Stiffness Change as a Nondestructive Damage Measurement

  • T. Kevin O’Brien


In laboratory specimens, damage growth is generally accompanied by stiffness change. Hence, damage growth can be monitored indirectly through stiffness. Furthermore, stiffness measurements are both nondestructive and easier to apply than most NDI methods that measure damage directly. This paper highlights laboratory applications of stiffness measurement for indirect assessment of damage growth and, in some special cases, for failure prediction. Examples cited are buckling of compressively loaded cylindrical shells, slow stable crack growth in tension-loaded notched coupons, fatigue-crack growth in adhesively bonded materials, and fatigue-damage growth in composite materials.


Crack Length Cylindrical Shell Stiffness Measurement Failure Prediction Damage Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. H. Horton, J. I. Craig, and D. E. Struble, A Simple Practical Method for the Experimental Determination of the End Fixity of a Column, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Space Technology and Science, Tokyo (1969).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. H. Horton, E. M. Nassar, and M. K. Singhal, Determination of the Critical Loads of Shells by Non-Destructive Methods, Experimental Mech., 17(4):154 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. R. Irwin and J. A. Kies, Critical Energy Rate Analysis of Fracture Strength, Welding Journal Research Supplement, 33:193S (1954).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. R. Irwin, Fracture, Handbuch Der Physik, 6:551 (1958).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Broek, “Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics,” Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen • Aan Den Rijn (1978).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Okamura, K. Watanabe, and T. Takano, Applications of the Compliance Concept in Fracture Mechanics, in: “Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing,” ASTM STP-536, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1973).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    “Fracture Toughness Evaluation by R-Curve Methods,” ASTM STP-527, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Gaggar and L. J. Broutman, Crack Growth Resistance of Random Fiber Composites, J. of Comp. Materials, 9:216 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. F. Brown and J. E. Srawley, “Plane Strain Crack Toughness Testing of High Strength Metallic Materials,” ASTM STP-410, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1966).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. E. Srawley and W. F. Brown, Fracture Toughness Testing Methods, in: “Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Application,” ASTM STP-381, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1965).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Mostovoy and E. J. Ripling, Fracture Toughness of An Epoxy System, J. of Applied Polymer Science, 10:1351 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. R. Brusset and T. Chiu, “Fracture Mechanics for Structural Adhesive Bonds — Final Report,” AFML-TR-77, Air Force Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB (1977).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. J. Salkind, Fatigue of Composite Materials, in: “Composite Materials: Testing and Design Second Conference,” ASTM STP-497, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1972).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. J. Nevadunsky, J. J. Lucas, and M. J. Salkind, Early Fatigue Damage Detection in Composite Materials, J. of Comp. Materials, 9:394 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. L. Reifsnider, W. W. Stinchcomb, and T. K. O’Brien, Frequency Effects on a Stiffness-Based Fatigue Failure Criterion in Flawed Composite Specimens, in: “Fatigue of Filamentary Composite Materials,” K. L. Reifsnider and K. N. Lauraitis, eds., ASTM STP-636, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. S. Johnson, Characterization of Fatigue Damage Mechanism in Continuous Fiber Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham (1979).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. W. Stinchcomb, K. L. Reifsnider, and R. S. Williams, Critical Factors for Frequency Dependent Fatigue Processes in Composite Materials, Experimental Mech., 16(9):343 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. T. Hahn and R. Y. Kim, Fatigue Behavior of Composite Laminate, J. of Comp. Materials, 10:156 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. K. O’Brien, An Evaluation of Stiffness Reduction as a Damage Parameter and Criterion for Fatigue Failure in Composite Materials, Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg (1978).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. K. O’Brien and K. L. Reifsnider, A Complete Mechanical Property Characterization of a Single Composite Specimen, Experimental Mech., 20(5):145 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. L. Roderick, Stiffness Change During Fatigue of Composite Materials, in: “Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Mechanics of Composites Review,” AFWAL-TR-80–4020, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB (1980).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. K. O’Brien, Delamination Growth in Composite Laminates, to be presented at the ASTM Symposium on Damage in Composite Materials: Basic Mechanisms, Accumulation, Tolerance, and Characterization, Bal Harbour (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Kevin O’Brien
    • 1
  1. 1.Structures Laboratory, U.S. Army Research and Technology Laboratories (AVRADCOM)NASA Langley Research CenterHamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations