), the calculated
(baseline) stresses are still larger than the experimental stresses. If a seismic safety factor of
1.39 is used in limit load calculations [13], the predicted instability stress is lower than the
experimental instability stress. This safety factor is a means of adding additional margin to the
net-section plastic collapse approach to account for effects such as dynamic loading.
For the IPIRG 1.3-5 austenitic stainless steel weld metal, the best estimate instability stresses
are 204 and 208 MPa in Table 6. The baseline and DPFAD solutions are within 3% of the
peak experimental stress of 205 MPa.
For the IPIRG 1.3-7 aged-cast austenitic stainless steel, the best estimate instability stresses
in Table 6 are 333 and 227 MPa. If a safety factor of 1.39 is used in limit load calculations
[13], the predicted instability stress is lower than the experimental stress. When a Z factor of
1.46 corresponding to a SAW flux weld [7] (and no safety factor) is applied, the limit load
instability stress is 228 MPa. The DPFAD instability stress is consistent with this assumed Z
factor. With the assumed Z factor, the calculated instability stress is less than the peak exper-
imental stress of 250 MPa.
Cyclic Fatigue
To estimate the cyclic growth before wail penetration for the IPIRG 1.3 experiments, fatigue
calculations were performed.
The initial shape for the cyclic flaw growth calculations is taken to be a circumferential,
constant-depth, surface flaw as shown in Fig. 4a. Actual flaw shapes (see Fig. 4b) lack the
square corners. The average flaw depth is used, and circumferential growth is ignored. (Only
the IPIRG 1.3-2 experiment showed signs of prepenetration circumferential growth.) If the
maximum flaw depth is used, the conclusions and trends is this study remain unchanged.
Cyclic flaw growth is a function of the difference in the minimum and the maximum stress
intensity factors that depend on the axial and bending stresses. For the IPIRG 1.3 experiments,
the pressure-induced axial stress is fairly constant at 48 MPa, whereas the bending stress oscil-
lates at ever-increasing amplitudes until penetration. The maximum thermal expansion stress
of 27 MPa is included in the total bending stress. The total bending stress becomes more
negative with time as a result of the actuator displacement function (see Table 2). As a con-
sequence, the R ratio (Kmi,/Kmax) becomes more negative with time [13].
The fatigue growth rate is assumed to be represented by the simple relation
daldn = Co(AK)"
where upper-bound values for Co and n are found for specified steels, environmental conditions,
and R ratios in Ref 14. The R ratio is related to crack closure and other effects. Upper-bound
cyclic flaw growth rate constants are summarized in Table 8 for nonpositive R ratios. Because
the cyclic rate is high, the AK value is high, and the IPIRG 1.3 experiments are of short duration,
corrosion-related effects (caused by a water environment) are relatively small, and the air
environment data are more appropriate. Therefore, all cyclic flaw growth calculations described
here used air environment growth data.
Reference 14 gives some guidance on what flaw growth constants are to be used for aged-
cast steel and the austenitic or ferritic weld metal. For the cyclic flaw growth calculations
performed here, the upper-bound austenitic and ferritic base metal air growth constants are
used for austenitic and ferritic welds, respectively. For the aged-cast test section, the austenitic
wrought base metal air growth constants are used.
For austenitic stainless steel welds in an air environment, the available weld growth rate data
are within the scatter of the wrought base metal growth rate data [15]. The upper-bound growth
rate data [14] are usually conservative (overpredict growth) for both the austenitic wrought
base and weld cases. For unaged-cast austenitic stainless steel, the air rate depends on the AK
level, with higher growth rates for higher AK values. For cast steel, artificially aged for 7500
h at 400~ aging has little effect on the air growth rate at AK values more than 38 MPa'm ~'2,
and, for lower AK values, the aged growth rate is up to 2.5 times more than the unaged growth
rate [16]. Nevertheless, both the unaged- and the aged-cast growth rates are less than the upper-
bound growth rate [14]. For instance, the aged- and unaged-cast steel growth rates are from
10 to 30 times less than the upper-bound [14] growth rate for wrought base metal at AK of 40
MPa.m ~2.
For ferritic weld metal in an air environment, the weld metal growth data are less than or
about equal to the ferritic base metal growth data [17]. Again, the growth rate depends on the
AK level with differences being smaller at higher AK values [17]. The upper-bound air growth
data in Ref 14 are usually conservative for both the base metal and weldS.
TABLE 8--Cyclic flaw growth constants for ferritic and austenitic stainless steels.
Steel Environment CO n
Ferritic air 1.99 X 10 -~~ 3.07
Austenitic air 1.84 • 10-l~ 3.30
a For zero and negative R-ratios; for other R-ratios, see ASME Code Section XI, Appendix A (A-4300).
b For zero and negative R-ratios; for other R-ratios, see ASME Code Section XI, Appendix C (C-3210).
Note: Units are ksi and in. and flaw growth is in./cycle (1 ksi = 6.89 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
For the cyclic flaw growth calculations, the total applied maximum and minimum stresses
were taken from experimental data using a section modulus or area corresponding to the test
section equivalent wall thickness te based on limit load equations [18]. For cycles past pene-
tration, the last available experimental stress extrema were used in all subsequent cycles in the
flaw growth calculations. Also, damped elastic finite-element-calculatedmaximum and mini-
mum stresses (again with a section modulus corresponding to the test section equivalent wall
thickness, te) were used in a separate set of fatigue crack growth calculations using the DA/
DN program [13,19].
The estimated number of cycles for wall penetration is given in Table 9. For ferritic steel
test sections, the cycles ranged from 69 to 208. Also recorded in Table 9 in parentheses and
brackets are the calculated number of cycles to grow halfway (radially) and one quarter of the
distance through the original ligament, respectively.
For the three austenitic stainless steels, the calculated number of cycles for penetration ranged
from 20 to 41. Because the actuator displacement function was essentially the same for all
three experiments (see Table 2), differences in Table 9 are due to slightly different initial flaw
sizes, pipe dimensions, and bending stresses. The weld and cast steel test sections can also have
lower flaw growth rates than the wrought base metal case; however, the same growth rate was
used for all three austenitic fatigue calculations. For a water environment, the growth rate would
be more (for example, for the IPIRG 1.3-3 experiment, the calculated number of penetration
cycles are 13 instead of 20 as in an air environment); however, the air growth rates are appro-
priate as previously cited.
TABLE 9--Cyclic flaw growth cycles for IPIRG 1.3 wall penetration.
Number of Cycles for Wall Penetration
Calculate&
Air Environment Air Environment

Experiment Test Section (Experimental (ABAQUS
Number Steel Experiment Stresses) Stresses)
1.3-2 Ferritic base 3 208 178

(90)b (77)b
[146]c [126]c
1.3-4 Ferritic weld 28 78 69
(51)b (56)b
[31]c [43]c
1.3-3 d Austenitic base 9 20 20
(16)~ (17)~
[12]c [13]c
1.3-5d Austenitic weld 10 33 See 1.3-3 case
(27)b
[18]~
1.3-7d Austenitic cast 10 41 See 1.3-3 case
base (34)b
[25y
a All calculated cases include static pressure/heatup-induced stresses. ASME Code Section XI, Appen-
diced C (C-3210 austenitic) and H (H-3210 ferritic), and Section XI, Appendix A (A-4300 ferritic), are
used in flaw growth calculations.
b Values in parentheses represent the number of cycles for radial growth through 50% of original
ligament.
c Values in brackets represent the number of cycles for radial growth through 25% of original ligament.
Actuator displacement similar for all austenitic test sections.
Experimental cycles at penetration are also presented in Table 9. The number of cycles varied
from 3 to 28. The flaw growth sensitivity study shown in Table 9 suggests that low-cycle flaw
growth alone cannot explain the penetration of the flaw through the wall at the times observed
in the IPIRG 1.3 experiments. In all cases, the calculated number of cycles for wall penetration
varies from 2 to more than 70 times the actual experimental number of penetration cycles.
Cyclic Flaw Growth Effects on Instability

To assess the effects of radial flaw growth on flaw stability, the modified limit load calcu-
lations (without a safety factor) were rerun, accounting for any prepenetration flaw growth.
The flaw depths were taken as the initial average flaw depth plus the calculated radial growth
occurring during the experimental number of cycles before penetration. Use of the maximum
flaw depth instead of the average flaw depth does not change the conclusions or trends discussed
below. The experimental number of cycles before penetration are given in Table 9. The effect
of radial growth is to reduce the best estimate instability stress (Pm + So) by 3 to 14 MPa from
the case without flaw growth as shown in Table 10. The previously obtained conclusions are
unchanged by accounting for flaw growth.
Ratchetting Effects
Another set of limits [13,20] protects against cross-sectional collapse. The shakedown cri-
terion for the plastic ratchetting failure mode occurs when the calculated (ASME Code Eq 9
[21]) stress is greater than twice the yield stress 2 S : The Eq 9 stress is essentially the sum of
the axial and bending stresses. Four out of five of the IPIRG 1.3 experiments exceed the 2Sy
limit before penetration when the flawed section properties, corresponding to te, are used for
damped, elastic calculations as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The IPIRG 1.3-2, short-duration ferritic
base metal experiment did not exceed the 2Sy limit before wall penetration [13].
TABLE lO---Comparison of lP1RG 1.3 peak degraded section stresses and modified limit load with and
without flaw growth.
Instability Stress (Pro + Pb), MPa

Experiment Test Section Capability Baseline Case Baseline Case
Number Steel (Experiment) a No Growth With Growth
1.3-2 Ferritic base 166 163 163
1.3-4 Ferritic weld 242 198 189
1.3-3 Austenitic base 185 239 225
1.3-5 Austenitic weld 205 204 196
1.3-7 Austenitic cast base 250 333 327
Maximum prepenetration stress (Pro + Pb) assuming undegraded section modulus and weld crown (if
any). Axial pressure-induced stress Pm is 48 MPa.
Notes:
Baseline Case. Includes weld crown dimensions (if any), actual flaw stress 0.5 (cry + cr,), and actual
pipe dimensions. The average flaw depth is used. ASME Code Z factor is from Table H-6310-2 for ferritic
steels and C-3320 for austenitic stainless steels. Instability stress formulas are based on net-section plastic
collapse. Axial pressure-induced stress Pm is 48 MPa. The safety factor (SF) is unity.
Calculations with radial flaw growth include a flaw depth corresponding to the initial average flaw depth
plus calculated growth (using experimental stresses and air environment) for however many experimental
cycles (see Table 9) preceded penetration.
8O
IPIRG 1 . 3 - 4 0.5% ~-
ABAQUS /
v.'7" Damped Elastic
9~ 6o
Flawed// 5%
co 400
0..1~
c~.~
fz~
0
rQ).~ 20- -
0.00
..................... i
t ii i t l l l l l l l l , l , l , l
2.00
Time (see)
i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4.00 6.00
o
8.00
FIG. 5--ABAQUS peak dynamic Eq 9 stress at test section for IP1RG 1.3-4flawed and unflawed
cases.
Fractography Results
Fractographic examinations were performed by Battelle [4,5], ENEA [22], and KKL 3 for
IPIRG 1.3 test sections. Both the IPIRG 1.3-2 and 1.3-4 ferritic experiments showed out-of-
plane flaw growth. Arrest/reinitiation lines (somewhat analogous to beach marks), after pene-
tration, for the IPIRG 1.3-2 experiment are shown in Figs. 7a and 8. About 89 mm of prepen-
etration circumferential growth occurred at each flaw tip. After penetration, about eight arrest/
reinitiation lines corresponding to circumferential growth are evident with a maximum spacing
of 79 mm. Several cycles of growth are also evident for the IPIRG 1.3-4 experiment as shown
in Figs. 7b and 9. The distinct arrest/reinitiation lines for the IPIRG 1.3-3 experiment are shown
in Figs. 7c and 10. These lines show fair agreement with the Battelle electric potential flaw
growth data [5]. Prepenetration radial fatigue flaw growth is negligible. The distinct lines for
the IPIRG 1.3-5 experiment are shown in Figs. 7d and 11. For the IPIRG 1.3-7 experiment,
the remaining ligament at the instant of pipe severance was only about 5% of the circumference
(Fig. 12). Prepenetration radial flaw growth was negligible, and, after penetration, about eight
to nine lines are visible. Examination of the CF8M test section showed the presence of needle-
shaped silicon-aluminum inclusions and some brittle facets.
Conclusions
The first phase of the IPIRG degraded piping experimental program has been completed.
For the IPIRG program, Battelle carded out a series of high-energy, dynamic experiments on
large-scale piping systems (IPIRG 1.3) with degraded cross sections. These five experiments
examined the effects of increasing-amplitude cyclic (strong seismic-like motion) loading on
406-mm-diameter piping system expansion loop containing a flawed cross section. Each of the
five tests involved a different degraded section material--austenitic stainless or ferritic wrought
3 R. Wanner, Kemkraftwerk Leibstadt AG, Liebstadt, Switzerland, personal conversation with D. Qui-
fiones, 9 Nov. 1992.
666 FRACTUREMECHANICS: "I3NENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
80
IPIRG 1 . 3 - 3
ABAQUS
Damped Elastic 7z
400
Flawed~ ~
0"
9, w ~ 40'
~ "
~ e d
i~! ;20"
~Leak
, , , , , , , , , l l l , , , , , , , t , , , , , , , , ,
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Time (sec)
FIG. 6--ABAQUS peak dynamic Eq 9 stress at test section for IPIRG 1.3-3 flawed and unflawed
cases.
base metal, austenitic stainless or ferritic weld metal, or thermally aged cast austenitic stainless
base metal. With the exception of the degraded section, all other portions of the expansion loop
system were reused; critical elements of the expansion loop were fabricated from high-strength
steels and pipe schedules.
Before summarizing the EPRI-sponsored fracture evaluations, some general observations
about the IPIRG 1.3 Battelle experiments and their applicability to PWR piping conditions are
in order. First, for all five experiments, the large, part-through-wall flaws grew radially until
penetration and then grew circumferentially. Some evidence of prepenetration circumferential
growth exists for the ferritic base metal experiment. All test sections leaked before the end of
the experiments, which occurred 2 to 5 s after penetration. However, two of the five test sections
experienced full cross-sectional severance, one of which "whipped" the adjacent piping. For
these two cases, failure at the test section was not "instantaneous" but occurred over a period
of several seconds and after several load reversals. For the driving point actuator displacement
frequency of about 4 Hz and various amplitudes, the flaw penetrated the wall in from 0.5 to 7
s (3 to about 28 cycles) depending on the experiment.
In summary, the major conclusions of the fracture evaluations for the IPIRG 1.3 experiments
are"
9 Low-cycle fatigue before wall penetration is a secondary effect, with the dominant failure
mechanism being another flaw extension process such as ductile tearing and subsequent
flaw instability.
9 Limit load calculations overestimate the failure stress for the aged-cast stainless steel
unless a Z factor corresponding to a SAW flux weld is used.
9 All calculations examined overestimate the failure stress by 25 to 30% for the austenitic
base metal experiments, indicating that this test requires further examination.
9 Limit load calculations, with a seismic safety factor for the austenitic base and cast metal
experiments conservatively estimate the failure stress.
9 Flaws of the size used in the IPIRG 1.3 experiments would not be allowed in continued
plant operation using the ASME Section XI inservice evaluation procedures.
a)
Note: Numbers represent cycles since p e n e t r a t i o n
b)
saw c u t ~
pre-penetration c)
growth
5
13 ii 9 8 7 6
46 n
d)
4 , 5
FIG. 7--Fracture surface sketches for (a) IPIRG 1.3-2 ferritic base metal, (b) IPIRG 1.3-4 ferritic
weld metal, (c) IPIRG 1.3-3 austenitic base metal, and (d) IPIRG 1.3-5 austenitic weld metal [5].
FIG. 8--Fracture surface from IPIRG 1.3-2 ferritic base metal experiment at one flaw tip (initial
wall thickness 25. 7 mm). (Photo provided by Battelle.)
FIG. 9--Fracture surface from IPIRG 1.3-4 ferritic weld metal experiment at one flaw tip (initial
wall thickness 28.1 mm). Photo provided by Battelle.
NICKELL AND QUII~IONESON FRACTUREMODE EVALUATION 669
FIG. l(~-Fracture surface from IPIRG 1.3-3 austenitic base metal experiment at the end of the
initial notch near one flaw tip (initial wall thickness 25.9 ram). Photo provided by Battelle.
FIG. 11 Fracture surface from IPIRG 1.3-5 austenitic weld metal experiment at a location near
the center of the initially unflawed ligament (initial wall thickness 26.2 mm). Photo provided by
Battelle.
FIG. 12--Fracture surface from IPIRG 1.3-7 aged-cast austenitic steel (initial wall thickness 26.4
mm). The dimension A is the remaining ligament before severance. Photo provided by Battelle.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The authors thank
the Battelle staff for providing test results and fracture photographs.
References
[1] Tagart, S. W., Tang, Y. K., Guzy, D. J., et al., Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 123, 1990,
pp. 373-385.
[2] Park, Y. J., Curreri, J. R., and Hofmayer, C. H., NUREG/CR-5585, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, 1991.
[3] Merz, K. L. and Tang, Y. K., "Seismic and Dynamic Reliability of Eroded and Corroded Piping
Components," in Proceedings of the Third Symposium, Current Issues Related to Nuclear Power
Plant Structures, Equipment and Piping, Orlando, FL, Dec. 1990, pp. VIII-3-1 to 3-14.
[4] Schmidt, R. A., Wilkowski, G. M., and Mayfield, M. E., "The International Piping Integrity Research
Group (IPIRG) Program: An Overview," Transactions of the 11th SMiRT, Vol. G2, Aug. 1991, pp.
177-188.
[5] Scott, P., Olson, R., Wilkowski, G. M., et al., Subtask 1.3 Final Report, Crack Stability in a Rep-
resentative Piping System Under Combined Inertial and Seismic/Dynamic Displacement-Controlled
Stresses, Document 91-2, Battelle Columbus Division, Columbus, OH, April 1991.
[6] Bloom, J. M and Malik, S. N., Procedure for the Assessment of the Integrity of Nuclear Pressure
Vessels and Piping Containing Defects, Report NP-2431, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA, June 1982.
[7] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Subsection IWB-3600, ASME, New York,
1989.
[8] Okamoto, A. and Norris, D. M., FLET: Pipe Crack Instability Program, Report NP-6717-CCML,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Feb. 1987.
[9] Ernst, H. A., "Material Resistance and Instability beyond J Controlled Crack Growth," presented
at the Second International Symposium on Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics, Philadelphia, Oct.
1981.
[10] Kumar, V. and German, M. D., Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of Through- Wall and Surface Flaws
in Cylinders, Report NP-5596, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Jan. 1988.
[11 ] Zahoor, A., Ductile Fracture Handbook, Vol. 2, Report NP-6301D, Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, CA, Dec. 1990.
[12] Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W. P., "Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters,"
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NACA Technical Note 902, Washington, DC, July
1943.
[13] Nickell, R. E., Quifiones, D. F., and Gilman, J., Evaluation of Flawed Piping Under Dynamic Load-
ing, Report TR-100424 Electric Power Research Institute, Pain Alto, CA, Oct. 1992.
[14] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Appendices A and C, ASME, New York, 1989.
[15] James, L. A. and Jones, D. P., "Fatigue-Crack Correlations for AUsteniticStainless Steels in Air,"
ASME PVP--Vol. 99, ASME, New York, Nov. 1985.
[16] Slama, G., Petrequin, P., and Mager, T., "Effect of Aging on Mechanical Properties of Austenitic
Stainless Steel Castings and Welds," presented at 7th SMiRT Post Conference No. 6, Monterey,
CA, Aug. 1983.
[17] Bamford, W. H., Liaw, P. K., and Eason, E. D., "A Review of Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth
Behavior for Pressure Vessel Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments," ASME PVP-195,
ASME, New York, June 1990.
[18] Quifiones, D. F., Nickell, R. E., and Norris, D. M., ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Vol. 112, 1990, pp. 204-212.
[19] Quifiones,D. F., Server, W. L., and Beaudoin, B. L., DA/DN: A Computer Program for Pipe Fatigue
Crack Growth, Report NP-5720, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, April 1988.
[20] Nickell, R. E., Quifiones, D. F., and Gilman, J., "Evaluation of Flawed Piping Under Dynamic
Loading," Transactions of the llth SMiRT, Vol. G25/1, Tokyo, Aug. 1991, pp. 237-242.
[21 ] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsection NB-3600, ASME, New York, 1989.
[22] Maricchiolo, C., "IPIRG--Fracture Surface Examination," Ente Nazionace Energie Alternative,
Rome, handout at the International Piping Integrity Research Group Meeting, Columbus, OH, May
1991.
Shih-Jung Chang 1
Fracture Capacity of High Flux Isotope

Reactor (HFIR) Vessel with Random Crack
Size and Toughness
REFERENCE: Chang, S.-J., "Fracture Capacity of High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) Ves-
sel with Random Crack Size and Toughness," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume,
ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 672~687.
ABSTRACT: The probability of fracture versus a range of applied hoop stresses along the high
flux isotope reactor (HFIR) vessel is obtained as an estimate of its fracture capacity. Both the
crack size and the fracture toughness are assumed to be random variables and subject to assumed
distribution functions. Possible hoop stress is based on the numerical solution of the vessel
response by applying a point pressure-pulse at the center of the fluid volume within the vessel.
Both the fluid-structure interaction and radiation embrittlement are taken into consideration.
Elastic fracture mechanics is used throughout the analysis. The probability function of fracture
for a single crack due to either a variable crack depth or a variable toughness is derived. Both
the variable crack size and the variable toughness are assumed to follow known distributions.
The probability of vessel fracture with a multiple number of cracks is then obtained as a function
of the applied hoop stress. The probability of fracture function is, then, extended to include
different levels of confidence and variability. It, therefore, enables one to estimate the high
confidence and low probability fracture capacity of the reactor vessel under a range of accident
loading conditions.
KEYWORDS. fracture toughness, probability, radiation, embrittlement, fracture mechanics
The high flux isotope reactor (HFIR) pressure vessel steel embrittlement condition was eval-
uated extensively in an earlier study by Cheverton et al. [1]. The suitability of the reactor to
stay in operation was assessed. Their calculation and analysis were based on static loading
conditions. The probability of fracture was also studied by Cheverton and Ball [2] by applying
the Monte Carlo procedure.
Preliminary analyses were made in earlier papers [3,4] to show the stress distribution on the
vessel under internal explosive pulses of hypothetical accidents. The effect of fluid-structure
interaction and radiation embrittlement were both considered. The pressure pulse was applied
at the center of the fluid volume enclosed within the vessel to simulate an accident. The mag-
nitudes of the accident pulses were estimated in the recent H F I R Safety Analysis Report in
which various accident scenarios were discussed. In earlier calculations [3,4 ], a range of pulses
were used to obtain a series of stress distributions to estimate the possible magnitude of the
pulse that can be contained by the vessel. The vessel fracture was analyzed by linear fracture
mechanics. This paper does not attempt to show the extensive numerical results. It is presented
here to show the general stress response at different regions of the vessel. The problem is elastic
and, therefore, the solution can be scaled to various proportions. Three points along the vessel
1 Research staff, Research Reactors Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, MS 6399, PO Box 2008,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831.
672
CHANG ON HFIR VESSEL FRACTURE CAPACITY 673
wall are examined: the vessel wall next to the lid, the horizontal section next to the beam tubes
and the end of the main vessel wall (comer).
The main purpose of this paper is to obtain the probability of fracture for HFIR vessel by
applying the well-established method in seismic analysis [5]. This method has been applied as
a general practice to calculate the conditional probability for the seismic failure of the structural
components. Here, the probability of fracture for a single crack is carried out either for a variable
crack depth or for a variable toughness. The variable crack size or depth is based on the Marshall
distribution function [6]. The variable toughness is based on the analyses by Landes et al.
[7,8] and Wallin [9]. The weakest link hypothesis is applied to obtain the probability of fracture
for the pressure vessel with a number of cracks. Then, the probability of fracture is extended
to include the effects of different confidence levels and variabilities similar to the fragility
calculation in seismic analysis [5]. It therefore enables one to estimate the high confidence
(95%) and low probability (5%) fracture capacity of the structure under accident loading con-
ditions. This numerical value is often used as a measure on the fracture resistance capacity of
the structure.
Calculation and Analysis

Input for the Finite Element Calculation
The model is assumed to be filled with water and surrounded by the pool. The effect of fluid-
structure interaction is considered in the numerical results. Finite element code ADINA was
used to obtain the numerical results. The fluid elements are used to model both the fluid filled
in the vessel and the surrounding fluid in the pool. A total of 565 elements with 1687 nodes
are generated in the model. Material constants for A212 Class B steel are assumed to be:
Young's modulus = 29 X 106 psi (200 GPa), Poisson's ratio = 0.3, and specific weight =
0.284 lb/in. 3 (7860 kg/m3).
A pulse of 1 ksi (6.9 MPa) with duration of 1 ms (millisecond) is used in the elastic calcu-
lations. The problem is linear. Therefore, the elastic calculation represents a range of results
which are linearly proportional. The boundary condition used in the calculation is that the lower
side of the bottom element is constrained to move only along the horizontal direction during
and after the pulse is applied to the inner surface of the fluid hole.
Numerical Results
The numerical results for the stress components are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. At the vessel
wall next to the lid, the tensile stress has the largest value among all the stress components.
The curves that represent the numerical solution for the stress waves at the lid can be recognized
to be different than the components at either the midplane or the comer because the time of
wave arrival at the lid is longer. Also at the lid, the magnitude for the axial tensile stress is
larger than that for the hoop stress. At midplane or comer, the reverse is true.
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the maximum tensile stress at the lid is almost twice as large as
the maximum hoop stress in the midsection, but its wave arrival time is about twice as long as
the arrival time at midsection. Also, the fracture toughness at the lid is approximately 70
ksiVq-~. (77 MPaX/-m) and at midsection is approximately 50 ksi.in? ~ (55 MPa.m ~/2) at top of
beam tube after ten effective full-power years (EFPYs) of radiation embrittlement.
The midsection has smaller stress but the stress wave arrival is earlier, and the material is
more damaged by radiation. There is a good chance that the midsection may be broken by
smaller stress before the stress buildup at the region close to the lid at a later time. Furthermore,
the possible crack size and temperature may also determine the possible fracture. All these
factors need to be considered when evaluating the vessel sections for potential fracture.
I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
30
Tensile and Hoop Stresses

With Fluid Interaction
9~ " With and Without P001 j/~ 150
20 Duration = 1 ms ~
cn
~or)
Pulse = 1 ksi (6.895 UPa) /7 ,,u \
ADINAEl-Plastic0rElastic/ ~ (0
0o n
o.. :;
o 10
91- 50
.--_=
r/J
= 0
I--
--with pool \~'/ ~-J
---without pool
corner -50
-10 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I ....
0 1 2 3 4
Time (ms)
FIG. l ~ H o o p stress and tensile stress on the vessel wall as functions of time. The plots show
stress components at regions next to the lid and at the end of the main vessel. The applied pressure
is I ksi (6.9 MPa) with 1-ms duration. The vessel material is elastic.
I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
30
Tensile and Hoop Stresses

With Fluid Interaction
tJ) With and Without Pool 150
--'r 20 Duration = 1 ms
t,,9
Pulse = 1 ksi (6.895MPa)
,= ADINA B-Plastic or Bastic
o.
CL
o
o
10
-i- m i d p l a n e ~
50
'-" 0
I-
--with pool
--without pool -50
-10 .... i .... k .... q ....
0 1 2 3 4
Time (ms)
FIG. 2--Hoop stress and tensile stress on the vessel wall as functions of time. The plots show
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all
stress components'at rightsalong
region reserved); Sat Jan 28 18:45:46
the midsection EST 2012
of the vessel. The applied pressure is 1 ksi (6.9
Downloaded/printed
MPa) with 1-ms byduration. The vessel material is elastic.
CHANG ON HFIR VESSEL FRACTURECAPACITY 675
Suppose that the midsection is broken before the lid because of the shorter wave arrival time
and the weaker fracture toughness. The breaking of the midsection will divert and diffuse the
energy into the pool, causing less damage to the surrounding structures and probably preventing
breaking of the lid. The embrittled vessel in the midsection may serve as a safety device that
traps or limits the total capability of destruction resulting from a possible accident.
The effect of the pool has been considered in the calculations. The analyses indicate that at
times less than 4 ms the effect of the pool is negligible. It is not clear whether the pressure
reflected from the edge of the pool at later time may impose significant pressure on the vessel
wall.
Fracture Analysis
In the present calculation, the American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) lower
bound fracture toughness Kz, for the vessel steel is used [10,11]. The material toughness curves
are shown in Fig. 3. The surface crack is assumed to have a crack depth to half crack length
ratio of 1/6. Both the crack depth and the toughness of the vessel steel are assumed to be
random variables. Each of the random variable leads to a probability function of fracture versus
the applied hoop stress. Each probability function is derived by using the following crack
solution. The probability of fracture for the structure involving more than one cracks is obtained
through the weakest-link approach.
The variability of the crack depth is based on the Marshall crack size distribution [6] and
the variability as a result of the uncertainty of the toughness value is based on the analysis by
Landes et al. [7,8] and by Wallin [9]. For either case, the allowable hoop stress of the HFIR
vessel after ten EFPYs after 1986 is obtained.
200
200
150
150 ~"
_o 100
100 ~--"
50 50
i i i I i i i i F J i i i I i i t i 0
-200 -100 0 100 200

T-RT (DegF)
NDT
FIG. 3~ASME BPV Code recommended toughness K~ and Klc versus temperature curves.
Single Longitudinal Surface Crack Problem

The problem of a longitudinal surface crack along a cylinder has been studied by Raju and
Newman [12]. The stress intensity factor for the partial through surface crack along the inner
surface of the cylinder was numerically calculated. For a range of elliptic cracks, the numerical
values were tabulated in the paper. These tabulated values are replotted in Fig. 4, and an
extrapolation is made for the case with the aspect ratio equal to 1/6. In the figure, the notation
Go represents a coefficient that appears in the following stress intensity expression
? a ~ Go
K I = St (1)
where S, is the applied hoop stress and Q is defined by

(a) '6'
Q = 1 + 1.464 • = 1.076 (2)
In the above equation, a is the crack depth and c is the half crack length. For alc equal to 116,
the coefficient Go is interpolated by the following expression
Go = 0.98 + 0.55 • + 0.83 X (3)
where t is the thickness of the vessel wall and is equal to 3 in. (7.6 cm) in this analysis.
, a/c = 1/6
o a/c = 0.2
2
,a/c = 0.4 /~
o a/c = 1.0 /j
t-
O 1.6
o
o
"~
O
1.2
0.8
04~ i i i I i i r I i i i I i i i I i i i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

a/t
FIG. 4--Numerical values Go of Raju and Newman, reploned and interpolated.
Toughness Values f o r HFIR Vessel Steel

For an extended period of radiation, the toughness of the steel is degraded, and its magnitude
is reduced. Various parts of the vessel are subjected to different levels of radiation. The stress
distribution at various locations on the vessel wall is also different. Only an appropriate com-
bination of maximum stress and lowest toughness at the vessel wall gives most critical points
at which the analyses are required for possible fracture.
Toughness for ferritic steel is a function of temperature. The toughness versus temperature
curve often shows a transition temperature RTNDT beyond which the toughness value increases
rapidly and the material tends to fracture in its ductile fracture mode. Below RTNDT the material
is brittle. Ferritic steel subjected to radiation will shift RTNDT to a higher value. That means the
brittle fracture region is extended to a higher temperature range, reflecting the radiation-induced
embrittlement. Brittle fracture is often catastrophic in nature and should be avoided. This is the
basis for the HFIR original design concept against fracture: the operating temperature minus
60 is required to be equal to or greater than RTNDT at any time during the reactor operation [1,
p. 11].
The ASME Code recommends the use of the lower bound crack arrest Kin curve as the
fracture design basis, represented the code [10] and plotted in Fig. 3 with the expression
K~a = 26.78 + 1.233 X exp[0.0145 x (T - RTNDT + 160)] (4)
where the unit for temperature is degrees Fahrenheit. K~a is numerically equal to the reference
toughness KIR. The radiation-induced shift of RTNm for the A212B steel has been determined
by experiments in Oak Ridge reactor and HFIR surveillance studies. Quantitative values of the
shift in temperature per each EFPY have been determined for each material [1, p. 26].
The ASME Kxa curve is believed to be the lower bound of the crack arrest toughness KI, and
the dynamic toughness Kid and, therefore, may be used to represent the lower bound toughness
value for the material even for dynamic (pulse) loading.
Around beam tube HB-3, the vessel wall receives the highest level of neutron irradiation
that causes the vessel steel the fastest rate of embrittlement. Nozzles fabricated with A350 steel
are welded to the vessel wall of A212B steel. Nozzles directly enclose the beam tubes. A350
steel can accumulate a larger shift in RTNDT than A212B steel because A350 steel has lower
initial RTNDT value.
The radiation level around the tangential beam tube HB-3 has been recorded as the most
critical region [1, p. 26]. The radiation level along the horizontal midplane (HMP) for HB-3 is
much higher than the radiation level above the axis of the same beam tube. However, for the
present problem, the circumferential hoop stress of the vessel wall is twice as large as the axial
tensile stress [3,4]. The region above the beam tube HB-3 has a smaller dose but is subjected
to higher vessel hoop stress, assuming a possible vertical crack. The material toughness at the
top of HB-3 is more than half of the toughness at the horizontal midplane of HB-3. The most
critical region is, therefore, located at the top of HB-3.
In the vessel wall next to HB-3, numerical values of the neutron irradiation are selected [1,
p. 26] at the location 1-in. deep from the inner surface of the vessel wall. The radiation-induced
shift of RTNDT after ten EFPYs from 1986 is calculated and shown in [4]. The rate of increase
in RTNDT is denoted by SI in degrees Fahrenheit/EFPY and HFIR operating power level is 84.6
MW. Temperature at the vessel's inner surface is assumed to be 120~ The change of RTNDT
is based on the increment of RTNDT from that in 1986.
From the above information, it is shown [4] that, for ten EFPYs extension the toughness for
A212B steel may be as small as 30 ksi.inY 2 (33 MPa-m "2) along the horizontal midplane of
HB-3 and 50 ksi.inY2(55 MPa.m la) above HB-3. The A350 weld may be 32 ksi.inY2 (35
MPa.m ~/2) along the horizontal midplane and 55 ksi'in?/2 (61 MPa.m ~/2) above HB-3. The
above four cases are plotted in Figs. 5 and 6. Each curve represents the maximum allowable
hoop stress at a range of crack depths in the corresponding region.
Local Probability Function o f Fracture Due to Variable Crack Depth

The function F~(s) is defined as the probability of fracture at the hoop stress S with a pre-
scribed crack. The crack depth is a random variable. The function F~(v) will be derived in this
section.
An exponential distribution function for crack population with depth a is used here. It is
based on the recommended function in the Marshall report [6]. Thd probability of nondetection
is also chosen from the same report. These functions are plotted in Fig. 7 as f ( a ) and B(a),
respectively, according to the following expressions
f(a) = 4.1 • e x p ( - 4 . 1 a ) (5)
B(a) = 0.005 + 0.995 • e x p ( - 0 . 1 1 3 X 25.4a) (6)
In the above equations, a is crack depth in inches. The function B(a) of nondetection is chosen
here simply to indicate the method. It is subjected to change as the method of detection
advances.
cm
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

80
~'~B3 WeldAbove 500

70
.n 60
400
f.D 50
300 m
II 40 o_
O Kla = 37 \\ ~ ~
30 200
C/) 20
100
10
0 r , , I , , i q , , , I , , , I , , ~ P r r , 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

a(in)
FIG. 5--S t versus crack depth plots at different critical locations with radiation at 17.53 effective full-
power years, or year 1986.
CHANG ON HFIRVESSEL FRACTURECAPACITY 679
cm
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
80 .... I- ' ' ' i ] . . . . I .... I .... I w'~7--,
500
70 HB3 Weld Above
\Kla = 55
60
,\ -10 EFPYExtFrom17.53EFPY
400
A212B A b o ~
CO 50
',!,,". Kla = 50Weld~H~.~. ~
300 m
H 40
O
30 200
Kla
20
100
10
0 , , r I , r , r E , , r , , , F , , L I ~ , , 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

a(in)
FIG. ~ - S , versus crack depth plots at the same critical locations with radiation at ten effective full-
power years beyond 1753, or year 1986.
The probability that a crack with depth less than or equal to a that is not detected as the
reactor goes to operation is
P(a) --"
•] f(a)B (a)da
(7)
f : f(a)B (a)da
The above probability integral can be integrated to assume the expression
0.005 0.585
P(a) = 1 - e x p ( - 4 . 1 a ) • ~0.59 - e x p ( - 6 . 9 7 a ) • 0,5-----9 (8)
It is also plotted in Fig. 7. Since the function P(a) is the probability of all cracks with depths
less than or equal to a, it is, therefore, the probability of not fracture at crack depth equal to a.
The probability of fracture at crack depth a is
0.005 0.585
F~(a) = 1 - P(a) = 0.5----~• e x p ( - 4 . 1 a ) + 0.5"--'~• e x p ( - 6 . 9 7 a ) (9)
om
0 1 2
5 i
. B 4
t'~
.o f(a) crack density
o
Q. B(a) nondetection
3
A
.=_
"-" 2
t-
o
oB
", 1
4-1
.to
"o
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
crack depth a (in)
FIG. 7--Probability of crack depth distribution f(a), probability of nondetection of crack B(a), and
the probability of nondetection P(a) of crack.
A combination of Eqs 1, 2, and 3 leads to the following equation
S,V"~-~ 1
(10)
K1 ~ X [0.98 + 0.55 • (a/t) + 0.83 • (a/t)2]
Eliminating the crack depth variable from Eqs 9 and 10 gives the probability Fv(s) versus
S,(a). The function Fo(s) is plotted in Fig. 8 a s the probability of failure curve with 50%
confidence. It is the likelihood that the hoop stress will cause a local point to fracture at hoop
stress S, after the reactor has been examined for possible cracks by using method B(a). If this
curve is applied to represent the fracture probability at location above the beam tube HB-3,
then the toughness and thickness should be 50 ksi-in?/2 (55 MPa'in. m) and 3 in. (7.6 cm),
respectively, as mentioned earlier. The 50% confidence will be defined in the following section.
Variability of the Probability of Fracture

Physical problems of similar probabilistic nature are encountered frequently in seismic fra-
gility studies [4]. The failure probability function is assumed to follow a cumulative lognormal
distribution. The function F~(s) that is equal to (1 - P) shown in Fig. 8 resembles the lognormal
distribution, although the function Fv(s) has been derived through a completely different pro-
Above~MP~/m~
0.8
A~ter EFPYExtFrom17.~=PP~
.Q / ProbabilityofFjact~re
?ivenOneCr~riable CrackDepth /
o
0.6
0
95%
~
e~ 0.4
0.2
0
0
l I
3
~r-- ----~ ,
6
I
Hoop Stress St,/(~tt/Q)/Kla

, ,
9
, I
12
FIG. 8--Probability of fracture function for HFIR vessel as a result of variable crack depth with
15
one crack at ten effective full-power years beyond 17.53, or year 1986.
cedure. In this section, the probability of fracture will be analyzed by assuming the lognormal
model.
Two types of variabilities, B r and B., that are represented by the logarithmic standard devi-
ations are always associated with the seismic fragility studies. Br is the variability due to ran-
domness of the material properties such as the possible variation of crack sizes and so on, B.
is the uncertainty of the modeling.
As shown in a study by Kennedy and Ravindra [4], the probability of failure is modeled by
py= ~ [~ln (A~)+~qb '(Pc)] (11)
where 9 is the Gaussian cumulative distribution function and Pc is the probability of the
expected confidence level. In the above equation, A and A m are, respectively, the peak ground
acceleration and its median value.
In this analysis, the same model is assumed. A and A m in the seismic model are replaced by
the hoop stress S and its median value S,, and Pi is replaced by F~. The resulting curves in
nondimensionalized forms are plotted in Fig. 8. In addition to the median curve, both 95%
confidence curve and the 5% confidence curve are constructed. The 95% curve is obtained
from the median curve by multiplying the hoop stress S with a factor
f = exp(-1.65 • [3.) (12)
and the factor l/f is used to obtain the 5% confidence curve.
This multiplicative property is made possible because of the lognormal distribution. Here,
B, is assumed to be 0.5 that reflects the uncertainty of the modeling. It is noted in Eq 12 that
for an increase in B, the factorfis gradually decreased. The rate of decrease i n f slows down
rapidly as B, increases. This implies that to increase B, beyond 0.5 will not substantially
decrease the critical hoop stress of fracture. In Eq 12,fhas a value of 0.44.
The variability Br is implicitly determined in the 50% curve. From the property of a lognormal
distribution, Br is obtained by the following expression
1 5.4
13r = 1--~ In (~--.-.-.-~) = 0.49 (13)
where the nondimensional median hoop stress is 5.4, and the stress for 5% probability is 2.4.
Recall that K~a is 50 ksi.in, m and t is 3 in. The median hoop stress is 92 ksi (635 MPa) and
the 5% stress is 41 ksi (283 MPa). In practice, a median KI instead of the above lower bound
K~ should be used. The use of the above Kz, will result in some conservatism.
Figure 8 provides some useful information on the fracture capacity of the reactor vessel with
respect to the accident loading. From the high confidence (95%) curve, the low (5%) probability
of fracture (HCLPF in seismic jargon) is often used as a measure of the safety of the structure.
In the present study, it corresponds to a hoop stress of 20 ksi (138 MPa). The rupture disk
pressure for HFIR (a pressure stopper) approximately generates a hoop stress of 10.7 ksi (74
MPa). Recall that PI is the probability of fracture for one crack. It implies that even if a crack
does exist on the vessel wall, the probability of fracture at rupture disk pressure remains sub-
stantially below 5% with 95% confidence.
Probability Function of Fracture as a Result of Variable Toughness

In the earlier sections, the function F,(s) is obtained by assuming a variable crack depth but
a deterministic toughness. Here, the toughness is assumed to be a random variable but the crack
depth a deterministic quantity. A similar probability function F~(s) is derived as a local prob-
ability function of fracture. The variability B, of Fk(s) as a result of the uncertainty of the
modeling is estimated. It represents the probability of fracture with different confidence levels
that account for the uncertainty of the modeling.
The variability of the toughness has been analyzed by Landes et al. [7,8] and by Wallin
[9]. The probabilistic behavior of the toughness variability can be represented in its simplest
form by the Weibull two-parameter distribution
PI = 1 - e x p [- \Ko)(KI~m~_] (14)
where PI is the probability of fracture, K~ is the applied stress intensity, Ko is a normalization

factor, and m is an exponent describing the magnitude of the scatter. Ko is equal to the value
of K~ that stands for the probability of 0.63. The exponent m is assumed to be equal to 4.
The probability function F,(s) is obtained by eliminating KI from Eqs 10 and 14
Fk(s) = 1 -- exp [_ \ 5.48Ko ] _] (15)
where the number 5.48 is the numerical value of 1~Gox ~ in Eq 10 with crack depth
corresponding to the 50% probability by applying Eq 9. This crack depth is equal to 0.1 in.
CHANG ON HFIR VESSEL FRACTURECAPACITY 683
and t is 3 in. Equation 15 is plotted in Fig. 9 as the 50% curve. The 5 and 95% confidence
curves are plotted by using the same factor f in Eq 5. If the above curve is approximately
represented by the lognormal model, then a median value of 5.0 and a 5% value of 2.6 can be
obtained in Fig. 9. A logarithmic standard deviation Br is
1 5.0
13r = 1--.'~ In (~--.-.-.~) = 0.396 (16)
The high confidence (95%) and low probability (5%) failure capacity of the vessel as a result
of the applied hoop stress is shown in Fig. 9. It has the value of 1.2 that leads to a hoop stress
of 16.7 ksi (116 MPa) if the toughness Ko is 50 ksi.in?/2 (55 MPa'm~/2-). It can be used as a
measure of how the strength of the vessel against applied hoop stress is influenced because of
the variability of the fracture toughness.
The choice of Ko to be 50 ksi-in. ~/2 (55 MPa.m ]a) needs to be explained. The value Ko in
Eq 14 is the 0.64 probability toughness, whereas the value of 55 MPa.m ]/2 is the lower bound
toughness value. The use of the lower bound toughness value, therefore, contributes some
conservatism in the above estimation of 5% probability stress of 16.7 ksi (116 MPa).
It is known that the toughness and, therefore, the function F~(s) depends strongly on both
the temperature and the specimen size [8]. The toughness shows significant variability at duc-
tile-brittle transition region. It is of interest for the life-extension analysis HFIR because the
effect of radiation embrittlement tends to shift the toughness value comparable to that in the
transition region.
P
0.8
bai!ve
ro He
ter10EF~ ExtFrom17.53EFPY
(55MPm)
ityofFr~'ctureDuetoVariableKI(orSt) /
~nOneCrac?fMedianDepthFromiarsha~ /
/
_
LL 0.6
95%
e~ 0.4
2
0.2
~ r I , , I i i P
0 3 6 9 12 15
Hoop Stress S~(~rt/Q)/Kla(at KIo)
FIG. 9--Probability of fracture function for HFIR vessel as a result of variable toughness with
one crack at ten effective full-power years beyond 17.53, or year 1986.
Probability of Fracture with Multiple Number of Cracks

In the preceding sections, the fracture analysis is based on the one hypothetical crack either
with a variable toughness or with a variable crack depth. To estimate the fracture probability
of a structure, the analysis needs to be extended to include a multiple number of cracks. This
will be derived in the following.
The problem is probabilistic because any crack has a probability that either the crack depth
or the fracture toughness is greater than the critical value. The local probability Fv(s,xl) is in
general a function of the hoop stress S and the location xe of the crack. The probability of
fracture F(s) for a structure that contains a total of n cracks is
F(s) --- 1 - l~I [1 - Fv(s,x)] (17)

i 1
For the structure that has a constant toughness value, the fracture probability will be denoted
by F~(s). Here, only one structure is assumed. The above equation can be proved by applying
the standard weakest-link hypothesis. The probability function F(s) gives the smallest probable
value of all the possible local fracture at all the cracks. It is an extreme value statistics.
The above equation may be extended to the case of a very small number of cracks in a large
number of structures. The density of cracks is much less than 1. The probability of fracture for
a particular structure out of a total of m identical structures will be derived. The result is a
slight modification of Eq 17. If a total of n cracks exist in these m structures, then any crack
has 1/m chance to be located in the particular structure of interest. Therefore, in this case, the
probability of fracture F(s) is
For the case that the structure has a uniform fracture toughness, the above equation is reduced
to
F(s) = 1 - 1 - (19)
Since n is the number of cracks in a total of m structures, the crack density is n/m. The function
F~(s) of fracture at stress S has been defined earlier. Equations 18 and 19 are also valid if
Fv(s) is replaced by Fk(s).
To test the general formula, choose n to be 3 and m to be 5. If we further assume Fv(s) to
be 1, for convenience, then using Eq 19
61
F(s) = - - = 0.488 (20)
125
For n equal to 6 and m equal to 10, it follows that
468 559
F(s) . . . . 0.469 (21)
1 000 000
The above two different values indicate that, although the crack density n/m is identical in the
above two cases, a small number of samples will lead to different probabilities.
If n is large enough and the crack density is a constant n/m, then, by the definition of the
exponential function, Eq 19 can be approximately represented by
F(s)= 1-exp[---mn • (22)
which provides a unique value depending only on the crack density. Furthermore, if the crack
density is very small, we obtain the result that F(s) is the density multiplied by Fv(s)
n
F(s) = -- X Fv(s) (23)
m
For the nonuniform fracture probability function, Eq 22 can be extended to the following
expression
F(s) = 1 - exp --- •

m i=1
F~(s,x~) ] (24)
where both the toughness and Fv(s,x) depend on the location of the crack.
Likelihood of Structure Fracture

The local probability function that the structure will fracture at stress S for random crack
depth is the function Fv(s). The probability of fracture for the structure is F(s) that is equal to
Fv(s) multiplied by the crack density. An estimate of the crack density was made by Cheverton
et al. [1, p. 241] to be 0.007 cracks/ft2, and an assumption was made that an area of 1 ft 2 of
vessel surface above HB-3 is the required total area under consideration. The probability of
failure curve with the crack density of 0.007 cracks/ft2 can be plotted by multiplying 0.007 to
the curves in Fig. 8. These curves will be the total probability of fracture curves for the structure.
For the case of random fracture toughness with a 50% chance or median crack depth, a
similar probability of fracture function Fk(s) has been derived by using a given toughness
distribution function. The total probability can be obtained by multiplying the curves in Fig. 9
by 0.007, similar to that shown in the preceding paragraph. This probability is useful for the
remaining life calculation of the HFIR vessel because the radiation tends to shift the toughness
close to the ductile-brittle transition (DBT) region.
If a probability function can be obtained to describe the frequency of the occurrence of the
accident, then the probability of fracture shown in Figs. 8 and 9 for the accident loading needs
to be modified or multiplied by this probability event. The probability of fracture for the struc-
ture is derived as the product of crack density and the probability of failure for one crack,
provided that the density is small. The probability calculation for the crack density of an
intermediate magnitude can be obtained readily from a finite probability formula.
Summary of Results and Conclusions

For the problem of one crack, both the probability of fracture caused by random crack depth
and that caused by random fracture toughness are obtained. These probabilities are used to
obtain the probability of fracture for the reactor vessel. For a finite number of cracks, a simple
formula is derived to calculate the probability of fracture.
The fracture toughness in the ductile-brittle transition region is known to have significant
variability. The probability analysis as a result of randomness of the toughness becomes more
important as the reactor has been operated for an extended period of time and the reactor vessel
has been subject to a period of radiation.
The random distribution of the crack depth is based on the Marshall distribution. This is the
only information available at this time. Further research to collect more information would give
a better estimate on the probability of fracture caused by random crack depth.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to R. D. Cheverton and J. G. Merkle for technical discussions and to
G. F. Flanagan and L. D. Proctor for management support.
This research was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-
840R21400. Accordingly, the U.S. government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to
publish or reproduce this contribution, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. government
purposes.
APPENDIX
The calculation in the appendix is to check Eq 7 by applying the combination method. The
probability P~ of having i cracks in the particular structure is
Pi = C7 X X
and the function F(s) is defined by
F(s) = ~ Pi • [1 - (1 - F~(s)y]
i=1
The above formula can be simplified by using the fact that
Pi = "1- = 1
i=l m
and
i=1 rn
From the above two equations, the probability of failure function F(s) shown above is reduced
to Eq7.
References
[1 ] Cheverton, R. D., Merkle, J. G., and Nanstad, R. K., "Evaluation of HHR Pressure-Vessel Integrity
Considering Radiation Embrittlement," ORNL/TM-10444, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge,
TN, 1988.
[2] Cheverton, R. D. and Ball, D. G., "OCA-P, A Deterministic and Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics
Code for Application to Pressure Vessels," NUREG/CR-3618 (ORNL-5991), Martin Marietta
Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN, 1984.
[3] Chang, S.-J., "Fracture Strength of HFIR Vessel with the Effects of Radiation Embrittlement and
Fluid-Solid Interaction," in Fluid-Structure Interaction, Transient Thermal-Hydraulics, and Struc-
tural Mechanics, C. Y. Wang, F. J. Moody, and Y. W. Shen, Eds., ASME PVP-Vol. 231, New York,
1992, pp. 31-85.
[4] Chang, S.-J., "Dynamic Strength of HFIR Vessel for Fracture," Pressure Vessel Fracture, Fatigue,
and Life Management, by S. Bhandari, P. P. Miella, and W. E. Pennell, Eds., ASME PVP-Vol. 233,
New York, 1992, pp. 75-85.
[5] Kennedy, R. P. and Ravindra, M. K., "Seismic Fragilities for Nuclear Power Plant Risk Studies,"
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 79, 1984, pp. 47-68.
[6] Marshall, W., "An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels," Second Report, United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, UK, 1982.
in Fracture Mechanics, 12th Symposium, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing and Mate-
Structural Steels," in Fracture Mechanics, 15th Symposium, ASTM STP 833, American Society for
[9] Wallin, K., "The Scatter in K~c-Results," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1984, pp. 1085-1093.
[10] ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Appendix A: "Analysis of Flaws," 1986, pp. 262-
282.
[11] ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Appendix G: "Protection Against Nonductile Fail-
ure," 1986, pp. 555-565.
[12] Raju, I. S. and Newman, J. C., Jr., "Stress Intensity Factor Influence Coefficient for Internal and
External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels," Aspects of Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessel
and Piping, ASME PVP Vol. 58, New York, 1982, pp. 35--41.
Fatigue
K. Mayrhofer, 1 F. D. Fischer, 2 and E. Parteder 3
Simulation of Fatigue Crack Growth of an

Inclined Elliptically Shaped Subsurface Crack
in Residual Stress Fields
REFERENCE: Mayrhofer, K., Fischer, F. D., and Parteder, E., "Simulation of Fatigue Crack
Growth of an Inclined Elliptically Shaped Subsurface Crack in Residual Stress Fields,"
1994, pp. 691-705.
ABSTRACT: The influence of a residual stress field on the fatigue crack growth was investigated
by a numerical simulation for an inclined elliptically shaped subsurface crack in a half space.
The necessary opening mode stress intensity factors Kt caused by the resulting stress field were
calculated by means of the singular integral equation method. The crack growth analyses were
conducted by the application of linear elastic fracture mechanics using the Pads law relationship
between K~ and da/dN.
KEYWORDS: steel cylinder, inclined elliptical subsurface crack, carbonitriding, shot-peening,

residual stresses, cyclic bending, singular integral equation method, effective stress intensity
factor, fatigue crack growth
The interaction between self-equilibrating or residual stresses and growing cracks is not very
well covered by the literature. The reason for this is that residual stresses are typically difficult
to calculate, difficult to measure, and often highly different in nominally identical parts [12 ].
In general, they are induced by one of the following five procedures [3-5 ]:
9 by shot-peening [6,7], autofrettage [8], and metallurgical surface-hardening techniques,

namely, induction or flame-hardening, carburizing, nitriding, or carbonitriding to induce
high compressive stresses in the surface layer, which are beneficial in delaying or pre-
venting crack initiation;
9 by mismatch between different parts causing so-called built-in stresses;
9 by different heat treatments during processing and construction (for example, welding
[9] and quenching [10,11]);
9 by material-handling techniques (for example, forging, annealing procedures); and
9 overloading during service.
Independent of how the residual stresses have been induced, their general effect is to com-
plicate the stress spectrum, to change the local mean stress, and to influence the capability of
i Research engineer, VOEST-ALPINE Ind. (VAI), TWW 6, P.O. Box 4, Turmstrasse 44, A-4031 Linz,
Austria.
2 Professor, Institute of Mechanics and Christian Doppler Laboratory for Micromechanics of Materials,
University for Mining and Metallurgy, Franz Josef Stral3e 18, A-8700 Leoben, Austria.
3 Research assistant, Institute of Mechanics, University for Mining and Metallurgy, Franz Josef Stra[3e
18, A-8700 Le0ben, Austria.
691
the material to withstand cyclic stresses. In particular, that part of the cyclic loading that causes
the crack to open is of importance.
Much attention has been given to residual stresses in the testing and analysis of structural
materials and components because of both the beneficial and detrimental effects. Measurements
of the amount of residual stresses and their influence on fatigue service life have been common
topics of studies in symposia and technical publications of ASTM (for example, STP 776 and
STP 1004) and other technical groups (for example, Ref 12).
In the present study, the residual stress field is taken from experimental investigations. The
specimen is simulated by a steel halfspace, having as defect an inclined elliptically shaped
subsurface crack in the initial stage. Results as presented predict that a compressive residual
stress state may remarkably suppress the crack growth. However, the residual stress state may
not prevent the crack from becoming critical.
A material flaw can take the shape of voids, inclusions, or cracks. Welds are likely locations
for material flaws. In fact, it is generally accepted that nearly all welds contain flaws, and that
the question is not whether flaws are permissible, but what flaw size is acceptable.
Most of the activities concerning defects in a failure analysis address two issues, the detect-
ability of the defect ancl the effect of the defect.
Uncertainties in defect detectability are frequently an issue in any failure analysis where
defects are suspected to play a role. Nondestructive inspection methods such as eddy currents,
ultrasonics, die penetrants, and X-rays are used to search for defects in critical parts [5]. For
determining the location, size, and shape of three-dimensional surface or subsurface cracks, the
acoustic emission source characterization [13,14] and the electric potential computer tomog-
raphy method, [15], related to the inverse boundary integral-equation method [16], are powerful
tools.
Because of the irregular nature of the estimated crack shape, specific recategorization pro-
cedures have been recommended [17,18]. Usually, they approximate the real crack by a penny-
shaped or elliptically shaped crack with the major semi-axis parallel to the neighboring body
surface [19].
Stress Intensity Factor Analysis

To perform realistic crack growth predictions, it is necessary to know the stress intensity
factor (SIF) variation along the contour of a recategorized elliptical crack with inclined
semiaxes (Fig. l). Such a procedure needs a quick SIF computation during the intermediate
stages. Here a precomputation of the SIF variation along the crack contour for a number of
different elliptical shapes, different inclination angles, and different depth locations is
performed.
The geometry considered, and as shown in Fig. 1, is defined by a plane elliptical crack l-I
placed near the surface of a semi-infinite solid. The crack plane is perpendicular to the halfspace
boundary plane. The main axes of the ellipse (a,b) need not be parallel respective orthogonally
to the halfspace boundary plane. The crack center is situated at a distance xMfrom the boundary.
It is the origin of a cartesian coordinate system, with the xo-axis normal to the boundary. The
minor semiaxis with length a is inclined to the xo-axis under a counterclockwise measured
angle ~o. The length of the major semiaxis is b.
Loading conditions are assumed to be symmetric with respect to the crack plane. The crack
faces are subjected to an arbitrary Mode I loading p(x,y), (x,y) E 1~. In this case, p(x,y) is the
total normal stress component (sum of load stress and residual stress) working on the crack
plane. The value p(x,y) is equal to the negative value of the total normal stress ~z in the
uncracked specimen as a result of the superposition principle.
Referring to Ref 20, this boundary value problem can be reduced to one governing singular
MAYRHOFER ET AL. ON FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH SIMULATION 693
Y u
\ Y
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ Xo
\
\
\
\
\
.1
\
\
\
X
X~
FIG. 1---Geometry and notation of an inclined elliptical subsurface crack.
integral equation for the unknown crack opening displacement W(xo,Yo), (xo,Yo) E 1) (see Fig.
1). It can be expressed as
W (xo,Yo) dxodyo 4"rr(1 - v)

~a~[(Xo-~o-y)2]3/2+{fW(xo'y~176176176176 p(x,y) (1)
Ix
where v is the Poisson's ratio and Ix is the shear modulus of the material. The kernel
F(xo,Yo;x,y) is regular and represents the free boundary effect (see, for example, Ref 21).
The correct behavior of the u n k n o w n function W(xo,Yo) in the vicinity of the crack front can
be represented by means of a weight function W(Xo,Yo). We write
W(xo,Yo) = W(Xo,Yo)" g(xo,Yo) = a ~v/1 - (x~/a)2 - (y~/b)2. g(xo,Yo) (2)
where x 0 = Xo cos ~bo + Yo sin ~bo, y~ = Yo cos ~bo - Xo sin ~bo.

This representation ensures W = 0 on the boundary and the physically correct vanishing in
a square-root sense [22]. The new function g(xo,Yo) represents the three-dimensional (3D)
character of the crack opening displacement and can therefore be approximated by the following
finite double-power series
NI N2
g(xo,Yo) = ~ ~ a~oY~ (3)

i=0 j=0
When Eqs 2 and 3 are inserted in Eq 1 a 2D finite-part integral of general type occurs. A
closed-form solution is available [21] and depends on the integers i, j, and some known geo-
metric parameters. By applying the collocation method [19], an inhomogeneous linear algebraic
equation system for the computation of the unknown coefficients a,j follows. Based on this
numerical solution procedure, the normalized stress intensity factor k~ of interest at the point
P(X,Y) on the crack border can be calculated by means of the following relation [20]:
-
im{
p ---> 0 W(x,y)
}
, K, = V~ k~, (4)
kl 2 (1 v) x,y ---> X,Y
where p is the radial di'stance of an arbitrary point P(x,y) from the point P(X,Y) on the crack
front in a plane normal to the border. K~ is the denomination of the standard SIF as used, for
example, by ASTM. When the limit procedure is performed, the following relation occurs [23]:
kl = 2(1 - v----~tx (Y cos qbo - X sin qbo)z + (X cos qbo + Y sin qbo)2 (5)
Further, it is suitable to normalize it against the SIF for an elliptical crack in the infinite
body subjected by an remote uniform tension a= (see, for example, Ref 24)
[sin2 ~l + (a/b)4 cos2 ~] TM
k~= = E(k-'-"-)~ [ s i n 2 "q + (a/b) 2 cos 2 (6)
where E(k) denotes the complete elliptical integral of the second kind with modulus k =
[1 - (a/b)2] ~/2. The polar angle "q refers to the point of interest P(X,Y). From Fig. 1 it follows
that "q = 0 - qbo + 90 ~ The angle 0 is measured from the xo-axis in a counterclockwise sense.
The corresponding radial line crosses the crack front directly in P(X,Y). Thus, the angle 0
locates the inspected crack point on the crack front.
Denoting the nondimensional value kJk~= as the stress intensity magnification factor (SIMF),
a selection of numerical results is given in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. They are plotted against the full
range of the polar angle 0. The numerical calculations were done for a wide range of all the
available geometric parameters that influence the location and shape of the elliptical crack. For
that purpose, we varied the ratio of the semiaxes K = a/b = 0.2 to 1.0 and consider different
inclination angles qbo = 0 to 90 ~ and different depth locations q = [XM/(XM -- XR)] = 1.02 to
5.00, where (xM - xR) = [1 - (1 - aZ[bZ)cos2 dpo]t/z.
Specification of Loads and Residual Stresses

Fatigue failure of a part is expected if the stresses at some points exceed the critical stress
level for crack initiation and if the propagation of the resulting crack is not arrested. The critical
stress level for initiation depends on the material and on the mean stress. The critical stress
level for crack propagation depends on the threshold stress intensity factor.
To check the stresses at different points against those criteria, one needs to know the stress
profiles and the distribution in depth of the load stresses and of the residual stresses.
Producing compressive self stresses near the surface is the main effect of prestress treatments
(shot-peening, nitriding, and so forth). They are balanced by tensile stresses in the core.
Because the authors are involved in a research project mainly concerned with the deformation
behavior of multiphase materials under thermal or mechanical cycling or both, the residual
stress field as a result of nitriding and carbonitriding is investigated. Nitriding introduces nitro-
gen into the surface of steel while it is in the ferritic condition. Carbonitriding is a surface-
hardening heat treatment that introduces carbon and nitrogen into the austenite of steel. Details
of both processes can be taken from Ref 25. C o m m o n to both processes is the generation of
1.91
9 9
I 9889
1.71
+
$ XR
1.61
q = 1.02 +
+
a/b = 0.6 " " XM ,-
1.51
9 o+ 9 ! - - :C R
9 r = 0~
+ x
1.41 + r = 30 ~
9 a +x x 9
[] r = 60 ~ o+
x r = 90 ~ + ++~.+
1.31
9 x o D
[] +
+
9 + o +
x o x +
1.21 e+ o []
e+ o x ax ++ 9
9 a x o ++ 9
1.11 me++ + o xx Ig~n + +++ eoe

oo + [] x x
o o o e e e e o o e e e e e e e § aOOxX x ~ _ +§ eeeooeeeeoeeoem e
++++++§ o xx ~ +
++++§ .~ogR~xX ~gn~++. _++ +++++++
1.Ol o o ~ o ~ ? q ~ g g ~ x x x ^ " n ' ~ o . . ~ o ~ a
9 ; / , i , . ! 9 9 i . , ! , 9 | , , | , 9 i 9 9 i , , i 9 9 I ' 9
0.8 38.8 68.8 98.8 120.8 158.8 188.8 218.8 240.8 270.8 308.8 330.8 368.8
polar angle 0 [o]

FIG. 2--Stress intensity magnification factor (SIMF) Y as function of the polar angle Ofor dif-
ferent inclination angles ~
1 . 9 ~=
0
1.85 0 0
0 0
I . 7E
o o
1.65 4o = 0~
x
***
x
a/b --- 0.6 o ~ ~ o
x x
1.55
9 q = 1.10 o oOOOo o
:r M -- x R
x x
+ q = 1.08 o o
1.44S D q = 1.06 ~ ~ +++++ o xo
o . + a
x q = 1.04 ox xo
o § + o
o q = 1.02 § ..'"-. +
1.34~ Qxa+ 9 9 +ax o
oXa+e e+Ox o
xO§ e+a x
1 9 2 .~ ~ a e§
e+x
o~ a o
x+ 9 e+x
oa,J
x+
-~g
1.15
I. 05 9 9 , 9 . g . . ~ . . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
o.e 3 .e 6 .~ 9 o 12e.e l~e.e leO.o 21e.e 240.e 27e.8 30e.e 33e.e 36e.e
polar angle 0 [o]

F I G . 3---Stress intensity magnification factor (S1MF) Y as function of the polar angle Ofor dif-
ferent crack depths locations q.
696 FRACTURE
MECHANICTWENTY-FOURTH
S: VOLUME
50
-50
-100
(-
-150
-200
/
-250
-300 I I
0,5 1
x[mm]
FIG. 4---Longitudinal residual stress ore s in a cylinder after carbonitriding in relation to the
distance x from the surface.
second-phase particles with a certain increase in the volume leading to a significant residual
compressive stress state near the surface (see, for example, Ref 26). Only qualitative estimations
of the residual stress state exist as outlined in Ref 26, too, because the local plastification of
the matrix near the second-phase particles similar to a transformation plasticity effect (see, for
example, Ref 27) has not been considered up to now. Therefore, measured longitudinal residual
stresses ~rREs in a carbonitrided medium-carbon steel cylinder with 50-ram diameter are con-
sidered. Details can be taken from a report by Lesage et al. [28]. The residual strain distribution
is depicted in Fig. 4. Note that the maximum residual compressive state is approximately 0.2
mm beneath the surface.
For sake of comparison with a different type of surface treatment, the longitudinal residual
stress in a shot-peened cylinder is depicted also. Here we refer to a report by Zhang et al. [29]
presenting a distribution of the longitudinal stress CrREs with a maximum compressive stress at
the surface as given in Fig. 5. Principally note that the "penetration" of the residual stress
100
if--.
o /__
-100
~" -200
r~
-300
-400 / /
-500 -"= ~ J i, t
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
x[mm]
FIG. 5~Longitudinal residual stress crRes in a cylinder after shot-peening in relation to the dis-
tance x from the surface.
state is much less in the case of shot-peening if compared with carbonitriding. However, the
compressive stress level is significantly higher for shot-peening.
As a test specimen with a flaw near the surface, a steel cylinder with diameter 50 mm under
cyclic bending with a maximum bending stress of +500 N/mm 2 is studied numerically here.
The reason for such a selection is that an extensive experimental program for such a specimen
is in progress at the laboratory of Professor H. J. Spies in Freiberg, Germany [30].
Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations

As a crack propagation law the Erdogan-Paris-Sih equation
art
-- = C AKT' (7)
dN
is applied. The value ~ is the half length of an embedded line crack. The value AK~ is the
effective SIF range and is mostly related to the crack closure phenomenon.
Following a discussion by Varfolomeyev et al. [31], a relation
AKe = ~/('q) AK, AK = max (Kt) - min (KI) (8a)
is introduced with "y(-q) to be determined on the basis of experimental data. In the case of a
crack penetrating the surface (for example, a semielliptical surface crack), ~/at the deepest point
of the crack is approximately 1.1 times the "y-value of the surface. Because in this paper the
crack is considered to be completely embedded, this effect may be ignored and ~(-q) is set to
be ~/('q) ~- 1.0,
~ ~( (8b)
However, a variation of C and m may have its origin in the different nitride content in relation
to the distance from the surface9 No data are available for taking this effect into account.
Therefore, in this numerical study, C = 7.0 • 10-15 (N, mm units) and m = 3 are selected.
As a starting configuration of the crack, an ellipse is assumed. Because Mode ! is operative,
the crack grows at a Point i (defined by x~,yi, ratio K of halflength of ellipse axes a, b, K =
a/b, q, ~i = Oi - (])o "~- 90~ during AN cycles by an increment A a / i n a direction orthogonal
to the starting elliptical crack contour. If Eq 7 is used to find by integration Aa~ to AN, a
problem arises because a~ is not defined. Therefore, an inspection of AK~,I respective to K/(K~
is the value of KI at a Point i; AKe,i is the value of AKe [see Eq 8a] at a Point i) is necessary,
and some assumptions must be defined:
9 First, crack growth is assumed to take place only for the positive part of the range of the
SIF
min (K3 > 0, AKe., = max (K3 - min (K3

min (Ki) < 0,
Age, i m a x (gi) , (9)
max (K3 > 0,
max (K3 < 0, AK,.i = O.
9 Second, after the crack has grown by an increment Aal in each contour point i, i = 1,
9 n, the new crack contour is again approximated by an ellipse with the axes a + Aa,
b + Ab, the orientation ~bo + A~bo and the relative distance q + Aq to the surface. With
an algorithm explained in the following, the extension of the crack front is calculated at
n = 72 points for a certain AN. Then the geometry of the new ellipse is found by a least
square fit algorithm. Age., can, therefore, always be taken from the data set provided for
an inclined elliptical crack under constant loading (see Figs. 2 and 3).
9 At the crack point (xi,Yi), the effective SIF range AKe.i is defined by the following product
AKe., = AK=., ~ Y, (10a)
where
m 1 ( sin2 ~i + K4 COS2 eqi/l/4

AK~,i = ~f(K, 'q,), f = ftf2, fl - E(K) ' f2 = \sin 2 "q~ + K2 COS2 "q~] (10b)
and
Y/ = Y,(K, q, ~bo, "ql) (10c)
~i is the angle "q to the point i (see also Fig. 1). E(K) is the complete elliptical integral of
the second kind with modules K = a/b. Y~ is a geometry parameter. ~ is a representative
stress value which will be explained in detail below.
This relation can be rewritten for b being the independent variable as
Age, i = AK~, i V ~ El (lOd)
A~'=, = ~'f(K, qql),f = N//~Kf (10e)
9 During a change of the ellipse from a, b to a + Aa, b + Ab, the variation o f f andfeare
usually very small. This is mainly due to the fact that f and f pend on the ratio K =
a/b only, whose increment AK can be written as
AK Ab Aa
- + (11)
K b a
Usually Aa/a and Ab/b are of the same sign and order, and, therefore, AK/K is much smaller
than Aa/a or Ab/b.
The increment of f can be studied by using the increment of Vr~
A (X/-~K) 1 AK
(12a)
2 K
and the one for E = E(K) [32]
AE K - E AK lira AE As: AE
E K2 E , K ---> 1 E - 2 ' E <--I.2AK forK>0.4 (12b)
The increment of f can be calculated with Eqs 12a and 12b as
Af K2 [ sin2-q ]AK (12C)

f 2f 4 1 (sin 2"q + n2cos 2.q)2 -~-
The conclusion is that f and ]e have relative increments of the usually very small order of
AK/K and can, therefore, be ignored. This means that, with respect to the integration of
AKe,i Eq 10a respective to Eq 10d, only X/'a or X/b and Y~ are considered as variable
functions.
9 In AKe;i, a relevant stress ~ must be inserted. Here for ~ the value of the actual stress as
the sum of the load stress and the residual stress in the uncracked specimen at the point
x~, y~ is taken and considered to be constant over the whole crack surface. That means the
Ki values are taken from the solution of the governing singular integral equation for a
plane crack with homogeneous stress state ~. This is, of course, a simplification but allows
the use of the standardized diagrams (for example, Figs. 2 and 3). Because of the symmetry
of the load stress with respect to the plane of the crack, of course, the crack does not grow
out of the original plane (only K1 stress intensity factors do exist).
Integration of Eq 10a with respect to the crack length a delivers the propagation incre-
ment Aa (Aa = Aa ], i = 1 corresponds to point at the short semi-axis of the ellipse) after
introducing a = a 1 4- ~Aa~, Y = Y1 4- ~Y1, 0 ~-~ ~ --< 1 and a three-term Taylor series
development of
(1 + l~Aa~/"~2,(1 + I ~ ) '~ for m > 2 for a given AN,

a~ /
CAK~.IAN Aa, {1 m Aa, m ~___.Yl/
a~ = a-T \ 4 a~ -~ Y~ J (13a)
Its inversion, also based on a three-term Taylor series development, leads to
Aa~ _ CAKe, tAN + _m {AY, + C AKe,,AN~2

(13b)
al al 4 \ Y1 al /
The equivalent relations can be developed for a crack length b by replacing a x by b,

Y~ by Yb, and AK,,~ by AK,,b in Eqs 13a and 13b. The index " b " stands here for that i
that corresponds to the long semiaxis of the ellipse.
One may write formally for a crack length a~ at Point x,, yl
m ( A Y i CAK__e.IAI~.2
Aa i = C AKe.iAN + -~ a~ ~--~i + ai / (13c)
with the unknown entity ai, which, however, has a minor influence because it appears only
in the second-order term on the right side of Eq 13c (AK~,I and AY,/Y, are known entities
in xl, y,). It has been decided to use Eq 13c after inserting the short semiaxis of the ellipse,
a, instead of a, for a conservative estimation of Aa~. This corresponds also with a proposal
given by the British recommendation PD 6493 [18].
Results
The following initial elliptical crack is assumed: ao = 0.7 ram, bo = 1.0 mm, x M = 1.1 mm,
YM = 0 mm. In the study, the following starting angles ~bo are selected: ~bo = 0, 30, 60, and
1500 3
-~ 1200
900 5
~" 600
-1
300 ~ 1 =I
1= I -2
I t I I -3 i I i
90 180 270 360 0 2 4 6
b
a polar angle (9 [o] z[mm]
FIG. 6--(a) Stress intensity factor max (Ki) and (b) shape of the crack for different number of
cycles I X n, I = 1(1)5, n = 30 000, for the specimen without a residual stress state; initial
inclination angle q~o = 30~
90 ~ The integer I (I = 1. . . . . 5) in the following figures refers to the number of cycles I •

n investigated; n = 30 000 for a residual stress-free specimen and n = 140 000 for a specimen
with residual stresses. In the occurrence of the following two cases, the calculation is stopped:
9 The first case happens if the relative distance parameter q reaches a m i n i m u m value of
qc~it 1.02. In this case, the crack has grown so near to the surface that a penetration of
=
the crack through the surface may be realistic ("qc,,-criterion").

9 The second case happens if the crack grows larger and larger as far as the ratio a/b reaches
the lower-bound value (a/b)c,, = 0.4 ("(a/b)~.ccriterion").
All the results discussed below are taken from a thesis by Parteder [33].
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the m a x i m u m SIF max(Ki) and the shape of the crack
with an initial inclination angle qbo = 30 ~ as a function of the number of cycles for a specimen
free of residual stress state. Equivalent information can be taken from Fig. 7 for a specimen
1500
1200
1
900
600
300 -2
i i i I -3 I I I
0 9o 180 2to 360 0 2 4 6

a polar angle 0 [o] b x[mm]
cycles [ X n, I = 1(1)5, n = 140 O00 for the specimen with a residual stress state as a result of
carbonitriding; initial inclination angle q~o = 30~
M A Y R H O F E R ET AL. ON F A T I G U E C R A C K G R O W T H S I M U L A T I O N 701
1500
~"~1200 2
6
-~. 900
,/5 0
600
300 = I -2
I I I I -3
0 90 180 270 360 2 4 6
polar angle E) [o] b x[mm]

cycles, I X n, I = 1(1)6, n = 140,000, for the specimen with a residual stress state as a result of
shot-peening; initial inclination angle dpo = 30 ~
under residual stresses as a result of carbonitriding and from Fig. 8 as a result of shot-peening.
In both cases, the SIF max(Ki) reaches its m i n i m u m value at approximately 0 = 180 ~ near to
the surface as a result of the compressive residual stress state. A reorientation of the crack with
the ellipse axes becoming parallel and orthogonal to the surface can also be seen. In the case
of shot-peening, the crack becomes significantly long in relation to its initial configuration.
It was found that the critical dimension of a crack was reached in the case of a specimen
free of residual stresses by the "qcr,-criterion" (Fig. 9). The same criterion is also valid for a
carbonitrided specimen (Fig. 10). It means that in both cases (free of residual stresses and
residual stresses as a result of carbonitriding) the crack grows to the surface and finally pene-
trates the surface, however, at a different number of cycles. In contrast to this, the shot-peened
specimen reaches the critical state by the "(a/b)c,,-criterion" (Fig. 11). A comparison of the
crack area in relation to the number of cycles for all three cases is depicted in Fig. 12.
1,6
D r = 0~
<> r = 3o ~ 2J
=- x So = 90 ~
XM
g XR
~ 1,2
1 I f I I I
0 0,03 0,06 0,09 0,12 0,15
Number of cycles x 106
FIG. 9 - ~ r a c k growth parameter q (qcri, = 1.02) for a specimen without residual stresses in
relation to the number of cycles depending on the initial inclination angle q~o.
CopyrightbyASTMInt'l(allrightsreserved);SatJan2818:45:46EST2012
Downloaded/printedby
(PDVSALosTeques)pursuanttoLicenseAgreement.Nofurtherreproductionsauthorized.
1,6
o ~bo = 0~
+ +o = 30o
A fro = 60~ ~ f \ /~
3
XM
1,2
~.fq~,t. = 1.02
1 I I I I I
0 0,14 0,28 0,42 0,56 0,7
Number of cycles x 10s
FIG. l O ~ r a c k growth parameter q (q,'r~, = 1.02)for a specimen with a residual stress state as
a result o f carbon#riding in relation to the number o f cycles depending on the initial inclination
angle qbo.
Conclusion
The simulation confirms the generally known fact that a compressive residual stress field
may increase significantly the tolerable number of load cycles until an initially undetected flaw
near the surface of a specimen grows to a critical size. However, it is not justified to assume
that a residual stress field may prevent a flaw of reaching a critical size. Before becoming
1,2
D +o = 0~
1 ~ x 0 ~,o = 30~
II 0,8
.2 0,6
m =04
.~. 0,4
0,2
I I I I I
O,14 0,28 0,42 0,56 0,7
Number of cycles • 106
FIG. 1 l - - C r a c k growth parameter ~ c,, = 0.4 f o r a specimen with a residual stress state
a((b) )
as a result o f shot-peening in relation to the number o f cycles depending on the initial inclination
angle rbo.
14
12 /
El without residual stresses
~" 10 A carbonitrided
0 shot-peened
s
<
6
I I I I I
0,14 0,28 0,42 0,56 0,7
Number of cycles x 10s
FIG. 12-47omparison of the crack area in relation to the number of cycles depending on the
residual stress state; initial inclination angle dpo = 30 ~
critical, the crack area may increase significantly, as can be seen from Fig. 12. Finally, different
criteria may become responsible for a critical crack dimension. Shot-peening tends to elongate
an initial flaw parallel to the surface until it reaches a critical length. Carbonitriding cannot
prevent a crack from penetrating through the surface. In both cases, the critical flaw may be
enlarged remarkably before it is detected by penetration or its length even though a compressive
residual stress field is elsewhere. One must be careful with the argument that a certain surface
treatment can prevent the development of some critical flaws near the surface.
Acknowledgment
The extensive numerical calculations described in the section entitled "Stress Intensity Factor
Analysis," which led, for example, to the diagrams Figs. 2 and 3, were performed by Dr. F.
K. Schmatzer at the computer center of CRAY-Munich, Germany. His cooperation is highly
appreciated.
References
[1 ] Ruud, C., "Nondestructive and Semidestructive Methods for Residual Stress Measurement," in
Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue, ASTM STP 776, American Society for Testing and Materials,
[2 ] Mordfin, L., "Standards for Residual Stress Measurement," in Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue,
[3 ] Bomas, H., Hoffmann, F., and Mayr, P., "Ermiidungsverhalten von rand-schichtbehandelten Bau-
teilen," in Ermiidungsverhahen Metallischer Werkstoffe, D. Munz, Ed., Deutsche Gesellschaft ftir
Metallkunde, D-6370 Oberursel 1, 1985, pp. 321-367.
[4] Frost, N. E., Marsh, K. J., and Pook, L. P., Metal Fatigue, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Chaps. 5 and
6, 1974.
[5] Palmberg, B., Blom, A. F., and Eggwertz, S., "Probabilistic Damage Tolerance Analysis of Aircraft
Structures," in Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics and Reliability, J. W. Provan, Ed., Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, The Netherlands, Chap. 2, 1987.
[6] Fuchs, H. O., "Approximate Analysis for Optimizing Prestress Treatments," in Analytical and
Experimental Methods for Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue, ASTM STP 1004, American Society
[7] Landgraf, R. W. and Chernenkoff, R. A., "'Residual Stress Effects on Fatigue of Surface Processed
Steels," in Analytical and Experimental Methods for Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue, ASTM STP
1004, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 1-12.
[8] Stacey, A. and Webster, G. A., "Stress ]ntenslty Factors Caused by Residual Stress Fields in Auto-
frettaged Tubing," in Analytical and Experimental Methods for Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue,
[9] Lawrence, F. V., Burk, J. D., and Yung, J. Y., "Influence of Residual Stress on the Predicted Fatigue
Life of Weldments," in Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue, ASTM STP 776, American Society for
[10] Fletcher, A. J., Geary, W., and King, J. E., "Fatigue Crack Propagation and Residual Stress in a
Quenched and Tempered C-Mn-B Steel," in Analytical and Experimental Methods for Residual
Stress Effects in Fatigue, ASTM STP 1004, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1988, pp.
82-96.
[11 ] Fischer, F. D., Hinteregger, E., and Rammerstorfer, F. G., " A Study on the Residual Stresses in
Railroad Rails after Cooling Down from the Rolling Temperature," in Applied Mechanics Rail
Transport Symposium, ASME, AMD-Vol. 96, RTD-Vol. 2, 1988, pp. 37-43.
[12] Macherauch, E. and Wohlfahrt, H., "Eigenspannungen und Ermiidung," in Ermiidungsverhalten
Metallischer Werkstoffe, D. Munz, Ed., Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Metallkunde, D-6370 Oct. 1, 1985,
pp. 237-283.
[13] Kishi, T. and Enoki, M., "Acoustic Emission Source Characterization," in Fracture Mechanics,
Current Japanese Materials Research, Vol. 8, H. Okamura and K. Ogura, Eds., Elsevier, New York,
1991, pp. 217-234.
[14] Scruby, C. B., Stacey, K. A., and Baldwin, G. R., "Defect Characterization in Three Dimensions
by Acoustic Emission," Journal of Physics D. Applied Physics, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 1597-1612.
[15 ] Kubo, S., Sakagami, T., and Ohji, K., "Electric Potential CT Method for Measuring Two- and Three-
Dimensional Cracks," in Fracture Mechanics, Current Japanese Materials Research, Vol. 8, H.
Okamura and K. Ogura, Eds., Elsevier, New York, 1991, pp. 235-254.
[16] Nishimura, N. and Kobayashi, S., " A Boundary Integral Equation Method for an Inverse Problem
Related to Crack Detection," International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 32,
1991, pp. 1317-1387.
[17] Phang, Y. and Ruiz, C., "Recategorization of Embedded Defects as a Single Embedded or Surface
Defect," in Application of Fracture Mechanics to Materials and Structures, G. C. Sih, Ed., Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, The Netherlands, 1983.
[18] Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures, PD
6493:1991, British Standards Institution.
[19] Mayrhofer, K. and Fischer, F. D., "The Stress Intensity Factor Distribution for an Inclined Ellipti-
cally Shaped Crack Embedded Near the Surface of a Halfspace--A Solution for 3D Fatigue Anal-
ysis," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture
Mechanics, A. R. Luxmoore and D. Owens, Eds., Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1990, pp. 657-668.
[20] Kaya, A. C., "Application of Integral Equations with Strong Singularities in Fracture Mechanics,"
Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 1984.
[21 ] Mayrhofer, K. and Fischer, F. D., "Derivation of a New Analytical Solution for a General Two-
Dimensional Finite-Part Integral Applicable in Fracture Mechanics," International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 33, 1992, pp. 1027-1047.
[22 ] Kassir, M. K. and Sih, G. C., "Three-Dimensional Stress Distribution Around an Elliptical Crack
under Arbitrary Loadings," Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 33,
1966, pp. 601-611.
[23] Mayrhofer, K. and Fischer F. D., "The Stress Intensity Factor Variation of Inclined Elliptical Sub-
surface Cracks," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 33, 1992, pp.
1027-1047.
[24] Nisitani, H. and Murakami, Y., "Stress Intensity Factors of an Elliptical Crack or a Semi-Elliptical
Crack Subject to Tension," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 10, 1974, pp. 353-368.
[25] Krauss, G., Steels: Heat Treatment and Processing Procedures, ASM International, Metals Park,
OH, 1990, Chap. 9.
[26] Hekker, P. M., Rozendaal, C. F., and Mittemeijer, E. J., "Excess Nitrogen and Discontinuous Pre-
cipitation in Nitrided Iron-Chromium Alloys," Journal of Material Science, Vol. 20, 1985, pp. 718-
729.
[27] Fischer, F. D., " A Micromechanical Model for Transformation Plasticity in Steels," Acta Metal-
lurgica Mater., Vol. 38, 1990, pp. 1535-1546.
[28] Lesage, J., Degaillaix, G., and Barralis, J., "Calculation of Residual Stresses in Carbonitrided Steel,"
in Fatigue and Stress, H. P. Lieurade, Ed., IITT-International, F-93460 Gournay-sur-Mame, 1989,
pp. 265-276.
[29] Zhang, D. Q., Hu, N. S., and He, J. W., "Modelling of Fatigue Behaviour of Shot-Peened Parts,'
in Fatigue and Stress, H. P. Lieurade, Ed., IITT-International,F-93460 Gournay-sur-Mame, 1989,
pp. 212-228.
[30] Spies, H. J., "Stand und Entwicklung des kontrollierten Gasnitrierens," Neue Hiitte, Vol. 36, 1991,
pp. 255-258.
[31 ] Varfolomeyev, I. V., Vainshtok, V. A., and Krasowsky, A. Y., "Prediction of Part-Through Crack
Growth under Cyclic Loading," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 40, 1991, pp. 1007-1022.
[32 ] Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I., Eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions, U.S. National Bureau
of Standards, Washington, DC, 1972, pp. 590-591.
[33] Parteder, E., "Beurteilung oberfl~ichennaher Risse in Bauteilen von H(itten maschinen und Walzpro-
dukten" ("Evaluation of Flaws Near to a Surface in Parts of Machinery and Rolled Products"),
Master's thesis, University for Mining and Metallurgy, A-8700 Leoben, Austria, 1992.
R. Craig McClung 1 and Stephen J. Hudak, Jr. 1
Surface Crack Growth in Inconel 718 During

Large Unload-Reload Cycles
REFERENCE: McClung, R. C. and Hudak, S. J., Jr., "Surface Crack Growth in Incone1718
During Large Unload-Reload Cycles," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM
STP 1207 John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for
ABSTRACT: Thin Inconel 718 plates with deep (a/t = 0.6 to 0.9) semicircular surface flaws
were subjected to different numbers of large load-unload-reload cycles with various minimum
and maximum loads and crack mouth displacements. Elastic compliance measurements and
marker bands were used to estimate crack lengths at each cycle of interest. Crack growth was
analyzed from the perspective of low-cycle fatigue crack propagation using AJote as the corre-
lating parameter. Calculations of AJ~fe were based on a modified version of the reference stress
estimate that takes crack closure into account. Results from these tests were correlated consis-
tently with both resistance curve data and baseline small-scaleyielding fatigue crack growth data.
The development of the crack shape during both single-cycle ductile tearing and multiple-cycle
fatigue crack growth was characterized.
KEYWORDS: elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, J integral, resistance curves, surface cracks,

fatigue crack growth, ductile tearing, crack shape, crack closure, proof testing
Proof testing is a widespread practice in various industries for ensuring the structural integrity
of pressure vessels, turbine disks, and other fracture-critical components and structures. Ana-
lytical models for conventional single-cycle proof testing of brittle materials have been rela-
tively well established for many years [1 ]. Since classical brittle materials exhibit a generally
well-defined instability point given by Km,x =Kic, the successful application of proof stress %
indicates that any flaw still present is less than some size al = f(Kic, %). Taking ai as the initial
crack size in a fatigue crack growth (FCG) analysis defines a corresponding minimum residual
fatigue life.
This conventional proof test logic for brittle materials assumes that any flaw that does not
cause catastrophic failure does not grow at all during the proof test. Flaws in ductile materials,
however, may experience subcritical crack growth during a proof cycle, which shortens the
residual fatigue life without removing the part from service. This invalidates traditional proof
test logic.
One alternative approach to proof testing for ductile materials is to apply multiple proof
cycles (so-called multiple-cycle proof testing, or MCPT). Rocketdyne, for example, uses five
proof cycles at a proof factor of • 1.2 for some hardware [2]. This approach was originally
motivated by failures of components that had survived an initial single-cycle test and were
subsequently retested, often failing at pressures significantly less than the initial proof. The
successful record of performance of Rocketdyne engines whenever this procedure has been
implemented, along with occasional failures of defective hardware during MCPT, have served
Group leader and director, respectively, Mechanics of Materials Department, Southwest Research
Institute, P.O. Drawer 28510, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510.
706
McCLUNG AND HUDAK ON SURFACE CRACK GROWTH 707
as engineering justification for the practice. But while MCPT experience is generally consistent
with the concept of stable crack growth in ductile materials, as mentioned above, there is not
yet a well-established theory of crack growth during MCPT available as a rigorous scientific
justification for the relative merits of MCPT versus conventional single-cycle proof testing
(SCPT). Experience has clearly shown that flaw growth can occur during muitiple proof cycles.
What is not clear is when or how much growth will (or will not) occur.
An ongoing research program has as its ultimate goal the development of this rigorous
foundation to optimize proof-testing procedures, with particular application to the Space Shuttle
Main Engine (SSME). In earlier work [3 ], a series of experiments and analyses were conducted
to characterize the crack driving force and material resistance associated with surface cracked
plates of Inconel 718 under single-cycle loading conditions. Previous studies of initial defect
sizes and shapes for SSME hardware and fabrication processes [4 ] had found that the predom-
inant crack shape was semicircular, so this was chosen as the geometry of primary interest.
The blunting line of the surface crack resistance curve (R curve) was discovered to be coincident
with the blunting line for R-curve data from thick compact tension specimens, but the onset of
stable tearing was observed to occur at much higher apparent J values in the surface-cracked
configuration. The difference was apparently due to loss of constraint in the severely loaded
surface crack configuration.
Further investigations of the relationship between crack growth during ductile tearing (R
curve) and fatigue (da/dN) found that the blunting line of the Inconel 718 resistance curve was
coincident with the FCG curve in the low-cycle regime when plasticity induced crack closure
was properly taken into account [3]. This phenomenon was observed to be consistent with the
similarity in proposed crack growth mechanisms for low-cycle FCG and the initial blunting
process in ductile fracture. Of greater significance, this phenomenon suggests that it should be
possible to describe crack growth by both ductile tearing and low-cycle fatigue processes during
MCPT on an integrated basis.
In this paper, crack growth during multiple elastic-plastic load-unload cycles is investigated
both experimentally and analytically. Surface-cracked plates of Inconel 718 are subjected to
different numbers of cycles with various minimum and maximum loads and crack mouth dis-
placements. Low-cycle FCG approaches that incorporate the effects of crack closure are used
to correlate the data.
Procedure
Detailed background information on the material, specimen geometry, and many of the
experimental procedures has been given previously [3 ]. The material investigated was Inconel
718 heat treated to the STA-1 condition (designed for optimum resistance to hydrogen embrit-
tlement). The stress-total strain relationship can be written in the general Ramberg-Osgood
form
n
e _ tr + or (1)
E:o or o
where a = 1 by assumption and the remaining material constants % = 0.006, tro = 179.8 ksi
(1240 MPa), and n = 15.8 are based on a least squares regression of stress-strain data from
tension tests. The elastic modulus is E = 29 690 ksi (204.7 GPa). The 0.2% offset yield strength
is 161.2 ksi (1111 MPa), and the ultimate tensile strength is 205.5 ksi (1417 MPa).
The crack growth experiments were conducted on surface-flawed tension specimens with a
0.2- by 1.25-in. (5- by 32-mm) rectangular cross section, a 2.5-in. (64-mm) gage section length,
and a total specimen length of 8 in. (203 mm). A detailed drawing is available in Ref 3. The
gripped ends were threaded with a nominal 1.25-in. (32-mm) diameter. Initial crack sizes were
obtained by low-stress fatigue precracking from semi-elliptical electro-discharge machined
(EDM) slots. Specimens were heat tinted after precracking to facilitate later measurement of
the initial crack size. Initial crack shapes were typically semicircular (a/c = 1.0), although some
aspect ratios were as low as a/c = 0.85 or as high as 1.05. Here a is the maximum depth and
2c is the surface length of a semi-elliptical surface crack. In the earlier series of experiments
[3], most initial crack depths were around a = 0.08 to 0.14 in. (2.0 to 3.6 mm). In these new
tests, some initial crack depths were chosen as high as a = 0.16 to 0.18 in. (4.1 to 4.6 mm) to
study the effects of extremely deep flaws on tendencies for crack growth.
The crack shape at the end of the crack growth test was usually marked by the application
of high stress-ratio fatigue cycles [3] before the specimen was fatigued to complete fracture.
The depth and surface length of both initial (precrack) and final cracks were measured directly
by optical microscopy. For crack growth analysis, the surface half-length, c, was computed as
the average of the crack radius at the surface (0 ~ and slightly inside the surface (15 ~ to
minimize both measurement error and the impact of short-range crack growth retardation at
the surface (see later discussion of crack shapes). The crack depth, a, was calculated as the
average of the 75, 90, and 105 ~ radial measurements, again to minimize measurement error.
Experiments were conducted on servo-hydraulic test machines under both load and displace-
ment control. Maximum stresses ranged from around 130 to nearly 170 ksi (about 900 to 1170
MPa). Most tests at higher stress levels were conducted in displacement control because of
experimental difficulties associated with load control of a low strain-hardening material during
yielding. A crack opening displacement (COD) gage with a gage length of 0.05 in. (1.27 mm)
was placed across the crack mouth, the gage pins located in EDM indentations on the front
surface of the plate. Load versus crack mouth displacement data were analyzed to estimate
crack lengths at intermediate points during the test, aided by a previous theoretical analysis of
elastic compliance [5]. While measured and theoretical compliances did not agree exactly for
known initial and final crack sizes and shapes, they were consistently close enough (typically
within 10%) to permit empirical calibration. Some of this disagreement was likely due to
variations from the ideal theoretical crack shape. It should be emphasized that the theoretical
compliance information was used primarily as an interpolation function to compute interme-
diate crack sizes between known initial and final sizes and shapes based on changes in measured
compliance and not to compute absolute crack lengths directly.
In some tests, the load or displacement was increased continuously to some maximum value,
at which point the specimen was unloaded and the test terminated. These tests were used to
construct the J-resistance curve for surface cracked specimens. In other tests, the specimen was
cycled between the maximum value and some minimum value (typically zero) of load/displace-
ment. In one series of these tests, the displacement was cycled between zero and a maximum
value, and the resulting stresses were nearly fully reversed (stress ratio R ~- - 1). In another
series of these tests, the loads were cycled from zero to maximum (R = 0) so that a large
positive COD remained unreversed. Example load-COD records for these two types of "mul-
tiple cycle" tests are shown in Fig. 1.
The value of the J integral for the surface cracks in the single cycle tests was estimated using
a modified version of the reference stress approach. J at the maximum depth point of the crack
was calculated according to
(2)
Here K is the linear elastic stress intensity factor at the deepest point of the crack; Je is the
elastic component of J, equal to K2/E for plane stress; and Jz is the usual effective crack length
Load
Crack Mouth
Displacement
FIG. 1a--Sample load-displacement records from "multiple cycle" tests: zero-max loading.
CrackMouth
Displacement
FIG. l b---Sample load-displacement records from "multiple cycle" tests: zero-max displacement.
(plastic zone) correction term; and ho = 0.75 %/-n. Note that the third term in the brackets is
the normalized plastic component of J, Jp/Je. The reference stress ~r~f was based on a global
limit load and was computed as
lY
~ref = l - (ara2)/(2tW) (3)
where t and W are the thickness and width of the specimen and cr is the nominal applied stress.
For this particular geometry, this estimate of the reference stress is equal to the net section
stress, but this equivalence does not always hold for other geometries. The reference strain e~f
was calculated from the constitutive relationship, Eq 1, as the uniaxial strain corresponding to
a=f. The detailed background to these formulae is described in Ref 3 where excellent agreement
with three-dimensional finite element calculations of J at the maximum depth point of semi-
circular and semi-elliptical cracks is also demonstrated. An independent estimate of J was
obtained from the experimental load-displacement record using an "equivalent energy"
method [3,5 ]. The equivalent energy J was calculated as J = K~[E, where Kr~ is a plasticity
modified stress intensity factor given by Kr~ = K %/Av/Ae. Here A~ and A e are the total and
elastic areas under the load-displacement curves, and K is the usual linear elastic stress intensity
factor.
Results and Analysis

Updated versions of the combined resistance curve-fatigue crack growth figures from the
previous work [3 ] are given here as Figs. 2 and 3 for purposes of reference. Figure 2 shows
the traditional resistance curve with the central tendency FCG data band superimposed (the
iiiiI
i i I I I I i I
I1~ Modified Reference Stress J E.stlmote (Surface Crocks) O

C ~ Equlvolent Energy J Estlmote (Surface Crocks~)
* * = = = Rocketdyne Data from Compact Tens;on SpecJmens
Extrapolation of Closure-Corrected Fatigue Crock Growth Data Band

4 0 0 0 '-
,.o
9 0 9
3000
0
2000
E
9 A ~ A A A A A A
1000
t I t I = I t I t
~o 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Ao (in) or d o / d N (in/cycle)
FIG. 2.~Resistance curve data for Inconel 718 with superimposed fatigue crack growth curve.
I I I I I I I li I I I I I I l I i I I I I I I II i I I I I I I II
I~Surfoce Crock J - R (Modified Ref. Stress)

10 -~ CCCCOSurfoce Crock J - R (Equivolent Energy) J 9 O.1
i Compoct Tension J - R . ~r ,-,,, j .
0 0 0 0 0 FCG Doto (Smol, Scole Yielding) . 0 ~IE~r /
0
u 10 -2
t-
o_
Z 10 -s
"10
0
13
10-"
~9 -
V 1 0 -a
O
<3
1 0 -e
i I n i ininl I I I I I I lli i i i n l l l l i I I I I I II
I 0 "'
10 10 2 10 s 10
Jm,, o r &Jeff ( I b / / i n )
FIG. 3 Fatigue crack growth data for lnconel 718 with superimposed resistance curve data.
lines indicate a total variation of X2 in da/dN centered around the best fit mean value line).
The FCG data used here are based on a series of tests under small-scale yielding (SSY) con-
ditions, with the original correlating parameter AK converted to a closure-corrected AJoff. It is
this ZL/efevalue that is directly compared against Jm~, from the resistance curve tests in the
combined figures. The SSY FCG rate data are shown more explicitly in Fig. 3, a traditional
da/dN plot, with the resistance curve data superimposed. In both figures, Aa or da for surface
crack specimens denotes crack growth at the deepest point of the crack (90 ~ from the specimen
surface).
One note of particular interest in these figures is the addition of data points corresponding
to tests with substantially deeper surface flaws (a/t = 0.8 to 0.95) than previously tested. The
results of these tests, which include several Aa values in the 0.02- to 0.04-in. (0.5- to 1.0-mm)
range, fall among the results of earlier tests at substantially smaller initial flaw depths. Note
that the modified reference stress estimation technique for J used here has not been validated
at these large depth-to-thickness ratios because of the unavailability of corresponding finite-
element solutions, so it is not yet possible to conclude unequivocally that material resistance
is unchanged. Nevertheless, the continuing general agreement between modified reference
stress and equivalent energy estimates of J suggests that the simple analytical estimates are still
approximately accurate.
Crack Growth Rates During Multiple Cycle Tests

Crack growth during the multiple cycle tests (for example, Fig. 1) was analyzed with a low
cycle FCG approach. The characterizing parameter was chosen as AJoeefor consistency with
the previous resistance curve analysis and in view of its successful history of use for correlating
FCG data for a variety of geometries and loads in the intermediate-scale and large-scale yielding
regime [6]. Here AJeff was estimated with a revised version of the modified reference stress
approach according to
z~kIeef-----""~ 1 q- ~ + ~\AO.r~f 1 (4)
where U is the effective stress range ratio
U - O'max -- O'~ (5)
O'ma x -- O'mi n
Here trope, is the applied (remote) stress at which the crack first becomes fully open during the
load-increasing half of the cycle. Crack closure information was incorporated in this estimation
scheme following a protocol established previously [6], as illustrated in Fig. 4. Following an
energy motivation, the effective stress range ratio was applied to the stress range and to the
elastic strain range, but not to the plastic strain range. The effective stress range ratio U was
o-
I B
~c
/XEo I AE e
FIG. 4---Schematic representation of hysteresis loop illustrating scheme for incorporating closure
information into AJeff estimates.
estimated as a function of (]'max/(]" 0 (where % is undoubled) and the stress ratio R = O'min/O'ma x
from finite-element analyses of crack closure in a low-hardening material under intermediate-
and large-scale yielding conditions [7]. Some of these finite-element results are summarized in
Fig. 5, where stress amplitude, stress ratio, and material hardening (expressed in terms of the
ratio of plastic modulus, H, to elastic modulus, E, for an idealized bilinear stress-strain curve)
are all shown to affect crack opening levels. The FEM analysis also showed that the specific
crack depth, a/t, was not generally significant for crack-opening behavior. The two-dimensional
(2-D) information of Ref 7 was applied to the current three-dimensional (3-D) problem in the
absence of adequate 3-D analytical closure results.
The "reference stress range" ACrr~f in Eq 4 was calculated from Eq 3 by replacing the applied
stress ~r with the applied stress range A~r = ~rmax -- Crmin.The "reference strain range" Aer~f
was again obtained from the Ramberg-Osgood stress strain relationship, Eq 1, but with the
Ramberg-Osgood constants % and % doubled to account for the reversed deformation of cyclic
loading. The crack depth, a, for each cycle of interest was estimated from compliance infor-
mation as noted above in the Procedure section. Remember that the specific cycle-by-cycle
crack lengths/shapes are only indirect estimates based on approximate relationships, and so the
exact positions of individual data points on Fig. 6 must not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless,
the general location of a data set does accurately reflect direct measurements of initial and final
crack sizes and shapes.
The resulting crack growth data from the multiple cycle tests are shown in Fig. 6. The
scatterband in this figure is based on the SSY FCG data of Fig. 3, and it shows that this approach
to describing multiple cycle crack growth using Zk/eer is consistent with the existing crack growth
database. The scatter in crack growth rate appears to be slightly higher, but there are several
logical explanations for this apparent scatter. First of all, the uncertainties in crack depths and
shapes will affect the values of both da/dN and J. Perhaps of greater significance, the analysis
0.7
a/W = 0.12
0.6-
0.5-
R=0
0.4-
/~ 0.3-
#
"~: 0.2-
b~ o . 1 -
0
H/E
- 0.1 - 0.01 o 9
0.07 z~ &
- 0.2 -
- 0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
O'm=,/o"o
FIG. 5--Finite-element analyses showing effects of stress amplitude, stress ratio, and strain hard-
ening on crack opening stresses.
cycle b/pe initial - final a/t initial - final c ~ x # of cycles
1:3 0 - m a x load (R=0) 0.82 - 0.96 135 - 135 Psi 378

O O-max load (R=0) 0.75 - 0.92 145 - 145 Psi 385
0 - m a x disp. ( R = - I ) 0.63 - 0 77 158 - 138 ksi 33
(J
>1,
U
O
r-
OB 1 o "~
0
"0
10-'
10-5 I I I i i I I I I I i 1 I I
10 2 10 5
FIG. 6--Fatigue crack growth data from ' 'multiple cycle" tests.
assumed as constant several quantities, such as crack closure and the stress-strain relationship,
which are actually changing during portions of these tests.
Consider, for example, the V-shaped set of data in the middle of Fig. 6 taken from the 33-
cycle zero-max displacement test. The first loading cycle is represented by the right uppermost
data point in this set, and the data continue chronologically in a clockwise direction. Crack
closure levels may require several cycles to reach stable levels at the beginning of the test.
Before stability is reached, the opening stresses will be somewhat lower (and gradually increas-
ing). This means that the actual AJ~ffvalues for the first few data points would be slightly larger
than indicated, which would move these points over (to the fight) towards the middle of the
scatterband. During the last half of this test, when the data as plotted show a clear increase in
da/dN with little apparent change in AJeff, it is likely that the cyclic stress-strain relationship is
changing. Unpublished Rocketdyne data indicate that Inconel 718 in the STA-1 condition
demonstrates cyclic softening, the flow stress decreasing from 180 ksi (1240 MPa) down to
around 160 ksi (1100 MPa) and the strain-hardening exponent decreasing from 15.8 down to
around 6.2. Significant cyclic softening is likely in this particular test, in view of the large
number of elastic-plastic cycles, and this would cause a significant (and gradual) increase in
the calculated AJeff (according to Eq 4) by up to a factor of x2. While it is not possible to
predict these transient changes exactly, it is clear that our straightforward approach may be
underestimating AJ~ff towards the end of the test, and that the actual data points may again
move over (to the right) into the scatterband.
Other reasons for apparent scatter are also worthy of note. The first (top) point in the two
zero-max displacement tests corresponds to the first loading cycle, where J,~ax has been com-
puted in the usual resistance curve manner from Eq 2. It is likely that this first cycle included
some significant ductile tearing, and so, as noted earlier in discussions of Fig. 2, it is reasonable
that the resulting crack growth would be slightly greater than predicted by a purely FCG
approach. The last (top) three data points in the 145-ksi (1000-MPa) zero-max loading exper-
iment, which all lie above the scatterband, correspond to the last three cycles before separation
of the specimen into two halves. Here, again, there are likely other crack growth mechanisms
coming into play as instability is approached (including possible ductile tearing) which would
be expected to increase the crack growth rate at the same nominal crack driving force. The
135-ksi (931-MPa) zero-max load test and both zero-max displacement tests were suspended
before final fracture occurred, so this sort of acceleration would not have been observed.
Development of Crack Shapes

As noted above, all specimens were fatigued to complete fracture at the end of the test after
the original and final crack shapes had been delineated with fatigue marker bands or heat tinting.
This made it possible to characterize the initial and final crack shapes and determine the extent
of crack growth at several angular orientations around the perimeter of the crack. An example
of a fracture surface from one of the multiple cycle crack growth tests is shown in Fig. 7.
Visible and designated on this photograph are the initial EDM flaw, the low AK fatigue pre-
crack, the region of crack growth during the multiple cycle test, and the final low AK fatigue
fracture surface.
The total amount of crack growth during four multiple cycle tests is shown in Fig. 8 as a
function of angular position around the perimeter. Similar crack growth data are presented in
Fig. 9 for selected single-cycle (resistance curve) tests. The total final crack lengths would be
obtained by adding these values to the size of the original fatigue precrack (not shown here).
These precrack lengths varied little around the perimeter, typically remaining within a few mils
of the ideal theoretical semi-elliptical shape (aspect ratios varied from a/2c = 0.88 to 1.03,
with an average value around 0.97). Any significant variations in the crack extension around
the perimeter, therefore, are due to the single cycle or multiple cycle crack growth process
itself.
FIG. 7~Fracture surface of multiple cycle crack growth specimen (zero-max displacement,five
cycles).
60 i I J I i I ' I J I ' I i I i I i i
.~ 4 0 /
v
r
U L
8 -
cycle type Initial-final a/t Initial- final o,,.,, # of cycles
n 0-max load (R=0) 0.82 - 0.96 135 - 135 ksl 378

10 O 0-max load (R=0) 0.75 - 0.92 145 o 145 ksl 385
0 0-max disp. (R=-I) 0.63 - 0.77 156 - 138 kst 33
Z~ 0-max disp. (R=-I) 0.63 - 0.81 168 - 157 ksl 5
I i I I I i I , I w I I I I I i
00 ' 2O 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angular Position (degrees)
FIG. 8---Crack growth as a function of angular position for selected multiple cycle crack growth
specimens.
60 ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I i I ' I '
50
~'_ 40
v
E
t-
U
8 2O'
13 0.79 - 0.91 0.2 in. 160 - 155 ksl
O 0.79 - 0.91 0.2 in. 154 - 153 ksl
A 0.63 - 0.61 0.2 in. 168 - 164 ksl
0 0.53 - 0.65 0.2 in. 178 - 175 ksi
1 0 1f , I ,
4]' 0.52 - 0.68 0.5 in. 149 - 147 ksi
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angular Position (degrees)
FIG. 9--Crack growth as a function of angular position for selected single-cycle crack growth
specimens.
716
There is a distinct maximum in the crack extension at an angular position around 30 ~ from
the front surface of the crack in those specimens experiencing substantial crack growth. Some
of these specimens also exhibited a clear retardation of growth at the specimen surface itself;
the specimen shown in Fig. 7 was the most extreme case observed. Specimens that experienced
only small increments of crack growth, including other tests not shown here, generally expe-
rienced crack extension which was more uniform around the perimeter.
These results are consistent with the 3-D elastic-plastic finite-element calculations of applied
J at higher maximum stresses for semicircular (a/c = 1) surface cracks as a function of angular
position published by Parks and Wang [8]. They found a similar maximum in J at about 30 ~
for applied stresses near yield and a sharp decrease in J approaching the front surface. Similar
numerical results for deep semicircular surface cracks have recently been published by Yagawa
et al. [9], who show that the specific angular variation of J changes with both crack depth and
crack aspect ratio. Bauschke et al. [10] reported a comparable angular dependence for surface
crack growth in their experiments with A1 7075-T7351 for a/c = 0.4 - 1.1 and a/t = 0.3 to
0.75 at loads near the yield load, although they typically measured more retardation at the
surface and much larger differences between the maximum growth and the growth at the
position 90 ~ from the surface for smaller a/c values.
It is particularly interesting that the zero-max loading multiple cycle tests produced a similar
crack shape to the zero-max displacement and the single-cycle tests, even though the zero-max
cycles were nominally elastic. In contrast, small-scale yielding fatigue crack growth tests with
lower (elastic) maximum stresses produced crack shapes that were much more regular, even
for very deep cracks that had experienced substantial growth. This may indicate that the devel-
opment of the crack shape is influenced by Jmax in ways that are not fully reflected by our
simple, one-dimensional cycle-by-cycle computation of AJ.
The crack growth data and analyses summarized in Figs. 2, 3, and 6 were based on crack
growth measurements at the deepest point of the crack (90 ~ position), although it is clear from
Figs. 7 through 9 that this is not the position of greatest extension. Nevertheless, this original
choice is thought to be an appropriate one for engineering applications. The reference stress J
estimates used are based on the K solution at this 90 ~ position. The global limit load solution
used in the reference stress estimate is not tied to any particular crack front location, but failure
of this geometry in this material occurs primarily by extension of the crack at the 90 ~ position
to the back surface, followed quickly by final fracture of the resulting through crack. And
this seems to be the key issue from an engineering standpoint. The slightly greater crack
extension at the 30 ~ position, while certainly interesting from a fracture mechanics research
standpoint, does not appear in these particular tests to exert any direct influence on ten-
dencies for final fracture, which occurs as the 90 ~ position of the crack approaches the back-
face. The complex crack shape does exert some influence on the resulting applied j at the
90 ~ position but this is a more indirect effect that might be neglected in an engineering
approach to predicting crack growth or fracture. Of course, other applications in which the
crack shape changes were more severe might require a more rigorous treatment of these
effects.
It should be possible to use a 3-D finite-element calculation of variations in applied J around
the perimeter to predict the experimentally observed variability in crack extension around the
perimeter. This could be accomplished using the resistance curve construction of Fig. 2 or the
fatigue crack growth curve of Fig. 3, although there may also be some variations in material
resistance to crack extension around the perimeter (for example, as a result of changes in stress
state) which would complicate such a prediction. Since the K solution does not exhibit a similar
maximum at some intermediate position around the crack perimeter, it is not immediately
evident how the reference stress approach might be used to estimate these angular variations
in applied J.
Discussion
Implicationsfor Multiple Cycle Proof Testing
Early work in this research program [2 ] considered the potential use of J-resistance curve
approaches to describing crack growth on all cycles of a multiple cycle test, and it is useful to
reflect briefly on how those approaches handle this multiple cycle crack growth data. The central
idea of that preliminary R-curve model was that each cycle could be treated as an independent
R-curve test on a virgin specimen, neglecting previous load histories but taking the initial crack
size for the next cycle as the final crack size from the previous cycle. This approach clearly
fails to predict the observed crack growth (or lack thereof) in the zero-max load tests. The
predictions of that model for zero-max load-control tests were for crack growth to be greater
on the second proof cycle than on the first and subsequently to increase further on each cycle.
Actually, however, crack growth on all cycles after the first is substantially smaller than on the
first cycle. The new approach presented in this paper, based on low-cycle FCG, is successful
in describing the observed crack growth (Fig. 6).
On the other hand, that same preliminary R-curve model appears to work quite well for the
zero-max displacement tests. In these tests, the complete reversal of the local displacement
fields (the nature of the global displacement fields is unknown) apparently causes a complete
effective "resetting" of the crack tip. The original R-curve model predicted that in a displace-
ment-controlled configuration, the stresses would slowly decrease with each cycle, and the
crack growth rates would also decrease with each cycle. Both phenomena were observed to
occur in these tests (except for the increase in da/dN during the last half of one test, which has
been discussed previously). Estimates of Jm,x for these tests based on conventional R-curve
approaches (Eq 2) give values that are similar to the calculated zk/effvalues and so would give
similar predictions for crack growth on each cycle. This agreement is also made possible by
the coincidence noted earlier between the FCG curve and the blunting line of the resistance
curve.
What are the implications of these results for MCPT? Flaw growth during multiple proof
cycles has been shown to be significantly influenced by the nature of the local control mode,
which is related to the idea of constraint. Although remote proof loading is often a simple
stress-controlled (for example, applied pressure) phenomenon, the region of the component in
the vicinity of the flaw may actually experience load control, displacement, or some interme-
diate control condition that involves both load and displacement. The nature of this local control
can be a function of not only the uncracked geometry and the global constraint but also com-
pliance changes and stress redistribution brought about by the presence of the flaw. The exper-
iments described in this paper indicate that a component that retains genuine load control in
the vicinity of the flaw is not likely to experience significant flaw growth on subsequent load
cycles unless other crack growth mechanisms come into play. This can be viewed as minimizing
subcritical damage during proof testing ("desirable") or minimizing the chances of removing
defective hardware from the population ("undesirable"). A component that satisfies local dis-
placement control is probably a particularly poor candidate for proof testing of any type: sig-
nificant flaw growth can occur in any cycle, but the gradual decrease in the crack driving force
with flaw growth will typically prevent catastrophic fracture (flaw screening) from taking place.
Some components may be characterized by a local control mode that combines load and dis-
placement elements, and flaw response may be more complex. A number of other important
issues in MCPT remain to be addressed, however, including the effects of very thin sections,
contrasting flaw geometries, longer hold times, and materials with different constitutive
responses. More attention also needs to be given to the mechanics and mechanisms of flaw
growth during the last few cycles of fatigue crack growth before final fracture. Further studies
are under way or planned to address some of these issues.
Implications for Elastic-Plastic Fatigue Crack Growth

These results also have several important implications for other fatigue crack growth prob-
lems. The three-component (Jo, Jz, Jp) estimate of Jo, based on a reference stress estimate of J
appears to be applicable to a wide range of loading conditions from elastic to almost fully
plastic. It is particularly interesting that this parameter estimate seems to work well for the
zero-max loading histories when the maximum stress is near yield but the cyclic strains/dis-
placements are almost completely elastic. In this case, the &/p contribution is essentially zero,
which means that we are effectively using a 2tK approach to crack growth--in spite of the fact
that the maximum stresses are approaching yield, which might be thought to invalidate such
an "elastic" approach to FCG. Apparently the effects of the large maximum stress are captured
by two features of the remaining two terms in &/~ff: changes in the level of crack closure,
which significantly affects both terms, and a significant increase in the plastic zone size, which
impacts the small but not entirely negligible &/z "effective crack length" term.
On the other hand, these procedures and results demonstrate four potential difficulties in
analyzing elastic-plastic FCG problems that are not typically concerns for SSY FCG. These
are not insurmountable difficulties, as the generally successful analysis conducted here illus-
trates. But the greater "scatter" observed in this analysis (and the extensive rationalization
which was required to explain the scatter) points out that elastic-plastic FCG analysis may
sometimes be less "exact" than its SSY counterpart.
First of all, materials that cyclically harden or soften may experience significant changes in
their constitutive relationship, which can have a large impact on both the computed and the
actual driving force &/ere" This may be relatively simple to handle in the extreme cases: use
monotonic stress-strain properties for very short histories or low stress histories and use stable
cyclic properties for relatively long, high stress histories (this is standard practice for conven-
tional low-cycle fatigue analysis). For shorter, high stress histories, during which properties
may be continuously changing, an accurate computation of &/off will be very complex. The
best approach in design may be to consider both monotonic and cyclic analyses and choose
the most conservative result.
A second potential complexity is predicting the crack closure behavior, which will tend to
change significantly very near the beginning of crack growth before stabilizing to constant
crack opening levels. Again, this will be less of a problem for longer histories. A related
complication, which could not be considered within the scope of this short investigation, is that
crack opening stresses for nominally low maximum stress histories can change as the crack
grows long enough to cause net section yielding in the remaining ligament [11].
A third complexity arises because surface crack shapes for elastic-plastic fatigue cracks can
deviate noticeably from theoretical semi-elliptical shapes, especially at higher maximum
stresses. This phenomenon makes it more difficult to compute an accurate ~roff, because J
estimates are usually based on conventional crack shapes. A related problem is the difficulty
of experimentally determining the crack depth and the overall crack shape from surface length
measurements or elastic compliance measurements alone.
Fourth, elastic-plastic FCG analysis can be complicated by the intervention of alternative
crack growth mechanisms such as ductile tearing. These mechanisms, usually associated with
crack growth under monotonic loading, will most often come into play on the first cycle or
during the last few cycles before final fracture. This complexity will be most significant when
the total number of elastic-plastic cycles is relatively small.
Finally, it should be pointed out that in these crack growth experiments, which were char-
acterized by deep cracks, small remaining ligaments, and maximum stresses near to or greater
than the yield stress, rigorous J dominance of the crack tip fields is not typically satisfied. Some
of the implications of J dominance and related constraint issues for monotonic growth of surface
720 FRACTURE MECHANICS: "I3NENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
cracks were discussed previously [3 ]. From a formal mathematical standpoint, then, it might
be argued that J and ~Jeee are not suitable parameters to describe or predict crack growth in
these tests. From a pragmatic engineering standpoint, however, there are currently no estab-
lished alternatives, and J is as close as we can get to the theoretically "correct" parameter.
Furthermore, the implications (or lack thereof) of loss of J dominance, constraint, and so forth,
have not been established for the elastic-plastic FCG problem as they have been for monotonic
crack growth (for example, resistance curves). In elastic-plastic FCG in which reversed defor-
mation occurs, and in which both maximum stresses and crack growth increments are usually
smaller than for ductile tearing, these issues may be less significant. Further investigations are
required. An important witness is the long, successful history of many different researchers
who have used zk/~fe to correlate elastic-plastic FCG rates for other circumstances in which J
dominance was not formally satisfied, including crack growth in conventional axial LCF spec-
imens at large strains.

1. Surface crack growth rate data from different types of elastic-plastic multiple cycle exper-
iments, including both zero-max load and zero-max displacement tests, have been correlated
consistently with small-scale yielding FCG and monotonic resistance curve data for Inconel
718.
2. The analytical approach is based on modified reference stress estimates of AJo~ that incor-
porate predicted changes in crack closure behavior at different stress ratios and maximum
stresses. The results show that this approach is generally successful in describing crack growth
over a wide range of loading conditions, although several difficulties in analyzing elastic-plastic
FCG have been highlighted: transient changes in crack opening levels, cyclic softening or
hardening, irregular crack shapes, and contributions from other crack growth mechanisms.
3. The final crack shapes for multiple cycle tests are similar to those observed for single-
cycle crack growth tests with comparable total Aa values. These variations are generally con-
sistent with published 3-D finite-element calculations of applied J around the perimeter of the
crack front.
Acknowledgments
These investigations were supported by the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
through Contract NAS8-37451. Special appreciation is extended to H. M. Lee, G. C. Faile, and
R. Stallworth of NASA Marshall for their continuing interest and support. V. D. Aaron and M.
L. Bartlett of Southwest Research Institute are particularly thanked for their assistance with the
experiments. The technical collaboration of D. A. Russell and K. A. Garr, Rocketdyne Division,
Rockwell International, is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1 ] Tiffany, C. F. and Masters, J. N., "Applied Fracture Mechanics," Fracture Toughness Testing,
[2] McClung, R. C., Hudak, S. J., Jr., and Russell, D. A., "Towards an Analysis of Multiple-Cycle
Proof Testing Based on J-Resistance Curves," Fatigue, Degradation, and Fracture, PVP Vol.
195, American Society for Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1990, pp. 57-65.
[3] McClung, R. C., Hudak, S. J., Jr., Bartlett, M. L., and FitzGerald, J. H., "Growth of Surface Cracks
During Large Elastic-Plastic Loading Cycles," Fracture Mechanics." Twenty-Third Symposium,
ASTM STP 1189, R. Chona, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993,
pp. 265-283.
[4] Hudak, S. J., Jr., McClung, R. C., Bartlett, M. L., FitzGerald, J. H., and Russell, D. A., "A Com-
parison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies," NASA Contractor Report
4318, Aug. 1990.
[5] McCabe, D. E., Ernst, H. A., and Newman, J. C., Jr., "Application of Elastic and Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Mechanics Methods to Surface Flaws," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium,
ASTM STP 1131, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Vol. I, 1992.
[6] McClung, R. C. and Sehitoglu, H., "Characterization of Fatigue Crack Growth in Intermediate and
Large Scale Yielding," ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 113, 1991,
pp. 15-22.
[7] McClung, R. C., "Finite Element Modeling of Fatigue Crack Growth," in Theoretical Concepts
and Numerical Analysis of Fatigue, Engineering Materials Advisory Services, Warley, West Mid-
lands, UK, 1992, pp. 153-172.
[8] Parks, D. M. and Wang, Y.-Y., "Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Part-Through Surface Cracks," in Ana-
lytical, Numerical, and Experimental Aspects of Three Dimensional Fracture Processes, AMD-Vol.
91, American Society for Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1988, pp. 19-32.
[9] Yagawa, G., Kitajima, Y., and Ueda, H., "Three-Dimensional Fully Plastic Solutions for Semi-
Elliptical Surface Cracks," International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 53, 1993,
pp. 457-510.
[10] Bauschke, H.-M., Read, D. T., and Schwalbe, K.-H., "Crack Growth Resistance at Surface Cracks
in Three Aluminum Alloys," in Defect Assessment in Components--Fundamentals and Applications,
ES1S/EGF9, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, 1991, pp. 749-764.
[11 ] McClung, R. C., "The Influence of Applied Stress, Crack Length, and Stress Intensity Factor on
Crack Closure," Metallurgical Transactions A, Vol. 22A, 1991, pp. 1559-1571.
James A. Joyce, 1 Edwin M. Hackett, 2 and Charles Roe 3
Effects of Cyclic Loading on the Deformation

and Elastic-Plastic Fracture Behavior of a
Cast Stainless Steel
REFERENCE: Joyce, J. A., Hackett, E. M., and Roe, C., "Effects of Cyclic Loading on the
Deformation and Elastic-Plastic Fracture Behavior of a Cast Stainless Steel," Fracture
741.
ABSTRACT: The objective of this program was to develop the appropriate material properties
to characterize the cyclic tensile deformation, cyclic elastic-plastic crack growth, and the ductile
tearing resistance of a pipe elbow made from a cast stainless steel equivalent to ASME SA-
351CF8M. This material was used for large-scale tests in the high level vibration test program,
which applied intense cyclic loadings to reactor piping system components and revealed that
fatigue crack growth could be a serious problem in these components. The tests conducted
included monotonic and cyclic tension tests, monotonic J-R curve tests, and cyclic elastic and
elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth rate tests. The cyclic elastic-plastic fracture behavior of the
stainless steel was of primary concern and was evaluated using a cyclic J-integral approach.
It was found that the cast stainless steel was very resistant to ductile crack extension. J-
resistance curves essentially followed a blunting behavior to very high J levels. High cycle fatigue
crack growth rate data obtained on this stainless steel was typical of that reported in standard
textbooks. Low cycle fatigue crack growth rate data obtained on this material using the cyclic
J-integral approach was consistent with the high cycle fatigue crack growth rate and with a
standard textbook correlation equation typical for this type of material. Evaluation of crack
closure effects was essential to determine accurately the crack driving force for cyclic elastic-
plastic crack growth in this material.
KEYWORDS: cyclic loading, low cycle fatigue crack growth, J integral, elastic-plastic fracture,
cast stainless steel, fracture mechanics, crack propagation, large-scale yielding
Tests conducted in Japan as part of the high level vibration test (HLVT) program for reactor
piping systems revealed fatigue crack growth in a cast stainless steel pipe elbow [1]. The
material tested was equivalent to ASME SA-351CF8M. Upon detailed examination of the
fracture surfaces from the HLVT elbow test, it was found that both fatigue and ductile tearing
were present concurrently, leading to the postulate that the crack growth may have been " J -
controlled." In support of analyses being conducted by the Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), the David Taylor Research Center (DTRC) was tasked to develop the appropriate
material property data to characterize cyclic deformation, cyclic elastic-plastic crack growth,
and ductile tearing resistance in the pipe below material. A complete list of the specimens tested
in this program and some basic information on each test is given in Table 1. Tests conducted
1 Professor of mechanical engineering, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402.
2 Materials engineer, Liscensing Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
3 Engineering GO OP student, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD 21402.
722
JOYCE ET AL. ON CYCLIC LOADING EFFECTS 723
TABLE 1--Description of specimens tested in this program.
Specimen
Test Condition Specimen I.D. Orientation
Static tensile GPQ-29 L

Cyclic tensile GPQ-33 L
High-cycle fatigue GPQ-5 L-C
High-cycle fatigue GPQ-I5 L-R
Cyclic, J, R = - 1 GPQ-2 L-C
Cyclic, J, R = - 1 GPQ-7 L-C
Cyclic, J, R = - 1 GPQ-I6 L-R
Cyclic, J, R = - 1 GPQ-17 L-R
Cyclic, J, R --- 0.3 GPQ-8 L-C
Cyclic, J, R = 0.3 GPQ-20 L-R
Cyclic, J, R = 0.0 GPQ-9 L-C
Cyclic, J, R = 0.0 GPQ-11 L-C
J-R IT GPQ-38 L-C
J-R 1T GPQ-39 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-3 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-12 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-18 L-R
J-R I/2T GPQ-19 L-R
J-R 1/2T GPQ-26 L-R
included standard tension tests, ASTM Test Method for Jrc, a Measure of Fracture Toughness
(E 813) Jic measurements, and J-R curve tests according to ASTM Test Method for Determining
J-R Curves (E 1152). Standard fatigue crack growth rate tests were conducted following ASTM
Test Method for Measurements of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates (E 647). Nonstandard tests were
also used in this program to develop cyclic tensile properties and elastic-plastic, cyclic J, crack
growth rate data. The methods used for these tests are described fully in this report. Scanning
electron microscope fractography was used on several specimens to investigate several prob-
lems and inconsistencies that developed during this study.
Material Characterization
Chemistry
The chemistry of the HLVT elbow material was determined by DTRC and meets the spec-
ifications given for ASME A351 grade CF-8M and is presented in Table 2.
Metallography
A macroetch was performed on a cross section of the pipe material using Marble's reagent
(Fig. 1) to determine the details of the processing history. The grains were found to be elongated
in the direction of the radial axis of the pipe cross section and curved in a fashion that is
TABLE 2--Chemical analysis of the HLVT program stainless

steel pipe elbow.
Element Analysis, Wt% A351-CF-8M
Carbon 0.048 0.08 max.

Manganese 1.00 1.5 max.
Silicon 0.91 1.50 max.
Phosphorous 0.023 0.04 max.
Sulfur 0.004 0.04 max.
Chromium 17.8 18 to 21
Nickel 11.0 10 to 12
Molybdenum 2.09 2 to 3
characteristic of a centrifugal casting [2 ]. Because of the irregularities in shape, an average

grain size determination was impracticable.
Monotonic Tensile Properties

Round tension specimens were prepared in a longitudinal orientation with respect to the pipe
and tested in accordance with A S T M Standard Test Methods of Tension Testing of Metallic
FIG. 1---Macroetch of section through cast stainless steel HLVT pipe elbow.
TABLE 3--Monotonic tensile properties of cast stainless steel.
Ultimate
Yield Tensile Fracture Reduction
Diameter, Stress, Stress, Stress, Elongation, in Area,
mm (in.) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa, (ksi) % %
12.5 (0.505) 263 (38.4) 529 (77.2) 375 (54.8) 52 80

12.5 (0.505) 273 (39.9) 526 (76.8) 388 (56.6) 54 78
12.5 (0.505) 264 (38.6) 543 (79.2) 408 (59.6) 64 76
6.3 (0.252) 261 (38.1) 514 (75.1) 325 (47.4) 48 84
6.3 (0.252) 306 (44.7) 527 (76.9) 403 (58.8) 49 78
6.3 (0.252) 288 (42.0) 541 (79.0) 414 (60.5) a a
"Specimen was necked outside the gage length, therefore the test was terminated and elongation and
reduction in area could not be determined.
Materials (E 8). Three specimens had 12.5 m m (0.505-in.) diameters and 25-mm (2-in.) gage
lengths, the remaining three specimens bad 6.4-ram (0.252-in.) diameters and 25-mm (1-in.)
gage lengths. The resulting tensile mechanical properties are presented in Table 3.
Cyclic Tensile Properties

Cyclic loading tensile properties were obtained in the following manner. Standard round
tension specimens of 6.4-mm diameter and 25-mm gage length were axially loaded in a cyclic
manner to produce cyclic stress-strain curves. On example stress-strain curve is shown in Fig.
2. The initial axial displacement was taken to approximately 0.08 mm, then the specimen was
FIG. 2---Cyclic tension specimen engineering stress-strain curve using R = 0.0 strain-controlled
cyclic loading---Specimen GPQ-36.
726 FRACTURE MECHANICS: "I'WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
unloaded to zero load. Subsequent displacement steps consisted of increments of approximately

0.025 mm. Data was taken continuously and stored in digital form. Each cycle had a duration
of approximately 6 s, though this varied as the test proceeded because the specimens became
more compliant as the area was reduced and the length was increased.
Specimens GPQ-33 and GPQ-36 were run until the 50% strain limit was reached on the
strain transducer, while Specimen GPQ-34 fractured outside the gage length after a uniform
strain of approximately 20% was achieved. These specimens demonstrated highly anisotropic
and heterogeneous behavior as shown in Fig. 3.
The upper envelope of the cyclic stress strain curve is shown for one specimen in Fig. 4.
Since the hydraulic machine was operating in axial displacement control the upper stress varied
considerably from cycle to cycle as shown on Fig. 4. This cyclic upper stress strain envelope
is compared to the results of the static tension tests in Fig. 4, which shows that the cyclic
loading tends to soften the material as far as ultimate strength is concerned and to increase the
apparent ductility. An exact comparison, however, cannot be made because the cyclic tension
specimens were extended only to the limit of the elongation transducer, hence not fractured.
Monotonic J-R Curve Behavior

J-R curves were evaluated using ASTM Test Method E 1152. The specimens used were 1T
and 1/2T C(T) specimens according to E 1152 with 1T specimens removed only in the L-C
orientation (because of material thickness) and 1/2T specimens removed in both L-R and L-C
orientations. The resulting J-R curves are shown in Fig. 5 along with blunting line constructions
of J = 2~rAa and J = 4 ~ A a . It is clear from these results that this material follows a path
between these blunting lines and does not fracture by ductile tearing, at least until well beyond
the ASTM Test Method E 1152 validity regions for 1/2T and 1T specimens. These validity
regions are shown in Fig. 5 for comparison. This material is too tough to be characterized by
the J-integral method using 1/2T or IT specimens.
FIG. 3--Tension specimen of cast stainless steel showing anisotropic deformation.
FIG. 4 Cyclic tensile stress-strain envelope and static tensile stress-strain data for the cast
stainless steel.
FIG. 5 Monotonic J-R curves for the cast stainless steel.
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Behavior

Linear Elastic Fatigue Crack Growth
The specimens prepared for fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) testing were 1/2T C(T) spec-
imens machined with integral knife edges for load line crack-opening displacement (COD)
measurements as shown in Fig. 6. The tests were run within the requirements of ASTM Test
Method E 647. A computer was used to estimate the crack growth using an elastic compliance
equation for C(T) specimens. Tests were run in an increasing K mode at a constant frequency
of 0.1 Hz and a minimum/maximum load ratio (R ratio) of 0.1. Data was stored digitally at
increments of 0.25 mm of crack growth. Two specimens were tested, one in the L-C orientation,
the other in the L-R orientation. The results of these tests are shown and compared to the Rolfe/
Barsom [3 ] fatigue crack propagation equation for austenitic stainless steels in Fig. 7.
Elastic-Plastic Fatigue Crack Growth

Cyclic J testing was used to evaluate the crack growth resistance of the material under intense
cyclic loading. It has been shown by several authors [4-7] that an operational J-integral range
correlates the fatigue crack growth under cyclic growth conditions beyond that of linear elastic
fracture mechanics as standardized by ASTM Test Method E 647. In this work, the load his-
tories shown in Fig. 8 were used and will be referred to as the R = 0, R = 0.3, and R = - 1
load histories, respectively. The R = - 1 case had, in fact, a range of negative R ratios, initially
with - 1 < R < 0, then for a few cycles with R = - 1, and then for the remainder of the test,
R was between - 1 and - 10 as the tensile load capacity of the specimen diminished. In each
case, cycling is continued between set load limits until the upper load limit cannot be reached,
at which time a COD increment of 0.1 mm is applied to each succeeding cycle.
J
,2,
1!7-- -~. 15i4

3048
RMAX
100 I~ It 216
-- 1~475DIA
/
+ 013
3175
FIG. 6---1/2T C(T) specimen with integral knife edges, dimensions in mm.
AK (ksi <in)
-6
0 2 3 4 $ 6
10 i i i i i
//
" GPQ-5 ~u
~u
Zo
0 --6
>., O
o
I 0 -~ c-
E / o
z
510 A 0 -o
0
0 0
"0
XD /
/
/
/
/ - - Rolfe ond Borsom
/ ~ Fit for Austenitic
Stoinless Steels
1 0 -6
10
AK (MPo #r-n)
FIG. 7~High-cycle fatigue crack growth data for cast stainless steel showing comparison with
Rolfe and Barsom fit.
The specimens used for these tests were 1/2T C(T) specimens, as previously described and
shown in Fig. 6, with integral knife edges and 20% total side grooves. Earlier work [6] has
shown that for intense elastic-plastic cycling, side grooves are essential to maintain a straight
crack front if compliance crack length estimates are to be used. If the crack front tunnels either
forward or backward, the compliance method badly underestimates the crack length and thus
the crack growth rate. Previous work with R = 0.0 and high strength structural steel had shown
that 20% side grooves worked well to maintain the straight crack fronts desired.
Both L-R and L-C orientations were tested. Compressive loading was applied to these spec-
imens using fixtures known as load caps, shown in Fig. 9. Basically, the clevis pinholes were
toleranced such that on reversal of the test machine, a compressive load was applied to the
specimen via the load caps instead of the loading pins. This system was a variant of that used
by Joyce [7] for reversed loading cyclic fatigue/fracture tests; the improvement here was that
the compressive load caps stayed in place during both the compressive and tensile loadings.
The J integral was calculated on each cycle using the Merkle-Corten [8] J equation as
modified by Clarke and Landes [9] to give
nA
J - (1)
Bnb
with
B, = net specimen thickness,
b = (W-a) is the specimen's remaining ligament,
A = the area enclosed by the load-COD cyclic curve as described further below and
FIG. 8---Cyclic load versus COD displacement curve f o r cast stainless steel specimens with (a) R
= 0.3, (b) R = 0.0, (c) R = - 1 . 0 .
FIG. 9--1mproved load cap fixtures for 1/2T C(T) and specimens.
"q= 2 +~7) , (2)
with
= {2 (a/b) 2 + 2 [2 (a/b)] + 2} '/2 - [2 (a/b) + 1] (3)
The cyclic area was calculated as shown schematically in Fig. 10. The cyclic area, shown
cross-hatched, is bounded by the loading portion ofthe load-COD curve, by a maximum COD
is
12.~-- I
.... \~ k *
-7.~
-lC
-12.~
3
- I I I I I I I I I
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
COD mm
FIG. l O--Schematic of USNA/DTRC analysis for crack closure load.

732 FRACTUREMECHANICS: -I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
vertical line, and along the bottom by a crack closure load horizontal line. The critical calcu-
lation is to evaluate the crack closure load. This was done in this work by comparing the slope
during the initial cycle loading with the slope of the first unloading portion of the previous
cycle. The basic method is to fit a quadratic polynomial to the initial load versus COD data as
p = A 1 + A2COD + A3COD 2 (4)
Then the slope is given by
kl = AE + 2A3COD (5)
and this can be set equal to the previous unloading slope, k* to give
k* = k 1 = A 2 + 2A3COD (6)
Solving for the closure COD gives
k9 - A2
COD* = - - (7)
2A3
and then P* at closure can be evaluated from Eq 4.

The crack length was evaluated for each cycle using the unloading compliance equations of
ASTM Test Method E 1152 including the rotation correction. For each load cycle specimen
compliance, crack length, the correlation of the least squares fit and maximum COD were
measured and stored on magnetic disk. Also stored was a file giving load-COD pairs tracing
out each cycle for post test processing for closure load, cyclic area, and cyclic J.
Discussion
Cyclic J Data
As described above, the specimen compliance was calculated while the test was in progress,
the crack length was calculated, then stored along with enough load and COD data to define
the shape of the cycle, and this process was repeated for each cycle. Only a small part of the
data used to calculate the crack lengths was stored, and these crack lengths estimates were
taken as the best measure of crack length for each cycle, that is, they could not be improved
by post test processing. Typical crack length data is shown for four of the R = - 1 specimens
in Fig. 11. Compliance estimates of crack length were generally very consistent and appeared
repeatable to a precision of about +-0.03 mm.
For the R = - 1 specimens, the initial and final compliance estimated crack lengths were
shown to be accurate in comparison with nine-point average crack lengths measured optically
from the specimen fracture surfaces after the test. These results are shown in Table 4.
The R = 0.0 or R = 0.3 specimens, on the other hand, showed poor agreement between the
compliance crack growth estimates and the optical measurements made after the tests were
completed.
The initial crack lengths were accurate in all cases, but in most cases the final crack lengths
estimated by compliance were well short of the post-test optical measurements. This was prob-
ably caused by the growth of secondary fatigue cracks in from each side groove on these
specimens as described in the fractography section below. The presence of secondary cracks
led to a reversely tunneled crack front, which results in an underestimate of the crack length
when compliance methods are used. This error in the estimate of crack length could also be
FIG. I 1---Crack length versus cycle count for cast stainless steel, R = - I . 0 C(T) specimens.
TABLE 4--Estimated versus measured crack growth for cyclic crack growth rate tests and J-R curve
tests of cast stainless steel.
Estimated Measured
Test Specimen Crack Growth, Crack Growth, Specimen
Condition I.D, mm mm Orientation
High-cycle fatigue GPQ-5 2.69 3.15 L-C

9 GPQ-15 2.11 2,92 L-R
Cyclic
R --- - 1 GPQ-2 8.96 9.34 L-C
R = - 1 GPQ-7 not available not available L-C
R = - 1 GPQ-16 8.93 9,59 L-R
R = - I GPQ-17 8.20 8~88 L-R
R = 0.3 GPQ-8 2.31 3.30 L-C
R = 0.3 GPQ-20 2,41 3,83 L-R
R = 0,0 GPQ-9 1.80 2.39 L-C
R = 0.0 GPQ-11 2.64 4.11 L-C
R = 0,0 GPQ-23 2.54 3,63 L-R
R = 0.0 GPQ-25 2.79 4,09 L-R
J-R IT GPQ-38 2.84 3.02 L-C
J-R IT GPQ-39 2.87 3.30 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-3 0,96 1.27 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-12 1.02 1,19 L-C
J-R 1/2T GPQ-18 0.89 0.76 L-R
J-R l12T GPQ-19 0,99 0.66 L-R
JR. l/2T GPQ-26 0.63 0,76 L-R
734 FRACTUREMECHANICS: ~ENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
least partly due to a failure of the rotation correction to handle the gross opening deformation
that occurred in these specimens.
The R = 0 and R = 0.3 cases did not appear to demonstrate a crack closure phenomena for
this material, even for the most intense loading cycles. For these specimens, the minimum load
on each cycle was taken as the lower-bound load for the cyclic area and cyclic J calculation.
The R = - 1 case demonstrated crack closure and required the calculation of a closure load
for each cycle before the cyclic area and cyclic J could be calculated. The method used for this
was discussed in the previous section. Results for the four R = - 1 specimens are shown in
Fig. 12. At the beginning, the method generally finds a closure load near the minimum (com-
pressive) load in each cycle. Some variability is shown in Fig. 12 for specimen GPQ-16 for
the first few cycles, but basically a rather steady negative closure load is located before 25
cycles have been applied to the specimen. This closure load then remains nearly constant
throughout the remaining cycles until the tensile load capacity is reached and the COD steps
of 0.1 mm are applied. When this happens, the closure load returns toward zero load if the test
is not terminated first as a result of COD transducer limitations.
The closure load of between - 2 . 2 and - 4 . 4 kN is well above the - 11.1-kN minimum load
applied to the R = - 1 specimens. The use of the minimum load in the cyclic J calculaton
rather than the closure load would have dramatically increased the cyclic J values resulting in
an erroneous calculation of the applied cyclic J.
Figure 13 shows cyclic J as a function of cycle count for the R = 0, R = 0.3, and R = - 1
cases, respectively. For the cyclic loading used here, the cyclic J range experienced by the R
= 0 and R = 0.3 cases is very limitedl while for the R = - 1 case a wide range of cyclic J
was sampled by each specimen. In all cases the cyclic J is seen to be a smooth function of
cycle count which can by used to obtain a da/dN versus AJ fatigue crack growth rate charac-
terization of the material.
FIG. 12----Closure load versus cycle count for cast stainless steel, R = - 1 . 0 C(T) specimens.
FIG. 1 3 - - J range versus cycle count for cast stainess steel 1/2T C(T) specimens; (a) R --- 0.3, (b)
R = 0.0, and (c) R = - 1 . 0 .
A combined plot showing crack growth rate results for one specimen of each orientation and
R ratio is shown in Fig. 14. The R = - 1.0 data sets show the expected power law relationship.
The R = 0.0 and R = 0.3 cases seem to demonstrate somewhat accelerated crack growth,
though the AJ range is very limited for these specimens. The excellent comparison between
the estimated and measured crack lengths for the R = - 1 specimens, shown in Table 4, verifies
the validity of the crack growth rates for these specimens. The higher crack growth rate in the
R = 0.3 specimens could be a true R ratio effect, but it also could be due to the presence of
secondary fatigue cracks observed growing from the side grooves on these specimens (see the
Fractography section as follows). The optically measured crack extensions obtained from the
R = 0.0 and R = 0.3 specimens, shown in Table 4, demonstrate that more crack growth occurred
in these specimens than was estimated by the compliance method. This suggests that the true
crack growth rate was in fact greater than that shown in Fig. 14. If the results shown in Fig.
14 were corrected in some fashion to force agreement between the final compliance crack
length estimate and the observed optical area average, an even greater difference would result
between the crack growth rates of the R = - 1 and R = 0.3 specimens. Whether this different
is an R ratio effect or the result of secondary fatigue cracks cannot be determined.
In most cases, the L-R orientation appeared to demonstrate slightly slower crack growth rates
than the L-C orientation.
Combined Cyclic K and J Results

It was originally observed by Dowling and Begley [10] that cyclic K and J data can be
combined on a single plot using the equation originally proposed by Rice [11 ] that
K2 = J * E' (8)
where
E
E' - - - (9)
1 - v 2
E = material elastic modulus, and

v = material Poisson ratio.
Such a plot for this material is shown in Fig. 15 and includes the high-cycle AK results of
the FCGR tests and the low-cycle AJ results of the elastic-plastic tests. Also shown in Fig. 15
is a correlation equation for austenitic stainless steel from the standard textbook of Rolfe and
Barsom [3]. It was clear that in terms of J range the high- and low-cycle work done as a part
of this study are consistent and in close agreement with the standard textbook equation.
In an attempt to explain the rate of fatigue crack growth in the HLVT pipe elbow structure,
the closure load at which the crack opens must be accurately determined. Clearly, complete
closure of the fatigue crack occurred at load levels well above the minimum compressive load
achieved in the laboratory specimen used in this investigation. Such closure would also be
expected in the actual structure (pipe elbow) and could be more significant in the structure than
in the laboratory specimen.
Fractography
Fractographic examinations of several of the tested specimens were conducted to evaluate
the micromechanisms of fracture. The examinations were performed using both light optical
FIG. 14 Crack growth rate for cast stainless steel---combining all three R ratios.
FIG. 15--Comparison of high- and low-cycle fatigue crack growth rate data for the cast stainless
steel.
FIG. 16--Low magnification photograph of fracture surface of Specimen GPQ-23, elastic-plastic

cycling, R ~ O, showing primary and secondary cyclic crack growth.
and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Of particular interest in the examinations was ascer-
taining whether the fatigue crack growth during elastic-plastic cycling was interrupted by duc-
tile tearing. Also of interest were the discrepancies between the final estimated and measured
values of crack extension for the R = 0 and R = 0.3 tests.
Specimen GPQ-23 was cycled in the elastic-plastic region (R = 0). The low magnification
FIG. 17--SEM fractograph of Specimen GPQ-23, elastic-plastic cycling, R = O, showing stria-

tions immediately ahead of the fatigue precrack.
photograph (Fig. 16) shows three distinct regions of cyclic crack growth: a primary crack
emanating from the fatigue precrack and two secondary fatigue cracks emanating inward from
the side grooves. SEM examination confirmed the direction of the cyclic crack growth showing
striations emanating from both the side grooves and the fatigue precrack in the appropriate
regions. Striations emanating from the precrack are Shown in Fig. 17 and were, on average,
approximatel2~ 3 txm in width in the test region directly ahead of the precrack. The cyclic crack
growth from both the precrack and the side grooves, and the resulting crack front curvature,
helps explain the discrepancies between the compliance and measured crack length estimates.
The micromechanism of crack growth in the test region was fatigue that was interrupted by
ductile tearing only near the very end of the fatigue cycling, apparently in just the last ten or
so cycles when the cyclic J was a maximum, and the specimen was distorted almost straight
open in the load line.
Specimen GPQ-20 with R = 0.3 was also cycled in the elastic plastic region (R = 0.3) and
displayed primary cyclic crack growth from the precrack and the secondary fatigue cracks
growing from the side grooves. The directions of the crack growth were confirmed by SEM
examination of the fatigue striations. The striations directly ahead of the precrack averaged
approximately 2 txm in width. As with GPQ-23, this also helps explain the discrepancies
between the final estimated and measured values of fatigue crack growth in the R --- 0.3 spec-
imens. The fatigue crack growth in the test region of GPQ-20 was also interrupted by ductile
tearing only near the test end.
Specimen GPQ-16 was subjected to fully reversed cyclic loading (R = - 1 ) . This specimen
exhibited striation spacings as large as 40 Ixm in the test region (see Fig. 18) and ductile tearing
as evidenced by microvoid coalescence near the end of the test region (Fig. 19). There was no
evidence of cyclic crack growth from the side grooves, and the compliance estimated and final
measured values of crack extension were in good agreement for this specimen.
In summary, fatigue as a micromechanism was interrupted by ductile tearing only near the
ends of the elastic plastic cycled specimens. Fatigue crack growth from the side grooves appears
to have contributed to the discrepancies between the final estimated and measured values of
crack extension for the R = 0 and R = 0.3 specimens.
FIG. 18--SEM fractograph of Specimen GPQ-16, elastic-plastic cycling, R = -1, showing fatigue
striations ahead of the fatigue precrack.
FIG. 19--SEM fractograph of Specimen GPQ-16, elastic-plastic cycling, R = -1, showing micro-
void coalescence near the end of the test region.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the work described in this report.
I. The HLVT pipe elbow stainless steel material is very resistant to ductile crack extension.
J-resistance curves follow the blunting line to very high J levels, well beyond the standard
validity region defined by ASTM Test Method E 1152.
2. High-cycle fatigue cycle growth rate data obtained on this austenitic stainless steel is
typical of that reported in standard textbooks.
3. Low-cycle fatigue crack growth rate data obtained on this material using the cyclic J-
integral approach is consistent with the high cycle fatigue crack growth rate and with the
standard textbook correlation equation typical for this type of material.
4. Very high fatigue crack growth rates, on the order of 0.02 in./cycle (0.5 mm/cycle), were
achieved in this study on very small 1/2T CT specimens. Ductile crack extension intervened
only during the last few cycles, when the cyclic J was a maximum, and the compact specimen
was distorted so that the remaining ligament was almost centered on the specimen load line.
5. Evaluation of crack closure effects was essential to determine accurately the crack driving
force for cyclic elastic-plastic crack growth in this material.
6. Secondary fatigue cracks were observed On the fracture surfaces of the R = 0 and R =
0.3 specimens. These secondary fatigue cracks were probably responsible for the inaccuracy
of the compliance estimated crack growth in these specimens. Only a primary fatigue crack
was observed on the R = - 1 cyclic specimens, and these specimens gave excellent agreement
between the compliance prediction of crack length and the posttest optical measurements.
Acknowledgments
This work was performed at the David Taylor Research Center and the U.S. Naval Academy
under the sponsorship of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the U.S. Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission (NRC). The technical monitors for the NRC were Mr. A. L. Hiser, Jr. and
Mr. M. E. Mayfield. This effort was undertaken in support of work being conducted by the
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the NRC under the program "Analysis of Crack
Initiation and Growth in the High Level Vibration Test at Tadotsu, Japan."
References
[1 ] Park, Y. J., Curreri, J. R., and Hofmayer, C. H., "The High Level Vibration Test Program Final
Report," NUREG/CR-5585, to be published 1993.
[2] The Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Vol. 15, CASTINGS, American Society for Metals, 1988, pp.
296-307.
[3] Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
[4] Tanaka, I., Hoshide, I., and Nakata, M., "Elastic-Plastic Crack Propagation Under High Cyclic
Stresses," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Volume, I1, ASTM STP 803, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. II 708-722.
[5] E1 Haddad, M. H. and Murkherjee, B., "Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Fatigue
Crack Growth," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Volume II, ASTM STP 803, Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. II 689-707.
[6] Joyce, J. A. and Sutton, G. E., "An Automated Method of Computer Controlled Fatigue Crack
Growth Testing Using the Elastic-Plastic Parameter Cyclic J," in Automated Method of Computer
Controlled Low-Cycle Fatigue Crack Growth, ASTM STP 877, American Society for Testing and
[7] Joyce, J. A., "Characterization of the Effects of Large Unloading Cycles on Ductile Tearing Tough-
ness of HSLA Steel," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 18, No. 6, Nov. 1990, pp. 373-384.
[8] Merkle, J. G. and Corten, H. T., "A J-Integral Analysis for the Compact Specimen Considering
Axial Forces as Well as Bending Effects," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of
the ASME, 1974, pp. 286-292.
[9] Clarke, G. A. and Landes, J. D., "Evaluation of J for the Compact Specimen," Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1979, pp. 264-269.
[10] Dowling, N. E. and Begley, J. A., "Fatigue Crack Growth During Gross Plasticity and the J-Inte-
gral," in Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590, American Society for Testing and Materials,
[11] Rice, J. R., Pads, P. C., and Merkle, J. G., "Some Further Results on J-Integral Analysis and
Estimates," in Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1973, pp. 231-245.
Nonmetallic Materials
Z h e n Z h o u ~ a n d J o h n D. L a n d e s ~
The Application of a Ductile Fracture Method

to Polymer Materials
REFERENCE: Zhou, Z. and Landes, J. D., " T h e Application of a Ductile Fracture Method
to Polymer Materials," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John
D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and
ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to investigate the applicability of an advanced ductile
fracture mechanics method to polymeric materials. This method was originally proposed by Ernst
and Landes. It has been further developed by the authors and successfully used to predict the
behavior of various metallic structural components containing crack-like defects. The inputs
needed for this method are calibration functions and fracture toughness. The calibration functions
used here are based upon the load separation principle; the fracture toughness is given in terms
of the J-R curve. A critical step in the method is the determination of the calibration functions.
Two procedures for doing this are introduced in this paper. One is a transformation procedure
that can be used to transfer the calibration function for a fracture toughness specimen to one for
a structural component. The other is a numerically based one in which the deformation pattern
is numerically simulated and the load separation method is applied to define the calibration
parameters.
The materials used in this study include two polymers, a toughened nylon and a polycarbonate.
The method is used to predict the load versus displacement for a nylon single-edge notched bend
specimen and the compact specimens of the polycarbonate. The predictions are compared with
the experimental results. It is shown that the ductile fracture method applies to these polymers.
However, in the case where the material fracture toughness is strongly dependent on geometry
and constraint, accurate prediction can only be ensured when the correct J-R curve is used.
KEYWORDS: ductile fracture, polymers, calibration function, J-R curve, load separation
Engineering plastics have been used in many applications. They are replacing conventional
materials such as metals and wood because of their low cost, ease of fabrication, and corrosion
resistance. When these materials are used in critical structural components such as plastic
natural gas pipelines or aircraft wings, accurate safety assessment of these structural compo-
nents are crucial.
In this paper, an advanced ductile fracture mechanics method ( A D F M M ) is applied to poly-
mers. This method was originally proposed by Ernst and Landes [1 ]. It was further developed
by Link et al. [2 ]. An attractive feature of this method is that it gives a prediction of the structural
behavior in terms of parameters like load and displacement, which are easier to work with in
a structural design. A calibration function that represents a set of calibration curves and fracture
toughness in terms of a J-R curve are used as the inputs to predict the load versus displacement
behavior of a structural component during the fracture process. The general approach for using
the method is shown in Fig. 1. The calibration functions give a relationship between load and
displacement for constant values o f crack length. This is represented by a family of curves.
1Postdoctoral fellow and professor, respectively, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics,
University of Tennessee, 310 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996.
745
Pn
Calibration F u n c t i o n s
y Fracture B e h a v i o r
vp,/w Crack Extension
al
a3
a4
v
FIG. 1--Schematic of ductile fracture method.
The fracture toughness describes how the crack length changes as a function of J. To apply
the method to a structure with a given crack size, the loading is represented by the load, P,
versus displacement, V, for that defect size. During the loading precedure, the value of J is also
determined. When J has increased to the point where a crack length change is indicated, the P
versus V curve is changed to the one for that new crack length. The loading proceeds with the
calibration function giving the relationship between P and V for a given value of crack length
and the J-R curve fracture toughness indicating what current value of crack length should be
used. When small increments in crack length are used, the loading proceeds smoothly as shown
in the plot at the bottom of Fig. 1.
The application of this method was limited until some development was made by the authors
[3-5]. Based on the load separation concept introduced by Rice et al. [6], the relationship
between load, P, crack length, a, and plastic displacement, Vp~ for a structural component is
expressed as a multiplication of two separable functions
(1)
where G(a/W) is a function of geometry only and H ( V J W ) is a function of plastic deformation

only. W is a dimension parameter; it could be the width or thickness for a structural component;
in this work specimen width is used. When the load P is divided by the G(a/W) function, the
result is a normalized load
(2)
ZHOU AND LANDES ON POLYMER MATERIALS 747
t~
Straight Line
E
t.
O
Power Law
FIG. 2--Schematic of a deformation curve showing a power law plus a straight line pattern.
For many structural components similarity exists in their global deformation patterns. When
plastic displacement is small, the relationship between the load and the plastic displacement
can be described by a power law. When the plastic displacement is large, the relationship
between load and plastic displacement can be represented by a straight line, Fig. 2. It was found
that this characteristic deformation pattern can be accurately fitted by the following functional
form
(3)
This functional form came from the work of Orange [7]. It is now called the LMN function,
named after the three constants L, M, and N in Eq. 3. It has been used as the functional form
for the calibration functions [4,5]. Two procedures have been developed for the determination
of this function. One is a transformation procedure that determines the calibration function for
a structural component directly from that for a fracture toughness test specimen [3-5]. The
other is a procedure based on numerical simulation and the load separation method [8,9]. The
former is easier to apply for the case in which the limit load solution for the structural com-
ponent is known. The latter is more general. It can be used for complex structural components
if nonlinear finite-element analysis can be conducted for the component.
The J-R curve for a structural component is often difficult to determine. The effects of size,
geometry, and constraint on the J-R curve fracture toughness are not well understood at the
present time. Therefore, the J-R curve for a fracture toughness specimen is often used for
application to a structural component with the assumption that the specimen and the structure
have the same J-R curve fracture toughness or that the specimen fracture toughness is conser-
vative. A recent study has shown that for many materials the fracture toughness is not the
controlling input, the calibration functions have more influence on such things as maximum
load prediction [3]. However, the materials whose fracture behavior is extremely sensitive to
constraint, this may not be the case. An example of this will be shown for the polycarbonate
material used in this study.
The Transformation Procedure
T h e transformation procedure was derived from experimental results on an A533B steel in

which four specimen geometries were tested [10]. It has been described previously [3] but will
be reviewed here for completeness. Figure 3 shows a result in which the independent variable
Vpl/W in Eq 3 was changed to Vpl/Vol. Here a plot of the normalized load, PN, versus the
normalized displacement, Vp/V~], for a compact specimen, CT, appears to have the same trend
as the same plot for the other three specimens, center-cracked tension (CCT), double-edge
notched tension (DENT), and single-edge notched tension (SENT). The differences in the
normalized load between the specimens can be related to the ratios of their limit loads. If the
CT specimen is taken as a fracture toughness test specimen, and the other geometries are
800 9
==
A AA&A nD
600 '
~AO 0
OA
[]
0
400 ' A
A533B Steel
9 CT
9 9 9 9 ooO eo 8 9 oo [] DENT
200 '
o CCT
A SENT
2 4 6 8
Vpl / Vel
FIG. 3--Construction to transfer from calibration function of CT to CCT, DENT, and SENT.
PN
S
V Vpl/W
(a) (b)
Step 1: Test a toughness specimen Step 2: Convertthe P-V curve into
to get load versus the normalizedload vers'usthe
displacment record. normalized plasticdisplacement.
Pn Pn
Curve in (b)
Vpl/Vel Vpl/w
(c) (4
Step 3: Multiplythe curve in (b) by Step 4: Convert the abscissa in (c)
a factor f which is the ratio of the into Vpl/w.
limit load for the structure to the
limit load for the toughness
specimen
FIG. 4 Schematic of the calibration function transformation procedure.
considered as structural components, it is then possible to predict the calibration functions for
these structural components from the test specimen.
The procedure for this transformation is shown in Fig. 4. First, the load versus displacement
record for a fracture toughness test specimen needs to be obtained from an experiment, Fig.
4a. Then this P-V curve is converted into the normalized load, PN, versus the normalized
displacement, VJW, Fig. 4b, which is the representation of Eq 3 for the specimen. The same
functional form in Eq 3 is to be used for the structural component. Assume that it has the
form
(4)
where the normalized load for the structure P , is described by three constants h, Ix, and ~,
which are analogous to L, M, and N. Then the constants h, Ix, and ~ for the structure must be
determined from the L, M, and N of the toughness specimen. This can be done by the following
steps. The abscissa, VpJW, Fig. 4b is divided by VeJWso that it becomes V~,~/V~(Fig. 4c). Then
each point on the curve is multiplied by a factor f, which is defined as
f = P~/G,(ao,/W,)
PL/G(ao/W) (5)
The result is a curve for the structure given in terms of its normalized load, P,, and the dis-
placement ratio, VpJVo~.In Eq 5, P u and Gs(aoJW,) are the limit load and geometry function
for the structure; PL and G(ao/W) are the limit load and geometry function for the toughness
specimen and at is the initial crack length. Finally, the displacement ratio in the abscissa, Vp~/
Ve~, is converted back to normalized load, Vp~/W,by multiplying VpJVo~of Fig. 4c by V,~/Wfor
the structure. The resulting P , versus VJW curve in Fig. 4d is the representation of the desired
calibration function for the structure. The h, Ix, and ~ constants can be determined by fitting
the transformed points. This is done by choosing h = f . L. Then only Ix and ~ need to be
determined from the fitted curve. The best result comes from choosing two points, the final
one and one at small VpJW, and fitting Eq 4 to them.
Note that during the process of the calibration function transformation, the elastic displace-
ment, Vow,is taken as
(6)
where C(a/W) is the elastic compliance function for the structure. It can be obtained by exper-
iment, analytical derivation or linear finite-element analysis. Vel is calculated at each given
value of VpJW (where H(Vp/W) has a known value), and the product of C(a/W)G(a/W) is
assumed to be a constant. This is not completely true in the actual case. This product is depen-
dent upon a/W, but in many cases it is not a strong function of a/W. Therefore, for a changing
crack length, a constant value, say, the value corresponding to the initial crack length, can be
used for simplicity.
This procedure can only be applied to a case in which the limit load solution for the structural
geometry of interest is available. In cases in which such a limit load solution is difficult to
derive, another procedure has to be used. A procedure based on numerical simulation is used
here; it will be described in the next section.
Numerical Simulation Procedure

Recently, Sharobeam and Landes developed a load separation method for evaluating the Xlp~
factor [8,9]. It can also be used to determine the two functions of G(a/W) and H(VJW). To
use this method, a group of load versus displacement curves corresponding to different sta-
tionary cracks are needed for the structural component. These curves, called calibration curves,
are shown the schematic of Fig. 5. The basic assumption of this method is Eq 1. If the calibration
al
L
O
a Sij
d a3
a4
Plastic Displacement Plastic Displacement
a. Obtain a set of b. Divide each curve

calibrationcurves by a reference one
to get Sij
Sij
/ Pn
a/W (or b/W) Vpl/W

c. Plot Sij vs a/W, the d. Pn=P/G(a/w). The
curve fitting gives curves in Fig.5a
G(a/w) collapse into one
curve
FIG. 5--Schematic of the load separation method.
curves in Fig. 5a are separable, a separation parameter, S~j, defined as the ratio of P(a)/P(aj)
will not be a function of plastic displacement, Fig. 5b. This can be written as
Sii = ~ Vpl = Vp~ = constant (7)

()
This means that if separation is valid, the separation parameter, Sij, is constant over the entire
range of plastic displacement. A plot of Sij versus a/W (or b/W, where b is the remaining
ligament) represents the function G(a/W), Fig. 5c. A correctly determined G(a/W) function
should be able to collapse the calibration curves in Fig. 5a into a unique curve, Fig. 5d. This
curve then is the desired calibration function for the structural component.
This procedure could be expensive if the calibration curves must be obtained by the testing
of blunt notched structural components. Besides, this may be impractical when the structural
component is large or has a complex geometry. Therefore, in practice, calibration curves are
often obtained from a numerical simulation. Based on numerical simulation, the G(a/W) and
H(Vp/W) relationships have been developed successfully for different geometries [5].
Application of Method to Polymers

The method has been sucessfully applied by the authors [3-5] to analyze various fracture
problems. The two procedures as described have proved to be reliable for determining calibra-
tion functions for different structural components. However, the applications have been limited
to metallic structures. In this paper, this method is applied to some polymeric materials. The
mechanical properties of polymeric materials can differ greatly from those of metals. Many
polymers show hardening behavior under uniaxial tensile loading that is different from the
nearly power-hardening behavior of many metals. Besides, they are usually much more sen-
sitive to loading rate and path. For example, room temperature for many semicrystalline poly-
mers has a homologous temperature greater than 0.5, which accounts for the high degree of
rate sensitivity. Changes in deformation mode from shear yielding to craze yielding often result
from small changes in the degree of hydrostatic tensile stress and give dramatic changes in the
strain to failure. As more and more of these materials are used in engineering applications, it
is important to develop techniques that quantify their safety and reliability.
The materials chosen for this study include a rubber-toughened nylon 66 (RTN 66, " Z y t e l "
ST801) [11,12] and a polycarbonate [13]. The polycarbonate differs from the nylons in both
stress-strain relationship and fracture behavior. To understand the relationship between the
material behavior and the applicability of a method better, these differences are disussed in the
next section. What is interesting is the materials have very different deformation patters under
uniaxial tensile loading but have similar deformation patterns in the notched fracture toughness
specimen. Therefore, the method can be easily applied to both materials.
Material Behavior and Structural Behavior

The relevant tensile properties of the rubber-toughened nylon and the polycarbonate are given
in Table 1. The stress-strain relationships of these two materials are quite different from each
other. The nylon has a power law strain-hardening stress-strain relation that is similar to metallic
materials like the HYI30 steel [14], Fig. 6. The difference is that the nylon has much less
strength than the steel. In Fig. 6, the stresses are normalized by the yield stresses for clarity.
The polycarbonate has a characteristic nonpower law stress-strain relation. Its stress-strain curve
can be divided into three distinct regions: nonlinear elastic, necking, and cold drawing [15].
This stress-strain curve, which is an engineering stress-strain rather than a true stress-strain
curve, is also plotted in Fig. 6. From these curves, one may think that the behavior of a structural
component made of the polycarbonate could be quite different from the two nylons. However,
an example of where this is not true is given in Fig. 7 in which a family of calibration curves
obtained from blunt-notched compact specimens test of this polycarbonate are plotted [13].
These curves do not show observable difference in deformation pattern compared with those
of HY130 steel [14], Fig. 8.
When the load separation method was used to evaluate the ~qp~factor for the compact spec-
imens of the polycarbonate, the result was comparable to that for the HY130 steel [13]. This
example shows that the global deformation behavior of a structural component may be a func-
tion of the loading condition and does not always resemble the uniaxial tension test deformation
TABLE l--Tensile properties of the rubber toughened nylon and the polycarbonate.
Material ~y,, MPa E, GPa Loading Rate, mm/s

Nylon ST801 45.1 1.90 0.26
Polycarbonate 31.0 2.40 1.27
. , , ~~
. ~ *~
e~
Z
!
ff HY130 Steel
I
.......... Rubber Toughened Nylon
..... Polycarbonate
0 |
0.0 o11 o12 o13 o.
Strain
FIG. 6--Stress-strain relations of three materials in which stress is normalized by yield stress.
1.6
o a/w=0.5
[] a/w=0.55 000 O0
9 a/w=0.6 0
0
0
9 a/w=0.65 0
0 i2 rlrl
1 . 2 84 0 [2[212D
x ahv=0.7 0 []
9 a/w=0.8 0 DM OD
0 DU
o D
[]
0 [] AAA&&AA&
0.8 [] A & A A&
O [3 A
0 [] AA
9 00000
[] 9 @OO O ~ 1 7 6
0 [2 9 9 9Oo
o [] 9 ~176176
9 i xxxxXXX
0.4 O& o~ I xxXXXX
O~A 9
9 O O O O O O O II OI) e O O O
0.0 i!: i " u i i

0 2 4 6 8
Displacement, m m
FIG. 7--Load versus displacement records of blunt-notched PC compact specimens.
753
200
o a/W--0.4
[]
[]
[]
[]
[] a/W--0.5
0
9 a/W--0.6
0
[]~[][] 9 a/W--0.7
z 0
[] 9 a/W---0.8
tO0 []
,d []
D & &
A A & 9
n
9 o 9 9
0000 ~
o
9 mmml 9 mj 9
in
0 ! i i
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Displacement, mm
FIG. 8--Load versus displacement test records of the HY130 compact specimens.
pattern. For the polycarbonate compact specimen, the remaining ligament was primarily under
bending. Necking may occur in a small region around the crack tip, but cold drawing could
never happen because the necking could not extend throughout the uncracked ligament as a
result of the adjacent section that is under compression. Away from that small crack-tip region,
material behavior was controlled by the power-law-type nonlinear stress-strain relation. As a
result, the global behavior of the specimen did not show the nonpower law pattern observed
in Fig. 6, and the load separation method could be carried out without difficulty.
However, if the specimen were under pure tensile loading, necking and cold drawing may
occur at high levels of deformation. The resulting load versus displacement may appear to be
similar to the nonpower law stress-strain relationship. The application of the load separation
method in this case would be questionable. The load separation theory as originally introduced
was assumed to be valid only for deeply cracked bodies in which the remaining ligament
experiences primarily bending loading and for a body exhibiting power law hardening that is
subjected to a single monotonically increasing load parameter [16]. This assumption might
have been too conservative. Based on experimental study, Sharobeam and Landes showed that
the load separation existed for notched specimens loaded in both pure bending and pure tension
as well as in those geometries for which the tensile to bending load ratio varied [8,17]. They
concluded that the load separation was not limited to a specific crack size, material, and con-
straint. Although this conclusion might have overlooked the case of the polycarbonate under
pure tension, it is acceptable in practice. For structural components in service, deformation is
only allowed in a limited range in which the load separation may apply. Therefore, for materials
like polycarbonate, the method may be applicable to a specific loading condition or a limited
deformation range.

Prediction of Nylon Three-Point Bend Specimen
The load versus displacement for a three-point bend specimen was predicted using the cal-
ibration function taken from a compact specimen and the fracture toughness from bend spec-
imens of two thicknesses. The dimensions of both the compact and three-point bend specimens
used in the prediction are given in Table 2. Figure 9 shows the fracture toughness values for
the two thicknesses that were used in the prediction. These results were obtained from the
multiple specimen J-testing procedure [12]. These results show a slight size dependence that
begins at about 0.5 mm of crack extension. This size dependence begins at about the 10% of
original remaining ligament recommended as the limit for J-controlled growth; however, it
could also just reflect some scatter in the results. Both of the curves were used in the prediction
to investigate the influence of fracture toughness on the predicted load versus displacement.
As shown later this influence was not very great. Both of the procedures for the determination
of the calibration functions were used in this case to test their applicability. First, a compact
specimen of the same material was taken as a fracture toughness specimen and was tested to
provide the basic information needed for the calibration function transformation. The limit load
solutions for a compact specimen and a three-point bend specimen were taken from the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) Handbook [18] to get the limit load ratio, f. The elastic mod-
ulus given in Table 1 was used for the elastic part of the analysis. Figure 10 shows the cali-
bration function for the bend specimen obtained from the transformation procedure. It is com-
pared with the experimental result. The calibration function obtained from the load separation
procedure is also shown in Fig. 10. A small difference exists in the predicted calibration func-
tions and the experimental one. The influence of the difference on the load versus displacement
prediction is discussed at the end of this section.
The numerical load separation procedure used a nonlinear finite element analysis; this was
conducted on a Macintosh II computer using COSMOS/M Geostar software. Figure 11 shows
the finite element mesh for the bend specimen. An eight-node isoparametric solid element was
used. Only one quarter of the specimen was modeled because of symmetry. The material was
assumed to obey the von Mises yield criterion and the isotropic hardening rule. Figure 12 shows
the load versus displacement curves (calibration curves) obtained from the numerical simula-
tion. Four curves were generated with crack length top width ratios ranging from a/W = 0.5
to a/W = 0.8. Each curve corresponds to a fixed crack length. Figure 13 shows the separation
results with the curve in which the a/W = 0.6 curve was taken as the reference curve. Separation
is successful throughout the entire range of plastic displacement. The nonseparable region was
small compared to the maximum plastic displacement. The log-log plot of the separation param-
TABLE 2--Dimensions of the nylon specimens.
Specimen Function B, mm W, mm ao, mm

Compact Input 6.35 50.8 25.4
3-point bend J-R curve 3.18 6.35 3.18
3-point bend J-R curve and prediction 6.35 12.70 6.35
80
sI
sI
SS
s/S /0
60'
jS 0
r< j/S 0
.~ o
40
/~o ~
o B=6.35mm
20
/ a B=3"18mm
/
B = -__.
r- P~
Power
, LawFitof
~ B=631315~
8
| i
1 2 3
Crack Extension, mm
FIG. 9--Fracture toughness testing result for rubber-toughened nylon ST801.
20
13
El
[]
st
[] 9 9
rl o o
I-I 9
ao e o
t:~ o
r~ o
r~ o
=~o o
10 o
i:l~e
oe
q~ 9 9 TestData
o0
3e o Numerical Simulation
3
,9 a Transformation
0 i
0.0 0.1 0.2
Vpl/W
FIG. lO--Comparison of calibration functions obtained from different procedures.
756
,.~ ,. ...-. ~-.~<.~.~..
.-<...
-....
FIG. 11--Finite-element mesh of the three-point bend spectmen.
0.$-
O
O
o a/W--O.5
o
o
O.4- 0 [] a/W---0.6
o
o
Z o
u a A a/W=0.7
s~
o
rs
"~ 0.3' o D 9 ~--0.8
o o
o rl
D
o []
o []
OD A
A
0.R. U
OD A &
OG A
D 9
~k
0.1'
[IA 9
0.0 . . . . i . . . . . . . .
5 1'0 5
Displacement, m m
FIG. 12--Load versus displacement of the nylon three-point bend specimen obtained from numer-
ical simulation.
757
o a/W--0.5
00000000000000 a aJW---0.6
9 a/W---0.7
* a/W--0.8
0 (]OODt]O OODO0~]O0
A A & & & A A A A & & & & A A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 4 6 8 10
Plastic Displacement, m m
FIG. 13--Separation result of the nylon three-point bend specimen.
eter, Sij, versus the normalized ligament, b/W, shows a linear relationship (Fig. 14). This means
that the geometry function, G(a/W), in Eq 1 has the power law form given by
G =o~ (8)
Here Xlp~= 1.965 can be evaluated from the slope of the straight line in Fig. 14. The coefficient
tx is taken as tx = BW where B is the thickness of the specimen and W the width.
When the G(a/W) function was used to normalize the calibration curves in Fig. 12, it col-
lapsed these curves into a unique curve of P~ versus Uv/W (Fig 15). This is confirmation that
the G(a/W) function taken from Fig. 14 is correct. The curve of PN versus Vp/W (Fig. 15) can
be fitted using the form in Eq 3. The fracture toughness in Fig. 9 and the calibration functions
obtained from both the transformation procedure and the load separation procedure were then
used as the inputs to predict the load versus displacement for the bend specimen with a growing
crack. Figure 16 shows the comparison of these predicted curves v~ith the experimental result
using the calibration function from the transformation procedure. Figure 17 shows the com-
parison in which the calibration function was from the load separation of the numerical result.
The experimental curve stops at about one third of the total predicted displacement. The pre-
dicted curves agree very well with the test data in that range. The small size effect observed
for the toughness in Fig. 9 does not influence the maximum load prediction in these cases.
As mentioned before, the predicted calibration functions are not very consistent with the
experimental result in Fig. 10. The error exists mainly in the values of the I* and 4. Table 3
shows the values of the h, Ix, and g obtained from the curve fittings. The predicted values of
Linear Fitting: Log(Sij) = 1.9305 + 1.965Log(b./W)
:5
rj3
o
-1
-2
-1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6
Log(b/W)
FIG. 14~Log-log plot of S~j versus blW for the three-point bend specimen.
3 84
o
rs
9 []
Q
~eD
Z
E 2
f o
9
"
a/w--0.5
aJw---0.6
a/w--0.7
9 ' a/w--0.8
0
o ; ~ 3
Normalized Plastic Displacement
F I G . 15 Normalized load versus normalized plastic displacement for nylon STSO1 three-point
bend specimens.
759
0.3
] ~176
~ ~ 01 7o6
o
9 ~ o
~ o o
9 ~ o
[] o
0,2 9 [] ~ o
0
Z: o
o
~
~
o
0
o.1 9
9 Test Data
o Prediction: J-R from B=6.35 m m
'I Prediction: J-R from B=3.18 m m
0.o
0
Displacement, mm
FIG. 1G--Comparison between predicted load versus displacement and test data for the nylon
three-point bend specimen in which calibration function was obtained from transformation.
0.3
9 0000
[] ~ o
a o
9 [] o o
[] o
0.2" 9 [] o
Z [] o o
a
[]
0
D
[]
0
0.1 9 9 Test Data
0.0
0
,• 4
u
8
n
8
a
0
Displacement, mm
FIG. 17--Comparison between predicted load versus displacement and test data for the nylon
three-point bend specimen in which calibration function was obtained from numerical simulation.
760
TABLE 3--Comparison of values of A, ix, and ~.
Source h I~
Test Data 13.50 32.13 0.0442

Transformation 13.85 39.76 0.0378
Load separation 13.22 24.35 0.0521
the h are comparable to those from the experiment. It appears that the calibration functions
were dominated by h, and the error in the i9 and ~ had little effect on the predicted maximum
loads.
Prediction of Polycarbonate Compact Specimens

In this section, the load versus displacement behavior is predicted for three thicknesses of a
compact specimen, 25.4, 5.91, and 2.90 mm, based on results from one thickness, 5.91 ram.
The dimensions of the compact specimens are given in Table 4..The fracture behavior of the
polycarbonate is very sensitive to constraint. An earlier study reported some experimental
results for the precracked compact specimens of different thicknesses [13], which showed that
the specimen 25.4 mm thick behaved like a brittle material, whereas the thinner specimens
(5.9l and 2.90 mm thick, respectively) appeared to be ductile with a characteristic "pop-in"
occurring at relatively low values of plastic deformation. The amount of crack extension that
occurs during " p o p - i n " is proportional to the thickness of the specimen. As a result, the fracture
toughness shows a strong thickness dependence. Figure 18 shows these results, which were
obtained from the multiple specimen J testing method (ASTM Test Method for J~c, a Measure
of Fracture Toughness [E 813]). The 2.90-mm-thick specimen has much higher toughness than
the 5.91-mm-thick specimen. No J-R curve can be developed for the 25.4-mm-thick specimen.
This specimen fractures in the linear elastic regime and can be characterized by the critical
stress intensity factor, K~c.
The prediction was initially made using the results from the 5.91-mm-thick specimen. The
calibration function for this specimen came from the previous work [12] in which a group of
blunt notched specimens were tested. The calibration functions for the other two thicknesses
were obtained by the transformation procedure. The predicted load versus displacement for
these three specimens are shown in Figs. 19, 20, and 21, respectively, where they are compared
with the experimental results. As expected the prediction is accurate for the 5.91-mm-thick
specimen, but it failed to describe the brittle fracture behavior observed for the 25.4-mm-thick
specimen and underestimated the instability load for the 2.90-ram-thick specimen. The reason
is that the fracture toughness of the other thicknesses was not correctly represented by the J-R
curve of the 5.91-mm-thick specimen. When the fracture toughness with the correct constraint
was used for the 2.90-mm-thick specimen, the prediction appeared to be more successful (Fig.
21). This result shows that for this material the effect of constraint on toughness must be
considered before a load versus displacement prediction can be made for a structural compo-
TABLE 4--Dimensions of the polycarbonate specimens.
Specimen B, mm W, mm ao, mm
PC-CT1 25.40 50.80 25.40
PC-CT2 5.91 50.80 28.00
PC-CT3 2.90 50.80 28.40
40 o
9 B=5.91mm
ao J 9 B=2.90 mm
<
,..; 20
10
o . ~
0 1 2 3 4
Crack Extension, m m
FIG. 18~Multiple specimen J testing result for polycarbonate compact specimens.
nent. This behavior is in contrast to the rubber-toughened nylon, for which the fracture tough-
ness was not sensitive to the effect of constraint.
Note that the predicted results do not describe the effect of the "pop-in" phenomenon on
the load versus displacement behavior because the calibration function was obtained from the
testing of the blunt notched specimens in which "pop-in" was not observed. "Pop-in" was
accompanied by a sudden crack extension at a certain load level. This resulted in a plateau on
the load versus displacement test record. This sudden increase in crack length could not be
predicted because the calibration function and the J-R curve were both taken as continuous
functions.
Numerical simulation was not used in this case. The finite-element code available for this
work was not able to handle the characteristic stress-strain relation in which one stress corre-
sponds to more than one strain. Therefore, only the transformation procedure was used in the
prediction. The results show that when the method is applied to materials like the polycarbonate
whose fracture behavior is strongly dependent on constraint, an incorrect result may be obtained
unless the fracture toughness with the appropriate constraint is used. Therefore, for this case
the fracture toughness plays a major role in the load versus displacement behavior.
oOOOOOo00
0 O00OOOOOOOOoo
Z
0
Fracture
PC-CTI:
9 Test Data
1
o Prediction
o i i ~ i i
2 4 6 8 10
Displacement, m m
FIG. 19--Comparison between predicted load versus displacement and test data for the 25.4-ram-
thick PC CT specimen.
0.8-
9o,.O.ooe=
o
0.6"
0
0
Z
)d 0.4"
.\
"Pop-in"
PC-CT2:
9 Test Data
0.2'
o Predic~on
0.0
4 6 8
Displacement, m m
FIG. 20--Comparison between predicted load versus displacement and test data for the 5.91 PC
CT specimen.
763
0.4
9
:*'*~S~*".,p 0.%
o 9 o
0.3 o9
9 D I~I~DEI DD 9
13[IQI3 ~
D
oo
"Pop-in"
o
0.2 :/
PC-CT3:
0.1
9 Test Data
n Prediction: Incorrect J-R Constraint
9 Prediction: Correct J-R Constraint
0.0
0 4 6 8 10
Displacement,mm
FIG. 21--Comparison between predicted load versus displacement and test data for the 2.90-ram-
thick PC CT specimen.
Conclusions
An advanced ductile fracture mechanics method (ADFMM) has been applied to two poly-
meric materials, a rubber-toughened nylon and a polycarbonate. Predictions of load versus
displacement are made on a nylon three-point bend specimen and three polycarbonate compact
specimens. Two procedures for the determination of the calibration functions have been intro-
duced: a transformation procedure and a numerical simulation method.
The results show that the method is applicable to these polymeric materials. Both procedures
for the determination of the calibration functions are applicable to the nylon. However, the
numerical simulation procedure could not be applied to the polycarbonate because its charac-
teristic stress-strain relationship can not be handled by the finite-element code used in this
study.
The prediction for the rubber-toughened nylon was not affected by the small differences in
fracture toughness caused by a different thickness. The prediction for polycarbonate, however,
was strongly influenced by differences in constraint, and the resulting predictions were not
correct if the incorrect toughness was used in the prediction. Therefore, for materials that show
strong constraint dependence in their fracture toughness, accurate prediction can only be
ensured when the fracture toughness corresponding to the correct constraint is used.
References
[1 ] Ernst, H. A. and Landes, J. D., "Prediction of Instability Using the Modified J, Jm Resistance Curve
Approach," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology, ASTM STP 896, American Society
[2] Link, R. E., Herrera, R., and Landes, J. D., "General Methodology for Predicting Structure Behavior
Under Ductile Fracture Conditions," Advances in Fracture Research, Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Conference on Fracture (ICF-7), Vol. 1, March 1989, pp. 205-212.
[3] Landes, J. D., Zhou, Z., and Brown, K., "An Application Methodology for Ductile Fracture Mechan-
ics," in Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Third Symposium, ASTM STP 1189, R. Chona, Ed., American
[4] Landes, J. D. and Zhou, Z., "A Ductile Fracture Methodology for Predicting Pressure Vessel and
Piping Failure," in Computational Techniques for Fracture and Corrosion Fatigue, ASME PVP
Vol. 213 and MPC Vol. 32, ASME, Houston, 1991, pp. 207-216.
[5] Zhou, Z., "Development and Application of An Advanced Ductile Fracture Mechanics Methodol-
ogy," Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, May 1992.
[6] Rice, J. R., Paris, P. C., and Merkle, J. G., "Some Further Results of J-Integral Analysis and Esti-
mates," in Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536, American
[7] Orange, T. W., "Methods and Models for R-Curve Instability Calculations," in Fracture Mechanics:
Twenty-First Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J. P. Gudas, J. A. Joyce and E. M. Hackett, Eds., Amer-
[8] Sharobeam, M. H. and Landes, J. D., "The Load Separation Criterion and Methodology in Ductile
Fracture Mechanics," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 81-104.
[9] Sharobeam, M. H., Landes, J. D., and Herrera, R., "Development of Eta Factors in Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Testing Using a Load Separation Technique," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods:
The User's Experience (Second Volume), ASTM STP 1114, J. A. Joyce, Ed., American Society for
[10] Landes, J. D., McCabe, D. E., and Ernst, H. A., "Fracture Testing of Ductile Steels," EPRI NP-
5014, Final Report for Project RP 1238-2, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Jan.
1987.
[11] Zhou, Z., Landes, J. D., and Huang, D. D., "J-R Curve Calculation with the Normalization Method
for Toughened Polymers," Polymer Science and Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 2, Jan. 1994, pp. 128-
134.
[12] Huang, Et. D., "A Comparison of Multispecimen J-Integral Method as Applied to Toughened Poly-
mers," in Advances in Fracture Research, Vol. 4, Seventh International Conference on Fracture,
University of Houston, 1989, pp. 2725-2737.
[13] Landes, J. D. and Zhou, Z., "Application of Load Separation and Normalization Methods for
Polycarbonate Materials," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 13, 1993, pp. 383-395.
[14] Landes, J. D., Walker, H., and Clarke, G. A., "Evaluation of Estimation Procedures Used in J-
Integral Testing," in Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668, American Society for Testing and
[15] Bucknall, C. B., Gotham, K. V., and Vincent, P. I., "Fracture II--The Empirical Approach," in
Polymer Science, American Elsevier, New York, 1972.
[16] Kanninen, M. F. and Popelar, C. H., Advanced Fracture Mechanics, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1985.
[17] Sharobeam, M. H., "The Geometry and Deformation Functions in Ductile Fracture Mechanics and
Methodologies," Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 1990.
[18] Kumar, V., German, M. D,, and Shih, C. F., "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Analysis," EPRI NP-1931, Project 1287-1, Topical Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Pato
Alto, CA, July 1981.
Rocky R. Arnold, 1 Patrick S. Collins, t Peter S. Ayoub, 2
and R. Tung 2
Methodology for Predicting Canopy Fracturing

Patterns During Ejection
REFERENCE: Arnold, R. R., Collins, P. S., Ayoub, P. S., and Tung, R., "Methodology for
Predicting Canopy Fracturing Patterns During Ejection," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-
ABSTRACT: A computer program for the prediction of crack propagation in aircraft transpar-
encies is described. The program, PACE (program for automated crack extension), provides an
analyst with an automated means to update continually an initial finite element model to account
for the propagation and branching of cracks resulting from the use of detonating cord and
mechanical breakers to fragilize the transparency. The time frames of action for both the explod-
ing detonating cord and fast fracture of the polymer transparency are short with respect to any
gross movement of the cahopy; hence, the primary focus of the research is the determination of
the initial fracture or breakout pattern of the canopy. Relatively simple fracture mechanics expres-
sions are used to estimate crack propagation direction and the number of branches. Experimental
work and correlations to predictions made by PACE are described. An overview of the com-
putational process is provided.
KEYWORDS: fracture mechanics, polymer, aircraft transparency, detonating cord, mechanical

breakers, automated mesh generation
Crew escape systems are an essential and integral part of modem aircraft design. Carrier-
based flight operations in which Navy pilots are routinely expected to take off from and land
on aircraft carriers often dictate special requirements quite different from that of Air Force
pilots. A case in point is that of ejection of the pilot under emergency situations. Air Force
aircraft typically jettison the canopy and then eject the pilot. Such a procedure is generally
possible because the altitude and time constraints are adequate to allow such a procedure.
However, Navy pilots face a near death situation when they attempt a landing on a pitching,
rolling, relatively small landing strip on the carrier during which small mistakes can lead to
disastrous consequences. Particularly when attempting to land, any malfunctioning of the air-
craft engine or controls can lead to sudden loss of altitude, and the aircraft may hit the carrier.
This is a particularly hazardous situation requiring crew escape systems that essentially react
without delay.
The fastest way to eject a pilot in an emergency situation is not to bother with the jettison
of the canopy but rather simply to eject the pilot through the canopy. This minimizes ejection
time and increases the probability of saving the pilot's life. Ejection of pilots through canopies
is not new and has been successfully used by the Navy for many years (see Fig. 1 for a
l Manager, New Business, and senior engineer, respectively, Anamet Laboratories, 3400 Investment
Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-3811.

2 Head, Escape Systems Branch, and senior project engineer, respectively, Naval Air Warfare Ctr.,
Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA 18974-5000.
766
ARNOLD ET AL. ON CANOPY FRACTURE PATTERNS 767
FIG. 1--ESCAPAC canopy partial reconstruction, right view.
reconstructed canopy). However, serious injuries can occur as a result of the momentary decel-
eration of the pilot as he is pushed through the canopy.
Two potential methods of canopy fragilization are possible: explosive detonating cord and
mechanical breakers. Explosive detonation cord is used in some aircraft, however, there is room
for improvement. Mechanical breakers are fundamentally reliable provided they are designed
properly or the seat impacts the canopy at sufficient velocity, or both. Whichever system is
used, the problem remains to place the detonating cord or position mechanical breakers opti-
mally to fragilize a canopy in a reliable fashion. The goal of this research is to provide an
analytical technology to place detonating cord and mechanical breakers optimally with reduced
need for costly and time-consuming live demonstration tests. This paper describes preliminary
work directed at developing the automated software procedure and verification based on the
use of relatively simple fracture mechanics predictive relations.
Theoretical Formulation
The theoretical formulation of the program for automated crack extension (PACE) compu-
tational procedure consists of a special crack-tip element (that is not formally a part of PACE),
criteria for the prediction of initial crack formation and dynamic crack propagation, and a
criterion for the determination of crack branching. The special crack tip element is used to
compute the stress intensity factors upon which PACE bases its estimates of crack propagation
and branching [1,2]. The two-dimensional (2D) crack tip element is used by PACE, and this
element is based on the shape functions of Hughes and Akin [3] ~md the modifications of
Woytowitz and Citerley [1 ]. A complete description of this element can be found in Ref 3.
The 2D element is linear and homogeneous, can handle isotropic or orthotropic material prop-
erties, properly handles rigid body and constant strain modes of displacement/deformation, and
is theoretically correct in the handling of thermal and gravity loads. This crack tip element
provides the calculation of stress intensity factors from which crack propagation, direction, and
branching are based.
Crack propagation is based on the criteria of Sih [4], which uses the strain energy density
for mixed-mode crack extension under static loading. For dynamic effects, the work of Ramulu
and Kobayashi [5] for mixed-mode crack propagation is used. Crack branching criteria is based
upon Ramulu et al. [6].
P A C E Software Development
PACE software development combines the theoretical aspects descrilSed above with the func-
tional requirements of interfacing with the user, communicating with MSC/NASTRAN [7],
modifying and generating new grids, and providing output. The computer code is written in
FORTRAN.
One of the more challenging tasks accomplished during this research has been the creation
of a method for generating new meshes. Dynamic remeshing, as it is referred to, involves
algorithms that determine the outline formed by both the boundaries of the structure and those
dictated by the crack(s) as they form. This boundary information is used by a quadtree procedure
[8] to generate an initial placement of interior nodes. The quadtree procedure allows the density
of interior nodes to be sensitive to the density of nodes on nearby boundaries. Subsequently,
special rules, tailored to the problem at hand, are used to reposition nodes and triangular ele-
ments to maximize accuracy, particularly around crack tips.
Experimental Work
Experimental simulations have been accomplished to demonstrate the veracity of PACE. In
particular, two different geometrical configurations were used: flat plates and cylinders. Flat
plates containing a notch were used to provide experimental data on crack branching. Figure
2 shows a schematic drawing of a flat plate specimen in the special fixture used in conjunction
with a drop-weight test machine. The hammer transmits the energy of the drop weight into a
force that acts on the pin in the bottom hole of the specimen. Through proper design of the
notch (for example, the radius of the notch was sized to allow for the formation of one, two,
or more branches depending on the drop-weight mass and velocity), various crack-branching
scenarios were produced experimentally.
The material used in all flat plate specimens was Homalite H100 acrylic. The plates measured
approximately 6 in. (15.24 cm) by 9 in. (22.86 cm) with a thickness of 0.25 in. (0.64 cm). The
distance from the edge of the specimen to the extreme edge of the notch (a) and the notch
radius (r) define the notch geometry.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the experimental effort for fiat plates. The direction of
initial crack propagation is called the initial angle and is measured from a horizontal centerline
that passes through the notch with downward denoted as positive. The initial angle and number
of branches were determined after test by careful reconstruction of the specimen. The number
of branches is observed to vary with the impact energy and the notch radius. Notches of larger
radius allowed a buildup of strain energy around the notch tip. Once crack initiation occurred,
the release of strain energy prompted the formation of additional branches. For extremely sharp
tips (data not reported), the plates would tend to simply divide in half, a result not desired for
this study. The formation of multiple branches occurred in a characteristic manner, that is, a
new branch would form from an existing branch to create, momentarily, two branches. Sub-
Plns (2)
~Speclmen
]
~ Anvll
Scole 1/2" = 1"

Impact
.g. All Mlld Steel Construction
Hammer
J
Ir ..........
-~ Specimen
6~6"
(16,67 cm)
I
~ Notch
~Bolts (4) Attoch Anvil to

~LJ_~_~R.~ffLBeSe (Not Shown)
1" I ill Iiii I~Anvll
[
(2.54 cm)
FIG. 2--In-plane impact test fixture.
TABLE 1--Flat plate crack-branching tests.
Drop Impact or Impact Notch Notch Initial Number

Height, Velocity, Energy, Length, Radius, Angle, of
Specimen m m/s nt-m cm cm degree Branches
10 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 - 10.4

11 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 -13.1
12 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 - 15.8
13 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 -12.2
14 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 17.7
15 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 10.4
17 2.438 6.918 75.6 5.2388 0.1588 8.5
18 2.438 6.918 75.6 2.1594 0.0794 -35.8
19A 2.438 6.918 75.6 2.1594 0.0794 -43.5
19 2.438 6.918 75.6 2.1594 0.0794 -37.8
20 1.122 4.892 37.8 5.2388 0.1588 -50.5
21 1.829 5.993 56.7 5.2388 0.1588 -3.4
sequently, each branch could produce a single new branch. In other words, multiple branches
did not form all simultaneously, even though the closeness of branching in time and space
might mislead one into thinking it does.
Figure 3 Shows the results of one of the impact tests in which multiple branches were formed.
Figure 4 shows the results of high-speed photography using a Redlake Corp. HYCAMII Series
41 camera to capture the dynamic crack propagation and branching (note: photographic repro-
duction masks the minute details that are normally revealed through microscopic examination
of the negatives). The top speed of the camera was 44 000 frames per second, but because of
lighting limitations a speed of 25 000 frames per second was found to provide the best resolution
on the developed film. Providing sufficient light to illuminate the specimen for the extremely
short time periods involved was a problem. Once enough light was used (8 kW), it was found
that the heat generated caused the surface of the specimen to increase in temperature. The
electronic sequencing was adjusted so that the lights were turned on just before the impact
event. The camera was started approximately 1.1 s before the dropweight was released. This
allowed the camera to achieve full speed at the time of impact. The entire sequence of camera
windup, dropweight and specimen impact, and camera wind-down lasted approximately 2.1 s
and more than 400 ft (121.9 m) of film was used. Less than one dozen frames (out of over
50 000 frames) were required to capture the fracture event near the notch tip.
The initial crack speed, based upon examining the first few frames after impact, was approx-
imately 18 200 ft/s (554.74 m/s) for Specimen 15 and 19 500 ft/s (594.36 m/s) for Specimen
21.
Cylindrical specimens were also tested using a special fixture and the dropweight test
machine. Figure 5 shows the fixture, dropweight test machine, and a typical fractured specimen.
The machine was designed to accommodate a range of mechanical breaker types. These tests
were not instrumented or filmed as the objective was to obtain some qualitative data for sub-
sequently comparison to PACE predictions.
FIG. 3--In-plane impact Test 14 final branched pattern. 8-ft (0.24-m) drop, 6.97-1b (31.0-N)
weight, a = 2.0625 in. (5.24 cm), and r = 0.0625 in. (0.16 cm).
FIG. 4--In-plane impact Test 17 high speed photography.
Demonstrative Correlations
Results from using PACE are shown in Fig. 6 for the fiat plate. Note that qualitative com-
parisons between fiat plate experimental and analytical results were good (Fig. 6); however,
quantitative comparisons are more difficult because of the variable results of each fracture
event and the lack of knowledge of the dynamic material properties associated with the polymer.
Table 2 provides mechanical properties used in analysis. The PACE predictions were based on
estimates of properties for the Homalite H100 material; however, no attempt was made to
determine actual material property values since the primary focus of the research was on devel-
oping the automated procedures. PACE is not intended to provide an exact quantitative account-
ing of the crack propagation process. PACE is being developed to establish consistent reliable
predictions that approximate real-life behavior.
Figure 7 shows the results of using PACE to examine a cylinder impacted by a normal load.
Note how the quadtree procedure provides variable mesh spacing to accommodate the needs
for increased mesh densification around the crack-tip elements.
Overview of the PACE Computational Procedure

PACE assists the analyst with the placement of detonating cord on the transparency. An
optimal placement of detonating cord requires that the cord not obstruct the vision of the pilot,
not injure the pilot during use, and permit safe egress. Figure 8 shows how an analyst would
use PACE. As depicted in the lower left-hand comer of the figure, the analyst provides an
initial finite element model complete with specifications of boundary conditions, environmental
Conditions, loads, material properties, and normal and special geometrical or construction
details that are felt to be germane to the problem. Next, the analyst performs an analysis without
a detonating cord (no DC). The initial finite element analysis provides information about defor-
mations, strains, stresses, and strai n energy distributions throughout the model (structure).
In the next step, the analyst would rely upon engineering judgment to specify an initial
FIG. 5--C1TF viewed on end with previously cracked canopy installed.
location for the detonating cord. Based upon this revised model, cracks and damage created by
the exploding detonation cord are implanted into the finite element mesh. The next analysis
provides information about the local state of stress around the crack tip(s). From this infor-
mation, PACE predicts crack propagation, direction, and branching, and the finite element grid
is automatically reformulated to account for these changes. The process of iteration in which
new cracks are formed and old cracks continue to propagate, branch, or become arrested is
continued until the canopy is fragilized sufficiently for the user to understand the result of
placing the detonating cord in the locations chosen.
Concluding Remarks
Early studies with PACE demonstrate that the dynamic remeshing scheme relieves the analyst
of the task of trying to remesh finite element grids to account for the formation of multiple-
FIG. 6--(a) PACE predictions of multiple crack branching and propagation in polymer materials
subjected to sudden impact loading.
FIG. 6---(b) PACE predictions of multiple crack branching and propagation in polymer materials
subjected to sudden impact loading (concluded).
TABLE 2--Mechanical properties used.
E = 6.19 • 10' psi (4.27 GPa)

v = 0.357
p = 1.11 X 10 -4 lb-sVin. (1.185 • 103 kgm 3
C. a = 3.08 • 104 in./s (782.3 m/s)
Kic = 383 psi'inJ/2 (0.42 MPa'm 1/2)
Kib~ = 1804 psi'in) a (1.98 MPa'm l/2)
a Crack propagation speed (0.32 of dilatational).

b Crack branching stress intensity factor.
branched cracks [9]. Qualitative comparisons of predictions with experimental work for fiat
plates shows that the simple expressions used to predict crack propagation and branching are
at least adequate for the work being accomplished at this time. Additional future studies will
focus on quantitative data as a means to verify the predictive fracture mechanics relations.
9 . _
FIG. 7 - - C y l i n d r i c a l canopy subjected to point-impact loading (t = 106 ixs).
I,Ll
0
,LEIV.L6
References
[1] Woytowitz, P. J. and Citerley, R. L., "Crack Elements for COSMIC/NASTRAN," in Proceedings of
the Thirteenth COSMIC/NASTRAN Users' Colloquium, 1986.
[2] Parekh, J. C., Arnold, R. R., and Woytowitz, P. J., "A Modern Family of Crack-Tip Elements for
MSC/NASTRAN," in MSC/NASTRAN Users' Conference, 1986.
[3] Hughes, T. J. R. and Akin, J. E., "Techniques for Developing Special Finite Element Shape Functions
with Particular Reference to Singularities," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engi-
neering, Vol. 15, 1980, pp. 733-751.
[4] Sih, G. C., "Some Basic Problems in Fracture Mechanics and New Concepts," Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 5, 1973, pp. 365-377.
[5] Ramulu, M. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Strain Energy Density Fracture Criterion in Elastodynamic Mixed
Mode Crack Propagation," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1983, pp. 1087-1098.
[6] Ramulu, M., Kobayashi, A. S., and Kang, B. S, J., "Dynamic Crack Branching--A Photoelastic
Evaluation," in Fracture Mechanics." Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 833, R. J. Sanford, Ed., Amer-
[7] MSC/NASTRAN User's Manual, Version 67, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., Los Angeles, 1991.
[8] Samet, H., "The Quadtree and Related Hierarchical Data Structures," ACM Computer Surveys, Vol.
16, No. 2, June 1984.
[9] Arnold, R. R. and Collins, P. S., "Methodology for Predicting Canopy Fracturing Patterns During
Ejection," Anamet Report 389.001, Naval Air Development Ctr., Warminster, PA, 27 Feb. 1991.
Rajiv A. Naik i and John H. Crews, Jr. 2 S T P 1207
Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors for

Interface Cracks Under Mixed-Mode Loading
REFERENCE: Naik, R. A. and Crews, J. H., Jr., "Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors for
Interface Cracks Under Mixed-Mode Loading," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Vol-
ume, ASTM STP 1207, John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American
ABSTRACT: A simple technique was developed using conventional finite element analysis to
determine stress intensity factors (K~ and K2) for interface cracks under mixed-mode loading.
This technique involves the calculation of crack-tip stresses using nonsingular finite elements.
These stresses are then combined and used in a linear regression procedure to calculate K~ and
K2. The technique was demonstrated by calculating K~ and K2 for three different bimaterial
combinations.
For the normal loading case, the calculated K~ and K2 were within 2.6% of an exact solution.
The normalized K1 and K2 under shear loading were shown to be related to the normalized Kl
and K2 under normal loading. Based on these relations, a simple equation was derived for cal-
culating K~ and K2 for mixed-mode loading from a knowledge of K~ and K2 under normal
loading. Thus, for a given material combination and geometry, only one solution of K~ and K2
(under normal loading) is required to determine K~ and K2 over the full range of mixed-mode
loading conditions.
The equation was verified by computing K~ and K2 for a mixed-mode case with equal normal
and shear loading. The correlation between the exact and the finite element values was very good
with errors of less than 3.7%.
This study provides a simple procedure to compute the KJK~ ratio, which can be used to
characterize the stress state at the crack tip for various combinations of materials and loadings.
Tests conducted over a range of KJK~ ratios could be used to characterize fully interface fracture
toughness.
KEYWORDS: bimaterial, finite element analysis, fracture mechanics, combined loading, phase
angle
The performance of advanced composite materials is affected not only by their constituents
but also by the character of the interface between the constituents. Interfacial cracking, either
in the form of delamination or fiber-matrix debonding, is a typical failure mode in most classes
of composite materials. Interfacial cracking, by definition, follows a predetermined path irre-
spective of the global loading. This, in conjunction with the mismatch between the material
properties at the interface, leads to inherently mixed-mode crack growth. Unlike a crack in a
homogeneous plate, mixed-mode conditions exist at an interface crack tip even for pure Mode
I loading. It is, therefore, important to characterize interfacial cracking over a range of mixed-
mode conditions.
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) concepts have been applied to the interface crack
problem since 1959 when Williams [1 ] first determined that stresses oscillate near the tip of a
1 Senior research scientist, Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., 107 Research Dr., Hampton, VA
23666.
2 Senior scientist, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 188E, Hampton, VA 23665.
778
NAIK AND CREWS ON INTERFACE CRACKS 779
semi-infinite interface crack. Other researchers [2-8 ] further examined the oscillatory behavior
of the crack-tip stress and displacement fields and the resulting small contact region at a bima-
terial crack. Rice and Sih [9] developed a solution for the stress intensity factors K~ and K2
for an interface crack between two semi-infinite plates subjected to a combination of both
normal and shear loading.
Unlike KI and Kn, the Mode I and II stress intensity factors for a crack in a homogeneous
material, bimaterial stress intensity factors KI and K2 have some complicating properties that
reflect on their usefulness in the development of fracture criteria [9]. For example, K~ and K2
are not strictly associated with opening and shear modes, respectively, as in the homogeneous
case. Additionally, K1 and K2, as defined by Rice and Sih [9] and Hutchinson et al. [10], are
functions of an arbitrary length parameter. Rice [11] noted the validity of the complex stress
intensity factor K (= K, + iK2, i = V/Z] -) as a crack-tip characterizing parameter for cases
of small-scale nonlinear material behavior or small-scale contact zones at the crack tip.
Although K, and K 2 cannot be interpreted as Modes I and II quantities, itis possible to use the
K2/K~ ratio to describe the stress state at the crack tip. Alternative definitions for the stress
intensity factors were recently provided by Shih and Asaro [12], which eliminate the arbitrary
length parameter and can be related to K~ and K2 in a simple way.
The strain energy release rate G was also examined by many researchers [13-16] as another
fracture parameter to characterize crack growth at a bimaterial interface. However, the Modes
I and II components of the strain energy release rate (GI and GH) are not well defined, as was
illustrated by Sun and Jih [17], Raju et al. [18], and many other researchers. Recent studies
[16,19] have used the critical total strain energy release rate Gc to characterize interface fracture
toughness and the KJK, ratio to describe the crack-tip stress state for the given test conditions.
A complete characterization of interface toughness would then involve the determination of Gc
over a range of KJK~ ratios.
Closed-form methods for calculating K, and K2 for interface crack problems are limited to
a few special cases because of inherent mathematical difficulties. Numerical procedures are,
therefore, required when K~ and K 2 are desired for more general configurations and loadings.
A boundary collocation method was used in Ref 20 to generate interfacial K~ and K2 for a
finite bimaterial plate. Special hybrid finite elements were developed in Refs 21 and 22 to
calculate K1 and K2. Conventional, nonsingular finite elements were used in Ref 23 to calculate
K~ and/s from crack flank displacements and an extended form of the J integral. The finite
element method was also used together with domain integrals [11,24,25] to calculate K~ and
K2. The finite element iterative method was used in Ref 26 to evaluate K~ and K2 for a crack
between dissimilar media. An eigenfunction expansion variational method was introduced in
Ref 27 to calculate K~ and K2. Each of the above mentioned numerical approaches requires its
own computational scheme to handle the problem and has given satisfactory results.
In the present study, an alternative and convenient method of analysis is proposed for deter-
mining K, and K2 under mixed-mode loading. First, a technique using the finite element method
with nonsingular elements was developed to calculate K~ and K 2 under normal loading. K1 and
K2 were calculated for three different material combinations: steel/aluminum, aluminum/epoxy,
and steel/epoxy and compared with the classical solution to evaluate the technique. Next, simple
relations were derived between the K~ and K 2 as a result of normal and shear loading. These
relations were used to derive simple equations to calculate K~ and K2 under mixed-mode
loading from a knowledge of K~ and Ks under normal loading. The results from the simple
equations were evaluated by comparing with finite element results for the mixed-mode
case of equal normal and shear loading. The simple equations were then used to study the
Kz/K~ ratios for different material combinations over the full range of mixed-mode loading
conditions.
Theoretical Background
Within the framework of LEFM, solutions for the singular stress fields at the crack tip, the
stress intensity factors, and their relations to the strain energy release rates exist and are easily
represented in concise form for an interfacial crack between two semi-infinite plates.
Consider a crack of length 2a lying along the interface of Materials 1 and 2 (Fig. 1). The
Young's moduli and Poisson's ratios of Materials 1 and 2 are given by E~, v~ and E2, v2,
respectively. The coordinate system x - y - z has its origin at the center of the crack with the x-
axis parallel to the interface and the y-axis normal to the interface. The distance r from the
crack tip is measured along the interface. The body is remotely loaded by a uniform stress
~ y normal to the crack and a uniform shear stress ~y. Only plane strain (e= = 0) deformations
are considered.
For the configuration and loading shown in Fig. 1, the stresses along the interface directly
ahead of the fight crack tip can be written in complex notation as [2,3,9,10]
(~yy -F- i cr~y - (K1 + iK2)r i~ , i = X/'-zT (2)
where K1 and K 2 are the bimatefial stress intensity factors and e is a bimatefial constant, also
referred to as an oscillation index, given by [2,3,9 ]
1 [IX~ + IX2(3 - 4v,)]

e = ~ In + ~,(3 4v2)J (2)
where Ix is the shear modulus and v is Poisson's ratio. Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to Materials 1
and 2, respectively. Interchanging the properties of Materials 1 and 2 leads to a change in sign
FIG. l ~ o n f i g u r a t i o n and loading f o r a bimaterial crack.
of the bimaterial constant e. In the present paper, the Materials 1 and 2 were chosen such that
E 2 was greater than El, which resulted in a positive value for e.
Unlike a crack in a homogeneous body, the singularity for a crack at the bimaterial interface
is of order ( - 1 / 2 + ie) as seen from Eq 1. Also, the stress intensity factors K~ and K z have
units of (stress) X (length) ~m • (length)-iL For the problem considered in Fig. 1, the complex
stress intensity factor K (=K~ + iK2) for the right crack tip is given by [10]
K = ~ (r + io'~r)(1 + 2ie)(2a) - ~ (3)
The complex K is often characterized by its magnitude ( V ~ + K]) and its phase angle ~,
which is given by
Equations 3 and 4 can also be used to characterize the left crack tip (see Fig. 1). However,
to use the same equations, the reference coordinate axes x-y in Fig. 1 would have to be rotated
by 180 ~ In the rotated coordinate system, Materials 1 and 2 are reversed, leading to a sign
change in e. Thus the KI and K2 for the left crack tip can be obtained by using - e in place of
in Eq 3.
As mentioned earlier, Rice [11] noted that the small region of oscillations in the crack-tip
stresses can be ignored just as the inevitable small-scale nonlinear material behavior at the
crack tip in a homogeneous material is ignored in LEFM. The present study considered the
stresses outside this small region of oscillations to determine K~ and K 2.
For the configuration in Fig. 1, it can be shown from the classical solution in Ref 10 that
under shear loading the crack-tip normal stresses, outside the small zone of oscillation, are
tensile at the right crack tip, whereas they are compressive at the left crack tip. Thus, the stress
state at the right crack tip is more severe than at the left crack tip. The right crack tip was,
therefore, considered in more detail in the present study.
Finite Element Analysis

The finite element mesh used in the present study is shown in Fig. 2. It consisted of four-
noded isoparametric quadrilateral elements. The dimensions (10a x 30a) of the model were
chosen to be large enough to preclude edge effects and adequately model semi-infinite plates
as in Fig. 1. For a center crack in a homogeneous plate with half width (10a) and half height
(30a), it has been shown [28] that the calculated stress intensity factors are not influenced by
finite width and finite height effects. Furthermore, for an interface crack in a bimaterial plate
with a crack length-to-width ratio of 0.1 it was shown in Ref 22 that the calculated stress
intensity factors were not affected by the presence of the free edges. There were 2077 nodes
and 1968 elements in the model, and the analysis was performed using the MSC/NASTRAN
code [29]. In the vicinity of the crack tip, a refined mesh was used (see Fig. 2). The smallest
elements with length A were next to the crack tip with element lengths doubling in the x and
y directions. Plane strain conditions were imposed for all cases analyzed. Multipoint constraints
were imposed along AB to enforce uniform exx to simulate the infinite plate problem that was
analyzed in Ref 9. The normal and shear loadings were imposed by displacement boundary
conditions along the edges of the model and are listed in Table 1. Combinations of three
different materials, aluminum, epoxy, and steel, were considered in the present study. The
properties used for the three materials are given in Table 2.
FIG. 2--Finite element model showing mesh detail at crack tip.
The adequacy of the mesh refinement near the crack tip was evaluated in two ways. First, a
convergence study was performed by analyzing a center crack in an infinite homogeneous plate
problem. The same finite element model (see Fig. 2) was used with E 1 = E 2 and v 1 = v 2. The
computed nodal stresses and stress intensity factors (SIFs) under Modes I and II loading were
compared with existing handbook values [28]. The SIFs were determined by linear regression
from a log-log plot of stress versus distance ahead of the crack tip as described later. For a
mesh refinement of A/a = 5 X 10 -6, the calculated SIFs were within 1% of the handbook
values [28] for both Modes I and II loading. Also, the slope of the log-log stress-distance plot
near the crack tip was compared with the theoretical value of - 0 . 5 . In the region 1 • 10 _5 --
(r/a) --< 2 X 10 -2, its slope was - 0 . 4 9 5 .
To evaluate further the adequacy of this mesh refinement, the finite element model (see Fig.
2) was used to analyze a crack at the interface of two dissimilar materials. For aluminum/epoxy,
the computed nodal stresses near the crack tip were compared with the exact solution (Eq 1)
for tr~ normal loading (Fig. 3) and for tr~ shear loading (Fig. 4). The ~xy stresses under a
normal loading are negative; -Crxy is plotted in Fig. 3 to show it on the log scale. The nonsin-
TABLE 1--Displacement boundary conditions for normal and shear loading.
Boundary Condition at
Loading x = 0 x = 10a y = -30a y = 30a
Normal u = 0 u = const. ~ v = 0 v = 1
Shear v=0 v=(1/3) u=0 u= 1
a A constant displacement was imposed using multipoint constraints.
TABLE 2~Material properties used in the analysis.
Property Aluminum Epoxy Steel
Young's modulus, E, GPa 68.95 3.10 206.85

Poisson's ratio, v 0.30 0.35 0.30
10 8 I i I I
Aluminum/Epoxy
A/a = 5xlO -e
O" 108
YY 10~ --CT
10 0
.....Exactsolution[10]
0 Finite-element results
10 -1 , I , I , I , I ,
10-8 10-5 10 - 4 lO-S 10-8 i 0 -~

r/a
FIG. 3----Comparison of crack-tip stresses for normal loading.
108 J J I I
Aluminum/Epoxy
A/a = 5xlO-e
10 2 ~"" O"
(7
o-CO 101 Cryy'~~
xy
io~
.... Exact solution [I0]
o Finite element analysis
10 -1 , I , I , I , } ,
lO-S 10 -5 10 -4 lO-S 10-8 10 -1

r/a
FIG. 4---Comparison of crack-tip stresses for shear loading.
gular elements used in this analyses are not formulated to model the singularity at the crack
tip. As a result, the stresses calculated from the first few elements next to the crack tip do not
correlate well with the classical solution. However, in the region 1 • 10 4 <_ (r/a) <- 2 •
10 -2, there is a good correlation with the theoretical stresses for both loading conditions. Thus,
the nonsingular, isoparametric elements used in the present analysis were considered to be
adequate for this study. The mesh refinement of A/a = 5 • 10 -6 was used for all the cases
analyzed.
The stress intensity factors K~ and K2 for the right crack tip were calculated using a simple
procedure involving linear regression as described in the next section.
Procedure for Calculating K~ and K 2
The normal ~yy stresses and the shear (rxy stresses directly ahead of the right crack tip are
r by Eq 1 and can be written explicitly (by separating real and imaginary parts) as
1
~ryy = 2 ~ {K, cos[e In(r)] - K2 sin[e In(r)]}
(5)
1
~r,:y = 2 ~ {K, sin[e In(r)] + K2 cos[e ln(r)]/
By multiplying both sides of the gyy equation by cos[e In(r)] and both sides of the ~rxyequation
by sin[e In(r)] and adding the resulting equations and denoting the "combined stress" by (r~,
we have
g 1
0" 1 = (Yyy COS[e In(r)] + trxy sin[e In(r)] = (6)
Similarly, by multiplying the O'yy equation (Eq 5) by - s i n [ e In(r)] and the (rxr equation by
cos[e In(r)] and adding the two equations and denoting the combined stress by tr 2, we have
/r
( T 2 ~" --(Tyy sin[e In(r)] + Cr~ycos[e In(r)] = 2 ~ (7)
The combined stresses (rl and tr2 at nodes ahead of the crack tip were determined from the
computed eryyand (r~y stresses from the finite element analysis. It is clear from Eqs 6 and 7 that
plots of eq and (r2 with distance r on a log-log scale will be straight lines with a slope of - 0 . 5 .
The stress intensity factors K, and K2 were calculated from a linear regression fit of slope - 0 . 5
to the log (tr L) versus log(r) and log((r2) versus log(r) curves, respectively.
If either eq or ~r2 is computed to be a negative quantity, then the corresponding K~ or K2
will have a negative sign. The sign of o"1 and tr z was ignored while using the linear regression
procedure. The calculated K~ or K2 was then assigned a negative sign if the corresponding (r~
or tr 2 had a negative sign.
As mentioned earlier, the nonsingular elements next to the crack tip do not model singular
behavior. Thus, the combined stresses tr~ and tr2 from the first two or three elements will not
lie on a line with a slope of - 0 . 5 on a log-log plot of (r~ and (r2 with distance r. Also, the
combined stresses from elements away from the crack tip outside the singularity dominated
region will not lie on a line with a slope of - 0 . 5 .
The linear regression fit for calculating K] and Kz was performed in the region in which the
l o g ( ~ ) versus log(r) and log(tr2) versus log(r) curves had a slope of - 0 . 5 . This regression
region was determined by the following procedure: the slopes of the log-log plots of ti~ and tr 2
versus r were determined for successive pairs of nodes ahead of the crack starting from the
node at the crack tip. The pairs of nodes for which this slope was - 0 . 5 -+ 0.01 were included
in the regression region, and the combined stresses ~r~ and tr2 from these nodes were used in
the calculation of K~ and K2. This procedure was used to calculate K~ and K 2 for the normal
and the mixed-mode loading cases analyzed in this study.
Relations Between K 1 and K 2 Under Normal and Shear Loading

To investigate the properties of K~ and K 2 under normal and shear loading it is instructive
to examine the crack-tip stresses for these two loading cases. Figure 5 shows the normalized
crack-tip stresses for these two loadings calculated for the aluminum/epoxy case based on the
classical solution given in Ref 10. It is clear from Fig. 5 that the crack-tip stresses obey the
following relations:
(O'yy)Normal ({)'+)Shear and (O'.xy)N.... 1 (O'yy)Shear (8)
Using the relations in F-xl 8 together with Eq 5 we have
{(KIN)NormaI COS[8 In(r)] -- (K:N)Norma~sin[e In(r)]}

{KiN)Shear sin[e In(r)] + (K+N)sh+arcos[e In(r)]}
=
and (9)
{(glN)NormaI sin[e In(r)] + (K2N)NormaI COS[~ ln(r)]}

= {-(K~)~o= cos[s In(r)] + (K~)sho~r sin[e ln(r)l}
where
(K1)Normal (K2)Normal
(KiN)Normal -- - - and (K2N)No~ma~= - - (10)
are the normalized stress intensity factors for the fight crack tip under pure normal loading and
(K,)she.r (K2)shear
(K,N)Shear -- - - and (K2N)Sho~-- (11)
are the normalized stress intensity factors for the fight crack tip under pure shear loading. By
multiplying both sides of the first equation (Eq 9) by cos[e ln(r)] and both sides of the second
equation (Eq 9) by sin[e In(r)] and adding the resulting equations, we have the following
relation between the normalized stress intensity factors:
(K1N)Nor~a, = (K2N)She~r (12)
Similarly, by multiplying both sides of the first equation (Eq 9) by -sin[8 In(r)] and both sides
of the second equation (Eq 9) by cos[e In(r)] and adding the resulting equations we have the
10 a i i i i
[I0]
E x a c t Solution
Aluminum/Epoxy
10 z
O"
0 "~176tO 1
o o" ek
10 0 YY I Shear loading
9 O'xy \
0
Gyy f Normal loading

.... --O"
10 -1 t I xy I , I , I
10-8 10-5 10 - 4 10 -a 10-z 10 - t
r/a
FIG. 5--Relations between crack-tip stresses for normal and shear loading.
following relation between the normalized stress intensity factors:
(K2N)Norm~, = --(Km)she~ (13)
The relations in Eqs 12 and 13 are valid for both the fight and the left crack tips for the
configuration in Fig. 1. Although the relations in Eqs 12 and 13 were derived from the equations
for the crack-tip stresses for the center crack configuration in Fig. 1, they are also valid for the
semi-infinite crack problem with point loading on the crack faces.
The relations in Eqs 12 and 13 can also be derived by expanding Eq 3 into real and imaginary
parts and examining the expressions for the normalized K~ and K2 under normal and shear
loading. For normal loading we have
(Kin)Normal -- ~ {COS[8 ln(2a)] + 2e sin[e ln(2a)]} (14)

(K2N)Norma~ = ~ {--sin[e ln(2a)] + 2e cos[e ln(2a)]}
and for shear loading we have
(K1N)She~r = ~ {--213 COS[~: ln(2a)] + sin[e ln(2a)]} (15)

(K2N)she~ = ~ {2e sin[e ln(2a)] + cos[e ln(2a)]}
An examination of Eqs 14 and 15 confirms the validity of the relations derived in Eqs 12 and
13.
The K1 and K 2 under mixed-mode loading can be obtained by expanding Eq 3 into real and
imaginary parts and using Eqs 14 and 15 as
K 1 = 0"~ (KlN)NormaI + O'~y (KiN)Shear (16)

K 2 -----Oyy (K2N)NormaI + O'~y (KzN)Shear
Using Eq 16 and the relations in Eqs 12 and 13, the K 1 and K 2 under any combination of
normal and shear loading can be written as
K , = o-~ (KiN)Norma, - - 0":~, (K2N)Norma 1 07)

K 2 = o'~ (K2N)Norma , + O'~y (K,N)NormaI
Thus, if (Km)Norma~and ( K 2 N ) N o r m a I a r e known for a particular material combination and crack

length, then K~ and K2 under any combination of normal and shear loading can be determined
by using Eq 17.
Equations 17 can be used to generate K~ and K 2 values for a range of mixed-mode loadings
for both the right and the left crack tips based on a knowledge of the corresponding (K~N)Norm,~
and (K2N)No~,I. The KJK~ ratio, or tan(x ) (see Eq 4), for mixed-mode loading can be expressed
in terms of the ratio (K2/KONo~m,Iby using Eq 17 as
tan(x) : K 2 = [(K2/K1)Normal "~ (o-~y/O-~y)] (18)

K~ [1 - (Cr~y/Cr~)(KJK,)No,~.~]
As (trff~r~y) approaches ___0% the pure shear loading case, it can be shown that the right-hand
side of Eq 18 approaches a limiting value of --(K1/K2)Normal.Thus, Eq 18 provides a means of
calculating the (KJK 0 ratio or tan(X ) over the full range of mixed-mode ratios from a knowl-
edge of K, and K2 for the normal loading case.
Equation 18 is valid for both the right and the left crack tips. However, the appropriate
(K2/KONo~ma~ratio should be used in Eq 18. For the left crack tip KI and K2 under normal
loading can be calculated from a knowledge of K~ and K2 for the right crack tip. By using - e
in the place of e in Eq 14, it can be shown that under normal loading the ratio of the stress
intensity factors at the left crack tip is equal to -(K2/K~) where K 1 and K 2 are the stress intensity
factors at the right crack tip.

The finite element analysis and procedure described above were used to calculate K~ and
K2 for three different material combinations: aluminum/epoxy, steel/epoxy, and steel/alumi-
num. Two different loading conditions were analyzed: normal loading (tr~y = 0) and mixed-
mode loading with tr~y = ~r~.. In all cases, the half-crack length, a, was 20 units. The KJK~
ratios were plotted for a range of mixed-mode load ratios using Eq 18.
Figure 6 shows normalized combined stresses cr~ and tr 2 for the normal loading case as a
function of normalized distance from the crack tip on a log-log plot. The circular symbols
indicate the locations at which nodal stresses were available from the finite element analysis.
Note that the tr 2 combined stress was a negative quantity, and - t r 2 was plotted on the log scale
in the figure. The negative tr2 also led to a negative K 2. There was very little difference among
the calculated tr I values for the three material combinations, which led to similar K~ values
(Table 3). However, there was some difference among the calculated tr 2 values, leading to
larger differences between the calculated K 2 values for the different material combinations (see
Table 3). As mentioned earlier, the results from the first few elements do not lie on a straight
line with a slope of - 0 . 5 . The appropriate regression region for calculating K~ and K 2 was
determined as described earlier and was found to be 1.6 • 10 -4 --< (r/a) --< 1 • 10 -2. Table 3
shows a comparison between the exact [10] and the calculated normalized K, and K2 for normal
loading. There was excellent agreement between the calculated and the exact [10] K~ and K 2
with errors of less than 2.6%. As the mismatch between the material properties decreased, the
103 I i J J
- -o- Steel/Aluminum
Aluminum/Epoxy
t7
Steel/Epoxy
10 2 -~ . ~ . l
A/a = 5xlO -8
ff
yy lO ,,
Regr
< region >' ~ " o ~
"0-0_.
10 -I ..... I I , I I I
10-5 10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 10 0
r/a
FIG. 6--Combined stresses at crack tip under normal loading.
K 2 values became smaller with larger errors in the calculated values. Note that the high accuracy
in the calculated K1 and K2 values was obtained with a mesh that consisted of less than 2000
elements. Although the smallest element size was 5 • 10 6a, the use of the doubling mesh
scheme helped to minimize the total number of elements used.
The mixed-mode loading case was analyzed to verify the relations derived in Eq 17 for
calculating K1 and K 2 from a knowledge of K I N and K 2 N under normal loading. Values for
K~r~ and K 2 N under normal loading were taken from Table 3 (exact solution). These were used
together with the relations in Eq 17 to calculate K~ and K 2 (Table 4) for the (r~ = ~r~ymixed-
mode case. These results were compared with results calculated from the finite element analysis.
The nodal stresses ahead of the crack tip for the mixed-mode loading case were obtained by
superposing the nodal stresses from the pure normal and pure shear loading cases. The regres-
sion region for this case was also found to be 1.6 • l0 -4 --< (r/a) -- 1 X 10 2. The excellent
correlation (errors less than 3.7%) between the results using Eq 17 and the finite element method
(FEM) verifies the derivations in the previous section. The crack-tip stresses for the two extreme
loading cases of pure normal and pure shear loading were verified earlier (see Figs. 3 and 4)
by comparing with the exact solution [10].
Figures 7 and 8 show plots of the K2/K~ ratios using Eq 18 for two different ranges of mixed-
mode loading ratios. Figure 7 shows the normal-load dominated cases with mixed-mode loading
TABLE 3--Comparison of interface stress intensity factors under Cryynormal loading.
K~l(cr~y~~) K21(cr~a)
Bimaterial e Ref 10 Present Ref 10 Present
Steel/aluminum 0.046 1.001 0.991 -0.078 -0.080

Aluminum/epoxy 0.067 1.002 0.996 - 0.115 - 0.116
Steel/epoxy 0.072 1.003 0.996 -0.124 -0.126
TABLE ~-Comparison of interface stress intensity factors for mixed-mode loading (tyyy = trxy = %).
Kt/(CroX/-~a) K2/(troX/~a )
Bimaterial e Eq 17 FEM Eq 17 FEM
Steel/aluminum 0.046 1.079 1.056 0.923 0.929

Aluminum/epoxy 0.067 1.117 1.076 0.888 0.892
Steel/epoxy 0.072 1.127 1.098 0.879 0.882
ratios ranging from 0 to 1.0. The (K2/Kl)Normalratios used were obtained from the exact solution
[10] in Table 3. Two limiting material combinations are also included for reference purposes.
The crack in a large homogeneous plate represents a bimaterial case with no mismatch in
material properties (e = 0). For this case, the K2/K ~ ratio is equivalent to the ratio of classical
Modes II and I stress intensity factors, K~I and KI, respectively. The rigid/epoxy case represents
a case in which the mismatch between the properties is characterized by a relatively large value
of the bimaterial constant, e = 0.094. The K J K 1 curves for all cases fell between the two
extremes represented by these two limiting cases; cases with the larger material property mis-
match were closer to the rigid/epoxy case. For the Mode I loading case (~yfiy~v = 0), the K J
K 1 ratio is negative as a result of the presence of a negative shear stress at the crack tip (see
Fig. 3). For mixed-mode ratios between 0.0 and 0.5, the K J K 1 ratio increases linearly with
approximately the same slope as the homogeneous crack case. Unlike the homogeneous crack
case, the K2/K l ratios for the bimaterial cases under equal normal and shear loading
(ty~/Cr~y = 1) have values less than 1.0 (see Fig. 7). This is due to the negative shear stress (see
Fig. 3) at the crack tip, which under normal loading subtracts from the positive shear stress
(see Fig. 4) under shear loading.
Figure 8 shows plots of the K2/K ~ ratios from Eq 18 over the full range of mixed-mode
loading but with an emphasis on the shear-dominated cases. For the shear-dominated loading,
1.0 I I I I
.... (Kn/KI) center c r a c k "i
in h o m o g e n e o u s plate.
0.8 ........S t e e l / A l u m i n u m
Aluminum/Epoxy .," " " " """
0.6 .... S t e e l / E p o x y ..'"
K2
Kt 0.4
o.E
0.0
..."....."
--0.2 ' I , I , I ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(O"xy/O"yy )
FIG. 7 - - K f i K / r a t i o s for mixed-mode ratios less than 1.0.
18 i9 I I /,/z____
.....
J (Krr/K0
center crack
/
i in homogeneous plate.
....... Steel/Aluminum
i
, - - Aluminum/Epoxy
i" . . . . Steel/Epoxy ......
12
, "............ Rigid/Epoxy
Kz /
/
K1 t ..- .--
, I , I , /'/-__
0 20 40 60 co
(ff~xy//ff~yy)
FIG. 8--Ke/K 1 ratios over full range of mixed-mode load ratios.
the curves are highly nonlinear and there is significant departure from the homogeneous case.
The nonlinearity in the curves can be explained by examining Eq 18 for the aluminum/epoxy
case (KJK~ = -0.11). For this case, the denominator in Eq 18 becomes more dominant for
mixed-mode ratios greater than 1 and, thus, leads to the nonlinearity in the curves. For pure
Mode II loading the (K2/K~) ratios approach a limiting value of -(K1/K2)No,m,j as discussed
earlier.
Fracture toughness of the interface between two different materials can be characterized by
measuring the critical strain energy release rate Gc over a range of KJKI ratios. The present
study provides a simple equation (Eq 18) to determine these values for the (KJKO ratios over
the full range of mixed-mode loadings if the (K2/KONon~ ratio under normal loading is known.
The (KJK 0No~m,~ratio for any configuration can be determined using conventional, nonsingular
finite elements and the simple regression procedure developed in this study.
Concluding Remarks
A simple technique was developed using conventional finite element analysis to determine
stress intensity factors for interface cracks under mixed-mode loading. This technique involved
the calculation of crack-tip stresses using nonsingular finite elements. These stresses were then
combined and used in a linear regression procedure to calculate interface stress intensity factors
K1 and K2. The technique was demonstrated by calculating K~ and K 2 for three different
bimaterial combinations. The nature of the stress intensity factors K 1 and K 2 was studied over
the full range of mixed-mode loadings and compared to the limiting cases of a crack in a
homogeneous plate and a bimaterial crack at the interface of a rigid substrate and epoxy.
For the normal loading case, the calculated Kj and K 2 were within 2.6% of an exact solution.
The high accuracy in the results was obtained by using a crack-tip element size of 5 • 10-ra,
a doubling mesh, and only 1968 elements in the finite element model. The normalized K~ and
K2 under shear loading were shown to be related to the normalized K~ and K2 under normal
loading. Based on these relations, a simple equation was derived for calculating K, and K2 for
mixed-mode loading from a knowledge of K~ and K z under normal loading. Thus, for a given
material combination and crack length, only one solution of K~ and K2 under normal loading
is required to determine K~ and K2 over the full range of mixed-mode loading conditions.
This equation was verified by computing K~ and K2 for a mixed-mode case with equal normal
and shear loading. Once again, the correlation between the classical and the finite element
values was very good with errors of less than 3.7%.
This study provides a simple procedure to compute the KJK~ ratio, which can be used to
characterize the stress state at the crack tip for various combinations of materials and loadings.
Tests conducted over a range of K2/K~ ratios could be used to characterize fully interface
fracture toughness.
References
[1 ] Williams, M. L., "The Stresses Around a Fault or Crack in Dissimilar Media," Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1959, pp. 199-204.
[2] England, A. H., "A Crack Between Dissimilar Media," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 32,
June 1965, pp. 400-402.
[3 ] Erdogan, F., "Stress Distribution in Bonded Dissimilar Materials with Cracks," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 32, June 1965, pp. 403-410.
[4] Cherepanov, G. P., Mechanics of Brittle Fracture, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979.
[5 ] Comninou, M., "The Interface Crack," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 44, Dec. 1977, pp. 631-
636.
[6] Clements, D. L., "A Crack Between Dissimilar Anisotropic Media," International Journal of Engi-
neering Science, Vol. 9, 1971, pp. 257-265.
[7] Gautesen, A. K. and Dundurs, J., "The Interface Crack in a Tension Field," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 54, March 1987, pp. 93-98.
[8] Wang, S. S. and Choi, I., "The Interface Crack Between Dissimilar Anisotropic Composite Mate-
rials," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 50, March 1983, pp. 169-178.
[9] Rice, J. R. and Sih, G. C., "Plane Problems of Cracks in Dissimilar Media," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, June 1965, pp. 418-423.
[10] Hutchinson, J. W., Mear, M. E., and Rice, J. R., "Crack Paralleling an Interface Between Dissimilar
Materials," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 54, Dec. 1987, pp. 828-832.
[11] Rice, J. R., "Elastic Fracture Mechanics Concepts for Interracial Cracks," Journal of Applied
Mechanics. Vol. 55, March 1988, pp. 98-103.
[12] Shih, C. F. and Asaro, R. J., "Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces: Part I - -
Small Scale Yielding," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 55, June 1988, pp. 299-316.
[13] Malyshev, B. M. and Salganik, R. L , "The Strength of Adhesive Joints Using the Theory of
Cracks," International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 1, 1965, pp. 114-128.
[14] Anderson, G. P., Devries, K. L., and Williams, M. L., "Mixed Mode Stress Field Effect in Adhesive
Fracture," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 10, 1970, pp. 565-583.
[15] Mulville, D. R., Hunston, D. L., and Mast, P. W., "Developing Failure Criteria for Adhesive Joints
Under Complex Loading," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 100, Jan. 1978,
pp. 25-31.
[16] Evans, A. G., Ruhle, M., Dagleish, B. J., and Charalambides, P. G., "The Fracture Energy of Bima-
terial Interfaces," Metallurgical Transactions A, Vol. 21A, Sept. 1990, pp. 2419-2429,
[17] Sun, C. T. and Jih, C. J., "On Strain Energy Release Rates for Interfacial Cracks in Bi-Material
Media," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1987, pp. 13-20.
[18] Raju, I. S., 'Crews, J. H., and Aminpour, M. A., "Convergence of Strain Energy Release Rate
Components for Edge-Delaminated Composite Laminates," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.
30, No. 3, 1988, pp. 383-396.
[19] Suo, Z. and Hutchinson, J. W., "Sandwich Test Specimens for Measuring Interface Crack Tough-
ness," Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. A107, 1989, pp. 135-143.
[20] Sawyer, S. G. and Anderson, R. B., "Collocated Interfacial Stress Intensity Factors for Finite Bi-
Material Plates," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 4, 1972, pp. 605-616.
[21 ] Lin, K. Y. and Mar, J, W., "Fimte Element Analysis of Stress Intensity Factors for Cracks at a Bi-
Material Interface," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 12, No. 4, Aug. 1976, pp. 521-531.
[22 ] Staab, G. H. and Chang, T. C., "A Finite Element Analysis of the Mixed Mode Bi-Material Fracture
Mechanics Problem," Computers and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1984, pp. 853-859.
[23] Smelser, R. E., "Evaluation of Stress Intensity Factors for Bimaterial Bodies Using Numerical Crack
Flank Displacement Data," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 135-
143.
[24 ] Hong, C.-C. and Stem, M., "The Computation of Stress Intensity Factors in Dissimilar Materials,"
Journal of Elasticity, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan. 1978, pp. 21-34.
[25] Wang, S. S. and Yau, J. F., "Interface Cracks in Adhesively Bounded Lap-Shear Joints," Interna-
tional Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, 1982, pp. 295-309.
[26] Barsoum, R. S., "Application of the Finite Element Iterative Method to the Eigenvalue Problem of
a Crack Between Dissimilar Media," International Journal of Numerical Engineering, Vol. 26, 1988,
pp. 541-554.
[27] Wang, W.-C. and Chen, J-T., "Variational Analysis of Interracial Stress Intensity Factors for Finite
Bimaterial Plates under Biaxial Load," Computers & Structures, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 157-179.
[28] Tada, H., Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G., The Stress Analysis of Crack Handbook, 2nd Edition, Pads
Production Inc. (and Del Research Corp.), St. Louis, 1985.
[29 ] MSC/NASTRAN User's Manual, Vols. 1 and 2, MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., Los Angeles, Nov. 1989.
Lyle R. Deobald 1 and Albert S. Kobayashi 2
Impact Testing of AI2Oa and SiC.,/AI2Oa

Ceramics
REFERENCE: Deobald, L. R. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Impact Testing of A1203 and SiCJ
AI2Oa Ceramics," Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1207, John D.
Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Eds., American Society for Testing and Mate-
ABSTRACT: A bar impact test procedure was used to study spallation of A1203 bars and
dynamic fracture of A1203 and SiCw/A1203 bars. Fractography analysis of the spalled surface
showed extensive intergranular fracture (90 to 95% area). Dynamic fracture studies of precracked
A1203 and SiCffA1203 bars showed that the dynamic initiation fracture toughness, K~a,and the
crack branching stress intensity factor, Klb, remained constant with increased impact velocity,
that is, impact stress. Despite the increase in static fracture toughness, K~c with the addition of
SiC whiskers in A1203 matrix, K~as and K~bSof A1203 and SiCw/A1203 were about the same,
suggesting that the SiC whiskers are not effective in dynamic fracture.
KEYWORDS: dynamic fracture, impact damage, spallation, alumina, silicon-carbidewhiskers,

ceramic composite
The low impact resistance of inherently brittle ceramics and ceramic composites has been a
major impediment for their use as structural materials with the exception of their use as armor
where the kinetic energy of a projectile is absorbed by a shattering ceramic. The mechanistic
studies of the late seventies and the early eighties [1-4] provided insight to the fracture process
associated with low-velocity impact damages of the brittle ceramics but failed to identify mate-
rial parameters for designing impact-resistant ceramics and ceramic composites. During the
ensuing years, much of the research on impact damage of ceramics dealt with ultra high-velocity
impact, that is, above the Hugoniot elastic limit, with the armor as its final design objective.
Users of structural ceramics in heat engines and other civil structures followed this lead and
embarked on a pragmatic "test-and-see" procedure for rank ordering ceramics in terms of their
resistance to low-velocity impact [5,6]. Others studied the micromechanics underlining impact
damage with the ultimate objective of designing impact-resistant ceramics and ceramic com-
posites [7,8].
Although the above papers provided practical information to the users of ceramics and
ceramic composites, no studies dealt with the basic mechanics of shattering, which involves
dynamic fracture initiation, dynamic crack propagation, branching, and arrest. In this paper,
we present some results on the first three topics together with fractography studies of A1203
and SiCJA1203 subjected to impact loading.
1 Senior specialist engineer, Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA 98124.
2 Boeing Pennell Professor in Structure Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University

of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
793
Bar Impact Test

A bar impact apparatus, in which a low-velocity impactor strikes the end of a rectangular
bar specimen twice its length and of identical material, was developed for spallation and
dynamic fracture testing of ceramics and ceramic composites. It is analogous to the popular
flyer plate test [7] in which the impact produces a sudden tensile stress at the mid-section, that
is, the test section, of the specimen after the passage of the compressive wave. Extensive
dynamic finite element analysis of the specimen showed that this center section is essentially
loaded by an uniaxial tensile pulse with minimal influence of the edge-diffracted stress waves
for about 5 tzs.
For dynamic fracture testing, rapid crack propagation is initiated at a precrack in the test
section, and its crack length is monitored indirectly by a laser interferometric displacement
gage (LIDG), which measures the transient crack-opening displacement (COD). Figure I shows
the specimen configuration used in the spallation and the dynamic fracture tests with the LIDG
arrangement. The latter required a sharp precrack, which was generated by the single-edge-
precrack-beam (SEPB) method [9]. Details of the test setup and the data reduction procedure
are given in Ref 10 and will not be repeated here.
Spailation Test Results

Bar Impact Test
A1203 bar specimens were loaded at impact velocities up to 14.0 m/s. Figure 2 shows the
predicted and experimentally determined stresses plotted against the impact velocity. The pre-
dicted stress was calculated using the bar wave formula with the measured impact velocity and
wave speed. The measured stress was obtained from strain gage data, which was jagged, pos-
sibly as a result of the effect of lateral inertia, and thus the nominal values were used in the
PhotomultiplierTube
r ~K~ w/MagneticShield Hlter, 632"Sn m ~ ~) W LightPr~176
Cover
~ IncidentLaserLight ~N~ J ~ l
"".~r ~ 1.0 mmDiameter //'/~" 1.t75 . . . . . . . an ~---'~
FringePattern r I i //R~o~Bl~deS~t I I fw~s.s9

I "Z~176 ' 1
ReflectiveFoil. ~ "q. ]/ / 2sinO ~f_ _~
Drawingis notto scale! /Precut in Foil

// /Vickers MicroHerdness Indents
ReflectiveFoil
jmm ~ . 4 ram
StrainGage
FIG. 1--Specimen configuration used for spallation and dynamic fracture study.
D E O B A L D AND K O B A Y A S H I ON IMPACT TESTING O F C E R A M I C S 795
225
200 ..I-
o Theoretical Stresses O
175 + Experimental Stresses
Q.
~v 150
Q~
~2s
0
E 100 +
0
~ 75 -I-
N 5o
25
t I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Impact Velocity, Vo (m/s)
FIG. 2--Predicted and experimental stresses as a function of the impact velocity.
computation. Both analyses used the manufacturer's value of modulus of elasticity (Table 1)
in the data reduction process.
Those specimens impacted above 12.2 m/s failed by a complete spall. Strain gage records
showed that the spalled specimens that were impacted at 13.0, 13.2, or 14.0 m/s failed on the
second cycle of tension as a result of the damage accumulated during the first and second
tensile pulses. Figure 3 maps the macrocracking found in the specimens that failed by complete
spall.
Fracture Toughness Determination

The unbroken specimens were subjected to static fracture toughness, Kic, evaluation by the
procedure presented in Refs 11 and 12. The fracture toughness is plotted as a function of impact
velocity in Fig. 4. Within the accepted experimental scatter, the Kic in Fig. 4 remains constant
and is close to the values given by the materials' manufacturer in Table 1. The results suggest
that the damage, which occurred at impact velocities lower than the spalling velocity, was
minimal.
TABLE 1--Experimental summary.
P,
g~ Kit, a Kid, glb,
Material E, GPa v m3 Vo, m/s V, m/s MPa.m 1/2 MPa.m "2 MPa-mla
A1203b 221 0.22 3.41 0 to 14 3~,

A1202C 387 0.22 3.97 5.7 to 10.1 i5bo to 2500 4 519 ""
5.8 i3.6
29 vol% 408 0.23 3.73 5.8 to 10.1 1500to 2400 7 6.5
SiC2/A1202 9.8 1,~.2
From static fracture toughness measurements.

b Coors AD-85, Coors Ceramic Co., Golden, Colorado.
c Hot-pressed processing, 99.9% theoretical density. Advanced Composite Materials Corp., 1525 S.
Buncombe Rd., Greer, SC 29651.
Compressivewave =-
Tensilewave
Impact =]._~ i Vo 12.2m/s
Impact--- ~1 I Vo 13.0m/s
Impact ~ /~ Vo = 13.2 m/s
Impact =[ Vo = 14.0 m/s
Intactcrack
Completespallfracture
FIG. 3--Mapping of macrocracks on the spalled unnotched bars of Al20~.
Fractography Analysis
The specimen, which did not fail at 12.2 m/s, showed an unusual crack originating at the
impact face (see Fig. 3). No other crack was found in the intact specimens. The polished side
surface revealed no widespread microcracking when examined under the scanning electron
microscope, but an uncommon microcrack was found originating at a pore as shown in Fig. 5.
This was the only microcrack not associated with a spall fracture. The critical flaw size of the
AI:O3 is small in comparison to the stress pulse length. Hence, if the stress level is sufficient
to initiate crack propagation, then the propagating crack had ample time to traverse completely
through the cross section of the bar.
i
I
I
I
4- I
o
E
";" 3
Threshold
_uZ-
v ,Velocity
9 Intact
1-
O Spalled
0 , . . . , . .t:X]DO ,
0 S 10 15 20
Impact V e l o c i t y ( m / s )
FIG. 4--Quasistatic fracture toughness of postimpacted bars of Al203 (Coors AD-85).
DEOBALD AND KOBAYASHI ON IMPACT TESTING OF CERAMICS 797
FIG. 5--Uncommon microcrack originating from pore in Al203 (Coors AD-85) Vo 4- 10.1 m/s.
The spalled specimens exhibited extensive crack branching, as shown in Fig. 6, and the
quasistatic fracture specimens showed none. The fracture surfaces were qualitatively examined
for inter- and transgranular fractures. Only 5 to 10% of the matrix grains failed by transgranular
fracture with intergranular failure occupying the remaining surface as shown in Fig. 7. The
spalled fracture surface also exhibited substantial microcracking as evidenced by grain sepa-
ration, which appeared to correlate with the impact velocity, and transgranular fracture. Such
intergranular failure only appeared at the spalled surface, and hence, no change in the physical
properties could be expected of the unspaUed specimens.
FIG. 6~Crack branching in an unnotched bar of A1203 (Coors AD-85) impacted at 13 rn/s.
FIG. 7--Fracture surface of a spalled A1203 (Coors AD-85) impacted at 12.5 m/s.
Dynamic Fracture Test Results
a(t) and Kdy"(t) Histories

The procedure presented in Ref 10 was used to obtain the crack length histories of the ceramic
specimens impacted at velocities of approximately 5.8 and 10 m/s for A1203 and SiCwAl203.
The crack length histories are presented in Fig. 8 in which the crack velocity, V, increased with
increasing impact velocity, Vo, but otherwise did not differ between A1203 and SiCJA1203. The
dynamic stress intensity factor, K~y", for the two materials is shown in Fig. 9. The fracture
toughness increased with increasing impact velocities within each material group. The K dyndata
were plotted as a function of the nondimensional crack length, c~ = a/W. Initially, K~Y"increased
rapidly and then increased more slowly as the crack approached the traction-free lateral
boundary.
~~
oo_=_U
DDn n
...
o~ oo~|
OO Vo (m/s) SLCw(vol. %)
[] 5.7 0
2~ O 10.1 0
9 5.8 29
1- 9 10.1 29
0 I I I
8 9 10 11 12
Post Impact Time (~s)
FIG. 8--Crack length histories of hot-pressed Al203 and SiCwAl203composite.
20
18-
16-
/•o0
14-
[~ 12-
:1
/ ~ [] 5.7 0 )
O 10.1 0
i b 9 5.8 29
9 10.1 29
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
0.:3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Crack Tip Location, ct = a / W
FIG. 9--Dynamic stress intensityfactors of hot-pressed Al203 and SiCJAI20 3.
Dynamic Initiation Fracture Toughness

The dynamic initiation fracture toughness, K~d,was calculated by the technique presented in
Ref 10, and the results are summarized in Table 1. The technique for determining Kza required
the stress history at the crack tip to be measured correctly and the time at the initiation of crack
propagation to be determined correctly from the LIDG signals. The initiation dynamic fracture
toughness, Kid, was in the range of previously published values for similar materials [13-16].
The specimens impacted at 10 m/s showed macroscopic crack branching at the crack length,
%, marked in Fig. 9. The crack branching toughness [8], Klb, which is defined by K~b = K~y~
at c( = so, is also listed in Table 1. This Klb is a necessary but not sufficient condition for crack
branching [17] and was verified in this study where KfY" exceeded Klb without crack
branching.
Fracture Surface Morphology

A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to correlate the fracture surface morphology
of the AI203 and the 29% versus SiCw/AI203 composite with K~y", which increased threefold
over K~d in both materials at the highest impact velocity. The fracture surfaces exhibited as
many as four distinct regions. The precrack region was a relatively flat and uniformly textured
surface. This was followed with the "mirror," the "mist," and the "hackle" region. The latter
consisted of small localized crack branches or branching attempts. Figure 10 is a mosaic of the
A1203 fracture surface showing this morphology. These regions were difficult to observe with
the SEM or the optical microscope but were more apparent with the naked eye. These regions
were correlated with g dyn, and the correlation is given in Table 2. All materials impacted at 10
rn/s exhibited a macrobranched region (fourth region). The specimens impacted at 5.8 rn/s did
not display the macroscopic crack branch region.
The microscopic feature of the fracture surfaces generated by stable crack growth and rapid
crack propagation in Fig. 10 were compared. Both fracture surfaces of the m1203 exhibited a
combination of intergranular and transgranular fracture surfaces in which the intergranular
fracture was dominant. The dynamic fracture surface, however, displayed a larger percentage
of transgranular fracture surface. Similar results were observed in the 29% versus SiCffA1203
where the fracture surface exhibited both fiber pullout and transfiber fracture with increased
FIG. lO~Mosaic of hot-pressed Al203 showing distinct fracture surface morphologies.
TABLE 2--Fracture surface features correlated with dynamic stress intensity factor.
K dyn f o r A1203,M P a . m u2
Surface Feature Vo = 5.7 m/s Vo = 10.1 m/s
Mirror 5.9-8.6 5.8-8. l
Mist 8.6-11.7 8.1-11.5
Hackle > 11.7 11.5-13.6
Crack branching no branching > 13.6
transfiber fracture in the dynamic fracture region. The apparent lack of increased fiber pullout,
and hence the lack in increased crack bridging that is a toughening mechanism, would help
explain the nearly equal dynamic fracture toughness in the A1203 and SiCw]Al203.
Conclusions
1. Spall failure of AlzO3 suggests that damage growth is triggered at the grain interfaces
under impact loading.
2. Despite the increase in K~c with the addition of SiC whiskers in A1203 matrix, its effec-
tiveness in SiC~/ml20 3 composite under dynamic loading is questionable.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Office of Naval Research
through ONR Contract N00014-87-K-0326. The scientific guidance and encouragement from
Dr. Y. Rajapakse, ONR Scientific Officer, are greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Wiederhorn, S. M. and Lawn, B. R., "Strength Degradation of Glass Resulting from Impact with
Spheres," Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol. 60, No. 9-10, 1977, pp. 451-458.
[2] Evans, A. G., Gulden, M. E., and Rosenblatt, M., "Impact Damage in Brittle Materials in the Elastic/
Plastic Response Regime," Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A, Vol. 361, 1978,
pp. 343-365.
[3] Shockey, D. A., Erlich, D. C., and Dao, K. C., "Particle Impact Damage in Silicon Nitride at
1400~ '' Journal of Material Sciences, Vol. 16, 1981, pp. 477-482.
[4] Liaw, B. M., Kobayashi, A. S., and Emery, A. F., "Theoretical Model of Impact Damage in Structural
Ceramics," Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol. 67, No. 4, 1984, pp. 544-548.
[5] Masuda, M., Tsuruta, H., Soma, T., and Matsui, M., "Foreign Object Damage Resistance of Struc-
tural Ceramics," in Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines, V. J. Tennery, Ed., The Amer-
ican Ceramic Society, 1989, pp. 1031-1038.
[6] Akimune, Y., Katano, Y., and Matoba, K., "Spherical Impact Damage and Strength Degradation in
Ceramics for Automobile Turbocharger Rotor," in Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines,
V. J. Tennery, Ed., The American Ceramic Society, 1989, pp. 1495-1507.
[7] Yeshurin, Y., Brandon, D. G., Venkert, A., and Rosenberg, Z., "The Dynamic Properties of Two-
Phase Alumina/Glass Ceramics," Journal de Physique, Colloque C3, supplement au 9, 1988, pp.
C3-11-18.
[8] Shioya, T., Koga, Y., Fujimoto, K., and Ishida, R., "Micromechanism of Dynamic Crack Propagation
in Brittle Materials," Journal de Physique, Colloque C3, supplement au 9, 1988, pp. C3-253-260.
[9] Nose, T. and Fujii, T., "Evaluation of Fracture Toughness for Ceramic Materials by a Single-Edge-
Precracked-Beam Method," Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol. 71, No. 5, 1988, pp. 328-
333.
802 FRACTURE MECHANICS: -I-WENTY-FOURTH VOLUME
[10] Deobald, L. R, and Kobayashi, A. S., "A Bar Impact Tester for Dynamic Fracture Testing of Ceram-
ics and Ceramic Composites," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 1992, pp. 109-116.
[11 ] Chuck, L., Fuller, E. R., and Freiman, S. W., "Chevron-Notch Bend Testing in Glass: Some Exper-
imental Problems," in Chevron-Notched Specimens: Testing and Stress Analysis, ASTM STP 855,
J. H. Underwood, S. W. Freiman, and F. R. Baratta, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
[12] Munz, D., Bubsey, R. T., and Shannon, J. L., Jr., "Fracture Toughness Determination of A1203Using
Four-Point-Bend Specimens with Straight-Throughand Chevron Notches," Journal of the American
Ceramic Society, Vol. 63, No. 5-6, 1980, pp. 300-305.
[13] Yang, K. H. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Dynamic Fracture Responses of Alumina and Two Ceramic
Composites," Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990, pp. 2309-2315.
[14] Suresh, S., Nakamura, T., Yeshurun, Y., Yang, K.-H., and Duffy, J., "Tensile Fracture Toughness
of Ceramic Materials: Effects of Dynamic Loading and Elevated Temperatures," Journal of the
American Ceramic Society, Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990, pp. 2457-2466.
[15] Takagi, Y. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Further Studies on Dynamic Fracture Response of Alumina and
SiCJA1203 Composite," in Symposium on Elevated Temperature Crack Growth, S. Mall and T.
Nicholas, Eds., ASME MD-Vol. 18, 1990, pp. 145-148.
[16] Duffy, J., Suresh, S., Cho, K., and Bopp, E. R., "A Method for Dynamic Fracture Initiation Testing
of Ceramics," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 110, 1988, pp. 325-331.
[17] Ramulu, M. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Mechanics of Crack Curving and Branching," International
STP 1207-EB/Dec. 1994
Author Index
A-I! K-L
Abbott, R. T., 410 Kirk, Mark T., 62

Albrecht, Pedro, 583 Kobayashi, Albert S., 48, 793
Anderson, Ted L., 62, 87, 186 Kusuhashi, Mikio, 325
Arai, Taku, 355 Landes, John D., 1, 171,422, 745
Arnold, Rocky R., 766 Lee, Kang, 422
Ayoub, Peter S., 766
Boulet, J. A. M., 529 M
Macdonald, Bruce D., 617

C Machida, Susumu, 264
Mai, Yiu-Wing, 376
Chang, Shih-Jung, 672 Mayrhofer, K., 691
Chen, Xiaoguang, 581 McCabe, Donald E., 215, 339
Collins, Patrick S., 766 McClung, R. Craig, 706
Cordes, Jennifer, 547 Merkle, J. G., 215
Cotterell, Brian, 376 Mettu, Sambi R., 560
Crews, John H., Jr., 778 Miglin, Made T., 308, 342
Miller, Timothy C., 87
D-F
N
Dadkhah, Mahyar S., 48
Deobald, Lyle R., 793 Naik, Rajiv A., 778
Dodds, Robert H., Jr., 62, 186 Nanstad, R. K., 215
Dogan, B., 510 Nevalainen, Markku, 108
Ernst, Hugo A., 339 Newman, James C., Jr., 617
Fischer, F. D., 691 Nickell, Robert E., 355, 652
O-Q
It
Oberjohn, Lillian A., 342
Hackett, Edwin M., 722
O'Dowd, Noel P., 21
Heerens, Jiargen, 171
Paris, Paul C., 5
Hour, Kai-Yauarn, 498
Parteder, E., 691
Hudak, Stephen J., Jr., 706
Petrovski, Blagoi, 171
Powell, Steve R., 617
i-j Quifiones, David F., 652
Ichikawa, Masahiro, 369 R

Isogai, Takeshi, 464
Iwadate, Tadao, 233, 325, 464 Raju, Ivatury S., 560
Joyce, James A., 722 Reuter, Walter G., 617
803
Rintamaa, Rauno, 108 Troiano, E. J., 410

Roe, Charles, 722 Tung, R., 766
Rolfe, Stan T., 131, 152 Turner, Cedric E., 447
Rush, P. J., 339
U-W
Underwood, J. H., 410

Saegusa, Toshiari, 355 Urabe, Namio, 355
Saxena, Ashok, 481,510 Van Der Sluys, William A., 308, 342
Schwalbe, Karl-Heinz, 171,510, 636 Wallin, Kim, 108
Shih, C. Fong, 21 Wu, Shang-Xian, 376
Shivakumar, V., 560
Shum, David K. M., 131, 152 Y-Z
Stienstra, David, 186
Stubbins, James F., 498 Yagawa, Genki, 355
Suzuki, Yasuhiro, 264 Yagi, Koichi, 481
Yazici, Rahmi, 547
Yokobori, A. Toshimitsu, Jr., 464
Yokobori, Takeo, 233, 369
Tabuchi, Masaki, 481 Yoshinari, Hitoshi, 264
Tanaka, Yasuhiko, 325 Zerbst, Uwe, 171
Theiss, Timothy J., 131, 152 Zhou, Zhen, 745
Toyoda, Masao, 291
STP 1207-EB/Dec. 1994
Subject Index
A ductile-brittle transition, 342
growth affected, 369
Aircraft transparency, crack propagation size effects on fracture toughness, 62
prediction, 766 small-specimen toughness in transition region,
AlzO3 ceramics, impact testing, 793 325
Aluminum alloys transition region, 233
stable growing crack, 48 weakest link model, 186
tungsten inert gas welded, 339 Cohesive strength, 87
Aluminum beam, elastic-plastic Mode II fracture, Constraint-based models, 215
547 Constraint effects
Anderson-Dodds constraint correction procedure, correction procedure, 342
342 stress volume model, 186
ASTM A 508, 233, 325, 342 Constraint loss, 87
ASTM E 399, 233, 308 Crack, random size and toughness, fracture
ASTM E 813, 308, 410 probability, 672
Austenitic stainless steel, flawed piping, fracture Crack closure, 498
mode, 652 cast stainless steel, 722
Automated mesh generation, 766 large unload-reload cycles, 706
a / W ratio, 108 Crack depth, 108
Crack extension, as function of position, 339
B Crack face, protrusion interference, 529
Crack growth
Bending, ductile crack growth, 447 creep, relationship between C* integral and
Biaxial stress, Griffith fracture criterion, 529 load-line deflection rate, 510
Bimaterial, stress intensity factors, mixed-mode ductile, 447
loading, 778 fatigue, see Fatigue crack growth
Brittle materials inclined elliptically shaped subsurface crack,
protrusion interference, 529 691
surface crack, 617 intergranular mode, 498
small scale and transition creep conditions, 481
C transgranular mode, 498
Crack initiation, 21
Calibration function, 745 cleavage, fracture toughness at, 108
Canopy, fracturing patterns during ejection, 766 Crack length, versus displacement, 422
Cast iron, heavy-section ductile, lower-bound Crack-mouth displacement, 410
fracture toughness, 355 Crack-opening angle model, 447
Center-cracked tension specimens, ductile-brittle Crack propagation
transition, 376 cyclic loading, 722
Ceramics, impact testing, 793 prediction in aircraft transparencies, 766
C integral, 481,498 Crack shape, during ductile tearing and fatigue
relationship with load-line deflection rate, 510 crack growth, 706
Cleavage fracture, 21 Crack tip
carbon steel, 376 constraint, 186
crack initiation, fracture toughness, 108 displacement, 48
805
Crack tiFf-continued Ductile tearing, 21,652

fields, 152 during large unload-reload cycles, 706
high- and low-triaxiality states, 21 Dynamic loading, fracture mode evaluation, 652
stress singularity, 464 Dynamic fracture, impact testing, 793
Crack tip opening displacement
carbon steel, 376
creep crack growth, 510 E
eccentric cracks, 581
local brittle zone effect, 264, 291 Eccentric cracks, weight function, 581
testing, 131 Elastic biaxiality parameters, 62
heat-affected zone toughness, 291 Elastic fracture mechanics, high flux isotope
under strain control, 636 reactor, 672
Creep Elastic-plastic fracture, 21, 48
mean load effects, 498 cyclic loading, 722
small scale and transition conditions, 481 ductile-brittle transition, 186
Creep-brittle materials, crack growth rates, 510 ductile crack growth, 447
Creep crack growth, relationship between C* Heavy Section Steel Technology Program, 131
integral and load-line deflection rate, 510 Mode II, 547
Creep-ductile materials, crack growth, 481 small specimen, strain rate effect, 325
Cr-Mo-V steel surface cracks, 339
crack growth, 481 growth during large unload-reload cycles,
creep-ductile behavior, 510 706
Ct parameter, 481 transition region, 233
Cubic Hermite interpolation, 560 T-stress analysis, 62
Cyclic bending, 691 Embrittlement, high flux isotope reactor, 672
Cyclic loading, deformation and elastic-plastic Energy-balance condition, eccentric cracks, 581
fracture behavior, 722 Energy dissipation rate, 447
Engineering Treatment Model, 636
Damage zone model, 547

Deflection rates, load-line, 481 Failure, under strain Control, 638
Deformation, cyclic loading, 722 Fatigue crack growth
Detonating cord, 766 inclined elliptically shaped subsurface crack,
Dislocation free zone, 464 691
Dislocations, inverse pileup, 464 low cycle, 722
Displacement, versus crack length, 422 mean load effects, 498
Double-edge notched tension specimens, ductile- surface, during large unload-reload cycles,
brittle transition, 376 706
Ductile-brittle transition, 186 Ferritic steel
dislocation dynamics, 464 ductile-brittle transition region, 186
fracture toughness, 308, 342 flawed piping, fracture mode, 652
increasing in-plane plastic constraint, 376 Finite element analysis
scatter, interpretation as statistical event, 369 interface cracks under mixed-mode loading,
small specimen toughness, strain rate effect, 778
325 large deformation, 376
Ductile crack growth, in bending, resistance Mode II fracture, 547
curves, 447 shallow-crack fracture toughness, 131
Ductile fracture, 48 size effects on cleavage fracture toughness, 62
application to polymers, 745 three-dimensional, 560
carbon steel, 376 two-parameter fracture mechanics, 21
growth affected, 369 Finite element model, crack propagation in
Ductile materials, elastic-plastic Mode II fracture, aircraft transparencies, 766
547 Flat plate, nonuniform stresses, 560
SUBJECT INDEX 807
Fracture Interface cracks, stress intensity factors, 778

intergranular, 793 Intervoid necking, 87
time-dependent, 652
mechanics, research progress, 5
Fracture mode, evaluation, dynamic loading, 652
Fracture stress J integral, 21, 48, 233, 308, 325
dependence on orientation, magnitude and cyclic loading, 722
biaxiality, 529 as function of position, 339
Griffith crack, 529 high-strength steels, 410
Fracture toughness, 21 shallow-crack fracture toughness, 131
cleavage, analysis, 186 surface crack growth during large unload-
ductile-brittle transition, 308, 342, 464 reload cycles, 708
dynamic initiation, impact testing, 793 under strain control, 636
dynamic loading effect, 464 J-Q theory, 48, 62
dynamic tests, 108 pressurized thermal shock analysis, 152
elastic-plastic, 233 J-R curve, 447
beat-affected zone, 291 cast stainless steel, 722
high flux isotope reactor, 672 development, normalization, 422
in-plane plastic constraint, 376 polymers, 745
J-integral, 410 J-T theory, 48
J-R curves, 422
lower-bound, 171,308
L
heavy-section ductile cast iron, 355
transition range, 215
Large-scale yielding, cyclic loading, 722
transition region, 233, 325
Leak-before-break principles, 652
plane-strain, 617
Limit load, 422
polymers, 745
Linear cumulative damage rule, 498
relation to constraint, 87
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics, 447
scatter
LMN function, 422
brittle-ductile transition region, 369
Loading
small-specimen, 233
cyclic, 724
shallow-crack, 131
near crack tip, 87
size effects, 62, 186 proportional, 87
small specimens, 355 Load-line deflection rate, relationship with C
transition region, 325 integral, 510
Load ratio, 498
G-H Load separation method, polymers, 745
Local brittle zones, effect on fracture toughness,
Green's function, 581
264, 291
Griffith cracks, 529
Heat-affected zone, 264
crack tip opening displacement testing, 291 M
Heavy section steel technology, 131
High flux isotope reactor, fracture toughness, 672 Mechanical breakers, aircraft transparencies, 766
Hoop stress, fracture probability, 672 Mechanical inhomogeneity, 291
Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren field, 48 Mixed-mode loading, interface cracks, 778
Modified boundary layer, 62
Moire interferometry, 48
Impact testing, ceramics, 793 N

Inclined elliptically shaped subsurface crack,
fatigue crack growth, 691 Near crack tip loading, 87
Inconel 718, surface crack growth, 706 Normalization, J-R curve development, 422
In-plane plastic constraint, ductile-brittle Nuclear fuel casks, spent, fracture toughness, 355
transition, 376 Nylon, ductile fracture method application, 745
Silicon-carbide whiskers, impact testing, 793

Single-edge notched bend specimen, nylon, 745
PACE, 766 Single-edge notched tension specimens, ductile-
Paris law relationship, 691 brittle transition, 376
Phase angle, interface cracks, 778 Single-specimen test analysis, lower-bound
Piping, flawed, dynamic loading, fracture mode toughness in transition, 171
evaluation, 652 Singular integral equation method, 691
Plane-strain fracture toughness, 617 Size, effects
Plane stress tension, 636 cleavage fracture toughness, 62
Polycarbonate, ductile fracture method toughness, 186
application, 745 weakest-link theory, 215
Polymers, ductile fracture method application, Small-scale yield
745 constraint-based model, 215
Power law fit, 422 correction, 108
Pressure vessel steel, fracture toughness, transition Small-specimen fracture toughness, 233
region, 342 Spallation, impact testing, 793
Pressurized thermal shock, reactor pressure Stable crack growth, 547
vessels, 152 length, 369
Proof testing, 706 Stainless steel, cast, cyclic loading effects, 722
Proportional loading, 87 Statistically based models, 215
Protrusion interference, crack face, 529 Steel
elastic-plastic fracture, 233
fracture toughness, transition region, 325, 342
Q heat-affected zone toughness, 291
high-strength, J-integral fracture toughness, 410
Q field parameter, 21 low alloy, fracture toughness in transition
Q-stress parameter, 108 region, 308
pressurized thermal shock, 152 lower-bound fracture toughness, 171
shallow-crack fracture toughness, 131 transition region, 171
Steel bridges, eccentric cracks, 581
R
Strain rate, effect
on small specimen fracture toughness, 325
Radiation embrittlement, 672 of fracture mode, 652
Reactor pressure vessel, fracture toughness, 131 Stress
Research, progress in, 5 nonuniform, 560
Residual stresses, effect on fatigue crack growth, singularity at crack tip, 464
691 triaxiality, 21
Resistance curves, see also J-R curves Stress intensity factors
analysis, surface crack, 339 crack branching, impact testing, 793
ductile crack growth in bending, 447 cracked finite-width plate under tension, 581
elastic-plastic Mode II fracture, 547 effective, 691
surface crack growth during large unload- interface cracks, 778
reload cycles, 706 mixed-mode, 529
under strain control, 636 opening mode, 691
range, crack growth rate and, 498
surface cracks
brittle materials, 617
flat plates, 560
Scatter Stress rate dependence, 464
in ductile-brittle transition region, 186 Stress triaxiality, 87
small-specimen fracture toughness, 233 Stress volume model, 186
Self-consistency condition, eccentric cracks, 581 Structural integrity, assessment, 62
Shot-peening, 691 Subsurface crack, inclined eUiptically shaped,
SiCJA1203 ceramics, impact testing, 793 fatigue crack growth, 691
SUBJECTINDEX 809
Surface crack Void growth model, 87

brittle materials, 617 Void nucleation, 87
flat plates subject to nonuniform stresses, 560
growth, Inconel 718, 706 W-Z
resistance curve analysis, 339
Weakest link model, 186, 215
T multipass welded joints, 291
Weibull analysis, 215
Temperature, elevated, creep and fatigue crack fracture toughness in transition region, 308
growth, 498 Weibull distribution, 171,264
Three-point bend specimens, 410 mixed, 369
Ti-6242Si alloy, equiaxed or lamellar Weibull slope, fracture toughness, 325
microstructure, 510 Weibull statistics, fracture toughness, transition
Transition region, see also Ductile-brittle region, 342
transition Weight function, 560
elastic-plastic fracture, 233 eccentric cracks, 581
fracture toughness, 308, 325 Welded joints, multipass
steel, 171 CTOD testing for heat-affected zone toughness,
Transition temperature, 215 291
T stress, 62, 108 local brittle zone effect on fracture toughness,
Two-parameter fracture mechanics, crack-tip field 264, 291
associated with stable crack growth, 48 Zero-shift procedure, 410
U-V
Unloading compliance, 410

Void coalescence, 87
H
VJ
W
Z
0
!
0~
0
W
~J
!
LIJ
n
in
0
!
n

STP1207 Eb.1415051 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STP1207 Eb.1415051 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Jan 28 18:45:46 EST 2012

John D. Landes, Donald E. McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, Editors

ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN):

Peer Review Policy

Printed in Ann Arbor, MI

THIRD ANNUAL JERRY L. SWEDLOW MEMORIAL LECTURE

Reflections o n P r o g r e s s in F r a c t u r e M e c h a n i c s Research--PAUL c. PARIS 5

T w o - P a r a m e t e r F r a c t u r e Mechanics: T h e o r y a n d Applications---NOEL e. O'DOWD

T w o - P a r a m e t e r C r a c k - T i p Field Associated with Stable C r a c k G r o w t h in a T h i n

A n A p p r o x i m a t e T e c h n i q u e for P r e d i c t i n g Size Effects o n Cleavage F r a c t u r e

A Void G r o w t h Model Relating F r a c t u r e Toughness a n d C o n s t r a i n t - -

I n t e r i m Results f r o m the H e a v y Section Steel Technology (HSST) S h a l l o w - C r a c k

Application of J-Q F r a c t u r e Methodology to the Analysis of Pressurized T h e r m a l

DUCTILE TO BR1TrLE TRANSITION

Single-Specimen Test Analysis to D e t e r m i n e L o w e r - B o u n d Toughness in the

E v a l u a t i o n of Elastic-Plastic F r a c t u r e T o u c h n e s s Testing in the T r a n s i t i o n Region

A Statistical Study o n the Effect of Local Brittle Zones (LBZs) o n the F r a c t u r e

C r a c k Tip O p e n i n g Displacement (CTOD) Testing M e t h o d for Heat-Affected Zone

Results of M P C / J S P S C o o p e r a t i v e Testing P r o g r a m in the Brittle-to-Ductile

Effect of S t r a i n Rate o n Small Specimen F r a c t u r e Toughness in the T r a n s i t i o n

Analysis of Results f r o m the M P C / J S P S R o u n d R o b i n Testing P r o g r a m in the

D e t e r m i n a t i o n of L o w e r - B o u n d F r a c t u r e T o u g h n e s s for Heavy-Section Ductile Cast

A n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the S c a t t e r in Brittle-Ductile T r a n s i t i o n Region as a Statistical

Resistance C u r v e Analysis of Surface Cracks----HUGO A. ERNST, P. J. RUSH, AND

S i m p l e r Jic Test a n d D a t a Analysis P r o c e d u r e s f o r H i g h - S t r e n g t h Steels---

Effects of Mean Load on Creep and Fatigue Crack Growth at Elevated

Crack-Face Interaction: Protrusion Interference in Brittle Materials---

Elastic-Plastic Mode II Fracture in an Aluminum Beam--JENNIFERCORDESAND

Weight Functions for Eccentric Cracks---XIAOGUANGCHENANDPEDROALBRECHT 581

Fracture Criteria for Surface Cracks in Brittle Materials---WALTER G. REtrrEa,

Simulation of Fatigue Crack G r o w t h of an Inclined Elliptically S h a p e d S u b s u r f a c e

Surface Crack Growth in Inconel 718 During Large Unload-Reload Cycles---

Effects of Cyclic Loading on the Deformation and Elastic-Plastic Fracture Behavior

T h e Application of a Ductile Fracture M e t h o d to P o l y m e r Materials---ZnEN ZHOU

Methodology for Predicting Canopy Fracturing Patterns During Ejection--

Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors for Interface Cracks Under Mixed-Mode

I m p a c t Testing of AI203 and SiCw/AI203 Ceramics---LYLE R. DEOBALDAND

Reflections on Progress in Fracture

* Third Annual Jerry L: Swedlow Memorial Lecture.

FIG. l--The Symposium related STPs.

Recollections of a Graduate Student--the "Good Old Days"

2 G. R. Irwin, private communication.

summer short courses on Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics at the University of Denver

The National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics

Measurement of Progress in Fracture Mechanics

TABLE 1--ASTM E-24 National symposia and related symposia.

Special Chicago/ASTM June 1964 W.F. Brown, Jr. 381

TABLE 2--Data on symposia proceedings/subsequent internal citations.

1965 381 409 13 82 6.31 40

1984 833 758 37 33 0.89 4

TABLE 3--The sequence of highly cited papers.

1972 513, 514 {1} 87 + 49 = 136 126 the J integral as

Some Comments about the Authors Contributing to These Symposia

Two-Parameter Fracture Mechanics" Theory

KEYWORDS: constraint, stress triaxiality, elastic-plastic fracture, fracture toughness, crack

A two-parameter fracture theory can be motivated by considering the progression of plastic

1 Lecturer in mechanical engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Sci-

The J-Q Theory

Back Sector Forward Sector

Q Family o f Fields M B L Formulation

~,i ~ ~ (0) + TS,Fr u (1)

trlj=tr~j ,0;Q,%= eoga ,0;Q,ui=--hi ,0;Q (3)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0