Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Thermal shock resistance analysis methodology of ceramic

coating/metal substrate systems
Bao-Lin Wang *, Jie-Cai Han, Shan-Yi Du
Center for Composite Materials, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper establishes a methodology for the study of thermal shock resistance behavior of
Received 19 June 2009 ceramic coating/metal substrate systems, based on multiple cracking analysis. The stress
Received in revised form 2 December 2009 criterion and the toughness criterion are used to predict the failure behavior of the system.
Accepted 10 February 2010
Multi-scale analysis of the thermal shock resistance of the system is made and variations of
Available online 14 February 2010
the thermal shock resistance of the system with crack density are displayed for different
values of coating to substrate thickness ratio. Some critical size parameters, which control
Keywords:
the applicability of the stress-based criterion and the fracture mechanics-based criterion
Coating
Substrate
for the determination of the thermal shock resistance of the coating/substrate systems,
Thermal shock are explored.
Fracture mechanics Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thermal stresses

1. Introduction

In coating/substrate systems for high-temperature applications, the coatings are used for providing thermal protection to
the underneath substrates. The coating material is usually the ceramic. Such thermal protection systems are extensively
used for severe thermal environments such as gas turbines, diesel engines, rocket engines and nuclear reactors. It is essential
to understand the thermal shock resistance behavior of the coating/substrate nonhomogeneous systems. Useful relations
concerning thermal shock behavior of homogeneous materials had been derived in [1] based on the stress analysis, and
in [2–9] based on the fracture mechanics analysis.
The reliability and durability problems of the coating/substrate systems are arisen largely from high thermal and residual
stresses and poor bonding strengths of the interfaces between coating and substrate. The degree of damage and strength
degradation of the coating subjected to severe fluctuating thermal environments is a major limiting factor in relation to ser-
vice requirements and lifetime performance. The problem is transiently dependent on time and the material system is spa-
tially nonhomogeneous. Because of thermal expansion mismatch between the coating and substrate, cracking and coating
spalling can occur upon experiencing thermal and mechanical loading. Experiments were conducted to determine the ther-
mal shock resistance of thermal coatings [10–12]. Computational fatigue analysis was made for cyclic thermal shock in
notched specimens [13]. Thermal cycling test has been conducted for the thermal shock resistance prediction and adhesion
strength analysis of coating/substrate system [14]. Cracking behavior in a thermal barrier coating upon thermal shock load-
ing was numerically analyzed [15]. Theoretical predictions and experimental observations suggested that multiple cracks
may develop in any homogeneous or nonhomogeneous material systems subjected to rapid temperature changes [3,16–
19]. Furthermore, the material properties exhibit significant temperature-dependency under high temperature environ-
ments. In addition, both the coating and the substrate have finite thickness, thus the solution of a coating on a half space

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangbl@hitsz.edu.cn (B.-L. Wang).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.02.013
940 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

Nomenclature

T temperature
r stress
a coefficient of thermal expansion
E Young’s modulus
t Poisson’s ratio
DTc thermal shock resistance
K stress intensity factor
KC fracture toughness
rb strength limit
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ
q density
k thermal conductivity
c specific heat

of different material no longer applies to the system. As a result of those facts, the problem is highly complicate, and only
very special cases have been studied in literature (e.g., single crack configuration [20–22]). Systematic methodology for
the strength evaluation of coating/substrate systems under severe thermal environments does not exist at this time.
As described above, in a real coating/substrate system, multiple cracking is a common phenomenon. In addition, the
thickness of the coating is usually comparable to that of the substrate [23]. To describe the realistic case better, this paper
investigates the thermal shock resistance of coating/substrate systems due to the effects of finite coating to substrate thick-
ness ratio, and the multiple cracking. The paper focuses on finite substrate thickness and cracking spacing which are more
realistic in engineering applications. Both single crack and multiple crack configurations have been investigated. The surfaces
of the medium undergo a sudden cooling, which represents a quenched test of thermal shock. The transient temperature
field and the associated thermal stresses, and the crack tip stress intensity factors are obtained as functions of the crack spac-
ing, the normalized time, and the crack length. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the thermal shock condition
and the transient thermal stress field for the un-cracked medium are established by the finite element/finite difference tech-
nology; Section 3 obtains the transient stress intensity factors and the transient stresses, using the standard finite element
approach. The transient thermal stresses obtained in Section 2, with opposite signs, are used as the external mechanical
loads on the crack faces to solve the thermal stress intensity factor; Section 4 provides a methodology for the thermal shock
resistance analysis of the coating/substrate systems. Applicability of the stress-based criterion and the fracture mechanics-
based criterion is discussed. Critical size parameters that control the thermal shock criterion are identified; Section 5 studies
the transient thermal stress intensity factors and the thermal shock resistance behavior for multiple crack configuration;
Conclusions of the research are drawn in Section 6.

2c
T0
a y
h0
Ceramic coating
h
hs Metal substrate

T0 x
(A) Original problem

y σxy=0, σxx=0
v=0, σxy=0
σxy=0, σxx=0

c
x
a v=0, σxy=0 h

(B) A representative unit

Fig. 1. A periodic array of surface cracks in a ceramic coating bonded to a metal substrate, (A) original problem and (B) representative unit; h: total
thickness; h0: coating thickness; hs: substrate thickness; a: crack length; 2c: crack space; a > h0 if the crack grow to the substrate.
 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950 941

2. Thermal shock of coating/substrate system

Fig. 1 shows a coating/substrate system whose dimensions are h: total thickness; h0: coating thickness; hs: substrate
thickness; a: crack length; 2c: crack space. The system is initially at a constant temperature. The main object of this study
is to explore the thermal shock resistance of the materials. Thus, we only consider the case of a sudden temperature change
on the medium surfaces. Without loss of generality, the initial constant temperature can be assumed as zero. The surfaces
x = 0 and x = h of the system are suddenly cooled down to a temperature T0. Since the heat will flow only in the x-direction,
the initial and boundary conditions for the temperature field are:
T ¼ 0; t ¼ 0; ð1Þ
and
T ¼ T 0 ; x ¼ 0; ð2aÞ
T ¼ T 0 ; x ¼ h: ð2bÞ
An idealized thermal shock boundary condition is assumed here, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient on the surfaces of the
medium is infinite. This represents the most severe thermal stress in the specimen since a sudden temperature change on
the specimen surfaces is assumed. The thermal stress is less severe and leads to a less severe strength degradation under the
condition of gradual temperature change, resulted from the finite heat transfer coefficient on the medium surface. Eqs. (1)
and (2) are important for the study of thermal stresses in a quenched specimen [24]. For such a transient thermal conduction
problem, the temperature field can be readily obtained from the proposed finite element/finite difference method in
[8,25,26]. According to [27], the transient thermal stress in any fully free plate is:
EðxÞ
ryy ðx; tÞ ¼ ½AðtÞx þ BðtÞ  aðxÞðTðx; tÞ  T 0 Þ; ð3Þ
1  tðxÞ
where E and t are elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively, a is thermal expansion coefficient. Because of the overall
equilibrium of the medium, the parameters A(t) and B(t) can be determined from:
Z h Z h
ryy ðx; tÞdx ¼ 0; ryy ðx; tÞxdx ¼ 0: ð4Þ
0 0

Therefore, once the transient temperature field is determined, the resulting transient thermal stresses can be obtained
readily. The material properties for x < h0 are those of coating, and for x > h0 are those of substrate.
The transient thermal stress analysis simulating the thermal shock conditions (1) and (2) was performed by using Eq. (3),
with the known temperature distribution obtained from the proposed finite element/finite difference method. A TiC ceramic
coating on a Ni metal substrate is considered here as a numerical example of the thermal stress distribution. The thermo-
mechanical properties of Ni and TiC are listed in Tables 1 and 2 [9]. The fracture toughness of Ni is taken as 50 Mpa m1/2.
In the following analysis, thermal stress and time scale are normalized, respectively, by r0 and t0, where r0 = EcacT0/
(1  tc) and t0 = qccch2/kc. The subscript c represents the ceramic TiC. The dimensionless transient thermal stresses
rðx; tÞ ¼ ryy ðx; tÞ=r0 for the un-cracked medium have been depicted in Fig. 2. The results suggested that if T0 > 0 (cold shock,
see Eqs. (1) and (2)), the region near the surface of the medium experiences a tensile stress while a compressive zone is
developed at the center of the medium. Generally, the thermal shock stresses in the medium decrease as time increases.
The maximum tensile stress is attained at the coating surface while the compressive stress is largest near the center of
the medium. It is found that a maximum value of
rmax ¼ Ec ac T 0 =ð1  tc Þ; ð5Þ
is achieved at the surface of the plate at beginning of the thermal shock, i.e., at t = 0.
Under a transient heating (T0 < 0, see Eq. (2)), at any location of the medium, the stresses will change their signs from the
cold shock. Hence the surface of the medium will become compressive and the center will be tensile. The magnitudes of the
thermal stresses subjected to a hot shock will be same as those in a cold shock.
Since the surfaces of the medium undergo transient tensile stresses under a sudden cooling, while the center of the med-
ium has the largest tensile stress under a sudden heating. It is then expected that cracks may initiate at the surfaces under
the cooling event. Cracks grow unstably until they enter the compressive region. The problem can be synthesized from the
general solution for a periodic array of surface cracks in the medium. The crack tips are at x = a, as shown in Fig. 1. Since the
crack planes are normal to the top and bottom surfaces of the medium, they do not perturb the transient temperature dis-

Table 1
Thermophysical properties of the model materials [9].

Material Specific heat (J/kg K) Thermal conductivity (W/m K) Coefficient of thermal expansion (106/C) Density (g/cm3)
TiC cc: 134 kc: 25.1 ac: 7.4 qc: 4.94
Ni cm: 439.5 km: 90.5 am: 13.3 qm: 8.89
942 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the model materials.

Material Young’s modulus (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Fracture strength (MPa) Fracture toughness (MPa m1/2)
TiC Ec: 320 tc: 0.195 rbc: 230 KIc: 3
Ni Em: 206 tm: 0.312 rbm: 332 KIm: 50

Normalized thermal stress σ/σ0

t=0.005t0
.
t=0.01t0
. t=0.05t0
. t=0.1t0
t=0.2t0
.

.
. . . . . . . . .
x/h

Fig. 2. Normalized thermal stress vs. time, r0 = EcacT0/(1  tc), t0 = qccch2/kc.

tribution in this arrangement, determination of the temperature distribution and resulting thermal stresses of the un-
cracked medium would be straightforward. The stresses obtained from Eq. (3), with opposite signs, become the crack surface
tractions in the quasi-static problem. The thermal stress intensity factors are solved by the finite element method, which is
outlined in the following section.

3. Multiple cracking due to thermal shock

It has been experimentally observed that surface cracking is the most common failure mode of a medium when it is sub-
jected to a thermal shock (a type of such crack pattern can be found in Refs. [5–7]. Based on the principle of superposition, for
any thermal loading case of the crack body an equivalent crack face loading can be found which is equal but opposite to the
tractions at the prospective crack lines in the body without cracks, in our case given by Eq. (3). Referring to Fig. 1A, due to
symmetry and periodicity, it is sufficient to investigate a representative unit, as shown in Fig. 1B. The surfaces x = 0, x = h and
y = c of the unit are subjected to the following homogeneous boundary conditions:

rxx ð0; yÞ ¼ 0; rxy ð0; yÞ ¼ 0; rxx ðh; yÞ ¼ 0; rxy ðh; yÞ ¼ 0; ð6aÞ

rxy ðx; cÞ ¼ 0; mðx; cÞ ¼ 0; ð6bÞ

where m is the displacement along the y direction. Because of symmetry, there are following additional mixed boundary con-
ditions on the y = 0 plane (the crack plane):

mðx; 0Þ ¼ 0; x – ð0; aÞ; ð7aÞ

ryy ðx; 0Þ ¼ r0 ðx; tÞ; x 2 ð0; aÞ; ð7bÞ
rxy ðx; 0Þ ¼ 0; x 2 ð0; hÞ; ð7cÞ

in which r0(x, t) is the opposite of ryy(x, t) with equal value given by Eq. (3). Due to material non-homogeneity, it is very
difficult to analytically solve the mixed boundary value problem, Eqs. (6) and (7). However, the transient thermal stress
intensity factors can be readily obtained by appropriate finite element method. In this section, the transient stress intensity
factors and the stresses of crack arrays in the medium have been calculated by means of the finite element method. Many
general-purpose finite-element codes (e.g., ABAQUS, MSC/NASTRAN) can be used in determining the stress field of the
cracked medium.
Referring to Fig. 1B for crack geometry, the stress near the crack tip according to fracture mechanics theory is:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ryy ðx; 0Þ ¼ KðaÞ= 2pr; for r ¼ x  a ! þ0: ð8Þ
 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950 943

Therefore, the crack tip stress intensity factor K can be calculate from
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KðaÞ ¼ lim ryy ðx; 0Þ 2pr : ð9Þ
x!þa

The transient stress ryy(x, 0) at the crack front is calculated numerically for different cooling time. A mesh of four-noded,
plane strain elements was used, with progressively varying element size. The size of the elements near the crack tip is refined
and the smallest element size is a/100. The final mesh has 10,000 elements and 10,201 nodes. Care should be taken to the
selection of r in Eq. (9). If r is too small the stress will show singularity, hence the FEM results will be not accurate. On the
other hand, if r is large the definition of Eq. (9) will be invalid. In this paper, r is typically between 0.01a and 0.05a, where a is
the depth of the crack.

4. Single crack configuration

We consider the problem of a TiC ceramic coating on a Ni metal substrate as a numerical example. In the finite element
model in Section 3, the crack face mechanical load can be arbitrary function of y. Since the thermal flow is perpendicular to
the surface of the medium, the crack will not disturb the temperature field of the medium. Therefore, by superposition tech-
nique, the model is also applicable to the thermal shock crack problem of Section 2. Since the problem is formulated in terms
of dimensionless quantities, it suffices to consider only the ratios of the coating to substrate thickness. If the crack spacing c
is considerably larger than medium thickness h, all results will approach the corresponding values of the single crack
problem.

4.1. Stress intensity factors in the cracked medium

pffiffiffiffiffiffi
The stress intensity factor K, normalized by K0, where K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ, is plotted against the dimensionless time
t/t0 for different values of coating thickness in Figs. 3 and 4, for selected values of the normalized crack length a/h and coating
thickness h0/h. For any given crack length, the stress intensity factor increases with time from the initial zero value, displays
a peak value and then decreases as time approaches to infinity. This fact suggests that the maximum thermal stress intensity
factor occurs only at transient state. Obviously, the stress intensity factor has a significant dependency on the crack length
and coating thickness. The magnitude of the stress intensity factor depends on crack length, and achieves a peak value at a
certain crack depth. Since the material properties are discontinuous across the interface between the coating and the sub-
strate, the thermal stress intensity factor also displays a jump across the interface. Such a fact can be observed clearly from
Fig. 3, where the coating thickness is h0 = 0.2h. Thus, the cases of crack approaching the interface (a = ? 0.2h) and penetrat-
ing across the interface (a = ? 0.2h+) have considerable different stress intensity factors, due to the fact the crack tip for the
former case and the crack tip for the later case are in the coating and in the substrate, respectively.
From Figs. 3 and 4, we see that the temporal behavior is alike for all values of the crack length. The envelope of this family
of curves is the locus of the highest stress intensity factors reached for every crack length at any time. Envelops for the values
of coating thickness h0 = 0.2h, h0 = 0.3h and h0 = 0.5h are displayed in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the peak value of the stress
intensity factor for small coating thickness is larger than that for the large coating thickness. Thus, despite the fact that the
ceramic coating can provide thermal protection to the metal substrate, the exiting of the coating will always reduce the over-
all strength of the medium. Therefore, it is essential to balance the thermal insulation and the thermal strength of the med-
ium when conduct the design of the coating/substrate systems.

.
a=0.1h
a=0.05h
.

a=→0.2
a=→0.2
K/K0

a=0.3h
.

a=0.4h

. . . . . . . . . .
t/t0
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 3. Stress intensity factors for infinite crack spacing (single crack), K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ, h0 = 0.2h; hs = 0.8h.
944 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

.
a=0.1h a=0.15h
a=0.2h
. a=0.05h

K/K0
.

a=0.3h

a=0.4h

. . . . . . . . . .

t/t0

Fig. 4. Same as Fig. 3 but h0 = 0.5h; hs = 0.5h.

.
Kmax/K0

.
h0=0.2h; hs=0.8h
h0=0.3h; hs=0.7h
.
h0=0.5h; hs=0.5h
.

. . . . . . . .
a/h

Fig. 5. Normalizedpmaximum
ffiffiffiffiffiffi thermal stress intensity factor for single crack problem, K max ¼ K max =K 0 , vs. crack length for infinite crack spacing (single
crack), K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ .

Note from Figs. 3–5 that the stress intensity factors for small crack length and large crack length are small and the max-
imum stress intensity factor occurs at a certain value of crack length for a given heating (cooling) time. Evidently, with crack
growth from near the ceramic coating region (a < h0) toward the metal substrate region (near a > h0), the strength of the
medium will first decrease and then increase, showing considerable crack growth resistance behavior.

4.2. Thermal crack growth analysis

Crack growth reflects the resistance of the local fracture toughness of the medium at the crack tip against the thermal
stress intensity factor. Since the system is nonhomogeneous, the values of the fracture toughness of the ceramic coating
and the metal substrate are different. For this, we introduce the stress intensity factor ratio (SIFR):

f ¼ KðaÞ=K Ic ðaÞ; ð10Þ

where K(a) is the local stress intensity factor, and KIC(a) is the local fracture toughness in the medium, which equals the
toughness of ceramic coating when the crack tip is inside the coating (a < h0) and equals the toughness of metal substrate
when the crack tip is inside the substrate (a > h0). Note that K(a) is a functions of the crack-tip position y = a. The definition
of the stress intensity factor ratio means that a high value of f corresponds to a lower fracture strength margin, and f equals 1
means that the stress intensity factor has achieved the local fracture toughness of the medium.
Figs. 6 and 7 plot thepvariation
ffiffiffiffiffiffi of normalized stress intensity factor ratio, f ¼ f =K 0 , with time, at selected crack lengths.
Here, again, K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ. Note that f is not presented in non-dimensional form. For each given coating thickness
and heating (cooling) time, the stress intensity factor ratio increases with crack length, to a maximum value fmax(a), and then
decreases. Apparently, f decreases significantly with the thickness of the metal substrate. Fig. 6 displays the results for the
cases of crack inside the coating (a < h0) as well as crack penetrates across the coating/substrate interface (a > h0). It can be
seen that for the case of crack penetrates across the interface (i.e., a > h0), the stress intensity factors almost reach zero due to
the fact that the metal substrate has much higher fracture toughness than the ceramic coating. This means that the fracture
strength of the medium can be enhanced considerably with increasing thickness of the metal substrate. In all cases, the
 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950 945

.
Stable
. t=0.02t0 growth

. Kc t=0.04t
Unstable
growth t=0.01t0
.
t=0.005t0

f/K0
t=0.08t0
.

.
t=0.16t0
.

a0/h a1/h
. . . . . . . .
a/h
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 6. Time dependent stress intensity factor ratio vs. crack length for infinite crack spacing (single crack), K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ, f = K(a)/KIc(a);
h0 = 0.2h; hs = 0.8h.

t=0.02t0
. t=0.04t0

. t=0.08t0

Kc
. Unstable Stable
growth growth
f/K0

t=0.01t0
. t=0.16t0

. t=0.005t0

a0/h a1/h
. . . . . . . .
a/h

Fig. 7. Same as Fig. 6 but h0 = 0.5h; hs = 0.5h.

stress intensity factor ratios always increase with increasing crack length for small values of time t. This fact suggests that at
the beginning of thermal shock, the coating tends to cracking and the strength of the coating/substrate system decreases.
Curves for the thermal stress intensity factor ratio climb to some peak values and then decrease with increasing crack length.
This fact suggests that the coating exhibits crack growth resistance behavior, which is more significant at the beginning of
cooling. As a result, a pre-existing crack of length a0 will start propagating at a certain time when the thermal stress intensity
K(a0, t) reaches the fracture toughness Kc of the coating. The crack will grow instantaneously at least to a new length a1,
where the thermal stress intensity factor K(a1, t) again reaches the fracture toughness Kc. For a > a1, the stress intensity factor
keeps increasing with increasing time t, the crack will continue to grow in a stable manner until the corresponding stress
intensity factor begins decrease with time (Fig. 7). It should be mentioned that since the crack can continue to grow, it
may penetrate across the interface under any severe thermal shock. Since the metal substrate has much higher fracture
toughness than the ceramic coating, it is quite possible that crack stop growth after it penetrates across the coating/substrate
interface. This confirms the fact that cracks will always have smaller length for thinner coating then for thicker coatings.

4.3. Thermal shock resistance curve

Thermal shock resistance is a major issue in the design of engineering coatings for the high-temperature applications. A
critical problem in designing a material against thermal shock is to identify appropriate material selection criterion. Basi-
cally, material thermal shock resistance is summarized for both stress-controlled failure and toughness-controlled failure
[24].
According to the stress-based failure criterion, the maximum thermal stress appears on the surface of the coating attains
the strength value rb. The maximum temperature jump sustainable by the coating DTc follows from Eq. (5) as:

1  tc
DT c ¼ DT stress
c ¼ rb ; ð11Þ
Ec ac
which is valid for any ceramic coatings under a sudden temperature change on its surface.
946 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

A similar strategy can be employed to rank the materials on the basis of failure from a dominant crack by thermal shock.
The toughness-based criterion is taken to be that the maximum thermal stress intensity factor Kmax(a) attains the local frac-
ture toughness of the solid KIc at a crack length a* for any thermal shock time. The maximum temperature jump sustainable
by the coating DTc depends on the length of the pre-existing crack (since the maximum stress intensity factor depends on the
crack length). Dependency of the maximum stress intensity factors has been plotted in Fig. 5 for selected values of the coat-
ing thickness. It follows from Kmax(a) = Kc(a) that

K IC DT fracture
DT c ¼ DT fracture
c ¼ 0
; ð12Þ
K c K max

where Kc is the fracture toughness of the ceramic coating; KIC is the toughness of the ceramic coating if crack length is smaller
than coating thickness, or the toughness of the metal substrate if crack length is larger than coating thickness, K max is the
normalized maximum thermal stress intensity factor (i.e., Kmax/K0 shown in Fig. 5), and

Kc
DT fracture
0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð13Þ
½Ec ac =ð1  tc Þ ph

in which, Kc is the fracture toughness of the ceramic coating. The normalized maximum thermal stress intensity factor is a
very complex function of crack length and coating thickness and cannot be expressed in analytical form. In addition, the local
values of the fracture toughness KIc for coating and substrate are different. The thermal shock resistance of the medium
based on the toughness-based criterion can only be obtained numerically.
It is instructive to plot the sustainable temperature jump DTc as a function of crack length. The result of DTc as a function
of crack size is depicted in Fig. 8. If the stress-based criterion is used, DTc does not depend on the pre-existing crack length, as
represented by the horizontal line in Fig. 9. In contrast, DTc predicted by the toughness-based criterion exhibits a strong
dependence on pre-existing crack length. Since the stress intensity factor is zero for an un-cracked medium (a = 0), the
admissible temperature jump DTc based on fracture-controlled failure will be infinity at a = 0. The qualitative shape of
the response is that for each specific coating thickness, DTc predicted by toughness-based criterion, Eq. (12), decays with
crack length in a monotonic manner, to a minimum value, and then increases. Hence, failure of the coating will be controlled
by the stress-based criterion for (1) small crack length or coating thickness or (2) larger crack length and coating thickness.
Otherwise, the coating will be controlled by the toughness-based criterion.
From Fig. 8 we know that a pair of transient crack length at and coating thickness h0t exists for which DTc is equal for
toughness-based failure and for stress-controlled failure. This transient crack length can be found by equaling Eqs. (11)
and (12):

1 K
pffiffiffiffiffiffi c ¼ 1: ð14Þ
K max ph rb
Note that K max is a complex function of the crack length and coating thickness (h0t, at) can only be found numerically. For
coating thickness h0 = 0.2h, some typical values of (h0t, at) are determined as

G
G
G
Thermal shock resistance ΔTc

h0=0.5h;
hs=0.5h
F ΔTcstress σ b πh
fracture
=
ΔT Kc C, D
B 0 D D E
A
h0=0.3h;
h0=0.2h; hs=0.7h
ΔTcfracture hs=0.8h C
fracture
ΔT 0
C

a1t/h c=h
. . . . . . . .
a/h
Kc pffiffiffiffi:
Fig. 8. Thermal shock resistance curve for single crack problem with coating thickness h0 = 0.2h, h0 = 0.3h and h0 = 0.5h; DT fracture
0 ¼ ½E ph
(1) stress-
0 a0 =ð1t0 Þ

based failure for crack lengths smaller than a1t or larger than a2t; (2) toughness-based failure for crack lengths between a1t and a2t; (3) if the ceramic coating
is fully cracked (i.e., a > h0), the thermal shock resistance is determined by stress-based criterion; (4) curve FBCDG (sold curves): toughness-based criterion,
horizontal line ABDE (broken line): stress-based criterion, curve ABCDE: real thermal shock resistance curve.
 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950 947

C C C
h0=0.5h
B

h0=0.3h B

h0t/l0
A

B
h0=0.2h

at/h0t

Fig. 9. Crack (single crack) length dependency behavior for the thermal shock resistance prediction of ceramic coating for coating thickness 0.2h, 0.3h, and
0.5h: h0t–at curve, in which l0 = (Kc/rb)2/p is the characteristic length parameter of the coating. Stress-based criterion for coating thickness and crack length
pair (h0, a) locates below the curve ABC and the fracture mechanics-based criterion for coating thickness and crack length pair (h0, a) locates above the curve
ABC.

h0t ¼ 64l0 for at ¼ 0:025h0t ; ð15aÞ

h0t ¼ 43l0 for at ¼ 0:05h0t ; ð15bÞ
h0t ¼ 30l0 for at ¼ 0:10h0t ; ð15cÞ
h0t ¼ 32l0 for at ¼ 0:15h0t ; ð15dÞ
h0t ¼ 43l0 for at ¼ 0:2h0t ; ð15eÞ

where
 2
1 Kc
l0 ¼ ; ð16Þ
p rb
is a characteristic length scale of the coating. The resulting transient coating thickness and the transient crack length (h0t, at),
are plotted in Fig. 9. The thermal shock resistance of the coating with thickness and crack length (h, a) falls below the curve
(h0t, at) will be controlled by the stress-based criterion. A coating with (h, a) above the (h0t, at) curve will be controlled by the
fracture mechanics-based criterion. Thus, a coating whose thickness and crack length correspond to the (h0t, at) curve has the
same thermal shock resistance according to these two criteria. The fracture mechanics-based criterion is conservative for a
coating whose thickness and crack length is above the (h0t, at) curve; the stress-based criterion is conservative for a coating
whose thickness and crack length is below the (h0t, at) curve. Eq. (14), and Figs. 8 and 9 represent the crack length depen-
dency behavior of the thermal shock resistance of the ceramic coating. Derivation of this behavior is based on the stress
intensity factors analysis of Fig. 5. In fact, curve of DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 in Fig. 8 is the inverse of K max (see Eq. (12)), and from
Eqs. (14) and (16) we know that
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
¼ h=l0 : ð17Þ
K max
Therefore, the function in Fig. 9 is the square of the toughness-based function in Fig. 8.

4.4. Scale behavior of thermal shock resistance curve

Discussions made in Subsection 4.3 are for relatively higher medium thickness h so that the DT stress
c =DT fracture
0 (which is a
constant) value is always higher than the lowest value of the DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 (which is a function of crack length, see
Fig. 8). In this situation, the thermal shock resistance has to be determined from the stress-based criterion and the tough-
ness-based criterion, depending on the value of the crack length a to medium thickness h ratio.
The stress-based criterion, given by Eq. (11), does not depend on the crack length or the dimension of the system. Because
of its simplicity, the stress-based criterion is extensively accepted by the material scientists and engineers for the design of
thermally resistive materials. The toughness-based criterion, however, has a strong dependence on the crack length and
dimension of the system, thus is not so easy to complement. For the purpose of convenient application, the lowest value
of the thermal shock resistance predicted by the toughness-based criterion can be adopted. It is noted from the calculation
that for the coating thickness in the region [0.2h, 0.8h], the lowest value of DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 does not depend on the value of
coating thickness significantly. Quantitatively, from Fig. 8 we know that for all DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 curves, the lowest values of
DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 are similar and can be approximated by
948 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

ðDT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 Þmin ¼ 5:4: ð18Þ
This means that the lowest value of DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 , ðDT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 Þmin ,
does not depend on the crack length or the
Kc pffiffiffiffi (Eq.
relative coating thickness h0/h. It only depends on the properties of the material system. Since DT fracture
0 ¼ ½E a =ð1 t0 Þ ph
0 0
(13)), thermal shock resistance made by Eq. (18) is

5:4K c
ðDT fracture
c Þmin ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð19Þ
½Ec ac =ð1  tc Þ ph
This equation can be used for a quick evaluation of thermal shock resistance of the coating/substrate system, which is
quantitatively valid for any values of the coating to substrate thickness ratio h0/h.
In the case of a small medium thickness size h so that the DT stress
c =DT fracture
0 is smaller than DT fracture
c =DT fracture
0 , the thermal
shock resistance of the coating/substrate system will have to be determined from the stress-based criterion. There is a tran-
sient medium thickness ht at which the thermal shock resistance of the system is always determined by the stress-based
criterion. Such transient medium thickness can be found by equaling Eqs. (11) and (19), giving
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rb pht
¼ 5:4: ð20Þ
Kc
For the ceramic/metal coating/substrate system considered, Eq. (20) provides

ht ¼ 1:6 mm; ð21Þ

which is a characteristic length scale of the coating/substrate system under consideration. Therefore, the thermal shock
resistance of a coating/substrate system with total thickness smaller than ht will be controlled by the stress-based criterion
(Eq. (11)); a coating/substrate system with thickness larger than ht will be controlled by the toughness-based criterion (Eq.
(18)). A coating/substrate system whose total thickness is ht has the same thermal shock resistance according to these two
criteria. The toughness-based criterion is conservative for a coating/substrate system whose thickness is above ht, the stress-
based criterion is conservative for a coating/substrate system whose thickness is below ht.
Eqs. (18)–(21) reflect the scale-dependent thermal shock resistance of the coating/substrate systems. Note that these
expressions are quantitatively valid for any values of the coating to substrate thickness ratio h0/h in the region [0.2, 0.8].
Thus, for each coating/substrate combination, there is a transient value of the total thickness of the system ht, which deter-
minates the applicability of the stress-base and toughness-based criteria.

5. Multiple crack configuration

The results of Section 4 are for single crack in the coating/substrate system. For multiple crack geometry, Fig. 10 plots the
effect of crack space on the time-dependent thermal stress intensity factors. For comparison, the results of single crack prob-
lem are also displayed. Evidently, the stress intensity factors decrease with decreasing crack space. A single insulated crack
gives rise to the maximum thermal stress intensity factor for all possible crack lengths. Thus, the single crack represents the
lower bound solution for the thermal shock resistance of the system.
In Fig. 11, the thermal shock resistance curves predicted by the toughness-based criterion are depicted. Obviously, with a
same crack length, multiple cracking gives higher thermal shock resistance. This can also be understood as that, for a same
thermal shock temperature load, multiple cracking would give rise to a smaller crack length. Thus, multiple cracking has
higher crack growth resistance behavior than single cracking. Thermal shock resistance prediction based on the fracture

. c=∞
c=4h
. c=2h
c=h
.
c=∞
. c=4h t=0.1t0

.
K/K0

c=2h
.

. t=0.3t0
.

. . . . . . . . . .
a/h
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 10. Stress intensity factor for multiple crack configuration, K 0 ¼ Ec ac T 0 ph=ð1  tc Þ, h0 = 0.5h; hs = 0.5h.
 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950 949

ΔTcfracture
fracture
ΔT 0

Multiple crack
with crack
space 2c=h h0=0.5h;
hs=0.5h
h0=0.2h;
hs=0.8h

Single crack

. . . . . . . .
a/h

Fig. 11. Thermal shock resistance curve from the toughness-based criterion for different crack space; curves for c equals infinity represent the single crack
solutions.

mechanics of a single insulated crack solution is conservative and safe for the design of thermally resistive coating/substrate
systems.

6. Conclusions

This paper provides a methodology for the study of thermal shock resistance behavior of a coating/substrate system. The
thermal shock resistance of the ceramic coating is evaluated. The maximum temperature that the material can sustain with-
out catastrophic failure is analyzed according to the maximum local tensile stress criterion and the maximum stress inten-
sity factor criterion. At the beginning of the thermal shock cracking, the coating experiences a strength decrease and then
exhibits the crack growth resistance behavior. From the fracture mechanics standpoint of view, thermal shock resistance
of thinner coating is higher than that of thicker coating. This is attributed by the fact, that the metal substrate has much high-
er fracture toughness than the ceramic coating, thus the thicker substrate will provide stronger fracture prevention.
Crack length dependency behavior of the thermal shock resistance of the coating is discussed. A transient crack length at
and coating thickness h0t (all are normalized with the total thickness of the coating/substrate system) are explored for which
the admissible temperature jump is equal for fracture-controlled failure and stress-controlled failure. The two length param-
eters (h0t, at), characterize the thermal shock resistance behavior of coating/substrate system.
A transient value of the total thickness of the medium ht is identified for which the thermal shock resistance of the coat-
ing/substrate system is equal for toughness-based criterion and stress-based criterion. The characteristic length parameter,
ht, characterize the applicability of the toughness-based criterion and the stress-based criterion for the determination of the
coating/substrate system.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) for the continuing support of our work (projects
#10772059 and #10972067).

References

[1] Hasselman DPH. J Am Ceram Soc 1969;52:600.

[2] Pompe W et al. In: Kaldis E, editor. Current topics in material science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ.; 1985. p. 316–60.
[3] Bahr HA, Fischer G, Weiss HJ. J Mater Sci 1986;21:2716.
[4] Bahr H-A et al. In: Schneider GA, Petzow G, editors. Thermal shock and thermal fatigue behavior of advanced ceramic. Kluwer Academic Publishers;
1993. p. 143–53.
[5] Bahr HA et al. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1988;10:219.
[6] Pompe W et al. In: van Mier JGM et al., editors. Fracture process in concrete, rock and ceramics, RILEM, vol. 13. London: E. & F.N. Spon; 1991. p. 349–64.
[7] Bahr HA et al. Euro Phys Lett 1992;19:485.
[8] Wang BL, Mai YW, Zhang XH. Acta Mater 2004;52:4961.
[9] Han JC, Wang BL. Acta Mater 2006;54:963.
[10] Liu YN, Zhang LT, Mei H, Cheng LF. Thermal shock behavior of air plasma sprayed thermal barrier coatings under high temperature wind tunnel. Rare
Metal Mater Engng 2009;38(1):176–9.
[11] Liu Y, Persson C, Melin S, Wigren J. Long crack behavior in a thermal barrier coating upon thermal shock loading. J Ther Spray Technol
2005;14(2):258–63.
[12] Wang WQ, Sha CK, Sun DQ, Gu XY. Microstructural feature, thermal shock resistance and isothermal oxidation resistance of nanostructured zirconia
coating. Mater Sci Eng A – Struct Mater Properties Microstruct Process 2006;424(1–2):1–5.
950 B.-L. Wang et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (2010) 939–950

[13] Janssens KGF, Niffenegger M, Reichlin K. A computational fatigue analysis of cyclic thermal shock in notched specimens. Nucl Engng Des
2009;239(1):36–44.
[14] Irisawa T, Matsumoto H. Thermal shock resistance and adhesion strength of plasma-sprayed alumina coating on cast iron. Thin Solid Films
2006;509(1–2):141–4.
[15] Liu Y, Persson C, Melin S. Numerical modeling of short crack behavior in a thermal barrier coating upon thermal shock loading. J Ther Spray Technol
2004;13(4):554–60.
[16] Grot AS, Martyn JK. The Bull Am Cer Soc 1981;60:807.
[17] Schulze GW, Erdogan F. Int J Solids Struct 1998;35:3615.
[18] Kawasaki A, Watanabe R. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on functionally graded materials, Japan; 1996. p. 143.
[19] Tzimas E, Mullejans H, Petevel SD, Bressers J, Stamm W. Acta Mater 2000;48:4699.
[20] Chen XJ, Zhang K, Chen GN, Luo GX. Multiple axial cracks in a coated hollow cylinder due to thermal shock. Int J Solids Struct 2006;43:6424–35.
[21] Rizk AA, Erdogan F. Cracking of coated materials under transient thermal stresses. J Therm Stress 1989;12:125–68.
[22] Rizk AA. Stress intensity factor for an edge crack in two bonded dissimilar materials under convective cooling. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2008;49:251–67.
[23] Bengtsson P, Ericsson T, Wigren J. Thermal shock testing of burner cans coated with a thick thermal barrier coating. J Therm Spray Technol
1998;7(3):340–8.
[24] Lu TJ, Fleck NA. Acta Mater 1998;46:4755.
[25] Wang BL, Tian ZH. Finite Elem Anal Des 2005;41:335.
[26] Wang BL, Mai YW. Int J Mech Sci 2005;47:303.
[27] Erdogan F, Wu BH. J Therm Stress 1996;19:237.