Background On Fracture Mechanics
Background On Fracture Mechanics
7.3.1 VALIDITY
1
the theoretical, numerical, and experimental analyses of fracture. Today,
stress analyses of the complex geometry of structures as well as of test
specimens are provided by powerful computers using finite element
methods. The computed stress-intensity factor K1 in mode I, which governs
the strength of the singular field near the crack tip, depends linearly on the
applied load. Its critical value, related to the toughness K1c of the material, is
obtained by measuring the critical load Fe at the onset of unstable crack
propagation. Strictly speaking, this scheme is an ideal one and can be used
only under restricted conditions involving the geometry of the specimen, the
flow stress level, etc. For example, there exist empirical conditions on
the crack length a which must be greater than b, the specimen thickness,
and the flow stress a»b»2.5(K�c/<J0) 2. These empirical conditions result
from test data and co rres pond to the smallness of the process zone size
compared to a length scale. It also expresses the condition of smallness
of plastic deformation when compared to elastic strain. This is the
small-scale yielding assumption.
The velocity field dud dt is also singular at the crack tip and yields an
alternative mean for characterizing the strength of the singularity. As a matter
of fact, near the crack tip, the velocity is related to the displacement by
dud dt � voud OX], or to the crack opening displacement (COD) <l>i, because
-
in the vicinity of the crack tip one has <l>i = [ui(x1 - Vt, x2) ], where [.] denotes
the jump across the crack surface. Hence there exist three crack opening
displacement intensity factors, in the form
K ?) =
1
lim(r---+ O)y <l>i(j)(2n/r) /2, i(I) = 2, i(II) = 1, i(III) = 3 (2)
2
7.3.3 PLANE STRAIN, ANTIPLANE STRAIN,
AND PLANE STRESS
Equation 2 is valid for plane strain modes I and II, withy= pj(k + 1), and
k = 3 - 4v, J1 being the shear modulus, and v the Poissons ratio. The
mode III fracture corresponds to the antiplane shear loading with the
valuey p/4.
=
We do not give here the usual value y for the plane stress case,
because contrary to common belief, the formula for plane stress is
questionable. To show that, remember that the plane stress assump
tion implies that the normal strain a33(x1,x2) = -v(!Tu + !T22)/E is a func
tion of the first two coordinates x1, x2 because !TiJ does. The compatibility
equation for a33(x1,x2) implies that all partial second derivatives with
respect to x1, x2 are equal to zero; hence it may be a linear function
of the coordinates a33 (x1,x2) = ax1 + bx2 +c. Clearly, the compatibility
condition is violated in the vicinity of the crack tip because precisely
1
the strain component a33(r, 8) as given in the textbook is singular as r /2 . -
This contradicts the linear function variation. Hence the common belief
that for thin shells the formula for plane stress prevails near the crack
tip is questionable.
(3 )
3
The multiplicity of crack tip parameters raises the question, What is the
true parameter measured in testing materials in dynamic fracture, stress- or
velocity-intensity factors? If the onset crack propagation velocity V is not
negligible, or undetermined, the critical state determining the toughness of
the material from experimental results may be differently interpreted by
inappropriate formulae for stress-intensity factors.
A plastic correction to the linear elastic solution was first given heuristically
by Irwin. In the plastic zone, defined by the overstressed region, the normal
stress a22 is cut off to the constant yield stress a0. Later, an exact solution
taking account of perfect plasticity was provided by Rice [1 5] for the
antiplane shear loading of a semi-infinite crack. The plastic zone is a circle
passing through the crack tip. According to modern terminology, the plastic
field is the inner solution while the elastic field governed by the stress
asymptotics a3i � Kmr-112g(8) at infinity, r-+ oo (not for r-+ 0), is the outer
solution. Rice [15] gives an exact solution matching inner and outer
solutions. This solution has been generalized by Bui and Ehrlacher [3 ] to a
notch with the slit width 2h =/:. 0 and the notch geometry to be determined in
such a way that a3r = ao along the notch. It is found that the notch is a cusped
cycloid and that the elastic-plastic boundary is a curled cycloid. For the
limiting case where a0-+ oo, one recovers Rice's solution for the crack h-+ 0
with the circular plastic zone. The notch solution can be interpreted as an
elastic-brittle damage model where the material inside the slit has been totally
damaged (zero stress state). The slit of thichness 2h is the wake damage zone,
and the cusped cycloid is the damage front.
4
7.3.7 VISCOPLASTIC SOLUTION
The process zone is likely a high-stress region where viscous plastic flow may
occur. An asymptotic inner solution for r-+ 0 has been provided by Hui and
Riedel [ 10 I in the case of steady state propagation of a crack, with the velocity
V and without inertial force. The Norton and Hoff visco-elastoplastic law
without threshold is considered in the form
£r = C1ar +B lalm-l s (m � 3 ) (4)
(the superscript r means "rate", sr is the strain rate, ar is the stress rate, sis the
stress deviator, and lal is the von Mises deviator norm). In antiplane shear
loading, the nonlinear equilibrium equation corresponding to this law has
been given by Kachanov [ll] in terms of the stress function I/J(x1,x2):
-V11(81/J/8x ) + 1J div{lgrad 1/Jim-lgrad 1/1} 0 (5)
l
=
(a31 =
-1/1.2, a32 1/1_1), with suitable boundary conditions on the crack tip.
=
Paralleling with the simple approach of LEFM, a more elaborate avenue based
on energetic considerations was followed by various authors, and notably by
Irwin in the late 1950s and 1960s. This other approach was initiated by
Griffith in the 1920s. Griffith showed that an energetic analysis of a quasi
statically growing crack led in a natural way to some propagation criterion
5
involving a critical value of the so-called energy release rate G, which could be
related to the derivative of the overall stiffness K (or compliance C) of the
body considered with respect to the crack length a, G = -(l/2)u2dK/da (or
G = (l/2)T2dC/da). This led to a simple interpretation of G in the overall
strain-overall stress diagram. From there, Irwin proved a famous relation
connecting G to the stress-intensity factors, for example, in plane strain mixed
modes I and II
(6)
This established the equivalence of Irwin's propagation criterion
involving the stress-intensity factor(s) and Grifftith's one involving the energy
release rate.
Also, Rice [ 15] and Cherepanov [6] simultaneously established the
existence of a line integral noted ] (or r in Russian), the contour of which
must surround the crack tip and which possessed the following nice
properties: first, it is independent of the integration contour; second, it is
equal to G and thus, by Irwin's formula, connected to the stress-intensity
factor(s). If the crack is not loaded in pure mode I, the expression of] involves
all three stress-intensity factors, so that not all values of these three quantities
can be deduced from that of ]. However, at least in mixed mode I + II, the
problem of separating the modes, that is, of deducing the values of both stress
intensity factors from Rice-type integrals, was solved by Bui [4]. The main
interest of Rice's ]-integral is essentially numerical: indeed, it allows us to
evaluate the stress-intensity factors through numerical integration on a path
located far from the crack tip, thus circumventing the difficulty of such an
evaluation from the unavoidably somewhat inaccurate values of the near-tip
mechanical fields.
The first approach to ductile fracture, that is, fracture of materials undergoing
considerable plastic deformation prior to failure, was based on Rice's
]-integral. Indeed, the property of invariance of ] with respect to the
integration path remains true in nonlinear elasticity, which made it tempting
to apply it to problems involving plasticity (unloading effects being
disregarded). In this approach, propagation was assumed to occur when
some critical value of ] was reached, this critical value being allowed to
depend upon the crack length. This theory was later named the global
approach to ductile rupture, since it did not rely on any detailed
micromechanical analysis of the mechanism of ductile rupture, that is,
nucleation, growth, and finally coalescence of voids, through breaking of the
6
inclusions-matrix interfaces or the inclusions themselves and subsequent
plastic flow of the matrix. In contrast, the more modern theory of ductile
rupture, named the local approach, is based on such an analysis. As years
passed, the superiority of the latter approach has become clear, although the
older one is still widely used in practical problems. A first, a seminal
contribution was made by Rice and Tracey [ 16]; it consisted of an
approximate analysis of the growth of a void in an inifinite plastic matrix
loaded arbitrarily at infinity. Later, approximate criteria for porous plastic
solids were proposed by Rousselier [ 14], who extended Rice and Tracey's void
model, and Gurson [9], who proposed a model based on an approximate limit
analysis of a typical elementary cell in a porous medium (hollow sphere). This
model has become very popular. It was recently extended by Gologanu et al.
[8] to incoporate void shape effects, which were neglected in Gurson's model
of spherical voids. Void growth in plastic solids is thus now fairly understood
and described by suitable models. Therefore, the theoretical analysis of
coalescence has now become the major challenge in the local approach
to ductile rupture.
This phenomenon is very complex and is influenced by numerous factors,
such as void shape, inhomogeneities in the distribution of cavities, the
presence of a second population of secondary, smaller voids, etc. Significant
contributions have already been made in this direction, but much remains
to be done.
7
corresponds to the domain of short cracks, studied by metallurgists at the
scale of some microns. Different empirical formulae are proposed to correlate
the crack growth rate with the local shear stress acting on the gliding
plane of microcracks and/ or plastic sliding shear along these planes.
Nevertherless, the way to evaluate these quantities is questionable; these
local quantities differs from macroscopic stress fields because the medium is
no longer homogeneous at the microscopic scale. The scale to be considered is
the grain size. There are stresses induced by incompatible plastic strain in
grains. An attempt to evaluate the incompatible stresses is provided by Dang
Van [7] for high cycle fatigue. This model is based on an elastic shakedown
hypothesis at all scales.
7.3.11 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1. Achenbach,]. D., and Bazant, Z. (1972). Elastodynamic near tip stress and displacement fields
for rapidly propagating cracks in orthotropic materials. ]. Appl. Mech. 97: 183.
2. Bui, H. D. (1977). Stress and crack displacement intensity factors in elastodynamics. 4th Proc.
Int. Conf. Fracture, vol. 3, Waterloo.
8
3. Bui, H. D., Ehrlacher, A. (1981). Propagation of damage in elastic and plastic solids, in
Advances in Fracture Mechanic, p. 533, vol. 3, Francois, D., et al., eds., Oxford-New York:
Pergamon Press.
4. Bui, H. D. (1983). Associated path-independent ]-integrals for separating mixed modes.].
Mech. Phys. Solids 31: 439.
5. Bui, H. D. (1993). Introduction au.x problbnes inverses en mecanique des materiau.x, Paris:
Eyrolles. English translation Inverse Problems in the Mechanics of Materials: An Introduction,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1994.
6. Cherepanov, G. P. (1968). Cracks in solids. Int.]. Solids Struct. 4: 811.
7. Dang Van, K., and Papadopoulos, T. Y. (1997). High cycle metal fatigue: From theory to
applications.
8. Gologanu, M., Leblond, J.-B., Perrin, G., and Devaux,]. (1997). Recent extensions of Gurson's
model for porous ductile metals, in Continuum Micromechanics, chapter 2, pp. 61-130,
Suquet, P., ed., Springer-Verlag.
9 . Gurson, A. L. (1977). Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and
growth: Part I. Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. ASME]. Engng. Mat.
Tech. 99: 2-15.
10. Hui, C. Y., and Riedel, H. (1981). The asymptotic stress and strain field near the tip of a
growing crack under creep conditions. Int.]. Fract. 17: 409.
11. Kachanov, L. M. (1978). Crack under creep conditions. Izv. An SSR Mekhanika T verdogo Tela
9(1): 57.
12. Kitagawa, H., and Takahashi, S. (1976). Applicability of fracture mechanics to very small
cracks or cracks in the early stage. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Mechanics of Behavior of Materials.
ICM2, Boston, Metal Parks, Ohio: American Metals Society.
13. Miller, K. (1997). T he three thresholds for fatigue cracks propagation. Fatigue and Fracture
Mechanics, pp. 267-286, vol. 27, Piascik, R. S., et al., eds.,
14. Rousselier, G. (1981). Finite deformation constitutive relations including ductile fracture
damage. Proc. 1UTAM Symposium, on ductile fracture and 3D constitutive equations, Dourdan.
Nemat-Nasser, S. N., ed., North-Holland.
15. Rice, ]. R. (1968). Mathematical analysis in the mechanics of fracture, in Fracture, p. 2,
Liebowitz, H., ed., New York: Academic Press.
16. Rice,]. R., and Tracey, D. M. (1969). On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress
fields.]. Mech . Phys. Solids 17: 201-217.
17. Willis, ]. (1997). Asymptotic analysis in fracture, Proceedings ICF9, vol. 4, 1849-1859,
Karihaloo, B. K., et al., eds., Pergamon.