Materials Performance and

Characterization
Marius Gintalas,1 Antanas Ziliukas,2 and Robert A. Ainsworth3

DOI: 10.1520/MPC20130053

New Equation for the

Plastic Correction Factor
 for J-Integral
Determination from Test
Results of Three-PointBend Specimens
VOL. 3 / NO. 3 /

2014

Materials Performance and Characterization

doi:10.1520/MPC20130053

Vol. 3

No. 3

2014

available online at www.astm.org

Marius Gintalas,1 Antanas Ziliukas,2 and Robert A. Ainsworth3

New Equation for the Plastic

Correction Factor g for J-Integral
Determination from Test Results
of Three-Point-Bend Specimens
Reference
Gintalas, Marius, Ziliukas, Antanas, and Ainsworth, Robert A., New Equation for the Plastic
Correction Factor g for J-Integral Determination from Test Results of Three-Point-Bend
Specimens, Materials Performance and Characterization, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2014, pp. 125143,
doi:10.1520/MPC20130053. ISSN 2165-39924

ABSTRACT

When material yielding occurs, the stress intensity factor, K, no longer

Manuscript received September
29, 2013; accepted for publication
December 18, 2013; published
online March 21, 2014.

correctly characterizes the magnitude of the stress eld around the crack tip.
For signicant amounts of yielding, the J-integral approach is applied as an
advanced tool. In practice, for many engineering applications, the non-linear
plasticity effects are of importance and therefore material behavior beyond

The Univ. of Manchester,

Manchester M60 1QD, United
Kingdom.
Klaipeda Univ., Klaipeda, Bijunu 17,
91225, Lithuania.
The Univ. of Manchester,
Manchester M13 9PL, United
Kingdom.
This paper is a contribution to a
Special Issue of Materials
Performance and Characterization
on Fracture Toughness, Guest
Editors, Bojan Podgornik and
Votjeh Leskovsek, Institute of
Metals and Technology, Ljubljana,
Slovenia.

yield needs an accurate description for input to tools for assessment. This work
presents J-integral values of two different steel grades (1006 and 4340) using
a newly developed analytical approach for the correction factors gpl , which
takes into account the elasticplastic properties of the material. The evaluation
approach is based on absorbed energies in a Charpy-sized specimen during
the elastic and plastic deformation phases. Values of these energy terms were
obtained via numerical simulation of 1006 and 4340 steel Charpy-sized
specimens loaded in three-point-bending. This work highlights the effect of
materials plastic properties on the J-integral. Different steel grades show
different amounts of plasticity dened by the strain-hardening exponent and
the strain-hardening constant and these inuence the fracture parameters.
Application of the plastic correction factor gpl to Charpy-sized specimens,
considering the respective plastic properties of the materials, leads to values
of gpl equal to 2.286 for 1006 steel and 2.621 for 4340 steel.

C 2014 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
Copyright V

125

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

126

Keywords
three-point-bend test, fracture toughness, load-line displacement

Introduction
The three-point-bend specimen has a simple form and relatively simple installation
in the testing machine. The pre-cracked bend specimen [SEN(B)] is often used to
determine static and dynamic [1,2] fracture toughness. This type of specimen has
found application for a wide range of materials: aluminum alloy [3], coal [4], alumina [5], concrete [6], polymeric foam [7], rock [8], soda-lime glass [9], and
ceramics [10] testing. SEN(B) has been successfully used for stress intensity factor or
J-integral measurement.
The J-integral is a non-linear fracture mechanics parameter commonly used for
elasticplastic structural resistance assessment. In the post-yield regime, linear elastic
fracture mechanics is not valid, but for fracture assessments the J-integral is applicable. The elasticplastic energy release rate parameter is valid for cracked specimens
and components (for instance, tubular K-joints [11], pipes, and pipes bends, [12,13])
for a wide range of load levels. Rice in 1973 derived an expression for evaluating the
J-integral from measurements on the test specimens [14]:
J

(1)

gU
B W  a

where:
g a non-dimensional parameter, which depends on specimen type and size,
U the fracture energy absorbed by specimen,
B specimen width,
W specimen width, and
a crack length.
In determining toughness values from test records, it is convenient to use J estimation methods based on the area under the load-displacement curve, as a separate
description of the material stressstrain response is not required to apply Eq 1. The
inuence of specimen geometry and loading (tension or bending for example) is
accounted for via the g factor. Sumpter and Turner in 1976 proposed to separate the
total value J into elastic Jel and plastic Jpl components [15]:
(2)

J Jel Jpl gel

Upl
Uel
gpl
BW  a
BW  a

where:
Uel and Upl elastic and plastic components of absorbed energy, and
gel and gpl separate elastic and plastic g factors.
The elastic factor gel can be derived from elastic compliance analysis of a test
specimen whereas gpl was derived from limit load solutions. Existing solutions for
gpl for standard laboratory specimen geometries (Fig. 1), such as single edge tension
SE(T), center cracked tension CC(T), compact tension C(T), and double edge tension DE(T) are presented in Table 1.
Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

127

FIG. 1
Geometry of test specimens:
(a) single edge tension [SE(T)],
(b) double edge tension DE(T),
(c) center cracked tension
[CC(T)], and (d) compact
tension [C(T)].

Some gpl solutions depend on the ratio between crack length and specimen
width. Some solutions for gpl for DE(T) and CC(T) also depend on strain hardening
exponent n. Ideal expressions for gpl should be capable of including the inuence of
both crack length and elasticplastic material properties, although inclusion of the
latter makes the assessment more complex as an estimate of strain hardening for the
material used in the fracture test is required.
For deeply cracked three-point-bend specimens (Fig. 2), Rice suggested, that
g 2. However, not all specimens are deeply cracked and tested in bending and it
can be seen from Table 1 that application of value g 2 is not generally appropriate.
The value g is important as it directly affects the value of the evaluated fracture
toughness.
In 1987, a polynomial expression for gpl for SEN(B) was rst presented by
Sumpter (Eq 1 in Table 2) [22]. This form was widely adopted for use and more
expressions for gpl were developed later for various crack lengths including deep and
shallow cracks (Table 2). It should be noted that forms of gpl listed in Table 2 are
valid for specimen with b 4 (see Fig. 2).
These formulae summarized in Table 2 do not depend on mechanical material
properties. However, different steel grades result in different levels of plasticity and
during plastic deformation the compliance of a specimen also depends on material
plastic properties. Therefore, this paper develops a new equation for gpl able to take
into account both specimen size and materials properties. The derivation procedure
for estimating gpl using cracked beams plastic displacement is presented below.

TABLE 1
gpl Solutions for laboratory specimens.
Specimen Type

gpl
2

Limits of Application

References
[16]

SE(T)

2:6803 0:7460a=W  1:6581a=W

a=W  0:545
a=W > 0:545

DE(T)

1:0 1:0829a=W  3:5402a=W 2

1=1:3  1=n
for plane stress:
0:7942a=W 2 1:8766a=W 0:0327;
for plane strain:
0:5889a=W 0:2534

0:25  a=W  0:75

1  1=n

[19]

2 0:522B=W

[20,21]

CC(T)
C(T)

Materials Performance and Characterization

[17]
[18]

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

128

FIG. 2
Geometry of SEN(B) specimen.

Determination of g Coefficient
DETERMINATION OF gel COEFFICIENT

This section presents a derivation procedure for gel based on elastic compliance of
specimens. Elastic components of integrals is related to stress intensity factors and
as an option can be evaluated by well-known stress intensity factor solutions for
SEN(B) specimens. However, the aim of introducing a derivation procedure for gel
is to show details and algorithms, because the same approach with some modications is used for gpl development.
During elastic deformation [31]:
Jel gel

(3)

Uel
BW  a

The elastic component Jel is related to the energy released rate G [32]:
Jel G

(4)

F 2 dCcel a
2B da

TABLE 2
Different function of gpl for SEN(B) specimen.
gpl

No.

0:32 12a  49:5a 99a

2:0

13:818a  25:124a2
1:90 0:138a

4
5
6
7

References

a > 0:282
a < 0:282

[20,22,23]

0 > a > 0:275

[24,25]

0:275 < a < 1:0

0:05 < a < 0:5

[26]

0:315 8:926a  11:433a2

a < 0:325

[20,23,27]

2:0
1:620 0:850a  0:651a2

a > 0:325

"
2

1  a1:3096  1:6314a
0:9534 1:3096a  0:8157a2

0:25 < a < 0:70

a < 0:2

1:749a2 2:828a 0:887

"
2

2:0
1  a0:892  4:476a
1:125 0:892a  2:238a2

2  0:081  a
8

Limits of application

2:288a5  16:754a4 34:12a3

2

 29:892a 12:065a 0:139

Materials Performance and Characterization

[20]
[28]

a > 0:2
0:021 < a < 0:172

[29]

a > 0:172
a > 0:05

[30]

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

129

where:
F applied force;
Ccel a specimen compliance because of the presence of the crack; and
a a=W.
Equations 3 and 4 can be combined to give:
F 2 dCcel a
Uel
gel
2B da
BW  a

(5)

Then rearranging Eq 5:
gel

(6)

F 2 dCcel a W  a
2 da
Uel

The relation between cracked specimen elastic mid-span displacement del, load
F and compliance C el a is:
F del =C el a

(7)

Then elastic strain energy Uel is:

1
Uel F  FCel a
2

(8)

Combining Eqs 6 and 8 gives:

(9)

gel

W  a dCcel a
C el a
da

gel

1  a dCcel a
C el a
a

or
(10)

To evaluate gel according to Eq 10, compliance is needed. In general, the compliance of a cracked specimen C el a is the sum of the compliance of the un-cracked
specimen C0el and the compliance due to the crack Ccel a:
(11)

C el a C0el Ccel a

Several equations have been proposed in the literature to dene the compliance
of un-cracked three-point-bend specimens. These equations depend on elastic modulus E. The values of BECel0 are summarized in Table 3 for b 4 and Poissons ratio
 0:3. Obviously, different formulae lead to different values of compliance BECel0 ,
which affects the total compliance of the specimen C el a.
To assess specimen compliance due to the crack Ccel a is more complicated, but
can be related to stress intensity factor solutions. Formulae used to evaluate the compliance caused by the crack presence in the elastic regime for b 4 are listed in Table 4.
The compliance Ccel a of Eq 1 from Table 4 can be written as:
(12)

Ccel a

Materials Performance and Characterization

3
b2 f4 a
2BE

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

130

TABLE 3
Different expressions of an un-cracked specimens compliance calculation.
BECel0

No.

Value
3

0:25  S=W


0:25  S=W 3 1 2:85W=S2 0:84W=S3


0:25  S=W 3 1 2:41  W=S2


0:24S=W 3 1:04 3:281  W=S2


0:25  S=W 3 1 0:212 11  W=S2

1
2
3
4
5

References

16.00

[33,34,35]

18.64

[33,36,37,38]

19.12
20.07

[33,39]
[33,40]

19.06

[33]

where:
b S=W, and
(13)

"
#
5:58  19:57a 36:82a2 34:94a3
a2
f4 a

1  a2
12:77a4
The differential of compliance dCcel a=da then has the form:
dCcel a 3b2 0
f a

2BE 4
da

(14)

TABLE 4
Correction functions of beams mid-span compliance Ccel (a) because of crack.
BECelc a
 
3 S 2
f4 a
2 W
 
3 S 2
f4 a
2 W

No.
1
2
3
4

S
f4 a
8W 2
 3
S
2c
af4 a
W

f4 a

References


a2
5:58  19:57a 36:82a2 34:94a3

4
12:77a
1  a2


2
a
8:9  33:717a 79:616a2 112:952a3
4
5
2
84:815a 25:672a
1  a
65a2  87:3a3 205a4

[33]
[34]

4:21a  8:89a2 36:9a3 83:6a4

5

[37,39,33,36,41,42]

[40]
8

174:3a 284:8a 387:6a 322:8a

149:8a9

2

S
f4 a
W 1  a

1:193  1:980a 4:478a2  4:443a3 1:739a4

[43,44]

BECel a
6

72f4 a 20
f4 a 1:8625a2 3:95a3 16:3777a4 37:2277a5 77:554a6
126:873a7 175:533a8 143:964a9 66:564a10
!
S2
0:29W 2




0:339
f
a

4
W2
W  a2 log10 1=v0
f4 a 27:11a3 8:56a2 1:77a 0:829

Note: c 1 for plane stress; for plane strain c 1   2 ; v0 impact velocity.

Materials Performance and Characterization

[35,45]

[46]

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

131

where:
f40 a
(15)


2a 
2
3
4
3 5:58  19:57a 36:82a  34:94a 12:77a
1  a

a 2
19:57 73:64a  104:82a2 51:08a3

1a

The compliance component of the un-cracked specimen can be evaluated using

one of the equations from Table 3. Equation 3 provides an average value of compliance
compared with the rest of the equations and in simplied form can be written as:
C0el

(16)

0:25b3 0:78b
BE

The sum of Eqs 12 and 16 is:

(17)

C el a

0; 25b3 0; 78b 1; 5b2  f4 a

BE

Substituting C el a and Ccel a in Eq 9 by Eqs 11 and 13, the nal form of gel is
obtained:
(18)

1:5  1  ab2  f40 a

gel 
0:25b3 0:78b 1:5b2  f4 a

DETERMINATION OF gpl COEFFICIENT

In the elasticplastic regime, the total displacement of the cracked beam dF can be
separated into the displacement of the un-cracked beam dF0 and the displacement
due to the crack dFc :
(19)

dF dF0 dFc

Stresses r in the non-linear part of a stress-strain curve can be written as the

sum of the yield stress ry and the plastic stress above yield [47]:
(20)

r ry rpl

There are many relationships for describing the plastic portion of the stressstrain curve, but here an exponential relation is chosen:
(21)

rpl Cenpl

where:
rpl the plastic stress in Eq 20,
C the strain hardening constant of the material,
n the strain hardening exponent, and
epl the plastic strain.
The stress ry clearly marks the end of elastic response and the beginning of
non-linear behavior of a material. The plastic displacement of an un-cracked beam
is evaluated using the following equation:
2
1 3
 1
n 1
n 2
D
z
z

0:5S

5
(22)
  1
 D 1
dF0 41
n 1
n 2
n 1
Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

132

where:
the parameter D is described by Eq 38, and
z in this case half of the spans length S.
The detailed derivation of this equation for dF0 was introduced in Ref 48. To calculate the total plastic displacement (Eq 19), component dFc is also required. A new
equation for this plastic displacement due to crack is derived below:
Elastic case displacement because of crack is expressed in terms of strain (
rel =E eel , span length S and correction function f4 a [49]:
dFc

(23)

rel
 S  f4 a
E

where:
in view of Eq 7, 12 rel 3FS=2BW2 ,
which is the outer ber stress at the center of the un-cracked beam. It is
assumed that a similar relationship is valid in the plastic case but with eel replaced
by epl .
dFc epl  S  f4 a

(24)

In Eq 24, epl is unknown but it is assumed to be related to the bend radius of

specimen 1, which is equal to [50]:
epl
1

1 0:5W

(25)

From Eq 25, the plastic strain can be expressed as:

(26)

enpl



0:5W n
1

rpl

C
0:5W n
1n

Then according to Eq 21:

(27)

(28)

The bending moment acting on a cross-section A is:

M rpl  0:5WdA
A

(29)

Inserting Eq 27 into Eq 28 leads to:

C
C
n

0:5W


0:5WdA

0:5W n1 dA
M
n
1n A
A1
In the elastic case (n 1:0, the moment of inertia of the cross-section I is equal

to:
(30)

0:5W 2 dA
A

(31)

Similarly, the moment of inertia for a non-linear material is:

I 0:5W n1 dA
A

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

133

Then, the bending moment becomes equal to:

M

(32)

CI
1n

The bend radius can be expressed from Eq 32 and inserted into Eq 26, leading
to the result:
enpl

(33)

W
2

n


M
CI

The differential expression of an un-cracked beam relates bend radius and

deection through:
d2 dF0 1

dz2
1

(34)

or in a different form when the radius of curvature 1 from Eq 32 is inserted into

Eq 34:
d 2 dF0

dz 2

(35)

r
n M
CI

Moment of inertia I is calculated by:

(36)

I 2B

W=2

0:5Wn1 dW

BW n2
2n1 2 n

which leads to the differential expression of displacement:

(37)

d2 dF0

dz2

r 
1=n
F  z  2n1 2 n
n F  z

2CI
2C  B  W n2

where:
F is applied force,
denoting:
(38)

 n

F2 2 n 1=n
CBW n2

Equation 37 may be written in the compact form:

d 2 dF0
Dz 1=n
dz 2

(39)

The right-hand sides of Eqs 35 and 39 are equal:

r
n M
Dz1=n
CI

(40)

thus, Eq 33 can be transformed into:

(41)

n
enpl 0:5WDz1=n

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

134

Finally, the plastic displacement because of the crack is written by inserting Eq

41 into the initial Eq 24.
dFc 0:5WDz1=n  S  f4 a

(42)

(43)

The total plastic displacement of the cracked beam according Eq 19 becomes:

D
z 1=n2
z 0:5S1=n1

dF
D

0:5WDz1=n  S  f4 a
1=n 1 1=n 2
1=n 1

For evaluation of gpl similar relation to that for the elastic factor gel can be used
so that according to Eq 9, the expression of gpl is written as:
gpl

(44)

1  a dCcpl a
C pl a da

The difference between Eqs 9 and 44 occurs in the different forms of elastic and
plastic compliances. For instance, in plastic deformation compliance varies in a nonlinear manner unlike the elastic stage. Because compliance is a function of displacement, it is obtained from the deection equation of the beams mid-span (Eq 43).
"
#
D
z 1=n2
z 0:5S1=n1
W=2  Dz 1=n  S  f4 a

D
1=n 1 1=n 2
1=n 1
d
F
C pl a
F
F
(45)

and
dCcpl a dFc W=2  Dz 1=n  S  f40 a

F
da
F

(46)

Hence, Eq 44 gpl takes the form:

(47)

1  a  W=2  0:5S1=n  S  f40 a

#
0:5S1=n2
0:5S1=n2

W=2  0:5S1=n  S  f4 a
1=n 11=n 2
1=n 1

gpl "

The newly developed Eq 47 shows that gpl depends on strain hardening exponent and specimen size. Eq 47 is valid for any size specimen with S=W 4:0. The
relation between the resulting values of gpl for standard Charpy-sized specimens and
the material strain hardening exponent n is shown in Fig. 3.
To illustrate the difference between the usual plastic factor solutions based only
on crack size and the new approach based on crack size and material properties,
gpl  a curves are plotted in Fig. 4. It should be mentioned that Eq 47 is suitable for
use if elimination of the inuence of strain hardening is needed, provided deep
cracks are of interest. Also, gpl  a curve, for n 1:0 becomes similar to the common curve.
By analyzing Fig. 4. and comparing the gpl  a curves with and without the material strain hardening effect, it is possible to assess the inuence of different levels of
plasticity usually not considered in the literature [51] when the deep crack solutions
are used. An advantage of explicit Eq 47 is to give values of plastic factor for any n.
Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

FIG. 3
Theoretical relation between
values of gpl and strain
hardening exponent n. Curve is
valid for Charpy-sized
specimen with a 0.2, W 10,
and S 40 mm.

Equation 47 is valid for static and dynamic loading conditions. The derivation procedure for estimating gpl can be applied to four-point-bend specimens or components like circumferentially through-wall cracked pipe subjected to bending
moment.

Numerical Modeling
To assess the inuence of the different deformation behavior of two types of steel,
numerical simulations of the three-point-bend test were performed. It was decided
to demonstrate this behavior under conditions of dynamic loading as Charpy specimens mostly nd application for this type of loading.
Numerical modeling of dynamically loaded specimens has been carried out
using an ANSYS 14.0 software package based on a nite element method. An
explicit dynamic method was chosen for application. This method is used for solving
solid collisions and penetration, as well as assessing the characteristics of nonlinear

FIG. 4
Comparison of gpl obtained by
developed Eq 27 and Eq 8 from
Table 2. Curves are valid for a
Charpy-sized specimen with
a 0.2.

Materials Performance and Characterization

135

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

136

materials, large deformations, and fracture. The AUTODYN solver, which is integrated into the ANSYS package, was used for simulation.
The Johnson-Cook material model was applied to describe the deformation of
the material of the specimen during impact. This constitutive model includes the
same plastic stressstrain relation, which was used to derive the plastic eta factor in
earlier in this paper. The attractiveness of this model and its frequent application is
caused by its ability to evaluate temperature and strain rate effects simultaneously. It
is often used in ballistic simulations of steel structures or structural elements. It
describes the strength of metals at large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures. An independent term is created for each of these phenomena, which makes
characterization relatively easy. The material total stress is given by [52]:
(48)

 


h
i
e_pl
T  T0 q
rtot A Cenpl 1 Gln
1
e_0
Tm  T0

where:
e_0 the reference strain rate (1.0 s1);
e_pl the plastic strain rate;
T the reference temperature;
Tm the melting temperature;
T0 room temperature;
A ry is the initial yield stress;
C the strain hardening coefcient;
n the strain hardening exponent;
q the temperature softening exponent; and
G the strain rate coefcient.
At e_pl 1:0s1 and T T0 . Equation 48 takes form:
(49)

(50)

rtot A Cenpl
The strain rate is obtained by [28]:
"
# 
3WQ
ddF
e_pl
2
dt
2S=2

where the stress concentration factor has been set equal to the plastic constraint
factor with values Q 1:94 and 2.57 for Charpy and pre-cracked Charpy specimens,
respectively, and ddF =dt is the load point displacement rate.
The general Johnson-Cook expression for the strain at fracture is given by [39]:
(51)



 


e_p
rm
T  T0
ef D1 D2 exp D3
1 D4 log
1 D5
e_0
req
Tm  T0

where:
rm the average of three normal stresses, and
req the von-Mises equivalent stress.
Parameters D1  D5 are material constants.
Modeling was performed for two different cases: specimens material1006 and
4340 steel. The constants of the Johnson-Cook material and damage model, which
Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

137

TABLE 5
Constants of JohnsonCook model [52,53]
Steel
Material Parameters

1006

Steel
4340

Damage Parameters

1006

4340

A (MPa

350

792

D1

0.8

0.05

C MPa
n

275
0.36

510
0.26

D2
D3

2.1
0.5

3.44
2.12

D4

0.0002

0.022

0.014

1.0

1.0

D5
Elongation at break (%)

0.61
20

0.002
0.61
7

describe behavior of both steel grades, are listed in Table 5. Equation 49 leads to the
lowest applied strain rate equals to 1:0 s1 for steel with constants A, C, n from
Table 5.
The initial parameters of the projectile are: velocity 5:34 m=s; kinetic energy
126:35J. The geometry of the specimen in both simulations was the same: S 40,
B 10, H 10, a 2 mm. Notch radius was equal to 0:25 mm. The view of simulated physical model is shown in Fig. 5. The supports and striker were treated as perfectly rigid. Supports were constrained in all six df. Constraints were applied to the
bottom surfaces of each support. Frictional contact was dened for following contact
pairs: striker-specimen, supports-specimen. This type of contact ensures that surfaces can separate and slide during impact. Sliding friction coefcient was set to 0:57.
The notch area was meshed into 0.1 mm size elements. The model mesh was
composed from eight node quadrilateral elements, including pentahedral elements
in the transition regions. The energy error did not exceed dened limit of 1 % during
0:001s time of simulated impact.
For dynamic toughness testing, an instrumented drop weight tower is commonly used. Impact force and time after impact initiation are measured with piezoelectric or strain gage transducers installed in the striker. Curves of time-impact
force (Fig. 6) and time-load line displacement (Fig. 7) enable determination of the

FIG. 5
Model of three-point-bend
Charpy specimen: (a) the mesh
of the model, (b) the mesh of
the notch tip region, and (c) the
un-deformed and deformed (at
fracture initiation point)
specimen.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

FIG. 6
Relation between impact force
and time after impact initiation.

linear and plastic deformation stages. From the simulation results these curves were
extracted.
From the simulations, the distribution of equivalent von-Mises stress req at the
moment before crack growth started are presented in Fig. 9. This moment corresponds to the end of the plastic deformation phase and the beginning of crack propagation in the material. It also denotes the point of the maximum value of strikers
reaction force in the timeimpact force curve. (Fig. 6).
It was observed that crack growth in 1006 steel specimen initiated at a time
equal to 1:7365  104 s and at 6:9186  105 s in 4340 steel specimen. These time
points coincide with maximum impact force. The equivalent von-Mises stress reqpl
at the initiation moment are 555 MPaand 1018 MPa, respectively. Critical tensile
strain (Table 5) and Johnson-Cook fracture strain (Eq 50) were set as material failure
criteria during analysis.
In the 1006 steel specimen, yielding started at the time 1:2789  105 . This corresponds to reqel 375 MPaat the crack tip. The 4340 steel specimen started to yield
at 2:0501  105 s, when the equivalent stress was reqel 810 MPa.

FIG. 7
Relation between impact force
and load point displacement.

Materials Performance and Characterization

138

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

FIG. 8
Relation between energy
absorbed by specimen and
time after impact initiation.

Calculation of J-Integral
To separate more accurately the elastic and plastic deformation phases during
impact event the variation of stress on the notch tip was tracked (Fig. 9). This curve
clearly indicates elastic (linear part of curve) and plastic deformation stages. It is
necessary to know the end of the elastic and the beginning of the plastic deformation
phases because values Uel and Upl must be obtained to evaluate J. Correction factors
gel and gpl were calculated using Eqs 18 and 47 and the integral by Eq 2. Results are
presented in Table 6.
When the strain hardening is not considered, gpl is equal to 1:603for both steel
grades. It leads to Jpl 160 (steel 1006) and 69 kJ=m2 (steel 4340). The assessment
of material strain hardening via gpl leads to Jpl 228 (steel 1006) and 113 kJ=m2
(steel 4340).

FIG. 9
Variation of equivalent VonMisses stress req on the notch
tip after impact initiation.

Materials Performance and Characterization

139

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

140

TABLE 6
Calculated values of J-integral components.
Steel
1006

4340

1006

4340

n 0:26

n 0:36

n 1:0

n 1:0

gpl

Parameter
Uel J
gel
Jel kJ=m2
Upl J
gpl

0.55
1.401
10

gpl
0.82
1.401
14

7.98
2.286

3.44
2.621

0.55
1.401
10
7.98
1.603

0.82
1.401
14
3.44
1.603

Jpl kJ=m2

228

113

160

69

Jtot kJ=m2

238

127

170

83

Conclusions
The J-integral as a non-linear fracture mechanics parameter can be used to assess
both elastic and plastic fracture. The J-integral can be divided into elastic Jel and
plastic Jpl components. The elastic component Jel is calculated knowing the amount
of energy Uel absorbed by a specimen during impact and a correction factor gel . The
plastic component Jpl is calculated by measuring the amount of energy Upl absorbed
during impact and using the correction factor gpl .
In the plastic deformation phase, i.e., above the yield strength, linear elastic fracture mechanics is not valid. For fracture characterization, the plastic component of
the J-integral marked as Jpl is used. The experimental procedure for determination
of this component is based on the correction factor gpl . On the basis of an equation
for mid-span deection, a new analytical formula for the correction factor gpl has
been derived.
To show the inuence of steels plastic properties, two different grades of steel
were chosen for numerical modeling. The results clearly show that because of distinctly different amounts of stored plasticity in the steels, signicant difference
appears in calculated values of the plastic components of J: Jpl 228 for 1006 steel
and Jpl 113 kJ=m2 for 4340 steel. This is inuenced by both the different absorbed
energy during plastic deformation and by different correction factor values:
gpl 2:286for 1006 steel and gpl 2:621 for 4340 steel. The new equation for gpl
should enable more accurate assessments of fracture toughness allowing for effects
of both crack size and material hardening.

References
[1] Xu, Z. J. and Li, Y. L., Dynamic Fracture Toughness of High Strength Metals
under Impact Loading: Increase or Decrease, Acta Mech. Sin, Vol. 27, No. 4,
2011, pp. 559566.
[2] Chen, A. J. and Cao, J. J., Analysis of Dynamic Stress Intensity Factors of
Three-Point Bend Specimen Containing Crack, Appl. Math. Mech., Vol. 32,
No. 2, 2011, pp. 203210.
Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

[3] Qian, X. and Yang, W., Initiation of Ductile Fracture in Mixed-Mode I and II
Aluminum Alloy Specimens, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 93, 2012, pp. 189203.
[4] Zhao, Y. Z., Zhao, G. F., and Jiang, Y., Experimental and Numerical Modelling
Investigation on Fracturing in Coal under Impact Loads, Int. J. Fract., Vol.
183, 2013, pp. 6380.
[5] Belenky, A., Bar-On, I., and Rittel, D., Static and Dynamic Fracture of Transparent Nanograined Alumina, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 58, 2010, pp. 484501.
[6] Muralidhara, S., Raghu Prasad, B. K., and Singh, R. K., Size Independent Fracture Energy Release Rate in Plain Concrete Beams, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 98,
2013, pp. 284295.
[7] Patrick, J. F., Sottos, N. R., and White, S. R., Microvascular Based Self-Healing
Polymeric Foam, Polymer, Vol. 53, 2012, pp. 42314240.
[8] Ko, T. Y. and Kemeny, J., Determination of the Subcritical Crack Growth Parameters in Rocks Using the Constant Stress-Rate Test, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Mining Sci., Vol. 59, 2013, pp. 166178.
[9] Chlup, Z., Flasar, P., and Dlouhy, I., Response of Inherently Brittle Materials
on Higher Loading Rates, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 77, 2010, pp. 359366.
[10] Garcia-Prieto, A. and Baudin, C., Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Controlled Fracture Tests of Brittle Ceramics, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 30, 2010,
pp. 32973302.
[11] Zhang, Y. and Qian, X., An Eta-Approach to Evaluate the Elastic-Plastic
Energy Release Rate for Weld-Toe Cracks in Tubular K-Joints, Eng. Struct.,
Vol. 51, 2013, pp. 8898.
[12] Koo, J. M., Park, S., and Seok, C. S., Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Nuclear Piping Using Real Pipe and Tensile Compact Pipe Specimens, Nucl. Eng.
Design, Vol. 259, 2013, pp. 198204.
[13] Chattopadhyay, J., Dutta, B. K., and Vaze, K. K., Development of New Correlations for Improved Integrity Assessment of Pipes and Pipe Bends, Nucl. Eng.
Design, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.08.015.
[14] Rice, J. R., A Path-Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of
Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks, J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 35, Vol. 2,
1968, pp. 379386.
[15] Sumpter, J. D. G. and Turner, C. E., Method for Laboratory Determination of
JIC, Cracks and Fracture, STP 601, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1976, pp. 318.
[16] Kim, Y. J., Kim, J. S., Cho, S. M., and Kim, Y. J., 3D Constraint Effects on J
Testing and Crack Tip Constraint in M(T), SE(B), SE(T) and C(T) Specimens:
Numerical Study, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 71, 2004, pp. 12031218.
[17] Wilson, C. D. and Mani, P., Plastic J-Integral Calculation Using the Load Separation Method for the Double Edge Notch Tension Specimen, Eng. Fract.
Mech., Vol. 75, 2008, pp. 51775186.
[18] Kim, Y. J., Son, B. G., and Kim, Y. J., Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Analysis
for Double-Edge Cracked Tension (DE(T)) Plates, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 71,
2004, pp. 945966.
[19] Matvienko, Yu. G., Separable Functions in Load Separation for the gpl
and gplCMOD Plastic Factor Estimation, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 129, 2004, pp.
256278.
Materials Performance and Characterization

141

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

[20] Zhu, X. K., J-Integral Resistance Curve Testing and Evaluation, J. Zhejiang
Univ. Sci. A, Vol. 10, No. 11, 2009, pp. 15411560.
[21] Koo, J. M., Huh, Y., and Seok, C. S., Plastic g Factor Considering Strength
Mismatch and Crack Location in Narrow Gap Weldments, Nucl. Eng. Design,
Vol. 247, 2012, pp. 3441.
[22] Sumpter, J. D. G., JC Determination for Shallow Notched Weld Bend Specimens, Fatigue, Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., Vol. 10, No. 6, 1987, pp. 479493.
[23] Zhu, X. K., Lam, P. S., and Chao, Y. J., Application of Normalization Method
to Fracture Resistance Testing for Storage Tank A285 Carbon Steel, Int. J.
Pressure Vessels Piping, Vol. 86, 2009, pp. 669676.
[24] Schindler, H. J. and Veidt, M., Fracture Toughness Evaluation from Instrumented Sub-Size Charpy-Type Tests, Small Specimens Test Techniques, ASTM
STP 1329, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998, p. 17.
[25] Bohme, W. and Schindler, H. J., Application of Single-Specimen Methods on
Instrumented Charpy Tests: Results of DVM Round-Robin Exercises, Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century of Progress, ASTM STP 1380, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999, p. 10.
[26] Zhang, D. Z. and Lin, J., A General Formula for Three-Point Bend Specimen JIntegral Calculation, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 36, No. 5, 1990, pp. 789793.
[27] Zhu, X. K. and Joyce, J. A., J-Resistance Curve Testing of HY 80 Steel Using
SE(B) Specimens and Normalization Method, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 74, 2007,
pp. 22632281.
[28] Sreenivasan, P. R. and Mannan, S. L., Dynamic J-R Curves and TensionImpact Properties of AISI 308 Stainless Steel Weld, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 101,
2000, pp. 229249.
[29] Wu, S. X., Mai, Y. W., and Cotterell, B., Plastic g-Factor (gpl) of Fracture Specimens with Deep and Shallow Cracks, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 45, 1990, pp. 118.
[30] Sreenivasan, P. R. and Mannan, S. L., Plastic g-Factor for Three-Point
Bend Specimen: Analysis of Instrumented Charpy Impact Test Results for AISI
308 Weld and AISI 316 Stainless Steels, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 101, 2000, pp. 215228.
[31] Grellmann, W., Seidler, S., and Hesse, W., Procedure for Determining the Crack
Resistance Behavior Using Instrumented Impact Test, Centre of Engineering
Sciences, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, 2007, p. 15.
[32] Ziliukas, A., Strength and Fracture Criteria, EMAS, Warrington, U.K., 2011,
p. 165.
[33] Jiang, F., Rohatgi, A., Vecchio, K. S., and Adharapurapu, R. R., Crack Length
Calculation for Bend Specimens under Static and Dynamic Loading, Eng.
Fract. Mech., Vol. 77, 2004, pp. 19711985.
[34] Marur, P. R., Simha, K. R. Y., and Nair, P. S., Dynamic Analysis of
Three Point Bend Specimens under Impact, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 68, 1994, pp.
261273.
[35] Tosal, L., Rodriguez, C., Belzunce, F. J., and Betegon, C., Comparison of the
Static and Dynamic Fracture Behavior of an AE-460 Structural Steel, Eng.
Fract. Mech., Vol. 66, 2000, pp. 537549.
[36] Jiang, F., Ruitang, L., Xiaoxin, Z., Vecchio, K. S., and Rohatgi, A., Evaluation
of Dynamic Fracture Toughness Kld by Hopkinson Pressure Bar Loaded Instrumented Charpy Impact Test, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 71, 2004, pp. 279287.
Materials Performance and Characterization

142

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND

[37] Dutton, A. G. and Mines, R. A. W., Analysis of the Hopkinson Pressure Bar
Loaded Instrumented Charpy Test Using an Inertial Modeling Technique, Int.
J. Fract., Vol. 51, 1991, pp. 187206.
[38] Lucon, E., Dynamic Toughness Testing of Pre-Cracked Charpy V-Notch Specimens, Unclassied, SCK-CEN Belgian Nuclear Research Center, Mol, Belgium, 1999, p. 32.
[39] Haggag, F. and Underwood, J. H., Compliance of a Three-Point Bend Specimen at Load Line, Int. J. Fract., Vol. 26, 1984, pp. 63 65.
[40] Ostensson, B., Some Information from Load Deection Curves, Useful
in Fracture Toughness Testing, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 6, 1974, pp. 473482.
[41] Jiang, F., Rohatgi, A., Vecchio, K. S., and Cheney, J. L., Analysis of the
Dynamic Response for a Pre-Cracked Three-Point Bend Specimen, Int. J.
Fract., Vol. 127, 2004, pp. 147165.
[42] Perter, C. M. and Rodrigues, J. A., Stability of Crack Propagation during Bending Tests on Brittle Materials, Ceramica, Vol. 54, 2008, pp. 382387.
[43] Underwood, J. H., Troiano, E. J., and Abbott, R. T., Simpler Jlc Tests and Data
Analysis Procedures for High Strength Steels, Technical Report ARCCB-TR94001, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center,
Watervliet, N. Y., 1994, p. 20.
[44] Zehnder, A. T., Fracture Mechanics, Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornel University, Ithaca, NY, 2010, p. 227.
[45] Han, D. J. and Choi, S. P., Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Pressure Vessel
Steel Using Charpy Impact Test Specimens, J. Korean Nucl. Soc., Vol. 19, No.
1, 1987, pp. 19.
[46] Angamuthu, K., Guha, B., and Achar, D. R. G., Investigation of Dynamic Fracture Toughness (JId) Behavior of Strength Miss-Matched Q&T Steel Weldments
Using Instrumented Charpy Impact Testing, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 64, 1999,
pp. 417432.
[47] Imad, A., Abdelaziz, N. M., and Mesmacque, G., A Ductile Tear Fracture
Analysis of Lap Welded Joints, Strength Mater., Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 382390.
[48] Ziliukas, A. and Gintalas, M., Dynamic Fracture Criteria Evaluation of Bridge
Structural Steel, Baltic J. Bridges Eng., Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011, pp. 9195.
[49] Tada, H., Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G. R., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook,
3rd ed., ASME, New York, 2000, p. 677.
[50] Moosa, A. S. I. and Mills, N. J., Analysis of Bend Test on Polystyrene Bead
Foams, Polym. Test., Vol. 17, 1998, pp. 357378.
[51] Zhu, X. K. and Joyce, J. A., Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD,
CTOA) Testing and Standardization, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 85, 2012, pp. 146.
[52] Johnson, G. R. and Cook W. H., A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals
Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates and High Temperatures, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, Hague, The Netherlands, April 1921, 1983, pp. 541547.
[53] Adams, B., 2006, Simulation of Ballistic Impacts on Armoured Civil Vehicles,
Ph.D. thesis, MT06.03, Eindhoven University of Technology and PDE Automotive, The Netherlands, p. 101.

Materials Performance and Characterization

Copyright by ASTM Intl (all rights reserved); Sat Sep 6 10:3:35 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Marius Gintalas (The University of Manchester, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Manchester, United Kingdom)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

143