EMCH361 Mechanical Engineering Laboratory I, Spring 2013

Laboratory I

HARDNESS TESTS

Your name

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

ABSTRACT
Cup and cone fracture for a round tensile bar under tension
is analyzed numerically using finite element method. Finite
strain analysis with general solid elements is performed to
simulate the development of necking, flat cracking at the center
of the bar, propagation of the flat crack towards the free
surface, and then slant 45o cracking leading to the final
separation of the tensile bar. The key fracture stages and
parameters in the simulation of this entire process include (a) a
fracture criterion for the flat cracking at the center of the bar,
(b) flat crack propagation using a constant crack-tip-openingangle and/or displacement (CTOA/CTOD), (c) a criterion for
determining the transition from flat cracking to slant cracking,
(d) slant crack propagation using a constant shear
CTOA/CTOD. Details of the numerical process are provided.

When the load begins to decrease sharply (Point B in

Figure1),voidsarefrequentlyobservedfromthecenterofthe
specimenwhichwillgrowtoinitiateacrack(orcracks).After
someextensionofthecrack(orcracks)inadirectionnormalto
the specimen axis, sometimes in a zigzag fashion, the crack
deviatesintoanearly45odirectionleadingtofinalrupture.In
anexperimentalstudyofcopper[1],thesharpdropintheload
deflectioncurvewasattributedtogrosssheardeformation. It
hasbeenacceptedthattheappearanceofthecupconefracture
surface is attributed to the combined mechanism of tensile
fractureatthecenterandshearfracturearoundtherimofthe
specimen.

INTRODUCTION
Experimentsfromtensiletestofroundmetalbarsprovide
manyimportantmechanicalpropertiesofengineeringmaterials.
In a typical loaddisplacement (or engineering stressstrain
curve)forductilematerialssuchasshowninFigure1,alinear
regionfirstappearsattheearlystagefollowedbyanonlinear
loadriseuptothemaximumload(RegionIcoveringuptothe
maximumload,PointAshowninFigure1).Neckingofthe
round bar occurs at/after the maximum load and the
deformationlocalizesinanarrowareaaroundtheneckingwith
agradualdecreaseofload(RegionIIinFigure1).Theload
decrease becomes more rapid as the necking develops and
finallythespecimenisbroken(RegionIIIinFigure1).

Fig.1Schematicdiagramofaloaddeformationcurve
foraroundtensilebarinductilematerial

MechanicalEngineering,USC

Inthisstudy,thethreestagesofdeformationandfailureof
aroundtensilespecimenasshowninFigure1issimulatedby
FiniteElement(FE)analysis.Thoughtheconfigurationofcup
coneisclearfromthebrokenspecimenaftertest,itisdifficult
to measure experimentally the behavior of loaddeformation
whilethespecimendevelopsneckingleadingtototalbreakage.
AsseeninFigure1,duetothecharacteristicsoffastfracture,
mostexperimentsstoptakingdatasoonafterthesharpload
drop (Point C in Figure 1). Due to the lack of good
experimentaldatainregionIIIofFigure1,themodelusedby
ScheiderandBrocks[14]wasadoptedinthiscurrentanalysis.
Thekeyfeaturesformodelingthecompletefractureprocess,
i.e.(a)a CTOD/CTOAfailurecriteriontopredictthetensile

MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND FE MODELING

1.MaterialProperties
The material considered in this study is an X70 high
strengthalloysteeltypicallyusedinpipelineapplications.The
experimentaltruestressstraincurveisthesameastheoneused
in reference [14] and reproduced inFigure 2. Apiecewise
linearstressstraindatawasusedasinputfortheFEanalysis.
TheYoungsmodulusofE=1.77 105MPa,theyieldstress
ofy=354MPa,andPoissonsratio=0.28wereused.
2.FEModeling
Elasticplasticfinitedeformationanalyseswereconducted
usingthecommercial FEanalysiscode,ABAQUS[22].Flat
crack extension was simulated by constant CTOA/CTOD
failure criterion and slant crack extension by constant shear
CTOD. Detailsofthenumericalprocessareexplainedatthe
following section. A long bar with a circular crosssection
analyzed by Scheider and Brocks [14] was considered. The
specimenmodeledhasaninitiallengthof30mmandaradius
of5mm. Figure3(a)showstheFEmeshconsistingof912
reducedintegration axisymmetric quadrilateral elements and
1,001 nodes. After necking takes place, the model was re
generatedwithfinemeshesfortheanalysisofcrackextension
(Figure 3(b) half model for display only). The remeshed
modelhas12,432elementsand12,810nodes.Mostofthefine
elements are concentrated around the center part of the
specimentorevealthedetailedstressfieldatthecrackfront
andthebehaviorofCTOD(CTOA).Farfielddisplacementat
the support was applied as the load in conjunction with the
CTOD as discussed in the next section. For slant crack
extension the free meshing technique built in ABAUQS is
employedtoregeneratethemesh(Figure3(c)).
1000

800

True stress (MPa)

Avarietyofstudyhasbeenperformedtounderstandthe
basic mechanisms of ductile fracture. In summary, the
development of ductile fracture is considered to proceed in
threesuccessivestages:nucleationofinternalcracksofsecond
phaseparticlesorinclusions,growthofvoids,andcoalescence
[2]. For an isolated void in a plastically deforming solid,
McClintock [3] studied the growth of cylindrical void in a
rigidperfectlyplasticmaterialusingtheMisesyieldcriterion
andtheassociatedflowrule.RiceandTracey[4]analyzedthe
growthofasphericalvoidsubjectedtoatensiledeformation
andaremotehydrostaticstress.Basedoncontinuumdamage
mechanics, a material containing voids of different sizes is
assimilatedtoaporousmaterialwithauniformdistributionof
voids.Thisporousmaterialisassumedtobehomogeneousand
isotropic.ItsconstitutivelawissimilartothevonMiseslaw
derivedfromtheunitcellcontainingonevoidatitscenter
from the properties of the dense material. Since Gurson [5]
proposedthefirstdamageconstitutivelaw,manyresearchers
haveappliedthismethodtotheinterpretationofductilefracture
intensiletest[6,7,8,9].
As another approach for the interpretation of ductile
fracture,thecohesivezonemodelhasbeenused[10,11].The
base ofthismodel istosplit thematerials behaviorintwo
mechanisms,deformationandseparation[12,13].Thismodel
wasrecentlyusedforthepredictionofcrackpathduringthe
stablecrackextensioninductiletensilebarspecimens[14].
Inadditiontotheabovementionedmodels,someattention
hasbeenfocusedondirectlymeasurablequantitiessuchasthe
cracktipopeningdisplacementsand/orangles(CTOD/CTOA).
EarlyworkbyWell[15],andRiceandSorensen[16]forMode
I crack extension gave credence to the use of CTOD as a
fractureparameterforductilematerials.Computationalstudies
ofstablecrackgrowthtoassesstheviabilityofaCTOAbased
fracture criterion were performed by Newman [17], and
Newmanetal.[18].Acollectionofrecentresearchpaperson
CTOD/CTOA was compiled by Newman et al. [19] and a
comprehensive review of the work on CTOD/CTOA can be
found in References [20, 21] where the range of CTOA is
reportedas4~10Oforsteelmaterials.

fracture at thecenter part ofthebar,(b)thetransitionfrom

tensiletoshearfracture, and(3)theshearcrack propagation
usingashearCTOD/CTOAcriterionnearthefreesurfaceof
thespecimenleadingtofinalseparationofthetensilebarare
provided.

600

400
Experimental data
FEM input

200

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

True strain

MechanicalEngineering,USC

Fig.2TruestressstraincurveforX70steel[14]

(a)

(b)

Fig.4Loadversusdeformation(diameterreduction)curve
withthreestages

(c)

Fig.3Finiteelementmeshoftheroundtensilebar;
(a) undeformed,(b)remeshedforflatcrackextension
afternecking(c)remeshedforslantcrackextension

1. Analysisofthedeformationbehavioruptointroductionof

initialcrack(Stage1inFigure4)
Experimentalobservationoftensiletestindicatesthat,after
necking,crack(orcracks)formedatthecenterdevelopstoa
certaindegree[1].Assuch,itwasassumedthatthespecimen
couldbemodeledwithsolidelementsinStage1ofFigure4.In
ordertoinduceneckingatthemiddleofthespecimen,aconical
imperfectionwithangleof170oanddepthof0.5%ofspecimen
radiuswasintroduced ontheoutsideofthespecimeninthe
numerical model. Different depth and angle of imperfection
werealsotriedandfoundthattheydonotaffecttheFEanalysis
results.Figure5showsthecomparisonofthesimulatedresults
bythecohesivezonemodel[14](loadvs.diameterreduction
curve;hereinafter,loaddeformationcurve)andthecurrentFE
results.Good matchbetweenthemisfound,whichillustrates
thatneckingcanbesimulatedverywellbythesolidelements
uptothepointwheretheloadstartstodropdrastically.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Based onthematerial andspecimen geometry, Scheider
andBrocks[14]obtainedtheloaddeformationcurveasshown
inFigure4usingthecohesivezonemodel.Wefirstperformed
theFEanalysistomatchwiththisloaddisplacementcurveand
investigatethefracturecriteriaandtransitioncriterionduring
eachstageofthecrackextension.
The simulation and results are reported in accordance
withthefollowingsequence.
(1) Analysisofthedeformationbehavioruptotheintroduction
ofinitialcrack(Stage1inFigure4)
(2) Simulationofflatcrackextension(Stage2inFigure4)
(3) Transitionfromflattoslantcrackextension
(4) Simulationofslantcrackextension(Stage3inFigure4)
(5) PredictionwithcombinedCTODfailurecriteria

50

Stage 1

Load (kN)

40

30

20

Cohesive model
10

FEM (Solid Model)

0
0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Diameter reduction (mm)

MechanicalEngineering,USC

Fig.5Comparisonofloadversusdeformationcurvesbetween
thecohesivezonemodelandthecurrentstudyforStage1

L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

20

a/R = 0.65

a/R = 0.08

a/R = 0.16

a/R = 0.24

a/R = 0.32

a/R = 0.40

a/R = 0.49

a/R = 0.57

a/R = 0.65

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Distance from the Current Crack Tip (mm)

Fig.7Crackopeningprofilesduringtheflatcrackextension
3.Transitionfromflatcracktoslantcrack
Experimentally it was observed that the crack propagation
turned its direction from radial to slant, or there is a transition
from tensile fracture to shear fracture, in the neighborhood of
this point. To study this transition, detailed crack tip stress is
needed. Since we postulate that the flat (slant) fracture is
associated with tensile (shear), we will focus on the maximum
opening stress and the maximum shear stress in the vicinity of
the crack tip. First of all, as the flat crack is driven by the
opening stress, its distribution ahead of a crack tip was
investigated while the flat crack advanced. Also it is worth
taking a note on the development of shear stress along 45 o
because the slant fracture will occur on this plane. According to
the FE analysis it was found that the maximum shear stress
does not always occurs along the plane of 45 o. It occurs around
the plane of = 45o though. The discussion for calculation of
the maximum shear stress will be discussed at the later section
but the angle ( = 45o) is fixed only for the explanation of
general trend. The crack tip opening stresses (yy) at = 0o and

0
2.4

0.08

Current study

2.2

0.10

Cohesive model

10

Fig.6Comparisonofloadversusdeformationcurvesin
Stage2

CTOD/2 (mm)

2.Simulationofflatcrackgrowth(Stage2inFigure3)
As shown in Figure 5, the stage 1 is followed by a sharp
drop on the load-deflection cure which implies the development
of crack inside of the specimen. In the cohesive zone model
[14], it was assumed that the crack initiates at the center where
the normal cohesive stress reaches a critical value of 1000 MPa.
In this study, similar criterion was applied for initiating an
internal crack at the center of the bar (point a in Figure 4). Our
current FE analysis results in an axial stress at the center of the
specimen about 950 MPa at point a in the load-deformation
curve (Figure 4). The slight difference could be due to the
difference in FA mesh used. A straight crack with length of one
element (two nodes) was introduced at the center part of the
specimen at point a.
To simulate the crack propagation, the FE node
immediately ahead of the current crack tip was released. Once
the crack tip was released, the new crack tip was generated by
re-meshing and the far field displacement was then
incrementally increased. In order to get a close match with the
cohesive analysis results, i.e. the reduction of specimen
diameter accompanied by the crack extension, it was necessary
to determine both the increment of far-field displacement and
the amount of crack extension by trial-and-error.
Though the zigzag pattern of crack path at the center part
has been found in some ductile materials, it was assumed in this
study that the crack extends straight in the radial direction
during the initial stage of flat stable crack growth (Stage 2 in
Figure 4). Figure 6 compares the load-deformation curves
between the cohesive zone model and the current FE analysis
results. A very good match was obtained up to a/R 0.57
and slight deviation begins at a/R 0.65 (see Figure 6)
where a is the crack length and R is the specimen radius (See
the inset in Figure 6 for the definitions of a and R).
Figure 7 summarizes the FE analysis results of the crack
opening profile at various locations behind the crack tip. It is
interesting to note that the crack opening profiles maintain
straight that means a constant CTOA during the crack extension
up to about a/R = 0.65. In other words, for any given crack
extension, the value of critical CTOA would be a constant and
does not seem to depend on where the measurement takes
place. Figure 8 compares the CTOA calculated at r = 0.2 mm
and 0.5 mm behind the crack tip. In this figure, CTOA is
calculated from CTOA 2tan -1 CTOD / 2 x , where x is
the distance behind the current crack tip. Figure 8 shows that
CTOA50maintains nearly the same value (CTOA/2 = 2.2o) during
the crack extension
and is independent of the distance from the
Solid Model
crack 40
tip. It is concluded from this exercise that either a critical
a/R is
= 0.40
CTOA or a critical CTOD
a constant during the flat crack
extension stage.
a/R = 0.57
a/R = 0.08
30

2.6
2.8
Diameter reduction (mm)

3.0

MechanicalEngineering,USC

shearing stresses (r) at = 45o with local coordinates (Figure

9) obtained from the FE analysis are illustrated in Figure 10.
Bothstressdistributionsare plottedasafunctionofthe
distance from the center or the axis of the round bar. The
opening stress increased at the initial stage, reached a
maximumat a/R =0.41,anddecreasedasthecrackextends
further.Onthecontrarytheshearstressdecreasedinitiallybut
increased later as the crack approaches to the free surface.
Theserisingshearstresseswilleventuallyaffectthefailure
8.0

CTOA

CTOA/2 (Degree)

6.0

CTOA/2 at r = 0.2 mm
CTOA/2 at r = 0.5 mm

4.0

Fig.10 The distributions of opening and shear stresses ahead of

the crack tip

2.0

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

a/R

Fig.8DistributionofCTOA/2duringtheflatcrackextension

r
45o

yy

Crack tip

a
R
Center line

Fig.9 Stress components used for Figure 10

mode to change from tensile to shear fracture leading to the

slant fracture as discussed in section 4. It is interesting to note
that although the opening and shearing stress fields show
complex trends the critical CTOD maintains nearly constant
during flat crack growth (as shown in Figure 7).
As discussed by Chao and Liu [23], Liu, et al. [24] and
Chao and Zhu [25], the transition from tensile mode to shear
mode of fracture is controlled by the ratio of maximum shear
stress and maximum normal stress, or (max) / (max) in front of
the crack tip. This ratio in front of the crack tip at various crack
tip locations is presented in Figure 12. Figure 12 shows the
stress ratio at two distances from the crack tip (r = 0.05 mm and
r = 0.08 mm). Firstly, it appears that the stress ratio is nearly
independent of the distance r. Secondly, considering the
dominance of the constant CTOD/CTOA during the flat crack
extension and the conformation of the load-deformation curve
(Figure 4), the transition from the flat to shear fracture seems to
occur between a /R = 0.65 ~ 0.73. From Figure 12 the
corresponding stress ratio to this stress range is 0.32 ~ 0.36
(Figure 12). Note that similar range of stress ratio has been
used to define the transition from tensile-to-shear fracture for
ductile materials (e.g. stress ratio = 0.35 in References 14 and
26, stress ratio = 0.34 in Reference 27). These stress ratios are
however quite different from those based on the classical theory
of plasticity, i.e. stress ratio = 0.5 from Tresca theory and 0.577
from von Mises theory [23-25, 28]. It is likely that the stress
ratio at the tensile-shear transition is a function of the ductility
of the material. Further study is needed in this respect.

MechanicalEngineering,USC

Crack tip

of slant crack extension were determined by trial-and-error to

match with the load-deformation curve in Figure 4.

max

Crack tip

max

r
Before the crack extension

Fig.11 Definition for stress ratio (= max/ max)

After the crack extension

0.5
Stress Ratio = 0.35

Stress Ratio

0.4

Fig.13DefinitionoftheCTODs;total,normalcomponent
,andshearcomponent2

0.3

0.2
r = 0.05 mm
0.1

r = 0.08 mm

0.0
0

0.2

0.4
a/R

0.6

0.8

Fig.12Variationsofthestressratioversuscracklengthduring
flatcrackextension
4.Simulationofslantcrackextension(Stage3inFigure4)
Following the transition, shear fracture is assumed such
that the crack extends along the 45 o direction. Maccagno and
Knott [29] found that in shear fracture the crack grows along
the direction of maximum shear stress and suggested that the
maximum shear stress may be used to predict the shear crack
growth. Ma et al. [30] proposed to use the shear component of
CTOD measured at a specified distance behind the crack tip to
predict the shear fracture.
Figure 13 illustrates the definition of the crack opening
displacement, i.e. the (total) crack opening displacement at a
distance behind the crack tip, the normal component 1 which is
perpendicular to the crack face, and the shear component 2
which is parallel to the crack face. In this study, the two
components of the CTOD were calculated as the slant crack
extends along the 45o plane. The free re-meshing technique
built in ABAQUS [22] with node release along the 45o plane
was used for this simulation. The crack tip node pair was
released and equilibrium with a new crack length was
computed. Both the increment of displacement and the amount

ThevariationofthethreeCTODs,i.e.total,shearand
normalcomponent,at0.1mmbehindthecracktipisshownin
Figure 14 as the crack extends in slant direction. The local
coordinateswereusedforthecracklengthandthecomponents
ofCTOD. InFigure14therelativelyconstantvalueof 2 is
observedandthereforeaconstantCTOAmaybeplausibleas
thefracturecriterion,whichisconsistentwithMaetal.[30]for
thepredictionofshearcrackgrowth.
The definitions of parameters (a and R) and the stress
components for crack growth under slant condition are
illustratedinFigure15.Figure16showsthevariationofstress
ratioduringtheslantcrackgrowth(denotedasshearfracturein
Figure 16 which is an extended version of Figure 12). The
stress ratio continues to rise after the transition until final
rupture, which strongly implies a shear dominant fracture
throughouttheslantcrackextension.

MechanicalEngineering,USC

Fig.16Stressratioversuscrackextension
5.PredictionwithcombinedCTODfailurecriterionand
parametricstudy

Fig.14VariationofCTODsduringtheslantcrackextension

max
Crack tip

Crack tip

max

a
R
Center line
(b)

(a)

Fig.15Definitionofa,R,andstressratio(=max/max)
fortheslantcrack

0.5

Stress Ratio = 0.35

Stress Ratio

0.4

0.3

0.2

Tensile
fractrue

Slant Crack

0.1

Flat Crack

Shear
fractrue

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

In summary, based on the findings from the previous

sections, ductile failure in a round tensile bar could be
categorizedby3stagesasshowninFigure4.Thefirststage
(Stage1inFigure4)istheregionthatincludestheinitiallinear
part in the loaddeformation curve and the development of
necking.Thisregioncanbepredictedwellbysolidelements
withoutanynoderelease.Thesecondregion(Stage2inFigure
4)coversfromthesuddenloaddroptothetransitionoftensile
toshearfracture.Thisstagecanbepredictedbytheconstant
CTOD(CTOA)failurecriterionwithflatcrackgrowthatthe
center of the bar. The transition of tensiletoshear fracture
occurswhenthestressratio,definedasmaximumshearstress
(max)/maximumnormalstress(max),reachesavalueof0.32~
0.36.AfterthetransitionorStage3inFigure4,thefractureis
dominatedbyshearwherethefailurecanbepredicted/modeled
byaconstantshearCTODfailurecriterion.
FE analysis is performed using the failure criteria
discussed in the above paragraph for the round bar test
includingthreestagesusing(a)950MPaasthecriticaltensile
stress to initiate the crack in the center for the bar, (b) a
constantCTOA/2=2.2ofortheflatcrackextension,(c)astress
ratioof0.35forthetransition,and(d)aconstantshearCTOD
2 = 0.01 mm for shear crack extension along the 45 o slant
direction.Thepredictionfortheloaddiameterreductioncurve
iscomparedwiththatfromthecohesivezonemodelinFigure
17.Generaltrendoftheloadversusdisplacementiscaptured
well.
Inordertoinvestigatetheeffectofcriticalnormalstress
thatisassumedtointroducetheflatcrack,anotherprediction
wasdonewithcriticalnormalstress=1050MPa,whilethe
other fracture parameters are kept the same. The predicted
resultisalsoshowninFigure17.Itisshownthatcrackwould
beintroducedaftermorediameterreductionthanthecaseof
950MPa.Thefinalconfigurationsoffracturedspecimensare
compared in Figure 18. It should be noted that the crack
openings shown in Figure 18 are exaggerated to show the
difference. It is interesting to find that two types of cracks
develop; one isthe mixture of flat and slant cracks (critical
stress=950MPa)buttheotherisnearlyflatcrackdominant
(criticalstress=1050MPa).Thelattermaybeattributedtothe
general yielding due to limit load when the stress ratio
approachesthecriticalvalueforslantcrackinitiation0.35.On
numerical simulation it was found that the stable crack
extensioncouldnotbemaintainedwithconstantCTOAfailure
criterionattheendstageofcrackextensionshowninFig18
(b).

a/R

MechanicalEngineering,USC

CONCLUSIONS
The numerical simulation presented in this study
produces the features of the cupcone fracture process in a
roundtensilebarusingacombinationoffracturecriteriaand
transitioncriterion.Insummary,itisshownthat:
(1)Thecharacteristicsofductilefailurecanbecategorizedby3
stages development of necking, flat crack growth and
slantcrackgrowth.
(2)Circumferentialneckingofthetensilespecimenuptothe
initiationoffracture(orvoids)atthecenterofthebarwas
capturedwellbythenumericalsimulationwithsolidfinite
deformationelasticplasticelements.Introductionofslight
imperfection in geometry is necessary to trigger the
neckinginthenumericalmodel.
(3)Thesecondstagecoveringfromthesuddenloaddroptothe
transitionoftensiletoshearfracturecanbesimulatedby
theflatcrackgrowth.TheconstantvalueofcriticalCTOD
(CTOA)appearstobeprevalentinthisstage.
(4) The tensileshear transition occurs when the stress ratio,
(max)/(max),reachesapproximately0.32~0.36forthe
model studied. The criterion for failure mode transition
warrantsfurtherstudyforvariousmaterials.
(5)Theshearfractureisdominantoverthethirdstagewhere
shear component of critical CTOD (2) is found to be
nearlyconstantasthecrackadvancesalongthe45oplane.
(6)Basedonthefindingsabove,acombinedconstantCTOD
failure criterionwiththeflatandsubsequent slant crack
growthisusedandproposedformodelingtheroundbar
tensiletest.Itappearsagoodpredictionofductilefailure
ofroundtensilebarcanbeachievedwiththisapproach.

Fig.17Comparisonofloadversusdiameterreductioncurves
underdifferentcriticalstresses

Fig.18Comparisonofcrackextensionmodeunderdifferent
criticalstresses(a)950MPa,(b)1050MPa

REFERENCES
[1] Bluhm, J.I., and Morrissey, R.J. (1965), Fracture in a
tensile specimen, Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Fracture, Sendai, Japan, Sept. 1217,
17391780.
[2]Pineau,A.(1992),Globalandlocalapproachesoffracture
transferabilityoflaboratorytestresultstocomponents,in
TopicsinFractureandFatigue,A.S.Argon,Ed.,Springer
Verlag,NewYork,197234.
[3]McClintock,F.A.(1968),Acriteriaforductilefractureby
thegrowthofholes,JournalofAppliedMechanics,Vol.35,
363371.
[4] Rice, J.R. and Tracey, D.M. (1969), On the ductile
enlargementofvoidsintriaxialstressfields,Journalofthe
MechanicsandPhysicsofSolids,Vol.17,201217.
[5]Gurson,A.L.(1977),Continuumtheoryofductilerupture
byvoidnucleationandgrowth:PartIYieldcriteriaand
flow rules for porous ductile media, Journal of
EngineeringMaterialsandTechnology,Vol.99,215.
[6]Tvergaard,V.,andNeedleman,A.(1984),Analysisofthe
cupcone fracture in a round tensile bar, Acta
Metallurgica,Vol.32,157169.
[7]Becker,R.,NeedlemanA.,Richmond,O.,andTvergaard,
V., (1988), Void growth and failure in notched bars,
JournaloftheMechanicsandPhysicsofSolids,Vol.36,
317351.
[8]Besson,J.,Steglich,D.,andBrocks,W.(2001),Modeling
ofcrackgrowthinroundbarsandplanestrainspecimen,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol.38,
82598284.
[9]Teng,X.(2008)Numericalpredictionofslantfracturewith
continuum damage mechanics, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics,Vol.75,20202041.

8
(a)

(b)

MechanicalEngineering,USC

[10]Yuan,H.,Lin,G.,andCornec,A.,(1996),Verificationof
a cohesive zone model for ductile fracture, Journal of
EngineeringMaterialsandTechnology,Vol.118,192200
[11] Siegmund,T.,andBrocks,W.(2000),Theroleofcohesive
strength and separation energy for modeling of ductile
fracture, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 30th volume,
ASTMSTP1360,139151.
[12] Hillerborg, A.,Modeer, M.,andPeterson, P.E.,(1976),
Analysis of crack deformation and crack growth in
concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite
elements,CementConcrete,Vol.6,773782.
[13] Needleman A., (1987), A continuum model for void
nucleation by inclusion debonding, Journal of Applied
MechanicsTransactionofASME,Vol.54,525531.
[14]Scheider,I.,andBrocks,W.(2003),Simulationofcup
cone fracture using the cohesive model, Engineering
FractureMechanics,Vol.70,19431961.
[15]Well,A.A.,(1961),Unstablecrackpropagationinmetals;
cleavageandfastfracture, ProceedingsoftheCranfield
CrackPropagationSymposium1,210230.
[16]Rice,J.R.andSorenson,E.P.(1978),Continuingcracktip
deformationandfractureforplanestraincrackgrowthin
elasticplastic solids, Journal of the Mechanics and
PhysicsofSolids,Vol.26,163186.

[27]Jia,Li.,Zhang,X.B.,andRecho,N.(2004),JM P based
criterioa for bifurcation and assessment of a crack in
elasticplasticmaterialsunder mixedmodeIIIloading,
EngineeringFractureMechanics,Vol.71,329343.
[28]Mendelson,A.(1968),Plasticity:theoryandapplication,
KriegerPublishingCompany,Malabar,Florida
[29]Maccagno,T.M.,Knott,J.F.(1992),ThemixedmodeIII
fracture behavior of lightly tempered HY 130 steel at
room temperature, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol.41,805820.
[30]Ma,F.,Deng,X.,Sutton,M.C.,Newman,Jr.J.C.(1999),
A CTOD based mixed mode fracture criterion, ASTM
STP1359,MixedModeCrackBehavior,Eds.K.J.Miller
andD.McDowell,86110.

[17]Newman,Jr.J.C.(1984),Anelasticplasticfiniteelement
analysis of crack initiation, stable crack growth, and
instability,ASTMSTP833,93117.
[18]Newman,Jr.J.C.,Dawicke,D.S.,Bigelow,C.A.(1992),
Finite element analysis and fracture simulation in thin
sheetaluminumalloy,ANASATM107662.
[19] Newman, Jr. J.C., and Zerbst, U., (2003), Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol.70,36769.
[20]Newman,Jr.J.C.,James,M.A.,andZerbst,U.,(2003),A
review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion,
EngineeringFractureMechanics,Vol.70,371385.
[21]Lam,P.S.,Kim,Y.,Chao,Y.J.(2006)Thenonconstant
CTOD/CTOAinstablecrackextensionunderplanestrain
conditions, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.73,
10701085.
[22]ABAQUS,Version6.4,ABAQUS,Inc.,Pawtucket,R.I.
[23]Chao,Y.J.andLiu,S.(1997),Onthefailureofcracks
under mixedmode loads, International Journal of
Fracture,Vol.87(3),201223.
[24] Liu, S., Chao, Y.J. and Zhu, X. (2004), Tensileshear
transitioninmodeI/IIIfracture,InternationalJournalof
SolidsandStructures,Vol.41(2223),61476172.
[25]Chao,Y.J.andZhu,X.K.(1999),Asimpletheoryfor
describing the transition between tensile and shear
mechanismsinmodeI,II,IIIandmixedmodefracture,
ASTMSTP1359,MixedModeCrackBehavior,Eds.K.J.
MillerandD.McDowell,4157.
[26] Siegmund,T.,andBrocks,W.(2000),Anumericalstudy
onthecorrelationbetweentheworkofseparationandthe
dissipationrateinductilefracture, EngineeringFracture
Mechanics,Vol.67,139154.

MechanicalEngineering,USC