International Journal of Fracture 118: 115, 2002.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard

compact tension specimen
Q.Z. XIAO and B.L. KARIHALOO
Division of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 0YF, UK;
e-mail: karihaloob@cardiff.ac.uk
Received 12 March 2002; accepted 9 April 2002
Abstract. The coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field of a standard compact tension (CT) specimen are
computed using a hybrid crack element (HCE). It allows the direct calculation (without post-processing) of not
only the stress intensity factor (SIF) but also the coefficients of higher order terms of the crack tip asymptotic field.
Approximate closed-form expressions for the first five terms for the CT specimen that are accurate for shallow
to very deep cracks are obtained by fitting the computed data. The SIF formula proposed by Brown and Srawley
(1966) is shown to be accurate when the crack length to depth ratio () ranges from 0.35 to 0.75. The formula
proposed by Newman (1974) and Srawley (1976) is accurate for 0.15. However, the accuracy of available
formulas for the second T -term in the literature is quite disappointing. Numerical results also show that, unlike
the notched three-point bend beam and the wedge splitting specimen, the second T -term of the CT specimen is
always positive.
Key words: Coefficients of crack tip asymptotic field, compact tension (CT) specimen, hybrid crack element,
stress intensity factor (SIF), T -stress.

1. Introduction
The standard compact tension (CT) specimen (Figure 1) is widely used for determining the
fracture toughness of metallic materials. If the crack with traction-free faces lies on the negative x-axis, and the polar coordinates centred at the crack tip are designated r and ( is
measured counterclockwise from the positive x-axis) as in Figure 1, the displacement and
stress fields near the tip of the crack may be expressed in the so-called Williams expansion
(Williams, 1957; Owen and Fawkes, 1983; Karihaloo and Xiao, 2001ac):
n





n
n
r 2 
n
n
an + + (1)n cos cos( 2)
u=
2
2
2
2
2
n=1

(1)





n
n
r 2 
n
n
an (1)n sin + sin( 2)
=
2
2
2
2
2
n=1

(2)

x =

n
n=1

y =

n
n=1




n
n
n
n
2 + + (1)n cos( 1) ( 1) cos( 3)
2
2
2
2

(3)




n
n
n
n
2 (1)n cos( 1) + ( 1) cos( 3)
2
2
2
2

(4)

r 2 1 an

r 2 1 an

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

Figure 1. A standard compact tension (CT) specimen. h = 0.6b, h1 = 0.275b, D = 0.25b, c = 0.25b, and
thickness = b/2. P is the load per unit thickness.

xy =

n

 n

n
n
n
r 2 1 an ( 1) sin( 3)
+ (1)n sin( 1)
2
2
2
2
2

n
n=1

(5)

where = E/(2(1 + )) is the shear modulus; the Kolosov constant = 3 4 for plane
strain or = (3 )/(1 + ) for plane stress; E and are Youngs modulus and Poissons
ratio, respectively. a1 is related to the mode I stress intensity factor (SIF) KI as
KI
a1 =
2

(6)

The SIF which controls the first (i.e. the singular) term of the crack tip asymptotic field
(15) has been used for years as the single controlling parameter for the initiation and propagation of a crack in brittle materials and materials with limited ductility. However, recent
studies show higher order terms of the asymptotic field are of great relevance to predicting the
constraint of elasto-plastic crack tip fields (ODowd and Shih, 1991; Du and Hancock, 1991;
Karstensen et al., 1997; Nikishkov, 1998) and to interpreting the size effect of quasi-brittle
materials (Karihaloo, 1999; Karihaloo, et al., 2002).
The second term in (15) corresponds to a uniform in-plane stress
x = T = 4a2

(7)

acting near the crack tip in the direction parallel to the crack plane. This uniform stress is often
referred to as the elastic T -stress.
For the standard CT specimen shown in Figure 1, a SIF expression is given by Brown and
Srawley (1966) for the crack length to depth ratio 0.45 < = a/b < 0.55

(8)
KI = b(29.6 1/2 185.5 3/2 + 655.7 5/2 1017.0 7/2 + 638.9 9/2 )
where = P /b, and P is the load per unit thickness. Newman (1974) and Srawley (1976)
gave the following SIF solution which is claimed to have 0.5% accuracy for > 0.2 (see also,
Tada et al., 1985; Fett, 2002)
2P (2 + )
(0.443 + 2.32 6.66 2 + 7.36 3 2.8 4 )
KI =
b(1 )3/2

(9)

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen

For the elastic T -stress of the standard CT specimen (Figure 1) with 0.2 0.7,
the solutions of Cotterell (1970), of Leevers and Radon (1982), and of Kfouri (1986) can be
respectively fitted as (Sherry et al., 1995)
T
= 6.063 78.987 + 380.46 2 661.79 3 + 428.45 4 ;

(10)

T
= 1.996 + 10.169 + 10.546 2

(11)

T
= 2.616 + 8.019 + 16.421 2

(12)

and

Sherry et al. (1995) showed that the above solutions are identical only for 0.5 < < 0.6.
Recently, Fett (2002) gave the following expression for the biaxiality ratio B

0.2 + 2.0307 + 0.675 2 7.4756 3 + 6.349 4 1.0772 5

T a
(13)
=

B=
KI
1
As for the coefficients an of terms higher than order two (n > 2), to the authors best
knowledge, no reference solutions are available in the published literature.
Recently, the authors (Karihaloo and Xiao, 2001ac) extended the hybrid crack element
(HCE) originally introduced by Tong et al. (1973) for evaluating the SIF to calculate directly
(i.e., without the use of the energy related quantities like the J -integral, or other extra postprocessing) not only the SIF but also the coefficients of the higher order terms of the crack tip
asymptotic field. Extensive studies have proved the versatility of the element. In this paper, it
will be used to compute the coefficients an of the crack tip asymptotic field of the standard CT
specimen (Figure 1).
Approximate expressions for the SIF, as well as coefficients an of the higher order terms
that are accurate for shallow to very deep cracks will be given by fitting the computed results.
The computed SIFs and the T -stress will also be used to validate the known results mentioned
above.
2. Definition of the dimensionless shape functions
Consider the standard CT specimen shown in Figure 1, the SIF, the T -term and the coefficients
a3 , a4 and a5 of the third to fifth order terms may be normalized to be dimensionless as follows:
k() =

a1
KI

=
2 b
b

(14)

t () =

a2
T
=
4

(15)

g3 () =

a3

/ b

(16)

g4 () =

a4
/b

(17)

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

Figure 2. A typical n-node polygonal HCE. (a) For mixed mode crack; (b) For a pure mode I or mode II crack.

g5 () =

a5
/b1.5

With the use of (14), KI (8) can be normalized as

1
k() = (29.6 1/2 185.5 3/2 + 655.7 5/2 1017.0 7/2 + 638.9 9/2 ),
2
and KI (9) can be normalized as
2(2 + )
(0.443 + 2.32 6.66 2 + 7.36 3 2.8 4 )
k() =
2 (1 )3/2
Formula (13) can be rewritten as

2k()
T
B.
=

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

3. HCE for accurate determination of SIF and coefficients of higher order terms
In this section, for completeness, we will discuss briefly an n-node polygonal HCE with padaptivity as shown in Figure 2. For details, refer to Karihaloo and Xiao (2001a). We ignore
the body force and assume that no element boundary displacements have been prescribed. The
simplified variational functional for formulating the HCE

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen
5


1
1
( Ti T i )ui ds
Ti ( ui 
ui )ds
(22a)
%em =
e
e
2
2

S
A
or in matrix form


1
e
T 1
u ( T T )ds
( uT 
uT )T ds
%m =
e
e
2
2

S
A

(22b)

can be obtained from either the modified elemental Hellinger-Reissner functional or the potential functional with relaxed continuity requirements after enforcing the equilibrium and
compatibility conditions within the element. The boundary of the element, Ae , is composed
of the segment Se on which the tractions T i are prescribed and the interelement boundary,
e = Ae Se , common with the adjacent elements. Displacements ui and boundary
A
ui
tractions T (= ij nj ) are independent of the other elements, but boundary displacements 
e . ij denote
have to be the same for the two elements over their common boundaries A
stresses, and nj are the direction cosines of the unit outward normal to Ae . Subscripts i and
j take the values 1 and 2, and the summation convention on repeated indices is used.
Note that the simplified functional (22) is only stationary with respect to variations in
stresses ij or boundary tractions Ti , or equivalently, in displacements ui and boundary displacements 
ui . A compatible displacement field is required only along the element boundaries
instead of the entire element, thus an n-node polygonal element with p-adaptivity can be
easily formulated.
In the formulation of elements using the simplified functional (22), the assumed element
displacement and stress fields, ui and ij , should meet the equations of equilibrium and the
stress-displacement relations. They should not include any rigid body or zero energy modes;
otherwise the inversion of matrix H in (32)(34) in the following is impossible. If the truncated N terms of the Mode I crack tip asymptotic field (15) are used in assuming the element
displacements ui and boundary tractions Ti , we have


N


f1n (r, )
an = U
(23)
u=
f2n (r, )
n=1

(r,
)
f
3n

f4n (r, ) an = P
=

n=1

f (r, )

(24)

5n

where functions fin (r, ), i = 1, . . . , 5, can be easily identified from (15). Obviously, the
components of vector are the coefficients an .
The boundary tractions are
T = R
(25)


n1 0 n2
P . The interelement boundary displacements 
ui may be written in a
with R =
0 n2 n1
matrix form as functions of the nodal displacements

u = Lq

(26)

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

The L matrix will be constructed in such a way that 

u varies linearly between any two adjacent
nodes in order to connect it compatibly with the respective standard linear elements. Consider
the boundary segment between two adjacent nodes, i and i + 1, as shown in Figure 2. The
linearly varying 
u between nodes i and i + 1 can be written as

ui




i
N1 0 N2 0
(27)

u=
ui+1
0 N1 0 N2

i+1
where N1 = (1 )/2 and N2 = (1 + )/2 are shape functions, and (ui , i ) the displacements
at node i. The local coordinate is = 1 at node i, and = 1 at node (i + 1). The x and y
coordinates within the segment are

xi


 

x
N1 0 N2 0 yi
(28)
=
xi+1
0 N1 0 N2
y

yi+1
coordinates of node i. From (28), we have the determinant of the
where (xi , yi ) are the 
Jacobian matrix J = (xi+1 xi )2 + (yi+1 yi )2 /2, which is half the length of the segment. Substituting (23), (25) and (26) into functional (22), we can express the elemental
characteristic matrices H , G and Q as follows

 (xi+1 ,yi+1 )
 (xi+1 ,yi+1 )

1
(U T R + R T U )ds
(U T R + R T U )ds
H =

2
e (xi ,yi )
i,i+1Se (xi ,yi )
i,i+1 A

 1

 1
1

(29)
(U T R + R T U )J d
(U T R + R T U )J d
=

2
e 1
e 1

i,i+1 A

G=

e
i,i+1 A

Q=


i,i+1Se

i,i+1S

(xi+1 ,yi+1 )

L Rds =
T

(xi ,yi )
(xi+1 ,yi+1 )

e
i,i+1 A

U T ds =
T

(xi ,yi )


i,i+1Se

LT RJ d

(30)

1
1

U T T J d

(31)

e are performed only along the element outer boundary away from the crack
Integrations on A
tip, thus avoiding errors due to the area integration of the singular integrand. Karihaloo and
Xiao (2001a) show that three-point Gauss integration ensures good accuracy. Integrations on
crack faces Se may be carried out analytically; if they are traction-free, as in most cases, the
integrals vanish. The element stiffness matrix
K e = GH 1 GT ,
the consistent nodal force vector

(32)

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen
f e = GH 1 Q,

7
(33)

and the coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field can be obtained via
= H 1 GT q H 1 Q.

(34)

The element must satisfy the following condition for stability

n nq nr

(35)

where n and nq are the number of element stress and nodal displacement parameters employed in (24) and (26), respectively, and nr (= 3 for two-dimensional problems) the number
of independent rigid body modes. If (35) becomes an equality, the best parameter matching
condition is attained.
If we restrict our attention to pure mode I or mode II crack problems, the half polygonal
element with n nodes shown in Figure 2(b) may be used for constructing the HCE by exploiting the symmetric (mode I) or asymmetric (mode II) conditions along the line of extension of
the crack. As
u2 = 0 and T1 = 0 in case of mode I,
and
u1 = 0 and T2 = 0 in case of mode II,
we need only integrate along the outer boundary and avoid integrations along the line of
extension of the crack. For the case of pure mode II, the second term in the Williams expansion
should be dropped in the element formulation, otherwise it will result in a spurious zero energy
mode.
4. Finite element computations
Without loss of generality, the width b is chosen as 1. Only one half of the specimen needs
to be considered because of symmetry. The load P is assumed to be 1 per unit thickness, and
applied on the specimen through three adjacent nodes with amplitudes of 0.25, 0.5 and 0.25,
as in Chan et al. (1970) who derived the SIFs by extrapolating the displacement to the crack
tip. The crack length to depth ratio is varied from 0.05 to 0.8.
Karihaloo and Xiao (2001a) showed that the accurate determination of the coefficients of
higher order terms requires a higher order HCE together with a finer discretisation of the
remainder of the body. In order to guarantee the accuracy of the HCE, finite elements for
modelling the remainder of the body should give results of the far field with high accuracy.
Thus a 21-node HCE (the first 39 terms in (15) are included in the element formulation)
together with a relatively fine discretisation of the remainder of the body will be used. Threepoint Gauss integration is used in the HCE. The PS element (Pian and Sumihara, 1984; Pian
and Wu, 1988) is used in conjunction with the HCE, and the traction-free conditions on the
exterior boundary, as well as the loading hole are exactly satisfied using the special hybrid
stress boundary element HBE (Xiao et al., 1999). 2 2 and 3 3 Gauss quadratures are
employed for the formulation of PS and HBE, respectively. All the computations can be
carried out on an advanced PC. The finite element meshes used in the computations are shown
in Figure 3. The coordinate system used is the same as that shown in Figure 1. The HCE is

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

Figure 3. Finite element meshes: (a) = 0.05, a HCE surrounded by 1450 four-node elements giving a total of
1560 nodes; (b) = 0.1, a HCE surrounded by 1200 four-node elements giving a total of 1300 nodes; (c) = 0.2,
a HCE surrounded by 1050 four-node elements giving a total of 1140 nodes; (d) = 0.3, a HCE surrounded by
750 four-node elements giving a total of 830 nodes; (e) = 0.4, a HCE surrounded by 850 four-node elements
giving a total of 935 nodes; (f) = 0.5, a HCE surrounded by 750 four-node elements giving a total of 830
nodes; (g) = 0.6, a HCE surrounded by 850 four-node elements giving a total of 935 nodes; (h) = 0.7, a
HCE surrounded by 750 four-node elements giving a total of 830 nodes; (i) = 0.8, a HCE surrounded by 850
four-node elements giving a total of 935 nodes.

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen

Figure 3. Continued.

symmetric about the y-axis; it is a rectangular with its length (in x-direction) twice that of its
height (in y-direction). The scaled coordinate axes are also included in Figure 3 to show the
location of the HCE relative to the rest of the mesh. The total number of elements and nodes
are indicated in the figure caption. Instead of the element combinations above, if we use only
general non-singular or singular elements together with the meshes in Figure 3, accurate SIFs
may be obtained via the J - or alternative energy related integrals. However, the coefficient of
each higher order term needs to be determined separately with special techniques. Generally,

10

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

Figure 3. Continued.

the accuracy deteriorates quickly with the increase of the order of the term. On the other
hand, the HCE determines the SIF as well as the higher order terms simultaneously with high
accuracy.
As the coefficients an in the asymptotic expansions (15) are independent of the material
constants, in the computations Youngs modulus E is set at 1, and Poissons ratio at 0.25. The

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen

11

Figure 3. Continued.

units of loading (Figure 1) are consistent with that of E. A state of plane stress is considered
with thickness assumed to be 1.

12

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

Figure 3. Continued.
Table 1. Results of the dimensionless shape functions for the first five
terms of a standard CT specimen.
= a/b

k()

t ()

g3 ()

0.05
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80

1.2173
1.3060
1.7031
2.2390
2.8949
3.8343
5.4313
8.5914
16.3894

0.9173
0.7493
0.3717
0.4079
0.6950
1.0378
1.4325
2.1841
4.7180

4.2158
2.7925
1.4404
2.1290
3.4584
5.2621
8.6699
17.7671
52.0358

g4 ()
1.3749
3.3874
2.2262
0.0377
0.6544
0.6269
0.8078
2.7625
13.5101

g5 ()
18.6365
18.0819
5.3963
0.4076
0.6038
0.3867
2.4017
12.1356
64.6699

5. Results
For the standard CT specimen shown in Figure 1, the computed dimensionless shape functions
corresponding to coefficients an (1 n 5) are tabulated in Table 1. These results have been
fitted with the following closed-form expressions to a very high accuracy
k() = 373.08 5 567.33 4 + 321.47 3 73.124 2 + 9.8345 + 0.8436

(36)

t () = 294.23 5 520.3 4 + 320.88 3 71.418 2 + 2.3668 + 0.9443

(37)

g3 () = 4774.1 6 + 9231.3 5 7083 4 + 2799.1 3 664.26 2 + 94.265 7.6254

(38)

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen

13

Figure 4. Variation of k() with .

Figure 5. Variation of t () with .

g4 () = 4013.8 6 10191 5 + 10688 4 5797.4 3 + 1639.3 2 204.27 + 5.4205 (39)

g5 () = 24819 6 + 60484 5 58435 4 + 27760 3 6422.2 2 + 563.07 + 3.4375 (40)
The computed k() are compared with formulas (19) of Brown and Srawley (1966) and
(20) of Newman (1974) and Srawley (1976) in Figure 4. It is clear that formula (19) results of
the SIF agree very well with the present finite element method when the crack length to depth
ratio is in the range 0.35 0.75. Formula (20) is identical to (36) when > 0.15.

14

Q.Z. Xiao and B.L. Karihaloo

The computed t () are compared with formulas (10) of Cotterell (1970), (11) of Leevers
and Radon (1982), (12) of Kfouri (1986), and (21) of Fett (2002) in Figure 5. From this
comparison, it is obvious that the accuracy of formulas (1012) is quite disappointing since
they deviate from the finite element results. The accuracy of the latter has been well established
(Karihaloo and Xiao, 2001ac). Formula (21) of Fett (2002) gives reasonable results only for
0.45 < < 0.75.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn from the results obtained:
(1) For the standard CT specimen (Figure 1), approximate closed-form expressions for the
SIF as well as coefficients of the second to fifth order terms that are accurate for shallow to
very deep cracks have been obtained by fitting the data computed using the HCE.
(2) Formula (8) of Brown and Srawley (1966) predicts the SIF very accurately when 0.35
0.75 that is much larger than the recommended range 0.45 0.55. Formula (9) of
Newman (1974) and Srawley (1976) is accurate for 0.15. However, formula (36) is
preferable in practical applications since it is much simpler than (20) (or (9)).
(3) The accuracy of available formulas for the second T -term is quite disappointing. Formula
(37) developed in this paper, on the other hand predicts accurate T -stresses for shallow to very
deep cracks. It should be mentioned that the second T -term of the CT specimen is always
positive (see Table 1), while for the notched three-point bend beam (Karihaloo and Xiao,
2001b), and the wedge splitting specimen (Karihaloo and Xiao, 2001c), it varies from negative
to positive when the crack is shallow to when it is deep.
Acknowledgement
Financial support from the EPSRC under grant number GR/M 78106 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Brown, W.F. and Srawley, J.E. (1966). Plane strain crack toughness testing of high strength metallic materials.
ASTM STP 410, Philadelphia.
Chan, S.K., Tuba, I.S. and Wilson, W.K. (1970). On the finite element method in linear fracture mechanics. Engng.
Fract. Mech. 2, 117.
Cotterell, B. (1970). On fracture path stability in the compact tension test. Int. J. Fract. Mech. 6, 189192.
Du, Z.Z. and Hancock, J.W. (1991). The effect of non-singular stresses on crack tip constraint. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 39, 555567.
Fett, T. (2002). T-stress Solutions and Stress Intensity Factors for 1-D Cracks. VDI Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Karihaloo, B.L. (1999). Size effect in shallow and deep notched quasi-brittle structures. Int. J. Fract. 95, 379390.
Karihaloo, B.L., Abdalla, H.M. and Xiao, Q.Z. (2002). Size effect in concrete beams. Engng. Fract. Mech. (in
press).
Karihaloo, B.L. and Xiao, Q.Z. (2001a). Accurate determination of the coefficients of elastic crack tip asymptotic
field by a hybrid crack element with p-adaptivity. Engng. Fract. Mech. 68, 16091630.
Karihaloo, B.L. and Xiao, Q.Z. (2001b). Higher order terms of the crack tip asymptotic field for a notched threepoint bend beam. Int. J. Fract. 112, 111128.
Karihaloo, B.L. and Xiao, Q.Z. (2001c). Higher order terms of the crack tip asymptotic field for a wedge-splitting
specimen. Int. J. Fract. 112, 129137.

Coefficients of the crack tip asymptotic field for a standard compact tension specimen

15

Karstensen, A.D., Nekkal, A. and Hancock, J.W. (1997). The constraint of elastic-plastic crack tip fields. Advances
in Fracture Research, Proceeding of ICF9 (Edited by B.L. Karihaloo, et al.), Pergamon, Oxford, 20072014.
Kfouri, A.P. (1986). Some evaluations of the elastic T-term using Eshelbys method. Int. J. Fract. 30, 301315.
Leevers, P.S. and Radon, J.C. (1982). Inherent stress biaxiality in various fracture specimen geometries. Int. J.
Fract. 19, 311325.
Newman, J.C. (1974). Stress analysis of compact specimens including the effects of pin loading. ASTM STP 560,
105.
Nikishkov, G.P. (1998). A fracture concept based on the three-term elastic-plastic asymptotic expansion of the
near-crack tip stress field. Fracture: a topical encyclopedia of current knowledge, (Edited by G.P. Cherepanov),
Malabar, Krieger Pub Co, Florida, 557574.
ODowd, N.P. and Shih, C.F. (1991). Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter: Part I
structure of fields. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 39, 939963.
Owen, D.R.J. and Fawkes, A.J. (1983). Engineering Fracture Mechanics: Numerical Methods and Applications.
Pineridge Press Ltd., Swansea, UK.
Pian, T.H.H. and Sumihara, K. (1984). Rational approach for assumed stress finite elements. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Engng. 20, 16851695.
Pian, T.H.H. and Wu, C.C. (1988). A rational approach for choosing stress term of hybrid finite element
formulations. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 26, 23312343.
Sherry, A.H., France, C.C. and Goldthorpe, M.R. (1995). Compendium of T-stress solutions for two and three
dimensional cracked geometries. Fatig. Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct. 18, 141155.
Srawley, J.E. (1976). Wide range stress intensity factor expressions for ASTM E399 standard fracture toughness
specimens. Int. J. Fract. 12, 475476.
Tada, H., Paris, P.C. and Irwin, G.R. (1985). The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. 2nd ed., Paris Productions,
St. Louis, Missouri.
Tong, P., Pian, T.H.H. and Lasry, S.J. (1973). A hybrid element approach to crack problems in plane elasticity. Int.
J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 7, 297308.
Williams, M.L. (1957). On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack. J. Appl. Mech. 24, 109114.
Xiao, Q.Z., Karihaloo, B.L. and Williams, F.W. (1999). Application of penalty-equilibrium hybrid stress element
method to crack problems. Engng. Fract. Mech. 63, 122.