Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

, Volume 28, Issue 10, pp 6514–6524 | Cite as

Comparative Study of the Geometric Effects on Fracture Behaviors of Side-Grooved and Plain-Sided Compact Tension Specimens

  • Jianfeng MaoEmail author
  • Xiangyang Li
  • Shiyi BaoEmail author
  • Lijia Luo
  • Zhenyu Ding


This paper investigates the fracture response and crack-tip constraint of two typical compact tension specimens. They are pre-cracked plain-sided and side-grooved specimens. In order to clarify the significant effects of geometric parameters on the crack-tip stress fields, an extensive series of detailed 3D elastic–plastic finite element analyses have been carried out. Taking the standard ratio of geometric parameters as a basis, several non-standard geometric parameters are adopted in the calculation for comparison, including specimen thickness, width, crack length. Accordingly, the variation of local J-integral and crack-tip opening displacement have been vigorously investigated over the crack front. Most importantly, the crack-tip stress fields are analyzed in detail with the emphasis on the stress triaxiality and opening mode stress. Furthermore, the crack-tip plastic strain and deformation are compared under small-scale yielding and large-scale yielding between plain-sided and side-grooved specimens, and the constraint parameter Q is employed to explain the distribution of the near-tip plastic strain. Through the vigorous research work, the variation of fracture behavior caused by geometric parameters is reasonably explained and understood.


fracture toughness geometric effect plain-sided CT specimen side-grooved CT specimen 



This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC080883-03), National Science and Technology Major Project (2014ZX06002001), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51975526, 51705459).


  1. 1.
    X.T. Miao, C.Y. Zhou, and X. He, In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Constraint for Single Edge Notched Bending Specimen and Cruciform Specimen Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Loading, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 2017, 40(12), p 1945–1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Wallin, A Simple Fracture Mechanical Interpretation of Size Effects in Concrete Fracture Toughness Tests, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2013, 99, p 18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Landes, J. Heerens, K.H. Schwalbe et al., Size, Thickness and Geometry Effects on Transition Fracture, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 1993, 16(11), p 1135–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.C. Sobotka and R.H. Dodds, Jr., Side-Groove Effects in Three-dimensional Small-Scale Yielding: A Load and Thickness-Scaling Model, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2013, 102, p 218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.C. Sobotka and R.H. Dodds, Jr., T-Stress Effects on Steady Crack Growth in a Thin, Ductile Plate Under Small-Scale Yielding Conditions: Three-Dimensional Modeling, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2011, 78, p 1182–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Z. Lei, J. Hongyang, and X. Lianyong, Experimental Investigation of Specimen Size Effect on Creep Crack Growth Behavior in P92 Steel Welded Joint, Mater. Des., 2014, 57, p 736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Meshii, K. Lu, and R. Takamura, A Failure Criterion to Explain the Test Specimen Thickness Effect on Fracture Toughness in the Transition Temperature Region, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2013, 104, p 184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.R. Shahani, M. Rastegar, M.B. Dehkordi, and H.M. Kashani, Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Thickness Effect on Ductile Fracture Toughness of Steel Alloy Sheets, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2010, 77, p 646–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Bassindale, X. Wang, W.R. Tyson et al., Numerical Verification of Stress Intensity Factor Solution for Clamped Single Edge Notched Tension (SENT) Specimens, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 2018, 41(2), p 494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Nourpanah and F. Taheri, A Numerical Study on the Crack Tip Constraint of Pipelines Subject to Extreme Plastic Bending, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2011, 78, p 1201–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.S. Park, Y.H. Choi, and I. Seyoung, Generation of Plastic Influence Functions for J-Integral and Crack Opening Displacement of Thin-Walled Pipes with a Short Circumferential Through-Wall Crack, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., 2014, 117–118, p 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Sivaprasad, S. Tarafder, V.R. Ranganath, and K.K. Ray, Effect of Prestrain on Fracture Toughness of HSLA Steels, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2000, 284, p 195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Narasaiah, S. Tarafder, and S. Sivaprasad, Effect of Crack Depth on Fracture Toughness of 20MnMoNi55 Pressure Vessel Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2010, 527, p 2408–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Lu and T. Meshii, Three-Dimensional T-Stresses for Three-Point-Bend Specimens with Large Thickness Variation, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2014, 116, p 197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Masayuki, A Stress-Based Criterion for Ductile Crack Initiation of Pre-strained Carbon Steel, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2012, 96, p 461–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Masayuki, Estimation of Elasticeplastic Fracture Toughness by Numerical Simulation Based on a Stress-Based Criterion for Ductile Crack Initiation, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., 2014, 117–118, p 2–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.R. Rice and J.R. Tracey, On the Ductile Enlargement of Voids in Triaxial Stress Field, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1969, 17, p 201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM International, ASTM E399-90 Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1997Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T.L. Anderson and R.H. Dodds, Jr., Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing in the Transition Region, J. Test. Eval., 1991, 19(2), p 123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meinhard K, Finite Elements in Fracture Mechanics, Theory-Numerics-Applications, Solid Mechanics and Its Application, Volume 201, Springer, New York-London, 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y. Tkach and F.M. Burdekin, A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Fracture Mechanics Test Pieces of Different Geometries Part 2 Constraint and Material Variations, Int. J. Pres. Vess. Pip., 2012, 93–94, p 51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Process Equipment and Control EngineeringZhejiang University of Technology HangzhouZhejiangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Engineering Research Center of Process Equipment and Re-manufacturingMinistry of EducationHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations