CONSTRAINT PARAMETERS (T-

STRESS) ON A 3D SPECIMEN WITH

CRACK

[Type text] Page 1

Contents
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 FRACTURE MECHANICS ............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.1 Origin of Fracture Mechanics - Griffith’s Energy Theory for Fracture ............................. 5
1.2.2 Classification of Fracture ..................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Fracture mechanisms................................................................................................................ 12
1.3.1 Shear fracture ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.3.2 Cleavage .............................................................................................................................. 13
1.3.3 Fatigue ................................................................................................................................. 14
1.3.4 Crazing ................................................................................................................................ 15
1.3.5 De-adhesion ........................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 17
2.1 Cracks ......................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2. Constraint.................................................................................................................................. 18
2.3 Stress intensity Factor .............................................................................................................. 19
2.4 Three-parameter description of the crack-tip field................................................................ 19
2.5 3D Fracture criterions .............................................................................................................. 20
2.6 Constraint Parameters (T-stress) on a 3D Specimen with Crack .......................................... 22
CHAPTER 3 – CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 24
3.1 The Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) ............................................................................................. 24
3.2 Review of T-Stress calculation methods ................................................................................. 27
3.3 Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors (SIF) using the Finite Element Method ................... 29
3.4 T-Stress ...................................................................................................................................... 34
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 35

[Type text] Page 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Shear Fracture (Broek, 1986).............................................................................................. 13

Figure 2 Intra Granular Cleavage (Broek, 1989) .............................................................................. 14
Figure 3 Inter-Granular Cleavage (Broek, 1989) .............................................................................. 14
Figure 4 Fatigue Fracture (Broek, 1989)........................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Crazing Fracture (Hertzberg & Richard, 1976) ................................................................. 16

[Type text] Page 3

ABSTRACT

There is a constant and continuous development in the field of structural engineering, where
there are several models to determine the structural strength and fracture methodologies have
been developed to ensure successful structural engineering applications. Fractures are always
considered as one of the major threats associated with the integrity and safety of the mechanical
structures that could have severe impact on human lives and leads to catastrophic effects.
Structural engineers understood the importance of carrying out continuous research on this
area to develop better models, theories and methodologies to assess the structural strength and
cracks in the 2D and 3D structures.

In the last few decades, there have been a lot of investigations and researches had been
carried out on the constraint effects with the objective of enhancing the approximation
of the 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional crack fronts. Several decades before, the
researchers Hutchinson (1968) and Rice & Rosengren (1968) provided a clear
background and challenges of the HRR fields in the analysis of constraints for 2D. Rice
(1974) proposed non-singular T-stress to address the limitations and the constraints
problems within the context of the crack plane.

[Type text] Page 4

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Development of cracks is frequent in the corners because of high stress factor of
structural member in that particular area. On exact calculation of cracks every engineer
can work on replacement or repair before it occurs. The capability of predicting the
path of crack would assist the designer to include geometric tolerance. Manufacturers of
aerospace component are striving hard to manufacture most reliable products with
durability and all safety measures but still they face few technical challenges due to the
minimum engine design space provided. Still they are working hard by implementing
bracket geometry for manufacturing highly effective engines which can be operated at
minimal cost.

The efforts of engineers are not limited; they still work hard to bring out the thinnest
brackets. Following are the advantages of this approach: 1. weight reduction and 2.
Possibilities of encountering brittleness is very less so that micro structural defects can
be minimized. The paper deals with the investigation on the growth of cracks that
happens at the corner of titanium bases alloy bracket. In this paper examination are
done on the stress factors that occurs in the crack tip, computation of stress intensity
factors and comparison is made between stress intensity and toughness of materials for
identifying the influence of cracks.

1.2 FRACTURE MECHANICS

Fracture mechanics has been well recognised as one of the essential aspect in structural
engineering that provides the edge to improvise and enhance the quality and
effectiveness of the structural components and materials. Cracks are always seen as a
major problem for failure in the structural engineering so it is very important for an
engineer to get a clear understanding about the cracks development in the structures.

1.2.1 Origin of Fracture Mechanics - Griffith’s Energy Theory for Fracture

Griffith (1921) was the first to present the systematic study on fractures that occur in
solid body. Number of experiments was performed by Griffith for measuring the

[Type text] Page 5

strength of glass rods of various sizes. When both thin rods and thick rods were
compared he found that the thinner ones are high in strength than the other and this is
because of the crack like flaws found on the surface of thick glass rods.

Energy balance was applied by Griffith on the crack formation. Lack of balance among
the stored energy and the surface energy is identified as the reason behind structure
failure. When the energy released in the crack area is higher or equal to the total energy
demanded by the unit surface, makes the cracks formed over the brittle material
unstable. This criterion is expressed as shown below:

G   Equation 1

‘G’ represents the strain energy of the structural surface where as γ = the strain energy
and the work demanded for forming the unit new surface.

According to Anderson (2005), it is very important to study and understand the

mechanical structures with crack that has been through continuous force or stress as it
allows determining the critical stress, f, and critical crack length, a. The below
equations helps to get a understanding and relationship between energy, amount of
work required and also the half crack length.

2Eγ
σ=( )  Equation 2
πa

2Eγ
σ= ( )  Equation 3
πσ2

Where E represents the total energy, γ represents the work required to form a unit new
surface and α represents the half crack length.

σ is commonly used to represent the stress applied to the surface or the plate structure
whereas σf represents the critical stress.

From the equation 2, it can be clear that the critical stress of a plate with crack on a
given length will have unstable nature where as the equation 3 represents the critical
crack length at provided stress level.

[Type text] Page 6

It is also should be noted that the above equations are applicable to only brittle
materials such as glass and does not applicable to other metals as they seems to have
higher critical fracture stress. Griffith’s theory on fracture has significant problems and
limitations such as they fail to address several fractural engineering problems. It is a
known fact that not all the cracks are purely brittle and there is significant level of
plastic combination or deformation exists in the crack

Orowan (1949) has developed a new model that has been considered as a modified
version of Griffith Theory to address the vicinity and growth of cracks in metals. This
new modified theory of Orowan (1949) highlights that the criterion addressed in the
older theory of Griffith can be used for ductile materials as well through a standard
accounting method for the extra energy that is dissolute by the plastic deformation in
the crack. The criterion is represented through the below equation

G ≥ 2  p  Equation 4

γp represents the energy dissolute by the plastic deformation of the crack tip.

From the modified version of Griffith’s theory, Orowan has address the below equations
for determining the critical strength and crack length.

 Equation 5

 Equation 6

Γ refers the plastic work per unit area of surface.

According to Anderson (2005), the plastic work per unit area of surface for metals is
larger than the total strain energy on the surface of the structure plate, γ.

Despite Orowan’s theory ability and strength to address the limitation of Griffith’s
theory that is through extending to metals, it has been noted that there is a limitation in
Orwan’s theory that it can be applied only to linear elastic material. It has been found
that Orowan’s theory cannot be applicable to non-linear deformation of the structures.

[Type text] Page 7

1.2.2 Classification of Fracture

There are two major classification of fractures exist in the engineering materials such as
brittle and ductile. This classification is mainly based on the capability of the material to
withstand plastic deformation before the growth of crack in the material.

Brittle Fracture

This brittle fracture is defined as the fracture of metallic structures or any other
materials without much plastic deformation. Cracks in the brittle fracture spread faster
in the metallic structures with no prior crack propagation. This crack in the metallic
objects tends to increase very rapidly without any external stress.

The theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics and its mechanism are widely
considered to be applicable to address the brittle fracture problems in metallic objects.
According to Anderson (2005), the first assumption to be made is to consider the
material as isotropic and linear elastic. Linear elastic fracture mechanics theory
addresses the situation where the crack grows due to the stress applied at the crack tip
is more than the fracture toughness of the structure.

It is also highlighted that the crack tip stresses can be determined and measured by the
stress field around the crack tip of the structure; this is regarded as the primary role of
geometry and loading conditions. Stress intensity factor (SIF) plays an important part in
characterising the crack tip stress field. Many authors accepted that linear elastic
fracture mechanics are only applicable for the condition when the plastic deformation
exists in the crack tip.

Ductile Fracture

According to Anderson (2005), a ductile fracture is defined as the wide plastic

deformation or “necking” that occurs before fracture and it is also consider to be
associated with significant energy dissipation. The ductile fracture is also referred as
the failure of the ductile materials where the materials tend to pull outwards instead of
cracking. During the scenario of ductile fracture, there is a large amount of energy that
gets absorbed and there is a significant propagation of energy at a slow rate even before
the fracture. Thomason (1990) addresses the characteristics of ductile fracture where it

[Type text] Page 8

is highlighted that the materials that has ductile fractures shows irregular, sporadic
patches and also exhibit rough and dimpling.

In most of the structural engineering design, the ductile materials are preferred over the
brittle; this is mainly because of the characteristics that ductile fractures exhibit. Liu
(2005) addresses ductile fractures as single cracks and deform plastically; these ductile
materials has slow fracturing process that enables and provides sufficient time for the
engineers to fix the issues in the structure. It is also highlighted that there is a need of
great amount of strain energy to significantly deform a ductile materials. Any error or
issues in the design of the ductile metallic structure often considered as less
catastrophic when compared to the brittle structures.

In practical structural engineering applications, the ductile fractures are preferred over
the brittle mainly because of the unique characteristics of ductile materials. These
ductile materials tend to undergo a huge deformation before it breaks. Also, unlike
brittle materials, ductile tend to withstand and resist the growth of cracks on them
unless any external stress is applied.

This linear elastic fracture mechanics does not considered to be valid for ductile
fractures any longer where as the elastic plastic fracture mechanics has been developed
for that. In this EPFM, there are few major factors that are considered as crack criterion,
release rate for the strain energy, displacement and J integral. The J integral and the
crack tip opening displacement are the major functions of fracture geometry and
loading.

Ductile-to-brittle Transition

The material’s fracture toughness helps to determine and assess the materials ability to
withstand a ductile fracture. The amount of energy absorbed by the materials and
undergoes the plastic deformation before the actual fracture. Temperature is
considered one of the most important parameters that are related to the fracture
toughness of the material. Several experiments have been conducted to analyse the
relationship between the fracture toughness and temperature and it has been found
that when temperature of the material decreases, the capability of the material towards
absorbing energy during any impact will tend to decrease significantly, thus reducing its
ductility.

[Type text] Page 9

When the temperature varies, the ductile characteristics of the material tend to
decrease to near zero and at the same time the fracture toughness is also reduced to
low. There is a point where the ductile-brittle transition occurs; this particular
temperature range at which the fracture toughness reduces significantly is referred as
the ductile brittle transition temperature. This temperature is considered as the lowest
working temperature of the material within the context of structural engineering.

Figure 1 Ductile to brittle transition (Anderson, 2005)

A solid structure with crack is made up of two faces namely upper face and lower faces.
These two faces of the crack in a structure form the actual crack front. These two faces
that exist in the crack are supposed to be in the same surface before it starts to deform.
When the structure with crack is exposed to loads from outside either at the actual
crack surface or on the overall surface of the structure, the two faces of crack will tend
to move with respective to upper and lower faces. These movements and directions are
widely analysed and explained by the variations in the displacements between the
upper and lower crack faces.

There are three different axes such as x, y, and z exists in a coordinate system where the
x axis present perpendicular to crack front where as the y axis exists perpendicular to
the crack plane and z-axis exist along crack front.

Murr (2014) addresses the fracture mechanisms and different modes of fracture where
the fracture due to impact, creep and fatigue are highlighted. Irwin was considered to be

[Type text] Page 10

the very first to start exploring and studying the characteristics and nature of cracks in
structures. There are three modes of fractures such as Mode I (the opening), Mode II
(the in-plane shear) and Mode III (the out-of-plane shear) (Schreurs, 2012).

Figure 2 Fracture Mode I (Opening)

Figure 3 Fracture Mode II (Sliding)

Figure 4 Fracture Mode III (Tearing)

The fracture mode I represents when the two crack surfaces of a structure move in the
same direction (symmetrical) where the crack planes remains not deformed.

[Type text] Page 11

The fracture mode II also called as sliding mode where the two crack surfaces move
away from each other where the crack plane is undeformed.

The fracture mode III referred as tearing mode occurs when the two crack faces of the
structure tear apart from each other parallel to the crack front.

1.3 Fracture mechanisms

It is important for a structural engineer to understand the way which a crack propagates in the
materials and this understanding helps them to determine the strength and ensure safety to the
structures. There are several fracture mechanisms, some of them are:

1. Shear Fracture
2. Cleavage
3. Fatique
4. Crazing
5. De-adhesion

1.3.1 Shear fracture

When a material is subjected to external load to give stress, there will be a significant
amount of stress that makes the dislocations through the lattice. This continuous shear
stress on the material will increase the number of dislocations in the material. This
change on the structure of material is observed as irreversible and the deformation due
to this shear fracture remains same. These continuous dislocations will soon makes the
internal structure deformed and forms void in the material. The further movement of
cracks leads to failure of the material structure. As the cracks are initiated, and
dispersed by shear stresses on the structure, this is called as shear fracture. The fracture
surface looks more of a “dough” with significant amount of dimples and represents the
loading.

[Type text] Page 12

 Figure 5 Shear Fracture (Broek, 1986)

1.3.2 Cleavage

In fracture mechanisms, there is a possibility where the crack tends to travel through
the grains that exist in the planes when the plastic deformation at the fracture is
stopped. There are two different types of cleavages namely intra granular cleavage and
trans granular cleavage. Temperatures play an important role and it makes a significant
impact on the plastic deformation of the crack plane. At low temperatures or when the
temperature of the structure is subjected to cooling, there will be a decrease in
temperature which will have a considerable impact on prohibiting the plastic
deformation. Apart from this, the 3D stress also found to have prohibiting behaviour on
the cracks. Materials with weak grain boundaries are identified to exhibit inter-granular
cleavage.

[Type text] Page 13

 Figure 6 Intra Granular Cleavage (Broek, 1989)

Figure 7 Inter-Granular Cleavage (Broek, 1989)

1.3.3 Fatigue

When a cyclic loading is given to the structure with crack, there is a clear variation in
the structure under the microscopic observation; however there are visible symptoms
of strain that appears on the structure as “clam shell”. Due to the cyclic loading, the
crack tends to move to certain distance, as this cyclic loading seems to be continuous it
keeps adding the stress level, to a certain level where the structure completely fails.
This mechanism is called as fatigue fracture.

[Type text] Page 14

 Figure 8 Fatigue Fracture (Broek, 1989)

1.3.4 Crazing

Crazing mechanism is referred to the voids that are created in the polymer materials
during the high level of loading on the material. This occurs when the load exceeds the
threshold level of the material. There are chances to develop several numbers of crazes
in the structure that leads to complete failure. There are also chances that there is a
wide sporadic movement of the crazes over the larger structure.

[Type text] Page 15

 Figure 9 Crazing Fracture (Hertzberg & Richard, 1976)

1.3.5 De-adhesion

In fracture mechanics, there are two common bonding mechanisms prevails namely
adhesion and cohesion. When there is a bond between atoms of two or more different
materials, it is called as adhesion where as when the bonding is made between atoms of
the same materials it is called as cohesion.

This bonding particularly adhesion depends on the bond strength of the chemicals that
exists in the materials and there is a great impact due to stress on the surface area of the
material.

[Type text] Page 16

CHAPTER 2 – BACKGROUND

2.1 Cracks
All materials will contain breaks or deformities. The question is: When will breaks be of handy
intrigue? Under which conditions will breaks impact upon the conduct of structures and
segments? At the point when would we be able to disregard the presence of breaks?

Auxiliary designers regularly judge the limit or extreme quality of a structure on the
premise of a heap avoidance outline, where the greatest load or plastic fall load is
considered as the breaking point. The following stride then is to force an incomplete
wellbeing element on this breaking point stack consolidated with least elastic
lengthening prerequisites.

In the event that we now present breaks in the structure, this can impact the heap
bearing limit, either by weak crack, flexible tearing, plastic fall or mixes of these
disappointment modes.

Customary basic outline contrasts the planned stretch and the stream properties of the
material, which is typically taken to some part of the yield push. A material is thought to
be satisfactory if its quality is more prominent than the normally connected anxiety. In
crack mechanics, there are two basic factors, outline stress, and blemish size, and break
durability replaces quality as the material resistance property. Crack mechanics
measures the basic blend of these three factors.

In creation with steel, the welded joints speak to the most basic locale. This is the place
breaks typically show up and areas of the weld metal or the warmth influenced zone can
have low strength. The weld metal, warm influenced zone, and the base material will
have distinctive material properties, and this bundle in quality will impact the
disappointment conditions. The impact of material befuddle on break relies on the split
size, the area of the break, the quality bungle, and the crack durability.

In this paper, we first right away present the rule of imperative and transferability. We
then present the JQM Approach and show how the approach can be connected for a
690-steel. We then present the standard of direct estimations with the utilization of line
spring components and how this can be used for pipelines.

[Type text] Page 17

2.2. Constraint
The beginning stage in break mechanics examination is to consider a split of a specific
size situated in a segment or example. An outer load is connected and the part is stacked
until it falls flat. Amid stacking a plastic zone creates from the broken tip, and at a
specific load net area yielding happens as the plastic zone achieves the through
thickness surface.

For whatever length of time that the plastic zone at the split tip is constrained
contrasted and the geometry of the part or example, supposed little scale yielding, a
solitary parameter cracks mechanics approach can be connected. K, J or CTOD portrays
the split tip conditions and can be utilized as geometry free crack measure.

The geometry reliance under direct flexible conditions for five standard crack
mechanics geometries is plotted in. The unadulterated malleable examples, DENT and
CCT, have the least limitation, while examples ruled by bowing have the most
noteworthy imperative. Standard break mechanics testing techniques depend on the
examples with high requirement so as to recreate the most pessimistic scenario
conditions.

In any case, the single parameter crack mechanics separates within the sight of over the
top versatility, and break strength will now rely on upon the size, geometry, and method
of stacking.

McClintock was one of the first to analyze the close split tip push field under completely
plastic conditions for different example geometries and non-solidifying materials, For
little scale yielding, the most extreme anxiety is around three times the yield push, while
a middle split board under pressure is unequipped for keeping up huge triaxiality.
These impacts are, in any case, less extreme when strain solidifying is considered. We
see that the DENT example, with low imperative under straight versatile conditions,
now achieve high burdens as a result of the obstruction between the two fields of
distortion.

[Type text] Page 18

2.3 Stress intensity Factor

The stress intensity factor is considered to be one of the major parameters that help to
determine the remaining life in structures with cracks. In this review, the limited
component technique was utilized to compute the SIF and T – push. High request elements were
employed at the broken tip to speak to dislodging conduct. Calculation of break attributes (K
variable and T – worry) in three-dimensional examples is introduced. The anxiety power
element is dictated by the handling of the removals around the broken tip. Distinctive
techniques have been utilized for figuring the T – push. Break qualities, as an element of
separation from the split tip over the example's thickness, is given here. The fracture mechanics
helps to get an understanding about the resistance ability of the materials and also provides
knowledge to the structural engineering for designing safety structures based on these
characterisations. With the help of stress intensity factor theory, the linear elastic fracture
mechanics was developed.

In fracture mechanics, Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) is recognised as an important factor that
helps to understand and analyse the intensity of stress near the crack tip that is mainly due to
loading and other external application of stress on the structures. This factor is widely used as a
failure criterion for brittle and also considered as an effective method to understand and
estimate the fault tolerance of the material.

2.3 Three-parameter description of the crack-tip field

Considering out-of-plane constraint, the 3D elastic and elastic-plastic stress field can be
described completly by three-parameter model K-T-Tz and J-Q-Tz, which were firstly
proposed by Guo (1993, 1995, 2000).

[Type text] Page 19

The stress field in elastic-plastic condition can be expressed as follows

Subsequently, the K-T-Tz and J-Q-Tz description of elastic and ealstic-plastic stress field at
the border of various typical cracks have been obtained by 3D finite element calculations
(Zhao, Guo & She, 2006; 2007).

2.5 3D Fracture criterions

The traditional fracture toughness parameters (KC, JC) are strongly dependent on the
thicknesses. So a series of tests on different element thickness specimens must be carried
out to obtain the whole range of fracture toughness parameters. Many scholars (Irwin,
1960; Neimitz & Galkiewicz, 2006; Aoki, Kishimoto & Yoshida, 1990; Mills & Hertzberg, 1975)
have paid many efforts on researching the variations on fracture toughness with
thicknesses on specimens. For elastic fracture problems, Guo (1991, 1993) proposed a 3D
fracture toughness parameter Kzc, which was independent on specimens’ thicknesses and

[Type text] Page 20

founded a 3D fracture criterion. The 3D elastic fracture criterion can be expressed as
follows

where KC is the plane strain fracture toughness. The two- and three- dimensional fracture
toughness parameters KC and KZC are shown in Fig. 3 a, which reveal that the 3D fracture
toughness is independent on thicknesses. For elastic-plastic fracture problems, the J-
integral criterion was applied as follows [33]

where JC is the planar fracture toughness. The two- and three- dimensional fracture
toughness parameters JC and JZC are shown in Fig. 3 (b). It can be found that the 3D fracture
toughness is independent on thicknesses.

[Type text] Page 21

2.6 Constraint Parameters (T-stress) on a 3D Specimen with Crack

Fracture is the primary threat to the integrity, safety, and performance of nearly all
highly stressed mechanical structures in engineering. Failures due to fracture can have

[Type text] Page 22

major negative consequences, including serious injury or loss of life. After loading the
solid structure with the existing crack, the crack growth occurs at the specific load with
two fracture areas.

ANSYS Crack Propagation

Figure 10 ANSYS Crack Propagation (Guo, et.al., 2015)

Crack development in ansys mechanical has been studied and analysed under the
conditions of fatigue crack proliferation with contact impact. A note about
demonstrating this model demonstrates the significance of displaying limit conditions
the model above demonstrates constrain conveyed to each of the 3 Bo openings.
Franc3d/ng and ansys reproduced crack development in a sharp edge a break starts
close to the edge of contact between the edge and circle (Branco, R., Antunes, F. V., &
Costa, 2015). When distorted break appears, Ansys greatest anxiety turns into twisted
shape for break step 40. Like break engendering in ansys, Ansys states that one should
pass standard one pass engendering de crevices standard xfem/xfem crack
development part one. Utilizing xfem mimic break engendering with starting crack size
2mm YouTube. A half segment of broken pipe repaired by composite fix layup. Focus
crack issue to assess if the model is illuminating strategy utilizing Ansys 11, ansys 11
pass standard pass proliferation the gap standard xfem/xfem crack development part
two.

[Type text] Page 23

CHAPTER 3 – CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW

In 1990s, there are several analytical methodologies have been introduced in order to
explain the stress and strain parameters for the challenges in the elastic-plastic
materials (Nikishkov, 1995; Yang, Chao & Sutton, 1993). The elastic T-stress has been
considered as an important parameter that expresses the stress on the crack plane
(Kodancha & Kudari, 2009). It is also should be noted that this elastic stress has huge
impact on the hydrostatic triaxiality in the elastic fields. Few researchers highlight that
these traditional methodologies are not perfectly accurate for the 3D crack cases where
as they are successfully used to explain the in-plain constrain effects. Hence, it is very
important to consider several other parameters to explain the out of plane constrain
effects in the 3D cracks. Nakamura and Parks (1992) introduce a numerical technique
that utilises the interaction integral; the major aim of this interaction integral is to
extract the elastic T-term. This allows assessing stress intensity parameters of 3D crack
fronts.

3.1 The Stress Intensity Factor (SIF)

The SIF is the main fracture parameter in linear elastic fracture mechanics (Pook, 2000).

According to Pook (2000), Stress Intensity Factor i.e., SIF plays a vital role in linear
elastic fracture mechanics. This concept is obtained by various analysis of linear elastic
stress on different configure ation. Anderson (2005) has presented the following form
for identifying the stress field (y) close to crack tip in linearly elastic body where crack
is present:

Here

r = the polar coordinate at a particular point with respect to crack tip

θ = the polar coordinate at a particular point with respect to crack tip

σij = stress tensor of θ

[Type text] Page 24

fij = dimensionless function of θ

k = a constant

Anderson (2005) has presented a detailed expression below on the stress field present
in the crack (Anderson, 2005):

Here

 xx, yy, and  zz = stress acting in x,y and z direction

 ,xy xz and yz = sheer in x-y, x-z, and y-z directions
 ν = Poisson’s ratio

According to the definition of Irwin (1957) the constant K found in the equation 2.7 is
stated as SIF. Once the value of K is known bo th stress and strain field present in the
crack tip is easily characterised. In SIF K is considered as the functions of applied stress
and structural components geometry. This also includes global geometry and crack
geometry. Either local crack tip stress field of the crack tip displacement field is used for

[Type text] Page 25

determining SIF. SIF can also be obtained by using an indirect method by means of
energy release rate. Different SIF solutions are provided for different configuration. K
can also be written in the form shown below:

Here

 Y = dimensionless shape factor

 Σ and a = stress load and half crack length

Under the assumption that the crack grow with respect to the stress increase, it is
understood that the growth is forced due to the stress field around the crack tip and
further leads to the failure of material at the critical stress intensity. According to
Anderson (2005), the failure conditions for a crack in a plane can be determined as

K > Kc

From the above equation, it can be said that when the stress intensity factor, K exceeds
the material fracture toughness, Kc the failure occurs.

A crack front looks more like a line that runs from one place to another; this line
indicates the crack in the material. The vicinity of the crack provides detailed
information about the stress level especially its magnitude. When there is huge stress
on the material, it tends to show high crack on its top like a notch. The understanding
about the stress on the crack tip is considered to be very important as it helps to derive
new materials through proper implementation and diffusion at the crack. Stress
analysis is crucial to derive a new parameter referred as “stress intensity factor” that
helps to symbolize a crack.

There are two critical components involved while addressing the stress intensity factor
such as “far field stress” and “crack length”. The symbol K is used to address the stress
intensity factor and the formula to calculate is:

[Type text] Page 26

Far Field Stress - ‘σ’

Crack Length – ‘a’

The stress intensity factor is formally defined as;

This factor is considered to be very important as it helps to determine the

characteristics of the crack in the material, and also to determine the amount of energy
released and the rate at which they have been released.

There are also methods such as finite element method that allows analysing 3D stress
on geometrical components using ABAQUS 6.5 software. The computation of T stress
using this software is comparatively easier than the other methods however there are
several assumptions required and also real time environment cannot be reproduced.

3.2 Review of T-Stress calculation methods

From the perspective of both analytical studies and experimental studies, in order to measure
the constraints of contained yielding T Parameters are used. The following researchers stated
that the toughness of fracture will increase when there is an increase in –T:

 Hancock (1993)
 Parks and Reuter (1993)
 Sumpter (1993) and
 Zhang, Chao and Lam (1998)

According to Smith, Pavier and Ayatollahi (2006) and Williams and Ewing (1972), the focus of
many authors turned towards T-stress term. Here T stress explains that constant stress is
totally parallel to the direction of crack. The letter T which is a non singular term denotes
tension stress. Here tension stress can also be termed as compression stress. The stress level of
crack tip is strengthened by positive T-stress that results in high crack tip constraint whereas

[Type text] Page 27

negative T-stress results in loss of constraint. According to Eisele and Roos (1990), Jayadevan
(2001), Tippur, Kirigulige and Maleski (2004) the T value is sensitive in case of loading mode.
According to Pavier, Smith and Avatollah (1998), Ravi and Yang (1999) it is specimen geometry.
According France, Sherry and Goldthorpe (1995), intensity of stress on T increases in a non
linear manner. It happens along with non-dimensional crack length.

Rice (1994), Larsson and Carlsson (1973) have shown that sign and magnitude of the T-stress
substantially change the size and shape of the plane strain crack tip plastic zone. The size of
plastic zone is increased by T-stress either be positive or negative when it is compared with no
T stress. According to Hadj (2009), when T>0 crack extension orients plastic zone. In case of
increase in T, the growth rate of T fatigue crack minimizes. T stress is also used for measuring
the constraints as per analytical and experimental study. Increase in –T increases the toughness
of the fracture (Sumpter (1993), Hancock and Reuter (1993), and Zhang, Lam and Chao (1998)).
Influence of T-stress is identified in the crack propagation during initial stage. The crack path
can be stabilised with the help of negative T-stress value. According to Hadj (2009), crack
bifurcation is induced because of positive T-stress value. In the past four decades n number of
methods has been used for obtaining T in various conditions of loading and geometries. For
determining the T stress solution many methods have been explained. According to the
different methods of Williams (1957), both displacement and stress field have been obtained
when surrounded by two dimensional crack. The crack tip is obtained by expansion method of
Eigen function. The following are the methods used in different numerical works in order to
obtain T stress:

 Eigen Function expansion method by Williams (1957)

 SDM, i.e., the stress difference method by Yang and Ravi Chander (1999)
 Displacement method of Ayatollahi (1998)

Disputes on obtaining the values of T stress arise among number of authors. Stress difference
method was proposed by Yang for calculating the T stress at crack tip. A constant value for T
stress is present very close to the crack tip. The results of FE are not approved until maximum
number of elements are utilised for simulating crack tip zone (France and Goldthorpe, Sherry
and Kardomateas (1995)). The enhanced method for getting T-stress an acceptable distance
from crack tip was identified by Avatollahi, Smith and Pavier (1998). Extrapolation method is
identified by Maleski, Tippur and Kirigulige (2004) for determining stress difference method
that helps in calculating the T-stress.

[Type text] Page 28

According to Ayatollah, smith and Pavier (1998) and Broviak (2001) the value of T-stress
remains constant at the crack tip. This was stated by them after undergoing various methods.
According to Hadj (2009), T-stress varies for notches and cracks.

For calculating elastic T stress various kinds of numerical and analytical methods have been
developed. T-stress solutions were provided by various researchers for 2D cracked bodies
either in uniform tension or in bending loading conditions. Stress Difference Method i.e., SDM
has been developed by Yang and Ravi Chandar in the year 1999 for computing T stress at crack
tip. Single dual boundary element method is included where the tip imposes zero displacement
at the crack tip. According to Gupta, Benedictus and Alderliesten (2014), in order to evaluate T-
stress the difference between both σ11 and σ22 should be demonstrated.

3.3 Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors (SIF) using the Finite Element
Method

Finite Element Method is widely accepted and recognised as one of the best tools for
determining the stress intensity factors and helps to solve several crack problems in

EM is one of the most powerful tools for the solution of crack problems in fracture
mechanics. A wide range of finite elements has been developed to determine the SIF.

When a crack exists in a structure, stress is concentrated at the tip but the stress
concentration do not account for the fracture behavior at the tip of a crack because as
the radius of the curvature of the crack tip approaches zero, the stress level could
become infinity, which is not a real property of a loaded structure. As an alternative to
describe the structural strength at the crack tip appropriately, the stress-intensity
factor, K, is a parameter to characterize “the stress field ahead of a sharp crack in a test
specimen or a structural member” [5]. The parameter, K, is related to the nominal stress
level (σ) in the structural member and the size of the crack (a), and has units of (GPa
mm ). In general, the relation is represented by:

K = 𝜎√𝑎𝑃

where P is a geometrical parameter depends on the structural member and crack.

According to Barsom [5], “all structural members or test specimens that have flaws can

[Type text] Page 29

be loaded to various levels of K. This is analogous to the situation where unflawed
structural or mechanical members can be loaded to various levels of stress, σ”.

The stress field near crack tips can be categorized as Mode I: opening mode, Mode II:
sliding and Mode III: tearing, which each of them is characterized by a “local mode of
deformation” as illustrated in Figure 2. The opening mode, I, is related to local
displacement in which the crack surfaces move directly apart (symmetric with respect
to the x-y and x-z planes). The sliding mode, II, is related with local displacement in
which the crack surfaces slide over one another perpendicular to the leading edge of the
crack (symmetric with respect to the x-y plane and skew-symmetric with respect to the
x-z plane). The tearing mode, III, is related with local displacement in which the crack
surfaces slide with respect to one another parallel to the leading edge (skew-symmetric
with respect to the x-y and x-z planes).

In general, stress-intensity factor depends on the stress induced on a structure, the

crack size and the geometry of the crack. The stress-intensity factor equation for an
embedded circular crack is given by [6]:

If the crack occurs at the corner of a beam, as shown in Figure 3, the KI expression
would be

1.12 is the free surface correction factor, which is added for every free surface at which
a crack might originate. KI is increased by (1.12)2 because there are two free-surface
corrections for a corner crack.

[Type text] Page 30

The finite element method was used to calculate the stress intensity factor due to the
complexity of the bracket geometry and boundary conditions. Since a singularity exists
as r approaches zero, finite element codes must meet two requirements to resolve the
singular stress at the crack tip. The first requirement is the element size: the new
elements used to populate the crack region must be smaller than the existing mesh to
calculate the stress-intensity factors accurately. However, the new elements must be
large enough to address singularity at the crack tip. The second requirement is the
element number: the number of elements around the crack tip influences the
circumferential stress distribution. In general, the stress result is more accurate with
more elements; but the results quality is compensated if the crack tip is over crowded
with high aspect ratio elements. In order to meet the requirements by generating a
smooth transition from the tip of the crack to the unmodified mesh, the FRANC codes
insert “a rosette of crack-tip elements” that can be subdivided automatically and
repeatedly into triangular and quadrilateral elements.

[Type text] Page 31

 Crack tip elements

Guo (1993) developed a new parameter Tz that allowed defining and conceptualising
the constraint effect for the 3D cracks; this is considered to be very important for the
high magnitude stress fields. Several authors such as Giner, et.al (2010) and
Shlyannikov, et.al (2011) provides a clear explanation about the impact of thickness on
crack constraints that further influences and make a considerable impact on the
fracture toughness and also on the impact on the in-plane constraints for 3 dimensional
cases. In recent years, few models have been introduced with respect to elastic-plastic
fracture to describe the limitations and challenges in the methodologies on the J-
integral. Constraint effects seem to play an important role in fracture mechanics and it
widely recognised as the elements that induce crack-tip fields. It is also accepted and
recognised that fracture toughness is one of the parameters that cannot be used as
constant and there is a lot more discussion required to address the constraint effects in
the context of 3D cases. In the 3 dimensional finite bodies for in-plane and out-of-plane
constraint effects are considered to be highly complex and challenging when compared
to the 2D cases. ANSYS is widely used to study and understand the constraint effects on
cracks and fractures.

Several researches highlighted the necessity of an appropriate parameter to measure

the crack constraint; this is considered to be crucial when comes to several engineering
applications of fracture mechanics. In addition, it is also considered that the structural
elements have several other factors such as thicknesses, stress, strain and other changes

[Type text] Page 32

between the cracks. It is important to adopt a practical methodology to analyse and
quantify the fracture resistance of the structural components.

Vicinity of the crack in the materials are widely studied for decades and several
methodologies were developed to determine and measure the stress and other
parameters involved in the in-plane and out-of-plane effects, however they are highly
limited to 2D cases. The challenges of analysing 3D cases and out of planes were
addressed that includes thickness. Studies were conducted to analyse the impact and
influence of thickness on crack constraints and it is found that 3D crack in thin
components. There is also fracture toughness which plays an important role as a
parameter that determines the stress and leads to material failure.

For the asymptotic stress expansion, Hutchinson (1968) recommends elastic-plastic

stress intensity factor; this factor can be expressed using J-integral. Rice and Rosengren
(1968) develop a deformation methodology to assess and quantify the level of stress at
the crack. This deformation theory of plasticity helps to derive similar results of strain
when compared with the Hilton and Hutchinson’s theory. The theory of Hilton & Sih
(1973) helps to forecast fracture measurements from the structural mechanics of cracks
and these calculations are considered to be highly accurate. Hence, the fracture
mechanics allows determining higher magnitude stress level for the plastic-elastic
zones and relates with the plastic intensity parameters.

The geometrical dimensions and the effective distance between the planes play an
important role in influencing the T-stress that is considered to be parallel to the cracks.
This stress gets influenced by several parameters such as fracture specimen, structural
dimensions, geometrical distances and also hardening. The impact of the T-stress is
calculated by biaxiality factor and it highly depends on the elastic parameters.

Modified boundary layer methodology has been widely researched by several

researches to consider and analyse the stress among the cracks. This method is widely
adopted from pure mode I and mixed mode scenarios. There are two types of T-stress
such as positive and negative; it is also highlighted that irrespective of the type of T-
stress they have significant impact on enhancing the plastic zone size. It should be noted
that there is no increase in the size of the plastic zone when comes to no T-stress
condition. According to Betegon & Hancock (1991) have conducted a series of analysis

[Type text] Page 33

on the mode I plane cracks utilising the elastic conditions. This experiment is mainly
intended to analyse and understand the nature and behaviour of the fractures influence
on the crack stress and also further helps to explain the crack conditions using two
different factors such as T-stress and J-integral.

Dadfarnia, et.al (2011) addresses that the stress intensity factor can be merged with the
elastic T-stress and develop clear understanding about material fracture toughness.
These two factors such as stress intensity factor and T-stress play a crucial role in
assessing the cracked structural components. Several studies (Jayadevan, et.al., 2005;
Lewis & Wang, 2008) address the importance of T-stress on 2D geometrical analysis
that includes fractural mechanism. At the same time, T-stress for 3D cracks is
considerably limited.

According to Matvienko, Shlyannikov, & Boychenko (2011), there is an additional

emphasising made on constraint affects on the 3D cracked materials. There are two
major traditional methodologies namely T stress and Q parameter that are considered
to be perfect and highly successful for 2 dimensional cracks where as they are criticised
for their lack of accuracy for 3 dimensional cracks. So it becomes inevitable to deploy
several new parameters and factors while determining and analysing the out of plane
constraints.

3.4 T-Stress
T-Stress is widely accepted as a method to determine the constraint for crack tips in the
small scale conditions. At the same time, it is also used to determine the fracture
toughness. Stress method and interaction integral method are few of the methods that
are commonly used for determining T for 3D cracked solids. Several studies in the
context of 2 dimensional such as Larsson & Carlsson (1973) and Sham (1991) that
addresses the importance of determining T-stress accurately and also highlight that T-
stress rely on the loading type, geometrical conditions and crack length.

KI, the stress intensity factor helps to quantify and determine the intensity of the crack
and also further helps to analyse the T-stress behaviour and characteristics of the crack.
The positive T-stress ensures significant improvement in the crack stress and that
further takes to higher crack constraints. At the same time, negative T-stress diminishes
the stress in the crack and thus leading to lower crack constraints (Zhao & Guo, 2012).

[Type text] Page 34

According to Moustabchir, et.al (2012), the T-stress is very important to forecast the
transmission flow of longitudinal issues in high pressure fractures. Apart from that, T-
stress is also used to determine the fracture toughness and helps to extend resistance
constraints.

It is important to determine accurate Stress intensity for the crack tip fields in order to
enhance the fracture mechanics of several applications. These engineering applications
are highly required and widely used in construction industries and also further
development in micromechanics. Stress method and integral method allows
understanding and analysing the T-stress in several geometrical components and this
can be measured using the numerical methods.

ANSYS helps to determine the stress displacements among the cracks in the materials.
There are few assumptions made while measuring the T-stress such as linear elastic and
it is also assumed E - 196 GPa

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Ainsworth, R.A., Gintalas, M. & Venkata, K.A. (2015) T-STRESS SOLUTIONS FOR
CRACKS IN STRAIGHT PIPES [Online] Available:
https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.20/33860/SMiRT-
23_Paper_094.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed [13 May 2017]
2. Betegon, C. & Hancock, J. W. (1991) ‘Two-parameter Characterization of Elastic-
plastic Crack-tip Fields’, Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 58, no. 21, pp. 104-110
3. Dadfarnia, M., Sofronis, P., Somerday, B. P., Balch, D. K, Schembri, P., & Melcher, R.
(2011) ‘On the environmental similitude for fracture in the SENT specimen and a
cracked hydrogen gas pipeline’, Engineering Fractural Mechanics, vol. 78, pp.
2429-2438
4. Guo, W.L. (1993) ‘Elastoplastic three dimensional crack border field’, Engineering
Fractural Mechanics, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 93-113

[Type text] Page 35

 5. Jayadevan, K.R., Narasimhan, R., Ramamarthy, T.S., & Dattaguru, B. (2001) ‘A
numerical study of T-stress in dynamicaly loaded fracture specimens’,
International Journal of Solids and structures, vol.38, pp. 4987-5005
6. Kodancha, K.G. & Kudari, S.K. (2009) ‘Variation of Stress intensity factor and
elastic T-stress along the crack-front in finite thickness plates’, Frattura ed
Integrita Strutturale, vol. 8, pp. 45 – 51
7. Novotny, L. (2012) Calculation of T – stress on 3D specimens with crack,
Procedia Engineering, vol. 48, pp. 489 – 494
8. Shlyannikov, V.N., Matvienko, Y.G., Boichenko, N.V. & Tartygasheva, A.M. (2009)
THE EFFECTIVE DISTANCE AND T-STRESS IN CRACKED PLASTIC AND
CREEPING SOLIDS UNDER BIAXIAL LOADING [Online] Available:
http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/esis/ECF18/paper/viewFile/634
9/2212 Accessed [13 May 2017]
9. Zhao, J. and Guo, W. (2012) ‘Three-parameter K-T-Tz characterization of the
crack-tip field in compacttension-shear specimens’, Engineering Fractural
Mechanics, vol. 92, pp. 72-88
10. Nakamura, T. & Parks, D.M. (1992) DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC T-STRESS
ALONG THREE-DIMENSIONAL CRACK FRONTS USING AN INTERACTION
INTEGRAL, International Journal of Solids Structures, vol.29, no. 13, pp. 1597 –
1611
11. Rice, J. R. (1974) ‘Limitations to the small-scale yielding approximation for crack-
tip plasticity’, Journal of Mechanical Physics Solids, vol. 22, pp. 17-26.
12. Hutchinson, J.W. (1968) ‘Singular behaviour at the end of a tensile crack in a
hardening material’, Journal of Mechanical Physics Solids, vol. 16, pp. 13–31
13. Matvienko, Y.G., Shlyannikov, V.N. & Boychenko, N.V. (2011) Constraint
parameters along a three-dimensional crack front stress field, Forni di Sopra, pp.
50 – 57
14. Gupta, M., Alderliesten, R. & Benedictus, R. (2014) A review of T-stress and its effects in
Fracture Mechanics, Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Vol. 10, no.16, pp. 134
15. Eshelby, J.D. (1971) Fracture Mechanics, Science Progress. Vol. 59, pp. 161 – 1794
16. Smith, J., Ayatollahi, M.R., & Pavier, M.J. (2006) On the consequences of T-stress in elastic
brittle fracture, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. 462, pp. 2415 – 2437

[Type text] Page 36

 17. Barsom, J. M. & Rolfe, S.T. (1999) Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Application
of Fracture Mechanics, Philadelphia.
18. Bouledroua, O., Meliani, M.H. & Pluvinage, G. (2016) A review of T-stress calculation
methods in fracture mechanics computation, Nature & Technology, pp. 20 – 30
19. Broek, D. (1986) Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, 4th Edition, New Jersey:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
20. Broek, D. (1989) The practical use of Fracture Mechanics, Newyork: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
21. Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Archer, A., Aune, T., Barnacka, A., Beilicke, M., & Byrum,
K. (2015). A Search for Pulsations from Geminga above 100 GeV with VERITAS.
The Astrophysical Journal, 800(1), 61.
22. Sherry, A. H., C. C. France, and M. R. Goldthorpe. "COMPENDIUM OF T‐STRESS
SOLUTIONS FOR TWO AND THREE DIMENSIONAL CRACKED GEOMETRIES."
Fatigue & fracture of engineering materials & structures 18.1 (1995): 141-155.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2695.1995.tb00148.x/full
23. Zhu, X. K., & McGaughy, T. (2015, July). Corrected stress intensity factor for BS
8571 single edge notched tension (SENT) specimens. In The Twenty-fifth
International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers.
24. Wang, Y. (1991). A two-parameter characterization of elastic-plastic crack tip
fields and applications to cleavage fracture (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13461
25. Fang, Z., Jiang, Z., Wei, D., & Liu, X. (2015). Study on springback in micro V-
bending with consideration of grain heterogeneity. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 78.
26. Park, J. Y., Lee, J. M., & Kim, M. H. (2016). An Investigation of the Mechanical
Properties of a Weldment of 7% Nickel Alloy Steels. Metals, 6(11), 285.
27. Qian, X., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Translating the material fracture resistance into
representations in welded tubular structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
147, 278-292.
28. Shafer, A. B., Wolf, J. B., Alves, P. C., Bergström, L., Bruford, M. W., Brännström, I.,
& Fawcett, K. D. (2015). Genomics and the challenging translation into
conservation practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(2), 78-87.

[Type text] Page 37

 29. Branco, R., Antunes, F. V., & Costa, J. D. (2015). A review on 3D-FE adaptive
remeshing techniques for crack growth modelling. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 141, 170-195.

30. http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/ICF/ICF12/paper/viewFile/1216
/8922
31. http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/ICMFF/ICMFF9/paper/viewFile/
11819/10987
32. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705810002262
33. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877705810002262/1-s2.0-S1877705810002262-
main.pdf?_tid=fd36061e-4182-11e7-8398-
00000aab0f26&acdnat=1495741830_cce3ba4d39e55c057e0c2fbc834b139d
34. http://digibuo.uniovi.es/dspace/bitstream/10651/6001/1/Fracture%20mecha
nics%20of%20the%20three-
dimensional%20crack%20front%20Vertex%20singularity%20versus%20out%
20of%20plain%20constraint%20descriptions.pdf
35. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013794416300601
36. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768307002636
37. https://paulino.ce.gatech.edu/journal_papers/2003/CMAME_03_TStressMixedM
odeStress.pdf
38. http://home.iitk.ac.in/~ag/ME321/Fracture_Eshelby.pdf
39. http://www.univ-chlef.dz/RevueNatec/issue-
15/Article_A/A_O.%20Bouledroua.pdf
40. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/hutchinson/papers/432.pdf
41. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001379441400335X
42. http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/esis/CP2009/paper/viewFile/93
39/6174
43. https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ME203-1.3.2-
Stress-Intensity-Factor.pdf
44. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6451/d5bb0e4c5e11be13bfd77df386e0734d
dc39.pdf
45. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1448708/1/Peng%20Zhang%20final%20Thesis.pdf
46. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1460-
2695.2012.01722.x/full
47. http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/esis/ECF18/paper/viewFile/634
9/2212
48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257726061_Calculation_of_T_-
_Stress_on_3D_Specimens_with_Crack
49. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-017-2774-7_10#page-1
50. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013794476900230

[Type text] Page 38

 51. http://www.afgrow.net/applications/DTDHandbook/Sections/page11_2_1.aspx
52. http://textofvideo.nptel.iitm.ac.in/112106065/lec26.pdf
53. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advanced-materials-joining/sites/ca.centre-
advanced-materials-joining/files/uploads/files/16_a_kiciak_2003.pdf
54. http://www.mate.tue.nl/~piet/edu/frm/pdf/frmsyl1213.pdf
55. http://ksm.fsv.cvut.cz/~sejnom/download/pm10_tisk.pdf

[Type text] Page 39