Engineering Fracture Mechanics Vol. 51, No. I, pp.

145-149, 1995
~ Pergamon 0013-7944(94)00239-8
Elsevier ScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain

TECHNICAL NOTE

AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF J A N D CTOD

ESTIMATION FORMULAS
J. MORRISON
Defence Research Establishment Pacific, Forces Mail Office, Victoria, BC VOS IBO, Canada
K. J. KARISALLEN
Defence Research Establishment Atlantic, Forces Mail Office, Halifax, NS B3K 2XO, Canada

Abstract--Several different estimation formulas have recently been analytically developed which can
provide alternative ways of determining elasti~plastic fracture characterizing parameters such as J or
CTOD using either crack mouth opening or load line displacement. These expressions offer a means of
simplifying the experimental instrumentation, and may be more suitable for dynamic fracture testing or
the investigation of, for example, short crack effects. This paper provides an experimental comparison of
three CTOD and two J formulations for deeply cracked three point bend specimens, using high strength
steel plate and welds, in general good agreement was found between the different J and CTOD expressions.

NOMENCLATURE

g l , , ~m elastic-plastic J-integral parameter at crack initiation, maximum load

crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) at crack initiation, maximum load
K linear elastic stress concentration factor
Poisson's ratio
E Young's modulus
~/pt, ~/J-c,~/C-L,~/c-c plastic coefficients
ApI(LLD) plastic area under the load-load line deflection curve
AplICMOD) plastic area under the load-crack mouth opening displacement curve
B net specimen thickness of a side grooved bend specimen
b uncracked ligament length
m plastic constraint factor
o-1 average of yield and ultimate tensile stresses
tT, O"0 applied and reference (0.2% proof stress) tensile stresses
rpl plastic rotation factor
a crack length
G, G0 tensile strain and reference strain (fro~E)
Ramberg-Osgood coefficient (= 1 for 0.2% proof stress reference)
n strain hardening coefficient.

INTRODUCTION

OVER THE past two decades standardized experimental procedures for laboratory elastic-plastic toughness determination
using Jr,, J R curves, and Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) have been developed and widely employed (for
example, ASTM Standards E813, El 152 and E1290, and British Standard BS 5762). One of the most commonly used
specimen types included in these standards has the single edge notch three point bend geometry. The simplest form of the
J - R curve procedure for this specimen requires a load line displacement for a J calculation based on the area under a
load~lisplacement curve, plus a mouth opening displacement for crack extension determination from unloading compliance
(although crack sensing techniques such as the potential drop method can also be used). While the two displacement
determinations can be made coincident for compact specimens using a clip gauge on the load line, the required
instrumentation for bend specimens tends to be more complicated, and in the case of small specimens, multiple displacement
gauges can be difficult to accommodate.
Alternatives to load line displacement measurement during these tests are acceptable, provided that the "ability to infer
load line displacement" can be demonstrated. Efforts have been made in recent years to derive accurate J and CTOD
relationships using either mouth opening or load-line displacement [1-5]. Such relationships would be particularly useful
for dynamic elastic~lastic fracture testing in such equipments as drop towers, where simplicity of instrumentation is very
desirable. Likewise, estimation formulas for J and CTOD applicable to a wider range of crack length than is currently
permitted in the standard procedures would be particularly useful for evaluating specimens containing shallow cracks. For
example, reproducible laboratory measurements using specimens containing relatively short cracks could be valuable for
avoiding undue conservatism in structural integrity assessments.

145
146 Technical Note

Kirk and Dodds [4, 5] provided a series of simple estimation formulas for the standard bend specimen generated from
two-dimensional (2D) plane strain finite element analyses. Both J and C T O D can be calculated using these expressions from
either load-load line displacement, or load-crack m o u t h opening data. The analysis included sensitivity assessments for
variations in both material strain hardening and specimen crack depth. In principle, the application of such estimates allows
the experimentalist to select either load line displacement or crack m o u t h opening as the basis for calculation depending
on which is either most appropriate or easiest to instrument. This paper describes an investigation of how well these formulas
apply to elastic-plastic three point bend specimen fracture tests on both 25 m m HSLA80 steel plate and in the fusion zone
of a 50 m m HY80 type steel weldment.

J AND CTOD ESTIMATION FORMULAS

Kirk and Dodds developed a series of expressions similar in form to those contained in J~,. and C T O D standard test
procedures. Each expression is comprised of a small scale linear elastic component defined by the crack tip stress intensity,
plus a large scale yielding component. A number of alternative estimation procedures to those in the standards were
developed. For the purposes of this study two J expressions and three C T O D expressions have been used, one of each
conforming to existing standards.

J expression using load line displacement

j K2(1 -- V2) qolAplfLLDI
-~ (1)
E Bb
This is a simple formulation for J provided in the ASTM and British standards, which does not include the crack growth
correction given in the more sophisticated expression provided in ASTM El 152. The large scale yielding component is based
on the plastic work defined by the area under the load-line displacement curve (Ap~ttLOl). In the standards the qp~ factor
has a nominal value of 2 for deeply cracked specimens.

J expression using crack mouth opening displacement

J = K2(I - v2) + ~/j-cApIICM°°I (2)

E Bb
This is an equivalent form of eq. (1) which uses the plastic work now defined by the area under the load-crack m o u t h
opening displacement curve (ApI~CMOD)),together with a corresponding coefficient defined as rh_c .

CTOD expression using load line displacement

CTOD K2(I
- -
- - V2)
+
~c_LApI(LLDI (3)
matE Bba/
This is the C T O D equivalent of eq. (I) above, with the coefficient defined as V/c_c.

CTOD expressions using crack mouth opening

C T O D = K2(I - v2) F qc-cApI(CMODt (4)

mtr/ E Bb~I
This is the C T O D equivalent of eq. (2) above with the coefficient defined as qoc.
An alternative C M O D for formulation is given by the expression

C T O D = K2(I - v2) I- rot bCMODpt (5)

ma/E rplb + a
This is the standard C T O D expression (see ASTM E1290), which utilizes the plastic component of the m o u t h opening
displacement (CMODp0, together with a plastic rotation factor rp~ of 0.44 for deeply cracked specimens.
Note that the first term in each J expression is the same. Likewise for the three C T O D formulas. The J and C T O D
expressions vary from one another only in the large scale yielding contributions. The various q coefficients and the plastic
rotation factor are sensitive to differing degrees to both crack length and work hardening. Reference [4] provides calculated
values of the q and r 0 coefficients for a range of initial crack lengths between 0.05 W and 0.7 W, and also for the material
strain hardening coefficient n varying between 4 and 50, using the R a m b e r ~ O s g o o d formulation

- (6)
~o ~70 \ (70
In general, the less sensitive the r / a n d rpt are to crack length and work hardening coefficient, the easier it will be to
experimentally generate accurate J and C T O D values. The computational results show that the least sensitive expressions
are those which use plastic work, i.e. eq. (2) for J, and either eq. (3) or (4) for CTOD. The following sections describe
experimental comparisons of J and C T O D resistance curves using the above five estimation expressions.

Table 1. Chemical composition (wt %)

Material C Mn Si Ni Cr Cu Mo S P AI
HSLA80 0.06 0.61 0.30 0.81 0.74 1.01 0.22 0.006 0.02 0.07
HY80 0.15 0.38 0.26 2.77 1.41 0.02 0.40 0.007 0.03 0.1
HY80 weld fusion zone 0.06 1.42 0.55 1.83 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.009 0.03 0.03
HY80 weld H A Z 0.14 0.38 0.43 2.86 1.43 0.02 0.41 0.008 0.03 0.1
 Technical Note 147

Table 2. HSLA80 and HY80 Plate mechanical properties

0.2% Proof stress UTS Elongation
(MPa) (MPa) (%) Charpy impact
Material RT -20°C RT -20°C RT energy (J)
HSLA80 619 633 690 700 27 225 ( - 20'~C)
HY80 624 -- 738 -- 25 298 ( - 34~C)

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Fracture tests were conducted on two high strength steels. One was rolled HSLA80 plate and the other welded HY80
plate. The test conditions of interest were a displacement rate of 0.2 m m / s (quasi-static) at temperatures of - 2 0 ' C for
HSLAS0 and - 5°C for the HY80 weld. The 25 m m thick HSLAS0 grade steel plate had the chemical composition shown
in Table I. Table 2 shows the transverse tensile properties at both room temperature and at - 2 0 ° C . The temperature
dependence of the tensile properties of this kind of material had been investigated previously [6]. At - 2 0 C the average
value of the strain hardening coefficient n from eq. (6) had a value of about 8.
The plate and fusion zone chemistries of the butt welded 50 m m thick HY80 plates are also shown in Table 1. The
double V welds were made using the synergic pulsed M I G (GMA) process with a heat input of 2-4 kJmm. Plate transverse
tensile values are given in Table 2, while the weld fusion zone values are provided in Table 3 averaged through the thickness.
The tensile data indicate that the weld was slightly overmatched. A curve fit of the tensile stress-strain data to the
Ramberg~Osgood expression (eq. (6)) for the weld fusion zone gave an n value of approximately 12.
Charpy impact values for the T - L orientation are also shown in the tables. At the temperatures indicated both plates
were close to their upper shelf values, while for the HY80 the weld transition curve was still rising.
Duplicate three point bend specimens with a nominal thickness of 25 m m and W/B = 2 were machined from the plates
in either the T - L (HSLA80) or T - S (HY80 weld) orientations respectively. In the case of the weld, in order to ensure a
uniform crack front across the width of the specimen, a 2% lateral permanent set was applied in compression at the notch
tip prior to fatigue cracking [7]. Integral knife edges were machined at the m o u t h of the starter notch to accommodate
a wide range clip gauge sensing m o u t h opening displacement. Testing was carried out in a computer controlled
servo-hydraulic machine. The specimens were precracked at an R ratio of 0.1 to a nominal ao/W = 0.55 and then grooved
10% of the thickness on both sides along the intended crack growth direction. The fracture test procedures closely followed
those of the ASTM J and C T O D standards, supplemented by suggested procedure modifications for weld evaluation [7].
Periodic unloading compliance measurements were used to monitor crack extension. Based on tensile and preliminary
fracture test results, Young's modulus for the HSLAS0 was set at a nominal value of 208 GPa, and for the HY80 weld
at 196 GPa. A refrigerated enclosure surrounded the specimen and the three point bend fixture, with three thermocouples
monitoring specimen temperature, which was controlled within _+2°C of the desired value, and with the same variation
along the length of the specimen. For the HSLA80 tests both m o u t h opening and load line displacement were monitored
directly, in addition to applied load and ram displacement. For the weld specimens, load line displacement was inferred
from a careful comparison of m o u t h opening and load line measurements, supplemented by optical measurements on trial
specimens. On completion of the fracture tests, further fatigue cracking was employed to establish the end
point of stable crack advance, determined from a nine point average measurement on the fracture surface.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Typical load load line displacement (HSLA) and l o a d - m o u t h opening displacement curves (weld) are shown in Figs
1 and 2, respectively. The high toughness HSLA shows a long region of slow stable cracking, most of the crack extension
being associated with near limit load tearing. The weld shows some stable crack extension prior to m a x i m u m load, and
thereafter tearing with an occasional load instability associated with a sudden crack jump. Total crack extensions at the
conclusion of the tests were approximately 4 m m for HSLA and 8 m m for the HY80 weld, well beyond the 2 m m or so
m a x i m u m needed for J or C T O D R curves. The restrictions placed on m a x i m u m J and crack extension by the standards
would limit the m a x i m u m usable J and crack extension in these steels to 800 900 kJ/m 2 and 2.3 mm, respectively.
Figures 3 and 4 show respectively typical J and C T O D resistance curves for the HSLA80 plate and Figs 4 and 5 show
the corresponding results for the HY80 weld. The data have been limited to a m a x i m u m crack extension of 2 mm. The
values for the r/and rpt coefficients were those for the appropriate initial crack length and strain hardening coefficient [4].
In general the agreement between the different calculated J and C T O D values is very good. The following trends were noted.
(i) In HSLA80 there is close agreement between all of the estimation formulas over a wide range of crack extension,
well beyond the limits imposed by the standards. At crack increments beyond the 2 m m shown in Figs 3 and 4 the plastic
work load line displacement curves tend to drop slightly below the C M O D based curves. This might be expected because
of the greater sensitivity of the larger scale yielding component to crack length in the C M O D expressions.
(ii) For the HY80 welds there is good agreement between the load line and crack m o u t h opening plastic work estimates
of J and CTOD. However the C T O D results based on CMODp~ are somewhat greater than those based on plastic work.
This discrepancy increases with crack length, and is unaffected by the sudden crack jumps which occur further along the
R curve. The J Ap~cMom formulation is normally considered to be the most accurate because of the insensitivity of the
rh_c parameter to strain hardening coefficient.

Table 3. Weld fusion zone tensile proper-

ties ( - 5~C)
0.2% Proof stress (MPa) 640
UTS (MPa) 762
Elongation (%) 17
Charpy impact energy (J) 69
148 Technical Note

100

80

60

,-~ 40

20

, , , , , ,

l 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (ram)

Fig. 1. Load-load line displacement curve for HSLA80.

45 . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . .

40 1500
35

30 X ~-
1000- +

25
X +
o 20
,-1 x +~+
15 500-
tO
I(LLD)
5 × eq. (2) ApRCMOD)
0
I r I T [ I T I

l
T

2
I I . . . . I . . . . . . . . .
0 015 i 115 ; 25
Displacement (mm) crack extension mm
Fig. 2. Load-crack m o u t h opening displacement curve for Fig. 3. J resistance curves for HSLA steel.
HY80 weld.

1.25 200-

150.

~0.75
100-
O
0.5
50-
0.25 D)
x eq. (4) ApI(CMOD) I(LLD)

o eq. (5) CMODpl x eq. (2) ApI(CMOD)

0 0
0 015 1 115 ½ 2.5 0 015 i 115 ~ 25
crack extension mm crack extension mm
Fig. 4. C T O D resistance curves for HSLA steel. Fig. 5. J resistance curve for HY80 weld.
 Technical Note 149

0.2
+ eq. (3) ApI(LLD)
x eq. (4) ApI(CMOD)
o eq. (5) CMODpl
0.15-

01-
©
[.-
0.05-

0
0 015 1 115 ½ 2.5
crack extension m m
Fig. 6. CTOD resistance curve for HY80 weld.

Table 4. Critical J and CTOD values

HSLA80 HY80 weld
Jh. Jm 6i 3., J,, J., 6, 6.,
Equation (kJ/m 2) (kJ/m 2) (mm) (mm) (kJ/m 2) (k J/m=) (mm) (ram)
(I) ApI(LLD) 493 953 43 122
(2) A pI(CMOD) 596 1056 41 116
(3) ApI(LLD) 0.24 0.78 0.02 0.09
(4) Apt{CMOD) 0.25 0.81 0.02 0. I 1
(5) CMODpL 0.25 0.77 0.02 0.13

(iii) For each of the estimation methods, Jr, and critical CTOD values were calculated in accordance with ASTM
standards E813 and E1290 (Table 4). For the HY80 weld, both initiation and maximum load values are included.
In conclusion, J and CTOD estimation formulas derived from finite element analysis can be of considerable benefit
in the experimental determination of fracture toughness. Further work is underway to more closely examine the observed
discrepancy between plastic work and plastic displacement CTOD formulations in welds, and to evaluate the estimation
formulas under dynamic loading.

Acknowledgement--The authors would like to thank John Sumpter of the Defence Research Agency, Dunfermline, U.K.
who supplied the welded plate used in this study.

REFERENCES
[I] J. D. G. Sumpter, J, Determination for shallow notch welded bend specimens. Fatigue Fracture Engng Mat. Structures
10, (6), 479~493 (1987).
[2] M. A. Leggatt and J. R. Gordon, 3D elastic-plastic finite element analysis for CTOD and J in SENB, SENAB and
SENT specimen geometries, in Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics, Toughness Tests and Applications (Edited by M.
G. Dawes), Cambridge (1992).
[3] Y.-Y. Wang and J. R. Gordon, The limits of applicability of J and CTOD estimation procedures for shallow cracked
SENB specimens, in Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics, Toughness Tests and Applications (Edited by M. G. Dawes),
Cambridge (1992).
[4] M. T. Kirk and R. H. Dodds, Jr, J and CTOD estimation equations for shallow cracks in single edge notch bend
specimens. J. Testing Eval. 21, 228-238 (1993).
[5] M. T. Kirk and R. H. Dodds, Jr., Experimental J estimation formulas for single edge notch bend specimens containing
mismatched welds. University of Illinois Report ULU-ENG-91-2012 (December 1991).
[6] M. R. Krishnadev, J. Morrison and B. Voyzelle, Influence of temperature and strain-rate on the flow and fracture
properties of a commercial copper-strengthened HSLA steel. Microstructural Sci. 17, 343-356 (1989).
[7] M. G. Dawes, H. G. Pisarski and S. J. Squirrel, Fracture mechanics tests on welded joints. Nonlinear Fracture
Mechanics: Volume H--Elastic-Plastic Fracture, (Edited by J. D. Landes, A. Saxena and J. G. Merkel), A S T M STP
995, 191-213 (1989).

(Received 27 January 1994)

EFH 5|:l-J