Describe the shape of the plastic zone ahead of a crack tip and particularly how this varies

between plane stress and plane strain situations.

Irwin was one of the first to study crack propagation and introduced three different types of
loading modes, which are still used in today’s studies and these are mode I an opening or tensile
mode, mode II is a sliding or in-plane shear mode where the crack surfaces move over one
another in a perpendicular motion to the leading edge of the crack, mode III is a tearing and
antiplane shear mode, where the crack surfaces move comparative to one another and
equivalent to the leading edge of the crack. The modes can be seen in Figure 1 [1].

Figure 1 : Modes of Crack propagation [2].

Elastic stress fields pressures on the fact that a stress singularity exists at the tip of an elastic
crack tip. In reality things are different as materials (mostly metals) normally exhibit a yield
stress, higher than the normal plastic deformation stress. This results in a region around the tip
of the crack, where plastic deformation occurs therefore stress singularity cannot exist. This
plastic region is known as the crack tip plastic zone. A rough estimate of this can be easily
calculated using Irwin’s first estimate as can be seen in Figure 2, to make it simpler only plane
stresses where taken into account [1].

Figure 2: First estimate of plastic zone size [1].

Figure shows 2 shows the stress in the σY in the plane ϴ = 0. the distance 𝑟𝑝∗ is the size of the
plastic zone in the first estimate and be calculated using the following equation:
It can be seen that the actual plastic zone size must be larger than𝑟𝑝∗ to support the shaded load
in Figure 2. Load bearing is achieved as the material ahead of the plastic zone carries more
stress, this in turn will bring the material above the yield stresss [1].

Irwin second estimation shows that the because of the occurrence of plasticity, the crack
behaves as if it were longer than its actual size, making the plate behave as if it contained a
crack of a larger size. The “total” crack size is aeff and is equal to a+δ as can be seen in Figure
3[1].

Figure 3: Second estimate of plastic zone size [1].

Till now two assumptions where considered:

1. That the plastic zone was only considered along the X axis in the X direction
2. Plastic zone is of circular shape

A more accurate shape can be constructed by examining the yield condition for 𝜃-angles and
by doing so a proper yield criterion can be imposed. The criterions that are usually applied are
the Von Mises criterion or the Tresca criterion respectively[2].

The difference between each criterion is that the Von Mises criterion considers all principal
stresses while the Tresca criterion uses only the maximum and minimum plane stresses. The
crack tip stress filed equations are as follows:
On the plane ϴ = 0 the principal stresses σ1 and σ2 are equal and act in the X and Y directions,σy
is a principal stress. For plane stress σ3 = 0 and τMax = 0.5 σ1. Hence the plastic zone size for
𝜃=0 is the accurate for the plane stress case with both the Tresca and Von mises criterion
therefore the plain strain and stress equations are as follows [1]:

The plastic zone is plotted non dimensionally as can be seen in Figure 4. It can be seen that the
plastic zones are quite bigger than Irwin’s estimate but similar to each other similar, the Tresca
criterion is a slightly bigger and of different shape. Using the Van Mises criterion, analyses for
mode II and III cracks can be evaluated as seen in Figure 5 [3].

Figure 4: Plastic zones according to a) Von Mises criterion and b) Tresca

criterion [3].

Figure 5: Plastic zone shape for Mode II and Mode III[3].

Since in the above two cases, the stress is limited to the yield stress, extra load is required to
be carried by the material outside the boundary. Hence, the plastic zone boundaries are not
accurate, and correcting this error requires relaxation methods to minimise the error. This was
done by Stimpson and Eaton, Hult and McClintock and more recently Tuba, and by Rice and
Rosengren with the results seen in Figure 6. The plastic zone is quite different and larger from
the Von mises and Tresca criteria as it is more accurate [1].

Figure 6: a) Tuba plastic zone b) Rice and Rosengren plastic zone [3].

A crack has two dimensions its length and width. When deciding whether plane stress or plane
strain dominates a cracked tip, the plate thickness is compared with the plastic zone size R in
front of the crack tip instead of crack width if the thickness is smaller than R, then it is plane
stress if it is greater than R then plane strain dominates. When a cracked thick plate is loaded,
the centre of the plate is subjected to plane strain because of the out-of-plane normal stress
developed. The sections close to the two free surfaces of the plate exhibit plane stress so as can
be seen in Figure 7[2].

Figure 7: Thick plate plastic zone [2]

Describe notched-bar impact test methods for determining the fracture toughness, KIC of
materials
The aim of these experiments is to establish a procedure to characterize the toughness of
materials in terms of critical-stress-intensity factor KIC. Two testing geometries can be covered
using these experiments being: single-edge-notch bending (SENB) and compact tension (CT).
The standards used for these experiments are all under the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), with the ASTM E399 and ASTM D5045 are specifically for measuring the
KIC for metals and plastic respectively [4].

To ensure that plain strain failure and correct KIC measurements are taken the following
constraint conditions must be satisfied according to ASTM standards for both SENB and CT
tests. The specimen width ,W, is W=2B and in both geometries the crack length a should be .
In order for the testing to be valid the following criteria has to also
be satisfied [5]:

KQ = conditional KIC, σY= Yield stress of material for the temperature and loading rate of the
test.

The criteria requires that B must be large enough to ensure plane strain and that (W-a) is enough
to avoid excessive plasticity in the ligament. If (W-a) is too small and non linearity in loading
occurs, an increase in the B/W ratio till 4 is acceptable for SENB [5].

The objective of this test method is to load a fatigue precracked test specimen to induce either
or both of the following unstable crack extension, including significant pop-in, referred to as
“fracture instability” in this test method; stable crack extension, referred to as “stable tearing”
in this test method. Fracture instability results in a single point-value of fracture toughness
determined at the point of instability. Stable tearing results in a continuous fracture toughness
versus crack-extension relationship from which significant point-values may be determined.
Stable tearing interrupted by fracture [6].

A notch is cut into the material of finite thickness. A fatigue loading is next applied to grow a
sharp fatigue crack. The crack is then loaded at a rate of 5 mm/minute and the final results are
plotted on a point displacement curve. A load corresponding to a 2.5 percent increment of crack
extension is established and the KIC values calculated [4].

Three tests should be done to obtain an overall result. The dimensions should follow Figure
and Figure as these comply with ASTM E399. Thickness B should be taken to 0.1 percent
accuracy at not less than three positions and an average taken. Crack length a should be
measured to an accuracy of 0.5 percent at three position at the center of the crack front, and at
the end of the crack front also taking an average [4].
Figure 8: Threepoint bending system [5]. Figure 9: Compact test system [5].

KIC is then calculated using the following equation:

The final step is to check the validity of K IC by checking if the following 2 constraints are
satisfied.

1.

2. During the fatigue growth of the crack, the maximum stress intensity factor does not
exceed 60% of the stress intensity factor at failure or