Cent. Eur. J. Eng. • 3(2) • 2013 • 174-190 DOI: 10.2478/s13531-012-0063-8 Central European Journal of Engineering Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Research Article Marcin Graba∗ Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Mechatronics and Machine Design, Chair of Fundamentals of Machine Design, 25-314 Kielce, Poland Received 21 December 2011; accepted 29 October 2012 Abstract: In this paper, values for the maximum opening crack stress and its distance from crack tip are determined for various elastic-plastic materials for centre cracked plate in tension (CC(T) specimen) are presented. Influences of yield strength, the work-hardening exponent and the crack length on the maximum opening stress were tested. The author has provided some comments and suggestions about modelling FEM assuming large strain formulation. Keywords: Fracture mechanics • Cracks • Stress fields • FEM • J-integral • Large strain formulation • Maximum opening stress • Local approach • CC(T) specimen © Versita sp. z o.o. 1. Introduction The Hutchinson [1], Rice and Rosengren [2] (HRR) solution for stress near the crack tip for non-linear (elastic-plastic) materials concerns the small strains and consists of one singular term only. The amplitude of the singular stress field is the J-integral, which is path independent when the strain energy is a unique function of strains. However the stress distribution for the plane strain model, can, in most cases, be different from the HRR solution (see Figure 1). This difference between the Finite Element Method (FEM) stress distribution and the HRR solution was named the “Q-parameter” by O’Dowd and Shih [3, 4]. In fact, the Q · σ0 -term (where σ0 is yield stress), when ∗ E-mail: mgraba@tu.kielce.pl 174 added to the HRR singular term, replaces all neglected terms in the asymptotic expansions of the stress field in front of the crack. Throughout literature there are many papers referring to the influence of a materials properties and specimen geometry on Q-stress [5]. In a real structural element with a crack, the stresses near the crack tip are finite. The stress infinity is a result of the assumption that the crack tip is perfectly sharp and it remains sharp during the crack tip loading. When the assumption of the small strains is relaxed, the crack tip blunts and stresses in front of the crack become finite. The opening stress reaches maximum at a distance equal to r =(0.5 to 2.0)·Jσ0 , and is value dependent on material properties, specimen geometry and external loading. This feature was first noticed by Rice and Johnson [6] and McMeeking and Parks [7]. The Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis of the stress and strain field in front of the M. Graba Figure 1. The stress distribution near a crack tip for SEN(B) specimen – curves were obtained using the FEM (Finite Element Method) for small and finite strain and HRR formula (based on [10, 11, 16]) Figure 2. crack when the finite strains are used is not a trivial problem. The level of the stress maximum and its localization depends on the FE mesh details when it is not properly selected. For the small strain option such a problem is not observed [3, 4, 8, 9]. 2. Recommendations for FEM modelling assuming large strain condition The numerical analysis of the stress distribution near crack tip revealed, that results depend on the details of the FE modeling, when the finite strain option is adopted [11– 14]. As shown in Figure2, one may notice that when the number of the FE’s between the crack tip and the opening stress maximum location is not large enough, the results obtained don’t converge to a single curve. It is recommended to use at least 20 FE’s between the crack tip and the stress maximum location [11]. Thus, the FE size in the radial direction should be smaller than 0.1 · δT where δT is the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD). O’Dowd and Shih. [3, 4, 9] suggest, that the crack tip radius should be smaller than the half of the crack tip opening displacement δT c for critical moment: rw = 0.5 · δT C = 0.5 · dn · JC , σ0 (1) The influence of the number of the FE between the crack tip and the opening stress maximum locationσ22 along θ = 0◦ direction on the stress distribution for SEN(B) specimen for r ≤ 2J/σ0 (based on [11, 14, 16]) where JC is the critical value of J-integral (for material used in FEM analysis for preparing Figures, JC = 40 kN/m) and dn is the parameter introduced by Shih [15], which connects J-integral, yield stress and crack tip opening displacement (for FEM analysis presented in this paragraph, dn = 0.297). The crack tip radius value calculated from equation (1) is equal to rw = 1.89 · 10−5 m and is greater than the crack tip radiivalues tested in the FEM analysis (in numerical analysis presented in this paragraph, the rw is equal to rw =(0.5 to 2.0)·10−6 m and shown to be advisable. However O’Dowd et al. [3, 4, 9] was not interested in the opening stress distribution at the distance r < J/σ0 which is of vital interest in large strain analysis. O’Dowd et.al. used the small strain option during the computation [11, 14]. The FEM analysis presented by [11, 14, 16] shows, that when the crack tip radius, denoted as rw decreases, the level of the maximum of the opening stress in front of the crack increases and appears closer to the crack tip. However, for sufficiently small values of rw , both the opening stress maximum and its location in front of a crack become independent of the crack tip radius. For increasing external load, the saturation of the ξ0 = ξ0 (J) and the ψ0 = ψ0 (J) curves was observed (see Figure 5), 175 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Figure 3. The influence of the number of the FE between the crack tip and the opening stress maximum location σ22 along θ = 0◦ direction, on normalized location of the opening stress maximum (based on [11, 14, 16]) (a) where: σ22_ max , σ0 r22_ max · σ0 , = J ξ0 = (2) ψ0 (3) where ξ0 is normalized by yield stress maximum opening stress value, ψ0 is the normalized distance of the maximum opening stress from crack tip, σ22_max is the maximum opening stress value, r22_max is the distance of the maximum opening stress from crack tip, J is the J-integral, σ0 is yield stress. Literature reveals two different methods for modeling the crack tip for large strain assumptions as shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b). Brocks et al. [12, 13] suggest, that the crack tip should be modeled in the way shown in Figure 5(a). The computations confirm, that when this model is used, the radius of the crack tip can be smaller than for the model shown in Figure 4(b). If in the FEM analysis the model of crack tip presented in Figure 4(a) is used, the FEM analysis may be done for larger external loads. The curves level off and the level is independent of the crack tip radius. The convergence of the FEM results is observed, when rw is about 2.5 · 10−6 m (1/15 · δT C for critical moment when J–integral value is equal to JC = 40 kN/m, respectively). Thus the crack tip model shown in Figure 5(b) is recommended. The preparation of numerical models assuming a large deformation requires consideration of many facts and factors, for example: the shape and model of the crack tip, 176 (b) Figure 4. The influence of the size of crack tip radius on: (a) level of the maximum opening stress; (b) normalized location of the maximum opening stress (based on [11, 14, 16]) the size of the crack tip radius, the finite element size and mesh density. These same problems are encountered with the numerical designation of the J-integral, when the assumption of large deformation was done. This problem was discussed by [7, 10, 12, 13]. M. Graba (a) is considered independent of temperature, when within a low temperature range. O’Dowd and Shih [3, 4] adopted a modified small strain HRR solution, called the OS model (O’Dowd-Shih model), to derive simple, approximate formula in order to predict the influence of in-plane constraint on fracture toughness of a structural element. According to O’Dowd’s model the critical conditions must be satisfied independently of the level of constraint, which was quantified by the actual value of the Q−stress, utilizing the OS theory: σij = σ0 σ̃ij (n, θ) (b) Figure 5. Two alternative crack tip models J αε0 σ0 In r 3. Fracture criteria using numerical solution for large strain assumption The maximum opening stress level and their position against the tip of the cracks are extremely important because both parameters may be used to build a fracture criteria, which will estimate the real fracture toughness of the construction element. An example can there be local fracture criteria is proposed in [4, 10, 17]. Several authors adopted local fracture criterion to assess the constraint influence on fracture toughness (O’Dowd [18], Neimitz and Gałkiewicz [19]). They assumed that for a cleavage fracture to happen it requires that the opening stress reaches the critical length, σC at a certain distance from the crack tip, rC or within a certain volume in front of the crack tip. This critical value is characteristic for each material and + Qσ0 δij , (4) where σ̃ij (n, θ) and In are well known functions, characteristic for the HRR stress field [1], ε0 = σ0 /E and Q is computed according to the OS definition [3, 4]. Using Eq. (4) twice for the two different levels of constraint it was assumed that for the one state, called the reference state, the value of Q = Qref = 0. The critical distance rC was eliminated from the two equations and the final formula to compute the actual value of fracture toughness was derived in the form: JC = JIC 1 − Emergence of various problems in the FEM analysis when large deformation assumptions were used have not discouraged researchers in using the maximum opening stress and its distance from crack tip in solving engineering problems. Both parameters (maximum opening stress and its distance from crack tip) were used in the proposals for fracture criteria, what will be presented in the next paragraph. 1/1+n Q σC /σ0 n+1 , (5) where JIC is fracture toughness obtained for a specimen with dominance with plane strain conditions [4], JC is real fracture toughness, σC is critical stress according to Ritchie-Knott-Rice model [17] and Q is the Q-stress (Qparameter) for real construction element. Equation (5) follows from the RKR [17] hypothesis, provided, one assumes that the stress field in front of the crack is singular (small strain assumption) and satisfies Equation (4). In such a case the opening stress is greater than critical one over the distance rC from the crack front. To apply O’Dowd’s simple model, a very limited numerical analysis is necessary utilizing assumption of small strains. However, the critical stress σ C is simply the parameter which adjusts theoretical prediction to experimental results. Almost all other theories concerning the local approach to fracture use the stress distribution in front of the crack characteristic for the finite strain (see Figure 1). In 2007, Neimitz et al. [10] presented another form of the fracture criterion (5), replacing the critical stress σC by maximum opening stress σ22_max . They proposed that real fracture toughness JC may be evaluated using following expression: JC = JIC 1 − Q σ22_ max /σ0 n+1 . (6) 177 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Formula (6) represents a two-parametric approach to determine fracture toughness. Its Equation is true until the moment when the maximum opening stress value reaches the saturation level (for example Figure 4(a)). It is a condition characteristic for the moment when a large plastic zone covers almost the entire non-cracked section of the specimen (structural component). Formula (6) is saddled with a strong foundation, according to which, the maximum opening stress level does not depend on crack length. Expanded form of the criterion presented by (6) is the relationship (7), presented in [10]: " JC = JIC 1 1 1+n + (7) φQ=0 h i 1+n −1 max max )Q=0 − (σ22 )Q E 1+n Q − (σ22 φQ=0 , − σ̃22 ασ0 In max max )Q=0 and (σ22 )Q are maximum opening stress where (σ22 level (normalized by yield stress σ0 ) for specimen dominated by plane strain (Q = 0) [18] and specimen characterized by Q stress value Q 6= 0 (for which the real fracture toughness is desired) respectively; φQ=0 is normalized distance of the maximum opening stress from crack tip for specimen dominated by plane strain conditions [20]. Using Equation (7) to calculate the real fracture toughness, engineers may consider the analysis of the flat dimension of the specimen (crack length, width), who have effects on in-plane constraints, represented by Q-stress and maximum opening stress level. However, the use of local fracture criteria (Equations (6) and (7)) next to the fracture toughness determined in the laboratory for plane strain conditions [4] require knowledge of the Q parameter, which is determined by the assumption of small deformations and the maximum opening stress level with the distance from crack tip which are determined by the assumption of large deformations. The determination of these last two parameters by numerical calculations using the FEM is not easy and obvious, because both values are sensitive to the quality of the numerical model, as mentioned in [11, 16]. Therefore, in this paper, the FEM analysis with assumptions of the large deformation will be presented. The measurable effect of the paper is presented in the catalogue of numerical solutions obtained for centre cracked plate in tension (CC(T)), obtained for domination of the plane strain assuming large deformation. This catalogue includes the values for maximum opening stresses and their normalized distance from crack tips, for different materials and geometric configurations of the CC(T) specimens. 178 4. Details of the numerical analysis Numerical analysis of the centre cracked plate in tension (CC(T)) was used (see Figure 6). Computations were performed for plane strain using large strain option (finite strain option). The relative crack length was a a/W = {0.20, 0.50, 0.70} where a is a crack length and the width of specimens W was equal to 40 mm. The choice of the CC(T) specimen was intentional, because the CC(T) specimens are used in FITNET procedure [21] in order to idealize the complex structural elements. This specimen is used in laboratory tests in order to determine the critical values of the J-integral, as shown in the papers prepared by Sumpter and Forbes [22]. All geometrical dimensions of the CC(T) specimen are presented in Table 1. Computations were performed using ADINA SYSTEM 8.5 [23, 24]. Due to the symmetry, only a quarter of the specimen was modeled. The finite element mesh was filled with the 9-node plane strain elements. The size of the finite elements in the radial direction decreased towards the crack tip, while in the angular direction the size of each element was kept constant. It varied from ∆θ = π/13 to ∆θ = π/23 for various cases tested. The crack tip region was modeled using 36 to 72 semicircles. The first of them, was between 20 to 100 times smaller than the last. The first finite element behind to crack tip is smaller (2000 to 10000) times than the width of the specimen. The crack tip was modeled as half of the arc where the radius was equal to rw =(1 to 5)·10−6 m. Selection of the crack tip in the form of a semicircle, was dictated by the ADINA SYSTEM instructions [23, 24], according to which for structural elements with predominance with tension It is recommended to use a semicircle model of a crack tip, and for structural elements with a predominance of bending, itis better to use a model of the crack tip in the form of a quarter arc. The CC(T) specimen was modeled using approximately 3500 finite elements and 12500 nodes. The example finite element model for CC(T) specimen is presented on Figure 7. In the FEM simulation, the deformation theory of plasticity and the von Misses yield criterion were adopted. In the model the stress–strain curve was approximated by the relation: ε = ε0 ( σ /σ0 for σ ≤ σ0 , α (σ /σ0 )n for σ > σ0 (8) where α = 1. The tensile properties for the materials which were used in the numerical analysis are presented in the Table 2. In the FEM analysis, calculations were done for twelve materials, which differed in yield stress and the work hardening exponent. M. Graba Table 1. The geometrical dimension of the CC(T) specimen used in numerical analysis 2W [mm] 80 Figure 6. Table 2. 4W [mm] 2L [mm] 160 176 The centre cracked plate in tension – CC(T) specimen The mechanical properties for materials used in numerical analysis Young’s modulus, E [MPa] 206000 Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.3 yield stress, σ 0 [MPa] 315; 500; 1000 work-hardening exponent in Ramberg-Osgood relationship, n a/W a [mm] b = (W − a) [mm] 0.20 8 32 0.50 20 20 0.70 28 12 denotes the displacement vector and ds is the infinitesimal segment of contour C . The J-integral is path independent for small strain formulation only. However one may also calculate the J-integral using large strain formulation, but the contour of integration should be sufficiently distant from the crack tip but not too close to the specimen borders. In Figure 8 the contours of integration used in this research project are shown. The calculations and tests confirm, that the value of the J-integral is almost independent of finite elements used in FEM analysis. The most important parameter is the way the contour of integration is drawn. It should not lie too close either to crack tip or to the edge of the specimen. The advised recommendation is to use a few different integral contours in FEM analysis and compare results [11, 16]. The external load of the specimen was carried out by applying a displacement to the upper edge. Selection of the displacement resulted from a desire to obtain the maximum opening stress values and their location near crack tip for an external load P, which satisfies the conditions P/P0 = {0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2}, where P0 is the limit load [21, 25], which is set in accordance with the following Equation: 4 P0 = √ · B (W − a) · σ0 , (10) 3 where B is the specimen thickness – for plane strain condition, B is equal to 1 m. 3; 5; 10; 20 5. The J-integral were calculated using two methods. The first method, called the “virtual shift method”, uses concept of the virtual crack growth to compute the virtual energy change. The second method is based on the J-integral definition: Z J= [wdx2 − t (∂u/∂x1 ) ds], (9) C where w is the strain energy density, t is the stress vector acting on the contour C drawn around the crack tip, u Numerical results In the analysis of the numerical results, the influence of the yield stress, work-hardening exponent and crack length on maximum of the opening stress and their location near crack tip were tested. The influence of the yield stress on maximum opening stress value and their location near crack tip is presented in Figure 9. Figure 9 shows, with increasing external load expressed as a quotient of the force P and the load limit P0 , the value of maximum opening stress is increasing. In some cases (after an earlier analysis of the Tables in Annexes 6-6 179 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition ure 9(b)). For the same level of normalized external load is observed that for higher yield stress values, the value of normalized maximum stress position in front of the crack is smaller. With the increase of external load, the value of normalized position of maximum stress decreases. It can be noted, that the actual physical location of maximum opening stress with increasing external load also increases (see Figure 10). The real argument is, therefore, that the maximum opening stress value with increased external load initially increase and then reach a saturation value. Figure 10 presents a map of isolines of stress, which are presented, that maximum opening stress away from the crack tip. Their physical location (denoted as rmax ) from the crack tip grows. (a) (b) (c) Figure 7. (a) The finite element model for CC(T) specimen used in the FEM analysis assuming large strain option; (b) The finite element mesh near crack tip; (c) Sample finite elements mesh around the crack tip of this paper), it can be noted that the increase of external load, the value of maximum stress reaches a saturation point, and for the case of materials characterized by weak (or very weak) hardening sometimes slightly decreases (within about 5% of maximum). Figure 9(a) shows that for higher yield stress value of the maximum opening stress is smaller (with including the same level of external load). It can be noted, that for materials characterized by smaller yield stress, σmax /σ0 = f(P/P0 ) curves are arranged above. For materials characterized by lower yield stress, the ψ = f(P/P0 ) curves which are presented the change of normalized position of maximum opening stress as a function of normalized external load are arranged above (Fig180 For strong hardening materials, the higher values of the maximum opening stress are observed. For weak hardening materials, the σmax /σ0 = f(P/P0 ) curves are arranged below, and there are reached the saturation level for normalized external load equal to P/P0 = 0.6. For very weak hardening materials and specimens characterized by long crack (a/W = 0.70), increasing external load is caused a decrease of the maximum opening stress value (see Figure 11(a)). For strong hardening materials, the ψ = f(P/P0 ) curves are arranged below (Figure 11(b)). For the same level of normalized external load is observed that for larger values of the work hardening exponent in the R-O law, the value of position of the normalized maximum stress in front of the crack is greater. Analysis of the ψ = f(P/P0 ) curves for some cases, can lead to the conclusions that these curves tend to reach saturation level. In the case of the CC(T) specimens, which were used in the numerical analysis, it can be noted, that normalized position of the maximum opening stress from the crack tip is in the range ψ =(0.25 to 1.75), and this value depends on yield stress, work hardening exponent and crack length. Figure 12(a) demonstrates the fact that for longer cracks, the greater values of maximum opening stress are observed. For the case of CC(T) specimens containing short cracks, the σmax /σ0 = f(P/P0 ) curves are arranged below (see Figure 12(a)). As shown in Figure 12(b), the crack length hasn’t significant influence on the normalized maximum stress location in front of crack. It can be note, that for longer crack, the ψ = f(P/P0 ) curves are arranged above (see Figure 12(b)). Larger values of normalized position of maximum stress near crack tip are observed for specimens characterized by long cracks, however, the difference between the values of ψ for the specimens described different values of normalized crack length (a/W ) in many cases may not be large, even the minimum (especially for weak and very weak hardening materials). M. Graba (a) Figure 8. (b) The three integration contours, which were used to calculation the J-integral (a) Figure 9. (c) (b) The influence of the yield stress on maximum opening stress value σmax /σ0 (a) and their normalized location near crack tip ψ = rmax ·σ0 /J (b) for CC(T) specimen – a/W = 0.20, n = 5 (a) Figure 10. (b) (c) The influence of the external load on physical location of the maximum opening stress near crack tip for CC(T) specimen – σ0 = 500 MPa, n = 10, a/W = 0.50, along with the selected location of maximum opening stress by triangle: (a) P/P0 = 0.4, σmax /σ0 = 3.07, rmax = 0.025 mm, ψ = 3.09; (b) P/P0 = 0.8, σmax /σ0 = 3.15, rmax = 0.040 mm, ψ = 1.30; (c) P/P0 = 1.2, σmax /σ0 = 3.12, rmax = 0.055 mm, ψ = 0.66 181 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition (a) Figure 11. a) The influence of the work hardening exponent on maximum opening stress value σmax /σ0 for CC(T) specimen – a/W = 0.70, σ0 = 500 MPa; (b) The influence of the work hardening exponent on normalized location of the maximum opening stress near crack tip ψ = rmax · σ0 /J for CC(T) specimen – a/W = 0.20, σ0 = 315 MPa (a) Figure 12. 6. (b) The influence of the normalized crack length on maximum opening stress value σmax /σ0 (a) and their normalized location near crack tip ψ = rmax · σ0 /J (b) for CC(T) specimen – σ0 = 1000 MPa, n = 20 Summary and conclusions In the paper the values of the maximum opening stress and its distance from crack tip determined for various elasticplastic materials for centre cracked plate in tension (CC(T) specimen) presented. The influence of the yield stress, the work-hardening exponent and the crack length on the maximum opening stress was tested. In the paper some comments and suggestions about modeling FEM assuming large strain formulation were given. 182 (b) The maximum of the normal stresses in front of the crack is observed for Ramberg-Osgood material and for blunted crack. It must be computed numerically using the finite strains option. The maximum of the opening stress is located at the normalized distance ψ · J/σ0 where ψ is usually equal to (0.25 to 1.75) – for CC(T) specimen for load level P/P0 ≥ 0.8. When the external load acting on the specimen is low (P/P0 ≤ 0.6), the maximum crack opening stress is located at a normalized distance from the crack tip ψ · J/σ 0 where ψ is equal to (3 to 27). The location of M. Graba maximum crack opening stress depends on the length of the crack and the material characteristics. For small scale yielding the maximum value of the opening stress component depends on the constraint level. The maximum opening stress value σmax /σ0 and its normalized distance from crack tip ψ depend on external load, work hardening exponent, yield stress and crack length, what was presented above. Presented in the paper catalogue may be very useful for engineering problems, when, the real fracture toughness for structural component is determined using local fracture criteria, presented in [10, 18]. Acknowledgements The support of the Kielce University of Technology – Faculty of Mechatronics and Machine Design through grants No 1.22/7.14 is acknowledged by the author of the paper. References [1] Hutchinson J.W., Singular Behaviour at the End of a Tensile Crack in a Hardening Material, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 16, 1968, 13-31. [2] Rice J.R., Rosengren G.F., Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a Power-law Hardening Material, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, No. 16, 1968, 1 – 12. [3] O’Dowd N.P., Shih C.F., Family of Crack-Tip Fields Characterized by a Triaxiality Parameter – I. Structure of Fields, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol. 39, No. 8, 1991, 989-1015 [4] O’Dowd N.P., Shih C.F., Family of Crack-Tip Fields Characterized by a Triaxiality Parameter – II. Fracture Applications, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol. 40, No. 5, 1992, 939-963 [5] Graba M., Catalogue of the J-Q trajectories for CC(T) and SEN(T) specimens in tension, Central European Journal of Engineering, Volume 1, Number 3, 2011, 257-278 [6] Rice, J.R., Johnson, M.A., The role of large crack tip geometry changes in plane strain fracture, in Inelastic behaviour of solids, by .M.F.Kanninen, 1970, 641672, McGraw-Hill [7] McMeeking, R.M., Parks, D.M., On criteria for Jdominance of crack tip fields in large scale yielding, ASTM STP 668, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1979, 175-194 [8] Al-Ani A., Hancock J.W., J-Dominance of Short Cracks in Tension and Bending, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1991, 23-43 [9] O’Dowd N.P., Shih C.F., Dodds R.H. Jr, The Role of Geometry and Crack Growth on Constraint and Implications for Ductile/Brittle Fracture, Constraint Effects in Fracture Theory and Applications: Second Volume, ASTM STP 1244, Mark Kirk and Ad Bakker, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995, 134-159 [10] Neimitz A., Graba M., Gałkiewicz J., An Alternative Formulation of the Ritchie-Knott-Rice Local Fracture Criterion, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 74, 2007, 1308-1322 [11] Graba M., Gałkiewicz J., Influence of the Crack Tip Model on Results of the Finite Element Method, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Warsaw, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2007, 225-237 [12] Brocks W., Cornec A., Scheider I., Computational Aspects of Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics, Bruchmechanik, GKSS-Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany, Elsevier, 2003, 127-209 [13] Brocks W., Scheider I., Reliable J-Values. Numerical Aspects of the Path-Dependence of the J-integral in Incremental Plasticity, Bruchmechanik, GKSSForschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany, Elsevier, 2003,264-274 [14] Graba M., Gałkiewicz J., Influence of the Crack Tip Model on Results of the Finite Element Method, Proceedings of the National Conference of Fracture Mechanic (PGFM), Opole – Wisła 11 - 14 September 2005; 323-332 (in Polish) [15] Shih C.F., 1981, Relationship between the J-integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending Cracks, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 29, 1981,305-329 [16] Graba M., Numerical analysis of the mechanical fields near the crack tip in the elastic-plastic materials. 3D problems., PhD dissertation, Kielce University of Technology - Faculty of Mechatronics and Machine Building , 387 pages, 2009, Kielce (in polish) [17] Ritchie R.O., Knott J.F., Rice J.R., On The Relationship Between Critical Tensile Stress and Fracture Toughness in Mild Steel, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 21, 1973, 395-410 [18] O’Dowd N.P., Applications of two parameter approaches in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1995, 445-465 [19] Neimitz A., Gałkiewicz J., Fracture Toughness of Structural Components: Influence of Constraint, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83, 2006„ 42-54 [20] ASTM E 1820-05 Standard Test Method for Mea- 183 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] 184 surement of Fracture Toughness. American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005 FITNET, 2006, FITNET Report, (European Fitnessfor-service Network), Edited by M.Kocak, S.Webster, J.J.Janosch, R.A.Ainsworth, R.Koers, Contract No. G1RT-CT-2001-05071, 2006 Sumpter J.D.G., Forbes A.T., Constraint Based Analysis of Shallow Cracks in Mild Steel, TWI/EWI/IS International Conference on Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics Test and Application, M.G. Dawes, Ed., Cambridge, UK, paper 7, 1992 ADINA, 2008a, ADINA 8.5.4: ADINA: Theory and Modeling Guide - Volume I: ADINA, Report ARD 087, ADINA R&D, Inc., 2008 ADINA, 2008b, ADINA 8.5.4: ADINA: User Interface Command Reference Manual - Volume I: ADINA Solids & Structures Model Definition, Report ARD 08-6, ADINA R&D, Inc., 2008 Kumar V., German M.D., Shih C.F., An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis, EPRI Report NP-1931, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1981 M. Graba Appendix A: Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 315 MPa Table A1. Table A2. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 315 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 5 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.29 2.86 13.85 0.4 1.50 3.52 3.58 0.6 3.19 3.88 1.38 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.20 0.8 6.39 4.17 0.76 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 1.0 10.29 4.41 0.60 0.2 0.34 3.34 6.33 1.2 23.96 4.67 0.43 0.4 1.38 4.61 1.53 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.50 0.6 3.23 5.60 0.50 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.8 5.84 6.41 0.37 0.2 0.40 3.35 6.32 1.0 9.95 7.23 0.30 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 315 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 3 0.4 1.59 4.03 2.19 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.50 0.6 3.60 4.43 1.01 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.8 6.48 4.68 0.58 0.2 0.35 3.96 2.04 1.0 10.34 4.87 0.48 0.4 1.50 5.51 0.66 1.2 15.42 4.99 0.41 0.6 3.32 6.52 0.28 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.70 0.8 5.86 7.33 0.27 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.70 0.2 0.25 2.74 15.64 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.4 1.00 3.43 5.20 0.2 0.25 3.65 5.13 0.6 2.25 3.81 2.63 0.4 1.00 5.04 0.70 0.8 4.02 4.09 1.42 0.6 2.25 6.00 0.29 1.0 6.33 4.29 1.00 0.8 4.00 6.76 0.28 1.2 9.24 4.47 0.65 185 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Table A3. 186 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 315 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 10 Table A4. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 315 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 20 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.20 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.37 2.69 15.88 0.2 0.41 2.63 25.90 0.4 1.49 2.97 5.36 0.4 1.46 2.57 7.22 0.6 3.18 3.03 2.42 0.6 3.40 2.54 3.00 0.8 6.03 3.06 1.18 0.8 6.44 2.54 1.48 1.0 11.29 3.08 0.78 1.0 12.31 2.42 0.67 1.2 48.88 3.14 0.38 1.2 175.91 2.36 0.34 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.50 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.50 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.40 2.74 14.76 0.2 0.40 2.64 20.60 0.4 1.59 3.11 5.00 0.4 1.60 2.83 6.72 0.6 3.61 3.18 2.11 0.6 3.62 2.82 2.84 0.8 6.49 3.22 1.52 0.8 6.50 2.75 1.47 1.0 10.36 3.20 0.88 1.0 10.41 2.65 1.15 1.2 16.62 3.21 0.66 1.2 17.96 2.58 0.74 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.70 σ0 = 315 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.70 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.23 2.53 25.60 0.2 0.25 2.53 27.58 0.4 0.92 3.00 8.77 0.4 1.00 2.83 9.90 0.6 2.37 3.16 3.30 0.6 2.26 2.87 4.26 0.8 4.12 3.18 1.83 0.8 4.22 2.82 2.17 1.0 6.89 3.22 1.42 1.0 6.86 2.69 1.25 1.2 10.56 3.20 0.85 1.2 10.93 2.65 1.01 M. Graba Appendix B: Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 500 MPa Table B1. Table B2. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 500 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 5 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.90 2.87 7.69 0.4 3.63 3.48 1.91 0.6 8.32 3.82 1.20 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.20 0.8 15.38 4.08 0.66 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 1.0 28.03 4.26 0.38 0.2 0.85 3.31 2.35 1.2 64.23 4.47 0.29 0.4 3.51 4.59 0.90 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.50 0.6 8.02 5.49 0.37 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.8 14.67 6.26 0.30 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 500 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 3 0.2 1.10 2.99 6.87 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.50 0.4 3.59 3.53 2.03 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.6 8.73 3.93 1.19 0.2 0.96 3.54 2.44 0.8 16.26 4.17 0.68 0.4 3.71 4.63 0.85 1.0 26.50 4.35 0.55 0.6 8.46 5.61 0.35 1.2 40.13 4.46 0.45 0.8 15.17 6.41 0.30 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.70 1.0 24.40 7.13 0.27 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.70 0.2 0.56 2.64 10.98 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.4 2.25 3.32 4.24 0.2 0.62 3.07 1.84 0.6 6.26 3.78 1.45 0.4 2.50 4.25 0.91 0.8 10.62 4.00 1.10 0.6 5.83 5.12 0.73 1.0 16.18 4.17 0.68 0.8 10.28 5.76 0.34 1.2 25.76 4.33 0.53 1.0 16.39 6.36 0.30 1.2 24.11 6.98 0.26 187 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Table B3. 188 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 500 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 10 Table B4. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 500 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 20 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.20 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.89 2.65 8.76 0.2 0.88 2.54 14.27 0.4 3.61 2.98 3.43 0.4 3.57 2.72 3.37 0.6 8.31 3.00 1.39 0.6 8.36 2.57 1.33 0.8 15.50 2.99 1.03 0.8 15.94 2.42 1.47 1.0 28.66 3.00 0.69 1.0 30.80 2.27 1.52 1.2 122.24 3.03 0.43 1.2 501.10 2.19 0.41 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.50 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.50 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.89 2.69 10.35 0.2 0.89 2.60 14.45 0.4 4.00 3.07 3.09 0.4 4.00 2.86 4.16 0.6 8.73 3.16 1.83 0.6 8.74 2.80 1.78 0.8 15.38 3.15 1.30 0.8 15.41 2.75 1.25 1.0 25.33 3.11 0.71 1.0 26.60 2.64 0.85 1.2 42.20 3.12 0.66 1.2 46.43 2.48 0.70 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.70 σ0 = 500 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.70 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.59 2.54 15.79 0.2 0.62 2.53 17.37 0.4 2.67 3.02 4.72 0.4 2.50 2.84 6.17 0.6 5.79 3.12 2.85 0.6 5.86 2.83 2.51 0.8 10.79 3.17 1.44 0.8 10.69 2.81 1.83 1.0 16.64 3.16 1.19 1.0 17.11 2.70 1.05 1.2 26.15 3.11 0.79 1.2 27.38 2.61 0.79 M. Graba Appendix C: Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 1000 MPa Table C1. Table C2. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 1000 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 5 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 3.43 2.80 4.12 0.4 14.16 3.40 1.45 0.6 32.68 3.65 0.72 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.20 0.8 61.41 3.81 0.54 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 1.0 109.15 3.93 0.33 0.2 3.40 3.27 1.15 1.2 256.45 4.06 0.28 0.4 14.00 4.45 0.42 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.50 0.6 32.54 5.26 0.40 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.8 59.21 5.78 0.38 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 1000 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 3 0.2 3.71 3.21 2.30 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.50 0.4 15.23 3.78 1.03 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.6 34.19 4.02 0.69 0.2 2.55 3.08 2.55 0.8 62.57 4.14 0.46 0.4 10.20 4.18 0.42 1.0 101.66 4.21 0.39 0.6 22.97 4.92 0.41 1.2 161.34 4.23 0.35 0.8 40.84 5.57 0.39 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 3, a/W = 0.70 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 3.84 3.38 1.19 0.4 14.94 4.51 0.39 0.6 33.94 5.29 0.38 0.8 60.74 5.79 0.36 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 5, a/W = 0.70 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 2.55 2.68 5.60 0.4 10.21 3.31 1.79 0.6 23.05 3.62 1.15 0.8 41.72 3.80 0.79 1.0 66.98 3.92 0.52 1.2 101.43 4.00 0.42 189 Catalogue of maximum crack opening stress for CC(T) specimen assuming large strain condition Table C3. 190 Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 1000 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n = 10 Table C4. Numerical results for CC(T) specimens characterized by yield stress σ0 = 1000 MPa and work hardening exponent in R-O relationship n=20 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.20 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.20 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 0.89 2.65 8.76 0.2 3.41 2.54 7.26 0.4 3.61 2.98 3.43 0.4 14.49 2.61 2.50 0.6 8.31 3.00 1.39 0.6 34.06 2.63 1.34 0.8 15.50 2.99 1.03 0.8 64.88 2.38 1.05 1.0 28.66 3.00 0.69 1.0 124.18 2.16 1.22 1.2 122.24 3.03 0.43 1.2 1574.45 2.12 0.33 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.50 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.50 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 3.71 2.67 5.86 0.2 3.71 2.63 6.81 0.4 15.24 3.04 2.10 0.4 15.25 2.81 2.76 0.6 34.75 3.08 1.12 0.6 34.79 2.81 1.44 0.8 62.50 3.04 0.98 0.8 62.58 2.72 0.94 1.0 103.51 3.02 0.68 1.0 104.76 2.55 0.84 1.2 171.02 2.93 0.59 1.2 183.76 2.38 0.64 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 10, a/W = 0.70 σ0 = 1000 [MPa], n = 20, a/W = 0.70 P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ P/P0 J [kN/m] σmax /σ0 ψ 0.2 2.55 2.57 7.18 0.2 2.55 2.53 8.36 0.4 10.22 2.95 3.23 0.4 10.22 2.79 2.88 0.6 23.08 3.06 1.79 0.6 23.11 2.83 1.65 0.8 41.93 3.09 1.20 0.8 42.71 2.77 1.10 1.0 68.49 3.07 0.87 1.0 68.89 2.67 0.82 1.2 105.31 3.01 0.65 1.2 109.90 2.55 0.77