R311

J-INTEGRAL AT LOADEDCRACK SURFACES

A. Karlsson and J. Backlund Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkoping Institute of Technology S-581 83 Linkoping, Sweden tel: 13-63104
The finite element method is presently widely used to determine the value of the J-integral [i],

J =

I(Wdy
C

Tt

3u/@s

ds)

(1)

in many complex situations. Some FEM programs contain routines for calculating J by specifyingan integration path around the crack tip. Those routines, however, usually require the crack surface to be free of traction [2]. This report describes a simple method to calculate the J-integral in cases of loaded crack surfaces. Consider a body with loaded crack surfaces, Fig. I. Along the integration path in the interior of the body, the contribution to J is calculated as if the crack surface were free of traction, using (i). On the crack surface we have (in Mode I)

:o0
+_ p(x)

(2)

Hence (i) becomes js = I

C

-p(x} 8Uy/SX dx

(3)

For the t e c h n i c a l l y important case of constant t r a c t i o n p, we obtain from (3) using i n t e g r a t i o n by p a r t s j s = p-uy(d) + I
C S

[Sp(x)/SX]Uy(X)dx

hence
js = p-uy(d) (4)

In other cases, (3) is integrated numerically. If we restrict ourselves to isoparametric eight-noded elements [3], and approximate the traction on the crack surface with the isoparametric formulation, then (3) may be integrated to give

js = s c

B0/B~

= eZ[ae~4+be~S+Ce~2+de~]~l

(S)

Tnt Joumn o f Fracture 14 (1978)

R312

where un and Pn are the displacements and the load intensities at the surface nodes for each element e in the integration path on the crack surface, p contains shape functions, and

ae = [ (Pl-2P2+P3) (Ul-2U2+U3) ] / 8 b e = [(Pl-2pZ+p3)(Us-Ul)/2 c e = [(p3-Pl ) ( u 3 - u l ) / 4 de = P 2 ( U j - U l ) / 2 = l o c a l c o o r d i n a t e in the e l e m e n t , Fig. 2.

The total value of the J-integral is

+ (p3-Pl)(ul-2u2+u3 )]/6

+ P2(Ul-2U2+U3)]/2

j = ji

+ js + js u
s s

(6)
are the contribu-

where ji is the contribution to J from c i, and Ju' J s tions to J from Cu, c~, respectively, Fig. I.

The computational efficiency of the proposed technique is illustrated for the case of a centrally cracked strip subjected to internal pressure on the crack surface, Fig. 3, and for the case of an infinite plate with a crack subjected to varying load on the crack surface, Fig. 4. In both cases a quarter of the plate was modeled, Figs. 5,6. The J-integral was evaluated along an integration path through Gauss points in the interior of the body. On the crack surface the J-integral was evaluated by (4) and (5), respectively. Three different integration paths were used (dotted lines in Fig. 5).

As seen from t h e r e s u l t s , Tables 1 and 2, t h e J - i n t e g r a l i s p a t h i n d e p e n d e n t w i t h i n 1 p e r c e n t even though t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s from the i n t e r i o r o f the body and from t h e crack s u r f a c e s i s s t r o n g l y p a t h dependent. Comparisons with existing solutions [4,5] show a somewhat greater deviation in J in the case of an infinite plate. This is probably partly due to the fact that the element mesh is of finite size. REFERENCES

[1] [2]

J. R. Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanic8 35 (1968) 17-26.

J. B~cklund, H. Wennerstr~m, and K. Axelsson, PIFEM - A Computer Program for Analysis of Elasto-Plaetic Structures (in Swedish), Report 5608:5, The Swedish Ship Research Foundation, Gothenburg (1976). O. C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science, McGraw-Hill, London (1971)

[3]

[4] [5]

D. J. C a r t w r i g h t and D. P. Rooke, Compendium o f Stme88 I n t e r ~ i t y Factors, Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n a r y O f f i c e , London (1976). G. Hedner ( e d i t o r ) , Formulas in Solid Mechanics (in Swedish), The

Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)

R313

Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Solid Mechanics, Puhl. No. 104, 7. edition, Stockholm (1974).
29 August 1978

Table i. a/h

Results from FEM Analysis for Centrally Cracked Strip path 1 js 2.3354 1.7107 1.2873 3.9376 2.6803 1.9535 10.7824 6.1284 4.0703 ji 0.1514 0.7716 1.1919 1.2958 2.5644 3.3232 6.3368 11.0752 13.3297 J 2.487 2.482 2.479 5.233 5.245 5.277 17.119 17.204 17.400 16.2 5.24 2.47 J from [4]

0.5

2 3 1

1.0

2 3 1

2.0

2 3

Table 2. path 1 2 3

Results from FEM Analysis for Infinite Plate ji -0.04049 0.10772 9.16454 js 0.25784 0.11857 0.06093 j 0.2274 0.2263 0.2255 0.218
J

from [5]

1ix )

L
Figure i. Cracked body with loaded crack surface
Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)

R314

Iy

Y ~ x

2h

L
uI u2 u3

2a

Figure 2. Local coordinates in an 8-noded isoparametric element

Figure 3. Centrally cracked strip subjected to internal pressure on the crack surface

p ( x ) = p o Va- ixl'

Figure 4 .

Infinite plate with a crack subjected t o internal pressure

a/h =.5
r - - -rl-I
rt~-1 i Iq'4

1.

2.

iii

Figure 5. Finite element mesh for the centrally cracked strip

Int Journ of Fracture 14 ( 1 9 7 8 )

II

SYM

i ]..,.

l!!!!!II
._

IIlllll IIIIlll lllJlII I1111 ~JfHfl

L

Figure 6. Finite element mesh for the infinite plate

R315

FURTHER DISCUSSION: "Prediction of Threshold Stress Intensity for Fatigue Crack Growth Using a Dislocation Model," by K. Sadananda and P. Shahinian*

A. T. Yokobori, Jr. Department of Mechanical Engineering II, Tohoku University Sendai, Japan tel: 0222/22-1800, ext. 4143
We express appreciation to Drs. Sadananda and Shahinian [i] for their interest in our Discussion [2]. Their Response, however, included several claims which deviate from the point. For instance, they claimed that in terms of comparison of our approach to fatigue crack growth theory [3,4] with that of Weertman [5], the latter is earlier. The argument of this type is not constructive; it is also unfruitful. We ourselves did not discuss the priority on the dislocation modeling of fatigue crack growth. Nevertheless, their arguments do not appear to have been made after thorough reading of our original papers [3,4] and, on the other hand, the arguments might lead to some confusion about our works. Therefore, firstly let us point out the differences between ours [3,4] and Weertman's [5]. It has been pointed out [6] by Yokobori that we should not confuse model or theory with criterion or rate-determining requisite in fatigue crack growth problems, not to mention the methodologies and mathematical formulae. Although ours and Weertman's work concern dislocation modeling, they are quite different as shown in Table I. If such argument as by Sadananda and Shahinian will be extended, dislocation modeling of fatigue fracture would be said to have been done even earlier by Machlin [7] and Yokobori [8]. Also concerning force and energy requirements, Sadananda and ShahinJan's arguments are not self-consistent. The rate-determining factor for emission of dislocations from the source is not always in general the same as that for the further movement of the dislocations, once emitted. It may be understood if we notice that the position corresponding to the rate-determining requirement for the dislocation emission from the source is in general different from the site corresponding to the requirement for the further movement of dislocation. The latter, for instance, concerns whether the energy barrier should be overcome or not during the expanding process of the dislocation loop. Note that both these requirements do not always reduce to one and the same equation even if the force is conservative. Even if one and the same criterion were to be obtained based on our approach taking both requirements, it would not mean the results obtained are wrong. Further, concerning the force equilibrium requirement, line tension is neglected in Armstrong's paper [9]. In addition at the stage of beginning of dislocation emission, the assumption of a straight dislocation is reasonable [9]. Nevertheless, our approach is quite different [9,10]. Concerning the relation of core cut-off to a continuum theory approach, the following should be noted. We used as force equilibrium requirement ftot = 0

(1)

*International Journal of Fracture 13 (1977) 585-594. Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)

R316

where ftot = the resultant stress exerted on the dislocation. We concluded that if the value ~c of ~ obtained from (i) will become larger than core cut-off, ~0' the dislocation can be emitted. Note that we did not apply the continuum theory to the region beyond which continuum theory breaks down. It may be rather hasty to conclude that the threshold stress intensity should not be controlled by the dislocation emission, simply because fatigue crack growth rate at low stress intensities is not explained by the dislocation emission model from the crack tip. For instance, we can consider another rate-determining factor after the dislocation has been emitted under low stress intensities. Fatigue crack mechanisms may respond differently on the conditions such as, the magnitude of the stress intensity, temperature and environment, etc. From this point of view, we have been studying the various models and rate-determining factors in fatigue crack growth problems [3,4,11,12,13]. Finally, we note that the value obtained of AKth/E by our paper [3, 4] is about (i.0 ~ 1.6)10 -4 Jmm and is fairly in agreement with the experimental data [14].

REFERENCES
[1] [2] K. Sadananda and P. Shahinian, International Journal of Fracture 14 (1978) R213-R215. A. T. Yokobori, J r . , RI37-RI39.

International Journal of Fracture 14 (1978)

[3]

T. Yokobori, A. T. Yokobori, Jr., and A. Kamei, International Journal of Fracture i i (1975) 781-788; 12 (1976) 519-520.

[4] [5] [6]

T. Yokobori, S. Konosu, and A. T. Yokobori, J r . , U n i v e r s i t y o f Waterloo, 1 (1977) 665-682.

Fracture 1977,

J. Weertman, International Journal of Fracture Mechanics 2 (1966) 460-467. T. Yokobori, A C r i t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n o f Mathematical Equations f o r Fatigue Crack Growth with S p e c i a l Reference to F e r r i t e Grain Size and Monotonic Yield S t r e n g t h Dependence, ASTM-NBS-NSF Symposium on Fatigue Mechanisms, May 22-24, 1978, Kansas C i t y (in p r e s s ) .
E. S. Machlin, Dislocation Theory of the Fatigue of Metals, NACA Rep. 929 (1949) I-i0.

[7]

[8] [9]
[i0]

T. Yokobori, Journal of the Physics Society of Japan 10 (1955) 368-374. R. W. Armstrong, Materials Science and E n ~ n e e r i n g 1 (1966) 251-256.
J. R. Rice and R. Thomson, Philosophical Magazine 29 (1974) 75-97.

[11]

T. Yokobori and M. Ichikawa, Rep. Res. I n s t . S t r e n g t h and F r a c t u r e o f M a t e r i a l s , Tohoku U n i v e r s i t y , 4 (1968) 45-55.

Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)

R317

[12]

T. Yokobori, in Physics of Strength and Plasticity, MIT Press,

(1969) 327-338.
[13] T. Yokobori and M. Ichikawa, Rep. Res. Inst. Strength and Fracture of Materials, Tohoku University, 6 (1970) 75-86. M. O. Speidel, Proceedings of the International Conference on Stress Corrosion Cracking and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Metallic Materials, Firmny, NACA (1978) (to be published).

[14]

7 September 1978 (rev 25 September 1978)

Table i. Comparison between T. Yokobori et al.'s Theory and Weertman's Theory (Table continued on next page)

Theory or model

Criterion or ratedetermining requisite

MethdlFY

J.Weertman [Ref. 5]

Continuous dislocation formalism (not crystal dislocation theory)

Critical value of COD after N repeated cycles Dislocation statistics

The number of dislocation dynamicaT. Yokobori Crystal dislocation et al approach and kinetic lly emitted from the Dislocation dynamics crack tip during every half cycle

[Ref. 3,4] theory

Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)

R318

Table

1 (continued)

Mathematical formula

Remarks Crack extends after N cycles, not every cycle

J.Weertman [Ref. 5]

AK4 a YE~sy 2 [Ref. 5]

(re+l) 2

T. Yokobori et al [Ref. 3,4]

AK )m+2 ~s E 28 (re+l) 2 i

for elastic [Ref. 3] (re+l)2

E ~cY

Crack extends every cycle

for
plastic elastic-[Ref. 4]

kC~S~cy/~- ~2~)'~ I+B i m AK +-~i -

~K = stress range intensity factor, y = specific surface energy, E = Young's Modulus, a s. = static yield strength, ~ = numerical constant, s = an appropriate ~easure of length, m = dislocation velocity power exponent, ~ . = initial yield strength for cyclic stress-strain relation, ~y B = strain hardening exponent in cyclic stress strain relation.

Int Journ of Fracture 14 (1978)