Fracture mechanics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Microfracture" redirects here. For the surgical technique, see Microfracture surgery.

The three fracture modes.

Fracture mechanics is the field of mechanics concerned with the study of the propagation of
cracks in materials. It uses methods of analytical solid mechanics to calculate the driving force on
a crack and those of experimental solid mechanics to characterize the material's resistance
to fracture.
In modern materials science, fracture mechanics is an important tool in improving the mechanical
performance of mechanical components. It applies the physics of stress and strain, in particular
the theories of elasticityand plasticity, to the microscopic crystallographic defects found in real
materials in order to predict the macroscopic mechanical failure of bodies. Fractography is widely
used with fracture mechanics to understand the causes of failures and also verify the theoretical
failure predictions with real life failures. The prediction of crack growth is at the heart of
the damage tolerance discipline.
There are three ways of applying a force to enable a crack to propagate:

Mode I fracture Opening mode (a tensile stress normal to the plane of the crack),

Mode II fracture Sliding mode (a shear stress acting parallel to the plane of the crack
and perpendicular to the crack front), and

Mode III fracture Tearing mode (a shear stress acting parallel to the plane of the crack
and parallel to the crack front).
Contents

1 Linear elastic fracture mechanics

o

1.1 Griffith's criterion

1.2 Irwin's modification

1.3 Stress intensity factor

1.4 Strain energy release

1.5 Small scale yielding

1.6 Fracture toughness tests

1.7 Limitations

2 Elasticplastic fracture mechanics

o

2.1 CTOD

2.2 R-curve

2.3 J-integral

2.4 Cohesive zone models

2.5 Transition flaw size

3 Cracktip constraint under large scale yielding

o

3.1 J-Q Theory

3.2 T-modification

4 Engineering applications

5 Short summary

6 Appendix: mathematical relations

o

6.1 Griffith's criterion

6.2 Irwin's modifications

6.3 Elasticity and plasticity

7 Applications of fracture mechanics

8 See also

9 References
o

9.1 Notes

9.2 Bibliography

10 Further reading

11 External links

Linear elastic fracture mechanics[edit]

Griffith's criterion[edit]

An edge crack (flaw) of length

in a material

Fracture mechanics was developed during World War I by English aeronautical engineer, A. A.
Griffith, to explain the failure of brittle materials.[1] Griffith's work was motivated by two
contradictory facts:

The stress needed to fracture bulk glass is around 100 MPa (15,000 psi).

The theoretical stress needed for breaking atomic bonds is approximately 10,000 MPa
(1,500,000 psi).
A theory was needed to reconcile these conflicting observations. Also, experiments on glass
fibers that Griffith himself conducted suggested that the fracture stress increases as the fiber
diameter decreases. Hence the uniaxial tensile strength, which had been used extensively to
predict material failure before Griffith, could not be a specimen-independent material property.
Griffith suggested that the low fracture strength observed in experiments, as well as the sizedependence of strength, was due to the presence of microscopic flaws in the bulk material.
To verify the flaw hypothesis, Griffith introduced an artificial flaw in his experimental glass
specimens. The artificial flaw was in the form of a surface crack which was much larger than
other flaws in a specimen. The experiments showed that the product of the square root of the flaw
length (a) and the stress at fracture (f) was nearly constant, which is expressed by the equation:

An explanation of this relation in terms of linear elasticity theory is problematic. Linear elasticity
theory predicts that stress (and hence the strain) at the tip of a sharp flaw in a
linear elastic material is infinite. To avoid that problem, Griffith developed
a thermodynamic approach to explain the relation that he observed.

The growth of a crack requires the creation of two new surfaces and hence an increase in
the surface energy. Griffith found an expression for the constant C in terms of the surface energy
of the crack by solving the elasticity problem of a finite crack in an elastic plate. Briefly, the
approach was:

Compute the potential energy stored in a perfect specimen under a uniaxial tensile load.

Fix the boundary so that the applied load does no work and then introduce a crack into
the specimen. The crack relaxes the stress and hence reduces the elastic energy near the crack
faces. On the other hand, the crack increases the total surface energy of the specimen.

Compute the change in the free energy (surface energy elastic energy) as a function of
the crack length. Failure occurs when the free energy attains a peak value at a critical crack
length, beyond which the free energy decreases by increasing the crack length, i.e. by causing
fracture. Using this procedure, Griffith found that

where E is the Young's modulus of the material and is the surface energy density of the
material. Assuming E = 62 GPa and = 1 J/m2 gives excellent agreement of Griffith's predicted
fracture stress with experimental results for glass.

Irwin's modification[edit]

The plastic zone around a crack tip in a ductile material

Griffith's work was largely ignored by the engineering community until the early 1950s. The
reasons for this appear to be (a) in the actual structural materials the level of energy needed to
cause fracture is orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding surface energy, and (b) in
structural materials there are always some inelastic deformations around the crack front that
would make the assumption of linear elastic medium with infinite stresses at the crack tip highly
unrealistic. [2]
Griffith's theory provides excellent agreement with experimental data for brittle materials such as
glass. Forductile materials such as steel, though the relation
still holds, the surface
energy () predicted by Griffith's theory is usually unrealistically high. A group working under G. R.
Irwin[3] at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) during World War II realized that plasticity
must play a significant role in the fracture of ductile materials.
In ductile materials (and even in materials that appear to be brittle[4]), a plastic zone develops at
the tip of the crack. As the applied load increases, the plastic zone increases in size until the
crack grows and the material behind the crack tip unloads. The plastic loading and unloading
cycle near the crack tip leads to the dissipation of energy as heat. Hence, a dissipative term has
to be added to the energy balance relation devised by Griffith for brittle materials. In physical

terms, additional energy is needed for crack growth in ductile materials when compared to brittle
materials.
Irwin's strategy was to partition the energy into two parts:

the stored elastic strain energy which is released as a crack grows. This is the
thermodynamic driving force for fracture.

the dissipated energy which includes plastic dissipation and the surface energy (and any
other dissipative forces that may be at work). The dissipated energy provides the thermodynamic
resistance to fracture. Then the total energy is
where is the surface energy and Gp is the plastic dissipation (and dissipation from other
sources) per unit area of crack growth.
The modified version of Griffith's energy criterion can then be written as

For brittle materials such as glass, the surface energy term dominates
and

. For ductile materials such as steel, the plastic dissipation term

dominates and

. For polymers close to the glass

transition temperature, we have intermediate values of

Stress intensity factor[edit]

Main article: Stress intensity factor
Another significant achievement of Irwin and his colleagues was to find a method of calculating
the amount of energy available for fracture in terms of the asymptotic stress and displacement
fields around a crack front in a linear elastic solid. [3] This asymptotic expression for the stress field
around a crack tip is

where ij are the Cauchy stresses, r is the distance from the crack tip, is the angle with respect
to the plane of the crack, and fij are functions that depend on the crack geometry and loading
conditions. Irwin called the quantity K the stress intensity factor. Since the quantity fij is
dimensionless, the stress intensity factor can be expressed in units of

When a rigid line inclusion is considered, a similar asymptotic expression for the stress fields is
obtained.

Strain energy release[edit]

Main article: Strain energy release rate
Irwin was the first to observe that if the size of the plastic zone around a crack is small compared
to the size of the crack, the energy required to grow the crack will not be critically dependent on
the state of stress at the crack tip.[2] In other words, a purely elastic solution may be used to
calculate the amount of energy available for fracture.
The energy release rate for crack growth or strain energy release rate may then be calculated as
the change in elastic strain energy per unit area of crack growth, i.e.,

where U is the elastic energy of the system and a is the crack length. Either the load P or the
displacement u can be kept fixed while evaluating the above expressions.
Irwin showed that for a mode I crack (opening mode) the strain energy release rate and the
stress intensity factor are related by:

where E is the Young's modulus, is Poisson's ratio, and KI is the stress intensity factor in mode
I. Irwin also showed that the strain energy release rate of a planar crack in a linear elastic body
can be expressed in terms of the mode I, mode II (sliding mode), and mode III (tearing mode)
stress intensity factors for the most general loading conditions.
Next, Irwin adopted the additional assumption that the size and shape of the energy dissipation
zone remains approximately constant during brittle fracture. This assumption suggests that the
energy needed to create a unit fracture surface is a constant that depends only on the material.
This new material property was given the name fracture toughness and designated GIc. Today, it
is the critical stress intensity factor KIc, found in the plane strain condition, which is accepted as
the defining property in linear elastic fracture mechanics.

Small scale yielding[edit]

When a macroscopic loading is applied to a structure with a crack, the stress near the vicinity of
the crack approaches as r0, where r is the distance from the crack tip. As the magnitude of
the stress in a material is bounded by the yield stress, there exists a region near the crack tip, of
size rp, in which the material has deformed plastically. The maximum size of this plastic zone can
be estimated from the stress intensity factor KC and the yield stress Y; and can be expressed as

In this region, the equations of linear elasticity are not valid. Therefore, for linear elastic fracture
mechanics to be applicable, 2.5 rp should be much smaller than the relevant dimensions, such as
the length, thickness and width of the structure. This condition, in which the plastic deformation of
the structure is confined to a very small region near the crack tip, is commonly referred to as
small scale yielding.

Fracture toughness tests[edit]

Main article: Fracture toughness

Limitations[edit]

The S.S. Schenectady split apart by brittle fracturewhile in harbor, 1944.

But a problem arose for the NRL researchers because naval materials, e.g., ship-plate steel, are
not perfectly elastic but undergo significant plastic deformation at the tip of a crack. One basic
assumption in Irwin's linear elastic fracture mechanics is small scale yielding, the condition that
the size of the plastic zone is small compared to the crack length. However, this assumption is
quite restrictive for certain types of failure in structural steels though such steels can be prone to
brittle fracture, which has led to a number of catastrophic failures.
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics is of limited practical use for structural steels and Fracture
toughness testing can be expensive.

Elasticplastic fracture mechanics[edit]

Vertical stabilizer, which separated from American Airlines Flight 587, leading to a fatal crash

Most engineering materials show some nonlinear elastic and inelastic behavior under operating
conditions that involve large loads.[citation needed] In such materials the assumptions of linear elastic
fracture mechanics may not hold, that is,

the plastic zone at a crack tip may have a size of the same order of magnitude as the
crack size

the size and shape of the plastic zone may change as the applied load is increased and
also as the crack length increases.

Therefore a more general theory of crack growth is needed for elastic-plastic materials that can
account for:

the local conditions for initial crack growth which include the nucleation, growth, and
coalescence of voids or decohesion at a crack tip.

a global energy balance criterion for further crack growth and unstable fracture.

CTOD[edit]
Historically, the first parameter for the determination of fracture toughness in the elasto-plastic
was the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) or "opening at the apex of the crack" indicated.
This parameter was determined by Wells during the studies of structural steels which, due to the
high toughness could not be characterized with the linear elastic fracture mechanics. He noted
that, before it happened the fracture, the walls of the crack were leaving and that the crack tip,
after fracture, acute to rounded off is due to plastic deformation. In addition, the rounding of the
apex was more pronounced in steels with superior toughness.
There are a number of alternative definitions of CTOD. The two most common definitions, CTOD
is the displacement at the original crack tip and the 90 degree intercept. The latter definition was
suggested by Rice and is commonly used to infer CTOD in finite element measurements. Note
that these two definitions are equivalent if the crack blunts in a semicircle.
Most laboratory measurements of CTOD have been made on edge-cracked specimens loaded in
three-point bending. Early experiments used a flat paddle-shaped gage that was inserted into the
crack; as the crack opened, the paddle gage rotated, and an electronic signal was sent to an x-y
plotter. This method was inaccurate, however, because it was difficult to reach the crack tip with
the paddle gage. Today, the displacement V at the crack mouth is measured, and the CTOD is
inferred by assuming the specimen halves are rigid and rotate about a hinge point.

R-curve[edit]
An early attempt in the direction of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics was Irwin's crack extension
resistance curve, Crack growth resistance curve or R-curve. This curve acknowledges the fact
that the resistance to fracture increases with growing crack size in elastic-plastic materials. The
R-curve is a plot of the total energy dissipation rate as a function of the crack size and can be
used to examine the processes of slow stable crack growth and unstable fracture. However, the
R-curve was not widely used in applications until the early 1970s. The main reasons appear to be
that the R-curve depends on the geometry of the specimen and the crack driving force may be
difficult to calculate.[2]

J-integral[edit]
Main article: J integral
In the mid-1960s James R. Rice (then at Brown University) and G. P. Cherepanov independently
developed a new toughness measure to describe the case where there is sufficient crack-tip
deformation that the part no longer obeys the linear-elastic approximation. Rice's analysis, which

assumes non-linear elastic (or monotonic deformation theoryplastic) deformation ahead of the
crack tip, is designated the J integral.[5] This analysis is limited to situations where plastic
deformation at the crack tip does not extend to the furthest edge of the loaded part. It also
demands that the assumed non-linear elastic behavior of the material is a reasonable
approximation in shape and magnitude to the real material's load response. The elastic-plastic
failure parameter is designated JIc and is conventionally converted to KIc using Equation (3.1) of
the Appendix to this article. Also note that the J integral approach reduces to the Griffith theory for
linear-elastic behavior.
The mathematical definition of J-integral is as follows:

where
is an arbitrary path clockwise around the apex of the crack,
is the density of strain energy,
are the components of the vectors of traction,
the components of the displacement vectors,
and an incremental length along the path
and

, an

are the stress and strain tensors.

Cohesive zone models[edit]

When a significant region around a crack tip has undergone plastic deformation, other
approaches can be used to determine the possibility of further crack extension and the direction
of crack growth and branching. A simple technique that is easily incorporated into numerical
calculations is the cohesive zone model method which is based on concepts proposed
independently by Barenblatt[6] and Dugdale[7] in the early 1960s. The relationship between the
Dugdale-Barenblatt models and Griffith's theory was first discussed byWillis in 1967.[8] The
equivalence of the two approaches in the context of brittle fracture was shown by Rice in 1968.
[5]

Interest in cohesive zone modeling of fracture has been reignited since 2000 following the

pioneering work on dynamic fracture by Xu and Needleman,[9] and Camacho and Ortiz.[10]

Transition flaw size[edit]

Failure stress as a function of crack size

Let a material have a yield strength

and a fracture toughness in mode I

fracture mechanics, the material will fail at stress

material will yield when
value of

. Based on plasticity, the

. These curves intersect when

is called as transition flaw size

structure. When the

. Based on

. This

., and depends on the material properties of the

, the failure is governed by plastic yielding, and when

failure is governed by fracture mechanics. The value of

the

for engineering alloys is 100 mm and

for ceramics is 0.001 mm.[citation needed] If we assume that manufacturing processes can give rise to
flaws in the order of micrometers, then, it can be seen that ceramics are more likely to fail by
fracture, whereas engineering alloys would fail by plastic deformation.

Cracktip constraint under large scale yielding [edit]

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve
this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (October 2013)
Under small-scale yielding conditions, a single parameter (e.g., K, J, or CTOD) characterizes
cracktip conditions and can be used as a geometry-independent fracture criterion. Singleparameter fracture mechanics breaks down in the presence of excessive plasticity, and the
fracture toughness depends on the size and geometry of the test specimen. The theories used for
large scale yielding is not very standardized. The following theories/ approaches are commonly
used among researchers in this field

J-Q Theory[edit]
By using FEM, one can establish a parameter Q to modify the stress field for a better solution
when the plastic zone is growing. The new stress field is:
where

for

and 0 if not. Q usually takes values from -3 to +2. A negative value

greatly changes the geometry of the plastic zone.

The J-Q-M theory includes another parameter, the mismatch parameter, which is used for welds
to make up for the change in toughness of the weld metal (WM), base metal (BM) and heat
affected zone (HAZ). This value is interpreted to the formula in a similar way as the Q-parameter,
and the two are usually assumed to be independent of each other.

T-modification[edit]
As an alternative to J-Q theory, a parameter T can be used. This only changes the normal stress
in the x-direction (and the z-direction in the case of plane strain). T does not require the use of
FEM, but is derived from constraint. It can be argued that T is limited to LEFM, but as the plastic
zone change due to T never reaches the actual crack surface (except on the tip), its validity holds
true not only under small scale yielding.

Engineering applications[edit]
The following information is needed for a fracture mechanics prediction of failure:

Applied load

Residual stress

Size and shape of the part

Size, shape, location, and orientation of the crack

Usually not all of this information is available and conservative assumptions have to be made.
Occasionally post-mortem fracture-mechanics analyses are carried out. In the absence of an
extreme overload, the causes are either insufficient toughness (KIc) or an excessively large crack
that was not detected during routine inspection.

Short summary[edit]
Arising from the manufacturing process, interior and surface flaws are found in all metal
structures. Not all such flaws are unstable under service conditions. Fracture mechanics is the
analysis of flaws to discover those that are safe (that is, do not grow) and those that are liable to
propagate as cracks and so cause failure of the flawed structure. Ensuring safe operation of
structure despite these inherent flaws is achieved through damage tolerance analysis. Fracture
mechanics as a subject for critical study has barely been around for a century and thus is
relatively new. There is a high demand for engineers with fracture mechanics expertise
particularly in this day and age where engineering failure is considered 'shocking' amongst the
general public.

Appendix: mathematical relations[edit]

Griffith's criterion[edit]
For the simple case of a thin rectangular plate with a crack perpendicular to the load Griffiths
theory becomes:

(1.1)
where
and

is the strain energy release rate,

is the applied stress,

is half the crack length,

is the Youngs modulus, which for the case of plane strain should be divided by the plate

stiffness factor (1-^2). The strain energy release rate can otherwise be understood as: the rate
at which energy is absorbed by growth of the crack.
However, we also have that:

(1.2)
If

, this is the criterion for which the crack will begin to propagate.

Irwin's modifications[edit]

Eventually a modification of Griffiths solids theory emerged from this work; a term called stress
intensity replaced strain energy release rate and a term called fracture toughnessreplaced
surface weakness energy. Both of these terms are simply related to the energy terms that Griffith
used:
(2.1)
and
(for plane stress)

(2.2)

(for plane strain)

(2.3)

where KI is the stress intensity, Kc the fracture toughness, and

is Poissons ratio. It is important

to recognize the fact that fracture parameter Kc has different values when measured under plane
stress and plane strain
Fracture occurs when
becomes

. For the special case of plane strain deformation,

and is considered a material property. The subscript I arises because of the

different ways of loading a material to enable a crack to propagate. It refers to so-called "mode I"
loading as opposed to mode II or III:
We must note that the expression for

in equation 2.1 will be different for geometries other

than the center-cracked infinite plate, as discussed in the article on the stress intensity factor.
Consequently, it is necessary to introduce a dimensionless correction factor, Y, in order to
characterize the geometry. We thus have:
(2.4)
where Y is a function of the crack length and width of sheet given by:

(2.5)
for a sheet of finite width W containing a through-thickness crack of length 2a, or

(2.6)
for a sheet of finite width W containing a through-thickness edge crack of length a

Elasticity and plasticity[edit]

Since engineers became accustomed to using KIc to characterise fracture toughness, a relation
has been used to reduce JIc to it:

where
(3.1)

for plane stress and

for plane strain

The remainder of the mathematics employed in this approach is interesting, but is probably better
summarised in external pages due to its complex nature.

Applications of fracture mechanics[edit]

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section
by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (October 2013)

The design process for a component consists of choosing the appropriate geometry, the
necessary material strength as per the loading conditions (either cyclic or constant loading), the
temperature of usage and structural analysis (Testing and FEM analysis), so that it does not fail
under load. The methodologies followed in design criteria traditionally pick up the conventional
materials based on standard data and as per the loading conditions proportioning the geometry of
the components on basis of analysis. This method is not applicable for some new innovation like
usage of new material in design. Another method followed is that as per the loading conditions,
static analysis is done for the structure taking into account the forces acting on each component,
material strength and geometry. The material strength is chosen keeping in mind the factor of
safety, i.e. the ultimate stress (where it fails) is much higher than maximum stress in the
component. The general assumptions in the design criteria are: lack of discontinuities, no defects
or cracks in the material, and even in the presence of discontinuities the material is assumed to
have sufficient ductility to yield locally so that redistribution of stress at discontinuities can occur.
Investigations of failed components proved that crack growth started because of such
discontinuities.
Fracture mechanics follows one of two design principles: either fail-safe or safe-life. In fail safe
mode, even if a component fails, the entire structure is not at risk (failure of redundant members).
According to the safe life principle throughout the life, no component of the structure may fail.
Fracture mechanics estimated the maximum crack that a material can withstand before it fails
through analysis taking into consideration the overall dimensions of the structure, the stress value
where crack initiation takes place, notch toughness value (ability of a material to absorb energy in
the presence of a crack for crack propagation), the behavior of materials under the action of
stresses by finding out the stress intensity factor (K), fatigue crack growth and stress corrosion
crack growth. As in basic solid mechanics analysis, stresses in the component should be lower
than the yield stress; application of the same principle is means that the stress intensity factor
should be less than the critical stress intensity factor. Major applications of fracture mechanics
design are material selection, effect of defects, failure analysis and control/monitoring of
components. Fracture analysis includes the usage of mathematical models such as linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM), crack opening displacement (COD) and J-integral approaches by
using finite element analysis (FEM).
The relationship used for estimating stress intensity factor is

where K is the critical fracture toughness value, c a constant that depends on crack and
specimen dimensions, the applied stress, and a the flaw size.
The above relation is very general and as per the shape of the crack, relations available in
standard data books or course books are to be used, any general crack can be approximated to
standard shapes used in writing the relations.
For a given material the value of K is dependent on stresses acting and flaw size. Flaw size
decreases as the stress increases. Thus a design engineer can dictate the life of a component by
choosing appropriate values of K, a and . Even there are other parameters that estimate the life
of a component like working temperature, loading rate (fatigue), residual stress and stress
concentration. The higher the K value, the higher is the resistance to crack growth, and the
material can resist higher stresses. Designers try to decrease the defects in the component
arising in casting or manufacturing processes by following good fabrication processes and
inspection, and estimate notch-toughness values of materials using methods like charpy V-notch
impact test, or drop weight tests. In many investigations it was proved that the material failed at a
very much lower than the critical stress intensity factor because of defects in the material or micro
cracks. Analysis proved that for any component there are two phases for crack development, i.e.
crack initiation and second phase crack growth until failure. Of the two, the first phase covers a
larger percentage of fatigue life, and under very large high cycle loading conditions second phase
is instantaneous.
The factor (K/) is used for estimating design of component because it estimates crack size,
more the value better the resistance to the forces(Stress). But how large this factor has to be is
decided by considering type of the structure, frequency of inspection, access to inspection,
design life of the structure, consequences of failure, probability of over load, methods of
fabrication, required quality, material cost in addition to the results obtained by fracture mechanics
analysis.

See also[edit]

AFGROW - Fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth analysis software

Earthquake

Fatigue

Fault (geology)

Peridynamics, a numerical method to solve fracture mechanics problems

Shock (mechanics)

Strength of materials

Stress corrosion cracking

Structural Fracture Mechanics

Concrete fracture analysis

References[edit]
Notes[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Griffith, A. A. (1921), "The phenomena of rupture and flow in

solids" (PDF), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 221: 163
198, doi:10.1098/rsta.1921.0006.

2.

^ Jump up to:a b c E. Erdogan (2000) Fracture Mechanics, International Journal of Solids

and Structures, 37, pp. 171183.

3.

^ Jump up to:a b Irwin G (1957), Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack
traversing a plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics 24, 361364.

4.

Jump up^ Orowan, E., 1948. Fracture and strength of solids. Reports on Progress in
Physics XII, 185232.

5.

^ Jump up to:a b Rice, J. R. (1968), "A path independent integral and the approximate
analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks" (PDF), Journal of Applied Mechanics 35:
379386,Bibcode:1968JAM....35..379R, doi:10.1115/1.3601206.

6.

Jump up^ Barenblatt, G. I. (1962), "The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in

brittle fracture", Advances in applied mechanics 7: 55129, doi:10.1016/s0065-2156(08)70121-2

7.

Jump up^ Dugdale, D. S. (1960), "Yielding of steel sheets containing slits", Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 8 (2): 100104, doi:10.1016/0022-5096(60)90013-2

8.

Jump up^ Willis, J. R. (1967), "A comparison of the fracture criteria of Griffith and
Barenblatt", Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 15 (3): 151162, doi:10.1016/00225096(67)90029-4.

9.

Jump up^ Xu, X.P. and Needleman, A. (1994), "Numerical simulations of fast crack growth
in brittle solids", Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 42 (9): 1397
1434, doi:10.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-5

10.

Jump up^ Camacho, G. T. and Ortiz, M. (1996), "Computational modelling of impact

damage in brittle materials", International Journal of Solids and Structures 33 (20-22): 2899
2938,doi:10.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-3

Bibliography[edit]

C. P. Buckley, "Material Failure", Lecture Notes (2005), University of Oxford.

T. L. Anderson, "Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications" (1995) CRC Press.

Further reading[edit]

Davidge, R.W., Mechanical Behavior of Ceramics, Cambridge Solid State Science Series,
(1979)

Demaid, Adrian, Fail Safe, Open University (2004)

Green, D., An Introduction to the Mechanical Properties of Ceramics, Cambridge Solid

State Science Series, Eds. Clarke, D.R., Suresh, S., Ward, I.M. (1998)

Lawn, B.R., Fracture of Brittle Solids, Cambridge Solid State Science Series, 2nd Edn.
(1993)

Farahmand, B., Bockrath, G., and Glassco, J. (1997) Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics of
High-Risk Parts, Chapman & Hall.

Chen, X., Mai, Y.-W., Fracture Mechanics of Electromagnetic Materials: Nonlinear Field
Theory and Applications, Imperial College Press, (2012)

Fracture mechanics fundamentals and applications by Anderson.

Chapter 10 Strength of Elastomers, A.N. Gent, W.V. Mars, In: James E. Mark, Burak
Erman and Mike Roland, Editor(s), The Science and Technology of Rubber (Fourth Edition),
Academic Press, Boston, 2013, Pages 473-516, ISBN 9780123945846, 10.1016/B978-0-12394584-6.00010-8

External links[edit]

Fracture Mechanics on eFunda site

Fracture Mechanics by Prof. Alan Zehnder, Cornell University

Fracture Mechanics for Engineers

Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics Notes by Prof. John Hutchinson, Harvard University

Notes on Fracture of Thin Films and Multilayers by Prof. John Hutchinson, Harvard
University

Fracture Mechanics by Prof. Piet Schreurs, TU Eindhoven, Netherlands

Fracturemechanics.org by Dr. Bob McGinty, Mercer University

Fracture mechanics course notes by Prof. Rui Huang, Univ. of Texas

Application of Fracture Mechanics on keytometals.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics