EG-381

Mechanical Properties 3
(Fatigue and Fracture)

Dr. Richard Johnston
Mechanical Properties 3
(Fatigue and Fracture)

Total credits = 10

2 hour examination (Jan 2012)
Answer 3 from 4 questions

2 questions from each sub module:

1. Fracture mechanics Static (weeks 1 to 5, REJ)
2. Fracture mechanics Fatigue (weeks 6-11, DHI)



EG-381 Credits & examination

Lecturers:
Units 1 to 4: Dr Richard Johnston, Rm 957
Units 5 to 7: Dr David Isaac, Rm 979

Recommended texts:
1. Mechanical Metallurgy by G.E. Dieter
2. Fatigue of Materials by S. Suresh (2nd edition 1998)
3. Materials Science & Engineering by W. D. Callister

Web site:
www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk/sme/interactive_resources/index.html

Course Videos:
Last of the liberties, OU
Facts on fracture, Welding Institute
Living with cracks, OU

Course notes provided for revision purposes background
reading and attendance at lectures necessary to gain
experience in failure analysis and case studies.
EG-381 Course support

A. no you cant have a copy
of my lecture presentations
1. Micro-mechanisms of fracture
2. Cracks in structures: energy balance
3. Stress intensity factor: LEFM
4. Fracture toughness

5. Design against fatigue: mechanisms of
cyclic fracture
6. Stress and strain dependence of fatigue
7. Fatigue crack propagation
EG-381 Course units

STATIC
}
CYCLIC
}
1. Build on previous L1 and L2 mechanical properties courses

2. Extend studies to include fracture behaviour in metals and
alloys at T<0.3T
m

3. Consider the varying fracture mechanisms: brittle and
ductile fracture (static), stress corrosion and fatigue

4. Recognise the characteristic features of each process

5. Develop numerical relationships to support design against
each failure mode
EG-381 Overall course objectives

Objectives

1. Classify types of fracture
2. Define their characteristic features
3. Factors which influence fracture behaviour
(strain rate, temperature, environment)
4. Fracture mechanism maps
EG-381 Unit 1 Micro-mechanisms of fracture

Introduction

Q. Cylindrical laboratory test piece of any given engineering
material what are the types of failure mode it could experience ?

Q. How are these influenced by the rate of loading, test
temperature and environment ?


Largely restrict our interest to uni-axial tension

Characteristic features associated with each of the failure modes

Basis for failure investigations of engineering components -
common for a failure investigator to be given no information on
stress axiality, magnitude, operating conditions they must reach
conclusions from fracture surface examinations alone !

Develop fracture maps usually in terms of stress and temperature
useful for comparisons with real failures
Defined as the maximum stress required to promote failure in
a perfect crystal (i.e. one containing no defects).

Crystal is made of perfect BCC/FCC/HCP units










s
c
determined by calculation of the tensile force required to
pull atoms apart
Ideal or theoretical strength, s
c

BCC FCC HCP
Approximation of upper limiting strength:

s
c
~ E / p

where E=elastic or Youngs modulus

Generally measured fracture stress is significantly
lower than the theoretical stress calculated to
separate atomic planes.
The closest possible agreement with theoretical
values is found for very fine fibres or whiskers ..
Ideal or theoretical strength, s
c

Definitions:
Whisker: L < 10d
Fibre: L > 10d
(d = small)

Measured fracture strengths of fibres / whiskers


Material Modulus
[ GPa ]
Theoretical s
c

[ GPa ]
Measured s
c

[ GPa ]
Silica fibres 97.1 30.9 24.1
Iron whiskers 295.2 93.9 13.1
Silicon whiskers 165.7 52.7 6.47
Alumina whiskers 496.2 157.9 15.2
Steel wire 200.1 63.7 2.75

Q. Why so low ?
Measured fracture strengths of fibres / whiskers


measurements are very sensitive to section size
Same would apply to longer fibres probability of damage increases !

silica and zinc oxide whiskers
Whisker diameter [ m ]
0 10 20 30 40
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

s
f


[

%

o
f

E

]
0
1
2
3
4
Pristine glass fibre


Low fracture stresses measured in real materials ?


1. Real materials contain various defects:

crystallographic point or line defects (dislocations)
grain & low angle boundaries
2
nd
phase constituents e.g. precipitates, particles or fibres
control of stiffness / toughness / ductility
processing defects e.g. pores, inclusions, lack of weld fusion



Measured fracture strengths of fibres / whiskers


2. Plastic deformation and the accumulation of permanent damage
leading to ultimate failure
Measured fracture strengths of fibres / whiskers


strain
actual
s
s
t
r
e
s
s
Kts
max
elastic modulus
= constant
monotonic
stress-strain curve
s
yielding
Low fracture stresses
measured in real materials ?
Fracture behaviour sensitive to temperature

low temperature regime plasticity not affected by time
on load
high temperature regime additional time dependent
creep effects

Plasticity affected by time dependent mechanisms above
approx. 0.3 T
m

Pure Metal T
m
(
o
C) 0.3 T
m
(
o
C)

Al 660 198
Cu 1083 325
Ni 1453 435
Fe 1536 460
Ti 1670 500

Brittle / ductile behaviour is controlled by PLASTICITY
but can occur in either low or high temperature regimes

Low and high temperature fracture regimes
alloying
affects T
m
In either temperature regime, crystalline solids subjected to tensile
loading will fail in either a brittle or ductile fashion
Failure classifications under monotonic load
<

0
.
3

T
m


t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e



>

0
.
3

T
m

Failure classifications: ductile fracture (idealised)
Polycrystaline
(pure)
Single crystal
n.b. pure materials no inclusions or second phase particles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kfbxJy8zgw
Failure examples: ductile cup & cone (reality)
matrix/particle de-cohesion coalescence necking - shear lips
Failure examples: cup & cone (engineering alloys)
ultra high strength steel, 20
o
C, UTS~2000 MPa,
f
~20%
Failure examples: ductile s/ curve
300M11: Engineering stress & strain
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Easily avoided by design / ductile failures rare
i.e. operate within elastic region
Elastic ~ 1 %
Ductile dimples: indicators of stressing mode
s
1
s
1
Equi-axed dimples = tension
Side view
Plan view
Ductile dimples: indicators of stressing mode
s
1
s
1
s
2
s
2
Elongated and opposing = shear
Side view
Plan view
Ductile dimples: indicators of stressing mode
s
1
s
2
s
3
Elongated and similar = bend
Side view
Plan view
Failure examples: microscopic dimples
secondary electron back scattered
initiating particles identified

Equi-axed dimples = tension
High chrome steel manganese sulphides
Failure examples: ductile dimples around SiC
p
initiating SiC particles
identified

Equi-axed dimples = tension
Failure examples: elongated voids + carbides

BuRTi - shear or bend ???

1. Brittle fracture mechanisms

2. Case study in brittle fracture Liberty ships

3. Creep fracture

Unit 1 Lecture #2
Contrasting behaviour to ductile overload
Catastrophic, rapid event
Minimal or no plastic deformation preceding the failure
i.e. no gross ductility / necking
Brittle fractures can be inter or transgranular
Dramatic service failures e.g. Liberty Ships
Brittle fracture: key characteristics
Al-Zn-Mg alloy - secondary cracks common, 3D relief.
No aggressive environment (i.e. not stress corrosion)
De-cohesion between grains possibly due to impurity elements at the
boundaries - segregation and precipitation during extended service periods
Brittle fracture: intergranular
Transgranular facets
cleavage low energy crystallographic planes
common in BCC materials (iron), HCP (titanium or zinc), ionic
crystals (NaCl) and co-valent bonded materials (ceramics).
FCC metals (copper and aluminium) are only prone to cleavage
events under extreme environmental conditions
Brittle fracture: transgranular
e.g TiAl intermetallic
20 m
Failure examples: brittle s/ curve.
TiAl, 20C
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
strain [%]
s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Catastrophic failure
UTS at peak of curve
Brittle fracture: transgranular crack growth
Crack grows on low energy cleavage planes
Grain orientations crack deviates
micro = shiny facets / macro = flat fractures
Brittle fracture: transgranular crack growth
individual facets = grains
local growth direction river markings fan out
Brittle fracture: thin sections
Chevrons point back to initiation site
10 mm
http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.as
p?catid=118&pageid=2144416555
Brittle fracture: classifications
Cleavage 1
(or BIF1)

No general plasticity, small,
inherent flaws. Can occur at
stresses below yield if large
flaw. Strength controlled by
largest flaw - greatest stress
concentrator
Cleavage 2
(or BIF2)

Pre-existing flaws extremely
small scale or absent. Stress
needs to be at yield or above in
order to initiate its own defect
through deformation. Micro-
plasticity
p
remains approx. 1%
or less
Cleavage 3
(or BIF3)

Preceded by substantial strain -
1 - 10%. Fracture encouraged
by work hardening - restricts
deformation. Or due to
formation of large crack-like
defects following extensive slip
over long slip band lengths.
More prevalent at high
temperature.
Stress /
strain
Defect
size
increasing decreasing
BIF = brittle intergranular fracture
The Liberty Ships

Last of the Liberties - Open University video T353/1 (Mr Peter Davies)

Classic example of brittle fracture

Salient points to consider during film:

Material grade

Temperature

Design features
Manufacturing
Defects

Fractography

Brittle fracture: case study
1. Impact test techniques

2. Ductile to brittle transition

3. Time dependent creep

4. Fracture maps

Unit 1: lecture 3
Toughness material property:
absorption of energy during fracture

Laboratory / service - inconsistencies in behaviour
Impact tests developed - replicate most severe in service conditions
often associated with brittle fractures in the field:

1. Deformation at relatively low temperature
2. High strain rate
3. Tri-axial stress state (notch / s concentrator / constraint / plane
strain)

Two standards developed Charpy (CVN) and Izod
Still employed to measure impact energy (or notch
toughness)
Impact testing: requirements
Both employ square section
bars + V notch

Difference in grip / support
and impact position

http://www.steeluniversity.
org/content/html/eng/defau
lt.asp?catid=151&pageid=2
081271964

Measure difference in
potential energy of
pendulum before and after
fracture (m.g.h)
Impact testing: apparatus
ASTM D256
Results from impact tests are qualitative involve both initiation
and propagation of cracks.
Used to rank materials
Results do not quantify the fracture toughness, K
1C
(used for
defect tolerant design assumes crack pre-exists loading)
More complicated (and expensive) types of fracture toughness
testing (e.g. plane strain compact tension to be introduced in
later Units)

Greatest use define ductile to brittle transitions in materials &
temperature range for transitions
Impact testing: considerations
Curve A defines narrow transition band
Greatest impact energy in high T regime
High energy ductile mechanism
Low energy brittle mechanism
Fracture appearance (curve B = % area shear features)

Transition curves
n.b.
relatively brittle at RT !

http://aluminium.matt
er.org.uk/content/html
/eng/default.asp?catid
=118&pageid=214441
6556


Exact transition temperature
difficult to define
Quote T at given impact energy
from curve A
Quote T at 50% fracture
appearance transition
temperature (F.A.T.T.) from
curve B
Neither are accurate B very
subjective
Conservative approach quote
T at initial reduction in energy
Transition temperature: definitions
% fibrous c/w shiny (microvoids vs facets)
Transition temperature: fracture appearance
Temperature increasing
Ductility defined by degree of lateral expansion of CVN specimens
Transition temperature: alternative approach
I
m
p
a
c
t

e
n
e
r
g
y

[

J

]

FCCs remain ductile throughout T range NO TRANSITION
Steels relative improvement in toughness
Trade off with yield strength (i.e. encourages plastic deformation /
ductile mechanism)

Transition behaviour: material variations
I
m
p
a
c
t

e
n
e
r
g
y

[

J

]

Generally low strain rate moves TT to lower values (curve shifts left) i.e.
ductility encouraged by slow loading, remains ductile to lower T
Slow strain rate plasticity / dislocations accommodated within crystal structures

Transition behaviour: controlling parameters
temperature
fast
slow
temperature
Specific effects of impurities:
Increasing Carbon detrimental
Increasing Manganese beneficial
Ignore rate/grain size/impurity examples in the notes !

Transition behaviour: controlling parameters
In either temperature regime, crystalline solids subjected to tensile
loading will fail in either a brittle or ductile fashion
Failure classifications under monotonic load
<

0
.
3

T
m


t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e



>

0
.
3

T
m

Time dependent creep fracture: deformation curve
Static stress, intergranular & transgranular modes
High temperature regime T > 0.3*T
m
Time independent
T < 0.3Tm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time to failure, hr
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
650
700
750
760
790
850
Stress rupture data
Creep fracture: grain boundary mechanisms
Triple point cracking: high stresses
Cavitation: low & high stress
Creep fracture: cavitation micro mechanisms
All mechanisms invoke shear +/- multi-axial stresses
Creep fracture: metallographic sections
Creep damage: RR1000, 750
o
C
Creep damage: RR1000, 750
o
C
Creep 700C
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
20.00%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (hours)
S
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
B047
B050
T043
T048
R047
R073
Creep damage: tertiary dominant curve
fan
intake
-60
o
C
IP
compressor
300
o
C
HP
compressor
600
o
C
combustor
1200
o
C
TET >1200
o
C
Gas turbine: creep sensitive regions
Gas turbine: creep sensitive alloys
Creep fracture: turbine blade failures
Intergranular HT creep failure - BRITTLE
Nickel HPT alloy
a. Ashby (Cambridge University)
method of displaying characteristic failure modes as a function of
the dominant variables stress and temperature
one important difference NO BRITTLE / CLEAVAGE in FCC

Failure classification: fracture maps
FCC BCC
b-d
Largely based on literature searches

Failure classification: fracture maps (e.g. alumina)
>80% of engineering
components fail due to fatigue
the cyclic application of strain
or stress at levels below UTS,
characterised by initiation and
progressive growth of cracks





stress corrosion progressive
growth of cracks under a
constant stress (or strain) and
exposed to aggressive
environments (e.g. common in
steels & aluminium / saline &
humid conditions): Canberra
bomber case study from EG-283
Alternative failure modes
10
m
Conclusions to Unit 1
1. Defined low & high temperature fracture regimes
2. Brittle & ductile failure mechanisms prevail in each (i.e. both
found below 0.3 * Tm)
3. Ductile - gross plastic deformation, localised slip, reduction in
area, microvoid formation around precipitates/particles,
dull/fibrous appearance
4. Void forms stress mode indicators
5. Brittle minimal plastic deformation, cleavage/facets,
transgranular, flat/shiny appearance
6. Case study for brittle fracture The Liberty Ships
7. Impact tests define ductile to brittle transitions comparative
measurements of toughness
8. Failures classified using fracture maps (stress & temperature)


Describe the characteristic form of fracture demonstrated by the Liberty
Ships. How did the prevailing social and economic factors contribute to the
design and manufacture of these vessels and ultimately compromise their
mechanical performance.

It is possible that the Liberty Ship failures would have been avoided if the
ambient in-service temperatures had been higher. Describe the transition in
the fracture behaviour of certain materials which supports this statement.

Explain why the measured strengths of common engineering materials are
significantly lower than those predicted from elasticity theory.

Describe a practical impact technique for the measurement of toughness
and how this technique is employed to characterise the ductile to brittle
transition noted in certain materials.


Examination questions Unit 1
The following data were measured for two specific steels designated A and B:












Plot the data in a suitable format to illustrate the transition from ductile to brittle
behaviour for each steel
Assuming the ductile to brittle transition temperature T
t
is given by the average of
the maximum and minimum impact energies, quote the transition temperature for
each steel. Suggest a more conservative criterion for defining T
t
in each steel
Which of the two steels would be suitable for operation in environments where
temperatures occasionally dropped below room temperature, justifying your
selection

Examination questions Unit 1
Steel A Steel B
Temp (
o
C) Impact Energy (J) Temp (
o
C) Impact Energy (J)
30 104 75 76
-15 104 50 76
-50 103 35 71
-75 97 25 58
-100 63 10 38
-113 40 0 23
-125 34 -10 14
-150 28 -20 9
-175 25 -30 5
-200 24 -40 1.5
Video: Facts on Fracture (TWI)
Points to note:
1. Charpy tests brittle fracture appearance = shiny
2. Constraint notches / section size / plane strain & plane strain
3. Alternative test methods 3 point impact / large plates (cost !)
4. Crack opening displacement (COD) remember for later units.