See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270230243

Determination of Elastic Plastic Fracture Toughness Parameters for a Compact

Tension Specimen Using the Finite Element Method

Article in Materials Testing · June 2012

DOI: 10.3139/120.110345

CITATION READS

1 1,137

2 authors:

Ugur Ozdemir Çinar Yeni

6 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

Dokuz Eylul University
33 PUBLICATIONS 483 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Çinar Yeni on 05 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

408 MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Determination of Elastic Plastic

Fracture Toughness Parameters
for a Compact Tension Specimen
Using the Finite Element Method
Uğur Özdemir and Çınar Yeni,
Bornova-İzmir, Turkey
In this study, elastic-plastic fracture toughness of an aluminum alloy is
investigated. J-integral was calculated using the finite element software
and formulation. Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) is determined
by using the plastic hinge model (δph) and direct measurement (δ5). J-Δa
and CTOD-Δa resistance curves are constructed and compared with those
obtained from formulation and those generated from test data, respec-
tively. Good agreement has been obtained between the test results, the
formulation and the results of the finite element analysis. The relation-
ship between δph and δ5 is nonlinear and as CTOD increases δ5 becomes
larger than δph. The relationship between J-integral and CTOD is found
to be linear for both δph and δ5. It has been seen that the proportionality
constant dn considerably depends on the method of calculation of CTOD.

It is expected that the materials used in ar-
eas requiring advanced technology, such
as aerospace industry, which are subjected
to various loadings during their service
lives and environmental conditions, main-
tain their mechanical and microstructural
properties, as well as, being cost efficient
[1]. Fuel efficiency is directly related to the
weight of an aircraft. Any increase in the
weight of the aircraft, causes an increase in
the amount of fuel consumed and the cost,
and causes more environmental pollution.
For this reason, such structures must be
made of lightweight and high strength ma-
terials [2, 3].
Al-Mg-Si (6xxx series) alloys are used in
a wide range of application areas such as
aerospace industry, aircraft body and wing
structures, due to their high strength and
corrosion resistance, improved weldability
performance and high fracture toughness
properties [4, 5]. Within these series, new
generation alloys, such as AA 6013 and
6056 are preferred to aircraft lower body
panels [6, 7]. The engineering materials
used in these areas are required to have
high fracture toughness values, since crack
growth resistance and fracture behaviour
directly affects the useful economical lives
and reliability of the applications. It is pos-
sible to calculate the fracture resistance of
ductile materials by using elastic-plastic
fracture mechanics. By modeling the homo-
geneous materials using methods like fi-
nite element and boundary element meth-
ods, the deformation behaviour and crack
growth behavior can be obtained with
rapid success [8].
The elastic-plastic fracture parameters J-
integral and CTOD (δ) have been developed
separately, and they are both widely used
in structural integrity assessments [9].
Here, J is the J-integral defined by Rice,
CTOD is the Crack Tip Opening Displace-
ment. In elastic-plastic fracture mechanics,
fracture toughness of a material can be
characterized by J-Δa and CTOD-Δa resist-
ance curves (called R-curves), where Δa is
the crack extension [10-12].
Kudari and Kodancha (2008) investi-
gated the relationship between the J-inte-
gral and CTOD using the finite element
analysis. They used compact tension (C(T))
and single edge notched bend (SENB) spec-
imens in the analysis and estimated the
magnitude of CTOD using 90°-intercept
method and the plastic hinge model. Their
results indicated that there existed a vari-
ance in estimation of CTOD by 90°-inter-
cept method and the plastic hinge model.
The relationship between CTOD and J was
linear and the linear proportionality con-
stant, dn, was obtained less than 1 in their
analysis for CT and SENB specimens with
a/W = 0.5. This constant, dn, was found to
be strongly dependent on several parame-
ters such as CTOD, specimen geometry and
a/W ratio [13].
Nikishkov et al. (1999) investigated the
transformation fracture mechanics para-
meters CTOD, δ5, to standard CTOD and J
for plane sided and side-groved three point
bending (3PB) and C(T) specimens. They
solved a series of elastic-plastic 3D fracture
mechanics problems for 3PB and C(T) spec-
imens using the finite element model
(FEM). They proposed a simple two-region
approximation for relations of CTOD, δ5 to
standard CTOD and J [14].
Shan et al. (1993) presented a numerical
simulation of the stable crack growth in a

© Carl Hanser Verlag, München Materials Testing 54 (2012) 6


a)
Figure 1. a) Dimensions of C(T) 50 specimen used in modeling (a/W = 0.5), b) apparatus for testing
compact tension specimens
a)
Figure 2. a) CTOD, δ5 clip gauge, b) placement of CTOD, δ5 clip gauge onto the crack tip region
of C(T) specimen
thick smooth C(T) specimen with two-di-
mensional elastic-plastic finite element
analysis. They calculated J directly from
the load-displacement curves according to
the ASTM E813-87 and compared their re-
sults with the numerically calculated J-Δa
curves. The J-Δa curve obtained from nu-
merical analysis lies in the scatter band of
experimental data. They reported that
there is a satisfactory agreement between
numerical and experimental results [15].
Shi et al. (1998) investigated the effects
of weld strength mismatching and geome-
try parameters on the relationship between
the J-integral and the CTOD numerically.
The main results indicated that weld
strength mismatching has only a weak in-
fluence on the relationship between the J-
integral and CTOD at low load levels. The
results also showed that crack size and
weld width have an influence on the rela-
tionship between the J-integral and CTOD
at high load levels [16].
54 (2012) 6
MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY
b)
b)
The aim of this study is to determine the
elastic-plastic fracture toughness behav-
iour of an aluminum alloy using the finite
element software. These values will be
compared with test results and those of for-
mulation. Relations between the two CTOD
parameters, namely δph and δ5 and also
between J-integral and CTOD obtained by
direct measurement as well as by the plas-
tic hinge model will be examined. J-integral
and CTOD fracture toughness parameters
are used for comparison and selection of
materials, quality assurance and identifica-
tion of structural defect tolerance pur-
poses.
Materials and Procedures
In this study, 6013 aluminum alloy (AA
6013), widely used in the aerospace indus-
try is investigated in terms of its fracture
toughness behaviour. To establish the frac-
ture toughness behaviour of metallic mate-
409
rials, for mode I type loading, resistance
curves can be obtained by using K, the
stress intensity factor in linear elastic frac-
ture mechanics (LEFM) approach, whereas
J and CTOD parameters are used in the
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
approach (ASTM E1820). In this study, the
loading causes severe plastic deformation
ahead of the crack tip, therefore elastic-
plastic fracture parameters CTOD and J are
applied in the analyses. Fracture tough-
ness tests are conducted to determine the
crack resistance curves using C(T) speci-
mens. The dimensions of the C(T) speci-
men are shown schematically in Figure 1.
Fatigue pre-cracking was carried out in
order to obtain a sharp crack with a ratio of
a/W = 0.5 as shown in the figure. CTOD
values are measured directly with a δ5 clip
gauge during testing. This measuring ap-
paratus is fixed to a distance of 2.5 mm
from the right and left sides of the pre-
crack and measures the CTOD value di-
rectly at the tip of the fatigue pre-crack
(Figure 2a). Because the fixing distance is a
total of 5 mm on both sides of the crack, the
measured CTOD values are called CTOD,
δ5, Figure 2b. Load versus CTOD, δ5 data
are recorded during testing and crack ex-
tension is measured afterwards to con-
struct CTOD, δ5-∆a resistance curves. The
experimental results are employed for cal-
culation of the J-integral and for compari-
son of CTOD values obtained by the finite
element analysis.
J-Integral. Many of the problems of practi-
cal interest are in the elastic-plastic regime
requiring an estimation scheme to calculate
the J-integral. The path-independent line in-
tegral, which represents the strain energy
release rate for nonlinear elastic materials
has been described by Rice as:
⎡ ⎛ ∂u ⎞ ⎤
J = ∫ ⎢ wdy − Ti ⎜ i ⎟ ds ⎥ (1)
⎢ ⎜⎝ ∂x ⎟⎠ ⎥
Γ⎣ ⎦
with w: strain energy density, Γ: arbitrary
closed contour around the crack tip, as
shown in Figure 3, Ti: components of the
traction vector, ui: displacement vector
components, ds: length increment along
the contour Γ.
The strain energy density is defined as:
⎛ εij ⎞
w = ⎜ ∫ σ ij dεij ⎟ (2)
⎜ ⎟
⎝0 ⎠
with σij and εij: stress and strain tensors,
respectively.
410 MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY

Figure 4. Plastic area under load-load line

displacement curve
Figure 3. Closed contour around the crack tip

Figure 5. Estimation of CTOD from a 90°

intercept construction and HRR displacement

The traction vector is a stress vector nor- width, a: distance between the load line with σy: yield strength of the material, m:
a
mal to the contour. That is, if a free body and the crack tip. 2 + dimensionless
⎡ constant
⎛ a ⎞ that depends
⎛ a⎞
2 on ⎛ ⎞ 3
⎛ ⎞ W a
diagram was to be constructed on the mate- For C(T) type specimen the f a =is stress⎢0.886 + 4.64
state and material
⎜ ⎟ − 13.32
properties.
⎜ ⎟ + 14.72 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ W⎠ 3 ⎢
⎝ W ⎠ ⎝ W ⎠ ⎝ W ⎠
rial inside of the contour, Ti would define given by: ⎛ a ⎞ Shih
2 ⎢ has shown that the relationship be-
⎣
⎜ 1 − ⎟
the normal stresses acting at the bounda- a ⎝ ⎠ 2 J and δ can 3be obtained theoretically
Wtween
ries. The components of the traction vector 2+ ⎡ by Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren (HRR) 4⎤
stress
f⎛ a ⎞= W ⎢0.886 + 4.64 a − 13.32 a ⎞ + 14.72 ⎛ a ⎞ − 5.60 ⎛ a ⎞ ⎥
⎛ ⎞ ⎛
are given by: ⎝ W⎠ 3 ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ field
⎟ equations ⎜ as:⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎛ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎥
a ⎞ 2 ⎢⎣ ⎦
⎜ 1 − ⎟ J
Ti = σijnij (3) ⎝ W⎠ δ = dn (12)
a σy
with nij: ⎛components 2 +of the unit
⎡ vector nor- ⎛ a⎞ ⎛ a⎞
2
⎛ a⎞
3
⎛ a ⎞ ⎤⎥
4

f a ⎞= W ⎢0.886 + 4.64 − 13.32 + 14.72 − 5.60

mal to Γ⎝[17]. W⎠ 3 ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (7) with dn: dimensionless constant which ex-
⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎢ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎥
The cracked structure a is ⎣
solved to obtain ⎦ hibits a strong dependence on the strain
⎜1 − ⎟
the displacements. W ⎠ a solution is ob-
⎝ Then, hardening exponent and a mild depencence
tained for a second closed contour by intro- The plastic component of J, Jpl, is given by: on σy/E [13, 18, 19]. From Equations (11)
ducing a small increment to the crack. The and (12) the relation between m and dn is:
ηA pl
J-integral can be determined using differ- J pl = (8)
ent closed contours for increasing crack Bb 1
dn = (13)
lengths. m
J-integral is calculated separately as the with η: dimensionless coefficient and for a
sum of elastic and plastic components by C(T) type specimen it is given by: Theoretically, the crack tip opening dis-
adopting formulations of the results ob- placement is usually estimated using two
tained experimentally. η = 2 + 0.522 ⎛ b ⎞ , b = W – a (9) methods. The first one, δi, is the 90° inter-
⎝ W⎠
cept method, which is defined as the open-
J = Jel + Jpl (4) Apl is the plastic work, calculated from the ing distance between the intercept with the
load versus load line displacement curve as deformed crack profile of two lines drawn
The linear component of J will be equal to shown in Figure 4. back from the crack tip at 45°, Figure 5.
Jel, which is equated to the energy release J-integral as expressed by the sum of its The second one, δph, is determined using
rate, G. elastic and plastic components can be writ- the plastic hinge model by conversion of
ten as: crack mouth opening displacement to
K2I
J el = G = (5) CTOD using a rotation factor. In this case,
K2I ηA pl
E' J= + (10) CTOD δph, is calculated from:
E' Bb
K2I rp (W − a)Vp
with G: energy release rate, E': Young’s δ ph = δ el + δ pl = + (14)
Modulus and E' = E (for plane stress), EPFM considers extensive plastic deforma- mσ y E rp (W − a) + a
'

E (for plane strain) tion ahead of the crack tip prior to fracture.
E' =
1 − ν2 The fracture toughness parameters J and with Vp: plastic displacement at the crack
with ν: Poisson’s ratio, KI: stress intensity CTOD in EPFM are required to be inter- mouth, rp: plastic rotation factor, varying
factor given by: changeable with each other. Thus, it is es- with a/W ratio and is between 0.44-0.47 for
sential to examine the relation between J C(T) specimens according to ASTM E1290-
P
KI = f⎛ a ⎞ (6) and δ. The general relation between J and δ 99, b: ligament length and a is the crack
⎝ W⎠ is given by: length of the specimen.
B W
The third determination of CTOD para-
with B: specimen thickness, W: specimen J = mσyδ (11) meter is the one used in this study, which

54 (2012) 6

Figure 6. Engineering
stress-strain curve of
6013 alloy
Figure 8. Finely meshed
elements around the
crack tip region
is the CTOD, δ5 directly measured during
testing.
In this study, a relationship between δ5
and the calculated δph is constructed. The
elastic part of δph is very small compared to
the plastic part and, hence, it is neglected
in this work.
Finite Element Analysis Approach. For
the aluminium alloy 6013, the modulus of
elasticity is 68 GPa and Poisson’s ratio is
0.28. Its yield strength is 360 MPa and the
engineering stress-strain curve for this ma-
terial is plotted as in Figure 6. In the elas-
tic-plastic finite element analyses of frac-
ture mechanics specimens, it is often nec-
essary to use 3D calculations in order to
obtain realistic curves, although the speci-
men geometries are simple [20]. Therefore,
a three-dimensional model is analyzed in
Abaqus. The loading pins (Figure 1b) are
modeled as 3D analytical rigid shell bodies.
The specimen is loaded by applying a dis-
placement to the pins in the vertical direc-
54 (2012) 6
MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY
tion, all other motions of the pin are re-
strained. Surface-to-surface contact with a
finite-sliding formulation is defined be-
tween the pins and the specimen. Two
analysis steps are used. In the first step,
contact is established between the pins and
the specimen by applying a small displace-
ment (1 × 10−5 mm) in the vertical (y) di-
rection. In the second step, controlled dis-
placement loading of the pins is applied.
Definition of the Model. The partitioned
geometry of the model is shown in Figure 7.
The cracked specimen is highlighted by a
bold black line, which is called seam. The
seam is defined in the model as a surface (in
a solid part) that is originally closed but can
open during an analysis. The virtual crack
extension direction is specified by the q-vec-
tor. In this model, it is defined with the start-
ing point at the crack tip and the end point at
the white dot in Figure 7. For a sharp crack
the strain field becomes singular at the crack
tip. Specification of the midside node param-
411
Figure 7. The partitioned geometry of the model
eter and the crack tip element degeneracy
allows different singularity types to be de-
fined. In the present analysis, a value of 0.25
is used for the midside node parameter. This
definition moves the midside nodes on the
element sides adjoining the collapsed edge
to the 1/4 points of the elements. At the
crack tip the element sides are collapsed
with single node-type degenerate element
control. These settings combine to create a
1/r singularity in strain [21].
The partitioning of the geometry is de-
fined by the circular lines centered on the
crack tip (Figure 7); this partitioning strat-
egy facilitates the generation of a focused
mesh (Figure 8). 20-node quadratic brick
finite element (C3D20) types were used to
model the specimens. Each specimen con-
tains 17478 elements. The circular parti-
tioned areas are sweep meshed using the
“hex-dominated” element shape and “ad-
vancing front” algorithm. The remaining
portion of the model is meshed using “hex”
element shape, “sweep meshing” tech-
nique and “medial axis” algorithm.
The center of the Cartesian coordinate
system was placed on the axis of symmetry
of the specimen as seen in Figure 7.
Results and Discussion
The results obtained from Abaqus for the
J-integral and CTOD, δ5 were compared, re-
spectively, with the results computed by
using formulation in Matlab software and
with the testing results. In order to deter-
mine the plastic component of the J-inte-
gral, the plastic area under the load (P)-
load line displacement (VLL) curve, ob-
tained from fracture toughness test, needs
to be calculated for each increase in the
value of displacement. Figure 9 shows the
P-VLL curve used in the calculations.
412 MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY

When the crack in front of the nodes is

defined in the finite element modeling,
Abaqus, used for the analysis of J-integral,
can find the closed curve (contour) auto-
matically. Numerical tests suggest that the
estimate from the first ring of elements Figure 9. Load-load line
abutting the crack front does not provide a displacement curve of
high accuracy result, so at least two con- 6013 alloy
tours are recommended [22, 23]. Accord-
ingly, the J-integral for the first contour is
ignored in the analysis, because of numeri-
cal inaccuracies in the stresses and strains
at the crack tip [24]. In this study, 10 con-
tours were used, which is a general prac-
tice for the calculation of the J-integral.
J-∆a resistance curves are created on the
basis of results of the fifth contour taken as
representative contour.
As seen in Figure 10, the results ob-
tained from Abaqus are in very close con-
formance with the results computed using
formulation at Matlab. Figure 10. J-Δa curves
obtained of analysis and
During fracture toughness testing, load- formulation
CTOD, δ5 curves were obtained for various
crack extension values, an example is
shown in Figure 11. The crack tip opening
displacement has been observed to in-
crease in a stable manner and no sharp de-
creases in load values were seen.
In the load-CTOD, δ5 diagram (Figure 11)
the CTOD, δ5 values corresponding to crack
extension, ∆a are applied in the construc-
tion of Figure 12. The CTOD, δ5-Δa resist-
ance curve was obtained by using multi-
specimen method.
On the constructed C(T) model, by iden-
tifying the nodes 2.5 mm away from both Figure 11. Load- CTOD,
sides of the crack tip, which correspond to δ5 curve of 6013 alloy
the locations where the δ5 clip gage would
have been placed in a test, their displace-
ment values in the directon of the applied
load were recorded. The amount of this dis-
placement was compared with the CTOD,
δ5 values measured during the experi-
ments. It is seen from Figure 12 that the
measured CTOD, δ5 values are slightly
higher than those determined by the finite
element method. This might be due to some
stable crack extension which is not taken
into account in the analysis [14].
Either theoretical or experimental, since
all CTOD values are parameters used to Figure 12. CTOD, δ5-Δa
measure fracture toughness properties, resistance curves with
there must exist some relationship between respect to test and analy-
sis results
them. This allows to compare materials
characterized by a critical δ5 value with the
one chracterized by a critical δph value and
vice versa. Figure 13 shows the relationship
between the directly mea-sured δ5 values
against the calculated δph values. For small
loads corresponding to the intiation of the

54 (2012) 6

crack extension regime, there is almost a
linear reIationship between δ5 and δph, how-
ever, as the crack tip extends further this
relationship becomes nonlinear and as seen,
δph values become smaller than δ5 values.
Figure 13. δph versus
δ5 curve
Figure 14. Similarity
of R-curves
Figure 15. δph , δ5 versus
J/σy relation
54 (2012) 6
MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY
This might arise by the fact that since δ5 is
calculated at the tip of the fatigue pre-crack,
for long crack extension it might result in
greater values than those computed using
the plastic hinge model.
413
Since both, the J-integral and the CTOD,
can be used as fracture parameters in
EPFM analysis, J-Δa and CTOD-Δa curves
must show a similar trend, which is con-
firmed as seen in Figure 14. In this figure,
J-Δa and CTOD, δ5-Δa resistance curves are
obtained from the finite element analysis.
Figure 15 presents δ5 and δph against J/σy
relations. For small values of δ, the meas-
ured δ5 and the plastic hinge model δph give
approximate results, but the discrepancy
grows more as δ increases. dn parameters,
as determined from the slopes of δ-J/σy rela-
tions are also shown in the figure. The value
of dn calculated for J/σy values obtained
from formulation is 0.46, while for those ob-
tained from analysis it is 0.47, when δph is
considered. These two values are very simi-
lar, which confirms that results obtained
from Abaqus are in good agreement with
those computed using formulation. The dn
value for the directly measured δ5 concern-
ing J/σy is obtained as 1.09 by formulation
and 1.12 by analysis. The discrepancy be-
tween δ5 and δph may be attributed to the
measurement method of CTOD associated
with them. It is mentioned in ASTM E1290-
99 [25] that the plastic rotation factor rp is
not constant, rather it is a complex function
of specimen configuration and size, applied
loading and material [13]. These difficulties
may possibly alter the results of δ obtained
by both methods. The variation of both
forms of δ against J/σy is linear. This nature
of variation is in good agreement with the
results of Kudari et al.[13] and Panontin et
al. [26]. Several other studies have men-
tioned that the parameter dn is between 0
and 1. On the other hand, for C(T) speci-
mens with a/W < 0.5 magnitudes of dn are
higher, and is found to be > 1 if the direct
measurement is used. This result shows
that relation between J and δph shows agree-
ment with literature, whereas no such
agreement can be found for J and δ5.
The value of dn as calculated from δph us-
ing J values obtained from analysis is 2.17 %
higher than the value of dn for J values ob-
tained by formulation, and the value of dn as
calculated from δ5 using J values obtained
by analysis is 2.7 % higher than for J values
obtained by formulation. The main reason
of this discrepancy might be that δ5 is
measured away from the crack tip for large
crack extension.
Conclusions
1. The J-integral values obtained by formu-
lation and finite element analysis are
consistent. Moreover, experimental δ5
414 MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY
values are in close agreement with anal-
ysis results.
2. J-Δa and CTOD-Δa curves are in good
agreement, which allows them to be in-
terchangeable.
3. For small loads corresponding to the in-
tiation of the crack extension regime,
the reIation between δ5 and δph is al-
most linear, however, as the crack tip
extends further this relationship be-
comes nonlinear. This might be due to
the fact that since δ5 is calculated at the
tip of the fatigue pre-crack, for long
crack extension it might result in
greater values than those computed us-
ing the plastic hinge model.
4. The relationship between J and δph, δ5
are linear and the linear proportionality
constant, dn, obtained in this study for
C(T) specimen with a/W = 0.5, consider-
ing δph is found to be less than 1. This
results coincide with literature.
5. It is seen from this study that the resist-
ance curves for EPFM can successfully
support the results obtained from frac-
ture toughness testing.
Acknowledgement
The experimental part of this study was
carried out at Helmholtz-Zentrum
Geesthacht (formerly named as GKSS Re-
search Center), Germany. The authors
would like to thank the Institute of Materi-
als Research for giving them the chance to
carry out the experiments and especially to
Dr. Mustafa Koçak, Head of the Department
of Joining and Assessment.
References
1 A. L. Lafly, D. Allehaux, F. Marie, C. Dalle,
H. Döker: Impact of FSW Techniques, Proc of
the 58th Annual Assembly Conference of the
International Institute of Welding (IIW),
Prague (2005)
2 A. Asserin-Lebert, J. Besson, A. F. Geurgues:
Fracture of 6056 aluminum sheet materials:
effect of specimen thickness and hardening
behaivour on strain localization and tough-
ness, Mat. Sci. Eng. A 395 (2005), pp. 186-194
3 U. Çevik, U. Özdemir, Ç. Yeni, M. Koçak:
Investigation of laser beam welded 6056
aluminium alloys mechanical properties and
fracture behaviour, Proc. of the XVI. National
Congress of Mechanics, Turkey (2009),
pp. 433-441
4 P. Nègre, D. Steglich, W. Brocks, M. Koçak:
Numerical simulation of crack extension in
aluminium welds, Comp. Mater. Sci. 28
(2003), pp. 723-731
5 J. Ehrström, T. Warner: Metallurgical design
of alloys for aerospace structures, Mater. Sci.
Forum 5 (2000), pp. 331-337
Abstract
Bestimmung der elastisch-plastischen Bruchmechanikparameter für
eine Kompaktzugprobe mittels der Finite Elemente Methode. In der die-
sem Beitrag zugrunde liegenden Studie wurde das bruchmechanische
Verhalten einer Aluminiumlegierung untersucht. Hierzu wurde das J-Inte-
gral unter Verwendung einer Finite Elemente Software mit der entspre-
chenden Formulierung bestimmt. Der CTOD-Wert wurde mittels des plas-
tischen Hinge-Modells (δph) sowie anhand direkter Messung (δ5) ermittelt.
Die J-Δa und CTOD-Δa Widerstandkurven wurden entwickelt sowie je-
weils mit den formulierten und mit denen aus Testdaten generierten ver-
glichen. Es konnte eine gute Übereinstimmung zwischen den Testergeb-
nissen, der Formulierung und den Ergebnissen der Finite Elemente Ana-
lysen erzielt werden. Das Verhältnis zwischen δph und δ5 ist nichtlinear
und wenn der CTOD-Wert ansteigt, wird δ5 größer als δph. Das Verhältnis
zwischen dem J-Integral und dem CTOD-Wert war sowohl für δph als auch
für δ5 linear. Es konnte festgestellt werden, dass die Proportionalitätskon-
stante dn bemerkenswert von dem Kalkulationsverfahren des CTOD-Wer-
tes abhängt.
6 J. Faleskog, X. Gao, C. F. Shih: Cell model for 16 Y. Shi, S. Sun, H. Murakawa, Y. Ueda: Finite
nonlinear fracture mechanics-I micromechanics element analysis on relationships between the
calibration, Int. J. Fract. 89 (1998), pp. 335-373 J-integral and CTOD for stationary cracks in
7 R. Braun: Nd:YAG laser butt welding of welded tensile specimens, Int. J. Pres. Ves.
AA6013 using silicon and magnesium contain- Pip. 75 (1998), pp. 197-202
ing filler powders, Mat. Sci. Eng. A 426 (2006), 17 T. L. Anderson: Fracture Mechanics: Funda-
pp. 250-262 mentals and Applications, 2nd Edition, CRC
8 P. Nègre, D. Steglich, W. Brocks: Crack exten- Press, Texas (1991)
sion at an interface: prediction of fracture 18 B. Omidvar, M. P. Wnuk, M. Choroszynski:
toughness and simulation of crack path devia- Relationship between the CTOD and the J-inte-
tion, Int. J. Fracture 134 (2005), pp. 209-229 gral for stationary and growing cracks, closed-
9 Y. Huang, J. Chen, G. Liu, Yang H: A new form solutions, Int. J. Fracture 87 (1997), pp.
method of crack tip opening displacement 331-343
determined based on maximum crack opening 19 R. Knockaert, I. Doghri, Y. Marchal,
displacement, Eng. Fract. Mech. 78 (2011), T. Pardoen, F. Delannay: Experimental and
pp. 1441-1451 numerical investigation of fracture in double-
10 U. Mühlich, J. R. Donoso, J. D. Landes: edge notched steel plates, Int. J. Fract. 81
A J-integral estimation method for C(T) speci- (1996), pp. 383-399
mens using the common format equation, 20 G. X. Shan, O. Kolednik, H. P. Stüwe, F. D. Fischer:
Int. J. Fracture 133 (2005), pp. 371-388 A substitution method for 3D elastic-plastic FE
11 N. Gubeljak, M. D. Chapetti, J. Predan, analyses of fracture mechanics specimens,
J. D. Landes: CTOD-R curve construction from Eng. Fract. Mech. 41 (1992), pp. 625-633
surface displacement measurements, Eng. 21 Abaqus Technology Brief, TB-04-FMCAE-1,
Fract. Mech. 78 (2011), pp. 2286-2297 Fracture mechanics study of a compact ten-
12 Z. Taş, A. Polat: Determination of the fracture sion specimen using Abaqus/CAE (2007)
toughness pipe steels using J-integral method, 22 C. Yang, W. Sun, J. S. Tomblin, S. S. Smeltzer:
J. of CB Soma Vocational School of Tech. Sci. 1 A semi-analytical method for determining the
(2007), pp. 7 strain energy release rate of cracks in adhe-
13 S. K. Kudari; K. G. Kodancha: On the relation- sively-bonded single-lap composite joints,
ship between J-Integral and CTOD for CT and J. Compos. Mater. 41 (2007), pp. 1579-1602
SENB specimens, Frattura ed Integrita Strut- 23 C. Yang, A. Chadegani, J. S. Tomblin: Strain
turale 6, (2008), pp. 3-6 energy release rate determination of pre-
14 G. P. Nikishkov; J. Heerens; K.-H. Schwalbe: scribed cracks in adhesively-bonded single-lap
Transformation of CTOD δ5 to CTOD δ5BS and composite joints with thick bondlines,
J-integral for 3PB- and CT-specimens, Eng. Compos. Part B-Eng. 39 (2008), pp. 863-873
Fract. Mech. 63 (1999), pp. 573-589 24 W. Brocks, I. Scheider: Numerical aspects
15 G. X. Shan, O. Kolednik, F. D. Fischer, of the path-dependence of the J-Integral in
H. P. Stüwe: A 2D model for numerical investi- incremental plasticity-how to calculate reliable
gations of stable crack growth in thick smooth J-values in FE analyses, GKSS Forschungs-
fracture mechanics specimens, 45 (1993), zentrum Internal Report-GKSS/WMS/01/08
pp. 99-106 (2001).
54 (2012) 6

25 ASTM E1290-99: Standard test method for
crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
fractures toughness measurement
26 T. L. Panontin, A. Makino, J. F. Williams:
Crack tip opening displacement estimation
formulae for C(T) specimens, Eng. Fract.
Mech. 67 (2000), pp. 293-301
Nomenclature
δ, CTOD crack tip opening displacement
Δa crack extension
a0 initial crack length
δ5 CTOD measured across the fatigue crack tip at
a gauge of 5 mm
δph CTOD estimated by plastic hinge model
δi CTOD estimated by 90° intercept method
ν Poisson’s ratio
w strain energy density
Γ arbitrary closed contour around the crack tip
Ti components of the traction vector
ui displacement vector components
ds length increment along the contour Γ
εij strain tensor
σij stress tensor
nij unit vector normal
η dimensionless coefficient and for a C(T) type
specimen
K stress intensity factor
E' Young’s modulus E' = E (for plane stress),
E out the experimental work of her M. Sc. and Ph. D.
E' =
1 − ν2
(for plane strain)
rp plastic rotation factor
Vp plastic displacement at the crack mouth
Apl plastic work
Kl stress intensity factor
m constant in relation between J and δ
dn constant in relation between J and δ
You will find the article and additional material by entering the document number MP110345
on our website at www.materialstesting.de
54 (2012) 6
View publication stats
MATERIALS TESTING FOR JOINING TECHNOLOGY 415
σy yield stress of the material
J J-integral
a crack length
W specimen with
B specimen thickness
P load
R radius of pin hole
Jel elastic component of J-integral
Jpl plastic component of J-integral
G energy release rate
C(T) compact specimen
SENB single edge notch bend
3PB three point bend specimen
VLL load-line displacement
FEM finite element model
EPFM elastic-plastic fracture mechanics
LEFM linear elastic fracture mechanics
The Authors of This Contribution
Uğur Özdemir studied Mechanical Engineering at
the Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey, in 2001.
He has carried out the experimental work of him
M. Sc. thesis at GKSS Research Center, Germany,
in diffusion bonding of TiAl alloys and earned his
M. Sc. from the Mustafa Kemal University, in
2003. He is doing Ph.D in elastic-plastic fracture
mechanics of laser welded materials at Dokuz
Eylül University, Turkey.
Çınar Yeni was born in 1967. She has carried
theses at Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (formerly
named as GKSS Research Center), Germany, in
fatigue and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics sub-
jects and also participated in projects on noval
welding methods during her post-doc studies. She
is currently working as an associate professor at
Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey. Her main areas of
interest are fatigue and fracture of welded materi-
als, namely laser and friction stir welding.