Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Solutions and applications of 3D elastic–plastic constraint

parameters for clamped single edge notched tension
(SENT) specimens
Zheng Liu a, b, Xin Wang c, *, Zhe Zhang a, b, d, Pengfei Jin a, b, Xu Chen a, b, d, *
a
School of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
b
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Chemical Process Safety and Equipment Technology, Tianjin 300350, China
c
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
d
Zhejiang Institute of Tianjin University, Ningbo 315200, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Single edge notched tension (SENT) specimen is a common fracture toughness test specimen now
Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics widely used in the pipeline and pressure vessels industries. In this paper, an extensive study has
SENT been conducted by three-dimensional (3D) finite element analyses (FEAs) to investigate the in-
Constraint effect
plane constraint parameters (namely A and QSSY) and out-of-plane constraint parameter, that
Finite element analysis
is, Eε33 for clamped SENT specimens with side-grooves. A wide range of crack depth to specimen
R-curve
width ratios a/W = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, specimen thickness to specimen width ratios B/
W = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 were included. The various strain hardening exponent (n = 4,
7, 10) and applied loading levels (from small-scale yielding to large-scale yielding) were also
investigated. The results show that the effects of crack depth, specimen thickness, loading level
and strain hardening index on the 3D constraint parameters show a significant coupling effect.
With the increase of load level, A value increases monotonically, while QSSY and the normalized
Eε33 (called V33) decrease, and the influence of specimen geometry on the constraint levels will
become greater. The values of A and V33 obviously decrease with the increase of hardening
exponent, but the change of QSSY is relatively small. Moreover, it can be observed that both A and
QSSY can well describe the in-plane constraint effect, and V33 can better quantify the out-of-plane
constraint effect under varying loading levels and n. In addition, elastic–plastic constraint pa­
rameters were also calculated for various experimental test specimens made of 16MND5 steel,
with n = 9.2. It was demonstrated these constraint parameters can be applied to quantify and
predict the J-R curves of 16MND5 steel with good agreements for specimens with different in-
plane and out-of-plane constraint conditions.

1. Introduction

It is generally accepted that accurately obtaining fracture toughness of engineering materials is the key to structural integrity
assessment of ductile materials [1,2]. Traditionally, elastic–plastic fracture mechanics presumed that the crack tip stress–strain field is

* Corresponding authors at: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada (X.
Wang); School of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China (X. Chen).
E-mail addresses: xin.wang@carleton.ca (X. Wang), xchen@tju.edu.cn (X. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108713
Received 15 March 2022; Received in revised form 1 August 2022; Accepted 4 August 2022
Available online 11 August 2022
0013-7944/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

controlled by a single parameter J-integral or crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) [3,4], and then the fracture toughness of ductile
materials under plane strain conditions can be determined using deep cracked single-edge notched bend (SENB) and compact tension
(CT) specimens [5]. However, since the measured fracture performance varies with the stress–strain fields at the crack tip, that is, the
high stress triaxiality (constraint) level will result in low fracture toughness. And the crack-tip’s constraint level is affected by the type
of loading, crack shape and size and specimen thickness, etc. [6,7]. Although the plane strain result is the safest, but it will bring in
excessive conservatism, especially for those cracked structures with low stress triaxiality, such as cracked pipes and pressure vessels
[8,9]. Therefore, how to determine the precise fracture properties (initiation fracture toughness and resistance curve) has become a
very important issue.
In recent decades, many scholars seek to directly use low-constraint specimens, whose constraint levels are similar to cracked
structures studied, to determine fracture toughness. There are commonly used low-constraint specimens including shallow cracked
SENB specimen, thin CT specimen, center crack tension (CCT) specimen, double edge notched tension (DENT) specimen and single
edge notched tension (SENT) specimen. Among them, SENT specimens, including pin-loaded SENT specimen and clamped SENT
specimen, have gained much attention. These specimens are particularly widely used in oil and gas industry [10], and have been
included by BS8571 fracture toughness test standard [11].
However, although the fracture behavior of these non-standard low-constraint specimens tends to be close to the true fracture
behavior of the cracked structures, they show obvious size-dependence and are still far from the true fracture property [3]. In order to
unify these low constraint specimens with different geometric dimensions and determine the actual fracture toughness of the cracked
structures, constraint-based fracture mechanics have been widely developed.
For a cracked structure of elastic–plastic material, extensive investigations of constraint effects on crack-tip fields have been
published since the 1990 s. At first, researchers paid attention to the two-dimensional (2D) fracture problems and developed many two-
parameter methods. The most widely used two-parameter methods are the J-T11 [12], J-Q [13,14], J-A2 [15,16], J-A [17,18] and so on,
with the corresponding constraint parameters are T11, Q, A2 and A. It is worth noting that these constraint parameters are equivalent to
each other under small scale yielding, and the specific relationships have been studied by O’Dowd and Shih [13,14,19], Wang et al.
[20–22] and Matvienko and Nikishkov [17], etc. Even though these parameters are very effective in quantifying in-plane constraint
variations (changes in crack depth), they are not as effective in quantifying the effect of out-of-plane constraint for three-dimensional
(3D) fracture problems, such as the influence of specimen thickness, arc-shaped crack and out-of-plane loads.
For the 3D fracture problem, the plane stress states and the plane strain features correspond to the upper and lower limits of the out-
of-plane constraint, respectively. And the effect of out-of-plane constraint is particular important when the size of plastic zone is
noticeable but less than the specimen thickness [23]. Currently, there are two commonly used out-of-plane constraint parameters, T33
and Tz. T33 is the second term of the 3D Williams series expansion, but it is in the out-of-plane (thickness) direction [24]. Tz was
introduced by Guo et al. [25], and its expression is Tz = σ zz/(σxx + σyy). Hereafter, Meshii et al. [26] directly used T33 to quantify the
effect of specimen thickness on J-R curves in the transition temperature region. Guo et al. [27,28] developed J-Q-Tz relationship to
better describe the stress field of various specimens.
Recognizing that the out-of-plane constraint parameter T33 is strongly affected by the in-plane constraint parameter T11, in our
previous work [29], the independent portion of T33, which is numerically equal to Eε33, was proposed as an out-of-plane constraint
parameter. Then, the in-plane and out-of-plane constraint effects on the fracture resistance curves (R-curves) of pipeline steel API X80
steel and reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steel 16MND5 [30,31] were studied. In this methodology, J-integral (or CTOD) represents the
loading level, F11 and V33 (T11 and Eε33 normalized by the nominal stress, defined later) are used to quantify the in-plane and out-of-
plane constraint level, respectively. Results show that the proposed method can well reproduce the experimental results and predict R-
curves of other cracked structures [32].
For SENT specimens, many finite element analyses (FEAs) have been carried out to calculate the corresponding constraint pa­
rameters. Li et al. [33] determined the T11 values for 2D clamped SENT specimens with various stress distributions acting on the crack
face. Jin and Wang [34] presented the T11 and T33 solutions for 3D pin-loaded SENT specimens with different geometric size and
loading conditions. Moreover, Liu et al. [35] systematically investigated the effects of the daylight (span between the edge of clamps H)
to width ratio (H/W), crack depth to width ratio (a/W) and specimen thickness to width ratio (B/W) on T11 and T33 of 3D clamped
SENT specimens. Results show that the above three parameters have a significant interaction on T-stress.
Since T11 and T33 are elastic–plastic constraint parameters suitable for small-scale yielding and contained yielding, it is desirable to
develop Q, A2 or A parameters solutions from elastic-plastic analysis, covering from small-scale yielding to large scale yielding
[13,15,36]. Cravero and Ruggieri [8] and Silva et al. [37] investigated the crack-tip constraint for pin-loaded SENT specimens and
clamped SENT specimens using J-Q approach. Gong et al. [38] proposed the J-Qz-M theory to characterize the crack-tip fields of 3D
clamped SENT specimens using 3D elastic–plastic FEA. Ding and Wang [21], Nikishkov and Matvienko [39] calculated the in-plane
constraint parameter A value for 3D pin-loaded SENT specimens with varying B/W, a/W, strain hardening exponent n and loading
levels.
Until now, for the clamped SENT specimens, there is no detailed 3D investigation of the combined effect of a/W, B/W, n and applied
loading levels on the in-plane constraint and out-of-plane constraint, especially for the solution of constraint parameters A, QSSY and
Eε33. Here Eε33 is the measurement of out-of-plane constraint obtained from elastic-plastic analysis [29]. Further, the combined in­
fluence of the above factors on the in-plane and out-of-plane constraints has not been revealed and quantified.
In the present work, extensive elastic–plastic FEAs were conducted to determine A, QSSY and Eε33 for side-grooved clamped SENT
specimens. The geometries analyzed included thin thickness to large thickness (B/W from 0.5 to 4.0) and shallow to deep crack depths
(a/W from 0.2 to 0.7). The various strain hardening exponents (n = 4, 7, 10 and 9.2) and applied loading levels (from small-scale
yielding to large-scale yielding) were also investigated. Based on the FEAs, the combination effects of a/W, B/W, n and loading

2
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

levels on the values of A, QSSY and Eε33 are illustrated. Finally, the elastic–plastic determined constraint parameters were applied to
develop the J (CTOD)-A(QSSY)- Eε33 methods, which can be used to predict J-R curves of 16MND5 steel.
The rest paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, details of the finite element analyses are introduced. The variation of 3D
constraint parameters with a/W, B/W, n and loading levels are discussed in Section 3. In Section 4, the 3D constraint-dependent
fracture mechanics methods are developed and used to predict the J-R curves of 16MND5 steel. Conclusions of the present paper
are summarized in Section 5.

2. Finite element analysis

Extensive finite element analyses are carried out to determine the in-plane and out-of-plane constraints for the modified boundary
layer (MBL) model and clamed SENT specimens. Note the FEA results for MBL model are required as reference solutions, then the J-
integral, A, QSSY and Eε33 values are calculated for SENT specimens. In this section, the details of the models are outlined.

2.1. Three-dimensional finite element model

2.1.1. Material properties

The material model used is the Ramberg-Osgood strain hardening relation, described in Eq. (1).
( )n
ε σ σ
= +α (1)
ε0 σ0 σ0
where α is the material constant, n is the hardening exponent, σ0 is the yield stress, and ε0 = σ0/E is yield strain, of which E is the
Young’s modulus. The following material properties are applied: E = 200,000 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, σ 0 = 400 MPa, α = 1, and n
= 4, 7 and 10. The deformation plasticity theory is used in all simulations.

2.1.2. Modified boundary layer models

The MBL model is used to determine the A value under the small-scale yielding (SSY) condition. The geometry and coordinate
system of MBL model are shown in Fig. 1. The 3D MBL model was developed by the commercial finite element code Abaqus 6.14–4
[40], with the 20-noded three-dimensional quadratic elements and reduced integration (C3D20R). A sharp crack with tip located at r
= 0 is established. In the plane perpendicular to the crack front, the element dimensions are gradually increased with radial distance
from the crack front, and a total of forty radial elements are applied. Moreover, there are twenty-four sectors within the angular region
from 0 to π along the circumference, and one element layer through the thickness. The finite element mesh of 3D MBL model is shown
in Fig. 2.
For boundary conditions of 3D MBL model, the out-of-plane displacement component uz = 0 is applied. Then, displacement
components ux and uy calculated by Eq. (2) are uniformly applied on the finite element model across the disk thickness at r = rmax = R,
where R is the maximum radius [20].
√̅̅̅̅̅ ( )[ ( )]
KI r θ θ
ux = cos κ − 1 + 2sin2 (2a)
2μ 2π 2 2
√̅̅̅̅̅ ( )[ ( )]
KI r θ θ
uy = sin κ + 1 − 2cos2 (2b)
2μ 2π 2 2
where μ = E/(1 + ν) is the shear modulus, κ = 3-4ν. KI is the far-field stress intensity factor, which can be determined from the far-

Fig. 1. Three-dimensional modified boundary layer model.

3
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 2. Finite element model mesh for the modified boundary layer model.

field J-integral by:

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
JE
KI = (3)
1 − v2
In the current work, the value of J-integral is 10000 J/m2 to generate the plastic zone is less than 2 %R for all strain hardening
exponent n.

2.1.3. Three-dimensional clamped SENT specimens

The geometry of clamped SENT specimen is as shown in Fig. 3. All studied specimens are designed according to the CANMET test
method [10] and have the same gage length H (H = 10*W = 10*15 mm), and are designed with side-grooves (60◦ angle, 0.5 mm root
radius and 0.1B depth). The values of crack depth ratio a/W are 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, respectively. For each a/W, the values of
specimen thickness ratio B/W are 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0, respectively.
All 3D model of clamped SENT specimens were developed by the commercial finite element code Abaqus 6.14–4 [40]. Due to
symmetry, a quarter of the 3D clamped SENT model was built with the C3D20R elements. To simulate the crack-tip large nonlinear
deformation, an initial notch with radius 0.001 mm was incorporated in the model. Moreover, the thinner elements were used when
the free surface is approaching. A sharp V-notch with an opening angle of 60◦ was used to simulate the side-groove. The element size
decreases gradually as it approaches the notch root. A typical finite element model is shown in Fig. 4.
The symmetry conditions across the mid-plane and the crack, and ligament plane were used. The clamped regions were constrained
to a reference point and totally fixed except in the direction of force application. A concentrated force P with a maximum value of 1.3Py
was applied to the reference point, where Py is equal to BNbσ0, of which BN is specimen net thickness and b is remaining ligament. These
applied loads can cover a wide range of both small-scale and large-scale yielding.

2.2. Calculation of A, QSSY and Eε33

For a mode-I crack in 2D elastic–plastic body under the plane strain conditions, the material behavior can be described in Eq. (1),
Nikishkov et al. [41] developed a three-term solution of stress near the crack-tip as:

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of 3D clamped SENT specimen.

4
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 4. Typical finite element model mesh.

σij A2
σ (0)
= A0 r s ̃ t (1)
σ(2)
σij (θ) + r2t− s ̃
ij (θ) − A r ̃ ij (θ) (4)
σ0 A0
2)
where σ ij are stress components σ r, σθ and σrθ in the polar coordinate system with origin at the crack-tip; ̃
σ (0−
ij are dimensionless
angular stress functions; s = -1/(n + 1); exponent t is calculated eigenvalue; normalized radiusr = r/(J/σ0); and the coefficient A0 is
defined as:

A0 = (αε0 In )s (5)
where In is the dimensionless integral constant, which is influenced by n. And the above parameters (s, t) and dimensionless angular
stress functions can be found in the papers by Nikishkov [18] and Yang et al. [16] and summarized in Table A1in Appendix A.
In this paper, the domain integral method was applied to determine the J-integral values. The A values were calculated by the
fitting of Eq. (4) using the FEA results in the region between 1.5≤r ≤ 5.0 and 0◦ ≤θ ≤ 45◦ . More detailed calculation process of A can be
referred to Nikishkov et al. [18].
Then, the QSSY value can be obtained from the relationship with A (see Appendix of Ding et al. [21]):
( 2 )
A − A2SSY 2t− s (2)
σ(1)
QSSY = − (A − ASSY )rt ̃ij (θ) + r ̃ σij (θ), θ = 0, r = 2 (6)
A0
where ASSY is the A value for small-scale yielding condition. For ASSY with different n, it can be obtained from the 3D MBL model
analyses. Note all the constraint quantities are taken at r = 2, which is outside the blunting zone, and within the zone where fracture
occurs as discussed in [13].
Next, the tangential strain component at the crack front ε33, at r = 2, determined from the FEAs was used to obtain the out-of-plane
constraint parameter Eε33. The mid-plane Eε33 can be calculated and normalized by the nominal stress as:
Eε33
V33 = (7)
σn
where σ n is the nominal stress and can be determined by σ n = P/(BNB) 0.5W, of which P is applied load, B is specimen thickness, BN is
specimen net thickness and W is specimen width. Note, the in-plane and out-of-plane constraint parameters calculated in this paper are
the results at the mid-thickness location, which has the highest constraint levels.

2.3. Verification of the finite element procedure

First, convergence studies on mesh sizes were carried out and showed good convergence. Then, to verify the accuracy of 3D MBL
model, the calculated ASSY values of α = 0.5, 1.0, with hardening index n = 4, 7, 10, at r = 2, were compared with the results of Refs.
[21,41] and listed in Table 1. It can be easily seen from Table 1 that the maximum difference of ASSY values is less than 3 %.
Next, to verify the accuracy of current numerical analysis method, 3D SENT models with B/W = 0.5, a/W = 0.2–0.7 were used to
determine A values of pin-loaded SENT specimens. In order to compare with the results of Nikishkov et al. [39], the boundary con­
ditions and material parameters (n = 5, 10) of the finite element models were consistent. A remote tensile load P of 0.75PLwere directly

5
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

applied to the ends of the specimens, where PL is the limit load of pin-loaded SENT specimen and expressed as [39]:
( ( )0.5 )
PL = 1.455σ0 aB − 1 + 1 + ((W − a)/a )2 (8)

where σ0 is the yield stress, a is crack depth, B is specimen thickness and W is specimen width.
The calculation results of A are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that very good agreements with [39] are obtained, with the dif­
ferences being less than 3.5 % for all models. In addition, considering that the current models all have side-grooves, and the results of
Nikishkov et al. [39] do not include side-grooves’ effect, minor differences are expected. Through the above calculations, the current
finite element procedures are considered suitable for the solutions of 3D constraint parameters for clamped SENT specimens.

3. Results of A, QSSY and Eε33

In this section, the values of A, QSSY and V33 for 3D clamped SENT specimens with varying geometric dimensions under different
strain hardening exponent n and applied loading levels are detailly presented. All the presented constraint parameters are the results at
the normalized distance of r = r/(J/σ0) = 2. Moreover, since the J-integral is a commonly used driving force, varying monotonically
with the change of load, the normalized J-integral (J/(bσ0)) is used as the parameter to quantify the applied loading levels [38]. For the
convenience of readers, the detailed data of the A and V33 can be found in the Supplementary material in Appendix B.

3.1. Variations of in-plane constraint A

First, the constraint parameter A as a function of applied load (normalized J-integral) are shown in Figs. 6-9. Note Fig. 6a-f presents
the A values of n = 4 for specimens with B/W = 0.5–4.0, a/W = 0.2–0.7. It can be generally seen that the A value is positive and
increases with increasing of external load. For all specimen thickness, the A value monotonically decreases with the increase of crack
depth, indicating that the in-plane constraint level gradually increases, especially for thin specimen thickness (shown in Fig. 6a).
However, it can be observed that the influence of crack depth on A value is affected by applied loading level and specimen
thickness. It is found that the effect of crack depth on A value increases with the increase of applied load. In addition, with the increase
of specimen thickness, the influence of crack depth decreases. When the B/W ratio is greater than 2, the change of a/W ratio from 0.5 to
0.7 has little effect on A value (Fig. 6d-f). Therefore, even if only study the influence of crack depth on the in-plane constraint level, a
three-dimensional model is still needed.
Then, the A values of n = 7 and 10 for specimens with B/W = 0.5–4.0, a/W = 0.2–0.7 are presented in Fig. 7a-f and Fig. 8a-f,
respectively. From Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, it is seen that the influences of crack depth and loading level on A value are similar to that of n = 4.
It shows that A, as an in-plane constraint parameter, can better quantify the effects of crack depth and applied loading level. However,
the hardening exponent n still has a great influence on A value. By comparing Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, it can be found that the influence
of crack depth on A value decreases with the increase of n. Take B/W = 4.0 specimens of n = 10 for example, the A value of a/W = 0.2
significantly higher than other crack depths, but the change of A value is relatively small when the a/W from 0.3 to 0.7 (Fig. 8f).
Next, to further reveal the influence of hardening exponent and specimen thickness, the A values of n = 4, 7 and 10 for specimens
with a/W = 0.2 and B/W = 0.5–4.0 under different applied load are shown in Fig. 9a-c. It can be obviously observed that A mono­
tonically decreases with the increase of n, which is consistent with the results of Ref [21]. However, the specimen thickness has little
effect on the A value. Based on the above analysis, the constraint parameter A can better quantify the influences of crack depth, strain
hardening exponent and applied load levels, but cannot describe the impact of specimen thickness.

3.2. Distributions of in-plane constraint QSSY

QSSY, similar to A, is also used to describe the in-plane constraint level. Thus, the impacts of geometric dimensions, strain hardening
exponent and applied loading levels on the QSSY value is similar to that of A value. The distributions of QSSY with different a/W, B/W, n
and loading levels are presented in Figs. 10-13. It will be introduced in the following.
First, the general finding is that the QSSY value is negative, and the smaller it is, the farther it deviates from the small-scale yielding
state, and the lower the in-plane constraint level. Moreover, it is observed from Figs. 10-12 that the QSSY value decreases with
increasing of applied load and decreasing of crack depth.
In addition, the effects of a/W, B/W, n and applied loading level on QSYY values also show significant interaction. The influence of
crack depth on QSSY values increases with the increase of applied load. With the increase of specimen thickness and strain hardening
index, the impact of crack depth on QSSY values decreases, but in either case, the shallow cracked (a/W = 0.2) specimen still has the
lowest in-plane constraint level.

Table 1
Comparison of ASSY values from current FEAs and solutions from [21,41].
n ASSY (Present) ASSY [21] ASSY [41] Diff.% (with [21]) Diff.% (with [41])

4 0.7074 0.7063 0.7000 − 0.2 − 1.1

7 0.2836 0.2916 0.2818 2.7 − 0.6
10 0.2058 0.2063 0.2000 0.2 − 2.9

6
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 5. Comparison of A values determined from current FEA and results from Ref. [39] for pin-loaded SENT specimens with B/W = 0.5 under P/PL
= 0.75 loading condition.

Fig. 6. The results of A value of n = 4 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/W =
2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

Next, the QSSY values of n = 4, 7 and 10 for specimens with a/W = 0.2 and B/W = 0.5–4.0 under different applied load are shown in
Fig. 13a-c. Like the results of A value in section 3.1, QSSY cannot quantify the effect of specimen thickness. However, the response of
QSSY to the change of n is not as significant as that of A. To sum up, QSSY can also quantify the influence of crack depth and load level,
but the feedback to the change of n is not significant enough, so comparing to QSSY, the in-plane parameter A is more suitable to
describe the in-plane constraint level.

3.3. Variations of out-of-plane constraint V33

The variations of the normalized Eε33, V33, are presented in Figs. 14-17. It can be seen that all V33 values are negative. It can be
explained from Eq. (7) that in the plane strain state, V33 is equal to 0, and the smaller it is, the farther it deviates from the plane strain
state, that is, the lower the out-of-plane constraint level. For the same crack depth, the V33 value monotonically decreases with the
increase of applied load and decreasing of specimen thickness ratios (shown in Figs. 14-16). It also can be observed that the V33 values
of clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 0.5 are significantly lower than that of other specimen thicknesses, indicating a relatively
lower out-of-plane constraint condition. Therefore, the current SENT fracture test standard or manual recommends the use of thickness
ratio B/W ≥ 1 [10,11]. Furthermore, when B/W ≥ 2, the V33 value tends to be stable, but its value is still less than 0, which proves that

7
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 7. The results of A value of n = 7 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/W =
2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

Fig. 8. The results of A value of n = 10 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/W =
2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

the clamped SENT specimen is a low-constraint specimen.

On the other hand, the specimen thickness and loading level also show obvious comprehensive effects on V33 value. For large
specimen thickness ratios, the V33 value increase is relatively small as applied load increases. Similarly, the loading level also changes
the effect of specimen thickness on the V33 value. For relatively large applied load cases, the B/W has a greater influence on V33 value
(Figs. 14-16).
The variations of V33 of n = 4, 7 and 10 for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 1.0 and a/W = 0.2–0.7 under different applied
load are shown in Fig. 17a-c. It is observed that with the increase of n, the V33 value gradually decreases. Furthermore, although V33 is
the out-of-plane constraint parameter, it is also affected by the crack depth. Thus, V33 can better describe the effects of specimen

8
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 9. The results of A value of (a) n = 4, (b) n = 7 and (c) n = 10, for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2, B/W = 0.5–4.0.

Fig. 10. The results of QSSY value of n = 4 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/W
= 2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

thickness, strain hardening exponent and applied loading level, and can be used to quantify the out-of-plane constraint effect.

4. Applications

In this section, the fracture data of 16MND5 steel under varying in-plane and out-of-plane constraints are introduced, which
provides the data for the applications of 3D constraint-dependent fracture mechanics methods. The experimental data used in this
work have already been published in recent paper [31]. The details of experiments were briefly described as follow. Then, the 3D
constraint-based fracture mechanics methods, J-A(QSSY)-V33 are developed, which are the generalization of J-F11-V33 method [29].
Note in [29], F11 and V11 are related to T11 and T33, as discussed in section 1. Finally, the J-A(QSSY)-V33 methods are applied to predict
J-R curves of pin-loaded SENT specimens.

4.1. Fracture toughness data of 16MND5 steel

The material studied is a low alloy bainitic steel, 16MND5 having the following tensile mechanical properties: the elastic modulus is
215.4 GPa, the Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, the yield stress is 415.2 MPa, the ultimate strength is 580.1 MPa and the hardening exponent n is
9.21. The main chemical compositions in wt.% are: 0.19 C, 0.15 Si, 0.002 S, 0.005 P, 1.37 Mn, 0.76 Ni, 0.12 Cr, 0.47 Mo, 0.01 Nb, 0.02
Cu, 0.003 Sn, 0.0009 Sb and balance Fe. Then, a series of clamped SENT specimens (shown in Fig. 3) were designed according to Park
et al. [10]. For experiments with different 3D constraint conditions, there are total 28 specimens with an extensive combinations of B/
W ratios (from 0.5 to 4.0), a/W ratios (from 0.20 to 0.70) and H/W ratios (H/W = 8.0 and 10.0, W = 15 mm). Details of specimen
dimensions can be found in Table 2.
All designed specimens were tested on an MTS E64 test frame using the quasi-static loading conducted by the displacement-

9
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 11. The results of QSSY value of n = 7 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/W
= 2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

Fig. 12. The results of QSSY value of n = 10 for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2–0.7, (a) B/W = 0.5, (b) B/W = 1.0, (c) B/W = 1.5, (d) B/
W = 2.0, (e) B/W = 3.0 and (f) B/W = 4.0.

controlled mode (0.01 mm/s) at room temperature. The unloading compliance method was applied to estimate the instantaneous
crack sizes. The SENT test procedures outlined in [10] are followed. After the experiment, the tested data were processed to obtain the
J-R curves, which can be fitted by the power-law relationship:

J = CJ1 ΔaCJ2 (9)

where CJ1 and CJ2 are fitting coefficients of J-R curve.

10
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 13. The results of QSSY value of (a) n = 4, (b) n = 7 and (c) n = 10, for clamped SENT specimens with a/W = 0.2, B/W = 0.5–4.0.

Fig. 14. The results of V33 value of n = 4 for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 0.5–4.0, (a) a/W = 0.2, (b) a/W = 0.3, (c) a/W = 0.4, (d) a/W =
0.5, (e) a/W = 0.6 and (f) a/W = 0.7.

4.2. Numerical solution of constraint parameters, A, QSSY and V33

Accurate solution of in-plane and out of plane constraint parameters of test specimens is the premise of developing 3D constraint-
dependent fracture mechanics method. Thus, in the current section, considering that the tested 16MND5 steel has specific material
properties (E = 215,400 MPa, ν = 0.3, σ 0 = 415.2 MPa, α = 1, and n = 9.2) and specimen geometric dimensions (shown in Table 2), its
constraint parameters A, QSSY and V33 are directly calculated based on the finite element analyses.
The stress–strain curve of the material used in the simulation is Ramberg-Osgood strain hardening relation (Eq. (1)). The pa­
rameters (In, s, t, and angular stress functions) needed to calculate ASSY value through 3D MBL model are also listed in Table A1 in
Appendix A. The simulated specimen sizes are consistent with the tested specimen dimensions. Moreover, the meshing strategy and
boundary conditions are consistent with Section 2.1. It is worth noting that since the constraint parameters significantly depend on the
applied loading level, the constraint parameters corresponding to initiation fracture toughness at J0.2 are used [31].
The results of in-plane constraint parameters A, QSSY, and out-of-plane constraint parameter V33 at the mid-thickness location are
shown in Fig. 18a-c. It is shown in Fig. 18a that the A value is positive and decreases with increasing of crack depth for clamped SENT
specimens with same specimen thickness and span length, which can better clarify why the deep specimens have lower fracture
toughness. However, similar to the analysis in Section 3.1, the specimen thickness obviously affects the A value, but there are no clear
trends. Moreover, different from parameter A, the QSSY value is negative and increases with the increase of crack depth. QSSY value also
cannot quantify the influence of specimen thickness (shown in Fig. 18b). For parameter V33, it can be found that its value significantly
increases with the increase of specimen thickness, which can well quantify the influence of specimen thickness. V33 value is affected by
crack depth, but its trend is not monotonous (Fig. 18c). Thus, it can be concluded that both A and QSSY can quantify the in-plane
constraint level, and V33 can describe the out-of-plane constraint effect. Only the combination of A and V33 or QSSY and V33 can
better quantify the impact of geometry dimensions (or 3D constraint effects).

11
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 15. The results of V33 value of n = 7 for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 0.5–4.0, (a) a/W = 0.2, (b) a/W = 0.3, (c) a/W = 0.4, (d) a/W =
0.5, (e) a/W = 0.6 and (f) a/W = 0.7.

Fig. 16. The results of V33 value of n = 10 for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 0.5–4.0, (a) a/W = 0.2, (b) a/W = 0.3, (c) a/W = 0.4, (d) a/W
= 0.5, (e) a/W = 0.6 and (f) a/W = 0.7.

4.3. Three-dimensional constraint-based J-R curves of 16MND5 steel

The general plan is to extend the J (Δa) (Eq. (9)) to the 3D constraint-based J-R curves as following:

J(Δa, A, V33 ) = CJ1 (A, V33 ) ⋅ (Δa)CJ2 (A,V33 ) (10)

J(Δa, QSSY , V33 ) = CJ1 (QSSY , V33 ) ⋅ (Δa)CJ2 (QSSY ,V33 ) (11)
where CJ1(A, V33), CJ2(A, V33), CJ1(QSSY, V33) and CJ2(QSSY, V33) are constraint modified power-law fitting coefficients of J-R
curves. Once the functional forms of these power-law fitting coefficients are known, the 3D constraint dependent J-R curves (Eq. (10)
or Eq. (11)) are fully obtained.

12
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 17. The results of V33 value of (a) n = 4, (b) n = 7 and (c) n = 10, for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 1.0, a/W = 0.2–0.7.

Table 2
Dimensions of clamped SENT specimens (Ref. [31]).
Nominal Specimen Nominal Nominal Actual Actual Specimen Nominal Nominal Actual Actual
H/W No. B/W a0/W B/W a0/W No. B/W a0/W B/W a0/W

150/15 A2 0.5 0.2 0.502 0.189 B2 1.0 0.2 1.001 0.193

A3 0.3 0.502 0.286 B3 0.3 1.000 0.291
A4 0.4 0.501 0.387 B4 0.4 0.999 0.386
A5 0.5 0.500 0.487 B5 0.5 1.003 0.474
A6 0.6 0.501 0.587 B6 0.6 1.001 0.586
A7 0.7 0.501 0.686 B7 0.7 1.000 0.687
C2 1.5 0.2 1.499 0.192 D2 2.0 0.2 1.999 0.191
C4 0.4 1.499 0.388 D6 0.6 1.997 0.589
E2 3.0 0.2 2.993 0.189 F6 4.0 0.6 3.993 0.587

120/15 G2 0.5 0.2 0.481 0.178 H2 1.0 0.2 1.001 0.177

G4 0.4 0.498 0.384 H3 0.3 1.001 0.286
G6 0.6 0.498 0.577 H4 0.4 0.997 0.377
K2 1.5 0.2 1.492 0.179 H6 0.6 0.997 0.580
K4 0.4 1.495 0.382 H7 0.7 0.996 0.693

Fig. 18. The constraint parameters of (a) A, (b) QSSY and (c) V33 for tested clamped SENT specimens under initiation fracture toughness J0.2.

If the A-V33 (or QSSY-V33) related J-integral corresponding to two crack extension lengths between 0.2 mm and 1.0 mm is known,
then the CJ1(A, V33), CJ2(A, V33), CJ1(QSSY, V33) and CJ2(QSSY, V33) can be determined:
J(Δa2 , A, V33 )
CJ1 (A, V33 ) = (12a)
(Δa2 )CJ2 (A,V33 )

ln[J(Δa2 , A, V33 )/J(Δa1 , A, V33 )]

CJ2 (A, V33 ) = (12b)
ln[Δa2 /Δa1 ]

J(Δa2 , QSSY , V33 )

CJ1 (QSSY , V33 ) = (13a)
(Δa2 )CJ2 (QSSY ,V33 )

ln[J(Δa2 , QSSY , V33 )/J(Δa1 , QSSY , V33 )]

CJ2 (QSSY , V33 ) = (13b)
ln[Δa2 /Δa1 ]

13
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

where Δa1 and Δa2 are two crack extensions for which J-integrals are obtained experimentally. Therefore, the A-V33 dependent J-R
curves can be determined by combining Eq. (12) to Eq. (10), and the QSSY-V33 corrected J-R curves can be obtained by combining Eq.
(13) to Eq. (11).
It is worth noting the methodology presented here has assumed that the resistance curves or fracture toughness can be quantified
based on the constraint parameters values obtained for the initial crack length under quasi-static fracture process.
Now, take the A-V33 modified J-R curves as an example to demonstrate the procedure. The crack propagation sizes, Δa1 = 0.2 mm
and Δa2 = 0.4 mm were used. The relevant J-integral, J0.2 and J0.4, failure surfaces versus A and V33 can be obtained and fitted by
regression using the following empirical equation:

JΔai (A, V33 ) = (a + bA + cA2 + dA3 + eA4 + fA5 ) × (g + h/V33 + i/V33

2 3
+ j/V33 ) (14)

where a-j are fitting coefficients listed in Table 3.

The fitted J (0.2, A, V33) and J (0.4, A, V33) are shown in Fig. 19a-b, from which it can be observed that J0.2 and J0.4 significantly
depend on the A and V33, and monotonically decrease with the increase of A and V33 values. Furthermore, the interactions of in-plane
and out-of-plane constraint are readily described by JΔa-A-V33 failure surfaces. The influence of the in-plane constraint on fracture
toughness is greater than that of the out-of-plane constraint. For the in-plane constraint, when the out-of-plane constraint is low, and
vice visa, it has a greater impact on the fracture performance.
The functions of CJ1 and CJ2 can be determined by substituting (0.2, J0.2) and (0.4, J0.4) into the Eq. (12), the results are then curve
fitted using the following empirical equation:

CJi (A, V33 ) = (a + bA + cA2 + dA3 + eA4 + fA5 ) × (g + h/V33 + i/V33

2 3
+ j/V33 ) (15)

where a-j are fitted coefficients as listed in Table 3. The determined curves of CJ1(A, V33) and CJ2(A, V33) under varying 3D
constraint levels are shown in Fig. 20a-b. Finally, the A-V33 modified J-R curves of 16MND5 steel can be obtained. In a similar way, the
QSSY-V33 corrected J-R curves can also be determined.
To verify the current obtained 3D constraint-corrected J-R curves of 16MND5 steel, The J-R curves predicted by Eq. (10) and Eq.
(11) were compared with the tested results (see Fig. 21). From Fig. 21, it is easily observed that the current J-A (QSSY)-V33 methods can
well reproduce the tested results. Moreover, compared with the prediction method based on T-stresses in [29], the current methods
have relatively better accuracy.
The developed J-A (QSSY)-V33 methods can now be used predict J-R curves of other fracture specimens with varying geometric
dimensions. The J-R curves of pin-loaded SENT specimens with B/W = 1.0, a/W = 0.2–0.5 have been obtained experimentally. The
studied material was also 16MND5 steel. Relevant test and data processing procedures were published in [31].
As mentioned above, we only need to know the constraint parameters of the studied specimens and substitute them into the Eq. (10)
or Eq. (11), then the constraint-modified J-R curves can be determined. The constraint parameters A, QSSY and V33 of pin-loaded SENT
specimens with (W = 15 mm, B/W = 1.0, a/W = 0.2–0.5) were also calculated by FEA. From Fig. 22, it can be seen that the J-A (QSSY)-
V33 predicted results are in good agreement with the experimental results. Thus, through the above analyses, the effectiveness of the
current methods is demonstrated. The J-A (QSSY)-V33 methods and the J-F11-V33 approach [29] together constitute the complete three-
dimensional constraint-based fracture mechanics theories, which can be applied to small-scale yielding to large-scale yielding.

5. Conclusions

Extensive three-dimensional elastic–plastic finite element analyses were carried out to determine the in-pane constraint parameters
A, QSSY, and out-of-plane constraint parameter Eε33 for side-grooved clamped and pin-loaded SENT specimens with a wide range of
crack depth and specimen thickness. The various strain hardening exponent (n = 4, 7, 10 and 9.2) and applied loading levels from
small-scale yielding to large-scale yielding were investigated. Through the detailed 3D parametric study, the combination effects of
strain hardening exponent, applied load level, crack depth and specimen thickness on the A, QSSY and V33 (normalized Eε33) are
illustrated. Moreover, the J-A (QSSY)-V33 methods were developed and applied to predict J-R curves of 16MND5 steel.
The main conclusions are summarized as follows:

Table 3
Values of fitting coefficients for J0.2, J0.4, CJ1 (A, V33) and CJ2 (A, V33).
J0.2 J0.4 CJ1 (A, V33) CJ2 (A, V33)

a 71.716 102.747 141.776 0.009

b − 170.927 − 209.002 − 240.888 0.894
c − 139.986 − 203.485 − 284.951 − 0.524
d 275.734 253.990 225.427 − 2.719
e 665.740 775.915 932.383 3.443
f − 695.402 − 458.818 − 185.567 0.000
g 69.502 42.122 32.058 2.159
h 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.081
i 205.568 3.945 − 55.881 0.136
j 1472.952 510.860 299.456 0.000

14
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Table A1
(0− 2)
The values of asymptotic powers s, t, scaling integral In and angular stress functions̃
σij .

n 4 7 10 9.2

s − 0.2000 − 0.1250 − 0.0909 − 0.0980

t 0.0328 0.0694 0.0698 0.0706
In 5.2213 4.7655 4.5399 4.5858
0.3091 0.3207 0.3126 0.3152
θθ (θ = 0)
σ(1)
̃
− 2.4055 − 4.9002 − 6.3247 − 5.9985
θθ (θ = 0)
σ(2)
̃

Fig. 19. J-A-V33 failure surfaces of 16MND5 steel (a) J0.2 and (b) J0.4.

(1) With the increase of applied load, the A value increases monotonically, while QSSY and V33 decrease, and the influence of
specimen geometry on the constraint levels will become greater. In addition, with the increase of hardening exponent, the effect
of crack depth on A and QSSY values decreases. In-plane and out-of-plane constraint effects show significant interaction. Even
only the influence of crack depth on A or QSSY of a specific sized specimen is studied, it is still necessary to establish a three-
dimensional model, since it corresponds to one particular out-of-plane constraint condition.
(2) The values of A and V33 decrease with the increase of hardening exponent, n, but the response of QSSY value to the change of n is
relatively small comparing to values of A. It is concluded that although both A and QSSY can describe the effect of crack depth
variations, and the parameter A is the recommended in-plane constraint parameter. Further, it is demonstrated that the pro­
posed parameter V33 can well quantify the out-of-plane constraints under varying loading level and n.
(3) Based on the solutions of A, QSSY and V33 for clamped SENT specimens, the 3D constraint-dependent fracture mechanics
method, J-A (QSSY)-V33 method, was developed and applied to quantify and predict the J-R curves of 16MND5 steel for various

15
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 20. The determined constraint-modified surfaces of (a) CJ1(A, V33) and (b) CJ2(A, V33).

Fig. 21. Comparisons of J-R curves between experiments and three prediction methods for clamped SENT specimens with B/W = 1.0, a/W = 0.2,
0.4, 0.6.

16
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

Fig. 22. Comparisons of J-R curves between tested and predicted by J-A (QSSY)-V33 method for pin-loaded SENT specimens with B/W = 1.0, a/W
= 0.2–0.5.

sized specimens. Results showed that the current J-A (QSSY)-V33 methods can also be used to predict the experimental J-R curves
of pin-loaded SENT specimens with varying crack depth.

Solutions presented in the current paper will be very useful for the quantifications of fracture toughness of SENT specimens with
different a/W, B/W, n and loading levels.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Zheng Liu: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Xin Wang: Su­
pervision, Software, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Validation, Writing
– review & editing. Zhe Zhang: Validation, Investigation. Pengfei Jin: Visualization, Data curation. Xu Chen: Supervision, Meth­
odology, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51675373) and from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada (RGPIN-2020-06550). They also want to thank two re­
viewers and the editor for very helpful comments.

Appendix A. Values of asymptotic powers, scaling integral and angular stress functions

(0− 2)
In this appendix, the values of asymptotic powers s, t, scaling integral In and angular stress functions̃
σ ij , needed in the deter­
mination of A and QSSY in Eq. (4) and Eq. (6) are summarized in Table A1. They are taken from Refs. [16,18].

Appendix B. Supplementary material

Supplementary data corresponding to A and V33 value of n = 4, 7 and 10 for clamped SENT specimens with H/W = 10, a/W = 0.2-
0.7 and B/W = 0.5-4.0 can be found at website.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108713.

17
Z. Liu et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108713

References

[1] Qian G, Gonzalez-Albuixech V, Niffenegger M. In-plane and out-of-plane constraint effects under pressurized thermal shocks. Int J Solids Struct 2014;51(6):
1311–21.
[2] Sun X, Liu Z, Wang X, Chen X. Determination of ductile fracture properties of 16MND5 steels under varying constraint levels using machine learning methods.
Int J Mech Sci 2022;224:107331.
[3] Hutchinson J. Singular behaviour at the end of a tensile crack in a hardening material. J Mech Phys Solids 1968;16(1):13–31.
[4] Rice J, Rosengren GF. Plane strain deformation near a crack tip in a power-law hardening material. J Mech Phys Solids 1968;16(1):1–12.
[5] ASTM E647-15e1 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates: ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2016.
[6] Shlyannikov V, Boychenko N, Tumanov A, Fernandez-Canteli A. The elastic and plastic constraint parameters for three-dimensional problems. Engng Fract Mech
2014;127:83–96.
[7] Zhang T, Yuan H, Yang S. Fracture energy and tensile strength depending on stress triaxiality along a running crack front in three-dimensional cohesive
modeling. Engng Fract Mech 2020;227:106919.
[8] Cravero S, Ruggieri C. Correlation of fracture behavior in high pressure pipelines with axial flaws using constraint designed test specimens––Part I: Plane-strain
analyses. Engng Fract Mech 2005;72(9):1344–60.
[9] Jackson DA, Doctor SR, Schuster G, Simonen F. Developing a generalized flaw distribution for reactor pressure vessels. Nucl Engng Des 2001;208(2):123–31.
[10] Park D-Y, Tyson WR, Gravel J-P. CANMET SENT test method, updates and applications. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2017;156:8–16.
[11] BS 8571:2018, Method of test for determination of fracture toughness in metallic materials using single edge notched tension (SENT) specimens. BSI; 2018.
[12] Betegó n C, Hancock JW. Two-Parameter Characterization of Elastic-Plastic Crack-Tip Fields. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1991;58(1):104-10.
[13] O’dowd N, Shih CF. Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter—I. Structure of fields. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids
1991;39(8):989-1015.
[14] O’Dowd NP, Shih CF. Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter—II. Fracture applications. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40(5):939–63.
[15] Chao Y, Yang S, Sutton M. On the fracture of solids characterized by one or two parameters: theory and practice. J Mech Phys Solids 1994;42(4):629–47.
[16] Yang S, Chao Y, Sutton M. Higher order asymptotic crack tip fields in a power-law hardening material. Engng Fract Mech 1993;45(1):1–20.
[17] Matvienko YG, Nikishkov G. Two-parameter JA concept in connection with crack-tip constraint. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2017;92:306–17.
[18] Nikishkov G. An algorithm and a computer program for the three-term asymptotic expansion of elastic-plastic crack tip stress and displacement fields. Engng
Fract Mech 1995;50(1):65–83.
[19] O’Dowd NP, Shih CF. Two-parameter fracture mechanics: theory and applications. In: Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Fourth Volume, ASTM International; 1994.
[20] Wang X. Two-parameter characterization of elastic–plastic crack front fields: surface cracked plates under tensile loading. Engng Fract Mech 2009;76(7):
958–82.
[21] Ding P, Wang X. Solutions of the second elastic–plastic fracture mechanics parameter in test specimens. Engng Fract Mech 2010;77(17):3462–80.
[22] Ding P, Wang X. An estimation method for the determination of the second elastic–plastic fracture mechanics parameters. Engng Fract Mech 2012;79:295–311.
[23] Yuan H, Li X. Critical remarks to cohesive zone modeling for three-dimensional elastoplastic fatigue crack propagation. Engng Fract Mech 2018;202:311–31.
[24] Williams M. On the stresses at the base of a stationary crack. J Appl Mech 1957;24:109–14.
[25] Guo W. Elastoplastic three dimensional crack border field—I. Singular structure of the field. Engng Fract Mech 1993;46(1):93–104.
[26] Meshii T, Tanaka T. Experimental T33-stress formulation of test specimen thickness effect on fracture toughness in the transition temperature region. Engng
Fract Mech 2010;77(5):867–77.
[27] Guo W. Three-dimensional analyses of plastic constraint for through-thickness cracked bodies. Engng Fract Mech 1999;62(4–5):383–407.
[28] Cui P, Guo W. Higher order J-Tz-AT solution for three-dimensional crack border fields in power-law hardening solids. Engng Fract Mech 2019;222:106736.
[29] Liu Z, Wang X, Tang J, Deng C, Zhao H, Chen X. The effects of in-plane and out-of-plane constraints on J-R curves for X80 steel: A study using clamped SENT
specimens. Engng Fract Mech 2019;206:342–58.
[30] Liu Z, Wang X, Miller RE, Hu J, Chen X. Fracture toughness of thermal aged 16MND5 bainitic forging steel under varying 3D constraint conditions: an
experimental study using SENT specimens. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2021;103025.
[31] Liu Z, Wang X, Miller RE, Hu J, Chen X. Ductile fracture properties of 16MND5 bainitic forging steel under different in-plane and out-of-plane constraint
conditions: Experiments and predictions. Engng Fract Mech 2021;241:107359.
[32] Liu Z, Wang X, Miller RE, Jin P, Shen Y, Chen X. Determination of R-curves for thermal aged 16MND5 bainitic forging steel using 3D constraint-based fracture
mechanics. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2021;116:103084.
[33] Li J, Wang X, Tan C. Weight functions for the determination of stress intensity factor and T-stress for edge-cracked plates with built-in ends. Int J Press Vessels
Pip 2004;81(3):285–96.
[34] Jin Z, Wang X. Characteristics of crack front stress fields in three-dimensional single edge cracked plate specimens under general loading conditions. Theor Appl
Fract Mech 2015;77:14–34.
[35] Liu Z, Yu D, Tang J, Chen X, Wang X. Stress intensity factor and T-stress solutions for three-dimensional clamped single edge notched tension (SENT) specimens.
Int J Press Vessels Pip 2018;168:11–23.
[36] Wang E, Zhou W, Shen G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of crack-tip fields of clamped single-edge tension specimens–Part II: Crack-tip constraints.
Engng Fract Mech 2014;116:144–57.
[37] Silva LA, Cravero S, Ruggieri C. Correlation of fracture behavior in high pressure pipelines with axial flaws using constraint designed test specimens. Part II: 3-D
effects on constraint. Engng Fract Mech 2006;73(15):2123–38.
[38] Gong B, Xia C, Lacidogna G, Xu Q, Liu Y, Li Y. Constraint analysis of thickness effects on fracture resistance behavior of clamped single-edge notch tension
specimen. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2020;110:102802.
[39] Nikishkov G, Matvienko YG. Elastic–plastic constraint parameter A for test specimens with thickness variation. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2016;39(8):
939–49.
[40] ABAQUS Standard, Version 6.14-4, SIMULIA, 2016.
[41] Nikishkov G, Brückner-Foit A, Munz D. Calculation of the second fracture parameter for finite cracked bodies using a three-term elastic-plastic asymptotic
expansion. Engng Fract Mech 1995;52(4):685–701.

18