Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

# Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics

Introduction
When does one need to use LEFM and EPFM?
What is the concept of small-scale and large-scale yielding?
Contents of this Chapter
The basics of the two criteria used in EPFM: COD (CTOD), and J-Integral (with H-R-R)
Concept of K- and J-dominated regions, plastic zones
Measurement methods of COD and J-integral
Effect of Geometry
Background Knowledge
Theory of Plasticity (Yield criteria, Hardening rules)
Concept of K, G and K-dominated regions
Plastic zone size due to Irwin and Dugdal
LEFM and EPFM
LEFM
In LEFM, the crack tip stress and displacement field can be uniquely characterized by K, the
stress intensity factor. It is neither the magnitude of stress or strain, but a unique parameter that
describes the effect of loading at the crack tip region and the resistance of the material. K filed is
valid for a small region around the crack tip. It depends on both the values of stress and crack size.
We noted that when a far field stress acts on an edge crack of width a then
for mode I, plane strain case

o
o
t
t
u
u u
u u
u u
xx
yy
xy
I
K
r
R
S
|
T
|
U
V
|
W
|
=

+
L
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
O
Q
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
2 2
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
cos
sin( )sin( )
sin( )sin( )
sin( )sin( )
o o v o o
zz zz xx yy
= = + 0 for plane stress; for plane strain ( )
u
u
K r
k
k
x
y
I
R
S
T
U
V
W
=
+
+
L
N
M
M
M
M
O
Q
P
P
P
P
2
2
1 2
2
2
1 2
2
2
2
t
u u
u u 2
cos ( sin ( ))
sin ( cos ( ))
LEFM concepts are valid if the plastic zone is much smaller than the singularity zones.

Irwin estimates

Dugdale strip yield model:
r
K
p
I
ys
=
1
2
2
t o
( )
r
K
p
I
ys
=
1
8
2
( )
o
ASTM: a,B, W-a 2.5 , i.e. of specimen dimension. > ( )
K
I
ys
o
2
r
p
s
1
50
LEFM cont.
Singularity dominated region
o
o
t
t
xx
yy
xy
I
K
r
R
S
|
T
|
U
V
|
W
|
=
L
N
M
M
M
O
Q
P
P
P
2
1
1
0
For =0
u
For =
2
all
ij
u
u
o , = 0
EPFM
In EPFM, the crack tip undergoes significant plasticity as seen in the following diagram.
sharp tip
Ideal elastic brittle behavior
cleavage fracture
y Displacement, u
L
o
a
d
r
a
t
i
o
,
P
/
P
y
1.0
Fracture
Blunt tip
Limited plasticity at crack
tip, still cleavage fracture
Displacement, u
L
o
a
d
r
a
t
i
o
,
P
/
P
y
1.0
Fracture
Blunt tip
Void formation & coalescence
failure due to fibrous tearing
Displacement, u
L
o
a
d
r
a
t
i
o
,
P
/
P
y
1.0
Fracture
large scale
blunting
Large scale plasticity
fibrous rapture/ductile
failure Displacement, u
L
o
a
d
r
a
t
i
o
,
P
/
P
y
1.0
Fracture
EPFM cont.
EPFM applies to elastoc-rate-independent materials, generally in the large-scale plastic
deformation.
Two parameters are generally used:
(a) Crack opening displacement (COD) or crack tip opening displacement (CTOD).
(b) J-integral.
Both these parameters give geometry independent measure of fracture toughness.

o
Sharp crack
Blunting crack
y
x
I
ds
EPFM cont.
Wells discovered that Kic measurements in structural steels required very large thicknesses for
LEFM condition.
--- Crack face moved away prior to fracture.
--- Plastic deformation blunted the sharp crack.

o
Sharp crack
Blunting crack
Irwin showed that crack tip plasticity makes the crack behave as if it were longer, say from size a to a + r
p

-----plane stress

From Table 2.2,

Set ,
r
K
p
I
ys
=
1
2
2
t o
( )
u
K r
k
y
I
= +
2 2 2
1 2
2
2
t
u u
sin( )[ cos ( )]
u t = u
k
K
r
y I
y
=
+1
2 2 t
a r
y
+
u t =
o
t o
= = 2
4
2
2
u
K
E
y
I
ys
Note:

since
k E =

+
= +
3
1
2 1
v
v
v and ( )
o
t o
= = CTOD
4 G
ys
G
K
E
I
=
2
CTOD and strain-energy release rate
Equation relates CTOD ( ) to G for small-scale yielding. Wells proved that

Can valid even for large scale yielding, and is later shown to be related to J.

can also be analyzed using Dugdales strip yield model. If is the opening at the end of the strip.
o
t o
= = CTOD
4 G
ys
o o
o
o
o
o
ys
Consider an infinite plate with a image crack subject to a

Expanding in an infinite series,

o o

=
o
o
t
t o
o
= = 2
8
u
a
E
y
ys
ys
lin sec(
2
)
o
o
t
t o
o
t o
o
= + +
8
1
12
2 4
ys
ys ys
a
E
[
1
2
(
2
(
2
) ) ...]
If , and can be given as:

In general,
o
o
t o
o
= +
K
E
I
ys ys
2
2
[1
1
6
(
2
) ]
o
o
o o o
o o
ys
ys
ys
E
G
~ << = 0 ( then =
K
I
2
ys
),
o
o
o
=
G
m
ys
, m=1.0 for plane stress; m= 2.0 for plane strain
Alternative definition of CTOD
o
Sharp crack
Blunting crack
o
Blunting crack
Displacement at the original crack tip Displacement at 900 line intersection, suggested by Rice
CTOD measurement using three-point bend specimen
W
P
a
r
p
(
W
-
a
)
z
V
p
o
p
'
'
'
o
pl
p p
p
r W a V
r W a a z
=

+ +
( )
( )
displacement
expanding
o
Elastic-plastic analysis of three-point bend specimen
o o o
o
= + = +

+ +
el pl
I
ys
p p
p
K
m E
r W a V
r W a a z
2
( )
( )
Where is rotational factor, which equates 0.44 for SENT specimen.
o
pl
Specified by ASTM E1290-89
--- can be done by both compact tension, and SENT specimen
Cross section can be rectangular or W=2B; square W=B

K
I
is given by
o
v
o
el
I
ys
K
E
=

2 2
1
2
( )
K
P
B W
f
a
W
I
= ( )
o
pl
p p
p
r W a V
r W a a z
=

+ +
( )
( )
l
o
a
d
Mouth opening
u
p
u
e
V,P
CTOD analysis using ASTM standards
Figure (a). Fracture mechanism is purely cleavage, and critical CTOD <0.2mm, stable crack growth,
(lower transition).
Figure (b). --- CTOD corresponding to initiation of stable crack growth.
--- Stable crack growth prior to fracture.(upper transition of fracture steels).
Figure (c) and then ---CTOD at the maximum load plateau (case of raising R-curve).

o
c
o
i
o
i
o
m
o
u
l
o
a
d
Mouthopening
Pc
fracture
(a) (b) (c)
Pi
Pu
Pm
fracture
Pi
More on CTOD
The derivative is based on Dugdales strip yield model. For
Strain hardening materials, based on HRR singular field.
By setting =0 and n the strain hardening index based on
*Definition of COD is arbitrary since
A function as the tip is approached
*Based on another definition, COD is the distance between upper
and lower crack faces between two 45
o
lines from the tip. With this
Definition
2
or
I
COD
y y
K J
E
o
o o
= =
( )
1
1
1
,
n
n
n
i y i
y y n
J
u r u n
I
oc u
oo c
+
+
| |
=
|
\ .
1
3
2
n
y ij
e
y y y
c o
o o
c o o

| |
=
|
\ .
( ) ( )
, 0 , 0
y y
u x u x o
+
=
( )
1
1 n
x
+

COD n
y
J
d o
o
=
Where ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 as n is varied from
3 to 13 (Shih, 1981)
*Condition of quasi-static fracture can be stated as the
Reaches a critical value . The major advantage is that this
provides the missing length scale in relating microscopic failure
processes to macroscopic fracture toughness.
function of:

(b) Roughness of fracture surface (mechanisms related)
(c) Corrosion
(d) Failure of nearby zones altering the local stiffness response
( )
, ,
n n y
d d n o c =
tip
o
COD
o
2
2
I
y
k
o
o c
A
A =
3.2 J-contour Integral
By idealizing elastic-plastic deformation as non-linear elastic, Rice proposed J-integral, for regions
beyond LEFM.
Also J-integral uses deformation plasticity. It states that the stress state can be determined knowing
the initial and final configuration. The plastic strain is loading-path independent. True in proportional

under the above conditions, J-integral characterizes the crack tip stress and crack tip strain and
energy release rate uniquely.
J-integral is numerically equivalent to G for linear elastic material. It is a path-independent integral.
When the above conditions are not satisfied, J becomes path dependent and does not relates to any
physical quantities
d d d d d d
k
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
= = = = = =
3.2 J-contour Integral, cont.
y
x
I
ds
Consider an arbitrary path ( ) around the crack tip. J-integral is defined as
I
J wdy T
u
x
ds w d
i
i
i
ij ij
ij
=
c
c
=
z z
( ), o c
c
0
I
It can be shown that J is path independent and represents energy release rate for a material where
is a monotonically increasing with
o
ij
c
ij
Proof: Consider a closed contour:

Using divergence theorem:
J wdy T
u
x
ds
i
i
i
*
( )
*
=
c
c
z

I
J
w
x x
u
x
dxdy
i
ij
i
A
*
( )
*
=
c
c

c
c
c
c
z
o
where w is strain energy density, T
i
is component of traction vector normal to contour.

A
*
I
*
*
*
( )
i
ij
j
A
u w
J dxdy
x x x
o
(
c c c
=
(
c c c
(

}
Evaluate
c
c
=
c
c

c
c
=
c
c
w
x
w
x x
ij
ij
ij
ij
c
c
o
c
Note is only valid if such a potential function exists

Again,
o
c
ij
ij
w
=
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
c
c
+
c
c
c
c
w
x x
u
x
u
x
u
x x
u
x
ij i j i j
ij
j
i
i
j
1
2
1
2
o
o
[ ( ) ( )]
[ ( ) ( )]
, ,

Since o o
o
ij ji
ij
j
i
x
u
x
=
=
c
c
c
c
( )
Recall
c
c
=
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
c
c
o
o o
ij
j
j
i
j
ij
i
x
x
u
x x
u
x
ij
( ) ( )
Evaluation of J Integral ---1
w
, j i
Hence, Thus for any closed contour
J
*
. = 0 J
*
. = 0
Now consider
I
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
1 2 3 4
0 J J J J J = + + + =
Recall J wdy
w
x
ds
i
*
( ) =
c
c
z
t
I
On crack face, (no traction and y-displacement), thus
, leaving behind
Thus any counter-clockwise path around the crack tip will yield
J; J is path independent.
t
i
dy = = 0 0 ,
J J
3 4
0 = =
J J
1 2
=
Evaluation of J Integral ---2
1 2 3 4
t
i
t
i
I
'
a
y
x
2D body bounded by I
'
In the absence of body force, potential energy
H
H
I
=
z z
wdA u ds
A
i i
' ''
t
Suppose the crack has a vertical extension, then
d
da
dw
da
dA
du
da
ds
A
i
i
H
I
=
z z
' '
t (1)
Note the integration is now over
I
'
Evaluation of J Integral ---3
t
i
t
i
Noting that
d
da a
x
a x a x
x
a
=
c
c
+
c
c
c
c
=
c
c

c
c
c
c
= since 1
d
da
w
a
w
x
dA
w
a
u
x
ds
A
i
i
H
I
=
c
c

c
c

c
c

c
c
z z
( ) ( )
' '
t
(2)
c
c
=
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
c
c
w
a
w
a x
u
a
ij
i
ij
j
i
c
c
o ( )
Using principle of virtual work, for equilibrium, then from
eq.(1), we have

d
da
H
= 0
o t
ij
j
A
i
i
i
x
u
a
dA
u
a
ds
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
z z
( )
' '
I
Thus,
d
da
du
dx
ds
dw
dx
dA
i
i
A
H
I
=
z z
t
' '
Using divergence theorem and multiplying by -1
= =
c
c
z z
d
da
wn
du
dx
ds wdy
w
x
ds
x i
i
i
H
I I
( )
' '
t t
Evaluation of J Integral ---4
j
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
i

Therefore, J is energy release rate , for linear or non-linear
elastic material
d
da
H
In general

Potential energy; U=strain energy stored; F=work done by
external force and A is the crack area.
H = =
cH
c
U F J
A
and
H =
a
u
p
Evaluation of J Integral ---5
-dP
*
dU dU =
dA
Displacement
* U P U H= A= =Complementary strain energy = dP A
}
0
p
L
o
a
d
For Displacement Control
The Difference in the two cases is and hence J for

both load Displacement controls are same
*
p
dU
J
da
=
dU
J
da
A
=
1
. .
2
dp d dU A
0 0
0
. .
.
p D
p p
J dp dp
a a
or
p
J pd d
a a
A
A A
c cA
= A =
c c
c c
= A = A
c c
} }
} }
J=G and is more general description of energy release rate
2
'
I
K
J
E
=
Evaluation of J-Integral
More on J Dominance
J integral provides a unique measure of the strength of the singular
fields in nonlinear fracture. However there are a few important
Limitations, (Hutchinson, 1993)
(1) Deformation theory of plasticity should be valid with small strain
(2) If finite strain effects dominate and microscopic failures occur, then
this region should be much smaller compared to J dominated region
Again based on the HRR singularity
( )
1
1
,
n
I
ij
ij y
y y n
J
n
I r
o o o u
oo o
+
| |
=
|
\ .
Based on the condition (2), we would
like to evaluate the inner radius r
o
of J
dominance. Let R be the radius
where the J solutions are satisfied
within 10% of complete solution.
FEM shows that
R
o
r
3
o COD
r o
However we need r
o
should be greater than the forces zone
(e.g. grain size in intergranular fracture, mean spacing of voids)
Numerical simulations show that HRR singular solutions hold
good for about 20-25% of plastic zone in mode I under SSY
Hence we need a large crack size (a/w >0.5) . Then finite strain
region is , minimum ligament size for valis J
IC
is

should be well within the region of J dominance

Note that near tip strain distribution for a growing crack has a
logarithmic singularity which is weaker then 1/r singularity for a
stationary crack
3
COD
o
25
IC
y
J
b
o
=
and a R
dJ J
da R
> A
Williams solution to fracture problem
Williams in 1957 proposed Airys stress function

As a solution to the biharmonic equation

For the crack problem the boundary conditions are

Note will have singularity at the crack tip but is single valued

Note that both p and q satisfy Laplace equations such that

( ) ( )
R r u u =
2 2
4 2
2 2 2
1 1
0 where
r r r r

u
c c c
V = V = + +
c c c
0 for
r uu u
o o u t = = =

( ) ( )
2
, , r p r q r u u = +
2 2
0 p q V = V =
Now, for the present problem.
( ) ( )
( ) | |
( ) | |
( ) | |
( )( ) ( ) | |
1
2 2
1
2
1 1
2
2 2
2
1 1
2
1 1
2
cos sin
cos 2 sin 2
Then
cos cos 2
sin sin 2
Consider only mode I solution with
cos cos 2
1 2 cos cos 2
z
z
r
p Ar A r
q B r A r
r A B
r A B
r A B
r A B
r
r

uu
u
u u
u u
u u
u u
u u

o u u
o
+ +
+
+
+
= +
= + + +
= + +
+ + +
= + +
c
= = + + + +
c
c
=
c
( ) ( ) ( ) | |
1 1
1
1 sin 2 sin 2
r
r A B

u
u u
c
| |
|
c
\ .
= + + + +
Williams Singularity3
Applying boundary conditions,
( )
( )
1 1
1 1
A +B cos 0
2 sin 0 A B
t
t
=
+ + = (

Case (i) cos 0 t =
2 1
, Z=0,1,2...
2
Z

+
=
1 1
B
2
A

=
+
or,
sin 0 t =
Z =
1 1
B A =
Case (ii)
Since the problem is linear, any linear combination of the above two will also be
acceptable.
Thus
Though all values are mathematically fine, from the physics point of view, since
2
with Z= ... 3, 2, 1, 0,1, 2,3...
Z
=
and
ij ij
r r

o c
Williams Singularity4
( )
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
2A
2 1
0
=

ij ij
R
ij ij
r
R
r
U r
rdrd
r drd

o c
o c u
u
+
=
} }
} }
Since U should be provided for any annular rising behavior and R , 0
r
0
as 0, 1 ( 1 makes 0)
ij
U r o < > = =
1
1
3 1 1 Z
2 2 2 2
1
1
2 3
, needs > 1. Thus
=- , 0, ,1, , 2... with = Z=-1,0,
positive number.
The most dominant singular form
=- and B
r
i
A
Also u r
where

+

=
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
5
2
1 1
2 2
3 1
1
2 3 2
2
0
1
Now cos cos
+ ...
...
and
where indicates the order of
I
ij ij ij ij
r A
r
r
Ar r r
u u
o o u

u = + (

u
+ u
= + u + u
u
Williams Singularity4
( )
( )
0
1
Note the second term in is a non-singular
and non-vanishing term. However, higher order vanish as r 0
with
2
(no sum on x)
2
ij ij
I
I
I
ij ij ix jx
r
K
A
K
T
r
o
t
o o u o o
t
= u

=
= +
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
5
2
1 1
2 2
3 1
1
2 3 2
2
0
1
Now
cos cos
...
...
and
where indicates the order of
I
ij ij ij ij
r A
r
r
Ar r r
u u
|
|
|
o o u | |
|

= + (

+
+
= + +
Williams Singularity5
( )
( )
0
1
Note the second term in is a non-singular
and non-vanishing term. However, higher order vanish as r 0
with
2
(no sum on x)
2
ij ij
I
I
I
ij ij ix jx
r
K
A
K
T
r
o
t
o o u o o
t
= u

=
= +
Williams Singularity6
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
For in-plane stress components,
0

0 0
2
I I
xx xy xx xy
I
I I
yx yy
yx yy
T
K
r
o o o u o u
o o
t o u o u
| |
| |
| |
= + |
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
\ .
I
Second-term is generally termed as "T-stress" or
"T-tensor" with
For brittle crack of length 2a in x-z plane
with & applied
K and

xx
yy xx
yy
T
a
o
o o
o t

=
=
T=
yy xx
o o

x
y
2a
z
HRR Singularity1
0 0 0
Hutchinson, Rice and Rosenbren have evaluated the character of crack tip
in power-law hardening materials.
Suppose the material is represented by Ramberg-Osgood model,

c o o
o
c o o
|
= +
\
0
0
0
Reference value of stress=yield strength
, strain at yield
E
dimensionless constant
strain-hardening exponent
n
n
o
o
c
o
|
|
.

1
Note if elastic strains are negligible, then

3 3
;
2 2
n
y y
n
ij eq ij
eq ij
y ij y
c o
o
c o
c o o
o
o o
c o o

| |
=
|
|
\ .
| |
= =
|
|
\ .
HRR Singularity2
( )
( ) ( )
( )
4
0
1 2
0
Then
, , , ,
(similar to Williams expression)

s t
s
f r n
C r r
k r
| | o o
| u u
| o | u
V +
= +
=
( )
( )
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
Applying the appropriate boundary conditions
,
,
Integration const
n
ij ij
n
n
n
ij ij
n
n
EJ
n
I r
EJ
n
E
I r
I
o o o u
oo
o
c c u
oo
+
+
(
=
(

(
=
(

ant
, Dimensionless functions of n and o c u