Engine&g Fracture hfechonics Vol. 18. No. 5. pp. %5-973, 1983 &w-7944/83 nM)+ .

w
Printed in Great Britain. @ 1983 Petgamon Press Ltd.

FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION IN STEELS

XIULINZHENGt
Department of Material Engineering, North-Western Polytechnical University, Xian, Shaanxi, The Peoples
Republic of China

MANFRED
A. HIRT
Department of Civil Engineering, ICOM, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

Abstract-From previous investigations of the mechanisms of both fracture and fatigue crack propagation,
the static fracture model proposed by Lal and Weiss may be thought as reasonable for describing fatigue
crack propagation in metals at both low and interm~iate stress intensity factor ranges AK. Recent progress
in fatigue crack propagation indicates that it is not only possible, but also necessary, to modify this static
fracture model. Based on the modified static fracture model, the effective stress intensity factor range
A&, which is defined as the difference between AK and the fatigue crack propagation threshold value
A&, is taken as the governing parameter for fatigue crack propagation. Utilising the estimates of the
theoretical strengths of metals employed in industry, a new expression for fatigue crack propagation, which
may be predicted from the tensile properties of the metals, has been derived. The correlation between the
fatigue crack propagation rate and the tensile properties is thus revealed. The new expression lits the test
results of fatigue crack propagation of steels below lo- mm~cycleand indicates well the effect of stress
ratio on the fatigue crack propagation rate.

1. INTRODUCTION
THESTUDY of fatigue crack propagation (FCP) examines how a fatigue crack grows under cyclic load.
This topic is cu~ently the subject of considerable research, mainly dealing with the development of
various models to best explain the crack propagation phenomenon. Most of these models, which are
based on different theoretical assumptions, are summarized by Yokobori[l] and by Bathias and
Bailon[2]. Fatigue crack propagation is, paradoxically, both simple and difficult. The problem is simple in
the sense that, considering only region B of the fatigue crack propagation curve (Fig. l), it can often be
successfully resolved by using the basic Pariss equation[3]. It is, however, diticult in that it may require
many parameters and bring together different physical mechanisms verging, in some unfavorable

g [mm/cycle]

KC
Final fracture
1o-2

1o-3

10-4

1r5

10-6
AK [MPa $iij

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of fatigue crack propagation rate da/dPI versus stress intensity factor
range AKon a log-log scale.

tProf. Zheng was a visiting professor at ICOM, at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, from January 1980to March
1982.

965
EFM Vol. 18, No. S-u
966 XIULIN ZHENG and MANFRED A. HIRT

situations, toward impossibility. It is clear, for example, that the governing mechanisms of fatigue crack
propagation in region C are quite different from those in regions A and B [4, S]. Hence, with present
knowledge, any attempt to explain the fatigue crack propagation curve empirically and in its entirety has
no physical basis. This also explains why Pariss equation fails in regions A and C. The majority of the
existing models predict values of the exponent M in Pariss equation to be a constant of either 2 or 4 [2,
61. However, the value of m, determined by experiment, varies between 1.4 and 9.66 [7,8]. Fatigue crack
propagation may be assumed to occur due to the plastic deformation and fracture of material elements
located immediately ahead of a crack tip. Thus, fatigue crack propagation must be related to some other
material property parameters. Several attempts have been made to find an appropriate correlation
between the fatigue crack propagation and the said material property parameters although little progress
has been made to date [5, 6, 9, 101. This indicates clearly that the existing fatigue crack propagation
(FCP) models cannot perfectly account for the phenomenon in metals. From studies into the subject of
FCP and fracture [ 1l-141, the static fracture model proposed by La1 and Weiss [lo] gives a good insight into
the problem in regions A and B of fatigue crack growth. However, even here the model needs some
modifications.
Recent progress [15-171 has gone a considerable way in solving some of the physical constraints
of fatigue crack propagation. This paper presents modifications made to La1 and Weisss model in order
to develop a new FCP expression. The intention of ?he new expression is to incorporate the important
feature of the correlation between fatigue crack propagation and the metal property parameters. Several
tests results on various steels are then used to check the validity of the new expression.

2. FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION MODEL

2.1 Fracture mode
Fatigue crack propagation may be assumed to occur due to the fracture of the so called Fatigue
Elements located ahead of the crack tip as illustrated in Fig. 2. Depending on the microstructure,
mechanical properties and the stress state, the fracture may occur either by shearing or in tension [13,
141.The tension fracture caused by normal stress is also known as the static fracture [lo]. The FCP in
regions A and B, for most steels, is due to static fracture of fatigue elements [ll, 121.

2.2 Comments on La1 and Weisss model

La1 and Weiss proposed a static fracture model where, during each loading cycle, the crack advances
by the distance over which the maximum normal stress u exceeds the critical fracture stress uff of the
metal, as shown in Fig. 3. The Lal and Weiss model has, however, some imperfections. First, it does not
consider the blunting effect at the crack tip which has been observed under the scanning electron
microscope [15]. Instead it employs the micro-support effect constant, proposed by Neuber, to prevent
the normal stress at the crack tip tending to infinity. Second, the three material constants used have no
evident physical significance. Hence, it is quite difficult to predict such material constants from the
tensile properties of metals.

Fatigue element

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the fatigue element along the potential crack path.
 Fatigue crack propagation in steels %7

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the assumption of the amount of incremental fatigue crack propagation [17].

2.3 Modified static fracture model

Recently, Schwalbe[X] showed that not only a crack propagation threshold value A&, exists during
the cyclic loading, but that a crack threshold value & also exists during the monoto~c loading. On
loading, if K 5 & or AK 5 AK,,, the crack does not advance but the crack tip bluntens. Schwalbe also
suggested that K,, has a value comparable with that of A&,.
Primarily based on Lal and Weisss assumption and the recent research results mentioned above [ 15,
161,a new static fracture model for FCP has been developed, as shown in Fig. 4. In this section, the case
of the general stress ratio of R = 0 will be considered. Then the general effect of stress ratio will be
discussed later.
When there is no loading (Fii. 4a) the crack remains closed and the radius of the crack tip tends to be
extremely small. When the load is increased to point B the stress intensity factor K reaches the value of
I&,, the crack opens elastically and the crack tip becomes blunt. This action relieves the stress at the
crack tip such that the fictitious normal stress at the crack tip could be kept below or equal to the critical
fracture stress uff of the metal. At this stage, the crack tip is stationary, i.e. no forward motion occurs
(Fig. 4b). Increasing the load over point B, the crack tip advances and becomes more blunt (Fig. 4c).
Finally, on loading to the maximum value, the crack tip reaches point 0 with au increased radius (Fig.
4d). On unloading, the crack tip does not displace but become resharpened and the crack closes (Figs.
4d-g). In all cases u 5 08. It can be seen from the model described above that the difference (K,, - &,)
between the maximum stress intensity factor and the crack propagation threshold value is the governing
parameter for FCP rather than I(,,. This hypothesis was first proposed by Schwalbe[ 161. This
difference can be called the effective stress intensity factor I(,* [l]. In each loading cycle the crack
advanced by an amount of xf and hence

which is the same as Lal and Weisss assumption. Thus, if the stress distribution ahead of the crack tip
and the critical fracture stress are known, it is then easy to derive a mathematical expression for FCP.

2.4 Mathematical expression for FCP

From linear elastic fracture mechanics [18], the distribution of the normal stress 0; in the y-direction,
along the x-axis can be expressed by:

(2)
 XIUCPJ ZHENG and MANFRED A. HIRT

f
Off

L i
_--_-_-..-_--I,
0

0" x

cl)
~

1
Y Y
+
I 1
Off uff

j 0 0

I L!
--
,,=~J-------~ --_---_Lt
0' X 0" x
Cl e)
~ ~
Y
t
Y
4
t
Off
Q

k
__-_-_--),
0" X

f)
~

--_--_a

9)

LOAD P

0
a 9
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the static fracture model for fatigue crack propagation.

Since the effective stress intensity factor is the governing parameter for FCP, it should be used in eqn (2)
in place of &. So when x becomes xr = da/dN, eqn (2) can be rewritten as:

The criterion for the crack initiation at the notch tip is given by Ref. 1171as:

K,S = qEc~~* (4)

where K, is the theoretical stress conce~~ation factor, 5 is the nominal stress applied to the notched
 Fatigue crack propagation in steels 969

element, E is Youngs modulus and ur and ef are the materials fracture strength and fracture ductility,
respectively.
Having accepted qEoref as the theoretical strength of the metallic materials [19], it is then possible
to explain the physical si~ificance of eqn (4). The material at the notch root will fracture to initiate a
crack if the fictitious elastic stress K,S exceeds the theoretical strength of metals. If the bluntened crack
is taken as a sharp notch, the stress (r at the crack tip should then be equal to KS. When crack
propagation at the crack tip is stopped, the stress u is considered to be not more than q/Eor~+ Hence, it
can be deduced that the theoretical strength of metals may be taken as equal to the critical fracture
stress in La1 and Weisss model. Then taking:

and, in addition, when R = 0:

K ,,,* = AK, K,,, = AK,,,, Ice@= AK,e. (6)

Substituting eqn (6) into eqn (3) yields:

$=BAK&= & (AK - AK&, (7)

and with eqn (5) follows:

+1 (8)
27rEure;

Equation (7) is the mathematics expression for FCP at the stress ratio of R = 0. When a crack
propagates according to the static fracture model, the FCP coefficient B is a constant related to the
tensile properties of metals.

3. EFFECT OF STRESS RATIO

The stress ratio has an effect on the FCP rate according to the static fracture model [12]. In fact,
AKth in eqn (7) is a material parameter sensitive to the stress ratio. Experimental resultsl2, 11, 201
indicate that the correlation with R can be expressed as:

AKtr,= AK& I- R)Y, (9)

where AKthOis the crack propagation threshold value for the stress ratio R = 0, and y is a constant which
varies from zero to unity (111. It can be seen from eqns (7) and (9) that AKe, becomes smaller as R
increases and hence the FCP rate increases. However, the variation of AKth has a greater effect on the
FCP rate at lower values of AK (region A) and less effect at higher values of AK (region B).
Tensile properties and the corresponding numerical values of AKti, at various stress ratios are given
by Ritchie[21]. It is then easy to write the expression for FCP based on eqns (7) and (8):

$ = 4.05 - lo-(AK - 2.58)2 (for R = 0.05), (10)

-$ = 4.05 s 10-(AK - 1.80}2 (for R = 0.70). (10

The curves for FCP predicted by eqns (10) and (11) are in good agreement with the test results shown in
Fig. 5. However, it should be pointed out that, due to different definitions, the above values of AK,, are
smaller than those determined experimentally [2]. In actual fact, the AKti, values obtained from tests are
defined at about du/dN = 10m6to lo- mm/cycle [ll]. In eqn (7), the theoretical value is defined as the
value of AK for du/dN = 0.
970 XIULIN ZHENG and MANFRED A. HIRT

A = 0.05
300 M alloy steel l
R = 0.70

-6 _
10

2 4 6 0 10 20 40 60

Fig. 5. Predicted curves and test results showing the influence of stress ratio on FCP for 300M alloy steel,
austenitized at 87oC,oil-quenched and tempered at 3WC 1211.

4. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
4.1 Methods for the analysis of test data
After log~~mi~ ~ansformation, eqn (7) becomes:

da
log do = log B + 2log(AK - AK,,,), (12)

which represents a straight line with slope 2 when da/dN versus (AX - A&J is plotted on a logarithmic
scale. Using a trial and error approach, a computer program for linear regression analysis can be written
to obtain the values of B and A&, given the condition that the slope is within the range of 2 k 0.004.

4.2 Analysis of test results

Test data for FCP in a new high strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel and a regular high strength steel are
given in [22] and [23] respectively. The results obtained by the above mentioned regression analysis of the
test data and the tensile properties of these two steels are listed in Table 1. Figure 6 shows the least squares fit
to these test data. As may be seen, eqn (7) gives good agreement with the test data, particularly in region A
(Fig. 6a).
The predicted values of the coefficient B using eqn (8) are quite close to those determined by tests.
The calculated values of A& may also be considered reasonable since they too are within the
expe~mental ranges [20].

4.3 Reanalysis of some existing test data

Test data for the FCP of various steels which have been analysed based on Pariss equation are given
in Refs. [23-311. By reanalysing these results, one can easily obtain B and A&, in eqn (7). The tensile
properties and the predicted values of B from eqn (8) are also listed in Table 2. The predicted values of
B are very close to those obtained by reanalysis. However, with a factor of difference of two or three

Table 1. Tensile properties and test results of the FCP for two steels

oU u RA R [MPa+]
AKth
MATERIAL Y R r s
EMPa] [%I EXPERIMENT PREDICTED [MPa w]

HSLA steel [22] 591 452 65.0 0.1 6.6?~.10-~~ 7.55.1O-'O 10.10 0.979 0.08

30CrMnSiNi2A [ZS] 1703 1357 45.7 0.2 6.51+10-'" 5.36*10-lo 1.61 0.985 0.051

= ou (1 + RA) and of = - In (I - RR) in eq. (8) [17]

Of

r is the correlation coefficient and s the standard deviation

 Fatigue crack propagation in steels 971

-8
10
10 50 100 5 10 50

Fig. 6. Regression analysis of test data of fatigue crack propagation according to eqn (7). (a) High-strength,
low-alloy steel [22]. (b) High-strength martensite steel [23].

times in the value of B, it is not possible to say the same thing for some pearlite-ferrite steels or for some
quenched-tempered steels. Why this difference appears is still not clear and supplementary research is
needed. However, it should be pointed out that the FCP is a highly localized phenomenon and the
microstructure has thus a great influence on the FCP rate.
In his work, Pelloux[32] suggested that the FCP in an aluminium alloy is controlled principally by the
matrix properties when the plastic zone width is smaller than the interparticle spacing of the inclusions.
From this, it may be suggested that the differing values of B for those steels will be more dependent
upon the tensile properties of the matrix rather than those of the steels. If it is assumed that 0.1 E is the
critical fracture stress, or theoretical strength, of the steel matrix phase [6], the value of B according to
eqn (8) will become 3.97 * lo-. This value is closer to that of B for those steels previously mentioned.

5. DISCUSSION

The modified static fracture model is still based on the tensile stress failure criterion. According to
this hypothesis, the maximum stress at the crack tip in all cases should be either equal to, or below, the
critical fracture stress of the metal employed. Consequently, the crack tip must be bluntened during
loading in order to relieve the stress at the crack tip. This is actually required by the equilibrium between
the applied stress and the resistance of the metal. Hence, the higher the applied stress, the bigger the
crack tip radius.

(b) Applicable domain of the new expression

As mentioned before, the new expression can only be used to describe the crack propagation process
in regions A and B. Hence, eqn (7) is only valid for regions A and B. The upper limit of region B may
occur at a rn~~~de order of da/dN = lo- mm/cy~le. Thus again, eqn (7) can only be applied when
da/dN I 10V3mm/cycle.

(c) Efectiue stress intensity factor range

The existence of the fatigue crack propagation threshold has been shown and the values of Ati,
determined by experiment, have been summarized in [9, 20, 333. Since the fatigue crack will not
propagate when AK 5 I&,, the difference of AK -AK,,, in order words A&, must be the goveming
parameter in FCP instead of AK alone. Using the A& concept, the modified FCP model and the new
expression derived from it, provide a better description of the crack propagation behaviour. In particular, it
gives an explanation of the effect of stress ratio on the FCP rate.
972 XIULIN ZNENG and MANFRED A. HIRT

Table 2. Tensile properties and reanalysed results of the FCP for various steels

0 ci RA I B fMPa-2] T
i I i

lSNi(VOO) [24] 1764 1 1679 31.0 0.05-0.2 8.67.10-l* 9.29.lcr'C 11.15

18Ni(1100) [24] 1587 1493 35.6 0.05-0.2 6.37.10-lo 3.50.10-1c 7.16

4340(200) [24] 2324 1325 17.2 0.05-0.2 1.97.10-8 1.55*10-" 19.30

4340(500) [24] 1714 1521 26.3 0.05-0.2 1.37.10-9 1.36.10-g 14.05

H-11 [24] 195E 1424 3i.e 0.05-0.2 1.37.10-8 a.lo.io-1C 19.56

D6AC [zs] 1618 1499 36.5 cl.i-0.3 4.53.10-'0 7.73*10-1c 6.78

12Ni-SCr-3Mo [26] 129C 1269 64.0 o-o.7 2.72.10-'" 3.70.10-'C 2.73

H-130 [26] 1015 936 70.0 O-O.7 3.14.10-'0 3.70.10-'C 2.24

lONi-Cr-MD-Co 1261 1434 1310 72.0 o-o.7 2.11.10-'0 2.47*10-1c 8.53

3Ni-4Co-0,2X [26] 1333 1257 61.0 -0.1-0.25 4.10.10-9 3.87.10-'0 27.88

10Ni-BCo-Mc 1271 951 917 69.3 3.06~10-~~ 1.11.10-'0 4.65

30CrMnSiNi2 [23] 1676 1387 45.0 0.2 7.42.10-" 5.S9~10-lc 2.26

4357A [2S] 569 405 73.0 o-o.7 5.38.10-10 5.99*10-10 10.17

43OZB [2S3 604 384 67.0 o-o.7 4.27.10-'" s.93.lo-10 11.31

936 [2S] 514 247 $8.0 o-o.7 3.59.10-'0 7.k?4*10-10 10.06

4B5-C [2S] 432 268 66.0 O-G.7 3,21.10-10 9.9S.l!F" 9.62

jAEOO30 [29J 494 302 46.0 0 7.54.1r'C 1.74.10-" 17.60

-1 5.95.10-10 1.74.10-9 20.01

5AElO20 [293 412 261 58.0 0 l.aS.lo-9 1.37.10-g 24.71

-1 1.68.10-g 1.37.10-g 21.00

4572 [ZSJ 535 370 0 5.95.10-10 3.92*10-'0 20.01

-1 9.09~10-~0 3.92.10~'0 20.88

l340(1000) [24] 1205 1120 38.5 0.05-0.2 9.03.10-10 3.06.10-'0 13.28

1340(1400) [24] 665 431 53.3 0.05-0.2 1.64.10-Y 9.97.10-'C 21.00

4151403jHeat637) [30] 769 641 56.5 2.61.10-10 7.65.10-'C 6.45

4151403(Heat933) [30] 748 611 53.1 4.23.10-10 3.92.10-'0 8.31

4ISI403fHeat484) [303 817 678 48.5 2.23.lo-'* ?.60.10-1c 7.43

SNi-Cr-Mo-V [31] 1043 974 68.0 0.1 2.30.10-'0 3.87.10-l" 5.79

5AE4140(720~ [29] 1468 1372 55.0 0 1.25.10-10 1.25.10-1" -4.48)

-1 1.43.10-'0 1.25.10-10 -1.20)

jAE4140(970) [291 1146 1098 59.0 0 1.32.10-10 1.72.10-10 5.79

-1 2.95.10-'0 1.72.10-10 9.40

jAEA140(1230) [ZS] 720 617 63.0 0 2.07.10-'0 5.63.10-10 13.23

-1 2.66.10-l" ;.6310-'0 11.59

(d) Constants in the new expression

The new expression predicts a second power relationship between daldN and AK-A&,, hence a
constant exponent value of 2 in eqn (7). This is the same as that predicted by other theoretical models [ 1,2,6].
The coeficient B is a material constant, Equation (8) gives the relationship between B and the tensile
properties of steels. Experiments results for the values of I3 show good agreement with those predicted
by eqn (8) (Tabk 1). In addition, most values of 3 have the same order of magnitude, i.e. IO- [IMPa-].
The quantity AKtr.,in eqn (7) is also a material constant. The values of A&, in Tables 1 are obtained
by regression analysis of the FCP data derived from eqn (12). These values are within the limits of AK,,,
determined by tests and, therefore, may be considered to be adequate. Such a method for determining
the value of AKtr, is very useful. In order to obtain an accurate value of A&,, da/dN must be measured
at less than lop5 mm/cycle.
 Fatigue crack propagation in steels 973

6. CONCLUSIONS
1. During loading, the bluntening phenomenon at the crack tip has been taken into account in the
new static fracture model for the FCP developed in the present paper. It is clearly necessary to maintain
mechanical equi~brium at the crack tip.
2. Considering the existence of the FCP threshold A&,, the effective stress intensity factor range
A&, which is defined as the difference AK -A&,, is thought to be the governing parameter in FCP.
3. Based on the new FCP model, a new expression for FCP has been derived:

-&=~(AK - AK,,J2.
where B is a material constant and can be predicted from the tensile properties. This expression for FCP
can be applied to give a good description of the fatigue crack propagation at various stress ratios below
da/dN rs W3 mm/cycle.
4. This study has introduced a very simple and useful relationship between the coefficient B and the
tensile properties of metals leading, consequently, to their correlation with fatigue crack propagation.
5. ,I\&, is a very important parameter affecting the FCP rate, in particular at the lower values of AK,
in region A. The required value of AK,,, may be determined from the test results of FCP by a trial and
error approach using linear regression analysis and thus without any additional testing.
6. A final important conclusion is that the model includes the most essential crack propagation
parameters such as AK, A&,, material properties and the stress ratio.
Finally, although the existing experimental results justify the use of the new expression, more test
results with different types of steels are necessary to show its range of applicability.

Acknowledgements-We are grateful to Prof. J.-C. Badoux, director of the Institute for Steel Construction of the Federal Institute of
Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, for his support of our work. Appreciation is also expressed to Messrs. F. Celebi, B. Kerridge
and M. Fiaux for their help in preparing this paper.

REFERENCES
[I] T. Yokobori, ASTM STP 675,683-706 (1979).
[2] C. Bathias and J.-C. Bailon, La Fatigue des Matlriaux des Structures. Les Presses de !Universit6 de Montrta!, MontrCa!(1980).
[3] P. Paris and F. Erdogan, Trans. ASME, J. Bas. Engng 85528-534 (1983).
[4] R. W. Hertzberg, ASTM STP 415.205-223 (1968).
[S] R. J. Donahue, C. M. Clark, P, A~nmo, R. Kumble and A. J. McEvily, Inf. 1. Pratt. Meek. l&209-219(1972).
161M. P. Ashby, Micromechanjsms of Fracture in Static and Cyclic Failure in Fracfure Meckanics (Edited by R. A. Smith).
Pergamon Press, Oxford, England (1979).
[7] W. G. Clark Jr., Engng Fract. Meek. 2,287-299 (1971).
[8] H. Suzuki and A. J. McEvily, Met. Trans. lOA, 475-481(1979).
[9] P. E. Irving and L. N. McCartney, Metal Science, 351-361(1977).
[lo] D. N. La! and V. Weiss, Met. Trans. 9A, 413-426(1978).
[ll] C. J. Beevers, Metal Science, 362-367(1977).
f12] C. E. Richards and T. C. Lindley, Engng &act. Meek. 4,951-978 (1972).
[13] Xian Jiaotong University et a!., Mechanical Properties of Metals (!%l) (in Chinese).
[ 141Zhang Xinggian et al., Mechanical Behaviour of Metals and A!!oys (1961)(in Chinese).
[15] M. Kikukawa, M. Jono and M. Adachi, ASTM STP 675,23C247 (1979).
[16] K. H. Schwalbe, Engng Fract. Meek. 9,547-556 (1977).
[!7] Xiulin Zheng, Local strain range and fatigue crack initiation life. IABSE Proc. Fatigue Colloquium, pp. 169-178(1982).
[!8] P. C. Paris and G. C. Sih, ASTM STP 381, 30-81 (1965).
[19] Xiulin Zheng, Estimation of Notch Strength of Metals (unpublished~.
12010. Vosikovsky, Engng Fmcf. Meek. 11,592-204 (1977).
[21] R. 0. Ritchie, J. Engng Muter. Tech., Trans. ASME, 195-204(1977).
[22] M. A. Hirt, (unpublished data).
[23] Quangli Hu, (unpublished data).
1241G. A. Miller, Trans. ASM 61,442*8 (1968).
[25] P. C. Paris, R. J. Bucci and C. D. Little, ASTM, STP 513, 196-217(1972).
[26] J. M. Barsom, E. J. Imhof and S. T. Rolfe, Engng Fract. Me&. 2,301~317(1971).
[27] W. G. Clark Jr. and S. T. Hudak Jr., f. Testing and Eun!uafjon %6), 454-476 (1975).
[28] J. M. Barsom, J. Engng Industry, Trans. ASME, 1190-11%(1971).
[29] R. I. Stephens, P. H. Benner, C. Mauritzson and G. W. Tinda!!, J. Testing and Evaluation S(2),68-81 (1979).
[30] W. A. Logsdon, Engng Fract. Meek. 7, 23-40 (1975).
[31] A. M. Sullivan and T. W. J. Crooker, Testing and Evaluation s(2), 96-101 (1977).
[32] R. Pelloux, Trans. ASM 57,511-518 (1964).
[33] V. Weiss and D. N. La!, Met. Trans. 5A, 1946-1947(1974).

(Received 25 May 1982;receiuedfor p~b!icat~on20 Jicly 1982)