Near threshold fatigue crack growth versus long finite life

P. C. PARIS and H. TADA

Mechanical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
Received in final form 17 June 2002

ABSTRACT A brief review of the discovery of the fatigue crack growth threshold is provided with a
discussion of the main variables, Kmax and DK, which control the threshold over the low
and high load ratio ranges, respectively. The significant effect on near threshold growth
rates as illustrated by Donald are shown, for an example the aluminium alloy, 2324-T39.
Attention is then turned to the `partial closure model' as a means of correlating near
threshold fatigue crack growth rates. This seems to be the most promising model with a
physical basis. For this reason, the discussion goes on to present a new theoretical
analysis of the load displacement record characteristics, which should accompany `partial
closure' of fatigue cracks. In addition it is concluded that secondary stress effects should
be explored for near threshold fatigue crack growth rates.
Keywords fatigue crack growth; fatigue cracking threshold; giga-cycle fatigue; load
displacement characteristics; partial closure model.
NOMENCLATURE a ˆ half crack length
b ˆ half length of a uniformed wedge in a crack
d ˆ distance between the end of a wedge and the crack tip
E' ˆ effective modulus of elasticity
2h ˆ D ˆ the total height of a dislocation wedge in a crak
K ˆ the crack tip stress intensity factor
 appl Kmax ˆ the stress intensity for fully opened, or applied (bar means
Kopen, Kappl, K
normalized), or maximum for a crack.
l, l ˆ the distance back from a crack tip to the opening point for a full
dislocation wedge (bar means normalized).
R ˆ load ratio of minimum to maximum for cyclic loading
v, v ˆ crack surface displacement (bar means normalized).
x, x ˆ horizontal coordinate (bar means normalized)
dN ; dN ˆ crack growth for cycle of load
da d…2a†

DK ˆ the cyclic range of the crack tip stress intensity

DKeff, DKth ˆ the effective or threshold stress intensity range
 ˆ the remotely applied uniform stress (bar means normalized)
s, s

per cycle had been observed but nothing slower was

INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a development of interest
in very high cycle fatigue in the `gigacycle' (109 cycles)
range, see for example.1, 2 Up to the middle 1960s slow
fatigue crack growth rates between 10 7 and 10 8 inches
Correspondence: P. C. Paris, Mechanical Engineering, Campus Box 1185,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA. E-mail: pcp@mecf.
wustl.edu
known to these authors. The greatest range of data avail-
able was that provided by McEvilly3 in the 1950s on 7075-
T6 aluminium alloy. Figure 1 shows these data down to a
rate of about 2  10 8 inches per cycle. In the mid-'60s, the
straight line fit of the data on a double log plot covered
the full range of the data4 and the question arose whether
it would apply to even lower growth rates or whether
there would be some lower limit of the straight line fit.

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733 727
728 P. C. PARIS and H. TADA

103 70

60
Limits of data
102
∆K (Ksi in)

50

∆K − Ksi in
from Fig. 1
40
10
30

20
1
10−8 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10
10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6
d(2a) d(2a)
(In/Cycle) (In /Cycle)
dN dN

Fig. 1 Fatigue crack growth data from McEvilly3 for 7075 T-6. Fig. 2 First threshold growth rates in 7075 T-6 by Lindner,5 1965.

OBSERVATION OF A THRESHOLD STRESS

5 ⫻ 10−7
INTENSITY FACTOR FOR FATIGUE CRACK
GROWTH
In 1965 Lindner5 observed growth rates in 7075T-6 as
slow as 2  10 10. These tests were run in a Vibrafore 2 ⫻ 10−7
machine at about 150 Hz, and the minimum growth
increment was elected as 0.01 inches to assure accuracy.
Therefore for one data point, it took as much as 15 days 10−7
continuous run, once steady growth was being observed.
Testing went on continuously for several months to
da/dN (In/ Cycle)

obtain the data shown on Fig. 2, which easily qualifies 5 ⫻ 10−8

for `gigacycle testing'. The lower limit for the stress
intensity factor, K, which was measured, was thought to
be a threshold (but the possibility it might be an affect-
ation of test technique made us reluctant to make such a 2 ⫻ 10−8
claim at that time).
Later, about 1968, R. Churchill and H. R. Hartmann
representing MTS Systems, provided a servo-hydraulic 10−8
testing system, which attained 200±250 Hz for some
threshold tests6 running open loop (void of feedback
control). The data from these tests on helicopter gear 5 ⫻ 10−9
steel, 9310, are shown on Figs 3 and 4. Here the effect of
load ratio on thresholds was observed to be strong.
Moreover the rounding to a threshold was observed to
be at about a growth rate of a Burger's Vector per cycle. 2 ⫻ 10−9
Later in the early '70s an electro-dynamic shaker was 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0
used to produce tests at cyclic rates up to 1000 Hz ob- ∆K (Ksi in )
serving data on thresholds over a wide range of load ratio
values.7 It was noted that for low load ratios, Kmax was Fig. 3 Verification of the threshold effect in 9310 steel,6 1968.
the controlling parameter, whereas for high load ratios
the applied DK controlled. This is shown on Figs 5, 6,
and 7 for 2024T-3 aluminium alloys. An explanation of their results are shown in Fig. 8. They also provide
this behavior was offered in terms of a crack closure questioning of a crack closure model in favor of other
model. Similar observations were made for other mater- explanations of these threshold effects, especially the
ials in this work. influence of environment.
Quite recently, 1994, Vasudevan and Sadananda8 have Further, the results of attempting to correlate fatigue
shown the advantages of plotting Kmax vs. DK in observ- crack growth rate data in the near threshold regime
ing the influence of environment on thresholds. Some of by Donald9 show some promise of clarifying matters.

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733
 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES 729

10−5 2 ⫻ 10−7

10−7 580 Hz
832 and
1000 Hz
342 Hz

5 ⫻ 10−8

10−6

da/dN (In/ Cycle)

2 ⫻ 10−8

10−8
da/dN (In/ Cycle)

342 Hz
580 Hz
832 Hz
10−7 1000 Hz
5 ⫻ 10−9

∇K ∇K R = 0.8

2 ⫻ 10−9
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.5 2 3 4 5
∆K (Ksi in )

10−8 Fig. 5 High frequency threshold data on 2024 T-3,7 1970.

2.5

2.0
10−9 ∆ K th
3 10 30
∆K (Ksi in ) (Ksi in)
1.5
Fig. 4 More data on 9310 showing load ratio effect,6 R ˆ 0 and 0.9. 300 Hz
da < 2×10 −8
in/Cycle
dN
1.0 ARREST POINTS

Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show his results in correlating 580 Hz

da < 2×10−8
in/Cycle
data from a wide range of load ratios into a single curve, 0.5 dN
ARREST POINTS
successively improving with a modified closure model
(his adjusted compliance ratio) plus an adjustment for
0
maximum stress intensity, as well. The data shown are 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
for 2324T-39 aluminium alloys for illustration here but it 7
Fig. 6 K-range threshold vs. load ratio for 2024 T-6 .
should be noted he has equally good results on many
other alloys. This very good correlation leads to the hope
that perhaps a closure model will be relevant.
closure being caused by interference of disparities of
roughness of the crack surface mismatching as illustrated
THE PARTIAL CLOSURE MODEL in Fig. 13. For uniform height of roughness with a gap at
the tip, it was shown in10 that the minimum K in a cycle
Recently, your authors here and Donald10 suggested an
of loading is the apparent opening, Kopen, from load
alternative closure model, which may have some merit.
displacement records times the factor p2. This means
In the doctoral thesis of Bowles it was found that cracks
that the effective range of the stress intensity factor
close but not all the way to the crack tip. Injecting
would be:
hardening plastic into a crack and allowing it to close
demonstrated an open region, always present near the 2

Keff ˆ Kmax Kopen ˆ
K
tip. For plane strain conditions this is consistent with p

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733
730 P. C. PARIS and H. TADA

FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES

25 10−1 Spec R or K KGRAD DK
300 Hz
da =LT4 0.10 −0.08 OP1
< 2 ⫻ 10−8 in/Cycle 10−2 =LT1 0.30 −0.08 OP1
dN =LT2 0.50 −0.08 OP1
20 =LT7 0.70 −0.08 OP1

da/dN (mm/cycle)
Kmax 10−3 =Data corrected for closure
ARREST POINTS
(Ksi in) 10−4
15 580 Hz
da
< 2 ⫻ 10−8 in/Cycle 10−5
dN
10 ARREST POINTS 10−6

10−7
5
10−8
1 10 100
0 ∆K (MPa m )
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R Fig. 10 The same 2324 T-39 data by Donald with the effective
K-range corrected for crack closure.
Fig. 7 K-maximum threshold vs. load ratio for 2024 T-3.7

K max (Air) Kmax (Vac) FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES

30 10−1 Spec R or K KGRAD DK
JISSUS 304 STAINLESS STEEL
= LT4 0.10 −0.08 ACR1
Usami et al. (1983) 10−2 = LT1 0.30 −0.08 ACR1
= LT2 0.50 −0.08 ACR1
R<0 R>0 = LT7 0.70 −0.08 ACR1
da/dN (mm/cycle)

Vacuum 10−3 =Data corrected for closure

∆K th, (MPa m)

20 Dry air
10−4

10−5

10 10−6

10−7
∆K th (Vac) 10−8
∆K tn (Air) 1 10 100
0 ∆K (MPa m )
0 10 20 30
K max (MPa m )
Fig. 11 The same 2324 T-39 data with the K-range corrected by
Donald's ACR technique (adjusted compliance ratio).
Fig. 8 A K-range vs. K-max plot for air vs. vacuum by Vasudevan
and Sadananda,8 1994.

FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES

10−1 Spec R or K KGRAD DK 10−1
Spec R or K KGRAD DK
LT4 0.10 −0.08 Appl = LT4 0.10 −0.08 ACR1
10−2 LT1 0.30 −0.08 Appl 10−2 = LT1 0.30 −0.08 ACR1
LT2 0.50 −0.08 Appl = LT2 0.50 −0.08 ACR1
LT7 0.70 −0.08 Appl = LT7 0.70 −0.08 ACR1
da/dN (mm/cycle)

10−3
da /dN (mm/cycle)

10−3 =Data corrected for closure

Kmax sensitivity (n) = 0.250
10−4 10−4 4
1
10−5 10−5

10−6 10−6

10−7 10−7

10−8 10−8
1 10 100 1 10 100
∆K (MPa m ) ∆K 1−n * K maxn (MPa m)

Fig. 9 Various load ratios, R ˆ 0.1 ±0.7, for crack growth rate data Fig. 12 The same 2324 T-39 data plotted using an ACR adjusted
based on applied K-range for 2324 T-39 by Donald.9 K-range/K-max sensitivity parameter by Donald.9

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733
 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES 731

A physical representation of conditions max. maximum K as well). It gives the partial closure model
load
Contact
C.O.S.
plastic reasonable credibility.
+
zone Therefore we shall proceed herein to explore analytic-
reversing
ally the character to be expected of load displacement
plastic relationship for full and partial closure of fatigue
Contact open zone cracks.
Wake

Computational elastic model

k=? ANALYSIS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF

d LOAD ± DISPLACEMENT RECORDS
2h
First let us look into the load displacement records of
fully closing cracks as might be caused by interference all
effective crack length along a crack surface. The model for such a crack is
(conditions at minimum or no load) shown in Fig. 15. Now if there were no wedge of dispar-
Fig. 13 A proposed physical and analogous computational model
ities interfering along the crack surface the displacements
for the `partial closure model'.10 of the near tip crack surfaces would be:
p
2 2 p
n…x; 0† ˆ p Kappl x
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES p
10−1
Test ID R or K
2324−1 −1.00
DK
2/PI0
On the other hand with a wedge of constant thickness,
10−2 2324−2 0.10 2/PI0 D, inserted into the crack all the way to the tip:
2324−3 0.30 2/PI0
r
  r

x  x
2324−4 0.50 2/PI0
da/dN (mm/cycle)

10−3 2324−5 0.70 2/PI0

1

Data corrected for closure
n…x; 0† ˆ ‡ 1‡ tan 1‡
10−4 2 p l l
 0 2
1 E

10−5
for x < l where: l ˆ 8p Kappl
Or:
10−6


n…x; 0† ˆ for lx0
10−7 2
10−8 Or:
0.1 1 10 100
∆K (MPa m )
n…x; 0† ˆ 0 for 0  x
The basis for this analysis is given in more detail in.11
Fig. 14 Donald's 2324 T-39 data replotted using the K-range
Appropriately normalizing the parameters involved leads
adjusted by the partial closure model, 2/pi factor.
to the two curves on Fig. 16. It is noted that the curve for
the crack with the wedge all the way to the tip never
becomes linear although it is asymtotic to the linear
y behavior of the crack, which is always open. (Note that
v (x,0)
the ASTM method for identifying the crack opening
Kappl point would give incorrect answers.)
Next the case of a centrally cracked wide (infinitely)
∆ x panel under uniform tension, s, will be considered with
a crack of length, 2a, and a uniform thickness wedge of
length, 2b, as shown in Fig. 17. For the case of the fully
l filled crack, b ˆ a, the analysis may be taken directly
from11 where the displacement is that which would
occur on the crack surfaces at the center of the crack.
For this case the result is:
Fig. 15 The local crack tip region of the fully closing crack model. 2 3
s
 2
n…0; 0† l l l
n ˆ ˆ1‡s 4 1 sin 1 5
Donald's data9 is shown again on Fig. 14 using this DK,
= a a a
2
and in addition includes data for R ˆ 1. This is as good q
as any other correlation method for Donald's data,

2 2
where al ˆ 1  ˆ Es0
for s
and s   p2 .
including all other alloys (and could be adjusted for p
s … 4a †

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733
732 P. C. PARIS and H. TADA

y s
v (x,0) 2v (0,0) y
kappl ∆
∆ x

l
x
b b
a a
6 s

2v (x,0)
v (x,0) =
5 ∆
2n(0,0) 2.20
Kappl
v= ;s = s
Kappl = ∆
E´ ∆ 2 ( E´∆ (
4a
x=x
4 ∆
l = ∆l = 1
1.67
appl

2
8π K appl b=1
4 2 −x K

a
3
0.9
π

1.25 0.8

2
1

s
0.6

v
0.835

=
0
=

s
0.714
∆

1 2 0.668
2 π
π
b=0
a
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
v (x,0)
0
0 1 2
Fig. 16 Analytical results for the fully closing crack model plotted v
using normalized K-applied vs. crack surface displacements.
Fig. 18 Analytical results for the partial closure model plotted
using normalized load (stress) vs. central crack surface displacement.
s

intermediate ratios it was found that the curves are tan-

2v (0,0) y gent to the straight lines shown and the exact values of
the points of tangency are given for each curve. Note that
∆ these tangency points on the sloped line are the crack
opening points and that they would be very difficult to
identify experimentally, especially as b gets to be a value
x close to that of a. Figures 19 and 20 give the results for
this model for the stress intensity vs. displacement and
b b for the stress intensity vs. the applied stress.
a a These results are informative as to the limiting behavior
of crack closure phenomena. They relate to the feasibility
of the partial closure model and show that the full closure
s model may not be reasonable. This is left as a matter of
Fig. 17 The computational partial crack closure model for a
future interest here.
centrally cracked sheet subjected to uniform tension.

CONCLUSIONS
However:
2 1 We have been trying to sort out the variables in the near
n ˆ 1 for s

p threshold range since 1965. Progress was gained with the
For other ratios of b to a, the analysis becomes very development of more rapid test machines and improved
complicated and is omitted here for practicality of this testing techniques.
work. However, the results are graphically shown in 2 The partial closure model still shows some promise and
Fig. 18 where the case given above, and that for b ˆ 0, bears further exploration. However no model available to
form the bounds for other ratios of b to a. For these date seems to be consistent with all behavior patterns

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733
 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RATES 733

s s

y
2v (0,0) y 2v (0,0)
∆
∆
x
x b b
b b a a
a a
s 3.20
s 3.20
3 3
2v (0,0) K s K
; K= s= ; K=
v=
∆ (E´∆ ( πa ( E´∆ ( ( E´∆ ( πa
4a 4a 4a
b
=
a 0.95 2.20
2.20
2.09 2
2 1.99

1.67 1.67
K 1.54 0.8 s
1.38
1.25
1.18 1.25
0.6 1
1 0.952 1.00
0.835
0.714 0.668 0.653
0.627

K
v

0.6
=
=

a = 0.95
0.8
s

0.9
K

b
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
v
K

Fig. 20 Partial closure model results plotting normalized load vs.

Fig. 19 Partial closure results using normalized K vs. central crack central crack surface displacement.
surface displacement.

observed, i.e. we do not wish to claim too much for this
model.
3 The first known analytical results for load vs. displace-
ment vs. crack tip stress intensity have been given here as
a guide to potential experimental crack closure behavior
and especially to show some experimental difficulties to
be encountered.
4 It remains to continue to explore the secondary variables
associated with near threshold fatigue crack growth and
consequential effects on `gigacycle' fatigue behavior.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Professor Stefanie Tschegg
for the motivation to prepare this work and the oppor-
tunity to present it. This work is a portion of an effort for
the US Office of Naval Research. The encouragement of
Dr A. K. Vasudevan has been most helpful in the pro-
gress of this work and is acknowledged with thanks.
10 Paris, P. C., Tada, H. and Donald, J. K. (1999) `Service load fatigue
REFERENCES
11 Tada, H., Paris, P. C. and Irwin, G. R. (2000) The stress analysis
1 Bathias, C. (1999) `There is no infinite fatigue life in metalic
materials'. Fatigue Fract. Engng Mater. Struct. 22, 559±565.
2 Stanzl-Tschegg, S. (1999) `Fracture mechanisms and fracture
mechanics at ultrasonic frequency'. Fatigue Fract. Engng Mater.
Struct. 22, 567±599.
3 McEvilly, A. J. and Illg, W. (1958) The rate of fatigue crack
growth in two aluminum alloys, NASA-Technical Note no. 4394.
4 Paris, P. C. and Erdogan, F. (December 1963) . `A Critical
Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws' ASME, J. of Bas. Engng,
85, Series D, no. 4.
5 Linder, B. M. (1965) Extremely slow fatigue crack growth rates
in aluminum alloy 7075-T6, MSc Thesis (directed by Prof.
P. Paris), Lehigh University.
6 Paris, P. C., (1969) `Testing for Very Slow Growth of Fatigue
Cracks', Closed Loop Magazine (MTS Systems Corp.), 2, no. 5.
7 Schmidt, R. A. and Paris, P. C. (1973) `Threshold for fatigue
crack growth and the effects of load ratio and frequency',
ASTM-STP 536.
8 Vasudevan, A. K., Sadananda, K. and Louat, N. (1994) `A review
of crack closure, fatigue crack threshold related phenomena',
Materials Sci. Engng A188, 1±22.
9 Donald, J. K. and Paris, P. C. (1999) `An evaluation of effective
stress intensity range evaluation procedures on two aluminum
alloys' International J. Fatig., 21.
damage ± A historical perspective', International J. of Fati. 21.
of cracks handbook. ASME Press.

ß 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 25, 727±733