Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of shear and tensile fracture in high strength aluminum alloys

  • Published:
International Journal of Fracture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comparison was made between tensile (mode I) and shear (mode II) fracture characteristics in high strength aluminium alloys (7075-T6 and 6061-T651) using a relatively new mode II fracture specimen to evaluate the critical stress intensity factor. The enlarged plastic zone during mode II fracture required that an increased specimen thickness be used for determining K Hc under a purely plane strain condition. Plane stress conditions prevailed in the mode II fracture of 7075-T6 with a specimen thickness less than 10 mm, while plane strain controlled mode II fracture at a thickness of 10 mm or greater. Fractographic analysis revealed a distinctive difference in the micromechanisms responsible for crack extension. Small dimples were observed only on the mode II fracture surfaces, resulting from a microvoid nucleation fracture mechanism. The mode I fracture surfaces showed a mixed distribution of dimple sizes resulting from a void growth fracture mechanism. Comparing the critical stress intensity factors, the shear mode of failure exhibited a substantially higher value than the tensile mode, resulting from the effect of the sign and magnitude of the hydrostatic stress state on the microvoid nucleation event. Zero hydrostatic tension in the mode II loading configuration helps delay microvoid nucleation, increasing the apparent toughness. The high hydrostatic tension resulting from a mode I loading configuration enhances microvoid nucleation which promotes crack propagation at relatively lower stress intensity factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J.E. Campbell, W.E. Berry and C.E. Feddersen, Damage Tolerant Design Handbook, MCIC-HB-01, Sept. 1973.

  2. O.A. Onyenwuenyi, Scripta Metallurgica 18 (1984) 455–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R.C. Bates, in Metallurgical Treatises, J.K. Tien and J.F. Elliot (eds.), American Institute of Metallurgical Engineers, New York (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  4. R.A. Everett Jr., Effect of Service Usage on Tensile, Fatigue, and Fracture Properties of 7075-T6 and 7178-T6 Aluminum Alloys, Report NASA TM X-3165, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  5. F.G. Nelson, and J.G. Kaufman, Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Aluminum Alloys at Room and Subzero Temperatures, ASTM STP 496, Philadelphia, PA (1971).

  6. R.J. Buzzard, B. Gross and J.E. Srawley, Mode II Fatigue Crack Growth Specimen, Report NASA TM 83722, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Iosipescu, Journal of Materials 2 no. 3 (1967) 537–566.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H.A. Richard, International Journal of Fracture 17 (1981) R105-R107.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D.L. Jones and D.B. Chisholm, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 7 (1975) 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. K.R. Raju, International Journal of Fracture 17 (1981) R193-R197.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Watkins, International Journal of Fracture 23 (1983) R135-R138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. M. Arcan, Z. Hasin and A. Voloshin, Experimental Mechanics 18 (1978) 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R.J. Buzzard, Experimental Compliance Calibration of the NASA Lewis Research Center Mode II Fatigue Specimen, Report NASA TM 86908, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  14. W.F. Brown, Jr., and J.E. Srawley, Plane Strain Crack Toughness Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM STP 410, Philadelphia, PA (1967).

  15. ASTM Designation E399-83, Part 10, ASTM Annual Standards, Philadelphia, PA (1988).

  16. J.G. Cowie, The Influence of Second-Phase Dispersions on Shear Instability and Fracture Toughness of Ultrahigh Strength 4340 Steel, U.S. Army Materials Technology Laboratory Technical Report No. MTL TR 89-20 (1989).

  17. A. Needleman, Journal of Applied Mechanics 54 (1987) 525–531.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cowie, J.G., Tuler, F.R. Comparison of shear and tensile fracture in high strength aluminum alloys. Int J Fract 47, 229–239 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00042578

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00042578

Keywords

Navigation