International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 219, Issue 1, pp 19–30 | Cite as

Correlating fracture toughness and fracture surface roughness via correlation length scale

  • Y. Barak
  • A. Srivastava
  • S. OsovskiEmail author
Original Paper


Fracture toughness of a material depends on its microstructure and the imposed loading conditions. Intuitively, the resultant fracture surfaces must contain the information about the interlacing of these intrinsic (microstructure) and extrinsic (imposed loading) characteristics. Mandelbrot’s revelation that fracture surfaces are fractals, excited both the scientific and engineering communities, spurring a series of works focused at correlating the fracture toughness and the fracture surface roughness. Unfortunately, these studies remained inconclusive and later on it was shown that the fractal dimension of the fracture surface roughness is in fact universal. Here, we show that by going beyond the universality, a definite correlation between the fracture toughness and indices of the fracture surface roughness is obtained. To this end, fracture experiments on an aluminum alloy were carried over a wide range of loading rates (\(10^{-2}\)\(10^{6}\,\mathrm{MPa}\sqrt{\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{s}^{-1}\)), and the resulting fracture surface were reconstructed using stereography. The correlation lengths, extracted from the reconstructed surfaces, were found to be linearly correlated with the measured fracture toughness. The correlation unraveled in our work, along with the proposed mechanistic interpretation, revives the hope of correlating fracture toughness and fracture surface roughness, allowing quantitative failure analysis and a potential reconstructive approaches to designing fracture resistant materials.


Dynamic fracture Fracture mechanisms Fracture toughness Fracture surface roughness Mechanical testing 



We thank Dr. Alan Needleman of Texas A&M University and Dr. Daniel Rittel of Technion – Israel Institute of Technology for helpful and stimulating discussions. The financial support provided by the Pazy foundation Young Researchers Award (Grant No. 1176) and European Union’s Horizon2020 Program (Excellent Science, Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions, H2020 - MSCA - RISE - 2017) under REA grant agreement 777896 (Project QUANTIFY)is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. ASM Metals Handbook (1987) Fractography. vol 12. ASM International Metals Park, Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonamy D, Bouchaud E (2011) Failure of heterogeneous materials: a dynamic phase transition? Phys Rep 498:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonamy D, Ponson L, Prades S, Bouchaud E, Guillot C (2006) Scaling exponents for fracture surfaces in homogeneous glass and glassy ceramics. Phys Rev Lett 97:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchaud E (1990) Fractal dimension of fractured surfaces : a universal value? Fractal Dimens Eur Phys Lett 13:73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouchaud E (1997) Scaling properties of cracks. J Phys Condens Matter 9:4319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouchbinder E, Mathiesen J, Procaccia I (2004) Roughening of fracture surfaces: the role of plastic deformation. Phys Rev Lett 92:245505–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broberg KB (1979) On the behaviour of the process region at a fast running crack tip. In: Kawata K, Shioiri J (eds) High velocity deformation of solids. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carney LR, Mecholsky JJJ (2013) Relationship between fracture toughness and fracture surface fractal dimension in AISI 4340 steel. Mater Sci Appl 4:258–267Google Scholar
  9. Charkaluk E, Bigerelle M, Iost A (1998) Fractals and fracture. Eng Fract Mech 61:119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherepanov GP, Balankin AS, Ivanova VS (1995) Fractal fracture mechanics—a review. Eng Fract Mech 51:997–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks J, Marsh B, Turchetta R, Taylor K, Chan W, Lahav A, Fenigstein A (2013) Kirana: a solid-state megapixel uCMOS image sensor for ultrahigh speed imaging. In: Sensors, cameras, and systems for industrial and scientific applications XIV, p 865903Google Scholar
  12. Dauskardt RH, Haubensak F, Ritchie RO (1990) On the interpretation of the fractal character of fracture surfaces. Acta Metall Mater 38:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson DL (1989) Fracture surface roughness as a gauge of fracture toughness: Al-particulate SiC Composites. J Mater Sci 24:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes RL, Ortiz M, Carter EA (2004) Universal binding-energy relation for crystals that accounts for surface relaxation. Phys Rev B 69:172104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinojosa M, Aldaco J (2002) Self-affine fracture surface parameters and their relationship with microstructure in a cast aluminum alloy. J Mater Res 17:1276–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinojosa M, Bouchaud E, Nghiem B (1998) Long distance roughness of fracture surfaces in heterogeneous materials. MRS Proc 539:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinojosa M, Aldaco J, Ortiz U, González V (2000) Roughness exponent of the fracture surface of an Al–Si alloy. Alum Trans 3:53–57Google Scholar
  18. Hinojosa M, Reyes-melo E, Guerra C, González V, Ortiz U (2008) Scaling properties of slow fracture in glass: from deterministic to irregular topography. Int J Fract 151:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lautridou JC, Pineau A (1981) Crack initiation and stable crack growth resistance in A508 steels in relation to inclusion distribution. Eng Fract Mech 15:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandelbrot BB, Passoja DE, Paullay AJ (1984) Fractal character of fracture surfaces of metals. Nature 308:721–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mecholsky JJ, Passoja DE, Feinberg-Ringel KS (1989) Quantitative analysis of brittle fracture surfaces using fractal geometry. J Am Ceram Soc 72:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Osovski S, Srivastava A, Ponson L, Bouchaud E, Tvergaard V, Ravi-Chandar K, Needleman A (2015) The effect of loading rate on ductile fracturetoughness and fracture surface roughness. J Mech Phys Solids 76:20–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Owen D, Zhuang S, RosakisA Ravichandran G (1998) Experimental determination of dynamic crackinitiation and propagation fracture toughness in thin aluminumsheets. Int J Fract 90:153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pineau A, Benzerga AA, Pardoen T (2016) Acta materialia failure of metals I: brittle and ductile fracture. Acta Mater 107:424–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pineau A, McDowell DL, Busso EP, Antolovich SD (2016) Failure of metals II: Fatigue. Acta Materialia 107:484–507 Google Scholar
  26. Ramanathan S, Ertas D, Fisher DS (1997) Quasistatic crack propagation in heterogeneous media. Phys Rev Lett 79:873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by Notches and Cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shih CF (1981) Relationships between the J-integral and the crackopeningdisplacement for stationary and extending cracks. J Mech Phys Solids 29:305–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Srivastava A, Ponson L, Osovski S, BouchaudE Tvergaard V, Needleman A (2014) Effect of inclusion density onductile fracture toughness and roughness. J Mech Phys Solids 63:62–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Srivastava A, Osovski S, Needleman A (2017) Engineering the crack path by controlling the microstructure. J Mech Phys Solids 100:1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Underwood EE, Banerji K (1986) Fractals infractography. Mater Sci Eng 80:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Ven A, Ceder G (2004) Thethermodynamics of decohesion. Acta Mater 52:1223–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang ZG, Chen DL, Jiang XX, Ai SH, Shih CH (1988) Relationship between fractal dimension and fatigue threshold value in dual-phase steels. Scr Metall 22:827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations