J. Mech. Phys. Solids,1967, Vol. IS, pp. 151 to 162. PcrgamonPress Ltd.

printed in Great Britain.

A COMPARISON

OF THE AND

FRACTURE

CRITERIA

OF GRIFFITH

BARENBLATT

By J. R. WILLIS
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge

(Received 23rd January

1967)

SUMMARY

THE TENDENCY of a crack to extend under applied loads is governed by the cohesive forces acting near the crack tip. The crack-extension criteria of Griffith and Barenblatt take account of the cohesive forces in rather different ways, but are both of the same form. Therefore, if they are to agree, the surface energy 2 appearing in the Griffith criterion must be related in a deilnite way to Barenblatts modulus of cohesion K. It is shown in this paper, from a detailed consideration of the cohesive forces, that the required relationship holds, in an asymptotic sense, if the forces act only over a short range; this is true in practice. Extension of the analysis to uniformly moving cracks then shows that K is a function of velocity, even for a perfectly elastic-brittle body. This has not been noted previously. Finally, the relative advantages of the two formulations are compared. 1. WHEN INTR~DUOTJ~N

two adjacent lattice planes of a crystalline body are separated from their equilibrium position, they attract one another according to some law of cohesion. The cohesive forces increase up to a critical separation, beyond which they decrease. If the separation is large enough, the cohesive forces are negligible and the lattice planes become the surfaces of a crack. If it is very small, the body still possesses cohesion and the separation is best regarded as a strain. The exact separation at which a crack is defined is arbitrary and the most appropriate definition depends upon the model of the body that is employed. If a lattice model is used, the definition is immaterial but, for more tractable continuum models, it is clearly important. In this paper we consider the simplest possible model : a linearly elastic-brittle continuum. For this model the cohesive forces are assumed to give the usual linear stress-strain relations up to fracture, after which the crack faces attract one another, the attraction being a function of their separation. This function is expected to be clearly defined for new crack surfaces but will be reduced if they are contaminated. Considering for illustration just a normal relative displacement y, there is only a normal attractive stress pnn and
Pnn <f(Yh (1-l)

with equality when the crack surfaces are clean and in particular when they are new. If the separation y is measured from equilibrium, f(0) = 0. However, it is 151

152

J. R. WILLIS

more convenient to measure y from the separation at which a crack is defined to start, any lower separation being regarded as a strain rather than a displacement. In this case, f(0) # 0 and the zero level has to be defined appropriately. This difficulty arises from approximating a lattice by a continuum, for which the relative displacement at the crack tip has to be zero. Since the strain field is defined by an averaging process, it can be seen that there is no real inconsistency. There have been two approaches to the fracture of an elastic-brittle continuum. The first, developed by GRIFFITH(1921), takes account of the cohesive forces by assigning to all crack surfaces a surface energy T per unit area, which is the work done against the cohesive forces in creating new surfaces. This energy then appears in an energy balance equation. As outlined in $2 the resulting fracture criterion can be expressed in a local form, which was first recognized by IRWIN (1957). The other approach is that of BARENBLATT(1959a, b), which accounts for the cohesive forces more explicitly. This too is reviewed in $2. It leads to a local fracture criterion exactly similar to that of Griffith. Therefore, if they are to yield the same results, there must be a definite relationship between the physical constants appearing in either formulation. This relationship was given by BARENBLATT (1962) but it was derived under the assumption that the two criteria agree. We justify this assumption theoretically in $3 by proving, from a detailed examination of the cohesive forces, that the relationship cited is true in an asymptotic sense. It is next observed that the analysis applies also, with only trivial modifications, to a uniformly moving crack. From this it emerges that Barenblatts modulus of cohesion depends upon the speed of the crack and is therefore not so fundamental a quantity as the surface energy which appears in the Griffith formulation. Finally, the relative advantages of either formulation are discussed.

2.

REVIEW OF THE

FRACTURE

CRITERIA

OF GRIFFITH

AND

BARENBLATT

This section contains a brief summary of the fracture criteria under examination. Considering a crack C in a linearly elastic body, let the stress, strain and displacement fields be prf, efj, uf respectively. Now SUpQose that the crack extends to C + SC, with the boundary conditions unchanged. Let the new fields be per + S~t3, etj -t- SeU, us + SW. Then the energy SU released in the extension SC equals the work required to close SC. Thus.

where no is a normal to SC and [ Sut] is the relative displacement of the crack faces. If the extension SC is possible, the energy released must at least equal the increase in surface energy 2TSC. Therefore, SU > 2TSC. (2.2)

If the inequality (2.2) is not satisfied for any SC, the crack cannot extend. If it is satisfied for some SC, the crack can, and therefore probably will, extend. This is really an additional assumption which has been discussed by CRAGGS (1963). The expression (2.2) is essentially Griffiths fracture criterion. It was originally

A comparison of the fracture criteria of Griffith and Barcnblstt

153

expressed as a global criterion and its local character, demonstrated by (2.2), was first, recognised by IRWIN (1957). Also, in its local form, it is independent of the type of boundary conditions that are applied. Thus, its use eliminates the need for the careful analysis of SPENCER (1965), who showed up the possible pitfalls in applying Griffiths criterion in its original form. For simplicity we consider henceforth an infinite body, in plane strain, with a plane crack occupying the position y = 0, x > 0. It can be shown that, near the crack tip, pyy(-O)=N/++O(l)
BS s -+ 0. Also, if the loading is symmetrical, pzy
(x, 0) = 0

(2.3)

and
(2.4)

v (Sl,

0) = f

2( l;

v, N+I v, N2/(h
h 0

+ 0 (Sl)f,

where v is the y-component of displacement and v is Poissons ratio. if the crack extends to LE = - h, where h is small, 6v (Hence
au = 4 0 h

Therefore

s, *

0) = &

2(l P

- s) + 0 (h32).

(2.5)
p ,&. (2.6)

p,,

2BvdS = 2 (1 - v) N2 CL

+ ds =

l--v
P

Griffiths criterion (2.3) then yields

r(l

-4N2>2T
I *

(2.7)

Another, independent, criterion of the form of (2.7) has been derived by BARENBLATT (1959a, b). He considers the cohesive forces in more detail and divides the crack into two regions, an edge region of width d, over which the cohesive forces are strong, and the remainder, over which they are negligible. He then makes the following two hypotheses

(9
(ii)

The width d of the edge region is small compared to the size of the whole crack. When the crack is about to propagate, the form of the normal section of the crack surface in the edge region (and consequently the distribution of the cohesive forces) does not depend upon the acting loads and is always the same under given conditions of temperature, etc.

These hypotheses are plausible if the cohesive forces are large and also decay rapidly to zero as the separation increases. In practice both of these conditions are satisfied. Since the stress at the tip of the crack is evidently finite, the cohesive forces must adjust themselves so that they reduce to zero the stress concentration factor N which the applied loads alone would produce. If N is too great, the cohesive forces cannot. cancel it and the crack will extend. In conjunction with hypotheses (i) and (ii), this leads to the criterion
N>K/n w3)

I.54

.J.R. WILLXS

for crack extension, where the modulus of cohesion K is a material constant. It is defined in terms of the acting cohesive forces in $3, where more detailed formulae are presented. From (2.7) and (2.8), if the two criteria are to agree, the relationship
jy2= fLTT

l-v must hold. 3. This is examined theoretically in the following section. Two CRITERIA

WQ)

PKOOF OF THE EQUIVALENCEOF THE

Consider an infinite body, under conditions of plane strain, with a crack occupying the position y = 0, X > 0. Let it be subjected to the loads
pzy = 0, y = 0, ;F 2 y = 0,

p,, = g(d

0, ;1: >, 0, 1

(3.1.)

pij -f 0, X2 + yz --f Co.

The load g (x) is the sum of the applied loads, - p (x), and the cohesive forces, G (x). G (x) is not known a priori, but obeys the law G (X) <f[2~ (X)1, (3.2)

with equality when the crack is about to extend. The function f has a large maximum value, fin, of the order of one-tenth of Youngs modulus (COTTRELL 1964) and f(2v) = 0 for 2v > 11, (3.3) where h is probably one or two lattice spacings. Thus the width d of the edge region of the crack is determined from the equation 2v (d) = h. It is shown by MCSKIIELISHVILI (1953a) (or see the Appendix) that (3.4)

(3.5)

(3.6) It can be shown that, as X -+ - 0, pyv (X, 0) = - _?. 1 rl/-x

a, -t g(0) + O($/c-8).

gL;F s 0 Therefore, if the stress at X = 0 is to be finite,

(3.7)

#!ib)dT = 2/T

oy/=

*G(T)&

(3.3)

A comparison of the fracture criteria of Griffith and Barcnblatt

155

In view of (sz),

(3.8) may be written as m P (4 d7 < K s 2/7 KoE mf[2v (41 d7 . s 1/T

(3.9)

where

(3.10)

Barenblatts second hypothesis material constant. Let us define

T = 3 0

ensures that the modulus of cohesion K is a m

s
fkd dy = 4 h

s
0

f(y)

dy.

(3.11)

Clearly T is a material constant, being independent of any particular deformation. However, we may also write d T = s j-[2v (z)] ; dx,
(3.12)

for any monotone increasing v (x) with v (0) = 0, d being obtained from (3.4). Now let ZI(x) be the solution of (3.6), when the crack is about to propagate, i.e. for G (7) =f[2V (T)]. A umq ue solution, monotone increasing in (0, d), is assumed to exist on physical grounds. Therefore,
__=

dv

dx

1-v __-

m? (7) 2/(T) dT _
7-Z

df[2v s
0

(T)] d(T)
7-X

d7
>

I.cr

4x IS

P (T)dT
(1/+-x)0

s
0
(T) <

df[2vb)-jdT (dT)(T-z) >

P for all
7

(3.13)

since (3.8) is satisfied. Now suppose that p 00 s

0

and that*

p(T) dT = 0 (PL).

Then by hypothesis, P/p < 1 and L is a characteristic length, large compared with lattice dimensions. Restricting attention now to values of ;1:= 0 (d), it is evident that
cc

(3.14)

while

(3.15)
0 *Here, and in what follows, the statement

which is not

quiteits

a =

0 (b) means that a and b are

of

the

fame

order

of magnitude,

usual mathematical

meaning.

156
The estimate (3.14) would

J. R. WILLIS be easy to establish rigorously. The rigorous proof of

(3.15) would depend upon an analysis of the non-linear

not appear to be simple. that it holds, appealing hypothesis, that d/L

equation

(3.13) and does

However, (3.15) is certainly plausible and we will assume to physical intuition. Now invoking Barenblatts first relation

< 1, we have, for x = 0 (d), the approximate

_=dx
dv when the crack is about to propagate. Thus, ZJ (x) is determined, first hypothesis inequality is readily established by deducing from (3.16)

(3.16)
to within small

quantities, by (3.16) and the edge region is indeed autonomous, the applied loads being only required to give equality in (3.9). The consistency of Barenblatts the approximate

v (x, + 0) <
where 2h log{@

20 - v)& Ax,
7r

(3.17) (3.18) (3.19)

the converse

CL

+ l)/(h

1)) = 0,

so that
h = 2v (d, + 0) < g! __- )h

7T

d = 0 (d). P
to prove

Thus,

if d is small, then h is small.

It would be valuable

result, thereby proving Barenblatts first hypothesis, but this is a less simple task, which again would depend upon an analysis of (3.13) or (3.16). Inserting (3.16) into (3.12) yields

T' = - -//[2u =CL

Therefore, T--l--v mP

(z)] (+z) drc:j: $;j:p;)

0 0

(1 + 0 [c /(;)I}.

(3.20)

+ 0 ;i(;#
0 0

(3.21)

by interchanging

x and 7. Hence,

by addition,

= Since K = 0 [fm (441 = 0 [P (2/d)]

K =

zKs{l

+ 0 [f&j]}.

(3.22)

and also

we may also write

T =

mp(7)dr ____ = s
zK2{1
+

0 [P (@)I,

o(;)}.

(3.23)

A comparison

of the fracture

criteria of Griffith and Barenblatt

157

Thus, if we identify T with T, the equivalence of the two criteria is proven. However, 2T is the work done in separating two lattice planes from their unstrained position, while 2T is the work done in separating them from their strained position, just prior to the formation of a crack between them. The definition of the start of a crack is arbitrary to some extent, but clearly some strain prior to cracking must be admitted, since otherwise the edge region would extend to minus infinity. Logically, the least objectionable definition is that the crack starts when the.tensile stress equals fm,the theoretical tensile strength of the body. It is then fairly obvious that the tensile stress away from the crack tip is less than this value and it is consistent to assume linear elasticity to hold up to this level of strain. Beyond this level, a crack forms and the faces attract one another according to the cohesive law (l.l), where f (y) decreases as y increases. Defining the crack to start at any lower stress level presents the inconsistency of assuming that linear elasticity applies for strains in the body larger than those which are given special non-linear treatment across the crack surfaces. Therefore, there is some rather ill-defined discrepancy between the two theories, which is small if the total area under f (y) approximately equals 2T. In practice, the difference is probably about 30 per cent (see e.g. TYSON 1966), if the crack is defined in the logical way, so that the two theories can only be made to agree if logic is sacrificed to some extent. Alternatively, they could probably be made to agree, in a logically consistent fashion, by admitting non-linear elastic behaviour of the material near the crack tip. However, the details of such a calculation would depend upon the precise form off(y) and it would therefore lack the generality of the simple linear theory outlined here. 4. EXTENSION TO UNIFORMLY MOVING CRACKS

The foregoing analysis applies also to a crack moving uniformly with speed V and driven by loads which move with it as, for instance, in wedging. Assuming that the loads are known, the relevant solution for purely normal loads is given in the Appendix. From (AGO), it may be seen that p,, (X, 0) is independent of the speed V. Therefore, Barenblatts fracture criterion gives no relationship between the loads and V unless the modulus of cohesion K depends upon V. It is fairly obvious that K does depend upon V since, from (A21), v (X, 0), and hence the distribution of the cohesive forces, depend upon V, even though this distribution may be independent of the magnitude of the applied forces. This point appears to have been overlooked by BARENBLATTand CHEREPANOV (1960) in their analysis of a wedging problem. They took K to be a constant and their results should therefore be slightly modified. The required function of V may be obtained by replacing (1 - V) by Vs (1 - Vs/crs)f/css D (V), in accordance with (A23), in the formulae of $3. This yields
(4.1)

GRAGGS (1960) considered the problem of a crack being driven by a step-function normal load and found a load-velocity relation by applying a Griffith-type energy balance. The Barenblatt criterion, with K given by (4.1), yields the same relation, if T and T are identified, as discussed in 93.

5.

COIWLUDIP~G REMAE~S

It has been shown, from a consideration of the cohesive force law, that the Barenblatt and Grifrith criteria are the same, provided that 1 is equated to 1. This requires the Barenblatt theory to sacrifice its logical consistency (in the linear approximation). It is also possible that T in the Grifbth theory should be defined from some non-zero level of strain. It seems unlikely, however, that it should be modified by any large amount for most materials, since the singularity in the energy density given by the linear solution is integrable and the strains are large only in a small region. Verification of this would require a full non-linear analysis for a particular force law. Such an analysis would be interesting from many points of view, but would involve either a numerical solution, or, perhaps, a cumbersome perturbation procedure; no simple analytic course is available. The extension of the (linear) ana.lysis to uniform motion has revealed that Barenblatts modulus of cohesion K depends upon velocity and the dependence has been found. This result appears to be new. It also raises the question of whether K would depend upon acceleration in a more general situation. This possibility cannot be ruled out and the safest course in tackling any new problem would be to employ the Griffith energy balance, even though the calculations may be a little more unwieldy. It can, in any case, always be expressed as a local criterion, if required in this form (RICE 1965). In conclusion, it appears that the Barenbtatt approach has no great advantage over that of Griffith, if used just to predict crack growth. Its advantage lies rather in offering a more realistic picture of the stresses near the tip of the crack, thereby improving knowledge of the basic mechanism of fracture. Unfortunately, there is one last di&ulty to be raised in this context. Analysis of (A25) reveals that pxx (X, 0) > p,, (X, 0) for all P > 0. Thus, since at some point of the X-axis, p,, = fm, the body is overstressed in the X-direction and the stress pattern predicted by the linear analysis of the Appendix cannot be adequate. The only exception to this is that, when V = 0, p,, =z pyy on the X-axis. Calculations based on the cohesive force distribution assumed by CKIBB and TOMKINS(1967) have shown that, at V = 0.5~2,the material is overstressed within a radius of about 05 cl of the crack tip. Evidently the complete answer again lies in a nonlinear analysis of the stresses near the crack tip. In this case, since the body is strained beyond the value for which p zz = fm, stress relaxation must occur and the mathematical problem would be analogous to one of plastic deformation, though with a different physical interpretation.

APPE~VDIX
This appendix gives the stress field due to a uniformly moving crack, in plane strain, whose position at time t is 2/ = 0, z -1. Ft > 0. The crack is driven by purely normal loads g (ir -+ Vt), so that the boundary conditions are

A comparison

of the fracture criteria of Griffith and Barenblatt

159

The method of solution leans heavily on that of CRAOGS(1960), except that here we solve a Hilbert problem while Craggs employed a conformal transformation. The derivation is included both for completeness and because the solution is not available elsewhere in the general form required. BARENBIATT and CHEREPANOV (1960) employed a very similar method in solving their problem of steady wedging. Introducing displacement potentials 4, $ so that 34 u=__+-, NJ bY n=---, 34 3y 24 bx

(-42)

the equations of motion of the body may be replaced by

a2 - 4 = cp V-J 4,
312 where

iJ2# = c22 v2 *,
a2
e22 = CL/P.

(A3)

Cl2 = (X + 2/4/p, Now set X = z + V1 and suppose (1 (1 Define z1 = X + i (1 V2/c12)* y,

(Ad)
(A3) then become

4 = 4 (X, y), # = 4 (X, y). Equations

V2/,12) +xX V2/c22) #xx + #I/v= 0, + SYV = 0.

(A5)

>
v2/c22p y.

z2 = X + i (1 -

W-7

From (A5), there exist analytic

functions

WI (zI), ~2 (22)such that w2 (22) = $ + iic, as functions of X, (1 (A?

WI (21) = 4 + ix,
where ,r, K are the conjugate and X, (1 Craggs now shows that @-lpzz = (2 +
v2/c22 -

harmonies

to 4, I/J, regarded

V~/CI~)*y,

V2/c22)* y respectively.

2V2/c12) Qxx

2 (1 V2/c22) v2/c22)*

V2/cI2)* KXX,
$xx, KXX. W)

&h-lp,y = - 2 (1 - Vs/,s)*
p-lpyy = -

xxx

(2 -

(2 -

Vs/czs) 4xX + 2 (1 d2 wa F , OT

Define
wa (za) = dl = 1,2.

W)

Then IV, (zc) --f 0 as lzcl --f co.

Therefore,

by Cauchys

theorem,

--m where the symbol 4 denotes

s
~ -; 7 -

WOL(T) d7
7-z

ci = 1, 2,4

(z) > 0,

WO)

the imaginary part of. Also,

t-J=
where z* denotes the complex

2?ri --cc

s
m

co

J+rx (4 dr
z*

a=1,2,4(z)>O,

conjugate

of z, so that

0s
Hence, from (A8),

27ri

--m

TV,* (7) dr
7-Z

a=1,2,9(z)>O.

(All)

160
00

J. R. WILLIS

1 !z 1

-co
_

PZ, (7) d7 -P=-7-Z s

2 (1 -

Ys/cls)6 IV1 (a)

(2 -

Y2/W) 2

Itd 4%)

2i
(2 v2/elqWl -.___-_p+-fz) Z(1 -

00
PYY(T)dT ~Z..... Y2/c# Wz(2)

(A159
7-Z 2 2i

2k s --m Setting p,,

(7) = 0 and pyv (7) = f (7) in (A12) and solving, we obtain

where D (V) _I 4 {I V/4$)6 (I P/e& (2 IQ/@)% (AM)

The equation D (V) = 0 is the secular equation for Rayleigh waves. At this point we depart from Craggs method. It is easily shown that
----=

au

- (1 -

P/Cis)*4

(Wl)

3X where the symbol 9 denotes t.he real part of. (see e.g. MUSRHELISHVII~I lWSb), we obtain &(X9 +o+-&-Fs(1 -

- .B (W2) f by employing the Ylcmelj formulae

Therefore,

Ye/c& r>(Y)

mf

(7) dr (A=)

Yip - 7 - Y s --m

where tbe Cauehy principal value of the integral is understood. The boundary conditions (Al) are now equivalent to

f(7) dT i--m

s
i0) =

S(T) dT = 0,
7-X

x <

0,

Deilne

WV
Thus F (z) +O as \zI i+ to and

F (X -f- io) + F (X The IIilbert

{MUSK~ELIS~I~

1 ?ri

l?(T) dT -,
T--X

x<o*

(A18)

problem

(Ala),

with F(m)

=1 0 and F (z) = 0 (z-*)

as z + 0, has the solution

1953b)

where 42 is analytic in the x-plane cut along 41 (z) = 0, &J (z) < 0. Evaluating respect to X then yields

the integral wit11

A comparison

of the fracture criteria of Griffith and Barenblatt

F(z)=-&
Hence, by the Plemelj formulae, p,, (X, 0) = f(X)

s
7-z

co

gw+ -

~ 1 27x-i (+A

g s
al
7-Z

161

(T) (2/T)dT

t-419)

= F (X + i0) - F (X - i0) m =--1 1 s

0

n (4-X) Also, IV1 (z), W2 (z) are known if

g (T) (2/r) 7-X

d+ ;

> o.

b4W

I(z) is known. From (A16) and (A17),

m

2; -(7) d7
7-Z

- ai

f s
m 1

(-421)

g s
~
7-Z Cl2

(7) dr

+ F (z) = -

1
0

g (7) (4~) s
7-Z

dr

b422)

2&(4Z)

Therefore, from (A15) and (A22), ;(x, +o)=--

- v2 (1 - V/c,+
L'(V) wc&v

g (T) (vT) d7, 7-X

>

(A23)

Letting

V + 0 in (A23) yields the static result (MUSKHELISHVILI1953a)

g s
co
1

(7) (2/d d+. 7-X

(A24)

The formulae (A20) and (A24) are used in 5 4. Another simple result, used in 5 5 is obtained from the first of (AS) and (A13). Expressing 4, Kin terms of WI, WZ and letting y --f + 0, it follows, using the Plemelj formulae, that

pm(X,

0) =

2 (2 - VJ/c22) (V/Q2
DO)

V2/c22) Pm > (X, 0).

It may be verified that, as V --f 0, pzz/pzlu where VR is the Rayleigh velocity.

-f 1 and that, for 0 < V < VR, 1 < p~~/pys

< ~0,

REFERENCES BARENBLATT, G. I. 1959a 1959b 1962 J. Appl. Math. Mech. 23, 622. Ibid. 23, 1009. Ado. Appl. Mech. 7, 55. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 24, 667. The Mechanical Properties of Matter (Wiley, New York). J. Meek Phys. Solids 8, 66. In Fracture of Solids (Edited by DRUCKER, D. C. and GILMAN, J. J.) (Interscience, New York). J. Mech. Phys. Solids 15, 135. Phil. Trans. R. Sot. A221, 163. J. Appl. Mech. 24, 361.

BARENBLATT, G. I. and CHEREPANOV,G. P. 1960 COTTRELL, A. M. 1964 CRAGGS,J.W. 1960

1963
CRIBB, J. L. and TOMKINS, B. GRIFFITH, A. A. IRWIN, G. R.

1967
1921 1957

162
MUSKEELISHVILI, N. I. 1953a 1953b RICE, J. R. SPENCER, A. J. M. TYSON, W. R. 1965 1965 1966

J. R. WILLIS Some Basic

Problems of the Mathematical (Noordhoff, Holland). Singular Integral Equations (Noordhoff, Brown University Report, Int. J. Engng Sci. 3, 441. Phil. Mag. 14, 925.

Theory of Elasticity
Holland).