Linear elastic fracture mechanics

A crack of length 2a extends right through an infinite elastic flat plate of small thickness
b. The plate is loaded by a background stress, σ, normal to the crack. From equilibrium,
compatibility and the linear elastic constitutive law, the stresses in an element located at
( r, θ ) close to the crack tip, may be shown to be :-
Pers;1

The following points should be noted :

- The stress field ( 1) arises from the crack itself and not directly from the
background stress. If the element were well removed from the crack tip vicinity then the
background stress would dominate, ie. σy --> σ ; σx , τxy --> 0.

- The stress components ( 1) are of the general form :-

stress component = constant ( K ) x function of element location ( r, θ )
The constant is termed the stress intensity factor and embodies the geometry and
loading.
Ko refers to the particular centrally cracked infinite plate arrangement considered above.
K is an amplitude, a scale factor, a measure of the intensity of the singularity and the
severity of the stress field immediately adjacent to the crack tip - and it is the near-tip
field which directly influences crack advance
If the stress intensity factor were to double, due to doubling of the load for example, then
all stress components on all elements would also double. Note the inherent linearity here.

- A compressive background stress tends to close the crack and is therefore not
deleterious ( as long as it is steady ).

-
Provided the loading is tensile, mode I, then for geometries other than the infinite plate
with central through -crack, and background loads other than a uniform tensile stress, the
stress field close to the crack tip is identical in form to ( 1) - since the near-tip region is
not directly affected by distant events. However the field strength, that is
the stress intensity, KI corresponding to mode I, will reflect the particular geometry and
loading, and will thus differ from Ko.
A configuration factor Y = KI /Ko reflects this difference. Values of Y for various
configurations appear in the literature.
Defining the normalised crack size as α = a/w, approximations for some common cases
and for α ≤ 0.7 are shown here.

- The above analysis would be completely useless if the aim were to calculate the
maximum equivalent stress ( in order to correlate with the yield to find the safety factor
for example ) because all stress components theoretically tend to infinity as r --> 0.
Stress redistribution prevents this happening in practice of course, but this is a plastic
phenomenon, irrelevant to elastic analyses. So, rather than using stress magnitude as a
measure of loading severity ( and hence a basis from which to reckon safety ) we use
stress intensity instead. The stress intensity factor is one of a number of measures whose
values describe the damage due to the crack - other common parameters are the 'crack
opening displacement' ( COD, see below ), and the 'J-integral' ( an energy integral
around a path enclosing the crack ).
The material's fracture toughness ( Kc ) can be recognised as just the critical maximum
stress intensity ( K ) which the material can withstand without catastrophic crack
propagation. An additional subscript 'I' refers to the most common tensile mode I loading.
The distinction between stress intensity, KI, a crack characterising parameter and fracture
toughness, KIc, a material parameter should be clearly understood.

The appraisal of safety

in fracture mechanics is similar in principle to the determination of safety factor in
traditional Strength of Materials contexts - a parameter expressing loading severity is
compared to the maximum severity which the material can withstand ie. a material
property. The two appraisal approaches are compared here, though it must be pointed out
that in Fracture Mechanics it is more usual to cite the fatigue life which remains, rather
than a factor of safety per se. Life aspects are considered below.

There are two common forms of fracture toughness test specimen, the 'single edge
notch' ( SEN, case ( e) above ) and the 'compact tensile specimen' ( CTS, case ( c) ). In
both of these a crack is started by machining a chevron notch in a specimen of standard
proportions ( thickness b = w/2 ), then fatiguing the specimen to obtain a sharp crack
front. The load - bending or tension respectively - is then applied and increased until
catastrophe occurs. In principle, the maximum load in conjunction with the configuration
factor ( Y) corresponding to the final crack size enables the fracture toughness to be
calculated. Testing in practice is not quite so straightforward as this might indicate, eg.
we shall see that size effects also have to be reckoned with.

This example illustrates the appraisal of safety in the context of linear elastic fracture
mechanics.

It is now possible to appreciate how fatigue occurs.

On the stress /crack-size diagram, loci of constant stress intensity appear as hyperbolae
( σ√a = constant ) and a typical fatigue trajectory under constant stress is horizontal. An
initial crack will thus grow with corresponding increase in stress intensity, until the
critical stress intensity of the material - ie. its fracture toughness - is reached, whereupon
catastrophic fracture occurs. This explanation and the foregoing example are LEFM and
neglect the effects of plasticity in the ductile material - plastic effects must now be
examined.
Plasticity
Specimens of a given ductile, having standard proportions but different absolute size
( characterised by thickness ) give rise to different measured fracture toughnesses, as
indicated here.
Fracture toughness is constant for thicknesses exceeding some critical dimension, bo,
and is referred to as the plane strain fracture toughness, KIc. It is a true material
property, independent of size. As with materials' other mechanical properties, fracture
toughness is tabulated in the literature, though not so extensively as is yield strength for
example.

material yield toughness

MPa MPa√m
Aluminium 2024-T851 455 26
7075-T651 495 24
Titanium Ti-6Al-4V 910 115
*Ti-6Al-4V 1035 55
Steel 4340 860 99
*4340 1515 60
52100 2070 14
* heat treated for higher strength
This table gives some typical values and illustrates the trend - increasing yield strength
generally implies decreasing fracture toughness.

Below bo, toughness increases with decreasing thickness ( within limits ) and is termed
the 'plane stress fracture toughness', Kc. This behaviour may be explained by the
following argument.

Material within the crack tip stress field, situated close to a free surface, can expand
laterally - in the z-direction in figure ( g) below. The state of stress thus tends to biaxiality
and the material fractures in a characteristic ductile manner, with a 45o shear lip being
formed at each free surface.
Material at the centre of the component however, is not free to deform laterally as it is
constrained by the surrounding material. The stress state thus tends to plane strain
( triaxiality ) and fracture in this region is brittle. ( It will be recalled that shear failure
tendency in ductiles is negligible under triaxial hydrostatic loading. )

If the size of a shear lip is taken to be approximately constant for a given material, the
differing behaviour of thin and thick components follows from there being insufficient
material at the centre of the thin component ( h) to exhibit significant constrained
behaviour - so the material seems ductile with high toughness. As the thickness increases
( j) the shear lips occupy a decreasing proportion of the cross -section and so the material
acts more and more like a brittle, with reducing toughness. Eventually the lips' effect is
insignificant and the toughness assumes a constant minimum value - the plane strain
fracture toughness, KIc.

Evidently the accurate determination

of the plane strain fracture toughness requires a specimen whose thickness exceeds the
critical thickness, bo, and the question now arises, what is the value of this critical
thickness for a particular material ?
To answer this, we first recognise that a plastic zone must exist in front of a crack, since
stresses are high - theoretically tending to infinity at the crack tip.
Setting the equivalent stress derived from the stress field ( 1) to equal the yield strength,
the polar coordinates of the plastic zone boundary are found to be :-

(2) r = ro ( (1-k)2 + 3 sin2θ/2 ) cos2θ/2 ; ro = 1/2π ( KI /Sy )2 = a/2

( σ /Sy )2
where the constant k = 0 ( plane stress ) or k = 2ν ( plane strain ).

The proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader. The yield zones ( r,θ) plot out as
shown at right above, from which characteristic zone sizes are :-

(i) ry ≈ ro ( plane stress ) and ry ≈ ro /3 ( plane strain, ν = 0.3 )

Despite the questionable use of an elastic field to deduce the size and shape of a plastic
zone, experiments confirm the above general findings. The derivation assumed perfectly
plastic behaviour - to make some allowance for strain hardening, Sy is often taken as the
average of the yield and ultimate strengths, whereupon it is referred to as the 'flow
stress'.

For plastic effects to be negligible, other dimensions such as component width or

ligament size, must be at least 50 times the plane strain plastic zone size, so :-

( 2a) bo ≈ 50 ro / 3 ≈ 2.5 ( KIc /Sy )2

In testing for plane strain fracture toughness therefore, the toughness must first be
estimated to enable prediction of the minimum specimen dimensions, via ( 2a). The
specimen is then made and tested. If the measured toughness is less than that assumed
initially then the measured value is valid. Otherwise a larger specimen must be tested. It
sometimes happens that the required specimen size or forces exceed the capacity of
available testing machines, however it is usually possible, and perfectly valid, to test a
specimen of the same thickness as the eventual component - ie. to measure the plane
stress fracture toughness for use in the safety determination - but this toughness is not a
material property.

It is clear from ( 2) that the plastic zone size in front of a given crack must increase as the
load increases, until eventually it extends right across the ligament as suggested here, so
an upper limit of the load which can be withstood by a cracked component will
correspond to gross plastic collapse across the ligament.

Plastic collapse loads can usually be found easily from equilibrium without recourse to
any fracture mechanics considerations - since for a perfectly plastic material any stress
must equal the yield stress, either tensile or compressive ( see also plastic hinges ). The
approach is demonstrated by this example.
We now examine yielding fracture mechanics to see how we might handle the inevitable
interaction between the two failure mechanisms of LEFM and plastic collapse.

material yield toughness

MPa MPa√m
Aluminium 2024-T851 455 26
7075-T651 495 24
Titanium Ti-6Al-4V 910 115
*Ti-6Al-4V 1035 55
Steel 4340 860 99
*4340 1515 60
52100 2070 14
 heat treated for higher strength

Yielding fracture mechanics

We have examined the effect of load and crack size when the material is either perfectly
elastic or perfectly plastic - but how does a real ductile behave ? There are various
approaches to answering this, ranging from simple interaction models between the two
perfect mechanisms which we have already examined, through to the 'J-integral'
technique involving an energy integral around the crack tip, and three- dimensional finite
element models with elastic- plastic constitutive laws. Let's see how we might tackle the
problem without the complexity ( or accuracy ) of these last methods.

In practice, the inevitable yield zone ahead of the crack leads to a blunt crack tip. Thus,
LEFM predicts a sharp tip to the crack of length a, as indicated in figure ( k) here.
Further considerations require a yield zone, of size ry as shown in the previous section.
In actuality ( l) the tip is stretched by an amount δ - the crack tip opening displacement
or COD - which may be confirmed and measured experimentally.

Plastic effects are sometimes allowed for approximately by applying LEFM with an
'equivalent crack size', a' figure ( m), equal to the actual crack size plus some
proportion of the plastic zone size. This 'small scale yielding correction' becomes
increasingly inaccurate when the background stress reaches an appreciable fraction of
yield.

δ, being strain-based, is a more suitable crack characterising parameter in the post -yield
region, than is K which is stress -based. It may be shown that, for a centrally cracked
infinite plate, the crack opening displacement and the plastic zone size are

( ii) δ = a 8/π Sy /E' ln sec ( π/2 σ/Sy ) ; where E' = E

plane stress
ry = a ( sec ( π/2 σ/Sy ) - 1 ) or E' = E/( 1 -ν2) plane strain
Crack opening displacement is similar to stress intensity in that it is a function of crack
length a and load ( eg. background stress σ ), however it also takes material properties -
particularly Sy - into account. The ratio of background stress to yield stress is particularly
relevant as the following results from ( ii) illustrate.
σ --> Sy Tending towards plastic collapse; both δ and ry --> infinity
σ = 2/3 Sy The plastic zone and crack sizes are equal
σ --> 0 Tending towards LEFM ( negligible plasticity ) and enabling binomial
expansion of ( ii)

( iii) δ --> π a σ2 / E' Sy and since this refers to LEFM, then from ( 1) :
--> KI2 / E' Sy

The advantages of COD as a crack characterising parameter should now be apparent - it

is applicable over the whole range of loading, from linear elastic fracture to plastic
collapse. One may expand on the COD theme as was done for stress intensity -
configuration factors for non -infinite shapes, a critical maximum COD ( δc ) being a
material property, and so on - however we shall restrict ourselves to the adaptation of the
COD equation to provide an interaction formula for correlating the two extreme
mechanisms noted above.

We take σE as the failure load when the mechanism is perfectly elastic ( LEFM ), and
σP as the failure load when the mechanism is perfectly plastic ( plastic collapse ) - both of
these can be computed by the methods of the previous sections. To find σF, the failure
load when both elastic fracture and plastic collapse occur, we proceed as follows.
δc = a 8/π ( Sy /E' ) ln sec ( π/2 σF /Sy ) is the critical COD from ( ii) under
failure load σF
= KIc2 / E' Sy on equating critical properties from ( iii).

But for an infinite plate KIc = σE √( π a ) and σP = Sy , so the interaction is

(3) π/2 ( σF /σP ) = arccos ( exp [ - 1/2 { π/2 ( σE /σP ) }2 ] )

Predicting the failure load in this way via the COD equation, is known as the 'two
criteria' or 'CEGB R6' approach to failure assessment - the failure locus from ( 3) plots
as shown. Although ( 3) was deduced on the basis of a centrally cracked infinite plate, it
is applicable to any configuration provided the axes are interpreted as load ratios rather
than merely stress ratios.

This approach is just one of many possible interaction models. Recalling the Column
Analogy and adapting the nomenclature used with imperfect columns, it is apparent that
the R6 locus is a particular case of the general interaction model shown here, which
requires θ --> 1 as ψ --> 0 and θ --> 0 as ψ --> 1.
Various empirical correlations such as ( 1/θ - 1) ∗ ( 1/ψ - 1) = constant have been
proposed - some of which describe particular experimental results better than others. One
model which finds wide acceptance is the 'circular' failure locus θ2 + ψ2 = 1, that is
( 4) 1/σF2 = 1/σE2 + 1/σP2

For an infinite plate KIc = σE √( π a ) and σP = Sy as above, so this may be written

( 4a) σF = Sy / √( 1 + a / a* )

in which a* = 1/π ( KIc / Sy )2 is a material property, like bo ( 2a)

These examples illustrate application of the foregoing interaction models to deduce

elastic- plastic behaviour.

The interaction approach does not provide detailed understanding of the failure
mechanism - for this one must resort to more complex techniques - however it gives
some insight into the role of plasticity in fracture mechanics.

The implication of critical crack size and limitations of crack size detection during
inspection must be appreciated. If a crack of the critical size remains undetected by the
inspection process then no amount of inspection will avert potential catastrophe.

Fatigue crack growth

Steady loads only have been considered so far, for which we have noted the effect of
increasing crack size on failure tendency. We now consider crack growth under
alternating loads, ie. the fatigue process.

A typical crack history under a cyclic load of constant amplitude, Δσ, is sketched. A
crack of size a1 exists initially, and grows in a stable, controlled manner until the critical
crack size is approached - when crack growth rates increase out of hand and disaster
strikes.
For a given material, the instantaneous rate of crack growth, the slope da/dN, is found to
depend mainly upon the stress intensity range, ΔK, as expected - since
- it is the near tip field ( characterised by K ) which affects crack advance, and
- fatigue is known to be greatly dependent upon the range of stress and of load ( the
'S' of the S-N diagram ) which is proportional to the range of stress intensity, as suggested
here :

Growth rate da/dN is affected also by the mean component of intensity - typically
characterised by the load ratio R = Kmin/Kmax - but this is largely a reflection of
Kmax approaching the critical Kc , ie. of impending fracture.

Closure of the crack, if and when the load becomes compressive, is usually allowed for
by simply ignoring any sub -zero compressive excursions. Further evidence suggests that
as the load changes from tensile to compressive, the crack closes while the load is still
tensile - a result of residual stresses; however we shall neglect such complications here.
So, accepting that intensity range is the main contributor to growth rate, the relationship
is found to be as follows - this being a unique sigmoidal curve for each particular
material. There are three stages
I Initiation. Relates to cleavage along grain boundaries at rates of the order of
one lattice spacing per cycle ( 4 E-7 mm/cycle ); growth requires the stress intensity
range to exceed some threshold value; influenced greatly by environment. This stage is
byepassed if a crack exists prior to loading ( eg. the point 1 sketched may be the initial
state ).

II Stable Propagation. This is the most important stage, dealing with identifiable
cracks (say > 0.1 mm ) growing in a stable manner. The direction of propagation is less
random than in stage I and the material behaves more homogeneously. The material
characteristic crack growth rate vs intensity range is approximately log-log linear
throughout stage II and so we may write
( 5 ) da/dN = C ΔKn
- the so-called Paris equation in which C and the index n are constant material
properties. Selected values appear in the literature, it being customary to cite C
indirectly by the stress intensity range, ΔKo , which corresponds to a certain crack
growth rate, (da/dN)o - often 1 mm/Mc thus C = (da/dN)o / ΔKon

III Instability. Although important, this stage exists only for a very small fraction
of the component's life, since the instability is catastrophic. The onset of stage III is
dictated by the critical crack size being approached, that is by Kmax tending to Kc - 2
in the sketch.
One empirical modification of ( 5) which caters for both stages II and III, is :
( 5a) da/dN = C ΔKn / { 1 - ( Kmax /K c )n }
Thus if Kmax << Kc, then the RHS denominator --> 1 corresponding to stage II;
alternatively if Kmax --> Kc then da/dN tends to infinity ( stage III ).

Integration of ( 5a) yields the component life ( ΔN12 cycles ) which elapses during crack
growth from a1 to a2, thus, in normalised form :

( 5b ) { (da/dN)o ΔN12 /w } { Δσ √( πw) / ΔKo }n = ∫12( Y √α ) -n dα - ( Yc √αc

) -n ( α2 - α1 )
in which αc is the normalised critical crack size corresponding to Kc,
and α2 ≤ αc.

The Pascal program Crack Growth enables integration along these lines; it assumes that
the configuration factors, both elastic and plastic, are single functions of crack size.

When plane strain conditions are assured, then Kc ≡ KIc in the foregoing; otherwise it is
suggested that the Kc predicted by the R6 ( or other elastic -plastic interaction
relationship ) should be used.
It is usually the initial, rather than the final state of affairs which has largest bearing on
component life, as is demonstrated here.