Advance Strength of Materials: Topics Covered

Advance Strength of Materials
Lecture 7
Topics covered
Introduction to fracture mechanics
The elastic stress field
Superposition principle
Fracture toughness
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
D:\Data\Curtin\Lecture courses\Materials 337\Latest versions\Lecture notes\Lecture_07_06.docx
23/03/2015
Lecture 7
Introduction to fracture mechanics

In several of our earlier lectures we have discussed the fatigue failure of steel and aluminium
components under different types of loading. In all cases we have assumed that eventual
failure was due to the growth of cracks when the stress was above a particular stress, i.e.,
CLCDCSSn for a specimen with no stress concentration.
Alternatively, we can state that fatigue failure can be overcome through preventing the growth
of cracks. However, in order to do this we need a quantitative description of crack growth
under the prevailing conditions.
The subject which provides this quantitative description is known as fracture mechanics and
we shall initially consider the filed of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM).
Consider three identical specimen, each precracked to a crack length of ao and then subjected
to fatigue stresses S1 > S2 > S3 as follows:
Fatigue crack length versus applied cycles. Fracture is indicated by the x [1].
For larger stress levels the crack propagation rate is larger and thus the fatigue life is shorter.
Hence, it can be shown that the total life to failure is dependent on: (i) initial crack length, ao,
(ii) the stress magnitude, and (iii) the final fracture resistance.
How can this information be used to predict fatigue life and for the design of components
expected to fail under fatigue? A format more useful for design is a plot of the crack growth
rate, da/dN, versus a quantity known as the stress intensity factor range, K, which will be
defined later.
-2-
Lecture 7
Schematic behaviour of fatigue crack growth versus K [2].
The general shape of this curve has been confirmed for many materials, including the example
shown below:
Fatigue crack data for Ti-6222 titanium alloy [3].

-3-
Lecture 7
It can be shown that the S-shaped curve is independent of initial crack length. The quantity
K takes into account the crack length, a, and the stress range, S.
Hence, if the stress intensity factor is correctly chosen for a given component and crack
geometry then integration of the S-shaped curve can provide the fatigue crack growth life for
components subjected to different stress levels and different initial crack sizes.
For example, the linear portion of the da/dN vs K curve can be described by the Paris
equation of the form [4]:
da
m
= c ( K )
dN
(1)
where c and m are constants. Typical values of c and m for various metals are given as
follows:
Approximate region II fatigue crack growth rate properties for the Paris equation for various
metals [5-10 ].
Material
Slope, m Intercept, c (m/cycle)
Ferritic-pearlite steels
3.0
6.9 x 10-12
Martensitic steels
2.25
1.35 x 10-10
Austenitic stainless steels
3.25
5.6 x 10-12
7075-T6 wrought aluminium
3.7
2.7 x 10-11
A356-T6 cast aluminium
11.2
1.5 x 10-20
Ti-6-4 mill annealed titanium
3.2
1.0 x 10-11
Ti-62222 mill annealed titanium
3.2
2.3 x 10-11
AZ91E-T6 cast aluminium
3.9
1.8 x 10-10
Also, as we will find shortly, for simple crack geometries:
K =
a
(2)
Combining equations (1) and (2) results in:

m
da
= c a
dN
(3)
If we assume constant amplitude loading then is constant and hence:

dN =
da
c a
(4)
-4-
Lecture 7
Integrating the above equation gives:
N=
aend
1
c s
a m / 2 da
(5)
astart
Hence, we can generate a curve of a vs N, even if is some other value and the initial crack
size is different.
Combined fatigue crack growth data in the linear portion (i.e., region II) of the da/dN vs K
curve for a wide variety of steels with Sy varying from 250 to 2070 MPa is found to fall into
two main groups for ferritic-pearlite and martensitic steels as follows:
Summary of fatigue crack growth rate data for steels: (a) ferritic-pearlite, and (b) martensitic
steels [10].
Whereas the crack growth data varied by a factor of 2 for the ferritic-pearlite data, the
martensitic data varied by a factor of 5. The upper boundaries of the data represent
conservative values when no other data is available.
-5-
Lecture 7
A general schematic sigmoidal scatter band for the above data, in addition to austenitic steels,
is shown as follows:
Superposition of Barsoms scatter bands on the general fatigue crack growth scatter bands
for steel [10].
For a given crack size there is a critical value of the stress intensity factor, KC, which, when
exceeded, results in the crack propagating at very high speed, i.e., catastrophic (final) fracture.
Alternatively we can state that, for any given stress loading, there exists a critical crack size
above which the component will fail catastrophically.
Note that the stress required for catastrophic failure in a cracked component will be lower
than that required to fail an uncracked component, e.g., Sy or Su, due to the stress
concentration effect of the crack.
Note: It will be implied later than in many practical cases an addition geometrical term, Y,
needs to be included the equation (2) relating the flaw size to stress intensity factor. The value
-6-
Lecture 7
of Y depends on the particular loading situation, specimen geometry, and crack geometry.
Therefore, equations (2) to (5) should more generally be given by the following:
K =Y a
(2a)
m
da
= c Y a
dN
(3a)
dN =
N=
da
c Y a
aend
1
c Y s
(4a)
a m / 2 da
(5a)
astart
For example, the influence of crack width on a finite width plate is shown as follows:
Finite width correction for a centre cracked plate [11].
-7-
Lecture 7
Example 1
A transverse crack extends 6 mm inwards from the surface of a 320 mm diameter steel tie rod
of an extrusion press. The press load is approximately 2000 tonnes and is equally shared by
four such rods. Between press cycles, which occur 1500 times per month, there is no load on
the tie rods. A fracture mechanics evaluation yields a shape factor, Y = 2.2 (K = Y(a)1/2
MPam1/2) and is assumed to be independent of crack length, a. The evaluation concludes that
when the crack is 75 mm deep the tie rod will be in danger of brittle fracture. The fatigue
behaviour of the steel is known from experience to be:
da
3.5
= 1.8 x1011 ( K ) m per cycle
dN
It is desirable to keep the press operating. How long will it be possible to put off replacing the
tie rod?
We will use the following expression to solve this problem:

m
da
= c Y a
dN
The value of the stress difference, , will be:
dN =
N=
da
c Y a
aend
1
c Y s
a m / 2 da
astart
Integrating with respect to a gives:

aend
a1 m / 2
N=
m
c Y s 1 m / 2 astart
1
0.075
1
1.8 x1011 2.2 x60.99 x
3.5
a13.5/ 2
1 3.5 / 2
0.006
-8-
1 2000 x103 x9.81

= 60.99 MPa
2
4
( 0.16 )
Lecture 7
Note that, in the above equation, the value of in units of MPa must be used.
0.075
a 0.75
= 267.8 x
0.75 0.006
= 267.9 x 52.55
= 14078 cycles
Maximum time to failure =
14078
= 9.39 months
1500
Note that in practice we would obviously want to use a suitable safety margin and not let the
component be used until the point of catastrophic failure.
The elastic stress field

When discussing the growth of cracks, the type of loading is very important. All stress
systems at the tip of a crack can be derived from the following three loading modes:
The three modes of loading [12].
In this discussion we will only concern ourselves with Mode I loading, such as often occurs in
components subjected to tensile loading. The derivation of the stress field at a crack tip is
arduous and includes advanced solution techniques for the Airy stress function which is
beyond the scope of this course. We will simply state the results.
-9-
Lecture 7
Consider a linear crack in an infinite plate subject to a biaxial stress field as follows:
xy
x
Schematic representation of a linear crack in an infinite plate.
The following boundary conditions must apply:

(i)
At y = 0, y = 0
(ii)
At x = , y =
(iii)
At x = a (i.e., crack tip), y
-a < x < a
An example of a complex Airy stress function# which satisfies these conditions is:
(z) =
a
1
z
(6)
To be discussed in later lectures.

- 10 -
Lecture 7
Solving for the stresses gives:
=
sx
s a
3
cos 1 sin sin
2
2
2
2 r
(7a)
=
sy
s a
3
cos 1 + sin sin
2
2
2
2 r
(7b)
s a
3
sin cos cos
2
2
2
2 r
(7c)
xy =
Note that as r 0,
The stresses are products of the position relative to the crack tip, i.e., f()/(2r)1/2 and a factor
a which is a function of the remote stress and the crack length. Thus, a describes
the magnitude of the elastic stresses in the vicinity of the crack tip. This factor is called the
mode I stress intensity factor:
KI = a
(units: MPam1/2)
(8)
Note that:
(i)
This solution is valid when r << a.
(ii)
In the vicinity of the crack tip, the total stress field due to two or more different
mode I loading systems can be obtained by superposition of the respective
stress intensity factors.
(iii)
In general, the term

cancelled out.
a does not appear and hence the 1/2 terms are not
The geometry of finite sized specimens has an effect on the crack tip stress field and so
expressions for stress intensity factors have to be modified by the addition of correction
factors to enable their use in practical problems. Several general forms exist:
a
=
KI a f
w
(9a)
a
=
K I c a f
w
(9b)
- 11 -
Lecture 7
KI = Y a
(9c)
In each case, the a term is modified to account for the geometry. Note that w takes into
account the specimen width in, for example, a finite width plate.
The modification factors, f(a/W), c, and Y have to be determined from stress analysis. Most
are obtained from numerical solutions.
An example of this is a plate of finite width, w, subject to uniaxial tension with a transverse
crack of width, 2a. Many solutions exist with varying accuracies:
2a
KI = a
w
a
tan
a
w
(10a)
or
a
=
KI a f
w
where:
2
a
a
a
a
f =
1 + 0.256 1.152 + 12.2
w
w
w
w
- 12 -
(10b)
Lecture 7
or
a
a
f = sec
w
w
or
a
f =
w
0.3 % for
1
2a
1
w
a
0.35
w
(10c)
(10d)
In the practical application of fracture mechanics solutions, stress intensity factors are
obtained from compendiums. The most commonly encountered stress intensity factors have
been shown on the following page.
Example 2
A centre-cracked plate has a uniaxial tensile load, P, of 500 kN. Choose the most appropriate
loading condition from Figures 4(a-c) and determine the following (assuming b = 180 mm, t =
15 mm, h b , and h t ):
(a) What is the stress intensity factor, KI, for a crack length of a = 15 mm?
(b) What is the stress intensity factor, KI, for a crack length of a = 90 mm?
(c) What is the critical crack length, ac, for fracture if the material is 2014 T651 aluminium
with KIC = 24 MPam1/2.
Effect of a/b ratio, , on the constant, F, for different loading conditions [13].
- 13 -
Lecture 7
Expressions for F as a function of a/b ratio, , for the loading conditions shown above:
1 0.5 + 0.326 2
1
(a)
F=
(b)
a 2
a
F= 1 + 0.122 cos 4
tan
2 a
2
(c)
F 0.265 (1 ) +
=
(a)
What is the stress intensity factor, KI, for a crack length of a = 15 mm?
Sg =
h / b 1.5
h/b 2
0.857 + 0.265
(1 )
3/ 2
P
2bt
500 x103
2 x0.18 x0.015
= 92.6 MPa
a=
=
a
b
0.015
0.180
= 0.083
F 1 (approximation from figure for the case 0.4)
K I = FS g a
= (1)(92.6 x 106)( x 0.015)1/2
= 20.1 MPam1/2
(b)
What is the stress intensity factor, KI, for a crack length of a = 90 mm?
a=
=
a
b
0.09
0.18
= 0.5
- 14 -
Lecture 7
In this case, > 0.4 so we will use the general equation:
F=
1 0.5 + 0.326 2
1
1 0.5 ( 0.5 ) + 0.326 ( 0.5 )
h / b 1.5
2
1 0.5
= 1.176
K I = FS g a
= (1.176)(92.6 x 106)( x 0.09)1/2
= 57.9 MPam1/2
(c) What is the critical crack length, ac, for fracture if the material is 2014 T651 aluminium
with KIC = 24 MPam1/2.
In this case, a is not known, therefore, c is not known.
If we first assume 0.4 then we can use K 1
K IC = FS g ac
24 x 106 = (1)(92.6 x 106)( x ac)1/2
Solving for ac gives:
ac = 0.021 m
This would result in:
a=
=
ac
b
0.021
0.180
= 0.119
The original assumption of 0.4 was correct and thus ac = 0.021 m is reasonably
accurate.
- 15 -
Lecture 7
Superposition principle
One important point resulting from the above analysis is that the stress field equations (7ac)
would be the same for all mode I cases. Thus, the stress intensity factor for a components
subjected to a number of load systems, p, q, r, ..., can be obtained simply from superposition,
i.e.,
KI = KIp + KIq + KIr + ...
(11)
The principle of superposition can also be used for situations where the loading is entirely
mode II or III. However, note that this superposition principle is not valid for the case of
loading under a combination of different modes.
The superposition principle can occasionally be used to derive stress intensity factors. For
example, consider the case of a crack with internal pressure as follows:
Illustration of the superposition principle [14].

Figure (a) illustrates a plate without a crack and subject to a uniaxial tensile stress, . The
stress intensity factor for this situation, KIa, must be zero as there is no crack present (i.e., a =
0). Imagine that a crack of length 2a is then introduced into the centre of the plate. This would
be allowed if a uniaxial compressive stress, -, was applied to the crack as shown in Figure
(b).
Figure (b) is thus a superposition of a plate with a central crack under uniaxial tension, , and
a plate with a crack having a compressive stress, -, at its edges (Figures (d) and (e)). It thus
follows that:
KId + KIe = KIb = 0
(12a)
KIe = -KId = - a
(12b)
or
- 16 -
Lecture 7
The case of a crack with an internal pressure, p, is equivalent to Figure (e) except that the
pressure acts in a direction opposite to . In this case the sign of K would thus be reversed,
resulting in the following:
KI = p p a
(13)
Fracture toughness
Using equations such as KI = a we have been able to relate the stress, , to the stress
intensity factor, KI. We can imagine that if is increased to progressively larger values then
eventually a maximum value will be reached, max, after which the specimen will fail
catastrophically. From examining the previous equations it is easy to see that the stress
intensity factor will also have a maximum value, known as the critical stress intensity factor,
KIC, or fracture toughness, such that:
KIC = max a
(14)
The following general equation can thus be noted:
max
K IC
a
(15)
The maximum stress, i.e., strength, for a component containing a crack is thus proportional to
the fracture toughness and inversely proportional to the square root of the crack half-length.
The units of KIC are MPam1/2 with typical values for various metals being shown below:
Mechanical properties of typical materials [15].
- 17 -
Lecture 7
Values of K for practical geometries [16].

- 18 -
Lecture 7
Values of KIC for specific metal alloys have been shown in the following table:
Fracture toughness values for typical materials [17].
Note that KIC is essentially an indicator of how much energy is required to propagate a crack
within the component. Following from this, it is clear that KIC is a material property which
measures toughness with tough materials generally having KIC values greater than 20
MPam1/2 whilst the value of KIC for brittle materials may be as low as 1 MPam1/2 for certain
ceramics such as magnesium oxide (MgO). Incidentally, arguably the main reason behind the
development of composite materials was to increase the fracture toughness of brittle materials.
Example 3
The following long rectangular bar of thickness, b = 20 mm, and width, w = 100 mm, is made
from 4340 steel with a fracture toughness, KIC, of 60 MPam1/2, and subjected to a load, P, of
250 kN. During maintenance, a 20 mm deep edge crack is found. Assuming LEFM, is it safe
to return the bar to service without repair?
20 mm
P
w
60 mm
The load is not central and we dont have a Y factor for this geometry and loading. However,
both tension and bending loads are present and for each of these we do have a Y factor. Recall
that KI m; this linearity allows superposition as follows:
P 250 x103
=
= 125 MPa
A 0.1x0.02
M = 250 x 103 x (0.06 0.05) = 2.5 kNm

- 19 -
Lecture 7
From the list of standard stress intensity factors we get for this geometry:
K I = Y a
(16a)
Y =1.99 0.41 + 18.7 2 38.48 3 + 53.85 4
(16b)
where
and
a=
a
w
(16c)
For our situation, = 0.2, which gives:

Y = 2.434
K I = Y a
= 2.434 x 125 x 106 x (0.02)1/2
= 43.0 MPam1/2
The standard stress intensity factors for this geometry would be:
KI =
6M
Y a
bw2
(17a)
- 20 -
Lecture 7
where
Y=
1.12 + ( 2.62 1.59 )

1 0.7
(17b)
a=
a
w
(17c)
and
For our situation, = 0.2, which gives:

Y = 1.05
KI =
6M
Y a
bw2
6 ( 2.5 x103 )
0.02 ( 0.1)
1.05 x0.02
= 19.8 MPam1/2
KI = 43.0 + 19.8 = 62.5 MPam1/2
repair component because 62.5 MPam1/2 > KIC
- 21 -
Lecture 7
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
R. I. Stephens, A. Fatemi, R. R. Stephens, and H. O. Fuchs, p. 143 in Metal fatigue in engineering, 2nd
edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York) (2001).
Unknown reference
R. I. Stephens, A. Fatemi, R. R. Stephens, and H. O. Fuchs, p. 144 in Metal fatigue in engineering, 2nd
edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York) (2001).
P. C. Paris, M. P. Gomez, and W. E. Anderson, A rational analytical theory of fatigue, Trend Eng., 13(9)
p. 9 (1961).
Damage tolerant design handbook, A compilation of fracture and crack growth data for high strength
alloys, CINDAS/Purdue University, Lafeyette (1994).
R. I. Stephens, in Fatigue and fracture toughness of A356-T6 cast aluminium alloy, SP-760 (Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale) (1988).
J. Feiger, in Small fatigue crack growth from notches in Ti-6Al-4V under constant and variable amplitude
loading (M. S. thesis, University of Idaho) (1999).
H. O. Liknes and R. R. Stephens, Effect of geometry and load history on fatigue crack growth in Ti62222, p. 175 in Fatigue crack growth thresholds, endurance limits, and design (ASTM STP 1372, J. C.
Newman and R. S. Piascik, eds., ASTM) (1999).
D. L. Goodenberger and R. I. Stephens, Fatigue of AZ91E-T6 cast magnesium alloy, J. Eng. Mater.
Tech., 115, p. 391 (1993).
J. M. Barsom, Fatigue-crack propagation in steels of various yield strengths, Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Ind.,
Series B, Number 4, p. 1190 (1971).
D. Broek, p. 83 in Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, 4th edition (Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht) (1986).
Dordrecht) (1986).
R. J. Juvinall, p.234 in Engineering considerations of stress, strain, and strength (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York) (1967).
Dordrecht) (1986).
M. F. Ashby and D. R. H. Ashby, in Engineering materials II (Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK) (1992).
Dordrecht) (1986).
R. W. Hertzberg, in Fracture mechanics of engineering materials (John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA)
(1995).
- 22 -

Advance Strength of Materials: Topics Covered

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advance Strength of Materials: Topics Covered

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advance Strength of Materials

Department of Mechanical Engineering