Statement of Purpose:

Mixed mode fracture behavior of materials

Traditionally, the fracture behavior of materials is studied in the laboratory by loading
the test specimen in the tensile loading since this mode (Mode-I) is thought to be the most
dangerous. However, in many practical situations, structural/machine components do not
experience just one type of loading but combinations of tension and shear. This situation is
commonly known as mixed mode loading. The crack tip in such condition can experience
combinations of tensile, in plane shear or out of plane shear, conventionally known as Mode I,
Mode II and Mode III opening [1][2].
Various criteria for crack growth direction prediction under mixed mode loadings have
been proposed. The maximum tangential stress and the minimum strain energy density criteria
have been widely used in mixed mode crack growth studies. However, experimental results
which do not agree with the predictions can often be found. Also, the use of these parameters
has mainly been limited to linear-elastic-fracture-mechanics regime, since they are usually
represented by stress intensity factors in applications. Criteria are not yet available which
include detailed considerations from the point of view of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics.
The criteria for elastic-plastic fracture behavior of materials under combined effect of tension
and shear is not fully understood and standard evaluating methods has not been developed
yet. Moreover, conducting the mixed mode fracture toughness tests in a uniaxial testing
machine in the laboratory is not straight forward. Parameters which have been used to
correlate fatigue crack growth rates under mixed mode loadings include effective stress
intensity factors, strain energy density factors, J- integral and equivalent strain intensity factors.
Even though good correlations of mixed mode crack growth rate data have been by some of the
aforementioned parameters, there is no single parameter which gives satisfactory correlations
under all loading conditions [3].
One way to look into the mixed mode fracture problems could have been modifying the
specimen configuration. Many different specimen geometries have been used to produce
different combinations of mixed mode loadings under different test conditions. These include
plate specimens with inclined edge or central crack, cruciform specimen with central inclined
crack, tubular specimen with inclined or transverse crack, and three or four point bending and
shear specimens. The main considerations in design of the specimen are ability to apply full
Statement of Purpose:
range of mixed mode load combinations, compactness, ease of manufacture, ability to form
fatigue pre-cracks under mode-I loading, and ease of clamping and loading. However such
modifications are restricted as the ASTM [4][5][6] standard specifications have to be
maintained. Moreover, fatigue pre-cracks prior to the fracture tests have to be grown in Mode I
loading only. Such constraints do not allow the experimentalist to modify the specify geometry
to a large extent. Other alternative way is to design and develop a suitable loading fixture to
introduce various degrees of mixed mode loading.
CSIR-NML is equipped with uniaxial and tension-torsion testing machines. In my PhD
work, an appropriate test method to study mixed mode fracture behavior of materials will be
developed and standardized to meet the design requirements. A multi-axial loading
arrangement will be designed to suit the existing machine conditions. And ASTM standard
based CT specimen will be put into various degree of multi-axial loading. FEM will be used as a
tool to validate the test technique. Fracture mechanism of materials in mixed mode condition
will also be thoroughly studied.
References:
1. Prashant Kumar (1999), Elements of Fracture Mechanics
2. Broek, D. (1982). Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics
3. Qian J, Fatemi A, Mixed mode fatigue crack growth: A Literature Survey, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 1996, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp.969-990
4. ASTM E 399 90, Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic
Materials.
5. ASTM Standards (1992) E647-91, Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack
growth rates.
6. ASM Handbook, Vol. 19, Fatigue and Fracture, Fracture Toughness Testing