FRACTURE UNIT - 3

UNIT 3: Plasticity effects, Irwin plastic zone, Dugdale approach, The

shape of the plastic zone for plane stress and plane strain cases, Plastic
constraints factor, Thickness effect, Numerical problems. (6 hours)

1. Derive the equation for the plastic zone shape in the plane stress case.
(Dec. 09 / Jan. 10)(12 marks)
2. Derive simplest equations for the plastic zone size assuming plane stress
and plane strain. (June/July 2011) (05 marks)
3. Describe Irwin plastic zone correction to predict fracture.
(June/July 2011)(05 marks)
4. Derive an expression for the size of the plastic zone and the correction
according to Irwin’s approach. State also the significance of it
(Dec 2012)(06 marks)
5. Draw the shapes of plastic zone for plane stress and plane strain according
to Von-Misses and Tresca criterion.
(Dec 2010) (04 marks)
6. Derive an equation for the shape of plastic zone around the crack tip for
mode 1 and using the distortion energy criterion. Assume plane stress state.
Plot the shape of the plastic zone and compare the same for plane strain
(June/July 2011) (10 marks)
7. Starting with the singular stress field equations around a crack-tip for mode
I, calculate the following:
i. Principal stresses (assuming plane stress)
ii. Shape & size of the plastic zone using von-misses yield
criterion.
iii. Shape & size of the plastic zone using Tresca yield criterion.
iv. Graphical comparisons. (May/June 2010) (20 marks)
8. Starting with the singular stress field equations for Mode I, derive
expressions to compare the shape of the plastic zone for plane – stress and
plane – strain states. Graphically compare the shape and size of plastic zone
for plane – stress and plane – strain states. (May/June 2010) (10 marks)
9. Compare crack – tip plastic zone size, based on linear elastic analysis,
elastic – plastic analysis. (May/June 2010) (10 marks)
10. Discuss the effect of thickness on fracture toughness.
(Dec 2010) (06 marks)
1
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

11. Write a short note on:

i. Dugdale’s model for plastic zone size.
(May/June 2010) (Dec 2010) (05 marks)
ii. Analytical, experimental and numerical methods to determine
stress intensity factors. (May/June 2010) (05 marks)
iii. Elastic – plastic fracture mechanics parameters and
experimental determination of their critical values.
(May/June 2010) (05 marks)

Investigation of the crack tip: Introduction

• Material in the vicinity of a crack tip is most affected in Linear Elastic
Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) we assume that material remains elastic even
at the crack tip where stresses are very large (i.e., in unit 1 and 2).
• The assumption is difficult to be acceptable for most engineering materials
because they do not remain elastic at high stresses. In reality, the material
in the vicinity of the crack tip gives away. In metallic components the
material yields and flaws to decrease the stresses.
• It is observed that material in the neighborhood of the crack tip tries to
reduce the danger of high stresses. In metals plastic deformation occurs
which is generally caused by nucleation and motion of dislocations. The
material flows such that high stresses are reduced dramatically.
• Quite often, the flow of material makes the crack tip blunt which inturn
decreases the magnitude of stress components. Thus many potential
characteristic failures are avoided just by local plastic deformation at the
crack tip. Flaw of material near the crack tip is also facilitated by the
formation of voids under tensile field (materials which are not able to
release high stresses are usually found to have low toughness. For example:
diamond).
• Since plastic zone plays a vital role in fracture, we need to know the shape
of plastic zone, yield planes and factors which control the size of the plastic
zone.

2
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Approximate shape and size of the plastic zone

• The stress in terms of SIF for mode 1 problems are

3
= 1−
√2 2 2 2
3
= 1+ … … .1
√2 2 2 2
3
=
√2 2 2 2

These equations are determined assuming the component remains elastic even at
the crack tip [LEFM approach].

• Certain area near the crack tip can be considered as plastic and area away
from the crack tip remains elastic. Rigorous analysis is complex because
two set of constitutive equations should be used, one for plastic
deformation inside the plastic zone and another for elastic deformation
outside the zone.
• Since the rigorous analysis is complex to the extent that the closed form
solutions are not available for most of the problems, we need to find out the
approximate solutions.

The procedure for finding the interface between plastic and elastic zone is as
follows

Elastic

Plastic

YIELDING

a) Imagine that one moves on a radial line from a far away place, (where the
stress field is definitely elastic) towards the crack tip and a yield criterion is
being continuously applied.
3
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

b) As soon as the material is found to yield, we mark the point as the interface
between elastic and plastic fields.

Shear
Stress
R
Normal
σy Stress
σ2 σx σ0 σ1

Fig : Mohr's circle to determine principal stresses

Above figure shows the Mohr circle for which , are known
through equation 1. The center and the radius of the mohrs circle are as
follows,

= = +1 − +1+ -
!" #!$ &' * * ,* * ,*
% %√% ( ) % % % % %
Center,

= =
!" #!$ &' *
% √%() %

!" 5!$ %
Radius, R = 4+ - + %
%

K/%
DA %
9 J
;' A ; A A DA ; A ; A A
? @< 5 ' ? @< @BC< @BC < 5 ' ? @< 5 ' ? @< @BC< @BC <
7: √<=> √<=> √<=> √ <=>
E 7
= %
8 ,* % I
7 +F
&' * *
G 7
6 √%() % % % H
K/%
,* %
−
%&' * *
3 %
= MN √ O +P Q R
%() % % %
2 √2 2 2 2

K/%
%
3 %
3
= S: % % %
E+: % % %
E T
√2 2 2 2 √2 2 2 2

% K/%

=S % %
T
√2 2 2

4
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

R=
√2 2 2

K %
K)
Leading to expressions for principal stresses as (defining larger one as

= +V = P1 + Q
K
√2 2 2

= +V = P1 − Q
% %
√2 2 2

The third principle stress , = 0 for plane stress and , = X( K + %)

= 2X
&' *
, √%() %
for plane strain.

Effective crack length

• The existence of the plastic zone at the crack tip does not allow material to
bear high stresses predicted by elastic analysis. The material is soft infront
of crack tip and therefore the effective crack length is longer than the actual
crack length.
• Owing to the presence of the plastic zone, the stiffness of the component
decreases or the compliance increases. Consequently the crack is equivalent
to a length that is longer than actual length.
• Size of the plastic zone in front of the crack tip determines how much
longer the effective crack length is. Therefore considerable efforts have

accurately in front of the crack tip along ZK axis.

been made by many investigators to determine the plastic zone size

5
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Derive the equation for the plastic zone shape in the plane stress case.
(Dec. 09 / Jan. 10)(12 marks)
Derive simplest equations for the plastic zone size assuming plane stress and
plane strain. (June/July 2011) (05 marks)
Approximate approach

size is found by looking at the [\ ] ZK curve of the following figure for

One of the simplest, but highly approximate expressions for the plastic zone

mode 1. The length of plastic zone ∗ along ZK direction is then obtained from
the relation = V @ where R depends on whether the case is of the plane
stress or plane strain.

σy

x
1

a r*
Fig : Approximate plastic zone size r*

=
&' ∗
•
√%() ∗
Substituting for solving we obtain

%
R % %
=
√2
@ ∗

Therefore
%
Therefore, ∗
= … … … … … .2
2 R% %
@

• We can now evaluate V for plane stress and plane strain. Because of
vanishes on Z% = 0 plane. Also, on this plane = , thus
we have principal stresses as, K = , % = , , = 0. For plane stress.
symmetry

, = e ( K + % ) = 2e % for plane strain.

• Substituting K , % , , in equation 1, we obtain
V = 1 for plain stress

6
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

V = 1f(1 − 2 ) for plain strain, where = 1f3 for most metals.

1
V=1 = =3
jg1 − 2 × 1f i
,5%
3 ,

V=3

Substituting the values of V in equation 2 we obtain,

%
=
∗ K &'
%( !$k
For plane stress

=
∗ &' <
%( ,< !< $k
For plain strain
%
=
K &'
l( !$k
• These results are highly approximate; better expressions are obtained
through Irwin plastic zone correction or Dugdale approach.

7
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Irwin’s Plastic Zone Model:

σy

x
1

a r*
Fig : Approximate plastic zone size r*

By substituting the yield strength m for or ahead of the crack tip =0 can be

n = n = n = 0 . For plane stress condition

determined from the equation

n = o( + )
p For plane strain
n = n = 0
n = for ( = 0) … … (1)
v
√%()

r = 2 , the plastic zone size in fig (a) is expressed as

This identifies the plastic zone boundary as a result

%
r = … … (2)
K &
%( !$k
Because of plastic relaxation, redistribution stress field in the plastic zone, the
actual plastic stress plastic zone size as estimates by Irwin approximate twice
the value of equation (2).
(Note: He argued that plasticity at the crack tip causes the crack to behave as it is
larger than the true physical size).
Because of this stress distribution could not simply terminate above the yield
strength . Thus stress distribution for (refer fig a ) must be shift to right to
accommodate the plastic deformation and satisfy equilibrium equations. Thus

% %
under monotonic loading the plane stress in the plane of crack is
2 = 2: E= … . . . (3) from plane stress
K & K &
%( !$k ( !$k
For plane strain condition equation (4) usually 1/3rd of the plane stress value
%
2 ≅ … … (4)
K &
,( !$k
Where plastic zone radius

8
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

1. Describe Irwin plastic zone correction to predict fracture.

(June/July 2011)(05 marks)
2. Derive an expression for the size of the plastic zone and the correction
according to Irwin’s approach. State also the significance of it
(Dec 2012)(06 marks)
3. Compare crack – tip plastic zone size, based on linear elastic analysis, elastic –
plastic analysis. (May/June 2010) (10 marks)

Irwin plastic zone correction (the Irwin approach)

• On the crack plane = 0, normal stresses KK and %% in linear elastic

= = … .1
&'
materials is given by

√ %()
• On first approximation, we can assume that boundary between elastic and

= @
plastic behavior occurs when stresses given by equation 1 satisfy yield
criterion. For plane stress yielding occurs when
= or =
&' % &' <
@ @
z%()$ %()$
Substituting this in equation 1 we get
%
=
K v'
%( !$k
Therefore
• Above analysis is not correct because it is based on elastic crack tip
solution. When yielding occurs, stresses must redistribute in order to satisfy
equilibrium.

σy Elastic
θ =0

σ Elastic -
ys
ry Plastic

rp
r
Fig : First order and second ordern estimates
r
of plastic zone size ( y & p respectively)r

9
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

• In cross hatched region showing in figure represents force that would be

present in an elastic material but cannot be carried in the elastic plastic
material because stresses cannot yield. The plastic zone must increase in
size in order to accommodate these forces.

• A simple force balance leads to a second order estimate of the plastic zone

= |} $ = |} $
) ) &'
size
@ { √%()

= | = =
&' )$ &' ) ~/< %&'
z
5K/%
Integration, @ { √%( } √ %( K/% √%(
Substituting from equation 2 we get

2 %
= •
@ {
√2 2 %
@

2 %
= × =
@ {
2 @ @

= … … … … … .3
<
K &'
{ ( ! < $k
Which is twice as large as , the first order estimate

• Irwin accounted for softer material in the plastic zone by defining an

effective crack length which is slightly longer than the actual crack size.
The actual crack size is defined as the sum of the actual crack size and a
plastic zone correction.

€•• = +

= + … … .3
K &' <
€•• %( ! < $k

10
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

• The effective stress intensity factor is obtained by inserting €•• in to the

expression from the geometry of interest
% %
= z = • ‚ + €••
ƒ = • +
€••
€•• €••
2 %
@ 2 %
@

= √ +
! v'
€•• √% !$k

! &' …††
€••
_ = √
√% !$k
or

1− = √
!
€•• √% !$k

√
€••
= … … … … . .5
%
•1 −
K !
% !$k

For finite size specimen

= ˆ √ + ⅄Š‹ + -
Œ#⅄
€•• •
<
;'
K/% Œ#
= √ P + '< Q ‹N O
<
& <=Ž< $k
%(! $k •

For certain geometries ‹ is simple (eg. ‹ = 1 for centre cracked infinite plate and
‹ = 1.12 for edge cracked infinite plate) and can be easily obtained from the
above equation.

not equal to 3 but is √3 or z2√2.

• Irwin correction factor for plain strain plastic zone as per his suggestion is

11
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Dugdale’s model for plastic zone size. (May/June 2010) (Dec 2010) (05 marks)
The Dugdale approach (strip yield model)

σ
y y
Plastic zone σ ys P
x B x A

P
ρ a ρ 2a
2a

σ
Fig. Schematic of Dugdale plastic zone strip model

• Dugdale assumed a long, slender plastic zone at the crack tip in a material

of length 2 + 2•, where • is the length of the plastic zone, with closure
in plane stress. The strip yield plastic zone is modeled by assuming a crack

stress @ applied at each crack tip.

• The crack edges • in front of the physical crack (carrying yield stress @ )
tend to close the crack. The size • is chosen such that the stress singularity
(i.e., large amount) disappears i.e., should be zero.
• This means that stress intensity ! due to uniform stress
compensated by stress intensity ?• @‘)€ therefore ! + ?• @‘)€ = 0
has to be

normal force ’ applied to the crack at a distance Z from the centre line of
• The stress intensity due to closure stress can be estimated by considering a

the crack. The stress intensities for the two crack tips is given by

= 4Œ5
” Œ#
(“) √(Œ
… … … … .1
= 4Œ#
” Œ5
(•)
√(Œ
Assuming the plate is of unit thickness, the closure force at a point within

P= − @ Z
the strip. Yield zone is equal to

12
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

stresses is obtained by replacing with + • in equation 1 and summing

• Thus the total stress intensity at each crack tip resulting from the closure

the contribution from both crack tips.

− Œ#š
+•+Z +•−Z
= — ˜• +• ™ Z
@
?• @‘)€
z ( + •) Œ +•−Z +•+Z

= Z
5 !$k
|
Œ#š (Œ#š# )#(Œ#š5 )
z((Œ#š) Œ z(Œ#š5 )(Œ#š# )

= Z
5 !$k
|
Œ#š %Œ#%š
z((Œ#š) Œ zŒ< #Œš#Œ #Œš#š< #š 5Œ 5š 5 <

= Z
5 !$k
|
Œ#š %(Œ#š)
z((Œ#š) Œ zŒ< #š< 5 < #%Œš

= Z
5 !$k
|
Œ#š %(Œ#š)
z((Œ#š) Œ z(Œ#š)< 5 <

=
5 %!$k (Œ#š)
|Œ
Œ#š ›
z((Œ#š) z(Œ#š)< 5 <

Now from mathematics | = + -

› 5K
z(Œ)< 5 < Œ

Œ#š
=−2 4 F− + -G
Œ#š 5K
?• @‘)€ @ ( Œ#š Œ
Therefore

+• +•
=−2 • P− 5K
+ 5K
Q
@
+• +•

=−2 @4 ( + -
Œ#š 5K Œ
?• @‘)€ Œ#š

The stress intensity from remote tensile stress

! = z ( + •) Must balance with ?• @‘)€

! =− ?• @‘)€

z ( + •) = 2 4 + -
Œ#š 5K Œ
Or @ ( Œ#š

13
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

= + -
!( 5K Œ
%!$k Œ#š

or cos = + -
( ! Œ
% !$k Œ#š

• approaches infinity as tends to @ using taylor series on the above equation

% ž l
+ -=1− + − +⋯
ΠK !( K !( K !(
Œ#š %! %!$k ž! %!$k l! %!$k

Neglecting all except first two terms we get

+Œ#š- = 1 −
Π(< ! <
!$k <

+ -=1−
Œ5š (< ! <
Œ#š5š !$k <

• % %
1− =1−
8 @
%

•= =
Œ(< ! < (&' < ¢£ &' ¤ !√( Œ
!$k < !$k < & &' < ¤ ! < ( Œ

‹ ≪ @ we note that the plastic zone size of dugdale model is close to that
of Irwins correction.

{ ť

1 % %
: E≈
@
% 8 %

14
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Plastic zone shape for plane stress

to crack plane = 0]
[ The estimate to plastic zone size that have been presented so far consider only

• It is possible to estimate the plasticity at all angles by applying an

appropriate yield criterion.
• Two widely used yield criteria, Von Mises and Tresca are applied to make
mode-1 to determine the plastic zone size for plane stress cases.

1. Derive an equation for the shape of plastic zone around the crack tip for mode
1 and using the distortion energy criterion. Assume plane stress state. Plot
the shape of the plastic zone and compare the same for plane strain
(June/July 2011) (10 marks)
2. Starting with the singular stress field equations around a crack-tip for mode I,
calculate the following:
i. Principal stresses (assuming plane stress)
ii. Shape & size of the plastic zone using von-misses yield
criterion.
iii. Shape & size of the plastic zone using Tresca yield criterion.
iv. Graphical comparisons. (May/June 2010) (20 marks)
3. Starting with the singular stress field equations for Mode I, derive expressions
to compare the shape of the plastic zone for plane – stress and plane – strain
states. Graphically compare the shape and size of plastic zone for plane –
stress and plane – strain states. (May/June 2010) (10 marks)

Solutions :

( K − % ) % + ( % − , )% + ( − K)
%
≥2 %
… … … … . .1
a) Von-misses criterion States that
, @

We have
= +V = P1 + Q
K
√2 2 2

15
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

= −V = P1 − Q
% }
√2 2 2

, = 0 for plane stress

Substituting above values in equation term by term and assuming c =
&'
The third principle stress

√%()
%

( − %)
%
= ©C P1 + Q−« P1 − Q¬
K
2 2 2 2
* %
= C F + − + G
% * * * * *
% % % % % %

( − %)
%
= 4C% % %
K
2 2
%
( − ,)
%
= %
=C % %
1−
% %
2 2
= C% %*
+1 − 2 + -
* %*
% % %

= C% F %*
−2 + G
* %* %* %*
% % % % %
* %
( , − K)
%
= (− K
%)
= K
%
= C% %*
+1 + -
% %

= C% F %*
+2 + G
* %* %* %*
% % % % %

( − %)
%
+( − ,)
%
+( − K)
%
Therefore
K % ,
= 4C% %* %*
+ C% F %*
−2 + G +
* %* %* %*
% % % % % % %
C% F +2 + G
% * * %* %* %*
% % % % %

= 6C% % %
+ 2 C% %
2 2 2
%
= 6C% P %
Q + 2C% %
2 2 2
From trigonometry 2sin = 2
Sin = 2
K
%
Cos2 = 2 %
−1
2 %
= cos2 + 1
1 2 % 2
∴ 6C P
%
Q + C% P + 1Q = 2 %
2 2 2 @

16
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

[ + Cos + 1] = 2
&' < , % %
% ( )°± % @

= F + Cos + 1G
&' < , %
{n ž( !$k < %

´) Tresca criteria:

≥
K
States that, µŒ % @

For plane stress, from Mohr’s circle, it is found that maximum shear stress

=
K
µŒ % K

=
K K
There fore
% K % @

K = @

= F1 + G
&' * *
@
z%()°± % %

Squaring and simplifying we get

% %
= %
P1 + Q
{n
2 @
% 2 2

Plastic zone shape for plane strain:

= F1 + G
* *
We have K % %

= F1 − G where c =
* * &'
% % % z%()°±

And , = X( K + % ) for plane strain

States that ( K − % ) % + ( − ,)
%
+( − K)
%
≥2 %
a) Von misses criteria:
% , @

We have ( K − %)
%
= 4c % %* %*
% %
( % − ,) = %5 X( K + % )= % –X K −X % = (1 − X ) % − X K

17
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

( − ,)
%
= c % [(1 − X)( 1 − ) − X(1 + )]%
%
2 2 2
* %
=c %*
F1 − − X+X −X−X G
% * *
% % % %
* %
( %− ,) = c
% % %* (
F 1 −2 )− G
% %
( , − K) = X( K + %) − K =X K +X % − K

= (X − 1) K +X %
%
( − K)
%
=c % %
PX 1 − + (X − 1) 1 + Q
,
2 2 2
* %
= c% %*
FX − X +X+X −1− G
* *
% % % %
%* ( * %
=c %
F 2 X − 1) − G
% %

* %
( , − K)
%
=c % %*
Fˆ−(1 − 2X)Š − G
% %

( K − %)
%
+( % − ,)
%
+( , − K)
%

= 4 % %
f2 %
f2 + % %
f2 [(1 − 2ϒ) − /2]%
%
+ % %
f2 :(−(1 − 2ϒ)) − f2E

% %
We have 2 = %
g f2 f2i = g1f2 f2i

% %
=2 [ %
] +
% % %
f2 :(1 − 2ϒ) – f2E + :−(1 − 2ϒ) − f2E

[( − ·)% (− − ·)% ] = %
− 2 · + ·% + %
+ 2 · + ·%
=2 %
+ 2·%

= % %
+ % %
f2 :2(1 − 2ϒ)% + 2 %
f2E

= % %
+ %
S %
f2 :2(1 − 2ϒ)% + 2 %
f2 %
f2ET

18
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

%
= % %
+ %
¸( + 1)(1 − 2ϒ)% + 2 g1f2 f2i ¹

% º(
+ 1)(1 − 2ϒ)% » + « f2
%
= % %
+ %

¼% 3
= : f2 %
+ (1 − 2ϒ)% ( + 1)E
2 {%

Applying von mises criteria

¼% 3
2 %
= : f2 %
+ (1 + )(1 − 2ϒ)% E
@
2 {%

¼%
%
= :3f2 %
+ (1 + )(1 − 2ϒ)% E
{
2 @
%

If this yield criteria is used, the plastic zone shape turns out to be slightly

stress is µŒ = 1f2 K , and in plane strain is, µŒ = 1f2 ( K − , )

different from the mohr’s circles it is found that maximum shear stress in plane

or µŒ = 1f2 ( K − % )whichever is largest.

σ @
Plane strain

= 1f2 ( − ,)
2 K

θ θ
σ = c cos Psin − (2ϒ − 1)Q
@
2 2
¼
σ = P − (1 − 2ϒ)Q
@
z2 {n 2 2

or

¼ %
= %
P − (1 − 2ϒ)Q
{
2 σ @
% 2 2

19
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

¼ %
= %
P 1 − 2ϒ + Q …..¿
{
√2 σ @
% 2 2

σ @ 1
= ( − %)
2 2 K

¼
σ = = × %
@
2 z2 {
%

or

¼%
= × %
…..À
{n
2 σ @%

{n = Taken is largest of equation ‘¿’ or equation‘À’.

The resulting shape of the plastic zone is plotted as shown in figure below, the
{n
j v' <
terms of non- dimensional distance . The shape of the plastic zone are
(Ã$k <

slightly different for von Tresca criteria, the Tresca zone are slightly large and of
a slightly different shape than von –Mises criteria.

Plane strain
Plane stress
0.5
K − ,
0.5 2
{±
%
+ f -
−
@
K %
2

0.5 0.5
Plane stress

{±
%
+ f -
Plane strain
@

Fig (a) : Plastic Zone according to Fig (b) : Plastic Zone according to
Van Mises Criteria Tresca Criteria

20
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

PLASTIC CONTRAINT FACTOR

• The plane strain plastic zone is significantly smaller than the plane stress
plastic zone. This is a result of the fact that the effective yield stress in
plane strain is larger than the uni-axial yield stress.
• The maximum stress in the plane strain plastic zone can be as high as

yield stress is called the Plastic Constraint Factor(P. C. F) ; P. C. F = ÄÅ"

!
three times the uni- axial yield stress. The ratio of the maximum stress to
!$k
The quantity P. C. F × @
• The P. C. F for the plastic strain problems can be estimated as follows;
can be considered as a effective yield stress.

Taking % = K and , = Æ K . The von – Misses criteria can be written

[( K − K )% + ( K − Æ K )% + (Æ K − K )% ] = 2 @ %
as,

[(1 − )% + ( − Æ)% + (Æ − 1)% ] K % = 2 @ %

[1 − 2 + % + % – 2Æ + Æ% + Æ% − 2Æ + 1] K % = 2 @ %
[2 − 2 − 2Æ% + 2 % + 2Æ% − 2Æ ] K % = 2 @ %
[1 − − Æ + % + Æ% − Æ ]2 K % = 2 @ %
= K [1 − −Æ+ + Æ% − Æ ]
% Kf
@ %

’. «. Ç = =
!ÄÅ" K
~
!$k [K5C5µ#C< #µ<5µC] f<

’. «. Ç = [1 − −Æ+ + Æ% − Æ ] 5
% Kf
%

The above equation enables the calculation of the P.C.F at any location of

¼
the crack tip region. From the stress field equation i.e;

K = 1+
z(2 ) 2 2
¼
% = 1−
z(2 ) 2 2

% = 0, for plane stress, when = 0, = 1, Æ = 0, substituting in equation 1,we

get ’. «. Ç = [1 − 1 + 1]5 =1
Kf
%

for plane strain , =1 Æ = 2 Èℎ\ \ = 1/3, Then ,

5Kf%
% %
’. «. Ç = = P1 − 1 − +1++ - − Q
!~ % %
!$k , , ,
21
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

4 4 5
Kf
= 1 = 1
%
= P1 − + Q
3 9 j4+1 + (ž5K%)- j4+1 − ( )-
Ë Ë

= 1 = 1 =3
j4+(Ë5 )- j4+K-
Ë Ë

’. «. Ç = 3

The quantity ˆ’. «. Ç × @ Š is called effective yield stress, for plane strain
effective yield stress @ , = 3 @ substituting this in plastic zone correction
factor,

=
v' <
% (Ã$k <
we get

¼% ¼% ¼%
= = =
2 ˆ ,Š 2 ˆ3 @Š 18 ˆ @Š
% % %
@

• In a practical case, plane strain does not exist at the specimen surface , as a

• as per Irwin, @ , = √3 @
consequence the average plastic constraint factor is much lower than 3,

¼ %
¼% ¼%
= = =
2 ˆ , Š% 2 ˆ√3
% 6 %
@Š
@ @

=,
K K v' <
%( !$k <
or

K)›
,
This means that is of plane stress correction.

22
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Discuss the effect of thickness on fracture toughness. (Dec 2010) (06 marks)
DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THICKNESS ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
Effect of plate thickness
[Plane stress v/s plane strain, variation of critical STF with plate thickness]
σ σ σ

(a)
(b) (c)

σ σ σ
Fig : Plastic Zone Size for

In thin plate out of plane stress component( ,, , ,K ,% ) are able to relax to

(a). Plane Stress (b). Transitional Case (c). Plane Strain

zero and the material deforms easily within the plastic zone, on the contrary the
material in a thick plate is constrined giving rise to tensile stress ,, .

• There must be a limit on plate thickness under which a material is able to

flaw easily and the plate is deformed under the plane stress. Similarly there
must be a limit on plate thickness over which the material is taken to be
deformed under the plane strain. Between the upper
and the lower limit on the plate thickness, the cases are known to have
“transitional behavior”. That is near both the free surfaces the material
flaws easily and deforms in plane stress and in the interior, the material is
constrained and is subjected to plane strain.
• It has been found that if the plastic zone size is about the thickness of the
material with in the plastic zone relives “out of plane stress” and deforms

of plastic zone , the crack is loaded in plane stress figure “ ” shows the case
easily. Therefore the plate having its thickness less than or equal to the size

• The thick plate figure “ ” corresponds to plane strain showing plastic zone,
of palne stress with in a section through the plastic zone.

even in this case some effect of surface exist where the plastic zone larger,
however the thick region of plane strain dominates and the surface effect
can be neglected.
23
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

A plate having thickness, Î ≥ 2.5

v'Ï <
ÃÐÑ <
• is regarded as a case of plane
strain. The transition case figure “·” the interior of the plate as well as its
surface have mixed effect on the plastic zone.

Plane Plane
Stres Transitional Strain
Critical SIF

B0
kIc
Plate Thickness
Fig. Variation of critical SIF with Plate thickness

Typical nature of critical SIF depends on the thickness is as shown in the

adjoining fig for Î ≥ 2.5
v'Ï <
ÃÐÑ<
critical SIF remain constant and then we can

regard the critical stress intensity factor as the material property for À <
v'Ï <
ÃÐÑ
critical SIF depends on the thickness ‘Î’.
For plate thickness À the plastic zone is approximately equal to the thickness
of the plate and is considered to be the case of pure plane stress.

σ
x2
x1
x3 450
0
45
0
45

Fig. (b). A Cracked face

σ Fig. (a). Yield plane of plane stress

24
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

Crack growth
Plane Crack growth
x2
x
1
x3

Fig. (d). A Cracked faces

Fig. (c). Crack growth of of Transitional cases
Plane strain case
x

strain case. In case of mode – I (σ,, = 0) σ,, is always zero. Also an plane
• Fractured plane of a plane stress case are different from those of a plane

x% = 0, it is noted that σK% = 0 and σ%% = σKK (i.e.; = 0 and σÔ = σÕ ).

Fracture is likely to occur on one plane inclined at ±45} as shown .
Fracture surface is inclined to the free surface of the plate as shown.
• Under plane strain conditions in mode – I yields planes are more complex.
The crack growth is the combined effect of yielding due to dislocation
motion and generation and nucleation of voids in front of the crack tip, in
metals, the nucleation and growth of voids are facilitated by triaxiality of
tensile stress near the crack tip in case of the plane strain.
• The void coalesce (grow and join to each to each other) during the crack

on the plane of the original crack. Figure “ ” shows the self similar growth
growth, it has been observed that in plane strain cases, crack usually grows

on the crack plane. The fact is exploited in designing experiment to

determine critical SIF of the material.
• For transitional behavior of a crack, the fracture is of mixed kind, flat in the
interior dominate by plane strain and slant close to the free surface. In fact
by looking at the fractured surface one can conclude whether the fracture
occurred prominently under the plane stress or plane strain.

25
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

1. A large plate of 5 ÆÆ thickness made of steeel (SÕ = σÕ = 350 ×’ )

NUMERICAL PROBLEMS

with a central crack of length 40 ÆÆ is subjected to a stress of

150 ×’ . for mode I loading, determine effective crack length using

2. A large plate of 5mm thickness made of medium carbon steel σÕ£ =

Irwin’s plastic zone correction. (May/June 2010)( 5 Marks )

350 ×’ with a through thickness center crock of 2 = 40 ÆÆ length

subjected to a stress of 150 ×’ . Find the effective crack length using

Solution: Thickness of the plate, Î = 5 ÆÆ = 5 × 105, Æ

Irwins plastic zone correction. (Dec 2012) (04 marks).

, σÕ£ = 350 ×’
,2 = 40 ÆÆ = 0.04 Æ
Yield strength

= 0.02Æ
Crack length

stress, = 150 ×’

¼ = z( ) = 150√( × 0.02) = 37.6 ×’

Assuming that the plate is loaded in the plane stress

= = = 3.67 × 10 5, Æ
v' < ,Ú.l<
Size of plastic zone, { Ù !$k < Ù× ,Û} <

Or { = 3.67 ÆÆ

Since { is not much smaller than the plate thickness plane stress condition may
be assumed from. Irwins approach, effect crack length.

1 ¼ …†† %
= + ×g i
€••
2 @

Where effective SIF is ¼ …†† =

!z((Œ)
<
~ Ž
•gK5 × i
< Ž$k

150 × z( × 0.02)
¼ …†† = = 39.46 MPa
KÛ} %
4 1− ×+ -
K
% ,Û}

26
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

1 ¼ …†† %
= + ×g i
€••
2 @

,Ë.žl %
= 0.02 + ×+ -
K
%( ,Û}

€•• = 0.022 Æ = 22 ÆÆ

Note: since the second approximation yields effective SIF, ¼ …†† , the same should
be and { equations.

3. The fracture toughness of a material is 55 ×’ yield stress is 515 ×’ and

modulus of elasticity is 70 Ý’ . The plate has a through thickness central
crack of 2 = 15 ÆÆ. calculate the plastic zone at the fracture and the
fracture – stress assume plane stress state.
Solution: fracture toughness, ¼ = 55 ×’
Yield stress , @ = 515×Þ

Young’s modulus ß = 70 Ý’ = 70 × 10, ×’

Crack length, 2 = 15ÆÆ = 0.015Æ
= 7.5 ÆÆ = 0.0075 Æ
Plastic zone { =?, fracture stress =?

We have SIF, ¼ = σz(πa)

55 = z( × 0.0075)

= 358.31 ×’

=
K
plastic zone , { â' <
…††
(g i
Ž$k

where ¼ …†† =
!z((Œ)
<
~ Ž
•gK5 × i
< Ž $k

27
 FRACTURE UNIT - 3

358.31 × z( × 0.0075)
¼ …†† = = 63.17 MPa
,Û .%K %
4 1− ×+ -
K
% ÛKÛ

¼ …†† = 63.17 ×’

=
K
Plastic zone, plastic zone , { â' <
…††
(g i
Ž$k

1
=
l,.KÚ %
+ -
ÛKÛ

{ = 4.79 × 105, Æ

{ = 4.79 ÆÆ

28