Respect all members: no insults, harassment, or hate speech.
Be tolerant of different viewpoints, cultures, and beliefs. If you do not agree with others, just create separate note, article or collection.
Clearly distinguish between personal opinion and fact.
Verify facts before posting, especially when writing about history, science, or statistics.
Promotional content must be published on the “Related Services and Products” page—no more than one paragraph per service. You can also create subpages under the “Related Services and Products” page and publish longer promotional text there.
Do not post materials that infringe on copyright without permission.
Always credit sources when sharing information, quotes, or media.
Be respectful of the work of others when making changes.
Discuss major edits instead of removing others' contributions without reason.
If you notice rule-breaking, notify community about it in talks.
Do not share personal data of others without their consent.
Fracture is the appearance of a crack or complete separation of an object or material into two or more pieces under the action of stress. The fracture of a solid usually occurs due to the development of certain displacement discontinuity surfaces within the solid. If a displacement develops perpendicular to the surface, it is called a normal tensile crack or simply a crack; if a displacement develops tangentially, it is called a shear crack, slip band, or dislocation.[1]
Brittle fractures occur without any apparent deformation before fracture. Ductile fractures occur after visible deformation. Fracture strength, or breaking strength, is the stress when a specimen fails or fractures. The detailed understanding of how a fracture occurs and develops in materials is the object of fracture mechanics.
Fracture strength, also known as breaking strength, is the stress at which a specimen fails via fracture.[2] This is usually determined for a given specimen by a tensile test, which charts the stress–strain curve (see image). The final recorded point is the fracture strength.
Ductile materials have a fracture strength lower than the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), whereas in brittle materials the fracture strength is equivalent to the UTS.[2] If a ductile material reaches its ultimate tensile strength in a load-controlled situation,[Note 1] it will continue to deform, with no additional load application, until it ruptures. However, if the loading is displacement-controlled,[Note 2] the deformation of the material may relieve the load, preventing rupture.
The statistics of fracture in random materials have very intriguing behavior, and was noted by the architects and engineers quite early. Indeed, fracture or breakdown studies might be the oldest physical science studies, which still remain intriguing and very much alive. Leonardo da Vinci, more than 500 years ago, observed that the tensile strengths of nominally identical specimens of iron wire decrease with increasing length of the wires (see e.g.,[3] for a recent discussion). Similar observations were made by Galileo Galilei more than 400 years ago. This is the manifestation of the extreme statistics of failure (bigger sample volume can have larger defects due to cumulative fluctuations where failures nucleate and induce lower strength of the sample).[4]
Brittle fracture in glassFracture of an aluminum crank arm of a bicycle, where the bright areas display a brittle fracture, and the dark areas show fatigue fracture
In brittle fracture, no apparent plastic deformation takes place before fracture. Brittle fracture typically involves little energy absorption and occurs at high speeds—up to 2,133.6 m/s (7,000 ft/s) in steel.[5] In most cases brittle fracture will continue even when loading is discontinued.[6]
In brittle crystalline materials, fracture can occur by cleavage as the result of tensile stress acting normal to crystallographic planes with low bonding (cleavage planes). In amorphous solids, by contrast, the lack of a crystalline structure results in a conchoidal fracture, with cracks proceeding normal to the applied tension.
The fracture strength (or micro-crack nucleation stress) of a material was first theoretically estimated by Alan Arnold Griffith in 1921:
where: –
Brittle cleavage fracture surface from a scanning electron microscope is the Young's modulus of the material,
is the micro-crack length (or equilibrium distance between atomic centers in a crystalline solid).
On the other hand, a crack introduces a stress concentration modeled by Inglis's equation[7]
(For sharp cracks)
where:
is the loading stress,
is half the length of the crack, and
is the radius of curvature at the crack tip.
Putting these two equations together gets
Sharp cracks (small ) and large defects (large ) both lower the fracture strength of the material.
Recently, scientists have discovered supersonic fracture, the phenomenon of crack propagation faster than the speed of sound in a material.[8] This phenomenon was recently also verified by experiment of fracture in rubber-like materials.
The basic sequence in a typical brittle fracture is: introduction of a flaw either before or after the material is put in service, slow and stable crack propagation under recurring loading, and sudden rapid failure when the crack reaches critical crack length based on the conditions defined by fracture mechanics.[6] Brittle fracture may be avoided by controlling three primary factors: material fracture toughness (Kc), nominal stress level (σ), and introduced flaw size (a).[5] Residual stresses, temperature, loading rate, and stress concentrations also contribute to brittle fracture by influencing the three primary factors.[5]
Under certain conditions, ductile materials can exhibit brittle behavior. Rapid loading, low temperature, and triaxial stress constraint conditions may cause ductile materials to fail without prior deformation.[5]
Schematic representation of the steps in ductile fracture (in pure tension)
In ductile fracture, extensive plastic deformation (necking) takes place before fracture. The terms "rupture" and "ductile rupture" describe the ultimate failure of ductile materials loaded in tension. The extensive plasticity causes the crack to propagate slowly due to the absorption of a large amount of energy before fracture.[9][10]
Ductile fracture surface of 6061-T6 aluminum
Because ductile rupture involves a high degree of plastic deformation, the fracture behavior of a propagating crack as modelled above changes fundamentally. Some of the energy from stress concentrations at the crack tips is dissipated by plastic deformation ahead of the crack as it propagates.
The basic steps in ductile fracture are microvoid[11] formation, microvoid coalescence (also known as crack formation), crack propagation, and failure, often resulting in a cup-and-cone shaped failure surface. The microvoids nucleate at various internal discontinuities, such as precipitates, secondary phases, inclusions, and grain boundaries in the material.[11] As local stress increases the microvoids grow, coalesce and eventually form a continuous fracture surface.[11] Ductile fracture is typically transgranular and deformation due to dislocation slip can cause the shear lip characteristic of cup and cone fracture.[12]
The microvoid coalescence results in a dimpled appearance on the fracture surface. The dimple shape is heavily influenced by the type of loading. Fracture under local uniaxial tensile loading usually results in formation of equiaxed dimples. Failures caused by shear will produce elongated or parabolic shaped dimples that point in opposite directions on the matching fracture surfaces. Finally, tensile tearing produces elongated dimples that point in the same direction on matching fracture surfaces.[11]
The manner in which a crack propagates through a material gives insight into the mode of fracture. With ductile fracture a crack moves slowly and is accompanied by a large amount of plastic deformation around the crack tip. A ductile crack will usually not propagate unless an increased stress is applied and generally cease propagating when loading is removed.[6] In a ductile material, a crack may progress to a section of the material where stresses are slightly lower and stop due to the blunting effect of plastic deformations at the crack tip. On the other hand, with brittle fracture, cracks spread very rapidly with little or no plastic deformation. The cracks that propagate in a brittle material will continue to grow once initiated.
Crack propagation is also categorized by the crack characteristics at the microscopic level. A crack that passes through the grains within the material is undergoing transgranular fracture. A crack that propagates along the grain boundaries is termed an intergranular fracture. Typically, the bonds between material grains are stronger at room temperature than the material itself, so transgranular fracture is more likely to occur. When temperatures increase enough to weaken the grain bonds, intergranular fracture is the more common fracture mode.[6]
Fracture in materials is studied and quantified in multiple ways. Fracture is largely determined by the fracture toughness (), so fracture testing is often done to determine this. The two most widely used techniques for determining fracture toughness are the three-point flexural test and the compact tension test.
By performing the compact tension and three-point flexural tests, one is able to determine the fracture toughness through the following equation:
Where:
is an empirically-derived equation to capture the test sample geometry
is the fracture stress, and
is the crack length.
To accurately attain , the value of must be precisely measured. This is done by taking the test piece with its fabricated notch of length and sharpening this notch to better emulate a crack tip found in real-world materials.[13] Cyclical prestressing the sample can then induce a fatigue crack which extends the crack from the fabricated notch length of to . This value is used in the above equations for determining .[14]
Following this test, the sample can then be reoriented such that further loading of a load (F) will extend this crack and thus a load versus sample deflection curve can be obtained. With this curve, the slope of the linear portion, which is the inverse of the compliance of the material, can be obtained. This is then used to derive f(c/a) as defined above in the equation. With the knowledge of all these variables, can then be calculated.
Ceramics and inorganic glasses have fracturing behavior that differ those of metallic materials. Ceramics have high strengths and perform well in high temperatures due to the material strength being independent of temperature. Ceramics have low toughness as determined by testing under a tensile load; often, ceramics have values that are ~5% of that found in metals.[14] However, as demonstrated by Faber and Evans, fracture toughness can be predicted and improved with crack deflection around second phase particles.[15] Ceramics are usually loaded in compression in everyday use, so the compressive strength is often referred to as the strength; this strength can often exceed that of most metals. However, ceramics are brittle and thus most work done revolves around preventing brittle fracture. Due to how ceramics are manufactured and processed, there are often preexisting defects in the material introduce a high degree of variability in the Mode I brittle fracture.[14] Thus, there is a probabilistic nature to be accounted for in the design of ceramics. The Weibull distribution predicts the survival probability of a fraction of samples with a certain volume that survive a tensile stress sigma, and is often used to better assess the success of a ceramic in avoiding fracture.
To model fracture of a bundle of fibers, the Fiber Bundle Model was introduced by Thomas Pierce in 1926 as a model to understand the strength of composite materials.[16] The bundle consists of a large number of parallel Hookean springs of identical length and each having identical spring constants. They have however different breaking stresses. All these springs are suspended from a rigid horizontal platform. The load is attached to a horizontal platform, connected to the lower ends of the springs. When this lower platform is absolutely rigid, the load at any point of time is shared equally (irrespective of how many fibers or springs have broken and where) by all the surviving fibers. This mode of load-sharing is called Equal-Load-Sharing mode. The lower platform can also be assumed to have finite rigidity, so that local deformation of the platform occurs wherever springs fail and the surviving neighbor fibers have to share a larger fraction of that transferred from the failed fiber. The extreme case is that of local load-sharing model, where load of the failed spring or fiber is shared (usually equally) by the surviving nearest neighbor fibers.[4]
Failures caused by brittle fracture have not been limited to any particular category of engineered structure.[5] Though brittle fracture is less common than other types of failure, the impacts to life and property can be more severe.[5] The following notable historic failures were attributed to brittle fracture:
Virtually every area of engineering has been significantly impacted by computers, and fracture mechanics is no exception. Since there are so few actual problems with closed-form analytical solutions, numerical modelling has become an essential tool in fracture analysis. There are literally hundreds of configurations for which stress-intensity solutions have been published, the majority of which were derived from numerical models. The J integral and crack-tip-opening displacement (CTOD) calculations are two more increasingly popular elastic-plastic studies. Additionally, experts are using cutting-edge computational tools to study unique issues such as ductile crack propagation, dynamic fracture, and fracture at interfaces. The exponential rise in computational fracture mechanics applications is essentially the result of quick developments in computer technology.[17]
Most used computational numerical methods are finite element and boundary integral equation methods. Other methods include stress and displacement matching, element crack advance in which latter two come under Traditional Methods in Computational Fracture Mechanics.
Fine Mesh done in Rectangular area in Ansys software (Finite Element Method)
The structures are divided into discrete elements of 1-D beam, 2-D plane stress or plane strain, 3-D bricks or tetrahedron types. The continuity of the elements are enforced using the nodes.[17]
In this method, the surface is divided into two regions: a region where displacements are specified Su and region with tractions are specified ST . With given boundary conditions, the stresses, strains, and displacements within the body can all theoretically be solved for, along with the tractions on Su and the displacements on ST. It is a very powerful technique to find the unknown tractions and displacements.[17]
Traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics
These methods are used to determine the fracture mechanics parameters using numerical analysis.[17] Some of the traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics, which were commonly used in the past, have been replaced by newer and more advanced techniques. The newer techniques are considered to be more accurate and efficient, meaning they can provide more precise results and do so more quickly than the older methods. Not all traditional methods have been completely replaced, as they can still be useful in certain scenarios, but they may not be the most optimal choice for all applications.
Some of the traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics are:
^A simple load-controlled tensile situation would be to support a specimen from above, and hang a weight from the bottom end. The load on the specimen is then independent of its deformation.
^A simple displacement-controlled tensile situation would be to attach a very stiff jack to the ends of a specimen. As the jack extends, it controls the displacement of the specimen; the load on the specimen is dependent on the deformation.
^ abcdefghiRolfe, John M. Barsom, Stanley T. (1999). Fracture and fatigue control in structures: applications of fracture mechanics (3 ed.). West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM. ISBN0-8031-2082-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ abcdefgCampbell, F.C., ed. (2012). Fatigue and fracture: understanding the basics. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. ISBN978-1-61503-976-0.
^Callister, William D. Jr. (2018). Materials science and engineering: an introduction (8th ed.). Wiley. pp. 236–237. ISBN978-1-119-40539-9. OCLC992798630.
A fracture is the separation of an object or material into two or more pieces under the action of applied stress, often appearing as a crack or complete break.[1] In materials science and engineering, the study of fractures is central to fracture mechanics, a field that analyzes crack initiation, propagation, and failure to predict and prevent structural breakdowns in components like bridges, aircraft, and machinery.[2] Fractures are broadly classified into two types: brittle, where failure occurs with little or no plastic deformation, leading to sudden and catastrophic cracks; and ductile, involving significant plastic deformation before separation, often resulting in a more gradual failure mode.[3] Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for designing safer materials and assessing risks in high-stress environments, as uncontrolled fractures have contributed to numerous engineering disasters.[4]
Fundamentals
Definition and Scope
Fracture is the irreversible separation of a solid material into two or more parts when subjected to applied stress that exceeds its capacity to withstand loading, resulting in breaking or cracking.[5] This process fundamentally differs from elastic deformation, which involves reversible straining, or plastic yielding, which allows permanent shape change without complete separation.[6]The theoretical foundation of fracture mechanics originated with A.A. Griffith's 1921 work on brittle fracture in glass, where he analyzed the propagation of pre-existing cracks through an energy balance approach, explaining why brittle materials fail at stresses far below their theoretical strength.[7] Griffith's criterion for the onset of brittle fracture provides a quantitative relation, expressed as:σf=πa2Eγwhere σf denotes the fracture stress, E is the Young's modulus, γ represents the surface energy required to create new crack surfaces, and a is the half-length of an internal crack (or the full length for an edge crack).[8] This equation highlights the critical role of flaw size in determining material strength, shifting focus from uniform material properties to defect-controlled failure.The scope of fracture studies in materials science and engineering broadly applies to solid materials such as metals, ceramics, and polymers, where failure modes range from rapid brittle separation to more gradual ductile processes.[9] Understanding fracture is essential for designing reliable components, as it informs strategies to mitigate risks in applications from structural aerospace parts to biomedical implants, distinguishing catastrophic failure from controlled deformation.[10]
Basic Principles of Fracture Mechanics
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) forms the cornerstone of modern fracture analysis, focusing on the behavior of cracks in materials that remain predominantly elastic. Originating from A.A. Griffith's pioneering work on brittle fracture in 1921, LEFM was formalized by G.R. Irwin in the 1950s to address the stress concentration and propagation criteria for cracks under linear elastic conditions.[7][11] LEFM assumes small-scale yielding, meaning the region of plastic deformation at the crack tip is much smaller than both the crack length and the overall specimen dimensions, allowing linear elasticity to govern the far-field response while capturing the intense local stresses. Additionally, the material is assumed to behave elastically away from the crack tip, with quasi-static loading and no significant time-dependent effects. These assumptions enable predictive models for crack stability and growth based on continuum mechanics.[11]Central to LEFM is the stress intensity factor K, which quantifies the magnitude of the three-dimensional stress field near the crack tip and serves as a fracture criterion. Irwin defined three primary modes of crack loading: mode I for tensile opening normal to the crack plane, mode II for in-plane sliding or shear, and mode III for out-of-plane tearing or anti-plane shear. For an infinite plate containing a central through-crack of length 2a subjected to uniform remote tensile stress σ perpendicular to the crack, the mode I stress intensity factor is expressed asKI=σπa.This formulation highlights how K integrates the effects of applied stress, crack length, and geometry, with crack propagation initiating when K exceeds a material-specific critical value Kc. The near-tip stresses follow a singular form σij∼K/2πr, where r is the radial distance from the tip, underscoring the infinite stress concentration in ideal elastic theory.[11]Complementing the stress-based approach, LEFM employs an energy balance criterion rooted in Griffith's 1921 theory, where stable crack growth requires the release of elastic strain energy to overcome the surface energy of new crack faces. The energy release rate G, defined as the decrease in potential energy per unit crack advance, governs fracture when G≥Gc, the critical energy release rate. Irwin linked this to the stress intensity factor throughG=E′K2,where E′ is the effective modulus: E′=E under plane stress and E′=E/(1−ν2) under plane strain, with E as Young's modulus and ν as Poisson's ratio. This equivalence bridges stress and energy perspectives, enabling unified criteria for brittle fracture prediction.[7][11]The idealized elastic singularity at the crack tip is moderated in real materials by localized plasticity, forming a small plastic zone where stresses are capped by the yield strength σy. Irwin estimated the plane-stress plastic zone radius along the crack plane asrp≈2π1(σyK)2,derived by setting the elastic σyy stress equal to σy and solving for the distance r where yielding begins. Under plane strain, the zone is roughly one-third smaller due to triaxiality constraints. This size correction validates LEFM applicability when rp≪a, ensuring the plastic enclave does not perturb the elastic K-dominated field.[11]For ductile materials exhibiting extensive plasticity, where rp approaches or exceeds structural dimensions, LEFM's small-scale yielding assumption fails, prompting a shift to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). EPFM extends LEFM principles to nonlinear regimes using path-independent integrals like the J-integral, introduced by J.R. Rice in 1968, which generalizes G for incremental plasticity and characterizes crack-tip driving force under large deformation. This transition is essential for metals and alloys where yielding precedes unstable fracture.[12]
Material Response to Stress
Fracture Strength
Fracture strength, also known as breaking strength, refers to the maximum stress a material can endure immediately prior to fracturing under tensile loading, marking the point of complete failure.[13] This differs from yield strength, which indicates the onset of permanent plastic deformation without fracture, allowing materials—particularly ductile ones—to sustain loads beyond yielding before breaking.[5] In brittle materials, fracture strength often coincides with ultimate tensile strength, as failure occurs abruptly without significant plasticity, whereas in ductile materials, it follows necking after reaching the ultimate stress peak.[14]Microstructural features profoundly influence fracture strength, with grain size, defects, and temperature playing key roles. The Hall-Petch relation empirically captures the strengthening effect of finer grains, where fracture strength σf increases inversely with the square root of grain diameter d: σf=σ0+kd−1/2, with σ0 as the friction stress and k as the strengthening coefficient; this arises from increased grain boundary barriers to dislocation motion and crack propagation. Defects such as voids, inclusions, and microcracks act as stress concentrators, drastically lowering strength by facilitating premature crack initiation.[15] Elevated temperatures generally reduce fracture strength by enhancing atomic mobility, promoting dislocation glide, and accelerating diffusion-mediated processes like creep, though specific effects vary by material class.[16]For brittle materials exhibiting stochastic failure due to inherent flaw distributions, fracture strength follows a statistical description via the Weibull distribution, which models the probability of failure Pf under uniform stress σ over volume V: Pf=1−exp[−(V0V)(σ0σ)m],
where V0 is a reference volume, σ0 a characteristic strength, and m the Weibull modulus reflecting flaw variability (higher m indicates more consistent strength).[17] This "weakest-link" approach accounts for size effects, where larger volumes increase failure likelihood at lower stresses./06%3A_Yield_and_Fracture/6.03%3A_Statistics_of_Fracture)Environmental factors like corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement significantly degrade fracture strength by introducing surface degradation and internal stresses. Corrosion, through pitting or uniform attack, creates localized stress raisers that reduce effective cross-section and initiate cracks, often lowering strength by 20-50% depending on exposure duration and severity.[18]Hydrogen embrittlement, prevalent in high-strength steels, diffuses atomic hydrogen into the lattice, promoting brittle intergranular fracture and reducing ductility; it can diminish fracture strength by up to 50% or more in susceptible alloys by facilitating hydrogen-enhanced decohesion or localized plasticity.[19]The disparity between theoretical and actual fracture strength underscores the role of imperfections. In an ideal, flaw-free crystal, theoretical strength approximates E/10 (where E is the elastic modulus), derived from the stress needed to break atomic bonds uniformly.[15] However, real materials achieve only about E/1000 due to preexisting flaws, as explained by Griffith's criterion, which posits that cracks propagate when the stress intensity overcomes surface energy, yielding strengths orders of magnitude below the theoretical limit.[20]
Fracture Toughness and Energy Absorption
Fracture toughness quantifies a material's resistance to the propagation of a crack under applied stress, particularly in the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) regime where plastic deformation is minimal. The critical stress intensity factor, KIc, represents this resistance for mode I (opening mode) loading under plane-strain conditions, defined as the stress intensity at which a crack extends unstably.[21] Its units are MPam, reflecting the combination of stress and crack length scales that govern crack-tip stress fields.[6]In elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), where plasticity plays a significant role, the J-integral serves as a key parameter to characterize crack driving force and energy release. Introduced by Rice in 1968, the J-integral is a path-independent contour integral that measures the energy available for crack advance per unit crack extension, applicable to nonlinear elastic or elastic-plastic materials.[12] It is mathematically expressed asJ=∫Γ(γds+T∂a∂u⋅ndl),where Γ is a contour surrounding the crack tip, γ is the strain energy density, T is the traction vector, u is the displacement vector, a is the crack length, and n is the unit outward normal.[12] For steady-state crack growth, J equals the rate of energy dissipation per unit crack advance, providing a fracture criterion when compared to a material's critical value JIc.[22]Plasticity contributes substantially to energy absorption during fracture, particularly in ductile materials, by enabling mechanisms such as void nucleation, growth, and coalescence ahead of the crack tip. In ductile fracture, voids form at inclusions or defects and expand under triaxial stress, eventually coalescing to create a fracture surface that dissipates energy through extensive plastic deformation.[23] Shear bands, localized regions of intense plastic shear, further enhance energy absorption by concentrating deformation and facilitating crack path deviation, often leading to dimpled fracture surfaces.[24] These processes allow ductile materials to absorb significantly more energy—up to orders of magnitude higher—compared to brittle ones before failure.[25]Fracture toughness exhibits strong dependence on temperature and loading rate, influencing the balance between ductile and brittle behavior. In body-centered cubic (BCC) metals like steels, the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT) marks the point where toughness drops sharply as dislocation mobility decreases at lower temperatures, shifting failure from energy-absorbing ductile modes to low-toughness cleavage.[26] For ferritic steels, the DBTT typically ranges from -50°C to 50°C depending on composition and microstructure, with higher strain rates elevating it by restricting plastic flow.[27]Standardized measurement of KIc in the LEFM regime follows ASTM E399, which specifies single-edge-notched bend or compact tension specimens to ensure plane-strain conditions and valid toughness values.[21] The procedure requires fatigue precracking, monotonic loading to instability, and validation checks such as a minimum thickness to suppress plastic zone effects, ensuring the measured KIc reflects intrinsic material resistance rather than geometric influences.[21]
Types of Fracture
Brittle Fracture
Brittle fracture occurs with negligible plastic deformation, leading to abrupt and often catastrophic failure as cracks propagate rapidly through the material. In such failures, the fracture surface exhibits cleavage along specific crystallographic planes, typically following transgranular paths that minimize energy absorption during propagation. This mode is common in materials like body-centered cubic (BCC) metals, ceramics, and glasses, where atomic bonding favors separation over dislocation-mediated deformation.[28][29]Key causes of brittle fracture include exposure to low temperatures, high strain rates, and impurities in BCC metals that elevate the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT). For instance, elements like phosphorus segregate to grain boundaries, promoting intergranular weakening and increasing the DBTT, which shifts the material toward brittle behavior under service conditions.[30] A historical example is the brittle failures of Liberty ships during World War II, where mild steel hulls fractured suddenly in cold North Atlantic waters due to its inherent notch sensitivity and the combined effects of low temperatures and welding-induced stress concentrations.[31]Crack propagation in brittle fracture proceeds at speeds approaching the Rayleigh surface wave speed, roughly 0.9 times the shear wave speed (cs), enabling near-instantaneous failure across large sections.[32] Representative examples include the shattering of glass under tensile loading, where mirror-like cleavage facets form on the fracture surface, and the cracking of ceramics like alumina under similar stresses, often initiating from surface flaws.[33]Prevention of brittle fracture focuses on metallurgical and design measures, such as alloying BCC steels with nickel to lower the DBTT and enhance low-temperature toughness, or engineering components to minimize tensile stresses at potential crack sites through rounded features and crack arrestors.[34] Unlike ductile fracture, which allows gradual energy dissipation via plastic flow, brittle fracture provides little warning before complete separation.
Ductile Fracture
Ductile fracture occurs when a material undergoes substantial plastic deformation before final separation, allowing for energy dissipation through mechanisms that prevent sudden failure. This mode of failure is prevalent in metals and alloys capable of extensive yielding, where the fracture surface appears rough and fibrous due to the stretching and tearing of the material. Unlike brittle fracture, ductile failure involves a gradual process that provides warning through visible deformation, making it less catastrophic in many engineering applications.[35]The progression of ductile fracture typically unfolds in distinct stages, beginning with necking, where localized reduction in cross-sectional area occurs under tensile loading due to plasticinstability. This is followed by void nucleation, often initiated at inclusions, second-phase particles, or microstructural defects that act as stress concentrators during plastic straining. Subsequent void growth expands these cavities as surrounding material deforms plastically, and finally, coalescence links adjacent voids, forming a continuous crack that propagates to complete separation. These stages are well-documented in experimental observations of metals under monotonic loading.[36]Central to understanding ductile fracture is the microvoid coalescence model, which describes how voids nucleate, grow, and merge to produce characteristic fracture surface features. As voids enlarge and impinge, they create equiaxed or elongated dimples on the fracture surface, reflecting the plastic flow around the cavities. In standard tensile tests of cylindrical specimens, this mechanism yields the iconic cup-and-cone morphology: a central "cup" region with radial dimples from axisymmetric void growth, surrounded by a "cone" of shear lips where oblique fracture occurs due to shear-dominated coalescence. This model, supported by scanning electron microscopy of fracture surfaces, highlights the role of triaxial stress states in accelerating void linkage.[36]Several factors influence the propensity for ductile fracture, particularly in face-centered cubic (FCC) metals such as aluminum, which exhibit high ductility owing to their multiple slip systems that facilitate dislocation glide. Elevated temperatures further promote ductility by increasing atomic mobility, reducing the critical stress for dislocation motion, and delaying the onset of void coalescence. Additionally, strain hardening enhances overall ductility; as dislocations multiply and tangle, the material's flow stress rises, enabling greater uniform elongation before necking and fracture initiation. These effects are evident in aluminum alloys, where higher strain-hardening exponents correlate with improved resistance to localized failure.Energy dissipation during ductile fracture primarily occurs through irreversible plastic deformation processes, including the generation and motion of dislocations that accommodate strain. Work hardening contributes significantly by storing energy in the crystal lattice via dislocation interactions, while frictional losses from dislocation glide further absorb applied work, allowing the material to deform extensively without immediate rupture. This dissipation mechanism underpins the higher fracture energy of ductile materials compared to brittle ones.[37]Practical examples of ductile fracture include the tearing of metal components under overload, such as in structural steels where excessive tensile forces cause necking and dimpled rupture. In welded assemblies, overload can lead to ductile failure along the weld toe or heat-affected zone, manifesting as shear tearing with significant plastic flow before separation, as observed in fillet welds under extreme loading.[38][39]
Fracture Characteristics
Macroscopic Observations
Macroscopic observations of fracture surfaces provide critical insights into the failure mode and loading conditions without requiring magnification, revealing patterns that distinguish between brittle, ductile, and fatigue-induced fractures. In fatigue fractures, beach marks appear as concentric ridges or lines on the surface, originating from the crack initiation site and indicating progressive crack growth under cyclic loading. These marks are often visible as semi-elliptical patterns that fan out from multiple origins in cases of multiple crack starts, aiding in identifying the fatigue origin.[40]Brittle fractures in metals exhibit river patterns, which manifest as branching, feather-like lines radiating from the crack origin on the fracture surface, characteristic of cleavage failure along crystallographic planes. These patterns form due to the rapid propagation of cracks in low-ductility materials, creating a textured appearance that contrasts with smoother ductile surfaces. In ceramics, fracture surfaces display distinct zones including mist and hackle regions; the mist zone appears as a hazy transition from the initial smooth mirror area, while hackle zones show coarse, irregular ridges indicating higher crack velocities near the point of branching. These features correlate with increasing crack speed, with hackle formation signaling velocities approaching 0.5 to 0.8 times the Rayleigh wave speed in the material.[41][33]Ductile fractures are marked by evident plastic deformation, such as necking—a localized reduction in cross-sectional area—and shear lips, which are slanted, fibrous edges at the fracture periphery resulting from shear-dominated final separation. These signs produce a rough, dimpled surface with significant gross deformation, contrasting sharply with the flat, shiny appearance of brittle fractures where minimal plasticity leads to perpendicular, granular planes with high reflectivity.[42][38]In glass and brittle ceramics, the classic mirror-mist-hackle sequence delineates the fracture progression: the mirror is a smooth, featureless zone near the origin reflecting slow initial crack growth, transitioning to the misty, diffuse mist region, and culminating in the rough, ridged hackle area before macroscopic branching occurs. This sequence allows estimation of fracture stress based on mirror radius measurements.[43]Post-fracture analysis often involves matching complementary fracture surfaces from separated components to reconstruct the failure sequence, using techniques like Fracture Surface TopographyAnalysis (FRASTA) to align 3D topographies and trace crack paths. These macroscopic matches reveal the direction of crack propagation and loading history, linking surface features to incident specifics without delving into microscopic origins.[33]
Microscopic Mechanisms
At the atomic scale, fracture initiation and propagation in crystalline materials are governed by the behavior of dislocations at crack tips, where stress concentrations drive either dislocation emission or atomic bond breaking. Dislocation pile-ups form when mobile dislocations accumulate under applied stress, creating intense local stresses that can either emit further dislocations or initiate cleavage. The force driving dislocation motion in such configurations is described by the Peach-Koehler force, given by F=(σ⋅b)×ξ, where σ is the stress tensor, b is the Burgers vector, and ξ is the line direction; this force balances lattice resistance and imageforces near the crack tip to determine emission.[44] Seminal analyses of pile-ups, such as those modeling linear arrays against barriers like crack tips, show that the stress ahead of the pile-up scales inversely with the square root of distance, amplifying the drivingforce for propagation.Atomic-scale models further elucidate the competition between dislocation emission and cleavage decohesion. The Rice-Thomson criterion posits that brittle fracture occurs if the energy barrier for spontaneous dislocation emission from an atomically sharp crack exceeds thermal activation at relevant temperatures, while ductile behavior prevails if emission blunts the crack readily; this is quantified by the ratio μb/γ, where μ is the shear modulus, b the Burgers vector, and γ the surface energy, with values below approximately 10 favoring emission in metals like copper.[45] In face-centered cubic crystals, wide dislocation cores and favorable slip plane orientations relative to the crack facilitate emission, whereas narrow cores in covalent materials like silicon promote cleavage. This criterion highlights that even in nominally ductile materials, high stress intensity can suppress emission, leading to cleavage if the critical emission distance exceeds the atomic core size.Grain boundaries significantly influence fracture paths by altering local dislocation dynamics and cohesion. Intergranular fracture predominates when impurities segregate to boundaries, reducing cohesive strength through charge transfer mechanisms that weaken metal-metal bonds, as observed in nickel with sulfur or iron with phosphorus; this shifts failure from transgranular cleavage across grains to brittle separation along boundaries.[46] Segregation-induced embrittlement is exacerbated by boundary misorientation and second-phase particles, which impede dislocation transmission across boundaries, increasing the propensity for intergranular paths over transgranular ones that involve dislocation-mediated plasticity within grains. In contrast, clean boundaries in pure metals favor transgranular fracture due to higher intrinsic cohesion.At the nanoscale, crack tip blunting in ductile materials arises from dislocation emission and subsequent plastic shearing, which rounds the sharp tip and dissipates energy. In nanocrystalline platinum, atomistic simulations reveal alternating sequences of dislocation nucleation, glide, and annihilation at the tip, leading to repeated blunting that arrests propagation and enhances toughness; this process is driven by shear stresses exceeding lattice resistance, with blunting radii scaling with grain size.[47] Such mechanisms underscore why ultrafine-grained metals exhibit improved ductility, as confined dislocations promote emission over cleavage.Deformation twins and phase transformations further modulate fracture paths, particularly in steels, by redirecting crack propagation and absorbing energy. In body-centered cubic steels, twinning induced by high strain rates creates barriers that deflect cracks, increasing tortuosity and toughness, as twins act as planar obstacles to dislocation motion similar to low-angle boundaries.[48] Martensitic phase transformations in advanced high-strength steels play a dual role: they initially blunt cracks via volume expansion during austenite-to-martensite conversion, shielding the tip, but can later promote propagation under cyclic loading by generating transformation-induced stresses that exceed local cohesion.[49] These effects are prominent in transformation-induced plasticity steels, where controlled stability of the austenite phase optimizes both twinning and transformation for enhanced fracture resistance.
Testing Methods
Experimental Techniques
Experimental techniques for studying fractures in materials involve controlled loading of specimens to induce failure while monitoring deformation and crack propagation. These methods allow researchers to replicate fracture conditions in laboratory settings, providing data on material behavior under various stress states. Key approaches include mechanical testing protocols that apply tensile, bending, or impact loads, often combined with real-time observation tools to capture dynamic processes.Sample preparation is crucial for ensuring reproducible and controlled crack initiation. Notched specimens, such as single-edge-notched bend (SENB) or compact tension geometries, are machined with precise V-shaped or U-shaped notches to concentrate stress and promote crack growth from a defined location. Fatigue precracking is commonly applied to sharpen the notch into a natural crack, minimizing artificial effects and enabling accurate simulation of real-world defects. This preparation follows guidelines in standards like those from ASTM, ensuring consistency across tests.Tensile testing applies uniaxial loads to elongate specimens until fracture, generating stress-strain curves that reveal yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and ductility. The ASTM E8/E8M standard specifies procedures for metallic materials, including specimen dimensions (e.g., round or flat geometries) and loading rates to achieve quasi-static conditions. During the test, extensometers measure strain, and failure typically occurs via necking followed by ductile or brittle rupture, depending on the material. This method is widely used to assess fracture initiation under monotonic loading.Bend tests evaluate fracture in beam-like specimens by applying transverse loads, measuring load-deflection responses to determine flexural strength and energy absorption. In three-point bending, a central load is applied over two supports, creating maximum stress at the midpoint, while four-point bending distributes the load over a wider region for more uniform stress fields. ASTM standards such as E290 guide flexural testing, with notched beams often used to study crack propagation under bending moments. These tests are particularly useful for brittle materials where tensile testing may be impractical due to gripping issues.Impact testing assesses fracture behavior at high strain rates using pendulum devices to simulate sudden loading. The Charpy test involves a swinging hammer striking a notched bar supported at both ends, measuring the energy absorbed during fracture as the pendulum's height difference. Similarly, the Izod test uses a cantilever setup for the same purpose. Governed by ASTM E23, these methods quantify toughness transitions, such as in steels where ductility drops at low temperatures. Results are reported in joules, providing insights into dynamic fracture resistance.In-situ observation techniques enable direct visualization of fracture mechanisms during loading. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) integrated with loading stages captures microcrack initiation, propagation, and coalescence in real time, often at magnifications up to 10,000x. Acoustic emission (AE) monitoring complements this by detecting high-frequency stress waves from crack growth or dislocation motion using piezoelectric sensors. AE signals are analyzed for amplitude, duration, and count to correlate events with fracture stages, offering non-destructive insights into damage accumulation. These methods, when combined, provide a comprehensive view of evolving microstructures without interrupting the test.
Fracture Toughness Measurement
Fracture toughness measurement involves standardized testing protocols to quantify a material's resistance to crack propagation under controlled conditions, primarily focusing on the critical stress intensity factor KIc for linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and related parameters for elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). These methods ensure reproducibility and validity by specifying specimen geometries, loading configurations, and acceptance criteria, allowing comparison across materials and applications. The primary standard for metallic materials is ASTM E399, which outlines procedures for determining plane-strain fracture toughness using fatigue-precracked specimens.In ASTM E399, testing typically employs single-edge notched bend (SENB) or compact tension (CT) specimens, where a sharp crack is introduced via fatigue precracking to simulate realistic flaw conditions. The specimen is loaded in three-point bending for SENB or tensile loading for CT, with load and displacement recorded to calculate the stress intensity factorKQ at the point of crack initiation, defined as 1.99% apparent compliance increase or a specific load line displacement. If validity criteria are met, KQ is accepted as KIc. Key validity requirements include ensuring minimal crack growth stability, where the maximum load Pmax satisfies Pmax/PQ≤1.10, indicating that the test remains within LEFM assumptions without excessive plasticity. Additionally, plane-strain conditions must prevail to obtain a size-independent material property, requiring specimen thickness B, crack length a, and remaining ligamentW−a to each exceed 2.5(KIc/σy)2, where σy is the yield strength; this ensures the plastic zone at the crack tip is constrained, minimizing triaxiality effects.For materials exhibiting significant plasticity where LEFM assumptions fail, EPFM methods are employed to characterize crack growth resistance through the J-integral, as detailed in ASTM E1820. The J_R curve plots J (energy release rate) against crack extension Δa, providing a resistance curve that captures rising toughness with crack growth due to plastic work. In the multiple-specimen technique, several identically prepared specimens (often CT or SENB) are loaded to predetermined crack extensions, unloaded, and the initial and final crack lengths measured post-fracture via optical or compliance methods to construct the J_R curve; this approach avoids real-time crack monitoring challenges in ductile materials. The initiation toughnessJIc is determined at a crack extension of 0.2 mm or using an offset from blunting line, offering a measure of crack growth resistance beyond plane-strain limits.[50][50][50]Dynamic fracture toughness assessment is critical for high-strain-rate applications, such as impact or ballistic loading, where rate sensitivity alters crack propagation. The split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB), also known as the Kolsky bar, is a widely adopted technique for these measurements, involving a striker bar generating a compressive pulse transmitted through incident and transmitter bars to dynamically load a notched specimen at rates exceeding 103 s−1. Configurations like modified three-point bend or semi-circular bend specimens allow determination of dynamic KId by analyzing wave propagation, load history, and post-test fractography to quantify crack speed and toughness, often revealing rate-dependent increases in brittleness for metals and polymers. Validity requires stress equilibrium and minimal dispersion in the specimen, with results interpreted using one-dimensional wave theory.[51][51][51]Interpreting fracture toughness data necessitates accounting for size effects and constraint factors to ensure applicability to structural components. Smaller specimens may yield higher apparent toughness due to plane-stress conditions, where the plastic zone extends unconstrained, inflating K values; thus, scaling to larger sizes via constraint-adjusted models is essential for conservative design. Constraint factors, such as the T-stress or Q-parameter, quantify triaxiality at the crack tip, with loss of constraint in shallow-notched or large-scale tests leading to elevated toughness by 20-50% compared to deeply notched laboratory specimens; corrections using these factors enable transferability from test to component geometry. For instance, in ferritic steels, statistical size effects from weakest-link models further modulate lower-bound toughness in larger volumes.[52][53][53]
Fracture in Specific Materials
Ceramics and Inorganic Glasses
Ceramics and inorganic glasses exhibit inherently brittle fracture behavior, characterized by low fracture toughness values typically ranging from 1 to 5 MPa√m, which limits their ability to absorb energy before catastrophic failure.[33] This brittleness arises from strong ionic and covalent bonding that restricts plastic deformation, making these materials highly sensitive to preexisting flaws.[54] Flaw sensitivity in ceramics is quantitatively described by Weibull statistics, which model the probabilistic nature of fracture based on the weakest-link theory, where the failure probability depends on the volume or surface distribution of critical defects.[55] The Weibull modulus, often between 5 and 15 for polycrystalline ceramics, indicates the scatter in strength data, with lower values signifying greater variability due to flaw populations.[56]A key challenge in ceramics is their vulnerability to thermal shock, where rapid temperature changes induce tensile stresses that can initiate cracks from surface flaws. Thermal shock resistance is assessed using the figure of meritR=Eασf(1−ν), where σf is flexural strength, ν is Poisson's ratio, E is Young's modulus, and α is the coefficient of thermal expansion; higher R values predict better resistance to crack initiation.[57] This parameter highlights trade-offs, such as how low α in materials like silicon nitride enhances resistance despite moderate strength.[58]Sintering defects, including pores and inclusions, serve as primary crack nuclei in these materials, as incomplete densification during processing leaves voids or foreign particles that act as stress concentrators.[33] Pores, often equiaxed and up to 20 μm in size, promote intergranular fracture, while inclusions like nickel sulfide in glass can trigger spontaneous failure under residual stresses.[59]To mitigate brittleness, toughening methods exploit extrinsic mechanisms, such as phase transformation in zirconia ceramics, where stress-induced tetragonal-to-monoclinic transition around crack tips generates compressive stresses that shield the crack front and increase effective toughness to 5-10 MPa√m.[60] This seminal mechanism, first demonstrated in partially stabilized zirconia, expands transformation zones up to 10-20 μm wide, dissipating energy through volume dilation of about 4%.[61] Crack bridging by elongated grains or particles further enhances resistance by applying closure tractions behind the crack tip, as seen in silicon nitride where grain pullout contributes up to 50% of the toughening increment.[62] In practical applications, such as ceramic tiles and glass windows, fracture often results from slow crack growth under stress corrosion, where water-assisted bond rupture at crack tips follows a power-law velocity relation, leading to subcritical extension over time and eventual failure under service loads like humidity or thermal cycling.[63] For instance, architectural glass panels exhibit delayed fracture from environmental exposure, with crack velocities accelerating from 10^{-10} to 10^{-3} m/s as stress intensity approaches the critical value.[33]
Fiber-Reinforced Composites
Fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) are engineered materials consisting of high-strength fibers embedded in a matrix, designed to enhance toughness and strength compared to monolithic matrices. In these systems, fracture arises from interactions between the fibers and matrix under mechanical loading, leading to progressive damage rather than sudden brittle failure. The anisotropic nature of FRCs, particularly in laminate or bundle configurations, results in fracture behaviors influenced by fiber orientation, interface properties, and loading direction.[64]Key failure modes in FRCs include fiber breakage, where individual fibers fracture under excessive tensile or compressive stress; matrix cracking, initiating as microcracks in the polymer or ceramic matrix that propagate and coalesce; delamination, the separation of layered plies due to interlaminar shear stresses; and fiber pull-out, where fibers debond from the matrix and slide out, dissipating energy. These modes often occur sequentially, with matrix cracking preceding fiber-dominated failures in tension-loaded unidirectional composites. For instance, in carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates, delamination is a major contributor to the total fracture energy in mode I loading scenarios.[64][65][66]Bundle theory models fracture in FRCs by treating parallel fiber arrays as load-sharing systems, where the failure of weaker fibers redistributes stress to survivors, leading to a characteristic global load-displacement curve with an initial linear rise followed by nonlinear softening due to cascading failures. In equal load-sharing variants, the bundle's overall strength is determined by the statistical distribution of fiber thresholds, providing a simple framework for predicting composite tensile failure. Local load-sharing extensions account for stress concentrations near broken fibers, accelerating damage localization in real composites. General fiber bundles serve as foundational models for these behaviors, illustrating avalanche-like failurepropagation.[67][68]Toughening in FRCs primarily occurs through mechanisms such as fiber bridging, where intact fibers span crack faces and transfer load across the fracture plane, increasing resistance to crack growth; and crack deflection at fiber-matrix interfaces, which forces cracks to deviate from straight paths, extending the fracture surface and absorbing energy. These extrinsic toughening effects can elevate the fracture toughness of brittle matrices by factors of 10 or more, as seen in ceramic-matrix composites where bridging contributes significantly to the total work of fracture. Weak interfaces promote debonding and pull-out, further enhancing energy dissipation without premature fiber fracture.[69][70][71]Micromechanically, the rule of mixtures estimates composite strength as a volume-weighted average of fiber and matrix contributions, assuming perfect load transfer; however, in practice, fracture is often governed by weak interfaces that initiate debonding and limit overall performance. This discrepancy highlights the role of interface shear strength, where values below 10 MPa can shift failure from fiber breakage to matrix-dominated modes, reducing effective toughness.[72][73][74]In aerospace applications, carbon fiber-reinforced composites exemplify these fracture characteristics, with components like aircraft fuselages experiencing tow bundle failures under tension due to bundle pull-out, where clustered fibers debond collectively, leading to sudden load drops. NASA studies on CFRP toughness underscore the need for optimized interfaces to mitigate such risks in high-stress environments.[75][76]
Advanced Applications and Analysis
Case Studies in Disasters
During World War II, the mass production of over 2,700 Liberty ships for the U.S. Merchant Marine resulted in numerous brittle fractures in their welded steel hulls, particularly during cold weather operations. The steel alloy contained high levels of impurities like sulfur and phosphorus, which elevated the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature and rendered the material prone to sudden cracking under tensile stresses from waves or structural loads. Welding processes further contributed by creating brittle heat-affected zones and residual stresses that initiated cracks at discontinuities such as rivet holes or deck edges. Historians have documented 19 instances of Liberty ships splitting in two without warning, leading to the loss of 12 vessels and the deaths of at least 13 crew members in related incidents.[77]In 1954, two de Havilland Comet 1 jetliners experienced explosive decompression and mid-air disintegration due to fatigue crack propagation around square passenger windows in the pressurized fuselage. The rectangular design of the windows introduced severe stress concentrations at their corners, accelerating crack growth during repeated pressurization-depressurization cycles far below the anticipated fatigue life of 16,000 flights. On January 10, BOAC Flight 781 broke apart at 27,000 feet near Elba, Italy, killing all 35 occupants; on April 8, South African Airways Flight 201 disintegrated at 35,000 feet near Naples, Italy, resulting in 21 fatalities. These accidents prompted the indefinite grounding of the global Comet fleet and redesigns incorporating rounded windows to distribute stresses more evenly.[78]The Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway collapse on July 17, 1981, in Kansas City, Missouri, demonstrated how a design modification in steel rod connections could lead to ductile overload and structural failure under unexpected loads. The original engineering plans specified continuous hanger rods passing through both the second- and fourth-floor walkway beams for support from the atrium ceiling, but fabricators proposed—and engineers approved—a change to separate rods for each walkway, which halved the connection capacity and imposed twice the intended shear load on the upper-level brackets. During a crowded tea dance, the weakened fourth-floor connections sheared off, causing both walkways to plummet and resulting in 114 deaths and over 200 injuries—the deadliest non-terrorism structural failure in U.S. history at the time.[79]In a contemporary illustration, the September 9, 2010, rupture of a 30-inch natural gas transmission pipeline in San Bruno, California, highlighted fracture risks from corrosion-induced cracks combined with manufacturing defects. Operated by Pacific Gas and Electric, the pipeline segment featured a poor-quality longitudinal seam weld that allowed internal corrosion and external damage to propagate a longitudinal crack over decades, exacerbated by inadequate pressure testing and record-keeping. The failure released 47 million standard cubic feet of gas, which ignited and created a massive fireball, destroying 38 homes, killing 8 people, hospitalizing 51 others, and causing over $220 million in property damage.[80][81]These disasters collectively emphasize the critical need for fracture-safe design, which requires engineers to select materials with low nil-ductility transition temperatures, perform flaw-tolerant analyses accounting for stress levels and potential crack sizes, and ensure structures operate above brittle transition ranges to arrest or prevent fracture initiation.[82] Equally vital is the routine application of non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques, such as ultrasonic and eddy current methods, to detect and size subsurface cracks early, enabling fracture mechanics assessments that predict growth rates and maintain safety factors—preventing failures like those in pipelines or aircraft by verifying weld integrity without compromising components.[83]
Computational Fracture Mechanics
Computational fracture mechanics encompasses numerical techniques to simulate crack initiation, propagation, and interaction in materials, enabling predictions of fracture behavior under various loading conditions without relying solely on experimental trials. These methods bridge theoretical fracture principles, such as stress intensity factors, with practical engineering simulations by discretizing the domain and solving governing equations computationally. Key approaches include enrichment-based finite element methods, boundary integral formulations, diffuse interface models, and hierarchical multiscale couplings, each tailored to handle the discontinuities and nonlinearities inherent in fracture processes.The finite element method (FEM) forms a cornerstone of computational fracture simulations, particularly through extensions that accommodate arbitrary crack paths without mesh modification. The extended finite element method (XFEM) enriches standard finite element approximations with discontinuous functions, such as the Heaviside step for crack interiors and asymptotic near-tip fields, allowing crack tracking independent of the underlying mesh. This avoids costly remeshing, making it suitable for complex geometries and evolving cracks.[84] Complementary to XFEM, cohesive zone models (CZMs) within FEM frameworks represent interface failure by inserting zero-thickness elements along potential fracture surfaces, governed by traction-separation laws that capture progressive damage from initial elastic response to complete decohesion. These models effectively simulate delamination and ductile fracture by regularizing the stress singularity at crack tips.[85]The boundary element method (BEM) offers an alternative for linear elastic fracture problems, formulating the problem in terms of boundary integrals rather than domain discretization, thereby reducing the dimensionality from three to two (or two to one) and minimizing computational overhead for infinite or semi-infinite domains. In fracture applications, hypersingular and displacement-based integral equations handle crack-face tractions and displacements, enabling efficient analysis of multiple cracks and stress intensity factor computations. Dual BEM formulations address non-uniqueness issues in interior points, enhancing accuracy for 2D and 3D crack problems.Phase-field models provide a diffuse representation of cracks by introducing a continuous damage variable φ (where φ=0 denotes intact material and φ=1 fully broken), embedded within a variational energy functional F that minimizes both elastic strain energy and fracture surface energy. Crack evolution follows an Allen-Cahn-type equation, ∂φ/∂t ∝ -δF/δφ, where the functional derivative drives irreversible phase transition, regularizing sharp cracks over a small length scale. This approach naturally handles crack branching, nucleation, and complex topologies without explicit tracking, though it requires careful calibration of the regularization parameter to match Griffith's criterion.Multiscale approaches couple atomistic simulations, such as molecular dynamics, with continuum models to resolve fine-scale phenomena at crack tips, where continuum assumptions break down due to discreteness and nonlinearity. Concurrent methods, like the bridging domain approach, overlap atomistic and continuum regions, partitioning the Hamiltonian to ensure energy conservation and seamless transition of displacements and forces across scales. This enables accurate prediction of dislocation emission and lattice trapping effects influencing crack propagation speeds.Recent advances (as of 2025) incorporate physics-based machine learning techniques, such as deep neural networks and reinforcement learning, to enhance multi-scale simulations of fracture processes. These methods improve flexibility and data-driven predictions of crack paths and material behavior under complex loading, reducing computational costs for large-scale problems.[86]Validation of these computational models often involves benchmarking against standardized experiments, such as double cantilever beam (DCB) delamination tests, which measure mode I fracture toughness in composites. For instance, XFEM and CZM simulations of DCB specimens accurately reproduce load-displacement curves and crack growth rates observed in carbon-epoxy laminates, with errors below 5% when interface properties are calibrated from optical strain measurements. Similarly, phase-field predictions align with DCB data by adjusting the crack length scale to experimental resolution limits, confirming robustness for quasi-static propagation.
.jpg)
Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
