.I. Mech. Ph.rs.Solids Vol. 38,No.6,pp.

787-812,
1990. 0022-5096190
$3.0010.00
Printedin GreatBritain. s‘ 1990Pergamon Press plc

THREE-DIMENSIONAL CRACK FRONT FIELDS IN A

THIN DUCTILE PLATE

T. NAKAMURA~ and D. M. PARKS:

t Department of Mechanical Engineering, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY 11794.
U.S.A. ; $ Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cambridge. MA 02 139, U.S.A.

(Receiwd 28 Nocember 1988; in rerised,form 18 July 1989)

ABSTRACT

BASED on detailed finite element solutions, various aspects of the 3-D fields near a crack front in a thin
ductile plate are analysed. In particular, the stress field in the immediate crack front vicinity is carefully
investigated. The existence and size of local J-dominated fields are determined from a comparison of the
complete near tip stress field with the plane strain HRR solutions using a dominance parameter. In
conjunction with an estimated size of the finite deformation zone, the loss of HRR-dominance along the
crack front is also studied. Physically, the loss of HRR-dominance at higher load occurs when the finite
deformation region outgrows the (local) plane strain region, the size of which is essentially limited by the
geometry of a thin plate. Alternatively. the existence (at the mid-plane) of plane strain HRR-dominance
in a low hardening material under (in-plane) small scale yielding requires the thickness of a thin plate to
exceed *0.5(K,/ug)‘, thus limiting the maximum in-plane extent of the plastic zone to a fraction of plate
thickness. Furthermore, such a restriction on the plastic zone size precludes the coexistence of 1OCd plane
strain and surrounding plane stress HRR-fields within a thin plate.

1. INTRODUCTION

IN A THIN plate containing a through-crack, a nearly plane stress condition exists

everywhere except in regions near the crack front, where the state of stress is three-
dimensional. For a sufficiently thin elastic plate whose only relevant length scale is
the thickness, a strong 3-D field is observed within the radius of half the thickness
from the tip, and a “2-D-3-D” transitional state persists up to the radial distance
from the crack front of about 1.5 times the thickness (NAKAMIJRA and PARKS, 1988).
In this study, a thin elastic-plastic plate subjected to various levels of load is
considered. We focus on the relative sizes of plastic zone and remote (plane stress) K-
field outside the 3-D region, and on near tip (plane strain) HRR-fields along the crack
front.
We define a thin plate as a cracked plate which, under arbitrary remote loading,
contains an annular region where the local deformation field may be essentially
characterized by a scalable (eigen-)solution which is independent of other aspects of
in-plane geometry and loading. The characterizing solution may be either a plane stress
linear elastic K-field or a plane stress HRR-field. The region where the characterizing
solutions may occur must be located outside the near crack front 3-D field, but still
substantially away from the in-plane boundaries. Within a thin plate, the near crack
front field depends on in-plane dimensions only through the dependence of the ampli-
787
788 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

tude of the plane stress eigen-solution (Kr or J) on loading and geometry. In order to
achieve either of the two cases, the plate thickness must be sufficiently small compared
to the in-plane dimensions of the plate. The existence of a surrounding plane stress
K-field also requires the magnitude of remote load to be small enough so that plastic
deformation is well confined within the inner boundary of the K-field. We assume
this case for the analysis of “small scale yielding” (SSY). where remote boundary
displacements are prescribed according to the mode I plane stress K-field. with the
load magnitude expressed by the remote/far-field stress intensity factor, K,. We em-
phasize that the present solution of (3-D) SSY in a thin plate depends on the load-
ing magnitude, unlike small scale yielding under (2-D) plane strain or plane stress
conditions. In the latter models, the only characteristic length unit is that of loading
itself, e.g. (K,/rrO)*, and the boundary layer formulation leads to a similarity solution.
The existence of a surrounding plane stress HRR-field is assumed for the “fully
plastic” analysis, implicitly requiring a sufficiently large load level. Unlike the first
(SSY) case, at a material point near the crack front, the fields of the fully plastic
solution in a thin plate are scalable to be independent of load level but dependent
only on position relative to plate thickness. In this case, the plane stress HRR-field
displacement solutions are applied outside the 3-D region. The fully plastic solutions
are thus analogues of the (scalable) linear elastic thin plate solutions of NAKAMURA
and PARKS (1988).
We assume that the near crack front region of a thin plate in both cases can be
represented by a circular disk containing a straight crack front at its center, a geometry
similar to that used by LEVY et al. (1971). and by NAKAMURA and PARKS (1988) for
elastic analysis. The model has large radial exent relative to the plate thickness, and
the “3-D effects” are confined well within the model. The purposes of this study are to
assess the size of this 3-D region with respect to the thickness and to determine
characteristic features of the fields, including the shapes of plastic zone and the
variation of local J along the crack front, for various loading levels and hardening
exponents.
We also study the deformation field in the vicinity of the crack front to determine
the extent of a plane strain J-dominated (HRR) field. Here, a dominance parameter
based on the complete stress field is introduced to evaluate its closeness to the HRR
solution. The existence of the HRR-field in plane strain (2-D) SSY was investigated
by MCMEEKING (1977) using finite deformation analysis. The existence of such a field
in 3-D thin plates is discussed in conjunction with the assumed size of a finite strain
region near the crack front. Finally, we explain the physical limitation which leads,
at higher loads, to the loss of local plane strain HRR-dominance in through-cracked
3-D thin plates.

2. STRESS FIELD ALONG CRACK FRONT

2.1. J-Integral

A mathematical expression for J, in terms of near tip fields for 3-D bodies, is

f”‘“‘(s) = !‘l”o /ik (s) Wnk - aijn, 2 dT. (2.1)

k
 Crack front fields 789

Here the superscript “local” distinguishes J for a pointwise value along a 3-D crack
front, and s is a parameter representing position along the crack front. Also, W is the
strain energy density, crjj and ui are the Cartesian components of stress and displace-
ment, and ni are the components of a unit vector normal to both r and to the crack
front tangent vector at s. A path I- where the integral is evaluated surrounds the crack
front at s and lies in the plane perpendicular to the crack front. The unit vector pur(s)
is normal to the crack front at s and lies in the tangential plane of the crack. The
integral (2.1) defines a local energy release rate along any smooth curvilinear crack
front in 3-D space. In numerical applications based on finite element solutions,
equivalent procedures (collectively denoted domain integral methods) which are better
suited for accurate J evaluation than the limiting contour definition (2.1) have been
devised. A detailed discussion of the formulation and implementation of 3-D domain
integral methods can be found in NAKAMURA et al. (1989).

2.2. HRR-field

Based on the power law description of material behavior, HUTCHINSON (I 968) and
RICE and ROSENGREN (1968) showed that the asymptotic 2-D stress and strain fields
at the crack tip region can be expressed as

J 1/w+1)
oij = 00
( >
adO.zOInr
dij(B; n)~

J n/P+1)
&,j =aEO ___ E;,<e ; n). (2.2)
( ac70~oZnr
>

Here a is a material constant, e. and so are the reference/yield stress and strain,
respectively (see also (3.1), below). The constants Z, and angular distributions of
stress, d,, and strain, Eij, depend on the hardening exponent n and the “state” of the
field, either plane stress or plane strain. Numerical values of these functions are given
by SHIH (1983).
Within a 3-D body, if out-of-plane strain components are bounded or have lower
order singularity than in-plane strain components at the crack front, a pointwise plane
strain stress state will asymptotically prevail. This is well-known in exact linear
elasticity solutions (e.g. buried elliptical cracks), and has been convincingly dem-
onstrated in detailed numerical solutions (NAKAMURA and PARKS, 1988). In this case,
the asymptotic stress state coincides with the plane strain l/J solution (based on
the K-field angular variation of stress), with amplitude given by the local/pointwise
value of stress intensity factor. In a thin elastic plate, the size of the crack front region
containing an asymptotically dominated field was determined as a fraction of one per
cent of the plate thickness in the radial direction (NAKAMURA and PARKS, 1988), the
limitation being primarily due to loss of plane strain constraint.
In analogy with the linear elastic results, for a 3-D plate of a power law hardening
material, we assume that asymptotic plane strain will prevail and that the asymptotic
crack front stress will be characterized by the plane strain HRR-field solution with
790 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

amplitude governed by the local J, (2.1). The existence of this HRR-field along a 3
D crack front requires the local field to exhibit both a “sufficient degree” of plane
strain, as well as adequate agreement with the in-plane HRR stress components. The
size of the crack front region exhibiting plane strain HRR-dominated fields is expected
to depend on the level of remote load, and in a thin plate. its limiting size should be
at most a small fraction of plate thickness.

2.3. Dominance parameter

At an arbitrary materia1 point near the crack front, the nearness of the stress to the
plane strain HRR-solution can be quantified by the introduction of a parameter
measuring the dominance of the latter field. One such dominance parameter, p, is
defined as the ratio of two norms by

(2.3)

where l/*(Iis the spectra1 matrix norm, given as (FADDEEV and FADDEEVA, 1963)

I/A/I = ,,6 (2.4)

Here & is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix ArA. Also, CT,)are components of
the 3-D stress field, and ~~RR(p’,s’r~in)
are the corresponding stress components of the
asymptotic plane strain HRR-field for given material properties and the value of J’ocal.
Physically, Ijcr<,/j = max [a,, -0~3, where G, and o‘3 are maximum and minimum
principal stresses, respectively.
The dominance parameter p approaches zero for closer agreement with the plane
strain HRR solution, becoming zero if and only if cr,, is identical to ~~~~(r’.~‘~‘+~“).
Thus
p becomes small at a material point only when both a sufficient plane strain condition
and good agreement in in-plane stress components are simultaneously achieved.
Hence, the use of a dominance parameter should be especially effective in 3-D analysis,
where the degree of plane strain constraint varies within the geometry.
Furthermore, this parameter is invariant with respect to coordinate systems, and it
provides a more precise and objective evaluation of the closeness of local fields to the
J-dominated HRR solution than comparisons based solely on the closeness of a
particular stress (or strain) component. Since p is expressed in terms of a relative
norm, it becomes very sensitive to any discrete numerical differences in lightly stressed
regions, such as near the traction free crack face. This must be considered when using
p as a global field measure.

3. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE

We consider the near tip region of a thin plate of thickness t under remote sym-
metrical loads as shown in Fig. 1(a). A circular section (disk) near the tip is removed
from the piate, modeling the near tip region as shown in Fig. l(b). For the SSY
analysis, a plane stress K-field is assumed to exist at the circular boundary. The
 Crack front fields 791

plane stress K-field

*-- / L

(b)
FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a thin plate subjected to symmetrical remote loading. A boundary of a region
assumed to be dominated by a plane stress K-field is indicated. (b) Near crack front region of a thin plate
represented by a circular disk. Cartesian and cylindrical coordinates are indicated.

straight crack front is located at the center of the disk along the z-axis (x,_Y = 0). The
maximum radial extent of the disk (relative to the thickness) is chosen so that the
plastic zone remains well-contained within the outer boundary.
Only a quarter of the circular disk (region 0 < 0 < K, 0 < z/r Q l/2) is modeled
with finite elements, since the problem has reflective symmetry with respect to the
mid-plane (z = 0) and the crack and ligament plane (y = 0). The finite element mesh
is constructed with 8-node trilinear hexahedron (brick) elements. It contains two
regions-inner and outer-as shown in Fig. 2. Within each region, in the plane
perpendicular to the crack front (x-y plane), the element size is gradually increased
with radial distance from the crack tip, while the angular increment of each element
is kept constant, A6 = r/36, throughout the mesh. The identical planar mesh is
repeated along the z-axis from the symmetry-plane (z = 0) to the free-surface
(z/t = l/2). In order to accommodate the strong variations of field quantities with
respect to the z-axis, the thickness of successive element layers in the inner region is
gradually reduced toward the free surface. There are 12 element layers through half-
thickness, and each layer contains 450 elements within the inner region. Outside this
region, fields are expected to be nearly two-dimensional, so the number of through-
thickness element layers is reduced as the radial distance from the crack front is
increased. The boundary between the two regions is at rinner/t = 5. The first ring of
elements in the outer region has six layers through half-thickness, while the last ring
of elements has one layer. Constraints are applied to nodal displacements to enforce
compatibility across interfaces where fine to coarse mesh gradation occurs. The
maximum radial extent of the model is r ,,Jt = 100. The entire mesh consists of 5760
elements and 7011 nodes.
The material behavior of the plate follows isotropic Jz deformation theory, and
792 T. NAKAMURAand D. M. PARKS

FIG. 2. Finite element mesh of the quarter-model. (a) Outer region containing fewer element layers through-
thickness. (b) Inner region containing I2 element layers through half-thickness.

under uniaxial tension, the stress--strain relation follows the Ramberg-Osgood

equation

a+a -c.
E
-=
eo 60 000
Here cl@and E,,= co/E (where E is Young’s modulus) are reference ( - yield) stress
(3.1)

and strain, respectively, a is a material constant, and n is the strain hardening exponent.
In our SSY computations, Poisson’s ratio v = 0.30, the material constant M= 1, and
the hardening exponent n = 10 are chosen.
In order to apply the displacement boundary conditions on the SSY mesh, we
computed the plane stress K-field in-plane displacement components

(3.2)

(Greek subscripts range from 1 to 2.) Here K, is the assumed far-field (remote)
stress intensity factor, r = rmaxon the boundary, and g. give the angular variation of
displacement for plane stress conditions. The far-field J-integral relates to K, as J”“’ =
KfJE.
 Crack front fields 193

For the fully plastic analysis, only the inner mesh was used, and the in-plane
displacement components of the plane stress HRR-field were prescribed across the
thickness of the outer strip as

1
Jf"' mot+ I)

u, = ClE# ____ zqe; n). (3.3)

[ cYd*Ef)InY

Here r = r,,,,, on the boundary, and t?, give the angular variation of in-plane dis-
placement for the plane stress HRR condition (SHIH,1983). In carrying out the fully
plastic analysis, the value of J “’ is made very large so that elastic strain in (3.1)
becomes negligible throughout the model, and the material nearly follows pure power
law hardening. In both analyses, the applied load is increased incrementally up to a
specified level, and Newton iterations are carried out to satisfy stringent equilibrium
conditions. All the finite element results were obtained using the finite element code,
ABAQUS (1987). For the present calculations, the element formulation is modified to
accommodate the incompressibility of fully plastic solids (see NAKAMURA and PARKS,
1988,for details).

4. SMALL SCALE YIELDINGANALYSIS

4.1.Three-dimensionality in a thin plate
Under the SSY condition, the field within the near front contains two characteristic
dimensions, thickness (2) and (K~/o~)~ or Jfa’/aOq,. In the present investigation, length
scales are normalized with these dimensions.
As the crack front is approached in a thin plate, the transition from plane stress to
3-D deformation occurs within a radial distance from the crack front of order t. In
Fig. 3, the opening stress ahead of the crack front (0 = 5”) near two geometrically
extreme planes is plotted as a function of normalized radial distance for three different
load levels. The stress is normalized by the corresponding component of the K-field.
In this figure, mid-plane and edge-plane denote the element layer closest to the mid-
plane or symmetry-plane and the element layer adjoining the free surface, respectively.
The stress output is given at the centroid of each element, along z/t = 0.05 for mid-
plane and z/t = 0.495 for edge-plane. The magnitude of remote loading is expressed
by the normalized value of Jf’:“‘.At all the load levels, differences between the mid-
plane and the edge-plane values are significant for r/t < 0.5. At the lowest load,
Jfar/~~&“t= 1, the computed stress on both planes is nearly identical with the K
solution (Q&J& N I) for r/t > 1.5. The stress at higher load levels also approaches
the K solution, but at larger r/t, depending on the (increasing) plastic zone size, rP.
However, regardless of the load amplitude (or size of r,), the values of stress at the
mid-plane and edge-plane are very similar at distances from the crack front greater
than r/t z 1.5, implying that a nearly uniform stress field exists through-thickness.
Thus, as the crack front is approached from the far-field, the 3-D character of the
field develops near r/t = 1.5,independent of load level, and the through-thickness
variation increases for smaller r/t. In this figure, all the normalized stresses tendto
zero as r/t -+ 0 because the elastic-plastic field has a lower order singularity than the
K-field.
794 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

mid-plane
(z/t = .050)
edge-plane .-_____--
(Z./t = .495)

FIG. 3. Opening stress ahead of crack front normalized by corresponding component of remote plane stress
K-field. Results are shown on the mid-plane Iz/f = 0.050) and edge-plane (:/I = 0.495) at load levels
J’“‘/u~,r = I, 3 and 5.

The through-thickness variation of opening stress at various radial distances ahead

of the crack is shown in Fig. 4(a) for a load level Jr’r/~O~Ot = 3. At larger r/t values,
the variation is small, but as the crack front is approached, the normalized stress
ase/ao increases much more near the mid-plane than near the edge-plane. This is
consistent with the larger amplitude of singularity, Jloca’, observed near the mid-plane
(see Fig. 5). The measure of plane strain constraint is investigated using the parameter
u~~/(c,, + see) in Fig. 4(b). The value of this parameter becomes one-half when a plane
strain state of stress prevails under large plastic flow, e.g. in the region very close to
the crack front. For decreasing values of r, there are increasing values of oTZ/(cr,r+ as(]).
The value of the parameter at any I is nearly constant across the thickness, except
near the free surface (z/t = 0.5), where the constraint remains lower. The results of
stress and constraint at various 8 values are qualitatively very similar to the ones
shown in Fig. 4 under any load levels-higher values near the mid-plane and toward
the crack front, and lower values near the free-surface and away from the crack front.
Qualitatively, these trends resemble those obtained by NAKAMURA and PARKS (1988)
in thin linear elastic plates.
The behavior of the 3-D field is also investigated from other components of stress,
strain and displacement at various locations. All of these results confirm the charac-
teristics of near crack front 3-D field described above-a gradual change from the
far-field plane stress condition near r/t = 1.5 from the crack front, and significant
through-thickness variation of field quantities within r/t < 0.5 under all load levels.
Generally, the magnitude of through-thickness variation of in-plane displacement is
smaller than that of stress or strain at any in-plane location.
 Crack front fields 795

r/r * .oos. ao5. .oos. .012 .om. .025. .o% .cM.

.003. .084. .ll. .16..20 27,. 36.47. .oz. .82
0 ~~~“‘~r”‘~rr”~~~‘~~~.
0.0 0.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.5

z/t

(a)

h
0.4 -
d
+
b' CO.2 -

b' 0.0 -

FIG. 4. Through-thickness variation at various radial distances at 0 = 5” for a load of Jr’r/u,,~Ot = 3;

(a) normalized opening stress, (b) constraint parameter. In both figures, the values of normalized radial
distances are noted.

4.2. J-Integral and crack tip opening displacement

The J’“‘“’along the crack front is obtained using the domain integral method (see
NAKAMURA et al., 1989). The arc-length weighted average J’“‘“’over the entire crack
front differs from Jr”’(= Kf/E) by less than 2% for J”‘/oOsOt < 20, which is consistent
with the SSY assumptions. The variation of J’““’ along the crack front, normalized
by Jrar,is shown in Fig. 5 for different load levels. For all cases, the maximum values
are located on the centerline and free surface, respectively, with the difference between
them growing with increasing load level.
796 T. NAKAMCUA and D. M. PARKS

(elsstic,
Y = .30)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

z/t

FIG. 5. Local J notarized by far-~eld~rexnote J, plotted vs position along the half-crack front. at various
loading Levels.

We have computed a crack tip opening displacement from the crack opening profile
at each load level. Here the opening displacement, 6,, is defined as the opening distance
between the intercept of the crack faces with two rfr45” lines emanating from the tip.
The opening displacements at various planes, z/t = 0, 0.254, 0.354, 0.420 and 0.462,
are normalized with J’“‘“’at corresponding locations on the crack front. Results are
shown as a function of normalized remote load, Jf;t’/aO~Ol,in Fig. 6. In computing 6,,
we chose E/o0 = I/E~ = 300. Also shown in Fig. 6 is the solution from the plane strain
IIRR-field, ~~~(~~~~)= d$i~s’“i”,where for n = 10 and CXQ= l/300, d~‘“““in= 0.53
(SHIH, 1981). Along any planes perpendicular to the crack front, except very near the
free surface, the normalized 6, approaches the plane strain solution under vanishing
load level, Jfar/~O~,,t+ 0. This trend supports the existence of a plane strain HRR-
field surrounding the crack front under small loads. In the figure, the nearly constant
G,/(J’“““‘/cro)and its closeness to the plane strain HRR solution can be observed along
0 < z/t 9 0.354 under a wide range of load level. However, the agreement of 6, with
the HRR solution, in and of itself, is not a sufficient condition to ensure the existence
of HRR-dominance along the crack front at high fevels of load (see Section 4.4).

4.3. Plastic zone size

Before discussing numerical results, we note that there is some ambiguity in the
definition of a “plastic zone” in Ramberg-Osgood materials, since (from (3.1)) some
nonlinear strain is present at all nonzero stress levels. If the reference stress level go
in (3.1) is interpreted as the initial “yield” stress of a traditional flow theory plasticity
formulation, then the effective strain, E,, corresponding to an effective stress of op = CT~
 Crack front fields

-
0.4 -
\
G E / crO = 300

0.2 -
. .._ 1.1.. pl. strain HRR solution (n=lO)

0.0, ’ 0 ’ I ’ ’ 8 I ’ ’ ’ a I ’ ’ 8 ’ ’ 1
0 5 10 15 20

J far / u,E,t

FIG. 6. Normalized crack tip opening displacement at various planes normal to crack front. computed
from ,45’ crack face intercepts using E/CT, = 300, plotted vs far-field load.

is (1 +a)&,,, rather than s0 in the flow formulation. Thus, a “plastic zone” defined as
the locus of (T, = go underestimates the size of a similarly defined plastic zone in a
flow theory material having linear elastic response up to yield stress CJ~because the
former corresponds to a larger total strain. Similarly, the locus of E, = &o tends to
overestimate the plastic zone size. For these reasons, we have operationally dqfined
the “plastic zone” in the Ramberg-Osgood material as the locus of cre.s,= DEEP.When
this procedure was applied to plane stress SSY solutions using the Ramberg-Osgood
model, the plastic zones agreed well with those of corresponding flow theory calcu-
lations, especially regarding maximum plastic zone size ahead of the crack.
The evolution of plastic zone size and shape with increasing load is shown in Fig.
7. The boundaries of plastic zones on both the mid-plane and edge-plane are shown
for lower loads (Jfar/aoeot = 1, 2, 3 and 4) in Fig. 7(a), and for higher loads
(Jfar/aosot = 5, 7, 10 and 14) in Fig. 7(b). At the lowest load level, Jrd’/ao~,t = 1, the
shape of this region is similar to the familiar plane strain plastic zone of small scale
yielding, and the size is relatively uniform through-thickness. This latter fact is due to
the competing effects of higher triaxiality/constraint and higher crack front singularity
amplitude with increasing distance from the free-surface. The combined effects pro-
duce the nearly uniform plastic zone size from the edge-plane (lower constraint and
lower singularity amplitude) to the mid-plane (higher constraint and higher singularity
amplitude). At low loads, we attribute the edge-plane zone shape to the surrounding
elastic corner field. In fact, the free-surface contour of constant E, (or gC,), based on
the linear elastic corner singularity solution (BENTHEM, 1977), closely resembles the
plane strain plastic zone shape, and the loci of elastically calculated o, contours have
provided good qualitative and semi-quantitative estimates of SSY plastic zone size
and shape in many fracture mechanics applications.
798 T. NAKAMLJRAand D. M. PARKS

- mid-plane
----- edge-plane

d.J

\ 0.0 -
h

-1.0 -

-2.0 I- mid-plans *
- ----n edge-plant = 14-

x/t
(b)
FIG. 7. Contours of cr,,~,= u&0 (- plastic zone boundary) on the mid-plane and edge-plane. (a) For the
loading levels Jf”/o,e,t = I, 2, 3 and 4. (b) For the loading Ievels Jb’j~O~ltf = 5, 7, 10 and 14.

At somewhat higher loads, Jhr/oo~or = 2, the mid-plane plastic zone changes shape,
advancing dramati~alIy along the prospective crack plane, while the free-surface
plastic zone retains its shape. At first glance, this result seems unexpected, since the
mid-plane plastic zone has a “plane stress” shape, while that of the free-surface has
a “plane strain” shape! Again, however, the explanation lies in the competition
between amplitude of singularity and triaxiaiity. The higher mid-plane values of in-
plane stress (Fig. 4a) more than offset the triaxiality differences between the mid-
plane and edge-plane (Fig. 4b), resulting in the larger mid-plane effective stress, ge,
 Crack front fields 799

at any distance ahead of crack front. The “plane stress” plastic zone shape observed
at the mid-plane can also be rationalized by noting that there is negligible constraint
to maintaln the “plane strain” plastic zone shape at r/r > 0.5 (Fig. 4b). (Note : since
in-plane stress is predominantly tensile through the thickness, the addition of moderate
levels of transverse tensile stress crZr at fixed in-plane stress levels. reduces the value
of a,.) For a normalized load of Jrar/aOsOt = 3, Fig. 8 shows cr,/~,, as a function of r/t
at different locations along the crack front. The through-thickness variation of (T, is
relatively small compared with that of individual in-plane stress components (compare
with Fig. 4a). This is especially so at 0 = 45” (Fig. 8b), where ur values at any r are

e = 5” J’U/ao~,t = 3

b”
\

b” x3 / t
0.5 -
.050 - -(mid-plans)
.a -..-
405 -.-.-.-
,470 ----
.495 --------- (edge-plane)
-t
0.01 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ c ’ ’ ’ 0 a fi ’ 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

1.0
b”
\

b”
0.6
- (mid-plane)
,282 -..-

,470 ----

0.6 1.0 1.6

r/t

(b)

FIG. 8. Variation of effective stress as a function of radial distance at different positions through the
thickness for Jr~r/uoso~ = 3 ; (a) at fJ = 5’, (b) at 0 = 45”.
800 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

nearly identical through the thickness. However, the relatively small thickness vari-
ation of gr in the range 0 < r/t < 1.O at 8 = 5’) shown in Fig. 8(a), nonetheless causes
the differences between the mid-plane and edge-plane plastic zone extents ahead of
the crack. As can be seen from Fig. 7(a), load levels of Jra’/ao+,t = 3 to 4 are
transitional in that rp/t z 1. At higher load level, near Jf’“/ao&Ot= 5, the edge-plane
plastic zone also adopts the “plane stress” shape. Again. there is little variation
through-thickness in plastic zone size and shape since its boundary then lies outside
the “2-D-3-D” transition at r/t = 1 - 1.5 (except for that portion of the boundary
immediately behind the crack tip, 8 = rr, where the field remains three-dimensional).
For load levels greater than J”r/~,,~Ot _Y5, the plastic zone size appears to increase
proportionally with the remote load level. For these load levels, we can approximate
the maximum in-plane extent of plastic zone as

(4.1)

where r,, is the extent of the plastic zone directly ahead of the crack front (0 = 0). This
value is nearly identical to our 2-D “plane stress” SSY result obtained from a separate
flow theory computation, and it is also comparable to the value given by NARASIMHAN
and ROSAKIS (1988), 0.25, from their plane stress SSY analysis (for II = 9). A 3-D
finite deformation analysis of SSY in a thin plate by HOM and MCMEEKING (1988)
gave the value 0.28 for a non-hardening material.

4.4. Near crack front jields

If the out-of-plane normal strain components are bounded or have lower order
singularity than the in-plane components at the crack front, asymptotically a
plane strain condition should prevail as the crack front is approached. Figure 9(a)
shows the mid-plane variation of through-thickness constraint. o,_/((~~,+cJ,,~~), on
the plane at 0 = 5C for the load levels Jfa’/oo&ot = 1, 3, 5 and 10. (Also see Fig. 4b
for the through-thickness variation.) It can be seen that “plane strain” conditions,
(T,_/(~,,+G~~~) = 0.5 under large incompressible plastic flow, are achieved only tlery
near the crack front under any load levels. Analogous results are obtained from plots
of the alternative constraint parameter, IE~,//E,,,vs distance. Figure 9(a) shows a small
influence of load magnitude on the constraint parameter. There is significant deviation
from the plane strain triaxiality at points further than r/t 2 0.01 ahead of the crack
front at all loads. As remarked in the discussion of Fig. 4(b), the plane strain constraint
is maximum at the mid-plane (as in Fig. 9a) and decays monotonically as the free
surface is approached.
The mid-plane opening stress very near the crack tip is examined in Fig. 9(b) at
8 = 5C. The stress is normalized by the corresponding component of the local plane
strain HRR-field solution, with the magnitude taken to be J’“‘“‘. As r/t --) 0, the
normalized stress tends to unity, indicating a zone of asymptotic plane strain HRR-
dominance. (At sufficiently small r values, the complete circumferential variation of
every stress component is in good agreement with the plane strain HRR-field, with
amplitude based on J”“‘.)
 Crack front fields 801

1 mid-plane (s/t-.05)

r/t
(4

mid-plane (z/t =.05)

r/t
6)
FIG. 9. (a) Constraint parameter at mid-plane (z/r = 0.050) plotted vs distance from crack front, for
various loading levels. (b) Opening stress on the mid-plane (z/r = 0.050) normalized by corresponding
component of local plane strain HRR solution, plotted vs distance from the crack front. for various loading
levels. (Note zero suppression on ordinate axis.)

The values of normalized stress at larger r/t increase with increasing loading due
to the growth of the plastic zone. In contrast, however, values of normalized stress
very near the tip are decreasing with increasing load, reflecting a growing loss of plane
strain HRR-dominance. This behavior is quite different from 2-D SSY results, where
at any fixed radial distance, the normalized stress under increasing loads always
increases, due to the similarity of solutions. The worsening agreement near the tip at
higher load levels is intimately related to thinning of the plate ligament associated with
802 T. NARAMIJK.A and D. M. PARKS

c
-
mid-plane

_
E / o. =
c)T\c\
JUV
(z/t = .05)

pi. strain SSY solution

r / (J ‘oca’/c70)
FIG.10.
Plane strain J-dominance parameter at mid-plane (::I = 0.050). plotted vs distance ahead of crack
front, at various load levels. Distance on-the abscissa is normalized by local J at mid-plane.

increasing plastic deformation. This phenomenon. though fundamentally different in

nature. is nonetheless not unlike the loss of HRR-dominance which can occur in a
plane strain situation by the strong~nteraction of a global plastic (~~-~~u~~e)flow field
with the (otherwise ERR-dominated) crack tip region (MCMEEKING and PARKS, 1979;
SHIH and GERMAN, 1981). For example, the 1-45” shear zones which develop in the
ligaments of fully plastic plane strain center-cracked plates (CCP) reduce crack tip
in-plane triaxial stress and greatly amplify plastic strain at 0 = 245’. Here, the
interacting flow field is essentially that of through-thickness thinning (and associated
in-plane stretching), and because of the three-dimensionality. the extent of the influ-
ence varies both with relative position through the thickness and with load magnitude.
In Fig. 10, we have plotted the dominance parameter p (2.3) as a function of
distance ahead of the crack front. Here distance is normalized by the length scale
Jioca’/ag, so that direct comparison can be made with the crack tip opening displace-
ment, 6,. A nominal size of the region of (neglected) finite deformation, namely 36,,
is indicated in the figure. (At the mid-plane, this normalized distance is nearly
constant, y 3~‘~‘,~~““‘,as in Fig. 6.) This value, though arbitrary. is consistent with values
suggested by MCMEEKING (1977) in finite deformation plane strain SSY analysis. As
stated in Section 2.3, p accounts for the combined effects of plane strain constraint
and of the agreement of in-plane stress components with the HRR solution, as shown.
for example. in Fig. 9. Thus, it provides an effective measure in determining local
plane strain HRR-dominance in 3-D fracture configurations. At higher load levels, it
is clear that there is less tendency to attain local plane strain HRR-dominance over
size scales comparable to 6,. We attribute the increase in p with increasing load
and/or with increasing v,/(J’“‘“‘/oO) to diminishing plane strain constraint. At a load of
 Crack front fields 803

J’“‘/u~E~~ = 10, the distance r = 36, corresponds to r/t = 0.06. Obviously. at this
distance, there is inadequate plane strain constraint (see Fig. 9a). For reference. the
solution from plane strain SSY, which is independent of loading magnitude when
plotted on these axes, is also shown in the figure. Figures analogous to Fig. 10, but
for crack front locations nearer the free surface, show deviation from the plane strain
SSY result at correspondingly lower loads.

5. FULLY PLASTIC ANALYSIS

At sufficiently high values of imposed loading, the plastic zone may extend to
many multiples of plate thickness, where plane stress prevails. Then, under certain
circumstances (to be further stipulated below), we argue that the stress field in an
annular plane stress portion of the plastic zone surrounding the 3-D crack front zone
can be well-modeled by the plane stress HRR-field, providing the in-plane dimensions
of the plate are large enough in comparison to thickness. This could occur either in
large scale (in-plane) yielding in-plane stress or, for plates of exceptional aspect ratio,
under small scale (in-plane) yielding. In either case, however, the load transmitted to
the crack front region is characterized solely,_by Jrar, the amplitude of the surrounding
plane stress HRR-field.
We have analysed this situation by applying the plane stress HRR (in-plane)
displacement fields as boundary conditions on the strip at the outer radius of the inner
mesh (see Fig. 2b), rlnner/t = 5. Load amplitudes were increased to suitable magnitude
such that plastic strain exceeded elastic strain in the Ramberg-Osgood model by at
least a factor of lo3 at all Gauss points in the mesh. Thus the resulting small dis-
placement analysis provided the fully plastic power law solution for this problem. We
have performed analyses for hardening exponents n = 3, 5 and 10.

5.1. Three-dimensionality in a thin plate

Figure 11 shows the opening stress ahead of the crack front for each hardening
exponent, normalized by that of the corresponding remote plane stress HRR-field, at
both the mid-plane and the edge-plane. These normalized results are independent of
load level in the (locally) fully plastic condition. As the crack front is approached, the
normalized stress becomes large, since the (asymptotic) plane strain HRR-fields are
highly constrained, compared to the plane stress solution. At a distance of approxi-
mately r/t = 1, the normalized stress at all positions through-thickness merges to the
imposed plane stress HRR value. Other stress components at different angular pos-
itions also show the “2-D-3-D” transition location to be within 1 < r/t < 1.5, indi-
cating that, essentially, a plane stress state exists at r/t z 1.5. (Generally, the differ-
ences between the mid-plane and the edge-plane stress values are less than 10% for
all the stress components at r/t = 1.5.) Thus, had the remote plane stress HRR
boundary conditions been applied at any r/t > - 1.5, identical fully plastic solutions
would have been obtained.
804 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

Fully Plastic -

n= 10

__...___.
(z/t = ,050)
n=S
edge-plane
(z/t = .495)
0.0 I ( ‘@“I a “I r’S”n I ,‘I I ‘I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

r/t
FIG. 11. Opening stress ahead of crack front normalized by corresponding component of remote plane stress
HRR-field solution. Results are shown on the mid-plane (z/r = 0.050) and the edge-plane (Z/I = 0.495) from
fully plastic solutions in materials with strain hardening exponents n = 3. 5 and 10.

5.2. J-Integral and crack tip opening displacement

Figure 12 shows the through-thickness variation of J’“‘“‘, normalized by J’“‘, for

incompressible fully plastic solutions in materials with hardening exponents of
n = 1,3,5 and IO. (The result for n = 1 corresponds to a linear elastic material with
Poisson’s ratio 11= 0.499, rather than to the n = 1 limit of (3.1).) The trend is for
increasing variation with increasing r7. The through-thickness average of J’“‘” should
equal Jr”‘, and the numerical results agree with this constraint to within 2%. Curiously,
all the curves merge near z/t = 0.26 and J“‘c~“/Jf~r = 1.05.
We have also computed the crack tip opening displacements across the plate
thickness for the fully plastic thin plates. In the context of a two-dimensional plane
stress HRR-field. J”“‘/a, or 6, would be similarity lengths, and therefore in fixed ratio.
However in the current three-dimensional context, neither is a similarity scale because
of the absolute dimension t. Thus, mathematically, under “small” loads (Jf’r/o,,cOt --t
0), the computed fully plastic opening displacements along any planes normal to the
crack front are iS,/(J’oca’l~O) 2: 0.22. 0.38, 0.55 for n = 3, 5, IO, respectively, again
based on +45’ intercepts and E/CT, = 300. These values are very close to the cor-
responding plane strain HRR values, d,p’ “A” = 0.20, 0.35, 0.53. Under larger loads,
the opening displacements. normalized with Jra’/aO, approach the plane stress HRR
solutions, d,!f S’re’S= 0.30, 0.52, 0.77, respectively. This result is consistent with the
remote boundary condition (plane stress HRR-field), as the +45” intercepts lie outside
the 3-D region under large loads.
 Crack front fields 805

“,,,,‘,“,‘,,,,‘,,,,“‘,

R&y Plastic

n= 1
(elastic,
V = ,499)

n \
3 ----

5 -,_*_.-

10 -

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

z/t
FIG.12.Local J normalized by far-field remote J along the half-crack front from fully plastic solutions in
materials with hardening exponents n = 3, 5 and 10.

5.3. Near crack front fieids

In Fig. 13(a), the radial variation of the constraint parameter o,/(ar,+o,,,) at the
mid-plane is shown versus distance ahead of the crack tip (6 = So) for various hard-
ening exponents. The trends of curves are very similar for all hardening exponents,
approaching the plane strain limit as r/t -+ 0. This agreement with the plane strain
limit is slightly greater for the lower hardening materials. The result for n = 10 is also
very close to that of SSY at high load levels, as shown in Fig. 9(a). The higher relative
degree of plane strain constraint for Iower hardening is more pronounced in plots of
the alternative constraint parameter, IE,,I/E,.
The opening stress ahead of the crack at mid-plane is shown in Fig. 13(b). Again.
general features are similar to those observed in the SSY computation (see Fig. 9b),
and the rates of convergence to the HRR solutions are nearly identical for all the
exponents. However, the lower hardening materiaf shows poorer agreement with its
corresponding plane strain HRR solution than do the higher hardening materials.
Figure 14 shows p at mid-plane on the ray ~9= 5’. as a function of radial distance
from the tip. For each n value, a plane strain HRR-field is achieved only UCY_V near the
crack front. Unlike the results of the individual stress component shown in Fig. 13(b),
the radial variation of this parameter is nearly independent of n. This is because p
accounts for all the stress components and provides combined effects of the degree of
plane strain constraint as well as in-plane stress component agreement. For each
hardening exponent, the curves of p vs distance at crack front locations nearer
the free surface lie above those shown here, indicating even less plane strain HRR
dominance.
 806 T. NARAMURA and D. M. PARKS

2 o.4
t;”
+ 0.3

b’
T 0.2
mid-plane (z/t = .05)

bE
0.1

.M .06

r/t

(4

\
2 0.7 - e = 5”
b
- mid-plaae (z/t = .05) 5 -.-.-.-

10 -
0.6 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ( 3 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 1 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
0.00 .02 .04 .08 .OEl 0.10

r/t
(b)

FIG. 13. (a) Constraint parameter at mid-plane (r/l = 0.050) plotted vs distance from crack front, for
various hardening exponents. (b) Opening stress on the mid-plane (Z/I = 0.050) normalized by cor-
responding component of local plane strain HRR solution, plotted vs distance from the crack front. for
various hardening exponents. (Note zero suppression on ordinate axis.)

6. DISCUSSION

Through the investigation of a “thin ductile plate”, we have characterized various

aspects of a fundamental 3-D elastic-plastic fracture problem. The results show strong
3-D effects up to a radial distance of approximately half the plate thickness from the
crack front, somewhat weaker through-thickness variations of field quantities between
0.5 < r/t < 1.5, and nearly plane stress conditions outside this region. These features
 Crack front fields 807

0.8 I 1 I , I I I , I I I , I I I , I I 1
- 8=5”
Fully Plastic
mid-plane (z/t = .05)

0.6 -

0.0 t ’ I ’ ’ ’ I ’ ’ I s ’ I ’ ’ ’ I I n
0.00 .02 .04 .06 .08 0.10

r/t
FIG. 14. Plane strain J-dominance parameter at mid-plane (z/f = 0.050), plotted vs distance ahead of crack
front, from fully plastic solutions in materials with strain hardening exponents n = 3, 5 and 10.

appear to be independent of loading level. In the following section, we critically discuss

several aspects and implications of these calculations.

6.1. Requirements for SSY in a thin plate

In order to satisfy plane stress SSY conditions in a plate, the plastic deformation
must be well contained within the K-field. We assume that the inner radius, RK, of a
surrounding plane stress K-field must exceed some small multiple-say, four-of the
in-plane plastic zone size, rP. (Generally our 3-D SSY results show that the opening
stress at r = 4r,, ahead of crack is within 5% of the corresponding K-field solution at
various load levels.) Also, any lower bound for the radius of a plane stress K-field
must exceed the extent of the 3-D region. Bearing in mind both of these constraints,
the least such radius must satisfy

R, = max [1.5r, 4r,,]. (6.1)

Based on elastic plane stress studies, the K-field is typically observed within a radial
distance from the tip of - 10% of the smallest characteristic in-plane length, such as
crack length (a), untracked ligament (6), or distance to a point of load application
(I). Thus, for the plate to be a thin plate (under SSY), RK must be smaller than 10%
of any in-plane lengths (a, b, 1, etc.). With the approximation for r,, given in (4. I) and
the condition for RK in (6.1), the size requirement for SSY in a thin plate (assuring
the existence of a surrounding plane stress K-field) is
808 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS

min [a, b, I,. .] > max [15t, 10(K,/aO)‘]. (6.2)

Here K, is the remote mode I stress intensity factor. Indeed, condition (6.2) is implicitly
assumed for our SSY thin plate analysis. Alternatively, any cracked plates satisfying
(6.2) contain a plane stress K-field and an interior plastic zone of the sort modeled
here. (Note: the in-plane dimensional requirement for standard plane strain K,,
fracture toughness testing is min [a, 6, I,. . .] > 2S(K,,/o,)’ (ASTM, 1981).)

6.2. Limits of plane strain HRR-dominance

In order to assess the existence of a plane strain HRR-field very near the crack
front, we must take into account the size of the finite deformation region. From finite
deformation plane strain studies, MCMEEKINC (1977) suggested that the minimum
size of the zone within which the HRR-fields are effectively achieved is - 2 to 3 times
the crack tip opening displacement. Any zone of local plane strain HRR-dominance
must exist at distances, R, somewhat greater than this size :

(6.3)

As the loading applied to any 3-D body is increased, J’-’ and 6, increase, and, from
(6.3), the minimum possible plane strain radius. R, must likewise increase. From an
external viewpoint (relative to the finite deformation zone), ultimate limits to the
continued growth of R can be idealized as due to either of two factors. One of these
may be described by the “geometrical limitation” of (local) plane strain constraint.
Since plane strain conditions exist only very near the crack front in 3-D bodies, there
is a limit to the maximum attainable value of R (and hence, to the applied loads) so
that local plane strain HRR-fields, with amplitude characterized by Jioca’, exist. This
effect is particularly important in “thin” through-cracked plates modeled here, where
characteristic in-plane dimensions (here collectively symbolized by L), greatly exceed
thickness : L/t >>1. At the mid-plane of a through-cracked thin plate, the limiting
zone of plane strain constraint extends no further than -0.01 t (see Fig. 9a).
The second factor which can limit the growth of R is the strong interaction of
(locally) in-plane plastic deformation with the crack front fields, especially when the
flow is fully developed. These effects can be particularly pronounced when L is
small compared to crack front arc length, and the plane strain idealization becomes
applicable. In either case, as the effects of external plastic flow increasingly influence
the crack tip fields, growth of the limiting annular zone capable of sustaining plane
strain HRR-fields is suppressed, especially for low hardening solids (see limiting value
in Fig. 9b and Fig. 13b as r --+ 0). In a through-cracked thin plate, the latter of the
two limiting factors is less important, and the maximum attainable value of R is
governed by the physical extent of the plane strain region, -0.Olt. For very thick
plates, more dramatic deviations from HRR-dominance can be caused by effects of
in-plane plastic flow (e.g. plane strain compact tension (CT) vs plane strain CCP
specimens). In general, the magnitude of the effect of either limiting factor depends
on the degree of strain hardening, the type and magnitude of loading, and the overall
cracked geometry, e.g. L/t.
 Crack front fields 809

Based on the discussion of Fig. 10, an arbitrary, but plausible, criterion for plane
strain HRR-dominance of the region surrounding the blunting crack may be chosen
in terms of the dominance parameter ahead of the crack (0 = 5’) as p -C 0.25 at
r = 36,. Then, from Fig. 10, a loss of local plane strain HRR-dominance at the mid-
plane occurs at a load near Jf’dr/~O~Of = (K,/cr,)‘/t = 2 in a thin plate under SSY (i.e.
a plate satisfying (6.2)). Applying the same criterion to crack front locations nearer
the free-surface results in a loss of dominance at lower loads. The loss of dominance
at the plane _-jt = 0.3 occurs at a load level of Jfa’/ooeot 2r. 1. On the mid-plane, the
size of the J-dominated region R(= 36,) is 0.01 ft at Jf’r/a(jeOt = 2. This value is
consistent with the previously stated loss of plane strain constraint in a thin plate.
Alternatively. the thickness requirement for local plane strain J-dominance at the
mid-plane of a thin plate may be stated as t > 0.5(K,/00)‘. This limit is considerably
smaller than the thickness~plane strain requirement of the K,, standard indicated
above. Had the thickness been chosen (based on the p < 0.25 criterion) to provide
dominance for crack front locations I-_/t1< 0.3. then the more stringent condition.
t > 1.0(K,/0,)~, is required. The thickness requirement of the K,, standard, namely
f > 2.5(Kr/0,)~, assures p -C 0.25 at r = 36, for all Iocations in a thin plate with
jz/r[ < 0.45, or over the central 900/o of the crack front. The thickness limit of the K,,
standard has previously been found to be conservative in several experimental studies
(see, e.g. BARSOM and ROLE, 1987, for a discussion), and our computations for thin
plates are in general agreement with these observations.

6.3. Requireme~~tsfor a phe stress HRR-$eld in a t&t plate

The minimum load required to establish a plane stress HRR-field can be

estimated in the following manner. Since a plane stress HRR-field must develop
outside the 3-D region, the smallest possible radial distance from the crack front to
such a field is r/t u 1.5 (see Section 5.1). Furthermore, in order for a fully developed
plastic field to exist, the local effective strain, E,,, must exceed some multiple, JZ, of
reference/yield strain, here taken as E,,. When these conditions are combined with
(2.2), there results

Jf”’ ,n+ I).ll

uilf
G > 1.5a- ““I, (6.4)
[ EJ0; n) 1

where 1, is the dimensionless constant of (2.2). and E,,is the angular distribution of
effective strain, with both parameters evaluated under plane stress conditions.
Although E, varies greatly within 0 d 0 d n, we choose to define effective plane stress
HRR-dominance by applying (6.4) at the most highly strained locations in the angular
range. The maximum effective strain is normalized to unity so that & = 1. In the
present case, with a = 1, n = 10, I,, = 2.98, and, say, ,/I = 5, the lower bound of (6.4)
is Jhr/c,,cOt > 26. (We note that even at this load level, E, at r/r = 1.5 is less than E,,
between $7~-C 8 G rc, and therefore, the development of plane stress HRR-field at all
angles, including the region behind the crack tip, is unlikely. This can also be predicted
from the general shape for the plastic zone under large load, shown in Fig. 7.
810 T. NARAMURA and D. M. PARKS

Nonetheless, at these load levels, the plane stress HRR-field should characterize the
loading in the highly strained region ahead of the crack.)
The preceding derivation of the lower bound load necessary to obtain a fully plastic
local condition assumes no (in-plane) SSY condition. In this regard, it is reassuring
to note that many aspects of the SSY solution under large load are close to the
corresponding fully plastic solution (n = 10) ; for example, the normalized through-
thickness variation of J’“‘“’ and the radial variation of o~_;/(G,,+ u,,~)).
We can determine approximate geometric requirements (relative in-plane to thick-
ness dimensions) in order for a plate to be able to develop a plane stress HRR zone.
As discussed before, the minimum radius at which it could develop is _ 1.5t. This
distance must also be adequately small compared to in-plane dimensions. At fully
plastic conditions of a 2-D plane stress idealization. suppose that the HRR-field
dominates at Y < L/./t ., where L is a characteristic in-plane dimension and. i ^ is some
suitably large number. Thus a plane stress HRR-field could be established at fully
plastic conditions in the corresponding 3-D body providing L/t > 1.5. t _. and also
providing that the minimum requisite Jr”’ value had been applied. Relatively little
quantitative analysis of plane stress HRR-dominance has been performed, compared
to that in plane strain. However, since non-hardening limit solutions in plane stress
display much less variation with geometry and load type than do plane strain slip-
line solutions (MCCLINTOCK, 1971), we tentatively estimate ,A- 1 20, in rough accord
with the corresponding estimate in plane strain compact tension specimens.
We have not attempted an extensive review of the available experimental literature.
but note that through cracks in large components (plates. girders. flanges) of relatively
tough, lower strength structural steels would seem to be examples where crack front
fields of the sort modeled here could be obtained. NOVAK (1976) performed R-curve
tests of A572 steel with yield strength cr,, = 350 MPa. In one room temperature
test of a displacement-loaded CT specimen of thickness t = 38 mm, normalized
“initiation” toughness levels of Jra’/oO~,,t = 11 were obtained with ligament to thick-
ness ratio of ( W-a)/[ = 6. At a (very small) normalized crack extension of
Au/t = 0.07, Jfl”/oO~Ot = 24, well in the range of requisite minimum load for estab-
lishing a plane stress HRR-field at a distance of order t. It is likely that the in-plane
dimensions of this specimen were insufficient to obtain the thin plate conditions of
the present analysis. but presumably a larger structure would have exhibited them.

6.4. General ohsewations

The maximum in-plane plastic zone size at the least stringent of the proposed
limiting load levels (Jr”/oOeOt = 2) assuring local plane strain HRR-dominance in a
thin plate is r,,/t z 0.5. Such a restricted plastic zone size is incompatible with a fully
developed plane stress HRR-field, thus precluding the “coexistence” of a plane strain
HRR-field anywhere along the crack front and a surrounding plane stress HRR-field
within the same plate.
The current crack front solutions are of limited utility at distances from the crack
front less than 36, due to the neglected effects of large geometry change, including
both crack tip blunting and plate thinning. Alternately, the nearest distance from the
crack front at which the present small geometry change solutions are applicable can
 Crack front fields 811

be approximated by the magnitude of the crack tip opening displacement. For

example, with the estimate of minimum load to establish a plane stress HRR-field
given earlier (Jf’r/~oeor = 26). the smallest applicable radius ( - 36,) is r/t = 0.2 based
on E/o0 = 300. Recent 3-D calculations including large deformation effects in a
notched thin sheet under SSY have been made by HOM and MCMEEKING (1988).
In our 3-D analyses of SSY in a thin sheet, we followed the traditional 2-D boundary
layer approach by remotely imposing the plane stress K-field as a boundary condition.
The range of applicability of the present approach can be extended. following the
modified boundary layer approach of LARSSON and CARLSSON (1973). RICE (1974).
and BILBY et al. (1986), by adding the effect of a uniform normal stress “ 7”‘. parallel
to the x-axis and proportional to K,, to the remote boundary conditions. In the
present context, a two parameter loading space, given by, say, I, = (Kr/go)‘/t and
I2 = r(T/K,)‘, would have to be explored, with the current results limited to I2 = 0
and 1, < 20.
The asymptotic structure of corner singularities in power law materials remains
unknown. Due to computational limitations, the current finite element meshes are
too coarse to reveal characteristic features of these fields. The recent successful exam-
ination of corner singularities in linear elastic materials (NAKAMURA and PARKS, 1988)
suggests that adequately refined 3-D finite element meshes could be applied to this
problem. However, no analytical structure, analogous to that given by BENTHEM
(1977) for linear elastic corner cracks, is available for comparison with numerical
results.
In our discussion of dominant HRR-fields, both globally in plane stress and locally
in plane strain, we have tacitly assumed that low homologous temperature power
law “plasticity” is the mechanism of nonlinear response. At higher homologous
temperatures, power law “creep” deformation can also lead to the existence of local
HRR type fields (RIEDEL and RICE, 1980), and the local fields reported here may also
be interpreted for these conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of D.O.E. through the joint project with
Idaho National Engineering Laboratories under Grant No. DE-FG02-85ER 1333 I, and of the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Computations were performed on an Alliant FX-8 computer at M.I.T., obtained under
DARPA Grant No. N00014-86-K-0768, and on a VAX 8600 at Stony Brook. The ABAQUS
finite element code was made available under academic license from Hibbitt, Karlsson, and
Sorensen, Inc., Providence, R.I.

REFERENCES

ABAQUS 1987 Version 4.6, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.,

Providence. R.I.
ASTM 1981 ASTM Annual Book ofstandards, Part IO, E-399-
8 1, p. 588. American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia.
BARSOM,J. M. and ROLFE,S. T. 1987 Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures. Prentice
Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
812 T. NAKAMURA and D. M. PARKS
BENTHEM.J. P. 1977 lilt. J. Solids Struct. 13, 419.
BILBY.B. A.. CARDEW,G. E.. 1986 Size Effects in Fracture, p. 37. Mechanical En-
GOLDTHORPE,M. R. and gineering Publications Limited, St. Edmunds.
HOWARD,I. C. Suffolk, U.K.
FADDEEV,D. K. and 1963 Computational Methods c$ Linear Algebra. W. H.
FADDEEVA.V. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.
HOM, C. L. and 1988 Anaivtical. Numerical and E.uperinlental Aspects qf
MCMEEKING.R. M. Three Dimensional Fracture Processes. AMD-
Vol. 91 (edited by A. J. ROSAKIS,K. RAVI-
CHANDARand Y. RAJAPAKSE).p. 215. ASME,
New York.
HUTCHINSON,J. W. 1968 J. Mech. Phys. Solidly 16, 13.
LARSSON,S. G. and 1973 J. Mech. Phys. Solids 21, 263.
CARLSSON,A. J.
LEVY,N., MARCAL,P. V. and 1971 Nucl. Engng Design 17, 64.
RICE, J. R.
MCCLINTOCK.F. A. 1971 Fracture: an Advanced Treatise. Vol. 3 (edited by
H. LIEBOWITZ),p. 47. Academic Press. New
York.
MCMEEKING,R. M. 1977 J. Me&. Phys. Solids 25, 357.
MCMEEKING,R. M. and 1979 Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668. p. 153.
PARKS.D. M. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
NAKAMURA,T. and 1988 J. appl. Mech. 55, 805.
PARKS,D. M.
NAKAMURA,T., SHIH, C. F. and 1989 Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics : Vol. I-Time-
FREUND,L. B. Dependent Fracture, ASTM STP 995, p. 217.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia.
NARASIMHAN,R. and 1988 J. Mech. Phys. Solids 36, II.
ROSAKIS,A. J.
NOVAK,S. R. 1976 Mechanics qf Crack Growth, ASTM STP 591,
p. 235, American Sqciety for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia.
RICE, J. R. 1974 J. Mech. Phys. Solids 22, 17.
RICE, J. R. and 1968 J. Mech. Phjv. Solids 16, I.
ROSENGREN, G. F.
RIEDEL,H. and RICE. J. R. 1980 Fracture Mechanics : Twelfth Conference, ASTM
STP 700, p. I 12, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia.
SHIH, C. F. 1981 J. Me&. Ph,w Solids 29, 305.
SHIH, C. F. 1983 Tables of Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren singular
field quantities, Brown University Report,
MRL E-147.
SHIH, C. F. and GERMAN.M. D. 1981 Int. J. Fracture 17, 27.