I. Shiota and M.Y.

Miyamoto (Editors)
Functionally Graded Materials 1996
® 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. 105

Fracture Mechanics of Graded Materials

F. Erdogan

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics

Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA, 18015, USA

In this article after a brief review of elementary principles of fracture mechanics, certain
issues concerning the applications to graded materials are identified and some examples are
given.

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent past there has been a great deal of interest in the concept of material property
grading as a tool for new material design. This is usually accomplished by suitably varying
composition and/or microstructure of the medium. Thus far most of the work in the field has
been on metal/ceramic composites, various intermetallics and electronic materials with current
and potential applications as interfacial zones and coatings. From a mechanics view point the
main advantages of material property grading appear to be improved bonding strength,
toughness and wear and corrosion resistance, and reduced residual and thermal stresses. Some
typical applications include thermal barrier coatings of high temperature components in gas
turbines, surface hardening for tribological protection and graded interlayers used in
multilayered microelectronic and optoelectronic components [1-3].
An important aspect that needs to be addressed in various engineering applications of FGMs
is the question of reliability and durability in general and fracture related failures in particular.
This article is concerned primarily with fracture mechanics as applied to structures involving
FGMs. After a brief description of some basic notions of fracture mechanics, certain critical
issues relating to FGMs are discussed and some examples are given.

2. FRACTURE MECHANICS

The quantitative theories of fracture which are currently in use are based on a fundamental
principle of continuum thermodynamics, namely the first law or the energy balance which
states that
dU_ _ dV^ dJ^ dD_
dt dt dt dt
where t is the time U the external work, V the recoverable (elastic) energy, T the kinetic
energy and D the sum of all irreversible energies associated with the creation of new fracture
surfaces such as surface tension, plastic work and viscous dissipation. If the solid contains a
106

dominant flaw which may be represented by a planar crack having a surface area A(t) and if
the fracture process is taking place in a quasi-static manner and A(t) can be characterized by a
single length parameter a{t), then dT/dt = 0 and defining dD/da = Qc, (1) may be expressed
as

±(U-V)= Gc, (2)

where the left hand side is the rate of energy available for fracture (also known as Q, the crack
driving force or the strain energy release rate) and Qc represents the energy required for unit
crack extension.
If the fracture can be characterized as a low energy or brittle phenomenon, then it can be
assumed that the size of the inelastic region around the crack tip (also known as the fracture
process zone) where all the dissipative processes take place is small compared to the crack size
a, Qc is independent of a and the energy flowing into the crack tip region comes from the
elastic bulk of the medium and is insensitive to the details of the stress and deformation states
in the fracture process zone. The significance of this last observation lies in the fact that a
purely elastic solution may be used to calculate the crack driving force. For example, by
observing that under normal opening or mode I loading the asymptotic values of the cleavage
stress and crack opening displacement at the crack tip x = a, y = 0 are given by [4]

^^^^^'^^ ~ ~J2(i^' ^y ~ ^y = ^^y(^'^) = " ^ hy/2{a-x), (3)

by using the concept of crack closure energy, the energy available for fracture can be expressed
as
1 pa+da J 1 4- /c
d{U-V) = - ayy{x,0)I^Uy{x - da,0)dx, —{U -V) = Qi = - ^ n k l
Z Ja aa Qfi
ki = ^mJ2{x - a)ayy{x,0), (4)

where ki is known as the mode I stress intensity factor, /x is the shear modulus and
« = 3 - 4z/ for plane strain and « = (3 - i/)/(l +1/) for plane stress, i/ being the Poisson's
ratio. Similarly under mode II, the in-plane shear and mode III, the anti-plane shear loading
conditions, the stress intensity factors, the corresponding energy release rates and the total
strain energy release rate for co-planar crack growth are given by
/C2 = MiJ2{x -a)(7a;y(x,0), ks = ]im^y2{x - a) ayz{x,0),

^// = ^ 7 r A : | , Giii = ^7rkl Q = Qi+Qii + Qiii. (5)

Referring to the general expression (2), in brittle fracture the critical value of Qc
corresponding to the co-planar crack growth is known as Qic, the fracture toughness, with
G = Qic being the fracture criterion. In practice, very often Kj = ^J^k\, Kjj = ^Jl^hi,
Km = v^/cs and Kj = Kic are used as the stress intensity factors and the fracture
criterion.
In addition to their successfiil applications to fracture stability problems, the stress intensity
factors have been widely used as correlation parameters in analyzing the subcritical crack
growth rates da/dn (in fatigue) and da/dt (in corrosion), n and t referring to the number of
 107

load cycles and time, respectively.

In the presence of large scale inelastic deformations the general energy balance criterion
described by (2) is still valid. However, in this case since Qc is no longer independent of the
crack size, the fracture propagation can not be described by a single parameter criterion. In
high energy fracture, the fracture process zone, and consequently Gc usually grows with the
growing crack size. Hence, for fracture stability problems it becomes necessary to use a
criterion based on variable Qc such as a crack extension resistance curve or a R-curve
approach. Unlike the linear elastic fracture mechanics dealing with brittle fracture and
subcritical crack growth, the tools of the so-called elastic-plastic or nonlinear fracture
mechanics dealing with high energy or ductile fracture are not well-developed and universally
accepted. In some cases the J-integral is used with some success to compute the crack driving
force, Q = d{U — V)lda. In all cases the application of the criterion G = Gc requires
extensive numerical and experimental work.

3. MAJOR ISSUES IN FGMS

The principles of fracture mechanics described in the previous section are applicable to
inhomogeneous as well as homogeneous materials. In FGMs the difficulties arise in the
solution of elastic or elastic-plastic crack problems to evaluate G or ki, ki, k^ and in
characterizing the material to determine Kjc, Gic or Gc where the fracture toughness Gic is
no longer a material constant [5]. The definitions of stress intensity factors and expressions of
the strain energy release rates given by (4) and (5) are still valid provided the elastic parameters
/i and K are evaluated at the crack tip. Following are some of the major issues concerning the
fracture mechanics of FGMs.
(a) Elastic singularities. As long as the elastic parameters ^ and K are continuous ftinctions
of the space variables with piecewise continuous derivatives, the stress state around the crack
tips has the standard square-root singularity. For example, in plane isotropic elasticity problems
for r -• 0 the leading terms of the stresses are given by [6-8]

- -'^^'"'^^[fci/iyW + fc2/2i,W], {ij) = ir,e) (6)

where (r, 9) are the polar coordinates at the crack tip, ki and k2 are the modes I and II stress
intensity factors, (f>{r,6) is a smooth function with </)(0,6) = 1 and the ftinctions fuj and f2ij
are identical to that found for crack problems in isotropic homogeneous materials. If the crack
tip terminates at a kink or slope discontinuity of /i(x), there would be no change in the
dominant terms shown in (6) [8]. However, for small values of r the next significant term
would be different, which, for the cleavage stress at the crack tip is given by [9]
k^f ^-A^
aeeir, 0) c^ - ^ ( 1 -h ^^,, ^\.^ /3r\nr] + c^/^, (7)
y^V 87r(l-i.)
where c is a constant, /i(x) = fxocxip{/3x) for x < 0, /i = fiQ for x > 0 and the crack is
located along 0 < x < a, y = 0.
(b) Analytical methods/benchmark solutions. Even though there are no known closed form
solutions for crack problems in FGMs, for simple property variations the formulations leading
108

to singular integral equations are straightforward and accurate solutions can be obtained [7].
(c) Computational methods. Finite element method is the major computational tool.
However, to improve efficiency and accuracy the development of enriched crack tip and
transition elements and ordinary inhomogeneous elements will be needed [10].
(d) Material orthotropy. In many cases the material orthotropy seems to be the
consequence of processing technique. For example, FGMs processed by using a plasma spray
technique tend to have a lamellar structure. Flattened splats and relatively weak splat
boundaries result in an oriented material with higher stiffness and weaker cleavage planes
parallel to the boundary [11]. On the other hand graded materials processed by an electron
beam physical vapor deposition technique have usually a columnar structure giving higher
stiffness and weak fracture planes in thickness direction [12]. These oriented materials can
generally be approximated by an inhomogeneous orthotropic medium.
(e) Inelastic behavior. Because of the length scales involved in FGM coatings and
interfaces, in addition to conventional plasticity, one may have to use a microplasticity
approach which accounts for the effect of strain gradients on strain hardening coefficients. The
resulting nonlinear elastic-plastic crack problems require a numerical approach with special
inhomogeneous elements.
(f) Rheological effects. Invariably FGMs are used in high temperature environments. As a
result the time-temperature effects may not be negligible and the material may have to be
modeled as an inhomogeneous viscoelastic or viscoplastic medium.
(g) Dynamic effects. Generally, high velocities in propagating cracks and high rates of
loading (e.g., impact) in stationary cracks would necessitate the consideration of inertia effects
in solving the fracture problem. However, even for the uncracked linear elastic inhomogeneous
bounded medium, the stress wave phenomenon is not fully understood. The existing solutions
are restricted mostly to one dimensional problems in materials with certain simple property
gradings.
(h) Material characterization. This is still the most important issue in studying the fracture
mechanics FGMs. The knowledge of thermomechanical and fracture mechanics parameters of
the material is essential for any realistic predictive reliability study of FGM components.

4. EXAMPLES

In this section we will briefly discuss three groups of examples. The first two are concerned
with FGM coatings on homogeneous substrates in which for simplicity it is assumed that the
bond coat has the same thermomechanical properties as the substrate. The third group deals
with the effect of material orthotropy on the stress intensity factors.

4.1. Surface Cracking

In FGM as well as homogenous (ceramic) coatings the fracture related failures may take
place in various ways. One way would be under cyclic mechanical and/or thermal loading the
initiation of a fatigue crack at a surface defect, the subcritical growth of the crack in thickness
direction, fracture of bond coat and opening an oxygen path to the substrate. This may happen
if there are no weaker fracture planes in the coating and the coating/bond coat interface is
 109

sufficiently strong. Such crack initiation and growth in thickness direction have been observed
in FGM coatings by several investigators (e.g., [13,14]). A variation of this mode of failure
would be multiple (or eventually, periodic) surface cracking. Multiple cracking is clearly in
evidence in the work reported in [14]. In practice, because of the long hold times under high
temperature, the crack growth process would be heavily enhanced by the environmental
effects. Even in the simplest case of low temperature and relatively high cycle fatigue for which
a simple two-parameter crack propagation model such as

^=C{AK)\ C = C{a), b = b{a) (8)

an
may be applicable, in FGMs the parameters C and b would be dependent on the material
composition and the microstructure. This would mean that in surface crack problems C and b
would be functions of the crack length a. For modeling and any quantitative analysis, these
functions must be determined from the fatigue data on homogenous cupons with various
composition.
The surface crack problem is one of mode I and the determination of the stress intensity
factor ki is sufficient for fracture stability and fatigue analysis. For a FGM coating on a
homogenous substrate some sample results are given in Figures 1-3 [15] where hi and /12 are
the thicknesses of coating and the substrate, respectively, c is the crack length, K is constant
and the shear modulus of FGM is given by /i(x) = /ioexp(/3a:), ^0 being the modulus of the
substrate. Figure 1 shows the effect of material inhomogeneity on /ci in a medium loaded by
fixed grips or constant strain EQ. The normalizing stress is given by CTQ = 8/ii£o/(l + /^),
/ii := /ioexp(-/5/ii). Figures 2 and 3 show ki for PSZ/Rene 41 FGM coating (/5/ii = 0.375)
on Rene 41 substrate loaded by constant strain £0 or constant temperature change AT,
respectively. Figure 2 shows the influence of the thickness ratio h2/hi on ki. The effect of the
uniform temperature change AT is shown in Figure 3 where To corresponds to the stress-free
state and T] and To are the surface temperatures. This is a special case of a general problem in
which Ti 7^ To and the medium is under steady-state heat conduction.

.
7.0 i h2/h,=0.5
y ; h/h,=1.0
6.0 i h/h,=2.0 /-
! h^h,=10.0
, 5.0
kl
\ U—\
ic
y/ -
^Oy

2.0
,^^^^^^: -'-"'IT-
1.0

c/Zii
Figure 1. Mode I stress intensity factor for a surface Figure 2. Mode I stress intensity factor for a surface
crack in FGM coating, h\ —h^. crack in FGM coating, phi = 0.375.

4.2 Spallation
Another mode of failure would be the transformation of the surface crack to a T-shaped
crack at a relatively weak fracture plane parallel to the surface. This may be microcracks
forming along the oxidized splat boundaries or the interface between the thermally grown
no

oxide and the coating. There seems to be some evidence of such branching in the results given
in [14]. For the T-shaped crack the stress state at the crack tip is one of mixed-mode.
Therefore, in the fatigue model, for example, one would have to use A^ rather than Ai^ as
the correlation parameter.

Tj=T,=5To
y ~».^ Tj=T,=10To
T,=T.=20T„ 0.025
"^^ •r.^
N
o 0.020
p=0.2
p=0.5
^pL TT
p=1
\ O^ 0.015
arxA"^ p=3
p=5
0.010
"*"-«.» \
0.005 t\- p=8
- p=:CO

-^^ ^^ *^ 0.000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b/l
c/hi
Figure 3. Normalized stress intensity factor under Figure 4 Strain energy release rate for a T-shaped
uniform temperature rise, ar = 8/ioQ:oTb/(l + K,) crack under uniform temperature change.

1 1 • 1 ' 1

r_
0.004
\\.
\-

f
CR1
0.003
CR2
^
^ 0.002
f 1
r
f LN 1
0.001 MR1

/^ MR2
' . 1 1 .HM 1 1 1 "^

Figure 5 Normalized strain energy release rate due to Figure 6 Mode I stress intensity factor in an
uniform temperature change, ijhi = 5, orthotropic FGM subjected to uniform crack surface
^0 = (1 - i^Dids^TfEs-Khi. pressure o-ii(0, X2) = -po, z^ = 0.3

In [14] it was reported that spallation cracks develop in the graded region due to the change
in residual stresses caused by the oxidation of the metallic lamellae. Similar observations were
made in [16] where a candidate design for an abradable seal was tested 242 hours at 1000°C
The seal consisted of a 0.13mm NiCoCrAlY layer, 2.54mm NiCoCrAlY/YSZ FGM region and
a 1.27mm low density YSZ. The substrate was a MM247 superaUoy. The spallation occurred
in FGM 0.5mm from the initial substrate surface. It was observed that most of the metallic
phase in the spalled region was oxidized whereas the part of the seal remaining on the substrate
was not. This appears to be due to connectivity of the oxidized region. The continuous oxide
layer seems to create a weak fracture plane as well as preventing further oxygen diffusion.
Figures 4 and 5 show the strain energy release rate for a T-shaped crack and symmetric
edge cracks, respectively. In these examples the substrate is Rene 41 (E5 = 219.7 Gpa,
 Ill

1/3 = 0.3, as = 1.67 IQ-^K ) the coating is FGM ( Rene 41 / YSZ, ^Jc = 151 Gpa,
Uc = 0.3, Qc = 10"^/°K), h2/hi = 0.16, £/hi = 5,the loading is uniform temperature
change AT and the normalizing strain energy release rate is QQ = {1 - u^)(asAT)^Es7vhi.
For the FGM coating the modulus variation is given by
Es, 0<y<hi,
E{y)
-{ E, -h {Es - Ec)il + ihi/h2) - (y//l2))^ hi<y<hi+ /12. (9)

In Figure 5 a is the length of the edge crack and the results given correspond to homogeneous
ceramic coating (IL, p = 00), ceramic-rich (CRl, p = 8 and CR2, p = 2.5), linear (LN,
p = 1) and metal-rich (MRl, p = 0.5 and MR2, p = 0.2) FGM coatings, and homogenous
metal (HM, p = 0). Note that in both examples Q increases with increasing ceramic content in
the coating.

2.0

Figure 7 Variation of the normalized strain energy Figure 8 Variation of the normalized strain energy
release rate with aa and 6 in a graded orthotropic release rate with «o and ota in a graded orthotropic
medium under uniform tension /to = 1, i^ = 0.3, medium under uniform tension 0-22(3:1, ± 00) = po,
a22(a;i, ±oo) = po,Qo = np^a/Eo. 6 = 1,1/ = 0.3, Qo = Trpga/Eo.

4.3 Effect of Material Orthotropy

As mentioned in section 3, because of the processing techniques used, the graded materials
are seldom isotropic. Thus, in studying the mechanics of many of the FGMs the medium may
be approximated by an inhomogeneous orthotropic continuum. In these materials there are
basically two groups of crack problems. In the first the weak firacture plane, and consequently
the plane of the crack is parallel to the direction of the material property variation and the
related crack problem is one of mode I. The second is a mixed-mode problem in which the
crack is perpendicular to the direction of property variation. The plane elasticity problem is
solved by introducing the following four parameters for the plane stress problem to replace the
engineering elastic constants En, E22, G12 and 1/12 :
E = yjEnE22. P = y/^^ni^x. 6^=En/E22, KQ = {E/2Gi2) -1^- (10)
Similar parameters may be defined for plane strain problems. The previous results have shown
that the solution of crack problems in FGMs is not very sensitive to the Poisson's ratio. Thus, 1/
is assumed to be constant throughout the medium. In this study it is further assumed that in the
graded materials the variations in Eu, E22 and G12 are proportional. Referring to
112

(10), these assumptions imply that «o, v and d are independent of the space variables xi, X2
and the inhomogeneity of the medium may be represented by the function ^(0:1,0:2). The
results given in Figures 6-8 are obtained by assuming that xi and X2 are the principal axes of
orthotropy and E = Eoexp{ax2).
In the mode I problem a crack of length 2a is located along xi =0, -a < X2 < a, and
figure 6 shows the influence of the shear parameter KQ and the inhomogeneity parameter a on
the stress intensity factor fci. In this case ki turns out to be independent of 6 or the stiffness
ratio. More generally, from the formulation of the problem it can be shown that (711(0,0:2) is
invariant with respect to a 90-degree material rotation. In the figure «o = 1 corresponds to the
isotropic material [17].
Figures 7 and 8 respectively show the effect of a and 6 and a and KQ on the normalized
strain energy release rate in an orthotropic FGM with a crack of length 2a located along the xi
axis. The problem is one of mixed-mode, the external load is a uniform tension po
perpendicular to the crack plane and Go is the strain energy release rate for the corresponding
homogeneous isotropic medium for which a = 0, KQ = 1, 6 = 1, ^' = 0.3[18].

REFERENCES
1. M. Yamanouchi, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai and I. Shiota (eds.), 1990, FGM-90, Proc. FGM-
90, FGM Forum, Tokyo, Japan (1990).
2. J.B.Holt, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai, and Z.A. Munir (eds.), Proc. FGM'92, Ceramic
Transactions, Vol. 34, American Ceramic Society (1992).
3. B. Ilschner, and N. Cherradi (eds.), Proc. FGM'94, Presses Polytechniques et
Universitaires Romands, Lausanne, Switzerland (1995).
4. H. Liebowitz (ed.). Fracture, Vol. 2, Academic Press (1968).
5. M. Saito and H. Takahashi, Proc. FGM'90 (1990), p. 297.
6. F. Delale and F. Erdogan, Int. J. Engng, ScL, 26 (1988) 559.
7. F. Erdogan, Tr. J. Engineering and Environmental Sci., 18 (1994) 185
8. F. Erdogan, A.C. Kaya and P.F.Joseph, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 58 (1991) 410.
9. P.A. Martin, J. Engineering Mathematics, 26 (1992) 467.
10. Y.D. Lee and F. Erdogan, Int. J. of Fracture, 69 (1995) 145.
U . S . Sampath, H. Herman, N. Shimoda and T. Saito, M.R.S. Bulletin, 20 (1995) 27.
12. W.A. Kaysser and B. Ilschner, M.R.S. Bulletin, 20 (1995) 22.
13. M. Finot, S. Suresh, C. Bull, A.E. Giannakopoulos, M. Olsson and S. Sampath, Proc.
FGM'94 (1994) 229.
14. M. Alaya, G. Grathwohl and J. Musil, Proc. FGM'94 (1994) 405.
15. M. Kasmalkar, Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University (1996).
16. W.Y. Lee, Y.W. Bae, C.C. Bemdt, F. Erdogan, Y.D. Lee, and Z. Muntasim, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. (submitted for publication) (1996).
17. M. Ozturk and F. Erdogan, Int. J. Engng. Sci. (submitted for publication) (1996).
18. M. Ozturk and F. Erdogan, ASME J.AppLMech. (submitted for publication) (1996).