T-Stress by Volumetric Method: A New Approach

M. Hadj Meliani 1,2(*), Z. Azari2, G. Pluvinage2 and Y.G. Matvienko3

1

Laboratoire de Physique Thorique et Physique des Matriaux (L.P.T.P.M),FSSI, Universit Hassiba

Benbouali-Chlef 02000-Algeria.
2

Laboratoire de Fiabilit Mcanique, LFM-ENIM, le de saulcy 57045, Universit Paul Verlaine de

Metz, France.
3
Laboratory of Modelling Damage and Fracture, Mechanical Engineering Research Institute of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, 4 M. Kharitonievsky Per.101990 Moscow, Russia.
(*)
E-mail : hadjmeliani@univ-metz.fr

Abstract
A two-parameter fracture criterion has been proposed to predict fracture conditions of notched
components. This criterion includes the critical notch stress intensity factor K , c , which
represents fracture toughness of a material with a notch of radius , and the effective T-stress.
The effective T-stress Teff has been estimated as the average value of the T-stress distribution
in the region ahead of the notch tip at the effective distance X eff . These parameters were
derived from the volumetric method of notch fracture mechanics. The results of numerical
Teff , c -stress estimation are compared to the Teff , c -stress results obtained from experimental

analysis. The material failure curve or master curve K , c = f (Teff , c ) has been established as a
result of the notched specimen tests. It was shown that the notch fracture toughness is a linear
decreasing function of the Teff , c -stress. The use of the material failure curve to predict fracture
conditions was demonstrated on gas pipes with surface notch.

1. Introduction
It is now admitted that mechanical properties are sensitive to specimen geometry and loading
mode. One of the most ancient observations of this phenomenon is the so called scale effect
on tensile properties which evidence has been noted by Galileo Galile and Leonardo da Vinci.
Fracture Resistance R is also sensitive to specimen geometry, ligament size, thickness and
loading mode. It is measured according to standards which provide a reference fracture
resistance value Rref which is generally the small scale yielding. However its real value in a
structure or in a component depends on stress state and more precisely on constraint.
Constraint factor L is defined as the ratio of the yield stress y for a given stress state over the
yield stress in pure uniaxial tension y,pt.
L = y / y , pt

(1)

This parameter is often used to explain the difference in fracture toughness between plane
stress and plane strain situation. The possibility to use the fracture resistance obtain in a
reference situation to a real one is known as transferability problem. It is generally assumed
that fracture resistance R for a real structure is a function of the reference fracture resistance
Rref and a transferability parameter Z.

R = f ( Rref , Z )

(2)

Stress triaxiality has been used to predict ductile failure strain under different stress state
and is defined as the ratio of the hydrostatic stress h and the equivalent Von Mises stress
VM.

= h / VM

(3)

This is particularly true for ductile failure [1] but one note that cleavage stress seems also
sensitive to . Lost of constraint has been defined by Dodds et al.[2] by the way of Q
parameter. This parameter is defined as ratio between the stress level for a given situation to a
reference situation generally small scale yielding (SSY) and divided to yield stress. The
difference between the opening stress yy levels is measured at the conventional non
dimensional distance x2 as ry/J = 2.

Q=

yy , real ( x 2 , = 0) yy , SSY ( x 2 , = 0)

(4)
Re
This parameter is only defined is the stress distribution are homothetic and this induces a
validity condition based on stress gradient given as :
Q(1) Q(5 )
gradQ =
0,1
(5)
4
where Q(1) and Q(5) are Q values determined respectively at non dimensional distance ry/J =
1 and ry/J = 5. This condition limits strongly the used of Q parameter which in reduced in
case of brittle fracture as a simple relative difference in fracture toughness. This parameter has
been extended in the case of notch tip stress distribution by Akkouri et al.[3].
250
a/W=0,1
a/W=0,2
a/W=0,5

Jc [MPa.mm]

200

Q (J/b*0)
T= -100C

150

100

50

0
-1.5

-1

-0.5

Q-parametr [-]

Figure 1 : Evolution of fracture toughness JIc with Q parameter , cast steel at -100C. [4]
A decreasing of fracture toughness Jc with constraint parameter has been note by Chlup et al.
[4] who have perform tests on CT specimen made in Cast steel (Yield stress 280 MPa) with
non dimensional crack length a/W= 0.1 ; 0.2 and 0.5 at -100 C. These authors have found a
decreasing of fracture toughness with ligament size. Transferability has been expressed as a
curve J = f(Q) where Q is the Dodds parameter.

The concept of brittle crack-extension resistance is based on the assumption that stress
intensity factor K-dominance exists at a crack-tip. Then, in a region surrounding the crack-tip;
the stress fields can be characterized by the mathematical solution limited to the second term
[5]:

K ij 2r . f ij ( ) + T .r 0 xi xj

as

r ,

(6)

where K is the Stress Intensity Factor, fij() defines the angular function, ij is the symbol of
Kroneckers determinant. A polar coordinate system (r,) with origin at the crack tip is used.
The higher terms is called the T-stress. Txx, or simply T, a constant stress acting parallel to the
crack in the direction xx with a magnitude proportional to the gross stress in the vicinity of the
crack. The non-singular term T represents a tension (or compression) stress. Positive T-stress
strengthens the level of crack tip stress triaxiality and leads to high crack-tip constraint while
negative T-stress reduces the level of triaxiality and leads to the lost of constraint. Rice [6],
Larsson and Carlsson [7] have shown that sign and magnitude of the T-stress substantially
change the size and shape of the plane strain crack tip plastic zone. Analytical and
experimental studies have show that T can be used as a measure of constraint for contained
yielding; see for example Sumpter [8]. Chao et al. [9] and Hancock et al.[10] have shown that
fracture toughness increases when (T ) increases .
In this paper the concept of T-stress as a constraint factor has been extend to notch tip stress
distribution as the effective T stress Tef. The fracture toughness measured from notched
specimen as the critical notch stress intensity factor and has been determined using the
Volumetric method [11]. Transferability is then proposed as a K,c Tef curve and establish
from 4 specimen types (CT, SENT, DCB and RT) made in X52 pipe steel. A fracture driving
force diagram is establish for each studied structure (gas pipe with surface notch) as K,ap=
f(Tef, ap). Fracture conditions are then given by the intersection of master curve and fracture
driving force diagram.

2. Notch fracture Mechanics and Volumetric method

Notch fracture mechanics (NFM) extend the principles of (crack) fracture mechanics to notch,
crack is then considers as a special case of notch. Volumetric Method [11], is a mesofracture
criterion method derived from NFM. It is a two parameters fracture criterion taking into
account the average stress value into the fracture process volume. The Volumetric Method
offers a specific method to determine the fracture process volume which is physically, the
high stressed region. The limit of this region is an inflexion point on the opening stress
distribution which corresponds to the zone where this distribution is governs by the notch
stress intensity factor. Experimental proofs of the validity of this method are given in
reference [11]. The averaging of the stress distribution into this volume can be simplified if
we assumed that it is quasi-cylindrical. The diameter of this cylinder is called the effective
distance X ef . The average stress value within the fracture process zone is then obtained by a
line method which consists to average the opening stress distribution over the effective
distance. One obtains the second fracture criterion parameter called the effective stress ef .
However, it is necessary to take into account the stress gradient due to loading mode and
specimen geometry. This is done by multiply the stress distribution by a weight

function (r , ) where r is the distance from notch tip and the relative stress gradient
defined by :

(r ) =

yy (r )

yy (r )

(7)

Several weights functions can be used including the unit and Petersons weight function and
are described in [10]. The effective stress is finally defined as the average of the weighted
stress inside the fracture process zone:

ef

1
=
X ef

X ef

(r ).(r , )dr

(8)

yy

where ef , X ef , yy (r ) and (r , ) are effective stress, effective distance, opening stress. The
graphical representation of this local fracture stress criterion is given in figure 3 where the
stress normal to the notch plane is plotted against the distance ahead of notch. For
determination of X ef , a graphical procedure is used; it has been observed that the effective
distance is related to the minimum value of the relative stress gradient . The opening stress
distribution at the notch is calculated using FEM with elastoplastic material behaviour. In
figure 3, the opening stress distribution versus distance is plotted in bi-logarithmic axes; the
relative stress gradient is also plotted on the same graph. The position of the minimum
relative stress gradient allows obtaining an effective distance precise value. One notes on the
same picture that the effective corresponds to stress distribution governs by a power law and
fixed by a constant which is precisely the notch stress intensity factor defined from effective
distance and stress by the following relation ship :
K = ef 2X ef

(9)

A simple fracture criterion is obtain by using the critical notch stress intensity factor K ,c and
write
K = K ,c
The critical notch stress intensity factor is a facture toughness values with units
notch has parallel side (notch angle equal to zero) and for elastic behaviour.

(10)
MPa m ,

if the

0.5

Log(yy(r))

KI=eff.(2..Xeff)

Relative stress gradient

Log(xx(r)-yy(r))

Xeff

Xn

Fracture Process Zone (FPZ)

Log(r)

(r) = (1/(yy(r)) * (dyy(r)/dr)

Stress distribution along defect root

eff

Geometrical defect
Teff

T =(xx-yy)
T-Stress distribution along defect root

Figure 2. Determination of the notch stress intensity factor and the effective T-stress at the
notch tip.

3. Numerical determination of effective T-stress for notch

Several methods have been proposed in literature to determine T-stress for cracked specimen.
The stress difference method has been proposed by Yang et al.[12]. In this method, T stress is
evaluated from stress distribution generally computed by finite element method and applying
definition of T-stress given in Figure 1 where T-stress is equal to the difference between
opening stress and parallel to crack stress. Chao et al [13] compute by Finite element method
xx in direction = 180 (in the crack rear back direction) and define T stress as the value of
xx in region where value is constant. Ayatollahi et Al [14] have determined T stress by using
the displacement method in finite element and obtain then a stabilised T stress distribution
along ligament. Wang [15] has determined T stress by superposition of a crack free specimen
with a specimen with crack faces submitted to a pressure distribution. T is then computed by
the sum of two contributions, one to crack pressure distribution and the second to the
difference (xx-yy) at a distance equal to crack length). In this paper, we have chosen to
determine T stress in a notched body by stress difference method because it is the most simple
and widely used and then allows comparison of our results. However, if one postulates to
know the stress distribution (from Williams solution for example), one can determine Tstress by measuring strain or stress in a single point. Then T-stress for notch can be evaluated
by two methods: an experimental method and a numerical one.

3.1 Finite Element Analysis

Numerically, we use the Stress Difference Method (SDM).This method is simply based on the
T stress definition:

T = ( xx - yy )r = 0, = 0

(11)

T stress is evaluated using finite element method and computing the difference of principal
stresses along ligament for direction =0. However, T-stress can be evaluated in any
direction and given by simple relationships in some given directions.
=0

Table 1: T stress values according to measurement direction.

= = /3
= /2
= 2/3

T = ( xx - yy )

T = xx

T = xx yy 3

T = xx yy 3

T = ( xx - yy )

An example of the computing T-stress distribution along ligament for a Roman Tile (RT)
specimen with notch is given in Figure 5. A large range of non dimensional notch length a/t is
explored [a/t = 0.1-0.7].
500
a/t
a/t
a/t
a/t
a/t
a/t

N otch-tip

=0.05
=0.2
=0.4
=0.6
=0.8
=0.95

T-Stress, (MPa)

P= 150 N
-500

(Zone III)

(Zone II)

(Zone I)
-1000
1E-3

0,01

0,1

D istance from notch-tip, r(m m )

Figure 5: T-stress distribution along ligament for a Roman Tile specimen with large range of
non dimensional notch length [a/t= 0.1-0.7].
We note that T is not really constant as in theory (see [hadj meliani]. For short crack, T
distribution is stabilised after some distance. For long crack, T increases linearly with
ligament except in a region close to crack tip. Then it is necessary to use a conventional
definition of T-stress to overcome this difficulty Maleski et al.[15] have suggest that T stress
can be represented by the following relation ship:
T ( x ) =T0 + ( x / a ) )

(12)

By extrapolation to r0, they obtain T0 value and consider this value as the acting T-stress.
Using the Volumetric Method proposed by Pluvinage [11], we have preferred to define an
effective T-stress calculated as value corresponding to the effective distance determined on
the notch stress distribution as we can see Figure 2. The acting T-stress is named Tef. In
Figure 6, we note that the difference between T0 and Tef is small for the case of a Roman Tile
specimen.

35
Teff =-8,009 MPa

30
-50

T0=-8,635 MPa
Polynomial Fit for Data1_B on linearized scales.
Y' = A + B * X' + C * X' ^ 2 + ...
where X' = Axis-Scale-Function(X) and
Y' = Axis-Scale-Function(Y).
Parameter
Value Error
-----------------------------------------------------------A
-6,24706
1,13565
B1
16,74283
4,25146
B2
14,16093
12,6659
B3
-72,04943
17,37498
B4
-102,45491
37,8079
B5
40,84341
23,83499
B6
150,47269
30,65665
B7
117,6016
29,02721
B8
39,47125
10,13244
B9
4,86968
1,24046
------------------------------------------------------------

-100

-150

P= 150 N

R-Square(COD)
SD
N
P
-----------------------------------------------------------0,99249
4,7043 94
<0.0001
------------------------------------------------------------

-200

25

20

15

Gradient of T

T-Stress (MPa)

Linear Fit

10

5
Xeff=0.2762mm

-250
0,01

0,1

Distance from notch-tip, r(mm)

Figure 6: Example of T0 stress determination from Maleski [15] and comparison with Tef
value (a/w =0.1).

a/w
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

Used Method
-8.009
-11.213
-15.804
-21.656
-28.022
-37.638
-51.035

Maleski Method [15]

-8.635
-11.528
-16.636
-22.168
-30.119
-40.622
-55.925

E(%)
-7,816
-2,809
-5,264
-2,364
-7,483
-7,928
-9,582

3.2 Evolution of T-stress by Volumetric Method

Experience shows that the majority of pipeline failure initiates from defects or cracks which
are either inherent in the material introduced during manufacturing or damage during service.
The surface defects in a pipe under internal pressure are simulated by a very long semi
elliptical notch with parallel sides, a notch radius = 0.25 mm and the notch depth a. This
notch is oriented along the longitudinal direction. The pipe has an internal radius R and a wall
thickness t = 10 mm. To cover practical and interesting ranges of these three variables, four
different values of R/t= 5, 10, 20 and 40 were analyzed. In addition, four different notch depth
a/t ranging from 0.1 to 0.75 and different internal pressure P=20, 30, 40 and 50 bars were
introduced in the consideration. Stress distributions at the notch tip are computed by finite
element method. The applied notch stress intensity factor was calculated using the volumetric
method.

3. Conclusion

References
[1] Rice J.R and Tracey D.M, On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields,
Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 26, pp163-186, (1969).
[2] Ruggieri C., Gao X., Dodds R.H, Transferability of elastic-plastic fracture toughness
using the Weibull stress approach : Significance of parameter calibration. Engineering
fracture mechanics 67, pp. 101-117, (2000)
[3] O. Akourri, I. Elayachi , G. Pluvinage Stress Triaxiality as Fracture Toughness
Transferability Parameter for Notched Specimens International Review of Mechanical
Engineering (I.RE.M.E.), Vol. 1, N6 November (2007).
[4] Chlup Z.and Dlouhy. Y, Micromechnaical Aspects of Constraint effect at brittle fracture
initiation Transferability of Fracture Mechanical Characteristic, Nato Sciences Series,
Vol 78, (2002).
[5] Williams ML. On the stress distribution at the base of stationary crack. ASME J Appl
Mech; 24 (1957) 109-14.
[6] Rice JR. Limitations to the-scale yielding approximation for crack-tip plasticity. J. Mech.
Solids, 22, (1974)17-26.
[7] Larsson, S.G and Carlsson, A.J. Influence of non-singular stress terms and specimen
geometry on small-scale yielding at crack tips in elastic-plastic materials. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 21, (1973)263-278.
[8] Sumpter, J.D.S. An experimental investigation of the T stresses approach. Constraint
effects Fracture, ASTM STP 1171 (Edited by E. M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe and R.H.
Dodds), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 492-502, (1993).
[9] ChaoY.J., Lam P.S. and Zhang L. Effect of constraint on fracture controlled by stress
or strain , Theoritical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 30, pp 75-86, (1998).
[10] HancocK J.W, Reuter W.G, Parks D.M. Constraint and toughnes parametrized by T, in
E.M Hackett, K.H. Schwalbr, R.H . Dodds Editors , Constraint effect in Fracture, ASTM
STP 1171, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 21-40
(1993).
[11] Pluvinage G. Fracture and Fatigue Emanating from Stress Concentrators, Kluwer,
Publisher. (2003).
[12] Yang B.Ravi-Chandar K, Evaluation of T stress by stress difference method,
Enginering Fracture Mechanics, Vol 64, pp589-605, (1999).
[13] Chao Y.J. Liu S. and Broviak B.J. Brittle fracture : variation of fracture toughness
with constraint and crack curving under mode I conditions? Experimental Mechanics,
41, (3), pp 232-241, (2001).
[14] Ayatolahi M.R, Pavier M.J. Smith D.J., Mode I cracks subjected to large T stress,
International Journal of Fracture, vol 117, pp;159-174, (2002).
[15] Wang X., Elastic stress solutions forsemi-elliptical surface cracks in infinitethickness
plates, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 70, pp731-756, (2003).
[16] Maleski M.J., Kirigulige M.S. and Tippur H.V., A method for measuringMode I crack
tip constraint under dynamic and static loading conditions, Society for Experimental
Mechanics, vol 44, N 5, Octobre, (2004).

[17] Williams J.G. Ewing P.D., Fracture under complex stress the angled crack problems .
International Journal of Fracture, Vol 8, (4), pp 416-441, (1972).
[18] Wu S.Mai Y.W, Cotterell B. Prediction of initiation ductile fracture, Journal of
Mechanics Physics Solids, 43, pp793-810, (1995).
[19] Joyce J.A, Hackett. E.M, Roe C. Comparison of JIC and J-R curves for short cracks
and tensilely loaded specimen geometries of high strength structural steel NUREG CR5879 US Nuclear Regulatory Comission (1992).
[20] Liu S. Chao Y.J. , Variation of fracture toughness with constraint. , International Journal
of Fracture, 124, pp 113-117, (2003).
[ 21] Eisele U. and Roos E. , Evaluation of different fracture-mechanical J-integral initiation
values with regard to their usability in the safety assessment of components, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 130, pp237-247,1990).
[22] Matvienko Y. 17th European Conference on Fracture, September 2-5, 2008, Brno,
Czech Republic.
[23] Kabiri M.R. Fissuration des aciers haute temprature, effet de la gomtrie sur la
transfrabilit des lois de propagation, Thse Ecole des Mines de Paris, (2003).