Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Paper no: Ostend2009-004

Evaluation of CTOD from

J-integral for SE(T) specimens
by G Shen and W R Tyson
CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory, Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada

F INITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) has been used to evaluate crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
and J-integral for single-edge tension (SE(T)) specimens in clamped (fixed-grip) loading. The factor m
relating J-integral to crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) δ was evaluated for specimens with length
to width ratio H/W=10 and crack depth a/W=0.2 and 0.5. It was found that m is a load independent
parameter only when the applied load is equal to or less than a reference load (PY=BN(W-a)σY); for P>PY,
the value of m decreases with increasing ligament yield ratio (P/PY). Equations are proposed for
evaluation of CTOD from J-integral for clamped SE(T) specimens under monotonic loading. The
proposed equations were used to predict the J-CTOD relationship for pipe with a circumferential crack
in tension from small scale yielding (SSY) to large scale yielding (LSY) and compared with those from
finite element analysis (FEA). Good agreement was obtained. Examples are shown of R curves of a pipe
steel converted using the proposed equations from JR curves measured using clamped SE(T) specimens.

Nomenclature
a crack size (length)
b = W-a, remaining ligament
B specimen thickness
BN specimen net thickness
BCE normalized CMOD compliance in plane stress model (with C the CMOD compliance in this paper)
C = v/P, CMOD compliance (ratio of CMOD increment to load increment)
D pipe internal diameter
E modulus of elasticity
E = E/(1-2)
G = K2/E', energy release rate
H specimen span between grips, or pipe length
J J-integral
JR J value in resistance curve
K stress intensity factor
m = J/(σYδ), coefficient relating J and CTOD
N strain hardening exponent
P load (force)
PY = BN(W-a)Y or = π[(D/2+t-a)2-(D/2)2]Y, reference load for SE(T) specimen or pipe respectively
t pipe wall thickness
v crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)
W specimen width
 Poisson’s ratio
YS 0.2% offset yield strength
TS ultimate tensile strength
Y = (YS +TS)/2, effective yield strength
0 = YS, 0.2% offset yield strength
δ crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD)

This paper is © copyright of the organizers of the Pipeline Technology Conference held in Ostend, Belgium, on 12-14 October, 2009, and of
the author(s). No copying (either electronic or otherwise), transmission electronically, or reproduction in any way is permitted without the
specific permission of the copyright holders.
2 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

R CTOD value in resistance curve

0 initial radius of crack tip in FEA mesh
a crack extension
v CMOD increment
P load (force) increment

Introduction
Engineering critical assessment (ECA) can be used to evaluate imperfections in field girth welds in pipelines. The
material toughness is conventionally measured using single-edge-notched bend (SE(B)) specimens. The crack-tip
constraint in such specimens is higher than that for specimens in tensile loading, which simulate much more
accurately the loading in the field. Toughness increases as constraint decreases, and to take advantage of this effect
tests are being developed for single-edge-notched specimens loaded in tension (SE(T)). At MTL/CANMET,
investigations are under way to assess the feasibility of a single-specimen SE(T) test to complement the conventional
standardized single-specimen SE(B) test. The intent is to develop the protocol to a form suitable for standardization
and use in measurement of the toughness of welds for ECA of girth weld imperfections. This is becoming
important for strain-based design where applied strains beyond yield are allowed and constraint matching is
important. The currently used equations correlating J-integral and crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) in
ASTM standard ASTM E 1820-08 [1] are for SE(B) and C(T) specimens, based on finite element analysis (FEA).
The goal of the present study is to develop the relationship between J-integral and CTOD for SE(T) specimens,
applicable in particular for loads beyond limit load into large-scale yielding which is allowed in strain-based design
of pipelines. Note that the largest part of resistance curves for strain-based ECA is measured at loads above limit
load.

Evaluation of J-integral resistance

curve using single specimen technique
The primary objective of fracture toughness testing using SE(T) specimens is to match the constraint experienced
by girth weld imperfections in a pipe under axial (tensile) load. The obvious choice is a specimen with the same
crack size as the defect being assessed, but the mode of gripping is critical in determining the level of constraint.
There are two choices: pin loading, and fixed-grip (clamped) loading. It was found in previous FEA analysis of stress
fields and constraint parameters of specimens and circumferential cracks in pipe [2] that the best constraint
matching is obtained for a clamped specimen with ratio of span between load points (“daylight” H) to width (W) of
H/W=10. This geometry was chosen for further development.

There are also two choices in measurement of crack size during a fracture toughness test: physical measurement
using multiple specimens, and indirect measurement using techniques such as unloading compliance which can be
used with a single specimen. The latter has obvious advantages, and so investigations were made of the relation
between crack-mouth-opening displacement (CMOD) compliance and crack length “a”. It has indeed proven
feasible to measure “a” using this technique, although the CMOD compliance in tension is much smaller than that
in bending (Fig. 1) which increases the demands on accuracy. Also, care must be taken to correct the compliance
for specimen rotation [3].
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 3

90
80
70
60
SE(B) - E 1820
50
BCE

SE(T) - Shen
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/W
Fig. 1. CMOD compliance of SE(B) and SE(T) specimens

In this work, FEA has been used to develop equations for evaluation of the J-integral from the load vs. plastic
CMOD curve for a clamped SE(T) specimen. These are being presented elsewhere, along with measurements of
resistance (J-R) curves [4]. Typical examples of resistance curves are shown in Fig. 2.

1400

1200

1000
SE(T)-PS-1
J (kJ/m )
2

800
SE(T)-PS-2
600 SE(T)-PS-3

400 SE(T)-SG-1
SE(T), X100, SE(T)-SG-2
200 H/W=10, a/W=0.5 SE(T)-SG-3
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
a (mm)

Fig. 2. JR curves for deep-cracked SE(T) specimens, with crack size corrected for rotation (PS: plain-sided, SG: side-grooved)

Evaluation of CTOD from J-integral

J-Integral CTOD Relationship

J-integral [5] and crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD [6]) have been widely used as fracture parameters in
international standards, such as ASTM E 1820 [1] and British standard BS 7448 [7]. A great deal of effort [8, 9, 10,
11, 12] has been spent on establishing relationships between CTOD and J-integral (including energy release rate G
in linear elastic fracture mechanics, LEFM). Early work was focused on developing a universal J-CTOD relationship
that would be independent of crack configuration. This includes the J-CTOD relationship in LEFM developed
using a crack-tip plastic zone model by Irwin [8] and using a strip-yield model by Burdekin and Stone [9]. A general
form of the J-CTOD relationship is (see, for example, Anderson [13]):
4 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

J G
   (1)
m YS m YS

where simple models give m=2 for plane strain and m=1 for plane stress.

Another general J-CTOD relationship was developed by Shih [10] who exploited the dominance of the
Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren (HRR) singularity [14, 15] in the crack-tip region:

J
  dn (2)
0

where the parameter dn that relates J to CTOD is dependent only on material deformation properties (plane strain
or plane stress, strain hardening exponent N, and 0/E) and is independent of crack configuration under SSY [10].
In later work, the yield stress YS in Eqn. (1) was replaced by the effective yield strength (or flow stress) Y [1, 11,
12]. The effective yield stress has been used in Eqn. (1) in this work.

Kirk and Dodds [11] and Kirk and Wang [12] evaluated, by FEA, the parameter m that relates J to CTOD for
shallow and deep SE(B) specimens at loads such that CTOD is no larger than 5% of the crack size (i.e. max=ao/20.
This condition appeared in early versions of ASTM E 1820 as max=bo/20, which is obviously consistent with the
limit used in references [11] and [12] only for a/W=0.5). They found that m for SE(B) specimens depends on crack
size (a/W) in addition to strain hardening exponent N. The strain hardening exponent N is related to the yield-to-
tensile ratio YS/TS, and an empirical expression for N was used in earlier editions of ASTM E 1820. However, in
E 1820-08, m is expressed directly as a function of YS/TS, indirectly incorporating a relation for N that is derived
from an adjusted power-law stress-strain curve.

As pointed out by Shih, a unique relationship between J and CTOD in Eqn. (2) requires that HRR fields dominate
over an interval of the order of several times CTOD. However, McClintock [16] noted that plane strain slip-line
fields and crack-tip stresses and strains for the center-cracked panel (CCP), double edge cracked panel (DECP) and
cracked bend bar (SE(B)) are rather dissimilar. In other words, there is no dominant singularity field at the crack
tip for nonhardening materials and hence the relationship between J and CTOD in the fully yielded state is
dependent on configuration. In particular, the J-CTOD relationship for specimens subjected primarily to bending
may not be valid for specimens tested in tension [10]. For situations beyond the validity range of the HRR solution,
the J-CTOD relationship may become load-dependent. For example from the EPRI engineering approach to elastic-
plastic fracture analysis (both for SSY and LSY) given by Kumar et al [18], it is known that in the fully plastic case
the CMOD is proportional to (P/PY)N and the J-integral is proportional to (P/PY)N+1. The slip-field solution which
is valid for full yield of the ligament gives a proportional relationship between CTOD and CMOD [17]. Hence, in
this case the J-CTOD relation becomes dependent on load ratio (P/Py).

In general, the currently available J-CTOD relationships were developed assuming SSY [10] or with a definite limit
on applied load or deformation expressed as limits of J or CTOD [1, 11, 12]. In strain-based design of pipelines,
these limits may be exceeded because applied strains beyond yield are allowed. In these conditions, a J-CTOD
relationship is required that can be used in both SSY and LSY. In particular, a method to calculate J and CTOD at
loads well beyond the limit load is needed in order to measure the relevant material resistance curves in SE(T) tests.

Finite element model

Finite element analysis (FEA) was used in the present study to develop equations for correlating crack-tip opening
displacement with J-integral for clamped SE(T) specimens with different crack sizes (a/W). The length of the SE(T)
specimen (H) between clamps was chosen to be 10 times the specimen width (W), i.e. H/W=10, a geometry that is
recommended in DNV-RP-F108 (2006) [19] and shown in previous work [2] to give good constraint matching to
pipe girth weld cracks. To confirm this, a pipe with an external circumferential crack (H/D=10, D/t=40, a/W=0.5)
was also studied to confirm constraint matching to the SE(T) specimen. CTOD and J-integral were evaluated for
the pipe crack to test the applicability of the J-CTOD equation developed for clamped SE(T) specimens to pipes
with circumferential cracks in tension. The calculations were conducted using 2-D plane strain for clamped SE(T)
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 5

specimens and axisymmetric boundary conditions for the pipe. Large deformation and incremental plasticity
available in the commercial software package ADINA [20] were used for elastic-plastic FEA. The use of large
deformation in FEA ensured that the shape of the crack tip was properly simulated during deformation and the
post-yielding ligament size reduction was considered. A blunt notch of original notch tip radius 1/5 of the
minimum CTOD evaluated ensured convergence in the large-deformation analysis. The original radius was small
enough to eliminate any effect of its size on the values of J-integral and CTOD; according to McMeeking [21]: “…as
the total notch width grows to several times the original notch width, the difference between the blunted notch
shape and the shape of a sharp crack blunted by the same loads becomes negligible”. To ensure convergence, the
effect of mesh geometries, including minimum element size at the crack-tip, number of rings circling the crack-tip,
number of elements in a ring and number of elements in a mesh, were studied. The meshes used in the present
study were chosen to ensure that the J-integral and CTOD were not functions of these mesh variables. Because of
symmetry, only half of an SE(T) specimen and half of an axisymmetric pipe were modelled. Meshes for the
clamped SE(T) specimen and the pipe with external circumferential crack are shown in Figs. 3a) and 3b)
respectively.

Fig. 3a. FEA mesh for clamped SE(T) specimen.

6 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Fig. 3b. Axisymmetric model for pipe with external circumferential crack.

Displacement-controlled loading was applied on the SE(T) specimens and pipe from zero until the load reached
about 1.3 times the reference load (defined in the nomenclature) in both cases in 500 to 1000 steps. The choice of
1.3 P/PY was based on JR test results [4] in which the maximum load P was found to be about 1.1 to 1.25 PY. The
incremental displacement ratio (applied increment per step) was decreased in the FEA calculations to a level to
ensure that there was no effect of displacement increment on the calculated J-integral and CTOD. Calculations
conducted in the present study showed good convergence over the range of both deformation rate and element
density used in the elastic-plastic analysis.

J-integrals were evaluated by both virtual crack extension (VCE) and contour integration (CI) technique. No
meaningful difference was found between results of these two methods. To avoid any effect of a blunt crack-tip on
the J-integral, the far field J-integral was used with the distance between the contour line (or the outer side ring for
VCE) to the crack tip about 800 to 1200 times 0 (where 0 is the initial radius of crack tip in the FEA mesh). The
crack tip opening displacement was defined as the opening distance between the intercepts of two 45o lines drawn
back from the tip with the deformed profile, following Rice (private communication with D. M. Tracey, 1975; see
reference [22]).

For elastic-plastic material, tensile properties were described using an elastic-power law plastic expression:


 for    YS
E
 YS   
N (3)
   for    YS
E   YS 


FEA results and proposed m in J-CTOD relation

The J-integral and CTOD were calculated for a clamped SE(T) sample (H/W=10) with crack length a/W=0.2 and
0.5, work hardening exponents N=5, 10, 15 and 20, and load P/PY from 0.2 to 1.30 where PY is the reference load
PY=BN(W-a)σY with Y the effective yield stress as defined in the nomenclature. The parameter m was then
calculated according to Eqn. (1) (with Y in place of YS) as a function of a/W, N and P/PY. It was found that m is
a function of N and a/W. More importantly, however, it was found that m is not constant with increasing load P,
but varies with P/PY. The calculated values of m as a function of a/W, N and P/PY were fitted to formulas of form
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 7

similar to those used for m in ASTM 1820, with the dependence on P/Py for P>Py taken as a first order Taylor
expansion (linear dependence) above P/Py=1, i.e.:

m  mc for P  PY

 P  (4)
m  m c  m p   1 for P  PY
 PY 
and
a
mc  A1  A2 (5)
W
where
A1  0.1293  0.1152 N  0.00986N 2  0.000263N 3 (6)

A2  3.0867  0.297 N  0.0194N 2  0.000427N 3 (7)

and
a
m p  B1  B2 (8)
W
where
B1  1.0169  0.0634N  0.00567N 2  0.000200N 3 (9)

B 2  0.6969  0.1216N  0.01487N 2  0.000393N 3 (10)

Typical results for a deep crack (a/W=0.5) and a shallow crack (a/W=0.2) and those from Eqns. (4) to (10) are
shown in Figs. 4a) and 4b) respectively.

2.5

1.5
N=
m

20
SE(T), clamped, H/W=10
1 15
a/W=0.5
10
0.5 5
_ Eqns 4-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
P/PY

Fig. 4a. Factor m as function of applied load for a deep crack.

8 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

2.4

1.6
N=
m

1.2
20
15
0.8 SE(T), clamped, H/W=10
10 a/W=0.2
0.4 5
Eqns. 4-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
P/PY

Fig. 4b. Factor m as function of applied load for a shallow crack.

In the FEA calculations, the material input included YS and N. In calculating PY in Figs. 4a) and 4b), TS is also
needed according to the definition of Y. The tensile strength TS was evaluated from N and YS using the
following equation valid for power-law materials:

1
 YS     N
  Ne 0.002  YS  (11)
 TS   E 

It should be noted that these results have been obtained for stationary cracks, using the usual ±45˚ intercept
definition of δ. The decrease of m with increasing ligament yield load ratio (P/PY) occurs at loads above PY, where
the plastic component of J is dominant and there are large geometry changes. It is suggested that the variation of m
with ligament yield load ratio (P/PY) be taken into account when deducing CTOD values from J, especially since
much of the data in tests relevant to strain-based design will be obtained at loads above PY.

The dependence of m on load can be important, since practical application of strain-based design requires
calculation of crack driving force and measurement of resistance to fracture at loads significantly above PY. In this
work, equations have been derived for evaluation of m for SE(T) specimens with H/W=10 as a function of P/PY,
N, and a/W from least-squares fits to the FEA data as shown by the lines in Figs. 4a) and 4b). It is suggested that
these equations be used to obtain δ values from values of J measured in SE(T) tests.

2.5
N=

5, SE(T)
2
10, SE(T)
20, SE(T)
m

5, SE(B)
1.5 10, SE(B)
20, SE(B)

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/W
Fig. 5. Values of m for SE(T) at load P≤PY and for SE(B) at max=a/20.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 9

Figure 5 compares the value of m for SE(T) at loads less than PY with that for SE(B) at max=a/20 [12]. The
difference of m between SE(T) and SE(B) for low to medium strain hardening steels (N=10-20) is small (<4%), and
for high strain hardening steel (N=5) the difference is about 10%. Also, there is less dependence of m on a/W for
SE(T) compared to SE(B), (about 3-6% for SE(T) between a/W=0.2 and 0.5 compared to about 8-15% for SE(B)
for the same a/W range). The crack-configuration-independent J-CTOD relation for SSY proposed by Shih [10]
should be considered as an approximation only.

J-CTOD relationship for pipe with a circumferential crack

As the stress field of a clamped SE(T) specimen (H/D=10) matches that of a pipe with a circumferential crack in
tension with the same crack size (a/W=a/t), the equations relating J-integral with CTOD developed by using a
clamped SE(T) sample should be applicable to a pipe with a circumferential crack. (Note that in previous work [2]
it has been shown that the ratio of crack length to wall thickness of part-circumferential cracks (2c/t) has an
insignificant effect on the constraint parameter Q.) Figure 6 shows the J-CTOD relationship of a pipe with a
circumferential crack (H/D=10, D/t=40, a/W=0.5). The strain hardening exponent N of the pipe steel is 15. The
reference load of the pipe in tension with a circumferential crack was defined as PY = π[(D/2+t-a)2-(D/2)2]Y. It is
seen that the results from FEA for the pipe agree well with those from Eqns. 4-10 developed for clamped SE(T)
specimens.

1.5
m

1 FEA for pipe with

circumferential crack
Eqns 4-10
0.5

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
P/PY
Fig.6. Parameter m for pipe with a circumferential crack (a/W=0.5).

Results of R curves converted from JR curves

Figure 7 shows R curves converted from JR curves shown in Fig. 2 using Eqns. 4-10. The value of R at the load
P=PY on each curve is marked by a cross in the figure. It is seen that the part of the curves evaluated at loads P≤PY
represents only a very small part of the total resistance curves in the range of interest (crack growth up to 2 mm).
Because most points on the curves were evaluated at loads P>PY, the dependence of m on the ligament yield ratio
(P/PY) has to be considered. Using specimen SG3 as an example, R=1.324 mm at Δa=1.5 mm (P/PY=1.25,
m=1.349) while R=0.99 mm if m for SSY (m=1.684) is used. The related error is 25%.
10 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

1.4

1.2

PS1
 R (mm)

0.8
PS2
PS3
0.6
SG1
SG2
0.4
SG3
R at P=PY
0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

 a (mm)
Fig. 7. R curves converted from JR curves.

Conclusions
1. FEA has been used to calculate J and δ and hence m=J/(σYδ) for SE(T) samples with H/W=10 in clamped
loading under SSY and LSY conditions for materials with low to high strain hardening exponents (N=5-20).
2. The factor m=J/(σYδ) of clamped SE(T) samples is independent of load only when the applied load is equal to
or less than a reference load PY=BN(W-a)σY; when P>PY, the value of m decreases with increasing ligament yield
load ratio (P/PY).
3. Equations have been derived for evaluation of m for SE(T) specimens with H/W=10 as a function of P/PY, N,
and a/W from least-squares fits to the FEA data. It is suggested that these equations be used to obtain δ values
from J measured in SE(T) tests.
4. The equations for m derived using clamped SE(T) specimens were compared with the J-CTOD relationship of a
circumferential crack in a thin-walled pipe loaded in tension. The values of m for the pipe agree well with those
for clamped SE(T) specimens.
5. Resistance curves of R for clamped SE(T) specimens (a/W=0.5) for an X100 pipe steel were obtained by
conversion from JR curves. Most of the points on the R curves up to a crack growth of 2 mm were evaluated at
loads P>PY. Consequently, the dependence of m on P/PY must be considered. Neglect of this can lead to errors
of the order of 25%.
6. For most high strength pipe steels, strain-based design requires crack driving force calculation and measurement
of resistance to fracture at loads well above PY. As a result, the load dependence of m should be taken into
account evaluating CTOD from J.

Acknowledgements
This work is part of a larger consolidated program jointly funded by the Canadian Federal Government Program of
Energy Research and Development (PERD), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI). The
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 11

views and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the
official policies of any of these organizations.

References
1. ASTM E 1820-08, “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness”, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2006
2. Shen, G., Bouchard R., Gianetto, J. A. and Tyson, W.R., “Fracture Toughness Evaluation of High Strength Steel Pipe”,
Proceedings of PVP2008, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, July 27-31, 2008
3. Shen, G. and Tyson, W.R., Crack Length Evaluation for SE(T) Testing Using Unloading Compliance, Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, Vol. 37, 2009, pp. 347-357
4. Shen, G., Gianetto, J.A. and Tyson, W.R., Measurement of J-R Curves Using Single-Specimen Technique on Clamped
SE(T) Specimens, submitted to Eighteenth (2009) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan,
June 21-26, 2009.
5. Rice, J.R., “A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notch and Crack”,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 35, 1968, pp. 379-386.
6. Wells, A.A. “Unstable Crack Propagation in Metals: Cleavage and Fast Fracture”, Proc. The Crack Propagation Symposium,
The College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, UK, Vol. 1, 1961, pp. 210-230.
7. BS 7448, “Part 1: Method for Determining of KIc, Critical Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) and Critical J Values
of Fracture Toughness for Metallic Materials under Displacement Controlled Monotonic Loading at Quasistatic Rates”,
British Standard Institution, London, 1991.
8. Irwin, G.R. “Plastic Zone Near a Crack and Fracture Toughness”, Sagamore Research Conference Proceedings, Vol. 4, 1961,
pp. 63-78.
9. Burdekin F.M. And Stone, D.E.W., “ The Crack Opening Displacement Approach to Fracture Mechanics in Yielding
Materials”, Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 1, 1966, pp. 145-153.
10. Shih, C.F. “Relationship between the J-Integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending
Cracks”, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 305-326.
11. Kirk, M.T. and Dodds, R.H. Jr., “J and CTOD Estimation Equations for Shallow Cracks in Single Edge Notch Bend
Specimens”, J. Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 21, 1993, pp. 228-238.
12. Kirk, M.T., and Yong-Yi Wang, “Wide Range CTOD Estimation Formulae for SE(B) Specimen,” Fracture Mechanics: 26th
Volume, ASTM STP 1256, Walter Reuter, John H. Underwood, and James C. Newman, Jr., Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1995.
13. Anderson, T.L., Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd Edition, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton,
2005, p. 105.
14. Hutchinson, J.W., “Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening Material”, Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 13-31.
15. Rice, J.R. and Rosengren, G.F. “Plane Strain Deformation near a Crack Tip in a Power-Law Hardening Material”, Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 1-12.
16. McClintock, F.A., Fracture: An Advanced Treatise (edited by Liebowitz, H.) Vol. 3, Engineering Fundamentals and Environmental
Effects, p. 47, Academic Press, New York, 1971.
17. Wu, S.X, Cotterell, B. and Mai, Y.W., “Slip-Line Field Solutions for Three-Point Notched-Bend Specimens”, International
Journal of Fracture, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 13-29
18. Kumar, V., German, M. D. and Shih, C. F., “An Engineering Approach to Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis”, NP-1931.
Research project 1237-1, Electric Power Research Institute, 1991
19. DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F108 (2006): Fracture Control for Pipeline Installation Methods Introducing
Cyclic Plastic Strain, Det Norske Veritas, 2006
20. ADINA, Theory and Modeling Guide, Vol. 1, Report ARD 01-7, ADINA R & D Inc, Watertown, USA, 2001.
21. McMeeking, R.M., “Finite Deformation Analysis of Crack-tip Opening in Elastic-Plastic Materials and Implications for
Fracture”, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 25, 1977, pp. 357-381.
22. Tracey, D.M., “Finite Element Solutions for Crack-tip Behaviour in Small-Scale Yielding”, Journal of Engineering Materials
and Technology, Transactions of the ASME 98 Ser H (2), 1976 pp. 146-151.