Arch Appl Mech

DOI 10.1007/s00419-015-1036-1

O R I G I NA L

Angel Mladensky Victor Rizov

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

fracture in single cantilever beam

Received: 12 August 2014 / Accepted: 30 June 2015

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract The present article is concerned with nonlinear fracture behavior of single cantilever beam made of
unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer composite. A theoretical study is performed assuming that the composite follows the stressstrain relation of an elastic-perfectly plastic material in both tension and compression.
For this purpose, a model based on mechanics of materials is used. The fracture investigation is performed
using path-independent J -integral where the contour of integration is chosen to coincide with the beam contour. Several closed-form analytical solutions that correspond to different ratios between crack length and
beam length are obtained. It is shown that when the material nonlinearity is taken into account, an increase
in J -integral value is observed. This finding is attributed to the increase in strain energy dissipation due to
nonlinear deformation.
Keywords Single cantilever beam Mechanics of materials Elasticplastic fracture behavior J -integral

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Delamination crack growth is one of the common failure mechanisms in laminated composites [13]. Therefore,
the investigation of delamination cracks is an important task of composites fracture mechanics. For this purpose,
various beam configurations have been developed. Usually, fracture analysis is carried out in terms of strain
energy release rate G, assuming that the relation between stresses and strains obeys the Hookes law [46].
However, there are unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer composites that do not obey linear relation
between stresses and strains [79]. Besides, there are loading configurations in which the stressstrain curve
does not cover the linear elastic one [10,11]. Furthermore, the invention of new composites possessing high
fracture resistance properties takes place in the last years [1214]. Therefore, in all cases aforementioned,
development of plastic deformations may begin before the onset of crack growth. This fact indicates the need
of fracture behavior analysis that takes into account the material nonlinearity.
A. Mladensky (B) V. Rizov
Technical Mechanics Department, University of Architecture Civil Engineering and Geodesy,
1, Chr. Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, Bulgaria
E-mail: angelm_fhe@uacg.bg
V. Rizov
E-mail: v_rizov_fhe@uacg.bg

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

1.2 Model of investigation

Widely used configuration for experimental analysis of mixed-mode I/II fracture is single cantilever beam
[15,16] (Fig. 1). The beam is made of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer composite where the fibers are
situated along the beam axis and are uniformly distributed in the cross-sectional plane. Such circumstance
and the fact that the beam length is much bigger than dimensions of the cross section allow the composite to
be considered as isotropic material [17,18]. Thus, the following formula for mixed-mode I/II strain energy
release rate has been derived [19,20]:
G=

21F 2 a 2
,
4Eb2 h 3

(1)

where E is the longitudinal modulus of elasticity.

Here, in order to find analytical expressions for J -integral in the case of nonlinear behavior of the material
building SCB, the article assumes that the composite follows an elastic-perfectly plastic stressstrain curve in
both tension and compression (Fig. 2). Such assumption has already been used successfully by Cherepanov
in [21] where he investigates nonlinear fracture of double cantilever beam (DCB) made of unidirectional
fiber-reinforced polymer composite.
It should be mentioned that the active deformation of the beam is considered, i.e., the magnitude of the
external force increases only [22,23].
1.3 Method of investigation
The analysis is performed applying the path-independent J -integral defined as:


 
u
v
J=
+ py
ds,
u 0 cos px
x
x


Fig. 1 Single cantilever beam (SCB)

Fig. 2 Idealized stressstrain diagram of an elastic-perfectly plastic material

(2)

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

where u 0 is the strain energy density, px and p y are the components of the traction vector on the contour ,
u and v are the displacements along the axes x and y, and ds is the infinitesimal part of the contour [24,25].
Integration begins from lower crack arm, goes along contour in counterclockwise direction, and finishes in
upper crack arm (Fig. 3).
It is known that J -integral can be used in the case of linear as well as nonlinear elastic behavior of material.
It should also be noted that in the case of linear elastic behavior, the J -integral value is equal to the value
of strain energy release rate. This circumstance will be used for verification of the solutions obtained in the
present paper.

2 Solution of J-integral in the case of linear elastic behavior of the composite

First step of the solution is determination of support reactions and choice of an integration contour. The
support reactions are found by relevant equilibrium equations and are shown in Fig. 4. The path of integration
is assumed to coincide with the beam contour.
Further, due to the fact that J -integral takes nonzero values only on contour segments covering small length
in the vicinity of the forces application point in section A and entire beam section B, the solution is written
as:
J = J A + JB ,

(3)

where J A and J B are the values in beam sections A and B, respectively (Fig. 4). It should be specified that the
expressions for J -integral which will be determined by means of formula (3) will correspond to mixed-mode
I/II fracture.

Fig. 3 J -integral components

Fig. 4 Free-body diagram and contour of integration

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Fig. 5 Scheme of the beam deformed

2.1 Determination of J A
In order to obtain component J A , formula (2) is transformed into expression:

  
v A
JA =
ds A ,
pyA
x

(4)

where ds A = dx. Traction vector component p y A caused by force F is obtained as

pyA =

F
.
bl

(5)

where l represents small length of integration contour in the vicinity of the forces point of application, while
b is the width of the beam (Fig. 1).
A
After that, the partial derivative v
x , equal to the slope of beam section A (Fig. 5), is derived as:


3F 7a 2 + L 2
v A
=
.
(6)
x
4Ebh 3
Further, expressions (5) and (6) are substituted into (4). The result is:

 




3F 7a 2 + L 2
3F 2 7a 2 + L 2
F

dx =
.
bl
4Ebh 3
4Eb2 h 3

a+l


JA =
a

(7)

2.2 Determination of J B
The following expression for J B is used:


 
u B
ds B .
JB =
u 0 B cos px B
x

(8)

Here, u 0 B is the strain energy density, px B is traction vector component in section B, ds B = dy, and cos = 1.
Strain energy density is:
u0B =

px2B
2E

(9)

where
px B =
Here, I =

2bh 3
3

MB
FL
3F L
y.
y=
y=
I
I
2bh 3

is the principal moment of inertia of whole beam cross section.

(10)

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

It should be noted that only bending moment is taken into account because the object under consideration
is beam of great length and shearing stresses contribution is neglected.
Further,


1
9F 2 L 2 2
3F L 2
u0B =
y
=
y .
(11)

2E
2bh 3
8Eb2 h 6
After that, the partial derivative

u B
x

is written as:

u B
px
3F L
y.
= x B = B =
x
E
2Ebh 3
Thus, the expression for J B is obtained as:
h 
JB =
h


9F 2 L 2 2
3F L
3F L
3F 2 L 2
y
.1

y
dy =
.
2
6
3
3
8Eb h
2bh
2Ebh
4Eb2 h 3

(12)

(13)

2.3 Determination of J
Finally, by substitution of (7) and (13) into (3) the following formula is found:


3F 2 7a 2 + L 2
3F 2 L 2
21F 2 a 2
J=

=
.
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3

(14)

2.4 Verification of solution

The validity of (14) is established by comparison with formula (1). It is obvious that the two expressions
completely match.
3 Solution of J-integral in the case of elasticplastic behavior of the composite
3.1 Preliminary considerations
In the process of increase in external force magnitude, the plastic deformations may begin either at section B
or at section D first. It should be mentioned that, in order to justify such assumption, the lower crack arm is
considered as a cantilever beam of length a and fixed support at section D (Fig. 6).
Moreover, it is possible that plastic deformations begin simultaneously in the both sections B and D. Here,
these possibilities are investigated in detail. As a beginning, it is assumed that the yield stress level is attained
in the remotest edges of the both sections simultaneously. Hence,
max x D = f y =

MD
6Fa
=
,
W2
bh 2

Fig. 6 Scheme of SCB where section D is defined (shown as fixed support)

(15)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

max x B = f y =

MB
3F L
,
=
W
2bh 2

(16)

where F is the magnitude of the external force corresponding to the level of stresses in the remotest edges
2
2
equal to yield stress level, while W2 = bh6 and W = 2bh
3 are the section moduli of the lower crack arm and
whole beam cross sections, respectively.
Further, equalizing the right-hand sides of (15) and (16), it is obtained La = 41 . This result can be interpreted
as a dividing point for occurrence of plastic deformations in beam, i.e., when La < 41 , plastic deformations
occur at section B first; when La > 41 , plastic deformations occur at section D first; when La = 41 , plastic
deformations occur at the both sections simultaneously.
Next inspection has an aim to establish the possibility the plastic zones to start forming near one of the
dangerous sections (B or D), while the plastic strains have already been developed near the other one. Firstly,
the case is considered when the quotient La < 14 . It is supposed that plastic hinge forms at beam section B; this
corresponds to the magnitude of the force Fu determined using formula:
M B,u
Fu L
=
,
Wu
bh 2

x B,u = f y =

(17)

where Wu = bh 2 is the section modulus of the whole beam cross section corresponding to the instant when
plastic hinge occurs [2628]. Rearranging (17), it is obtained:
f y bh 2
.
L

Fu =

(18)

Further, it is assumed that, at the same instant, the lower crack arm continues to work in linear elastic regime.
Then, the force Fu is used to find the magnitude of the stresses in the remotest edges of beam section D.
Applying (15) in which Fu is introduced instead of F, the following result is obtained:
x D (Fu ) =

6 fya
.
L

(19)

The analysis of (19) shows that the plastic deformations can occur in beam section D, while two plastic zones
have already been formed in B.
Finally, it should be mentioned that one more possibility exists. If the quotient La is smaller than 16 , then
the plastic hinge occurs at section B before stresses in the remotest edges of the lower crack arm section D
reach yield stress level.
Similar investigation is performed in the case when La > 41 . Here, the formation of plastic hinge is supposed
in section D; the magnitude of the force Fu 2 is obtained using the expression:
x D,u = f y =

M D,u
4Fu 2 a
=
,
W2,u
bh 2

(20)

where W2,u = bh4 is the section modulus of the lower crack arm cross section corresponding to the instant
when plastic hinge takes place [2628]. The following result is derived:
Fu 2 =

f y bh 2
.
4a

(21)

Then, it is assumed that the material building the un-cracked beam portion still works in linear elastic regime.
Thus, in order to find the magnitude of the stresses in the remotest edges of beam section B, force Fu 2 is used
in (16) instead of F. The result is:
  3 fy L
x B Fu 2 =
,
8a

(22)

and it shows that the formation of plastic zones in section B while section D already works in elasticplastic
regime is possible.

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

Fig. 7 Diagrams of normal stresses and linear strains in beam section B (the force has magnitude F1 )

Again, an important note should be made. If the quotient La is bigger than 38 , then plastic hinge occurs at
the lower crack arm section D before stresses in the remotest edges of section B reach yield stress level.
The final part of this inspection is to analyze the development of plastic deformations in the case when
a
1
=
L
4 . Now, the first step is to determine and compare the ultimate stresses (i.e., the stresses corresponding
to the formation of plastic hinge in sections B and D). The magnitude of the force is supposed F u . Then,
expressions (17) and (20) are used and the following results are obtained:
 
Fu L
x B F u = f y =
,
bh 2
 
4F u a
.
x D F u = f y =
bh 2
After that, the comparison of the right-hand sides of (23) and (24) yields
formation of plastic zones in the both section occurs simultaneously.

3.2 First case: quotient

a
L

(23)
(24)
a
L

= 41 . This result means that the

< 41 : plastic deformations occur at section B first

3.2.1 First step: stresses in the remotest edges of beam section B attain yield stress level
Here, it is assumed that the external force applied to the beam attains magnitude F1 . Thus, the moment arising
in beam section B when the stresses in the remotest edges reach the yield stress level has magnitude M = F1 L
(Fig. 7).
The case can be described as limited one, i.e., expression (14) stands, but the magnitude of the force is F1 :
J=

21F12 a 2
.
4Eb2 h 3

(25)

After that, the force F1 is obtained as a function of f y . For this purpose, formula (16) is used and the following
result is obtained:
F1 =

2 f y bh 2
.
3L

(26)

Then, J -integral solution is obtained as:

J=

7 f y2 a 2 h
3E L 2

(27)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Fig. 8 Free-body diagram and formation of two plastic zones near beam section B when the magnitude of the force is F2

3.2.2 Second step: two plastic zones start forming near beam section B, while the stresses in the remotest
edges of section D are smaller than f y
The external force attains magnitude F2 which corresponds to formation of plastic zones in beam section B
(Fig. 8). This is due to the fact that stresses cannot exceed yield stress level. On the other side, the lower crack
arm still works in linear elastic regime.
Determination of J A
Here, J A is determined according to expression (4) where ds A = d x again and p y A obeys formula (5) with
magnitude of the force F2 . However, since the plastic deformations occur in the fixed support B, the partial
A
derivative v
x is obtained following [27] in more complicated way as:


3F2 (xel + a)2 a 2
v A
6F2 a 2
+
=
x
Ebh 3
4Ebh 3 


3F12 L 2
F2
F2 (xel + a)
,
+
32
32
2F2 Ebh 3
F1
F1 L

(28)

where xel is the distance from the crack tip to the section where plastic zones spread out (Fig. 8). According
to [27], this distance is determined using condition that the magnitude of the moment at distance xel is equal
to the moment causing stresses equal to f y . The result is:
xel =

F1 L F2 a
.
F2

(29)

Then, the substitution of (29) into (28) yields:






3 F12 L 2 F22 a 2
3F12 L 2
v A
F2
6F2 a 2
1 32
,
+

=
x
Ebh 3
4F2 Ebh 3
2F2 Ebh 3
F1

(30)

Further, the expression for J -integral in section A takes the form:






3 F12 L 2 F22 a 2
6F22 a 2
3F12 L 2
F2
1 32
.
+

JA =
Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
2Eb2 h 3
F1

(31)

Determination of J B
Formation of plastic zones in beam section B leads to different distributions of stresses and strains. Therefore,
J -integral is resolved into two components:
J B = J B,el + J B,pl ,

(32)

where J B,el is the value in elastic zone and J B, pl is the value in plastic zones of the cross section (Fig. 9).

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

Fig. 9 Diagrams of normal stresses and linear strains in beam section B (magnitude of the force is F2 )

J B,el is determined according to the formula:

h el 
J B,el =
h el

u B
u 0 B,el cos px B,el
x


ds B ,

(33)

where ds B = dy and cos = 1.

Traction vector component in the elastic zone of the cross section obeys the condition:
px B,el =

3F2 L
y.
2bh 3

(34)

Although the plastic deformations occur, linear strains are linearly distributed along the cross-sectional height,
that is:
u B
1
= x B = y,
x

where

(35)

is the curvature ( is the radius of curvature of the neutral axis of the beam), obtained as [27]:
1
3F1 L

.
=

2Ebh 3 3 2 F2

(36)

F1

Further, the following result is derived for linear strains:

3F1 L
u B

y.
= x B =
x
2Ebh 3 3 2 F2

(37)

F1

Then, the strain energy density is evaluated as:

u 0 B,el

1
1
3F
3F2 L
L
1

= px B,el x B =
y
y

F2
2
2
2bh 3
3
2Ebh 3 2
F1

L2

9F1 F2

y2.
F
2
8Eb2 h 6 3 2 F1

(38)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Fig. 10 Strain energy density in the plastic zones of the beam section B

Finally, the substitution of (34), (37), and (38) into (33) gives:


h el

2
3F1 L
3F2 L
9F1 F2 L
dy



y 2 .1
y
J B,el =
8Eb2 h 6 3 2 F2

2bh 3
2Ebh 3 3 2 F2
h el

F1

h el

2
9F1 F2 L
3F1 F2 L 2


=

y 2 dy =
h 3el .
8Eb2 h 6 3 2 F2
F2
2
6
4Eb h 3 2
h el

F1

F1

(39)

F1

Using [28], the height of the elastic zone of the cross section is obtained as:

3F2 L
.
h el = h 3
f y bh 3

(40)

Then, (26) is substituted into (40) and the result for h el is:

h el = h 3 2

F2
.
F1

(41)

After that, J -integral in elastic zone of beam section B takes the form:
J B,el =

3F2 (3F1 2F2 ) L 2

.
4Eb2 h 3

(42)

Furthermore, J B,pl is determined applying the following formula:

h 
J B,pl = 2
h el

u B
u 0 B,pl cos px B,pl
x


ds B ,

(43)

where number 2 before the integral stands for the fact that two plastic zones exist (Fig. 9).
Traction vector component in the plastic zones is equal to yield stress limit, that is:
px B,pl = f y ,

(44)

while expression (37) gives the distribution of linear strains.

However, due to the elasticplastic deformation in beam section B, strain energy density is obtained using
the fact that it is equal to the area enclosed by the stressstrain diagram of the material [2932]. Taking into
f
account the fact that y = Ey and x = x B , this area is calculated as (Fig. 10):

fy
fy
1
3F1 L


u 0 B,pl = f y y + f y (x y ) =
y + .
(45)
F
2
2
E
2
Ebh 3 3 2
F1

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

Then, substituting (44), (37), and (45) into (43), it is obtained:

J B,pl = 2

h

h el

h
=2

fy
fy
3F1 L
3F1 L



y + .1 f y
2
F
E
Ebh 3 3 2 F21
2Ebh 3 3 2 FF21
f y2
2E

dy =

f y2
E

(h h el ) .

y dy

(46)

h el

After that, (41) is substituted in (46). The result is:

J B,pl =

f y2 h
E

F2
.
32
F1

(47)

Further, expression (47) is rearranged in order to obtain a more suitable form. This is performed using formula
(26). The following result is found:

J B,pl




9F12 L 2
F2
1 32
.
=
4Eb2 h 3
F1

(48)

Finally, (42) and (48) are substituted into (32). The following formula is obtained:



9F12 L 2
3F2 (3F1 2F2 ) L 2
F2
1 32
.
+
JB =
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F1

(49)

Determination of J
Expressions (31) and (49) are substituted into (3). The result for J -integral is:


3 F12 L 2 F22 a 2
6F22 a 2
3F2 (3F1 2F2 ) L 2
+

J =
2 3
Eb2 h 3
4Eb
4Eb2 h 3
 h


3F 2 L 2
F2
.
+ 12 3 1 3 2
4Eb h
F1

(50)

Verification of solution
Expression (14) is used in order to prove the validity of (50). Since (14) is obtained for the case of linear elastic
behavior of the beam, the magnitudes of the forces are substituted equal to F into (50). The result is:


3 F 2 L 2 F 2a2
6F 2 a 2
3F (3F 2F) L 2
J =
+

2h3
Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
 4Eb


21F 2 a 2
3F 2 L 2
F
1 32
=
+
.
2
3
4Eb h
F
4Eb2 h 3
Comparison between (51) and (14) reveals that the two expressions are the same.

(51)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Fig. 11 Free-body diagram and formation of two plastic zones near lower crack arm section D when the magnitude of the force
is F4

3.2.3 Third step: two plastic zones continue to grow near beam section B, while the stresses in the remotest
edges of the lower crack arm section D become equal to f y
Now, the external force attains magnitude F3 . Increase in the force leads to the fact that the stresses in the
remotest edges of section D become equal to f y , while the growth of the plastic zones near section B continues.
The case should be considered as limited one for linear elastic behavior of the lower crack arm. Therefore,
formula (50) can be applied in which force F3 is introduced instead of F2 , i.e.,


3 F12 L 2 F32 a 2
6F32 a 2
3F3 (3F1 2F3 ) L 2
J =
+

2 3
Eb2 h 3
4Eb
4Eb2 h 3
 h


3F 2 L 2
F3
.
+ 12 3 1 3 2
4Eb h
F1

(52)

It should be mentioned that (52) can be rearranged in the manner that J -integral to depend on f y only. First,
applying (15), the force F3 is expressed as:
F3 =

f y bh 2
.
6a

(53)

Then, (26) and (53) are substituted into (6). The following result is obtained:
J=

23 f y2 h
48E

f y2 h L (6a L)
24Ea 2

f y2 h
3E

L
.
3
2a

(54)

3.2.4 Fourth step: two plastic zones start forming near the lower crack arm section D while two plastic zones
continue to grow near beam section B
Here, the increase in the force magnitude is the reason that two plastic zones arise in the lower crack arm
section D while the plastic strains near beam section B continue to develop (Fig. 11).
Determination of J A
The expression (4) is applied again in order to obtain J A -component. The traction vector component in beam
section A is determined in accordance with formula (5) in which the magnitude of the force is F4 . However, in
this case the plastic strains develop in the both sections B and D of the beam. Therefore, the partial derivative,
v A
x , is derived according to [27] as:

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic






2
6F4 x2,el
3F4 (xel + a)2 a 2
12F32 a 2
F4
F4 x2,el
v A

32
32
=
+
x
Ebh 3
F4 Ebh 3
F3
F3 a
4Ebh 3



3F12 L 2
F4
F4 (xel + a)
+
32
32
,
2F4 Ebh 3
F1
F1 L

(55)

where xel and x2,el are the distances to which the plastic zones near beam sections B and D, respectively, have
already developed (Fig. 11). They are determined by the conditions that the magnitudes of the moments at
distances xel and x2,el are equal to the moment causing stresses equal to f y in the both beam sections. The
result is:
F1 L F4 a
,
F4
F3
=
a.
F4

xel =
x2,el

(56)
(57)

Further, the substitution of (56) and (57) into (55) gives:






3 F12 L 2 F42 a 2
12F32 a 2
6F32 a 2
v A
F4
1 32
+
+
=
x
F4 Ebh 3
F4 Ebh 3
F3
4F4 Ebh 3



3F12 L 2
F4
1 32
.

2F4 Ebh 3
F1

(58)

Finally, the following formula is obtained for J A :






3 F12 L 2 F42 a 2
6F32 a 2
12F32 a 2
F4
JA =
1 32
+
+
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F3
4Eb2 h 3



3F12 L 2
F4
1 32
.

2Eb2 h 3
F1

(59)

Determination of J B
The case similar to this one has already been considered in Sect. 3.2.2. Therefore, the expression for J B repeats
(49) where the force F2 is replaced by F4 , i.e.,



9F12 L 2
3F4 (3F1 2F4 ) L 2
F4
JB =
1 32
.
+
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F1

(60)

Determination of J
Expressions (59) and (60) are substituted into (3). The result is:





3 F12 L 2 F42 a 2
6F32 a 2
12F32 a 2
F4
J =
1 32
+
+
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F3
4Eb2 h 3



3F12 L 2
3F4 (3F1 2F4 ) L 2
F4
1 32
.

+
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F1

(61)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Verification of solution
The validity of (61) is established by comparison with (14). In order to perform this, the magnitude of each
force in (61) is assumed to be equal to F. The result is:





3 F 2 L 2 F 2a2
6F 2 a 2
12F 2 a 2
F
J =
1 32
+
+
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F
4Eb2 h 3



3F (3F 2F) L 2
3F 2 L 2
F
21F 2 a 2
1 32

+
.
=
2
3
2
3
4Eb h
4Eb h
F
4Ebh 3

(62)

It is obvious that (62) completely coincides with (14).

3.2.5 Special case: quotient

a
L

<

1
6

As it has already been mentioned, if La < 16 , then the plastic hinge occurs in section B while the lower crack
arm works in linear elastic regime. The situation is similar to the case considered in Sect. 3.2.2. Therefore,
formula (50) should be applied for determination of J -integral.

3.3 Second case: Quotient

a
L

> 41 : plastic deformations occur at section D first

3.3.1 First step: stresses in the remotest edges of beam section D attain yield stress level
The force applied to the beam takes magnitude FI . This force causes the moment of magnitude M = FI a in
beam section D corresponding to the level of stresses in the remotest edges of this beam section equal to yield
stress level (Fig. 12).
This can be interpreted as a boundary case for J -integral, i.e., the formula (14) is valid, but the magnitude
of the force is FI , i.e.,
J=

21FI2 a 2
.
4Eb2 h 3

(63)

Further, force FI in (63) is expressed as a function of f y using formula (15). The result is:
FI =

f y bh 2
.
6a

(64)

Finally, substituting (63) into (62), J -integral expression takes the form:
J=

7 f y2 h
48E

(65)

3.3.2 Second step: two plastic zones start forming near the lower crack arm section D, while the stresses in
the remotest edges of beam section B are smaller than f y
The force magnitude is FI I . This level of the load corresponds to the development of plastic strains in lower
crack arm section D (Fig. 13) which is due to the fact that the normal stresses cannot exceed yield stress limit.
At the same instant, the stresses in the remotest edges of beam section B are lower than f y .

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

Fig. 12 Diagrams of normal stresses and linear strains in beam section D (the force has magnitude FI )

Fig. 13 Free-body diagram and formation of two plastic zones near lower crack arm section D when the magnitude of the force
is FI I

Determination of J A
Similar to the previous cases, expression (4) is used for determination of J A where the traction vector component
A
p y A obeys formula (5). The magnitude of the force is FI I . The partial derivative v
x is obtained as:





2
6FI I x2,el
3FI I L 2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
v A
FI I
FI I x2,el

32
32
.
(66)
=
+
x
Ebh 3
FI I Ebh 3
FI
FI a
4Ebh 3
Here, x2,el is the distance to which the plastic strains near lower crack arm section D are developed (Fig. 13).
It is obtained in the similar way like the same distances in the previous section, and the result is:
x2,el =

FI
a.
FI I

Then, the substitution of (67) into (66) leads to the formula:






3FI I L 2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
6FI2 a 2
v A
FI I
1 32
+
+
.
=
x
FI I Ebh 3
FI I Ebh 3
FI
4Ebh 3

(67)

(68)

Thus, the final expression for J A is:






3FI2I L 2 a 2
6FI2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI I
1 32
+
+
.
JA =
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
FI
4Eb2 h 3

(69)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Determination of J B
Since the beam section B still works in linear elastic regime, formula (13) is used for J B , but the magnitude
of the force is FI I , i.e.,
JB =

3FI2I L 2
.
4Eb2 h 3

(70)

Determination of J
Finally, (69) and (70) are substituted into (3). The expression for J -integral takes the form:



6FI2 a 2
3FI2I a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI I
J=
1

+
3

2
.
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
FI
4Eb2 h 3

(71)

Verification of solution
Formula (71) is verified by comparison with (14). The forces FI and FI I are supposed equal to F, and the
following result is found:



6F 2 a 2
12F 2 a 2
F
21F 2 a 2
3F 2 a 2
J=
1

+
3

2
=
.

Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3

(72)

It is clear that (72) completely covers (14).

3.3.3 Third step: two plastic zones continue to grow near the lower crack arm section D, while the stresses in
the remotest edges of beam section B become equal to f y
Next level of external load, namely force of magnitude FI I I , causes the normal stresses in the remotest edges
of beam section B equal to f y . Meanwhile, the two plastic zones spread out in the vicinity of the lower crack
arm section D. This case should be described as limited one meaning that expression (71) can be used for
J -integral, but the force FI I I is introduced in it instead of FI I , that is:



6FI2 a 2
3FI2I I a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI I I
J=
1

+
3

2
.
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
FI
4Eb2 h 3

(73)

Further, it is possible formula (73) to be rearranged in order to obtain J -integral solution as a function of f y
only. Firstly, applying (16) where the force is taken equal to FI I I , the following result is obtained:
FI I I =

2 f y bh 2
.
3L

(74)

Secondly, (64) and (74) are substituted into (73). The final solution for J -integral is:
J=

f y2 h
6E

f y2 h
3E

8a
3
L

f y2 ha 2
3E L 2

(75)

3.3.4 Fourth step: two plastic zones start forming near beam section B while the two plastic zones continue
to grow near the lower crack arm section D
The magnitude of the external force becomes equal to FI V . Thus, the plastic strains are developed in the both
dangerous sections of the beamB and D (Fig. 14).

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

Fig. 14 Free-body diagram and formation of two plastic zones near beam section B when the magnitude of the force is FI V

Determination of J A
Expression (4) is used for obtaining of J A again. The traction vector component in beam section A follows
(5), but the magnitude of the force is FI V .
A
The partial derivative v
x is evaluated, and the following result is derived:





2
6FI V x2,el
3FI V (xel + a)2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI V
FI V x2,el
v A

32
32
=
+
x
Ebh 3
F4 Ebh 3
FI
FI a
4Ebh 3



3FI2I I L 2
FI V
FI V (xel + a)
+
32
32
,
2F4 Ebh 3
FI I I
FI I I L

(76)

where xel and x2,el are the distances to which the plastic strains near beam sections B and D, respectively,
have already spread out (Fig. 14). These distances are obtained according to the condition that the magnitudes
of the moments are equal to the moments causing stresses equal to f y in the both dangerous beam sections.
The result is:
FI I I L FI V a
,
FI V
FI
=
a.
FI V

xel =
x2,el

Further, the substitution of (77) and (78) into (76) gives:






3 FI2I I L 2 FI2V a 2
12FI2 a 2
6FI2 a 2
v A
FI V
1 32
+
+
=
x
FI V Ebh 3
FI V Ebh 3
FI
4FI V Ebh 3



3FI2I I L 2
FI V
1 32
.

2FI V Ebh 3
FI I I

(77)
(78)

(79)

Finally, the final expression for J A is obtained as:






3 FI2I I L 2 FI2V a 2
6FI2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI V
1 32
+
+
JA =
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
FI
4Eb2 h 3



3F 2 L 2
FI V
.
I I 2I 3 1 3 2
2Eb h
FI I I

(80)

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Determination of J B
Such case has already been discussed in Sect. 3.2.2. Because of this fact, the expression similar to (49) is used
in order to obtain J B . However, instead of F1 and F2 the forces FI I I and FI V are introduced into (49). The
result is:



9FI2I I L 2
3FI V (3FI I I 2FI V ) L 2
FI V
JB =
1 32
.
(81)
+
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
FI I I
Determination of J
Formulas (80) and (81) are substituted into (3) in order to obtain J -integral solution. The final expression is:





3 FI2I I L 2 FI2V a 2
6FI2 a 2
12FI2 a 2
FI V
J =
1 32
+
+
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
FI
4Eb2 h 3



3FI2I I L 2
3FI V (3FI I I 2FI V ) L 2
FI V
1 32
.
(82)

+
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
FI I I
Verification of solution
The check for validity of (82) is performed using (14) again. The magnitude of all forces in (82) is supposed
equal to F. Thus, the following result is obtained:




3 F 2 L 2 F 2a2
6F 2 a 2
12F 2 a 2
F
J =

32 1 +
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F
4Eb2 h 3



3F (3F 2F) L 2
3F 2 L 2
F
21F 2 a 2
1

+
3

2
.
(83)
=
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F
4Ebh 3
It is clear that (82) repeats in full (14).
3.3.5 Special case: quotient

a
L

>

3
8

Here, the possibility La bigger than 38 is considered. It has been shown that in this case the plastic hinge occurs
in section D while the un-cracked beam portion works in linear elastic stage. Since the similar situation has
already been analyzed in Sect. 3.3.2, it should be noted that expression (71) has to be used to obtain J -integral.

3.4 Third case: quotient

beam sections B and D

a
L

= 41 : plastic deformations occur simultaneously in the both

3.4.1 First step: stresses in the remotest edges of beam sections B and D attain yield stress level f y
When the normal stresses in the remotest edges of beam sections B and D become equal to yield stress level
simultaneously, the case should be considered as a limited one for linear elastic behavior. Therefore, formula
(14) is used to obtain the value of J -integral where the magnitude of the force is F, i.e.,
2

J=

21F a 2
.
4Eb2 h 3

(84)

It should be noted that F can be expressed as a function of f y by application of (15) and (16). The final result
for J -integral is obtained as:
J=

7 f y2 h
48E

7 f y2 ha 2
3E L 2

(85)

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

3.4.2 Second step: two plastic zones start forming near beam sections B and D simultaneously
The case here repeats these ones in Sects. 3.2.4 and 3.3.4. Therefore, the formula for J -integral is the same
like (61) and (82), but the forces are F and F, i.e.,


2


2
3 F L 2 F a2
2 2
2 2
12F a
6F a
F
+
1 32 +
J =
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F
"
#


2
3F 3F 2F L 2
F
3F L 2

+
1 32
.
(86)
4Eb2 h 3
4Eb2 h 3
F
Verification of solution
Expression (86) is validated by comparison with (14). The magnitude of the forces F and F are assumed equal
to F. The result is:




3 F 2 L 2 F 2a2
6F 2 a 2
12F 2 a 2
F
J =

32 1 +
Eb2 h 3
Eb2 h 3
F
4Eb2 h 3



21F 2 a 2
3F (3F 2F) L 2
3F 2 L 2
F
1 32
=

+
,
(87)
2
3
2
3
4Eb h
4Eb h
F
4Eb2 h 3
and it testifies that the solution is correct.
4 Influence of the material nonlinearity on J-integral
In order to investigate how the inclusion of plastic deformations influences on J -integral, the material building
the beam is chosen to be unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer composite Narmco 5505 Boron-Epoxy of
properties E = 213 109 Pa and f y = 1210 106 Pa [33]. Besides, dimensions of the beam are assumed
b = 0.02 m, h = 0.0015 m, a = 0.03 m, and L = 0.15 m. Thus, La = 15 < 41 .
Firstly, applying (26) and (18), the important magnitudes F1 and Fu of the force are calculated as:
2 f y bh 2
2 1210 106 0.02 0.00152
=
= 242N,
3L
3 0.15
f y bh 2
1210 106 0.02 0.00152
Fu =
=
= 363N.
L
0.15
It should be noted that F1 is the force value determining the end of the linear elastic regime of material
work, while Fu is the force corresponding to formation of plastic hinge in beam section B, i.e., force causing
collapse of the structure.
Next step is J -integral values to be calculated for several force magnitudes including F1 in order to
investigate both linear and nonlinear behavior of composite. The step of 40N is chosen, and the magnitudes of
the force are assumed 120N, 160N, 200N, 242N, 280N, 320N, and 360N. It should be mentioned that the last
value of the force is chosen to be as close as possible, but smaller than Fu . Further, the unlimited validity of
Hookes law regardless of the force magnitudes is supposed and formula (14) is used to obtain the J -integral
values corresponding to the above magnitudes of the forces.
The diagram of the influence of material nonlinearity on J -integral is shown in Fig. 15. It should be
specified that branch Jlinear of the diagram is drawn by dashed line, because, actually, it does not exist after
force F1 = 242N. Here, the only purpose is to compare such branch to the nonlinear one.
First of all, it is obvious that the inclusion of nonlinear material behavior increases the value of J -integral.
This fact could be attributed to the strain energy dissipation due to the existence of plastic deformations.
Furthermore, if the expressions derived in the article are considered as giving a critical value of J -integral
(the magnitude at which crack has just impended to grow), then the graphs in Fig. 15 testifies that the prerequisite
about elasticplastic work of the composite increases this critical value. Therefore, it can be concluded that
composite material possesses additional capacity to resist the fracture.
F1 =

A. Mladensky and V. Rizov

Fig. 15 Diagram J -integral value vs. force F for analysis of material nonlinearity influence

5 Conclusions
A theoretical study of mixed-mode I/II fracture that takes into account the material nonlinearity is carried out
for single cantilever beam configuration. The delamination crack is situated in the middle of the beam cross
section, i.e., the two crack arms have equal heights. The load is a vertical force applied at the free end of the
lower crack arm.
In order to analyze nonlinear fracture behavior, it is supposed that the beam obeys the stressstrain relation
of an elastic-perfectly plastic material. Moreover, the magnitude of the external force is restricted to increase
only.
The investigation is performed by application of J -integral approach. A model based on mechanics of
materials is used. First, the J -integral solution is obtained in the case of linear elastic behavior of the beam
configuration. The validity of the solution is proved by comparison with known formula for strain energy
release rate, G. Further, the analysis that indicated that the development of plastic strains in dangerous beam
sections B and D depends on the quotient between the crack and beam length is performed. When this quotient
is smaller than 41 , the plastic zones are formed near section B first; when La > 41 , the plastic deformation occurs
near the lower crack arm section D first; and finally, when La = 41 , the plastic deformation occurs near both
sections B and D simultaneously. Thus, several solutions of J -integral are obtained at different levels of
stresses and strains in sections B and D.
The analysis reveals that taking into account the material nonlinearity the increase in J -integral value
is achieved. This finding is explained with the strain energy dissipation caused by development of plastic
deformation in the beam.

References
1. Gong X.-J., Benzeggagh, M.: Mixed mode interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composite materials.
In: R.H. Martin (ed.) Fatigue and FractureFifth Volume, ASTM STP 1230. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 100-123 (1995)
2. Kevin, T.: Interlaminar fracture toughness: the long and winding road to standardization. Compos. Part B 29B, 5762 (1998)
3. Liu, A.: Mechanics and Mechanisms of Fracture: An Introduction. ASM International, Geauga (2005)
4. Benzeggagh, M.L., Kenane, M.: Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy
composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos. Sci. Technol. 56, 439449 (1996)
5. Szekrenyes, A., Uj, J.: Comparison of some improved solutions for mixed-mode composite delamination coupons. Compos.
Struct. 72, 321329 (2006)
6. Szekrenyes, A., Uj, J.: Application of elastic foundation beams in composite fracture mechanicsanalysis of the ELS
specimen. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Springer Hungarica, Budapest, vol. I,
pp. 191195 (2004)
7. Gates, T.S., Chen, J.L., Sun, C.T.: Micromechanical Characterization of Nonlinear Behavior of Advanced Polymer Matrix
Composites, NASA Technical Memorandum 109129. Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (1994)

Application of J -integral for investigation of elasticplastic

8. Haj-Ali, R., Wang, S.S.: Nonlinear behavior of fiber composite materials and its effect on the postbuckling response of
laminated plates. In: Technical Report 1 90-10, National Center for Composite Materials Research at University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign (1990)
9. Hashin, Z., Bagchi, D., Rosen, B.W.: Non-linear behaviour of fiber composite laminates. Report for NASA, Washington,
DC (1974)
10. Lin, W.-P., Hu, H.-T.: Nonlinear analysis of fiber-reinforced composite laminates subjected to uniaxial tensile load. J.
Compos. Mater. 36(12), 14291450 (2002)
11. Hung S.-C., Liechti, K.M.: Nonlinear multiaxial behavior and failure of fiber-reinforced composites. In: Schapery, R.A.,
Sun, C.T. (eds.) Time Dependent and Nonlinear Effects in Polymers and Composites, ASTM STP 1357. American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA (2000) pp. 176222
12. Nassar, A., Nassar, E.: Study on mechanical properties of epoxy polymer reinforced with nanoSiC particles. Nanosci.
Nanoeng 1(2), 8993 (2013)
13. Panda, B., Mohanti, S., Nayak, S.K.: Mechanical behavior and fracture toughness evaluation of multiphase polymer nanocomposites using impact and J -integral via locus method. Chin. J. Eng. 2013, 10 (2013). doi:10.1155/2013/245718
14. Arencon, D., Velasco, J.I.: Fracture toughness of polypropylene-based particulate composites. Materials 2, 20462094
(2009)
15. Hodgkinson, J.M.: Mechanical Testing of Advanced Fiber Composites. Imperial College, London (2000)
16. Carlsson, L.A., Pipes, R.B.: Experimental Characterization of Advanced Composite Materials. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Inc., Lancaster (1997)
17. Kaw, Autar, K., Aular, K., Kaw, : Mechanics of Composite Materials. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1997)
18. Gibson, R.F.: Principles of Composite Material Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)
19. Hashemi, S., Kinloch, J., Williams, J.G.: The effects of geometry, rate and temperature on mode I, mode II and mixed-mode
I/II interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon-fibre/poly(ether-ether ketone) composites. J. Compos. Mater. 24, 918956
(1990)
20. Szekrenyes, A., Uj, J.: Analysis of the interlaminar crack initiation in mixed-mode I + II composite fracture specimens.
Period. Polytech. Mech. Eng. 47(2), 103118 (2003)
21. Cherepanov, G.P.: Composite Materials Fracture Mechanics. Nauka, Moscow (1983)
22. Ilyushin, A.A.: Plasticity, Vol. 1: Elastic-Plastic Strains. OGIZ, Moscow (1948)
23. Kachanov, L.M.: Fundamentals of the Theory of Plasticity. Nauka, Moscow (1969)
24. Rice, J.R.: A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J. Appl.
Mech. 35, 379386 (1968)
25. Cherepanov, G.: Brittle Materials Fracture Mechanics. Nauka, Moscow (1974)
26. Timoshenko, S.: Strength of Materials, Part II: Advanced Theory and Problems. Nauka, Moscow (1965)
27. Kishkilov, M., Apostolov, R.: Introduction in Theory of Plasticity. UACEG, Sofia (1984)
28. Bezuhov, N.I.: Theory of Elasticity and Plasticity. GITTL, Moscow (1953)
29. Hoff, N.J.: The Analysis of Structures. Wiley, New York (1956)
30. Nadai, A.: Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids, vol. 2. McGraw-Hill, New York (1963)
31. Seely, F.B., Smith, J.O.: Advanced Mechanics of Materials. Wiley, New York (1967)
32. Washizu, K.: Variational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1974)
33. Composite Materials Handbook: Volume 2: Polymer Matrix Composites Material Properties. Department of Defense, USA
17 (2002)