FRACTURE MECHANICS

Silver
Bridge

The Silver Bridge, named because of its shiny aluminum

paint, was considered an engineering marvel at the time
of its construction because the suspension component
of the bridge was formed by eyelets at each end. The
joints were similar to the link mechanism of a bicycle
chain, an unfortunate design because this meant that if
even one joint failed the whole bridge would fail. In
1967, this is exactly what happened and the bridge
collapsed, in the end 46 lost their lives. Investigators
later concluded that a north side joint had a fracture
which had become corroded over the years, and it gave
way to the heavy stresses from the rush hour traffic.
An eyewitness later reported that she had heard a
crackling noise and spotted metal debris on the
roadway just 30 minutes before the collapse, indicating
that there were apparent signs of failure.
 Hyatt Regency
The collapse on July 17, 1981, killed 114 people and injured more than 200
others, the deadliest structural failure in the USA history.
It was caused by the failure of steel connections supporting the concrete
and glass walkways, and provided a catalyst for changes in construction
practices nationwide.
Ultimate blame was pinned on the two structural engineers who designed
the skywalks. One of them later testified that he never checked the
skywalks' connections, and that he thought it was the responsibility of the
fabricators to make sure the connections would hold.
 Conventional Failure Analysis

The most straightforward design consideration to avoid structural failure is

obviously keep the maximum stress well under the posted material strength:
Maximum Stress Strength of Material
This maximum stress approach, although usually adequate when one principal
stress dominates, may not be valid when the structure undergoes general
multi-axial loadings. To address this issue, many failure criteria were
proposed. Most of them are based on principal stresses, strains, or strain
energy. By overlaying an "effective" strength of material and the loading
conditions, one can determine the effectiveness of the structural elements.

Applied Stress Failure Criterion

Still, in reality, many more factors are to be considered. For example, the
material is never flawless; the assembly may not be perfect; the loading may
not be as designed; the environment may be harsh; the maintenance may be
poor; and the service life may have to be very long. Traditionally these
concerns were (hopefully) offset by a single safety factor; that engineers
employ like a second nature. Unfortunately, history showed that many
structures failed way below their designed capacity.
Perhaps one of the most important questions in the design process
would be: What Constitutes Mechanical Failure?
In general, the various failure mechanisms may be classified into the
two broad fields of Deformation and Fracture.
A more detailed list would be:
Excessive Elastic Deformation
Unstable Elastic Deformation (Buckling)
Plastic Deformation
Fracture
Fatigue
Creep
Stress Corrosion Cracking

The occurrence of each

failure mode depends
on various factors
 Evolution of Structural Design

The art of structural design has drastically evolved through the history
of mankind. A rather broad, but somehow specific, classification would
be:
I. Design Based on Previous successful designs
II. Introduction of the Stress and Strain Concepts
III. Strength of Materials Approach
IV. Theory of Elasticity Approach
V. Fracture Mechanics Approach
Design Philosophies:
For many applications, it’s sufficient to determine the maximum static
or dynamic stress that the material can withstand, and then design the
structure to ensure that the stresses remain below acceptable limits.
More critical applications require some kind of defect tolerance analysis.
In these cases, the material or structure is considered to contain flaws,
and we must decide whether to replace the part; or leave it in service
under a more tolerable loading for a certain period of time. This kind of
decision is usually made using the disciplines of Fracture Mechanics.
Safe Life: The component is considered to be free of defects after
fabrication and is designed to remain defect-free during service and
withstand the maximum static or dynamic working stresses for a
certain period of time. If flaws, cracks, or similar damages are visited
during service the component should be discarded immediately.

Fail Safe: The component is designed to withstand the maximum

static or dynamic working stresses for a certain period of time in such a
way that its probable failure would not be catastrophic. For example a
pressure vessel designed to work under the leak-before-burst (LBB)
condition should show leakage as a result of crack propagation. The aim
is to prevent catastrophic failure by detecting the crack at its early
stages of growth and also reducing the internal pressure.

Damage Tolerance: The component is designed to withstand the

maximum static or dynamic working stresses for a certain period of
time even in presence of flaws, cracks, or similar damages of certain
geometry and size.
 Fracture Mechanics

Fracture mechanics is a field of solid mechanics that

deals with the mechanical behavior of cracked bodies.
From investigating fallen structures, engineers found that most
failure began with cracks. These cracks may be caused by material
defects (dislocation, impurities...), discontinuities in assembly
and/or design (sharp corners, grooves, nicks, voids...), harsh
environments (thermal stress, corrosion...) and damages in service
(impact, fatigue, unexpected loads...). Most microscopic cracks are
arrested inside the material but it takes one run-away crack to
destroy the whole structure.

To analyze the relationship among stresses, cracks, and

fracture toughness, Fracture Mechanics was introduced.

The first milestone was set by Griffith in his famous 1920 paper
that quantitatively relates the flaw size to the fracture stresses.
However, Griffith's approach is too primitive for engineering
applications and is only good for brittle materials
Applied stress

Toughness Defect size

 What is Fracture Mechanics and why do you care?

Fracture Mechanics is all about figuring out how cracks think: where
are they going to pop up next, are they going to grow or just hang out
where they are?
It is important to study how cracks behave because cracks can cause
things to fail, something as small as a bone or as large as a ship. If a
large structure, such as a building or a ship, cracks, this may lead to a
catastrophic failure which could affect many people.

The mechanics of fracture progressed from being a scientific

curiosity to an engineering discipline, primarily because of what
happened to the Liberty ships during World War II.
The Liberty ships had an all-welded hull, as opposed to the riveted
construction of traditional ship designs. Of the roughly 2700 liberty
ships build during World War II, approximately 400 sustained
fractures, of which 90 were considered serious. In 20 ships the
failure was essentially total, and about half of these broke
completely in two.
 Fracture Modes
Forces are simplified into three different "modes", basically three ways the
forces can act and what kind of fracture they cause:

Mode I Mode II Mode III

 EARLY FOUNDATIONS
OF STRENGTH OF MATERIAL
The notes of Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) are
the earliest records indicating a concept for
evaluating the strength of materials. He suggested
an experiment (da Vinci’s sketch shown in Fig. 1.2),
which is believed, was intended to establish a “law”
for the influence of length on the strength of all
types of materials. Even though it is unknown if
the experiments were performed at that time,
this was an early indication of the size effects on
the strength of material. A longer wire
corresponds to a larger sample volume and
provides a higher probability of sampling a region
containing a flaw.
The science and early evolution of the strength of
materials concepts can be attributed to Galileo. In the
early 17th century, Galileo turned his attention to
structural mechanics while he was under house arrest and
was banned from celestial mechanics. In his book Due
Nuove Scienze, which was published in 1638, Galileo
introduced the concept of tensile strength in simple
tension, which he referred to as “absolute resistance to
fracture.” His observation that the strength of the bar
is proportional to the cross-sectional area and is
independent of the length produced early strength of
material concepts. It is an interesting fact that even
Galileo noted an indication of size effect while he was
visiting the Venetian Arsenal. He noticed a greater
attention used by workers in the construction of big
ships than in small ships. At that time one of the
master builders explained to him that the large ships
were assumed to be more brittle than the smaller
vessels.
 Robert Hooke
It was Robert Hooke (1635–1702) who broke away from the traditional
thinking of his era and introduced the concept of the true theory of elasticity
or springiness in 1678. Hooke tested wire strings of 20 to 40 ft in length
by adding weight and measuring displacements. He made an important
observation: that the wire always returned to its original length after several
tests on the same wire. His far-reaching statement implied that when a
mechanical force is applied to a solid object, change in shape (by extension or
compression) must take place, and accordingly the solid produces a reaction.
Essentially, Hooke arrived at the conclusion that all solids and objects can
behave like springs.
Hooke’s law advanced two very important principles:
1. Recovery from elastic deformation.
2. Linear relationship between applied load and elastic deformation.
Although rather simplistic in mathematical terms, this principle has been a
significant help to engineering practitioners for more than 300 years.
 Thomas Young
From the principles of Hooke’s law, all subsequent contributions were
based on the theory of elasticity. In 1807, Thomas Young published the
definition of modulus of elasticity, which is also known as Young’s
modulus.

Young related stress () and strain () by using the modulus of elasticity
(E) with a very simple equation

=E

From this point on in structural mechanics, quantitative methods could be

used to design structures without having to constantly resort to testing.
Who started all this fracture mechanics stuff?
In 1913, a a professor of Naval Architecture C.E. Inglis looked at a
thin plate of glass with an elliptical hole in the middle, in a new and
different way. The plate was pulled at both ends perpendicular to the
ellipse.
He found that point A, at the end of the ellipse, was feeling the most
pressure. He also found that as the ratio of a/b gets bigger (the
ellipse gets longer and thinner) that the stress at A becomes greater
and greater.
He also found that pulling on the plate in a
direction parallel to the ellipse does not produce a
great stress at A. This leads to the fact that a
load perpendicular, not parallel, to the crack will
make it grow. Then he looked at other plates with
not-quite-elliptical holes. He realized that it's
not really the shape of the hole that matters in
cracking. What matters is the length of the
crack that is perpendicular to the load and what
the radius of curvature at the ends of the hole
is. The longer the hole (or crack), the higher
the stress, and the smaller the radius of
curvature, the higher the stress.
 STRESS IN AN INFINITE PLATE WITH AN ELLIPTICAL HOLE
-INGLIS-

The maximum net section stress at point A is

provided by

where  is the nominal (remote) stress.

Note that if a = b (circle) then A = 3 .
When defining the radius of curvature  = b2=a
the maximum local stress A attains the form:

The above criterion suffers from the major drawback. In particular, if

0 then A . This is not realistic, because no material can withstand
infinite stress.
 GENERAL NEAR-TIP FIELDS
STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS
-WESTERGAARD-
It is possible to derive closed-form solutions for the stresses in the
body, assuming linear elastic material behavior.
The early works on this subject are due to Westergaard

When defining a polar coordinate system (r;) with

the origin at the crack tip the stress field in any
linear elastic cracked body can be written as

where k is a constant and fij is dimesionless function of  . The stress

near the crack tip varies with 1√r, regardless of the configuration of
the cracked body. Note that when r 0 the stress approaches to ∞.
In other words, when a body contains a crack, a strong concentration
develops around a crack tip.
 Westergaard
For linear elastic material this stress concentration (Westergaard)
has the same distribution close to the crack tip regardless of the
size shape and specific boundary conditions of the body. Only the
intensity of the stress concentration varies. For the same
intensity, the stresses around the crack tip are identical.
When = 0, the shear stress
is zero and crack plane is a
principal plane for pure Mode
I loading. Then the stresses,
in the close vicinity of the
crack tip, assume the form

The singularity dominated zone is defined as a region where this equation

describes the crack tip stresses. Thus the stresses near the crack tip increase
in proportion to K (K defines the amplitude of the crack tip singularity).Thus the
stress intensity factor K completely defines the crack tip conditions (single
parameters description of the crack tip conditions).
 Energy Criterion - Griffith
The paradox of a sharp crack
motivated Griffith to develop a
fracture theory based on energy
rather than local stress.

He observed that to introduce a crack into an elastically stressed

body one would have to balance the decrease in potential energy (due
to the release of stored elastic energy and the work done by external
loads) and the increase in surface energy resulting from the presence
of the crack which creates new surfaces.
Recall, that surface energy arises from the non-equilibrium
cofiguration of atoms at any surface of a solid. Likewise he reasoned
that an existing crack would grow by some increment if the necessary
surface energy was supplied to the system.
According to the First law of thermodynamics, when a system
goes from a nonequilibrium state to equilibrium, there will be a
net decrease in energy. In 1920 Griffit happlied this idea to the
formation of crack
 Griffith Criterion

Therefore, a crack can form (or an existing crack can

grow) only if such a process causes the total energy to
decrease or remain constant. Thus the critical condition
for the fracture can be defined as the point at which
crack growth occurs under equilibrium conditions.
In mathematical terms the above statement reads:
 Griffith Criterion
Griffith wrote an expression for the change in total energy as a sum
of the decrease in potential energy and the increase in surface
energy

Note that the Griffith

Therefore: criterion applies only to
linear elastic material
behavior.
Thus the global
behavior of the
structure must be
linear. Any nonlinear
For the linear elastic solid with the plastic effects such as
zone confined to a small region near the crack plasticity must be
tip the fracture energy is constant. In many confined to a small
ductile materials, however, the fracture region near the crack
energy increases with with the crack growth. tip.
In such a case, the energy required for a unit
advance of the crack is called the crack
growth resistance R.
Plasticity effects in metals limited the theorem and it was not until Irwin’s
work in 1948, that a modification was made to Griffith’s model to make it applicable to
metals. Irwin’s first major contribution was to extend the Griffith approach to metals by
including the energy dissipated by local plastic flow. Orowan independently proposed a similar
modification to Griffith’s theory in 1949. Orowan limited practical use to brittle materials
while Irwin made no such restrictions.
It is an interesting fact and perhaps relevant to point out that the scientific curiosity
towards fracture mechanics became a significantly important engineering discipline after the
unfortunate failures of Liberty ships during World War II.
The Liberty ships were built by the United States to support Britain’s war effort and used a
new construction method for mass production in which the hull was welded instead of
riveted. The Liberty ship program was an astounding success until 1943, when a Liberty ship
broke completely in two while sailing in the North Pacific. Later, hundreds of other vessels
sustained fractures. An investigation into Liberty ship failures pointed out poor toughness of
steel and transition from ductile to brittle behavior at the service temperatures that ships
experienced.
It was noticed that the fractures initiated at the square hatched corners on the deck where
there was a local stress concentration and the sharp corners acted like starter cracks.
Research into this problem was led by George Rankine Irwin at the Naval
Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. It was the research during this
period that resulted in the development and definition of what we now
refer to as linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). A major
breakthrough occurred in the early 1950s when Irwin and Kiesprovided the
extension of Griffith theory for an arbitrary crack and proposed the
criteria for the growth of this crack. The criterion was that the strain
energy release rate (G) must be larger han the critical work (G c), which is
required to create a new unit crack area.
Irwin also related strain energy release rate to the stress field at the
crack tip using Westergaard’s work. Westergaard had developed a semi-
inverse technique for analyzing stresses and displacements ahead of a
crack tip. Using Westergaards’ method, Irwin showed that the stress field
in the area of the crack tip is completely determined by a quantity K called
the stress intensity factor.
Other serious failures that were experienced during that period were
those of the de Havilland “Comet” commercial aircraft. The Comet was
first manufactured in 1952, and was the first two-jet-engine aircraft to
fly at 40,000 ft with a pressurized cabin. After about a year in service,
three aircraft failed, resulting in the tragic loss of several lives. In 1955,
Wells used fracture mechanics to show that the fuselage failures in
several Comet jet aircraft resulted from fatigue cracks reaching a
critical size. These cracks were initiated at windows and were caused by
insufficient local reinforcement in combination with square corners,
which produced higher stress concentrations. It was noticed that the
fracture of welded Liberty ships, the pressurized cabin fractures of de
Havilland Comet jet airplanes, bursts of several large petroleum storage
tanks,
severalandother unpredicted failures, all
seemed understandable in terms of the
new fracture strength points of view.
The evaluation method was
straightforward, a value of Gc was
established from laboratory tests on
precracked specimens and the value of
the driving force G that tended to
extend the starting crack was computed
using appropriate stress analysis
methods.
The comparison showed that the fracture toughness had not been large enough to
prevent crack propagation in the failure cases mentioned above.

The use of the optical method “photoelasticity”

to examine the stress fields around the tip
of a running crack was published
by Wells and Post in 1958 and Irwin observed
that the photoelastic fringes not only formed
closed loops at the crack tip as predicted by singular stress field equations but also
showed a tilt as a result of the near specimen boundaries.

In 1960, a significant contribution to the development of LEFM was put forth when
Paris and his coworkers advanced an idea to apply fracture mechanics principles to
fatigue crack growth.

The work by Paris and colleagues was a landmark in the fatigue aspects of fracture
mechanics, and yielded the equation
Linear elastic fracture mechanics is not valid when significant plastic
deformation precedes failure.
Although earlier theoretical developments were aimed at understanding
brittle crack behavior, it became apparent from experiments that except for
a few, most materials are ductile and therefore linear elastic analysis should
be modified accordingly.
Dugdale in 1960 and Barenbelt in 1962 made the first attempts to include
cohesive forces in the crack tip region by developing an elaborate model
within the limits of elasticity. Later, in 1968, Rice conducted a simplified
analysis of complete plastic zone formation, approximated by a circular region
ahead of the crack tip. The results derived from the energy–momentum
tensor concept and applied to elastic cracks were extended to include plastic
cracks by defining a path-independent integral termed the J integral. The
plastic zone size and the crack opening displacement were found to correlate
with the elastic stress intensity factor criterion.
In 1976, Sih introduced the strain–energy density concept, which was a
departure from classical fracture mechanics. He was able to characterize
mixed-mode extension problems with this method, which also provided the
direction of the crack propagation in addition to the amplitude of the stress
field
 ENERGY RELEASE RATE
In 1956 Irwin proposed an energy approach equivalent to Griffith model
but more suitable for solving engineering problems.
He introduced an energy release rate G as a measure of the energy
available for an increment of crack extension

where B is the thickness of a plane structure and  is the potential

energy of an elastic body.

Note that the term rate does not refer to a derivative with
respect to time. G is the rate of change in potential energy with
respect to crack area. G, as it follows from the derivative of a
potential, is also called the crack extension force or the crack
driving force.
 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
-Energy Approach-
Consider a deformable body in an equilibrium state under the
influence of surface tractions and body forces.
The virtual work can be defined as “the work done on a deformable
body, by all the forces acting on it, as the body is given a small
hypothetical displacement which is consistent with the constraints
present”.
The virtual displacements are represented by the symbol “δ”

In general, the loadings consist of body forces and surface tractions.

The later are prescribed over a part of the boundary designated byS
Over the remaining boundary, designated by Su ,
the displacement field u is prescribed.
However, it must be ensured that u = 0
on Su to avoid violating the constraints.
During the elastic deformation the external work is converted to stored
elastic strain energy, and vice versa, so that the variation of the total
potential energy is zero.

In Fracture Mechanics, however, the total potential energy is the

only source for crack growth. Accordingly, an energy criterion for the
onset of crack growth can be defined in the following general form:

in which G is called the energy release rate (also known as the crack
driving force), A is the cracked area, and R is the resistance of the
material to crack growth.
The energy release rate, G, can be considered as the energy
source for the crack growth and may be obtained from the stress
analysis of the cracked geometry.
On the other hand, the resistance to crack growth, R, can be
considered as the energy sink and depends on the operating fracture
mechanism.
 Fixed Displacement Condition
Suppose that we have stretched a cracked component by the amount
Δ. The amount of elastic strain energy stored in the component is
equal to the triangle ABD and the slope of the load-displacement
curve represents the stiffness of the component.
Let us initially assume that the stored energy is sufficient to maintain
an incremental crack growth, a, under the fixed displacement
condition. Since the component with a longer crack has a lower
stiffness, the stored elastic energy decreases to a new level equal to
the triangle ACD. Since there is no externally applied load in the
system, the total potential energy is equal to the strain energy, the
only source to provide the required energy for the crack growth.
Hence, we may write:

B is the thickness of the component

 Constant Load Condition
Consider a cracked component under a constant external load P

The amount of elastic strain energy

stored in the component is equal to
the triangle ABE.
Now we assume that the available
energy is sufficient to maintain an
incremental crack growth, da, under
the constant load condition. The
component with a longer crack has a
lower stiffness but, in this case, the
stored elastic energy increases to a
new level equal to the triangle ACD.
The reason is that an excess amount
of energy provided by moving the
constant load P through the distance
dΔ, equal to rectangle BCDE, has now
been added to the system. Hence, we
may write:
Note that in both cases the energy release rate is
provided by the stored energy U and is equal to:

Moreover, for both cases we may write:

in which C is the compliance of the

component. The above equation can be used
to obtain G provided that the variation of
compliance with the crack length is
available. In practice, various analytical,
numerical, and experimental techniques are
available for this purpose.
 Large plate under remote uniaxial tensile stress
The strain energy of the above system consists of
two parts:
- the elastic energy of the plate without crack
- plus the strain energy required to introduce the
crack.
The latter is equal in magnitude to the work
required to close the crack by the stresses acting
in its position.

(**)
The expression for v can be obtained from a complete stress analysis
of this cracked geometry. This expression would be:

which shows that the crack-opening is maximum at the

center and zero at the tip. Substituting for v (**):
which in combination with Eq.(°°)results in:
(°°)

The above equation was derived for two

crack tips. Accordingly, the G expression
for each crack tip would be:

The above equation is remarkable as it shows how the energy release

rate increases with increasing the far-field stress and the crack
length. We may generalize the above equation for different
components as:
in which  is a parameter that depends on
the geometry and loading condition.
 Critical Energy Release Rate -R-
We may perform a fracture toughness test on the experimental
specimen by gradually increasing the stress and noting the critical
stress level σc at which the crack starts to grow.
Accordingly, we may obtain the critical energy release rate as:

which, in fact, represents a material property called fracture

toughness.
 INSTABILITY AND THE R-CURVE
According to definition crack extension occurs when G = 2wf = R, where
R is called the material resistance to crack extension.
Depending on how G and R vary with the crack size the crack
growth may be stable or unstable as shown in the figure below, which
corresponds to a response of the Griffith crack.
A plot of R versus crack
extension is called a
resistance or R curve. The
corresponding plot of G
versus crack extension is the
driving force.

Condition for the stable crack growth Condition for the unstable crack growth
When the resisting curve is flat, one can derine a critical value of
energy release rate, Gf , unambiguously.
A material with a rising R curve, however, cannot be uniquely
characterized with a single toughness value.

A flaw structure fails when the driving force curve is tangent with R
curve, but this point of tangency depends on the shape of the driving
force, which depends on configuration of the structure.
The R curve for an ideally brittle material is flat because the surface
energy is an invariant property. However, when nonlinear material
behavior accompanies fracture, the R curve can take on a variety of
shapes.

Materials with rising R curves can be characterized by the value of G

at initiation of crack growth. This value, however, characterizes only
the onset of crack growth and provides no information on the shape of
the R curve.
Ideally, the R curve, should only be a property of the material and not
depend on the size or shape of the crack body. Much of fracture
mechanics assumes that the fracture toughness is material property.
The increase in resistance can be attributed to the formation of shear
lips, which in turn results from plastic deformations at the crack tip. We
will elaborate on this issue later when we discuss the crack tip plasticity.
The criteria for unstable crack growth under constant load for plane
stress can be defined as:
Crack Branching
Another interesting aspect of a growing
crack is branching. Under constant load,
where the energy release rate increases
with further crack growth, there might
be a point where the available energy
becomes twice the energy required to
grow a single crack.This surplus of
energy usually accelerates the crack,
but if the material permits the situation
may change in favor of crack branching.
In general, when we observe that a
component has been shattered into
numerous pieces, we may think of too
much energy available and/or too little
energy required for crack to grow.
The examples may include the fracture
caused by an explosion and/or a glass of
water slipping from your hand!
 LEFM, Stress Approach

The Mode I stress intensity factor K, is defined as:

The following general expression can be

considered for the stresses in a cracked body:

It is clear that the first term is dominant

very near to the crack tip. As we move
further from the crack tip the singular term
weakens and the additional terms become
significant.
 Design Philosophy Based on LEFM
So far we have learned that cracks may start growing when the stress
intensity factor (SIF) reaches a critical value Kc, called fracture
toughness.
Later we will show that the SIF can be related to the far-field stress
and crack length by the following general expression:

in which Y is a geometric factor.

Thus for the design of a cracked, or potentially cracked, structure we
have to decide what design variables can be selected, as only two of
these variables can be fixed, and the third must be determined.
For example we may select a special steel to resist a corrosive liquid,
so KC is fixed, and the design stress level may also be fixed due to
weight considerations.
In this case we may calculate the maximum size of tolerable cracks
 Design Philosophy Based on LEFM

Based on the above arguments it is clear that the application of LEFM

in design procedures usually involves the following activities:
1. Measurement of the critical stress intensity factors that cause
fracture for the material.
2. Determination of the size and location of cracks in the structure or
component.
3. Calculation of the stress intensity factors for the cracks in the
structure or component for the anticipated loading conditions.
 Design Philosophy Based on LEFM
The third activity, i.e. calculation of stress intensity factors, can be
performed using various techniques, including:
1. Finding the analytic solution to the full linear elastic boundary
value problem, and deduce stress intensities from the asymptotic
behavior of the stress field near the crack tips.
2. Deducing the stress intensity factors from energy methods
3. Using experimental techniques
4. Using numerical methods such as boundary integral and finite
element methods.
Design Philosophy Based on LEFM
Design Philosophy Based on LEFM
 K-G Relationship
So far we have discussed two different criteria, based on energy
considerations and crack tip stress field, for the onset of crack
growth.

1. Energy release rate G: quantifies the net change in potential

energy due to increment of crack extension, global parameter

2. Stress intensity factor K: characterizes the stresses, strains and

displacement fields near the crack tip, local parameter
 K-G Relationship
Naturally, there should be a relationship between the two.
Consider a through crack in an in finite plate subject to a uniform
stress.

and therefore

which can be modified for plane strain:

These expressions are general relationships between K and G for

Mode I. The above analysis can be repeated for other modes of
loading. When all three modes of loading are present, the energy
release rate is given by:
 CRACK TIP PLASTICITY
As it was shown before, under LEFM assumptions, the magnitude of
stress at the crack tip is theoretically infinite. However, it is obvious
that every material has a finite strength and, as a result, there will
always be a small damaged zone around the crack tip (inelastic
deformation, e.g., plasticity in metals, crazing in polymers or damage in
concrete). For metals, this damaged zone is referred to as the crack
tip plastic zone. For materials like ceramics and concrete it is often
called fracture process zone.,
If the size of the damaged zone is small
enough that it is contained within the K-
dominant region, we may conclude that the
similitude condition exists. Hence,
different cracks with equal stress intensity
factors would have equal damaged zones
and would behave similar to each other. On
the other hand, if this zone is larger than
the K-dominant region, then our linear
elastic assumptions are not correct, i.e.
LEFM is not applicable, and a nonlinear
model must be used
 Size of the plastic zone
The Irwin approach
Substituting yield strength into the left side
of Irwin equation and solving for r gives a
first order estimate of plastic zone size:

However, as depicted in Figure, we have

actually ignored the load represented by
the hatched area in our derivation. It can
be expected that due to this extra load
the actual plastic zone size should be
larger than ry .
 Irwin Plastic zone correction
Irwin argued that consideration of a larger plastic zone may be taken
equivalent to the assumption of a larger crack.
Hence, we may define an effective crack length whose length is equal
to the size of the actual crack plus a correction ρ.
The next step is to repeat the previous procedure for plastic zone size
estimation for the effective crack. However, we consider the extra
length ρ large enough to carry the extra load ignored by truncating the
asymptotic stress distribution.

Equating the two hatched areas, we have:

 Irwin Plastic zone correction
Since ρ is small, it can be neglected compared to the crack length in the
above integration and we may write:

It turns out that the new plastic zone

size is twice as large as our first
estimate:
 Crack-Tip 3D
State of Stress
The actual state of stress at the crack
tip region is triaxial.
Due to very high stresses in this region,
the material will be extended greatly in
the x2 direction and also tends to
contract in the x1 and x3 directions to
maintain the condition ofconstant
volume required by plastic deformation
(ε11 + ε22 + ε33 = 0).
However, the material in this zone is continuously attached to a bigger
mass of surrounding material, which is at a low stress and has no
tendency to contract. As a result, tensile stresses would develop in
other two directions, as shown in Figure. Thus, in the interior of the
specimen, the material in the crack tip region experiences a state of
plane strain, due to the constraints imposed by the surrounding
material. However, at the surfaces of the specimen there can be no
stress in the x3 direction and a state of plane stress would exist.
 Crack-Tip 3D
State of Stress

This phenomenon has very important implications for toughness

evaluation, i.e., different toughness values may be measured
depending on the dimensions of the specimens.
 Toughness vs size
It has long been observed that thicker components have a greater
tendency to fracture.
The effect can be attributed to the size of the crack tip plastic zone
relative to the thickness. In thin components, the plastic zone is large
compared to the thickness, whereas in thick components it is very
small. In general, thick specimen fractures are more brittle in
appearance, being flat with no evidence of ductility, while the thin
specimen fractures often show 45° shear lips over parts of the
fracture surface.
 Effect of specimen dimensions
The critical stress intensity factor is a material constant only when
certain conditions are met. Recall, e.g., that a lower degree of stress
triaxiality usually results in higher toughness. Also, the through
thickness constraint may affect the shape of the R curve. In
particular, the R curve for a material in plane strain may be relatively
flat (single valued toughness), while the plane stress R curve usually
rises with crack growth.
According to the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for
KIc the following specimen size requirements
must be met to obtain a valid KIc results in
metals:

where a; B; W are the crack size, thickness, and width of the specimen,
respectively. The thickness requirement ensures nearly plane strain
conditions
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING
 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING
The stress intensity calibration for the SENB specimen is:

For the C(T) specimen the K calibration reads:

 Plane stress
In general, the state of stress at a point in a body can be
characterized by six independent normal and shear stress
components. However due to the complexity of analyzing problems
in three dimensions, engineers often reduce the analysis to a
single plane by assuming a state of plane stress.
For example, if there is no load on the face of a plate then the
stress components perpendicular to the surface will be zero. As a
result, a combination of two normal stress components (σxx, σyy) and
one shear stress component (τxy) act on only four of the six faces of
the elemental cube, and so plane stress is produced

This deals with stretching and shearing of thin slabs

Stresses in the z-direction are zero
.
 Plane strain
Dimension in z - direction is much, much larger than in the
x and y directions
If one dimension is very large compared to the others, the
principal strain in the direction of the longest dimension is
constrained and can be assumed as zero, yielding a plane
strain condition. In this case, though all principal stresses
are non-zero, the principal stress in the direction of the
longest dimension can be disregarded for calculations.
Thus, allowing a two dimensional analysis of stresses.
 Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics
(EPFM)
Due to finite strength of materials, there is always a small damaged
zone around the crack tip. For metals, this damaged zone is referred
to as the crack tip plastic zone. If the size of the plastic zone is small
enough that it can be contained within the K-dominant region, we may
use K and G as the LEFM parameters.
This condition is also referred to as the small-scale-yielding condition
(SSY). On the other hand, if this zone is larger than the K-dominant
region, then our linear elastic assumptions are not correct, i.e. LEFM is
not applicable, and nonlinear models must be used.

Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics applies to materials that exhibit

time-independent, nonlinear behavior (plastic deformation). There are
two parameters characterizing the nonlinear behavior at the crack tip:
1. CTOD - crack tip opening displacement
2. J counter integral
 J-Integral
Rice presented a path-independent contour
integral of analysis of cracks and showed
that the value of this integral, called J, is
equal to the energy release rate in a
nonlinear elastic body that contains crack.
Hutchinson and also Rice and Rosengren
further showed that J uniquely
characterizes crack tip stresses and strains
in nonlinear material.
Thus the J integral can be viewed as both an
energy parameter and a stress intensity
parameter. The original form of the J-
Integral (Rice) for a line contour surrounding
the crack tip can be written as:
in which, is the strain energy density
with σij and εij as stress and strain tensors, Ti=σij nj
are the components of the traction vector which
acts on the contour, ui are the displacement
components, and ds is a length increment along the
 J-Integral
At first, the above integral might look unfamiliar and rather strange.
However, it should be noted that, J is nothing but a non-linear energy
release rate:
in which П is the total potential
energy, U is the strain energy, and
V is the external work.
 Fixed Displacement Condition

LEFM analyses,
Similar to the LEFM analyses, suppose that we have stretched a
cracked component by the amount Δ. The amount of elastic strain
energy stored in the component is equal to the ABD area and the slope
of the load-displacement curve at any instant represents the stiffness
of the component. Let us initially assume that the stored energy is
sufficient to maintain an incremental crack growth, da, under the fixed
displacement condition. Since the component with a longer crack has a
lower stiffness, the stored elastic energy decreases to a new level
equal to the ACD area. Since there is no externally applied load in the
system, the total potential energy is equal to the strain energy, the only
source to provide the required energy for the crack growth.
Hence, we may write:
 Constant Load Condition
In this case, the amount of the elastic
strain energy initially stored in the
component is considered equal to the ABE
area. We also assume that the potential
energy is sufficient to maintain an
incremental crack growth, da, under the
constant load condition.

The slope of the load-displacement curve at any

instant represents the stiffness of the component.
The component with a longer crack has a lower
stiffness but the stored elastic energy increases to a
new level equal to the ACD area.
The reason is that an excess amount of energy
provided by moving the constant load P through the
distance dΔ, equal to rectangle BCDE, has now been
added to the system. Hence, we may write:
In general, we may write for both cases:

Now the question is: how the original

J-Integral expression can represent
the energy release rate? To find the
answer, we start with the general
definition of J, written for the
constant thickness:

Referring to the Figigure, we may write

the total potential energy as:

in which A is the area surrounded by the

contour Γ. Differentiation with respect to the
crack length will give:
 Note that, x/a= -1, so we may write:

Using this, the former Equation can be written as:

Now, we investigate the first

term of the first integral of
this equation. First, recall the
general definitions of the
constitutive equation for an
ELASTIC material and the
linear strain tensor, and note
that ij = ji :
Note that in the last term of the former equation, we interchanged the
dummy indexes. Integrating the above over A, and changing the area
integral to line integral, and noting that , ij,j = 0, we will have:

Hence

Now we change the surface Integral into a

line Integral and combine the two terms to
give:
which is the
original form
Note that, nxds= dy , so we may write: of the J-
Integral.
 Characteristics of the J-Integral

1) J-Integral is zero for a closed path

2) J is path-independent

3) for a linear elastic material we have

J as a stress intensity parameter

Another interesting characteristic of the J-Integral is that it can also
represent the stress and strain fields near the crack tip. Hutchinson and
Rice & Rosengren independently showed that J characterizes crack tip
conditions. They assumed a power law relationship between plastic strain
and stress which in case of uniaxial deformation reads
where 0 is a reference stress value
usually equal to yield stress,
0 = 0 /E, is dimensionless constant,
and n is the strain hardening exponent.
H & R & R showed that
 JIC measurement

It can be shown that A is the area under

the load displacement curve. The Crack
length at every instant can be obtained by
partial unloading and measuring the
compliance, as depicted in Figure.
Accordingly, J can be calculated for every
increment of crack growth,
Δa = a – a0.
Finally, JQ can be obtained from diagrams like the one shown in Figure, and if
the following thickness criterion is met, J Q is considered as JIC.

in which b0 is the unbroken or

the remainder part of the
specimen. Note that in this
diagram, the role of the line
with the slope 2ys is to
account for the apparent
increase in the crack length
because of crack tip blunting
prior to growth.
 J-Integral and CTOD
Using the relationship between K, J, and CTOD, we may write:
 FATIGUE
It has been known for a long time that a
component subjected to fluctuating stresses may
fail at stress levels much lower than its monotonic
fracture strength, due to a process called
Fatigue. Fatigue is an insidious time-dependent
type of failure which can occur without any
obvious warning.
It is believed that more than 95 percent of all
mechanical failures can be attributed to fatigue.
There are normally three distinct stages in the
fatigue failure of a component, namely:
Crack Initiation,
Incremental Crack Growth,
Final Fracture.
 Fatigue Crack Propagation
If a crack exists in the component before it goes into service, for example due
to weld fabrication, the initiation stage is by-passed and the fatigue failure
process consists of incremental crack growth and final fracture.
Crack propagation normally occurs at right angles to the principal tensile stress
direction. Most fatigue failures in practice are in the low stress region,
much less than the yield stress, where the LEFM is likely to be valid. Hence,
the LEFM principles can be applied to predict incremental fatigue crack growth.
In fact, extensive fatigue tests on a wide variety of materials show that the
stress intensity factor is a much more effective parameter in describing fatigue
propagation than the stress amplitude. The key point of these tests is that the
rate of crack propagation, measured in terms of incremental crack growth per
cycle of loading, depends primarily on the range of crack tip stress intensity, as
follows:

The most widely used expression,

proposed by Paris, is:
Fatigue test
Fatigue curve
1. The threshold region, is attributed to very
low levels of ΔKs, where the crack does not
propagate. The ‘threshold’ region is strongly
influenced by mean stress.
2. The stable propagation region where the
crack grows incrementally according to an
empirical law of the form:

where C and m are empirical constants.

3. The final unstable region, where the crack
propagates more rapidly, often in a less
uniformly incremental manner.

The effect of the R-ratio = (min/max)should

be considered in the test program.
 Fatigue Life Prediction
The useful aspect of fatigue crack growth
laws is that they can be used to calculate
the number of cycles required to propagate
a crack from a given initial size to some final
size which is criticalThe for failure.
geometric factor β Thus if the
it is assumed to be
constant, since the inclusion of a function of
initial size is ai anda/W
the final
within size sign
the integral af: will usually lead
to a formulation which cannot be integrated
analytically.
 Meccanica della Frattura – Esempio 1
Frattura per fatica di sei viti di serraggio di un
giunto idraulico
Problema → Sei viti di serraggio (Ø=3/4
in L=2 in ASTM A-574 in acciaio legato)
usate per la giunzione di una condotta
idraulica hanno ceduto dopo 3 mesi di
servizio

Circostanze di lavoro → Le viti in

questione avevano sostituito per normale
manutenzione viti di diametro minore
(Ø=5/8 in); applicando però lo stesso
precarico delle precedenti. Ambiente non
particolarmente aggressivo

Analisi visiva → Le viti mostrano tutte

diverse zone di frattura, alcune anche in
punti multipli come mostrato in figura
Esame della sup. di frattura → con
microscopio ottico si evidenziano “beach marks”
in quasi tutte le superfici di frattura (figura 2a
e 2b) segno del fenomeno della fatica (cicli di
stress alternati e variabili nel tempo). Circa
80% della superficie mostra questi tratti, poi si
è avuta la rottura di schianto (fragile). Nella
figura è possibile anche identificare dove ha
avuto origine il crack (freccia bianca).
Con microscopio elettronico (SEM) si
evidenziano ancora meglio le “beach marks” e
viene localizzato il sito di origine del crack
Analisi chimica e metallografica → la
composizione chimica (analisi EDS) è concorde
con le specifiche della norma, come anche la
metallografia non rileva anomalie ma una
struttura martensitica tipica del t.t. di tempra
Proprietà meccaniche → prove di microdurezza
ha dato valori approx 41-42 HRC al quale
corrisponde una resistenza a trazione di circa
1300 MPa in accordo con la norma
Analisi della frattura → le “beach marks”
osservate sulla superficie di frattura
lasciano pochi dubbi alla causa della rottura:
fatica!
Più siti di origine del fenomeno fanno
pensare ad una concentrazione molto elevata
degli stress

Possibili cause → è stato riportato che le

viti in questione avevano sostituito viti simili
ma con un diametro minore, purtroppo però
non è stato adeguato il precarico per le
nuove viti. Questo precarico insufficiente
potrebbe aver causato il fenomeno della
fatica. Il precarico adeguato deve essere
periodicamente controllato e mantenuto
 Esempio 2
Frattura fragile di un manicotto di collegamento per
piattaforme marine
Problema → un manicotto di acciaio
situato a valle sul montante di attracco
di una piattaforma marina ha ceduto di
schianto dopo 7 anni di lavoro

Circostanze di lavoro → il manicotto era

situato sul montante tra il giunto sferico
(ball joint) e il BOP connecter come
mostrato in figura. Il manicotto è stato
ottenuto per colata e successivamente
riportati tramite saldatura delle
appendici di attacco
Analisi visiva della sup. di frattura → sono presenti
nelle superfici di frattura “chevron marks” (tratti
frastagliati) tipici della rottura fragile (figura 2). La
frattura è iniziata vicino alla saldatura e si è propagata
lungo tutta la sezione (figura 3)
Analisi chimica e metallografica → l’analisi
chimica (EDS) non presenta anomalie anche
perchè non erano richieste particolari specifiche
sul materiale. L’analisi metallografica nella zona
di frattura invece in corrispondenza della
saldatura mostra nella zona affetta
termicamente (HAZ) microcricche e una
struttura martensitica (raffreddamento rapido
dopo saldatura), mentre la microstruttura del
manicotto presenta fasi come perlite e ferrite.
Nella foto vengono riportati i diversi valori di
durezza rilevati nelle zone in esame

Analisi della frattura e possibili cause → la frattura è di tipo fragile. L’inizio

della frattura è avvenuto nella zona di saldatura dove per effetto del rapido
raffreddamento si ha la presenza di microcricche (dovute al ritiro termico) e
una struttura martensitica cause queste che hanno contribuito alla formazione
del crack. La frattura si è propagata nel materiale base che non presenta
elevata tenacità. Temperatura e ciclo di utilizzo del manicotto non hanno
influenzato la velocità di propagazione del crack. Per evitare futuri problemi è
necessario seguire correttamente le procedure di saldatura inclusi t.t. prima e
dopo il processo. Inoltre per mettere alla luce eventuali difetti si può procedere
con CND dopo saldatura
 Esempio 3
Stress Corrosion Cracking tubo di ottone per
raffreddamento H2O in stazione idroelettrica
Problema → un tubo di ottone ammiragliato, con alette, di 8 unità per il
raffreddamento di acqua in una stazione idroelettrica ha ceduto dopo 49000
ore di servizio (circa 5 anni)

Circostanze di lavoro → l’acqua che circola all’interno del tubo alettato

proviene dal bacino idrico di lavoro (senza pre-trattamento), come anche l’aria
che investe controcorrente la parte esterna del tubo

Analisi visiva → la parte esterna del tubo non presenta cracks anche se questa
è disturbata dalla presenza di alette. La parte interna contiene depositi
friabili, anche dopo rimozione non si evidenziano cracks
Metallografia → l’analisi microstrutturale dal tubo di ottone mostra
la presenza di grani tipo “alfa” in accordo con la normale
microstruttura di una lega di ottone ammiragliata. L’analisi in sezione
evidenzia cracks radiali originati nella sup interna del tubo. La
morfologia del crack è di tipo “branching secondary cracks” ovvero
cracks con diramazioni secondarie (figura 3). La propagazione del
crack è di tipo transgranulare tipica dello SCC. Il crack come si può
vedere dalla figura 4 e 5 sembra partire da pit di corrosione
Analisi chimica → per quanto riguarda la lega di
ottone si ha accordo con quanto previsto dalla
norma per un ottone ammiragliato.
Per quanto riguarda invece il deposito interno,
tramite analisi EDS (figura a lato), si è visto
consistere di ossidi di silicio (SiO2), silicati e
carbonati vari (KAlSiO4 e CaCO3) e solfati di
ammonio con possibile presenza di ammoniaca.
Anche un analisi condotta sulle acque ha
evidenziato la presenza di ammoniaca nell’acqua
Analisi della frattura e possibili cause → combinazione di piu stress
hanno contribuito alla frattura in questo caso:
1°-stress di tipo circolare “hoop stress” (dovuto alla p. interna
dell’acqua)
2°-stress residui dovuti alla produzione del tubo
3°-stress dovuti allo scorrimento (erosione)
Inoltre la presenza di ammoniaca (dovuta al non trattamento dell’acqua
in ingresso) ha avuto un ruolo determinante nella formazione iniziale dei
cracks.
Possibili soluzioni possono essere o quella di un trattamento delle acque
in ingresso oppure l’uso di un materiale che non risente della corrosione
da ammoniaca
 Esempio 4
Rottura per fatica di un albero a gomito di un veivolo
durante il volo
Problema → l’albero a gomiti in acciaio (Ni-
Cr-Mo SAE 4340) di un motore aeronautico
per il trasporto di persone ha ceduto
catastroficamente durante il volo. La
rottura è avvenuta nella zona centrale vicino
ai perni montati radialmente sull’albero
(figura 1)

Circostanze di lavoro → l’albero a gomiti è stato

realizzato tramite forgiatura. Durante il funzionamento in
volo è soggetto a stress elevati tra cui anche flessione e
torsione. In fase di normale manutenzione non è stata
rilevata nessuna anomalia. Gli altri motori hanno evitato la
catastrofe
Analisi visiva → l’analisi della sup di frattura mostra un crack di tipo
fragile con possibile origine nella parte alta della sezione dell’albero
dove troviamo una specie di “occhio” (figura 2) e bene in evidenza
“beach marks” attorno ad un piccolo difetto interno, probabilmente
l’origine del crack stesso (figura 2 e 3). Il modello di frattura è tipico
del fenomeno della fatica

Analisi chimica e metallografica → la composizione chimica dell’albero

è conforme alla norma (SAE 4340). L’analisi metallografica invece
mostra che la sup di frattura (struttura martensitica) è molto “sporca”
con numerose inclusioni di ossidi (fig 5). Un ulteriore analisi al SEM ha
identificato la loro natura: Al2O3 dovuti probabilmente al processo di
forgiatura
Analisi della frattura → lo studio della superficie di
frattura ha evidenziato un tipo di danneggiamento
causato da fatica sotto azioni multiple di stress
(combinazione di flessione, torsione, etc..). L’origine del
difetto è da attribuire ad inclusioni interne di ossidi
(come Al2O3) che hanno causato un severo fattore di
intaglio per l’inizio del crack di fatica sotto condizioni
dinamiche di carico

Possibili cause e controlli → le cause di tale

danneggiamento sono da attribuire ad un processo di
forgiatura mal eseguito che ha portato alla formazione
di queste inclusioni interne al manufatto in una zona così
critica e soggetta a stress. Esistono comunque metodi
per l’ispezione e controllo (dc method of magnetic
particle control)
 Esempio 5
Frattura di un serbatoio cilindrico per gas propano liquido
(LPG)
Problema → frattura longitudinale (circa 40
cm) di un nuovo serbatoio cilindrico saldato
per contenimento e trasporto di gas propano
liquido (LPG) dopo un anno di lavoro

Circostanze di lavoro → il serbatoio ha una

capacità di 118 l ed è stato testato per
pressioni interne di 3.1 MPa. Ambiente di
lavoro non particolarmente aggressivo (aria
aperta)
Analisi visiva → si può notare come lo scoppio
abbia indotto una curvatura del cilindro nella
parte danneggiata. Nelle due figure viene
riportata schematicamente la superficie di
frattura; si distinguono 3 zone:
A - Graffio/scalfitura provocata dal
processo di formatura
B - Sup di frattura fragile
C - appendice di taglio (labbro)
Si può osservare che il crack è avanzato lungo il
graffio, provocato dal processo di formatura,
longitudinalmente fino alla saldatura nella zona
centrale del cilindro
Analisi chimica e metallografica →
l’analisi chimica rispetta i requisiti
standard per questo tipo di materiale.
L’analisi metallografica mostra in prox
della frattura una struttura ferrite-
perlite orientata lungo la direzione di
formatura del serbatoio, man mano che
mi allontano dalla frattura trovo sempre
una struttura ferrite-perlite ma molto
più omogenea non orientata segno questo
di un t.t. di ricottura non buono
Proprietà meccaniche → il valore di durezza è max nella zona vicino la
frattura (170 HV) fino ad un minimo di 90 HV lontano della frattura.
La resistenza a trazione soddisfa le specifiche richieste (circa 500
MPa) e anche l’allungamento percentuale (circa 20-25%).
È stato condotto anche un test di resistenza a frattura (tenacità)
secondo la norma ASTM E399 con un crack di circa 2 mm in modo da
calcolare → KI K = σ √(πa) F(ξ)
F(ξ) è un polinomio che dipende dalle
dimensioni del provino e dell’intaglio
I

Il valore ottenuto nel caso di frattura fragile è di circa 49.6 MPa√m.

Analisi della frattura e possibili cause → la superficie di
frattura ha mostrato una frattura di tipo fragile. Facendo
una prova di resistenza alla frattura in condizioni diverse
dalla norma (ovvero è stato applicato un difetto del tutto
simile a quello lasciato dal processo di formatura ed è
stato tenuto conto anche degli stress residui di
lavorazione) si è ottenuto un valore di tenacità KI
inferiore (circa 10.7 MPa√m).
Altri fattori hanno comunque contribuito al propagarsi del
crack come un cattivo T.T. di ricottura causa di una non
omogenea microstruttura, la presenza di stress residui
vicino alla zona di frattura e diversi valori di durezza
rilevati nel cilindro.
Il crack probabilmente ha avuto origine proprio lungo quei
graffi lasciati dalla lavorazione di formatura lungo la
direzione longitudinale del cilindro e si è propagato in
modo fragile!