4.5 Article

Comparison of predictions by mode II or mode III criteria on crack front twisting in three or four point bending experiments

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRACTURE
Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages 141-151

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10704-008-9307-2

Keywords

Brittle fracture; Mode II; Mode III; Maximum tangential stress criterion; 3D crack propagation path; 3D fracture criteria; LEFM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whatever the external loading, a crack front in a solid tries to reach mode I loading conditions after propagation. In mode I + II, the crack kinks to annihilate mode II, kinking angle being well predicted by the principle of local symmetry (PLS) or by the maximum tangential stress criterion (MTS). In presence of mode III, the problem becomes three-dimensional and the proposed propagation criterion are not yet well proved and established. In particular in three point bending experiments (3PB) with an initially inclined crack, the crack twists around the direction of propagation to finally reach a situation of pure mode I. The aim of the paper is to compare the propagation paths predicted by two different criteria for 3PB fatigue experiments performed on PMMA. The first criterion developed by Schollmann et al. (Int J Fract 117(2):129-141, 2002), is a three-dimensional extension of the MTS criterion and predicts the local angles that annihilates mode II and III at each point of the front. The second one developed by Lazarus et al. (J Mech Phys Solids 49(7):1421-1443, 2001b), predicts an abrupt and then progressive twisting of the front to annihilate mode III. Due to presence of sign changing mode II and almost uniform mode III in the experiments, both criteria give good results. However, since mode III is predominant over mode II in the case under consideration, the global criterion gives better results. Nevertheless, the local type criterion seems to be of greater universality for practical engineering applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available