IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSR JEN) www.iosrjen.

org
ISSN (e): 2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719
PP 62-66

Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA)

Rizwan Shaikh1, Tariq Khan2, Altaf Inamdar3, Momin Jaweed4, Barkati Malik5
1245
(Mechanical Engineering Department, MMANTC, Mansoora, Malegaon, India)
3
(Applied Science Department, MMANTC, Mansoora, Malegaon, India)

Abstract: The present paper gives a technical review of fracture toughness testing, evaluation and standardiza-
tion for metallic materials in terms of the linear elastic fracture mechanics as well as the elastic–plastic frac-
ture mechanics. This includes the early investigations and recent advances of fracture toughness test methods
and practices developed by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The review describes the most
important fracture mechanics parameters: the elastic energy release rate G, the stress intensity factor K, the J-
integral, the crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) and the crack-tip opening angle (CTOA) from the ba- sic
concept, definition, to experimental estimation, test methods and ASTM standardizing practices. Attention is
paid to guidelines on how to choose an appropriate fracture parameter to characterize fracture toughness for
the material of interest, and how to measure the fracture toughness value defined either at a critical point or in
a resistance curve format using laboratory specimens. The relevant ASTM fracture tough-ness test standards
considered in this paper are E399 for KIc testing, E561 for K–R curve testing, E813 for JIc testing, E1152 for J–
R curve testing, E1737 for JIc and J–R curve testing, E1290 for CTOD (d) testing, a combined common test
standard E1820 for measuring the three parameters of K, J and d, E1921 for the transition reference temperature
T0 testing and the master curve of cleavage toughness KJc testing, and E2472 for CTOA testing. The effects of
loading rate, temperature and crack-tip constraint on fracture toughness as well as fracture instability analysis
are also reviewed.
Keywords: CTOA, CTOD, J-Integer, KIC

I. Introduction
Fracture toughness is usually used as a generic term for measures of material resistance to extension of
a crack. It is restricted to results of fracture mechanics tests in this work, which are directly applicable to fracture
control and to fracture test in describing the material property for a crack to resist fracture. The experimental
measurement and standardization of fracture toughness play an imperative role in application of fracture
mechanics methods to structural integrity assessment, damage tolerance design, fitness-for-service evaluation,
and residual strength analysis for different engineering components and structures. The fracture toughness
values may also serve as a basis in material characterization, performance evaluation, and quality assurance for
typical engineering structures, including nuclear pressure vessels and piping, petrochemical vessels and tanks,
oil and gas pipelines, and automotive, ship and aircraft structures. Therefore, fracture toughness testing and
evaluation has been a very important subject in development of fracture mechanics method and its engineering
applications.
The stress intensity factor K (or its equivalent partner – the elastic energy release rate G), the J-
integral, the crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD), and the crack-tip opening angle (CTOA) are the most
important parameters used in fracture mechanics. The K factor was proposed in 1957 by Irwin [1] to describe
the intensity of elastic crack-tip fields, and symbolizes the linear elastic fracture mechanics. The J-integral was
proposed in 1968 by Rice [2] to characterize the intensity plastic crack-tip fields, and symbolizes the elastic–
plastic fracture mechanics.
The CTOD concept was proposed in 1963 by Wells [3] to serve as an engineering fracture parameter,
and can be equivalently used as K or J in practical applications. The CTOA parameter was used in the recent
decade to describe fracture behavior of stable crack extension for thin- walled materials. Different experimental
methods have been developed for measuring these parameters to describe fracture tough- ness of materials. The
detailed descriptions of these fracture mechanics parameters and their applications can be found in the textbooks
of fracture mechanics, such as those by Broek [4], Kanninen and Popelar [5], Hertzberg [6], Anderson [7] and
others.
The basic fracture mechanics concepts were summarized by Irwin and Dewit [8]. Recently, Erdogan [9]
and Cotterell [10] reviewed the history and development of fracture mechanics. Extensive applications of
fracture mechanics methods via fracture toughness in structural integrity and assessment were documented in a
set of 11-volume comprehensive books compiled by Milne et al. [11]. Standard terminology relating to fracture
toughness testing and evaluation has been defined in E1823 [12] by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) in the United States. All terms and concepts pertaining to fracture tests used in this work are
1st National Conference on Technology 62 | Page
Maulana Mukhtar Ahmed Nadvi Technical Campus (MMANTC), Mansoora, Malegaon Maharashtra, India
 Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA)

consistent with those defined by ASTM E1823.This paper reviews the historical investigation and state-of-the-
art development of fracture toughness testing, evaluation and standardization for structural metallic materials in
terms of the linear elastic fracture mechanics and the elastic–plastic fracture mechanics.

Fig 1. The conventional fracture test specimens. (a) Compact tension (C(T)) specimen, (b) single edge-notched
bend specimen (SE(B)) in three-point bending, and (c) middle-cracked tension (M(T)) specimen.

Particular attention is paid to the practices of fracture toughness test methods developed by ASTM for
measuring the fracture mechanics parameters of the stress intensity factor K (or the elastic energy release rate
G), the J-integral, the crack-tip opening displacement and the crack-tip opening angle. The effects of loading
rate, temperature and crack-tip constraint on fracture toughness measurements as well as fracture instability
analysis are also reviewed. Six types of conventional fracture test specimens are permitted in ASTM fracture
test standards, but no single standard al- lows all six configurations. These include compact tension (C(T))
specimen, single edge-notched bend (SE(B)) specimen in three-point bending, middle-cracked tension (M(T))
panel, disk-shaped compact tension (DC(T)) specimen, arc-shaped tension (A(T)) specimen and arc-shaped
bend (A(B)) specimen. This paper focuses on the mostly often used C(T), SE(B) and M(T) specimens
containing a through-thickness tensile crack, i.e., mode-I crack, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In this figure, Wis the
specimen width, B is the specimen thickness, H is the height of C(T) specimen, S is the span of SE(B) specimen,
L is the length of M(T) specimen a is the crack length of the two bending specimens and 2a is the crack length
of the tensile specimen.
In most cases, W= 2B, H = 1.2W, S = 4W, LP3W and a/W 0.5. However, different specimen size
requirements are prescribed in different fracture test standards in order to obtain valid fracture toughness and to
limit the effects of cracktip constraint on that fracture toughness parameter.

II. K-Based Fracture Testing

2.1 Early fracture testing
Early fracture testing and analysis was based on the energy approach that described the occurrence of
fracture when the energy available for crack growth is sufficient to overcome the resistance of the material.
Griffith [31] at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment was the first to propose the fundamental energy theory for
brittle materials like glass, where the resistance was assumed to come exclusively from the surface formation
energy of the material. For metallic materials, plastic deformation generated at the crack tip absorbs much more
applied energy than the surface energy, and thus Griffith’s energy theory underestimates severely the fracture
strength of metals. Irwin [36] and Orowan [37] modified Griffith’s theory by including the local plastic
dissipation energy for its application to metals. Irwin [38] further modified this theory using the energy release
rate G as a measure of the energy available for an increment of crack extension. On these bases, Irwin [1]
obtained the simple relationship of Eq. (3) between G and K for the infinite plate in tension. This relationship is
significant to connect the global energy concept of Griffith to a more readily calculable crack-tip parameter.
Because of the leading roles they played in its development, the linear elastic fracture mechanics is often known
as Griffith–Irwin theory. The concept of fracture resistance was first introduced by Irwin and Kies [39] using
the energy approach. As illustrated in Fig. 2a, the 1954 concept regards the fracture resistance R of the material
as a constant or slightly decreasing value, when plotted against the crack length, whereas the driving force G
was an increasing function of crack length. Fracture instability was defined by a critical value Gc at the
intersection of these two curves
1st National Conference on Technology 63 | Page
Maulana Mukhtar Ahmed Nadvi Technical Campus (MMANTC), Mansoora, Malegaon Maharashtra, India
 Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA)

2.2. KIc testing and ASTM E399 development

As defined in ASTM E1823, the plane strain fracture toughness, KIc, is the crack-extension resistance
under conditions of crack-tip plane strain in mode I for slow rates of loading under predominantly linear-elastic
conditions and negligible plastic- zone adjustment. KIc provides for the measurement of crack-extension
resistance at the onset (2% or less) of crack extension. This section discusses the KIc test standard ASTM E399
and its development history. The test procedures for measuring fracture toughness of materials have been
developed and standardized by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in the United States. In
1958, a special ASTM Technical Committee E24 on Fracture Testing of Metals was established for the purpose
to develop and write test methods for determination of fracture properties. Kaufman [44] reviewed the progress
of the committee effort over the early 10 years. Note that ASTM Technical Committees E09 on fatigue and E24
on fracture merged 25 years later in 1993 as the present ASTM Technical Committee E08 on Fatigue and
Fracture Mechanics.
Much of the early fracture toughness testing was directed at relatively thin sections and the
procedures prescribed in the first and second ASTM E24 committee reports [45, 46] dealt almost entirely with
thin-section problems. It was indicated that thickness-dependent apparent toughness Kc might not be a single-
value property, and thickness-independent plane strain toughness KIc might be a more fundamental property of
materials. Thus the committee effort shifted from the thin-section problem to concentration on the thick-
section problem to develop test methods for determining KIc. It was anticipated that once the plane strain
problem was solved, attention would return to the thin-section (or plane stress) problem.

III. J-Based Fracture Testing

J-integral concept and HRR field For structural steels in the presence of large-scale plasticity, linear
elastic fracture mechanics cannot accurately characterize the fracture behavior, and thus an alternative nonlinear
fracture mechanics model is needed. Based on the deformation theory of plasticity, Rice [2] at Brown
University (now at Harvard University) proposed a new fracture parameter that was called J integral. C is an
arbitrary curve around the tip of a crack,w is the strain energy density, Ti is the compo- nents of the traction
vector, ui is the displacement vector components, ds is the length increment along the contour, x and y are the
rectangular coordinates with the y direction taken normal to the crack line and the origin at the crack tip. Rice
[2] showed that for deformation plasticity (i.e., nonlinear elasticity) the J-integral is independent of the path of
integration around the crack tip. This path independence was first verified by Kobayashi et al. [89] using the
finite element analysis (FEA). Thus, J is called a path-independent integral.

Fig 2. An arbitrary contour around the crack tip used in the definition of J-integral.

IV. CTOD & CTOA – Based Fracture Testing

In addition to the K and J concepts described above, another important fracture mechanics parameter is
the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) first proposed by Wells [3] at the British Welding Institute. Initially,
Wells referred to this quantity as the crack opening displacement (COD), but more recently the name has been
changed to CTOD to distinguish the quantity from the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD), a physical
crack opening displacement measured across the crack mouth at the specimen surface. Wells developed the
CTOD approach in order to extend the elastic stress intensity factor approach into elastic–plastic yielding
conditions. The use of CTOD criterion requires a laboratory measurement of a critical CTOD value, usually
associated with the onset of cleavage fracture under plane strain conditions. Such a measurement near the
vicinity of the blunting crack tip is difficult and subjective. Initial measurements were made using injection and
removal of dental implant compound. The early approaches for CTOD measurements were reviewed by
Burdekin. The subsequent measurements were estimated using geometrical models inputting displacement

1st National Conference on Technology 64 | Page

Maulana Mukhtar Ahmed Nadvi Technical Campus (MMANTC), Mansoora, Malegaon Maharashtra, India
 Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA)

measurements made remotely from the crack tip. In particular, a plastic hinge model was developed by
Hollstein and Blauel to determine CTOD by assuming that two arms of the specimen rotate rigidly about a
plastic hinge point in the un cracked ligament. In order to apply the plastic hinge model to both elastic and
elastic–plastic conditions, the total d is separated into elastic and plastic components, just like the J separation.
The plastic component dpl is determined from the plastic CMOD in terms of the plastic hinge model, and the
elastic component del is calculated from the applied stress intensity factor K.

V. Conclusion
This paper gave a systematic technical review of fracture toughness testing, experimental evaluation,
test methods and standardization for metallic materials in reference to both the linear elastic fracture mechanics
and the elas- tic–plastic fracture mechanics. This review described the most important fracture parameters of the
elastic energy release rate G, the stress intensity factor K, the J-integral, the crack-tip opening displacement d,
and the crack-tip opening angle (CTOA) and presented, basically in the chronological order, the historic and
state-of-the-art developments of these fracture parameter test and evaluation methods. The basic concept,
definition, experimental estimation, early fracture test practice, test method, recent development, critical point-
value toughness evaluation, and resistance curve testing as well as ASTM standardization effort of fracture test
methods were described in detail for each fracture parameter of K (or G), J, CTOD, and CTOA. The effects of
loading rate, temperature, crack-tip constraint and fracture instability on fracture toughness measurements were
also reviewed. Three typical fracture mechanics constraint theories, i.e. the J–T approach, the J–Q theory and the
J A2 three-term solution and their applications to quantifying the constraint effect on fracture toughness were
briefly reviewed.

References
[1]. Rizwan Karim Shaikh, Tarique Khan & Shah Aqueel Ahmed. (2017). Fracture Analysis of thin Aluminum Sheet by J integer and C
T O D Technique Using FEA Validated by Experimental. Procedia Engineering. 173. 1191-1197. 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.113.
[2]. Irwin GR. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate. J Appl Mech 1957; 24:361–64.
[3]. Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech
1968; 35:379–86.
[4]. Wells AA. Application of fracture mechanics at and beyond general yielding. Br Weld J 1963;10:563–70.
[5]. Broek D. Elementary engineering fracture mechanics. Leyden: Noordhoff International Publishing; 1974.
[6]. Kanninen MF, Popelar CH. Advanced fracture mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1985.
[7]. Hertzberg RW. Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
[8]. Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics – fundamentals and applications. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005.
[9]. Irwin GR, DeWit R. A summary of fracture mechanics concepts. J Test Evaluat 1983;11:56–65.
[10]. Erdogan F. Fracture mechanics. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:171–83.
[11]. Cotterell B. The past, present and future of fracture mechanics. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:533–53.
[12]. Milne I, Ritchie RO, Karihaloo B. Comprehensive structural integrity, vols 1–10 (print version). Elsevier; 2003; or vols. 1-11
(online version), Elsevier; 2007.
[13]. ASTM E1823-10a. Standard terminology relating to fatigue and fracture testing. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[14]. ASTM E399-09e2. Standard test method for linear-elastic plane strain fracture toughness KIc of metallic materials. American
Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[15]. ASTM E561-10. Standard test method for K–R curve determination. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[16]. ASTM E1820-11. Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[17]. ASTM E1290-08e1. Standard test method for crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) fracture toughness measurement. American
Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[18]. ASTM E2472-06e1. Standard test method for determination of resistance to stable crack extension under low-constraint conditions.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[19]. ASTM E1921-11. Standard test method for determining of reference temperature T0 for ferritic steels in the transition range.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[20]. Heyer RH. Crack growth resistance curves (R-curves) – literature review. In: Fracture toughness evaluation by R-curve methods.
ASTM STP
[21]. American Society for Testing and Materials; 1973. p. 3–16.
[22]. Barsom JM. In: Fracture mechanics retrospective – early classic papers (1913 to 1965). ASTM RPS1. American Society for Testing
and Materials; 1987.
[23]. Joyce JA. Manual on elastic–plastic fracture: laboratory test procedures. ASTM Manual Series: MNL27; 1996.
[24]. Landes JD. Elastic–plastic fracture mechanics: where has it been? Where is it going? In: Fatigue and fracture mechanics. ASTM
STP 1360, vol.
[25]. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2000. p. 3–18.
[26]. Landes JD. Fracture toughness testing and estimations. In: Milne I, Ritchie RO, Karihaloo B, editors. Comprehensive structural
integrity, vol. Elsevier; 2003 [Chapter 7.02].
[27]. Schwalbe KH, Landes JD, Heerens J. Classic fracture mechanics methods. In: Milne I, Ritchie RO, Karihaloo B, editors.
Comprehensive structural integrity, vol. 11. Elsevier; 2007.
[28]. Zhu XK. J-integral resistance curve testing and evaluation. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2009;10:1541–60.
[29]. Zhu XK. Advances in development of J-integral experimental estimation, testing and standardization. In: Proceedings of ASME
2011 pressure vessels and piping conference, Baltimore, Maryland, July 17–21, 2011.
[30]. Williams ML. On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack. J Appl Mech 1957;24:109–14.

1st National Conference on Technology 65 | Page

Maulana Mukhtar Ahmed Nadvi Technical Campus (MMANTC), Mansoora, Malegaon Maharashtra, India
 Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA)
[31]. Irwin GR, Kies JA, Smith HL. Fracture strengths relative to onset and arrest of crack propagation. Proc Am Soc Test Mater
1958;58:640–60.
[32]. Irwin GR. Plastic zone near a crack and fracture toughness. In: Proceedings of the 7th sagamore ordnance materials conference;
1960. p. 463–78.
[33]. Dugdale DS. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 1960;8:100–8.
[34]. Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond, Ser A 1920;221:163–97.
[35]. Tada H, Paris PC, Irwin GR. The stress analysis of cracks handbook. 3rd ed. New York: ASME Press; 2000.
[36]. Murakami Y. Stress intensity factors handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1987.
[37]. Rooke DP, Cartwright DJ. Compendium of stress intensity factors. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1976.
[38]. Gallagher JP. Damage tolerant design handbook. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (OH): Air Force Materials Laboratory; 1983.
[39]. Irwin GR. Fracture dynamics. In: Fracturing of metals, symposium of American Society for Metals. Transaction ASM 40A; 1948.
p. 147–66.
[40]. Orowan E. Fracture and strength of solids. Rep Prog Phys 1949;12:185–232.
[41]. Irwin GR. Onset of fast crack propagation in high strength steel and aluminum alloys. In: Proceedings of the second sagamore
ordnance materials conference, vol. 2; 1956. p. 289–305.
[42]. Irwin GR, Kies JA. Critical energy rate analysis for fracture strength. Weld J Res Suppl. 1954;19:193–8.
[43]. Irwin GR. Fracture testing of high-strength sheet materials under conditions appropriate for stress analysis. Report 5486, Naval
Research Laboratory, July 27, 1960.
[44]. Anon. ASTM special committee on fracture testing of high strength materials. ASTM Bulletin, January 1960. p. 29–40.
[45]. Krafft JM, Sullivan AM, Boyle RW. Effect of dimensions on fast fracture instability of notched sheets. In: Cranfield symposium,
vol. I; 1961. p. 8–28.
[46]. Srawley JE, Brown WF. Fracture toughness testing methods. In: Fracture toughness testing and its applications. ASTM STP 381.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1965. p. 133–96.
[47]. Kaufman JG. Progress in fracture testing of metallic materials. In: Review of developments in plane strain fracture toughness
testing. ASTM STP
[48]. American Society for Testing and Materials; 1970. p. 3–21.
[49]. Anon. The slow growth and rapid propagation of cracks. Mater Res Stand 1961;1:389–93.
[50]. Anon. Proposed method of test for plane-strain fracture toughness of metallic materials. ASTM STP 410. American Society for
Testing and Materials; 1966. p. 130–45.
[51]. Brown WF, Srawley JE. In: Plane strain crack toughness testing of high strength metallic materials. ASTM STP 410. American
Society for Testing and Materials; 1966. p. 1–65.
[52]. ASTM E399-70T. Tentative method of test for plane strain fracture toughness of metallic materials. In: Review of developments in
plane strain fracture toughness testing, ASTM STP 463. American Society for Testing and Materials; 1970. p. 249–69.
[53]. Newman JC. Stress analysis of the compact specimens including the effects of pin loading. In: Fracture analysis. ASTM STP 560.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1974. p. 105–21.
[54]. Srawley JE. Wide range stress intensity factor expressions for ASTM E399 standard fracture toughness specimens. Int J Fract
1976;12:475–6.

1st National Conference on Technology 66 | Page

Maulana Mukhtar Ahmed Nadvi Technical Campus (MMANTC), Mansoora, Malegaon Maharashtra, India