Cold Regions Science and Technology, 18 (1990) 29-47 29

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

CRACK NUCLEATION DUE TO ELASTIC ANI SOTROPY IN POLYCRYSTALLINE ICE
S. Shyem Sunder and Mao S. Wu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Room 1-273, Cambridge, MA 02139 (U.S.A.)
(Received June 12, 1989; revised and accepted August 21, 1989)
A B S T R A C T
This paper presents a theoretical analysis of
crack nucleation in isotropic polycrystalline ice due
to the elastic anisotropy of the constituent crystals.
The singularity of the associated stress concentra-
tions near a grain-boundary facet junction provides
the mechanism f or inducing microcrack precursors,
i f similar nuclei do not already exist. The first-order
microstructural stress f i el d created by the elastic an-
isotropy mechanism is linearly superposed on the ap-
plied stress field. This total stress f i el d causes the pre-
cursors to nucleate into microcracks. The analysis of
the nucleation stress is based on a solution to the
general problem of an extending precursor in a com-
bined stress f i el d including the effects of Coulombic
frictional resistance. The local material resistance is
characterized in terms of a critical value f or the max-
i mum principal tensile stress which can be deter-
mi ned f rom the surface free energy of either the grain
boundary or the solid-vapor interface.
Model predictions show that: (a) the stress re-
quired to nucleate cracks in compression is about 2.5
times that in tension, unlike other microstructural
models which predict them to be equal; (b) elastic an-
isotropy rather than dislocation pile-up as proposed
by others may govern crack nucleation in tension over
a wide range of strain rates; (c) the stress required to
nucleate a crack in compression is strongly depen-
dent on crystal orientation and, as a consequence of
the random orientation of crystals in isotropic poly-
crystalline ice, there can be a distinct beginning and
end to the microcrack nucleation phase when stress
is increased and i f failure does not occur prema-
turely; (d) the grain size effect due to the elastic an-
isotropy mechanism is similar to that due to the dis-
location pile-up mechanism over the typical range of
grain sizes encountered in nature; and (e) a general-
ization of the limiting tensile strain criterion* which
accounts f or the anisotropy of the constituent crystals
is an excellent phenomenological approximation of
the nucleation surface under multiaxial states of
stress.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The ductile-to-brittle transition in polycrystalline
ice is significantly influenced by the nucleation of
microcracks. For example, the stress required to
nucleate such cracks governs the tensile strength for
typical grain si zes and over several decades of strain
rate. In addition, under compressive states of stress
the nucleation of microcracks rather than their
growth is primarily responsible for the progressive
accumulation of damage in the ductile-to-brittle
transition regime.
Gold (1972) has observed the microcrack den-
sity during compressive creep of columnar-grained
polycrystalline ice and postulated the existence of
two independent families of cracks on the basis of a
statistical analysis. The probability of nucleation for
one family of cracks increases directly with creep
strain, while that for the other is independent of
creep strain. He proposes that stress concentrations
due to the pile-up of dislocations are responsible for
the first family of cracks, while the growth of nuclei
due to diffusion or a gradually increasing local stress
is responsible for the second family of cracks. These
latter cracks form mainly at grain boundaries and
*Proposed by Shyam Sunder and Ting ( 1985 ).
0165-232X/90/$03.50 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
3 0 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
are characteristic of purely brittle behavior.
The dislocation pile-up mechanism has subse-
quently been adopted by Schulson (Schulson, 1979;
Schulson et al., 1984) and Cole (1986) to explain
crack nucleation under tension and compression,
respectively. The study of dislocation etch pits in
deformed ice by Sinha (1978) which shows that
dislocations do pile-up at grain boundaries appears
to be the only microstructural evidence which sup-
ports the operation of this nucleation mechanism.
Schulson et al. (1984) explicitly associate nuclea-
tion-controlled tensile failure with the brittle be-
havior of ice, while Schulson (1987) goes on to state
that nucleation occurs under the same uniaxial stress
in compression as in tension.
During compressive creep tests on columnar-
grained polycrystalline ice, Sinha (1984) found no
evidence of dislocation pile-ups around micro-
cracks in hundreds of grains. He concluded that
stress concentrations resulting from dislocation pile-
ups may not be the mechanism responsible for crack
nucleation. In turn, Sinha (1982, 1984) postulated
that grain boundary sliding causes stress concentra-
tions at triple points between grains and at jogs in
the boundaries and that these stress concentrations
are responsible for crack nucleation. Since grain
boundary sliding is responsible for the anelastic or
delayed elastic component of strain in the creep
model of Sinha ( 1979 ), he goes on to state that this
mechanism of crack nucleation does not involve
purely elastic deformation and hence does not cor-
respond to truly brittle behavior. There is as yet no
consensus in the ice literature as to which of the two
mechanisms (dislocation pile-up versus grain
boundary sliding) is responsible for the nucleation
of strain-dependent microcracks.
The internal stress and strain fields in a polycrys-
talline aggregate are very inhomogeneous due to
crystal anisotropy and dislocation movement. Both
these sources of irregularity can lead to stress con-
centrations particularly at grain boundaries and
cause crack nucleation. Cole (1986) proposes that
the elastic anisotropy of ice crystals is specifically
responsible for the strain-independent crack distri-
bution observed by Gold (1972) at high rates of
loading.
Cole ( 1988 ) has subsequently compared the dis-
location pile-up mechanism with the elastic aniso-
tropy mechanism. His analysis shows that while the
basal plane contains a sufficient density of glissile
dislocations to form the pile-up, the time required
to move the dislocation into the appropriate config-
uration (approximately 125 s) is much greater than
the experimentally observed times for the nuclea-
tion of first cracks (typically less than 20 s). He
concludes that "the first cracks to nucleate are not
a result of the pile-up mechanism, but rather a re-
sult of the elastic anisotropy mechanism". His sub-
sequent analysis shows that the two mechanisms
cannot be readily distinguished on the basis of either
the nucleation stress or the grain size dependency.
The analysis of the elastic anisotropy mechanism
by Cole ( 1988 ), however, is based on a highly sim-
plified model which considers just two isolated ice
crystals subjected to a uniaxial stress.The elastic
strain energy of each crystal is computed by assum-
ing that its response is uncoupled from the other
crystal. The difference in strain energy of the two
grains drives crack nucleation which, in effect, cor-
responds to a nucleation event driven by shear on
the grain boundary. The analysis also implicitly
predicts that crack nucleation occurs at the same
uniaxial stress in compression and tension.
This paper presents a theoretical analysis of crack
nucleation due to elastic anisotropy in polycrystal-
line ice. The microstructural stresses due to the
elastic anisotropy of individual crystals in an oth-
erwise isotropic polycrystal are analyzed using a
first-order approximation of the approach devel-
oped by Eshelby (1957). A similar first-order ap-
proximation has been used by Evans (1984) to
analyze the grain-boundary residual stresses in iso-
tropic ceramic polycrystals stemming from the
thermal expansion anisotropy of individual crys-
tals. The singularity of the stress concentration near
a grain-boundary facet junction due to elastic an-
isotropy provides the mechanism for inducing mi-
crocrack precursors, if similar nuclei do not already
exist as proposed by Gold (1972). The precursors
can nucleate into microcracks through the local in-
tensification of the applied and microstructural/in-
ternal stress fields.
The analysis of the stress required to nucleate mi-
crocracks and the incipient growth direction is based
on a solution to the general problem of an extending
precursor in a combined stress field. This solution
CRACK NUCLEATION 31
uses the maxi mum principal tensile stress ( MPTS)
criterion for mixed-mode crack extension which has
been proposed by Erdogan and Sih (1963). The lo-
cal material resistance may be characterized in terms
of the surface energy of either the grain boundary or
the sol i d-vapor interface, bot h of which are similar
in magnitude for ice (Ketcham and Hobbs, 1969).
The effect of Coulombic frictional resistance is in-
cluded in defining the effective stress driving the
precursor in the shearing mode of deformation.
Further, it is postulated that the first crack to nu-
cleate is associated with the most favorable orien-
tations of both the precursor and the adjoining
grains.
The analysis procedure is applied to study the
problem of crack nucleation in polycrystalline ice
under uniaxial and biaxial states of loading involv-
ing bot h tensile and compressive stresses. The ef-
fects of grain size on the nucleation stress are also
explored. The predictions of this microstructural
model are then compared with the phenomenolog-
ical model based on a limiting tensile strain crite-
rion that has previously been proposed by Shyam
Sunder and Ting ( 1985 ).
ANALYSI S OF MI CROSTRUCTURAL
STRESS FIELD
The analysis of microstructural stresses due to the
elastic anisotropy of individual crystals in an oth-
erwise isotropic polycrystal is based on a first-order
approximation of the Eshelby (1957) proce-
dure.The first step, in the complete three-step Esh-
elby procedure (see Fig. 1 ), is to separate from the
solid those microstructural features which create the
major part of the microstructural stresses of inter-
est. To calculate the stresses in the vicinity of grain
boundaries due to elastic anisotropy in a two-di-
mensional system, this step corresponds to separat-
ing the grains surrounding the precursor of interest
since they will dominate the stress field. The behav-
ior of each of these separated grains is defined in
terms of the elastic stress-strain relations for single
ice crystals, i.e.:
~,=s,o (I)
where a is the applied stress vector, c, is the vector
ISOTROPIC MATRIX
X
n
0
_
Fig. 1. Schematic of three-step Eshelby procedure for analyz-
ing microstructural stress field.
of strains induced in each of the individual grains
expressed in engineering notation as c = [ ~ Em ~=,
~ ' y z , 7 z x , 7 x y ] r with T denoting the transpose opera-
tion, and Sg is the compliance matrix of a single
crystal in the chosen frame of reference. If the cho-
sen frame of reference does not coincide with the
standard frame of reference for the hexagonal ice
crystal, then Sg is given by:
S~= Rs TS,,Rs (2)
where Rs is the three-dimensional rotation matrix
and S, , is the compliance matrix of the single ice
crystal in the standard frame of reference both of
which are defined in Appendix A. This compliance
tensor is anisotropic since ice possesses a hexagonal
crystal structure with five independent elastic con-
stants, not j ust two as for isotropic materials. The
dynamic elastic constants of single ice crystals have
been determined by several investigators (see, e.g.
Gammon et al., 1983 ).
The remaining matrix is assumed to act as an iso-
tropic medium, having the same elastic properties
as the polycrystalline body, i.e.:
ffm ~--SmO" ( 3 )
where Cm is the vector of strains induced in the ho-
mogeneous matrix and Sm is the elastic compliance
32 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
tensor of the isotropic polycrystal given in Appen-
dix A and has the same components in all orthogo-
nal coordinate frames. The polycrystal elastic con-
stants can be determined through independent
testing or from the monocrystal data as outlined by
Gammon et al. (1983).
In the second step, the separated grains are de-
formed to fit into the cavity in the matrix by apply-
ing surface tractions on each grain. Microstructural
elastic stresses are induced in the grain due to the
misfit strains and are given by:
O'0 ~,~- Cg ( Em - - Eg ) (4)
where Cg is the elastic stiffness matrix for single ice
crystals in the chosen frame of reference which can
be determined from the crystal stiffness matrix Cgs
in the standard frame of reference and the associ-
ated rotation matrix Rc given in Appendix A. Using
Eqs. 1 and 3, Eq. 4 can be rewritten in the following
more convenient form:
~ro= ( CgSm- - I )o (5)
The surface tractions on each grain can then be ob-
tained from the equilibrium conditions on the
surface.
In the last step, the separated grains are welded
back to the matrix and the surface tractions on their
boundaries are relaxed. This step creates an addi-
tional stress field tr c in the whole body. The result-
ant microstructural stress field due only to the ef-
fects of elastic anisotropy can then be expressed as
the sum of,70 and tr. The total stress field crt is the
sum of the applied stresses and the microstructural
stresses.
A complete solution obtained with the Eshelby
procedure by Evans (1984) for the problem of ther-
mal expansion anisotropy in ceramic potycrystals
shows that the microstructural stress distribution in
the vicinity of a grain-boundary facet junction may
be expressed as:
a( x ) = [I + Fl n( l / x ) ]ao,avg (6)
where I is the identity matrix, F is a diagonal matrix
with the elements representing shape functions that
take into account the crystallographic orientations
of the adjacent grains, angle between facets, etc., and
~ro,avg is the average of the microstructural stresses
given by Eq. 4 for the two grains adjoining the pre-
cursor under consideration. The variable l is the
length of the grain boundary facet which Cole
(1988) has estimated to be about 0.56 times the
grain size d, and x is the distance from the grain
boundary facet junction.
Due to the logarithmic term in Eq. 6, the stresses
become singular near the grain junction as x tends
to zero. Unlike thermal stress concentrations, stress
singularities caused by a geometrical discontinuity
along a bimaterial interface in elasticity are often
much more powerful than l n( l / x ) . These singular-
ities are generally expected to be of the form ( l / r ) ~,
where 0 < 2 < 1 and r is the radial distance from the
grain boundary facet junction (see, e.g. Bogy and
Wang, 1971 ). The intact material cannot sustain a
singular stress field since it exceeds the molecular
forces of cohesion. Consequently, the stress singu-
larity at the grain boundary junction provides the
mechanism for inducing microcrack precursors. In
the case of highly irregular grain boundaries as is
the case for an actual material specimen, stress sin-
gularities may occur at geometric discontinuities
such as steps and ledges on the grain boundary in
addition to those occurring at junctions.
Although the average microstructural stress does
not depend on the grain facet size, the scale effect
contained in the singularity allows the stress to be
sustained over a larger area of grain facet as the facet
length increases. Consequently, the microcrack pre-
cursor will tend to be larger for larger grains. Al-
though the details of this process are not well-known
even for ceramic materials, it is reasonable to con-
sider ratios of precursor size 2a to facet length or
grain size that vary in the approximate range given
by 0.1 <2a/ l <0. 2 or 0.05 <2a/ d<O. l O. This is the
typical length over which the influence of the sin-
gularity is a maximum.
The first-order approximation of the Eshelby
procedure is based on the average microstructural
stress field given by tro,avg, i.e. the contribution of ~rc
to the microstructural residual stress field which is
responsible for the singularity term of Eq. 6 is ne-
glected. Once a precursor has formed, the asymp-
totic stress field ahead of the precursor is taken to
follow the well-known square-root singularity of
linear elastic fracture mechanics and not the singu-
larity due to geometric stress concentrations which
C R A C K N U C L E A T I O N 33
is derived from the analysis of an intact or defect-
free material.
The precursors can nucleate into microcracks
through the local intensification of the total stress
field which is the sum of the applied stress field and
the first-order approximation of the microstruc-
tural/internal stress field given by Eq. 5. If the mag-
nitude of stress intensity is small, then either the
formation of the precursor may be prevented or if
the precursor does form it may not be able to nu-
cleate into a microcrack (a crack typically of the size
of a grain). Equation 5 predicts that the precursor
is in general subject to both normal and shear
stresses. For example, when polycrystalline ice is
loaded in uniaxial compression the equation pre-
dicts a normal tensile stress on a precursor that is
parallel with the loading axis and when the basal
plane orientation lies in the range given by
0<( <25 or 65 <( <90 (see Fig. A.1 in the
Appendix).
CRACK NUCLEATI ON CRI TERI ON
The microcrack precursor or nucleus is in general
subject to a combined stress field, not only tension
or pure shear. In addition, its extension may take
place at an angle with respect to the orientation of
the precursor. Thus, the analysis of the stress re-
quired to nucleate microcracks and the incipient
growth direction must be based on a solution to the
general problem of an extending precursor in a
combined stress field.
Asympt ot i c stress f i el d
As previously stated, the asymptotic stress field
ahead of the precursor is taken to follow the well-
known square-root singularity of linear elastic frac-
ture mechanics, not the more general geometric
stress singularity which is derived from the analysis
of an intact or defect-free material. Further, the pri-
mary effect of crystal anisotropy is to determine the
total remote stresses acting on the precursor; its in-
fluence on the local asymptotic stress field is con-
sidered to be negligible.
In the case of thermal anisotropy, Evans ( 1978 )
recognizes that the superposition of the logarithmic
A
5C
0
O
It.
>-
I---
Z
lit
I "
_z
CO
iii
t r
o~
a
iii
. . d
<
t r
O
Z
0.9
02-
0,7-
0 . 0
0 . 5
0 . 4 .
0 , 8
0 . 2
0 . 1
#
0 . 0
0 .~}0
I " 1 I I I
o ! \ < ' =
i ~ l G l i , A I N ARIIUI Y ~ ~
. , /
t l # / i i l ~ t ~ l
/ f T H R O I ~ I H C P I ~ K I N t N F I N l l l l P I j I I T E { l ~ F l l l ~
# i i / I N G L E ' G R A I N
/ f
/
l I I I t
0. 05 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 2 0 0 . 2 . 5 0 . 9 0
RELATIVE CRACK LENGTH, 2a/I
Fig. 2. Nor mal i zed st ress i nt ensi t y f act or pl ot t ed as a func-
t i on of t he r at i o of pr ecur sor size t o t he grai n facet l engt h
( das hed l i nes for single grai n, grai n pai r and grai n array, re-
pr oduced f r om Evans, 1978).
stress field on a material with defects is an approx-
imation and that the stress intensity factor tends to
be overestimated as a result. He goes on to compute
the mode I stress intensity factor for precursors at
grain boundary junctions using the asymptotic stress
field given by the logarithmic singularity for an iso-
lated single grain, a pair of grains, and an array of
grains.
Figure 2 (reproduced from Evans, 1978) shows
the normalized stress intensity factors for each of
these cases. The larger intensities for the grain pair
and grain array are achieved by orienting the crys-
tals in the most favorable manner. Superposed on
the figure is the normalized stress intensity factor
from linear elastic fracture mechanics for a through
crack of length 2a in an infinite plate, i.e.:
K , [ ' z c a ' ~ '1~
{7)
34 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
Thi s convent i onal stress i nt ensi t y measure, whi ch
charact eri zes an asympt ot i c stress field with a
square-root singularity, is seen t o follow t he general
t r end pr edi ct ed by t he model of Evans ( 1978 ) f or
the range of precursor sizes under consi derat i on.
Equat i on 7 is al most exact for t he case where t wo
grains are favorabl y ori ent ed. In general, t he prob-
ability of at t ai ni ng hi gher stress i nt ensi t i es di mi n-
ishes for an i sot ropi c pol ycryst al since it is neces-
sary for several grains ( not j ust t wo) to be favorabl y
ori ent ed. The curve f or t he grain array in Fig. 2 is
in essence an upper bound. Furt her, since the model
predi ct i ons based on superposi t i on can be some-
what over est i mat ed (Evans, 1978), t he conven-
tional i nt ensi t y measure is in fact a good represen-
t at i on for bot h t he grain pai r and grain array.
For t he pr obl em under consi derat i on, t he geo-
met ri c stress singularity applies onl y f or t he mi cros-
t ruct ural stress field i nduced by crystal ani sot ropy.
Once the precursor has f or med and a significant part
of t he stress concent r at i on has been rel i eved, t he
asympt ot i c field governi ng mi cr ocr ack nucl eat i on
will be square-root singular. Furt her, t he appl i ed
stresses generally domi nat e t he t ot al stress field. The
stress i nt ensi t y associ at ed wi t h a pr ecur sor subject
onl y t o t he appl i ed stress field in an i sot ropi c solid
shoul d be given by t he convent i onal i nt ensi t y mea-
sure in Eq. 7. Clearly, this woul d be t he measure of
choi ce for a precursor in t he absence of mi crost ruc-
t ural stresses due t o crystal ani sot ropy. Finally, ex-
t ensi on of t he pr ecur sor in a combi ned stress field
is significantly mor e compl ex and, in fact, t he for-
mul at i on by Evans ( 1984) uses t he convent i onal
measures of stress i nt ensi t y in t he tensile and shear-
ing modes of def or mat i on t o defi ne an effect i ve mi-
crost ruct ural stress.
Ma x i mu m pri nci pal t ensi l e st ress cri t eri on
Two al t ernat i ve solutions, t he maxi mum pri nci -
pal stress cri t eri on of Erdogan and Sih (1963 ) and
t he mi ni mum st rai n energy densi t y f act or cri t eri on
of Sih ( 1974) , are of t en adopt ed f or t he pr obl em of
an ext endi ng pr ecur sor in a combi ned stress field.
In t he f or mer approach, a critical stress i nt ensi t y
defi nes t he i ni t i at i on stress while t he di r ect i on of
ext ensi on is post ul at ed t o occur in a di r ect i on per-
pendi cul ar t o t he local maxi mum tensile stress. In

i
PRECURSOR

Z
Y,q
)
Y z
Fig. 3. Definition of coordinate system and incipient growth
direction for an inclined precursor in a combined stress field.
t he l at t er approach, t he critical st rai n energy den-
sity fact or specifies bot h t he i ni t i at i on stress and t he
di r ect i on of ext ensi on. The f or mer cri t eri on f or ms
t he basis of t he crack nucl eat i on analysis adopt ed
here. A compar i son of t he t wo cri t eri a f or t he pr ob-
l em of crack nucl eat i on in ice is pr esent ed in a
f or t hcomi ng paper by Wu and Shyam Sunder
( 1990) .
The f or mul at i on t akes i nt o account t he com-
bi ned stress field generat ed by bot h t he appl i ed and
mi cr ost r uct ur al stresses, as well as t he effect of Cou-
l ombi c fri ct i onal resistance in defi ni ng t he effect i ve
stress dri vi ng t he pr ecur sor in t he sheari ng mode of
def or mat i on. Pr ecur sor ext ensi on is consi dered t o
be a mi xt ur e of modes I and II and t o t ake place
under t he act i on of a bi axi al stress field including
t ensi on, compr essi on and shear. Thi s is consi st ent
wi t h t he mi cr ost r uct ur al stress field i nduced by an
externally appl i ed tensile or compressi ve l oad which
generally i ncl udes bot h nor mal a nd shear stresses.
Consi der t he pr ecur sor shown in Fig. 3 whi ch is
in t he x - z plane, or i ent ed at an angle 1/with t he x-
axis, and subj ect ed t o t he combi ned stress fi el d Or.
Assumi ng a t wo- di mensi onal stress field, t he "t o-
t al " r emot e nor mal stress O'pp and shear stress trpr
acting on t he pr ecur sor are gi ven by:
o ,io 2fl
(8)
CRACK NUCLEATION 35
trpr = - ( a:~ 2 o ~ ) s i n 2 f l - a x z c o s 2 f l +_ lurpp =
~'~ + f l a p p (9)
where/~ is the coefficient of friction and #trpp is the
Coulombic frictional stress which opposes sliding
whenever the normal stress is compressive (nega-
t i ve), i.e. the sign in Eq. 9 is positive when 12>0
and negative when 12 < 0. The effective shear stress
given in Eq. 9 is set to zero whenever the magnitude
of the sum of the first two terms, i.e., 12 is smaller
than or equal to the frictional stress term.
The asymptotic stress field in the vicinity of the
precursor can be expressed as the sum of the stress
fields due to the deformations in modes I and II,
respectively:
aij = K x / ( 2zcr ) l / 2 f i j ( O ) +KII / (27rr)l/2filij(O ) (10)
where K~ and KII are the stress-intensity factors in
modes I and II, respectively, while f~o and f I I i j a r e
trigonometric functions of the angle 0 defined in Fig.
3. The stress intensity factors for standard crack ge-
ometries are available in the literature (see, e.g. Sih,
1973 ). For a through thickness precursor of length
2 a in an infinite plate, they are listed below:
K I = 7 p p ( 7 ~ a ) 1 / 2 ( 1 1 )
Kn = O'pr (Tt'a)I/2 (12)
If avp is compressive, it is assumed that the crack is
closed and consequently KI = 0.
The asymptotic distribution of the tangential and
shear stresses given by Eq. l 0 can be expressed as
follows:
C r o o = ( 2 7 ~ l r ~ 7 ~ c o s ( O ) [ g , c o s 2 ( O ) - 3 K i i s i n O ]
(13)
( o )
trr0 2(2rtr)t/2 cos [KI sin 0+Kxx(3 cos 0 - 1 ) ]
(14)
where r is the radial distance from the tip of the pre-
cursor and 0 is the angle measured anti-clockwise
from a line extending along the precursor in the solid
as shown in Fig. 3.
The stress aoo will be the principal stress i f trio= 0.
This is the case for 0=0m where 0m is found by
equating Eq. 14 to zero (see, e.g. Brock, 1986):
2 1/2
t a n Om Kt~+ ~_[(K~ .,_~q
2 4K n L ~KII , ] A
(15)
The principal stresses corresponding to the two val-
ues of 0m are then given as:
1 2
O'1 ' O ' 2 - (27~r)T~ COS ( ~ ) I g I c s ( ~ ) -
3KI, sin ( ~ ) 1 (16)
According to the maximum principal tensile stress
criterion, the precursor begins to grow when the
maxi mum value of the principal tensile stress given
by Eq. 16 has the same value as that for growth in
an equivalent mode I problem, i.e. equal to K l c /
( / t r ) 1/2. The growth condition is obtained by equat-
ing Eq. 16 with this quantity, i.e.:
K i c = K , c o s S ( ~ ) - 3 K i t c o s 2 ( ~ - ~ ) s i n ( ~ )
(17)
For growth under pure mode I loading, the critical
value of the stress intensity is given by:
KI = plane strain (18)
and:
Kic = (2Ey) w: plane stress (19)
where y is the grain boundary surface energy Y~b, i f
extension occurs along a boundary, facet or the solid-
vapor surface energy 7sv, i f the precursor extends into
the crystal.
Values for these two surface energies have been
determined by Ketcham and Hobbs (1969), i.e.
7gb=0.065 J m -2 and 7sv=0.109 J m -2. For exten-
sion along the grain boundary Kit is equal to 36.83
K P a m I/2 under plane strain and 34.83 KPa m t/2
36 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
under plane stress with E= 9.33 GPa and v = 0.325.
The corresponding numbers for extension into the
crystals are 47.69 and 45. l0 KPa m ~/2. Since both
surface energies are similar in magnitude (and
stresses derived from the two estimates differ only
by about 29.5%), precursors on the grain boundary
can easily extend into the crystals if there are obsta-
cles to their growth on the grain boundary. Typi-
cally precursors may grow either parallel or perpen-
dicular to the basal plane under these conditions.
Although the surface energies are in general ex-
pected to be temperature sensitive, experimental
data on this variation is unavailable at the present
time.
Once the crack nucleation criterion is satisfied,
the precursors start growing until either (a) the rate
of energy supply is inadequate, or (b) they are ar-
rested at obstacles such as neighboring junctions or
crystals with unfavorable orientations and form a
stable microcrack. The microcracks nucleated in this
manner generally have a length which is propor-
tional to the grain size and which coincides with the
wavelength of the microstructural stress field. Cole
(1986) has found that the average crack length is
slightly smaller than (viz. approximately 0.6 times)
the mean grain size.
The instability condition for the propagation of
microcracks (as opposed to their nucleation) must
be based on a driving force supplied by the applied
stress field that can overcome the material resis-
tance offered by obstacles. This resistance may be
characterized in terms of conventional polycrystal
fracture toughness measures and is known to be
about 2-3 times the surface energy based resistance
for ice determined in this paper. In general, there is
a transition from the smaller to the greater resis-
tance as the length of the nucleated crack increases.
Even if the applied stress field is biaxial, it is in
general not necessary for the total stress field to be
biaxial due to the contribution of the microstruc-
rural stress field. However, in the specific case where
the c-axes of the grains adjoining the precursor lie
in the reference two-dimensional plane the total
stress field is biaxial. Analysis of the microstruc-
rural stress field under an applied biaxial load shows
that out-of-plane s h e a r s a r c n o n e x i s t e n t ( s e e Figs.
18 and 19 in the Appendix), while the out-of-plane
normal stress has no effect on a two-dimensional in-
plane precursor. The present analysis relates di-
rectly to this situation, but is a good approximation
for more complex conditions (where the c-axis may
be oriented arbitrarily) since the applied rather than
the microstructural stresses dominate the total stress
field.
D I $ C ~ O N OF ~ L P R E D I C T I ON S
Cr a c k nucl eat i on under uni axi al t ensi on and
compr essi on
Cole (1988) has compared the stress levels at
which cracks nucleate due to the dislocation pile-up
mechanism and the elastic anisotropy mechanism.
Figure 4, reproduced from this paper, shows the
variation of crack nucleation stress with grain size
for the two mechanisms. From this figure he con-
0 . .
O3
O3
LU
I ' -
O3
z
0
t--
<
W
..../
o
z
2
0
p . = 0 . 6 L
2 a / d = 0 . 1 0
K l C = 0 . 0 3 4 8 M P a e m 1/2
4 = 9 0 !
E L A S T . A N I . M E C H . ( C O M P , ) i
~ ELAST. ANI. MECH. (COLE, 168) ~
\ ' P, LE- UP MECH. (COLE, I ~ )
\ \
\ \ i
E L A S T . A N I . M E C H . ( T E N S . )
I I I I
2 4 ~ S 1~
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
Fig. 4. Model predi ct i ons o f stress requi red t o nucl eat e t he
first crack i n pol ycryst a~i ne i ce as a f unc t i on o f grai n si ze.
C R A C K N U C L E A T I O N 37
eludes that the mechanisms cannot be distin-
guished on the b a s i s o f e i t h e r the nucleation s t r e s s
or the grain size effect. The microstructural models
for both mechanisms assume that crack nucleation
in tension and compression occur at the same stress
level.
Predictions of the stress required to nucleate the
first crack in uniaxial compression and tension, re-
spectively, for the model presented in this paper are
also shown in Fig. 4. The calculations are based on
E=9. 33 GPa, u=0.325, Kxc=34.8 KPa m 1/2, the
ratio of precursor size to grain size equal to 2a/
d=0.10, and the coefficient of friction #=0. 6. The
most favorable orientations of the two grains ad-
joining the precursor has been adopted for predict-
ing the stress required to nucleate the first crack. In
particular, both grains have the same c-axis orien-
tation and the loading is parallel to the c-axes. Un-
der these conditions, there is no property mismatch
between the two grains containing the precursor.
This is consistent with the findings of Evans (1978)
who has shown that the largest microstructural
stresses that can develop for a grain pair occur for
connecting grains with closely similar orientations.
The predicted nucleation stresses and grain size de-
pendencies are similar to those of Cole (1988), but
there are important differences.
The stress required to nucleate the crack in ten-
sion is seen to vary in the range of 0.7-2.2 MPa for
grain sizes between 1 and 10 mm. Over the same
range of grain sizes, Schulson (Schulson et al., 1984;
Schulson, 1987) observes nucleation stresses vary-
ing between 0.7 and 1.4 MPa. The experimental data
were obtained at temperatures varying between - 5
and - 20 C and strain rates of 10 - 6 and l0 -3 s -l.
The data show that there is a tendency for the nu-
cleation stress to increase with decreasing tempera-
ture and increasing rate. Both the magnitude of the
nucleation stresses in tension and the grain size de-
pendencies predicted by the present formulation are
in good agreement with measurements.
The predicted stress required to nucleate a crack
in compression varies between 1.75 and 5.5 MPa
over the same range of grain sizes. Kalifa et al.
(1989) have experimentally observed the nuclea-
tion stress in uniaxial compression for isotropic po-
lycrystalline ice of 5 mm grain size at - 10 o C and a
range of strain rates between 10 -5 and l0 -3 s- i. The
data show that the nucleation stress varies between
1.9 and 3.0 MPa with a mean value of about 2.5
MPa and that there is no significant effect of strain
rate. The mean value of 2.5 MPa at a grain size of 5
mm is almost identical to the model prediction in
Fig. 4. More recently, Cole (1989) has observed a
nucleation stress varying between 3.3 and 3.9 MPa
under almost identical conditions. Although these
values are somewhat larger than the model predic-
tions, they fall within the limits of inherent statisti-
cal and modeling uncertainties. It is expected that
experimental data on the nucleation stress as a
function of grain size and temperature will become
available in the near future.
The most important consequence of the model
predictions in Fig. 4 is that the nucleation stress in
compression is different from that in tension when
considering the elastic anisotropy mechanism. In
fact, the ratio of the nucleation stresses in compres-
sion and tension is independent of grain size (as will
become clear later) but varies with the coefficient
of friction. As shown in Fig. 5, the ratio lies between
1.7 and 2.8 for 0<#< 1. For the typical value of
# = 0.6 considered in this paper, the ratio is equal to
2.5.
The orientation of the grain pair with respect to
the loading axis has a significant influence on crack
nucleation. Defining ~ as the angle between the c-
axis of the ice crystal and the z-axis of the coordi-
nate system in Fig. 1, the results show that the nu-
cleation stress in both compression and tension are
Z
I.U
m
[ L
: [
0 4
_o
I I 1 r I [
K l C = 0 . 0 3 4 8 MP a - m 1/2
= 9 0
Z 1
F -
~ 0 I I I I I I I I
0 ~ . 0 ~ , 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 - 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 9 ( ~ . 8 0 . 9 . 0
Z
C O E F F I C I E N T O F F R I C T I O N , p
Fig. 5. Rati o o f nucleation stress in uniaxial compressi on to
that in uni~ial tensi on plotted as a function of the coefficient
of friction.
38 S SHYAM SUNDER AND M S WU
u~
u J
or
p -
u~
z
k-
<
W
._J
o
z
0
0
',~ \ = 2 7
g = 0 . 6
2 a / d = 0 . 1 0
= 0
K l C = 0 . 0 3 4 8 MPa , , m 1/2 = 9 0 o
l I I I
2 4 6 8 1~
GRA I N SI ZE ( mm)
Fi g. 6. T h e e f f e c t o f c r y s t a l o r i e n t a t i o n o n c r a c k n u c l e a t i o n i n
p o l y c r y s t a l l i n e i ce.
funct i ons of this angle (see Fig. 6 ). In bot h t ensi on
and compr essi on t he first crack t o nucl eat e is asso-
ci at ed wi t h a grain pai r t hat has its c-axis al i gned in
t he di r ect i on of loading, i.e. ( = 90 . The results f or
al i gnment at 0 are ver y similar, but when t he c-
axes are aligned at an angle of 45 t o t he l oadi ng
axis t he nucl eat i on stress is a maxi mum. The influ-
ence is significant under compr essi on where t he nu-
cl eat i on stress ranges bet ween 3.8 and 12.2 MPa
compar ed wi t h t he range of 1. 75-5. 5 MPa f or t he
most favorabl e ori ent at i on. On t he ot her hand, it
appears t hat in general t he effect of c-axis al i gnment
is less significant in t ensi on.
An i mpor t ant consequence of r andom crystal ori-
ent at i on in pol ycryst al l i ne ice is t hat in compres-
sion t here can be a di st i nct begi nni ng and end t o t he
mi cr ocr ack nucl eat i on phase when t he stress is in-
creased and i f fai l ure does not occur premat urel y.
In part i cul ar, f or a grain size of 5 mm t he results in
Fig. 6 show t hat cracks can nucl eat e over a stress
range of 2. 5-5. 5 MPa. Beyond 5.5 MPa fewer cracks
will nucleate. Cole ( 1989) has obser ved this phe-
nomenon experimentally, where he finds t hat cracks
nucl eat e upt o a stress of 5.6 MPa ( compar e wi t h
t he pr edi ct i on of 5.5 MPa ) beyond whi ch no mor e
cracks nucl eat e unt i l fai l ure occurs at 8.5 MPa,
Bot h Kal i fa et al. ( 1989) and Cole ( 1989) fi nd
t hat t he fai l ure stress is bet ween t wo t o t hree t i mes
t he initial nucl eat i on stress at a st rai n rat e of 10-3
s - I and a grain size of 5 ram. Schulson ( 1987 ) has
obser ved compressi ve strengths at a strain rat e of
10 -1 s -1 varyi ng bet ween 4 and 6.2 MPa for grain
sizes in t he range of 1. 5-10 mm and a t emper at ur e
of - 10 C. These dat a suggest t hat t he fai l ure stress
is about 1. 3-2. 3 t i mes t he initial nucl eat i on stress.
As such, it can be concl uded t hat initial crack nu-
cl eat i on is in general not strength l i mi t i ng in
compr essi on and t hat addi t i onal crack nucl eat i on
will occur pr i or t o fai l ure as t he stress is increased.
Ef f ect of f ri ct i on, precursor si ze and cryst al
ani sot ropy on cr ack nucl eat i on
The i nfl uence of t he fri ct i on coeffi ci ent on t he
nucl eat i on stress is shown in Fig. 7. As expect ed,
t he tensile nucl eat i on stress does not depend o n / t
while t he compressi ve stress can change by about
0. 8- 2. 5 MPa as t he grain size decreases. Schulson
( 1987) has used a fri ct i on coeffi ci ent of 0.6 t o pre-
di ct t he pr opagat i on- cont r ol l ed compressi ve
strength of polycrystalline ice at a strain rate of 10-3
s - 1. For a strain rat e of 10- l s - t, he argues t hat t he
coeffi ci ent of sliding fri ct i on must be about 15%
l ower or 0.51 on t he basis of research on ice f r i ct i on
by Barnes et al. ( 1971) . Thi s val ue is close t o t he
reference val ue of / ~=0. 6 adopt ed in this paper. In
any case, t he var i at i on in model predi ct i ons for a
coeffi ci ent bet ween 0.51 and 0,6 is negligible.
The rat i o of t he pr ecur sor size t o t he grain size
also has an effect on t he nucl eat i on stress. Fi gure 8
compar es t he pr edi ct i ons for t he reference rat i o of
0.10 and a val ue of 2a/d-- 0.05. The smal l er precur-
sor size leads t o an i ncrease in nucl eat i on stress, by
appr oxi mat el y 0. 3- 0. 8 MPa in t ensi on and 0. 7- 2
MPa in compressi on. The larger increases occur at
grai n sizes close t o 1 mm as woul d be expect ed f r om
an i nverse square-root dependency on precursor
size.
The pr ecur sor or i ent at i on fl and t he i nci pi ent
CRACK NUCLEATION
7
(L
u)
o9
Lu 4
n-
t -
O9
z
_o 3
F-
<
..I
~ 2
z
0 2 4- 6 8 ]0
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
Fig, 7. The effect of f r i ct i on on model pr edi ct i ons of t he stress
r equi r ed t o nucl eate the f i rst crack i n pol ycr yst al l i ne ice.
growt h di r ect i on 9 f or g = 0 . 6 are shown as func-
t i ons of the c-axis al i gnment i n Fi g. 9. I n tensi on, f l
i s appr oxi mat el y equal t o 70 whi l e 0 i s around
- 4 0 f or the opt i mum or i ent at i on correspondi ng
t o ~=90 . These results are consi stent wi t h the
analysis o f Ma i t i and Smi t h ( 1983) as shown i n
t hei r fig. 4. However, i n compression f l i s close t o
30 whi l e 0 i s about 70.5 i n the most favorabl e or i -
ent at i on. Once again, these results are i dent i cal t o
the values predi ct ed by Ashby and Hal l am ( 1986)
f or the chosen f r i ct i on coeffi ci ent.
The same fi gure also shows t hat bot h the opt i mal
precursor or i ent at i on and the i nci pi ent growt h di -
rect i on are r el at i vel y i nsensi t i ve t o the or i ent at i on
o f the basal plane wi t h the l oadi ng axis. Conse-
quent l y, all the cracks whi ch nucleate as the stress
i s increased wi l l possess ver y si mi l ar ori ent at i ons,
i.e. damage accumul ati on i s hi ghl y ani sotropi c ( t hi s
statement assumes t hat the precursor or i ent at i on i s
not an i ndependent l y cont rol l ed var i abl e) . Cole
( 1986) has experi ment al l y observed t hat i n uni ax-
i al compression the cracks t end t o cl uster about the
39
i
03
03
LU
rr
t -
z
_o
k-
W
z
] I 2a/d - 0.05, TENS.
o i 2ai d - 0.10, T E N S . ,
0 2 4
I I I
I ~ = 0.6
Kl C = 0.0348 MPa=m 1/2
= 9 0
2a/d = 0.05, COMP.
2a/d ,,, 0.10, COMP.
t I I
6 8 ]0
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
Fig. 8. The effect of t he rat i o of precursor size to grain size on
model predi ct i ons of t he stress requi red to nucleate t he first
crack in polycrystalline ice.
l oadi ng axis wi t h an average angle of 23 and a
st andar d devi at i on of 17.5 . The dat a also show a
mode in t he range of 10-15 (see fig. 25 of t he ref-
er enced r epor t ) . Bot h t he average and t he mode are
consi st ent wi t h t he opt i mal pr ecur sor or i ent at i on
whi ch vari es bet ween 23- 33 f or di f f er ent crystal
or i ent at i ons and t he effect of t he i nci pi ent growt h
di r ect i on whi ch t ends t o r educe t he average angle of
t he compl et el y f or med mi crocrack.
A nor mal i zed stress measur e acr(r~a)~/2/K~c can
he def i ned and pl ot t ed as a f unct i on of t he precur-
sor or i ent at i on fl f or vari ous val ues of t he fri ct i on
coeffi ci ent as shown in Fig. 10. Not e t hat f or a gi ven
fl it is in general not necessary f or t he val ue of
whi ch yields t he smallest nucl eat i on stress t o be
equal t o 90. The opt i mum pr ecur sor or i ent at i on
f or nucl eat i on of t he first crack cor r esponds t o a
mi ni mum of t he nor mal i zed stress measure. In t he
case of compressi on, t he opt i mum fl is clearly i den-
tifiable and vari es in t he range of 30- 52 depend-
ing on t he fri ct i on coeffi ci ent . However , in t he case
4 0 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M,S, WU
J
(.9
z
<
n -
O 6`3
~0
0E 5`3
O 4`3
UJ
O : 3`3
(..) 1~
9`3 I
8'3
7 0
w
F -
o
U N I A X I A L L O A D I N G , p, = 0 . 6
I [ I I I I
T E N S I ON
J
C OMP R E S S I ON
I t I I I I I I
1@ 2 0 39 4.0 .%0 6 0 "70 8,~ 9Q
ORI ENT AT I ON OF BASAL PLANE,
u. /
,-,I
z
<
hE
0
<
r r "
O
813
6 0
4-0
2 0
(3
- 2 0
-4-0
- 6 0
- 8 0
] . ~ 0
I I I I ] I I I
C OMP R E S S I ON
Z - T E N S I ON
W
~" I l I I J l I I
Z
Fig. 9. The effect of crystal alignment on optimal precursor
orientation and incipient growth direction under uniaxial
loading.
o f t e n s i o n t he mi n i mu m oc c ur s a r o u n d / ~ = 70 o i n-
de pe nde nt o f f ri ct i on but t he no r ma l i z e d stress i s
al mos t c o mpl e t e l y i ns e ns i t i v e t o precurs or ori ent a-
t i o n ove r a wi de range o f angl es ( b e t we e n 50 a nd
90 ). It i s i mpo r t a nt t o n o t e t hat t he no r ma l i z e d
stress i s i n d e p e n d e n t o f precurs or ( o r gr ai n) s i ze
and t he cri t i cal stress i nt e ns i t y f act or. Cons e -
que nt l y, t he rat i o o f unnormalized stresses i n
c o mpr e s s i o n a n d t e n s i o n wi l l be a c o ns t a nt , e qual
t o t he rat i o o f no r ma l i z e d s t res s es i f t he s e vari abl es
are t he s ame.
Fi nal l y, t he ef f ect s o f el as t i c a ni s o t r o py o n t he
nuc l e at i on stresses are s ho wn i n Fi gs. 11 a nd 12. The
fi rst f i gure s ho ws mo d e l pr e di c t i o ns o f nuc l e a t i o n
stress as a f u n c t i o n o f grai n s i z e bo t h i nc l udi ng a nd
e xc l udi ng t he mi cros t ruct ural s ~ i n d u c e d by
el as t i c a ni s o t r o py ( g i v e n i n Eq. 5 ) . Th e ef f ect o f
O
E
F -
Z
W
F-
Z
O9
O9
W
OC
I -
O9
0
W
_N
_I
<
CC
o
Z
20
]5
10
K1 C = 0 . 0 3 4 8 MP a e m 1/ 2
[ [ ] I I
COMPRESSION
0. 6 I /
t I
~t=O
I I I I I I I 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 ~0 70 80
PRECURSOR ORIENTATION, D
Fig. 10. Normalized crack nucleation stress under uniaxial
loading plotted as a function of precursor orientation for
varying values of friction coefficient.
el ast i c a ni s o t r o py i s qui t e s mal l i n t he case o f t en-
s i on, c aus i ng a r e duc t i o n o f a bo ut 15% i n t he nu-
c l e at i on stress. Howe ve r , i ts ef f ect i s s i gni f i c ant i n
t he case o f c o mpr e s s i o n, where t he n u c l e a t i o n stress
decreas es by a bo ut 33%. Res ul t s no t pr e s e nt e d i n
t he f i gure i ndi c at e t hat e v e n wh e n t he c oe f f i c i e nt o f
f ri ct i on i s s et t o zero t here i s a di f f erence o f a bo ut
25%. I n al l cas es t he mi cros t ruct ural stresses bel p t o
accel erat e crack nuc l e a t i o n.
Fi gure 12 s ho ws t he rat i o o f nuc l e a t i o n stress i n
c o mpr e s s i o n a nd t e n s i o n pl ot t e d agai ns t f ri ct i on. In
general , t he rat i o i s greater wh e n a ni s o t r o py i s ex-
c l ude d t ha n wh e n i t i s i nc l ude d as i n Fig. 5. For t he
ref erence f r i c t i on v a l ue o f 0. 6, t he rat i o o f stresses
i s a ppr o x i ma t e l y 3. 15 ( c o mp a r e wi t h 2. 5 wh e n an-
i s ot r opy i s i nc l ude d ).
Cc ==k ~ u ml mr I WI dI d t m ~ B gl=Wd
The crack nuc l e a t i o n surf ace i n t he cas e o f an ap-
pl i e d bi axi al stress f i el d i s s h o wn i n Fig. 13 as a
CRACK NUCLEATION 41
5
O3
6 O
,,, 4
rr
I . -
O3
Z
o 3
I.-
W
. J
~ 2
z
0
0
ELAS. ANI.: PARAMETERS A8 IN FIG. 4
I I ~ I 1 i
wiTHOUT EaS. ANI. IC~MP.I
\ \ \ ~ ~ -
~ W I T H E L / ~
WITH ELAS. ANI. (TENS.)
I I I r
2 4 6 8 10
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
Fig. 11. The effect o f excl udi ng mi cr ost r uct ur al stresses i n-
duced by elastic ani sot ropy on model pr edi ct i on o f the stress
requi red t o nucleate the f i r st crack i n pol ycr yst al l i n ice.
Z
LU
n
o
o
O3
O3
LLI
n-"
t--
U~
Z
o
,<
=,
' 0
Z
ANALYSIS WITHOUT ELASTIC ANISOTROPY
I I I i I I I i
4- K1C = 0.0348 MPatrn 1/2
2 3 - ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
(~ I I I I I I I I
~ . ~ 0 . 1. ~ . 2 0 . 3 ~ . 0 . ~ 0 . 6 ( ~ . ' 7 ~ . 8 Q . 9 t .
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION,
Fig. 12. The effect of excl udi ng mi cr ost r uct ur al stresses i n-
duced by el ast i c ani sot r opy on t he r at i o of nucl eat i on st ress
i n uni axi al compr essi on t o t hat i n uni axi al t ensi on.
f unct i on of grai n size. The analysis assumes t hat
crack nucl eat i on occurs onl y in t he pl ane of loading.
The results show t hat t he dependence on stress st at e
is negligible under bi axi al t ensi on. However , under
(9
z
0
0
i i i
i i i
>
Z
I'--
0
z
14 = 0.6
3 I I I I 'f ,-'
t
- ~xx (MPa)
0 j ~ ' [ I I j ~. - - " ~l l C
_ ~ - [ t
" 3 - MPTS C R I T E R I O N
- ~ -4
-6 J I i / / " , ~Y
-6 -5 - -3
2a/d = 0.10 Kl c = 0.0348 MPaem 1/2
:J
-2 - t 0 ] 2
ELASTIC ANISOTROPY ANALYSIS
Fig. 13. Crack nucl eat i on surface unde r a bi axi al st ress fi el d
as a f unct i on of grai n size.
b i a x i a l c o m p r e s s i o n , i n - p l a n e c r a c k n u c l e a t i o n m a y
b c s u p p r e s s e d c v c n u n d e r a m o d e r a t e b i a x i a l i t y i n
t h e s t a t e o f stress. T h e n u c l e a t i o n s u r f a c e c o n t r a c t s
a s t h e g r a i n s i z e i n c r e a s e s , a l t h o u g h t h e g e n e r a l
s h a p e o f t h e s u r f a c e is p r e s e r v e d .
T h e c r a c k n u c l e a t i o n s u r f a c e a s a f u n c t i o n o f fric-
t i o n is s h o w n i n F i g . 1 4 . A s e x p e c t e d , f r i c t i o n p l a y s
a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e u n d e r s t a t e s o f s t r e s s i n v o l v i n g
c o m p r e s s i o n b u t h a s n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t u n d e r p r e -
d o m i n a n t l y t e n s i l e s t a t e s o f stress.
T h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e o p t i m u m p r e c u r s o r o r i e n t a -
t i o n a n d t h e i n c i p i e n t g r o w t h d i r e c t i o n w i t h c r y s t a l
a l i g n m e n t is s h o w n i n F i g . 1 5 f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
s t a t e s o f b i a x i a l stress. T h e f i g u r e s h o w s t h a t a s t a t e
o f s t r e s s i n v o l v i n g t e n s i o n t e n d s t o y i e l d r e s u l t s t h a t
a r c s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n u n i a x i a l t e n s i o n a n d a s t a t e
o f s t r e s s i n v o l v i n g p u r e c o m p r e s s i o n y i e l d s r e s u l t s
c l o s e r t o t h a t i n u n i a x i a l c o m p r e s s i o n . I n all c a s e s ,
t h e d o m i n a n t p r i n c i p a l a p p l i e d s t r e s s t e n d s t o g o v -
e r n t h e p r e d i c t e d a n g l e s .
T h e m o d e l p r e d i c t i o n s a r e a l s o c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
l i m i t i n g t e n s i l e s t r a i n ( L T S ) c r i t e r i o n f o r c r a c k n u -
c l e a t i o n p r o p o s e d b y S h y a m S u n d e r a n d T i n g
( 1 9 8 5 ). A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s p h e n o m c n o l o g i c a l ' c r i t c -
r i o n , c r a c k n u c l e a t i o n o c c u r s w h e n t h e m a x i m u m
v a l u e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l ( m a c r o s c o p i c ) s t r a i n s is t e n -
42 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
0
r r
0
Z
2a/ d = 0. 10 d = 5 mm K l C = 0. 0348 MPa e m 1/2
3 I i I I 1 3 I [ I
6 x x l ( MPa ) I t
o
-I
- 2 / /
-3 / ~"e
I{
Y -5
- 6 " F I I I 61 I I
-6 -5 - - 3 -2 - [ g l 2
EL AST I C A NI S OT ROP Y A NA L Y S I S
Fi g. 14. Cr a c k n u c l e a t i o n s ur f a c e u n d e r a bi axi al s t r e s s f i el d
as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e f r i c t i on coef f i ci ent .
sile and its magni t ude at t ai ns a critical value. The
critical st rai n is t he nucl eat i on stress in uni axi al
t ensi on di vi ded by t he Young' s modul us.
Appl i cat i on of this cr i t er i on f or uni axi al
compressi on suggests t hat t he nucl eat i on stress in
compr essi on is equal t o t hat in t ensi on di vi ded by
Poi sson' s ratio, since under this compressi ve stress
t he lateral tensile st rai n at t ai ns t he critical value.
Thus t he l i mi t i ng tensile st rai n cri t eri on predi ct s
t hat t he nucl eat i on stress in compr essi on is about
1/ 0. 325 or 3.08 t i mes t he nucl eat i on st ress in ten-
sion. Thi s is somewhat larger t han t he pr edi ct ed
val ue of 2 5 when ani sot r opy is i ncl uded (Fig. 5)
but al most i dent i cal t o t he val ue of about 3.15 when
crystal ani sot r opy effects are excl uded (Fig. 12 ).
The use of t he l i mi t i ng tensile st rai n cri t eri on
based on t he Poi sson' s rat i o f or an i sot ropi c solid is
somewhat ambi guous since it cannot di st i ngui sh
whet her t he const i t uent crystals are i sot ropi c or an-
isotropic. The results suggest t hat t he l i mi t i ng t en-
sile st rai n in uni axi al compr essi on is smal l er t han
t hat under t ensi on in t he presence of t he mi cros-
t ruct ural stress field. Consequent l y, it is possible t o
defi ne a new par amet er called t he "l at er al st r ai n ra-
t i o for crack nucl eat i on ( LSRCN) " and assigned t he
symbol p, whi ch is si mi l ar in concept t o t he Pois-
w"
. J
Z
<
n-
O
03
n"
O
uJ
n-
o_
. J
<
O
0
BIAXl AL LOADING, I a = 0.6
90
80
70
60
50
4~
39
29
19
0
' ' ~ I I I / I
- T - C, X = - 0 . 2
f
/
J
C- C, ; L= 0.2
I l I I I I I I
@ 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0
ORIENTATION OF BASAL PLANE,
1 o o
( D 6 e
Z 4 ~
<
0
rr -2e
O -4e
F-
Z - 6 0
uJ
- 8 0
- 1 O O O
Z
I I I I I I I
C- C, X = 0 . 2
T - T , X= 0 . 2
T - C, X = -0.2
10 2 0 3 0 ~ 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 ~ 9 0
Fig. 15. The effect of crystal alignment on optimal precursor
orientation and incipient growth direction under biaxial
loading (Note: 2=tr=/a~x).
son' s rat i o v for def or mat i on. Thi s par amet er is
equal t o 1/ 3. 08 or 0. 325 when crystal ani sot r opy ef-
fects are excl uded and equal t o 1/ 2. 5 or 0. 40 when
t hey are i ncl uded.
Figure 16 compar es t he pr edi ct ed nucl eat i on sur-
face wi t h t hat based on t he l i mi t i ng tensile st rai n
cri t eri on correspondi ng t o a grain size of 5 mm and
# = 0.6. The cur ve based on p = 0.325 t ends t o over-
pr edi ct t he nucl eat i on surface, while t he use of
p = 0. 40 pr ovi des an excel l ent mat ch under states of
stress i nvol vi ng compressi on, i.e. biaxial compres-
sion and t ensi on- compr essi on. Unde r bi axi al t en-
sion, bot h model s over pr edi ct t he nucl eat i on sur-
face. Under this stress state it is preferabl e t o i gnore
biaxiality and use a si mpl e cut - of f equal t o t he nu-
cl eat i on stress in uni axi al t ensi on. Fi gnre 17 con-
fi rms t hat when t he effect s of crystal ani sot r opy are
C R A C K N U C L E A T I O N 4 3
(.9
Z
0
n -
O
UJ
t r
W
Z
<
r r
I - -
o
z
2 a / d = 0 . 1 0 d = 5 m m
3 i i
2
[
-1.
- 2
- 3
-4-
- 5
- 6
- 6
p . = 0 . 6 K l C = 0 . 0 3 4 8 M P a , m 1 / 2
i i i .J i i
a
=-.2-
-
, I I,~J~1~"-,~ " / ' - , ~ x I ( M P ~
- 2 - [ . t I _ / 2
_~ LTSC (p- o.4) -2
- M P T S C R I T E R I O N . " / -
- I l I I / V ~ " . r ~ I I
- 5 -4- - 3 - 2 - [ 0 1 2
C~
_z
Y
0
<
m
o
W
t r
u J
>
Z
<
r r
I - -
0
Z
: 3
- 1 [ - -
-4-
- 5
- 6 J I I J
- 6 -5 - 4 - 3 - 2
E L A S T I C A N I S O T R O P Y A N A L Y S I S
Fig. 16. Comparison of the predicted nucleation surface un-
der biaxial loading with the phenomenological limiting ten-
sile-strain criterion of Shyam Sunder and Ting (1985).
i
2 - t TSC (p..o~) &
t-'xx(MPa) ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~' ~F - I/
0 i i - - " ~ T I I ~ J Y I
- 2 - t 2
- [
- 2
- 3
-
I I
-t 0 1
MPTS CRITERION (WITHOUT ELASTIC ANI~K)TROPY)
Fig. 17. Comparison of the predicted nucleation surface ex-
cluding microstructural stresses induced by crystal anisot-
row with the phenomenological limiting tensile strain crite-
rion of Shyam Sunder and Ting ( 1985 ).
excluded the use ofp=0. 325 provides an excellent
match under biaxial compression and tension-
compression. Once again, a simple tension cut-off
is adequate in biaxial tension.
The use of the limiting tensile-strain criterion for
crack nucleation with p=0. 40 instead of the Pois-
son's ratio also provides an excellent match to the
nucleation surface obtained experimentally by Kal-
ifa et al. (1989) under cylindrical triaxial compres-
sion states of stress (see Eq. 22 and fig. 6 of the ref-
erenced paper).
C O N C L U S I O N S
This paper has presented'a theoretical analysis of
crack nucleation due to elastic anisotropy in poly-
crystalline ice. The singularity of the associated
stress concentration near a grain-boundary facet
junction provides the mechanism for inducing mi-
crocrack precursors, if similar nuclei do not already
exist. The first-order microstructural stress field
generated by the elastic anisotropy of individual
crystals in an otherwise isotropic polycrystal is lin-
early superposed on the applied stress field. This to-
tal stress field is used in the analysis of the stress
required to nucleate microcracks and the incipient
growth direction based on a solution to the general
problem of an extending precursor in a combined
stress field.
The local material resistance is characterized in
terms of a critical value for the maximum principal
tensile stress which can be determined from the
critical mode I stress intensity factor; this in turn is
related to the surface energies of either the grain
boundary or the solid-vapor interface. The effect of
Coulombic frictional resistance is included in the
analysis and it is postulated that the first crack to
nucleate is associated with the most favorable ori-
entations of both the precursor and the adjoining
grains.
On the basis of the model predictions, the follow-
ing specific conclusions can be drawn:
(a) The stress required to nucleate the first crack
under uniaxial compression is different from that
under uniaxial tension. The typical model parame-
ters considered here predicts this ratio to be about
2.5 for polycrystalline ice. A review of the recent ex-
perimental data of Kalifa et al. (1989) and Cole
(1989) support this stress ratio. The simple model
44 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M.S. WU
of Cole (1989) for the elastic anisotropy mecha-
nism cannot predict this result.
(b) The nucleation stress in tension is smaller
than that for the dislocation pile-up mechanism as
has also been predicted by Cole (1988), but it is
significantly larger in compression. Thus in general
the elastic anisotropy mechanism is expected to
control crack nucleation at the high end of the quasi-
static loading regime and low temperatures where
the contribution of dislocation creep is a minimum.
At lower rates of loading and higher temperatures it
must compete with cracks that nucleate due to elas-
tic stress concentrations stemming from the creep
anisotropy of the constituent ice crystals.
(c) The range of values over which the nuclea-
tion stress varies in tension as a function of grain
size is in good agreement with the experimental data
of Schulson (Schulson et al., 1984; Schulson, 1987 )
at strain rates of 10 -6 and 10 -3 s -t. This finding
supports the hypothesis by Cole ( 1988 ) in the case
of tensile loading who states that the first cracks to
nucleate are not a result of the dislocation pile-up
mechanism but rather a result of the elastic aniso-
tropy mechanism.
(d) The stress required to nucleate the first crack
in compression is almost identical to the mean value
of the nucleation stress obtained experimentally by
Kalifa et al. (1989) and somewhat smaller (though
within the limits of statistical and modeling uncer-
tainties) than that obtained experimentally by Cole
(1989). Both data are for isotropic polycrystalline
ice with a grain size of 5 mm.
(e) The stress required to nucleate a crack in
compression is strongly dependent on crystal ori-
entation. As a consequence of the random orienta-
tion of crystals in isotropic polycrystalline ice, there
can be a distinct beginning and end to the micro-
crack nucleation phase when stress is increased and
if failure does not occur prematurely. This phenom-
enon has been experimentally observed by Cole
(1989) in tests conducted on similar ice with a grain
size of 5 mm and a strain rate of 10- 3 s- 1. The pre-
dicted and experimentally observed maximum nu-
cleation stress are almost identical.
(f) Crystal orientation has little influence in ten-
sion. This is particularly true in the typical case
where nucleation of the first crack causes failure in
tension.
(g) The friction coefficient has little effect in ten-
sion but significantly influences the nucleation stress
in compression.
(h) The microstructural stress field induced by
elastic anisotropy helps to reduce the stress that must
be applied to nucleate cracks. Once again, the effect
in compression is significantly more than that in
tension.
(i) The nucleation surface as predicted by the
phenomenological limiting tensile strain criterion of
Shyam Sunder and Ting (1985) agrees well with
model predictions for states of stress involving
compression. Under purely tensile states of stress, a
simple tension cut-off based on the nucleation stress
in uniaxial tension is adequate since the effects of
multiaxiality are negligible. A generalization of the
original limiting tensile strain criterion based on the
concept of a "lateral strain ratio for crack nuclea-
tion, p" (similar to Poisson's ratio for deforma-
tion) has been proposed to distinguish whether the
constituent crystals are isotropic or anisotropic. The
predictions of this generalized phenomenological
model are in excellent agreement with the nuclea-
tion surface obtained experimentally by Kalifa et al.
(1989) under cylindrical triaxial compression states
of stress.
(j) The optimum precursor orientation and in-
cipient growth direction are relatively insensitive to
the effects of crystal orientation. The dominant
principal applied stress tends to govern the pre-
dicted values for both angles, This suggests that, if
precursor orientation is not an independently con-
trolled variable, average microcrack directions will
tend to cluster about a value which depends purely
on the state of stress, i.e. for a given state of stress
damage will tend to be highly anisotropic.
ACKNOWLEDGE~NTS
The authors would like to acknowledge financial
support from AMOCO, ARCO, BP America,
CHEVRON, CONOCO, EXXON and MOBIL
through the MIT Center for Scientific Excellence in
Offshore Engineering, and the U.S. Department of
the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Addi-
tional funds were made available by the Henry L.
Doherty Professorship in Ocean Utilization
CRACK NUCLEATION 4 5
awarded to the first author. The thoughtful review
comments of David Cole and John Dempsey are
most appreciated.
A P P E N D I X
Ro t a t i o n M a t r i x R
For the chosen Cartesian coordinate system {x, y,
z} and the standard frame of reference for the hex-
agonal ice crystal {p, q, r }, the direction cosines be-
tween the axes may be defined as:
x y z
P I i ~v~ 1 n]
q l z m2 n 2
r 13 m2 n3
The rotation matrix R, appropriate for transform-
ing the compliance matrix from the {p, q, r} frame
to the {x, y, z} frame is then given by:
/22 m22 n2 2 2m2n2 2n2/2 212m2
/3 2 m 3 2 /13 2 2 m 3 n 3 2 n 3 1 3 2 1 3 m 3
1213 m2m3 n2n3 m2n3+m3n2 n213+n312 12m3+13m2
13l] mam[ n3n~ m3n]+m~n3 nal~+n~13 13m~+l~m3
1212 rnlm2 n]n2 mln2+m2n] nll2+n2ll llm2+12ml
Denoting Rs by:
where A, B, C and D are 3 X 3 submatrices, the ro-
tation matrix Rc appropriate for transforming the
stiffness matrix from the {p, q, r} frame to the {x, y,
z} frame is given by:
El a s t i c c o n s t a n t s o f s i ngl e c r y s t a l a n d
p o l y c r y s t a l
The stiffness and compliance matrices are de-
rived from the data of Gammon et al. (1983) for
the temperature of - 16 C. For other temperatures
Z
,,(
O9
5
W
0
l.-
W
0
uJ
cO
W
O C :
l -
d
0.4-
0.3
0.2
0.[
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0 .
UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION: Oxx = -1 M P a
n
~ 0.4
Z 0.3
<
0.2
5
t,.U O.t
0
I.- 0. @
w
:D
-0.1
o9
U.l
-0.2
(/)
ILl
n- -0.3
1-
03
(~ -0.4-
[ I I I I I I I
( ~O , Z Z
I ~ O , X X
J I I I I J I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 180 180
ORIENTATION OF BASAL PLANE,
1 I l l I I I l
~ r o , x z
ao, yz ~o,xy
I I I I I I I I
0 ~ 0 60 80 100 120 140 180 IB0
Fig. 18. Variation of average microstructural stresses with
crystal orientation under uniaxial compression.
in the range of - 5 to - 4 0 C, the equation sug-
gested by Gammon et al. (1983) may be used:
( 1 - a T )
X( T) =X( To)(
1
~ a T o ~
where X represents an elastic constant at the tem-
perature T (in C), To is the temperature (in C)
at which a measure of T is known, and the parame-
ter'a' has the value 1.418X 10 -3 ( C) -~
C o mp l i a n c e ma t r i x of si ngl e i ce c r y s t a l
At - 16 C the s i n g l e c r y s t a l compliance matrix
Sp is, in ( GPa) - l , given by:
46 S. SHYAM SUNDER AND M,S. WU
-0.10318 -0.04287 -0. 02316 0 0 0
0.10318 -0. 02316 0 O 0
0.08441 0 0 0
0.33179 0 0
SYM. 0.33179 0
0.29210
Compl i ance mat r i x f or isotropic pol ycrystal
At - 16 C the i sotropi c polycrystal compl i ance
matrix S. , is, in ( GPa ) -~, gi ven by:
BI AXI AL COMPRESSI ON- TENSI ON: axx = "(~zz = -1 MPa
E
t ~
0
0. 3
~: ~. 2
5
0
tad
- 0. t
~O
iii
..0 -~ ,2
ILl
- ~ . 3
0 9
n-
_o
n
~.4- I
Z 0 , 3
. <
~ ~. 2
..J
UA ~. t
O
UA
3 - ; ~ . t
{ , 9
Idd
CO -G . 2
O3
u J
E - 0 . 3
( : j - 0 . 4
{ L I I I I I I
" ' , ~ 0 ZZ
/ . / \ , , ' ' , ,
' t ,
( ~ o , y y
, / ' 0 " 0 , X X
~ J ] t
O 2 0 4~3 6 C 8 0 100 ] 2 0
t t
1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0
ORI ENTATI ON OF BASAL PLANE,
L /
f - - . \ ' o , x z
1 I I L I
/ ' , ,
l 0- 0, \ ,
/I / -
. /
. . . . % y~
{ I I L . [ I [ ~ 1 i I
6 20 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 ~ 1 8 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0
Fig. 19. Variation of average mi crost ruct ural stresses with
crystal ori ent at i on under a equi-biaxial t ensi on- compr essi on
state of stress.
I
0.10716 -0. 03486 -0.03486 0 0 0
0.10716 -0. 03486 0 0 0
0.10716 0 0 0
0.28401 0 0
SYM, 0.28401 0
0.28401
S t i f f n e s s ma t r i x o f s i n g l e i c e c r y s t a l
At - 16 C the single crystal stiffness matrix Cg~
is, in GPa, gi ven by:
13.929 7.082 5.765 0 0 0
13.929 5.765 0 0 0
15,010 0 0 0
3.014 0 0
SYM. 3,014 0
3.4235 .J
Mi cr ost r uct ur al st r esses due t o el ast i c
ani sot r opy
The microstructural stresses due to uniaxial
compressi on and biaxial compres s i on- t ens i on are
comput ed from Eq. 5 and shown in Figs. 18 and 19,
respectively.
REFERENCES
Ashby, M.F. and Hatlam, S.D., 1986. The failure of brittle
solids cont ai ni ng small cracks under compressi ve stress
states. Acta Metall., 34(3 ): 497-510.
Barnes, P., Tabor, D. and Walker, J.F.C., 1971. The friction
and creep of polycrystalline ice. Proc. R. Soc. London,
A324: 127-155.
Bogy, D.B. and Wang, K.C., 1971. Stress singularities at in-
terface corners in bonded dissimilar isotropic elastic ma-
terials. Int. J. Solids Struct., 7: 993-1005.
Brock, D., 1986. El ement ary Engineering Fracture Mechan-
ics. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, Mass.
Cole, D. M. , 1986. Effect of grain size on the internal fractur-
ing of polycrystalline ice. CRREL Rep., 86-5, U 3. Army
Cold Reg. Res. Eng. Lab., Hanover, N. H. , 79 pp.
Cole, D.M., 1988. Crack nucleation in polycrystalline ice. Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol., 15( 1 ): 79-87.
Cole, D. M. , 1989. Micxofracture and t he compressi ve failure
of polycrystalline ice. Proc. 1UTAM/ I AHR Syrup, Ice-
Structure Interaction. St. John' s, Nfld., Preprint.
Erdogan, F. and Sih, G. C. , 1963. On t he crack extension in
plates under plane l oadi ng and transverse shear. J; Basic.
Eng., 85: 519-527.
Eshelby, J. D. , 1957. The det er mi nat i on of the elastic field of
CRACK NUCLEATION 47
an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc. R.
Soc., London, A241: 376-396.
Evans, A.G., 1978. Microfracture from thermal expansion
anisotropy - I. Single phase systems. Acta Metall., 26:
1845-1853.
Evans, A.G., 1984. Fracture in Ceramic Materials: Toughen-
ing Mechanisms, Machining Damage, Shock, Noyes Publ.,
Park Ridge, N.J.
Gammon, P.H., Kiefte, H., Clouter, M.J. and Denner, W.W.,
1983.Elastic constants of artificial and natural ice sam-
ples by Brillouin spectroscopy. J. Glaciol., 29 (103 ): 433-
459.
Gold, L.W., 1972. The process of failure of columnar-grained
ice. Philos. Mag. A, 26(2): 311-328.
Kalifa, P., Duval, P. and Ricard, M., 1989. Crack nucleation
in polycrystaUine ice under compressive stress states. Proc.
Eighth Int. Conf. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering, The Hague, Netherlands, IV: 13-21.
Ketcham, W.M. and Hobbs, P.V., 1969. An experimental de-
termination of the surface energies of ice. Philos. Mag. A,
19:1161-1173.
Maiti, S.K. and Smith, R.A., 1983. Comparison of the crite-
ria for mixed mode brittle fracture based on the preinsta-
bility stress-strain field. Part 1: Slit and elliptical cracks
under uniaxial tensile loading. Int. J. Fract., 23:281-295.
Schulson, E.M., 1979. An analysis of the brittle to ductile
transition in polycrystalline ice under tension. Cold Reg.
Sci. Technol., 1 ( 1 ): 87-91.
Schulson, E.M., 1987. The fracture of ice Ih. J. Physique, Col-
loque C1, Suppl. au no. 3, Tome 48: 207-218.
Schulson, E.M., Lim, P.N. and Lee, R.W., 1984. A brittle to
ductile transition in ice under tension, Philos. Mag. A,
49(3): 353-363.
Shyam Sunder, S. and Ting, S.-K., 1985. Ductile to brittle
transition in sea ice under uniaxial loading. Proc. 8th Int.
Conf. Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Condi-
tions, Narssarssuaq, Greenland, 2: 656-666.
Sih, G.C., 1973. Handbook of Stress Intensity Factors. Le-
high Univ. Press.
Sih, G.C., 1974. Strain-energy-density factor applied to mixed
mode crack problems. Int. J. Fract., 19(3): 305-321.
Sinha, N.K., 1978. Observations of basal dislocations in ice
by etching and replicating. J. G1aciol., 21 (85): 385-395.
Sinha, N.K., 1979. Grain-boundary sliding in polycrystalline
materials. Philos. Mag. A, 40(6): 825-842.
Sinha, N.K., 1982. Delayed elastic strain criterion for first
cracks in ice. Proc. IUTAM Conf. Deformation and Fail-
ure of Granular Materials, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 323-
330.
Sinha, N.K., 1984. Intercrystalline cracking, grain-boundary
sliding, and delayed elasticity at high temperatures. J. Mat.
Sci., 19: 359-376.
Wu, M.S. and Shyam Sunder, S., 1990. Crack nucleation in
polycrystalline ice - a comparison of two nucleation cri-
teria. Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. Offshore Mechanics and Arc-
tic Engineering. Houston, Tex. Febman, 8-23, Preprint, 28
pp.