Fracture mechanics

Connected to:
Solid mechanicsShear stressDamage tolerance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three fracture modes.

Fracture mechanics is the field of mechanics concerned with the study of

the propagation of cracks in materials. It uses methods of analytical solid
mechanics to calculate the driving force on a crack and those of
experimental solid mechanics to characterize the material's resistance
to fracture.
In modern materials science, fracture mechanics is an important tool in
improving the mechanical performance of mechanical components. It
applies the physics of stress and strain, in particular the theories
of elasticity and plasticity, to the microscopic crystallographic
defects found in real materials in order to predict the macroscopic
mechanical failure of bodies. Fractography is widely used with fracture
mechanics to understand the causes of failures and also verify the
theoretical failure predictions with real life failures. The prediction of
crack growth is at the heart of the damage tolerancediscipline.

There are three ways of applying a force to enable a crack to propagate:

Mode I fracture Opening mode (a tensile stress normal to the

plane of the crack),

Mode II fracture Sliding mode (a shear stress acting parallel to

the plane of the crack and perpendicular to the crack front), and

Mode III fracture Tearing mode (a shear stress acting parallel to

the plane of the crack and parallel to the crack front).

Linear elastic fracture

mechanics
Griffith's criterion

An edge crack (flaw) of length in a material

Fracture mechanics was developed during World War I by English

aeronautical engineer, A. A. Griffith, to explain the failure of brittle
materials. Griffith's work was motivated by two contradictory facts:
[1]

The stress needed to fracture bulk glass is around 100 MPa

(15,000 psi).

The theoretical stress needed for breaking atomic bonds is

approximately 10,000 MPa (1,500,000 psi).

A theory was needed to reconcile these conflicting observations. Also,

experiments on glass fibers that Griffith himself conducted suggested that
the fracture stress increases as the fiber diameter decreases. Hence the
uniaxial tensile strength, which had been used extensively to predict
material failure before Griffith, could not be a specimen-independent
material property. Griffith suggested that the low fracture strength
observed in experiments, as well as the size-dependence of strength, was
due to the presence of microscopic flaws in the bulk material.
To verify the flaw hypothesis, Griffith introduced an artificial flaw in his
experimental glass specimens. The artificial flaw was in the form of a
surface crack which was much larger than other flaws in a specimen. The
experiments showed that the product of the square root of the flaw length
(a) and the stress at fracture (f) was nearly constant, which is expressed by
the equation:
An explanation of this relation in terms of linear elasticity theory is
problematic. Linear elasticity theory predicts that stress (and hence the
strain) at the tip of a sharp flaw in a linear elastic material is infinite. To

avoid that problem, Griffith developed a thermodynamic approach to

explain the relation that he observed.
The growth of a crack requires the creation of two new surfaces and hence
an increase in the surface energy. Griffith found an expression for the
constant C in terms of the surface energy of the crack by solving the
elasticity problem of a finite crack in an elastic plate. Briefly, the approach
was:

Compute the potential energy stored in a perfect specimen under a

uniaxial tensile load.

Fix the boundary so that the applied load does no work and then
introduce a crack into the specimen. The crack relaxes the stress and
hence reduces the elastic energy near the crack faces. On the other hand,
the crack increases the total surface energy of the specimen.

Compute the change in the free energy (surface energy elastic

energy) as a function of the crack length. Failure occurs when the free
energy attains a peak value at a critical crack length, beyond which the
free energy decreases by increasing the crack length, i.e. by causing
fracture. Using this procedure, Griffith found that

where E is the Young's modulus of the material and is the surface energy
density of the material. Assuming E = 62 GPa and = 1 J/m gives
2

excellent agreement of Griffith's predicted fracture stress with

experimental results for glass.

Irwin's modification

The plastic zone around a crack tip in a ductile material

Griffith's work was largely ignored by the engineering community until

the early 1950s. The reasons for this appear to be (a) in the actual
structural materials the level of energy needed to cause fracture is
orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding surface energy, and
(b) in structural materials there are always some inelastic deformations
around the crack front that would make the assumption of linear elastic
medium with infinite stresses at the crack tip highly unrealistic.

[2]

Griffith's theory provides excellent agreement with experimental data

for brittle materials such as glass. For ductile materials such as steel,
though the relation still holds, the surface energy () predicted by Griffith's
theory is usually unrealistically high. A group working under G. R.
Irwin at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) during World War II
[3]

realized that plasticity must play a significant role in the fracture of ductile
materials.
In ductile materials (and even in materials that appear to be brittle ),
[4]

a plastic zone develops at the tip of the crack. As the

applied load increases, the plastic zone increases in size until the crack
grows and the material behind the crack tip unloads. The plastic loading
and unloading cycle near the crack tip leads to

the dissipation of energy as heat. Hence, a dissipative term has to be added

to the energy balance relation devised by Griffith for brittle materials. In
physical terms, additional energy is needed for crack growth in ductile
materials when compared to brittle materials.
Irwin's strategy was to partition the energy into two parts:

the stored elastic strain energy which is released as a crack grows.

This is the thermodynamic driving force for fracture.

the dissipated energy which includes plastic dissipation and the

surface energy (and any other dissipative forces that may be at work).
The dissipated energy provides the thermodynamic resistance to
fracture. Then the total energy is

where is the surface energy and Gp is the plastic dissipation (and

dissipation from other sources) per unit area of crack growth.
The modified version of Griffith's energy criterion can then be written as
For brittle materials such as glass, the surface energy term dominates and .
For ductile materials such as steel, the plastic dissipation term dominates
and . For polymers close to the glass transition temperature, we have
intermediate values of .

Stress intensity factor

Main article: Stress intensity factor

Another significant achievement of Irwin and his colleagues was to find a

method of calculating the amount of energy available for fracture in terms
of the asymptotic stress and displacement fields around a crack front in a
linear elastic solid. This asymptotic expression for the stress field around
[3]

a crack tip is

where ij are the Cauchy stresses, r is the distance from the crack tip, is
the angle with respect to the plane of the crack, and fij are functions that
depend on the crack geometry and loading conditions. Irwin called the
quantity K the stress intensity factor. Since the quantity fij is dimensionless,
the stress intensity factor can be expressed in units of .
When a rigid line inclusion is considered, a similar asymptotic expression
for the stress fields is obtained.

Strain energy release

Main article: Strain energy release rate

Irwin was the first to observe that if the size of the plastic zone around a
crack is small compared to the size of the crack, the energy required to
grow the crack will not be critically dependent on the state of stress at the
crack tip. In other words, a purely elastic solution may be used to
[2]

calculate the amount of energy available for fracture.

The energy release rate for crack growth or strain energy release rate may
then be calculated as the change in elastic strain energy per unit area of
crack growth, i.e.,
where U is the elastic energy of the system and a is the crack length. Either
the load P or the displacementu can be kept fixed while evaluating the
above expressions.
Irwin showed that for a mode I crack (opening mode) the strain energy
release rate and the stress intensity factor are related by:
where E is the Young's modulus, is Poisson's ratio, and KI is the stress
intensity factor in mode I. Irwin also showed that the strain energy release
rate of a planar crack in a linear elastic body can be expressed in terms of

the mode I, mode II (sliding mode), and mode III (tearing mode) stress
intensity factors for the most general loading conditions.
Next, Irwin adopted the additional assumption that the size and shape of
the energy dissipation zone remains approximately constant during brittle
fracture. This assumption suggests that the energy needed to create a unit
fracture surface is a constant that depends only on the material. This new
material property was given the name fracture toughness and
designated GIc. Today, it is the critical stress intensity factor KIc, found in
the plane strain condition, which is accepted as the defining property in
linear elastic fracture mechanics.

Small scale yielding

When a macroscopic loading is applied to a structure with a crack, the
stress near the vicinity of the crack approaches as r0, where r is the
distance from the crack tip. As the magnitude of the stress in a material is
bounded by the yield stress, there exists a region near the crack tip, of size
rp, in which the material has deformed plastically. The maximum size of
this plastic zone can be estimated from the stress intensity factor KC and the
yield stress Y; and can be expressed as
In this region, the equations of linear elasticity are not valid. Therefore, for
linear elastic fracture mechanics to be applicable, 2.5 r p should be much
smaller than the relevant dimensions, such as the length, thickness and
width of the structure. This condition, in which the plastic deformation of
the structure is confined to a very small region near the crack tip, is
commonly referred to as small scale yielding.

Fracture toughness tests

Main article: Fracture toughness

Limitations

The S.S. Schenectady split apart by brittle fracture while in harbor, 1943.

But a problem arose for the NRL researchers because naval materials, e.g.,
ship-plate steel, are not perfectly elastic but undergo significant plastic
deformation at the tip of a crack. One basic assumption in Irwin's linear
elastic fracture mechanics is small scale yielding, the condition that the
size of the plastic zone is small compared to the crack length. However,
this assumption is quite restrictive for certain types of failure in structural
steels though such steels can be prone to brittle fracture, which has led to a
number of catastrophic failures.
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics is of limited practical use for structural
steels and Fracture toughness testing can be expensive.

Elasticplastic fracture
mechanics

Vertical stabilizer, which separated fromAmerican Airlines Flight 587, leading to a fatal
crash

Most engineering materials show some nonlinear elastic and inelastic

behavior under operating conditions that involve large loads.

[citation needed]

In such

materials the assumptions of linear elastic fracture mechanics may not

hold, that is,

the plastic zone at a crack tip may have a size of the same order of
magnitude as the crack size

the size and shape of the plastic zone may change as the applied load
is increased and also as the crack length increases.

Therefore, a more general theory of crack growth is needed for elasticplastic materials that can account for:

the local conditions for initial crack growth which include the
nucleation, growth, and coalescence of voids or decohesion at a crack
tip.

a global energy balance criterion for further crack growth and

unstable fracture.

CTOD
Historically, the first parameter for the determination of fracture toughness
in the elasto-plastic was thecrack tip opening displacement (CTOD) or
"opening at the apex of the crack" indicated. This parameter was
determined by Wells during the studies of structural steels which, due to
the high toughness could not be characterized with the linear elastic
fracture mechanics. He noted that, before it happened the fracture, the
walls of the crack were leaving and that the crack tip, after fracture, acute
to rounded off is due to plastic deformation. In addition, the rounding of
the apex was more pronounced in steels with superior toughness.
There are a number of alternative definitions of CTOD. The two most
common definitions, CTOD is the displacement at the original crack tip
and the 90 degree intercept. The latter definition was suggested by Rice
and is commonly used to infer CTOD in finite element measurements.
Note that these two definitions are equivalent if the crack blunts in a
semicircle.
Most laboratory measurements of CTOD have been made on edge-cracked
specimens loaded in three-point bending. Early experiments used a flat
paddle-shaped gage that was inserted into the crack; as the crack opened,
the paddle gage rotated, and an electronic signal was sent to an x-y plotter.
This method was inaccurate, however, because it was difficult to reach the
crack tip with the paddle gage. Today, the displacement V at the crack

mouth is measured, and the CTOD is inferred by assuming the specimen

halves are rigid and rotate about a hinge point.

R-curve
An early attempt in the direction of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics
was Irwin's crack extension resistance curve, Crack growth resistance
curve or R-curve. This curve acknowledges the fact that the resistance to
fracture increases with growing crack size in elastic-plastic materials. The
R-curve is a plot of the total energy dissipation rate as a function of the
crack size and can be used to examine the processes of slow stable crack
growth and unstable fracture. However, the R-curve was not widely used
in applications until the early 1970s. The main reasons appear to be that
the R-curve depends on the geometry of the specimen and the crack
driving force may be difficult to calculate.

[2]

J-integral
Main article: J-integral

In the mid-1960s James R. Rice (then at Brown University) and G. P.

Cherepanov independently developed a new toughness measure to describe
the case where there is sufficient crack-tip deformation that the part no
longer obeys the linear-elastic approximation. Rice's analysis, which
assumes non-linear elastic (or monotonic deformation theory plastic)
deformation ahead of the crack tip, is designated the J-integral. This
[5]

analysis is limited to situations where plastic deformation at the crack tip

does not extend to the furthest edge of the loaded part. It also demands that
the assumed non-linear elastic behavior of the material is a reasonable
approximation in shape and magnitude to the real material's load response.

The elastic-plastic failure parameter is designated J Ic and is conventionally

converted to KIc using Equation (3.1) of the Appendix to this article. Also
note that the J integral approach reduces to the Griffith theory for linearelastic behavior.
The mathematical definition of J-integral is as follows:
where
is an arbitrary path clockwise around the apex of the crack,
is the density of strain energy,
are the components of the vectors of traction,
the components of the displacement vectors,
and an incremental length along the path , an
and are the stress and strain tensors.

Cohesive zone models

When a significant region around a crack tip has undergone plastic
deformation, other approaches can be used to determine the possibility of
further crack extension and the direction of crack growth and branching. A
simple technique that is easily incorporated into numerical calculations is
the cohesive zone model method which is based on concepts proposed
independently by Barenblatt and Dugdale in the early 1960s. The
[6]

[7]

relationship between the Dugdale-Barenblatt models and Griffith's theory

was first discussed by Willis in 1967. The equivalence of the two
[8]

approaches in the context of brittle fracture was shown by Rice in 1968.

[5]

Interest in cohesive zone modeling of fracture has been reignited since

2000 following the pioneering work on dynamic fracture by Xu

and Needleman, and Camacho and Ortiz.
[9]

[10]

Transition flaw size

Failure stress as a function of crack size

Let a material have a yield strength and a fracture toughness in mode I .

Based on fracture mechanics, the material will fail at stress . Based on
plasticity, the material will yield when . These curves intersect when . This
value of is called as transition flaw size ., and depends on the material
properties of the structure. When the , the failure is governed by plastic
yielding, and whenthe failure is governed by fracture mechanics. The value
of for engineering alloys is 100 mm and for ceramics is 0.001 mm.

[citation needed]

If

we assume that manufacturing processes can give rise to flaws in the order
of micrometers, then, it can be seen that ceramics are more likely to fail by
fracture, whereas engineering alloys would fail by plastic deformation.

Cracktip constraint under large

scale yielding
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2013)

Under small-scale yielding conditions, a single parameter (e.g., K, J, or

CTOD) characterizes cracktip conditions and can be used as a geometryindependent fracture criterion. Single-parameter fracture mechanics breaks
down in the presence of excessive plasticity, and the fracture toughness
depends on the size and geometry of the test specimen. The theories used
for large scale yielding is not very standardized. The following theories/
approaches are commonly used among researchers in this field

J-Q Theory
By using FEM, one can establish a parameter Q to modify the stress field
for a better solution when the plastic zone is growing. The new stress field
is: where for and 0 if not. Q usually takes values from -3 to +2. A negative
value greatly changes the geometry of the plastic zone.
The J-Q-M theory includes another parameter, the mismatch parameter,
which is used for welds to make up for the change in toughness of the weld
metal (WM), base metal (BM) and heat affected zone (HAZ). This value is
interpreted to the formula in a similar way as the Q-parameter, and the two
are usually assumed to be independent of each other.

T-term effects

As an alternative to J-Q theory, a parameter T can be used. This only

changes the normal stress in the x-direction (and the z-direction in the case
of plane strain). T does not require the use of FEM, but is derived from
constraint. It can be argued that T is limited to LEFM, but as the plastic
zone change due to T never reaches the actual crack surface (except on the
tip), its validity holds true not only under small scale yielding. The
parameter T also significantly influences on the fracture initiation in brittle
materials using maximum tangential strain fracture criterion, as found by
the researchers at Texas A & M University. It is found that both parameter
[11]

T and Poisson's ratio of the material play important roles in prediction of

the crack propagation angle and the mixed mode fracture toughness of the
materials.

Engineering applications
The following information is needed for a fracture mechanics prediction of
failure:

Applied load

Residual stress

Size and shape of the part

Size, shape, location, and orientation of the crack

Usually not all of this information is available and conservative

assumptions have to be made.
Occasionally post-mortem fracture-mechanics analyses are carried out. In
the absence of an extreme overload, the causes are either insufficient

toughness (KIc) or an excessively large crack that was not detected during
routine inspection.

Short summary
Arising from the manufacturing process, interior and surface flaws are
found in all metal structures. Not all such flaws are unstable under service
conditions. Fracture mechanics is the analysis of flaws to discover those
that are safe (that is, do not grow) and those that are liable to propagate as
cracks and so cause failure of the flawed structure. Ensuring safe operation
of structure despite these inherent flaws is achieved through damage
tolerance analysis. Fracture mechanics as a subject for critical study has
barely been around for a century and thus is relatively new. There is a high
demand for engineers with fracture mechanics expertiseparticularly in
this day and age where engineering failure is considered 'shocking'
amongst the general public.

Appendix: mathematical
relations
Griffith's criterion
For the simple case of a thin rectangular plate with a crack perpendicular to
the load Griffiths theory becomes:
(1.1)
where is the strain energy release rate, is the applied stress, is half the
crack length, and is the Youngs modulus, which for the case of plane
strain should be divided by the plate stiffness factor (1-^2). The strain

energy release rate can otherwise be understood as: the rate at which
energy is absorbed by growth of the crack.
However, we also have that:
(1.2)
If , this is the criterion for which the crack will begin to propagate.

Irwin's modifications
Eventually a modification of Griffiths solids theory emerged from this
work; a term called stress intensityreplaced strain energy release rate and a
term called fracture toughness replaced surface weakness energy. Both of
these terms are simply related to the energy terms that Griffith used:
(2.1)
and
(for plane stress)

(2.2)

(for plane strain)

(2.3)

where KI is the stress intensity, Kc the fracture toughness, and is Poissons

ratio. It is important to recognize the fact that fracture parameter Kc has
different values when measured under plane stress and plane strain
Fracture occurs when . For the special case of plane strain
deformation, becomes and is considered a material property. The subscript
I arises because of the different ways of loading a material to enable a
crack to propagate. It refers to so-called "mode I" loading as opposed to
mode II or III:
We must note that the expression for in equation 2.1 will be different for
geometries other than the center-cracked infinite plate, as discussed in the

article on the stress intensity factor. Consequently, it is necessary to

introduce a dimensionless correction factor, Y, in order to characterize the
geometry. We thus have:
(2.4)
where Y is a function of the crack length and width of sheet given by:
(2.5)
for a sheet of finite width W containing a through-thickness crack of length
2a, or
(2.6)
for a sheet of finite width W containing a through-thickness edge crack of
length a

Elasticity and plasticity

Since engineers became accustomed to using KIc to characterise fracture
toughness, a relation has been used to reduce JIc to it:
where for plane stress and for plane strain

(3.1)

The remainder of the mathematics employed in this approach is interesting,

but is probably better summarised in external pages due to its complex
nature.

Applications of fracture
mechanics
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2013)

The design process for a component consists of choosing the appropriate

geometry, the necessary material strength as per the loading conditions
(either cyclic or constant loading), the temperature of usage and structural
analysis (Testing and FEM analysis), so that it does not fail under load.
The methodologies followed in design criteria traditionally pick up the
conventional materials based on standard data and as per the loading
conditions proportioning the geometry of the components on basis of
analysis. This method is not applicable for some new innovation like usage
of new material in design. Another method followed is that as per the
loading conditions, static analysis is done for the structure taking into
account the forces acting on each component, material strength and
geometry. The material strength is chosen keeping in mind the factor of
safety, i.e. the ultimate stress (where it fails) is much higher than maximum
stress in the component. The general assumptions in the design criteria are:
lack of discontinuities, no defects or cracks in the material, and even in the
presence of discontinuities the material is assumed to have sufficient
ductility to yield locally so that redistribution of stress at discontinuities
can occur. Investigations of failed components proved that crack growth
started because of such discontinuities.
Fracture mechanics follows one of two design principles: either fail-safe or
safe-life. In fail safe mode, even if a component fails, the entire structure is
not at risk (failure of redundant members). According to the safe life
principle throughout the life, no component of the structure may fail.
Fracture mechanics estimated the maximum crack that a material can
withstand before it fails through analysis taking into consideration the

overall dimensions of the structure, the stress value where crack initiation
takes place, notch toughness value (ability of a material to absorb energy in
the presence of a crack for crack propagation), the behavior of materials
under the action of stresses by finding out the stress intensity factor (K),
fatigue crack growth and stress corrosion crack growth. As in basic solid
mechanics analysis, stresses in the component should be lower than the
yield stress; application of the same principle is means that the stress
intensity factor should be less than the critical stress intensity factor. Major
applications of fracture mechanics design are material selection, effect of
defects, failure analysis and control/monitoring of components. Fracture
analysis includes the usage of mathematical models such as linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM), crack opening displacement (COD) and Jintegral approaches by using finite element analysis (FEM).
The relationship used for estimating stress intensity factor is
where K is the critical fracture toughness value, c a constant that depends
on crack and specimen dimensions, the applied stress, and a the flaw
size.
The above relation is very general and as per the shape of the crack,
relations available in standard data books or course books are to be used,
any general crack can be approximated to standard shapes used in writing
the relations.
For a given material the value of K is dependent on stresses acting and
flaw size. Flaw size decreases as the stress increases. Thus a design

engineer can dictate the life of a component by choosing appropriate

values of K, a and . Even there are other parameters that estimate the life
of a component like working temperature, loading rate (fatigue), residual
stress and stress concentration. The higher the K value, the higher is the
resistance to crack growth, and the material can resist higher stresses.
Designers try to decrease the defects in the component arising in casting or
manufacturing processes by following good fabrication processes and
inspection, and estimate notch-toughness values of materials using
methods like charpy V-notch impact test, or drop weight tests. In many
investigations it was proved that the material failed at a very much lower
than the critical stress intensity factor because of defects in the material or
micro cracks. Analysis proved that for any component there are two phases
for crack development, i.e. crack initiation and second phase crack growth
until failure. Of the two, the first phase covers a larger percentage of
fatigue life, and under very large high cycle loading conditions second
phase is instantaneous.
The factor (K/) is used for estimating design of component because it
estimates crack size, more the value better the resistance to the
forces(Stress). But how large this factor has to be is decided by considering
type of the structure, frequency of inspection, access to inspection, design
life of the structure, consequences of failure, probability of over load,
methods of fabrication, required quality, material cost in addition to the
results obtained by fracture mechanics analysis.

See also

References
Further reading
External links
Categories