Fracture mechanics

Microfracture redirects here. For the surgical tech- aws are unstable under service conditions. Fracture menique, see Microfracture surgery.
chanics is the analysis of aws to discover those that are
Fracture mechanics is the eld of mechanics concerned safe (that is, do not grow) and those that are liable to propagate as cracks and so cause failure of the awed structure. Ensuring safe operation of structure despite these
inherent aws is achieved through damage tolerance analysis. Fracture mechanics as a subject for critical study
has barely been around for a century and thus is relatively
new.[1][2]
Mode I:
Opening

Mode II:
In-plane shear

Fracture mechanics should attempt to provide quantitative answers to the following questions:[2]

Mode III:
Out-of-plane shear

1. What is the strength as a function of crack size?

The three fracture modes

2. What crack size can be tolerated under service loading, i.e. what is the maximum permissible crack
size?

with the study of the propagation of cracks in materials.

It uses methods of analytical solid mechanics to calculate
the driving force on a crack and those of experimental
solid mechanics to characterize the materials resistance
to fracture.

3. How long does it take for a crack to grow from a certain initial size, for example the minimum detectable
crack size, to the maximum permissible crack size?

In modern materials science, fracture mechanics is an important tool in improving the mechanical performance
of mechanical components. It applies the physics of
stress and strain, in particular the theories of elasticity
and plasticity, to the microscopic crystallographic defects
found in real materials in order to predict the macroscopic
mechanical failure of bodies. Fractography is widely used
with fracture mechanics to understand the causes of failures and also verify the theoretical failure predictions
with real life failures. The prediction of crack growth is
at the heart of the damage tolerance discipline.

4. What is the service life of a structure when a certain

pre-existing aw size (e.g. a manufacturing defect)
is assumed to exist?
5. During the period available for crack detection how
often should the structure be inspected for cracks?

2 Linear elastic fracture mechanics

2.1 Griths criterion

There are three ways of applying a force to enable a crack

to propagate:

Fracture mechanics was developed during World War I

A. Grith, to ex Mode I fracture Opening mode (a tensile stress by English aeronautical engineer, A.
[3]
plain
the
failure
of
brittle
materials.
Griths
work was
normal to the plane of the crack),
motivated by two contradictory facts:
Mode II fracture Sliding mode (a shear stress acting parallel to the plane of the crack and perpendic The stress needed to fracture bulk glass is around
ular to the crack front), and
100 MPa (15,000 psi).
Mode III fracture Tearing mode (a shear stress
acting parallel to the plane of the crack and parallel
to the crack front).

The theoretical stress needed for breaking atomic

bonds is approximately 10,000 MPa (1,500,000
psi).

A theory was needed to reconcile these conicting observations. Also, experiments on glass bers that Grith
himself conducted suggested that the fracture stress inArising from the manufacturing process, interior and sur- creases as the ber diameter decreases. Hence the uniface aws are found in all metal structures. Not all such axial tensile strength, which had been used extensively

Motivation

LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS

of the surface energy of the crack by solving the elasticity

problem of a nite crack in an elastic plate. Briey, the
approach was:
Compute the potential energy stored in a perfect
specimen under a uniaxial tensile load.
Fix the boundary so that the applied load does no
work and then introduce a crack into the specimen.
The crack relaxes the stress and hence reduces the
elastic energy near the crack faces. On the other
hand, the crack increases the total surface energy of
the specimen.
Compute the change in the free energy (surface energy elastic energy) as a function of the crack
length. Failure occurs when the free energy attains
a peak value at a critical crack length, beyond which
the free energy decreases by increasing the crack
length, i.e. by causing fracture. Using this procedure, Grith found that

C=

An edge crack (aw) of length a in a material

2E

where E is the Youngs modulus of the material and

is the surface energy density of the material. Assuming
E = 62 GPa and = 1 J/m2 gives excellent agreement
of Griths predicted fracture stress with experimental
results for glass.

to predict material failure before Grith, could not be 2.2

a specimen-independent material property. Grith suggested that the low fracture strength observed in experiments, as well as the size-dependence of strength, was due
to the presence of microscopic aws in the bulk material.

Irwins modication
Plastic zone

Plastic zone

Crack
Crack
To verify the aw hypothesis, Grith introduced an articial aw in his experimental glass specimens. The articial aw was in the form of a surface crack which was
much larger than other aws in a specimen. The experiments showed that the product of the square root of the
Plane Strain
Plane Stress
aw length (a) and the stress at fracture ( ) was nearly
constant, which is expressed by the equation:
The plastic zone around a crack tip in a ductile material

f a C
An explanation of this relation in terms of linear elasticity theory is problematic. Linear elasticity theory predicts that stress (and hence the strain) at the tip of a sharp
aw in a linear elastic material is innite. To avoid that
problem, Grith developed a thermodynamic approach
to explain the relation that he observed.
The growth of a crack requires the creation of two new
surfaces and hence an increase in the surface energy.
Grith found an expression for the constant C in terms

Griths work was largely ignored by the

engineering community until the early 1950s.
The reasons for this appear to be (a) in the
actual structural materials the level of energy
needed to cause fracture is orders of magnitude
higher than the corresponding surface energy,
and (b) in structural materials there are always
some inelastic deformations around the crack
front that would make the assumption of linear
elastic medium with innite stresses at the crack
tip highly unrealistic. [4]

2.4

Strain energy release

Griths theory provides excellent agreement with experimental data for brittle materials such as glass. For
ductile
materials such as steel, though the relation y a = C
still holds, the surface energy () predicted by Griths
theory is usually unrealistically high. A group working
under G. R. Irwin[5] at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) during World War II realized that plasticity
must play a signicant role in the fracture of ductile materials.
In ductile materials (and even in materials that appear
to be brittle[6] ), a plastic zone develops at the tip of the
crack. As the applied load increases, the plastic zone increases in size until the crack grows and the material behind the crack tip unloads. The plastic loading and unloading cycle near the crack tip leads to the dissipation
of energy as heat. Hence, a dissipative term has to be
added to the energy balance relation devised by Grith
for brittle materials. In physical terms, additional energy
is needed for crack growth in ductile materials when compared to brittle materials.
Irwins strategy was to partition the energy into two parts:

3
of energy available for fracture in terms of the asymptotic stress and displacement elds around a crack front
in a linear elastic solid.[5] This asymptotic expression for
the stress eld around a crack tip is
(
ij

2r

)
fij ()

where are the Cauchy stresses, r is the distance from

the crack tip, is the angle with respect to the plane of
the crack, and f are functions that depend on the crack
geometry and loading conditions. Irwin called the quantity K the stress intensity factor. Since the quantity f is
dimensionless, the
stress intensity factor can be expressed
in units of MPa m .
When a rigid line inclusion is considered, a similar
asymptotic expression for the stress elds is obtained.

2.4 Strain energy release

Main article: Strain energy release rate

the stored elastic strain energy which is released as
a crack grows. This is the thermodynamic driving
Irwin was the rst to observe that if the size of the plasforce for fracture.
tic zone around a crack is small compared to the size of
the dissipated energy which includes plastic dissipa- the crack, the energy required to grow the crack will not
tion and the surface energy (and any other dissipa- be critically dependent on the state of stress at the crack
tive forces that may be at work). The dissipated en- tip.[4] In other words, a purely elastic solution may be used
ergy provides the thermodynamic resistance to frac- to calculate the amount of energy available for fracture.
ture. Then the total energy is
The energy release rate for crack growth or strain energy
release rate may then be calculated as the change in elastic
G = 2 + Gp
strain energy per unit area of crack growth, i.e.,
where is the surface energy and G is the plastic dissipation (and dissipation from other sources) per unit area
[ ]
[ ]
U
U
of crack growth.
G :=
=
a
a
The modied version of Griths energy criterion can
then be written as

f a =

where U is the elastic energy of the system and a is the

crack length. Either the load P or the displacement u can
be kept xed while evaluating the above expressions.

EG
.

Irwin showed that for a mode I crack (opening mode) the

strain energy release rate and the stress intensity factor
For brittle materials such as glass, the surface energy term are related by:
dominates and G 2 = 2 J/m2 . For ductile materials such as steel, the plastic dissipation term dominates
2
K

and G Gp = 1000 J/m2 . For polymers close to the

I
stress plane
E
glass transition temperature, we have intermediate values G = GI =
2
2

(1 )KI strain plane

of G 2 1000 J/m2 .
E
where E is the Youngs modulus, is Poissons ratio,
and KI is the stress intensity factor in mode I. Irwin also
showed that the strain energy release rate of a planar crack
Main article: Stress intensity factor
in a linear elastic body can be expressed in terms of the
mode I, mode II (sliding mode), and mode III (tearing
Another signicant achievement of Irwin and his col- mode) stress intensity factors for the most general loadleagues was to nd a method of calculating the amount ing conditions.

2.3

Stress intensity factor

LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS

Next, Irwin adopted the additional assumption that the

size and shape of the energy dissipation zone remains
approximately constant during brittle fracture. This assumption suggests that the energy needed to create a unit
fracture surface is a constant that depends only on the material. This new material property was given the name
fracture toughness and designated GI . Today, it is the
critical stress intensity factor KI , found in the plane strain
condition, which is accepted as the dening property in
linear elastic fracture mechanics.

yield stress, Y , are important to note because they can

illustrate many things about the material and its properties, as well as about the plastic zone size. For example,
if KC is high, then it can be deduced that the material is
tough, whereas if Y is high, one knows that the material is more ductile. The ratio of these two parameters is
important to the radius of the plastic zone. For instance,
if Y is small, then the squared ratio of KC to Y is
large, which results in a larger plastic radius. This implies
that the material can plastically deform, and, therefore, is
tough.[9] This estimate of the size of the plastic zone beyond the crack tip can then be used to more accurately
2.5 Crack Tip Plastic Zone
analyze how a material will react within itself when it has
plastic zones around crack tips, which could then give rise
In theory, the stress at the crack tip of an extremely sharp to fracture and other crack interaction analyses.
crack would tend to innity as the radius from the end
of the crack tends to zero. This would be considered a The same process as described above for a single event
stress singularity, which is not possible in real-world ap- loading situation also applies and is valid for cyclic loadplications. In actuality, the stress concentration at the tip ing. If a crack is present in a specimen that undergoes
of a crack within the material has been measured to be a cyclic loading, the specimen will plastically deform to
nite value larger than that which is being applied to the mitigate the stress at the crack tip until it can better withstand frequent loading. In the event of an overload or exspecimen. An equation for this value is given below:
cursion, this model changes slightly to accommodate the
sudden increase in stress from the stress that the material

previously experienced. In a situation of overload, the

c
crack grows out of the plastic zone it had previously crel = (1 + Y
)
2r
ated and leaves behind the pocket of the original plastic
The local stress near the crack tip, l , is dependent on the deformation. Now, given that the overload stress is not
applied stress, and a correction factor, Y , which de- suciently high as to fracture the specimen, the crack
pends on the geometry of the specimen, and is inversely will undergo a greater deformation around the new crack
dependent on the distance away from the crack tip, r . tip to account for the higher stress at that point. This proNevertheless, there must be some sort of mechanism or cess further toughens and prolongs the life of the material
property of the material that prevents such a large stress because the new plastic zone is larger than what it would
from propagating . Hence, the material undergoes plas- be under the usual stress conditions, which allows that
tic deformation to blunt the crack tip, which saturates the material to undergo more cycles of loading. This idea
stress at that location. This deformation depends primar- can be illustrated further by the graph of Aluminum with
[10]
ily on the applied stress in the applicable direction (in a center crack undergoing overloading events.
most cases, this is the y-direction of a regular Cartesian
coordinate system), the crack length, and the geometry
of the specimen.[7] To estimate how this plastic deforma- 2.6 Fracture toughness tests
tion extended from the crack tip, George Irwin equated
the yield strength of the material to the far-eld stress in Main article: Fracture toughness
the y-direction along the x-axis and solved for the radius.
From this relationship, Irwin developed the following expression for the idealized radius of the plastic zone defor2.7 Limitations
mation:

rp =

2
KC
2 Y2

But a problem arose for the NRL researchers because

naval materials, e.g., ship-plate steel, are not perfectly
elastic but undergo signicant plastic deformation at the
tip of a crack. One basic assumption in Irwins linear elastic fracture mechanics is small scale yielding, the condition that the size of the plastic zone is small compared
to the crack length. However, this assumption is quite
restrictive for certain types of failure in structural steels
though such steels can be prone to brittle fracture, which
has led to a number of catastrophic failures.

Models of ideal materials have shown that this radius and

subsequent circle is centered at the crack tip. [8] This
equation gives the approximate ideal radius of the plastic
zone deformation beyond the crack tip, which is useful to
many structural scientists because it gives a good estimate
of how the material behaves when subjected to stress. In
the above equation, the parameters of the stress intensity Linear-elastic fracture mechanics is of limited practical
factor and indicator of material toughness, KC , and the use for structural steels and Fracture toughness testing can

3.1

CTOD

5
a global energy balance criterion for further crack
growth and unstable fracture.

3.1 CTOD

The S.S. Schenectady split apart by brittle fracture while in harbor, 1943.

be expensive.

Elasticplastic fracture mechanics

Historically, the rst parameter for the determination of

fracture toughness in the elasto-plastic was the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) or opening at the apex
of the crack indicated. This parameter was determined
by Wells during the studies of structural steels which, due
to the high toughness could not be characterized with the
linear elastic fracture mechanics. He noted that, before it
happened the fracture, the walls of the crack were leaving
and that the crack tip, after fracture, acute to rounded o
is due to plastic deformation. In addition, the rounding
of the apex was more pronounced in steels with superior
toughness.
There are a number of alternative denitions of CTOD.
The two most common denitions, CTOD is the displacement at the original crack tip and the 90 degree intercept. The latter denition was suggested by Rice and
is commonly used to infer CTOD in nite element measurements. Note that these two denitions are equivalent
if the crack blunts in a semicircle.
Most laboratory measurements of CTOD have been
made on edge-cracked specimens loaded in three-point
bending. Early experiments used a at paddle-shaped
gage that was inserted into the crack; as the crack opened,
the paddle gage rotated, and an electronic signal was sent
to an x-y plotter. This method was inaccurate, however,
because it was dicult to reach the crack tip with the paddle gage. Today, the displacement V at the crack mouth
is measured, and the CTOD is inferred by assuming the
specimen halves are rigid and rotate about a hinge point.

Vertical stabilizer, which separated from American Airlines

Flight 587, leading to a fatal crash

3.2 R-curve

An early attempt in the direction of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics was Irwins crack extension resistance
curve, Crack growth resistance curve or R-curve. This
curve acknowledges the fact that the resistance to fracture increases with growing crack size in elastic-plastic
materials. The R-curve is a plot of the total energy dissi the plastic zone at a crack tip may have a size of the pation rate as a function of the crack size and can be used
same order of magnitude as the crack size
to examine the processes of slow stable crack growth and
unstable fracture. However, the R-curve was not widely
the size and shape of the plastic zone may change as used in applications until the early 1970s. The main reathe applied load is increased and also as the crack sons appear to be that the R-curve depends on the geomlength increases.
etry of the specimen and the crack driving force may be
dicult to calculate.[4]
Therefore, a more general theory of crack growth is
needed for elastic-plastic materials that can account for:
Most engineering materials show some nonlinear elastic
and inelastic behavior under operating conditions that involve large loads. In such materials the assumptions of
linear elastic fracture mechanics may not hold, that is,

3.3 J-integral
the local conditions for initial crack growth which
include the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of Main article: J-integral
voids or decohesion at a crack tip.

4 CRACK TIP CONSTRAINT UNDER LARGE SCALE YIELDING

In the mid-1960s James R. Rice (then at Brown University) and G. P. Cherepanov independently developed
a new toughness measure to describe the case where
there is sucient crack-tip deformation that the part
no longer obeys the linear-elastic approximation. Rices
analysis, which assumes non-linear elastic (or monotonic
deformation theory plastic) deformation ahead of the
crack tip, is designated the J-integral.[11] This analysis
is limited to situations where plastic deformation at the
crack tip does not extend to the furthest edge of the
loaded part. It also demands that the assumed non-linear
elastic behavior of the material is a reasonable approximation in shape and magnitude to the real materials load
response. The elastic-plastic failure parameter is designated JI and is conventionally converted to KI using Failure stress as a function of crack size
Equation (3.1) of the Appendix to this article. Also note
that the J integral approach reduces to the Grith theory
3.5 Transition aw size
for linear-elastic behavior.
The mathematical denition of J-integral is as follows:

(w dy Ti

J=

ui
ds)
x

with

ij

w=

ij dij
0

where
is an arbitrary path clockwise around the
apex of the crack,
w is the density of strain energy,
Ti are the components of the vectors of traction,

Let a material have a yield strength Y and a fracture

toughness in mode I KIC . Based on fracture
mechanics,
the material will fail at stress f ail = KIC / a . Based
on plasticity, the material will yield when f ail = Y
2
. These curves intersect when a = KIC
/Y2 . This
value of a is called as transition aw size at ., and depends on the material properties of the structure. When
the a < at , the failure is governed by plastic yielding,
and when a > at the failure is governed by fracture mechanics. The value of at for engineering alloys is 100
mm and for ceramics is 0.001 mm. If we assume that
manufacturing processes can give rise to aws in the order of micrometers, then, it can be seen that ceramics are
more likely to fail by fracture, whereas engineering alloys
would fail by plastic deformation.

ui the components of the displacement vectors,

ds and an incremental length along the path
, an
ij and ij are the stress and strain tensors.

3.4

Cohesive zone models

When a signicant region around a crack tip has undergone plastic deformation, other approaches can be used to
determine the possibility of further crack extension and
the direction of crack growth and branching. A simple
technique that is easily incorporated into numerical calculations is the cohesive zone model method which is based
on concepts proposed independently by Barenblatt[12] and
Dugdale[13] in the early 1960s. The relationship between
the Dugdale-Barenblatt models and Griths theory was
rst discussed by Willis in 1967.[14] The equivalence of
the two approaches in the context of brittle fracture was
shown by Rice in 1968.[11] Interest in cohesive zone modeling of fracture has been reignited since 2000 following the pioneering work on dynamic fracture by Xu and
Needleman,[15] and Camacho and Ortiz.[16]

4 Crack tip constraint under large

scale yielding
Under small-scale yielding conditions, a single parameter
(e.g., K, J, or CTOD) characterizes crack tip conditions
and can be used as a geometry-independent fracture criterion. Single-parameter fracture mechanics breaks down
in the presence of excessive plasticity, and the fracture
toughness depends on the size and geometry of the test
specimen. The theories used for large scale yielding is
not very standardized. The following theories and approaches are commonly used among researchers in this
eld.

4.1 J-Q Theory

By using FEM, one can establish a parameter Q to modify the stress eld for a better solution when the plastic zone is growing. The new stress eld is: ij =
(ij ) + Q ij yield where ij = 1 for i = j and 0

6.1

Griths criterion

if not. Q usually takes values from 3 to +2. A negative 6.1 Griths criterion
value greatly changes the geometry of the plastic zone.
For the simple case of a thin rectangular plate with a crack
The J-Q-M theory includes another parameter, the misperpendicular to the load Griths theory becomes:
match parameter, which is used for welds to make up for
the change in toughness of the weld metal (WM), base
2
G = E a (1.1)
metal (BM) and heat aected zone (HAZ). This value
is interpreted to the formula in a similar way as the Qparameter, and the two are usually assumed to be inde- where G is the strain energy release rate, is the applied
pendent of each other.
stress, a is half the crack length, and E is the Youngs

4.2

T-term eects

As an alternative to J-Q theory, a parameter T can be

used. This only changes the normal stress in the xdirection (and the z-direction in the case of plane strain).
T does not require the use of FEM, but is derived from
constraint. It can be argued that T is limited to LEFM,
but as the plastic zone change due to T never reaches the
actual crack surface (except on the tip), its validity holds
true not only under small scale yielding. The parameter
T also signicantly inuences on the fracture initiation in
brittle materials using maximum tangential strain fracture
criterion, as found by the researchers at Texas A&M University.[17] It is found that both parameter T and Poissons
ratio of the material play important roles in prediction of
the crack propagation angle and the mixed mode fracture
toughness of the materials.

modulus, which for the case of plane strain should be divided by the plate stiness factor (1-^2). The strain energy release rate can otherwise be understood as: the rate
at which energy is absorbed by growth of the crack.
However, we also have that:
Gc =

f2 a
E

(1.2)

If G Gc , this is the criterion for which the crack will

begin to propagate.

6.2 Irwins modications

Eventually a modication of Griths solids theory
emerged from this work; a term called stress intensity replaced strain energy release rate and a term called fracture
toughness replaced surface weakness energy. Both of
these terms are simply related to the energy terms that
Grith used:

Engineering applications

KI = a (2.1)

The following information is needed for a fracture meand

chanics prediction of failure:
Applied load

Kc =

Residual stress

Kc =

Size and shape of the part

Size, shape, location, and orientation of the crack

EGc (for plane stress) (2.2)

EGc
1 2

(for plane strain) (2.3)

where KI is the stress intensity, Kc the fracture toughness,

and is Poissons ratio. It is important to recognize the
fact that fracture parameter K has dierent values when
measured under plane stress and plane strain

Usually not all of this information is available and conFracture occurs when KI Kc . For the special case of
servative assumptions have to be made.
plane strain deformation, Kc becomes KIc and is considOccasionally post-mortem fracture-mechanics analyses
ered a material property. The subscript I arises because
are carried out. In the absence of an extreme overload,
of the dierent ways of loading a material to enable a
the causes are either insucient toughness (KI ) or an excrack to propagate. It refers to so-called mode I loadcessively large crack that was not detected during routine
ing as opposed to mode II or III:
inspection.
We must note that the expression for KI in equation 2.1
will be dierent for geometries other than the centerinnite plate, as discussed in the article on the
6 Appendix: mathematical rela- cracked
stress intensity factor. Consequently, it is necessary to
introduce a dimensionless correction factor, Y, in order
tions
to characterize the geometry. We thus have:

APPLICATIONS OF FRACTURE MECHANICS

KI = Y a (2.4)

to have sucient ductility to yield locally so that redistribution of stress at discontinuities can occur. Investiwhere Y is a function of the crack length and width of gations of failed components proved that crack growth
started because of such discontinuities.
sheet given by:
Fracture mechanics follows one of two design principles:
( a ) ( a )
either fail-safe or safe-life. In fail safe mode, even if a
Y W = sec W (2.5)
component fails, the entire structure is not at risk (failure of redundant members). According to the safe life
for a sheet of nite width W containing a through- principle throughout the life, no component of the structure may fail. Fracture mechanics estimated the maxithickness crack of length 2a, or
mum crack that a material can withstand before it fails
(
(a)
)
through analysis taking into consideration the overall dia
a 2

Y W = 1.12 0.41
+ 18.7

W
W
mensions of the structure, the stress value where crack
(2.6)
initiation takes place, notch toughness value (ability of a
material to absorb energy in the presence of a crack for
for a sheet of nite width W containing a through- crack propagation), the behavior of materials under the
action of stresses by nding out the stress intensity facthickness edge crack of length a
tor (K), fatigue crack growth and stress corrosion crack
growth. As in basic solid mechanics analysis, stresses in
the component should be lower than the yield stress; ap6.3 Elasticity and plasticity
plication of the same principle is means that the stress
Since engineers became accustomed to using KI to char- intensity factor should be less than the critical stress inacterise fracture toughness, a relation has been used to tensity factor. Major applications of fracture mechanics design are material selection, eect of defects, failure
reduce JI to it:
analysis and control/monitoring of components. Fracture

analysis includes the usage of mathematical models such
KIc = E JIc where E = E for plane
as linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), crack openE
stress and E = 1
2 for plane strain (3.1)
ing displacement (COD) and J-integral approaches by using nite element analysis (FEM).
The remainder of the mathematics employed in this apThe relationship used for estimating stress intensity factor
proach is interesting, but is probably better summarised
is
in external pages due to its complex nature.

Applications of fracture mechanics

The design process for a component consists of choosing

the appropriate geometry, the necessary material strength
as per the loading conditions (either cyclic or constant
loading), the temperature of usage and structural analysis
(Testing and FEM analysis), so that it does not fail under
load. The methodologies followed in design criteria traditionally pick up the conventional materials based on standard data and as per the loading conditions proportioning the geometry of the components on basis of analysis.
This method is not applicable for some new innovation
like usage of new material in design. Another method
followed is that as per the loading conditions, static analysis is done for the structure taking into account the forces
acting on each component, material strength and geometry. The material strength is chosen keeping in mind the
factor of safety, i.e. the ultimate stress (where it fails) is
much higher than maximum stress in the component. The
general assumptions in the design criteria are: lack of discontinuities, no defects or cracks in the material, and even
in the presence of discontinuities the material is assumed

K = c a
where K is the critical fracture toughness value, c a constant that depends on crack and specimen dimensions,
the applied stress, and a the aw size.
The above relation is very general and as per the shape
of the crack, relations available in standard data books
or course books are to be used, any general crack can
be approximated to standard shapes used in writing the
relations.
For a given material the value of K is dependent on
stresses acting and aw size. Flaw size decreases as the
stress increases. Thus a design engineer can dictate the
life of a component by choosing appropriate values of
K, a and . Even there are other parameters that estimate the life of a component like working temperature,
loading rate (fatigue), residual stress and stress concentration. The higher the K value, the higher is the resistance to crack growth, and the material can resist higher
stresses. Designers try to decrease the defects in the component arising in casting or manufacturing processes by
following good fabrication processes and inspection, and
estimate notch-toughness values of materials using methods like charpy V-notch impact test, or drop weight tests.

9.2

Bibliography

In many investigations it was proved that the material

failed at a very much lower than the critical stress intensity factor because of defects in the material or micro
cracks. Analysis proved that for any component there are
two phases for crack development, i.e. crack initiation
and second phase crack growth until failure. Of the two,
the rst phase covers a larger percentage of fatigue life,
and under very large high cycle loading conditions second
phase is instantaneous.
The factor (K/) is used for estimating design of component because it estimates crack size, more the value
better the resistance to the forces(Stress). But how large
this factor has to be is decided by considering type of
the structure, frequency of inspection, access to inspection, design life of the structure, consequences of failure,
probability of over load, methods of fabrication, required
quality, material cost in addition to the results obtained by
fracture mechanics analysis.

See also
AFGROW - Fracture mechanics and fatigue crack
growth analysis software
Earthquake
Fatigue
Fault (geology)

[4] E. Erdogan (2000) Fracture Mechanics, International

Journal of Solids and Structures, 37, pp. 171183.
[5] Irwin G (1957), Analysis of stresses and strains near the
end of a crack traversing a plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics 24, 361364.
[6] Orowan, E., 1948. Fracture and strength of solids. Reports on Progress in Physics XII, 185232.
[7] Weisshaar, Terry (July 28, 2011). Aerospace Structuresan Introduction to Fundamental Problems.
West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
[8] Crack Tip Plastic Zone Size. Handbook for Damage
Tolerant Design. LexTech, Inc. Retrieved 20 November
2016.
[9] Weisshaar, Terry (July 28, 2011). Aerospace Structuresan Introduction to Fundamental Problems.
West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
[10] Retardation. Handbook for Damage Tolerant Design.
LexTech, Inc. Retrieved 20 November 2016.
[11] Rice, J. R. (1968), A path independent integral and
the approximate analysis of strain concentration by
notches and cracks (PDF), Journal of Applied Mechanics, 35: 379386, Bibcode:1968JAM....35..379R,
doi:10.1115/1.3601206.
[12] Barenblatt, G. I. (1962), The mathematical theory
of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture, Advances
in Applied Mechanics, 7: 55129, doi:10.1016/s00652156(08)70121-2

Peridynamics, a numerical method to solve fracture [13] Dugdale, D. S. (1960), Yielding of steel sheets conmechanics problems
taining slits, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Shock (mechanics)
Strength of materials
Stress corrosion cracking
Structural Fracture Mechanics
Concrete fracture analysis

9
9.1

References
Notes

[1] T.L. Anderson (1995). Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press. ISBN 9780849316562.
[2] H.L. Ewalds; R.J.H. Wanhill (1984). Fracture Mechanics. Edward Arnold and Delftse Uitgevers Maatschappij.
ISBN 0-7131-3515-8.
[3] Grith, A. A. (1921), The phenomena of rupture and ow in solids (PDF), Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A,
221:
163198, Bibcode:1921RSPTA.221..163G,
doi:10.1098/rsta.1921.0006.

Solids, 8 (2): 100104, Bibcode:1960JMPSo...8..100D,

doi:10.1016/0022-5096(60)90013-2
[14] Willis, J. R. (1967), A comparison of the fracture
criteria of Grith and Barenblatt, Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 15 (3): 151162,
Bibcode:1967JMPSo..15..151W,
doi:10.1016/00225096(67)90029-4.
[15] Xu, X.P.; Needleman, A. (1994), Numerical simulations
of fast crack growth in brittle solids, Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 42 (9): 13971434,
Bibcode:1994JMPSo..42.1397X,
doi:10.1016/00225096(94)90003-5
[16] Camacho, G. T.; Ortiz, M. (1996), Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials, International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 33 (20-22): 28992938,
doi:10.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-3
[17] Mirsayar, M. M., Mixed mode fracture analysis using extended maximum tangential strain criterion, Materials &
Design, 2015, doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.135.

9.2 Bibliography
C. P. Buckley, Material Failure, Lecture Notes
(2005), University of Oxford.

10

10

11

Further reading

Davidge, R.W., Mechanical Behavior of Ceramics,

Cambridge Solid State Science Series, (1979)
Demaid, Adrian, Fail Safe, Open University (2004)
Green, D., An Introduction to the Mechanical Properties of Ceramics, Cambridge Solid State Science
Series, Eds. Clarke, D.R., Suresh, S., Ward, I.M.
(1998)
Lawn, B.R., Fracture of Brittle Solids, Cambridge
Solid State Science Series, 2nd Edn. (1993)
Farahmand, B., Bockrath, G., and Glassco, J.
(1997) Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics of HighRisk Parts, Chapman & Hall.
Chen, X., Mai, Y.-W., Fracture Mechanics of Electromagnetic Materials: Nonlinear Field Theory and
Applications, Imperial College Press, (2012)
*Chapter 10 Strength of Elastomers, A.N. Gent, W.V.
Mars, In: James E. Mark, Burak Erman and Mike
Roland, Editor(s), The Science and Technology of Rubber (Fourth Edition), Academic Press, Boston, 2013,
Pages 473-516, ISBN 9780123945846, 10.1016/B9780-12-394584-6.00010-8
Alan Zehnder. Fracture Mechanics, SpringerLink,
(2012).

11

External links

Fracture Mechanics on eFunda site

Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics Notes by Prof. John
Hutchinson, Harvard University
Notes on Fracture of Thin Films and Multilayers by
Prof. John Hutchinson, Harvard University
Fracture Mechanics by Prof. Piet Schreurs, TU
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Fracturemechanics.org by Dr. Bob McGinty, Mercer University
Fracture mechanics course notes by Prof.
Huang, Univ. of Texas

Rui

Application of Fracture Mechanics on keytometals.com

EXTERNAL LINKS

11

12
12.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Fracture mechanics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics?oldid=753895095 Contributors: Edward, Cutler, BenFrantzDale, Tom harrison, Christopherlin, H Padleckas, Discospinster, Wipe, Pearle, Hooperbloob, Jnothman, Gene Nygaard, Richard
Arthur Norton (1958- ), RHaworth, LOL, Scm83x, JamesBurns, Rjwilmsi, Feydey, FlaBot, Nihiltres, Kolbasz, ED-tech~enwiki, Gaius
Cornelius, Shaddack, BirgitteSB, Dhollm, Josh3580, Tevildo, Groyolo, Eog1916, ChemGardener, SmackBot, Bluebot, Sandycx, Hongooi,
Sct72, Al Roseneld, Zhigangsuo, Vina-iwbot~enwiki, Markmit, Loodog, Ckatz, Beetstra, Alfy Alf, Wizard191, CmdrObot, Yarnalgo, Fnlayson, Jaerik, P.r.lewis, Saintrain, Headbomb, Gsuhasini, Cj67, Dawnseeker2000, Stannered, Mikenorton, Jpredkiewicz, RainbowCrane,
Magioladitis, Bongwarrior, Verkhovensky, Rlsheehan, Extransit, Leon II, Ian.thomson, AlienZen, Auegel, Inwind, Agricola44, Alex fx,
Ehtz, CrinklyCrunk, SieBot, Yintan, OKBot, PipepBot, Bbanerje, Niceguyedc, Rhododendrites, Nathan Johnson, Koumz, Nicoguaro,
Addbot, EjsBot, MrOllie, TStein, Aviados, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Amirobot, Idlejim, Baxxterr, Snkhaderi, Materialscientist, Kokcharov,
Profesor Sabroson, Logger9, Linkman21, Imveracious, LucienBOT, Kate P Stuart, I dream of horses, Red banksy, RedBot, Dcirovic, WikiWarriorIV, Donner60, Nacho74, ClueBot NG, Dana Ashkenazi, SSMG-ITALY, Polis Tyrol, Rezabot, KLBot2, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot,
Peteranderson6663, Zedshort, Mogism, Xhchen, Faizan, Am.sreenath, Arun Muraleedharan, Jivoadams, Sainath bandapalli, AresLiam,
Icensnow42, Bmcginty2, SOBHITHA VENUGOPAL, GeoreyT2000, Bender the Bot, Nfutch and Anonymous: 107

12.2

Images

File:American_Airlines_Flight_587_vertical_stabilizer.png Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/
American_Airlines_Flight_587_vertical_stabilizer.png License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: NTSB
File:EdgeCrack2D.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/EdgeCrack2D.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bbanerje
File:Fracture_modes_v2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Fracture_modes_v2.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: Twisp
File:PlasticZone2D.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/PlasticZone2D.svg License: CC BY 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Nicoguaro
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:TankerSchenectady.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/TankerSchenectady.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Transition_flaw_size.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Transition_flaw_size.png License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Snkhaderi

12.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0