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

net/publication/262143000

Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering

Chapter · December 2012

DOI: 10.5772/52511

CITATIONS READS
3 614

2 authors:

Lucas Máximo Alves Luiz A de Lacerda

State University of Ponta Grossa Instituto de Pesquisa para o Desenvolvimento
79 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   347 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transport and Dissipation Phenomena Studies in Materials: Percolations, Damage, Fracture and Fragmentation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucas Máximo Alves on 08 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 3

Fractal Fracture Mechanics

Applied to Materials Engineering

Lucas Máximo Alves and Luiz Alkimin de Lacerda

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52511

1. Introduction
The Classical Fracture Mechanics (CFM) quantifies velocity and energy dissipation of a
crack growth in terms of the projected lengths and areas along the growth direction.
However, in the fracture phenomenon, as in nature, geometrical forms are normally
irregular and not easily characterized with regular forms of Euclidean geometry. As an
example of this limitation, there is the problem of stable crack growth, characterized by the
J-R curve [1, 2]. The rising of this curve has been analyzed by qualitative arguments [1, 2, 3,
4] but no definite explanation in the realm of EPFM has been provided.

Alternatively, fractal geometry is a powerful mathematical tool to describe irregular and

complex geometric structures, such as fracture surfaces [5, 6]. It is well known from
experimental observations that cracks and fracture surfaces are statistical fractal objects [7, 8,
9]. In this sense, knowing how to calculate their true lengths and areas allows a more
realistic mathematical description of the fracture phenomenon [10]. Also, the different
geometric details contained in the fracture surface tell the history of the crack growth and
the difficulties encountered during the fracture process [11]. For this reason, it is reasonable
to consider in an explicit manner the fractal properties of fracture surfaces, and many
scientists have worked on the characterization of the topography of the fracture surface
using the fractal dimension [12, 13]. At certain point, it became necessary to include the
topology of the fracture surface into the equations of the Classical Fracture Mechanics
theory [6, 8, 14]. This new “Fractal Fracture Mechanics” (FFM) follows the fundamental
basis of the Classical Fracture Mechanics, with subtle modifications of its equations and
considering the fractal aspects of the fracture surface with analytical expressions [15, 16].

The objective of this chapter is to include the fractal theory into the elastic and plastic energy
released rates G0 and J0 , in a different way compared to other authors [8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19].
The non-differentiability of the fractal functions is avoided by developing a differentiable

© 2012 Alves and de Lacerda, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
68 Applied Fracture Mechanics

analytic function for the rugged crack length [20]. The proposed procedure changes the
classical G0 , which is linear with the fracture length, into a non-linear equation. Also, the
same approach is extended and applied to the Eshelby-Rice non-linear J-integral. The new
equations reproduce accurately the growth process of cracks in brittle and ductile materials.
Through algebraic manipulations, the energetics of the geometric part of the fracture process
in the J-integral are separated to explain the registered history of strains left on the fracture
surfaces. Also, the micro and macroscopic parts of the J-integral are distinguished. A
generalization for the fracture resistance J-R curve for different materials is presented,
dependent only on the material properties and the geometry of the fractured surface.

Finally, it is shown how the proposed model can contribute to a better understanding of
certain aspects of the standard ASTM test [15].

2. Literature review of fractal fracture mechanics

2.1. Background of the fractal theory in fracture mechanics
Mandelbrot [21] was the first to point out that cracks and fracture surfaces could be
described by fractal models. Mecholsky et al. [12] and Passoja and Amborski [22] performed
one of the first experimental works reported in the literature, using fractal geometry to
describe the fracture surfaces. They sought a correlation of the roughness of these surfaces
with the basic quantity D called fractal dimension.

Since the pioneering work of Mandelbrot et al. [23], there have been many investigations
concerning the fractality of crack surfaces and the fracture mechanics theory. They analyzed
fracture surfaces in steel obtained by Charpy impact tests and used the "slit island analysis"
method to estimate their fractal dimensions. They have also shown that D was related to
the toughness in ductile materials.

Mecholsky et al. [12, 24] worked with brittle materials such as ceramics and glass-ceramics,
breaking them with a standard three point bending test. They calculated the fractal
dimension of the fractured surfaces using Fourier spectral analysis and the "slit island"
method, and concluded that the brittle fracture process is a self-similar fractal.

It is known that the roughness of the fracture surface is related to the difficulty in crack
growth [25] and several authors attempted to relate the fractal dimension with the surface
energy and fracture toughness. Mecholsky et al. [24] followed this idea and suggested the
dependence between fracture toughness and fractal dimension through

 
1/ 2
K IC  E D* a0 (1)

where E is the elastic modulus of the material, a0 is its lattice parameter, D*  D  d is the
fractional part of the fractal dimension and d is the Euclidean projection dimension of the
fracture.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 69

Mu and Lung [26] suggested an alternative equation, a power law mathematical relation
between the surface energy and the fractal dimension. It will be seen later in this chapter that
both suggestions are complementary and are covered by the model proposed in this work.

2.2. The elasto-plastic fracture mechanics

There have been several proposals for including the fractal theory into de fracture
mechanics in the last three decades. Williford [17] proposed a relationship between fractal
geometric parameters and parameters measured in fatigue tests. Using Williford’s proposal
Gong and Lai [27] developed one of the first mathematical relationships between the J-R curve
and the fractal geometric parameters of the fracture surface. Mosolov and Borodich [32]
established mathematical relations between the elastic stress field around the crack and the
rugged exponent of the fracture surface. Later, Borodich [8, 29] introduced the concept of
specific energy for a fractal measurement unit. Carpinteri and Chiaia [30] described the
behavior of the fracture resistance as a consequence of its self-similar fractal topology. They
used Griffith’s theory and found a relationship between the G-curve and the advancing crack
length and the fractal exponent. Despite the non-differentiability of the fractal functions, they
were able to obtain this relationship through a renormalizing method. Bouchaud and Bouchaud
[31] also proposed a formulation to correlate fractal parameters of the fracture surface.

Yavari [28] studied the J-integral for a fractal crack and showed that it is path-dependent. He
conjectured that a J-integral fractal should be the rate of release of potential energy per unit
of measurement of the fractal crack growth.

Recently, Alves [16] and Alves et al. [20] presented a self-affine fractal model, capable of
describing fundamental geometric properties of fracture surfaces, including the local and
global ruggedness in Griffith´s criterion. In their formulations the fractal theory was
introduced in an analytical context in order to establish a mathematical expression for the
fracture resistance curve, putting in evidence the influence of the crack ruggedness.

3. Postulates of a fracture mechanics with irregularities

To adapt the CFM, starting from the smooth crack path equations to the rugged surface
equations, and using the fractal geometry, it is necessary to establish in the form of
postulates the assumptions that underlie the FFM and its correspondence with the CFM.

I. Admissible fracture surfaces

Consider a crack growing along the x-axis direction (Figure 1), deviating from the x-axis
path by floating in y-direction. The trajectory of the crack is an admissible fractal if and only
if it represents a single-valued function of the independent variable x.

II. Scale limits for a fractal equivalence of a crack

The irregularities of crack surfaces in contrast to mathematical fractals are finite. Therefore,
the crack profiles can be assumed as fractals only in a limited scale l0  L0  L0 max [36]. The
70 Applied Fracture Mechanics

lower limit l0 is related to the micro-mechanics of the cracked material and the upper limit
L0 max is a function of the geometric size of the body, crack length and other factors.

Figure 1. Rugged crack and its projection in the plan of energetic equivalence.

III. Energy equivalence between the rugged crack surface and its projection

Irwin apud Cherepanov et al. [36] realized the mathematical complexity of describing the
fracture phenomena in terms of the complex geometry of the fracture surface roughness in
different materials. For this reason, he proposed an energy equivalence between the rough
surface path and its projection on the Euclidean plane.

In the energetic equivalence between rugged and projected crack surfaces it is considered
that changes in the elastic strain energy introduced by a crack are the same for both rugged
and projected paths,

U L0  U L (2)

where the subscript " 0 " denotes quantities in the projected plane. Consequently, the surface
energy expended to form rugged fracture surfaces or projected surfaces are also equivalent,

U 0  U (3)

IV. Invariance of the equations

Consider a crack of length L and the quantities that describe it. Assuming the existence of a
geometric operation that transforms the real crack size L to an apparent projected size L0 ,
the length L may be described in terms of L0 by a fractal scaling equation, as presented in a
previous chapter.

It is claimed that the classical equations of the fracture mechanics can be applied to both
rugged and projected crack paths, i.e., they are invariant under a geometric transformation
between the rugged and the projected paths. In the crack wrinkling operation (smooth to
rough) it is desired to know what will be the form of the fracture mechanics equations for
the rough path as a function of the projected length L0 , and their behavior for different
roughness degrees and observation scales.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 71

V. Continuity of functions

It is considered that the scalar and vector functions that define the irregular surfaces
 
A  A  x , y  are described by a model (as the fractal model) capable of providing analytical
and differentiable functions in the vicinity of the generic coordinate points P  P  x , y , z  , so
that it is possible to calculate the surface roughness. Thus, it is always possible to define a
normal vector in corners.

VI. Transformations from the projected to rugged path equations

As a consequence of the previous two postulates, it can be shown using the chain rule that
the relationship between the rates for projected and rugged paths are given by

df  L0  df  L  dL
 (4)
dL0 dL dL0

This result is used to transform the equations from the rugged to the projected path.

4. Energies in linear elastic fracture mechanics for irregular media

The study of smooth, rough, fractal and non-fractal cracks in Fracture Mechanics requires
the development of their respective equations of strain and surface energies.

4.1. The elastic strain energy UL for smooth, rugged and fractal cracks
Consider three identical plates of thickness t , with Young’s modulus E´, subjected to a
stress  , each of them cracked at its center with a smooth, a rugged and a fractal crack as
shown in Figure 2. The area of the unloaded elastic energy due to the introduction of the crack
with length Ll is

Al  ml L2l (5)

where ml   is the shape factor for the smooth crack. The accumulated elastic energy is

2
U e   dV (6)
2E'

Thus, the elastic energy released by the introduction of a smooth crack with length Ll is

 l 2 L2l
U l   mlt (7)
2 E 'l

For an elliptical crack the unloaded region can be considered almost elliptical and the shape
factor is ml   , thus
72 Applied Fracture Mechanics

 l 2 L2l
U l  t (8)
2 E 'l

Figure 2. Griffith model for the crack growth introduced in a plate under  stress: a) flat crack and
initial length Ll with increase dLl in size; b) rugged crack and initial length L with increase dL in size;
c) fractal crack, showing increase dL in size.

Analogously, the area of the unloaded elastic energy due to the introduction of a rugged
crack of length L is given by

A  m * L2 (9)

where m * is a shape factor for the rugged crack. Thus, the elastic energy released by the
introduction of a rugged crack with length L is

 r 2 L2
U L  m * t (10)
2E'

Considering that the rugged crack is slightly larger than its projection, then

L   L0 (11)

Consequently, the change of elastic strain energy from the point of view of the projected
length L0 can be expressed as:

 0 2 L0 2
U L 0  m * t (12)
2E'

where  0   r .
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 73

4.2. A self-affine fractal model for a crack - LEFM

To take the roughness into account, it will be inserted in the CFM equations a self-affine
fractal model developed in a previous chapter of this book.

4.2.1. The relationship between strain energies for rugged UL and projected UL0 cracks in
terms of fractal geometry
The crack length of the self-affine fractal can be expressed as

2 2  H 1
H   L0 
L  L0 1   0    (13)
 l0   l0 

where H 0 is the vertically projected crack length and the unloading fractal area of the
elastic energy can be expressed as a function of the apparent length,

A0  m0 L0 2 (14)

And results that

 r 2 
2 2 H 2 
H   l0 
U L 0  2 m * t  1   2  H   0     L dL (15)
2 E '0   l0   L0   0 0
 

Therefore, the elastic energy released by the introduction of a crack length L0 is

 0 2 L0 2
U L 0   m * t (16)
2 E '0

2 2 H 2
H   l0 
where  0   r 1   0   
 l0   L0 

Observe that equation (12) is recovered from equation (16) applying the limits H 0  l0  L0
and H  1.0 with  r   0 and E '  E '0 .

To understand the effect of crack roughness on the change of elastic strain energy, one may
consider postulates III and IV, thus

m *  r 2 L0 2   H 2  l 2 H  2 
U Lo  U L   1   0   0   (17)
2E'   l0   L0  
 

It can be noticed that for H  1 , which corresponds to a smoother surface, the relationship
between the strain energy and the projected length L0 is more linear. While for H  0 ,
74 Applied Fracture Mechanics

which corresponds to a rougher surface, this relationship is increasingly non-linear. This is

reasonable since the more ruggedness, more elastic strain per unit of crack length.

4.2.2. Relationship between the applied stress on the rough and projected crack lengths
Comparing (8), (10) and (12), one has

m*
U L0  U Ll    U L (18)
  
Then, from postulate III, i.e., the following relationship is valid only for the situation of free
loading without crack growth.

2
 02  r2  L 
   (19)
E '0 E '  L0 

Using equation (13) in (19), one has the resilience as a function of the projected length L0

2 H 2
1  2   H 0   l0  
2
 02
 1       (20)
E0 2 E   l0   L0  

Or, the rugged length L can be written in terms of the projected length L0 , thus

E'  0 
L   L0 (21)
E '0  r 
Since the elasticity modulus is independent of the crack path, one has

 0 L0   r L (22)

Substituting equation (13) in equation (22), one has the relationship between stresses on the
rough and projected surfaces,

1/ 2
 r 
2 2H 2 
H   l0 
0  1   0     (23)
 l  L0  
  0 
2

This last result is still incomplete since it is not valid for crack propagation. For its correction
it will be considered that the elastic energy released rate G can be expressed as a function of
G0 according to equation (4).

4.2.3. The surface energy U0 for smooth, rugged and projected cracks in accordance with
fractal geometry
The surface energy of a smooth and a rugged crack are, respectively, given by
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 75

U l  2  Llt   l
(24)
U l  2 ltLl

and

U L  2  Lt   r
(25)
U L  2 r tL

Using equation (11), the surface energy of the projected length L0 is given by

U 0  2  tL0   0
(26)
U 0  2 0tL0

where  0   r . The surface energy equation (25) can be rewritten in terms of the projected
length L0 of a self-affine fractal crack

2 2 H 2
H   l0 
U 0  2 r tL0 1   0    (27)
 l0   L0 

To see the influence of crack roughness on the surface energy, one may consider postulates
III and IV, thus

2 2 H 2
2 r L0 H   l0 
U  0  U  1   0    (28)
2  l0   L0 

5. Stable or quasi-static fracture mechanics to the rough path

In this section, a review of the conceptual changes introduced by Irwin (1957) in Griffith's
theory (1920) is presented considering an irregular fracture surface, taking into account the
postulates previously proposed. The purpose of this section is to use the mathematical
formalism of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics for stable growth of smooth cracks,
generalizing it to the case of an irregular rough crack.

5.1. The Griffith energy balance in terms of fractal geometry

According to Griffith´s energy balance, one has


dUT  d Ui  U L  F  U  0  (29)

whilst

F  U L  U (30)
76 Applied Fracture Mechanics

Where UT is the total energy, U i is the initial potential elastic energy, F is the work done by
external forces, U L is the change of elastic energy stored in the body caused by the introduction
of the crack length L0 and U is the energy released to form the fracture surfaces.

One can now add the contributions of U L 0 and U 0 to reproduce Griffith´s energy
balance in a fractal vision. In other words,

 U T  U i  U L  U   F (31)

and

 2 L0 2   H 2  l 2 H  2  2 L 2
 H 0   l0 
2 H 2
d 1   0   0  
(Ui   o
1       F)  0 (32)
dLl 2E   l0   L0   2  l  L 
 0   0
 

This new result is shown in Figure 3, which is analogous to the traditional Griffith energy
balance graphs, but distorted due to the roughness of the fracture surface. Observe that for a
reference total energy value the roughness of the crack surface tends to increase the critical
size of the fracture L0C compared to a material with a smooth fracture  LlC  LC  . This is
due to the roughness being a result of the interaction of the crack with the microstructure of
the material.

Figure 3. Griffith´s energy balance in the view of the fractal geometry of fracture surface roughness.

5.2. The modification of Irwin in Griffith´s energy balance theory for smooth,
rugged and projected cracks
Irwin found from Griffith´s instability equation, given by (29), that this instability should
take place by varying the crack length, so
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 77

d

U  U L  U  F  0
dL i
 (33)

which can be rewritten as

d dU
(F  UL )  (34)
dL dL

since U i is constant. On the left hand side of equation (34), dF dL  dU L dL is the amount
of energy that remains available to increase crack extension by an amount dL . On the right
hand side of equation (34), dU dL is the surface energy that must be released to form the
rugged crack surfaces. This energy is the crack growth resistance.

Deriving equation (30) with respect to the projected crack length L0 , one has

d dU
(F  UL )  (35)
dL0 dL0

Considering postulate II, one can apply the derivation chain rule and obtain

d dL dU dL
(F  UL )  (36)
dL dL0 dL dL0

Considering the following cases:

i. Fixed grips condition with F  constant : since U L  U L0   m *  2 L20 2 E ' decreases with
the crack length, and using equations (10) and (25) in (36), one can derive

m *  r2L
 2 r . (37)
E'

Or, by using equations (17) and (26) in (35), one finds

m *  r 2 L0 
2 2H 2 
 H 0   l0 
1   2  H        2 . (38)
2E'   l0   L0   0
 

ii. Condition of constant loading or stress, where necessarily F  2 U L , since

U L  U L0  m *  2 L20 2 E ' increases with the work of external forces, and using
equations (10) and (25) in (36), one can find

m *  r2L
 2 r . (39)
E'
78 Applied Fracture Mechanics

Or, by using equations (17) and (26) in (35), one has

m *  r 2 L0 
2 2H 2 
H   l0 
1   2  H   0      2 . (40)
2E'   l0   L0   0
 

Irwin defined the elastic energy released rate G and the fracture resistance R in equation
(34), like

d( F  U L )
G (41)
dL

and

dU
R . (42)
dL

These definitions can be extended to the terms in equation (35), so

d( F  U L0 )
G0  R0 G0  (43)
dL0

and

dU 0
R0  . (44)
dL0

Notice that the proposal made by Irwin extended the concept of specific energy  eff to
the concept of R-curve given by equation (42), allowing to consider situations where the
microstructure of the material interacts with the crack tip. In this way, it is assumed that
the surface energy is dependent on the direction of crack growth.

Finally, using equations (41) and (42) in (36), the Griffith-Irwin criterion is obtained,

dL dL
G R . (45)
dL0 dL0

5.3. Comparative analysis between smooth, projected and rugged fracture

quantities
Based on the results of the previous section, further analyses of the magnitudes of the
Fracture Mechanics are performed in order to obtain a mathematical reformulation for an
irregular or rugged Fracture Mechanics.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 79

5.3.1. Relationship between the elastic energy released rate rates for smooth, projected and
rugged cracks
Using the chain rule, it is possible to write G0 in terms of G ,

dL
G0  G (46)
dL0

The energetics equivalence between the rugged surface and its projection establishes that
the energy per unit length along the rugged path is equal to the energy per unit length along
the projected path. Notice that

dU L0 dU L
 (47)
dL0 dL

since dL dL0  1 , therefore,

G0  G. (48)

The elastic energy released rates for the projected and rugged paths are, respectively

dU L0 m *  0 2 L0
G0   (49)
dL0 E '0

and

dU L m *  r 2 L
G  . (50)
dL E'

Combining these expressions and including, for comparison, the elastic energy released rate
for a smooth path, one has for infinitesimal crack lengths,

dLl  m *  dL
G0  Gl  G (51)
dL0    dL0

Considering that the smooth crack length is equal to the projected crack length, one has

m* dL
G0  Gl  G (52)
   dL0

Observe that the difference between the elastic energy released rate for the smooth, rugged
and projected cracks is the ruggedness added on crack during its growth. Using a
thermodynamic model for the crack propagation, it can be concluded that a rugged crack
dissipates more energy than a smooth crack propagating at the same speed.
80 Applied Fracture Mechanics

The elastic energy released rate G0 can be written in terms of a fractal geometry,

m *  r 2 
2 2H 2 
H   l 
G0  L0 1  (2  H )  0   0   (53)
E'   l0   L0  
 

5.4. The crack growth resistance R for smooth, projected and rough paths
Considering a plane strain condition, crack growth resistance for a smooth crack is given by

dU l
Rl  (54)
dLl

Substituting equation (24) in equation (54), one finds

Rl  2 l (55)

Observe that if the fracture path is smooth, the specific surface energy  l is a cleavage
surface energy and does not necessarily depend on the crack length. This model is only
valid for brittle crystalline materials where the plastic strain at the crack tip does not absorb
sufficient energy to cause dependence between fracture toughness and crack length.

Similarly, for a rugged crack, the fracture resistance to propagation is given by

R  2 r (56)

The concept of fracture growth resistance for the projected surface is given by

dU
R0  (57)
dL0

and substituting equation (26) in equation (57), one has

R0  2 0 (58)

Again, this model is valid for ideally brittle materials where there is almost no plastic strain
at the crack tip. It basically corresponds to the model presented by Griffith, with a modified
interpretation introduced by Irwin with the G  R curve concept.

5.5. Relationship between rugged R and projected R0 fracture resistances

Using the chain rule, and admitting Irwin´s energetic equivalence represented by equation
(3), the projected fracture resistance can be written on the basis of the resistance of the real
surface,
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 81

dL
R0  R (59)
dL0

where dL / dL0 is derived from equation (13),

2 2H 2
H   l 
1  (2  H )  0   0 
dL
  l0   L0  1 (60)
dL0   H  2  l 2 H  2 
2  1   0   0  
  l0   L0  
 
Therefore, the crack growth resistance ( R -curve), which is defined for a flat projected
surface, is given substituting equation (56) and equation (60) in equation (59),

2 2 H 2
H   l 
1  (2  H )  0   0 
R0  2 r  l0   L0  (61)
  H 2  l 2 H  2 
2  1   0   0  
  l0   L0  
 

5.6. Final remarks about equivalent quantities of smooth, rugged and projected
fracture surfaces
It is important to emphasize that the energetic equivalence between the rugged surface
crack path and its projection was considered such that the developed equations of the
Fracture Mechanics for the flat plane path are still valid in the absence of any roughness.

However, if a flat and smooth fracture Ll is considered with the same length of a projected
fracture L0 , the energetic quantities and their derivatives have the following relationship,

dU L dU L0
U Ll  U L0    Gl  G0 (62)
dLl dL0

and

dU l dU 0
U  l  U 0    Rl  R 0 , (63)
dLl dL0

which have produced conflicting conclusions in the literature [37, 38, 46]. Since the energy
for the smooth length Ll0 is smaller than the energy for the projected L0 or rough L
lengths, one has

dL
U Ll  U L  Gl  G (64)
dL0
82 Applied Fracture Mechanics

and

dL
U l  U  R l  R (65)
dL0

In postulate III it was assumed that the rugged crack path satisfies the same energetic
conditions of the plan path, but in the LEFM this roughness is not taken into account,
causing discrepancies between theory and experiments. For example, it has not been
possible to explain by an analytical function in a definitive way the growth of the G  R
curve. The proposed introduction of the term dL / dL0 allows correcting this problem.

6. The elastic-plastic fractal fracture mechanics

The non-linear elastic plastic energy released rate J0 for a crack of plane projected path can
be extended from the Irwin-Orowan approach. They introduced the specific energy of
plastic strain  p on the elastic energy released rate G0 to describe the fracture phenomenon
with considerable plastic strain at the crack tip. Thus, it is possible to define the elastic
plastic energy released rate in an analogous way to the definition of the elastic energy
released rate,

d( F  U Vo )
Jo  (66)
dLo

where U Vo is the volumetric strain energy given by the sum of the elastic and plastic ( U pl )
contributions to the strain energy in the material.

6.1. Influence of ruggedness in elastic plastic solids with low ductility

Considering elastic plastic materials with low ductility where the effect of the plastic term is
small compared to the elastic term, one can define a crack growth resistance as

K Ro 2 f ( v)
J Ro  , (67)
E

where f ( v) is a function that defines the testing condition. For plane stress f  v   1 , and
for plane strain f  v   1  v 2 and K Ro is the fracture toughness resistance curve.

Due to the ruggedness, the crack grows an amount dL  dL0 and correcting equation (59),
one has

 
dU dL dL
Ro   2 e   p . (68)
dL dLo dLo

Similarly,
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 83

d( F  UV ) dL
Jo  . (69)
dL dLo

The energy balance proposed by Griffith-Irwin-Orowan, for stable fracture, is

J o  Ro . (70)

Therefore, for plane stress or plane strain conditions, one can write from equation (61) that,

2

J Ro  2 e   p  dL
dL K Ro f ( v)

E
(71)
o

Thus,

K Ro 
 2 e   p E dL . (72)
f ( v) dLo

Knowing that fracture toughness is given by

KCo 
 2 e p E  , (73)
f ( v)

one has,

dL
K Ro  KCo . (74)
dLo

From the Classical Fracture Mechanics, the fracture resistance for the loading mode I, is
given by

L 
K IRo  Yo  o   f Lo , (75)
w

L 
where Yo  o  is a function that defines the shape of the specimen (CT, SEBN, etc) and the
w
type of test (traction, flexion, etc), and  f is the fracture stress. Considering the case when
L0  L0C , then K IR0  K IC 0 and the fracture toughness for the loading mode I is given by

L 
K ICo  Yo  oc   f Loc . (76)
 w 

Therefore, from equation (72) the fracture toughness curve for the loading mode I is given
by
84 Applied Fracture Mechanics

dL
K IRo  K ICo . (77)
dLo

Substituting equation (75) and equation (76) in equation (77), one has

 L   f L o f ( v)
2
dL
 Yo 2  o  , (78)
dLo 
 w  2 e   p E 
Observe that according to the right hand side of equation (78), the ruggedness dL dL0 is
determined by the condition of the test (plane strain or stress), the shape of the sample (CT,
SEBN, etc), the type of test (traction, flexion, etc) and kind of material.
Considering the fracture surface as a fractal topology, one observes that the characteristics of
the fracture surface listed above in equation (78) are all included in the ruggedness fractal
exponent H. Substituting equation (60) in equation (71), one obtains
2 2H 2
H   l0 
1   2  H   0   
 L0 

J Ro  2 e   p   l0 
2 2H 2
. (79)
H   l 
1   0   0 
 l0   L0 

which is non-linear in the crack extension L0 . It corresponds to the classical equation (70)
corrected for a rugged surface with Hurst's exponent H. Experimental results [1, 2] show
that J0 and the crack resistance R0 rise non-linearly and it is well known that this rising of
the J-R curve is correlated to the ruggedness of the cracked surface [3, 4].

6.2. The J0 Eshelby-Rice integral for rugged and plane projected crack paths

The J-integral concept of Eshelby-Rice is a non-linear extension of the definition given by

Irwin-Orowan, for the linear elastic plastic energy released rate. In this context the potential
energy  0 is defined as

0   WdV0   T.uds, (80)
V0 C

where W the energy density integral in the in the volume V0 encapsulated by the boundary
 
C with tractions T and displacements u , and s is the distance along the boundary C , as
shown in Figure 4.
Accordingly,

d 0 d   
dL0  V
J0     WdV0   T .uds  (81)
dL0 
C 
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 85

where dL0 is the incremental growth of the crack length. In the two-dimensional case,
where the fracture surface is characterized by a crack with length L0 and a unit thickness
body, one has dV  dxdy and

d 0  dx  u 
J0      W dy   T . ds  . (82)
dL0  L0 
 V dL0 C

For a fixed boundary C , d dL0   d dx , and the J0 -integral for the plane projected crack
path can be written only in terms of the boundary,

 u
J0   Wdy   T . ds. (83)
V C
x

Figure 4. Boundary around to the rugged crack tip where is defined the J-Integral [43].

Now, the J-R Eshelby-Rice integral theory is modified to include the fracture surface
ruggedness. Initially, equation (82) is rewritten,

 dx dL  u dL 
J0     W dy   T . ds  . (84)
 L dL0 
 V dL dL0 C

From postulate IV, the new J-integral on the rugged crack path is given by

d  dx *  u 
J    W dy *   T . ds  (85)
dL  dL L 
V C

where the * symbol represents coordinates with respect to the rugged path. So, in an
analogous way to the J-integral for the projected crack path given by equation (85), since
d dL   d dx * , one has

 u
J   Wdy *   T . ds. (86)
V C
x *
86 Applied Fracture Mechanics

Returning to equation (82) and considering postulate III along with the derivative chain rule
and substituting equation (85), one has

d dL  dx *  u  dL
J0      W dy *   T . ds  . (87)
dL dL0  dL L  dL0
V C

Comparing (84) with equation (87) and considering that the rugged crack is a result of a
transformation in the volume of the crack, analogous to the “bakers´ transformation” of the
projected crack over the Euclidian plane, it can be concluded that

( x*, y *)
dx * dy *  dxdy
( x , y )
(88)
dx * dL dx dL
dy *  dy
dL dLo dL dLo

which show the equivalence between the volume elements,

dV  dx * dy *  dxdy. (89)

Therefore, the ruggedness dL / dL0 of the rugged crack path does not depend on the volume
V, nor on the boundary C and nor on the infinitesimal element length ds or dy . Thus, it
must depend only on the characteristics of the rugged path described by the crack on the
material. Finally, the integral in equation (84) can be written as

 dx  u  dL
J0     W dy   T . ds  (90)
 L  dL0
 V dL C

where the infinitesimal increment dx / dL   cosi accompanies the direction of the rugged
path L , as show in Figure 4. Thus,

 u
J   Wdy cos i   T . cos i ds. (91)
V C
x

Observe that the J-integral for the rugged crack path given by equation (91) differs from the
J-integral for the plane projected crack path given by equation (83) by a fluctuating term,
cosi inside the integral. It can be observed that the energetic and geometric parts of the
fracture process are separated and put in evidence the influence of the ruggedness of the
material in the elastic plastic energy released rate,

dL
J0  J . (92)
dL0

It must be pointed out that this relationship is general and the introduction of the fractal
approach to describe the ruggedness is just a particular way of modeling.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 87

6.3. Fractal theory applied to J-R curve model for ductile materials
This section includes the formalism of fractal geometry in the EPFM to describe the
roughness effects on the fracture mechanical properties of materials. For this purpose the
classical expression of the elastic-plastic energy released rate was modified by introducing
the fractality (roughness) of the cracked surface. With this procedure the classical expression
(49) of LEFM, linear with the crack length, is changed into a non-linear equation (53), which
reproduces with precision the quasi-static crack propagation process in ductile materials.

Observe that the quasi-static crack growth condition is obtained with Griffith fracture
criterion, doing J0  R0 and dJ0 / dL0  dR0 / dL0 . In this case, it is concluded that the J-R
curve is given by Griffith criterion J  2 eff in equations (92) and (59). Therefore, for a self-
affine crack with H 0  l0 , one has

2 H 2
l 
1  (2  H )  0 
J0  2 eff  L0 
(93)
  H 2  l 2 H  2 
2  1   0   0  
  l0   L0  
 

This model shows in unambiguous way how different morphologies (roughness) are
correlated with the J-R curve growth. Given the energy equivalence between rough and
projected surfaces for the crack path, the J-R curve increases due to the influence of the
roughness, which has not been computed previously with the classical equations of EPFM.

The J-integral on the rugged crack path is a specific characteristic of the material and can be
considered as being proportional to JC [15], on the onset of crack extension, since in this
case it has the rugged crack length greater than the projected crack length  L  L0  . Thus,

dL
J o ~ JC . (94)
dLo

Substituting the fractal crack model proposed in equation (60), one has

2 2 H 2
H   l 
1   2  H   0   o 
J o ~ JC  l0   Lo  , (95)
2 2 H 2
H   l 
1   0   o 
 l0   Lo 

corroborating that the surface specific energy is related to the critical fracture resistance.


JC ~ 2 e   p .  (96)
88 Applied Fracture Mechanics

6.3.1. Case – 1. Ductile self-similar limit

The local self-similar limit can be calculated applying the condition H 0  L0  l0 in
equation (79), obtaining

H 1
 l 
 
J Ro  2 e   p  2  H   o 
 Lo 
(97)

or, with D  2  H , one has

1 D
l 
J0  2 eff D  0  . (98)
 L0 
This result corresponds to the one found by Mu and Lung [26, 37] for ductile materials.
Equation (98) is shown in Figure 5, where J-R curves are calculated for different values of
the fractal dimension D . 2 eff = 10.0 KJ / m2 is adopted and L0 l0 is the crack length in l0
units. This figure shows very clearly how the surface morphology (characterized by D )
determines the shape of the J-R curve at the beginning of the crack growth.

Figure 5. J-R curves calculated according to the projected crack length L0 , for a fracture of unit

thickness, and fractal dimensions D  1.0,1.1,1.3,1.5,1.7 and 2.0 with 2 e  10 KJ / m .

2

In Figure 6, J-R curves with fractal dimension D  1.3 are calculated according to the
projected length L0 for different measuring rulers l0 , showing how the morphology of
rugged surface cracks is best described for small values of l0 , causing the pronounced rising
of J-R curve. Figure 6 and equation (98) show that the initial crack resistance is correlated to
the surface morphology characterized by dimension D , in accordance with the literature.

The self-similar limit of J-R curve, given by equation (98), is valid only for regions near the
onset of the crack growth in brittle materials ( H 0  L0 ). This is due to the hardening of the
material, which gives rise to ruggedness of the fracture surface.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 89

In the case of ductile materials, the length of the work hardening zone H 0 affects an
increasingly greater area of the material as the crack propagates, but the self-similar limit
 H0  L0  l0  is still valid.

Figure 6. J-R curves calculated in function of the projected crack length L0 with different ruler lengths
l0  0.0001,0.001,0.01,0.1 and 1.0mm , for a fracture of unit thickness, fractal dimension D  1.3
and 2 e  10 KJ / m .
2

However, in the case of brittle materials (ceramics), after the initial stage of hardening, the
crack maintains this state in a region of length H 0 , very short if compared to the crack
length L0 , generating a self-similar fractal structure only when the crack length L0 is small,
in the order of l0 , i.e., H 0  L0  l0 . When the crack length L0 becomes much larger than the
initial size of the hardening region H 0 present at the onset of crack growth, the self-similar
limit is not valid, and the self-affine (or global) limit of fracture becomes valid.

6.3.2. Case – 2. Brittle self-affine limit

It is easy verify that in stable crack growth, where J0  R0 , using equations (59) and (79),
one has dL / dL0  1 when L   . The global self-affine limit of J0 can be calculated
applying the condition when the observation scale corresponds to a rather small amplitude
of the crack, similar in size to the crack increment, i.e., when H 0  l0  L0 in equation (79),
resulting the linear elastic expression

J0  2 eff (99)

where J0  G0 and

GRo  2 e   p . (100)
90 Applied Fracture Mechanics

This result corresponds to a classic one in Fracture Mechanics, which is the general case
valid for brittle materials as glass and ceramics.

7. Experimental analyses
7.1. Ceramic, metallic and polyurethane samples
The analyzed ceramic samples were produced by Santos [19] and Mazzei [41]. The raw
material used for its production was an alumina powder A-1000SG by ALCOA with 99%
purity. Specimens of dimensions 52mm  8mm  4mm were sintered at 1650 °C for 2 hours,
showing average 7 mm grain sizes. Their average mechanical properties are shown in Table
1 with elastic modulus E = 300 GPa and rupture stress  f  340 MPa .

The analyzed metallic samples were multipass High Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) steel weld
metals and standard DCT specimens. HSLA are divided in two groups based on the
welding process utilized and the microstructural composition. The first group (A1 and A2
welds) is composed of C-Mn Ti-Killed weld metals and were joined by a manual metal arc
process. The second group (B1 and B2 welds), joined by a submerged arc welding process, is
also a C-Mn Ti-Killed weld metal, but with different alloying elements added to increase the
hardenability. Mechanical properties of both welds and DCT metals are listed in Table 1.

f E
Material Sample JIC(exp)(KJ/m2)L0C(exp)(mm) KIC (MPa.m1/2) H (exp)
(MPa) (GPa)
Ceramic Alumina 340 300 0,030 0.4956 424,2477056 0,7975 0,0096
A1CT2 516,00 1,34 291,60 0,48256 635,3313677 0,71  0,01
A2SEB2 537,00 3,63 174,67 0,36264 573,1747828 0,77  0,01
B1CT6 771,00 16,64 40,61 0,22634 650,1446157 0,77  0,02
B2CT2 757,00 1,96 99,22 0,26553 691,3971955 0,58  0,05
Metals DCT1 554,001,7197 227,00 0,40487 624,8021278 -
DCT2 530,001,6671 211,47 0,3995 593,7576222 -
DCT3 198,750,3902 318,00 1,00000 352,2752029 -
0.8 
PU0,5 40,70 8,10 0,29951 39,47980593 0,47 ± 0,07
0.0
Polymers
0.8 
PU1,0 40,70 3,00 0,23685 35,10799599 0,50 ± 0,05
0.0
Table 1. Data extracted from experimental testing of J-R curves obtained by compliance method.

The analyzed polymeric samples are a two-component Polyurethane, consisting of 1:1

mixture of polyol and prepolymer. The polyol was synthesized from oil and the prepolymer
from diphenyl methane diisocyanate (MDI). Their mechanical properties are shown in Table 1.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 91

7.2. Fracture tests

A standard three-point bending test was performed on alumina specimens, SE(B), notched
plane. Low speed and constant prescribed displacement 1 mm/min was employed to obtain
stable propagation. The R-curve was obtained using LEFM equations and fracture results
are shown in Table 1.

The fracture toughness evaluation of metallic samples was executed using the J-integral
concept and the elastic compliance technique with partial unloadings of 15% of the
maximum load. For weld metals the J-R curve tests were performed by the compliance and
multi-test techniques. Tests were executed in a MTS810 (Material Test System) system at
ambient temperature, according to standard ASTM E1737-96 [15]. A single edge notch
bending SENB and compact tension CT were used. One J-R curve for each tested specimen
was retrieved and fracture results are shown in Table 1.

To obtain the fractured surfaces of polymeric materials, fracture toughness tests were
performed by multiple specimen technique using the concept of J-R curve according to
ASTM D6068-2002 [42]. However, these tests were different from the ones used for weld
metals, due to the viscoelasticity of the polymers. The used nomenclatures PU0,5 and PU1,0
mean the loading rate used during the test, 0,5 mm/min and 1,0 mm/min, respectively.
Fracture results are shown in Table 1.

7.3. Fractal analyses of fractured specimens

The fractured surfaces of ceramic samples were obtained with a Rank Taylor Hobson
profilometer (Talysurf model 120) and an HP 6300 scanner. The fractal analyses to obtain the
Hurst dimensions were made by methods, such as Counting Box, Sand Box and Fourier
transform. The fracture surface analysis of metallic and polymeric samples were executed
using scanning electronic microscopy SEM and the analyses to obtain the Hurst exponents
were made with the Contrast Islands Fractal Analysis. Fractal dimension results are shown
in the last column of Table 1.

7.4. G-R and J-R curve tests and fitting with self-similar and self-affine fractal
models
A characteristic load-displacement result in the Alumina ceramic sample is shown in Figure
7. Observe that the stiffness of the material at the first deflection region is constant,
corresponding to the elastic modulus of the material. However, as the crack propagates, the
stiffness varies significantly.
The corresponding G-R curve test is shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that at the onset of
crack growth ( L0  L0C ), the behavior of this material is self-similar, as previously
discussed. However, the results in the wider range of crack lengths ( L0C  L0  L0 max ) show
that this material behave according to the self-affine model. Finally, at the end of G-R curve
92 Applied Fracture Mechanics

( L0   ) the behavior is explained by the influence of the shape function Y  L0 / w  used in

the testing methodology [41].

Figure 7. Load (X) versus displacement (u) for a G-R curve test in a ceramic sample [41].

J-R curves obtained from standard metallic specimens provided by ASTM standard testing
are shown in Figure 9 along with the fitting with the proposed fractal models. Fitting results
with these samples, named DCT1, DCT2 and DCT3, are a consistent validation of the
applied fractal models. The fitting results of the self-similar and self-affine models coincide
and are not distinguishable in Figure 9.

Figure 8. G-R curve fitted with the self-similar model (equation (97)) and the self-affine model
(equation (100)) for the Alumina sample [41].
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 93

Figure 9. J-R curve fitted with the self-similar model shown in equation (97) and the self-affine model
shown in equation (93) for steel samples DCT1, DCT2 and DCT3 [43].

Typical testing results performed to obtain J-R curves of metallic weld materials are shown
in Figure 10 and Figure 11. In all results, J-R curves measured experimentally were fitted
using models given by equations (93) and (97), where the factor 2 e   p was obtained by
adjusting the l0 and H values for each different sample, by the self-similar and the self-
affine models.

The J-R curves for the tested polymeric specimens are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Reasonably good results were obtained despite the greater dispersion of data.

Figure 10. J-R curve fitted with the self-similar model shown in equation (97) and the self-affine model
shown in equation (93) for HSLA-Mn/Ti steel (sample A1CT2).
94 Applied Fracture Mechanics

Figure 11. J-R curve fitted with the self-similar model shown in equation (97) and the self-affine model
shown in equation (93) for HSLA-Mn/Ti steel (sample B2CT2) killed with titanium and other alloy
elements to increase hardenability [43].

Figure 12. J-R curve fitted with the self-similar model shown in equation (97) and the self-affine model
shown in equation (93) for the poliurethane polymer PU0,5.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 95

Figure 13. J-R curve fitted with the self-similar model shown in equation (97) and the self-affine model
shown in equation (93) for the poliurethane polymer PU1,0.

After the experimental J-R curves were fitted using equation (79) and equation (97), values
of 2 eff , H and l0 were determined and are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. With J R0  2 eff ,
the value of the crack size L0 was calculated and it corresponded to the specific surface
eff

energy. Using the experimental values of J IC , L0C and H given in Table 1, the values of the
constants in the last column of Table 2 and Table 3 were calculated.

L0 C1 2 eff JC LC H 1
Mate-
rial
Sample 
2 eff KJ / m2  H  theo  l0  mm 
eff

 l0  2  H 
1/  H 1
  2  H  l0H 1 = constant

Cera-
Alumi-na 0,0301871 1,000 0,2493645 0,2493645 1,00000 0,03018707
mic
A1CT2 283,247 0,417  0,018 1,00944 0,459079 1,57411 445,862579
A2SEB2 187,639 0,208  0,057 0,82912 0,396956 2,07868 390,042318
B1CT6 40,514 0,573  0,038 0,51758 0,225086 1,89071 76,600193
Metals B2CT2 101,204 0,592  0,0041 0,64484 0,278764 1,68407 170,433782
DCT1 230,843 0,426 0,91887 0,416893 1,65219 381,397057
DCT2 209,127 0,461 0,87082 0,391328 1,65806 346,745868
DCT3 317,819 0,393 2,18249 0,999062 1,00057 318,000000
Poly- PU0,5 17,4129 0,476 2,88612 1,291434 0,87464 15,230001
mers PU1,0 2,95252 0,503 0,51653 0,229374 2,079 6,138287

Table 2. Fitting data of J-R curves with the self- similar model [43].
96 Applied Fracture Mechanics

A good level of agreement is seen between measured Hurst’s exponents H at Table 1 and
theoretical ones shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Larger differences in metals can be attributed to
the quality of the fractographic images, which did not present well defined “Contrast Islands”.

L0 C1 2 eff JC LC H 1

Material Sample 2 eff KJ / m
2
 H  theo  l0  mm 
eff

 l0  2  H 
1/  H 1
  2  H  l0H 1 = constant

Ceramic Alumina 0,0301871 1,000 0,2493645 0,2493645 1,00000 0,03018707

A1CT2 160,640 0,609 0,24422 0,105004 2,413408 387,700806
A2SEB2 102,750 0,442 0,31002 0,140040 2,993092 307,535922
B1CT6 22,980 0,700 0,08123 0,033873 2,757772 63,385976
Metals B2CT2 57,978 0,705 0,10304 0,042893 2,529433 146,651006
DCT1 129,850 0,599 0,23309 0,100540 2,511844 326,184445
DCT2 118,850 0,624 0,20167 0,086294 2,512302 298,592197
DCT3 178,810 0,612 0,5282 0,226901 1,778386 318,000000
PU0,5 7,500 0,664 0,56541 0,238775 1,618852 12,150370
Polymers
PU1,0 1,690 0,649 0,10898 0,046244 2,938220 4,971102

Table 3. Fitting data of J-R curves with the self- affine model [43].

7.5. Complementary discussion

The proposed fractal scaling law (self-affine or self-similar) model is well suited for the
elastic-plastic experimental results. However, the self-similar model in brittle materials
appears to underestimate the values of specific surface energy  eff and the minimum size of
the microscopic fracture l0 , although not affecting the value of the Hurst exponent H .

For a self-affine natural fractal such as a crack, the self-similar limit approach is only valid at
the beginning of the crack growth process [39], and the self-affine limit is valid for the rest of
the process. It can be observed from the results that the ductile fracture is closer to self-
similarity while the brittle fracture is closer to self-affinity.

Equation (79) represents a self-affine fractal model and demonstrates that apart from the
coefficient H , there is a certain "universality" or, more accurately, a certain "generality" in
the J-R curves. This equation can be rewritten using a factor of universal scale,   l0 / L0 , as

Jo 1  (2  H ) 2 H  2
f (2 e   p , J0 )    g( , H ) (101)
2(2 e   p )
   2 1   2 H 2

 

energetic
geometric

which is a valid function for all experimental results shown in Figure 14. It shows the
existent relation between the energetic and geometric components of the fracture resistance
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 97

of the material. The greater the material energy consumption in the fracture, straining it
plastically, the longer will be its geometric path and more rugged will be the crack.

Figure 14. Generalized J-R curves for different materials, modelled using the self-affine fractal
geometry, in function of the scale factor   l0 L0 of the crack length [43].

In the self-similar limit  l0  L0  H0  , equation (97) is applicable and the energetic and
geometric components are put in evidence in the equation below,

H 1
 l 
J0  (2 eo   p )(2  H )  0  (102)
 L0 
energetic   
geometric

From equation (102), an expression can be derived which results in a constant value
associated to each material,

J0 L0 H 1
 (2 e 0   p )(2  H )l0 H 1  (const )material (103)
  
macroscopic microscopic

It is possible to conclude that the macroscopic and microscopic terms on the left and right-
hand sides of equation (103) are both equal to a constant, suggesting the existence of a
fracture fractal property valid for the beginning of crack growth, and justified
experimentally and theoretically. These constant values were calculated for each point in
each J-R curve for the tested materials. The average value for each material is listed in the
last column of Table 2 and Table 3. Observe that this new property is uniquely determined
by the process of crack growth, depending on the exponent H , the specific surface energy
2 e   p and the minimum crack length l0 .
98 Applied Fracture Mechanics

This new constant can be understood as a "fractal energy density" and it is a physical
quantity that takes into account the ruggedness of the fracture surface and other physical
properties. Its existence can explain the reason for different problems encountered when
defining the value of fracture toughness K IC . This constant can be used to complement the
information yielded by the fracture toughness, which depends on several factors, such as the
thickness B of the specimen, the shape or size of the notch, etc. To solve this problem,
ASTM E1737-96 [15] establishes a value for the crack length a (approximately
0.5  a / W  0.7 and, B  0.5W , where W is the width of the specimen) for obtaining the
fracture toughness K IC , in order to maintain the small-scale yielding zone.

As shown in equation (103), a relationship exists between the specific surface energy 2 eff
and the minimum crack size l0 in the considered observation scale   l0 / L0 . In Figure 15,
it can be observed that the consideration of a minimum size for the fracture l01 on a grain
should mean the effective specific energy of the fracture 2 eff 1 in this scale. In a similar way,
the consideration of a minimum size of fracture in a different scale, like one that involves
several polycrystalline grains l02 , l03 etc.., should take into account the value of an effective
specific energy in this other scale, 2 eff 2 ,2 eff 3 , etc., in such a way that

Figure 15. Microstructural aspects of the observation scale with different l0 ruler sizes, for the fractal
scaling of fracture [43].

2 ef 1 (2  H1 )lo1H1 1  2 eff 2 (2  H 2 )lo 2 H2 1  const , (104)

although l01  l02  l03 and 2 eff 1  2 eff 2  2 eff 3 . So, the constant does not depend on the
single rule of measurement l0 used in the fractal model, but it depends on the kind of
material used in the testing.

Another interpretation of equation (102) can be made by splitting the elastic and plastic
terms,
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 99

H 1 H 1
 l   l 
J0  2 e (2  H )  0    p (2  H )  0  , (105)
  L0    L0  
elastic plastic

For the particular situation where J0  J IC and L0  L0C , it can be derived from equation
(97),

H 1
 l 

J IC  2 e   p   2  H   L 0
 0C


(106)

and from equation (72),

H 1
 l 
K IC  (2 e   p )E(2  H )  o  (107)
 Loc 

Therefore, using the fact that once the experimental value of J IC is determined and the
fitting of J-R curve has already yielded the values 2 e   p , l0 and H for the material, the
value L0C can be calculated.

Fracture Mechanics science was originally developed for the study of isotropic situations
and homogeneous bodies.

At the microscopic level, the elastic material is modeled considering Einstein’s solid
harmonic approximation where Hooke's law is employed for the force between the chemical
bonds of the atoms or molecules [48]. Therefore, the elastic theory is used to make linear
approximations and it does not involve micro structural effects of the material.

At the mesoscopic level the equation of energy used for the fracture does not take into
account effects at the atomic scale involving non-homogeneous situations [47]. Based on the
arguments of the last paragraphs, it becomes clear why Herrmman et al. [49] needed to
include statistical weights, as a crack growth criterion, for the break of chemical bonds in
fracture simulations, as a form of portraying micro structural aspects of the fracture (defects)
when using finite difference and finite element methods in computational models.

At the macroscopic level, on the other hand, Griffith’s theory uses a thermodynamic energy
balance. It is important to remember that the linear elastic theory of fracture developed by
Irwin and Westergaard and the Griffith’s theory are differential theories for the macroscopic
scale, which means they are punctual in their local limit. These two approaches involve the
micro structural aspects of the fracture, since they take a larger infinitesimal local limit than
the linear elastic theory at the atomic and mesoscopic scales. This infinitesimal macroscopic
scale is big enough to include 1015 particles as the lower thermodynamic limit, where the
physical quantity Fracture Resistance (J-R Curve) portrays aspects of the interaction of the
crack with the microstructure of the material.
100 Applied Fracture Mechanics

In this chapter, Classical Fracture Mechanics was modified directly using fractal theory,
without taking into account more basic formulations, such as the interaction force among
particles, or Lamé’s energy equation in the mesoscopic scale as a form to include the
ruggedness in the fracture processes.

The use of the fractality in the fracture surface to quantify the physical process of energy
dissipation was approached with two different proposals. The first was given by Mu and
Lung [26, 37], who proposed a phenomenological exponential relation between crack length
and the elastic energy released rate in the following form

GIC  GI 0 1 D , (108)

where  is the length of the measurement rule. The second proposal was given by
Mecholsky et al. [24] and Mandelbrot et al. [23], who suggested an empirical relation
between the fractional part of the fractal dimension D * and fracture toughness K IC ,

K IC ~ A  D * 
1/ 2
(109)

where A  E0 l0 is a constant and E0 is the stiffness modulus and l0 is a parameter that has
a unit length (an atomic characteristic length). The elastic energy released rate is then given by,

G0  El0 D * (110)

where G0C  K IC
2
/ E is the critical energy released rate.

The authors cited above used the Slit Island Method in their measurements of the fractal
dimension D and it is important to emphasize that both proposals have plausible
arguments, in spite of their mathematical differences. Observe that in the proposal of Mu
and Lung [26, 37] the fractal dimension appears in the exponent of the scale factor, while in
the proposal of Mecholsky et al. [24] and Mandelbrot et al. [23] the fractal dimension appears
as a multiplying term of the scale factor.

The mathematical expression proposed in this work, equation (93) and equation (97), for the
case J0  G0 , is compatible with the two proposals above and can be seen as a unification of
these two different approaches in a single mathematical expression. In other words, the two
previous proposals are complementary views of the problem according to the expression
deduced in this chapter.

A careful experimental interpretation must be done from results obtained in a J-R curve test.
The authors mentioned above worked with the concept of G , valid for brittle materials, and
not with the concept of J valid for ductile materials. The experimental results show that for
the case of metallic materials the fitting with their expressions are only valid in the initial
development of the crack because of the self-similar limit, while self-affinity is a general
characteristic of the whole fracture process [39].
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 101

The plane strain is a mathematical condition that allows defining a physical quantity called
K IC , which doesn't depend on the thickness of the material. The measure of an average
crack size along the thickness of the material, according to ASTM E1737-96 [15], is taken as
an average of the crack size at a certain number of profiles along the thickness. In this way,
any self-affine profile, among all the possible profiles that can be obtained in a fracture
surface, are statistically equivalent to each other, and give a representative average for the
Hurst exponent.

The crack height (corresponding to the opening crack test CTOD) follows a power law with
the scales,  h   v    l0 L0 and can be written as,

1 H
H 0  L0 
   (111)
h0  l0 

This relation shows that, while the measurement of the number of units of the crack length
N h  L0 l0 in the growth direction grows linearly, the number of units of the crack height
units N v  H0 l0 grows with a power of 1  H . If it is considered that the inverse of the
number of crack increments in the growth direction N h 1  l0 L0 is also a measure of
strain of the material, as the crack grows, and considering that the number of crack height
increments can be a measure of the amount of the piling up dislocation, in agreement with
equation (111), then the normal stress is of the type [44, 45]

 ~  H (112)

Observe that this relation shows a homogeneity in the scale of deformations, similar to the
power law hardening equation [34]. This shows that the fractal scaling of a rugged fracture
surface is related to the power law of the hardening. It is possible that the fractality of the
rugged fracture surface is a result of the accumulation of the pilled up dislocations in the
hardening of the material before the crack growth.

In all three situations (metallic, polymer and ceramic) the presence of microvoids, or other
microstructural defects, cooperate with the formation of ruggedness on the fracture surface.
This ruggedness on the way it was modeled records the "history" of crack growth being
responsible for the difficulty encountered by the crack to propagate, thus defining the crack
growth resistance. In EPFM literature, the rising of J-R curve for a long time has been
associated with the interposition of plane stress and plane strain conditions generating the
unique morphology of the fracture surface ruggedness [1, 2]. In metals this rising has been
associated with the growth and coalescence of microvoids [2]. However, the Fractal EPFM
has proposed that the morphology of the fracture surface, characterized by parameters of
fractal geometry, explains in a simple and direct way the rising of the J-R curves.

The success of fracture fractal modeling between the J-R curve and the exponent H can be
attributed to the following fact: a fracture occurs only after a process of hardening in the
102 Applied Fracture Mechanics

material, even minimal. Such a process follows a power law [35], self-similar [33], of the
stress applied,  with the strain  , as shown in equation (166). It is therefore possible to
associate the elasto-plastic energy released rate J which is an energetic quantity with the
applied stress  , which is an energy density, and the fracture length L0 with strain, and
  l / l and the ruggedness exponent H with the strain hardening exponent " n " [15]. As
the strain hardening occurs before the onset of crack growth, it is evident that its physical
result appears registered in the fracture surface in terms of ruggedness, created in the
process of crack growth. This process of crack growth admits a fractal scaling in terms of the
projected surface L0 , so it is possible that the effect of its prior work hardening is
responsible for the further self-affinity of fracture valid at the beginning of crack growth.
This is because in the limit of the beginning of crack growth, the fractal scaling relationship
is a self-similar power law, analogous to the power law hardening relationship [8, 33].
The technical standards ASTM E813 [40] and ASTM E1737-96 [15] suggest an exponential
fitting of the type

J0  C1L0C2 (113)

for the J-R curves. They do not supply any explanation for the nature of the coefficients for
this fitting. However, by comparing equation (113) with equation (97), it can be concluded
that C1  2 eff  2  H  l0H 1 and C2  1  H , which explains the physical nature of this
parameters;

8. Conclusions
The theory presented in this chapter introduces fractal geometry (to describe ruggedness) in
the formalism of classical EPFM. The resulting model is consistent with the experimental
results, showing that fractal geometry has much to contribute to the advance of this
particular science.

It was shown that the rising of the J-R curve is due to the non-linearity in Griffith-Irwin-
Orowan's energy balance when ruggedness is taken into account. The idea of connecting the
morphology of a fracture with physical properties of the materials has been done by several
authors and this connection is shown in this chapter with mathematical rigor.

It is important to emphasize that the model proposed in this chapter illuminates the nature
of the coefficients for the fitting proposed by the fractal model, which is the true influence of
ruggedness in the rising of the J-R curve. The application of this model in the practice of
fracture testing can be used in future, since the techniques for obtaining the experimental
parameters, l0 , H , and  eff can be accomplished with the necessary accuracy.

The method for obtaining the J-R curves proposed in this chapter does not intend to
substitute the current experimental method used in Fracture Mechanics, as presented by the
ASTM standards. However, it can give a greater margin of confidence in experimental
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 103

results, and also when working with the microstructure of the materials. For instance, in
search of new materials with higher fracture toughness, once the model explains micro and
macroscopically the behavior of J-R curves.

It is well known that the fracture surfaces in general are multifractal objects [9] and the
treatment presented here applies only to monofractals surfaces. However, for purposes of
demonstrating the ruggedness influence on the phenomenology of Fracture Mechanics,
through the models presented in this chapter, the obtained results were satisfactory. The
generalization by multifractality is a matter to be discussed in future work.

Author details
Lucas Máximo Alves
GTEME – Grupo de Termodinâmica, Mecânica e Eletrônica dos Materiais,
Departamento de Engenharia de Materiais, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Uvaranas,
Ponta Grossa – PR, Brazil

Luiz Alkimin de Lacerda

LACTEC – Instituto de Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento, Departamento de Estruturas Civis,
Centro Politécnico da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba – PR, Brazil

9. References
[1] Kraff, J.M.; Sullivan, A.M.; Boyle, R.W. (1962) Effect of Dimensions on Fast Fracture
Instability of Notched Sheets. In: Proceedings of the Cracks Propagation Symposium
Cranfield. England: The College of Aeronautics, Cranfield. 1: pp.8-28.
[2] Ewalds, H.L.; Wanhill, R.J.H. (1986) Fracture Mechanics. Netherlands: Delftse Uitgevers
Maatschappij, Third Edition, Co-Publication of Edward Arnold Publishers, London
1993.
[3] Hübner, H.; Jillek, W. (1977) Subcritical Crack Extension and Crack Resistance In
Polycrystaline Alumina. J. Mater. Sci. 12(1): 117-125.
[4] Swanson, P.L.; Fairbanks, C.J.; Lawn, B.R.; Mai, Y-M.; Hockey, B.J. (1987) Crack-
Interface Grain Bridging as a Fracture Resistance Mechanism In Ceramics: I,
Experimental Study on Alumina, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 70(4): 279-289.
[5] Mandelbrot, B.B. (1982) The Fractal Geometry of Nature, San Francisco, Cal-USA, New
York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
[6] Underwood, E.E.; Banerji, K. (1992) Quantitative Fractography,. Engineering Aspectes
of Failure and Failure Analysis. In: ASM - Handbook Fractography - The Materials
Information Society. ASTM 1996. 12: pp. 192-209
[7] Dauskardt, R. H.; Haubensak, F.; Ritchie, R.O. (1990) On the Interpretation of the Fractal
Character of Fracture Surfaces; Acta Metall. Matter. 38(2): 143-159.
[8] Borodich, F. M. (1997) Some Fractal Models of Fracture. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 45(2): 239-
259.
104 Applied Fracture Mechanics

[9] Xie, H.; Wang, J-A.; Stein, E. (1998) Direct Fractal Measurement and Multifractal
Properties of Fracture Surfaces, Physics Letters A. 242: 41-50.
[10] Herrmann, H.J.; Stéphane, R. (1990) Statistical Models For the Fracture of Disordered
Media, Random Materials and Processes. In: Series Editors: H. Eugene Stanley and
Etienne Guyon editors. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
[11] Rodrigues, J.A.; Pandolfelli, V.C (1998) Insights on the Fractal-Fracture Behaviour
Relationship. Materials Research. 1(1): 47-52.
[12] Mecholsky, J. J.; Passoja, D.E.; Feinberg-Ringel, K.S. (1989) Quantitative Analysis of
Brittle Fracture Surfaces Using Fractal Geometry, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 72(1): 60-65.
[13] Tanaka, M. (1996) Fracture Toughness and Crack Morphology in Indentation Fracture of
Brittle Materials. Journal of Materials Science. 31: 749-755.
[14] Xie, H. (1989) The Fractal Effect of Irregularity of Crack Branching on the Fracture
Toughness of Brittle Materials. International Journal of Fracture. 41: 267-274.
[15] ASTM E1737 (1996) Standard Test Method For J-Integral Characterization of Fracture
Toughness. pp.1-24.
[16] Alves, L.M. (2005) Fractal Geometry Concerned with Stable and Dynamic Fracture
Mechanics. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics. 44(1): 44-57.
[17] Williford, R. E. (1990) Fractal Fatigue. Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia. 24: 455-460.
[18] Chelidze, T.; Gueguen, Y. (1990) Evidence of Fractal Fracture, (Technical Note) Int. J.
Rock. Mech Min. Sci & Geomech Abstr. 27(3): 223-225.
[19] Dos Santos, S.F. (1999) Aplicação do Conceito de Fractais para Análise do Processo de
Fratura de Materiais Cerâmicos, Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade Federal de São
Carlos, São Carlos.
[20] Alves, L.M.; Silva, R.V.; Mokross, B.J. (2001) The Influence of the Crack Fractal
Geometry on the Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and Its Applications. 295(1/2): 144-148.
[21] Mandelbrot, B.B. (1977) Fractals: Form Chance and Dimension, San Francisco, Cal-USA:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
[22] Passoja, D.E.; Amborski, D.J. (1978) In Microsstruct. Sci. 6: 143-148.
[23] Mandelbrot, B.B.; Passoja, D.E.; Paullay, A.J. (1984) Fractal Character of Fracture
Surfaces of Metals, Nature (London), 308 [5961]: 721-722.
[24] Mecholsky, J.J.; Mackin, T.J.; Passoja, D.E. (1988) Self-Similar Crack Propagation In
Brittle Materials. In: Advances In Ceramics, Fractography of Glasses and Ceramics, the
American Ceramic Society, Inc. J. Varner and V. D. Frechette editors. Westerville, Oh:
America Ceramic Society 22: pp. 127-134.
[25] Rodrigues, J.A.; Pandolfelli, V.C. (1996) Dimensão Fractal e Energia Total de Fratura.
Cerâmica 42(275).
[26] Mu, Z.Q.; Lung, C.W. (1988) Studies on the Fractal Dimension and Fracture Toughness
of Steel, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 21: 848-850.
[27] Gong, B.; Lai, Z.H. (1993) Fractal Characteristics of J-R Resistance Curves of Ti-6Al-4V
Alloys, Eng. Fract. Mech. 44(6): 991-995.
[28] Yavari, A. (2002) The Mechanics of Self-Similar and Self-Afine Fractal Cracks, Int.
Journal of Fracture. 114: 1-27.
 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials Engineering 105

[29] Borodich, F. M. (1994) Fracture energy of brittle and quasi-brittle fractal cracks. Fractals
in the Natural and Applied Sciences(A-41), Elsevier, North-Holland, 61–68.
[30] Carpinteri, A.; Chiaia, B. (1996) Crack-Resistance as a Consequence of Self-Similar
Fracture Topologies, International Journal of Fracture, 76: 327-340.
[31] Bouchaud, E.; Bouchaud, J.P. (1994) Fracture Surfaces: Apparent Roughness, Relevant
Length Scales, and Fracture Toughness. Physical Review B, 50(23): 17752–17755.
[32] Mosolov, A.B.; Borodich, F.M. (1992) Fractal Fracture of Brittle Bodies During
Compression, Sovol. Phys. Dokl., May. 37(5): 263-265.
[33] Mosolov, A.B. (1993) Mechanics of Fractal Cracks In Brittle Solids, Europhysics Letters,
10 December. 24(8): 673-678.
[34] Anderson, T.L. (1995) Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press,
2th Edition.
[35] Kanninen, M.F.; Popelar, C.H. (1985) Advanced Fracture Mechanics, the Oxford
Engineering Science Series 15, Editors: A. Acrivos, et al. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Chapter 7, p. 437.
[36] Cherepanov, G.P.; Balankin, A.S.; Ivanova, V.S. (1995) Fractal fracture mechanics–A
review. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 51(6): 997-1033.
[37] Lung, C.W.; Mu, Z.Q. (1988) Fractal Dimension Measured with Perimeter Area Relation
and Toughness of Materials, Physical Review B, 38(16): 11781-11784.
[38] Lei, W.; Chen, B. (1995) Fractal Characterization of Some Fracture Phenomena, Eng.
Fract. Mechanics. 50(2): 149-155.
[39] Mandelbrot, B.B. (1991) Self-affine Fractals and Fractal Dimension. In: Family,
Fereydoon. and Vicsék, Tamás editors. Dynamics of Fractal Surfaces. Singapore: World
Scientific. pp.19-39.
[40] ASTM E813, (1989) Standard Test Method For Jic, A Measure of Fracture Toughness.
[41] Mazzei, A.C.A. (1999) Estudo sobre a determinação de curva-R de compósitos cerâmica-
cerâmica. Tese de Doutorado, DEMA-UFScar.
[42] ASTM D6068 - 10 (2002) Standard Test Method for Determining J-R Curves of Plastic
Materials, crack growth resistance, fracture toughness, JR curves, plastics, 96.
[43] Alves, L.M.; Da Silva, R.V.; De Lacerda, L.A. (2010) Fractal Modeling of the J-R Curve
and the Influence of the Rugged Crack Growth on the Stable Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Mechanics, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 77, pp. 2451-2466.
[44] Zaiser, M.; Grasset, F.M.; Koutsos, V.; Aifantis, E.C. (2004) Self-Affine Surface
Morphology of Plastically Deformed Metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 195507.
[45] Weiss, J. (2001) Self-Affinity of Fracture Surfaces and Implications on a Possible Size
Effect on Fracture Energy. International Journal of Fracture. 109: 365–381.
[46] Mishnaevsky Jr, L. (2000) Optimization of the Microstructure of Ledeburitic Tool Steels:
a Fractal Approach. Werkstoffkolloquium (MPA, University of Stuttgart).
[47] Fung, Y.C. (1969) A first course in continuum mechanics. N. J: Prentice-Hall, INC,
Englewood Criffs.
[48] Holian, B.L.; Blumenfeld, R.; Gumbsch, P. (1997) An Einstein Model of Brittle Crack
Propagation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78: 78–81, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.78.
106 Applied Fracture Mechanics

[49] Herrmann, H.J., Kertész, J.; De Arcangelis, L. (1989) Fractal Shapes of Deterministic
Cracks, Europhys. Lett. 10(2): 147-152.

View publication stats