EMCH361 Mechanical Engineering Laboratory I, Spring 2013

Laboratory I
HARDNESS TESTS
Your name
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
ABSTRACT
Cup and cone fracture for a round tensile bar under tension
is analyzed numerically using finite element method. Finite
strain analysis with general solid elements is performed to
simulate the development of necking, flat cracking at the center
of the bar, propagation of the flat crack towards the free
surface, and then slant 45
o
cracking leading to the final
separation of the tensile bar. The key fracture stages and
parameters in the simulation of this entire process include a! a
fracture criterion for the flat cracking at the center of the bar,
b! flat crack propagation using a constant crack"tip"opening"
angle and#or displacement CT$%#CT$&!, c! a criterion for
determining the transition from flat cracking to slant cracking,
d! slant crack propagation using a constant shear
CT$%#CT$&. &etails of the numerical process are provided.
INTRODUCTION
Experiments from tensile test of round metal bars provide
many important mechanical properties of engineering materials.
In a typical load-displacement (or engineering stress-strain
curve) for ductile materials such as shown in Figure 1, a linear
region first appears at the early stage followed by a non-linear
load rise up to the maximum load (Region I covering up to the
maximum load, Point A shown in Figure 1). Necking of the
round bar occurs at/after the maximum load and the
deformation localizes in a narrow area around the necking with
a gradual decrease of load (Region II in Figure 1). The load
decrease becomes more rapid as the necking develops and
finally the specimen is broken (Region III in Figure 1).
When the load begins to decrease sharply (Point B in
Figure 1), voids are frequently observed from the center of the
specimen which will grow to initiate a crack (or cracks). After
some extension of the crack (or cracks) in a direction normal to
the specimen axis, sometimes in a zigzag fashion, the crack
deviates into a nearly 45
o
direction leading to final rupture. In
an experimental study of copper [1], the sharp drop in the load-
deflection curve was attributed to gross shear deformation. It
has been accepted that the appearance of the cup-cone fracture
surface is attributed to the combined mechanism of tensile
fracture at the center and shear fracture around the rim of the
specimen.
Fig.1 Schematic diagram of a load-deformation curve
for a round tensile bar in ductile material
1 Mechanical Engineering, USC
A variety of study has been performed to understand the
basic mechanisms of ductile fracture. In summary, the
development of ductile fracture is considered to proceed in
three successive stages: nucleation of internal cracks of second-
phase particles or inclusions, growth of voids, and coalescence
[2]. For an isolated void in a plastically deforming solid,
McClintock [3] studied the growth of cylindrical void in a
rigid-perfectly plastic material using the Mises yield criterion
and the associated flow rule. Rice and Tracey [4] analyzed the
growth of a spherical void subjected to a tensile deformation
and a remote hydrostatic stress. Based on continuum damage
mechanics, a material containing voids of different sizes is
assimilated to a porous material with a uniform distribution of
voids. This porous material is assumed to be homogeneous and
isotropic. Its constitutive law is similar to the von Mises law
derived from the unit cell containing one void at its center
from the properties of the dense material. Since Gurson [5]
proposed the first damage constitutive law, many researchers
have applied this method to the interpretation of ductile fracture
in tensile test [6, 7, 8, 9].
As another approach for the interpretation of ductile
fracture, the cohesive zone model has been used [10, 11]. The
base of this model is to split the materials behavior in two
mechanisms, deformation and separation [12, 13]. This model
was recently used for the prediction of crack path during the
stable crack extension in ductile tensile bar specimens [14].
In addition to the above mentioned models, some attention
has been focused on directly measurable quantities such as the
crack tip opening displacements and/or angles (CTOD/CTOA).
Early work by Well [15], and Rice and Sorensen [16] for Mode
I crack extension gave credence to the use of CTOD as a
fracture parameter for ductile materials. Computational studies
of stable crack growth to assess the viability of a CTOA-based
fracture criterion were performed by Newman [17], and
Newman et al. [18]. A collection of recent research papers on
CTOD/CTOA was compiled by Newman et al. [19] and a
comprehensive review of the work on CTOD/CTOA can be
found in References [20, 21] where the range of CTOA is
reported as 4 ~ 10
O
for steel materials.
In this study, the three stages of deformation and failure of
a round tensile specimen as shown in Figure 1 is simulated by
Finite Element (FE) analysis. Though the configuration of cup-
cone is clear from the broken specimen after test, it is difficult
to measure experimentally the behavior of load-deformation
while the specimen develops necking leading to total breakage.
As seen in Figure 1, due to the characteristics of fast fracture,
most experiments stop taking data soon after the sharp load-
drop (Point C in Figure 1). Due to the lack of good
experimental data in region III of Figure 1, the model used by
Scheider and Brocks [14] was adopted in this current analysis.
The key features for modeling the complete fracture process,
i.e. (a) a CTOD/CTOA failure criterion to predict the tensile
fracture at the center part of the bar, (b) the transition from
tensile to shear fracture, and (3) the shear crack propagation
using a shear CTOD/CTOA criterion near the free surface of
the specimen leading to final separation of the tensile bar are
provided.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND FE MODELING
1. Material Properties
The material considered in this study is an X70 high
strength alloy steel typically used in pipeline applications. The
experimental true stress-strain curve is the same as the one used
in reference [14] and reproduced in Figure 2. A piece-wise
linear stress-strain data was used as input for the FE analysis.
The Youngs modulus of E = 1.77 10
5
MPa, the yield stress
of
y
= 354 MPa, and Poissons ratio = 0.28 were used.
2. FE Modeling
Elastic-plastic finite-deformation analyses were conducted
using the commercial FE analysis code, ABAQUS [22]. Flat
crack extension was simulated by constant CTOA/CTOD
failure criterion and slant crack extension by constant shear
CTOD. Details of the numerical process are explained at the
following section. A long bar with a circular cross-section
analyzed by Scheider and Brocks [14] was considered. The
specimen modeled has an initial length of 30 mm and a radius
of 5 mm. Figure 3(a) shows the FE mesh consisting of 912
reduced-integration axisymmetric quadrilateral elements and
1,001 nodes. After necking takes place, the model was re-
generated with fine meshes for the analysis of crack extension
(Figure 3(b) half model for display only). The re-meshed
model has 12,432 elements and 12,810 nodes. Most of the fine
elements are concentrated around the center part of the
specimen to reveal the detailed stress field at the crack front
and the behavior of CTOD (CTOA). Far field displacement at
the support was applied as the load in conjunction with the
CTOD as discussed in the next section. For slant crack
extension the free meshing technique built in ABAUQS is
employed to regenerate the mesh (Figure 3 (c)).
2 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
True strain
T
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Experimental data
FEM input
Fig.2 True stress-strain curve for X70 steel [14]
Fig.3 Finite element mesh of the round tensile bar;
(a) undeformed, (b) remeshed for flat crack extension
after necking (c) remeshed for slant crack extension
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Based on the material and specimen geometry, Scheider
and Brocks [14] obtained the load-deformation curve as shown
in Figure 4 using the cohesive zone model. We first performed
the FE analysis to match with this load-displacement curve and
investigate the fracture criteria and transition criterion during
each stage of the crack extension.
The simulation and results are reported in accordance
with the following sequence.
(1) Analysis of the deformation behavior up to the introduction
of initial crack (Stage 1 in Figure 4)
(2) Simulation of flat crack extension (Stage 2 in Figure 4)
(3) Transition from flat to slant crack extension
(4) Simulation of slant crack extension (Stage 3 in Figure 4)
(5) Prediction with combined CTOD failure criteria

Fig.4 Load versus deformation (diameter reduction) curve
with three stages
1. Analysis of the deformation behavior up to introduction of
initial crack (Stage 1 in Figure 4)
Experimental observation of tensile test indicates that, after
necking, crack (or cracks) formed at the center develops to a
certain degree [1]. As such, it was assumed that the specimen
could be modeled with solid elements in Stage 1 of Figure 4. In
order to induce necking at the middle of the specimen, a conical
imperfection with angle of 170
o
and depth of 0.5 % of specimen
radius was introduced on the outside of the specimen in the
numerical model. Different depth and angle of imperfection
were also tried and found that they do not affect the FE analysis
results. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the simulated results
by the cohesive zone model [14] (load vs. diameter reduction
curve; hereinafter, load-deformation curve) and the current FE
results. Good match between them is found, which illustrates
that necking can be simulated very well by the solid elements
up to the point where the load starts to drop drastically.
3 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Diameter reduction (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Cohesive model
FEM (olid Model!
Stage 1
(a! ("! (#! (a! ("! (#!
Fig.5 Comparison of load versus deformation curves between
the cohesive zone model and the current study for Stage 1
2. Simulation of flat crack growth (Stage 2 in Figure 3)
%s shown in Figure 5, the stage ' is followed by a sharp
drop on the load"deflection cure which implies the development
of crack inside of the specimen. (n the cohesive zone model
)'4*, it was assumed that the crack initiates at the center where
the normal cohesive stress reaches a critical value of '+++ ,-a.
(n this study, similar criterion was applied for initiating an
internal crack at the center of the bar point a in Figure 4!. $ur
current F. analysis results in an a/ial stress at the center of the
specimen about 05+ ,-a at point a in the load"deformation
curve Figure 4!. The slight difference could be due to the
difference in F% mesh used. % straight crack with length of one
element two nodes! was introduced at the center part of the
specimen at point a.
To simulate the crack propagation, the F. node
immediately ahead of the current crack tip was released. $nce
the crack tip was released, the new crack tip was generated by
re"meshing and the far field displacement was then
incrementally increased. (n order to get a close match with the
cohesive analysis results, i.e. the reduction of specimen
diameter accompanied by the crack e/tension, it was necessary
to determine both the increment of far"field displacement and
the amount of crack e/tension by trial"and"error.
Though the zigzag pattern of crack path at the center part
has been found in some ductile materials, it was assumed in this
study that the crack e/tends straight in the radial direction
during the initial stage of flat stable crack growth 1tage 2 in
Figure 4!. Figure 3 compares the load"deformation curves
between the cohesive zone model and the current F. analysis
results. % very good match was obtained up to a/R 54 . +
and slight deviation begins at a/R 35 . + see Figure 3!
where a is the crack length and R is the specimen radius 1ee
the inset in Figure 3 for the definitions of a and R!.
Figure 4 summarizes the F. analysis results of the crack
opening profile at various locations behind the crack tip. (t is
interesting to note that the crack opening profiles maintain
straight that means a constant CT$% during the crack e/tension
up to about a/R 5 +.35. (n other words, for any given crack
e/tension, the value of critical CT$% would be a constant and
does not seem to depend on where the measurement takes
place. Figure 6 compares the CT$% calculated at r 5 +.2 mm
and +.5 mm behind the crack tip. (n this figure, CT$% is
calculated from ( ) / 2 # CT$& 2tan CT$%
"'
= , where / is
the distance behind the current crack tip. Figure 6 shows that
CT$% maintains nearly the same value CT$%#2 5 2.2
o
! during
the crack e/tension and is independent of the distance from the
crack tip. (t is concluded from this e/ercise that either a critical
CT$% or a critical CT$& is a constant during the flat crack
e/tension stage.

Fig.6 Comparison of load versus deformation curves in
Stage 2
Fig. 7 Crack opening profiles during the flat crack extension
3. Transition from flat crack to slant crack
./perimentally it was observed that the crack propagation
turned its direction from radial to slant, or there is a transition
from tensile fracture to shear fracture, in the neighborhood of
this point. To study this transition, detailed crack tip stress is
needed. 1ince we postulate that the flat slant! fracture is
associated with tensile shear!, we will focus on the ma/imum
opening stress and the ma/imum shear stress in the vicinity of
the crack tip. First of all, as the flat crack is driven by the
opening stress, its distribution ahead of a crack tip was
investigated while the flat crack advanced. %lso it is worth
taking a note on the development of shear stress along 45
o
because the slant fracture will occur on this plane. %ccording to
the F. analysis it was found that the ma/imum shear stress
does not always occurs along the plane of 45
o
. (t occurs around
the plane of 5 45
o
though. The discussion for calculation of
the ma/imum shear stress will be discussed at the later section
but the angle 5 45
o
! is fi/ed only for the e/planation of
general trend. The crack tip opening stresses $$! at 5 +
o
and
4 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0
10
20
30
40
50
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Diameter reduction (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Cohesive model
Current stud$
Solid Model
a/R = 0.08
a/R = 0.40
a/R = 0.65
a/R = 0.57
a
R
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Distance from the Current Crack Tip (mm)
C
T
O
D
/
2

(
m
m
)
a%& ' 0.08 a%& ' 0.16
a%& ' 0.24 a%& ' 0.32
a%& ' 0.40 a%& ' 0.4(
a%& ' 0.5) a%& ' 0.65
shearing stresses r
! at 5 45
o
with local coordinates Figure
0! obtained from the F. analysis are illustrated in Figure '+.
Both stress distributions are plotted as a function of the
distance from the center or the axis of the round bar. The
opening stress increased at the initial stage, reached a
maximum at a/R = 0.41, and decreased as the crack extends
further. On the contrary the shear stress decreased initially but
increased later as the crack approaches to the free surface.
These rising shear stresses will eventually affect the failure
Fig.8 Distribution of CTOA/2 during the flat crack extension
Fig.0 1tress components used for Figure '+
Fig.'+ The distributions of opening and shear stresses ahead of
the crack tip
mode to change from tensile to shear fracture leading to the
slant fracture as discussed in section 4. (t is interesting to note
that although the opening and shearing stress fields show
comple/ trends the critical CT$& maintains nearly constant
during flat crack growth as shown in Figure 4!.
%s discussed by Chao and 7iu )28*, 7iu, et al. )24* and
Chao and 9hu )25*, the transition from tensile mode to shear
mode of fracture is controlled by the ratio of ma/imum shear
stress and ma/imum normal stress, or max! # max! in front of
the crack tip. This ratio in front of the crack tip at various crack
tip locations is presented in Figure '2. Figure '2 shows the
stress ratio at two distances from the crack tip r 5 +.+5 mm and
r 5 +.+6 mm!. Firstly, it appears that the stress ratio is nearly
independent of the distance r. 1econdly, considering the
dominance of the constant CT$&#CT$% during the flat crack
e/tension and the conformation of the load"deformation curve
Figure 4!, the transition from the flat to shear fracture seems to
occur between a /R 5 +.35 : +.48. From Figure '2 the
corresponding stress ratio to this stress range is +.82 : +.83
Figure '2!. ;ote that similar range of stress ratio has been
used to define the transition from tensile"to"shear fracture for
ductile materials e.g. stress ratio 5 +.85 in <eferences '4 and
23, stress ratio 5 +.84 in <eference 24!. These stress ratios are
however =uite different from those based on the classical theory
of plasticity, i.e. stress ratio 5 +.5 from Tresca theory and +.544
from von ,ises theory )28"25, 26*. (t is likely that the stress
ratio at the tensile"shear transition is a function of the ductility
of the material. Further study is needed in this respect.
5 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.)
a/R
C
T
O
A
/
2

(
D
e

r
e
e
)
C*+,%2 at r ' 0.2 mm
C*+,%2 at r ' 0.5 mm
C*+,

yy

r
= 45
o
Cra#- tip
R
Center line
a

yy

r
= 45
o
Cra#- tip
R
Center line
a
Fig.'' &efinition for stress ratio 5 ma/ # ma/!
Fig.12 Variations of the stress ratio versus crack length during
flat crack extension
4. Simulation of slant crack extension (Stage 3 in Figure 4)
Following the transition, shear fracture is assumed such
that the crack e/tends along the 45
o
direction. ,accagno and
>nott )20* found that in shear fracture the crack grows along
the direction of ma/imum shear stress and suggested that the
ma/imum shear stress may be used to predict the shear crack
growth. ,a et al. )8+* proposed to use the shear component of
CT$& measured at a specified distance behind the crack tip to
predict the shear fracture.
Figure '8 illustrates the definition of the crack opening
displacement, i.e. the total! crack opening displacement at a
distance behind the crack tip, the normal component 1 which is
perpendicular to the crack face, and the shear component 2
which is parallel to the crack face. (n this study, the two
components of the CT$& were calculated as the slant crack
e/tends along the 45
o
plane. The free re"meshing techni=ue
built in %?%@A1 )22* with node release along the 45
o
plane
was used for this simulation. The crack tip node pair was
released and e=uilibrium with a new crack length was
computed. ?oth the increment of displacement and the amount
of slant crack e/tension were determined by trial"and"error to
match with the load"deformation curve in Figure 4.
Fig. 13 Definition of the CTODs; total , normal component

1
, and shear component 2
The variation of the three CTODs, i.e. total, shear and
normal component, at 0.1 mm behind the crack tip is shown in
Figure 14 as the crack extends in slant direction. The local
coordinates were used for the crack length and the components
of CTOD. In Figure 14 the relatively constant value of 2 is
observed and therefore a constant CTOA may be plausible as
the fracture criterion, which is consistent with Ma et al. [30] for
the prediction of shear crack growth.
The definitions of parameters (a and R) and the stress
components for crack growth under slant condition are
illustrated in Figure 15. Figure 16 shows the variation of stress
ratio during the slant crack growth (denoted as shear fracture in
Figure 16 which is an extended version of Figure 12). The
stress ratio continues to rise after the transition until final
rupture, which strongly implies a shear dominant fracture
throughout the slant crack extension.
6 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/R
!
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
t
i
o
r ' 0.05 mm
r ' 0.08 mm
tress &atio ' 0.35

2
1
Crack tip
Beore t!e crack e"ten#ion
$ter t!e crack e"ten#ion

2
1
Crack tip
Beore t!e crack e"ten#ion
$ter t!e crack e"ten#ion

max

max
Cra#- tip
r

max

max
Cra#- tip
r

Fig.14 Variation of CTODs during the slant crack extension

Fig.15 Definition of a, R, and stress ratio (= ma/ / ma/)
for the slant crack
Fig.16 Stress ratio versus crack extension
5. Prediction with combined CTOD failure criterion and
parametric study
In summary, based on the findings from the previous
sections, ductile failure in a round tensile bar could be
categorized by 3 stages as shown in Figure 4. The first stage
(Stage 1 in Figure 4) is the region that includes the initial linear
part in the load-deformation curve and the development of
necking. This region can be predicted well by solid elements
without any node release. The second region (Stage 2 in Figure
4) covers from the sudden load drop to the transition of tensile-
to-shear fracture. This stage can be predicted by the constant
CTOD (CTOA) failure criterion with flat crack growth at the
center of the bar. The transition of tensile-to-shear fracture
occurs when the stress ratio, defined as maximum shear stress
(
max
) / maximum normal stress (
max
), reaches a value of 0.32 ~
0.36. After the transition or Stage 3 in Figure 4, the fracture is
dominated by shear where the failure can be predicted/modeled
by a constant shear CTOD failure criterion.
FE analysis is performed using the failure criteria
discussed in the above paragraph for the round bar test
including three stages using (a) 950 MPa as the critical tensile
stress to initiate the crack in the center for the bar, (b) a
constant CTOA/2 = 2.2
o
for the flat crack extension, (c) a stress
ratio of 0.35 for the transition, and (d) a constant shear CTOD
2 = 0.01 mm for shear crack extension along the 45
o
slant
direction. The prediction for the load-diameter reduction curve
is compared with that from the cohesive zone model in Figure
17. General trend of the load versus displacement is captured
well.
In order to investigate the effect of critical normal stress
that is assumed to introduce the flat crack, another prediction
was done with critical normal stress = 1050 MPa, while the
other fracture parameters are kept the same. The predicted
result is also shown in Figure 17. It is shown that crack would
be introduced after more diameter reduction than the case of
950 MPa. The final configurations of fractured specimens are
compared in Figure 18. It should be noted that the crack
openings shown in Figure 18 are exaggerated to show the
difference. It is interesting to find that two types of cracks
develop; one is the mixture of flat and slant cracks (critical
stress = 950 MPa) but the other is nearly flat crack dominant
(critical stress = 1050 MPa). The latter may be attributed to the
general yielding due to limit load when the stress ratio
approaches the critical value for slant crack initiation - 0.35. On
numerical simulation it was found that the stable crack
extension could not be maintained with constant CTOA failure
criterion at the end stage of crack extension shown in Fig 18
(b).

7 Mechanical Engineering, USC
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/R
!
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
t
i
o
lant Cra#-
Flat Cra#-
tress &atio ' 0.35
*ensile
.ra#true
hear
.ra#true
a
R
Center line
Crack tip

max

max
Cra#- tip
r

(a!
("!
a
R
Center line
Crack tip

max

max
Cra#- tip
r

(a!
("!
CONCLUSIONS
The numerical simulation presented in this study
produces the features of the cup-cone fracture process in a
round tensile bar using a combination of fracture criteria and
transition criterion. In summary, it is shown that:
(1) The characteristics of ductile failure can be categorized by 3
stages development of necking, flat crack growth and
slant crack growth.
(2) Circumferential necking of the tensile specimen up to the
initiation of fracture (or voids) at the center of the bar was
captured well by the numerical simulation with solid finite-
deformation elastic-plastic elements. Introduction of slight
imperfection in geometry is necessary to trigger the
necking in the numerical model.
(3) The second stage covering from the sudden load drop to the
transition of tensile-to-shear fracture can be simulated by
the flat crack growth. The constant value of critical CTOD
(CTOA) appears to be prevalent in this stage.
(4) The tensile-shear transition occurs when the stress ratio,
(
max
) / (
max
), reaches approximately 0.32 ~ 0.36 for the
model studied. The criterion for failure mode transition
warrants further study for various materials.
(5) The shear fracture is dominant over the third stage where
shear component of critical CTOD (2! is found to be
nearly constant as the crack advances along the 45
o
plane.
(6) Based on the findings above, a combined constant CTOD
failure criterion with the flat and subsequent slant crack
growth is used and proposed for modeling the round bar
tensile test. It appears a good prediction of ductile failure
of round tensile bar can be achieved with this approach.
Fig.17 Comparison of load versus diameter reduction curves
under different critical stresses
Fig.18 Comparison of crack extension mode under different
critical stresses (a) 950 MPa, (b) 1050 MPa
<.F.<.;C.1
[1] Bluhm, J.I., and Morrissey, R.J. (1965), Fracture in a
tensile specimen, Proceedings of the 1
st
International
Conference on Fracture, Sendai, Japan, Sept. 12-17,
1739-1780.
[2] Pineau, A. (1992), Global and local approaches of fracture-
transferability of laboratory test results to components, in
Topics in Fracture and Fatigue, A.S. Argon, Ed., Springer-
Verlag, New York, 197-234.
[3] McClintock, F.A. (1968), A criteria for ductile fracture by
the growth of holes, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol.35,
363-371.
[4] Rice, J.R. and Tracey, D.M. (1969), On the ductile
enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields, Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol.17, 201-217.
[5] Gurson, A.L. (1977), Continuum theory of ductile rupture
by void nucleation and growth: Part I Yield criteria and
flow rules for porous ductile media, Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol.99, 2-15.
[6] Tvergaard, V., and Needleman, A. (1984), Analysis of the
cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar, Acta
Metallurgica, Vol.32, 157-169.
[7] Becker, R., Needleman A., Richmond, O., and Tvergaard,
V., (1988), Void growth and failure in notched bars,
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol.36,
317-351.
[8] Besson, J., Steglich, D., and Brocks, W. (2001), Modeling
of crack growth in round bars and plane strain specimen,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol.38,
8259-8284.
[9] Teng, X. (2008) Numerical prediction of slant fracture with
continuum damage mechanics, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol.75, 2020-2041.
8 Mechanical Engineering, USC
(a!
("!
(a!
("!
[10] Yuan, H., Lin, G., and Cornec, A., (1996), Verification of
a cohesive zone model for ductile fracture, Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol.118, 192-200
[11] Siegmund, T., and Brocks, W. (2000), The role of cohesive
strength and separation energy for modeling of ductile
fracture, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 30
th
volume,
ASTM STP 1360, 139-151.
[12] Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Peterson, P.E., (1976),
Analysis of crack deformation and crack growth in
concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite
elements, Cement Concrete, Vol.6, 773-782.
[13] Needleman A., (1987), A continuum model for void
nucleation by inclusion debonding, Journal of Applied
Mechanics Transaction of ASME, Vol.54, 525-531.
[14] Scheider, I., and Brocks, W. (2003), Simulation of cup-
cone fracture using the cohesive model, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, Vol.70, 1943-1961.
[15] Well, A.A., (1961), Unstable crack propagation in metals;
cleavage and fast fracture, Proceedings of the Cranfield
Crack Propagation Symposium 1, 210-230.
[16] Rice, J.R. and Sorenson, E.P. (1978), Continuing crack tip
deformation and fracture for plane strain crack growth in
elastic-plastic solids, Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, Vol.26, 163-186.
[17] Newman, Jr. J.C. (1984), An elastic-plastic finite element
analysis of crack initiation, stable crack growth, and
instability, ASTM STP 833, 93-117.
[18] Newman, Jr. J.C., Dawicke, D.S., Bigelow, C.A. (1992),
Finite element analysis and fracture simulation in thin
sheet aluminum alloy, ANASA TM-107662.
[19] Newman, Jr. J.C., and Zerbst, U., (2003), Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol.70, 367-69.
[20] Newman, Jr. J.C., James, M.A., and Zerbst, U., (2003), A
review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.70, 371-385.
[21] Lam, P.-S., Kim, Y., Chao, Y.J. (2006) The non-constant
CTOD/CTOA in stable crack extension under plane-strain
conditions, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.73,
1070-1085.
[22] ABAQUS, Version 6.4, ABAQUS, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I.
[23] Chao, Y.J. and Liu, S. (1997), On the failure of cracks
under mixed-mode loads, International Journal of
Fracture, Vol.87(3), 201-223.
[24] Liu, S., Chao, Y.J. and Zhu, X. (2004), Tensile-shear
transition in mode I/III fracture, International Journal of
Solids and Structures, Vol. 41(22-23), 6147-6172.
[25] Chao, Y.J. and Zhu, X. K. (1999), A simple theory for
describing the transition between tensile and shear
mechanisms in mode I, II, III and mixed-mode fracture,
ASTM STP 1359, Mixed-Mode Crack Behavior, Eds. K.J.
Miller and D. McDowell, 41-57.
[26] Siegmund, T., and Brocks, W. (2000), A numerical study
on the correlation between the work of separation and the
dissipation rate in ductile fracture, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 67, 139-154.
[27] Jia, Li., Zhang, X.B., and Recho, N. (2004), J-M
P
based
criterioa for bifurcation and assessment of a crack in
elastic-plastic materials under mixed mode I-II loading,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.71, 329-343.
[28] Mendelson, A. (1968), Plasticity: theory and application,
Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida
[29] Maccagno, T.M., Knott, J.F. (1992), The mixed mode I-II
fracture behavior of lightly tempered HY 130 steel at
room temperature, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol.41, 805-820.
[30] Ma, F., Deng, X., Sutton, M.C., Newman, Jr. J.C. (1999),
A CTOD based mixed mode fracture criterion, ASTM
STP 1359, Mixed-Mode Crack Behavior, Eds. K.J. Miller
and D. McDowell, 86-110.
9 Mechanical Engineering, USC