Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engfracmech

Three-dimensional modeling of ductile crack growth: Cohesive zone parameters and crack tip triaxiality
C.R. Chen
b

a,b,c

, O. Kolednik

d,*

, J. Heerens e, F.D. Fischer

a Materials Center Leoben, A-8700 Leoben, Austria Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Shenyang 110016, China c Centre for Advanced Materials Technology, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia Erich Schmid Institute of Materials Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Jahnstrasse 12, A-8700 Leoben, Austria e GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH, D-21502 Geesthacht, Germany f Institute of Mechanics, Montanuniversitat Leoben and Erich Schmid Institute of Materials Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, A-8700 Leoben, Austria

Received 31 March 2004; received in revised form 6 December 2004; accepted 19 January 2005 Available online 9 April 2005

Abstract For 10 mm thick smooth-sided compact tension specimens made of a pressure vessel steel 20MnMoNi55, the interrelations between the cohesive zone parameters (the cohesive strength, Tmax, and the separation energy, C) and the crack tip triaxiality are investigated. The slant shear-lip fracture near the side-surfaces is modeled as a normal fracture along the symmetry plane of the specimen. The cohesive zone parameters are determined by tting the simulated crack extensions to the experimental data of a multi-specimen test. It is found that for constant cohesive zone parameters, the simulated crack extension curves show a strong tunneling eect. For a good t between simulated and experimental crack growth, both the cohesive strength and the separation energy near the side-surface should be considerably lower than near the midsection. When the same cohesive zone parameters are applied to the 3D model and a plane strain model, the stress triaxiality in the midsection of the 3D model is much lower, the von-Mises equivalent stress is distinctly higher, and the crack growth rate is signicantly lower than in the plane strain model. Therefore, the specimen must be considered as a thin specimen. The stress triaxiality varies dramatically during the initial stages of crack growth, but varies only smoothly during the subsequent stable crack growth. In the midsection region, the decrease of the cohesive strength results in a decrease of the stress triaxiality, while the decrease of the separation energy results in an increase of the triaxiality. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cohesive zone model; Ductile fracture; Crack growth resistance; Stress triaxiality; Fracture process zone

Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 3842 804114; fax: +43 3842 804116. E-mail address: kolednik@unileoben.ac.at (O. Kolednik).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2005.01.008

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2073

1. Introduction This paper deals with the 3D nite element (FE) modeling of ductile crack growth in smooth-sided compact tension (CT) specimens using the cohesive zone model. The main problem is that the cohesive zone parameters, i.e., the separation energy, C, and the cohesive strength, Tmax, may vary along the crack front and also with the crack extension. The question is, therefore, how to nd the relationship between the cohesive zone parameters and the crack tip constraint. In the cohesive zone model, the role of the cohesive zone is to reect the mechanical eects of the fracture process zone. The fracture process zone is the local region ahead of the crack tip where the micro-voids or micro-cracks initiate, grow, and coalesce with the main crack. This small and highly inhomogeneous region is poorly dened and poorly known [1]. In the cohesive zone model, the fracture process zone is simplied as being an initially zero-thickness zone, which is composed of two coinciding cohesive surfaces. Under loading, the two cohesive surfaces separate, and the traction between them varies with the separation distance in accordance with a specied tractionseparation function. Dierent tractionseparation functions have been applied to model dierent types of fracture [212]. The primary parameters characterizing the tractionseparation function are the cohesive strength, Tmax, and the separation energy, C. The cohesive strength is the peak value of the traction in the tractionseparation curve; the separation energy is the area under the curve, giving the work spent in the cohesive zone for the creation of a unit crack area. In the following, Tmax and C are referred to as the cohesive zone parameters. The exact shape of the tractionseparation function has been claimed to be of secondary importance for the fracture in homogeneous materials [4], but for the interface fracture some doubts have grown recently whether this is really true [5]. In the cohesive zone modeling of crack growth, two groups of parameters aect the crack growth resistance curve: The conventional material parameters, such as the Youngs modulus, E, the yield strength, ry, and the strain hardening exponent, n, and the cohesive zone parameters, Tmax and C. The conventional material parameters can be easily determined, but the determination of the cohesive zone parameters is not easy, as they are not only inuenced by the continuum properties of the material but also by the local constraint conditions at the crack tip (and maybe by some micro-structural parameters [13]). For elastic plastic materials, one appropriate parameter to quantify the local constraint at a growing crack tip is the stress triaxiality, i.e., the ratio of the hydrostatic stress to the von-Mises equivalent stress, t = rh/req. Siegmund and Brocks [1416] analyzed the dependence of the cohesive zone parameters on the triaxiality by using a unit cell model containing a void under plane strain conditions. They change the ratio of the stresses in x- and y-directions to create dierent stress triaxiality. Their analyses show that with a decrease of the stress triaxiality, the cohesive strength decreases, while the separation energy increases. A decrease of the cohesive strength results in an increase of the crack growth rate, while an increase of the separation energy results in a decrease of the crack growth rate. This means that, when the stress triaxiality varies, the resulting variations of the separation energy and the cohesive strength have counteractive eects on the crack growth rate. This might be the reason why, for some cases, 3D simulations of crack growth in dierent specimens, which were made with constant cohesive zone parameters, t to the experimental results [1720]. It should be noted that the variations of triaxiality are comparatively small in side-grooved specimens, whereas in smooth-sided specimens, the triaxiality decreases drastically when approaching the side-surface. For the general application of the cohesive zone model for simulating ductile crack growth it is, therefore, necessary to investigate more thoroughly the interaction between the local constraint conditions and the cohesive zone parameters. The diculties in characterizing the fracture toughness of thin ductile plates and in transferring the fracture parameters to real structures lie in the three-dimensional (3D) character of the crack tip stress and strain elds [23,24]. In a thin plate containing a through-crack, the stress conditions resemble that of plane stress, except in the regions near the crack front where the stress state is three-dimensional [25]. The constraint tends to be relaxed near the free surfaces, which often leads to shear lip formation [26]. Therefore,

2074

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

full 3D calculations are necessary to describe the fracture behavior of thin specimens, as well as to understand the competition between the at-fracture and shear-lip fracture modes [27]. In this paper, a 3D nite element analysis is performed to test the application of the cohesive zone model for simulating crack growth in thin compact tension (CT) specimens with smooth-sided surfaces. The material is a pressure vessel steel, 20MnMoNi55, with a medium strength and high fracture toughness. The cohesive zone parameters are determined by tting the simulated values of the local crack extension to the experimental data. The following questions shall be investigated: How does the crack tip triaxiality vary with the crack extension? How does the crack tip triaxiality vary along the crack front? What is the inuence of the cohesive zone parameters on the crack tip triaxiality? The purpose of this paper is to gain some understanding about the relationship between the cohesive zone parameters and the crack tip triaxiality.

2. Material properties and experimental data The material investigated is a pressure vessel steel 20MnMoNi55 with a Youngs modulus, E = 210 GPa, a yield strength, ry = 465 MPa, and an ultimate tensile strength, ru = 600 MPa. The average strain hardening exponent is n = 0.13. The true stress vs. true plastic strain curve is shown in Fig. 1. A conventional multi-specimen fracture mechanics test was conducted on CT-specimens according to the ESIS Standard (ESIS P2-92, 1992). The geometry of the specimens was: Thickness B = 10 mm, width W = 50 mm, initial crack length a0 % 30.4 mm. In total, ve specimens were tested. Table 1 collects the data of the load, F, the load line displacement, vLL, the J-integral, J, and the average crack extension, Da, for each specimen. The test resulted a value of J0.2/Bl = 400 kJ/m2. It should be noted that, due to the high fracture toughness and the relatively small specimen thickness, J0.2/Bl and the J vs. Da curve cannot be regarded as being independent of the specimen size, as the J-validity limit Jmax = Brf/20 = 267 kJ/m2 < J0.2/Bl. Hereby, the ow strength rf is given by rf = (ry + ru)/2. To determine the average crack extension, Da, the local crack extension, Da, was measured with an optical microscope (and in the scanning electron microscope for very small Da). The measurements were taken 0.1 mm inside the side-surfaces and on seven equidistant positions along the crack front. In Table 1, the maximum local crack extension, Damax, and the average value of the crack extension at the side-surfaces, Dass are also listed. As the FvLL curve of Specimen 2 lies distinctly above the curves of all other specimens,

900 800 700

True stress [MPa]

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

True plastic strain

Fig. 1. True stress vs. true plastic strain curve of the 20MnMoNi55 steel.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094 Table 1 Data of the multi-specimen fracture mechanics test Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 F (kN) 16.15 18.56 16.84 14.82 12.63 vLL (mm) 1.985 2.502 4.203 5.767 8.556 J (k/m2) 290 440 720 925 1294 Da (mm) 0.216 0.503 1.152 2.616 4.508 Damax (mm) 0.443 1.316 2.301 3.777 5.787 Dass (mm) 0.127 0.139 0.558 1.769 3.608

2075

The data of Specimen 2 were excluded from the cohesive zone analysis.

6 5

a [mm]

4 3 2 1 0 -5

vLL=8.556mm vLL=5.767mm vLL=4.203mm vLL=1.985mm

-4

-3

-2

-1

z [mm]
Fig. 2. Experimental Daz curves of four specimens, where Da is the local crack extension and z the distance from the midsection of the specimen.

we have to exclude the data of Specimen 2 from the cohesive zone modeling. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the local crack extension along the crack front for the remaining four specimens. The specimens exhibit shear lips and an appreciable amount of lateral contraction; this is the reason why the side-surface data points are increasingly shifted towards the midsection with increasing vLL. Due to the micro-structural scatter, the crack front is wavy and asymmetric.

3. Tractionseparation function and nite element model 3.1. The tractionseparation function for the cohesive elements Dierent tractionseparation functions have been frequently applied in the literature for ductile fracture: A polynomial function [2], an exponential function [3], and a trapezoidal function [4]. In this paper, we use a polynomial function [2] where the relationship between the cohesive normal traction, T, and the separation distance normal to the crack plane, d, is dened as 8  "    2 # > 27 d d d < T for d 6 df 12 max T 1 4 df df df > : 0 for d > df

2076

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

Fig. 3. Tractionseparation function, Eq. (1), for the cohesive elements.

The function is plotted in Fig. 3. Tmax is the cohesive strength, df the characteristic normal separation distance at which the traction drops to zero. The normal separation energy, C, is dened as Z df T dd 2 C
0

Inserting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2), the three parameters C, Tmax, and df are related by 9 3 C T max df 16 A function similar to Eq. (1) can be introduced for the tangential separations, and coupling rules are needed for a mixed-mode fracture. Such a mixed-mode fracture appears along the slant shear-lip fracture regions. The realistic modeling of the crack growth in specimens exhibiting both at-fracture and shear-lip fracture regions is, however, beyond the current investigation. A crucial task would be how to pre-dene the complicated 3D shape of the shear lip faces. In the current investigation, the crack plane is assumed to be along the symmetry plane, and only the normal separation is considered. As only a quarter of the specimen is analyzed in the nite element computation, only half of the normal separation between the top and bottom faces of the cohesive zone is taken into account. An important point in treating the simulation results of cohesive zone model is the denition of the crack tip location. The crack tip can be dened at three dierent locations: I. At the position d = df where T just decreases to zero or to a very small value, e.g., 0.05Tmax for the exponential tractionseparation function [4,14,20,21] (Point D in Fig. 4), II. at the position d = dmax where T just reaches Tmax [5] (Point B in Fig. 4), III. at a position d = dc in the softening region, with dmax < dc < df (Point C in Fig. 4). In this paper, we dene the crack tip as the position where the separation distance reaches df. This is a relatively reasonable choice for a steel exhibiting micro-ductile fracture. 3.2. Finite element model The simulation of crack growth is performed with the nite element code ABAQUS. A quarter of the CT-specimen is modeled. In the 3D FE model, the plane z = 0 represents the midsection of the specimen, and the plane z = 5 mm represent the side-surface. There are 11 layers in the thickness direction. The layer

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

T Tmax

2077

TC

D D

C C

max

LSoft

a
Fig. 4. On the denition of the location of the crack tip. The points D, C, and B correspond to the points D, C, and B in Fig. 3. Lsoft is the softening zone size.

thickness is 0.5 mm for the Layers 19 in the interior, 0.3 mm for the Layer 10, and 0.2 mm for the Layer 11 (the side-surface layer). Eight-node solid elements are used for the bulk elements. The local mesh in the xy plane around the crack tip is shown in Fig. 5. The initial crack front is simplied as being a straight line. The x-coordinate of the initial crack front is set to be x = 0. The size of the elements in x-direction is 0.1 mm for 0 6 x 6 9.1 mm. The cohesive elements are placed in the crack plane, y = 0, between the location of the initial crack front, the point O at x = 0, and the point at x = 9.1 mm. Each cohesive element has a top and a bottom face with four nodes on each face. The top face is connected with the adjacent solid element, while the bottom face is connected with the symmetry plane, y = 0. The constraint conditions are dened as follows: the displacement uy = 0 for the nodes at the plane y = 0 from x = 9.1 mm to x = 19.6 mm, and uy = 0 for the nodes at the bottom faces of the cohesive elements from x = 0 to x = 9.1 mm; uz = 0 for the nodes at the midsection z = 0; ux = 0 for the nodes at the loading position. The displacement load, uy = 4.5 mm, is applied in 1500 equal sub-steps to the nodes at the loading

O
Fig. 5. Local mesh near the crack tip on the xy plane. The initial crack tip is at the position O.

2078

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

position. The load line displacement, vLL, is two times the y-direction displacement at the point (30.4, 0, 0). The FE calculations are performed using the nite-deformation formulations unless it is specied otherwise.

4. Characteristics of cohesive zone parameters and crack tip triaxiality 4.1. Characteristics of local crack extension and stress triaxiality in the 3D model for constant cohesive zone parameters 4.1.1. Variation of the local crack extension along the thickness When the cohesive zone parameters are set to be constant, the computed crack extension varies along the thickness due to the variation of the crack tip constraint. First, we assume the cohesive zone parameters to be C = 120 kJ/m2 and Tmax = 1460 MPa (i.e., Tmax/ry = 3.14). This set of C- and Tmax-values was determined by Cornec et al. [10] for the identical 20MnMoNi55 steel and was applied with good success to model the behavior of side-grooved CT and center cracked tension specimens of the same gross thickness. The cohesive strength, Tmax, was evaluated as the local maximum stress in the center of a notched cylindrical tensile specimen (8 mm diameter, 2.5 mm notch radius) in the moment of fracture. The separation energy was taken as being equal to the value of the J-integral at the physical point of fracture initiation, Ji. Hereby, Ji was determined from measurements of the stretched zone width [10]. For our smooth sided specimens, however, this set of parameters is not suitable, as the computed crack extensions near the midsection are distinctly larger than the experimental values. To make the simulated crack extensions near the midsection t to the experimental results, C (or Tmax) must be increased. When the parameters are set to C = 180 kJ/m2 and Tmax = 1460 MPa, the computed crack extensions near the midsection are similar to the experimental data, see Fig. 6. The simulated crack extension curves show a strong tunneling eect. However, the initiation of crack growth near the side-surface occurs in the simulation signicantly later than in the experiments. The main reason is that the value of Tmax = 1460 MPa is too high for the cohesive elements near the side-surface. It is also seen in Fig. 6 that in the crack plane a strong contraction along the z-direction occurs which increases with the external displacement load.

Simulated A : vLL= 8.55 6 5 4 B : vLL= 5.78 C : vLL= 4.21 D : vLL= 2.00

= 180 kJ/m2 Tmax = 1460 MPa

A

Experimental vLL= 8.556 vLL= 5.767 vLL= 4.203 vLL= 1.985

a [mm]

B
3

C
2 1

D
0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

z [mm]

Fig. 6. Simulated crack extension curves when C and Tmax are set to be constant.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2079

It is well known that for the plane strain case under small scale yielding conditions, the separation energy comes close to the value of the J-integral at the point of physical facture initiation, Ji [29]. This is strictly true, if no energy is dissipated outside the process zone. Therefore, it is not surprising that in our case (thin specimens and large-scale yielding conditions) the separation energy near the midsection (about 180 kJ/m2) is much smaller than the J-value at 0.2 mm tearing (J0.2/Bl = 400 kJ/m2). 4.1.2. Variation of the stress triaxiality along the thickness The stress triaxiality is dened as t = rh/req, where rh and req are the hydrostatic stress and the vonMises equivalent stress, respectively. For any cohesive element, the values of rh and req are obtained at the center of the solid element adjacent to the cohesive element. The stress triaxiality changes with the thickness position, z, and the distance from the current crack tip, Dx, and varies also with the crack extension, Da. Fig. 7a shows the stress triaxiality distribution ahead of the current crack tip in dierent layers at a load line displacement of vLL = 6.0 mm. It is seen that with increasing distance from the propagating crack tip, the triaxiality rst increases drastically, reaches a peak value, and than decreases. Although the highest triaxiality peak (tmax % 1.6) does not appear in the midsection layer (Layer 1), it is seen that Layer 1 shows the highest triaxiality values after the triaxiality peak, and the triaxiality decreases from Layer 1 to the side-surface layer (Layer 11). The location of the triaxiality peak in the layers near the midsection is about 1.0 mm ahead of the crack tip. This means that near the midsection the micro-fracture processes are initiated about 1 mm ahead of the crack tip. At the side-surface layer no distinct triaxiality peak (tmax % 0.7) is observed. Fig. 7b and c show the distributions of the hydrostatic stress rh and the von-Mises equivalent stress req ahead of the local crack tip in dierent layers at vLL = 6.0 mm. The shapes of the rh-distributions resemble strongly those of the triaxiality distributions and also the locations where the peak values appear are similar. The req distributions look totally dierent. Near the current crack front (i.e., at small Dx), req increases signicantly from the midsection to the side-surface layer. At the far region (Dx > 1 mm), the req values in the Layers 19 become similar, only in the side-surface layer req is distinctly lower than in the other layers. Fig. 8a shows the variation of the triaxiality peak values along the thickness at vLL = 2.0, 3.0 and 6.0 mm. The triaxiality peak varies smoothly near the midsection, but decreases drastically when approaching the side-surface. Comparing the three curves, it is seen that the triaxiality near the midsection decreases with increasing vLL. For vLL = 2.0 mm, the highest triaxiality peak occurs in Layer 1, however, for vLL = 3.0 and 6.0 mm the highest triaxiality peaks are observed in the Layers 5 and 6, around z % 2.53.0 mm. Fig. 8b shows the variations of rh and req (both taken at the location of triaxiality peak) along the thickness. It is seen that the variation of the rh peak along the thickness is similar to the variation of the triaxiality peak, while the variation of req along the thickness is much smoother. Only near the side-surface, an increase of req is observed. Remarkable is, however, the increase of req with increasing vLL. As near the midsection the req-increase is much more signicant than the variation of the rh peak, the stress triaxiality decreases near the midsection with increasing loading. From the results shown in Figs. 7 and 8, it can be concluded that the distribution of the stress triaxiality ahead of the crack tip and the variation of the stress triaxiality along the thickness are mainly decided by the variation of the hydrostatic stress rh, while the variation of the stress triaxiality near the midsection with the crack extension is mainly determined by the variation of the equilibrium stress req. 4.1.3. Variation of the stress triaxiality with crack extension To help us understand whether the cohesive zone parameters for the fracture initiation can be the same as those for stable crack growth, we investigate the variation of triaxiality with the crack extension. Fig. 9a shows the variation of the stress triaxiality peak in the Layers 1, 3, 5, and 7 with the local crack extension in each layer. For the Layers 1 and 3, the triaxiality peak at fracture initiation (Da = 0) is distinctly higher than during the stable crack growth. Compared at the points of the local fracture initiation (Da = 0), the stress

2080

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 5 Layer 7 1.2 1.0 Layer 9 Layer 11

1.6 1.4

= 180 kJ/m T max = 1460 MPa

h/eq

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

v LL = 6.0 mm

(a)
1200

x [mm]

1000

= 180 kJ/m Tmax= 1460 MPa

Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 5 Layer 7 Layer 9 Layer 11

800

h [MPa]

600

400

200

v LL = 6.0 mm

0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(b)
850

x [mm]

800

= 180 kJ/m Tmax= 1460 MPa

Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 5 Layer 7 Layer 9 Layer 11

750

eq [MPa]

700

650

600

550

v LL = 6.0 mm
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

500

(c)

x [mm]

Fig. 7. Stress state ahead of the local crack tip in dierent layers at a load line displacement of vLL = 6.0 mm: (a) Stress triaxiality rh/req; (b) hydrostatic stress rh; (c) von-Mises equivalent stress req. The symbol Dx denotes the distance from the local crack tip.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5

2081

A B C

(h/eq)max

1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

A: vLL= 2.0 mm B: vLL= 3.0 mm C: vLL= 6.0 mm

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax= 1460 MPa

(a)
2

z0 [mm]
1200 1100 1000 900 800

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax= 1460 MPa

hmax [MPa]

vLL= 2.0 mm vLL= 3.0 mm vLL= 6.0 mm

eq [MPa]

700 600 500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

(b)

z0 [mm]

Fig. 8. Variations of triaxiality peak along the thickness at vLL = 2.0, 3.0 and 6.0 mm: (a) Triaxiality peak; (b) stresses rh and req corresponding to the triaxiality peak. z0 denotes the distance from the midsection in the initial geometry.

triaxiality peaks decrease monotonically from the Layer 1 to the Layer 7. During stable crack growth, however, the triaxiality peak in Layer 5 becomes higher than in the Layer 1. Contrary to the behavior in other layers, the triaxiality in Layer 7 increases during the rst stages of local crack extension, reaches a maximum value and then decreases. If the cohesive zone parameters have a close relation with the stress triaxiality peak, then the cohesive zone parameters for the fracture initiation might be dierent from those for stable crack growth. Fig. 9b shows the corresponding variations of rh and req (taken at the position Dx where the triaxiality reaches its peak value). The rh-peak keeps nearly constant during the local crack growth in the Layers 1 and 3, but increases in Layer 5. It is seen that req increases due to strain hardening in all layers during the rst stages of local crack extension. As from the midsection region to the side surface the point of fracture initiation is shifted to higher vLL-values, req increases from the Layer 1 to the Layer 7. Near the midsection the stress req is distinctly lower at the crack growth initiation than during stable crack growth. This is the main reason why near the midsection the stress triaxiality peak is higher at the point of fracture initiation than that during stable crack growth. It is usually thought that the highest stress triaxiality should occur in the specimen midsection and that the triaxiality should decrease monotonically from the midsection to the side-surface. This is observed at the fracture initiation stage, but not during the crack growth. With the increase of crack extension, the

2082

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

1.9

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax= 1460 MPa

layer 1 layer 3 layer 5 layer 7

1.8

(h/eq)max

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

(a)

a [mm]

hmax [MPa]

1100

1000

layer 1
900

= 180 kJ/m Tmax= 1460 MPa

layer 3 layer 5 layer 7

800

eq [MPa]

700

600

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

(b)

a [mm]

Fig. 9. Variation of the triaxiality peak with the crack extension: (a) Triaxiality peak; (b) stresses rh and req corresponding to the triaxiality peak. Da is the local crack extension in each layer.

triaxiality near the midsection decreases more signicantly than at the locations far away from the midsection. As a result, the highest triaxiality peak may move during crack growth to the boundary between the midsection region and the inuence zone of the side-surface. 4.1.4. Inuence of cohesive zone parameters on local crack extension and stress triaxiality Fig. 10 shows the DavLL curves at the midsection for three dierent sets of cohesive zone parameters: (A) C = 180 kJ/m2, Tmax = 1460 MPa; (B) C = 180 kJ/m2, Tmax = 1360 MPa; (C) C = 120 kJ/m2, Tmax = 1460 MPa. By comparing the curves A and B, it is seen that a variation of Tmax aects the slope of Da vLL curve, but has little or no inuence on the initiation point of the DavLL curve. A decrease of Tmax results in a higher crack growth rate. By comparing the curves A and C, it is seen that a variation of C aects both the slope and the initiation point of the DavLL curve. A decrease of C results in an earlier crack growth initiation and a higher crack growth rate. It is noticed that the crack growth rate is more sensitive to the cohesive strength than to the separation energy. In order to understand the relationship between the cohesive zone parameters and the crack tip triaxiality, it is necessary to investigate also the inuence of cohesive zone parameters on the crack tip triaxiality.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2

2083

A: = 180 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa B: = 180 kJ/m2, T = 1360 MPa max C: = 120 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa
2

C B A

a [mm]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

vLL [mm]
Fig. 10. Eects of variations of the cohesive strength, Tmax, and the separation energy, C, on the crack extension in the midsection.

2.1

2.0
2 2 2

1.9

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa = 180 kJ/m , Tmax = 1360 MPa = 120 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa

(h/eq)max

1.8

1.7

1.6

C A B

1.5

1.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

(a)
1100

a [mm]

hmax [MPa]

1000

900

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa = 180 kJ/m , Tmax = 1360 MPa
2

800

= 120 kJ/m , Tmax = 1460 MPa

700

eq [MPa]

600

500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

(b)

a [mm]

Fig. 11. Eects of variations of Tmax and C on the triaxiality peak in the midsection: (a) Triaxiality peak; (b) stresses rh and req corresponding to the triaxiality peak.

2084

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

Fig. 11a shows the variations of the stress triaxiality peaks in the midsection layer with the local crack extension for the three dierent sets of C and Tmax. The three curves are nearly parallel. By comparing the curves A and B, it is seen that a decrease of Tmax results in a decrease of the triaxiality peak. By comparing the curves A and C, it is seen that a decrease of C results in an increase of the triaxiality peak. Fig. 11b shows the corresponding rh and req vs. Da curves. It is seen that the decrease of Tmax results in a decrease of both rh and req. The decrease of rh is, however, more signicant than the decrease of req; as a result, the stress triaxiality decreases. It is also seen that a decrease of C has very little eect on rh, but results in a decrease of req. Thus, a decrease of C results in an increase of the stress triaxiality. 4.1.5. Eects of small-deformation conditions on the simulated crack growth Our nite element simulations are performed using the nite-deformation formulations. Most cohesive zone studies in the literature, however, have been modeled using the small-strain assumptions. To check whether the use of the nite-deformation formulations is necessary, we compare the simulated crack extension curves for both the nite-deformation and the small-deformation conditions. When applying the small-deformation conditions, all computations refer to the initial (undeformed) geometry; for the nite-deformation conditions, the computations in the nth load-increment refer to the deformed geometry obtained in the (n 1)th load-increment. For the 3D model, when nite-deformation conditions are applied, the x- and z-displacements of the bottom face (located in the symmetry plane of the specimen) of the cohesive element are set equal to the displacements of the upper face (which is connected to the adjacent solid element). In this way, the reduction of area of the crack plane by the plastic contraction in thickness direction can be taken into account. It is already known from the literature that, when determining the cohesive zone parameters by tting the simulated crack growth data to the experimental data, the small-deformation condition yields a slightly lower cohesive strength than the nite-deformation condition [20,32]. Fig. 12 compares the simulated crack extension curves obtained under small- and nite-deformation conditions. It is seen that there is not much dierence for small load line displacements, at vLL = 2.0 and 4.21 mm. For larger loading, however, at vLL = 5.78 and 8.56 mm, the crack extensions are distinctly smaller under the small-deformation condition than under the nite-deformation condition. Therefore, for the crack growth modeling of 20MnMoNi55, it is necessary to use the nite-deformation formulations.

= 180 kJ/m , Tmax= 1460 MPa

6 A : vLL= 8.55 5 4 B : vLL= 5.78 C : vLL= 4.21 D : vLL= 2.00

Finite-deformation Small-deformation

a [mm]

B
3

C
2 1

D
0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

z [mm]

Fig. 12. Comparison of the simulated crack extension curves between the small-deformation and the nite-deformation conditions.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2085

4.2. Comparison with a plane strain model It is usually thought that, at least for thick specimens, the stress state near the crack front in the specimen midsection is similar to that of plane strain conditions. To check whether a plane strain model can be used for our specimens to simulate the crack growth at the specimen midsection, a comparative computation under plane strain conditions is performed. To do this, the midsection layer (0.5 mm thick) of our 3D model is taken. The boundary condition uz = 0 is applied to all nodes of this layer of 3D elements. The behavior of the layer is identical to that of a 2D plane strain model. The cohesive zone parameters are set to be C = 180 kJ/m2 and Tmax = 1460 MPa. 4.2.1. Comparison of the crack extensions Fig. 13 compares the local DavLL curve for the midsection of 3D model to the Da0vLL curve of the plane strain model. It is seen in the diagram that fracture initiation occurs at the same vLL and that the curves coincide for the very rst stages of crack growth, but then the curves deviate and the crack growth rate in the plane strain model is by approximately a factor 2 higher than in the midsection of the 3D model. 4.2.2. Comparison of the stress triaxialities Fig. 14a compares the triaxiality distributions ahead of the current crack tip in the plane strain model and in the midsection layer of the 3D model. The curves are presented for the point of fracture initiation, as well as for Da = 1 and 4 mm. It is seen that, for the same cohesive zone parameters, the triaxiality in the plane strain model (t = 2.8 at fracture initiation, t = 2.5 for Da = 4 mm) is distinctly higher than in the midsection layer of 3D model (t = 1.95 at fracture initiation, t = 1.5 for Da = 4 mm). Higher stress triaxiality means that less energy will be consumed by plastic deformation during crack growth. This explains why for the same cohesive zone parameters, the crack growth rate is much higher in the plane strain model than at the midsection of 3D model. Fig. 14b shows the corresponding rh- and req-distributions. In the plane strain model, rh is higher and req is signicantly lower than in the midsection layer of the 3D model. This can explain why for the same cohesive zone parameters, the triaxiality ahead of the crack tip is signicantly higher in the

= 180 kJ/m2, Tmax= 1460 MPa

B
4

a [mm]

A
2
A : Midsection of 3D model B : Plane strain model Experimental data at Midsection

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

vLL [mm]

Fig. 13. Comparison of the DavLL curves between 3D and plane strain models for the same cohesive zone parameters.

2086

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

= 180 kJ/m2, Tmax= 1460 MPa
3.0

2.5

Plane strain
2.0

h/eq

1.5

3D

1.0

0.5

a= 0

a= 1

a= 4

0.0

(a)

x [mm]
= 180 kJ/m , Tmax= 1460 MPa
A
1000
2

1200

B B

eq and h [MPa]

800

B C C

600

C D D D
A: h, plane strain

400

200

a =0 a= 1 a= 4
2 3 4

B: h, 3D C: eq, 3D D: eq, plane strain 5 6 7

0 0 1

(b)

x [mm]

Fig. 14. Comparison of the triaxiality distributions ahead of the crack tip between 3D and plane strain models: (a) Triaxiality; (b) stresses rh and req. The results of the 3D model are taken from the midsection layer.

plane strain model than in the midsection layer of the 3D model. It is also seen that during the crack growth the req-increase in the midsection layer of 3D model is much more signicant than in the plane strain model. From Fig. 14a, it is further seen that the distance between the crack tip and the position of maximum triaxiality varies during the crack extension. This distance is signicantly smaller at fracture initiation than during the stable crack growth. According to McMeeking [28] (who did not consider a fracture process zone), the maximum stress triaxiality lies at a distance of about two times the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) in front of the crack tip; the distance depends on the amount of hardening. From Fig. 14a, it is seen that in the cohesive zone model this estimate is not bad for the point of fracture initiation, but with the increase of crack extension, the distance between the maximum stress triaxiality and the crack tip becomes distinctly larger than 2 CTOD (the crack tip opening is about 0.22 mm). It is also seen that the crack tip triaxiality in the midsection layer of the 3D model decreases with the crack extension. A decreasing stress triaxiality during the crack extension causes more plastic deformation around the crack tip during the crack propagation. In terms of the analysis by Cotterell and Atkins [30], this means that a true R-curve eect does appear.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

= 180 kJ/m2, Tmax= 1460 MPa
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7

2087

B A

B A

T / Tmax

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

A : Midsection of 3D model B : Plane strain model

a = 0

a = 2
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

x [mm]

Fig. 15. Comparison of the cohesive traction distributions ahead of the crack tip between 3D and plane strain models.

4.2.3. Comparison of the cohesive tractions Fig. 15 shows the cohesive tractions ahead of the crack tip for the plane strain model and for the midsection of 3D model. The curves are shown for the point of fracture initiation and for Da = 2 mm. With increasing distance from the current crack tip, the cohesive tractions increase drastically to reach the cohesive strength, and then the tractions decreases gradually. For the same set of cohesive zone parameters, the variation of the cohesive traction is smoother in the plane strain model than in the midsection of 3D model. If we compare the softening zone sizes (i.e., the x-distance between the positions of T = 0 to the position of T = Tmax), it is seen that the softening zone sizes are equal in two models at the point of fracture initiation. During the crack growth, however, the softening zone size is distinctly larger in the plane strain model than in the midsection of 3D model. By comparing the local DavLL curves, triaxiality distributions, and cohesive traction distributions between the plane strain model and the midsection layer of the 3D model for the same cohesive zone parameters, it can be concluded that the stress state at the midsection of our CT specimens with 10 mm thickness is signicantly dierent from that of a plane strain state. Thus, the plane strain model cannot correctly simulate the crack growth at the midsection; instead, 3D models have to be applied. 4.3. Characteristics of the crack tip triaxiality when Tmax varies in thickness direction Experimental results show that fracture mechanisms in the specimen midsection and near the side-surfaces are dierent. In the midsection region, the fracture surface is at; near the side-surfaces, a slant shearlip fracture surface appears, tilted 45 to the symmetry plane. The proportion of the shear-lip fracture to the at fracture increases with the crack extension. Thus, when applying a 3D cohesive zone model to simulate crack growth in a specimen with shear lips, one diculty appears: how to pre-dene the shape of the crack plane. In this paper, for simplication, the slant fracture near the side-surface is taken as being equivalent to the normal separation along the symmetry plane y = 0; and the cohesive zone parameters are kept constant during the crack extension. It is seen from Fig. 6 that, when the cohesive zone parameters are set to be C = 180 kJ/m2 and Tmax = 1460 MPa, the initiation of crack growth near the side-surface occurs in the simulation much later than in the experiment. To let the simulated fracture initiation near the side-surface occur earlier, the cohesive zone parameters near the side-surface need to be reduced. We use a simple guideline to nd a more

2088

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

appropriate distribution of the cohesive strength along the thickness: At rst, we apply a set of constant cohesive zone parameters to make the simulated crack extensions near the midsection t to the experimental results. As the inuence of the cohesive strength is much stronger than that of the separation energy (Figs. 10 and 11), we keep the separation energy constant along the thickness. In Fig. 8a, the stress triaxiality remains roughly constant from Layer 1 to Layer 6 (from z = 0 to z = 3 mm) and decreases sharply from Layer 7 to Layer 11 (from z = 3 to z = 5 mm). Referencing to this variation of the stress triaxiality, we assume that the cohesive strength remains constant, Tmax = 1480 MPa, between z = 0 and z = 3 mm, and decreases then linearly from z = 3 to z = 5 mm. Directly at the side-surface, the cohesive strength is set to be two times the yield strength, Tmax(at z = 5) = 930 MPa, because Li and Siegmund [31] have found that under plane stress conditions a suitable value for the cohesive strength is about two times the yield strength. The so adopted cohesive zone parameters are depicted in Fig. 16a. Fig. 16b shows a comparison between the simulated and experimental crack extension curves. Compared to Fig. 6, the local crack extension remains unchanged in the midsection region. Near the side surfaces, the local Da-values are increased, but the simulated crack extensions near the side-surface are still signicantly smaller than the experimental crack extension data. Although Tmax has been reduced considerably near the

Simulated A: vLL=8.55

1480

B: vLL=5.78 C: vLL=4.21 D: vLL=2.00

Experimental vLL=8.556 vLL=5.767 vLL=4.203 vLL=1.985

Tmax[MPa]

a [mm]

930

[kJ/m2]

180

D
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

(a)
1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5

z [mm]

(b)
18

z [mm]

A B C D

15

12

(h/eq)max

1.4

F [kN]

1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
A: vLL= 2.0 mm B: vLL= 3.0 mm C : vLL= 4.0 mm D : vLL= 6.0 mm

Experimental: Specimen 1 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5

Simulated

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(c)

z0 [mm]

(d)

vLL [mm]

Fig. 16. Assumed variation of the cohesive strength in thickness direction and the corresponding simulation results: (a) Variation of Tmax along the thickness; (b) comparison of the simulated crack extension curves with the experimental data; (c) variation of the triaxiality peak along the thickness; (d) comparison of the simulated load vs. load line displacement curve with the experimental data.

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2089

side surfaces, the local crack growth rate has not changed signicantly enough. Fig. 16c shows the variation of the stress triaxiality peak along the thickness for four dierent vLL-values. Whereas the triaxiality peak decreases distinctly with the increasing vLL, its change within the region between z = 3 and z = 5 mm is small. The curves resemble strongly those of Fig. 8a. This means that the decrease of the cohesive strength within the region inuenced by the side-surface has only marginally changed the triaxiality distribution. Fig. 16d shows a comparison between simulated and experimental load vs. load line displacement (FvLL) curves. It is seen that the simulated FvLL curve lies somewhat below the experimental FvLL data. The possible reason might be that the initial (average) crack length in the FE model may be somewhat too large. The initial crack front is a tunneling curve in experiment, while it is simplied as a straight line in the FE model. Another reason might be that the hardening of the material is not correctly modeled for high strains. 4.4. Additional possible measures for a better t to the experimental data From the ndings in [31], it does not make much sense to reduce further the cohesive strength within the region inuenced by the side-surface in order to make the simulated crack extensions near the side-surface t to the experimental data. An alternative way is to reduce the separation energy near the side-surface. Such a decrease of separation energy could be argued from a comparison of the micro-structure of the fracture surfaces in the at-fracture and shear-lip fracture regions. The latter consists of distorted dimples which are much smaller and shallower than the dimples in the at-fracture region. The separation energy consists of two parts, the specic energy for void initiation and the specic energy for the formation of the dimple structure during void growth and coalescence [22]. The latter term is, according to Stuwes model [33], proportional to the average height of the dimples. Therefore, it is conceivable that the separation energy in the shear-lip fracture regions can be considerably smaller than in the at-fracture region. It should be noted, however, that the specic energy for void initiation which represents only a small fraction of the separation energy for the at-fracture region with large dimples, might play a bigger role for the shear-lip fracture region, as due to the lower hydrostatic stress component void initiation occurs at considerably higher plastic strains. As the extension of the shear-lip fracture region increases with the crack extension and the fact that we work with constant cohesive zone parameters during the crack extension, a gradual decrease of the separation energy could be assumed. Fig. 17a presents a possible variation of the cohesive zone parameters in the thickness direction. The separation energy is constant in the midsection region and decreases linearly within the inuence zone of the side-surface, from C = 180 kJ/m2 at z = 3 mm to C = 113.1 kJ/m2 at z = 5 mm. Hereby, the decrease of C is made so that df keeps constant (0.2162 mm) through the thickness. Fig. 17b shows the comparison between the simulated and experimental crack extension curves. Compared to Fig. 16b, the simulated local crack extensions increase very little near the midsection, but quite signicantly near the side-surfaces. Nevertheless, the simulated local Da-values near the side surfaces are still too small, especially for large vLL-values. The task of nding such a variation of the cohesive zone parameters so that the simulated crack extensions t better to the experimental data is left for a future study. 4.5. Comparison of cohesive zone parameters between the steels 20MnMoNi55 and St37 Chen et al. [22] studied the cohesive zone parameters and stress triaxiality distributions in a thick (25 mm-thickness) CT specimen made of the low strength steel St37 (with ry = 270 MPa, ru = 426 MPa, n = 0.20, JIC = 120 kJ/m2). It is meaningful to compare the cohesive zone parameters between the two steels.

2090

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

Tmax[MPa]

1480

f = 0.216 mm
930

[kJ/m2]

180

113.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

(a)

z [mm]

6 5 4 3

Simulated A : v = 8.55 LL B : v = 5.78 LL C : v = 4.21

LL

Experimental
v = 8.556

LL LL

v = 5.767 v = 4.203 LL v = 1.985

LL

D : vLL= 2.00

a [mm]

C
2 1

D
0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

(b)

z [mm]

Fig. 17. Assumed variations of the cohesive strength and the separation energy in thickness direction and the corresponding simulation results: (a) Variations of Tmax and C along the thickness; (b) comparison of the simulated crack extension curves with the experimental data.

It should be noted that, contrary to the current experiment, for the St37 the thickness was large enough to have a wide region around the midsection with high stress triaxiality. In this region, the triaxiality was comparable in magnitude to the triaxiality for plane strain conditions (2.8 compared to 3.1 for plane strain). It is remarkable that also in this case, the highest triaxiality peak did not appear in the midsection but at the boundary between the constant-triaxiality region around the midsection and the inuence zone of the sidesurface where the triaxiality exhibits a steep decrease. For the St37, the separation energy is low (C % 16 kJ/m2 near the midsection). This means that the resistance against fracture initiation is low for this material. For the 20MnMoNi55, the separation energy is high (C % 180 kJ/m2 near the midsection). Thus the resistance against fracture initiation is very high for this material. For the St37, the ratio of the cohesive strength to the yield strength is high (about 4:1 near the midsection). As a result, the ratio of the energy dissipation rate to the separation energy is very high for this material. Thus, although the separation energy of the St37 is low, the resistance against crack growth is not low. For the 20MnMoNi55, the ratio of the cohesive strength to the yield strength is not high (about 3.2:1 near the midsection). As a result, although the plastic dissipation rate of the 20MnMoNi55 is much higher than

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2091

that of the St37, the ratio of the energy dissipation rate to the separation energy for the 20MnMoNi55 is not as high as that for the St37. The high separation energy and high energy dissipation rate make the 20MnMoNi55 to have a very high resistance against crack growth. For the St37, the resistance against shear fracture is higher than the resistance against normal fracture, as no shear lip appears near the side-surfaces; for the 20MnMoNi55, the resistance against shear fracture is lower than the resistance to normal fracture, as wide shear fracture regions occur near the side-surfaces. The reason might be that the strain hardening exponent of the 20MnMoNi55 is lower than that of the St37.

5. Eects of mesh size and load increment on the results of the simulation In 2D cohesive zone modeling, very ne mesh and very small load increment are usually applied, thus it is unnecessary to especially consider the eects of element size and load increment on the simulation results. In 3D cohesive zone modeling, however, due to the limitation of the computer capability, we cannot use very ne meshes and very small load increments. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the eects of element size and load increment on the results of the simulations. 5.1. Inuence of element size in crack growth direction To resolve the inuences of the element size along the direction of the crack growth x, we compare the simulated DavLL curves of two plane strain models with a coarse and a ne mesh. The coarse model has the same mesh as our 3D model in the xy plane, and the size of the cohesive elements in x-direction is 0.1 mm. The number of elements in the ne model is about six times larger, and the size of the cohesive elements in x-direction is 0.05 mm. The cohesive zone parameters are C = 180 kJ/m2 and Tmax = 1460 MPa for both models. The results show that the crack extension in the coarse model is a little bit larger than in the ne model. For example, at a load line displacement of vLL = 5.0 mm, the crack extensions in the ne and coarse model are 5.3 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively. Because the dierences of the DavLL curves are so small, it is acceptable to use the coarse model for the simulation. 5.2. Inuence of element size in thickness direction In 3D modeling of crack growth, one numerical issue is the eect of the aspect ratio of the elements near the crack plane. Here, the aspect ratio means the ratio of the element sizes in z-direction and x-direction. To study the inuence of the element size in z-direction, we compare the simulated crack extension curves for two 3D models with high and medium aspect ratio of the elements. The mesh in the xy plane is the same for the two models, and the only dierence is the element size in the thickness direction. The high-aspect ratio model has 6 layers, and the layer thickness is 1 mm for the Layers 14, 0.5 mm for the Layers 5 and 6. The medium-aspect ratio model is the 3D model applied in Section 4. The cohesive zone parameters are as Fig. 16a, i.e., C is 180 kJ/m2 through the thickness; Tmax is 1480 MPa from z = 0 to z = 3 mm, and then decreases linearly to 930 MPa at z = 5 mm. The results show that the crack extension in the model with high aspect ratio is somewhat larger than in the model with medium aspect ratio. For example, at a load line displacement of vLL = 8.0 mm, the model with medium aspect ratio yields a local crack extension of Da = 5.5 mm at z = 0, and Da = 1.9 mm at z = 5 mm; the model with the high aspect ratio yields Da = 5.64 mm at z = 0, and Da = 2.2 mm at z = 5 mm. Therefore, a larger element size in thickness direction tends to make the crack extension larger, especially near the side-surface, but again the dierences are not very large. Therefore, and due to the limitation of our computer capabilities, it is acceptable to use the model with the medium aspect ratio.

2092

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

5.3. Inuence of load increments To study the inuence of the size of the load increments, we compare the simulated crack extension curves of our 3D model for two dierent increments of the displacement at the load application point Duy: large increments (Duy = 0.06 mm) and small increments (Duy = 0.03 mm). The results show that the two load increment sizes create nearly the same local crack extension values. For example, at a load line displacement of vLL = 8.0 mm, the largest dierence of crack extension is only about 20% of one element size in the x-direction, i.e., the dierence is only 0.02 mm. All our FE calculations in Section 4 have been performed with the small load increments (Duy = 0.03 mm). Therefore, the load increment in our FE calculations is small enough.

6. Summary Crack growth in 10 mm thick CT-specimens made of a pressure vessel steel 20MnMoNi55 has been simulated using the cohesive zone model. The cohesive zone parameters have been determined by tting the simulated crack extension values to the experimental data of a multi-specimen fracture mechanics test. The interrelation between cohesive zone parameters and crack tip triaxiality can be summarized as follows: (1) The crack tip triaxiality at the midsection is signicantly lower than in a plane strain model; the vonMises equivalent stress at the midsection is distinctly higher than in the plane strain model. For the same cohesive zone parameters, the crack tip softening zone during the crack growth is larger and the simulated crack growth rate is signicantly higher in the plane strain model than that in the midsection of 3D model. (2) In thickness direction, the stress triaxiality varies smoothly near the midsection, but decreases drastically when approaching the side-surfaces. When the cohesive zone parameters are taken to be constant, at the point of fracture initiation the highest triaxiality occurs at the midsection. With increasing crack extension, the triaxiality near the midsection decreases more signicantly than at other locations; thus, after some crack extension, the highest triaxiality peak appears at the boundary between the inuence zone of the side-surface and the midsection region. (3) The stress triaxiality varies dramatically during the initial stages of crack growth, but varies smoothly during the subsequent stable crack growth. Near the midsection, the triaxiality at the point of fracture initiation is distinctly higher than during the stable crack growth, caused by the increasing von-Mises equivalent stress due to the hardening. (4) Near the midsection, a decrease of the cohesive strength results in a decrease of the stress triaxiality; a decrease of the separation energy results in an increase of the stress triaxiality. At the side-surfaces, the inuence of cohesive zone parameters on the stress triaxiality is weak. (5) If the slant shear-lip fracture near the side-surfaces is modeled as a normal fracture along the symmetry plane of the specimen, both the cohesive strength and the separation energy near the side-surface should be considerably lower than near the midsection.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the nancial support of this work by the Materials Center Leoben under the project numbers SP7 and SP14. C.R. Chen thanks the support from the G19980615 project of China. The nite element calculations were nished at the Center for Advanced Materials Technology,

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

2093

University of Sydney, Australia, and C.R. Chen gratefully acknowledges the nancial support from Prof. Y.W. Mai.

References
[1] Broberg KB. Inuence of T-stress, cohesive strength and yield strength on the competition between decohesion and plastic ow in a crack edge vicinity. Int J Fract 1999;100:13342. [2] Needleman A. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech 1987;54:52531. [3] Needleman A. An analysis of decohesion along an imperfect interface. Int J Fract 1990;42:2140. [4] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elasticplastic solids. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40:137797. [5] Chandra N, Li H, Shet C, Ghonem H. Some issues in the application of cohesive zone models for metalceramic interfaces. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:282755. [6] Knauss WG. Time dependent fracture and cohesive zones. J Engng Mater Technol 1993;115:2627. [7] Yuan H, Lin G, Cornec A. Verication of a cohesive zone model for ductile fracture. J Engng Mater Technol 1996;118:192200. [8] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. Eect of strain-dependent cohesive zone model on prediction of crack growth resistance. Int J Solids Struct 1996;33:3297308. [9] Nguyen O, Repetto EA, Ortiz M, Radovitzky RA. A cohesive model of fatigue crack growth. Int J Fract 2001;110:35169. [10] Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe K-H. On the practical application of the cohesive model. Engng Fract Mech 2003;70:1963 87. [11] Elices M, Guinea GV, Gomez J, Planas J. The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:13763. [12] Wnuk MP, Legat J. Work of fracture and cohesive stress distribution resulting from triaxiality dependent cohesive zone model. Int J Fract 2002;114:2946. [13] Xia L, Shih CF. Ductile crack growth-I: A numerical study using computational cells with microstructurally-based length scales. J Mech Phys Solids 1995;43:23359. [14] Siegmund T, Brocks W. Prediction of the work of separation and implication to modeling. Int J Fract 1999;99:97116. [15] Siegmund T, Brocks W. The role of cohesive strength and separation energy for modeling of ductile fracture. ASTM STP 2000;1360:13951. [16] Siegmund T, Brocks W. A numerical study on the correlation between the work of separation and the dissipation rate in ductile fracture. Engng Fract Mech 2000;67:13954. [17] Lin G, Cornec A, Schwalbe KH. Three-dimensional nite element simulation of crack extension in aluminum alloy 2024-FC. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1998;21:115973. [18] de-Andres A, Perez JL, Ortiz M. Elasto-plastic nite element analysis of three-dimensional fatigue crack growth in aluminum shaft subjected to axial loading. Int J Solids Struct 1999;36:223158. [19] Roy YA, Dodds RH. Simulation of ductile crack growth in thin aluminum panels using 3-D surface cohesive elements. Int J Fract 2001;110:2145. [20] Roychowdhury S, Roy YA, Dodds RH. Ductile tearing in thin aluminum panels: experiments and analysis using largedisplacement, 3D surface cohesive elements. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:9831002. [21] Rahulkumar P, Jagota A, Bennison SJ, Saigal S. Cohesive element modeling of viscoelastic fracture: application to peel testing of polymers. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:187397. [22] Chen CR, Kolednik O, Scheider I, Siegmund T, Tatschl A, Fischer FD. On the determination of the cohesive zone parameters for the modeling of micro-ductile crack growth in thick specimens. Int J Fract 2003;120:51736. [23] Pardoen T, Marchal Y, Delannay F. Essential work of fracture compared to fracture mechanics-towards a thickness independent plane stress toughness. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:61731. [24] Bron F, Besson J, Pineau A. Ductile rupture in thin sheets of two grades of 2024 aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Engng 2004;A380:35664. [25] Nakamura T, Parks DM. Three-dimensional crack front elds in a thin ductile plate. J Mech Phys Solids 1990;38:787812. [26] Mathur KK, Needleman A, Tvergaard V. Three dimensional analysis of dynamic ductile crack growth in a thin plate. J Mech Phys Solids 1996;44:43964. [27] Pardoen T, Hachez F, Marchioni B, Blyth PH, Atkins AG. Mode I fracture of sheet metal. J Mech Phys Solids 2004;52:42352. [28] McMeeking RM. Finite deformation analysis of crack-tip opening in elastic plastic materials and implications for fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 1977;25:35781. [29] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elasticplastic solids. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40:137797.

2094

C.R. Chen et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 20722094

[30] Cotterell B, Atkins AG. A review of the J and I integrals and their implications for crack growth resistance and toughness in ductile fracture. Int J Fract 1996;81:35772. [31] Li WZ, Siegmund T. An analysis of crack growth in thin-sheet metal via a cohesive zone model. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:207393. [32] Jin ZH, Paulino GH, Dodds RH. Cohesive fracture modelling of elasticplastic crack growth in functionally graded materials. Engng Fract Mech 2003;70:1885912. [33] Stuwe HP. The plastic work spent in ductile fracture. In: Nemat-Nasser S, editor. Three-dimensional constitutive relations and ductile fracture. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1981. p. 21321.