Fracture Analysis of Compact Tension Specimen

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT
Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016
FRACTURE ANALYSIS OF COMPACT

TENSION SPECIMEN
Mr.S.SHEIK SULAIMAN1*,Mr.K.KRISHNA MOORTHY2*, Mr. JERMY JEBA SAMUEL3*
Assistant Professor/Mechanical Engineering, Francis Xavier Engineering College, Tirunelveli, India1
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate the adequacy of current J-estimation models commonly used
in elastic-plastic analysis of ductile cracked structures. The analyses involve elastic-plastic fracture mechanics
for underlying derministic calculations, representation of uncertainties in loads, crack size, and material
properties involving both tensile and fracture toughness characteristics, and standard computational methods
of structural theory. The problem specifications of CT specimen are also presented for two dimensional
cracked structures.
Keywords: elastic-plastic fracture mechanics: J-integral; crack; J-estimation analytical method.
1. Introduction
In engineering applications, most of the
hardware components are in the form of plates.
Commonly used sections like angles, I-beams,
channels, rectangular tubes, etc., are made of flat
plate sections. Even in a circular tube with a crack
having its length much smaller than the diameter of
the tube, the region around the crack tip may be
regarded as a flat plate. Thus, a study of crack in a
flat encompasses many engineering applications. The
theory of fracture mechanics provides a relationship
between the maximum permissible load acting on a
structural component to the size and location of a
crack in the component. Cracked components made
of materials in nuclear power plants, chemical and
fossil plants, automobiles, and aerospace and aircraft
propulsion systems pose a serious threat to structural
integrity. In EPFM, the crack-driving force is
frequently described in terms of J-integral. The Jintegral is an appropriate fracture parameter that
describes the crack-tip stress and strain fields
adequately when there are no constraint effects. The
evaluation of J-integral has been based on elasticplastic finite element method (FEM). Using FEM,
one can calculate J for any crack geometry and load
conditions. However, it is also useful for routine
engineering calculations. In this paper presents the
EPFM analysis of alloy steel 40Ni2Cr1Mo28 grade
has been analyzed by using the parameter Jintegral. And the fracture analysis of compact tension
specimen for different crack length and various crack
length to width ratio is also analyzed by using the
Finite Element software ANSYS.
1.1. Linear
(LEFM)
Elastic Fracture
Linear Elastic Fracture mechanics is a

branch of fracture mechanics, where only elastic
analysis is carried out to determine stress and
displacement fields near a crack tip with
characterizing parameters like the stress intensity
factor (SIF).It is worth mentioning here that the
energy release rate (G) has also been formulated for
LEFM.
1.1.1. Stress intensity factor (K)

Stress intensity factor (K), is the relationship
between the local stresses near a crack depends on
the product of the nominal stress and the square root
of the half flaw length of crack, and it is used to more
accurately predict the stress state near the tip of a
crack caused by a remote load or residual stresses.
For Mode1 fracture the Stress intensity factor (K),
may be referred as,
= ( )
All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT
Mechanics
(1)
49

1.1.2. Energy release rate (G)

The energy release rate (G), referred as, the
energy dissipated during fracture per unit of newly
created fracture surface area. Another aspect of the
definition is that the energy release rate can be
calculated even for the cracks which cannot grow
under a given load condition. That is, if there is a
virtual crack, energy equal to G would be released
from the system per unit extension of area and the
energy requirement for a crack to grow per unit area
extension is called crack resistance and is usually
denoted by the symbol (R).
=
Where is the crack opening

displacement and c is its critical value. It is assumed
that c is a material constant independent of specimen
configuration and crack length.
2. Finite element method for fracture

mechanics
1n order to perform elastic- plastic analysis,
the material model needs to be defined. In this study,
it was assumed that the constitutive law
characterizing the materials stress- strain (-)
response can be represented by the well- known
Ramberg-Osgood model, which is given by
(2)
1.2. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics

(EPFM)
(5)
A design approach used for materials that

fracture or behave in a plastic manner, such as
lower strength, high-toughness steels.
Where 0 is the reference stress which is usually

assumed to be the yield stress, E is the modulus of
elasticity, 0 = 0 / is the associated reference
strain and and n are the model parameters usually
chosen from best fit of actual laboratory data.
1.2.1. J-integral
2.1. Material properties
The J-integral also a parameter to

characterize a crack .G is a special case of the Jintegral, i.e., G is usually applied only to linear
elastic materials, whereas the J-integral is not only
applicable to linear and non-linear elastic materials,
but is considered to be very useful to characterize
materials, exhibiting elastic- plastic behavior near the
crack tip. Consider a path around a crack tip which
starts from any point of a crack face and ends on any
point on the other crack face.
The material chosen for the crack analysis is

alloy steel 40Ni2Cr1Mo28 grade. Reference stress or
yield stress (0) = 700Mpa, Ultimate stress (ult) =
975MPa, Elastic modulus (E) = 207GPa, Poissons
ratio () = 0.3.
(3)
where,
=
2.2. Modeling and meshing

The problem statement of the CT specimen
[4] as shown in figure 1 is analyzed under plain stress
with thickness condition. The specimen characteristic
width and crack length per characteristic width ratio
are taken to be W=51 mm and a/W = 0.25, a/W =
0.375, a/W = 0.5, a/W = 0.625, a/W = 0.75
respectively.
1.2.2. CTOD
The concept of a critical crack opening
displacement as a fracture criterion was introduced as
the study of crack initiation. in situations where
significant plastic deformation precedes fracture.
Under such Conditions the stresses around the crack
tip reach the critical value and therefore fracture is
controlled by the amount of plastic strain.
= c
(4)
50

Figure 1. Compact tension specimen.
= a/w
The model is meshed with PLANE 82

element and which is used to mesh the areas around
the crack tip with plain stress with thickness
condition
B = thickness of the plate

f() = ( 2 + 0.886 + 4.64 13.32 2 +
14.7235.64)/(1)32
The various crack length to with ratio the
elastic solution K1 values are plotted in Figure (4-8).
2.4.2. Plastic solution ( )
From Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics
(EPFM) the Plastic solution ( ) can be calculated by
Figure 2. Representation of plane82 element.
= 0 0 bg1 h1
2.3. Loading and Boundary condition
+1
(8)
where,
The half of the specimen is modeled with

symmetric about areas and the force (P) is applied to
the top of the hole key point.
0 = 1.071 , for plain stress condition

=
+ 4 + 2
1 2
2 1
, n are material constants the value of g1=1

and h1 value is from [2].
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 3. Symmetric compact specimen with load.
2.4. J-integral estimation

The J-integral which represents the
combination of elastic solution ( ) and plastic
solution( ) and which is used to calculate the strain
energy release rate, or work (energy) per unit fracture
surface area in a material.
= +
(6)
2.4.1. Elastic solution (Je)

From linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) the elastic solution can be calculated by
=
12
(7)
In this study, an J-integral analysis was carried

out in compact tension specimen with various crack
length to width ratio (a/W=0.25, a/W=0.375,
a/W=0.5, a/W=0.625, a/W=0.75), and the
characteristic of elastic solution 1 and J is
performed and the analytical and finite element
method (ANSYS) solutions are compared.
3.1. Stress intensity factor result for various

a/W ratio
Table 1. Analytical and FEA Stress intensity factor for CT
specimen, a/W = 0.25.
Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Analytical
Mpa mm1/2
2.703
5.407
8.111
10.815
13.519
16.223
18.927
21.631
24.335
27.039
FEA
Mpa mm1/2
2.694
5.3898
8.084
10.780
13.475
16.169
18.864
21.559
24.254
26.949
Percentage of
error
%
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
where,
1 =
1/2
f()
51
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
60
Analytical SIF
FEA SIF
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load P (kN)
Figure 4. Analytical and FEA Stress intensity factor for

CT specimen, a/W = 0.25.

Analytical
Mpa mm1/2
3.745
7.490
11.235
14.980
18.725
22.470
26.215
29.960
33.705
37.45
50
40
Analytical SIF
FEA SIF
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load P (kN)


Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Stress intensity factor K

(MPa mm)
Stress intensity factor

K (MPa mm)

FEA
Mpa mm1/2
3.740
7.480
11.220
14.960
18.700
22.440
26.180
29.920
33.660
37.400
Percentage of
error
%
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13

Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Analytical
Mpa mm1/2
8.320
16.641
24.962
33.282
41.604
49.929
58.246
66.567
74.888
83.209
FEA
Mpa mm1/2
8.319
16.640
24.959
33.279
41.599
49.919
58.238
66.558
74.878
83.198
Percentage of
error
%
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
100
Analytical SIF
FEA SIF
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load P (kN)


Analytical
Mpa mm1/2
5.304
10.608
15.912
21.216
26.520
31.824
37.120
42.432
47.736
53.040
Analytical SIF
FEA SIF
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load P (kN)


Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

(MPa mm)

(MPa mm)
40
FEA
Mpa mm1/2
5.286
10.572
15.858
21.144
26.431
31.717
37.003
42.289
47.575
52.861
Percentage of
error
%
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.34

Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Analytical
Mpa mm1/2
16.650
33.121
49.681
66.242
82.803
99.363
115.924
132.248
149.045
165.606
FEA
Mpa mm1/2
16.135
32.270
48.405
64.540
80.675
96.810
112.940
129.080
145.210
161.350
Percentage of
error
%
3.09
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.57
2.40
2.57
2.57
52


(MPa mm)
200
Table 7. FEA and Analytical J-integral values for CT

analytical SIF
FEA SIF
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load P (kN)

Analytical (a/w = 0.25)

FEA (a/w=0.25)
Analytical (a/w=0.375)
FEA (a/w=0.375)
FEA (a/w=0.5)
FEA (a/w=0.625)
FEA (a/w=0.75)
120
90
J-Integral J/mm2
150
J/mm2
7.07E-05
2.83E-04
6.36E-04
1.13E-03
1.77E-03
2.54E-03
3.46E-03
4.53E-03
5.73E-03
7.07E-03
Analytical
J/mm2
6.78E-05
2.71E-04
6.11E-04
1.09E-03
1.70E-03
2.45E-03
3.34E-03
4.36E-03
5.52E-03
6.82E-03
Percentage of
error
%
-4.26
-4.20
-4.11
-3.96
-4.00
-3.88
-3.84
-3.78
-3.71
-3.75
FEA J-Integral (a/W=0.375) J/mm2

6.00E-03
4.00E-03
Analytical J-Integral (a/W=0.375)

J/mm2
2.00E-03
0.00E+00
60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load (P) kN
30
Figure 11. FEA and Analytical J-integral values for CT

0
0
200
400
600
800
Applied load P (N)
1000
Figure 9. Comparison of stress intensity factor values for

various a/W ratios against applied load.
3.2. J-Integral result for various a/W ratio

Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
FEA
J/mm2
3.72E-05
1.49E-04
3.35E-04
5.95E-04
9.31E-04
1.34E-03
1.82E-03
2.38E-03
3.02E-03
3.73E-03
Analytical
J/mm2
3.53E-05
1.41E-04
3.18E-04
5.66E-04
8.85E-04
1.30E-03
1.73E-03
2.27E-03
2.87E-03
3.55E-03
Percentage of
error
%
-5.35
-5.42
-5.31
-5.12
-5.21
-3.08
-5.20
-5.07
-5.09
-5.07
4.00E-03
J-Integral J/mm2
FEA
8.00E-03

3.00E-03
2.00E-03

J/mm2
1.00E-03

Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
FEA
J/mm2
1.40E-04
5.61E-04
1.26E-03
2.24E-03
3.50E-03
5.05E-03
6.87E-03
8.98E-03
1.14E-02
1.40E-02
Analytical
J/mm2
1.36E-04
5.45E-04
1.23E-03
2.19E-03
3.42E-03
4.93E-03
6.72E-03
8.79E-03
1.11E-02
1.36E-02
Percentage of
error
%
-3.01
-2.86
-2.77
-2.61
-2.49
-2.37
-2.31
-2.15
-2.34
-3.16
1.50E-02
J-Integral J/mm2
Stress intensituy factor K (MPa

mm1/2)
180
Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

1.00E-02

J/mm2
5.00E-03
0.00E+00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load (P) kN

0.00E+00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load (P) kN

53

FEA
Analytical
2
J/mm
3.55E-04
1.38E-03
3.11E-03
5.53E-03
8.65E-03
1.25E-02
1.70E-02
2.22E-02
2.81E-02
3.46E-02
J/mm
3.35E-04
1.34E-03
3.03E-03
5.41E-03
8.48E-03
1.21E-02
1.66E-02
2.18E-02
2.76E-02
3.44E-02
Percentage of
error
%
-5.79
-2.90
-2.57
-2.29
-2.08
-2.98
-2.17
-1.65
-1.63
-0.67
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
J-Integral J/mm2
0.04
0.03
0.02
FEA J-Integral (a/W=0.625)

J/mm2
J/mm2
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load (P) kN


J-Integral J/mm2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Applied load (P) kN
1.1
Figure 15. Comparison of J-integral values for various

a/W ratios against applied load.
4. Conclusion
0.01
Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
FEA (a/w=0.25)
analytical (a/w=0.25)
FEA (a/w=0.375)
FEA (a/w=0.5)
FEA (a/w=0.625)
FEA (a/w=0.75)
0.12
J integral (J/mm2)
Applied
load (P)
kN
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
FEA
Analytical
J/mm2
1.26E-03
5.05E-03
1.14E-02
2.02E-02
3.16E-02
4.56E-02
6.21E-02
8.12E-02
1.03E-01
1.27E-01
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
J/mm2
1.33E-03
5.33E-03
1.10E-02
2.10E-02
3.30E-02
4.80E-02
6.11E-02
8.00E-02
1.04E-01
1.30E-01
Percentage of
error
%
5.11
5.23
-3.36
3.62
4.12
5.02
-1.65
-1.50
1.15
2.31
The elastic-plastic fracture response model

is developed for compact tension specimen with
crack subjected to different loads. It involves elastic
solution stress intensity factor (K1), J-integral for
characterizing ductile fracture, and to validate these
parameters the analytical formulas has been used.
The underlying J-estimation based on the
deformation theory of plasticity, a constitutive law
characterized by power law model of stress strain
curve due to presence of crack. The values of K1and
J was performed for various crack length and width
ratio a/W = 0.25, a/W = 0.375, a/W = 0.5, a/W =
0.625, a/W = 0.75 respectively. Figure 9 and
Figure10 are depicted when the applied load
increases the stress intensity factor and J-integral
values are increased and also they increased for
increase in crack length.
5. Nomenclature
a

J/mm2
E
h1
J
Je
Jp
KI
n
P
P0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied load (P) kN

crack size of the compact tension

specimen (mm).
thickness of the compact tension
specimen (mm).
width of the compact tension specimen
(mm).
Youngs modulus (GPa)
dimensionless plastic influence function
J-integral (J/mm2)
elastic component of J (J/mm2)
plastic component of J (J/mm2)
mode-I stress-intensity factor(MPa
mm1/2)
RambergOsgood exponent
load on compact tension specimen (N).
reference load on compact tension
specimen (N).
RambergOsgood coefficient
54

counterclockwise contour
uniaxial strain
reference strain
Poissons ratio
uniaxial stress (N/mm2)
reference stress(N/mm2)
6. References
[1]
T.L.
Anderson,
Fracture
Mechanics,
Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press LLC
(1995).
[2] Prashant Kumar., Elements of
Mechanics, Wheeler Publishing. (1999).
Fracture
[3] Kare Hellan Introduction to Fraction

Mechanics, McGraw Hill Book Company,(1985).
[4] Sutthisak Phongthanapanich, J- domain Integral
Technique for Crack Analysis with Adaptive Finite
Element Method Vol.20 Aug.2010.
[5] Ignacio Villa and Jose Fernandez-Saez, An
analytical investication on the fracture behaviour of
compact-tension test specimens 1-4 Nov 2011.
[6] Sharif Rahman, Probabilistic fracture mechanics:
J-estimation and finite element methods Engineering
fracture mechanics 107-125, 2001.
55

Fracture Analysis of Compact Tension Specimen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fracture Analysis of Compact Tension Specimen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT

Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016