Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

On the evaluation of the plastic zone size at the crack tip

Francesco Caputo ⇑, Giuseppe Lamanna, Alessandro Soprano
Second University of Naples, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, via Roma, 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The extension of the plastic zone which takes place at the tip of a crack strictly depends on
EPFM many variables, such as the yield stress of the material, the loading conditions, the crack
Plastic zone size size and the thickness of the cracked component; an exact analytical solution, such as to
Short cracks
evaluate the plastic zone size (PZS) while taking into account all those parameters, is not
yet available, mainly because of the difficulties in computing the stress–strain field ahead
of the tip of a growing crack.
In the present paper, by using a parametric 3D finite element model, the authors show
the results obtained from extensive numerical analyses which have been developed first
of all with the aim to assess the limits of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) param-
eters, when used to describe the stress state at the crack tip of both physically short cracks
and long cracks in presence of high loads. Subsequently, the combined influence of the
loading conditions, the yield stress of the material, the crack size and the thickness of
the component on PZS at the crack tip has been investigated. At the end, an analytical rela-
tionship, which links, in a closed form, PZS to all these parameters and which is able to
determine the PZS at crack tip of both physically short cracks and long cracks has been
proposed.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The need for a full understanding of the fatigue propagation behaviour of both long cracks and ‘‘physically’’ short cracks in
metallic structural components has been increasingly growing in the recent years. A particular attention is being paid to the
use of the fracture mechanics parameters in the elastic–plastic range [1], as CTOD (Crack Tip Opening Displacement), CTOA
(Crack Tip Opening Angle), COD (Crack Opening Displacement) [2], the size of the yielded area around the crack tip [3] and
the J-integral [4], in order to obtain a sound forecast of crack propagation rate [5,6].
The said interest can be related to several factors and, first among others, to the difficulties encountered to describe the
stress–strain state at the crack tip by means of the parameters which are usually adopted in LEFM when a significant yielding
occurs around the crack tip [7], as it happens for example in presence of high values of remote applied loads [8–10] or when
dealing with short cracks [11,12]; moreover, in the latter case, further effects related to the material microstructure can also
take place, influencing the stress–strain state at the crack tip [13].
For both those cases, the conditions for LEFM parameters application are not met because the state of stress at the tip is
characterised by a ‘‘large scale yielding’’ (LSY), for which high ratios of plastic zone size to the crack length [7,10,14] are
found. Several numerical and experimental investigations [1,9,10,15,16] have shown that such ratio is larger for short cracks
than for long ones, for a given nominal stress intensity factor (K); therefore, if PZS is considered to be the governing param-
eter of crack growth behaviour [3,9], higher rates are expected for short cracks, which is consistent with the experimental

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +39 0815010295.

E-mail address: francesco.caputo@unina2.it (F. Caputo).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.09.030
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 163

Nomenclature

a crack size (through cracks, elliptical corner cracks radial direction)

b crack size (elliptical corner cracks out of plane direction)
EDI equivalent Domain Integral
EPFM elastic plastic fracture mechanics
Jlin J-integral evaluated under linear elastic material hypothesis
K stress intensity factor (mode I)
LEFM linear elastic fracture mechanics
LSY large scale yielding
PZS plastic zone size
rp plastic radius (extension of PZS)
S applied remote load
SSY small scale yielding
sy yield stress
t component thickness
m Poisson’s ratio

observations. Actually, experimental tests show that short cracks exhibit growth rates which are higher than those which
can be predicted by using standard threshold and Paris’ law concepts based on LEFM.
PZS depends strictly on many variables, such as the material yield stress (sy), the applied load (represented by K for linear
elastic conditions and by J-integral for elastic–plastic conditions), the crack size (a) and the component thickness (t), but an
exact analytical solution for PZS such as to consider all these parameters is not yet available, just because of the difficulties in
computing the stress–strain field which exists ahead of the tip of a growing crack. In particular, difficulties arise because
both the size and the shape of the plastic zone depend on the yield criterion adopted and on the thickness of the considered
component, which in turn influence the stresses at the crack tip. For example, with reference to a through crack, thicker com-
ponents show a dominant plane strain region which is wider than that encountered in thin components, where a plane stress
condition is dominant. Therefore, as the fatigue crack growth rate depends on the component thickness, an approach which
uses the PZS as a governing parameter of the growth rate must necessarily take into account also the influence of the
thickness.
The main scope of the study illustrated in the present paper is to describe the elastic–plastic state of stresses and strains,
which takes place around the crack tip, by using the parameters of elastic–plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), just as it is
possible to represent the elastic stress state through LEFM parameters. As already outlined above, that need is at most evi-
dent in the case of short cracks, for which the fatigue growth rates, if defined by Paris’ or derived laws, are considerably smal-
ler than those found experimentally. Moreover, the threshold load levels, below which there is not propagation, appear to be
considerably smaller in the case of short cracks [14].
In the present paper, an extensive numerical investigation has been carried out to show the effects of the said param-
eters on PZS, by performing a wide series of finite element analyses applied to tri-dimensional parametric models [17],
which have been built through the APDL (Advanced Parametric Design Language) module of the ANSYSÒ ver. 12.0 code.
The use of such models, indeed, has made possible to detect the tri-axial stress state near the crack tip. For what concerns
the J-integral evaluation, reference has been made to the Equivalent Domain Integral (EDI) technique [18], which is imple-
mented in the algorithms of Warp 3DÒ code, as worked out by the University of Illinois [19]. Warp 3DÒ code is just an FE
solver which is well interfaced with MSC PATRANÒ pre- and post-processor code, by which the PZS has been evaluated as
the extension on the crack plane of the yielded area at the crack tip along the crack growth direction; the PZS evaluated in
such a way is generally called ‘‘plastic radius’’, rp. The use of the APDL module of the ANSYSÒ code as pre-processor is not
strictly necessary, but it has been useful in this circumstance where a complex tri-dimensional parametric model has been
managed.
The component which has been analysed is an aluminium alloy plate with a central hole, subjected to a remote traction,
with either corner or through cracks symmetrically placed at the hole edge, with or without the presence of a rivet fit into
the hole [9,17]. Then, on the basis of the obtained results, the limitations of LEFM parameters are assessed, when used to
describe the stress state at the crack tip in the cases of both long cracks, at least for high values of applied loads, and phys-
ically short cracks.
Subsequently, the combined effect of the applied load, the material yield strength, the crack size and the thickness of the
component on PZS has been investigated by considering the same numerical results.
At the end, an analytical relationship, which links in a closed form rp to all those parameters and which is able to deter-
mine it at the crack tip of both physically short and long cracks has been proposed.
164 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

a a
AA view

t
quarter-symmetry
R2 model
,5
2L

A A

2W aluminium plate

applied load S

Fig. 1. Test case geometry.

2. Test case description and FE analysis approach

The examined component is a plate with a hole, with or without a rivet fit in the hole, with two symmetric cracks rising
from the hole edge at the transverse middle section, subjected to a remote longitudinal stress (Mode I) which spans the range
1  240 N/mm2, as it is shown in Fig. 1; the allowed ranges of the geometrical and physical parameters considered for that
component are those illustrated in Table 1. The material properties used in the model have been assumed to be non linear, as
it is shown in Fig. 2a.
The FE models (Fig. 2b) have been built with a number of nodes between 52,824 and 309,843 and a number of elements
between 5273 and 28,114, depending on the values assumed by the geometrical parameters.
A quarter symmetric model has been adopted. Three-dimensional 20-nodes isoparametric elements have been chosen,
with three translational dof’s per node. In all models, the element sizes have been kept accurately small, to match with those
used at the crack tip (where the average element size is about 0.002 mm) to reach the required resolution of the stress field.
The crack tip mesh size has been chosen in such a way to let the results of FE stress match with known analytical and
numerical solutions [20]. It has been found that the use of coarse meshes gives significant oscillations of stress values at
crack tip, with particular reference to the hydrostatic stress component.
A local value of energy release rate at each point of a planar, not-growing crack front under general dynamic loading is
given by the following equation:
Z  
@ui
JðzÞ ¼ limC!0 ðW s þ TÞn1  Pji nj dC ð1Þ
C @X 1

where Ws and T are respectively the stress-work density and the kinetic energy density per unit volume at initial configu-
ration; C is a vanishingly small contour which lies in the principal normal plane at crack front, and n1, n2, n3 are the unit
vectors referred to X1, X2, X3 local orthogonal coordinate system. Pij denotes the non-symmetric 1st Piola–Kirchoff stress

Table 1
Investigation parameters.

Parameter Considered value

t 0.3  5.0 mm
2W 80 mm
2L 80 mm
r 2.5 mm
a 0.4  6.0 mm
S 1  240 N/mm2
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 165

Strain [-] Stress [MPa]

0.00694 503.15
0.1 526
0.6 550

Fig. 2a. Material properties.

Fig. 2b. FE model detail.

(a) X2 (b) X2

A z A2
n X1

A q(X1,X2,X3)
X1 za

f
zb
qt
zc A1
d
X3
z X3

Fig. 3. Functions used in EDI.

tensor which is work conjugate to the displacement gradient, @ui/@Xj, expressed on the initial configuration; thus the
stress-work rate per unit volume at initial configuration is simply Pij@ui/@X1. All field quantities are expressed in the above
mentioned local orthogonal coordinate system (X1, X2, X3 shown in Fig. 3a and in Fig 3b) at location z on the crack front
(Fig. 3a). For plane stress and plane strain conditions, with nonlinear elastic material response and small strain theory,
J(z) of Eq. (1) simplifies to the well known J-integral due to Rice [21] that exhibits global path independence.
The direct evaluation of Eq. (1) is cumbersome in a finite element model due to the geometric difficulties encountered in
defining a contour that passes through the integration points. Moreover, the limiting definition of the contour requires
extensive mesh refinements near the crack tip to obtain meaningful results.
In this work, numerical J-integral values have been evaluated by using the EDI technique [18], as well as it is implemented
in the Warp 3DÒ code.
166 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

By using a weight function (qt(z) Fig. 3b), which may be interpreted as a virtual displacement field, the contour integral
J(z) of Eq. (1) is converted into an area integral for two dimensions and into a volume integral Jza–zc for three dimensions
[18,22]. Body forces (other than inertial loading) are assumed to be zero. The resulting expressions are:
Z zc Z  
@ui @qk @q
J za zc ¼ ½JðzÞqt ðzÞdz ¼ Pji  W s k dV 0 ¼ J; ð2Þ
za V0 @X k @X j @X k

where qk denotes a component of the vector weight function in the k coordinate direction, V0 represents the volume of the
domain surrounding the crack tip in the (undeformed) initial configuration, and z denotes positions along the crack front
segment.
It should be point out that the vector function q is directed parallel to the direction of crack extension. When all field
quantities of the finite element solution are transformed to the local crack front coordinate system at point z and Mode I
extension is considered, only the q1 term of the weight function is non zero. In subsequent discussions, this transformation
to the (local) crack front coordinate system is assumed to hold; therefore qk means the q1 term. J(z) is the local energy release
rate that corresponds to the perturbation qt(z) at point z. Fig. 3 shows a typical domain volume defined for an internal seg-
ment along a three dimensional surface crack.
The value of q1 at each point in the volume V0 is readily interpreted as the virtual displacement of a material point due to
the virtual extension of the crack front qt(z). An approximate value of J(zb) is obtained by applying the mean value theorem
over the interval zazc. The pointwise value of the J-integral at zb is given by (Fig. 3b):
Z za Z za 
J
Jðz ¼ zb Þ  JðzÞqt ðzÞdz qt ðzÞdz ¼ ð3Þ
zc zc f

In Eq. (3), ‘‘za’’ and ‘‘zc’’ are the abscissas along crack front of initial and final nodes of the considered portion of crack front,
J(z) is the J-Integral value and qt(z) is the resultant value of q-function at position ‘‘z’’ between ‘‘za’’ and ‘‘zc’’. The q-function is
defined within an element domain by using its own shape function. As a matter of fact, in Eq. (3) the numerator, J, is the
energy released as a consequence of a virtual extension of the crack, while the denominator, f, is the increase of crack area
following the same virtual increase. For common through crack test specimens the crack front is generally straight or only
slightly curved. For such crack geometries, the average J for the entire crack front value is obtained by the application of a
uniform qt(z) across the full crack front.
With those assumptions numerical evaluation of the J requires only straightforward application of isoparametric element
techniques once the computed field quantities are transformed from the global X, Y, Z coordinate system to the X1, X2, X3 local
(crack front) system at point z on the front. In this simplified form, Eq. (2) becomes:
Z  
@ui @q1 @q
J¼ Pji  W s 1 dV 0 ð4Þ
V0 @X 1 @X j @X k

It must be stressed that volume integrals are numerically evaluated by using the same Gauss technique adopted to generate
the elemental stiffness matrix and that the formulation of the q-function is consistent with the isoparametric one used to
represent the element behaviour.

3. Investigation on the use of LEFM parameters in LSY conditions

Given the general difficulties to obtain from the scientific literature reliable data from experimental evaluations of EPFM
parameters, at first a validation of the Warp 3DÒ code – and, consequently, of the used FE models – has been carried out by
means of a comparison with the results of K obtained in the linear elastic range, for example with those obtained by using
the well established ANSYSÒ code (K Ansys) or found in literature [20] (K Newman).
Even if Warp 3DÒ provides only for J-integral parameter also under linear elastic material hypothesis (Jlin), making impos-
sible to obtain any result concerning LEFM parameters, reference has been made to the known relation Jlin = K2/E (where E is
the Young’s modulus of the material and Jlin is the J-integral evaluated under linear-elastic material condition through WARP
3D code) between the J-integral and K, which is valid in the linear elastic range and for which a wide spectrum of results is
available. Some of the results obtained for such a comparison are shown in Fig. 4a and in Fig. 4b, which refers to the case of
two through-cracks, without either side constraints or rivet, and for an elliptical corner crack in the same conditions (in the
figure K Warp3D = (JlinE)½). Subsequently, J-integral values have been determined, after removing the hypotheses of linearity
and elasticity of the material, in such a way as to appreciate its differences from the case shown in Fig. 4.
It can be considered from the plots in Fig. 5a that the J-integral increases as the remote stress increases in the case of
2.0 mm long through-cracks and of a linear-elastic material model (Jlin = K2/E) and that it really overlaps with the behaviour
of the J-integral evaluated for the non-linear material case (J Warp3D) up to the point where the applied load is such (about
120 N/mm2) that the plastic zone at the tip of the crack is so large to be comparable to that of the crack. In fact, beyond that
value the two behaviours depart from each other as the load increases.
In the same plot of Fig. 5a it is shown also the behaviour of Jlin = K2/E, evaluated under linear elastic conditions, but with
the size of the crack (a = 2.0 mm) corrected by adding the quantity rp = K2/6ps2y , which is usually known as the ‘Irwin’s cor-
rection factor’ in plane strain conditions. That correction factor is usually applied within LEFM to take into account yielding
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 167

8.0

t = 1.2 mm

6.0

K [(N/mm)3/2 ]
4.0

K Ansys
2.0
K Warp3D
K Newman

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
a [mm]
Fig. 4a. K vs. a for a through crack.

4.0

t=1.2 mm;
3.6 a=1.0 mm, b = 0.6 mm
K [(N/mm) 3/2 ]

3.2

2.8

2.4 K Warp3D

K Ansys

2.0
0 30 60 90
Degrees at elliptical crack front
Fig. 4b. K vs. crack front for an elliptical crack.

area around the tip, supposed that its size is small respect to the crack length. As it can be also observed in Fig. 5a, that cor-
rection factor provides good results, for the crack length considered, as the achieved solution (Jlin = K2/E Irwin corrected) be-
gins to diverge from the non-linear solution (J Warp3D) only in presence of very high values of remote load.
If the same analysis is performed in presence of shorter cracks (a 6 1.0 mm), that is if the range of sizes of the physically
short cracks is considered, which is characterised by a plastic zone whose size is comparable with the crack length even in
presence of load values which are comparable with service load values, then it can be observed from Fig. 5b that the con-
sidered parameters exhibit a behaviour which is different from that examined in Fig. 5a. Significant differences, indeed, ap-
pear between the J-integral evaluated on the basis of Irwin’s correction factor (Jlin = K2/E Irwin corrected) and that
determined in presence of a non-linearity hypothesis (J Warp3D), even for small levels of the applied load.
That behaviour, as it was pointed out above, can be related to the ratio between the rp, which, as explained above, rep-
resents the PZS on the plane of the crack along the crack growth direction, and the length of the same crack, which, as it can
be observed from the plots in Fig. 6, even for a constant load and in presence of different thicknesses, increases as the crack
size decreases or as the remote load become so high to produce diffuse yielding.
The rp has been numerically evaluated as explained in the next section.
168 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

25.00
a = 2.0 mm;
t = 1.2 mm

20.00 Jlin(K2/E Irwin correct.)

J (Warp3D)
Jlin(K2/E Ansys)
15.00

J [N/mm]
10.00

5.00

0.00
80 120 160 200 240
2
S [N/mm ]
Fig. 5a. J vs. load (long crack).

12.00
a = 0.4 mm
t = 1.2 mm
Jlin(K2/E Irwin correct.)
J (Warp3D)
8.00 Jlin(K2/E Ansys)
J [N/mm]

4.00

0.00
80 120 160 200 240
S [N/mm2]
Fig. 5b. J vs. load (short crack).

4. Analysis of PZS around the crack tip

It has been considered as plastic zone the one which is characterised by a Von Mises’ stress value higher than 503 N/mm2,
i.e. the yield stress value of the considered material.
In Fig. 7, some plots are shown which refer to the behaviour of rp vs. the applied load, for different values of the plate
thickness and of the crack length. It must be pointed out that for a given load and crack length, rp increases as thickness de-
creases [23].
It can be interesting to consider more deeply the behaviour of rp with reference to the plate 3.1 mm thick: it can be con-
sidered, in fact, that the state around the crack tip is more similar to a plane stress one for a 1.2 mm thickness and to a plane-
strain one for a 5.0 mm thickness, and it can be observed in the plot of Fig. 7a transition of the state for the plate 3.1 mm
thick from the plane-stress state to the plane-strain one by increasing load. Now, leaving the case of the holed plate with
through-cracks without a rivet fit in the hole, which has been used to put in evidence some aspects which are characteristic
of the obtained results, the behaviour of the J-integral and of rp can be examined for the case of two elliptical corner cracks
symmetrically placed at the hole edge in presence of a very stiff rivet fit in the hole.
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 169

0.06 0.16

S = 80 N/mm 2 S = 120 N/mm2

0.14
0.05
t = 1.2 mm 0.12 t = 1.2 mm
0.04 t = 3.1 mm t = 3.1 mm
0.10
t = 5.0 mm t = 5.0 mm
rp /a

rp /a
0.03 0.08

0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02

0.00 0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
a [mm] a [mm]
Fig. 6. rp/a vs. a for different plate thicknesses at constant applied load S.

(a) 4.00 (b) 0.50

a = 10 mm a = 0.4 mm

0.40
3.00 t = 1.2 mm t = 1.2 mm

t = 3.1 mm t = 3.1 mm
0.30
rp [mm]

t = 5.0 mm t = 5.0 mm
rp [mm]

2.00
0.20

1.00
0.10

0.00 0.00
60 120 180 240 80 120 160 200 240
S [N/mm 2] S [N/mm2]
Fig. 7. rp vs. applied load for different specimen thickness and crack length.

In Fig. 8 some plots are shown where the behaviour of J-integral is recorded vs. the angular coordinate along a semi-elliptical
corner crack at hole (angular coordinate value at the free surface of the plate is 0°, angular, coordinate value at the inner
surface of the hole is 90°); the J-integral values have been evaluated in both linear and non-linear material hypotheses, for
different load values and for a selected combinations of the lengths of the crack semi-axes (a = 1.0 mm; b = 0.2 mm;
t = 1.2 mm).
In the last plot of the same figure, the rp vs. applied load value is also shown.
It must be observed that for the case of rather small applied loads (80 N/mm2) the behaviours of the J-integrals, evaluated
in both linear and non-linear conditions, are really coincident, as the extension of the plastic zone at the crack tip can be
neglected. When the load increases, the two behaviours begin to exhibit large differences (up to 40% for a 180 N/mm2 load
value), at first near the hole edge, where the presence of the rivet facilitates the onset of plasticity and therefore the redis-
tribution of stresses, and then along the whole crack front. That behaviour is strongly related, as noted above, to the exten-
sion of the plastic zone, which, as it can be observed in the last plot of Fig. 8, is very small in presence of low applied loads, at
both 0° and 90° along the crack front, then getting to interest the whole thickness for a 150 N/mm2 applied load and there-
fore to effectively affect the behaviour of J-integral on the hole surface. On the contrary, on the free surface of the plate, rp is
still of small extent even in correspondence of the highest load which has been here considered.
170 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

Fig. 8. J-integral vs. crack front and rp vs. applied load.

5. Theoretical background of PZS evaluation

It is well known that the effects of the applied remote stress transmitted to the crack front region through the surround-
ing linear-elastic material may be described by the following first two terms of Williams’ solution [8]; all remaining terms
can be neglected, as the analysis is to be carried out at very small distances from the crack front:

K
rr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi frI ðhÞ þ T cos2 h;
2p r
ð5Þ
K
rh ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi fhI ðhÞ þ Tsen2 h; ;
2p r

rz ¼ mðrr þ rh Þ þ mT Plane strain
rz ¼ 0 Plane stress

where r and h are the polar coordinates of the examined point with respect to the crack tip, fij(h) defines the angular vari-
ations of in-plane stress components and T which appears in the second term is the T-stress parameter, which varies linearly
with K according to a not-dimensional constant, B, which depends on both the geometry and the loading conditions [8],
which is represented by the following expression: T = (BK)/(pa).
Eq. (5) indicates that all the elastic stresses tend to infinity at r = 0 (crack tip), therefore the theoretical values near the
crack tip will exceed the yield stress of the real materials and will induce a local plastic zone. The shape and the size of
the plastic region along a selected direction, as for example along the crack propagation direction, could be approximately
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 171

determined as those of the region in which the effective stress, req (depending on the used yield criterion), is equal to or
larger than the yield stress of the considered material; this assumptions brings to the following expressions:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
req ¼ rVonMises ¼ ½ðrx  ry Þ2 þ ðrx  rz Þ2 þ ðry  rz Þ2  ¼ sy ð6Þ
2
from which, by substitution of the stress components from Eq. (5) and by considering T = (BK)/(pa), it is obtained:
0 12
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
B K 2að1  2mÞ C
rp ¼ @qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A ¼ r p ðsy ; m; K; aÞ ð7Þ
2 2
4ap  syy  3B K  BKð1  2mÞ
2

It is assumed that Eq. (7) is able to describe the PZS along the direction of the crack propagation (h = 0), exactly called rp.
Once the limits of LEFM theory application to the reference case have been quantitatively assessed and the influence of
the rp on the physical circumstances of these limits have been numerically studied in the previous sections, the dependence
of rp at crack tip on the applied load (or alternatively on K and on J-integral), the material yield stress, the crack size and the
thickness of the selected analysed component has been investigated. At first, the mutual relations between J-integral values

10 60

t=1.2 mm
t= 1.2 mm
8.0

40
6.0
J [N/mm]

J [N/mm]

a=0.2mm
4.0
a=4.0mm
a=0.4mm 20
a=0.6mm a=5.0mm

2.0 a=6.0mm
a=10mm

0.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 1 2 3 4
rp [mm] rp [mm]

16 50
t = 3.1 mm t = 3.1 mm

40
12

30
J [N/mm]

J [N/mm]

a=0.2mm a=3.0mm
20
a=0.4mm a=4.0mm

a=0.6mm a=5.0mm
4
a=1.0mm a=6.0mm
10
a=2.0mm a=10mm

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
rp [mm] rp [mm]
Fig. 9. J-integral vs. rp for a varying crack size and plate thickness.
172 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173

and the rp by varying the geometry parameters and the applied load values have been investigated. In that connection it is
interesting to examine the plots of Fig. 9, where the behaviour of J-integral is shown as a function of rp for different crack
lengths, for the simplest case of a through-crack without rivet fit in the hole.
It can be observed that in the case of long cracks, the relation between J-integral and rp is independent from the crack
length, while the same doesn’t apply to the case of short cracks (a 6 1.0 mm), for which, as it has been illustrated in the pre-
vious sections, the ratio rp/a cannot be neglected. In particular, it must be pointed out that for a given load, rp increases as the
length of the crack decreases.
In addition, it is noteworthy to observe from the following plots of Fig. 10, that for a fixed value of the J-Integral
(6.8 N/mm) and for different thicknesses of the plate, both rp and the ratio of rp to the crack length decrease as crack length
increases until a specific crack size value; beyond this value rp becomes constant with the crack size. This behaviour can
justify the use of the rp as an EPFM parameter for long cracks, as both rp and the parameter describing the stress state at crack
tip, that is the J-Integral, are constant for that case; for small cracks, in the same conditions, rp increases as the crack size
decreases, therefore if rp is used as a parameter to describe the short crack growth rate, the description should be more
coherent with the experimental evidence than the stress intensity factor parameter.
By accepting this assumption, it would be desirable to formulate a close relationship between rp and the characteristic
parameters of the phenomena; some attempts have been performed to fit the large amount of obtained numerical results
by an analytical expression, assuming the following conditions: (I) material properties have been considered to be fixed;
(II) the component dimensions in the plane normal to the crack front have been considered as fixed; (III) numerical results
have been obtained in terms of rp and K (or J) by varying the remote load, S, the crack size, a, and the thickness, t; (IV) a non-
linear regression analysis has been performed separately for each t.
The resulting analytical expression is the following one:

Fig. 10. rp/a vs. a at different plate thicknesses at a constant J-integral value.

0.5
B, p, m

0 B
p
m
-0.5

-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t [mm]
Fig. 11. Fitting parameters vs. plate thickness.
 F. Caputo et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 103 (2013) 162–173 173

0 11p
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
B K 2að1  2mÞ C
rp ¼ @ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A ; ð8Þ
2 2
m 4ap  sy  3B K  BKð1  2mÞ
2

where p has been assumed to be the ‘‘singularity parameter’’, m the stress ‘‘re-distribution parameter’’ and B is the already
mentioned ‘‘stress biaxiality parameter’’. In the plot of Fig. 11 the paths of each parameter vs. thicknesses of the component
are reported.
It is possible to observe, that those paths appear to be in good agreement with the physical meaning associated to each
parameter. More in detail, the path of the ‘‘singularity parameter’’, which governs the stress intensity at the crack tip, is
coherent with the path vs. thickness of the material toughness (Kcr) experimentally determined, as lower p-values indicate
a lower order singularity and therefore an apparently higher Kcr; the negative sign and the path of the ‘‘biaxiality parameter’’,
is coherent with the physical meaning of a negative T-stress, which represents a shift forward (respect to the direction of
propagation) of the plastic zone shape; at last, the ‘‘redistribution parameter’’ takes into account the stress redistribution
at crack tip due to the growing of the plastic zone.
As it is possible to carry out from the same plot, both the ‘‘singularity’’ and the stress ‘‘re-distribution’’ parameters ap-
proach to a constant value of 0.5, even if with different rates, for increasing thickness, coherently with the values assumed
for the same parameters within the LEFM theory.
The considered analytical model appears to work very well under both SSY (small scale yielding) and LSY conditions (very
good fitting, R2 P 0.97, of numerical results in the considered ranges of variables: 0.3 6 t 6 5.0 mm, 0.4 6 a 6 6.0 mm,
1.0 6 S 6 360 N/mm2).

6. Conclusions

One of the basic assumptions behind the application of linear elastic fracture mechanics parameters to the study of a
crack propagation is that the plastic zone at crack tip is small compared to the other geometrical characteristics of the com-
ponent, first of all the crack length. The first order estimation of the PZS, according to Irwin’s approach, is not able to predict
the shape and the size of the plastic zone in presence of high ratio between the PZS and the crack length. The shape and the
size of the plastic zone can be estimated by using EPFM parameters and applying an opportunely selected yield criterion. For
the material considered within this work, Von Mises yield criterion has been assumed and this choice provided an accurate
estimation of the PZS for arbitrary three-dimensional problems. The formulated analytical model for the PZS appears to work
well under both SSY and LSY conditions at crack tip. The thickness-dependences of analytical parameters provided from a
regression analysis were coherent with their physical meanings and allowed a better understanding of some relevant aspects
of the plastic zone region under a tri-axial stress–strain state.

References

[1] Zhang Jia-Zhen, Zhang Jia-Zhong, Yi Du S. Elastic–plastic finite element analysis and experimental study of short and long fatigue crack growth. Engng
Fract Mech 2001;68:1591–606.
[2] Newmann Jr JC, James MA, Zerbst U. A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion. Engng Fract Mech 2002;70:371–85.
[3] Park Heung-Bae, Kim Kyung-Mo, Lee Byong-Whi. Plastic zone size in fatigue cracking. Int J Pres Ves Pip 1996;68:279–85.
[4] Newman Jr JC. The merging of fatigue and fracture mechanics concepts: a historical perspective. Progr Aero Sci 1998;34:347–90.
[5] Fatemi A, Yang L. Cumulative fatigue damage and life prediction theories: a survey of the state of the art for homogeneous materials. Int J Fatigue
1998;20:9–34.
[6] Caputo F, Lamanna G, Soprano A. Numerical investigation on the crack propagation in a flat stiffened panel. Key Engng Mater 2006;324:1039–42.
[7] Staroselsky A, Vestrergaard L, Annigeri B, Favrow L, Walls D. Three-dimensional fatigue cracking under elastic–plastic deformation. Int J Fatigue
2001;23:65–70.
[8] Broberg KB. Cracks and fracture. Cambridge, UK: Academic Press; 1999.
[9] Caputo F, Lamanna G, Soprano A. An analytical formulation for the plastic deformation at the tip of short cracks. Procedia Eng 2011;10:2988–93.
[10] Xin Gao, Hangong Wang, Xingwu Kang, Liangzhou Jiang. Analytic solutions to crack tip plastic zone under various loading conditions. Eur J Mech A-
Solid 2010;29:738–45.
[11] McDowell DL. An engineering model for propagation of small cracks in fatigue. Engng Fract Mech 1997;56:357–77.
[12] Smith RA. On the short crack limitations of fracture mechanics. Int J Fract 1977;13:717–20.
[13] Bachir Bouiadjra B, Elmeguenni M, Benguediab M, Belhouari M, Nait-Abdelaziz M. Numerical estimation of the effects of microcavities on the plastic
zone size ahead of the crack tip in aluminum alloy 2024 T3. Mater Des 2009;30:752–7.
[14] Hussain K. Short fatigue crack behavior and analytical models: a review. Engng Fract Mech 1997;58:327–54.
[15] Wenfong Li. Short fatigue crack propagation and effect of notch plastic field. Nucl Engng Des 2003;84:193–200.
[16] Yi Huang, Jingjie Chen, Gang Liu. A new method of plastic zone size determined based on maximum crack opening displacement. Engng Fract Mech
2010;77:2912–8.
[17] Caputo F, Lamanna G, Soprano A. Numerical modeling and simulation of a bolted hybrid joint. Struct Durability Health Monit 2011;7(4):283–96.
[18] Nikishkov GP, Atluri SN. Calculation of fracture mechanics parameters for an arbitrary three-dimensional crack, by the ‘equivalent domain integral’
method. Int J Numer Meth Engng 1987;24:1801–21.
[19] WARP3D ver. 16.3 on line manual. Uilu US; 2010.
[20] Murakami Y. Stress intensity factors handbook, vol. I and II. Oxford UK: Pergamon press; 1988.
[21] Rice J. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech-T ASME 1968;35:379–86.
[22] Li FZ, Shih CF, Needleman A. A comparison of methods for calculating energy release rates. Engng Fract Mech 1985;21:405–21.
[23] Park HB, Lee BW. Effect of specimen thickness on fatigue crack growth rate. Nucl Engng Des 2000;197:197–203.