K I ≥ K IC or J I ≥ J IC ð2Þ

In the preceding inequality, the left-hand side (K I or J I ) repre-

Increasing KI sents the toughness demand in a structural component, which is
σ
determined through finite-element simulations or sometimes (for
more regular geometries) through analytical or regressed formulas
[refer to Rooke and Cartwright (1976) for K I solutions and Kumar
et al. (1984) for J I solutions]. The right-hand side (K IC or J IC ) is
assumed to be a material property determined through standardized
r
testing [ASTM E399 (ASTM 2013a) for K IC, ASTM E1820
(ASTM 2013c) for J IC ]. This departure from continuum-based
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Patna" on 01/14/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Singular stress fields

failure theories (which are based on pointwise stress evaluations)
is necessitated by the stress singularity. In reality, the stresses (and
strains) at the crack tip are regularized (meaning they are not equal
to infinity) due to (1) the formation of a plastic zone around the
crack tip, (2) microstructural features that invalidate continuum me-
chanics over these small scales, or (3) finite crack widths. Even
today, it is computationally expensive to simulate these features
Fig. 3. Crack tip singularity implicit in linear elastic fracture mechanics with the aim of characterizing stress and strain fields in the close
vicinity of the crack tip. The usefulness of a far-field or remote
parameter such as the stress intensity factor is even more under-
standable considering the computational resources available when
crack, rather than a discrete location within the body. The implicit LEFM and EPFM were first developed.
assumption is that these parameters are correlated with crack tip Traditional fracture mechanics is valid only as long as the tough-
stress and strain fields that activate the microstructural processes ness parameters retain a unique correspondence with the stress-
described previously. Two popular parameters associated with tra- strain fields in the vicinity of the crack tip, even if these fields
ditional fracture mechanics are the stress intensity factor (denoted are not consistent with the underlying theory (e.g., linear elasticity)
K I ), and the contour J-integral (denoted J I ). The K I forms the used to formulate the parameters. In general, this is true when the
core of linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), whereas the size of the plastic zone at the crack tip is significantly smaller than
latter is arguably the most important parameter within elastic- the region of K I or J I dominance (i.e., the region where the singular
plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Other EPFM parameters such stress-strain fields consistent with K I or J I dominate the overall
as the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) or crack tip open- stress field). In practical terms, this results in size limitations on
ing angle (CTOA) are not discussed here, albeit extensive discus- calibration specimens for K IC and J IC and corresponding size lim-
sion on these may be found in textbooks (e.g., Anderson 1995; itations for structural components within which they may be used to
Saxena 1997). predict fracture. For example, LEFM is valid if the characteristic
Both K I and J I may be interpreted as fracture toughness de- dimension (e.g., flange thickness, crack length) of a component
mand parameters determined from the stress field in a loaded struc- is greater than approximately 2.5 × ðK IC =Fy Þ2. This indicates over-
tural component. The former (K I ) is interpreted as the amplitude all elastic response before fracture. EPFM is valid when the speci-
of the singularity of the stress field near the crack tip in an elastic men size is greater than 10 × ðJ IC =Fy Þ, which typically allows for
body, shown in Fig. 3. Eq. (1) indicates that (1) the stress field may ductile fracture at the macroscale. The size limitations for EPFM
be expressed as a series expansion in terms p offfiffiffithe distance r ahead are more liberal than those for LEFM because EPFM formulations
of the crack tip, such that K I scales the 1= r term, which repre- admit material nonlinearity, thereby preserving the correspondence
sents the singularity because σ → ∞ as r → 0; and (2) a higher K I between J I and crack tip stress fields for a higher level of plasticity.
(shown by the dashed line in Fig. 3) implies higher stresses remote Because linear elasticity is a special case of nonlinear elasticity,
from the crack trip, although both curves approach infinity near the EPFM is always valid when LEFM is, but not vice versa, meaning
crack tip J I -based fracture assessment may be conducted even when the
response is expected to be linear elastic or brittle (following the
KI preceding size limitations). On the other hand, K I -based assess-
σ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi þ higher order terms ð1Þ ment may be used only in the case of elastic or brittle fracture.
2πr A corollary of this is that for linear elastic response, J I and K I are
equivalent. In fact, they may be uniquely related such that J I ¼
The J-integral (J I ) = central parameter of EPFM. This param- K 2I × ð1 − ν 2 Þ=E. An analogous relationship may be used to relate
eter [proposed by Rice (1968)] may be interpreted as the strain en- K IC and J IC . In summary, traditional fracture mechanics ap-
ergy release rate per unit area extension of a crack in a nonlinear proaches may be used when (1) there is a sharp crack or flaw
elastic body. Similar to K I , J I may be interpreted as a stress inten- in the structural component, (2) the spatial extent of yielding is
sity parameter as well, as demonstrated by Hutchinson (1968) and small with respect to component size, and (3) the loading is
Rice and Rosengren (1968), defining the amplitude of a crack tip monotonic.
singularity. Thus, traditional fracture mechanics (LEFM or EPFM) Following the previous discussion, traditional fracture mechan-
rely on the notion that the amplitude of the stress field singularity ics [Eq. (2)] require (1) either regressed formulas or finite-element
defined by K I or J I (rather than pointwise stress values themselves) simulation to determine K I or J I in the structural component, and
may be used as a fracture parameter, such that both toughness de- (2) laboratory tests to calibrate K IC and J IC . Commercial and aca-
mands and capacities may be expressed in terms of this parameter. demic finite-element programs (e.g., Abaqus; Dodds et al. 2012)
Following this, the fracture criteria in traditional fracture mechanics are able to simulate stress and strain fields required for the deter-
may be expressed as mination of K I or J I subject to two considerations. First, the

© ASCE 03116001-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(3): 03116001