Fracture Avoidance with Proper Use of Material

Pyramid of Egypt Schematic Roman Bridge Design

• The primary construction material prior to 19thh were timber, brick and mortar
• Arch shape producing compressive stress → stone have high compressive
strength

Riley; page 5
Anderson; fig. 1-4, page 9
Gordon; fig. 14, page 188
 Fracture Avoidance with Proper Use of Material
(cont )
(cont’)

• Roof spans and windows were arched to maintain compressive loading

Gordon; plate 1 (after page 224)
Anderson; fig. 1-5
 Fracture Avoidance with Proper Use of Material
(cont )
(cont’)
• Mass production of iron and steel (relatively ductile construction materials) →
y g tensile stresses
feasible to build structures carrying

The
h Telford’s
lf d’ Menai suspension bridge
b d (1819)
( ) The
h seven suspension bridge
b d
(wrought iron suspension chains) (steel cable)
Gordon; plate 11 & plate 12
 Stress Concentration, Fracture and
Griffith Theory

• Stress distribution around a hole in an

infine plate was derived by G. G Kirsch in
1898 using the theory of elasticity
• The maximum stress is three times the
uniform stress
• Kt = 3

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-1, page 2-2

 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))
• C. E. Inglis (1913) investigated in a plate with an
elliptical hole
• He derived K t = 1+ 2a / b or
K t = 1+ 2 a / ρ
• Modeling a crack with a ellipse means ρ → 0 →
Kt → ∞ → infinite stress
• Kt could not be used for crack problems

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-2

 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

• A. A. Griffith (1920) used an energy balance analysis to explain the large

reduction on the strength of glass
• Griffith proposed that the large reduction is due to the presence of
microcracks
• Griffith derived a relation between crack size and breaking strength by
considering the energy balance associated with a small extension of a crack
Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-3 a & b

Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

1 1
Work = Px = (σA)( Lε )
2 2
1
Work = (σε )( AL)
2
1
Work = (σε )(V )
2
1
(σε ) = strain energy
gy densityy
2
 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

Damage Tolerance Assessment handbook; fig. 2-4 a & b

 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

• Crack length increase → plate becomes less stiff (more flexible) → slope of P vs x
decreases → applied load drop
• Change in energy stored is the difference in the shaded area
• Release of elastic energy is used to overcome the resistance to crack growth
• Rate of strain energy release = rate of energy absorption to overcome resistance to
crack growth
Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-4b
 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

• Energy balance :

Energy stored in the body before crack extension = Σ (energy remaining in the
body after crack extension + work done on the body during crack extension +
energy dissipated in irreversible processes)

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-4b

 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

• Analyze a simplified geometry with a hole D = 2a

• σy = σ everywhere outside the hole
Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-5
 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

• Strain energy density = σ2

2E
• Total energy = σ2
x vol
2E
σ2
U1 =
2E
[
WLt − π a t ] 2

After crack extension of ∆a (assume σ is constant)

U2 =
σ2
2E
[
WLt − π (a + ∆a )2 t ]
Elastic energy released
π σ 2 a t ∆a
U1 − U 2 ≅
E
Per unit of new crack area
U1 − U 2 π σ 2a
G = ≅
2 t ∆a 2E
Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-5
 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

• E
Energy released
l d is
i used
d to
t break
b k atomic b d → surface
t i bonds f energy
• Surface energy (γe) is a material property
• E
Energy b l
balance > crackk growth
˙> th if

G ≥ 2γ e
4E γ e
σ a =
π
• Griffith analysis based on Inglis solution yield
2
2E γ e πσ a
σ a = G =
π and E
 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
• In 1957 Irwin reexamined the p problem of stress distribution around a crack
• He analyzed an infinite plate with a crack
• Using the theory of elasticity the stresses are dominated by
K θ θ 3θ
σ x= cos [1 − sin sin ]
2πr 2 2 2
K θ θ 3θ
σ y= cos [1 + sin sin ]
2πr 2 2 2
K θ θ 3θ
τ xy= sin cos cos
2πr 2 2 2

assumption r << a
σ πa LEFM valid if plasticity remains small
σ ij= f ij (θ )
2πr compared to the over all dimensions of
crack and cracked bodies
 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

• The term σ πa is given the symbol K (stress intensity factor)

for an infinite plate
KI =σ πa

• The relation of K to G is

K I2 for plane stress condition

G =
E
• The use of G and KI leads to fracture criterion i.e.
i e Gc and Kici i.e.
i e fracture occur
if
G = Gc or KI = KIc
 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

Stress Intensity Factor

K =σ πa f
for infinite
f plate

K = βσ πa for other g
geometryy
β can be obtained from : 1. handbook solution
2. approximate method
3. numerical method
 Stress Concentration, Fracture
and Griffith Theory (cont
(cont’))

Bannantine, fig. 3-4, page 92

 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)

Bannantine; fig. 3-4, page 93 & 94

 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)
Loading Modes
 Stress Concentration, Fracture and Griffith Theory (cont’)
g Modes ((cont’))
Loading
Loading stresses terms for mode II
K II θ θ 3θ
σx =− sin [2 + cos cos ]
2πr 2 2 2
K II θ θ 3θ
σy = sin cos cos
2πr 2 2 2
K II θ θ 3θ
τ xy = cos [1 − sin sin ]
2πr 2 2 2
• Stresses terms for mode III
K III θ
τ xz =− sin
2πr 2
K III θ
τ yz =− cos
2πr 2
 Extension of LEFM to Metals

• Griffith energy theory and Irwin’s stress intensity factor could explain the
fracture phenomena for brittle solid
• For metals, beside surface energy absorption, the plastic energy absorption
(γp) has to be added
2 E (γ e + γ p )
σ a=
π
• metal γp ≅ 1000 γe, thus γe can be neglected
For typical metal,
• It was not easy to translate energy concept into engineering practice
 Extension of LEFM to Metals (cont’)

• K concept was seen as the basis of a practical approach

• However K is an elastic solution while at the crack tip plastic zone developed
However,
• If it is assumed that the plastic zone at the crack tip is much smaller than the
crack dimension → K is still valid
Extension of LEFM to Metals (cont’)
Plastic zone size Monotonic Loading
K θ θ θ
σy = cos [1 − sin sin ]
2πr 2 2 2
for θ = 0
K
σy =
2πr
If σy is equal to yield strength
K
σ ys = or K2
2πr * 2πr * p =
p
2
σ 2 ys
1 ⎛K ⎞
r *
= ⎜ ⎟ plane stress
p
2π ⎜σ ⎟
⎝ ys ⎠
Corrected due to stress redistribution
2
1 ⎛K ⎞
rp = ⎜ ⎟
2π ⎜σ 2 plane
p a e stress
st ess
⎝⎛ ys ⎞⎠
1 ⎜
K
⎟
rp =
3π ⎜σ ⎟ plane strain
⎝ ys ⎠
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing

Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing

• Standard test method include ASTM E399: “Standard Test Methods for f
Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials”.
• Stringent requirement for plane strain condition and linear behaviour of the
specimen.
• Specimen type permitted: CT, SENB, arc-shaped and disk shape.
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Fracture Mechanics Testing

Specimen Configurations
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Clevis for Compact Tension Specimen

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

• Use an extensometer (e.g. clip gage) to detect the beginning of crack

extension from the fatigue crack.
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

• Calculation of KQ for compact tension specimen

PQ a
KQ = 1/ 2
f( )
BW W
where

(2 + ) (0.886 + 4.64 ( ) − 13.32 ( )

a a a 2
+ 14.72 ( )
a 3
− 5.6 ( )
a 4
f( a
)= W W W W W

(1 − Wa )
W 3
2

• This KQ has to be checked with previous requirements

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-13

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

ASTM Standards; fig. 1, page 410

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Fatigue Pre-cracking
• Perform to obtain natural crack
• Fatigue load must be chosen :
0 such that the time is not very long
0 plastic zone at the crack tip is small
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Instrumentation for Displacement and Crack Length Measurements
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

• Crack front curvature

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

a1 + a 2 + a3
• Measure a1, a2 and a3 →
a=
3
• Any two of a1, a2 and a3 must not differ more than 10% from a
• g notch → asurface differ not more than 15% from a and ((asurface)left
For straight
does not differ more than 10% from (asurface)right
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

• Load displacement curves to determine PQ

Additional Criteria

» Pmax/PQ < 1.1

2
⎛ KQ ⎞
» 2.5 ⎜ <a
⎜σ ⎟
⎝ ys ⎠
2
» ⎛ KQ ⎞
2.5 ⎜ ⎟ <B
⎜σ ⎟
⎝ ys ⎠
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Damage Tolerance Assessment handbook; table 2-1, page 2-31

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; table 2-1, page 2-32

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Thi k
Thickness Eff t
Effect
• Plane strain condition occur for thick components
• F static
For t ti material
t i l properties
ti plane
l strain
t i condition
diti does
d nott have
h i fl
influence
• For fracture toughness thickness have a strong influence

Thickness effect on fracture strength

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-16
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Thickness Effect (cont’)
• Specimen thicker than 1/2 inch →
plane strain
• For thinner stock KQ increases
reaching a peak at thickness about
1/8 inch
• The peak KQ can exceed five times
Kic
Thickness effect on fracture strength

• After reaching the peak KQ declines at thickness lower than 1/8 inch
• Thickness effect can be explained
e plained with
ith energy
ene g balance

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-16

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Thickness Effect (cont’)
• σZ = 0 at free surface → plane stress
on the surface → large plastic zone
• In the inside elastic material
restrains deformation in Z direction
• For thick specimen interior
deformation is almost totally
restraint (σZ ≈ 0) → plane strain
condition
Three-dimensional plastic zones shape

• Going inward from the surface, plastic zone undergoes transition from larger
size to smaller size

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-17a

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Thickness Effect (cont’)
• For decreasing thickness, ratio of
plastic volume to total thickness
increase
• Consequently
q y energy
gy absorption
p rate
also increases for thinner plates
• While elastic strain energy is
independent of thickness

Plastic volume versus thickness • Thus for thinner plates more applied
stress is needed to extend the crack

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-17b

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing (cont’)
Thickness Effect (cont’)
• Plane stress condition results in fracture
surface having g to z axis →
g 45o angle
shear lips
• For valid Kic test (plane strain condition)
→ little or no evidence of shear lips

Typical Fracture Surface

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig 2-18

 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing
Temperature Effect
• Fracture toughness depends on temperature
• However Al alloys are relatively insensitive over the range of aircraft service
temperature condition
• Many alloy steels exhibit a sharp transition in the service temperature range

Fracture toughness versus temperature

Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-21
 KIc of Aircraft Materials
Typical Yield Strength and Plane Strain Fracture Toughness
Values for Several Al Alloys

ASM Vol. 19; table 5, page 776

 KIc of Some Materials (cont’)
Al Alloys 2124 and 7475 vs.
vs 2024 and 7075

Application of Fracture Mechanics; fig. 6-9, page 180

 KIc of Some Materials (cont’)

Effect of Purity on KIc

ASM Vol. 19; table 6, page 777

 KIc of Aircraft Materials (cont’)

Typical Yield Strength and Fracture Toughness of High-Strength Titanium Alloy

ASM Vol. 19; table 3, page 831

 Failure in Large Scale Yielding

• Strength assessment for structures do not meet small scale yielding condition
:
1. R-curve method
2. Net section failure
3. Crack tip opening displacement
4. J-integral
5. Energy density → mixed mode loading
6. Plastic collapse → for 3D cracks
 The Net Section on Failure Criterion
• Stress concentration
St t ti ini ductile
d til materials
t i l causes yielding
i ldi which
hi h smoothed
th d outt
the stress as applied load increased
• Failure is assumed to occur when stress at the net section was distributed
uniformly reaching σu

Net section failure criterion

• For a plate width w containing a center crack of length 2a, the critical stress is
w − 2a
σc = σf Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook; fig. 2-34
w
Kc of Aircraft Materials
Plane Stress Fracture Toughness (Kc) for Several Al Alloys

ASM Vol. 19; fig. 10, page 779

 Crack Opening Displacement (COD)
• Applied load will cause a crack to open, the crack opening displacement can
be used as a parameter
• At a critical value of COD fracture occur
• Developed for steels

J Integral
J-Integral

• J-integral is an expression of plastic work (J) done when a body is loaded

• J-integral can be calculated from elastic plastic calculation
• At a critical value of J fracture occur
END