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

net/publication/244477924

A generalized Griffith criterion for crack propagation

Article in Engineering Fracture Mechanics · December 1984

DOI: 10.1016/0013-7944(84)90010-9

CITATIONS READS

58 4,235

1 author:

Len G Margolin
Los Alamos National Laboratory
142 PUBLICATIONS 5,105 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Len G Margolin on 30 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 0013-7944184 13.00+ .w
Engineering Frocfun Mechanics Vol. 19. No. 3. pp. 539-543. 19W
Pergamon Press Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain.

A GENERALIZED GRIFFITH CRITERION FOR

CRACK PROPAGATION?

L. G. MARGOLIN
Earth and Space Science Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, U.S.A.

Abstract-Griffith’s criterion for crack propagation is generalized to consider penny-shaped cracks in a

spatially uniform, but otherwise arbitrary, state of stress. A further generalization incorporates the effect of
interfacial friction for cracks closed in normal compression. Various criteria for crack propagation are
discussed in terms of recent experimental evidence for process zones in which the region around a crack tip
is seen to be permeated by smaller microcracks.

INTRODUCTION
A CRITERIONfor deciding when cracks may grow is essential to a theory of fracture. Griffith[l] first stated
such a criterion-that a crack will grow whenever that growth reduces the potential energy of the crack
and the material that contains it. Griffith applied this criterion to the case of a two-dimension crack (slit)
in normal tension. He found that the crack could grow if the rate of release of elastic strain energy from
its growth exceeded the rate at which surface energy of the crack is increased.
Succeeding investigators have generalized Griffith’s analysis, but still employing his criterion.
Mossakovskii and Rybka[2] extended the analysis to two-dimensional cracks in plane stress or plane
strain. Keer[3] further extended the analysis to three-dimensional cracks (penny-shaped cracks) in a
biaxial state of stress.
In this paper, we offer two generalizations, still based on Griffith’s criterion. First, we will consider
a penny-shaped crack in a triaxial state of stress. This is the general case of a three-dimensional crack in
a spatially uniform, but otherwise arbitrary stress field. The analysis shows that the presence of a shear
stress enhances the instability of cracks in normal tension and makes crack growth possible under
normal compression.
McClintock and Walsh[4] have pointed out that friction is important for cracks closed in normal
compression. The effect of friction may be included by adding the frictional work to the energy balance
equation. The presence of friction increases the stability of the cracks. More important, friction
introduces hysteresis into the stress-strain relations of a cracked body.

TRIAXIAL STATE OF STRESS

The condition that a crack may extend, according to Griffith[l], is

$(W-U)ZO, (1)

where W is the strain energy, U is the surface energy, and c is the crack radius. The surface energy is
given in terms of the surface tension T,
r_J= 2PCZT. (2)

The strain energy is found by integrating the local strain energy density over the body B

W =i d3XUii$. (3)
IB

The strain can be written in terms of the displacements Ui

(4)

*Work supported by U.S. Department of Energy.

239
540 L. G. MARGOLIN

Equation (3) can be written

where we have made use of the equilibrium equation aoir/axi = 0. Finally, eq (5) can be written in terms
of a surface integral

W=5 dS[oiluini], (6)

fs

where the surface S includes both the exterior surface of the body Sg and the crack surface Sc.
If we apply a uniform stress - oij to the entire body, we have the equivalent problem [5] of an applied
stress oii inside the crack and zero stress on the outer surface. Then we can write

W=k dS[oijuiur], (7)

f SC

where nj is the outward pointing normal to the crack. Since oijai is the force per unit area, oil”jUiis the
work per unit area, and the integral is the work done in displacing the crack surfaces. Let us now refer to
the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1.
In this system, nj = 2 on the upper surface, and ttj = -2 on the lower surface. Thus, only the stress
components a,,, uyyz,and u,, can contribute to the energy. Now the strain energies due to each of these
components have been computed separately. The normal component can be found in Sneddon[S] and
the shear components in Segedin[6]. All that remains is to show that these energies can be added.
Let us write the displacement field due to an internal stress T,, as Ui’,that due to r,, as uf and that
due to 7yZas u:. There are two ingredients to proving the additivity of the energies. First, the elastic
equations are linear, thus allowing superposition of the elastic solutions for the individual internal
stresses. That is, the displacement due to the internal stress rij is

Ui = Ui’ + U' + Ui3. (8)

Second, there is the detailed form of the displacements Ui’,~2, and u: on the crack surface. These can be
calculated from Bell[7] and are, in the upper half plane,

ui’ = 4uZZ(1- “*)dc’- x2 - y2i (if a,, > 0),

?rE

ui2= 2uxfE- ‘) d/c2 - x2 - y2i, and

ui3= 241- v) Vc’_ x2 - #ji, (9)

7TE

where v is Poisson’s ratio and E is Young’s modulus.

Fig. I. The crack-oriented coordinate system.

 A generalized Griffith criterion for crack propagation 541

The displacements are orthogonal to each other, and so the total strain energy, from eqn (7) is

W = ; s dS(u,,u,’ t a,,~:+ uyru;). (10)

f c

The integrals are easily performed, leading to

w = $1 - v3&‘+&(1- v)(a2,, + u$)c3. (11)

This is in agreement with the results of Sneddon[6] and Segedin[7]. Substituting eqn (11) and eqn (2) into
the Griffith criterion, we derive the criterion for crack growth in triaxial stress and normal tension,

(12)

EFFECT OF FRICTION IN CLOSED CRACKS

When the normal stress is compressive, the cracks are closed and friction plays an important role [4].
We assume that the frictional stress has the form

where r. is a cohesion and F is the dynamic coefficient of friction. The frictional stress has the opposite
sign to the applied shear. For convenience, we now choose a coordinate system in which a,, is positive
and uYZvanishes (this is always possible).
The extra strain in the body due to the crack is proportional to the displacement of the crack faces,
which is proportional to the effective stress on the crack faces. The effective stress is

The crack displacement, from eqn (O),is

uf=2(1+
7TE
dc’ - x2- y$.rxz
- 70 t /ur,,)a. (1%

The strain energy in this case cannot be calculated from the surface integral [eqn (7)]. The reasons are
discussed in the appendix where it is shown that

w=4(1-u)c3 2
3E bXZ - T21’ (16)

It is also shown that the work done against friction is

F = 8(1- 4c3[UJ - T2].

3E (17)

Now we can generalize the Griffith criterion to include the work done against friction

(18)

The effect of friction is to reduce the effective stress in the Griffith criterion which now can be written

(19)
542 L.G.MARGOLIN

DISCUSSION
Several criteria have been devised to predict crack propagation. One example is the criterion
described in this paper that is based on energy considerations. An alternate approach consists of looking
at the stress field at the tip of a crack and asking whether the force is sufficient to break interatomic
bonds[8]. Still a third approach is based on a combination of these two ideas. A stress intensity factor is
defined in terms of a generalized force derived from the strain energy release rate[9]. The energy
criterion corresponds to a macroscopic approach. The details of bond rupture and microscopic
dissipation are hidden in the energy to create new surface area (the surface tension T in Section 2).
Clearly, the energy criterion must represent a necessary condition for propagation if we are to respect
the first law of thermodynamics. The sufficiency of the energy criterion has been shown in some cases.
The calculation by Orowan[lO] is closely related to the stress intensity approach.
Recent experimental work[ll, 121 has focused on the crack tip. In this region, one finds tiny
microcracks which are nucleated and continue to grow due to the presence of the large crack. If one
accepts this picture, two important points must be considered with respect to crack propagation.
First, the region of energy dissipation is not only at the crack tip, but in a finite zone (the process
zone). This implies the linear elastic theory breaks down not because of the failure of the continuum
hypothesis, on interatomic length scales, but because of the failure of the assumption of linear elasticity,
and on a much larger length scale. If one assumes an elastic plastic medium, then the plastic work scales
[13] as the crack length cubed and the process zone is some (possibly large) fraction of crack length.
Then the force calculated from a stress intensity approach may not be localized at the crack tip and may
not represent a sufficient condition for rupture.
The second point to be considered is that if one accepts the process zone picture, then crack growth
should be viewed as a coalescence process rather than a rupture process. The calculation of force at the
crack tip may not represent a necessary condition for fracture.
To summarize, calculation of the force at a crack tip may not lead to a necessary or a sufficient
condition for crack propagation. Focusing on a microscopic picture of crack growth is misleading if we
focus down on the wrong picture. The macroscopic approach of the energy criterion may be its strength
as well as its weakness. By not focusing on a microscopic process of extension, it is applicable to either
the rupture or the coalescence picture. In particular, energy dissipation that does not assume a constant
surface tension, as suggested by Nichols[l4], is easily incorporated into the criterion.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the energy criterion for crack growth is a powerful
tool. Our result for propagation in general stress states is equivalent to saying that the stress intensity
factors for modes I, II, and III loading can be added. Cracks in tension are more unstable, that is, have a
smaller minimum size for growth in the presence of shear.
When cracks are in normal compression, one must consider the effect of friction. Andrews[lS]
showed that the effect of friction in shear cracks was to simply reduce the effective loading shear
stress. Our results of Section 3 verify this. However, we see that this result depends upon including the
frictional work in the energy balance. The results of Section 3 show that cracks can propagate in normal
compression if the shear stress is sufficiently large. However, in the presence of large compressional
stresses, the cracks may be locked in place in spite of large shear. This phenomenon is probably related
to the brittle-ductile transition observed in many rocks and metals.

APPENDIX
In this appendix we consider the calculation of the strain energy associated with a shear crack in the
presence of friction. There are two results. First we give mathematical and physical reasons to illustrate that
one cannot use eqn (7) (rewritten here as eqn Al) to calculate the strain energy. Second, we present a more
general calculation of the strain energy. The alternate method reduces to the surface integral in the absence
of friction.
Consider again the surface integral of eqn (7)

W =1 dS[oirUinr]. (Al)

The integral of force through displacement represents the work done by external forces on the body. On the
surface, this must include the work done against friction, and so eqn Al could not be equal to the strain
energy.
 A generalized Griffith criterion for crack propagation 543

In fact, eqn Al is not the total work either. Equation (3) in the text is derived as the integral of force
through displacement in a case where stress is proportional to strain. In the medium this assumption is valid,
but on the surface the strain is proportional to the net stress which is the difference of the applied stress (u,..)
and the frictional stress (7). This is, in fact, eqn (15).
Integrating the force through displacement here leads to the total work (Q) done by the external stress

W)

where we define

a= 8(1 - v)c3
-2(1-v)~(c2-,2)rdr= 3E . (A3)
f s, 7rE

To derive A2, we integrate the external stress from T to a,,. This represents a particular assumption of
loading where displacement begins when the external stress exceeds the frictional stress, and that the
frictional stress is constant during subsequent loading. With this loading path, the work done against friction
is

F = [f&,7 - T2](Y. (A4)

Thus, the strain energy W is the difference Q - F or

w= ;rui,
-T2](Y (A9

The reason eqn Al cannot be used is due to the nature of the frictional stresses. Physically, the stresses of
elasticity arise from relative displacement (i.e. strain) of points in the medium. Friction, on the other hand,
represents a stress that arises in the absence of displacement. It is precisely because there is no displacement
that the work done by the frictional stresses is not recoverable.
Mathematically, the problem lies in the use of the divergence theorem to convert the volume integral of
eqn (5) into the surface integral of eqn (6). The use of the divergence theorem requires that the integrand
(UiiUj)be continuous and have a continuous derivative. However, the strain is not continuous as one
approaches the crack surface. Again, this is because the stress in the body is elastic, and so due to strain,
whereas part of the stress on the surface is due to friction.
The problem really lies in the breakdown of the model. One simply cannot deal with friction in the
framework of elasticity. However, the arguments leading to A5 are more general, being based on the
mechanical definition of work and on the conservation of energy.

REFERENCES
[I] A. A. Griffith, Phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans. Roy. Sot. A. 221, 163-198 (1920).
[2] Y. A. Mossakovskii and M. T. Rybka, An attempt to construct a theory of fraction for brittle materials based on Griffith’s
criterion. Prih. Mat. 1. M&h. 29, 326-332 (1965).
[4 L. M. Keer, A note on shear and combined loading for a penny-shaped crack. J. Me& Phys. Solids 14, l-6 (1%6).
[4] F. A. McClintock and J. B. Walsh, Friction on Griffith cracks in rocks under pressure. Proc. 4th U.S. Nat. Cong. Appl. Mech. pp.
1015-1021 Berkeley, California (1%2).
[5] 1. N. Sneddon and M. Lowengrub, Crack Problems in the CIassical Theory of Elusticity. Wiley, New York (1969).
[6] C. M. Segedin, Note on a penny-shaped crack under shear. Proc. Camb. Phil. Sot. 47, 396-400 (1951).
[7] J. C. Bell, Stresses from arbitrary loads on circular cracks. Int. J. Fracture 15, 85-104 (1979).
[8] G. I. Barenblatt, V. M. Entov and R. L. Salganik, Some problems of the kinetics of crack propagation. In Inelastic Behavior of
Solids (Edited by M. F. Kanninen et al.), pp. 559-584. McGraw-Hill, New York (1970).
[9] G. R. Irwin, Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack. J. App. Mech. 24, 361-364 (1957).
[IO] E. Orowan, Energy criteria of fracture. Welding J. Supp. 34, 157-160 (1955).
[Ill R. G. Hoagland and J. D. Emburg, A treatment of inelastic deformation around a crack tip due to microcracking. J. Amer. Cer.
Sot. 63, 404-410 (1980).
1121 R. G. Hoagland, G. T. Hahm and A. R. Rosenfield. Influence of micro-structure on the fracture propagation in rock. Rock Mech.
5, 77-106 (1973).
]l3] Z. Olesiak and M. Wnuk, Plastic energy dissipation due to a penny-shaped crack. Inf. J. Fracture Mech. 4, 383-396 (1968).
[I41 F. A. Nichols, How brittle is brittle fracture? Engng Fracf. Mech. 12, 307-316 (1979).
]I51 D. J. Andrews, Rupture velocity of plane strain cracks. J. Geophys. Res. 81, 5679-5687 (1976).

(Received 21 June 1982; receiued for publication 25 November 1982)

View publication stats