Sunteți pe pagina 1din 25

1KE SOY6, Y2 $5.00 + 0.

00
(

I YY2 Pergmm

Prcw

L.ld

FAMILY OF CRACK-TIP FIELDS CHARACTERIZED A TRIAXIALITY PARAMETER-II. FRACTURE APPLICATIONS


N. P. ODOWI,
Division of Engnecring.

BY

and C. F. SHIH~
Providence. RI 02912. U.S.A

Brown liniversity.

ABSTRACT
to the J-bawd fracture mechanics approach is the concept of J-dominance whereby J alone sets the stress Icwl as well as the six scale of the zone of high strcsscs and strains. In Part 1 the idea of II J Q annulus MU dcccloped. Within the annulus. the plant strain plastic near-tip liclds arc members of :I IBmily ofsolu~ions paramcterized by Q when distances arc normalized by Jn,,. where (r,, is the yield stress. .I and Q hu\c distinct roles : .I sets the size scale owr which large stresses and strams dcvclop while Q scales the war-tip stress distribution and the strw triarialitq achiewxi ahcad of the crack. Spccilically, ncgnti\c (poslti\c) Q \nlues mun that the hydrwtatic stress IS reduced (increased) by PO,, from the p = 0 plnnc \traili rcfwcnce state. Thcreforc Q pro\ ides a quantitaticc mcasurc of crack-tip constraint, a term widely twxi in the litcraturc concerning gcomctq and six ellccts on a materials resistance to fracture. These dcvel~~p~mx~ts are discussed further in this paper. It is shown that the J Q approach considerably cxtcnds the range of applicahllit!; of fracture mechanics for ahallow-crack geometries loaded in tcnsion and bending. and deep-crach getmxtries loaded in tension. The ,I Q theory provides II francwork to organwe toughnesh dala ;I\ a function of constraint and to utili7c sue h data in engineering applications. Two methods for c\timatins Q at fully yicldcd conditions and an interpolation scheme arc discussed. The effects of crack 4x and specimen type 011 fracture toughness are xidrcssed.

(LXIK4L

ODown and SHIH ( 1991). hereafter referred to as Part I, presented the J-Q approach to fracture mechanics. They showed that the full range of high- and low-triaxiality fields within the J-Q annulus are members of a Family of solutions parameterized by Q when distances arc normalized by J,o,,. where o,, is the yield stress. Specifically. the near-tip stress level is governed by Q. a hydrostatic stress parameter, while J sets the ske scale over which the large stresses and strains develop. These ideas have been formulated within the context of plane strain deformations (.I scales the process ~onc si7c). In Part I the following two-term expansion for the small-displacement-gradient near-tip tield is shown to prevail beyond the /one of finite strains :

+ i\uthor

to whom correspondence should be addressed 93)

940

N. P. ODowr)

and <. F. SHIH

where r and 0 arc polar coordinates centered at the crack tip; 0 = 0 corresponds to a line ahead of the crack. II is the strain hardening exponent, E,, the yield strain (c,, = o,,/E), and 2 a material constant. The first term in the above expansion is the HRR singularity (HUTCHINSON. I968 ; RICE and ROSFNGIIEN, 1968) with the J-integral (RICE. 1968) as its amplitude. The second term is scaled by Q, a dimensionless parameter undetermined by the asymptotic analysis. The nature of the second term has been studied in detail by LI and WANG (1986) and SHARMAand ARAVAS (19Y I ). The main features of the second term in (I. 1). discussed at length in Part I. are summarized here. The second term is practically independent of radial distance I (0 < q ,< 0.07 I for 4 d n , 20). With the angular functions li,, normalized < by requiring ci,,,,(fl = 0) to equal unity. Q is then simply the amplitude of the second-order hoop stress term in (I. I). We showed that G,., z ri,,,, z constant and Jri,,,I CC/ri,,,,I in the forward sector j0 1 < n+?. i.e. the second-order term is essentially :I uniform hydrostatic stress in that sector. Thus Q is (I l~_~dro.srtrtic~ .YI~L~.S.S prr,vmcter. Nqatirc (positiw) Q
r~ulws ~IILWI tht tlw h~dust~~tic .strc.s.s is r&c~rd (iwrmsd) h,~ Qo,) fkm the Q = 0 r~~/i~rc~~c~~ .ctutc. This interpretation is supported by the radial and angular distributions

of the These stress stress,

hydrostatic stress at various Q levels shown in Fig. 1 for II = 5 and 10 materials. results were obtained from a finite-deformation analysis where the KirchhoA is the convenient stress measure. For metals the Kirchhoff stress. z, and Cauchy 0. are approximately equal.

0.8 -

._._.I.
-.-

0.00 -0.35 -0.70 3.0

n = e=o

10
0.0

0.0

""""""""'I","' 0.0 1.0 2.0

4.0

5.0

r/(J/oo)
3.5

(4

3.0 2.5 2.0 I.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

f..
0.0

.I,.

)I,.

,I

. ..\J -3
180.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

45.0

/(J/u o)

90.0 8

135.0

Family of crack-tip

fields-II

941

Taking

note of the above features,

a simplified

form of (1.1) is

where 6,, is the Kronecker delta. The restriction on the domain of validity recognizes that finite-strain effects are not accounted for in (I .2). To extend the range of validity of (1.2). we may choose the small-scale yielding solution which matches the HRR stress distribution at v/(J/oo) = 2 and 0 = 0 as the Q = 0 distribution. Using this Q = 0 distribution as the reference solution, the member fields are given by oil = (~,,)~=o+Q~o6i, Q is then defined as the difference field at r/(J/oo) = 2, 0 = 0, i.e. between for I > J/O,,, 181 < 7r/2. (1.3)

the full-field solution

for ~~~~~ the HRR and

(1.4) The distance r/( J/CT)= 2 is chosen so that Q is evaluated outside the finite-strain region but still within the J-Q annulus. Note that Q can be evaluated from any of the stress components and at any convenient angle within the forward sector. The above choice based on gli,, appears to be the most sensible one. The J-Q annulus is defined as the region of outer boundary r, Q where the representation in (1.2) and (1.3) accurately describes the field. A reference distribution determined from a small-displacement-gradient formulation is adequate for many applications. However, some applications require accurate quantification of the field near and within the zone of finite strains, e.g. studies on the micromechanisms of ductile failure and cleavage fracture. For such applications the reference distribution should be obtained from a finite-deformation analysis. Using the finite-strain distribution as the reference solution, the domain of validity of (1.3) is extended for some distance inside the finite-strain zone. This can be seen from the distributions given in Part I. However, we should point out that at distances greater than r/( J/o,,) = 2 the difference between the finite and small-strain Q = 0 distributions is negligible (see Fig. 2 in Part I). A comment about the representations in (1.2) and (1.3) is in order. Member fields of (1.2) and (1.3) with identical Q values have the same stress triaxiality at r/(J/a,,) = 2. At distance r/( J/go) # 2, however, the stresses given by (1.2) will differ slightly from those of (1.3). Our numerical investigations showed that (1.3) is the preferred representation for the Q-family of fields. The interpretation of Q, made explicit by the approximate representations (1.2) and (1.3), simplifies its evaluation in finite-width geometries and its subsequent application. We should emphasize that though the present structure is largely based on the small-displacement-gradient expansion in (1. l), the existence of the Q-family of fields under finite-deformation conditions can be deduced from dimensional considerations as carried out in Part 1.

Y42

N. I. OI~OWI) ;IIlcI (

I. 9llll Frt.r.r,s

2.

Q-~.Ahlll.Y

01.

fi,,

Ki

I; (!I) -t- 72

,i

,,.

(7. I )

. .

n=lO
n =

Q =

F (T/o,;

n!

For II = IO, ~1,)= -0.05. u, = 0.81, LI: = -0.54. and for f~ = 5, N,, = -0.1. (I, = 0.72. N? = -0.42. The Q-T relationships shown in Fig. 2 and the representation in (2.4) are small-scale yielding results. Of course. T has no relevance under fully yielded conditions. However. the Q-family of fields can exist over the entire range of plastic yielding and does not depend on the existence of the elastic Geld (2.1). BETNK)K and HANCOCK (1991) also llave shown that positive T-stresses have negligible effect on the stress triaxiality. In contrast. negative T-stresses have a significant effect on the hoop stress ahcad of the crack. which they have approximated by (2.5) For M = I3 they obtained U, = 0.64 and LI? = -0.4, Comparing (2.5) with (I .3). a similar expression between 7;ia,, and Q can be obtained. The crack-tip opening displacement ii, is defined by the opening where 45 lines drawn backwards from the crack tip intersect the deformed crack faces. In Part I we showed that d, has the form

This relation generalizes an earlier result derived from the HRR field alone (SHIH, 1981).The dependence of d on Q. determined from full-field solutions, is shown in Fig. 3 for II = 5 and IO. For both materials, d increases considerably as Q becomes more negative. This means that. at the same level of J. low constraint geometries (Q < 0) will undergo a greater amount of crack-tip blunting than high-constraint geometries (Q 2 0). It has been shown in Part 1 that the plastic strain field has the form

(4

(b>

0.30~~..,...,~~.,~~.,..~,~~~,,,.

-1.4-1.2-1.0-0.8-0.6-0.4-02 Q

0.0

0.2

-1.2-1.0

-0.8

-0.6 -0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

4
opening d~splaccmcnt ~x~ramctcr tl 01, Q li,l- II = IO and 5

I-K;. 3. Depmiwc

ol~~.xk

The first terln is the HRR singularity and the second tcrln involves both .I and Q. Observe that, if distances arc normalized by J;r j,,. the strain field in (3.7) is parameterired by Q alonc, i.e. they are also members of the Q-fanlily. Figure 4 shows the Q-family of plastic strain fields for 17 = 10 generated by the modified boundary layet formulation (2. I ). The radial variation of the eflective plastic strain for a range of Q \:alues is shown at 0 = 0 and I) = 71/4 in Fig. 4(a) and (b). Ahcad of the crack (0 = 0). the plastic strain is insensitive to Q for ~/(.//a,,) > I. The weak dependence on Q is seen for 101 < 20 in Fig. 4(c) (f). In contrast, the plastic strain level along 0 = +4 increases significantly as (_j becomes more ncgativc. Figure 4(c) and (d) show that the plastic strain increases and shifts touards the forward sector as Q becomes more ncgativc. For increasingly positi\:e Q states sho\cn in Fig. 4(c) and (I), the plastic strain in the for\\,ard sector decreases while that in the back sector. /01 > 7~3. increasz~. These strain fields constitute the Q-family of Gelds. Strain distributions for linitcl\,idth crack geometries, prrscnted in subsequent sections. can be identified with the distributions presented here.

In this and subsequent sections wt direct attention to the ellitcts of applied load crack geometry on crack-tip constraint as measured by Q. IJndcr large-rcalc yielding conditions the result (2.3) does not apply. Q now depends on the remote load and crack geometry. This dependence can bc written in the form
and

(3.1)

where J.(Lo,,) is the dimensionless load: L is the relevant crack dimension of the finite-width crack geometry. WC examine tension and bending dominated gzeometrie:, with crack length (I and Gdth W(ligamcnt length /I = F--u). In general ;I crack is designated a shallow cr:tck

Family of crack-tip
0.100

fields-11
0.20

(4
0.075 P 14) 0.050

..........***. -.__-----1.07 -0.70 0.0 0.22

(b) 0.15

0.025

0.05

0.000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

r/(J/a 0)
0.25 Cc) @) 0.10 P IW 0.05 0.05 0.15

r/(J/o,) r/(J/u,) = 2

0.20

Q
-1.40 . . . . . . . . -1.07 ---__-_. -0.70 -0.35 0.0

0.00 0.0 45.0 90.0 8 0.20 (e) 0.16 135.0 180.0

0.00 0.0 45.0 90.0 135.0

180.0

0 0.10
r/(J/o,) = 1

0.22

6)

:--0.22

0.12 P 14) 0.03 zl

0.04

0.00

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

e
FIG. 4. Q-family of plastic strain fields. (a) and (b) radial distribution of effcctivc plastic strain at 0 = 0 and 0 = ~4. (c) and (d) angular distribution for negative Q at r,(J/cr,,) = I and h(J,cr,,) = 2. (e) and (f) angular distribution for pwtive Q.

when the relevant dimension is the crack length and a deep crack when the relevant dimension is the ligament. The material properties are those used in the analyses discussed in the preceding section and in Part 1. Only the IZ = 10 case will be discussed here.

A schematic of the center-cracked panel loaded in biaxial tension Part I in Fig. l(b). The state of biaxiality is given by B E a:,/o,l;.

was shown in By varying B,

936

N. tcvcls of constraint

r. O~WI)
crack

d tip

c.. t. SIIIII
arc obtained. Three biaxiality raliox. bq h>

difterent I-igure taking field


yielded (or

at the

H = 0. 0.5 and

1. arc investigated.
the dependence of Q on the cxctent of plastic panel
with cl,. M = 0.

5 shows

yielding

mcasurcd

.J. (cm,,) for the center-cracked


cqui\atentty condilions arc B = I. the are reached

I. As before,

Q is c\~aluaM

the difYercncc between the full-field the Q = 0 distribution) reached


al J.(tra,,)

solution

1.01. Ihe hoop slrcss


and I .O,

and the HRR


fdl~ ILIII~ j

a( I (J ml,) = 2. 0 = 0. Fol- 13 = 0. J:or the highest but

at

conditions auiatity. cngulls

./.(rrrr,,) 2 0.03 : for U = 0.5 z 0. I anti 0.0. rcspecli\ety.


not

ictdcd hiiI

ptaslic

/one

does

spread of bi:lxialil!

across

Ihe

ligament

instcad
ccn~cr-

the crack completely.

The

cffezr

on plastic

/one\ in lhc

cracked panel is discussed


For H = 0. Q drops r;Ipidty

in Jart I.
at lo\k, toads. indicaliny a ;I loss olconslraint as ptasticil>

develops. similar constant increasing FigIrc s~ronply


strain lietds

At

the fully yield&


is
f~rtty been for B

state.
== 0.5

C;, seltlc~

to

constant value olabout


:11 tirst
b-or 8 =

I..?. ;I
cfIIilc ~iltl panel liclcl\
and

Irend
as

Q Iills
arc

rapidly

and then
I. fJ rises iis the

rcniains graduatl~
toad incrcac~.

yictdcd conditions

rcachcd.

load ~113 lo 6 shows rcscmbtc


arc

.J(m,,)

: 0.03 ~inci tticn rises more steept>~


strain

the plastic nionibers


in Fir.

Ior the biauiatit~

tt372ts. R = 0. 0.5

and hydrostatic slrcss and I. In all cases

in lhc ccntcr-crackcd
Ihc of ctrcss hydrosMtic and \Irain hIress

of the Q-latnity

: ttic

C)-l;iniity

sho\\m

and

Fig. 1. respcclivcly.

The

fields in Fig.

6 arc plo~tcd
up to 1llC 2s strain about tl~tll-o-

;tI
I

,.,(.I nTi,)= 2, hug WC note that [tic i-ewmhtance pcrsisls For distances (J,o,,) = 5. The fictds li)r B = 0 and 0.5 corrc~ppond to negali\o Q-fields
dccrcasc\ white the plastic
The loss ductitc

static slress
dc\dops.

strain
co~ipted

aticatt olltlc crack


willi the C;IX. increase B =

incrcasei in plastic

ptasticil!

in stress
tracture.

1riaxiatity dcvclops
~wtor IIVOIthat

uoutd
Qltrc while

ttmi to til\or
ticlds. plastic Fig. i.e. 6(b)].
a:,

Jhc high-bi;l\i;llity the hb,tll-ostatic remains

I. produces slightly Fig. [coniparc

posi[l\c

Ihe

ptasbcily

stress

incrcascs

strain

in the lorward conditions


noted

rctatiwty crack-tip

watt

6(1) \zittl

These

clcavagc Irac(urc.
cxccssiw

In Jart I, \\;chave

blun~in, (r

may

result

in ;I IO\\ 01

0.5

B=
0.0

1.0

,/-

-0.5

Family

of crack-tip

fields0.15

II

947

04
____--.
P

-0.52 -0.16

14

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

8
0.100

(4
0.075

e
0.100

(4

(f)
0.075

*.,,......... o.lg
--0.17

v(J/o ,,) = 2

.I iJ dominance. This appears to be the cast for the H = 0 biaxiality state at cxtensivc yielding as seen in Fig. 6(b). The plastic strains near 0 =: 0 for Q less than - I ;lre wnsiderably higher than those in Fig. 4(d). At these Q values. J,o,, is greater thnn about 0.05rr. i.e. the crack-tip opening displacement is a sizable fraction of the crack xi/e. Under thcsc conditions, the J Q tield dominatw over ;I small rcgisn. The distributions of the hydrostatic stress in Fig. 6(a) at these J levels indicate good agreement with the Q-family of fields. Despite this. the lack ofagreement in the strains is not unespected since a small deviation fwm the J Q stress field is magnified in the
strains li: * ((T:(T,,)].

The variation of Q with J!(La,,) for the center-cracked panel with LI;I+ = 0.7 is shown in Fig. 7. In this case J is normalized by ha,, since h. the length of the uncrackcd ligament, is the relevant distance. For biaxiality ratios. B = 0 and 1, we obtain negative Q values and, for B = 2, positive Q are obtained. The variation of Q with J:( Lo,,) for these biaxiality ratios is similar to that observed for the shallow-crack geometry. The hydrostatic stress and plastic strain fields are plotted in Fig. 8 for the three biaxiality states, B = 0, I and 2. By comparing these fields with those in Figs I and 4. we can conclude that the fields in Fig. X are members of the Q-family. However, there appears to be an exception. The strain distribution identified by Q = 0.19 in Fig. S(f) does not appear to be a member of the Q-family. As previously explain&. excessive crack-tip blunting can result in the loss of J-Q dominance. and this may hc the case here.

There is broad agreement that J alone characterizes the crack-tip fields in decpcrack bend geometries (MCMEEKINC; and PARKS. 1979; SHIH and GERMAN. I98 1 ; HUTCHINSON. 1983). Here we explore whether a two-parameter characterization can significantly extend a fracture mechanics approach for shallow-crack bend geometries. For the purpose of comparison the hoop stress distribution for shallow and deeply cracked center-cracked panels is presented in Fig. 9(a) and (c). It can be seen that the hoop stress distribution shifts downwards (uniformly) by an amount Qa,, as plastic yielding develops. Thus the J Q annulus extends over a physically relevant length scale in both shallow- and deep-crack geometries at contained yielding and fully yielded conditions. Figure 9(b) shows that the stress redistribution in ;I shallow-crack bend bar. (I/W = 0. I. behaves like that in center-cracked panels. Thus we may make similar conclusions about the existence of the J Q annulus. Indeed, AI,-ANI and HAN(YKX

0.5

B = 2.0
0.0

-0.5

-3.50

-2.75

-2.00

-1.25

-0.50

log(J/(Lu,))

Family

of crack-tip

fields-11
0.15

949

(b)

-0.36

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

Q
-0.13 . . . . . . -0.34 -a-0.58 ..... ...... -0.71

(4
P

IW

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

e
3.0 (e) 2.0 < 0.100

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

r/(J/a,) = 2

@I 0.075 - -

Q : . . . . . . 0.10
0.01

r/(J/o,)

= 2

b=

P 14)
1.0 a/W = 0.7

B = 2.0

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0

0.0

45.0

90.0

135.0

180.0
levels. a,,;~,, a,,,Irr,, 0.7.

e
fields in center-cracked-panel. rr! W = 0.7. for various Q 0.016, and 0.046 corresponding to remote stress levels and (d) B = 1.0, J/(h,,) = 0.002. 0.01, 0.04, and 0.1 I, 2.0, J/(/XT,) = 0.01, 0.03, and 0.08, o,,/cT,, = 0.3. 0.6 and

FIG. 8. Hydrostatic stress and plastic strain (a) and (b) B = 0, J,(bn,,) = 0.002, 0.006, = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.45, respectively. (c) = 0.2. 0.4, 0.6 and 0.65. (e) and (f) B =

(1991) have presented stress distributions for shallow cracks loaded in tension and bending which are very much like those shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b), respectively. DODIX et al. (I 99 1) have reported similar results for shallow-crack bend geometries. However, in a deeply cracked bend bar the stress redistribution with increasing plastic deformation is different from what has been observed thus far. Figure 9(d) shows that the stress decreases rapidly with distance away from the tip at fully yielded conditions (J/o,, > 0.0%). This can be explained by the strong stress gradient across the ligament-the hoop stress is compressive near the free surface and must become tensile as the crack tip is approached. Therefore the Q-term, which represents a state

(b)
0 +. 2
I-

1 4.o
3.0

a/w = 0.1 1

2.0

1.0

0.001 -mm--. 0.009 -I 0.024 ,.,..,...., 0.073


0.0 1.0 2.0

0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

4.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

r/(Jbo)

r/(J/~o)

1.0 -

..._.

0.002 0.006

L____. 0.025 -. 0.055 ....,

- 0.016 ,,....... II 0,046 0.0 J.l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

r/(J/@ o)

of uniform
validily.
is general

hydrostatic the J aprwnent

stress

in the Ihrward

sector
than

[see
tlic

( I .3)].

has

;I small In any

domuitl c;isc

01 1ticr.c

ix.

Q annulua

is not much larger

,/-annul~is.

that the one-parameter

J-ch;llacterization 1979:
StiIH SllOW

works
rind that

~.tll thr docpl~


GI:I~MAX.

cracked

bend gcometries biding stress

( MC.MHKIUG
distributions distribution

and PARKS. prevails war

19% I

HUTCXINXNX, 19X3). The the global /defined by

in Fi,. C)(d) alw ol nwr-tip

\VhCIl ./*fl,, > O.M/?

the crack stress

tip.

Nc~crthelcus,

(I .4)J still provides

ii mensurc

triaxialil).

The
plotted

hydrostatic in Fig. fields

stress resemble

and cffectivc plastic the Q-family.

strain
al

for cl:I+ = 0.
= 2.

I, 0.3

and

0.5

arc

I I The Q vnlucs are evaluated

r/(,/:ci,,)

In all cuscs

the stress cwn

and strain :it conciitiws

It may be noted that the angular to rcsemblc yicldcci conditions.

distribution

of the fields

fbr the deeply cracked

bend bar continues

the Q ficltfs

well heyoncf the on~ct of fully

Family of crack-tip
(a) o.25

ticlds~~ll

05

(b) o.25

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

log(J&,))

log(J&,))

4.

METHODS

FOR EVALUATING

Thus far, values of Q for different crack geometries have been evaluated from fullfield solutions. Simplified methods for determining and using Q are proposed in this section.

Under small-scale yielding conditions Q depends on load and geometry only through T (2.3). The T-stress, which scales linearly with the applied load, has been calibrated for a number of crack geometries including the center-cracked panel and the edge-cracked bend bar (LEEVERS and RADON, 1982; SHAM, 1991). T can be expressed in terms of a dimensionless parameter C which depends on specimen type and relative crack size ul W, i.e. (4.1) For the center-cracked panel loaded in remote tension and for 0 < L/ict < 0.7. C ranges from -0.56 to -0.68. For a bend bar C ranges from -0.21 to 0.19 for 0 < N/I/~< 0.7. When a center-cracked panel is loaded in biaxial tension {B = o,,/a,,. [set Fig. l(b) of Part I]), T is given by

T=
Using the relationship between

Ju

-tBo,:..
W)

(4.2)

K and the remote stress a,, ,


K = CJ,*, &aF(a/

(4.3)

we can write Tin the form

T=

o,,.($cCF+ B),

(4.4)

0.0

45.0

90.0 e

135.0

180.0

0.0

45.0

90.0 e

135.0

180 0

3.0 Cc) 2.0 < tf 1.0

0.15 r

I r/(J/a,) = 2 Q ,,,....,,.,.. -0.6, --0.44


. . . .._. -0.31 -0.11 -

(4
0.10

EJ
0.05

0.0

0.0
3.0 (e) 2.0 < = 1.0

0.00 45.0 90.0 e 0.12 (0 0.09 . 135.0 180.0 0.0 45.0 90.0 135.0 180.0

e r/(J/o,) = 2 --

Q
-0.57

. . . . . . . -0.35 -0.02

P 141

0.0

0.0

45.0

90.0 e

135.0

180.0

90.0

where B = 0 for bend geometries. Once T is known. e may be evaluated from the p T plot in Fig. 2 or by using (2.4). We emphasize that relations (4. I) (4.4) arc derived under small-scale yielding conditions. Hancock and coworkers have proposed quantifying constraint at fully yielded conditions in terms of the elastic T-stress. Since T is undefined under fully yielded conditions they have used (4.4) as an operational definition. Constraint is then quantified by using this value of Tin (2.5). To assess the validity of the J T approach WC compare the estimates of D obtained from (2.5) with the actual values obtained from our full-field solutions for M = IO. We should point out that the first term in (2.5) is the T = 0 field which dill&s slightly from the Q = 0 field in (1.3). In the subsequent

Family of crack-tip fields-11

953

discussions, we have made a slight adjustment to (2.5) so that it is in agreement with (1.3) at T = 0. Figure 12 provides the comparison for the center-cracked panel with a/W = 0.1 and 0.7 for two biaxiality ratios. The results from BETEG~N and HANCOCK (1991) pertain to an n = 13 material, but as noted previously the dependence of the Q-T relationship on n is weak (see Fig. 2). The estimate of Q obtained from our smallscale yielding relationship (2.4) is also shown. This is the curve designated SSY. The deformation level at which 25J/00 equals L is indicated in the plots. This is the maximum deformation set by ASTM E 813-87 for a valid J,( test using a deeply cracked bend bar. It can be seen that T-stress does not always predict the near-tip constraint at large-scale yielding. Figure 13 provides a similar comparison for the three-point bend geometry. u/W = 0.1, and 0.5. For this geometry, Q is evaluated at r/(J/o,) = 1 and 2. The estimates of Q based on (2.4) and (2.5) agree well with the full-field solutions under contained yielding. but do not predict the behavior under fully yielded conditions. In Fig. 13(b), it may be noted that the small-scale yielding estimate is in better agreement

0.5

(4
0.0

1 a/W = 0.1 B=O L = 25J/o,

(b)

_::;x
-1.0 .._ ._

: a/w= 0.1

-1.5 -2.0 -3.50 -2.75 -2.00 -1.25 -0.50

full field ....*...,,*.. I ss* SSY(B&H)

~~%,,

. -I.s (
-3.50 -2.75


-2.00


-1.25

-0.50

hdJ/(La,))

log(J/(Lu,))

(4

. a/W
0.0 -

= 0.7 L = 25J/0,

. B = 1.0

-o.5

-1.0

full field 1....,,....1.* SSY SSY(B&H) -2.75 -2.00


-1.25 -0.50

. -*-3.50 -2.75

hdJ/(Lo,))

-2.00

-1.25

-0.50

-3.50

lodJ/(La,))

FIG. 12. Comparison of estimates based on small-scale yielding and Q values from full-field solution for center-cracked panel. The line indicated by B&H is based on BETEG~N and HANCOCK (1991). the dotted line is our relation (2.4). For ai W = 0. I, L = a; for u/W = 0.7, I!. = b.

0.25

(4
0.00

: a/w = 0.1

L = 25J/uo

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

log(J/@,))
0.25

tb)
0.05 -0.15

Q
-0.35

with

the actual Q

value

when Q is evaluated

at I.

(,/, a,,) = I An cstitnate by fbm GON


:I

and HAKCOCX \aiuCS.


Based on

(I 991 I is not shown


these comparisons

since [hey did no[ provide that the

result

for positive rcl:ttion~


;I?, lull)

we conclude
under

st~~;~ll-~c;~Ic

yielding Howevct-. the estitnatcs

provide yielded

an accurate cstimaw conditiona

ofconstraint

contained

yielding.

are approached.

the discrepancy

between

and the

actual Q value can hcconic large.

A procedure elastic relation


on

for evaluating plastic solids.

Q under The

frilly

yielded This

condilions analysis

is now propmed shows that the Q ofQ


and hscd

for 7

perfectly

snmll-scale
hardcning.

yielding

depends weakly plasticity strain


(I

on strain

suggests

that cstimatcs materials

perfect

should

be applicable Within

to low-hardening

possibly

moderate-hardeninp
the plane to in

materials.
Prandtl
.3).

the small-displacement-gradient lo be the reference


and

formulation. state rcferrcd have noted for crackslip(1968)

slip-line

field can be taken

( 1.2) and

HUTCHINSON
as II ---f

( 1968) and RKE


x_/-.

ROSI:NGRE~ singularity at-gutnents

that this field is the limit, tip stresses. RIC.F: (1968)

ofthcir

dominant

solutions

has also

given approximate

that the Prandtl

Fanul~ of crack-tip

lid&

-II

955

line field provides the limiting stress state. as r --+ 0, at the crack tip for cases of contained yielding. We direct attention to the region directly ahead of the crack tip. Within the forward sector (01 < ~114 of the Prandtl slip-line field, the stresses are : nL, = (2+n)rr,,!,! 3, u,, = no,,jx/3, and u,,. = 0. These stresses are expressed conveniently as (u,,),+:~,,~,,= (1 +n) where the first term on Now consider stress forward sector remains follows that the family y;&,V O,; 6,,(5,,+ \ _ :$L,B?,. t101 < ~1:14, (4.5)

the right-hand side of (4.5) is the hydrostatic stress 0,). states that can differ from the Prandtl held. Assume that the plastically yielded and cr,/ > ci,,. Then G,,.- (T,, = 20,,, ,,;3. It of mode I stress states has the form fl(I V ,I? ii,, -UII _ n,J,,+ V./j 00 . d+L, 13 \ (4.5)

(T,,= (1 +n+,!JQ) or simply

fl,, = (~,,)l~l-:,Jtl+PO,,&,.

(4.7)

The above form is consistent with the small-scale yielding solutions for an elastic perfectly plastic material reported by Du and HANCOCK ( 1991). Slip-line field solutions for different crack geometries are now used to evaluate Q. This value is designated Q,.), to emphasise that it pertains to fully plastic conditions. Several cases are dealt with below. Case I : double-edge-cracked panel The panel is loaded by remote tension. For ;1 deeply cracked geometry, the stresses everywhere in the fully yielded ligament are : CT,,= (2 + n)n,,i,/3, CJ,,= TCCJ,,~~!and 3. = 0. Thus Ql,, = 0 for this geometry. 0x1 Approximate slip-line fields for the full range of tr] W ratios have been obtained by EWING and HILI. (1967). Q values can be extracted for these cases. Case 2 : center-cracked panel For the panel loaded by remote tension the stresses across the fully yielded ligament are: u,, = 2o,,/J3, (T,, = 0, and c,! = 0. By comparison with (4.7) we obtain Q,,> = +\,3 z .- I .8. From our full-field analysis for the short and deeply cracked panel (II = IO material) we obtained Q = - I .3 at fully yielded conditions [see Fig. I?(a) and (c)l. This compares favorably with the slip-line field value of - I .8. Consider a biaxially loaded panel with normal tractions of magnitude (T applied at the vertical boundaries of the panel. The stresses across the fully yielded ligament are : f7,, = ~o,,/~I3 + G,], G,, = oil{,and (T,, = 0. Therefore Q, ts = - rciV 3 + oHgi~,,.rdote that fully yielded solutions do not exist when nB is sufficiently large ; only containedyielding states are possible [see Figs 7(c) and 13(c) in Part I]. Case 3 : edge-cracked panel under bending Plasticity is confined to the ligament for N/W greater than about 0.3. The solution for the deeply cracked geometry is the Green and Hundy slip-line (GREENand HUNDY.

056

N. P. ODOWI) and C. F.

SHIII

1956) which gives the stresses near the crack tip 21s: CT,,2 2.9lcr,,, g,, z 1.75a,,. and (T,,. = 0. Comparing with (4.7) we obtain Q,:,, = -0.06. From Fig. 13(b) we see that the value of Q for the deeply cracked bend bar is close to QI,, at deformation levels J < hrr,,/X. At larger Jvalues, Q falls off dramatically from Q,;,,. This difference arises because Q is measured at r;!( J/g,,) = 2, where at these J values the global bending stress distribution dominates as discussed in Section 3.3. For crack sizes smaller than (I:CV= 0.3, the plasticity spreads to the back foes of the crack. Under these conditions. the Q values itre significantly lower than those 1.01 the deeply cracked geometry (EWING. 196X). Case 4 : edge-cracked panel under combined tension and bending The stress triaxiality that develop under combined remote tension and bending arc lower than those under bending alone. An upper-bound solution for combined tension and bending has been proposed by RICE (1972). Estimates of Q for these cases :trc in progress (ODown and SHIH. 1992).

The value of Q under f~dIy plastic conditions can be obtained from fully plastic solutions for pure power law hardening materials of the type used in simplified engineering fracture analysis (KUMAR ct d.. 19XI). Fully plastic solutions are relatively easy to generate and QP,, obtained from such solutions is expected to be more accurate than that estimated by slip-line field analysis. The material of the cracked body is taken to be described by J: deformation theory for an incompressible pure power law stress--strain behavior. In uniaxial tension the material deforms according to LL,,= r((T,.(T,,)~. Under multi-axial stress states the strain is ~ = i:,,;i,~, x(3,:Z)(a,rr,,) .\.>,+7,,, (4.9) (4.8)

where .s,, is the stress deviator and (T, = V 33,,.\,,,2. The solution of a traction boundary value problem based on (4.9) and involving only a single load parameter which is increasing monotonically has the functiomtl form
(T,,,cc, = (a /0,,)f?,,(x,L; geometry.

I?), 12). (4. IO)

L,,i(Xl:,,) = (0 ~o,,)C,,(x,;L; geometry.

where (T is a representative stress magnitude and i, is a characteristic crack dimension. rF,, and f:#, arc dimensionless functions of spatial position x and depend on crack geometry and the strain hardening exponent. Observe that the stresses ;trc linearly related to the applied tractions. The form of the J Q field in (1.2) or (I .3) and the linear dependence of the stresses on the applied tractions in (4. IO) lead immcdiatcly to the forms of J and Q at fully yielded conditions :

Family crack-tip of fields--II J/(w~E~L) = (ax /o)+ h, (geometry,

957

n), (4.11)

Q = H&J/a,&

geometry,

n).

The dimensionless functions, h, and H,, depend on n and dimensionless groups of geometric parameters. H, depends weakly on J/ooL for most crack geometries. For a number of crack geometries, h, values have been extracted from fully plastic solutions and catalogued in a fracture handbook (KUMAR et al., 1981). Values of h, can be extracted from the same fully plastic solutions and catalogued in a similar manner. An efficient numerical method for generating fully plastic solutions is described by SHIH and NEEDLEMAN(I 984).

4.4. Intrrpolating

between Qssy and QFP

To evaluate Q for the full range of plastic yielding, a scheme to interpolate between Q at small-scale yielding, Qssr, and Q at fully plastic conditions, QrP, is required. QssY can be calculated from T using (2.4) (with a,,, a, and a2 appropriate to the strain hardening). This value depends on T alone, i.e. crack geometry and load magnitude is transmitted to Q only through T. Since the linear dependence of Ton the generalized load 9 is known, the derivative dQssY/dY can also be calculated. Moreover, under small-scale yielding the relationship between J and P is known: J cx K,? c;c Y [see (2.2)]. Therefore dQsSY/dJ is available immediately. QPP can be obtained from fully plastic solutions and has the form in (4.11). The derivative dQ,,/dJcan be evaluated from the dependence of H, on the first argument. Moreover, we can evaluate dQPp/d6P since J cc SC+ I). Using the procedures discussed above, we can determine Qssr, dQssr/d.Y and QfiP, dQl;p/dY, i.e. the Q values and slopes at the limiting load states are known. The value of Q at intermediate load states can be obtained by interpolation. Alternatively we can interpolate for Q at various J levels using Qssr, dQssv/dJ and QPP, dQ,,/dJ. Both approaches are under investigation (ODown and SHIH, 1992).

5.

FRACTURETOUGHNESS Locus AND SIZE EFFECTS

It is widely accepted that a single parameter J,(- quantifies the material toughness under high constraint. Experiments with low-constraint crack geometries have shown that J at the onset of fracture (particularly cleavage fracture) can be considerably larger than J,c. In other words a single value is inadequate for characterizing fracture toughness over a range of crack-tip constraints. A toughness locus, namely Jc vs constraint, is more relevant for a broad range of engineering applications. The J-Q theory provides a framework which allows the toughness locus to be measured and utilized. For the purpose of demonstrating the effect of constraint on fracture toughness we adopt a fracture criterion based on the attainment of a critical normal stress, cZ2 = (T,, at a critical distance, r = r,. (RITCHIE al., 1973). Within the J-Q annulus the normal et

95x

N. P. ODowu

and

C.

F. SHIH

stress ahead of the crack is given by ( 1.3) or, more accurately, we choose the closed-form representation in (I .2) :

by (I .3). For simplicity

(5.1)
Assume that r, is within the J--Q annulus. Apply the fracture criterion to (5. I ) to get (5.1) Therefore we can solve for J, as a function of Q for various values of g, and I, It is helpful to introduce J,' . which in this context refers to the value of .J, fhr a long crack, N/T, ---t 'YJ. We will show later that J, corresponds to the value of J, under small-scale yielding conditions with T = 0. Using (5.2) the ratio J,/ J, is

(5.3)

Observe that the ratio J, /J, is independent of I,. The variation of J, /J( with Q is plotted in Fig. 14(a) for an II = 5 material with cr/o,, = 2, 3 and 4. It can bc seen that toughness rises rapidly as Q becomes more negative, corresponding to a loss of constraint. Figure 14(b) shows the dependence of J, ! J, on II. ANIEKSON rt rrl. ( I99 I ) have constructed similar plots of J, ,!J,, vs Q for stress-controlled and strain-controlled fracture using results in Part I and in this paper (J,, z J, ). Their approach also takes into account the statistics of cleavage fracture. HARLIN and WILLIS (1988) have discussed crack size eflects on fracture toughness and on the ductile- brittle transition temperature, and have shown that this can be accounted for by the T-stress. We will demonstrate how size effects under plane strain conditions can be interpreted using the J-Q held and how they can be phrased in terms of the T-stress. We rewrite (5.2) in a form suitable for investigating size cllects. Using dimensionless groups. .?, = J,((I.,(T,,). Fc = r:L, f,. = o-/u,, and using (3. I) WC have

(5.4) Crack size effects enter through the dimensionless argument ],I; in G. We can solve for J< as a function of r< for various 6, and geometries. The values of G(j(F<) can be obtained from curves such as those in Figs 5, 7 and IO. Figure 15(a) shows the variation of J,/J, with crack size for the bend bar with u/W = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5. In these cases L = N. The toughness for each specimen increases as crack size. u/r,. decreases. Note that J, approaches the long-crack value J, as U/I., --t x for all crack geometries. Under small-scale yielding conditions the dependence of Q on T is known from

Family of crack-tip

fields-11

959

-1.00-0.75 -0.50 -0.25

0.00

0.25

.
-1.00-0.75 -0.50 -0.25

0.00

0.25

FE. 14. (a) Normalized

toughness

locus for n = 5 and u,/uo = 2, 3 and 4. (b) Normalized for a,/~,, = 3 and n = 5 and 10.

toughness

locus

(2.3) ; moreover T/a = KC/(o,~) a f rom (4.1). Making noting that Jr = (1 - r)K;?/E, we get 2 = [!!~Y~]Cfl+161&9

use of the above in (5.2) and

= ,)+F(~J

(5.5)

Now use the dimensionless


5, =

groups,
-z--K;

EC = K,/(cJ,,J~~~), & = t-,/a, and 6, = D~/c,,, to get Tq. (5.6)

, _$,2 _, 101+ I) 62>(6) = 0)+F-(RJJr, n ( 1

The above equation can be solved for EC for different values of FC,eC and C. Note that Z depends only on relative crack size and specimen type. We define K, as the value of Kc for a long crack which is consistent with our definition of J:. Observe that the

Y60

N. P. ODOWD and

C. F. SHIH

4.0 (a)

8 < +J

2.0 -

0.0 -

2.0

3.0 log(a/r,)

4.0

5.0

(b)

4o :
3.0 8 c =

-0.2

-0.1

0.0
2.0

s
3.0

4.0

5.0

~ofzb/r,) FIG. 15. (a) Crack size effects on fracture toughness for bend bar with 0: W = 0.1.0.3 and 0.5, for m,:(~~, 3 ~~ and PI = 5. (h) Crack size effects on fracture toughness under small-scale yielding for (T, Iv,, = 3 and II - 5 for three specimen types. C = -0.2. pO. I and O.Oi.

argument argument

of F in (5.6). ~?-,df( X,, vanishes in the long-crack of F is T/g,, [see (2.3)], it follows that the long-crack

limit FC--) 0. Since the constraint is given by

The variation of K,./K: with log (u/r) is shown in Fig. 15(b). The cases examined are C = 0.03, -0.1 and -0.2. These values of C correspond to a bend bar with u/W = 0.5, 0.3 and 0. I, respectively. Observe that for E = -0.2 and -0. I, the toughness increases rapidly as crack size decreases. In contrast when C = 0.03 the toughness is almost unaffected by crack size. In the latter case the argument of F in (5.6) remains close to zero for all meaningful values of a/~,, so the toughness is essentially given by the long-crack toughness, K, The dashed portion of the curve for 2: = 0.03 indicates the range of crack size where small-scale yielding conditions, i.e. u >> r,, > I,, may not be satified. In this regime results based on the large-scale yielding solutions are relevant.

Q r= o.

Family of crack-tip fields-II

961

6.

DISCUSSION

We have elaborated upon the distinct roles ofJand Q in the J-Q fracture approach : J sets the size of the process zone over which large stresses and strains develop while Q scales the near-tip stress distribution and the stress triaxiality achieved ahead of the crack. Approximate representations for the full range of stress distributions in terms of Q are given in this paper. We have shown that the J-Q annulus for short-crack geometries, loaded by tension and by combined tension and bending, is considerably larger than the J-annulus. This also holds for deep-crack geometries loaded in tension. Therefore the J-Q approach allows us to extend the range of applicability of fracture mechanics for these important geometries. For deeply cracked bend geometries we have observed that the J-Q annulus is not much larger than the J-annulus. The available data on cleavage fracture indicate that a slight decreast in the hydrostatic stress level can result in a significant increase in the fracture toughness [e.g. IWADATE et ul. (1983), ANDERSON and WILLIAMS (1986) and INGHAMet al. (1989)]. In other words, cleavage fracture toughness depends strongly on crack-tip constraint. BETEG~N and HANCOCK (1991) have proposed that constraint be quantified in terms of the elastic T-stress. Their approach can overestimate or underestimate the actual hydrostatic stress by as much as 0.5~~. Since stress-controlled cleavage fracture is sensitive to the hydrostatic stress level, an error of this magnitude may be unacceptable. The J-Q theory provides a framework which allows the toughness locus to be measured and utilized. Within this framework we can systematically develop toughness loci based on cleavage mechanism and ductile failure mechanism. Thus, the competition between cleavage and ductile fracture [e.g. RITCHIE et ul. (1973, 1979), IWADATE:ef ul. (1983), LIN et al. (1986). ANDERSON and WILLIAMS (1986), TOWERS and GARWO~D (1986), HARLIN and WILLIS (1988), INGHAMet al. (1989) and HACKETT et al. (1990)] can also be investigated within the J-Q framework. Detailed near-tip stress distributions are required for the evaluation of Q. We have proposed two alternative methods for evaluating Q under fully yielded conditions: slip-line field and fully plastic analyses. The first method should provide a good estimate of Q for low-hardening materials. The second method is more general and can be applied to high- and low-hardening materials. A scheme to interpolate for Q at various J and load levels has been discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This investigation is supported by the Office ofNaval Research through ONR Grant NOOOl486-K-0616. The computations were performed at the Computational Mechanics Facility of Brown University supported in part by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant DMR-8714665), the Office of Naval Research (Grant NOOOl4-88-K-0119) and matching funds from Brown University. REFERENCES AL-AN, A. M. and
HANCOCK. J. W.

1991

J. Mech. Phys. Solids 39, 23.

962

N. P. ODowi,

and (. F.

SHIH

ANIXRSON. T. L. and WILLIAMS, S

1986

ANIXRSON. T. L., VANAPARTHY. S and Douns, R. H.. JR BETE&N, C. and HANCOCX. J. W. BILRY, B. A., CARDEW, G. E., GOLDTHOKPLI,M. R. and
HOWARI,, I. C. D~DLX R. H., JR, ANDERSON. T. L. and

1991 1991 1986

Mechtmics : Swntwnth ciolut~c. ASTMSTP-905, p. 715. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA. Submitted for publication. Fracturt, J. uppl. Mrch.

58, 104. Sizr fijj&t.s in Fructuw. p. 37. Institution anical Engineers, London. hzt. J. Frrwrwr
48, I

of Mcch-

1991

KIKK M. T. Du, Z.-Z. and HANCOCK, J. W.


EWING;, D. J. F. EWING. D. J. F. and HILL, GREEN. A. P. and HUNDY, HA~UTT, E. M.. JOYCC, J. DODDS, R. H., JR and R. B. B. A..

1991 196X 1967 1956 I990

Rok, C 1988 196X 1983 1989

J. Mech. Ph.v.s. Solids 39, 555. J. Mtd7. Pf!,x Solids 16, 205. J. Mcch. Ph~,.s. .Solitl.t IS, I I 5. J. Mtvh. Phys. Solids 4, 128. EltlsTic.mm Pltrstic Frrrc tuw Mwhtmic~s of L$h I Mtrtt~t Rtw/or Alkys. f-3 90 Annual Report.

NUREG HAKI.IN, G. and WILLIS, J. R.


HUTCHINSON, J. W. H~JTCHINSON,J. W. INC;HAM,T., NICKEL,K., MILNIZ. I. and MORLA~XD.E.

0975. Vol. 8.

Prot,. R. Sec. A 415, 197. .J. Mcth. Phjx. Solids 16, 13. J. uppI. Mcclr. 50, 1042. Frrrc~rrrre Mtvhrmic.s : f-cr.~~?t~c~fi~~e.s Dirrc~tion.c md ( Twtw~it~th S~wqmsium). ASTM-STP- 1020. p.

369. Amcricun Society for Materials. Philadelphia. PA.


JWAIIAT~. T.. TANAKA, Y.. ONO, S. I. and WATANABE. J.

Testing

:inci

1983

E!kstic Plrsric

Fructurc

.%co77rl

LS~.r)ipo.\iwli.

ASTM-STP-X03, Vol. 1. p. 5.31. American Society for Testing Lund Matcrinls, Philadclphia, PA. 1981 1973 1982 1986 1986 I979
~lt:ltr.sric-Plclstic, Frtwwrt~ A4dlrmic.s ASTM-STP668. p. 175. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA. Phj,.s. Solids. 39, 9X9. AII Emqimwin~~ Approud~fiw Elusfic Plustic Frwturt ,4rztr!l~.sis. EPRI NP- I93 I, Topical Report. J. Mcch. Ph1.s. Solids 21, 263.

KUMAK, V.. GEKMAN, M. D. and SHIH. C. F. LARSSON, S. G. and CAKLSSON, A. J. LEF:VI:RS, P. S. and RADON, J. C. LI, Y. C. and WANC;, T. C. Lnx;, T.. EVANS. A. G. and RITCHIE, R. 0. M(MIXKINC;. R. M. and PARKS. D. M. ODOWD, N. P. ;tnd SHIH. C. F. ODowu, N. P. and SHIH. C. F.

RICH. J. R. RI~I,. J. R.

1991 I997 1968 1973

J.

~~4cch.

Work in prcpalntion. .I. uppI. .Mcch. 35, 379.

In The,

Srrfow C 'ruck : Ph~3.sit~ol Prohktn.s (em/ (orr~pL~trr~ior~ol Solutions (edited by J. L.

Swrxxow). RI<x. J. R. Riw. J. R. and ROXN(;RRN. G. F.


RITCHI~. R. O., KNOTT. .I. F.

p. 171. ASME.

New York.

I974 1968
1973 I979

.J. Mt~t.11. Phys. Solids 22, 17. J. Mdr Phj,.s. Solids 16, I .J. Mcdl. Ph~:s. Sdids 21, 395. ~MP~uII.Trcmc. IOA, 1557.

and Rrcr. J. R.
RITCHII-:,R. 0.. SI:RVER, W. L. and WLJI.LAERT, R. A. &AM. T. L. SHARMA. S. M. and ARAVAS. N.

1991
1991

In/. J. Ii.wfuw 48, 8 I


.J. MPCII. P/II,.\. Solids. 39. 1043.

Family of crack-tip fields~ll SHIH, c. F.

963

C. F. and GERMAN, M. D. SHIH. C. F. and NEEDLEMAN. A. TOWERS, 0. L. and


SHIH,

1981 1981 1984 1986

GARW~~D, S. J.

WILLJAMS,M. L.

1957

J. Me&. Phys. Solids 29, 305. ht. J. Fracture 17, 21. J. uppl. Mech. 51,48. Fracture Mechunics : Sewntemth Volume, ASTMSTP-905, p. 454. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. J. uppl. Mech. 24, I I I