International

Journalof
International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750
Fatigue
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Internal stress effects on fatigue crack initiation at notches

D. Kujawski *, S. Stoychev
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5343, United States

Received 11 October 2006; received in revised form 30 November 2006; accepted 4 December 2006
Available online 27 December 2006

Abstract

In this paper the effects of the internal stresses on crack initiation at notches is investigated. Internal stresses are induced by applying
two pre-loading cycles at a given load ratio, R = SMIN/SMAX, to the ‘virgin’ notched specimen. After pre-loading, blocks of 106 cycles
with a constant nominal stress range, DS, slightly larger than the nominal threshold stress range, DSth, are applied with increasing min-
imum stress, SMIN, in each subsequent block until a crack initiates. The lowest SMIN above which a crack initiates is recorded as SIN. The
process is repeated for a wide range of positive and negative load ratios in order to obtain SIN/SMAX vs. load ratio curve. This curve for
positive load ratios surprisingly resembles the KPR/KMAX plot reported in the literature for a cracked specimen. The results are explained
in terms of compressive internal stress and the associated local clamping action at the notch cyclic plastic zone. Both the analytical and
finite element calculations show a fairly good agreement with the experimental results.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Crack initiation; Load interaction; Internal stress; Clamping force

1. Introduction fracture surfaces oxidation [2]. Therefore, existing crack

There is a general agreement in the fatigue community
that the load interaction effects are associated with plastic-
ity-induced phenomena. However, there is no consensus
whether these phenomena operate in front and/or behind
crack tip. The majority of the researchers believe that the
plasticity-induced crack closure [1], operating in the crack
wake, is solely responsible for the observed load interaction
effects. Then, it is a custom practice to assume that any
load history could be fully accounted for by means of
an effective stress intensity factor (SIF) range, DKeff =
Kmax Kop, where Kmax and Kop are the stress intensity
factors calculated for the maximum, Pmax, and the crack
opening load, Pop, respectively. It is also recognized that
a number of other mechanisms besides plasticity may con-
tribute to DKeff, including surface roughness, crack branch-
ing or deflection, fracture surface mismatch, debris, and
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 616 387 3358.
E-mail address: daniel.kujawski@wmich.edu (D. Kujawski).
closure models contain a number of ‘‘adjustable’’ parame-
ters which have to be altered and tuned in order to fit load
history effects such as R-ratios, overloads or spectrum
loadings.
The plasticity-induced phenomena, however, are present
not only in the crack wake, but in front of the propagating
crack as well. In particular, when an elastic–plastic material
is loaded, a forward plastic zone is developed due to mate-
rial yielding, inducing crack-tip compressive stresses after
unloading. There is a growing group of researchers who
believe that those compressive stresses are responsible for
load interaction effects whereas the effects associated with
crack wake closure are small or negligible. Schijve [3] and
Jacoby [4] were the first researchers who postulated that
the load interaction effects are controlled by plasticity
induced compressive stresses in the active ‘process zone’
ahead of the crack tip. They suggested that retardation
(or acceleration) in fatigue crack growth (FCG) rate after
an overload (or underload) is governed by the compressive
stress gradient ahead of the crack tip. Ling and Schijve
[5] demonstrated that retardation of the FCG following

0142-1123/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.12.004
 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750 1745

overload could be entirely eliminated by intermediate heat Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of the investigation that is
treatment, which removes the residual stress gradient, set presented and discussed in this paper.
by the prior overload. Also, Kujawski and Ellyin [6] uti-
lized the local stress gradient in front of the crack in analyt- 2. Experiments
ical modeling of the load ratio effects on the FCG behavior.
More recently, in a number of articles Sadananda and 2.1. Specimen
Vasudevan [7–12] laid up a framework for unified model,
(for short SV model) for FCG analysis by accounting for Fig. 2 depicts a single-edge notch geometry that is cho-
plasticity-induced internal stresses and their role in damage sen for the specimen. The radius of the notch root is
process, which takes place in front of the crack. They pos- 0.28 mm and the depth about 5.3 mm. The specimen is flat
tulated that FCG behavior is two-parameter phenomenon and the small thickness of t = 2.54 mm dictates that plane
and should be analyzed using the total values of DK and stress condition prevails. During testing, the notch is mon-
Kmax, which account for both an applied load and internal itored for a crack initiation using a digital camera with res-
stress contributions. The present authors demonstrated olution better than 10 lm.
that a two-parameter fatigue crack driving force,
Dj = (Kmax)p (DK)1 p in terms of the total values, is able 2.2. Testing procedure
to account for load interaction effects (R-ratios and block
loadings) on FCG behavior without the need to invoke First, the threshold stress range, DSth, is determined
the crack closure concept [13–16]. using the procedure illustrated in Fig. 3a and b. In this pro-
In general, there is a consensus among researchers that
load interaction effect on FCG in metallic materials is asso-
ciated with plasticity induced phenomena. However, there Load
is no broad agreement whether these phenomena operate
in the wake or front of the crack or both. It is often argued
that this inherent controversy exists since it is difficult to r = 0.28 mm
Al 2324–T39
separate plasticity-induced phenomena operating in the
90°
crack wake from those in the crack front.
The objective of this paper is to overcome the above dif-
ficulty. This is accomplished by analyzing the plasticity-
induced internal stresses at a notched specimen in terms Camera
of crack initiation rather than crack propagation. Notched 5.3 mm
specimens eliminate the possibility of closure beyond 2.5mm
doubt, leaving the internal stress effects of the prior load
history as a primarily factor affecting the crack initiation 45 mm
phenomenon. Internal stresses at the notch are induced
by applying two pre-loading cycles with a constant maxi-
mum stress, SMAX, at a given load ratio, R = PMIN/
PMAX = SMIN/SMAX. Different R values result in different
internal stresses at SMIN. It should be noted that upper case
subscripts are used with reference to the pre-loading cycles. Fig. 2. Specimen geometry.

Experiments FEA simulation Analytical modeling

Initiation stress ANSYS COMSOL

Internal stress Clamping force method

Comparison and conclusions Initiation stress

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the notch study.

1746 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750

SMAX = constant c shows the procedure for the crack initiation tests adopted
a
from Doker and Bachmann [17].
ΔSth The purpose of this procedure is to determine the stress
S level SIN above which fatigue damage starts to accumulate
resulting in a crack initiation at the notch root. First, the
internal stresses are introduced in the ‘virgin’ specimen
by applying only two pre-load cycles with a given load
b ratio (R = 0 shown in Fig. 3c). It is assumed that those
two cycles alone cannot cause crack initiation. SMAX is
the same as that used for DSth determination. Then, a stress
range somewhat larger than DSth is applied in blocks of 1
Crack length

million cycles each. The Smin in the first block is approxi-

crack = notch mately equal to the SMIN during pre-loading. The notch
root is examined after each block and SMIN is increased
by d @ 0.05SMAX (keeping DSth = constant) if there is no
initiation

1e6
crack initiation. The test is stopped when a crack is
observed. The SIN is defined as the average value of Smin
for the last two blocks.

2.3. Experimental results

c
The raw test results from all experiments are presented
S ΔSth in Tables 1 and 2.
δ It can be seen that SMAX in Table 1 and DS in Table 2
SIN are not exactly constant for each specimen. These small
variations in stresses compensate for the slightly different
Cycles
notch sizes in different specimens. The adjustment was
Fig. 3. Procedures for determination of the threshold stress range, DSth (a done by keeping constant the corresponding stress intensity
and b), and the crack initiation stress, SIN (b and c).

Table 1
Preloading histories of the test specimens
cedure the applied range of nominal stress, DS, is increased
Specimen number
in small steps, keeping the maximum stress, SMAX, = con-
1 2 3 4 5
stant (each step is applied for 106 cycles at frequency of
a b
20 Hz). The next step is applied only if and after the crack R or UR 0 0.25 0.5 0.2 0.39
SMAX [MPa] 171 170 165 170 168
does not initiate within the previous step. The value of DSth
Notch [mm] 5.27 5.37 5.80 5.33 5.49
is defined as the stress range when the crack is initiated. a
R = SMIN/SMAX for SMIN > 0.
After DSth is determined, series of crack initiation tests b
UR = SMIN/r0 for SMIN < 0, where r0 is the yield strength (430 MPa).
with different internal stresses are performed. Fig. 3b and

Table 2
Load histories of the test specimens
Specimen number
1 2 3 4 5
a b
R or UR 0 0.25 0.5 0.2 0.39
Stress [MPa] DS Smin DS Smin DS Smin DS Smin DS Smin
Block number 1 25.2 1.4 25.1 44.4 24.5 88.1 24.1 86.3 24.9 167.7
2 18.1 53.2 97.1 62.9 157.8
3 35.3 72.9 105.9 38.9 139.6
4 52.5 82.5 114.7 15.3 121.3
5 69.7 91.2 8.7 103.2
6 85.1
7 66.9
8 48.7
a
R = Smin/Smax for Smin > 0.
b
UR = Smin/r0 for Smin < 0, where r0 is the yield strength (430 MPa).
 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750 1747

factors (calculated by assuming that crack length = notch

1 MAX
size).
The actual experimental crack initiation results for the 0.8
test with preload ratio R = 0.25 are shown in Fig. 4. It
KPR – crack (Lang)
can be seen from Image 1, which was taken after the 4th 0.6
loading block (or after 4 million cycles) that there is no

SIN / SMAX or KPR / KMAX

0.4
crack at the notch root. Image 2, however, which is taken
after the 5th block (or after additional 1 million cycles), 0.2
shows clearly that crack was formed (Fig. 5 depicts the
amount of crack propagation in the last loading block). 0
This indicated that SMIN of the last block has to be bigger
-0.2
than SIN since the crack was initiated and propagated.
Therefore, the corresponding stress level for crack initia- -0.4
tion, SIN, should be situated somewhere between Smin4
and Smin5. This testing procedure for SIN determination -0.6 SIN - notch
is repeated for other load ratios and the results are shown

MIN
in Fig. 6 in term of SIN/SMAX vs. load ratio. The upper and -0.8
lower bounds for the error bars are equal to the minimum
-1
stresses, Smin, corresponding to the last two loading blocks -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(i.e. crack and on crack blocks) at the particular UR = SMIN / σ 0 R = SMIN / SMAX
experiment.
Fig. 6. Experimental results: notched specimen vs. cracked specimen.

For comparison, Fig. 6 shows also the results from Lang

1 2 [18] for cracked specimen in terms of the normalized stress
intensity factor for crack propagation KPR/KMAX. Note
that both methods for determination of SIN and KPR are
based on Doker and Bachmann’s procedure [17]. For neg-
ative load ratios, SIN results are plotted in terms of
UR = SMIN/r0 instead of R in order to make comparison
with Lang’s data. The upper and lower KPR curves corre-
1.1 spond to constant amplitude and overload tests, respec-
180 tively. It can be seen that the notched and cracked
1 Smax
0.9
160 specimen results are different only for negative load ratios.
Smin This difference comes from the fact that under compression
0.8 140
120
the crack is closed and the applied stress is redistributed
0.7
over larger area including crack wake. The notch, on the
S [MPa]
S / SMAX

0.6 100
other hand, cannot close and SIN decreases rapidly with
0.5 80 decreasing UR.
0.4
1
2 60 So, if crack closure is causing the difference between
0.3
40 notched and cracked specimen for negative load ratios,
0.2
why do the results correlate so well for positive load ratios?
0.1 no crack R = 0.25 20
Does that mean that there is no significant crack closure
0 0 effect for R > 0? Also, how is it possible to explain the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
notched specimen results using crack closure if there is
N X 10 6 [cycles]
no crack to start with? In order to answer these questions
Fig. 4. Experimental results for R = 0.25. a numerical and analytical investigation of the effect of

Fig. 5. Cracked specimen after the last load step (R = 0.25).

1748 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750

the compressive internal stresses ahead of the notch on SIN 1.5

will be presented next.
1 10
3. Finite element simulations
0.5
Stresses ahead of the notch in the crack initiation exper-

σ / σ0
0
iments described in the previous section are simulated by
1 10
finite element (FE) analysis. The FE model is shown in -0.5 1

Fig. 7. Due to symmetry only half of the specimen is mod-
eled. In the experiment, the hydraulic grips of the testing
machine prevent the specimen’s ends in the gripping area
from rotating. In the FE-model this was achieved by apply-
ing uniform displacement at the edges as shown in Fig. 7.
The displacement is then increased until the sum of the
reaction forces at the loading locations becomes equal to
the load that is applied in the real test.
The model shown in Fig. 7 was created with a custom
designed graphical user interface which was written in Mat-
Lab 7. The model is than meshed and solved using this
interface with COMSOL 3.2b commercial software. This
was done in order to streamline the calculation and analy-
sis of the results.
The smallest mesh element has 1 lm and is located at the
notch root. The rest of the elements are created in circles
around the notch root. The elements in every next circle
grow by 10% until they reach 3.5 mm in size. After that
the element size is kept constant. The procedure outlined
above results in 6095 elements. The material model, used
for the simulation is also shown in Fig. 7. It follows closely
the actual material response without being too complicated
in order to speed up the calculations. The strain-hardening
slope is determined from a least squares fit of the experimen-
tal cyclic stress–strain curve of 2324-T39 aluminum alloy.
Preliminary, FE results indicated that there was no signifi-
cant difference in the stress–strain field induced by pre-load-
ing cycles around the notch depending on the bi-linear or
multi-linear material models used. Therefore, for the pur-
pose of this paper, a very simple model is chosen (Fig. 7).
S / SMAX
-1 2
0 1
Time
-1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Distance from the notch tip [mm]
Fig. 8. Normalized internal stress profiles, calculated using FEA.
The same simulation is carried with the commercially
available FE solver – ANSYS. The only difference is the lay-
ered mesh which has a built in algorithm in ANSYS. This
mesh consists of 3275 elements. Despite the obvious differ-
ences in the meshing and the numerical solvers, the results
from COMSOL and ANSYS are practically identical.
Therefore the rest of the simulations and the analysis of
the results are done using only one solver (COMSOL).
Fig. 8 depicts the normalized stresses in the notch plane sim-
ulated for the second preloading cycle with R = 0 using ten
loading substeps. The cyclic and monotonic plastic zones
can be easily identified from curves 1 and 10, respectively.
4. Clamping force method
Each stress profile from the FE simulation is analyzed
according to the ‘clamping force’ method. The ‘clamping
force’ is defined as the local compressive force, generated
by the stresses in the ‘process zone’. It can be easily calcu-
lated by integrating the stress profile and multiplying by the
thickness. For positive load ratios, the process zone corre-
sponds to the cyclic plastic zone (Fig. 9). For negative load

Applied displ. σ 530MPa

430MPa 1.5
σmax

72GPa 2σ 0 1

ε σin
0.5
σmin
σ / σ0

0
S MAX

-0.5
SIN

MIN
-1
Process zone 0 Time
-1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
COMSOL
ANSYS Distance from the notch [mm]

Fig. 7. Model for the FEA simulation. Fig. 9. SIN determination from the FE results for R = 0.25.
 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750 1749

1.5
1 MAX
σmax S MAX

1 Time
0
SIN 0.8
MIN

0.5 0.6
at S = 0
0.4
σ / σ0

0
0.2

SIN / SMAX
Notch
-0.5 tests
σin 0
σmin
-1 -0.2

Process zone
-1.5
-0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-0.6
Distance from the notch [mm] Model
-0.8

N
Fig. 10. SIN determination from the FE results for UR = 0.39.

MI
-1
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
600 UR = SMIN / σ 0 R = SMIN / SMAX
500
Fig. 12. SIN – experiments and prediction.
400
Clamping force [N]

300
200
SIN
100
0 cycles on fatigue crack initiation stress at notches, SIN, were
-100
-200
-300
-400
0 0.2 0.4
S / Smax
Fig. 11. Clamping force as a function of the applied stress for R = 0.
ratios, the process zone is equal to the plastic zone size at
zero load (Fig. 10).
It is assumed that damage can be accumulated in the
material only if the ‘clamping force’ is positive. Therefore,
SIN is defined as the nominal stress level for which the
‘clamping force’ is equal to zero.
Fig. 11 is constructed in order to determine SIN more
accurately. The ‘clamping force’ is calculated using the pro-
cedure outlined above and is plotted as a function of the
normalized applied stress. This function can be easily inter-
polated to find the intersection with the abscissa which rep-
resents the crack initiation stress, SIN, corresponding to
zero ‘clamping’.
The ‘clamping force’ method for determination of SIN
was applied to all load ratios from the experimental study
and the results are shown in Fig. 12. The correlation is
fairly good except in the case of UR = 0.39. The error
is probably caused by the fact that it is more difficult to
visually detect the crack when the material is under bulk
compression. Therefore, the actual stress for crack initia-
tion could be lower than that recorded.
5. Conclusions
The effects of internal stresses induced by preloading
studied experimentally and numerically. The experimental
data are analyzed and modeled in terms of the associated
clamping force action in the notch ‘process zone’. Based
on the results the following conclusions can be drawn:
0.6 0.8 1
 The ‘clamping force’ method used for determination of
SIN from the internal stresses provides fairly good repre-
sentation of the experimental results.
 For positive load ratios there is no significant difference
between SIN/SMAX for notched and KPR/KMAX for
cracked specimens.
 Unlike the crack, the notch does not close at negative
load ratios and therefore SIN/SMAX is significantly smal-
ler than KPR/KMAX.
Finally, the predictions in Fig. 12 can be improved fur-
ther by using more elaborated material model for the FE
simulations. This however could increase the calculation
time significantly and is not necessary in order to prove
the applicability of the clamping force method.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by the Office of Naval Research
under Grant N00014-04-1-0718.
References
[1] Elber W. The significance of fatigue crack closure. In: Damage
tolerance in aircraft structures. ASTM STP 486. Philadelphia, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1970. p. 230–42.
1750 D. Kujawski, S. Stoychev / International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 1744–1750
[2] Suresh S. Fatigue of materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 1991.
[3] Schijve J. Fatigue crack propagation in light alloy sheet material and
structures. Advances in aeronautical sciences, vol. 62. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1962. p. 387–408.
[4] Jacoby G. Application of microfractography to the study of crack
propagation under fatigue stresses, AGARD Report 541, Paris; 1966.
[5] Ling MR, Schijve J. The effect of intermediate heat treatments and
overload induce retardations during fatigue crack growth in an Al-
alloy. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1992;15:421–30.
[6] Kujawski D, Ellyin F. A fatigue crack growth model with load ratio
effects. Eng Fract Mech 1987;28(4):367–78.
[7] Vasudevan AK, Sadananda K, Loaut N. Two critical stress intensities
for threshold crack propagation. Scripta Metall 1993;28:65–70.
[8] Vasudevan AK, Sadananda K, Loaut N. A review of crack closure
fatigue crack threshold and related phenomena. Mater Sci Eng
1993;188A:1–22.
[9] Sadananda K, Vasudevan AK. Analysis of fatigue crack closure and
threshold. In: Fracture mechanics, vol. 25. ASTM STP 1220; 1993. p.
484–501.
[10] Vasudevan AK, Sadananda K. Classification of fatigue crack growth
behavior. Met Trans A 1995;26A:1221–34.
[11] Sadananda K, Vasudevan AK. Short crack growth and internal
stresses. Int J Fatigue 1997;19:S99–S109.
[12] Sadananda K, Vasudevan AK, Holtz RL, Lee EU. Analysis of
overload effects and related phenomena. Int J Fatigue 1999;21:
S233–46.
[13] Kujawski D. A new (DK+KMAX)0.5 driving force parameter for
crack growth in aluminum alloys. Int J Fatigue 2001;23:
733–40.
[14] Kujawski D. DKeff parameter under re-examination. Int J Fatigue
2003;25:793–800.
[15] Dinda S, Kujawski D. Correlation and prediction of fatigue crack
growth for different R-ratios using KMAX and DK+ parameters. Eng
Fract Mech 2004;71(12):1779–90.
[16] Stoychev S, Kujawski D. Analysis of crack propagation using DK and
Kmax. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:1425–31.
[17] Doker H, Bachmann V. Determination of crack opening load by
use of threshold behavior. In: Newman Jr JC, Elber W, editors.
Mechanics of fatigue crack closure. ASTM STP 982. Philadel-
phia: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1988. p.
247–59.
[18] Lang M. A model for fatigue crack growth, Part I: phenomenology.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2000;23:587–601.