Parametric Study of Stress Intensity Factors for Multiple

Surface Cracks in a Cylindrical Shell Subjected to Internal

Pressure

T. Ahmad* and T. Dirgantara†

Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Jawa Barat, 40132, Indonesia

Stress intensity factor is one of the key parameter in analyzing crack propagation in an
aircraft structure. However, usually only stress intensity factors for simple geometry are
available in the literature. Hence, for many complex geometries, such as multiple cracks that
are often occurred in an aging aircraft fuselage, the analysis cannot be easily performed. To
overcome this problem, in this paper, the stress intensity factors for multiple cracks
occurred in a cylindrical shell subjected to internal pressure is presented in a parametric
form. A complete three dimensional finite element is used for this analysis. The stress
intensity factor is calculated using modified crack closure technique. To validate the
accuracy of the model, stress intensity factor for a semi circular surface crack was compared
with the available literature. The result shows that the present method gives a good accuracy
with maximum 1.6 % difference. For multiple cracks configuration, the effect of crack
interaction was studied for several crack geometries. The effect of distance between cracks
and crack size to the stress intensity factor was analyzed. It was found that the stress
intensity factor increased up to 60 % as the crack approach each other. It was also found
that in the case of cracks with different size, the interaction effect is more significant in the
smaller crack.

Nomenclature
a = crack depth
2c = crack length of surface crack
h = Height
E’ = Generalized modulus of elasticity
GI,GII,GIII = Mode I, II, and III strain energy release rates
GI(p) = Strain energy release rate at location ‘p’
J0, J1, J2 = constants of Jacobian matrix
KI, KII, KIII = Mode I, II, and III stress intensity factors
n, t, y = crack tip coordinate system
P = Internal pressure
r = Cylinder radius
t = wall thickness
W = Width
α = Crack tip position angle
β = normalized stress intensity factor
∆c = virtual crack extension length
τ = uniform shear stress
σn = Hoop stress
σa = Axial stress
ξ, η, ζ = Natural coordinate system

*
Final Year Undergraduate Student, Lightweight Structure Research Group, Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132, AIAA Student Member.
†
Faculty Member, Lightweight Structure Research Group, Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132, Non AIAA Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 I. Introduction

N owadays, aging aircrafts are still being operated around the world. The incident of Boeing 737 Aloha Airlines
in 1988 indicates that aging aircraft is susceptible to structural failure due to fatigue cracking1. In order to
ensure the safety and maintain the structural integrity of the aging aircraft, the crack propagation analysis must be
performed by operators. The crack propagation analysis is a procedure to predict the crack behavior, including the
prediction of crack growth, crack path, and the time interval of the crack to grow and reach its critical size. Using
these results, the inspection interval and the maintenance program are then created to prevent the structural failure
due to fatigue cracking. One of the key parameter in analyzing the crack propagation is the stress intensity factor.
However, usually only stress intensity factors in simple geometry are available in the literature2. Hence, for many
complex geometries, such as the multiple cracks that are often occurred in an aging aircraft fuselage, the crack
propagation analysis cannot be easily performed.
For multiple surface cracks, the stress intensity factors are difficult to obtain using analytical calculation. The
difficulty is not only due to the number of cracks, but it is also due to the curvature of crack shape which causes the
stress intensity factors distribution are not constant along the crack front. The stress intensity factor calculation in
three-dimensional field can be performed using the numerical method. Noda et al3 have used the body force method
to estimate the stress intensity factors for two surface cracks in semi-infinite body and Patel4 used the modified
virtual crack closure integral (MVCCI) in conjunction with finite element method to study the interaction effect of
twin co-planar semi-elliptical cracks in a finite body under uniform tension and bending. However, there are very
few solutions available for multiple cracks in cylindrical shell structure.
In this paper, a complete three dimensional finite element method is used to analyze the stress intensity factors
for multiple surface cracks occurred in cylindrical shell subjected to internal pressure. The stress intensity factor is
calculated using modified crack closure technique5 (MCCT). To validate the accuracy of the model, stress intensity
factor for semi circular surface crack was compared with Newman-Raju solution6. In order to study the effect of
crack interaction, parametric models with several crack geometries were built using software based finite element
code, MSC. Patran/Nastran7. The effect of distance between cracks and the crack size to stress intensity factor was
analyzed numerically.

II. Problem Formulation

We consider the problem of a cylindrical shell structure containing multiple surface cracks as can be seen in Fig.
1.a). Two surface cracks are occurred in the inside wall of the cylinder. A cross-sectional view illustrating the
configuration of the cracks is shown in Fig. 1.b). The parameters used are radius r, wall thickness t, half-crack length
c, crack depth a, distance between crack d, and crack tip position angle α.
We interested to investigate the stress field near the location of the crack tip represented by the stress intensity
factor. The magnitude of the stress intensity factor is mainly affected by the crack configuration, structural

2r

a)

b)

Figure 1. Cylindrical shell containing multiple surface cracks. a) Two surface cracks occurred in internal wall
surface. b) Multiple cracks configuration.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
geometry, and loading condition. In this problem, the σn
presence of other crack gives major influence to the stress
intensity factors, whereas the cylindrical shape of wall
geometry is also gives contribution. The cylindrical shell is
subjected to internal pressure (P) that generates the hoop
stress (σn) and axial stress (σa) on the cylinder wall. The hoop 2h

stress loading created only Mode I crack deformation at the

crack front.
Large cylindrical shell with small thickness to cylinder
radius ratio (t/r) is widely applied in engineering structure, 2t
including aircraft fuselage. Hence, the cylindrical shell
studied in this paper is chosen to be cylinder with t/r ≤ 0.1. 2W
For this small t/r ratio, we used the assumption that the curved Figure 2. Crack configuration model studied.
shape effect of the cylinder geometry to the stress intensity
factor is not significant and the flat plate model can be used in
analysis to simplify the structure‡. Another assumption used in analysis are : 1) the hoop stress is the only loading
condition considered working on the model§. 2) The material is assumed to be isotropic and linearly elastic. The
structure material is taken to be Aluminum alloy with Young’s modulus of 71.000 MPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.33.
The objective of this paper is to provide the stress intensity factors solution in parametric form. Several crack
geometry studied in analysis are crack aspect ratio (a/c), parametric crack distance (2c/d), and crack size (different
size between two cracks).
Figure 2 shows the crack configuration model used in analysis. The dimension used for the model are c/W = 0.1,
a/t = 0.33. c/W = 0.1 is chosen to reduce the effect of finite width boundary condition to the stress intensity factor.
The model is subjected to hoop stress loading generated by internal pressure which defined as

P⋅r
σn = (1)
2t

III. Basic Theory

A. Stress intensity factor

In linear elastic fracture mechanics, the stress intensity factor is defined as a measure of the stress singularity at
crack tip which determines the stress field near the crack tip. Irwin8 derived equation to describe the stress fields in
vicinity of a crack front with reference to local orthogonal triad system n, t, y as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Local crack front coordinate system
y

Y (r,θ)

Global coordinate system n

θ

X P

t
crack front
S

Figure 3. Local coordinate system for a curved three dimensional crack4.

‡
According to Newman-Raju9, the effect of the curved shape of the cylinder geometry to the stress intensity factor
is only 10 % for cylindrical pressure vessel with t/r = 0.1. For cylinder with t/r less than 0.1, the stress intensity
factor can be assumed equal to the stress intensity factor in the case of flat plate subjected to tension loading.
§
This assumption is based on the conservative solution of crack problem due to biaxial stress working on the
cylinder wall.
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 cos(θ 2 )(1 − sin (θ 2 ) sin (3θ 2 )) sin (θ 2 )(2 + cos(θ 2) cos(3θ 2))
σ nn  cos(θ 2 )(1 + sin (θ 2) sin (3θ 2 ))  sin (θ 2 ) cos(θ 2) cos(3θ 2 ) 
σ     
 yy   2ν cos (θ 2 )   − 2ν sin (θ 2 ) 
σ tt  = K K
+
I II
  
  2πr  sin (θ 2 ) cos(θ 2 ) cos(3θ 2 )  2πr  cos(θ 2 )(1 − sin (θ 2 ) sin (3θ 2)) 
τ yt     
  0 0
τ
 nt     
 0   0 

 0  O(r )
 0  O(r )
   
K III  0  O(r )
+  + 
2πr  0  O(r )
 cos(θ 2)  O(r )
   
− sin (θ 2) O(r ) (2)

In Eq. (2), O(r) represent higher order terms in ‘r’. The Eq. (2) specific to mode I can be written in the
generalized form as follows

f ij (θ )
KI
σ ij =
2πr (3)

where

K I = βσ πa (4)

where ‘β’ is geometric correction factor. The stress intensity factor is indicated with the factor KI, where the
subscript I stands for mode I.
Clearly, the stress analysis information is needed to evaluate the stress intensity factors representing the stress
field near the cracks in the structure. For multiple surface cracks, due to the complex boundary conditions, the stress
analysis information can only be obtained using computational method. In this paper, we use the finite element
method to obtain the displacement and stress field information in a structure. The stress intensity factors are then
calculated using stress analysis post-processing technique called modified crack closure technique.

B. Modified crack closure technique for three-dimensional curved crack

The modified crack closure technique (MCCT) is an energy based method to evaluate the stress intensity factor.
The stress intensity factor is obtained by crack front
evaluating the crack energy release rate Y
virtually extended crack front
during the crack extension. (In finite element
implementation, the crack is physically Global coordinate system
extended with assumption that the extension y
is very small). This method is based on X
principle that the energy needed to extend Z t
the crack is equal to the energy necessary to
p
close it. The formulation of MCCT for three-
dimensional curved crack is outlined in this S ∆A
section.
n
Consider an arbitrary crack as shown in
crack tip coordinate system
Fig. 4. Let the surface crack in the elastic
system differ from the actual state of Figure 4. Definition of coordinate system at crack front and
equilibrium by an infinitesimally small area virtual extension4.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Fy,j Fy,j+1

C P A
Uy,j-1
j-1 j j+1
Fy,j+3 Fy,j+2
∆Ak P ∆Ak

D j+3 j+2
Uy,j-2 j-2
Q B

∆c ∆c
virtually extended crack front

Figure 5. Nodal displacements and forces on a face of kth eight node hexahedron element at crack front4.

shown by the area between virtually extended crack front and the original crack front. The new contour is a curve
that encloses the point ‘p’ lying in the plane of the crack. An infinitesimally small area ∆A is shown at point ‘p’
behind and ahead of the original crack front.
The strain energy release rate due to virtual crack extension is an average value over the region of extension. The
strain energy release rate at point “p” (see Fig. 4) with respect to local coordinate system n, t, y are written as
follows

G I ( p ) = lim ∆A→0 σ yy (n,0, t )U y (∆a − n, t ,0 )dA

1
2∆A ∆∫A
(5)

G II ( p ) = lim ∆A→0 σ ny (n,0, t )U n (∆a − n, t ,0 )dA

1
2∆A ∆∫A
(6)

G III ( p ) = lim ∆A→0 σ ty (n,0, t )U t (∆a − n, t ,0 )dA

1
2∆A ∆∫A
(7)

From Eq. (5), (6), and (7) above, Narayana et al10 derived expressions in terms of nodal forces and displacements
in the elements forming the crack front. Consider the finite element idealization of surface crack configuration with
the eight node hexahedron elements along the crack front (see Fig. 5). The average strain energy release rate, GI(p),
at the midpoint ‘p’ of the segment PQ is evaluated by considering the stress and displacement components in the
integrand of the crack closure integral in Eq. (5) with those in the element PABQ and CPQD respectively. The Eq.
(5) can be written after geometric transformation in the natural coordinate system as follows:

1 1
GI ( p ) = ∫ ∫ σ (ξ ,ζ )U
1
J dξdζ
2∆Ak
y y
−1 −1 (8)

where stress σy and displacement Uy are assumed in polynomial form consistent with the shape functions of the
element and expressed as follows

σ y = b0 + b1ξ + b2ζ + b3 βξζ

(9)

U y = a0 + a1ξ + a2ζ + a3ξζ

(10)

For an eight node element, det |J| where J is Jacobian matrix can be expressed as

J (ξ , ζ ) = J 0 + J1ξ + J 2ζ
(11)
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
where J0, J1 and J2 are constants depending on the real coordinates of the nodes. Substituting Eq. (9), (10), and (11)
in Eq. (8) and carrying out necessary integration, the expression for GI(p) is given by

GI ( p ) =
1
[4 J 0 C11 + 4 J 1C12 + 4 J 2 C13 ]
2 ∆Ak (12)

where

C11 = a0b0 + a1b1 3 + a2b2 3 + a3b3 9 (13)

C12 = a1b1 + a1b0 3 + a2b3 3 + a3b2 9 (14)

C13 = a2b2 + a1b3 3 + a2b0 3 + a3b1 9 (15)

coefficients ai (i=0,1,2,3) can be obtained from the nodal values of displacements (see Fig. 5) as follows

a 0  1 1 1 1  U y , j −1 
a    
 1  1 − 1 1 1 − 1  U y , j 
  =   (16)
a 2  4  − 1 − 1 1 1  U y , j +3 
a3   
 1 −1 1 − 1 U y , j −2 

the coefficient bi (i=0,1,2,3) can be obtained from the equivalent nodal forces for the stress distribution Eq. (9) as
follows

−1
b0   J0 J1 3 J 2 3 0  1 1 1 1   Fy , j 
b  J 3 J 3  
 1  0 J 2 9 − 1 1 1 − 1  Fy , j +1 
  = 4
1 0    (17)
b2  J2 3 0 J 0 3 J1 9  − 1 − 1 1 1   Fy , j + 2 
b3     
 0 J 2 9 J1 9 J 0 9  1 −1 1 − 1  Fy , j +3 

Noted that the expressions involving J1 and J2 in Eq. (12) are due to the fact that the crack front PQ is not straight
and the element is not rectangular in shape. For a straight crack front and a rectangular shape of the element J1 and J2
are zero and strain energy release rate reduces to a simple expression4:

GI ( p ) =
1
2∆Ak
[
F j , yU y , j −1 + Fy , j +3U y , j − 2 ]
(18)

Finally, the stress intensity factor obtained using Irwin relationship between strain energy release rate and stress
intensity factor as follows

K I2
GI =
E' (19)

where
E
E' =
(1 −ν 2 ) for plane strain (20)

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 E' = E for plane stress (21)

IV. Finite Element Modeling

The crack configuration studied is presented in Fig. 2. Due to symmetry, only half of the model was analyzed.
Figure 6 shows a typical finite element mesh used in numerical analysis. The finite element mesh along the domain
of curved crack front were built by sweeping a two-dimensional crack tip mesh through a curved line as shown in
Fig 7. The finite element models are made up of eight-node hexahedron (brick) element, with 32384 elements and
35201 nodes.
The finite element mesh intersect the crack front is designed in an orthogonal manner (see Fig. 6.b). In a mesh
with orthogonality, the nodes that are used to calculate the stress intensity factor (the nodes on the crack front, ahead
of the crack front, and behind the crack front) are in the plane of the crack and lie on the normal to the crack front.
Smith and Raju10 suggested that this orthogonality must be considered in finite element mesh in order to obtain
accurate stress intensity factor. Besides orthogonality, the fine mesh design in the region near the crack front is also
required. The symmetric boundary condition is given to the symmetric plane of the model. The finite element
models are built using software based finite element code, MSC.Patran/Nastran.

a) b)
Figure 6. a) Typical finite element mesh. b) Finite element mesh arrangement at the crack front.

Figure 7. The finite element mesh along the crack front built by sweeping a two dimensional crack tip

V. Results and Discussion

A. Comparison with literature

In order to validate the accuracy of the finite 1,0
element model, the stress intensity factor for semi-
circular surface crack in infinite plate subjected to
Normalized stress intensity

0,8
tension loading was compared with available
literature. The finite element model with a/t = 0.33 0,6
factors, β

and c/W = 0.1 was built and the stress intensity

factor was calculated using Eq. (18). The stress 0,4 144 elements
intensity factor is presented in normalized form β, 576 elements
where β = K I σ πc . 0,2 2704 elements
10816 elements
A convergence study was conducted to obtain
0,0
the optimum size of crack extension element. The
mesh in the crack domain was refined until the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
results no longer give significant change. The Crack tip position angle, (°)
results of normalized stress intensity factors for Figure 8. Finite element mesh convergence study

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
four different meshes are plotted versus crack tip position angle (α) in Fig. 8. The final mesh in the crack domain
had 10816 elements in with virtual crack extension length (∆c) to crack length (c) ratio (∆c/c) is 0.019.
Figure 9 presented the comparison of stress intensity factor solutions. The maximum difference between present
result with the Newman-Raju solution is 1.6 %. From this comparison, we concluded that the present method gives a
good accuracy to obtain the stress intensity factor for surface crack problem.
0,80 1,5
Normalized stress intensity factor, β

0,75 1,0

0,5

Difference (%)
0,70
0,0
0,65
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
-0,5
0,60
Present result -1,0
0,55
Newman - Raju
-1,5
0,50 Present result vs Newman-Raju
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 -2,0
Crack tip position angle, (°)
Crack tip position angle, (º)
a) b)
Figure 9. a) Stress intensity factor distribution along the crack front of semi-circular surface crack. b)
Percentage difference of present result to the literature.

B. Parametric study of stress intensity factors for multiple surface crack

A parametric study to determine the effect of crack interaction to the stress intensity factor is conducted. The
specific configuration analyzed are two surface crack with aspect ratio a/c = 1 and 1.5 for various combination of
parametric crack distance (2c/d) and the crack size ratio (c1/c2). Geometry parameter used in the finite element
models are already discussed in Section II. One of the finite element model with a/c = 1 used for estimation the
stress intensity factor is shown in Fig.6.

1. Effect of distance between crack

Parametric crack distance, 2c/d, was used in order to study the effect of crack distance to the stress intensity
factor. Due to symmetry, the calculation was carried out only for the crack 1 (crack at the right side position). The
normalized stress intensity factor ( β = K I σ πc ) distribution along the crack front for various values of
parametric crack distance is shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.
The interaction effect was represented by γ = β β 0 , defined as the ratio of the normalized stress intensity
factor in the presence of another crack to the normalized stress intensity factor in the absence of another crack or
single crack (β0). The interaction factor for two surface crack with a/c = 1 and 1.5 are shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13

Figure 10. Stress intensity factor distribution along Figure 11. Stress intensity factor distribution along
the crack front for multiple surface crack with a/c = 1 the crack front for multiple surface crack with a/c
= 1.5

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 12. Crack interaction factor for multiple Figure 13. Crack interaction factor for multiple
surface crack with a/c = 1. surface crack with a/c = 1.5.

respectively. We found that as the two cracks approaching each other (indicated as 2c/d → 1) the stress intensity
factor at the region of crack tip position facing each other was increased up to 30 % for surface crack with a/c = 1
and 60 % for surface crack with a/c = 1.5. These results indicate that the interaction effect is significant when the
two cracks are in very close distance. Different results of interaction factor for a/c =1 and a/c = 1.5 also indicate that
the interaction factor increases with increase of the crack aspect ratio. This interaction effect is mostly affected to the
stress intensity factor located at crack tip position facing each other (angle between 90º-180º of crack 1 and between
180º-90º of crack 2). Outside this region, the interaction effect to the stress intensity factor is below 10 %.

2. Effect of crack size

Figure 14.a) shows the crack configuration in the case of two semi-circular surface crack with c1/c2 = 0.5 (the
crack 2 is twice larger than crack 1). One of finite element model for this configuration is shown in Fig. 14.b). The
crack distance parameter used in this study is defined as εc2 where ε → 0 indicates that the two cracks are
approaching each other.

a) b)

Figure 14. a) Two different size of semi-circular surface cracks with c1/c2 = 0.5. b) The finite element mesh
in the region at the crack front.

Figure 15. Stress intensity factor distribution along Figure 16. Stress intensity factor distribution along
the crack front of crack 2. the crack front of crack1

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The results of normalized stress intensity factor for both cracks are showed in Fig. 15-16 and the results of
interaction effect are showed in Fig. 17-18. If the two cracks are separated in very close distance the stress intensity
factor for crack 1 is increased up to 45 % whereas for crack 2 the increase of stress intensity factor is only 18 %.
From the result, we concluded that the crack interaction effect is more significant in the smaller crack.

Figure 17. Crack interaction factor for crack 2. Figure 18. Crack interaction factor for crack 1.

VI. Conclusion
The finite element method and the modified crack closure technique were successfully applied in analysis of
stress intensity factors for multiple surface cracks in cylindrical shell subjected to internal pressure. The range of
application in this present study was chosen only for cylindrical shell with t/R ≤ 0.1. A convergence study was
performed for the finite element mesh in the domain of crack front to obtain the optimum size of virtual crack
extension element. We suggest that using virtual crack extension element with ∆c/c = 0.019 in the finite element
model will give an accurate result of stress intensity factor. From the comparison to the Newman-Raju equation, the
present method gives accurate result with maximum 1.6 % difference.
The parametric study was also conducted in this paper in order to study the effect of crack interaction to the
stress intensity factor. The effect of distance between cracks, crack aspect ratio, and crack size were studied. We
conclude that the most significant effect was given by the distance between cracks. When the two cracks are
separated in very close distance, the stress intensity factor was increased up to 60 % for crack with a/c = 1.5 and 30
% for a/c = 1. The crack interaction is particularly effected the stress intensity factors located at the position where
the two cracks are facing each other. Outside this region the crack interaction factor is below 10 %. In the case of
cracks with different size (c1/c2 = 0.5), we found that the crack interaction is more significant to the smaller crack
with the 45 % increase of stress intensity factors whereas only 18 % increase of stress intensity factor for the larger
crack.

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Dr. Ichsan S. Putra from Lightweight Structure Research Group and Prof. Dr. Djoko Suharto
from Mechanical Design Research Group Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ITB for their advice
and fruitful discussions.

References
1
Baumeister, B., Gamble, B., Harrison, T., Heinimann, M., & Miesen, J., Supplemental Inspection Document Development
Handbook for Commuter Aircraft. Washington, D.C : s.n., 1999. [online document]
URL: http://www.tc.faa.gov/act141/reportpage.html. [cited 14 September 2009]. DOT/FAA/AR-99/XX.
2
Rooke, D. P. and Cartwright, D. J. Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors. London : HMSO, 1979.
3
Noda, N. A., Kobayashi, K. and Oohashi, T. Variation of The Stress Intensity Factor Along The Crack Front of Interacting
Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks. Applied Mechanics. 2001, 71, pp. 43-52.
4
Patel, S. Experimental and Numerical Studies on Fatigue Crack Growth of Single and Interacting Multiple Surface Cracks.
Ph.D Thesis. [online document]. Bangalore, India : Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, 2000.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2005/276. [cited 13 September 2009].
5
Krueger, R. The Virtual Crack Closure Technique: History, Approach, and Applications. Hampton, Virginia : NASA
Langley Research Center, 2002.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 6
Newman, J.C. and Raju, I. S. Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-Dimensional Finite Bodies. NASA
Technical Memorandum. Hampton, Virginia : NASA Langley Research Center, 1981. NASA-TM-83200.
7
MSC-Corporation. MSC.PATRAN User's Manual. Los Angeles : The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1997.
8
Irwin, G. R. Crack Extension Force for a Part-Through Crack in a Plate. s.l. : ASME, 1962, J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 29, pp.
651-654.
9
Newman, J. C. and Raju, I. S. Stress Intensity Factors for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels. Hampton,
Virginia : NASA Langley Research Center, 1979.
10
Narayana, K. B., Dattaguru, B., Ramamurthy, T. S., & Vijaykumar, K. A General Procedure for Modified Crack Closure
Integral in 3-D Problems with Crack. Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 1994, Vol. 48, pp. 167-176.
11
Smith, S. A. and Raju, I. S. Evaluation of Stress Intensity FactorsUsing General Finite Element Method. [ed.] T. L.
Pantonin and S. D. Sheppard. Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics. 1998. Vol. 29. ASTM STP 1321.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics