Micromechanisms of Brittle Fracture
ANTHONY W. THOMPSON and JOHN F. KNOTT
Mechanical processes operating in materials on the scale of the microstructure have come to be
called "micromechanisms." The fundamental science and the micromechanisms of brittle frac-
ture are reviewed here, w i t h particular emphasis on cleavage and intergranular fracture. Extant
micromechanisms for these fracture types are evaluated. The role of solutes, particularly in
intergranular fracture, is also discussed in terms of the fundamentals of brittle fracture.
I. INTRODUCTION
I N metals, it is possible to produce brittle fractures
which exhibit virtually no plasticity. More commonly,
deformation accompanies fracture, and it becomes nee-
essary t o define the term "brittle." In this article, w e use
"brittle" to refer to fractures which typically have the
following characteristics: (1) unstable or catastrophic
failure occurs at applied stresses less than the general
yield strength of the uncracked ligament (in a cracked
specimen) at the start of instability; tz] (2) little or no mac-
roscopic plastic strain t o failure is observed; and (3) little
or no evidence, e.g., from fractography, of local or
microstructural-scale plastic strain accompanies failure.
It will be noted that the first characteristic is, in essence,
an engineering one, the second a classical metallurgical
one, and the third relates t o relatively sophisticated ob-
servations on a microscopic or microstructural scale. These
characteristics thus reflect the long history of interest in
brittle fracture a m o n g engineers, metallurgists, and ma-
terials scientists.
The most commonly identified brittle fractures in met-
als are cleavage and intergranular fracture, and w e de-
vote most of our attention here to those two types. Both
are of significance in the world of technology. The dire
practical consequences of the occurrence of cleavage
fracture in engineering structures made in mild steel are
well recognized and documented, while temper embrit-
tlement and other manifestations of intergranular frac-
ture are also well known. In recent years, much emphasis
has been placed on the engineering aspects of brittle
fractures in metals, and the techniques of fracture me-
chanics have been developed t o relate applied fracture
stresses t o the size of any defect present in a structure.
Rather more interest has been shown in the reproducible
measurement of parameters which can be used in engi-
neering design and rather less in the micromechanics of
cracking, whether for cleavage or for other brittle frac-
ture types. The present review is intended partially to
redress this balance, by starting with the fundamentals
of cleavage crack propagation and showing how the as-
sociated mechanisms on a microstructural scale, which
ANTHONY W . THOMPSON, Professor, is with the Department
of Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, P A 15213. JOHN F. K N O T T , Head, is with the School
of Metallurgy and Materials, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
B12 2TT, United Kingdom.
This article is based on a presentation made in the symposium "Quasi-
Brittle Fracture" presented during the T M S fall meeting, Cincinnati,
OH, October 21-24, 1 9 9 1 , under the auspices of the T M S Mechanical
Metallurgy Committee and the A S M / M S D Flow and Fracture
Committee.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
have come t o be called "micromechanisms," may relate
to appropriate engineering design parameters.
II. FUNDAMENTALS
OF B R I T T L E F R A C T U R E
The basic ideas underlying brittle fracture theories are
briefly summarized here, emphasizing points which are
developed below. The ultimate mechanism of brittle
fracture is usually regarded as a simple elastic extension
of atomic bonds up t o the point of final separation. In
such a situation, an approximate value for the ideal frac-
ture strength may be deduced by considering the force
needed to separate two atoms. The familiar schematic
curve for the energy of interaction of two atoms as a
function of the distance between them is shown in
Figure l ( a ) . In the crystalline lattice of a metal such as
iron, this curve would represent the resultant of repul-
sion between bare (positive) iron ions and the attraction
between each ion and other (electron) screened ions.
The simple curve exhibits a minimum at the charac-
teristic initial spacing of the atoms, b0. The force re-
quired to separate the atoms may be derived by taking
the differential of the interaction energy at any g i v e n
separation. As Figure l(b) shows, the force is zero at
the stable rest position of the atoms, where the energy
is at a minimum, and rises t o a m a x i m u m at the point
of inflection in the energy/distance curve. It is to be noted
that there is a negative interaction energy and thus a pos-
itive force even at quite l a r g e separations of the atoms
( ~ 2 b 0 , i.e., a displacement of about b0).
The calculation of theoretical fracture stress proceeds
by transforming the force/displacement curve
(Figure l(b)) first into a stress/displacement curve and
then into a stress/strain curve. The ordinate is converted
t o stress by dividing the force by the square of the inter-
atomic spacing in the fracture surface, and the abscissa
is converted t o strain by dividing the displacement by
the initial separation, b0. The total amount of energy which
must be expended in producing fracture, i.e., the "work
of fracture" per unit area, 2 y , is given by the area under
the stress/displacement curve, which is 2 3/= f o ' ( b ) db.
Then, by approximating the stress/strain curve t o half a
sine wave and using the fact that stress is equal to Young's
modulus multiplied by strain, at low elastic strains, it is
possible to derive for the theoretical fracture stress:
~rth = X/~3,/b0) [11
where E is Young's modulus. Equation [1] is a very
oversimplified expression but does give a reasonable order
VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993--523
 displacement required to produce fracture. In uniaxial
tension, only a hypothetical machine would be suffi-
ciently stiff to prevent unstable separation o f a specimen
into two halves once a stress o f E / 3 had been reached,
(a) but as will be seen from the following, uniaxial tension
is not the appropriate stress state to consider for atomic
fracture, either at c r a c k tips in a laboratory experiment
Distance of separation,b=__ or for engineering applications.

L, A . Griffith Cracks
¢-
W , It is well known that, in practice, samples o f crystal-
line materials and glasses fracture in an apparently elas-
| tic manner at stresses very much less than the ideal fracture
I strength. The reason for this was first given by Griffith,[2~
I
I
I who supposed that such samples contained inherent
I cracklike flaws. He was able to circumvent the awkward
I
I
I
features of crack tip stress fields by considering the global
I changes in potential energy and surface energy (the only
I
I "work o f fracture" considered) in a stressed body as the
I i
length o f a flaw was increased. F o r an infinite body in
(b) plane strain, containing a central, through-thickness crack
o f length 2 a , normal to an applied stress, O'app, the total
I! energy o f the system decreases if a o r O'app is greater than
o
U given by the relationship
0
U- o'avp = [2Ey/rra(1 - 1 ' 2 ) ] 1/2 [2]
, rlb0 Disptacement,b
where v is the Poisson ratio. Substituting typical figures
for i r o n , E = 200 GPa and setting 3' = % , the true sur-
Fig. 1--Interatomic force and energy curves: (a) energy U as a func- face energy, with Ys = 2J/m2, it can be seen that a c r a c k
tion of distance of a t o m i c separation, s h o w i n g magnitude of b o n d i n g of total length o f roughly 1 /xm can produce a fracture
energy Uo, and (b) force-displacement curve corresponding to (a),
with lattice parameter b0 indicated, t~l
stress o f E / 2 0 0 . (The suitability o f Ys for insertion into
E q . [2] for metals is discussed at greater length below.)
For elastic bodies with a well-defined work o f fracture,
this "Griffith equation" should describe the behavior o f
o f magnitude for the i d e a l fracture stress. For a perfect most kinds o f testpieces.
elastic fracture, the work to fracture 2~/may be taken as On a macroscopic scale, the Griffith energy balance
twice the true surface energy o f a material, %, since two has been used to derive "fracture toughness" values for
surfaces are produced. The substitution o f typical ex- precracked specimens o f commercial alloys. In such ma-
perimental values for iron gives o'th - E~oo/3 for fracture terials, l o c a l plastic deformation occurs at the c r a c k tip
across the observed {t013} cleavage planes, where E~00 is before fracture, but it has been found experimentally that
measured normal to these planes. From E q . [1], the frac- unstable propagation is still characterized by a critical
ture plane should be close-packed, to maximize b0, pro- value o f the elastic energy release rate, G~nt, provided
vided that the variation o f E with crystallographic that the extent o f the plastic yielding is small compared
orientation does not have a greater effect. The body- with the dimensions of the testpiece, tl,3~ The fracture stress,
centered cubic (bcc) lattice o f iron does not possess a for an infinite body in plane strain, is then given by
truly close-packed plane, but {110} planes are more closely O'F-= [EGcrit/rra(1 - - 12)]1/2 [3]
packed than are {100} planes. It is arguable that iron
cleaves on {100} because E has a minimum value f o r and the critical energy release rate Gent plays the role o f
(100) directions. 3' and is expended partly in producing two new surfaces
A further point to note is that the nature o f metallic and partly in producing plastic deformation. O r o w a n
bonding is such that the point o f inflection in the energy/ originally suggested a relation between the two com-
distance curve (Figure l(a)), and hence, the maximum ponents o f G c r i t ,[41 and shortly afterward,* Irwin TM in-
in the force/displacement curve (Figure 1(b)), occurs at
*Irwin's 1957 articles are often cited in support of this p o i n t , leav-
a displacement o f the o r d e r o f 0.25 to 0.4b0. It may well ing the i m p r e s s i o n that his idea came years after, and i n ignorance
be that the simple sine wave approximation to the f o r c e / of, Orowan's 1945 article; tal but Irwin cited Reference 4 i n his 1948
displacement curve is inappropriate in framing a defi- overview.t5]
nition o f "fracture." The maximum stress is achieved at
a displacement o f 0.25 to 0.4b0; the assumed displace- dependently made essentially the same suggestion,
ment required to pull atoms sufficiently f a r apart to re- w h i c h i s fl,6]
duce the stress to zero is then 0.5 to 0.8b0. However,
Gcrit = 2 Ys + Yp [4]
in reality, there is still an energy o f interaction at these
distances, and the simple m o d e l may underestimate the where yp is the measure o f the "plastic work" associated

524--VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

with fracture. Two contributions to yp can be distin-
guished: the plasticity associated with loading a c r a c k t o
the point where it can propagate, called "precursor"
workt7] and written a s ~tp(p . . . . . . .r); and the plasticity as-
sociated w i t h the propagation or crack growth process
itself, called Yp(growth~- Thus, the plastic work term could
be written as yp = yp(p. . . . .r) + ")tp(growth)" Experimental
methods to separate these two contributions t o yp have
been devised, as discussed further below.
It is naturally tempting t o convert G,it t o the conven-
tional plane strain fracture toughness, K i t , as discussed
below, through the elastic relation
G = K2(1 - v 2 ) / E [5]
and thus, using estimated values of Ys, to calculate yp
from a measured value of KI¢. For any reasonably tough
material, such a calculation shows that yp is much greater
than 2y~, often by factors of 103 t o 105. We return t o
the interpretation of Eq. [4] in later sections. It is clear,
however, that the meaning, in microstructural terms, of
a given value of fracture toughness, K~c or G,it, can be
derived only if it can be explained why a particular amount
of plastic work was necessary before the material could
fracture. But whenever yp significantly exceeds 7s, it might
be appropriate to define the circumstances as "quasi-
brittle" fracture. Note that the definitions g i v e n for "brit-
tle fracture" in Section I are not necessarily violated in
this situation.
There are several fundamental problems concerned with
application of the foregoing to brittle fracture, e . g . ,
cleavage, in metals. On the atomic scale, it must be de-
cided whether it is reasonable t o expect a pre-existing
crack nucleus to propagate by cleavage in a truly brittle
manner, i . e . , without any yielding at the crack tip. On
the microstructural scale, those features which give rise
to crack nuclei must be identified. Experimental results
from mechanical tests made at different temperatures or
strain rates and under different stress states must be ex-
amined t o decide whether the fracture stress is that nec-
essary to nucleate cracks or to propagate them in the
Griffith manner. Finally, it is instructive to use the frac-
ture criteria derived from a study of the micro-
mechanisms of fracture t o predict values of "fracture
toughness" which are of use in engineering design. W e
begin by examining events on the atomic scale, to assess
whether truly brittle fracture occurs.
B. Conditions at a C r a c k T i p
The question of whether an atomically sharp crack can
or cannot propagate in a brittle manner has been treated
in terms of the ease of fracturing the bond at the crack
tip by tensile stress, compared w i t h that of creating and
propagating dislocations, which cause the crack tip to
blunt. Dislocation production is controlled by shear stress,
the m a x i m u m value of which lies at an a n g l e t o the line
of the crack. The simplest practical example of brittle
fracture occurs in the basal-plane cleavage of mica and
other layer silicates. Here, it is easy t o break the weak
bonds between the close-packed layers and virtually im-
possible to propagate dislocations on any plane at an angle
to the basal plane. Mica can therefore be cleaved across
the close-packed layers in an ideally brittle manner.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
Kelly e t al.t8~ were the first to assess the situation in
physically realistic terms, for a number of metals and
ionic solids, using linear elastic theory to calculate crack
tip stress fields in those materials for which interatomic
potentials were not available, and m a k i n g use of ex-
perimental observations of slip systems and cleavage
planes. The principle of their calculation was t o derive
values for the theoretical shear stress and the theoretical
brittle fracture stress pertaining to the appropriate planes
and t o compare the ratio of these with the m a x i m u m val-
ues of local normal stress and local shear stress that could
be obtained from the applied stress system. In such a
manner, it can be shown, for example, that cracks in
diamond (high Peierls-Nabarro force) will always p r o p -
agate in a brittle manner, while cracks in face-centered
cubic (fcc) metals will always generate plasticity and,
thus, blunt.18.91 The situation for metals of some impor-
tance, such as iron, is less clear, and it appears that a
definitive calculation cannot be made on the basis of
present knowledge.
An alternative approach to this problem is that of frac-
ture mechanics. The crack produces a singular stress field,
the dependence of which upon distance from the crack
tip, r, is as r -1/2 and the strength of w h i c h is g i v e n by
K, the stress intensity factor, which has the value tl'3J
K = O-appVe-~ [6]
for the crack of length 2a in an infinite body. In passing,
it is instructive to noteE7~ that an elegant calculation of
the Griffith energy release rate, G, defined as d W / d a ,
may be made by considering the work done when a crack
is virtually extended from crack length a to a + 6a. Using
Eqs. [5[ and [6] gives, for the failure condition,
G c r i t = OrzFTra(1 -- v2)/E [7]
which is also Eq. [3].
There are obvious problems in using linear elastic stress
analysis to treat crack tip fracture processes, due t o the
singular nature of the stress and displacement fields. As
r approaches zero, the stress and, therefore, strains be-
come infinite; yet as negative r goes t o zero, i . e . , as the
crack tip is approached from the crack side rather than
from the plastic zone side, the displacement between the
crack faces tends to zero. It is clearly necessary t o re-
place the assumed linear relationship between stress and
strain by a more realistic form, such as that in
Figure l ( b ) , in the region of the c r a c k tip.
One method that has been used is to represent the crack
as a distribution of dislocations, for example, of edge
character, with Burgers vector b = bl. A simple rect-
angular approximation t o the force law is m a d e , assum-
ing no failure up t o a limiting stress, o"1, and then
separation at constant stress t o a limiting displacement,
bl, at which complete fracture is deemed to have oc-
curred. This is termed the "cutoff" fracture displace-
ment. The m o d e l is then identical to that investigated by
Bilby et a l . ~°~ for the equilibrium of a crack and plastic
zone. Infinities in stress and discontinuities in displace-
ment disappear. At low stresses, the fracture criterion
becomes
O'app ~-~ [Eorlbl/,lra(1 - v2)] 1/2 [8]
V O L U M E 24A, M A R C H 1 9 9 3 - - 5 2 5
 which is identical t o the Griffith equation (Eq. [2]), if
the area, o-~bl, under the assumed stress/displacement
curve is equated to 2% Choosing values of o'1 = 0.2E
and bl --- 0.5b0 then gives y = 0.05Eb0. With E~00 =
140 GPa and b0 = 0.3 nm, which are the values taken
by Kelly e t al., f81 y would be about 2 J / m2, in good
agreement with % values for iron measured at 1723 K
but about half the value obtained by extrapolation of high-
temperature data to 0 K.
Realistically, fracture surface energies are "effective"
energies which should not be expected IH-15J t o be equal
to true thermodynamic surface energies, Ys, but instead
should be larger than %, as most experimental deter-
minations t~2,~5-18~ have found. The difference is usually
described as a combination of irreversible work, y~, which
includes the effects of local heating as stretched atomic
bonds relax, effects of surface roughness such as cleav-
age steps and other factorst~31 and of any contribution
from Yp~g~owth) in metals. It is then appropriate for metals
to define ~/eff as the sum of these contributions, i . e . ,
"~eff = Ys -4- "~irr -~- Yp(growth)" Gerberich and Kurman, tlSJ
for example, have made a recent determination of 3'~f in
Fe-4 pct Si and arrived at a value of 23 J / m2. This alloy
cleaves with extensive formation of ligaments on the
fracture surface, so it is understandable that the value of
Y~e is larger than the 14 J / m2 determined for iron.
In summary, the work done to determine whether or
not a crack can propagate in a brittle manner in iron has
led to rather indefinite results. For many materials, either
dislocation can be generated easily before a crack can
propagate, or the activation energy for dislocation cre-
ation at a crack tip is so high that the crack must run in
an ideally brittle manner. For iron, the situation is am-
biguous. It is, perhaps, possible that a crack can prop-
agate with a number of dislocations e n s u i t e , although
these would apparently "blunt" the crack.
Kelly et a l . 181 compared shear stresses with a bond
"fracture strength," o'th (Eq. [1]). The use of linear elas-
tic equations in the c r a c k tip region leads, however, to
infinities in stresses. The removal of these by use of a
dislocation model (taking 2 7 = o'Lb~) g i v e s an estimate
of the size of the "end region," R, in which nonlinear
behavior holds, but the value of R depends critically on
that chosen for the fracture "cutoff" displacement, b~.
Use of Barenblatt's more realistic force/displacement
law ~9~ leads to a smoother crack profile, but the use of
a "modulus of cohesion" as a material property, depen-
dent a g a i n on a cutoff displacement, b,, demands an
identity with surface energy, the derivation of which
produces serious conceptual difficulties in definition of
the "work to fracture." (These are compounded if sur-
faces rearrange or reconstruct when they become free,
as happens, for example, in silicon.)
Rice and Thomson,t9~ and later extensions to their
work, r2°'2~'z2J have treated the general problem in a less
doubtful manner, by calculating the ease of producing
dislocations at the Griffith stress, which is derived from
the macroscopic energy balance, properly using linear
elasticity. The resultant equilibrium distances are clearly
within a region at the tip where nonlinear theory should
be used, but their conclusions seem appropriate to the
observed behavior of iron. They still treat the dichotomy
5 2 6 - - V O L U M E 24A, M A R C H 1993
as "propagation with the sharp tip" vs "crack blunting,"
and it may be worth examining this situation more closely.
The type of stress/displacement law shown in
Figure 1(b) indicates that the attainment of O'th (of order
E / 3 ) is a necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, criterion
for separation. The Barenblatt and, t o a smaller extent,
the dislocation m o d e l of a c r a c k b o t h incorporate the ex-
istence of some cohesion across crack faces at displace-
merits greater than that corresponding to crth. The fracture
energy is then a function of the cutoff fracture displace-
ment, bt or bl. Estimates of this lie (probably) in the
r a n g e of 1 to 2b0. In view of the discrepancies observed
between experimental values for iron of work to fracture
(see Section III), y~ff = 14 J / m 2, and that deduced from
surface energies, % = 2 t o 4 J / m 2, it is of interest to
e x a m i n e what effects m i g h t be produced by taking the
critical event not as the attainment of o'th but of a critical
value of cutoff displacement.
In Griffith's Eq. [2], w e substitute a typical fracture
stress, crF = 1 GPa, a value of Ej00 = 140 GPa, and
three values of 3' = 2, 4, and 14 J i m e, respectively. The
equilibrium half crack lengths, a, under this stress are
then: 0.19 /xm, 0.38 /zm, and 1.33 /zm. These cracks
are sufficient to reduce the fracture stress from --48 to
1 GPa. If the c r a c k could be treated simply as a long,
thin ellipse of half length a and root radius p , the stress
concentration at its tip would be 2 X / - a / p , using a linear
elastic stress analysis. The values of p required to give
the necessary stress of 48 GPa for the three equilibrium
cracks would then be of the order of b0, 2b0, and 7b0,
respectively. The first figure, although derived by an im-
proper method, is clearly in agreement with assumed
displacements at a and at the "cutoff": the figure of 2b0
is twice as l a r g e simply because the extrapolated value
for y taken by Kelly et a l . r8J is 4 J/m 2 rather than 2 J / m2.
The figure of 7b0, which corresponds to the experi-
mental value, Yeff = 14 J / mz, is the bluntest that a
1.33-/zm-long Griffith crack can be and still give the
necessary stress, ~rth, at its tip. For any crack sharper
than this, the Griffith (macroscopic energy balance) frac-
ture stress will a p p l y . Now s u p p o s e that a further con-
dition is applied that the "cutoff" displacement must be,
say, 1 to 2b0, t o give separation. In the crack tip envi-
ronment, unlike a smooth tensile specimen, displace-
ment of the crack faces can occur only by producing
strains elsewhere in the (stiffer, because stressed below
~th) body. In uniaxial tension, failure at o'th = E l 3 can
occur at a displacement of 0.25 to 0.4b0 in the tip re-
gion. The production of crack tip dislocations must be
attained in this 1 t o 2b0.
The production of crack tip dislocations in this cir-
cumstance may, then, not simply cause blunting but may
become an integral part of the process by which the crack
faces separate, essentially by allowing displacement which
would not be allowed by a dislocation-free, stiff matrix.
Calculations of the Rice and Thomson type 0,22,23j in-
volve a crack at the Griffith stress: provided that it is
sufficiently sharp t o allow O'th t o be attained, a higher
cutoff displacement, together w i t h a few, essential c r a c k
tip dislocations, can be contemplated but does not appear
t o greatly affect the result,r22j At l o w e r fracture stresses,
say, O'F = 500 MPa, figures for a and p (with Yeee =
14 J / m 2) are 0 . 3 3 / ~ m and 1.75b0, respectively. Such a
METALLURGICAL T R A N S A C T I O N S A
displacement m i g h t not need any dislocations; again,
doubts are difficult t o resolve because the situation is
nonlinear.
The situation in iron may be so delicately balanced
that the necessary compliance in the crack tip region can
be obtained only by the creation of a few dislocations,
which give rise t o an experimental "fracture work" term,
presumably reflecting "Yp(growth), significantly greater than
the surface energy. It is possibly fortuitous that the dia-
gram in Figure 1 of Rice and Thomson's article,tgJ show-
ing a "sharp" and a "blunted" crack tip, indicates that
the crack tip bonds in the "blunt" crack are stretched
relative to those in the "sharp" crack. However, more
detailed treatment of cutoff displacementsE22,23] could,
perhaps, be undertaken with benefit. A second problem
which is becoming resolved is the role of dislocations
nucleated near but not at the tip of the crack, whose mo-
tion can blunt or stress-relieve, i . e . , shield, the crack, t22,24~
T o summarize, the calculations show t h a t , at observed
fracture stresses, crack nuclei of total length 0.4 to
2.67 /zm exist to account for the reduction in fracture
strength from ~48 t o ~1 GPa. In Section III, w e turn
to specifics of cleavage fracture, and the experiments
which have been used to obtain values of fracture strength,
and t o identifying the nature of the crack nuclei in the
best-studied material, mild steel.
III. CLEAVAGE FRACTURE
We define cleavage as brittle fracture occurring on a
low-index crystallographic plane,t~,25~ which means that
intergranular fracture cannot, in general, be termed
cleavage. Additional fractographic criteria for cleavage
in metals [25~ are also relevant to interpretation of exper-
iments, although they need not be detailed here.
The dramatic change in ductility and fracture appear-
ance over a narrow temperature r a n g e that occurs when
mild steel is tested in uniaxial tension at low temperature
has been a subject of study for many years,t~J Typically,
a steel which fractures with some 65 pct reduction in
area and a fibrous appearance in tests carried out at all
temperatures down to 140 K may break at 100 K with
minimal signs of plastic deformation and a fully crys-
talline appearance, composed of {100} cleavage facets.
The first hypotheses proposed to explain this behav-
ior, by Orowan[4] and others, postulated the existence of
a brittle fracture stress, O'F, which varied only slightly
with temperature (Figure 2). This could he thought of as
the Griffith stress (Eq. [2]), deriving from a sensibly
temperature-independent surface energy. In contrast, the
yield stress of iron, as that of other bcc transition metals,
increases markedly with decrease in temperature
(Figure 2). In simple terms, ductile behavior is expected
at high temperatures, because the specimen yields before
it fractures, and brittle behavior at low temperatures, where
the reverse situation holds. The nature of this brittle frac-
ture requires examination.
In uniaxial tension, the cleavage fracture stress is about
800 MPa, as opposed to the value of 1 GPa used earlier,
which derives from notched tests. Using an average value
for Young's modulus of 200 GPa and the surface energy
% = 2 J/mz for iron gives (Eq. [2]) a critical crack length
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
I i
I -Brittle f r a c t u r es t r e s s
',\ ',\
! \ ', \ a imum stress
I i ~ U n i a x i o l yield stress
,.I I
Ta ~A T e m p e r a ture
i
L
•
U n i a x a duct e : l ~
. J
.
Both Drittle . ',' . . ,~otn ducti(e
. I c r a c K e u • o rl t t I e ÷
I I
Fig. 2 - - T h e Orowan proposal for brittle fracture, with an a p p r o x i -
mately temperature-independent brittle fracture stress. S t r e s s elevation
due t o a notch or crack increases the m a x i m u m normal s t r e s s , thus
assisting brittle fracture in notched or cracked bars relative to t e n s i l e
specimens.~J
acrit = 0.4 /xm. That is, the length of crack nucleus which
could propagate by a completely brittle fracture is only
2a = 0.8 txm in size, g i v e n two assumptions. The first
is that the nucleus is a through-thickness one. This is a
rather unrealistic situation: the nucleus is far more likely
to be penny-shaped, for which the stress intensity is re-
d u c e d by a factor of about 1.5, which increases the crit-
ical nucleus size to approximately 2 / z m . The second is
that the "work t o fracture" 3' has been equated to the
surface energy %. Instead, y should probably be inter-
preted as the effective energy, 3'~fe, especially if neces-
sary dislocations are involved in crack propagation,
because the displacement of bonds must be accommo-
dated through 3'i~ as well as through contributions from
3"p(growth), SO that the size of the critical nucleus is further
increased.
If calculations are made for zinc,C26] the critical nu-
cleus size turns out t o be of the order of millimeters, and
zinc crystals of diameter smaller than this size can be
made which still fracture at low stress in a brittle man-
ner. The situation for iron is not so clear-cut, although
pre-existing nuclei of 1- to 2-/zm size are unlikely in a
pure ferrite matrix. Even if brittle cementite particles can
be regarded as inherently cracked, it is possible to reduce
the carbon content t o a level such that particles of 1 /zm
in size will not exist. The presence of pre-existing cleav-
age fracture nuclei in nominally pure iron has not been
seriously contemplated for over two decades.
In technical materials, however, nuclei for cleavage
can exist. Few investigators have been able t o identify
fracture nucleating features in their experiments, in part
due t o the small size of such nuclei and t o lack of scan-
ning electron microscopy capability in earlier work.
However, recent studies on pearlitic s t e e l s [27,28'29] and weld
metals t3°l were successful in identifying fracture nuclei
and subsequently using these flaws as the basis for frac-
ture calculations. In pearlite, nuclei were found t o be
VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993--527
either small o x i d e inclusions [27,28'291 or microcracks nu-
cleated across a number of pearlitic carbides, t27,28j while
a variety of inclusions were identified in weld metals,t3°1
The application of dislocation theory to metallic de-
formation processes in the 1950s was paralleled by sim-
ilar applications t o fracture processes. In 1951 and 1953,
Lattice
Hall and Petcht31,3z} obtained the classical relationship
/ ~ ,~resistance
between yield stress ~rr and grain diameter, d:

t r y = cri + k r d -1/2 [9]

which could be explained in terms of the production of

mobile dislocations in unyielded grains ahead of a Liiders
front by the local shear stress at the tip of a dislocation
pileup in the yielded grain. A similar form was proposed
for the fracture stress:[32]
l a

CrF = cri + k e d -1/2 [10] (a)

although the experimental data used t o justify this form

had been manipulated, by others, in such a manner (frac- Stress
ture stresses were "corrected for the reduction of area
preceding fracture") that it does not stand up to rigorous
examination, t331 Zenert34j had proposed an appealing
mechanism for the formation of cleavage crack nuclei
by the coalescence of edge dislocations (Figure 3(a)),
and Stroht3sl made use of this to explain the significance
of Eq. [10].
~[. T T"T .~.
l j.
d/2?~ 111~I

Suppose, as in Figure 3(b), that there is a yielded grain

containing a dislocation pileup. This can be regarded as
a mode II (shear) crack under a stress Teff = ('Tap p Ti), - -

where T~pp derives from the applied tensile stress and T~

is the lattice friction stress. Then the distribution of ten-
sile stress ahead of the crack is as
o'~pr, = K u / V ' - 2 ~ r f ( O ) = (T~pp - T~) ~ [11]
Suppose that a Griffith crack nucleus forms at an a n g l e
O, e . g . , by the Zener mechanism. Then, if certain im-
provements are made to the original Stroh calcula-
tions, [36'371 it can be shown that the nucleus will
propagate if
Tef f "m-- Tape - - T i > [7rE3'/4(1 - 1/2)]1/2d-1/2 [12]
The form of Eq. [10] is obtained and a meaning is given
t o ke. The derivation, however, shows t h a t , provided that
3' remains constant throughout crack growth, either a crack
nucleus forms and propagates under the action of the shear
stress or no nucleus forms. This is called "nucleation-
controlled" fracture: the critical event is formation of a
crack nucleus.
There are two main problems w i t h this as a general
conclusion. First, in a g i v e n type of test on mild steel,
such as uniaxial tension, there is a clear transition from
brittle to ductile behavior as the temperature is raised;
yet if fracture occurred at, say, the yield stress at low
temperature, there is no reason, from Eq. [12], why it
should not occur at the yield stress at room temperature,
since the relation Tv - T i = "/'eft (Eq. [12]) is independent
of temperature in annealed mild steel (where dislocations
are fully pinned), unless deformation twinning is in-
volved in the low-temperature fracture. One possibility
m i g h t be that the value of 3' in Eq. [12] is greater than
the surface energy and involves necessary dislocations,
(b)
Fig. 3 - - T h e role of slip in cleavage fracture. (a) Pileups of dislo-
cations at grain boundaries under a shear stress ~" resulting from an
a p p l i e d s t r e s s a t . ( b ) T h e Z e n e r c r a c k n u c l e u s idea d e v e l o p e d b y Stroh,C3s~
i n w h i c h an e f f e c t i v e s t r e s s , z - r~, f o r c e s a p i l e u p o f l e n g t h d/2 t o
open a c r a c k . T h e m a x i m u m s t r e s s ~r00 o c c u r s at an a n g l e t o t h e p l a n e
o f the p i l e u p .
i . e . , that 3" should be replaced with %ff because of con-
tributions from 3'p<grow,h)" AS temperature increases, it is
perhaps possible that thermal activation could give gen-
uine blunting, so that 3"p<growth) and %ff increase sharply,
but this has not been investigated with respect to Stroh's
model, because the second problem seems t o dismiss it
thoroughly.
This second problem is that Eq. [12] is written in terms
of shear stress and predicts no effect of the applied ten-
sile component on fracture. It is clear from experiments
that different behavior is found in different stress sys-
tems (cf. Figure 2). If the maximum tensile stress at yield
is ~rr and the yield stress in shear is k, w e see the most
ductile behavior (lowest transition temperature) is found
in torsion (o'r = k); the next most ductile in uniaxial
tension (o'v = 2k); and the least ductile of these three
in the general yield failure of a sharply notched bar tested
in slow bend (orv -- 5k). A cracked bar, w i t h local max-
imum stresses of 6k or more, would show still less duc-
tility. The higher m a x i m u m tensile stresses encourage
more brittle behavior in mild steel. This response of frac-
ture events to tensile or normal stresses suggests that the
fracture in mild steel is not nucleation controlled but,
instead, is propagation controlled.

5 2 8 - - V O L U M E 24A, M A R C H 1993 METALLURGICAL T R A N S A C T I O N S A

 The ideas o f Smith expressed in E q . [12] were ex-
tended, in light o f McMahon and C o h e n ' s results,t38] to
include a role f o r nucleation at carbides, t391 as sketched (7 Ferrite matrix:
in Figure 4. It is sometimes assumed that these would surface energy
have to be grain boundary carbides, as in m u c h original Ys
work, [38,4°] but in f a c t , spheroidal, intragranular carbides
give rise to similar effects.[17] This model for propagation-
controlled fracture from carbides has been quite suc-
cessful f o r mild steel. Yet this conclusion o f propagation
control in steel is also not general. Equation [12], with ~Grrain boundary carblde
its implication o f nucleation control, does appear to de- = s u face energy, y¢
scribe the behavior o f zinc ~261 and perhaps o f the titanium I
aluminide alloy Ti-24 AI-1 1 N b ,t41j while for mild steel, ~L .J
p~bpagation control appears to dominate behavior. d ICo I
It seems clear, in both brittle ~12,42-441 and quasi-brittle Grain diameter Carbide
materials, that additional experimental work would be thick ness
valuable to examine the extant theoretical ideas in more
detail. When a distinct microstructural constituent, such Fig. 4 - - T h e c o m p l e t e S m i t h modelisgj for cleavage in mild steel, nu-
cleated at a grain boundary carbide of thickness Co. T h e effective
as a carbide in mild steel, operates as the nucleus for
stress, ~" - ~'i, is from Fig. 3.
fracture, the fracture behavior o f that constituent must
be understood. A statistical approach, pioneered by Curry
and KnotttlTJ and l a t e r extended in some detail, t45J shows
promise and may warrant extension to other microstruc-
turally controlled brittle fractures. More complexmicro-
structures, such as pearlitic steels t46] o r multiconstituent
titanium alloys like Ti-24 AI-1 1 Nb, t4~1 are a challenge 5 ~ " 3- $ ~
to these concepts w h i c h should repay further work.
The role o f microstructure in cleavage fracture may
involve variables other than those emphasized above, =l" l. ~ .,
namely, the size o f grains and grain boundary carbides.
This is particularly true when, for example, grain bound- x.~2~ I
i 1
ary particles are sparse and their relative distances from 0 I I I i
a c r a c k tip may be more important than their size alone. O.OI 0.02 0.03 x / ¢ K l a ' , Iz
Models based on the original Ritchie and co-workers I
"critical distance" idea [47'48'49] are a logical extension o f
effort to incorporate microstructural factors into brittle
fracture, as Figure 5 shows. In this figure, a critical frac-
ture stress, 0-*, is supposed to be maintained over a suf-
ficient distance, 1", that an effective c r a c k nucleus can
fail and thus support advancement o f the crack. Several
experimental results have been found to be adequately
described by such an interpretation, t4t,491
Fig. 5 - - T h e "critical distance" idea, as originally formulated b y
Ritchie e t al. 1471 T h e critical distance 1" is expected to be of the order
IV. INTERGRANULAR FRACTURE of the graindiameterdg for the microstructure s h o w n , with y i e l d strength
o0 normalizing stresses. [49]
In intergranular fracture, fracture is characterized pri-
marily by its path, namely along the grain boundaries.
Since at relatively l o w temperatures, metals normally
exhibit greater grain boundary strength than grain inte- Another aspect has been directed at the phenomena o f
rior strength, that is, fracture is transgranular, the evi- segregation-induced embrittlement, f o r example, the ex-
dent grain boundary weakness requires explanation. It is tensive, experimentally based articles o f McMahon and
often found that brittle intergranular fracture at ambient co-workers, ts4,sS,s61 These articles p o i n t out that E q . [4]
temperatures is associated with segregation o f solute or is readily misinterpreted: although yp may o f t e n be f a r
impurity elements to grain boundaries, altering their larger than %, that should not be a basis for concluding
cohesion, although there are counterexamples in w h i c h that the contribution o f Ys is unimportant to fracture. In-
the intergranular weakness appears to be intrinsic and deed, if Ys along the grain boundary fracture path were
not a function o f segregated elements, tS°,51j Further work to fall to zero, so that no cohesion between grains re-
has examined the toughness o f these "intrinsically" brit- mained, then presumably Gcrit (or any other measure o f
tle materials in some detail, t52,s31 fracture resistance) would also fall to zero. Thus, an
There have been numerous efforts to develop the fun- interrelation must exist a m o n g %, yp, and y (or Gcrit),
damental basis for fracture at boundaries, flL13,14,~2,54-57] and it must be recognized that a large value o f yp in one
One aspect has been to apply the Rice-Thomson ap- circumstance cannot imply the maintenance o f that v a l u e
proacht9] to grain boundaries, as first outlined by Rice.t1~1 if % is reduced. The complication here is that the net

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993--529

surface energy of the fracture is given by 2 y~ - Ygb, not
by 2 y~ alone, so the interrelation among boundary cohe-
sion, as expressed by y , along the (intergranular) frac-
ture path, and the grain boundary energy itself, Ygb, must
be understood.
McMahon and co-workers, [54'55,56] however, have stated
the dependence among these variables entirely in terms
o f the energies, aiming to make explicit the relation be-
tween the plastic energy yp and the surface energy Ys.
This is an awkward approach experimentally, because
the energies themselves are difficult to measure inde-
pendently (as opposed to inferring them from fracture
experiments). The equations o f McMahon and
co-workers, [54,55,56] Rice and Wang[~7] and others [2°,2q can
describe the interrelation which occurs when large de-
creases occur in y,, for example, by the segregation o f
metalloid elements to grain boundaries in steels. The
subject o f solute effects is treated in Section V.
In dealing with fracture experiments, the concept o f a
fixed fracture stress[4] is helpful, since it clarifies how
the amount o f plastic deformation accompanying frac-
ture, i . e . , yp, varies naturally with y,. The interrelation
o f these two variables can be envisioned as in Figure 6,
where the effect o f changes in the brittle fracture stress
o-F on the magnitude o f yp is evident in the (conceptual)
stress-strain curve at the c r a c k tip. The total plastic work
Wp is then given by an equation such as the following,
for parabolic hardening according to tr = O-y + ke",
Wp = f t r d e = o'r" ee + f k e " d e [13a]
and, for integration between zero and 6g,
W e ~- [(OrF -- O'y)/k]l/n[(OrF + n t r v ) / n + 1] [13b]
Implementation o f Eq. [13] requires normalization by the
plastic v o l u m e , w h i c h is complicated by the complex
shape o f the plastic zone, as well as by the strain gra-
dients within it; but the concept o f o-F as a limiting stress
in the plastic behavior at the c r a c k tip is clear. One then
needs to formulate a relation between/3r r and % (or the
net energy from 2 y~ - Ygb), a complex and well-studied
problem~l.20,2~,54-57] which, however, remains difficult to
test experimentally.
(~F1
(~F2
/Nl I
d,,.I]
\f \11
\ 1 Nil I
Nl Nil
EF2 EEl Strain E
Fig. 6 - - A sketch of a crack tip stress-strain curve, with termination
at a brittle fracture stress ~rr which has two different values due to
changes in 7~- The area under the curve is proportional t o the plastic
work of fracture.
530--VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993
The summary equations derived by McMahon and
co-workers for intergranular fracture I54,55] are o f the Griffith
form (Eq. [3]) and employ concepts quite similar to those
o f Smith;t37,39] indeed, Smith's equations were the start-
ing point for their derivation. F o r brittle intergranular
fracture, as for cleavage, the role o f grain boundary par-
ticles w h i c h may act as fracture nuclei is a relevant con-
c e r n , and similar analytical approaches have been
used. ]54,55,'~81 A sketch o f the m o d e l basis is given in
Figure 7.
These ideas are now being extended to brittle fracture
o f interfaces between dissimilar materials. ~59-63] Al-
though both mechanics and experimental techniques are
complicated, the topic is o f v i t a l importance to c o m p r s -
ite materials for a range o f applications from engineering
structures to electronic devices.
V. R O L E OF S O L U T E S
A n u m b e r o f solutes are known experimentally to af-
fect brittle fracture at boundaries. Examples include met-
alloid elements such as S, P, As, and Sb in steels, ts4'64~
lead in aluminum alloys,[651 and hydrogen in a n u m b e r
o f structural alloys,C66,67,681 all o f w h i c h are damaging to
fracture resistance, and such elements as boron in Ni3A1,
which increase fracture resistance.I69,7°] A n u m b e r o f ap-
proaches to understanding these effects have been sug-
gested, most recently in a series o f articles by
Cottrell. t7~,72'731 The simplest is to begin with the atomic
scale effects o f changes in cohesion, as summarized by
Hirth.i~3]
Figure 8 shows some o f the possible cohesion changes
which have been suggested. The salient points in these
diagrams are these: the location o f the curve at zero stress
identifies the lattice parameter; the low-stress slope o f
the curve at that point is a measure o f the elastic mod-
ulus; the maximum stress, although not the appropriate
criterion for fracture m o d e l s ,t13] is a measure o f the co-
hesive force; and the area under the curve is a measure
o f the work of fracture Y. Each o f these may or may not
change with solute additions. For c r a c k tip analyses, it
would appear that the area under the curve is the most
important parameter, so that all the sketched curves in
Figure 8 would imply lowered fracture stress, although
some o f the curves imply further, testable effects o f the
solute, such as changed lattice parameter. Note that
changes in lattice parameter o r modulus, if they occur,
would take place within distances very near the bound-
ary and thus would be difficult to measure experimentally.
N o w that atomic calculations by techniques like the
embedded atom method ( E A M ) are possible at surfaces
and grain boundaries, ]7°,74] greater understanding o f
cohesion changes can be expected. The E A M technique
has already been applied, for example, to the p r o b l e m
o f B in Ni3A1,]7°J and the expected change in cohesion
energy quantified as about 15 pct.
Given that changes in boundary cohesion occur when
segregants are present, it is important for the brittle frac-
ture case to evaluate the concentration o f segregant needed
to "embrittle" the boundary, i . e . , to cause at least some
areas o f intergranular fracture to occur a m o n g the pre-
vailing, nonsegregated fracture m o d e . Some published
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
 O" a"

// //
/'4 / /,¢ J

"•?," ~k " ~~7777777~ "'"~'"

~\\ X ~" \\ \
Xp

1111 o"
1111 17"

(a) (b)
Fig. 7--Concepts for grain boundary fracture nucleation, analogous t o Figs. 3 and 4. (a) Stroh-like crack located at a grain boundary. (b) Stroh-
like crack which nucleates at a particle-matrix interface rather than a grain boundary.[ 54j

U O-

I
I
0 ~ I .._.b 0 " b

I ; /.,~
I t ,,5,"

(a) (b)
O"

(c) (d)
Fig. 8--Cohesion changes due t o solutesY 31 Here, the lattice parameter i s designated b0 and the m a x i m u m force era- (a) An energy-distance
curve with solute-induced changes (cf. Fig. l(a)). (b) The corresponding force curve (cf. Fig. l(b)). (c) Changes i n the force curve which leave
lattice parameter and modulus unchanged. (d) A force curve change which keeps crm constant.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993--531

 AVERAGE PHR
Sb454
(PCT Fe---~-~03 )
I0 20
! I
80
so

o 6O
~ 60

w
z
-r -- 4 0 "~
•o 40
0
k-
W - 2 0
'~ 20
F-

I u_ I I I
Cc CH o., 0.2 _ 0.3
r ESTIMATED Xsb
( FRACTION OF A LAYER)

(a) (b)

I
OH Ccr OH
(c) (d)
Fig. 9--Dependence of fracture stress O'Fon soluteconcentration, here expressed for hydrogen, C.. (a) Threshold model, in which fracture
stress is lowered at a solute concentration of C,. (b) Measured data for antimony at grain boundaries,164}where .~ is the estimated fraction of an
atomic layer at the boundary. (c) Concentration dependence sketched from (b) results. (d) Linear version of (c), with modified critical value
C cr'.[67]

models have assumed a critical or threshold concentra-
tion, which is a simple approach; but experimental evi-
dence suggests that it is probably oversimplified.[66]
Figure 9 illustrates the p o i n t . Figure 9(a) shows a
threshold-type model, compared in Figure 9(b) to an ac-
tual determination of effect of segregation on fracture.[64]
A smoothly curving dependence of fracture on segre-
gation (Figure 9(c)) or at least a linear transition from
segregation-free to fully segregated effects (Figure 9(d))
would be more realistic than a sharp threshold. Because
local, not global, concentrations of solute are relevant to
problems of this kind, [671 determination of the value of
Ccr or Ccr' is not simple.
Hydrogen is often associated with intergranular frac-
ture.[66'68[ Numerous practical instances of hydrogen em-
brittlement have been observed in which hydrogen damage
occurs in the form of a brittle intergranular fracture mode
not present without hydrogen. Yet careful experiments
have shown that in nearly all such cases, the grain
boundaries which are fractured have contained various
concentrations of damaging impurities, such as metal-
loids, although not in sufficient quantities to cause inter-
granular fracture by themselves. One of the best-studied
materials is nickel, in which it appears that sulfur plus
hydrogen can cause brittle intergranular embrittle-
ment,[75-781 but that hydrogen alone merely causes a highly
localized plastic fracture within a few tens of nanometers
of the boundary, thus appearing brittle. [77J In other words,
it would appear that hydrogen by itself ordinarily cannot
weaken metal g r a i n boundaries sufficiently for inter-
granular fracture but can only cause such fracture when
"assisting" other segregants which partially weaken the
boundary. It would be of interest, and of some funda-
mental worth, to have determinations of 7elf values for
such cases of fracture, so that relative magnitudes of ef-
fects of various solutes could be quantified; but t o date,
it appears that none have been determined.
Such measurements could well be implemented for

5 3 2 - - V O L U M E 24A, M A R C H 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

intergranular fracture with tests using the established
methodology of notched bar fracture mechan-
ics. [1'7'17"26-30'40'46'67'79-82] AS in the case of cleavage, there
is a balance between yield and fracture behavior which
can be exploited to minimize contributions from plastic-
ity, O'7,:6,2s'46,sll i.e., f r o m yp(p. . . . . .), a n d t h u s a c h i e v e a
good estimate o f yCff. It would also be useful to attempt
systematic variation in microstructural parameters of in-
terest, such as grain boundary particle size, type, and
distribution, to provide a robust test of extant models.
Much underlying fracture sciencetu-13,21-23~ and experi-
mental knowledge I1'28'29'44'46'62"66'831 exists, but additional
experimental work is still needed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We appreciate helpful discussions with J.J.
Lewandowski, R.O. Ritchie, J.P. Hirth, and J.C.
Williams o n this topic. Our original collaboration o n this
review was supported b y the SERC in the Department
of Metallurgy, University of Cambridge. One of us (AWT)
acknowledges the hospitality of the Materials Science
Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, during the
preparation of this manuscript, and partial support from
the David Jackson Fund for Scholarly Endeavors.
REFERENCES
1 . J.F. Knott: Fundamentals o f Fracture Mechanics (Revised),
Butterworth's, London, 1979.
2 . A.A. Griffith:Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 1921, vol. 221A, p p . 163-98.
3 . D. Broek: Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th ed.,
Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, T h e Netherlands, 1987.
4 . E. Orowan: Trans. Inst. E n g . Shipbuilders Scot., 1 9 4 5 , vol. 8 9 ,
p p . 162-215.
5 . G. Irwin: in Fracturing o f Metals, ASM, Cleveland, OH, 1 9 4 8 ,
p p . 147-66.
6 . E. Orowan: Rep. Prog. Phys., 1 9 4 8 , vol. 1 2 , p p . 185-212.
7 . J.F. Knott: in Physics and Chemistry o f Fracture, Proc. N A T O
Adv. Study Inst., R.M. Latanision and R.H. Jones, eds., Martinus
Nijhoff, Dordrecht, T h e Netherlands, 1 9 8 7 , p p . 44-59.
8 . A. Kelly, W . Tyson, and A.H. Cottrell: Phil. Mag., 1 9 6 7 ,
vol. 15, p p . 567-86.
9 . J.R. Rice and R. Thomson: Phil. Mag., 1 9 7 4 , vol. 2 9 , p p . 73-97.
1 0 . B.A. Bilby, A.H. Cottrell, and K.H. Swinden: Proc. R. Soc. A ,
1963, vol. 272A, p p . 304-14.
11. J.R. Rice: in Effects o f Hydrogen on the Behavior o f Materials,
A.W. Thompson and I.M. Bemstein, e d s . , TMS-AIME, New
York, NY, 1 9 7 6 , p p . 455-66.
12. A.G. Evans and T.G. Langdon: Prog. Mater. Sci., 1976, vol. 2 1 ,
p p . 171-441.
13. J.P. Hirth: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A , 1 9 8 0 , vol. 295A, p p . 139-49.
14. R. Asaro: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 1 9 8 0 , vol. 295A, p p . 151-63.
15. W . W . Gerberich and E. Kurman: Scripta Metall., 1 9 8 5 , vol. 1 9 ,
p p . 295-98.
16. J.J. Gilman: J. Appl. Phys., 1 9 6 0 , vol. 3 1 , p p . 2208-18.
17. D.A. Curry and J.F. Knott: Met. Sci., 1 9 7 8 , vol. 1 2 , p p . 511-14.
18. J.M. Liu and B.-W. Shen: Metall. Trans. A, 1 9 8 4 , vol. 15A,
p p . 1247-51.
19. G.I. Barenblatt: Adv. Appl. Mech., 1 9 6 2 , vol. 7 , p p . 55-129.
2 0 . D.D. Mason: Phil. Mag., 1 9 7 9 , vol. 3 9 , p p . 455-68.
2 1 . P . M . Anderson and J.R. Rice: Scripta Metall., 1 9 8 6 , vol. 2 0 ,
p p . 1467-72.
2 2 . I.-H. Lin and R. Thomson: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 6 , vol. 3 4 ,
p p . 187-206.
2 3 . R. Thomson: in Solid State Physics, H. Ehrenreich and D. Tumbull,
e d s . , Academic Press, New York, NY, 1 9 8 6 , vol. 3 9 , p p . 1-129.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
2 4 . B.S. Majumdar and S.J. B u m s : Acta Metall., 1 9 8 1 , vol. 2 9 ,
p p . 579-88.
2 5 . C.D. Beachem and R.M.N. Pelloux: in Fracture ToughnessTesting
and Its Applications, STP 3 8 1 , ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1965,
p p . 210-44.
2 6 . D.A. Curry, J.E. King, and J.F. Knott: Met. S c i . , 1 9 7 8 , vol. 1 2 ,
p p . 247-50.
2 7 . J.J. Lewandowski and A.W. Thompson: in Fracture 1 9 8 4 , Proc.
ICF 6 , S.R. Valluri, D.M.R. Taplin, P . Rama Rao, J.F. K n o t t ,
and R. Dubey, e d s . , Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1984,
vol. 2 , p p . 1515-24.
2 8 . J.J. Lewandowski and A.W. Thompson: Metall. Trans. A, 1986,
vol. 17A, p p . 1769-86.
2 9 . D.J. Alexander and I.M. Bernstein: Metall. Trans. A , 1 9 8 9 ,
vol. 20A, p p . 2321-35.
3 0 . D.E. McRobie and J.F. Knott: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1 9 8 5 ,
vol. 1 , p p . 357-65.
3 1 . E.O. Hall: Proc. Phys. Soc. (London), 1951, vol. B64, p p . 747-53.
3 2 . N.J. Petch: J. Iron Steel Inst., 1 9 5 3 , vol. 174, p p . 25-32.
3 3 . J.F. Knott: in Yield, Flow and Fracture o f Polycrystals (Perch
Festschrift), T.N. Baker, ed., Applied Science Publishers, London,
1 9 8 3 , p p . 81-99.
3 4 . C. Zener: in Fracturing o f Metals, ASM, Cleveland, OH, 1948,
p p . 3-31.
3 5 . A.N. Stroh: Adv. Phys., 1 9 5 7 , vol. 6 , p p . 418-65.
3 6 . A.H. Cottrell: Trans. AIME, 1 9 5 8 , vol. 2 1 2 , p p . 192-203.
3 7 . E. Smith and J.T. Barnby: Met. Sci. J., 1 9 6 7 , vol. 1 , p p . 56-64.
3 8 . C.J. McMahon and M . Cohen: Acta Metall., 1 9 6 5 , vol. 1 3 ,
p p . 591-604.
3 9 . E. Smith: Acta Metall., 1 9 6 6 , vol. 1 4 , p p . 985-89 and 991-96.
4 0 . J.F. Knott: J. lron Steel Inst., 1 9 6 7 , vol. 2 0 5 , p p . 288-91.
4 1 . Wu-Yang Chu and Anthony W . Thompson: Metall. Trans. A,
1992, vol. 23A, p p . 1299-1312.
4 2 . D. Marsh: Proc. R. Soc. A, 1 9 6 4 , vol. 282A, p p . 33-43.
4 3 . A.G. Evans: Phil. M a g . , 1 9 7 0 , vol. 2 2 , p p . 841-49.
4 4 . B.R. Lawn and T.R. Wilshaw: Fracture o f Brittle Solids,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1975.
4 5 . T . Lin, A.G. Evans, and R.O. Ritchie: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 6 ,
vol. 3 4 , p p . 2205-16.
4 6 . J.J. Lewandowksi and A.W. Thompson: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 7 ,
vol. 3 5 , p p . 1453-62.
4 7 . R.O. Ritchie, J.F. K n o t t , and J.R. Rice: J. Mech. Phys. Solids,
1 9 7 3 , vol. 2 1 , p p . 395-410.
4 8 . R.O. Ritchie, W.L. Server, and R.A. Wullaert: Metall. Trans. A ,
1979, vol. 10A, p p . 1557-70.
4 9 . R.O. Ritchie and A.W. Thompson: Metall. Trans. A , 1 9 8 5 ,
vol. 16A, p p . 233-48.
5 0 . C.L. White, R.E. Clausing, and L. Heatherly: Metall. Trans. A ,
1 9 7 9 , vol. 10A, p p . 683-91.
5 1 . T . Ogura, S. Hanada, T . Masumoto, and O. Izumi: Metall.
Trans. A , 1 9 8 5 , vol. 16A, p p . 441-43.
5 2 . P.S. Khadkikar, J.J. Lewandowski, and K. Vedula: Metall.
Trans. A, 1 9 8 9 , vol. 20A, p p . 1247-55.
5 3 . J.D. Rigney and J.J. Lewandowski: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1 9 9 2 ,
vol. A149, p p . 143-51.
5 4 . C.J. McMahon and V. Vitek: Acta Metall., 1 9 7 9 , vol. 2 7 ,
p p . 507-13.
5 5 . M.L. Jokl, V. Vitek, and C.J. McMahon: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 0 ,
vol. 2 8 , p p . 1479-88.
5 6 . M.L. Jokl, J. Kameda, C.J. McMahon, and V. Vitek: Met. Sci.,
1980, vol. 1 4 , p p . 375-84.
5 7 . J.R. Rice and J.-S. Wang: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1 9 8 9 , vol. A107,
p p . 23-40.
5 8 . G. Irwin: Trans. ASME, Series E (J. Appl. Mech.), 1 9 5 7 , vol. 7 9 ,
p p . 361-64.
5 9 . T.S. O h , J. Rodel, R.M. Cannon, and R.O. Ritchie: Actu Metall.,
1988, vol. 3 6 , p p . 2083-90.
6 0 . B.J. Dalgleish, M.C. Lu, and A.G. Evans: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 8 ,
vol. 3 6 , p p . 2029-35.
6 1 . M.F. Ashby, F.J. Blunt, and M . Bannister: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 9 ,
vol. 3 7 , p p . 1847-57.
6 2 . A.G. Evans, M . Riihle, B.J. Dalgleish, and P.G. Charalambides:
Metall. Trans. A , 1 9 9 0 , vol. 21A, p p . 2419-29.
6 3 . M.A. Bannister and M.F. Ashby: Acta Metall. Mater., 1 9 9 1 ,
vol. 3 9 , p p . 2575-82.
VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993--533
64. J. Kameda: MetaU. Trans. A, 1 9 8 1 , vol. 12A, pp. 2039-48.
65. J.J. Lewandowski, V. Kohler, and N . J . H . Holroyd: Mater. Sci.
Eng., 1987, vol. 96, pp. 185-95.
66. A.W. Thompson and I.M. Bernstein: in Advances in Corrosion 76.
Science and Technology, M.G. Fontana and R.W. Staehle, e d s . ,
P l e n u m P r e s s , New Y o r k , NY, 1980, vol. 7, pp. 5 3 - 1 7 5 . 77.
67. A.W. Thompson: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1985, vol. 1, pp. 711-18.
78.
68. I.M. Bernstein and A.W. Thompson: Int. Metall. Rev., 1976,
vol. 21, pp. 2 6 9 - 8 7 .
79.
69. K. Aoki and O. Izumi: Nippon Kinzaku Gakkaishi, 1979, vol. 43,
pp. 1190-96.
80.
70. M.J. Mills, S.H. G o o d s , S.M. Foiles, and J.R. Whetstone: Scripta
Metall. Mater., 1991, vol. 25, pp. 1283-88. 81.
71. A.H. Cottrell: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1989, vol. 5 , pp. 1165-67.
72. A.H. Cottrell: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1990, vol. 6, pp. 121-23. 82.
73. A.H. CottreU: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1990, vol. 6, pp. 325-29.
74. S.M. Foiles: Phys. Rev. B, 1985, vol. 32, pp. 7 6 8 5 - 9 3 . 83.
75. A.W. Thompson: in Grain Boundaries in Engineering Materials,
534--VOLUME 24A, MARCH 1993
Proc. 4 t h B o l t o n Landing C o n f . , J.L. Walter, J.H. Westbrook,
and D.A. Woodford, e d s . , Claitor's, B a t o n Rouge, LA, 1975,
pp. 6 0 7 - 1 8 .
I.M. Robertson, T. Tabata, W. Wei, F. Heubaum, and H.K.
Birnbaum: Scripta Metall., 1984, vol. 18, pp. 8 4 1 - 4 6 .
I . M . Robertson and H.K. Birnbaum: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 6 , vol. 34,
pp. 3 5 3 - 6 6 .
D.H. L a s s i l a and H.K. Birnbaum: Acta Metall., 1 9 8 7 , vol. 35,
pp. 1815-22.
J.R. Griffiths and D . R . J . Owen: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1971,
vol. 19, pp. 4 1 9 - 3 1 .
A.C. Mackenzie, J.W. Hancock, and D.K. B r o w n : E n g . Fract.
Mech., 1 9 7 7 , vol. 9, pp. 167-88.
D.J. Alexander, J.J. Lewandowski, W.J. Sisak, and A.W.
Thompson: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1 9 8 6 , vol. 34, pp. 433-54.
In-Gyu Park and Anthony W. Thompson: MetaU. Trans. A, 1991,
vol. 22A, pp. 1615-26.
J.R. Low: in Fracture o f Solids, Interscience, New Y o r k , NY,
1963, p p . 197-236.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A