Engineering Frac",," Mechanics Vol. 31. No.6. pp. 985-992. 1988 0013-7944/88 $3.00+.

00
Printed in Great Britain © 1988 Pergamon Pre.. pIc.

MEASUREMENT OF CONTINUOUS DAMAGE

PARAMETER
YUAN-SHENG CHENGt and YUNGBIN HUANG
Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Shanghai University of Technology,
Shanghai 200072, China

Abstract-The present paper introduces several measuring methods of continuous damage

parameter derived by the classical definition D = 1 - (Ad A.): (1) The measuring method on the
basis of D = 1 - (E'/ E); (2) The measuring method on the basis of D = 1- (EJ/E2); (3) The
measuring method on the basis of D = -APoIpo, (4) The measuring method on the basis of
D = A d / A., and comments on these measuring methods.

1. INTRODUCTION
WITH THE building of nuclear plants and the development of space technology, a new branch of
solid mechanics-eontinuum damage mechanics has come into existence.
The definition and the measure of damage parameter is one of the fundamental research
topics of continuum damage mechanics. The present paper introduces several measuring
methods of damage parameter derived by the classical definition D = 1 - (AJ At).
For the sake of space, about the fundamental contents of continuum damage mechanics and
the various phenomenological empirical formulae of continuum damage mechanics it is
unneccessary to go into details, and the reader can refer to the literatures [1-5].
The classical definition of continuous damage parameter is: For the bar subjected to a
tensile load, when it is damaged, microcavities are created within the specimen (void, micropore
and microactivity are synonymous in the present paper). Let its apparent area of cross section
be A a , but the effective cross sectional area be A e • Then, continuous damage parameter D may
be defined as follows

(1.1)

From this classical definition several measuring formulae of damage parameter can be
derived. For the formulae, on the basis of which the several fundamental measuring methods are,
we will go into details in the following paragraphs.

2. METHOD ON THE BASIS OF D=I-(E'IE)

2.1. Principle
For a specimen, let its Young's modulus be E when it is undamaged and after it is damaged
its Young's modulus be E'. Then, damage parameter D may be written in the form

D = 1- (E'IE). (2.1)

The physics of metals[6] pointed out that the Young's modulus E of a metal be dependent
particularly on the radius of atom and the kind of crystal lattice. It can be expressed
approximately

E= kIm (2.2)

where r be the radius of the atom and k, m the constants of metallic materials. It is thus obvious

t Current address: Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN
55455, U.S.A.

985
986 YUAN-SHENG CHENG AND YUNGBIN HUANG

that only the factors that have influence over the constants of the crystal lattice, can change the
Young's modulus of the metal. Precisely because of this, the Young's modulus is the stablest
mechanical behaviour of metal, and alloying, heat-treatment and hot-working or cold-working
hardly change the value of E[6].
Now in continuum damage mechanics such a formula D = 1 - (E'I E) appears. Certainly
one asks a question: the damage creates only some microcavities within the metal, but the
appearance of microcavities can not change the constants of the crystal lattice. Why does the
damage change the Young's modulus of the metal? Such a definition D = 1- E'IE can not be
understood by some metal-physicists and metallurgists. For this reason we explain as follows:
For the specimen subjected to a tensile load, it becomes damaged, let its apparent area of
the cross section be A a , the effective cross sectional area be A". From eq. (1.1), we have

Ae = Aa(l- D). (2.3)

After specimen deterioration, let the specimen be reloaded with a tensile load p', which causes
the specimen elastical deformation, we treat it still according to the traditional idea-the
Young's modulus E does not change, i.e.

(2.4)

Substituting eq. (2.3) into the above-mentioned equation, we get

P'IAa(l- D) = EE. (2.5)

Hence
(P'I Aa)(l/ E) = E(l - D). (2.6)

p', A a and E of the left side of eq. (2.6) all can be measured, we denote purely man-made the data
measured (P'IA a)(l/E) by the sign E', i.e.

(P'I Aa)(l/E) = E' (2.7)

and we call this data (P'IAa)(l/E) the Young's modulus of the damaged specimen. Here, one
quotes only the term "Young's modulus" of metal-physics, but it does not possess such an
implication of the Young's modulus in metal-physics (imply Ea1/,."').
From eq. (2.6) and (2.7), we get

E(I- D)= E'. (2.8)

We rewrite the above-mentioned equation, hence obtain

D=I-(E'IE). (2.9)

Using such explanation, the definition D = 1- (E'/E) can be easily accepted.

Another explanation is pointed out by Hult[7]. One can consider the damaged material as
the composite material in which the second phase is microcavities. According to the
combination law of Young's modulus of the composite material, the Young's modulus of the
damaged material is

E ' -- E V - V + E dV-
d d
(2.10)
V V
where, E is the Young's modulus of the undamaged material, V is the apparent total volume of
the specimen, V d is microcavities within the specimen occupy volume, and Ed is the Young's
modulus of the second phase "microcavities".
 Continuous damage parameter 987

Because Ed = 0, then from eq. (2.10) we get

E'=E V- V d (2.11 )
V

but

where A.t = A a - A e , microcavities in the cross section occupy the area. L equals the length of
the specimen.

(2.12)

Hence, from eq. (2.11) we obtain eq. (2.1)

D = 1- (E'I E).

2.2. Method
First of all, one measures the Young's modulus E of the undamaged specimen. After the
specimen is damaged, then let the specimen be loaded with a force p', so that its deformation is
elastic, measure A a and p', and using a strain gauge measure E according to the following
formula

D= 1-!(~!)
E AaE '
(2.13)

one obtains the value of the damage parameter D. Using this method Lemaitre and
Chaboche[8], Lu[9], Lee et al.[1O], Yu et al.[l1] and Gong et al.[12] have made a lot of
measurements.
Lu[9] made use of 08F steel and 45# cold-rolled steel plate (their thickness being 0.8 mm
and 1.7 mm, respectively) to make the plate specimen (ct. Fig. 1); the axial direction is in the
rolling direction of the original material. Before tension, along the axial direction at every
millimetre engrave one mark and using a reading microscope measure the distance of every
interval, Lo. After tensile deformation, re-measure the distance of every interval, L. Thus, one
gets the plastic strain Ep = (L - Lo)1Lo. Place strain gauges on selected different positions of the
specimen which have different plastic deformation, Ep •
Then let the specimen be loaded with a force P which causes only elastic deformation.
Using strain gauge measure the elastic strain Ee , from

where A is the cross sectional area. Thus, from eq. (2.1) one obtains the values D of damage
parameter for the positions of the different plastic deformation. Even though the values of
damage parameter measured by Lu's method[9] are approximative, one makes use of only one
specimen and obtains the value of damage parameter for different damaged positions, it is very
convenient to draw the experimental curve for plastic damage.

-1-~.~._+
Fig. 1.
988 YUAN-SHENG CHENG AND YUNGBIN HUANG

3. METHOD ON THE BASIS OF D=1-(El/E2)

3.1. Principle
Let the specimen of the brittle material with the cross sectional area of A o be loaded with
such a tensile load P*, which does not cause the specimen to deteriorate and measure the
elongation percentage E!

(3.1)

where E is the Young's modulus. Then let the specimen be loaded with a tensile load P (P > P*).
Such a load P causes the creation of defects resulting in a change of the effective cross sectional
area. For the brittle materials after relieving the load, the apparent area of the cross section is
still A o, but the load has caused the creation of structural defects resulting in a change of the
effective cross sectional area

(3.2)

where A" is the effective cross sectional area and Ad the area occupied by microcavities. From
eq. (1.1)

Ae = AoO - D). (3.3)

With subsequent reloading of the specimen with a force P*, the elongation percentage Ez
will be measured. We may note

(3.4)

Substituting eq. (3.3) into eq. (3.4), we obtain

(3.5)

Comparing eq. (3.1) and (3.5) it yields

Hence, we get the formula

(3.6)

Equation (3.6) implies that just E! and EZ be measured, one obtains the value of damage
parameter D.
This measuring method appears first in Piechnik and Pachla's work [13]. Other references
concerning this measuring method are Cheng's work[14, 15].

3.2. Method
Generally select P* = O/5-l/4)upA o, where up is the assigned proportional limit of the
material.
How does one know that P* does not cause the specimen to deteriorate? First of all let the
specimen be loaded with a force P* and measure the elongation percentage E\. Then let the
specimen be unloaded, the specimen is subsequently reloaded with a force P*, measure the
elongation percentage Ei. If Ei = El> it implies that p* does not cause the specimen to deterior-
ate. If Ei > Et, it indicates that P* has caused the specimen to deteriorate.
Let the undamaged specimen be loaded with a force P* and measure the elongation
percentage E!. Then the specimen be loaded with a force P (P> P*). Let the specimen be
unloaded. The specimen is subsequently reloaded with a tensile load P*, measure the elongation
percentage Ez. Thus we get the value of damage parameter D = 1 - (EdEz).
 Continuous damage parameter 989

-
(L

Fig. 2.

5
/
./
./
4 ./
./
./
z ./
.:: 3 ./
(L
/
/
/
/
15 ---;.1-:'4
/ 1./ I
/ /( I
~/ I I
0.02

Fig. 3.

Piechnik and Pachla[13] adopted this method for the measurement of the damage
parameter for fine-grained concrete. The elongation percentage was measured by 4 in. base of
the socket strain gauge. Let the specimen be 4 x 4 x 16 cm in size and aged 8 years. Specimen
failure load Pb was 5.8 kN.
Piechnik and Pachla's loading program was performed by assuming P* = 1.5 kN, P =
4.0 kN and P = 5.0 kN. Deformation after reloading with force has been plotted in Figs 2 and 3,
respectively. The values of damage parameter D as calculated from eq. (3.6) (point A and B)
and point C which corresponds to the failure load are shown in Fig. 4. The function
D = D(P! Pb) which was obtained from results of experiments by least squares approximation
method is plotted with full line in Fig. 4 (Figs 2-4 of the present paper are taken from Figs 6-8 of
[13]).
We know from [13] that even for concrete, its Ez was only 0.4 x 10-6 and 0.53 x 10-6, so
using a general strain gauge one cannot measure the value of damage parameter for metal[16].
The measuring method on the basis of D = 1 - (EI!EZ) is only suitable for the case of very
small elastic deformation. Otherwise, in the case of plastic deformation, the apparent area A a of
the cross section is no longer equal to the cross sectional area A o of the original undamaged
specimen. In this case, A e + Ad = A a < A o. Therefore, we cannot obtain the formula

We think, the measuring method on the basis of D = 1- (Et!Ez) can be used to measure
damage parameter for brittle materials such as ceramics and concrete etc.
990 YUAN-SHENG CHENG AND YUNGBIN HUANG
I - _ - _ - - _.C

0.8

o
0.5

02

0.2

Fig. 4.

4. METHOD ON THE BASIS OF D=-4.{Jo/Po

4.1. Principle
The measuring method on the basis of D = -lipol Po was proposed by Italian scientists G.
Bernasconi, G. Piatti et al.[17-20]. It is proved that D = -IiPoIPo coincide with the classical
definition (1.1) of damage parameter proposed by Kachanov.
For a tensile specimen, in the original case we assume it has not been damaged, its density,
the cross sectional area and length are denoted by Po, A o and La, respectively. The specimen is
loaded and is damaged. After relieving the load, the apparent area, the effective cross sectional
area, length and density for the damaged specimen are denoted by A a , A e , Land p, respectively.
The mass of the specimen is equal to

(4.1)

For the effective volume which does not include microcavities its density is certainly equal to the
density Po. Then, the mass can be expressed as follows

(4.2)

Combining eqs (4.1) and (4.2), we obtain

(4.3)

Substituting eq. (4.3) into the classical formula (1.1), we get

The proof of the present paper is simpler and clear than [18-19].

4.2. Method
Italian scientists carried out a lot of experiments according to D == -Ii Pol Po, and determined
a lot of data. They obtained the empirical formulae for damage parameter D[17-19] and
Cozzarelli and Bernasconi [20] extended from the empiric formulae into the general expressions.
This measuring method requires that the experiments be carried out under the conditions of
thermal insulation and vibration isolation using electron thermal balance. On the specific
equipment and procedure, reader is referred to Bell[21], Kuhlmann-Wildpord[22] and
Ratcliffe [23].
 Continuous damage parameter 991

5. METHOD ON THE BASIS OF D = A41 A.

5.1. Principle
This method is one that calculates immediately the damage parameter according to the
classical definition D = 1 - A e/ A a• Taking advantage of the pictures of scanning electron
microscope one measures the area Ad occupied by microcavities on the cross section of the
damaged specimen, according to the following formula

(5.1)

one gets the damage parameter. Using the method researchers have made some
measurements [24-27].

5.2. Method
Incising the damaged specimen, according to the requirments for making a metallographi-
cal specimen, to abrade, polish and etch lightly, one puts the metallographical specimen into a
scanning electron microscope and magnifies 750-2000 times, and takes pictures, then magnifies
the pictures several times. Using a planimeter or auto-discernible instrument one measures the
area occupied by microcavities.
Usually take 6~9 pictures for different places of one metallographical specimen (cf. Fig. 5).
Assume the area of every picture to be 5, measure the area occupied by microcavities for n
pictures, let them equal ~b"" ~n, respectively. Thus, we can get the value of damage
parameter

A d1 + A d2 + ... + A dn
D= n5--' (5.2)

Using the specially designated network plate one can calculate rapidly, conveniently the area
occupied by microcavities [26].

5.3. On the definition D = In (Aa/a e )

Broberg [28] proposed the definition of damage parameter

Aa
D=ln
Ae · (5.3)

We denote

(5.4)

Db = In(AJ A). (5.5)

The relationship between Kachanov's definition D k and Broberg's definition Db is similar to

the relationship between the engineering strain and the true strain. When the value of D k is
infinitesimal, D k = Db.

DOD DOD
DOD
DDD DOD
Fig. 5.
992 YUAN-SHENG CHENG AND YUNGBIN HUANG

6. OTHER MEASURING METHODS

Other methods of measuring damage such as ultrasonic measurement, resistivity measure-
ment, magnetoconductivity measurement and inherent measurement of scattering frequency
spectrum etc. [29-33], can show the appearance of the damage of material and its development,
but at the moment they can not determine exactly the value of damage parameter yet.
With the development of science and technology, particularly experimental technology, the
measurement of damage parameter will be resolved further, thus continuum damage mechanics
will be grown further.

REFERENCES
[1] D. Krajcinovic, Continuum damage mechanics. Appl. Mech. Rev. 37,1-6 (1984).
[2] D. Krajcinovic, Continuum damage mechanics. to appear in Mech. Today.
[3] J. L. Chaboche, Continuous damage mechanics, a tool to describe phenomena before crack initiation. Nucl. Engng
Des. 64, 233-247 (1981).
[4] Hao Songlin and Chen Zhuzeng, Damage and continuum damage mechanics. J. Nat. Univ. of Defense
Technology Vol. 2, pp. 1-36 (1984) (in Chinese).
[5] Shen Zhen, Continuum damage mechanics and its application to composite materials. Adv. Mech. 15, 147-161
(1985) (in Chinese).
[6] Xian Chiao-tung University and Shanghai ChiaO-Tung University, Mechanical Behaviour of Metal. Mech. Press.
Peking (1965).
[7] J. Huh, Euraton Creep Modelling Panel, Ispra, Italy (March 1977).
[8] J. Lemaitre and J. L. Chaboche, Aspect phenomenologique de la rupture par endommagement. J. Mecca.
Applique. 2, 317-365 (1978).
[9] Lu Yunbing, Damage characterizations for carbon steel, M.S. Thesis, Huazhong Univ. of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China (1984).
[10] H. Lee, K. Peng and J. Wang, An anisotropic damage criterion for deformation instability and its application to
forming limit analysis of metal plates. Engng Fracture Mech. 21, 1031-1054 (1985).
[11] Yu Qifeng et al., Query on using Young's modulus E to define plastic damage, First Chinese Nat. Conf. on
Continuum Damage Mechanics, Huangshan, Anhui (November 21-23 1985).
[12] Gong Pu, et al. Damage of materials and elastic constants. First Chinese Nat. Conf. on Continuum Damage
Mechanics, Huangshan, Anhui (November 21-23 1985).
[13] S. Piechnik and H. Pachla, Law of continuous damage parameter for non-ageing materials. Engng Fracture Mech.
12, 199-209 (1979).
[14] Y. S. Cheng, A review on the law of continuous damage parameter for non-ageing materials. Engng Fracture Mech.
17,211-217 (1983).
[15] Y. S. Cheng, Determination of expression of continuous damage parameter for non-ageing materials under
constant tensile load. Appl. Math. Mech. 7, 299-303 (1986).·
[16] Jiang Beiyuan et al., On application of strain gauge to continuum damage mechanics, 2nd Chinese Nat. Conf. on
Short-time Mechanics, GuiJing, Guangxi (June 1985).
[17] G. Piatti, G. Bernasconi and F. A. Cozzarelli, Damage equations for creep rupture in steels, Paper LlI/4. 5th Int.
Conf. on SMiRT, Berlin (1979).
[18] G. Belloni, G. Bernasconi and G. Piatti, Creep damage models, in Creep of Engineering Materials and Structures
(Edited by G. Bernasconi and G. Piatti), pp. 195-227. Appl. Sci. Pub., England (1978).
[19] G. Belloni, G. Bernasconi and G. Piatti, Creep damage and rupture in AISI 310 austenitic steel. Meccanica 12.
84-96 (1977).
[20] F. A. Cozzarelli and G. Bernasconi, Non-linear creep damage under one-dimensional variable tensile stress. Int. J.
Non-linear Mech. 16,27-38 (1981).
[21] G. A. Bell, The measurement ofsmall changes in density in large specimens. Austr. J. appl. Sci. 9, 236-244 (1958).
[22] D. Kuhlmann-Wildpord and K. Sezaki, Improved method for experimental determination of smallest density
changes. Rev. Sci. Inst. 34, 114-115 (1963).
[23] R. T. Ratcli1le, The measurement of small density changes in solids. Br. J. appl. Phys. 16, 1193-1196 (1965).
[24J J. F. Knott, Micromechanism of fibrous crack extension in engineering alloys. Metall. Sci. 14, 327-336 (1980).
[25] G. Le Roy and M. F. Ashby, A model of ductile fracture based on the nucleation and growth of void. Acta Metall.
29, 1509-1522 (1981).
[26] Sun Xiaoqing, et al., Effect of deformation path on plastic damage. First Chinese Nat. Conf. on Continuum Damage
Mechanics, Huangshan, Anhui (November 21-23 1985).
[27] Liu Xiangjie, Research on microcavities of tensile specimen for cabor steel. M.S. Thesis, Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (1984).
[28] H. Broberg, Damage measure in creep deformation and rupture. Swedish Solid Mech. Report (1974b).
[29] Wu Kecheng et al., Ultrasonic measurement of metallic plastic damage. FlTSt Chinese Nat. Conf. on Continuum
Damage Mechanics, Huangshan, Anhui (November 21-23 1985).
[30] L. Brathe, Macroscopic measurements of creep damage in metals. Scand. J. Metallurgy 7, 199-203 (1978).
[31] D. W. Wilson and J. A. Charles, Thermographic detection of adhesive-bond and interlaminar flaws in composites.
Exper. Meeh. 21, 276-280 (1981).
[32] R. H. Martinson, J. J. Hartog, G. C. Knollman, On the damage field near crack tips in a filled polymer. Exper,
Mech. 22, 329-335 (1982).
[33] Ouyang Ping, Inherent measure of scattering frequency spectrum and its application to continuum damage
mechanics. First Chinese Nat. Conf. on Continuum Damage Mechanics, Huangshan, Anhui (November 21-23
1985).

(Received 23 November 1987)