Presented By
Dr. H.V.Lakshminarayana
Professor Post Graduate Engineering Programmes
M.S Raimaih School of Advanced Studies
Center For Engineering Design and Manufacturing Research
New BEL Road, Bangalore 560054
Session Title :
ELASTOPLASTIC FRACTURE
Topics
1. Introduction.
2. Nonlinear elastic behavior.
3. Characterizing elastoplastic behavior.
4. Jintegral in EPFM.
5. ASTM standard test method to measure J
IC
a measure of
fracture toughness.
6. Jintegral evaluation using NLFEA.
SOURSE for Information and illustration :
R.J. Sanford,Principles of fracture Mechanics, Prentice Hall.
Elastoplastic Fracture :
Introduction
The subject of LEFM is an applied elasticity study of bodies cantaining
cracks.
Limited plasticity at the crack tip was accounted for through plasticity
correction. The approach is more than sufficient for a wide variety of
problems, notably Fatigue Crack Growth(FCG) prediction for which the
maximum stress due to applied loads are less than 30 percent of the yield
stress.
The LEFM approach also applies to fracture of materials which are naturally
elastic upto failure : glass, ceramics, plastics, and high strength metals have
limited amount of ductility prior to FRACTURE.
The LFEM is not applicable when the combination of component geometry,
crack type, shape, orientation, location and loading is such that the plastic
zone is not confined.
Also we should not expect the LEFM to extend to the case of large scale
plastic behavior with extensive deformation prier to fracture. Including in
this class of problems are some critical application that demand thorough
analysis. Foe example, in the design of nuclear pressure vessels.
material toughness is of paramount importance due to long term degradation of the
material caused by neutron bombardment over the life time (> 20 years) of the
pressure vessel.
Despite the high initial toughness, subcritical flaws do developed, mainly in
WELD METAL due to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking. As a results,
FRACTURE (the new failure mode) must be considered in the event of accident.
But the extend of plastic deformation at the event of the crack tip precludes the
application and LEFM to determine crack growth Residual strength and service
life.
As illustrated in figure 11.1, there is a region between LEFM and plastic
collapse that need to be characterized. it is this region to which the development of
a theory of elastoplastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) is directed.
Unfortunately, a direct approach incorporating a rigorous Theory of plasticity has
proven elusive and alternative approaches that expand and generalize already
firmly grounded LEFM approach have been adopted. These are presented in the
next section.
Elasto plastic Fracture: Nonlinear Elastic Behavior
We can extend the energy release rat approach to the class of nonlinear, but still
elastic, materials by again considering the energy available for crack extension in
terms of area in the load load point displacement diagram.
In this case the loadload point displacement diagram has the appearance
Shown in figure 11.2. The area under the curve is the strain energU, and the area
above the curve called complementary strain energy U
*
, is related to the potential
energy
p
of the system by the relation
11.1
For a two dimensional body with crack area, A, with surface tractions, T
i
prescribed over a portion of the bounding surface, , the potential Energy of the
body is given by
11.2
p
H
I
ds T d w
i i
u
A p
} A } = H
I
p
*
U P H = = o
Where the strainenergy density W is
}
=
xx
xx
c
c o
0
xx
d W
and
xy xy
c t d w } =
{For nonlinear elastic
behavior}
By analogy with linear Elastic case, we can define an energy release rate
for nonlinear elastic bodies, denoted by J, as the area on the load
displacement diagram between crack area A and , as shown in figure
11.3, for (a) constant displacement or (b) constant load divided by the change of
crack area :
dA A+
11.3
In Eq, (11.3), the absolute value has been used to ensure that J>0,
For the special case of a linear elastic behavior ,
A
J
c
H c
=
p
U 2 P = o p
*
U H = and
*
2
E
K
G
A
U
J =
c
c
=
11.4
Alternatively we can obtain a formal definition of J by differentiating Eq (11.2)
ds
da
du
T
B
1
dA
da
dw
B
1
dA
d
J
i
i
A
p
=
H
=
} }
I
11.5
After some manipulation, this equation can be written in the form
ds
u
T wdy J
i
i
c
c
=
}
I
x
11.6
The integrand in Eq (11.6) is the energy momentum tensor developed by
Eshelby (1910). This integral has the property that J=0 on any closed contour
not encircling a singularity within an elastic solid body (a conservative
system)
then
Rice (1968) was the first to adapt the principle of conservation of energy
momentum to a two dimensional body containing a singularity.
Rice considered the contour . shown in fig 11.4 where the segment
1
and
3
are chosen to be marginally on the material side of the traction free crack
interface.
We can write the condition for conservation of energy momentum
5 4
andI I
0 J J J J J
4 3 2 1
+ + + =
I I I I I
4 3 2 1
I + I + I + I = I
where
Note that , since dy =0 and on these segment.
Therefore
0 J J
3 1
= =
I I
0 T
i
=
0 J J J
4 2
= + =
I I I
4 4 2
J J J
I I I
= =
11.8
11.7
The notation, 
4
denotes a line integral taken in the direction opposite to
Since and are any two arbitrary line integrals encircling the crack tip
both taken in the same direction Eq. (11.8) demonstrate that J is path
independent.
In recognition of his contribution, the quantity J is often described as Rices J
integral or simple Jintegral.
Path independence of the Jintegral offers a verity of opportunities for
defining its value and with the aid of Eq. (11.4) the corresponding stress
intensity factor K for the Linear Elastic case.
The Jintegral evaluation approach for determining the SIF (K) is often used
in computational fracture mechanics (i.e. by Finite Element Analysis).
Since Jintegral can taken at a distance somewhat removed from the crack tip,
this approach lessens the need for a highly refined Finite Element Mesh at the
crack tip or the use of singular element around the crack tip.
However care must still be taken to ensure that the increased stiffness of the
numerical model does not lead to an under estimate of the facture parameters
(J or K).
4
I
4
I
2
I
Judicious choice for the integration path can often simplify the calculation of J.
The J integral evaluation approach has a application in ANALYTICAL
METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF CRACKED BODIES.
With the introduction of J integral, the LEFM has been extended to nonlinear
elastic bodies. The theory is completely rigorous.
Unfortunately, there are few engineering application for the generalization,
except as an alternative method to extraction of SIF (K).
The primary interest in the Jintegral lies in its application to an approximate
theory for elasto plastic fracture, called EPFM.
Elasto plastic Fracture: Characterizing Elastoplastic Material
Behavior.
The extension of the theory of the nonlinear fracture mechanics to include elasto
plastic material behavior in which the size of the plastic zone exceeds the small
scale yielding approximation is based on the DEFORMATION THEORY OF
PLASTICITY.
The argument for the choice of the deformation theory of plasticity is that,
provided no unloading is permitted to occur, the prediction of an elasto plastic
material model and a nonlinear elastic material model is indistinguishable to an
outside observer.
By this we means that a load load point displacement diagram, such as figure
11.2 would look the same for either material model. The mechanisms going on
inside the two materials are markedly different, but out wordily there is no
difference.
For this argument to be valid, the stress must be non decreasing every where
and the stress component must remain in fixed proportion as the deformation
proceeds.
The latter condition is not strictly satisfied due to plasticity induced stress
redistribution but outside the plastic zone the stresses are assumed to be nearly
proportional for simple loading.
Finite Element Analysis using THE INCREMENTAL THEORY OF
PLASTICITY by Mc Mee King (1977) support this assumption.
With these restriction the Jintegral has been proposed as an Elasto plastic
Fracture Mechanics parameter.
Despite the similarities between nonlinear elastic and elasto plastic behavior,
there are important difference even if we do not permit any unloading to occur
(i.e. monotonically increasing load only).
Let us reexamine (fig 11.3) for the elasto plastic case. Since we can not permit
any unloading the change in the load load point displacement curve cause by a
change in crack length cannot be in principle, be measured with a single
specimen.
There fore we will consider two specimen identical in all respect except for
their crack lengths (a) and (a+a) respectively each loaded to the same total
displacement .
From the deformation theory of plasticity arguments, the change in potential
energy is given by a shaded area in figure 11.3a.
However unlike the nonlinear elastic case, not all of their energy is available to
form NEW SURFACE. In the elasto plastic case, much of the energy is non
recoverable and we cannot interpret J as an energy available for crack extension.
Working independently Hulchinson (1968) and Rice and Rosengren (1968)
proposed an alternative interpretation of J as a measure of the stress state under
some condition.
They all assume that the elasto plastic behavior (Stress Vs Strain) can be modeled
fitting the Ramberge Osgood flow rule.
Where,
o
is the flow stresses
o
is the flow strain ( = )
E
o
o
n
) (
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
c
+ =
11.15
Measured in true stress strain units
n strain hardening exponent
Typical RambergOsgood stressstrain curve for several values of exponent n are
shown in fig 11.6.
Since J is path independent, we are free to evaluate it along a circular path
surrounding the crack tip that is r = constant as shown in the figure 11.7 for this
path,
And Eq (11.6) can be written as
u u
t
t u
d ) T cos (w r J
i
i
i
x
u
c
c
=
}
+
=
u u
t
t u
d ) T cos (w
r
J
i
i
i
x
u
c
c
=
}
+
=
Note that the terms in the integrand of Eq, (11.16) are the product of stress and
strain and J is independent of choice of r, Eq, (11.16b) can be satisfied if
or
11.16a
11.16b
u u d cos r y = c
u d r s = c
) , ( h )
r
J
( u o c o n
ij ij ij
Where h
ij
(n,) are suitable functions describing the angular variations in the
stresses and strains.
In the very near field of the crack tip the linear term in Equation (11.15) is
generally small compared with the power hardening term and can be neglected
with this approximation Eq, (11.15) and (11.17) can be combined to yield
Stressfield:
( ) u
c oo
o o n, f
r I
J
n 1
1
n o
ij
o
o ij


.

\

=
+
Strainfield:
( ) u
c oo
oc c n, g
I
J
n 1
n
n 0 o
ij o ij
r


.

\

=
+
11.17
11.18a
11.18b
Where f
ij
and g
ij
describe the angular variation of the stress and strain in the
near field of the crack tip and I
n
is an integration constant that depends on n and
the state of stress.
Extensive tables of the function f
ij
and g
ij
have been generated by Shih(1993)
I
n
has been approximated in series for m, see Saxena (1998) as
I
n
= 6.5680.4744n+0.040n
2
0.001262n
3
for plane stress state
I
n
= 4.5460.2827n+0.0175n
2
0.451610
4
n
3
for plane strain state
From Eq, (11.18) we can observe that J plays the same role in EPFM that
K plays in LEFM namely it describes STRENGTH OF THE
SINGULARITY, that is the CRACK TIP STRESS and STRAIN FIELDS
scale with J.
The order of the singularity is determined by the strain hardening exponent.
Note that when n=1, these equations reduce to their corresponding forms for
linear elastic material models ,(i.e.LEFM)
The stress and strain field described by Eq,(11.18) are called HRR fields. And
play an important role in the extension of nonlinear elastic fracture mechanics
into the elasto plastic domain i.e (EPFM)
In 1972, Begley and Landes proposed the use of the Jintegral as a planestrain
elasto plastic fracture criterion .i.e J=J
c
The combination of the HRR crack tip stress field interpretation of the Jintegral
along with the ability to measure its value experimentally from potential energy
argument, led them to suggest that by analogy, there must be a parameter, J
1C
for
elasto plastic material that is comparable with K
1C
for linear elastic materials.
Begley and landes proposed that a series of test specimens of increasing crack
lengths be used to construct a set of MASTER CURVS for each combination
of material and specimen.
In the their experiments the area under the load Vs load displacement curve up to
a fixed total displacement was determined with a polar planimeter with modern
digital instrumentation the area would be computed on the fly, using a suitable
integration rule for each specimen.
If we were to follow the definition of J, from Eq.(11.3) literally, we would
integrate the area above the load load point displacement curve, however, since
Begley and Landes were concerned only with the difference between the curves,
the area under the curve was more convenient to measure.
The computed potential energy was then plotted as a function of the crack area
and numerically differentiated to determine J as
A
J
p
A
AH
=
The critical value, J
IC
was the value of J corresponding to the
displacement at the onset of crack extension i.e fracture.
To be a valid material property the measured value of J
1C
should be independent
of the specimen used to measure. In a companion paper Landes and Begley
(19721076) determine J
1c
for a rotor steel from two specimen geometries
having significantly different plastic slipline fields. Their results shows that to
within experimental error, J
1C
was independent of specimen geometry over the
full range from elastic to fully plastic
More resent studies have shown that measurement of the value of the J integral
under less then plane strain state may depend on the specimens geometry.
The currently adopted procedure is describe in ASTM Standard E182099.
Standard Test Method For Measurement of Fracture Toughness (1999).
This standard replaces ASTM standards E813 standard Test method for
J
1c
, a measure of fracture toughness (discontinued 1997). E1152 standard
test method for determining JR curves (discontinued 1996) and E1737
standard test method for Jintegral characterization of fracture toughness
(discontinued 1998).
11.19
In many respect ASTM E813 is similar to ASTM standard E399, except that, at
the expence of additional INSTRUMENTATION, it permits the determination of
J
c
value when the stringent requirement for a valid K
1C
are not met.
ASTM E813 requires continues measurement of both Load LoadLine
displacement (needed for J
c
) and the load crack mouth opening displacement
(used to determine K
1C
).
The procedure for determining the germane fracture parameter is the same for
all three type of certified specimen geometries. The singleedge notch bend
specimen(SEN(B)], the compact Tension specimen [C(T)] and the diskshaped
compact tension specimen DC (T).
Since ASTM E813 has one of its options, the determination of valid K
1C
, the
precracking and fixturing requirement are the same as described in E 399.
After the test is completed K
Q
is computed, and the relevant validation checks
are perform to verify if K
Q
K
IC
. If this check FAILS, J
c
is computed from
( )
pl
2
pl el
J
E
1 K
J J J +
= + =
v
Note that K is calculated by a=a
o
(i.e. the fatigue precracked crack length/and
11.20
( )
o N
pl
pl
a w B
A
J
=
q
Where is a factor that depends on Test specimen geometry and A
pl
is the Plastic
component of the area under the load load point displacement curve, shown in
figure 11.8.
The J calculated at the final point of instability is denoted J
Q
. If J
Q
meets certain
requirements spelled out in the ASTM standard E 182099, , otherwise, the
notation J
u
is applied to signify that the determined value of the J does not meet
the necessary criteria to be considered inplane size independent , Note that J
c
may be dependent on thickness.
ASTM standard E 1820 99 goes beyond the measurement of Resistance to
unstable crack extension (i.e. J
c
) to characterize stable crack extension, referred to
as stable tearing.
The stable crack extension behavior of a material is characterized by the fracture
toughness (J) Vs crack extension (a) CURVE, such as the one, illustrated in fig,
11.9, the resulting JR curve is similar to the KR curve in LEFM.
C Q
J J
11.21
The standard procedure for determining the JR curve is based on the elastic
compliance method, where multiple point are determined from a single test
specimen.
The standard procedure for higher degree of signal resolution than that required
for determining J
c
or K
1c
within the standard.
The difficulties with standing, JR curves do characterizes fracture behavior in
high toughness material.
In the United State of America the use of the J integral to characterize elasto
plastic fracture is almost universal, however, for historical reason, an alternative
measure, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), is more widely used in
the United Kingdom and on the European continent.
In principle CTOD can be measured directly at the crack tip. In practice its
value is inferred from CMOD measurement and ASTM standard E182099
includes procedure for reporting. However the CTOD and J are not independent
quantities.
Although various definitions of the CTOD, denoted by
t
, have been proposed,
we recommend the one proposal by Tracy (1979), illustrated in fig 11.10, as the
intercept of two 45
\

=
o
n
J
d
o
o
t
( )
( )
)
`


.

\

=
)
`
+
+
t
t
o oc
oc
n,
n,
I
J
u
u
22
11
n 1
1
1 n
n
n 0 0
0
2
1
k
k
r
Integrating Eq. (11.18b) and evaluating it for = to determine the opening
profile of the crack yield an expression of the
11.24
11.23
11.22
Shih (1981) evaluated d
n
using finite element analysis for a wide ranges of
values of and (
o
/E). The results for plane stress state are shown in figure
11.11. For plane strain state, the values are about 20 percent lower.
For plane stress state, the values are about 20 percent lower.
As a results the CTOD approach for characterizing elasto plastic fracture and
the J integral are alternative representations of the same measure.
For perfectly plastic behavior , and Eqs, (11.24) for plane stress state has
the simpler form
Despite the lack of as firm mathematical foundation as enjoyed by LEFM,
EPFM plays an important role in the analysis and prevention of FRACTURE
within its domain of influence.
Crack instability in the elasto plastic domain is only one of several competing
mechanisms of failure. Net section yielding for example.
n
o
t
J
o
o =
11.25
JIntegral as Elasto Plastic Fracture Mechanics Parameter
The use of Jintegral for characterizing elasto plastic fracture is based on
several assumptions. It is worthwhile to review them here.
1. In an elasto plastic material, energy momentum is not necessarily
conserved on an arbitrary closed contour not containing a singularity. As
a result, we can not use J=0 to prove path independence, and the
magnitude of J may depend on the integration path.
2. The change in potential energy between two crack lengths, represented
by the shaded areas in figure 11.3, is not equal to the energy required to
create new surface. Some if not most, of the loss in potential energy
goes to irreversible losses, such as heat, and there is no known
algorithm for allocating this area among the various energy absorbing
mechanisms.
3. The use of deformation theory of plasticity to model the behavior of a
component or structure undergoing elasto plastic deformation is
appropriate only as long as there is no UNLOADING any where in the
component or structure. Fracture (failure due to crack extension), by its
nature, violates this assumption that is , the crack growth involves the
Separation of two planes into new stress free surfaces. Hence the stress at
the crack tip must be redistributed to the remaining portion of the body.
4) The interpretation of J as a parameter to measure the crack tip stress
state depends on the applicability of the RambergOsgood constitutive
model to the material. It is tacitly assumed that ductile metals can be
modeled by this flow rule without testing the models validity in each
case. Not all materials can be modeled by a smoothly varying transition
from the linear elastic to nonlinear elastic regime one obvious example
is mild steel with clearly defined upper and lower yield point.
5) The development of the HRR crack tip stress field concept ignores the
linear portion of the RambergOsgood constitutive model. This is under
assumption that in the very near tip region, the strain are large enough
that the contribution of the linear part is small compared with the total
deformation, but small enough that the small strain theory of elasticity is
still applicable. In principle, but not in practice, this assumption would
rule out the use of the J integral as an alternative characterizing
parameter for materials that just barely miss satisfying the requirement
for valid K
1C
as described in ASTM stand E182099.
6) The HRR stress field is not unique. There are an infinite number of
ways to satisfy Eqs (11.17), corresponding to an infinite number of
constitutive model for elasto plastic materials, by this, we mean that
constitutive relations are not intrinsic to nature that is, they are not
LAWS of nature in the same sense as for example, stress or strain
transformation laws , but they are EMPERICAL relations chosen to
model the observed behavior of the material they purport to represent.
Despite the lack of as firm a mathematical foundation as enjoyed by
LEFM, EPFM plays an important role in the analysis and prevention of
fracture within its domain of influence. Just as there are restriction on
the critical SIF (K
c
) in the LEFM to ensure that the measured critical
value is specimen independent, similar restrictions exits for J
.
Since the shape of the load load point displacement curve for a cracked
component or structure undergoing elasto plastic deformation ( around
crack tips) depends on both structure (and its slip line field) and the
constitutive model there is no reason to presuppose that the change in
potential energy (i.e the shaded area in fig 11.13) will be structure
independent.
In LEFM, we insisted that the plastic zone be fully contained within the
singularity domination zone as a necessary ( but not sufficient ) condition to
employ a one parameter (i.e stress intensity factor K) representation of the
stress state.
In EPFM, the corresponding requirement for cracktip stress field is called
Jdominance and the confined field is not the plastic zone, but the region of
finite strain.
Hutchinson (1983) has studied the size of the J dominance zone in relation
to the CTOD (
t
) are through equation (11.25) to the magnitude of J.
Using the FEA results of Mc Meeking (1997), Hutchinson determined that
one condition for a valid determination of J where
R> 3
t
,
t
=J/
o
Where R as the radius of the J dominates zone depicted schematically in
figure (11.12)
A second requirement is that the FRACTURE PROCESS ZONE be fully
contained within the Jdominated zone.
26 . 11
Since the primary mechanism of ductile crack growth is that of void
nucleation and coalescence, which are themselves finite strain events this
requirement is also satisfied by Eqs (11.26)
Based on nonlinear finite element analysis, Hutchinson estimated R to be on
the order of 20 to 25 percent of the corresponding plastic zone diameter 2
y
computed from
For the specific case of compact tension and beam bend test specimens, the
radius R of the Jdominated zone is equal to 7 percent often uncracked
ligament.
At the present time the primary application of J
c
in EPFM is as a measure of
fracture toughness when plastic deformation renders the K
c
concept moot.
The development of a fracture criteria J
appl
=J
c
, similar to K=K
c
requires
that J
applied
be determined for each combination of component geometry
and material being considered.
11.27
s planestres n planestrai
r r
y
2
ys
I
y
3
1 K
6
1
=


.

\

H
=
o
Even if nonlinear elasticity concepts are employed rather than elasto plasticity
theory, the task of evaluating J
applied
is formidable and few solution exits. As a
results, the FEM is usually employed to determine estimates of J
1
where the
benefit of path independence is used to simplify the computation of the line
integral.
Not to be forgotten in all this process is the fact that fracture (failure due to
unstable crack growth/propagation) is only one of several competing
MECHANISM OF FAILURE. As illustrated in fig 11.1 when the net section
stress approaches approximately 80 percent of the yield stress, the difference
between the EPFM estimate of failure load and that predicted by classical limit
theory is not significantly different. In this event computing the maximum
load carrying capacity of limit theory and applying a generous factor of safety
may be a reasonable alternative to the more costly and time consuming
fracture mechanics calculation based on J.
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT OF J
IC
SENB Test Specimen
3 Point Bending Load
Experiment to determine J
1C
are designed such that a large amount of plastic
deformation is allowed to occur near the crack tip.
The Plastic zone size may be as large as the crack length.
Formation of a plastic hinge and rotation of the beam occurs.
In the rest of the beam, small elastic deformation prevails.
Numerical Evaluation of JIntegral
Stressstrain relations such as RambergOsgood law describing the elastic
plastic material ( only for monotonically increasing loading ) are available.
The task is to evaluate JIntegral knowing the constitutive equation, the
geometry of the cracked component, and the loading condition.
Jintegral is generally evaluated using a numerous method
Jintegral is evaluated by integrating on an arbitrary path around the crack tip.
We need not compute strain stress field very accurately near the crack tip. In
fact we can choose the integration path far away from the Crack tip.
We can avoid use of SINGULAR elements around a crack tip.
With increasing acceptance of FEM and availability of commercial FEA
programs, numerical evaluation of Jintegral is no longer difficult.
However, the FE model and J evaluation procedure needs to be VALIDATED.
Exercise : Computational
1. Determine the JIntegral for the semiinfinite strip of height h
1
subjected to
inplane bending moment M acting on the free end in a linear elastic
material.
2. A standard 1T aluminum C(T) specimen with W=2.01 inch is fatigue pre
cracked to a/w=0.48 following ASTME 399 procedure. After completing
of FRACTURE TEST, the load F load line displacement (V
M
) was filled
to the function.
V
M
= (1.3P + 0.005P
2
) 10
6
inch
and failure occurred at 7000 lb. Calculate J.
3. Perform a FEA of a strip of final width in tension containing a central
crack of length 2 a/w =0.6. Using a contour of your choice. Evaluate J
Integral, and compare your numerical value with target values.
1. Begley, J.A and Landes, J.D,(1979) Serendipity and the J.Integral Int. J. of
Fracture, 12, pp. 764766.
2. Saxena, A, (1998) Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics for Engineers, CRC Press,
Boca Ratan, Florida.
3. ASTM Standard E 182099, 1999, Standard Teat Method for Measurement
of Fracture Toughness, Annual Book of ASTM Standards Vol. 03.01,
ASTM, WestConshohocken, PA.
4. Hutchin son, J.W.(1983) Fundamentals of the phinomenological Theory of
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics , J. App.Mech, Vol.50,pp,10421051.
5. Mc Meeking, R.M (1977) Finite Deformation Analysis of DTOD in Elasto
Plastic material and implication for Fracture, J.Mech, Phys, Solid,Vol.25 ,pp
357381.
6. Rice, J.R.(1968 a) A path Independent Integral and the approximate analysis
of strain concentration by Notch and Cracks, J.Applied Mech, Vol. 35, pn,
379386.
REFERENCE
7. Rice, J.R. and Rosen gren, GF(1968), plane strain deformation near the
crack tip in a power law hardening material, J.Mech,phys, solid, m16,pp 1
12.
8. Shih , CF (1981). Relationship between Jintegral and the CTOD for
stationary and extending cracks. T.Mech, phys, solid, Vol. 29, 305326.
9. Shih CF (1993) table of Hutchinson, Rice and Rosengren (HRR) Singular
field Quantities, MRLE147 Report, Brown Univ, Providence, RI.
10. Tracy, DM (1976). Finite Element Solution for Crack Tip Behaviour in
small scale yielding, J. eng. Matlsa Technology, Vol. 98, pp, 146151.
11. Eshelby JD (1970). Energy Relations and the Energy Momentum tensor in
continuum mechanics Inelastic behavior of solid, Mc Grawhill, N y
1
. Pp
77115.
12. Rice JR (1968 a) A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate
Analysis of strain concentration on by notches and Cracks, ASME, applied
Mechanics, Vol.35, New York, pp. 191311.
References (contd.)
13. Rice JR ( 1968 d). Mathematical Analysis in the Mechanics of Fracture in
Fracture: An Advanced treatise : Volume I I , mathematical fundamentals,
Academic press, New York, pp. 191311.
14. Begley, J. A., and Landes. J. D1972, The J Integral as a Fracture
Criterion, Fracture Toughness, Proceeding of the 1971 National
Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, part 2, ASTM STP 514, American
Soc. For Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp.120.
15. Hutchinson, J. W., 1983, Singular Behavior and at the End of a Tensile
Crack in a Hardening Material, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , Vol. 16, pp. 13
31.
16. Kanninen, M. F., and Popelar, C. H., 1985, Advanced Fracture Mechanics,
Oxford University Press, New York.