Introduction to Fracture

and Damage Mechanics

Wolfgang Brocks


Five Lectures
at
Politecnico di Milano










Milano, March 2012
Contents

I. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
Stress field at a crack tip
Stress intensity approach (IRWIN)
Energy approach (GRIFFITH)
J-integral
Fracture criteria fracture toughness
Terminology
II. Plasticity
Fundamentals of incremental plasticity
Finite plasticity (deformation theory)
Plasticity, damage, fracture
Porous metal plasticity (GTN Model)
III. Small Scale Yielding
Plastic zone at the crack tip
Effective crack length (Irwin)
Effective SIF
Dugdale model
Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
Standards: ASTM E 399, ASTM E 561
IV. Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
Deformation theory of plasticity
J as energy release rate
HRR field, CTOD
Deformation vs incremental theory of plasticity
R curves
Energy dissipation rate
V. Damage Mechanics
Deformation, damage and fracture
Crack tip and process zone
Continuum damage mechanics (CDM)
Micromechanisms of ductile fracture
Micromechanical models
Porous metal plasticity (GTN Model)






Seite 1
Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Part I: Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
W. Brocks
Christian Albrecht University
Material Mechanics
Milano_2012 2
Overview
I. Linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM)
II. Small Scale Yielding
III. Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
Seite 2
Milano_2012 3
LEFM
Stress Field at a crack tip
Stress intensity approach (Irwin)
Energy approach (Griffith)
J-integral
Fracture criteria fracture toughness
Terminology
Milano_2012 4
Stress Field at a Crack Tip
boundary conditions
( 0, 0) ( , ) 0
( 0, 0) ( , ) 0
yy
xy r
x y r
x y r

= = = =
= = = =
Hookes law of linear elasticity
2
1 2
ij ij kk ij
G

= +

Inglis [1913], Westergaard
[1939], Sneddon [1946], ...
Williams series [1957]
0 = Airys stress function
( )
( )
2
cos cos 2
sin sin 2
r A B
C D

+
= + + +

+ + +

2 1 1 5 3 5 3 3 1
0 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2
9 3 5 9 15 5
1 1 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2
cos cos sin cos 4 cos
cos cos sin cos ( )
rr
A C
A
r r
A r C r r




= + + + +

+ + + + +

O
Seite 3
Milano_2012 5
Fracture Modes
Milano_2012 6
LEFM: Stress Intensity Approach
Irwin [1957]: mode I
1 1
I I
( , ) ( )
2
j j j i i i
K
r f
r
T

= +
T = non-singular T-stress
Rice [1974]: effect on plastic zone
General asymptotic solution
I II III
I II III
1
( , ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
ij ij ij ij
r K f K f K f
r

= + +

stresses
displacements
I II III
I II III
1
( , ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
i i i i
r
u r K g K g K g
G

= + +

I
(geometry) K a Y

=
K
I
= stress intensity factor
Seite 4
Milano_2012 7
Angular Functions in LEFM
Milano_2012 8
A.A. Griffith [1920]
LEFM: Energy Approach
Elastic strain energy of a panel of thickness
B under biaxial tension in a circular
domain of radius r
( )( ) ( )
2 2
2 2
e
0
1 1 2 1
16
Br
U
G

= + +

elliptical hole, axes a,b
( ) ( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
2
2 2
e
rel
2
2 2 2 2 2
1 1
32
2 1 1
B
U a b
G
a b a b

= + + +

+ + + +

( )
2 2
e
rel
1
8
a B
U
G

= + crack
insert hole: fixed grips
> energy release
e e e
0 rel
U U U =
Seite 5
Milano_2012 9
Fracture of Brittle Materials
( )
( )

e
rel sep
0
2
U U
B a
Crack extends if

= =



G
L
e e
e rel
(2 ) (2 )
v
U U
B a B a
Energy release rate
sep
c
2
(2 )
U
B a

= =

Separation energy (SE)

(energy per area)
= = G
e
c
( ) 2 a
fracture criterion
fracture stress

=
c
c
E
a
Irwin [1957]:
2
e I
K
E
=

G
Milano_2012 10
Path-Independent Integrals
is some (scalar, vector, tensor) field quantity being
steadily differentiable in domain B and divergence free
,
: 0 in
i
i
x

= =

B
( )
i
x
,
0
i i
dv n da

= =

B B
Gau theorem
singularity S in B : 0
=
S
B B B
0
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) 0
+

= + + + =
v v ? >
S
B B B B B
(.) (.) and (.) (.)
+

= =
v v ? >
B B B B
i i
n da n da

=
> >
S
B B
path independence
Seite 6
Milano_2012 11
Energy Momentum Tensor
Eshelby [1965]: energy momentum tensor
, ,
,
with 0
ij ij k i ij j
k j
w
P w u P
u

= =

( )
i j
w
u x
energy density
displacement field
Material forces acting on singularities (defects) in the continuum,
e.g. dislocations, inclusions, ...
i ij j
F P n da

=
>
B
and
the J-vector , i i jk k j i
J wn n u ds

=
>
0
t
ij ij
w d

=
=


Milano_2012 12
J-Integral
The J-integral of Cherepanov [1967] and Rice [1986]
is the 1
st
component of the J-vector
2 ,1 ij j i
J wdx n u ds

=
>
Conditions:
9 time independent processes
9 no volume forces
9 homogeneous material
9 plane stress and strain fields, no dependence on x
3
9 straight and stress free crack faces parallel to x
1
Equilibrium
Small (linear) strains
Hyperelastic material
,
0
ij i
=
( )
1
, , 2 ij i j j i
u u = +
ij
ij
w

Seite 7
Milano_2012 13
J as Energy Release Rate
L
e
e
crack
v
U
J
A

= =

G
crack
C(T), SE(B)
M(T), DE(T)
2
B a
A
B a

2 2 2
e e e e I II III
I II III
2
K K K
J
E E G
= = + + = + +

G G G G
mixed mode
mode I
Milano_2012 14
Fracture Criteria
Brittle fracture:
predominantly elastic catastrophic failure
Mode I
stress Intensity factor I Ic
K K =
energy release rate
e
I Ic
= G G
2
e Ic
Ic c
K
E
= =

G
J-integral
Ic
J J =
2
Ic
Ic Ic
K
J
E
= =

G
2
plane stress
plane strain
1
E
E
E

Seite 8
Milano_2012 15
ASTM E 1823
Crack extension, a an increase in crack size.
Crack-extension force, G the elastic energy per unit of new
separation area that is made available at the front of an ideal
crack in an elastic solid during a virtual increment of forward
crack extension.
Crack-tip plane strain a stress-strain field (near the crack tip)
that approaches plane strain to a degree required by an
empirical criterion.
Crack-tip plane stress a stress-strain field (near the crack tip)
that is not in plane strain.
Fracture toughness a generic term for measures of resistance to
extension of a crack.
Standard Terminology Relating to Fatigue and Fracture Testing
Milano_2012 16
ASTM E 1823 ctd.
Plane-strain fracture toughness, K
Ic
the crack-extension
resistance under conditions of crack-tip plane strain in Mode I for
slow rates of loading under predominantly linear-elastic
conditions and negligible plastic-zone adjustment. The stress
intensity factor, KIc, is measured using the operational procedure
(and satisfying all of the validity requirements) specified in Test
Method E 399, that provides for the measurement of crack-
extension resistance at the onset (2% or less) of crack extension
and provides operational definitions of crack-tip sharpness, onset
of crack-extension, and crack-tip plane strain.
Plane-strain fracture toughness, J
Ic
the crack-extension
resistance under conditions of crack-tip plane strain in Mode I
with slow rates of loading and substantial plastic deformation.
The J-integral, JIc, is measured using the operational procedure
(and satisfying all of the validity requirements) specified in Test
Method E 1820, that provides for the measurement of crack-
extension resistance near the onset of stable crack extension.
Seite 9
Milano_2012 17
ASTM E 399
Characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in
the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe
tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front
approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small
compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the
crack;
Is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness;
May be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a
material in service wherein the conditions of high constraint described above
would be expected;
Only if the dimensions of the product are sufficient to provide specimens of the
size required for valid K
Ic
determination.
Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture
Toughness K
Ic
of Metallic Materials
2
Ic
YS
2.5
K
W a

Specimen size

YS
0.2 % offset yield strength
Milano_2012 18
ASTM E 399 ctd.
Specimen configurations
SE(B): Single-edge-notched and fatigue precracked beam loaded in
three-point bending; support span S = 4 W, thickness B = W/2,
W= width;
C(T): Compact specimen, single-edge-notched and fatigue precracked
plate loaded in tension; thickness B = W/2;
DC(T): Disk-shaped compact specimen, single-edge-notched and
fatigue precracked disc segment loaded in tension; thickness
B = W/2;
A(T): Arc-shaped tension specimen, single-edge-notched and fatigue
precracked ring segment loaded in tension; radius ratio unspecified;
A(B): Arc-shaped bend specimen, single-edge-notched and fatigue
precracked ring segment loaded in bending; radius ratio for
S/W= 4 and for S/W= 3;
Seite 10
Milano_2012 19
Specimen Configurations
Bend Type
C(T)
SE(B)
W width
B thickness
a crack length
b = W-a ligament width
Seite 1
Inelastic Deformation and Damage
Part I: Plasticity
W. Brocks
Christian Albrecht University
Material Mechanics
Milano_2012 2
Outline
Fundamentals of incremental plasticity
Finite plasticity (deformation theory)
Plasticity, damage, fracture
Porous Metal Plasticity (GTN Model)
Seite 2
Milano_2012 3
Plasticity
Inelastic deformation of metals at low temperatures and slow
(= quasistatic) loading, i. e. time and rate independent material
behaviour
Microscopic mechanisms: motion of dislocations, twinning.
Phenomenological theory on macro-scale in the framework of
continuum mechanics.
Incremental Theory of Plasticity
,
ij ij ij ij
t t Ao o A Ac c A = =
Material behaviour is non-linear and plastic (permanent)
deformations depend on loading history.
Constitutive equations are established incrementally for
small changes of loading and deformation
t > 0 is no physical time but a scalar loading parameter, and hence
ij
o
and
ij
c
are no velocities but rates
Milano_2012 4
Uniaxial Tensile Test
linear elasticity: Hooke
0
: R E o o c s =
true stress-strain curve
0
: R o >
plasticity: nonlinear --curve
permanent strain
e p p
E
o
c c c c = + = +
yield condition
F p F 0
( ) , (0) R R R o c s =
R
0
yield strength (
0
,
Y
)
R
F
(
p
) uniaxial yield curve
loading / unloading
p
p
0 , 0 loading
0 , 0 unloading
o c
o c
> >
< =


Seite 3
Milano_2012 5
3D Generalisation
Additive decomposition of strain rates
e p
ij ij ij
c c c = +
Total plastic strains
p p
0
t
ij ij
d
t
c c t
=
=
}

Plastic incompressibility:
plastic deformations are isochoric
plastic yielding is not affected by hydrostatic stress
h
1
h 3
ij ij ij
kk
o o o o
o o
' =
=
deviatoric stress
hydrostatic stress
p
0
kk
c =
Yield condition ( )( )
p p 2
( , ) ( ) 0
i ij ij ij ij j ij
o c o o k o o c ' ' = =
Hardening:
kinematic: tensorial variable back stresses
isotropic: scalar variable accumulated plastic strain
ij
o
p
c
Milano_2012 6
Yield Surface
0 elastic
0 elast
0 inadm
ic
issible

<
=
>
Seite 4
Milano_2012 7
Associated flow rule normality rule
Elasto-Plasticity
Loading condition
p
p
0 , 0
0, 0
ij ij
ij
ij ij
ij

o c
o

o c
o
c
> =
c
c
< =
c


loading
unloading
p
ij
ij

c
o
c
=
c

Consistency condition
p
p
0
ij ij
ij ij

o c
o c
c c
' = + =
c c

e
1
2 1
ij ij kk ij
G
v
c o o o
v
(
=
(
+

Hookes law of elasticity
Stability
Drucker [1964]
p p
0
ij ij
o c o c ' > =


Equivalence of dissipation rates
Milano_2012 8
von Mises Yield Condition
Yield condition - isotropic hardening
p 2 2
F p
( , ) ( ) 0
ij ij
R o c o c = =
3
2 2
3 ( )
ij ij ij
J o o o o ' ' ' = =
von Mises [1913, 1928]
equivalent stress
Loading condition
0
0
ij ij
ij ij
o o
o o
' ' >
' ' <

loading
unloading
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
2 2 2
1
11 22 22 33 33 11 12 23 13 2
3 o o o o o o o o o o
(
= + + + + +

J
2
-theory
p
ij ij
c o' =

Flow rule
plastic multiplier
from uniaxial test
=

Seite 5
Milano_2012 9
Prandtl-Reuss
e p e e p
1
h 3
p F
1 1 3
2 3 2
ij ij ij ij kk ij ij ij ij ij
G K T R
o
c c c c c o c o o o o ' ' ' = + = + + = + +


Total strain rates (Prandtl [1924], Reu [1930])
Equivalence of dissipation rates
p p p
2
p 3
0
t
ij ij
d
t
c c c t c
=
= =
}
equivalent plastic strain
Hookes law of elasticity + associated flow rule
e p
ij ij ij
c c c = +
p p
ij ij ij ij
o c o c o o ' ' ' = =


p
p
F p
3 3
2 2 ( ) R
c
c

o c
= =

plastic multiplier
Milano_2012 10
Finite Plasticity
additive decomposition of total strains
e p
ij ij ij
c c c = + Hencky [1924]
p
ij ij
c o' =
plastic strains
h
p
1 3 1
2 2 3
ij ij ij
G S K
c o o o
| |
' = + +
|
|
\ .
total strains
power law of Ramberg & Osgood [1945]
0 0 0
n
c o o
o
c o o
| |
= +
|
\ .
uniaxial
1
p
0 0 0
3
2
n
ij ij
c o
o
o
c o o

'
| |
=
|
\ .
3D
Seite 6
Milano_2012 11
Deformation Theory
For radial (proportional) loading,
the Hencky equations can be derived by integration of the
Prandtl-Reu equations.
This has do hold for every point of the continuum and excludes
stress redistribution,
unloading.
0
( ) ( )
ij ij
t t o | o =
Finite plasticity actually describes a hyperelastic material having
a strain energy density
ij
ij
w
o
c
c
=
c
0
t
ij ij
w d
t
o c t
=
=
}

so that
In elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), finite plasticity +
Ramberg-Osgood Power law are adressed as
Deformation Theory of plasticity.
Milano_2012 12
Plasticity and Fracture
uniaxial tensile test
Seite 7
Milano_2012 13
Fracture of a Tensile Bar
Milano_2012 14
Fracture surface
round tensile specimen of Al 2024 T 351
Seite 8
Milano_2012 15
Deformation, Damage, Fracture
Deformation
Cohesion of matter is conserved
Elastic: atomic scale
Reversible change of atomic distances
Plastic: crystalline scale
Irreversible shift of atoms, dislocation movement
Damage
Laminar or volumetric discontinuities on the micro scale (micro-
cracks, microvoids, micro-cavities)
Damage evolution is an irreversible process, whose
micromechanical causes are very similar to deformation
processes but whose macroscopic implications are much
different
Fracture
Laminar discontinuities on the macro scale leading to global
failure (cleavage fracture, ductile rupture)
Milano_2012 16
Damage Models
Damage models describe evolution of degradation phenomena
on the microscale from initial (undamaged or predamaged) state
up to creation of a crack on the mesoscale (material element)
Damage is described by means of internal variables in the
framework of continuum mechanics.
Phenomenological models
Change of macroscopically observable properties are
interpreted by means of the internal variable(s);
Concept of effective stress: Kachanov [1958, 1986], Lemaitre
& Chaboche [1992], Lemaitre [1992].
Micromechanical models
The mechanical behaviour of a representative volume element
(RVE) with defect(s) is studied;
Constitutive equations are formulated on a mesoscale by
homogenisation of local stresses and strains in the RVE.
Seite 9
Milano_2012 17
Ductile Damage
Nucleation, growth and coalescence of microvoids at inclusions or
second-phase particles
Void growth is strain controlled, and depends on hydrostatic stress
Milano_2012 18
E
I
E
III
E
II
Porous Metal Plasticity
Plastic Potential of Gurson, Tvergaard & Needleman (GTN model)
including scalar damage variable f*(f), (f = void volume fraction)
2
2 h
1 2
* * *
p
p F p
3 2
F
3
( , , ) 2 cosh 1 0
( ) 2 ( )
ij
f f
R
q
R
f q q
o
c
o
o
c c
| |
= + =
|
|
\ .
Pores are assumed
to be present from the beginning, f
0
,
or nucleate as a function of plastic
equivalent strain, f
n
,
n
, s
n
Evolution equation of damage
Volume dilatation caused by void growth
( )
p
1
kk
f f c =

p
kk
c
Seite 1
Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Part II: Small Scale Yielding
W. Brocks
Christian Albrecht University
Material Mechanics
Milano_2012 2
Overview
I. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
II. Small Scale Yielding (SSY)
III. Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
Seite 2
Milano_2012 3
SSY
Plastic zone at the crack tip
Effective crack length (Irwin)
Effective SIF
Dugdale model
Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
Standards: ASTM E 399, ASTM E 561
Milano_2012 4
Yielding in the Ligament (I)
Irwin [1964]: extension of LEFM to small plastic zones
Small Scale Yielding, SSY
K dominated stress field mode I
(a) plane stress 3
I
1 2
0
2
zz
xx yy
K
r

= =
= = = =
Yield condition (both: von Mises and Tresca)
0 p
, 0
yy
R r r =
2
I
p
0
1
2
K
r
R

=


0 = Yielding in the ligament
perfectly plastic material
F p 0
( ) R R =
r
p
=radiusof plastic zone
Seite 3
Milano_2012 5
Yielding in the Ligament (II)
(b) plane strain
( )
3
I
3 1 2
0
2
2
2
zz
zz yy
K
r

= =
= = + = =
Yield condition (both: von Mises and Tresca)
( )
0 p
1 2 , 0
yy
R r r =
( )
2 2
I
p
0
1 2
2
K
r
R

=


smaller plastic zone due
to triaxiality of stress state
Cut-off of largest principle stress at R
0
(plane stress)
p p
I
yy p 0 p
0 0
2
( ) 2
2 r
r r
K
r dr dr r R r

= = =

equilibrium ?
Milano_2012 6
Effective Crack Length
eff
Ieff I eff eff
( )
a
K K a a Y
W

= =


effective SIF
p
r a
eff p
a a r = +
total diameterof plastic zone
( )
2
I
2 p p
0
1 plane stress
2 ,
2 1 2 plane strain
K
d r
R

= = =

2
Ieff
ssy ssy
K
J
E
= =

G effective J
no singularity
at the crack tip
Seite 4
Milano_2012 7
Example SSY (I)
I
a
K a Y
W

=


F
BW

=
ASTM E 399
C(T)
a
Y
W



Milano_2012 8
Example SSY (II)
2
p
0
2
d
a a
Y
W W R W




=



plane stress
plane strain
eff
Ieff eff
a
K a Y
W

=


plane stress
plane strain
Seite 5
Milano_2012 9
CTOD (Irwin)
I
2
1 plane stress
( , ) 4
1 plane strain 2
y
K r
u r
E

t p
2 ( , )
y
u r = Wells [1961]
( ) ( )
2
1 1 2 0.36
planestrain planestress
t t
0,36
( )( )
2
Irwin I
t 2
0
1 plane stress
4
1 1 2 plane strain
K
ER

Criterion for crack initiation:

t c
=
Milano_2012 10
Shape of Plastic Zone
Yield condition (von Mises)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
2 2 2 2
1
11 22 22 33 33 11 12 23 13 2
3

= + + + + +

p
0
r
R =
( )
33
11 22
0 plane stress
plane strain

=

+

( ) ( )
2 2
3
2
I
p 2
2
3
0
2
1 sin cos plane stress
1
( )
2
sin 1 2 1 cos plane strain
K
d
R

+ +


=

+ +

I I
( , ) ( )
2
ij ij
K
r f
r

=
LEFM:
Seite 6
Milano_2012 11
Plastic Zone
plane stress
plane strain
3D: dog bone model
Hahn & Rosenfield [1965]
plane stress
plane strain
Milano_2012 12
Dugdale Model
0 p
( ,0) , 0
yy
r R r d =
p
0 0
1 cos sec 1
2 2
d c a
R R



= =


p
2 2 2 c a d = +
(1) (2)
I I 0
2
, arccos
a
K c K R c
c

= = Superposition
0
cos
2
a
c R

=


no singularity
(1) (2)
I I
0 K K + =
!
no restriction
with respect to
plastic zone size!
2 2
2
Irwin
p p
0 0
1.23 1.23
8
d c a d
R R



=


0
1: R

plane stress!
strip
yield
model
Seite 7
Milano_2012 13
CTOD (Dugdale)
Dugdale 0
t
0
8
lnsec
2
R
a
E R

=


0
0
( , 0) 4 lnsec
2
y
R
u x a y a
E R

= = =


Crack opening profile
t
2 ( , 0)
y
u x a y = = =
Definition of CTOD
2
Irwin
t
0
4a
ER

=
for Griffith crack, plane stress
no dependence
on geometry!
Milano_2012 14
Barenblatt Model
Idea:
Singularity at the crack tip is unphysical
Griffith [1920]: Energy approach
Irwin [1964]: Effective crack length
Dugdale [1960]: Strip yield model
Barenblatt [1959]: Cohesive zone
Stress distribution (x) is unknown and cannot be measured
Cohesive model: traction-separation law ()
Seite 8
Milano_2012 15
Energy Release Rate

= =



+
= = = +

G
G G G
L
rel
2 2
p e p Ieff I
ssy
v
U U
B a B a
a r
K K
E a E

= > =

sep e
c c
2
U
B a
Separation energy
Cohesive model:
c
c
0
( )d

=

c
= G
Fracture criterion:
local criterion!
Milano_2012 16
ASTM E 399: Size Condition
Characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral
environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-
elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that
(1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane
strain, and
(2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size,
specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack;
Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture
Toughness K
Ic
of Metallic Materials
2
Ic
YS
2.5
K
W a

Specimen size

YS
0.2 % offset yield strength
( )
2 2
I
p
YS
1 2 K
d



=


( )
( )
2
1 2
0.02
2.5
p
d
B
W a W a

Seite 9
Milano_2012 17
ASTM E 561
Determination of the resistance to fracture under Mode I loading
using M(T), C(T), or crack-line wedge-loaded C(W) specimen;
continuous record of toughness development in terms of K
R
plotted
against crack extension.
Materials are not limited by strength, thickness or toughness, so long as
specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic.
Plot of crack extension resistance K
R
as a function of effective
crack extension a
e
.
Measurement of physical crack size by direct observation and then
calculating the effective crack size a
e
by adding the plastic zone
size;
Measurement of physical crack size by unloading compliance and then
calculating the effective crack size a
e
by adding the plastic zone size;
Measurement of the effective crack size a
e
directly by loading
compliance.
Standard Test Method for K-R Curve Determination
Milano_2012 18
FM Test Specimens (Tension Type)
M(T)
DE(T)
Seite 1
Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Part III: Elastic-Plastic Fracture
W. Brocks
Christian Albrecht University
Material Mechanics
Milano_2012 2
Overview
I. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
II. Small Scale Yielding
III. Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics
(EPFM)
Seite 2
Milano_2012 3
EPFM
Deformation theory of plasticity
J as energy release rate
HRR field, CTOD
Deformation vs incremental theory
of plasticity
R curves
Energy dissipation rate
Milano_2012 4
EPFM
Analytical solutions and analyses in
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics,
i.e. fracture under large scale yielding (LSY)conditions
are based on Deformation Theory of Plasticity
which actually describes hyperelastic materials
ij
ij
w

p
0 0
t t
ij ij ij ij
w d d


= =
=


e stands for linear elastic
p stands for nonlinear
e p e p
L L
U U U F dv F dv = + = +

L
2 p
e p I
crack
v
K U
J J J
E A

= + =



in the following, the superscripts
Seite 3
Milano_2012 5
J as Stress Intensity Factor
Power law of Ramberg & Osgood [1945]
e p
0 0 0 0 0
n

= + = +


uniaxial
1
p
0 0 0
3
2
n
ij ij

=


3D
Hutchinson [1868],
Rice & Rosengren [1968]
singular stress and strain fields at the crack tip (HRR field) mode I
1
1
p
1
0
0
( )
( )
n
ij ij
n
n
n
ij ij ij
K r
K
r

+
=

=

1
1
0
0 0
n
n
J
K
I

+

=


p 1
( )
ij ij
r

=O
Milano_2012 6
HRR Angular Functions
xx

yy

Seite 4
Milano_2012 7
CTOD
HRR displacement field
1
1
1
0
0 0
( )
n
n
n
i i
n
J
u r u
I


+
+

=



Crack Tip Opening Displacement,
t
, Shih [1981]
t t t t
2 ( , ) , ( , ) ( , )
y x y
u r r u r u r = =
t
0
n
J
d

=
( )
1
0
n
n n
d D =
Milano_2012 8
Path Dependence of J
FE simulation
C(T) specimen
plane strain
stationary crack
incremental theory
of plasticity
ASTM E 1820: reference value
far field value
el pl
J J J = +
e p
J J J = +
2
e I
K
J
E
=

( )
I
K a Y a W

=
( )
p
p
U
J
B W a

Seite 5
Milano_2012 9
Stresses at Crack Tip
incremental theory of plasticity
large strain analysis
1 1
1 1
0 0 t
n n
ij
r r
J

+ +




HRR
Milano_2012 10
R-Curves in FM
Different from quasi-brittle fracture, ductile crack extension is
deformation controlled: R-curves J(a), (a)
R curve a plot of crack-extension resistance as a function of
stable crack extension (ASTM E 1820)
p
2
( 1) ( ) ( ) e p p
( ) ( ) ( 1) ( 1)
( 1) ( 1)
( ) 1
i i i
I
i i i i
i i
U a
K
J a J J J
E b B b

= + = + +

J
R
-curve: J(a)
recursion formula
measure F, V
L
, a
Seite 6
Milano_2012 11
ASTM E 1823
Crack extension, a an increase in crack size.
Crack-extension resistance, K
R
, G
R
of J
R
a measure of the resistance
of a material to crack extension expressed in terms of the stress-
intensity factor, K; crack-extension force, G ; or values of J derived
using the J-integral concept.
Crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD), the crack displacement
resulting from the total deformation (elastic plus plastic) at variously
defined locations near the original (prior to force application) crack tip.
J-R curve a plot of resistance to stable crack extension, a
p
.
R curve a plot of crack-extension resistance as a function of stable
crack extension, a
p
or a
e
.
Stable crack extension a displacement-controlled crack extension
beyond the stretch-zone width. The extension stops when the applied
displacement is held constant.
Standard Terminology Relating to Fatigue and Fracture Testing
Milano_2012 12
ASTM E 1820
Determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the parameters K,
J, and CTOD ().
Assuming the existence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture
toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to
(1) Fracture of a stationary crack
(2) Fracture after some stable tearing
(3) Stable tearing onset
(4) Sustained stable tearing
This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be
anticipated before the test.
Serve as a basis for material comparison, selection and quality assurance;
rank materials within a similar yield strength range;
Serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment; awareness of
differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is
required.
Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness
Seite 7
Milano_2012 13
ASTM E 1820 (ctd.)
Fracture after some stable tearing is sensitive to material
inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced
to planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and
structural details;
J-R curve from bend-type specimens, SE(B), C(T), DC(T), has
been observed to be conservative with respect to results from
tensile loading configurations;
The values of
c
,
u
, J
c
, and J
u
, may be affected by specimen
dimensions
Cautionary statements
Milano_2012 14
CTOD R-Curve
Schwalbe [1995]:
5
(a)
ASTM E 2472
particularly for thin panels
Seite 8
Milano_2012 15
ASTM E 2472
Determination of the resistance against stable crack extension
of metallic materials under Mode I loading in terms of critical
crack-tip opening angle (CTOA) and/or crack opening
displacement (COD) as
5
resistance curve.
Materials are not limited by strength, thickness or toughness, as
long as and , ensuring low constraint conditions in M(T) and
C(T) specimens.
Standard Test Method for Determination of Resistance to
Stable Crack Extension under Low-Constraint Conditions
Milano_2012 16
Limitations
For extending crack
J becomes significantly path dependent
J looses its property of being an energy release rate
J is a cumulated quantity of global dissipation
J
R
curves are geometry dependent
bending
tension
BAM Berlin
Seite 9
Milano_2012 17
( )

= + +

e p ex
sep
W
U U U
B a B a
Energy balance

p
p
U
R
B a
global plastic dissipation rate

sep
c
U
B a
local separation rate
Dissipation Rate

= = + = +

p
sep p diss
c
U
U U
R R
B a B a B a
Dissipation rate
Turner (1990)

p
c
R commonly: geometry dependence of J
R
curves
( )
( )
p
p
p
M(T), DE(T)
( )
C(T), SE(B)
dJ
W a
da
R a
W a dJ
J
da

Milano_2012 18
R(a)
stationary
value
accumulated
plastic work
Seite 1
W. Brocks
Christian Albrecht University
Material Mechanics
Inelastic Deformation and Damage
Part II: Damage Mechanics
Milano_2012 2
Outline
Deformation, Damage and Fracture
Crack Tip and Process Zone
Damage Models
Micromechanisms of Ductile Fracture
Micromechanical Models
Porous Metal Plasticity (GTN Model)
Seite 2
Milano_2012 3
l'endommagement, comme le diable, invisible mais redoutable
Surface or volume-like discontinuities on the materials micro-
level (microcracks, microvoids)
Damage evolution is irreversible (dissipation!)
Damage causes degradation (reduction of performance)
Examples for processes involving damage phenomena:
ductile damage in metals, creep damage, fiber cracking or
fiber-matrix delamination in reinforced composites, corrosion,
fatigue
Damage - Definition
Milano_2012 4
Observable Effects
Physical Appearance of Damage
volume defects (microvoids, microcavities)
surface defects (microcracks)
Mascroscopic Effects of Damage
decreases elasticity modulus
decreases yield stress
decreases hardness
increases creep strain rate
decreases sound-propagation velocity
decreases density
increases electrical resistance
Seite 3
Milano_2012 5
Damage Models
Damage models describe evolution of degradation phenomena
on the microscale from initial (undamaged or predamaged) state
up to creation of a crack on the mesoscale (material element)
Damage is described by means of internal variables in the
framework of continuum mechanics.
Phenomenological models
Change of macroscopically observable properties are
interpreted by means of the internal variable(s);
Concept of effective stress: Kachanov [1958, 1986], Lemaitre
& Chaboche [1992], Lemaitre [1992].
Micromechanical models
The mechanical behaviour of a representative volume element
(RVE) with defect(s) is studied;
Constitutive equations are formulated on a mesoscale by
homogenisation of local stresses and strains in the RVE.
Milano_2012 6
Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM)
A

A
J . Lemaitre, R. Desmorat
Engineering Damage Mechanics
Springer, 2005
D. Krajcinovic
Damage Mechanics
Elsevier, 1996
Kachanov [1958]
Hult [1972]
Lemaitre [1971]
Lemaitre & Chaboche [1976]
Seite 4
Milano_2012 7
Effective Area
voids
V V
RVE
V
D f
V

= =
D
(n)
=
A
cracks
A
RVE
Volume density of microvoids
Surface density of microcracks or intersections
of microvoids with plane of normal n
D
A A A =

"Effective" area
D=
A
D
A
Isotropic Damage Scalar Damage Variable
if D
(n)
does not depend on n
( ) 1 A D A =

Milano_2012 8
Anisotropic Damage
Tensorial Damage Variables
rank 2 tensor D
rank 4 tensor D
with symmetries , most general case
metric tensor (mn) defines the reference configuration
( ) A A = n 1 n

D
( ) ( ) ( ) A A = mn mn

I D

D
ijkl
= D
ijlk
= D
jikl
= D
klij
A

A
n
m
n
m
unchanged
Seite 5
Milano_2012 9
Effective Stress (I)
( ) A A A = = S mn S mn S mn

I D
( ) ( )
1
1
or
ij ik jl ijkl kl
D

= = S S

I D
Anisotropic Damage
1 D
=

or
1 1
ij
ij
D D

= =

S
S

Isotropic Damage
1D
3D
rank 4 tensor D
A A = m S n m S n


projection of stress vector on m
Milano_2012 10
Effective Stress (II)
Rank 2 tensor D requires additional conditions:
Symmetry of the effective stress:
is not symmetric!
Compatibility with the thermodynamics framework: existence of
strain potentials and principle of strain equivalence,
Symmetrisation (not derived from a potential)
Different effect of the damage on the hydrostatic and deviatoric
stress
( )
1
= S S 1

D
( ) ( )
1 1
1
2


= +

S S 1 1 S

D D
( ) ( )
12
h
h
with 1
1 D

= + =

S S 1

H H H D
Seite 6
Milano_2012 11
11
Concept of effective stress (III)
1 1 1
1
1 2 h
1 1
1
1 2
4 2 1
91 91 3
2 1
31 31
D D D
D D

= + +

= +

1
1
2
2
2
2
1
0 0
1
0 0
1
0 0 ; 0 0
1
0 0
1
0 0
1
i j i j
D
D
D
D
D
D

= =

e e e e D H
Example: Rank 2 Tensor
Transversal isotropic damage (2=3):
Uniaxial loading
1
,
effective von Mises stress
Milano_2012 12
Thermodynamics of Damage
1. Definition of state variables, the actual value of each defining
the present state of the corresponding mechanism involved
2. Definition of a state potential from which derive the state laws
such as thermo-elasticity and the definition of the variables
associated with the internal state variables
3. Definition of a dissipation potential from which derive the laws
of evolution of the state variables associated with the dissipative
mechanism
Check 2
nd
Principle of Thermodynamics !
Seite 7
Milano_2012 13
Variables
-Y
D
Damage anisotropic
-Y D Damage isotropic
X A Kinematic hardening
R p Isotropic hardening
-S E
p
Plasticity
s Temperature/Entropy
S E Thermoelasticity
internal observable
conjugate
variable
State variable Mechanism
p
, p R
Milano_2012 14
State Potential
( )
e e p
, or , , , D p = + + E A

D

*
= sup
E
1

SE

= sup
E
e
1

SE
e

+
1

SE
p

Gibbs specific free enthalpy taken as state potential

* *
p e p e
*
s

= = + = +

E E E E
S S
State laws of thermoelasticity can be deducted
Helmholtz specific free energy
Seite 8
Milano_2012 15

R=

*
p
X=

*
A
Y =

*
D
or Y=

*
D
Dissipation Potential
Definition of conjugate variables
( )
p
grad
0 R p

+ +
q
S E X A Y

D
2
nd
Principle of Thermodynamics (Clausius-Duhem inequality)
( ) , , , or , R Y S X Y
Evolution equations for internal variables (kinetic laws) are derived
from a dissipation potential , which is a convex function of the
conjugate variables
Milano_2012 16
( )
( ) ( )
p
or
p
R
D
Y Y

= =

= = = =

E
S S
A
X
Y Y

D
Normality Rule
Normality rule of generalised standard materials
Nice and consistent theoretical framework but
wherefrom to get the dissipation potential ?
flow rule
Seite 9
Milano_2012 17
Principle of Strain Equivalence
Strain constitutive equations of a damage material are derived
from the same formalism as for a non-damaged material except
that the stress is replaced by the effective stress
( )
( ) ( )
2
*
e
1
2 1 2 1
ij ij
kk
E D E D

+
=

Example: State potential for linear isotropic elasticity
*
e
1
e
ij ij kk ij
ij
E E

+
= =

Elastic strain
( ) ( )
2
*
e h
2
1 31 2
2 3
Y
D E

= = + +

Energy density release rate Y

1
h 3
2
3
kk
ij ij


=
=
Milano_2012 18
Local and Micromechanical Approaches
Cleavage (brittlefracture)
Microcrack formation and coalescence
Stress controlled
Ritchie, Knott & Rice [1973]: RKR model, Beremin [1983]
Ductile tearing
Nucleation, growth and coalescence of microvoids at inclusions or
second-phase particles
Strain controlled, void growth dependent on hydrostatic stress
Rice & Tracey [1973], Gurson [1977], Beremin [1983], Tvergaard &
Needleman [1982, 1984, ...], Thomason [1985, 1990], Rousselier
[1987]
Creep damage
Nucleation, growth and coalescence of micropores at grain boundaries
Stress or strain controlled
Hutchinson [1983], Rodin & Parks [1988], Sester & Riedel [1995]
Seite 10
Milano_2012 19
Cleavage
Mechanisms of microcrack initiation
Broberg [1999]
Coalescence of microcracks
Milano_2012 20
Failure mechanisms: Nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids
Voids nucleate at secondary phase particles due to particle/matrix
debonding and/or particle fracture
Localisation of plastic deformation is prior to failure
fracture surface of Al 2024
Ductile Fracture
Seite 11
Milano_2012 21
Void Nucleation
Void nucleation at coarse particles in Al 2024 T 351
Milano_2012 22
Ductile Crack Extension (I)
Ductile crack extension
in an Al alloy
Schematic view of process
zone with unit cells
Broberg [1999]
Seite 12
Milano_2012 23
Ductile Crack Extension (I)
Milano_2012 24
Models of Void Growth (I)
McClintock [1968]
coalescence
2
x x
r = A
power law
n
=
void growth
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
0
0
3 1 1 3 3
sinh
2 1 2 4
ln
xx yy xx yy
zx
x x
n d
d n
r

= +


A
( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
0 0
f
1 ln
sinh 1 2 3
x x
xx yy
n r
n

=

+

A
fracture strain
( )
( )
0 0
[ln ]
1
ln
x x
zx zx
x x
d r
d
r
= =

A
A
damage
Seite 13
Milano_2012 25
Models of Void Growth (II)
Rice & Tracey [1969]
h
2
0.283exp
3
r
D
r

= =

h
T

= triaxiality
void-volume fraction for tensile test
Milano_2012 26
Particle cracking
Particle-matrix debonding
in Al-TiAl MMC
Void Nucleation
Seite 14
Milano_2012 27
Representative Volume Element (Unit Cell)
In-situ observation and FE
simulation of void
nucleation by particle
decohesion and fracture
Milano_2012 28
Unit Cell Simulations
Debonding of matrix at a particle
Cracking of particle
Seite 15
Milano_2012 29
Evolution of void volume fraction can be computed from
simple geometrical RVEs
Critical volume fractions can be obtained from plastic collapse
of the cell (function of triaxiality!)
Procedure can be applied independently of the aggregate
(void, particle, evolving object)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.30
necking
Volumefraction
f -2E
1
f
c
E
v
T=2
Representative Volume Element (Unit Cell)
Milano_2012 30
Mesoscopic Response
FE simulation of void growth:
Mesoscopic stress-strain curves
Seite 16
Milano_2012 31
31
Uncoupled models: Example
Rice & Tracey [1969]
p
3
0.283 exp
2
dr
d T
r


=


round tensile bar:
Coupled / Uncoupled Models
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
(2)
F

[
k
N
]
u
2
/2 [mm]
von Mises
coupled model
(1)
GTN
notched bar
Milano_2012 32
32
Porous Metal Plasticity
Additional scalar internal variable in the yield potential, which is a
function of porosity f
Porosity equals the void volume fraction in an RVE:
voids
RVE
V
f
V

=
Yield potential formulation is obtained from homogenisation
( )
( )
( )
RVE RVE
RVE RVE
, ,
RVE RVE
1 1
1 1
2
j
ij ij ij
V V
ij ij i j j i
V V
dV n dS
V V
dV u u dV
V V

= =

= = +


mesoscopic
stresses and
strains
( )
p
, 0
ij
=

( )
p
, , 0
ij
f =
Evolution equation of void growth is derived from plastic
incompressibility of matrix
( )
p
1
kk
f f =

p
0
kk

volume dilatation
due to void growth
Seite 17
Milano_2012 33
33
Gurson and Rousselier Model
Gurson [1977], Tvergaard & Needleman [1984]
2
* *2 h
1 2 3
p p
( ) (
3
2 cosh 1 0
2 )
q f
R
f q q
R

= + =



Rousselier [1987]
( ) ( )
1
p p
h
1
exp
( 1 )
1 0
1 ( )
f D
R R f f

= + =



damage variable f*(f)
p p p
2
p 3 ij ij
E = =
Milano_2012 34
34
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Gurson
Rousselier
0
R
h 0
R
Comparison
Seite 18
Milano_2012 35
35
Extensions
Tvergaard & Needleman
damage function
( )
c *
c c c
for
for
f f
f
f
f
f f f f

=

+

p
growth nucl n p
(1 )
kk
f f f f A = + = +


n
n
n
2
p
n
n
1
exp
2 2
f
s
A
s

=




Chu & Needleman [1980]
void nucleation
Milano_2012 36
36
0
c
n
n
n
1
2
2
3 1
0
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.15
1.5
1.0
2.25
f
f
f
s
q
q
q q

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
Effect of Triaxiality
Seite 19
Milano_2012 37
Tensile Test: GTN model
Simulation of deformation and damage in a round tensile bar
Milano_2012 38
SE(B): GTN model
Seite 20
Milano_2012 39
39
Simulation with the GTN model
0 50 100 150
0
200
400
600
u
3
[mm]
F [kN]
Experiment
Simulation
1
2
3
axial force
punch force
2
1
x-axis
3
Punch Test
Milano_2012 40
Punch Test
Seite 21
Milano_2012 41
Summary (I)
Ductile crack extension and fracture can be modelled on various
length scales:
(1) Micromechanics: void nucleation, growth and coalescence
(2) Continuum mechanics: constitutive equations with damage
(3) Cohesive surfaces: traction-separation law
(4) Elastic-plastic FM: R-curves for J or CTOD
The models require determination of respective parameters:
(1) Microstructural characteristics: volume fraction, shape, distance of
particles, ...
(2) Initiation: f
0
, f
n
,
n
, s
n
, coalescence: f
c
, final fracture: f
f
, ....
(3) Shape of TSL, cohesive strength
c
, separation energy
c
(4) J(a) or (a)
Milano_2012 42
Summary (II)
The models have specific favourable and preferential applications:
(1) Effects of nucleation mechanism, stress triaxiality, void /
particle shape, void / particle spacing, ...
(2) Constraint effects, inhomogeneous materials, damage
evolution, ...
(3) Large crack growth, residual strength of structures
(4) Standard FM assessment of engineering structures
Acknowledgement:
FE simulations by Dr. Dirk Steglich,
HelmholtzzentrumGeesthacht