Sveuilite u Zagrebu

Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje

Zavod za zrakoplovstvo
_____________________________________________________________________

Seminar paper for collegium

FATIGUE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURES

J INTEGRAL

Professor: prof. dr. sc. eljko Boi, dipl. ing.

MATEJ MARKULIN

Zagreb, 13.1.2017.
FSB Zagreb

1
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. 3

1. TYPE OF FRACTURE MECHANICS ...................................................................... 4

2. NONLINEAR ENERGY RELEASE RATE .............................................................. 5

3. J AS A PATH-INDEPENDENT LINE INTEGRAL ................................................. 8

4. J AS A STRESS INTENSITY PARAMETER ......................................................... 11

5. LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF J ............................................................... 12

6. NUMERICAL CALCULATION OF J - INTEGRAL ............................................ 15

7. ANALITICAL CALCULATION OF J INTEGRAL .............................................. 16

LITERATURA................................................................................................................... 18

FSB Zagreb
2
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Behaviour of different materials ............................................................................ 4

Figure 2: Nonlinear energy release rate ................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: J contour without crack .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: J contour with crack ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Schematic of early experimental measurements of J, performed by Landes and
Begley .......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Double-edge-notched tension (DENT) panel ...................................................... 13
Figure 7: Edge-cracked plate in pure bending ..................................................................... 14
Figure 8: J-integral contour paths (1, 2, 3) surrounding the crack tip through
theintegration points of finite elements ....................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Plate with crack .................................................................................................... 16

FSB Zagreb
3
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

1. TYPE OF FRACTURE MECHANICS

The J contour integral has enjoyed great success as a fracture characterizing parameter
for nonlinear materials. By idealizing elastic-plastic deformation as nonlinear elastic, Rice
provided the basis for extending fracture mechanics methodology well beyond the
validity limits of LEFM.

Figure 1 illustrates the uniaxial stress-strain behavior of elastic-plastic and nonlinear

elastic materials. The loading behavior for the two materials is identical, but the material
responses differ when each is unloaded. The elastic-plastic material follows a linear
unloading path with the slope equal to Youngs modulus, while the nonlinear elastic
material unloads along the same path as it was loaded.

This does not put any restrictions on the use of J as long as there is no unloading.
However, if there is unloading anywhere, the assumption of non-linear elasticity will
cause errors.

Figure 1: Behaviour of different materials

Thus an analysis that assumes nonlinear elastic behavior may be valid for an elastic-plastic
material, provided no unloading occurs.

Rice applied deformation plasticity (i.e., nonlinear elasticity) to the analysis of a crack in a
nonlinear material. He showed that the nonlinear energy release rate J could be written
as a pathindependent line integral.

FSB Zagreb
4
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

2. NONLINEAR ENERGY RELEASE RATE

Rice presented a path-independent contour integral for the analysis of cracks. He then
showed that the value of this integral, which he called J, is equal to the energy release
rate in a nonlinear elastic body that contains a crack.

Energy release rate for linear materials is same for nonlinear elastic materials, except that
G is replaced by J:

(2.1)

where is the potential energy and A is the crack area. The potential energy is given by

(2.2)

where U is the strain energy stored in the body and F is the work done by external forces.
Consider a cracked plate which exhibits a nonlinear load-displacement curve, as
illustrated in Figure 2. If the plate has unit thickness, A = a. For load control

(2.3)

where U* is the complimentary strain energy, defined as

(2.4)

FSB Zagreb
5
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

Figure 2: Nonlinear energy release rate

Thus if the plate in Figure 2 is in load control, J is given by

(2.5)

If the crack advances at a fixed displacement, F = 0, and J is given by

(2.6)

According to Figure 2, dU* for load control differs from dU for displacement control by
the amount dPd, which is vanishingly small compared to dU. Therefore, J for load control
is equal to J for displacement control. By invoking the definitions for U and U*, we can
express J in terms of load and displacement:

(2.7)

FSB Zagreb
6
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

or

(2.8)

Integrating Equation (2.7) by parts leads to a rigorous proof of what we have already
inferred from Figure 2. That is, Equation (2.7) and Equation (2.8) are equal, and J is the
same for fixed load and fixed grip conditions. Thus, J is a more general version of the
energy release rate. For the special case of a linear elastic material, Je = G. Also

2
= (2.9)
`

for linear elastic Mode I loading, where is

E` = E (2.10)

for plane stress condition, and

E` = E(1- 2 ) (2.11)

for plane strain conditions.

Application of deformation theory of plasticity allows the Jintegral can be written as the
sum of the elastic and plastic parts:

J = Je + Jpl (2.12)

FSB Zagreb
7
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

3. J AS A PATH-INDEPENDENT LINE
INTEGRAL

Eshelby defined a number of contour integrals which are path independent

by virtue of the energy conservation theorem. The two-dimensional form of one
of these integrals can be written as:

( ) = 0 (3.1)

U = strain energy per volume unit

Ti = components of the traction vector

ui = displacement vector components

ds = length increment along the contour

The strain energy density is defined as

= (3.2)

where and are the stress and strain tensors, respectively. The traction is a stress
vector at a given point on the contour. That is, if we were to construct a free body

diagram of the material inside of the contour, Ti would define the stresses acting at the
boundaries. The components of the traction vector are given by

=
(3.3)

where nj are the components of the unit vector normal to .

FSB Zagreb
8
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

Figure 3: J contour without crack

The integral is taken along a closed contour, , followed counter clockwise

(Figure 3) in a stressed solid.

Applying this integral to a cracked body one can construct a closed contour ABCDEF
around the crack tip, as shown in Figure 4. The integral of Equation (3.4) along this
contour must equal zero; it consists of the sum of four parts:

+ + + = 0 (3.4)
1 2

Figure 4: J contour with crack

FSB Zagreb
9
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

Since there is no load (T = 0), along CD and FA the contribution of these parts is

zero, so that for the remaining parts:

+ = 0, = (3.5)
1 2 1 2

Therefore, the contribution of ABC must be equal (but opposite in sign) to the
contribution of DEF. Note that one is clockwise, the other counter-clockwise.
This means that the integral, if taken in the same direction along 1, and 2 will
have the same value:1 = 2 (Figure 4). But condition is that crack faces are not loaded.
As 1, and 2 were arbitrary 2 paths, the integral over is apparently path-independent
(one may take any path, beginning and ending at opposing crack faces, and the integral will
always have the same value). The value of the integral was called J:

( ) = (3.6)

FSB Zagreb
10
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

4. J AS A STRESS INTENSITY
PARAMETER

Hutchinson and Rice and Rosengren independently showed that J characterizes crack-tip
conditions in a nonlinear elastic material. They each assumed a power law relationship
between plastic strain and stress. If elastic strains are included, this relationship for
uniaxial deformation is given by

(4.1)

where
o = reference stress value that is usually equal to the yield strength
o = o/E
= dimensionless constant

n = strain-hardening exponent

Equation (4.1) is known as the Ramberg-Osgood equation, and is widely used for curve-
fitting stress-strain data. Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren showed that in order to remain
path independent, stressstrain must vary as 1/r near the crack tip. At distances very close
to the crack tip, well within the plastic zone, elastic strains are small in comparison to the
total strain, and the stressstrain behavior reduces to a simple power law. These two
conditions imply the following variation of stress and strain ahead of the crack tip:

(4.2)

where k1 and k2 are proportionality constants, which are defined more precisely below.
1
For a linear elastic material, n = 1, and Equation (4.2) predicts a singularity, which is

consistent with LEFM theory, where r presents a distance from crack tip.

FSB Zagreb
11
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

5. LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF J

When the material behavior is linear elastic, the calculation of J in a test specimen or
structure is relatively straightforward because J = G, and G is uniquely related to the
stress intensity factor. The latter quantity can be computed from the load and crack size,
assuming a K solution for that particular geometry is available.
Computing the J integral is somewhat more difficult when the material is nonlinear. The
principle of superposition no longer applies, and J is not proportional to the applied load.
Thus a simple relationship between J, load, and crack length is usually not available.
One option for determining J is to apply the line integral definition Equation (3.19) to the
configuration of interest. Read has measured the J integral in test panels by attaching an
array of strain gages in a contour around the crack tip. Since J is path independent and
the choice of contour is arbitrary, he selected a contour in such a way as to simplify the
calculation of J as much as possible. This method can also be applied to finite element
analysis, i.e., stresses, strains, and displacements can be determined along a contour and
J can then be calculated according to Equation (3.1). However, the contour method for
determining J is impractical in most cases.

Figure 5: Schematic of early experimental measurements of J, performed by Landes and

Begley

FSB Zagreb
12
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

Landes and Begley, who were among the first to measure J experimentally, invoked the
energy release rate definition of J (Equation (3.1)). Figure 5 schematically illustrates their
approach. They obtained a series of test specimens of the same size, geometry, and
material and introduced cracks of various lengths. They deformed each specimen and
plotted load vs. displacement (Figure 5 (a)). The area under a given curve is equal to U,
the energy absorbed by the specimen. Landes and Begley plotted U vs. crack length at
various fixed displacements (Fig. 5 (b)). For an edge-cracked specimen of thickness B, the
J integral is given by

1
= ( ) (5.1)

Thus J can be computed by determining the slope of the tangent to the curves in Figure
5(b). Applying Equation (5.1) leads to Figure 5(c), a plot of J vs. displacement at various
crack lengths.

The Landes and Begley approach has obvious disadvantages, since multiple specimens
must be tested and analyzed to determine J in a particular set of circumstances.
Rice showed that it was possible, in certain cases, to determine J directly from the load
displacement curve of a single specimen.

Figure 6: Double-edge-notched tension (DENT) panel

FSB Zagreb
13
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

J for plate at Figure 6 is given equation:

(5.2)

Figure 7: Edge-cracked plate in pure bending

And for Figure 7 is:

(5.3)

So it can be seen that both equation have same first part, linear part od J, and different
is in second part of equation.

In general, the J integral for a variety of configurations can be written in the following
form:

(5.4)

where is a dimensionless constant. Note that Equation (5.4) contains the actual
thickness, while the above derivations assumed a unit thickness for convenience.
Equation (5.4) expresses J as the energy absorbed, divided by the cross-sectional area,
times a dimensionless constant. For a deeply cracked plate in pure bending, = 2.
Equation (5.4) can be separated into elastic and plastic components:

(5.5)

FSB Zagreb
14
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

6. NUMERICAL CALCULATION OF J -
INTEGRAL

Figure 8: J-integral contour paths (1, 2, 3) surrounding the crack tip through
theintegration points of finite elements

The total value of J, Figure 8, is calculated by evaluating Jintegral values in these points and
by summing them along a path enclosing the crack tip. To account for results dissipation in
the vicinity and away from the crack tip, three different paths around crack tip have
been defined, and their average value taken as the final one.

FSB Zagreb
15
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

7. ANALITICAL CALCULATION OF J
INTEGRAL

Figure 9: Plate with crack

Integral for calculating J for 2D problem is:

= ( + )
(7.1)
Because load P in direction x is zero and we have load on both side equation convert to:

= 2 ( ) (7.2)
0

So we can observe loaded part of a plate like a one side fixed beam with a slope of tangent
line
2
= (7.3)
2
with moment of inercia

FSB Zagreb
16
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

3
= (7.4)
12
B represent a plate thickness.

present slope on tangent line of beam and it is

6 2
= (7.5)
3

and it is same like a. So J can be written like

12 2
= (7.6)
3 0


= = (7.7)
0 0
Finaly, the J is

12 2 2
= (7.7)
2 3

FSB Zagreb
17
MATEJ MARKULIN: J - INTEGRAL

LITERATURA

[1] Anderson: Fraction Mechanics Fundamental and Application, 2005.

[2] David Broek: The practical use of Fracture Mechanics
[3] Zdenko Tonkovi: Predavanja za Pogonsku vrstou
[4] Goran VUKELI, Josip BRNI - J-integral as possible criterion in material fracture
toughness assessment
[5] http://www.nptelvideos.in/2012/12/engineering-fracture-mechanics.html
[6] Ivo Alfirevi: Nauka o vrstoi 1

FSB Zagreb
18