See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269601472

New Equation for the Plastic Correction Factor η for J-Integral Determination
from Test Results of Three-Point-Bend Specimens

Article  in  Journal of ASTM International · July 2014

DOI: 10.1520/MPC20130053

CITATIONS READS

0 269

3 authors, including:

Marius Gintalas
University of Cambridge
17 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marius Gintalas on 16 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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-Point-
Bend 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. 125–143,
doi:10.1520/MPC20130053. ISSN 2165-39924

ABSTRACT
When material yielding occurs, the stress intensity factor, K, no longer
Manuscript received September correctly characterizes the magnitude of the stress field around the crack tip.
29, 2013; accepted for publication For significant amounts of yielding, the J-integral approach is applied as an
December 18, 2013; published
online March 21, 2014.
advanced tool. In practice, for many engineering applications, the non-linear
1
plasticity effects are of importance and therefore material behavior beyond
The Univ. of Manchester,
Manchester M60 1QD, United
yield needs an accurate description for input to tools for assessment. This work
Kingdom. presents J-integral values of two different steel grades (1006 and 4340) using
2
Klaipeda Univ., Klaipeda, Bijunu 17,
a newly developed analytical approach for the correction factors gpl , which
91225, Lithuania. takes into account the elastic–plastic properties of the material. The evaluation
3
The Univ. of Manchester,
approach is based on absorbed energies in a Charpy-sized specimen during
Manchester M13 9PL, United the elastic and plastic deformation phases. Values of these energy terms were
Kingdom. obtained via numerical simulation of 1006 and 4340 steel Charpy-sized
4
This paper is a contribution to a specimens loaded in three-point-bending. This work highlights the effect of
Special Issue of Materials
materials plastic properties on the J-integral. Different steel grades show
Performance and Characterization
on “Fracture Toughness,” Guest different amounts of plasticity defined by the strain-hardening exponent and
Editors, Bojan Podgornik and the strain-hardening constant and these influence the fracture parameters.
Votjeh Leskovsek, Institute of
Metals and Technology, Ljubljana,
Application of the plastic correction factor gpl to Charpy-sized specimens,
Slovenia. 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.

Copyright V
C 2014 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 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], alu-
mina [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
elastic–plastic structural resistance assessment. In the post-yield regime, linear elastic
fracture mechanics is not valid, but for fracture assessments the J-integral is applica-
ble. The elastic–plastic 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]:

gU
(1) J¼
B ðW  aÞ

where:
g ¼ a non-dimensional parameter, which depends on specimen type and size,
U ¼ the fracture energy absorbed by specimen,
B ¼ specimen width,
W ¼ specimen width, and
a ¼ crack length.
In determining toughness values from test records, it is convenient to use J esti-
mation methods based on the area under the load-displacement curve, as a separate
description of the material stress–strain response is not required to apply Eq 1. The
influence 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]:

Uel Upl
(2) J ¼ Jel þ Jpl ¼ gel þ gpl
BðW  aÞ BðW  aÞ

where:
Uel and Upl ¼ elastic and plastic components of absorbed energy, and
gel and gpl ¼ 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 ten-
sion 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 influence of
both crack length and elastic–plastic 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 ¼ 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 ¼ 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 first 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 ¼ 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 beam’s plastic displacement is presented below.

TABLE 1
gpl Solutions for laboratory specimens.

Specimen Type gpl ¼ Limits of Application References

2
SE(T) 2:6803 þ 0:7460ða=W Þ  1:6581ða=W Þ a=W  0:545 [16]
1:0 þ 1:0829ða=W Þ  3:5402ða=W Þ2 a=W > 0:545
DE(T) ð1=1:3Þ  ð1=nÞ [17]
for plane stress: 0:25  a=W  0:75 [18]
0:7942ða=W Þ2 þ1:8766ða=W Þ þ 0:0327;
for plane strain:
0:5889ða=W Þ þ 0:2534
CC(T) 1  ð1=nÞ — [19]
C(T) 2 þ 0:522ðB=WÞ — [20,21]

Materials Performance and Characterization

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 modifica-
tions is used for gpl development.
During elastic deformation [31]:

Uel
(3) Jel ¼ gel
BðW  aÞ

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

F 2 dCcel ðaÞ
(4) Jel ¼ G ¼
2B da

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

No. gpl ¼ Limits of application References

2 3
1 0:32 þ 12ðaÞ  49:5ðaÞ þ99ðaÞ a > 0:282 [20,22,23]
2:0 a < 0:282
2 13:818ðaÞ  25:124ðaÞ2 0 > a > 0:275 [24,25]
1:90 þ 0:138ðaÞ 0:275 < a < 1:0
" #
3 ð1  aÞð1:3096  1:6314ðaÞÞ 0:05 < a < 0:5 [26]
2
0:9534 þ 1:3096ðaÞ  0:8157ðaÞ2
4 0:315 þ 8:926ðaÞ  11:433ðaÞ2 a < 0:325 [20,23,27]
2:0 a > 0:325
5 1:620 þ 0:850ðaÞ  0:651ðaÞ2 0:25 < a < 0:70 [20]
6 1:749ðaÞ2 þ 2:828ðaÞ þ 0:887 a < 0:2 [28]
2:0 a > 0:2
" #
7 ð1  aÞð0:892  4:476ðaÞÞ 0:021 < a < 0:172 [29]
2
1:125 þ 0:892ðaÞ  2:238ðaÞ2
2  0:08ð1  aÞ a > 0:172
8 2:288ðaÞ5  16:754ðaÞ4 þ 34:12ðaÞ3 a > 0:05 [30]
2
 29:892ðaÞ þ 12:065ðaÞ þ 0:139

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 129

where:
F ¼ applied force;
Ccel ðaÞ ¼ specimen compliance because of the presence of the crack; and
a ¼ a=W.
Equations 3 and 4 can be combined to give:

F 2 dCcel ðaÞ Uel

(5) ¼ gel
2B da BðW  aÞ

Then rearranging Eq 5:

F 2 dCcel ðaÞ ðW  aÞ
(6) gel ¼
2 da Uel

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

(7) F ¼ del =C el ðaÞ

Then elastic strain energy Uel is:

1
(8) Uel ¼ F  FCel ðaÞ
2

Combining Eqs 6 and 8 gives:

ðW  aÞ dCcel ðaÞ
(9) gel ¼
C el ðaÞ da

or

ð1  aÞ dCcel ðaÞ
(10) gel ¼
C el ðaÞ a

To evaluate gel according to Eq 10, compliance is needed. In general, the com-

pliance of a cracked specimen C el ðaÞ is the sum of the compliance of the un-cracked
specimen C0el and the compliance due to the crack Ccel ðaÞ:

(11) C el ðaÞ ¼ C0el þ Ccel ðaÞ

Several equations have been proposed in the literature to define the compliance
of un-cracked three-point-bend specimens. These equations depend on elastic mod-
ulus E. The values of BECel0 are summarized in Table 3 for b ¼ 4 and Poisson’s ratio
 ¼ 0:3. Obviously, different formulae lead to different values of compliance BECel0 ,
which affects the total compliance of the specimen C el ðaÞ.
To assess specimen compliance due to the crack Ccel ðaÞ is more complicated, but
can be related to stress intensity factor solutions. Formulae used to evaluate the compli-
ance caused by the crack presence in the elastic regime for b ¼ 4 are listed in Table 4.
The compliance Ccel ðaÞ of Eq 1 from Table 4 can be written as:

3
(12) Ccel ðaÞ ¼ ðbÞ2 f4 ðaÞ
2BE

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 130

TABLE 3
Different expressions of an un-cracked specimen’s compliance calculation.

No. BECel0 ¼ Value References

3
1 0:25  ðS=W Þ 16.00 [33,34,35]

2 0:25  ðS=W Þ3 1 þ 2:85ðW=SÞ2 0:84ðW=SÞ3 18.64 [33,36,37,38]

3 0:25  ðS=W Þ3 1 þ 2:4ð1 þ  ÞðW=SÞ2 19.12 [33,39]

4 0:24ðS=W Þ3 1:04 þ 3:28ð1 þ  ÞðW=SÞ2 20.07 [33,40]

5 0:25  ðS=W Þ3 1 þ 0:2ð12 þ 11Þ  ðW=SÞ2 19.06 [33]

where:
b ¼ ðS=WÞ, and
" #
ðaÞ2 5:58  19:57ðaÞ þ 36:82ðaÞ2 34:94ðaÞ3
(13) f4 ðaÞ ¼ 
ð1  aÞ2 þ 12:77ðaÞ4

The differential of compliance dCcel ðaÞ=da then has the form:

dCcel ðaÞ 3b2 0

(14) ¼ f ða Þ
da 2BE 4

TABLE 4
Correction functions of beam‘s mid-span compliance Ccel (a) because of crack.

No. BECelc ðaÞ ¼ f4 ðaÞ ¼ References

   
1 3 S 2 ðaÞ2 5:58  19:57ðaÞ þ 36:82ðaÞ2 34:94ðaÞ3 [37,39,33,36,41,42]
f4 ðaÞ  4
2 W ð1  aÞ2 þ12:77ðaÞ
   
2 3 S 2 ðaÞ2
8:9  33:717ðaÞ þ 79:616ðaÞ2 112:952ðaÞ3 [33]
f4 ðaÞ 2 4 5
2 W ð1  aÞ þ84:815ðaÞ 25:672ðaÞ
3 S 65a2  87:3a3 þ 205a4 [34]
f4 ðaÞ
8W 2
 3
4 S 4:21ðaÞ  8:89ðaÞ2 þ36:9ðaÞ3 83:6ðaÞ4 þ [40]
2c ðaÞf4 ðaÞ
W 5 6 7
þ 174:3ðaÞ 284:8ðaÞ þ387:6ðaÞ 322:8ðaÞ þ 8

þ 149:8ðaÞ9
 2
5 S 1:193  1:980a þ 4:478a2  4:443a3 þ 1:739a4 [43,44]
f4 ðaÞ
W ð1  aÞ
BECel ðaÞ ¼
6 72½f4 ðaÞ þ 20 [35,45]
f4 ðaÞ ¼ 1:8625ðaÞ2 3:95ðaÞ3 þ16:3777ðaÞ4 37:2277ðaÞ5 þ77:554ðaÞ6
126:873ðaÞ7 þ175:533ðaÞ8 143:964ðaÞ9 þ66:564ðaÞ10
!
7 S2 0:29W 2 [46]
f4 ða Þ þ    0:339
W2 ðW  aÞ2 log10 ð1=v0 Þ
f4 ðaÞ ¼ 27:11ðaÞ3 8:56ðaÞ2 þ1:77ðaÞ þ 0:829

Note: c ¼ 1 for plane stress; for plane strain c ¼ ð1   2 Þ; v0 ¼ impact velocity.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 131

where:
2a  
f40 ðaÞ ¼ 2 3
3 5:58  19:57a þ 36:82a  34:94a þ 12:77a
4
ð1  a Þ
(15)

a 2
þ ð 19:57 þ 73:64a  104:82a2 þ 51:08a3 Þ
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 simplified form can be written as:
0:25b3 þ 0:78b
(16) C0el ¼
BE
The sum of Eqs 12 and 16 is:

0; 25b3 þ 0; 78b þ 1; 5ðbÞ2  f4 ðaÞ

(17) C el ðaÞ ¼
BE

Substituting C el ðaÞ and Ccel ðaÞ in Eq 9 by Eqs 11 and 13, the final form of gel is
obtained:

1:5  ð1  aÞb2  f40 ðaÞ

(18) gel ¼ 
0:25b3 þ 0:78b þ 1:5ðbÞ2  f4 ðaÞ

DETERMINATION OF gpl COEFFICIENT

In the elastic–plastic 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 ¼ dF0 þ 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 ¼ ry þ rpl

There are many relationships for describing the plastic portion of the stress–-
strain curve, but here an exponential relation is chosen:
(21) rpl ¼ Cenpl

where:
rpl ¼ the plastic stress in Eq 20,
C ¼ the strain hardening constant of the material,
n ¼ the strain hardening exponent, and
epl ¼ 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 1 3
D z n þ2 z ð0:5SÞ n þ1
(22) dF0 ¼ 41   1  D 1 5
n þ1 n þ2 n þ1

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 ¼ half of the span’s length S.
The detailed derivation of this equation for dF0 was introduced in Ref 48. To cal-
culate 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 ¼ eel Þ, span length S and correction function f4 ðaÞ [49]:
rel
(23) dFc ¼  S  f4 ðaÞ
E

where:
in view of Eq 7, 12 rel ¼ 3FS=2BW2 ,
which is the outer fiber 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 .

(24) dFc ¼ epl  S  f4 ðaÞ

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]:

1 epl
(25) ¼
1 0:5W

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

 
0:5W n
(26) enpl ¼
1

Then according to Eq 21:

C
(27) rpl ¼ ð0:5W Þn
1n
The bending moment acting on a cross-section A is:
ð
(28) M ¼ rpl  0:5WdA
A

Inserting Eq 27 into Eq 28 leads to:

ð ð
C n C
(29) M¼ n
ð 0:5W Þ  0:5WdA ¼ ð0:5W Þnþ1 dA
A1 1n A

In the elastic case (n ¼ 1:0Þ, the moment of inertia of the cross-section I is equal
to:
ð
(30) I¼ ð0:5W Þ2 dA
A

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

ð
(31) I ¼ ð0:5W Þnþ1 dA
A

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 133

Then, the bending moment becomes equal to:

CI
(32) M¼
1n

The bend radius can be expressed from Eq 32 and inserted into Eq 26, leading
to the result:
 n
W M
(33) enpl ¼ 
2 CI

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

deflection through:

d2 dF0 1
(34) ¼
dz2 1

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

Eq 34:
rffiffiffiffiffi
d 2 dF0 n M
(35) ¼
dz 2 CI

Moment of inertia I is calculated by:

ð W=2
BW nþ2
(36) I ¼ 2B ð0:5WÞnþ1 dW ¼
0 2nþ1 ð2 þ nÞ

which leads to the differential expression of displacement:

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  1=n
d2 dF0 n F  z F  z  2nþ1 ð2 þ nÞ
(37) ¼ ¼
dz2 2CI 2C  B  W nþ2

where:
F is applied force,
denoting:
 n 
F2 ð2 þ nÞ 1=n
(38) D¼
CBW nþ2

Equation 37 may be written in the compact form:

d 2 dF0
(39) ¼ Dz 1=n
dz 2

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

rffiffiffiffiffi
n M
(40) ¼ Dz1=n
CI

thus, Eq 33 can be transformed into:

n
(41) enpl ¼ 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.

(42) dFc ¼ 0:5WDz1=n  S  f4 ðaÞ

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

D z ð1=nÞþ2 z ð0:5SÞð1=nÞþ1

(43) dF ¼  D þ 0:5WDz1=n  S  f4 ðaÞ
ð1=nÞ þ 1 ð1=nÞ þ 2 ð1=nÞ þ 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:

ð1  aÞ dCcpl ðaÞ
(44) gpl ¼
C pl ðaÞ 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 non-
linear manner unlike the elastic stage. Because compliance is a function of displace-
ment, it is obtained from the deflection equation of the beam’s mid-span (Eq 43).
" #
D z ð1=nÞþ2 z ð0:5SÞð1=nÞþ1
 D þ ðW=2Þ  Dz 1=n  S  f4 ðaÞ
d F
ð1=nÞ þ 1 ð1=nÞ þ 2 ð1=nÞ þ 1
C pl ðaÞ ¼ ¼
F F
(45)

and

dCcpl ðaÞ dFc ðW=2Þ  Dz 1=n  S  f40 ðaÞ

(46) ¼ ¼
da F F

Hence, Eq 44 gpl takes the form:

ð1  aÞ  ðW=2Þ  ð0:5SÞ1=n  S  f40 ðaÞ

(47) gpl ¼ " #
ð0:5SÞð1=nÞþ2 ð0:5SÞð1=nÞþ2
 þ ðW=2Þ  ð0:5SÞ1=n  S  f4 ðaÞ
ðð1=nÞ þ 1Þðð1=nÞ þ 2Þ ð1=nÞ þ 1

The newly developed Eq 47 shows that gpl depends on strain hardening expo-
nent and specimen size. Eq 47 is valid for any size specimen with S=W ¼ 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 influence of strain hardening is needed, provided deep
cracks are of interest. Also, gpl  a curve, for n ¼ 1:0 becomes similar to the com-
mon curve.
By analyzing Fig. 4. and comparing the gpl  a curves with and without the ma-
terial strain hardening effect, it is possible to assess the influence 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 135

FIG. 3
Theoretical relation between
values of gpl and strain
hardening exponent n. Curve is
valid for Charpy-sized
specimen with a ¼ 0.2, W ¼ 10,
and S ¼ 40 mm.

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

Numerical Modeling
To assess the influence 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 speci-
mens mostly find 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 finite 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 ¼ 0.2.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 136

materials, large deformations, and fracture. The AUTODYN solver, which is inte-
grated 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 stress–strain 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 tempera-
tures. An independent term is created for each of these phenomena, which makes
characterization relatively easy. The material total stress is given by [52]:
h i  
e_pl
 
T  T0 q
(48) rtot ¼ A þ Cenpl 1 þ Gln 1
e_0 Tm  T0

where:
e_0 ¼ the reference strain rate (1.0 s1);
e_pl ¼ the plastic strain rate;
T ¼ the reference temperature;
Tm ¼ the melting temperature;
T0 ¼ room temperature;
A ¼ ry is the initial yield stress;
C ¼ the strain hardening coefficient;
n ¼ the strain hardening exponent;
q ¼ the temperature softening exponent; and
G ¼ the strain rate coefficient.
At e_pl ¼ 1:0s1 and T ¼ T0 . Equation 48 takes form:

(49) rtot ¼ A þ Cenpl

The strain rate is obtained by [28]:

" # 
3WQ ddF
(50) e_pl ¼ 2
2ðS=2Þ dt

where the stress concentration factor has been set equal to the plastic constraint
factor with values Q ¼ 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]:
     
rm e_p T  T0
(51) ef ¼ D1 þ D2 exp D3 1 þ D4 log 1 þ D5
req e_0 Tm  T0

where:
rm ¼ the average of three normal stresses, and
req ¼ the von-Mises equivalent stress.
Parameters D1  D5 are material constants.
Modeling was performed for two different cases: specimen’s material—1006 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 Johnson–Cook model [52,53]

Steel Steel

Material Parameters 1006 4340 Damage Parameters 1006 4340

A (MPaÞ 350 792 D1 0.8 0.05
C ðMPaÞ 275 510 D2 2.1 3.44
n 0.36 0.26 D3 0.5 2.12
G 0.022 0.014 D4 0.0002 0.002
q 1.0 1.0 D5 0.61 0.61
Elongation at break (%) 20 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 ¼ 40,
B ¼ 10, H ¼ 10, a ¼ 2 mm. Notch radius was equal to 0:25 mm. The view of simu-
lated physical model is shown in Fig. 5. The supports and striker were treated as per-
fectly rigid. Supports were constrained in all six df. Constraints were applied to the
bottom surfaces of each support. Frictional contact was defined for following contact
pairs: striker-specimen, supports-specimen. This type of contact ensures that surfa-
ces can separate and slide during impact. Sliding friction coefficient 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 defined limit of 1 % during
0:001s time of simulated impact.
For dynamic toughness testing, an instrumented drop weight tower is com-
monly used. Impact force and time after impact initiation are measured with piezo-
electric 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 138

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 corre-
sponds to the end of the plastic deformation phase and the beginning of crack prop-
agation in the material. It also denotes the point of the maximum value of striker’s
reaction force in the “time–impact 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 reqðplÞ
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 corre-
sponds to reqðelÞ ¼ 375 MPaat the crack tip. The 4340 steel specimen started to yield
at 2:0501  105 s, when the equivalent stress was reqðelÞ ¼ 810 MPa.

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

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 139

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 ¼ 160 (steel 1006) and 69 kJ=m2 (steel 4340). The assessment
of material strain hardening via gpl leads to Jpl ¼ 228 (steel 1006) and 113 kJ=m2
(steel 4340).

FIG. 9
Variation of equivalent Von-
Misses stress req on the notch
tip after impact initiation.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 140

TABLE 6
Calculated values of J-integral components.

Steel

1006 4340 1006 4340

n ¼ 0:26 n ¼ 0:36 n ¼ 1:0 n ¼ 1:0

Parameter gpl gpl

Uel ðJÞ 0.55 0.82 0.55 0.82

gel 1.401 1.401 1.401 1.401
Jel ðkJ=m2 Þ 10 14 10 14
Upl ðJÞ 7.98 3.44 7.98 3.44
gpl 2.286 2.621 1.603 1.603
Jpl ðkJ=m2 Þ 228 113 160 69
Jtot ðkJ=m2 Þ 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 frac-
ture 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 deflection, a new analytical formula for the correction factor gpl has
been derived.
To show the influence of steel’s plastic properties, two different grades of steel
were chosen for numerical modeling. The results clearly show that because of dis-
tinctly different amounts of stored plasticity in the steels, significant difference
appears in calculated values of the plastic components of J: Jpl ¼ 228 for 1006 steel
and Jpl ¼ 113 kJ=m2 for 4340 steel. This is influenced by both the different absorbed
energy during plastic deformation and by different correction factor values:
gpl ¼ 2:286for 1006 steel and gpl ¼ 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. 559–566.
[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. 203–210.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 141

[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. 189–203.
[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. 63–80.
[5] Belenky, A., Bar-On, I., and Rittel, D., “Static and Dynamic Fracture of Transpar-
ent Nanograined Alumina,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 58, 2010, pp. 484–501.
[6] Muralidhara, S., Raghu Prasad, B. K., and Singh, R. K., “Size Independent Frac-
ture Energy Release Rate in Plain Concrete Beams,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 98,
2013, pp. 284–295.
[7] Patrick, J. F., Sottos, N. R., and White, S. R., “Microvascular Based Self-Healing
Polymeric Foam,” Polymer, Vol. 53, 2012, pp. 4231–4240.
[8] Ko, T. Y. and Kemeny, J., “Determination of the Subcritical Crack Growth Pa-
rameters in Rocks Using the Constant Stress-Rate Test,” Int. J. Rock Mech.
Mining Sci., Vol. 59, 2013, pp. 166–178.
[9] Chlup, Z., Flasar, P., and Dlouhy, I., “Response of Inherently Brittle Materials
on Higher Loading Rates,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 77, 2010, pp. 359–366.
[10] Garcia-Prieto, A. and Baudin, C., “Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Con-
trolled Fracture Tests of Brittle Ceramics,” J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., Vol. 30, 2010,
pp. 3297–3302.
[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. 88–98.
[12] Koo, J. M., Park, S., and Seok, C. S., “Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Nu-
clear Piping Using Real Pipe and Tensile Compact Pipe Specimens,” Nucl. Eng.
Design, Vol. 259, 2013, pp. 198–204.
[13] Chattopadhyay, J., Dutta, B. K., and Vaze, K. K., “Development of New Corre-
lations 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. 379–386.
[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. 3–18.
[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. 1203–1218.
[17] Wilson, C. D. and Mani, P., “Plastic J-Integral Calculation Using the Load Sep-
aration Method for the Double Edge Notch Tension Specimen,” Eng. Fract.
Mech., Vol. 75, 2008, pp. 5177–5186.
[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. 945–966.
[19] Matvienko, Yu. G., “Separable Functions in Load Separation for the gpl
and gplCMOD Plastic Factor Estimation,” Int. J. Fract., Vol. 129, 2004, pp.
256–278.

Materials Performance and Characterization

GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 142

[20] Zhu, X. K., “J-Integral Resistance Curve Testing and Evaluation,” J. Zhejiang
Univ. Sci. A, Vol. 10, No. 11, 2009, pp. 1541–1560.
[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. 34–41.
[22] Sumpter, J. D. G., “JC Determination for Shallow Notched Weld Bend Spec-
imens,” Fatigue, Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., Vol. 10, No. 6, 1987, pp. 479–493.
[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. 669–676.
[24] Schindler, H. J. and Veidt, M., “Fracture Toughness Evaluation from Instru-
mented 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,” Pendu-
lum Impact Testing: A Century of Progress, ASTM STP 1380, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999, p. 10.
[26] Zhang, D. Z. and Lin, J., “A General Formula for Three-Point Bend Specimen J-
Integral Calculation,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 36, No. 5, 1990, pp. 789–793.
[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. 2263–2281.
[28] Sreenivasan, P. R. and Mannan, S. L., “Dynamic J-R Curves and Tension-
Impact Properties of AISI 308 Stainless Steel Weld,” Int. J. Fract., Vol. 101,
2000, pp. 229–249.
[29] Wu, S. X., Mai, Y. W., and Cotterell, B., “Plastic g-Factor (gpl) of Fracture Speci-
mens with Deep and Shallow Cracks,” Int. J. Fract., Vol. 45, 1990, pp. 1–18.
[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. 215–228.
[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. 1971–1985.
[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.
261–273.
[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. 537–549.
[36] Jiang, F., Ruitang, L., Xiaoxin, Z., Vecchio, K. S., and Rohatgi, A., “Evaluation
of Dynamic Fracture Toughness Kld by Hopkinson Pressure Bar Loaded Instru-
mented Charpy Impact Test,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 71, 2004, pp. 279–287.

Materials Performance and Characterization

 GINTALAS ET AL. ON THREE-POINT BEND 143

[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. 187–206.
[38] Lucon, E., “Dynamic Toughness Testing of Pre-Cracked Charpy V-Notch Spec-
imens,” Unclassified, SCK-CEN Belgian Nuclear Research Center, Mol, Bel-
gium, 1999, p. 32.
[39] Haggag, F. and Underwood, J. H., “Compliance of a Three-Point Bend Speci-
men at Load Line,” Int. J. Fract., Vol. 26, 1984, pp. 63– 65.
[40] Ostensson, B., “Some Information from Load Deflection Curves, Useful
in Fracture Toughness Testing,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 6, 1974, pp. 473–482.
[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. 147–165.
[42] Perter, C. M. and Rodrigues, J. A., “Stability of Crack Propagation during Bend-
ing Tests on Brittle Materials,” Ceramica, Vol. 54, 2008, pp. 382–387.
[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-TR-
94001, 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 Aero-
space 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. 1–9.
[46] Angamuthu, K., Guha, B., and Achar, D. R. G., “Investigation of Dynamic Frac-
ture Toughness (JId) Behavior of Strength Miss-Matched Q&T Steel Weldments
Using Instrumented Charpy Impact Testing,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 64, 1999,
pp. 417–432.
[47] Imad, A., Abdelaziz, N. M., and Mesmacque, G., “A Ductile Tear Fracture
Analysis of Lap Welded Joints,” Strength Mater., Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 382–390.
[48] Ziliukas, A. and Gintalas, M., “Dynamic Fracture Criteria Evaluation of Bridge
Structural Steel,” Baltic J. Bridges Eng., Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011, pp. 91–95.
[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. 357–378.
[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. 1–46.
[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,” Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, Hague, The Nether-
lands, April 19–21, 1983, pp. 541–547.
[53] Adams, B., 2006, “Simulation of Ballistic Impacts on Armoured Civil Vehicles,”
Ph.D. thesis, MT06.03, Eindhoven University of Technology and PDE Automo-
tive, The Netherlands, p. 101.

Materials Performance and Characterization

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (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)
ViewPursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
publication stats